sign in sign up
<<
Home , Wildfire, Wildfire suppression

Catastrophic Wildfi re Reduction Strategy

Protecting the health and welfare of Utahns and our lands

Catastrophic Reduction 1 Governor Gary. R. Herbert

My challenge to the steering committee is to develop a comprehensive and systematic strategy to reduce the size, intensity and frequency of catastrophic wildland in . In doing so, we can drastically reduce the expenditure of resources by conditioning our and to resist , rather than spending many that amount to fight fires and repair the post fire damage to our property, air quality and systems.

2 Catastrophic Fire Reduction Table of Contents

Introduction ...... 4 Executive Summary ...... 5 Steering Committee ...... 6 Regional Working Groups ...... 7 Th e Planning Process ...... 7 Developing a Strategy ...... 8 Guiding Principles ...... 9 Issues Identifi ed ...... 10 Recommendations ...... 13 Implementation ...... 16 Regionally Signifi cant Projects ...... 17 Next Steps and Conclusion ...... 19 Supporting information: Appendix A ...... http://1.usa.gov/17JKkIb

Photo credits: Utah Division of Forestery, Fire and State Lands Utah Department of and Food

Catastrophic Fire Reduction 3 Introduction

The Mission: Develop a collaborative process to protect the health and welfare of Utahns, and our lands by reducing the size and frequency of catastrophic fires.

Following the severe 2012 fi re , Governor Gary tem service role, the outcome of this strategy is to identify R. Herbert charged Commissioner of Agriculture Leon- and implement solutions to abate those fi res whose size ard Blackham with the task of developing a cooperative and intensity prove damaging to , economies, strategy to reduce the size, intensity and frequency of and human safety. Th ese fi res are termed “catastrophic” catastrophic wildland fi res in Utah. because they cause unacceptable harm to resources and To the casual observer, all wildfi res may seem cata- assets valued by society, including and com- strophic; however, it is important to understand that munity health and resilience. wildfi re has always played a critical role in the ecosystem. In most cases, fi res reach catastrophic levels largely In many ecological types, through fi re, aged and dead as the result of human intervention, or lack thereof, on timber, young and other “ladder ,” brush and the land. , policies that reduce naturally- grasses are thinned or removed making way for a new occurring and benefi cial wildfi res, and homes and com- generation of . Th is continuous cycle renews munities in the wildland urban interface (WUI) have health and provides for the diversity required altered landscapes in ways that increases the risk of fi res in a resilient ecosystem. Th ese healthy pro- getting out of control or causing harm to human and vide numerous benefi cial services to humans and wild- property. Th ese are the wildfi res for which this process life alike. Wildlife benefi t from improved while seeks meaningful solutions. Rather than just reducing humans profi t from clean sources of drinking water and fi res, the ultimate goal is to return landscapes to a con- numerous economic and recreational opportunities pro- dition of health and resilience that allows for wildfi res to vided by healthy forests and rangelands. without becoming catastrophic to either human or Recognizing that fi re does play an important ecosys- natural systems.

4 Catastrophic Fire Reduction Executive Summary

Catastrophic fi re continues to be a major problem in Utah, infl icting signifi cant damage and fi nancial bur- dens on the state and citizens. Signifi cant impacts to State and local economies, critical infrastructure, the en- vironment, and private landowners have been increasing in occurrence and severity over the past decade. Many of our range and lands are in poor condi- tion and ecological health. Th ese conditions are largely due to invasive species, lack of setback in succes- Leonard M. Blackham sion, disease, and changes. Large areas with Committee Chair heavy fuels have resulted in “fi resheds” that burn in a dangerous and damaging manner when a “start” com- of the solution. For nearly 100 years we have suppressed bines with hot, dry, and windy conditions. Our wildland natural fi res that help maintain plant succession and fi refi ghting professionals do a great job controlling al- loads, which in turn helps sustain resilient range and for- most all wildland fi re starts; as greater than 95% of wild- est conditions. Th e need to use naturally-occurring and fi res are suppressed on initial attack in Utah. But where controlled fi re on a much greater scale is very important, there is alignment of adverse and , and is a major education and discussion for poli- heavy fuel loads, and human development, the results cymakers, communities, and residents across the west. can be catastrophic. Th e careful and controlled reintroduction of fi re is an We can not change the weather or topography; how- essential in the suite of activities needed to reduce ever, we do have the power to impact both the fuel load catastrophic wildland fi res. and the resilience of communities to wildfi re. We have Th e committee identifi ed 14 statewide pilot projects knowledgeable and experienced leadership in Utah with designed to off er the greatest positive impact on commu- partnerships and programs to improve landscape health nity safety, our water supply, utility and transportation and thus signifi cantly reduce the threat posed by wild- infrastructure, and damage to waterways and reservoir land fi re. Likewise, we know how to improve the resil- storage. Th e projects totaled more than $100 million and ience of communities to wildfi re. If we coordinate the ef- are viewed as the fi rst step in a decades-long process to forts of all interested parties, including local partners, we reverse the degradation of Utah’s forests and rangelands. can reduce the impacts and costs of wildland fi res. Dol- lars spent to prevent a catastrophic fi re will save many It is recommended that the Catastrophic Wildfi re times more dollars than the cost of suppression and re- Reduction Steering Committee convened in this pro- habilitation. In fact, every dollars spent in prevention cess continue to function under the authority of the saves $17 in suppression (USFS). Utah Conservation Commission and be chaired and As problem fi resheds are identifi ed, we must consider staff ed by the Division of , Fire and State the suite of actions required to mitigate the threat of cat- Lands. It is also recommend that a signifi cant addi- astrophic wildfi re. Th e process must be action-oriented tional investment needs to be made by the State and with an evaluation method that is both risk-based and aff ected stakeholders for mitigation and prevention cost-eff ective. Beyond the expected fuels reduction ac- activities to reduce the threat of catastrophic fi res. tions, the suite of activities may include changes in pol- Th e continuance of the steering committee will bring icy or procedures at all levels of government, and may coordination of local, state, and federal government also include the re-establishment of forestry and and natural resource agencies, along with private sector products businesses. However we proceed, we must look stakeholders, to a joint and unifi ed eff ort. Th is should for solutions that yield fi nancial returns that help off -set likewise be duplicated on a regional basis. Th ese region- costs. Our goal should be to establish fi re-resilient land- al committees must provide the leadership and outreach scapes and fi re-adapted communities that can withstand to all citizens and interest groups in Utah to increase wildfi re without the damage and danger currently being communities’ ability to adapt to wildfi re and improve experienced. landscape health so it is resilient to wildfi re and provides Prescribed and natural fi re is a signifi cant component the many benefi ts we seek. Catastrophic Fire Reduction 5 Catastrophic Reduction Steering Committee Leonard Blackham, Commissioner, Utah Department Developing this Catastrophic Wildfi re Reduction of Agriculture and Food Strategy involved bringing together a diverse group of Alan Matheson, Senior Environmental Advisor to experts from across the State of Utah to ensure that a Governor Herbert broad base of understanding and resources were avail- Bill Hopkin, UDAF Grazing Advisor able to inform and direct the work. Committee members Bob Dibble, President, Utah Council of Trout represented state and federal land management agen- Unlimited cies, conservation and sportsmen’s groups, the Gover- Brian Cottam, Deputy Director, Forestry, Fire & nor’s Offi ce, and county commissioners. State Lands While each individual participant brought unique Bruce Clegg, Tooele County Commissioner and valuable expertise and resources to the table, the Casey Snider, Utah Coordinator for Trout Unlimited David Brown, USDA-NRCS, State Conservationist collective knowledge, experience and skills of the en- David Whittekiend, U.S.-Forest Service, Supervisor, tire committee created an exceptional opportunity for Uintah-Wasatch-Cache National Forest learning and collaboration. Many on the committee Dick Buehler, Director, Division of Forestry, Fire & have been deeply involved in preventing, suppressing State Lands and otherwise managing wildland fi res in the state for Evan Curtis, Budget & Policy Analyst for decades. Their experience and understanding provided Governor Herbert much-needed direction to the planning process. Other Harv Forsgren, Consultant, Trout Unlimited committee members were relatively new to the wildland Jack Wilbur, UDAF Information Specialist fi re discussion, yet they brought extensive land manage- Jeremy Bailey, The Conservancy, Fire Training ment expertise and fresh ideas to the group. All put forth & Network Coordinator Jerry Steglich, Daggett County Commissioner extensive and effort to make the process a success. Jim Matson, Kane County Commissioner Juan Palma, U.S. BLM, State Director The steering committee plays a vital role in advising Kathleen Clarke, Director, Governor’s Public Lands the State about: Policy Coordination Offi ce • Measures of success and an approach for adaptive Kevin Carter, Director, SITLA implementation of the state strategy Larry Lewis, UDAF Communications Director • Identifying and overcoming barriers to successful Luann Adams, Box Elder County Commissioner strategy development and implementation Lynn Decker, The Utah Nature Conservancy, North • Promoting awareness of existing efforts (e.g., Wa- America Fire Learning Network Director tershed Restoration Initiative, Utah’s “Forest Ac- Mark Ward, UAC, Senior Planning Coordinator & Policy Analyst tion Plan,” Secure Rural Schools program, National Mike Styler, Director, Utah Department of Natural Cohesive Strategy, etc.) that may be leveraged to Resources contribute to the success of the state’s strategy Troy Forrest, UDAF Grazing Improvement Program • Facilitating coordination of agency and stakeholder resources, and integration of management efforts to support implementation of the strategy

6 Catastrophic Fire Reduction • Developing shared messages and being spokesper- are using a risk assessment process to identify commu- sons for and champions of the strategy to reduce the nities at risk from catastrophic wildfi re as well as prior- risk of catastrophic wildfi re. ity actions to mitigate those risks. For each community, The steering committee will also evaluate information the process categorizes the nature and amount of values collected from each of the regional working groups (de- at risk; the magnitude of the threat to those values based tailed below) to determine statewide issues, strategies, on burn probability and intensity; a comprehensive pro- and priority actions. posal to mitigate the risks to those values, along with associated costs; and, the probability the proposed ac- Regional Working Groups tions will effectively mitigate the catastrophic wildfi re In addition to the statewide steering committee, the threats. This information can then be used to identify state was divided into six regions to deal with the unique relative priorities for further attention and investment. complexities that are inherent to a state as geographi- Regional working groups have piloted this assess- cally large and diverse as Utah. These working groups ment process for communities in their respective re- used a similar composition as the statewide steering gions, with the intent of learning how to both use and committee and were able to incorporate local expertise improve the process before expanding the assessment and discuss regional issues in greater detail. for all communities at risk. The regional working groups were chaired by state or Second, the regional working groups will also iden- federal agency personnel whose primary purpose was to tify signifi cant barriers to reducing catastrophic wildfi re. assemble and facilitate a core team to guide the efforts of These barriers could include lack of resources or policy the region. In addition to this core group, regional work- impediments that would require action at the state or ing groups also sought input and feedback throughout federal level. the process from other groups or individuals who sought Third, the regional working groups provide geograph- to be involved. (See Appendix A for Regional Working ic context and understanding through mapping. Because Group chairs and participants.) wildfi re issues are spatial, providing geographic infor- mation is a valuable way to understand the issue and The purpose of the regional working groups is three- to measure the success of mitigation efforts. Therefore, fold. First, with the assistance of scientists from the U.S. each region was asked to delineate: Forest Service’s Rocky Mountain Research Station, they • Community boundaries; • High value resources and assets at risk to cata- Six Regional Committees strophic wildfi re; • Priority wildlands where restoration of resilience to fi re is essential to sustaining critical ecosystem services (e.g., watershed health/, wild- life habitat, etc.), or where modifi cation of vegeta- tive conditions is needed to reduce threats to communities; • Wildland-urban interface areas where modifi cation of vegetative conditions is needed to reduce threats to communities; and, • Landscapes where 1) the use of prescribed fi re may be considered to meet management objectives and 2) wildfi re may be considered to meet management objectives.

The Planning Process Sound results come from sound processes. The partic- ipants that developed this Catastrophic Wildfi re Reduc- tion Strategy sought to follow a rigorous planning pro- cess to understand the issues, formulate a shared vision, and then explore a wide-range of alternatives in order to determine the most effective options going forward. As

Catastrophic Fire Reduction 7 with any good planning process, the development and rent and desired condition. These gaps are areas where resulting implementation of the Catastrophic Wildfi re additional resources or improved policy may help to Reduction Strategy will require an iterative approach reduce catastrophic wildfi res and improve ecosystem that continually monitors the changing conditions and health. resources as well as works toward constant improve- ment. As such, the Strategy becomes a living process of Explore Alternatives improvement and coordination rather than a concrete set As gaps are identifi ed, solutions can be crafted to of unchangeable edicts. address the underlying issues. Programs and resources already exist to address many of the known issues, and Understanding the Current Situation much of the work of the steering committee and regional To ensure a holistic, well-informed outcome, the working groups involved identifying and better under- process of creating the Strategy began by seeking to standing existing resources and expertise. Additionally, understand the current conditions and major players in- innovative new approaches and alternative solutions fl uencing wildland fi re mitigation, suppression and re- must each be explored. habilitation. (See Appendix A “Fires in Utah, The Current Situation,” Implement, Review and Adapt the Strategy and “Fires in Utah, Existing Resources.”) After careful consideration of the guiding principles and the identifi ed issues, initial recommendations have Shared Vision and Guiding Principles been developed. The objective of the steering committee While the individual participants came from different and any ongoing working groups will be to continue to entities and with different backgrounds, all worked to- fi nd innovative solutions that reduce or eliminate these ward a common goal of developing a strategy for reduc- gaps and lend to implementation of the Strategy. In this ing catastrophic wildfi re in Utah. Through a series of way, the plan becomes an iterative and adaptive process meetings and workshops, the steering committee articu- in which the current situation is consistently being reas- lated their shared vision into a list of guiding principles. sessed, alternatives are considered, and improved rec- ommendations are made. Identifying the “Gaps” Even though there is general consensus regarding Developing a Strategy the task, vision, and guiding principles, the fact remains To be successful, a strategy must be guided by a foun- that current conditions in the state fall short of the ideal. dation of common values or guiding principles, a mutual Many factors impede the realization of the goal of re- understanding of the issues and alternatives, and a col- ducing catastrophic wildfi re, and a critical step in the lective commitment to work toward a shared vision that process involves identifying the gaps between the cur- can be reached throughg achievable recommendations.

An upward trend in fi re size over the past 50 years is evident in this graph.

8 Catastrophic Fire Reduction The challenge issued by Governor Herbert, and the mis- a wildfi re without loss of life and property. sion of the steering committee, is to develop a plan that 3) All jurisdictions participate in making and imple- is both comprehensive and systematic for reducing the menting safe, effective, effi cient risk-based wildfi re size and frequency of catastrophic wildfi res. The steer- management decisions. ing committee has concluded that the strategy must be Through discussions by the steering committee and developed in a collaborative process and protect the regional working groups, values were identifi ed and health and welfare of Utahns and our lands. Through distilled into guiding principles, outlined below, which the initial stages of the planning process, the steering were adopted for the planning process. While the goals committee determined this plan should be compatible above are lofty, they provide direction and focus to the with the National Cohesive Wildfi re Management Strat- actions proposed and ultimately taken. egy and the associated report of the Western Regional Strategy Committee commonly known as the “Western Guiding Principles Regional Action Plan.” Focus on Action-Oriented Solutions Strategies to reduce catastrophic wildfi res must be The Goals of the National Cohesive Wildfi re Man- action-oriented and focus on real solutions that can be agement Strategy implemented to show actual results that will endure for Reducing catastrophic wildfi re requires attention to the long-term. Achieving these solutions will require an three interdependent goals identifi ed in the National integrated, collaborative effort from a broad and diverse Cohesive Wildfi re Management Strategy -- Restore and group of stakeholders who are willing to look for cre- Maintain Landscapes, Fire Adapted Communities, and ative, mutually-benefi cial alternatives that are informed Wildfi re Response. These goals have been embraced by the past, but not afraid of new ideas for the future. throughout the development of this implementation plan for reducing the risk of catastrophic wildfi re in Utah. As Community Safety further described within the Cohesive Strategy, the goals Health, safety and welfare of residents and visitors to include: Utah are paramount. With this in mind, strategies must 1) Landscapes across all jurisdictions are resilient to consider human life and property, including key infra- fi re-related disturbances in accordance with manage- structure, as the highest priority. ment objectives. 2) Human populations and infrastructure can withstand

Length of the fi re season across the west has increased by about 6 weeks over the last couple of decades. The number of “mega fi res” (those more than 100,000 acres in size has increase 3-fold in the last decade. The number of fi res that exceeded $10 million in cost (an indication of intensity and control diffi culty) has increased every year for the last decade. Where we once had a handful of these fi res every year, we are now having as many as 25 or 30 in any given year.

More More Difficult to Intense Control Larger Fires Fires Fires More Fires

Longer Fire

Catastrophic Fire Reduction 9 Sustainable Landscapes improved through additional resources, political support Catastrophic fi res, in many respects, are symptomatic and/or education (listed alphabetically): of the deeper, underlying problem of landscape health. Strategies to curb catastrophic wildfi res must also seek Aging Firefi ghting Aviation Resources to improve the overall health of landscapes and ecosys- Fire management, and preventing wildfi res from be- tems. This approach will require maintaining or improv- coming catastrophic, requires air support and other spe- ing water quality, forest, range and watershed health, and cialized for fi re crews. As aviation resources par- diverse ecosystems for wildlife—particularly threatened ticularly age, and are even being decommissioned, plans and endangered species—at the landscape scale. need to be made and funds identifi ed to replace these necessary implements. Economic Resilience Economic health is of critical importance and must Coordination be a consideration for developing strategies to reduce An impressive and laudable effort is made by those catastrophic wildfi res and minimize the long-term eco- involved in managing range and forests for wildfi res. nomic impacts after a fi re. Solutions that provide a true Wildfi re suppression, for example, is a model of coop- “win-win” scenario by benefi tting the landscape and lo- eration and coordination between federal, state and lo- cal economies should be sought after, and any solution cal jurisdictions. Inclusion of and cooperative training should seek to maximize and leverage every public dol- with other non-traditional land management entities and lar invested to ensure the maximum value to the tax- stakeholders, such as the agricultural, recreation and payer. environmental communities, could further improve the process, bolster resources, and ensure that mutually ben- Scale and Location Matter efi cial goals can be achieved. Some areas for potential Utah is a large state with a wide variety of landscapes. improvement include: Different regions will require different solutions. Solu- • Ensuring diverse and broad stakeholder participa- tions should be location-, situation-, and scale-specifi c. tion; Full attention should be given to the appropriate scale • Ensuring coordination and organization at the ap- at which proposed actions can be practically and effec- propriate scale; tively implemented. • Coordinating with federal, state and local policy- makers to ensure high-level support to overcome Public Participation (Social License) policy impediments. The public must be supportive for solutions to be suc- cessfully implemented. Solutions must consider public perceptions through the use of transparent and open pro- Catastrophic fi res, in many cesses, and should account for individual responsibility respects, are symptomatic of the as appropriate. deeper, underlying problem of landscape health. Issues Identified Of the hundreds of fi res started each year in Utah, only a very small percentage get out of control or reach catastrophic levels. The wildland fi re professionals in the State and throughout the west do truly commendable work in containing these blazes. However, in spite of the many laudable and impressive efforts of land managers and service personnel, catastrophic wildfi res continue to burn across the State. Many of the fi res are the result of weather conditions, rugged terrain, and oth- er factors that are beyond our control. The intent of the Catastrophic Wildfi re Reduction Strategy is to identify those aspects that are within our control and fi nd solu- tions or areas of potential improvement. While additional issues are likely to emerge, the fol- lowing were initially identifi ed as issues that could be 10 Catastrophic Fire Reduction Economic & Financial Constraints increase the resources available to reduce those threats. Securing adequate funding or economic incentives to Fire as a Management Tool improve resilient landscapes and community adaptabil- Historically, fi re has been used by humans to man- ity to wildfi re as well as increase fi refi ghting capability age or manipulate vegetation found across landscapes to and capacity is a signifi cant issue. Solutions to reducing aid in food production and for purposes of protection. catastrophic wildfi re must be economically viable to be With the advent of modern fi re suppression, initially truly effective and self-sustaining. While many market- used to “protect” valuable human and natural resources, oriented solutions have been attempted across the west, we have moved away from the use of fi re as a means of and to a lesser degree in Utah, more focus and effort is managing vegetation. In the past 20-30 years natural re- needed to align the natural and human resource needs to source management agencies have once again begun to the intricacies of the markets and existing and projected explore the use of managed fi re in specifi c areas for spe- fi nancial resources. cifi c reasons. This task is complicated by the expansion In the end, the State, its businesses and citizens will of humans into previously uninhabited areas. Despite inevitably pay the costs of wildfi res. It is our choice this, there is a signifi cant need to re-introduce and utilize whether we pay measurably less through prevention, fi re as a management tool, not only in mitigation and mitigation and market development, or pay a far greater maintenance efforts but suppression as well. There are price for suppression and post-fi re rehabilitation as well recognized hurdles that must be overcome for this to oc- as other ongoing social costs long after a catastrophic cur, including existing laws, rules and policies, agency fi re has been extinguished. capacity and capability, and public perception.

Education, Marketing, and Community Involvement Landscape-Level Scale (“Firesheds”) Catastrophic wildfi res are everyone’s problem; how- Catastrophic wildfi res often occur because of wide- ever, many fail to realize the effect wildfi re can have on spread problems across entire landscapes. The scale of them or what actions they can take to reduce their expo- these problems makes them diffi cult to surmount. Some sure. This is especially true within the wildland urban of these landscape-level issues include: interface where the greatest likelihood for loss of human • Fuel loads life and property exists, and fi re suppression costs are • Invasive species typically much higher. In spite of the tremendous ef- • Vegetation/forest type forts and increasing success in the area of community • Cross-jurisdictional nature of wildfi re education and involvement, more needs to be done to • Insects and disease deteriorating range and forest inform and engage the broader public across the state conditions to help build support for addressing wildfi re threats and Catastrophic wildfi res require three elements: 1) Fire start The use of fi re as a management 2) Fuel supply 3) Suitable (hot, dry, windy) weather conditions tool and the reintroduction of fi re back into ecosystems truly reduces A “fi reshed” is the area that is likely to burn and ad- the risk of catastrophic fi re. versely affect a community or other high-value resourc- es and assets if ignition and hot, dry and windy weather conditions exist. Most fi re starts are lighting-caused, and in Utah more than 800 strikes are recorded each year. Only a few lighting strikes hit in areas with the right fuel supply and weather conditions, and most are contained in a timely manner by the work of our fi refi ghting pro- fessionals. We cannot control natural fi re starts or the weather; however, we can infl uence and should expand our efforts regarding the fuel supply, the resilience of communities threatened by wildfi re, and our capacity to suppress undesirable fi res. Fireshed threats must be reduced with improved landscapes that are healthy and can sustain fi re with- out the destruction caused by catastrophic fi res.

Catastrophic Fire Reduction 11 Livestock Grazing • State & Federal air quality regulations that limit the Grazing by domestic livestock can be a valuable tool use of prescribed fi re; to reduce the risk of wildfi re. Targeted grazing removes • And even private sector policies, such as those of the fi ne fuels that easily ignite and provide an ignition the insurance industry. source for heavier fuels. Domestic livestock grazing can be a strategic resource to reduce fuel in specifi c areas Social License through the use of fences, water sources, or dietary sup- Reducing the threat of catastrophic wildfi re in Utah plements. While are reducing fuel loads they will require landscape scale modifi cation of vegetation, are also creating an ideal seedbed through hoof action reintroduction of managed fi re, and substantial action and organic fertilization for seeding replacement veg- by and within communities. Changes of this magni- etation that is more fi re resistant. Grazing animals are tude necessitate broad social and political awareness, unique in the fact that they can generate revenue from understanding, and support. Shifts in attitudes and be- grazing leases while reducing the risk of catastrophic havior around the active use of management tools such fi re. Most other tools for reducing the risk of fi re come as “” and fi re to modify vegetation, tolerance of with a cost to the taxpayers of Utah. , limitations on building materials and the amount of vegetation around at-risk homes, and acceptance of Policy Impediments personal responsibility may be particularly challenging. Land management and regulatory policy may be However, cultivating this broad social license to act is one of the greatest impediments to effi ciently managing essential to reducing the threat of catastrophic wildfi re. landscapes to reduce the risk of catastrophic wildfi res. Because of agency rules, laws, and accompanying le- gal challenges to land management decisions, agencies and managers lack the fl exibility to respond to rapidly changing conditions in such a way that could mitigate or Designation reduce undesirable conditions. Red = Extreme Policy impediments to addressing the threat of wildfi re Orange = High could include, but are certainly not limited to: Yellow = Moderate • Local government—municipal and county—land Green = Low use decisions regarding the wildland/urban inter- face; • Inadequate State government and private invest- ment in fi re prevention and fuels reduction; • Federal laws and policies, such as the National En- vironmental Policy Act;

The power of a barbed wire fence Grazing livestock on the right side reduced the small grasses that grow between the sage brush, preventing the fi re from spreading from the un- grazed area.

12 Catastrophic Fire Reduction Variability in Suppression and Rehabilitation Costs The use of grazing livestock and The very nature of catastrophic wildfi res makes them diffi cult to predict with any consistency. As such, set- mechanically created fi rebreaks ting long-term budgets months in advance of, along with can reduce the spread of fi re maintaining fi re resources throughout, the fi re season through forest and . can be problematic. This variability and unpredictability leads to spikes in suppression and rehabilitation costs that strain already limited state and local budgets. Cost of Catastrophic Fires to Citizens -it is univer- sally understood that fi re suppression and post-fi re res- toration costs are equally catastrophic to local, state and federal budgets. Large fi res, such as the 2012 fi res in Utah and as well as the 2013 fi res in Colorado, destroyed communities, and families, and altered regional economies. The 2012 fi re suppression costs in Utah topped $50 million, while Colorado has suffered hundreds of millions of dollars in losses in just two years. Research by Jeff Prestemon (USDA Forest Service SE Research Station) shows that every dollar spent in fi re prevention returns seventeen dollars of sav- ings in suppression and immediate post fi re costs to society. This fi gure, however, does not include dam- age to the environment or other social costs that can continue for many years and often far-outpaces the Recommendations simple cost of suppression. A major on-going source Through the process of identifying the gaps and con- of funding is needed to allow for large-scale initia- straints that are impeding progress, several recommen- tives to prevent, not just suppress, catastrophic fi re. dations emerged to help meet the mission of the steering committee. Wood Utilization & Markets 1. Statewide Coordination of Mitigation Resources Markets - The by-products of range and for- Catastrophic wildfi res do not respect jurisdictional est treatments, woody biomass, can be used for a variety boundaries, and cross-jurisdictional coordination will of purposes, including as a renewable and be required to arrive at meaningful solutions. Many of source. Unfortunately, in most cases, the cost of harvest- the programs, personnel and expertise to implement this ing and transporting the excess biomass is far greater strategy already exist within the State; however, they than the value of the power or other end products. And are distributed throughout state and federal agencies and in Utah, these markets and end users don’t even yet ex- across a broad geographic area. The statewide steering ist. As has been found throughout the west, the success- committee has helped bridge this gap and provides op- ful utilization of biomass as a tool for reducing the risk of wildfi re—in other words, having the wood “pay its way out of the forest”—is nearly always dependent on government incentives for its removal and/or use. De- spite this fact, capturing the value in this raw material is worthy of further examination and may be a cost-effec- tive part of the solution even when considering the cost of government incentives. Lack of Infrastructure for Forest Products - As the timber industry in Utah has declined, and in many ar- eas completely disappeared, so has the ability of land managers to mechanically treat forested areas through private sector industry. This not only removes a manage- ment tool for land managers, it also harms rural econo- mies that partially rely on these businesses. Catastrophic Fire Reduction 13 portunities for collaborative learn- well, policy incentives for landown- ing and deliberative dialogue. It is Do we want to ers, biomass businesses and industry important that we come together at a (e.g., insurance and utilities) must state level to agree on and promote react to the also be explored to augment state coordination and directed focus in and federal prevention funds. As this the use of existing state, federal and catastrophic report documents, the dollars and ef- private funds to maximize our ef- forts spent to precondition our range fectiveness and wise use of taxpayer impacts of wild and forest lands to resist catastroph- dollars. Continued efforts at this lev- ic fi re will offer benefi t ten-fold to el will be a key element of the strat- Utah’s land, water, air, wildlife, and egy to reduce catastrophic wildfi res fi re...or residents. in the state. 3. Regional Collaborative Work- The current effort of wildland proactively ing Groups to Perform Needs As- fi re prevention and fuels mitigation sessment and Prioritization Across activities, along with public educa- invest lesser the State tion about wildfi re, is accomplished To deal with the unique complexi- through a coordinated effort between sums to reduce ties that exist throughout the state, re- agencies and organizations with stat- gional working groups were created utory suppression responsibilities. the risks? to ensure that the best local knowl- Specifi cally, there are two state-wide edge was integrated into the planning committees: 1) Inter-Agency Fuels process. To ensure that knowledge of Committee, and 2) Inter-Agency local conditions and regional priorities continues to be Communications, Education and Prevention Commit- aggregated at the statewide level, it is recommended that tee. These long-standing and well-developed state-wide regional working groups continue to meet and perform committees coordinate the efforts of fi ve local com- the function of needs assessment and action prioritiza- mittees that are charged with coordination and imple- tion. mentation of wildfi re prevention, fuels mitigation and The regional working groups would be chaired education endeavors at the local level. These successful by an employee of a state or federal agency who can committees and initiatives will continue to be supported maintain continuity, coordinate among the appropriate moving forward. entities, and ensure that the working group has access It is recommended that the centralized committee to suffi cient data and expertise. The regional working model continue as a sub-committee of the statewide groups will serve as a forum for local elected offi cials, Utah Conservation Commission (UCC). In addition to commissioners of the UCC, the committee should also include other interested stakeholders as members as well A series of seven recommenda- as work collaboratively with the existing fuels and fi re tions are made to help meet the prevention committees. The Division of Forestry, Fire mission of the committee. and State Lands director or designee should chair the new committee and the division should act as staff for their work. 2. Catastrophic Fire Reduction Fund The steering committee recommends that a fund be established specifi cally for the reduction of catastrophic fi res. We also recommend to Governor Herbert and the Utah Legislature that a substantial amount of funding be committed to this cause, and on such a scale to create a successful atmosphere to appreciably reduce catastroph- ic fi res in Utah. Any state funds will be leveraged by existing funding from federal agencies, along with resources that must be developed through markets and the private sector. As

14 Catastrophic Fire Reduction conservation and sportsmen’s groups, agricultural inter- state, local, and tribal governments, scientists, interested ests, emergency services personnel, and other interested governmental and nongovernmental organizations, busi- stakeholders to inform the risk assessment and mitiga- nesses and industries as a regional approach to achiev- tion prioritization process. ing the goals of the National Cohesive Wildland Fire 4. Technical Committees to Respond to Specifi c Management Strategy. Concerns of Statewide Importance The WRAP is a science-based roadmap to guide a Much of the focus to this point has revolved around truly western approach to wildland fi re that holistically region-specifi c communities of interest. While these re- addresses the needs of the landscape, the communities, gionally signifi cant geographic areas are a critical part and the brave men and women who respond when fi re of the overall mitigation strategy, there remain several occurs. While each of the WRAP’s recommendations topical issues of statewide concern that require further are worthy of serious consideration, the following— attention. In addition to the regional working groups, many of which are already positively established and it is recommended that the central committee appoint occurring in Utah—speak directly to the relevant issues: technical working groups as needed for the following • Encourage federal land management agencies to ex- issues identifi ed through this planning process: pedite fuels treatments. • Aging Firefi ghting (aviation) Resources • Prioritize landscapes for treatment (irrespective of • Coordination jurisdictional boundaries). • Economic and Financial Constraints • Expedite coordinated identifi cation, prioritization • Education, Marketing and Community Involvement and restoration of damaged landscapes (especially • Fire as a Management Tool due to invasive species or insect disturbances). • Landscape-Level Scale • Work with the Council on Environmental Quality • Livestock Grazing in developing categorical exclusions for landscape • Policy Impediments restoration. • Social License • Examine legislative related barriers that are imped- • Variability in Suppression and Rehabilitation Costs ing landscape health objectives. • Wood Utilization & Markets • Provide incentives to accelerate fi re adaptive com- 5. Adopt Key Recommendations from the National munities. Cohesive Wildland Fire Management Strategy • Enhance educational campaign through statewide Agencies with wildfi re management responsibility in and regional coordination. Utah should carefully study the recommendations found • Continue to create and update Community wildfi re in The National Cohesive Wildland Fire Management Protection Plans. Strategy: Phase III, Western Regional Science-Based 6. Increase Public Understanding and Participation Risk Analysis. This “Western Regional Action Plan,” While there is much that can be done in the policy are- or WRAP, was developed by representatives of federal, na to address wildland fi res, much will depend on public

Catastrophic Fire Reduction 15 involvement and consent. Without this public participa- Department of Natural Resources: tion and approval, it will be impossible to create mean- • Watershed Restoration Initiative for land and habitat ingful, lasting changes. restoration projects. Because much of the general public has a negative • Forestry, Fire and State Lands programs for coor- perception of wildfi res, it has become diffi cult for land dination, education, prevention, preparedness and managers to use fi re as a tool in restoring landscape suppression activities: health and protecting communities in the wildland ur- • Cooperative Wildland Program for ban interface. Especially in heavily populated areas, counties education will be a critical tool to reduce fi re starts and • County fi re wardens, and statewide WUI program allow land managers to conduct vital treatments. It will coordinators and fuels crews become increasingly necessary for the public to under- • Lone Peak Conservation Center and crews stand the choice they face. We must be willing either to • Federal Excess Property Program change perceptions and behaviors, or live with the con- • Wildland fi re “Engine Academies” and other Volun- sequences. teer training 7. The central steering committee should report • National Fire Plan and WUI & fuels program imple- annually to the governor and the legislature the mentation actions planned and taken. • Community Wildfi re Protection Plan and FireWise- For each recommendation above the steering commit- planning tee should create measures to aid in gaug- • Regional Fuels Committee participation & leader- ing the progress towards and success of these recom- ship mendations. These measures should tie back to the goals Our federal partners in the United States Depart- and guiding principles above to help determine whether ment of Agriculture and Interior Department likewise the recommendations move the state closer to the de- have several complementary programs to support the sired outcome. needed projects and actions. The necessary partnerships Implementation and relationships between state and federal natural re- The implementation of this proposal will depend on sources management agencies are well-established in the commitment of the state committee and the organi- Utah through the Utah Conservation Commission and zations they represent, the support of the legislature and the nationally recognized and award-winning Utah Part- governor, and, fi nally, public participation and social li- ners for Conservation & Development. cense. Programs to implement the suite of activities to Despite all of this existing coordination, a criti- improve the landscapes are in place within Utah: cally important element that is lacking is suffi cient Department of Agriculture and Food: funding to implement at a scale, large enough, to in- • Grazing Improvement Program (GIP) for the use of deed make a substantial and meaningful difference. livestock to reduction of fi ne fuel loads. Beyond these fi nancial resources, other impediments • Invasive Species Mitigation Fund for the control of identifi ed by the central committee or determined by invasive species and to reduce catastrophic fi res. regional projects should be addressed with the proper • Conservation Commission and Conservation agency or entity through the available means of negotia- Districts for local leadership and knowledge. tion, legislation or, when necessary, litigation.

The photos below show the spread of homogenous fuels over time, leading to unhealthy conditions in this forest. The traditional policy of increased fi re suppression, and lack of the use of fi re as a tool to improve forest health has led to catastrophic fi res in the West. Prescribed fi res and livestock grazing are two methods to reduce fi re.

Increasing Successful and More Fire Homogenous Suppression Fuels

Increased Investment in Reduced Fire Suppression Suppression Success

Increased Wildfire Damage

16 Catastrophic Fire Reduction Prioritization With fi nite resources and nearly infi nite needs, the pri- The commi ee acknowledges that any meaning- oritization of actions to reduce catastrophic fi re in Utah ful progress will require decades of eff ort and a is essential. To be effective, this prioritization process dedicated fi nancial investment. It took decades for will rely on a transparent process that is applied both to Utah’s forests and rangelands to degrade to their selecting the areas to be treated as well as sequencing current condi on, and it will take decades to re- the suite of activities within an area. habilitate them. These projects represent the fi rst Prioritization of Areas - Because of the large and diverse steps in this process. geographic extent of the wildfi re issue in Utah, areas must be prioritized to ensure the work is focused where Region Projects Protects Cost it will be of the most benefi t. Drawing upon the informa- 1 - NW 2 forest/homes $ 5,600,000 tion developed by the regional working groups, the fol- 2 - Wasatch 1 homes $ 670,000 lowing factors will inform initial prioritization of Utah 3 - Uintah 1 homes $ 940,000 communities for mitigation of catastrophic fi re risk: 4 - Central 3 homes $ 775,000 • Type and amount of high value resources and as- 5 - SE 2 homes/watershed $ 1,194,000 sets at risk; 6 - SW 5 homes/watershed $120,200,000 • Likelihood of wildfi re threat (i.e., burn probability Total 14 $129,379,000 and intensity); • Probability of successfully mitigating the threat; • Cost of mitigation measures. area including property, life, view sheds, and recreation opportunities. Many of the developments only have one Prioritization of Actions within Areas - In addition to de- egress route to properties which could quickly become termining the geographic priorities, each area will likely problematic in the case of a large fi re. Work needs to require a suite of actions for effective mitigation. An im- be completed to provide alternative routes to escape portant step in the process may involve prioritizing these fi re. In addition many areas need fuel reduction work mitigation activities as well. The intent of prioritization completed to lessen the risk of crown fi res in neighbor- within the suite of actions recognizes that resources to hoods. Water availability in these neighborhoods is also complete the possible actions aren’t likely to be avail- an issue that needs to be addressed. In addition, many able all at once; some activities make a greater contribu- of the roads and private driveways need to be widened tion to risk mitigation than others and, in some cases, and improved to allow access for fi re trucks. An increase there is a logical or practical sequencing of actions. This in available fi refi ghting equipment is also needed in the prioritization process will require a collaborative dia- area. The group also discussed the idea of creating maps logue within communities that increases awareness and of water sources and private resources that are available understanding of what is required to lower the risk of to fi re fi ghters. It was also suggested to put this infor- catastrophic fi re to their community.

Regionally Significant Projects The Wildfi re Paradox: We can’t Through the regional working group meetings, each region seem to live with it, but certainly identifi ed communities to pilot the risk assessment and priori- tization process. The initial pilot projects for each region are: can’t thrive without it. Listed below are summaries of the regional projects submitted by the individual regions. . The complete project proposals are available at: (http://1.usa.gov/17JKkIb)

Northern Region - 1 Bear Lake Area Project The fi rst of two areas of focus are the communities around Bear Lake and the Bear Lake watershed. This area was chosen because there are a large number of homes and infrastructure constructed in the wildland ur- ban interface. There are a number of values at risk in the Catastrophic Fire Reduction 17 mation online so that it can be updated in real time and year would be $200,000. Then they would need inspec- accessible to fi refi ghters when needed. tions, education & compliance at a cost of $55,000 for Much of the efforts that need to be focused on for this the fi rst year. Then follow up for the next 20 years to area includes education for property owners. Teaching maintain and teaching new home owners etc. would be homeowners what they can do to reduce the risk to their $220,000. Total cost: $670,000. own property is an important tool. $3.2 Million in costs. Grouse Creek Project Uintah Basin - 3 Concerns that led us to choose this area include risks The project that the Northeast area chose to submit to Sage Grouse habitat, the potential for extremely large includes the community of Dutch John, Flaming Gorge fi res (several fi res of over 100,000 acres have occurred acres, and Flaming Gorge . This project is com- near here), the risk to the ranching interests in the area prised of 145 homes, 11 businesses, Flaming Gorge and the remoteness of the area. Dam, Highway 191, various utility lines, and the Flam- Mitigation strategies that were discussed include an ing Gorge recreation area. The initial components of the acceleration of the fuels projects that have been going project would include two CWPP’s, acquisition of two 5 on in the area, especially removing pinyon-juniper that ton fi re trucks, and Fuels reduction work on the National has encroached on historical sage-brush communities. Recreation area adjacent to the communities. Total acres Additional green strip fi rebreaks were also identifi ed as treated on the completion of the project will be more a strategy to help limit the size of fi res in the area. This than 650 acres. The total cost of the project, including concept of keeping fi res smaller in size would also help 20 years of maintenance on fuel treatments is $940,000. in having the ability to restore burned areas after a fi re Central Region - 4 because the means to do so would be available on a year Three pilot projects are proposed along the Sanpete to year basis. There is a need to have fi refi ghting re- Front with extensive wildland/urban interface challeng- sources staged closer to the area. Total cost: $2.4 Million. es. Fire poses risks for approximately 2,133 home own- Wasatch Region - 2 ers. There are 11 Community Wildfi re Protections Plans Midway Fuel Break Project written and needing implementation. It was decided Develop a fuel break thru 7.5 miles of gamble oak upon by our committee that education was the highest trees above the communities of Swiss Mountain Estates, priority along with protecting human life and health in Oak Haven, and Interlaken developments. This Fuel this project area. The fuels reduction and fi re breaks Break would be 80’ foot wide clear zone. The total cost are mostly up- from communities at-risk and were to put in a clear zone of 7.5 miles would be $195,000. chosen by fi re management offi cers to help them protect Maintenance would need to be performed yearly in the these communities from catastrophic fi re. They also are communities at a total cost of $20,000. The total cost of located on non-federal land. Total cost: $775,000. maintaining the fuel breaks in these communities for 20

18 Catastrophic Fire Reduction Southeast Region - 5 Acres to be treated – 41,000 Carbon County Pilot Project Cost of Actions to mitigate threat - $29.7 million Utah has identifi ed two parcels of land in Lower Kane County - Community – Duck Creek Area Fish Creek which lie in the northwestern corner of the Acres to be treated – 28,673 (Private Lands Only) - county to serve as one of two pilot projects. It is feared National Forest Lands to be included later. that should this area burn, signifi cant damage to water- Cost of Actions to mitigate threat – $1.5 million (Private shed, transportation corridors, and communication in- Lands Only). frastructure could directly result. Further, inexorably Total region 6 projects cost: $120,200,000. linked after-effects of fl ooding could prove to be even Grand total of all projects costs: $129,379,000 more damaging. Lower Fish Creek is a Blue Ribbon The detailed information about all six regional proj- Fishery that connects Scofi eld Reservoir, which is the ects are available at: http://1.usa.gov/17JKkIb sole source of drinking and irrigation water for nearly three-fourths of the county, with the municipalities of Next Steps Helper, Price, and Wellington and their surrounding un- Due to the iterative nature of a planning process, incorporated communities of Spring Glen, Kenilworth, and in keeping with the guiding principle to “Focus on Carbonville, Miller Creek, Creek, etc. Maps of the Action-Oriented Solutions,” the implementation of this location of the areas discussed in this document along plan will necessarily fall into phases. Even before the with links to supporting documentation may be found by Strategy is formally adopted, land managers and stake- directing your browser to: http://maps.carbon.utah.gov/ holders have begun the process of identifying and imple- fl exviewer/catastrophicfi re/ Project costs: $841,000. menting those recommendations that can immediately Grand County Pilot Project go into effect. Other recommendations will require ad- This second project addresses the threat of catastroph- ditional planning, coordination, and preparation prior to ic wildfi re above the communities of Moab and Castle implementing. In addition to the recommendations ad- Valley in the La Sal Mountains. The project includes opted in this document, solutions will need to be found several components: fuels treatments around existing to address the gaps and issues that have not yet been mountain communities; treatments to protect two vital resolved. Finally, as lessons are learned while actions communications sites; additional clearing along a vital are undertaken, an adaptive approach to implementation power line; the completion of a CWPP for the west slope will contribute to both the effectiveness and effi ciency of the La Sal Mountains; installation of water tanks in of meeting the plan’s goals. the Willow Basin community; improved address and The depth of activity of these projects is to be deter- road signage; public outreach and education. Project mined according to the available funding appropriated costs: $353,000 to the newly created Catastrophic Fire Reduction Fund, Total region 5 project cost: $1,194,000. which can be leveraged with funds from other federal, state and local programs as well as the private sector. Southwest Region - 6 This region selected one community in each county Conclusion as an example to show values at risk and actions to miti- As the statewide steering committee and regional gate the risks and make the community a “fi re adapted working groups continue to meet, new issues will arise, community.” landscapes will continue to evolve and change, and local Washington County changes in public awareness or policies will necessitate The area selected is the Highway 18 corridor includ- continued cooperation and innovation. ing the communities of Diamond Valley, Dammeron Reducing catastrophic wildfi res in Utah can clearly Valley, Veyo, Brookside and Central. protect life, property, communities, economics, and our Acres to be treated – 34,843 environment. Watershed protection is essential for en- Cost of Actions to mitigate threat - $54.3 million suring a secure water supply, safeguarding wildlife and Iron County - Community - Brian Head agriculture production, and preserving recreational areas Acres to be treated – 8,875 and our quality of life. State leadership can make a dif- Cost of Actions to mitigate threat - $14.7 million ference. We have the opportunity to act rather than be County - Community – North Creek acted upon. Acres to be treated – 55,000 Cost of Actions to mitigate threat - $20 million Garfi eld County - Community – Mammoth Creek Catastrophic Fire Reduction 19 Distributed by the Utah Department of Agriculture and Food [email protected] - [email protected] (801) 538-7100

20 Catastrophic Fire Reduction