Cooperation, partnerships critical to fire risk mitigation

It’s easy to think of vegetation management as having a single purpose: control of undesirable vegetation. In one sense, that perception is correct. But managing vegetation on roadsides and in rights of way plays a critical role in mitigating the risk and severity of wildfires, and doing so can involve multiple entities, agencies, and personnel, which can further complicate an already-complex issue.

“With both the frequency and the severity of fires increasing in recent years, we have more people interested in managing the fuel loads across geographies, whether that’s in rights of way, rangeland or forests,” says Jerome Otto, market development specialist, Corteva Agriscience. “So we see an increased amount of attention being focused on this, and the importance of managing those fuel loads is becoming clear to more people throughout the various entities and organizations.”

As the threat of wildfire creeps east across the United States, cooperation between those various organizations becomes more critical. Conversations with adjacent landowners, sharing of land management goals and practices, and firm commitments to doing the hard work of managing the fuel loads can and must be components of any modern fire mitigation strategy.

“To address an issue as large and complex as this,” Otto says, “we need a cooperative approach across states, agencies and organizations. This includes large organizations like the U.S. Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management, as well as state and local organizations, utilities, and private landowners as well.”

Consensus and cooperation critical to fire risk mitigation

Tom March is a district landscape specialist with the California Department of Transportation (CalTrans). As a resident of one of the most fire-prone regions in the country, vegetation management — and vegetation, period — mean something different to March.

“When I look at trees,” March says, “I’m wondering about the probability of tree failure, how it might fall, if it might contact the roadway, and what happens if motorists are present. But it’s not just the trees; I have to think that way with vegetation. How will it burn? How will residents get out in the event of a fire? If a car breaks down, is there a place where it can be pushed out of the way, so it doesn’t create a traffic jam?”

But in a state with complex regulations, and with an overwhelming array of public, private and institutional land ownership, no vegetation management activity happens in a vacuum. Reaching consensus on any given plan or action requires an acknowledgement of shared goals, as well as awareness of the needs and goals of other key stakeholders.

“We work with multiple agencies, including CAL FIRE, the U.S. Forest Service, local Resource Conservation Districts, electric utilities, and the local fire safe councils,” March says. “And while we’re different agencies, we’re all working toward the best and safest solutions for vegetation management, while protecting the public, property, and the environment. We know we can’t just go hack and slash. We need to consider the downstream impacts of what we do. We have to consider electric utility rights of way, for example; those crews need to be able to do their jobs, so we coordinate our work closely with the utilities.”

For vegetation managers who may be in the beginning stages of developing or implementing a fire risk mitigation plan, that level of engagement with “outside” entities may seem like overkill. But in areas where hundreds of square miles may be covered by forest canopy and under the control of multiple individuals and entities, cooperation among landowners becomes critical.

“One of the changes that the eastward movement of the fire threat may require,” Otto says, “is that a vegetation manager may need to reach out to adjoining and adjacent landowners to make sure that whatever the goals they have and the actions they’re taking are being replicated in nearby areas.

“For example, if a utility is running through a national forest and the utility is concerned about maintaining a fuel break, it may want to inquire about the possibility of establishing a shaded fuel break in its border in the adjacent forests. This type of cooperation will help ensure the goals are landscape-based and not simply local.”

Visibility matters

March says simply being visible within the community has helped him both develop the relationships that are critical to the success of large multidisciplinary efforts and maintain awareness of vegetation management activities happening near his own areas of responsibility.

“I attend the meetings with the fire safe councils, the resource conservation districts, the individual communities,” March says. “And, oftentimes, I’ll find out, OK, maybe there’s a local effort on one route, on one side of the fence, and folks will ask, ‘Can CalTrans manage the vegetation on the State Responsible Area side of the fence?’’”

And while organizing a coordinated effort among various landowning entities may seem overwhelming, the first step is easy: acknowledging shared goals, risks, and responsibilities.

“Experience has shown that a key to making an impact is cooperation across entities, across geographic boundaries, and incorporating a common goal into multiple different localities and organizations,” Otto says. “We are a community, and what I do or don’t do on my property can either benefit or harm and put my adjacent property owners at risk.”

It’s that experience and the sense of shared responsibility that motivates March, even when coordination and cooperation become burdensome.

“I can only imagine what it’s like for these wildfire victims who go back to their neighborhoods and find that everything’s gone, their house is gone or a loved one is gone. And I don’t think most people understand that we consider the impact of that potential loss when we’re making vegetation management plans. That’s why we’re doing it, so somebody has one minute, two minutes, five minutes more to evacuate. That can be everything.”
— Tom March