Conservation groups support common sense home protection, say Forest Service is abusing fire plan funds to increase commercial logging

Garberville, CA - Today, 144 conservation groups, including the Environmental Protection Information Center (EPIC), sent a letter to U.S. Forest Service Chief Dale Bosworth outlining the conservation community's position on wildfires, home protection and fuel-reduction projects. As the conservation groups explain in the letter, "In recent weeks, some politicians and some U.S. Forest Service officials have repeatedly misrepresented the conservation community's position" on these issues.

In the letter - which was also sent to every member of Congress and the Western Governors Association - the conservation groups make it clear they have always supported "common sense approaches designed to effectively protect homes and communities from fire." As the groups explain, in addition to advocating for Congress to "increase funding for community protection and fire education," the conservation community has "taken a leading role in educating homeowners about the importance of treating flammable material adjacent to homes and communities."

"Unfortunately, the Forest Service has chosen to focus their priorities largely on commercial logging projects far removed from communities, not on effectively protecting communities," the letter explains. "[W]hat we are finding 'on the ground' is that National Fire Plan funds have been misused by the Forest Service to promote commercial logging, have not been targeted towards the highest risk areas, and have failed to effectively protect homes and communities from fires."

"As we repeatedly point out in the letter, the conservation community is deeply committed to the protection of homes and communities from fire. However, the Forest Service is misusing National Fire Plan funds to support more commercial logging, not protect communities," stated Christine Ambrose, EPIC's National Forest Protection Coordinator. "This Forest Service abuse is occurring despite warnings that their fire policy not rely on commercial logging to reduce fire risks because logging of large trees does not reduce fire risk and may, in fact, increase such risk."

"The Forest Service, Bush Administration and anti-environmental members of Congress are spreading a great deal of misinformation about wildfire, hoping to capitalize on public fire hysteria and minimize public opposition to increased logging and roadbuilding in our national forests," said Ambrose. "Wildfire has emerged as the driving force behind the Forest Service's logging program: virtually every single timber sale in the West - and many in the East - are now couched in terms of 'reducing fuels' or 'restoring forest health.' However, in reality, these are just more big commercial logging projects."

"For example, right here on the Six Rivers National Forest, the Forest Service claims that the Megram Fire Salvage timber sale would have protected homes by reducing fuels; however, this project is located up to 10 miles from the nearest home and would have focused on the removal of big, old trees," explained Ambrose. "This project is just one local example of how the Bush Administration and the Forest Service are ignoring the advice of their own experts in order to increase commercial logging in our national forests. Numerous other examples exist on the nearby Shasta-Trinity, Klamath, and Mendocino National Forests."

A copy of the letter sent by the conservation groups to Chief Bosworth follows:


Chief Dale Bosworth
USDA - Forest Service
P.O. Box 96090
Washington, DC 20090

July 18, 2002

Dear Chief Bosworth:

In recent weeks, some politicians and some U.S. Forest Service (USFS) officials have repeatedly misrepresented the conservation community's position on wildfires, home protection and fuel-reduction. It is our hope that this letter will clarify our position on these issues of critical importance.

First, let us state that the conservation community has always supported common sense approaches designed to effectively protect homes and communities from fire. The Forest Service's own fire experts have found that a home's survival rate depends almost entirely on its location, its condition and its immediate surroundings, not on more commercial logging and roadbuilding in the backcountry.

To help support the goal of effective home and community protection from forest and grassland fires, the conservation community has taken a leading role in educating homeowners about the importance of treating flammable material adjacent to homes and communities.

For example, The Lands Council in Spokane, Washington received a National Fire Plan (NFP) grant to educate rural homeowners about effective methods they can use to protect their homes and property from fires. Another broader coalition of twelve environmental groups distributed a publication about fires and home protection to 50,000 households in Montana and Idaho.

Furthermore, on countless occasions, representatives of the conservation community have sat down with Forest Service officials to discuss plans and projects that will effectively protect homes and communities from fires. Unfortunately, the Forest Service has chosen to focus their priorities largely on commercial logging projects far removed from communities, not on effectively protecting communities.

Over the last two years, conservation groups have been advocating that Congress should increase funding for community protection and fire education, and that Congress should continue to direct the agencies to spend National Fire Plan money to protect communities at risk in the wildlands urban interface.

For example, in American Lands Alliance's 2003 Appropriations Initiative, over 70 conservation organizations have proposed that Congress increase spending for the Cooperative Fire Protection program by $200 million in 2003 and direct fuel-reduction funds to be spent in the wildlands urban interface, not on more commercial logging in backcountry forests. As you know, the Cooperative Fire Protection program provides technical and financial assistance to states and local fire agencies to promote efficient wildland fire protection with a focus on mitigating hazards and protecting homes in the wildland urban interface and reducing suppression costs. This program has the potential to direct funds to help homeowners fireproof their homes.

While we are supportive of effective home and community protection efforts, what we are finding "on the ground" is that National Fire Plan funds have been misused by the Forest Service to promote commercial logging, have not been targeted towards the highest risk areas, and have failed to effectively protect homes and communities from fires.

For example, according to a November 2001 report released by the Department of Agriculture's Office of Inspector General (OIG), the Forest Service inappropriately used NFP funds intended for fire restoration to conduct commercial timber sales - including the nation's largest timber sale on the Bitterroot National Forest in Montana. That OIG report also stated that, "commercial timber sales do not meet the criteria for forest restoration."

In April, a report by the John Muir Project revealed that 83% of all Forest Service projects funded by NFP brush reduction funds in the Sierra Nevada are actually commercial timber sales. Congress provided these funds to reduce flammable brush adjacent to communities, however the Forest Service has misused these funds for commercial timber sales located an average of 6 miles from the nearest town. Equally alarming, nearly 75% of these NFP-funded timber sales focus on the removal of large, fire resistant trees, and 94% of the timber sales take place within suitable habitat for imperiled species such as the California spotted owl, northern goshawk, Pacific fisher and Bald Eagle.

This blatant Forest Service abuse of NFP funds is occurring despite NFP warnings that the agency's wildland fire policy "should not rely on commercial logging or new road building to reduce fire risks." The NFP also states that "the removal of large, merchantable trees from forests does not reduce fire risk and may, in fact, increase such risk." Unfortunately, the Forest Service has not heeded the advice of the NFP, but instead is pushing forward with commercial logging projects in the backcountry that target large, fire resistant trees.

Even though the GAO reported that the greatest fire threat is found in the West, so far this year, 80% of all prescribed fire acres have occurred in the southeast. While the conservation community supports appropriate prescribed fires in the southeast's fire dependent ecosystems, we are concerned that the appropriate use of prescribed fires for fuel-reduction is not being effectively utilized in the West.

Further, the General Accounting Office (GAO) reported in February 2002 that the Forest Service and Department of Interior have failed to identify communities that face a high risk of wildfire, and have not reported on what was accomplished with appropriated funds. The GAO report also criticized the Forest Service and Interior Department for failing to effectively coordinate their activities.

We would also like to call your attention to the results of an independent assessment of the Rodeo-Chediski fire in Arizona conducted by Pacific Biodiversity Institute. The assessment highlights two basic facts that contradict statements blaming the fires on environmental organizations. First, that the fires started and burned extensively on tribal land before entering the national forests -- most of the land burned by the fires (60%) is on tribal land, only 37% is in National Forests and 3% is on private and state land.

And second, that much of the area burned by these fires is land that has been subjected to extensive commercial logging and road building over the last 50 years. For example, the assessment identified more than 2,100 miles of logging roads in the fire area. If commercial logging and roadbuilding prevents fires - or at least reduces their intensity - as the Forest Service claims, then why did the Rodeo-Chediski fire burn so fiercely?

The assessment also highlights the national wildfire situation and calls attention to the fact that most wildfires nationwide are burning on private, tribal, and state land - not on national forest land as commonly believed. Federal wildfire statistics reveal that over the last decade, less than 18% of the nationwide wildfire burn area is in the national forests. It is also important to note that over the past ten years nearly 90% of all wildfires were started by people - usually on or adjacent to a road. The full assessment is available on-line at www.pacificbio.org/wildfire2002.html.

When it comes to restoring the ecological integrity of our nation's national forests, the conservation community again has been at the forefront of developing a new approach - including safely restoring fire to fire-dependent ecosystems outside of the wildland urban interface.

During the past year, the conservation community - together with input from forest practitioners and community forestry groups - has drafted Restoration Principles to promote ecological forest restoration and to implement ecologically sound restoration policies and projects on national forests. The Restoration Principles clearly distinguish hazardous fuel-reduction projects designed to effectively protect homes and communities from fuel-reduction projects designed to restore ecological integrity in fire-dependent ecosystems, a distinction overlooked by the Forest Service.

As you can clearly see, the conservation community is deeply committed to the protection of homes and communities. We will continue to expand our efforts to safeguard communities, while at the same time, promote and support ecologically-based restoration projects on our national forests. If the Forest Service supports these goals, we feel strongly that we can work together. However, if the Forest Service continues to misuse National Fire Plan money, the conservation community will continue to hold your agency accountable. The American people and our nation's public lands deserve no less.

Sincerely,

Action for Social and Ecological Justice (VT)
Alabama Wilderness Alliance (AL)
Alaska Center for the Environment (AK)
Allegheny Defense Project (PA)
Alliance for the Wild Rockies (MT)
Ambience Project (MT)
American Lands Alliance (DC)
Appalachian Voices (NC)
Aspen Wilderness Workshop (CO)
Bark (OR)
Blue Mountains Biodiversity Project (OR)
Big Wild Advocates (MT)
Biodiversity Northwest (WA)
Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League (NC)
Boulder Environmental Activists' Resource (CO)
Bradford Environmental Research Institute (WY)
Buckeye Forest Council (OH)
California Wilderness Coalition (CA)
Cascadia Fire Ecology Education Project (OR)
Cascadia Forest Alliance (OR)
Center for Biological Diversity (AZ)
Central Oregon Forest Issues Committee (OR)
Cherokee Forest Voices (TN)
CLEAN (Citizens of Lee Environmental Action Network) (VA)
Coalition for Jobs and the Environment (VA)
Coastside Habitat Coalition (CA)
Cold Mountain, Cold Rivers (MT)
Colorado Wild (CO)
Columbia Gorge Audubon Society (OR)
Columbia Lands Institute (WA)
Committee for Idaho's High Desert (ID)
Concerned Friends of Ferry County (WA)
Cooperative Resources and Services Project (CA)
CU Rainforet Action Group (CO)
CU Sinapu (CO)
Cumberland Countians for Peace & Justice (TN)
Deerlodge Forest Defense Fund (MT)
Devil's Fork Trail Club (VA)
Dogwood Alliance (NC)
Endangered Species Coalition (DC)
Environmental Protection Information Center (CA)
Flagstaff Activist Network (AZ)
Forest Watch (VT)
Forest Conservation Council (NM)
Forest Guardians (NM)
Forests Forever (CA)
Forestry Monitoring Project (CA)
Friends of Living Oregon Waters (OR)
Friends of the Bitterroot (MT)
Friends of the Clearwater (ID)
Friends of the Earth (DC)
Gifford Pinchot Task Force (WA)
Goods From The Woods
Great Old Broads for Wilderness (CO)
Green America (FL)
Greenpeace (DC)
Headwaters (OR)
Heartwood (IN)
Hells Canyon Preservation Council (OR)
High Uintas Preservation Council (UT)
Idaho Conservation League (ID)
Idaho Sporting Congress (ID)
Indiana Alliance for Democracy (IN)
Indiana Forest Alliance (IN)
John Muir Project (CA)
Kentucky Heartwood (KY)
Kettle Range Conservation Group (WA)
Klamath-Siskiyou Wildlands Center (OR)
Kootenai Environmental Alliance (ID)
Last Great Wilderness Project (NC)
League Of Wilderness Defenders (OR)
Leavenworth Audubon Adopt-a-Forest (WA)
Los Angeles Eco-Village (CA)
Memphis Audubon Society (TN)
Michiana Watersheds (IN)
Mountain Defense League (CA)
National Forest Protection Alliance (MT)
Native Forest Network (MT)
Native Forest Network - Southwest (NM)
Network for Environmental & Economic Responsibility (TN)
New Mexico Wilderness Alliance (NM)
Northwest Ecosystem Alliance (WA)
Northwest Environmental Defense Center (OR)
Northcoast Environmental Center (CA)
Northwoods Wilderness Recovery (MI)
Obed Watershed Association (TN)
Oregon Natural Resources Council (OR)
Park County Environmental Council (MT)
Patrick Environmental Awareness Group (VA)
Palos Verdes/South Bay Audubon (CA)
Payette Forest Watch (ID)
Pilchuck Audubon Society (WA)
Quilcene Ancient Forest Coalition (WA)
Rainforest Action Network (CA)
Rainier Audubon Society (WA)
Regional Association of Concerned Environmentalists (IL)
Religious Campaign for Forest Conservation (CA)
REP America (Republicans for Environmental Protection) (IL)
Salem Audubon Society (OR)
Santa Fe Forest Watch (NM)
Santiam Watershed Guardians (OR)
Save Our Ancient Forest Ecology (CA)
Selkirk Conservation Alliance (ID)
Sequatchie Valley Institute at Moonshadow (TN)
Sequoia ForestKeeper (CA)
Sequoia Forest Alliance (CA)
Sinapu (CO)
Siskiyou Project (OR)
Sisters Forest Planning Committee (OR)
Sky Island Alliance (UT)
South Fork Mountain Defense (CA)
Southern Appalachian Biodiversity Project (NC)
Southern Pines Ecosystem Project (NC)
Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance (UT)
Spirit of the Sage Council (CA)
Sublette Riders Association (WY)
Superior Wilderness Action Network (MN)
Taking Responsibility for the Earth and Environment (VA)
Taxpayers for Common Sense (DC)
The Clinch Coalition (VA)
The Ecology Center (MT)
The Lands Council (WA)
The Mountaineers (WA)
The Society for Natural Resources Conservation (NY)
Tule River Conservancy (CA)
Umpqua Watersheds (OR)
Utah Environmental Congress (UT)
Ventana Wilderness Alliance (CA)
Virginia Forest Watch (VA)
Washington Wilderness Coalition (WA)
Western Fire Ecology Center (OR)
Western Nebraska Resources Council (NE)
Western North Carolina Alliance (NC)
Winter Wildlands Alliance (ID)
Wild Alabama (AL)
Wild South (AL)
Wild Wilderness (OR)
Wilderness Study Group (CO)
Wilderness Watch (MT)
Wildlands Center for Preventing Roads (MT)
Wildlands Project (CO)
WildLaw (AL)
Wisconsin Environmental Jewish Initiative (WI)
World Stewardship Institute (CA)

CC: Under Secretary Mark Rey, all members of the U.S. Congress, Western Governor's Association