Community Planning for Wildfire Protection, by Jim Schwab (American Perspectives on the Wildland/Urban Interface 2005)
By Jim Schwab, AICP
The community comprehensive planning process has become an essential element of efforts to reduce the vulnerability of the built environment to wildfire disasters. In the absence of a human population, what we term disasters are simply natural occurrences. A hurricane sweeping through Florida prior to massive human settlement of the peninsula was simply part of the natural cycle. Once people build homes and communities in highly hazardous areas, however, loss of life and property from natural occurrences demands human solutions. Because it is virtually impossible to avoid all such locations, the problem is not one of absolutes, but primarily of degrees and of good judgment in choosing both where and how to build. It is also a problem of proper maintenance of the built environment in order to minimize exposure to natural hazards.
Every natural hazard has its own cycle and poses its own challenges to the process of planning communities and designing structures. The challenge for planning is to adapt existing knowledge of how wildfires function in the natural environment and how they affect and are affected by the built environment, and to use that to maximize public safety at a reasonable cost. Society is constantly revising its judgments about how safe is safe enough and what costs are reasonable for achieving that safety. Regardless of the economic environment in which development occurs, public education and awareness of the nature of the risk and best practices regarding solutions will also affect human behavior with regard to hazards. Effectively regulating development in the wildland/urban interface will never be a simple task.
The Objective of Planning
Why start a discussion of community planning for wildfire safety with a discussion of community values? Simply put, that is where the real game lies. We already know enough to plan well for wildfire hazards. Political will to implement solutions, however, is another matter. Many of us desire to commune with nature by building on wooded hillsides or winding, wooded country lanes, and we are reluctant to modify the bucolic images of our dreams by considering dangers that may seem remote or the concern of the local fire department. The entire debate over sprawl and smart growth is, at some level, a debate over competing visions of the good life and the American dream.
The community planner’s job is to operate within this volatile arena by marshaling the formation of community goals, developing support and consensus around objectives
and strategies to achieve those goals, and balancing community visions with reliable data about the community’s strengths, weaknesses, threats, and opportunities. Two elements form the bookends of a successful comprehensive plan: Issues and Opportunities, and Implementation.
An Issues and Opportunities element allows the community to develop an informed awareness of the most significant challenges it faces with regard to issues like housing, transportation, land use, and, one hopes, natural hazards.
An Implementation element should match those stated goals with means of achieving them, tied to a time line for doing what is possible.
In dealing with wildfire hazards, the plan might call for a revision of subdivision regulations to improve wildfire safety, and for adopting those revisions within two years. Regulations, financial incentives, public education, infrastructure investments, or increased coordination with other units of government are types of tools that can be used to implement plan goals. Addressing finances in the implementation of a plan is especially important. How will the community pay for the widening of an access road into hillside residential areas in the interface? The specific means to the end, however, will vary with both the end itself and the circumstances and values of the community.
Applications to the Wildland/Urban Interface
The wildland/urban interface has certain unique attributes that affect the way it fits into the planning process. The most obvious is that it is not primarily a problem affecting the urban core. The interface is an area in which the city’s edge has inserted itself into the wildlands, sometimes massively in a single large subdivision, sometimes as a profusion of single homes scattered through the woods and hillsides. Virtually by definition, this is a problem of how best to manage growth.
Given the geographic considerations, it is possible for planners, once they are focused on the issue and have good technical advice at hand, to begin to identify those land-use practices that will help to facilitate wildfire safety. Public safety is almost certainly the most powerful legal rationale for land-use regulation, and fire protection of any kind inherently implicates safety concerns. The problem primarily is one of putting enough sound information in the hands of planners to enable them to establish the efficacy of particular actions to address the problem.
One of the most powerful considerations has often been left out of the equation: the need to avoid compromising the ability of firefighters to fight wildfires effectively and safely. It is possible for fire officials to state that some homes cannot be saved or are not worth the effort, but every realist knows the difference between discussing that policy in the abstract and implementing it in the midst of a specific crisis. Planners must raise questions about the feasibility of protecting a new home or development before the permits are approved.
Another significant arena for the intervention of the public is the geographic allocation of public investment in new infrastructure. It is not a foregone conclusion that,
An Issues and Opportunities element allows the community to develop an informed awareness of the most significant challenges it faces with regard to issues like housing, transportation, land use, and, one hopes, natural hazards.
An Implementation element should match those stated goals with means of achieving them, tied to a time line for doing what is possible.
In dealing with wildfire hazards, the plan might call for a revision of subdivision regulations to improve wildfire safety, and for adopting those revisions within two years. Regulations, financial incentives, public education, infrastructure investments, or increased coordination with other units of government are types of tools that can be used to implement plan goals. Addressing finances in the implementation of a plan is especially important. How will the community pay for the widening of an access road into hillside residential areas in the interface? The specific means to the end, however, will vary with both the end itself and the circumstances and values of the community.
Applications to the Wildland/Urban Interface
The wildland/urban interface has certain unique attributes that affect the way it fits into the planning process. The most obvious is that it is not primarily a problem affecting the urban core. The interface is an area in which the city’s edge has inserted itself into the wildlands, sometimes massively in a single large subdivision, sometimes as a profusion of single homes scattered through the woods and hillsides. Virtually by definition, this is a problem of how best to manage growth.
Given the geographic considerations, it is possible for planners, once they are focused on the issue and have good technical advice at hand, to begin to identify those land-use practices that will help to facilitate wildfire safety. Public safety is almost certainly the most powerful legal rationale for land-use regulation, and fire protection of any kind inherently implicates safety concerns. The problem primarily is one of putting enough sound information in the hands of planners to enable them to establish the efficacy of particular actions to address the problem.
One of the most powerful considerations has often been left out of the equation: the need to avoid compromising the ability of firefighters to fight wildfires effectively and safely. It is possible for fire officials to state that some homes cannot be saved or are not worth the effort, but every realist knows the difference between discussing that policy in the abstract and implementing it in the midst of a specific crisis. Planners must raise questions about the feasibility of protecting a new home or development before the permits are approved.
Another significant arena for the intervention of the public is the geographic allocation of public investment in new infrastructure. It is not a foregone conclusion that,
because people or developers wish to build in vulnerable ex-urban locations, government is thereby obligated to extend sewer, water, and energy transmission lines, as well as paved roads, to accommodate those desires. Some states are already reassessing the allocation of state infrastructure investments with an eye toward fostering smart growth. Maryland, for instance, gained national attention for deliberately redirecting investments toward urban in-fill locations and away from roads and facilities that would accelerate the movement toward developing rural areas on the suburban fringe. Michigan has begun to reexamine state investments in a smart growth context. The state-mandated policy of maintaining rural open space through the use of urban growth boundaries is now entering its fourth decade of implementation in Oregon. The point is not that these policies constitute a panacea for the problem of the developing wildland/urban interface, but that solutions that have largely grown out of a desire to contain urban sprawl can surely be justified at least as readily for the purpose of mitigating deadly wildfire hazards.
The problem at a local level is that governments may have less control over development in nearby wildlands. Many rural counties have minimal planning expertise, and most states do not assert a strong role in such circumstances to offset such local weaknesses. California, however, within a larger framework of mandatory local planning, has delineated “state responsibility areas” for strategic fire protection planning purposes. Even in the absence of a strong state role in mandating local comprehensive planning, local jurisdictions can execute cooperative zoning agreements and other devices for jointly developing policy for managing wildland areas. Particularly important are cooperative agreements between incorporated municipalities and counties with land-use regulatory responsibilities for unincorporated areas. In the wildland/urban interface, the proliferation of development as a result of uncoordinated growth policies among competing jurisdictions can produce long-term disaster.
Linking the Elements
The typical comprehensive plan consists of a series of elements dedicated to explaining public policy for a variety of topics and the means of implementing each of those policies. The most common elements in local plans deal with land use, housing, and transportation. About a dozen states mandate some type of element dealing with natural hazards or the inclusion of natural hazards in some other specified plan element such as land use. California, Nevada, and Arizona use “safety” elements in local plans to achieve this purpose. The strength of these requirements depends on the larger framework of state planning enabling legislation. For instance, Colorado requires that a local comprehensive plan include a hazards element, but does not actually mandate the creation of a comprehensive plan. In other words, the requirement applies only to those jurisdictions that choose to prepare a plan in the first place.
The safety element should lay out the local government’s basic policy prescriptions for addressing wildfire hazards, including issues like evacuation routes, water supplies in
The problem at a local level is that governments may have less control over development in nearby wildlands. Many rural counties have minimal planning expertise, and most states do not assert a strong role in such circumstances to offset such local weaknesses. California, however, within a larger framework of mandatory local planning, has delineated “state responsibility areas” for strategic fire protection planning purposes. Even in the absence of a strong state role in mandating local comprehensive planning, local jurisdictions can execute cooperative zoning agreements and other devices for jointly developing policy for managing wildland areas. Particularly important are cooperative agreements between incorporated municipalities and counties with land-use regulatory responsibilities for unincorporated areas. In the wildland/urban interface, the proliferation of development as a result of uncoordinated growth policies among competing jurisdictions can produce long-term disaster.
Linking the Elements
The typical comprehensive plan consists of a series of elements dedicated to explaining public policy for a variety of topics and the means of implementing each of those policies. The most common elements in local plans deal with land use, housing, and transportation. About a dozen states mandate some type of element dealing with natural hazards or the inclusion of natural hazards in some other specified plan element such as land use. California, Nevada, and Arizona use “safety” elements in local plans to achieve this purpose. The strength of these requirements depends on the larger framework of state planning enabling legislation. For instance, Colorado requires that a local comprehensive plan include a hazards element, but does not actually mandate the creation of a comprehensive plan. In other words, the requirement applies only to those jurisdictions that choose to prepare a plan in the first place.
The safety element should lay out the local government’s basic policy prescriptions for addressing wildfire hazards, including issues like evacuation routes, water supplies in
wildland areas, standards for road width and emergency access, the mapping of hazardous wildfire areas and the specification of any special building, zoning, or landscaping codes that ought to apply, and plans for mitigation projects. But these and other concerns should also be cross-referenced throughout the plan wherever they have a clear link to other elements, such as housing, transportation, and open space.
The housing element can and should address the appropriate quality and location of such housing. Should such housing even be in wildfire hazard locations to begin with? The real question is why putting any housing in hazardous locations should even be necessary, except in highly unusual circumstances. Where this is a reasonable alternative, the housing element can discuss policy prescriptions, through building codes and zoning overlay requirements, for increasing the probability that such housing will survive a wildfire.
The transportation element is critical to establishing the proper linkages within the plan. Creating the proper road system in vulnerable areas is the first step in creating viable evacuation routes in the event of an emergency. Any subdivision or other development in a vulnerable area should have more than one means of access, and no new development in the interface should be approved otherwise. Transportation is the one element with a most crucial tie to proper funding of mitigation needs through the community’s capital improvements plan.
Most communities have some form of environmental or natural resources element. This would be the most logical place to address wildfire mitigation issues like vegetative thinning, forest health, the creation of fuel breaks, forestry as a local commercial industry or as open space, local wildlife protection issues, and the environmental impact of allowing residential development in the “high hazard” wildland/urban interface. A logical place to address the implementation of Firewise principles is around the developments that already exist. Who will be responsible for landscape maintenance, public education and outreach to property? This element can also be used to address policy and planning relationships with those entities for the purpose of mitigating wildfire hazards.
Closely related to an environmental or natural resources element in some ways, an open space (or a parks and recreation) element, can deal with the proper use of publicly owned open space for wildfire hazard mitigation purposes. As with an environmental element, it is a likely place to discuss hazard-reduction land management strategies such as creation of fuel breaks and fuel reduction zones, access to water supplies in open spaces, and the development of public improvements that enhance mitigation goals.
The recent rise of public concern over terrorism in the aftermath of domestic attacks has highlighted the importance of planning for critical facilities. These include power supplies, emergency management “war rooms,” telecommunications, and essential elements of public transportation. The plan element devoted to critical facilities should address how they will be protected in the event of a wildfire, and this should include keeping them out of harm’s way to the maximum extent possible. Given the geographic nature of the interface, locating critical facilities away from the problem is not difficult.
Ultimately, land use remains a central question and a plan element that cannot escape
The housing element can and should address the appropriate quality and location of such housing. Should such housing even be in wildfire hazard locations to begin with? The real question is why putting any housing in hazardous locations should even be necessary, except in highly unusual circumstances. Where this is a reasonable alternative, the housing element can discuss policy prescriptions, through building codes and zoning overlay requirements, for increasing the probability that such housing will survive a wildfire.
The transportation element is critical to establishing the proper linkages within the plan. Creating the proper road system in vulnerable areas is the first step in creating viable evacuation routes in the event of an emergency. Any subdivision or other development in a vulnerable area should have more than one means of access, and no new development in the interface should be approved otherwise. Transportation is the one element with a most crucial tie to proper funding of mitigation needs through the community’s capital improvements plan.
Most communities have some form of environmental or natural resources element. This would be the most logical place to address wildfire mitigation issues like vegetative thinning, forest health, the creation of fuel breaks, forestry as a local commercial industry or as open space, local wildlife protection issues, and the environmental impact of allowing residential development in the “high hazard” wildland/urban interface. A logical place to address the implementation of Firewise principles is around the developments that already exist. Who will be responsible for landscape maintenance, public education and outreach to property? This element can also be used to address policy and planning relationships with those entities for the purpose of mitigating wildfire hazards.
Closely related to an environmental or natural resources element in some ways, an open space (or a parks and recreation) element, can deal with the proper use of publicly owned open space for wildfire hazard mitigation purposes. As with an environmental element, it is a likely place to discuss hazard-reduction land management strategies such as creation of fuel breaks and fuel reduction zones, access to water supplies in open spaces, and the development of public improvements that enhance mitigation goals.
The recent rise of public concern over terrorism in the aftermath of domestic attacks has highlighted the importance of planning for critical facilities. These include power supplies, emergency management “war rooms,” telecommunications, and essential elements of public transportation. The plan element devoted to critical facilities should address how they will be protected in the event of a wildfire, and this should include keeping them out of harm’s way to the maximum extent possible. Given the geographic nature of the interface, locating critical facilities away from the problem is not difficult.
Ultimately, land use remains a central question and a plan element that cannot escape
questions of wildfire mitigation when they are relevant to the community. The interface is entirely a human construct, the result of placing the built environment in the midst of a known hazard, for good reasons or bad. All of that revolves around choices in the use of land. The point of a land use element is to discuss the best possible allocation of specific types of land within the community, including open space. Greenbelts can be adapted for wildfire mitigation purposes, as can other types of buffer zones. Communities can also address water supply and access within the land use element, particularly as it relates to permitting requirements for new development.
Many wildfire mitigation issues, such as fuel breaks, water supply, and even prescribed burning, are multifaceted questions that cut across two or more distinct elements of the local plan in addition to its implementation and capital improvements programming. The upshot is that this is an iterative process, in which a variety of feedback loops can be used to strive for the best possible politically palatable solutions, and in which political palatability itself is not a given but rather a malleable set of assumptions that can be moved toward positive solutions through public education and participation in the planning process.
Implicit in this is the ability of planners to solicit and integrate technical knowledge and data from other departments toward the solution of problems in the wildland/urban interface. These include fire, police and emergency management departments, but also public works, forestry, building inspectors, and possibly environmental officials. The process of public engagement should involve a number of private stakeholders, including property owners, insurance companies, developers, and landscape architects, to name a few.
Planners themselves cannot possibly have or expect to have all the expertise that these varied interests can bring to the table. What is special, and especially important, about planners is that their unique training is more eclectic than that of most professions and that they are best equipped to act as the conductors of this broad-based orchestra in a search for points of consensus within the community to attack the problems posed by wildfire hazards. Planning is above all a profession devoted to synthesis, but with special training in the relationships and impacts of various types of land use. What has too often been lacking in the past for the vast majority of planners has been specific training with regard to natural hazards and their potential impact on the built environment. Planners may never have the same depth of expertise with regard to wildfires as land managers. That is not important. What matters is that they learn enough through the process of crafting policy for the wildland/urban interface that they can in turn sell that policy to the community’s elected decision makers, who must in the end approve the comprehensive plan itself as well as any land-use regulations recommended to implement it.
Many wildfire mitigation issues, such as fuel breaks, water supply, and even prescribed burning, are multifaceted questions that cut across two or more distinct elements of the local plan in addition to its implementation and capital improvements programming. The upshot is that this is an iterative process, in which a variety of feedback loops can be used to strive for the best possible politically palatable solutions, and in which political palatability itself is not a given but rather a malleable set of assumptions that can be moved toward positive solutions through public education and participation in the planning process.
Implicit in this is the ability of planners to solicit and integrate technical knowledge and data from other departments toward the solution of problems in the wildland/urban interface. These include fire, police and emergency management departments, but also public works, forestry, building inspectors, and possibly environmental officials. The process of public engagement should involve a number of private stakeholders, including property owners, insurance companies, developers, and landscape architects, to name a few.
Planners themselves cannot possibly have or expect to have all the expertise that these varied interests can bring to the table. What is special, and especially important, about planners is that their unique training is more eclectic than that of most professions and that they are best equipped to act as the conductors of this broad-based orchestra in a search for points of consensus within the community to attack the problems posed by wildfire hazards. Planning is above all a profession devoted to synthesis, but with special training in the relationships and impacts of various types of land use. What has too often been lacking in the past for the vast majority of planners has been specific training with regard to natural hazards and their potential impact on the built environment. Planners may never have the same depth of expertise with regard to wildfires as land managers. That is not important. What matters is that they learn enough through the process of crafting policy for the wildland/urban interface that they can in turn sell that policy to the community’s elected decision makers, who must in the end approve the comprehensive plan itself as well as any land-use regulations recommended to implement it.
James C. Schwab is Senior Research Associate with the American Planning Association, Chicago, Illinois.
Entry Filed under: Government Policy (Policy, Policy Planning), Planning (CWPP,WPP), Topics, Case Methods (Case Studies, Historical), Fires-Studying & Teaching (Public Education), Firescaping (fuel management, hazard reduction, landsca, Homeowner, Human Behavior-Fires (Social Behavior), Research, Social Choice (Behavior), Wilderness Area-Fire Management, Zoning