Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Wildfire Risk topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Experts advise balancing wildfire resilience with historic preservation in Santa Fe
Summary
Headwaters Economics told the board Santa Fe faces elevated wildfire risk and recommended land‑use, building retrofit and site measures — including tailored guidance for historic buildings — to reduce ember‑driven home loss while preserving character.
Get email alerts on the Wildfire Risk topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Headwaters Economics presented wildfire risk findings and strategies for integrating wildfire resilience into historic preservation policy in Santa Fe.
Ryan May Handy, program manager for Headwaters’ wildfire technical assistance, said Santa Fe ranks high on the US Forest Service risk map and explained three ways homes burn: direct flame, radiant heat and ember showers. He highlighted that embers account for most home loss in wildfires and that built‑environment interventions — from window and roof choices to landscape and evacuation planning — can materially reduce losses.
Susie (a Headwaters collaborator) focused on how preservation and resilience can be reconciled. She said many traditional materials used in Santa Fe (adobe, masonry) are inherently resilient, but noted vulnerabilities (exposed wood, non‑class‑A flat roofs, accumulated debris). The presenters described a forthcoming technical guide with nine strategies for historic structures spanning planning and preparedness, structure hardening and site hardening, and said federal guidance from the National Park Service is expected to add more clarity.
Board members asked about costs, material compatibility with adobe, and the potential for blanket historic exemptions. Headwaters said retrofit costs can be comparable to building wildfire‑resistant new homes and emphasized context‑sensitive solutions (e.g., allowing noncombustible materials in some higher‑risk cases while retaining character‑defining features when possible).
The presentation prompted a board discussion about aligning any new wildland‑urban‑interface code with local preservation standards and about producing site‑specific preparedness plans.

