|
November 27,
2000
WASHINGTON, DC -
Congressman Herger, joined by his California colleague
Congressman George Radanovich recently contacted Regional Forester Brad
Powell regarding their continuing concerns about the development of the
Sierra Nevada Framework, a large-scale management plan for 10 national
forests in the Sierra Nevada.
The Tahoe, Plumas, Lassen and Modoc
National Forests in Congressman Herger's 2nd Congressional District are
included in this Forest Service planning effort.
The Final
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) analyzing the impacts of several
management alternatives is expected to be released shortly, signaling the
implementation phase of the new plan.
Herger has previously
expressed grave concerns that the Framework alternatives under
consideration fall far short of addressing the fire danger that currently
threatens Northern California communities. It is particularly alarming in
light of this season's devastating fire season.
In response to
concerns about potentially unreasonable implementation costs that cast
doubt upon the viability of the proposals, Herger has requested Mr. Powell
provide detailed information about the budgetary impacts of plan for
further review and consideration by the House Budget
Committee.
The text of the joint letter to Mr. Powell will
follow this release. Should you require a signed photocopy of the actual
letter for your files, please contact Daniel MacLean with Congressman
Herger's Washington office at (202) 225-3076.
November 15,
2000
Mr. Brad Powell
Regional Forester
USDA Forest Service -
Region 5
1323 Club Drive
Vallejo, CA 94592
Dear
Brad:
As members of the House Committee on the Budget with a
longstanding interest in the management of our federal forests,
particularly those in our California congressional districts, we are
writing concerning the budgetary impacts of the Sierra Nevada Framework
(Framework). Based on communications from the Region, we understand the
Framework's Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) will be released
shortly.
As you know, the question of how to accomplish a program
of aggressive fuels reduction to address the risk of wildfire was
addressed by the Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project:
". . .
.Significant progress on large-scale treatments [referring to fuel
treatments] will have to be an economically self-sustaining enterprise,
supported largely from the sale of forest products. Part of this can come
from multiproduct sales, in which sawtimber and other high-value products
subsidize the removal of lower-value material . . ."
We would like
to strongly suggest you consider the wisdom of this science-based
conclusion as you integrate the results of science into your final
decisions. It is particularly relevant in light of the agency's
just-announced roadless policy, which prohibits commercial timber sales in
"roadless" areas, including those areas that are already roaded. This new
rulemaking poses a potential conflict with achieving the Framework's fire
and fuels reduction goals cost-effectively and in a manner that is
consistent with the above conclusion.
Furthermore, Congress has
previously acknowledged that reducing the risk of wildfire through a
program of aggressive fuels reduction need not be a net-cost proposition.
By supporting the Herger-Feinstein Quincy Library Group Forest Recovery
Act virtually unanimously, Congress demonstrated its commitment to
balanced forest management that ensures cost-effectiveness to the U.S.
taxpayer while providing socio-economic benefits to surrounding rural
communities. This season's devastating wildfire season, in which more than
7 million acres of private and public lands burned, emphasized the extreme
importance of implementing fire and fuels reduction plans as quickly and
comprehensively as possible.
We have strong concerns, however, that
implementation of the alternatives currently under consideration will
require a larger federal investment than the federal budget can reasonably
absorb. Moreover, we are concerned that the current analysis relies upon
an expectation that fuels reduction funding in future years will be
commensurate with what Congress provided this year. This is at best
speculative, as future Congresses may not provide equal funding amounts,
particularly when more cost-effective methods are available. Forest plans
are a commitment to the people, and that commitment cannot be fulfilled
with promises that are empty because of fiscal limitations. It is
important, therefore, that Members of the Budget Committee be afforded a
preliminary opportunity to review the available cost
information.
To that end, we ask that you provide us the cost
estimates - gross and net - for each of the Framework alternatives
currently under consideration. We also ask for a budget score indicating
the impact of implementation on the federal budget and a cost-breakdown
comparing projected Framework costs with amounts received for
administration of the forests in question in prior fiscal
years.
Thank you for keeping us informed as to the progress of the
Sierra Nevada Conservation Framework, and we look forward to your prompt
reply to the questions raised
herein.
Sincerely,
WALLY HERGER GEORGE
RADANOVICH
Member of Congress Member of
Congress
cc:
The Honorable John Kasich, Chairman House Committee on the
Budget
The Honorable Helen Chenoweth-Hage, Chairman, House
Resources Subcommittee on Forests and Forest Health
| Press Materials |
|