Senate Considers Revised Forest Thinning Bill

By J.R. Pegg

WASHINGTON, DC, October 29, 2003 (ENS) - With news of the wildfires ravaging Southern California at the center of discussion, the U.S. Senate today agreed to consider a modified version of the Bush administration's forest thinning plan. Environmentalists say the revised bill is not much better than the Bush plan and will do little now - or in the future - to address the threat of wildfires, but supporters say it reflects a reasonable compromise on a contentious issue.

"It is not exactly the plan I would have crafted, but we can not allow the perfect to be the enemy of the good," said Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle, a South Dakota Democrat. "As we see today in California, the risks of delay are too high."

The revisions to the bill were developed by a bipartisan coalition of 10 Western Senators and were passed as a single amendment today by a vote of 97 to 1. The Senate plans to vote on the final bill Thursday.

The legislation seeks to expedite forest thinning projects on some 20 million acres of federal land considered most at risk from wildfire and runs in tandem with several administrative rules proposed by the Bush administration to streamline the removal of trees and underbrush from public lands.

Critics worry the vagueness of the bill and the broad authority it grants federal agencies will encourage logging of valuable timber, not the underbrush most in need of clearing.

Not true, said Senator Dianne Feinstein, a California Democrat and cosponsor of the substitute.

"This legislation is not a logging bill," Feinstein said. "This is pro environment legislation."

Some supporters of the bill say environmentalists are a major reason why the nation's forests have been poorly managed. (Photo courtesy Forest Service)

The remainder would fund projects in municipal watersheds or endangered species habitat, or areas that have suffered from serious wind damage or insect infestations.

Senator Mike Crapo, an Idaho Republican, defended this language.

"Much of the problem exists out in the forest, away from the wildland urban interface," said Crapo. "We are seeing in California right now what high winds and geography can do."

There is another key difference from the House bill, Feinstein said.

"[This bill] provides the first statutory protection for old growth stands and large trees in the nation," said the California Democrat.

Language in the Senate version would require that some old growth trees be protected from logging immediately and mandates that forest plans that are more than 10 years old and most in need of updating would be revised to protect old growth within 2 to 3 years.

The Senate bill does contain controversial provisions of the Bush plan and the House bill to expedite forest thing projects by placing limits on judicial and environmental reviews. These limits under consideration by the Senate are not as tight as under the House bill and supporters defended the restrictions.

The new language "assures that the public will always be in the debate," said Senator Ron Wyden, an Oregon Democrat and cosponsor of the substitute.

California Democrat Dianne Feinstein held craft the revised bill several weeks ago, before her state got hit with catastrophic wildfires. (Photo courtesy Office of the Senator)

Wyden urged his colleagues to support the revised bill and said the Senate "can not accept an unraveling of this compromise" - sentiment shared by many Republicans.

"Many of us on the Republican side would have crafted something that goes further than this legislation," said Senator Gordon Smith, an Oregon Republican. "If we hold to the deal, we will hold to the deal in conference."

The California fires are only the latest backdrop for the debate over how to reduce the threat of wildfires.

Last year some seven million acres went up in flames and the federal government spent some $1.6 billion to fight fires across 15 states. This year, some 3.5 million acres have burned and more than $1 billion has been spent.

The problem is one the federal government has a large responsibility for - wildfires were aggressively suppressed throughout the past century, allowing mass accumulation of undergrowth that is a key fuel for wildfires.

This was compounded by areas that have been clear cut and replaced with closely spaced and highly flammable timber.

As a result, some 190 million acres of public land are believed to need treatment for drought, insect infestation and potential fire. Last year the U.S. Forest Service and Interior Department treated some two million acres.

But the problem is not just on federal lands, and critics say the revised bill fails to direct limited resources to protect communities in the wild land urban interface.

Iowa Democratic Senator Tom Harkin said the definition of community is loose enough to mean that "land miles away from homes and structures could qualify."

The old growth language contains "numerous exceptions so large that ancient trees around before the start of our country could be logged," said Harkin, who added that the bill does not adequately protect from logging in national parks and needs tighter limits on the size of trees removed under the guise of hazardous fuels reduction.

"Logging is part of what created the fire conditions this bill is supposed to address," Harkin said.

Over the past decade, an average of 4 million acres have burned each year. (Photo courtesy Forest Service)

The bill fails to take aim at the "harmful practice" of the U.S. Forest Service and the Interior Department to borrow from funds earmarked for forest thinning projects to pay for fire fighting efforts, Bingaman said.

"Lack of funding continues to constrain our management efforts," Bingaman said.

Debate on the bill will continue Thursday, with Democrats set to offer several additional amendments.

"I want to make sure this is healthy forests bill and not something else," said Senator Barbara Boxer, a California Democrat.

The White House has not officially said it would support the Senate bill, although several senators alluded to such support during today's debate. An official with the American Forest and Paper Association (AFPA) said timber interests believe the revised legislation is better than another failed bill.

"It is absolutely vital that a bill be passed this year," said Michael Klein, spokesman for the AFPA, which represents more than 200 companies and related forest, paper and wood associations. "Our interest is seeing something happen."

Klein says the industry is keen to see the federal government improve the management of public lands so as to minimize the negative impacts on adjacent private lands.

"Our interest as an industry is not one of financial gain or access to harvest trees in the national forests," he told ENS. "It has never been that."