Document text
Feds waste money by fighting too many fires, group says Forest Service says it's being prudent, given the drought By PAUL FATTIG A taxpayer group cites the multimillion-dollar costs of putting out the Craggy Fire in the Kalmiopsis Wilderness of the Siskiyou National Forest as evidence that the Forest Service is wasting money on fighting some fires. Taxpayers for Common Sense, a nonpartisan taxpayer advocacy group based in Washington, D.C., says spending $2.6 million to snuff out a fire in a remote wilderness makes neither financial nor environmental sense. Firefighting costs run millions over budget Forest Service Chief Dale Bosworth has ordered the suspension of some programs after announcing that the agency will spend an estimated $699 million this year on fire suppression, $230 million more than it has available. In a Sept. 7 memo to field offices, Bosworth ordered a suspension of land purchases, construction contracts and replacement of vehicles, computers and radios "to assure funds are available to cover all fire suppression needs." But Bosworth said he was confident that Congress would reimburse the Forest Service for firefighting money "borrowed" from other programs, although officials cautioned that is not guaranteed. The cost overrun has forced the agency to halt millions of dollars in projects and purchases. It is the first time Forest Service officials have had to delay public projects to cover firefighting costs, said agency spokesman Chris Barone. In Oregon and Washington, officials have suspended more than $12 million in national forest spending, including trail and campground construction and replacement of decaying public toilets. It's not yet known how those suspensions will affect the Rogue River and Siskiyou national forests. "When it comes right down to it, the Forest Service is still trying to stamp out every fire, even when the fire poses little threat to surrounding communities," concluded Jonathan Oppenheimer, chief forest expert for the group. Studies have shown that fighting fires can cause more environmental damage than the fires themselves, the group said, noting that many agencies, including the Forest Service, have concluded that wildfires can be used to maintain forest health. In Crater Lake National Park, officials there elected not to fight half a dozen fires sparked by lightning earlier this month. Those fires, all small, have since been snuffed out by Mother Nature. But officials there noted that they closely monitored the fires, which posed no threat to structures. Moreover, winter arrives early to that high elevation, they added. The Craggy Fire, sparked by a lightning bolt on Sept. 15, was fought because no wilderness fire management plan has been approved to enable the agency to make the decision allowing the fire to burn itself out, according to local Forest Service officials. Moreover, given the extended extreme drought conditions - it has since rained - there was concern that the fire could burn thousands of acres and escape the wilderness, they added. The fire is currently being mopped up. It was stopped with the aid of smokejumpers, hot-shot crews dropped by helicopters and air tankers. About 300 firefighters were assigned to the fire. The debate comes as the agency announced it will overspend its firefighting budget by about $230 million for the fiscal year that ends Sunday. The entire firefighting budget for the fiscal year is expected to be about $699 million, causing cutbacks in other programs, according to a Sept. 7 memo by Forest Service Chief Dale Bosworth. The taxpayer group says forest managers are sacrificing public facilities and programs to battle all fires, regardless of cost or whether some fires could be allowed to burn without threat to structures. "We'd like to see some control over what they spend, because right now it seems like there's no control over costs, and that's dangerous," Oppenheimer said. "They spend as much as they possibly can, basically, and Congress is there to bail them out." But Glen Sachet, spokesman for the Forest Service's Region 6, which includes all forests in Oregon and Washington, says the group needs to look at all the factors before making its conclusion. "It was a dry year," Sachet said. "We put a lot of resources into keeping those fires as small as possible." While the agency has to keep a close eye on its firefighting budget, it also needs to ensure that it acts responsibly in the face of a fire threat, he said. "There are areas where the objective is to reintroduce fire back into its natural role," he said. "But there are some procedural things we follow, one of which is having a fire management plan in place." Local officials were unable to initially implement a let-burn policy on the Craggy Fire because the draft Kalmiopsis Wilderness fire management plan has not yet been approved, explained M.J. Harvie, fire staff officer for the Siskiyou and Rogue River forests. "Unless you have an approved wildland fire plan, you have to take suppression action," Harvie said. "We had no other choice but to take some form of suppression action." After the plan was completed, the 1995 Federal Fire Policy required the agency to do an additional analysis of the plan, Harvie said. That work is expected to be completed early next year, she said. "Our intent is that it will be ready and approved for use by the 2002 fire season," she said. But Harvie, who has more than a quarter of a century in fighting fires and fire management, says having an approved fire management plan in hand wouldn't routinely cause the agency to allow a fire to burn freely in the wilderness. That decision would be based on burning conditions, current weather conditions, location, topography and other fire-related factors, she said. A fire is monitored very closely if a decision is made not to suppress it, she said. "If it does meet the criteria to be managed for wildland fire use (no suppression), we would have to have personnel in place to manage and monitor those fires," she said. The goal is to tread lightly when a decision is made to fight fires in wilderness areas, she said. The Craggy Fire burned with a low intensity for the first day, but exploded from a spot fire to 30 acres in 78 minutes on the second day, she said. "At that point, there was a potential for that fire to escape the wilderness area," she said. "We were looking at 5,000 acres plus." The decision to fight it held it to 275 acres, she said. But Steve Marsden, executive director of the Siskiyou Regional Education Project, an environmental group based in the Illinois Valley, questioned whether the fire would have ever left the wilderness. Not only did the fire start at the end of the fire season, but it was burning in a rocky, brushy area burned by the 1987 Silver Fire, he said. "A wilderness is supposed to be a place where natural processes are allowed to occur," Marsden said. "Reintroducing fire is good for the ecosystem." Marsden stressed that his group isn't opposed to fighting wildfires that threaten homes. "In the Quartz Fire, for instance, there was no doubt that it had to be fought immediately," he said. "There were no steps to go through there. It had to be fought." He was referring to the lightning-sparked fire that burned more than 6,000 acres in the Little Applegate River drainage in August. "But this (Craggy) fire was not going anyplace to threaten anyone," said Marsden, a biologist who has conducted wildlife surveys for the Forest Service in the area. "An approved fire plan needs to be in place," he said. "This type of thing is repeated year after year. Fire is part of the natural system. It improves forage for elk and deer. "If it's out in the wilderness and doesn't threatened anything, it should be allowed to burn," he added. Reach reporter Paul Fattig at 776-4496 or e-mail him at [email protected] Mail Tribune Home | Ottaway Newspapers, Inc. | Dow Jones & Co., Inc. | Privacy | Contact Us Copyright � 2001 Mail Tribune, Inc.