Register      Login
International Journal of Wildland Fire International Journal of Wildland Fire Society
Journal of the International Association of Wildland Fire
Shopping Cart: ( empty )
You are here: Home > Journals > WF > WF08081
RESEARCH ARTICLE
Contents Vol 18(3)

Interpreting federal policy at the local level: the wildland–urban interface concept in wildfire protection planning in the eastern United States

Stephanie A. Grayzeck-Souter A F , Kristen C. Nelson B , Rachel F. Brummel C , Pamela Jakes D and Daniel R. Williams E
+ Author Affiliations
- Author Affiliations

A Department of Forest Resources, University of Minnesota, Saint Paul, MN 55108, USA.

B Department of Forest Resources and Department of Fisheries, Wildlife, and Conservation Biology, University of Minnesota, Saint Paul, MN 55108, USA.

C Conservation Biology Program, University of Minnesota, Saint Paul, MN 55108, USA.

D USDA Forest Service, Northern Research Station, Saint Paul, MN 55108, USA.

E USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fort Collins, CO 80526, USA.

F Corresponding author. Email: stephanie.g.souter@gmail.com

International Journal of Wildland Fire 18(3) 278-289 https://doi.org/10.1071/WF08081
Submitted: 29 May 2007  Accepted: 24 June 2008   Published: 28 May 2009

Abstract

In 2003, the Healthy Forests Restoration Act (HFRA) called for USA communities at risk of wildfire to develop Community Wildfire Protection Plans (CWPPs) requiring local, state and federal actors to work together to address hazardous fuels reduction and mitigation efforts. CWPPs can provide the opportunity for local government to influence actions on adjacent public land, by establishing local boundaries of the wildland–urban interface (WUI), the area where urban lands meet or intermix with wildlands. The present paper explores local response to the HFRA and CWPPs in the eastern USA, specifically if and how communities are using the policy incentive to identify the WUI. We conducted document reviews of eastern CWPPs, as well as qualitative analysis of in-depth interviews with participants in four case studies. We found tremendous variation in local response to HFRA, with plans completed at multiple scales and using different planning templates. The WUI policy incentive was not used in all CWPPs, suggesting that the incentive is not as useful in the eastern USA, where public land is less dominant and the perceived fire risk is lower than in the West. Even so, many communities in the East completed CWPPs to improve their wildfire preparedness.


Acknowledgements

The present research was funded through the Joint Fire Science Program, study no. FS-NC-4803, as well as the Department of Forest Resources at the University of Minnesota. The authors thank Tony Cheng and Emily Saeli, Colorado State University, Victoria Sturtevant, Southern Oregon University, Sam Burns, Fort Lewis College, and Alex Bujak, US Forest Service, for their assistance over the course of the present project. We would also like to thank Dennis Becker, University of Minnesota, for his guidance and insightful suggestions for the present paper. In addition, the authors would like to thank all of the community members and agency officials we spoke with in the four case study communities in Minnesota, Wisconsin, Florida and Virginia, as well as all state and federal agency officials who assisted with the CWPP search.


References


Associated Press (2007) Wildfires force Fla., Minn. evacuations. (7 May) Available at http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18541799/ [Verified 15 June 2007]

Berke PR (1998) Reducing natural hazards through state growth management. Journal of the American Planning Association  64, 76–87.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | Cheng A, Becker D (2005) Public perspectives on the ‘Wildfire Problem’. Fire Management Today 65(3), 12–15. Available at http://www.fs.fed.us/fire/fmt/fmt_pdfs/FMT65-3.pdf [Verified 13 May 2009]

Conley A , Moote MA (2003) Evaluating collaborative natural resource management. Society & Natural Resources  16, 371–386.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | Daniel TC, Valdiserri M, Daniel CR, Jakes P, Barro S (2005) Social science to improve fuels management: a synthesis of research on assessing social acceptability of fuels treatments. USDA Forest Service, North Central Research Station, General Technical Report NC-259. (Saint Paul, MN)

Dombeck MP, Williams JE , Wood CA (2004) Wildfire policy and public lands: integrating scientific understanding with social concerns across landscapes. Conservation Biology  18, 883–889.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | Duryea ML, Vince SW (2005) Introduction: the city is moving to our frontier’s doorstep. In ‘Forests at the Wildland–Urban Interface: Conservation and Management’. (Eds SM Vince, ML Duryea, EA Macie, LA Hermansen) pp. 3–14. (CRC Press: Boca Raton)

Field DR , Jensen DA (2005) Humans, fire, and forests: expanding the domain of wildfire research. Society & Natural Resources  18, 355–362.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | FIREWISE (2007) Available at http://www.FIREWISE.org [Verified 15 March 2007]

Gray B (1989) ‘Collaborating: Finding Common Ground for Multiparty Problems.’ (Jossey-Bass: San Francisco, CA)

HFRA (2003) Healthy Forests Restoration Act. 16 USCA. Section § 6501–6591. Public Law 108–148.

Jakes P, Nelson KC (2007) Community interaction with large wildland fire events: critical initiatives prior to the fire. In ‘People, Fire and Forests’. (Eds T Daniel, M Carroll, C Moseley, C Raish) pp. 91–103. (Oregon State University Press: Corvallis, OR)

Jakes P, Nelson KC, Lang E, Monroe M, Agrawal S, Kruger L, Sturtevant V, McCaffrey S, Everett Y (2003) A model for improving community preparedness for wildfire. In ‘Homeowners, Communities and Wildfire: Science Findings from the National Fire Plan, Proceedings from the 9th International Symposium on Society and Resource Management’, 2–5 June 2002, Bloomington, IN. (Ed. P Jakes) USDA Forest Service, Northern Research Station, General Technical Report NC-231, pp. 4–9. (Saint Paul, MN)

JFSP (2007) CWPP research project. Joint Fire Science Program. Available at http://jfsp.fortlewis.edu [Verified 2 March 2007]

Koontz TM , Johnson EM (2004) One size does not fit all: matching breadth of citizen participation to watershed group accomplishments. Policy Sciences  37, 185–204.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | Kruger L, Agrawal S, Monroe M, Lang E, Nelson K, Jakes P, Sturtevant V, McCaffrey S, Everett Y (2003) Keys to community preparedness for wildfire. In ‘Homeowners, Communities and Wildfire: Science findings from the National Fire Plan, Proceedings from the 9th International Symposium on Society and Resource Management’, 2–5 June 2002, Bloomington, IN. (Ed. P Jakes) USDA Forest Service, Northern Research Station General Technical Report NC-231, pp. 10–17. (Saint Paul, MN)

Lang E, Nelson KC, Jakes P (2006) Working with community leadership to promote wildfire preparedness. In ‘The Public and Wildland Fire Management: Science Findings for Managers from National Fire Plan Research’. (Tech. Ed. SM McCaffrey) USDA Forest Service, Northern Research Station, General Technical Report NRS-1, pp. 137–149. (Newtown Square, PA)

Loomis J, Bair LS , Gonzalez-Caban A (2001) Prescribed fire and public support: knowledge gained, attitudes changes in Florida. Journal of Forestry  99, 18–23.
McKinley J, Johnson K (2007) On fringe of forests, homes and fires meet. The New York Times, 26 June. Available at http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/26/us/26fire.html [Verified 28 June 2007]

Monroe MC , Nelson KC (2004) The value of assessing public perceptions: wildland fire and defensible space. Applied Environmental Education and Communication  3, 109–117.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | NASF (2002) Final draft concept paper: communities at risk. National Association of State Foresters. Available at http://www.stateforesters.org/reports/CommAtRisk.pdf [Verified 10 September 2007]

NASF (2005) A briefing paper: community wildfire protection plans. National Association of State Foresters. Available at http://www.cafirealliance.org/cwpp/downloads/CWPPBriefingPaper.pdf [Verified 14 March 2007]

Nelson KC, Monroe M, Johnson JF , Bowers A (2004) Living with fire: homeowner assessment of landscape values and defensible space in Minnesota and Florida, USA. International Journal of Wildland Fire  13, 413–425.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | SAF (2004) ‘Preparing a Community Wildfire Protection Plan: a Handbook for Wildland–Urban Interface Communities.’ (Society of American Foresters: Washington, DC) Available at http://www.communitiescommittee.org/pdfs/cwpphandbook.pdf [Verified 14 March 2007]

Steelman T , Kunkel G (2004) Effective community responses to wildfire threats: lessons from New Mexico. Society & Natural Resources  17, 679–699.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | Stewart SI, Radeloff VC, Hammer RB (2006) The wildland–urban interface in the United States. In ‘The Public and Wildland Fire Management: Social Science Findings for Managers’. (Ed. SM McCaffrey) USDA Forest Service, Northern Research Station General Technical Report NRS-1, pp. 197–202. (Newtown Square, PA)

Sturtevant V, Moote M, Jakes P, Cheng A (2005) Social science to improve fuels management: a synthesis of research on collaboration. USDA Forest Service, Northern Research Station General Technical Report NC-257. (Saint Paul, MN)

USDA and USDI (2000) Managing the impact of wildfires on communities and the environment. A report to the President in response to the wildfires of 2000. In ‘National Fire Plan’. Available at http://www.forestsandrangelands.gov/reports/documents/2001/8-20-en.pdf [Verified 10 March 2007]

USDA and USDI (2001a) Urban–wildland interface communities within vicinity of federal lands that are at high risk from wildland fire. Federal Register  66, 751–777.
USDA and USDI (2001b) Review and update of the 1995 Federal Wildland Fire Management Policy. Available at http://www.nifc.gov/fire_policy/history/index.htm [Verified 10 March 2007]

Vogt C (2002) Seasonal and permanent homeowners’ past experiences and approval of fuel reduction. In ‘Homeowners, Communities and Wildfire: Science Findings from the National Fire Plan, Proceedings from the 9th International Symposium on Society and Resource Management’, 2–5 June 2002, Bloomington, IN. (Ed. P Jakes) USDA Forest Service, Northern Research Station, General Technical Report NC-231, pp. 63–73. (Saint Paul, MN)

Winter GJ, Vogt C , Fried JS (2002) Fuel treatments at the wildland–urban interface, common concerns in diverse regions. Journal of Forestry  100, 15–21.




1 The expedited procedures include shortened environmental analysis and predecisional administrative review for hazardous fuels projects, as well as encouragement of expedited judicial review.

2 Several of the plans not used for the document review were wildfire hazard assessments done for communities by state forestry professionals; others were completed pre-HFRA.

3 In the context of the present research, the term ‘scale’ refers to a planning level, not a mapping scale, thus ‘larger-scale’ indicates a greater CWPP planning area.



Appendix

Note: The interview questions used to answer the research questions of the present paper were part of a 21-question interview guide developed for a Joint Fire Science-funded research project looking more broadly at Community Wildfire Protection Planning across the United States. The interview guide covered participant background, community background, the CWPP process, and CWPP outcomes. The questions specifically analyzed for the current study are included below, and were in the CWPP process and outcomes sections.

CWPP process

  1. Did the team try to define the WUI? If so how? Tell me about how the team defined the WUI. What factors went into deciding where to draw the line?

    1. Who were the major participants in defining the WUI?

    2. Land ownership?

    3. Availability of information?

    4. Housing density?

    5. Fire ecology and history?

  3. Tell me about how the team prioritized fuel reduction activities.

CWPP outcomes

  1. Federal policy encourages the development of CWPPs as a way to address the following four goals:

    1. Reducing fuels

    2. Restoring forests

    3. Private property responsibility of fuels management

    4. Improving wildfire suppression efforts.

      1. Does your plan address these four goals? How?

      2. How does the plan address [state’s] goals and concerns about wildfire?

      3. How does the plan address [county’s] goals and concerns about wildfire?