As was reported recently in this paper, the Forest Service issued reports on the Grass Valley Fire that took place near Lake Arrowhead last October. Reports like these, written by experts about fire in communities very much like ours, are vitally important to us. I will highlight the lessons I took from it, but those interested can find the reports on the San Bernardino National Forest web site.

I take two major lessons from the reports. The first is that reducing fuel around communities makes them safer. The second is that wildland fire as we normally think of it was not directly responsible for the destruction of the great majority of homes. Once the fire got into residential areas, houses, not vegetation, were the primary fuel. At that point it was an urban fire.

The first lesson is not new but still critical-reduce the fuel around communities and you slow the fire down and make it burn less intensely. In the Grass Valley Fire, it was the fuel treatments conducted by the Forest Service, NRCS, and CA Fish & Game that slowed the fire on the western flank and allowed the firefighters to concentrate their efforts in the neighborhoods. There is no question that many, many more homes would have burned without those fuel projects.

We are fortunate in our communities that a great deal of fuels work has been done, thanks to the excellent and ongoing work of the Forest Service and Calfire, and their local leaders Laurie Rosenthal and Kevin Turner. (Bob Hewitt of NRCS was a huge help to the mountain but NRCS wrapped up their projects last year.) The work that these agencies have done will give fire fighters precious time to deploy where needed and to get the upper hand on approaching fires.

The second lesson is more worrisome. Of the 199 homes burned, experts think that only six were burned because of direct contact with a crowning fire, or a wall of flame fueled by vegetation. They believe that 193 of the burned homes were ignited by surface fire burning right up to the building (via needles and leaves), embers carried by the wind, or the heat from a house burning close by. Burning houses threw firebrands downwind to other houses, in many cases leaving the surrounding vegetation intact.

Abated homes made a difference in allowing fire fighters increased visibility and access. We need to remember that fire fighters are making choices about which homes they can save while minimizing the risks to themselves. They are not going where they can't see.

Surface fuels leading right up to the house are an obvious fire path, which is why they are highlighted in abatement codes. But the lesson here is that owners also need to think about threats that inspections don't deal with, such how easily the house would ignite in an environment of swirling embers. Shake roofs are dangerous in this environment, as are exposed attic vents. These are difficult challenges. We can't move our houses away from each other to reduce the heat threat. And many of us don't have the money to change our roofs or otherwise increase the fire resistance of our homes. But if we do, I think the lesson is clear that it is money well spent.