Wildland/Urban Interface Fire Policy Action Report Western Governors' Association February 1996 Acknowledgments WGA CHAIRMAN Governor E. Benjamin Nelson, Nebraska FIRE POLICY LEAD GOVERNORS Governor Fife Symington, Arizona Governor Roy Romer, Colorado INTERFACE COORDINATION GROUP Jeff Arnold National Association of Counties Don Artley State Forester, Montana (National Association of State Foresters) Bill Baden National Fire Protection Association Jim Brenner Florida Division of Forestry Paul Cogswell Insurance Institute for Property Loss Reduction Ron Coleman California State Fire Marshal John Coyle Policy Advisor, Governor of Arizona Mike Dietrich Fire Officer, BLM - Salem, Oregon Jim Douglas Director Hazard and Fire Coordination, Department of the Interior Rich Flores Chief, Division of Public Safety, Tohono O'Odham Nation Richard Krimm Federal Emergency Management Agency Dr. Mary Jo Lavin Director Fire & Aviation, U.S. Forest Service Martin Moore Director Land Use, Apache County, Arizona Tom Minnich U.S. Fire Administration Phil Omi Colorado State University Fred Robinson Oregon Forestry Department Larry Schwab State Farm Fire and Casualty Company Elizabeth Schneider Executive Director, Southern Governors' Association Chris White Interface Fire Coordinator Summit County, Colorado Doug Young Policy Advisor, Governor of Colorado WGA James M. Souby, Executive Director Bruce Flinn, Natural Resource Consultant Julia Doermann, Policy Analyst The Western Governors' Association Wildland/Urban Fire Policy Action Report Fire protection in the Wildland/Urban Interface (Interface) has been a problem for many years and continues to grow as the population and the desire to get closer to nature increase. The Interface is a term loosely defined and has many definitions depending on one's perspective. It includes areas adjacent to wildlands, structures next to and within wildlands, and any combination of people-oriented and natural resources-oriented values. Western Governors believe that a comprehensive revision of fire policy in the Interface is critical to preventing future loss of life, property and natural resources. Philosophical values, including social, economic, scenic, and recreational, are also at risk. Although low-intensity fires are often beneficial to the forest environment and wildlife habitat, intense fires are commonly destructive to these plant and soil systems. To support this revision, the Western and Southern Governors' Associations have formed a partnership with a diverse group of stakeholders, professionals and decision makers who have responsibilities for fire response, suppression, prevention, and risk reduction. This includes federal, state, tribal and local governments, the insurance industry, home builders, firefighter representatives, home and business owners, and others. This action report has identified specific recommendations for public fire protection policies, programs, and community-based activities within the Interface as well as how to implement these through individual agencies or through partnerships between federal, state, tribal and local governments and private parties. This final report was developed by a core group of professionals representing the diverse partnership currently working to address issues concerning the Interface. Note: You may access a copy of the final report using your communications software on your computer, dial (303) 446-0349. Once you have logged on with your "user-ID" (your first and last name) and a short password (middle name), select the "WGA Wildland/Urban Fire Policy" category from the menu. Call the WGA office at 303/623-9378 should you have any questions concerning the BBS. It's Tuesday, August 23, 1994, and Incident Commander Mike Templeton has his hands full. It is his fourth evening on the fire which has already claimed one life, destroyed ten homes, and burned 8,000 acres. Templeton called it "the most stubborn and dangerous fire I have ever seen." While control actions will forever be overshadowed by the death of 25-year-old dozer operator Sydney B. Maplesden Jr. on the third day of the fire, the fire team and more than 2,000 firefighters worked heroically to prevent the fire from claiming additional lives and burning untold more homes. Eighty-seven homes were initially evacuated in Ramsey Canyon near Medford, Oregon as the fire made a run southward. Despite evacuation orders, many residents decided to stay and take their chances with the fire that was rapidly surrounding their community. On Friday morning, the fire roared to life threatening additional homes in the canyon. Some residents refused to leave until the last moment, jeopardizing themselves and firefighters who miraculously rescued them at the last moment. For a few tense hours Friday night, many believed additional firefighters and homeowners had been killed by the fire along Ramsey Road. "This was a classic example of how the presence of homes in the woods hamstrings the wildfire control effort," said Mike Barsotti, lead incident information officer. Firefighters had to painstakingly cut fire lines around the homes and burn out localized areas to protect the structures. Wildland/Urban Interface Challenges Governors know only too well that the tremendous rate of growth occurring in many communities throughout the nation has created areas of urban development within highly flammable native vegetation. At the same time, the fire risk conditions of wildlands surrounding interface areas continues to worsen. Fire protection challenges in the Interface are very complex. Zoning regulations, building codes, basic fire protection infrastructure, insurance/fire protection rating systems, legal responsibilities, land management practices, and fire protection and mutual-aid agreements all influence the ability to provide fire protection and risk reduction. Coordination and consistency is needed between the fire protection policies of agencies, different levels of government, the private sector and homeowners. The lack of consistent policies increases the risk to residents in the Interface, the risk to firefighters, and the potential loss of property. In some areas, loss of life, property, and natural resources are becoming all too common and are forcing the implementation of new policies to address the issue. Many state and local governments are developing and implementing new processes to address the hazard/risk of development in the interface. Questions are being raised by citizens, private organizations and professional firefighters concerning consistency between local government rules, state government laws, and federal fire fighting policies. Some are calling for scrutiny of federal laws, such as the Endangered Species Act, which may complicate fire risk mitigation efforts. Governors are united in their efforts to bring better governance to the public. Fire protection in the Interface is an excellent area where all levels of government and private entities can work together as partners to address this important issue. The Governors are well-positioned to develop, advocate, and implement strategies that can address wildland/urban interface barriers and foster experimentation. The purpose of the Wildland/Urban Fire Action Report is to describe the barriers present in the Interface and provide Governors with suggested steps they or others can take to help eliminate these obstacles and to encourage the implementation of the necessary partnerships to improve public safety and knowledge. Partnerships Governors know the power of partnerships in resolving issues. The Interface fire issue cannot be resolved at any single point in the government. Local governments provide education, planning, zoning, as well as fire protection services. State governments (National Association of State Foresters) provide direct fire protection, allocate fiscal resources, provide the legal and policy framework for local governments, and provide assistance with expertise from state agencies. The federal government, through the federal land management agencies (Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management, National Park Service, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Fish and Wildlife Service, etc.), the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and other budget/legislative/policy areas, also has a major role to play in making policy and managing wildland fire activities. In addition, private entities such as homeowner and homebuilder associations and the insurance industry can potentially reduce the fire risk through organizational policies and practices. This issue can be resolved only through the implementation of partnerships. Interrelationship of the Issues Wildland/urban fire issues are focused in five principle areas: Development and implementation of a national standardized hazard/risk assessment system Providing leadership to ensure successful implementation Development and utilization of appropriate building standards and fire codes Integration of appropriate insurance industry standards Implementation of appropriate fire protection and mutual-aid agreements by all levels of government It is extremely important that the interrelationship of the issues be understood. The successful development and implementation of a national standardized hazard/risk assessment system is the first step in addressing the issue. Once the hazards and risks are identified, then local managers can make appropriate decisions for reducing these hazards and risks. This may mean managing fuels in the Interface (trimming or thinning trees around houses, reducing forest fuel loads, mowing grasses, using controlled burns, etc.), using different fire codes and building standards, maintaining adequate road and driveway access, or providing improved water supplies, among other tools. If using different building standards is identified as a means of reducing risk, appropriate building standards should be developed and available for use by local, state, and tribal governments. Insurance criteria and incentives can then be developed and implemented to properly reflect the total environment. A consistent hazard assessment system could greatly improve interagency and intergovernmental cooperation and coordination as well. The system would also enhance mutual-aid agreements and their implementation, especially the common operating plan for all fire protection organizations. Interagency agreements should be developed to reflect the local/state level of need and hazards. Leadership is critical throughout and at all levels of the government. The leadership will be both bi-lateral and uni-lateral among the various stakeholders. In some cases, strong federal leadership may be necessary, but a common thread will be the importance of local/state government officials and stakeholders committing to address the Interface issue. Development of a National Standardized Hazard/Risk Assessment System Currently, there is no national system or consistent terminology to assess and quantify wildfire risks and hazards in the Interface. Although successful assessment systems have been developed in some states and counties, and the National Fire Protection Association and the International Fire Code Institute have studied the issue, consistent terminology and application are lacking. Creation of a national standardized hazard and risk assessment system would provide consistent criteria for planning review processes, insurance grading by such organizations as the Insurance Service Office, and reviewing existing building and fire codes. The system would be useful in programs geared toward public education and awareness, fire prevention, risk reduction, and firefighter training. Implementation would result in improved public and firefighter safety, reduced personal and private property loss, and reduction in overall suppression costs. While it may be appropriate for the assessment system to have the capacity to consider additional local or regional factors that reflect local situations and conditions, a national standardized hazard and risk assessment system is likely to be more readily accepted at all levels and would reduce the need for local governments to recreate existing models. Recommended Actions Governors should ask the National Wildfire Coordination Group's (NWCG) Wildland/Urban Interface Advisory Group to develop a national standardized hazard and risk assessment system, suitable for field testing, by June 1, 1996. The system should incorporate the minimum recommended rating criteria* (see criteria below); be based on an objective rating from "Low to Extreme;" have the capability to map the geographical area; build on existing assessment model components; and allow for local flexibility. The NWCG, with appropriate support from partners, should test the system, monitor and assess the results, and make appropriate revisions by July 1, 1997. The NWCG should encourage the National Fire Protection Association, the Insurance Service Office, and the International Fire Chief's Association to incorporate system components into an insurer supported grading system and into national building and fire codes, after successful system testing. *Minimum Recommended Rating Criteria for National Standardized Hazard and Risk Assessment System Fire Control Factors Slope Hazard Factors Fuel Hazard Factors Weather/Occurrence Access/Egress Aspect Building Construction Drought Factor/Index Bridges Dangerous Terrain Features Defensible Space HistoricCliatologicalDat Building Construction Position on Slope Fuel Breaks Density and Spacing Slope Fuel Continuity Pre-Attack Plan Fuel Loading Resources Fuel Type/Models Response Times (within and adjacent) Response Zones Utilities Water Supply Development and Utilization of Building Standards Zoning regulations, building codes, basic fire protection infrastructure, and insurance/fire protection rating systems all influence the ability to provide fire protection in the Interface. For example, building codes can specifically address the following risk elements commonly found in the Interface: building materials; roofing materials; eave design; landscaping - type and location of vegetation; location of building site - slope and aspect; driveway access and egress. Currently none of the existing model codes address the wildland/urban environment specifically. Since zoning, building and fire codes are a function of the states police powers, there have been widely varying actions taken by state and local governments nationwide to adopt and implement this authority. Currently, only 25 states have adopted statewide building codes with enforcement capability varying widely. Because of this variability, coupled with increasing suppression and replacement costs, new codes and training programs are being developed. Specifically, after the 1993 fires in California, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) gave two grants to the California State Fire Marshal that bear on this issue. The first grant funds a joint effort of the International Fire Code Institute to publish a new uniform code for use in identified high fire-hazard areas. A first draft has been produced. The second grant was used to produce a training program for use by state and local officials on how to use existing statutes and regulations in mitigating hazards in the interface zone. The California Fire Academy conducted a pilot for this training program, and it will be distributed in 1996 to areas impacted by the 1993 fires. Recommended Action Governors should direct their staff to review the state adopted building codes (if they have adopted codes) to ensure that they adequately address fire protection and life safety issues for the wildland/urban interface areas. (Note: States should consider adopting National Fire Protection Association Standard for Protection of Life and Property from Wildfire, NFPA-299, when no other codes or standards exist.) In addition, state staff should review the draft of the International Fire Code Institute (IFCI) Urban-Wildland Code and assess its potential to be used as a companion code to state adopted model codes. Involvement of Insurance Industry and Other Stakeholders Contemporary thought holds that, lacking a financial incentive to promote strong fire and building codes in high risk areas, there is no motivation to reduce the problem. The option most often discussed is to link insurance availability and rates to increased levels of fire resistance and defensibility. Other incentives include seeking: National Flood Insurance Program discounts; discounted property taxes and permit fees; energy discounts; low interest retrofit loans, discounted construction loans, reduced sales tax on materials; and permanent "recognition" for structures built, retrofitted and maintained in accordance with standards. As discussed earlier in this report, new insurance efforts will probably need to be developed in harmony with a national standardized hazard/risk assessment process and the implementation of building standards/codes that are enforced by local/state government. A comprehensive and consistent program at the local level will provide the necessary linkages and will then allow the use of incentives and disincentives by the variety of partners to achieve the desired end results. The insurance industry, through the Insurance Services Office (ISO), has a standardized "Fire Suppression Grading System" and a "Building Code Effectiveness Grading System (BCEGS)." The ISO, with sponsorship by a large insurance company, is conducting a pilot program in Orange County, California called the "Wildland/Urban Analysis Rating Plan" which uses the criteria from the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) Standard 299 Standard of Protection of Life & Property from Wildfire. This program calls for the collection of information about specific characteristics of a property and develops an overall grade for the risk. Characteristics used include: fuel type, brush area, railroads, wind areas, fuel breaks, infrastructure, public resources, and building materials. protection facilities, roofing materials and siding materials. The pilot should be completed in early 1996. The increased awareness of homeowners, industry officials and elected officials to the Interface is critical to successful implementation of insurance incentives. This is not solely the responsibility of the insurance industry and must be a multi-organizational effort if it is to be successful. Existing efforts should be expanded or serve as models for utilization in other parts of the country. Existing efforts include: California Department of Forestry program to educate realtors and insurance agents to Interface hazards. National Fire Protection Association efforts to define and communicate the issues found in the wildland/urban interface. California's "Fire Safe Advisory Council" as a model for multi-discipline cooperation. Development of a public awareness program to Interface issues. Recommended Actions Governors should monitor the results of the pilot effort in Orange County, California to determine if the effort has benefits and utility for other states. A summary report on the effort and its results should be completed by June 1, 1996. A task force, chaired by a member of the National Fire Protection Association, should be assembled of the key partners in the wildland/urban interface, to develop and implement a communication strategy concerning the wildland/urban interface. To the maximum extent possible, the effort should build on existing tools and processes. The task force should have a strategy in place by May 1, 1996. The Insurance Institute for Property Loss Reduction (IIPLR) has provided the critical leadership to focus on potential contributions from the insurance industry to address Interface issues. The IIPLR is a not-for-profit education and research organization voluntarily supported by over 365 insurers who collectively write about 65% of the property premiums within the United States. IIPLR's knowledge of and involvement in the Interface issue will greatly enhance communication to its members and others (i.e., building code organizations). Implementation of Fire Protection and Mutual-Aid Agreements The continued urban development in highly flammable vegetation has created a complex fire protection situation for structural and wildland fire protection agencies. The large fire losses of the 90s have demonstrated the complexity unique challenges of fire protection in the Interface, and the need for linkages to systems and organizations not normally utilized in wildland or structural fire operations. The importance of good interagency/intergovernmental agreements which provide for pre-fire risk reduction, as well as appropriate coordinated suppression activities cannot be overstated. A set of model agreements will assist fire protection organizations with developing new agreements or the review of outdated agreements. The following model agreements have been developed and are available from the National Fire Protection Association or WGA. 1. Fire Protection Agreement 2. Multi-Agency Fire Protection Agreement 3. State-Federal Cooperative Agreement 4. Federal-Local Assistance Agreement 5. State-Local Agreement A review of existing agreements has determined: Existing agreements vary greatly from informal (no documentation) to sophisticated, multi-agency, statewide documents. Many states do not have master resource-sharing agreements in place for mobilization of fire and other emergency resources on a state or regional basis. Past agreements have failed to provide linkages to state fire marshals and emergency service organizations which have important roles in both pre-incident mitigation and emergency incident operations. Recommended Actions Governors should direct staff to: --Adopt formal fire protection and risk reduction agreements among federal, tribal, state, local and private fire protection organizations which address the wildland/urban interface issue. --Ensure that state foresters, fire marshals, emergency services and national guard organizations are included in updated agreements. --Assess the need and complete, if necessary, state-wide master sharing agreements. --Utilize model agreements to the maximum extent possible for consistency. --Example: the State to State Forest Fire Protection Compacts A letter will be sent to all participating Governors by WGA initiating the implementation of these recommendations by May 1, 1996. Follow-up monitoring by WGA will occur and a report will be provided to the Governors by June 1, 1997. Leadership The evolution of the Interface issue over the past several decades has created the need for effective leadership. While there are individual successes, there is an overall inability to cooperatively prioritize and implement fire protection strategies. Strategies would include: planning, policy review and revision, public education/awareness, allocation of fire protection resources, utilization of national standardized hazard/risk assessment processes, successful implementation of partnerships, implementation of effective fire protection agreements and wildland/urban fuels management programs. Fire risk, multiple levels of protection responsibilities, and limited resources contribute to a very complex challenge to create a cost effective fire protection program for the nation's wildland/urban interface. Fire protection resources from the federal, tribal, state, county and city organizations will be needed to reduce the impact on any one of the partners and to provide for high levels of public safety and response. This need occurs at a time when there are fewer resources available at all levels. For example, there is pressure to reduce levels of federal funding in the Interface. The current budget situation warrants increased partnerships at all levels. Perspectives on leadership surrounding this issue vary widely. Some would argue for a strong federal presence to oversee the effort. Others argue leadership must come from the state/local level for resolution. Almost all agree that partnerships from all levels will be the only effective method. As with almost all natural resource issues, resolution begins when the local communities realize there's a problem and agree how to fix it. Without that local "buy-in" to the problem, effective solutions cannot be implemented. Regardless, in order to be effective, solutions need identified leaders with specific responsibilities. Recommended Actions Governors should work with the principal partners associated with the Interface (National Association of State Foresters and others) to develop a process that will provide the needed leadership while recognizing the role of the partners. A draft of the proposal should be completed by May 1, 1996. The proposal should address the following: --How to encourage and foster the needed partnerships. --The role of federal, state, tribal and local governments. --The importance of other entities such as the National Wildfire Coordinating Group, National Association of State Foresters, International Association of Fire Chiefs, National Association of State Fire Marshals, etc. in providing leadership. Supporting Information As with many programs, the understanding and ability to define the existence and extent of a problem is important to resolving the issues. Currently, data on fires in the wildland/urban interface is insufficient to assist with problem resolution. Until now, there has been no effort by the U.S. Fire Administration's National Fire Incident Reporting System (NFIRS) to collect data on wildland/urban interface fires specifically. A data collection module has been developed by the National Information Fire Council (NFIC) which will address this shortfall in information. This new program is designed to run on personal computers and will permit local jurisdictions to collect solid useful data. All data will be gathered at the state level and ultimately placed in the NFIRS system. It should be noted that presently not all federal firefighting agencies are contributing data to the NFIRS system. Recommended Action All partners should continue to participate in the development of the new NFIRS model for data collection as it relates to the wildland/urban interface. To the maximum extent possible, a unified data base should be developed, including federal agencies, so reliable data can be made available in the future. The new model should be tested in several states prior to implementation. If possible, the model should be operational in early 1997.