[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 152 (Tuesday, November 4, 1997)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E2182]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




              CONCERN OVER THE FUTURE OF COLORADO FORESTS

                                 ______
                                 

                           HON. BOB SCHAFFER

                              of colorado

                    in the house of representatives

                       Tuesday, November 4, 1997

  Mr. BOB SCHAFFER of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to share with 
my colleagues some thoughts expressed by Mr. Rob Nanfelt of Colorado. 
There is a growing concern over the future of our forests in Colorado. 
These are the views expressed by Mr. Nanfelt:

       Our Colorado forests are in dismal shape. Scientists 
     predict that a series of catastrophic wildfires will sweep 
     through the state if something is not done. Dangerously high 
     volumes of dead and decaying timber fuels have accumulated 
     over the past 80 years and continued lack of action to 
     deplete these fuels puts our families and homes at risk. As 
     well as constituting a major threat to standing structures, 
     these fires will have a significantly adverse impact on air 
     quality for many towns, especially those in eastern Colorado.
       It has been reported in recent months that the U.S. Forest 
     Service will be taking a more active role in attempting to 
     prevent these fires by setting fires of their own. This 
     process of setting controlled fires is known as ``prescribed 
     burning'' and is used to eliminate the overstocking of forest 
     fuels. Earlier this year, in an address at Boise State 
     University, Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt said that he 
     would endorse an increase in the frequency of these planned 
     burns. ``Fight fire with fire,'' he said. In fact, the Forest 
     Service wants up to $50 million for the burning program in 
     fiscal year 1998. The program would allow the Forest Service 
     to set fire to nearly 1.5 million acres.
       Prescribed burns are not an exact science. While there are 
     certain benefits of a well-executed controlled burn, there 
     are numerous risks. If not carried out precisely to plan, 
     these fires can very easily spread out of control and cause 
     property damage, less than desirable air quality, and in the 
     most extreme cases, death.
       Instead of focusing on such riskly methods, the Forest 
     Service should consider other forest restoration options such 
     as mechanical removal. While those in the environmental 
     community may cringe at such a thought, mechanical removal is 
     a more precise tool than prescribed burns. And in many cases, 
     it can be every bit as environmentally friendly.
       Sometimes the forest fuels have little or no commercial 
     value. In these instances prescribed burns are probably 
     prudent. However, the Forest Service should coordinate any of 
     these planned burns with the Environmental Protection Agency 
     (EPA). This will ensure that local communities are protected 
     against any punitive measures handed down by the EPA. The 
     risk of non-attainment in these communities as a result of 
     these fires is a real concern. State and local officials 
     should also be included in the process.
       Local economies, the Forest Service, and the forests would 
     all benefit if the Forest Service focused on using mechanical 
     removal as its primary option for forest restoration. Local 
     timber companies would have more work to do and as a result 
     more jobs would be available. The Forest Service could 
     concentrate on other management goals and have a little extra 
     money to achieve these goals. The forests would be healthier 
     and the threat of catastrophic wildfire greatly reduced. The 
     Forest Service should not once again bow to the wishes of the 
     extremists in the environmental community, and should instead 
     base its decision on the elements of sound science and 
     economic benefit.

  It is up to each of us to pay attention to the issues that face us 
and make the right decisions for our future