Wildland recreation management in the national fire plan

National Fire Plan & Community Preparedness

What is National Fire Plan

Importance of Community Preparedness

Fire Wise

Recent Efforts and Challenged

Political Considerations

Current Applications

Year Implementation Plan

Project Wildfire

Developing Community Plans

Future Issues and Concerns

Lack of Concern and cooperation in some communities

Making the Message Personal

Lack of Personnel and Resources

Need for Education and Efforts to Foster Social Responsibility

Common elements of Success

Overcoming Obstacles

Fostering Higher Levels of Supp

National Fire Plan & Community Preparedness

Every year millions of dollars of property and thousands of acres of U.S. forest succumb to fire damage. As the population the United States increases, more people are moving into fire-prone areas. This places their lives and property at-risk; it also increases the likelihood of wildfires caused by human activity. To help mitigate this problem, the National Fire Plan was developed. This research will explore the role of the National Fire Plan and its subsidiary programs in helping to mitigate this growing problem.

Introduction

What is the National Fire plan?

The National Fire Plan was the result of an unusually active fire season in 2000 (Forests and Rangelands, 2007a). Although fires are an important part of many wild ecosystems, as people begin to live closer to these wild areas, the problem becomes one of achieving balance. In the interest of protecting private and public property in areas near the wildland/urban interface, the National Fire Plan was developed. This effort focuses on the development of community level efforts to help protect urban areas from the threat of forest fires.

Fire prevention and mitigation happens first on a community level. In a large forest fire, national resources are quickly diverted to the scene, but they are second responders. The first ones on the scene are those that are immediately affected. The National Fire Plan is a response to the need for coordinated, rapid community response. It also serves as a coordinating entity for long-term strategic planning in the community. Coordination and cooperation are the keys to a successful fire prevention and mitigation program.

Several programs have been set up under the auspices of the National Fire Plan. These programs are FireWise, FireFree, and FireWiseCommunities. Firewise and Firewise Communities emphasize the need to cooperation between various community-level agencies, homeowners, and emergency response. The focus of the program is on community education and awareness of the hazards around various homes and what can be done to reduce the risk of fire (FireWise, 2009; Firewisecommunities/USA, 2009). One of the most important tasks of these programs is so coordinate responsibility in the various areas of fire protection. The following will examine these programs in detail.

Literature Review

Significant fires are measured in terms of acres burned, the value of natural resources, property and lives lost. According to the National Interagency Fire Center (NIFC), more than have of the listed significant fires have occurred since 1990 (Jakes, Kruger, & Monroe et al., 2004). Many of the most recent listed fired burned in the wildland/urban interface. When human activities mix with high amounted of vegetative fuels, the results can e disastrous. These new high-price fires have creased a need to focus not only on building materials, but to focus on reducing fuels near structures (Jakes, Kruger, & Monroe et al., 2004). A combined approach is needed to help limit the risk to homes and lives near the wildland/urban interface. Fire fighting used to focus on saving natural resources, now firefighters must turn their attention to saving dwellings near fire zones. The following will examine literature regarding community-based efforts to help mitigate these risks to life and property.

Recent Efforts and Challenges

In 2003, a survey of administrators of regulatory and voluntary wildfire risk reduction programs in the U.S. was conducted. The primary concerns of the chosen programs were vegetation management on private lands (Reams, Haines, & Renner et al., 2005). The survey examined the program's organization. goals, obstacles, and perceptions about their effectiveness (Reams, Haines, & Renner et al., 2005). The results of this study revealed that education was the foundation of many of the programs. Education and public outreach were primary goals and objectives of the program. Several methods were identified for achieving the goals of publication and outreach. Among those were mailings, public events, websites, listed of fire-resistant plants, demonstration homes and gardens, radio, television and newspaper ads, and videos (Reams, Haines, & Renner et al., 2005). In addition, programs were presented through local schools with the addition of a fire science program (Reams, Haines, & Renner et al., 2005). The goal of these programs is to inform persons living in fire-prone areas about the importance of fire-safe landscapes and the creation of a defensible zone around their homes (Reams, Haines, & Renner et al., 2005).

In many of the survey respondents, fire-mapping and identification of at-risk zones played a major role in identifying and reducing risks (Reams, Haines, & Renner et al., 2005). Mapping included an assessment of fuel loading, topography, fire history, climate, housing density and the local infrastructure for fire fighting (Reams, Haines, & Renner et al., 2005). Hazard severity ratings were developed in some locations. Homeowner assistance was made available in a majority of the areas surveyed, with programs to assist home owners in free clearing and disposal of debris (Reams, Haines, & Renner et al., 2005). Only half of the managers surveyed indicated that their programs contained a regulatory component (Reams, Haines, & Renner et al., 2005).

The key obstacles facing managers were limited resources and negative attitudes on the part of residents (Reams, Haines, & Renner et al., 2005). Public apathy and a lack of technical staff were key obstacles in the programs. Budget constraints were also found to be problematic in some areas. Property owners were often unwilling to clean up debris and fuel on their property (Reams, Haines, & Renner et al., 2005). To overcome these obstacles, many of the managers indicated that they would involve private property owners in pre-collaborative planning sessions. They also indicated that they would enlist the aid of local news media in helping to garner public support (Reams, Haines, & Renner et al., 2005).

The Bureau of Land Management has launched efforts in several fire-prone western states to help reduce vegetative fuel and restore the fire-resilient species that once inhabited the areas (BLM, 2005). These initiatives include planting sagebrush and slickspot peppergrass in fire-prone areas in Idaho, Nevada, and Utah. The BLM also treated many areas in these states for fuel build-up (BLM, 2005). BLM projects only address problems on public lands. Although, they have a tremendous impact on state land, they do nothing to address the problems cited by local community fire managers regarding homeowner apathy towards similar projects in communities near the wildland/urban interface.

Political Considerations

In the past, politics dictated a hierarchical structure for fire management in the western United States. At the top of the chain was the U.S. Forest Service. Under this structure, states played a supporting, rather than a lead role (Davis, 2001). The adoption of the National Fire Plan takes a bottom-up, rather than a top-down model of fire prevention and mitigation. This represents a change in the political climate that dictates authority in the fire arena.

These changes recognize that a generalized approach does not address every circumstance that exists in every community (Davis, 2001). The bottom-up approach of the National Fire Plan provides the ability to adapt to the individual needs of the communities that will be affected the most. However, this creates a situation where it may be unclear who has the ultimate decision making authority. The problem is that under Federal law, the U.S. Forest Service still has the ultimate authority over the decisions of states and communities. When the various entities clash, it can leave the community indecisive about what actions to take or to whom to listen. This political situation may represent an underlying cause in the reluctance of homeowners to take action around their property, as indicated in the survey conducted by community fire managers.

Several community level initiatives have had to find a way to overcome political challenges and make their communities safe. The North Central Research Station highlighted some of these cases in a 2003 report. The community of Gunflint Trail in Minnesota is one such community. The community has a history of big fires due to their proximity to a large forest. Gunflint is an example of the success that can occur when individuals collaborate with community resources. The community has developed a program to provide fire suppression sprinklers installed on the tops of houses (NCRS, 2003). Gunflint is a community that demonstrates resilience and the ability to overcome the fire challenges that they face, but they can only accomplish this through solid partnerships.

Another example of a community effort is the town of Waldo, Florida. One landowner is credited with turning a big fire away from the town of Waldo through efforts on his own property to control vegetation and fuel accumulation (NCRS, 2003). This is one example of the impact that just one individual can have on the outcome of the events in a fire. The apathy of private landowners discussed earlier may be due to the feeling that one may not feel that individual efforts are important. However, the case in Waldo, Florida demonstrates just how important the actions of one individual can be in averting danger.

Bend, Oregon has developed large community efforts to help reduce fuel in the area. They open up the landfill several times a year free of charge to allow citizens to dispose of debris from thinning and pruning (NCRS, 2003). Thinning and pruning around houses creates a barrier of defensible space should a fire threaten. The landscape and fire resistance efforts in Bend have become a social factor.

These case studies demonstrate how communities can be spurred into action. The study conducted by Reams, Haines, & Renner et al., (2005) found owner apathy as the number one obstacle that they faced in preparing communities in case of a fire. The communities of Gunflint, Waldo, and Bend demonstrate how citizens can be called upon to take it upon themselves to take action on their own behalf. The difference in these two perspectives is that the citizens of Gunflint, Waldo, and Bend took it upon themselves to protect their communities. These communities are characterized by a keen sense of independence and self-reliance. The difference between these communities and those mentioned earlier is the sense that one cannot rely on someone else to take care of them, it is up to the individual to make their own decision to take action. A feeling of self-reliance is an important part of community action and the development of community programs that work.

Another key finding of the study was that citizens responded to the need for a defensible area around their homes when they felt that the risk of fire was sufficient. If they did not feel that their homes were directly at risk, they were often opposed to planting defensible landscapes and the work needed to reduce fuel. The impact of measure on the monetary value of their home ranks second as the most important factor determining the likelihood of homeowner compliance with fire reduction methods (NCRS, 2003).

The literature review examined the successes and obstacles associated with the development of community measures to help reduce the risk of property damage and loss of life at the wildland/urban interface. The National Fire Plan encourages involvement on a local level through the actions of individuals and communities that are directly impacted by the risk of wildfires. The greatest obstacle that was discovered during this exploration was apathy in the community towards the measures that need to be taken around their own homes to reduce the risk of property damage.

The exact reasons for this apathy were not found, and need to be considered in future research efforts. However, it is surmised that these feelings come from a sense that they are not at risk, or that if something does happen, it is the job of the Federal Government to protect their homes. This attitude is a result of past policies, which placed mitigation of fire risks in the hands of Federal authorities. The difference between communities that took action and had excellent plans in place, as well as community participation was the feeling that they could make a difference. Many of these communities had experienced fires and the risk was real to them. It hit them on a personal level. This knowledge will help in the development of more effective strategies for engaging communities and individuals in the effort to initiate affective community fire mitigation plans. This literature review demonstrated what is wrong with current programs and what is right with those that are working well.

Current Applications

The literature review tells us that the most important element in the National Fire Plan is the individual and their willingness to take actions in an around their own homes. Without this level of individual response, the plan does not achieve its goals in reducing the risk of property loss from wildfires. Case studies reveal what is working and what is not regarding the risk from fires in communities at-risk.

According to the National Fire Plan website, many success stories can be found. A majority of the cases involve reduction of fuels in the communities. Community assistance and rehabilitation also constitute successes of the national efforts (Forests and Rangelands, 2007b). these three activities comprise the current application of the plan thus far. The National Fire Plan was intended to tae 10- Years to implement (Forests and Rangelands, 2007c). However, the success of the plan has resulted in a number of community successful community level strategies and a real rise in public awareness and participation from individuals and entire communities.

There are hundreds of case studies available that highlight the success of the National Fire Plan in action. Project Wildfire represents another example of the National Fire Plan in action. This model program for wildfire loss mitigation provides a framework that can be implemented on a community level all around the globe (Stutler & Lighthall, 2007). Community Wildfire Protection Plans grew from the Healthy Forests Initiative and Healthy Forests Restoration Act, which dedicated resources to help restore the natural fire resistance of Ponderosa Pine forests in the Western United States (Stutler & Lighthall, 2007). Project Wildfire provides support to local agencies in the event of a fire. It also provides information regarding the necessity for defensible space around homes (Stutler & Lighthall, 2007).

Project Wildfire is the National Fire Plan in action and provides a framework that could be used and changed to fit many different situations. In order to be applicable on the community level, the National Fire Plan must provide this type of framework so that communities can develop a plan that best suits their needs and situation (Forests and Rangelands, 2007c). At each level, the framework must provide the following in order to result in an action plan within the community. It must involve planning, prioritization of actions and responsibilities, timely decision making, measurable performance tracking, and public communication of goals and tasks (Forests and Rangelands, 2007c). These are necessary steps that will enable the National Fire Plan to become actionable within the communities.

The National Fire Plan helps communities develop their plans and achieve their goals in several manners. Firewise is a community-level education program to help citizens become aware of actions that they can take to help reduce their risk from fire (Forests and Rangelands, 2007d). It provides rural, state, and volunteer fire assistance (Forests and Rangelands, 2007d).

It assists in the development of the Community Wildfire Protection Plan and offers a community guide regarding how to prepare and implement the plan (Forests and Rangelands, 2007d). These activities represent application of the plan and the collaboration of communities, states and the national government in an effort that benefits everyone.

Future Issues and Concerns

Thus far, the National Fire Plan has many success stories and has resulted in communities that are more prepared to defend themselves, should a wildfire threaten them. However, the study revealed concerns that not every community is getting the message. The first and most important obstacle that must be overcome is gaining homeowner cooperation in communities where interest in participation is lacking. These communities and individuals are still at risk of property damage and loss of life in the event of a fire.

The study revealed that this lack of concern stems from the old fire prevention plan that depended on the federal government to step in and take care of the citizens. As we discovered, this diverts resources during a fire away from the central fire, as firefighters struggle to preserve private property (NCRS, 2003). In this situation, the focus is on the individual and not the community as a whole. In a fire, when the focus is on the individual, resources are too spread out to tackle the main problem.

This brings us to the second obstacle in implementing the National Fire Plan. The need to develop and adhere to a plan on a community level begins with making the message personal. When the message talks in terms of "we" and "they" it distances the individual homeowner from the real risks posed by wildfires on the wildland/urban interface. One community that was able to do this was Incline Village, Nevada. This village initiative made it everyone's responsibility to plan landscapes that were fire friendly. They worked to make fire consciousness a part of community society. This example is an excellent example of how to overcome the second obstacle. However, there are many more communities that need to create a personalized message and make fire consciousness a part of the social norms.

The third obstacle discovered in the course of this research is the need for personnel. Technical personnel are in high demand, but so are other jobs, such as education and community advocacy. There are many levels where an individual can become involved. They can volunteer to conduct meetings and educational programs regarding fuel reduction. They can help by planting fire-friendly landscapes, or perhaps performing those services for persons who are unable to do it themselves, such as the elderly or disabled. This type of community volunteerism helps to muster a feeling of importance surrounding the necessity of the plan and the actions of individuals. The plan needs to foster this type of response from the communities that it serves.