County responds to state’s Fire Hazard Severity Zone map
By Debra Moore
The Plumas County Board of Supervisors approved a letter March 21 to be sent to the state Fire Marshall in response to the new Fire Hazard Severity Zone map that has been released.
Back on Jan. 17, Cal Fire held an informational meeting in Quincy to share how the zones were developed. The presentation wasn’t well received back in January, and time did nothing to change that opinion.
“It was really insulting,” Supervisor Greg Hagwood said during the March 21 board meeting. “They (Cal Fire representatives) as much as said they are only here because ‘we have to be here … we don’t really want to be here.’”
The meeting back in January was well attended by interested members of the public, as well as local officials. The audience included four members of the board of supervisors: Dwight Ceresola, Jeff Engel, Greg Hagwood and Tom McGowan, as well as Planning Director Tracy Ferguson and County Administrative Officer Debra Lucero.
How the map came to be
According to the presentation back in January, Fire Hazard Severity Zone (FHSZ) maps are developed using a science-based and field-tested model that assigns a hazard score based on factors that influence fire likelihood and fire behavior. Many factors are considered such as fire history, existing and potential fuel (natural vegetation), predicted flame length, blowing embers, terrain, and typical fire weather for the area. There are three levels of hazard in the State Responsibility Areas: moderate, high, and very high.
Fire Hazard Severity Zone maps evaluate “hazard,” not “risk,” which is where the presenters and the audience seemed to part ways. According to Cal Fire, “Hazard” is based on the physical conditions that create a likelihood and expected fire behavior over a 30- to 50-year period without considering mitigation measures such as home hardening, recent wildfire, or fuel reduction efforts. “Risk” is the potential damage a fire can do to the area under existing conditions, accounting for any modifications such as fuel reduction projects, defensible space, and ignition resistant building construction.
So, though Greenville is considered a “hazard” due to physical conditions that indicate it could burn (which it did), the “risk” that it could happen is unlikely in the near future because of the existing conditions.
Many in the audience spoke out about the money and efforts that have been put into making local communities more resilient to wildfire, but none of that was considered in the Cal Fire mapping.
The presenters stuck to a script as they presented the background information as to how the maps were produced and showed a short video from one involved in the production. It can be viewed by clicking here.
Following the presentation, audience members were invited to comment and their remarks were recorded as part of an official public hearing. Those not in attendance can still comment by April 4 by email to [email protected] or by writing to:
Office of the State Fire Marshall
C/O: FHSZ Comments
California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection
P.O. Box 944246
Sacramento, CA 94244-2460
The letter approved by the Board of Supervisors on March 21 will meet that deadline.
The letter
County Administrative Officer Debra Lucero briefly discussed the seven points included in the letter. Following are excerpts from each point:
- The public hearing was disappointing. “Plumas was disappointed with the format being a generic written statement read out loud, in addition to the video that was shown, as it was very difficult due to the speed at which the speaker spoke.”
- Transparency. “Plumas questions why the geospatial data files to develop the FHSZ map are currently not available during the adoption process. … Open access to data is critical to ensuring the accuracy of the information.” The letter added that Plumas would have collaborated with Cal Fire in local data gathering.
- Recent fire history not included. “It’s stated the latest technologies will be used in the mapping and will include new factors now available including land use changes, recent fire history, new significant wind event data, as well as a model that is more spatially detailed.” The maps do not include the 2021 fire information (which includes the Dixie Fire). “Plumas County cannot stress enough that the 2021 wildfires recent fire history must be included in the model to account for existing conditions and lack of vegetation cover for much of Plumas, thereby changing the outputs when it comes to the fire hazard severity zone assignments.”
- Insurance issues. “As part of the FHSZ map update process, Cal Fire explains insurance companies use risk models, which differ from hazard models, because they consider the susceptibility of a structure to damage from fire and other short-term factors that are not included in hazard modeling. … Plumas is skeptical that insurance companies won’t be looking to the updated FHSZ map as a tool in evaluating and underwriting fire insurance, which will likely affect Plumas County residents’ ability to obtain and/or maintain insurance.”
- Zone size needs re-evaluating. “Plumas suggests Cal Fire re-evaluate the minimum size for a wildland zone, where 200 acres is too large of an area. A smaller scale would be better suited to capture varied wildland fire hazard conditions.
- Update map more often. The map evaluates hazard not risk. “’Hazard’ is based on the physical conditions that create a likelihood and expected fire behavior over a 30 to 50-year period without considering mitigation measures such as home hardening, recent wildfire, or fuel reduction efforts. ‘Risk’ is the potential damage a fire can do to the area under existing conditions … Much shorter time periods must be established to analyze, review and revise the FHSZ map.
- Additional regulatory burdens. “With a change in parcel zone designations from Moderate to High or Very High, Plumas knows the expansion and reclassification of those FHSZ mapped areas will cause additional burden and regulatory requirements under the AB 38 real estate disclosures.
When Lucero finished outlining the seven points, Supervisor Jeff Engel asked if another could be added. “Could we add a number eight?” he asked. “To me there was no cooperation or collaboration with the county at all.”
Lucero said that request could be incorporated into the letter and the board voted unanimously to submit it.
