Report encourages selective fire
suppression
Idaho fire policy takes heat
By GREG STAHL
Express Staff Writer
As Idaho’s wildfire season is dawning,
several government watchdog groups have released a report contending federal
land managers are using outdated fire plans that ignore the best science and
promote unhealthy forests.
Overall, the fire plans for eight Idaho
national forests and four Bureau of Land Management regions also promote
excessive spending, the groups said. The Sawtooth National Forest, which
comprises most of the Forest Service managed land in Blaine County, scored a "D"
in the report. The adjacent Salmon-Challis National Forest, which stretches from
Salmon on the north to Arco, scored a "B."
Experts agree that to restore the health
of Western forests and parts of its range land, they need to allow more fires to
burn.
"Too many land managers still have a
one-size-fits-all policy for every fire in Idaho," said Joe Fox, a retired
Smokejumper from McCall. "Instead, we badly need specific fire management plans
for specific places. We need to continue to fight fires in areas where private
property and lives are at stake, while conducting ground-level monitoring on
remote fires in rugged areas. Otherwise, we’ll waste money and needlessly put
firefighters’ lives at risk."
The study, authored by the Idaho
Conservation League and Taxpayers for Common Sense, examined Idaho lands managed
by the Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management and National Park Service,
encompassing over 32 million acres, 60 percent of Idaho. The report focused on
required fire management plans, which direct fire suppression, prescribed
burning, wildland fire use and fuels reduction projects on federal lands.
The study overwhelmingly found that
Idaho’s land managers rely on antiquated plans, said the groups. Of 13 plans
studied, only two fully complied with new policies established by federal land
management agencies after the busy 1994 fire season.
"Land managers are handcuffed by out-dated
fire plans that essentially dictate all fires be snuffed, all the time,
regardless of potential costs and benefits," said Jonathan Oppenheimer, North
Idaho associate for the Idaho Conservation League and the report’s lead author.
Renewed political interest in forest
management surfaced following the 2000 fire season when Idaho and Montana were
scorched by an above average fire season. The debate heated up even more last
summer when fires torched significant portions of Colorado and the Southwest.
In Idaho, the Craters of the Moon National
Monument, and the Clearwater National Forest are the only non-wilderness areas
where managers have broad flexibility in deciding how to manage fires. All other
forests and BLM districts have limited, out-of-date fire policies, according to
the report.
Last year, the BLM and Forest Service
spent a record-breaking $1.7 billion nationwide to suppress fires. In the past
decade, federal wildland fire fighting costs exceeded $650 million in Idaho
alone.
"Taxpayers spent $650 million fighting
wildfire in Idaho in the last decade," said Keith Ashdown, Vice President of
Taxpayers for Common Sense. "In return, the public rightfully asks land managers
to have local plans for maximum flexibility. This report indicates government
agencies fail to meet this responsibility."
The report also examined effectiveness of
planned burning programs around the state and discovered the prescribed burns
are not conducted as frequently as planned. The report found that, for years
that data were available, the Forest Service burned 72 percent of the acres it
planned to burn, whereas the BLM burned only 16 percent of targeted acreage.
Bill Murphy, the Sawtooth National
Forest’s north zone fire management officer, said that the forest’s Red Tree
Fuels Reduction Project is a step toward choosing the battles the forest wishes
to fight.
"We’re part of the ecosystem now. All
those homes are there. We can’t change that," he said. "What this project is
hoping to do is at least help make those place safer."
Murphy agreed that more fires need to run
their courses.
"Fires are part of the process, and the
longer we keep putting them out, we’re not helping," he said. "We’re just
delaying the inevitable. But the tough thing is, we can’t just let them burn,
either, because we’re dealing with public safety and firefighter safety.
"It’s a challenge."