U.S. Sen John Barrasso's bill would accelerate the pace of forest-thinning and logging projects. The goal, in part, is to protect homes like these in Teton County located near national forests. The U.S. Forest Service opposes the bill, saying it cuts out public participation and ignores the larger problem of inadequate firefighting funding. (Angus M. Thuermer Jr./WyoFile)

The chief of the U.S. Forest Service criticized U.S. Sen. John Barrasso’s forest health bill Thursday saying it would limit public involvement, upend multiple use and ignore forests’ biggest threat — a bad firefighting budget.

Barrasso has a distinctly different view of his “National Forest Ecosystem Improvement Act of 2015.” The bill, S.1691, would allow special rules for “ecosystem restoration projects,” including logging, thinning trees and burning with prescribed fires. The aim is to “improve forest and watershed health, reduce large scale wildfires, increase wildlife habitat, and support communities across rural America,” Barrasso said in a statement June 29 announcing the legislation.

U.S. Forest Service Chief Tom Tidwell delivered his prepared comments and criticisms at a Senate subcommittee hearing. The Obama administration opposes the bill that would require those who challenge environmental decisions in court to first post a bond, Tidwell said. And the administration is against setting in stone the amount of acreage that must be cut or burned annually.

Barrasso’s bill calls for 1 million acres of “mechanical treatment” — logging and thinning — a year, almost half of it commercial. The aim, in part, is to establish a reliable timber supply that would help fund ecosystem restoration. (see sidebar)

Hulett logger sides with Barrasso

Hulett’s Jim Neiman, whose family owns three sawmills and a pellet mill in the Black Hills and another sawmill in Colorado, backed the bill. Neiman Enterprises supports about 750 families in four states, he said.

Oregon logger Steve Swanson, who owns two sawmills and a plywood mill in the Pacific Northwest, also supported Barrasso. He told of sagging rural economies and counties in southwest Oregon “on the brink of insolvency due to reductions in federal timber receipt revenues and the lack of private sector employment.”

“I am not suggesting we turn back the clock to the so-called timber heydays,” Barrasso said at the hearing. “That is not realistic, but we can’t allow the status quo to continue.”

The bill also would see 1 million acres of prescribed fire annually and imposes requirements and restrictions on projects’ environmental reviews. The forest service spends more than $356 million annually reviewing projects, Barrasso said.

The bill “reduces extraneous lawsuits against projects by making an action challenging an ecosystem restoration project subject to a bonding requirement.” Parties filing suit would have to post a bond that would cover the costs of the government’s defense, and surrender that amount if they lost.

“This may seem harsh to some but it has existed on tribal lands without incident,” Barrasso said in opening remarks.

But bonding would set up an “inappropriate barrier … and would limit public participation in decision-making,” Tidwell said.

U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack addresses trail workers in Jackson on Thursday as called on Congress for a better funding source for firefighting. The current system frequently eats into the U.S. Forest Service budget and prevents the agency from doing its job, he said. (Angus M. Thuermer Jr./WyoFile)
U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack addresses trail workers in Jackson earlier this year while calling on Congress for a better funding source for firefighting. The current system frequently eats into the U.S. Forest Service budget and prevents the agency from doing its job, he said. (Angus M. Thuermer Jr./WyoFile)

Some challengers would have no access to courts under the bill and would instead enter “an innovative arbitration process,” Barrasso’s statement said. But any attempt to change the system by requiring arbitration should first undergo a test, Tidwell said.

Tidwell also wouldn’t support a one-million-acre annual “mechanical treatment” quota. That would be hard to meet because of “agency and industry capacity, current market realities, and competing priorities,” he said.

The forest service surpassed its 2014 timber harvest goal of 2.9 billion board feet, a program that has grown 18 percent since 2008, Tidwell said. “The agency is achieving these results despite the fact that since 1998, National Forest System staff was reduced by well over a third.”

The bill would require some additional environmental reviews while eliminating others. Instead of studies that consider a suite of projects, in some cases the bill would require individual analyses. In such cases environmental reviews would be completed in 180 days and be no longer than 100 pages.

Tidwell said that would create unnecessary work that couldn’t be accomplished on time.

Some environmental reviews eliminated

Projects aimed at stemming insect or disease infestation, hazardous fuels, and promoting community wildfire protection would not have to undergo environmental reviews. Projects improving municipal water sources and water yield and those proposed by collaborative partners — usually state and local interest groups — also would bypass review.

The method the bill would use to skirt environmental reviews would be an existing provision called a “categorical exclusion.” That determination is applied to a project where the impact is so small it requires no analysis. The bill would allow such determinations to be made on projects that would stretch across as much as 15,000 acres.

Here are the main points of Sen. John Barrasso’s National Forest Ecosystem Act of 2015

  • Establish a reliable timber supply
  • Fund and prioritize ecosystem restoration
  • Require 1 million acres of cutting a year, 400,000 acres of which would be commercial
  • Require 1 million acres prescribed fire annually.
  • Complete environmental analysis for some projects in 180 days and limit them to 100 pages.
  • Prohibit legal challenges to some decisions
  • Require arbitration in those cases
  • Require bonding to cover costs to the Secretary of Agriculture for other legal challenges
  • Eliminate environmental reviews of many projects

That would upset the agency’s studied use of the categorical exclusion tool, Tidwell said. Categorical exclusions are employed today only after a project’s design, scale and compliance with environmental laws are weighed. Barrasso’s bill would upset that balance, Tidwell said.

Tidwell and Barrasso have opposing views of the relationship between firefighting and programs to improve forest health and reduce wildfire threats. Under the existing budget Congress has allocated to the forest service, the very act of fighting fires cuts into programs that seek to reduce fire danger, Tidwell said. Congress should embrace the administration’s plan to pay for the largest fires from an emergency fund instead of sapping the agency’s programs, Tidwell said.

Today’s system results in “funding transfers” to the firefighting account that diminish other forest service programs, Tidwell said. Adopting the administration’s emergency funding plan would allow the agency to better restore forests, “helping forests adapt to the growing effects of climate change, and preparing communities in the wildland/urban interface for future wildfires.”

Barrasso sees it differently. The U.S. Forest Service estimates up to 82 million acres of forest land are in need of “treatment,” he said. Environmental rules and lawsuits “are draining U.S. Forest Service budgets, delaying desperately needed and time-sensitive forest health projects, and preventing dollars from being spent on the ground where they will do the most good,” he said.

“To be clear, our forest management problem is not simply a fire budgeting or money problem – it is a prioritization problem,” Barrasso said at the hearing.  “Right now, I see no higher priority for the Forest Service than treating our forests to make them healthy again.”

The Obama administration has made Tidwell’s point about the firefighting budget for months. That includes statements made during a visit to Jackson by U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack and Tidwell himself.

Despite its opposition, the forest service and U.S. Department of Agriculture “agree with the intent of this bill to increase the pace and scale of restoration,” Tidwell said.

The website GovTrack predicts the bill has a 15 percent chance of passage.

Angus M. Thuermer Jr. is the natural resources reporter for WyoFile. He is a veteran Wyoming reporter and editor with more than 35 years experience in Wyoming. Contact him at angus@wyofile.com or (307)...

Join the Conversation


Want to join the discussion? Fantastic, here are the ground rules: * Provide your full name — no pseudonyms. WyoFile stands behind everything we publish and expects commenters to do the same. * No personal attacks, profanity, discriminatory language or threats. Keep it clean, civil and on topic. *WyoFile does not fact check every comment but, when noticed, submissions containing clear misinformation, demonstrably false statements of fact or links to sites trafficking in such will not be posted. *Individual commenters are limited to three comments per story, including replies.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

  1. Will any of the many users of the term “healthy forest” please define it! What is a healthy forest? Does it include fire? Are there no diseased trees? Are all the trees young and rapidly growing (producing)? Are there GMO-selected trees, perhaps all in rows within perfect rectangles? Is a dead tree a part of a healthy forest (or just a waste of wood)? Is diversity a component of a healthy forest system? Ah, buzzwords, the stuff of politicians.

    Jim Bailey

  2. The legislation needed to achieve real reform at the US Forest Service isn’t ” log, baby , log ” as Barrasso has proposed as a gift to his timber allies , to the detriment of the rest of us . Rather what needs to happen is to remove the Forest Service from the Department of Agriculture altogether , combine it with the BLM and create a Department of Natural Resources. There is entirely too much disparity between BLM and Forest Service policies and programs when dealing with same issues on similar turf. They often go in opposite directions.

    It’s a No Brainer to me that the Forest Service needs to work in harmony with agencies such as the ubiquitous BLM but also the National Park Service, USGS, Office of Surface Mining, US Fish and Wildlife, Bureau of Reclamation in a more holistic manner under one management system.

    What Barrasso’s ridiculous forest health bill does is set arbitrary and capricious targets to support industries whose business models are far from viable in the 21st century , and utterly ignores the two elephants in the room…. Climate Change and the nation’s headwaters/ water supply. That Barrasso has chosen to Log, Baby Log instead of confronting the calamity of funding wildfire control reveals how cynical his special interest constituent politics really are. Barrasso rewards one small failing industry at the expense of the entire North American continent’s physical health. As an MD, does it make sense for him to treat the symptms of an upset stomach when the patient is dying of massive internal injuries , and hemorraghing ? I’m sorry , but a comprehensive Wildfire bill comes first.

    I’m no fan of the Forest Service , but I’m with its director Tidwell on his stated opposition to Barrasso’s cynical legislation.

    Dewey Vanderhoff