Summary of Panel Discussion on Healthy Forest Act
PRO 1:
The HFA deals with the reduction of dangerous fuel levels in forests, which threaten people’s homes and businesses and forest resources, and have already led to billion dollar losses.
However, most thinning would happen away from urban areas, in remote forests, where there are bigger trees and greater incentive for logging operations.
CON1:
Loggers will only take the marketable parts of trees, leave the slash behind, which actually increases fire hazard. Also, removing the canopy will increase temperatures at the forest floor, decrease moisture, increase wind speeds, which also promote fire.
However, overall, biomass densities will be greatly reduced by taking out big stems, which will reduce fire intensity. Also slash will be left in piles, causing only localized, low intensity fires.
PRO2:
Part of the bill promotes research of forest pests in collaboration with universities and other agencies. More graduate students will be able to study the spread of disease.
This is a good idea, however, overall the HFA does not do enough to promote forest health.
CON2:
The HFA shortens the Environmental Assessment Phase, and the amount of time that is allowed for public participation and filing an appeal. There is no opportunity for continuing court procedures, even if more time is needed to assess complex issues, as for example, assessing the risks to endangered species.
However, as we have seen last summer, we have no time for following lengthy NEPA processes. We have already waited too long, our forests are burning!
PRO3:
The HFA promotes activities and creates market incentives to convert otherwise non-marketable slash into energy sources. The technology already exists, so the 54 Million dollars will be appropriated for creating private market incentives that will create jobs in rural areas.
However, is that really gonna happen? This amount of money is still too little to reach very many rural communities and very few jobs will come out of this. There are more useful, more direct uses of this money, e.g. fixing road damage (8 billion needed) or paying more fire fighters for prescribed burns. Solve recognized problems, instead of giving incentives for hypothetical developments.
CON 3:
Roadless, previously protected areas will be opened up for “experimental logging plots” of 1000 acres. These activities are exempt from laws that require public input and environmental review. The new roads that will be necessary to reach those plots will be vectors for invasive species and increase erosion.
However, the road-related problems are minor in comparison to large-scale, out of control burns. Also, temporary roads seldom erode and will open up gaps for the establishment of other species.
PRO4:
The HFA promotes and encourages public participation in the early planning stages.
However, laws already require this. Overall public input is severely reduced by the bill.
CON4:
HFA places undue priority on fuel reduction/logging issues in the courts. All other issues, such as involving terrorism, crime, etc. are put on the back burner. The independence of the court is compromised. Also, the limited time frame will bias judgment in favor of the agency.
However, this should be a priority. It is more important to save 100 homes than to consider the rights of a murderer.