Community Wildfire Protection Plan Analysis January 2013 Final Report Prepared for: The Institute for the Sustainable Environment at the University of Oregon Prepared by: Oregon Partnership for Disaster Resilience A Program of the Community Service Center at the University of Oregon Special Thanks & Acknowledgements This project was funded through the National Science Foundation Fire Research Grant. This document presents data to support continued research related to the economic and social impacts of wildfire on rural communities. Community Planning Workshop wishes to thank the following individuals for their assistance with this project. OPDR Staff Josh Bruce, AICP, LEED AP, Program Director CSC Staff Madeline Phillips, Project Coordinator Jack Heide, Graduate Student Researcher Casey Hagerman, Graduate Student Researcher Angela San Filipo, Graduate Student Researcher Institute for the Sustainable Environment Staff Cassandra Mosley, PhD., Institute Director Max Nielson-Pinkus, PhD., Research Associate Photo Credit USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service About the Community Service Center The Community Service Center (CSC), a research center affiliated with the Department of Planning, Public Policy, and Management at the University of Oregon, is an interdisciplinary organization that assists Oregon communities by providing planning and technical assistance to help solve local issues and improve the quality of life for Oregon residents. The role of the CSC is to link the skills, expertise, and innovation of higher education with the transportation, economic development, and environmental needs of communities and regions in the State of Oregon, thereby providing service to Oregon and learning opportunities to the students involved. About the OPDR The Oregon Partnership for Disaster Resilience utilizes a service learning model to provide natural hazard planning assistance to communities throughout Oregon. Our program demonstrates how increased communication, coordination and collaboration between diverse partners can assist communities in reducing their risk from natural hazards. Table of Contents ABOUT THE COMMUNITY SERVICE CENTER ............................................................................ I TABLE OF CONTENTS ........................................................................................... II CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION ................................................................................ 3 GUIDING DOCUMENTS ..................................................................................................... 3 GENERAL OBSERVATIONS ................................................................................................. 4 CHAPTER 2: METHODOLOGY ................................................................................ 5 APPROACH ................................................................................................................... 5 SAMPLE ....................................................................................................................... 5 SCORING PROTOCOL DEVELOPMENT AND ADMINISTRATION ..................................................... 6 QUALITY ASSURANCE ...................................................................................................... 7 LIMITATIONS ................................................................................................................. 7 CHAPTER 3: FINDINGS ......................................................................................... 9 PLAN INTEGRATION ....................................................................................................... 11 PLAN DEVELOPMENT ..................................................................................................... 13 RISK ASSESSMENT ........................................................................................................ 25 CWPP CONTENT .......................................................................................................... 31 PLAN IMPLEMENTATION ................................................................................................. 37 APPENDIX A: PLAN DATABASE ............................................................................44 APPENDIX C: DATA COLLECTION INSTRUMENT....................................................49 APPENDIX D: CODING INSTRUCTION MATERIALS ................................................80 Page | 3 Community Planning Workshop Chapter 1: Introduction Amidst increased severity of wildfires throughout the American West, the need for improved preparedness and more robust mitigation strategies for communities in the Wildland Urban Interface have become imperative. The Institute for the Sustainable Environment partnered with Community Service Center to better understand the relationship between wildfire mitigation planning process and outcomes of Community Wildfire Protection Plans in communities throughout the American West. The Healthy Forest Restoration Act of 2003 established a mandate for communities to prepare for wildfire events, the planning of which can be interpreted through Community Wildfire Protection Plans (CWPPs). With only a short list of requirements, Community Wildfire Protection Plans produced out of National Fire Plan Title III funding grants and other funding resources took many different forms. The Community Service Center at the University of Oregon qualitatively analyzed a set of these plans from geographies affected by fire since 2004. In conjunction with further research regarding the longer-term implications of fire on the safety and well-being of at-risk communities, this analysis seeks to provide an objective measurement of CWPPs, not only for more comprehensive understanding of the documents themselves, but to provide a tool that may be complemented by further case study research. Guiding Documents To pursue a consistent, qualitative evaluation of CWPPs, CSC utilized the following resources to inform development of the survey instrument: 1. Healthy Forest Restoration Act of 2003. 16 USC Chapter 84 2. NFPA 1600: Standard on Disaster/Emergency Management and Business Continuity Programs, 2010 Edition. 3. Preparing a Community Wildfire Protection Plan: A Handbook for Wildland-Urban Interface Communities, March 2004. Sponsored by Communities Committee, Society of American Foresters, National Association of Counties, and National Association of State Foresters. Page | 4 Community Service Center General Observations Many of the CWPPs exhibited similar characteristics beyond the requirements of the Healthy Forest Restoration Act requirements. The most common themes included:  An understanding about land cover and historical fire  Maps and other documentation of the most likely geographic areas to catch fire  Existing available resources  Common treatments available to residents, and  Augmentation of public and private funding resources Few of the plans provided in-depth documentation of:  Implementation strategies  Fire emergency response protocol, such as chain of command or procedures for residents Generally, public engagement activities revolved more around awareness of fire risks than around input of local knowledge from resident stakeholders. When events were indicated in the plan, documentation was generally poor. Plans left much of the logistical detail up to local actors and avoided specific details regarding timeliness of recommended treatments, and/or the capital required for such treatments, both physical and otherwise. Community Wildfire Protection Plan Analysis April 2013 Page | 5 Chapter 2: Methodology This study assesses the extent to which CWPPs address required elements of the Healthy Forest Restoration Act. In addition, the study evaluates CWPPs against the Program Management and Program Elements criteria contained in National Fire Protection Agency’s Standard on Disaster/Emergency Management and Business Continuity Program, NFPA 1600. The Community Service Center (CSC) at the University of Oregon managed a team of graduate students who acquired, reviewed, and scored the plans. Approach CSC developed a plan review and scoring protocol intended to analyze pertinent aspects of wildfire plans, specifically identifying policy elements highlighted by key emergency management and strategic planning policy resources. With a focus on the economic and social impacts of wildfire, guiding documents listed in Chapter 1 provided a basis for elements and information that a strong CWPP would contain. Because CWPPs create a specific category of disaster and emergency management planning beyond typical or existing all-hazards plans, CSC reviewed details regarding preparedness, response, recovery, and mitigation. To the same end, the extent to which these phases were effectively communicated per recommendation of each guiding document is implicit in CSC’s scoring protocol. CSC also perceived the planning process to be important in the creation of many jurisdiction’s first CWPP, therefore those plans with higher level of detail regarding process and documentation of strategic planning elements registered higher amounts of data in the scoring protocol. Sample CSC project team members coded a total of 175 Community Wildfire Protection Plans. This number reflects both most recent CWPPs for selected geographic areas and subsequent update documents. The CWPP selection process is outlined further below. CWPP Selection The CSC started with the Institute for a Sustainable Environment’s dataset of major wildfires in Western states from 2004 to 2011. The geographic extent of each fire informed the collection of Community Wildfire Protection Plans. Specifically, CSC researched planning areas to collect any CWPP document covering County and sub-county areas (such as cities, towns, and communities) directly affected by fire since 2004 (See Appendix B for complete selection methodology). CSC identified a final set of 175 CWPPs and updates, covering communities identified as having been directly affected by a major wildfire since 2004.1 CSC collected the most recent full CWPP, along with any available update documents. Nearly all CWPPs CSC analyzed can be found, in digital form, on the Internet or through library resources 1 CWPPs are not available in digital form from communities within the State of Wyoming. Despite several attempts to procure the nine known CWPPs from Wyoming jurisdictions, none were analyzed for this report. Page | 6 Community Service Center at the University of Oregon Library system. Those plans unavailable through digital resources were requested via email and/or telephone request. The CSC project manager followed-up unfilled email requests by phone. If digitally available, evaluation of a CWPP did not include any contact with the local jurisdiction involved in writing or compiling the plan. Community Wildfire Protection Plans (CWPPs) generally follow a pattern of establishing and updating the full CWPP approximately every five years, with minor interim “updates” used to track progress. Full plans tend to include sections pertaining to background information and risk assessment; strategic planning headings such as a vision, goals, and objectives are often included as well. In some cases a CWPP draws material from other plans, but will often reiterate/reference the majority of material required by the Healthy Forest Restoration Act (HFRA) and other Fire-related planning norms. No plan that CSC scored had more than one update available. In some cases publicly-available CWPPs did not include all attachments and/or appendices. Where possible, CSC researched via Internet further to find figures, maps, and other attachments. A key finding was that many of these CWPP elements are not publicly available on the Internet. Scoring Protocol Development and Administration CSC worked closely with the Institute for the Sustainable Environment to develop the plan review and scoring protocol. Through an iterative process, CSC developed a set of questions to inform the scoring protocol. Planning resources and review of several CWPPs informed the instrument to achieve a flow and structure that would best capture the policy and planning characteristics of each CWPP in the final set. These iterations resulted in refinements to the scoring protocol. To streamline the data collection process, the CSC utilized the online survey vendor Qualtrics allowing CSC to systematically analyze qualitative details. The data collection instrument consisted of the following six sections (See Appendix C for a copy of the survey instrument in its entirety):  Metadata  Integration  Planning Process  Risk Assessment  Plan Content  Implementation CSC assembled a team of graduate student researchers for the purpose of executing the coding process. In the interest of minimizing variation between researchers, this core team of four coders went through several rounds of training whereby each researcher analyzed the same CWPP. After performing this “overlap” method of CWPP analysis, the group convened several times to discuss areas of discrepancy to determine the source of any errors that arose. The CSC project manager made adjustments to the scoring protocol in the interest of minimizing deviation or bias, and researchers paralleled their responses with the help of term definitions and direct guidance by the Project Manager. The Project Manager documented all decision- making structures for each survey question (see Appendix D). Field testing concluded upon Community Wildfire Protection Plan Analysis April 2013 Page | 7 elimination of discrepancies from a randomly selected sample of CWPPs. The Project Manager randomized the set of CWPPs and assigned sets of ten to each team members to code. Over a period of three months each team member coded approximately 40 plans. Quality Assurance CSC monitored initial quality assurance of answers through the previously mentioned streamlining process. As team members worked through the sample of “overlapping” plans, instructions and discussion followed each answer of significant discrepancy, in the interest of assuring a parallel thought process. Inferring or interpreting any information beyond that which is present in the text of the CWPP document was strongly discouraged. Approach Upon completion of the coding process, the CSC Project Manager proceeded with a systematic quality assurance method, as follows:  The Project Manager reviewed every 10th plan review, controlling for coders. She fully reviewed a total of 17 plans (10%) for consistency and accuracy.  At least four plans were reviewed from each coder.  If the Project Manager identified discrepancies between her response and the coder’s entered answer, the Project Manager flagged this entry in the master database.  The Project Manager evaluated the master data based for systematic discrepancies and identified particular questions as having significant deviation from the opinion of the Project Manager.  Upon discussion between the Project Manager and the Principals only one issue arose.  Collectively, the Principal Investigators and the Project Manager developed strategies for amelioration Strategies included re-reviewing specific elements (i.e. questions, sections).  The Project Manager took steps to document those issues which could not be resolved in the process of coding. Result Quality assurance procedures described above produced patterns/inconsistencies documented in Appendix D. Limitations Community Wildfire Protection Plans are not required to follow a prescribed format or address specific headings beyond high-level requirements. As a result, CWPPs take many forms, in terms of length, level of detail, and content, presenting a myriad of challenges to systematic evaluation. CSC made concerted efforts to assure the integrity of this CWPP assessment, however the variety of styles, formats, details included, and/or concepts addressed by individual plans limited systematic analysis predominately to qualitative evaluation. Page | 8 Community Service Center Community Wildfire Protection Plans have not been studied in depth, at this scale, by academia to date. Without precedent studies to refer to, this effort presents a methodology based on best practices in the realm of policy analysis. Community Wildfire Protection Plan Analysis April 2013 Page | 9 Chapter 3: Findings This chapter presents the findings of CSC’s plan review. It is organized in the order of questions on the scoring tool. The tool analyzed metadata, relationships to other planning efforts, plan process, plan content, and implementation. Each figure represents the outcome of a multiple choice question. Many responses to this scoring tool required recording text in the category “Other.” For clarity, CSC categorized these text responses into tables, found beneath their applicable question. Those responses that did not fit into either the multiple choice response categories, nor those categories developed in data analysis, are listed below their applicable question and table. Results correspond with numbering as questions appear in the scoring tool. Some numbers have been omitted where instructions were provided to researchers (For complete scoring tool, see Appendix C). Q1.5 Is this plan an update? Q1.7 How many updates have been made to the plan? Of the plans that indicated updates had been made, 7% of those plans did not indicate how many updates have been made to that CWPP. The average number of updates made to affirmatively updated plans is 1.61. 26% 74% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% Yes No Page | 10 Community Service Center Q1.8 When was the last update made? 0% 0% 0% 2.33% 23.26% 23.26% 18.60% 2.33% 4.65% 18.60% 4.65% 2.33% 0% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Community Wildfire Protection Plan Analysis April 2013 Page | 11 Plan Integration Q2.2 Does the plan call out existing community plans? Q2.3 Indicate the types of plans or initiatives referenced in this CWPP (check all that apply): Other National Fire Plan 42% 10 Year Comprehensive Strategy 25% State Plan 19% County Plan 15% Note: The above chart represents information categorized from “other” responses. This chart represents entries that are not listed below.  Protecting People and Natural Resources - A Cohesive Fuels Treatment Strategy,  GIS Inventory  Economic Development Plans  Field Guidance for Identifying and Prioritizing Communities at Risk  Draft Community Wildland Fire Assessment for Existing and Planned Wildland Residential Interface Developments  Resource Management Plan  2002 Community Fire Plan, 80% 20% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Yes No 46.43% 40.71% 40% 40% 34.29% 30.71% 23.57% 12.86% 11.43% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% Legislation other than HFRA Hazard Mitigation Plan Other CWPPs Other Development Ordinances Comprehensive Plan Emergency Operations Plan Environmental Protection Plan Watershed Plan Page | 12 Community Service Center  San Juan Public Lands Center's "A 10-Year Strategy to Reduce Fuels and Restore Watersheds  Water Management Plan  2007 Communities at Risk  Nevada Community Wildfire Risk/Hazard Assessment Project for Nye County,  BLM Resource Management Plan,  Emergency Operations Plan  Salmon Recovery Plan, Sub-basin Plan  Fire District Management Plan  Master Agreement and Operating Plan (between Federal Wildland Fire agencies/States of OR & WA)  Fire Plans and Assessments  Fire Plans and Assessments  Fire Protection Agreement Operating Plan  Landscape Fire and Resource Management Planning Tools Project  US Bureau of Reclamation Cachuma Lake Management Plan,  UCSB Sedgewick Reserve Fire/Vegetation Management Plan,  Fire Department Strategic Plans,  US Forest Service Land Management Plan,  US Forest Service Operating Agreement,  Bureau of Land Management Operating Agreement,  Local Fire Agreements (mutual aid)  Resource Management Plan  Lassen National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan,  Lassen National Forest Fire Management Plan,  Bureau of Land Management Redding Resource Management Plan,  Bureau of Land Management Redding Field Office Fire Plan,  United States Fish and Wildlife Service Fire Planning Policies,  2001 Red Bluff Field Office Fire Management Plan,  Sacramento River National Wildlife Refuge Complex Fire Management Plan  Protecting People and Natural Resources - A Cohesive Fuels Treatment Strategy,  Federal Wildland Fire Management Policy and Program Review,  Managing the Impact of Wildfires on Communities and the Environment,  Review and Update of the 1995 Federal Wildland Fire Management Policy,  Fire Prevention and Control Plan(s),  Blackfoot/Clearwater Fuels Mitigation Plan,  Fire Plans  Healthy Forest Initiative,  Fire Plans  Western National Forest A Cohesive Strategy,  2007 Communities at Risk  Fire, Defensible Space, and Youth  Fire Safety and Fuels Reduction Program Overview  Resource Management Plan  USDA Forest Service Plan,  Mission Canyon Fire Plan - Version 5, Community Wildfire Protection Plan Analysis April 2013 Page | 13  Sierra Nevada Conservation and Wildfire Protection Plan Guidebook  Draft Community Wildland Fire Assessment For Existing and Planned Wildland Residential Interface Developments in Nevada  Regional Fuel Management Plan  LAFCO Municipal Service Review and Sphere of Influence  Evacuation Plans, Q2.4 Is the CWPP clearly integrated into another planning process or document? Plan Development Q3.2 Please indicate which organizations provided funding for this CWPP: (check all that apply) 44% 56% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% Yes No 50% 24% 18% 13% 9% 9% 8% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 0% 0% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% Could not be determined Other Bureau of Land Management Title III Funds County or municipal government National Forest Service State forestry or natural resource agency US Fish and Wildlife Service Neighborhood association Local fire district Foundation Non-profit Bureau of Indian Affairs National Park Service Page | 14 Community Service Center Other Funders Originator Number Percent National 17 53% State 13 41% County 2 6% Note: The above chart represents information categorized from “other” responses. This chart represents re-categorized entries that are not listed below.  Western States Fire Mitigation Grant  State Farm Insurance  Southern Oregon Timber Industries Assoc.  Plum Creek Timber Company  Northwest Regional Resource Conservation and Development Council  Northwest Montana Resource Conservation & Development (USDA)  Local fire council  Headwaters RC&D Area, Inc. Economic Development District  Forest Conservation Group and Fire Advisory Council  Firewise Council  Fire Safe Council  Coalition for the Upper South Platte,  City Governments  Boulder River Watershed Fuels Committee  2003 Western States Wildland Interface Grant Program  Beulah Wildfire Mitigation Council  "Other Agencies" Community Wildfire Protection Plan Analysis April 2013 Page | 15 Q3.3 This CWPP was prepared by: (check all that apply) Other county government  County Committee  Custer County Advisory Committee  Interagency Planning Group  Lincoln County Commissioners  Owyhee County Wildland-Urban Interface Wildfire Mitigation Plan Committee  County Fire Warden  County Working Group  Santa Cruz County,  Resource Conservation District for San Mateo County  Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors  Fire Defense Board  County Working Group  Five County Association of Governments  Color Country Interagency Fire Center  Boulder County Board of Commissioners  County Land Use Department  Boulder County parks and Open Space Department  County Fire and Rescue,  Boulder County Transportation Department  County Sheriff's office  Park County Fire Warden's Office  Lake County Fire Safe Council 43% 24% 22% 10% 6% 6% 5% 3% 3% 1% 1% 1% 1% 0% 0% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% Consultant Other Other county government Could not be determined Local fire district County Emergency Management County Planning department City government Soil and water conservation district Neighborhood association Environmental organization Other nonprofit organization Timber industry Tribal Government Watershed council Page | 16 Community Service Center  County CWPP Commission  Steering Committee  Sierra County Community Wildfire Protection Plan Team  County Fire Protection Districts  Lincoln County Wildland Urban Interface Wildfire Mitigation Plan Committee  Park County Wildfire Coalition  County Commissioner  Lincoln County Community fire Plan Steering Committee  Fire Safe Council  Twin Falls County Fire Working Group  Mid-Snake Resource Conservation and Development  Fire Safe Council  Kalamath County Fire Defense Board  CWPP Steering Committee  Montrose County Core Stakeholder Group  Department of Public Safety  YCWPP Oversight Committee  Elmore County Wildland-Urban Interface Wildfire Mitigation Plan Committee  Lassen County Department of Community Development  Minidoka County Wildland-Urban Interface Wildfire Mitigation Plan Committee  County Wide Fire Protection Working Group  No specification  Commission of each county  Elmore County Wildland-Urban Interface Wildfire Mitigation Plan Committee  County Commission  Fire Safe Council of Siskiyou County  CalFire San Luis Obispo County  Cassia County Fire Mitigation Plan Team  Minidoka County Fire Mitigation Plan Team  Santa Barbara County Fire Department  CWPP Core Group Other nonprofit organization  Applegate Partnership Other  Tri-County Fire Working Group  Headwaters RC&D Area, Inc. (City and County, and Conservation Districts)  Firewise Council  Fire Safe Council  Mill Creek Canyon Fire Safe Council  CalFire San Mateo - Santa Cruz unit  Community Action Group  Fire Safe Council  Local fire department Community Wildfire Protection Plan Analysis April 2013 Page | 17  Oregon Department of Forestry  Forest Conservation Group and Fire Advisory Council  CWPP Steering Group  James H. Hulbert  San Diego Fire Safe Council  Resource Conservation District of Greater San Diego County  County Fire Working Group  Fire Safe Council  Bitter Root Resource Conservation and Development Area Inc  Program for Watershed and Community Health (UO Institute for the Sustainable Environment)  Elkhorn Fire and Fuels Management  Bitter Root Resource Conservation and Development Area Inc  University of Oregon  Landowners  Lemhi County Wildland Fire Interagency Group  Tehama County Resource Conservation District  Fire District , Fire Chief Association  Fire Safe Council  Monterey Fire Safe Council  fire districts  U.S. Forest Service  United States Forest Service  Ojai Valley Fire Safe Council  Fire Safe Council  Arrowhead Communities Fire Safe Council  Lake Hodges FireSafe Council  Homeowners in WUI  Oregon Dept Forestry  National Forest  Area 9 Fire Defense  Fire Safe Council  Lassen County Fire Safe Council Inc  State Forestry  NM State Forestry Page | 18 Community Service Center Q3.4 This CWPP was prepared for: Other Local jurisdiction  City of Foresta  Community of Ramona  City  Sonoita-Elgin Area  City  Municipality  City/town  City Other  Transportation Corridor  Claunch-Pinto Soil and Water Conservation District  Mill Creek Canyon communities  Nevada Fire Safe Council  Community of Mission Canyon  Nevada Fire Safe Council  Greater Lake Hodges area  Region (5 County district)  Nevada Fire Safe Council  Regional Area  Region, several counties  Mill Creek Watershed  Nevada Fire Board  Tulare County Resource Conservation District, Sierra Nevada Conservancy  Nevada Fire Board c/o BLM  Applegate Watershed  Tribal lands  Nevada Fire Board c/o BLM 75% 13% 10% 8% 5% 2% 2% 2% 1% 1% 0% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% County Fire District Other Fire protection association Other Local jurisdiction State government Federal land management agency Neighborhood association Community group Natural resource collaborative, stewardship… Could not be determined Community Wildfire Protection Plan Analysis April 2013 Page | 19 Q3.5 Please indicate each unique organization that participated in developing/updating the plan: (check all that apply) Other State % Number Transportation 13% 9 Security/Law Enforcement 12% 8 Fire/Emergency Services 29% 20 Environmental Quality 7% 5 Fish & Wildlife 9% 6 Not Categorized 29% 20 TOTAL ENTRIES 100% 68 Note: The above chart represents information categorized from “other” responses. This chart represents re-categorized entries that are not listed below. 87% 85% 70% 68% 58% 52% 47% 47% 41% 37% 31% 27% 27% 26% 17% 15% 14% 13% 11% 11% 9% 9% 8% 6% 5% 3% 1% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Local fire district National Forest Service Bureau of Land Management Other county government State forestry County Emergency Management Consultant Other Fire Advocacy Organization State natural resource agency County Planning department City government Other state agency Environmental organization (non-watershed council) Sheriff's Office Educational Institution Tribal Government US Fish and Wildlife Service Soil and water conservation district Other nonprofit organization National Park Service Timber industry Watershed council Neighborhood association Bureau of Indian Affairs Could not be determined Foundation Page | 20 Community Service Center Other State Entities  Employment  State Park District  Parks and Recreation,  Idaho Department of Lands  Nevada State Parks  Idaho Department of Lands,  California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection  State Parks Division  Department of Wildlife,  Congressman Dean Heller's office,  Bureau of Reclamation,  State Land Office  Idaho Department of Lands  State Parks Division  Parks & Recreation,  Parks  Parks and Recreation,  State Department of Lands,  State Parks Division,  State Land Office Other County % Number Supervisors 12% 12 Commissioner 31% 31 GIS 2% 2 Fire 11% 11 Public Works 6% 6 Not Categorized 37% 37 TOTAL ENTRIES 100% 99 Note: The above chart represents information categorized from “other” responses. This chart represents re-categorized entries that are not listed below. Other County Entities  Nevada Association of Counties  Chamber of Commerce  Cassia County Public Lands  Assessor,  County of San Diego Land Use and Environment Group,  Farm Bureau  Public Health,  Judge,  Assessor  Lassen County Department of Community Development  County of Santa Barbara  Weed Control,  LEPC  Judge,  Mariposa County Highway Department  assessor  Parks & Forest  county judge,  county departments,  Idaho County Highway Districts  Parks and Leisure,  Farm Bureau  Lemhi County LEPC,  Assessor,  Parks and Recreation  Nevada's counties  Air quality,  Weed management,  County Road Department, Community Wildfire Protection Plan Analysis April 2013 Page | 21  County Environmental committee  County Wide Fire Protection Working Group  Tri-County Resource Advisory Committee  Local Emergency Management Committee  San Mateo Resource Conservation District,  Resource Conservation District of Santa Cruz  Nevada Association of Counties Other Entries % Number RC&D 12% 26 Conservation Agency 4% 9 Utility 11% 24 Emergency Management/Recovery 20% 42 Education 3% 6 Not Categorized 49% 104 TOTAL ENTRIES 100% 211 Note: The above chart represents information categorized from “other” responses. This chart represents entries that are not listed below. Other Entries  LV community development org.  Catalina/Golder ranch village council  National forest protective alliance  Applegate partnership,  Mountain C.A.R.E  Memorial foundation  Silver valley economic development corporation  Homeowner's associations  Applegate partnership  County community action agency,  Fire safe council of Siskiyou county,  Plum creek timber company,  Lincoln county fire chief and insurance representative,  Lincoln county board of realtors,  California highway patrol,  Neighborhood associations, home owners associations, cert groups.  Local fire department,  Local fire department,  Mission canyon association  Santa Barbara botanic garden  Bureau of reclamation  Veterans affairs  Airport  Hospitals  Local businesses  City emergency services  City police  Navajo county cooperative extension  White mountain apache tribe  Fort Apache Agency Bureau Of Indian Affairs  U.s. military  Sierra county realtors association  Local fire department  Chili land grant  Manzano land grant  Mountainair ranger district  Torreon land grant  Heritage preserve  Los Humanas  Utah national guard,  Wasatch front regional council  Bear river association of governments Page | 22 Community Service Center  Bureau of reclamation  EPA  Stanford-Vina Irrigation co.  Nevada association of counties  Local business  Homeowner's Association  Town councils,  Home owners  Quail glen neighborhood volunteers  Fire department  County of San Diego Land Use and Environment Group  California chaparral institute  Ranchers, farmers  Local businesses  Lassen county fire safe council inc,  USDA natural resources conservation service,  Susanville Indian Rancheria,  Sierra pacific industries  U.S. Navy  Bureau of reclamation  Knife river construction  Citizens  Contractors  Local businesses  Homeowners,  Economic development corporation  Local businesses  DOD navy  Oregon national guard  Grazing association  Boulder river fuels committee  City of Walla Walla  Farm bureau  ERS  San Diego county land use and environmental group  Local businesses  National marine fisheries service,  Chili land grant  Manzano land grant  Coalition for The Upper South Platte  U.S. Air Force  Air force  Local Businesses  local businesses  Contractors  Bureau of Homeland Security  private contractors  Local Businesses  National Fire Plan  State Farm Insurance  Local Business  Nevada Association of Counties  Border Patrol  National Weather Service  Nevada Association of Counties  local businesses and citizens  Local Businesses  South Idaho Press  Private Ranch  Mayor of various cities, Other nonprofit organizations  Nature Conservancy  Southern Idaho Timber Protective Association  Sacramento River Preservation Trust,  Center for Land Based Learning  American Red Cross  American Red Cross  Audubon Society  Mini-Cassia Local Emergency Planning Committee  IV Community Development Org.  Catalina/Golder Ranch Village Council  Bitter Root Resource Conservation & Development,  National Forest Protective Alliance  memorial foundation  Silver Valley Economic Development Corporation  Whitman college  Homeowner's Associations  Applegate Partnership Community Wildfire Protection Plan Analysis April 2013 Page | 23 Q3.6 Does the CWPP describe any public engagement events (such as stakeholder meetings, focus groups, etc.) Q3.7 Please indicate which events (and how many) were held in preparation of this CWPP : (check all that apply and include number of events in the box) Number of Participants Public meetings Stakeholder meetings Survey Average 5 6 107 Median 3 5 85 77% 23% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Yes No 87% 74% 33% 26% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Stakeholder meetings Public meetings Other Survey Page | 24 Community Service Center Other Outreach Other % Number News/Press Releases 37% 29 Website 11% 9 Interviews 15% 12 Solicitation Letters/Email 11% 9 Other Event 14% 11 TOTAL ENTRIES 100% 79 Note: The above chart represents information categorized from “other” responses. This chart represents entries that are not listed below.  Presentations made to 18 various groups and stakeholders  Written responses  CD-ROM mailed out and 2 week review period.  Informational video  Citizen Advisory team meetings: 4  TV video,  Xeriscape book  Info packets to county officials  Wildfire mitigation advocates Q3.8 How many total stakeholder participants are identified as having participated in developing/updating the plan? In many instances documentation of stakeholder participation was not included in the CWPP. Nearly 32% of CWPPs did not present enough data to determine how many stakeholders participated in its development. Those plans that did document stakeholder engagement around CWPP development noted a median of 25 participants and an average of 30 participants. Q3.9 How many total public participants are identified as having participated in developing/updating the plan? The majority of plans reviewed did not provide detailed information regarding the extent to which public participation was included in the development of the CWPP. Nearly 76% of CWPPs did not present enough data to determine how many public participated in its development. Those plans that did document public engagement around CWPP development noted a median of 38 public participants and an average of 69 public participants. Community Wildfire Protection Plan Analysis April 2013 Page | 25 Risk Assessment Q4.2 Does the CWPP’s Risk Assessment analyze fire’s impact on: (check all that apply) Other Responses Other Entries % Number Cultural/Historic resources 28% 11 Recreation 28% 11 Risk 18% 7 Natural Resources 18% 7 Other 3% 1 TOTAL ENTRIES 100% 40 Note: The above chart represents information categorized from “other” responses. 97% 69% 61% 41% 31% 30% 14% 3% 3% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Property, facilities, assets, and critical infrastructure Environmental Preservation Health and safety of persons in the affected area at the time of the incident (injury and death) Economic and financial conditions Delivery of goods and services Health and safety of personnel responding to the incident Other Continuity of government operations Regulatory and contractual obligations Page | 26 Community Service Center Q4.3 Does the CWPP catalog existing: (check all that apply) Q4.4 Does the CWPP define the Wildland Urban Interface (WUI)? Q4.5 Is this WUI definition roughly the same as the following definition? (i) an area extending ½ mile from the boundary of an at-risk community; 82% 68% 60% 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% Fire suppression resources (i.e. engines, water sources, people) Prevention capabilities (i.e. existing educational programs) Communication capabilities across agencies 74% 26% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% Yes No 23% 77% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Yes No Community Wildfire Protection Plan Analysis April 2013 Page | 27 Q4.6 (ii) an area within 1 ½ miles of the boundary of an at-risk community, including any land that a. has a sustained steep slope that creates the potential for wildfire behavior endangering the at-risk community; b. has a geographic feature that aids in creating an effective fire break, such as a road or ridge top; or c. is in condition class 3, as documented by the Secretary in the project-specific environmental analysis; Q4.7 (iii) an area that is adjacent to an evacuation route for an at-risk community that the Secretary determines, in cooperation with the at-risk community, requires hazardous fuels reduction to provide safer evacuation form the at-risk community.” [HFRA Section 101 (16)] Q4.8 Does the plan include another definition of the WUI? Definitions are recorded in the data set. 20% 80% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Yes No 11% 89% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Yes No 89% 11% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Yes No Page | 28 Community Service Center Q4.9 Does the CWPP present a community map? Q4.10 Do the CWPP maps identify the following: (check all that apply) 87% 13% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Yes No 0% 1% 3% 7% 9% 9% 24% 25% 28% 30% 35% 55% 61% 75% 77% 87% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Archaeological sites Could not be determined Private timber stands Campgrounds/Recreation Sites Public utilities (Electric, gas) Communication networks Public safety facilities (Fire, law enforcement,… Critical habitats/species Street names Water sources Other Population zones at risk to wildland fire Designation of the WUI zone Transportation corridors Public land Cities & Towns Community Wildfire Protection Plan Analysis April 2013 Page | 29 Other Map Elements Fire History 24% 36 Fire Potential 18% 26 Vegetation/Condition Class 16% 24 District/Regional Boundaries 14% 20 Watershed/Bioregion 3% 5 Infrastructure & Density 12% 17 Mitigation Activities 7% 11 Not Categorized 5% 8 TOTAL ENTRIES 100% 147 Note: The above chart represents information categorized from “other” responses. This chart represents entries that are not listed below.  Fire history,  Proposed mitigation projects,  Fuel hazard classification,  Fire defense system,  Fire history,  Fire potential  Fire district boundaries  Vegetation types,  Watersheds,  Fire history,  County boundary,  Planning areas,  Dead trees per acre,  County boundaries  CWPP planning boundary,  Fire responsibility areas  Hazards,  Protection capabilities,  Home density,  Infrastructure,  Fire protection districts  Fire history,  Fuel hazard classification,  Proposed mitigation projects  Land cover,  Focus areas  National monument  Fire history,  Fire threat,  Net property value by parcel,  Evacuation routes,  Proposed actions by community  Fuel treatments: 2009 and comprehensive  FSCS,  Ignition densities,  Flame lengths,  Fire history,  Vegetation,  Fuel reduction projects,  Population density,  Structure density,  Urban interface fire risk,  Fire ignition probability,  Condition class,  Wind speed,  Slope,  Aspect,  Fire history,  Priority treatment areas,  Eco-regions,  Risk assessment,  Fire history,  Condition class  Fires, vegetation class  Fire districts  Wildfire starts,  Fire occurrence,  Fire regime class,  Fire behavior fuel models,  Flame length,  Fire line intensity, Page | 30 Community Service Center  Rate of spread,  Crown fire activity,  Critical infrastructure  Fire history,  Priority treatment areas,  Land cover types  Weather zones,  Ignition probability,  Fuel hazard rating,  Population density,  Fire risk  Fire regime,  Cover types,  Ignition probability,  Fuel hazard rating  Fire history,  Fuel hazard,  Recommended treatments,  Fire condition classes,  Fire regime,  Historic large fires,  Historic fires,  Fire districts,  Zoning  Air-sheds  Fire districts  Fire history  Wildfire history  Fire regime,  Fire protection,  Fire history,  Fuels reduction projects  Infrastructure (bridges),  Rivers,  Historic fires,  Fire regime and condition class,  Fuel hazard,  Fire occurrence,  Risk of fire occurrence,  County boundary,  Fuel reduction projects  Values at risk,  Fire occurrence,  Fuel hazard,  Protection capability  Lemhi infrastructure buffer,  Fire history,  Lightning density  Fire hazard zones  Fire regime condition class,  Crown fire potential,  Housing units,  Fire history,  Zoning  Trails,  Conservation areas,  Fire ignitions,  Past fires  Fire history  Fire access roads,  Fire ignition,  Community boundaries,  Fire boundaries,  Fire district boundaries,  Watershed values  Could not be determined.  Vegetation type,  Slope,  Past fires  Fire protection districts,  Fire history,  Fire regime protection class,  Current fire severity, ,  Slope class,  Vegetation types,  Ownership sites,  Fire threat,  Fire regime condition class,  Fire regime abundance class,  Fire regime sustainability risk class,  Machine accessibility,  Treatment priority,  Recap class,  Mitigation priorities Community Wildfire Protection Plan Analysis April 2013 Page | 31 Q4.11 Are areas of the map identified as higher or lower risk of wildfire? CWPP Content Q5.2 A Vision/mission statement presents an aspiration, in broad terms, of what this plan will achieve. Does the plan include a vision/mission statement? Q5.3 A Goal statement presents one or more desired outcomes that may result from the effective execution of this CWPP. An Objective is a more detailed means of achieving a desired outcome. It may include process steps or elaborate upon stated goals. Does the plan include goal/objective statements? 73% 27% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% Yes No 51% 49% 48% 49% 49% 50% 50% 51% 51% Yes No 82% 18% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Yes No Page | 32 Community Service Center Q5.5 Which of the following goals/objectives are addressed in this CWPP? Other Goals/Objectives Other Goals/Objectives % Number General 11% 14 Economic Development/Biomass 14% 19 Funding Sources 11% 15 Process Steps 29% 38 Fire-Adapted Ecosystems 10% 13 Mitigation/Prevention 22% 29 Planning & Zoning 4% 5 TOTAL ENTRIES 100% 133 Note: The above chart represents information categorized from “other” responses. This chart represents entries that are not listed below. General Goals/Objectives  Promote healthy forests and high air and water quality,  Serve the community and neighborhood fire safe needs,  Ensure the plan and its goals are consistent with all stakeholders plans and expectations  Video production  Community assistance, 82% 69% 54% 50% 48% 46% 46% 44% 44% 38% 32% 15% 9% 1% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% Fuels reduction Citizen awareness & education Enhanced risk assessment Limitation of property loss Collaboration of government agencies Other: Reducing Structural ignitability Community/public preparedness Increasing fire suppression capacity (i.e.… Prevention of human/livestock injury Preserve forest ecology Evacuation capabilities Proper addressing Capacity to stay and defend / shelter in place Community Wildfire Protection Plan Analysis April 2013 Page | 33  Recruit volunteers,  Flexibility  Reduce iso ratings  Population growth,  Promote community,  Identify local are priorities,  Program development,  Community assistance,  Community assistance Q5.6 Does the plan identify priority geographic areas for hazardous fuel reduction treatments? Q5.7 How were areas prioritized? (check all that apply) Other Prioritization Methods  Landfire  Historical data  Historical record of ignition patterns  Federal register (66 fr 160)  Aerial photography  Cost benefit analysis, funding  Communities at risk assessment  Firewise three-zone survivable space assessment 80% 20% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Yes No 5% 10% 24% 57% 79% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% Other Could not be determined Aggregated out of existing agency plans GIS Analysis Stakeholder input Page | 34 Community Service Center Q5.9 What treatment types/methods are represented? (check all that apply) Other Treatments  Slash/biomass disposal  Firewise concepts  Grazing,  Chemical  Chipping and biomass utilization,  Grazing  Fire prevention signage,  Addresses,  Safety corridors  Proper addressing  Road improvements  Clear cut, forest restoration,  Meadow enhancement, patch cut,  Watershed protection treatments  Develop fuels reduction program  Underground public utilities,  Structural vulnerability assessment  Road sign project  Fuels reduction  Firewise,  Mowing  Livestock grazing, herbicide,  Seeding,  Biomass utilization,  Hazardous fuels treatment  Fuels reduction projects  Brush management projects,  Weed abatement projects  Mowing,  Mowing/mastication,  Livestock grazing, chemical control  Chemical treatment,  Biological treatment,  Mowing, chipping,  Cutting and piling  Commercial harvest/Underburning  Create different more diverse vegetative communities,  Monitoring  Fuels reduction  Firewise,  Formulate a task force for best management practices,  Monitor fire effects  Dispersed treatments  Enhanced capabilities 4% 16% 30% 48% 56% 61% 72% 83% 87% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% None of the above Other Fire-resistant landscaping (introducing fire-… Assuring Emergency Services access (road width) Augmenting access to water sources Perscribed burns Stand Thinning Creating fuel breaks (i.e. along roadways) Creating defensible space by removing fuels… Community Wildfire Protection Plan Analysis April 2013 Page | 35 Q5.10 Are the recommended treatments linked to specific projects or places on the landscape? Q5.11 Does the plan identify any of the following non-treatment related actions or strategies? Other Non-Treatment Strategies  Identify senior/disabled citizens that need assistance,  Improvement of road and home signage,  Investigate funding sources for projects,  Continue to participate in green waste program to assist in disposal of green waste from fuel reduction projects,  Evacuation plan,  Above ground utilities be placed underground  Apply for grant funds  Data collection,  Public workshops  Development of subdivision-level wildfire assessment  Establishing funding sources  City codes,  Identify and improve and protect critical evacuation routes  Inclusion of fire free guidelines  Subdivision level CWPPs  Evacuation plan  Develop and update mutual aid agreements  Fire danger rating signs 70% 30% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% Yes No 4% 4% 18% 23% 25% 50% 54% 66% 68% 90% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Resident certification process None of the above Other Recruitment of volunteers Development of Regional programs Interagency communication improvement Inclusion of Firewise community guidelines Emergency preparedness & response… Improvement of protection capability… Education & outreach Page | 36 Community Service Center  Rural subdivision water supply building code  Identify and prioritize wui areas  Form a countywide fire safe council, assist with environmental compliance  Evacuation guidelines  Identify and update high risk/hazard areas, funding,  Update and evaluate yearly plan accomplishments,  Addressing, seek out and secure funding,  Home assessment plans, pre-incident plans,  Promote native plant species,  Minimize infestation and spreading of noxious weeds  Noxious weed awareness,  Post fire disaster mitigation guidelines,  Assessment of homes in the WUI,  Identify high risk areas,  Pursue grant funds  Community emergency response team,  Evacuation plan,  Landowners should post and number roads  Mapping hazardous fuels,  Hire project coordinator,  Construction enhancements through county building and fire code requirements,  Class a re-roofing through county building and fire code requirements,  Map all roads markers and water sources  Organizational improvements,  Creation of wildfire assessment districts,  Review of county building land development and zoning codes,  Formal classification of eastside communities as federal at risk communities,  Feasibility assessment  Evacuation procedures  Form local chapters Nevada fire safe council  Could not be determined  Biomass utilization  Accurate e-911 and addressing info  Economic development around biomass  Building code changes,  Land management recommendations Q5.12 Are the recommended non-treatment strategies linked to specific projects or places on the landscape? 57% 43% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% Yes No Community Wildfire Protection Plan Analysis April 2013 Page | 37 Plan Implementation Q6.2 Does the plan identify a specific lead coordinator or convener to oversee the implementation of the plan? Q6.3 The coordinator or convener is from what agency(ies)? Other state agency  Nevada Fire Safe Council  Nevada Fire Board  state parks  Northern Utah Fuels Committee Other county government  Emergency Services Director  Lincoln County Fire Steering Committee  Custer County Advisory Committee  County Fire Council Monitoring Committee  Sheriff  Lincoln County Fire Steering Committee  Emergency Management, County Commissioner  Fire Safe Council  MCCWPP Local Coordinating Group 81% 19% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% No Yes 3% 3% 6% 6% 6% 12% 12% 15% 52% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% State forestry or natural resource agency National Forest Service Local fire district County Planning department Could not be determined Other state agency Environmental organization Other Other county government Page | 38 Community Service Center  County Court,  Area 9 Fire Defense Board,  Community leaders,  County agencies  Emergency Services  Emergency Management  New Wildland Coordinator position  Emergency Services  County Fire Mitigation Coordinator  Fire Safe Council  Fire Safe Alliance Other  ODF,  USFW,  DOD Navy,  USFS,  Fire Safe Council  Fire Safe Council of Siskiyou County  Utility providers,  ODOT  Ravalli County Wildland Urban Interface Task Force  Coordinator of Tehama-Glenn Fire Safe Council Q6.4 Does the plan identify a plan/program advisory committee to guide the implementation process? 67% 33% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% No Yes Community Wildfire Protection Plan Analysis April 2013 Page | 39 Q6.5 The advisory committee is comprised of members of which agency(ies)? Other state agency  Idaho Department of Lands  Local Fire Safe Councils  Fire Safe Council  Homeland Security  DNRC Extension Forester  Northern Utah Fuels Committee Other county government  Custer County Advisory Committee, Interagency Planning Group  Lincoln County Fire Steering Committee  County Fire Council  commissioners  Park County Wildfire Coalition  Lincoln County Fire Steering Committee  Commissioners  Natural Resources 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 2% 2% 2% 2% 3% 5% 8% 8% 8% 8% 10% 10% 14% 17% 20% 20% 24% 27% 29% 36% 39% 42% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% Bureau of Indian Affairs National Park Service US Fish and Wildlife Service Foundation Timber industry Consultant Educational Institution Soil and water conservation district Watershed council Neighborhood association Tribal Government State natural resource agency County Planning department Environmental organization (non-watershed… Other nonprofit organization Other state agency Sheriff's Office Could not be determined Fire Advocacy Organization State forestry City government County Emergency Management Bureau of Land Management National Forest Service Other Other county government Local fire district Page | 40 Community Service Center  Roads  County Court,  Public Works,  Pueblo County GIS,  Commissioners,  Sheriff,  Dispatch,  Disaster Services  County Commissioner,  County Public Lands  Boulder County Land Use Department  County-wide Fire Protection Working Group  Fire Safe Council  Tri County Commission  Fire Safe Councils  Commissioners  County Commissioner Other nonprofit organization  Boise County Fire Fighters Assoc.,  Boise County Fire Chiefs  Bitter Root Resource Conservation & Development,  National Forest Protective Alliance  University of Arizona Cooperative Extension  Forest Protective Assoc., Other  Fire Safe Council of Siskiyou County  Landowner Committee  "Federal and State Agencies"  Tehema-Glen Fire Safe Council  Mini-Cassia Local Emergency Planning Committee  homeowners  Landowner Committee  DOD Navy, OR National Guard  local fire department,  Beulah Area Wildfire Mitigation Council,  fire and rescue,  Pueblo Emergency Response Teams,  Mountain Park Environmental Center,  National Weather Service,  Natural Resources Conservation Service  Plan Development steering committee  Landowners  RC&D  Color Country Interagency Fuels Committee  The InterMountain Alliance,  Boulder County Forest Health Task Force  Landowner Committee  Boulder River Fuels Committee  landowners  Community Wildfire Preparation Team  Ravalli County Wildland Urban Interface Task Force  Oregon Fire Chiefs Assoc. Community Wildfire Protection Plan Analysis April 2013 Page | 41 Q6.6 Action items describe tasks or activities that are performed to accomplish a goal or objective. Does the CWPP contain action items? Q6.7 Does the CWPP identify action items related to any of the following treatments? (check all that apply) 30% 70% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% No Yes 0% 29% 36% 58% 61% 68% 73% 75% 88% 92% 98% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% None of the above Recruiting volunteers Ingress – Egress Further planning efforts for specific geograhies Increasing Emergency Services capabilities Maintenance of critical access and evacuation… Increasing fire suppression and prevention… Reducing structural vulnerability Education/certification process for residents Creating defensible space/fuel breaks Fuels reduction Page | 42 Community Service Center Q6.8 Does the plan identify resources needed for implementation? Q6.9 Does the plan provide anticipated implementation costs? Q6.10 Does the plan provide anticipated time schedule for completing implementation? Q6.11 Does the plan identify specific lines of authority during a wildfire? 68% 32% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% No Yes 81% 19% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% No Yes 75% 25% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% No Yes 88% 12% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% No Yes Community Wildfire Protection Plan Analysis April 2013 Page | 43 Q6.13 How happy does this Community Wildfire Protection Plan make you feel? How effective is this Community Wildfire Protection Plan? 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% Very Happy Happy Neither Happy nor Unhappy Unhappy Very Unhappy 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% Ineffective Somewhat Ineffective Neither Effective nor Ineffective Somewhat Effective Effective Page | 44 Community Service Center Appendix A: Plan Database Coded Community Wildfire Protection Plans Date of Plan (MM/DD/YYYY) Plan File Name County(ies) PDF pages) 1/1/2005 AZ_005_Flagstaff_2005.pdf Coconino County, Arizona 136 11/12/2005 AZ_009_GrahamCounty_2005.pdf Graham County, Arizona 66 9/1/2005 AZ_011_GreenleeCounty_2005.pdf Greenlee County, Arizona 113 9/1/2005 CA_015_DelNorteFireSafe_2005.pdf Del Norte County, California 162 1/1/2005 CA_019_FresnoKings_2005.pdf Fresno and Kings Counties, California 120 6/15/2011 CA_019_FresnoKings_2011.pdf Fresno and Kings Counties, California 75 7/28/2011 CA_021_Glenn_2011.pdf Glenn County, California 139 4/1/2009 CA_027_Inyo_2009.pdf Inyo County, California 181 1/1/2011 CA_029_KernRiverValley_2011.pdf Kern County, California 179 1/1/2006 CA_035_Lassen_2006 Lassen 39 4/2/2007 CA_043_Foresta_2007 Mariposa 127 1/1/2010 CA_043_MariposaCounty_2010.pdf Mariposa 154 1/1/2005 CA_049_Modoc_2008.pdf Modoc County, California 80 11/2/2005 CA_071_ArrowheadCommunities_2005.pdf San Bernardino County, California 42 1/1/2006 CA_071_MillCreek_2006 San Bernadino 18 1/3/2006 CA_073_Ramona_2006 San Diego 9 01/01/1000 CA_083_SantaBarbaraCounty_0000 Santa Barbara 50 10/30/2008 CA_103_TehamaEast_2008 Tehama 222 1/1/2007 CA_107_KENNEDYMEADOWS_2006.pdf Tulare County, California 157 11/1/2010 CA_107_Tulare_2010 Tulare 94 4/9/2006 CO_071_SantaFeTrailRanch_2006.pdf Las Animas County, Colorado 50 7/28/2003 ID_011_Bingham_2003.pdf Bingham County, Idaho 57 9/30/2004 ID_013_Blaine_2004.pdf Blaine County, Idaho 182 9/30/2004 ID_013_KetchumRFPD_2004.pdf Blaine County, Idaho 163 9/30/2004 ID_013_WoodRiverFPD_2004.pdf Blaine County, Idaho 166 9/1/2009 ID_025_Camas_Amendment_2009.pdf Camas County, Idaho 12 6/1/2006 ID_031_Cassia_Amendment_2006 Cassia 16 10/9/2006 ID_039_Elmore_VII_Update_2006 Elmore County, Idaho 180 10/6/2009 ID_049_IdahoVI_2009 Idaho 281 3/1/2011 ID_067_Minidoka_App_2011.pdf Minidoka County, Idaho 3 3/10/2005 ID_073_Owyhee_2005.pdf Owyhee County, Idaho 213 1/1/2011 ID_079_Shoshone_2011.pdf Shoshone County, Idaho 165 1/1/2006 MT_067_Park_2006 Park 63 1/1/2006 MT_081_Ravalli_2006 Ravalli 75 Community Wildfire Protection Plan Analysis April 2013 Page | 45 1/1/2007 MT_095_Stillwater_2007 Stillwater 25 5/1/2010 NM_005_Chaves_2010.pdf Chaves 173 6/1/2008 NM_027_Lincoln_2008 Lincoln County 76 5/27/2008 NM_057_Claunch-Pinto_2008 Torrance, Lincoln, Socorro, and Valencia counties 285 3/1/2005 NT_029_Flathead_2005 Flathead 145 1/1/2005 NV_023_NyeCounty_2005.pdf Nye 156 10/1/2005 OR_005_Clackamas_2005.pdf Clackamas County, Oregon 138 6/1/2005 OR_013_Crook_2005.pdf Crook County, Oregon 88 1/18/2006 OR_019_Douglas_PhaseII_2006.pdf Douglas County, Oregon 141 12/20/2007 OR_021_Gilliam_2007.pdf Gilliam County, Oregon 43 5/1/2011 OR_031_Jefferson_2011.pdf Jefferson County, Oregon 87 3/22/2006 OR_049_Morrow_2006.pdf Morrow 59 6/15/2005 OR_059_Umatilla_BlueMountain_2005.pdf Umatilla 116 3/24/2006 OR_063_Wallowa_2006.pdf Wallowa County, Oregon 88 10/26/2007 UT_001_SouthwestUtah_2007.pdf Beaver, Garfield, Iron, Kane, Washington 196 5/14/2007 UT_035_NorthernUtah_2007.pdf Box Elder, Cache, Davis, Morgan, Rich, Salt Lake, Summit, Tooele, Utah, Wasatch, Weber 210 1/1/2008 WA_007_MonitorCashmereDrydanPeshastin_2008 Chelan 30 1/1/2006 WA_045_LakeCushman_2006.pdf Mason County, Washington 20 12/13/2006 WA_047_OkanoganCounty_2006 Okanogan County, Washington 335 1/1/2011 ID_079_Shoshone_2011.pdf Shoshone 110 2/8/2006 WA_071_WallaWalla_2006 Walla Walla 67 12/1/2009 MT_067_Park_2009 Park 23 2/1/2011 ID_013_Blaine_Addendum_2011.pdf Blaine County, Idaho 6 1/1/2011 CO_041_ElPaso_2011.pdf El Paso County, Colorado 57 1/1/2005 NV_510_CarsonCity_2005.pdf Carson City, Nevada 114 2/26/2008 NV_023_Landscape-Scale_Nye_2008.pdf Nye 183 1/1/2010 MT_081_Ravalli_2010 Ravalli 74 2/18/2009 WA_037_KittitasCounty_2009.pdf Kittitas County, Washington 204 1/1/2005 ID_059_Lemhi_2006 Lemhi 90 7/28/2008 NM_007_Colfax_2008.pdf Colfax County, New Mexico 60 2/15/2006 OR_001_Baker_2006.pdf Baker County, Oregon 108 6/1/2005 MT_053_Lincoln_2005.pdf Lincoln 52 1/1/2003 CA_103_TehamaWest_0000.pdf Tehama County, California 214 9/1/2008 CA_039_Madera_2008 Madera 140 9/22/2004 OR_019_Douglas_PhaseI_2004.pdf Douglas County, Oregon 92 9/1/2004 ID_071_Oneida_2004.pdf ONEIDA COUNTY, IDAHO 55 5/1/2005 MT_061_Mineral_2005.pdf Mineral 23 3/9/2010 CA_111_Ventura_2010.pdf Ventura County, California 69 1/1/2008 CA_073_Rural94_0000.pdf San Diego County, California 29 11/20/2004 CA_017_LAKETAHOEBASIN_2004.pdf Placer and El Dorado Counties, California 56 8/1/2005 NV_007_ElkoCounty_2005 Elko 446 Page | 46 Community Service Center 1/1/2005 CA_045_Mendocino_2005.pdf Mendocino County 156 12/23/2008 NM_025_Lea_2008.pdf Lea 61 5/1/2006 CA_071_BigBearValley_2006.pdf San Bernardino County, California 103 6/28/2004 ID_087_Washington_2004.pdf Washington 202 8/1/2011 ID_063_Lincoln_App_2011.pdf lincoln county, idaho 3 10/15/2009 NM_023_Hildago_2009.pdf Hidalgo County, New Mexico 74 5/1/2006 ID_067_Minidoka_Amendment_2006.pdf Minidoka County, Idaho 11 4/23/2008 CA_093_SiskiyouCounty_2008 Siskiyou 59 12/1/2005 WA_007_LeavenworthArea_2005 Chelan 28 6/1/2005 MT_053_Lincoln_2005 Lincoln 52 11/1/2005 MT_039_Granite_2005.pdf Granite 81 5/23/2010 OR_019_Douglas_AppA_2010.pdf Douglas County, Oregon 8 5/13/2006 NM_053_Socorro_2006 Socorro 86 10/29/2008 CA_073_LakeHodges_2008.pdf San Diego 13 5/1/2010 CA_087_SantaCruz_2010 Santa Cruz and San Mateo Counties 119 5/19/2011 CA_083_MissionCanyon_2011 Santa Barbara 39 11/1/2007 OR_043_Linn_2007.pdf Linn 207 10/1/2006 CO_013_FourMileFPD_2006.pdf Boulder County, Colorado 121 8/1/2009 ID_067_Minidoka_Amendment_2009.pdf Minidoka County, Idaho 10 12/13/2011 AZ_013_Maricopa_Review_2011.pdf Maricopa County, Arizona 18 6/1/2005 NV_031_WashoeCounty_2005.pdf Washoe 394 12/23/2005 OR_037_SouthCentralLake_PhaseI_2005.pdf Lake County, Oregon 48 8/1/2009 CA_033_LakeCounty_2009.pdf Lake 339 6/14/2006 ID_001_Ada_2006.pdf Ada County, Idaho 180 5/23/2005 CO_119_Teller_2005.pdf Teller County, Colorado 47 3/1/2008 CA_061_PlacerCounty_2008.pdf Placer 73 1/1/2009 AZ_005_Sitgreaves_2009.pdf Navajo, Coconino 29 9/20/2007 CO_041_SWHighway115FPD_2007.pdf El Paso, Teller, and Fremont Counties, Colorado 112 6/1/2005 CA_091_SierraCounty_2005.pdf Sierra 52 6/8/2012 OR_017_E&WDeschutes_Draft_2012.pdf Deschutes County, Oregon 60 1/1/2006 OR_069_Wheeler.pdf Wheeler County, Oregon 57 1/1/2007 CO_093_Park_2007.pdf Park County, Colorado 60 5/16/2008 NV_007_Landscape-Scale_Elko_2008 Elko 183 12/28/2004 CO_081_Moffat_2004 Moffat 107 11/1/2010 CA_053_MontereyCounty_2010.pdf Monterey County, California 292 11/1/2004 NV_001_Churchill_2004.pdf Churchill County, Nevada 93 1/1/2012 OR_035_WalkerRange_2012.pdf Klamath County, Oregon 94 5/1/2008 NM_043_Sandoval_2008.pdf Sandoval County, New Mexico 188 7/1/2003 ID_015_Boise_2003.pdf Boise County, Idaho 83 1/27/2010 CA_073_lakeHodges_2011 San Diego 18 7/11/2007 OR_035_Klamath_2007.pdf Klamath County, Oregon 92 10/1/2007 AZ_019_Catalina_2007.pdf Pima County, Arizona 94 5/11/2007 UT_027_CentralUtah_2007.pdf Juab, Millard, Piute, Sanpete, Sevier, Wayne 126 Community Wildfire Protection Plan Analysis April 2013 Page | 47 12/21/2005 OR_065_Wasco_2005.pdf Wasco County, Oregon 87 5/11/2007 UT_037_SoutheastUtah_2007 Carbon, Emery, Grand, San Juan 132 5/10/2004 ID_039_Elmore_2004.pdf Elmore County, Idaho 174 12/13/2007 NV_001_Landscape-Scale_Churchill_2007.pdf Churchill County, Nevada 181 1/1/2005 OR_023_Grant_CFPP_2005.pdf Grant County, Oregon 53 9/1/2004 ID_025_Camas_2004.pdf CAMAS COUNTY, IDAHO 50 2/1/2008 OR_015_Curry_2008.pdf Curry County, Oregon 165 1/1/2005 MT_049_TriCounty_2005.pdf Lewis & Clark, Jefferson, Broadwater 39 2/1/2007 ID_085_Washington_Amendment_2007.pdf Washington County, Idaho 8 2/1/2009 ID_037_Custer_2009.pdf Custer 63 1/1/2005 MT_049_TriCounty_2005 Lewis and Clark, Jefferson, and Broadwater counties 39 7/1/2009 NV_510_CarsonCity_2009.pdf Ormsby 138 1/1/2007 CO_033_Dolores_2007.pdf Dolores County, Colorado 23 2/1/2010 AZ_013_Maricopa_2010.pdf Maricopa County, Arizona 187 2/1/2007 AZ_023_SonoitaElgin_2007.pdf Santa Cruz, Pima, and Cochee Counties 117 9/28/2004 ID_083_TwinFalls_2004.pdf Twin Falls 157 6/1/2011 OR_033_IllinoisValley_2011 Josephine 70 8/1/2005 MT_063_Missoula_2005 Missoula 128 7/1/2004 ID_063_Lincoln_2004.pdf Lincoln County, Idaho 98 1/1/2000 CO_013_Boulder_2011 Boulder 233 7/1/2007 WA_007_LakeWenatcheePlain Area_2007 Chelan 31 9/1/2008 MT_097_SweetGrass_2008 Sweet Grass 124 9/13/2004 ID_051_Jefferson_2004 Jefferson 73 1/4/2006 CA_073_SanDiego_County_2006 San Diego 34 7/9/2008 WA_013_ColumbiaCounty_2008.pdf Columbia County, Washington 178 4/21/2008 NM_510_Landscape-Scale_CarsonCity_2008.pdf Ormsby 178 8/1/2002 OR_033_Applegate_Fire_Plan_2002 Jackson, Josephine 193 5/30/2008 NM_057_Torance_2008 Torance 256 7/1/2005 CA_029_MyersCanyon_2005.pdf Kern County, California 74 12/1/2009 CA_015_OrleansSomesBar_2009.pdf Del Norte, Humboldt, and Siskiyou Counties, California 181 1/1/2005 WA_037_SwaukBasin_2005.pdf Kittitas County, Washington 94 11/1/2004 OR_033_Josephine_CFIP_2004 Josephine 304 9/1/2011 OR_011_Coos_2011 Coos 180 1/1/2007 NM_003_Reserve.pdf Catron County, New Mexico 39 12/1/2005 WA_O77_Highways410-12_2005 Yakima 58 1/1/2009 ID_063_Lincoln_Report_2009.pdf Lincoln County, Idaho 4 7/1/2006 CO_083_Montezuma_2006.pdf Montezuma 13 1/1/2006 NM_003_Catron_2006.pdf Catron County, New Mexico 196 3/1/2009 ID_013_Blaine_Addendum_2009.pdf Blaine County, Idaho 17 1/26/2004 ID_003_Adams_2004.pdf Adams County, Idaho 128 5/26/2004 CA_005_AmadorCountywide_2005.pdf Amador County, California 74 Page | 48 Community Service Center 4/26/2006 CA_073_PineValley_2006.pdf San Diego County, California 18 6/1/2004 NV_027_Pershing_2004 Pershing 138 9/1/2009 ID_083_TwinFalls_Amendment_2009.pdf Twin Falls 26 9/20/2006 CO_101_SWPueblo_2006 Pueblo 206 2/1/2005 CA_063_PlumasCounty_2005.pdf Plumas 17 5/1/2011 CO_085_Montrose_2011.pdf Montrose County, Colorado 262 5/1/2011 AZ_025_Yavapai_2011.pdf Yavapai County, Arizona 62 8/10/2005 OR_061_Union_2005.pdf Union County, Oregon 132 1/1/2010 AZ_005_Blue Ridge_2010.pdf Coconino 53 10/18/2004 ID_067_Minidoka_2004.pdf Minidoka County, Idaho 173 1/1/2009 OR_025_Harney_2009.pdf Harney County, Oregon 57 Not Indicated NM_003_WillowCreek.pdf Catron 34 8/1/2004 ID_023_Butte_2004.pdf Butte County, Idaho 73 6/1/2006 ID_083_TwinFalls_Amendment_2006.pdf Twin Falls 18 1/1/2007 ID_011_Bingham_Adendum_2007.pdf Bingham County, Idaho 3 5/1/2005 OR_039_Lane_2005.pdf Lane County, Oregon 223 Community Wildfire Protection Plan Analysis April 2013 Page | 49 Appendix B: Case Selection Criteria Case selection focused on procuring the most detailed information about a geography affected by a major fire since 2004. In order to refine this case selection, the Research Team created the following protocol to select CWPPs to analyze. CSC took a state-by-state approach to collect plans. Using a map provided to CSC by ISE staff, analysis began with two layers: 1) a polygon file of fire extents2, and 2) a population density layer3. This allowed CSC researchers to create a list of affected county, and to whatever extent possible, sub-county geographies in each state. Researchers were primarily concerned with geographies where the “plurality” of the fire extent covered. At the discretion of the CSC Project Manager and researchers, the geography affected by most of a fire was identified and included in our database. Figure B-1 identifies a fire that affected two counties. For the purpose of this research, County A was included in our database as directly affected by fire, and CSC collected a CWPP from County A to include in this research. Figure B-1 Assuming that this research is concerned with areas affected by wildfires since 2004 that contain people, fires were matched with geographic jurisdictions. Researchers then collected CWPPs from the Internet for each of these geographies affected by fire. Initially, CSC looked at areas affected by fire in the so-called “fire extent” as well as a 10-mile buffer zone constructed around each extent. These geographies are recorded in the data collection files as “Fire Extent” and “10-Mile Buffer.” To prioritize plans for review, CSC selected CWPPs for jurisdictions directly affected by the plurality of a fire’s extent. Figure B-2 presents the same scenario, but with the information regarding population density considered. In this 2 Information re: source of fire extents, definitions, etc. 3 Info re: population density map layer County A County B Fire extent Page | 50 Community Service Center case, CSC collected CWPP documents from both County A and County B, as available. See Table B-1 for a complete list of those fires covered by this analysis’ sample. Figure B-2 Table B-1 ShortID Fire Name County State AUG-08 AUGUST Yavapai County AZ BAR-05 BART Maricopa County AZ BEA-06 BEAVERHEAD Greenlee County AZ BIR-07 BIRDIE Coconino County AZ BRI-06 BRINS Coconino County AZ BUT-05 BUTTE Yavapai County AZ CAN-09 CANELO Santa Cruz County AZ CHE-09 CHEVLON COMPLEX (WEIMER) Coconino County AZ CTY-07 CHITTY Greenlee County AZ EDG-05 EDGE Maricopa County AZ FRY-08 FRYE MESA Graham County AZ HUM-05 HUMBOLDT Maricopa County AZ KP-04 KP Greenlee County AZ PAR-10 PARADISE Greenlee County AZ PT2-06 POTATO Navajo County AZ REA-09 REAL Coconino County AZ REN-09 RENO Greenlee County AZ RMR-06 ROMERO Pima County AZ SHZ-10 SCHULTZ Coconino County AZ THF-04 THREE FORKS Apache County AZ County A County B Fire extent Major populatio n center Dispersed populatio n Community Wildfire Protection Plan Analysis April 2013 Page | 51 TIG-06 TIGER Yavapai County AZ TUR-10 TURKEY Apache County AZ WEB-04 WEBBER Gila County AZ WIL-04 WILLOW Yavapai County AZ ANG-07 ANGORA El Dorado County CA ANT-08 ANTHONY MILNE Siskiyou County CA BAC-08 BACK Lake County CA BAK-06 BAKE-OVEN Trinity County CA BAL-06 BALD Santa Barbara County CA BAS-06 BASSETTS Sierra County CA BBN-09 BACKBONE Trinity County CA BC1-06 BALLS CANYON Sierra County CA BC2-07 BALLS CANYON Sierra County CA BEL-08 BELDEN Plumas County CA BGM-09 BIG MEADOW Mariposa County CA BLR-07 BUTLER 2 San Bernardino County CA BON-08 BONANZA Trinity County CA BOU-06 BOULDER Plumas County CA BSN-08 BASIN COMPLEX Monterey County CA BUC-08 BUCKHORN Trinity County CA BUL-10 BULL Tulare County CA CAC-04 CACHUMA Santa Barbara County CA CAR-08 CARIBOU Siskiyou County CA CED-08 CEDAR Trinity County CA CEL-08 CELINA Sierra County CA CHA-08 CHALK Monterey County CA CHI-07 CHINA Siskiyou County CA CLD-08 COLD Plumas County CA CLO-08 CLOVER Tulare County CA COL-04 COLE COMPLEX Mono County CA CRA-04 CRAG Tulare County CA CRY-08 CAREY Trinity County CA CUB-08 CUB Tehama County CA CYN-10 CANYON Kern County CA DAY-06 DAY Ventura County CA DEE-04 DEEP Tulare County CA DER-05 DEER Lake County CA Page | 52 Community Service Center EAG-08 EAGLE Trinity County CA EAR-04 EARLY Tuolumne County CA ELK-07 ELK Siskiyou County CA EME-06 EMERALD San Bernardino County CA FLE-07 FLETCHER Modoc County CA GAP-08 GAP Santa Barbara County CA GLO-09 GLORIA Monterey County CA GOL-07 GOLDLEDGE Kern County CA GOV-08 GOVERNMENT Placer County CA GRA-08 GRASS VALLEY San Bernardino County CA GRO-07 GROUSE Tulare County CA GRS-06 GREASE Plumas County CA GUI-09 GUIBERSON Ventura County CA HAN-06 HANCOCK Siskiyou County CA HIG-07 HIGHWAY Sierra County CA HOR-06 HORSE San Diego County CA HUN-06 HUNTER Mendocino County CA IRN-08 IRON Trinity County CA IRO-08 IRONSIDE Trinity County CA JAC-06 JACKASS Mono County CA JAK-08 JAKE Siskiyou County CA JAM-07 JAMES Kern County CA JES-09 JESUSITA Santa Barbara County CA KCK-07 KING CREEK Siskiyou County CA KIN-06 KINGSLEY Tehama County CA KNI-09 KNIGHT Tuolumne County CA LAZ-07 LAZY Trinity County CA LIM-08 LIME Trinity County CA LIT-07 LITTLE GRIDER Siskiyou County CA LOC-09 LOCKHEED Santa Cruz County CA MCD-10 MCDONALD Lassen County CA MIL-08 MILL Siskiyou County CA MIN-08 MINERS Trinity County CA MOO-07 MOONLIGHT Plumas County CA NOB-08 NOBLE Tehama County CA NOR-08 NORTH MTN Tuolumne County CA OLI-08 OLIVER Mariposa County CA Community Wildfire Protection Plan Analysis April 2013 Page | 53 PAN-06 PANTHER Trinity County CA PER-06 PERKINS Santa Barbara County CA PET-08 PETERSON Shasta County CA PIN-07 PINE San Diego County CA PIT-08 PIT Plumas County CA PN2-08 PANTHER Siskiyou County CA POW-05 POWER Amador County CA QUA-08 QUARRY Plumas County CA RAL-06 RALSTON Placer County CA RCH-08 RANCH Los Angeles County CA RCO-07 RANCHO Santa Barbara County CA RIC-08 RICH Plumas County CA RSH-06 RUSH Siskiyou County CA SAG-07 SAGE Inyo County CA SHC-10 SHEEP COMPLEX Fresno County CA SIL-08 SILVER CREEK Mono County CA SIM-04 SIMS Humboldt County CA SNK-08 SLINKARD Siskiyou County CA SOM-06 SOMES Humboldt County CA SOU-04 SOURCE Madera County CA SWN-08 SHERWIN Mono County CA TIT-06 TITUS Siskiyou County CA TUO-04 TUOLUMNE Tuolumne County CA UNC-06 UNCLES Siskiyou County CA WAL-07 WALLOW Trinity County CA WHE-07 WHEELER Plumas County CA WHI-08 WHISKEY Glenn County CA WIN-07 WINGATE Siskiyou County CA WIT-08 WITCH San Diego County CA ZAC-07 ZACA Santa Barbara County CA ZEI-08 ZEIGLER Trinity County CA ALK-10 ALKALI Moffat County CO FOU-10 FOURMILE CANYON Boulder County CO LIO-06 LION CREEK Montrose County CO MAS-05 MASON Custer County CO MED-10 MEDANO Saguache County CO NAR-09 NARRAGUINNEP Dolores County CO Page | 54 Community Service Center QY2-09 QUARRY El Paso County CO BB1-06 BLACK BUTTE Idaho County ID BB2-10 BLACK BUTTE Owyhee County ID BCF-05 BLACK CANYON FACE Clearwater County ID BGD-10 BIG DRAW Owyhee County ID BIG-10 BIG Ada County ID BJN-07 BOUNDARY JUNCTION Idaho County ID BKS-10 BLACKSHEEP Owyhee County ID BOW-10 BOWEN Power County ID BP2-07 BLACK PINE 2 Cassia County ID BRN-06 BURNT Valley County ID BSP-04 BEAR SPRING Lemhi County ID BTR-10 BEAR TRAP Minidoka County ID C10-05 CHINA TEN Idaho County ID CAB-04 CABIN CREEK Lemhi County ID CLE-07 CLEAR SAGE Lemhi County ID COU-06 COUGAR Valley County ID CSR-07 CASTLE ROCK Blaine County ID CUD-06 CUDDY Adams County ID CWB-10 CROWBAR Owyhee County ID DOL-04 DOLLAR Valley County ID EHN-06 ELKHORN Lemhi County ID EMY-10 EMERY Cassia County ID ERR-06 EAST ROARING Elmore County ID FCK-05 FALLS CREEK Lemhi County ID GCK-05 GRANITE CREEK Idaho County ID GRG-05 GREGORY Boise County ID GRN-06 GREEN ACRES Idaho County ID GYC-07 GRAY'S CREEK Adams County ID HOT-10 HOT TEA Elmore County ID HRT-07 HORTON Valley County ID JEF-10 JEFFERSON Jefferson County ID LAI-10 LAID LAW Lincoln County ID LBC-10 LITTLE BEAVER COMPLEX Valley County ID LIG-06 LIGHTNING Idaho County ID LON-10 LONG BUTTE Owyhee County ID MEA-06 MEADOW Idaho County ID Community Wildfire Protection Plan Analysis April 2013 Page | 55 MID-10 MIDDLE BUTTE Bingham County ID MON-07 MONUMENTAL Valley County ID MUL-10 MULE CREEK Twin Falls County ID POT-06 POTATO Custer County ID RAI-07 RAINES Idaho County ID RAT-06 RATTLESNAKE Valley County ID RBR-10 RAINBOW ROAD Cassia County ID RMN-06 RED MOUNTAIN Boise County ID ROO-10 ROOSTER ROCK Power County ID RS2-07 RATTLESNAKE Idaho County ID SAI-10 SAILOR CREEK Owyhee County ID SBK-08 SOUTH BARKER Elmore County ID SHO-07 SHOWERBATH Custer County ID SHT-07 SHEEP TRAIL Valley County ID STO-06 STONE 2 Oneida County ID STR-10 SOUTH TRAIL Elmore County ID SUM-06 SUMMIT Valley County ID TAI-06 TAILHOLT CREEK Valley County ID THD-06 TRAILHEAD Boise County ID TRA-06 TRAIL CREEK Custer County ID ULM-06 ULM PEAK Shoshone County ID VAN-06 VAN METER Valley County ID WES-05 WEST FORK Idaho County ID WMS-07 WARM SPRINGS Washington County ID BGC-06 BIG CREEK Park County MT CAM-05 CAMP 32 Lincoln County MT DBY-06 DERBY Sweet Grass County MT GAS-06 GASH Ravalli County MT HOL-06 HOLLAND PEAK Missoula County MT ITR-09 INDIAN TRAIL Lewis and Clark County MT MAD-07 MADISON ARM Gallatin County MT SAW-07 SAWMILL Granite County MT SKY-07 SKYLAND Flathead County MT STU-10 STUMP GULCH Stillwater County MT TAR-05 TARKIO Mineral County MT TIN-07 TIN CUP Ravalli County MT WMN-05 WEST MOUNTAIN Mineral County MT Page | 56 Community Service Center EH2-08 ELKHORN 2 Nye County NV ESR-08 E. SLIDE ROCK RIDGE Elko County NV HAW-07 HAWKENS Washoe County NV HOY-09 HOYT Churchill County NV RCK-10 ROCK CREEK Washoe County NV RRK-09 RED ROCK Washoe County NV SEV-10 SEVEN TROUGHS Pershing County NV WAT-04 WATERFALL Carson City NV 784-07 0784 Deschutes County OR 7BC-08 0741 BRIDGE CREEK Crook County OR BAT-07 BATTLE CREEK Wallowa County OR BCX-10 BUCKHORN COMPLEX Gilliam County OR BLI-06 BLISTER Clackamas County OR BLO-05 BLOSSOM Curry County OR BLU-06 BLUEGRASS Hood River County OR BOZ-09 BOZE Douglas County OR BPT-07 BALL POINT Wasco County OR BRC-05 BURNT CABIN Umatilla County OR CYC-05 CHERRY CREEK Wallowa County OR EGL-07 SILVER FIRE Harney County OR FIV-10 FIVE CREEKS PHASE 3 Harney County OR FLY-05 FLY Union County OR GNA-08 GNARL RIDGE Hood River County OR GPP-07 GRAPPLE Grant County OR GSY-04 GRASSY Lake County OR HMT-08 HORSE MOUNTAIN Josephine County OR JIM-06 JIM CREEK Wallowa County OR KIT-08 KITSON Lane County OR LKG-06 0668 - LAKE GEORGE Jefferson County OR LOW-10 LOWER DESCHUTES COMPLEX (TYGH RIDGE) Wasco County OR MAX-06 0564 - MAXWELL FIRE Wheeler County OR MCL-06 MCLEAN CREEK Baker County OR MFK-08 MIDDLE FORK Klamath County OR MPK-05 MULE PEAK Union County OR MUD-09 MUDDY CREEK Jefferson County OR NFC-09 NORTH FORK COMPLEX Grant County OR NFK-08 NORTH FORK Douglas County OR Community Wildfire Protection Plan Analysis April 2013 Page | 57 OAK-10 OAK FLAT Josephine County OR OAT-09 OATMAN Harney County OR OTT-07 OTTER CREEK Grant County OR POE-07 POE CABIN Wallowa County OR PUZ-06 PUZZLE Linn County OR RBC-09 RAINBOW CREEK Douglas County OR RDH-07 RED HILL Morrow County OR RM2-06 RED MOUNTAIN Baker County OR ROY-08 1025 ROYCE BUTTE Klamath County OR SHA-06 SHARPS RIDGE Grant County OR SML-09 SOUTH MALHEUR LAKE RX Harney County OR TCK-07 TROUT CREEK Union County OR THO-06 THORN CREEK Grant County OR TMB-09 TUMBLEBUG Lane County OR TRC-05 TURNER CREEK Wallowa County OR TRO-07 TROUT MEADOWS Grant County OR TRY-05 TRYON Wallowa County OR TWI-06 TWIN LAKES Wallowa County OR UTC-10 UTC WUI UB Lake County OR WLC-10 WHITE LIGHTNING COMPLEX (YOUTHER) Wasco County OR WMC-09 WILLIAMS CREEK Douglas County OR ANN-06 ANNABELLA Sevier County UT BGP-09 BIG POLE Tooele County UT BLS-05 BLUE SPRINGS Washington County UT BRG-09 BRIDGE Garfield County UT BRO-09 BROKEN RIDGE Iron County UT CCY-08 CORNER CANYON Salt Lake County UT CRN-08 CORN CREEK Garfield County UT DEV-06 DEVILS DEN Millard County UT DOG-06 DOG VALLEY Millard County UT HW2-04 HAWKINS 2 Washington County UT MAC-10 MACHINE GUN Salt Lake County UT MLF-09 MILL FLAT Washington County UT POR-08 PORCUPINE RANCH Grand County UT SCY-09 SAWMILL CANYON Millard County UT SNC-06 SUNSET CANYON Millard County UT TCY-10 TWITCHELL CANYON Piute County UT Page | 58 Community Service Center WHR-09 WHITE ROCKS 1 Tooele County UT BAI-10 BAIRD SPRINGS Grant County WA BG2-06 BEAR GULCH II Mason County WA CCK-06 CEDAR CREEK Okanogan County WA CDS-08 COLD SPRINGS Skamania County WA COW-10 COWICHE MILL Yakima County WA DHB-04 DEEP HARBOR Chelan County WA DIR-05 DIRTY FACE Chelan County WA DRY-09 DRY CREEK COMPLEX Yakima County WA DSV-09 DISCOVERY Yakima County WA EUR-10 EUREKA Walla Walla County WA FSC-04 FISCHER Chelan County WA FZO-04 FREEZOUT Okanogan County WA HUB-10 HUBBARD Columbia County WA ICI-04 ICICLE Chelan County WA ODE-09 ODEN ROAD Okanogan County WA POL-06 POLLALIE Kittitas County WA SCH-05 SCHOOL Columbia County WA SPU-06 SPUR PEAK Okanogan County WA SWA-10 SWAKANE Chelan County WA TAT-06 TATOOSH Okanogan County WA TPC-06 TRIPOD COMPLEX Okanogan County WA UNN-10 UNNAMED Franklin County WA WMB-04 WILLIAMS BUTTE Okanogan County WA Community Wildfire Protection Plan Analysis April 2013 Page | 59 Appendix C: Data Collection Instrument The following appendix contains PDF versions of the Qualtrics data collection instrument as it appeared for student researchers. Immediately following this version is an exported version of the data collection instrument, indicating values used to code responses to each question, as well as skip sequences included to allow researchers to efficiently use this tool. Page | 60 Community Service Center Community Wildfire Protection Plan Analysis April 2013 Page | 61 Page | 62 Community Service Center Community Wildfire Protection Plan Analysis April 2013 Page | 63 Page | 64 Community Service Center Community Wildfire Protection Plan Analysis April 2013 Page | 65 Page | 66 Community Service Center Community Wildfire Protection Plan Analysis April 2013 Page | 67 Page | 68 Community Service Center Survey Instrument Q1.1 Please enter your initials: Q1.2 This section will ask questions regarding metadata associated with this Community Wildfire Protection Plan. Q1.3 What is the name of the plan you are coding? Q1.4 Please record the following attributes: Date of Plan (MM/DD/YYYY) (1) Plan File Name (2) County(ies) (3) Sub-county Geography (if any) (4) Number of Pages (PDF pages) (5) Q1.5 Is this plan an update?  Yes (9)  No (10) If No Is Selected, Then Skip To Please include any notes regarding me... Community Wildfire Protection Plan Analysis April 2013 Page | 69 Q1.7 How many updates have been made to the plan?  Include number: (1) ____________________  Could not be determined (2) Q1.8 When was the last update made?  2000 (13)  2001 (12)  2002 (11)  2003 (10)  2004 (1)  2005 (2)  2006 (3)  2007 (4)  2008 (5)  2009 (6)  2010 (7)  2011 (8)  2012 (9) Q1.11 Please include any notes regarding metadata: Q2.1 This section will ask about the relationship of this CWPP to other community/regional plans. Q2.2 Does the plan call out existing community plans?  Yes (1)  No (2) If No Is Selected, Then Skip To Does the plan stand alone or is it cl... Q2.3 Indicate the types of plans or initiatives referenced in this CWPP: (check all that apply)  Hazard Mitigation Plan (1)  Development Ordinances (2)  Legislation other than HFRA (i.e. FEMA, NEPA, State Acts, Executive Orders) (9)  Comprehensive Plan (3)  Environmental Protection Plan (4)  Emergency Operations Plan (5)  Watershed Plan (6)  Other CWPPs (7)  Other (8) ____________________ Q2.4 Is the CWPP clearly integrated into another planning process or document?  Yes (1)  No (2) Q2.5 Please include any notes about the relationship of this CWPP to other community/regional plans. Page | 70 Community Service Center Q3.1 This section will ask questions about the planning process that produced this CWPP. Q3.2 Please indicate which organizations provided funding for this CWPP: (check all that apply)  State forestry or natural resource agency (1)  National Forest Service (2)  Bureau of Land Management (3)  Bureau of Indian Affairs (4)  National Park Service (5)  US Fish and Wildlife Service (6)  Neighborhood association (7)  Local fire district (8)  County or municipal government (9)  Foundation (10)  Non-profit (11)  Title III Funds (14)  Other (12) ____________________  Could not be determined (13) Q3.3 This CWPP was prepared by: (check all that apply)  Consultant (1)  Local fire district (10)  Tribal Government (6)  Neighborhood association (9)  County Planning department (11)  County Emergency Management (32)  Other county government (12) ____________________  City government (13)  Soil and water conservation district (15)  Watershed council (16)  Environmental organization (17)  Other nonprofit organization (18) ____________________  Timber industry (19)  Other (21) ____________________  Could not be determined (22) Community Wildfire Protection Plan Analysis April 2013 Page | 71 Q3.4 This CWPP was prepared for:  County (1)  State government (2)  Other Local jurisdiction (3) ____________________  Community group (4)  Neighborhood association (5)  Fire protection association (6)  Fire District (11)  Natural resource collaborative, stewardship group or watershed association (7)  Federal land management agency (8)  Other (9) ____________________  Could not be determined (10) Q3.5 Please indicate each unique organization that participated in developing/updating the plan: (check all that apply)  Consultant (1)  Fire Advocacy Organization (34)  State forestry (2)  State natural resource agency (36)  Other state agency (3) ____________________  National Forest Service (4)  Bureau of Land Management (5)  Bureau of Indian Affairs (6)  Tribal Government (39)  National Park Service (7)  US Fish and Wildlife Service (8)  Neighborhood association (9)  Local fire district (10)  County Planning department (11)  County Emergency Management (24)  Other county government (12) ____________________  City government (13)  Sheriff's Office (23)  Educational Institution (37)  Foundation (14)  Soil and water conservation district (15)  Watershed council (16)  Environmental organization (non-watershed council) (17)  Other nonprofit organization (18) ____________________  Timber industry (19)  Could not be determined (21)  Other (22) ____________________ Page | 72 Community Service Center Q3.6 Does the CWPP describe any public engagement events (such as stakeholder meetings, focus groups, etc.) that helped to guide the creation of this document?  Yes (1)  No (2) If No Is Selected, Then Skip To Please include any notes about the pl... Q3.7 Please indicate which events (and how many) were held in preparation of this CWPP : (check all that apply and include number of events in the box)  Public meetings (1) ____________________  Stakeholder meetings (2) ____________________  Survey (3) ____________________  Other (5) ____________________ Q3.8 How many total stakeholder participants are identified as having participated in developing/updating the plan?  Enter number: (1) ____________________  Cannot be determined (2) Q3.9 How many total public participants are identified as having participated in developing/updating the plan?  Enter Number (1) ____________________  Cannot be determined (2) Q3.10 Please include any notes about the planning process conducted in the drafting of this CWPP. Q4.1 This section will ask questions regarding the risk assessment conducted for this CWPP. Q4.2 Does the CWPP's Risk Assessment analyze fire’s impact on: (check all that apply)  Health and safety of persons in the affected area at the time of the incident (injury and death) (1)  Health and safety of personnel responding to the incident (2)  Continuity of government operations (3)  Property, facilities, assets, and critical infrastructure (4)  Delivery of goods and services (5)  Environmental Preservation (6)  Economic and financial conditions (7)  Regulatory and contractual obligations (8)  Other (9) ____________________ Q4.3 Does the CWPP catalog existing: (check all that apply)  Fire suppression resources (i.e. engines, water sources, people) (1)  Prevention capabilities (i.e. existing educational programs) (2)  Communication capabilities across agencies (3) Community Wildfire Protection Plan Analysis April 2013 Page | 73 Q4.4 Does the CWPP define the Wildland Urban Interface (WUI)?  Yes (1)  No (2) If No Is Selected, Then Skip To Does the CWPP present a community map? Q4.5 Is this WUI definition roughly the same as the following definition? (i) an area extending ½ mile from the boundary of an at-risk community;  Yes (1)  No (2) Q4.6 (ii) an area within 1 ½ miles of the boundary of an at-risk community, including any land that a. has a sustained steep slope that creates the potential for wildfire behavior endangering the at-risk community; b. has a geographic feature that aids in creating an effective fire break, such as a road or ridge top; or c. is in condition class 3, as documented by the Secretary in the project-specific environmental analysis;  Yes (1)  No (2) Q4.7 (iii) an area that is adjacent to an evacuation route for an at-risk community that the Secretary determines, in cooperation with the at-risk community, requires hazardous fuels reduction to provide safer evacuation form the at-risk community.” [HFRA Section 101 (16)]  Yes (1)  No (2) Q4.8 Does the plan include another definition of the WUI?  Yes. Please describe: (1) ____________________  No (2) Q4.9 Does the CWPP present a community map?  Yes (1)  No (2) If No Is Selected, Then Skip To Please include any notes regarding th... Page | 74 Community Service Center Q4.10 Do the CWPP maps identify the following: (check all that apply)  Cities & Towns (1)  Street names (2)  Population zones at risk to wildland fire (3)  Designation of the WUI zone (4)  Public land (5)  Water sources (6)  Critical habitats/species (7)  Transportation corridors (8)  Private timber stands (9)  Archaeological sites (10)  Campgrounds/Recreation Sites (11)  Public safety facilities (Fire, law enforcement, etc.) (12)  Communication networks (13)  Other (14) ____________________  Could not be determined (15)  Public utilities (Electric, gas) (16) Q4.11 Are areas of the map identified as higher or lower risk of wildfire?  Yes (9)  No (10) Q4.12 Please include any notes regarding this CWPP's risk assessment. Q5.1 This section will ask questions regarding the content of this CWPP. Q5.2 A Vision/mission statement presents an aspiration, in broad terms, of what this plan will achieve. Does the plan include a vision/mission statement?  Yes (1)  No (2) Q5.3 A Goal statement presents one or more desired outcomes that may result from the effective execution of this CWPP. An Objective is a more detailed means of achieving a desired outcome. It may include process steps or elaborate upon stated goals. Does the plan include goal/objective statements?  Yes (1)  No (2) Community Wildfire Protection Plan Analysis April 2013 Page | 75 Q5.5 Which of the following goals/objectives are addressed in this CWPP?  Prevention of human/livestock injury (1)  Citizen awareness & education (2)  Enhanced risk assessment (3)  Fuels reduction (4)  Reducing Structural ignitability (10)  Capacity to stay and defend / shelter in place (16)  Evacuation capabilities (17)  Increasing fire suppression capacity (i.e. equipment, volunteers) (18)  Limitation of property loss (5)  Community/public preparedness (6)  Proper addressing (20)  Collaboration of government agencies (7)  Preserve forest ecology (8)  Other: (9) ____________________ Q5.6 Does the plan identify priority geographic areas for hazardous fuel reduction treatments?  Yes (1)  No (2) If No Is Selected, Then Skip To Does the plan recommend treatment typ... Q5.7 How were areas prioritized? (check all that apply)  GIS Analysis (1)  Aggregated out of existing agency plans (2)  Stakeholder input (3)  Other (4) ____________________  Could not be determined (5) Q5.9 What treatment types/methods are represented? (check all that apply)  Creating fuel breaks (i.e. along roadways) (1)  Creating defensible space by removing fuels (slash, underbrush, deadfall, etc.) (2)  Fire-resistant landscaping (introducing fire-resistant vegetation) (14)  Assuring Emergency Services access (road width) (3)  Stand Thinning (10)  Perscribed burns (9)  Augmenting access to water sources (8)  Other (12) ____________________  None of the above (13) Q5.10 Are the recommended treatments linked to specific projects or places on the landscape?  Yes (1)  No (2) Q5.11 Does the plan identify any of the following non-treatment related actions or strategies?  Education & outreach (1)  Resident certification process (2)  Emergency preparedness & response improvement (3) Page | 76 Community Service Center  Interagency communication improvement (4)  Recruitment of volunteers (9)  Development of Regional programs (5)  Inclusion of Firewise community guidelines (6)  Improvement of protection capability (equipment, infrastructure, water resources) (10)  Other (7) ____________________  None of the above (8) If None of the above Is Selected, Then Skip To Please include any notes regarding th... Q5.12 Are the recommended treatments linked to specific projects or places on the landscape?  Yes (1)  No (2) Q5.13 Please include any notes regarding this CWPP's content. Q6.1 This section will ask questions regarding the implementation of this CWPP. Community Wildfire Protection Plan Analysis April 2013 Page | 77 Q6.2 Does the plan identify a specific lead coordinator or convener to oversee the implementation of the plan?  Yes (1)  No (2) If No Is Selected, Then Skip To Does the plan identify a plan/program... Q6.3 The coordinator or convener is from what agency(ies)?  Consultant (1)  State forestry or natural resource agency (2)  Other state agency (3) ____________________  National Forest Service (4)  Bureau of Land Management (5)  Bureau of Indian Affairs (6)  National Park Service (7)  US Fish and Wildlife Service (8)  Neighborhood association (9)  Local fire district (10)  County Planning department (11)  Other county government (12) ____________________  City government (13)  Foundation (14)  Soil and water conservation district (15)  Watershed council (16)  Environmental organization (17)  Other nonprofit organization (18) ____________________  Timber industry (19)  Forestry contractors (20)  Other (21) ____________________  Identical to Participants (23)  Could not be determined (22) Q6.4 Does the plan identify a plan/program advisory committee to guide the implementation process?  Yes (1)  No (2) If No Is Selected, Then Skip To Action items describe tasks or activi... Q6.5 The advisory committee is comprised of members of which agency(ies)? Page | 78 Community Service Center Q6.6 Action items describe tasks or activities that are performed to accomplish a goal or objective. Does the CWPP contain action items?  Yes (1)  No (2) If No Is Selected, Then Skip To Does the plan identify resources need... Q6.7 Does the CWPP identify action items related to any of the following treatments? (check all that apply)  Fuels reduction (1)  Creating defensible space/fuel breaks (2)  Reducing structural vulnerability (3)  Maintenance of critical access and evacuation routes (4)  Ingress – Egress (5)  Increasing Emergency Services capabilities (6)  Recruiting volunteers (7)  Increasing fire suppression and prevention resources (8)  Education/certification process for residents (9)  Further planning efforts for specific geograhies (10)  None of the above (11) Q6.8 Does the plan identify resources needed for implementation?  Yes (1)  No (2) Q6.9 Does the plan provide anticipated implementation costs?  Yes (1)  No (2) Q6.10 Does the plan provide anticipated time schedule for completing implementation?  Yes (1)  No (2) Q6.11 Does the plan identify specific lines of authority during a wildfire?  Yes (1)  No (2) Q6.12 Please include any notes regarding the implementation section of this CWPP. Community Wildfire Protection Plan Analysis April 2013 Page | 79 Q6.13 How happy does this Community Wildfire Protection Plan make you? Categories Sad Somewhat Sad Neutral Somewhat Happy Happy Ineffective Somewhat Ineffective Neither Effective nor Ineffective Somewhat Effective Effective CWPP (2)           Q6.14 Was there a question you were going to go back to?  Yes (9)  No (10) Q6.15 Are there any notes you would like to include with this form? Q6.16 Are you finished with the survey?  Yes (1)  No (2) Page | 80 Community Service Center Appendix D: Coding Instruction Materials DEFINITIONS FOR CWPP CODING Stand-alone Plan Independent document, not a “branch” or “chapter” of another hazard plan/Regional or State-level CWPP Full Update vs. A Full Update consists of a total revision of previous CWPPs. This will include a revised risk assessment, new plan content, and potentially revised vision/goals/objectives. In some cases a Full Update will draw material from other plans, but will often reiterate/reference the majority of material required by the Healthy Forest Restoration Act (HFRA) and other Fire-related planning norms. Partial Update A Partial Update consists of a brief review of an existing CWPP with the addition of work projects, action items, and/or new geographic analysis that documents both what has already occurred since the last full CWPP was released, to date. Stakeholder A stakeholder is an individual that has local knowledge or relevant interest in the development of a CWPP (or other planning document). For our purposes, consider stakeholders to be residents, property owners in CWPP-affected areas, or community members such as local officials that participated in the CWPP process. [usually located on an “Acknowledgement” page] Participants Participants in the CWPP process include, but are not limited to: groups named (or representatives thereof) as participants in public meetings, agencies that sign the document, … [signatories, public meeting attendance sheet, noted in the narrative] Transportation corridors Corridors mentioned by the CWPP are likely to be evacuation routes and/or access routes for emergency vehicles. Goals/Objectives/Actions These may be ambiguous so try to follow the definition supplied in the qualtrics form. I will create a robust list to check these. Action items can be specified based on geographically specific reference and/or implementation leadership, funding requirements. Wildland Urban Interface WUI definition supplied may be included in general terms. If this is the case, be sure to check “no” – and include the definition supplied in CWPP. Often communities or places will designate their whole county as WUI so as to allow funding to flow to certain projects. If this is the case, make sure to note this in the following question re: another definition supplied by the CWPP. Defensible Space Defined by FireWise Coordinator/convener A designated individual who oversees the implementation of the CWPP Ingress-egress Entry/exit of emergency services, related to access Word searches Count only the word itself (i.e. all occurrences of “require,” but not “required”) Community Wildfire Protection Plan Analysis April 2013 Page | 81 DETAILED METHODS (QUESTION BY QUESTION) Q1.5 Is this plan an update? A plan is considered an update if indicated in the narrative. If no indication of an update is made, the plan is considered to be a full-plan. Q1.7 How many updates have been made to the plan? The number of updates relies on narrative clues. Many plans will cite previous planning efforts around wildfire and hazard mitigation, however the initiation of a Community Wildfire Protection Plan begins a new planning effort. The number of updates includes the current document. Q1.8 When was the last update made? The last update refers to the document just preceding the file in question (i.e. an Addendum from 2010 may indicate updates to a 2005 CWPP occurred in 2007 and 2009; 2009 would be the “last update made.”) Q2.2 Does the plan call out existing community plans? Mandate for CWPPs is often drawn from previous mitigation planning, comprehensive planning, or other regional or national declarations. Any mention of another plan in the reasoning or foundation of this CWPP constitutes “calling out” a plan. Q2.4 Is the CWPP clearly integrated into another planning process or document? Inclusion as a chapter, component, or expected attachment to another planning document constitutes “integration.” CWPPs are often added as chapters to All-Hazards plans, or conducted as preliminary research for such a process. This could constitute an affirmative answer to Q2.4. Q3.2 Please indicate which organizations provided funding for this CWPP: (check all that apply) Funding sources are often mentioned in the narrative, however it is common that various funding sources were referenced in different ways. Some note only the County, for example, while other plans indicate specific grant opportunities such as Title III funds. To add a level of complication, these Title III funds are federal in origin, and are disbursed to counties who then fund CWPP efforts. Coding of this question was driven by the reference in the narrative, or lack thereof. Q3.3 This CWPP was prepared by: (check all that apply) Q3.4 This CWPP was prepared for: In an effort to group organizations or entities who develop CWPPs, response options for Q3.3, Q3.4, and Q3.5 are general category “buckets.” In some cases, space is provided for description of specific departments or outfits. Though encouraged to categorize departments into these “buckets,” Quality Assurance analysis suggests that there is some complication in categorizing certain departments. For example, RC&Ds are in some cases categorized as a non-profit, while in others they are categorized as environmental organizations. Coders were encouraged, if unsure of correct “buckets,” to place ambiguous groups in the space provided as “Other.” Q3.5 Please indicate each unique organization that participated in developing/updating the plan: (check all that apply) Inclusion in the development, writing, discussion, or mention in any way (including as a signatory) constitutes participation. Q3.6 Does the CWPP describe any public engagement events (such as stakeholder meetings, focus groups, etc.) that helped to guide the creation of this document? Public engagement events that are specifically referenced in either the narrative or appendices of the document constitute an affirmative answer, regardless of their level of specificity (description, attendance, etc.). Page | 82 Community Service Center Q3.7 Please indicate which events (and how many) were held in preparation of this CWPP : (check all that apply and include number of events in the box) If an event is mentioned but no data is included in the document, events may be checked without any numerical data. Q3.8 How many total stakeholder parti cipants are identified as having participated in developing/updating the plan? Refer to definitions sheet: “Stakeholder” Q3.9 How many total public participants are identified as having participated in developing/updating the plan? Refer to definitions sheet: “Public Participant” Q3.10 Please include any notes about the planning process conducted in the drafting of this CWPP. Q4.1 This section will ask questions regarding the risk assessment conducted for this CWPP. Q4.2 Does the CWPP’s Risk Assessment analyze fire’s impact on: (check all that apply) It was common for many of these impact categories not to be explicitly mentioned in the narrative of the CWPP. Only explicit references were recorded. The term “analyze” comes directly out of NFPA 1600. Acknowledging analysis of these categories was left to the coder’s discretion (no criteria stipulated). Q4.3 Does the CWPP catalog existing: (check all that apply) Explicit cataloging of information in the plan around the three categories constitutes an affirmative answer. Q4.4 Does the CWPP define the Wildland Urban Interface (WUI)? Any mention of WUI or Wildland Urban Interface with a description associated is considered a definition. If No Is Selected, Then Skip To Does the CWPP present a community map? Q4.5 Is this WUI definition roughly the same as the following definition? (i) an area extending ½ mile from the boundary of an at-risk community; Q4.6 (ii) an area within 1 ½ miles of the boundary of an at -risk community, including any land that a. has a sustained steep slope that creates the potential for wildfire behavior endangering the at-risk community; b. has a geographic feature that aids in creating an effective fire break, such as a road or ridge top; or c. is in condition class 3, as documented by the Secretary in the project -specific environmental analysis; Q4.7 (iii) an area that is adjacent to an evacuation route for an at -risk community that the Secretary determines, in cooperation with the at -risk community, requires hazardous fuels reduction to provide safer evacuation form the at-risk community.” [HFRA Section 101 (16)] Many plans used the some or all of the Healthy Forest Restoration Act definition of a WUI as noted in Q4.5, Q4.6, and Q4.7. Wording of the definition revolved primarily around key nouns and distances (i.e. the words “½ mile” “1 ½ mile” “fire break” and “evacuation route”). If these words and values were included with the same intent as the provided definition, the definition is considered to be “roughly the same.” Q4.8 Does the plan include another definition of the WUI? Community Wildfire Protection Plan Analysis April 2013 Page | 83 Often preparers of a CWPP will redefine the term WUI to be more relevant to the study area of a CWPP. Many communities chose to redefine the term in the interest of funding or other decision-making. Coders cut and pasted the definition from each respective CWPP that included an alternative definition than HFRA’s provided definition. Q4.9 Does the CWPP present a community map? Any map showing the study area of a CWPP is considered a community map. In some cases maps are not included in online publication. If a map was discussed in the narrative, but is not present in the file CSC was able to collect, there may be some confusion in the answer to this question. Without a map to look at, however, most coders answered “No” and wrote an explanation in the area provided under Q4.12. If No Is Selected, Then Skip To Please include any notes regarding th... Q4.10 Do the CWPP maps identify the following: (check all that apply) Visual representation, typically indicated by the legend to a community map, provided “identification” of the map elements. Two options, “Population zones at risk” and “Water sources” may not have been explicitly applied in every instance. Population zones at risk is indicated by CWPP preparers in a variety of ways. Without consistency (i.e. population concentration maps, detailed structures locations) across all community maps, coders may have reported a “false negative.” Conversely, the term “water source” is intended to identify firefighting resources where emergency responders can access water (i.e. hydrants, reservoirs, identifying resources for refilling fire trucks, etc.), however may have been interpreted as “bodies of water.” This may have resulted in some coders identifying “water sources” as rivers, lakes, or other water bodies in general on the map. Q4.11 Are areas of the map identified as higher or lower r isk of wildfire? The presence of risk categories, separate maps of higher risk areas, or any other indicator of risk assessment is considered areas of higher/lower risk on a community map. Q4.12 Please include any notes regarding this CWPP's risk assessment. Q5.1 This section will ask questions regarding the content of this CWPP. Q5.2 A Vision/mission statement presents an aspiration, in broad terms, of what this plan will achieve. Does the plan include a vision/mission statement? Though the document may not have explicitly used the words “vision” or “mission” many CWPPs provided a high- level aspiration for its process and/or product. Coders interpreted how closely such an aspiration aligns with the working definition provided of a vision/mission statement. Q5.3 A Goal statement presents one or more desired outcomes that may result from the effective execution of this CWPP. An Objective is a more detailed means of achieving a desired outcome. It may include process steps or elaborate upon stated goals. Does the plan include goal/objective statements? Similar to Q5.2, goals and objectives may not be called out as such, or may be included under different labeling. Coders looked for statements within the body of a CWPP for any indication of a goal or objective. Q5.5 Which of the following goals/objectives are addressed in this CWPP? Goals/objectives listed in the body of a CWPP amounted to “addressing” particular desired outcomes of the CWPP document and process. Reference to “reducing structural ignitability” “community/public preparedness” and “preserve forest ecology” in some cases was vague, as the narrative implied but did not explicitly state the words used in our categories. For example, the term “preparedness” in the realm of emergency management has explicit activities attached to it. Also, though discussion was nearly always included around forest flora and forest health, the word “preserve” may have been interpreted to mean maintain existing conditions. There was some inconsistency in the response to this question. Q5.6 Does the plan identify priority geographic areas for h azardous fuel reduction treatments? Page | 84 Community Service Center Geographic areas are often referred to by addresses, geographic features, land ownership, and/or cardinal directions. This did not require a mapped location, but often did reference or were included on a map within the document. If No Is Selected, Then Skip To Does the plan recommend treatment typ... Q5.7 How were areas prioritized? (check all that apply) Coders made every effort to discover how risk analysis was performed to produce maps and prioritized fuel reduction areas, but in many cases few clues were given as to how areas are prioritized. Q5.9 What treatment types/methods are represented? (check all that apply) Treatment types/methods were captured from references in the CWPP’s narrative. Some alternative treatments were categorized with similar concepts (i.e. “under burning” is the same as “Prescribed burns”). There are instances where treatments are included in different sections or appendices of a CWPP, at times making it challenging to comprehensively report all treatments mentioned in the document. Q5.10 Are the recommended treatments linked to specific projects or places on the landscape? If a geographic area or project is called out in a CWPP associated with a treatment type, coders consider them “linked.” Q5.11 Does the plan identify any of the following non -treatment related actions or strategies? Same as Q5.9 If None of the above Is Selected, Then Skip To Please include any notes regarding th... Q5.12 Are the recommended treatments linked to specific proje cts or places on the landscape? Same as Q5.10 Q5.13 Please include any notes regarding this CWPP's content. Q6.1 This section will ask questions regarding the implementation of this CWPP. Q6.2 Does the plan identify a specific lead coordinator or convener to oversee the implementation of the plan? A CWPP, if indicated, assigns responsibility to overseeing implementation or action items (if included in the document). If No Is Selected, Then Skip To Does the plan identify a plan/program... Q6.3 The coordinator or convener is from what agency(ies)? Aside from similar inconsistencies seen in Q3.3, Q3.4, and Q3.5, a convening individual may be a member of multiple agencies or groups (i.e. an agency as well as the advisory committee assembled to write the CWPP). There are instances in the data where coders were unable to differentiate between an agency affiliation and a body assembled to prepare the CWPP. Q6.4 Does the plan identify a plan/program advisory committee to guide the implementation process? See Q6.2 If No Is Selected, Then Skip To Action items describe tasks or activi... Q6.5 The advisory committee is comprised of members of which agency(ies)? See Q6.3 Community Wildfire Protection Plan Analysis April 2013 Page | 85 Q6.6 Action items describe tasks or activities that are performed to accomplish a goal or objective. Does the CWPP contain action items? Action items are characterized typically as a list or means to achieving a previously mentioned objective. In some cases objectives included responsible agencies, timelines, and funding needed. In these cases the criteria overlapped, thus some objectives with specific activities included constituted both objectives and action items simultaneously. If No Is Selected, Then Skip To Does the plan identify resources need... Q6.7 Does the CWPP identify action items related to any of the following treatments? (check all that apply) Due to the complications described in Q6.6, there are instances where action items and objectives blended together. This led to inconsistent association between action items and CWPP recommended treatments. Similar to Q5.9, treatments have a variety of descriptions that refer to the categorized treatments provided in this instrument. As a result, some treatments may not have been captured comprehensively by coders. Q6.8 Does the plan identify resources needed for implementation? Resources for implementation consist of physical or financial capital necessary to carry out recommended implementation actions or strategies. Q6.9 Does the plan provide anticipated implementation costs? By identifying costs or funding resources for specific items identified in the CWPP’s action items or implementation strategies, a plan would “provide anticipated costs.” This should not be confused with common approaches such as listing off (table or list) public and private funding resources for individuals/groups to financially support fuels reduction activities on their own property. Q6.10 Does the plan provide anticipated time schedule for completing implementation? Time schedules of any kind, whether a CWPP described a month estimate or a strategy timeline , are considered an “anticipated time schedule” Q6.11 Does the plan identify specific l ines of authority during a wildfire? A CWPP provides a line of authority by describing as much as complying with NIMS or other federally mandated chain-of-command structures, referring to a document that describes such a structure, or as little as describing what agency to call in the event of a fire. Q6.12 Please include any notes regarding the implementation section of this CWPP. The remaining questions are intended as “gut check” and procedural questions. They do not have any parameters and may vary greatly depending on opinions, assessment of quality, and overall impressions gathered through reading a given CWPP.