Alternative Treatments to Prescribed Fires in the Rocky Flats Wildlife Refuge
Written by: Kevin Tran
Controlled Burning of Land Overview
The U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, which is the agency that manages the Rocky Flats National Wildlife Refuge, had planned a controlled burn of 701 acres at the refuge in the spring of 2015 in order to clear out and thin invasive weeds and overgrown plant matter. This controlled burn would involve creating a large volume of smoke that would potentially carry radioactive contaminants, namely Plutonium-239, and has caused uproar in neighboring communities and concerns about safety around and downwind from the Rocky Flats site. The agency proposes that the radiation released by the burning of grasslands would be no greater than the background radiation present in the surrounding areas, however, speculation and inconsistent data reports have shown increased levels of radiation from a test burning that was conducted in April of 2000. Currently, communities are showing opposition to future plans of prescribed fires at the Wildlife Refuge and are actively speaking about the dangers and health effects that this event would bring to the inhabitants. Alternatives to fires need to be implemented, as this is a special case involving radiation within a community setting.
What is a Prescribed Fire or Controlled Burn?
A Prescribed Fire is a technique used in forest management, farming, and land clearing in order to stimulate germination of natural plant species. In the case of Rocky Flats, the purpose of renewing native forest vegetation and clearing invasive species of weeds is being proposed. However, in such an area where radioactive elements are locked into the soil, burning would release plutonium into the air via smoke and put many people in the adjacent area in danger.
Example of a Wildlife Refuge Prescribed Fire. Copious amounts of smoke released into the air.
This is one of the main concerns of people living around the site, and not only will the plutonium from the surface of the soil be aerosolized, the radioactive particles that reside deeper in the ground will be more likely to resurface and be dispersed into the air due to the soil being disturbed.
Professional and Personal Opinions on future controlled burn proposals
1. Judith Mohling, co-chair of the Colorado Coalition for the Prevention of Nuclear War and a board member of the national Alliance for Nuclear Accountability explains about plutonium, "You cannot taste, smell or see the tiny radioactive particles that remain in the soil and water of Rocky Flats even after the 'clean up.'"
2. Instances of releasing such elements into the air through smoke and burning would be harmful and difficult to prevent inhalation. Even tiny particles are exponentially dangerous, and as explained by LeRoy Moore, PhD, a consultant with the Rocky Mountain Peace & Justice Center: "For as long as . . . [plutonium] is lodged within [the body] - likely for the rest of one's life - it bombards surrounding tissue with radiation. The result two or three decades later may be cancer, a damaged immune system or genetic harm . . .Wherever the wind takes [plutonium], that's where it will go. It's unpredictable what the wind will do here in Colorado. It could pick up plutonium and carry it all the way across Denver, as it has done in the past. So they're taking a chance of exposing people if they burn. ... If plutonium is released, it would be in the form of tiny particles suspended in the air. These could be inhaled. Even a single particle could destroy someone's health."
3. Mickey Harlow, a retired water-quality analyst for the nearby town of Westminster questions, "Is it appropriate to have a burn on a radionuclide-contaminated site? . . . We have to err on the side of safety . . . Plutonium is attached to the soil out there. . . . It's too risky to be burning there. There are other ways of controlling weeds."
4. David Abelson, executive director for local government organizations, states, "You should not treat this refuge like other refuges. There's a lot of community interest and concern that warrants a nontraditional approach to land-management issues."
Growing concern in the community has been steadily increasing as the plans for a future prescribed fire are still being discussed. It is apparent that there is an interest in how the Rocky Flats site will be handled in terms of clearing land, and alternative measures should be implemented in order to prevent further contamination through airborne means.
2. Instances of releasing such elements into the air through smoke and burning would be harmful and difficult to prevent inhalation. Even tiny particles are exponentially dangerous, and as explained by LeRoy Moore, PhD, a consultant with the Rocky Mountain Peace & Justice Center: "For as long as . . . [plutonium] is lodged within [the body] - likely for the rest of one's life - it bombards surrounding tissue with radiation. The result two or three decades later may be cancer, a damaged immune system or genetic harm . . .Wherever the wind takes [plutonium], that's where it will go. It's unpredictable what the wind will do here in Colorado. It could pick up plutonium and carry it all the way across Denver, as it has done in the past. So they're taking a chance of exposing people if they burn. ... If plutonium is released, it would be in the form of tiny particles suspended in the air. These could be inhaled. Even a single particle could destroy someone's health."
3. Mickey Harlow, a retired water-quality analyst for the nearby town of Westminster questions, "Is it appropriate to have a burn on a radionuclide-contaminated site? . . . We have to err on the side of safety . . . Plutonium is attached to the soil out there. . . . It's too risky to be burning there. There are other ways of controlling weeds."
4. David Abelson, executive director for local government organizations, states, "You should not treat this refuge like other refuges. There's a lot of community interest and concern that warrants a nontraditional approach to land-management issues."
Growing concern in the community has been steadily increasing as the plans for a future prescribed fire are still being discussed. It is apparent that there is an interest in how the Rocky Flats site will be handled in terms of clearing land, and alternative measures should be implemented in order to prevent further contamination through airborne means.
Alternatives to Burning and Scorching
In response to the plethora of concerns that residents and officials have in relation to proposed controlled burning of refuge land, alternative ways of clearing the invasive species of plants and renewing the land are available. If implemented successfully, these measures would have the result effect of the burning method but with less danger to the local community and would prevent unnecessary radioactive contaminants from being released into the environment. As is addressed in the text of "Nonburning Alternatives to Prescribed Fire on Wildlands in the Western United States":
- One alternative method that was mentioned would be to utilize livestock animals, like goats, to graze within overgrown areas. This would be safer for the surrounding community, would not introduce dangerous elements into the air, and would be ecologically friendly. Some opponents of this method dictate that the animals used to graze vegetation would have to be killed after their services due to high radiation concentrations, but this is not the case. Animals that are not used for meat or any edible product need not be killed after grazing in the Wildlife Refuge, and effects of radiation ingestion could be studied in these animals afterwards.
- Manual Handwork is also another technique that would allow safe removal of unwanted plant matter, while preserving the air quality and health of those near the site. Handwork involves picking up and moving limbs and brush, as well as cutting downed and standing materials using hand tools or chainsaws. The gathered or cut material is then either piled . . . or scattered (to remain on site and decay naturally). . . . Advantages of handwork include the low level of ground disturbance, the ability to work on steeper slopes than is feasible for many kinds of mechanical equipment, and the ability to treat sensitive habitats. Although this method may take longer to achieve the desired results, it is much safer and ecologically friendly, versus the burning methods.
- Mechanical treatments are also widely used to clear land and to minimally disturb the groundwork. These types of treatments employ equipment as the primary method of modifying or removing unwanted matter, and include mowing and masticating as well as traditional harvest operations. A common feature of mechanical treatments is the need for vehicle access. However, site-specific conditions and newer technologies can allow mechanical treatments to be undertaken at considerably greater distances from existing roads. Because materials processed in this fashion of mastication, mowing, or crushing can be much more densely packed than materials that are scattered by hand or piled, the available oxygen supply is reduced, thereby inhibiting spread of fire and flame height. In instances where natural wildfires may happen in the future at the refuge, this method would prevent out of control scorching and would keep radioactive contaminants settled and less disturbed in the soil.
- Chemical means of control can also be applied to the proposed area in order to curb invasive species. Species-targeted herbicides can be utilized to kill unwanted vegetation while also preserving local natural flora. This method has a more pronounced effect on the environment in terms of very stringent regulatory requirements . . . and the possibility of adverse impacts on water quality. However, no soil disturbance is required and no plutonium particles would be released as a result. This proves to be a safer way to clear the land without having to place the health of people into danger.
- "Controlled Burn." Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, n.d. Web. 01 May 2015. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controlled_burn>.
- Mohling, Judith. "Judith Mohling: Rocky Flats Development Risks Exposure to Nuclear Radiation." - Boulder Daily Camera. Daily Camera, n.d. Web. 01 May 2015. <http://www.dailycamera.com/letters/ci_22620349/judith-mohling-rocky-flats-development-risks-exposure-nuclear>.
- O'Connor, Colleen. "Colorado Mother's Day: Judith Mohling." - The Denver Post. The Denver Post, 11 May 2014. Web. 05 May 2015. <http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_25738398/colorado-mothers-day-judith-mohling>.
- Zaffos, Joshua. "Plan for a Burn at Rocky Flats Stirs Lingering Fears." High Country News. High Country News, 31 Jan. 2015. Web. 20 Apr. 2015. <https%3A%2F%2Fwww.hcn.org%2Farticles%2Fnuclear-fallout-for-proposed-burn>.
- Finley, Bruce. "Plutonium Fears Hex Planned Prescribed Fires at Rocky Flats Wildlife Refuge." - The Denver Post. The Denver Post, 29 Jan. 2015. Web. 15 May 2015. <http://www.denverpost.com/environment/ci_27415100/plutonium-fears-hex-planned-rx-fire-at-rocky>.
- Moore, LeRoy. "LeRoy Moore: Rocky Flats Burn a Bad Idea." - Boulder Daily Camera. Daily Camera, 21 Nov. 2014. Web. 16 May 2015. <http://www.dailycamera.com/guest-opinions/ci_26988064/leroy-moore-rocky-flats-burn-bad-idea>.
- Jones & Stokes. Nonburning Alternatives to Prescribed Fire on Wildlands in the Western United States. Sacramento, CA: Jones & Stokes, 2004. Wrapair. Web. 20 May 2015. <http://www.wrapair.org/forums/fejf/documents/altwild/Nonburning_Alternatives_Final_Report.pdf>.
- "Rocky Mountain Arsenal Wildlife Refuge Prescribed Fire." YouTube. YouTube, n.d. Web. 20 May 2015. <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=63oD3GZfY4k>.