CDF/USFS Workshop on Fire Planning Methodologies
Minutes of July 2, 1996

Review

The workshop on 24 May led to seven project headings:

• Data development: fuels
• Data development: weather
• Data development: fire perimeters
• Data exchange: initial attack resources
• Assessment: investigate the relationship between Fire Plan methodology and National Forest lands
• Planning Methodologies: NFMAS
• Planning Methodologies: mutual education

Dimensions of Cooperation

During the second meeting several important aspects of the proposed cooperative work emerged.

First, technical staff (i.e., us) need to achieve a clear agreement and trust about inputs and outputs of cooperative projects. Doubts at our level with respect to inputs or outputs would quickly undermine management commitment to these projects.

Second, the projects must avoid becoming yet more workload for the field. Each agency has certain tasks that it must perform to obtain its budget. The field will respond favorably to projects if those projects promise important benefits to the agency’s core operations.

Third, pilot projects are better than comprehensive initiatives. Pilot projects are less threatening to managerial prerogatives and are sufficiently small that chances of success are increased.

Finally, commonly accepted definitions - of risk, hazard, danger - are critical to long-term collaboration.

As a consequence of the fourth point, much of the meeting focussed on how CDF’s Fire Plan quantified what it referred to as hazard. At the conclusion of that discussion, we isolated three separate activities to undertake under the general heading of data development on fuels:

1. A technical report that outlines the structure of a California fuels and hazard database that serves the needs of all agencies. The report would establish common definitions, describe the various sources of input data (mapped and plot), document the procedures used to transform these input data into fuels-related layers, relate these layers to the common definitions and describe how each agency uses or would use the layers in its fire planning.

Inputs: staff and consultant time from CDF/FRAP, CDF/SFM, Region 5/FAM, Region 5/RSL and other agencies
Consultations with California Fuels Committee, California Prevention Committee
Duration: 3-6 months (?)

2. An assessment of scheduling options for the coordination of fuels and hazard data development for CDF Ranger Units and National Forests

Inputs: staff and consultant time from FRAP and RSL
Due date: (First draft by 7/31- GG)

3. A technical report that describes options for using the fuels and hazard database to develop projects. The report would describe the Fire Plan methodology (i.e., ranking of quad 81st) as well as methods proposed or used by other agencies to locate and prioritize projects.

Inputs: staff and consultant time from CDF/FRAP, CDF/SFM, Region 5/FAM
Duration: (3-6 months?)

Please revise or otherwise edit these project descriptions to reflect more exactly your recollections of our discussions. I hope that we can soon agree on the outputs, then work backward through methodologies toward the required inputs. We need to get as specific as possible so that we can convert all of this into real tasks for staff and real contracts for consultants. We can perhaps define these projects digitally. If you will all send your comments to me, I will moderate the discussion and build the documentation.

Progress under other headings is not contingent on completing these tasks. If CDF and Region 5/ USFS have the opportunity to make progress on exchanging data on initial attack resources, building fire perimeter coverages, or scoping revisions to NFMAS, we should do so.

Participants

FOR MORE INFORMATION

Contact Greg Greenwood via e-mail at greg.greenwood@fire.ca.gov or by phone at (916) 227-2655.

Last edited on June 4, 1997 by Greg Greenwood