The Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003 (HFRA) establishes a legal framework ostensibly designed to protect communities and watersheds from catastrophic wildfire. The legislation authorizes “hazardous fuels reduction projects” across National Forest and BLM lands. While the law’s stated intentions are rooted in community safety and watershed health, it fails to incorporate a significant body of relevant science, and its implementation can produce undesired consequences that often increase wildfire risk.
A generally positive fuels-reduction tactic promoted by the law is prescribed fire. A preponderance of public lands lie in the West, and fire is a key element of ecosystems supported by these lands. After a century of misguided wildfire suppression, the Forest Service now recognizes that fire is a vital tool for restoring and maintaining healthy landscapes. But prescribed burning requires careful planning to ensure beneficial results. For example, highly combustible invasive plants like cheatgrass produce seeds that can survive fire and then outcompete native species. In such cases, fire ultimately produces a plant monoculture.
The law promotes other hazardous fuels reduction projects that seek to enhance forest health through taxpayer-subsidized logging. To promote this particular flavor of logging as a means to protect communities and watersheds is to ignore the best available science, including research by fire scientist Jack Cohen. His work demonstrates that removing vegetation further than 100 feet from a home does not protect that home from wildfire. Additionally, the U.S. Fire Administration estimates that 90% of home losses are caused by wind-borne embers rather than direct flame contact. The HFRA’s focus on distant forest “treatments” misses the mark when it comes to effective community protection — i.e., hardening homes against fire.
The emphasis on forest treatments places communities at greater wildfire risk by (1) encouraging fire-prone invasive species propagation and (2) altering forest microclimates. Specifically, ground disturbance from heavy machinery frequently introduces and spreads readily combustible invasive grasses and forbs. Also, removing trees eliminates shade, creating a hotter, drier, more wind-exposed landscape. This increased risk to our communities is induced through the HFRA’s financial incentives for counties and municipalities to adopt community wildfire protection plans (CWPPs).
The legislation defines CWPPs, thereby establishing parameters for these plans. These parameters are required for communities to qualify for federal and state fire-resilience funding. But because these plans tend to measure success by “acres treated,” they prioritize industrial ecosystem manipulation over proven community protection measures.
Photo: A forwarder collects logs cut as part of a forest health/fire mitigation project on steep, erosion-prone slopes near the Continental Divide, San Isabel National Forest, Colorado.
