|
PROFILES OF INTERVIEWED COMMUNITIES
<br />State Regulatory
<br />Community Population Environment
<br />Palm Coast, Florida 74,00o State WUI mapping
<br />Primary WUI
<br />Official(s)
<br />Building Dept.
<br />Community -
<br />wide tools
<br />High
<br />Neighborhood
<br />subdivision
<br />level tools
<br />Medium
<br />Lot -
<br />Specific
<br />tools
<br />Medium
<br />Structural
<br />tools
<br />None
<br />North Port, Florida 56,00o State WUI mapping Fire Dept. High
<br />Clark County,
<br />Washington
<br />425,00o No state WUI requirements Building Dept. Medium
<br />Low Medium None
<br />Medium Medium Medium
<br />Missoula County,
<br />Montana
<br />ilo,000 No state WUI requirements Fire Dept. None
<br />Low Medium Low
<br />Bend, Oregon
<br />Boise, Idaho
<br />76,00o State WUI mandate Code Enforcement High
<br />205,00o No state WUI requirements Fire Dept. Low
<br />City of Santa Barbara,
<br />California 88,000
<br />State WUI mandate Fire Dept. High
<br />High
<br />High
<br />High
<br />High Medium
<br />High High
<br />High High
<br />Glendale, California 192,00o State WUI mandate Fire Dept. High
<br />Douglas County, 285,00o State WUI mapping Building
<br />Colorado (Fire Specialist)
<br />High
<br />High High High
<br />High High High
<br />Utah County, Utah 530,00o State WUI model code Fire Dept. Medium
<br />Village of Ruidoso,
<br />New Mexico
<br />Prescott, Arizona
<br />8,80o No state WUI requirements Forestry Dept. High
<br />40,00o No state WUI requirements Fire Dept.
<br />their wildfire hazard needs and political
<br />environment.
<br />INTERVIEWS WITH LOCAL COMMUNITIES
<br />Based on the literature review and catego-
<br />rization of regulatory tools,12 communities
<br />were selected for phone interviews with
<br />those local officials most responsible for
<br />the creation, implementation, and enforce-
<br />ment of local wildfire regulations (usually
<br />the fire marshal, building official, planner,
<br />local forester, landscape architect, or WUI
<br />specialist, as applicable). These discussions
<br />analyzed how welt local wildfire regulations
<br />were working and where improvements
<br />could be made. This "ground truthing" is
<br />critical because, as planners know too well,
<br />regulations that appear innovative and
<br />desirable on paper may prove to be ineffec-
<br />tive, unenforceable, or even counterproduc-
<br />tive in practice.
<br />The full text of the interview questions
<br />can be found in the report, but the purpose
<br />of the questions was to find out why com-
<br />munities adopted WUI standards, how the
<br />political process went, how their standards
<br />are working, whether enforcement was a
<br />problem, and how WUI regulations can be
<br />improved.
<br />The 12 communities were selected to
<br />represent a range of cities and counties
<br />within each of the following four regulatory
<br />High
<br />High Medium High
<br />High
<br />High High
<br />High High High
<br />REFERENCES
<br />• Bachelet, Dominique, James M.
<br />Lenihan, and Ronal P. Neilson. 2007.
<br />Wildfires and Global Climate Change:
<br />The Importance of Climate Change for
<br />Future Wildfire Scenarios in the Western
<br />United States. Arlington, Virginia: Pew
<br />Center on Global Climate Change.
<br />Available at vvww.c2es.org/docU-
<br />ploads/Regional-Impacts-West.pdf.
<br />e Dutzik, Tony and Nathan Willcox.
<br />2(312. In the Path of the Storm:
<br />Global Warming, Extreme Weather,
<br />and the Impacts of Weather -Related
<br />Disasters in the United States. Boston:
<br />Environment America Research &
<br />Policy Center. Available at www.envi-
<br />ronmentamerica.org.
<br />e Headwaters Economics. 2009.
<br />Solutions to the Rising Costs of Fighting
<br />Fires in the Wildland-Urban Interface.
<br />Bozeman, Montana: Headwaters
<br />Economics. Available at http://head-
<br />waterseconomics.org/pubs/wildfire/
<br />H ea dwate rs Fi re Costs. p d f.
<br />e Thomas, Douglas and David Butry.
<br />2012. "Wildland Fires Within Municipal
<br />Jurisdictions." Journal of Forestry
<br />11 o (1) : 34-41.
<br />categories, namely: 1) states with a WUI reg-
<br />ulatory mandate; 2) states with a WUI model
<br />code; 3) states that provide WUI mapping;
<br />and 4) states without WUI mapping, mod-
<br />els, or requirements. These categories are
<br />important because a community's regulatory
<br />response to wildfire is often heavily influ-
<br />enced by state regulations and resources or
<br />the lack thereof. The table above provides a
<br />summary of each community's WU1 profile.
<br />The interview responses did not lend
<br />themselves to quantitative summary (i.e.,
<br />five of 12 respondents said X) because the
<br />questions often required nuanced or multi -
<br />layered answers. Thus, answers were sum-
<br />marized according to the levels of general
<br />agreement and central themes, with indica-
<br />tions of frequency where applicable (i.e.,
<br />"most" communities do X).
<br />The most significant general responses
<br />are summarized below:
<br />e Most interview communities adopted their
<br />first set of WUI regulations in response to a
<br />major wildfire or due to state requirements
<br />or incentives. A smaller minority adopted
<br />wildfire regulations proactively based on
<br />historical trends and concerns aboutimmi-
<br />nent wildfire danger.
<br />e The public was often skeptical of proposed
<br />WUI regulations at first but usually came
<br />to accept or support the wildfire standards
<br />if a strong public education effort (such as
<br />ZONINGPRACTICE 5.12
<br />AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION (Page 4
<br />
|