Healthy Forest Action Alert

National Grange ^ | 05/12/2003 | Chil-Sook Hwang

[farmfriend]

Action Alert Updates
The Healthy Forest Restoration Act (HR 1904) Should Be Passed!

05/12/2003

• The Healthy Forest Restoration Act (HR 1904) is an effort to modernize our laws so that we can better protect our water, air and wildlife habitat. Catastrophic fires in recent years have been devastating to air, water and critical habitat and we must stop this trend.
  
• HR 1904 is now expected to be voted on the House Floor this Friday, May 16th. Please contact your U.S. Representative and House Leadership to urge them to support passage of HR 1904!

U.S. House has been working on instituting legislative form to implement President Bush's Healthy Forests Initiative and now HR 1904 is projected to be voted on the House Floor on May 16th.

HR 1904 would empower federal land managers with the needed tools to implement sensible, scientifically supported management practices on overstocked federal forests, while establishing new conservation programs focused on improving water quality and regenerating declining forest ecosystem types on private lands. It seeks to streamline bureaucratic procedures that stymie legitimate management efforts without unduly restricting public participation. Forest management projects would still be subject to rigorous environmental analysis as well as administrative challenges and lawsuits, but the process would be completed in a matter of months rather than years, as now is the case. Tough environmental safeguards in the bill would provide heightened restrictions on management activities in inventoried roadless areas, and old-growth trees would receive additional protection. At the same time, priority would be given to management projects near communities and watersheds.

HR 1904 also would:

1. Give the Forest Service and the BLM discretionary authority to limit analysis during the NEPA-phase to the proposed agency action, meaning the agencies would not be required to analyze and describe a number of different alternatives to the preferred course while codifying the public participation requirements set out in the bipartisan Western Governors Association 10-year wildfire management strategy. Also, the bill would direct the establishment of an alternative administrative review process for the Forest Service, ensuring a more timely airing of administrative challenges. Finally, the bill would require the federal judiciary to periodically renew any preliminary injunctions issued against a project, while directing the Courts to give consideration to the potentially devastating environmental consequences associated with management inaction.

2. Establish two grant programs to encourage energy-related utilization of the otherwise valueless wood, chips, brush, thinnings and slash removed in conjunction with projects on federal forests and rangelands focused on reducing the threat of catastrophic wildfire and insect infestation and disease.

3. Create a Watershed Forestry program to provide financial and technical support needed by private forest landowners to better manage their lands in order to protect water quality, to restore watershed conditions, to improve municipal drinking water supplies, and to address threats to forest health, including catastrophic wildfire.

4. Direct the Department of Agriculture to conduct an accelerated program to plan, conduct, and promote systematic information gathering on certain insect types that have caused large-scale damage to forest ecosystems. Authorize and direct federal land managers to establish early detection programs for insect and disease infestations, with an emphasis on hardwood forests, so that agencies can isolate and treat adverse conditions before they reach epidemic levels.

5. Establish a Healthy Forests Reserve Program, which is a private forestland conservation initiative that would support the establishment of conservation easements (ranging in length from 10-years to permanent with a semi-regular buyout option) on one million acres annually of declining forest ecosystem types that are critical to, amongst other things, the recovery of threatened, endangered and other sensitive species.

For your reference:

National President's letter to President Bush (9/10/02)

National Grange Action Alert on 9/30/02 : The President's Healthy Forests Initiative Should be Supported For Enactment

Action Plan --- Please contact your U.S. Representative and House Leadership to urge them to pass HR 1904.

House Representative | House Leadership

If you have any questions or comments please contact Legislative Research Analyst Chil-Sook Hwang by fax: 202-347-1091 or by phone: 1-888-4GRANGE, ext 109. Thank you for your grassroots participation in the National Grange Legislative program.

[farmfriend]

HR 1904 is projected to be voted on the House Floor on May 16th.

Send you messages now! WE must take action on this.

[farmfriend]

We need to bump this for play.

[forester]

FRom the text of the bill:

5) The United States should--
(A) promote economic and entrepreneurial opportunities in using by-products removed through preventive treatment activities related to hazardous fuels reduction, disease, and insect infestation; and
(B) develop and expand markets for traditionally underused wood and biomass as an outlet for by-products of preventive treatment activities.

Does any one know if this will pass?

[forester]

I see that the USFS must still follow NEPA and the ESA. I see that the USFS appeals process that Senator Leahy (D-VT) screwed up ten years ago is finally getting fixed. I also see that the feds are gonna subsidize biomass to the tune of $20.00 a green ton. Still reading, but looks like a compromise bill..it even has conservation easements for private land that is enrolled in a "forest reserve" program.

CO, how long do you think that this bill will allow the feds to "do the right thing" before an unforeseen section in the NFMA or some other regulatory backwater, allows the greens to shut it down again?

[Carry_Okie]

CO, how long do you think that this bill will allow the feds to "do the right thing" before an unforeseen section in the NFMA or some other regulatory backwater, allows the greens to shut it down again?

My opinion?

It's still-born.

IMO, Congress is fighting the "supreme law of the land," treaties in the hands of Federal judges with an agenda. Unless we turn that gambit inside out in such a way that the RICOnuts can't change the game because their sponsors see the opportunities it contains, nothing will change. That will take a strategy that is both politically and legally integrated.

You know what that means. We'll see if anybody with some clout is smart enough to figure it out.

Check out this little rant and let me know what you think.

[Carry_Okie]

Remember the letter I wrote for madfly when the Rdeo/Chediski Fire went down?

Dear Rep. Flake,

I want to congratulate you on your outrage over the combusted fate of the nation’s forests and your accurate assignment of the cause: radical environmentalists. As a citizen of Arizona I have watched this disaster approach with heartbreaking certainty. Given the experience, one must ask if it is possible for government agencies to do any better, even if we could quell the blizzard of lawsuits? There are several reasons for my skepticism:

First, agencies have no motive to produce a healthy forest, in fact, the worse conditions get, the more Congress will appropriate. Their personnel share economic interests with radical environmentalists because appropriations to manage settlements of lawsuits are non-discretionary. Neither the Forest Service nor the BLM will ever fix the problems because it is not in their interest to do so.

Second, competing political interests for control of forests are both philosophically and economically too contrary for just resolution. A political decision-making system cannot deliver an optimal balance among all the competing claims on the use of a public asset.

Third, forests are too complex for equitable "one size fits all" rules to be possible. It is beyond the technical ability of any managing entity, much less a political process.

Fourth, the power to legislate, administer, and enforce rules is not only an affront to the Constitution, it is too much temptation to corruption for any agency. Timber corporations don’t want the production from National Forests reducing their prices.

Finally, the Constitution does not empower the Federal Government to own land, much less authorize a monopoly in the nature business. The effect is to destroy the economic value of private recreational land use and leads to overuse of our most precious natural assets. Even with public ownership, why should the agencies monopolize operations?

The point is: Where DO we go from here? Can this really be fixed with more laws, rules, study committees, court battles, and appropriations? Isn’t it obvious that the problem is systemic?

There IS a solution, the free-market management system described in: Natural Process: That Environmental Laws May Serve the Laws of Nature (enclosed). Please see the attached reviews and note the variety of interests. This is a REAL answer. Please, read the Preface, Introduction, and Chapter 1 of Parts I, III, and IV. Look at the graphs in Part II (I’ll bet you go back and read it all). It will change the way you see the role of private property rights, land use regulations, and managing nature forever. The author is coming to Arizona in mid-August. Perhaps you would like to meet him or some of your staff. If so, please let me know.

God bless America,

Other than the that first point is needlessly incindiary (which I should have rewritten and relocated), I think the letter quite prescient.

[farmfriend]

bttt

[E.G.C.]

BTTT!!!!!!

[countrydummy]

-----Original Message-----
From: Mail_Resources_Republicans [mailto:Resources.Committee@mail.house.gov]
Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 2003 1:17 PM
To: 'candace@care4mn.org'
Subject:




For Immediate Release

May 12, 2003



Radical Environmental Appeals Add Fuel to Forest Fires

GAO study finds that environmental groups block projects focused on protecting homes and families from the horror of wildfire



Washington, DC - Chairman Richard W. Pombo (R-CA) and members of the House Resources Committee expressed outrage over the findings of a General Accounting Office (GAO) study concluding that 52% of appealable thinning projects proposed near communities were delayed by environmental organization appeals in 2001 and 2002.


The report listed 7 environmental groups responsible for the overwhelming number of administrative appeals against wildfire prevention efforts, a list that includes the Sierra Club, the Wilderness Society, Oregon Natural Resources Council, and the Forest Conservation Council. Overall, the report found that 59% of all appealable wildfire mitigation projects were in fact challenged during the two year period, principally by environmental litigators.


Most startling, however, was the fact that environmental groups are more often than not challenging even those thinning projects focused on saving communities from the horrors of catastrophic wildfire. The finding flies in the face of environmentalist contentions that they support thinning where the purpose is to protect homes and communities.


Not surprising was the fact that most environmental challenges were thrown out as being without merit. Of the 180 wildfire mitigation projects appealed during the studied period, the reviewing officer "reversed" the decisions of a subordinate officer on only 19 occasions (10%). This finding affirms the suspicion of many - namely, that administrative appeals are often frivolous objections by organizations with a philosophical bent against active forest management. Unfortunately, when the threat of wildfire is imminent or a large-scale insect outbreak is underway, a months-long delay during the consideration of an administrative appeal is just as damaging to the Forest Service as a defeat on the merits.


Chairman Richard W. Pombo (R-CA) Statement

"This finding is nothing short of appalling, especially when you think of the catastrophic losses suffered in last year's horrific fire season alone. These were not only losses of forest, endangered species, and wildlife habitat; they were losses of human life and family property.


Fanatics have often been described as people who redouble their efforts after losing sight of their goals. This study's irrefutable statistics prove that the so-called environmental organizations in America have come to embody such a definition. Clearly, these groups are more interested in preserving a political scare tactic than they are in conserving our forests and the environment for future generations.


I hope this study serves as a wake-up call to the American people that radical environmental rhetoric serves a political purpose, not an environmental cause. This Congress is about to debate a bill that uses sound science, common sense, and 21st Century technology to bring our forests back to good health. It will help prevent the catastrophic fires that devastate our environment and our communities in a comprehensive, balanced fashion.


As we approach the start of yet another fire season, I call on these organizations to focus on the goal, stop appealing projects designed to protect communities, and help us pass a law that is so desperately needed."


Congressman Scott McInnis (R-CO) Statement

"After all of the environmental spin about focusing projects on protecting communities, now we find that environmental groups are aggressively challenging community protection projects too. Actions speak louder than words. If we can't thin over stocked forests to protect homes, where, I wonder, can we?"


Congressman Rick Renzi (R-AZ) Statement

"As the dry summer season approaches and fire risks reach extreme levels, the endless appeals to Forest Service hazardous fuel reduction projects endanger residents and their property in rural Arizona. Local communities, who have been blocked in their efforts to thin urban interface areas, have even gone so far as to ask the Governor to declare their forests Federal disaster areas to bypass the appeals obstacle. The Healthy Forests Restoration Act will mitigate these issues and streamline the appeals process, helping to protect and preserve our Forests."


Congressman Jim Gibbons (R-NV) Statement

"This GAO report is yet more evidence that we need sensible forest management policies...although watching millions of acres of our precious forests turned into charcoal last year should have been evidence enough. No one wants to clear cut our forests. On the contrary, what we want to do is to protect them from devastating fires. The bottom line is, as the GAO states, the legal hurdles and delays caused by radical environmental groups are endangering our forests as well as our communities, property, and ecosystems. It is time to pass the Healthy Forests bill to protect our forests and communities from wildfire now, before millions more acres burn."


Congressman Devin Nunes (R-CA) Statement

"This report illustrates how some radical environmental groups are actually endangering our treasured forests and delicate ecosystems by hampering reasonable efforts to reduce the occurrence of catastrophic wildfires," "We saw this at work in my own district last year as the McNally wildfire tore through 150,000 acres of Sequoia and Inyo National Forests and threatened several groves of ancient, giant sequoias."


Congressman Ken Calvert (R-CA) Statement

"In 1993 the Winchester fire devastated communities in my district because of bad rules on managing our forests. My district now faces similar circumstances as insect infestation is killing trees and another dry season is upon us. Now, more than ever, we need the Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003 in order to protect both our forests and communities."

Congressman Denny Rehberg (R-MT) Statement

"Local forests cannot be managed from a courtroom. We need to suppress the litigious fires if we want to protect communities from wildfires."


Congressman Tom Tancredo (R-CO) Statement

"The GAO report confirms what those of us in Colorado have known for a long time; that the frivolous appeals of so-called environmental groups are one of the primary impediments to restoring the health of our ailing National Forests and protecting at-risk communities. This study underscores how cumbersome the current Forest Services bureaucratic gridlock truly is, and refutes once and for all the meritless arguments of those who would have us believe that there is nothing wrong with the status quo."




# # #

[asneditor]

bttt

[Carry_Okie]

This finding affirms the suspicion of many - namely, that administrative appeals are often frivolous objections by organizations with a philosophical bent against active forest management.

That's a charitable assessment, but it's dead wrong. There are plenty of activists who are absolutely committed to destroying those rural communities. They are willing to lie, cheat, or commit arson to get it done. If this measure passes, look for terrorist fires before the thinning can be accomplished.

[farmfriend]

Thanks for the bump.

[farmfriend]

ping

[countrydummy]

I am sure you are right. Got an email from a friend that snoops on the Center for Biological Diversity........they are scared to death this bill is going to pass and calling for mass call ins this week to try and stop it, course I am doing my own calling! :-)

[Carry_Okie]

I am sure you are right. Got an email from a friend that snoops on the Center for Biological Diversity........they are scared to death this bill is going to pass and calling for mass call ins this week to try and stop it...

If they can't stop the thinning the money dries up.

[farmfriend]

bttt

[farmfriend]

Calling all of the Sacramento people to action. Your phone calls are needed.

[farmfriend]

I don't know if the chapter leaders can help with this or not. I would like them to use ping lists if they have them.

[farmfriend]

Does any one know if this will pass?

The powers that be got out their crystal ball and predict that this will pass the House but the numbers need to be driven up for better passage in the Senate.