Wildfire, Wildlands, and People: 

Understanding and Preparing for 

Wildfire in the Wildland-Urban Interface

A Forests on the Edge Report

United States

Department of 

Agriculture

Forest Service

Rocky Mountain

Research Station

General Technical

Report RMRS-GTR-299

January 2013
ABSTRACT

Stein, S.M.; Menakis, J.; Carr, M.A.; Comas, S.J.; Stewart, 

S.I.; Cleveland, H.; Bramwell, L.; Radeloff, V.C. 2013. 

Wildfire, wildlands, and people: understanding 

and preparing for wildfire in the wildland-urban 

interface—a Forests on the Edge report. Gen. 

Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-299. Fort Collins, CO. U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky 

Mountain Research Station. 36 p.

Fire has historically played a fundamental ecological 

role in many of America’s wildland areas. However, the 

rising number of homes in the wildland-urban interface 

(WUI), associated impacts on lives and property from 

wildfire, and escalating costs of wildfire management 

have led to an urgent need for communities to become 

“fire-adapted.” We present maps of the conterminous 

United States that illustrate historical natural fire 

regimes, the wildland-urban interface, and the number 

and location of structures burned since 1999. We 

outline a sampler of actions, programs, and community 

planning and development options to help decrease the 

risks of and damages from wildfire.

Key Words: wildfire, community planning, fire-adapted, 

wildland-urban interface, defensible space

AUTHORS

Susan M. Stein is a private forest-land studies 

coordinator and Sara J. Comas is a natural resource 

specialist, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Cooperative Forestry Staff, Washington, DC; 

James P. Menakis is a national fire ecologist, U.S. 

Forest Service, Washington Office-Fire and Aviation 

Management, Missoula, MT; Mary A. Carr is a technical 

publications editor, U.S. Forest Service, Publishing Arts, 

Olympia, WA; Susan I. Stewart is a research social 

scientist, U.S. Forest Service, Northern Research Station, 

Evanston, IL; Helene Cleveland is the fire prevention 

program manager, U.S. Forest Service, Fire and Aviation 

Management, Washington, DC; Lincoln Bramwell is 

the chief historian, U.S. Forest Service, Washington 

DC; Volker C. Radeloff is a professor, University 

of Wisconsin, Department of Forest Ecology and 

Management, Madison, WI.

Photos on front cover, from top then left to right: Robert Gauthier ©2012 

Los Angeles Times. Reprinted with permission; fireground / Flickr; KevinCass / 

istockphoto.com; Ben Margot / AP Photo.

Brett Van Paepeghem US Fish and Wildlife Service Southeast Region

Curtis Lee Jones / Flickr
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-299. 1

INTRODUCTION

W

ildfire! It’s been the subject of legends; the source 

and sustenance of many of America’s forests, shrub 

lands, grasslands, and other wildlands; and a central 

theme in forest management in the United States during 

the 20th century (Agee 1998). Fire plays a vital role in the 

maintenance of the health of many ecosystems (Hutto 2008, 

Pollet and Omi 2002), in part by promoting a mosaic of 

vegetation and by stimulating the establishment and growth 

of particular trees and other plants (Brown 2000); indeed, 

many wildland species, such as the lodgepole pine found in 

the West, require fire to regenerate (Brown and Smith 2000). 

However, wildfire can also be the cause of economic and 

ecological losses and can pose threats to people, property, 

and communities.

As more and more people live in and around forests, 

grasslands, shrub lands, and other natural areas—places 

referred to the wildland-urban interface, or WUI—the firerelated challenges of managing wildlands are on the increase 

(Hammer and others 2009, NASF 2009). The number of 

wildfires exceeding 50,000 acres has increased over the past 

30 years, with most of that change occurring over the past 

10 years (NASF 2009); many of these large wildfires are 

more intense than they were in the past1 (Hardy and others 

2001, Schmidt and others 2002). As more people live or 

work in the WUI, fire management becomes more complex. 

In addition, the costs to reduce fire risk, fight wildfires, and 

protect homes and human lives have risen sharply in recent 

decades (Abt and others 2009, NASF 2009). Climate change, 

insect pests, and diseases, among other influences, are also 

contributing to vast changes in wildland vegetation that in 

many areas result in landscapes that are drier, less resilient, 

and more likely to burn once ignited (Keane and others 2008a, 

2008b).

Some 32 percent of U.S. housing units2 and one-tenth of all 

land with housing are situated in the wildland-urban interface 

(Radeloff and others 2005), and WUI growth is expected to 

continue (Hammer and others 2009). While the degree of risk 

may vary from one place to another, given the right conditions, 

wildfire can affect people and their homes in almost any 

location where wildland vegetation is found3. Even structures 

not immediately adjacent to wildland vegetation are at risk of 

damage from wildfire, because embers can be transported by 

wind and ignite vulnerable homes a mile or more away from 

the flame front (Cohen 2000).

Reducing the loss of lives, property, infrastructure, and natural 

resources from wildfires depends on long-term community 

action (NFPA 2006). Land use decisions, building codes and 

standards, and other planning and landscaping choices all 

influence a community’s vulnerability to damage from wildfire 

(Blonski and others 2010). Communities can reduce the risk of 

such damage by becoming knowledgeable about and engaged 

in actions to plan and protect their homes and neighborhoods 

from wildfire. Such “fire-adapted” communities will be better 

prepared to safely accept wildfire as a part of their surrounding 

landscape (Leschak 2010, NASF 2009, NFPA 2006).

2 For the cited study, “housing units” were defined as homes, apartment 

buildings, and other human dwellings.

3 Of course, vegetation outside of wildland areas can also burn.

1 The range of ecological processes and conditions that characterized 

various ecosystems in the United States prior to European settlement, 

referred to as “historical range of variability (HRV),” has been a 

subject of much research (Keane and others 2009). HRV is used 

by scientists and managers as a reference point to assess current 

conditions. For fire, HRV refers to the fire regimes that existed prior 

to European settlement.

Terry DeWan and Associates

As houses are added to the 

landscape, fire-management 

challenges increase.
2 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-299.

This report by the Forests on the Edge project, sponsored 

by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service (see 

box), is intended to heighten awareness of the ecological 

role and societal costs of wildfire, the causes and impacts 

of wildfire on human communities, and the relationship 

between increases in housing development and wildfire 

risk. While our target audience is planners and developers, 

many other entities—such as extension agencies, 

conservation districts, landscape designers, communities, 

and homeowners—can also benefit from the information 

and materials provided here. The report includes maps 

identifying areas in the conterminous United States where 

the wildland-urban interface is located and where structures 

have already been lost to wildfire. A sampler of resources 

and programs is provided to call attention to a few of 

the many options for reducing the risk of wildfire and its 

impacts, and to highlight the numerous organizations, 

Websites, and resources that can provide specific guidance 

relevant to individual regions, communities, and situations. 

Case studies focus on fire prevention and mitigation tools 

currently being used in a number of communities in the 

United States.

WILDFIRE—A FUNDAMENTAL, COMPLEX, AND COSTLY 

FORCE

The Ecological Role of Wildfire

W

hile many people experience and interpret 

wildfire in terms of the damages caused to 

human lives, structures, and communities, it is 

important to recognize the ecological role that fire plays 

across landscapes. Wildfire is a fundamental ecological 

component for 94 percent of wildlands across the 

conterminous United States (USDA Forest Service 2012). 

Fire-adapted4 ecosystems and species are found in every 

region of the United States, from the ponderosa pine forests 

of the Northwest and the Rocky Mountain West, to the 

Southwest’s chaparral, the Midwest’s tall grass prairies, the 

pine barrens of New Jersey, and the South’s longleaf pine 

forests.

The relationship between wildlands and wildfire is 

complex, and it varies considerably depending on the 

location, size, and intensity of the fire; the season; the 

weather; the ecological characteristics of the land; and 

the type and amount of human influence (Anderson 2001, 

Greswell 1999, Martin and Sapsis 1992, Rieman and others 

2005). Typical long-term patterns of fire size, intensity, 

frequency, and other characteristics occurring naturally 

over time and across the landscape are known as “natural 

fire regimes.” Fire regimes have been assigned to wildlands 

based on fire severity (how damaging a fire is to vegetation 

and soils of a certain site), fire intensity (the rate of heat 

released by a fire and prominent immediate effects), and 

fire frequency (how often the site burns)(Morgan and 

Key Terms

Wildlands—forests, shrub lands, grasslands, and other 

vegetation communities that have not been significantly 

modified by agriculture or human development*. A more 

specific meaning for fire managers, used by the National 

Wildfire Coordinating Group (which coordinates programs 

of participating wildfire management agencies nationwide), 

refers to an area in which development is essentially 

non-existent (except for roads, railroads, power lines, and 

similar transportation facilities); structures, if any, are widely 

scattered.

Wildfire—unplanned fire burning in natural (wildland) areas 

such as forests, shrub lands, grasslands, or prairies**.

Prescribed fire (or controlled burn)—the intentional 

application of fire by management under an approved plan 

to meet specific (“prescribed”) objectives.

Mechanical treatments—the use of people or machines to 

thin or reduce the density of live and dead trees and plants.

* By “human development” is meant the construction of homes or 

other structures; we are not referring to forest management.

** The complete definition of wildfire from the National Wildfire 

Coordinating Group glossary is “an unplanned ignition caused by 

lightning, volcanoes, unauthorized, and accidental human-caused 

actions and escaped prescribed fires” (NWCG 2010).

Forests on the Edge 

Forests on the Edge (FOTE) is a project developed by 

the U.S. Forest Service in conjunction with universities 

and other partners. The project aims to increase public 

understanding of the contributions of and pressures on 

America’s forests, and to create new tools for strategic 

planning. This report, one of several FOTE reports to date, 

provides an overview of the relationship between housing 

in the wildland-urban interface and wildfire. Unlike other 

FOTE reports, which focus primarily on private forests, this 

one examines the relationship between wildfire and all 

wildlands, including public and private forests, as well as 

grasslands and shrub lands. It also emphasizes the impacts 

of wildfires on people and their homes, and presents a 

sampler of some preventative measures that can be taken 

to create fire-adapted homes and communities.

4 “Adapted” in this sense means an ability to adjust to the intensity or 

quality of a disturbance; qualities that make an organism or its parts 

fit for existence under the conditions of its environment (MerriamWebster 2011).
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-299. 3

Table 1. Historical natural fire regimes, with examples

Fire Percent Fire

regime of wildland frequencyb

group in this groupa (years) Fire severityc Description/ definition Examples

I 25 0–35 Low to mixed Low-severity fires that leave most Lower elevation Ponderosa

dominant overstoryd vegetation intact; pine forests in the West; Pine

can include mixed-severity fires replacing and oak forests in the

up to 75 percent of overstory Southeast

II 19 0–35 High High-severity fires that consume at least Grassland areas across the

75 percent of overstory vegetation central United States; 

Chaparral stands throughout 

 the West

III 22 35–200 Mixed to low Generally mixed-severity fires; can also Mixed deciduous-conifer

include low-severity fires forests of the upper Midwest 

and Northeast; Western 

Douglas-fir forests

IV 12 35–200+ High High-severity fires that consume or kill Lodgepole pine in the

most of the aboveground vegetation Northern Rockies; Isolated 

areas of the Great Lakes and 

New England regions

V 16 200+ Any severity Infrequent fires that consume or kill Wetter forests in much of

most of the aboveground vegetation Maine, northern 

Pennsylvania, and parts of the

 West

a The column does not add up to 100 percent because 6 percent of all wildlands do not fall into any of these categories.

b Historical average number of years between fires (prior to European settlement).

c Historical effect on the trees and plants most commonly found in each wildland type (prior to European settlement).

d The term overstory refers to all above-ground vegetation.

Sources: Barrett and others 2010, Brown 2000, Hardy and others 2001, Rieman and others 2005, Schmidt and others 2002, USDA Forest Service 2012.

5 The information displayed in Table 1 and Figure 1 is derived from an 

analysis (USDA Forest Service 2012) based on the following data 

sources: Fire Regime Group and Mean Fire Return Interval data 

come from LANDFIRE Refresh 2001 v1.0.5 (http://www.landfire.

org). Developed and agricultural lands data come from LANDFIRE 

Refresh 2008 v.1.1.0 Existing Vegetation Type. State boundaries are 

from publicly available 1:2,000,000-scale polygon spatial data of U.S. 

States. All spatial data were converted to rasters with 270-meter (~82-

feet) resolution for this summary.

6 It is important to note that some U.S. wildlands no longer experience 

these fire regimes, owing to fire suppression, invasive species, and 

other factors.

others 2001). Understanding these regimes can help to 

communicate the ecological role of fire in America’s 

wildlands and can be used to identify significant changes 

resulting from management actions or possible shifts in 

climate (Brown 2000). Table 1 describes and provides 

examples of wildland fire regimes found in the United 

States5; see also the Historical Natural Fire Regimes box6, 

and Figure 1.

Many plant and animal species depend or thrive on the 

structure and conditions resulting from the natural fire 

Kelly Stover/US Forest Service
4 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-299.

Historical Natural Fire Regimes

LANDFIRE version 1.0.5 (Completed 2011)

0 100 200

μ

400 600 800

Miles

Legend

FRG I: 0-35 year frequency, low-mixed severity

FRG II: 0-35 year frequency, replacement severity

FRG III: 35-200 year frequency, low-mixed severity

FRG IV: 35-200 year frequency, replacement severity

FRG V: 200+ year frequency, any severity

Non-burnable wildlands (barren, sparsely vegetated, snow, ice)

Agricultural Lands

Developed Lands

Fire Regime Groups:

Water

Map compiled 11/22/2011, GKD. Sources: FRG from LANDFIRE v1.0.5 (Refresh 2001), Agricultural and Developed Lands from LANDFIRE v1.1.0 (Refresh 2008) Existing Vegetation Type layer.

Figure 1. Historical natural fire regimes. Source: FRG from LANDFIRE v. 1.0/5 (Refresh 2001), Agricultural and Developed Lands from 

LANDFIRE v1.1.0 (Refresh 2008) Existing Vegetation layer.

Historical Fire Regimes: What’s ‘Natural’ for Wildfire?

What determines whether a fire is unusual or just part of 

a typical fire pattern for a particular place? Fire specialists 

have looked at fires that occurred in various ecosystems prior 

to European settlement. In studying these fires, scientists 

categorized broad areas across the country that have similar 

patterns of fire frequency and severity (see Table 1 footnote for 

definitions) that have occurred over extended periods of time. 

Historical patterns of fire frequencies were typically caused 

by lightning and by burning by Native Americans; patterns 

of fire severity were mostly caused by climate, topography, 

and vegetation dynamics. The grouping of such patterns into 

categories (Table 1) is referred to as historical fire regimes, and 

provides a framework for what to expect in the way of fire in 

different locations based on historical conditions (Fig. 1).

In many areas, fire still plays a vital role and is key to 

maintaining those ecosystems; some fire-dependent forest 

types, such as the lodgepole pine in Yellowstone National Park, 

continue to function within their historical range (Hardy and 

others 2001, Schmidt and others 2002). However, in many 

areas, especially in lower elevation areas characterized by fire 

regimes I and II, current fire regimes are different than they 

were historically—in part because of fire exclusion, human 

disturbance, exotic species, and changes in climatic patterns. 

In some areas, fires that once burned often but with low 

severity may now burn less frequently, hotter, and larger; other 

places may now have numerous fires where once they had 

few (Martin and Sapsis 1992, Rieman and others 2005). Such 

“uncharacteristic” fires can challenge the ability of systems, 

wildland species, and people to respond to fire.

—Hardy and others (2001), Rieman and others (2005), Schmidt 

and others (2002) 
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-299. 5

regimes to which the species evolved or adapted (Kennedy 

and Fontaine 2009, Martin and Sapsis 1992). For example:

• The gopher tortoise (Gopherus polyphemus) and 

Bachman’s sparrow (Aimophila aestivalis) found in 

longleaf pine forests require low-severity fires every 3 to 

4 years to maintain bare ground and herbaceous habitat 

for nesting (Kennedy and Fontaine 2009).

• Black-backed and hairy woodpeckers make use of snags 

(standing dead trees) typically created by more intense 

fire (Kennedy and Fontaine 2009).

• Some fish and amphibians have complicated life cycles 

that benefit from fire because it can create the habitat 

diversity they require for long-term population stability 

(Rieman and others 2005, Skinner 2002). In some 

shallow wetlands and riparian areas, frequent fire can 

keep woody vegetation from being established, thus 

creating opportunities for amphibians that need sunny 

areas or open water (Pilliod and others 2003).

• Lodgepole pines in some areas of the Rocky Mountains 

require fire to open their sticky cones, and dense 

Douglas-fir forests in the Pacific Northwest benefit 

when fire creates sunny openings where shade-intolerant 

Douglas-fir seedlings can grow (Franklin and Van Pelt 

2004, Rieman and others 2005).

• Whole suites of “fire-following” wildflowers produce 

profuse blooms of annuals or short-lived perennials, 

such as lupines and Indian paintbrush, with winter or 

spring rains following a wildfire; their seeds can lay 

dormant for decades until the right conditions trigger 

germination.

Depending on the characteristics and scale of a particular 

fire, a patch of habitat or an entire watershed can undergo 

shifts in nutrients, energy cycles, and other ecological 

conditions that favor some species or communities while 

adversely affecting others (Agee 1998, Pickett and White 

1985, Reeves and others 1995). Changes in characteristic 

fire patterns can have substantial consequences for 

ecosystems and the species they harbor, including wildlife 

and plant pollinators adapted to specific vegetation types. 

For example, the absence of typical fires from some 

vegetation types can lead to unusually large, intense 

wildfires that can extensively alter habitats or landscapes 

(Ice and others 2004, Smith 2000, Wilcove and others 

1998), hasten soil erosion (Kocher and others 2001), 

increase stream temperature or sediments (Minshall and 

others 1989), and reduce the amount of carbon that is 

stored in the vegetation (Hurteau and others 2009).

Regardless of the fire regime, wildfires can kill individual 

plants, animals, fish, and aquatic organisms (Reiman and 

others 1997); degrade fish and wildlife habitat in the short 

term (Burton 2005); temporarily lower survival rates 

for larger animals and their young (Singer and others 

1989); change the mix of birds and other species in an 

area (Tiedemann and Woodard 2002); and increase the 

susceptibility of trees to insect invasion (McCullough 

and others 1998). In many instances, such ecological 

impacts eventually disappear or create a net benefit for the 

ecosystem over time7, but chronic damage can also occur 

(Gresswell 1999, Gruell 1983, Singer and others 1989, 

Neary and others 2005).

7 Whether or when recovery occurs depends upon site conditions, fire 

severity, and species involved.

Marc Barrison / Flickr

KevinCass / istockphoto.com

The gopher tortoise requires low-severity fires every 3 to 4 years.

Many wildflowers germinate after fires.
6 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-299.

Complicating Factors: Climate Change, Insect Pests, and 

Diseases

On many landscapes across the country, climate change 

as well as insect pests and diseases are increasing 

the potential for wildfires by influencing changes in 

vegetation.

Climate Change

Increases in the number, size, intensity, and duration of 

wildfires across large areas of the United States are being 

attributed in part to climate change (Fried and others 

2004, Westerling and others 2006). Climate change is 

predicted to lead to warmer temperatures and changes in 

rainfall patterns, as well as increased periods of drought 

in many locations (Dale and others 2001). By 2070, the 

length of the fire season in some Western U.S. regions 

could increase by 2 to 3 weeks (Brown and others 2004). 

Projections for the Greater Yellowstone ecosystem foresee 

a dramatic increase in fire frequency, which will lead to 

the replacement of many plant and animal communities 

with a different mix of species (Westerling and others 

2011). However, changes in acreage burned and other 

fire characteristics are not likely to be uniform because of 

variations in precipitation, winds, temperature, vegetation 

types, and landscape conditions (California Climate 

Change Center 2006). Furthermore, water shortages as 

a result of drought and changes in snowpack8 could also 

affect the availability of water to fight fires once they start 

(Knutson and others 1998; Barnett and others 2005).

Insect Pests and Diseases

Insect and disease outbreaks are an integral part of the 

life cycle of many forests. However, insect and disease 

outbreaks are increasing across the country—linked in 

part to climate change; to human activities that introduce 

and spread forest pests (Koch and Smith 2010, Logan 

and others 2003); and, in some areas, to fire suppression 

(Romme and others 2006). Insects and diseases caused the 

mortality of 5.3 million acres of U.S. forests in 2006 and 

nearly 6.8 million acres in 2007 (USDA Forest Service 

2009). The large number of trees being killed by extreme 

insect or disease outbreaks contributes to increasing the 

potential for wildfires (Konkin and Hopkins 2009, Man 

2009, McCullough and others 1998, Parker and others 

2006).

Non-native invasive plants are an additional complicating 

factor for fire in forest and grassland areas. The 

replacement of native grasses, shrubs, and trees with 

non-native species, which are often more flammable, has 

increased the potential for future wildfires (D’Antonio and 

Vitousek 1992). 8 Earlier winter/spring snowmelt reduces streamflow during the summer 

and autumn, thus increasing vulnerability to wildfire damage.

Curtis Lee Jones / Flickr Chris Evans/Bugwood.org

Pine bark beetle kill.

Cheat grass is an invasive, highly flammable non-native species 

that increases the risk of wildfire.
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-299. 7

Societal Costs of Wildfire

While the presence of fire on the landscape is inescapable 

and often desirable from an ecological standpoint, 

wildfires can have considerable social and economic 

costs. These costs have risen substantially in recent 

years and can be particularly high in the wildland-urban 

interface (Kent and others 2003), where considerable 

resources are spent on the protection of homes and 

other structures. Recent studies have found a positive 

correlation between firefighting expenditures and the 

presence of housing and private lands (Gebert and others 

2007, Liang and others 2008)9.

The most publicized costs associated with wildfire are 

those to fight, or suppress, large wildfires. Average annual 

fire suppression expenditures by the U.S. Forest Service 

alone totaled $580 million from 1991 to 2000, and more 

than doubled to $1.2 billion annually from 2001 to 

2010 (USDA Forest Service 2011c). State expenditures 

related to wildfire have also increased substantially in 

recent years. According to a biannual survey conducted 

by National Association of State Foresters (NASF), 

more than $1.6 billion annually is spent by State 

forestry agencies on wildfire protection, prevention, and 

suppression (including Federal funding expended by 

State agencies)—and that number has more than doubled 

in the past 10 years (NASF 2010).These figures do not 

include the cost to local fire departments across the 

country, which, according to a survey by the National Fire 

Protection Association (NFPA), responded to an average 

of 36,700 fires annually in forests, woodlands, or other 

wildlands from 2004 to 200810 (Ahrens 2010).

However, fire suppression expenses represent only a 

fraction of the monetary value spent on or lost in damages 

due to wildfires (see box). Numerous other costs include: 

the costs of restoring burned areas11, lost tax and business 

revenues, property damage and/or devaluation, and costs 

to human health and lives (Donovan and others 2007, 

Kent and others 2003, USDA Forest Service 2011b, 

WFLC 2010). As an example, soil erosion and flash 

flooding following Colorado’s 1996 Buffalo Creek fire 

resulted in more than $2 million in flood damage as well 

as more than $20 million in damage to the Denver water 

supply system (Lynch 2004).

Human lives lost or injured in the course of a wildfire are 

an incalculable societal cost. In the most extreme case 

to date in North America, the 1871 Pestigo Fire killed 

more than 1,200 people, destroyed numerous settlements, 

and burned 2,400 square miles across Wisconsin and 

Michigan (Pernin 1971). But the loss of even one person 

is an immense cost.

Wildfires can damage human health and take human lives 

even when people do not come into direct contact with the 

fire itself. People living near or downwind of a wildfire, 

for example, can be exposed to a host of pollutants 

that, depending on the person and the level of exposure 

to smoke, can trigger allergies, bronchitis, impaired 

judgment, and respiratory irritation (Chepesiuk 2001). 

Such health costs are generally accompanied by increased 

9 Recent analyses indicate that fire suppression expenditures by the 

U.S. Forest Service are greatly influenced by the presence of private 

lands (Liang and others 2008) and that per-acre suppression costs are 

greater in areas with higher total housing values (Gebert and others 

2007).

10 Figures are based on data provided by fire departments and State fire 

authorities who participated in the National Fire Incident Reporting 

System (NFIRS) and the annual NFPA fire experience survey. Fires 

in forests, woodlands, or other wildlands accounted for about 

10 percent of all fires to which local fire departments responded 

(estimated average of 356,800 brush, grass, and forest fires per year) 

during 2004–2008.

11 The need for restoration after a wildfire varies considerably, 

depending upon the location and intensity of a fire. In some areas, 

such as remote areas, restoration may not be warranted.

Kari Greer / US Forest Service

Application of fire retardant is one of the most costly 

aspects of fire suppression.
8 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-299.

monetary expenses for medical treatment (Butry and 

others 2001).

Living in or near a wildland-urban interface area that is 

at high risk of wildfire also can reduce real estate values. 

A recent Colorado study showed that after the posting of 

fire risk maps and information on the Web, the values of 

homes located near areas of high wildfire risk experienced 

a temporary (2-year) decrease in value relative to homes 

farther away from high-risk areas (Donovan and others 

2007). A Montana study concluded that sale prices of 

homes closer to areas previously burned by wildfires were 

lower than those for similar homes located farther away 

(Stettler and others 2010).

Over Time: Changes in U.S. Wildland Fire Management 

Policy

Fire and fire management have played a substantial role in 

the development and maintenance of America’s wildlands. 

Long before European settlement, fire was used 

extensively by native inhabitants as an agricultural tool 

and to create hunting habitat (Pyne 1982), a practice that 

was continued by some European settlers. Until the early 

1900s, fire also was used by settlers to reduce the amount 

of vegetation in order to decrease the potential “fuel” for 

future fires (Donovan and Brown 2007, Pyne 2010).

By the beginning of the 20th century, at a time when 

virtually every industry and convenience of life in 

America relied on wood (Williams 1989), America’s 

professional foresters and others saw fire as a waste 

of valuable forest resources (Donovan and Brown 

2007, Pyne 2010). Public support for fire suppression 

How Much Money Does a Wildfire Cost?

Total monetary costs associated with any wildfire are 

difficult to estimate but even partial costs can be staggering, 

as shown in the following examples*: 

Colorado’s 2002 Hayman Fire, 138,000 acres (Kent and 

others 2003):

• Total insured private property losses: $38.7 million

• Loans and grants from Small Business Administration and 

FEMA: $4.9 million

• Damage to transmission lines: $880 thousand

• Loss in recreation concessionaire revenue on two U.S. 

Forest Service ranger districts: $382 thousand

• Lost value of water storage capacity: $37 million

• Lost value from timber: $34 million

Total documented cost: $115.9 million

Six weeks of large wildfires (500,000 acres) occurring across 

18 counties in northeastern Florida in 1998 (Butry and 

others 2001):

• Commercial timber (softwood) losses: $322 million to 

$509 million

• Suppression and disaster relief: $50 million to $100 million

• Property losses (including 340 homes): $10 million to $12 

million

• Tourism and trade losses: $140 million

• Health care (asthma treatment): $325 thousand to $700 

thousand

Total documented cost: $522 million to $762 million 

* Not including suppression costs or costs to rehabilitate 

burned areas.

Ric Francis / AP Photo

Bell Canyon area of southern Ventura County, CA.

F. E. Dunham / US Forest Service, National Archives and Records Administration

Malibu Fire, near Angeles National Forest, fall 1935.
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-299. 9

increased after a series of large, intense fires burned vast 

stretches of U.S. wildlands (Pyne 2010), destroyed entire 

communities, and led to the loss of many lives. A tipping 

point came in 1910, when a wave of wildfires swept 

across the West, burning more than 3 million acres and 

leading to the loss of 78 firefighters (Pyne 2010).

In the years following the 1910 fires, Federal and State 

agencies strove to suppress all wildfires, but the lack of 

fire led to changes in the condition of some fire-dependent 

wildlands, and a build-up of flammable materials (Parsons 

2000). Since the early 1900s, public wildfire management 

policy has evolved considerably. In the 1960s and 1970s, 

managers, scientists, and the public learned more about 

the fundamental role of fire in many forest and wildland 

ecosystems. Fire has been gradually reintroduced through 

carefully controlled and supervised burns referred to as 

prescribed burning (Parsons 2000, Pyne 2010, Stephens 

and Ruth 2005, vanWagtendonk 1995).

Public wildfire policy continues to evolve, as managers 

advance their efforts to coordinate and improve wildfire 

response, prevention, and restoration of fire-adapted 

wildlands. Much work still remains to reduce fuels to 

those more closely matching the ecological fire loads 

of natural fire regimes depicted in Table 1, especially 

because biomass continues to accumulate (P. Langowski, 

personal communication).

WHERE WILDLANDS, HOUSING, AND FIRE CONVERGE

The Wildland-Urban Interface

T

he dynamic tension between the need for periodic fire 

to sustain wildland health in certain ecosystems and 

the need to minimize negative impacts to people and 

their homes from wildfire is most acute in the wildlandurban interface (WUI), where homes and wildlands 

meet or intermingle. Given that fire plays an ecological 

role in 94 percent of wildlands across the conterminous 

United States (USDA Forest Service 2012), we know 

that wildfire can and will eventually occur in most U.S. 

A National Cohesive Wildland Fire Management Strategy 

Under the guidance of the Wildland Fire Leadership Council, 

dozens of Federal, State, local, tribal, and non-governmental 

partners, as well as interested members of the public, 

are working on a strategy to guide the future of fire 

management across the United States. The council’s vision 

is “to safely and effectively extinguish fire when needed; use 

fire where allowable; manage our natural resources; and as 

a nation, to live with wildland fire.”

The strategy contains objectives and actions for each of 

three U.S. regions—Northeast, Southeast, and West. These 

include: 

• efficiently reducing wildfire hazards on lands bordering 

communities; 

• restoring and maintaining the structure, composition, and 

function of fire-dependent landscapes; and 

• improving the overall effectiveness of the wildland fire 

management organization. 

More information on this effort can be found at: http://

www.forestsandrangelands.gov/strategy/.

Gary Chancey, Black Hills National Forest / forestphoto.com

Close to 70 percent of the 9 million acres treated with 

prescribed fire from 2005 to 2010 were located in the 

Southeast (Gary Jarvis, U.S. Forest Service, Fire and Aviation 

Management, Fuels and Fire Ecology, personal communication). Larry Kohrnak / InterfaceSouthv
10 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-299.

wildlands. Therefore, homes located anywhere in the 

WUI will eventually be exposed to wildfire, regardless of 

vegetation type or potential for large fires.

What is the WUI and where is it located? There are 

many ways to answer this question (Blonski and others 

2010), depending in part on how specifically one defines 

WUI. One definition refers to the WUI as any area where 

“humans and their development meet or intermix with 

wildland fuel” (USDA Forest Service and others 2001). 

The map presented here (Fig. 2a) is based on a study 

(Radeloff and others 2005) that identified WUI more 

specifically as lands with more than one housing unit 

per 40 acres where wildlands dominate the landscape 

(referred to as intermix); and land with higher housing 

densities that are adjacent to natural areas (referred to as 

interface). In other words, homes in the intermix WUI 

are interspersed with vegetation, whereas homes in the 

interface WUI are grouped together and adjacent to areas 

with heavy vegetation (Fig. 2b). Figure 2a was built 

considering vegetation data, census data on housing12, 

and updated land ownership data as initially described in 

Radeloff and others (2005)13.

As depicted in Figure 2a, both intermix WUI (colored 

orange) and interface WUI (colored yellow), are found 

across the United States and are most prominent across 

much of the East, where most of the Nation’s population 

is found. Under the right conditions, homes in any of 

these WUI areas could be exposed to wildfire. So too, 

could homes in more lightly settled rural areas with 

considerable wildland vegetation (colored lighter green 

on the map). Since housing in these lighter green areas 

is sparse and scattered, housing density is not yet high 

enough to be considered WUI. However, with additional 

housing growth and no change in vegetation, light green 

areas could become WUI communities. Because these 

isolated homes are near or within wildlands, their owners 

must also be ready to respond to the risk of wildfire.

According to the Radloff and others (2005) study, about 

one-tenth of the land area occupied by housing and 

about one-third of all housing units (homes, apartment 

houses, condominiums, etc.) in the conterminous United 

States are located in the WUI14; if past trends continue, 

the WUI will continue to increase. From 1990 to 2000 

alone, the total WUI area in the United States increased 

by 18 percent, with the addition of more than 6 million 

12 Public lands are excluded from census blocks before housing and 

vegetation are assessed, to ensure that WUI classification captures 

even small human communities surrounded by public lands.

13 We used the same methods as described in the Radeloff and others 

2005 publication to produce Figure 2, but we updated the analysis 

based on the 2010 census data.

14 The remaining nine-tenths of land area occupied by housing, and 

two-thirds of housing units, are located in areas that are urban, or are 

too sparsely populated to be identified as WUI.

Kari Greer / US Forest Service

Mark D. Roper / US Forest Service Larry Kohrnak / InterfaceSouth

Examples of wildlandurban interface.
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-299. 11

Figure 2b. How Do We Define the 

WUI? In interface WUI wildlands are 

adjacent to housing developments, 

while in intermix WUI, houses and 

wildlands intermingle. Source: 

Dr. Volker Radeloff, University of 

Wisconsin, used with permission.

Figure 2a. Distribution of wildland-urban interface across the conterminous United States, 2010. Source: compiled by S.I. Stewart and V.C. Radeloff 

based on the 2010 census, the 2006 National Land Cover Dataset (NLCD), and the Protected Area Database v.1.1
12 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-299.

homes (Radeloff and others 2005). There are many 

factors behind WUI growth, including population growth; 

housing growth in areas with abundant natural amenities 

(such as forests, scenery, and wildlife); and population 

shifts from the long-developed Eastern United States 

to the still-growing West and South, where cities are 

expanding into their surrounding wildlands (Hammer 

and others 2009). “Baby-boom” retirement is just 

WUI Facts and Figures 

• In 2000, nearly a third of U.S. homes* (37 million) were 

located in the WUI (Radeloff and others 2005).

• More than two-thirds of all land in Connecticut is 

identified as WUI (Radeloff and others 2005). 

• California has more homes in WUI than any other 

State—3.8 million (Radeloff and others 2005). 

• Between 1990 and 2000, more than 1 million homes were 

added to WUI in California, Oregon, and Washington 

combined (Hammer and others 2007).

• WUI is especially prevalent in areas with natural 

amenities, such as the northern Great Lakes, the 

Missouri Ozarks, and northern Georgia (Stewart and 

others 2001).

• In the Rocky Mountains and the Southwest, virtually 

every urban area has a large ring of WUI, as a result 

of persistent population growth in the region that has 

generated medium and low-density housing in lowelevation forested areas (Hammer and others 2009).

* The research conducted for this and the other bullets in this 

box actually focused on “housing units,” which include homes, 

apartment buildings, and other human dwellings.

beginning and will likely reinforce the so-called amenity 

migration, as some retirees move to smaller, more rural 

communities close to scenic natural resources (Hammer 

and others 2009). Many Federal, State, and local agencies 

responsible for suppressing wildfires are concerned about 

such increases in the WUI because fire management 

and firefighting in these areas can be complicated and 

expensive, and resources for fire management are limited 

(NASF 2009).

Paul Ryan/US Fish and Wildlife Service

Smoke from approaching fire, JN ‘Ding’ Darling National 

Wildlife Refuge, Florida.

Waldo Canyon Fire, Colorado Springs, CO, 2012, where wildfire 

caused extensive damage in and near WUI neighborhoods.

Kari Greer/US Forest Service

NFPA Firewise Communities Program
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-299. 13

Variations in Wildfire Risk Across the Wildland-Urban 

Interface

Many homes in the wildland-urban interface are at risk 

of wildfire. However, the potential for economic damage 

from wildfires is higher in some areas than in others. As 

described in previous sections, wildland areas with certain 

climates, seasonal weather patterns, and vegetation types 

are more susceptible to wildfires than others. Similarly, 

wildfires occurring in certain vegetation types are likely 

to be more intense than others. Lastly, the pattern and 

density of housing in a WUI area can influence the level 

of economic damage resulting from a wildfire.

Identifying areas where total wildfire damages to 

structures may be highest can help Federal, State, 

and local government agencies identify priorities for 

hazardous fuel treatments and wildfire mitigation. The 

Calkin (Calkin and others 2010, 2011) and Haas (Haas 

and others, in review) analyses identified areas across the 

country where wildfire poses the greatest risk to people, 

their homes, and other valuable resources (including 

energy and recreation infrastructure, fire-susceptible 

species, and municipal watersheds). Estimates of risk 

were based on the probability that large wildfires would 

occur, the estimated intensity of future wildfires, and the 

likelihood that future wildfires would cause damage to 

residential homes (based on population density, proximity 

to roads, and other factors (Haas and others, in review).

The approach by Haas and others (in review) is illustrated 

in Figure 3. As depicted in this example, wildfire risk to 

structures and populations can vary considerably across 

!(

Low Moderate High

Low

Moderate

High

Based on: Haas JR, Thompson MP, Calkin DE & Finney MA. In review. Integrating wildfire simulation modeling into WUI risk assessment.

Wildfire Risk to Populated Places

!( !(

Population Density

Probability of a

Large Wi dl fire

Probability of a Large Wildfire Population Density Exposure to Populated Areas Wildfire Risk to Population Density

Low Moderate High

Population Density

Low

Moderate

P

High robability of a

Large Wi dl fire

Very Low

to None

Very Low

to None

L e g e n d f o r a l l M a p s

!( Major

City Roads

Background: Color Satellite Imagery

Ü 0 2 4 8 12 16

Miles

Figure 3. Example of how wildfire risk can be estimated for a wildland-urban interface area. One approach is to map an area’s population density 

(left) and the probability of large wildfire exposure (center), and then overlay the two layers (right). Source: Based on Haas and others (in review).

Karl Anderson, The Courier/AP photo
14 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-299.

a region and tends to be highest in areas where moderate 

population levels overlap with, or are close to, areas of 

wildland vegetation, and high potential wildfire exposure.

As will be discussed later in this report, potential wildfire 

damage to homes and other structures can be decreased 

by reducing wildland vegetation in and around high-risk 

areas, removing flammable vegetation directly around 

homes, and reducing the flammability of homes.

Structures Already Lost to Wildfire

Where in the WUI have homes and other structures 

already been destroyed? In order to answer this question, 

we analyzed data on structures burned that had been 

collected from 1999 to 2006 by an interagency group 

of Federal and State land management agencies for the 

purpose of emergency response management15.

As depicted in Figure 4, during 1999–2011, wildfires 

destroyed homes and other structures across the 

conterminous United States. Structures destroyed were 

located in or near a range of wildland vegetation types, 

from chaparral shrub lands of southern California, 

to grasslands of central Oklahoma, to the forests of 

Pennsylvania and Georgia, and the scrub lands of central 

Florida16.

Figure 4: Structures lost to wildfire 1999–2011. Data are limited to burned structures reported through the National Interagency Coordination Center 

database. Data source(s): Situation Report (SIT/209) (http://famtest.nwcg.gov/fam-web/help/famweb_data_warehouse/fdw_topic_areas/situation_

report_incident_status_summary_(sit_209).htm). Compiled and mapped by the Fire Modeling Institute, Fire, Fuel, and Smoke Program, U.S. Forest 

Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Missoula, MT, April 2012.

15 The data were collected by the Geographic Area Coordination 

Centers (GACC), an interagency group of Federal and State land 

management agencies created for the purpose of management and 

mobilization of resources to respond to emergency incidents such as 

wildfires, earthquakes, floods, hurricanes, and tornadoes (http://gacc.

nifc.gov/admin/about_us/about_us.htm). Data on structures burned 

and on latitude and longitude of the fire start are among the many 

types of information collected by GACC. The map itself was created 

by the U.S. Forest Service Fire Modeling Institute, in the Fire, Fuels, 

and Smoke Program of the Rocky Mountain Research Station.

16 The map depicted here only includes data collected by the GACC and 

does not include areas outside of the conterminous United States. 

Although wildfires do occur in U.S. States and territories outside the 

continental United States, few structures are lost compared to the 

conterminous United States.
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-299. 15

Connecting the Dots: How Housing Can Influence Wildfire 

Activity

Although vegetation type, climate, and other ecological 

factors have a strong influence over wildfire potential, 

people and their homes can also affect wildfire frequency, 

distribution, and suppression (Syphard and others 2007).

In general, the more houses and people, the more humancaused fire ignitions occur (Blonski and others 2010, 

Hammer and others 2007). From 2001 through 2011, an 

average of 85 percent of wildfires in the United States as 

recorded by the National Interagency Fire Center (NIFC) 

were caused by people (121,849 lightning-caused and 

717,527 human-caused) (Fig. 5). The two areas with 

the highest percentage of wildfires caused by humans 

are the Eastern (99 percent) and Southern (96 percent) 

areas. However, in terms of average annual number of 

acres burned by human-caused wildfires in 2001–2011, 

the Southern area is highest nationwide, with more than 

Figure 5. Regional distribution of lightningand human-caused wildfires, 2001–2011. 

In every region of the United States except 

the Eastern Great Basin and Western Great 

Basin, most wildfires are started by people. 

Source: National Interagency Coordination 

Center <http://www.nifc.gov/nicc/> 

Kari Greer / US Forest Service

0	
  

20	
  

40	
  

60	
  

80	
  

100	
  

120	
  

Alaska	
  

Northwest	
  

Northern	
  California	
  	
  

Southern	
  California	
  

Northern	
  Rockies	
  

Eastern	
  Great	
  Basin	
  

Western	
  Great	
  Basin	
  	
  

Southwest	
  

Rocky	
  Mountains	
  

Eastern	
  Area	
  	
  

Southern	
  Area	
  

Percent	
  

Regional	
  Distribu2on	
  of	
  Lightning-­‐	
  and	
  Human-­‐Caused	
  Wildfires,	
  

2001	
  -­‐	
  2011	
  

%	
  lightning	
  fires	
  

%	
  human	
  caused	
  fires	
  

Percentage of lightning fires in the Eastern Area is too low (1.4%) to show up on this graph.
16 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-299.

1 million acres, followed by the Southwest region, with 

about 380,000 acres of human-caused wildfires annually. 

Such findings are consistent with a recent report linking 

high population growth with the prevalence of humancaused fires in the South (Andreu and Hermansen-Baez 

2008).

The presence of homes can also increase the spread of 

a wildfire once it has started, in part because housing 

materials, such as wood shakes, can be highly flammable 

(Cohen 1999). A burning home is a major source for 

hot embers, which can travel through the air and help 

spread wildfires. The pattern of housing development also 

influences the spread and intensity of fire (Blonski and 

others 2010, ISO 1997).

CREATING FIRE-ADAPTED COMMUNITIES

G

iven that wildfires can occur in any wildland area; 

that the number of acres burned has been increasing; 

that the number of houses in the WUI is increasing; 

and that Federal, State, and local government fire 

suppression budgets are already strained—agencies are 

focusing more and more on promoting the concept of 

“fire-adapted” communities (NASF 2009). A fire-adapted 

community is “a knowledgeable and engaged community 

in which the awareness and actions of residents regarding 

infrastructure, buildings, landscaping, and the surrounding 

ecosystem lessen the need for extensive protection 

actions and enables the community to safely accept fire 

as a part of the surrounding landscape”17. Fire-adapted 

communities can also be thought of as those that are 

relatively “safer from the risk of brush, grass, and forest 

fires” (NFPA 2006).

The creation of a fire-adapted community is a proactive 

process that produces a community-wide pre-fire strategy, 

as well as actions, to reduce risks and thus costs (Leschak 

2010). In this way, communities do not rely solely on 

suppression activities for protection after a wildfire starts, 

but rather become less at-risk for damage to property 

and lives in the first place. To be successful, efforts to 

create and maintain a fire-adapted community must 

involve the entire community—including residents, 

government agencies, emergency responders, businesses, 

land managers, and others. Participants work together to 

remove fuels, reduce ignition sources, modify structures, 

prepare the larger landscape for fire, and build strong 

local response capability. Communities use codes and 

ordinances where possible, develop internal safety zones, 

build external fuel buffers, use prevention education, and 

form partnerships to address hurdles that can deter some 

people from participating in fire-risk reduction activities 

(Leschak 2010). This section explores some of these 

options in more detail. For additional information on fireadapted communities, visit the National Fire Protection 

Association Websites: http://www.nfpa.org, and www.

fireadapted.org.

Reducing the Risk—Prevention and Mitigation

One of the most effective ways to reduce the risk of 

damage to homes or property from a wildfire is to 

prevent an ignition in the first place. Communities 

with robust wildfire prevention programs are likely to 

have fewer human-caused ignitions, which occur most 

often unintentionally when kids play with matches or 

when people burn leaves or trash, toss cigarettes, leave 

campfires unattended, or drive through dry grass, for 

example. (See case study 1).

In addition to reducing human-caused ignitions, 

community wildfire prevention includes taking actions to 

protect homes and property from future wildfires. Such 

actions focus on modifying the vegetation in and around 

structures (Finney and Cohen 2003) and ensuring that all 

structures are constructed with fire-resistant materials.

Trees, shrubs, and other vegetation are removed or 

reduced from within and around a community to reduce 

the intensity and growth of future fires, and to create a 17 This is the definition used by Fire Adapted Communities Program of 

the U.S. Forest Service’s Fire and Aviation Management staff.

NFPA Firewise Communities Program
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-299. 17

relatively safe place for firefighters to control and contain 

wildfires. Vegetation is removed or reduced by using 

prescribed fires to burn the vegetation and/or by reducing 

the number of trees and other vegetation (mechanical or 

manual treatments). In a recent assessment, 90 percent 

of fuel treatment efforts conducted on national forests 

were found to be effective in reducing the intensity of 

wildfires (see Fuel Treatment Effectiveness box). Because 

vegetation continues to grow, mechanical and prescribed 

fire treatments must be repeated over time to keep fuels 

from accumulating. (See case study 2.)

Wildfire damage to most homes and structures is due 

to wind-borne embers igniting after landing on a roof 

or wooden deck, or blowing in through vents (Cohen 

1999, 2000). Ignitability of structures can be reduced 

if homeowners adopt actions collectively described as 

Firewise (www.firewise.org; see Community Education 

and Involvement Programs section later in this report); 

such actions promote the reduction of flammable 

vegetation and other wildfire hazards in the “ignition 

zone” around individual structures (also known as 

“defensible space”) and the use of fire-resistant building 

Wildfire prevention education efforts can be a particularly 

cost-effective way to limit damages from wildfires, in 

conjunction with prescribed fire and other actions to 

reduce fire risk. Between 2002 and 2007, the State of 

Florida spent an average of $500,000 annually on wildfire 

prevention education, including such activities as media 

efforts, homeowner visits, informational brochures and 

flyers, and presentations. During this time, the number of 

fires started accidently by people was reduced, thereby 

reducing costs for firefighting and damage compensation. 

The study’s authors suggested that for every dollar of 

increased spending on wildfire prevention education, 

some $35 in wildfire-related losses and suppression costs 

could be saved, a 35:1 benefit-to-cost ratio. While specific 

to Florida, the study strongly implies that educating the 

public about the dangers of accidentally igniting fires can 

lead to fewer wildfires and lower costs.

—Source: USDA Forest Service and others (2011).

CASE STUDY 1: COST-EFFECTIVE WILDFIRE PREVENTION EDUCATION IN FLORIDA

Jenn Viane Riese

One spark from a flying ember on a wood-shake roof could spell disaster. Homes with nonflammable roofing materials (such as metal or tile)—and those where debris is kept from 

collecting on the roof or in gutters—are likely to suffer less damage from a wildfire.

Beth Stein hauer/Black Hills National Forest

University of Nevada Cooperative Extension
18 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-299.

materials (including roofing, decks, and vents) (Nader and 

others 2007, NFPA 2006, Quarles and others 2010, BOF 

2006). Such proactive action on the part of homeowners 

is critical because when a wildfire occurs, it might 

be impossible for firefighters to reach and protect all 

individual properties, depending on the fire’s size and 

intensity and the availability of firefighting resources.

Homeowners in the Wildland-Urban Interface

In recent years a wealth of research on attitudes and 

behaviors of homeowners in the WUI, based on surveys 

of individual communities, provides useful insights to 

their varying levels of participation in and commitment to 

actions to reduce the risk of damage from wildfire, which 

can be due to a number of reasons related to motivation, 

means, and opportunity (Kent and others 2003, Reams 

and others 2005, Kocher 2011). Some findings include:

In recent years, visitors at many Georgia State parks, 

wildlife management areas, and other natural areas have 

had the opportunity to observe habitat restoration in 

progress as prescribed fires have been intentionally set 

in the forest understory. Conducted outside most plants’ 

active growing seasons, the burns are done to reduce 

fuel loads and to improve habitat for dozens of native 

plant and animal species by opening up overgrown areas. 

Each prescribed burn is planned, ignited, and monitored 

by a team of trained wildland fire specialists. In 2010, 

prescribed burns were conducted on more than 25,660 

acres in Georgia. 

Georgia Governor Nathan Deal signed a proclamation 

in 2011 to kick off Prescribed Fire Awareness Week, 

which recognizes prescribed fire as a safe way to apply 

a natural process that can be helpful for wildlife and 

people. Prescribed fire as a habitat management tool 

also is emphasized in Georgia’s Wildlife Action Plan, 

a comprehensive strategy that guides State efforts to 

conserve biological diversity. 

One major tree species that has benefitted from the 

prescribed fires is the longleaf pine, which today is found 

in a fraction of its historical range in the southeastern 

United States. A longleaf pine forest benefits a diversity 

of native animal species, including some threatened or 

endangered species in Georgia, such as the red-cockaded 

woodpecker, gopher tortoise, and eastern indigo snake. 

—Potts (2011)

CASE STUDY 2: FIRE ‘PRESCRIPTION’ FOR WILDLIFE AND LONGLEAF PINE IN GEORGIA

Longleaf pine forest in 

the Okefenokee Swamp, 

Georgia, provides habitat 

for the endangered redcockaded woodpecker.

Jim McCormac
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-299. 19

• Homeowner involvement varies. Awareness of wildfire 

risk has been an important factor in the decision of 

many homeowners to reduce wildfire risk on their 

properties (McCaffrey and others 2011), and most 

homeowners in areas of high wildfire risk have 

undertaken some type of defensible space activity 

(McCaffrey 2009). However, the level and nature 

of effort ranges widely, from small-scale actions to 

fire-proof homes, to extensive fuels treatment actions 

(Brenkert and others 2006). Ninety-one percent of 

WUI residents interviewed in California, where 

defensible space ordinances are in place, have lowered 

fire risk by removing flammable vegetation from their 

property, while less than 50 percent of residents in 

Florida and Michigan had done this action (Vogt and 

others 2005).

• Individual motivations vary. According to one survey, 

motivating factors for some individuals included 

friends and family, regulation, and the desire to clear 

property for building; for others, these factors were 

less important than agency outreach, influence of 

community leaders and homeowner associations, and 

government programs (McCaffrey and others 2011). 

Most homeowners do think that managing vegetation 

on their property to create defensible space is their 

Fuel Treatment Effectiveness

Between 2006 and 2011, about 600 assessments were 

completed by the Forest Service on wildfires that burned 

into areas where hazardous fuels reduction treatments had 

previously been conducted (USDA Forest Service 2011a). 

These assessments evaluated the effects of prescribed 

fire as well as mechanical and chemical treatments on fire 

behavior and fire suppression actions. The data indicate 

that 90 percent of treatments reported in the database 

have helped to reduce wildfire intensity, allowing better 

control by firefighters. In most of these cases, as fires 

moved from untreated locations to areas treated by 

thinning, mowing, or prescribed burning, the fire behavior 

changed from active crown fires (burning an entire upper 

story of the forest) to passive crown fires (where only a 

single tree or small group of trees burned), or from passive 

crown fires to surface fires (burning only dry grass, shrubs, 

pine needles, and other flammable materials on the 

ground). Although proven effective for fire control in certain 

situations, fuel treatments must be carefully planned, with 

consideration of local ecological conditions, forest types, 

and wildfire conditions (DellaSalla and others 2004, USDA 

Forest Service 2011a).

Fuel treatments can slow the spread of wildfire and diminish 

wildfire intensity. The speed and intensity of the wildfire 

spreading downslope through the untreated forest along the 

top of this ridge were reduced dramatically when the wildfire 

entered the treated area (center of photo). This helped to save 

the 40 homes located at the bottom of the ridge.

Kari Greer / US Forest Service

NFPA Firewise Communities Program

“Defensible space” or reduced-hazard “home ignition zone” 

refers to the area around a house or other structure where 

vegetation has been significantly modified or removed to 

reduce the risk of damage from wildfire (see, for example, NFPA 

2006, BOF 2006). For fire-resistant landscaping ideas and lists 

of desirable plant attributes see Doran et al. 2004, NFPA 2006, 

White and Zipperer 2010, and www.interfacesouth.org.

NFPA Firewise Communities Program
20 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-299.

personal responsibility (McCaffrey and others 2011, 

Winter and others 2009). The presence of social 

networks within communities as well as between 

communities and various government agencies seems 

to increase the likelihood that a community will adopt 

wildfire mitigation actions (Jakes and others 2007, as 

cited in McCaffrey 2011).

• Perceptions of risk vary. Some homeowners tend to 

estimate the risk of wildfire damage to their own 

homes and property as being lower than the estimated 

wildfire risk elsewhere in their immediate area, in part 

because they may have taken at least some mitigation 

actions (McCaffrey 2008). A survey of WUI residents 

in Colorado, for example, indicated that although 

wildfire risk was acknowledged as an important issue 

and some safety measures had been adopted, most 

people had not engaged in fuels treatment activities 

in part because they saw no need to take that level of 

action until actually faced with a wildfire (Brenkert 

and others 2006).

• Time, resources, and knowledge can be limited. Some 

of the greatest barriers to action include the lack of 

time, money, assistance, and technical knowledge, 

as well as homeowner perceptions of costs and labor 

requirements (Hodgson 1995). Additionally, many 

homeowners have difficulty disposing of vegetation 

cleared to create defensible space (Winter and others 

2009). To address such limitations, some communities 

provide free home inspections and free or cost-shared 

clearing, chipping, and disposal of debris (Reams and 

others 2005). (See case study 3.)

• Feelings towards regulations are mixed. Most 

homeowners prefer not to have mandatory regulations, 

although some see a role for government and insurance 

companies in requiring vegetation management to 

reduce the risk of wildfire damage, particularly when 

other policies and approaches have not been successful 

(Winter and others 2009). Homeowners are most likely 

to comply with risk-reduction guidelines and other 

rules if they see the guidelines as fair, if they trust the 

sources (Vogt and others 2005), and if they see their 

actions as part of a larger efforts involving fire-safe 

building codes and zoning/planning practices that 

discourage development in high-risk areas (Winter and 

others 2009, Monroe and others 2004).

• Aesthetic preferences can help or hinder. Although 

some homeowners enjoy the look of wildfire-resistant 

landscaping (such as minimal trees or selection of 

certain types of shrubs and other vegetation) (Winter 

and others 2009), others reject such actions for 

aesthetic and privacy reasons (Daniel and others 

2003, Kent and others 2003, Nelson and others 

2003, Brenkert and others 2006, Winter and others 

2009). Studies have noted that some homeowners 

would rather make structural changes to their homes 

than make landscape changes they find unattractive 

(Brenkert and others 2006).

• Conflicts with best management practices. In areas 

where vegetation removal can lead to increased 

erosion, creating safer home ignition zones can be 

problematic because they sometimes conflict with 

local “best management practices” (BMPs) for soil 

and water protection. For example, residents of one 

community indicated that their State department 

of environmental quality guidelines prohibited the 

removal of vegetation over a certain size (Winter and 

others 2009).

• Conflicts with homeowner association restrictions. In 

the past, some homeowner associations restricted tree 

removal, dictated that roofs have wood shingles, or 

mandated certain kinds of vegetation for aesthetics, 

despite the potential fire hazard. Much progress has 

been made in this area, however, and most homeowner 

associations no longer have such clauses; some now 

require vegetation management to reduce fire risk (S. 

McCaffrey, personal communication). In one case, the 

State of Colorado passed a law to forbid homeowner 

associations from interfering with the rights of 

homeowners to create defensible space or install nonflammable roofing (General Assembly of the State of 

Colorado 2005).

Preparing Homes and Neighborhoods: Examples and 

Resources for Planners and Homeowners

Whether planning new developments, working to make 

existing developments and homes safer, or sharing 

information about what to do before, during, and after a 

wildfire, many resources are available for homeowners 

and community decision makers. Such resources typically 

fall into two general categories: community education 

and involvement programs, and community planning 
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-299. 21

and development options. A few specific examples are 

presented below to give a flavor of the wealth of detailed 

information that is available. In addition to resources and 

Websites noted here, see also: Blonski and others 2010, 

NACo (2010), Schwab and Meck (2005), and Southern 

Group of State Foresters (no date); or visit the American 

Planning Association Website at http://www.planning.org/

resources/, and Interface South at www.interfacesouth.

org.

Community Education/Involvement Programs

Involving communities in educational programs about 

fire safety is preferred by many homeowners over 

regulatory programs (Ryan and others 2006) and can also 

increase support for fuels treatments on nearby wildlands 

(Winter and Fried 2000). Successful public education 

programs are designed to reflect local values, foster 

neighbor contact (Sturtevant and McCaffrey 2006), and 

clearly state who is responsible for specific actions: land 

management agencies, other community entities, and/or 

landowners. In this way, fire mitigation becomes a true 

community effort (Kent and others 2003).

Key Ingredients for Education Programs

• Publications on hazard reduction, fire protection and 

safety, landscaping, fire-resistant plants (White and 

Zipperer 2010), and defensible space are geared to 

specific geographical areas (Reams and others 2005); 

they not only provide “how to” information but also 

explain why a particular intervention is important, as 

well as the likely impacts of the recommended action 

(Monroe and others 2004).

• Varied educational approaches and information 

pathways meet differing learning styles (Monroe 

and others 2004)—including the Internet, printed 

brochures, local community meetings, and materials 

The Maine Forest Service (MFS) offers a full meal deal 

when it comes to reducing the risk that a wildland fire 

might damage or destroy homes in its rapidly growing 

wildland-urban interface. Its WUI program includes 

everything a homeowner might need to be safer from 

wildfire: from conducting assessments of individual or 

community risk, to making recommendations for creating 

defensible space around a home, to providing DVDs and 

other educational materials online and in schools and 

communities; they even offer a free chipping service 

for getting rid of the branches and brush removed to 

reduce potential fuels. It’s not a small undertaking in 

the Nation’s most forested state, one that experiences 

upward of 700 wildfires annually. A third of those fires 

threaten structures—including those associated with 

dense housing development in forested areas, and those 

located on its coastal islands, where additional challenges 

of response time, road access, and limited resources 

complicate firefighting. The program got started in 

2003, with a statewide assessment strategy and more 

than a dozen community risk assessments conducted by 

AmeriCorps employees. Today Maine’s forest rangers 

collaborate with a non-governmental organization, the 

Island Institute, to conduct assessments, which then feed 

into the development of a community wildfire protection 

plan (CWPP). New in recent years is a “LakeSmart and 

FireWise” program to help educate lake and shorefront 

property owners on how they, too, can create defensible 

space while complying with zoning laws related to 

shoreline vegetation protection. See the details at http://

www.maine.gov/doc/mfs/ , or read a summary of the 

program at http://www.wildfireprograms.usda.gov/index.

html.

CASE STUDY 3: FROM SOUP TO NUTS: MAINE FOREST SERVICE TAKES A COMPREHENSIVE APPROACH 

Maine Forest Service
22 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-299.

for local schools; as well as a variety of information 

distributers such as extension agents, stores, landscape 

architects, and real estate agents (Monroe and others 

2004). For example, homeowners in one survey 

expressed a preference for receiving information 

about WUI policies via written communication sent 

through the mail, rather than advertisements, Internet, 

or signage (Winter and others 2009); participants in 

a different survey indicated that their best source of 

information on current wildfire risk was from roadside 

signs (McCaffrey 2008).

• Media attention helps to heighten understanding of the 

need for wildfire protection and planning (Reams and 

others 2005).

• Targeted materials are created specifically for local 

school teachers and students, including computer 

interactive materials (Reams and others 2005).

• Personal interaction includes conversations with agency 

employees, elementary school programs, guided 

field trips, and public meetings that truly engage all 

participants (Toman and Shindler 2006).

• Hands-on, practical assistance is offered to homeowners, 

appropriate for their individual properties (Brenkert 

and others 2006), including one-on-one consultation by 

trained personnel (Winter and others 2009).

• Materials and approaches reflect the attitudes, beliefs, 

and perceptions of homeowners. For example, 

landowners who value wildlife viewing might be 

more likely to adopt wildfire mitigation measures if 

materials explain the benefits of defensible space to 

wildlife viewing (Monroe and others 2004).

Larry Kohrnak / InterfaceSouth Larry Kohrnak / InterfaceSouth

What do homeowners need to know? 

In addition to information on reducing hazards in home 

ignition zones, homeowners also need to know that: 

• Once an area is ordered to evacuate from a wildfire, 

there is no time for homeowners to conduct last-minute 

mitigation efforts, such as emergency fuels treatments 

(Brenkert and others 2006).

• Wildfire mitigation is not an-all-or-nothing task; a series of 

small and large-scale treatments can be implemented over 

time (Brenkert and others 2006). 

• Vegetation management (such as prescribed burning or 

tree removal) must be a continuous effort and not a onetime activity (McCaffrey and others 2011).

US Fish and Wildlife Service Southeast Region
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-299. 23

Firewise Communities Program

Firewise Communities is a program of the National Fire 

Protection Association (NFPA) and is supported by the 

U.S. Forest Service, the Department of the Interior, and 

the National Association of State Foresters. The goal of 

the Firewise Communities Program is to encourage local 

solutions for wildfire safety by involving homeowners, 

community leaders, planners, developers, firefighters, and 

others in creating fire-adapted communities. A cornerstone 

of Firewise is the development of wildfire hazard 

mitigation plans; formal, national recognition as a Firewise/

USA community; and creation of defensible space.

Communities benefit from national recognition in a number 

of ways: they get organizational help, connect with experts 

to learn about fire risk and mitigation, attain peace of 

mind from knowing what to do and how to do it, foster 

community-building as neighbors meet and work together, 

gain pride in achieving national recognition for their efforts, 

engender publicity that brings attention to the community’s 

achievement and spreads the word to others, and receive 

access to funding and assistance (http://www.firewise.org). 

Since starting with 12 pilot communities in 2002, more 

than 700 communities now participate in 40 States.

The NFPA Firewise Communities Program also provides 

a wealth of educational tools through its Website (http://

www.firewise.org) and a free online catalogue of print 

and audiovisual materials. Sections of the Website include 

publications, interactive models, research reports, courses 

and training, Firewise discussion templates, presentations, 

and videos. One publication of particular interest to 

developers is Safer from the Start: A Guide to FirewiseFriendly Developments (NFPA 2009). The Firewise goal 

for its educational outreach: “to teach people how to adapt 

to living with wildfire and encourage neighbors to work 

together and take action now to prevent losses.”

Ready, Set, Go!

The Ready, Set, Go! Program is sponsored by the 

International Association of Fire Chiefs and the U.S. Forest 

Service. This collaborative process is intended to help fire 

departments encourage local citizens to create fire-adapted 

communities, through wildfire safety messages and training 

for emergency response preparedness.

Career and volunteer fire departments use the term 

“ready” to teach the defensible space message promoted 

by Firewise; “set” to educate the public about situational 

awareness during a fire; and “go” to prepare people 

for a safe and speedy evacuation. Designed to improve 

coordination and communication between emergency 

response agencies and communities, Ready, Set, Go! 

builds partnerships and helps communities clarify and 

refine priorities to protect life, property, infrastructure, 

and other valued resources. This program is unique in 

that it focuses on life safety aspects and preparedness to 

evacuate homes and neighborhoods. The program began 

in 2009 with 9 pilot fire departments; by 2011 nearly 400 

fire departments across the country were participating. 

Visit: http://www.wildlandfirersg.org/.

A Sampler of Other Educational Resources

Numerous Western States have developed local programs 

and resources that would be useful in promoting fireadapted communities elsewhere in the country as well. 

Here are a few examples:

Fire Safe Council—This California-based organization 

provides resources for establishing and maintaining local 

fire safe councils (FSC), including a media handbook, 

a communications manual, and a newsletter, as well as 

grant-writing workshops and brochures for homeowners. 

Visit http://www.firesafecouncil.org .

NFPA Firewise Communities Program
24 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-299.

Living with Fire—This program from Nevada focuses 

on living more safely in high fire hazard locations. It 

offers a consistent set of guidelines for homeowners, 

teaching how to safely coexist with wildfire before, 

during, and after it occurs. Visit http://www.

livingwithfire.info/.

Take Responsibility—This campaign was created by 

the California Fire Alliance to encourage homeowners 

in the WUI to create and maintain 100 feet of defensible 

space around structures. Download resources at http://

takeresponsibility.cafirealliance.com .

Community Planning and Development Resources

Key Ingredients for Effective Planning

While individual homeowner actions are essential to 

reduce the potential for wildfire damage to property, it 

is also critical that entire communities work together at 

the broader planning and development scale. A study of 

15 communities across the United States at high risk for 

wildfires revealed the following four factors to consider 

when planning for development and when designing 

community wildfire preparedness efforts (Jakes and 

others 2007):

• Landscape. Level of fire risk, location of a community, 

and the attachment of community members to the 

land, can all influence community members to take on 

wildfire preparedness measures.

• Government. In each community surveyed, 

government leadership and involvement (in the 

provision of funds, equipment, and expertise) were 

critical to community wildfire preparedness.

• Citizens. The ability of citizens to apply their 

knowledge and skills of local conditions and practices 

was also an important factor.

• Community. The existence of community and regional 

groups, such as neighborhood associations and 

collaborative groups working across a watershed or 

region, can strengthen wildfire preparedness efforts.

Community Wildfire Protection Plans

Community wildfire protection plans (CWPPs), 

encouraged by the Healthy Forests Restoration Act 

of 2003 (HFRA), provide a framework to identify 

and reduce wildfire risk and promote healthier forests 

(Jakes and others 2011). Such plans can be as simple 

or complex as a community desires (provided they 

contain the key features listed below) and are meant to 

reflect local social and ecological contexts (Jakes and 

others 2011, Schwab 2005). In some cases local citizens 

organize to take responsibility; in others, a homeowners 

association or a community Fire Safe Council takes 

the lead; in still others, particularly those with limited 

resources, State or Federal agencies can play a critical 

role in initiating the CWPP process (Jakes and others 

2011). (See case study 4.)

The National Association of State Foresters (NASF) 

estimates that nearly 6,000 communities nationwide 

had developed and implemented CWPPs by 2009, but 

these accounted for less than 10 percent of the nearly 

70,000 communities identified by NASF as being at-risk 

(Jakes and others 2011). Although communities often 

face shortages of financial, social, or political resources 

that can deter proactive actions such as developing 

CWPPs, some have reported that the CWPP process 

itself actually helped communities build their capacity 

to leverage resources and relationships, enabling them 

to tackle other projects (Jakes and others 2011). In a 

study of 13 communities that had developed CWPPs, 

some reported that the CWPP process helped reinforce 

public attitudes supporting fire planning efforts that 

were already in place before the planning process, while 

others noted that the planning process changed attitudes 

and built support for fire management (Jakes and others 

2011).

Key features of a community wildfire protection plan 

(SAF 2004) include:

(1) Collaboration,

(2) Identification and prioritization of areas for fuel 

reduction activities, and

(3) Taking steps to treat ignitability of structures.

For more information, download a handbook at: http://

www.stateforesters.org/files/cwpphandbook.pdf .
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-299. 25

Located in southwestern Oregon, Douglas County 

includes more than 5,000 square miles of land at high 

risk of wildfire, stretching from the Pacific Coast to the 

Cascade Mountains. More than half the land in the county 

is managed by the U.S. Forest Service or Bureau of Land 

Management.

In 2004 and 2005, the Douglas County Board of 

Commissioners directed the county planning department 

to develop community wildfire protection plans (CWPPs) 

for its at-risk communities. The resulting plans—which 

include an overall plan for the county and smaller plans 

for each of the 30 identified at-risk communities—provide 

a model of how a large county with multiple at-risk 

communities can structure a cohesive plan.

The CWPPs were developed according to Healthy Forest 

Restoration Act (HFRA) guidelines. The core team 

included wildfire specialists from the Douglas Forest 

Protective Association, Bureau of Land Management, 

Umpqua National Forest, Douglas County Sheriff, 

Office of Emergency Management, and Douglas County 

Planning Department. The team’s risk assessment 

identified fuel reduction areas for each community, 

prioritized fuel reduction strategies, and developed plans 

to reduce wildfire hazards around each at-risk community. 

Each community then identified the specific areas where it 

wanted fuel reduction treatment to occur.

A key feature of the project was the development of action 

items to reduce structure ignitability and to help people 

protect themselves and their homes. These included:

√ Educating homeowners about defensible space and fireresistant materials; 

√ Seeking assistance for homeowners to implement 

defensible space activities; 

√ Promoting existing education and outreach programs 

such as Firewise, and developing other community 

education programs; and

√ Training volunteer firefighters to assist paid firefighters. 

—Source: National Database of State and Local 

Wildfire Hazard Mitigation Programs, http://www.

wildfireprograms.usda.gov/index.html. 

CASE STUDY 4: COMMUNITY PLANNING AND WILDFIRE PROTECTION PLANS IN OREGON Clakamas County, Oregon

Jefferson County, Oregon
26 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-299.

Zoning Ordinances and Codes

Local ordinances and codes can be an important element 

of community preparedness and protection in fireprone areas (Dombeck and others 2004, Schwab and 

Meck 2005). These can include mandatory defensible 

space standards, wildfire review processes for planned 

developments, subdivision regulations, development 

plan standards, real-estate disclosure of wildfire hazard 

zones, and insurance incentives for reducing risks in 

home ignition zones (Blonski and others 2010, Reams and 

others 2005, Schwab and Meck 2005). (See case study 

5.) Typically, a hazard or risk is identified before zonings 

and codes are put in place. Blonski and others (2010) 

provides a helpful overview of accepted threat assessment 

methods.

A suite of codes and standards from the National 

Fire Protection Association can help a community 

address wildland fire. These include NFPA 1141, 

Standard for Fire Protection Infrastructure for Land 

Development in Wildland, Rural, and Suburban Areas, 

which provides recommendations for planning fire 

protection infrastructure for new developments in a 

community; and NFPA 1144, Standard for Reducing 

Structure Ignition Hazards from Wildland Fire, which 

covers minimum design, construction, and landscaping 

elements for structures in the WUI (http://www.nfpa.

org/catalog/). Additionally, the International Code 

Council has developed international codes, or I-Codes, 

providing minimum safeguards in a number of areas. The 

International Wildland Urban Interface Code (ICC 2008) 

contains provisions addressing fire spread, accessibility, 

defensible space, water supply, and other considerations 

for buildings constructed near wildland areas (http://www.

iccsafe.org/).

River Bluff Ranch, a community developed in 

Spokane, WA, built Firewise-friendly elements into its 

infrastructure and guiding documents or covenants. The 

covenants include access requirements for firefighting and 

evacuation, including paved two-lane roads, secondary 

evacuation roads, and a network of forest roads. Also 

required are underground utilities; a series of non-potablewater storage tanks with dry hydrants (non-pressurized 

pipe systems); and fire-resistant roofing, double-paned 

windows, deep side yard setbacks, defensible space, and 

vegetation maintenance. The covenants further require 

that the community’s homeowners’ association enforce 

the covenants, educate the residents, maintain the roads 

and water storage facilities, manage an ongoing forest 

stewardship program, and implement the recommended 

Firewise Communities budget (in 2009, $2 per person) to 

be used for future Firewise efforts. 

—excerpted from NFPA (2009)

CASE STUDY 5: FIREWISE-FRIENDLY DEVELOPMENT: RIVER BLUFF RANCH, WASHINGTON Steve Wallin / Windermere Real Estate
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-299. 27

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

A

lthough wildfire has been and will continue to 

be fundamental to the ecological health of many 

wildland areas, wildfires can harm people and their 

homes, especially when weather, vegetation, and terrain 

create extreme conditions, and when communities are 

unprepared. People who live in the wildland-urban 

interface or WUI in particular may face increasing 

risk and property damage from wildfires of all sizes in 

coming decades. From 1990 to 2000 alone, the WUI 

increased by 18 percent and is expected to increase 

further in the years ahead. Homes and other structures 

across the United States, in a wide range of vegetation 

types from forests to shrub lands and grasslands, have 

already been lost to wildfire. Numerous opportunities 

are available for planners, developers, and others to help 

WUI communities adapt to wildfire through education, 

planning, and mitigation activities that can help limit 

the number of ignitions, reduce flammable vegetation, 

create Firewise homes, and thereby establish fire-adapted 

communities.

As with previous Forests on the Edge reports and 

other national assessments, the findings of this report 

derive from data available at a national level and may 

not precisely describe projections for all individual 

locations. Nonetheless, our findings can provide a useful 

tool for decreasing the potential for wildfire damage to 

homes, and for increasing the number of fire-adapted 

communities across the country.

ACKNOWLEGEMENTS

W

e would like to acknowledge the many reviewers 

who helped to strengthen this report through their 

invaluable and detailed feedback. Reviewers from 

the U.S. Forest Service include: Pam Jakes and Sara 

McCaffrey, Northern Research Station; Paul Langowski, 

Rocky Mountain Region; Jane Smith, Rocky Mountain 

Research Station; Wayne Zipperer, Southern Research 

Station; and Dana Coelho, located with the Western 

Forestry Leadership Coalition. Additional reviewers 

located in or attached to the Forest Service State and 

Private Forestry Deputy Area in Washington, DC, include: 

Ted Beauvais, Gary Jarvis, Rich Lasko, Pam Leschak, and 

Borys Tkacz.

We also greatly appreciate the thoughtful input and 

suggestions provided by the following people from 

outside the Forest Service: Marty Ahrens, National Fire 

Protection Association; Carol Rice, Wildland Resource 

Management, Inc.; Jim Schwab, American Planning 

Association; and Michele Steinberg, National Fire 

Protection Association.

We also thank the staff of the Rocky Mountain Research 

Station for their critical support. Greg Dillon of the Fire, 

Fuel, and Smoke Science Program produced the Historical 

Natural Fire Regime map. The Publications Services staff 

provided design and layout expertise. David Calkin and 

Jennifer Haas provided invaluable feedback and produced 

risk maps for our potential use; we greatly appreciate their 

important and challenging work in wildfire risk mapping.

REFERENCES

Abt, K.L.; Prestemon, J.P.; Gebert, K.M. 2009. Wildfire 

suppression cost forecasts for the US Forest Service.

Journal of Forestry.107 (4): 173–178.

Agee, J.K. 1998. The landscape ecology of western 

forest fire regimes. Northwest Science. 72(special 

issue): 24–34.

Ahrens, M. 2010. Brush, grass, and forest fires. Quincy, 

MA: NFPA Fire Analysis and Research. 47 p.

It’s the Code!

Many rural counties throughout the Western United States 

are adopting what they call the “Code of the West”—an 

advisory letter informing people about what it takes to live in 

the country. In the category called Mother Nature, the Code 

as adopted recently by commissioners in Stevens County, MT, 

advises: 

“The physical characteristics of your property can be positive 

and negative. Trees are a wonderful environmental amenity, 

but can also involve your home in a forest fire. Building at the 

top of a forested draw should be considered as dangerous as 

building in a flash flood area. ‘Defensible perimeters’ are very 

helpful in protecting buildings from forest fire and inversely 

can protect the forest from igniting if your house catches on 

fire. If you start a forest fire, you are responsible for paying 

for the cost of extinguishing that fire” (Henneman 2011). 

While these “codes” are neither universal nor enforceable, 

they indicate that some Western residents are concerned 

about growth in their communities and aware of the 

challenges from wildfire that accompany life in the wildlandurban interface.
28 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-299.

Anderson, L. 2001. Terrestrial wildlife and habitat. 

In: National Wildfire Coordinating Group, Fire Use 

Working Team, ed. Fire effects guide, chapter VII. 

NFES 2394. Boise, ID: National Interagency Fire 

Center: 141–165. http://www.nwcg.gov/pms/RxFire/

FEG.pdf. (21 April 2011).

Andreu, A.; Hermansen-Baez, A. 2008. Fire in the 

South 2: the southern wildfire risk assessment.

Asheville, NC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Southern Research Station. 30 p. http://www.

southernwildfirerisk.com/reports/FireInTheSouth2.pdf. 

(17 February 2009).

Barrett, S.; Havlina, D.; Jones, J.; Hann, W.; Frame, C.; 

Hamilton, D.; Schon, K.; Demeo, T.; Hutter, L.; and 

Menakis, J. 2010. Interagency fire regime condition 

class guidebook. Version 3.0 [Homepage of the 

Interagency Fire Regime Condition Class Website, 

USDA Forest Service, U.S. Department of the Interior, 

and The Nature Conservancy]. http://www.frcc.gov. 

(29 February 2012).

Barnett, T.P.; Adam, J.C.; Lettenmaier, D.P. 2005. 

Potential impacts of a warming climate on water 

availability in snow-dominated regions. Nature. 438: 

303–309.

Blonski, K.; Miller, C.; Rice, C. 2010. Managing fire 

in the urban wildland interface. Point Arena, CA: 

Solano Press Books. 385 p.

BOF. 2006. See State Board of Forestry and Fire 

Protection.

Brenkert, H.B.; Champ, P.A.; Flores, N. 2006. Insights 

into wildfire mitigation decisions among wildlandurban interface residents. Society and Natural 

Resources. 19: 759–768.

Brown, J.K. 2000. Introduction and fire regimes.

In: Brown, J.K.; Smith, J.K. 2000. Wildland fire 

in ecosystems: effects of fire on flora. Gen. Tech. 

Rep. RMRS-GTR-42. Volume 2. Ogden, UT: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky 

Mountain Research Region: 1–7.

Brown, J.K.; Smith, J.K. 2000. Wildland fire in 

ecosystems: effects of fire on flora. Gen. Tech. 

Rep. RMRS-GTR-42. Volume 2. Ogden, UT: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky 

Mountain Research Region. 256 p.

Brown, T.J.; Hall, B.L.; Westerling, A.L. 2004. The 

impact of twenty-first century climate change on 

wildland fire danger in the western United States: 

an applications perspective. Climate Change. 62: 

365–388.

Burton, T.A. 2005. Fish and stream habitat risks 

from uncharacteristic wildfire: observations 

from 17 years of fire-related disturbances on the 

Boise National Forest, Idaho. Forest Ecology and 

Management. 211: 140–149.

Butry, D.T.; Mercer, D.E.; Prestamon, J.P.; Pye, J.M.; 

Holmes, T.P. 2001. What is the price of catastrophic 

wildfire? Journal of Forestry. 99(11): 9–17.

California Climate Change Center. 2006. Our changing 

climate: assessing the risks to California. Summary 

Report CEC-500-2006-077. 16 p. http://cal-adapt.org/

fire/. (05 November 2012).

Calkin, D.; Ager, A.; Gilbertson-Day, J.; Scott, J.; Finney, 

M.; Schrader-Patton, C.; Quigley, T.; Strittholt, J.; 

Kaiden, J. 2010. Wildland fire risk and hazard: 

procedures for the first approximation. Gen. 

Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-235. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky 

Mountain Research Station. 62 p. http://treesearch.

fs.fed.us/pubs/34643. (20 February 2012).

Calkin, D.E.; Ager, A.A.; Thompson, M.P.; Finney, M.A.; 

Lee, D.C.; Quigley, T.M.; McHugh, C.W.; Riley, 

K.L.; Gilbertson-Day, J.M. 2011. A comparative 

risk assessment framework for wildland fire 

management: the 2010 cohesive strategy science 

report. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-262. Fort 

Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 64 p.

Chepesiuk, R. 2001. Wildfires ignite concern. 

Environmental Health Perspectives. 109(8): A364.

Cohen, J. 1999. Reducing the wildland fire threat to 

homes: where and how much? Proceedings of the 

symposium on fire economics, planning and policy: 

bottom lines. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR-173. Albany, 

CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Pacific Southwest Research Center. 188 p.

Cohen, J.D. 2000. Preventing disaster: home 

ignitability in the wildland-urban interface. Journal 

of Forestry. 98(3): 15–21.
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-299. 29

Dale, V.H.; Joyce, L.A.; McNulty, S.; Neilson, R.P.; 

Ayres, M.P.; Flannigan, M.D.; Hanson, P.J.; Irland 

L.C.; Lugo, A.E.; Peterson, C.J.; Simberloff, D.; 

Swanson, F.J.; Stocks, B.J.; Wotton, B.M. 2001. 

Climate change and forest disturbances. BioScience. 

51: 723–734.

Daniel, T.C.; Weidemann, E.; Hines, D. 2003. Assessing 

public tradeoffs between fire hazard and scenic 

beauty in the wildland-urban interface. In: Jakes, 

P.J., comp. Homeowners, communities, and wildfire: 

science findings from the National Fire Plan. St. Paul, 

MN: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

North Central Research Station: 36–44.

D’Antonio, C.M.; Vitousek, P.M. 1992. Biological 

invasions by exotic grasses, the grass/fire cycle, 

and global change. Annual Review of Ecology and 

Systematics. 23. P. 63–87.

DellaSala, D.A.; Williams, J.E.; Williams, C.D.; Franklin, 

J.F. 2004. Beyond smoke and mirrors: a synthesis 

of fire policy and science. Conservation Biology. 18: 

976–986.

Dombeck, M.P.; Williams, J.E.; Wood, C.A. 2004. 

Wildfire policy and public lands: integrating 

scientific understanding with social concerns across 

landscapes. Conservation Biology. 18(4): 883–889.

Donovan, G.H.; Brown, T.C. 2007. Be careful what you 

wish for: the legacy of Smokey Bear. Frontiers of 

Ecology and Environment. 5(2):73–79.

Donovan, G.H.; Champ, P.A.; Butry, D.T. 2007. Wildfire 

risk and housing prices: a case study from Colorado 

Springs. Land Economics. 83(2): 217–233.

Finney, M.A.; Cohen, J.D. 2003. Expectation and 

evaluation of fuel management objectives. In: Omi, 

P.N.; Joyce, L.A., tech eds. Proceedings of fire, fuel 

treatments, and ecological restoration, 16–18 April 

2002, Ft. Collins, CO. Proc. RMRS-P-29. Fort Collins, 

CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Rocky Mountain Research Station: 353–366.

Franklin, J.F.; VanPelt, R. 2004. Spatial aspects of 

structural complexity in old-growth forests. Journal 

of Forestry. 102(3): 22–28.

Fried, J.S.; Torn, M.S.; Mills, E. 2004. The impact of 

climate change on wildfire severity: a regional 

forecast for northern California. Climate Change. 

64: 169–191.

Gebert, K.M.; Calkin, D.E.; Yoder, J. 2007. Estimating 

suppression expenditures for individual large 

wildland fires. Western Journal of Applied Forestry. 

22: 188–196.

General Assembly of the State of Colorado. 2005. 

Concerning increased protection for homeowners. 

Senate Bill 05-100. http://www.leg.state.co.us/

clics2005a/csl.nsf/fsbillcont3/4A8A31E83C8090AF87

256F3A006A0FCD?open&file=100_enr.pdf. (13 April 

2011).

Gresswell, R.E. 1999. Fire and aquatic ecosystems in 

forested biomes of North America. Transactions of 

the American Fisheries Society. 128: 193–221.

Gruell, G.E. 1983. Fire and vegetative trends in the 

Northern Rockies: interpretations from 1971-1982 

photographs. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-158. Ogden, 

UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Intermountain Forest and Range Experimental Station. 

117 p.

Haas, J.R.; Thompson, M.P.; Calkin, D.E.; Finney, 

M.A. [In review]. Integrating wildfire simulation 

modeling for risk assessment in the wildland urban 

interface. Submitted to International Journal of 

Wildland Fire.

Hammer, R.B.; Radeloff, V.C.; Freid, J.S.; Stewart, S.I. 

2007. Wildland-urban interface housing growth 

during the 1990s in California, Oregon, and 

Washington. International Journal of Wildland Fire. 

16: 255–265.

Hammer, R.B.; Stewart, S.I., Radeloff, V.C. 2009. 

Demographic trends, the wildland-urban interface, 

and wildfire management. Society & Natural 

Resources. 22 (8): 777–782.

Hardy, C.C.; Schmidt, K.M.; Menakis, J.P.; Sampson, 

R.N. 2001. Spatial data for national fire planning 

and fuel management. International Journal of 

Wildland Fire. 10(4): 353–372.

Hennaman, J. 2011 (February 9). Commissioners 

re-adopt ‘Code of the West’ creed: document 

highlights differences in rural living. Colville, WA: 

Statesman-Examiner. http://www.statesmanexaminer.

com/content/view/44129/1/. (15 April 2011).
30 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-299.

Hodgson, R.W. 1995. Strategies for and barriers to 

public adoption of fire safe behavior. In: Weise, 

D.R.; Martin, R.E., eds. Proceedings of the Biswell 

Symposium: fire issues and solutions in urban interface 

and wildland ecosystems. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-158. 

Albany, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station: 93–98.

Hurteau, M.D.; Hungate, B.A.; Koch, G.W. 2009. 

Accounting for risk in valuing forest carbon offsets. 

Carbon Balance and Management. 4: 1. http://www.

cbmjournal.com/content/4/1/1. (4 February 2009).

Hutto, R.L. 2008. The ecological importance of severe 

wildfires: some like it hot. Ecological Applications. 

18(8): 1827–1834.

Ice, G.G.; Neary, D.G.; Adams, P.W. 2004. Effects of 

wildfire on soils and watershed processes. Journal of 

Forestry. 102(6): 16–20.

International Code Council [ICC]. 2008. National blue 

ribbon panel report on wildland urban interface 

fire. 44 p. http://www.iccsafe.org/gr/WUIC/Pages/

BlueRibbon.aspx. (14 April 2011).

Insurance Services Office, Inc. [ISO]. 1997. The 

wildland/urban fire hazard. Executive summary. 

Jersey City, NJ. http://www.iso.com/Research-andAnalyses/Studies-and-Whitepapers/The-Wildland/

urban-Fire-Hazard.html. (1 November 2011).

Jakes, P.J.; Kruger, L.; Monroe, M.; Nelson, 

K.; Sturtevant, V. 2007. Improving wildfire 

preparedness: lessons from communities across the 

U.S. Human Ecology Review. 14(2): 188–197.

Jakes, P.J.; Nelson, K.C.; Enzler, S.A.; Burns, S.; Cheng, 

A.S.; Sturtevant, V.; Williams, D.R.; Bujak, A.; 

Brummel, R.F.; Grayzeck-Souter, S.; Staychock, E. 

2011. Community wildfire protection planning: is 

the Healthy Forests Restoration Act’s vagueness 

genius? International Journal of Wildland Fire. 20: 

350–363.

Keane, R.E.; Agee, J.K.; Fulé, P.; Keeley, J.E.; Key, 

C.; Kitchen, S.G.; Miller, R.; Schulte, L.A. 2008a. 

Ecological effects of large fires on US landscapes: 

benefit or catastrophe? International Journal of 

wildland Fire. 17: 169–712.

Keane, R.E.; Holsinger, L.M.; Parsons, R.A.; Gray, K. 

2008b. Climate change effects on historical range 

and variability of two large landscapes in western 

Montana, USA. Forest Ecology and Management. 

254: 375–389.

Keane, R.E.; Hessburg, P.F.; Landres, P.B.; Swanson, F.J. 

2009. The use of historical range and variability 

(HRV) in landscape management. Forest Ecology 

and Management 258: 1025–1037.

Kennedy, P.L.; Fontaine, J.B. 2009. Synthesis of 

knowledge on the effects of fire and fire surrogates 

on wildlife in U.S. dry forests. Special Report 1096. 

Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University. 133 p. http://

extension.oregonstate.edu/. (04 April 2011 ).

Kent, B.K.; Gebert, S.; McCaffrey, S.; Martin, W.; Calkin, 

D.; Schuster, E.; Martin, I.; Bender, H.W.; Alward, 

G.; Kunagai, Y.; Cohn, P.J.; Carroll, M.; Williams, D.; 

Ekarius, C. 2003. Social and economic issues of the 

Hayman fire. In: Graham, R.T., tech. ed. Hayman fire 

case study. RMRS-GTR-114. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky 

Mountain Research Station: 315–388.

Knutson, C.; Hayes, M.; Phillips, T. 1998. How to 

reduce the risk of drought. Lincoln, NE: University 

of Nebraska, National Drought Mitigation Center, 

Preparedness and Mitigation Working Group of the 

Western Drought Coordination Council. 10 p.

Koch, F.H.; Smith, W.D. 2010. Representing humanmediated pathways in forest pest risk mapping.

In: Pye, J.M.; Rauscher, H.M.; Sands, Y.; Lee, D.C.; 

Beatty, J.S., tech. eds. Advances in threat assessment 

and their application to forest and rangeland 

management. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-802. 

Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Pacific Northwest and Southern Research 

Stations: 421–443.

Kocher, S. 2011. 2011. Lake Tahoe Basin wildlandurban interface fire summit impact report.

Placerville, CA: University of California Cooperative 

Extension, Central Sierra. 31 p.

Kocher, S.; Harris, R.; Nakamura, G. 2001. Recovering 

from wildfire: a guide for California’s forest 

landowners. Agricultural and Natural Resources 

Publication 21603. Oakland: University of California. 

16 p.
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-299. 31

Konkin, D.; Hopkins, K. 2009. Learning to deal 

with climate change and catastrophic forest 

disturbances. Unasylva. 231/232(6): 17–23.

Langowski, P. 2011. Personal communication. Branch 

chief for fuels and fire ecology, U.S. Forest Service, 

Rocky Mountain Region, Golden, CO.

Leschak, P. 2010. Strong partnerships and the right 

tools: the pre-wildfire strategy of fire adapted 

communities. Disaster Safety Review. 8: 4–5.

Liang, J.; Calkin, D.E.; Gebert, K.M.; Venn, T.J.; 

Silverstein, R.P. 2008. Factors influencing large 

wildland fire suppression expenditures. International 

Journal of Wildland Fire. 17: 650–659.

Logan, J.A.; Regniere, J.; Powell, J.A. 2003. Assessing 

the impacts of global warming on forest pest 

dynamics. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment. 

1: 130–137.

Lynch, D.L. 2004. What do forest fires really cost?

Journal of Forestry. 102: 42–49.

Man, G., ed. 2009. Major forest insect and disease 

conditions in the United States 2007. FS-919. 

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service, Forest Health Protection Offices. 68 p.

Martin, R.E.; Sapsis, D.B. 1992. Fires as agents of 

biodiversity: pyrodiversity promotes biodiversity. 

In: Harris, R.R.; Erman, D.E., Kerner, H.M. tech. 

coords. Proceedings of the symposium on biodiversity 

of northwestern California. Wildland Resources Center 

Report No. 29. Berkeley, University of California: 

150–157.

McCaffrey, S. 2008. Understanding public perspectives 

of wildfire risk. In: Martin, W.; Raish, C.; Kent, B., 

eds. Wildfire risk: human perceptions and management 

implications. Washington DC: Resources for the 

Future: 11–22.

McCaffrey, S. 2009. Crucial factors influencing public 

acceptance of fuels treatments. Fire Management 

Today. 69: 9–12.

McCaffrey, S. 2011. Personal communication. Research 

social scientist, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Northern Research Station, Evanston, IL.

McCaffrey, S.M.; Stidham, M.; Toman, E.; Shindlre, 

B. 2011. Outreach programs, peer pressure, and 

common sense: what motivates homeowners to 

mitigate wildfire risk? Environmental Management. 

48(3): 475–488.

McCullough, D.G.; Werner, R.A.; Neumann, D. 1998. 

Fire and insects in northern and boreal forest 

ecosystems of North America. Annual Review of 

Entomology. 43: 107–127.

Merriam-Webster. 2011. Adaptation definition. Free 

online Merriam-Webster dictionary. http://www.

merriam-webster.com/dictionary/adaptation (02 

November 2011).

Minshall, G.W.; Brock, J.T.; Varley, J.D. 1989. Wildfires 

and Yellowstone’s stream ecosystems. Bioscience. 

39(10): 707–715.

Monroe, M.C.; Pennisi, L.; McCaffrey, S. Mileti, D. 

2004. Social science to improve fuels management: 

a synthesis of research relevant to communicating 

with homeowners about fuels management. Gen. 

Tech. Rep. NC-267. St. Paul, MN: U.S. Department 

of Agriculture [USDA], Forest Service, North Central 

Research Station. 42 p.

Morgan, P.; Hardy, C.C.; Swetnum, T.W.; Rollins, M.G.; 

Long, D.G. 2001. Mapping fire regimes across time 

and space: understanding coarse and fine-scale 

fire patterns. International Journal of Wildland Fire. 

10(3/4): 329–342.

Nader, G.; Nakamura, G.; DeLasaux, M.; Quarles, S.; 

Valachovic, Y. 2007. Home landscaping for fire. 

Agricultural and Natural Resources Publication 8228. 

Oakland: University of California. 8 p. http://firecenter.

berkeley.edu/docs/CE_homelandscaping.pdf. (15 April 

2011).

National Association of Counties [NACo]. 2010. 

Planning fire-resilient counties in the wildland 

urban interface: guide to wildfire risk and 

mitigation. Grant Final Report NACo 08-DG11132543-175. Washington, DC. 8 p.

National Association of State Foresters [NASF]. 2009. 

Quadrennial fire review. Washington. DC. 51 p.

National Association of State Foresters [NASF]. 2010. 

State foresters by the numbers: data and analysis 

from the 2008 NASF state forestry statistics survey. 

Washington, DC. 23 p.
32 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-299.

National Fire Protection Association [NFPA]. 2006. 

Firewise: community solutions to a national 

problem. National Wildland/Urban Interface Fire 

Program publication FWC-008-06-BK. Quincy, MA. 

61 p.

National Fire Protection Association [NFPA]. 2009. 

Safer from the start: a guide to Firewise friendly 

developments. FWC-001-09-BK. Quincy, MA. 39 p.

National Wildfire Coordinating Group [NWCG]. 2010. 

Terminology updates resulting from release of 

the Guidance for the implementation of federal 

wildland fire management policy (2009). NWCG 

#024-2010. Boise, ID. 11 p.

Neary, D.G.; Ryan, K.C.; DeBano, L.F., eds. 2005. 

(revised 2008). Wildland fire in ecosystems: effects 

of fire on soils and water. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRSGTR-42-vol.4. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research 

Station. 250 p.

Nelson, K.C.; Monroe, M.C.; Fingerman Johnson, J.; 

Bower, A.W. 2003. Public perceptions of defensible 

space and landscape values in Minnesota and 

Florida. In: Jakes, P.J., comp. Homeowners, 

communities, and wildfire: science findings from the 

National Fire Plan. St. Paul, MN: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, North Central Research 

Station: 55–62.

Nowak, D.J.; Stein, S.M.; Randler, P.B.; Greenfield, E.J.; 

Comas, S.J.; Carr, M.A.; Alig, R.J. 2010. Sustaining 

America’s urban trees and forests: a forests on 

the edge report. Gen. Tech. Rep. NRS-62. Newtown 

Square, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Northern Research Station. 27 p.

Parker, T.J.; Clancy, K.M.; Mathiasen, R.L. 2006. 

Interactions among fire, insects and pathogens 

in coniferous forests of the interior western 

United States and Canada. Agricultural and Forest 

Entomology. 8: 167–189.

Parsons, D.J. 2000. The challenge of restoring natural 

fire to wilderness. In: Cole, D.N.; McCool, S.F.; 

Borrie, W.T.; O’Laughlin, J., comps. Wilderness 

science in a time of change, conference proceedings, 

vol. 5, wilderness ecosystems, threats, and 

management. RMRS-P-15-Vol-5. Fort Collins, CO: 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky 

Mountain Research Station: 276–282.

Pernin, P. 1971. The great Peshtigo fire: an eyewitness 

account. Wisconsin Magazine of History. 54: 246–272.

Pickett, S.T.A.; White, P.S., eds. 1985. The ecology of 

natural disturbance and patch dynamics. New York: 

Academic Press. 472 p.

Pilliod, D.S.; Bury, R.B.; Hyde, E.J.; Pearl, C.A.; Corn, 

P.S. 2003. Fire and amphibians in North America. 

Forest Ecology and Management. 178: 163–181.

Pollet, J.; Omi, P.N. 2002. Effect of thinning and 

prescribed burning on crown fire severity in 

ponderosa pine forests. International Journal of 

Wildland Fire. 11: 1–10.

Potts, T. 2011. Rx ‘firelighters’ keep flame for restoring 

Georgia wildlife. http://www.coosavalleynews.com/

np89688.htm. (29 April 2011).

Pyne, S.J. 1982. Fire in America: a cultural history 

of wildland and rural fire. Princeton: Princeton 

University Press. 654 p.

Pyne, S.J. 2010. America’s fires: a historical context 

for policy and practice. Durham, NC: Forest History 

Society. 94 p.

Quarles, S.L.; Valachovic, Y.; Nakamura, G.M.; Nader, 

G.A.; DeLasaux, M.J. 2010. Home survival in 

wildfire-prone areas: building materials and design 

considerations. ANR Publication 8393. Richmond, 

CA: Regents of the University of California, 

Agriculture and Natural Resources. 22 p. http://ucanr.

org/freepubs/docs/8393.pdf. (01 March 2012).

Radeloff, V.C.; Hammer, R.B.; Stewart, S.I.; Fried, J.S.; 

Holcomb, S.S.; McKeefry, J.F. 2005. The wildland–

urban interface in the United States. Ecological 

Applications. 15(3): 799–805.

Reams, M. A.; Haines, T.K.; Renner, C.R.; Wascom, 

M.W.; Kingre, H. 2005. Goals, obstacles and 

effective strategies of wildfire mitigation programs 

in the wildland-urban interface. Forest and Policy 

Economics. 7: 818–826.
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-299. 33

Reeves, G.H.; Benda, L.E.; Burnett, K.M.; Bisson, P.A.; 

Sedell, J.R. 1995. A disturbance-based ecosystem 

approach to maintaining and restoring freshwater 

habitats of evolutionarily significant units of 

anadromous salmonids in the Pacific Northwest. 

American Fisheries Society Symposium. In: J.L. 

Nielsen, ed. Evolution and the aquatic ecosystem: 

defining unique units in population conservation. 

American Fisheries Society Symposium 17. Bethesda, 

MD: American Fisheries Society. 334–349.

Rieman, B.E.; Lee D.; Chandler, G.; Myers, D. 1997. 

Does wildfire threaten extinction for salmonids: 

responses of redband trout and bull trout following 

recent large fires on the Boise National Forest. 

In: Greenlee, J., ed. Proceedings—fire effects on 

threatened and endangered species and habitats 

conference. Fairfield, WA: International Association of 

Wildland Fire: 47–57.

Rieman, B.E.; Luce, C.; McIver, J.D.; Kershner, J.; 

Webster, M.; Robichaud, P.; Cook, R.; Swanson, R., 

contributors. 2005. Earth...water...fire: the role and 

management of fire in aquatic ecosystems. Wildland 

Waters. FS-828. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service. 24 p.

Romme, W.H.; Clement, J.; Hicke, J.; Kulakowski, D.; 

MacDonald, L.H.; Schoennagel, T.L.; Veblen, T.T. 

2006. Recent forest insect outbreaks and fire risk 

in Colorado forests: a brief synthesis of relevant 

research. Colorado Forest Research Institute. 

26 p. http://spot.colorado.edu/~schoenna/images/

RommeEtAl2006CFRI%20.pdf (15 March 2012).

Ryan, L.R.; Blanchard, B.P.; Wamsley, M.B. 2006. 

Perceptions of wildfire threat and mitigation 

measures by residents of fire-prone communities 

in the northeast: survey results and wildland fire 

management implications. In: McCaffery, S.M., tech. 

ed. The public and wildland fire management: social 

science findings for managers. Gen. Tech. Rep. NRS-1. 

Newtown Square, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service, Northern Research Station: 11–17.

Schmidt, K.M.; Menakis, J.P.; Hardy, C.C.; Hann, W.J.; 

Bunnell, D.L. 2002. Development of coarse-scale 

spatial data for wildland fire and fuel management. 

Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-87. Fort Collins, CO: 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky 

Mountain Research Station. 41 p.

Schwab, J. 2005. Community planning for wildfire 

protection. American perspectives on the wildland/

urban interface. http://216.70.126.67/library/?p=212. 

(03 January 2011).

Schwab, J.; Meck, S. 2005. Planning for wildfires. 

Planning Advisory Service Report 529/530. Chicago: 

American Planning Association. 124 p.

Singer, F.J.; Schreier, W.; Oppenheim, J.; Garton, 

E.O. 1989. Drought, fires, and large mammals.

Bioscience. 39(10): 716–722.

Skinner, C.N. 2002. Fire history in riparian reserves 

of the Klamath Mountains. In: Fire in California 

ecosystems: integrating ecology, prevention, and 

management. Miscellaneous Publication No. 1. 

Redlands, CA: Association for Fire Ecology: 164–169.

Smith, J.K., ed. 2000. Wildland fire in ecosystems: 

effects of fire on fauna. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR42-vol. 1. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 

83 p.

Society of American Foresters [SAF]. 2004. Preparing 

a community wildfire protection plan: a handbook 

for wildland-urban interface communities.

Bethesda, MD. 12 p. http://www.stateforesters.org/

files/cwpphandbook.pdf. (22 April 2011).

Southern Group of State Foresters. [No date]. Living with 

fire: a guide for protecting homes from wildfire.

Montgomery, AL: Alabama Forestry Commission. 

12 p. http://www.forestry.state.al.us/WUI/Firewise/

LIVING_WITH_FIRE.pdf. (14 November 2011).

State Board of Forestry and Fire Protection [BOF]. 2006. 

General guidelines for creating defensible space. 

Sacramento, CA. 8 p.

Stein, S.M.; Alig, R.J.; White, E.M.; Comas, S.J.; Carr, 

M.; Eley, M.; Elverum, K.; O’Donnell, M.; Theobald, 

D.M.; Cordell, K.; Haber, J.; Beauvais, T.W. 2007. 

National forests on the edge: development pressures 

on America’s national forests and grasslands.

Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-728. Portland, OR: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific 

Northwest Research Station. 26 p.
34 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-299.

Stein, S.M.; Carr, M.A.; McRoberts, R.E.; Mahal, L.G.; 

Comas, S.J. 2010. Threats to at-risk species in 

America’s private forests: a forests on the edge 

report. Gen. Tech. Rep. NRS-73. Newtown Square, 

PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Northern Research Station. 20 p.

Stein, S.M.; McRoberts, R.E.; Alig, R.J.; Nelson, M.D.; 

Theobald, D.M.; Eley, M.; Dechter, M.; Carr, M. 

2005. Forests on the edge: housing development 

on America’s private forests. Gen. Tech. Rep. 

PNW-GTR-636. Portland, OR: U.S. Department 

of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest 

Research Station. 16 p.

Stein, S.M.; McRoberts, R.E.; Mahal, L.G.; Carr, M.A.; 

Alig, R.J.; Comas, S.J.; Theobald, D.M.; Cundiff, A. 

2009. Private forests, public benefits: increased 

housing density and other pressures on private 

forest contributions. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-795. 

Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 74 p.

Stettler, K.M.; Venn, T.J.; Calkin, D.E. 2010. The 

effects of wildfire and environmental amenities 

on property values in northwest Montana, USA.

Ecological Economics. 69(11): 2233–2243.

Stevens, S.L.; Ruth, L.W. 2005. Federal forest fire policy 

in the United States. Ecological Applications. 15(2): 

532–542.

Stewart, S.I.; Radeloff, V.C.; Hammer, R.B. 2001. The 

wildland-urban interface in the United States. In: 

McCaffery, S.M., tech. ed. The public and wildland 

fire management: social science findings for managers. 

Gen. Tech. Rep. NRS-1. Newtown Square, PA: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northern 

Research Station: 1979–202.

Sturtevant, V.; McCaffrey, S. 2006. Encouraging wildfire 

preparedness: lessons learned from three wildfire 

education programs. In: McCaffery, S.M., tech. 

ed. The public and wildland fire management: social 

science findings for managers. Gen. Tech. Rep. NRS-1. 

Newtown Square, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service, Northern Research Station: 125–136.

Syphard, A.D.; Radeloff, V.C.; Keeley, J.E.; Hawbaker, 

T.J.; Clayton, M.K.; Stewart, S.I.; Hammer, R.B. 

2007. Human influence on California fire regimes.

Ecological Applications. 17(5): 1388–1402.

Tiedemann, A.R.; Woodard, P.M. 2002. Multiresource 

effects of a stand-replacement prescribed fire in the 

Pinus contorta-Abies lasiocarpa vegetation zone of 

central Washington. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-535. 

Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 26 p.

Toman, E.; Shindler, B. 2006. Fire and fuels 

management communication strategies: citizen 

evaluations of agency outreach activities. Society 

and Natural Resources. 19: 321–336.

U.S. Department of Agriculture [USDA], Forest Service. 

2009. Major forest insect and disease conditions in 

the United States 2007. FS-919. Washington, DC. 

68 p.

U.S. Department of Agriculture [USDA], Forest Service. 

2011a. Fuel treatment effectiveness database. 

Unpublished data, on file with: Paul Langowski, 

branch chief, Fuels and Fire Ecology, Rocky Mountain 

Region, U.S. Forest Service, 740 Simms Street, 

Golden, CO 80401-4702.

U.S. Department of Agriculture [USDA], Forest Service. 

2011b. Nationwide aerial application of fire 

retardant, final environmental impact statement.

Washington, DC. 572 p. http://www.fs.fed.us/fire/

retardant/eis_info.html. (14 November 2011).

U.S. Department of Agriculture [USDA], Forest Service. 

2011c. Wildland fire suppression costs: ten-year 

rolling average. Unpublished data provided by 

the Forest Service Budget Staff. On file with S. 

Stein, USDA Forest Service, Cooperative Forestry, 

1400 Independence Avenue, SW, Mailstop 1123, 

Washington, DC 20250-1123.

U.S. Department of Agriculture [USDA], Forest 

Service. 2012. Historical natural fire regimes map.

Unpublished analysis of LANDFIRE 1.0.5 fire regime 

groups layer. On file with G. Dillon, U.S. Forest 

Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire 

Modeling Institute, Missoula Fire Sciences Laboratory, 

5775 W. Highway 10, Missoula, MT 59808-9361.
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-299. 35

U.S. Department of Agriculture [USDA], Forest Service; 

U.S. Department of the Interior [USDI], Bureau 

of Indian Affairs [BIA]; USDI Bureau of Land 

Management; USDI Fish and Wildlife Service; USDI 

National Park Service. 2001 (January 4). Urban 

wildland interface communities within the vicinity 

of federal lands that are at high risk from wildfire. 

Federal Register. 66(3): 751–777. http://www.gpo.gov/

fdsys/pkg/FR-2001-01-04/pdf/01-52.pdf (01 March 

2012).

U.S. Department of Agriculture [USDA], Forest 

Service, Southern Research Station; Florida Division 

of Forestry; National Institutes of Standards and 

Technology. 2011. The economic benefits of wildfire 

prevention education. http://www.interfacesouth.org/

products/fact_sheets/economic-benefits/the-economicbenefits-of-wildfire-prevention-education/. (17 October 

2011).

vanWagtendonk, J.W. 1995. Dr. Biswell’s influence 

on the development of prescribed burning in 

California. In: Weise, D.R.; Martin, R.E., tech. coords. 

The Biswell symposium: fire issues and solutions 

in urban interface and wildland ecosystems plenary 

session—issues. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR-158. 

1995. U.S. Department of Agriculture [USDA], Forest 

Service. 11–15.

Vogt, C.; Winter, G.; Fried, J. S.; 2005. Predicting 

homeowners’ approval of fuel management at 

the wildland-urban interface using the theory of 

reasoned action. Society and Natural Resources. 18: 

337–354.

White, R.H.; Zipperer, W.C. 2010. Testing and 

classification of individual plants for fire behavior: 

plant selection for the wildland-urban interface. 

International Journal of Wildland Fire. 19: 213–227.

Westerling, A.L.; Hidalgo, H.G.; Cayan, D.R.; Swetnam, 

T.W. 2006. Increases in western US forest wildfire 

associated with warming and advances in the 

timing of spring. Science. 313: 940–943.

Westerling, A.L.; Turner, M.G.; Smithwick, E.A.H.; 

Romme, W.H.; Ryan. M.G. 2011. Continued warming 

could transform Greater Yellowstone fire regimes 

by mid-21st century. Proceedings of the National 

Academy of Sciences. 108: 13165–13170.

Western Forestry Leadership Coalition [WFLC]. 2010. 

The true cost of wildfire in the western United 

States. Lakewood, CO. 15 p.

Wilcove, D.S.; Rothstein, D.; Dubow, J.; Phillips, A.; 

Losos, E. 1998. Quantifying threats to imperiled 

species in the United States. Bioscience. 48(8): 

607–615.

Williams, M. 1989. Americans and their forests: 

a historical geography. Cambridge, England: 

Cambridge University Press. 233 p.

Winter, G.; Fried, J.S. 2000. Homeowner perspectives 

on fire hazard, responsibility, and management 

strategies at the wildland-urban interface. Society 

and Natural Resources. 13: 33–49.

Winter, G.; McCaffrey, S.; Vogt, C.A. 2009. The role of 

community policies in defensible space compliance. 

Forest Policy and Economics. 11: 570–578.
36 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-299.

NASA / Flickr

Wildfire smoke, seen from space.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the 

basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, 

parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or part 

of an individual’s income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all 

programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information 

(Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contract USDA’s TARGET Center at 202-720-2600 (voice and TDD). To 

file a complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W., 

Washington, D.C. 20250-9410, or call 800-795-3272 (voice) or 202-720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity 

provider and employer.

You may order additional copies of this publication by sending your mailing information in label form through one of the following media. Please 

specify the publication title and series number.

Publishing Services

Telephone (970) 498-1392

FAX (970) 498-1010

E-mail rschneider@fs.fed.us

Web site http://www.fs.fed.us/rm/publications

Mailing address Publications Distribution

Rocky Mountain Research Station

240 West Prospect Road

Fort Collins, CO 80526
Forests on the Edge is a project of the U.S. Department 

of Agriculture, Forest Service, State and Private Forestry, 

Cooperative Forestry staff, in conjunction with Forest Service 

Research and Development, National Forest System staff, 

universities, and other partners. The project aims to increase 

public understanding of the contributions of and pressures on 

America’s forests, and to create new tools for strategic planning. 

The first report (Stein and others 2005) identified private 

forested watersheds in the conterminous United States most 

likely to experience increased housing density. Subsequent 

reports have provided more in-depth discussion and data on: 

the development pressures on America’s national forests and 

grasslands (Stein and others 2007), the impacts of increased 

housing density and other pressures on private forest benefits 

(Stein and others 2009), threats to at-risk species (Stein and 

others 2010), and sustaining America’s urban trees and forests 

(Nowak and others 2010), among others. This report presents 

an overview of the relationship between housing in the 

wildland-urban interface and wildfire, including preventative 

measures that can help to create fire-adapted homes and 

communities.

Future Forests on the Edge work will include impacts of 

increased housing density in Hawaii, Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin 

Islands, and U.S.-affiliated Pacific Islands; impacts of forestland 

development on water resources; a report on America’s private 

forest landowners; assessments of additional private forest 

benefits and risks; and construction of an Internet-based system 

that permits users to view, combine, and depict results for 

selected contribution and threat layers.

For further information on Forests on the Edge, contact: 

Susan Stein, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Cooperative Forestry staff, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW, 

Mailstop 1123, Washington, DC 20250-1123. (202) 205-0837. 

sstein@fs.fed.us. http://www.fs.fed.us/openspace/fote/.

FORESTS ON THE EDGE

US Fish and Wildlife Service Pacific Southwest Region