United States

Department of

Agriculture

Forest Service

Southern

Research Station

General Technical

Report SRS–63

The Moving Edge: Perspectives

on the Southern WildlandUrban Interface

Southern Wildland-Urban Interface

Assessment Focus Group Report

Martha L. Monroe, Alison W. Bowers,

and L. Annie Hermansen
The Authors

April 2003

Southern Research Station

P.O. Box 2680

Asheville, NC 28802

Martha C. Monroe, Associate Professor (Natural Resource Education), School of

Forest Resources and Conservation, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL; Alison W.

Bowers, Program Assistant, School of Forest Resources and Conservation,

University of Florida, Gainesville, FL (now a Program Coordinator, Project Learning

Tree, Washington, DC); and L. Annie Hermansen, Technology Exchange

Coordinator, Southern Center for Wildland-Urban Interface Research and

Information, USDA Forest Service, Southern Research Station, Gainesville, FL.
i

Table of Contents

 Page

Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ii

Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

The Participants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

The Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Common Dimensions to Interface Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Less Common Themes in the Interface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Challenges and Opportunities: Wants and Needs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Meeting Challenges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Research Needs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Appendix A: Individual State Reports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Alabama Focus Group Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Florida Focus Group Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Georgia Focus Group Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

Mississippi Focus Group Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

Texas Focus Group Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

Virginia Focus Group Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

Appendix B: Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

Appendix C: Programs and Strategies Currently Used . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

Appendix D: What We Need to Deal With Interface Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

Appendix E: Priority Research Needs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
ii

We thank the following people for their assistance

with planning and organizing each of these focus

group discussions. They made this project possible.

Alabama

Harry Kepler, Alabama Forestry Commission

Bill Sweet, USDA Forest Service

Sam Hansen, City of Vestavia Hills Fire Department

Neil Letson, Alabama Forestry Commission

Florida

Sharon Fox-Gamble, UF-IFAS Cooperative Extension

Service, Volusia County Extension

Kathy Weaver, Volusia County Fire Department

Mark Brown, County of Volusia, Land Management

Bill Gilliland, Daytona Beach Fire Department

Jim LeFils, Private Land Owner

Vince Leffler, Private Land Owner

Erica Harmon, Florida Division of Forestry

Georgia

Ken Masten, Georgia Forestry Commission

Tommy Loggins, Georgia Forestry Commission

Rick Hatten, Georgia Forestry Commission

Sharon Dolliver, Georgia Forestry Commission

Joe Burgess, Georgia Forestry Commission

Mississippi

Darlene Slater, Mississippi Forestry Commission

Jay Charland, Mississippi Department of Marine

Resources

Don Neal, USDA Forest Service, National Forests

Eric Nolan, City of Biloxi, Forester

Maurice Mitchell, Mississippi Forestry Commission

Jay Boykin, USDA Forest Service, National Forests

Jim Bannes, Mississippi Forestry Commission

Rebecca Ladnier, USDA Forest Service, National

Forests

Marion Parker, Mississippi Forestry Commission

Texas

Pete Smith, Texas Forest Service

John Ross, Texas Forest Service

Mickey Merritt, Texas Forest Service

Gay Ippolito, USDA Forest Service, National Forests

Virginia

Andrew Gerachis, Virginia Cooperative Extension

System, Loudoun County Extension Office

Dana Malone, Virginia Department of Forestry

Barbara White, Virginia Department of Forestry

Gene Lessard, Forest Ecologist

Acknowledgments

Focus Group Facilitator

Dr. James Feldt, Consensus Builders
1

The Moving Edge: Perspectives on the

Southern Wildland-Urban Interface

Southern Wildland-Urban Interface Assessment

Focus Group Report

Abstract

To better understand the wildland-urban interface across the 13 Southern

States and to identify issues to be covered in the USDA Forest Service

report, “Human Influences on Forest Ecosystems: The Southern

Wildland-Urban Interface Assessment,” 12 focus groups were conducted

in 6 of the Southern States in May and June 2000. The groups were

guided through a series of questions that enabled them to describe the

interface in their region, list the factors that are driving change, and the

key issues associated with the interface. The groups also discussed the

challenges and opportunities in the interface and what they need to do a

better job.

Keywords: Air quality, focus groups, land use change, water quality,

wildland fire, wildlife habitat, wildland-urban interface.

Background

As populations and urban growth expand in the Southern

United States, forest environments are increasingly affected

by human activities. In the wildland-urban interface, that

area where homes or other structures are adjacent to or

within forests and other rural settings, natural resource

managers face critical challenges, such as wildfire

prevention, control, and mitigation; watershed conservation

and management; biodiversity management; and forestresource management and conservation. These challenges

have a direct impact on public safety, welfare, and quality of

life. In a 1999 overview of the challenges facing the

Southern Region (R8) and Southern Research Station (SRS)

of the USDA Forest Service, former Forest Service Chief

Mike Dombeck identified the wildland-urban interface as a

top management priority.

The move to look closely at wildland-urban interface issues

was catalyzed by catastrophic fires in the region and

frustrations with fire management in interface areas. Most

notably, a season of severe wildfires in Florida captured the

public’s attention. Fires keep ecosystems healthy, but when

they happen near urban areas the protection and safety of

humans and their properties, rather than ecosystems, take

precedence. As cities and suburbs sprawl into rural areas

across the South, fire is more likely to occur and more likely

to damage economic, social, and ecological systems. Fire

management is a challenge in every interface community

but is not the only concern that has come to light.

Many resource managers, decisionmakers, and citizens are

developing a new set of priorities for conserving and

managing forest land. Protecting wildlife habitat, improving

water quality and air quality, and preserving the rural

character of communities top the list.

To set the framework for working on wildland-urban

interface issues in the South, the SRS, R8, and the Southern

Group of State Foresters began conducting an assessment of

the dynamic economic, social, and ecological conditions of

the southern wildland-urban interface. They set their focus

on identifying new tools, knowledge, and skills needed by

natural resource managers as human habitation of forests

becomes more common.

In May and June 2000, 12 focus group discussions were

conducted in 6 of the Southern States to better understand

the interface and identify issues for the assessment. The

groups were selected to give a human voice to the

perspectives of resource managers and many others who live

and work in such areas. A facilitator guided the groups

through a series of questions that enabled them to describe

the wildland interface with which they were familiar, list the

factors that are driving change, and explain key issues

associated with the interface. The groups also discussed

challenges and opportunities, as well as what they need to

do a better job.

Focus group discussions were recorded on audiotape, by a

notetaker, and by the meeting facilitator. The facilitator’s

reports of each discussion were found to be as accurate as

the audiotape. In each State, answers to the questions and

discussion of the challenges were analyzed for common

themes. Six reports are attached (see appendix A). All

reports were then analyzed for unique aspects and common

themes, and are summarized in this paper. The voices of

those who work and live in the wildland-urban interface

describe perspectives and priorities that will help determine

future priorities for research and technology exchange

efforts.

Methodology

Qualitative research typically starts with a series of general,

open-ended questions that engage the group and allow

participants to explore a topic. Discussion occurs as people

respond to each other and reach new understandings. A

facilitator keeps the discussion on track. Transcripts of
2

group discussions are read, distilled, reorganized, and

analyzed to identify emerging themes: issues that arose as a

result of participant interactions.

While these group discussions followed this general pattern,

several small differences led researchers toward a slightly

different analysis process. The discussion groups were larger

than expected, which caused the facilitator to require that

people spoke in turn. The facilitator took notes on each item

mentioned, and encouraged participants to provide

additional comments. This practice discouraged exploration

and in-depth discussion of any one theme. It is, therefore,

problematic to differentiate strongly held opinions common

to all participants in any one group, from comments that

reflect the opinions of a few. Nevertheless, comments that

were made repeatedly in most of the discussion groups were

interpreted as common themes; topics that surfaced in only a

few discussions may point to aspects of the wildland-urban

interface that are unique to those areas.

The Participants

Before focus group participants were invited, local forest

agency staff and others involved with wildland-urban

interface management held a meeting in each State. A long

list of potential participants was assembled based on the

group’s knowledge of people who could represent Federal,

State, and local interests in natural resource management,

industry, development, conservation, planning, and other

relevant fields. The local representatives contacted potential

participants to determine their interest and availability, and

those expressing interest were invited to participate by letter

and follow-up phone calls. Several State forestry agencies

also sent out letters of invitation to the participants in their

respective States. In all, a total of 173 participants in 12

discussion groups represented the following perspectives:

Representation from No. participants

Wildlife, Parks/Rec, Natural Resources Conser-

 vation Service (NRCS), Coastal Agencies 21

Forest Agencies and Forest Health 20

Transportation and Planners 16

Extension, Education, Research, Media 15

Urban Foresters and Landscape Architects 15

Forest Industry and Consulting Foresters 14

Environmental nongovernmental organization

 (NGOs) and Land Trusts 14

Developers and Realtors 13

Fire and Emergency Management Agencies 12

Air, Water, Waste Agencies 10

Landowners, Small Business Owners 10

Elected Government Officials 7

Insurance and Power Utilities 6

The Questions

The facilitator began each session by thanking the local

sponsors, explaining the purpose of the discussion,

establishing ground rules for interaction, and describing his

role as facilitator and note taker. The first question helped

group members establish a common language to describe

their wildland-urban interface. Subsequent questions

generated long lists of information and reactions about

interface issues.

1. Pretend you are a tour guide and describe the wildlandurban interface for me. What would I see, hear, and smell?

2. Describe factors that drive change in the interface areas

you have just described.

3. What are the key issues in the interface? What are specific

challenges you meet when attempting to manage

resources in the changing wildland-urban interface?

4. How do you cope with those challenges? What tools,

information, options, and other resources do you use?

5. What information, tools, management options, policies,

and other resources do you need to deal with such

challenges?

6. What topics would you recommend for research efforts to

help you work in the interface region?

The responses were recorded in a nonduplicative list on a

flipchart as the participants made their comments.

Participants were given four paper dots to attach to the flipcharts, indicating which of the issues listed in Question 3

were their priorities.

Common Dimensions to Interface Issues

Across the South, States have experienced a boom in land

development. A growth economy and an increasing wealth

of city dwellers enabled people to move farther from urban

centers, commuting to work or telecommuting. Focus group

participants also mentioned that cheap gas (at the time)

supported more people moving to the interface. Crime,

pollution, crowding, and declining schools encourage those

with the ability to move to do so. Many are attracted to the

rural life, the natural world, more affordable land prices, and

a lifestyle that may help them realize their dreams. Estatetax law was mentioned as one cause of increased land

availability: it was thought that as elderly farm and forest

owners leave their property to children, a substantial estate

tax would force the sale and subdivision of land. In many

discussions, many expressed the thought that increasing land
3

values would compel owners to sell in order to avoid the

burden of property taxes. Where there are willing sellers and

willing home buyers, developers step in. Particularly

distressing to participants was the lack of economically

feasible alternatives to subdividing and thereby fragmenting

the land base. Many participants were frustrated with the

ethical dilemma of providing for a growing population while

responsibly protecting the resources.

Participants also readily agreed that the natural features of

their region are attractive and valuable—the secondary

forests, agricultural areas, trout streams, reservoirs, and

recreation areas. Beauty and rural character are attributes

that many people cherish and fear will be lost if appropriate

measures are not taken to protect key features.

Some focus-group discussions were held near the large

cities of Houston; Birmingham; Washington, DC; and

Biloxi. Participants there commented more about problems

with roads, traffic, and poorly planned transportation

corridors that drive development. The pace of urban sprawl

is bringing to the rural landscape the noise, pollution, and

conflicts many people thought they were escaping.

Other discussions were held in rural areas that are beginning

to feel the pinch of population increases, but without the

rapid changes associated with the urban fringe (Deland, FL,

and Helen, GA). Participants there spoke more about a

fragmented landscape that makes it more challenging to

manage forests and agricultural lands, as well as of

increased conflicts between newcomers and those managing

the land. Those representing agriculture and forest industries

pointed to a decline in business, which they perceive as a

harbinger of more land sales. They commented that the lack

of nearby markets for forest products and the increasing

importance of forests in the South to satisfy national

demands have put southern timber producers in an unusual

bind. They spoke of an increasing pressure to supply forest

products while, at the same time, having less land available

on which to grow trees.

Both groups commented that the lack of infrastructure in

these developing lands (e.g., garbage, sewers, and water

systems) has a significant impact on natural resources as the

population increases.

The result of an increased human presence in the interface

has been a dramatic change in ecosystems and the individual

natural resources. Participants in every discussion group

mentioned changes in air quality, wildlife habitat, water

quality, water quantity, species composition, soil quality, and

pollution levels. Most mentioned increasingly hazardous

fuel loads and the threat of wildfire. Focus groups in two

States cited an increasing level of illegal activity.

Fragmentation makes it even more challenging to manage

our natural resources using traditional tools.

Some participants identified increased development in terms

of advantages: increased opportunities, beautiful home sites,

and more affordable housing for a growing population.

Some said that nice people are moving to the interface; and,

in some cases, these newcomers are taking a more active

role in decisionmaking. Others see some interface issues as

a two-edged sword. The agricultural community that attracts

newcomers also may produce the stench of chicken manure;

the reservoir that flooded a forest valley 20 years ago now is

a site for expensive homes along its shores. Change is

difficult for people to accept and tolerate. One participant

mused that the real problem is that he remembers all too

well the way it was before.

For the most part, however, the juxtaposition of

development and wildlands was seen as a land-use problem.

In Virginia, where communities value their historic rural

character, development was cited as a problem because it

threatened cultural uniqueness. Participants in all groups

spoke of a need for smart-growth initiatives and planned

communities that protect habitat and stream corridors while

providing housing for people. In Georgia, as well as several

other States, the crises of development in the interface have

brought people together to resolve some of the problems.

People in every focus group complained that a lack of

vision, leadership, planning, and regional coordination for

comprehensive growth management are major factors that

create interface problems. In some States, participants

thought that local governments should have constitutional

authority to manage growth; in others they preferred a

regional approach or centralized planning agency. Poor

planning does not foster creative solutions, enforceable

regulations, leaders who can inspire change, or agencies that

work together. In Texas this deficiency was attributed to a

culture of no government interference and an independent

attitude of the population. Participants there also identified

government fragmentation as an obstacle to good

coordination for addressing complex, interdisciplinary

problems.

Although some thought responsibility for appropriate

regional planning processes belongs with the municipalities

and State leadership, they also said that this responsibility

belongs to the people. Participants in nearly every group

expressed frustration with the inability of the population

(both urban and interface) to grasp the depth of issues,
4

understand basic ecosystem function, value natural

resources, and support necessary changes. Many group

members suggested that newcomers are not connected to the

land; that newcomers who thought they were being

environmentally responsible often were not. They cited as

evidence the use of exotic landscape plants, opposition to

deer hunting, and complaints about wildland fire smoke.

In every State where focus groups convened, participants

noted conflicts between rural and urban attitudes about

managing the land, as well as different expectations for the

provision of services. Newcomers to the interface expect the

comforts and convenience they left in the city or the

suburbs, without regard for how those expectations

ultimately change the rural landscape. Attitudes about

private property are seen as an important source of conflict

and one roadblock to municipal planning. One participant

said that interface newcomers do not know what it means to

be responsible landowners. Others observed that while

attitudes about property rights make it hard for public

agencies to work on private land, those attitudes also might

prevent or discourage appropriate management of public

lands.

Less Common Themes in the Interface

Focus-group participants in several States perceived the lack

of public land and the inability to purchase valuable

wildland with public funds as a significant problem in

efforts to manage the interface. In order to retain ecosystem

services, resource managers must persuade private

landowners to manage their property for the common good.

In some cases this is possible, but often a misunderstanding

of ecosystem functions is a barrier. In some of the States,

participants addressed the lack of space for recreation or the

expectation that recreation can occur on private lands as

problems. In one case, a participant cited liability issues as a

particular problem when allowing public recreation on

private lands.

The focus group participants in Texas, Georgia, Mississippi,

and Alabama described wildland fire as a critical natural

resource issue. Resource managers noted the accumulation

of hazardous fuel loads because land managers often are not

able to use prescribed burning to mitigate the hazard. In

Florida, however, wildland fire pervaded nearly every

element of the discussions. In Florida’s interface, fire is the

root concern for rural homeowners on narrow inaccessible

roads, as well as human safety in unmanaged landscapes,

insurance reimbursements, and liability issues.

Some participants noted that geography is a key component

in shaping the interface. Over the relatively flat Texas

landscape, for example, it is hard to see sprawl. Coastlines

and mountains constrain growth in one direction and cause

it to bulge elsewhere. Coastal communities must be capable

of responding to hurricanes by providing evacuation routes

to accommodate a burgeoning population. Sufficient roads

for the current population, of course, bring even more

people to the region.

There are other differences across the South. In Mississippi,

the interface is dominated by mobile homes, which are not

as carefully regulated as permanent homes. In Georgia, the

interface is within a 2-hour drive of Atlanta and sustains

enormous pressure from the city. Whether as weekend

tourists, summer visitors, commuters, or decisionmakers, socalled newcomers are changing the interface to a much

greater extent than long-term residents.

In several States, participants spoke at length about policies,

agencies, and regulations peculiar to their area. In Texas,

Municipal Utility Districts (MUDs) are created to provide

services to new development. A proliferation of MUDs has

created a situation where there is little incentive to

coordinate planning efforts. Residents feel their government

is fragmented into overlapping jurisdictions without regard

for the landscape. In Virginia a law known as the Dillon rule

limits local government authority to whatever is granted by

the State. Local governments, therefore, do not have the

ability to regulate or control growth, even if they have the

political will to do so. Recent government reorganization

abolished the Virginia Department of Natural Resources in

Loudoun County, leaving residents feeling that no one was

helping to coordinate and protect the resources. Similarly, in

Alabama the lack of home rule means local government

cannot regulate growth. The State has granted this ability to

several counties on an experimental basis.

In two focus groups, participants observed that the groups’

ethnic mix did not adequately represent the current

population, and did an even poorer job of anticipating future

demographics. In Texas, Latino and African-American

preferences for recreation and natural resource management

seem not to be recognized in the planning process;

participants challenged all agencies to increase efforts to

work with disenfranchised populations.

After listing the local interface issues, each participant

indicated four personal priority issues by placing paper dots

on the flipchart paper. A composite of both groups from

each State is reported in appendix B.
5

Challenges and Opportunities:

Wants and Needs

Participants were asked to comment on the challenges of

working in the interface and on the opportunities they have

had for improving their situations. Although many of the

challenges listed were restatements of key issues and factors

from earlier questions, participants here had an opportunity

to frame their frustration as a challenge and think about

what would improve their environment.

Ultimately, participants spoke of a need to manage limited

resources that are being damaged, fragmented, and removed

by development. The exponential growth of populations can

bring too-rapid change, which may preclude a rural

community’s ability to effect timely responses. In addition,

few States have the monetary or human resources to address

such problems.

Some participants suggested that natural resources might

better be maintained by incorporating resource protection

into development guidelines, or by improving coordination

among governing jurisdictions. The lack of a clear vision,

reactive rather than creative planning, unenforced zoning

regulations, and weak leadership were common challenges.

Transportation planning and fire protection are two issues

that drive development and planning in some areas.

Participants said that many interface challenges are

complicated by poor communication with a public that may

just not understand the issues. They often suggested that

newcomers need to be educated better to respond to those

challenges. Public involvement in resource planning is

needed but would require an appropriate communications

framework. Strong positions on private property rights,

resistance to change, apathy, “not in my backyard” attitudes,

consumerism, expectations for an improved quality of life,

expectations that the government will fix problems, and a

general disconnect from the land further complicate the

challenges. No participant suggested appropriate ways to

deal with pervasive challenges of various perspectives.

In this phase of focus-group discussion, participants were

asked to list the resources they use in their work within the

interface. A complete list of these resources is in appendix

C. Many resources were common from State to State; most

listed State and Federal agencies, nonprofit organizations,

and professional groups. Several participants mentioned

unique resources that they found helpful, such as particular

organizations, funding opportunities, or local experts.

A discussion of what is needed to work more effectively on

interface issues was framed in terms of major challenges

and most-pressing needs. A complete list of those needs is in

appendix D.

Meeting Challenges

Participants listed a variety of things that would help them

meet challenges of their work in the interface, all of which

were categorized into four groups.

1. Information and data are needed, including maps,

inventories, and technological tools, for better planning

and natural resource management.

2. Tax codes must be changed to help keep large tracts of

private land in appropriate agricultural or resource

management uses; tax credits should be used to provide

incentives for people to use sound practices. Taxes might

also be modified so everyone helps pay for the

environmental services they receive.

3. Public education will be vitally important as agencies try

to change specific behaviors in residential landscaping,

for example. Participants in every State mentioned the

importance of improved general education about natural

resource issues. Target audiences might include young

people, landowners, professionals, and local leaders.

Participants in two States mentioned the need to change

attitudes by designing appropriate educational programs.

4. Better interagency communication, planning, regulations,

enforcement, and public policy were common in the

listings. A clear plan for managing growth by establishing

enforceable regulations and incentives was commonly

suggested. The participants explained that this type of

planning and management goes hand-in-hand with

political change, agency cooperation, better leadership,

more public support, and better government.

Research Needs

Participants also were asked to comment on specific

research needs that would help them meet interface

challenges and make more well-informed decisions on the

job. Naturally, many cited research specific to their area of

interest or to their individual job responsibilities.

Nonetheless, five basic categories of needed research

emerged. A complete list of all identified research needs is

provided in appendix E. These findings may be useful in
6

designing future research and technology transfer projects in

the wildland-urban interface.

1. Focus-group participants in every State requested more

readily available and applicable research findings—that is

better access to research information. Specific requests

were for (1) more data on case studies, lessons learned,

and examples of how other communities have dealt with

interface challenges and (2) an up-to-date compilation of

relevant research. Clearly, people are feeling isolated; yet

they know their concerns are not unique. There is a great

need for coordinating information dissemination within

and among communities.

2. Participants throughout the South indicated that more

information would help them make sound decisions. They

spoke of needing more and better maps, especially those

indicating soil types and flood plain boundaries, as well as

detailed maps that use geographic information system

data. Most were seeking a better understanding of their

natural environment and suggested that natural resource

inventories would help provide data to support and aid in

the decisionmaking processes.

3. Many requested assistance in working with interface

residents through outreach programs. They spoke of a

need to study the attitudes and beliefs of residents, as well

as their perceptions of natural resource management, and

to know the best ways to increase public understanding of

interface issues. Participants wanted to improve both

educational and communication programs.

4. Focus-group participants in nearly every State asked for

economic studies that quantify the monetary values of

natural resources and estimate the cost of degrading the

resources. They also wanted to know the actual costs of

growth and development and to see comparisons of

different growth scenarios.

5. The last broad category focused on the challenges of

simultaneously managing growth and natural resources in

the same space. More specifically, participants requested

research about ways to develop lands in an

environmentally sensitive manner to resolve or prevent

problems associated with transportation, storm water, and

wastewater management. They asked for more

information about the appropriate extent of growth:

projections of where growth will happen, explanations of

how growth occurs, documentation of ecosystem change,

and improved understanding of how growth can be

managed. Finally, participants sought answers to

important questions about how best to manage natural

resources in interface areas, considering such matters as

fire management, tools for managing fragmented forests,

climate change, natural systems, exotic species control,

and water quality issues.

Summary

The challenge of managing growth while protecting natural

resources is not new or surprising, but the depth of

frustration expressed by many participants was startling.

This frustration seemed based in the perception that

politically acceptable and implementable solutions are not

available. Traditional natural resource management tools do

not seem to be effective in the fragmented wildland-urban

interface; the ability to manage larger tracts seems shortlived. Planning, zoning, policies, and political leadership

appear to be ineffective; and economic incentives all point

towards more growth and sprawl. A significant segment of

society, those who often become champions of change,

appears to be apathetic, unaware of environmental

problems, or supportive of sprawl for increased

convenience. Many expressed the need to better understand

resource problems they face, to work with cooperative

agencies and communicate among themselves, to promote

conservation behaviors and play a role in developing

effective policies, to work with visionary leaders, and to

change the course of their future.
7

Overview

In spring 2000, the USDA Forest Service held two focus

groups in each of six States. The summaries that follow

present a record of the focus-group discussions. Local

partners helped coordinate the focus groups and provided

suitable facilities. Participants from local, State, and Federal

Government agencies and organizations participated.

Discussions were recorded in three ways: by audiotape (in

all States but Alabama), flipchart lists, and notetaker. All

conversations followed a similar format, and a facilitator

asked the same set of questions.

Each discussion began with participants offering definitions

of the wildland-urban interface as they perceived it, factors

driving change in such areas, and key issues they face. After

a short break, participants resumed discussion of the

challenges and opportunities they have met and listed

specific materials, information, and research they felt would

help them meet those challenges and seize the opportunities.

Two nonparticipating researchers reviewed all focus-group

records in July and August 2000. Audiotapes (where

available) were used to confirm the accuracy of the

facilitators’ reports, to understand emotional undertones of

conversation, and capture salient quotes. When they found

the facilitator’s report to be very accurate, the researchers

identified general themes of the discussions. Where relevant,

we have provided a sampling of participant comments.

Alabama Focus Group Summary

May 11, 2000

Botanical Gardens in Birmingham, AL

Describing the Interface

Alabama’s interface has abundant natural resources. The

relatively small human population has been concentrated in

the industrial, northern section of the State, leaving the

reforested hills, coastal plain, streamsides, and river basins

sparsely populated. Participants expressed the belief that

Alabamians’ quality of life is improved by geographical

variation, rich biodiversity, and the significant recreational

value of these lands.

A growing economy and availability of land, however, are

inviting considerable development in rural areas,

particularly along roads, rivers, and lakes. The developing

interface is plagued by common problems—trash, invasive

vegetation (kudzu), houses on ridges and hillsides, prime

agricultural land converted to development, clearcutting for

chip mills, conflicts between and among landowners, and an

increased incidence of illegal activities.

Factors Driving Change

Two broad categories generated many comments about

factors that create change in the interface: (1) people are not

involved and (2) local governments have no vision or plan.

Alabama participants indicated that public involvement is

limited by a lack of education about natural resources, the

environment, and land stewardship. A not-in-my-backyard

attitude about private property is prevalent, yet participants

assigned no value to protecting open space. The Alabama

experience seemed to be that while people are not involved

in public meetings to discuss management plans or

regulations, new regulation is almost always met with

negative reactions.

Many said that local governments are hampered by a lack of

authority; there is no home rule, and there are no Statewide

controls or regulations on development. There is a lack of

consistent public policy—people just react to what is

happening; and there is no new vision to guide development.

Monitoring and enforcement have not been effective. Many

said that local governments want growth for tax advantages.

They put in sewer and water lines, and development

follows. Fifty percent of housing starts, however, are mobile

homes, which are exempt from most regulation.

Participants said that in the absence of guidance and

regulation, people are fleeing urban communities to live in

rural areas where they expect to find a more desirable

quality of life, more recreation, and less crime and

congestion. Although the population is growing at a

substantial rate, proportionally the interface is growing

much faster. Participants believed that others think it is

better to develop interface land than to redevelop industrial

areas.

Participants also said that low property taxes and positive

economic reports encourage people to move to affordable

housing in rural areas. They suggested that estate taxes

Appendix A: Individual State Reports1

1

 State reports contain approximate accounts of focus-group discussions.
8

encourage inheritors to subdivide. Nonetheless, there still is

a demand for timber in the South, and lush landscapes make

it easy for people to do anything they choose with the land.

Generally, their opinion seemed to be: “It can always grow

back.”

Key Issues

The focus groups identified several key interface issues.

Most agreed that environmental degradation, lack of a

comprehensive vision or plan, and lack of publicly owned

land for recreation, as well as wildland-fire management,

education, and people’s perceptions, are major issues.

Alabama participants said that environmental degradation

includes diminished water quality and quantity, flooding and

erosion, wildlife habitat, nuisance wildlife, air quality,

population pressures on the environment, and the loss of

forest and farmland. Three significant needs were identified:

(1) recreation opportunities on public lands, (2) public

education about the role of fire in maintaining healthy

ecosystems—both the control of wildfire and the use of

prescribed fire as a management tool, and (3) the need to

protect and sustain the basis for a viable forest products

industry, which contributes significantly to Alabama’s

economy.

Another side of the identified issues has a human face.

Some Alabama participants mentioned resource planning,

leadership, vision, and politics, as well as education,

perceptions, assumptions, and values as important. They

were particularly concerned about the lack of vision and

leadership, the need for patterns of sustainable development,

the lack of education, the lack of comprehensive planning,

and a number of political issues associated with the

interface. In terms of values and perceptions, these

participants reported facing challenges regarding the

expectation of services in rural areas, assumptions about

growth, conflict between new and old residents, respect for

the rights of property owners, and perceptions that the forest

industry and natural resource agencies limit what they can

do.

Challenges and Opportunities

Challenges and opportunities for managing the interface in

Alabama parallel these concerns. Participants said that

agencies are trying to manage growth with few resources, to

balance the benefits and costs of change, and resolve

conflicting regulations while protecting natural resources,

incorporating green space into development, and involving

resource managers in land-use decision making.

Participants said they are eager for leaders strong enough to

address these challenges; technology to facilitate clean

industry, communication, and e-commerce; funding for staff

and resources to provide services and meet needs; and

information. They said that information from research,

forecasts and predictions, and databases would be helpful, as

would conveying such information to decisionmakers, the

media, new employees, and the general public. However,

many cited challenges common to citizens and government

officials alike: resistance to new ideas and regulations,

underinvesting in visionary thinking and education, failure

to empower people to bring about change, failure to engage

the public in decisionmaking, and missed opportunities to

work with new landowners.

Strategies and Research Needs

At the county level, participants said that variation in

government practices means that Jefferson, Shelby, and

Baldwin Counties may have some potential solutions that

others will be able to use when the legislature grants them

the same authority. The small size of county government

allows everyone to know everyone else, and encourages

people to seek assistance from each other.

Participants spoke of geographic inventory system

technologies, the Internet, the media, and other improved

communications devices as important new tools. They also

identified as helpful the differential property tax, as well as

policies that deny access to certain lands.

At the State level, participants cited landowner associations

and the Alabama Forestry Commission as helpful resources.

The universities and extension system provide information

and resources; the corporate sector provides legal advice and

publishes a newsletter titled Inside Alabama Politics.

 In addition, specific programs are helping to address

interface challenges in the State: Peaks of Excellence at

Auburn University, and Your Town Alabama, a training

program for local leaders; the Forestry Planning Committee

and the Jefferson-Shelby Urban-Wildland Interface

Advisory Board provide a forum for exchanging ideas and

resources. Forever Wild and Forest Legacy are State landacquisition programs. The TREASURE Forests program

encourages multiple use and stewardship, and the Teachers

Workshop on Conservation provides good information to

educators.

Participants concluded that people are an important

resource. Those now moving into the interface are generally

younger and more willing to be involved. Cooperation in the

rural counties can be a valuable asset.
9

Strategies and Research Needs

When given a chance to express their dreams and desires,

Alabama participants listed an enormous variety of broad

goals, as well as specific requests. They spoke of a desire for

less litigation and liability indemnification for recreation

easements; less bureaucracy and authority in local

government; more and better-informed leaders; stricter

enforcement of regulations and stiffer fines and penalties for

illegal dumping; incentives such as tax abatements for

protection of land; estate tax reform; and pro-environment

programs that encourage communities to become less

dependent on automobiles, protect natural resources, and

improve infrastructure. Their broader goals included

comprehensive planning towards a common vision; larger

research programs; better marketing of good ideas; financial

support to improve education; and improved educational

programs that address business, environment, and public

issues.

Participants also offered other ideas such as research of new

technologies, new uses for timber, and new ways to deal

with wastes. Some spoke of transportation planning, a better

inventory of local flora and fauna, and better access to

recreation on public and private lands. They are asking for

research that explores ways people interact with the

environment, what they want in their environment, and how

environments can be developed in concert with their needs.

They spoke of urgent needs in the area of economics—

resource values over the long term, cost-benefit comparisons

of other patterns of development, and the true costs of

development and changes in estate tax. They asked for case

studies of ways that others have coped with interface

challenges, what has worked in other places, and earlier

research studies that may be useful. They said that

additional oversight is also needed so that research findings

are efficiently disseminated, research is not duplicated, and

the effectiveness of a variety of programs is sufficiently

tested.

Summary

Generally, Alabamians seemed not to perceive an immediate

crisis, although many believe that one is imminent. Few

cited current policies that would prevent such a crisis. As in

other States, participants in Alabama mentioned the

challenges of improved public education and political

involvement. However, the groups did not emphasize

education as a solution, but rather suggested that better

leaders, policies, and technologies will provide the answers.

Florida Focus Group Summary

June 27, 2000

Farm Bureau office in DeLand, FL (Volusia County)

Describing the Interface

Florida participants described their images of the interface

by talking about beaches, forests, and salt marshes. A few

referred to sights and sounds associated with people, such as

the noise of airboats or the smell of barbeque. Many of the

images and descriptions reflected a positive experience,

although some offered negative descriptions.

• There’s lots of forested, undeveloped land.

• I’m going to take you to a specific place. You’ll be on a

bicycle, riding along the Dixie Highway Loop, which is in

the northeast section of Volusia County. You’ll go through

Tomoka State Park where you’ll see the preservation of

land through purchase by public agencies. You’ll enter a

salt marsh and then hardwood hammocks and wetlands

where you might be surprised that there are trees other

than palm trees in Florida. And then when you’re just

about at the most beautiful place, you’ll see a manicured

golf course between the trees and you hear voices saying

things like ‘Fore’ and ‘Boy, I hate the Volusia County

Council, they haven’t cleared up my drainage canal’ and

that epitomizes what happens when you have a beautiful

area that you haven’t been able to preserve.

Many Floridians talked about the many newcomers to their

State, the resulting development, and the development’s

effects on the land. Most were referring to housing in new

subdivisions, and almost all commented about how quickly

new construction appears.

• I would take you on a plane ride and we would look at all

the new subdivisions being built and new roads being

built and then we would hover over the State line and

count all the new people coming in.

• Development is moving fast.

• I’ve only been here for a little over 2 years, and the

growth of new construction out in the country is just

unprecedented. It seems like every woodlot is for sale and

everybody’s looking for that piece of property that’s close

to public property.

An overriding concern was that there is little or no planning.

Participants spoke of a visionless future, and no one was
10

very clear about who is responsible. A majority complained

that current development is not well planned or regulated.

• No one has a vision for the future. There is fragmentation

of everything.

Generally, people said that increased development and a

lack of planning are leading to natural resource degradation.

The facilitator’s record mentions several times a perceived

misuse of forests. More people means increased demand on

forest resources. The groups recognized that those who alter

the landscape sometimes do not realize the effects of their

actions.

• The forests are declining due to urban sprawl.

• I would have you observe the transportation and utility

corridors that are fragmenting the forest habitat.

• The proximity of population to the forests allows for

inappropriate uses or level of uses like ATV, poaching,

dumping, and growing pot.

• I would like to show you the Apalachicola River and all

the pollutants going into that river from Alabama,

Georgia, and this tri-State area. They are destroying one

of the most fertile estuaries in the world.

Participants vehemently discussed the overwhelming

amount of vegetative fuels, the threat of destructive

wildfires, and the need for more prescribed fire. However,

development within the interface area has made accessibility

problematic. People are building homes in areas at high risk

for fire, where egress and ingress in emergency situations

can be very limited.

• In this area you will smell smoke from wildfire or

prescribed fire. This area is prone to burning.

• Every bit of natural vegetation out here may appear very

green but it’s flammable sometime during the year.

A few participants talked about the extent and influence of

agriculture in the area, and how industry is threatened by

natural forces, as well as development.

• You need to be aware of how much agriculture is alive in

this county and in the whole State. Agriculture is the most

important industry today. I’d have to show you all the

different types of agriculture. We provide you with food to

eat and air to breathe.

• So much of the change of the land use that we’re seeing

today from very traditional sources is due to

climatological changes in our weather in the last 10 to 20

years. Freezes decimated much of the citrus, which made

it impractical to grow anymore, so the land becomes

developed. The recent lack of rain is also having a

dramatic effect on our farms. It’s getting tougher and

tougher to raise your own hay to feed your own cattle.

Degradation of the land and declining agriculture, along

with balancing development with conservation, were key

concerns of Florida participants. Most wanted to see

wildland areas and wildlife habitat protected, buffered, and

preserved.

In describing the interface, participants discussed issues in

human terms. They believed newcomers have different

attitudes and values. They believed that newcomers expect

the services they took for granted in urban areas. Generally,

participants felt that the public is uninformed about

environmental issues, particularly prescribed fire and

wildfire, which has caused conflicts among people and

between people and the natural resources.

• Most of our interface is used by people moving into the

State rather than people from the area.

• People are concerned about their private property rights.

• The inhabitants of areas surrounding the forests are not

willing to allow silviculture practices to occur in those

forests adjacent to their property.

Factors Driving Change

For most Floridian participants, the underlying cause of

change in the interface is population increase; more and

more people are moving in for a variety of reasons. The

availability of cheap land is a primary incentive, as well as a

lower cost of living. Once people move into the area, they

also find it cheaper to live there due to the lack of State

income tax and other economic factors. The area probably is

relatively crime-free, provides recreation opportunities, has

plenty of water (apparently), offers a pleasant climate, and

allows people to return to nature.

• Seven hundred people a week are moving into Florida.

• People come because of the lack of State income tax,

cheap land, homestead exemption, low ad valorem,

bankruptcy laws, and other economic factors.

• The cost of living here is relatively inexpensive compared

to other places. That’s the Florida lifestyle.

Participants noted that management and planning have not

kept pace with population growth. Development is occurring
11

in sensitive areas and there is no viable growth management

policy. They expressed particular concern over management

of buffers and wildlife corridors.

• The intention of creating small buffers or wildlife

corridors through these subdivisions that may be large

enough for some animals and birds is well intended but

these areas are of a size and scale that’s not manageable

from a [hazardous vegetative] fuel standpoint. The

developers or the planners don’t really understand what

they’ve created by permitting these patches.

Many participants addressed wildland-fire issues.

Ecosystems in the area depend on fire; and more and more

fuels are building up. Use of prescribed fire is limited, in

part, by the threat of lawsuits.

• The ecosystems we have here are dependent on fire. Saw

palmetto and gallberry not only burn, but they’re

extremely volatile. If you don’t control the density and the

fuel loads with prescribed fire, when they do burn, we are

not going to stop them.

• I think one of the reasons that you’re seeing wildfire is a

direct result of the litigiousness of society. If a private

landowner is out doing a controlled burn and somebody

down the road has an accident regardless of whether or

not smoke actually caused the problem, there’s going to be

a lawsuit. That stops controlled burning.

Many participants felt that changes in the interface are a

product of people’s attitudes. They suggested that greed and

other economic incentives often override the interests of

natural systems; that people demand a right to do what they

want on their land. Participants believed a general ignorance

among the public about their local environment is to blame.

• A lot of the problem is the preferred lifestyle—the

ranchette, the large lot, and the attitude of ‘I don’t want to

be able to see my neighbor.’ Subdivision design is very

low-density.

• It’s the James Watt philosophy—It’s all going to end soon,

so let’s get what we can while the getting is good.

• The problem is our cowboy mentality. It’s not just 5 acres,

it’s my 5 acres and I’ll do whatever the hell I want

anytime, and that goes for any public space, too.

Key Issues

Wildland fire, private property rights, and education were

some of the issues mentioned, but the main issue

participants discussed was growth management—how to use

zoning and planning to deal with an increasing population.

Participants expressed the need to have more funded

regulation and to provide incentives for responsible land

management. A clarification and coordination of the

agencies involved in managing the land could lead to more

effective activity.

• A lot of these ills could be addressed with some effective

growth management. To be effective, growth management

must be implemented at the local level. Local

governments are the ones who make the land-use

decisions and issue development permits. Growth

management is more than just land-use regulations.

There’s a place for land acquisition, either as fee-simple

or conservation easements. The water management

districts actually have done quite a bit more than the

Lochloosa purchase we talked about. Suwannee River

Water Management District has an acquisition plan to do

about 400,000 acres of conservation easements; so far

they’ve done about 100,000 acres of easements. So that’s

one component of growth management. There’s also the

issue of where we put our infrastructure and how we pay

for it. We can do a lot as far as guiding land uses with the

placement of infrastructure and how we pay for it. There

have been several studies done throughout the State that

show that agricultural lands pay more in ad valorem taxes

that these areas receive back in services. Agricultural

land is actually subsidizing the suburban areas. The

suburban areas put a dollar in, and they get a dollar and

a half back in services. Agricultural areas put a dollar in

and you’re lucky if you get twenty cents back in services. I

say growth management is more than just land use.

Because people live throughout the interface, fire is a

critical issue. Many participants commented about particular

aspects of this issue, such as accessibility to homes during

wildfire, increased fuel loading and the need for more

prescribed fire, relief from litigation, and a desire for the

Federal Government to compensate for timber losses from

fire the same as for losses of agricultural products.

Participants not only talked about management of developed

lands, but also management of forest and agricultural lands.

Many felt that some lands are being managed inadequately,

while others simply are not being managed at all.

Nonetheless, private property rights must be respected,

leaving the participants cognizant of the quandary.

• We must provide incentives to private landowners not to

develop.

• There are inadequate funds for land management.
12

• There are a couple hundred thousand individual, private

landowners out there and I think a lot of the issue involves

the property rights of those individuals.

Participants agreed that many things are contributing to a

decline in natural resources. Lack of management and poor

management has meant poor water quality, stormwater

problems, and loss of wildlife habitat. There is more and

more conflict among competing uses of land.

Participants showed strong support for education—that the

public be educated about the natural environment and how

natural systems work.

• There’s not enough quality education for the people who

live in the interface. You need to make these people realize

that what we need to do is control fuel loads to preserve

an ecosystem and to enhance wildlife habitat. We have to

do it with fire and they have to realize that.

Challenges and Opportunities

Participants listed a number of challenges, ranging from

seasonal inhabitants to naturally flammable vegetation. One

challenge centered on the issue of population growth and the

resulting competition for natural resources.

• The costs and amount of resources to solve whatever the

problem are directly proportional to the number of people

interacting with the perimeter, the number of people

interacting in the interface.

• Turnover in the population really makes the education

more challenging.

• Transience of the population.

• A lot of our population growth is part-time or seasonal,

but their impact is felt all year round.

Participants framed the challenge of wildland fire in terms

of educating people about the need for fire in the area.

The biggest challenges dealt with people’s attitudes and the

resulting conflicts. Participants said that the public is

apathetic, does not want to be held responsible for its

actions, is inflexible, has a not-in-my-backyard attitude,

wants to do what it wants, and has high expectations for life

in the interface. Conflicts have resulted when participants

tried to change public attitudes and become more

democratic in decisionmaking. They said they have dealt

with turf wars, conflicts of interest, and a lack of vision.

• For us as a Federal agency the problem is a general

distrust of government.

• There are different ideologies and a diversity of people

with which we work.

• One other thing that I think makes it challenging is the

attitude that there is no solution. We’re not going to be

able to change it; it’s going to happen, the wave is going

to wash us off the beach. We’re just going to have to let it

happen, and I think too many of us just take that attitude

and don’t really work to get it turned around.

Strategies and Research Needs

Participants named many agencies—Federal, State, and

local—that they consult in their efforts to deal with interface

issues. They named associations, councils, and other nongovernmental groups as well, such as the Florida Fire Chiefs

Association and The Nature Conservancy. They cited

information sources such as the Internet, books, specific

experts, geographic inventory system technologies, and the

news media. Unique sources of help were young people,

cooperation and mutual aid, and the natural ability of

ecosystems to recover and persist.

Participants seemed to want a great deal in terms of public

policy. They cited a desire to repeal the estate tax and

establish an agency that would be in charge of mitigation.

Overall, they wanted public policy to be clear in saying

what needs to be done, driven by intelligent leaders, based

on science, and focused on the issues. Many comments

expressed a need for a clear plan for managing land and

population growth.

Several wanted information regarding fire issues, as well as

informed fire-related policies.

• I’d like a study of the costs and benefits and tradeoffs of

different fuel treatments, particularly in urban areas.

• Some type of study on the critical factors, weather, or fuel,

that contribute to smoke on highways and accidents.

Education was a popular theme—for the media, the general

public, and the participants themselves.

• I would like to see commercials promoting agriculture

and wildland/urban management.

Participants are seeking access to an array of information,

better maps, and predictive models dealing with growth and
13

growth management. A few asked for information on

climate and weather, as well on the natural systems and

ecological components in their area.

• What about research into a little better weather

forecasting?

Participants wanted research on how to value resources and

how to conduct financial analyses using those values.

Summary

Florida participants seemed genuinely overwhelmed with

the tremendous numbers of newcomers. The population

increase has resulted in unprecedented development.

Problems that stem from more people and more

development are compounded by natural factors in Florida

such as climate and the ecosystems’ dependency on fire.

Management within the Florida interface is bringing new

challenges each day. Participants felt that the public is

uninformed, set in their ways, and yet demands a high level

of services. The participants are seeking strategies to better

communicate with the public and to help them understand

their shared ecosystem.

Georgia Focus Group Summary

June 20, 2000

Unicoi State Park near Helen, GA (White County)

Describing the Interface

Participants in Georgia spoke of tremendous changes in the

interface due to increased housing and commercial

development. They believe such development threatens

resources in the interface. They mentioned specific concerns

regarding forests and water resources, such as erosion and

sedimentation. One participant called the land

“fragile”; and many were worried about the enormous

amount of development on mountains and along streams,

coupled with the fragmentation of the forests. Others

bemoaned the conversion of agricultural land to housing and

commercial development.

• Bigger and better equipment makes development of homes

and roads on mountains possible.

• I would show you some of the new developments up on the

side of the mountains. There are scars from the driveways.

There are very steep approaches that affect water quality.

• I’d take you out to a once-productive tree farm or just an

agricultural farm that’s now a subdivision.

• I’d take you by Piney Woods Subdivision, and while we’re

going by there I’d point out that no more than 10 years

ago that was Farmer John’s hayfield. In fact, you can still

see the terraces behind the houses from the farm practices

over the years. It’s all changed now.

• I’d take you to several places across North Georgia that

have very intense commercial development, shopping

centers, factory mall, and that type of thing. Then you go

a mile down the road and look at the small farms and the

‘for sale’ signs.

Participants explained that development is occurring

because more and more people are coming into the area.

Many new residents are coming from Atlanta, attracted by

the many positive features of the area. Some participants felt

that newcomers are bringing harmful attitudes with them

and are not valuing the land. Others expressed belief that

developments lack forethought, creativity, and planning.

• I’ll give you one thing you can hear, smell, and everything

else—people. Lots of them and more all of the time.

Finding a place to get away from people is getting really

difficult.

• People are coming here for the slower life and to get

away from the hustle and bustle of Atlanta and the

suburbs.

• There is a lack of creativity in a great deal of the

development that’s going on. It’s basically: punch a road

in, knock the trees down, and carve it up.

Despite these concerns, participants also focused on good

things happening in the area. They provided many visual

descriptions of natural beauty in the interface. They

described positive ways in which people are managing the

area and working together to address issues.

• I think you also want to point out the beauty we have.

• We have a lot of high-quality, native forests with very

diverse, substantially large trees. There are still some very

nicely preserved, natural stands.

• In White County I’d like you to see the headwaters of the

Chattahoochee River and the beautiful river that we have.

Factors Driving Change

Overall, participants said they believe that changes

occurring in the interface are a direct result of lots of
14

newcomers to the area. Many circumstances are attracting

new people: a booming economy was enabling people to

move; people were trying to escape the urban life of Atlanta;

the area is very accessible to people from Atlanta; there are

many opportunities for recreation; and tourism is a major

part of the economy. But basically the participants believed

their area is a nice and desirable place because of its natural

beauty and mild climate.

• As Atlanta gets worse, this area looks better.

• A lot of the people moving into our area are leaving a

metropolitan setting. They can sell 1 acre in the city and

come up here and buy 10 acres and think they got a

bargain price. Locals could not do that.

• The road system makes this area so accessible.

• The economy is so good that people have money to spend.

• Georgia is the only State that has Atlanta. At this point,

Atlanta is the biggest sprawl in the South. It’s the business

center of the South. Hartsfield is the largest airport. It’s

all happening in Atlanta. All roads lead to Atlanta.

• We’re at the tail end of the Appalachia mountain chain,

and for a whole lot of people in the Southeast that’s their

touchpoint with the mountains. We get a lot of traffic from

South Georgia, Alabama, and other places. These people

come to this area because it’s the closest place that they

can get to the mountains and for the unique things the

mountains offer—trout fishing is one of those—that’s

unavailable anywhere else south of here.

• One thing that’s unique about north Georgia is the

national forests, the public land, and the availability of

wonderful recreation opportunities. That’s the very thing

that attracts them to the area.

Participants felt that newcomers are often less

knowledgeable about the land and as a result do not

appreciate it. The new people have expectations of

conveniences and do not understand their effect on the

ecosystem.

• It’s also a disconnect. People are getting further and

further disconnected from their natural roots and their

natural environment. They move to the country to make it

look like the city.

• People move to the country but don’t want to smell the

chicken houses.

Participants believe an increasing population and its many

demands have led to unchecked, unregulated development

driven by greed. They feel that zoning and planning have

not kept up with the demand for growth.

• It’s all about money.

• People want to live rural but they still want to live within

5 minutes of Wal-Mart. Rural living with conveniences.

• Consumerism, population growth, and all that stuff that I

know we’ll never solve, has fueled all the building of little

stores here and strip malls there.

All such changes are compounded by the fact that the

original inhabitants can no longer afford to remain. The

cultures of mountain people and farmers are being lost.

• We’re seeing ways of life disappear among people who

have been here for generations because of the changing

environment and influx of people from the outside. There’s

a cultural loss as well as a physical loss taking place.

Key Issues

The degradation of natural resources received the most

support from participants as a key issue. This category

covered erosion, water quality issues, nonnative species,

wildlife habitat, prescribed fire issues, and air pollution.

• Loss of natural areas whether you’re talking wooded

uplands, streams, or riparian areas.

• The introduction of exotic plant and animal species. Very

often when you’re developing a forested environment, that

kind of disturbance promotes exotic species that may not

compete well in a forested environment but do very well

when the area is disturbed.

• Taking land out of production. In other words, where are

our 2’ x 4’s and crops going to come from tomorrow?

Participants expressed the belief that key issues such as land

use changes, zoning and planning, and economic factors are

driving the decline in natural resources. They said that land

use is changing from agriculture and forest-resources

management to commercial and housing development.

There has been little zoning and planning to control land

changes, nor are there any economic incentives to provide

relief for rural landowners. They pointed to development as

leading to major infrastructure issues such as transportation

and solid waste disposal.

• The issue of zoning, planning, and that sort of thing is

only done on a local, small scale. There needs to be a

more comprehensive approach.
15

• Sometimes there is resistance to zoning, whether that’s

good or bad. There is resistance to proper land-use

planning, because it is seen as interference by the

government.

• Inadequate infrastructure—quantity of water, quantity and

number of schools, you can go on and on to the lack of

infrastructure.

Participants felt that an important concept underlying all of

the key issues is attitude. They mentioned various types of

attitudes: a feeling of powerlessness, unrealistic demands,

too little education about issues, and an adamant defense of

private property rights.

• The public demands services.

• A very strong issue is private property rights. The issue is

the taking of those private property rights whether it’s

through zoning or conservation or anything else that

infringes upon a person’s right to do with his property

what he wants.

Challenges and Opportunities

A few participants mentioned natural features such as the

topography and fragility of the land in north Georgia, which

can and probably will present problems.

• The resource here is more fragile than in a lot of other

places and it takes less to cause problems. Here we have

steep slopes and sensitive species.

• We have linear environments so that whatever happens

upstream flows downstream and impacts the downstream

area. So if you have a fellow that builds a pond on the

headwaters and it warms the water then the folks

downstream don’t have trout in their stream.

• Topography—the steepness of the slopes, mountain

slopes. If you’re building on slopes, that affects erosion

and sedimentation.

All of the other challenges discussed had to do with new

landowners and the sheer pressure of their numbers. One

identified challenge was the quality of public schools in the

area. Participants said that people do not understand

interface issues, do not understand how the environment

works, and do not want the government involved, but still

want their problems fixed.

• The problem is the population just being present when

things like prescribed burns are occurring. You have to do

prescribed burns in a different way with people around, or

you’re not allowed to do them at all.

• I work with landowners trying to encourage them to

manage their timber and they’re getting offered $10,000

per acre for the land. I’m trying to tell them that they need

to plant trees on it and in 30 years they might see a profit.

• One of the challenges is to emphasize that it’s cheaper to

protect the resource than to restore it. Whether that’s

water quality, erosion, or even zoning and development.

• I have the first place on the water that comes off of Piney

Mountain and I’m always so conscious of anything that I

do impacting everyone else downstream, and I think

there’s not enough of that. People need to be aware that

what you do impacts so many other people.

• The problem with planning is that it’s a bad word that is

associated with the removal of private property rights.

All of this leads to conflicts among people, usually

newcomers and locals, and between people and the

resources.

• A lot of local folks that have lived here on the little oneway dirt roads are pretty sick of driving on rutted-out,

mudhole, washboard roads and would love to see the

roads paved. Now that we have the money to pave those

roads, however, the people moving in oppose the local

people. These newcomers like the rural aspect of unpaved

roads and don’t want to change that.

• Atlanta’s got a lot of people. These many individuals voice

their opinions and the few rural voices we have here can’t

compete.

• Atlanta has money, and money is power. Money talks, and

people who’ve got money think they can have all the

resources they want. The way they’re spending their

money is causing problems for us.

Strategies and Research Needs

Participants named agencies as their main sources of

assistance. These included both Federal and State agencies.

The university systems, along with the Cooperative

Extension Service, also were mentioned. Local and private

groups help, as well.

Participants said they needed better management and

regulations. They made specific requests, such as having the

Federal Government provide fire-control services on land

adjacent to national forests; as well as more general

requests, such as better planning and funding. A few

participants also asked for certain tax changes.
16

• I would like to see the State legislature start looking at tax

incentives for conservation easements. Tax incentives for

the purchase of development rights by the state—ways to

try to help keep these areas in green space, despite the

fact that development around them is causing the taxes on

those properties to go up.

Participants seemed to really want a change in attitudes of

the people in the area. They want the public to become

better educated about their environment, more cooperative,

and more caring about the land. A number of them

suggested specific education programs.

• We need the willingness of landowners, developers, and

all people who are causing this rural-urban interface

problem to access the available resources and say, “Gee,

I want to do something right with this piece of property.”

That willingness is not there right now.

• A word keeps coming into my head—pride. People need to

have pride in their environment. If they have pride, they

take care of their property.

A few participants also made request for information in the

form of maps and geographic information system

technologies.

Most of what participants said they wanted in terms of

research dealt with resource management, especially of

watersheds, streams, and rivers. Some participants said they

would support research on the effects of development and

land use changes.

• Is it possible to develop alternatives to the current

development schemes, where you can still maximize

economic benefits while protecting the environmental

values? Is it possible that someone can do simulations or

whatever is needed to evaluate these alternatives? We

plan to send people to Mars but we don’t seem able to

plan for development in our own counties.

Summary

Georgia participants appear to value above all else the

beauty and solitude of their area. There is growing

apprehension that pressures of urban Atlanta emigration will

destroy fragile landscapes in north Georgia. They seemed to

recognize that the mountains present unique challenges not

found in flatter areas. More and more people are moving to

the area, either as tourists or as permanent residents.

Participants reflected a strong desire for knowledge and

research about how to manage natural resources in their

area, in the face of a staggering increase in the human

population. They worry that the public’s negative,

misinformed attitudes and perceptions will continue to make

their job difficult. They have sounded the call for more

education to increase knowledge and raise awareness of

these issues.

Mississippi Focus Group Summary

June 15, 2000

Orange Grove Community Center in Orange Grove, MS

(near Biloxi, in Harrison County)

Describing the Interface

When asked to describe the interface in their area,

Mississippi participants discussed increased development.

Many statements were simple descriptions of

development—as sprawl, cleared land, more billboards, and

new subdivisions. They discussed specific aspects of

development and its results, and included the broad

categories of traffic and transportation problems, waste

water and storm water issues, and pressures on natural

resources often leading to the degradation of these

resources.

• They bulldoze the pitcher plants and wonder why it

floods.

• Ozzie-and-Harriet-era zoning applied to new

developments.

• One word crops up in my mind to describe the way the

whole interface looks and that’s overgrown. Overgrown

due to a lack of fire.

• Tremendous choice of new living amenities.

• The cities are growing and populations are growing and

everybody wants their little piece of nature in their own

subdivision or right next to their subdivision, so some of

the developments are blending in with nature. Most of

them, however, are those little cookie cutter areas.

These participants focused on two topics related to increased

development that are perhaps peculiar to their area: the

ubiquitous presence of mobile homes and the need for more

recreation opportunities. The topic of mobile homes was

addressed with negative feelings and apprehension that their

numbers will only increase. Participants worried about

providing recreation opportunities and the effect this is

likely to have on natural resources.
17

• People that have traditionally hunted out in the woods

think it’s their God-given right, so they still do that. You

may hear the sound of angry landowners, and the hunters

here aren’t used to that.

One group of comments about rural versus urban attitudes

and possible conflicts from the mix of these values

addressed the human side of increased development.

Scattered throughout the discussion were comments about

the economy and industry of the area, both in terms of how

a diversity of industry has encouraged development, and

how development has changed the economy from one based

on natural resources to one based on tourism and casinos.

Participants said that development is fostered by the

tremendous growth in population. There seems to be a

vicious cycle linking population growth to development.

• With the population growth, I don’t think we’re prepared

for any kind of disaster [hurricane] at this point in time.

Our highway system can’t handle it.

Participants described few positive aspects of the interface.

Some recalled images of pine trees and blooming orchids,

and suggested that there may be a potential for quality

development that protects natural resources. Most agreed

that agriculture plays a significant role in the area.

Factors Driving Change

Much discussion about factors that drive change focused on

causes of increased population and overdevelopment.

Participants described various incentives for moving, e.g.,

healthy industry and job opportunities, cheap land and other

property, favorable climate and environment, economic

growth and the hope of making more money, and a general

desire to live in a rural area, albeit with urban expectations.

They said that such incentives have brought hordes of

people to the interface, and that governments have failed to

respond and plan accordingly.

• I think we live in a mobile society, too. Look at the

availability of transportation—people are moving from

one area to another. It isn’t like 10, 15, 20 years ago

where a family stayed on one piece of property for year

after year. Now people pack up and move across country

for jobs and better opportunities. Particularly in this area,

this behavior runs headlong into the planning,

transportation, and green-space area problem.

Participants said that people in the area, both new and old,

lack an appreciation for the value of natural resources, do

not know where to turn for help, and cannot see the big

picture in terms of land management.

• What’s happening is that a lot of investment is happening

here from people who are not from this area, who are not

necessarily sensitive to what we have traditionally. A lot

of your problems that you’re seeing are caused by a lot of

people moving into this area to work here, in response to

all of the development, and there’s no place for them to

live, that’s why the mobile homes have become such a hot

item.

• There is a huge lack of understanding, knowledge, and

appreciation of the valuable rural and forest assets that

are here. They’re just taken for granted, both rivers and

forests.

• There is a lack of knowledge about how it works together

and of the importance of how the environment works.

• Lack of public knowledge of which agencies are involved

in natural resource management.

In addition to all the concerns related to development and

population increase, participants pointed out that Mississippi

has natural features such as weather patterns, topography,

vegetation types, and ecosystem characteristics that

complicate efforts to manage the interface areas.

Key Issues

Participants strongly supported the notion that the main

issues in Mississippi’s interface areas have resulted from a

burgeoning population and increased development. Many

acknowledged that a major problem was lack of government

planning, zoning, and vision; and that the problem was

exacerbated by a shortfall in public education.

• I think it’s a lack of understanding of the general public,

which is a lack of knowledge or lack of education on the

issues.

• Lack of a real vision for the coast. There’s nothing like a

hurricane to focus us.

Participants were genuinely concerned about the general

degradation of natural resources. They talked about their

worry over the fragmentation of land, the viability of

wildlife species and their habitat; and many voiced

particular apprehension about wetlands. Pollution issues

were high on the list of concerns and included solid-waste
18

and waste water disposal, storm water runoff, air quality,

drinking water quality, and litter.

• We need to protect open spaces, green spaces, and

conservation areas.

• Threatened and endangered species.

Participants mentioned the buildup of fuels in interface areas

and talked about people’s opposition to the use of prescribed

fire. They said that while most new residents do not support

the use of prescribed fire, without its use the threat of

destructive wildfire increases.

• The risk has just grown exponentially. You can be totally

within the prescription, do everything 100 percent right,

and then 12 or so hours later have a smoke-related

incident just because we have more traffic than 10 or 20

years ago.

• Also, the risk of not burning is growing, and is a mirror

image of the risk of prescribed burning.

Other issues resulting from development are transportation/

traffic problems and the need for better disaster planning.

Challenges and Opportunities

Whereas participant discussion of key issues was quick and

concise, their discussions of challenges and opportunities

prompted many and varied comments. Distinct categories of

challenges emerged, as well as several avenues of

opportunities to meet them. They spoke of water and

wetlands, forest resources, coastal issues, and funding to

promote resource management.

• There is no general recognition of natural capital. That

stuff with weeds on it is worth something, for absorption,

filtration, habitat, and oxygen.

• There’s this issue of the value of land when you try to

regulate or protect areas from development, like keeping a

wetland from being filled, you get into the takings thing,

that somebody’s saying I can’t use my land, you’ve taken

away the value. You’re telling me if it’s a wetland, it has

zero value?

• We need to make some people realize there is a difference

between north Mississippi and south Mississippi, and we

have very different and unique problems that are not

related to upstate Mississippi.

Other major categories were planning and zoning, and

greater agency coordination. So far, according to the

participants, planning has been unimaginative and only

reactionary. Zoning has been ignored as an effective

planning tool. Land-use attitudes, property rights, and

regulation are challenges in Mississippi, as well as a lack of

education and opportunities for public participation.

• It seems like there are just rapid changes. Landscapes just

change almost overnight before you can even react to

anything, and it seems like as these changes occur there’s

no thought about the impacts on neighbors.

• People seem to be using the same approach but expecting

different results. They use a cookie cutter approach,

whether it’s building a subdivision or a mall or whatever,

and instead of thinking outside the box, so to speak, they

just do it the same way its been done in the past.

• We’re moving into a multicultural society and I don’t think

we’ve changed to reflect that. Well, for example, just in

Mississippi, we’ve got a lot of people who speak Spanish

nowadays but many, many years ago that was not the

case.

• The resources are everybody’s. They’re used, enjoyed by

everybody, but there’s not any one entity that has its finger

on the button, so it gets back to the communication,

coordination, and political subdivision.

Participants felt that responsibility must also extend to

interfacing with residents and developers, whose land-use

attitudes often do not respect natural resources and strongly

emphasize private property rights. Much of the public is

apathetic and does not appreciate the value of natural

resources. People do not understand the impact of their

actions, but participants are hopeful that educational efforts

can help this.

• It’s more the private property rights issue; there is a

desire not to have regulations.

• The mindset of the individuals— it’s my property; I’ll do

as I darn well please, regardless.

• The user fees on public lands will work to some degree

but they are just now beginning the process. People are

balking at it because we used to do this for nothing and

now they’re going to charge us?

Strategies and Research Needs

Government agencies and funds, whether Federal, State, or

local, provide much of the help that participants receive. The

private sector—in the form of industry or consultant, as well

as nongovernment entities like The Nature Conservancy—

has contributed valuable resources. Information and data
19

sources are maps and the Internet. Participants provided

many detailed plans, actions, and initiatives that have helped

them with their tasks, from State agencies to Web sites, and

select industries.

Participants offered a wish list of things to deal with

interface issues. Many of their desires seemed to concern

planning and management issues, i.e., how to plan, develop,

and manage their land with respect for natural resources.

They said they wanted fundamental changes in the way

local governments operate. They wanted public education

about natural resources, which would foster an appreciation

for resource issues and how they apply to life in the

interface. Several requested specific information about firewise landscaping techniques and additional funding for

enforcement and personnel on public lands. They want

public officials to be better educated in resource

management and conflicts; and they are looking for ways to

discuss limits to growth, particularly on the coast.

Participants requested several types of research, such as case

studies on development and the lessons learned from past

mistakes. Participants have possible research questions

about certain key areas appropriate to their jobs, such as

how to forecast the formation of fog, or develop parameters

for stream corridors. There was a general interest in and

wish for better monitoring of natural resources.

Summary

Participants in Mississippi face interface issues common

throughout the South, although the threat of hurricanes was

an additional component. Evacuation plans create unique

challenges for transportation engineers. Public education,

participation, and communication are key elements to a

more balanced view of growth management and resource

protection. Better information and more answers will be

necessary as needed Mississippi ecosystems are increasingly

degraded. Appropriate policies, economic incentives, and

leadership are also needed.

Texas Focus Group Summary

June 13, 2000

Montgomery Community College in The Woodlands outside

Houston, TX (Montgomery County)

Describing the Interface

Participants described the interface in Texas as a fastmoving transition zone with pockets of development in

natural areas and pockets of woods in sprawling

subdivisions. They said that the effects of more people and

machines in the area have created constant noise, increased

litter, more burning debris, and more drifting air pollution

from the urban areas. The “wildness” is disappearing. As a

direct result of the increased population, participants see

more agricultural land sold to developers; and the remaining

landowners have a hard time effectively using landmanagement tools, such as prescribed burning. Participants

suggested that another result is a decline of natural resources

in the area: forests suffer from fuel buildup, nonnative trees

are planted to replace native forests, endangered species are

reduced to a limited number of protected areas, surface

water quality is declining, water quantity is reduced,

flooding and erosion are increasing, and ecosystems are

changing.

• In a word, the interface is a façade; the illusion that you

are in a forest.

• It is like a big screen TV that I’m not quite ready to look

at yet.

• Lots that are too large to mow and too small to manage

properly.

In addition to having more people in the interface, the group

explained that there is more conflict between different

expectations for this area. New residents expect the services

of a metropolitan area, incompatible land uses are mixed

closely together, and more diverse people are expressing

competing desires for the same land.

• The interface is a mosaic of incompatible land uses. A

zone of increased conflict.

• Traditional forest management practices have to be

changed because of conflicts between management and

people, like prescribed burning.

Factors Driving Change

The group expressed frustration that all this occurs without

any of the traditional levers that are often used to create

appropriate social change. A general lack of education about

forest functions and a lack of connection to or appreciation

of the land were described as important factors that created

this interface situation. Texas’ relatively low cost of living,

no income tax, cheap gas (at the time), and booming

economy (at the time) help create opportunities for more

people to afford living outside of the city. But most

importantly, and the source of extensive conversation, was

the lack of regional planning, municipal regulations, and

interagency cooperation that could control development.
20

Participants speculated that this lack of governmental power

might be an outgrowth of the Texan attitude toward limitless

land resources and a culture that promotes individual rights

and private property over the public good.

• The means to influence private land stewardship is out of

balance. It comes down to three things: education,

incentives, and regulation. We are void of regulation. We

don’t have enough incentives. And we aren’t doing a good

job of education.

• The problem is you have people who want the quality of

life we have here and how do you balance the

development without destroying the environment?

• Growth happens in unincorporated areas where there are

no regulations or power. County commissioners don’t

have the tools to regulate and manage.

• Local government entities may not want to deal with that

political hot potato. They want to be reelected.

• Native Texans don’t want anybody telling us anything.

• Our educational system contributes to the culture Texans

have. I think there’s a very poor understanding of the

ecology and forests. I don’t think there’s a good

understanding of what trees do for us.

• We have a very strong sense that if you have a piece of

land you can do whatever you want with it, regardless of

how it impacts your neighbors. It is your sacred right.

• There is no empowerment of regional planning because

there are so many local municipal governments. There is

fragmentation, imbalance of power, and a lack of

coordination.

• We not only have leftover pieces of forest that are

fragmented, but we also have political fragmentation – an

increasing number of Municipal Utility Districts.

• In summary – Texas has a very diffused, decentralized

governmental structure, both up and down the line. We’re

independent Texans, by golly. Nobody’s going to stop us

or tell us something different. There are millions of us and

you’ll have that many different ways of doing things.

Key Issues

The group identified six main key issues regarding the

interface in Texas. The largest category was natural resource

decline, which included water and air pollution, wildlife

habitat and forest fragmentation, climate change in the

urban area, invasive species, hazardous fuel buildup,

changes in the water system and flooding, and changes to

basic ecological functions. A lack of economic alternatives

to the situation was another issue, defined by no source of

public funds to purchase wildlands, which gives willing

sellers few options but to sell to developers. The general

practice of maximizing the number of houses or strip malls

in an area was termed “greed.”

The third issue was a lack of planning and political

alternatives, including a lack of imagination among public

officials; a fragmentation of power among local

governments instead of regional empowerment; and a lack

of meaningful regulations to halt growth.

• There is no empowerment of regional planning because

there are so many local municipal governments. There is

fragmentation and imbalance of power and a lack of

coordination.

A lack of education, in both the current landowners and the

upcoming citizens, was another key issue. Landowners and

newcomers need to better understand the land and how to

manage it; youth must better understand the forests of Texas

and ecology.

• One of the key things that tie to all of these factors is the

lack of education. The lack of education of our kids – they

are growing to adults; the teenagers haven’t got an

appreciation for the land, what the land does, and how it

all ties together.

• Public ignorance – ignorance of reality versus

expectation. The public has an expectation of what the

forest in Texas is, but they have no understanding of the

reality of that forest.

Participants expressed that as a result of poor awareness and

few governmental controls, growing conflicts have become

an issue in the interface, especially over incompatible and

adjacent land uses.

Finally, the outcome of these factors—sprawl in the

interface—is itself an issue. Great frustration was expressed

at the inability to balance the competing needs of more

people for affordable housing and environmental protection.

There is also frustration at the loss of productivity of

agricultural and forest lands, due to a declining land base

and restricted management tools.

• Every piece of public land we have is used to the hilt. We

need a lot more.

Challenges and Opportunities

As might be expected, the challenges address each of these

key issues. Maintaining natural resources, particularly
21

around the problems of fire, soil erosion, pest infestations,

and marketing timber resources, was expressed as an

important challenge. Furthermore, coping with

fragmentation of natural resources due to sprawl when the

small parcels of land represent tremendous revenue potential

was particularly challenging.

Similarly, working toward a regional consensus toward

planning, changing the notion that local governments can

increase development to build a tax base, and integrating

planning and implementation for coordinated change were

mentioned as well. Opportunities for “smart growth,” for

green developments, and for using covenants on private

lands were opportunities.

• I think it is the lack of coordination over all; the lack of

integration in planning and the lack of integration in

implementation. We have park plans, water management

plans, but no one to integrate them together in one

document on the implementation side.

The size of the problem is daunting, because participants

believed humans have the capacity to change the landscape

to such a great extent. But the category with the most

comments revolved around the challenges and opportunities

of the human dimensions of the interface. Participants spoke

of the need to raise awareness, increase communications,

create opportunities to include more diverse populations in

decisionmaking, learn how to listen, help others learn to

talk, garner grassroots support, and connect people to both

the land and each other.

• How to make your project or issue of interest to the

public, which also means making it of sufficient emotional

interest to get the newspaper coverage to influence a

groundswell of public opinion.

• Get the media to report the grassroots support and not

drive the agenda themselves.

• People think they are being environmentally responsible

but in fact they’re not.

• Getting people to be able to live with each other and talk

with each other. One problem in our cities is that people

didn’t want to live next to somebody who looked different

than them and they ran away. We’ve got to learn to live

together.

• We need to listen to the public and understand what they

want and then translate that into something that’s going to

work.

Strategies and Research Needs

Participants listed a variety of State and Federal agencies

that provide information on natural resource management,

and several organizations that promote discussion from

diverse perspectives. Programs that promote land

conservation were mentioned several times, such as the

Wildscape Program, the Trust for Public Land, the Nature

Conservancy, and the Legacy Land Trust. New strategies in

planning developments to retain open space and interest in

smart growth were mentioned. Participants commented on

the importance of looking to models and success stories,

such as Chicago’s Wilderness Group, the Woodlands, and

Florida’s history with prescribed fire.

Participants returned to their main themes to make another

plea for more regional conservation planning, zoning,

incentives for conservation, reductions in liability for

owners of green space, education, data on resources

availability, and opportunities to exchange information.

Even changes to the tax code were mentioned with great

skepticism and laughter; indeed the idea of asking everyone

to contribute to the expense of running a government

seemed logical but impossible.

• Constitutional relief. Allow public entities to cooperate.

Just permit it. It’s not too much to ask. Don’t require it.

Just allow them to cooperate to deal with these issues.

• Change the tax code. Only landowners pay taxes. Need to

change so everyone pays for government services. Income

tax is fairer.

• Assistance and facilitation for forums to discuss regional

issues. A place for dialogue and exchange, with a good

facilitator.

• A mechanism to eliminate the liability issues of ownership

or define ownership of public open space.

Participants brainstormed a wide-ranging list of new

research information that could help them achieve better

interface management. They could use better information

about the true costs of community services in the interface,

the long-term economic impacts of development on natural

resources, the changing ecology of the interface as in control

of invasive exotics, the nature of created wetlands, forest

health, interface streams, and the optimum density of pines

in developed areas to reduce the risk of fire but retain

ecosystem services. Only one comment related to human

dimensions – to study perceptions of Americans about

resource management.
22

• We need to know the cost of sprawl in our local area—

what it costs taxpayers and communities, what revenue

they will obtain from the new tax base, and the cost of

possible alternatives to sprawl such as revitalization,

redevelopment, brownfield development, and so on.

Summary

The participants of the two Texas discussion groups

expressed great frustration at the march of development into

the wildlands around urban hubs and their inability to

regulate or change the apparent inevitability of more

growth. They hold out hope for change, if the political

system were modified to allow agencies to coordinate

efforts on zoning and regional planning, and if the

population became more educated to understand the issues

and their impact on the ecology of the area. A variety of

natural resource issues exacerbated by the interface

development appear to weigh equally, with water quality

and quantity, endangered and invasive species, and wildland

fire of greatest concern. There is strong support among these

participants for smart growth and conservation

developments, where homes and businesses are constructed

in concert with protected areas.

Virginia Focus Group Summary

June 1, 2000

George Washington University in Ashburn, VA (Loudoun

County)

Describing the Interface

The focus-group participants in Virginia talked about the

interface in terms of natural resources and development.

Positive remarks about the beauty of natural resources,

particularly the rivers and streams, were juxtaposed with

comments about the degradation of those resources from

development.

• There is a broad spectrum within a very close proximity

where that interface is sometimes very abrupt. You’ll have

agricultural fields right next to shopping centers. There’s

no transition zone there.

Participants described the intense pressures of everincreasing development, along with a general lack of

planning and randomness of land-use patterns. The results of

increased development, such as pollution, fragmentation,

traffic congestion, and water availability, were presented as

essential to creating a picture of the Virginia interface.

• Two-thirds of the State is in forest cover. The trend is an

increasing amount of forest cover. But if we could see

property lines out there, we’d see many, many more forest

landowners owning smaller and smaller parcels of forest

land.

• Virginia is a property rights State. We’re also a Dillon

Rule State, which means that local government only has

the power that the State government grants it. And that

really affects local government response to many of these

issues.

The presence of development was seen in terms contrasting

old and new, e.g., picturesque forests right next to sprawling

development. Participants called the new development

“generic,” not reflecting the history and culture that Virginia

offers.

• We have wonderful old villages being surrounded by

brand new houses and the impact on that, which would be

both the wildlife and the trees; and the old villages which

might have closed-canopy trees surrounded by cleared

developments with nothing but dirt and houses.

Participants cited conflict and confusion felt by the people

of the area. There seems to be a general fear of the rapid

development, but people are not certain what they want.

Participants reported increased activism and concern among

residents of the interface.

• I would show you confusion and people knocking heads, I

guess you could say. People currently practicing

agriculture and the folks that move in from urban areas

that did not grow up that way.

Factors Driving Change

Virginia participants seemed to view changes in the

interface as coming from new development, which has

emerged from people wanting to escape urban life and enjoy

the country lifestyle. They said that an availability of land,

jobs, and education opportunities as well as a healthy

economy was encouraging such emigration.

• People want the country experience for themselves and

their children.

Participants described government policies and actions on

all levels as doing nothing to prevent development and
23

protect natural resources. Poor zoning, the abolition of the

Virginia Department of Natural Resources in their local area

(Loudoun County), and the presence of the Dillon Rule were

seen as working to support widespread development. Tax

issues are part of the problem.

• We don’t have any sources of income in local government

other than property tax, so that tends to drive an awful lot

of these issues. If your only money is coming from the

land, you have some self-interest in seeing it developed.

• Well, there are two sides to the Dillon Rule. It keeps local

areas from taxing people to death. I think this is the

reason it was put into effect.

• Part of what’s driving the loss of our farmland is taxes.

When the older generation dies, the younger generation

that now has this large farm can’t afford to pay the estate

taxes on that property and have no choice but to at least

sell part of it, if not all of it, in order just to pay the taxes.

So that’s forcing a lot of this turnover as well.

• You should also know that the Dillon Rule is somewhat

unique to Virginia because there aren’t very many States

that have that factor. I think there is only a handful left in

the country that have the Dillon Rule. (Localities cannot

pass any laws without authorization from State law.)

• The average age of agricultural producers in Halifax

County is close to 57. Many of these farmers have grown

children with no interest in the farm. As these farmers die,

their children commonly sell the land, which in turn is

converted to a new use. Land speculation is a problem.

Participants indicated frustration from lack of vision and

conflicting values.

• We have a large influx now of populations from other

States, a large military population of Virginia, and a large

transient population. They don’t have a connection to the

land that native three- or four-generation Virginians do,

and they’re bringing their values, which are not the values

that might have been here 3 or 4 decades ago.

• Many of the comments really come down to the fact that

we don’t have a common vision or a common

understanding of what we would like our society to look

like. The fact remains that this Dillon Rule exists because

an awful lot of people like the Dillon Rule. If you got

enough votes, we can change it. Somebody must like this.

Key Issues

Two main types of issues emerged: the loss of unique

historic character—an integral part of Virginia life—and

environmental degradation, which involves wildlife, water,

mountainsides, and land. Several participants used their

personal experience with interface conflict to highlight the

issues.

• Issue one for me that deals with forestry is the issue of

gypsy moths and the problem of spraying for gypsy moths.

I was almost sued for spray going onto someone else’s

property, which is almost impossible to prevent when

you’re spraying by the air. You’re trying to save your own

investment, yet you run the risk of legal problems from the

public at large. I don’t know how you get around it, but it

seems to be a problem.

• The wildlife is being squeezed into smaller and smaller

areas or into areas where there is little space, like our

nursery. We’re being inundated, which I would normally

love, except that a large part of the inundation are deer,

which are very destructive in the nursery. In the last few

days I have tripped over fawns in two different places. I

love them. They’re adorable. But the lack of appropriate

wildlife habitat is going to create all kinds of problems.

Other issues seemed to be causes of the first two issues.

A great deal of discussion revolved around planning

challenges—lack of planning, misinformed planning,

inflexible planning, and barriers to good planning.

• It’s the complexity of the process that’s the problem. In the

land development process you deal with a multitude of

agencies like the Corps of Engineers, Department of

Environmental Quality (DEQ), Virginia Department of

Transportation, and obviously the local jurisdiction, and

each one of those organizations has opposing views and

goals. Trying to weed through those can really force you

into doing things that you really don’t want to do.

• I think in the political process, the planning process, it is

in fact the difficulty of resolving conflicting objectives, in

particular by people who are seeking to maximize their

objectives at the cost of other people’s, or other issue

objectives. How to get that balance and solve a multivariable set of objectives is part of the process.

• There is no management of resources. There is no

mandate for resource management.

• Live by the plan, die by the plan. Comprehensive plans

need to change, need to be flexible, need to be sciencebased.

• A development will clear a huge piece of land then later

worry about losing 10 trees. No common sense.
24

Directly related to this issue were various comments on

development and its negative aspects. As development

occurs, more planning is required and all of the old planning

issues are intensified. Poor planning leads to piecemeal

development and the results are degradation of natural

resources and loss of the cultural and historical character of

Virginia.

Regarding development and planning, participants voiced

concerns about economic challenges. The forest industry

and agriculture are struggling to remain profitable and

economically viable, particularly on small parcels of land.

Economic pressure to develop land, burdensome taxes,

incentives, and disincentives all play a role.

Participants pointed out that much of the land in Loudoun

County is privately owned, making the issue of private

property rights very important. Managing and protecting

natural resources on private lands have posed many

challenges.

On a human dimension, participants saw a conflict between

new-resident values and heritage values. The participants

spoke of a general frustration with a public that seems to be

uneducated, misinformed, apathetic, and irresponsible. This

sense was compounded by a sense of urgency, because

growth and change seem to be happening quickly.

Challenges and Opportunities

Participants saw many challenges in terms of creating and

modifying policies and initiatives. They suggested that

current policy needs vision and clear direction, and that

there needs to be cooperation among agencies involved in

interface management. They believed that planning and

policy must address issues such as transportation and the

preservation of natural resources, while reflecting the

diversity of values in the area.

• There is a lack of a central agency to help partner these

human resources that are out there to do the job. I don’t

think any one private or public agency can do all the jobs

that need to be done. There’s plenty of work for

everybody. What’s lacking is a central agency to develop

partnerships.

According to Virginia participants, the main challenge in

managing natural resources is preventing fragmentation of

landscapes and ecosystems. Most spoke of an opportunity to

manage natural systems as a whole.

• I think we have taken the wrong focus when saving a tree

or patch of woods. Rather, you need to take a systems

approach. You know, you look at a natural system and all

the components starting with the soil and hydrology

rather than looking at individual trees. Then maybe

you’re getting at what you’re trying to do better than so

many of these things, such as a canopy cover ordinance or

saving three trees per lot or whatever it is. If you take one

element of a system out of context you’ve lost the battle

before you’ve started.

Participants said that dealing with people in the interface

presents a number of challenges, and that education would

help people understand the value of natural resources.

Somehow, participants believed, people must begin to

reconcile their values and differences.

• I think that for the most part people don’t see things as

resources in this transition area. We constantly talk about

undeveloped land, which is land that is currently

productive. I mean, agricultural land is not undeveloped.

A managed forest is not undeveloped; it’s just unpaved. So

there’s this mental predisposition to it being something

else. So this question about are we better off destroying

something, and I’ll use the m-word, mitigating it

somewhere else and thinking we’re solving that problem.

People don’t understand location in the landscape in

terms of natural resource functions. I mean the idea that

you could move a lowland wetland, put it into the middle

of a hill, you know, terrace the hill out and line it with

rubber and try to claim that’s an equal area, is absurd.

You wouldn’t do that. You wouldn’t move your knee off to

your right shoulder and say it’s still serving the function

of a knee. But we try to do this with forest resources and

wetlands and streams and everything else.

• Change in values from people that are rural, long-term

residents and people that come in from wherever they

come from—foreigners, the AOL-ers.

• Educating the urban homeowner who has moved out to

the country so they can have a positive country

experience.

Strategies and Research Needs

Participants listed resources they use in dealing with

interface issues. Federal, State, or local governments

provide a lot of necessary information and support; and

educational institutes and private sector resources also

provide important information. Many cited specific

programs and initiatives, such as the Internet, news media,

and geographic information system technologies.
25

Participants wanted specific facts, data, maps, and case

studies of management that has worked elsewhere. They

called for changes in policy that would allow access to

specific programs they believe will help, as well as better

planning and more effective leadership. Many suggested

that educating leaders and the public would be helpful.

Participants appealed directly for more money and for better

distribution of funds, citing economic incentives as

necessary to bring about change.

• Issues-based coordination of information. I would like to

go to one portal and reach the 87 agencies that have

something valuable to say about the issue I’m facing: onestop shopping.

• If I have a problem, I would like to go to an umbrella

organization, agency, or something that’s going to direct

me to the proper place I should go for my need.

• We tend to speak aloud in roundtables to one another and

not to the public very often.

Requests for research centered on natural resource issues,

particularly environmentally sensitive alternative

development. Interest in forest management research

projects was high. Participants expressed interest in research

projects that consider population growth, development,

social attitudes, and communication. Many wanted to have

access to studies that quantify natural resource values,

believing this would help protect the nature of Virginia’s

interface.

• Put a dollar value on every tree, on every acre of trees.

• Natural resources accounting is needed to point out to

people what’s being lost. A whole new way of taking

account of the value of resources that are potentially

being lost to urbanization. The loss of soils, the loss of

fresh water, not just the loss of trees, but also the loss of

wildland itself. A more comprehensive way of doing

balance sheets.

Summary

Northern Virginia is developing very quickly, thanks to a

booming economy and close proximity to Washington D.C.

The rural and historical character of the region is losing face

by the development of look-alike strip malls and

subdivisions, much to the chagrin of long-term residents.

Planning efforts that would help manage growth seem to be

at odds with respecting private property rights and the

Dillon Rule. As in other States, Virginia participants were

seeking strong leadership and increased public

understanding.
26

This section presents issues identified by members of 12

focus groups in 6 States. The highest-priority issues that

each group identified are listed first, followed by a synthesis

of issues from all groups.

Priority Issues

In every session, group members were asked to identify

issues that need to be addressed in the wildland-urban

interface area of their State. From that list, participants

indicated the relative priority of each issue. Each participant

was given four sticky paper dots and asked to mark issues

recorded on a flipchart that were most important to them.

The following tabulations present the highest-priority issues

identified by each group. The three-to-five top issues

receiving approximately half of the dots (top 50 percent) are

shown for each group. (The detailed notes for each focus

group session in appendix A present the complete list of

issues.) Because the number of participants varied from

group to group, the total number of dots varied. Thus the

tabulations show the percentage of dots allocated to the top

issues within each group. No issue received more than 23

percent of all of the dots in any group, i.e., there are a

number of important issues and not a single overwhelmingly

important issue.

Dots Key issues for Alabama groups

%

 A.M. group

14 Political issues

14 There is a need for patterns of sustainable

development.

11 Water quality and quantity

9 Wildland fire control—becomes harder and

more critical in the interface.

7 Increased runoff, flooding, and erosion

P.M. group

14 The lack of vision and leadership means that

there have been no decisions about what we

want these areas to be.

13 There is a lack of comprehensive land use

planning.

13 There is a lack of publicly owned land. Too little

land is accessible to the public for recreation.

11 Education

Dots Key issues for Florida groups

%

 A.M. group

23 Education of homeowners and developers. There

is not enough (quantity and quality) education

about the wildland-urban interface, fuel

buildup, what is needed to preserve an

ecosystem, etc.

19 Growth management is needed at all levels. It

must be implemented locally. Land use

planning, easements, and placement of

infrastructure should guide development and

specify who will pay for infrastructure.

Previous comprehensive plans contained

conflicting objectives.

14 Private property rights must be respected. The

government should not purchase all available

land—only special lands. People should be

able to buy and own land.

 P.M. group

16 Education about our communities, where we

live, and how we fit into the natural system.

16 Water quality, the increasing lack of water, and

water pollution (runoff and nutrients in

streams).

14 Respect for the property rights of the thousands

of nonindustrial private landowners.

11 Competing expectations for the use of natural

resources.

Dots Key issues for Georgia groups

%

 A.M. group

21 Erosion and sedimentation. Laws and

regulations already on the books are not being

enforced. Private developers, governments,

and others are not following Best Management

Practices, e.g., local unpaved roads are

maintained in ways with no apparent concern

for erosion.

19 Cleanliness of water and water supplies

17 Zoning and planning are done on a local scale.

Decisions are made on a piecemeal basis. No

one is planning at a watershed scale. We need

a more comprehensive approach to land-use

planning.

Appendix B: Issues1

1

 Issues recorded in tabulations are verbatim accounts of focus-group records.
27

 P.M. group

20 Land is being taken out of production by

development. The future source of agricultural

and forest products is in question.

16 Creation of incentives, alternative taxes, and tax

relief for farmland, forests, green space, and

the rural character of land.

14 Decreasing water quality, concerns about the

quantities of water that are available, and

proposed interbasin transfers.

Dots Key issues for Mississippi groups

%

 A.M. group

18 The influx of people, all competing for the

limited resource.

17 People are moving into wildlife habitat. The

habitat is being lost and degraded. New

residents complain about wildlife invading

their yards.

15 Drainage and wetland issues—wetlands are

being filled to create land for development.

 P.M. group

14 Protection of open space, green space, and

conservation areas to combat loss of habitat for

native and endangered species.

11 Zoning and enforcement of zoning

11 Prescribed burning—there is a need for burning,

but people are opposed to it. The risk for

wildfire is growing exponentially as more

people move into the interface areas. The risk

from not burning is growing as well.

10 The public does not understand the issues.

10 Transportation

Dots Key issues for Texas groups

%

 A.M. group

20 Population growth and influx of people into the

interface areas. The struggle to affordably

balance the construction of housing and

amenities without compromising the

environment.

18 There is no empowerment of regional planning.

Instead, there is a fragmentation of power

among local governments. What results is an

imbalance of power.

13 Education—Students and adults need to be

educated to better appreciate the land and the

resources. Newcomers need to be made aware

of the area and what goes on around here.

 P.M. group

12 The public’s ignorance of the reality versus their

expectations of what a forest is, especially in

east Texas.

12 Landowners’ lack of alternatives to selling or

developing land, e.g., there are no public funds

to buy land to preserve it.

12 Lack of enough publicly owned land and the

overuse of the little that is available.

10 Lack of open space and “green space

development.”

8 Water usage and water pollution

Dots Key issues for Virginia groups

%

 A.M. group

16 Taxes lead to pressures to sell land and

develop—estate taxes, local reliance on

property taxes, etc.

11 Environmental degradation

11 The complexity of the land development process

creates situations in which many agencies have

opposing and conflicting views and agendas.

10 Property rights—local governments enact

ordinances that restrict forestry practices and

the right to farm.

10 Local elected officials and planners lack

information on natural resources.

 P.M. group

14 There has been no mandate for management of

natural resources. Most land in Loudoun

County is privately owned and incentives for

those owners to manage their land have been

lacking.

14 It has been easy for people to get waivers from

regulations and zoning variances for individual

parcels of land. The cumulative effects on the

landscape have never been considered in

decisions that are made on a plot-by-plot basis.

No one is planning on the landscape level.

11 The degradation of water quality affects aquatic

life and public health.

11 The huge demand for housing in the area exerts

insurmountable pressure.
28

Synthesis of Interface Issues

A review of the 12 groups’ priority issues indicates a

number of common issues. The following list identifies

those that reflect shared concerns about the interface across

the South. A word or short phrase summarizes the issue;

additional text describes the issue and provides a sense of

the range of comments from the groups. The list has been

arranged in declining order of priority, as reflected in the

percentage of dots that the issues received across the groups.

• Planning—lack of landscape-level planning; little or

ineffective comprehensive or growth-management

planning; land-use decisions made locally on a piece-bypiece basis; decisions about individual pieces of land have

a domino effect; zoning and land use plans not enforced

and waivers routinely granted; no effective regional

planning; agencies working from narrow and sometimes

conflicting agendas.

• Education—education will be necessary for public

appreciation of the land and resources; natural resource

students should be better informed about interface issues;

homeowners, landowners, and developers should manage

land in an environmentally sensitive way; newcomers

should learn more about areas and communities into

which they move; and public officials should be more

knowledgeable about natural resources if they are to make

informed decisions.

• Water quality and quantity—water pollution affects

aquatic life and public health; wetlands management is

critical; runoff and erosion are increasing; and supplies of

fresh water are in jeopardy.

• Population growth and influx of people—a steady influx

of people requires additional housing and construction;

more and more people are competing for limited

resources; and the arrival of more people may adversely

affect wildlife habitat.

• Alternatives to selling land—incentives and/or tax relief

are needed to allow landowners to retain their property

instead of being forced to sell to pay taxes (property taxes,

etc.).

• Public and open land—there is too little publicly owned

land; public land is often overused, and there are

competing expectations for how it should be used; and

more green space within housing and office developments

is needed.

• Private property rights—it is necessary to balance

community well-being with the rights of individuals;

opinions and attitudes about private property rights have a

bearing on how natural resource agencies are able to work

on public and private lands; and local governments enact

ordinances that restrict forestry practices and the right to

farm.

• Leadership—there is no long-term vision for the

interface; politics help shape policy; and there are no

recognized visionary leaders.

• Environmental degradation—an influx of people,

construction, poor planning, and competing uses

contribute to ecological changes.

• Fire and prescribed burns—population growth and

newcomers settling in the interface make it harder to use

prescribed fire—people may oppose the use of prescribed

burning due to concerns with smoke and particulates; the

risk of damage to human life and property increases with

more development in forested areas; restrictions are

placed on prescribed burning; and developers do not

incorporate fire protection principles into development

plans.
29

In each focus group, participants were asked to name

programs and strategies they use to help manage their lives

and livelihoods within the interface. There was a great deal

of overlap among the groups’ lists. There were instances

where a useful resource was named in most but not all

groups, and others where a resource was listed in one State

but in none of the others.

In analyzing the data, we grouped comments into categories.

These categories are presented below, followed by

comments from discussion-group reports that support each

category. The State(s) making each contribution are

indicated by U.S. Postal Service abbreviations.

The participants named a variety of information sources that

help make their lives and jobs easier. Sources were experts,

the Internet, and literature, as well as improved technologies

such as geographical information systems:

• Local experts. VA, FL

• Other Southern States. AL, TX

• Digital orthographic photographs and infrared

photographs on compact disk. TX

• Books and pamphlets that tell people how to design their

yards for drought tolerance and reduced fire risk. FL

• Inside Alabama Politics (an insurance industry

newsletter). AL

• The Natural Heritage Program maintains a database of

species and the best habitats. AL

• Improved technology. AL

• Geographic Information System. AL, FL, VA

• Soil maps. MS

• The Internet. VA, FL, GA, TX, AL, MS

• Web sites such as Livable and Sustainable Communities.

MS

• Web sites such as FireWise and insurance company pages.

FL

Participants found courses and training programs to be

helpful:

• General education programs. VA

• The three-part short-course for forest landowners. VA

• The Your Town Alabama training program for local

leaders, planners, citizens, and others. AL

• Workshops on wetlands. MS

Participants reported that they rely on the news media,

probably as a source of information and a way to

disseminate it in FL, VA, AL, and MS, but they also

recognized that media-generated information brings both

opportunity and cost.

Most participants named sources of assistance and

information that can be grouped into one category of

agencies and organizations. On the Federal level,

participants named the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (GA,

TX), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (GA, TX), U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency (GA), Federal Emergency

Management Agency (FL), USDA Natural Resource

Conservation Service (VA, MS, TX, GA) and USDA Forest

Service (GA, AL).

A variety of State agencies were cited as offering assistance,

but every group mentioned the importance of their State

forestry agency:

• State and local soil and water conservation districts. GA

• State water management districts. FL

• The Department of Community Affairs. FL

• The Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. FL

• The Parks and Wildlife Department and its Wildscape

Program. TX

• The Department of Natural Resources and Environmental

Protection Department. GA

• Department of Transportation corridor plantings and

wildflowers. MS

• The State forestry agency. AL, TX, MS, GA, FL, VA

• The Alabama Forestry Commission’s TREASURE

Forests program allows for multiple uses and has served

as the model for the Federal stewardship program. AL

• A coalition of groups that promote urban forest

assessment and the value of trees. The State Forest

Service plans to implement the “City Green” program in

all 30 metropolitan areas. TX

The Cooperative Extension Service, based at State landgrant universities, was cited in every State but Texas as

providing assistance in interface issues. Other universities

were also mentioned:

Appendix C: Programs and Strategies Currently Used
30

• The Cooperative Extension Service. MS, GA, VA, FL, AL

• Universities. AL, VA, TX, GA

• Auburn University’s Peaks of Excellence program is

already beginning to address sustainability. AL

• The University of Georgia’s Institute of Government and

other service programs. GA.

Participants mentioned local government and the planning

and development councils and programs (VA, FL, GA, MS),

and regional councils of government (VA, TX).

In several discussion groups, participants cited private

industry and private consultants:

.

• Private industry. MS, VA

• The Southern Company (the holding company that

includes Mississippi Power and Georgia Power) planted

$5 million worth of trees in the previous 5 years as part of

the carbon sequestration program. MS

• Georgia Power. GA

• Mississippi Power helps State and private landowners to

plant habitat in power line corridors. MS

• Private consultants. VA, GA, MS, TX

Nonprofit local and national organizations often were

mentioned as sources of information and support,

particularly if they worked hard on local issues:

• Native plant societies. TX

• The Chesapeake Bay Initiative. VA

• Forest landowner associations. TX

• Tree advocacy groups. TX

• Local citizens groups, e.g., watershed associations that

identify the issues with which they are concerned. GA

• Local stakeholder interest groups. GA

• Successful volunteer coalitions provide a place for

information exchange and support, e.g., Chicago

Wilderness and Dallas’ Great Trinity Forest. TX

• The Wild Turkey Federation and other private

associations concerned with hunting and conservation of

habitats. These groups help to fund efforts to conserve and

enhance habitats on State forests. MS

• The Wildlife Society. TX

• The Sierra Club. TX

• The Nature Conservancy. MS, FL

• American Forest and its City Green software program that

assesses the monetary and nonmonetary value of trees in

the urban landscape. TX

Several professional organizations were listed:

• The International Society of Arboriculture. GA

• The Society of American Foresters. TX

• The Cattlemen’s Associations and other agricultural

groups and associations, e.g., fern growers. FL

• The Florida Fire Chiefs Association. FL

• The Texas Forestry Association, a diverse group of

Federal, State, and private sector representatives. TX

• Professional organizations (in general). VA

Councils, advisory boards, and similar organizations made

up of a combination of people provide participants with

places to exchange and generate new ideas. Even the

discussion group in which they were participating was

mentioned as a useful tool:

• The Georgia Urban Forest Council. GA

• Three fire councils were established in the State, two of

which are prescribed-fire councils. FL

• Georgia’s Exotic Pest Plant Council. GA

• Local groups such as the Jefferson-Shelby Wildland/

Urban Interface Advisory Board provide opportunities for

joint planning and information sharing. AL

• The Texas Urban Forestry Council. TX

Many participants said that land trusts, land-acquisition

programs, and conservation easements are important to their

jobs:

• The Virginia Land Conservation Foundation. VA

• The Land Trust of Virginia, which assists with

conservation of the land. VA

• Land trusts and conservation easements. AL

• The Forest Legacy Program was established to buy

development rights as a way to protect land. AL

• The Forever Wild Program—a State land-acquisition

program. AL

• Not-for-profit organizations, such as The Nature

Conservancy and the Trust for Public Land. TX

• The Legacy Land Trust. TX

• Prairie trusts, including the Katy Prairie Trust. TX

• The Farmland Trust. TX
31

• Land trusts. GA

• Conservation easements. VA, TX

Sources of funding are another helpful resource, as are other

economic incentives and funding schemes including tax

breaks, cost sharing, and mutual aid:

• Federal resources—funds, grants, and mandates. MS

• The Conservation Reinvestment Act (CRA)—Federal

legislation that provides funding for education on natural

resource issues. FL

• The USDA Forest Service UCF Grants provide funds for

study and program implementation. TX

• Available State and Federal funds and cost sharing

programs. VA

• Natural resource plans. Funds provided by the EPA and

Department of Environmental Quality help landowners

plan for management of natural resources. MS

• Mitigation banks allow developers to buy credits and fund

wetland restoration. MS

• Cooperation and mutual aid, although costly, are effective.

FL

• The differential property tax, which allows for agricultural

and forestry land to be taxed on its current use, provides

incentives for not developing land. AL

• Agriculture and Forestry Districts that allow property tax

breaks on land. VA

Generally, people were a resource, according to the

participants. Some mentioned the public as a whole while

others talked about more specific groups. Along the same

lines, Alabama groups talked about cooperation among

people and agencies. There seemed to be an untapped public

sentiment, albeit one that seems to be fostering a willingness

to speak and a desire to be more informed:

• We could find ways, such as a survey, to hear more

people. AL

• The owners of forested lands and their support and efforts

are a resource. AL

• New and younger people are moving into interface areas

and are increasingly willing to work with public officials

to deal with problems. AL, FL

• Cooperation among people and agencies. AL

Several resources used by participants have to do with

creating better development and limiting development in

some areas:

• The voluntary National Consensus Standards for

Development. AL

• Denied-access roads limit the extent to which people and

development can get into certain areas. AL

• New water initiatives have been started. MS

• There was interest and discussion of smart growth and

sustainability. Sectors other than the public were showing

interest in these concepts. TX

• Conservation-designed subdivisions as an approach to

development that allows for lots to be developed while

leaving as much of the resource undisturbed, creating

large enough tracts for responsible management. TX

• There may be better models for development, e.g., The

Woodlands and conservation subdivision design work by

Randall Arendt. TX

• The Gulf Coast Institute. TX

• The Smart Growth Coalition. GA
32

Participants came up with a list of aids that would help them

deal with interface issues. One of the biggest categories in

the list had to do with improved leadership and better public

policy:

• Better leaders who are impartial, sensible, visionary, and

competent. TX, AL, FL, GA, VA, MS

• Property rights that will not be violated as changes are

made. TX

• Public policy that is clear, decisive, and science-based.

VA, FL, GA

Participants would like to see a revision of authority. In

many cases this would mean giving local government more

power. Some suggested a redistribution of responsibilities

among different agencies. They felt that sometimes the right

people do not always have the right power:

• Give local government more power. VA, TX, MS, AL

• Allow local agencies to guide natural-resource

management. VA

• Set more State and Federal requirements on local

governments to give them an excuse for doing the right

thing. GA

• Establish an agency that is charged with doing mitigation

work. FL

Participants believed agencies and government should use

the power they have to better enforce laws that result in

natural-resource protection:

• Better enforcement of the regulations and laws. AL, MS,

FL

• Expanded environmental courts. AL

Participants want protection from liability and litigation

when it comes to managing their own land:

• Provide for liability indemnification of lands under

recreation easements. AL

• Facilitate decisionmaking without fear of litigation. AL

• Provide a mechanism to eliminate liability issues

connected to the ownership of green spaces. TX

Additional funding was a general wish and, in many

instances, participants cited specific items:

• More money to be able to do what we need to do. VA,

GA, FL, MS, AL

• There is no State funding to help counties control

sedimentation. GA

• Provide necessary financial support to respond to the

demand for more services, and provide better education.

AL

Participants called for cooperation and coordination among

agencies, leaders, and government:

• The Forest Service should sponsor more forums, inviting

mixed groups of participants, to foster human

connections. GA, TX, VA

• Ensure better coordination among agencies. VA

• Conduct forums and other events to ensure that there is

education of and technical exchange among decisionmakers and others. VA, TX

There was a universal call for improved growth

management, planning, and land use. Mississippi and

Florida seemed particularly to focus on this issue:

• Growth management plans. VA, FL, MS, GA, AL

• Put up a gate at the State line and stop or slow down the

influx of new residents. FL

• Better land-use planning and zoning. TX, FL

Participants expressed a desire for the creation of incentives

for landowners, developers, and others not to develop their

land, maintaining open, green space. Participants saw this as

a vital part of protecting natural resources:

• Provide incentives for landowners to keep their lands

undeveloped. VA, TX, MS, GA, AL, FL

Tax reform received some support; Florida and Virginia

participants cited a need to repeal estate tax:

• Repeal the estate tax. FL, VA

Appendix D: What We Need to Deal With Interface Issues
33

• Change the tax code so that there is less reliance on

property taxes. There should be a greater reliance on sales

or other taxes where everyone pays. TX

• Implement alternative taxes in State and local

jurisdictions. GA

Participants offered a number of suggestions for improving

development.

• Allow nontraditional development, such as cluster

development that places more units in one part of a parcel

to protect acres of green space. MS

• Ensure that development accommodates habitat needs of

gopher tortoises, woodpeckers, and other protected

species. MS

• Use existing infrastructure rather than new construction.

Support in-fill development and structure rehabilitation.

AL

• Support development that is less dependent upon the

automobile. Encourage community based, pedestrianfriendly development patterns. AL

• Require fire and emergency evacuation routes before new

development occurs. FL

• Implement septic-tank inspection to ensure proper

functioning. GA

Participants wanted a variety of other things to help them

protect the natural resources in the interface:

• A regional conservation plan that cuts across political

boundaries. TX

• A State land and water conservation fund. TX

• Ensure that local governments recognize and abide by

Federal regulations regarding wetlands. MS

• Establish a safe harbor program for endangered species.

MS

• Create an inviolate green infrastructure plan that identifies

core habitats, buffers, connectors, and management plans.

FL

• Restrict deer hunting near human habitation to avoid risk

to humans. GA

• Coordinate long-range transportation planning with

natural resource planning. AL

• Continue or accelerate public investment in land. AL

• Establish community programs for recycling, resource

recovery, etc. AL

• Instill a long-term valuation and respect for resources, i.e.,

mature trees and high-quality water. AL

Participants expressed specific thoughts about fire related

issues:

• Allow for better fire management. TX, MS, GA, FL

• Educate people about fire dangers within the interface.

MS

• Provide information on fire-wise landscaping. MS, FL

• Focus resources on providing roads for emergency

vehicles and safe houses to be used when evacuation is

necessary. FL

Participants also focused on the human-dimension aspect of

land and resource management. They called for education,

awareness-raising activities, and changes in attitude.

Comments on education ranged from very general to quite

specific. Some participants identified individuals or groups

for whom education should be made available. A few cited

the need for more funds and requested that certain

educational programs be funded:

• General public education. VA, TX, MS, GA, AL

• Youth education. VA, TX, GA, FL

• Develop a Master Environmental Stewardship program

that would provide certification as is done with the Master

Gardeners and Master Naturalists. TX

• Push for landscaping with native plant species. Educate

the public and nurseries. MS

• Ensure that there is more public education. MS

• Raise awareness of natural-resource and related issues.

TX, VA, FL, AL

• Improve public communication. MS

• Foster a more caring, more cooperative, more informed,

and less apathetic public. GA, FL, AL
34

Participants suggested many specific research and

development opportunities.

General Research Comments:

• Make research findings more readily available and

applicable. TX, VA, MS, GA, FL, AL

• Provide more funding for researchers. TX

• Seek consensus among experts so that we have an

authoritative source. VA

• Look at the area dynamically and not statistically. Identify

likely results of doing one thing versus another. Study

causes and potential effects. MS

• Research should be area-specific. AL

• New research programs. Set priorities to direct the

research into areas of greatest need. AL

Maps:

• Provide a variety of area-specific maps. VA, MS, TX, GA,

FL, AL

• Geographic information systems. Show the number and

location of dry fire hydrants (PVC pipe to ponds that

survive a 50-year drought). MS

• Provide digital soils maps for the State. GA

• Provide flood-plain maps. GA

• Provide emergency fire crews with global positioning

satellite capabilities to locate lightning strikes. FL

Conducting Inventories and Surveys:

• Natural resource inventory. VA, TX, MS, AL

• Conduct an assessment of the local natural, social, and

historic resources. VA

Quantifying Natural Resources:

• Give monetary values to natural resources. VA, FL, AL

Climate and Weather:

• Correlate environmental factors with climate change. FL

• Develop better weather forecasting. FL, MS

Appendix E: Priority Research Needs

Prescribed Fire and Wildfire:

• Study the costs, benefits, and tradeoffs of different fuel

treatments. FL, MS

• Study critical factors that contribute to smoke on

highways. FL

• Assess the costs of not using prescribed burning to

manage lands. MS

Growth Management:

• Provide growth projections and growth-impact estimates.

TX, MS, VA, GA, FL

• Construct historical documentation of the current situation

to determine what worked and what did not. VA, AL

• Provide effective transportation management in highgrowth areas. VA, AL

• Apply approaches to planning that have worked in other

areas. FL, AL, VA

Ways to Develop:

• Study environmentally sensitive ways to develop. VA,

TX, MS, GA, AL

• Determine bio-engineered alternatives for wastewater

management, e.g., an alternative to septic systems that

would eliminate the need to clear trees for septic fields.

VA

• Study better ways to manage storm water on developed

sites. VA

• Collect information on bridge and culvert installation to

identify ways to reduce the impact on streams and

fisheries. GA

• Study the effects of septic systems and provide ways to

manage their proliferation. AL

• Determine best ways to deal with urban heat islands, air

quality, sewage, etc. Research should consider systems

interaction and identify a set of best practices. AL

The Human Dimension:

• Study correlations between loss of natural resources and

the population’s social and psychological health. Look at

crime rate, physical health, mental health, etc. VA
35

• Conduct sociological studies to better understand the

attitudes and beliefs of an increasingly diverse population

in the interface. VA

• Explore communication devices that will promote

understanding among all parties, achieve agreement

among officials, and foster consensus. VA

• Conduct surveys that focus on how people feel about

resource management. TX

• Understand how adults learn and help them understand

the issues and problems. MS

• Assess the effectiveness of education efforts and

programs. GA

• Conduct surveys that explore people’s attitudes and

resistance to change. AL

Economic Costs of Development:

• What are the costs of growth and development? TX, FL,

MS, AL

• What are the costs of the degradation of natural

resources? VA, AL

Taxes:

• Study how policies and Federal and State taxes potentially

could help achieve goals, manage growth, and preserve

the resources. VA

• Study the effects of the estate taxes on land holding, landuse decisions, and patterns of land use. AL

Protecting the Natural Resources:

• Provide guidance on protecting resources in transition.

VA, TX

• Provide a means to control exotic and invader species,

including emus. TX

• Research the use of buffers to determine optimal uses in

land management, whether they are dedicated by

developers or bought by the public. FL

• Explore ways to reduce, recycle, or better manage toxic

and other human-caused waste. AL

Water Resources:

• Identify the multiple benefits of protecting stream

corridors. Appropriately locate and design water and

sewer lines run. TX

• Establish parameters for protecting stream corridors. MS

• Provide greater understanding of how roads affect

streams. GA

• Use whole watersheds as case studies that identify

negative inputs. Study a watershed from headwaters to the

sea. Analyze the cumulative effect of minimum-width

stream buffers, and identify thresholds. GA

• Study minimum flows necessary to support aquatic life in

streams (as opposed to the existing 7Q10 standards). GA

• Assess the effects of reduced water quality on local

aquatic species. AL

• Use science-based standards instead of TMDL’s (Total

Maximum Daily Loads). GA

Forest Health and Management:

• Determine management techniques for managing

fragmented forests in urban and suburban areas. Be sure

to address riparian issues. VA

• Study the effects of planted/replanted trees in developed

area using canopy as a measure of beneficial effect. VA

• Assess the health of interface forests and provide

guidance on regeneration and management TX

Forest Industry:

• Assess the return on investment of rural, small-scale

industries, including timber holdings. VA

• Determine alternative silviculture options for small

woodlot management. VA

• Determine optimum crop-tree densities and management

practices for other trees, e.g., juniper and cedar. TX

• Explore secondary processing techniques and the

diversification of timber-stand species, to provide added

value to exported timber. MS

• Identify best management practices that actually work.

GA

• Examine the impact of public policy on the private and

public sectors, e.g., look at the effects the Endangered

Species Act has had on the timber industry. AL

• Find new uses for wood and timber. AL
Monroe, Martha C.; Bowers, Alison W.; Hermansen, L. Annie. 2003. The

moving edge: perspectives on the southern interface, Southern WildlandUrban Interface Assessment Focus Group report. Gen. Tech. Rep. SRS–63.

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

Research Station. 35 p.

To better understand the wildland-urban interface across the 13 Southern States

and to identify issues to be covered in the USDA Forest Service report, “Human

Influences on Forest Ecosystems: The Southern Wildland-Urban Interface

Assessment,” 12 focus groups were conducted in 6 of the Southern States in May

and June 2000. The groups were guided through a series of questions that

enabled them to describe the interface in their region, list the factors that are

driving change, and the key issues associated with the interface. The groups also

discussed the challenges and opportunities in the interface and what they need to

do a better job.

Keywords: Air quality, focus groups, land use change, water quality, wildland

fire, wildlife habitat, wildland-urban interface.
The Forest Service, United States Department of

Agriculture (USDA), is dedicated to the principle of

multiple use management of the Nation’s forest resources

for sustained yields of wood, water, forage, wildlife, and recreation.

Through forestry research, cooperation with the States and private

forest owners, and management of the National Forests and

National Grasslands, it strives—as directed by Congress—to

provide increasingly greater service to a growing Nation.

The USDA prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities

on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, religion, age,

disability, political beliefs, sexual orientation, or marital or family

status. (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

contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and

TDD).

To file a complaint of discrimination, write USDA, Director, Office

of Civil Rights, Room 326-W, Whitten Building, 1400

Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, D.C. 20250-9410 or call

(202) 720-5964 (voice and TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity

provider and employer.