Community Wildfire Protection

I am creating yet another page, specifically in order to collect the data necessary to engage community members in thinking and planning for the next eventuality. Education and preparation are two of the keys to being ready for the next wildfire, may it not be quite so catastrophic.
*************************************************************************************
June 17, 2009

There will be two meetings on the South Coast for community input for the CWPP. These will be held July 8th & July 29th from 7-9 pm.

Here is a draft agenda of the first meeting:
Big Sur Community Wildfire Protection Plan (BSCWPP)
Project Brief
Document No. BSCWPP-01

Project Goal
Protect the lives and property of members of the Big Sur community and the integrity of the natural environment by reducing the risk from wildfire.

Primary Objective
Prepare a planning document incorporating both professional and community input that indicates where limited resources can be used, and in what manner, to maximize protection for the community and the natural environment from damages caused by wildfire.

Elements of the Process
The process of preparing the BSCWPP is to be guided by the following core principles:
• Consistency with law, regulations and industry standard wildfire protection plans: A compliant part of the Monterey County Wildfire Protection Plan;
• Professional involvement in both the process of preparing the plan and the information contained within;
• Active solicitation of community involvement;
• Management priorities set with a combination of both professional and community input, and;
• Use of a well described and documented approach to setting the priorities.

Contents of the BSCWPP
The main subjects that will be presented as part of the BSCWPP will include:
• Legal authority to prepare a local plan;
• Consistency with the Monterey County CWPP;
• Regulatory environment (laws, regulations, and regulatory bodies);
• Defining the project area: Area of responsibility of the Big Sur Volunteer Fire Brigade;
• Plan development process;
o Professional collaboration
o Community involvement
o Inputs into prioritization process
• Vegetation resources
• Cultural resources
• Property/resource values at risk
• Roads
• Terrain
• Fire behavior and history
o Prioritization decisions
• Objective elements of the process
• Subjective elements of the process
• Professional judgment
• Community input
• Action recommendations;
o Identify highest priority locations for fuels-related vegetation management
• Non-specific terrain
• Critical roads
o Identify fuels-related vegetation management prescriptions appropriate for the Big Sur community needs and natural environment
o Identify other strategies, primarily on an individual property owner basis, for the reduction of the risk of damage from wildfire
• Structure design and construction
• Near-structure vegetation management strategies
• Property management
• References;
• Glossary of Terms;
• Technical Addendums;

Implementation of Recommendations
This BCWPP is intended to guide specific actions leading to the reduction of risk from wildfire. The information is intended to be usable by individual property owners and community groups who desire to work on an aggregated scale. This BSCWPP is not intended as a set of specific guideline for the full spectrum of implementation actions that are possible. However, there are opportunities and constraints to implementation that will be common to all these possibilities and these will be discussed in this Plan. These types of information include:
• Sources of implementation advice and technical guidance;
• Sources of funding and groups and agencies that will assist in their pursuit;
• Regulatory constraints and permitting requirements.
•

Community Input
Essential to the integrity and usefulness of this BSCWPP is that the Big Sur community is aware of the details of the planning process and that their wishes are considered in both the application of the process and the decisions that are reached. However, due to the highly technical nature of both the planning process and any subsequent implementation the opinions and positions of individuals, or groups, in community cannot be the only basis for coming to decisions.

Pursuant to facilitating community involvement two sets of formal public meetings will be held; one set in the northern portion of the project area and the second in the southern. Two meetings will comprise a set with the first explaining the process and issuing a solicitation for public input and the second will be a presentation of the preliminary results.

A second manner of solicitation of input from the community will be requesting response to process documents like this one. Note that this piece carries a unique document number and has line numbers down the side. When providing input specific to this document please do so either in writing to the address below or via email and refer to the document number, the page, and line number of the part to which you are responding. This process will facilitate the input of the community’s comments and wishes into the plan development and truly make it reflective of the community’s wishes.

Written Comments
Big Sur Community Wildfire Protection Plan
s/c Daus Environmental Services
P.O. Box 71058
Sunnyvale, CA 94086 Email Input
BigSurCWPP@comcast.net

*******************************************************
June 17, 2009

Part of an article in today’s Herald:

Also Tuesday, the board reviewed a proposal to consider amendments to the county’s draft general plan update, known as GPU5, to address wildfire protections and a draft Community Wildfire Protection Plan. The wildfire plan has a special poignancy for many county residents as the one-year anniversary of the Basin Complex Fire approaches.

A group of community leaders and public agency officials have assembled a plan to help residents manage removal of vegetation around their homes in an attempt to safeguard them against wildfires.

But residents argued that regulations intended to protect plant and animal species, and their habitats, tend to discourage needed wildfire “fuel reduction” efforts, and that attempts to preserve the environment actually ended up harming it while endangering lives and property. So they asked the board to include specific language to ease those restrictions in GPU5.

Cal Fire Assistant Chief Bob Taylor told the board “we’re sitting on a time bomb here in Monterey County,” noting the amount of overgrowth in many of the county’s rural areas.

“We’re not advocating clear-cutting,” Taylor said, “but the removal of vegetation.”

In response, the board agreed to forward the proposed amendments to the Planning Commission to include in its review of GPU5. But several supervisors indicated they wanted to avoid major changes to the general plan update so it wouldn’t have to be recirculated to the public.
************************************************************************************
August 14, 2008:

Firefighterblog sent me a link to some great information about the interface between local landowners and the USFS personnel on the Trinity/Panther fire that he found on the wildlandfire page. I reproduce it in its entirety below, as it seems a good model for us. One thing we might consider, is to seek funds from the SCCLT for shared community resources:

Ab – Not sure if this is the place to post local perspectives (residents/civilians) or not.

The burn out operations on the southern flank began last Friday.

The residence most immediately threatened had not even been on the map or the radar screen of the IC and thankfully that family attended a community fire meeting and was able to meet with the Happy Camp District Ranger. As a result the home was identified and mapped and structure protection assessment was done.

Concerns of locals were the expected high temps, erratic winds, and low RH forcast for the days of the burn out. Considering the terrain and loss of life a few weeks ago, locals were very worried of more fire fighter injuries and the use of high intense burning. Thankfully the worst case scenario did not happen.

A lot of reources were utilized and the homeowners had done years of understory brushing and clearing. One forest service structure protection officer made the comment, “Your place reminds me of the forests in Europe, it is so well groomed and park like”. After 25 hard years of working on their property our friends were committed to staying at their home during the burn out operation.

Brushing was done on the edge of their property, because there was a huge growth of underbrush on the forest service lands adjacent to their property line.

At the local community story sharing time last night in Orleans we heard of how differently fire was fought in the last big fires of 2006, 1987, and 1977.

We have come from land owners being totally voiceless to having a local liason from our fire safe council working with the IC on mapping and tribal liasons identifying significant cultural religious sites.

The every two week shift change has been hard in that communication regarding local fire history and experience as well as “remapping” home sites takes a lot of time and getting the IC to understand the lay of the land.

We have been blessed in that we have had the mercy of time, in that by going to the fire meetings and seeing and hearing the short and long term goals and tasks of the IC team, homeowners have been able to be more ready for if and when the fire lines pass the critical last stand marks on the maps. This long term forcasting and planning has been essential in our fire safe council to pull together the person power to help in danger landowners to be more prepared and expand defensible space, move community shared folding water tanks, fire line, sprinkler systems, and fire pumps to those in most need.

Another aspect of community action is securing air filters for the medically frail, elderly and families with young children. The air quality has been poor due to the smoke inversion layer. This smoke has also made it difficult for the air support and intelligence gathering.

The Orleans/Somes Bar fire safe council has been working with landowners over the last few years on bringing in crews to remove ladder fuels, brushing access routes and doing structural surveys. The hope is that from our experience this fire season a fire plan can be drawn up and implemented by all the stake holders.

We have learned that we need to know when burn outs are scheduled and to open up the conversation and give our concerns to the IC.

We have become a bit disappointed in the change in how the situation reports are written. At the beginning the reports were geared to the local audience and now we get the template press release type of reports.

Our experience over the last eight weeks is that locals need to be in communication with one another and the IC to glean accurate life saving information. Many of us live off the power grid and have no phone service.

One excellent accomodation for locals who are in direct danger has been the lending of forest service radios to aid in communication with the camps. Locals have taken the time and effort to do the night watch after the crews go off shift.

We are thankful for all of the help and resources sent our way.

Here is a local perspective of the burn out last weekend from Will Harling our local fire safe council liason:

After Harold Tripp and I cautioned John Flores, Division H supervisor in charge of the burnout operation around Chris and Hans’ place down to Hwy 96, of the perils of burning in low elevations in the river corridor between 1-7pm (low humidities, uncertain winds, higher temps, etc), he went ahead with the burnout, lighting at 1pm and wrapping up around 8pm. Ultimately, it was a gamble, but to my knowledge, the gamble paid off. John and the Craig and Vale Hotshots had good wind direction out of the south all afternoon, and the predicted low humidities never came (31% was the low compared to the anticipated 21%). The predicted and feared northerly and NW winds never materialized and the temps felt like they were in the low 80’s through the afternoon. Wisely, John had them install a check line prior to ignition to hold the burnout at the ridge near the residence if the weather shifted, but conditions held and they passed the check line around 4pm.

At the end of the day, the Branch director called on the radio to praise the crews for a job well done, and say that he had everything on video from across the river off the Frog Pond Rd (I sure would love a copy). Indeed, it looks as if they were able to get the depth off the line that should prevent all but the most serious spotting from crossing south of the line. Getting depth was definitely the phrase of the day and they ended up with at least 200yds of black all the way down. The crews did their job well and nature conspired, however as an advocate of lower intensity fire, it was hard to watch how fast and hot they burned it. Standing in Chris and Hans’ yard all afternoon as they did the horseshoe around their place, you could hear 15-20+ rounds at a time from the incendiary gun as they put heat in the interior to suck the three-four strips from the lighters’ drip torches into the fire. Predictably, about five minutes after the pop guns, all the fire would come together in a black column that spawned some awe-inspiring flamelengths (100-200ft). Spots started appearing down toward the river to the north across from the Aubrey Ranch and made fingering runs back up to the burnout. As they rounded to corner down to the Klamath humidities rose enough to take the edge off the torching and the burn below their place when I left Saturday evening looked like it was primarily low-moderate intensity. Ultimately, it’s hard to complain of some scorched trees when they held the line and kept fire from getting into the rest of the Ti Bar community with its legacy of plantations loaded with fuels directly adjacent to homes. The team put a lot of resources into holding this line and it paid off.

Meanwhile, back at the Soto’s, a local crew of about 15 folks gathered to assist landowners preparing for fire. They established an isolation ring around the Soto Residence with a bobcat and a lot of handwork and added to brushing work done by fire crews over the past couple weeks. Pete, the Structural Protection supervisor, also did a great job getting resources to the rest of the residences up there and communicating with the landowners. The one missing piece was that there was no work done to my knowledge on the contingency line put in in 1987 below Jan and Sue Strouss down past the Creasys and Sotos to the highway, making the whole firing operation even more of a gamble, since they were firing off the contingency line at that point. I later heard that it was a fluke for the fire to have initially jumped the hand line (P-line) upriver from the contingency Dozer line past Chris and Hans’. While they were firing that line, two personnel had to be airlifted off the line, and when the helicopter came in to get them, it came too low (within 35′ of the ground) and blew embers far across the line.
*************************************************************************************

First, one can download a copy of the booklet designed to help communities develop a wildfire protection plan, which then can be submitted to the USFS and incorporated or referenced in their Land Management Plan (LMP), which is apparently still developing after 10 years.

Included in this booklet are some great applicable websites, as well as examples of other community plans.
This booklet can be obtained here:
http://www.safnet.org/policyandpress/cwpp.cfm
*************************************************************************************
The USDA Forest Service Strategic Plan can be downloaded here (it is on the right, about 1/2 way down the page:
http://www.fs.fed.us/
*************************************************************************************
There is an excellent website as a starting point for obtaining valuable information about creating a CWFP from the links provided here: http://www.cafirealliance.org/cwpp/
*************************************************************************************
There are a series of downloadable documents about “Living with Fire” developed out of Lake Tahoe’s aftermath, including before, during and after a wildfire. These can be found here:
http://www.livingwithfire.info/tahoe/?click=publications
*************************************************************************************
One can obtain a copy of the “Final Rule” for the development of the USFS LMP adopted 4/21/08 which states as its purpose: “This final rule describes the National Forest System (NFS) land management planning framework; sets up requirements for sustainability of social, economic, and ecological systems; and gives directions for developing, amending, revising, and monitoring land management plans. It also clarifies that, absent rare circumstances, land management plans under this final rule are strategic in nature and are one stage in an adaptive cycle of planning for management of NFS lands. The intended effects of the rule are to strengthen the role of science in planning; to strengthen collaborative relationships with the public and other governmental entities; to reaffirm the principle of sustainable management consistent with the Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act of 1960 (MUSYA) and other authorities; and to streamline and improve the planning process by increasing adaptability to changes in social, economic, and environmental conditions.”

This document can be obtained here: http://www.fs.fed.us/emc/nfma/includes/planning_rule/08_planning_rule.pdf
*************************************************************************************
PREPARING A COMMUNITY WILDFIRE PROTECTION PLAN:
I could not find a link to this worthwhile document, so I am copying the entire 12 pages here:

A Handbook for Wildland–Urban Interface Communities
Sponsored By:
Communities Committee • National Association of Counties • National Association of State Foresters
Society of American Foresters • Western Governors’ Association
March 2004
Preparing a Community Wildfire Protection Plan
Communities
Committee
Introduction
The idea for community-based forest planning and prioritization is neither novel nor
new. However, the incentive for communities to engage in comprehensive forest
planning and prioritization was given new and unprecedented impetus with the
enactment of the Healthy Forests Restoration Act (HFRA) in 2003.
This landmark legislation includes the first meaningful statutory incentives for
the US Forest Service (USFS) and the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to give
consideration to the priorities of local communities as they develop and implement
forest management and hazardous fuel reduction projects.
In order for a community to take full advantage of this new opportunity, it must
first prepare a Community Wildfire Protection Plan (CWPP). Local wildfire
protection plans can take a variety of forms, based on the needs of the people involved
in their development. Community Wildfire Protection Plans may address issues such
as wildfire response, hazard mitigation, community preparedness, or structure
protection—or all of the above.
The process of developing a CWPP can help a community clarify and refine its
priorities for the protection of life, property, and critical infrastructure in the
wildland–urban interface. It also can lead community members through valuable
discussions regarding management options and implications for the surrounding
watershed.
The language in the HFRA provides maximum flexibility for communities to
determine the substance and detail of their plans and the procedures they use to
develop them. Because the legislation is general in nature, some communities may
benefit from assistance on how to prepare such a plan.
This Handbook is intended to provide communities with a concise, step-by-step
guide to use in developing a CWPP. It addresses, in a straightforward manner, issues
such as who to involve in developing a plan, how to convene other interested parties,
what elements to consider in assessing community risks and priorities, and how to
develop a mitigation or protection plan to address those risks.
This guide is not a legal document, although the recommendations contained
here carefully conform to both the spirit and the letter of the HFRA. The outline
provided offers one of several possible approaches to planning. We hope it will prove
useful in helping at-risk communities establish recommendations and priorities that
protect their citizens, homes, and essential infrastructure and resources from the
destruction of catastrophic wildfire.
Cover images
Photo: David McNew/Getty Images Photo: Justin Sullivan/Getty Images
Photo: CA Dept. of Forestry and Fire Protection
2
Discussion
Communities and the Wildland–Urban Interface
The wildland–urban interface (WUI) is commonly described as the zone where
structures and other human development meet and intermingle with undeveloped
wildland or vegetative fuels. This WUI zone poses tremendous risks to life, property,
and infrastructure in associated communities and is one of the most dangerous and
complicated situations firefighters face.
Both the National Fire Plan and the Ten-Year Comprehensive Strategy for
Reducing Wildland Fire Risks to Communities and the Environment place a prior-
ity on working collaboratively within communities in the WUI to reduce their risk
from large-scale wildfire.
The HFRA builds on existing efforts to restore healthy forest conditions
near communities and essential community infrastructure by authorizing expedited
environmental assessment, administrative appeals, and legal review for hazardous
fuels projects on federal land.
The Act emphasizes the need for federal agencies to work collaboratively with
communities in developing hazardous fuel reduction projects, and it places priority
on treatment areas identified by communities themselves in a CWPP.
Role of Community Wildfire Protection Plans
The HFRA provides communities with a tremendous opportunity to influence where
and how federal agencies implement fuel reduction projects on federal lands and how
additional federal funds may be distributed for projects on nonfederal lands. A
CWPP is the most effective way to take advantage of this opportunity.
Local wildfire protection plans can take a variety of forms, based on the needs
of those involved in their development. They can be as simple or complex as a
community desires.
The minimum requirementsfor a CWPP as described in the HFRA are:
(1) Collaboration:A CWPP must be collaboratively developed by local and
state government representatives, in consultation with federal agencies and
other interested parties.
(2) Prioritized Fuel Reduction: A CWPP must identify and prioritize areas
for hazardous fuel reduction treatments and recommend the types and
methods of treatment that will protect one or more at-risk communities
and essential infrastructure.
(3) Treatment of Structural Ignitability: A CWPP must recommend meas-
ures that homeowners and communities can take to reduce the ignitability
of structures throughout the area addressed by the plan.
The HFRA requires that three entities must mutually agree to the final contents of a
CWPP:
• The applicable local government (i.e., counties or cities);
• The local fire department(s); and
• The state entity responsible for forest management.
In addition, these entities are directed to consult with and involve local
representatives of the USFS and BLM and other interested parties or persons in the
development of the plan. The process is intended to be open and collaborative, as
Photo: State and Private Forestry, Cooperative
Programs Pacific Northwest Region
3
described in the Ten-Year Strategy, involving local and state officials, federal land
managers, and the broad range of interested stakeholders.
If a community already has a plan that meets these requirements, the community
need not develop an additional plan for the purposes of the HFRA.
Benefits to Communities
In the context of the HFRA, a CWPP offers a variety of benefits to communities at
risk from wildland fire. Among those benefits is the opportunity to establish a local-
ized definition and boundary for the wildland–urban interface.
In the absence of a CWPP, the HFRA limits the WUI to within 1/2 mile of a
community’s boundary or within 11/2miles when mitigating circumstances exist, such
as sustained steep slopes or geographic features aiding in creating a fire break. Fuels
treatments can occur along evacuation routes regardless of their distance from the
community. At least 50 percent of all funds appropriated for projects under the
HFRA must be used within the WUI as defined by either a CWPP or by the limited
definition provided in the HFRA when no CWPP exists.1
In addition to giving communities the flexibility to define their own WUI, the
HFRA also gives priority to projects and treatment areas identified in a CWPP by di-
recting federal agencies to give specific consideration to fuel reduction projects that
implement those plans. If a federal agency proposes a fuel treatment project in an area
addressed by a community plan but identifies a different treatment method, the
agency must also evaluate the community’s recommendation as part of the project’s
environmental assessment process.
Preparing a Community Wildfire Protection Plan
➣These step-by-step recommendations are intended to help communities
develop a wildfire protection plan that addresses the core elements of com-
munity protection. Items required under the HFRA are addressed, as are
some additional issues that often are incorporated into wildfire protection
planning. Actions beyond those listed in the legislation are not required for
the purposes of the HFRA.
➣Community fire planning need not be a complex process. A community can
use this outline to develop a fire plan that is as extensive or as basic as is
appropriate and desired by the community.
➣A key element in community fire planning should be the meaningful dis-
cussion it promotes among community members regarding their priorities
for local fire protection and forest management. This handbook should help
to facilitate these local discussions.
1
In the absence of a CWPP, Sec-
tion 101 (16) of the HFRA defines
the wildland–urban interface as “
(i) an area extending 1/2mile from
the boundary of an at-risk com-
munity; (ii) an area within 11/2
miles of the boundary of an at-
risk community, including any land
that (I) has a sustained steep
slope that creates the potential
for wildfire behavior endangering
the at-risk community; (II) has a
geographic feature that aids in
creating an effective fire break,
such as a road or ridge top; or (III)
is in condition class 3, as docu-
mented by the Secretary in the
project-specific environmental
analysis; (iii) an area that is adja-
cent to an evacuation route for an
at-risk community that the Secre-
tary determines, in cooperation
with the at-risk community, re-
quires hazardous fuels reduction
to provide safer evacuation form
the at-risk community.”
4
✔ STEP ONE: Convene Decisionmakers
The initial step in developing a CWPP should be formation of an operating group
with representation from local government, local fire authorities, and the state agency
responsible for forest management.
Together, these three entities form the core decision-making team responsible for
the development of a CWPP as described in the HFRA. The core team members
must mutually agree on the plan’s final contents.
In communities where several local governments and fire departments are within
the planning area, each level of government/authority may need to convene ahead of
time and identify a single representative to participate, on its behalf, as a core team
member.
✔ STEP TWO: Involve Federal Agencies2
Once convened, members of the core team should engage local representatives of the
USFS and BLM to begin sharing perspectives, priorities, and other information
relevant to the planning process.3
Because of their on-the-ground experience, mapping capabilities, and knowledge
of natural resource planning, these local land management professionals will be key
partners for the core team. In some landscapes, they will also be largely responsible
for implementing the priorities established in the resulting CWPP.
✔ STEP THREE: Engage Interested Parties
The success of a CWPP also hinges on the ability of the core team to effectively
involve a broad range of local stakeholders, particularly when the landscape includes
active and organized neighborhood associations, community forestry organizations
that work in forest management, and other stakeholder groups that display a
commitment to fire protection and fuels management.
Substantive input from a diversity of interests will ensure that the final document
reflects the highest priorities of the community. It will also help to facilitate timely
implementation of recommended projects. In some circumstances, the core team
may wish to invite local community leaders or stakeholder representatives to work
along with them in final decisionmaking.
As early as possible, core team members should contact and seek active involve-
ment from key stakeholders and constituencies such as:
• Existing collaborative forest management groups
• City Council members
• Resource Advisory Committees
• Homeowners Associations—particularly those
representing subdivisions in the WUI
• Division of Wildlife/Fish and Game—to identify
locally significant habitats
• Department of Transportation—to identify key escape corridors
• Local and/or state emergency management agencies
• Water districts—to identify key water infrastructure
• Utilities
• Recreation organizations
• Environmental organizations
• Forest products interests
• Local Chambers of Commerce
• Watershed councils
This list provides a starting point and is by no means exhaustive.
2
Sec. 103 (b)(2) of the Act
states that “the Federal Advisory
Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App.)
shall not apply to the planning
process and recommendations
concerning community wildfire
protection plans.”
3
A CWPP is legally applicable to
federal lands only if they are man-
aged by the USFS or the BLM.
Nothing in the Act requires a
community to exclude other fed-
eral agencies—such as the Fish
and Wildlife Service or the Na-
tional Park Service—from plan-
ning efforts, but those agencies
are not bound by the provisions
of the HFRA.
5
In addition to directly contacting key individuals and organizations, core team
members may want to consider using a public notice or public meeting process to
acquire additional, more generalized input as the plan is developed.
✔ STEP FOUR: Establish a Community Base Map
Using available technology and local expertise, the core team and key partners should
develop a base map of the community and adjacent landscapes of interest. This map
will provide a visual information baseline from which community members can as-
sess and make recommendations regarding protection and risk-reduction priorities.
To the extent practicable, the map should identify:
• Inhabited areas at potential risk to wildland fire;
• Areas containing critical human infrastructure—such as escape routes,
municipal water supply structures, and major power or communication
lines—that are at risk from fire disturbance events; and
• A preliminary designation of the community’s WUI zone.
✔ STEP FIVE: Develop a Community Risk Assessment
The development of a community risk assessment will help the core team and com-
munity members more effectively prioritize areas for treatment and identify the
highest priority uses for available financial and human resources.
A meaningful community assessment can be developed by considering the risk
factors identified below. Choose an appropriate adjective rating (such as high,
medium, and low) that best represents the risk to the community posed by each
factor. Display the results on the base map to develop a useful tool for the final
decision-making process.
State and federal land managers will be a valuable resource in helping communi-
ties locate the best available data and in producing quality maps that display and aid
assessment of that data. Engaging key stakeholders in the rating process will be
essential to a successful outcome.
A. Fuel Hazards
To the extent practicable, evaluate the vegetative fuels on federal and nonfederal
land within or near the community. Identify specific areas where the condition
of vegetative fuels is such that, if ignited, they would pose a significant threat to
the community or essential community infrastructure. Consider how the local
topography (such as slope, aspect, and elevation) may affect potential fire
behavior.
Identify areas affected by windthrow, ice storms, or insect and disease
epidemics where fuels treatment would reduce wildfire risks to communities
and/or their essential infrastructure.
State and federal resource planning documents can be a valuable source of
information on local forest and rangeland conditions.
Rate each area of identified hazardous fuels and show each on the base map
as a high, medium, or low threat to the community.
Photo: New Mexico State Forestry
6
B. Risk of Wildfire Occurrence
Using historical data and local knowledge, determine the common causes and
relative frequency of wildfires in the vicinity of the community. Consider the
range of factors, including critical weather patterns, that may contribute to the
probability of fire ignitions and/or extreme fire behavior.
Use relative ratings such as high, medium, and low to show areas of con-
cern for fire starts on the base map.
C. Homes, Businesses, and Essential Infrastructure at Risk
Assess the vulnerability of structures within the community to ignition from
firebrands, radiation, and convection. Document areas of concern.
Identify specific human improvements within or adjacent to the commu-
nity, such as homes, businesses, and essential infrastructure (e.g., escape routes,
municipal water supply structures, and major power and communication lines)
that would be adversely impacted by wildfire.
Categorize all identified areas needing protection using ratings of high,
medium, or low, and show them on the base map.
D. Other Community Values at Risk
At the community’s option, the risk assessment may also consider other areas
of community importance, such as critical wildlife habitat; significant
recreation and scenic areas; and landscapes of historical, economic, or cultural
value that would benefit from treatment to reduce wildfire risks. Additional rec-
ommendations from local stakeholders should be incorporated as appropriate.
Categorize all identified areas that warrant protection using the ratings of
high, medium, or low, and show them on the base map.
E. Local Preparedness and Firefighting Capability
Assess the level of the community’s emergency preparedness, including evacua-
tion planning, safety zones, and fire assistance agreements, as well as the re-
sponse capability of community and cooperator fire protection forces. Consider
the insurance industry ISO rating, if available and applicable. Use the knowl-
edge and experience of local officials to identify areas in need of improvement.
Incorporate local preparedness information into the base map as appropriate.
✔ STEP SIX: Establish Community Hazard Reduction Priorities and
Recommendations to Reduce Structural Ignitability
Once the community assessment and base map are completed, the core team should
convene all interested parties to discuss the results and their implications for local
protection and hazard mitigation needs. A key objective of these discussions is to
develop the community’s prioritized recommendations for fuel treatment projects
on federal and nonfederal lands in the WUI, along with the preferred treatment
methods for those projects.
Recommendations should also be developed regarding actions that individuals
and the community can take to reduce the ignitability of homes and other structures
in the community’s WUI zone.
While local interests are gathered, communities may also want to take this
opportunity to identify and develop strategies to improve their emergency prepared-
ness and fire response capability.
The discussion and identification of community priorities should be as open and
collaborative as possible. Diverse community involvement at this stage is critical to
the ultimate success of the CWPP.
7
Recommendations included in the final CWPP should clearly indicate whether
priority projects primarily serve to protect the community and its essential infra-
structure or are geared toward reducing risks to the other community values. Under
the provisions of the HFRA, only projects that primarily serve to protect communi-
ties and essential infrastructure are eligible for the minimum 50 percent WUI fund-
ing specified in the legislation.
✔ STEP SEVEN: Develop an Action Plan and Assessment Strategy
Before finalizing the CWPP, core team members and key community partners should
consider developing an action plan that identifies roles and responsibilities, funding
needs, and timetables for carrying out the highest priority projects.
Additional consideration should be given to establishing an assessment strategy
for the CWPP to ensure that the document maintains its relevance and effectiveness
over the long term.4
✔ STEP EIGHT: Finalize the Community Wildfire Protection Plan5
The final step in developing a CWPP is for the core team to reconvene and mutually
agree on the fuels treatment priorities, preferred methods for fuels treatment projects,
the location of the wildland-urban interface, structural ignitability recommendations,
and other information and actions to be contained in the final document.
If an associated action plan has not been developed, the core team should iden-
tify a strategy for communicating the results of the planning process to community
members and key land management partners in a timely manner.
5
Some states have statutes
that may require an environmen-
tal analysis for plans adopted by
local or state agencies. In such
states, core team members
should determine whether formal
environmental analysis is re-
quired before finalizing their
plans.
4
Community planning partici-
pants may also want to partici-
pate in multiparty monitoring of
USFS and BLM projects devel-
oped under the HFRA as provided
for in Sec.102 (g)(5) of the legis-
lation: “In an area where signifi-
cant interest is expressed in mul-
tiparty monitoring, the Secretary
shall establish a multiparty mon-
itoring, evaluation, and accounta-
bility process in order to assess
the positive or negative ecologi-
cal and social effects of author-
ized hazardous fuels reductions
projects.”
8
Summary and Checklist
✔ Step One: Convene Decisionmakers
• Form a core team made up of representatives from the appropriate local
governments, local fire authority, and state agency responsible for forest
management.
✔ Step Two: Involve Federal Agencies
• Identify and engage local representatives of the USFS and BLM.
• Contact and involve other land management agencies as appropriate.
✔ Step Three: Engage Interested Parties
• Contact and encourage active involvement in plan development from a
broad range of interested organizations and stakeholders.
✔ Step Four: Establish a Community Base Map
• Work with partners to establish a baseline map of the community that
defines the community’s WUI and displays inhabited areas at risk,
forested areas that contain critical human infrastructure, and forest areas
at risk for large-scale fire disturbance.
✔ Step Five: Develop a Community Risk Assessment
• Work with partners to develop a community risk assessment that consid-
ers fuel hazards; risk of wildfire occurrence; homes, businesses, and es-
sential infrastructure at risk; other community values at risk; and local
preparedness capability.
• Rate the level of risk for each factor and incorporate into the base map as
appropriate.
✔ Step Six: Establish Community Priorities and Recommendations
• Use the base map and community risk assessment to facilitate a collabo-
rative community discussion that leads to the identification of local
priorities for fuel treatment, reducing structural ignitability, and other
issues of interest, such as improving fire response capability.
• Clearly indicate whether priority projects are directly related to
protection of communities and essential infrastructure or to reducing
wildfire risks to other community values.
✔ Step Seven: Develop an Action Plan and Assessment Strategy
• Consider developing a detailed implementation strategy to accompany
the CWPP, as well as a monitoring plan that will ensure its long-term
success.
✔ Step Eight: Finalize Community Wildfire Protection Plan
• Finalize the CWPP and communicate the results to community and key
partners.
9
Sponsor Organizations
Communities Committee of theSeventh American Forest Congress
www.communitiescommittee.org
919 Elk Park Rd.
Columbia Falls, MT 59912
Phone: (406) 892-8155
Fax: (406) 892-8161
National Association of Counties
www.naco.org
440 First Street, NW
Washington, DC 20001
Phone: (202) 393-6226
Fax: (202) 393-2630
National Association of State Foresters
www.stateforesters.org
444 N. Capitol St., NW Suite 540
Washington, DC 20001
Phone: (202) 624-5415
Fax: (202) 624-5407
Society of American Foresters
www.safnet.org
5400 Grosvenor Lane
Bethesda, MD 20814-2198
Phone: (301) 897-8720
Fax: (301) 897-3690
Western Governors’ Association
www.westgov.org
1515 Cleveland Place
Suite 200
Denver, CO 80202-5114
Phone: (303) 623-9378
Fax: (303) 534-7309
10
Additional Resources on the Web:
• Federal Agency Implementation Guidance for the Healthy Forest Initiative
and the Healthy Forest Restoration Act: www.fs.fed.us/projects/hfi/field-guide/
• Field Guidance for Identifying and Prioritizing Communities at Risk: www.stateforesters.org/
reports/COMMUNITIESATRISKFG.pdf
• The National Fire Plan: www.fireplan.gov
• Fire Safe Councils:www.firesafecouncil.org
• Western Governors Association: www.westgov.org
• Collaboration:
www.redlodgeclearinghouse.org
www.snre.umich.edu/emi/lessons/index.htm
Examples of Community Fire Plans
(Note: these plans may not meet the requirements of HFRA, because they were created prior
to its enactment)
Josephine County, Oregon: www.co.josephine.or.us/wildfire/index.htm
Applegate Fire Plan:www.grayback.com/applegate-valley/fireplan/index.asp
Colorado Springs, CO: csfd.springsgov.com/wildfiremitigation.pdf
Jefferson County, Colorado: www.co.jefferson.co.us/ext/dpt/admin_svcs/emergmgmt/index.htm
Lower Mattole Fire Plan: www.mattole.org/html/publications_publication_2.html
Trinity County Fire Management Plan: users.snowcrest.net/tcrcd/
For an electronic version of this Handbook and the latest information visit:
www.safnet.org/policyandpress/cwpp.cfm
11
Communities
Committee
Want to help protect
your community from
wildfire risk?
Check out this NEWHandbook IT IS LINKED ABOVE!!
for preparing community wildfire protection plans!
5400 Grosvenor Lane
Bethesda, Maryland 20814-2198
www.safnet.org
*************************************************************************************

I will continue to obtain and add links to other appropriate documents that are of value to us as we continue to prepare for and define our relationships with wildfire.