Los Alamos blaze ignites debate on best fire prevention
Copyright 2000 Idaho Statesman
December 09, 2000
ROCKY BARKER; Idaho Statesman
BOISE, Idaho - BOISE, Idaho -- The National Park Service's top firefighter said his agency had its priorities backward when it started a fire this summer that burned through Los Alamos, N.M.
The Park Service started a fire in nearby Bandelier National Monument to thin out a fire-prone forest and reduce the threat to the city, said Rick Gale, the Park Service's chief of fire and aviation.
"We should have started out doing fuel reduction around Los Alamos first," Gale said.
His hindsight view of the showcase blaze of the 2000 fire season was turned into advice for the future by several speakers at the symposium "The Fires Next Time," convened by the Andrus
Center for Public Policy and The Idaho Statesman. They urged federal and state leaders to start forest thinning and fire prevention projects around communities and work out from there.
"Where the eaves meet the leaves," quipped Jim Smalley, senior specialist with the National Fire Protection Association.
"The farther into the wild land you get, the less effective you get in protecting property," said Darrell Knuffke, The Wilderness Society's vice president for regional conservation.
More than 400 people from across the West attended the conference Thursday at Boise State University. The Andrus Center will compile a list of recommendations on fire policy for the next president's administration.
A list of 4,300 high-risk communities in 30 states, developed with the involvement of the Western Governors Association, will soon be released by federal agencies developing a 10-year strategy to reduce the threat of fires. The agencies will propose 500 projects using $ 1.6 billion Congress approved this year.
Speakers, ranging from environmentalists to ranchers and timber industry representatives, agreed that a combination of prescribed burning, thinning and logging is necessary to reduce the number of trees growing in forests.
But many worry that appeals and lawsuits could delay action. President Clinton's fire legislation included a provision requiring the White House to explore legal means to expedite the review process.
"That will be the first measure of their seriousness,"
said Jim Riley, executive director of the Intermountain Forest Association.
Rep. Mike Simpson, R-Idaho, said for Congress to keep funding the fire prevention program, supporters like him and Rep. Tom Udall, D-N.M., need something to sell to their colleagues.
"What we need is solid results on the ground," Simpson said.
Part of the problem is trust. One speaker, Robert Nelson, an economist from the University of Maryland, suggested abolishing the Forest Service. Short of that, he urged decentralizing authority to state and local governments.
Several speakers were skeptical a program of prescribed burning, thinning and logging can make a dent in the high-risk forests.
The estimate of high-risk forests has already risen to 48 million acres, said Ross Gorte, an economist with the Congressional Research Service. Another 22 million acres is identified on other federal lands, and 97 million acres of forest at high risk of fire is identified on nonfederal land.
"This may not just be a 16-year program but a permanent program," Gorte said.
That means communities will have to live with smoke at certain times of the year.
Other speakers said that focusing on reducing leaves and undergrowth near houses is important, but that having building and fire codes that require people to make their homes less flammable will do more good than thinning to reduce the threat of fire.