Photograph by Dennis Nadalin)
The Lone Pine Canyon today from Devore
What had occurred in Lone Pine Canyon should be termed "Operation Fire Break."
Lone Pine is now our eastern fuel break, it is not the time to be complacent. Regarding fuel breaks, one of the reasons they were able to hold the fire of about 16 years ago that threatened from Pinon Hills is the old FUEL break that was constructed by us Chilao and Valyermo hotshots back in the 70's across Pinon Ridge/East Table Mountain. It was a good one hundred feet in width and all underbrush and limbs up to 8/10 feet on the trees were removed. It wasn't in good repair when that Pinon Hills fire threatened Wrightwood, but it was there.
Some people have worked on getting a significant fire break constructed on the east end of the Swarthout Valley (Lone Pine Canyon) for the past ten/fifteen years...and got no results. They've even pushed to have San Bernardino County tie in a new Lone Pine Canyon route on top of it. Since then, and to present day, word has not been heard from the present County supervisor (Brad Mitzelfelt, 1st District Supervisor)... one can only hope that the county is now "studying" these proposals.
The back fire activity in Lone Pine Canyon suggests that the county waited too long to address the fire break issue and in a last ditch effort did the only quick response: back fire. Some have speculated that the firing operation influenced the Sheep Fire that was already burning towards the community of Wrightwood. Even though the recent fuel modification operation worked great in reducing fire spread south of North Lytle Creek Ridge, it wasn't working a tinker's nickel on the other side. As a result of the back fire operation, the watershed in the Lone Pine Canyon was mostly destroyed...the drainage through the valley will carry damaged soil, ash and silt down to the Santa Ana River drainage, which in turn will affect the water supply further down. Money and forest resources would have been saved, had the proper fuel breaks been put in and maintained in the first place.
The recent close call to Wrightwood is fresh in the minds of many. Many other forest residents have the opportunity to request fuel breaks and other safety factors to be put in place, in preparation for fire season. This includes the residents and property owners in Wrightwood. Here, residents have the opportunity to request fuel breaks and an alternate road (route of safety), and the USFS has to, by public law, honor the right of way through Forest Service lands for such a fuel break and road.
In the past, county officials have said that the Forest Service doesn't want to give up lands...... they don't have a choice and if enough pressure is brought by the community of Wrightwood, it can happen. Mammoth received the right of way through the Forest Service land for a new "escape road" out of Mammoth (north and then east) several years ago. (The route is called the Mammoth Scenic Loop). And they got it done through public pressure. The time is now to push for these changes here, and in other forests: fuel breaks and escape routes.
In Wrightwood we need to build, first the fuel break of 200 to 300 feet width from the "S's" of upper Lone Pine to an intersection with either Wright Mountain Road, or perhaps coming out in the "levels" (just north/east of Wright Mt. Road), then as the money becomes available, a new Lone Pine Canyon Road tying it to Hwy 2 at either of those locations. All of these issues should not only include the construction of them, but the continual maintenance of them in the future. The discussion of fuel breaks have been very active since 1965. Angeles National Forest Baldy Disrict Ranger Anselmo Lewis even commented in his writing that people complained that the fuel breaks along ridges were not pretty. He wisely commented that fuel breaks were not a beautification project, but an important tool of protecting lives and property due to the spread of fire.
Recent environmental studies reported that there was no way to grade the effectiveness of fuel breaks; they report that fuelbreak prescriptions varied with width, fuel reduction and maintenance standards). The same was said with the varying locations in which they were placed, I.e. fuels, topography and microclimate. They added that the objectives and expectation of fuelbreaks varied because the intensity of the wildfires approaching them varied. The same environmental reports did come up with an interesting conclusion: The weakest link in a fuelbreak program was found to be maintenance. The main factor accounting for the poor performance of fuelbreaks in California was the lack of brush maintenance. Without proper maintenance, fuelbreak effectiveness decreases over time and an un-maintained fuelbreak led to a false sense of security among residents and fire suppression personnel. Fuelbreaks had to be maintained to remain effective, but that required long-term funding. (study by Wildland Fire Operations Research Group, 12-2007, Colleen Mooney) By approximately 1980, the construction of fuel breaks in Southern California, for the most part, stopped. Even though they previously worked for the most part, they were stopped. It was just recently that in some areas, fire fighting agencies were reminded about the importance of fuelbreak through devastating wildfires.
You want protection from fire without going through the drastic means of what happened in Lone Pine Canyon? Put some pressure on your county officials and the Forest Service and get the change done. That will assure forest resources for us and our children, and protect the livelihood, property and provide personal protection for those who live there.
Will we learn from the lesson of Lone Pine Canyon, or continue to let forest management and fuel modification projects go unheeded? Rest assured...more property will be lost and more forest resources will be destroyed if we don't push for a change.
