Posted on 10/25/2007 8:48:17 PM PDT by NormsRevenge
Before the string of blazes that lay siege this week to nearly all of Southern California, even before the historic firestorms of 2003, then-San Bernardino National Forest Supervisor Gene Zimmerman told his bosses in Washington about the problem before him.
The most populous national forest faced a mounting threat of catastrophic fire, and reducing it would cost a lot of money, he said.
On Wednesday, Agriculture Department Undersecretary Mark Rey, the nation's top fire official, said funds meant to restore forests to health have reached record levels in recent years -- and that the San Bernardino National Forest has received proportionately more money than any of the country's 155 national forests.
Yet Zimmerman, along with experts and lawmakers, points to a series of obstacles they believe have hampered more progress:
Funding for the Healthy Forest Restoration Act, unveiled by President Bush in 2003 with much fanfare, remain hundreds of millions of dollars beneath levels authorized in the legislation -- an assertion Rey disputes.
A boost in federal money for tree thinning in the San Bernardino National Forest after the 2003 fires dissipated as more resources were dedicated to the war in Iraq and Katrina relief efforts.
Constraints put on the way some money could be spent kept officials from using it in the most efficient and strategic manner.
At the heart of the quest for federal disaster prevention funding, they say, is a simple, yet frustrating political reality: No one notices the absence of a disaster. Once a fire breaks out, disaster funding comes pouring in. But spending money to prevent one, though expensive, is far less popular.
"There's always competition for federal dollars," Rep. Jerry Lewis said after touring the devastation by helicopter Wednesday. "That's why we have to jump on this now."
A day earlier Lewis, R-Redlands, urged Congress to quickly pass emergency appropriations of up to $1 billion to help pay for firefighting efforts. He said members were receptive.
"The difficult thing is getting people to look at the long term," Lewis said.
Zimmerman knows that fact all too well.
Report Shredded
Five years ago, drought had taken hold in the West, and it unmasked the consequences of a century of misguided fire-suppression policies. Efforts to stop every fire had altered the forests' natural cycle of fire and re-growth, leaving them unnaturally dense with trees.
Lack of rainfall weakened the trees, making them susceptible to attack from bark beetles. The beetles weren't new to the forest, but the abundance of dying trees caused a beetle population explosion, leading to still more tree deaths.
As tree mortality grew exponentially, so did the threat of catastrophic fire.
Zimmerman knew all of these things during a period in 2002 and early 2003 when he forwarded his report to supervisors in the Agriculture Department, which oversees national forests. He knew there would be no easy solution.
He said it would take a lot of money and a lot of time to return the forest to health -- $300 million at $30 million a year for 10 years, to adequately reduce the fire danger facing the tens of thousands of residents in Lake Arrowhead, Big Bear, Idyllwild and other forest communities.
In the months before the October 2003 fires, Zimmerman was told during a conference call to shred the document, he said during an interview this week.
He declined to identify the Agriculture Department official who gave the order but said other Forest Service officials were with him on the call.
"We just looked at each other," Zimmerman said. "We were incredulous."
Rey said he wasn't aware of anyone asking Zimmerman to shred the recommendation. He said shredding it would have been useless "even if we were trying to shove it under the carpet" since Zimmerman had already circulated copies.
Competing Priorities
Zimmerman said he believed Washington felt his plan was "too big a hit on the budget."
He said the administration didn't see it as an investment toward reducing costs in the long run by avoiding expensive fires.
"I suspect they saw it as a bunch of dead trees," Zimmerman said.
People took notice when many of those trees became giant torches during the 2003 fires. Lewis, often joined by U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., was able to help secure in excess of $80 million, above and beyond the regular budget amounts. It included a large portion of a $150 million pot of money for tree removal under the Agriculture Department's Natural Resources Conservation Service.
Zimmerman lauded the Forest Service's intent and competence but said the money was initially limited to cutting only dead trees, which didn't alleviate the threat in wide swaths of forest dangerously crowded with living trees. The effect, he said, was a failure to make the most of the money.
NRCS officials in California could not be reached Wednesday for comment.
While Zimmerman said those funds were considered to be a "down payment" -- an acknowledgment that more was coming, Rey said the funds were never intended to be anything more than individual spending directives.
Forest officials have credited the Lewis money for much of the existing progress. But as new emergencies, particularly Katrina and Iraq, commanded national attention, earmarks for the San Bernardino National Forest dried up.
The Healthy Forest Restoration Act was introduced as the long-term savior for U.S. forests. But some have criticized the administration for not supporting it.
Feinstein's office indicated the $760 million authorized for tree removal was not being provided. Her office's figures show a gradual increase in recent years, with the current level at approximately $525 million per year.
There is no question the effort has been underfunded, Feinstein said. "In virtually every session we have had to fight for additional money -- whether it's in an emergency supplemental or through the regular appropriations process."
Rey disputed those numbers, suggesting that Feinstein neglected to include money spent on forest health apart from that already set aside solely for hazardous fuels treatments. He said more than $900 million -- well over the authorized amount -- was distributed to such projects.
Further, Rey noted that $300 million has been spent on the San Bernardino National Forest since Zimmerman's report. He suggested the former SBNF chief underestimated the cost to return the forest to health.
Tree Removal Working
While this week's Grass Valley Fire northwest of Lake Arrowhead has destroyed more than 100 homes, the devastation could have been worse.
The fire slowed Tuesday as it burned into an area where trees were removed through thinning projects, said Jennifer Smith of the U.S. Forest Service.
The blaze's slowdown, for local officials, is evidence that thinning helps reduce the risk.
San Bernardino County in 2004 embarked on a massive effort to remove dead and dying trees, backed by $70 million in federal grants.
In March, local officials touted the program's success, symbolically removing the one-millionth dead tree near Sky Forest.
Supervisor Dennis Hansberger, who represents the area, said he watched firefighters on Monday having "great success" battling the Grass Valley Fire in the areas where thinning work took place.
Near the Deer Lodge Park, an area north of Grass Valley, Hansberger said the county removed large amounts of manzanita and heavy brush around homes and hillsides.
"The firefighters were in there and saving homes," he said. "It's working."
Ken Larson, a U.S. Forest Service fire behavior analyst, said thinning work can dramatically change how quickly and intensely a wildfire burns.
A fire in a thick forest can jump from one treetop to another, spreading quickly, he said. Where the forest is more thin, the fire moves along the ground and is far easier to fight, he said.
Rich Fairbanks with the Wilderness Society, a conservation group, agrees that thinning projects are important and should be better funded.
But Fairbanks, based in Idyllwild, said forest managers must go one step further and have a "good, solid, aggressive cleanup after the thinning," which would include prescribed burns.
When politicos play with fire and forests, you know who’s gonna get burned.
.....you know who’s gonna get burned.
::::::
Today’s pols are only driven by a lust for power and control, and their greed for YOUR money. They are pretty much blind to any actual need of the people. Our rabid socialists are the epitome of this systemic disease which I had hoped would never capture Washington and local governments. But it has. Their top priority is the aquisition of power, by taking your freedoms, your wealth, and your Constitutional republic. We see it every day, and hear it every day, especially when Hillary and her pinko lackies open their mouths.
So forests, fires, precautions, common sense and sanity? Forget about it. Government now only works FOR the people when there is a disaster that will hurt the flow of revenue into their hands....how long has it been since we have heard anything really positive (for the citizens of America) come out of the Congress or the administration???
They quit working for us a long time ago...
Fire every one of those bureaucrats. They failed miserably.
I thought the main problem was that the WATERMELON’S fight tree thinning tooth and nail.
I can’t believe that wasn’t even mentioned.
How come it costs money to cut and remove the trees? Wouldn’t private enterprise be glad to come in and get all that wood — including chipping the small stuff — if they were allowed to by the environmentalists? Use it or lose it.
I own timber property where local owners manage the forest. Its only when the “public interest” is at stake that nothing economical or practical gets done.
Dr. Bill Wattenburg on forest management
Idiots carping about the need for more taxpayer money for tree thinning to prevent fires.
I remember when loggers PAID for the priviledge to thin trees out of the forest.
I hope all liberal enviro-freaks burn in the hottest circle of hell. I’m so tired of their PC stupidity.
and alot of the general public would pay to take the scraps for firewood... thats what we did 40 years ago up in Oregon, small fee for a yearly permit to cut up down stuff that is prime forest fire fuel nowdays protected by the tree hugging eco-weenies. My Dad heats his house with what dies and comes down naturally on his 10 acres alone.
Fuel buildup is an issue throughout California, not just southern California. (Maps of Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones in California http://www.fire.ca.gov/wildland_zones.php)
In areas such as ours, environmental litigation has paralyzed management of the forests. See Journal of Forestry Forest Land Management Litigation 1989-2002, June 2006, by Denise M. Keele, Robert W. Malmsheimer, Donald W. Floyd, and Jerome E. Perez: http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/saf/jof/2006/00000104/00000004/art00007
“The land management decisions of the USDA Forest Service have been challenged and appealed frequently in federal court, and the agency believes such litigation constrains its professional expertise and frustrates effective forest management. This study provides the first complete picture of Forest Service land management litigation. Previous litigation studies limited their examination to published cases and did not analyze final case outcomes. We document the characteristics and final outcomes of 729 Forest Service management cases filed in federal court from 1989 to 2002. The Forest Service won 57.6% of cases, lost 21.3% of cases, and settled 17.6% of cases. It won 73% of the 575 cases decided by federal judges. Plaintiffs seeking less resource use lost more than half the cases they initiated, and plaintiffs seeking greater resource use lost more than two of every three cases they initiated. Most litigation (1) was for less resource use, (2) was based on the National Environmental Policy Act, and (3) challenged logging projects. The data indicate that the agency is less vulnerable in some types of cases and more vulnerable in others. This study provides policymakers, land managers, and stakeholders with accurate data that can help guide policy debate and choices.”
On August 17, 2001, the Federal Register published a list of urban wildland interface communities within the vicinity of federal lands that are at risk from wildfire. (43384 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 160 / Friday, August 17, 2001 / Notices.) Every town in my county was listed. (These are not new settlements. They have all existed since the Gold Rush.)
The Administration attempted to implement a plan to streamline US Forest Service fuels management called the Healthy Forest Restoration Act. In 2004, 107,882 acres were treated to reduce fuels on federal land in the Southwest, while the south had 1,038,920 acres treated. A GAO study was done on the failure to implement. GAO Audit report on implementation of the President’s Healthy Forest Initiative Report No. 08601-6-AT September 2006 http://www.usda.gov/oig/webdocs/08601-6-AT.pdf
Fuel loads are so high that last spring the Siskiyou County Board of Supervisors declared all the National Forests to pose a dangerous public nuisance. As follows:
RESOLUTION DIRECTING ABATEMENT OF A PUBLIC NUISANCE
WHEREAS, approximately 63% of Siskiyou County’s 6,600 square mile land base is retained as federally managed lands; and
WHEREAS, on August 17, 2001, the Federal Register Vol. 66, number 160, listed the Siskiyou County communities of Big Springs, Callahan, Dorris, Dunsmuir, Etna, Fort Jones, Gazelle, Happy Camp, Hornbrook, Horse Creek, Klamath River, Macdoel, McCloud, Mt. Shasta, Quartz Valley, Sawyers Bar, Scott Bar, Seiad Valley, Somes Bar, Tennant, Weed and Yreka as “Urban Wildland Interface Communities Within the Vicinity of Federal Lands That Are at High Risk From Wildfire”; and
WHEREAS, the Klamath National Forest – a typical Forest located in Siskiyou County, has a standing inventory of 13.5 billion board feet of timber and grows an additional 654 million board feet (MMBF) of timber each year; and
WHEREAS, compared with the year 1989 where 320 MMBF of timber were harvested from the Klamath National Forest, the Northwest Forest Plan reduced the Allowable Sales Quantity on the Klamath to only 440 MMBF over a 10 year period - or approximately 44 MMBF a year; and
WHEREAS, only about 15 MMBF is currently being harvested netting 639 MMBF of additional biomass being added to the Forest each year creating unhealthy forest densities that stress trees, making them more susceptible to pests and disease and aggravating an already dangerously high fuel load; and
WHEREAS, large wildfires have resulted such as in 2006 when the Titus, Hancock, Uncles Complex and Rush fires burned 28,000 acres in Siskiyou County, threatening local communities and costing the federal government more than $12 million to try and contain them until the fall rains and snow could extinguish them; and
WHEREAS, in 2006 more than 16,000 acres burned in the Six Rivers National Forest on the Western edge of Siskiyou County and another 51,000 acres on the Shasta Trinity, south of Siskiyou County;
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Siskiyou County Board of Supervisors finds that the current situation of heavy fuel loading in the Klamath, Shasta-Trinity, Six Rivers, Rogue River-Siskiyou, and Modoc National Forests constitutes a dangerous public nuisance posing a genuine threat to the public safety of communities throughout Siskiyou County; and
THAT THE SISKIYOU COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVIORS DIRECTS the U.S. Department of Agriculture to commence immediate and accelerated efforts to abate this nuisance through comprehensive and widespread hazardous fuel reduction on National Forests throughout Siskiyou County.
This summer, the town of Happy Camp in Siskiyou County (northern California) was evacuated as the 17,684 acre Elk Complex wildfires burned through adjacent National Forest lands. Up-River, the County seat of Yreka was threatened by the 2,906 acre China Back fire burning within 12 miles of town. Well over 20 million dollars was spent in fighting this year’s fires.
But it is a trend. Last summer, the Titus, Hancock, Uncles Complex and Rush fires burned 28,000 acres in Siskiyou County costing $12 million plus. There was one fatality. More than 16,000 acres burned in the Six Rivers National Forest on the Western edge of the County and another 51,000 acres on the Shasta Trinity, south of the County. In Trinity County, the county seat of Weaverville has been evacuated several times as fire threatened. The county is just south of the huge Biscuit fire in southern Oregon.
Nevertheless, Senator Boxer’s proposed California Wild Heritage Act of 2007 would designate as Wilderness large hunks of National Forest lands abutting the occupied Wildland Urban Interface in the western portion of the county. This would eliminate the ability to reduce fuels in these forest areas next to several towns and set residents up for disastrous fires.
These aren't "forests" as people in most of the country conceive of them.
It's commercially worthless Chaparral.
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.