Introduction

In the Western United States, the history of natural areas has been a history of profi table natural resource exploitation. The ponderosa pine forests have provided a stable supply of consumer products for two centuries. Management techniques have been geared toward the preservation and production of this resource. However, these ecosystems have been historically fi re-adapted, depending on frequent, small surface fi res for natural thinning and regeneration (Swetnam and Baisan, 1996).

Well over a century of fi re-supression management strategies have depleted forests of necessary biological processes to maintain health (Savage and Mast, 2005). Analagous to a child’s fever as an immune response to illness, fi re acts to fl ush and cleanse the system—slightly detrimental in the short-term but essential for overall health. A constant suppression of fever with medicine only deters the symptom without addressing the cause, and will act to weaken the immune system over time. Long-term suppression leads to treatment-immune super-viruses (large crown fi res), increased fi re frequency and intensity, and stand mortality.

Recognizing this, forest management professionals have endorsed a fundamental shift in strategy from fi re suppression to controlled burning, manual thinning, and laissez-faire small fi refi ghting. (Savage and Mast, 2005; Miyahishi and Johnson, 2001; Wier et al, 2000). The specifi c techniques that are most effective or cost-effi cient are still debated, yet the overall adoption of a fi re-supported management technique is well-documented as a BMP.

Currently, the targeted critical area for forest management is also one of the fastest changing—the Wildland-urban interface (WUI). The WUI is commonly described as “the zone where structures and other human development meet and intermingle with undeveloped Wildland or vegetative fuels. This WUI zone poses tremendous risks to life, property, and infrastructure in associated communities and is one of the most dangerous and complicated situations fi refi ghters face” (CWPP Handbook 2004).

f i l h d d f d t l hift

Urban planners, developers, and academics have not neglected this situation. Policies have come into effect since the ‘drastic’ wildfi re seasons of 2002-2003, and several communities have refi ned their policies prior to that. Some communities have adopted shelter-in-place construction standards, development limits, ingress/egress models, mandated fuel mitigation at the property and the community level (Cova, 2005; Cova & Church, 2000; RSF, 2007; PPMD, 2005; USFS 2007; Fienstien, 2007) .

Such a brief review of such a broad subject matter will obviously not yield any defi nitive conclusions, this study simply intends to publicly inform about the current discussions within the profession. The ultimate goal of this analysis is to assess the effectiveness of certain specifi c points still contended within the WUI planning sphere. Concepts of ecological sustainability, public and property preservation, and effectiveness of policy implementation will be discussed. Within these criteria, identifi cation whether benchmarks are met can be viewed as those which support forests’ natural restoration (including natural fi re patterns), protect the life-safety of human populations within the WUI, and promote an economically viable resource cycle.

Background

History of Forest Management/Fire Supression Even though human-ignited fi re has been a part of western American forests since the beginning of record, the past century has been marked by a steady and exponential increase in the annual acerage burned (see Figure 1)(GEOMAC, 2007; Farnsworth et al, 2002; ). Native Americans utilized prescribed burns to clear ground for agriculture, to assist in hunting, and to thin overgrown areas. Arid climates and lightning ignitions have undoubtedly instituted the prehistoric adaptation to fi re in which forests now rely. The year 1910, however, appears to begin the current epoch in Wildland fi re behavior. During that year, 1700 ignitions burned 3.1 million acres throughout the western United States. This tragedy laid the foundation for aggressive fi re suppression and fi refi ghting strategies that have only recently been called to question (Ricklefs, 1987; Graham, 2003). Traditional fi refi ghting strategies were effective at reducing acres burned until the early 1960’s, but from that point until now, fi res have increased annually in intensity and spatial area. The age of uncontrollable Wildland fi res began with Yellowstone in 1988, progressed to the Colorado Haymen fi re in 2002, and more recently the Southern California fi res of 2007. Of course, there have been several other catastrophic fi re

2002

2003

Figure 1. GIS Data of Fire Ignitions Annually. (Black is natural ignition, red is human ignition) GEOMAC, 2007

events in the past 20 years, but these are most familiar due to the national media attention (Graham, 2003).

Natural Ecology of Ponderosa Forests

The natural state of Ponderosa forests are clumped in broadly spaced stands. As suppression and artifi cial restoration efforts have progressed, the current state of many forest systems is that of large-caliper individuals evenly and densely spaced. Smaller caliper individuals and ‘ladder fuel’ species abundantly distributed within the stands generally result from overgrazing activity (). Further, shrubs, detrium, grasses and smaller species are more abundantly and uniformly dispersed at the surface level. This even stratifi cation of the forest allows fi res to start, spread, and increase intensity well beyond natural levels. And, with regard to the WUI, fi res have radically increased in frequency due to an increased point of ignition—humans. Referring to ignitions within the last decade, the substantial majority of large fi res were human-ignited.

Development of the WUI Within the past three decades, development at the WUI has progressed exponentially. The prospect of access to natural surroundings, larger plots of land, refuge from urban intensity, and increased privacy make a sound argument for living in the WUI. These attractions, however, usually overshadow the reality of increased responsibilities and costs associated with this environment. Looking out the kitchen window at a mule deer is certainly endearing, but looking out to a black bear, mountain lion, or coyote aren’t generally met with such romanticized ideas. Several state agencies including those in Colorado have spent considerable resources on public education and outreach programs to increase community awareness and involvement concerning private fuel mitigation, slash pick-up programs, land management, and overall fi re preparedness (CWPP, 2007; Firewise, 2007; douglascounty.gov; nifc.gov). The Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003 enabled a new tool for WUI communities in the Community Wildfi re Protection Plan. This interagency collaborative charge allots communities active in wildland mitigation access to

2005

2006

2004

funds and resources necessary for the maintenence of defensible space within the community. It also aids active communities with collaboration of federal land managment activity (Worley, 2006; CWPP 2004; USFS 2007; PPMD, 2005). While implementation of collaborative efforts created by the CWPP is not always successful, several case studies show increased effi ciency in managing confl ageration events, evacuation protocols, and emergency managment strategies (Worley, 2006; Carson, 2004).

Current Trends in Fuel MitigationPost-fi re logging: recycling or reinforcing the problem Currently, the debate surrounding salvage logging within burned areas remains relatively polarized. The concept of harvesting an economically viable product after confl ageration events superfi cially appears prudent and resourceful. However, recent testing suggests that this activity hinders forest restoration, contributes to erosion as well as riparian contamination, increases the probability of repeat fi res, and could act to accelerate drastic ecosystem shift (Savage and Mast, 2005; Elson et al,2007; Levy, 2007; Donato, 2007; Robbins, 2006; Lindenmayer et al, 2004). In fact, Donato et al. released data earlier this year advancing that post-fi re logging acts to reduce stand regeneration up to 70% and increases overall fuel load in the form of surface slash (Donato et al,

2007

2007). While the results of this study were initially contended in the peer review process, the data presented has been validated. Others have analyzed soil restoration after fi re events, and found reduced organic deposits, higher rates of erosion, compaction and dramatically reduced nutrient loads, which support the theory of hindered restorative growth (Dumroese et al, 2006; Poff, 1996). Dumroese’s work suggests that harvesting activity in the winter months could diminish erosion, compaction and possibly minimize disturbance to nutrient loads within post-fi re soils. The current U. S. Forest Service policy on post-event logging allows commencement without the existing bureaucratic controls in events of emergency economic loss. While the economic viability of burned timber is not debatable, the expedited process by which access is granted for harvest prior to decay is a point of contention. Several have argued that this policy is antagonistic to the protection of wildlife populations already threatened or displaced (Nappi et al, 2004). In extrapolation of the Dumroese’s work, up to a year’s delay in order to harvest appropriately should allow ample time for an environmental assessment to occur prior to total stand decay.

Slash: community burden or entrepreneurial windfallWith forest thinning and the substantial slash created resulting from fuel reduction policies, the

problem of surface fuel density arose. Research has shown that thinning without burning or total slash removal will actually increase the likelihood of fi re as well as inhibit healthy growth and regeneration (Robbins, 2006; Donato et al, 2007). Recently, cottage industries dedicated to processing low-value timber have appeared--utilizing small diameter trees and slash for several marketable products. The largest processor currently is Forest Energy Products, a manufacturer of wood pellets for home heating. One amicable partnership is retrieving enough biomass to supply 25% of the fuel for a local energy plant (Neary and Zieroth, 2007). The bulk of the responsibility for the bulk of the detrium, however, still falls on the community (Farnsworth et al, 2002; Iverson and Demarck, 2005; GAO, 2006; Vogt et al, 2005; Reams et al, 2005). In Perry Park, Colorado, residents log 2000 hours annually in slash management on their small residential properties alone. The metropolitan district contracts mitigation in public lands and rights-of-way, and the community is consistently engaged with local agencies to manage the perimeters of State and National forest lands abutting the community (Threewitt and Wagonlander, 2006).

Contracting: sound business or old-school businessCurrently, approximately 30% of timber managment is contracted either through the BLM or

the Forest Service. According to the 1Q 2007 Healthy Forests and Rangelands report: “Stewardship contracting...shift[s] the focus of federal forest and rangeland management towards a desired future resource condition. They are also a means for federal agencies to contribute to the development

of sustainable rural communities, maintain healthy forest ecosystems, and provide a continuing source of local income and employment” (HFR, 2007). Table 3 shows the number of contracts awarded and subsequent acres treated per the HFR report. The treatment sizes range from 150 to 650 acres averaged per contract, with an overall average of 512 acres treated per contract. There is currently no report available of the company sizes or locations for these stewardship contracts, nor is there assembled data of the number of companies awarded these contracts. The nature of these contracts are such that the value of the slash harvested is deducted from the fair market value for collection labor. The difference, if any, is then renumerated.

Healthy Forests Restoration Act Analysis: Is W really an environmentalist?The Healthy forests initiative and the HFRA summary The Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003 (HFRA) came under the Bush Administration as a federal response to the increasing threat of wildfi res. This act enourages public input and upholds environmental standards. In the two years prior to the passage of this law, 147,049 fi res burned approximately 11 million acres, and 6800 structures were burned in 2003 alone. The seven key

components of this act are: to reduce ground and ladder fuels through thinning and prescribed burning; to improve public involvement and participation; to promote collaborative projects that include local, tribal, state, Federal, and non-governmental stakeholders; to authorize projects on Federal lands that meet criteria for wildfi re risk to communities, water supply systems, and the environment; to create the Healthy Forests Reserve Program for the protection and restoration of degraded forest ecosystems on private lands; to encourage biomass energy production; and to develop an early detection and inventory program for sivicultural threats.

Initial Critiques Initial reactions to the HFRA centered around concepts of unregulated subsidies for the timber industry, exploitation of public fears about wildfi re in order to promote swift passage, and lack of direction of logging efforts toward the WUI (safc.org 2003; Service, 2003; ). As mentioned earlier, the provision limiting the NEPA proces, the public review process, and the 60 day injunction limit act to hinder opponents of proposed sale or harvesting the proper time to engage effective analysis (ibid).

The following is an excerpt from the position statement of an environmental watchdog group, the Wilderness Society:

The HFRA falls far short of what should be the primary goal of any wildfi re legislation –protecting communities and keeping people safe from the risks of wildfi re. The Bush-backed measure does not provide the funding needed to protect communities and instead uses the fear of fi re to gut bedrock environmental laws and tip the scales of justice in our courts. The wildfi re provisions of the Act also focus solely on federal lands, but studies show that 85 percent of the land surrounding communities most at risk from wildfi re is private, state, or tribal – not federal (wilderness.org, 2006).

These critiques echo the nature of criticism surrounding this act. Within the four years since the law has been in force, communities active in WUI fuel suppression are fi nding little direct assistance from the Federal program, and have since redirected resources at securing State and local assistance (Johns, 2007; Worley, 2007).

The benefi ts of the HFRA, however, are not to be overlooked. Mandated public involvement in the CWPP process helps to educate residents, creates open channels of communication, and creates relatively successful collaborative efforts which enable effective communication surrounding fi re management decisions at all levels.

The Cox canyon and Lakeview fi res, in Colorado and Nevada respectively, both illustrate the success of community fuel reduction projects and interagency collaboration during a fi re event (Forests and Rangelands.gov).

Planning the Perfect WUI Community

Shelter in place Originally proposed for new communities, the concept of shelter-in-place wildfi re protection is now a mandate in San Diego county. In its original form, this theory encompassed specifi c building materials and components as well as conservative site clearing and planting techniques in order to create an alternative life-safety measure to late evacuation. By constructing the residence with fi re resistent cladding and roof material, installation of an exterior sprinkler system, boxed eaves,

tempered glass, and several other safety measures, shelter-in-place appeared to be the solution for wildland fi re safety. However, the safety is fully dependent on the structure’s components and ability to resist ignition from spotting. Defensible space at the perimeter can be maintained such that fi re would not spread to the structure. But the Haymen fi re in Colorado set new standards when spot fi res exceeded 1 mile ahead of the fi re front. This concept has recieved little scholarly attention in the past 2 years, yet San Diego County created a shelter-in-place mandate. This appears to be for both new residences (which could be built to the standard), but also existing residences. A breif feasibility study by Threewitt, Wagonlander, and Worley suggested that the signifi cant investment in retrofi tting an existing structure for shelter-in-place would be signifi cantly higher than the purchase price of a new home (2006). An early proponent of the shelter-in-place model was researcher Thomas Cova, yet no recent articles suggest it.

Ingress/egress Modelling community development within the WUI in terms of fi re safety is a relatively new endeavor for planning offi ces. Many plats are still approved for rural subdivisions that only require one or two access roads. The possibility of effi cient evacuation as well as fi refi ghting access is severely diminished as ingress/egress points are reduced. Even with ample egress options for a community, when routes are not effectively mitigated, severe threats to life are increased.

One example of this is the Oakland-Berkeley fi re in 1991. The Buckingham neighborhood included 337 homes with four full-time access roads. The road network was narrow, winding, and densely vegetated. Total road length in the neighborhood is 5293 meters, equaling 16 meters per home. This high density created and exit capacity of 3200 vehicles per hour with all roads available. There is no buffer zone or fuel mitigation at the roadsides. Based on the Cova egress model, this neighborhood was compliant for the number of exits, exit capacity, and minimum exit distance. However, it was noncompliant for density, exit arrangement and exit fuel buffers or breaks. The origin of the Buckingham fi re was traced to an open space within the neighborhood. As with most wildifres, this was human activated. Within 30 minutes of the fi re’s report, 2 of the roads--Tunnel road East and West, were blocked by fi re. Evacuating residents proceeded uphill to the remaining exits. Most residents used Charing Cross road, a 13 foot wide “afterthought.” Of the 24 fatalities within the neighborhood from this fi restorm, 12 were residents caught in theirs cars at the end of the evacuation cue. A 2001 Oakland wildfi re planning study reports: “The reasons why the 1991 fi re could not be stopped still exist today in many loacations throughout East Bay Hills.” The entire 1991 incident eliminated 2900 residential structures and burned 1600 acres. No record is available regarding any homes retrieved in the Buckingham neighborhood. The California East Bay Hills have lost 3542 homes to wildfi res, which comprises 39% of all residences destroyed by wildfi re in California. This event cost $1.7 billion in damage, and was the most costly fi re in the nation’s history at the time (Cova, 2005; Cova and Church, 2000; Threewitt and Wagonlander, 2006). One component of new WUI plats that builders are attempting is full fuel mitigation prior to development. Creating the prescribed fuel breaks at neighborhood boundaries and thinning all areas prior to building has been effective in Cathedral Pines, Colorado among others. The costs of fuel management are assumed up front and passed on to homeowners at the point of purchase. Then, effective fuels treatment is a matter of regular maintenence instead of reactive management of established systems (Worley, 2006).

Suggested Courses of Action

Many of the best management practices for community construction and maintenence are currently utilized regarding new construction. Further, many communities have adopted CWPP’s and are actively involved in fuel reduction programs within their neighborhood. Increasing numbers of communities are adopting shelter-in-place construction standards, and individual home-owners are requesting these components during new construction, whether they are required or not. The areas where community protection fall short are: federal and state responsibility for adequate forest thinning on public lands abutting the WUI, environmental stewardship both before and after wildfi re events, effective mandates on neighborhood access for fi re professionals and resident evacuation, mandated defensible space requirements on private lands, and effecitve policy dealing with adjoining private land uses that threaten surrounding properties. The mandate of shelter-in-place, such as San Diego county has enacted, is not recommended at a level other than optional participation at the neighborhood level. While many have lost lives while detained in the process of evacuating, staying put during a large event offers few alternatives once a fi re has approached. Shelter-in-place should by no means be enacted unless communities have fully followed the construction mandates and independent analysis of structural and life safety is conducted on a neighborhood scale.

Swetnam, T.W., and Baisan, C.H. 1996. Historical fi re regime patternsin the southwestern United States since A.D. 1700. In FireEffects in Southwestern Forests: Proceedings of the Second LaMesa Fire Symposium, Los Alamos, N.M., 29–31 March 1994.Edited by C.D. Allen. USDA For. Serv. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-286. pp. 11–32.

Ricklefs, R.E. 1987. Community diversity: relative roles of local andregional processes. Science (Washington, D.C.), 235: 167–171.

White, A.S. 1985. Presettlement regeneration patterns in a southwesternponderosa pine stand. Ecology, 66: 589–594.

Covington, W.W., and Moore, M.M. 1994b. Postsettlement changesin natural fi re regime: ecological restoration of old-growth ponderosapine forests. J. Sustain. For. 2: 153–181.\

~Healthy Forests Report May 2007 The Department of the Interior (DOI) and the USDA Forest Service

Senator Feinstein Chairs Field Hearing on California Wildfi resWed, 11/28/2007 - 13:24 — newsdesk. Minutes of meeting from Sen. Feinstein’s offi ce

~Wildland Fire Management: The National Fire Plan (2007 Budget Justifi cation)

Daniel G. Neary and Elaine J. Zieroth (2006) Forest bioenergy system to reduce the hazard of wildfi res: White Mountains, Arizona. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station.

Iversen, Kenneth, Van Demark, Richard (2006). Integrating fuel reduction management with local bioenergy operations and businesses—A community responsibility. Biomass & Bioenergy; Apr2006, Vol. 30 Issue 4, p304-307, 4p

Vogt, Christine A.,Winter, Greg Fried, Jeremy S. (2005). Predicting Homeowners’ Approval of Fuel Management at the Wildland–Urban Interface Using the Theory of Reasoned Action. Society & Natural Resources; Apr2005, Vol. 18 Issue 4, p337-354, 18p

Allen Farnsworth, Paul Summerfelt, Daniel Neary, Tatersall Smith. (2003). Flagstaff’s wildfi re fuels treatments: prescriptions for community involvement and a source of bioenergy. Biomass & Bioenergy; Apr2003, Vol. 24 Issue 4/5, p269, 8p

Margaret A. Reams, Terry K. Haines, Cheryl R. Renner, Michael W. Wascom and Harish Kingre (2005) Goals, Obstacles and Effective Strategies of Wildfi re Mitigation Programs in the Wildland-Urban Interface. Forest Policy and Economics Volume 7, Issue 5, August 2005, Pages 818-826

Kim, T.H., Cova, T.J., and Brunelle, A. (2006) Exploratory map animation for post-event analysis of wildfi re protective action recommendations. Natural Hazards Review, 7(1): 1-11

Cova, T.J. (2005) Public safety in the urban-wildland interface: Should fi re-prone communities have a maximum occupancy? Natural Hazards Review, 6(3): 99-108

Cova, T.J., Dennison, P.E., Kim, T.H., and Moritz, M.A. (2005) Setting wildfi re evacuation trigger-points using fi re spread modeling and GIS. Transactions in GIS, 9(4): 603-617

Larsen, Royce (2002) Open Your Window to Overcome Impediments to Controlled Burning. Livestock, Range, and Watershed. University of California, Cooperative Extension

Arnold, Dewey (2003) Making a Difference: Helena National Forest-Montana. USDA Fact Sheet. www.doi.gov

Slater, Deborah (2004) Not Dead Yet: Forest Experts Feel the Ax. Sierra Magazine.

Firescience (2007). Community Wildfi re Protection Plans: Enhancing Collaboration and Building Community Capacity. Workship Proceedings

Anonymous(2006) Forest Regeneration Slowed by Logging. Environmental Science and Technology. P. 2865

Levy, Sharon (2006) Scorched Earth. Audobon. May/June 2006, P. 10

Rancho Santa Fe Fire Protection District (2004). Sheltering In Place During Wildfi res: A Modern Approach to Living Safely in a Wildland-Urban Interface Community.

University of Wisconsin Board of Regents (2006). Study on Post-Fire Timber Harvest Ignites Controversy. Ecological Restoration. 24:2. P. 68Wildfi re Mitigation Practicioner Series (2004). How Prepared is Your Community for Living With Wildfi re? Offi ce of Community Services, Fort Lewis College

Dumroese, Deborah Page et al. (2006). Monitoring Changes in Soil Quality from Post-Fire Logging in the Inland Northwest. USDA Forest Service Proceedings, RMRS P-41. Pp 605-624

www.wilderness.org Fact Sheet: “Healthy Forests” Law Fails to Protect Communities.

Farnsworth, Allen et al. (2003). Flagstaff’s Wildfi re Fuels Treatments: Prescriptions for Community Involvement and a Source of Bioenergy. Biomass & Bioenergy 24: 269-276

Iversen, Kenneth and Van Demark, Richard (2006). Integrating Fuel Reduction Management with Local Bioenergy Operations and Business--A Community Responsibility. Biomass & Bioenergy 30: 304-309

Vogt, Christine et al. (2005) Predicting Homeowners’ Approval of Fuel Management at the Wildland-Urban Interface Using the Theory of Resoned Action. Society and Natural Resources, 18:337-354

Neary, Daniel and Zieroth, Elaine. (2007). Forest Bioenergy System to Reduce the Hazard of Wildfi res: White Mountains, Arizona. Biomass & Bioenergy 31:638-645

Robinson, Robert A. USGAO (2006). Wildland Fire Suppression: Better Guidance Needed to Clarify Sharing of Costs between Federal and Nonfederal Entities. Testimony Before the Subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests, Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, US Senate

Reams, Margaret A. et al. (2005). Goals, Obstacles and Effective Strategies of Wildfi re Mitigation Programs in the Wildland-Urban Interface. Forest Policy and Economics 7:5 Pp 818-826

Donato, D. C. et al (2007). Post-Wildfi re Logging Hinders Regeneration and Increases Fire Risk. Science. 311:352

Threewitt, D and Wagonlander, W (2006). Perry Park Second Access Analysis. (Unpublished)

Worley, Kieth (2006) Personal Interview. Perry Park Metropolitan District Coordinator. Firewise Member. Perry Park, Colorado

Johns, Scott. (2007). Telephone Interview. City of Port Angeles, Washington, Department of Planning and Community Development. Planner and Certifi ed Arborist. Interview Conducted on December 9, 2007.

http://www.nifc.gov/index.html National Interagency Fire Center

http://gacc.nifc.gov/rmcc Rocky Mountain Area Cordination Center

http://www.southwestcoloradofi res.org/default.asp Southwest Colorado Fire Information Clearinghouse

http://jfsp.fortlewis.edu/ Joint Fire Science Program

http://www.forestsandrangelands.gov/ Healthy Forests and Rangelands: Managing our Natural Heritage

http://www.theorator.com/bills108/hr1904.html Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003

http://www.fi rewise.org/index.php Firewise

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/2007/fi re07.html NOAA 2007 Wildfi re Season Summary

http://geomac.usgs.gov/ Geospatial Multi-Agency Coordination: Wildland Fire Support

fi le:///C:/Documents%20and%20Settings/d3/Desktop/ECOPLANNING/WILDFIRE%20RESEARCH/douglas.county.wildfi re.rules.htm