Site search
sponsored by
Home
News
A bill that would give the U.S. Forest Service more leeway to approve logging projects without the threat of appeals cleared an important hurdle in Congress yesterday.
The House Resources Committee approved the Healthy Forests Restoration Act by a 32-17 vote. It will now go the House floor for debate.
The bill was co-sponsored by U.S. Rep. Scott McInnis, the Republican congressman for much of the Roaring Fork Valley. He hailed it as a way to improve the health of forests and reduce the threat of wildfire on public lands like the sprawling White River National Forest that surrounds Aspen and Glenwood Springs.
In the Resources Committee hearing yesterday, McInnis said the debating and pontificating have gone on long enough on the bill.
"If there has been more congressional oversight conducted on an environmental issue in the last couple years, I'd like to know which one that is," said McInnis, a member of the committee. "With another scary fire season on the verge of bearing down on us, there can be no question - the time for action on this critical environmental program is now."
McInnis claimed that the Forest Service and U.S. Bureau of Land Management suffer from "analysis paralysis" due to the bureaucratic process they must follow to review logging projects that could boost safety and forest health.
The proposed bill would streamline that process by allowing the feds to limit analysis and avoid producing several different alternatives for a project.
The bill would also give the Forest Service a "limited waiver" from appeals of its decisions, and it would require federal courts to reconsider any preliminary injunctions - which could halt logging projects - in 45-day intervals. Judges would also be required to weigh the environmental effects of inaction on a logging project.
The intent is to prevent environmental groups from using administrative appeals and lawsuits to halt logging projects.
The Healthy Forest Restoration Act defines specific logging projects that would qualify for the expedited review. It would also allocate millions of dollars for projects.
Logging to reduce hazardous fuels would be encouraged in areas where wild lands converge with communities and in parts of forests that are highly susceptible to disease or bug infestations.
The expedited fuel reduction wouldn't apply to wilderness areas, wildlife refuges, national parks or national monuments.
The proposal is under attack from some conservationists. Richard Compton, director of the White River Conservation Project, said he is "extremely wary" of the bill on two fronts.
First, it circumvents major environmental protection laws and limits public comment. Second, he is afraid the increased discretion could be abused by the Forest Service and BLM to allow logging projects that do little to improve safety and the health of national forests.
Compton's organization is part of two regional environmental coalitions that are fighting the bill. National conservation organizations are also lobbying against it.
"It's a major bill for us," he said.
McInnis played up the bill's bipartisan support. The bill has 92 co-sponsors from around the country, including 14 Democrats, he noted.
But a similar bill failed to earn approval from the full House last year because McInnis couldn't build enough support.
Rep. Mark Udall, a Democrat whose district includes Eagle County, supported last year's bill. His position on this year's version wasn't available yesterday because of the late vote by the Resources Committee.
Udall said last November that he felt some national program was necessary to reduce wildfire risks. He said he would not support the initiative if he felt it was a "Trojan Horse" for the logging industry.
Compton said he is unconvinced the bill can earn approval, given the outcome last session. "It's basically a rerun of last year's bill," he said.
Scott Condon's e-mail address is scondon@aspentimes.com
The House Resources Committee approved the Healthy Forests Restoration Act by a 32-17 vote. It will now go the House floor for debate.
The bill was co-sponsored by U.S. Rep. Scott McInnis, the Republican congressman for much of the Roaring Fork Valley. He hailed it as a way to improve the health of forests and reduce the threat of wildfire on public lands like the sprawling White River National Forest that surrounds Aspen and Glenwood Springs.
In the Resources Committee hearing yesterday, McInnis said the debating and pontificating have gone on long enough on the bill.
"If there has been more congressional oversight conducted on an environmental issue in the last couple years, I'd like to know which one that is," said McInnis, a member of the committee. "With another scary fire season on the verge of bearing down on us, there can be no question - the time for action on this critical environmental program is now."
McInnis claimed that the Forest Service and U.S. Bureau of Land Management suffer from "analysis paralysis" due to the bureaucratic process they must follow to review logging projects that could boost safety and forest health.
The proposed bill would streamline that process by allowing the feds to limit analysis and avoid producing several different alternatives for a project.
The bill would also give the Forest Service a "limited waiver" from appeals of its decisions, and it would require federal courts to reconsider any preliminary injunctions - which could halt logging projects - in 45-day intervals. Judges would also be required to weigh the environmental effects of inaction on a logging project.
The intent is to prevent environmental groups from using administrative appeals and lawsuits to halt logging projects.
The Healthy Forest Restoration Act defines specific logging projects that would qualify for the expedited review. It would also allocate millions of dollars for projects.
Logging to reduce hazardous fuels would be encouraged in areas where wild lands converge with communities and in parts of forests that are highly susceptible to disease or bug infestations.
The expedited fuel reduction wouldn't apply to wilderness areas, wildlife refuges, national parks or national monuments.
The proposal is under attack from some conservationists. Richard Compton, director of the White River Conservation Project, said he is "extremely wary" of the bill on two fronts.
First, it circumvents major environmental protection laws and limits public comment. Second, he is afraid the increased discretion could be abused by the Forest Service and BLM to allow logging projects that do little to improve safety and the health of national forests.
Compton's organization is part of two regional environmental coalitions that are fighting the bill. National conservation organizations are also lobbying against it.
"It's a major bill for us," he said.
McInnis played up the bill's bipartisan support. The bill has 92 co-sponsors from around the country, including 14 Democrats, he noted.
But a similar bill failed to earn approval from the full House last year because McInnis couldn't build enough support.
Rep. Mark Udall, a Democrat whose district includes Eagle County, supported last year's bill. His position on this year's version wasn't available yesterday because of the late vote by the Resources Committee.
Udall said last November that he felt some national program was necessary to reduce wildfire risks. He said he would not support the initiative if he felt it was a "Trojan Horse" for the logging industry.
Compton said he is unconvinced the bill can earn approval, given the outcome last session. "It's basically a rerun of last year's bill," he said.
Scott Condon's e-mail address is scondon@aspentimes.com
