[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 148 (2002), Part 9]
[Senate]
[Pages 11677-11678]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                           FOREST MANAGEMENT

  Mr. CAMPBELL. Madam President, I rise today to talk about forest 
management, although I am certainly sad it has taken the current 
catastrophic wildfires out West to get some attention on this issue.
  On May 18, before most of the fires had started and were underway, I 
held a field hearing for the Energy Committee in Golden, CO, to review 
coordination of firefighting efforts. The four intergovernmental 
witnesses all expressed serious concern that Colorado's unnaturally 
dense forests pose serious risk of unnaturally hot burning and 
unmanageable fires, increasing the danger to both people and property. 
Unfortunately, that worry became a very real, unimaginable reality for 
much of the West.
  In our State alone just this year, we have had over 350,000 acres 
burn. As of yesterday, the Hayman fire east of I-25 between Denver and 
Colorado Springs had burned in excess of 137,000 acres, much of it in 
the all-important South Platte watershed of the City of Denver.
  While the fire is now 70 percent contained, over 1,200 residents are 
at risk and many lost their homes. In fact, 618 homes and structures 
burned, and it has cost over $26 million so far in fighting this fire. 
The Forest Service tells us much of this fire is in an area of diseased 
and stressed timber, some of which they have been attempting to clean 
up, but opponents are delaying this needed management through courtroom 
appeals and litigation.
  It is important to note that large parts of the area that has burned 
are in the areas that were designated as roadless during the Clinton 
administration, under the Clinton management plan.
  We have the Million Fire near the little town of South Fork, CO, near 
Wolf Creek Pass. That fire is not big by the standards of this summer, 
but it has already consumed over 8,500 acres, and it is right on the 
outskirts of the town of South Fork. We have lost 13 homes and 
buildings in that fire. The resource managers tell us it is burning in 
an area of spruce and ponderosa pine already killed by insects.
  History shows many of proposed salvage sales on the Rio Grande 
National Forest have also been opposed by opponents of cleaning the 
forests, and they have had difficulty getting proactive thinning and 
sanitation harvesting through the NEPA process. The agency tells us 
that nearly 100 additional homes and commercial buildings are currently 
threatened and that the town's watershed is also in the line of fire.
  Finally, just near where I live in Durango, CO, what is called the 
Missionary Ridge fire, which I am sure you have seen on CNN and a 
number of other networks, is 15 miles from the town of Durango, CO--in 
fact, I can see it from my front porch--and it is burning that way. Ten 
subdivisions are endangered, over 1,150 residences are being evacuated, 
and we have lost 71 homes and outbuildings. The municipal watersheds of 
the towns of Durango and Bayfield are threatened, as well as numerous 
businesses, radio towers, and homes.
  The interesting part of that fire is it is burning mostly in RARE II 
roadless areas. Last week, when I was home, the fire was only about 2 
miles from the city limits of the town of Durango with zero containment 
and certainly has had a devastating impact on the morale of the 
community, on the structures, and on tourism, which is the backbone and 
mainstay of our economy.
  All of those fires I have mentioned have really been eclipsed and 
overshadowed by the huge fire in Arizona in the Coconino National 
Forest, not far from the White River National Forest.
  I am reminded of 1996, when there was an effort by the Forest Service 
to do some fuels reduction in the Coconino Forest. They were prevented 
from doing so by an environmental lawsuit under the Endangered Species 
Act which contended that the fuels reduction would disturb the goshawk, 
a small hawk. Later that same year, there was a fire that did start in 
that forest, and it destroyed everything in its path, including the 
goshawk nests. Now we have almost the same catastrophic fire in the 
White River National Forest.
  Time and again, we hear from Colorado firefighters who are frustrated 
they can't seem to get ahead of the fires. I submit we cannot seem to 
get ahead of some of the lawsuits that block our responsible management 
of the forests, and we won't be able to get any place under control 
until we do. This year so far, we have had over 300 fires nationwide, 
and the fire season is just starting.
  The science is certain: Thinning forests at natural levels 
significantly reduces the threat of wildfires. Yet the constant threat 
of environmental lawsuits has resulted in what has been described by 
the Forest Service as ``analysis paralysis.'' The Forest Service is now 
forced to study and assess proposed actions, not for the right reasons, 
but because of any potential action in the courts, in anticipation of a 
flurry of lawsuits and appeals by some extreme groups. Dale Bosworth, 
Chief of the Forest Service, testified before our committee that they 
are now using over 40 percent of their agency work and a good deal of 
their resources, about $250 million a year, that could have gone to 
save lives and property. Instead, they are using it to prepare for 
court actions against opponents of cleaning the forest.
  Environmental groups are proud of that obstruction-through-litigation 
strategy because every dollar we spend in litigating is one less dollar 
we spend on managing the forest. They do acknowledge, however, that 
forests are unnaturally dense.
  In Colorado, normally we have 50 trees per acre. But now we see 
stands of 200, 500, and 800 trees per acre, representing unmanageable 
fuel loads. Many of these trees are dying from insect infestation, 
which increases the fire risk. Yet environmentalists still oppose any 
thinning or removal of dead timber except if it is near homes or around 
homes. They argue that thinning other parts of the forest grants 
unnecessary footholds for the ``big, bad'' timber industry that will 
ravage the landscape. It is interesting that what they completely 
ignore is that industry thinning on national forests is done under very 
close scrutiny of the National Environmental Policy Act.
  What about lawsuits in the name of animals? On the one hand, 
environmentalists sue land managers to keep them from thinning because 
the action might disturb all manner of species. On the other hand, they 
ignore the complete devastation that catastrophic fires such as the 
ones we are experiencing do to the same species.
  I spoke to one firefighter last week. He told me that the 150-foot 
flames in the Mission Ridge fire were traveling so fast and were so 
intense that birds in flight were actually being burned out of the air. 
Certainly, most small animals that are land animals have no chance at 
all. That includes the spotted owl, the red squirrel, Preble's meadow 
jumping mouse, and hundreds of animals on the endangered species list.
  In arguing against thinning, environmentalists also ignore the very 
real

[[Page 11678]]

long-term damage that large and intense fires have on soil and 
watersheds. Over 70 percent of our Nation's water comes from 
waterbodies in our forests. Yet, these environmental groups would 
prohibit thinning around watersheds, such as the South Platte project. 
I would have thought that they would support such efforts, especially 
after the Buffalo Creek fire of 1996, which cost the city of Denver 
millions of dollars to restore water quality.
  Environmentalists oppose improving the safety of our watersheds 
because they fear losing the Clinton-era ``roadless rule,'' which 
provides that no new roads can be built where none exist. Their prized 
``roadless rule'' effectively acts as a wilderness designation 
requiring an act of Congress.
  It is ironic that the ``roadless rule'' that environmentalists hold 
so dear was recently ruled illegal by a Federal judge in Idaho because 
the public comment period was grossly inadequate, stating, ``Justice 
hurried on a proposal of this magnitude is Justice denied.''
  I am a big supporter of grass roots initiatives--local communities 
should be involved in land management decisions. Opportunities for 
public comment and participation are important aspects of environmental 
law. However, these opportunities are being poisoned by radical groups 
too interested in legitimizing their own worth to contributors than in 
collaboratively working for the betterment of our Nation's resources.
  Some of these organizations have effectively paralyzed responsible 
forest management practices, thus contributing to poor forest health. 
In fact, 73 million acres of national forest are at risk from severe 
wildland fires. In the West, more than half of the rangeland riparian 
area on the National Forest System do not meet standards for healthy 
watersheds, and one in six acres in the Rocky Mountain and Plains 
states is making no progress toward improvement. All this in the name 
of environmentalism.
  Forest Service Chief Dale Bosworth recently acknowledged that the 
Hayman Fire near Denver would not have been nearly as severe had forest 
thinning projects gone forward.
  I am unwilling to allow our forest's health and environmental quality 
to continue deteriorating simply because a minority of environmental 
organizations have thrown science and good sense out of the window in 
the name of their own political agenda while completely avoiding the 
tradgey of the 14 deaths of firefighters from the Storm King Fire of 
1994 or the recent loss of five firefighters in a bus wreck while on 
their way to fight fire in Colorado.
  I have seen the negative effect that some environmental organizations 
have had in the West for a long time. But enough is enough--something 
has to change. It is unfortunate that it has taken tragic fires like 
the ones raging out West to get the Nation and the media to acknowledge 
the same.
  I hope, as we move from this Congress to the next, we will look for 
more positive ways to achieve responsible forest management.
  With that, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Dayton). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator 
from Delaware, Mr. Carper, be recognized for 3 minutes as in morning 
business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Delaware is recognized for 3 minutes.

                          ____________________