From Philosophy to Action
How We Arrived at Fuel Reduction Strategies

We started with philosophy.
Most of us in the Applegate agree that our valley is in desperate need of fuel reduction work, but because the Applegate watershed encompasses almost half a million acres, how do we go about this? Do we treat every area in the valley in the same manner? The problem of overstocked forests is obvious, but what are our objectives? What are we attempting to do by reducing fuels? Certainly we want to reduce fire hazards so that we eventually reduce the risk of catastrophic fire, but aren't we also attempting to restore the ecological integrity and health of our forests and woodlands after so many decades of fire suppression?

As we grappled with these questions in looking at how to develop a fuel reduction plan for the Applegate, other questions became pertinent: What is at risk in the event of a wildfire? How do we identify what things we most want to protect from destruction during a wildfire?

That last question has an answer, at least from the agencies in Oregon that fight wildfires. For them, protection priorities are pre-mandated, in effect prioritizing the values-at-risk that they would protect. In the following comparative chart, "life" refers to human beings (residents and fire fighters); "property" refers to those things that humans construct or own, and "resources" refers to the natural environment (trees, air, water, soils, wildlife, scenic vistas, etc.).

First priority
ODF - life
BLM - life
Forest Service - life Second priority
ODF - resources
BLM - property
Forest Service - property and resources Third priority
ODF - property
BLM - resources

Interestingly enough, a dozen or so comment forms from Applegate residents embarking on fuel reduction work indicated their main goals in thinning their forests were to care for the forests first and protect homes second. Are these, then, their top values to protect?

From philosophy we went to data. To help us translate these priorities, these Òthings we value most,Ó into strategies of where to go first and what to do in developing a fuels reduction plan, we formed a committee of representatives from the fire districts, ODF, BLM, Forest Service, and the community. This committee looked at maps of the watershed that contained layers of information about historical fire starts, communities at risk (those areas where there is a high density of homes per square mile), and fire hazard ratings (an analysis of fireÕs ability to spread based upon vegetation, canopy cover, slope, aspect and elevation). We found that over 29% of the watershed is rated at high hazard, 54% at moderate, and only 16% at low fire hazard. We found areas with a long history of lightning strikes and areas with an equally high incident of human-caused fires. We identified areas of high hazard directly surrounding some communities or neighborhoods and other areas in uninhabited parts of the watershed that typically received a lot of lightning strikes each year and that were adjacent to highly populated areas or areas with a high degree of endangered species habitat.

We added layers to our map to provide more information: a layer of roads (which both help and hinder fire) and a layer of topography or contour lines so we could look at steepness and elevation. During this process we were looking at maps that did not show land ownership. This is a unique planning concept, but we felt we needed to look at the whole picture. As we really got into identifying critical areas at risk, one agency member of our team suddenly said, "Hazard reduction without borders! Wow!!" It was a novel and exciting concept to him, someone whoÕs been in the business for 22 years.

It was a lot of information. Where to start in developing fuel reduction strategies for the whole watershed was a tough question.

Our maps and layers suggested we begin at the wildland-urban interface, where the physical aspects of the lands, the numerous human-caused fire starts, and the vegetation buildups presented the highest threats. In general, areas around homes seemed to be the single most essential point to address throughout the watershed. After that came lands near residences and roads, especially those where aspect, vegetation, slope, and elevation combined to increase the hazard ratings. Even as we decided to concentrate efforts in these high-risk areas, we emphasized the importance of not losing track of the overall picture of watershed-wide healthy forests - that is, forests with biodiversity, beauty, and resources that can provide us with cool, clear water; fish; a sustainable timber supply; and peace of mind.

Our analysis areas became the nineteen Strategic Planning Areas, or SPAs, that we have used throughout this Fire Plan. We found that specific strategies for fuel reduction varied as we looked at each SPA, and that matters were further complicated because SPA boundaries were most likely ridge tops, so in many cases strategies in one SPA became linked to strategies for neighboring SPAs.

We then added to our map a layer of places where fuel reduction treatments have already been completed, to show some of the defenses that have already been built. With this information, it was possible to get strategic, tactical, and calculated in our ideas. An existing shaded fuel break here, a cluster of brush fields thinned by homeowners over there, a river and a couple of wide driveways - we could see where all of these were working together to more effectively protect a small community from a nearby wildfire. We could see how fuel thinning along roads in highly hazardous areas might reduce the number of human-caused fires that start small but wind up raging out of control. We could see how individual fuel breaks could be connected to protect a small watershed from a neighboring high-hazard area. By adding another map layer that showed us the location of threatened wildlife, we were also able to consider the protection of endangered species habitat in our fuel reduction strategies.

We stayed borderless as we looked for strategies within each SPA. We looked for areas of high risk and high hazard; we looked at what had already been treated there and considered what we might suggest to reduce risk. Some SPAs had high risks (i.e. lots of homes) and very high hazards or fuels buildup. Another had a high population but relatively flat land that was mainly adjacent to rivers and kept green with irrigation. Still another had virtually no homes, but its forests were rated very high hazard with lots of lightning fire starts.

Finally we were ready to move from information to strategy. To do this, we had two requirements: first, to incorporate the goals, objectives, values, and concerns of those community members who had given us feedback regarding fuel reduction strategies, and, second, to see if it was possible to prioritize or rate the suggestions. In discussing the first requirement, we answered the second. Community members had told us that they were concerned about fuels buildup because of fire safety and forest health issues. They continually mentioned areas directly around their homes, including federally-managed lands adjacent to their own property, that they considered safety liabilities. We decided our only two priorities would be private and federally-managed land around the communities-at-risk. Strategies would develop from these.

On the following pages is a list of the SPAs and recommendations for action in each. We've tried to explain some of the reasoning behind the ideas. As you can see, to talk about a certain road or hillside is as site-specific as our Applegate Fire Plan will get. We are a strategic plan only.

With this list, we - you, all of us - can move from strategy to action. Lots of things can be done with the list, or maybe nothing, depending upon the degree of continued community involvement. Some items may be organized into a grant request from resources like the National Fire Plan or maybe our counties' Title III funding. One example is to reduce fuels along some of our more over-grown roadways. Some of these recommended projects can be defined and developed by neighborhoods with help from their local fire department. (We will continue to request funding for work around residences in the valley.) Some of the items on this list will be completed by the federal land management agencies as they implement approved forest health projects. Recommendations for reaching out to and interfacing with neighboring private landowners will play a big role in the development of actual on-the-ground work for the agencies. Future federal projects will most likely be determined, to some degree, by the level of public interest in working alongside the agencies toward borderless fuel reductions. I.e., if the agencies knows that you, as their neighbor, are interested in combining fuel reduction efforts, they will be more than willing to work together.

Finally, keep in mind that everything in this plan is voluntary. It is your plan, and we welcome your participation.