[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 32 (Thursday, February 27, 2003)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E331]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




             FOREST RESTORATION AND FIRE RISK REDUCTION ACT

                                 ______
                                 

                             HON. TOM UDALL

                             of new mexico

                    in the house of representatives

                      Thursday, February 27, 2003

  Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce the 
Forest Restoration and Fire Risk Reduction Act, a bill based upon the 
collaboration with my colleague and cousin, Representative Mark Udall 
of Colorado.
  In the 134 million-acre interior West, scientific assessments 
indicate that in pre-industrial times, 50 to 80 million acres burned 
per year. In the 1900's, however, fire suppression became federal 
policy. A century of fire suppression, excessive logging and 
overgrazing of livestock has led, in many areas, to overstocked forests 
of second-growth trees. These forests are extremely susceptible to the 
damaging effects of high-intensity fire.
  In terms of resource damage, catastrophic wildfire affects our 
forest's ecosystems by destroying critical habitat, eroding soil, 
changing air temperature, moisture content and productivity, while at 
the same time, facilitating the spread of invasive weeds and non-native 
plants, and generating air pollution. This matter is complicated 
further by rising fiscal costs that force the increased population and 
development of ``wildland/urban'' interface areas. In recent years, the 
Forest Service generally has expended $500-600 million annually in fire 
preparedness, suppression, and rehabilitation. Within the past last 
three years, however, over a billion dollars have been spent.
  Inseparably related to current forest management practices is the 
issue of pervasive drought. As we all know, our nation has been 
suffering from severe drought conditions for several years now, and so 
far this year proves to be no different. Rain and snowfall in New 
Mexico and many of our western states is to date far below averages. As 
a result of the continuing drought in the west, we have also 
experienced some of the worst wildfire seasons in modern history. The 
relatively recent Cerro Grande fire in New Mexico, the Hayman fire in 
Colorado, and the Rodeo-Chediski fires in Arizona illustrate the 
severity of the situation. These fires were catastrophic in proportion 
and inflicted grave environmental, social, and economic impacts on the 
affected local communities. Consequently, these, and other areas 
affected by the devastating affects of raging wildfires, face years of 
restorative efforts and depend upon the development and implementation 
of a viable fire hazard mitigation program on National Forest System 
lands to avert such disasters in the future.

  In response to these concerns and those I heard from constituents, I 
have worked closely with Representative Mark Udall to devise a bill 
that takes these issues to task. Our ``Forest Restoration and Fire Risk 
Reduction Act'' refocuses the implementation of the National Fire Plan 
(NFP) to areas designated as ``wildland/urban interface,'' the critical 
zones that are of the highest risk to people, property and water 
supplies, by redirecting NFP funding and hazardous fuels reduction 
projects through state selection panels.
  A general consensus exists today that thinning our forests--by 
controlled bums or mechanical means--will lessen the likelihood of 
unusually severe fires. However, the Bush Administration contends that 
to facilitate such thinning projects, the environmental laws and 
procedures for public comment and participation are obstacles that must 
be removed. I believe that this contention is incomprehensible and 
conceptually flawed.
  The exemption of fire-risk reduction projects from environmental 
review, public comments and administrative appeals, circumvents 
established policy of public participation, an important aspect of our 
democratic process for making decisions affecting public lands. 
Furthermore, excluding public comment would not assist in developing 
sound forest management. The bill we are introducing today maintains 
these sound principles of law and public policy, and makes some 
relatively innocuous procedural concessions that can expedite the 
process of resolving appeals.
  I anticipate that collaboration between state and federal land 
managers, and local and tribal communities in both decision and 
implementation activities may contribute to the development of cost-
effective restoration activities, empower diverse organizations to 
implement activities that value local and traditional knowledge, build 
ownership and civic pride, and ensure healthy, diverse, and productive 
forests and watersheds. Such collaboration would result in the 
efficient restoration of areas distressed by wildfires and help protect 
our homeowners and businesses from future losses.
  I believe, as all of us from the western United States would likely 
agree, that it is much better to support proactive preventative 
maintenance programs to reduce fire risks than it is to wait to do 
something once a fire occurs. We need legislation that will reduce the 
potential for catastrophic fires and protect our communities, and aid 
in the restoration of lands that may meet the same unfortunate fate as 
did those in the Cerro Grande blaze. The ``Forest Restoration and Fire 
Risk Reduction Act'' will accomplish these common goals.

                          ____________________