Crowdog
08-03-2002, 11:57 AM
Front page of the San Diego Union-Tribune!
Jon
---------------------------------
Boxer's wilderness bill spurs fire concerns
By Dana Wilkie
COPLEY NEWS SERVICE
August 3, 2002
WASHINGTON – It's the most ambitious environmental protection plan California has seen in almost a decade – one that would cover vast stretches of wilderness and give Sen. Barbara Boxer something to trumpet when she runs for re-election in two years.
But a chorus of concern is growing that Boxer's Wild Heritage Wilderness Act would make it harder to fight fires in California's backcountry, which is already a virtual tinderbox.
This week's Pines fire has destroyed more than 20,000 acres of mountain and canyon land near Julian and is a good example, say some of the bill's critics, of why Boxer should not place 2.5 million acres in California under the Wilderness Act of 1964. In areas protected by the act, trucks and equipment that prevent or fight fires can be forbidden.
The Pines fire has been problematic because layers of brittle grass, brush and light timber have made the fire particularly hot. Periodically getting rid of such growth – by clearing it out or burning it off – is one way of preventing fires. About 20,000 acres in Boxer's plan border Cuyamaca Rancho State Park, which was threatened by fire Wednesday.
"To allow (long-dried layers of vegetation) to lie on the ground and not be managed just puts us into a cycle of continual fires over the years," said San Diego County Supervisor Bill Horn, who opposes Boxer's bill.
A spokesman for U.S. Rep. Duncan Hunter, R-El Cajon, said the congressman has similar concerns.
"There are tons of wilderness areas in California," said spokesman Mike Harrison. "What concerns the congressman is that the people who are pushing this are never satisfied. Every time they get one place designated as wilderness, they want five or six more."
Tom Bohigian, Boxer's deputy state director, said the Democratic senator's bill would allow the federal agencies controlling the wilderness – whether the Forest Service or the Bureau of Land Management – to deal with fires and fire prevention as they see fit. If that means using firetrucks, bulldozers or chain saws, he said, that's fine.
"The senator believes that human safety and the protection of property are very important," said Bohigian, adding that Boxer worked for two years with local communities to eliminate as much opposition as possible. "That isn't to say you automatically go to the most intense response if that isn't called for. This is on a case-by-case basis."
But Jim Wright, deputy director of fire protection for the California Department of Forestry, said it's not that simple. He has seen wilderness fires grow because federal officials would not use a bulldozer to carve out a firebreak.
And while most federal agencies like the Forest Service are willing to negotiate on firefighting tactics – especially when fires threaten state-owned land – Wright has often agreed to tactics less aggressive than he would normally use.
"Once (a fire) is in a wilderness area, it's going to get bigger because of the prohibitions you have," Wright said. "You cannot . . . get right next to the fire line and work it directly with fire engines."
Most of the San Diego County land that Boxer wants protected lies in the district of county Supervisor Diane Jacob, who supports the bill, as does the San Diego City Council. A Jacob spokeswoman said it was her impression that "the fire concern is addressed in the bill."
"One of the things we said was, 'Look, that land gets pretty dry out there,' " said spokeswoman Jennifer Stone. "One of the conditions of my boss' supporting it was that the fire personnel were on board."
The state Department of Forestry has no position on the bill. Bohigian's assurances have not persuaded the Regional Council of Rural Counties to drop its opposition to Boxer's plan. The council's 29 members represent half of the state's 58 counties.
"I had a fire in my district, and when it went into (federal) wilderness areas, we had to just watch it go up the sides of the mountain," said council Chairwoman Linda Arcularius, who is also chairwoman of the Inyo County Board of Supervisors. "The engines couldn't go in, and a lot of their field crews couldn't go in."
There are also worries that Boxer's plan might hurt local property tax revenue by putting more land under the public domain, and would prevent mountain bikers and others from enjoying the areas.
"I think the bill is going to have to be tailored down somewhat," said Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein, the state's senior senator and a member of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, which will have jurisdiction over the legislation, SB 2535. "There are a number of concerns that have to be worked out."
Statewide, Boxer would add 2.5 million acres to the 14 million acres already protected by the federal Wilderness Act of 1964. The act forbids expanded logging, mining or livestock grazing, and prohibits new roads, motorized vehicles and non-motorized vehicles such as mountain bikes. Using chain saws – as firefighters often do to clear growth that might ignite – is forbidden.
More than 40,000 acres in San Diego County would fall under Boxer's plan, including land upstream of the El Capitan reservoir known as the Eagle Peak Complex, desert areas in the Sawtooth Mountains and Carrizo Gorge, and the so-called Hauser additions in the Barrett Lake area.
The last time a lawmaker attempted such an ambitious environmental protection plan was when Feinstein in 1994 won passage of a bill protecting 6.6 million acres of California desert. Some who work with Boxer said the wilderness protection bill would give Boxer a similar accomplishment to point to when she campaigns for re-election in 2004.
Copyright 2002 Union-Tribune Publishing Co.
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/uniontrib/sat/news/news_1n3wild.html
Jon
---------------------------------
Boxer's wilderness bill spurs fire concerns
By Dana Wilkie
COPLEY NEWS SERVICE
August 3, 2002
WASHINGTON – It's the most ambitious environmental protection plan California has seen in almost a decade – one that would cover vast stretches of wilderness and give Sen. Barbara Boxer something to trumpet when she runs for re-election in two years.
But a chorus of concern is growing that Boxer's Wild Heritage Wilderness Act would make it harder to fight fires in California's backcountry, which is already a virtual tinderbox.
This week's Pines fire has destroyed more than 20,000 acres of mountain and canyon land near Julian and is a good example, say some of the bill's critics, of why Boxer should not place 2.5 million acres in California under the Wilderness Act of 1964. In areas protected by the act, trucks and equipment that prevent or fight fires can be forbidden.
The Pines fire has been problematic because layers of brittle grass, brush and light timber have made the fire particularly hot. Periodically getting rid of such growth – by clearing it out or burning it off – is one way of preventing fires. About 20,000 acres in Boxer's plan border Cuyamaca Rancho State Park, which was threatened by fire Wednesday.
"To allow (long-dried layers of vegetation) to lie on the ground and not be managed just puts us into a cycle of continual fires over the years," said San Diego County Supervisor Bill Horn, who opposes Boxer's bill.
A spokesman for U.S. Rep. Duncan Hunter, R-El Cajon, said the congressman has similar concerns.
"There are tons of wilderness areas in California," said spokesman Mike Harrison. "What concerns the congressman is that the people who are pushing this are never satisfied. Every time they get one place designated as wilderness, they want five or six more."
Tom Bohigian, Boxer's deputy state director, said the Democratic senator's bill would allow the federal agencies controlling the wilderness – whether the Forest Service or the Bureau of Land Management – to deal with fires and fire prevention as they see fit. If that means using firetrucks, bulldozers or chain saws, he said, that's fine.
"The senator believes that human safety and the protection of property are very important," said Bohigian, adding that Boxer worked for two years with local communities to eliminate as much opposition as possible. "That isn't to say you automatically go to the most intense response if that isn't called for. This is on a case-by-case basis."
But Jim Wright, deputy director of fire protection for the California Department of Forestry, said it's not that simple. He has seen wilderness fires grow because federal officials would not use a bulldozer to carve out a firebreak.
And while most federal agencies like the Forest Service are willing to negotiate on firefighting tactics – especially when fires threaten state-owned land – Wright has often agreed to tactics less aggressive than he would normally use.
"Once (a fire) is in a wilderness area, it's going to get bigger because of the prohibitions you have," Wright said. "You cannot . . . get right next to the fire line and work it directly with fire engines."
Most of the San Diego County land that Boxer wants protected lies in the district of county Supervisor Diane Jacob, who supports the bill, as does the San Diego City Council. A Jacob spokeswoman said it was her impression that "the fire concern is addressed in the bill."
"One of the things we said was, 'Look, that land gets pretty dry out there,' " said spokeswoman Jennifer Stone. "One of the conditions of my boss' supporting it was that the fire personnel were on board."
The state Department of Forestry has no position on the bill. Bohigian's assurances have not persuaded the Regional Council of Rural Counties to drop its opposition to Boxer's plan. The council's 29 members represent half of the state's 58 counties.
"I had a fire in my district, and when it went into (federal) wilderness areas, we had to just watch it go up the sides of the mountain," said council Chairwoman Linda Arcularius, who is also chairwoman of the Inyo County Board of Supervisors. "The engines couldn't go in, and a lot of their field crews couldn't go in."
There are also worries that Boxer's plan might hurt local property tax revenue by putting more land under the public domain, and would prevent mountain bikers and others from enjoying the areas.
"I think the bill is going to have to be tailored down somewhat," said Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein, the state's senior senator and a member of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, which will have jurisdiction over the legislation, SB 2535. "There are a number of concerns that have to be worked out."
Statewide, Boxer would add 2.5 million acres to the 14 million acres already protected by the federal Wilderness Act of 1964. The act forbids expanded logging, mining or livestock grazing, and prohibits new roads, motorized vehicles and non-motorized vehicles such as mountain bikes. Using chain saws – as firefighters often do to clear growth that might ignite – is forbidden.
More than 40,000 acres in San Diego County would fall under Boxer's plan, including land upstream of the El Capitan reservoir known as the Eagle Peak Complex, desert areas in the Sawtooth Mountains and Carrizo Gorge, and the so-called Hauser additions in the Barrett Lake area.
The last time a lawmaker attempted such an ambitious environmental protection plan was when Feinstein in 1994 won passage of a bill protecting 6.6 million acres of California desert. Some who work with Boxer said the wilderness protection bill would give Boxer a similar accomplishment to point to when she campaigns for re-election in 2004.
Copyright 2002 Union-Tribune Publishing Co.
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/uniontrib/sat/news/news_1n3wild.html