The President's plan would:
  • Severely limit or end citizens' ability to appeal and litigate poor management decisions on fuels treatment and so-called "restoration" projects;
  • Focus thinning efforts in remote, often roadless areas, far from the community protection zone where people and their property meet the forest;
  • Set up "stewardship" contracting provisions that will let the Forest Service and timber companies take large, healthy trees that are resistant to fires to help pay for removal of hazardous fuels; and,
  • Undermine the Northwest Forest Plan (which protects some of America's last, best ancient forests) by increasing logging in the Pacific Northwest and slamming the door on citizen participation.
This plan is a windfall for the timber industry, but nothing in it will ease fire danger for woodland communities, property, residents and firefighters.

THERE'S A BETTER PLAN AND CONSERVATIONISTS HAVE LAID IT OUT
Dozens of national and grassroots organizations have announced a plan that will actually work. It notes that the best fire experts believe the maximum effective fuel reduction area is around 60 meters from structures, extending out up to 500 meters for firefighter safety. And that's where we should focus our efforts. The conservationists' plan calls for:

  • Make community protection from fire risk the top priority of the National Fire Plan;
  • Fund the priority at the rate of $2 billion a year for at least five years.
The plan also proposes that 90 percent of fuel reduction funding should be spent where it's needed: immediately next to homes and communities. Today, the Bureau of Land Management and the Forest Service spend less than 40 percent of their fuel reduction budgets in these critical zones.