Two Bills on the Horizon

H.R. 2647, and S. 1691 are two new environmental bills that are currently making their journey through the legislative process. H.R. 2647, the Resilient Federal Forests Act of 2015, is sponsored by Bruce Westerman (R-AR), and was passed by the House on July 9th. It is currently awaiting its vote in the Senate. S. 1691, The National Forest Ecosystem Improvement Act of 2015, sponsored by John Barrasso (R-WY), is currently in the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources and will be voted on soon. With both focused upon expanding forest management in national forests and limiting the ability for opposition through categorical exclusions and limited judicial review, these pro-industry bills pose a significant threat to our national forests. S. 1691 is especially concerning because it sets specific mandatory logging and fire management goals that require at minimum one million acres of National Forest for logging and another million acres for fire restoration per year. We urge our supporters to stay tuned to the Wild Virginia newsletter for more information regarding these bills!

H.R. 2647

H.R. 2647 focuses on Categorical Exclusions from the National Environmental Policy Act’s review process. These exclusions are exceptions to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969’s requirements. H.R. 2647 expands these exclusions to include many different forest management activities such as dealing with insect or disease infestation, protecting municipal water sources, and creating early succession forests for habitat improvement. Actions included in the Categorical Exclusions would be expedited in a manner that would limit any discussion of opposing views.

In the news, the reporting on H.R. 2647 has been mixed. There have been some op-ed pieces expressing frustration over the slow bureaucratic process for forest management and praising the bill for removing Fire Burrowing.1 Other news sources, such as Alternet, express concern over the categorical exclusions and the limited judicial review process. Alternet is not alone in their criticism—many different organizations have expressed serious concerns over the bill.

The Outdoor Alliance is concerned that the bill allows logging projects to bypass environmental review requirements with the Categorical Exclusions. They assert that, “the bill would cut out important opportunities for the community to engage in forest management decisions,” and that “it elevates a single interest—timber—over the diverse activities that take place on National Forests, including recreation.”2 The Wilderness Society had similar concerns because the bill “would actually allow the timber industry to log thousands of square miles of national forest land without ever considering the environmental effects or consulting with local communities.”3

The Hardwood Federation, which represents many timber companies, favors H.R. 2647’s expanded categorical exclusion process because, “The categorical exclusion is essentially an expedited environmental review process that results in more timely approvals of forest management projects.” They state that it is a “common sense reform that is a triple win for the forest, the environment and the communities and businesses that rely on the federal forest system for their livelihoods.”4

S. 1691

S. 1691 states that its purpose is to “establish a reliable and predictable timber supply from the National Forest System,” and to “expedite and prioritize forest management activities to achieve ecosystem restoration objectives.”5 S. 1691 sets specific goals for land management that demands a minimum of one million acres of National Forest restoration, and another million acres of prescribed fire restoration. It expands upon H.R. 2647’s Categorical Exclusions to include many different restoration projects that can be done without consulting the public or considering the environmental consequences. It also will enact arbitration for projects conducted under this legislation without the ability to have a judicial appeal. It also creates more hurdles for a judicial review by requiring a hefty bond. S. 1691 is currently limited in scope to the Western national forests, but there are fears that it will be applied elsewhere as well.

S. 1691 is a newer bill, and as a result is not as present in the news. One article written by WyoFile, a Wyoming based news source, states that the Forest Service Chief is opposed to S. 1691 because, “it would limit public involvement, upend multiple use and ignore forests’ biggest threat — a bad firefighting budget.”6 It further states that various logging companies support the bill. This is not surprising; S. 1691 sets mandates for one million acres of logging in national forests per year.

The Hardwood Federation, which represents many timber companies, supports S. 1691 due to its specific land management goals and especially for its new arbitration process, which further limits the ability to oppose the projects. S. 1691 wants to utilize its new arbitration process for collaborative projects, community wildfire protection plans, and two ecosystem restoration projects for each Forest Service region per year. These projects would be approved much quicker and would not be subject to judicial review.

Bark, an activist group in Portland Oregon dedicated to defending and restoring Mt. Hood, states that this bill will increase logging fivefold with its mandate to log one million acres. The Mt. Hood National Forest, which is one of the top ten carbon storing forests, is included in the acreage. Bark asserts that logging the Mt. Hood National Forest will in turn release over 50% of the stored carbon dioxide from this forest into the atmosphere.7 The Endangered Species Coalition writes that S. 1691, “Curtails application of the ESA (Endangered Species Act), putting fish and wildlife conservation at risk & increasing chance of mgmt conflicts.”8

1 Smith, Nick. Give Forest Service Tools to Address escalating Forest Fires. The Hill. Accessed online 8/17/2015. http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/energy-environment/250201-give-forest-service-tools-to-address-escalating

2 Outdoor Alliance. Protecting the Public Process on our Natural Forests. Accessed online 8/17/2015. http://www.outdooralliance.org/policy-news/2015/7/9/protecting-the-public-process-on-our-national-forests-hr-2647.

3 The Wilderness Society. Help Protect our National Forests from Reckless Logging! Accessed online 8/17/2015. https://secure.wilderness.org/site/Advocacy?cmd=display&page=UserAction&id=2847

4 The Hardwood Federation. The Hardwood Federation Newsletter. Accessed online 8/17/2015. http://hardwoodfederation.net/page-1497035.

5 GovTrack. National Forest Ecosystem Improvement Act of 2015 (S. 1691). Accessed online 8/17/2015. https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/114/s1691

6 Thuermer, Angus M. Jr. USFS Chief Opposes Barrasso’s Forest Health Bill. 7/21/2015. Accessed online 8/17/2015. http://www.wyofile.com/forest-service-opposes-barrassos-logging-bill/

7 Bell, Brenna. Fight Climate Change through Protecting Forests. Bark. 08/05/2015. Accessed online 8/17/2015. http://bark-out.org/content/fight-climate-change-through-protecting-forests

8 Endangered Species Coalition. Summary of Legislative Attacks on the Endangered Species Act from the 114^th Congress. Accessed online 8/17/2015. http://www.endangered.org/cms/assets/uploads/2015/07/Index-of-ESA-Attacks-in-114th-Congress_7.31.15.pdf