Firefighters doubt repeal of Roadless Rule will help with wildfires

Carson States drove a rattling rig with 500 gallons of water sloshing inside a tank.

On a rough road in the Mount Hood National Forest, the engine boss navigated precarious spots up the steep grade as the nearly 93,000-acre Grasshopper Fire burned around him and other crews.

“Eventually, some of the water tender operators and the larger engines were just, ‘It’s not feasible for us to do this. We can’t get into these roads,'” said States, back at home in Lane County, Aug. 21.

Lightning ignited the Grasshopper Fire almost a month ago.

On Tuesday, Aug. 18, more than 1,500 firefighters and workers in support of them prepared for an especially dynamic day as strong winds were expected to fan the flames, and low humidity wouldn’t buy them any time to stop the spread.

The same day, the U.S. Department of Agriculture — which houses the U.S. Forest Service that oversees national forests — announced it had officially filed a proposal to rescind the 2001 Roadless Rule. It’s a rule that bars construction of roads and prohibits timber harvesting in nearly 45 million acres of undeveloped national forest land, about 2 million of which are in Oregon.

In a press release with a statement from U.S. Department of Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins, the department cited President Donald Trump’s executive orders aimed at accelerating logging on public lands.

It also described the policy as a barrier to wildfire risk reduction work in places like the 8,000-acre roadless area that surrounds Hardesty Mountain, about 25 miles from downtown Eugene.

“For too long, outdated restrictions have kept tens of millions of forested acres off-limits to the very treatments that improve forest health and reduce wildfire risk to our communities,” Rollins said.

Many firefighters, including States, and their advocates refute Rollins’ claim.

Differing views on forest, wildland fire management

States is an independent contractor with 10 seasons of firefighting under his belt. He has worked for federal agencies and with the Oregon Department of Forestry. Now, he’s an independent contractor, which gives him the opportunity to speak openly.

Not only does he respond to wildfires but he also lights prescribed burns.

Prescribed fire is a tool to introduce proactive, low-intensity burns to keep trees and shrubs from overgrowing. It encourages native plant growth and reduces the risk of extreme wildfires.

“I’m all for fuel-reduction programs,” States said. “It’s very important to reduce these catastrophic megafires that we are seeing, but there are backcountry crews out there whose sole purpose is to hike into these places and perform that work. The issue is there’s no funding for these programs, and on top of that, we don’t have funding for the existing national forest roads that are out there.”

In a statement released by Eugene-based Firefighters United for Safety, Ethics, and Ecology, Carson was among five current or retired firefighters who opposed the agriculture department’s proposal.

The organization hosted a conversation Sunday at Art House, where around 75 people filled a sold-out auditorium for short films and a panel that explored how communities can build a better relationship with fire.

Tim Ingalsbee, executive director of Firefighters United for Safety, Ethics, and Ecology, believes the Trump administration’s real focus is timber, and the agriculture department’s messaging about wildfire reduction and firefighter access is deceptive. 

“Not in our name,” Ingalsbee told Lookout Eugene-Springfield during the event.

“From the perspective of wildland firefighters, this (repeal of the roadless rule) is not going to make it safer, more efficient to go suppress wildfires. It’s going to be just the opposite. It’s going to increase their burdens, risk, and hazards. “

Ingalsbee’s advocacy group has been keeping a close watch on the agriculture department since it announced its intent last year to repeal the rule. The department opened a short window for public comment.

An analysis of those comments by the Center for Western Priorities found 99.2% of submissions to the Federal Register supported keeping the rule in place. Despite public opposition, the department moved forward with deregulation, and its proposal hit the Federal Register Aug. 20. In its rationale, the department stated:

“The 2001 Roadless Rule limited the Forest Service’s ability to conduct vegetation management within inventoried roadless areas and has contributed to the lack of active management of the national forests, which in turn has contributed to challenges in addressing forest health concerns.”

The term “forest health” has varying definitions. Members of the Agriculture Department and the timber industry see it differently from environmental groups and some academics.

For example, the American Forest Resource Council, an industry group that supports the repeal, often talks about thinning trees and an open forest floor as healthy conditions. Such thinned forests, they argue, reduce the risk of extreme wildfire.

However, environmental groups often point to complex, old-growth forests that have adapted to fire in areas largely untouched by humans.

Research vs. rationale

Research conducted by the U.S. Forest Service has shown that while roads may provide access to fires, they are also the source of high rates of human-caused ignition.

A draft of the agriculture department’s environmental impact statement, an assessment legally required in significant rule changes, acknowledged this detail.

The 333-page impact statement considers three different alternatives, respectively: no action; repeal; and modification for more flexibility within the existing rule. In a table comparing the alternatives, it said:

“Currently, the number, frequency, and density of wildfire ignitions are lower in designated wilderness and potentially affected IRAs (inventoried roadless areas) compared to other NFS (National Forest System) lands. Under alternatives 2 and 3, if there is an increase in public road access, there could be (an) increase (in) the number and frequency of wildfires as human-ignitions are more likely near roads. However, public access could be limited to minimize fire hazard in high-risk areas.”

The document also said:

“Agency management records show that a lack of roads has not prevented fire prevention or protection measures, especially wildland fire use and prescribed fire. However, road restrictions limit opportunities for mechanical thinning and fire control.”

Throughout the document, the federal government repeatedly cites wildfire risk reduction as a reason to roll back the roadless rule. In its conclusion, it said:

“Alternative 2 (a repeal) enhances the quality of life for people that value timber harvest and potential mineral and energy development and the economic contributions that these provide to the community. Both action alternatives would similarly enhance the quality of life for people living in communities near the IRAs (inventoried roadless areas), as there are increased opportunities for wildfire risk mitigation.”

Based on States’ experience, he thinks that any mitigation will be undermined by the increased number of wildfires that will start.

He also described pushing new roads as “irresponsible” for the safety of firefighters. They are already working in harsh conditions for long hours, and they’re expected to use roads that are not being kept up.

Up at 5 a.m. one day on the Grasshopper Fire, States went to a morning briefing after he had quickly downed his breakfast. During announcements, officials told firefighters to take care with their heavy equipment on the roads.

“I thought that was pretty telling,” he said. “Their resource advisors were specifically requesting, ‘Please don’t hurt our roads, because we don’t have the money to upkeep it.'”