COMMUNITY GUIDE

to Preparing and Implementing

a Community Wildfire
Protection Plan
AUGUST 2008

A supplemental resource guide to Preparing a Community

Wildfire Protection Plan: A Handbook for Wildland–Urban
Interface Communities, March 2004
C o v e r : (top) community planning in
Curry County, OR; (center) Maupin, OR
(John Harrington, Sustainable Northwest).
COMMUNITY GUIDE
Table of Contents

Introduction 2
Effective Collaboration in Preparing and Implementing a CWPP 4
Collaboration and the Collaborative Process 4
Why Collaborate? 5
Getting—and Keeping—People Involved 5
Reducing Structural Ignitability and Strengthening Community Fire Preparedness 8
Individual Responsibility 8
Fire Response 9
Regulatory Framework for Reducing Structural Ignitability 9
Zoning Regulations 9
Development Standards 10
Building Codes and Fire Codes 10
Model WUI Fire Codes 10
Structural Ignitability Case Study Examples 11
Identify and Prioritize Fuels Treatment and Restoration Projects 12
Strategies for Considering Risks to Both Communities and Ecosystems 12
Strategies for Identifing, Prioritizing, and Implementing Projects 13
Fuels Reduction Case Study Example 14
CWPPs Play a Role in Collaborative Federal Land Management Planning 16
Monitoring and Evaluation 18
What Goes into Monitoring and Evaluation a CWPP Locally 18
What Goes into Monitoring CWPPs at a National Level 18
A Framework for Monitoring and Evaluating CWPP Outcomes 19
Ecological Monitoring 22
Monitoring Case Study 1 and 2 23
Links and Resources 24
Partners 26
 2

Introduction

“Drought conditions, the build-up of hazardous fuels, and more homes

in fire-prone landscapes are changing how we experience wildfire in
America.”
National Association of State Foresters
Washington, DC, November 26, 2007

For more than a decade, Congress has made the protection of communities
from wildfire a national priority. Yet, since the establishment of the
National Fire Plan (2000) and the Healthy Forests Restoration Act (HFRA
2003) the issues regarding deteriorating health of our forests and the need
for greater community protection from wildfire are still prominent. Indeed,
as fire suppression costs have exceeded $1 billion in recent fire seasons,
communities, interest groups, and land management agencies continue to
express their concerns to Congress and the Administration regarding
mounting risks to life, property, and the environment.

Fires can be more costly to suppress in the wildland–urban interface—the

areas where homes are intermixed with forests and wildlands. More homes
are at risk from wildfire as residential development continues to encroach
on forest and wildland areas. Across the majority of states, debris burning
is the most frequent human cause of wildfires. These human-caused fires
can be prevented and the excessive cost of fire suppression reduced. The
first step in wildfire prevention education is to raise awareness of the
responsibilities of living in a fire-prone environment. Individual and
community action can ensure that homes and neighborhoods are prepared
HFRA Requirements for a CWPP for wildfire.

(1) Collaboration One of the most successful tools for addressing these challenges is the
(2) Prioritized Fuel Reduction Community Wildfire Protection Plan (CWPP). Through these plans, nearly
(3) Measures to Reduce Structural 4,800 communities across the nation have developed collaborative strategies
Ignitability
to reduce their risk from wildfire and restore healthier, more resilient
conditions in their surrounding forests. However, with at least 51,612
The HFRA requires that three entities
mutually agree to the final communities at risk across the United States, there is still much work to
contents of a CWPP: be done. This Community Guide to Preparing and Implementing a
Community Wildfire Protection Plan (Community Guide) is intended
• The applicable city or county
government; to assist CWPP participants by providing innovative strategies, case stud-
• The local fire department(s); and ies, and additional resources to develop, implement, and monitor their
• The state entity responsible for CWPPs.
forest management.
The minimum requirements for a CWPP are defined in HFRA with more
detailed guidance provided in the publication Preparing a Community
Wildfire Protection Plan: A Handbook for Wildland-Urban Interface
Communities, March 2004 (Handbook). This landmark legislation clearly
supports the role of communities in federal land management planning.
 3

In addition, this successful model to mitigate wildfire risk has been used in
communities without adjacency to federal land. Access both guidance
documents at www.forestsandrangelands.gov/communities.

While moving through the planning and implementation process found in

the Handbook, CWPP participants have identified a number of lessons
learned and areas where they would like more information or advice. In
response to this feedback, a group of local, state, federal government, and
non-governmental partners recommended developing a supplemental guide
to the Handbook. Specifically, this Community Guide follows the three
minimum requirements for a CWPP as outlined by HFRA. It also provides
additional information on successfully developing, implementing, and
monitoring a CWPP.

The CWPP collaborative process is effective in improving coordination and

communication between emergency response agencies and the community.
Spending an adequate amount of time developing a CWPP can help clarify
and refine priorities to protect life, property, infrastructure, and valued
resources. This process can lead communities through critical discussions
about private and public land management, as well as identifying opportuni-
ties for fuels reduction within a designated wildland–urban interface boundary.

Homeowners, community leaders, and agency representatives alike can use

the resources and insights provided in this Community Guide to strengthen
CWPPs and foster opportunities to share experiences with others who may
be working through similar challenges.

This Community Guide is organized in six sections:

1. Introduction
2. Effective Collaboration in Preparing and Implementing a CWPP
3. Reducing Structural Ignitability and Strengthening Community
Fire Preparedness
4. Identifying and Prioritizing Fuels Treatment and Restoration Projects
5. Monitoring and Evaluation
6. Links and Resources

The goal of protecting communities and natural resources from wildfire can-
not be accomplished by any one person or entity. We must work together
to identify and pursue a pathway to success. We hope that this new
Community Guide, along with the original CWPP Handbook, will aid you in
finding solutions that work in your community.
4

Effective Collaboration in Preparing and

Implementing a CWPP

Collaboration is the process through which a CWPP is developed and

implemented. This section explains what collaboration is, why it is
important in the context of a CWPP, and how to have a successful
collaborative process.

Collaboration and the Collaborative Process

“Collaboration” is simply people working together to address a shared problem

that no one of them could effectively resolve alone. Each participant brings
to the effort knowledge, skills, ideas, and resources. The more inclusive the
group and the greater the diversity of interests involved, the more likely it is
to be representative of the community as a whole and to find broadly
acceptable, mutually agreeable solutions.

Elements of Successful Collaboration in Community Wildfire

Protection Planning

• Broad participation. A rigorous outreach effort should be made. Potential

participants include property owners, local and state governments,
tribes, fire and emergency services departments, public land manage-
ment agencies, forest industry groups, forestry contractors and workers,
insurance companies, environmental organizations, community-based
forestry groups/collaboratives, watershed councils and other
non-government organizations, academics, scientists, and other interested
individuals. Including social service agencies helps ensure that the
concerns of low-income and special needs populations are addressed.
Participants should serve as liaisons between the collaborative group
and the interests they represent and, when appropriate, advocate within
their constituencies for the CWPP action plan.

• A fair, equitable process. A good collaborative process is open, transparent,

accessible, and civil. All participants’ ideas and values are respected.
The collaborative group has clearly articulated and achievable goals,
agreed-upon ground rules for meetings, and a process for making deci-
sions. Participants honor the commitments they make to the group.

• Well understood, reasonable expectations. Participants need to

thoroughly discuss and reach agreement upon the outcomes they expect
from the CWPP process. These should be captured in a concise written
statement that can be shared with others and be periodically reviewed to
ensure that the process is staying on track.

• Multiple avenues for participation. Collaboration should continue

throughout the CWPP process, including the assessment of existing
conditions, identification of issues and concerns, delineation of the WUI,
identification and prioritization of action items, inventory of resources,
development of an action plan, plan implementation, monitoring, and
periodic plan reviews and updates. While the work of the broadly
representative collaborative group is key to the process, there should be
 5

additional ways to involve the public—getting their input, increasing their

knowledge of wildfire protection needs, and encouraging their involve-
ment in CWPP implementation or monitoring. The community should
receive regular updates on CWPP activities.

• Commitment to the process. HFRA specifies that the relevant local

government, fire department, and state forest management agency must
mutually agree on the content of the CWPP. Those decision-makers need
to stay actively engaged throughout the collaborative process, and the
other participants need to know what the collaborative group’s “decision
space” is—how much weight its recommendations will carry with the
Opportunities for Tribes to Engage in
decision-makers. Developing a charter for the collaborative group and/or
CWPP Planning and Implementation
informal agreements or a Memorandum of Understanding among partici-
pants can be useful (see example MOU at http://www.co.josephine.or.us/ Many tribes have wildfire prevention
SectionIndex.asp?SectionID=158). plans in place, and the Bureau of Indian
Affairs has adapted criteria for the
Why Collaborate? development of prevention plans that
meet the criteria of a CWPP even
though tribes are not required to develop
The use of a collaborative process is one of the requirements that Congress
a CWPP. Engaging in a collaborative
established for a CWPP. Developing and adopting a CWPP opens the door to
fire-planning process can provide signif-
significant local community benefits, including being able to: 1) define and
icant benefits for the tribe by strength-
set the boundaries of the community’s WUI; 2) identify and prioritize areas ening relationships with neighboring
for hazardous fuel-reduction treatments on USFS and DOI lands in the WUI; landowners, fire districts, and local,
3) recommend the types and methods of treatment to be used; and state, and federal agencies; encouraging
4) influence how federal funds for projects on non-federal WUI lands may the use of compatible prevention and
be obtained. restoration treatments on both tribal
and non-tribal lands; and providing
Additionally, the collaboration should stimulate or strengthen local efforts to additional opportunities to influence
reduce structural ignitability, enhance emergency management and commu- locations and priorities for related
nication, and foster public education and action to reduce wildfire risk to life treatments on federal lands. Broad
participation in CWPP planning:
and property. Perhaps most importantly, collaborative processes help build
• Creates among tribal members a
trust and good working relationships among the participants. Effective
sense of ownership in the planning
collaboration ensures that all bases are covered in the planning process, that
process and its successful imple-
potential problems or roadblocks are identified and dealt with, and that good mentation, which may result in
use is made of available time and money. It builds strong local support for them taking greater responsibility
the CWPP. for reducing wildfire risk.
• Brings local knowledge and concerns
Getting and Keeping People Involved into the process, resulting in a more
responsive, accurate plan that takes
• Organize collaboratively. Generally one or more of the HFRA-specified into account the tribe’s cultural
key CWPP decision-makers—local government, fire district, or state concerns and practices.
forestry agency—will take the lead, but any individual or organization • Facilitates information sharing and
education, increasing knowledge
with time, interest, and good community credibility can do it. Even in the
among tribal members about the
initial planning stage, however, diversity is important and the participation
role of fire and strategies to reduce
of key stakeholders essential. Once the full collaborative group is
wildfire risk.
assembled it can look at whether the initial leadership and administra- • Increases awareness among fire
tive support arrangements are adequate or whether some changes may managers about tribal members’
be needed to better facilitate the work of the group long term. values and concerns, and helps
identify ways that fire management
• Do intensive outreach. In recruiting participants, both broad and targeted can provide opportunities for cultural
outreach strategies are needed. Articles in the newspaper, radio or TV protection and economic
coverage, mailed notices of meetings, and similar mass recruitment development.
6

methods will attract some people, but the most effective approach is a
personal one. A phone call or face-to-face meeting can help convince an
invitee that s/he has much both to contribute and gain in the CWPP
process.

• Include non-traditional stakeholders. Those with an interest in communi-

ty fire protection may include low-income, elderly and disabled citizens,
youth, tribes, or other underserved populations. Some of these stake-
holders may require extra assistance in preparing for, responding to, or
recovering from a disaster. Others may offer innovative strategies to
assist in community planning based on cultural knowledge or communi-
ty history.

• Focus on the local importance of a CWPP. People are more likely to get
involved if they realize the CWPP effort involves setting community pri-
orities and addressing matters that personally concern them—defining
the boundaries of the WUI, preparing their homes in residential areas,
and conducting fuels reduction treatments and restoring ecosystem
health on nearby public lands. Some may not get interested until the
CWPP has been adopted, so continued outreach is needed to engage
them in implementation when the time comes.

• Make the collaborative process user friendly. For some people, involve-
ment in the CWPP process will be part of their regular jobs, but for many
it will be a volunteer effort that entails a significant commitment of
scarce free time. Making the process more accessible to those volunteers
(whose participation is essential) generally involves holding meetings at
times (frequently evenings or weekends) and places convenient for
them, and may include other accommodations such as offering refresh-
ments, child care services, or paying mileage costs. Participants’ time
needs to be used productively. Meetings should start and end on time
and agendas should be followed.

• Encourage mutual learning. Because collaborative participants bring vari-

ous types and levels of knowledge and experience to the process, a
base of common understanding needs to be built. Using a combina-
tion of field tours, expert presentations, written materials, maps, and
group discussions encourages mutual learning and helps people get a
firm grasp on relevant issues and options. All opinions and ideas
should be given respectful attention, and all group discussions should
be civil.

• Take the process to the people. Because most community members will
not attend all the CWPP collaborative group’s meetings, it is important to
provide additional venues for them to get information about the CWPP
and provide input on their concerns and priorities. Some possibilities are
public meetings or open houses throughout the planning area; field
tours of proposed treatment areas; and presentations at gatherings
such as homeowners’ association meetings, watershed council events,
or Chamber of Commerce luncheons. Going door-to-door in high priority
WUI areas is a labor-intensive, but very effective, approach.
 7

• Help participants make a difference. To alleviate any concerns about how

seriously the collaborative group’s recommendations will be taken by deci-
sion makers, the local government, fire department(s), and state land man-
agement agency need to be actively involved in the collaborative
process. Some decision-makers may be willing to agree in advance to
adopt the collaboratively developed plan, generally with the provision
that it meet any applicable legal requirements and be financially and
technically feasible to implement.

• Foster long-term community involvement. Continued participation by

the CWPP collaborative group and other community members is essen-
tial to implementation. Starting a Firewise Communities/USA program is
an excellent way to motivate and support voluntary citizen efforts in
neighborhoods or small communities to reduce fuels and prepare homes
for wildfire. Organizing neighborhood Hazardous Fuels Reduction Days
with free chipping or hauling services can encourage homeowners to
work together to reduce fuels that endanger not just their homes, but
also their neighbors. Establishing a grant program providing cost-
share payments for fuels reduction on private property can be a power-
ful motivator. The collaborative group may initiate or facilitate the com-
munity collaboration required for federal fuels or restoration projects that
use the stewardship contracting mechanism, which allows any revenues
generated to be retained and used for additional needed restoration
work.
 8

Reducing Structural Ignitability and

Strengthening Community Fire Preparedness

The Healthy Forests Restoration Act requires a CWPP to recommend

measures to reduce structural ignitability throughout the community.
This section provides strategies to help identify and implement regulatory
and non-regulatory approaches to reduce structural ignitability.

A community approach to reduce structural ignitability and overall commu-

nity vulnerability depends on citizens to engage in fuels reduction efforts
around the home and reduce the ignitability of the components of the home.
The CWPP should include an approach that begins with public education and
outreach to residents about how homes ignite and how to reduce ignition
potential, and moves toward action in enabling property owners to modify
their homes and surrounding landscapes most effectively. During extreme
wildland–urban fires homes ignite in two principal ways: 1) directly from
flame heating, and 2) from direct firebrand ignition (burning ember spot
ignitions). If a homeowner modifies the home itself and its immediate
surroundings, i.e., the home ignition zone (Cohen, 2001), the home is much
less likely to ignite during a wildfire, and thus has a much greater chance of
surviving a wildfire.

Individual Responsibility
Most Effective Changes
to Home Ignition Zone Individual responsibility is paramount in reducing structural ignitability. Fire
• Class A roofs: any roof covering science research has demonstrated that ignition potential of structures,
that does not self-sustain an including homes, is minimized by modifying the home itself and the area
ignition and spread fire is an within 100 to 200 feet around the home. A home should be examined for its
appropriate 'non-ignitable' roof
covering ignition vulnerabilities to firebrands and flames. Firebrand ignition factors
• Screen openings to prevent
include structure locations of firebrand accumulations on flammable surfaces
ember intrusion and unscreened openings allowing firebrand entry. Vulnerabilities to flames
• Install non-flammable siding depend on the potential for any flame contact with the structure and
• Install double-paned windows preventing the occurrence of large flames of high-intensity fires to burn
• Reduce fuels around structures within 100 feet of a home including structures adjacent to a home.
• Maintain vegetation
(Cohen, 2008).
modifications
Homeowners have control over the structural components of their homes
Firewise Communities/USA Standards and the “home ignition zone.” The effectiveness of fire suppression/
1. Perform a community assessment protection is subordinate to the individual‘s responsibility for ignition resist-
and create a plan ance of their home. Replacing flammable or highly ignitable components of
2. Sponsor a Firewise Task Force the home and removing fuels from around the home minimizes the ignition
or Committee potential of the home. A model for engaging community residents on a neigh-
3. Hold a Firewise Day borhood or subdivision basis can be found at www.firewise.org/usa, the
4. Invest a minimum $2/per capita national Firewise Communities/USA Recognition Program. Firewise
annually in local Firewise projects communities are educated about how houses ignite, they provide risk
5. Document actions annually assessments to homeowners, they invest in fuel-reduction projects annually,
and they celebrate their successes, building community enthusiasm for fire
safety. Education efforts should target homeowners, contractors, realtors,
and insurance companies emphasizing the homeowners’ responsibility to
protect their homes.
 9

Fire Response

Fire response is a critical component of the community fire protection system.

Part of the CWPP process is to assess the readiness of the local fire agencies
to meet a wildfire challenge. It is imperative that the community understand
that the fire department alone cannot protect and save everyone's property
from loss. The first issue of concern is the fire department’s training, equip-
ment, response capabilities, and limitations. These should meet recognized
national standards and the fire department should be adequately trained and
equipped to respond to and control the locally established target standard
for all wildfires. For example, they may set as their goal controlling 95 per-
cent of all fires at five acres or smaller. The fire departments should partici-
pate in a mutual aid system and be able to communicate/coordinate with
assisting fire departments and aircraft. Consider if the fire departments have
the ability to increase staffing and resources in the event of adverse wildfire
predictions. Use Community Emergency Response Teams (CERT) to train
community members in disaster response skills. Communication between
the fire department and the community during a wildfire is critical. Fire
departments and communities should have a mechanism in place to issue
evacuation orders and routes to safe zones, or to advise sheltering in
place. All communities should have evacuation plans in place, including
plans to assist those with special needs.

Regulatory Framework for Reducing Structural Ignitability

Local governments often have a network of regulations relating to land use “Leave Early or Stay and Defend”
and development. This framework begins with goal statements of a Growth or “Shelter-in-Place”
Management or Comprehensive Plan, and is administered through regulatory
tools such as: zoning ordinances, development standards, building codes, • Shelter-in-Place vs. Evacuation:
and fire codes. Every element of this regulatory framework provides an Know the difference and prepare
opportunity to regulate wildfire hazards. At the subdivision level Covenants, for both
Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) can be enforced in both new and • Reduce structural ignitability:
established subdivisions. Codes relating to defensible space should be Helps the firefighters and may
enforceable not just at the time a building permit is issued, but also as the save lives
structure is maintained over time. Many examples of ordinances can be • Home Ignition Zone (HIZ):
found on The National Database of State and Local Wildfire Mitigation Reduce flammable and
Programs (www.wildfireprograms.usda.gov). State forestry agencies may combustible material within
also recommend model ordinances suitable for adoption at the community the perimeter of the HIZ
level. • Support the Fire Department:
Help them help the community!
Zoning Regulations Create defensible space

Local zoning ordinances, designed to control land use, can be adapted to

address wildfire hazard by adding a Wildfire Hazard Overlay District. The
district is determined by the risk assessment completed for the CWPP.
Special restrictions exist within the wildfire hazard district. Many zoning
ordinances require a Fuel Modification Plan to address fire hazard at the
landscape scale, and reduce risk on the site before development. Zoning
modifications in the wildfire hazard district may require non-flammable
building components, larger lots, defensible space, and reduced housing
densities. Maintenance of vegetative clearances may be required by CC&Rs
 10

and is the responsibility of the homeowners’ association and individual

homeowners. Some states have adopted statewide zoning of areas
identified as high wildfire hazard.

Development Standards

Development standards in WUI areas reduce community vulnerability by

addressing public safety issues before construction. Development standards
or subdivision regulations set out design criteria that define adequate road
lengths, widths, slopes and clearances, fuel breaks, and distances between
structures and water and electrical supplies. In difficult to evacuate areas,
development standards can create “Leave Early or Stay and Defend” subdi-
visions (http://ww.rfs.nsw.gov.au). All houses in the subdivision must meet
the building code standards, and the neighborhood as a whole must meet
water supply, road, and fuel break standards. For model development
standards, see Rancho Santa Fe Development Guidelines at http://www.rsf-
fire.org/education/programs/adult_shelterinplace.asp. Currently the National
Wildland Fire Coordinating Group, Wildland Urban Interface Working Team
is tasked with evaluating alternatives to evacuation including Shelter-In-Place
(http://www.nwcg.gov/teams/wuiwt). It is recommended if your community is
interested in these alternatives, please contact and coordinate with your
local fire service.

Building Codes and Fire Codes

Community Wildfire Planning Goals

All individual homes should be built

The goal of building and fire codes specific to WUI areas is to establish
with the following conditions, and minimum standards for materials and material assemblies to provide a
defensible space must be maintained reasonable level of exterior wildfire exposure protection. Buildings should
year-round with annual landscape be designed to resist the intrusion of flame or burning embers projected by
inspections:
a wildfire, and the building components should have passed rigorous
• Ignition resistant materials
flammability testing standards. California enacted ignition-resistant building
• Protected eaves, 1/8” screening
and fire codes, see http://www.fire.ca.gov/fire_prevention/fire_prevention_
mesh on eave and gable venting
wildland_codes.php.
• Residential fire sprinklers
• 100-foot defensible space
Model WUI Fire Codes
• Class “A” non-combustible roof
assembly
Model fire codes which combine many of the attributes of all of the above
• Dual pane or tempered glass windows
ordinances are a good choice for communities. These ordinances reference a
• Chimneys with spark arrestors 1/2
inch screening Wildfire Hazard Zone on a map and enact regulations for development within
that zone. National models for minimum building and design standards
The community as a whole has: include the International Wildland–Urban Interface Code (available for purchase
• Adequate roadway and driveway at www.iccsafe.org/safety/wildfire), National Fire Protection Association
widths (NFPA) 1144 Standard for Reducing Structure Ignition Hazards from Wildland
• Adequate water supply and flow for Fire, and NFPA 1141 Standard for Fire Protection Infrastructure for Land
firefighting
Development in Suburban and Rural Areas (www.nfpa.org). These minimum
• Vegetation-modification zones standards address ignition-resistant construction requirements, vegetation
http://www.rsf-fire.org clearances around buildings, access to structures, roads, site addresses,
and water supply for firefighting; they may be adopted at the state level or
for use in county or municipal level regulation.
 11

Structural Ignitability Case Study 1:

Reducing Structural Ignitability through Community Planning
and Firewise Communities/USA

Wynward Pointe and Keowee Key, SC. In South Carolina approximately

45 percent of all wildfires are escapes from debris burning. The Fire
Chief of Keowee Fire District observed one home that burned when a
debris burn escaped. The fire moved from the debris pile through dry
grass to pine straw mulch by the garage where an evergreen was planted.
The tree ignited, melting the vinyl siding, and carrying fire into the attic.
The home was lost. The Chief noted other problems within the community:
limited access, tight driveways with low branches and surrounding
fuels, lack of defensible space, and poor signage. The Chief and South
Carolina Forestry Commission initiated a Firewise Communities/USA
program. Through Firewise, they raised awareness and motivated the
residents to reduce fuels around their homes and create a more fire-
safe environment. In conjunction with becoming recognized Firewise
Communities, Wynward Pointe and Keowee Key created CWPPs, see
http://www.state.sc.us/forest/wyncwpp.pdf. These communities credit
their success to the Fire Chief, who was the “spark plug” to get things
rolling, and the CWPP, which helped them define goals and objectives,
identify and prioritize fuels mitigation projects, and maintain communi-
cation with the community.

Structural Ignitability Case Study 2:

Increasing Community Resilience through Planning,
Development, and Education

Lehigh Acres, FL. Lehigh Acres is an unincorporated community where

homes are intermixed with a palmetto/gallberry understory and a
canopy of pine and melaleuca, a highly flammable exotic tree. In 2006,
16 homes in Lehigh Acres were lost to wildfire due to fuels close to
homes, and combustibles on roofs. Following this wildfire, the residents
joined with Florida Division of Forestry, Lehigh Fire Department, and
other partners to develop a CWPP, http://www.fldof.com/publications/
fire_pdfs/lehigh_ cwpp_ complete.pdf. The CWPP identified many prob-
lems, including: excessive fuel accumulations near homes and on un-
developed lots, a need for strategic fire breaks, a need for Firewise edu-
cation, a need to increase fire department ICS capacity through training,
and county development codes that need to be changed. Since develop-
ing the CWPP, residents have met to discuss how to educate home-
owners to reduce home losses. Human-caused wildfires have been
reduced by 40 percent. The fire department hired a public information
officer, the county commissioners provided $650,000 for fuel reduction
work, and the Lehigh Fire Department is upgrading its ICS command
training. The CWPP partners meet regularly to evaluate progress and
update their goals.
 12

Identifying and Prioritizing Fuels Treatment and

Restoration Projects

The HFRA requires a CWPP to identify and prioritize areas for

hazardous fuel reduction treatments and recommend the types and
methods of treatment that will protect at-risk communities and essential
infrastructure. The process of identifying and prioritizing fuels treatment
projects on public and private lands requires the collective input,
knowledge, and resources of all project participants, and this collaboration
is the key step leading to on-the-ground activities that reduce the risk
of catastrophic wildfire. This section includes strategies and
recommendations for CWPP groups to develop risk assessments
and identify, prioritize, and implement fuels projects on public and
private lands.

Strategies for Assessing Risks to Communities and Ecosystems

• Utilize agency partners. Seek out and take advantage of the data analysis,
risk assessment, and mapping capabilities available from governmental
partners. As funding, equipment, and skills may be limited within the
community, local agency (federal, state, tribal, and municipal) partners
can be a great resource for developing geographic information system
(GIS) layers and printed maps.

• Think multi-jurisdictionally. When identifying high-risk areas, look

beyond ownership boundaries. Often high-risk areas encompass
multiple land ownerships and will require collaboration among diverse
partners to achieve CWPP goals.
Identifying Roles
and Responsibilities • Consider multiple planning scales. Allow for several scales of analysis
within the planning process. While many CWPPs are developed at a
When identifying roles, consider county scale, identifying and prioritizing projects on the ground may
immediate needs for developing the require analysis of data at a finer scale. If possible, budget resources to
initial risk assessment as well as long- focus the risk assessment to a workable scale so that specific projects on
term needs for data maintenance and the ground can be identified.
monitoring activities. When a govern-
mental partner or contractor is identified • Know the limitations of the data. If data layers are out of date, account
for GIS support, it is important to for disturbances, new development, and roads that may have occurred
ensure there is clear understanding of since the data were collected. Work with agency partners to acquire the
where the data will be housed and how best and most current data available.
the community CWPP group will have
• Address the needs of all communities in CWPP development. CWPP risk
ongoing access to the data and products.
assessments consistently include biophysical factors (such as vegetation
Whether existing partners can make a
or ecological conditions) to identify priority fuels reduction projects. It is
commitment to support GIS needs or
also important to consider social factors such as “community capacity.”
not, it could be beneficial for the
Some communities may have a lower capacity to prepare for, respond
community to begin building technical
to, and recover from wildfire events. When developing a community risk
knowledge and capacity to address
assessment, involve community and social services institutions that can
longer-term activities.
help identify and map low-capacity communities. Community capacity
coupled with biophysical measures of fire risk can be a valuable tool in
identifying communities most at risk to wildfire and the highest priority
targets for available financial and human resources. Reference the CWPP
Guide for low-capacity communities (http://ri.uoregon.edu/programs/
CCE/communityfireplanning.html).
 13

Strategies for Identifying, Prioritizing, and Implementing Projects

All CWPPs should use a credible risk assessment to identify the community’s
highest priorities for fuels treatment. These priorities may include actions
such as installing defensible space around homes, building strategic fire-
breaks near a subdivision, or using mechanical thinning or prescribed fire to
reduce fire risks within a watershed. Once the priorities are identified, there
are a number of strategies and tools that can improve the effectiveness of
project implementation. For example:

• The ability to treat the highest priority areas is often contingent on

available resources and community involvement and leadership. Some
projects will require grant funds to complete; some may be implemented
by state and federal agencies based on input from the CWPP; and others
may be defined, developed, and funded by neighborhood groups, or
local fire departments. When prioritizing areas for fuels treatment
projects, it is useful to identify a variety of projects within highest
priority areas on multiple land ownerships. A diverse approach provides
CWPP groups with more possibilities and flexibility to get work done on
the ground.

• Historic and/or cultural resources may be impacted by proposed treat-

ment projects. State, federal, and tribal agencies may be able to assist
with identifying significant cultural and historic resources. Defining Wildland–Urban Interface

• When identifying and prioritizing fuels reduction projects, it is useful

• According to HFRA, the wildland–
to develop an appropriate timeline and strategy for planning, public urban interface is considered
engagement, reaching environmental compliance, and conducting “any area within or adjacent to
treatments. A realistic timeline gives local residents and participants an at-risk community that is
true expectations of actions and reduces frustration based on false identified in recommendations
assumptions of quicker results. to the Secretary in a Community
Wildfire Protection Plan.”
Coordination with federal, state, and local agencies. It is important to ensure Communities have the ability to
effective coordination with governmental entities in the CWPP process, establish the definition and
because these agencies bring important expertise and resources to the table. boundary of a localized WUI.
Community-established WUI
In addition to GIS and mapping expertise, state and federal agencies often
boundaries can help meet local
have subject matter experts and funding resources available to support
management needs, can include
mitigation activities identified in a CWPP. Once completed, a CWPP provides
both public and private land,
statutory incentives for the USFS and DOI to consider the priorities of local and can help improve access to
communities as they develop and implement forest and rangeland manage- funding sources.
ment and hazardous fuels reduction projects. Below are steps for enhancing
coordination with state and federal agencies:

• Support agency projects that meet CWPP objectives during public

meetings and public review processes.

• Provide agency land and fire management staff with community project
information early in the planning process.

• Recognize project funding organizations and partners for their support

in meeting CWPP implementation goals. Share news articles and letters
and provide partners with photos and success stories from CWPP
implementation projects.
 14

• Document and incorporate local agency objectives and priorities when

and where possible to meet multiple landscape objectives, such as
pre-planning for residential development in the WUI.

• Collaboratively define the WUI and associated boundaries that are effec-
tive in meeting treatment objectives and funding strategies.

Neighborhood fuels reduction. In some areas, a priority treatment area may

cover several private, rather than governmental, ownerships. A neighbor-
hood fuels reduction project is one method of bringing together private
stakeholders to specifically reduce the wildfire threat to an at-risk community.
Aspects of a neighborhood fuels project may include:

• Homeowner education. Provide information and education on a range of

issues from why the area is at risk to wildfire, to preparedness and evac-
uation measures, as well as fuels reduction recommendations.

• Creating defensible space. “Defensible space” is an area between an

improved property, e.g. house, barn, etc., and a potential wildfire where
the combustibles have been removed or modified to prevent
fire from transferring to the structure. Defensible space is a research-
tested way to increase the probability that a home will survive a
wildfire disaster even if the fire suppression services cannot get there.
Mitigation and Firewise planning is a balancing act between the use of
non-combustible building materials, the width of the defensible space
surrounding a home, and the fuel management in and around the
community. Landowner responsibility for personal fire protection,
mitigation activities, and planning all contribute to making firesafe com-
Community Fuels Reduction Actions
munities. Funding defensible space activities can be a challenge. Local
• Conduct home risk assessments fire departments and state agencies may have funding and resources
• Develop “prescriptions” for available to assist homeowners with defensible space activities.
defensible space around homes
• Organize neighborhood clean-up
• Working with large landownerships. Larger landownerships may
days consider more comprehensive fuels treatments beyond defensible space,
• Find funding for cost share/free e.g. weed management, watershed protection, and ecosystem enhance-
treatments for residents that need ment. Communities adjacent to public land will need to coordinate with
assistance in creating defensible the public agencies to ensure that fuels reduction happens across owner-
space around their homes
ship boundaries whenever possible.
• Organize chipping or slash disposal
opportunities • Transportation systems. It’s important that roads and evacuation route
• Identify demonstration houses treatments are completed on driveways, roads, and other key
• Coordinate Firewise gardens transportation corridors. A successful neighborhood fuels reduction
• Identify and implement community project, such as the one highlighted below, depends on the priorities of
or neighborhood fuel breaks
local residents, opportunities for funding, conditions of the land, and
land ownership patterns.
 15

Fuels Reduction Case Study 1:

Creating a Community Fuel Break

Taylor, FL. The Florida Division of Forestry, US Forest Service Osceola

National Forest, Baker County Fire Department, and the Community of
Taylor jointly developed a CWPP in September, 2006 (http://www.fl-
dof.com/publications/fire_pdfs/taylor_fl_cwpp_complete.pdf). Taylor is a
small rural community surrounded by hundreds of thousands of acres
of federal, state, and private wildlands and has been threatened by
many wildfires in the past. The CWPP called for a 25- to 30-foot-wide
perimeter control line around the town. The control line was created in
January, 2007. Four months later, the control line was tested by the
Bugaboo wildfire. Firefighters set backfires along the Taylor control line
to guide the fire around the community. No structures were lost in
Taylor. Success was due to the foresight of the CWPP planners in creat-
ing the fuel break and team-building from the CWPP process. When the
CWPP committee created plans as a cohesive group, they set the stage
for the wildfire prevention and suppression activities to run smoothly.

Ecological restoration. Although CWPPs often focus on actions needed to

reduce risks to lives and property from wildfire, the development of a CWPP
provides a strategic opportunity for the community to consider the ecological
needs of the forest as well. In fact, restoring the ecological resilience of a
forest can be a very effective strategy for reducing the overall risk of wildfire
to the community and its infrastructure. Below are several recommendations
for integrating ecological restoration opportunities into a CWPP.

• When convening decision-makers and other stakeholders to develop the LANDFIRE

CWPP, engage all relevant land management agencies and institutions,
LANDFIRE is a tool that is publicly
and specifically ask that they bring their ecological expertise, data, and
available and offers consistent
information to the table.
vegetation/fuels data to support CWPP
• When developing a community base map and identifying the initial analysis, planning, and related
boundary of the WUI, ask agency, academic, and other experts to help management activities. LANDFIRE is
assess and consider how ecological restoration needs will impact the creating spatial data layers that include:
area of focus. all layers required to run fire modeling
applications such as FARSITE and
• In the CWPP risk assessment, use fire, fuel mapping, and other data or
tools to analyze the restoration needs of the predominant forested FlamMap, existing vegetation type,
ecosystems in and around the community. canopy height, biophysical setting,
environmental site potential, fire
• In the identification of fuels treatment projects, give priority to fuels treat- regime condition class, and fire effects
ments that can accomplish ecological restoration as well as layers. Please visit the LANDFIRE
community protection goals. website for more detailed information
• When designing and implementing fuels treatment projects, consider on use of LANDFIRE data, training
employing “fire use” as a tool to achieve treatment objectives. Fire use opportunities, and technical assistance
includes the combination of wildland fire and prescribed fire applications (http://www.landfire.gov/index.php).
to meet natural resource objectives. Wildland fire use is the management
of naturally ignited wildland fires to accomplish desired outcomes, while
prescribed fires are any fires ignited by management actions to meet
specific objectives. Wildland fire use is a tool that can be used alone or
in combination with mechanical thinning of trees to achieve ecological
benefits in addition to risk reduction.
16

Stewardship contracting. Stewardship end result contracting authorizes the

USFS and DOI to negotiate contracts of up to 10 years’ duration, to reduce
management costs by exchanging goods for services, and to select local
contractors on a best value basis. Stewardship contracting can assist com-
munity and agency partners involved in a CWPP to implement high priority
fuels reduction projects on public and private lands. Stewardship contracting
fosters a public/private partnership to restore forest and rangeland health by
giving those who undertake the contract the ability to invest in equipment,
infrastructure, and capacity building. Stewardship contracting can be suc-
cessful and sustainable where communities are able to capitalize on the
value of restoration byproducts such as small diameter timber, slash, or
other forest biomass. Done well, stewardship contracting promotes healthy
forests, creates local economic benefit, and allows the value of the material
being removed to help pay for the fuels reduction activities. The collaborative
process required to develop and implement a CWPP can serve as a founda-
tion for the partnerships needed to develop and implement stewardship
contracts. More information on stewardship contracting can be found at
http://www.fs.fed.us/forestmanagement/projects/stewardship/index.shtml.

Woody biomass utilization. Reducing hazardous fuels on public and private

land can produce sizeable quantities of small diameter woody biomass.
Utilization of woody biomass can help reduce or offset treatment costs and
has the potential to support sustainable local industries while improving
forest health. Become familiar with local forest-based industry partners that
have an interest in biomass utilization. Invite these partners and community
associations to become involved in the CWPP process. Work with state and
federal partners to identify estimates of biomass supply and access funding
opportunities designed to encourage the utilization of woody biomass.
Consider establishing green waste disposal, treatment, or processing sites
where landowners engaged in defensible space efforts can dispose of wood
slash materials.

CWPPs Play a Role in Collaborative Federal Land

Management Planning

The main purpose for the Healthy Forest Restoration Act was to reduce wild-
fire risk to communities, municipal water supplies, and other at-risk lands
through a collaborative process of planning, prioritizing, and implementing
hazardous fuels reduction projects. Although the CWPP is not a federal
planning document, the CWPP-determined WUI boundary can and should
be used as part of the development phase of a Land and Resource
Management Plan/Land Use Plan (LUP) and a Fire Management Plan (FMP)
for federal lands.

Federal agencies want to work with the public to help maintain, protect, and
improve values, and your involvement will assist in these actions. It can be
easy to identify where CWPP efforts align with federal processes and policies
and the role they may have in developing long-term management strategies,
if you understand the processes that federal land management agencies are
required to follow.
 17

Land Use Plans (LUPs)1 are designed to project present and future land uses
and identify management practices needed to achieve desired conditions.
Planning provides Federal agencies with the opportunity to collaborate with
the public, other agencies, tribes, and governmental and non-governmental
stakeholders to develop a common vision for how the public lands should
be used and protected. Developed with extensive community involvement,
LUPs are prepared in conjunction with an analysis of environmental impacts
using a collaborative approach that considers competing values and uses,
and weighs long- and short-term benefits. As LUPs are updated, they may
incorporate the collaboratively developed CWPP WUI boundary. LUPs are
used by managers and the public to accomplish the following: allocate
resources and determine appropriate and multiple uses for the public lands,
develop a strategy to manage and protect resources, and set up systems to
monitor and evaluate the status of resources and effectiveness of manage-
ment practices over time.

Fire Management Plans (FMPs).2 While the fire management planning

requirements may differ among agencies, a common purpose of a fire
management plan is to aid managers in making informed decisions and
can be an opportunity to incorporate CWPP-identified project areas. The first
objective in all fire planning and actions is firefighter and public safety.

All fire management plans provide an easy reference for firefighters and
managers so that they can easily find information such as objectives to meet
land use planning direction, resources to be protected, hazardous fuels and
vegetation conditions, safety considerations such as mines and power
corridors, and WUI boundaries. The FMP is supplemented by operations
plans, including but not limited to preparedness plans, preplanned dispatch
plans, prescribed fire burn plans, CWPPs, and prevention plans. FMPs assure
that wildland fire management goals are coordinated and incorporate a
community perspective.

For DOI: FMPs are required to define hazardous fuel management programs
and priorities in addition to planning for initial response to unplanned ignitions.
These plans may also include fire management strategies, tactics, and fuels
treatment plans.

For USDA, Forest Service: Strategic guidance for FMPs come from the LUP.
Hazardous fuels reduction treatment projects are planned as individual
projects outside of the scope of the FMP. New planning direction will be
coming out in draft FSH 1909.12, Chapter 10 and the new Planning & Fire
Technical Guide in the Technical Guides Section (Summer, 2008).

1
Department of the Interior, Departmental Manual, Part 112: Policy, Management and
Budget; Chapter 9: Office of Planning and Performance Management.
2
Interagency Standards for Fire and Fire Aviation Operations 2008, NFES 2724; produced
by the Standards for Fire and Fire Aviation Operations Task Group, National Interagency
Fire Center, Boise, ID. This document is posted at http://www.nifc.gov/policies/guides.htm.
18

Monitoring and Evaluation

Communities across the country have invested countless hours and signifi-
cant funds to develop CWPPs. Communities now have an opportunity to
consider how these plans have helped reduce their wildfire risk, while also
meeting state and national goals for wildfire risk reduction. Effective moni-
toring and evaluation of wildfire planning efforts at the local, state, and
national level will provide important opportunities to evaluate the overall
strategy of CWPPs in reducing wildfire risk and improving planning processes.
This section of the Community Guide is intended to encourage and present
strategies to conduct monitoring and evaluation of CWPPs.

A CWPP does not end when it is adopted; a thorough process should involve
a continuous cycle of collaborative planning, implementation, monitoring,
and adapting strategies based on lessons learned. As communities learn
from successes and challenges during the development and implementation
of their CWPP, stakeholders may identify new actions, propose a shift in how
decisions are made or actions are accomplished, and evaluate the resources
necessary for successful CWPP implementation.

What Goes into Monitoring and Evaluating a CWPP Locally?

• Only monitor what matters! (Communities may lack resources to engage

in a long or complex monitoring process.) Community partners should
identify key goals and objectives, and make decisions to monitor what is
most important to the long-term sustainability of their CWPP.

• Track accomplishments and identify the extent to which CWPP goals

have been met.

• Examine collaborative relationships and their contributions to CWPP

implementation, including existing participants and potential new partners.

• Identify actions and priority fuels reduction projects that have not been
implemented, and why; set a course for future actions and update the plan.

What Goes into Monitoring CWPPs at a National Level?

CWPPs are part of a national effort to improve the health of our nation’s
forests and reduce wildfire risk to communities. Stakeholder investments of
time and money must show results in a way that justifies that investment.
Decision-makers at a national level (including congressional representatives
and agency leaders with the USFS, DOI, Federal Emergency Management
Agency (FEMA), and others) are not often able to see the local successes
gained from a CWPP and its projects. Data collected from monitoring and
evaluation of local CWPPs can also be used to evaluate national goals for
wildfire risk reduction, such as those included in the HFRA and the Revised
10-Year Implementation Plan (10-YIP).3 This can help ensure that funding and
agency efforts are geared toward successful approaches.

3
A Collaborative Approach for Reducing Wildland Fire Risks to Communities and the
Environment: 10-Year Strategy Implementation Plan (December 2006);
http://www.forestsandrangelands.gov/plan/documents/10-YearStrategyFinal_Dec2006.pdf.
 19

National level guidance for monitoring and evaluation measures related to

CWPPs can be found in the 10-YIP, which includes specific performance
measures that are applicable to CWPPs. Performance measures are used to
demonstrate results and have measurable indicators of whether or not a
goal has been addressed. Performance measures set the stage for both
agency accountability and future agency budget processes. The performance
measures included in the 10-YIP that are specific to CWPPs include:

• Number and percent of communities-at-risk covered by a CWPP or

equivalent that are reducing their risk from wildland fire.

• Percent of at-risk communities that report increased local suppression How Are CWPPs Addressing National
capacity. Goals for Reducing Wildfire Risk?

• Number of green tons and/or volume of woody biomass from fuel As a community develops and imple-
reduction and restoration made available for utilization through permits, ments its CWPP, there are key questions
contracts, grants, agreements, or equivalent. that can be used to help determine
the effectiveness of its plan. In order
• Number and percent of WUI acres treated that are identified in CWPPs or to help track accomplishments and
other applicable collaboratively developed plans, and the number and report on outcomes, communities can
percent of non-WUI acres treated that are identified through collaboration collect data to respond to national
consistent with the 10-YIP. goals, as well as local goals. Like local
planning processes, national monitoring
• Number and percent of acres treated, through collaboration consistent and evaluation strategies can and
with the 10-YIP, identified by treatment category (i.e., prescribed fire, should be adapted and improved as
mechanical, and wildland fire use). we learn from wildfire planning
efforts. Table 1 includes specific
questions and measures to help
A Framework for Monitoring and Evaluating CWPP Outcomes
communities collect data that will
evaluate local goals for CWPPs. Some
Perhaps the most critical aspect of a monitoring and evaluation process is to of these measures can also help in
identify the impact a CWPP has had in a community. A 2008 publication, evaluating national goals, including
CWPP Evaluation Guide, provides a step-by-step process to lead communities those stated in the 10-YIP and the
through a process to evaluate how well they have addressed the goals and Healthy Forests Restoration Act.
objectives of their CWPPs and modify actions for the future. Completing this
Tips for Using the Evaluation
evaluation will help communities celebrate successes, identify gaps, and
Guide Framework
update their CWPPs (http://ri.uoregon.edu/programs/CCE/
communityfireplanning.html). The key to using this framework is to
remember that once information has
The Evaluation Guide recommends collaborative strategies to bring partners been gathered to answer questions
together to conduct the evaluation, gather relevant data, and write the evalu- and evaluate how well goals have
ation report. The Evaluation Guide provides suggestions on how to evaluate been addressed, community groups
can use the information to update
six elements of a CWPP and includes strategies to help communities identify
actions and adapt their strategies to
key outcomes, changes over time, and other lessons learned. The Evaluation
better address the CWPP goals. This
Guide also suggests strategies for reflecting on lessons learned during the
kind of evaluation can also help a
evaluation process, adapting actions for the future, and updating CWPPs. community celebrate their successes
once it is clear what all of their
Table 1 is a framework that can help a community in monitoring and evaluating accomplishments have been over a
its CWPP. The table lists six CWPP goals and a series of questions to help given period of time. And for more
communities monitor and evaluate accomplishments, challenges, and how ideas, visit the full CWPP Evaluation
well goals have been met. Communities and agencies may want to work Guide at http://ri.uoregon.edu/
together to ensure that, at a minimum, data are collected to evaluate the programs/CCE/communityfire
10-YIP measures to gain consistency in the type of data collected and reported planning.html.
on. Some communities may lack the resources to conduct a full-scale
evaluation and may opt to monitor and evaluate selected goals or measures.
20

National
Table 1. Goal Monitoring and Evaluation Questions Measures*

Framework for Monitoring and

1. Partnerships 1.1 Who has been involved with CWPP development and
Evaluating a CWPP and Collaboration implementation? How have relationships grown or
changed through implementation? What resources
did they bring to the table?
1.2 How did the fire planning process influence CWPP
implementation?

1.3 How has the collaborative process assisted in imple-

menting the CWPP and building capacity for the HFRA
community to reduce wildfire risk?

1.4 Have social service agencies (or groups that might

assist low-income and vulnerable populations)
partnered on CWPP efforts? If so, how?

1.5 Have partners involved in the planning process

remained engaged in implementation? Have new
partners become involved? How have the relationships
established through the CWPP enhanced opportuni-
ties to address CWPP goals?

1.6 Has CWPP collaboration made a difference or had a

positive impact on local organizations, neighborhoods
and/or actions?

2. Risk 2.1 How has population growth/change and develop-

Assessment ment in your community affected wildfire risk?

2.2 If this is a multi-jurisdictional plan, what is the number

and percent of communities at risk with a CWPP in
the area? Are all communities at risk identified in the 10-YIP
CWPP, and are there priority fuels projects identified
in the area?

2.3 Are there new or updated data sources that may change
the risk assessment and influence fuels priorities?

2.4 How is the risk assessment being used to make

10-YIP
decisions about fuels priorities or the designation of
the WUI boundary?

2.5 Has the community enacted a wildfire-related

10-YIP
ordinance? If so, county, state, or local?

2.6 What percent of communities at risk are also low-

income or have special needs? Have these communi-
ties been engaged in reducing wildfire risk?

3. Reducing 3.1 How many acres have been treated for hazardous
Hazardous Fuels fuels reduction on public and private land that were 10-YIP and
identified as high-priority projects in the CWPP? What HFRA
percentage of total acres treated does this constitute?

3.2 How many fuels reduction projects have spanned

ownership boundaries to include public and private
land?

3.3 What is the number and percent of residents that

have participated in projects and completed defensi-
ble space on their land?
 21

National
Table 1. CWPP Goal Monitoring and Evaluation Questions Measures*

Framework for Monitoring and 3. Reducing 3.4 Economic development resulting from fuels
10-YIP
Hazardous Fuels reduction
Evaluating a CWPP
(continued)
(continued) 3.5 How many local jobs have resulted because of
HFRA
fuels reduction or restoration activities?

3.6 How many hazardous fuels reduction projects

have been implemented in connection with a
forest restoration project?

4. Reducing 4.1 What kind of resource losses (homes, property,

Structural infra-structure, etc.) have occurred from wildfires
Ignitability in the year being evaluated?

4.2 Are the current codes and regulations for wildfire

hazard adequate? If not, are there efforts to
10-YIP
change or update them? Are there action items in
the CWPP to develop codes and recommendations?

4.3 Has the public knowledge and understanding about

structural ignitability been increased by strategies
adopted in the CWPP? Have homeowners been
educated on how to reduce home ignitability, and
are they replacing flammable building components
with non-flammable materials?

4.4 How many Firewise Communities have been

10-YIP
recognized? How many citizens, neighborhoods,
and
or communities have taken action to increase the HFRA
resilience of their structure to fire?

4.5 How has the availability and capacity of local fire

agencies to respond to wildland and structural 10-YIP
fires improved or changed since the CWPP was
developed?
5. Education and 5.1 What kind of public involvement has the CWPP
Outreach fostered? Examples include public education,
household visits, demonstration projects, etc.

5.2 Has a change in public awareness about wildfire

resulted from the plan?

5.3 What kinds of activities have citizens taken to

reduce wildfire risk?

6. Emergency 6.1 Is the CWPP integrated within the county or

Management municipal Emergency Operations Plan?

6.2 Does the CWPP include an evacuation plan? If

yes, has it been tested or implemented since the
CWPP adoption?

6.3 Is the CWPP aligned with other hazard mitigation

plans or efforts?

*
HFRA and the 10-YIP include goals that can be evaluated with measures as part of a local CWPP evaluation
process. This table identifies specific measures that relate to outcomes that can be evaluated at a national
level and are associated with HFRA or identified within the 10-YIP.
22

Ecological Monitoring

A critical outcome related to CWPPs is related to the change in fire behavior,

as affected by the number and type of fuels treatments that occur as a result
of priorities identified within the CWPP. The HFRA (Section 102(g)(5)) instructs
the USFS and DOI to establish a collaborative multiparty monitoring, evalua-
tion, and accountability process when significant interest is expressed in
such an approach.4

Multiparty monitoring gives communities an opportunity to assess environ-

mental, social, and economic outcomes related to fuels reduction projects.
Multiparty monitoring also builds trust and provides an opportunity for
residents to learn about fire-adapted ecology. The USFS Collaborative Forest
Restoration Program in the Southwest offers a set of guidelines for monitor-
ing community-based forest restoration. Communities engaged in ecological
monitoring of hazardous fuels reduction projects can use these guidelines.
They provide an overview of the multiparty monitoring process, ecological
and socioeconomic goals and indicators, and examples of measures, data
sources, and tools that can be used in conducting this kind of monitoring. The
CFRP program also developed a series of handbooks to help communities
conduct this monitoring. These resources can be downloaded directly at
http://www.fs.fed.us/r3/spf/cfrp/monitoring/index.shtml.

There are also tools used by state and federal agencies to conduct ecological
monitoring and monitor maintenance of treated areas. One such program is the
Fire Effects Monitoring and Inventory Protocol (FIREMON). FIREMON is an
agency-independent plot-level sampling system designed to characterize
changes in ecosystem attributes over time (http://frames.nbii.gov/portal/server.pt?
open=512&objID=286&&PageID=495&mode=2&in_hi_userid=2&cached=true).

Other methods for conducting ecological monitoring for fuels reduction

projects may include using photo points, modeling changes in fire behavior,
and measuring change in fire regime and condition class. There are a wide
range of approaches to ecological monitoring; FIREMON and other modeling
systems are mostly within federal purview, but community organizations
and citizens have many monitoring options available and simple methods
like comparing photo points and conducting vegetation surveys that are
valuable and important.

4
The Healthy Forests Initiative and Healthy Forests Restoration Act Interim Field Guide
http://www.fs.fed.us/projects/hfi/field-guide/web/page16.php.
 23

Monitoring Case Study 1:

Josephine County Integrated Fire Plan
After the 2002 Biscuit Fire, which burned close to 500,000 acres in south-
west Oregon and northern California, public and private agencies and
organizations throughout Josephine County, Oregon recognized the criti-
cal need to better coordinate resources, identify high risk areas, and
develop a strategic action plan to reduce risk throughout the county.
Partners came together to develop the Josephine County Integrated
Fire Plan (2004). A year later, partners developed a process for con-
ducting an annual review, which has resulted in annual reports and
updated action plans for 2005, 2006, and 2007. The annual reports high-
light accomplishments, challenges, and priorities for the upcoming year
from each of the planning committees, including fuels reduction and risk
assessment, education and outreach, emergency management, steward-
ship contracting, and vulnerable populations.

A unique aspect of the monitoring and evaluation process has been

an annual evaluation of collaboration among partners involved with
the fire plan. Results from these partner surveys have led to increased
participation from new stakeholder groups and focus on strategic issues
in a particular year, such as evacuation or funding for fuels reduction
projects for vulnerable populations. Most importantly, the collaboration
survey provides a time for all fire plan partners to reflect on the role of
their agency or organization in implementing the plan and the com-
mon goals that partners are trying to accomplish. The annual reports
are available online at http://co.josephine.or.us/SectionIndex.asp?
SectionID=158.

Monitoring Case Study 2:

Apache Sitgreaves CWPP
The Sitgreaves Communities Wildfire Protection Plan (SCWPP), born out
of the ashes of the Rodeo-Chediski Fire, was finalized and agreed to by
18 signatories in 2004. The SCWPP identifies needed fuels reduction for-
est treatments across jurisdictional boundaries of private lands, the
Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests and White Mountain Apache tribal
lands. These seamless treatments—comprised of thinning overstory
components of the forest structure, breaking up the continuity of the
understory fuels, and removing slash and excess vegetation—provide
cumulative improvements in fire risk mitigation. Burning slash and
ground fuels is done in a prescribed manner on government agency-
managed lands and by permit on private lands. Each year, the SCWPP
partners develop an annual progress report to evaluate progress, docu-
ment accomplishments and identify needs for the future. For example,
as of 2006, within the CWPP area, 40,964 acres of fuel treatment work
have been completed (approximately 13 percent of the high risk acres
identified in the plan). The annual report focuses on key issues that
remain to be addressed through plan implementation. To review the full
annual report, visit http://ci.pinetoplakeside.az.us/whatsnew/
2006_SCWPPUpdate_general.pdf.
24

Links and Resources

General Resources
• Healthy Forests and Rangelands Website: http://www.forestsandrange-
lands.gov/Healthy_Forests/index.shtml
• California Fire Alliance—CWPP Resources:
http://cafirealliance.org/cwpp
• Firewise website: http://firewise.org
° Firewise Communities/USA: http://www.firewise.org/usa
• The Healthy Forests Initiative and Healthy Forests Restoration Act:
http://www.fs.fed.us/projects/hfi/field-guide/web/page15.php
• International Association of Fire Chief’s Leader’s Guide for Developing
a Community Wildfire Protection Plan: http://www.iafc.org/associa-
tions/4685/files/CWPP_rev062005.pdf
• National Database of State and Local Wildfire Mitigation Programs, a
source for information on ordinances: http://ww.wildfireprograms.usda.gov
• Tribal Wildfire Resource Guide (2006), Intertribal Timber Council: http://
www.itcnet.org/issues_projects/issues/forest_management/reports.html
• United States Forest Service website: http://www.usda.gov
• US Department of Interior website: http://www.doi.gov/

Collaboration
• The Collaboration Handbook, Red Lodge Clearinghouse:
http://rlch.org/content/view/261/49/
• BLM Partnership Web Site: http://www.blm.gov/partnerships/tools.htm
• Ecosystem Management Initiative at the University of Michigan:
http://www.snre.umich.edu/ecomgt/collaboration.htm
• Western Collaborative Assistance Network: http://westcanhelp.org/
• Forest Service Partnership Resource Center: http://www.partner-
shipresourcecenter.org/index.shtml
• Joint Fire Sciences Collaboration and CWPPs:
http://jfsp.fortlewis.edu/KTWorkshops.asp
• Joint Fire Sciences Collaboration and fuels resources:
http://jfsp.fortlewis.edu/collaboration2.asp
• Rural Voices for Conservation Coalition (Collaboration issue paper): http://
www.sustainablenorthwest.org/quick-links/resources/rvcc-issue-papers
• Strategies for assisting low-income and underserved communities
develop and implement CWPPs: http://ri.uoregon.edu/programs/CCE/
communityfireplanning.html

Reducing Structural Ignitability

• Australian Safe in Place information:
http://www.rfs.nsw.gov.au/dsp_content.cfm?CAT_ID=202 and
http://www.rfs.nsw.gov.au/dsp_content.cfm?cat_id=515
• California Ignition-Resistant Building and Fire Codes:
http://www.fire.ca.gov/fire_prevention/fire_prevention_wildland_codes.php
• Firewise Guide to Landscape and Construction, booklet:
https://www.cmsassociates.com/firewise.nsf/avcatalog?open
• “Colorado, Are You Firewise?” Guide: http://csfs.colostate.edu/library/
pdfs/RUFireWise/wholenotebook.pdf
• Firewise Construction and Design Materials, Peter Slack, Colorado
State Forest Service, 2000 Guide: http://csfs.colostate.edu/library/pdfs/
fire/construction_booklet.pdf
 25

• Wildfire! Preventing Home Ignitions DVD, explains the research of Jack

Cohen, USDA Forest Service, on how homes ignite and how to mini-
mize potential for ignition: https://www.cmsassociates.com/
firewise.nsf/avcatalog?open

Reducing Structural Ignitability: Articles and Publications

• Cohen, Jack. Structural Vulnerability and the Home Ignition Zone: The
key to preventing residential fire disasters during extreme wildfire,
letter from Jack Cohen to Douglas McDonald, Feb. 4, 2008
• Cohen J. 2001. Wildland–urban fire—a different approach. In:
Proceedings of the Firefighter Safety Summit, Nov. 6–8, 2001,
Missoula, MT. Fairfax, VA: International Association of Wildland Fire
• Other articles by Jack Cohen: http://www.nps.gov/fire/public/
pub_publications.cfm.
• ICC, International Wildland-Urban Interface Code 2006, International
Code Council, Country Club Hills, IL, 2006
• NFPA 1141, Standard for Fire Protection Infrastructure for Land
Development in Suburban and Rural Areas, 2008 edition, National Fire
Protection Association, Quincy, MA, 2007
• NFPA 1144, Standard for Reducing Structural Ignitions from Wildland
Fire, 2008 edition, National Fire Protection Association, Quincy, MA, 2007

Fuels Reduction and Restoration Resources

• The National Association of State Foresters Field Guidance for
Identifying and Prioritizing Communities at Risk:
http://www.stateforesters.org/reports/COMMUNITIESATRISKFG.pdf
• Management Tools for CWPP Implementation: Stewardship
Contracting and Biomass Utilization http://ri.uoregon.edu/programs/
CCE/communityfireplanning.html
• Woody Biomass Utilization Desk Guide: http://www.forestsandrange-
lands.gov/Woody_Biomass/documents/biomass_deskguide.pdf
• USDA Forest Service Stewardship Contracting Resource page: http://
www.fs.fed.us/forestmanagement/projects/stewardship/index.shtml
• USFS Wildland Fire Use: http://www.fs.fed.us/fire/fireuse/
wildland_fire_use/use_index.html
• Biomass Producer or Collector Tax Credits (HB2210):
http://www.oregon.gov/ENERGY/RENEW/Biomass/TaxCdt_2210.shtml

Monitoring and Evaluation Resources

• Community Wildfire Protection Plan Monitoring and Evaluation Guide:
http://ri.uoregon.edu/programs/CCE/communityfireplanning.html
• FIREMON: http://www.fire.org
• Multiparty Monitoring Resources:
° Rural Voices for Conservation Coalition—Multiparty Monitoring
Issue Paper: http://ri.uoregon.edu/programs/CCE/
communityfireplanning.html
° USDA Forest Service Collaborative Restoration Program—Multiparty
Monitoring Guidelines: http://www.fs.fed.us/r3/spf/cfrp/
monitoring/index.shtml
° Red Lodge Clearinghouse: http://www.redlodgeclearinghouse.org/
resources/handbook_full.html
26

COMMUNITY GUIDE to Preparing and Implementing a CWPP

PROJECT PARTNERS:

Communities
Committee

forest GUILD

CWPP Task Force Members:

Glen Buettner
Carol Daly
Mike DeBonis
Dave Driscoll
Jim Erickson
Kim Van Hemelryck
Paige Lewis
Kathy Lynn
Doug MacDonald
Laura McCarthy
Tim Melchert
Mike Mortimer
Cheryl Renner
Ann Walker
Ryan Yates