Amador County News

Fire season 2009 tip sheet
http://www.calaverasenterprise.com/

By early summer 2008, more than 2,000 fires were burning throughout California. These early and severe fire events indicate that our fire season truly is year-round. Last year, nearly 1.4 million acres burned in one of the most active fire seasons in the state’s history. Given this year’s early start with the Jesusita Fire in Santa Barbara, the 2009 wildfire season is set to continue the recent trend of hotter, longer and more dangerous fire seasons that Californians have grown accustomed to in recent years.

The cost of protecting homes

The most expensive aspect of firefighting is protecting private homes near fire-prone areas. Since 2000, the price tag for fire suppression on federal lands has shot up an average of 11 percent per year. Last year, California spent more than $1 billion to fight wildfires, and half of the money that the U.S. Forest Service spent nationally on wildfire suppression was consumed battling the California conflagrations. If we fail to plan responsibly, the situation could grow even worse. A 2008 study of development patterns in the West, conducted by the nonprofit research group Headwater Economics, showed that only 14 percent of the privately owned land near fire-prone public forests is currently developed. Given rapid growth in the western United States, the potential for additional development in fire-prone areas could raise firefighting costs to over $4 billion annually.

“Something is happening, clearly,” said Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger. “There’s more need for resources than ever before ... it’s fire season all year round.”
Protecting homes from fire

Homeowners in fire-prone areas can educate themselves on the best ways to minimize their risk in the event of fire. Clearing brush and other burnable material from around houses and other structures creates more easily defended space. These “firewise” practices, combined with selective tree thinning near populated areas, makes firefighters’ job of defending a community much easier and less expensive. In many California communities, local Fire Safe Councils and the national Firewise Communities program provide information, resources and assistance for residents to protect their homes and communities. These organizations are a good source of information about local efforts to protect homes from fire.

“The homeowner is the most important component in protecting their property,” said Brad Harris, Cal Fire unit chief. “They have to give us the space to save their homes. Otherwise, there’s not much we can do.”

Cost to taxpayers

U.S. taxpayers, by way of the Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management, pay for 75 percent of fire-suppression costs on public lands. The bill is hefty – the Forest Service’s fire-suppression costs exceeded $1 billion in six of the last eight years. People who use the forest to camp, hike or enjoy with their families bear much of the financial burden. To make up for the increasing cost of fighting fires on a slim budget, the Forest Service is raising existing entrance fees and creating new ones.

In 1991, wildfire-related costs made up 13 percent of the Forest Service’s budget. In 2007, that number jumped to 45 percent, and this year’s fire-suppression budget will likely see yet another increase. During the catastrophic fires in southern California in 2007 – where 23 separate fires scorched 520,000 acres of land and forced the evacuations of half a million people – homeowners had $2.5 billion in insured losses. That figure doesn’t take into account the amount lost by the uninsured. Forest Service officials and other federal land managers are questioning whether their agencies can afford to continue protecting the increasing number of homes being built in fire-prone areas near federal forestlands.

“We cannot continue the current planning processes that allow local governments to permit building near rugged, hard-to-access areas and then not be responsible for the higher firefighting costs,” said Gene Zimmerman, retired supervisor of the San Bernardino National Forest.

Changing perspectives in fire management

Historically, the majority of severe fire years in California occurred as the result of massive lightening events, in which hundreds of fires started simultaneously and grew into various complex fires. According to fire-science research, natural, lightning-caused fires tend to clean up debris, ultimately making forests more fire-resilient. Forests rely on periodic burns to stay healthy, and fire managers are increasingly using naturally sparked blazes to reduce fuel loads in forests far removed from people. Allowing fires that burn far from homes, communities and private property to burn themselves out could save taxpayers millions of dollars, and help keep firefighters out of harm’s way.

“We could have suppressed it and had the thing out earlier,” said Brent Skaggs, fire management officer of the Sequoia National Forest, of the Clover Fire, which was discovered May 31. “But by doing that we would be just prolonging the inevitable. We had an opportunity to manage fire or have it manage us.”

Controlled burns

Forest managers and scientists agree that the fuel loads in many western forests are at dangerous levels, raising the risk of uncontrollable fire. By carefully igniting ground-level fuels and controlling the blaze, managers can safely reduce the fuel available to burn when lightning strikes. These carefully controlled fires emit far less smoke than uncontrolled wildfires, reducing the overall number of bad air days that result from severe wildfire events. In other words, controlled fires – set at appropriate times, on our terms – mean less smoke down the line.

“Fire is Mother Nature’s cleansing broom along the forest floor and in her forests,” said Dr. Reese Halter of Global Forest Science
Using fire as a forest-management tool

We now know that Smokey Bear did his job a little too well. When every single fire is extinguished, burnable material in the forest builds up unnaturally, creating more dangerous conditions. Allowing some fires to burn, especially the ones far in the backcountry, lets nature take its course and creates healthier forests that are more naturally resistant to big fires. Carefully choosing where to fight fires can save taxpayers tens of millions of dollars, much of which is being wasted fighting fires far away from people and property.

Setting controlled burns is another effective technique that fire managers are employing to manage wildfires. Intentionally burning smaller, overcrowded trees and brush can diminish the intensity of wildfire when it strikes. This allows the blaze to be managed and can help protect populated areas. Fire teams strive for low-intensity flames close to the ground. These also have the advantage of producing far less smoke than an uncontrolled wildfire.

Californians have always lived with periodic fire – and we always will. Now, more than ever, we are learning what it means to live in a fire-adapted environment. By creating defensible space around populated areas and identifying places to safely allow fires to burn in a controlled fashion, we can save hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars while improving the health of California’s forests.

For more information visit http://headwaterseconomics.org/wildfire/ or http://firesafecouncil.org/find/index.cfm. To learn more about Cal Fire, visit http://fire.ca.gov.

To learn more about the U.S. Forest Service’s fire and aviation management, visit http://fs.fed.us.fire/.

Comment (1 comment(s))

Linda Rego wrote on May 26, 2009 8:58 PM:

" This needs to be mailed to every vacant home owned in a High Fire area, to a bank owned home from foreclosure or to half built homes, or vacation rentals. I live in Copper Cove in Çalaveras County with so many parcels with Very high dry grass and fallen dead Oak trees surrounding vacant buildings higher than normal and 2 right next to my property. These property owners are out of town or state or BANK owned and unaware, of this fuel ready to explode and destroy homes that comply but are burdend by neglect from banks or vacant lot owners. We need higher fines for non compliance then maybe the state of California would not be burdened monitarily. The state is being hit in the pocket book, let those who do not comply pay the price. "