[Senate Report 108-121]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
Calendar No. 246
108th Congress Report
SENATE
1st Session 108-121
======================================================================
HEALTHY FORESTS RESTORATION ACT OF 2003
_______
July 31 (legislative day, July 21), 2003.--Ordered to be printed
_______
Mr. Cochran, from the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and
Forestry, submitted the following
R E P O R T
together with
MINORITY VIEWS
[To accompany H.R. 1904]
The Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry,
reports H.R. 1904 as amended to improve the capacity of the
Secretary of Agriculture and the Secretary of the Interior to
plan and conduct hazardous fuels reduction projects on National
Forest System lands and Bureau of Land Management lands aimed
at protecting communities, watersheds, and certain other at-
risk lands from catastrophic wildfire, to enhance efforts to
protect watersheds and address threats to forest and rangeland
health, including catastrophic wildfire, across the landscape,
and for other purposes, having considered the same, recommends
that the bill do pass.
CONTENTS
Page
I. Introduction and summary.........................................2
II. Purpose, need and background.....................................2
III. Section-by-section analysis......................................6
IV. Legislative history and votes in the Committee..................18
V. Regulatory impact statement.....................................22
VI. Budgetary impact of the bill....................................23
VII. Minority views..................................................26
VIII.Changes in existing law.........................................31
I. Introduction and Summary
H.R. 1904, the Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003, as
reported by the Senate Agriculture Committee, empowers the
Secretaries of Agriculture and the Interior to expedite
projects that are designed to reduce hazardous fuels buildups
and restore healthy forest conditions on federal forest lands.
Such projects will help to protect communities and watersheds
from catastrophic wildfire. The legislation also contains a
number of judicial review provisions designed to expedite legal
proceedings governing federal agency efforts to deal with the
forest crisis.
The legislation also promotes a variety of other efforts
designed to safeguard watersheds and address threats to forest
and range land health, such as wildfire and insect infestation.
Such provisions include those that: (1) promote the utilization
of biomass that is removed as a by-product of forest
restoration activities, including research, technology
transfer, and rural economic development; (2) provide forestry
assistance to state, private and tribal forest landowners to
improve and restore healthy watershed conditions; (3)
facilitate research assessments on large-scale treatments to
reduce insect infestations and improve forest health; (4)
provide for entering into voluntary agreements with private
landowners for the management of their forests to encourage the
recovery of threatened and endangered species; (5) establish a
Public Land Corps to provide youth employment and skill
development in the implementation of forest restoration
projects; (6) establish a program to provide scientific
technology transfer and grants to assist rural, resource-
dependent communities attract investment in small enterprises
that diversify their economies and utilize the by-products of
forest restoration activities; and (7) improve information
about, and assessment of, emerging forest health problems,
address invasive plant pests, and promote research on the
management of upland hardwood forests in the southeastern U.S.
II. Purpose, Need and Background
PURPOSE
The purposes of H.R. 1904, the Healthy Forests Restoration
Act of 2003, are to: (1) empower the Secretaries of Agriculture
and the Interior to expedite projects designed to reduce
hazardous fuels buildups and restore healthy forest conditions
on federal forest lands so as to protect communities and
watersheds from catastrophic wildfire; and (2) promote other
efforts that safeguard watersheds and address threats to forest
and range land health, such as wildfire and insect infestation.
The judicial review provisions of the legislation are designed
to expedite legal proceedings governing federal agency efforts
to deal with the forest crisis.
Other provisions of the legislation are designed to: (1)
promote the utilization of biomass that is removed as a by-
product of forest restoration activities, including research,
technology transfer, and rural economic development; (2)
provide forestry assistance to state, private and tribal forest
landowners to improve and restore healthy watershed conditions;
(3) facilitate research assessments on large-scale treatments
to reduce insect infestations and improve forest health; (4)
provide for entering into voluntary agreements with private
landowners for the management of their forests to encourage the
recovery of threatened and endangered species; (5) establish a
Public Land Corps to provide youth employment and skill
development in the implementation of forest restoration
projects; (6) establish a program to provide scientific
technology transfer and grants to assist rural, resource-
dependent communities attract investment in small enterprises
that diversify their economies and utilize the by-products of
forest restoration activities; and (7) improve information
about, and assessment of, emerging forest health problems,
address invasive plant pests, and promote research on the
management of upland hardwood forests in the southeastern U.S.
BACKGROUND
Federal land managers estimate that over 100 million acres
of Federal forest lands are at unnaturally high risk of
catastrophic wildfires and large-scale insect and disease
outbreaks because of unhealthy forest conditions. The wildfire
seasons of 2000 and 2002 were among the most destructive in the
last half-century. In 2002 alone, more than 7.2 million acres
burned--more than twice the 10-year average. These fires
resulted in the deaths of 23 firefighters, drove tens of
thousands of people from their homes, and destroyed 2000
buildings. Over the last decade, fire-related deaths have been
increasing and on average are now 17 per year. In a 1995 survey
of wildland fire fighters, the number one action these fire
fighters recommended was mechanical removal of fuels to
increase their margins of safety. In 2002, Oregon, Arizona, and
Colorado experienced the largest wildfires in their respective
histories, causing damage to air quality, water quality, and
wildlife habitat in these states and beyond.
The 2003 fire season continues the trend of the last
several years. By the end of July, hundreds of homes and other
structures have been destroyed and 12 firefighters' lives have
been lost.
While the immediate cause of the wildfire situation is the
long-term drought conditions that exist in the Western U.S.,
the underlying cause has been the buildup of forest fuels that
has taken place over the last century. In many forest areas
where, in the past, there were 100 trees per acre or fewer in
open park-like stands, there are now dense stands of a thousand
trees or more. All those trees compete for limited amounts of
water and nutrients and are at increased risk to insects,
disease and unnaturally intense wildfires.
In spite of the billions of dollars that have been spent
fighting wildfires over the last several years, federal
agencies have been frustrated in their efforts to reduce the
intensity and destructiveness of wildfires by thinning
overcrowded stands and using controlled burning to reduce
forest fuels. The Forest Service believes that its efforts to
carry out time sensitive projects have been bogged down by
legally mandated administrative process requirements that have
delayed critical fuels reduction projects. In its June 2002
report, PROCESS PREDICAMENT: How Statutory, Regulatory and
Administrative Factors Affect National Forest Management, the
Forest Service documents how requirements for detailed
documentation, administrative appeals of proposed forest
treatment projects, lawsuits and injunctions have all delayed
needed projects and made it difficult for federal land
management agencies to carry out necessary forest restoration
and fuels treatments.
It is not only communities and homes that are at risk--key
watersheds and critical wildlife habitats are being damaged and
destroyed. In 1996, the 12,000-acre Buffalo Creek Fire in
Colorado damaged a portion of the watershed serving the city of
Denver. Although only a small fraction of the watershed was
burned, tens of thousands of tons of sediment washed into
Strontia Springs Reservoir, damaging Denver's main water supply
system and costing the city millions of dollars to repair. To
reduce the risk of future damaging wildfires in this sensitive
Denver watershed, the Forest Service planned a number of fuels
treatment and forest restoration projects. A business process
analysis of one of these projects, the Upper South Platt
Watershed Restoration and Protection Project, identified that
over 800 administrative activities are involved in preparing a
legally defensible fuels treatment project that includes sale
of commercial timber. Implementation of this project was later
delayed due to an administrative appeal. Unfortunately, before
this project could be implemented, in 2002 the 137,000-acre
Hayman Fire, the largest and the most destructive wildfire in
Colorado history, burned one-third of the project area.
The National Academy of Public Administration, in its 2002
report, WILDFIRE SUPPRESSION: Strategies for Containing Costs,
(p. 34) said:
Delays in creating or amending [Land Management Plans
(LMPs) and Fire Management Plans (FMPs)] result from
the need to use long, detailed and costly planning
processes that comply with diverse environmental and
other laws and regulations, allow for long public
review periods, and are subject to administrative and
judicial appeals.
Due to these demanding procedures for planning and
environmental clearances, it may take several years to
prepare the required analyses for complex or
controversial fuels treatment projects, particularly
those involving projects that rely on commercial timber
sale authority. Federal agencies may be faced with
having projects tied up with appeals and litigation for
a prolonged period. Consequently, federal land units
often back away from critical plans and projects,
rather than risk scarce time and money in an effort
that may stretch out so long, or may never be approved.
Where damaging wildfires have occurred and moved into areas
where thinning and fuel treatments have taken place, the
results have often shown how dramatically forest treatments can
change the behavior of destructive wildfires. In an increasing
number of cases, when wildfires have entered treated stands,
destructive and intense crown fires have been stopped dead in
their tracks or the fire dropped from the tree crowns to become
a much less destructive and more easily controlled ground fire.
Many communities and outside groups are calling for action
to expedite fuels treatment on federal lands. The Western
Governors Association has been a major catalyst for action, as
have the leaders of communities at risk. In spite of such calls
for action, wildfires are currently damaging far more land
annually than federal agencies are treating.
While America's forest health crisis is often cast as a
phenomenon unique to western forest lands--based largely on the
high profile of western wildfires--it is not limited to the
West. Major pest and pathogen outbreaks are also degrading
forest ecosystems in other parts of the country. In Arkansas
and Missouri, for example, a recent unprecedented outbreak of
Red oak borer has infected 800,000 acres of Federal and non-
Federal forest lands. This is not an isolated event. This
legislation would address forest health issues in the eastern
U.S., as well.
NEED FOR LEGISLATIVE ACTION
The primary purposes of the Healthy Forest Restoration Act
of 2003 are to provide federal land managers with the ability
to streamline government procedures and move rapidly to use
scientifically supported fuels treatment and restoration
methods on federal forests, while also establishing new
conservation programs to improve water quality and restore
healthy conditions on private forest lands. Time and resources
are directed toward improving a forest area's health by making
public and community participation more focused on treatment of
insect-infested forests and reduction of unnatural, highly
combustible overgrowth.
When federal agencies propose hazardous fuels reductions
projects designed to thin forests or carry out prescribed
burning activities, such projects can be delayed for extended
periods by requirements for detailed documentation,
administrative appeals and lawsuits. The legislation contains
several provisions dealing with judicial review of federal
hazardous fuels treatment projects. These include: (1) the
legislation would require a lawsuit challenging a fuels
reduction project to be filed within 15 days of the final
notice of decision on the project (only the six year statute of
limitations currently applies to the filing of such a suit);
(2) it would require preliminary injunctions granted by a
federal court against a fuels reduction project be reevaluated
every 45 days; (3) it admonishes, in non-binding terms, federal
courts considering a legal challenge to a hazardous fuels
reduction project to issue a decision on the merits within 100
days; (4) it directs federal courts, when considering a
challenge to hazardous fuels reduction projects, to balance the
long-term environmental consequences associated with management
inaction (i.e. doing nothing when the threat of wildfire or
insect infestation looms), against the effects of the project
in the short term, and finally; (5) it directs the courts to
give ``weight'' to the Forest Service's and BLM's scientific
determinations when balancing the ``harms'' of implementing a
project with the ``harms'' of doing nothing.
The legislation provides land managers with additional and
important tools to maintain and preserve forest and rangeland
health. Through this legislation, land managers will now have
an improved ability to sustain healthy conditions in America's
forests while protecting both life and property.
In addition to the provisions designed to expedite
hazardous fuels projects, other provisions include those that:
Establish biomass grant programs to promote
research and development for the energy and other
commercial use of vegetative overgrowth and brush
discarded during treatment;
Provide financial and technical support to
Indian Tribes and private forest landowners for
watershed quality protection;
Authorize funding for systematic
information-gathering on destructive insects causing
large-scale forest damage;
Support a private forestland conservation
initiative to restore declining forests critical to the
recovery of threatened, endangered and other sensitive
species;
Establish a Public Land Corps of young
people for rehabilitation and enhancement projects in
forest communities; and
Assist forest communities by promoting
investment in small forest products businesses and
local development.
III. Section-by-Section Anaylsis
Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents
Gives the Act a short title of ``Healthy Forests
Restoration Act of 2003.'' Lists table of contents.
Sec. 2. Purpose
Lists the purposes of this Act, including: to reduce the
risks of damage to communities, municipal water supplies and
federal lands from catastrophic wildfire; to authorize grant
programs to improve the commercial value of forest biomass; to
enhance efforts to protect watersheds and address threats to
forest and rangeland health; to promote systematic information
gathering to address the impacts of insect infestation on
forest and rangeland health; to improve the capacity to detect
insect and disease infestations at an early stage; and to
benefit threatened and endangered species, improve biological
diversity and enhance carbon sequestration.
Sec. 3. Definitions
Defines the terms: federal land, Indian tribe.
TITLE I--HAZARDOUS FUELS REDUCTION ON FEDERAL LAND
Sec. 101. Definitions
Defines the terms: authorized hazardous fuels reduction
project, condition class 2, condition class 3, day, decision
document, federal land, hazardous fuels, hazardous fuels
reduction project, implementation plan, interface community,
intermix community, municipal water supply system, resource
management plan, Secretary, threatened and endangered species
habitat.
Paragraph (1) defines the term ``authorized hazardous fuels
reduction project'' to mean those hazardous fuels reduction
projects on Federal land described in section 102(a) that are
conducted in accordance with the sections 103 and 104.
Authorized hazardous fuels reduction projects conducted under
section 104 are those for which the Secretary is required under
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) to prepare an
Environmental Assessment (EA) or Environmental Impact Statement
(EIS). Hazardous fuel reduction projects that are categorically
excluded from documentation in an EA or EIS are carriedout
under authority other than this Act and are not subject to the process
authorized in section 104.
Paragraph (7) defines the term ``hazardous fuels reduction
project'' to mean the measures and methods described in the
definition of ``appropriate tools'' in the Implementation Plan.
The term ``Implementation Plan'' is defined in paragraph (8) to
mean the Implementation Plan for the 10-year Comprehensive
Strategy for a Collaborative Approach for Reducing Wildland
Fire Risks to Communities and the Environment (including any
subsequent revision to the Plan). Accordingly, the Committee
intends the definition of ``appropriate tools'' in the Plan to
refer to the definition as it may be subsequently revised.
Where reference is given in this and other sections of the
bill to existing documents and the notation is made ``including
any subsequent revision'' this includes revisions subsequent to
enactment of this act.
The Committee intends that the source watersheds referred
to in the definition of municipal water supply system include
groundwater aquifers that may be adversely affected by
unnaturally intense wildfire events. By January 2004, the
Committee requests the Secretary of Agriculture to inform the
Senate Agriculture Committee as to the federal, state and local
efforts to manage and protect municipal water supply systems on
National Forest System (NFS) lands. This report should discuss
the extent of municipal water supply systems on National Forest
System lands (as defined in this legislation or other
appropriate definition), their current status and trends and
the threats that exist to meeting current and anticipated
demands for high quality water from NFS lands.
Sec. 102. Authorized hazardous fuels reduction projects
Allows for authorized hazardous fuels reduction projects on
federal lands that: (1) are located in an interface or intermix
community, (2) are located in proximity to such communities,
(3) are condition class 3 or 2 and located in proximity to a
municipal watershed or water supply, (4) are condition class 3
or 2 and have been identified as an area where windthrow,
blowdown, ice storm damage, the existence or threat of disease
or insect infestation poses a threat to forest or rangeland
health, or (5) contain threatened and endangered species.
Requires projects to be planned and conducted in a manner
consistent with land and resource management plans or an
applicable land use plan. Limits the acreage available for
authorized hazardous fuels reduction projects to 20,000,000
acres. Prohibits the Secretary concerned from conducting an
authorized hazardous fuels reduction project on the following
federal lands: a component of the National Wilderness
Preservation System, federal lands where the removal of
vegetation is prohibited or restricted by a Congress or a
presidential proclamation, or wilderness study areas.
As discussed in the hearing on June 26, 2003, the Committee
notes that extensive areas of federal land are currently
damaged or threatened by disease or insect infestations. The
Committee expects the Secretary of Agriculture to expeditiously
classify appropriate federal lands that have been affected by
windthrow, blowdown, ice storm damage, the existence of threat
of disease, or insect infestation as condition class 3 or
condition class 2 federal land.
Sec. 103. Prioritization for communities and watersheds
Gives priority to authorized hazardous fuel reduction
projects which provide for protection of communities and
watersheds.
Sec. 104. Environmental analysis
Subsection (a) provides that, except as provided in this
title, the Secretary shall conduct an authorized hazardous fuel
reduction project in accordance with the NEPA and other
applicable laws. The Secretary is required to prepare an EA or
an EIS for an authorized hazardous fuel reduction project.
Subsection (b) relieves the Secretary from the requirement in
section 102(2) of NEPA to develop a range of alternatives to a
proposed authorized hazardous fuel reduction project in an EA
or EIS.
Encourages the public participation requirements set out in
the Western Governors Association 10-year wildfire management
strategy for use in conducting hazardous fuels reduction
projects. Section 105(c)(1) requires the Secretary to provide
notice of each hazardous fuel reduction project in accordance
with applicable regulations and administrative guidelines. The
Committee intends that the requirement for notice and comment
in section 105(b)(2) would also satisfy the notice requirement
in section 104(c)(1). Section 104(c)(2) requires the Secretary
to conduct a meeting during the preparation stage of an
authorized hazardous fuel reduction project. This provision
provides the Secretary with the flexibility to hold the meeting
at any time during the preparation stage of an authorized
hazardous fuel reduction project, including holding the meeting
during the public comment period.
Requires the Secretary concerned to monitor the
implementation of authorized hazardous fuels reduction project.
Sec. 105. Special forest service administrative review process
Directs the Secretary to issue final regulations to
establish an administrative review process for proposed
hazardous fuel reduction projects within 90 days of enactment
of this Act. Section 105 provides the Secretary with broad
discretion to establish the appropriate administrative review
process. Section 105(b)(1) limits eligibility to participate in
the process to persons who have submitted specific and
substantive written comments during the notice and comment
stage of the project. Section 105(b)(2) requires the Secretary
to ensure that, during the preparation stage of an authorized
hazardous reduction project, notice and comment is provided in
a manner sufficient to meet the eligibility requirement. The
Committee recognizes that the process may be a pre-decisional
process similar to the Bureau of Land Management protest
process.
Sec. 106. Special requirements regarding judicial review of authorized
hazardous fuels reduction projects
Establishes a time limit for filing a challenge to an
authorized hazardous fuels reduction project to 15 days within
notice of the final agency action. Limits the duration of any
preliminary injunction granted on an authorized project to 45
days, subject to renewal. Admonishes (in non-binding terms) a
court in which an action or an appeal is filed to render a
final determination within 100 days of when the complaint or
appeal is filed.
Sec. 107. Standard for injunctive relief for agency action to restore
fire-adapted forest or rangeland ecosystems
Directs the court, in considering a request for injunctive
relief, to consider the public interest in avoiding long-term
harm to the ecosystem. Directs the court to give weight to any
agency finding that the balance of harm and the public interest
in avoiding the short-term effects of the agency action is
outweighed by the public interest in avoiding long-term harm to
the ecosystem, unless the court finds that the decision by the
agency was arbitrary and capricious.
Sec. 108. Effect of title
Clarifies that nothing in this title shall be construed to
affect or limit the use of other authorities by the Secretary
concerned to plan or conduct a hazardous fuels reduction
project on federal lands.
TITLE II--BIOMASS
Sec. 201. Findings
Lists Congressional findings as to the need for forest
management activities to be conducted, including the removal of
biomass.
Sec. 202. Definitions
Defines the terms: biomass, Indian tribe, person, preferred
community, and Secretary.
Sec. 203. Grants to improve the commercial value of forest biomass for
electric energy, useful heat, transportation fuels, compost,
value-added products, and petroleum-based product substitutes
Establishes a biomass commercial use grant program to
extend assistance to any person who owns or operates a facility
that uses biomass as a raw material to produce energy or for
other commercial purposes. Establishes a value-added grant
program to extend assistance to persons to offset the cost of
projects to add value to biomass. Authorizes $25 million for
each of the fiscal years 2004 through 2008.
Sec. 204. Reporting requirement
Requires the Secretary of Agriculture, in consultation with
the Secretary of Interior, to submit a report describing the
results of the grant programs by October 1, 2010 to: the House
Agriculture Committee; Resources Committee; Senate Agriculture
Committee; and the Senate Energy and Natural Resources
Committee.
Sec. 205. Improved Biomass Use Research Program
Amends the Biomass Research and Development Act of 2000 to
expand some research from its current form to a more applied
form by developing new tools for land managers; amends the
Biomass Research and Development Act to provide an additional
$5 million in each fiscal year to carry out this section.
It is intended that the Forest Service will conduct this
research in cooperation with colleges, universities (including
forestry schools, land grant colleges, and universities, and
1890 institutions), state agencies and private landowners.
Sec. 206. Rural revitalization through forestry
Amends the Food, Agriculture, Conservation, and Trade Act
of 1990 by enabling the Secretary of Agriculture, in
consultation with other entities, to (A) accelerate adoption of
biomass technologies, (B) create community-based enterprises,
and (C) establish small-scale business enterprises to make use
of biomass. Also authorizes $5 million for each fiscal year to
carry out this section.
The Committee intends that the requirements of this section
can be integrated with the requirements of Title VII.
TITLE III--WATERSHED FORESTRY ASSISTANCE
Sec. 301. Findings and purposes
Lists Congressional findings relating to the need for
protection of watershed health in forest management practices
and describes the purpose of this title.
Sec. 302. Watershed Forestry Assistance Program
Authorizes the Secretary, acting through the Forest
Service, to provide technical, financial and related assistance
to private forest landowners through State foresters and
equivalent state officials. Focuses assistance on expanding
state forest stewardship capacities and activities through best
management practices to improve watershed health. Includes a
technical assistance program to protect water quality and a
watershed cost-share program.
Directs the Secretary to make awards under the cost-share
program to communities, non-profit groups and non-industrial
private forest landowners for watershed forestry projects.
Authorizes $15 million for each of the fiscal years 2004
through 2008. The Federal share of the cost-share program
provided in this section may not exceed 90 percent of the total
cost of the watershed forestry project.
Sec. 303. Tribal watershed forestry assistance
Authorizes the Secretary, acting through the Forest
Service, to provide technical, financial and related assistance
to Indian tribes. Focuses assistance on expanding tribal
stewardship capacities and activities through tribal forestry
best management practices to improve watershed health. Includes
a technical assistance program to protect water quality and a
watershed cost-share program. Authorizes $2.5 million for each
of thefiscal years 2004 through 2008. Directs the Secretary to
devote at least 75 percent of the funds appropriated in a fiscal year
to the cost-share component.
In implementing subsection (c), the Forest Service is
encouraged to work directly with the Intertribal Timber Council
to determine priority areas and other considerations to assist
in allocating funds to tribes.
TITLE IV--INSECT INFESTATIONS
Sec. 401. Findings and purpose
Lists Congressional findings as to insect infestation,
resulting damage and need for assessment and treatment and
states the purposes of this title.
Sec. 402. Definitions
Defines the terms: Applied silivicultural assessment, 1890
institution, Federal land, and Secretary. The Committee
understands that the term ``applied silvicultural assessment''
means any vegetative or other treatment carried out for
information gathering or research purposes under sections 403
or 404.
Sec. 403. Accelerated information gathering regarding forest-damaging
insects
Directs the Department of Agriculture, acting through the
Forest Service and U.S. Geological Survey, to conduct an
accelerated program to plan, conduct, and promote systematic
information gathering on certain insect pests that have caused
large-scale damage to forest ecosystems. Directs the Secretary
to assist land managers in the development of treatments and
strategies to improve forest health and reduce the
susceptibility of forest ecosystems to future infestations.
Directs the Secretary to disseminate the results of such
information gathering, treatments and strategies. Directs the
Secretary to establish and carry out the program in cooperation
with scientists from universities and forestry schools, state
agencies and private and industrial landowners.
Sec. 404. Applied silvicultural assessments
Enables the Secretary concerned to conduct applied
silvicultural assessments on federal lands that the Secretary
determines are at risk. Requires the Secretary to provide
notice and public comment on each proposed silvicultural
assessment.
The information gathering under Sec. 404(a) may be tied to
the implementation of specific research treatments to deal with
insect infestations. The Committee understands that it is
possible that some of the treatments carried out under this
section may combine various stocking reduction levels (done
through tree removals) with applications of pheromones (which
are insect attractants, not killing insecticides) in an attempt
to markedly reduce insect damage.
Creates a categorical exclusion for areas 1,000 acres or
less from documentation under NEPA which eliminates the
Secretary's responsibility to make any findings as to whether
the project has a significant effect on the environment. Areas
covered by a categorical exclusion under this section that use
similar treatment methods cannot be located adjacent to one
another. Caps the total area of land that can be categorically
excluded under this section at 250,000 acres. Requires proposed
assessments to undergo peer review in their design.
The Committee understands that establishing a research
study under Sec. 404(d) to provide answers to research and
management questions requires that the study area have various
components which may include: (a) the appropriate number of
experimental treatments, (b) the appropriate number of
replications of each treatment, and (c) conditions needed to
carry out the experiment (e.g. stand density, stand structure
etc.). These treatments must be randomized. Therefore, the
selection of a study area will be dictated by such concerns as
finding an area of sufficient size, with conditions needed for
studying the effects of insect attacks. In the case of some
bark beetle species, this would likely mean finding an area of
dense stands with evidence of recent or ongoing bark beetle
activity. These treatments do not necessarily have to be
located all in one place.
The Committee encourages the Secretary to carry out the
silvicultural assessments called for in this section in
cooperation and collaboration with universities and forestry
schools.
Sec. 405. Relation to other laws
Clarifies that the authorities provided to the Secretary
concerned in this title are supplemental to authorities
provided in any other law.
Sec. 406. Authorization of appropriations
Authorizes the appropriation of such sums as may be
necessary to carry out this title in fiscal years 2004 through
2008.
TITLE V--HEALTHY FORESTS RESERVE PROGRAM
Sec. 501. Establishment of Healthy Forests Reserve Program
Establishes a Healthy Forests Reserve Program administered
by the Secretary of Agriculture in coordination with the
Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Commerce to
restore degraded forest lands and to promote the recovery of
endangered species.
In implementing this title, it is intended that the Forest
Service, Natural Resources Conservation Service, and
appropriate agencies of the Departments of the Interior and
Commerce work together to capitalize on their areas of strength
and expertise.
Sec. 502. Eligibility and enrollment of lands in program
Directs the Secretary of Agriculture, in consultation with
the Secretaries of the Interior and Commerce, to designate
forest ecosystems to be eligible for the reserve program.
Allows lands to be enrolled pursuant to a 10-year cost-share
agreement, a 30-year agreement or a long-term easement with a
landowner buyback option.
Sec. 503. Restoration plans
Requires participating landowners to develop a restoration
plan with the USDA describing the land use activities to be
permitted on enrolled lands.
Sec. 504. Financial assistance
Sets forth the payment structure for 10-year, 30-year and
long-term enrollment options as well as the procedure to
exercise a landowner choice option in the case of a long-term
easement.
Sec. 505. Technical assistance
Directs the Secretary of Agriculture to provide landowners
with the technical assistance necessary to comply with the
terms of agreements and easements created in this program.
The Forest Service is encouraged to work through State
Foresters to provide forestry technical assistance under this
section.
Section 505(b) permits the Secretary to utilize technical
service providers to deliver technical assistance to
landowners. It is not the intent of this subsection to limit
the Secretary's authority to also work in cooperation with
state forestry or state fish and wildlife agencies, or
equivalent state agencies, to provide technical assistance and
to fully reimburse states for that assistance under existing
legal authorities.
Sec. 506. Protections and measures
Directs the Secretary of Agriculture to make available safe
harbor assurances under section 7 of the Endangered Species Act
to participating landowners when such enrollment will result in
a net conservation benefit for listed species and provides for
cost sharing assistance to landowners to do so.
Sec. 507. Involvement by other agencies and organizations
Enables the Secretary of Agriculture to consult with other
individuals and entities regarding the development and
implementation of the healthy forest reserve program.
Sec. 508. Authorization of appropriations
Authorizes $15 million for each of the fiscal years 2004
through 2008.
TITLE VI--PUBLIC LAND CORPS
Sec. 601. Purposes
Lists the purposes of this title, including: to carry out
rehabilitation, enhancement, and beautification projects; to
offer young people the opportunity to gain work experience; to
give those young people the opportunity to serve their
communities and country; and to expand educational
opportunities of participants.
Sec. 602. Definitions
Defines the terms: Alaska native corporation, corps,
Hawaiian home lands, Indian lands, Secretaries, service and
conservation corps, State.
Sec. 603. Public Land Corps
Establishes the Public Land Corps and names its
participants as individuals who are enrolled as members of a
service or conservation group. Enables the Secretaries to enter
into contracts or agreements with any service or conservation
corps, or with State agencies, to perform rehabilitation,
enhancement, or beautification projects, as well as to provide
technical assistance.
This provides broad authorization for the Secretaries of
the Interior and Agriculture to utilize service and a
conservation corps established by a state and local government,
Indian Tribe, Alaska Native Village or Alaska Native
Corporation, or nonprofit organization to complete hazardous
fuels rehabilitation and beautification projects on federal
lands. These projects may also be carried out on Indian lands,
Hawaiian home lands, Alaska native lands, or state lands
including the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto
Rico, Guam, American Samoa, the Commonwealth of the Northern
Mariana Islands, the Federated States of Micronesia, the
Republic of the Marshall Islands, the Republic of Palau, and
the U.S. Virgin Islands.
The section provides a preference for projects that provide
long-term benefits to reduce hazardous fuels and that will
instill corps members with: a work ethic; a sense of personal
responsibility; and a sense of public service. The project is
also labor intensive and can be planned and initiated promptly.
The section directs the Secretaries to provide such
assistance as they may consider necessary to carry out its
requirements, including coordination and technical coordination
with outside groups to oversee, monitor, and evaluate the
implementation of the projects.
Sec. 604. Nondisplacement
Establishes that the nondisplacement requirements of the
National and Community Service Act of 1990 apply to this title.
Sec. 605. Authorization of appropriations
Authorizes $15 million for each of the fiscal years 2004
through 2008.
TITLE VII--RURAL COMMUNITY FORESTRY ENTERPRISE PROGRAM
Sec. 701. Purpose
Lists the purpose of this title: to revitalize rural
forest-resource dependent communities by promoting investment
in private enterprise through incentives by specified
government agencies.
It is intended that this title be administered in close
coordination with the Rural Revitalization through Forestry
program authorized at the Technology Marketing Unit at the
Forest Products Laboratory in Section 206 of Title II.
Opportunities to develop and share expertise among the Forest
Enterprise Centers and the Technology Marketing Unit should be
a high priority to ensure that these programs are coordinated
and not duplicative of one another.
Sec. 702. Definitions
Defines the terms: 1890 institution, eligible entity,
eligible project, forest products, nonprofit organization,
program, small forest products business, rural forest resource-
dependent community, Secretary.
In Section 702(3)(A), ``responsible forest stewardship''
includes the establishment of forests in rural grassland-
dominated communities attempting to diversify their economies
through the development of forests and forest products
businesses.
In Section 702(4)(G) the intent is to include what are
often referred to as ``special forest products'', ``non-timber
forest products'', and ``non-traditional forest products'' to
allow for the widest range of business opportunities based on a
broad range of products derived from forests.
In Section 702(8)(B) the intent is not to limit the program
to the areas listed.
Sec. 703. Rural Community Forestry Enterprise Program
Establishes the Rural Community Forestry Enterprise Program
through the office of the Secretary, coordinating with other
entities. The purposes of this program are to enhance necessary
skills and establish organizations to promote forest-related
products and activities. Instructs the Secretary to establish
one Forest Enterprise Center at each research station of the
Forest Service to assist this program, as well as to provide
technical assistance and a grant program.
The Committee understands that Enterprise Centers are a
cooperative function of the State and Private Forestry and
Research branches of the Forest Service. Housing the facilities
at Research laboratories would involve a cooperative effort
that includes the active participation of the Research and
Development, State and Private Forestry, and National Forest
System branches of the agency working together to develop and
deliver the most effective and integrated program possible.
There is logic to housing the centers at research laboratories
in that it enhances the opportunity for timely technology
transfer of new research information. But it is not the intent
of this section to require that centers be physically located
at a forest science laboratory. The center may be located in a
nearby federal facility or leased space, as appropriate.
Authorizes $15 million for each of the fiscal years 2004
through 2008.
TITLE VIII--MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS
Sec. 801. Forest inventory and management
This section amends the Cooperative Forestry Assistance Act
of 1978 to authorize the Secretary of Agriculture to carry out
a comprehensive program to inventory, monitor, characterize,
assess and identify forest stands on National Forest System and
private lands, with an emphasis on hardwood forest types.
This section is intended to complement existing Forest
Service inventory and analysis and forest health detection
programs not to replace them. The Committee recognizes that the
application of remote sensing technologies will vary with the
scale of the issue being addressed.
The Committee notes that the Institute of Technology
Development at the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration's Stennis Space Center, along with the
Mississippi State University GeoResources Institute, have the
technical capabilities to utilize geospatial and information
management technologies (including remote sensing and decision
support systems) that would benefit the Secretary's ability to
inventory, monitor, characterize, assess, and identify forest
stands (and potential forest stands) in the southern and
eastern portions of the United States. In carrying out this
program in such areas, the Committee urges the Secretary to
partner with entities such as these in order to take full
advantage of remote sensing technology, emerging geospatial
capabilities in research activities, validating techniques
using application demonstrations, and integrating results into
pilot operational systems.
The language of Sec. 17(a)(2) is not intended to require
private land owner consent to collect and analyze data
collected by various remote sensing technologies. Any ground
checking of such information on privately owned land would,
however, require land owner permission.
The Committee finds that developing a comprehensive early
warning system for potential catastrophic environmental threats
to U.S. forests would significantly increase the likelihood
that forest managers could isolate and treat any such outbreak
before it gets out of control. Such a system might conceivably
help to identify in its early stages epidemics, like that of
the American chestnut blight in the first half of the twentieth
century, which could be environmentally and economically
devastating to forests in the United States.
Sec. 802. Program for emergency treatment and reduction of nonnative
invasive plants
Establishes a program through the Secretary to reduce
nonnative invasive plants, posing a threat of wildfire, through
hazardous fuels reduction projects by issuing grants to
qualifying participants.
The Committee has become increasingly concerned by the
proliferation of nonnative invasive trees, shrubs, and vines
that are degrading the forests of America. In the South,
invasive species, such as kudzu, choke both public and private
forest lands and are out-competing native flora. In the West,
Salt Cedar, Russian Olive, and other woody plants are over-
running stream and river banks, destroying the native
ecosystem, and utilizing critical water resources that are
needed for human water supplies, as well as water needed for
wildlife and fishery. In many instances, these invasive species
increase the risk of catastrophic wildfires both within the
wildland urban interface, as well as within our public and
federal forests, such as the fires that burned within the city
limits of Albuquerque, New Mexico during 2003.
This section directs the Secretaries of the Interior and
Agriculture to work with state and local government, Indian
Tribes, and private landowners to treat or eradicate these
invasive species that increase the risk to property, human
life, or the ecological stability of an area. It authorizes the
Secretaries of Agriculture and the Interior to remove plants
within the wildland urban interface, municipal watersheds, and
along waterways. It authorizes the Secretaries to fund projects
to remove outdated erosion control structures that make
eradication work difficult, or impossible, to complete, such as
the outdated erosion control devises along the Rio Grande River
in the State of New Mexico from the Cochiti Dam on the Rio
Grande River to the headwaters of Elephant Butte Dam on the Rio
Grande River in New Mexico.
The Committee is concerned by the invasion of Salt Cedar
and Russian Olive Trees along the Rio Grande River and expects
the Secretaries to give priority to completion of the Middle
Rio Grande Bosque Initiative, located along portions of the Rio
Grande River from Cochiti Dam to the headwaters of Elephant
Butte Dam, in the State of New Mexico under this authority.
Another invasive species of concern to the Committee is the
exotic vine, kudzu (Pueraia montana), that has taken over and
smothered large areas of forestland in the southeastern U.S.
There are many other invasive plants of concern, including
Cogongrass (Imprata cylindrica), Autumn Olive (Elaeagnus
umbellata), Tallowtree (Triadica sebifera), Nepalese Browntop
(Microstegium vimieum), Japanese Climbing Fern (Lygodium
japonicum), Tree-of-heaven (Ailanthus altissima) and other
aggressive non-native invasive plants threatening forests and
grasslands, particularly in the eastern United States. These
species threaten ecosystem health, public use, and economic
value of the lands they infest and contribute to the
significant loss of native plant and animal species. Some
invasive plants affect the ability to utilize prescribed fire
as a tool for fuels reduction and others can create unnatural
fire regimes that increase the risk of catastrophic wildfire.
Priority should be given to preventing, controlling, and
mitigating the spread and impacts of these and other priority
invasive plants on eligible private, local, State, Tribal and
Federal lands. Management activities will employ a full range
of integrated pest management technologies including
inventories and assessments, chemical control, biological
control, cultural control, and mechanical control operations.
Follow-up monitoring and re-treatment of infestations should be
important components of the programs. Projects will include
restoration activities using native plant materials to prevent
re-infestation following treatments.
This section authorizes the Secretaries of Agriculture and
the Interior to fund and carry out projects to reestablish
native species to these ecosystems, after the invasive species
have been removed. It is the managers' expectation that such
planting will slow the reestablishment of nonnative invasive
trees, shrubs, and vines and will help to stabilize these
important ecosystems.
It authorizes the Secretaries to provide grants to State
and local governments, to Indian Tribes, and to private lands
owners who are willing to participate in the reestablishment of
native species in these ecosystems.
It authorizes such funding as may be needed to carry out
the program and authorizes those funds to remain available to
the Secretaries until they are expended.
Sec. 803. USDA National Agroforestry Center
This section clarifies and updates the role and
responsibilities of the Semiarid Agroforestry Research Center
which was established by the 1990 Farm Bill to encourage the
use of agroforestry practices, such as wind breaks, in erosion
prone semiarid agricultural regions. Since that time, the
Forest Service and its partners have become increasingly aware
of the relevance and potential applicability of agroforestry
technologies to a variety of farming and forestry situations
throughout the U.S. and its territories. All landowner
assistance programs administered by the Forest Service and its
partners, including the Natural Resources Conservation Service,
encourage the integration of trees and forestry practices with
cropping and animal husbandry systems. In addition, the Center
has recently been demonstrating the use of trees to absorb
polluted storm water runoff in rural-urban interface areas in
Kansas--a technology that could prove valuable for urban
centers everywhere.
The amendments provided in this section will serve to
expand the relevance and function of the Center, so that it can
better serve all clients and partners, particularly private
landowners who are seeking innovative, economically viable
solutions to complex and varied land management problems.
Sec. 804. Upland Hardwood Research Center
Instructs the Secretary of Agriculture to establish an
Upland Hardwood Research Center no later than 180 days from the
date of enactment of this Act and to select the location of the
center.
The Center for Upland Hardwood Research would provide a
broad research and development program for upland hardwood,
mixed hardwood, and related forest mosaics of Arkansas and the
mid-South and would be housed at an appropriate location. The
center could also support a virtual connection to other related
federal, state, and private research programs.
Authorizes $2.5 million for each of the fiscal years 2004
through 2008.
Sec. 805. Sense of Congress regarding enhanced community fire
protection
Reaffirms the sense of Congress the importance of the
enhanced community fire protection program under the
Cooperative Forestry Assistance Act of 1978.
IV. Legislative History and Votes in the Committee
H.R. 1904 was introduced in the House of Representatives by
Congressman Scott McInnis on May 01, 2003. It was referred to
the House Agriculture Committee and the Committee on Resources.
The bill was ordered to be reported by Voice Vote from the
House Agriculture Committee on May 9, 2003. The House Resources
Committee was discharged from further consideration of H.R.
1904 on May 9, 2003. This bill was also sequentially referred
to the House Committee on the Judiciary which reported the bill
on May 16, 2003. On May 20, 2003 the House of Representatives
voted 256-170 to pass H.R. 1904. The Senate received H.R. 1904
on May 21, 2003 and referred it to the Committee on
Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry.
The U.S. Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and
Forestry held a hearing on June 26, 2003, to review H.R. 1904.
Chairman Thad Cochran called the hearing to order and then
passed the gavel to Senator Mike Crapo of Idaho, the Chairman
of the Subcommittee on Forestry, Conservation and Rural
Revitalization. Senator Larry Craig of Idaho, the Chairman of
the Subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests of the Committee
on Energy and Natural Resources, was invited to join the
members of the Agriculture Committee. There were four panels of
witnesses testifying during the hearing.
Panel I consisted of Senators John McCain and Jon Kyl of
Arizona. Senator McCain indicated that 25,000 acres of forest
and 345 homes and other buildings had been destroyed by forest
fires in Arizona and that the extent of damage continued as the
fires were only 25 percent contained at the date of the
hearing. He pointed out that in Arizona last year, wildfires
claimed the lives of 23 firefighters, burned 7.2 million acres,
and cost $1.6 billion to fight. Senator McCain expressed
support for the bill.
Senator Kyl remarked about the forest fire then raging in
Arizona and that while a small amount of thinning had been done
around some of the cabins, it was not nearly enough, which was
evident in that it did not prevent the fire from totally
inundating the community of Summerhaven. He expressed his
opinion that protecting all of our forests also included areas
deep in the forest where endangered species live. Senator Kyl
expressed concern that the Committee should not consider just
limiting the legislation to wildland urban interface thinning.
His second concern was that environmental impact assessments
can take up to six months and $40,000 to $50,000 to complete.
He expressed support for H.R. 1904 in that this legislation
allows discretion to be given to proposed agency action which
could lessen the time lag and get these projects implemented
more quickly, without touching environmental laws.
Senator Craig reminded the Committee of the great fire of
1910 that consumed 3 million acres of land in Idaho and
northwestern Montana and that some of those forests in Idaho
and Montana are still recovering today. He referred to various
forest hazards of the past few years and the appropriated funds
required to help recover from them. Senator Craig testified
that in some cases they waived the National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA) and allowed landowners to move to immediate
recovery. He ended with a statement that accented the
importance of moving this legislation forward quickly.
The second panel of witnesses included the Honorable Mark
Rey, Under Secretary for Natural Resources and Environment with
the United States Department of Agriculture and the Honorable
Lynn Scarlett, Assistant Secretary for Policy, Management and
Budget at the United States Department of Interior. Secretary
Scarlett began by estimating that one hundred and ninety
million acres of forests remain in poor condition. She
discussed the Administration's current limited tools for
dealing with the forests of America. After mentioning what has
changed in the past two years, Ms. Scarlett thanked Congress
for their recent consolidated appropriations resolution which
gave the Bureau of Land Management authority to engage in
stewardship contracting, along with the Forest Service. She
then introduced Mr. Rey.
Secretary Rey stated that Title I of the bill would improve
processes which now significantly contribute to costly delays,
and it would allow timely implementation of critical fuels
reduction projects. Mr. Rey then summarized titles II through
VI of the bill, explaining why the Administration believed each
is important.
The third panel of witnesses consisted of Mr. Mike Carroll
from the Division of Forestry in the Minnesota Department of
Natural Resources; Dr. Fred Stephen, the interim department
head at the Department of Entomology at the University of
Arkansas; Mr. Tom Nelson, director of Timberlands, Sierra
Pacific Industries from Redding, California; Ms. Jackie McAvoy,
council member for Post Falls City in Post Falls, Idaho; and
Mr. Michael Peterson of the Lands Council from Spokane,
Washington.
Mr. Carroll spoke on behalf of the National Association of
State Foresters. He indicated his support for H.R. 1904 because
it would help protect and improve the sustainability of
multiple values in varied ecosystems dominated by trees and
that it clearly supports the implementation of the National
Fire Plan, addressing the national need for active forest
management across mixed ownerships at a landscape level. Mr.
Carroll stated that integrated pest management activities
should be applied in a quick response to eradicate new,
invasive pests. At the conclusion of his testimony, Mr. Carroll
indicated that promoting biodiversity, and developing and
maintaining outlets for the byproducts of the forests, was
essential. He mentioned that base industrial processing,
ecotourism, energy and specialty products all need to be
considered as a part of the forestry industry complex.
Dr. Frederick Stephen represented the Society of American
Foresters and noted that they believe that appropriate science-
informed silviculture treatments can be important in increasing
forest diversity and health, and therefore also reduce the
likelihood and severity or impact of many forest insect
outbreaks. He summarized that it is essential that we realize
the complexity and uniqueness of insect epidemics as well as
their commonality and that to successfully manage such problems
will require greater support of research by university and
other scientists. Dr. Stephen urged Congress and the
Administration to continue to support research into
ecologically and economically effective integrated pest
management and forest management systems.
Mr. Tom Nelson, testifying on behalf of the American Forest
and Paper Association, stated that well-designed forest
management strategies must recognize that mechanical treatments
with removal of trees and brush should be an integral part of
the plan. He stated a need for procedures that allow Federal
land managers to expeditiously implement hazardous fuels
reduction projects on Federal forests and rangelands in
critical areas, including areas that threaten communities and
areas at high risk for catastrophic wildfire or insect and
disease infestation. Mr. Nelson emphasized that Congress should
allow agencies to make a more efficient approach to NEPA
documentation and allow for expedited handling of
administrative and judicial challenges. He concluded his
testimonyby asking for the creation of a watershed forestry
assistance program which would provide States and landowners with
technical and financial support in their efforts to address threats to
forest health.
Next, Ms. Jackie McAvoy testified to express support for
H.R. 1904. She stressed her concern over the very real
possibility that catastrophic fires would blaze across the
Nation before any legislation intended to speed the thinning
work that must be done to reduce the threat of insect outbreaks
and devastating wildfires could be adopted. Ms. McAvoy brought
samples of douglas fir bark beetles and western pine beetles
along with bark samples. She indicated her concern for the
safety to those living by National forests and the effects that
fires have on the community.
Mr. Michael Peterson, Director of the Lands Council, a
conservation organization based in Spokane, Washington, noted
his advocacy of the passage of the National Forest Protection
and Restoration Act. Mr. Peterson emphasized that considerable
research found that effective wildfire protection must focus on
the homes and its immediate surroundings and not on wildlands.
He suggested that we should concentrate our fuel-reduction
projects in areas which are about a half-mile from or 200 feet
around structures in community areas in order to help protect
them. Mr. Peterson feels that 85 percent of the National Fire
Plan's hazardous fuel budget should go to these areas. He
indicated that H.R. 1904 takes the emphasis off of community
safety and fails to provide any extra financial assistance to
fire protection around communities. Mr. Peterson also testified
that, in his opinion, H.R. 1904 would restrict the rights of
Americans to take these issues into court and would authorize
an unlimited number of projects, up to 1,000 acres, for all
lands that are claimed at risk from insect infestations.
The final panel of witnesses started with Dr. Norman
Christensen of the Nicholas School of the Environment and Earth
Sciences at Duke University; followed by Dr. Hal Salwasser,
Dean of the College of Forestry at the Department of Forest
Resources at Oregon State University; next was Dr. Donald
Kochan, Visiting Assistant Professor of Law at George Mason
University; the last to testify was Professor Patrick
Parenteau, Director of the Environmental Law Clinic at Vermont
Law School.
Dr. Norman Christensen began his testimony by saying that
many, though not all, western forests are in an unhealthy state
with respect to flammable fuels and the risk of catastrophic
fires and that he supported the intent of H.R. 1904 to protect
communities, watersheds and at-risk lands from catastrophic
fires, but that the bill should be improved in five ways: the
legislation could and should be more specific about which
forests have been altered by fire suppression and past land
use; the bill provides virtually no guidelines for defining
``hazardous fuel reduction''; it could and should be clearer
regarding priorities for hazardous fuel reductions; the bill
could and should be much clearer about desired outcomes; and he
felt that the limited support for monitoring and research and
the proposed changes in NEPA rules would undermine the
opportunity to bring the best science to this important
challenge.
Dr. Hal Salwasser stated that science is clear that we have
major and widespread problems affecting the sustainability of
healthy forests and rangelands, some related to wildfires,
others to insects and diseases. He indicated that sustainable
solutions will have to be tailored to each problem by local,
collaborative, multiparty groups working strategically at
watershed and landscape scales. Dr. Salwasser felt that the
restoration of forest and rangeland health must extend beyond
the wildland urban interface and in municipal watersheds, as
H.R. 1904 proposes. He concluded his testimony by encouraging
the Congress to engage the public universities in assisting
Federal and State agencies, tribes and private groups with all
the actions needed to restore and sustain this Nation's forests
and rangelands.
Mr. Donald Kochan focused on the advisability of enacting
legislation that allows citizens to participate in the process
at the same time that it creates a system of judicial review
that does not hamper the Forest Service and BLM from
effectively dealing with imminent wildfire hazards within the
National Forest System and on the public lands. He underscored
the necessity for the Forest Service and BLM to have the
authority that is contained in H.R. 1904 without waiting
indefinitely for a judicial ruling during a time in which
exists the risks of imminent fire hazards. Mr. Kochan indicated
that the judicial review provisions of this bill are
constitutionally valid and represent sound public policy. He
further stated that this bill sets forth a standard which is
consistent entirely with the current standard for preliminary
injunctions and that the judicial review provisions will not
adversely affect the Court's docket or its ability to manage
its caseload.
Mr. Patrick Parenteau also focused on the judicial review
provisions of H.R. 1904. He urged the Committee to take a
closer look at the judicial review provisions which he felt are
unprecedented, unwise and unnecessary. Mr. Parenteau said that
these provisions are potentially so broad and so inclusive that
they will eliminate the NEPA review in cases where the statute
and the CEQ regulations would mandate review. He suggested that
in this bill the Administration has moved to limit citizens'
ability to appeal projects through the codified appeal
procedure of the Appeals Reform Act and also moved to exclude
these projects from NEPA. He expressed concern that the phrase,
``Fire adapted forest or rangeland system,'' is not defined in
the bill or in any other Federal statute. Thus Mr. Parenteau
thought that the bill was not simply about fuel reduction, but
about all the activities of the Forest Service and the
Department of Interior on public lands throughout the system.
He took exception to giving weight to the findings of the
Secretary with regard to harm from an injunction being issued.
Mr. Parenteau indicated the Secretary was the defendant and the
weight was not equal in this case and that would be
unprecedented. He finished by stating that this provision
should be deleted.
The Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry held a
business meeting on July 24, 2003 at 11:00 a.m. in SR-332 to
consider H.R. 1904. The following members were present:
Senators Cochran, Crapo, Dole, Ben Nelson, Miller, Coleman,
Daschle, Lincoln, Chambliss, Talent, and Leahy. Chairman
Cochran called the meeting to order. After statements by
Senators Crapo, Cochran, Daschle and Lincoln, Chairman Cochran
offered the Chairman's mark as a substitute amendment to H.R.
1904. It was adopted unanimously by a voice vote. After remarks
by Senator Leahy, Chairman Cochran made the motion to report
H.R. 1904 as amended out of the Committee and it was adopted
unanimously by voice vote.
V. Regulatory Impact Statement
In compliance with paragraph 11(b) of rule XXVI of the
Standing Rules of the Senate, the Committee makes the following
evaluation of the regulatory impact that would be incurred in
carrying out H.R. 1904, as amended.
This legislation provides direction to federal land
management agencies, amends current law, and establishes
several programs to assist states, communities and local
governments, Indian tribes and private forest landowners in
addressing hazardous fuels buildups and forest health problems.
This legislation does not represent a regulatory measure
that imposes a regulatory mandate that must be adhered to by
discrete persons in the economy absent their voluntary
participation. All programs authorized under this bill that
deal with private individuals, businesses or landowners are
voluntary on the part of participants.
Any Government program that provides financial and other
assistance must have defined regulatory guidelines and
paperwork requirements to insure that the taxpayer's money is
appropriately and effectively utilized.
Individuals, businesses, local units of government and
private landowners who voluntarily participate in cost-sharing
or technical assistance programs authorized under this
legislation will be required under procedures established by
the federal implementing agencies to provide evidence of
meeting requirements for eligibility for the programs and to
provide evidence that assistance received was utilized in
accordance with the requirements of the legislation and its
implementing procedures.
Because participation is voluntary, for it to occur, the
financial benefits of participation must exceed the financial
costs and regulatory burden imposed by the legislation.
The amounts of such assistance will depend upon the funds
actually appropriated by Congress for such programs, subject to
the authorization limits established in this legislation. While
the goal of the legislation is to provide financial and
technical assistance to states, communities and local
governments, Indian tribes, and private landowners and private
enterprises in reducing hazardous fuels and improving forest
health conditions, it is impossible to estimate the number of
persons and entities that would be affected.
Safeguards exist in these programs to preserve the privacy
of persons and the confidentiality of information concerning
them.
VI. Budgetary Impact of the Bill
U.S. Congress,
Congressional Budget Office,
Washington, DC, July 30, 2003.
Hon. Thad Cochran,
Chairman, Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has
prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 1904, the Healthy
Forests Restoration Act of 2003.
If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Megan
Carroll.
Sincerely,
Robert A. Sunshine
(For Douglas Holtz-Eakin, Director).
Enclosure.
CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE COST ESTIMATE
H.R. 1904--Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003
Summary: CBO estimates that H.R. 1904 would authorize the
appropriation of $140 million in 2004 and $705 million over the
2004-2008 period to research and restore forests on federal,
state, and private lands. Assuming appropriation of the
necessary amounts, CBO estimates that implementing the act
would cost $29 million in 2004 and $589 million over the next
five years. Enacting this legislation could affect offsetting
receipts (a credit against direct spending), but CBO estimates
that any such effects would total less than $500,000 a year.
H.R. 1904 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector
mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)
and would impose no costs on state, local, or tribal
governments. Federal funds authorized for those and other
programs would benefit state, local, and tribal governments.
Estimated cost to the Federal Government: The estimated
budgetary impact of H.R. 1904 is shown in the following table.
The costs of this legislation fall within budget function 300
(natural resources and environment).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By fiscal year, in millions of dollars--
------------------------------------------------------
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CHANGES IN SPENDING SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATION
Estimated Authorization Level............................ 140 145 140 140 140
Estimated Outlays........................................ 29 91 133 165 171
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Basis of estimate: For this estimate, CBO assumes that H.R.
1904 will be enacted before the end of fiscal year 2003 and
that amounts estimated to be necessary to implement the
legislation will be provided each year. Estimates of outlays
are based on historical spending patterns for similar
activities. Provisions that would affect spending subject to
appropriations and direct spending are described below.
Spending Subject to Appropriation
H.R. 1904 would specifically authorize the appropriation of
$115 million in 2004 and $460 million over the 2004-2008 period
for the Forest Service and the Department of the Interior (DOI)
to support research and restoration of federal, state, and
private forests. The act would authorize those agencies to make
grants and perform research to support biomass technology;
provide technical and financial assistance to certain
nonfederal entities to support watershed management, land
rehabilitation projects, and efforts to revitalize rural
economies; establish a new center to study hardwood forests;
and assess the health of federal and private forests. Based on
information from the agencies and historical spending patterns
for similar activities, CBO estimates that these programs would
cost $21 million in 2004 and $374 million over the next five
years.
The act also would authorize the appropriation of amounts
necessary for the Forest Service and DOI to purchase
conservation easements from private landowners and to
investigate and address infestations of forests by insects and
nonnative invasive plants. Based on information from the
agencies about the level of effort required to administer those
programs, CBO estimates that H.R. 1904 would authorize the
appropriation of $25 million in 2004 and $245 million over the
2004-2008 period. We estimate that such funding for these
activities would result in outlays of $8 million in 2004 and
$215 million over the next five years.
Direct Spending (Including Offsetting Receipts)
Title I would authorize expedited procedures for planning
and conducting certain projects to reduce the risk of wildfires
on certain federal lands managed by the Forest Service or the
Bureau of Land Management (BLM). Under H.R. 1904, those
expedited procedures would limit some environmental assessment
requirements and shorten administrative and judicial appeals.
According to the Forest Service and BLM, the expedited
procedures could affect the timing of some projects that
generate offsetting receipts, such as timber harvests, that the
agencies plan to conduct under current law. Based on
information from the agencies,however, CBO estimates that any
subsequent change in offsetting receipts would total less than $500,000
annually.
Intergovernmental and private-sector impact: H.R. 1904
contains no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as
defined in UMRA and would impose no costs on state, local, or
tribal governments. CBO expects that states would manage the
watershed forestry assistance programs authorized by this act
voluntarily. Federal funds authorized for those and other
programs would benefit state, local, and tribal governments.
Previous CBO estimates: On May 9, 2003, CBO transmitted a
cost estimate for H.R. 1904 as ordered reported by the House
Committee on Agriculture on May 8, 2003. On May 15, 2003, CBO
transmitted a cost estimated for H.R. 1904 as ordered reported
by the House Committee on the Judiciary on May 14, 2003.
Compared to those versions of H.R. 1904, CBO estimates that the
Senate committee's version of the legislation would authorize
about twice as much funding to research and restore forests and
provide financial and technical assistance to nonfederal
entities.
In addition, on May 7, 2003, CBO transmitted a cost
estimate for S. 14, the Energy Policy Act of 2003, as
introduced on April 30, 2003. A provision in that bill is
similar to a provision of H.R. 1904 that would authorize grants
to eligible entities that use biomass to produce energy. Our
estimate of the cost of such grants ($25 million a year) is the
same for both pieces of legislation.
Estimate prepared by: Federal Costs: Megan Carroll; Impact
on State, Local, and Tribal Governments: Marjorie Miller;
Impact on the Private Sector: Cecil McPherson.
Estimate approved by: Peter H. Fontaine, Deputy Assistant
Director for Budget Analysis.
VII. Minority Views
----------
MINORITY VIEWS OF SENATOR LEAHY
INTRODUCTION
While the country is facing another difficult fire season,
and portions of the bill are well-intentioned to address this
situation, there is no quick fix to this difficult situation,
which is a result of over a century of past land management and
wildland fire suppression practices. We share the underlying
goal of reducing the risk of wildfires on our public lands, but
strongly disagree with the approach outlined in H.R. 1904. This
bill contains many controversial provisions that go far beyond
the jurisdiction of the Agriculture Committee. Provisions in
Title I of this bill should also have been reviewed by the
Energy and Natural Resources Committee and the Judiciary
Committee. Provisions in other titles of this bill should have
been reviewed by these committees, as well as the Environment
and Public Works Committee.
In addition, there are several other proposals in other
legislation that this Committee could have considered. We will
have a debate over those proposals on the floor of the Senate.
For that reason and in deference to member's wishes, the bill
was moved by voice vote. This vote does not reflect unanimous
support for the bill.
OVERVIEW
The recent wildfires in the western states demand that we
find real solutions to the risk communities face from wildfire.
The intended objective of the H.R. 1904 is to restore forests
to a more natural condition by accelerating forest-thinning
projects on federal lands and reduce fire risk. While this is
an appropriate objective, we find H.R. 1904's interjection of
legislative direction onto the courts unacceptable.
The Administration has stated that 190 million acres need
to be treated. If that is correct, by the Administration's own
admission, it will take at least eight to ten years to address
the buildup of hazardous fuel loads on these many acres. Most
people believe it will be much longer than that unless we do
something to focus activities on those areas at greatest risk
and dedicate more funding to get projects off the ground.
H.R. 1904 fails to do either of these things. In fact, the
bill is written so broadly that the existing funds available
for fuel reduction could easily be diluted to such a degree
that the Federal agencies move backwards in reducing the risk
of wildfire. The bill does not set any priorities for covering
this vast acreage. When Congress funded the National Fire Plan
in 2000, we specifically instructed the agencies to target the
funding to areas near communities. The National Academy of
Public Administration, in its 2002 report, Wildfire
Suppression: Strategies for Containing Costs, in addition, also
recommended this approach, saying ``treat close to communities,
including municipal watersheds, before treating more distant
areas.'' (p. 34) The report goes on to recommend specific
actions:
To effectively reduce vulnerability to losses from
wildfires and help moderate suppression costs in and
around community interface areas, several actions can
be taken to protect structures and reduce firefighting
costs: fire-safety provisions in zoning ordinances,
subdivision regulations, building codes, and structural
and landscape maintenance regulations; basic fire-
protection infrastructure in each community and mutual-
aid agreements among communities, state agencies, and
federal agencies; insurance and fire-protection grading
and rating systems; and pre-fire reduction of fuels
build-up on public and private lands near structures.
Non-federal entities have responsibility for these
matters but often have not used their authority for
this purpose. (p. 22, 23)
H.R. 1904 does not fund or encourage any of these actions.
H.R. 1904 also does not address the funding needs to reduce
wildfire risk on either federal or non-federal lands. Again, if
the Administration is correct that 190 million acres need to be
treated, this effort will cost billions of dollars over the
next few decades. One of the main obstacles to fuel-reduction
work is lack of funding. One of NAPA's key recommendations in
its 2002 report was that the hazardous fuels reduction program
will ``require sizable, sustained investments to make a
nationwide impact.'' (p. 3) As the majority has stated many
times, fire does not respect jurisdictional boundaries. The
NAPA report showed that ``most of the fires reported, 77
percent, were on non-Federal lands and 47% of acres burned are
on non-Federal lands.'' (p. 18)
If the majority is unwilling to set priorities for
addressing communities at risk or discuss alternative funding
mechanisms to speed up projects, then I do not understand why
we should be rushing to gut environmental laws and judicial
review. Certainly, the Administration has done a great
marketing job of selling environmental laws and the judicial
process as the scapegoat for wildfires. The statistics
contradict their statement though. A recent GAO study showed
that only a quarter of the fuel reduction projects from the
past two fiscal years were appealed, and most of those were
quickly dealt with. Barely any had legal challenges filed
against them.
Yet, the Administration also seems determined to set a new
precedent to cut back environmental analysis, public review and
the court's independence. H.R. 1904 is just another step in
what appears to be the Administration's wholesale assault on
the public's role and right to participate in the management of
their public lands.
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS AND PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
As discussed previously, the majority's assertion that
environmental laws and public involvement have become obstacles
to improving our response to the wildfire-related risks to our
communities has not been proven. At best, the majority has only
provided anecdotal evidence. It certainly does not warrant the
gaping loophole to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
included in H.R. 1904.
If passed, H.R. 1904 would be the first permanent statutory
rollback of NEPA--the National Environmental Policy Act. It
would pave the way for other efforts to roll back NEPA in other
arenas, including transportation projects, energy projects, our
oceans, and more. Section 104 seeks to eliminate the most
important part of NEPA--the requirement that alternatives to
agency actions are considered. The courts have called this
consideration of alternatives the very ``heart of NEPA.'' This
alternatives analysis ensures that agencies ``look before they
leap,''--look beyond their initial inclination to examine
alternatives with less environmental harm or greater
environmental benefit. Reviewing courts have repeatedly
underscored the centrality of alternatives to the statutory
purpose. ``[T]he heart of the EIS is the requirement that an
agency rigorously explore and objectively evaluate the
projected environmental impacts of all reasonable alternatives
for completing the proposed action.'' Van Ee v. E.P.A. 202 F.3d
296, 309 (D.C. Cir. 2000).
Section 403 of H.R. 1904 creates a new category of projects
to be excluded from NEPA review. While NEPA regulations allow
for such ``categorical exclusions'' for some activities, that
has heretofore always been based on knowledge that the excluded
category will not cause significant environmental harm. H.R.
1904 lacks this safeguard and therefore amounts to a complete
repeal of NEPA for the project category. It is likely that
little to no environmental review would be conducted.
Again, I must ask why these new loopholes in NEPA are
necessary when the Forest Service is already able to do most of
its fuel reduction projects under categorical exclusions now.
According to the GAO report, the vast majority of acres
treated, 3 million of 4.7 million, were categorically excluded
from NEPA review. In terms of acreage, 60% of all decisions
involving hazardous fuels reduction were categorically excluded
from NPEA review. None of these were appealed or litigated.
Therefore, all categorical exclusions are going through without
controversy.
APPEALS AND JUDICIAL REVIEW
The majority views assert that administrative and judicial
review has become a procedural barrier to quick implementation
of fuel-reduction projects. Again, this assertion does not have
any factual basis.
Section 105 exempts fuel reduction projects from the
Appeals Reform Act of 1992 which provides citizens the right to
appeal unlawful Forest Service decisions. Instead, H.R. 1904
gives the Administration a blank check to develop its own
process. The appeals process is not only used by environmental
groups, as the Administration asserts, but is also used by
landowners, local businesses and neighboring towns. According
to a report by the Northern Arizona University, ranchers
actually file more appeals than environmental groups. The
Administration argues that this provision is needed because
appeals have become a roadblock to fuel reduction projects.
However, the Forest Service does not have a national database
of fuels reduction decisions, appeals or litigation to back up
this point. All they have offered is a flawed report that used
inaccurate accounting and left out large categories of fuel
reduction projects.
Studies by the General Accounting Office and Northern
Arizona University show that administrative appeals do not slow
down fuel reduction projects. The GAO study showed that only 24
percent of the fuel reduction projects from the past two fiscal
years were appealed. Of those, 79 percent were dealt with in 90
days or less.
Sections 106 and 107 take extraordinary steps to limit
citizens' right to seek redress from government action in
court, micromanage judicial decisions and tilt the scales of
justice in favor of fuel reduction projects. As Professor
Parenteau testified in the one hearing held on this bill,
``Section 106 imposes unreasonable deadlines on litigants and
the courts, attempts to prioritize federal dockets, limits
judicial authority and imposes additional procedural steps and
workload on busy, understaffed federal courts struggling to
reduce the backlog of cases.'' Specifically, Section 106 would
do this by restricting the time the public has to challenge
decisions to only 15 days. This provision eliminates any
meaningful opportunity to explore options for resolving
controversies over proposed projects. In fact, it is barely
enough time for attorneys to investigate the facts and
determine whether a case has merit. This provision could very
well backfire and cause more lawsuits and delay over projects
rather than expedite them.
Section 106 also imposes unreasonable limits and
instructions on judges. It prohibits judges from granting
waivers to the filing deadline, urges courts to expedite
consideration of cases and limits any preliminary injunction to
45 days. This section tries to dictate to the courts which
cases on their dockets are most important at any particular
time. If 190 million acres really do need to be treated, it is
hard to imagine the number of cases that might flood federal
courts as a result of these provisions in section 106 and be
``fast-tracked'' by judges.
Section 107 is a blatant attempt to bias the judgement of
the courts by emphasizing the ``harm to the defendant'' as the
dominant consideration in weighing equities. For these
projects, the defendant is the government. In essence, this
section is telling the courts to give greater weight to the
government's determination on whether a project should go
forward even if the court finds that the agency has violated
the law. This new standard applies not only to fuel reduction
projects, but also to any project on Federal lands that ``is
necessary to restore fire-adapted forest or rangeland system.''
This significantly broadens the scope of section 107 far beyond
what the Administration stated intention is for H.R. 1904.
Again, the Administration has not proved its assertion that
judicial review is slowing down projects or that courts are not
applying equitable remedies. The GAO study found that only 3
percent, specifically 23 of 762 hazardous fuels reduction
projects had legal challenges filed against them. How can an
average of 13 legal challenges on hazardous fuels projects a
year constitute the kind of gridlock that would merit anything
like the permanent changes proposed in H.R. 1904? In addition,
courts have the authority to weigh short and long term effects
of injunctive relief and use it. In a recent case (Forest
Conservation Council v. United States Forest Service, CV 03-
0054 FJM July 9, 2003), the court, after finding that the
government had violated NEPA, declined to enjoin the project
because it determined that the long-term harm from delaying the
logging outweighed the short-term harm of allowing the project
from going forward without an Environmental Assessment.
CONCLUSION
H.R. 1904 misses the mark on several fronts. Unfortunately,
it will do very little to improve the ability of the Forest
Service to speed up fuel reduction projects on the ground but
its doing great harm to the basic rights of the public to
review the management decisions for our public lands. Congress
should take a step back and consider other proposals to help
manage the wildfire risk on our Federal and non-Federal lands.
We should recognize the limited resources available for these
projects and set priorities to fund projects in the wildland-
urban interface first. We should put more funding towards
helping our state and local partners protect communities. And,
we should and can reduce the risk without gutting
environmental, administration and judicial review.
VIII. Changes in Existing Law
In compliance with paragraph 12 of rule XXVI of the
Standing Rules of the Senate, changes in existing law made in
the bill, as reported, are shown as follows: (1) Existing law
that is proposed to be terminated is enclosed in black
brackets; (2) New material is printed in italic; and (3)
Existing law in which no change is proposed is shown in roman
font.
BIOMASS RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 2000
TITLE III--BIOMASS RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 2000
SEC. 301. SHORT TITLE.
* * * * * * *
SEC. 307. BIOMASS RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT INITIATIVE.
* * * * * * *
(d) Uses of Grants, Contracts, and Assistance.--A grant,
contract, or assistance under this section may be used to
conduct--
* * * * * * *
(3) research aimed at ensuring the environmental
performance and economic viability of biobased
industrial products and their raw material input of
biomass when considered as an integrated system,
including research on--
* * * * * * *
(C) the field and laboratory research related
to feedstock production with the interrelated
goals of enhancing the sustainability,
increasing productivity, and decreasing the
cost of biomass processing, including research
on--
* * * * * * *
(iv) development of economically
viable cropping systems that improve
the conservation and restoration of
marginal land; [or]
(4) any research and development in technologies or
processes determined by the Secretary of Agriculture
and the Secretary of Energy, acting through their
respective points of contact and in consultation with
the Board, to be consistent with the purposes described
in subsection (b) and the priority described in
subsection (c)(2)(B)[.] or
(5) research to integrate silviculture, harvesting,
product development, processing information, and
economic evaluation to provide the science, technology,
and tools to forest managers and community developers
for use in evaluating forest treatment and production
alternatives, including--
(A) to develop tools that would enable land
managers, locally or in a several-State region,
to estimate--
(i) the cost to deliver varying
quantities of wood to a particular
location; and
(ii) the amount that could be paid
for stumpage if delivered wood was used
for a specific mix of products;
(B) to conduct research focused on developing
appropriate thinning systems and equipment
designs that are--
(i) capable of being used on land
without significant adverse effects on
the land;
(ii) capable of handling large and
varied landscapes;
(iii) adaptable to handling a wide
variety of tree sizes;
(iv) inexpensive; and
(v) adaptable to various terrains;
and
(C) to develop, test, and employ in the
training of forestry managers and community
developers curricula materials and training
programs on matters described in subparagraphs
(A) and (B).
* * * * * * *
SEC. 310. FUNDING.
(a) Funding.--Of funds of the Commodity Credit Corporation,
the Secretary shall make available to carry out this title--
(1) $5,000,000 for fiscal year 2002; and
* * * * * * *
(b) Authorization of Appropriations.--In addition to
amounts transferred under subsection (a), there are authorized
to be appropriated to carry out this title [$49,000,000]
$54,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2002 through 2007 of which
not less than $5,000,000 shall be used for each fiscal year to
carry out section 307(d)(5).
* * * * * * *
FOOD, AGRICULTURE, CONSERVATION, AND TRADE ACT OF 1990
TITLE XII--STATE AND PRIVATE FORESTRY
SEC. 1201. SHORT TITLE.
* * * * * * *
[SEC. 1243. SEMIARID AGROFORESTRY RESEARCH CENTER.]
SEC. 1243. USDA NATIONAL AGROFORESTRY CENTER.
(a) [Semiarid] USDA National Agroforestry Research,
Development, and Demonstration Center.--The Secretary of
Agriculture shall establish at the Forestry Sciences Laboratory
of the United States Forest Service, in Lincoln, Nebraska, a
[Semiarid] USDA National Agroforestry Research, Development,
and Demonstration Center (hereafter referred to in this section
as the ``Center'') and appoint a Director to manage and
coordinate the program established at the Center under
subsection (b).
(b) Program.--The Secretary shall establish a program at
the Center and seek the participation of Federal or State
governmental entities, local governments, community
organizations, the Institute of Tropical Forestry and the
Institute of Pacific Islands Forestry of the Forest Service,
land-grant colleges or universities, State agricultural
experiment stations, State and private foresters, the National
Arbor Day Foundation, and other nonprofit foundations in such
program to conduct or assist research, investigations, studies,
and surveys to--
(1) develop sustainable agroforestry systems on
[semiarid] lands that minimize topsoil loss and water
contamination and stabilize or enhance crop
productivity;
(2) adapt, demonstrate, document, and model the
effectiveness of agroforestry systems under different
farming systems and soil or climate conditions;
(3) develop dual use agroforestry systems compatible
with paragraphs (1) and (2) which would provide high-
value forestry products for commercial sale [from
semiarid land];
[(4) develop and improve the drought and pest
resistance characteristics of trees for conservation
forestry and agroforestry applications in semiarid
regions, including the introduction and breeding of
trees suited for the Great Plains region of the United
States;]
(4) collect information on the design, installation,
and function of forested riparian and upland buffers
to--
(A) protect water quality; and
(B) manage water flow;
(5) develop technology transfer programs that
increase farmer and public acceptance of sustainable
agroforestry systems;
(6) develop improved windbreak and shelterbelt
technologies for drought preparedness, soil and water
conservation, environmental quality, and biological
diversity [on semiarid lands];
(7) develop technical and economic concepts for
sustainable agroforestry [on semiarid lands], including
the conduct of economic analyses of the costs and
benefits of agroforestry systems and the development of
models to predict the economic benefits under soil or
climate conditions;
[(8) provide international leadership in the
development and exchange of agroforestry practices on
semiarid lands worldwide;]
(8) provide international leadership in the worldwide
development and exchange of agroforestry practices;
(9) support research on the effects of agroforestry
systems [on semiarid lands] in mitigating nonpoint
source water pollution;
(10) support research on the design, establishment,
and maintenance of tree and shrub plantings to regulate
the deposition of snow along roadways; [and]
(11) conduct sociological, demographic, and economic
studies as needed to develop strategies for increasing
the use of forestry conservation and agroforestry
practices[.];
(12) quantify the carbon storage potential of
agroforestry practices such as--
(A) windbreaks;
(B) forested riparian buffers;
(C) silvopasture timber and grazing systems;
and
(D) alley cropping; and
(13) modify and adapt riparian forest buffer
technology used on agricultural land for use by
communities to manage stormwater runoff.
* * * * * * *
SEC. 2371. FORESTRY RURAL REVITALIZATION.
(a) Establishment of Economic Development and Global
Marketing Program.--The Secretary of Agriculture, acting
through the Extension Service and the Cooperative Extension
System, and in consultation with the Forest Service, shall
establish and implement educational programs and provide
technical assistance to assist businesses, industries, and
policymakers to create jobs, raise incomes, and increase public
revenues in manners consistent with environmental concerns.
* * * * * * *
(3) use the full resources of the Cooperative
Extension Service, including land-grant universities
and county offices, to promote economic development
that is sustainable and environmentally sound.
(d) Rural Revitalization Technologies.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary of Agriculture, acting
through the Chief of the Forest Service, in
consultation with the State and Private Forestry
Technology Marketing Unit at the Forest Products
Laboratory, and in collaboration with eligible
institutions, may carry out a program--
(A) to accelerate adoption of technologies
using biomass and small-diameter materials;
(B) to create community-based enterprises
through marketing activities and demonstration
projects; and
(C) to establish small-scale business
enterprises to make use of biomass and small-
diameter materials.
(2) Authorization of appropriations.--There is
authorized to be appropriated to carry out this
subsection $5,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2004
through 2008.
* * * * * * *
COOPERATIVE FORESTRY ASSISTANCE ACT OF 1978
SEC. 5. FOREST STEWARDSHIP PROGRAM.
* * * * * * *
(h) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are hereby
authorized to be appropriated $25,000,000 for each of the
fiscal years 1991 through 1995, and such sums as may be
necessary thereafter, to carry out this section.
[Sec. 6. Section 6 repealed by section 8001(a) of P.L. 107
09171, 116 Stat. 468.]
SEC. 6. WATERSHED FORESTRY ASSISTANCE PROGRAM.
(a) Definition of Nonindustrial Private Forest Land.--In
this section, the term ``nonindustrial private forest land''
means rural land, as determined by the Secretary, that--
(1) has existing tree cover or that is suitable for
growing trees; and
(2) is owned by any nonindustrial private individual,
group, association, corporation, or other private legal
entity, that has definitive decisionmaking authority
over the land.
(b) General Authority and Purpose.--The Secretary, acting
through the Chief of the Forest Service, may provide technical,
financial, and related assistance to State foresters,
equivalent State officials, and officials of the Cooperative
State Research, Education, and Extension Service for the
purpose of expanding State forest stewardship capacities and
activities through State forestry best-management practices and
other means at the State level to address watershed issues on
non-Federal forested land and potentially forested land.
(c) Technical Assistance To Protect Water Quality.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary, in cooperation with
State foresters, officials of the Cooperative State
Research, Education, and Extension Service, or
equivalent State officials, shall engage interested
members of the public, including nonprofit
organizations and local watershed councils, to develop
a program of technical assistance to protect water
quality described in paragraph (2).
(2) Purpose of program.--The program under this
subsection shall be designed--
(A) to build and strengthen watershed
partnerships that focus on forested landscapes
at the State, regional, and local levels;
(B) to provide State forestry best-management
practices and water quality technical
assistance directly to owners of nonindustrial
private forest land;
(C) to provide technical guidance to land
managers and policymakers for water quality
protection through forest management;
(D) to complement State and local efforts to
protect water quality and provide enhanced
opportunities for consultation and cooperation
among Federal and State agencies charged with
responsibility for water and watershed
management; and
(E) to provide enhanced forest resource data
and support for improved implementation and
monitoring of State forestry best-management
practices.
(3) Implementation.--The program of technical
assistance shall be implemented by State foresters or
equivalent State officials.
(d) Watershed Forestry Cost-Share Program.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary shall establish a
watershed forestry cost-share program--
(A) which shall be--
(i) administered by the Forest
Service; and
(ii) implemented by State foresters
or equivalent State officials; and
(B) under which funds or other support
provided shall be made available for State
forestry best-management practices programs and
watershed forestry projects.
(2) Watershed forestry projects.--The State forester,
State Research, Education and Extension official, or
equivalent State official of a State, in coordination
with the State Forest Stewardship Coordinating
Committee established under section 19(b) (or an
equivalent committee) for that State, shall make awards
to communities, nonprofit groups, and owners of
nonindustrial private forest land under the program for
watershed forestry projects described in paragraph (3).
(3) Project elements and objectives.--A watershed
forestry project shall accomplish critical forest
stewardship, watershed protection, and restoration
needs within a State by demonstrating the value of
trees and forests to watershed health and condition
through--
(A) the use of trees as solutions to water
quality problems in urban and rural areas;
(B) community-based planning, involvement,
and action through State, local and nonprofit
partnerships;
(C) application of and dissemination of
monitoring information on forestry best-
management practices relating to watershed
forestry;
(D) watershed-scale forest management
activities and conservation planning; and
(E)(i) the restoration of wetland (as defined
by the States) and stream-side forests; and
(ii) the establishment of riparian vegetative
buffers.
(4) Cost-sharing.--
(A) Federal share.--
(i) Funds under this subsection.--
Funds provided under this subsection
for a watershed forestry project may
not exceed 75 percent of the cost of
the project.
(ii) Other federal funds.--The
percentage of the cost of a project
described in clause (i) that is not
covered by funds made available under
this subsection may be paid usingother
Federal funding sources, except that the total Federal share of the
costs of the project may not exceed 90 percent.
(B) Form.--The non-Federal share of the costs
of a project may be provided in the form of
cash, services, or other in-kind contributions.
(5) Prioritization.--The State Forest Stewardship
Coordinating Committee for a State, or equivalent State
committee, shall prioritize watersheds in that State to
target watershed forestry projects funded under this
subsection.
(6) Watershed forester.--Financial and technical
assistance shall be made available to the State
Forester or equivalent State official to create a State
watershed or best-management practice forester position
to--
(A) lead statewide programs; and
(B) coordinate watershed-level projects.
(e) Distribution.--
(1) In general.--Of the funds made available for a
fiscal year under subsection (g), the Secretary shall
use--
(A) at least 75 percent of the funds to carry
out the cost-share program under subsection
(d); and
(B) the remainder of the funds to deliver
technical assistance, education, and planning,
at the local level, through the State Forester
or equivalent State official.
(2) Special considerations.--Distribution of funds by
the Secretary among States under paragraph (1) shall be
made only after giving appropriate consideration to--
(A) the acres of agricultural land,
nonindustrial private forest land, and highly
erodible land in each State;
(B) the miles of riparian buffer needed;
(C) the miles of impaired stream segments and
other impaired water bodies where forestry
practices can be used to restore or protect
water resources;
(D) the number of owners of nonindustrial
private forest land in each State; and
(E) water quality cost savings that can be
achieved through forest watershed management.
(f) Willing Owners.--
(1) In general.--Participation of an owner of
nonindustrial private forest land in the watershed
forestry assistance program under this section is
voluntary.
(2) Written consent.--The watershed forestry
assistance program shall not be carried out on
nonindustrial private forest land without the written
consent of the owner of, or entity having definitive
decisionmaking over, the nonindustrial private forest
land.
(g) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated to carry out this section $15,000,000 for
each of fiscal years 2004 through 2008.
* * * * * * *
SEC. 10A. [ENHANCED COMMUNITY FIRE PROTECTION.]
An Act to improve the capacity of the Secretary of
Agriculture and the Secretary of the Interior to conduct
hazardous fuels reduction projects on National Forest System
lands and Bureau of Land Management lands aimed at protecting
communities, watersheds, and certain other at-risk lands from
catastrophic wildfire, to enhance efforts to protect watersheds
and address threats to forest and rangeland health, including
catastrophic wildfire, across the landscape, and for other
purposes.
* * * * * * *
[Sec. 17. The provisions of this Act shall become effective
October 1, 1978.]
SEC. 17. FOREST INVENTORY AND MANAGEMENT.
(a) In General.--The Secretary shall carry out a program
using geospatial and information management technologies
(including remote sensing imaging and decision support systems)
to inventory, monitor, characterize, assess, and identify
forest stands and potential forest stands (with emphasis on
hardwood forest stands) on
(1) in units of the National Forest System; and
(2) on private forest land, with the consent of the
owner of the land.
(b) Means.--The Secretary shall carry out the program
through the use of--
(1) remote sensing technology of the National
Aeronautics and Space Administration and the United
States Geological Survey;
(2) emerging geospatial capabilities in research
activities;
(3) validating techniques using application
demonstrations; and
(4) integration of results into pilot operational
systems.
(c) Issues To Be Addressed.--In carrying out the program,
the Secretary shall address issues including--
(1) early detection, identification, and assessment
of environmental threats (including insect, disease,
invasive species, fire, acid deposition, and weather-
related risks and other episodic events);
(2) loss or degradation of forests;
(3) degradation of the quality forest stands caused
by inadequate forest regeneration practices;
(4) quantification of carbon uptake rates; and
(5) management practices that focus on preventing
further forest degradation.
(d) Early Warning System.--In carrying out the program, the
Secretary shall develop a comprehensive early warning system
for potential catastrophic environmental threats to forests to
increase the likelihood that forest managers will be able to--
(1) isolate and treat a threat before the threat gets
out of control; and
(2) prevent epidemics, such as the American chestnut
blight in the first half of the twentieth century, that
could be environmentally and economically devastating
to forests.
(e) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized
to be appropriated to carry out this section $5,000,000 for
each of fiscal years 2004 through 2009.