Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> <br /> <br />Figure 7. Hy- <br />draulic applica- <br />lion of seed and <br />mulch on burned <br />areas <br /> <br />ecbated by the fire. These short-term mitigation <br />measures were: designed to address immediate <br />threats to public health and safety. including <br />ash, debris, sediment, and flood damage to <br />public and private propercy. The measures pro- <br />vided for both erosion and sediment control. <br />The Phase I Plans included ptovisions for opet- <br />aring and maintaining the installed systems <br />throughout the rainy season. <br />The essential steps taken in developing the <br />mitigation plans were (1) Identify the Issues <br />and Concerns; (2) Develop Goals and Objec- <br />tives; (3) Perform Post-Fire Hazard Evaluation; <br />(4) Develop Best Management Ptactice (BMP) <br />Selection Criteria; (5) Nominate and Evaluate <br />Alternatives; (6) Screen and Select Alternatives; <br />(7) DeSign the Hazatd Mitigation Plan; (8) Im- <br />plement the Plan; and (9) Operations and <br />Maintenance. Since the fires occurred during <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Figure 8. Soil stabiliza- <br />tion practices on steep <br />slopes above homes and <br />businesses: Laguna <br />Beach, December 1993 <br /> <br />540 JOUR:-lAL OF SOil AND WATER CONSERVATION <br /> <br />the rainy season. Steps 1 thtough 8 had to be <br />implemented as quickly as possible. Typically. <br />this took a week to 10 days. <br />Based on the knowledge and local experience <br />of the project authority's ha:l.ard mitigation <br />team. some analyses and screening detail could <br />be reduced. For example. clearly, areas where <br />flooding and other geologic problems were pre. <br />sent before the fire were likely to be worsened. <br />However, a rational. well-documented decision <br />process was essential to help with local. state. <br />and federal disaster funding. <br />The third step in the plan development <br />proccss was to prepare Phase II Hazard Mitiga. <br />tion Plans that were designed to address the <br />longer term mitigation of fire impacts relative <br />to geologic, erosion. and flood hazards. These <br />were optional plans. but where deemed neces- <br />sary. included the next level priority areas after <br />the Phase I Plans were implemented, site dis- <br />turbance from debris removal and the recon. <br />srruction process. and/or semi-permanent <br />drainage design modifications necessitated by <br />changed post-burn conditions. <br /> <br /> <br />Mitigation measures <br /> <br />The wide range of conditions encountered fol- <br />lowing a fire in an urban or uroan.wiJd land in. <br />terface area require a variety of Best Practical and <br />Available Technology (BPAn solutions designed <br />to address hazards under site-specific circum. <br />seances. These solutions are commonly referred to <br />as Best Management Practices (BMPs). <br />The mitigation measures selected for imple- <br />mentation in potential hazard areas were evalu- <br />ated utilizing the following selection criteria: <br />. Effectiveness <br />. Implementation COSt <br />. Long-term (maintenance) cost <br />. Environmental impactS <br />. Regulatory acceptability <br />. Public acceptability <br />