A firefighter douses flames as they push towards homes during the Creek fire in the Cascadel Woods area of unincorporated Madera County, Calif.: Josh Edelson

Staff Report –

EUGENE, Ore.— About 120 current and former wildland firefighters issued an open letter Tuesday calling on members of Congress to oppose the Trump administration’s proposal to rescind the Roadless Area Conservation Rule in National Forests.

The rollback of the “Roadless Rule” would remove protections across 45 million acres of national forestlands, opening the door to more road-building and logging in these wild forest areas. The signatories have decades of experience fighting wildfires in U.S. national forests.

Although the U.S. Department of Agriculture is justifying its proposed rescission by saying the rollback will reduce wildfire risk, this assertion is scientifically inaccurate. It is the professional opinion of the wildland firefighters who signed the letter that rescinding this rule will have the opposite effect.

“New roads will mean more human access and more human-caused wildfire ignitions,” they explain in their letter. “Most logging roads in steep backcountry areas are bad tactical ground for holding firelines or staging crews.”

The existing Roadless Rule does not prevent wildfire response or fuels work, they say.

“Rescinding the Roadless Rule will push more firefighters into high-exposure, low-value suppression assignments while pulling resources away from at-risk communities.”

This knowledge, gained by years of on-the-ground firefighting experience, aligns with scientific research.

There is no compelling evidence that eliminating the Roadless Area Conservation Rule  will reduce fire risk to communities. In fact, the science shows that wildfires have a much higher chance of being started along roads. A recent study found that the highest density of wildfire ignitions is within a 50-meter zone around roads. Ignition density decreases away from roads and is smallest in places without roads (e.g., designated wilderness areas and roadless areas).

There are several reasons for this. First, people cause the large majority of unplanned fires and most people stay on or close to roads. Human-started wildfires account for 84% of all wildfires and are responsible for nearly half of all the area burned.

Second, roads lead to vegetative conditions that exacerbate fire ignitions and spread. For instance, road corridors have higher amounts of invasive species that are more likely to ignite and spread fire than native vegetation. Vegetation along the edges of roads tends to dry out sooner than interior forest vegetation, contributing to increased ignitions and higher intensity burns.

Further, roadless areas are mostly remote and generally pose low fire risk to communities. Only 6% of the 44.7 million acres of roadless forests affected by the proposed rescission of the Roadless Rule are in or within a mile of the Wildland-Urban Interface.

Where roadless areas are near communities, the Rule already allows the Forest Service to treat these areas to reduce fuels. In fact, the Forest Service has used this authority to treat 1.5 million acres of roadless areas for fuel reduction over the last two decades. 

Finally, by maintaining remote National Forest areas as unroaded, the Roadless Area Conservation Rule contributes to a low-risk wildfire management strategy by providing areas with low risk of human ignitions and where fire can naturally help reduce fuels without endangering homes or firefighters.  

“The bottom line is that allowing new road-building and more logging in roadless areas will increase the number of fire ignitions in remote and steep terrain,” they say in a press release with the letter. “This will increase firefighter exposure to hazardous suppression efforts with low probabilities of success and pull scarce resources away from the priority of protecting communities. Removing roadless area protections to reduce fire risk is not consistent with current scientific understanding and would not provide better protection from wildfire for communities and property.”

Full Text of the Letter

Dear Member of Congress:

We the undersigned are active, former, or retired wildland firefighters. We are hearing claims that building more roads in roadless areas will improve firefighter safety and wildfire response. From a suppression operational standpoint those claims do not hold up, and for the following reasons we oppose rescinding the Roadless Area Conservation Rule.

First, new roads will mean more human access and more human-caused wildfire ignitions. Firefighters know where many fires start: along roads, near vehicles and equipment, recreation sites, and other places of human activity. Opening roadless areas to new road construction will create more wildfire starts creating more firefighter exposure to the inherent safety risks and health hazards of fighting fires. This will cause more demand for already limited and overextended suppression crews and resources.

Second, most logging roads in steep backcountry areas are bad tactical ground for holding firelines or staging crews. They are often narrow midslope roads with tight switchbacks, poor turnouts, limited safety zones, and heavy fuels along roadsides. The location and design of these roads expose crews to rolling material from above or spotting from below that can lead to rapid fire runs. Forest roads are mainly built for timber access, not for safe or effective fireline operations. New roads will be places where more wildfires will be started than stopped.

Third, the existing Roadless Rule does not prevent wildfire response or fuels work. Firefighters can and do suppress wildfires in roadless areas. Agencies can and do conduct fuels treatments there. Given their remote locations, roadless areas offer some of the best places to safely use large-scale prescribed burning and managed wildfire because they have fewer homes or communities at risk. The Roadless Rule does not bar suppression or fuels work, especially using fire treatments.

Fourth, rescinding the Roadless Rule will push more firefighters into high-exposure, low-value suppression assignments while pulling resources away from at-risk communities. In a time of a shrinking workforce with longer fire seasons that is stretching crews and increasing firefighter fatigue, Congress should not support a policy that creates more wildfire ignitions and adds more pressure for aggressive suppression actions in remote rugged terrain.

Ending the Roadless Rule and building more roads into roadless areas will not make firefighters safer. New roads will create more human-caused wildfire ignitions in remote steep terrain, increasing firefighter exposure to hazardous suppression efforts with low probabilities of success. This will also pull scarce resources away from the priority of protecting communities. For all the above reasons and more, we urge you to oppose rescission of the Roadless Area Conservation Rule.

Sincerely,

Names not included.

To get in touch with a wildland firefighter on this letter who can speak directly about the issues outlined above, contact Timothy Ingalsbee at 541-338-7671 or fire@efn.org.

___
If you support truth in reporting with no paywall, and fearless writing with no popup ads or sponsored content, consider making a contribution today with GoFundMe or Patreon or PayPal.