Fire safety and forest health - are they compatible?

The Sierra Club's approach to fire-safety legislation

In October 2003 Southern California experienced some of the most dramatic wildfires ever seen in the United States. In multiple simultaneous fires, over 750,000 acres were scorched, 3,710 homes burned, and 24 people died. Bay Area residents could not help remembering our own Oakland Hills fire of 1991, which destroyed 2,900 homes and killed 25 people.

Following the catastrophic events in Southern California, a number of proposals appeared in the legislature. In the political climate after this tragedy, it was clear that something was going to be done.

Some of the proposals, however, were quite extreme. One would have suspended all environmental laws around every structure in California - even though there was no indication that environmental laws had inhibited any fuel-reduction efforts or otherwise aggravated the fires.

Another would have required 300 feet of cleared area around every structure. This proposal had an aura of reasonableness, for it is clear that most of the lost homes lacked adequate defensible space. The best scientific research on defensible space, however, indicates that reducing the explosive surface and ladder fuels within just 100 feet of a home will generally prevent that home from igniting in a fire.

Given that protecting lives and homes is the state's highest priority in fire protection, increasing the defensibility of homes and communities is the logical place to focus the most intensive efforts. In 2003 the Sierra Club and the Planning and Conservation League sponsored SB 1369 by Senator Sheila Kuehl, one of the most respected environmental leaders in the legislature. The bill increased the requirement for defensible space around homes from 30 feet to 100 feet. If the structures in the Oakland hills and Southern California had had this clearance, and had been constructed with appropriate materials, thousands of homes could probably have been saved.

It should be noted that defensible space does not need to be completely denuded. Useful information and examples can be found at www.fire.ca.gov. Follow the "Why 100 Feet" link on the right.

Forestry practices

There is another important part of the equation. The legacy of industrial logging has left many unhealthy young stands with far too many trees per acre, and nearly a century of fire suppression has left many forests unnaturally dense and prone to catastrophic fires. How can we get these forests back into a more natural condition?

Unfortunately the laws of economics make it difficult to restore the landscape to a more fire-resistant condition with more large trees. To carry out commercial logging, a landowner is required to prepare a Timber Harvest Plan (THP). If the purpose of the logging, however, is just to thin out smaller trees to create a more fire-safe forest, the cost of preparing the plan would far outstrip the value of the timber revenues. We need a new way to encourage the type of thinning that would enhance the condition of the stand and protect the environment.

Fortunately, we found a good approach. In 2004 we worked with Assemblymember Doug LaMalfa to craft a new forest-thinning exemption for private lands in California. Though we are still evaluating the projects and fine-tuning the rules, it appears that the approach is helping to promote the type of forest-improving thinning that we try to promote.

The exemption, currently being re-authorized via AB 1515, allows the removal of trees less than 18 inches in diameter at stump height (roughly equivalent to 15 inches at breast height) without a full-fledged THP, with a number of important caveats. The logging must increase the average diameter of the trees in the stand, so that the operation will take mostly small trees and leave a forest comprised of larger trees. The project also needs to remove much of the flammable surface fuel that can drive extreme fire behavior and kill the more mature trees. No new roads can be built, nor may the project disturb endangered species.

Location, location, location

There is a third key aspect of fire policy in California, besides protecting existing homes and making our forests more fire-resilient. Just as we try to limit development in floodplains, we need to get a grip on the spread of homes into wildland areas that are unavoidably destined to burn.

Currently there is a serious disconnect between the approval of new homes and provision of fire protection. County governments have an incentive to approve the homes to gain additional tax revenue, but the responsibility for fire protection falls to the state. This has contributed to the skyrocketing of state fire-suppression costs from $475 million 10 years ago to a proposed $1.2 billion in the current budget!

Homes built in wildlands also increase risk to firefighters. Many houses have already been built in radically dangerous areas. We end up with tragic situations like the Esperanza Fire of 2006, where five firefighters died trying to defend a house that probably should never have been built in such a dangerous location.

State and local governments need to become much more serious about planning where homes should be built. Scattering homes throughout wildlands degrades our watersheds, fragments wildlife habitat, and requires lengthy polluting commutes. Add the increasing risks to firefighters, and skyrocketing fire-protection costs, and it is clear that now is the time to address this critical issue.

Paul Mason, legislative representative, Sierra Club California