Senators Reach Bipartisan Agreement to
Protect the Nation's Forests
October 1, 2003

Washington, DC - A breakthrough agreement has been reached by a bipartisan group of Senators to protect our nation's forests from catastrophic fire by expediting the thinning of hazardous fuels and at the same time provide the first legal protection for old-growth trees in our nation's history, Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) announced today.

"With 57 million acres of federal land at the highest risk of catastrophic fire, including 8.5 million in California, it is critical that we protect our forests and nearby communities," Senator Feinstein said. "My colleagues and I have been trying to come to an agreement on a forest bill for over two years. We finally broke through the deadlock."

Those who participated with Senator Feinstein in the lengthy negotiations leading up to this agreement included Senators Thad Cochran, Ron Wyden, Larry Craig, Mike Crapo, Pete Domenici, Jon Kyl, Blanche Lincoln, John McCain, and Max Baucus.

"We are urging President Bush to signal loud and clear that he would support this legislative compromise in the Senate and in a Conference Committee with the House," Senator Feinstein said. "It is critical that the careful balance which has taken so long to reach not be disrupted, or it will lose the bipartisan support it has."

The legislation establishes an expedited process so the Forest Service and the Department of the Interior can begin a fuels reduction program to minimize the risk of wildfire - a process that will remain in effect until the agencies have treated 20 million acres at the highest risk of catastrophic fire.

A total of $760 million annually for hazardous fuel reduction is authorized by the bill, a $340 million increase over current funding.

The legislation requires that at least 50 percent of the funds would be used for fuels reduction near communities. The remainder would go to municipal watersheds or endangered species habitat, or areas that have suffered from serious wind damage or insect infestations, such as the bark beetle.

The legislation also requires that large, fire-resilient, old-growth trees be protected from logging immediately. And it mandates that forest plans that are more than 10 years old and most in need of updating (about 60 percent of the forest plans) would be updated with old-growth protection consistent with the national standard within 2-3 years.

"Without this provision in the bill, we would likely have to wait a decade or more to see improved old-growth protection. And even then there would be no guarantee that this protection would be very strong," Senator Feinstein said.

In California, the amendment to the Sierra Nevada Framework that is currently in progress will have to comply with the new national standard for old-growth protection.

"This agreement came after lengthy negotiations involving complex issues," Senator Feinstein said. "Because forest areas throughout the United States vary dramatically, we sought to develop a plan that would provide the necessary benefits for reducing the risk of catastrophic wildfire while at the same time protecting old-growth trees and the beauty of our forests. This is a much better bill than the one that passed the House."

This legislation will protect old growth forests and large trees from both logging and catastrophic fire in the following ways:

• While the forest-specific old-growth protections are being developed, large and fire-resilient trees are immediately protected in new projects authorized by this legislation. (i.e., the bill prevents logging of the largest, most fire-resistant trees in the guise of fuels reduction).

• Where old-growth forests have not been altered by fire suppression, existing old-growth conditions must be fully maintained.
  
  
• In other old-growth stands, where brush and other highly flammable fuels have accumulated through a century-old policy of suppressing ground fires, brush will be cleared out to protect the stands from catastrophic fire.
  
  
• Instead of legislating a single detailed national standard, the bill allows local forest managers, who know the land best, to write specific prescriptions for their forests, all consistent with the more general national old-growth protection standards in the bill.
  

The agreement improves and shortens the administrative review process and makes it more collaborative and less confrontational by:

• Providing for public participation, including a public meeting and opportunities for public comment during both the preparation of the environmental impact statement and during the administrative review process.
  
  
• Changing the environmental review process so the Forest Service still considers the effects of the proposed project in detail, but can focus its analysis on the project proposal, one reasonable alternative that meets the project's goals and the alternative of not doing the project, instead of the 5-9 alternatives now often required.
  
  
• Replacing the current Forest Service administrative appeals with an administrative review process that will occur after the Forest Service finishes its environmental review of a project, but before it reaches its decision. (This new approach is similar both to a process adopted by the Clinton Administration in 2000 for review of forest plans and plan amendments, and to the Bureau of Land Management's successful review process in place since 1984. The process will be speedier and less confrontational than the current administrative appeal process).

The judicial review process will be expedited without altering either its basic framework or the opportunity for fair review by:

• Allowing parties to sue in federal court only on issues raised in the administrative review process.
  
  
• Requiring lawsuits to be filed in the same jurisdiction of the proposed project.
  
  
• Encouraging courts to resolve the case as soon as possible.
  
  
• Limiting preliminary injunctions to 60 days (plaintiffs must then demonstrate every 60 days why it is appropriate for the injunction to be extended).
  
  
• And requiring the court to weigh the environmental benefit of doing a given project against its environmental risks, as it reviews the case.
  
  

###