1.1 概述- 野火对供水设施构成重大风险，因为它们可能导致令人担忧的污染物释放到地表水和地下水供应中 ( 1. ) . 2. 如果系统未设计用于管理这些污染物负荷，则可能危及人类健康。 1.2 目的- 水源保护区内野火对沉积物负荷、微量矿物质和径流相关污染物影响的缓解措施 ( 2. ) 是一个不断扩大的研究领域，在联邦或州一级没有一套完整的法规。 本指南详细介绍了如何评估野火对流域的潜在影响，以及在野火发生之前或之后可采取的措施，以尽量减少或减轻野火对流域的影响。 1.2.1 本指南补充了现有的流域和水源保护区指南。 1.2.2 本指南将建议野火发生前的燃料管理、野火期间的灭火策略以及野火发生后森林和水处理系统的缓解机会。 它还将支持相关利益相关者之间的合作（参见 图1 下文）。 图1 评估野火对供水和处理造成的威胁时考虑的基于地点的特征（改编自 ( 3. ) ). 1.2.3 本指南的目的是提供一系列选项，供水务公司、土地所有者和土地管理者实施，以限制野火发生的机会，特别是在饮用水流域，以及在野火发生后保护饮用水的缓解机会。 本指南鼓励对森林进行一致管理，以限制水资源的野火风险。该指南介绍了基于最佳可用科学的实践和建议，以提供机构和工程行动，以减少野火的可能性和潜在的灾难性后果。它介绍了公用事业公司、土地所有者和土地管理者可以实施的可用技术、机构控制和工程控制，以减轻源头流域的野火风险。 随着气候变化，野火的危害越来越大，可能影响饮用水供应。通常情况下，水务公司没有为这种风险做好准备，本指南旨在支持高级规划。 1.2.4 本指南与环境风险评估和管理相关的ASTM E50标准系列相关联。 1.2.5 本指南未提供风险评估， 本身 ，但可能有助于确定优先事项，以创建一个适应野火的分水岭。 1.3 目标- 本指南的目的是确定森林源流域对野火的风险，并确定可采取的措施来管理这些风险。 该指南鼓励用户根据相关风险设定优先级。该指南鼓励美国为未来的野火风险制定长期解决方案。 1.4 本指南的局限性- 鉴于希望使用本指南的组织类型不同，以及州和地方法规的不同，不可能解决可能适用于特定领域的所有相关情况。本指南为用户使用通用语言和示例。如果用户不清楚如何将标准应用于其特定情况，则用户应寻求合格专业人员的帮助。 风险可能因评估风险的实体而异。本指南不涉及极端天气、自然灾害或不断变化的环境条件的原因或科学。 1.5 本指南使用了来自许多引用来源的关于控制、管理和减少火灾前后影响的参考文献和信息。 1.6 几个国家和国际机构是关于饮用水供应野火风险的现有和预期水平和管理的信息来源，包括: 澳大利亚水务协会；美国农业部；美国环境保护局。 1.7 本指南建议参考从各个国家机构收集的有关风险的最新监管信息，例如环境保护部门和水资源委员会。 1.8 本标准并非旨在解决与其使用相关的所有安全问题（如有）。本标准的用户有责任在使用前制定适当的安全、健康和环境实践，并确定监管限制的适用性。 然而，适应和恢复措施可能与其他安全措施一致，并对其进行补充。 1.9 本国际标准是根据世界贸易组织技术性贸易壁垒（TBT）委员会发布的《关于制定国际标准、指南和建议的原则的决定》中确立的国际公认标准化原则制定的。 ====意义和用途====== 4.1 本指南仅涉及与应对野火的战略和制定计划有关的问题- 水源保护区水资源的相关物理和化学变化。本指南不包括关于风险评估的具体建议。缓解战略和规划可能包括个人、社区或组织采取的各种行动，以应对野火对水源保护区水质和水量的影响（见指南） E3136 ). 4.2 水源保护活动不仅有助于公用事业公司识别风险，而且对于教育监管机构、许可当局和社区了解其行为可能对水源水质或饮用水量产生的影响也是必要的。 4.3 示例用户: 4.3.1 联邦、部落、州或市政设施工作人员和监管机构，包括卫生、供水、下水道和消防部门； 4.3.2 金融和保险机构； 4.3.3 联邦、部落、州或地方土地管理者； 4.3.4 公共工程人员，包括水系统、地下水供应、地表水供应、雨水系统、废水系统、公有处理厂和农业用水管理机构； 4.3.5 顾问、审计师、州、市和私人检查员以及合规协助人员； 4.3.6 教育设施，如实验森林和自然保护区； 4.3.7 非监管政府机构，如军队； 4.3.8 野生动物管理实体，包括政府、部落和非政府组织（NGO）； 4.3.9 城市、乡镇和县，特别是在制定气候脆弱性战略和计划方面； 4.3.10 商业和住宅房地产开发商，包括再开发商； 4.3.11 非营利组织、社区团体和土地所有者。 4.4 协调与合作必须融入改善社区准备的过程。 4.4.1 准备首先基于社区对当地存在的风险的广泛认识和理解。接下来是社区范围的评估，评估哪些社区成员或资产最容易受到风险的影响，风险的机制或途径，以及在发生野火时应对这些风险的现有能力（见指南） E3241 ). 正在评估的能力不仅仅包括第一反应者或野外消防员采取行动的能力。 它包括所有社区成员采取适当行动的能力。 4.4.2 当针对社区中存在的风险进行评估时，所有社区都存在能力差距。战略规划旨在通过优先考虑社区成员制定的工作来填补这些能力差距。再次强调，改进准备工作是目标，而不仅仅是侧重于应对能力。野火准备计划是良好的第一步。 4.4.3 填补能力差距需要使用社区及其合作伙伴可用的所有监管和社会工具。 所有社区成员在事故预防、减少后果以及提高集体沟通和反应能力方面都有利害关系。通过提高认识、教育、培训、合作项目和实践来实现改进。解决已确定的能力差距可以包括一系列广泛的选项，如事故预防，以对社区成员的行动产生期望，从而能够庇护、疏散和向他人提供援助。利益相关者的参与对于成功弥合能力差距至关重要。 这可能包括森林管理、清除建筑物周围的燃料以及升级水过滤系统。 4.4.4 完成这些任务是一项社区级活动。虽然它可能由应急经理或当地应急规划委员会领导，但成功的应急规划的关键是广泛的协调与合作，包括所有社区成员（见指南） E3241 ).

1.1 Overview— Wildfires pose a significant risk to water utilities as they can cause contaminants of concern to be released into surface water and groundwater supplies ( 1 ) . 2 This can endanger human health if systems were not designed to manage these contaminant loads. 1.2 Purpose— Mitigation measures of wildfire effects on sediment loads, trace minerals, and contaminants of concern on runoff in a Source Water Protection Area ( 2 ) is an expanding area of study that does not have a full set of regulations at the federal or state level. This guide provides public-sector and private-sector land managers and water utility operators details on how to assess the potential impacts of wildfires on watersheds and measures that can be employed to minimize or abate those impacts prior to a wildfire occurring or after it occurs. 1.2.1 This guide supplements existing watershed and Source Water Protection Area guidance. 1.2.2 This guide will recommend fuel management prior to a wildfire, suppression strategies during a wildfire, and mitigation opportunities for both forests and water treatment systems after the wildfire. It will also support collaboration between involved stakeholders (see Fig. 1 below). FIG. 1 Place-based characteristics for consideration when assessing threats to water supplies and treatment due to a wildfire (adapted from ( 3 ) ). 1.2.3 The purpose of this guide is to provide a series of options that water utilities, landowners, and land managers can implement to limit the chance of a wildfire, specifically in a drinking water watershed, and mitigation opportunities to protect drinking water after a wildfire occurs. This guide encourages consistent management of forests to limit wildfire risks to water resources. The guide presents practices and recommendations based on the best available science to provide institutional and engineering actions to reduce the likelihood of a wildfire and the potentially disastrous consequences. It presents available technologies, institutional controls, and engineering controls that can be implemented by utilities, landowners, and land managers seeking to mitigate the risk of wildfire in a source watershed. With climate change wildfires are an increasing hazard that can affect drinking water supplies. Often water utilities are not prepared for this risk and this guide seeks to support advanced planning. 1.2.4 This guide ties into the ASTM E50 standards series related to environmental risk assessment and management. 1.2.5 The guide does not provide risk assessment, per se , but may help set priorities for creating a wildfire resilient watershed. 1.3 Objectives— The objectives of this guide are to identify the risks of a source watershed o forest to wildfire and identify actions that can be taken to manage those risks. The guide encourages users to set priorities based upon their associated risk. The guide encourages the us to develop long-term solutions for future wildfire risks. 1.4 Limitations of this Guide— Given the different types of organizations that may wish to use this guide, as well as variations in state and local regulations, it is not possible to address all the relevant circumstances that might apply to a particular area. This guide uses generalized language and examples for the user. If it is not clear to the user how to apply standards to their specific circumstances, users should seek assistance from qualified professionals. Risks may vary depending on the entity evaluating the risk. This guide does not take a position on the causes or science of extreme weather, natural disasters, or changing environmental conditions. 1.5 The guide uses references and information from many cited sources on the control, management, and reduction of pre- and post-fire impacts. 1.6 Several national and international agencies served as sources of information on existing and anticipated levels and management of wildfire risks to drinking water supplies including: the Water Services Association of Australia; the U.S. Department of Agriculture; the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1.7 This guide recommends reference to current regulatory information about risks gathered from various state agencies, such as departments of environmental protection and water resources boards. 1.8 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety, health, and environmental practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use. Adaptation and resiliency measures, however, may be consistent with, and complementary to, other safety measures. 1.9 This international standard was developed in accordance with internationally recognized principles on standardization established in the Decision on Principles for the Development of International Standards, Guides and Recommendations issued by the World Trade Organization Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) Committee. ====== Significance And Use ====== 4.1 This guide addresses issues related solely to strategies and the development of a plan to address wildfire-related physical and chemical changes to water resources in Source Water Protection Areas. This guide does not include specific advice on risk assessment. Mitigation strategies and planning may consist of a wide variety of actions by individuals, communities, or organizations to prepare for the impacts of wildfires on water quality and quantity in Source Water Protection Areas (see Guide E3136 ). 4.2 Source water protection activities not only help the utility identify risk, but they are also necessary to educate regulatory agencies, permitting authorities, and the community about the impacts that their actions can have on source water quality or quantity of the drinking water. 4.3 Example Users: 4.3.1 Federal, tribal, state, or municipal facility staff and regulators, including departments of health, water, sewer, and fire; 4.3.2 Financial and insurance institutions; 4.3.3 Federal, tribal, state, or local land managers; 4.3.4 Public works staff, including water systems, groundwater supplies, surface water supplies, stormwater systems, wastewater systems, publicly owned treatment works, and agriculture water management agencies; 4.3.5 Consultants, auditors, state, municipal and private inspectors, and compliance assistance personnel; 4.3.6 Educational facilities such as experimental forests and nature preserves; 4.3.7 Non-regulatory government agencies, such as the military; 4.3.8 Wildlife management entities including government, tribal, and non-governmental organizations (NGOs); 4.3.9 Cities, towns, and counties, especially in developing climate vulnerability strategies and plans; 4.3.10 Commercial and residential real estate property developers, including redevelopers; 4.3.11 Non-profits, community groups, and land owners. 4.4 Coordination and cooperation must fit into the process for improving community preparedness. 4.4.1 Preparedness is based first on the community developing a broad awareness and understanding of the risks that are present locally. Next comes a community-wide evaluation of which community members or assets are most vulnerable to risks, the mechanisms or pathways of risks, and the existing capabilities to address those risks should a wildfire occur (see Guide E3241 ). The capabilities being evaluated include more than the ability of the first responders or wildland firefighters to take actions. It includes the capabilities of all community members to take appropriate actions. 4.4.2 All communities have capability gaps when evaluated against the risks present in the community. Strategic planning aims to fill those capability gaps with prioritization for efforts developed by the community members. Again, improved preparedness is the goal, not simply focusing on response capacity. A wildfire preparedness plan is a good first step. 4.4.3 Filling capability gaps requires the use of all the regulatory and social tools available to the community and its partners. All community members have a stake in accident prevention, consequence reduction, and improved collective ability to communicate and respond. Improvements are made through increased awareness, education, training, cooperative programs, and practice. Addressing the identified capability gaps can include a broad range of options such as accident prevention to creation of expectations for the actions of community members to be able to shelter, evacuate, and provide aid to others. Stakeholder engagement is critical to successfully closing capability gaps. This could include forest management, clearing fuel from around structures, and upgrading water filtration systems. 4.4.4 Accomplishing these tasks is a community-level activity. While it might be led by an emergency manager or local emergency planning committee, the key to successful preparedness planning is broad coordination and cooperation involving all community members (see Guide E3241 ).