J
John
Guest
Bush's "healthy forest" scam in the senate now, please commentFRIGGIN POLITICS AGAIN!
"Gallatin" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
WWW.congress.org all it takes is an email or quick phone call.
Bush's "healthy forests" plan is now in the Senate, after already passing the House. This plan is nothing but a giveaway to the resource extraction industry on public lands. It does nothing to protect homes and property around communities.
Here is Trout Unlimited's view of the plan:
http://www.tu.org/sample_pages/press_release-current.asp?pr_id=2001011893
Statement of Trout Unlimited on the Administration's "Healthy Forest" Legislative Proposal
Contact:
Chris Wood
Director of Watershed Programs
TU
703-284-9403
9/9/2002 -- Arlington, Virginia -- Trout Unlimited (TU), North America's largest trout and salmon resource conservation organization, opposes a bill proposal provided by Secretaries Veneman and Norton to the House Resources Committee on September 5, 2002.
The proposal would exempt timber-thinning projects on public lands from the public disclosure, public comment, and environmental analysis requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act. It would exempt agency decisions from citizen appeals. The proposal would enable the Forest Service to retain timber receipts from thinning projects, shielding them from congressional oversight as exercised through the appropriation's process. In addition it would exempt Forest Service decisions from judicial review and oversight.
National Forests contain one-half of the nation's blue-ribbon trout streams. Trout Unlimited believes that, although corrective action needs to be taken to address the legacy of fire suppression and past timber and grazing management on National Forests, the proposed bill would increase, not diminish, controversy over public lands.
The proposed bill is a classic example of a top-down approach that will allow the Forest Service to do whatever it wants without any input from local residents and others concerned about healthy forests. TU members devote hundreds of thousands of volunteer hours every year to restore watersheds and improve fisheries, many on National Forests and BLM lands. They also devote large amounts of time to other issues related to management of our National Forests. The proposed bill will cut them and the rest of the public out of critical decisions.
The bill's exemption of certain projects from any form of judicial review under NEPA and other statutes is also unacceptable. Essentially, this exemption sends the message that, in making certain decisions, the Forest Service does not have to play by the rules.
The Forest Service manages public lands in trust for the American people. That trust is compromised or broken when the agency seeks to shield itself from public involvement and review of agency decisions. The Forest Service and BLM ought to be seeking ways to more effectively engage people in land management - not seek legislative methods of cutting them out.
###
website to get your Senator's contact information:
www.congress.org
Whats even more amusing is the House still passed the plan even after this study by the GAO (non-partisan investigative arm of congress). The Bush plan is based on "c a clogged system of delays and paperwork that makes fire projects 'impossible' to do".
The GAO report shows these comments are basically lies. Only a tiny percentage of fire projects were delayed. The plan does nothing to protect homes or communities. In fact it's just another Bush giveaway to resource extraction industries on your public lands. You will lose your right to appeal, your right for your comments to have wieght concerning YOUR lands, you will lose endangered species protection, the environmental review process and judicial oversight of projects. It's an utter and complete scam and rip-off of your public lands. You cant find one single scientific report or note to support it. It's ideology , not science.
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2003/05/15/MN272143.DTL&type=printable
Washington -- Few forest thinning projects have been stalled by citizen appeals, a new government report has found, undermining the main argument on behalf of President Bush's "Healthy Forests" plan just days before the House of Representatives is scheduled to vote on it.
Although environmentalists and others objected to some logging and brush- clearing projects, the General Accounting Office report released Wednesday concluded the Forest Service was able to proceed on 95 percent of its wildfire protection projects within 90 days or less.
The study "makes clear that the vast majority of forest thinning projects that have taken place during the last couple years were undertaken without any major delay," said Sen. Jeff Bingaman, D-N.M., one of the lawmakers who requested the study.
The GAO report found that more than three-quarters of the 762 wildfire protection projects proposed by the Forest Service during the past two years were never challenged by administrative appeals. Only 3 percent of the projects were litigated, the GAO reported.
The "Healthy Forests" measure scheduled for House action next week would limit environmental review, administrative appeals and court challenges on logging and brush-clearing projects to reduce the threat of wildfires. The measure would affect 20 million acres of federal forests, mostly in California and the West.
Bush launched his plan after last summer's devastating wildfires burned more than 7 million acres of public and private land in the West. In California, more than 500,000 acres of public land were scorched.
Republicans argue that endless administrative appeals and court challenges by environmentalists have slowed efforts to thin the dense underbrush and thick stands of forests that have developed after a century of fire suppression. Forest Service Chief Dale Bosworth has said the current rules have fostered an "analysis paralysis" where agency workers spent most of their time planning projects and little time doing them.
'CATEGORICAL EXCLUSIONS'
But the GAO report found that the Forest Service accomplished most of projects under "categorical exclusions," which do not require in-depth environmental review and are exempt from appeals. Nearly 60 percent of the agency's projects were carried out under categorical exclusions.
Of the remaining 305 projects, 180 were challenged, mostly by environmental groups. House Republicans seized on the figure Wednesday, saying it meant that 59 percent of "appealable" projects were challenged by groups such as the Sierra Club and the Wilderness Society.
"This finding is nothing short of appalling, especially when you think of the catastrophic losses suffered in last year's horrific fire season alone," said Rep. Richard Pombo, R-Tracy, chairman of the House Resources Committee, which approved the Healthy Forests legislation last month by a 32-17 vote.
Pombo noted that the study found Forest Service supervisors reviewing appeals reversed their decisions in only 10 percent of cases -- a signal that most appeals by environmentalists are frivolous, he said.
"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," Pombo said.
'FUZZY MATH'
But environmentalists accused the measure's backers of "fuzzy math." Of the 180 appealed projects, 79 percent were processed within the standard 90-day review period -- a sign that the appeals process does not lead to endless delays or prevent legitimate fuels reduction work.
"It really vindicates what the science tells us and the fact that conservationists are not obstructing real community protection efforts," said Sierra Club President Jennifer Ferenstein.
Environmentalists said the "Healthy Forests" legislation is less about addressing the wildfire threat than about weakening the 1970 National Environmental Policy Act, which requires the Forest Service and other agencies to assess the environmental impact of their decisions and allows the public a chance to comment on -- and sometimes appeal -- those decisions.
Conservation groups have used those rights to repeatedly challenge projects they believe are commercial logging in the guise of wildfire protection. The GAO report found that a small number of groups was responsible for most of the challenges. Seven groups filed at least 20 administrative appeals: the Alliance for Wild Rockies, Ecology Center, Forest Conservation Council, Lands Council, National Forest Protection Alliance, Oregon Natural Resources Council and the Sierra Club.
FEW COURT CHALLENGES
But the study also found that conservation groups used court challenges in only a small number of cases -- 23 out of the 762 proposed projects. Five of the lawsuits led to settlements, three ended in courts blocking Forest Service projects, and the agency's plan was upheld in one case. The other cases are still in litigation.
Bingaman acknowledged that opposing sides in the forest debate were entrenched in their positions and that it's unlikely the report would shift their views.
"I don't know if it will change any minds on the Republican side," he said, but added, "I think it does make the case that the Forest Service has done a lot in the way of fuels reduction . . . and their ability to do more is clearly there."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
E-mail Zachary Coile at [email protected].
WILDFIRE PROTECTION
Total logging and brush-clearing projects proposed by the Forest Service
nationwide and in California during 2001 and 2002, according to a General
Accounting Office report released Wednesday. The projects were proposed as
wildfire protection measures.
National California
Number of projects 762 131
Number of acres considered for treatment 4.7 million 218,759
Number of projects subject to appeal 305 57
Number of appeals 180 39
Number litigated 23 4
Source: Associated Press, General Accounting Office
Chronicle Graphic
---------------------------
Probe: Most Forest Projects Not Delayed
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A55581-2003May14?language=printer
By ROBERT GEHRKE
The Associated Press
Wednesday, May 14, 2003; 4:02 PM
WASHINGTON - Few projects to reduce wildfire threats were long delayed because of environmental challenges, congressional auditors say. The conclusion runs counter to the case the Bush administration and Republicans in Congress have made for scaling back studies and appeals.
The General Accounting Office found that three-fourths of the 762 Forest Service projects to cut wildfire risk in the past two years went ahead without any challenge. That allowed treatment such as logging or controlled burning on 3.8 million acres of national forests.
Projects that were challenged by environmental groups or other parties generally move ahead within 90 days, according to the report by the investigative arm of Congress.
The House is getting ready to consider legislation aimed at speeding up efforts to reduce trees and brush from overgrown forests. The bill by Rep. Scott McInnis, R-Colo., would streamline environmental studies and limit appeals on as many as 20 million acres.
The administration is rewriting rules that would make it easier to conduct forest treatments.
Sen. Jeff Bingaman, D-N.M., said the report shows such changes are not needed.
"A comprehensive reading of the report makes it clear that the vast majority of forest-thinning projects move ahead without delay," he said.
Republicans note that the bulk of the forest projects were exempt from appeals, and 59 percent of those that could be appealed were challenged, delaying projects to treat 900,000 acres of forestland. They also noted that a 90-day delay can make the difference when the threat of wildfire is imminent.
"This finding is nothing short of appalling, especially when you think of the catastrophic losses suffered in last year's horrific fire season alone," said House Resources Committee Chairman Richard Pombo, R-Calif. "These were not only losses of forest, endangered species and wildlife habitat, they were losses of human life and family property."
Republicans also stressed that appeals were filed in 18 percent of the projects meant to reduce the risk of fire to homes near national forests - areas all sides say should be a top priority. Fifty-two percent of such projects not exempt from appeals were challenged.
"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," McInnis said.
A Forest Service report last summer said almost half of treatment projects were appealed. It blamed environmental groups for the delays.
Huge fires in Arizona and Colorado burned forests where portions of projects meant to reduce the fire threat were tied up in appeals.
A century of aggressive fire suppression has left forests thick with brush and small trees that have put 40 million acres at risk for wildfires. More than 7 million acres across the West burned in the second-worst fire season in 50 years.
Most agree excess trees need to be cut down or areas burned in controlled situations.
Mike Francis of the Wilderness Society said the GAO figures show "the democratic process is working."
The GAO looked at 762 planned projects on 4.7 million acres of national forests. Sixty percent of those projects had no environmental studies that could be appealed. Of the remaining 305 projects that could be appealed, 180 were challenged.
Most were resolved within the Forest Service's required 90-day time frame, but 39 took longer because of staff shortages, a backlog of appeals, or to give the parties time to negotiate a resolution.
And 133 of the 180 appealed projects went ahead without change, while 16 proceeded with some modifications, and 19 were blocked. Twelve others were withdrawn by the Forest Service.
The GAO noted that the Forest Service chief can go ahead with treatment despite appeals if the project is deemed an emergency. The Forest Service did not use the exemption in the two years studied.
The study also said that just 23 of the 762 projects were challenged in court - 3 percent of the overall number. McInnis' legislation includes direction to judges and deadlines the court must meet when it is considering challenges to forest thinning projects to prevent the cases from bogging down.
-------------------
osted 5/14/2003 10:54 PM
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2003-05-14-wildfires-usat_x.htm
Report Appeals delay few wildfire projects
By Tom Kenworthy, USA TODAY
DENVER - An authoritative new study may take some of the steam out of the push to weaken environmental laws in an effort to help reduce the threat of Western wildfires.
The report by the General Accounting Office, the investigative arm of Congress, says that only a small number of projects to remove brush and other fuels from public forests are delayed by administrative appeals by environmentalists and others. That finding could undercut the rationale behind legislation favored by President Bush and Western Republicans that would limit the public's right to appeal fuel-reduction projects that employ mechanical methods of clearing fuel and deliberately set, controlled fires.
Bush administration officials have said that red tape has blocked speedy completion of thinning projects and that delays brought on by environmentalists' appeals have contributed to a growing epidemic of wildfires that burned 7 million acres last year.
The study found that in 2001 and 2002, all but 38 of 762 thinning projects proceeded in a timely fashion, generally within 90 days. Fuel treatments thus proceeded quickly on about 3.8 million acres.
More than half of the 762 projects - those with insignificant environmental effects - were not subject to appeals under a section of law that permits a broad exclusion. Nearly 60% of the remaining projects were challenged, but most still began on time.
Sen. Jeff Bingaman, D-N.M., who opposes limiting appeals, said the report "makes it clear the vast majority of forest thinning projects ... were undertaken without any major delay."
Republicans in Congress drew a different conclusion. They argued in a House Resources Committee analysis of the GAO report that because appeals were filed on a million acres worth of projects, they "constitute a significant impediment" to fighting wildfires.
Legislation introduced by Reps. Scott McInnis, R-Colo., and Greg Walden, R-Ore., would speed thinning of 20 million acres of federal land, in part by limiting lawsuits and appeals. It has not been scheduled for a vote yet by the full House of Representatives.
On a separate track, the Bush administration has moved forward with new administrative procedures to accomplish many of the same objectives
________________________________________________
You Rock! So should your E-mail. Sign up at Rock.com!
"Gallatin" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
WWW.congress.org all it takes is an email or quick phone call.
Bush's "healthy forests" plan is now in the Senate, after already passing the House. This plan is nothing but a giveaway to the resource extraction industry on public lands. It does nothing to protect homes and property around communities.
Here is Trout Unlimited's view of the plan:
http://www.tu.org/sample_pages/press_release-current.asp?pr_id=2001011893
Statement of Trout Unlimited on the Administration's "Healthy Forest" Legislative Proposal
Contact:
Chris Wood
Director of Watershed Programs
TU
703-284-9403
9/9/2002 -- Arlington, Virginia -- Trout Unlimited (TU), North America's largest trout and salmon resource conservation organization, opposes a bill proposal provided by Secretaries Veneman and Norton to the House Resources Committee on September 5, 2002.
The proposal would exempt timber-thinning projects on public lands from the public disclosure, public comment, and environmental analysis requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act. It would exempt agency decisions from citizen appeals. The proposal would enable the Forest Service to retain timber receipts from thinning projects, shielding them from congressional oversight as exercised through the appropriation's process. In addition it would exempt Forest Service decisions from judicial review and oversight.
National Forests contain one-half of the nation's blue-ribbon trout streams. Trout Unlimited believes that, although corrective action needs to be taken to address the legacy of fire suppression and past timber and grazing management on National Forests, the proposed bill would increase, not diminish, controversy over public lands.
The proposed bill is a classic example of a top-down approach that will allow the Forest Service to do whatever it wants without any input from local residents and others concerned about healthy forests. TU members devote hundreds of thousands of volunteer hours every year to restore watersheds and improve fisheries, many on National Forests and BLM lands. They also devote large amounts of time to other issues related to management of our National Forests. The proposed bill will cut them and the rest of the public out of critical decisions.
The bill's exemption of certain projects from any form of judicial review under NEPA and other statutes is also unacceptable. Essentially, this exemption sends the message that, in making certain decisions, the Forest Service does not have to play by the rules.
The Forest Service manages public lands in trust for the American people. That trust is compromised or broken when the agency seeks to shield itself from public involvement and review of agency decisions. The Forest Service and BLM ought to be seeking ways to more effectively engage people in land management - not seek legislative methods of cutting them out.
###
website to get your Senator's contact information:
www.congress.org
Whats even more amusing is the House still passed the plan even after this study by the GAO (non-partisan investigative arm of congress). The Bush plan is based on "c a clogged system of delays and paperwork that makes fire projects 'impossible' to do".
The GAO report shows these comments are basically lies. Only a tiny percentage of fire projects were delayed. The plan does nothing to protect homes or communities. In fact it's just another Bush giveaway to resource extraction industries on your public lands. You will lose your right to appeal, your right for your comments to have wieght concerning YOUR lands, you will lose endangered species protection, the environmental review process and judicial oversight of projects. It's an utter and complete scam and rip-off of your public lands. You cant find one single scientific report or note to support it. It's ideology , not science.
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2003/05/15/MN272143.DTL&type=printable
Washington -- Few forest thinning projects have been stalled by citizen appeals, a new government report has found, undermining the main argument on behalf of President Bush's "Healthy Forests" plan just days before the House of Representatives is scheduled to vote on it.
Although environmentalists and others objected to some logging and brush- clearing projects, the General Accounting Office report released Wednesday concluded the Forest Service was able to proceed on 95 percent of its wildfire protection projects within 90 days or less.
The study "makes clear that the vast majority of forest thinning projects that have taken place during the last couple years were undertaken without any major delay," said Sen. Jeff Bingaman, D-N.M., one of the lawmakers who requested the study.
The GAO report found that more than three-quarters of the 762 wildfire protection projects proposed by the Forest Service during the past two years were never challenged by administrative appeals. Only 3 percent of the projects were litigated, the GAO reported.
The "Healthy Forests" measure scheduled for House action next week would limit environmental review, administrative appeals and court challenges on logging and brush-clearing projects to reduce the threat of wildfires. The measure would affect 20 million acres of federal forests, mostly in California and the West.
Bush launched his plan after last summer's devastating wildfires burned more than 7 million acres of public and private land in the West. In California, more than 500,000 acres of public land were scorched.
Republicans argue that endless administrative appeals and court challenges by environmentalists have slowed efforts to thin the dense underbrush and thick stands of forests that have developed after a century of fire suppression. Forest Service Chief Dale Bosworth has said the current rules have fostered an "analysis paralysis" where agency workers spent most of their time planning projects and little time doing them.
'CATEGORICAL EXCLUSIONS'
But the GAO report found that the Forest Service accomplished most of projects under "categorical exclusions," which do not require in-depth environmental review and are exempt from appeals. Nearly 60 percent of the agency's projects were carried out under categorical exclusions.
Of the remaining 305 projects, 180 were challenged, mostly by environmental groups. House Republicans seized on the figure Wednesday, saying it meant that 59 percent of "appealable" projects were challenged by groups such as the Sierra Club and the Wilderness Society.
"This finding is nothing short of appalling, especially when you think of the catastrophic losses suffered in last year's horrific fire season alone," said Rep. Richard Pombo, R-Tracy, chairman of the House Resources Committee, which approved the Healthy Forests legislation last month by a 32-17 vote.
Pombo noted that the study found Forest Service supervisors reviewing appeals reversed their decisions in only 10 percent of cases -- a signal that most appeals by environmentalists are frivolous, he said.
"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," Pombo said.
'FUZZY MATH'
But environmentalists accused the measure's backers of "fuzzy math." Of the 180 appealed projects, 79 percent were processed within the standard 90-day review period -- a sign that the appeals process does not lead to endless delays or prevent legitimate fuels reduction work.
"It really vindicates what the science tells us and the fact that conservationists are not obstructing real community protection efforts," said Sierra Club President Jennifer Ferenstein.
Environmentalists said the "Healthy Forests" legislation is less about addressing the wildfire threat than about weakening the 1970 National Environmental Policy Act, which requires the Forest Service and other agencies to assess the environmental impact of their decisions and allows the public a chance to comment on -- and sometimes appeal -- those decisions.
Conservation groups have used those rights to repeatedly challenge projects they believe are commercial logging in the guise of wildfire protection. The GAO report found that a small number of groups was responsible for most of the challenges. Seven groups filed at least 20 administrative appeals: the Alliance for Wild Rockies, Ecology Center, Forest Conservation Council, Lands Council, National Forest Protection Alliance, Oregon Natural Resources Council and the Sierra Club.
FEW COURT CHALLENGES
But the study also found that conservation groups used court challenges in only a small number of cases -- 23 out of the 762 proposed projects. Five of the lawsuits led to settlements, three ended in courts blocking Forest Service projects, and the agency's plan was upheld in one case. The other cases are still in litigation.
Bingaman acknowledged that opposing sides in the forest debate were entrenched in their positions and that it's unlikely the report would shift their views.
"I don't know if it will change any minds on the Republican side," he said, but added, "I think it does make the case that the Forest Service has done a lot in the way of fuels reduction . . . and their ability to do more is clearly there."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
E-mail Zachary Coile at [email protected].
WILDFIRE PROTECTION
Total logging and brush-clearing projects proposed by the Forest Service
nationwide and in California during 2001 and 2002, according to a General
Accounting Office report released Wednesday. The projects were proposed as
wildfire protection measures.
National California
Number of projects 762 131
Number of acres considered for treatment 4.7 million 218,759
Number of projects subject to appeal 305 57
Number of appeals 180 39
Number litigated 23 4
Source: Associated Press, General Accounting Office
Chronicle Graphic
---------------------------
Probe: Most Forest Projects Not Delayed
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A55581-2003May14?language=printer
By ROBERT GEHRKE
The Associated Press
Wednesday, May 14, 2003; 4:02 PM
WASHINGTON - Few projects to reduce wildfire threats were long delayed because of environmental challenges, congressional auditors say. The conclusion runs counter to the case the Bush administration and Republicans in Congress have made for scaling back studies and appeals.
The General Accounting Office found that three-fourths of the 762 Forest Service projects to cut wildfire risk in the past two years went ahead without any challenge. That allowed treatment such as logging or controlled burning on 3.8 million acres of national forests.
Projects that were challenged by environmental groups or other parties generally move ahead within 90 days, according to the report by the investigative arm of Congress.
The House is getting ready to consider legislation aimed at speeding up efforts to reduce trees and brush from overgrown forests. The bill by Rep. Scott McInnis, R-Colo., would streamline environmental studies and limit appeals on as many as 20 million acres.
The administration is rewriting rules that would make it easier to conduct forest treatments.
Sen. Jeff Bingaman, D-N.M., said the report shows such changes are not needed.
"A comprehensive reading of the report makes it clear that the vast majority of forest-thinning projects move ahead without delay," he said.
Republicans note that the bulk of the forest projects were exempt from appeals, and 59 percent of those that could be appealed were challenged, delaying projects to treat 900,000 acres of forestland. They also noted that a 90-day delay can make the difference when the threat of wildfire is imminent.
"This finding is nothing short of appalling, especially when you think of the catastrophic losses suffered in last year's horrific fire season alone," said House Resources Committee Chairman Richard Pombo, R-Calif. "These were not only losses of forest, endangered species and wildlife habitat, they were losses of human life and family property."
Republicans also stressed that appeals were filed in 18 percent of the projects meant to reduce the risk of fire to homes near national forests - areas all sides say should be a top priority. Fifty-two percent of such projects not exempt from appeals were challenged.
"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," McInnis said.
A Forest Service report last summer said almost half of treatment projects were appealed. It blamed environmental groups for the delays.
Huge fires in Arizona and Colorado burned forests where portions of projects meant to reduce the fire threat were tied up in appeals.
A century of aggressive fire suppression has left forests thick with brush and small trees that have put 40 million acres at risk for wildfires. More than 7 million acres across the West burned in the second-worst fire season in 50 years.
Most agree excess trees need to be cut down or areas burned in controlled situations.
Mike Francis of the Wilderness Society said the GAO figures show "the democratic process is working."
The GAO looked at 762 planned projects on 4.7 million acres of national forests. Sixty percent of those projects had no environmental studies that could be appealed. Of the remaining 305 projects that could be appealed, 180 were challenged.
Most were resolved within the Forest Service's required 90-day time frame, but 39 took longer because of staff shortages, a backlog of appeals, or to give the parties time to negotiate a resolution.
And 133 of the 180 appealed projects went ahead without change, while 16 proceeded with some modifications, and 19 were blocked. Twelve others were withdrawn by the Forest Service.
The GAO noted that the Forest Service chief can go ahead with treatment despite appeals if the project is deemed an emergency. The Forest Service did not use the exemption in the two years studied.
The study also said that just 23 of the 762 projects were challenged in court - 3 percent of the overall number. McInnis' legislation includes direction to judges and deadlines the court must meet when it is considering challenges to forest thinning projects to prevent the cases from bogging down.
-------------------
osted 5/14/2003 10:54 PM
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2003-05-14-wildfires-usat_x.htm
Report Appeals delay few wildfire projects
By Tom Kenworthy, USA TODAY
DENVER - An authoritative new study may take some of the steam out of the push to weaken environmental laws in an effort to help reduce the threat of Western wildfires.
The report by the General Accounting Office, the investigative arm of Congress, says that only a small number of projects to remove brush and other fuels from public forests are delayed by administrative appeals by environmentalists and others. That finding could undercut the rationale behind legislation favored by President Bush and Western Republicans that would limit the public's right to appeal fuel-reduction projects that employ mechanical methods of clearing fuel and deliberately set, controlled fires.
Bush administration officials have said that red tape has blocked speedy completion of thinning projects and that delays brought on by environmentalists' appeals have contributed to a growing epidemic of wildfires that burned 7 million acres last year.
The study found that in 2001 and 2002, all but 38 of 762 thinning projects proceeded in a timely fashion, generally within 90 days. Fuel treatments thus proceeded quickly on about 3.8 million acres.
More than half of the 762 projects - those with insignificant environmental effects - were not subject to appeals under a section of law that permits a broad exclusion. Nearly 60% of the remaining projects were challenged, but most still began on time.
Sen. Jeff Bingaman, D-N.M., who opposes limiting appeals, said the report "makes it clear the vast majority of forest thinning projects ... were undertaken without any major delay."
Republicans in Congress drew a different conclusion. They argued in a House Resources Committee analysis of the GAO report that because appeals were filed on a million acres worth of projects, they "constitute a significant impediment" to fighting wildfires.
Legislation introduced by Reps. Scott McInnis, R-Colo., and Greg Walden, R-Ore., would speed thinning of 20 million acres of federal land, in part by limiting lawsuits and appeals. It has not been scheduled for a vote yet by the full House of Representatives.
On a separate track, the Bush administration has moved forward with new administrative procedures to accomplish many of the same objectives
________________________________________________
You Rock! So should your E-mail. Sign up at Rock.com!
