As wildfires rage across Los Angeles, shrouding neighborhoods in smoke and threatening homes and lives, the urgency of addressing wildfire risks has never been clearer. Wildfires are an escalating crisis in the United States, particularly in the West, where a century of fire suppression has led to more frequent and severe fires. Policymakers now face the urgent challenge of mitigating wildfire risks while preserving ecological integrity.
A 2024 article by environmental attorney Sara Clark and coauthors offers a suite of policy recommendations that can inform how we approach fire management. These ideas, grounded in science and practical experience, emphasize the need to rethink fire not as a threat but as a vital ecological process. Here are some key takeaways:
Recognize Fire as a Keystone Process
A first step in addressing wildfire risk is to shift how fire is viewed under federal law. Current statutes like the Clean Air Act (CAA), National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), and Endangered Species Act (ESA) treat fire as a human activity, subject to regulation. This perspective fails to acknowledge fire as a “keystone process”—a fundamental driver of ecosystem health. Reframing fire as a natural, baseline condition would allow policymakers to remove unnecessary regulatory barriers to its beneficial use, such as prescribed burns and other fire restoration practices.
Facilitating Fire Restoration Practices
Fire restoration—the intentional reintroduction of fire into ecosystems—is a critical tool for reducing wildfire severity and restoring ecological balance. Prescribed burns and managed wildfires can mimic natural fire cycles, reducing the buildup of flammable material and promoting biodiversity.
Many species directly benefit from these practices. For example, certain pine species, like the longleaf pine, rely on periodic fire to regenerate, while animals such as the endangered red-cockaded woodpecker depend on the open forest structure created by these burns. Prescribed fire also encourages the growth of native grasses and wildflowers, which support pollinators and other wildlife.
However, regulatory hurdles under NEPA, the ESA, and the CAA often delay or discourage these efforts. Streamlining environmental reviews and explicitly exempting fire restoration projects from unnecessary bureaucratic processes would go a long way in scaling up these practices.
Empowering Indigenous Knowledge
Indigenous knowledge has a vital role to play in modern fire management. For centuries, indigenous communities have used cultural burning—the intentional application of fire to achieve specific ecological and cultural outcomes—to maintain healthy landscapes. While indigenous knowledge is not science in the strict sense, it offers practical, time-tested strategies that complement scientific approaches.
Unfortunately, recent efforts by the Biden administration to integrate indigenous knowledge into policy have sometimes conflated it with science, undermining its unique value. Instead, policymakers should recognize indigenous knowledge as a distinct but still important resource. For instance, granting tribes greater autonomy to conduct cultural burns without federal oversight would honor indigenous sovereignty while leveraging their expertise to manage fire-prone landscapes effectively.
Reforming Environmental Statutes
Federal laws like NEPA and the ESA often impede proactive fire management. NEPA reviews, for example, can delay prescribed burn projects for years, while the ESA’s consultation requirements stall efforts to restore habitats that depend on periodic fires. These statutes could be updated to reflect fire’s ecological importance. For example:
- NEPA: Agencies could treat fire restoration as a natural process, exempt from environmental review requirements.
- ESA: Projects aimed at reintroducing fire into fire-dependent ecosystems could avoid triggering lengthy consultation processes, as they ultimately can benefit the species these laws are designed to protect.
Revisiting the Clean Air Act
The CAA’s focus on air quality standards creates a disincentive for prescribed burns, as these controlled fires release particulate matter that could exceed regulatory thresholds. However, severe wildfires emit far greater amounts of pollutants. Recognizing emissions from prescribed burns as part of the natural baseline, rather than treating them as violations, would encourage their use and can ultimately lead to better air quality outcomes in the long term.
Public Education and Outreach
Lastly, public understanding of the role of fire in ecosystems must improve. Many people view fire solely as a destructive force, without appreciating its ecological benefits. Public education campaigns can highlight how prescribed burns and cultural burning practices reduce wildfire risks, protect communities, and promote biodiversity.
Conclusion
As the wildfire crisis grows, policymakers must adopt a more modern approach to fire management. The recommendations outlined here offer a roadmap for reforming environmental laws and scaling up beneficial fire practices. By treating fire as a natural ally rather than an enemy, we can restore balance to our landscapes and reduce the devastating impacts of wildfires. These solutions hold the promise to safer forests for both people and ecosystems.
Read the full article here
