Every fire season, major wildland fires continue to occur and cause major loss of life, property and valuable watershed. The problem is not getting better; it is getting worse. Despite heroic suppression efforts by the fire service, a national crisis is developing.

If the fire service can dramatically reduce the number of structural fires; step up to the plate as a provider of pre-hospital medical care; and add hazmat, rescue and terrorism response to its to-do list; then why can't it seem to make a dent in the wildland fire problem? The prevention and mitigation of this problem isn't rocket science, and it isn't beyond a concerted effort by the fire service.

However, there's a deeper issue constraining the efforts of local fire agencies. It seems that, in some communities, certain environmentalists, community planners, local politicians, developers and building industry lobbyists are in the driver's seat rather than the fire chief. Using outmoded paradigms, those with selfish agendas are tying the hands of fire departments that try to require vegetation management, proper roads, water supplies, fire sprinklers and structural safeguards.

MITIGATION ADVERSARIES

The misinformed foes of vegetation management create major problems for fire departments attempting to reduce threats in wildland-urban interface areas.

What has happened to the fire service that has conquered the other major community risk problems such as structural fires, emergency medical and hazmat incidents, and technical rescue? Perhaps those issues aren't controversial, or they don't have adversaries to the extent that wildland fire protection seems to. Is it because a man's home is his castle, and the fire service shouldn't try to regulate what he can do?

Of course, we know where the community fire protection problem exists and where most fires occur — not in the barbershops or small office buildings that fire departments inspect annually. Interface fires occur near residential properties, and we are not adequately addressing the problem. The fire service has done much to stop the urban conflagrations of yesteryear in the old principal business districts of cities. Now the wildland-urban interface fire is the conflagration threat of today and tomorrow.

It's time for the fire service to take a proactive position and stop being intimidated by certain environmentalists and others who would lead everyone to believe that they know more than the firefighters. The chief, as the top professional fire protection planning expert for the community, must take the lead. Interestingly, some of the best support may come from those who oppose exurban sprawl because they see stringent fire protection requirements as a way to stop growth.

SUGGESTED SOLUTION

The interface problem needs to be addressed on a community basis rather than lot by lot, because fire knows no property boundaries. The answer is the creation of a conceptual vegetation management plan that includes a community-wide risk assessment.

The plan would identify and characterize the local vegetation fire problem and then provide conceptual guidelines, criteria and performance standards for the establishment of site-specific requirements. Those requirements include vegetation management; setbacks; structural safeguards to prevent ignition; fire sprinklers; and infrastructure such as water supply, access, fire stations, staffing and equipment. Such a plan would set forth a community's overall goals for both existing and new developments, whether one structure or hundreds.

A vegetation management plan provides a methodological, risk-based approach that establishes performance standards, allowing fire departments to pursue buy-in from political leaders and the community. Several progressive communities have created and adopted such plans, including: Prescott, Ariz.; Hesperia, Calif.; and the North County and Vista fire protection districts of San Diego County, Calif.

In addition to the community-wide approach, the 2000 edition of the Uniform Fire Code's Article 86 requires all new developments in the wildland-urban interface to submit a fire protection plan to the fire department. Such plan is required to describe how the project, whether one structure or many, will address structural ignition resistance, fire protection systems and equipment, water supply, access, and vegetation management A major development also may be required to address the problem of inadequate fire station locations and staffing. The plan should include mitigation measures consistent with the site-specific problems resulting from the location, topography, geology, flammable vegetation and climate.

This plan expands on the community vegetation management plan by providing the next level of detail needed to implement the concepts and performance standards established in the community plan on a site-by-site basis. For example, the community-wide plan may establish a performance standard for the size, intensity and configuration of vegetation management zones on slopes that are more than 15% chaparral. The site-specific plan then takes that performance standard and applies it to a specific site for a new development. Another example would be structural setbacks and construction. Whereas the community-wide plan establishes performance standards for these components, the site-specific plan then sets forth how those standards are to be implemented. Flexibility and alternative methods are allowed for the applicant to demonstrate how the standards will be met.

The site-specific fire protection plan is subject to the approval of the fire chief, after which it becomes the official fire department requirements for the project. This approval process stops the paper chase, arguing and confusion in setting requirements for projects especially when the applicants, design team or fire department personnel change.

TIME FOR ACTION

It's time for fire departments to plan for the interface fire on a community-wide basis, and it's time to place the responsibility for mitigation of the fire problem on the person or property creating the problem.

The adoption and implementation of a community-wide vegetation management plan will require political will in the community, as well as work on the part of the fire department. When there is smoke in the air, everyone is motivated and wants something done. The local politicians also may get on the same bandwagon. Six months later, the community has lost interest in the problem and is now more interested in fixing the roads.

Of course, the politicians may not want to stir up a bunch of opposition in the community, and the environmentalists may not want anything done to the vegetation. But when the next fire occurs, the fire department gets blamed for not doing anything about the problem. Sound familiar?

Fire risks on existing properties can be improved by requiring compliance with performance-based standards and codes. The current prescriptive codes, which set minimum standards, obviously haven't been effective in addressing the interface problem.

The fire service must move to performance-based codes and standards that address site-specific hazards throughout the community for existing and new developments. Such performance-based standards require the courage to allow flexibility and alternative methods when certain constraints and practical difficulties occur, as long as the spirit and intent of the standard is met.

The goal of fire-safe communities can be reached by pursuing community-wide, risk-based wildland-urban interface fire protection planning and requiring adequate, performance-based fire protection for all new development.

Jim Hunt has 40 years of experience in community fire protection. He served 16 years as a firefighter and fire officer in Southern California fire agencies, and he has been a consultant in community fire protection for 24 years. He has produced more than 60 fire protection plans for new developments and has produced four community-wide vegetation management plans. He can be reached at 805-688-4625 or jhunt2@gte.net.

Design a vegetation plan for the interface

A typical community vegetation management plan would include the following topics, as seen in a conceptual table of contents for the Rolling Hills Fire District in Los Angeles County.

• Purpose and scope
• The urban-wildland interface/intermix problem
• The solution
• Recent vegetation fire history in the fire protection district
• Weather conditions in the fire protection district
• Risk assessment, fire spread models, scenarios
• Program goals and objectives
• Infrastructure performance standards
• Private-property vegetation management zone standards
• Structural safeguard performance standards
• Community fuel breaks
• Community vegetation management zones
• Environmental concerns
• Fire protection plan recommendations
• Alternative methods of compliance
• Demonstration garden
• Vegetation management program philosophy, implementation, staffing

The appendix would include such helpful information as:

• Community vegetation management zone map
• Vegetation map
• Map of recent UWI fire
• Habitat map
• Applicable code sections allowing enforcement
• Sample plant list
• Fire-resistive vegetation, undesirable plants, planting guidelines