An Inside Look at the 1996 Fire Plan

Can you summarize the most important points of the 1996 California Fire Plan?

There are several key ideas the Board of Forestry and Fire Protection put in the California Fire Plan. They wanted a living fire plan, one that would be “worn out” from use rather than left on the shelf to gather dust. The Board recognizes the role of fire in California’s ecosystems so this plan focuses on reducing costs and losses from wildland fires.

First, they set up a process for “stakeholder” involvement. They recognized that the fire problem in California is big, so they called for a priority-setting process to focus effort on the most important areas. A key is hazard and risk assessment which includes an analysis of society’s assets at risk.

How is this Fire Plan different?

Previous plans tended to focus on the fire protection system that CDF manages and puts into action when fires occur. This new plan uses the fire protection system as a foundation and considers action that can be taken before fires occur.

This new approach opens the door for “pre-fire” projects to set the stage for reduced impact (cost and loss) from fire. A second major difference is the risk assessment built into the new planning process. The implication is that living with the risk and accepting the consequence may be the logical thing to do in some places.

How is planning done?

The planning process starts with a problem assessment. There are about 67 million acres of wildland in California. In an average year, CDF suppresses about 7,500 fires and our federal partners suppress another 2,000 fires. Every year grass, brush, and forestlands grow more vegetation (fuel to a fire fighter). The fire problem is huge and we can’t do everything all at once so we have to find the areas that are most likely to experience a large costly fire and target those first.

CDF does this with a “level of service” analysis. This looks at the ability of the initial fire fighters to contain fires while small, before costs and losses become unacceptable. The result is mapped.

The next assessment considers the flammability of the vegetation (fuel to the fire). Many of our plant communities increase in flammability as they age. This information is also mapped.

A third assessment considers the frequency of severe fire weather. Fires can burn on most days during the fire season, but weather on a few days can be critical. The variation in the weather is mapped.

The public has a stake in the success of the fire fighting effort. They get involved in defining the “assets at risk” part of the problem. Information on fire potential as it impacts the various assets is mapped.

This mapping finds areas with high potential for fire and high impact on the stakeholders. Specific solutions can then be planned. Stakeholders also have an interest in how the projects are planned. The stakeholders and the Board want projects that make sense in the local area.

What does that mean?

The Department of Forestry and Fire Protection doesn’t own the land, they provide wildland fire protection service. The private landowners make the decisions on how their land is managed. Many of the solutions to the local fire problem involve proactive land management. CDF staff works with landowners and the community to find solutions that work for them.

The goal in the Fire Plan is that we target costly damaging fires. These fires are typically large, affecting many landowners and whole communities. This affects a lot of people, not just the landowners. We work with local stakeholder groups to define the problem and the risk and to determine mutually agreeable solutions.

Community stakeholder groups consider trade-offs between costs, environmental impacts, and benefits. CDF has a variety of programs designed to assist landowners, e.g. the Vegetation Management Program, state and federal forest improvement programs, grant programs, etc. There are various ways to get the projects going. The community decides on a course of action that’s appropriate.

You keep talking about community.

Yes, that’s another key word: “community” as in a group with common interests. We’re talking about fire impacting the interests of more people than a single landowner. We’re trying to design projects to meet the needs of the community in addition to the needs of the landowner.

How do community groups form?

Sometimes the stakeholders get together and form their own group and they may ask the local fire officials to join them. Sometimes the local CDF unit manager will act as a catalyst and invite stakeholders to a meeting and form a Fire Safe Council. It depends on local community dynamics.

CDF has been working with community groups for quite some time. A renewed interest came with the Fire Plan and the emphasis on stakeholder involvement.

Has it made a difference?

Yes, I hear of great success stories. A group in Shasta County has been clearing overgrown vegetation from around their houses, chipping the material and hauling it to a biomass plant. A community in Calaveras County had cleared vegetation around their houses when a large forest fire burned into the area; the houses were saved and the fire stopped from going into the next drainage.

CDF would like to do more but our budget and crews are limited. One way to fund projects is with grants but these are not always available to government agencies. Several community groups, Resource Conservation Districts (RCDs) and Fire Safe Councils have filed for tax exempt status and obtained grants for projects. This is the kind of public/private partnership that can get work done.

How can people get involved?

Contact your local CDF office or RCD. Check the Internet (see page 10 for sites). Getting involved in local groups is really important. They want to hear what you think is important and you get to hear what your neighbors think is important.

How do you feel about the progress that’s been made?

I’m pretty excited about the direction the Department is taking. It’s very positive, has great potential, and is good for the environment. Fire is a part of our California landscape and together we can learn to live with it. I think we can reduce the negative and enhance the positive that fire creates as an ecosystem process. When I look at how much work there is to do I get frustrated. But when I look at how much progress is being made, I feel pretty good. I think this proactive approach is the best bet for learning to live with fire in California.