Bush Proposal Would Speed Forest Thinning

The Bush administration Wednesday unveiled a fire-prevention policy built on scaling back environmental reviews and public appeals that now block the thinning of forests on most federal land.

Under the proposed rules, many thinning projects could go ahead without thorough environmental impact assessments, as are now required, even if they are being challenged by government employees or members of the public.

Most of the administration’s far-reaching proposals could take effect after public comment periods of 30 to 60 days. They would not need congressional approval to take on the force of law. Congress failed to act earlier when Bush sought legislation accomplishing similar goals.

The regulations are aimed at reducing the risk of catastrophic wildfires like those that scorched 7.1 million acres of public and private land last summer, according to administration officials.

“We’re dealing with an emergency situation,” Interior Secretary Gale A. Norton said at a White House briefing.

The policy changes are based on the advice of the federal foresters who manage the national parks, forests, monuments and refuges and most other federal lands affected by the rules, according to officials. These foresters pleaded for the removal of some of the obstacles to thinning the forests of the undergrowth that often becomes a fire’s chief fuel, sometimes making them so hot that firefighters cannot get close to them.

“We understand some of the things that need to be done in the forests so we don’t have such devastating fires in the future,” said Agriculture Secretary Ann M. Veneman, who oversees the national forests.

The logging industry praised the administration for trying to remove obstacles to thinning projects.

“It’s critically important to recognize that the most significant environmental problem facing forests is the risk of catastrophic fire,” said David Bischel, president of the California Forestry Assn., which represents private forest landowners and forest product manufacturers. “We can’t just keep our hands in our pockets while our forests burn.”

But environmentalists attacked the proposal as an effort to exclude the public from decision-making and to reintroduce wide-scale logging on public lands.

“They are throwing out environmental review for the large majority of the most controversial projects that the Forest Service does,” said Nathaniel Lawrence, a forest expert for the Natural Resources Defense Council, a national environmental group. “That is truly shocking, and people should be outraged that secretaries say they should dispense with environmental review for giant categories of logging.”

Some foresters embraced the proposals as a positive effort to remove the bureaucratic obstacles that hamstring them from managing forests.

“It’s going to help get forest managers away from their desks and into the forests,” said Michael Goergen, policy director of the Society of American Foresters, which represents 17,000 foresters across the country. “Hopefully they’ll be able to put plans in place and take actions on the ground that will reduce the risk of catastrophic wildfire.”

The administration said it would immediately apply some of its new policies to 10 projects now undergoing review, including two in California. One project would thin trees around homes in the Mendocino National Forest, north of San Francisco. The other would remove brush and small trees in the Eldorado National Forest east of the community of Grizzly Flat, not far from Sacramento.

Jay Watson, California director of the Wilderness Society, said his group would support streamlined decision-making for thinning projects near populated areas. But he said he had no confidence that the administration would limit itself to such projects, given the sweeping nature of the proposal.

“It actually gives the Forest Service a green light to cut timber anywhere it pleases,” Watson said.

The administration previewed its vision for thinning forests last week when it unveiled its plan for managing the Sequoia National Monument, environmentalists said.

The plan proposes taking out trees that are generally no larger than 30 inches in diameter.

The administration said its goal is to leave behind healthy forests. That might mean removing some old trees along with skinny trees and underbrush in order to make forests more fire-resistant.

“Focus not on what we take from the forests but how we leave the forests,” Veneman said.

Sen. Pete V. Domenici (R-N.M.), the incoming chairman of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, applauded the administration’s announcement.

“It will help federal land managers work to save wildlife habitat and maintain the watersheds that are so important to our communities,” he said.

Domenici said Congress should do more to expedite the thinning of forests. Congress is considering a plan that would grant commercial logging companies long-term contracts that would allow them to take out enough big trees when conducting thinning projects to make them economically feasible.

James Connaughton, chairman of the White House’s Council on Environmental Quality, said Wednesday’s plan would have only a modest effect on public lands unless Congress approves the long-term contracts.

Federal officials say that more of the 190 million acres nationwide are at high risk for forest fires.

Federal funds now available will address only a few million acres a year, even with the proposed changes, they said.

Administration officials said long-term contracts would give logging companies the confidence they need to invest in new technology necessary to make thinning projects economically viable. And then, more thinning could take place.

Environmentalists said that for the Bush administration, “thinning” is a euphemism for commercial logging.