In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

 We’ve really got two problems here. One is the landscape sustainability problem,andtheotheristheresidentialsustainabilityproblem.If youwere to treat the [forest] landscape in a community like Los Alamos, you could still have a disastrous residential fire but have a sustainable landscape. Jack Cohen, Forest Service Fire Scientist We Americans think of ourselves as a “can do” people. The lessons of the Cerro Grande Fire may not diminish this self-image, but they raise the question of whether we as individual homeowners will in fact do what we should do in time to reduce wildfire hazards. Judging from most of the literature on fire hazard reduction in the Wildfire Danger Zone, property owners can radically reduce the threat to their homes by creating what is called a “defensible space” around the home. Other authorities encourage us to think of building not defensible space but “life rings” that will allow structures to survive wildfires without fire trucks or firefighters on site. And then some say that home ignitability is the key variable—given the way winds carry firebrands over long distances. What is a lay person to make of such differences of opinion? Fire science may no longer be in its infant stage, but it is also subject, like any respectable science , to the constant testing and questioning of theories. Most foresters and fire managers would say the available evidence suggests that a prudent homeowner should follow the defensible space rules, while someone who wishes an extra measure of protection may also engage in thinning the surrounding forest in hopes of reducing fire intensity and crowning. THREE A Practical Approach Take, for example, the proposition that forest fuel mitigation (also known as forest thinning, forest restoration, or fire hazard reduction) will save homes. In a speech to the National Association of Counties, former Secretary of the Interior Bruce Babbitt noted that the cost of thinning treatments could average $ per acre. Under one version of Babbitt’s “Happy Forests” proposal, county officials would be able to set priorities within their jurisdiction. The plan also called for expanded community efforts to reduce fire hazards and the use of local workers for restoration work, educating the public about fire prevention, and improving local fire protection capabilities. Javier Gonzalez, president of the National Association of Counties and a county commissioner in Santa Fe, New Mexico, agreed with much of what Babbitt was proposing, but he warned, “The tragedy would be if a lot of bureaucracy ties up our needs.” But not everyone agrees that the thinning Babbitt proposed would be a sound or effective investment. Consider the case made in the introduction by landscape architect Kim Sorvig. Sorvig’s comments about “government boilerplate ” raises questions about why the counties need the federal government’s participation in the first place. Questions also come from a branch of the federal government that is simply doing its job: doing good science. “The evidence suggests that wildland fuel reduction for reducing home losses may be inefficient and ineffective,” says researcher Jack Cohen at the Forest Service’s Fire Science Laboratory in Missoula, Montana. He developed a mathematical model on ignition of homes during wildfire, and he tested it in the field, including post-fire visits to Los Alamos. He found much to question in the proposition that forest thinning itself will reduce fire hazards in the Wildfire Danger Zone. But he says this uncertainty does not mean people should stop clearing vegetation close to their homes. It only means that “There are many good reasons to manage vegetation on public lands, but private home wildfire protection is not one of them.” Is the federal government simply throwing money at a problem whose solutions may be as complex as they are local? When faced with a similar decision, can and should local governments tax their citizens to pay for such thinnings? Isn’t it true that local officials are more likely to be under the control of real estate developers who have no incentives to plan for fire safety? The meeting between the secretary of the interior and the National Association of Counties seems like the kind of forum where Americans need to hash out such issues. The answers to questions like these will never be simple or easy, for every landscape in the Wildfire Danger Zone has a different intermix of public and private forested lands, as well as a different fire history, and different ecological and economic concerns. One of the greatest of these concerns is water quality and quantity...

Share