|
Ed. Not: This is an open letter to Sec. Of Agriculture and Sec. Of the Interior
Dear Ms. Veneman and Ms. Norton,
Firefighters are motivated by pride in profession, commitment to public service, and a sense of duty to protect the natural environment. We oppose all attempts to politically justify further environmental degradation in the name of firefighter safety. As current and former firefighters, we do not wish to see the reputation of firefighters sullied by association with policies that condone irresponsible, unethical, or illegal behavior on the part of private companies or government agencies.
Before Congress and the Administration institute new fire policies such as the "Healthy Forests Initiative," they need to hear directly from ground-level professional, volunteer, municipal, and wildland firefighters in whose name much of these administrative and legislative proposals are being made, and who, after all, will be the ones putting their bodies on the line to implement those policies.
The Administration's proposal to increase commercial logging of large, fire-resistant trees in the backcountry in order to pay for hazardous fuels reduction, and to exempt such projects from informed citizen input and environmental safeguards, does not serve the best interests of firefighters, rural communities, or the Nation in facilitating scientifically sound, socially acceptable, safe and effective fire and fuels management.
First, we dispute the claim that simply increasing commercial logging across 191 million acres of public lands will facilitate safer, more efficient fire suppression or more effective protection for homeowners and communities. Often, once timber sales are completed, it takes years for the logging debris to be treated, and in many cases the "slash" is never treated; moreover, logged units are rarely maintained to control the prolific growth of flammable small trees, brush, and invasive weeds. This greatly increases the fire risks and fuel hazards. Also, logging large shade-producing trees tends to make the ground surface hotter, drier, and windier. These microclimatic effects of extracting mature and old-growth trees causes a reduction of surface fuel moisture, extended periods of high fire danger, and when ignitions do occur, wildfires burning with higher fireline intensity and rapid rates of spread. This puts firefighter safety at much greater risk. Statistically, most firefighter entrapments have occurred in flashy fuel types characteristic of previously logged or grazed sites; rarely do entrapments occur in closed-canopy mature or old-growth stands.
In regards to community fire protection, the best available science from the U.S. Forest Service's fire sciences lab reveals that the principal threat of wildfire to homes results from the use of flammable building materials (e.g. cedar shake roofs) and the presence of fire-prone vegetation within the home ignition zone approximately 200 feet around structures. Creating defensible space for firefighters depends on prudent thinning of small trees and underbrush for a maximum of 1/3 mile radius from structures. Commercial logging in the backcountry is neither an effective nor efficient means of protecting homes or providing defensible space for firefighters.
Since most of the land surrounding homes and communities is privately owned, federal resources should be targeted to assisting homeowners, local municipalities, State and Tribal governments to fund FIREWISE educational campaigns, comprehensive fire management plans, firefighter training programs and equipment purchases for municipal and rural volunteer fire departments who are often the first line of defense for wildfires threatening communities.
Secondly, we feel it is wrong for the Bush Administration to propose cuts in funding for the National Fire Plan, and then argue for the need to increase timber sales in order to pay for hazardous fuels reduction. Since the majority of needed hazardous fuels reduction work centers on small-diameter surface and understory fuels that have little or no commodity value, it is unrealistic to expect that this work will be able to pay for itself. As well, it is counterproductive to base funding for restoration work on activities that further degrade the natural environment and results in increased fire risks and fuel hazards.
The National Fire Plan represents a bipartisan agreement to address degraded forest conditions by investing in fuels reduction and ecosystem restoration. The success of the National Fire Plan depends on a commitment by Congress and the Administration to provide adequate long-term funding. If the Administration is serious about protecting communities and restoring forests, then it should work with Congress to fully fund the National Fire Plan.
|
|
