BACKGROUND

The wildfires of 2000 have become the most recent flashpoint in the debate surrounding federal land management policies. Dramatic news photos of homes burning in Los Alamos, New Mexico and the Bitterroot Valley in Montana brought the issue of wildfire protection in the urban/wildland interface zone to the nation’s attention. Politically charged media coverage of the fires left much of the American public with false impressions that this was "the worst wildfire season in history," and that "catastrophic" wildfires were "destroying" precious national parks, wilderness and roadless areas. Indeed, some Members of Congress blamed the Clinton Administration’s roadless area protection initiative and forest management policies for the summer’s wildfires, and called for an increase in commercial logging, road-building, and aggressive firefighting to prevent future wildfires.

Unfortunately, many of the policy discussions about last summer’s fires revolved around "who is to blame?" rather than focusing on real solutions based on sound science. Scientists have collected evidence determining that the primary causes of increasing fire intensity and severity are the past century’s federal land management policies promoting aggressive firefighting, commercial logging, livestock grazing, and road building. The real issue is not "who is to blame?" for past mismanagement of public lands, but "who is going to lead?" in creating management policies that will restore degraded lands and altered fire-adapted ecosystems that need more low-intensity prescribed fires, while at the same time providing real protection for rural communities at risk from high-intensity wildland fires.

While several of the fires of 2000 were uncharacteristically severe due to past abuses, several other fires including some of the mammoth fires in Idaho and Montana burned at natural intensities, with ecologically beneficial effects. Fire has always been a vital, essential part of western forest and rangeland ecosystems. As a natural disturbance agent responsible for recycling nutrients, regenerating plants, and sustaining diverse wildlife habitats, fire is necessary for the continued health and productivity of these fire-adapted ecosystems.

SCIENTISTS AGREE INCREASED EXTRACTION INCREASES FIRE HAZARDS

There is consensus in the scientific literature dealing with fire and forest management that forests in un-roaded, un-logged areas are the least altered from historic conditions, have the greatest ecological integrity and most fire resiliency, and present a lower fire risk compared to areas altered by past intensive management. This is because, in general, roadless areas: 1) have not been subject to timber management activities that often increases hazardous fuel loads of highly-flammable small-diameter surface and ladder fuels; 2) have not been as altered by the effects of fire suppression, especially compared to previously roaded and logged lands, and 3) present the lowest risk of human-caused ignitions.

Scientific analysis of the 2000 fire season revealed that the vast majority of burned acres were located in previously logged and roaded areas, not in roadless or wilderness areas. The Congressional Research Service issued a report on August 22, 2000 analyzing the impact of the 2000 fires, the report concluded, "Timber harvesting removes the relatively large diameter wood that can be converted into wood products, but leaves behind the small material, especially twigs and needles. The concentration of these ‘fine fuels’ on the forest floor increases the rate of spread of wildfires."

In 1996 U.S. government scientists issued the Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project Report concluding "Timber harvest, through its effects on forest structure, local microclimate and fuel accumulation, has increased fire severity more than any other recent human activity." Government scientists have also concluded "Fire severity has generally increased and fire frequency has generally decreased over the last 200 years. The primary causative factors behind fire regime changes are effective fire prevention and suppression strategies, selection and regeneration cutting, domestic livestock grazing, and the introduction of exotic plants."

Fire ecologists and most forest scientists agree that long term ecological restoration with careful fire reintroduction – not increased commodity resource extraction or aggressive fire suppression – holds the best hope of preventing future large-scale severe wildfires in fire dependent ecosystems of the interior West.

CONGRESSIONAL AND AGENCY RESPONSES

For most federal programs, Congress sets an annual spending level that may not be exceeded by the federal agency. However, in the case of fire suppression and the federal budget, these rules do not apply. The Forest Service is permitted to take money from other Forest Service programs and spend it on fire suppression. Then Congress fully reimburses the Forest Service for the difference. Due to this system Congress does not set a realistic budget for fire suppression and the agency has little accountability or incentive to get serious about fire planning and preparedness because it knows Congress has a carte blanche policy for funding fire suppression.

In the aftermath of the 1994 fire season, a very heavy fire year similar in intensity as the 2000 fires, Agriculture Secretary Dan Glickman and Department of Interior Secretary Bruce Babbit signed the federal Wildland Fire Policy which requires the creation of fire plans for "every burnable acre" on National Forest Lands. The agency report "Policy Implications of Large Fire Management" concludes that fire plans are needed to efficiently respond to wildfires.

According to the report, "Estimates have shown that for every dollar of appropriated preparedness dollars received, there is a savings of five to seven dollars in fire suppression and emergency rehabilitation funds spent." However, only 5% of the National Forests have developed such plans, causing the Forest Service to continually waste tax dollars, degrade ecosystems, and jeopardize firefighters by systematically fighting all fires with aggressive suppression tactics.

POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS

Congress and the Forest Service have an opportunity to reduce the exorbitant costs of wildfire suppression and to implement sensible wildfire policies based on sound science. Unless changes are made in federal fire policy, ecosystems will continue to be degraded, the costs of wildfires will continue to increase, firefighters lives will be put in jeopardy, and homes will continue to be threatened. American Lands makes the following policy recommendations:

Implement the 1995 Wildland Fire Policy. Because the Forest Service has not implemented the 1995 Federal Wildland Fire Management Policy, Congress should enact legislation directing the agency to create fire plans ‘for every burnable’ acre on the National Forests. Fuels reduction monies should be used for essential fire planning and preparedness. Fire plans enable federal land managers to allow certain remote wildland areas to burn under carefully prescribed conditions in order to maximize ecological benefits while minimizing overall management costs, and preventing emergency firefighting expenditures. Implementation of the Fire Policy would encourage land managers to manage fires at a reasonable cost, while prioritizing firefighter safety and the protection of natural resources.

Discourage the use of the commercial timber program to reduce the risk of fire. Congress should prohibit the use of commercial timber sales and stewardship contracts for hazardous fuels reduction projects. Commercial logging removes the most ecologically valuable, most fire-resistant trees, while leaving behind highly flammable small trees, brush, and logging debris. The use of "goods for services" stewardship contracts also encourages logging larger, more fire-resistant trees in order to make such projects attractive to timber purchasers. The results of such logging are to increase fire risks and fuel hazards, not to reduce them. The financial incentives for abusive logging under the guise of "thinning" must be eliminated.

Establish Separate Contracts for fire hazard reduction projects. All fuels reduction projects should be paid for with appropriated dollars. Any material of commercial value must be sold in a separate contract and all revenues must be returned to the Treasury. This would eliminate the current incentive to include larger, more valuable, fire-resistant trees in order to make timber sales a.k.a. "fuels reduction projects" more attractive to timber companies.

Increased Priority needs to be placed on protecting communities. Homeowners must be educated about the danger associated with the wildland-urban interface zone and the necessity to do their part to reduce the risks. Jack Cohen, research scientist at the U.S. Forest Service’s Fire Sciences Lab in Missoula, Montana, has demonstrated that to reduce fire risks in the urban/wildland interface zone, removing fuels from within 40 meters of a structure and reducing the flammability of the structures are more effective and efficient than landscape wide thinning. According to Cohen, "The evidence suggests that wildland fuel reduction for reducing home losses may be inefficient and ineffective. Inefficient because wildland fuel reduction for several hundred meters or more is greater than necessary for reducing ignitions from flames. Ineffective because it does not sufficiently reduce firebrand ignitions." Congress should encourage state and local governments to require homeowners living in the interface zone to protect their own private property through common-sense fire safety practices, such as the use of fire-resistant roofing material and the clearance of brush and other flammable materials near homes.

Conduct Ecological Assessments for all Fuel Reduction Projects. The Forest Service should be required to identify restoration priorities before any restoration or fuels reduction activities take place. This assessment should involve the public and provide a broad array of alternatives – not just commercial thinning – to address priority needs in the area. For many areas, removing roads, invasive species, and cows combined with prescribed burning would the best prescription for ecological restoration.


For More Information Contact Timothy Ingalsbee, Ph.D., Director of the Western Fire Ecology Center for the
American Lands Alliance at fire@efn.org or 541-302-6218.