Wildfires have become an increasingly costly and devastating problem in the West over the past decades as federal land managers have increasingly restricted logging and road building and maintenance.
The average number of acres burned each year in the past decade has topped 6 million, compared to 3 million a year in the 1970s. As of the end of October of this year there already had been nearly 53,000 fires that burned more than 8.8 million acres. In 2015, 9.7 million acres burned by the end of October.
The cost just for fighting wildfires this year is approaching a record breaking $3 billion, and that doesn’t take into account the economic costs of burned homes, agriculture and infrastructure. The wine country fires in mid-October in northern California are estimated to have resulted in $85 billion in economic losses.
The cost of fighting fires for the Forest Service has grown over the recent years from 15 percent of the agency’s annual budget to 55 percent.
Currently there are efforts on two fronts to change land management practices and spending from the costly and dangerous battling of fires to actually preventing them from occurring.
Earlier this year, Secretary of the Interior Ryan Zinke, who is over the Bureau of Land Management, and Secretary of Agriculture Sonny Perdue, who heads the Forest Service, directed all federal land agencies to adopt more aggressive efforts to prevent wildfire through robust fuels reduction and other prevention techniques.
“This administration will take a serious turn from the past and will proactively work to prevent forest fires through aggressive and scientific fuels reduction management to save lives, homes, and wildlife habitat. It is well settled that the steady accumulation and thickening of vegetation in areas that have historically burned at frequent intervals exacerbates fuel conditions and often leads to larger and higher-intensity fires,” said Secretary Zinke in a press release. “These fires are more damaging, more costly, and threaten the safety and security of both the public and firefighters. In recent fire reviews, I have heard this described as ‘a new normal.’ It is unacceptable that we should be satisfied with the status quo. We must be innovative and where new authorities are needed, we will work with our colleagues in Congress to craft management solutions that will benefit our public lands for generations to come.”
On that Congressional front, this past week the House passed and sent to the Senate the Resilient Federal Forests Act, sponsored by Rep. Bruce Westerman, an Arkansas Republican and licensed forester, that would shorten the environmental review process for forest thinning, curb frivolous litigation by self-styled environmentalists and allow federal land managers to contract with private lumber mills to remove dead and dying trees and use the proceeds of the timber sale to better manage the lands.
The bill passed 232-188, largely along party lines, with less than a dozen Democratic votes. Nevada Republican Rep. Mark Amodei voted in favor of the bill, while Nevada Democrats Dina Titus, Jacky Rosen and Ruben Kihuen opposed it.
“This is a bill based on a simple idea — that we must do more to expand active management in federal forests,” Republican Rep. Rob Bishop of Utah, chairman of the House Natural Resources Committee, was quoted as saying. “With this bill, we tackle not only the symptoms of the crisis but also its root causes. We provide the resources for our firefighters, but also tools for our land managers to improve conditions on the ground and proactively mitigate the threat of wildfire.”
Rep. Amodei spoke on the floor of the House in 2015 in support of a similar bill that passed the House but died in the Senate, noting the need for fire prevention because once high desert forests in Nevada burn it takes a hundred years for them to grow back. He also noted that the fires devastate endangered and threatened species and their habitat.
Oddly enough, one of the main arguments against the bill by the environmentalists is that logging threatens endangered and threatened species. More so than raging wildfire?
We applaud the efforts by Secretaries Zinke and Perdue to spend our money more wisely and encourage the Senate to pass the the Resilient Federal Forests Act.
A version of this editorial appeared this week in some of the Battle Born Media newspapers — The Ely Times, the Mesquite Local News, the Mineral County Independent-News, the Eureka Sentinel, Sparks Tribune and the Lincoln County Record.
What a load of crap.
Thomas you please explain to me how it is that republicans constantly yammer on about how they hate all the political correctness spouted by “liberals” but yet when they get around to naming the legislation that they want they come up with names like “The Patriot Act” or the “Resiliant Federal Forest whatever”?
Damn the PC crapola. Call this what it is; “The we got control, and we’re selling off what we can to the guys we like, for as cheap as we can, and there ain’t nothing you can to stop us”.
Don’t make it good though.
That link is in the blog.
You think Patrick actually reads what people write?
The only thing in Patrick’s political mind is shouting down any who Patrick believes oppose his demands.
“allow federal land managers to contract with private lumber mills to remove dead and dying trees and use the proceeds of the timber sale to better manage the lands.” Wow, my balogna detector is going wild. Lemme see here…does this mean that only dead and dying trees will be cut? I don’t know of any large lumber companies that pick through intact forests cutting out only the dead wood. Is this something new? I thought most dead trees have little commercial value in the first place. I have seen some massive areas rendered bald as a cue ball when traveling out west though. Maybe they’re just taking a few live ones along with the dead ones they seek. I’m sure that does reduce the risk of fire though – until the little stuff grows back in a few years.
Seems to me that the largest trees with their high foliage and thick trunks, i.e., those most favored for lumber, are the least problematic vis a vis forest fires. I always thought the fuel problem was due to too much undergrowth by young plants, which, unlike mature trees, die off easily during a drought and which proliferate like crazy when the big trees are removed. Sounds like bait and switch to me.
Now, let’s see what Vote Smart says in its summary:
“Authorizes forest management activities without environmental review on up to 10,000 acres of land so long as the purpose of such activity is to (Sec. 111)
Address an insect or disease infestation;
Reduce hazardous fuel loads;
Protect municipal water source;
Maintain or enhance habitat;
Increase water yield; or
Hmmm….no review for 10,000 acres or less. That’s about the land covered by 10 good sized Illinois farms. I suspect lumber companies could make a lot of money cutting tracts of that size. Sounds like open season on forests to me.
Utah Dixie National forest has been doing this for two years now.
Only bark beetle trees are being removed.
There is oversight and monitoring of the logging companies.
As usual, you assume the worst from a cherry pick of the total.
I’M cherry picking? You speak only of one forest in Utah, but I’M cherry picking!
I speak of a place I am an eyewitness .
You push cherry picked talking points written by others. In any court in the land you are pushing hearsay.
I see these logs in the Dixie Forest.
I forget, Rincon requires spoon feeding! HA!)
So information from others is worthless. Yours is a small world, indeed. Have the last word. No use eating up valuable time.
[…] September Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke, whose responsibilities include the BLM, promised, “This Administration will take a serious turn from the past and will proactively work to prevent […]