Bush Policy that Saved Homes blocked by Environment Groups and 9th Circuit

[RMNIXON]

Forest Service: Rule saved thousands of homes in California fires

By: MATTHEW DALY - Associated Press

WASHINGTON -- A Bush administration rule that allowed expedited logging on national forests saved thousands of homes during the recent wildfires in California, Forest Service Chief Gail Kimbell said Thursday.

Kimbell cited "some real vivid examples" in California where the Forest Service practice of logging without first analyzing its effect on the environment saved homes and lives.

"The hazardous fuels treatments were instrumental saving thousands of homes" in southern California during recent wildfires near San Diego and Lake Arrowhead, Kimbell said.


The San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals blocked the practice Wednesday, saying it violated the National Environmental Policy Act. Kimbell said the administration was considering whether to appeal.

The rule allowing expedited logging was "not a blanket to go through all of California" to thin forests, Kimbell said. "We are very specific where we do it.'

While the 2003 rule allows logging of up to 1,000 acres without environmental review, most projects are closer to 40 or 50 acres, Kimbell said. "It's surgically selected" in areas with low environmental risk, she said.

The 2003 rule was billed as a way to reduce wildfires as part of the Bush administration's "Healthy Forests Initiative." It exempted from environmental review logging projects up to 1,000 acres and prescribed forest burns up to 4,500 acres.

In its opinion Wednesday, the three-judge appeals court panel said the Forest Service had failed to properly analyze the rule, causing "irreparable injury" by allowing more than 1.2 million acres of national forest land to be logged and burned each year without studying the ecological impacts.

The justices ruled that the Forest Service can no longer exempt such projects from environmental analysis until the rule itself can be properly analyzed.

The ruling sided with the Sierra Club and Sierra Nevada Forest Protection Campaign. The groups said the ruling would help protect millions of acres of national forest from destructive and unnecessary logging projects.

Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., called the decision an assault on common sense and reason.

"The court's overzealous interpretation of environmental regulation is placing lives and personal property in danger," said Issa, adding that the appeals court "placed greater weight on the concerns of a special interest group than the lives and welfare of Americans threatened by wildfires."

The case is Sierra Club v. Bosworth, 05-16989.

Forest Service: Rule saved thousands of homes in California fires - North County Times - State / West -


__________________________________________________ __________


It was not easy to find this story. I had to do a text google search from the AP item in my local paper. Found 8 copies.



I found 1,200 copies of this version:

Appeals Court Blocks Bush Logging Rule

By TERENCE CHEA
Associated Press Writer

SAN FRANCISCO — A federal appeals court on Wednesday blocked a Bush administration rule that allowed logging and burning projects in national forests without first analyzing their effects on the environment.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said the U.S. Forest Service violated the National Environmental Policy Act when it issued the 2003 rule, which was billed as a way to reduce wildfires.

As part of the "Healthy Forests Initiative," the "hazardous fuels reduction" rule exempted logging projects up to 1,000 acres and prescribed forest burns up to 4,500 acres from environmental review.

The court said the agency's failure to properly analyze the rule caused "irreparable injury" by allowing more than 1.2 million acres of national forest land to be logged and burned each year without studying the ecological impacts.

The three-judge panel ruled that the Forest Service can no longer exempt such projects from environmental analysis until the rule itself can be properly analyzed.

The San Francisco-based appeals court sided with the Sierra Club and Sierra Nevada Forest Protection Campaign, which sued the Forest Service and Department of Agriculture in 2004.

Wednesday's decision overturns a lower court ruling that favored the administration.

"This ruling will help ensure that vast swaths of our national forests are not logged without environmental reviews under the guise of forest management or fuel suppression," said Eric Huber, an attorney for the San Francisco-based Sierra Club.

The U.S. Department of Justice, which represented the federal agencies, is reviewing the court's opinion and will decide whether to appeal, said David Shelledy, civil division chief of the U.S. Attorney's office in Sacramento.

Forest Service spokesman Joe Walsh said the agency believes the rule is a "useful tool," but will comply with the court's injunction.

The policy change was made following the 2000 fire season, one of the worst in 50 years, when 123,000 fires scorched more than 8.4 million acres. Officials said the exemption would make it easier and faster to clear plants, shrubs and trees that could ignite or fuel wildfires.

But conservationists opposed the rule, saying it allowed national forest land to be logged and burned with minimal oversight and analysis.

___
December 5, 2007 - 6:23 p.m. PST

Copyright 2007, The Associated Press. The information contained in the AP Online news report may not be published, broadcast or redistributed without the prior written authority of The Associated Press.

Appeals Court Blocks Bush Logging Rule

__________________________________________________ _____________


I Just want to keep it FAIR AND BALANCED!

[7960]

cliffs: environmentalists want to save trees at the expense of homes.

[WickedLou9]

Originally Posted by 7960

cliffs: environmentalists want to save trees at the expense of homes.

Or, people build homes in fire prone areas and then want to cut down trees to prevent forrest fires.

Hey if there is no forrest you can't have forrest fires am i rite?

[DosEquis]

Cut down all the forests.... forest fire problem solved. Next case.

[7960]

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

Or, people build homes in fire prone areas and then want to cut down trees to prevent forrest fires.

the homes are there......if you want to discuss whether more should be built, have at it.

[WickedLou9]

Originally Posted by 7960

the homes are there......if you want to discuss whether more should be built, have at it.

I'm pretty sure that the trees were there long before the homes were.

[7960]

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

I'm pretty sure that the trees were there long before the homes were.

You're missing the point... the homes are there, right now. There's a policy that aimed to help keep them there. Environmentalists are fighting that policy. So, they're fighting a policy that would save homes in favor of saving trees.


A parallel issue happened a few towns away...a guy had dry property. He built a pond because he wanted to fish. Eventually he wanted to drain the pond and the environmentalists got on him for attempting to destroy wetlands. Their argument was "The pond is there now. The wetlands are there now. It doesn't matter that it wasn't always there....we're focusing on today and what to do with a pond there now."

BTW, he lost, and was not allowed to drain his pond.

[RMNIXON]

Originally Posted by DosEquis

Cut down all the forests.... forest fire problem solved. Next case.

Yeah, that's the policy alright! You can't weed out and clear out anything that is not total destruction so you can put up more homes.

Next.....................................

[WickedLou9]

Originally Posted by 7960

You're missing the point... the homes are there, right now. There's a policy that aimed to help keep them there. Environmentalists are fighting that policy. So, they're fighting a policy that would save homes in favor of saving trees.


A parallel issue happened a few towns away...a guy had dry property. He built a pond because he wanted to fish. Eventually he wanted to drain the pond and the environmentalists got on him for attempting to destroy wetlands. Their argument was "The pond is there now. The wetlands are there now. It doesn't matter that it wasn't always there....we're focusing on today and what to do with a pond there now."

BTW, he lost, and was not allowed to drain his pond.

Why should we bail those people out though? It was thier choice to live in a fire prone area. They took that risk. Why should we chop down forrests because some people took a risk on living there? It's their decision to live there. I see no reason that we should chop down the forrests to increase thier property values.

[7960]

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

Why should we bail those people out though? It was thier choice to live in a fire prone area. They took that risk. Why should we chop down forrests because some people took a risk on living there? It's their decision to live there. I see no reason that we should chop down the forrests to increase thier property values.

We're not connecting on this.

I'm not saying anyone should bail those people out. I'm saying environmentalists are fighting a policy designed prevent fires. That's it. I found it funny (funny-odd, not funny-haha) that someone would go on record as basically saying "more trees, let the houses burn."

[WickedLou9]

Originally Posted by 7960

We're not connecting on this.

I'm not saying anyone should bail those people out. I'm saying environmentalists are fighting a policy designed prevent fires. That's it. I found it funny (funny-odd, not funny-haha) that someone would go on record as basically saying "more trees, let the houses burn."

Prevent fires by cutting down the forrest? Thats a bit like preventing car accidents by getting rid of cars.

[7960]

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

Prevent fires by cutting down the forrest? Thats a bit like preventing car accidents by getting rid of cars.

The rule allowing expedited logging was "not a blanket to go through all of California" to thin forests, Kimbell said. "We are very specific where we do it.'

While the 2003 rule allows logging of up to 1,000 acres without environmental review, most projects are closer to 40 or 50 acres, Kimbell said. "It's surgically selected" in areas with low environmental risk, she said.

No, it's more like preventing accidents by putting up lights/signs to reduce traffic.

[WickedLou9]

Originally Posted by 7960

The rule allowing expedited logging was "not a blanket to go through all of California" to thin forests, Kimbell said. "We are very specific where we do it.'

While the 2003 rule allows logging of up to 1,000 acres without environmental review, most projects are closer to 40 or 50 acres, Kimbell said. "It's surgically selected" in areas with low environmental risk, she said.

No, it's more like preventing accidents by putting up lights/signs to reduce traffic.

they are cutting down trees. It's not the same as traffic lights. People moved into fire prone areas. Trees were there. To mitigate the danger of fires, they want to cut down the trees. This is pretty cut and dried.

[7960]

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

they are cutting down trees. It's not the same as traffic lights. People moved into fire prone areas. Trees were there. To mitigate the danger of fires, they want to cut down the trees. This is pretty cut and dried.

But the houses are already there. They're not saying they want to do this so they can build more houses there. They're saying they want to do it to preserve the houses that are there. There's a difference.

And they're not "cutting down trees" to clear-cut and deforest areas. They're removing fuel sources and burning undergrowth.


I guess we disagree.

[WickedLou9]

Originally Posted by 7960

But the houses are already there. They're not saying they want to do this so they can build more houses there. They're saying they want to do it to preserve the houses that are there. There's a difference.

And they're not "cutting down trees" to clear-cut and deforest areas. They're removing fuel sources and burning undergrowth.


I guess we disagree.

I understand that the houses are already there. I say let them take thier chances. They built the houses knowing that there was a chance of fire. Thier insurance premiums probably reflect that. There is no reason to cut down any more trees simply because they might catch on fire.

[motivez]

Fires aren't necessarily bad for a forest, but they are bad for the homes, so you can't remove the fact that it's being done to prevent fires that damage homes, not just the forest in question.

[Stylerod]

I wonder what the "ecological impact" is in allowing uncontrollable fires?

I mean, they usually cut trees in a checkerboard pattern and burn the undergrowth in some areas. If there is a fire it spreads slower and allows it to be put out faster which will mean the ecology is less effected.

But hell, in San Fran everything people do is considered evil.

[Publius]

Originally Posted by Stylerod

I wonder what the "ecological impact" is in allowing uncontrollable fires?

I mean, they usually cut trees in a checkerboard pattern and burn the undergrowth in some areas. If there is a fire it spreads slower and allows it to be put out faster which will mean the ecology is less effected.

But hell, in San Fran everything people do is considered evil.

Forest fires are actually good for nature, they kill off old vegetation and create an environment for new vegetation to flourish.