Alaska's Uncertain Food Future

Subscription Preview

This article by Christi Turner first appeared in the August 18, 2014 issue of High Country News.

To read the full article, you must log in or subscribe. Enter your email address:

A new wildfire protection approach in Colorado

Homeowners take on the costs of fire mitigation — with lots of help.

Dara Miles stands on the edge of her property just west of Boulder, Colorado, overlooking forested foothills, scattered homes and burn scars from wildfires. She tells wildfire expert Andrew Notbohm about moving to this home four years ago. "Our sellers had told us about sitting in the hot tub and watching the embers from the Overland Fire twinkle like stars," she says, referring to a 2003 blaze. "It was kind of romantic."

A week after they closed on the sale, the Fourmile Canyon Fire ignited to the south, and the romance turned to ashes. The blaze quickly became Boulder County's costliest, causing about $217 million in damage and destroying 169 houses. "Then it was suddenly, 'Oh, what have I done?' " Miles remembers.

Miles has since joined the county's new Wildfire Partners program, which gives homeowners in high-risk wildfire zones the tools and support they need to protect their properties as thoroughly as possible, rewarding them with a certificate once they achieve their goals. Notbohm is a wildfire mitigation specialist for the program, which teaches property owners to fireproof their homes themselves rather than assuming that firefighters will come to the rescue.

Across the West, about 2 million homes like Miles' occupy the wildland-urban interface, or WUI, where public forests border private land. Colorado has about 300,000 such houses, around 9,000 in Boulder County alone. Defending the WUI accounts for a big chunk of annual federal firefighting costs, which have tripled to more than $3 billion since the 1990s, according to Headwaters Economics. Mitigation measures by homeowners could help reduce the federal price tag, as well as improve firefighters' safety. But just a fraction of the thousands of Western communities at risk have such programs in place, and few are as innovative and complete as Boulder's.

On this April afternoon, Notbohm is completing his assessment of Miles' property. Using a specialized iPad app, he will later upload to the program's advisory team. He gently urges Miles to get rid of her mountain mahogany, sprawling shrubs that give low flames an easy ladder into surrounding ponderosa pines. "On your next phone advising with Christina, ask her to send you the Firewise plant list," Notbohm says, referring to the program's lead "phone adviser." "Low cover, succulent-type vegetation is better than big stuff that can get out of control." Gutters must be kept debris-free, he continues, and the house should be surrounded by non-combustible material. Miles plans to replace loose gravel with stone pavers, so she can easily sweep away pine needles and leaves.

Sample Gallery

Comments about this article

Subscriber
Aug 18, 2014 02:19 PM
Find out more about Wildfire Partners at http://www.wildfirepartners.org/

Thanks for the story Christi!
Joseph Tieger Subscriber
Aug 26, 2014 03:53 PM
"a limitation of (people's) ability to do what they want to do on their property," A bit of folklore that has become a mantra for those who do not understand the law. However, the public is not obligated to support "what they want." They can do what they want - there is no reason the public has to continue to support their wants or to protect homes in the forest interface. If they are seeking to satisfy their individual wants then they have to accept personal responsibility for the protection of their property. Continuing to risk the lives of firefighters to protect property in fireprone forests zones is a life threatening lunacy.

From our friends

Inspiring words from a die hard reader:

"I subscribed to HCN for a number of years, loved every issue...I stopped subscribing because my work load escalated. It was ok the first few months but after six months I was regretting the decision...the relevance of HCN did not diminish. I continued to look at the enticing titles of articles in the online newsletter but couldn't read enough to satisfy the craving. So I'm back. I also kicked in another 50 bucks as a personal reminder that quality reporting is not free."

Robert E. Hall, Washington D.C.

Quality Reporting is Not Free!

"I subscribed to HCN for a number of years, loved every issue...I stopped subscribing because my work load escalated. It was ok the first few months but after six months I was regretting the decision...the relevance of HCN did not diminish. I continued to look at the enticing titles of articles in the online newsletter but couldn't read enough to satisfy the craving. So I'm back. I also kicked in another 50 bucks as a personal reminder that quality reporting is not free."

Robert E. Hall, Washington D.C.