Fire-prevention funding escapes Forest Service ax
Fire-prevention funding escapes ForestService ax
8 January 2005
publishedby www.signonsandiego.com
WASHINGTON The U.S. Forest Service has backed away from a plan that wouldhave cut funding for wildfire prevention in California by $9 million, officialssaid yesterday.
The state now will get $52 million for clearing hazardous brush and otherprojects, Sen. Dianne Feinstein said. That is slightly more than lastyear.
“I was delighted to learn today that California will not be losingmoney, but will actually be receiving $2 million more this year than last,”Feinstein, D-Calif., said in a written statement.
She thanked Undersecretary Mark Rey of the Agriculture Department “forhis reconsideration of this issue. It means a great deal to ourstate.”
The Forest Service, which is part of the Agriculture Department, confirmedthe decision.
“We expect to have more details on it next week,” said Matt Mathes,a spokesman for the Forest Service in California. “From our understanding . . .this makes us whole again in terms of what we need.”
In a letter to Rey last month, Feinstein expressed concern about a ForestService proposal to shift more than 15 percent of California’s funding to otherstates where brush removal costs are lower. That would have reduced theallocation to $42.9 million in California, which was devastated by wildfires in2003.
Those wildfires prompted Congress to pass a forest-thinning law with keysupport from Feinstein and other members of California’s congressionaldelegation.
Environmentalists fought the legislation, arguing that it would openold-growth forests to logging and not do enough to protect populatedareas.
Under the initial Forest Service plan, most of the money for community fireprevention in San Diego County and elsewhere in the state would have beenjeopardized, Feinstein warned. Half the funding for the removal of brush whereurban areas meet wilderness areas would have been cut, and the amount of forestto be thinned in the Sierra Nevada would have been reduced by 20,000 acres, shesaid.
In co-sponsoring the Healthy Forests Restoration Act last year, Feinsteinhighlighted the funding that would go to communities threatened by wildfires,including chaparral-heavy areas of San Diego County.
Despite the fires that charred more than 376,000 acres in 2003, San DiegoCounty still has tens of thousands of acres of brush and dead trees that couldfuel wildfires.
Forest Service officials said it is more expensive to clear brush and otherhazards from populated areas, which require mechanical cutting instead ofcontrolled burns used in open spaces. Mechanical cutting can cost up to $1,000an acre, Mathes said.
The Forest Service said 77 percent of the thinning of forests and brush bythe agency last fiscal year was by prescribed burn.
California lawmakers and Gov. Schwarzenegger’s administration joinedFeinstein in lobbying to restore the funds.
The money will be used for fire prevention beginning in spring, Mathes said.
Jay Watson, a member of the California Fire Safe Council’s board ofdirectors, said the Forest Service decision is “terrific news.”
“The needs are acute in California,” he said, “and the councillooks forward to working with the Forest Service to put those funds to gooduse.”
The most pressing need is “protecting homes and communities andrecognizing that effective fire protection requires working across all (land)ownerships and using this funding not just on federal land.”
. . . this makes us whole again in terms of what we need.”
In a letter to Rey last month, Feinstein expressed concern about a ForestService proposal to shift more than 15 percent of California’s funding to otherstates where brush removal costs are lower. That would have reduced theallocation to $42.9 million in California, which was devastated by wildfires in2003.
Those wildfires prompted Congress to pass a forest-thinning law with keysupport from Feinstein and other members of California’s congressionaldelegation.
Environmentalists fought the legislation, arguing that it would openold-growth forests to logging and not do enough to protect populatedareas.
Under the initial Forest Service plan, most of the money for community fireprevention in San Diego County and elsewhere in the state would have beenjeopardized, Feinstein warned. Half the funding for the removal of brush whereurban areas meet wilderness areas would have been cut and the amount of forestto be thinned in the Sierra Nevada would have been reduced by 20,000 acres, shesaid.
In co-sponsoring the Healthy Forests Restoration Act last year, Feinsteinhighlighted the funding that would go to communities threatened by wildfires,including chaparral-heavy areas of San Diego County.
Despite the fires that charred more than 376,000 acres in 2003, San DiegoCounty still has tens of thousands of acres of brush and dead trees that couldfuel wildfires.
Forest Service officials said it is more expensive to clear brush and otherhazards from populated areas, which require mechanical cutting instead ofcontrolled burns used in open spaces. Mechanical cutting can cost up to $1,000an acre, Mathes said.
The Forest Service said 77 percent of the thinning of forests and brush bythe agency last fiscal year was by prescribed burn.
California lawmakers and Gov. Schwarzenegger’s administration joinedFeinstein in lobbying to restore the funds.
The money will be used for fire prevention beginning in spring, Mathessaid.
Jay Watson, a member of the California Fire Safe Council’s board ofdirectors, said the Forest Service decision is “terrific news.”
“The needs are acute in California,” he said, “and the councillooks forward to working with the Forest Service to put those funds to gooduse.”
The most pressing need is “protecting homes and communities and recognizingthat effective fire protection requires working across all (land) ownerships andusing this funding not just on federal land.”
Back
