Fishing - Bush's "healthy forests" scam in the senate now

Tell your senators to oppose the plan because it's based on ideology,
not science. It's more corporate welfare as well.

congress.org just type in your zip code to get your Senators info. You
can call or email.

This is for real.

http://www.duluthsuperior.com/mld/d...ior/7101135.htm

Bush's logging policies are designed to keep public out

Before the end of October, the Senate will consider a slightly altered
version of the Bush Administration's ill-named "Healthy Forests
Initiative."

This bill passed the House as HR1904, the "Healthy Forests Restoration
Act."

The plan would do little to reduce the risk of wildfire to Western
communities, yet would do much to remove citizen participation,
interfere with the judicial system and increase commercial logging.
This version, which could still be subject to changes in conference
committee, stands in sharp contrast to a proposal by conservation
groups that focuses aid in communities at risk from wildfire.

Over the past year, hundreds of nationally and locally elected
officials, and scientists and homeowners from across the country have
spoken out against the Bush plan.

They warn that it does not provide the money needed to help
communities protect themselves from wildfires and is instead a
stalking horse for more subsidized commercial logging.

If signed into law, this bill will leave communities unprotected from
threat of wildfire and will increase the amount of damaging logging
projects on federal public land.

Changes in public participation

The Act significantly curtails public participation in hazardous-fuels
reduction projects on national forest lands. The bill alters the
administrative review process and limits alternatives considered in an
environmental assessment or environmental impact study to only one
preferred by the agency, the no-action alternative and one other if
raised in scoping and developed collaboratively.

There is no data to show that limiting the number of alternatives will
increase the effectiveness or efficiency of planning and implementing
a project. This provision is contrary to the basic concepts of the
National Environmental Policy Act, which is to provide for meaningful
public involvement and thorough analysis.

Roadless areas and old growth forests

Despite claims that this bill provides statutory protection for old
growth forests, the provisions in the bill offer only guidelines for
logging projects in rare old growth forests. Roadless areas are also
left vulnerable to logging under this plan.

It is already a common practice in California, the Pacific Northwest
as well as the Southwest for the Forest Service to log old growth
while claiming that they are "restoring" or "protecting" old growth
conditions. This provision is vague, providing no numerical standard
and allows the Forest Service with discretion and further pretext to
log in old growth stands.

In areas outside of old growth stands, the secretaries shall "focus
largely" on small diameter trees, thinning, strategic fuel breaks, and
prescribed fire and "maximize" the retention of large trees. Again,
this vague, discretionary language is ripe for abuse by the Forest
Service.

Changes in judicial review

The legislation requires that plaintiffs exhaust the new
administrative remedies, can only bring lawsuits in the jurisdiction
of the projects being challenged, may only bring claims consistent
with issues raised in the administrative process and limits
injunctions to 60 days, with updates allowed. The legislation
encourages courts to expedite proceedings to the extent practicable.

No true data exists that back up the Bush Administration's claims that
appeals and litigation slow implementation of honest fuel reduction
work.

A recent General Accounting Office study found that 95 percent of all
fuel reduction projects it reviewed (762 projects covering 4.7 million
acres of federal forest lands) were available for implementation
within the standard 90 day review period (GAO, May 14, 2003). The GAO
has also determined that more than 99 percent of fuel reduction
projects proposed by the U.S. Forest Service in 2000 and 2001 were
approved without appeal and zero were litigated (GAO, August 31,
2001).

Community wildfire protection plan

The act calls for collaborative "Community Wildfire Protection Plans"
to be developed that identify and prioritize areas for hazardous fuel
reduction treatments and recommends the types and methods of
treatments on federal and nonfederal lands as well as recommend
measures to reduce structural ignitability. These Plans are not
subject to NEPA, are exempt from the Federal Advisory Committee Act
and have no new mechanism for citizen involvement. This greatly
reduces opportunity for meaningful and fair citizen involvement.

Sunset

There is no sunset provision for Title I. Other Senate bills had
included a sunset provision of five years, which is appropriate for
"emergency" legislation.