|
The U.S. Forest Service withdrew fire management plans for four Southwestern
forests last week and a day later asked a federal court to dismiss a lawsuit
challenging the plans.
In December, WildEarth Guardians, formerly Forest Guardians and Sinapu, filed
suit in U.S. District Court in Phoenix over fire plans for the Carson and
Lincoln national forests in New Mexico and the Apache-Sitgreaves and Tonto
national forests in Arizona, arguing the documents violated the National
Environmental Policy Act and the Endangered Species Act. The plans also placed
too much emphasis on fire suppression, allowing naturally ignited fires to burn
only in wilderness areas and fire management units, which make up a small
portion of the forests, the group said.
On Wednesday, April 9, Forest Service Chief Abigail Kimbell scrapped all four
plans. The next day, the Forest Service filed a motion arguing that the lawsuit
is moot and should be dismissed since the plans are dead.
"As a result, the purported decisions that are the basis for plaintiff's
claims are no longer in effect, such that there is no continuing case or
controversy to support jurisdiction," the Forest Service's attorneys wrote in
the motion.
Bryan Bird, public lands director for WildEarth Guardians, said he was
dismayed by the agency's decision to withdraw the fire plans.
"As we are quickly entering fire season, they are pulling these plans that
help people and help contain the cost of fighting fire," Bird said. The group
wants the Forest Service to revise the plans with public input and scientific
review, not do away with them altogether, he said.
The agency's action echoes a similar decision by the Forest Service in
California four years ago. In that instance, Forest Service officials also
canceled a fire plan that was the subject of a legal challenge.
Fire management plans, crafted by national forests under a directive in the
Forest Service handbook, determine where fires can burn and under what
circumstances. In the past couple of decades, forest managers have begun
recognizing the natural role of fire, conducting prescribed burns and, in some
cases, letting naturally ignited fires burn instead of putting them out. But
Bird said the Forest Service is still suppressing too many fires.
"Their actions aren't matching their rhetoric," Bird said. "The last regional
forester [for the Southwest] and the new one have stated that the number one
goal is to bring fire back and use it to restore ecosystems. It's great to say
that, but they need to do something on the ground to implement that."
Bird argued that as the cost of fighting fires increases and as funding for
hazardous fuel reduction decreases, the Forest Service should do more to restore
fire to the landscape wherever possible.
Marc Rounsaville, the Forest Service's deputy director of fire and aviation,
said he could not comment on the agency's decision to pull the four fire
management plans, citing agency policy not to publicly discuss issues related to
litigation. But he said that the agency has to choose where to reintroduce fire
carefully. "We are trying to get more fire on the landscape, but it has to be
the right kind of fire at the right time under the right conditions," he said.
For instance, land managers cannot let a naturally ignited fire (usually started
by lightning) burn in an area where decades of fire suppression have created
tinderbox-like conditions, he said, because the high fuel load would spark an
unnaturally hot, scorched-earth conflagration.
"We still do a lot of suppressing, and we're going to continue to do a lot
suppression," he added. "We don't want a moonscape."
Rounsaville also said NEPA analysis of a forest's fire management approach is
conducted at the forest plan stage. The fire management plan simply executes the
directives laid out in the forest plan, he said.
Bird counters that even taking human safety considerations into account, the
Forest Service still could do more. "Obviously fire can't be reintroduced on
every acre of the forest, because of human safety and other valuable assets we
don't want to lose. We realize that," he said. "But there are areas they can do
that safely. And that's what these plans are all about."
Bird said the group plans to ask for more information before deciding whether
to challenge the agency's motion to dismiss. But it will try to ensure the
Forest Service crafts new plans for all four forests, he added.
"We're going to make sure they don't come back with these same plans if the
judge dismisses the case," Bird said.
April Reese writes from Santa Fe, N.M.
 |
Subscribe to this comment's feed
