Letter to the editor:

Fire prevention and forest understory

To the editor:

"Fire safety and forest health - are they compatible?" (September/October Yodeler) did not disclose complete details and impacts of the laws supported by the Sierra Club and featured in the article.

These laws threaten the understory. Understory vegetation (0' - 12') plays a critical role in the health of ecosystems. If allowed to retain its healthy vertical structure and volume, it supports high biodiversity, cools the earth, and maintains soil and watershed health, along with other valuable benefits. It provides vital cover, forage, and nesting areas for many species. If a species doesn't live in the understory, its food probably does.

Most species avoid habitat where vegetation cannot conceal them from their predators or prey. The impact of the loss of understory is emphasized by the current status of deer. According to the Department of Fish and Game, California's deer population has declined from almost 2 million in the 1950s and early 1960s to less than 440,000 today. There has been a loss of 162,000 in the past two years! Biologists state that along with human encroachment, "Fire suppression efforts, . . . logging practices and more intensive forest management practices (brush (understory) eradication, conifer plantation and biomass thinning) have decreased the availability of plants that deer require for food and cover. . . . The changes have been subtle but the cumulative effects . . . have been drastic." We can expect that many other species will suffer a similar fate. As seen in the photos, thinning strips away understory and fragments wildlife habitat. It presents a wide open landscape with little to eat and nowhere to hide.

SB1369, the first law in the article sponsored by the Sierra Club, has two major components. One component, which was discussed in the article, increased understory removal from homes for defensible space to a minimum of 100'. The second, and most damaging component, which was not mentioned in the article, gives insurance companies something they never had before, the final word on the severity of vegetation clearance.

Insurers are taking this seriously. A review of post-SB1369 requirements for clearance from 13 insurers ranged from 200' to over 1,500'. Insurers can cancel policies or raise premiums to unaffordable levels for homeowners. One property owner received notice from her insurer that she would be cancelled because her home was within 1/4 mile of a brushy area.

The second featured bill, AB 1515, exempts private forest landowners from an environmental review required by the Forest Practices Act. Landowners who want to log 300 acres or less are exempt as long as at least 80% of the land is "thinned" for fuel reduction and structures have at least 500' of defensible space. The premise of the law is that stripping away understory vegetation and small trees in forests provides a benefit outweighing environmental protection. The harvested timber may be sold for landowner income.

The article assures us that AB1515 will protect the environment. How can it? The site will not be inspected by qualified scientists or specialists. The article states that no endangered species will be disturbed. Without an inspection by wildlife and plant specialists, how will anyone know if the species or their habitat is present? Most logging and thinning operations are done with massive machines that crush and compact whatever lies beneath. Although preserving some habitat is suggested, it is not required.

The article also states that no new roads will be made. Mechanical thinning creates space between trees which allows small trucks or off-highway vehicles access to virtually all of the "thinned" forest. Roads aren't needed. AB1515 undermines the Forest Practices Act, which requires that logging is done in a manner that preserves fish, wildlife, forests and water resources.

The cumulative impacts of substantial understory removal for structure protection and "healthy" forests have never been assessed, yet this is the foundation of environmental protection. California is rapidly undergoing widespread habitat modification, removing some of the most important habitat that wildlife experts tell us to enhance and protect.

Of course, reasonable defensible space is prudent. But there are alternatives to thinning more extensive areas of understory to protect structures. Jack Cohen, U.S. Forest Service fire scientist, indicated that "we do not have the choice of not having wildland fire" and that it makes more sense to make "ignition-resistant" homes and communities than it does to fire-proof forests. Fire-resistant building materials are available. Flame retardant gel is available but rarely used. A few hundred dollars worth of gel will save a home in the line of a fire and is biodegradable (Sacramento Bee 10/10/07). Homeowner and taxpayer money spent annually maintaining clearance of larger and larger areas of vegetation might be better invested in retrofitting structures for fire resistance. Encouraging our legislators to supply fire trucks with the gel systems would save millions of dollars, homes and lives.

One of the disturbing parts of the article is the repeated reference to vegetation as "fuel". The only biological reference was to trees. All other vegetation was categorized as "fuel". This is an unfortunate sign of our times. Forests are not just trees. They are ecosystems which include all organisms, from the largest of trees to the smallest animal or plant.

Terry Preston, wildlife ecologist

Response from Julia Bott, chair, Sierra Club California Legislative Committee.

Catastrophes spur legislative action. Restoring ecosystems doesn't inspire nearly the same fervor. That's the sad political reality of Sacramento. Authors fight to introduce fuel-reduction bills, but bills aimed at restoring health to our state's forests rarely get out of committee. The Sierra Club does not have the luxury of insisting on perfect legislation; we often must focus on adding some environmental protections and eliminating damaging features from imperfect bills.

The concerns expressed in the letter and the concerns of the Sierra Club California legislative program are the same - restoring health to forests decimated by past logging so that they can support native wildlife and act as natural reservoirs, collecting water in the winter and slowly releasing it to streams in the summer.

Manually thinning forests that have dense stands of even-aged trees or are choked with dead understory plants is recognized as a way to restore forest health. Proper use of fires can do the same, but is often not a feasible alternative.

The exemption process in AB 1515, relieving land-owners of the requirement to prepare a Timber Harvest Plan (THP), does reduce oversight, and so the Sierra Club's legislative efforts focused on limiting the conditions where the exemption could occur, on reducing the acreage for the exemption, and on reducing the diameter of trees to be removed. Given that the Department of Forestry rarely denies a THP, the exemption isn't much of a loss.

Sierra Club California's legislative efforts include strong support for requiring fireproofing of houses. A major intent of SB 1369 was to require fireproofing, as well as defensible space, as conditions for building permits for new houses or those rebuilt in fire zones.

Since the insurance lobby is one of the most powerful in the state, it's not surprising that even a strong legislator had to accept amendments with the language: "This section does not prevent an insurance company that insures a building or structure from requiring the owner of the building or structure to maintain a firebreak of more than 100 feet around the building or structure." Ultimately California would be wise to prohibit building or rebuilding in our forests, but there is little political backbone at the state or local level for that.