The confusion comes from the need for wildland agency administrators to attest to their respective governing agencies that the wildland fire service is doing its statutorily authorized functions and not taking on the legal responsibilities of local government agencies. Structural firefighting is the responsibility of local government. Both state and federal wildland fire protection agencies are authorized to suppress fires on grass-, brush- and timber-covered lands.

Control agencies think that the wildland agencies will be operating outside of their legal mandates to do an activity that is primarily the responsibility of local government, structural firefighting. Unfortunately the issue is not really that simple, and one only has to look at the recent fires in Southern California to realize that structural protection from encroaching wildfires is very much a part of the wildland fire agencies' mission. In the field, firefighters from both structural and wildland backgrounds pretty much know what's expected of them in a wildland fire where structures are threatened. So how does the fire service get the policy-makers and control agencies to understand this and let the wildland agencies get onto other, more pressing business?

Knowing this is the case, when control agency personnel and legislators hear that wildland fire agencies are doing structure protection, they immediately envision these firefighters doing interior structural firefighting. That is very rarely the case, but continued use of the term “structure protection” ensures that the debate will continue. Clearly structural firefighting is the responsibility of local government. So the dilemma is how to bring the debate to a successful conclusion so that those who have an interest also have a clear understanding of what is happening. How do we take a legislative mandate that pretty clearly assigns financial responsibility and adopt terminology that as clearly articulates what is happening on the fireground?

Where the term “structure protection” originated I can't state for certain. It's one of those terms that's a shorthand way for firefighters to describe a particular problem that they encounter in the field. I believe that it came about as a consolidation of two terms: “structural exposures” and “exposure protection,” and that's where the trouble began. Once it got started there was no stopping its use, regardless of the confusion it might create for policy-makers.

It would be very simple to say that we all pay taxes at the federal, state and local levels. In this highly mobile society it's not uncommon to use the services of a local or state public safety agency to which we have never contributed a penny. If clear heads and logic prevailed, that would be the end of the discussion. Unfortunately, the issue is not that clear and senior policy-makers and control agencies see potential issues, such as legislated mandates, changes in duty weeks, extra training and year-round staffing for seasonal agencies, all as possible avoidable costs of doing business. They need a clearly articulated policy that makes them comfortable with what has to be done anyway.

The following approach clarifies the issue and puts it on a firm policy basis that creates a solution for both rather than an either-or solution. This approach uses the traditional fundamental principles of firefighting, as well as current understanding of the ground rules in place for firefighter safety, to clearly define where the wildland fire service ends and the structural fire service begins in a wildland-interface fire situation.

RECEO is an acronym very familiar to the structural firefighting community. It comes from Rescue, Exposures, Confinement, Extinguishment and Overhaul, the five sequential stages of structural firefighting as first described by Lloyd Layman in his classic text, Fundamentals of Fire Fighting Tactics. My suspicion is that this term may not be familiar to some wildland fire policy-makers, or else the debate over structure protection would be long past by now.

The 1995 Federal Wildland Fire Management Policy Report stated, “Protection of human life is the first priority in wildland fire management.” This policy is also consistent with the policies of state fire agencies. For example, the policy of the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection is “that a system of basic fire protection will be provided so that damages to life, property and natural resources are held at or below a level acceptable within social, political and economic constraints.” Wildfire managers have a very clear mandate when it comes to human life threatened by fire. Not coincidentally, this is also consistent with the first word in the RECEO acronym, rescue, being the first priority in structural firefighting.

Exposures are the second priority in the RECEO list. By logical extension the structural protection issue can be treated the same way. Wildland fire managers operate under principles that try to protect specific high values from the threat of fire. Old-growth timber or rare and endangered species are situations that call for extra protection. Specific examples are the giant sequoias and condor nesting areas in California. Fire lines are placed and resources are positioned so that these threatened exposures are protected from oncoming fire. Non-natural installations, such as utility lines and historical and archeological sites, also frequently require special consideration and are protected from a moving fire by pretreatment, line placement and exposure protection. Structures are then just another exposure in the pantheon of exposures that wildland fire managers must consider and deal with to the best of their ability.

Thus far the argument has been consistent. Both the structural and wildland communities protect life, as their first priority. Both also protect valuable exposures from spreading or encroaching fire. The next step is confinement of the fire, either by perimeter control in the wildland fire environment or by interior attack in the structural fire environment. This is the stage where wildland fire managers get nervous. They shouldn't, however, as this is where the clear distinction between wildland firefighting and structural firefighting occurs.

Under OSHA regulations, when a firefighter crosses the threshold and enters the burning building, a whole lot of activities occur that clearly distinguish this activity from wildland firefighting. The structural firefighter is entering an atmosphere that is an “immediate danger to life and health.” In an IDLH atmosphere, a breathing apparatus is required and the firefighter must be in structural protective clothing. There also must be at least four firefighters at scene capable of making entry with two inside and two outside. As the situation develops, a rapid-intervention crew needs to be available. This is structural firefighting and is clearly the responsibility of local government.

If a quick knockdown of the fire on the exterior of the exposed building doesn't accomplish the task, it is uncommon for firefighters, regardless of background, to engage in interior attack on burning structures in the wildland fire situation. There usually simply isn't the time. Those structures that have interior fire are written off as losses, and the firefighters move on to targets where they have a reasonable chance of success.

Perimeter control of a wildland fire is accomplished by firefighters in wildland fire protective gear using the tools and techniques that are common to wildland firefighting. Generally speaking, most wildland fire managers opt for perimeter control as quickly as possible, as this represents the fastest and safest way to provide structure protection, as well reduce the threat to human life and valuable resources.

Wildfire agencies need to change the lexicon from “structure protection” to “exposure protection” and consider structures just one of the many exposures wildland fire managers are called on to protect. Outside the threshold it is one of many considerations in the wildland fire strategy — when the threshold of the structure is crossed it's structural firefighting, but not until then.

Bill Sager is retired from a 32-year career with the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. He was a CDF team incident commander, planning section chief on a national interagency incident management team, the Butte unit chief and the Butte County fire chief. He is a designated Chief Fire Officer, a state-certified fire chief, and a graduate of the National Fire Academy's Executive Fire Officer Program. He has taught for the NFA, National Interagency Fire Center, the U.S. Coast Guard, the CDF Academy and community colleges in California.