[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 32 (Thursday, February 27, 2003)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E325-E327]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




     INTRODUCTION OF FOREST RESTORATION AND FIRE RISK REDUCTION ACT

                                 ______
                                 

                            HON. MARK UDALL

                              of colorado

                    in the house of representatives

                      Thursday, February 27, 2003

  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, along with my cousin and 
colleague, Representative Tom Udall of New Mexico, I am today 
introducing the Forest Restoration and Fire Reduction Act.
  This bill is designed to accelerate efforts to reduce the risks from 
wildfires to communities--including their water supplies--and to 
promote locally-based efforts to restore the conditions of our forest 
lands. It is the result of over four years of involvement with 
questions of forest management and particularly the dangers of 
unusually severe wildfires.
  Since my election to Congress, I have visited forest lands in 
Colorado and elsewhere to see first hand the result of over 100 years 
of national policies emphasizing fire suppression--the accumulation of 
small diameter trees and thick underbrush. I have also examined areas 
where work has been done to reduce the likelihood of such fires and to 
move toward forest conditions that will make it possible for fire to 
play its historic role as a natural and valuable part of forest 
ecosystems. And I have studied areas like the lands affected by last 
year's Hayman Fire--which burned over 130,000 acres near Denver--to 
learn about the harm to lands, communities, and water supplies that can 
come from unnaturally hot fires resulting from drought and high winds 
combined with the build-up of vegetative fuels.
  I have also been listening to many Coloradans, other Westerners, 
scientists, and others with expertise in forest management to learn 
their views on the conditions of our forests and what if anything they 
think should be done to improve those conditions.
  From what I have learned, I have long been convinced that in some 
forest regimes, such as the ponderosa forests along Colorado's Front 
Range, reducing fuel loads through thinning--by controlled burns or 
mechanical means--can lessen the likelihood of unusually severe fires.
  I am also convinced that our limited resources--both of time, people, 
and money--should be expended on doing that kind of work in the areas 
where the likelihood of unusually severe wildfires presents the most 
urgent risk to homes, people and water supplies. Those areas are the 
lands where homes and municipal water facilities adjoin or intermingle 
with forest lands. These areas are often called the ``wildland/urban 
interface, but Coloradans usually call them the ``red zones.'' They 
extend across ownership boundaries, including not only federal lands 
but lands owned by others as well. In Colorado, the ``red zones'' 
encompass over 6 million acres--and there are additional millions of 
acres of such high priority lands throughout the country.
  I have long worked to accelerate thinning projects in Colorado's 
``red zones.'' In July of 2000, 1 introduced a bill--cosponsored by my

[[Page E326]]

colleague from Colorado Springs, Representative Joel Hefley--to help 
get that work underway. It was not enacted, but many of its provisions 
were incorporated into the National Fire Plan put into place by 
Congress and the Clinton Administration after that fiery summer. Since 
then, I have strongly supported the National Fire Plan, but I have been 
concerned about the way it has been implemented--and particularly about 
the fact that there has been a continuing failure to put proper 
emphasis on urgently-needed work in the interface areas--the ``red 
zones.'' I joined others in asking the General Accounting Office (GAO) 
to review the implementation of the National Fire Plan, to see what 
improvements were needed. Based on GAO's report, I again joined with 
Representative Hefley to introduce legislation to make needed changes.

  Since then, the Bush Administration has made some of the changes that 
were needed, but it still is expending too much time and money on 
thinning projects in low-priority areas. At the outset, only about 25 
percent of the lands where thinning was done were in the ``red zones.'' 
Since then, there has been some improvement, but only a little. And 
unless there is a dramatic change, the prospect is not good--the 
President's budget request for fiscal year 2004 actually calls for 
treating fewer ``red zone'' acres than was done in fiscal 2002!
  The bill my cousin and I are introducing today would make the kind of 
dramatic change in this part of the National Fire Plan that is so badly 
needed. It would require that in the future all thinning projects 
funded as part of the National Fire Plan involve lands in the ``red 
zones,'' and it would enable funds for those projects to be used not 
only on Federal lands but on any other lands in those interface areas 
where such treatments are needed.
  Some who share my desire to accelerate needed thinning projects say 
that the environmental laws and procedures for public involvement are 
obstacles that must be removed. I disagree. And some claim many 
projects have been delayed or halted because of opposition, appeals, 
and litigation instigated by some environmental groups. However, the 
facts show otherwise. Some groups or individuals indeed have appealed 
some thinning projects, but that has been more the exception than the 
rule--and even when there have been appeals, often they have not 
challenged entire project, but just portions involving cutting trees or 
building roads in roadless areas or other sensitive areas--areas that 
for the most part are not located in the high risk red zones.
  I do not think it is necessary--let alone desirable--to exempt fire-
risk reduction projects from environmental review, public comments and 
administrative appeals. While some say this would reduce delays, it 
could have just the opposite result, by inviting more litigation--the 
slowest process of all. It would run counter to the sound policy of 
enabling the public to be involved on decisions about their public 
lands and would not assist in developing sound forest management.
  Instead, the bill we are introducing today builds on the consensus 
that has developed about the need to thin in the ``red zones,'' while 
making some procedural adjustments that can expedite the process of 
resolving appeals.
  It would develop support at the front end for projects that are 
urgently needed, narrowly tailored and scientifically sound. It would 
do this through the creation of a cooperative program for hazardous 
fuels reduction projects with both the Forest Service and the Bureau of 
Land Management. The centerpiece of this program is the creation of 
statewide advisory councils to work with these agencies in each state 
on the selection of specific projects. These councils would include 
broad representation of interests and would include scientific 
participation. The councils would develop projects in a collaborative 
fashion so as to avoid opposition, delays and appeals at the back-end 
when projects are being implemented.
  To be eligible under this program, the projects considered by the 
councils would have to meet certain criteria: they would have to be 
exclusively located in ``red zone'' areas and be outside of wilderness 
areas, roadless areas and other sensitive areas (lands that are 
typically not in the red zones and that in any event do not present as 
urgent a risk of unusually severe wildfires). The projects would have 
to be designed so as to minimize the cutting of large or old growth 
trees, which have proven to be resilient to fire events and are 
important to the ecology and diversity of our forested lands.
  The bill also would promote appropriate economic reuse of the brush, 
small trees, and similar material removed from the forests in 
connection with fuel-reduction projects. It would authorize federal 
assistance to homeowners seeking to reduce the risk to their ``red 
zone'' homes through the use of ``defensible space'' techniques or 
similar steps. And it includes provisions to establish collaborative, 
community-based restoration projects that would work on important tasks 
such as controlling erosion, implementing recovery plans for threatened 
or endangered species, restoration of native species of fish and 
wildlife, road and trail upkeep or obliteration.
  I believe that this bill would help us address the urgent fire risk 
situation on our forests. It keeps faith with the need to involve the 
public in the management of our precious public lands while also 
bringing important scientific principles to the table. It focuses 
scarce resources on the highest priority areas while maintaining 
opportunities to consider environmental and other potential impacts. In 
short, I believe that the program developed in this bill, along with 
the assistance it provides and the oversight it allows, appropriately 
address some of the most important aspects of current forest 
management--and I think the bill deserve wide support.
  For the information of our colleague, I am attaching a short outline 
of the bill's main provisions.

 Outline of Major Provisions of Draft Forest Restoration and Fire Risk 
                             Reduction Act

       FINDINGS.--Includes findings concerning results of past 
     fire-suppression policies, need for actions to reduce the 
     risks to communities and municipal water supplies and to 
     restore ecological health of forests through cooperative 
     efforts.
       PURPOSES.--Identifies 5 purposes of the bill:
       (1) Reduction of wildfire risks to communities and water 
     supplies;
       (2) Refocusing of National Fire Plan fuel-reduction 
     spending to highest-priority areas;
       (3) Improving communication and joint problem-solving;
       (4) Encouraging sustainable communities and forests through 
     collaborative partnerships focused on forest restoration and 
     fire-risk reduction;
       (5) Developing, demonstrating, and evaluating forest 
     restoration techniques and projects.
       FOCUS ON ``RED ZONES''.--Requires all future National Fire 
     plan funds for fuel-reduction projects go for work in 
     wildland-urban interface or to protect municipal water 
     supplies.
       PROGRAM FOR HAZARDOUS FUEL REDUCTION PROJECTS.--Establishes 
     cooperative community program to enable stakeholders to 
     participate with Forest Service and BLM in planning and 
     carrying out projects to reduce build up of hazardous fuels 
     on forested lands in order to lessen risks to communities and 
     municipal water supplies; establishes eligibility criteria 
     for projects and limits federal share of costs to 80 percent; 
     specifies that no projects can be done in wilderness or 
     wilderness study areas, inventoried roadless areas, or other 
     parts of the Federal lands where removal of vegetation is 
     prohibited or restricted, and requires that limits be set on 
     number and size of trees that can be removed in a project 
     area; sets eligibility requirements and deadlines for any 
     appeals of Forest Service fuel-reduction projects covered by 
     the bill, while allowing waiver of deadlines to promote 
     negotiations.
       SELECTION PROCESS FOR FUEL-REDUCTION PROJECTS.--Requires 
     consultation with State Foresters and technical advisory 
     panels to determine priorities for fuel-reduction projects. 
     Specifies panel membership.
       MONITORING AND EVALUATION.--Requires project monitoring and 
     evaluation.
       ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES.--Provides for public 
     participation and set procedures related to development and 
     review of fuel-reduction projects
       FOREST RESTORATION AND HOMEOWNER ASSISTANCE PROJECTS.--
     Establishes cooperative program for projects to--Help owners 
     reduce risks of damage from wildfire to homes in wildland-
     urban interface; protect, restore, and enhance fish and 
     wildlife habitat and promote recovery of threatened and 
     endangered species; control and remove noxious and invasive 
     species; control erosion and maintain or close roads and 
     trails; provide job training and promote creation of new 
     small businesses focused on forest restoration and use of by-
     products from other projects
       FOREST RESTORATION AND VALUE-ADDED CENTERS.--Provides for 
     establishment of at least one center in each Forest Service 
     region, to provide technical assistance to non-profit 
     organizations, small businesses, and others interested in 
     undertaking forest restoration activities, including 
     environmental assessments and monitoring. Provides for 
     advisory committees to help determine location of centers. 
     Directs Forest Service to provide 75 percent of initial 
     operating costs of centers, up to $1 million annually. 
     Provides for demonstration project of one similar center 
     related to BLM lands and report on whether this should be 
     expanded.
       COMPETITIVE SERVICE HIRING PREFERENCES.--Allows Forest 
     Service and BLM to give preference in hiring to people aged 
     21 or above who have completed at least one year's 
     satisfactory service in a certified youth service or 
     conservation corps.
       RESEARCH AND TRAINING.--Provides for Forest Service applied 
     research program to identify ways to minimize adverse effects 
     of restoration methods and treatments and to test and develop 
     value-added products from restoration byproducts.

[[Page E327]]



                          ____________________