Linn County Community Wildfire Protection Plan Prepared for Linn County by ECONorthwest 99 W. Tenth, Suite 400 Eugene, OR 97401 541.687.0051 November 2007 Prepared for Washington County by ECONorthwest 9 W. Tenth, Suite 40 Eugene, OR 97401 (541) 687-051 August 2007 Written by: Andre Leduc, Lorelei Juntunen, Krista Mitchell, Katy Siepert Date submitted: November 2007 ECO Project Number 7060 ECONorthwest 9 W. Tenth, Suite 40 Eugene, OR 97401 (541) 687-051 Photos courtesy of Mike Price and htp:/ww.wildlandfire.com Lin County Comunity Wildfire Protection Plan October 207 ECONorthwest Page i Table of Contents EXECUTIVE SUMARY II SECTION 1 INTRODUCTION 1 PLAN PURPOSE 1 PLANING PROCES AND METHODS 4 PLAN ORGANIZATION 7 SECTION 2 LIN COUNTY COMUNITY PROFILE 9 COMUNITY AND WILDLAND URBAN INTERFACE AREA DESCRIPTION 9 WILDFIRE HISTORY 10 SECTION 3 RISK ASESMENT 17 PURPOSE AND METHODS 17 ASESMENT FINDINGS 19 LIN COUNTY COMUNITIES AT RISK FOR WILDFIRE 43 SECTION 4 COMUNITY OUTREACH AND COLABORATION 45 STAKEHOLDER INTERVIEWS 45 FIREWISE COMUNITIES ORKSHOP 54 SECTION 5 ACTION PLAN 59 ACTION PLAN FRAMEWORK 59 ACTION PLAN METHODS 60 PLAN MISION 60 PLAN GOALS 60 PLAN ACTION ITEMS 60 SECTION 6 PLAN IMPLEMENTATION AND MAINTENANCE 67 PLAN IMPLEMENTATION 67 PLAN MAINTENANCE 7 FIVE-YEAR REVIEW OF PLAN 78 APENDIX A ACTION PLAN WORKSHET A-1 APENDIX B METING AND INTERVIEW NOTES B-1 APENDIX C RISK ASESMENT METHODS C-1 APENDIX D FUEL TREATMENT YPES D-1 APENDIX E WILDFIRE RESOURCES E-1 APENDIX F GLOSARY F-1 Lin County Comunity Wildfire Protection Plan October 207 ECONorthwest Page ii Executive Sumary This plan describes Linn County’s risk from wildfires as wel as the specific steps that it wil take to reduce that risk now and in the future. It is a Community Wildfire Protection Plan (CWP), a collaborative efort to reduce the potential for future loss of life and property resulting from wildfire. WHY DEVELOP A MITIGATION PLAN? Wildfire hazard mitigation is a system for permanently reducing or aleviating the losses of life, property, and injuries resulting from wildfire through long and short-term strategies. The plan and the strategies in it recognize that it is impossible to predict exactly when a wildfire wil occur, or the extent to which it wil afect Linn County’s communities. However, with careful planning and collaboration among public agencies, private sector organizations, and citizens throughout the County, it is possible to minimize the losses that can result from Wildland Urban Interface (WUI) fire events. This CWP is intended to asist Linn County in reducing its risk from WUI wildfire hazards by identifying resources, information, and strategies for risk reduction. It wil also help to guide and coordinate mitigation activities throughout the County. HOW IS THE PLAN ORGANIZED? The Linn County Community Wildfire Protection Plan follows the guidelines established by HFRA (Healthy Forest Restoration Act, 2003) and has the following components: • Section 1: Introduction. Describes the purpose and proces of Linn County’s CWP • Section 2: Community Profile. Determines the boundaries of the Plan’s implementation and describes the communities that fal within that boundary in terms of their relative risk and preparednes for a wildfire event. Discusses the conditions for community participation and outreach. • Section 3: Risk Asesment. Ranks communities at risk for wildfire in Linn County and provides a series of maps that pinpoint areas of Extreme, High, Moderate, and Low risk in Linn County’s Wildland Urban Interface. • Section 4: Community Outreach. Details the proces by which community participation and input was gathered through FireWise workshops and agency surveys. Establishes the basis for future collaborative eforts. Page iv ECONorthwest October 207 Lin County Comunity Wildfire Protection Plan • Section 5: Action Plan. Sets forth the five Goals of Linn County’s CWP, and establishes Action Items that wil further the County toward it’s wildfire mitigation Goals. Each action is asigned to a participating agency. The Action Items are set forth in detail in an atachment to the Plan. • Section 6: Implementation and Maintenance. Discusses the future of Linn County’s CWP and offers suggestions for keping the Plan a “living”, relevant, and up-to-date document that can be utilized throughout the County for years to come. WHO PARTICIPATED IN DEVELOPING THE PLAN? Linn County’s Community Wildfire Protection Plan is the result of the collaborative eforts of the following agencies: • Oregon Department of Forestry • Bureau of Land Management, Salem Ofice • Linn County Planning and Building Department • Linn County Fire Defense Board • Wilamete National Forest and Bureau of Land Management, Eugene Ofice • Linn County Emergency Services In addition, the CWP draws upon the input and fedback provided by members of the public and other stakeholders who participated in a FireWise workshop. WHAT IS THE PLAN’S MISION? The mision of the Linn County CWP aligns with the mision for the Linn County Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan. The mision is: To reduce the impact of natural hazards on the comunity through planning, communication, coordination and partnership development. WHAT ARE THE PLAN GOALS? The participants in this collaborative proces identified five County-wide goals that could be efectively addresed by a CWP. These goals are the product of input from community members through the FireWise workshop, and are also coordinated with the County’s Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan. • Goal #1: Enhance wildfire response capabilities • Goal #2: Increase stakeholder knowledge about wildfire risk through education and outreach Lin County Comunity Wildfire Protection Plan October 207 ECONorthwest Page v • Goal #3: Encourage the treatment of structural ignitability • Goal #4: Prioritize fuel reduction projects • Goal #5: Increase opportunities for collaboration and coordination to implement wildfire projects. HOW ARE THE ACTION ITEMS ORGANIZED? Each goal has been asigned action items that were agred upon through the collaborative proces. Action items have been grouped acording to the goal which they are meant to support. Each item has been asigned to a participating agency for continuing oversight and “ownership”. In addition, the commite has suggested potential partners in carying out the action. Partnerships can be formed with a variety of agencies, entities, and organizations, and have been split into two basic groups: Internal and External Partners. • Internal Partners are organizations that have been involved with the construction of the County’s CWP. The Bureau of Land Management might serve as an internal partner to the Oregon Department of Forestry in the implementation of action item 4.3, for example. • External Partners are organizations, agencies, and companies that can provide support in implementing the action items through various activities. An example might be the help of insurance or real estate agencies in diseminating information about maintaining defensible space around a person’s property. Below is the Linn County Community Wildfire Protection Plan Action Item Matrix. This matrix alows for a quick overview of each goal and it’s corresponding action items. These items can be updated as needed by participating agencies. Page vi ECONorthwest October 207 Lin County Comunity Wildfire Protection Plan Lin County Comunity Wildfire Protection Plan October 207 ECONorthwest Page vi Page vii ECONorthwest October 207 Lin County Comunity Wildfire Protection Plan Lin County Comunity Wildfire Protection Plan October 207 ECONorthwest Page ix Lin County Comunity Wildfire Protection Plan October 207 ECONorthwest Page xi PLAN ADOPTION & IMPLEMENTATION The Healthy Forest Restoration Act requires that the Linn County Board of Commisioners, the Linn County Fire Defense Board, and the Oregon Department of Forestry al agre to the final contents of the County’s CWP. The Plan wil be adopted by resolution by the Board of Commisioners, and acknowledged by the Fire Defense Board and the Oregon Department of Forestry in order to met HFRA and FEMA requirements. Because of the non-regulatory nature of the CWP, the relevance and efectivenes of the Plan wil rely upon the implementation eforts of each of the agencies and organizations involved. The Plan’s Advisory Commite (the Commite) wil overse implementation eforts, identify and coordinate funding, and serve as a centralized resource for wildfire risk reduction eforts for al of Linn County. As such, the Advisory Commite wil prioritize and recommend funding for projects, document the succeses and lesons learned from those projects, and evaluate and update the CWP as needed. Many of the action items set out in the CWP addres the isue of continuing support for wildfire risk mitigation projects. By actively pursuing funding for projects, staying informed and in contact with one another, and updating the CWP regularly so that it remains a “living” document, the partner organizations have commited to continuing their involvement. Because the CWP wil be integrated into the wildfire annex of the Linn County Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan, the CWP wil be completely updated on a five-year basis, along with the rest of the County’s Natural Hazards Plan. Additional semi-annual metings wil serve as an opportunity for the commite to determine which action items to prioritize for implementation, to suggest additional action items that may have been mised, and to prioritize potential mitigation projects through a four-step prioritization proces. The annual metings wil provide an opportunity to focus the commite’s eforts on Risk Asesment data and new findings, determining ways to encourage continued public involvement, and document actions acomplished during the year. Lin County Comunity Wildfire Protection Plan October 207 ECONorthwest Page 1 Section 1 Introduction The Linn County Community Wildfire Protection Plan (CWP) identifies strategies and priorities for the protection of life, property, and infrastructure in Linn County and its Wildland Urban Interface (WUI). The CWP is a shared plan administered jointly by the Linn County Board of Commisioners, the Oregon Department of Forestry, the Linn County Fire Defense Board, and the US Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management; the contents of this plan were mutualy agred upon by al five entities. This section of the CWP introduces the important elements of the plan. It has the following parts: • Plan purpose describes why Linn County needs a CWP and how the document wil help to reduce wildfire risk in the County now and into the future. • Planning proces and methods describes how the plan was created. • Plan organization describes each of the sections in the remainder of the plan. PLAN PURPOSE As human development continues to spread into agricultural and forestlands, the risk of Wildland Urban Interface fire escalates. Linn County’s diverse geography, population, and land ownership paterns create chalenges to reducing the County’s risk of wildfire. At the same time, these are important County asets that should be protected from wildfire. The CWP is an action plan for reducing risk that depends upon people and collaborative partnerships to cary it forward. It updates and builds upon the wildfire section of Linn County’s Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan to provide a more detailed description of wildfire risk and to outline agred-upon risk reduction activities. The purpose of the CWP is to provide the following: • A foundation for communication, coordination and collaboration among agencies and the public in Linn County to reduce risk of wildfire • An asesment and map of the Wildland Urban Interface (WUI) in Linn County • Identification and prioritization of areas for hazardous fuel reduction projects • A set of recommended actions homeowners and local communities can take to reduce the ignitability of their buildings and structures • A framework to support the development of local community fire plans within the County The plan also provides asistance in meting federal and state planning requirements and qualifying for asistance programs. Page 2 ECONorthwest October 207 Lin County Comunity Wildfire Protection Plan WHY DEVELOP A COMUNITY WILDFIRE PROTECTION PLAN? The development of structures in and near forestlands exposes greater numbers of people and property to wildfire hazard. In 2002, one of the worst fire seasons in recent history, wildfires burned nearly seven milion acres and 2,000 buildings across the United States. In 2003, wildfires destroyed 4,090 homes, primarily in California. 1 Acording to the Oregon State Natural Hazards Mitigation Plan, “over 41 milion acres of forest and rangeland in Oregon are susceptible to wildfire.” 2 The Wildland Urban Interface—the area where human development mixes with forestland—is growing in many Oregon communities. Acording to the State Natural Hazards Risk Asesment, Linn County has a high probability of and moderate vulnerability to WUI fire. .3 The risk asesment in this document supports that asesment. The destruction caused by fire in recent seasons ilustrates that fire response and emergency management eforts alone are not enough to prevent losses. Reducing a community’s risk to wildfire is a shared responsibility that requires the participation of federal, state, and local government agencies, the private sector, and citizens. Ultimately, however, risk reduction strategies are most efective when organized at the local level. Through community-based fire planning, it is possible to addres the specific values and needs of a local community and to build citizen awarenes of the dangers of living in a fire prone area. The dramatic losses during the 2002 and 2003 fire seasons increased public awarenes of wildfire risk and contributed to the Federal government’s adoption of the National Fire Plan and the Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003 (HFRA). This legislation encourages improved intergovernmental collaboration and increased partnerships betwen public and private entities to implement vegetative fuel reduction projects and activities aimed at reducing structural ignitibility in at-risk communities. HFRA also encourages local communities to create their own strategies for wildfire mitigation through development of a Community Wildfire Protection Plan. Linn County recognizes that reducing the potential impacts of Wildland Urban Interface fire requires a proactive approach that reaches across jurisdictional boundaries, public and private lands, and the diverse geographic regions of the County. The development of a Community Wildfire Protection Plan creates an opportunity to encourage communication betwen agencies and stakeholders, identify and prioritize community values, ases wildfire risk areas, and increase education and awarenes of communities and homeowners. 1 National Interagency Fire Center. 205. . 2 Comunity Service Center. 203. Wildfire Chapter: State of Oregon Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan. State Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan. < htp:/ww.deq.state.or.us/aq/docs/neap/apendixD.pdf> 3 Comunity Service Center. 203. Region 3: Mid/Southern Wilamete Valey Hazards Asesment. State Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan. . Lin County Comunity Wildfire Protection Plan October 207 ECONorthwest Page 3 In February of 2007, Linn County began to work collaboratively with fire protection districts and federal and state agencies to develop a Community Wildfire Protection Plan. The planning proces was designed to result in a plan that mets the funding eligibility requirements of the National Fire Plan, the HFRA of 2003, and the Pre-Disaster Mitigation Program of the Federal Emergency Management Agency. The Linn County CWP focuses on achieving and exceding the thre minimum requirements for Community Wildfire Protection Plans described by the HFRA: 1. Collaboration: A CWP must be collaboratively developed by local and state government representatives, in consultation with federal agencies and other interested parties. 2. Prioritized fuel reduction: A CWP must identify and prioritize areas for hazardous fuel reduction treatments and recommend the types and methods of treatment that wil protect one or more at-risk communities and esential infrastructure. 3. Treatment of structural ignitability: A CWP must recommend measures that homeowners and communities can take to reduce the ignitability of structures throughout the area addresed by the plan. WHAT AREA WIL THE CWPP AFECT? The Linn County Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan defines wildfire as an uncontrolled burning of wildlands (forest, brush, or grasland). Although fire is a natural part of forest and grasland ecosystems in Linn County, wildfire can pose a significant risk to life and property in Wildland Urban Interface (WUI) areas. The WUI is the “borderlands” at the edges of urban development, where homes and other structures are built into a forested or natural landscape. If left unchecked, fires in these areas can threaten lives and property. Over 900,000 acres, or nearly 65% of Linn County, is forested. 4 These forested lands play a critical role in the economic, environmental, and social vitality of the County. Wildfire poses a serious threat to economic activity, recreation, life, and property in forested areas. Thirty-five percent of Linn County’s population resides outside of cities. Wildfire poses a threat to rural communities, rural residential areas, and other rural home sites located throughout the County. Linn County’s climate is characterized by warm dry summers. During the summer fire season, the danger of fire in the County’s forests and graslands increases as vegetation dries and increases the potential for fire ignition and spread. The forest lands in eastern Lin County are subject to smal to moderate 4 Lin County Comprehensive Plan, LC 905.20(C), p. 905-6 Page 4 ECONorthwest October 207 Lin County Comunity Wildfire Protection Plan fires annualy, but the increase in ladder fuels—in other words, places where grases and shrubs act the first rung of the ‘ladder,’ smaler tres and outbuildings create the next rung, and the tre canopy creates the top rung-coupled with the increase in potential ignition sources from WUI development results in the potential for larger, more devastating wildfires. The Linn County CWP identifies risk reduction activities and takes into consideration the County’s diverse geography, population, and land management authorities. The plan identifies general areas with high wildfire risk and provides a framework of technical support and guidance that can asist local communities in developing and refining their own Community Wildfire Protection Plans and risk asesments. The CWP does not have authority over incorporated communities within the County, but seks to develop strategies for sharing information and resources betwen the County and local communities. PLANING PROCESS AND METHODS Linn County hired ECONorthwest to design and implement the Linn County CWP planning proces based upon the requirements of the HFRA, the Pre- Disaster Mitigation program, and the guidelines in the Preparing a Community Wildfire Protection Plan 5 handbook. The planning proces for the Linn County CWP reflects the collaborative emphasis required by HFRA (Healthy Forests Restoration Act): in developing this plan, the County’s stakeholders came together to addres a problem by identifying common goals and gaining consensus on potential solutions. A collaborative plan recognizes that the implementation proces is more succesful when it draws on a broad base of resources. This proces ensures that the final document reflects the community’s highest priorities and that the plan can be implemented to efectively reduce risk. There were six steps in the County’s planning proces, described in detail below. STEP I. CONVENE STERING COMITE AND ENGAGE FEDERAL PARTNERS Linn County Planning & Building Department convened a stering commite to overse and guide the development of the Linn County CWP. The stering commite is a collaborative group responsible for making decisions and agreing upon the final contents of the plan. The members of the stering commite included representatives of the following agencies: • Oregon Department of Forestry 5 National Asociation of Foresters, Western Governors Asociation, National Asociation of Counties, and Society of American Foresters. 204.Preparing a Comunity Wildfire Protection Plan. . Lin County Comunity Wildfire Protection Plan October 207 ECONorthwest Page 5 • Bureau of Land Management, Salem Ofice • Linn County Planning and Building Department • Linn County Fire Defense Board • Wilamete National Forest and Bureau of Land Management, Eugene Ofice • Linn County Emergency Services STEP I. RESEARCH EXISTING WILDFIRE RESOURCES, PLANS, AND POLICIES Background research was conducted prior to beginning the planning proces for the Linn County CWP. ECONorthwest reviewed existing federal, state, and local policies and plans related to wildfire planning, protection, or mitigation, as wel as recent community wildfire plans from acros the nation. Other background information included recent research by the U.S. Forest Service and other literature on Wildland Urban Interface fire prevention. STEP II. ENGAGE INTERESTED PARTIES AND STAKEHOLDERS The stering commite used a five-tiered proces to engage stakeholders in the development of the Linn County CWP: 1. Fire district survey - A scoping survey was administered to al Linn County fire districts and the Oregon Department of Forestry. The survey tool helped focus the eforts of the project team to streamline the planning proces. Information gathered by the survey was used to: • Ases fire agency capacity and needs • Identify critical isues to be addresed in the plan • Inventory existing prevention and education resources • Identify a history of wildfire occurrence and district responses • Identify wildfire risk factors in each district • Gather preliminary actions for wildfire mitigation 2. Project website – A project website was developed to provide current information about wildfire prevention including defensible space around homes and fire resistant vegetation for landscaping. The website describes the purpose and content of the CWP for a general audience and highlights current project events. The site also alows the public to provide input, identify wildfire isues, and suggest mitigation actions throughout the planning proces. 3. Stakeholder interviews - ECONorthwest conducted phone interviews with key stakeholders to gain information about important isues, concerns, and current activities related to the Linn County CWP Page 6 ECONorthwest October 207 Lin County Comunity Wildfire Protection Plan objectives of collaboration, prioritization of fuel reduction projects, and treatment of structural ignitability. 4. FireWise workshop - Oregon Department of Forestry and Linn County Planning Department invited stakeholders such as agency staf, planners, developers, realtors, insurers, utility providers, and non-profit organizations to atend a FireWise Communities workshop. The workshop sought stakeholder participation in identifying obstacles and opportunities to reducing wildfire risk in Linn County. STEP IV. DEVELOP A COMUNITY BASE MAP AND WILDFIRE RISK ASESMENT: Linn County’s risk asesment identifies communities at risk and establishes preliminary designation of the County’s Wildland Urban Interface (WUI) zone. To do this, Linn County acquired and evaluated comunity data—including electronic mapping data compatible with geographic information systems software and the results of the surveys and interviews described earlier; reviewed the data; created a risk asesment model and analysis methodology; conducted the analysis; verified the results with wildfire profesionals and with field visits to on-the-ground locations in the WUI; and produced final maps of the area and analysis outputs. ECO used the study maps to develop a draft risk asesment that identifies major risk factors and describes the history of wildfire occurrences. STEP V. DEVELOP AN ACTION PLAN AND PROJECT PRIORITIZATION METHOD: The findings from the wildfire risk asesment and the input from stakeholders were used to create an action plan for the Linn County CWP. The action plan identifies the goals, objectives, and action items for carying out wildfire risk reduction strategies in the County. The action plan also establishes roles and responsibilities, funding, and timetables for implementing action items. Based on the risk asesment and other factors, the stering commite developed a proces for prioritizing community hazard reduction projects. Hazard reduction projects must be prioritized to ensure that mitigation funding is used eficiently and efectively. STEP VI. FINALIZE COMUNITY WILDFIRE PROTECTION PLAN: ECONorthwest presented a draft CWP to the stering commite on September 12, 2007 for review and comment. The stering commite-approved document was presented to the Linn County Board of County Commisioners on XX and was adopted by resolution. The following entities approved the final document, pursuant to the HFRA: Lin County Comunity Wildfire Protection Plan October 207 ECONorthwest Page 7 1. Linn County Board of Commisioners 2. Linn County Fire Defense Board 3. Oregon Department of Forestry PLAN ORGANIZATION The remainder of the Linn County CWP is organized into the following sections and appendices: • Section 2: Lin County Community profile presents information on Linn County’s demographic make-up and serves as the basis for identifying wildfire vulnerability. • Section 3: Risk assesment presents the findings from the Linn County Wildfire Risk Asesment, including the methods used to develop the asesment, limitations, ideas for long-term asesment updates and maintenance, and key findings. • Section 4: Community outreach and collaboration presents the findings from the thre outreach eforts, which include the rural fire protection district survey, stakeholder interviews, the FireWise Workshop, and stakeholder workshop. The section concludes with a summary of the key isues identified through these community outreach eforts. • Section 5: Action plan describes the framework and methods used to develop the goals, objectives, and action items that make up the Action Plan. • Section 6: Plan implementation and maintenance describes the methods for implementing the Action Plan, the proces for prioritizing projects, and a schedule for updating and maintaining the plan. • Appendix A: Action Item Worksheets describes in a worksheet, the key isues addresed, ideas for implementation, coordination and partner organizations, timeline, and plan goals addresed. • Appendix B: Implementation and maintenance documentation documents the agendas, meting minutes, and other outcomes of the CWP Advisory Commite metings. • Appendix C: Risk Asesment methods documents the proces used to develop the Risk Asesment maps and conclusions. • Appendix D: Fuel treatment types for Linn County describes and analyzes potential fuel treatment types available for use in Linn County. • Appendix E: Stakeholder interview summary describes the purpose, methods and findings of stakeholder interviews. • Appendix F: Firewise Workshop summary describes the purpose, methods and findings of the Fireise workshop. • Appendix G: Wildfire Resources documents existing wildfire resources. • Appendix H: Glossary of Terms provides definitions of terms used throughout the Linn County CWP. Lin County Comunity Wildfire Protection Plan October 207 ECONorthwest Page 9 Lin County Section 2 Comunity Profile A community profile is an important part of the Comunity Wildfire Protection Plan, because it describes the amount and type of land, the characteristics of the population, and the built infrastructure that is at risk from wildfire events. Linn County’s diverse geography, population, and land ownership paterns create chalenges to reducing the County’s risk of wildfire, but also represent key County asets that should be protected from wildfire. This section describes some of the characteristics of Linn County that contribute to its wildfire vulnerability. Linn County’s Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan contains a detailed community profile. This section of the CWP updates the community profile as it relates to wildfire, and describes the amount and location of land at risk, the population growth expected in that land, and the resources that could be afected by wildfires. This section provides an overview of the community’s wildfire characteristics. It has the following parts: • Community and Wildland Urban Interface area description describes Linn County’s forest characteristics • Wildfire history describes the previous occurrences of wildfire in Linn County • Lin County communities at risk describes the communities in the County identified as being particularly at risk to wildland fire • Curent wildfire protection framework describes the wildfire protection roles and responsibilities of the various agencies in Linn County • Existing plans and policies describes the plans and policies that Linn County already has in place that wil asist in addresing wildfire risk COMUNITY AND WILDLAND URBAN INTERFACE AREA DESCRIPTION FOREST CHARACTERISTICS Historic wildfire regimes helped to shape the forest landscape of Linn County. Natural cycles of fire disturbance influence al facets of ecosystem dynamics, from structure and composition to wildlife habitat and nutrient cycling. Fire suppresion, timber harvesting, the introduction of exotic species, and other human factors have disturbed natural fire cycles. West of the Cascade Mountains, Page 10 ECONorthwest October 207 Lin County Comunity Wildfire Protection Plan fire frequency and severity depend upon environmental variables, such as temperature, moisture, ignitions, and broad, fire-driving winds. 6 Linn County is composed of two distinct ecoregions with difering vegetative, geographic, and fire regime characteristics. 7 These ecoregions are described below: • Wilamete Valey: The Valey landforms include floodplains and teraces that are interlaced with surrounding rolling hils. The natural vegetation includes Cottonwood, Alder, Oregon Ash, and Big Leaf Maple. Douglas Fir and Western Red Cedar occur in moister areas. The Valey has lower precipitation, warmer temperatures, and fire regimes of higher frequency and lower severity than the adjacent Cascade Range. • Western Cascades: This ecoregion is characterized by ridge crests at similar elevations, separated by step valeys. The natural vegetation consists of forests of Douglas Fir and Western Hemlock at lower elevations and Silver Fir and Mountain Hemlock at higher elevations. Throughout Linn County, Douglas Fir and Western Hemlock are the predominant forest types. 8 Fire regimes in moist Douglas-fir habitat types are mixed, ranging from low to moderate severity surface fires at relatively frequent intervals (7 to 20 years) to severe crown fires at long intervals (50 to 400 years). 9 Significant annual precipitation and low occurrence of lightning throughout much of Linn County contribute to a low probability of natural fire ignitions in many areas. However, once ignited, the high vegetative fuel loads are vulnerable to catastrophic fires - those that “burn more intensely than the natural or historical range of variability, thereby fundamentaly changing the ecosystem, destroying communities and/or rare or threatened species/habitat, or causing unaceptable erosion.” 10 WILDFIRE HISTORY Wildfire plays a critical ecological role in many ecosystems across the country, including those in Linn County. Native Americans annualy burned large areas of the Wilamete Valey and coastal valeys to help maintain graslands and 6 Pacific Northwest Research Station, and the USDA Forest Service. 202. When the Forest Burns: Making Sense of Fire History West of the Cascades. Science Findings (46). 7 Loy, Wiliam el al. 201. Atlas of Oregon. 8 Ibid 9 USDA Forest Service. 204. Healthy Forests Pacific Northwest – Fire & Ecosystems in the Pacific Northwest. . 10 National Fire Plan. 201. A Colaborative Aproach for Reducing Wildland Fire Risks to Comunities and the Environment: A 10-Year Strategy. Lin County Comunity Wildfire Protection Plan October 207 ECONorthwest Page 1 savannahs. 11 Forest fires were relatively infrequent, although their size and severity were often great. The disruption of natural fire cycles over the last century has created dangerous vegetative fuel loads and forests vulnerable to catastrophic wildfires. Logging came to the region in the early twentieth century, and, combined with fire, changed the landscape of the western Cascades. 12 During and after World War I, an emphasis on beter wildland fire suppresion and fire prevention dramaticaly reduced damage caused by wildfires. More people moved into suburban areas during this same period, increasing the size of the Wildland Urban Interface and the number of homes and busineses within it. 13 Oregon Department of Forestry statistics indicate that the trend in the number of wildfires is decreasing, but the number of acres and structures burned by the remaining fires is growing. 14 In 2006, the Santiam Unit of the Oregon Department of Forestry recorded a total of 16 fires, which burned only 9.73 acres. The main cause of these fires was debris burning. In that same time period in the Swet Home Unit, a total of 51 fires burned 1,181 acres. Lightning was the greatest cause of fire within the Swet Home Unit. The largest single fire was the Middle Fork Fire, which burned 1,070 acres in September of 2006. CURENT WILDFIRE PROTECTION FRAMEWORK Several agencies share responsibility for fire protection in Linn County; these roles are described in the Linn County Emergency Operations Plan. In addition to response capabilities, many fire agencies in Linn County play a role in education and outreach. The Oregon State Fire Marshal provides technical asistance to rural fire protection districts and unprotected areas in the Wildland Urban Interface. The Oregon Department of Forestry has received funding through National Fire Plan grants for fuel reduction projects and community-level fire protection plans. Table 2-1 portrays the current wildfire protection framework for Lin County, including the roles and responsibilities of federal, state, and local fire protection agencies 11 Oregon Department of Forestry. 201. Northwest Oregon State Forests Management Plan: Final Plan. 12 Ibid. 13 Ibid. 14 State of Oregon. 203. Emergency Management Plan, Natural Hazards Mitigation Plan. Page 12 ECONorthwest October 207 Lin County Comunity Wildfire Protection Plan Table 2-1. Curent wildfire protection framework Federal State Municipal County US Forest Service (USFS) and Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Manages the majority of Lin County’s 52,00 acres of FCM zoned forestlands. USFS participates in first response and co- op agreements with Oregon Department of Forestry. BLM contracts with Oregon Department of Forestry for wildland protection on lands within ODF district boundaries. Oregon Department of Forestry Provides wildland protection on 578,00 acres in Lin County on state owned and state protected lands within district boundaries (includes BLM lands). Contracts with private landowners to provide wildland fire protection outside of district boundaries. Participates in first- response agreements with al adjoining counties and in co-op agreements with USFS. Provides protection by contract to BLM lands within district boundaries. Promotes education, outreach, and prevention activities. Oregon State Fire Marshal Provides technical asistance to local fire departments and unprotected areas. Promotes education and outreach in the Wildland Urban Interface. Adopted the Oregon Fire Service Mobilization Plan. City Fire Departments Provide structural fire protection within city limits. The cities of Albany, Brownsvile, Stayton, Swet Home, Tangent, Lebanon, and Harrisburg provide fire services inside their own city limits, and in some cases in the surrounding unincorporated areas. Rural Fire Districts 5 Rural Fire Districts within Lin County (Lyons, Scio, Jeferson, Mil City, and Halsey-Shed). Provide structural fire protection within district boundaries throughout the county. Lin County Fire Defense Board Manages mutual aid agreements among the 5 rural fire protection agencies and the 7 municipal fire agencies in the County and Oregon Department of Forestry. Focuses on the operational side of fire response. Lin County Comunity Wildfire Protection Plan October 207 ECONorthwest Page 13 EXISTING PLANS AND POLICIES The CWP is non-regulatory in nature, meaning that it does not set forth any new policy. The plan does provide (1) a foundation for increased communication, coordination and collaboration among agencies and the public in Linn County, (2) identification and prioritization of areas for hazardous fuel reduction projects and other mitigation activities, and (3) asistance meting federal and state planning requirements and qualifying for asistance programs. The CWP works in conjunction with other County plans and programs including but not limited to the Natural Hazards Mitigation Plan, the Comprehensive Plan, and the Emergency Operations Plan. These plans are briefly described below: • Lin County Natural Hazards Mitigation Plan was adopted in 2006 and was intended to asist Linn County in reducing its risk from natural hazards by identifying resources, information, partnerships, and strategies for addresing risk. The plan is designed to met the requirements for mitigation planning as set forth in the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000. The CWP wil serve as the wildfire annex for the County’s Natural Hazards Mitigation Plan. • Lin County Comprehensive Plan serves to addres a wide range of concerns such as the best use of air, land and water resources, as wel as the delivery of public services. The comprehensive plan changes when the needs and desires of the public change, when development occurs at a diferent rate than predicted, and when corrections or revisions are needed. It contains an element that specificaly addreses natural hazards, as required by Oregon’s State Land Use Planning Goal 7. The plan is reviewed and updated thre years after its initial adoption. The Linn County Comprehensive Plan was last updated in May 2004. • Lin County Emergency Operations Plan is maintained by the Linn County Sherif’s Department. The EOP was last updated in 1997. The purpose of the Emergency Operations Plan is to provide a central location that describes in detail al necesary components of support and procedure in an emergency situation. The EOP maintains and updates emergency services systems to prevent or reduce the impact of injuries in the case of an emergency. POLICY FRAMEWORK The Linn County CWP addreses the requirements for a Community Wildfire Protection Plan provided in Title II of the Healthy Forests Restoration Act (HFRA), and also mets the guidelines and requirements of other state and federal programs. Table 2-2 briefly describes policies relevant to the creation and implementation of Linn County’s CWP. Page 14 ECONorthwest October 207 Lin County Comunity Wildfire Protection Plan Table 2-2. Policy Framework for Wildland Urban Interface Fire in Oregon Policy Requirements How the CWPP Adreses Policy Healthy Forests Restoration Act (HFRA): Congres adopted HFRA in 203 to asist comunity, state, and federal land managers in the prevention of catastrophic wildfire on public lands through fuels reduction activities. The Act requires that 50% of apropriated fuel treatment funding through HFRA be used in the Wildland Urban Interface protection zone and give priority funding to comunities with a Counity Wildfire Protection Plan in place. • Colaboration: A CWPP must be colaboratively developed by local and state government representatives, in consultation with federal agencies and other interested parties. • Prioritized Fuel Reduction: A CWPP must identify and prioritize areas for hazardous fuel reduction treatments and recomend the types and methods of treatment that wil protect one or ore at-risk comunities and esential infrastructure. • Treatment of Structural Ignitability: A CWPP must recomend measures that hoeowners and comunities can take to reduce the ignitability of structures throughout the area adresed by the plan. • Three entities must mutualy agree to the final contents of a CWPP: the aplicable local government; the local fire departents; and the state entity responsible for forest management. • The CWPP was colaboratively developed by a stering comite representing local, state, and federal agencies. The plan conducted outreach activities to gain input from public and private stakeholders. • The CWPP includes an asesment of wildfire risk in Lin County and a proces for prioritizing fuel reduction projects. The plan also includes a table identifying apropriate fuel treatment methods for Lin County. • The CWPP recomends actions for prooting risk reduction activities on private and public lands in Lin County. • The Lin County Board of Comisioners, the Lin County Fire Defense Board, and the Oregon Department of Forestry aproved the Lin County CWPP. National Fire Plan 10- Year Comprehensive Strategy: The National Fire Plan was developed in 200, folowing a landmark wildfire season, to actively respond to severe wildfires and their impacts on comunities, while ensuring suficient firefighting capacity for the future. The National Fire Plan adreses five key points: 1. Firefighting, 2. Rehabilitation, 3. Hazardous Fuels Reduction, 4. Comunity Assistance, and 5. Accountability. • The CWPP wil aid in efectively implementing National Fire Plan goals by providing a colaborative framework for reducing wildfire risk to comunities in Lin County. • The advisory comite responsible for cordinating the CWPP wil also serve as the local cordinating body for National Fire Plan projects. Lin County Comunity Wildfire Protection Plan October 207 ECONorthwest Page 15 Policy Requirements How the CWPP Adreses Policy Disaster Mitigation Act of 200: The Act emphasizes mitigation planing and establishes a pre-disaster hazard mitigation program. Requires state and local governments to have an aproved natural hazard mitigation plan in place to qualify for post-disaster Hazard Mitigation Grant Program funds. The CWPP wil serve as the Wildfire Annex for the Lin County Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan adopted in 206. Oregon Statewide Land Use Goal 7 Areas Subject to Natural Hazards: Goal 7 requires local governments to adopt measures in their coprehensive plans to reduce risk to people and property from natural hazards. The Goal Requires that local governments complete and Federal and state land anagers cordinate natural hazard inventories, and local land managers alter land use designations to minimize risk to people and property fro natural hazards. The CWPP includes a wildfire risk asesment for Lin County, which ay be used as new ildfire hazard inventory information in the Lin County Comprehensive Plan. Oregon Forestland Dweling Units Statute, ORS 215.730: The statute provides criteria for aproving dwelings located on lands zoned for forest and mixed agriculture/forest use. The Statute directs county governments to require, as a condition of aproval, that single family dwelings on lands zoned as forestland met requirements for construction aterials, fuel breaks, water suply, and location in fire protection districts. The Lin County Code and Comprehensive Plan currently met requirements of the state statute for dwelings on lands zoned as forestlands. Oregon Forestland- Urban Interface Fire Protection Act of 197 (Senate Bil 360): Promotes the creation of a coprehensive Wildland Urban Interface fire protection system in Oregon. The Act contains provisions for county governing bodies to: 1. Establish a forestland-urban interface clasification comite 2. Establish a forestland-urban interface criteria and clasification program 3. Encourage landowner forestland-urban interface fire mitigation actions The advisory comite convened to cordinate the CWPP may also serve as the forestland-urban interface clasification comite. The CWPP includes a risk asesment and maps that designates a Wildland Urban Interface in Lin County that may be used in the criteria and clasification program required by Senate Bil 360. The CWPP identifies actions to promote landowner education and outreach strategies for the treatment of structural ignitability. SUMARY As human development continues to spread into forestlands, the risk of Wildland Urban Interface fire escalates. Linn County’s diverse geography, population, and land ownership paterns create further chalenges to reducing the County’s risk of wildfire. Many entities and programs aimed at wildfire risk Page 16 ECONorthwest October 207 Lin County Comunity Wildfire Protection Plan response, reduction, and education exist, but eforts to share resources and information are limited. The risk asesment and action plan of the Linn County CWP create opportunities to improve collaboration, enhance wildfire mitigation eforts, and reduce the County’s overal risk of wildfire. Lin County Comunity Wildfire Protection Plan October 207 ECONorthwest Page 17 Section 3 Risk Assessment Wildfire risk to forest lands and homes is inseparable. Forest fires can endanger and burn homes, while fires that start as structural fires can spread to the forest. One of the core elements of the Linn County CWP is the risk asesment, which describes the risk and potential losses to life, property, and natural resources from wildfire based on best available science and data. Its purpose is to identify and implement the most efective strategies for preventing losses from fire. The asesment is organized into the following parts: • Purpose and methods provides an overview of the goals and objectives of the analysis and briefly describes the methods used to evaluate wildfire risks in Linn County. Detailed methodology notes are included in Appendix C: Risk Asesment Methods. • Risk assesment findings presents the findings of the risk analysis, which are broken into five asesment areas and displayed in a series of map panels. Communities at-risk and areas of concern within each asesment area are identified. PURPOSE AND METHODS This asesment broadly identifies communities and areas within Linn County that are at risk. Information gathered through this asesment is intended to help emergency managers and fire-fighting profesionals prioritize areas of concern for further analysis and mitigation activities. The purpose of the asesment is to: 1. Determine the potential risk of interface fires for Linn County communities through a collaborative efort that incorporates local, on-the- ground knowledge with the best available data and geographic analysis. 2. Establish a community base map and identify and create digital data layers that describe Linn County’s risk, as described later in this section. 3. Begin to identify areas that require more refined analysis, and conduct neighborhood asesments. 4. Provide insight for the prioritization of hazardous fuel treatment projects. 5. Met the guidelines described by the Oregon Department of Forestry for completing a risk asesment. ASESMENT APROACH Several communities across the nation have completed, or are currently engaged in, wildfire planning eforts. In the proces, they have developed numerous models in an atempt to understand the risks posed by Wildland Urban Page 18 ECONorthwest October 207 Lin County Comunity Wildfire Protection Plan Interface fires. The asesment techniques used in these models difer widely in both content and detail of analysis. For the Linn County Wildfire Risk Asesment, the stering commite elected to follow the broad asesment proces outlined in the guidance document, Preparing a Community Wildfire Protection Plan: A Handbook for Wildland-Urban Interface Communities 15 . This handbook, developed through a partnership of national and regional agencies, contains recommendations and guidelines that conform closely to requirements of the Healthy Forest Restoration Act of 2003. The handbook broadly outlines an asesment framework and identifies key risk factors communities should evaluate within their plans. Under this framework, individual communities have considerable autonomy to choose asesment methods that are appropriate to the scale of the community. To evaluate the Wildland Urban Interface fire risks within Linn County, the risk asesment team adopted methods based on a model developed by the Oregon Department of Forestry (ODF) entitled Identifying and Asesment of Communities at Risk in Oregon. 16 The methodology originaly asesed wildfire hazards at the statewide level for use in the Oregon Natural Hazards Mitigation Plan. However, the proces and data sets used in the methodology enable a tiered approach that is appropriate at several scales: including county, city, or neighborhood-level asesments. HOW THE LIN COUNTY ASESMENT EVALUATES RISK This asesment evaluates Wildland Urban Interface fire risk by analyzing five key data “layers” of wildfire information, as suggested in the ODF methodology described above. These layers are: • Risk: the potential and frequency with which wildfire ignitions might occur, based on historic fires, foreseable conditions, the density of homes within the WUI boundary, and other factors • Hazard: the natural conditions—vegetative fuels, weather, topographic features—that may contribute to and afect the behavior of wildfire • Protection capability: the community’s ability to plan and prepare for, as wel as respond to and suppres, structural and wildland fires • Values protected: a measure of the people, property, and esential infrastructure that may suffer losses in a wildfire event • Structural vulnerability: a measure of the capacity of structures in the County’s Wildland Urban Interface areas to resist wildfires if they occur, based on an asesment recently completed by the Oregon Department of Forestry 15 National Asociation of Foresters, Western Governors Asociation, National Asociation of Counties, and Society of American Foresters. 204.Preparing a Comunity Wildfire Protection Plan. 16 Oregon Department of Forestry. 204. Identifying and Asesment of Comunities at Risk in Oregon. . Lin County Comunity Wildfire Protection Plan October 207 ECONorthwest Page 19 Each of these layers is developed by compiling and analyzing one or more related factors that can lead to, aggravate, or mitigate a wildland urban-interface fire. The ODF methodology asigns a point value to each layer, and provides a proces for determining total risk based on the relative weight of each layer and the sum of the point values across al layers. These data layers are analyzed and displayed using a type of computer mapping software known as a Geographic Information System, or GIS, to arive at a composite risk score. GIS is an extremely helpful tool for evaluating wildfire risk. This asesment uses GIS to perform a number of spatial analyses and to manage, store, and display wildfire information. The output of this analysis is a series of map layers, each layer displaying a separate yet interconnected piece of wildfire risk information. Through comparison and analysis of these layers, this asesment indicates areas that expres extreme, high, moderate, and low potential risk of experiencing a Wildland Urban Interface fire. Linn County maintains much of the data necesary for this type of analysis, but this information was supplemented with data from Oregon Department of Forestry, the U.S. Census, the U.S. Geological Survey, and data from field surveys. In addition to GIS analysis, this asesment relies heavily on input provided by federal, state, and local fire protection profesionals. Local fire district representatives are familiar with the threats within their protection areas. Mapping and documenting the areas at risk identified by these profesionals, and comparing this information with data gathered through GIS analysis, creates a more acurate understanding of wildfire risk and provides a rough method of truth-checking the GIS outputs. Mike Price of Entrada Inc., San Juan, together with other members of the ECONorthwest team, conducted most of the research for the risk asesment. In addition to GIS analysis, they interviewed representatives from the Linn County Fire Defense Board, the Oregon Department of Forestry, the Bureau of Land Management, and the US Forest Service. Input and asistance from these agencies helped direct and shape the asesment proces. Detailed methods and data used within the asesment can be found in Appendix C. ASSESSMENT FINDINGS The first five maps at the end of this section provide the layers that together define Linn County’s risk and vulnerability to wildfires—risk, hazards, protection capabilities, values protected, and structural vulnerability. The final map shows how these layers come together to show the areas that are most vulnerable to wildfire. These six maps are the key output of this risk asesment. MAP 1: RISK Risk is defined broadly as the likelihood that a fire wil occur in a given geographic location. Historic fire occurrence and ignition risk are the two Page 20 ECONorthwest October 207 Lin County Comunity Wildfire Protection Plan components of risk that are measured to determine a rating asociated with this category. HISTORIC FIRE OCURENCE The key component of risk is historic fire occurrence. Data to measure historic fires was available from ODF; the dataset provided geographic information about the location of fire origins rather than fire extent. Betwen 1996-2005, many fires have originated in areas in or near the Wildland Urban Interface zone. Cities that have had numerous nearby wildfires are those located where agricultural land mets land with high levels of vulnerable fuel-types, including Swet Home, Sodavile, Waterloo, Mil City and Gates. Fires have also traditionaly occurred near Gren Peter and Foster Reservoirs, where a high human presence is likely. IGNITION RISK Another component of the risk category is ignition risk. Broadly, ignition risk quantifies the potential sources of ignition for fires in interface areas. In this risk asesment, the density of homes in interface areas is an important component of ignition risk. Higher density areas have a higher ignition risk. The Albany, Lebanon and Swet Home areas pose the greatest ignition risk in the County. Other factors also contribute to ignition risk. These might include the presence of transmision power lines, power substations, active logging, construction, dispersed camping, fireworks, woodcutting, target shooting, arson, railroad, etc. These factors are gridded, counted, and scored to add to the point total asociated with the broad category of risk. Fire risks from other factors are highest in more densely developed interface areas. Risk is also greater near Foster and Gren Peter Reservoirs where camping and recreation sites are situated. Ignition risk in forested and sparsely or undeveloped areas varies with the time of year. The ignition risk in these regions can be high from June through October, and is usualy low from November through May each year. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMENDATIONS The map shows that the majority of the County has a low risk, with some pockets of moderate risk along Highway 20 and at recreation areas and historic sites in the Cascade Mountains. Ignition risk is highest in areas surrounding Lebanon, Swet Home, Brownsvile, and in the North Santiam River canyon. There are no areas of high risk. Some types of information could improve the County’s understanding of risk in the future. More detailed data about historical fires that describes fire cause, point of origin, fire perimeter, and post-fire restoration could refine this asesment’s conclusions regarding level of risk, and help the County plan risk- reduction activities. Lin County Comunity Wildfire Protection Plan October 207 ECONorthwest Page 21 Lin County Comunity Wildfire Protection Plan October 207 ECONorthwest Page 23 MAP 2: HAZARD Hazard can be broadly defined as the physical aspects of Linn County’s landscape that adversely afect wildfire suppresion eforts. Hazard is one of the most important categories of risk. The components of hazard that are quantified here are weather, elevation, topography, and fuel. WEATHER Weather is measured as the number of days per fire season that forest fuels are capable of producing a significant fire event. The risk score is defined in Oregon’s state statutes 17 based on data developed by ODF following an analysis of daily wildfire danger rating indices in each regulated area of use. Al of Linn County’s forested areas fal into Area 2, which scores 20 points out of 40 possible for weather. As Map 2 shows, non-forested areas are not scored. Linn County contains several Remote Automated Weather Station (RAWS) sites, at Brush Crek, Yelowstone, and Stayton, as wel as stations located nearby the County that are used as backup. TOPOGRAPHY For the purposes of this risk asesment, there are thre elements asociated with topography as a risk category: elevation, slope, and aspect. Al of these afect the intensity and rate of spread of a wildfire. • Elevation afects the type of vegetation and length of the season, as wel as the prevailing weather paterns and rainfal. Risk is highest in areas of lower elevation. The western portion of the County, which is made up largely of low-lying forest and agriculture land has the highest risk of an elevation related fire event. • Slope is measured by percent; higher points are asigned to steper (higher percentage) slopes. In Linn County, interface areas with step slopes are located near Gren Peter and Detroit Reservoirs in the mid-to-eastern portion of the County. These forested lands are also the most mountainous. • Aspect is most simply defined as the direction of exposure. Slopes that face south, southeast, and southwest, are more exposed to the sun, which afects the type of vegetation that grows as wel as the speed with which water transpires from that vegetation and the ground during the fire season. Aspect-related risk is distributed throughout the entire County. However, it is greatest in mountainous areas, where a larger portion of land is facing south due to step slopes. 17 OAR 629-04-0230 Page 24 ECONorthwest October 207 Lin County Comunity Wildfire Protection Plan VEGETATION/FUEL Vegetation is the primary factor afecting the intensity of the fire. The quantity of undergrowth, presence of ladder fuels (which contribute to the more-dificult-to-contain crown fires), and other vegetative characteristics al contribute greatly to fire behavior. To measure vegetative fuels, this analysis used satelite imagery of Linn County’s forested areas. Another critical component measured in this analysis is the potential for crown fire. Crown fires occur when fires spread to the tops of tres and spread through the canopy. On a windy day, a crown fire can spread extremely quickly and be very dificult to contain. The type of vegetation present is critical to determining the likelihood that a crown fire could occur. Crown fire potential is mapped as moderate throughout central and eastern Linn County For this analysis, the Oregon statewide fuel model was used to clasify fuel types, and point totals were asigned based on State legislation. 18 Much of the eastern portion of the County has moderate to high risk from the presence of vegetative fuels. Only agricultural lands in the western portion of the County have low fire risk due to vegetative fuel. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMENDATIONS Map 2 shows that the hazard of wildfire occurrence is moderate to high in most of the forested areas in Linn County, with pockets of highest hazard along Highway 22. Future risk asesment updates could improve the analysis of wildfire hazard with more detailed weather and vegetation data. This data may be especialy appropriate to gather in areas of highest risk and vulnerability, to asure that the most appropriate mitigation, preparation, and response actions are taken. 18 Oregon Forestland Urban Interface Fire Protection Act of 197 (often refered to as Senate Bil 360) Lin County Comunity Wildfire Protection Plan October 207 ECONorthwest Page 25 Lin County Comunity Wildfire Protection Plan October 207 ECONorthwest Page 27 MAP 3: PROTECTION CAPABILITY The protection capability map shows the boundaries of al fire districts in the County, the location of fire stations, and an asesment of the ability of those fire districts to respond to wildfires that occur within their boundaries. To determine protection capability, this risk asesment measures two components: protection and preparednes. PROTECTION To measure protection, this asesment used GIS software to model response times from each fire station to al areas within the district boundary, and then asigned a risk rating based on those response times. More specificaly, it asigns the following ratings: • No risk to areas where organized structural response is available in les than 10 minutes • Low risk to areas inside a fire district, but where structural response wil require more than 10 minutes • Moderate risk to areas where no structural protection is available, and wildland response requires les than 20 minutes • High risk to areas without structural protection that require more than 20 minutes for wildland response The map shows that the Linn County road network provides reasonable aces to most structures in the County, for both emergency ingres and evacuation, but that most of the County remains at high risk from a protection standpoint. Not surprisingly, more densely developed and agriculture lands in the western portion of the County are at low risk. Forested and mountainous regions in central and eastern Linn County have low protection and are at greater risk. PREPAREDNES Another important component of protection capabilities is preparednes, or a measure of the eforts that the community has taken to prepare for potential wildfire events. Risk is mitigated in areas with agency eforts, a community fire plan and organized stakeholder groups. While preparednes is important, it caries les weight in the ODF methodology than protection. While forested and mountainous regions in central and eastern Linn County have low to zero preparednes and are at greater risk from wildfires, they also have lower population levels. Page 28 ECONorthwest October 207 Lin County Comunity Wildfire Protection Plan CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMENDATIONS In al of eastern Linn County, there is high wildfire risk resulting from the combination of long response times and low levels of preparednes. On the western side of the Cascades, risk is generaly moderate to low, with pockets of high risk around Brownsvile and Swet Home, and along the western border of the County. These areas are generaly dificult to reach because of the structure of their road networks. This asesment did not take into consideration the need to evacuate the more vulnerable populations in Linn County: the elderly, poor, or non-English speaking residents who many not have the physical or financial resources for preparednes and evacuation activities. Especialy for the areas that are at the greatest risk from wildfire, this wil be an important consideration in the future. In addition, the response time asesment only includes an asesment of travel time to a fire and not the time to asemble fire fighters. The majority of fire districts are primarily stafed by volunters who may work in other communities during the day. In the interviews, fire fighting agencies indicated that one of the greatest bariers to efective fire fighting was availability of personnel due to the district’s volunter structure. Lin County Comunity Wildfire Protection Plan October 207 ECONorthwest Page 29 Lin County Comunity Wildfire Protection Plan October 207 ECONorthwest Page 31 MAP 4: VALUES PROTECTED To measure values protected, this risk asesment considers the density of homes in the County’s interface areas as wel as the public infrastructure that makes the County function. HOME DENSITY Home density creates greater wildfire risk because it increases the dollar value of property and the number of lives in the path of wildfires. To measure home density, this asesment used addres point data and GIS software to determine how many homes were present in each 10 acre grid in the interface area. The ODF methodology asigns the following risk ratings to home density measures: • 0 to 1 home per 10 acres: low risk • 1 to 5 homes per 10 acres: moderate risk • More than 5 homes per 10 acres: high risk The map shows that the risk incurred from home density is greatest in the areas surrounding Albany, Lebanon, and Swet Home. COMUNITY INFRASTRUCTURE In addition to the private property values modeled in measures of home density, this asesment considers the value of the public and community infrastructure that could be afected by wildfires. This includes airstrips, fire stations, hospitals, parks, police stations, roads, railroads, schools, electrical transmision stations, and other asets. Not surprisingly, the highest value community infrastructure is located in the western portion of the County nearest to population centers. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMENDATIONS The values protected map shows that the most important public and private asets are concentrated in the areas nearest to population centers: Albany, Lebanon, and Swet Home, and along the 1-5 corridor. These also are the areas that have the greatest protection capability (se Map 3). Lin County Comunity Wildfire Protection Plan October 207 ECONorthwest Page 3 Lin County Comunity Wildfire Protection Plan October 207 ECONorthwest Page 35 MAP 5: STRUCTURAL VULNERABILITY The final category that contributes to total risk and vulnerability is structural vulnerability, or a measure of the likelihood that structures wil be destroyed by wildfire. While risk, hazard, and protection capabilities together acount for 90% of the likelihood that a wildfire event wil threaten life and property, factors controled by interface landowners acount for 90% of the likelihood that a wildfire wil destroy structures. 19 The risk is highest where flamable roofing and building materials have traditionaly been used. Other factors included in this asesment are defensible space, building setbacks and separation of adjacent homes. ODF staf are conducting field asesments of interface properties in their district (South Cascade Swet Home) to ases the characteristics of those properties that increase or mitigate their wildfire risk. While these data are not available in al of Linn County, they are a very valuable component of this risk asesment as they serve as an indicator of structural vulnerability throughout the County. They show that, among the homes and structures asesed, most have a moderate vulnerability to wildfire, and some have a high vulnerability. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMENDATIONS Fire related events related to these risks are highest in the interface areas with high structural vulnerability: Swet Home, Sodavile, and Waterloo. The isue of structural vulnerability was raised by nearly al the fire fighting agencies interviewed as on of the greatest wildfire threats the County faces. It wil be important for ODF to maintain the database that they have developed that contributed to this asesment, and, if possible, to ases and map structures in the North Cascade Santiam District. If other districts are interested in conducting a similar asesment, they should use the same methodology so that data wil be consistent for a County-wide asesment. 19 Oregon Department of Forestry. 204. Identifying and Asesment of Comunities at Risk in Oregon. . Lin County Comunity Wildfire Protection Plan October 207 ECONorthwest Page 37 Lin County Comunity Wildfire Protection Plan October 207 ECONorthwest Page 39 MAP 6: TOTAL VULNERABILITY The final map combines the risk scores from the previous maps (risk, hazards, protection capabilities, values protected, and structural vulnerability) to provide a combined risk and vulnerability asesment for Linn County. It weights the various components of risk based on the criteria outlined in the ODF methodology: risk, 13%; hazard, 26%; protection capability, 13%; values at risk, 17%; structural vulnerability, 30%. Most of the County is moderately vulnerable to wildfires. The areas of highest risk are in the interface areas around Swet Home, the Sodavile area, to the northeast of Brownsvile, and around Gren Peter Reservoir. The foothils of the cascades have some areas of high vulnerability. These are areas that require more careful planning and targeted outreach and education eforts. Lin County Comunity Wildfire Protection Plan October 207 ECONorthwest Page 41 Lin County Comunity Wildfire Protection Plan October 207 ECONorthwest Page 43 LIN COUNTY COMUNITIES AT RISK FOR WILDFIRE To help states and counties identify at-risk communities within their borders, various state and federal agencies collaborated to update a nation- wide list caled “Communities in the Vicinity of Federal Lands at Risk from Wildfire”. x To identify at-risk communities, state agencies use a proces created by a national interagency group; it describes the factors asociated with at-risk communities. xi The updated list of at-risk communities across the country was published in the Federal Register on August 17, 2001. The at-risk communities within Linn County, as identified by the Federal Register, include the following: • Albany • Lebanon • Brownsvile • Lyons • Clear Lake Resort • Marion Forks • Crowfoot • Mil City • Gates • Scio • Harisburg • Swet Home East • Idanha • Swet Home West Another list of Oregon Communities at Risk, published by the ODF in April 2006 lists Albany, Brownsvile, Corvalis, Gates, Halsey, Harisburg, Idanha, Detroit, Jeferson, Lebanon, Lyons, Mil City, Milersburg, Scio, Sodavile, Stayton, Swet Home, Tangent, and Waterloo as communities at risk. This risk asesment begins with the Federal Register and ODF lists above, and then based on the results of the analysis described in this section, refines the list to create a localized risk asesment that can asist with prioritizing projects for implementation. As is evident in Map 6 above, none of the communities in Linn County are at high risk from wildfire, but many of them have a moderate to moderate/high risk. This risk asesment finds that the communities below are at risk, and that mitigation projects near them should be prioritized: x Ibid xi Lin County Planing and Building Department. 205. Lin County Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan. Page 4 ECONorthwest October 207 Lin County Comunity Wildfire Protection Plan Comunities at risk based on localized data asesment: Albany Marion Forks Brownsvile Mil City Clear Lake Resort New Idanha Crowfot Scio Gates Swet Home East and West Harisburg Waterlo Lebanon Sodavile Lyons Various home clusters and subdivisions in the WUI The other rural residential areas in Linn County that may be subject to wildfire hazards because of their location in forested areas or on step dry slopes. Examples of such rural residential areas include: Bartel’s Canyon Estates, Cascadia, Middle Ridge, Mountain Home Drive, Mt. Tom/Wildwood Estates, Northernwood Drive, Powel Hils, Rodger’s Mountain, ashburn Heights, the Upper Calapooia, and others. xii Lin County Comunity Wildfire Protection Plan October 207 ECONorthwest Page 45 Comunity Outreach Section 4 and Colaboration A key function of community fire planning is the meaningful discussion it promotes among community members. A plan that acurately reflects the community’s interests and priorities wil have greater legitimacy and succes in implementing recommendations. This section outlines the outreach strategy used to engage interested parties in the CWP development proces as wel as the findings of the outreach eforts. It has the following parts: • Stakeholder interviews describes the findings from a series of stakeholder interviews conducted with Rural Fire Protection Districts and State and Federal agencies in Linn County • FireWise community workshop describes the purpose, methods, and findings of the community workshop STAKEHOLDER INTERVIEWS PURPOSE The purpose of this section is to highlight the findings of a series of stakeholder interviews conducted with the Rural Fire Protection Districts in Linn County as wel as the Oregon Department of Forestry, the Linn County representative from the Ofice of the State Fire Marshal, the Bureau of Land Management, and the United States Forest Service. The interviews were conducted to gather background information on the Community Wildfire Protection Plan proces and provide insight on potential mitigation measures. What follows is a summary of the discussions from those interviews; they reflect the perceptions of the fire protection stakeholders. METHODS ECONorthwest developed and distributed a survey to Linn County’s Rural Fire Protection Districts (RFPD) in April 2007. A similar survey was developed for the Oregon Department of Forestry, Ofice of the State Fire Marshal, Bureau of Land Management, and US Forest Service. ECO staf folowed up with representatives from each of the RFPDs and agencies and gathered their survey responses via telephone interviews. Each district or agency was asked a series of questions that addresed the following: • History of wildfire occurrence and response • Wildfire risk factors Page 46 ECONorthwest October 207 Lin County Comunity Wildfire Protection Plan • Capacity and needs • Prevention and education resources • Ideas for mitigation. This section wil present and discuss District responses first, and then addres State and Federal agency responses. RURAL FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT RESPONSES The following Rural Fire Protection Districts responded the survey: Brownsvile, Swet Home, Halsey, Albany, Jeferson, Scio, Lebanon, Mil City, Tangent, Stayton, Harisburg, and Lyons. Table 4-1 highlights key isues that Rural Fire Protection Districts identified during the interview proces. Table 4-1. Rural Fire Protection District Findings BrownsvilleSweet HomeHalseyAlbanyJeffersonScioLebanonMill CityTangentStaytonHarrisburgLyons Historical WUI Fires !! !!!! Primry Respon Iues Identifed ersonl !! !!!! N-Wildland Fires ! ! Aces ! ! ! Comunications ! nducted Fel Rduction ! !!! Cot Structral Igitabilty ! ! Primary trtrl Initilt Isues Identifed Defnsible Space !!!!! !! Ac ! Construction Methods ! !! Unprtetd Aras Outie District ! !! Fire Evacution Pln i Plac ! ir Asitce Agrements in Place !!!!!!!!!! Conducted Euation & Outreh HISTORY OF WILDFIRE OCURENCE AND RESPONSE When asked if any wildfires had occurred within the Wildland Urban Interface, responses varied based on district’s location within the County. RFPDs located on the east side of the County reported having multiple events over several years, but only two of the fires mentioned threatened structures. Several districts indicated that they had had smal fires that had the potential to grow out of control and threaten structures, but that those fires were brought under control. RFPDs located on the west side of the County indicated that they didn’t have true WUI areas, but did have gras fires that had impacted trafic on Interstate 5. Districts were asked to indicate how many wildfires they typicaly respond to in a given year. Responses ranged from only 1-2 fires per year to up to 40-60 fires. Al the districts indicated that they typicaly respond in a mutual aid capacity at least once a year, with one district responding on up to 20 mutual aid events. Lin County Comunity Wildfire Protection Plan October 207 ECONorthwest Page 47 RFPDs were asked to identify the primary isues the district faces for efective wildfire response. Many of the districts identified several isues. By far, isues related to personnel were mentioned the most. The following were provided as primary isues: • Geting volunter fire fighters during the work wek • Protecting farms and smoke isues on the interstate • Interface areas in North Albany with step slope isues • Communication system not linked with rest of County • Training volunters • Distances necesary to travel within district • Personnel • Field and industrial fires spreading to fields • Development standards in the WUI • Defensible space WILDFIRE RISK FACTORS Each district was asked to identify the most vulnerable areas within their district. These responses were specific to each of the districts and can be found in the district specific write-ups in appendix E. Districts were also asked if there were areas that are likely to become more vulnerable in the future either due to development or lack of wildland fire protection. For the most part, districts indicated that the areas identified as being vulnerable were the areas prone to become more and more vulnerable as more development takes place. Districts were asked to indicate whether or not they had engaged in any fuel reduction eforts in the past. Very few of the districts indicated that they had implemented fuel reduction projects in the past. For the most part, districts indicated that their primary activities had been focused on education around structural ignitability rather than fuel reduction. Brownsvile, Lebanon, Mil City, and Harisburg had al implemented projects to reduce the structural ignitability of homes in their district. In 2002, several districts partnered with ODF to complete ‘Knock and Talks’ with homeowners to discuss wildfire isues and potential mitigation measures the homeowners could take to reduce their risk. RFPD were asked to identify any isues they face related to response times. The majority of districts indicated that the availability of volunter staf, especialy during the day, was the biggest isue around response times. In addition, some districts mentioned that some private industrial land owners having locked gates posed a barier to quicker response times. Districts were asked to identify the primary isues their district faces in terms of structural ignitability. By far, most districts that indicated that they had structural ignitability isues mentioned that a lack of defensible space was the Page 48 ECONorthwest October 207 Lin County Comunity Wildfire Protection Plan biggest isue. A second isue that was raised often was lack of aces because of narow, step driveways. CAPACITY AND NED RFPDs were asked whether or not they felt that the district had an adequate number of fire fighters. Only one district indicated that they had enough staf resources. Several districts mentioned that they might have adequate resources depending on the time of day because a majority of their volunters work outside the community. Districts in Linn County have varying numbers of full time and volunter fire fighters. Staf range from 1 to 65 full time employees, and 0 to 60 volunters. Almost al of the districts indicated that they felt they had the capacity to apply for grants to implement wildfire mitigation projects, however, they also indicated that they lacked the people to implement those projects if funded. Districts were asked to list the fire fighting apparatus that is currently available and what apparatus they would like to add to their flets. Those results can be found in the district summaries located at the end of this appendix. Al the RFPDs indicated that they had some sort of fire asistance agrements with other districts or state agencies. For the most part, these agrements are in the form of mutual aid. Districts that have overlapping boundaries with Oregon Department of Forestry also have asistance agrements with that agency. In addition, the Halsey district has an agrement in place with the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife for areas along the Wilamete River. PREVENTION AND EDUCATION RESOURCES RFPDs were asked whether or not they had participated in education and outreach activities related to wildfire isues. Al of the districts on the extreme east side of the County have participated with the Oregon Department of Forestry to educate homeowners on structural ignitability isues and potential hazard mitigation activities. Most districts also indicated that they have a variety of information in the form of fliers and brochures that are always available to residents. When asked about what future education and outreach campaigns the districts would like to se, the majority indicated that something around defensible space, aces, and construction materials would be beneficial. IDEAS FOR MITIGATION Districts were asked what type of fuel reduction and structural ignitability projects they would like to se implemented in interface areas. Overal, most of the projects mentioned would be clasified as structural ignitability projects. The ideas for projects included: • Making chippers available for fuel reduction • More homeowner education and outreach • Working with developers on fire resistant materials and vegetation Lin County Comunity Wildfire Protection Plan October 207 ECONorthwest Page 49 • Use of inmate work crews to do fuel reduction • Legislation, zoning, and ordinances to ban cedar shake roofs • Fuel reduction programs to help elderly residents who might not be able to do the physical labor themselves • Improved construction and design standards in wildland areas STATE AND FEDERAL AGENCY RESPONSES The following state and federal agencies were interviewed: Ofice of State Fire Marshal (OSFM), Oregon Department of Forestry (ODF), United States Forest Service (USFS), and the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). In addition to responding to questions about wildfire risk factors, capacity and needs, prevention and education resources, and ideas for mitigation, these agencies also addresed the following isues: • Agency roles and responsibilities • Wildfire response • Wildfire vulnerability • Fuels reduction eforts • Structural Ignitability Table 4-2 highlights key isues that the agencies identified in the interview proces. Table 4-2. State and Federal agency findings OSFMODFUSFSBLM Primary Response Isues Identifed Ac N/A!!! Resources Conductd Ful Reduction !!! te Strctral Igitabilty ! Primary tructrl Initilty Isues Identifed Defnsible Space !! Ac ! Homeowner Education ! Fire Asitac Agremets in Place !! Conducted Euation & Outrech ! ! AGENCY ROLES & RESPONSIBILITIES State and federal agencies were asked to describe their roles in wildfire response, planning or protection activities. Their responses are summarized below. • The Ofice of the State Fire Marshal overses the Conflagration Act. When there is a wildfire in the interface that exceds local capacity, Page 50 ECONorthwest October 207 Lin County Comunity Wildfire Protection Plan OSFM is asked to invoke the Act. The request goes to the Governor to declare a Conflagration, which provides resources from across the state. OSFM doesn’t provide direct response to wildfires. On the planning side, they also manage the State Fire Defense Board, made up of the heads of al the County Fire Defense Boards. The State Fire Defense Board is the manager of the state’s mobilization plan. Local plans are writen to dovetail with state plan. • The Oregon Department of Forestry provides fire protection for private land owners and also is the contracted fire fighting organization for the BLM. Landowners pay an asesment to ODF for fire protection. ODF is active in fuels management. They typicaly provide fuel reduction recommendations to land owners through the fire asistance program. Landowners are responsible for implementing measures. • The United State Forest Service is responsible for the protection of the national forest, not private lands. USFS has mutual aid agrements with locals to protect private lands, but these agrements are only valid for 24 hours. In the preseason USFS works with partners on pre-atack planning, (i.e., designating helispots). USFS doesn’t take the lead in planning proceses like CWP proceses, but are there to participate and facilitate. • The Bureau of Land Management contracts with ODF for fire protection activities. If ODF needs additional asistance, BLM can provide some staf resources. BLM manages the Northwest Oregon Fire Management Plan, which covers response activities and cooperation betwen wildfire partners. WILDFIRE RESPONSE The agencies sited the following points when asked to discuss their their concerns regarding wildfire response. • Acesibility and concerns with future of ability to slash burn. With current eforts to end gras sed burning, se that slash burning is probably next to go. Without the ability to burn slash, it creates greater risk because of the build up of fuels • Lack of resources and poor aces • Lack of defensible space • Privately owned bridges with no weight ratings • Communication with ODF is good, but don’t have al the frequencies for locals WILDFIRE VULNERABILITY Diferent agencies had some difering views on the factors that contribute to community vulnerability. There was greater consistency, however, in response to questions about geographic areas that are more vulnerable, including a concern about the valey floor, and regarding specific communities located within Linn County: Lin County Comunity Wildfire Protection Plan October 207 ECONorthwest Page 51 • The OSFM identified that they are concerned about interface areas on the periphery of valey floor where ODF and RFPDs overlap. Also isolate islands of interface like in Albany where there is a subdivision on a butte that has wildlands, but no ODF responsibility. It is solely in Albany’s response area. • ODF identified the following areas of concern: Washburn Heights, Mt. Tom, new development on NE end of Brownsvile, Middle Ridge, Sodavile, Knox Butte (Albany, not ODF), Ridgeway Butte (proposed in Lebanon). Al of these areas were also identified by the local protection districts as wel. • USFS identified the following areas of concern: Marion Forks, Hwy 20 corridor betwen Linn/Deschutes County border and Swet Home, and QuartzVile (upper end only, have mutual aid for lower). • BLM identified the following areas of concern: urban interface areas closer to the valey floor and those high value areas. Agencies were then asked to identify those areas that are likely to become more vulnerable in the future. The areas/isues of concern include: • Periphery of valey floors as more people move out into steper slopes. • There is a growing concern in many areas because Linn County is a relatively inexpensive place to live, so growth demand wil most likely continue. Also, the number of measure 37 claims currently filed in the County may lead to a large number of new subdivisions in potential wildland areas. • Swet Home is becoming a bedroom community for Albany and Eugene and is the gateway to the cascades. Future growth there may encroach on wildlands. • Areas around Foster Reservoir. • Another big concern is timber companies seling of land to developers because the land is worth more in real estate than it is in timber. • Mostly private forested lands that are protected by ODF. Logging operations create risk. • Private industrial landowners who don’t clean up slash after thinning operations. FUEL REDUCTION EFORTS Agencies identified their fuel reduction eforts and programs: • OSFM has not been directly involved in fuel reduction, but has staf that provides training to Rural Fire Protection Districts to write wildland related grants. • ODF frequently works with landowners to asist in fuel reduction on privately-owned forest lands through National Fire Plan grants. The agency also participates indirectly in fuels reduction by loaning equipment to homeowners in the WUI. Page 52 ECONorthwest October 207 Lin County Comunity Wildfire Protection Plan • USFS conducts brush disposal after timber sales to clean up logging slash by collecting and burning slash piles. • BLM does fuels reduction in asociation with timber sales. STRUCTURAL IGNITABILITY By building to specific standards, creating defensible space by clearing brush and dry wood, and updating homes to reflect new standards, homeowners can help to mitigate potential risk to their homes and other structures on their properties. Projects the State and Federal agencies are or have been involved in include: • OSFM works with the Building Codes Division to ensure that building codes reflect adequate wildfire mitigation measures. • ODF through the Fire Defense Board and mutual aid agrements provides brochures to Planning departments on construction standards for wildfire including aces isues. ODF utilized an NFP grant to educate landowners on what they can do to mitigate fire hazard. ODF has completed 3,000 home asesments using Trimble GPS units. • Both the USFS and BLM typicaly engage in structural ignitability projects, but have not completed any in Linn County. The main concerns regarding ignitable structures were: • Al agencies identified both defensible space and fire fighter aces as primary isues when dealing with wildfire. • Landowner awarenes was also listed as an isue. WILDFIRE RESPONSE Isues that State and Federal agencies highlighted: • As population continues to rise, more people wil require evacuation, making it harder get in to fight fires. • Private homeowners with locked or security gates also create an isue, however, state law gives [RFPDs] permision to go through any locked areas, this just takes time. Industrial forest owners have typicaly given ODF keys to their gates, but when RFPD respond on mutual aid, they don’t have these keys. • For the USFS, response times in general are long. On federal lands, budgets are decreasing for road maintenance which means aces is reduced and slower response times are being sen. • Marion Forks is an isue because it is somewhat isolated from the rest of the County and isn’t in a RFPD. CAPACITY AND NEDS The State and Federal agencies were asked to identify any fire asistance agrements they may have in place. The Oregon Department of Forestry indicated Lin County Comunity Wildfire Protection Plan October 207 ECONorthwest Page 53 that they have County-wide agrements in place in Linn and Benton Counties and with the BLM. They also have a “closest forces” and a “reciprocal agrement” with the US Forest Service. The USFS has a “mutual aid” agrement with the state. Agencies were asked to identify the most important need they face for efective wildfire response, and/or mitigation. The following are their responses: • The State Fire Marshal indicated the isue for the rural fire protection districts is identifying what the real hazard is and what the actual problems are so that their response plans can focus activities around education and mitigation in those problem areas. • ODF indicated that the isue is public education on how to make structures survive. ODF is not paid to protect structures. They also indicated that it is important to maintain good relationships with partners – local and federal fire agencies. They have good working relationships now and are constantly interfacing. Ned to keep up those relationships in the future as wel. Another isue is the ever changing command staf and the need for al partners to be knowledgeable about roles and connections. CWP is also an opportunity for County Commisioners to make wildfire isues a priority and pas that along to County departments like GIS and planning. • The USFS can’t do fuels treatments like they would want to. USFS gets money for fuel treatment from national analysis, where this forest doesn’t rank especialy high. They rely on fuel reduction after timber sales, which aren’t always the most at risk areas. • The BLM indicated that they haven’t had very many fires on lands in their jurisdiction, but when they do isues do come up. This particular district hasn’t had any major fires in 15 years, but the potential is there. Sometimes there are diferences of opinion betwen what is best for the natural resources (BLM) and what is best for fire fighting (ODF). PREVENTION AND EDUCATION RESOURCES Each of the State and Federal agencies are involved in education and outreach programs at some level. While some may be implementing the programs, others play a supporting role: • OSFM support local education and outreach programs by providing materials and training. • ODF typicaly provides information on structural ignitability, including eforts during Fire Awarenes Wek with Lebanon Fire for Fireman Safety Day. They have displays on defensible space and National Fire Plan brochures. In 2002, ODF received the National Fire Plan grant. The grant alowed ODF and the Harisburg RFPD to go door to door in Mt. Tom to educate homeowners on structural ignitability. Page 54 ECONorthwest October 207 Lin County Comunity Wildfire Protection Plan • The USFS works with the State to do education and outreach in Swet Home, Albany, and Lebanon. They also administer the Smokey (the Bear) School program focusing on kids and the proper use of matches. Other education eforts includes signage in the forest. The USFS’s prevention officer is interested in expanding their program to Salem, Albany, and Corvalis in an efort to educate National Forest visitors about fire before they visit the forest. IDEAS FOR MITIGATION Each of the agencies provided suggestions that, if implemented, could reduce wildfire risk in the WUI. More detailed actions are described later in this plan; the following is a brief overview. • Develop educational programs on defensible space and aces. • Complete fire asesments in stands to identify potential fuel reduction strategies and to educate landowners on what to do with fuels and the threat from neighboring landowners. • Increase partnership eforts among local, State, and Federal entities to complete fuel reduction projects on adjacent lands and to create fuel breaks. • Clear roads that have slash piles to create aces and create fuel breaks to protect private landowners. • Undertake defensible space education specificaly in the Marion Forks area, which does not fal within the jurisdiction of any fire protection district. • Complete home asesments and identify areas where lack of water supply could hamper a fire represion eforts. • Strengthen wildfire related codes. • Undertake fuel reduction eforts through the marketing of smal diameter biomas. FIREWISE COMUNITIES WORKSHOP The National Wildland Urban Interface Fire Protection Program developed FireWise Communities Workshops in 2000 to addres the Wildland Urban Interface fire problem at a community level. The workshops have thre main goals: 1. Improve safety in the Wildland Urban Interface by identifying opportunities to share responsibility 2. Create and nurture local partnerships for improved decisions in communities 3. Encourage the integration of FireWise concepts into community and disaster mitigation planning Lin County Comunity Wildfire Protection Plan October 207 ECONorthwest Page 5 These goals are consistent with the collaborative emphasis of legislation guiding the CWP planning proces. Workshop participants worked in smal groups to evaluate interactive scenarios designed to ases and reduce the wildfire risk of a fictional community. PURPOSE ECONorthwest and the Oregon Department of Forestry conducted a FireWise Communities Workshop on June 7 th , 2007 at the Linn County Fair and Expo Center. The workshop included an educational element to asist participants in identifying wildfire-related isues in their communities. Through this exercise, ECO obtained fedback regarding the public’s priorities for wildfire protection in Linn County. The results of the workshop wil asist the County and fire districts in developing local priorities for project implementation. Participants in the workshop included representatives of federal and state fire and forestry agencies, rural fire protection districts, local planning and emergency management departments, utility providers, the private forestry industry, the real estate industry, watershed councils, and elected oficials, among others. For more information about the FireWise Workshop se Appendix F: FireWise Workshop Summary. METHODS Prior to the workshop, stakeholders had been asked to identify major areas of concern regarding wildfire in Linn County. They identified the following five areas: • Emergency response • Education and outreach • Structural ignitability • Fuel reduction • Collaboration, coordination, and implementation During the workshop, facilitators asked participants to group their suggestions and concerns under these five categories, using a worksheet created and provided by ECONorthwest. Participants were given an opportunity to review and comment on the wildfire mitigation strategies already identified through the stakeholder interviews and survey. The smal groups were asked to discuss each strategy, identify ideas for implementation, designate a lead agency, and brainstorm potential partners that could asist in implementation. The participants discussed their ideas in smal groups and shared these results with the entire group at the end of the workshop. ECONorthwest analyzed the worksheets to develop a more refined list of mitigation strategies, including new actions identified by participants. Page 56 ECONorthwest October 207 Lin County Comunity Wildfire Protection Plan FINDINGS EMERGENCY RESPONSE Improving eficiency in wildfire response eforts is esential in protecting the residents and property in Linn County from potentialy devastating wildland fires. Workshop participants were asked to identify isues regarding emergency response and comment on the mitigation strategies developed through the stakeholder interviews and survey. The primary isues regarding emergency response are summarized below. • There are deficiencies in resources available for wildland fire fighting. • Water supply is limited in some of the County’s more vulnerable areas. • Water sources often improperly maintained for firefighting purposes. • Rural addresing needs to be improved. • There are interoperable communication isues betwen structural and wildland fire protection agencies. • Many WUI areas have dead-end roads and only one ingres/egres route. • Most of the rural fire protection districts are stafed mainly by volunters, and need asistance in training for wildfire response. • A smaler secondary substation on the east side of the Harisburg District is needed. EDUCATION AND OUTREACH Enhancing wildfire education and outreach is arguably one of the most important outcomes of the CWP. Workshop participants were asked to identify isues regarding education and outreach and comment on the mitigation strategies developed through the stakeholder interviews and survey. The primary isues regarding education and outreach are sumarized below. • Though educational materials exist, there has not ben a comprehensive and coordinated efort for distributing materials. • Public education about development in areas subject to wildfires is needed. • Campfires are an isue in dispersed camping areas and backyards (rather than in campgrounds). • The Smokey Bear Fire Prevention Programs in schools are efective and should continue. • Many fire districts need additional staf and resources to asist in fire prevention. Lin County Comunity Wildfire Protection Plan October 207 ECONorthwest Page 57 • Involving the media in a contest could improve visibility for the FireWise landscaping program and encourage neighbors to follow the examples of those in the community who are taking action on their properties. TREATMENT OF STRUCTURAL IGNITABILITY A CWP must recommend measures that homeowners and communities can take to reduce the ignitability of structures. Workshop participants were asked to identify isues regarding structural ignitability and comment on the mitigation strategies developed through the stakeholder interviews and survey. The primary isues regarding structural ignitability are summarized below: • The criteria insurance providers use to ases fire insurance eligibility and premiums does not acurately portray the true fire hazard. • There are many homes in structuraly unprotected areas. • County driveway and road standards do not match the International Building Code and the County does not require re-inspection after the development is complete. Fire departments do not inspect driveways in terms of the County standards. • County GIS needs to be familiar with the risk asesment maps to ensure that the data can be updated. • There is a lack of structural ignitability data. • Proceses and standards for the implementation of SB 360 need to be developed. PRIORITIZED FUEL REDUCTION A CWP must identify and prioritize areas for hazardous fuel reduction treatments and recommend the types and methods of treatment that wil protect one or more at-risk communities and esential infrastructure. Participants were asked to identify isues regarding fuels reduction and comment on the mitigation strategies developed through the stakeholder interviews and survey. Participant’s responses are summarized below: • Fuel reduction eforts on the part of fire protection agencies should be coordinated. • Education about risks and rewards of fuel reduction is needed. • Homeowners need asistance with determining appropriate fuel reduction strategies. • Funding for creating and sustaining fuels reduction projects is needed. • Elderly or disabled homeowners need asistance in doing the physical labor asociated with fuel reduction. • Biomas utilization and marketing could be a method for paying for fuel reduction eforts. Page 58 ECONorthwest October 207 Lin County Comunity Wildfire Protection Plan • Homeowners need incentives and resources for continuing fuels reduction eforts. • Slash piles located close to roads could hinder evacuation, and would serve to promote the spread of fire from one side of the road to the other. • Homeowners need resources for asesing and addresing fuels management. • Agricultural lands need to be protected from wildfires. COLABORATION A CWP must be collaboratively developed using a proces that involves local and state government representatives, in consultation with federal agencies and other interested parties. Participants were asked to identify isues regarding structural ignitability and comment on the mitigation strategies developed through the stakeholder interviews and survey . Participant’s responses are summarized below: • Formalizing an Advisory Commite wil asist in implementing the Linn County Community Wildfire Protection Plan. • A sub-commite or Fire Prevention Cooperative is needed to coordinate and sustain efective countywide public education and outreach activities. CONCLUSION The results of the workshop were threfold. First, the mock planning exercise gave participants the perspective and motivation to identify and resolve potential wildfire-related isues for their community. This group of educated stakeholders can be catalysts for community action. Second, it provided a forum for fostering partnerships among stakeholders that have a vested interest in reducing wildfire hazards. These relationships wil serve as the foundation for coordinated implementation of the CWP. And finaly, the discussion and review of the action items included in the CP results in a comprehensive action plan that wil guide Linn County in reducing the threat of potentialy devastating wildfires. Lin County Comunity Wildfire Protection Plan October 207 ECONorthwest Page 59 Section 5 Action Plan The action plan section of this document details the goals and action items that guide the implementation of the Linn County Community Wildfire Protection Plan. The goals and action items are vital components of the CP and serve as a roadmap for plan implementation. It has the following parts: • Action plan framework describes the overal framework for the Linn County CWP • Action plan methods describes how the mision, goals and objectives were developed • Plan mision describes the mision statement of the Linn County CWP • Plan goals describes goals of the Linn County CWP • Plan action items describes wildfire mitigation strategies identified through the Linn County CWP planning proces • Action plan matrix documents the action items in relation to the plan goals ACTION PLAN FRAMEWORK This section provides information on the proces used to develop the goals, objectives, and action items in the Linn County CWP. It also presents the Action Plan matrix, which is the overal framework for wildfire mitigation strategies. The framework consists of thre parts—Mision, Goals, and Action Items: • The mision statement is a philosophical or value statement that answers the question “Why develop a plan?” In short, the mision states the purpose and defines the primary function of the County’s Community Wildfire Protection Plan. The mision is an action-oriented statement of the plan’s reason to exist. It is broad enough that it need not change unles the community environment changes. • Goals are intended to represent the general ends toward which the Linn County CWP is directed. Goals identify how the area intends to work toward mitigating the risk of Wildland Urban Interface fire. They do not specify how Linn County is to achieve a given level of performance. The goals are guiding principles for the specific recommendations outlined in the action items. • Action items are detailed recommendations for activities that local departments, citizens and others could engage in to reduce Wildland Urban Interface fire risk. Page 60 ECONorthwest October 207 Lin County Comunity Wildfire Protection Plan ACTION PLAN METHODS The Action Plan was developed through an analysis of the isues identified in the risk asesment, Rural Fire Protection District interviews, and the FireWise Workshop, as wel as through background research on the Wildland Urban Interface and a review of other Community Wildfire Protection Plans. The mision and goals for the Linn County CP were taken from the existing Linn County Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan, approved in March 2006. The Stering Commite reviewed and approved mision, goals, and action items on September 12, 2007. Commite members and the agencies they represent were asigned responsibility for the implementation of individual action items. PLAN MISSION The mision of the Linn County CWP aligns wtih the mision for the Linn County Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan. The mision is : To reduce the impact of natural hazards on the comunity through planning, communication, coordination and partnership development. PLAN GOALS Plan goals help to guide the direction of future activities aimed at reducing risk and preventing losses from wildfire. The goals listed here serve as the guiding principles for agencies and organizations as they begin implementing action items. The Linn County CWP goals are based on the concepts presented during the FireWise Community orkshop. • Goal #1: Enhance wildfire response capabilities • Goal #2: Increase stakeholder knowledge about wildfire risk through education and outreach • Goal #3: Encourage the treatment of structural ignitability • Goal #4: Prioritize fuel reduction projects • Goal #5: Increase opportunities for collaboration and coordination to implement wildfire projects. PLAN ACTION ITEMS The plan identifies action items developed through various plan inputs and data collection and research. CWP activities may be eligible for funding through state and federal grant programs, including the National Fire Plan or Pre-Disaster Mitigation. To facilitate implementation, each action item is described in a worksheet, Table 5.1, which includes information on key isues addresed, ideas for Lin County Comunity Wildfire Protection Plan October 207 ECONorthwest Page 61 implementation, coordinating and partner organizations, timeline, and plan goals addresed. KEY ISUES ADRESED Each action item includes a list of the key isues that the activity wil addres. Action items should be fact based and tied directly to isues or needs identified through the planning proces. Action items can be developed from a number of sources, including input from participants in the planning proces, noted deficiencies in local capabilities, or isues identified through the risk asesment. IDEAS FOR IMPLEMENTATION Each action item includes ideas for implementation and potential resources. This information offers a transition from theory to practice. The ideas for implementation serve as a starting point for this plan. This component is dynamic in nature, as some ideas may be not feasible and new ideas may be added during the plan maintenance proces. (For more information on how this plan wil be implemented and evaluated, refer to Section 5 of the CWP). Action items are suggestions about how to implement plan goals. These include elements such as collaboration with relevant organizations, grant programs, tax incentives, human resources, education and outreach, research, and physical manipulation of buildings and infrastructure. A list of potential resources outlines which organization or agency would be most qualified and capable of performing the implementation strategy. Potential resources often include utility companies, non-profits, schools, and other community organizations. CORDINATING ORGANIZATION The coordinating organization is the organization that is wiling and able to organize resources, find appropriate funding, and overse activity implementation, monitoring, and evaluation. INTERNAL PARTNERS Internal partners are members of the CWP advisory commite and may be able to asist in the implementation of action items by providing relevant resources to the coordinating organization. EXTERNAL PARTNERS External partner organizations can asist the coordinating organization in implementing the action items in various ways. Partners may include local, regional, state, or federal agencies, as wel as local and regional public and private sector entities. The internal and external partner organizations listed in the CWP are potential partners recommended by the project stering commite, but were not necesarily contacted during the development of the plan. The coordinating Page 62 ECONorthwest October 207 Lin County Comunity Wildfire Protection Plan organization should contact the identified partner organizations to se if they are capable of and wiling to participate. This initial contact also provides an opportunity to gain a commitment of time and/or resources toward completion of the action items. TIMELINE Action items include both short and long-term activities. Each action item contains an estimated timeline for implementation. Short-term action items are activities that may be implemented with existing resources and authorities within one to two years. Long-term action items may require new or additional resources and/or authorities, and may take from one to five years to implement. ACTION PLAN MATRIX The Action Plan matrix portrays the overal framework and links betwen the goals, objectives and action items of the Linn County CWP. The matrix is modeled after one developed by the National Commite on Wildland Urban Interface Fire. The matrix links the action items to the thre HFRA requirements that they addres: collaboration, prioritized fuel reduction, and treatment of structural ignitability. Each action item has a corresponding action item worksheet describing the project, identifying the rationale for the project, potential ideas for implementation, and asigning coordinating and supporting organizations. These action item forms are located in Appendix A: Action Item Worksheets. Lin County Comunity Wildfire Protection Plan October 207 ECONorthwest Page 63 Page 64 ECONorthwest October 207 Lin County Comunity Wildfire Protection Plan Lin County Comunity Wildfire Protection Plan October 207 ECONorthwest Page 65 Page 6 ECONorthwest October 207 Lin County Comunity Wildfire Protection Plan Lin County Comunity Wildfire Protection Plan October 207 ECONorthwest Page 67 Plan Implementation Section 6 and Maintenance The plan implementation and maintenance section of this document details the formal proces that wil ensure that the Linn County Community Wildfire Protection Plan (CWP) remains a relevant document and that the actions in it are implemented. This section provides the foundation for the formation of the Linn County’s CWP Advisory Commite, refered to as the Commite. This section of the CWP outlines the methods by which the Linn County CWP wil be implemented, maintained, and updated. It has the following parts: • Plan implementation describes how the Linn County wil be implemented and includes a discussion of the plan’s convener, advisory commite, and commite membership; • Plan maintenance describes how the plan wil be maintained and updated and includes a discussion on the annual and semi-annual metings as wel as the project prioritization proces; and • Five-year review of plan describes the methods in which the plan wil be updated on a 5 year basis. PLAN IMPLEMENTATION It is critical that Linn County have a “living document” that is consistently updated to reflect current needs and priorities. The plan’s format alows the Commite to review and update sections as new data becomes available. New data can be easily incorporated, resulting in a Community Wildfire Protection Plan that remains current and relevant to Linn County and to al the CWP partners. The benefits of a current and relevant CWP include: • Alowing communities to identify local priorities and shape management decisions afecting public lands around them • Building community partnerships and collaboration betwen fire districts, fire departments, local/state/federal governments, and private landowners • Identifying a variety of funding sources and opportunities available to communities • Facilitating fuels reduction and forest health treatments across landscapes, in acordance with the goals of the Healthy Forest Restoration Act (HFRA) and Healthy Forests Initiative The Healthy Forest Restoration Act (HFRA) requires that thre entities must mutualy agre on the final contents of a CWP: • Linn County Board of Commisioners • Linn County Fire Defense Board Page 68 ECONorthwest October 207 Lin County Comunity Wildfire Protection Plan • Oregon Department of Forestry The Linn County CWP is a shared plan and was developed and implemented based upon a collaborative proces. The plan wil be adopted by resolution by the Linn County Board of Commisioners and acknowledged by the Linn County Fire Defense Board and Oregon Department of Forestry in order to met HFRA and Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Pre-Disaster Mitigation requirements. The efectivenes of the Linn County non-regulatory CWP wil be contingent upon the implementation of the plan and action items identified therein. The action items provide a framework for building and sustaining partnerships to support wildfire risk reduction projects. CONVENER The Linn County Planning and Building Department wil serve as the convener and wil overse the plan’s implementation and maintenance. The Department wil chair the CWP advisory commite and fulfil the chair’s responsibilities. This entity wil be responsible for caling metings to order at scheduled times or when isues arise, (e.g., when funding becomes available or following a major wildfire event). The convener’s key roles are: • Coordinate Commite meting dates, times, locations, agendas, and member notification • Document outcomes of Commite metings in Appendix B: Implementation and Maintenance Documentation • Serve as a communication conduit betwen the Comite and key plan stakeholders, (e.g., monthly metings of the Fire Defense Board) • Identify emergency management related funding sources for wildfire mitigation projects • Serve as gatekeeper to the project prioritization proces • Use the Linn County Wildland Urban Interface Risk Asesment as a tool for prioritizing proposed fuel reduction projects. ADVISORY COMITE The plan development stering commite wil become the advisory commite (the Commite) and wil overse implementation, identify and coordinate funding opportunities and sustain the CWP. The Commite wil act as the coordinating body and serve as a centralized resource for wildfire risk reduction and Wildland Urban Interface isues in Linn County. Additional roles and responsibilities of the commite include: • Serving as the local evaluation commite for wildfire funding programs such as National Fire Plan grants, Senate Bil 360, and the Pre-Disaster Mitigation program Lin County Comunity Wildfire Protection Plan October 207 ECONorthwest Page 69 • Developing and coordinating ad hoc and/or standing subcommites as needed • Prioritizing and recommending funding of wildfire risk reduction projects • Documenting succeses and lesons learned • Evaluating and updating the CWP in acordance with the prescribed maintenance schedule MEMBERS The following organizations were represented and served on the Commite during the development of the CWP. These groups wil continue to be members of the Commite during the implementation and maintenance phases of the CWP. • Oregon Department of Forestry • Bureau of Land Management, Salem Ofice • Linn County Planning and Building Department • Linn County Fire Defense Board • Wilamete National Forest and Bureau of Land Management, Eugene Ofice • Linn County Emergency Services Because of the importance that the CWP planning proces places on collaboration and the fact that wildfire mitigation is a shared responsibility among a number of diverse stakeholders, the Commite may look to expand current membership on the Commite. Potential future comite members may include: • Calapooia, North Santiam and South Santiam Watershed Councils • Home Builders Asociation • Insurance representatives • Citizen representatives • Local elected officials Page 70 ECONorthwest October 207 Lin County Comunity Wildfire Protection Plan PROJECT PRIORITIZATION PROCES The requirements of HFRA state that the CWP Advisory Commite must establish community hazard reduction priorities to determine the order of project implementation. The CWP Advisory Commite wil support and prioritize wildfire risk reduction projects within Linn County. Hazard reduction projects wil be identified; however, the Commite and the County cannot ensure they wil be undertaken. Completion of projects wil be dependent upon the availability of funding and adequate stafing. Funding to undertake hazard mitigation projects must also provide for administration costs and staf. The projects that are presented to the CWP Advisory Commite wil often come from a variety of sources; therefore the project prioritization proces needs to be flexible. Examples of means by which projects may be identified include: Commite members, local fire districts or profesionals, or the Risk Asesment itself. Depending on the potential project’s intent and implementation methods, several funding sources may be available and appropriate. Examples of wildfire mitigation funding sources include: National Fire Plan, and Pre-Disaster Mitigation grants. The subsections that follow detail the specific steps that the Commite wil take to prioritize projects. Figure 6-1 provides an overview. Lin County Comunity Wildfire Protection Plan October 207 ECONorthwest Page 71 Figure 6-1. Overview of project prioritization proces, Lin County Comunity Wildfire Protection Plan Source: Oregon Natural Hazards Workgroup, 207 STEP 1: EXAMINE FUNDING REQUIREMENTS The Stering Commite wil identify how best to implement individual actions within the appropriate existing plan, policy, or program. The Commite wil examine the selected funding stream’s requirements to ensure that the mitigation activity would be eligible through the funding source. The Commite may consult with the funding entity, Oregon Emergency Management, Oregon Page 72 ECONorthwest October 207 Lin County Comunity Wildfire Protection Plan Department of Forestry or other appropriate state or regional organizations about the project’s eligibility. The following map may be useful in the federal grant application proces. It shows the outputs of the risk asesment in this document (localized communities-at-risk) and the WUI as defined in federal legislation. It also shows surface ownership of land (especialy BLM and ODF) to determine which partnerships wil be most critical to a succesful grant application. The GIS data files produced as part of this planning proces are housed at the County, and County GIS staf are trained to produce additional documentation if it is required. Lin County Comunity Wildfire Protection Plan October 207 ECONorthwest Page 73 Lin County Comunity Wildfire Protection Plan October 207 ECONorthwest Page 75 STEP 2: COMPLETE RISK ASESMENT EVALUATION The second step in prioritizing the plan’s action items is to examine the wildfire risk asociated with the proposed action. The Commite wil determine whether or not the plan’s risk asesment supports the implementation of the mitigation activity. This determination wil be based on the location of the potential activity and the proximity to areas of high wildfire hazard areas, historic hazard occurrence, vulnerable community asets at risk, and the probability of future occurrence documented in the Plan. STEP 3: COMPLETE QUANTITATIVE AND QUALITATIVE ASESMENT, AND ECONOMIC ANALYSIS The third step is to identify the costs and benefits asociated with natural hazard mitigation strategies, measures, or projects. Two categories of analysis that are used in this step are: (1) benefit/cost analysis, and (2) cost-efectivenes analysis. Conducting benefit/cost analysis for a mitigation activity can asist communities in determining whether a project is worth undertaking now, in order to avoid disaster-related damages later. Cost-efectivenes analysis evaluates how best to spend a given amount of money to achieve a specific goal. Determining the economic feasibility of mitigating natural hazards can provide decision makers with an understanding of the potential benefits and costs of an activity, as wel as a basis upon which to compare alternative projects. Figure 6-2 shows decision criteria for selecting the method of analysis. Page 76 ECONorthwest October 207 Lin County Comunity Wildfire Protection Plan Figure 6-2. Benefit Cost Proces Overview Source: Comunity Service Center’s Oregon Natural Hazards Workgroup at the University of Oregon, 206. If the activity requires federal funding for a structural project, the Commite wil use a Federal Emergency Management Agency-approved cost-benefit analysis tool to evaluate the appropriatenes of the activity. A project must have a benefit/cost ratio of greater than one in order to be eligible for FEMA grant funding. For non-federaly funded or nonstructural projects, a qualitative asesment wil be completed to determine the project’s cost efectivenes. The commite wil use a multivariable asesment technique caled STAPLE/E to prioritize these actions. STAPLE/E stands for Social, Technical, Administrative, Political, Legal, Economic, and Environmental. Asesing projects based upon these seven variables can help define a project’s qualitative cost efectivenes. The STAPLE/E technique has been tailored for use in natural hazard action item prioritization by the Oregon Natural Hazards Workgroup at the University of Oregon’s Community Service Center. Se Economic Analysis of Natural Hazard Mitigation Projects Appendix for a description of the STAPLE/E evaluation methodology. STEP 4: COMITE RECOMENDATION Based on the steps above, the commite wil recomend whether or not the mitigation activity should be moved forward. If the commite decides to move forward with the action, the coordinating organization designated on the action item form wil be responsible for taking further action and documenting succes upon project completion. The Commite wil convene a meting to review the isues surrounding grant applications and to share knowledge and/or resources. This proces wil aford greater coordination and les competition for limited Lin County Comunity Wildfire Protection Plan October 207 ECONorthwest Page 7 funds. When the Commite selects a project for inclusion in the plan, a leter of support wil be signed by al members of the Commite. This leter can be utilized in grant applications to show community support for the mitigation action. The Commite and the community’s leadership have the option to implement any of the action items at any time, (regardles of the prioritized order). This alows the commite to consider mitigation strategies as new opportunities arise, such as funding for action items that may not be of the highest priority. This methodology is used by the Commite to prioritize the plan’s action items during the annual review and update proces. PLAN MAINTENANCE Plan maintenance is a critical component of the CWP plan. Proper maintenance of the CWP wil ensure that this plan supports the County’s eforts to reduce risk in the ildland Urban Interface. Linn County and CWP partners have developed a method to ensure that regular review and updating of the CWP occurs. The Commite is responsible for maintaining and updating the CWP through a series of metings outlined in Table 6-1. Table 6-1. Plan Maintenance Meting Schedule Semi-Anual Meting Anual eting Five-Year Review Reviw Curent Actions UpdateRiskAsesment Dat and Finigs Reviw plan update questions Identify New Isues and Neds Discusion of Methods of Contiued Pblic Ivlvemnt Update plan sections as necsary Prioritze Potential Projects Documentig Suceses and Lesons Learnd SEMI-ANUAL METING The Comite wil met on a semi-annual basis to: • Review existing action items to determine ‘ripenes’ • Identify isues that may not have been pinpointed when the plan was developed • Prioritize potential wildfire mitigation projects Linn County Planning and Building wil be responsible for documenting the outcome of the semi-annual metings. The proces the Commite wil use to prioritize al projects, including fuel reduction projects, is detailed in the section below. ANUAL METING The Commite wil met annualy to review updates of the Risk Asesment data and findings, get updates on local CWP planning eforts, discuss methods Page 78 ECONorthwest October 207 Lin County Comunity Wildfire Protection Plan of continued public involvement, and document succeses and lesons learned based on actions that were acomplished during the past year. On an annual basis, Linn County Planning and Building wil complete the following tasks in an efort to incorporate, maintain, and update Linn County’s Wildland Urban Interface Risk Asesment GIS data elements. • Met semi-annualy with rural fire protection district boards and fire department representatives to update community maps and digitize local data as appropriate to the RFPD and FD needs; • Update the Risk Asesment GIS data layers on a timely basis as new Oregon Department of Forestry, U.S. Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management studies or asesments become available; • Integrate local CWP asesments and mapping, when available, into the Linn County CP; • Update local and regional CWP websites with information provided by the Linn County Fire Defense Board; • Support community eforts in the drafting of local CWPs by providing aces to the Risk Asesment GIS data; and • Asist local community eforts in identifying potential fuels reduction projects and drafting grant applications. Linn County Planning and Building wil be responsible for documenting the outcomes of the annual metings, as indicated in Appendix B: Implementation and Maintenance Documentation. FIVE-YEAR EVIEW OF PLAN Because the CWP wil be integrated into the wildfire annex of the Linn County Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan, complete plan updates wil be set at five- year intervals to met the requirements of the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000. During these plan updates, the following questions should be asked to determine what actions are necesary to update the plan. Linn County Planning and Building wil be responsible for documenting the outcomes of the five-year plan review, using the Appendix B: Implementation and Maintenance Documentation. Table 6- 2 provides a list of questions that can be used by the Commite to update the CWP. Lin County Comunity Wildfire Protection Plan October 207 ECONorthwest Page 79 Table 6-2. Five-year plan review questions 5-year Plan Reviw Questions Backgroud Dat -Section 1 Hs the wilfire protti framework at he local, stae, or fedral evl changed? av rsponsiblites f patn gncies canged? Hs ect fire ocurnce be acuratly reflct in the plan? Risk Asesment Dat -Section 2 Ha th wildfir isk cros the County changed? ve n tols erged t btr evalte t wilfire hazrd? Ha local cmunits evlopd plns and implentd ctivties that might cange the County’s veral risk? Outreach Dat -Section 3 A tre nw playrs that should be rought o the table? Action Plan Dat -Section 4 D the CWP goals, bjectives and actions adres curent or expectd conditons? Hav actions ben eftily implete? Are ther ew fudig sources avilabl to adres the wildfire hazrd? t n action that hould e de t ction plan matix? Plan Implentation Dat -Section 5 Are th structres d mthds etablished for implentig the plan stil relvant? Hav te ben ay lesons larnd ocumnted fro sigifcant wildfires in other parts of the sta that might b aplicble to Lin Couty? Ha implentaion cured as nticpated? Wht obstacles d halng hve risn that have prevnted or delayed implentaion? Legal? Fincial? Instiutioal? ht oportunite have arisen that could acelrate implentaion? Lin County Comunity Wildfire Protection Plan October 207 ECONorthwest Page A-1 Apendix A Action Item Workshet Action Item worksheets were generated as a guide for the Matrix, further explaining the action items listed there. Each worksheet describes one action item, the rationale behind that item, and the steps that could be taken to implement it. Lin County Comunity Wildfire Protection Plan Actions Oregon Natural Hazards Workgroup University of Oregon Comunity Service Center Copyright © December 205 Enhance Wildfire Response Capabilities # 1 Proposed Action Item: Ases and addres deficiencies in equipment and resources available for wildland fire fighting for rural fire departments. Rationale for Proposed Action Item: Lin County Rural Fire Protection Districts identified the folowing equipment needs: • Brownsvile - 1,000 galon water tender • Swet Home – type 3 engine • Albany - additional tender capacity and a type 3 brush unit • Jeferson - replace 2 type 6 engines with 2 new type 6 engines. • Scio - 2 or 3 new Forestry brush units • Lebanon - 2 3,000 galon tenders with of road capabilities • Mil City - new tanker • Stayton - new type 5 or type 6 engine • Harisburg - smal type 3 engine, relocation of station to more central location Ideas for Implementation: • Sek funding to acquire identified fire fighting equipment • Must secure personnel to staf additional equipment and train them • Determine availability of private contractor equipment (tenders, dozers, hand crews, engines) • Develop informal agrements betwen private contractors to make equipment available in times of need. • Explore the opportunity to use Op-Center for resource tracking. Cordinating Organization: Fire Defense Board Internal Partners: External Partners:  Roads Department (to move water and supply flaggers)  Emergency Management  Power Companies  Hospitals  Private Contractors  ODF Lin County Comunity Wildfire Protection Plan Actions Oregon Natural Hazards Workgroup University of Oregon Comunity Service Center Copyright © December 205 Enhance Wildfire Response Capabilities # 2 Proposed Action Item: Inventory alternative firefighting water sources in the Wildland Urban Interface, including helicopter dip sites. Rationale for Proposed Action Item: • Stakeholder interviews with Rural Fire Protection Districts and state and federal agencies indicated the need to addres isues of water supply in Wildland Urban Interface areas. • ODF has undertaken a portion of this action by identifying water sources within the Wildland Urban Interface. • Water supply is a critical factor in an agency’s ability to fight fire. • Older, established water sources often lack proper maintenance to keep them being viable water sources. • Lack of maintenance of dip sites Ideas for Implementation: • Continue to inventory and ases areas where water sources are needed • Conduct maintenance on existing sites • Secure funding to develop new sites and provide for long-term aintenance • Utilize Oregon Civil Air Patrol for aerial photography • Focus eforts on smaler, private land owners Cordinating Organization: Oregon Department of Forestry Internal Partners: External Partners: Rural Fire Protection Districts  United States Forest Service  Smal Woodlands Asociation  Oregon Civil Air Patrol  Industrial land owners  Water Master Lin County Comunity Wildfire Protection Plan Actions Oregon Natural Hazards Workgroup University of Oregon Comunity Service Center Copyright © December 205 Enhance Wildfire Response Capabilities # 3 Proposed Action Item: Improve addresing in rural areas. Rationale for Proposed Action Item: • Stakeholder interviews with Rural Fire Protection Districts and state and federal agencies indicated the need to improve rural addresing. • Some fire districts have received grant funding to provide fire resistant signage • County 911 system is working with GIS to produce beter maps • Get the lanes named • Ensure that residences adhere to building code Ideas for Implementation: • Continue with eforts around driveway signage • Make sure homes have addres number visible at the home • Addresing posts need to be fire resistant • Clarify where new developments go to get addreses – County Planning or Post Ofice Cordinating Organization: Linn County Sheriff - Dispatch Internal Partners: External Partners:  Building Department  Fire Defense Board  Linn County GIS Lin County Comunity Wildfire Protection Plan Actions Oregon Natural Hazards Workgroup University of Oregon Comunity Service Center Copyright © December 205 Enhance Wildfire Response Capabilities # 4 Proposed Action Item: Enhance interoperable communications by addresing communication deficiencies. Rationale for Proposed Action Item: • Stakeholder interviews with Rural Fire Protection Districts and state and federal agencies indicated the need to improve communication in order to improve response coordination. • Eventualy, al radio frequencies wil have to be “narow band” by 2013. • Communication isues arise when responders come from other areas. • Gates, Lyons, and Mil City are on a separate 911 dispatch system. • Idhana and Detroit are on a separate dispatch system, as are Gates and Santiam • The Jeferson/Staton area is also on a separate dispatch Ideas for Implementation: • Identify funding to upgrade radios for fire departments and repeater sites • Utilize local tactical radio frequencies so diferent partners can talk to each other • Establish a radio cache with portable radios and mobile repeaters to be used in an emergency • Utilize compatible radio systems Cordinating Organization: Lin County Sherif – Dispatch (County Emergency Management) Internal Partners: External Partners: Rural Fire Protection Districts Fire Defense Board Oregon Department of Forestry US Forest Service Bureau of Land Management Lin County Comunity Wildfire Protection Plan Actions Oregon Natural Hazards Workgroup University of Oregon Comunity Service Center Copyright © December 205 Enhance Wildfire Response Capabilities # 5 Proposed Action Item: Develop evacuation plans and procedures for high-risk WUI areas. Rationale for Proposed Action Item: • Rural county includes a number of areas that include dead-end roads and forest ground, making evacuation more dificult. • Washburn Heights, Mt. Tom, Ty Valey and Marion Forks are particularly in need of evacuation planning Ideas for Implementation: • Develop a task force to ases the high risk communities and look at options for aces/evacuation • Secondary plan to evacuate pets/livestock • Review Camp Sherman evacuation plan and determine applicability as a template • Review and incorporate County’s existing mandatory evacuation codes • Develop and inventory of locked gates and work with property owners to gain aces during emergency events. • Work with larger landholders to identify private logging roads that could be used for evacuation. Cordinating Organization: County Emergency Management Internal Partners: External Partners:  Roads Department  Linn County GIS  Oregon Department of Forestry  United States Forest Service Lin County Comunity Wildfire Protection Plan Actions Oregon Natural Hazards Workgroup University of Oregon Comunity Service Center Copyright © December 205 Enhance Wildfire Response Capabilities # 6 Proposed Action Item: Augment volunter fire fighter training to improve response capabilities, especialy in rural fire districts. Rationale for Proposed Action Item: • Most of the rural fire protection districts are staffed mainly by volunteers. • Some districts utilize local Community Emergency Response Team (CERT) are recruitment tol for volunteers Ideas for Implementation: • Develop a regional volunter training program that utilizes personnel and support from al participating fire districts. • ODF can provide wildland fire training to volunter departments • Develop program for training on the Incident Command System (NIMS) • Utilize the Linn County Fire Training Council more efectively Cordinating Organization: Linn County Fire Training Council Internal Partners: External Partners: Emergency Management Lin County Comunity Wildfire Protection Plan Actions Oregon Natural Hazards Workgroup University of Oregon Comunity Service Center Copyright © December 205 Enhance Wildfire Response Capabilities # 7 Proposed Action Item: Sek funding to build a smaler secondary substation on the east side of the Harisburg District Rationale for Proposed Action Item: • Acording to a stakeholder interview ith the Harisburg District, time is an isue. The district is 86 square miles with the station positioned in the western most part. In some areas response times can be betwen 15 and 20 minutes. • This station would significantly reduce response times to the district’s Wildland Interface areas and could save property owners considerable amount of money in reduced insurance premiums with beter rates by virtue of a fire station located in the area. Ideas for Implementation: • Explore funding options including federal grants and state and local funds. Cordinating Organization: Harrisburg Rural Fire Protection District Internal Partners: External Partners: Lin County Comunity Wildfire Protection Plan Actions Oregon Natural Hazards Workgroup University of Oregon Comunity Service Center Copyright © December 205 Education and Outreach # 1 Proposed Action Item: Collaborate with developers/builders, fire protection agencies, and relevant County agencies to collect and distribute educational materials regarding fire-resistant construction materials, fire code standards for aces, water supply, fuel breaks and fire-resistant vegetation in the wildland interface/forest designated areas. Rationale for Proposed Action Item: • Stakeholder interviews with Rural Fire Protection Districts and state and federal agencies indicated the need to maintain and enhance public communication about development in areas subject to wildfires. • Though educational materials exist, there has not ben a comprehensive and coordinated efort for distribution of materials. • Interface residents need frequent reminders of the importance of reducing wildfire hazards around homes. Ideas for Implementation: • Develop and provide an educational packet to al WUI residents that includes suggestions for fire-safe construction materials, aces, water supply, and fuel breaks (Some materials are available through the Misoula TDC). • Encourage distribution educational materials through individual contact with residents in high hazard areas.  Fire personnel could perform “knock and talks” to educate the homeowners about the limitations of fire protection for homes without defensible space  Provide materials to CERT teams and neighborhood watch commites to promote neighbor-to-neighbor discussions. • Make fire-safe construction educational materials readily available to Linn County residents at the following venues:  County Building and Planning when permits are acquired, County Community Development Counter, and other public offices  Banks (to be given to people financing or refinancing their properties)  Insurance companies (these two bullets were discussed as potentialy another action item) Utilize local media for promoting fire safe building practices. • Maintain a website to promote Linn County’s Community Wildfire Protection Plan. Bilboards wil also be useful during the fire season to reach a wide audience that includes those coming in from more urban areas. • Work with insurance companies to distribute educational materials to interface Lin County Comunity Wildfire Protection Plan Actions Oregon Natural Hazards Workgroup University of Oregon Comunity Service Center Copyright © December 205 policyholders, and identify incentives for reducing wildfire hazards. Cordinating Organization: Fire Districts (Fire Prevention Officers) and Linn County Planning Department Internal Partners: External Partners:  Oregon Department of Forestry  Ofice State Fire Marshal  County Planning and Building Department  Insurance companies  Banks  Community Emergency Response Teams  Neighborhood watch groups  Senior citizen groups  OSU extension Lin County Comunity Wildfire Protection Plan Actions Oregon Natural Hazards Workgroup University of Oregon Comunity Service Center Copyright © December 205 Education and Outreach # 2 Proposed Action Item: Work with local nurseries and the extension service’s Master Gardeners program to promote firewise landscaping. Rationale for Proposed Action Item: • Stakeholder interviews with Rural Fire Protection Districts and state and federal agencies indicated the need to promote the use of firewise landscaping practices. • The need for this type of educational program was also discussed at the Firewise Workshop held June 7 th , 2007. Ideas for Implementation: • Partner with Oregon Gardens and the Master Gardeners to create firewise landscaping exhibitions. On possible place for a demonstration garden is at the Linn County Expo Center and Fairgrounds. 4-H and/or Boyscouts could asist with initial landscaping and on- going maintenance. • Add a “Firewise” tag to plants at nurseries that are on the approved landscaping list. Cordinating Organization: Oregon State University Extension Service Internal Partners: External Partners: Linn County Fairgrounds  Oregon Gardens Nursery  Master Gardners  Oregon Nursery Asociation  Oregon Department of Forestry  4-H clubs  Boy scouts  High school Forestry Clubs Lin County Comunity Wildfire Protection Plan Actions Oregon Natural Hazards Workgroup University of Oregon Comunity Service Center Copyright © December 205 Education and Outreach # 3 Proposed Action Item: Continue to educate the public about the campfire safety. Rationale for Proposed Action Item: • Stakeholder interviews with Rural Fire Protection Districts and state and federal agencies indicated the need to maintain and enhance public communication about fire safety in the woods. • Educational programs exist, but participants in the Firewise Workshop noted that funding is scarce and the budget for patrolling has been reduced. Further, because new residents are moving into the area or are visiting campgrounds, ongoing educational eforts are necesary. • This problem is greatest in dispersed camping areas and backyards (rather than in campgrounds), which makes enforcement dificult. Ideas for Implementation: • Provide public service announcements using local media • Develop and instal signs with campfire safety tips • Educate people about the use of retail campfire rings, which are not legal containment mechanisms (although they are marketed as such). • Place garbage bags and buckets for water with fire safety mesages at campsites. • Target areas of high-use such as the Quartzvile area. • Encourage collaboration among ODF, USFS, BLM, local sherif’s office, and others to help to improve enforcement. • Target residents in urban areas by providing educational materials at sporting goods stores and other the population centers. Cordinating Organization:  United States Forest Service  Bureau of Land Management  Oregon Department of Forestry Internal Partners: External Partners:  County Sherif’s Ofice  Rural Fire Protection Districts  Oregon State Police  Sporting goods stores Lin County Comunity Wildfire Protection Plan Actions Oregon Natural Hazards Workgroup University of Oregon Comunity Service Center Copyright © December 205 Education and Outreach # 4 Proposed Action Item: Continue supporting and expand the Smokey Bear Fire Prevention Programs in schools. Rationale for Proposed Action Item: • Stakeholder interviews with Rural Fire Protection Districts and state and federal agencies indicated that districts in the County had been continualy involved in the Smokey Bear Fire Prevention Program. • The Smokey the Bear campaign has been particularly succesful because: (1) reaching children is a good way to reach parents, and (2) the campaign promotes a fire prevention mesage that stays with children long into their adult lives. Ideas for Implementation: • The Smokey the Bear program can incorporate other educational campaign, such as the “Stop, Drop, and Roll” campaign. • Build partnerships with the school districts, boy scouts, girl scouts, churches, and other organizations that serve children to implement it. Cordinating Organization:  United States Forest Service  ODF Internal Partners: External Partners: Oregon State Parks School Districts Lin County Comunity Wildfire Protection Plan Actions Oregon Natural Hazards Workgroup University of Oregon Comunity Service Center Copyright © December 205 Education and Outreach #5 Proposed Action Item: Integrate wildfire hazards and safety programs into educational curriculum. Rationale for Proposed Action Item: • Stakeholder interviews with Rural Fire Protection Districts and state and federal agencies indicated that many fire districts need additional staf and resources to asist in fire prevention. Ideas for Implementation: • Work with Colleges to develop fire fighter training courses • Support service learning programs by utilizing students for conducting hazard asesments and as a labor force for fuels reduction. • Utilize SFMO wildfire education curriculum in middle-schools, and encourage students to take an active role in reducing wildfire hazards around their homes. Cordinating Organization: Fire Defense Board Internal Partners: External Partners:  Ofice of State Fire Marshal  School Districts  Colleges Lin County Comunity Wildfire Protection Plan Actions Oregon Natural Hazards Workgroup University of Oregon Comunity Service Center Copyright © December 205 Education and Outreach #6 Proposed Action Item: Create an “Extreme Home Make-over” contest to highlight the need for firewise landscaping. Rationale for Proposed Action Item: • Reducing fuel loads around interface structures was identified as a key means for reducing structural ignitability. • Involving the media in a contest of this sort could improve visibility for the Firewise landscaping program and encourage neighbors to follow the examples of those in the community who are taking action on their properties. Ideas for Implementation: • Washington County recently partnered with ODF to complete a program like this that would be an excelent model. • Ongoing upkeep and maintenance of the landscaping is an important isue that should be addresed during the contest. Cordinating Organization:  Lin County Planing and Building Departments  Oregon Department of Forestry Internal Partners: External Partners:  Media  Hardware and supply stores Lin County Comunity Wildfire Protection Plan Actions Oregon Natural Hazards Workgroup University of Oregon Comunity Service Center Copyright © December 205 Structural Ignitability # 1 Proposed Action Item: Identify incentives for improving maintenance of fire breaks and reducing hazardous vegetation. Rationale for Proposed Action Item: • Stakeholder interviews with Rural Fire Protection Districts and state and federal agencies indicated that maintenance of fuels reduction activities is dificult to track and enforce. • Rural Fire Protection Districts and state and federal agencies may asist in initial fuels reduction programs, but homeowners need to be responsible for maintenance. Ideas for Implementation: • Consider potential resources and incentives asociated with SB 360 implementation. • Work with insurance providers to encourage homeowners to be proactive in maintaining fire safe vegetation and reducing hazardous fuels. • Develop incentives for land owners adjacent to forested areas to reduce risk of fire spread from developed to undeveloped areas • Develop fire district incentives (such as cost-share programs) for maintenance of hazardous vegetation. Cordinating Organization: Oregon Department of Forestry Internal Partners: External Partners: Fire Defense Board  Insurance agencies (to hand out information)  Smal Woodlands Asociation  Industrial land owners Lin County Comunity Wildfire Protection Plan Actions Oregon Natural Hazards Workgroup University of Oregon Comunity Service Center Copyright © December 205 Structural Ignitability # 2 Proposed Action Item: Work with insurance providers to improve their criteria to adequately represent level of structural fire protection in residential structures, especialy in high-risk areas. Rationale for Proposed Action Item: • Stakeholder interviews with Rural Fire Protection Districts and state and federal agencies indicated that the criteria insurance providers use to designate ases fire insurance eligibility and premiums does not acurately portray the true fire hazard. Ideas for Implementation: • Encourage insurance companies to work with local fire agencies to develop regional criteria (to include fire breaks, fuels reductions, aces, water supply and fire prevention activities) for determining fire insurance eligibility and premiums to encourage acurate and consistent asesments. • Encourage insurance companies to lower premiums for homeowners that reduce wildfire hazards. • Encourage annual inspections of homes to encourage maintenance of hazardous vegetation. • Provide an educational component to developers/builders regarding fire insurance considerations of homes built without adequate aces and water supply. Cordinating Organization: State Insurance Commisioner’s Ofice Internal Partners: External Partners: Fire Districts  Ofice of State Fire Marshal  Insurance Companies  Oregon Department of Forestry Lin County Comunity Wildfire Protection Plan Actions Oregon Natural Hazards Workgroup University of Oregon Comunity Service Center Copyright © December 205 Structural Ignitability # 3 Proposed Action Item: Enhance structural protection in structuraly unprotected areas and comply with the Governor’s policy in unprotected areas to be eligible for conflagration resources. Rationale for Proposed Action Item: • Stakeholder interviews with Rural Fire Protection Districts and state and federal agencies indicated that there are many homes in unprotected areas. • County Land Use Planning identified unprotected areas as a major isue, and recently conducted a mailing to property owners in unprotected areas to make them aware of the lack of structural fire protection, and provide them with options for enhancing structural protection. Ideas for Implementation: • Support ODF in working with the County Tax Asesor to change the language on property tax statements for ODF asesment from “fire protection” to ODF “non-structural fire suppresion” so homeowners and insurers are not led to believe they have structural fire protection. • Continue to inform homeowners in unprotected areas of their unprotected status (using mailings and/or consider flagging the lots that are in unprotected areas) to educate the property owners about the lack of structural protection and provide options for enhancing structural protection. Cordinating Organization: Lin County Planing Department Internal Partners: External Partners: Fire Districts Land owners Lin County Comunity Wildfire Protection Plan Actions Oregon Natural Hazards Workgroup University of Oregon Comunity Service Center Copyright © December 205 Structural Ignitability # 4 Proposed Action Item: Incorporate, maintain, and update Linn County’s Wildland-Urban Interface Risk Asesment and GIS data elements. Rationale for Proposed Action Item: • Incorporating the wildland urban interface risk asesment GIS elements into the County’s GIS system wil help ensure that the County is able to incorporate new data, when available. Ideas for Implementation: • Develop an interactive website tool so that homeowners can se their level of fire hazard. • Update hazard asesment every five years and update information on the website. • Utilize the risk asesment to target areas for education and outreach as wel as fuels reduction programs. • Utilize GPS data to enhance and ground-truth hazard information. Cordinating Organization: Lin County GIS Internal Partners: External Partners: Fire Defense Board  Oregon Department of Forestry  United State Forest Service Lin County Comunity Wildfire Protection Plan Actions Oregon Natural Hazards Workgroup University of Oregon Comunity Service Center Copyright © December 205 Structural Ignitability # 5 Proposed Action Item: Complete the fire structural risk asesments in Brownsvile, Lebanon, and Swet Home fire districts, and utilize this as a model program for the other Linn County fire districts. Rationale for Proposed Action Item: • Stakeholder interviews with Rural Fire Protection Districts and state and federal agencies indicated that one of the most presing wildfire related isues is the lack of structural ignitability data. Ideas for Implementation: • Build upon Oregon Department of Forestry eforts that have completed over 2,000 home site asesments using GPS. • Develop fire risk asesments on the watershed level (North Santiam, South Santiam and the Calapooia watersheds). • Obtain grant funds to asist in asesments. • Acquire additional GPS units for structural triage. • Provide GPS training to fire staf, citizen volunters, and students that could asist in data acquisition. Cordinating Organization:  Fire Defense Board  Oregon Department of Forestry Internal Partners: External Partners:  Retired profesionals  Universities  Neighborhood asociations  CERT teams  Watershed councils Lin County Comunity Wildfire Protection Plan Actions Oregon Natural Hazards Workgroup University of Oregon Comunity Service Center Copyright © December 205 Structural Ignitability # 6 Proposed Action Item: Develop proceses and standards for the implementation of SB 360. Rationale for Proposed Action Item: • The Oregon Forestland-Urban Interface Fire Protection Act of 1997 (often refered to as Senate Bil 360) enlists the aid of property owners toward the goal of turning fire-vulnerable urban and suburban properties into les-volatile zones where firefighters may more safely and efectively defend homes from wildfires. The law requires property owners in identified forestland-urban interface areas to reduce exces vegetation, which may fuel a fire, around structures and along driveways, or compensate the County for some of the cost of fighting interface fires when they occur. In some cases, it is also necesary to create fuel breaks along property lines and roadsides. Ideas for Implementation: • Develop proceses for implementing the SB 360 legislation – including educational outreach to interface property owners. Cordinating Organization: ODF Internal Partners: External Partners: Board of Commisioners  Oregon Department of Forestry  Bureau of Land Management  United States Forest Service  County Planning and Building Departments Lin County Comunity Wildfire Protection Plan Actions Oregon Natural Hazards Workgroup University of Oregon Comunity Service Center Copyright © December 205 Fuel Reduction #1 Proposed Action Item: Develop and maintain an inventory of potential fuels reduction projects in high-risk areas, prescriptions, and list of prioritized future projects. Rationale for Proposed Action Item: • Stakeholder interviews with state and federal agencies indicated that fuel reduction eforts could be beter coordinated. Ideas for Implementation: • Utilize county-wide risk asesment to identify the highest risk areas and potential fuels projects. • Gather fire district priorities for fuels reduction annualy. • Utilize public outreach metings to identify wiling landowners, high hazard areas, and community priorities in order to develop a prescription. • Establish a point agency that public and private companies could contact for project information and guidance on everything from asesment to project completion. • Develop proces to asure al potential and fuel reduction projects are considered regardles of ownership (Oregon Department of Forestry, Bureau of Land Management, Forest Service, County, Private, etc.) • Incorporate potential project and track finished project in a publicly acesible Geographic Information System (GIS) Cordinating Organization: Linn County Planning (GIS), Oregon Department of Forestry Internal Partners: External Partners: Lin County GIS  Fire Defense Board  Bureau of Land Management  United States Forest Service Lin County Comunity Wildfire Protection Plan Actions Oregon Natural Hazards Workgroup University of Oregon Comunity Service Center Copyright © December 205 Fuel Reduction #2 Proposed Action Item: Develop educational materials designed to educate property owners about the benefits of sustained fuels reduction eforts. Rationale for Proposed Action Item: • Stakeholder interviews with Rural Fire Protection Districts and state and federal agencies indicated that education was needed about fuel reduction including information on the importance of maintenance. • There is a need to inform private land owners on how to ases the risks and rewards of fuel reduction. Ideas for Implementation: • Focus on protection of structures. • Continue door to door canvasing eforts to educate landowner and homeowner on the benefits of individual fuel reduction and Firewise practices. • Provide Firewise information to homeowners when obtaining a building permit in WUI zone. • Provide information and resources at the Oregon Logging Conference • Develop outreach and awarenes campaign in partnership with Arbor Day Foundation and local school • Develop and advertise incentives for maintenance of fuels reduction projects over time. • Work with insurance providers to provide incentives such as rebates for individuals who maintain defensible space. Cordinating Organization: Fire Defense Board Internal Partners: External Partners:  Linn County Planning Department  Linn County Sherif ‘s Ofice  Oregon Department of Forestry  Bureau of Land Management  United States Forest Service Oregon State University Extension Service  4-H programs  Boy Scouts  Neighborhood Watch Program  Smal Woodland Asociation Lin County Comunity Wildfire Protection Plan Actions Oregon Natural Hazards Workgroup University of Oregon Comunity Service Center Copyright © December 205 Fuel Reduction #3 Proposed Action Item: Develop a resource guide to asist private landowners on how to complete risk asesments and determine appropriate fuel reduction strategies. Rationale for Proposed Action Item: • Stakeholder interviews with Rural Fire Protection Districts and state and federal agencies indicated that homeowner education was needed about fuel reduction. • Often is dificult and time consuming for private land owners to find the trusted resources related to risk asesment and best practices Ideas for Implementation:  Develop a listing of resources that could provide technical asistance for property owners or other interested parties in asesing the wildfire hazard, developing prescriptions, removing hazardous vegetation, and adding value to the extracted vegetation.  Develop a list of consultant foresters who are trained in WUI risk asesment methodology.  Provide training for consultant foresters on wild land fire isues Cordinating Organization: Oregon Department of Forestry Internal Partners: External Partners: Fire Defense Board  Oregon State University Master Woodland Manager Program  Asociation of Oregon Loggers or smal woodland owners  SAF-SOC. Of American Foresters Lin County Comunity Wildfire Protection Plan Actions Oregon Natural Hazards Workgroup University of Oregon Comunity Service Center Copyright © December 205 Fuel Reduction #4 Proposed Action Item: Identify opportunities to asist vulnerable populations who request asistance (i.e. elderly, disabled, etc. in isolated areas) in creating defensible space around homes and communities. Rationale for Proposed Action Item: • Stakeholder interviews with Rural Fire Protection Districts and state and federal agencies indicated that homeowner education was needed about fuel reduction. • Stakeholder interviews with Rural Fire Protection Districts and state and federal agencies also indicated that elderly or disabled homeowners typicaly require asistance in doing the physical labor asociated with fuel reduction. Ideas for Implementation:  Work with social service providers to establish parameters for individuals to qualify for asistance.  Develop proces for individuals to request asistance.  Establish a list of groups that could asist in fuels reduction projects( i.e. NW Youth Corp, 4H, Boy Scouts, contactors)  Sek grant funds to provide incentives and/or cover cost of completing the work.  Sek options utilizing inmate services/labor Cordinating Organization: Oregon Department of Forestry Internal Partners: External Partners:  Fire Defense Board  Linn County Planning  Oregon State University Extension Service  Northwest Youth Corp Lin County Comunity Wildfire Protection Plan Actions Oregon Natural Hazards Workgroup University of Oregon Comunity Service Center Copyright © December 205 Fuel Reduction #5 Proposed Action Item: Explore and promote opportunities for smal diameter biomas utilization and marketing. Rationale for Proposed Action Item: • Stakeholder interviews with Rural Fire Protection Districts and state and federal agencies indicated that biomas utilization and marketing might be a method for paying for fuel reduction eforts. Ideas for Implementation: • Work with Freres Lumber and Totmon Chipping/Grinding in Swet Home to identify any partnership opportunities for utilizing biomas for the 10 MW biomas plant at Lyons. Cordinating Organization: CWP Comittee Internal Partners: External Partners: Lin County Planning Department  Oregon State University Extension Service  Smal Woodlands Asociation  Bureau of Land Management  United States Forest Service  Asociation of Oregon Loggers Lin County Comunity Wildfire Protection Plan Actions Oregon Natural Hazards Workgroup University of Oregon Comunity Service Center Copyright © December 205 Fuel Reduction #6 Proposed Action Item: Explore the development of a Linn County Fuels Management Cooperative through the Smal Woodland Asociation for sustaining fuels management with the WUI Rationale for Proposed Action Item: • Stakeholder interviews with Rural Fire Protection Districts and state and federal agencies indicated that fuel reduction eforts are a financial burden for some homeowners. Ideas for Implementation: • Explore cost sharing opportunities designed to decrease the financial burden on the property owner for reducing hazardous fuels. • Enhance and expand Oregon Department of Forestry chipper program. • Consider utilizing inmate crews to asist in vegetation management • Partner with Northwest Youth Corp to asist in vegetation management Cordinating Organization: Fire Defense Board & Oregon Department of Forestry Internal Partners: External Partners:  Smal Woodlands Asociation  Bureau of Land Management  United States Forest Service  Asociation of Oregon Loggers Lin County Comunity Wildfire Protection Plan Actions Oregon Natural Hazards Workgroup University of Oregon Comunity Service Center Copyright © December 205 Fuel Reduction #7 Proposed Action Item: Work with forestland managers and watershed managers to protect water quality in high risk areas while reducing wildfire hazards. Rationale for Proposed Action Item: • Wildfires can have significant impacts on watersheds and water quality. Ideas for Implementation: • Create multi-objective wildfire projects can help leverage limited resources while increasing water quality and decreasing wildfire risk. Cordinating Organization: Oregon Department of Forestry Internal Partners: External Partners:  Bureau of Land Management  Watershed Councils  Soil and Water Conservation District  United States Forest Service  Private Timber Companies,  Department of Environmental Quality Lin County Comunity Wildfire Protection Plan Actions Oregon Natural Hazards Workgroup University of Oregon Comunity Service Center Copyright © December 205 Fuel Reduction #8 Proposed Action Item: Work with County Roads Department and ODOT to reduce hazardous vegetation in Right of ays to enhance aces and create fuel breaks. Rationale for Proposed Action Item: • Slash piles located close to roads could hinder evacuation, and would serve to promote the spread of fire from one side of the road to the other. It is wel-known that roads are important in wildfire defense, as they serve as evacuation routes, but sometimes even more importantly as fire breaks. • Consider developing and adopting codes and/or ordinances that promote fire safe construction practices and defensible space in high-risk areas. • Support development of codes/legislation to reduce the number of shake roofs on homes in WUI. • Consider flagging the lots that are in the designated WUI and provide recommendations for construction materials, aces, water supply, and fuel breaks (incorporate SB360 requirements) during the land use and building permiting proces. • Encourage Fire Defense Board to develop and adopt best practices guide that articulate minimum standards for aces and water supply. • Make the guide available to the public on the County website Ideas for Implementation: • Identify and prioritize roads for fuels reduction work. • Clear roads that have slash piles to create aces and create fuel breaks around private landowners Cordinating Organization: County Roads Department Internal Partners: External Partners: Lin County Planning Department Office of State Fire Marshall Fire Defense Board Board of County Commisioners  Oregon Department of Forestry  Bureau of Land Management  United States Forest Service  Media Lin County Comunity Wildfire Protection Plan Actions Oregon Natural Hazards Workgroup University of Oregon Comunity Service Center Copyright © December 205 Fuel Reduction #9 Proposed Action Item: Support creation of fire buffers around agricultural land. Rationale for Proposed Action Item: • Stakeholder interviews with Rural Fire Protection Districts and state and federal agencies indicated the need for the creation and/or maintenance of fuel breaks surrounding valuable agricultural lands. • Housing developments are encroaching on agricultural lands. Ideas for Implementation:  Establish partnership with Agricultural industry to identify and addres problem areas. Cordinating Organization: Linn County Planning Department Internal Partners: External Partners: Fire Defense Board  Cities  Rural Fire Districts  Oregon Department of Forestry  Department of Agriculture Lin County Comunity Wildfire Protection Plan Actions Oregon Natural Hazards Workgroup University of Oregon Comunity Service Center Copyright © December 205 Collaboration, Coordination & Implementation #1 Proposed Action Item: Create and formalize a CWP Advisory Commite to overse implementation, identify and coordinate funding opportunities, and sustain the Linn County Community Wildfire Protection Plan. Rationale for Proposed Action Item: • Formalizing an Advisory Commite that asist in implementing the Linn County Community Wildfire Protection Plan Ideas for Implementation: The Linn County Planning and Building Department wil serve as the convener and wil overse the plan’s implementation and maintenance. The plan development stering commite wil become the advisory commite (the Commite) and wil overse implementation, identify and coordinate funding opportunities and sustain the CWP. Some of the participating organizations and other stakeholders could also serve on subcommites tasked with specific risk reduction activities. Potential future commite members may include: • Calapooia, North Santiam and South Santiam Watershed Councils • Home Builders Asociation • Insurance representatives • Citizen representatives • Local elected officials Cordinating Organization: County Comision, County Planning and Building Internal Partners: External Partners: Comittee representatives Lin County Comunity Wildfire Protection Plan Actions Oregon Natural Hazards Workgroup University of Oregon Comunity Service Center Copyright © December 205 Collaboration, Coordination & Implementation #2 Proposed Action Item: Establish a sub-commite or a Fire Prevention Cooperative to coordinate and sustain efective countywide public education and outreach activities Rationale for Proposed Action Item: • Stakeholder interviews with Rural Fire Protection Districts and state and federal agencies indicated that education and outreach eforts were critical in this plan. Creating a sub- commite wil more efectively utilize limited human resources to addres education and outreach isues. Ideas for Implementation: • Encourage Fire Districts to form a Fire Prevention Cooperative that includes vested agencies, including a representative from the public afairs department. Cordinating Organization: CWP Steering Comittee, Fire Defense Board Internal Partners: External Partners:  Oregon State University Extension Service  Soil and Water Conservation District  Kep Oregon Gren Lin County Comunity Wildfire Protection Plan October 207 ECONorthwest Page B-1 Apendix B Meting and Interview Notes This appendix provides al documentation and notes from the following: • FireWise community workshop • Rural Fire Protection District interviews • Fire Defense Board Meting • Two CWP Stering Commite metings • February 27 th , 2007 • September 12 th , 2007 This appendix has been compiled in the order above. ECONorthwest Page 1 FIREWISE PARTICIPANTS In August, 2005, a FireWise workshop was held in an efort to gain fedback and input from a wide aray of stakeholders. The workshop was atended by members of various groups, agencies, and organizations, and their participation and insight led to the formation of five goals for Oregon’s County Community Wildfire Protection Plans. Participants included members from the following: • Federal agencies, such as the US Forest Service, the Bureau of Land Management, and the Army Corps of Engineers • State agencies, such as Oregon Department of Transportation, the State Parks, and the Oregon State Fire Marshal • County representatives from the Sherif’s ofice, Public Works, County Parks, and the Land Management Division • Local Government representatives from various City and Parks districts. • Fire Departments • Water Districts • Utilities • Elected officials • Watershed Councils • Non-Profit organizations • Neighborhood groups • Area builders and developers • Home inspectors • Landscapers • Representatives from the timber industry • Other community organizations with a perceived interest, such as the Homebuilder’s Asociation and the Chamber of Commerce. AGENDA FIREWISE COMUNITIES WORKSHOP ALBANY, OR JUNE 7, 207 080-0830 – Registration 0830-0915 – Welcome and Overview of Workshop – Le Vaughn Firewise Comunities Video ODF Perspective – Ann Walker Lin County Perspective – Comisioner Clif Woten – Steve Michaels – Chief Pery Palmer 0915-1015 – Introduction to Firewise Comunities – Lena Tucker PowerPoint “Firewise Concepts” – Introduction of the Fals County Simulation – Lena Tucker Fals County Wildland Fire Video What we learned from the Great Bend Fire video – Isue ID Form Explanation – Krista Mitchel 1015-1030 – Break and convene to breakout groups 1030-120 – Breakout group exercise – 90 minutes Task 1 – Determine the Wildfire Severity Rating for Bear Heights Task 2 – Develop Solutions for Reducing Fire Hazard in Bear Heights Task 3 – Identify Wildfire Isues and Solutions in Lin County - Krista Mitchel • Discusion of the isues group members identified throughout the morning sesion 120-120 – Group Presentations for Task 1 and Task 2 1230-130 – LUNCH “Wildfire – Preventing Home Ignitions Video” 130-1345 – Discusion on Comunity Solutions – Krista Mitchel 1345-150 – Breakout group Action Planing -EcoNorthwest Task 3 – Review and Refine Action Items for Lin County 150-1530 – Breakout groups report on their action planing – Krista Mitchel 1530-160 – Where do we go from here? – Cindy Kolomechuk Dor prizes and Closeout Workshop Lin County Comunity Wildfire Protection Plan ECONorthwest Page X-1 Stakeholder Interview Results The purpose of this portion of the appendix is to highlight the findings of a series of stakeholder interviews conducted with the rural fire protection districts (RFPDs) in Linn County as wel as the Oregon Department of Forestry (ODF), Linn County representative from the State Fire Marshal’s Ofice, Bureau of Land Management (BLM), and United States Forest Services (USFS). The interviews were conducted to gather background information on the Community Wildfire Protection Plan proces and provide insight on potential mitigation measures. This appendix has the following sections: • Overview of results provides a summary of common isues and themes expresed in the interviews with the rural fire protection districts and with other stakeholders (ODF, BLM, USFS, and the State Fire Marshal’s Ofice). • Detailed results provides the more detailed results of interviews with each of the stakeholders. • Survey instrument provides the list of questions asked of interview participants The following people were interviewed: BobJohnstonLyons Rural Fire District DennisJarvisScio Rural Fire District DonBemroseJefferson RFPD JackCarrigerStayton Fire District KevinRogersBrownsville Fire District KevinKreitmanAlbany Fire Department MikeBeaverSweet Home Fire Department MikePurcellTangent Fire District PerryPalmerLebanon Fire District ScottMitchellHarrisburg Fire & Rescue SkipSmithHalsey-Shedd RFPD LelandOhrtMill City RFPD LeeVaughnODF BarbaraRaibleBLM JerryVanDyneUSFS KevinCrowellODF PaulHiebertUSFS GeorgeCrosairState Fire Marshall's Office Page X-2 ECONorthwest Lin County Comunity Wildfire Protection Plan OVERVIEW OF RESULTS RURAL FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT RESPONSES The Rural Fire Protection Districts were asked a series of questions that covered the following topics: • History of wildfire occurrence and response • Wildfire risk factors • Capacity and needs • Prevention and education resources • Ideas for mitigation The matrix in Table 1 highlights key isues that the RFPD’s identified in the interview proces. Table X-1. Key isues mentioned in interview BrownsvilleSweet HomeHalseyAlbanyJeffersonScioLebanonMill CityTangentStaytonHarrisburgLyonsODFBLMUSFSState Fire Marshal Historical WUI Fires !! !!! ! Primary Response Issues Identified Personnel!! ! ! !! Non-Wildland Fires! ! Access ! ! ! Communications! Conducted Fuel Reduction! ! !! Conducted Structural Ignitability ! ! !! !! Primary Structural Ignitability Issues Identified Defensible Space!! !! ! !! Access !! !! Construction Methods! !! Unprotected Areas Outside District! ! ! ! Fire Evacuation Plans in Place! Fire Assistance Agreements in Place!!!!!!!!!!! Conducted Education & Outreach!!! ! !!!!! Source: Various stakeholder interviews as documented in this apendix HISTORY OF WILDFIRE OCURENCE AND RESPONSE When asked if any wildfires had occurred within the wildland urban interface, responses varied based on district’s location within the County. RFPDs located on the east side of the County reported having multiple events over several years, but only two of the fires that were discussed threatened structures. Several districts indicated that they had had smal fires that had the potential to grow out of control and threaten structures, but that those fires had been brought under control. RFPDs located on the west side of the County indicated that they didn’t have true wildland urban interface, but did have gras fires that had impacted trafic on Interstate 5. Lin County Comunity Wildfire Protection Plan ECONorthwest Page X-3 Districts were asked to indicate how many wildfires they typicaly respond to in a given year. Responses ranged from only 1-2 fires per year to up to 40- 60 fires. Al the districts indicated that they typicaly respond in a mutual aid capacity at least once a year, with one district responding on up to 20 mutual aid events. RFPDs were asked to identify the primary isues the district faces for efective wildfire response. Many of the districts identified several isues. The following were primary isues: • Availability of volunter fire fighters during the work wek • Protection of farms and smoke isues on the interstate • Isues asociated with steps slopes in interface areas in North Albany • Lack of linkages in communication systems in the County • Training for volunters • Distances necesary to travel within district • Lack of personnel • Concerns regarding field and industrial fires spreading to wildlands By far, isues related to personnel were mentioned most frequently. WILDFIRE RISK FACTORS Each district was asked to identify the most vulnerable areas within their districts. These responses were specific to each of the districts and can be found in the district specific write-ups located at the end of this appendix. Districts were also asked if there were areas that are likely to become more vulnerable in the future either due to development or unprotected areas. For the most part, districts indicated that the areas identified as being vulnerable were the areas prone to become more vulnerable as more development takes place. Districts were asked to indicate whether or not they had engaged in any fuel reduction eforts in the past. Very few of the districts indicated that they had implemented fuel reduction projects in the past. For the most part, districts indicated that their primary activities had been focused on education around structural ignitability rather than fuel reduction. Brownsvile, Lebanon, Mil City, and Harisburg had al implemented projects to reduce the structural ignitability of homes in their district. In 2002, several districts partnered with ODF to complete ‘Knock and Talks’ with homeowners to discuss wildfire isues and potential mitigation measures the homeowners could take to reduce their risk. RFPDs were asked to identify any isues they face related to response times. The majority of districts indicated that the availability of volunter staf, especialy during the day, was the biggest isue around response times. Page X-4 ECONorthwest Lin County Comunity Wildfire Protection Plan In addition, some districts mentioned that some private industrial land owners having locked gates being a barier to quicker response times. Districts were asked to identify the primary isues their district faces in terms of structural ignitability. By far, most districts that indicated that they had structural ignitability isues mentioned that a lack of defensible space was the biggest isue. A second isue that was raised often was lack of aces because of narow, step driveways. CAPACITY AND NED RFPDs were asked whether or not they felt that the district had an adequate number of fire fighters. Only one district indicated that they had enough staf resources. Several districts mentioned that they might have adequate resources depending on the time of day because a majority of their volunters work outside the community. Districts in Linn County have varying numbers of full time and volunter fire fighters. Staf range from 1 full time person to 65 and 0 to 60 volunters. Almost al of the districts indicated that they felt they had the capacity to apply for grants to implement wildfire mitigation projects, however, they also indicated that what they lacked were the people to implement those projects if funded. Districts were asked to list the fire fighting apparatus that is currently available and what apparatus they would like to add to their flets. Those results can be found in the district summaries located at the end of this appendix. Al the RFPDs indicated that they had some sort of fire asistance agrements with other districts or state agencies. For the most part, these agrements are in the form of mutual aid. Districts that have overlapping boundaries with Oregon Department of Forestry also have agrements in place with that agency. In addition, the Halsey district has an agrement in place with the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife for areas along the Wilamete River. PREVENTION AND EDUCATION RESOURCES RFPDs were asked whether or not they had participated in education and outreach activities related to wildfire isues. Al of the districts on the extreme east side of the County have participated with the Oregon Department of Forestry to educate homeowners on structural ignitability isues and potential hazard mitigation activities. Most districts also indicated that they have a variety of information in the form of fliers and brochures that are always available to residents. When asked about what future education and outreach campaigns the districts would like to se, the majority indicated that something around defensible space, aces, and construction materials would be beneficial. Lin County Comunity Wildfire Protection Plan ECONorthwest Page X-5 IDEAS FOR MITIGATION Districts were asked what type of fuel reduction and structural ignitability projects they would like to se implemented in interface areas. Overal, most of the projects mentioned would be clasified as structural ignitability projects. The ideas for projects included: • Making chippers available for fuel reduction • More homeowner education and outreach • Working with developers on fire resistant materials and vegetation • Use of inmate work crews to do fuel reduction • Legislation to ban cedar shake roofs • Fuel reduction programs to help elderly residents who might not be able to do the physical labor themselves • Improved construction and design standards in wildland areas STATE AND FEDERAL AGENCY RESPONSES The following state and federal agencies were interviewed: Ofice of State Fire Marshal (OSFM), Oregon Department of Forestry (ODF), United States Forest Service (USFS), and the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). These entities were asked questions that fel into the following categories: • Background questions • Wildfire risk factors • Capacity and needs • Prevention and education resources • Ideas for mitigation BACKGROUND QUESTIONS State and federal agencies were asked to describe their roles in wildfire response, planning or protection activities. Their responses are summarized below. • The Ofice of the State Fire Marshal overses the Conflagration Act. When there is a wildfire in the interface that exceds local capacity, OSFM is asked to invoke the Act. The request goes to the Governor to declare a Conflagration, which provides resources from across the state. OSFM doesn’t provide direct response to wildfires. On the planning side, they also manage the State Fire Defense Board, made up of the heads of al the County Fire Defense Boards. The State Fire Defense Board is the manager of the state’s mobilization plan. Local plans are writen to dovetail with the state plan. • The Oregon Department of Forestry provides fire protection for private land owners and also is the contracted fire fighting organization for the BLM. Landowners pay asesment to ODF for fire protection. ODF is Page X-6 ECONorthwest Lin County Comunity Wildfire Protection Plan active in fuels management. They typicaly provide fuel reduction recommendations to land owners through the fire asistance program. Landowners are responsible for implementing measures. • The United State Forest Service is responsible for the protection of the national forest, not private lands. USFS has mutual aid agrements with locals to protect private lands, but these agrements are only valid for 24 hours. In the preseason, USFS works with partners on pre-atack planning, (i.e., designating helispots). USFS doesn’t take the lead in planning proceses like CWP proceses, but are there to participate and facilitate. • The Bureau of Land Management contracts with ODF for fire protection activities. If ODF needs additional asistance, BLM can provide some staf resources. BLM manages the Northwest Oregon Fire Management Plan which covers response activities and cooperation betwen wildfire partners. Agencies were asked what their primary wildfire response isues were if they were involved in response activities. Their responses included the following: • Acesibility and concerns with future of ability to slash burn. With current eforts to end gras sed burning, se that slash burning is probably next to go. Without the ability to burn slash, it creates greater risk because of the build up of fuels • Lack of resources and poor aces • Lack of defensible space • Lack of weight ratings on privately owned bridges • Communication with ODF is good, but don’t have al the frequencies for locals Al the interviewes were asked to identify areas within their jurisdiction that are particularly vulnerable to wildfire. The individual agency responses are provided below. • The OSFM identified concerns about interface areas on the periphery of valey floor where ODF and RFPDs overlap. Also isolate islands of interface like in Albany where there is a subdivision on a butte that has wildlands, but no ODF responsibility. It is solely in Albany’s response area. • ODF identified the following areas of concern: Washburn Heights, Mt. Tom, new development on NE end of Brownsvile, Middle Ridge, Sodavile, Knox Butte (Albany, not ODF), Ridgeway Butte (proposed in Lebanon). Al of these areas were also identified by the local protection districts as wel. • USFS identified the following areas of concern: Marion Forks, Hwy 20 corridor betwen Linn/Deschutes County border and Swet Homes, and Quartzvile (upper end only, have mutual aid for lower). Lin County Comunity Wildfire Protection Plan ECONorthwest Page X-7 • BLM identified the following areas of concern: urban interface areas closer to the valey floor and those high value areas. Agencies were then asked to identify those areas that are likely to become more vulnerable in the future. The areas/isues of concern include: • The periphery of valey floors are becoming areas of risk as more people move out into steper slopes. • There is a growing concern in many areas because Linn County is relatively inexpensive place to live, so growth demand wil most likely continue. • The number of measure 37 claims currently filed in the County may lead to a large number of new subdivisions in potential wildland areas. • Swet Home is becoming a bedroom community for Albany and Eugene and is the gateway to the cascades. Future growth there may encroach on wildlands. • Areas around Foster Reservoir are becoming a larger concern. • Another big concern is timber companies seling of land to developers because the land is worth more in real estate than it is in timber. • Mostly private forested lands that are protected by ODF. Logging operations create wildfire risk. • Private industrial landowners who don’t clean up slash after thinning operations add to fuel loading and increase risk. The following is a summary of the fuel reduction activities that state and federal agencies have engaged in the past. • OSFM has not directly been involved in fuel reduction, but has staf that provides training for RFPD to write wildland related grants. • ODF frequently works with landowners to asist in fuel reduction on industrial forest lands through National Fire Plan (NFP) grants. Also participated indirectly by loaning equipments to do fuel reduction. • USFS conducts brush disposal after timber sales to clean up logging slash using primarily mechanical means and burning piles. • BLM does do fuel reduction in asociation with timber sales. The following is a summary of the structural ignitability projects and programs that the state and federal agencies participated in. • OSFM works with the Building Codes Division to ensure that building codes reflect adequate wildfire mitigation measures. • ODF through the Fire Defense Board and mutual aid agrements provides brochures to Planning departments on construction standards for wildfire including aces isues. ODF utilized an NFP grant to educated landowners on what they can do to mitigate. Also completed home asesments on 2,300 homes using Trimble GPS units. Page X-8 ECONorthwest Lin County Comunity Wildfire Protection Plan • Both the USFS and BLM typicaly engage in structural ignitability projects, but have not completed any in Linn County. The Oregon Department of Forestry and United State Forest Service, the only entities interviewed with direct response authorities identified the following isues related to wildfire response: • As population continues to rise, more people wil require evacuation, making it harder to get in to fight fires. • Private homeowners with locked or security gates also create an isue, however, state law gives them permision to go through any locked areas, this just takes time. Industrial forest owners have typicaly given ODF keys to their gates, but when RFPD respond on mutual aid, they don’t have these keys. • For the USFS, response times in general are long. On federal lands, budgets are decreasing for road maintenance which means aces is reduced and slower response times are being sen. • Marion Forks is an isue because it is a long way and isn’t in a RFPD. The agencies were asked to identify specific structural ignitability isues that they are concerned about in Linn County. Al agencies identified both defensible space and aces as the primary isues. Landowner awarenes was also listed as an isue. CAPACITY AND NEDS The entities were asked to identify any fire asistance agrements they may have in place. The Oregon Department of Forestry indicated that they have countywide agrements in place in Linn and Benton Counties and with the BLM. They also have a closest forces and a reciprocal agrement with the Forest Service. The USFS has a mutual aid agrement with the state. Agencies were asked to identify the most important need they face for efective wildfire response, mitigation and/or reduction. The following are their responses: • The State Fire Marshal indicated the isue for the rural fire protection districts is knowing what the real hazard is and what the actual problems are so that their response plans can focus activities around education and mitigation in those problem areas. • ODF indicated that the isue is public education on how to make structures survive. ODF is not paid to protect structures. They also indicated that it is important to maintain good relationships with partners – local and federal fire agencies. They have good working relationships now and are constantly interfacing. Ned to keep up those relationships in the future as wel. Another isue is the ever-changing command staf and the need for al partners to be knowledgeable about roles and connections The Community Wildfire Protection Plan (CWP) is also an opportunity for Lin County Comunity Wildfire Protection Plan ECONorthwest Page X-9 County Commisioners to make wildfire isues a priority and pas that along to county departments like GIS and planning. • For the USFS, they can’t do fuels treatments like they would want to. USFS gets money for fuel treatment from national analysis, where this forest doesn’t rank especialy high. They rely on fuel reduction after timber sales, which aren’t always the most at risk areas. • The BLM indicated that they haven’t had very many fires, but when they do isues do come up. This particular district hasn’t had any major fires in 15 years, but the potential is there. Sometimes there are diferences of opinion betwen what is best for the natural resources (BLM) and what is best for fire fighting (ODF). PREVENTION AND EDUCATION RESOURCES Agencies were asked to describe any education and outreach programs that they have implemented in the past. These programs are described below. • OSFM support the locals doing education and outreach by providing materials and training. • ODF typicaly provides information on structural ignitability, including eforts during Fire Awarenes Wek with Lebanon Fire for Fireman Safety Day. ODF has displays on defensible space and National Fire Plan brochures. The first National Fire Plan grant they received in 2002 in Harisburg, alowed ODF and the district to go door to door in Mt. Tom to educate homeowners on structural ignitability. • The USFS works with the state to do education in cities – Swet Home, Albany, Lebanon. They also administer the Smokey School program focusing on kids and matches. Other education eforts include their signage in the forest. The USFS’s prevention oficer is interested in expanding the program to Salem, Albany, and Corvalis to educate Nation Forest visitors about fire before they visit the forest. IDEAS FOR MITIGATION Finaly, the agencies were asked to identify potential ideas for mitigation. The following is a general list of those ideas. • Education on defensible space and aces • Complete fire asesments in stands to identify potential fuel reduction strategies and to educate landowners on what to do with fuels and the threat from neighboring landowners. • Additional partnering betwen local, state and federal entities to do fuel reduction on adjacent lands to make fuel breaks. • Clear roads that have slash piles to create aces and create fuel breaks around private landowners • Defensible space education specificaly in the Marion Forks area • Complete home asesments in terms of water supply isues. Page X-10 ECONorthwest Lin County Comunity Wildfire Protection Plan • Stronger wildfire related codes. • Fuel reduction through the marketing of smal diameter biomas DETAILED RESULTS BROWNSVILE RURAL FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT BACKGROUND The Brownsvile Rural Fire Protection District (RFPD) is located in the southwest corner of Linn County. The district has one full time fire fighter and 25 volunter fire fighters. The curent ISO Public Protection Capability Rating for the district is a four for the City, an eight for areas within five miles, and a ten for areas greater than five miles. The district currently has the following wildland fire fighting apparatus available: 4 engines, 2 brush pick-up trucks, 2 water tenders, and 1 rescue vehicle. WILDFIRE HISTORY The district has not had wildland urban interface fires in the past two years, but in 2005, the district had twelve gras or gras to brush fires. On average the district responds to anywhere betwen five and 11 fires within the district and two to thre mutual aid responses outside. WILDFIRE-RELATED ACTIVITIES The district has been engaged in a number of wildfire related preparednes, response and planning activities in the past. • The district has automatic mutual aid agrements with al Linn and Benton County districts as wel as with the Oregon Department of Forestry. • The district has not engaged in any fuel reduction activities within the district. • In 2002, the district did a door-to-door campaign providing fliers to homeowners about defensible space. • The district has not engaged in any evacuation planning. • The district is working with the Oregon Department of Forestry to GPS al structures in the district. This project includes completing a fire asesment on those structures. WILDFIRE ISUES The district identified a number of wildfire related isues that it currently faces. They are documented below. • The biggest isue is manpower during the day shift. Brownsvile is a bedroom community so most volunters work in Eugene, Springfield, or Lin County Comunity Wildfire Protection Plan ECONorthwest Page X-1 Albany. Forty percent of the district is dual overage with ODF. A daytime fire is automaticaly a mutual aid event. • Several timber companies have land within the district with locked gates. The top end of the Mountain Home area contains step roads with many switchbacks which makes quick response dificult. • Brownsvile has 12 residences in the district that weren’t annexed, so there are unprotected structures within the district. Response activities in this area are charged for services acording to the state’s conflagration rates. • Forty percent of the district is in WUI. Specific areas of concern include: Washburn Heights, Powel Hils, Courtney Crek, Cochran Crek, Mountain Home, Oakview and Pine View. The last two locations are one- way in, one-way out situations. • Areas of future growth and perhaps increased risk include the northeast side of city limits where development is occurring on step slopes with heavy fuels. There is also a 10-mile stretch on Middle Ridge Rd. betwen Brownsvile & Lebanon that is unprotected and it is likely that development wil take place there. • The primary structural ignitability isue in Brownsvile is the lack of defensible space and overgrown driveways. POTENTIAL WILDFIRE PROJECTS AND ACTIVITIES Each district was asked a series of questions that were designed to ilicit ideas for potential mitigation actions or projects that could be implemented to asist the district mitigation or beter respond to wildfires. The results are presented below: • Obtaining an additional 1,000-galon water tender would increase fire fighting capacity. • Focus of education and outreach programs on defensible space and aces isues. • Enhancement of the Oregon Department of Forestry chipper program. • Development of codes/legislation to ban cedar shake roofs Page X-12 ECONorthwest Lin County Comunity Wildfire Protection Plan SWET HOME RURAL FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT BACKGROUND The Swet Home Rural Fire Protection District (RFPD) is located in the southwest corner of Linn County along the Highway 20 corridor. The district has ten full time fire fighters and 50 to 60 volunter fire fighters. The current ISO Public Protection Capability Rating for the district is a 4 for the city and an 8b for rural. The district currently has the following wildland fire fighting apparatus available: 4 type 6 engines, 1 type 3 engine, 1 type 1 structural, and 2 type 2 tenders. WILDFIRE HISTORY The district hasn’t had as many responses for smal brush fires. They had at least 2 brush fires in the last two summers. A fire in the Marks Ridge area could have gotten much worse. An industrial fire did threaten an apartment complex. In 2005, a thre-alarm fire in Sodavile/Mountain Home included response from ODF, Lebanon, Brownsvile and Halsey. This fire was kept in check, but structures were threatened. Also in 2005, a thre-alarm fire in the Brush Crek Road was caused by a downed power pole. A Weyerhauser helicopter was used to help fight the fire. On average the district responds to about 40-60 fires a year including those that fal under mutual aid. WILDFIRE-RELATED ACTIVITIES The district has been engaged in a number of wildfire related preparednes, response and planning activities in the past. • The district has automatic mutual aid agrements with al Linn County districts as wel as with the Oregon Department of Forestry. • The district has not engaged in any fuel reduction activities within the district. • The district has not engaged in any evacuation planning. • The district provides education on an on-going basis and provides residents with brochures and hosts open houses. • Participated with Brownsvile and the Oregon Department of Forestry in education and outreach eforts. • The district is working with the Oregon Department of Forestry to GPS al structures in the district. This project includes completing a fire asesment on those structures. WILDFIRE ISUES The district identified a number of wildfire related isues that it currently faces. They are documented below. • The biggest isue is personnel available during the day. The district has a smal full time paid staf, the rest are volunters who work outside the Lin County Comunity Wildfire Protection Plan ECONorthwest Page X-13 community. The district doesn’t have another district to its east to asist in response, so mutual aid response tends to take longer. On the positive side, Oregon Department of Forestry is located in Swet Home. • There are a handful of structures located outside the district. • Specific areas of concern include: Marks Ridge (north of Swet Home – lots of homes annexed in 2002 with narow driveways and no turn- arounds), Riggs Hil (increase in expensive homes with no on-site water and aces isues), Crawfordsvile Dr. (homes abutting wildlands), Ames & Wylie Crek (new developments, one of which is sprinklering al new homes, but developments back right up against timber). • The primary structural ignitability isue in Swet Home is the lack of defensible space and narow driveways. The Oregon Fire Code requires 20-foot driveways, Linn County only requires 12. POTENTIAL WILDFIRE PROJECTS AND ACTIVITIES Each district was asked a series of questions that were designed to ilicit ideas for potential mitigation actions or projects that could be implemented to asist the district mitigation or beter respond to wildfires. The results are presented below: • Obtaining an additional type 3 engine would increase fire fighting capacity. • Education and outreach programs focusing on structural preparednes including the risk asociated with shake roofs, adequate driveway size and water supply. • Working with developers to encourage: 1) use of fire resistant plants in new developments, 2) wider driveways, and 3) on-site water supplies. Page X-14 ECONorthwest Lin County Comunity Wildfire Protection Plan HALSEY RURAL FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT BACKGROUND The Halsey Rural Fire Protection District (RFPD) is located in the southwest corner of Linn County on the west side of Interstate 5. The district has two full time fire fighters and 30 volunter fire fighters. The current ISO Public Protection Capability Rating for the district is a 6 district wide. The district currently has the following wildland fire fighting apparatus available: 4 - 3,200 galon tenders, 2 - 6x6 1,000 galon General Isue trucks, 5 - 1,000 galon fire engines (pump and roll), and 2 type 6 quick atack trucks (150g and 300g each). WILDFIRE HISTORY The district is located in prime rye graslands and does not have any true interface isues. The only fires the district has are mainly gras fires. On average the district responses to one fire a year. WILDFIRE-RELATED ACTIVITIES The district has been engaged in a number of wildfire related preparednes, response and planning activities in the past. • The district has automatic mutual aid agrements with al Linn and Benton County districts. In addition, the district also has an agrement with the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife to protect areas around the Wilamete River. • The district’s fuel reduction activities are related to the gras sed industry. Farmers bail gras after its been threshed, thus reducing the amount of fuel on the ground. • The district promotes preparatory burns around farms. This provides protection from fires moving into farmer’s fields. • The district has not engaged in evacuation planning. • The district provides education on an on-going basis. The district has a staf Captain who serves as a fire prevention officer. The district has several school programs where they talk to students about cooking safety, heating, fire alarms, and what to do when there is smoke. The district purchased with FEMA grant money, a 35-foot prevention trailer with demonstrations and information about fire safety. The trailer features a smoke machine to practice crawling under smoke and heated doors. This trailer is lent out to other districts. WILDFIRE ISUES The district identified a number of wildfire related isues that it currently faces. They are documented below. Lin County Comunity Wildfire Protection Plan ECONorthwest Page X-15 • The district is composed of 77,000 acres of rye gras and is the biggest gras fire department in the state. The biggest isue is in protecting farms and smoke isues on the interstate. • Lack of volunter availability • Areas adjacent to Interstate 5 are of particular concern due to smoke causing visibility isues. POTENTIAL WILDFIRE PROJECTS AND ACTIVITIES Each district was asked a series of questions that were designed to ilicit ideas for potential mitigation actions or projects that could be implemented to asist the district mitigation or beter respond to wildfires. The results are presented below: • Implement backyard burning programs to alow residents to burn vegetation. • Maintain farmer’s ability to burn fields as it is a major fuel reduction activity that keeps fire from reaching farm dwelings and structures. Page X-16 ECONorthwest Lin County Comunity Wildfire Protection Plan ALBANY RURAL FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT BACKGROUND The Albany Rural Fire Protection District (RFPD) is located in the northwest corner of Linn County along Interstate 5. The district has 65 full time fire fighters and no volunter fire fighters. The current ISO Public Protection Capability Rating for the district is a 3 for the city and an 8 for rural, although insurance providers are using the city’s rating in most places. The district curently has the following wildland fire fighting apparatus available: 2 brush units, 6 type 1engines, and 1 tender. WILDFIRE HISTORY The district hasn’t had any wildfires that have threatened homes in the last 25 years. On average the district responds to about ten fires a year including those that fal under mutual aid. WILDFIRE-RELATED ACTIVITIES The district has been engaged in a number of wildfire related preparednes, response and planning activities in the past. • The district has automatic mutual aid agrements with al Linn County districts. • The district has not engaged in any fuel reduction activities within the district. • The district has taken preliminary evacuation planning steps by completing pre-planning for wildland areas and has identified potential aces routes. WILDFIRE ISUES The district identified a number of wildfire related isues that it currently faces. They are documented below. • The primary wildfire interface isue is located in North Albany and Knox Butte, both areas with step slopes. Knox Butte is likely to continue to develop. POTENTIAL WILDFIRE PROJECTS AND ACTIVITIES Each district was asked a series of questions that were designed to ilicit ideas for potential mitigation actions or projects that could be implemented to asist the district mitigation or beter respond to wildfires. The results are presented below: • Additional tender capacity and a type 3 brush unit would increase fire fighting capacity. • Education and outreach programs focusing on defensible space and aces. Lin County Comunity Wildfire Protection Plan ECONorthwest Page X-17 • Enhancement of ODF chipping and fuel management programs. • Planning regulations to addres defensible space isues. Page X-18 ECONorthwest Lin County Comunity Wildfire Protection Plan JEFERSON RURAL FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT BACKGROUND The Jeferson Rural Fire Protection District (RFPD) is located in the northwest corner of Linn County and southwest corner of Marion County. The district has thre ful time fire fighters and 35 volunter fire fighters. The current ISO Public Protection Capability Rating for the district is a 4 for the city and a 9 for rural (in 6 months rural should be an 8d). The district currently has the following wildland fire fighting apparatus available: 2 type 6 gras rigs, 2 multi-use tenders (2,500 galons), and several tenders. WILDFIRE HISTORY The district doesn’t have any true interface areas in the Linn County portion of the district. On average the district responds to about four to six fires a year, but rarely is involved in mutual aid. WILDFIRE-RELATED ACTIVITIES The district has been engaged in a number of wildfire related preparednes, response and planning activities in the past. • The district has automatic mutual aid agrements with districts in Linn, Marion, Polk and Benton Counties. • The district has not engaged in any fuel reduction activities within the district. • The district has not engaged in any evacuation planning. • The district provides education on an on-going basis and provides residents with fliers. WILDFIRE ISUES The district identified a number of wildfire related isues that it currently faces. They are documented below. • The biggest response isue is that the district utilizes a diferent dispatch system than the rest of the Linn County districts. This results in interoperability isues. • The district lacks adequate apparatus to be able to fight fires along the river because of aces isues. Boats have been used in the past to fight fires in this area. POTENTIAL WILDFIRE PROJECTS AND ACTIVITIES Each district was asked a series of questions that were designed to ilicit ideas for potential mitigation actions or projects that could be implemented to asist the district mitigation or beter respond to wildfires. The results are presented below: Lin County Comunity Wildfire Protection Plan ECONorthwest Page X-19 • Replace 2 type 6 engines with 2 new type 6 engines. • Focus education and outreach programs on defensible space and roof types. Page X-20 ECONorthwest Lin County Comunity Wildfire Protection Plan SCIO RURAL FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT BACKGROUND The Scio Rural Fire Protection District (RFPD) is located in northwest Linn County east of the Interstate. The district has no full time fire fighters and 45 volunter fire fighters. The current ISO Public Protection Capability Rating for the district is a 4 for the city and a 9 for rural. The district currently has the following wildland fire fighting apparatus available: 3 engines, 2 tenders, 3 brush / gras fire apparatus, 3 rescues, and several “support” vehicles. WILDFIRE HISTORY The SRFD responds to several wildland / brush fires every fire season. These range from the smal gras fires due to unatended burn piles to gras sed fields that for whatever reason are involved in fire. In 2006, Scio responded to 16 gras/wildland fires including those faling under mutual aid. WILDFIRE-RELATED ACTIVITIES The district has been engaged in a number of wildfire related preparednes, response and planning activities in the past. • The district has automatic mutual aid agrements with surrounding districts as wel as with the Oregon Department of Forestry. • The district has not engaged in any fuel reduction activities within the district. • The district has not engaged in any evacuation planning. • The district has adopted the Linn County Disaster Plan for large-scale emergencies. • The district also has a new Citizen Emergency Response Team (CERT). WILDFIRE ISUES The district identified a number of wildfire related isues that it currently faces. They are documented below. • The response isues the district faces include the los of volunters, the need for more training, and the lack of volunters during the day time. • There are a few unprotected areas that the district responds to. • Scio has several large gras sed fields in the district, which sem to be the source of most of the problems during fire season. The residual gras hay bales have been a problem in the past, whether they are targeted or spontaneously ignite, the district has several haystack fires every year. • Currently no development plans in potential interface areas. Lin County Comunity Wildfire Protection Plan ECONorthwest Page X-21 POTENTIAL WILDFIRE PROJECTS AND ACTIVITIES Each district was asked a series of questions that were designed to ilicit ideas for potential mitigation actions or projects that could be implemented to asist the district mitigation or beter respond to wildfires. The results are presented below: • The purchase of 2 or 3 new Forestry brush units would increase their capacity to more efectively fight fire. • Identifying and implementing a burn restriction during wildland season. The SRFD Board of Directors (under the recommendation of the previous Fire Chief) have adopted a District policy of not enforcing the recommended burn bans outside of the areas protected by ODF, unles the State Fire Marshal imposes a state-wide burn ban. This is due to the sparse population in the outlying areas of the District, and dificulty in enforcing a burn restriction due to distances needed to travel to investigate any burn complaints. The Chief has tried to impres upon them the need to follow the recommended restrictions, and they are reviewing the current policy. Page X-2 ECONorthwest Lin County Comunity Wildfire Protection Plan LEBANON RURAL FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT BACKGROUND The Lebanon Rural Fire Protection District (RFPD) is located in the western portion of Linn County east of the Interstate. The district has 26 full time fire fighters and 52 volunter fire fighters. The current ISO Public Protection Capability Rating for the district is a 3 for the city and a 5-8 for rural. The district currently has the following wildland fire fighting apparatus available: a 4wd interface engine with 750 galon tank, a pumper with 1,000 galon tank, 2 type 6 engines, a brush tender with 2,000 galon capacity, and a type 3 1,000 galon engine. WILDFIRE HISTORY The district responds to several wildland / brush fires every fire season. These range from the smal gras fires due to unatended burn piles to gras sed fields that for whatever reason are involved in fire. In an average year, the district responds to around 35 gras or brush fires, about 6 of which fal under mutual aid. WILDFIRE-RELATED ACTIVITIES The district has been engaged in a number of wildfire related preparednes, response and planning activities in the past. • The district has automatic mutual aid agrements with al Linn County districts as wel as with the Oregon Department of Forestry. • The district has not engaged in any fuel reduction activities within the district. • The district has not engaged in any formal evacuation planning, however, they have taken information to certain neighborhoods. • The district has participated with neighboring districts and ODF in Knock and Talks with homeowners to educate them about defensible space. • The district is working with ODF on a project to GPS al the structures in the district for pre-planning purposes. • The district has worked with ODF in the past to provide chippers for fuel reduction for residents who may not be able to do the fuel reduction eforts themselves. WILDFIRE ISUES The district identified a number of wildfire related isues that it currently faces. They are documented below. • The response isues the district faces include the distances to travel, the lack of defensible space, and aces to areas to fight fire. Lin County Comunity Wildfire Protection Plan ECONorthwest Page X-23 • There is a lack of homeowner awarenes of defensible space and navigable driveways. • The district is bisected by a river, so aces to certain points may take longer because of the need to cross the river. • The district only faces unprotected area isues if they are on mutual aid with ODF. • The district identified that the following areas are particularly vulnerable to wildfire. The south side of the district is a foothil range that spans the full length of the district. This area has 350 – 500 homes and 1,000 – 10,000 hour fuels. The second location is Golden Valey, which is northeast of town and north of the river with about 250 homes. This area is the most vulnerable because it has 1-10 hour flashy fuels and slope and wind isues create a bigger threat. • The district identified the following areas as becoming more vulnerable in the future. Ridgeway Butte east of town has had several plans for developments of up to 300 homes on step sloped and timber areas. However, the district has a good relationship with the City which helps ensure that developments that do get approved must incorporate wildfire safety measures like sprinklers, density, etc… POTENTIAL WILDFIRE PROJECTS AND ACTIVITIES Each district was asked a series of questions that were designed to ilicit ideas for potential mitigation actions or projects that could be implemented to asist the district mitigation or beter respond to wildfires. The results are presented below: • Ned for 2 3,000 galon tenders with off road capabilities would increase their capacity to more efectively fight fire. The district is in the proces of acquiring these resources. • Education of homeowners about defensible space. • Expansion of the ODF chipper program. • Look into inmate work crews to do clean up work. Page X-24 ECONorthwest Lin County Comunity Wildfire Protection Plan MIL CITY RURAL FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT BACKGROUND The Mil City Rural Fire Protection District (RFPD) is located on the northern border of Linn County along Highway 22. The district has 1 full time fire fighter and 18 volunter fire fighters. The current ISO Public Protection Capability Rating for the district is a 5 for the city and a 4-8 for rural. The district currently has the following wildland fire fighting apparatus available: 1 brush truck and tankers. WILDFIRE HISTORY The district has had a history of wildfire, but in the last couple years they haven’t had any interface fires. This district did indicate that the potential was there. In an average year, the district responds to around one or two fires including mutual aid with Lyons or Gates. WILDFIRE-RELATED ACTIVITIES The district has been engaged in a number of wildfire related preparednes, response, and planning activities in the past. • The district has automatic mutual aid agrements with Linn and Marion County districts. • The district has engaged in any fuel reduction activities within the district by creating fire buffers betwen homes and wildland areas. • The district provides homeowners with information and fliers about structural ignitability. The district also has articles in the local newspaper on a wekly basis. • The district has not engaged in evacuation planning. WILDFIRE ISUES The district identified a number of wildfire related isues that it currently faces. They are documented below. • Availability of personnel. They work closely with ODF, but it takes a long time for ODF to respond because of distances. • Isues asociated with defensible space, driveways, and aces are also significant response isues. • The district does typicaly respond to unprotected areas betwen Lyons and Mil City. • Vulnerability to wildfire include the developments along the river on N. Santiam State Park Rd, DeWit Lane, and Sitkum Lane (Marion County). Lin County Comunity Wildfire Protection Plan ECONorthwest Page X-25 POTENTIAL WILDFIRE PROJECTS AND ACTIVITIES Each district was asked a series of questions that were designed to ilicit ideas for potential mitigation actions or projects that could be implemented to asist the district mitigation or beter respond to wildfires. The results are presented below: • Purchase of a new tanker would increase the capacity to more efectively fight fire. The district is in the proces of acquiring these resources. • Educate homeowners about aces and fuel reduction isues. Page X-26 ECONorthwest Lin County Comunity Wildfire Protection Plan TANGENT RURAL FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT BACKGROUND The Tangent Rural Fire Protection District (RFPD) is located on the western side of Linn County along Highway 34. The district has 2 full time fire fighters and 20 volunter fire fighters. The current ISO Public Protection Capability Rating for the district is an 8 for the city and a 9 for rural. The district currently has the following wildland fire fighting apparatus available: 1 - 4wd unit 200 galons and 3 – 3,000 galon tenders (pump & roll). WILDFIRE HISTORY The district doesn’t have any wildland urban interface areas, mostly graslands. Ocasionaly, a field fire may spread to the forest. In an average year, the district responds to one fire on mutual aid. WILDFIRE-RELATED ACTIVITIES The district has been engaged in a number of wildfire related preparednes, response, and planning activities in the past. • The district has automatic mutual aid agrements with Linn County districts as wel as some in Benton and Marion Counties. • The district has not engaged in evacuation planning. • The district provides fire safety information to residents, but not focused on wildfire isues. • The district has purchased wildland fire fighting equipment and trains personnel on wildland suppresion for mutual aid. WILDFIRE ISUES The district identified a number of wildfire related isues that it currently faces. They are documented below. • The greatest response isue the district faces is field fires and industrial or commercial fires spreading into fields. The district includes 18,000 acres of flamable fuels. • The only area in the district that has aces isues is near the Calapooia River. • There are unprotected areas outside the district that they typicaly respond to, but these are not wildland areas. • A proposed development near North Lake Crek may present some wildfire isues, but the district is working with the developer to mitigation some of those isues before hand. Lin County Comunity Wildfire Protection Plan ECONorthwest Page X-27 POTENTIAL WILDFIRE PROJECTS AND ACTIVITIES Each district was asked a series of questions that were designed to ilicit ideas for potential mitigation actions or projects that could be implemented to asist the district mitigation or beter respond to wildfires. The results are presented below: • Education of homeowners about field fires. • Create more buffer zones around farms. Page X-28 ECONorthwest Lin County Comunity Wildfire Protection Plan STAYTON RURAL FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT BACKGROUND The Stayton Rural Fire Protection District (RFPD) is located in northern Linn County just south of Highway 22. The district has 5 full time fire fighters and 55 volunter fire fighters. The current ISO Public Protection Capability Rating for the district is a 5 for the city and a 5 for rural. The district currently has the following wildland fire fighting apparatus available: 1 type 6 engine, 3 type 3 engines, 3 combination 1,800 galon tenders/initial atacks, and one four wheel drive vehicle. WILDFIRE HISTORY The entire district is considered wildland urban interface. In an average year, the district responds to 20 fires within the district and 10 to 20 on mutual aid. WILDFIRE-RELATED ACTIVITIES The district has been engaged in a number of wildfire related preparednes, response and planning activities in the past. • The district has automatic mutual aid agrements with Linn County districts as wel as ODF. • The district has done projects around structural ignitability and hazard mitigation in the Elkhorn area. • The district has not done any wildfire evacuation planning. • The district has provided information on defensible spaces, vegetation, and construction materials to homeowners along with ODF. In addition, they also work with the South County Fire Chiefs group out of Marion County on wildfire isues. WILDFIRE ISUES The district identified a number of wildfire related isues that it currently faces. They are documented below. • The greatest response isue the district faces is availability of personnel. • There are unprotected areas outside the district in the Elkhorn area. • Stayton identified that the Elkhorn and Marion areas are particularly vulnerable to wildfire and Elkhorn is likely to become more so in the future. There is currently a plan for a destination resort in this area. • Structural ignitability isues the district faces include space proximity betwen structures and construction methods and materials. Lin County Comunity Wildfire Protection Plan ECONorthwest Page X-29 POTENTIAL WILDFIRE PROJECTS AND ACTIVITIES Each district was asked a series of questions that were designed to ilicit ideas for potential mitigation actions or projects that could be implemented to asist the district mitigation or beter respond to wildfires. The results are presented below: • Purchase of a new type 5 or type 6 engine would increase their capacity to fight fire • Educate homeowners about defensible space • Addres development codes and landscaping isues in Elkhorn area Page X-30 ECONorthwest Lin County Comunity Wildfire Protection Plan HARISBURG RURAL FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT BACKGROUND The Harisburg Rural Fire Protection District (RFPD) is located in southern Linn County, west of Interstate 5. The district has 1 full time and 2 part time fire fighters and 24 volunter fire fighters. The current ISO Public Protection Capability Rating for the district is a 5 for the city, an 8b for les than 5 miles and a 10 for greater than 5 miles. The district currently has the following wildland fire fighting apparatus available: 3 type 1 engines and a 3,000 galon tender. WILDFIRE HISTORY The entire district does have fires, but they typicaly don’t involve structures. There are wildland urban interface areas within the district. In an average year, the district responds to four fires within the district and thre to four on mutual aid. WILDFIRE-RELATED ACTIVITIES The district has been engaged in a number of wildfire related preparednes, response and planning activities in the past. • The district has automatic mutual aid agrements with Linn County districts as wel as ODF. • Harisburg has collaborated with ODF on a grant to do fuels reduction in a subdivision. • The district has not done any wildfire evacuation planning. • In 2003, the district partnered with ODF to provide public education on defensible space, fuel and aces. WILDFIRE ISUES The district identified a number of wildfire related isues that it currently faces. They are documented below. • The response isues the district faces include the availability of personnel and the location of the station. • Time is an isue, the district is 86 square miles with the station positioned in the western most part. In some areas response times can be betwen 15 and 20 minutes. • There are limited areas with aces isues including some gated homes in Mount Tom. • Areas that are particularly vulnerable include the Mount Tom subdivision and adjacent areas that are jointly protected by ODF and the east side of the district by Coburg Hils. Lin County Comunity Wildfire Protection Plan ECONorthwest Page X-31 POTENTIAL WILDFIRE PROJECTS AND ACTIVITIES Each district was asked a series of questions that were designed to ilicit ideas for potential mitigation actions or projects that could be implemented to asist the district mitigation or beter respond to wildfires. The results are presented below: • Purchase of a new smal type 3 engine would increase their capacity to fight fire • Educate homeowners about defensible space • Additional fuel reduction projects around homes and driveways. Lin County Fire Defense Board Thursday, April 26, 207 Harrisburg Fire Minutes ATTENDANCE: Kevin Kreitman, Albany Fire Lorri Headrick, Albany Fire Kevin Rogers, Brownsvile Fire Perry Palmer, Lebanon Fire Scot Mitchell, Harrisburg Fire Mike Beaver, Sweet Home Fire Stan Parker, Tangent Fire Tim Mueller, Lin County Sherif Jim Howell, Lin County Emerg. Mgmt. Steve Michaels, Lin County Planning/Bldg Dept. Kevin Crowell, Oregon Dept. of Forestry Lee Vaughn, Oregon Dept. of Forestry Krista Mitchell, ECONorthwest Lorelei Juntunen, ECONorthwest Mike Price, Entrada/San Juan, Inc. CALL TO ORDER: Chief Kreitman called the meeting to order at 10:05 a.m. APROVAL OF MINUTES: Chief Beaver made a motion to approve minutes of the March 2, 207, meeting as submited; Chief Rogers seconded the motion; and the minutes were unanimously approved as writen. REPORTS: Linn-Benton Fire Training Council – No report. Linn-Benton Fire Investigation Task Force – Contact George Crosiar if you have any comments on the Bylaws that were shared at the last meeting. HazMat Team 5 – No report. Linn County Dispatch/User Board – Sheriff Mueller spoke about a proposed addition to the jail, which would include new dispatch offices. The project would be at least two years out. Chief Kreitman mentioned that the County should consider the need to construct the addition with shelter-in-place in mind. Reminder to please folow alarm assignments when additional equipment is needed, otherwise it creates problems later when you do request an additional alarm assignment and some of that equipment has already been individually assigned. Linn County Sheriff’s Office - Sheriff Burright reported that SWAT is being covered by the Lin County Sheriff’s Office and Albany Police. Benton County is unable to maintain their operating levy and droped SWAT in August 206. Linn County Emergency Management – Jim Howell is working with the Lin County Commisioners to set up a one-day training event to cover Introduction to NIMS, I-10, and I-20. Might be able to open the training up to other agencies as well. I-30 and I-40 wil also be required next year for command staff and anyone at the Section Chief level. Oregon Emergency Management Conference is May 5-7. Oregon State Fire Marshal’s Office – No report. Lin County Fire Defense Board Meeting Page 2 April 26, 207 Oregon Dept. of Forestry – Kevin Crowell reported that their budget has been approved for next fiscal year. An additional firefighter has been added. The audit for last year’s fires is being conducted on May 10, and they expect to see god results. Interviews are being held for three labor firefighters and a lokout firefighter at Green Peter. Oregon State Police – No report. Reach - No report. OLD BUSINESS: Comunity Wildfire Protection Plan - Krista Mitchell from ECONorthwest presented a PowerPoint slideshow on the findings from their interviews with Oregon Department of Forestry, Oregon State Fire Marshal’s Office, Bureau of Land Management, United States Forest Service, and Lin County fire districts. The isue of fuel reduction was discused and sugestions for addressing this need. Kevin Crowell sugested that the ODF chiping equipment could be used outside their protection areas. They are also obtaining a commercial grade chiper which wil be operated by ODF staff to aid landowners. The need to have a program in place to aid those who are unable to do the physical labor was identified. Homeowner education and outreach should be focused on defensible space, to include brochures provided at the planning stage. Lin County already has something in place. Encourage partnerships to address the high-risk areas for fuel reduction; focus on non-industrial lands next to BLM lands. Consider use of inmate work crews The posible need to address banning cedar shake roofs through legislation was considered. It appears that cost and education are already impacting a change toward non-shake roofing . Improve construction and design standards in wildland areas. Review and address water suply availability in interface areas. Chief Beaver asked about road inspections and what is required of new roads. He explained that he has seen new roads in their district that are approved and then the road is drastically degraded during the project construction phase, making the roads nearly impassable for emergency traffic. Steve Michaels indicated that Lin County does not re-inspect after a road has already been approved. Mike Price with Entrada/San Juan, Inc. presented a PowerPoint slideshow on Wildland/Urban Interface Mapping and Modeling. County Bridge/Access Update - Tabled until May meeting. NEW BUSINESS: State Fire Defense Board Meeting - Chief Kreitman reviewed information that was shared at the State Fire Defense Board meeting. Concerning conflagrations, the folowing changes were discused: • Reimbursement for volunteers increased from $12 to $15/hour. Time over 40 hours/week wil be paid at $2.50/hour. Lin County Fire Defense Board Meeting Page 3 April 26, 207 • Vehicle reimbursement rates wil remain the same. Oregon is better in comparison to other states, especially portal to portal. • Clarification on Type II to include 50 to 99 gallons. • Urban structural firefighter standards require NFPA Firefighter I or equivalent. • Engine Bos requires NFPA Firefighter II or equivalent. • Fireground Leader wil require I-10, I-20, I-70, & I-80. • Vehicle Operator requires NFPA Pumper Operator or equivalent. FireNet towers have been updated with narrowband capabilities (with exception of one in the northeast area). They wil be testing, so if you hear this please respond to their inquiries. The old hazmat unit has been set up as a communications unit with a cache of portable radios, with two mobile repeaters. This should allow for set up at any fire in the state. State Comunication Project - Jeff Johnson spoke at the State Fire Defense Board meeting about Oregon Wireless Interoperability Network. Local governments and agencies wil see benefit to being on their system in lieu of maintaining their own system. It wil affect the areas along the I-5 corridor from Portland, Oregon, to California and the Bend/Redmond area. Remainder of the state would be VHF. Targeted to have in place by 201. GOOD OF THE ORDER: Kevin Crowell sugested discusion about burn ban and puting together Public Service Anouncements at the next meeting. Kevin reported that ODF does not want to get involved at this time in the DEQ discusion of domestic burn banning. ODF has an abundance of botled water available for use; contact Kevin if interested. Chief Mitchell reported that Harrisburg is going out to Misisipi to inspect a 10-foot aerial ladder truck for posible purchase. Harrisburg wil be hiring a new fultime training officer. NEXT MEETING: The next meeting wil be a joint meeting with the Benton County Fire Defense Board on Thursday, May 24, 207, 10:0 a.m., at Halsey-Shed Fire. ADJOURNMENT: Meeting adjourned at 12:0 p.m. Submited by: Lorri Headrick Secretary/Treasurer Phone • (541) 687-051 Suite 40 Other Ofices FAX • (541) 34-0562 9 W. 10th Avenue Portland • (503) 22-6060 info@eugene.econw.com Eugene, Oregon 97401-301 Seatle • (206) 62-2403 1 March 2007 TO: Lin County CWPP Stering Commite FROM: Lorelei Juntunen SUBJECT: NOTES OF 2/27 STERING COMITE METING This memorandum contains notes of the February 27, 2007 kick-off meting for the Linn County Community Wildfire Protection Plan (CWP). The notes are organized to reflect the agenda topics for the meting, as follows: • Overview of CWP purpose and requirements • Linn County proces overview • Outreach strategy • Risk asesment approach • Next steps The following individuals atended the meting: • Kevin Crowel, Oregon Department of Forestry • Paul Hiebert, US Forest Service • Jim Howel, Lane County Emergency Management • Kevin Kreitman, Fire Defense Board • Steve Michaels, Linn County Planning and Building Department • Barbara Raible, Bureau of Land Management • Dick Slinger, Linn Country • Howard Strobel, Oregon Department of Forestry • Lena Tucker, Oregon Department of Forestry • Jery VanDyne, US Forest Service • Le Vaughn, Oregon Department of Forestry Andre LeDuc and Lorelei Juntunen from ECONorthwest facilitated the meting. OVERVIEW OF CWP PURPOSE AND REQUIREMENTS Lena Tucker and Le Vaughn from Oregon Department of Forestry (ODF) provided context for the Linn County planning proces. Lena explained that many communities in Oregon have plans in place, especialy those in the eastern and southern parts of the State. County plans tend to function as an umbrela plan, and some communities with higher risk producing their own plans. Lin County CWP: February 27 1 March 207 Page 2 Stering Comite Meting Notes The plans are designed to met the requirements of the Healthy Forest Restoration Act (HFRA) and the National Fire Plan. One of the most important HFRA requirements is collaboration: the plans must involve local, state, and federal partners as wel as members of the community (watershed councils, homeowners asociations, etc.) Le described some ongoing projects in Linn County that are aimed at increasing wildfire resilience. ODF applied for and received a grant for fire education in the Mount Tom fire district, and are in the middle of a thre-year proces to implement education and outreach projects. They held a wel-atended community meting, and have been going door-to-door to discuss fuels treatments and debris removal with wildland-urban interface residents. Additionaly, they have been completing site-specific asesments of properties for fire survivability and have so far asesed about 2300 homes. Al asesment data has been logged in an updatable database. Linn County’s CWP can build on the succeses of projects like these. LIN COUNTY PROCES OVERVIEW Lorelei provided a brief overview of the steps that the planning team and Stering Commite would take to complete the Linn County CWP. She emphasized that the goal is to create a plan that has specific, implementable action items that can reduce the County’s risk of wildfire. The general steps are: (1) scoping survey of ODF and fire districts, (2) website for ongoing communication with a broad range of stakeholders, (3) risk asesment, (4) interviews with key stakeholders, (5) two outreach forums to identify wildfire risk factors and critical isues, and (6) plan development and promulgation. The Stering Commite wil be deeply involved throughout the whole proces. They wil met as an official planning body twice: once at project kick-off (the February 27 th meting that these notes describe), and once toward the end of the project to finalize and prioritize action items., however. The planning team from ECO wil keep in regular contact via email to request fedback on draft products. Additionaly, Commite members wil atend stakeholder forums and wil provide input through key stakeholder interviews. This arangement asures the Stering Commite members are constantly apprised of the progres toward creating a plan while recognizing the limitations of everyone’s busy schedules. It also minimizes administrative costs asociated with Stering Commite metings. OUTREACH STRATEGY The group discussed an outreach strategy for asuring that key stakeholders (including WUI landowners and residents, state and federal agency representatives, and others) provide input into the planning proces. The outreach strategy (described in detail in a February 2007 memorandum regarding “Proposed outreach strategy for the Linn County Community Wildfire protection plan”) has two major activities asociated with it: • Survey and follow-up interviews • Stakeholder forums The Commite discussed these activities and made the following suggestions: Lin County CWP: February 27 1 March 207 Page 3 Stering Comite Meting Notes • Targets for outreach should include builders asociations, homeowners, neighborhood watch organizations, and insurance companies, along with watershed councils and soil and water conservation districts • Marion County is also currently working toward a CWP, and some fire districts cross County boundaries. There is an opportunity to coordinate with their planning team. • The planning team should get on the agenda for the monthly Fire Defense Board. The group determined that it makes sense to administer a paper survey, and then present and ground-truth results at the Fire Defense Board meting instead of doing individual phone- based interviews with Defense Board representatives. This wil provide an opportunity for dialogue. • Key isues that wil probably arise in the planning proces include: • Unprotected lands. There are probably 100 or more properties with structures on them that are not protected by any fire district. Most of these are residential, and many of these land owners probably do not realize that they do not have protection. The plan wil probably need to have actions around education and limiting new development in these areas. • Aces. Private bridges and gates as wel as narow roadways make it dificult to reach some areas that have high fire risk. • Stafing. Many of the fire districts are stafed almost entirely by volunters. Additionaly, it is dificult to meld the two types of groups that respond to wildfires: emergency services related response and the wildfire units that wil stay on the scene much longer until the fire is out. • One Stering Commite members stated that the most important outcome that can come from this planning proces is outreach related: people who live and own property in WUI areas need to understand the realities of the risks they face and know what to do to reduce it. They need to know what to expect in terms of protection when wildfires occur. RISK ASESMENT APROACH The Commite discussed an approach to creating a meaningful risk asesment using the methodology developed by ODF. Andre explained that Mike Price wil lead the proces of creating the risk asesment, and is currently in the early stages of asesing the available data. Until we have a clearer picture of what data are available, it is dificult to describe exactly how the risk asesment development proces wil work, but we do know the general steps that wil be taken and have a general understanding of the outputs. An ECONorthwest memorandum from February 2007 provides greater detail. The Commite discussed the tasks described in this memorandum and made the following suggestions: Lin County CWP: February 27 1 March 207 Page 4 Stering Comite Meting Notes • Scope of analysis. Andre suggested that the results wil be best presented by some smaler geography than the entire County. The risk asesment might contain maps by watershed or by fire district. • Data gathering. The strength of the risk asesment rests on the strength of the data available. Mike wil be gathering data over the next several weks. Commite members suggested that he contact representatives from Alsea Geospatial, which is doing some mapping work in the area. • Weighting factors. The ODF methodology suggests weighting factors for a number of wildfire risk factors that the County faces. These might require some tweaking to more acurately portray risk for Linn County. For example, “previous occurrences” of wildfires are heavily weighted when determining risk in the ODF methodology, and Linn has not had many previous occurrences. However, other factors suggest that risk in Linn County is growing: fuel loading is high and the WUI is experiencing population growth. • Evacuation modeling. If appropriate data are available, Mike Price can do some modeling of evacuation routes. This would, among other outputs, identify pinchpoints where equipment may not be able to aces the fire, especialy while evacuation is underway. To do this, Mike wil need speed limits and times on various transportation routes in the County. • Mapping sesion with the Fire Defense Board. The Commite suggested a mapping sesion with the Fire Defense Board to ground-truth preliminary risk asesment maps. • NIMS compliance is a concern for some on the Commite. Linn County’s Emergency Operations Plan is currently not NIMS compliant, but the County wil participate in a regional EOP update proces that should lead to NIMS compliance. Compliance and non- compliance do not directly impact the CWP planning proces. NEXT STEPS The ECO team wil remain in regular communication with the Stering Commite. The most imediate next step is developing and distributing a scoping survey based on the discussion at this meting. Phone • (541) 687-051 Suite 40 Other Ofices FAX • (541) 34-0562 9 W. 10th Avenue Portland • (503) 22-6060 info@eugene.econw.com Eugene, Oregon 97401-301 Seatle • (206) 62-2403 12 September 2007 TO: Lin County CWPP Stering Commite FROM: Katy Siepert and Lorelei Juntunen, ECONorthwest SUBJECT: NOTES OF 9/12/07 STERING COMITE METING This memorandum contains notes of the September 12, 2007 meting of the Stering Commite for the Linn County Community Wildfire Protection Plan (CWP). The purpose of the meting was to review a draft CWP document and to review and prioritize action items for inclusion in the plan. The notes are organized to reflect the agenda topics and the areas of concern for the meting, as follows: • Draft CWP: overview and orientation • Risk asesment and maps discusion • Action item discussion • Plan maintenance and update • Next steps The following individuals atended the meting: • Kevin Crowel, Oregon Department of Forestry • Steve Michaels, Linn County Planning and Building Department • Anne Walker, Oregon Department of Forestry • Robert Wheeldon, Linn County Planning and Building Department • Howard Strobel, Oregon Department of Forestry • Lena Tucker, Oregon Department of Forestry • Le Vaughn, Oregon Department of Forestry Andre LeDuc and Krista Mitchel from ECONorthwest facilitated the meting. DRAFT CWP: OVERVIEW AND ORIENTATION Krista Mitchel introduced the purpose of the CWP and briefly discussed the stakeholder interviews and the results from the Firewise workshop that are included in Section 4. She highlighted the need for more specific information from individual groups regarding their particular policy framework and emergency operations. The mision statement in the draft CWP is the same mision statement as the county’s Al-Hazards Plan mision statement, while Notes of 9/12 Stering Comite Meting September 18, 207 Page 2 Lin County CWP the goals and action items are wildfire specific, and refer to requirements in the Healthy Forest Restoration Act (HFRA) and the Firewise guidelines. This organization alows the County the option to integrate the CWP into the County’s al hazards plan. RISK ASESMENT AND MAPS DISCUSION Anne brought up the Communities At Risk portion of section 3 (Risk Asesment). She explained that the Federal Register list, as it currently exists in the Risk Asesment, is a good starting off point, but is not explicit enough and needs to be refined further. Andre suggested that the commite consider a priority ranking scale for the communities included in the Communities At Risk list. He said that from a grant-writing standpoint, it is important to remember each community’s political wil and capability as wel as the factual, science-based risk rating. Both reiterated that the Federal government puts a lot of weight on a community’s capability to complete a mitigation project when determining where funding wil go. Anne wants to ensure that the prioritization mechanism remains transparent, i.e. the STAPLE-E proces outlined in the draft plan is described. Howard brought up a question about point clasifying communities. He asked if a point system is adopted, and wondered if communities that aren’t listed as high risk or medium risk can stil be eligible for funding? Le reminded the commite that a “low” priority rank doesn’t fal out of the running for consideration. These communities can stil be considered for a grant, and they can stil get money to move forward with mitigation projects. No community is risk-fre, so no community would be dropped from the risk list. The commite agred that “high”, “medium”, “low” rating on the maps made more sense than a point system, although the rankings wil be based on a point system, described in the appendix. Steve wants to se the high risk areas pop out more on the map. Areas where there is canopy, federal land adjacency, capacity, gravel roads, areas outside the fire districts: Steve had a concern that these aspects of Linn County communities was not fully expresed by the Total Risk map (#6). He also requested more detail regarding the weighting of risk factors. Andre explained that the more detailed discussion of the data and methodology for creation of the maps would be included in an appendix to the CWP, so that the Plan itself would be easily digestible to the average reader. Areas where data is mising need to be identified on the map, and then acted upon as an implementation of the CWP by the owners of that action item continuing to gather data for those areas. ACTION ITEMS DISCUSION The Commite clarified action items that were confusing, and suggested some changes for lead organizations and/or internal and external partners who wil be likely support in implementing those action items. The updated Action Item Matrix reflects these changes (se atached). Each lead organization wil receive a memorandum outlining the action items over which they have “ownership”, and a clear definition of what those items mean. These organizations wil have an opportunity to review and finalize their action items before they are included in the final CWP document. Notes of 9/12 Stering Comite Meting September 18, 207 Page 3 Lin County CWP PLAN MAINTENANCE AND UPDATE The commite discussed the concern that while the plan may be up and running now, who is going to keep it alive when the current members of the commite retire? “What if ownership doesn’t get pased on?” Some suggestions included: • Asign the convener as an entire department, i.e. the Planning Department. • Make plan maintenance part of a job description • Establish an annual or semi-annual report to Commisioners • Can adopt the plan via resolution, though doesn’t have the weight of law • Establish co-conveners that wil share the responsibility of keeping the plan a living document While there is no guarante that the plan wil stay active, it is much more likely if it is established as a part of the Al-hazards Plan, and if co-conveners share ownership. It was suggested that the co-conveners be the Planning and Building Dept. and the Fire Defense Board (which includes ODF and others). The question was brought up: “where is the Federal representation?” NEXT STEPS • Mike Price (primary analyst on the risk asesment) wil include a map that establishes risk as it is related to land clas in order to se adjacency to Federal or State lands and the WUI boundaries on those lands • Comments on the CWP and on the Action Items due to Lorelei Juntunen [juntunen@portland.econw.com] by Sept 21 st , 2007. • Final Draft of the CWP wil be completed by the end of October, 2007. Lin County Comunity Wildfire Protection Plan ECONorthwest October 207 Page C-1 Apendix C Risk Asesment Methods One of the core elements of the Linn County Community Wildfire Protection Plan (CWP) is the risk asesment, which describes the risk and potential losses to life, property, and natural resources from wildfire based on best available science and data. The purpose of the risk asesment is to identify high risk areas and asist in the prioritization and implementation of strategies for preventing losses from fire. This appendix documents the methodology and proces used to develop the Risk Asesment maps and conclusions. It has the following sections: • Overview. Discusses the general methodology used for the Linn County CWP Risk Asesment. • Risk. What is the likelihood of a fire occurring? • Hazard. What is the resistance to control once a wildfire starts, being the weather, topography and fuel that adversely afects suppresion eforts? • Protection capability. What are the risks asociated with wildfire protection capabilities, including capacity and resources to undertake fire prevention measures? • Values at risk. What are the human and economic values asociated with communities or landscapes? • Structural vulnerability. What is the likelihood that structures wil be destroyed by wildfire? OVERVIEW The risk asesment for the Linn County CWP was conducted by Mike Price of Entrada San Juan LC (Entrada), using the model described in Identifying and Asesment of Communities at Risk in Oregon – Draft Version 4.0, published by the Oregon Department of Forestry (ODF). The methodology outlined by the ODF uses five factors to determine wildfire risk. Points are asigned for each risk factor, with higher scores indicating higher risk. This point system was used for the Linn County CWP Risk Asesment. ECONorthwest and Entrada also conducted field surveys and interviews with rural fire protection districts to ground truth the data and conclusions of the risk asesment. Entrada relied on the computer mapping software known as Geographic Information System (GIS) to conduct the risk asesment. This asesment uses GIS to perform a number of spatial analyses and to manage, store, and display wildfire information. The output of this analysis is a series of map layers, each layer displaying a separate yet interconnected piece of wildfire risk information. Through comparison and analysis of these layers, this asesment indicates areas that expres high, moderate, and low risk of experiencing a Wildland Urban Interface fire. Page C-2 ECONorthwest October 207 Lin County Comunity Wildfire Protection Plan The County maintains much of the data necesary for this type of analysis, but this information was supplemented with data from Oregon Department of Forestry, the U.S. Census, the U.S. Geological Survey, and data from field surveys. Data sources wil be discussed in greater detail for each component of the Linn County CWP Risk Asesment. RISK Risk measures the likelihood of a fire occurring. Two factors were used to measure risk for the Linn County CWP Risk Asesment: historic fire occurrence, and ignition risk. The ODF scoring system alows a maximum of 40 points for risk, up to 13% of the total risk asesment score. HISTORIC FIRE OCURENCE Historic fire occurrence is a measurement of the number of fires that have occurred per 1,000 acres over a ten-year period. This information was obtained from the Oregon Department of Forestry Historic Fires database 1 . The data was filtered in ten-year intervals, and the most recent period (1996-2005) was selected. Points were asigned using the scoring system outlined in Table C-1. GIS was used to map the historic fire occurrence per 1,000 acres. Table C-1. Scoring historic fire ocurence Fire Occurrence - Per 1000 acres per 10 years Points 0.0 to 0.1 Fires5 pts. 0.1 to 1.1 Fires10 pts. Over 1.1 Fires20 pts. Source: ODF Identifying and Assessment of Communities at Risk in Oregon - Draft Version 4.0 IGNITION RISK Ignition risk potential is a measurement of home density, as wel as other risk factors. Home density is measured as the number of homes per 10 acres. Data for home density was obtained from Linn County Asesor Structure Point Database. Areas are sorted into thre categories of density: rural, suburban, and urban. The scoring system for home density is summarized in Table C-2. 1 htp:/ww.oregon.gov/ODF/GIS/datasets/stfires6205.zip Lin County Comunity Wildfire Protection Plan ECONorthwest October 207 Page C-3 Table C-2. Scoring home density. Homes per 10 Acres Points Rural - 1 or less0 pts. Suburban - 1.0 to 5.05 pts. Urban - 5.0 or over10 pts. Source: ODF Identifying and Assessment of Communities at Risk in Oregon - Draft Version 4.0 Other risk factors are defined as the presence of other types of development that increase the risk for wildfires. For the Linn County CWP Risk Asesment, other risk factors include roads, railroads, power transmision corridors, schools, camping/recreational sites, and historic fire ignitions. Data for other risk factors was obtained from Linn County GIS, US Census TIGER data, and other data as available. Using GIS, these factors were gridded, counted, and scored. The scoring system for other risk factors is summarized in Table C-3. Table C-3. Other risk factors Other risk factors present Points 3 factors or less0 pts. 4 to 6 factors5 pts. 7 factors or more10 pts. Source: ODF Identifying and Assessment of Communities at Risk in Oregon - Draft Version 4.0 HAZARD Hazard is defined as the combination of factors that influence the ability to control a wildfire once it starts. These factors are weather, topography, natural vegetative fuel, and crown fire. The ODF scoring system alows a maximum of 80 points for hazard, up to 27% of the total risk asesment score. WEATHER Weather hazard is defined by the Oregon Department of Forestry as the number of days per season that forest fuels are capable of producing a significant fire event. ODF provides statewide weather data 2 , which was developed following an analysis of daily wildfire danger rating indices in each area of the state. This data is described in Table 1 of OAR 629-044-0230. Linn County forested areas are entirely within Fire Weather area 2, and are scored at 20 points. Non-forest areas within Linn County receive 0 points. The scoring system for weather hazard is summarized in Table C-4. 2 htp:/ww.oregon.gov/ODF/GIS/datasets/fwz10k.zip Page C-4 ECONorthwest October 207 Lin County Comunity Wildfire Protection Plan Table C-4. Weather Weather Classification Points Non Forest0 pts. Zone 1 0 pts. Zone 2 20 pts. Zone 3 40 pts. Source: ODF Identifying and Assessment of Communities at Risk in Oregon - Draft Version 4.0 TOPOGRAPHY Topographic hazard is determined by the slope, aspect and elevation of the terain. Slope and aspect afect the intensity and rate of spread of a wildfire. Elevation afects the type of vegetation present in the area, and the length of the wildfire season. Data for slope, aspect, and elevation was obtained from the US Geological Survey Seamles Data Distribution Site, and the National Elevation Dataset (NED) 1/3 Arc Second. 3 The scoring system for topography is summarized in Table C-5. Table C-5. Topography Hazard Topography Points Slope 0-25% 0 pts. 26-40%2 pts. greater than 40%3 pts. Aspect N, NW, NE0 pts. W, E 3 pts. S, SW, SE5 pts. Elevation Greater than 5,000 ft.0 pts. 3,501 to 5,000 ft.1 pts. 3,500 ft. or less2 pts. Source: ODF Identifying and Assessment of Communities at Risk in Oregon - Draft Version 4.0 NATURAL VEGETATIVE FUEL AND CROWN FIRE The Oregon Department of Forestry states that vegetation is the primary factor afecting the intensity of wildfires. It also afects the amount and travel distance of burning embers. For the Linn County CWP Risk Asesment, the Oregon Statewide fuel model was used to clasify fuel types, using the FBO 13 model. 4 In addition to vegetation types, ODF recommends using data on crown fire potential. Data for Linn County crown fire potential was obtained from ODF. 5 The potential for crown fires is greater in forest areas including insect infestation, disease, wind throw, and slash. The scoring system for vegetation and potential crown fire is summarized in Table C-6. 3 htp:/seamles.usgs.gov 4 htp:/ww.gis.state.or.us/data/fuel.zip 5 htp:/ww.gis.state.or.us/data/crownfire.zip Lin County Comunity Wildfire Protection Plan ECONorthwest October 207 Page C-5 Table C-6. Natural vegetative fuel and crown fire Hazard Points SB 360 - Natural Vegetative Fuel Hazard Non-forest0 pts. FBM 1,5, or 8-15 pts. FBM 2,6, or 9-215 pts. FBM 4, 10, or 11-320 pts. Crown Fire Potential Passive - Low0 pts. Active - Moderate5 pts. Independent - High10 pts. Source: ODF Identifying and Assessment of Communities at Risk in Oregon - Draft Version 4.0 PROTECTION CAPABILITY Protection capability is a measure of the capacity and resources to undertake fire prevention measures. Fire protection agencies, local governments and community organizations al contribute to protection capability. The ODF scoring system alows a maximum of 40 points for protection capability. Higher scores represent higher risk. For the Linn County CWP Risk Asesment, two factors were used to determine protection capability: fire response and community preparednes. FIRE RESPONSE The presence of structural and wildland protection agencies, using structural fire district boundaries and wildland protection boundaries was used to evaluate fire response. Linn County provided information from their Roads Database, Fire Statsions Database, Fire Districts Database, and Asesor Structure Point Database, in order to determine fire response times for areas both inside and outside of fire district and wildland protection boundaries. The scoring system for fire response is summarized in Table C-7. Table C-7. Fire response Fire Response Points Organized structural response < 10 min.0 pts. Inside fire distrct, but structural response > 10 min.8 pts. No structural protection, wildland response < 20 min. 15 pts. No structural response & wildland protection > 20 min.36 pts. Source: ODF Identifying and Assessment of Communities at Risk in Oregon - Draft Version 4.0 COMUNITY PREPAREDNES Community interviews were conducted by ECONorthwest to identify and map community awarenes and education programs, in an efort to identify and map factors that wil increase or decrease the efectivenes of the fire protection system. Examples of community preparednes actions include planned escape routes, safety zones, and road brushing projects. The scoring system for community preparednes is summarized in Table C-8. Page C-6 ECONorthwest October 207 Lin County Comunity Wildfire Protection Plan Table C-8. Comunity preparednes Community Preparedness Points Organized stakeholder group, community fire plan, phone tree, mitigation efforts.0 pts. Primarily agency efforts (mailings, fire free, etc.)2 pts. No effort 4 pts. Source: ODF Identifying and Assessment of Communities at Risk in Oregon - Draft Version 4.0 VALUES PROTECTED The Oregon Department of Forestry states that protection of life is the top priority for al agencies and levels of government performing wildfire risk asesments. In addition to the number of lives at risk, other important community asets are also identified, including community infrastructure and property. For the Linn County CWP Risk Asesment, values protected is a factor of both homes density and community infrastructure. These factors combine for a maximum of 50 points of the total risk asesment score. HOME DENSITY Home density is the measure of homes per 10 acres. Data was obtained from the Linn County Asesor Structure Point Database. Areas of higher homes density represent a greater concentration of population. These areas are a higher priority and receive higher scores in acordance with the ODF scoring system. The scoring system for homes density is summarized in Table C-9. Table C-9. Home density Home Density (Homes per 10 acres) Points Less than 1.0 (rural)0 pts. 1.0 - 5.0 (suburban)15 pts. Greater than 5.0 (urban)30 pts. Source: ODF Identifying and Assessment of Communities at Risk in Oregon - Draft Version 4.0 COMUNITY INFRASTRUCTURE In addition to homes density, the identification and evaluation of additional human and economic values is needed for community fire planning. For the Linn County CWP Risk Asesment, comprehensive values were obtained through local, state, and federal sources. Infrastructure values were validated through stakeholder interviews. A list of valued infrastructure and corresponding data sources is included in Table C-10. Lin County Comunity Wildfire Protection Plan ECONorthwest October 207 Page C-7 Table C-10. Infrastructure Data Infrastructure TypeSource File AirstripsLinn County, US Census TIGERAP_400 CemetariesLinn County, US Census TIGERCE_500 Municipal BuildingsLinn CountyCH_200 Fire StationsLinn CountyFS_300 HospitalsLinn CountyHO_300 Parks Linn CountyPK_300 Police StationsLinn CountyPS_200 Roads Linn CountyRD_200 RailroadsLinn CountyRR_200 SchoolsLinn CountySC_300 Transportation TerminalsUS Census TIGERTR_200 Electrical TransmissionUS Census TIGERUT_300 WatershedsODF WA_000 Points are alocated based on the presence of identified community infrastructure. Areas with multiple infrastructure types are a higher priority and are alocated more points. The scoring system for community infrastructure is summarized in Table C-11. C-1. Comunity infrastructure Community Infrastructure Points None present0 pts. One present10 pts. Two or more present20 pts. Source: ODF Identifying and Assessment of Communities at Risk in Oregon - Draft Version 4.0 STRUCTURAL VULNERABILITY Structural vulnerability measures the likelihood that structures wil be destroyed by wildfire. Structural vulnerability is determined by several factors and characteristics of individual structures. The results are displayed as points over the completed risk asesment. ODF recommends using methods defined by either local ordinances or the National Fire Protection Asociation’s (NFPA). NFPA standards were used for the Linn County CWP Risk Asesment. The scoring system for structural vulnerability is based on thre major factors: structure, defensible space, and road aces. These factors combine for a maximum of 90 pts. The scoring system for structural vulnerability is summarized in Table C-12. Page C-8 ECONorthwest October 207 Lin County Comunity Wildfire Protection Plan Table C-12. Structural vulnerability Structural VulnerabilityPoints Structure Flammable roofing20 pts. Building materials10 pts.Building setback to slopes > 30 ft. 5 pts. Defensible Space Less than 30 ft. 25 pts. Separation of adjacent homes5 pts. Fire Access Presence of ingress/egress7 pts. Road width less than 20 ft.4 pts. All-season road condition4 pts.Fire service access (greater than 300 ft. without turnaround)5 pts. Presence of street signs5 pts. Source: Entrada, adapted from NFPA 1144 Lin County Comunity Wildfire Protection Plan ECONorthwest October 207 Page D-1 Apendix D Fuel Treatment Types One of the minimum requirements for a Community Wildfire Protection Plan (CWP) as described by the Healthy Forests Restoration Act is the identification of prioritized fuel reduction projects. A CWP must identify and prioritize areas for hazardous fuel reduction treatments, as wel as recommend appropriate treatment methods. Due to the diverse topography and eco-regions present in Lane County, the appropriate treatment methods vary considerably by vegetation type, annual precipitation, slope, aspect, and elevation. The purpose of this appendix is to compare the comon fuel treatment methods for each of the thre eco-regions found in Lane County: the Coast Range, Wilamete Valey, and Cascade Mountains. The following table provides information on the advantages, concerns, seasonality, application in the wildland- urban interface, and maintenance and scheduling for prescribed fire, mechanized thinning, and manual treatments across Lane County. The table only provides a general framework, and individual projects wil need to be tailored to the conditions present in the local area. Local fuels specialists should be consulted in order to determine the most feasible aray of fuels treatment options for a given geographical area. LIN COUNTY CONTACTS Albany Fire Department 333 Broadalbin St Sw Albany, OR 97321-0144 Lyons Rural Fire Protection District 1114 Main St Lyons, OR 97358 Brownsvile Rural Fire District 255 N Main Sq Brownsvile, OR 97327 Mil City Rural Fire Protection District 400 S First Avenue Ave Mil City, OR 97360 Halsey Shedd Fire Protection District 740 W Second St Halsey, OR 97348-0409 Scio Rural Fire Protection District 38975 Sw Sixth Ave Scio, OR 97374-0001 Harisburg Fire/ Rescue 500 Smith St Harisburg, OR 97446 Swet Home Fire & Ambulance District 1099 Long Stret Swet Home, OR 97386-2118 Lebanon Fire District 1050 W Oak St Lebanon, OR 97355 Tangent Rural Fire Protection District 32053 Birdfoot Dr Tangent, OR 97389 Page D-2 ECONorthwest October 207 Lin County Comunity Wildfire Protection Plan The structure of the table was adapted from the Florida Department of Community Afairs guide, Wildfire Mitigation in Florida: Land Use Planning Strategies and Best Development Practicesi. Bev Red, fuels specialist at the Cottage Grove Ranger District of the U.S. Forest Service modified the table with information appropriate to Oregon. i State of Florida. 204. Wildfire Mitigation in Florida: Land Use Planing Strategies and Best Development Practices. Florida Department of Comunity Afairs and Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services. Table D.1: Comparison of Fuel Treatment Types Coast Range Treatment Methods Advantages Concerns Seasonality Aplication in WUI Maintenance & Scheduling Prescribed Fire (incl. broadcast, understory or pile burning) - Encourages herbaceous growth and suports native species and ecosystems - Cost efective fuels treatment method in most cases - Broadcast & understory burning requires skiled aplication - Multiple entries may be required to achieve objectives - Re-burn potential in areas of heavy fuels or duf - Broadcast & understory burning constrained by weather, fuels characteristics, and smoke management constraints - Pile burning may be conducted under a broader range of conditions (i.e. les constraints) - Burning may be efective within or adjacent to WUI, either as a stand-alone treatment or in conjunction with mechanized or manual vegetation treatment methods - Timing for subsequent treatments dependent upon condition clas goals and degre of change made via initial treatment Mechanized (i.e large equipment) Treatments (incl. thining, pruning, lop and scater, mowing, crushing, chiping, etc) - Large local labor and contract pol - Cost efective over larger areas - Most methods reduce fire risk by geting fuels on ground (acelerating decomposition rates) or by removal - Can be folowed by prescribed fire where neded - Large equipment limited to gentler slopes - Potential “product” may be market- dependent - May be les economicaly feasible on smal sites due to move-in/move-out costs - May create short-term increase in fire risk - May require shut-down periods on some sites due to soils conditions or seasonal wildlife concerns - May be constrained by fire season requirements in sumer - Can be very efective within or adjacent to WUI, either as a stand-alone treatment or in conjunction with folow-up prescribed fire treatment methods - Timing for subsequent treatments dependent upon condition clas goals and degre of change made via initial treatment - Re-entry into thining areas may be scheduled using standard silvicultural practices Manual (i.e. hand) Treatment (incl. thining, pruning, hand piling, raking, etc) - Large local labor and contract pol - Can treat areas that canot be treated by prescribed fire or mechanical means - More labor intensive; may not be cost efective in areas of heavy fuels - May require more than one entry to achieve initial objectives for site - Work can usualy be conducted year-round - Chainsaw use may be constrained by fire season requirements in sumer - Can be very efective within or adjacent to WUI, either as a stand-alone treatment or in conjunction with folow-up fuels treatment methods (i.e. removal or burning) - Timing for subsequent treatments dependent upon condition clas goals and degre of change made via initial treatment - Re-entry into thining areas may be scheduled using standard silvicultural practices Wilamete Valley Treatment Methods Advantages Concerns Seasonality Aplication in WUI Maintenance & Scheduling Prescribed Fire (incl. broadcast, understory or pile burning) - Encourages herbaceous growth and suports native species and ecosystems - Cost efective fuels treatment method in most cases - Broadcast & understory burning requires skiled aplication - Must invest time in informing and educating the public - Complete mop-up, if required for air quality reasons, may increase costs - Burning constrained by weather, fuels characteristics, and smoke management constraints - Low elevation seasonal inversions and valey fog may afect burning oportunities - Burning may be efective within or adjacent to WUI, either as a stand-alone treatment or in conjunction with mechanized or manual vegetation treatment methods - Most burning oportunities wil exist along outer perimeters of urban areas/boundaries - Timing for subsequent treatments dependent upon kinds of sites being treated, condition clas goals and degre of change made via initial treatment - Recreation and other high use areas may be evaluated anualy as part of a fire prevention and fuels maintenance program planing Mechanized Treatments (incl. thining, pruning, lop and scater, mowing, crushing, chiping, etc) - Large local labor and contract pol - Cost efective over larger areas - Most methods reduce fire risk by geting fuels on ground (acelerating decomposition rates) or by removal - Can be folowed by prescribed fire where neded - Oportunities may exist for public to readily utilize material (i.e. chips, firewod, etc.) - Potential “product” may be market- dependent - May be les economicaly feasible in isolated sites due to move-in/move-out costs - May create short-term increase in fire risk, especialy in high-use recreation areas - In high use areas, if site precludes prescribed fire as a folow-up treatment, fuels removal or increased fire prevention patrols may be waranted - May require shut-down periods on some sites due to soils conditions or seasonal wildlife concerns - May be constrained by fire season requirements in sumer - Can be very efective within or adjacent to WUI, either as a stand-alone treatment or in conjunction with folow-up prescribed fire treatment methods - Proximity to private residences may limit mechanical use due to noise concerns - Timing for subsequent treatments dependent upon condition clas goals and degre of change made via initial treatment - Re-entry into thining areas may be scheduled using standard silvicultural practices - Recreation and other high use areas may be scheduled for anual mechanized treatments (i.e. mowing) - Private landowners and homeowners may be advised as to recomended maintenance by fire protection experts - Manual Treatment (incl. thining, pruning, hand piling, raking, etc) - Large local labor and contract pol - Oportunities for volunters, partnerships, stewardships or homeowner involvement - Can aces areas that canot be treated by prescribed fire or mechanical means - More labor intensive; may not be cost efective in some areas - May require more than one entry to achieve initial objectives for site - Work can usualy be conducted year-round - Chainsaw use may be constrained by fire season requirements in sumer - Can be very efective within or adjacent to WUI, either as a stand-alone treatment or in conjunction with folow-up fuels treatment methods (i.e. removal or burning) - Timing for subsequent treatments dependent upon condition clas goals and degre of change made via initial treatment - Private landowners and homeowners may be advised as to recomended maintenance by fire protection experts Cascade Mountains Treatment Methods Advantages Concerns Seasonality Aplication in WUI Maintenance & Scheduling Prescribed Fire (incl. broadcast, understory or pile burning) - Encourages herbaceous growth and suports native species and ecosystems - Cost efective fuels treatment method in most cases - Broadcast & understory burning requires skiled aplication - Multiple entries may be required to achieve objectives - May require aditional costs if mop-up or post-burn monitoring of site is required - Broadcast & understory burning constrained by weather, fuels characteristics, and smoke management constraints - Pile burning may be conducted under a broader range of conditions (i.e. les constraints) - Burning may be efective within or adjacent to WUI, either as a stand-alone treatment or in conjunction with mechanized or manual vegetation treatment methods - Timing for subsequent treatments dependent upon condition clas goals and degre of change made via initial treatment Mechanized Treatments (incl. thining, pruning, lop and scater, mowing, crushing, chiping, etc) - Large local labor and contract pol - Cost efective over larger areas - Most methods reduce fire risk by geting fuels on ground (acelerating decomposition rates) or by removal - Can be folowed by prescribed fire where neded - Large equipment limited to gentler slopes - Potential “product” may be market- dependent - May be les economicaly feasible on smal sites due to move-in/move-out costs - May create short-term increase in fire risk, especialy in high-use recreational areas - May require shut-down periods on some sites due to soils conditions or seasonal wildlife concerns - May be constrained by fire season requirements in sumer - Can be very efective within or adjacent to WUI, either as a stand-alone treatment or in conjunction with folow-up prescribed fire treatment methods - Timing for subsequent treatments dependent upon condition clas goals and degre of change made via initial treatment - Re-entry into thining areas may be scheduled using standard silvicultural practices - Recreation and other high use areas may be scheduled for anual treatments designed to minimize risk of human-caused fire Manual Treatment (incl. thining, pruning, hand piling, raking, etc) - Large local labor and contract pol - Can treat areas that canot be treated by prescribed fire or mechanical means - More labor intensive; may not be cost efective in areas of heavy fuels - May require more than one entry to achieve initial objectives for site - Except at highest elevations, work can usualy be conducted year- round - Chainsaw use may be constrained by fire season requirements in sumer - Can be very efective within or adjacent to WUI, either as a stand-alone treatment or in conjunction with folow-up fuels treatment methods (i.e. removal or burning) - Timing for subsequent treatments dependent upon condition clas goals and degre of change made via initial treatment - Re-entry into thining areas may be scheduled using standard silvicultural practices Lin County Comunity Wildfire Protection Plan October 207 ECONorthwest Page E-1 Apendix E Wildfire Resources This appendix provides a list of wildfire agencies and organizations that are potential sources of support and collaboration. The following are wildfire resources to help communities, landowners, and other interested parties help reduce Wildland Urban Interface fire risk. There are four main categories: agencies, policies, wildfire mitigation/education, and fire prevention and interagency cooperation. Lane County Comunity Wildfire Protection Plan Page H-1 Wildfire Resources The folowing are wildfire resources to help comunities, landowners, and other interested parties help reduce wildland urban interface fire risk. There are four main categories: agencies, policies, wildfire mitigation/education, and fire prevention and interagency cooperation. Agencies A variety of agencies do work that affects forest and fire management and other factors associated with reducing wildfire risk to forests and comunities. The folowing resources provide information on federal, state, and local agencies that are related to forests, fire, and resource management and planing: United States Forest Service, Fire and Aviation Management Contact: USFS Fire and Aviation Management Adres: 3833 South Development Avenue, Boise, ID 83705 Phone: (208) 387-5100 Website: htp:/www.fs.fed.us/fire/ United States Forest Service, Wilamette National Forest Contact: Wilamete National Forest Adres: PO Box 10607, Eugene, OR 97440 Phone: (541) 225-6300 Website: htp:/www.fs.fed.us/r6/wilamete/ Bureau of Land Management Contact: Bureau of Land Management Adres: 1849 C Street, Rom 406-LS, Washington DC 20240 Phone: (202) 452-5125 (voice) or (202) 452-5124 (fax) Website: htp:/www.blm.gov/nhp/index.htm Page H-2 Oregon Natural Hazards Workgroup June 205 Oregon Department of Forestry Contact: Oregon Department of Forestry Adres: 2600 State Street, Salem, OR 97310 Phone: (541) 945-7200 (voice) or (503) 945-7212 (fax) Website: htp:/oregon.gov/ODF/index.shtml Oregon State Fire Marshall Contact: Oregon State Fire Marshall Adres: 3225 State Street, Salem, OR 97301 Phone: (503) 378-3056 Website: htp:/www.blm.gov/nhp/index.htm Washington Department of Natural Resources Contact: Fire Prevention Program Cordinator Adres: PO Box 47037, Olympia, WA 98504-7037 Phone: (360) 902-1754 (voice) or (306) 902-1757 (fax) Website: htp:/www.dnr.wa.gov/contact/ National Interagency Fire Center (NIFC) Contact: NIFC Adres: 3833 South Development Avenue, Boise, ID 83705-5354 Phone: (208) 387-5512 Website: htp:/www.nifc.gov/ Policies Policies are often created at the federal and state level that affect how agencies, busineses, and residents can work individually and colaboratively to reduce comunities’ risk to wildfire. The folowing resources provide information on existing federal and state policies regarding wildfire risk reduction. Healthy Forest Restoration Act Website: htp:/www.fs.fed.us/projects/hfi/ National Fire Plan 10 Year Comprehensive Strategy Website: htp:/www.forestsandrangelands.gov/plan/ Lane County Comunity Wildfire Protection Plan Page H-3 Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 Website: htp:/www.dem.dcc.state.nc.us/PA/Asets/Forms/dma2000.pdf Oregon Statewide Land Use Planing Goal 7: Areas Subject to Natural Hazards Website: htp:/www.lcd.state.or.us/LCD/docs/goals/goal7.pdf Oregon Forestland Dwelling Units Statute, ORS 215.730 Website: htp:/landru.leg.state.or.us/ors/215.html Oregon Forestland-Urban Interface Fire Protection Act of 1997 (Senate Bil 360) Website: htp:/www.odf.state.or.us/divisions/protection/fire_protection/prev/sb36 0/docs/legal/PROTACT%20ORS%20090704.pdf Wildfire Mitigation/Education Many programs currently exist to help mitigate comunities’ risk to wildfire and to educate agencies, busineses, and residents on isues related to wildland-urban interface fire. The folowing resources provide links to educational information and programs regarding wildfire mitigation and comunity outreach: Firewise Comunities Contact: Firewise Comunities Adres: N/A Phone: N/A Website: htp:/www.firewise.org/ Misoula FireLab Contact: Misoula FireLab Adres: PO Box 8089, 5775 West Highway, Misoula, MT 59807 Phone: N/A Website: htp:/www.firelab.org/ Fire Safe Councils Contact: Fire Safe Council Adres: N/A Phone: N/A Website: htp:/www.firesafecouncil.org/ Page H-4 Oregon Natural Hazards Workgroup June 205 Federal Aliance for Safe Homes Contact: Federal Aliance for Safe Homes Adres: 1427 East Piedmont Drive, Suite 2, Talahasse, FL 32308 Phone: (877) 221-7233 Website: htp:/www.flash.org/welcome.cfm What Trees Can Provide Contact: Center for Urban Forest Research Adres: PSW Research Station, USDA Forest Service c/o Department of Environmental Horticulture, Suite 1103, One Shields Avenue, Davis, CA 95616 Phone: (530) 752-7636 (voice) or (503) 752-6634 (fax) Website: htp:/cufr.ucdavis.edu/ Home and Fire Magazine Contact: Home and Fire Magazine Adres: PO Box 458, Lebanon, OR 97355 Phone: (541) 451-4670 (voice) or (541) 451-1015 Website: htp:/www.homeandfire.com/ A Model for Improving Comunity Preparedness for Wildfire Contact: Pacific Northwest Research Station Adres: Pacific Northwest Research Station Phone: (206) 732-7832 Website: htp:/www.ncrs.fs.fed.us/4803/highlights/Intro%20to%20website.pdf The Ad Council Firewise Campaign PSA’s Adres: The Advertising Council, INC., 261 Madison Avenue, 1 th Flor, New York, NY 10016 Phone: (212) 922-1500 (voice) or (212) 922-1676 (fax) Website: htp:/www.adcouncil.org/campaigns/firewise/ Where’s the Fire Wise Choices Make Safe Comunities Contact: Center for Urban Forest Research Adres: PSW Research Station, USDA Forest Service c/o Department of Environmental Horticulture, Suite 1103, One Shields Avenue, Davis, CA 95616 Phone: (530) 752-7636 (voice) or (503) 752-6634 (fax) Website: htp:/cufr.ucdavis.edu/products/8/curf_150.pdf National Wildfire Cordinating Group Contact: National Wildfire Cordinating Group Adres: National Office of Fire and Aviation, Bureau of Land Management, National Interagency Fire Center Phone: (208) 387-5144 Website: htp:/www.nwcg.gov/teams/wfewt/biblio/index.htm National Fire Protection Asociation Lane County Comunity Wildfire Protection Plan Page H-5 Contact: National Fire Protection Asociation Adres: 1 Batterymarch Park, Quincy, MA 02169-7471 Phone: (617) 770-3000 Website: htp:/www.firepreventionweek.org/ National Interagency Fire Center: Fire Prevention and Education Contact: NIFC: Fire Prevention and Education Adres: 3833 South Development Avenue, Boise, ID 83705 Phone: (208) 387-5512 Website: htp:/www.nifc.gov/preved/index.html Federal Emergency Management Asociation for Kids: Teaching Kids About Prescribed Fire Contact: FEMA Adres: 500 C Street, Southwest Washington D.C. 20472 Phone: (202) 566-1600 Website: htp:/www.fema.gov/kids/wldfire.htm Protecting and Landscaping Homes in the Wildland/Urban Interface Contact: University of Idaho Extension Adres: Forest, Wildlife and Range Experiment Station, Colege of Natural Resources, University of Idaho, Moscow, ID 83844-1130 Wildfire Mitigation in Florida: Land use planing strategies and best development practices Contact: State of Florida Department of Comunity Affairs, Division of Community Planing, Publications Adres: 2555 Shumard Oak Blvd, Tallahasse, FL 32399-2100 Phone: (850) 487-4545 Website: htp:/www.dca.state.fl.us/fdcp/dcp/publications/Wildfire_Mitigation_in_ FL.pdf Grant Oportunities Federal and state grants already exist to assist counties and local comunities in funding various wildfire risk reduction projects. To assist the county and local comunities in accesing existing funding sources, the folowing resources have been adapted from the National Fire Plan - Pacific Northwest Interagency: Grant Opportunity Summaries 1 and explain and provide contact information for some federal and state grants: FS/BLM/NFWS/NPS/BIA Comunity Assistance and Economic Action Programs This grant is to be used for comunity based planning and projects for fuels reduction and comunity wildland-urban interface education and prevention. Agency partnerships and fund sharing is encouraged. Federally recognized tribes, universities, coleges, state chartered non- Page H-6 Oregon Natural Hazards Workgroup June 205 profit organizations, counties, cities, federal, state, and local government agencies are eligible to apply for this grant. Aplications due: March Website: www.nwfireplan.gov FEMA Assistance to Firefighters Grant Programs This grant funds programs by fire departments that help protect the public and firefighting personel against fire related hazards. This grant aditionaly focuses on programs aimed at children and firefighting personel training, protective equipment, and vehicles. Recognized local fire departments are eligible to apply for this grant. Aplications: March Website: htp:/www.usfa.fema.gov/grants/afgp/ Volunteer and Rural Fire Department Assistance This grant provides financial assistance to volunter and rural fire departments for improving fire protection through improved organization, training, equipment, prevention, and planing. Aplications: February Contact: Oregon Department of Forestry Phone: (503) 945-7341 State Fire Assistance Wildland Urban Interface Hazard Mitigation Grants This grant provides funding for education and outreach programs, fuels reduction and ecosystem restoration programs, and community assistance in seventen western states and Pacific Island territories. State Forestry agencies are eligible to apply and can sponsor other participants. Aplications: Fal Website: www.fs.fed.us/r4/sfa_grants/sfa_grants.html Lane County Comunity Wildfire Protection Plan Page H-7 Energy Trust Grants This grant provides financial assistance to renewable energy programs that do not already have incentive programs developed through the Energy Trust of Oregon. Projects in the areas of smal wind, solar photovoltaics, biomass, biogas, small hydro, and geothermal electric wil generaly receive grants. Schols, local and state governments, and commercial, industrial, residential, agricultural, and non-profit busineses are eligible to apply for this grant Contact: The Energy Trust of Oregon Adres: 733 S.W. Oak Street, Suite 200, Portland, OR, 97205 Phone: (503) 493-8888 (voice) or (503) 546-6862 (fax) Website: htp:/www.energytrust.org Fire Prevention and Interagency Coperation 2 Reducing comunities’ wildfire risk is a shared responsibility not only between residents and agencies, but also between agencies at the federal, state, and local levels. Federal, state, and local agencies frequently work closely with one another and form partnerships in coordinating wildfire prevention programs. Examples of existing partnerships and current coordinating efforts and programs include the folowing: Prevention Working Team of the Pacific Northwest Wildfire Cordinating Group (PNWCG) This group is composed of representatives of ODF, the Oregon State Fire Marshal (OSFM), the Washington State Fire Marshal, the five federal wildfire agencies, and the Keep Oregon Green (KOG) Asociation. Metings are held monthly. Recent work has included: • Ongoing oversight of the Industrial Fire Precaution Level System • Cordination of the deployment of National Fire Prevention and Education Teams into the region. • General coordination of wildfire prevention programs and campaigns acros the region. • Development of a regional wildfire prevention web site. • Creation and implementation of Wildfire Awarenes Wek • Review and scoring of National Fire Plan grant applications related to fire prevention. • Design and conduct of a prescribed awarenes and ecosystem health media campaign. • Development and distribution of a “Fire in the Northwest Ecosystem” curriculum, to teachers of grades 7-12. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) BLM and ODF worked closely on a number of fronts: Page H-8 Oregon Natural Hazards Workgroup June 205 • ODF protects approximately 2.5 milion acres of BLM forestland from fire. This protection includes al aspects of wildfire prevention: education, enginering and enforcement. • - The two agencies work together, frequently, on groups such as the Prevention Working Team of the PNWCG. Forest Service (USFS) In addition to working together on many statewide and regional fire prevention related groups, the two agencies: • Routinely combine efforts to conduct wildfire prevention related training. • Cordinate the implementation of closures and restrictions. • Cordinate asistance to comunities in the preparation of comunity wildfire protection plans. • Facilitate and coordinate various projects conducted as a part of the National Fire Plan. • Implementation of various national prevention programs and campaigns, such as Firewise and Smokey Bear. Forest Industry Working primarily through the Oregon Forest Industries Council and the Asociated Oregon Logers (AOL), ODF works closely with the forest industry. Recent examples include: • Refinement of fire prevention standards required for loging operations. • Anual “operator diners”, where members of the loging comunity are brought up to date on new fire prevention regulations and emerging trends in loging related fire causes. Pacific Northwest Fire Prevention Workshop Committee This body plans and hosts an anual, week long, gathering of several hundred fire prevention personel from acros the region and, increasingly, from acros the nation. The succes of this commite is evidenced by their receipt of a national Silver Smokey Bear Award in 2000. The comite is made up of personel from ODF, the state of Washington, the five federal wildfire agencies, the structural fire services of Oregon and Washington, KOG, and the Oregon Fire Marshal Asociation. Prevention Working Group, Fire Program Review Over the past year, this group reviewed Oregon’s wildfire prevention efforts and made recommendations for improvements. Represented on the group were smal woodland owners, large industrial owners, Oregon Forest Resources Institute, AOL, city fire departments, Oregon State University, Insurance Information Service of Oregon & Idaho, OSFM, rural fire departments, USFS and others. The group was co-chaired by representatives from KOG and ODF. Local fire prevention coperatives Lane County Comunity Wildfire Protection Plan Page H-9 In many areas of the state, fire prevention cooperatives have been formed to facilitate interagency cooperation in the local delivery of wildfire fire prevention mesages and materials. Coperative membership normaly includes structural fire departments, ODF and the USFS. Some cooperatives also have the American Red Cros, local 911 dispatch centers and other emergency oriented organizations as members. Projects commonly undertaken by cooperatives include: • Presentation of Smokey Bear wildfire prevention programs in area grade schols. • Presentation of home fire safety, “stop, drop and rol” and “exist drils in the home” (EDITH) programs in local schols. • Establishment of hunter education booths, on the opening weekend of hunting season, to make hunter aware of fire prevention practices. • Joint staffing of county fair fire prevention displays and booths. • Joint sponsorship of local special events, such as Smokey Bear day at profesional baseball games. • Fire prevention related training for member agency employes. • Implementation and delivery of various fire prevention and wildland-urban interface programs and campaigns. Oregon State Fire Marshal (OSFM) ODF often and frequently works with OSFM on a variety of initiatives. Perhaps the largest ongoing such initiative is the implementation of the Oregon Forestland-Urban Interface Fire Prevention Act (aka Senate Bil 360), of which OSFM was a co-sponsor. In addition to working together on many statewide and regional fire prevention related groups, the two agencies have recently: • Jointly sponsored, with KOG, a Wildfire Awarenes Wek proclamation from the Governor. • Worked together to assist local comunities in the completion of comunity wildfire protection plans. Oregon Interagency Hazard Mitigation Team This organization, established by the Oregon Department of Homeland Security, meets monthly to share information about al types of natural hazard, including wildfire. Membership includes a wide diversity of state agencies. The team recently completed development of the state’s Natural Hazards Mitigation Plan, which included a chapter on Wildland-Urban Interface Wildfire. Other chapters, such as those dealing with volcanic hazards and windstorms, also related to fire prevention isues. Oregon Department of Parks and Recreation (ODPR) In addition to assisting ODPR with campground fire safety, during the summer months, ODF has recently been working with ODRP to enhance wildfire prevention on the ocean shore. Also involved in this Page H-10 Oregon Natural Hazards Workgroup June 205 recent efflort has been OSFM, several rural fire protection districts and KOG. Oregon Department of Justice (DOJ) ODF works extensively with DOJ on efforts related to changing people’s unacceptable fire prevention behavior, when such behavior has resulted in an escaped wildfire. DOJ assists ODF in colecting the costs of supresing these fires, from the negligent parties. DOJ has also assisted with specific projects, such as the 2003 ground breaking effort to prevent the Union Pacific Railroad from engaging in a continuing pattern of fire starting activities. Oregon State Police (OSP) OSP and ODF frequently join forces to carry out wildfire prevention efforts. Such efforts include: • The anual, ful time assignment of two OSP tropers to conduct wildfire arson prevention programs acros the state, during fire season. • Joint fire investigation training. • Asisting ODF to outfit and operate a fire investigation vehicle. • Coperative investigation of fires. The investigation of fires related to arson is headed by OSP while the investigation of fires related to other causes is normally headed by ODF. Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) In recent years, ODOT and ODF have increasingly worked together to deliver the wildfire prevention mesages to motorists, primarily thought the use ODOT’s fixed and mobile variable mesage reader boards. Keep Oregon Gren Asociation (KOG) KOG and ODF have history of joint colaboration, which spans the last 65 years. KOG is currently colocated with ODF in Salem and receives extensive direct suport from the agency. In adition to working together on many statewide and regional fire prevention related groups, the two organizations routinely and regularly conduct fire prevention programs, campaigns and media offerings. City and Rural Fire Departments Especially at the local level, ODF often works with local fire departments to carry out wildfire prevention activities. One ongoing example is the Fire Free campaign in central Oregon. Headed by the Bend Fire Department, ODF has assisted with the conduct and expansion of this award wining and highly succesful wildfire mitigation and prevention program. Often, the agencies work together on activities under the auspicious of the local fire prevention cooperative. County and City Governments Lane County Comunity Wildfire Protection Plan Page H-1 Increasingly, ODF has been working with local governments on wildfire prevention. On a statewide basis, three of the major such efforts have been: • Implementation of Oregon’s Forestland-Urban Interface Fire Protection Act (Senate Bil 360) • Preparation of comunity wildfire protection plans • Creation of wildfire hazard zones National level involvement ODF is represented on several commites working at the national level, through the National Wildfire Cordinating Group. Each of these commites has members from the federal wildfire agencies, the National Asociation of State Foresters, and others: • Wildland Fire Education Working Team, which is responsible for the development wildfire prevention related materials and programs. • Fire Investigation Working Team – which is responsible for the development of training programs and standards related to wildfire investigation. 1 Oregon Department of Forestry. 205. National Fire Plan - Pacific Northwest Interagency: Grant Oportunity Sumaries. . 2 Fire Prevention and Interagency Coperation information developed by Rick Rogers of the Oregon Department of Forestry. Lin County Comunity Wildfire Protection Plan October 207 ECONorthwest Page F-1 Apendix F Glosary This appendix contains the glossary of terms found in Linn County’s CWP and in other wildfire literature. Glossary terms were identified through two sources: 1) Firewise.org Glossary and 2) Florida Department of Community Afair’s Wildfire Mitigation in Florida: Land use planning strategies and best development practices. Definitions pulled from the Firewise resource are noted in italics. Canopy – The stratum containing the crowns of the tallest vegetation present (living or dead), usually above 20 fet. Combustible – Any material that, in the form in which it is used and under the conditions anticipated, wil ignite and burn. Crown Fire – A fire that advances from top to top of tres or shrubs more or les independent of a surface fire. Debris Burning Fire – In fire suppresion, a fire spreading from any fire originally ignited to clear land or burn rubbish, garbage, crop stubble, or meadows (excluding incendiary fires). Defensible Space – An area, typically a width of 30 fet or more, betwen an improved property and a potential wildfire where the combustibles have been removed or modified. Duf – The layer of decomposing organic materials lying below the liter layer of freshly fallen twigs, needles and leaves and imediately above the mineral soil. Escape Route – Route away from dangerous areas on a fire; should be preplanned. Evacuation – The temporary movement of people and their possesions from locations threatened by wildfire. Exposure – (1) Property that may be endangered by a fire burning in another structure or by a wildfire. (2) Direction in which a slope faces, usually with respect to cardinal directions. (3) The general surroundings of s site with special reference to its opennes to winds. Fire Behavior – The manner in which a fire reacts to the influences of fuel, weather, and topography. Page F-2 ECONorthwest October 207 Lin County Comunity Wildfire Protection Plan Fire Department – Any regularly organized fire department, fire protection district or fire company regularly charged with the responsibility of providing fire protection to the jurisdiction. Fire Hazard – A fuel complex, defined by volume, type condition, arrangement, and location, that determines the degre of ease of ignition and of resistance to control. Fire History – The chronological record of the occurrence of fire in an ecosystem or at a specific site. The fire history of an area may inform planners and residents about the level of wildfire hazard in that area. Fire Prevention – Activities, including education, engineering, enforcement and administration, that are directed at reducing the number of wildfires, the costs of suppresion, and fire-caused damage to resources and property. Fire-Proofing – Removing or treating fuel with fire retardant to reduce the danger of fires igniting or spreading (e.g., fire-proofing roadsides, campsites, structural timber). Protection is relative, not absolute. Fire Protection – The actions taken to limit the adverse environmental, social, political and economical efects of fire. Fire Resistant Roofing – The classification of roofing assemblies A, B, or C as defined in the Standard for Safety 790, Tests for Fire Resistance of Roof Covering Materials 1997 edition. Fire Resistant Tre – A species with compact, resin-fre, thick corky bark and les flammable foliage that has a relatively lower probability of being kiled or scarred by a fire than a fire sensitive tre. Fire Retardant – Any substance except plain water that by chemical or physical action reduces flammability of fuels or slows their rate of combustion. Fire Triangle – Instructional aid in which the sides of a triangle are used to represent the thre factors (oxygen, heat, and fuel) necesary for combustion and flame production; removal of any of the thre factors causes flame production to cease. Firebrands – Any source of heat, natural or human made, capable of igniting wildland fuels. Flaming or glowing fuel particles that can be carried naturally by wind, convection currents, or by gravity into unburned fuels. Examples include leaves, pine cones, glowing charcoal, and sparks. Lin County Comunity Wildfire Protection Plan October 207 ECONorthwest Page F-3 Firefighter – A person who is trained and proficient in the components of structural or wildland fire. Firewise Construction – The use of materials and systems in the design and construction of a building or structure to safeguard against the spread of fire within a building or structure and the spread of fire to or from buildings or structures to the wildland- urban interface area. Firewise Landscaping – Vegetative management that removes flammable fuels from around a structure to reduce exposure to radiant heat. The flammable fuels may be replaced with gren lawn, gardens, certain individually spaced gren, ornamental shrubs, individually spaced and pruned tres, decorative stone or other non- flammable or flame-resistant materials. Flammability – The relative ease with which fuels ignite and burn regardles of the quantity of the fuels. Fuel(s) – Al combustible material within the wildland-urban interface or intermix, including vegetation and structures. Fuel Condition – Relative flammability of fuel as determined by fuel type and environmental conditions. Fuel Loading – The volume of fuel in a given area generally expresed in tons per acre. Fuel Management/Fuel Reduction – Manipulation or removal of fuels to reduce the likelihood of ignition and to reduce potential damage in case of a wildfire. Fuel reduction methods include prescribed fire, mechanical treatments (mowing, chopping), herbicides, biomas removal (thinning or harvesting or tres, harvesting of pine straw), and grazing. Fuel management techniques may sometimes be combined for greater efect. Fuel Modification – Any manipulation or removal of fuels to reduce the likelihood of ignition or the resistance to fire control. Ground Fuels – Al combustible materials such as grass, duff, loose surface liter, tre or shrub roots, rotting wood, leaves, peat or sawdust that typically support combustion. Hazard – The degre of flammability of the fuels once a fire starts. This includes the fuel (type, arrangement, volume, and condition), topography and weather. Hazardous Areas – Those wildland areas where the combination of vegetation, topography, weather, and the threat of fire to life and property create dificult and dangerous problems. Page F-4 ECONorthwest October 207 Lin County Comunity Wildfire Protection Plan Hazard Reduction – Any treatment of living and dead fuels that reduces the threat of ignition and spread of fire. Herbicide – Any chemical substance used to kil or slow the growth of unwanted plants. Human-caused Fire – Any fire caused directly or indirectly by person(s). Human-caused Risk – The probability of a fire ignition as a result of human activities. Ignition Probability – Chance that a firebrand wil cause an ignition when it lands on receptive fuels. Initial Atack – The actions taken by the first resources to arrive at a wildfire to protect lives and property, and prevent further extension of the fire. Ladder Fuels – Fuels that provide vertical continuity allowing fire to carry from surface fuels into the crowns of tres or shrubs with relative ease. Mechanical Treatment(s) – Ways to reduce hazardous fuels for the purpose of wildfire prevention. Mitigation – Action that moderates the severity of a fire hazard or risk. Noncombustible – A material that, in the form in which it is used and under the conditions anticipated, wil not aid combustion or add appreciable heat to an ambient fire. Overstory – That portion of the tres in a forest which forms the upper or uppermost layer. Peak Fire Season – That period of the fire season during which fires are expected to ignite most readily, to burn with greater than average intensity, and to create damages at an unaceptable level. Preparednes – (1) Condition or degre of being ready to cope with a potential fire situation. (2) Mental readines to recognize changes in fire danger and act promptly when action is appropriate. Prescribed Burning – Controlled application of fire to wildland fuels in either their natural or modified state, under specified environmental conditions, which allows the fire to be confined to a predetermined area, and to produce the fire behavior and fire characteristics required to attain planned fire treatment and resource management objectives. Lin County Comunity Wildfire Protection Plan October 207 ECONorthwest Page F-5 Prescribed Fire – A fire burning within prescription. This fire may result from either planned or unplanned ignitions. Property Protection – To protect structures from damage by fire, whether the fire is inside the structure, or is threatening the structure from an exterior source. The municipal firefighter is trained and equipped for this mision and not usually trained and equipped to suppres wildland fires. Wildland fire protection agencies are not normally trained or charged with the responsibility to provide structural fire protection nut wil act within their training and capabilities to safely prevent a wildland fire from igniting structures. Protection Area – That area for which a particular fire protection organization has the primary responsibility for attacking an uncontrolled fire and for directing the suppresion action. Such responsibility may develop through law, contract, or personal interest of the fire protection agent. Several agencies or entities may have some basic responsibilities without being known as the fire organization having direct protection responsibility. Response – Movement of an individual fire fighting resource from its assigned standby location to another location or to an incident in reaction to dispatch orders or to a reported alarm. Retardant – A substance or chemical agent which reduces the flammability of combustibles. Risk – The chance of a fire starting from any cause. Rural Fire District (RFD) – An organization established to provide fire protection to a designated geographic area outside or areas under municipal fire protection. Usually has some taxing authority and officials may be appointed or elected. Rural Fire Protection – Fire protection and firefighting problems that are outside of areas under municipal fire prevention and building regulations and that are usually remote from public water supplies. Slash – Debris left after logging, pruning, thinning, or brush cutting. Slash includes logs, chips, bark, branches, stumps, and broken tres or brush that may be fuel for a wildfire. Slope – The variation of terain from the horizontal; the number of fet rise or fall per 100 fet measured horizontally, expresed as a percentage. Smoke – (1) The visible products of combustion rising above a fire. (2) Term used when reporting a fire or probable fire in its initial stages. Page F-6 ECONorthwest October 207 Lin County Comunity Wildfire Protection Plan Structure Fire – Fire originating in and burning any part or all of any building, shelter, or other structure. Structural Fire Protection – The protection of a structure from interior and exterior fire ignition sources. This fire protection service is normally provided by municipal fire departments, with trained and equipped personnel. After life safety, the agency’s priority is to kep the fire from leaving the structure of origin and to protect the structure from an advancing wildland fire. (The equipment and training required to conduct structural fire protection is not normally provided to the wildland firefighter.) Various taxing authorities fund this service. Suppresion – The most aggresive fire protection strategy, it leads to the total extinguishment of a fire. Surface Fire – A fire that burns leaf liter, falen branches and other surface fuels on the forest floor, as opposed to ground fire and crown fire. Surface Fuel – Fuels lying on or near the surface of the ground, consisting of leaf and needle liter, dead branch material, downed logs, bark, tre cones, and low stature living plants. Tre Crown – The primary and secondary branches growing out from the main stem, together with twigs and foliage. Uncontrolled Fire – Any fire which threatens to destroy life, property, or natural resources, and (a) is not burning within the confines of firebreaks, or (b) is burning with such intensity that it could not be readily extinguished with ordinary, commonly available tools. Understory – Low-growing vegetation (herbaceous, brush or reproduction) growing under a stand of tres. Also, that portion of tres in a forest stand below the overstory. Urban Interface – Any area where wildland fuels threaten to ignite combustible homes and structures. Volunter Fire Department – A fire department of which some or all members are unpaid. Water Supply – A source of water for firefighting activities. Wildfire – An unplanned and uncontrolled fire spreading through vegetative fuels, at times involving structures. Wildland – An area in which development is esentially non- existent, except for roads, railroads, power lines, and similar transportation facilities. Structures, if any, are widely scattered. Lin County Comunity Wildfire Protection Plan October 207 ECONorthwest Page F-7 Wildland Fire Protection – The protection of natural resources and watersheds from damage by wildland fires. State and Federal forestry or land management agencies normally provide wildland fire protection with trained and equipped personnel. (The equipment and training required to conduct wildland fire protection is not normally provided to the structural fire protection firefighter.) Various taxing authorities and fes fund this service. Wildland-Urban Interface – The zone where structures and other human development mets or intermingles with undeveloped wildland fuels and other natural features. Wildland-Urban Interface – Any area where wildland fuels threaten to ignite combustible homes and structures.