HomeMy WebLinkAboutDefensible Space Policy Options (2)
DATE: September 22, 2010
TO: Deschutes County BOCC
FROM: Joe Stutler, Deschutes County Forester
RE: Defensible Space Ordinance Policy Options
For the last six years Deschutes County has worked closely with the Oregon
Department of Forestry (ODF) implementing the Oregon Forestland-Urban
Interface Fire Protection Act (SB-360) enacted in 1997. In 2004, Deschutes
County was one of two counties in Oregon to classify private lands protected by
ODF using one of three classification ratings; high, extreme and high density
extreme. During the classification process it became evident that since ODF
protects approximately 177,000 of private lands there were many more private
lands in the county protected by municipalities and fire districts without defensible
space standards, the striking acreage was the unprotected lands in Deschutes
County which is approximately 175,000 acres which also had no defensible
space standards other than recommendations in the Community Fire Plans.
In 2009 as we began the re-classification (a requirement of every five years is
specified in the legislation) the classification committee worked with the
municipalities and fire districts to seek approval of classifying private lands using
the SB-360 rating systems and received universal support. It was also a wise
decision to include all the private lands that were unprotected which effectively
gave all private lands in the County a SB-360 rating.
In the 2007 SB-360 legislation for lands protected by ODF the consequences for
non-compliance was as follows:
• Treating fuels and certification is a property owner responsibility, if the
property owner chooses not to perform the defensible space work and not
certify the property and send the certification back to ODF, there are no
consequences.
• If on the same property (without certification and defensible space) a
wildland fire originates and spreads beyond the property boundary, and
the ODF and cooperating agencies suppressed the wildland fire the
property owner could be liable up to $100,000 for suppression costs.
In Deschutes County with the approximately 175,000 acres of unprotected lands
it made logical sense to develop an ordinance similar to SB-360 utilizing the
same standards based on the classification which focused on education and
voluntary compliance. Currently we have an ordinance which regulates open
burning on unprotected lands (DCC 8.20) with emphasis on education but
ultimately a Class A violation.
In developing the defensible space ordinance we considered the nature of
unprotected lands (no structural or wildland agency will respond), the fact that we
have lost both structures and private property from wildland fire in these areas in
past years due to little or no defensible space, the fact that we have an open
burning ordinance with consequences, and in the unprotected lands we have
approximately 150 homes scattered throughout the county with approximately
400 people who potentially could be impacted from a wildland fire.
Consequently we developed six possible options for the defensible space
ordinance for unprotected lands:
1. Match the requirements in SB-360 exactly with the only consequences
being after a fire started in a non-treated property, with Deschutes County
seeking suppression costs.
2. Based on a complaint scenario, work with property owners to treat the
fuels and if non-compliance the County would treat the property to SB-360
standards and bill the property owner.
3. Based on a complaint scenario, work with the property to treat the fuels
and if non-compliance the county would issue a citation (Class A violation)
and continue working with the property owner until proper fuels treatment
occurred, additional citations may be required. This approach is currently
being used successfully by the City of Bend.
4. A combination of Alternatives 1 and 2.
5. A combination of Alternatives 1 and 3.
6. No action.
Based on the nature of unprotected lands and the wildland fire occurrence my
recommendation is Alternative 5.
Not recommending the other Alternatives is based on the following:
1. With Alternative 1, matching SB-360 exactly takes away the strategy of
preventing a wildland fire by proactively working with the property owner.
Because there is no wildland or structural fire response, something
stronger than collecting suppression costs seems necessary.
2. With Alternative 2, if Deschutes County assumed the responsibility of
treating fuels on private land for a property owner not in compliance and
resisted efforts to assist with the fuels treatment, the liability the county
would assume both directly and vicariously seemed more than necessary
and fails to have the property owner redeem their responsibilities. This
Alternative alone would not recover suppression costs thus reducing
another incentive for treating fuels.
3. With Alternative 3, citations alone and after working with the property
owner to treat the fuels can serve as a prevention tool and incrementally
deliver fuels treatment to the desired results. Again, this Alternative alone
would not recover suppression costs thus reducing another incentive for
treating fuels.
4. With combining Alternatives 1 and 2 the county would still have the liability
of treating fuels on private lands which seem unnecessary not only from a
liability perspective, the home owner still has not redeemed their
responsibilities and the program management workload of
accomplishment of work through contracts, administratively billing the
property owner and tracking those activities does not appear to be a
sound investment.
5. With combining Alternatives 1 and 3 the county would be able to collect
suppression costs (like SB-360), utilize citations as a prevention tool only
after all proactive methods failed and ultimately the property owner
redeems their responsibilities and the citizens and property owners in the
unprotected are better served from a wildland fire perspective thru this risk
management technique.
6. No Action, with the wildland fire issues in Deschutes County combined
with the cumulative successful efforts delivered in education, prevention,
fuels treatment, completing seven community fire plans, collaboration with
open burning, ODF collaboration with SB-360 classification, and the
potential liabilities the county assumes with this alternative, we should
consider stronger measures to proactively address defensible space
measures to prevent wildland fires in the unprotected areas.
From a policy perspective, I am requesting the Deschutes County Board of
County Commissioners consider these Alternatives and decide which direction
we should proceed.
/s/ Joseph E. Stutler
JOSEPH E. STUTLER
Deschutes County Forester