Fire is a necessary part of nature and "a good tool," an assistant secretary of the Interior said Monday.
But the federal government is not going to stop fighting forest fires, said Rebecca Watson, a Helena lawyer and Bush administration appointee.
"I think people in Montana might take issue with a lawsuit that says you should not suppress fires," she said. "There are many Montanans living in the wildland-urban interface who have an expectation that their federal government, state government, county government will protect them from wildfires."
Watson and top federal land managers, tribal leaders and state foresters will meet in Arizona this week to review the 2003 fire season and discuss firefighting costs, implementation of the National Fire Plan and President Bush's Healthy Forests Initiative.
"The whole point of the Healthy Forests Initiative and the National Fire Plan is to get out of the fire suppression business by restoring the health of the land and reducing the prevalence of catastrophic wildfires, so fire can be used as a tool," said Watson, who oversees land and mineral management at the Interior Department.
Federal land managers have changed their approach to firefighting in recent years, she said, and actually do allow more acres to burn.
"There is now an understanding that fire is a part of nature, and that we need to restore these landscapes so fire can be reintroduced," Watson said. "We understand that fire is a good tool, but we also understand that there are limitations."
On Tuesday, FSEEE will file suit in U.S. District Court in Missoula, hoping to force the Forest Service to write an environmental impact statement weighing the pros and cons of wildland firefighting - beginning with a look at the use of chemical fire retardants.
Firefighters die every year "trying to fight an act of nature," without any consideration being given to ending the federal government's "war on fire," said Andy Stahl, executive director of FSEEE, whose 12,000 members are former and current Forest Service employees and agency watchdogs.
It is time, he said, for someone to hold the federal government accountable "for the unwarranted risk it places on its employees."
On Monday, the complaint received the endorsement of the Western Fire Ecology Center, which has also questioned the government's firefighting policies in recent years.
"Firefighting is extremely hazardous duty that takes the lives of young people," said Timothy Ingalsbee, the group's director. "It also damages the environment; in some cases, the impacts of firefighting are more significant than the effects of the fire itself."
"Neither the direct nor the indirect impacts of firefighting have ever been analyzed," he said. "There is no accountability."
In Washington, D.C., Watson said all are in agreement that "the No. 1 goal in fighting fires is to keep our firefighters safe."
"There is a constant message that a piece of property is not worth a human life," she said. "The culture of wildland firefighting is changing. Our goal now is a different goal than it was 20 years ago. The goal now is forest restoration."
At this week's meeting in Arizona, members of the Wildland Fire Leadership Council will talk about ways to contain the cost of fighting the largest wildfires, Watson said.
"We'll look at the recurring themes," she said. "What are the criticisms we have received on costs? What are the problems? What are the solutions? What are our next steps?"
The Bush administration is not waiting for Congress to enact healthy forests legislation to begin work on the wildfire issue or thinning in the national forests, Watson added.
Every year, she said, land managers are approving more fuel-reduction projects and prescribed burns.
But FSEEE is wrong if its members are suggesting a radical reduction in the number of fires that are actively suppressed, Watson said.
"Is fire appropriate everywhere? No," she said. "You do not want fire around communities and important infrastructure. And you also have to address the air-pollution impacts of fires. There are times when you don't want a fire."
Watson said she believes both fire and land managers have looked at the pros and cons of firefighting over the years.
FSEEE's request for an environmental impact statement on firefighting is simply unnecessary, she said.
"If we did an EIS, what would we be doing in the meantime?" Watson asked. "Let these fires burn while we analyze whether suppression is acceptable? I think that is questionable.
"I'm certainly not convinced that we need to have an EIS on whether we suppress fires or not. I think the public tells us pretty clearly that they want these fires put out."
Reporter Sherry Devlin can be reached at 523-5268 or at sdevlin@missoulian.com
|
 |
 |
Add your comment now! Write your comment in the form below.
(Email address is for verification only. If you'd like to email a story, look for the link above)