By Andrew Christie, Chapter Director
Apparently, someone told Donald Trump that responding to horrific disaster with attack tweets against a state that didn’t vote for him does not look presidential.
So he came to California, but remained deep within his Fortress of Ignorance, from which he took the opportunity to continue to flack for “thinning forests,” echoed by local anti-environmental ideologues. In this, as in all things, Trump is a ventriloquist’s dummy for industry and right-wing think tanks, for whom “thinning” has been a longtime favorite on their hit parade – i.e. thinning forests by removing the biggest, oldest trees, which have the hardest wood, putting them in the category of the lowest fire risk and, by happy chance, the highest profit margin.
But it also needs to be said that California’s brand of forest management obviously isn’t working. As obvious as that is right now, it's been just as obvious over the decades of wildfire sieges throughout the state, after each of which task forces and blue ribbon commissions have issued hundreds of recommendations, virtually all of them unimplemented.
After the 2017 wildfires, Sierra Club California and 22 other conservation groups, biologists and ecologists from around the state wrote to Governor Brown to urge “a significant change in thinking” in the state’s approach and a focus on “the factors that led to the loss of so many lives and homes in the 2017 wildfires, not on forests far from our communities most at risk.” The letter was followed by a dozen recommendations.
That was six months ago. Needless to say, those recommendations remain tragically urgent:
1. Shift the focus to saving lives, property, and natural habitats rather than trying to control wildfires. These are two different goals with two radically different solutions. This new focus can help existing communities withstand wind-driven wildfires, and improve alerts and evacuation procedures and programs, instead of continually pouring resources into modifying a natural environment that continually grows back and will always be subject to wildfire (Moritz et al. 2014).
2. Quantify all the risks, statewide. Conduct a comprehensive examination of fire and debris flow hazards across the state. Require the use of fire hazard maps, post-fire debris flow maps, and local expertise to play a significant role in planning/development/zoning decisions. One of the primary objectives in land use planning should be to prevent developers and local planning departments from putting people in harm’s way.
3. Start at the structure first when developing local plans to protect homes. Develop action plan s in Community Wildfire Protection Plans (CWPPs), similar in scope and detail to those traditionally developed for vegetation treatments that address the wildfire protection issue from the house outward, rather than from the wildland in. Require that Fire Safe Councils include structure and community retrofits as a significant portion of their activities. This approach has been endorsed by a strong consensus of fire scientists and is illustrated well in this National Fire Protection Association video with Dr. Jack Cohen.
4. Encourage retrofits. Promote legislation on the state and local level to assist existing neighborhoods-at-risk in retrofit ting homes with known safety features (e.g., external sprinklers, ember-resistant vents, replacing flammable roofing and siding with fire-resistant Class A material, etc.). Establish a tax rebate program, similar to the one used to promote the installation of solar panels, to encourage homeowners to install such fire safety features. Provide incentives to roofing companies to develop and provide external sprinkler systems for homes.
5. Identify all flammability risks. Create and promote a fire safety checklist that encourages the complete evaluation of a home’s vulnerability to wildfire. Beyond structure flammability, it is imperative that this list cover flammable conditions around the home, such as the presence of dangerous ornamental vegetation, under-eave wooden fences/yard debris, and flammable weeds.
6. Help with grants. Promote legislation on the state and local level to assist community Fire Safe Councils in acquiring FEMA pre-disaster grants to assist homeowners in retrofitting their homes to reduce their flammability.
7. Comprehensive evacuation plans. Promote the development of clear evacuation/response plans that all communities can understand. Promote programs that will dedicate a regular time each year for communities to practice their evacuation plans.
8. Incentives to prevent building in high fire hazard zones. Beyond restricting development in high fire/flood hazard areas, the state could also internalize the costs of fire protection so developers assume the responsibility for possible losses caused by future wildfires and post-fire debris flows. Creating incentives to reduce or prevent development in high fire/flood hazard areas is an achievable goal. The City of Monrovia implemented another creative approach – creating a wider urban-wildland buffer by purchasing parcels in high fire hazard zones. Because the city's hillside acreage was both publicly and privately owned, the City Council decided to seek voter approval for two measures. The first designated city-owned foothill land as wilderness or recreational space and limited development on the private property. The other was a $10-million bond, the revenues from which would be used to purchase building sites from willing sellers. Both passed by a wide margin. In the end, Monrovia spent $24 million for 1,416 acres, paying off the bonds with parcel taxes and gaining an added benefit: a deeper urban-wildland buffer. (Miller 2018)
9. Science-based defensible space guidelines. Expand defensible space guidelines so treatment and distances are based on science and recognize the physical impact of bare ground on ember movement, increased flammability due to the spread of invasive weeds, and increased erosion and sediment movement in watersheds. The research has clearly indicated that defensible space distances beyond 100 feet can be counterproductive.
10. Peer-reviewed Vegetation Treatment Program. Require Cal Fire to submit its latest Vegetation Treatment Program Environment al Impact Report (EIR) to an outside, independent, science-based, peer-review process prior to its public release for public comment. Such a review was required by the state legislature for the 2012 version. Require Cal Fire to follow the recommendations offered by the independent review committee in both the EIR’s supporting background information and proposed action plan.
11. Establish an interdisciplinary, statewide Fire Preparedness Task Force (FPTF) versed in Catastrophic Risk Management (CRM) to evaluate our response to wildfire hazard. CRM is successful because it helps managers in high-risk organizations make better decisions by reducing their tendency to “normalize deviance,” engendering a focus on positive data about operations while ignoring contrary data or small signs of trouble. Airlines use CRM to objectively analyze plane crashes, thereby creating safer planes. Without CRM, small deviations from standard operating procedures are often tolerated until disasters, such as the Deepwater Horizon offshore oil platform blow out, the Challenger Space Shuttle explosion, or unprecedented losses caused by the 2017 wildfires expose an organization’s failures. Ensure that a majority of task force members can speak freely, enabling them to offer creative solutions, and that half of the membership is outside the fire profession.
12. Reduce human-caused ignitions. Since nearly all of California’s devastating wildfires are human-caused, significant resources should be dedicated to reducing such ignitions. One of the objectives of the FPTF should be to develop a statewide action plan, in collaboration with land management agencies, Cal Trans (since many ignitions occur along roads), Cal Fire, and public utilities (since many of the largest fires have been caused by electrical transmission lines), to reduce the potential for human-caused ignitions.
The following suggestions should be considered: requiring the underground placement of electrical lines, placement of roadside barriers to reduce vehicle -caused sparks/ignition sources, closure of public lands during periods of extreme fire danger and increasing the number of enforcement personnel to monitor illegal access, campfire, gun use, etc. on public lands.
Additional Information:
1. A thorough analysis of Cal Fire’s Vegetation Management Program : http://www.californiachaparral.com/threatstochaparral/helpcalfireeir.html
2. Detailed research and proven strategies on how to protect communities from wildfire: http://www.californiachaparral.com/bprotectingyourhome.html
3. Successful grant programs that help communities retrofit structures to reduce flammability: http://www.californiachaparral.com/fire/apleaitstheembers.html
4. Detailed analysis on assumptions concerning the 2017 Napa/Sonoma wildfires. https://californiachaparralblog.wordpress.com/2018/01/17/how-we -think-about-nature-and-fire/