|
Fire Chronicle #19
|
Laura McCarthy, Forest Trust
|
May 29, 2003 09:28 PDT
|
FIRE CHRONICLE #19
Stories of the National Fire Plan
May 29, 2003
FEDERAL REPORT FUELS DEBATE OVER HEALTHY FORESTS ACT
The “Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003” passed the U.S. House of
Representatives last week, just days after the Government Accounting
Office (GAO) released a study about the effect of administrative appeals
on timely implementation of hazardous fuel reduction treatments. The
Healthy Forests Act will allow hazardous fuels reduction treatments to
be categorically excluded from review through the National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA). It will also eliminate administrative appeals of such
treatments. These provisions of the bill have been highly controversial,
as revealed by the wide gap between interpretations of the GAO report by
proponents and detractors.
The GAO presented its study as a series of findings. Supporters and
opponents of the Healthy Forests Act selected certain findings, or
linked them differently, to support their respective points of view. The
GAO findings are complicated and hinge on whether or not the decision to
approve a fuels reduction project is subject to administrative appeal.
Here are the report’s core findings:
- The Forest Service made 762 decisions about fuels reduction projects
in fiscal years 2001 and 2002.
- Of these 762 decisions, 457 decisions, or 60%, were subject to appeal
and 305 decisions, or 40%, were not subject to appeal.
- Of the 457 decisions that were subject to appeal, 180, or 59%,
actually were appealed.
- The acreage of the appealed projects was 19% of the total project
acreage.
- The 180 appealed decisions represent 24% of the total of 762 decisions
about fuel reduction projects.
- Of the 180 decisions that were appealed, 79% were processed within the
prescribed 90-day time frame.
Supporters of the Healthy Forests Act centered their arguments on the
fact that 59% of the decisions that could have been appealed, were
appealed. When countered with the finding that 79% of those decisions
were resolved within 90 days, some supporters argued that such delays
can mean the difference between a forest devastated by severe wildfire
and a forest protected. Opponents rebutted that 90-day delays hardly
affected the timing of forest treatments.
Opponents of the Healthy Forests Act extracted the total number of
decisions that were ready to implement from the GAO report. They counted
724 projects that were approved under current NEPA policies, or 95% of
the 762 projects proposed by the Forest Service. To arrive at these
figures they added the 457 decisions that were not subject to appeal,
the 125 decisions that could have been appealed but were not, and the
149 decisions that were appealed and processed within 90 days, arriving
at a total of 724 projects.
These different ways of interpreting the GAO’s findings confused the
public and polarized the issue. At the heart of this controversy is
disagreement about whether changes to NEPA are needed to treat forests
rapidly enough and at a large enough scale to protect forests and
wildland-urban interface communities. Supporters believe that NEPA
creates a bureaucratic tangle that slows down implementation, wastes
taxpayers’ money on needless analysis, and allows environmental groups
to obstruct urgently-needed treatments without cause. Opponents believe
that NEPA offers the public a chance for meaningful participation in
forest management decisions, that the right to appeal a decision
guarantees that non-agency voices will be heard, and that the NEPA
process results in more thoughtful government decisions.
Last fall Senator Tom Daschle (D-SD), then-Senate majority leader,
pushed legislation that authorized fuel treatments and exempted 5,000
acres in the Black Hills from future court challenges. The legislation
was drafted after lengthy negotiations between many interests that
included Forest Service and state officials, environmental groups and
the timber industry. Several provisions from the Black Hills agreement
appear in the Healthy Forests Act, such as exemptions from NEPA. The key
to this agreement was negotiation at the state level. Senator Daschle
commented on the Healthy Forest initiative to the Associated Press, “If
you are going to do what I did legislatively, you’re going to have to
back up and do what I did through the negotiation process first…” (Santa
Fe New Mexican 5/20/03).
The Healthy Forests Act fueled a debate that left little room for
agreement about how to manage at-risk forests. Only one area of
consensus is apparent -- people agree that human life and property
should be protected from wildfire. Numerous areas of disagreement
remain. The NEPA question is at the forefront, but along with it is
disagreement about whether products removed from fuel reduction should
be sold commercially and used to pay for treatments; whether safeguards
are needed to focus treatments on small diameter tree and brush removal
rather than large and old trees; and whether fuel reduction treatments
are needed in roadless areas.
Arizona Governor Janet Napolitano showed her understanding of the common
ground last week in her announcement that she was seeking federal
emergency funds to remove trees killed by bark beetles and drought. Gov.
Napolitano limited the emergency action plan to areas around
communities, and set a 16-inch diameter limit on tree removal. While the
use of diameter limits is generally opposed by the timber industry and
by some restoration ecologists, when used in this emergency action plan
it is part of a broader negotiation that will allow management of the
beetle killed trees to proceed.
The agreements brokered by Senator Daschle and Gov. Napolitano worked
because they arrived at compromises that were specific to certain
circumstances and forest conditions. For example, environmentalists
agreed to a NEPA exemption in the Black Hills, but strongly opposed the
exemptions when they were included in the Healthy Forests Act.
Similarly, if a diameter cap, as used in Arizona, was proposed in
federal legislation it would probably be very controversial.
A forum for state-specific negotiation over hazardous fuel reduction has
already been created outside of the legislative process. The
Comprehensive Strategy presented by the Western Governor’s Association
to the Secretaries of Interior and Agriculture directs federal, state,
local and tribal governments to set priorities together for hazardous
fuel reduction. The two agencies have joined with the National
Association of State Foresters and National Association of Counties to
outline a collaborative process whereby agencies and stakeholders will
use national criteria to develop lists of priority projects for each
state annually. This process creates ideal conditions for workable
compromises that do not require national policy changes.
The Senate now has the opportunity to change the Healthy Forests Act so
that it builds on the common ground rather than emphasizing the areas of
disagreement. To do so, they may need to narrow the scope of the
legislation to the core area of agreement, and to add safeguards that
will keep the bill from sparking bitter opposition. If the use of the
GAO report by politicians and interest groups is any indication of what
to expect, legislation that strays into the areas of disagreement is
bound to create more polarization and gridlock.
FIRE CHRONICLE is edited by the Forest Trust and written by Laura Falk
McCarthy, Forest Protection Program Director. The Forest Trust welcomes
your comments, stories, and observations about how the National Fire
Plan is being implemented (just send a reply message and it will go to
the list moderator). To subscribe to FIRE CHRONICLE go to
http://www.topica.com/lists/firechronicles/ or send an email message to
lau-@theforesttrust.org.
PAST ISSUES OF FIRE CHRONICLE can be downloaded from
http://www.theforesttrust/forest_protection.html#fire
1. 2002 Fire Plan Appropriations will Benefit from 2001 Experience
2. Wildland-Urban Interface Definition a Barrier to Accountability
3. Stewardship Blocks: Innovative Tool Brings Fire Plan Benefits into
Community
4. Youth Training Needed for Fire Plan to Benefit Local Workforce
5. Grants Get National Fire Plan Money into Communities
6. Collaborative Forest Restoration Program Creates New Solution to
Gridlock
7. Permits Regulate Prescribed Burning on Private Land
8. Accountability Remains a Key Issue for National Fire Plan
9. National Partnership Advances Landscape-Scale Forest Restoration
10. Poor Communities Most Threatened By Wildfire
11. A New Model to Fire-Proof Forest Homes
12. Consensus Over Fuel Reduction Treatment Dissolves
13. Wildland Urban Interface Definition Needed for Effective Policy
14. Funding Gaps Prevent Completion of Hazardous Fuel Reduction
15. Agencies Propose to Streamline Environmental Review for Hazardous
Fuel Reduction Treatments
16. National Fire Plan Provides Economic Opportunity for Rural Residents
17. Bark Beetles Heighten Wildfire Concerns
18. Small And Local Businesses Cite Barriers To Reaching National Fire
Plan Goals
|
|
 |
|
