Planning for a Large-Scale Chaparral
Management Program in California1
Leonard A. Newell2
The wildfire problem in California's Mediterranean
Climate region is one of the most severe in the
world. Recent findings of a Governor's Task
Force say that the trend is worsening, due among
other things to more population in rural and
mountainous areas, unwise construction and the
continued accumulation of highly flammable wildland fuels (California Governor's Office, 1981).
Writing of the disastrous 1970 California fire
season, Countryman (1974) concluded similarly that
"climate, fuels, topography and people create" the
fire problem.
This paper focuses on the fuels element of
these factors, and particularly on the use of
prescribed fire to reduce these fuels on a large
scale, with emphasis on the chaparral and other
shrub formations on private land in California.
Prescribed fire is effective in reducing fire
hazards in the chaparral because fires in this
type are carried by accumulations of dead vegetation which are age-related: the younger the
stand, the less dead wood there is to carry fire
(Philpot, 1977) (Green, 1981). Thus, burning off
the accumulation of dead material under prescribed
conditions reduces the hazard of intense wildfires
for many years.
The California Department of Forestry (CDF) is
charged with the fire protection responsibility
for approximately 50 percent of the shrub formation lands in California (Calif. Dep. of
Forestry, 1981), most of which are privately owned.
There has been an active permit burning system
since 1945, whereby landowners have conducted
prescribed burns on their property at their own
initiative, risk and expense. However, there has
been no way for the CDF to actively target areas
for fuel reduction. In addition, prescribed burn-
1
Presented at the Symposium on Dynamics and
Management of Mediterranean-type Ecosystems,
June 22-26, 1981, San Diego, California
2
Manager, Vegetation Management Program,
California Dep. Forestry, the Resources Agency,
Sacramento, California.
Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-58. Berkeley, CA: Pacific Southwest Forest and Range
Experiment Station, Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture; 1982.
Abstract: Senate Bill 1704 (Keene) is a key piece
of state legislation that allows the California
Department of Forestry to cost-share in prescribed
burning on private land. Top management in CDF
and other organizations have been involved with
framing the legislation, developing realistic
budgets and staffing key positions. Middle management, with extensive public involvement, produced
the program environmental impact report and
regulations. Public involvement resulted in
significant changes. Funding is uncertain. The
program is now legally ready for operations in
the field.
ing on private land has declined in the state
3
since the mid-1950's (Phillips, 1977) .
For these reasons, top management in the CDF
and other agencies nurtured a lengthy process of
lawmaking that resulted, on July 16, 190, in
4
Governor Brown signing Senate Bill 1704 into law.
Sponsored by Senator Barry Keene of Mendocino,
this pioneering legislation removed major
obstacles to effective management of these private
lands. The law becomes effective on July 1, 1981.
Its basic provisions are these:
1. The Director of the CDF "may enter into a
contract for prescribed burning with the owner or
any other person who has legal control of any
property which is included in any wildland for any
of the following purposes, or any combination
thereof:"
(a)
fires...
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(f)
Prevention of high-intensity wildland
Watershed management
Range improvement
Vegetation management
Forest improvement
Wildlife habitat improvement
2.
The state may assume a proportionate share of
the costs, in terms of personnel and equipment,
of site preparation and prescribed burning, to
90 percent of the total cost.
3.
The CDF will provide a third-party liability
policy of insurance which provides coverage
against loss resulting from a wildland fire sustained by any person or public agency, including
the federal government.
Federal lands are specifically excluded from
receiving cost-sharing funds from the state, but
otherwise cooperation is encouraged by the law.
3
Exceptions are the Counties of Santa Barbara,
San Benito, Kern and Shasta, which have active
range improvement associations.
4
Public Resources Code Section 4104, 4462,4464,
4475, 4476, 4491, 4493, 4494, 4475.5 and 4478.
Health and Safety Code 13009.
533
With the authority of SB 1704, CDF can
actively assist in the management of private
shrub-formation lands, without infringing on
landowner rights. Further, federal agencies such
as the U.S. Forest Service, Bureau of Land
Management and National Park Service, and the
State Department of Parks and Recreation, can now
plan and execute prescribed burns in concert with
intermingled private lands.
The advantages of having all landowners/
managers in an area able to participate in a
prescribed burn are obvious: projects can be
designed using logical boundaries such as roads
and vegetation changes, which aid control and
lower costs; the chances for an "escape" are
reduced, and economies of scale can be realized
by all participants.
In summary, SB 1704 provides the legal
authority to fill the critical gap that had
tended to discourage private landowners from
participating in an overall pattern of shrubland
management with their federal and other neighbors.
This paper discusses how various management
levels, organizations and interest groups participated in the framing of the law, and how
they have influenced planning to the present time.
The paper concludes with a brief discussion of
program funding.
THE ENABLING AUTHORITY AND PROGRAM: TOP
MANAGEMENT ROLES
The job of developing and implementing this
or any legislation falls to elected representatives in the California Legislature, and to top
management in state agencies and departments.
The roles of the state executives can be divided
into the following categories:
1.
Sensing the needs
2.
Finding and working with interested
Assemblymen and/or Senators
3.
Building a consensus of support from
involved constituencies
4.
Drafting the legislation with the help
of those most affected by it
5.
Developing realistic budgets and seeking
viable funding avenues
6.
Staffing the new program's key positions
7.
Monitoring and directing middle management
In the case of SB 1704, as in many other
bills, items 1-5 were done concurrently. Ideas
from one role area impact development in others,
so there is a continuous feedback and correction,
or successive iteration process that, when skillfully managed, results in a solid consensus on
legislative language and broad funding support.
534
The process of developing this broadly
supported enabling authority for a major newemphasis program takes at least two years. In
the case of SB 1704, it took 3 years of concentrated attention by top management to get us
where we are today. The law takes effect in a
few days.
An effort of this magnitude is too much for
any one government entity to accomplish alone.
It will continue to require the support of many
organizations and individuals to make it happen.
Fortunately, many agencies in California have
recently signed an agreement to participate in
5
Coordinated Resource Management Planning (CAMP) .
This agreement provides a framework for coordinating various agency roles over many land
jurisdictions and ownerships. Table 1 summarizes
involvement to date.
One of the conclusions that may be drawn from
a perusal of Table 1 is that there exists a
general perception of need to manage California's
shrub-formation ecosystems by the use of
prescribed fire. A proposal must have intrinsic
value to elicit participation and support over so
wide a spectrum of interests.
Before moving on to middle management roles,
a few comments are in order on funding and staffing, as seen from top management perspectives.
One key decision made about funding the
Chaparral Management Program (as the operational
entity to implement SB 1704 is called) was to do
so out of the state's new Energy Resources Fund
(ERF). This fund uses tidelands oil revenues to
provide natural resources investment capital in
6
the state. This fund is the state's venture
capital for promising new initiatives. The
presumption is that new programs which demonstrate favorable benefit/cost ratios and public
support will survive to be funded by the state's
General Fund. As conceived, ERF is an extraordinarily astute way of channeling revenues from
depletable resources into long-term renewable
resources. Unfortunately and ominously, the ERF
fund is currently being eyed by a budget-short
legislature and others. Proposals for funding
everything from railroads to schools are
beginning to emerge. As of this writing, the
Chaparral Management Program will have total
financing of about $3,100,000 in state Fiscal Year
1981-82, which begins July 1, 1981.
5
Memorandum of Understanding for Coordinated
Resource Management Planning in California; in
process of being signed, May 1981.
6
Public Resources Code 26400-26407, Statutes
of 1980.
1
Table 1 --Summary of Cooperating Entities in the
2
Chaparral Management Program
State
+Off. of the Governor
+The Calif. Res. Agency
*Calif. Bd. of For.
3
*Calif. Dep. of For.
(primary leadership)
*Univ. of Calif. Coop.
Ext. Serv.
3
*Dep. of Fish & Game
*Dep. of Water Res.
+Dep. of Parks & Rec.
+Dep. of Conservation
+Air Resources Bd.
+Dep. of Food & Agri.
Federal
3
+USDA, Forest Serv.
+USDA, Soil Conserv.
3
Service
+USDI, Bur. of Land
3
Management
+USDI, Nat. Park Serv.
USDI, Bur. of Indian
Affairs
USDI, Fish & Wildlife
Service
USDA, Agri. Stabiliz.
3
& Conserv. Serv.
Private
4
Local
+Res. Conservation
3
Districts
+Soil & Water Cons.
Districts
Air Pollution Control
Districts
Local Water and/or Flood
Cons. Dists.
1
+Calif.
Cattlemen's
Association
The Nature Conserv.
Sierra Club
The Audubon Society
Range Improvement
Associations,
Counties: Kern, Santa
Barbara, San Benito,
Shasta
Symbol meaning:
*Initiating or other key roles
+Major supportive roles and/or parallel programs
on public lands
No symbol indicates formal involvement in one or
more phases of work.
2
Source: Final Environmental Impact Report, Calif.
Dep. of Forestry, 1981.
3
Has signed agreement to participate in Coordinated Resource Management Planning
4
This list is merely a sampling of private
involvement. A complete list would take more
A second key decision concerning funding
involved the integration of the Chaparral
Management Program with the Fire Suppression
Program, by means of integrated use and funding of
a CDF-run helicopter fleet. Analysis showed that,
by obtaining surplus military medium-turbine
helicopters and operating them with contract
pilots, CDF could achieve these things:
a. Have year-around use of helicopters, of
b. much greater lift and crew capacity than
provided by the light-turbine ships previously
contracted for, at
c. only slightly more expense per year than
the light-turbine cost for the 107 day fire
season alone, and
d. ensure the availability of the aircraft
for helitorch work, when needed.
What this means is that very large economies
can be achieved, i.e. fire suppression capability
will be greatly enhanced, while helitorch
operations will cost the state very little at the
margin. This plan has been vigorously attacked
by the helicopter industry, but at this writing,
funding for the plan is apparently going to be
approved by the Legislature.
Staffing of the key middle-management position;
at the Sacramento level was done directly by CDF
top management. Program staff were carefully
selected from CDF ranks while a search for a
program manager was conducted within CDF and elsewhere. Selection of the author for this position
was done in October of 1980, from the ranks of
the USDA, Forest Service. An Intergovernmental
7
Personnel Act agreement is the instrument by
which this two-year assignment is authorized.
PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT, PLANNING AND POLICY:
MIDDLE MANAGEMENT ROLES
As used in this paper, the term "middle
management" refers specifically to the tiers of
an organization that are just below the decisionmaking, or "line officer", level.
The nature of middle management's role is to
make recommendations, based on sound technical
analysis, budget constraints, and organizational
and political realities. When these recommendations are such that top management can ratify
them with only minor changes, middle management
has succeeded and the program develops smoothly.
A major prerequisite for this success is frank
and frequent communication between the levels,
so that false starts, wrong assumptions and other
errors that waste critical time are minimized.
The program development phase may be
conceived of as the second side of a triangle
which represents a fully operational program.
The third side, Operations, may be thought
of as the "feedback side" to the Enabling
Authority: the success on the ground that
determines continued acceptance and funding in
the future; the support of landowners and the
public that translates into legislative support.
7
5 U.S. C. 3371-3376, 1970.
535
A program with these three legs in place is
a very stable one. The CDF and cooperators
(Table 1) have nearly completed the program
development phase, and field operations will
begin within the next few months.
and oral comments at formal meetings of the State
Board of Forestry. In the case of the Chaparral
Management Program, nearly 100 percent of the
formal public response was in the form of written
comments.
The broad middle management tasks of developing the Chaparral Management Program are
We received 46 letters. Under the California
Environmental Quality Act, all such letters must
be answered in detail. Further, the letters and
replies must be published as part of the final EIR
when it is presented for adoption.
1.
Development of Regulations and a Program
Environmental Impact Report
2.
Budget development, presentation and
defense
3.
Training
4.
Detailed Program Planning
All of these must be done with the active
involvement of interested groups and individuals.
Because the first of these broad tasks has
just been completed, because it is the area of
planning most directly benefited by a symposium
such as this one, and because it illustrates well
the way in which various interest groups get
involved, we should look closely at it.
Development of regulations is required by
Section 4475.5(b) of the Public Resources Code.
Protection of the environment by the state, while
the state is engaged in activities that significantly affect the environment, is required by the
8
California Environmental Quality Act of 1970.
Thus, regulations must incorporate provisions for
protection of the environment.
A decision was made by CDF top management to
meet the requirements for environmental protection in part by preparation of a program environmental impact report (EIR). The purposes of the
report are probably familiar to most of you.
Briefly, they are:
1.
describe affected ecosystems;
2.
present a discussion of how the proposed
action will affect these systems;
3.
highlight any adverse impacts that are
foreseen;
4.
prescribe specific mitigation measures
to bring the adverse impacts within acceptable
limits;
5.
discuss a range of alternatives that
might achieve similar goals, and explain why the
proposed action is preferred over them.
The process of environmental impact report
preparation and adoption is a legal and formal
one. Interested groups and the general public
have chances to provide suggestions, comments
and objections through two formal avenues:
written comments on the Draft EIR and Regulations,
These letters and replies provide a most
interesting record of how various interest groups
within the state view the program, and of how
their views shaped the final document. In
democratic government, the process of public
involvement is much more than a token listening
to comments. In the case of the Chaparral Management Program, the process definitely shaped the
final result. Some examples here will be helpful
to illustrate this. We will look at these 3
issues in detail:
1.
private property rights vs. state control
and CEQA
2.
issues involving land management
objectives
3.
burning in the winter and spring season
The discussion will cite letters from the
published Final EIR and Comments, by letter
number, as references for the points illustrated.
Private property rights vs. state control is
an issue of ongoing importance, and has been since
the earliest days of the conservation movement
in the United States (Pinchot, 1947). The
SB 1704 program cannot work without the support
of landowners, nor can it be legally implemented
without safeguards to the environment. To assure
the latter, a written management plan is needed.
The Board of Forestry's Range Management Advisory
Committee, which is made up largely of ranchers
and range managers, had recognized the need for
9
ongoing management, not just the use of fire.
Yet both the California Cattlemen's Association
(#328) and rancher Richard Wilson (#11, #19)
expressed suspicion of long-term plans. Mr. Wilson
was particularly concerned about questions of
access and interagency roles. Professor Omi
(#33) reinforced the need for good plans as a way
to determine priorities. Our reply to the Cattlemen's Association on this point (#28 reply) sums
up the balance we tried to achieve: "The landowner's stewardship attitude is expressed by his/
her management plan, and is a prerequisite for
serious consideration in cost sharing." As a
further reinforcement to the need for landowner
commitment to ongoing management, the Final EIR
makes specific that the landowner is the leader
9
8
536
Public Resources Code 21000 et. seq.
0fficial Minutes, Range Management Advisory
Committee, March 5, 1981. On file at the office
of the Board of Forestry, 1416 9th Street,
Sacramento, California 95814
of the interdisciplinary (I.D.) team for the
project on his/her land.
A second concern involving landowner rights
vs. state control centered upon the existing permit burning program. Under this program, the CDF
is a passive partner who permits fires to be
started, but who does not assume responsibility
for the fires or any liability that may arise.
Initiative is in the hands of individual ranchers
and range improvement associations, who bear
their own expenses, provide their own insurance,
and otherwise retain control. These people have
a strong sense of private initiative and individual accomplishment. Many are suspicious of
government. Their letters (#19, 28, 29, 34)
urged that the option of the existing permit
system be left open to landowners without further
restrictions. As a result of this expression
of concern, the CDF will offer both options to
landowners: the current permit system as it has
operated since 1945, and the 1704 program with
its requirement of plans, environmental checklist
procedures and contracts.
Table 2--Summary of Approaches to Chaparral
Management
Theory &
Letter #
Summary
Statement
X
18, 28, 34,
35, 36
Convert the
vegetation
to something else
1. Volunteer grass and
forbs, with a limited
1
shrub canopy
2. Establish plants
adapted to the climate, selected for low
flammability
3. Drill-seeding of
grasses and/or forbs
4. Irrigated avocados,
citrus, etc.
Y
21, 22, 25,
26, 27, 32,
38, 45
Manage for
the intrinsic floral
and faunal
values of
the shrub
formations
1. rotational burning on
a 20, 30 or more year
basis, which would
simulate pre-whitesettler conditions
2. development of age
class and vegetation
type mosaics
3. improve habitat for
rare/endangered plant
and animal species, or
for other desired
1
native species
Manage for
commodity
production
1. use existing oldgrowth for product-ion
of energy
2. increase water yields
A third concern in this area centered on the
problem of monitoring project results. Landowner
interests (#11, 19, 28) were chary of long-term
arrangements, in part due to past experience of
what they perceived as high-handedness by
government officials. Yet 4 other reviewers (#15,
22, 25 and 39) think strongly that monitoring is
essential. Two of these (#15 and 29) recommended
that all prescribed burns be monitored in detail.
We currently plan for detailed evaluations on a
10 percent sample basis, statewide, stratified by
size and predicted impact or importance of
predicted change.
Z
30
1
Issues involving land management objectives
were a second cluster of issues. The author
noticed that various reviewers, depending on
their particular interest, appeared to favor 3
broad goals and 3 broad approaches to chaparral
management. A brief discussion of them will aid
understanding of the objectives problem. Goals
tend to center upon:
a.
reduction of conflagration fires
b.
optimization of soil and water productivity for man's use (over the long run )
c.
protection and improvement of intrinsic
floral and faunal values
The three broad approaches have been termed
theories X, Y and Z by the author. Table 2 gives
a summary of these.
Faced with these many options, the program
solution is that what constitutes desired species
will be determined by the landowner, according to
land management objectives. Rare and endangered
species, and other environmental values addressed
in the program EIR, will be protected by
regulation. In other words, the landowner
decides, but must stay within the limits of the
Examples
An example of where Theories X and Y may overlap
EIR. It seems necessary to add that the Theory Z
approach, particularly in the area of energy
development, has major technological problems and
environmental unknowns. Any large-scale proposal
for harvesting chaparral as biomass will require
a separate EIR.
Season of the year for burning was a third
major issue that developed in reviewer comments.
There are a number of reasons for wanting to burn
in the cool season, and the draft EIR indicated
that considerable winter and spring burning was
being considered. Four letters (#25, 26, 29 and
32) were strongly against extensive burning during
this time, and/or advocated summer and fall
burning. Three other letters (#13, 16 and 22)
gave cautionary advice against winter and spring
burning, while 1 letter (#7) advocated winter
and spring burning. In analyzing these comments,
the program staff developed Table 3.
537
Table 3--Pros and Cons of Winter and Spring
Burning
PRO
CON
1. Safer
point
fires
areas
brush
from stand1. Moist seeds of grasses,
of controlling
forbs and shrubs do
in extensive
not survive surface
of heavy
soil temperatures as
well as dry seed (#16,
25, 26, 32), hence
plant species divers2. Can easily schedule
ity will be reduced
crews to do burns
when fire season
emergencies are
2. Seeds that do survive
not a factor
will probably not
germinate and/or es3. Better smoke
tablish viable plants,
management weather
due to the approach
(fewer inversions,
of the dry season,
higher mixing
predators and other
levels)
factors (25, 26)
4. Control lines can
be minimal, as
diurnal humidity
recovery gives a
good safety margin
3. Burrowing mammals are
more easily killed in
the moist season (#26)
4. Will favor chamise over
the other plants (#26)
The species diversity arguments are powerful,
and, while not totally supported by data, indicate
that caution is necessary. The EIR mitigations
for winter and spring burning, in view of these
arguments, are (1) burn no more of the project
area than is necessary for safety, and (2) burn
the rest of the area in summer or fall to allow
propagation of herbaceous plants. Of course, if
the objective on an area is to convert to grass
by drill seeding in the fall, season of burn is
moot, since seed and moisture would be available.
This discussion of how reviewer concerns helped to shape the final document is intended to
illustrate both how public agencies must respond
to public concerns in a dynamic, democratic
environment, and how this process can strengthen
the document. The Board of Forestry adopted the
Regulations and the Program EIR on June 2, 1981,
l0
in Eureka.
Finally, a few words about funding are in
order. After the disastrous fires in San Bernardino, Riverside, Los Angeles and elsewhere during
latter November, 1980, Governor Brown supported
a chaparral management program of slightly over
$4,000,000 as did Senator Keene and others. After
the disastrous $2 billion shortfall prediction by
state fiscal analysts for the General Fund in
fiscal year '81-'82, the Legislature removed
11
Worse, many more
$945,000 from this program.
10
0ffice of the State Board of Forestry, op. cit.
Proceedings of the California Legislature
June 4, 1981.
11
538
renewable resource investment projects intended
for funding with tidelands oil revenues (The
Resources Agency, 1981), have been cut, as of this
writing, by one or the other House of the Legislature, to cover projected deficits in the General
Fund.
It is cruelly ironic that the burdens of both
a massive tax cut (for real effects of Proposition
13 are just now being felt) and continuing inflation have fallen on the very investments in
natural resources that are needed to solve the
problem in the long run. This and other worthwhile efforts may suffer even worse next year, and
are perhaps indicative of what lies ahead in the
Federal experiment with tax and program cutting.
We who believe in the wisdom of natural resource
conservation and management must not allow this
to happen.
LITERATURE CITED
Calif. Dept. of Forestry. Final Environmental
Impact Report for the Chaparral Management
Program, including Comments Received on the
Draft Environmental Impact Report. Sacramento:
1981: 453 p.
Calif. Governor's Office. Recommendations on
Reducing the Risk of Wildland Fires and
Flooding in California: Report of the
Governor's Task Force on Chaparral Fire and
Flood Risk Management. Sacramento: 1981: 46 p.
Calif. Resources Agency. Investing for Prosperity
Sacramento: 1981: 51 p.
Countryman, Clive M. Can Southern California
Wildland Conflagrations be Stopped? Berkeley,
Calif.: Pacific Southwest Forest and Range
Exp. Sta., Forest Serv., U.S. Dep. Agric.:
1974; Gen. Tech. Report PSW-7. 11 p.
Green, Lisle R. Burning in Chaparral - A Summary
of What We Know. Berkeley, Calif.: Pacific
Southwest Forest and Range Exp. Sta., Forest
Serv., U.S. Dep. Agric. (In Printing March,
1981).
Phillips, Clinton B. Fire Protection and Fuel
Management on Privately-owned Wildlands in
California in Mooney, Harold A. and C. Eugene
Conrad (Eds.): Proceedings of the Symposium
on the Environmental Consequences of Fire and
Fuel Management in Mediterranean Ecosystems.
Washington, D.C.: Forest Serv., U.S. Dep.
Agric.: 1977: 348-353.
Philpot, Charles W. Vegetative Features as
Determinants of Fire Frequency and Intensity
in Mooney. Harold A. and C. Eugene Contrad (Eds.):
Proceedings of the Symposium on the Environmental Consequences of Fire and Fuel Management
in Mediterranean Ecosystems. Washington, D.C.:
Forest Serv., U.S. Dep. Agric.: 1977: 12-16
Pinchot, Gifford M. Breaking New Ground.
Seattle, Wash.: University of Washington
Press:
1947: 522 p.