Congress approves Bush forest initiative

[KQ]

Congress approves Bush forest initiative

01:08 PM PST on Friday, November 21, 2003

Associated Press


WASHINGTON, D.C. - Congress approved legislation Friday to reduce the risk of wildfires in national forests by speeding removal of overgrown brush and diseased trees, especially near homes and towns.

The Senate passed the bill by a voice vote less than an hour after the House approved it 286-140. The rapid-fire votes came after a three-year impasse on wildfire legislation.

The final bill, which now goes to President Bush for his signature, resembles the president's "Healthy Forests Initiative" and aims to reduce the threat of catastrophic wildfires by speeding approval of projects to thin overgrown forests.

The measure also limits appeals and environmental reviews so that forest-thinning can be completed within months rather than years.

The combination of dry underbrush and legal gridlock has turned some Western forests into tinderboxes, lawmakers said.

"Lawsuits and red tape have led to inaction, and inaction has led to millions of acres that are destined to burn so hot, and move so fast, that communities have no choice but to evacuate," said Rep. Richard Pombo, R-Calif.

Pombo, chairman of the House Resources Committee, said he believes the bill will be seen as a significant turning point, "when scientific management began to regain dominance over benign neglect, and when communities began to regain influence over the federal lands surrounding them."

Recent wildfires in California burned nearly 750,000 acres this fall, causing 22 deaths and destroying more than 3,600 homes.

Rep. Greg Walden, R-Ore., who co-sponsored the original bill, called the final product would create jobs, improve forest health and protect communities.

Rep. Peter DeFazio, D-Ore., said the bill, if properly implemented, "will begin to undo 100 years of mismanagement of national forests."

But some Democrats called the bill a giveaway to the timber industry, because it limits public participation and leaves old growth and remote, roadless areas of the forest at risk of logging.

"We're not interested in healthy forests," said Rep. Maurice Hinchey, D-N.Y. "What we are interested in is a big giveaway to people who want to cut down trees on public lands. That's what this bill is all about."

The measure would authorize $760 million a year for thinning projects on 20 million acres of federal land - a $340 million increase. At least half of all money spent on those projects must be near homes and communities.

The bill also creates a major change in the way that federal courts consider legal challenges of tree-cutting projects.

Judges would have to weigh the environmental consequences of inaction and the risk of fire in cases involving thinning projects. Any court order blocking such projects would have to be reconsidered every 60 days.

The bill's chances were greatly improved after the deadly wildfires that hit California this fall. Two California lawmakers, Pombo and Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein, were instrumental in crafting the final compromise.

Environmentalists and some Democrats accused Bush and other Republicans of using the Western wildfires as an excuse to open up remote forests to logging.

[Dantheman]

This will work great, logging companies are very interested in cutting down lots of small, shitty trees that they will make little money from

[funkendrenchman]

Originally posted by Dantheman
This will work great, logging companies are very interested in cutting down lots of small, shitty trees that will make little money from

Yea, next thing you know they'll be saying cutting down trees will lead to increased water runoff.

[Buster Highmen]

What is this shit about limiting public input. Where does that come from?

We the People?

[summit]

Originally posted by Buster Highmen
What is this shit about limiting public input. Where does that come from?

We the People?

It comes from certain environmentalist groups that are finatical and blind to science continually blocking all fire prevention efforts by abusing the system by demanding study after statement after study for every single control effort and after they run out of those delaying tactics after a few years they sue in civil court just about every time. They have stopped thinning ops and control burns in many areas and then some of those areas have subsequently burned catastrophically (AZ, CA, and CO for example). These particular dogmatic groups ignore all science and common sense.

They are limiting... not eliminating.

Not that the government is blameless in curent fuckups... Fmr Gov Davis requested fire prevention ops in some of the areas of CA that burned and the Admin... denied the requests just days before the fires broke out.

Then of course there was that near 100 year USFS policy of "Out by 10AM"... ooopsies...