Washington outlook.

Senate Majority Leader Tom Doschle (SD) put Congress, the Administration, the forest industry, and environmental groups in a dither in July when he inserted en amendment into an emergency supplemental appropriations hill. His amendment recognized the high risk of wildfire posed by deteriorating forest health cooditions and authorized forest treatments--the thinning of smell trees and creation of fuelbreaks--in specific areas around Norbeck Wildlife Preserve and Beaver Park Roadless Area in South Dakota's Black Hills National Forest.

That in and of itself wasn't surprising. Many congressmen and women favor such actions under the National Fire Plan's "hazardous fuels reduction" provisions. But Daschle may hove gone too far by including a provision exempting these forest treatments from environmental assessment, administrative appeals, and judicial review. His intent was to ensure prompt implementation of these actions, but such exemptions are seen as politically out-of-the-question by most members of Congress and anathema to environmental groups.

By inserting the exemption in his amendment, Sen. Daschle-wittingly or unwittingly-set into motion a series of political responses by other members of Congress and the Administration. Those responses are sure to make for interesting legislative action nod contentious debate when Congress returns from its August recess.

Shortly after Sen. Daschle's amendment, Rep. John Shaddeg (AZ) and several other Republican members introduced a bill in the House (HR. 5309) that would allow Forest Service regional foresters to exempt tree-thinning activities from environmental review, appeals, and judicial review. A group of Western senators announced plans to develop legislative proposals on wildfire and forest health issues during the congressional recess and then attempt to attach them to the FY 2003 Interior Appropriations hill 15. 2708) when it goes to the Senate floor in September.

President Bush added his voice on August 22, proposing a "Healthy Forests" initiative that would "improve regulatory processes to ensure more timely decisions, greater efficiency, and better results in reducing the risk of catastruphic wildfires by restoring forest health." The President's proposal, though only broadly outlined, includes provisions to:

* Allow the use of long-term stewardship contracts "for thinning trees and brush and removing dead wood."

* Expedite the implementation of hazardous fuels reduction and forest restoration projects, similar to Sen. Daschle's exemptions.

* Ensure that judges give greater consideration to long-term risks to people, property, and the environment in legal challenges to forest health projects.

* Remove administrative obstacles to allow timber projects under the Northwest Forest Plan to proceed without delay.

* As Congress and the Administration gear up to work on these proposals, we believe it important to frame the debate clearly. The key issues of reducing wildfire threats and restoring forest conditions haven't changed much since the Notional Fire Plan was developed, they've just been reinforced after this year's fires. Let's not lose sight of the goals articulated in both the National Fire Plan and the Western Governors' long-term strategy:

1. Improve fire prevention and suppression.

2. Reduce hazardous fuels.

3. Restore fire adapted ecosystems.

4. Protect communities.

5. Ensure accountability.

We believe the Western Governors' long-term strategy--developed with a diverse set of participants, including community groups and environmentalists--is still the appropriate framework to meet these broad goals. Their strategy is based on principles such as broad collaboration, engaging communities in planning and implementing projects, monitoring, and consistent fending.

Other forestry issues, such as those related to the Northwest Forest Plan, are important but don't need to be addressed in this policy context. We are developing some suggestions that might help move the legislative debate forward:

* Have communities engage in watershed landscape-scale planning efforts that identify priority areas for fuels reduction or forest restoration. These priorities could include areas adjacent to private properties or structures, along roads, and around community water-supply areas.

* Identify priority projects through collaborative community-based processes and expedite them through administrative procedures, taking care not to violate environmental laws and citizen's rights.

* Have Congress provide significant and consistent funding for hazardous fuels reduction and forest restoration projects. Have the Administration ensure that the funds are effectively directed to these priority projects.

* Other funding mechanisms, such as goods-for-services and receipts retention, might he used to help cover the casts of fuels reduction and restoration work. These mechanisms should he clearly separated from the Forest Service's stewardship contracting demonstration program seas not to threaten the integrity of that valuable program, which has broader objectives.

* Make changes to existing laws or regulations in an open, inclusive manner that ensures citizen participation. We should not subvert existing laws, but rather address underlying problems with how they are being implemented.

Our hope is that the momentum for forest policy action generated by this year's fires and Senator Daschle's amendment will lead to practical steps to enable inure fuels reduction and restoration projects, done through collaborative, community-based plans with monitoring systems that build trust and ensure learning. Now is not the time to suggest major deviations from the Western Governors' framework, deviations such as broad exemptions from environmental laws, fuels reduction or thinning on a massive scale, or funding mechanisms that might breed further distrust.

Over the past few years the trend has been toward finding common ground on our need to address wildfire threats and improve deteriorating forest conditions. Let's build on that common ground, not lose it.