• printer friendly
• mail this article
• iPod format
• digg

Photo

President Bush, center, with San Diego County Supervisor Dianne Jacob, right, and Federal Emergen

As wildfires torched California, advocates of President George Bush’s “Healthy Forest Initiative” renewed calls for tree-thinning measures designed to help prevent damaging forest fires. The House of Representatives and Senate recently passed bills that would lead to thinning by revising U.S. forest policy to make it easier for logging on public land. Bush has indicated support for the bills, whose provisions mirror those in the president’s initiative. Others remain concerned. UCLA ecologist Philip Rundel said the bills’ provisions could harm the environment. Sean Hecht, director of the UCLA Environmental Law Center, said they significantly reduce the role of public input on environmental law issues. Furthermore, there are still questions about whether either version of the bill would do an effective job at preventing huge fires like those in Southern California in late October. No one denies those fires’ devastation: They scorched 750,000 acres of earth, destroyed 3,400 homes, and left 22 dead. Firefighters combatting the flames said it was like fighting a war. Though external factors like a dry summer and untimely winds played roles in the destruction, most agree that something needs to be done.

How forests burn After thousands of years of evolution, California’s forests are meant to burn. Fire is an important part of the development of forest ecosystems. Under natural conditions, fires stay relatively low and cool, burning off underbrush and shrubbery, but not climbing into the crowns of big trees. After the brush is cleared away, open ground space provides opportunities for new trees to grow. For years, such fires swept through California forests regularly, leaving a “mosaic of different-aged trees,” as Rundel put it. Once people started fighting fires, the cycles were disrupted. When fires are prevented from burning naturally, brush – fuel for the fires – builds up. Then, when fires do occur, they burn hot and high. Flames that would crawl along the forest floor burst into tall trees. They spread through forests left denser than they would otherwise be if past fires had been left to burn. Whether the purpose is to prevent crippling fires or to restore natural ecology, the goal is not to stop fire, but to restore a normal cycle, Rundel said. One way this can be done is through preventative or prescribed burnings – human-created and controlled fires. This method has worked well in national parks, Rundel said. But such burnings are costly and can be potentially dangerous when performed near residential areas. Manual thinning – physical removal of trees and brush – seems to be the only other option. Again, people across the political spectrum and with different degrees of ecological concern can agree that some manual thinning is appropriate. But problems arise when the specific questions are considered. Is it acceptable to thin in old growth forests? What size trees should be removed? What incentives should the government give private companies to thin? These questions were addressed by Bush after he took office.

A “Healthy Forest” Plan In Central Point, Ore., in August of 2002, Bush unveiled a plan. 2002 was one of the worst wildfire years in recorded history, and Bush proposed easing restrictions affecting the management of national forests. He condemned “endless litigation” and “red tape,” according to a CNN account of when he unveiled his policy. Bush’s initiative was roundly opposed by environmental groups who said it would make it too easy to thin in environmentally pristine areas. Many viewed the initiative as a façade – a way to provide giveaways to logging interests in the name of fire protection. But the president has not shied from traveling to sites of wildfires to push his agenda. In August 2003, he visited a fire-ravaged town in Arizona, calling for the Senate to pass a bill that included many of the ideas set forth in the Healthy Forest Initiative. The fires in California also gave Bush a chance to call for quick implementation of new fire policy. Now, two separate bills have passed through the two houses of Congress. If the House and Senate can come to terms and pass one bill, Bush has indicated he’d sign it. And that leaves many people worried. Rundel said that while the bills are called fire prevention packages, they do “a lot more than that.” The bills do not provide enough protection for environmentally precious forests, even parts far away from residential areas, Rundel said. The shift in policy would mean U.S. Forest Service managers could approve large-scale thinning projects. If projects are deemed essential for wildfire protection, they would be nearly immune from judicial and administrative review. This concerns Hecht, who said the bills would work to limit citizen review and public input. While acknowledging the necessity to move quickly to prevent major forest fires, Hecht still said the limitations on such input does “more harm than good.” He cited a study released this year by the U.S. General Accounting Office. The study found that more than 95 percent of the “fuel reduction projects” reviewed by the GAO were ready to be implemented within the standard, 90-day litigation period. Also, of the projects that were challenged in court or administratively, a good portion were canceled – a sign to Hecht that public input and thorough review of thinning projects is not a bad thing. Both Rundel and Hecht said the Senate bill is less harmful than the House bill. The Senate bill, which was proposed by Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., includes some provisions to protect old-growth areas and restricts the judicial review immunity. “The Senate bill tones it down a bit,” Hecht said. “It’s better,” Rundel said of the Senate bill. “It’s still not acceptable ecologically.”

Stopping fire devastation Especially after October’s fires, many people feel that preventing major fires from tearing through communities is more important than protecting ecosystems and biodiversity. After the Senate bill passed, Agriculture Secretary Ann Veneman and Secretary of the Interior Gail Norton released a statement commending bipartisan work to prevent fires. “The legislation is needed to help the land management agencies decrease the wildland fire risk to communities,” the statement said. When it seemed partisan interests would slow a compromise on the Senate and House bills from reaching the president’s desk, Feinstein, along with Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., released a statement urging better cooperation to allow “federal land agencies to undertake badly needed fire reduction activities.” But Rundel and others have doubts. When asked if the bills do much to prevent fires, Rundel said, “Yes and no.” The bills do little to specifically address the forest areas near communities, he said. Though Bush has widely increased spending on wildland fuel reduction projects, environmentalists have decried what they see as a failure to put up enough funds to thin areas that may not be commercially advantageous for private companies to log. Rundel said doing so – instead of continuing to spend money fighting fires – would be economically smart in the long-run.

With reports from Daily Bruin wire services.