Posted on 10/30/2003 8:01:06 AM PST by azkathy
This is a good summation of action so far on the Senate deliberations of the Healthy Forests Restoration Act.
FORESTS Senate accepts compromise forest-thinning language, 97-1
Dan Berman, Environment & Energy Daily reporter
As devastating wildfires continue to smolder in Southern California, the Senate today moved to the brink of passing H.R. 1904, the "Healthy Forests Restoration Act," with an overwhelming 97-1 vote to approve a compromise forest-thinning amendment.
The compromise amendment is expected to break a Senate impasse on the legislation, replacing Title I of a companion House-passed bill with language that protects old-growth forests in exchange for restrictions on appeals of logging projects. The compromise is meant to protect forests and communities from catastrophic wildfires.
Unlike the House bill, the Senate compromise would avoid using proceeds from timber sales to pay for fuel reduction projects by authorizing $760 million annually, with a requirement that at least half of those funds be used in wildland-urban border areas near residential communities. The remaining funds would go towards thinning in watershed areas, endangered species habitat or areas damaged by insect infestation.
Sen. Jack Reed (D-R.I.) was the only senator to vote against the compromise.
Senators are expected to consider other amendments to the bill into the evening. Led by Sens. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) and Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M.), possible amendments to the bill include those covering language such as judicial review, wildland-urban interface and fuel-reduction funding.
Though there is no schedule for final approval of the bill, final votes are expected tonight.
White House support
The Bush administration today repeated its strong support for the compromise language but issued a statement of administration policy (SAP) opposing any further amendments, "to assure quick resolution with the House."
H.R. 1904 "would further equip federal land managers with the additional tools they need to restore forest health, safeguard habitat and watersheds, combat disease and insects, and protect lives and communities," the SAP states.
The compromise amendment was endorsed by Senate Agriculture Committee Chairman Thad Cochran (R-Miss.), Forestry Subcommittee Chairman Michael Crapo (R-Idaho), Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle (D-S.D.), Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) and Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), among others.
Environmentalists have opposed both the House bill and the Senate compromise language, saying the "Healthy Forests" effort is an attempt to subsidize logging of national forests and undercut national environmental laws.
Supporters of the Senate compromise say it improves on the House language by mandating that 50 percent of all fuel-reduction projects take place in the wildland-urban interface and providing the first federal statutory protections of old-growth forests.
Regulatory changes in the House-passed bill would limit alternatives that can be studied under required National Environmental Policy Act assessments, streamline the appeals process, and increase the use of categorical exclusions that allow agencies to bypass the study process altogether. Supporters say the NEPA rules and lawsuits by environmental groups slow down needed thinning projects.
"Citizens have a right to access on timber sales, but they don't have a constitutional right to a five-year delay," Wyden said.
The House bill would give federal judges 45 days to review preliminary injunctions against logging projects, while the Senate compromise would grant 60 days, as well as remove a provision requiring judges to give weight to findings by the Interior or Agriculture departments when making decisions.
"The bottom line is this compromise will allow the Forest Service to spend more time doing on-the-ground fuel reduction projects," Daschle said.
What does it take to convince a Democrat that they are thee problem.
Who'd have thunk it?
That's because they didn't support his amendment to thin nightclubs that have Great White Concerts. < /sarcasm>
Who'd have thunk it?
Worth noting: the SoCal fires have burned an area nearly as large as his pissant state. What would be his tune if his whole state had been leveled.
I won't make a generalization like "old growth is the problem," since I view such things on an individual case basis, but I would say that many old growth forests are at risk largely due to accumulations of undergrowth.
My understanding is that the HFI was largely written by the Wilderness Society. IMHO, when considering the magnitude of our nation's forestry problems, it's stupid, it's expensive, it's bureaucratic, it's too little, and too late... but it is a start. At least they have acknowledged that there is a problem. They don't understand the causes much less the solutions. I think the longer term is much more serious than we realize.
I've stayed out of the day to day fire stuff because I find most people's understanding of what needs to be done so upsetting. I have put up one little rant you might find useful. Have you dug very far into the book?
Let me know if you wish to be added or removed from this list.
I don't get offended if you want to be removed.
For real time political chat - Radio Free Republic chat room
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.