For More Information:
Mike Petersen, The Lands Council:(509) 838-4912
Andrew George, National Forest Protection Alliance:(919) 933-2959
Lisa Dix, American Lands Alliance: (202) 547-9105

WASHINGTON, D.C. - Today, 103 conservation groups from around the nation sent a letter to every member of the U.S. House of Representatives asking them to oppose Congressman Scott McInnis' "Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003" (HR 1904) because it fails to protect homes and communities from wildfires, while limiting citizen participation and increasing logging on America's National Forests. McInnis' controversial bill will be reviewed by the House Agriculture Committee today and is expected to come to a vote by the full House next week.

"This bill does not include any specific measures to protect homes or communities. It is also inconsistent with the Western Governors' Association 10-Year Comprehensive Strategy, which does not call for any changes in existing laws," the 103 conservation groups state in the letter. "The only proven method to protect homes and communities is to reduce flammable materials in the immediate vicinity of structures, yet the sham definitions in H.R. 1904 would not require any activities to be near homes.

"Instead, the bill seeks to further subsidize the timber industry and eliminate obstacles to logging large, fire-resistant trees miles away from the nearest home. The country's top forest scientists, including the Forest Service's own scientists, have found that this kind of logging can actually increase fire risk and make fires larger and more intense.

"We urge you to oppose this bill, which does not offer more protection to communities at risk from wildfire, but rather seeks to undermine our environmental laws and the judicial process when it comes to logging on our public lands, potentially including national parks and wildlife refuges."

Mike Petersen, executive director of The Lands Council, a Spokane, Washington conservation group that has helped hundreds of rural homeowners craft individual home protection plans, said, "Forest Service research shows that removing brush and saplings within a few hundred feet of a home will greatly reduce fire risk to homeowners. It's critical to help rural homeowners live with wildfire, rather than squandering scarce resources increasing logging in our National Forests, as the McInnis bill would do."

Andrew George, campaign coordinator with the National Forest Protection Alliance - a national network of over 100 grassroots conservation groups - explained, "Make no mistake, the McInnis bill does nothing to protect homes and communities from wildfire or promote badly needed ecological restoration projects. Instead the McInnis bill focuses on limiting citizen participation and undermining our nation's environmental laws in order to increase logging on America's National Forests. It's that simple."

Lisa Dix, campaign coordinator with the American Lands Alliance stated, "Limiting citizen participation and interfering with America's judicial system in order to cut down large, fire resistant trees miles away from communities will do nothing to protect a community from wildfire, yet this is the exact approach promoted in the McInnis bill and the Bush Administration's 'Healthy Forest Initiative.'"

Letter copy:

May 8, 2003

Dear Representative:

Next week you will be asked to vote on H.R. 1904. We urge you to oppose this bill, which does not offer more protection to communities at risk from wildfire, but rather seeks to undermine our environmental laws and the judicial process when it comes to logging on our public lands, potentially including national parks and wildlife refuges. H.R. 1904 seeks to cut the heart out of the National Environmental Policy Act -- the Magna Carta of environmental protection. It also seeks to eliminate the public's say regarding the management of our public lands, dramatically interfere with our independent judiciary, and provide new subsidies to the timber industry. H.R. 1904:

DOES NOT ENSURE ANY INCREASED PROTECTION FOR COMMUNITIES: This bill does not include any specific measures to protect homes or communities. It is also inconsistent with the Western Governors' Association 10-Year Comprehensive Strategy, which does not call for any changes in existing laws. The only proven method to protect homes and communities is to reduce flammable materials in the immediate vicinity of structures, yet the sham definitions in H.R. 1904 would not require any activities to be near homes. Instead, the bill seeks to further subsidize the timber industry and eliminate obstacles to logging large, fire-resistant trees miles away from the nearest home. The country's top forest scientists, including the Forest Service's own scientists, have found that this kind of logging can actually increase fire risk and make fires larger and more intense. Attached is a letter from scientists providing more details.

CUTS THE HEART OUT OF NEPA: H.R. 1904 seeks to eliminate the most important part of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) - the requirement that alternatives to agency actions are considered. The courts have called this consideration of alternatives the very "Heart of NEPA." Attached is a letter from the nation's most highly respected independent NEPA experts detailing the legal significance of this action.

INTERFERES WITH OUR INDEPENDENT JUDICIARY: H.R. 1904 seeks to restrict a core principle of our democracy -- the right of Americans to seek redress in the courts for grievances involving the federal government. It attempts to automatically require a court to tip the scales of justice in favor of logging proponents by attempting to require courts to give deference to an agency on the question of relief. For permanent injunctions, this is an attempt to force courts to defer to agencies to allow projects to go forward even after the court has ruled that the agency actions are illegal. In addition, H.R. 1904 would drastically limit the amount of time the public has to file an appeal in court and attempts to legislate unprecedented interference with the judiciary by limiting the time judges have to review the impacts of logging projects, as well as forcing them to affirmatively renew preliminary injunctions after 45 days. The requirement that several committees of Congress be informed whenever a judge presumes to renew a preliminary injunction is also troubling.

PROVIDES EVEN MORE SUBSIDIES FOR THE TIMBER INDUSTRY: In FY 2002, the Forest Service spent $362 million to subsidize commercial timber. H.R. 1904 would authorize another $125 million in subsidies to log our national forests, but there is no requirement that this money be used to reduce hazardous fuels in the immediate vicinity of communities.

CUTS THE PUBLIC OUT OF THE PROCESS: H.R. 1904 seeks to eliminate the current environmental review process - involving environmental analysis, an opportunity for the public to review and comment on agency decisions, and the ability of the public to appeal agency decisions. The bill attempts to repeal the Appeals Reform Act on 20 million acres, and creates a new category of projects to be excluded from NEPA review on an additional 250,000 acres.

ALLOWS ROADS IN ROADLESS AREAS: H.R. 1904 would override the Roadless Area Conservation Rule and allow temporary roads in roadless areas. Temporary roads can be as damaging to the environment as permanent roads, and are rarely decommissioned as originally intended.

LIMITS PROTECTIONS FOR FISH AND WILDLIFE: H.R. 1904 seeks to limit protections for fish and wildlife, including threatened and endangered species, by eliminating NEPA processes that are essential for avoiding harmful activities that may push a species onto the endangered or threatened list. H.R. 1904 also creates a new program to provide $75 million in subsidies in a vague and undefined reserve program with no standards or guidelines that may seek to allow private landowners to skirt the Endangered Species Act with no accountability and no sure benefit to species or ecosystems.

PLEASE OPPOSE H.R. 1904. THIS BILL FAILS TO PROTECT COMMUNITIES AND BENEFITS THE TIMBER INDUSTRY AT THE EXPENSE OF PUBLIC SAFETY, OUR INDEPENDENT JUDICIARY, TAXPAYERS, AND THE ENVIRONMENT.

Singed by the Following 103 Conservation Groups:

American Lands Alliance, D.C.
Alaska Center for the Environment, AK
Alaska Rainforest Campaign, AK
Alliance for the Wild Rockies, MT
Audubon Society of Corvallis, OR
BARK, OR
Blue Mountains Biodiversity Project, OR-
Bradford Environmental Research, WY
California Wilderness Coalition, CA
Cascadia Wildlands Project, WA
Center for Biological Diversity, AZ
Chiricahua-Dragoon Conservation Alliance, AZ
Citizens For Holly Springs National Forest, MS
Citizens of Lee Environmental Action Network, VA
Coalition for Jobs and the Environment, VA
Coast Range Association, OR
Cold Mountains, Cold Rivers, MT
Colorado Wild, CO
Committee for the High Desert, ID
Conservation Leaders Network, OR
Cumberland Countians for Peace & Justice, TN
Defenders of Wildlife, D.C.
Devil's Fork Trail Club, VA
Earthjustice, D.C.
Endangered Species Coalition, D.C.
EPIC, CA
Friends of Ferry County, WA
Friends of the Clearwater, ID
Friends of the Earth, D.C.
Forest Conservation Council, NM
Forest Guardians, NM
Forest Forever, CA
Four Corners Institute, NM
Forestry Monitoring Project, CA
Gifford Pinchot Task Force, WA
Goshen Alliance, VA
Great Lakes United, NY
Great Old Broads for Wilderness
Greater Wyoming Valley Audubon Society
Headwaters, OR
Heartwood, IL
Hells Canyon Preservation Council, OR
High Country Citizens' Alliance, CO
Hoosier Environmental Council, IN
Idaho Conservation League, ID
Indiana Forest Alliance, IN
Keep Sespe Wild Committee, OR
Kentucky Heartwood, KY
Kettle Range Conservation Group, WA
Klamath-Siskiyou Wildlands Center, OR
Live Oak Alliance, TX
Lomakatsi Restoration Project, OR
League Of Wilderness Defenders, OR
Magic, CA
Missouri Forest Alliance, MO
Montana CHEER, MT
National Audubon Society, D.C.
National Environmental Trust, D.C.
National Forest Protection Alliance, MT
Natural Resources Defense Council, D.C.
Native Forest Network, MT
Native Plant Society, OR
New Jersey Environmental Lobby, NJ
Northwest Ecosystem Alliance, WA
Obed Watershed Association, TN
Olympic Forest Coalition, WA
Oregon Natural Desert Association, OR
Patrick Environmental Awareness Group, VA
Pilchuk Audubon Society, WA
Pineywoods Sierra Group, TX
RESTORE: The North Woods, MA
Salem Audubon Society, OR
Santa Fe Forest Watch, NM
Selkirk Conservation Alliance, ID
Sequoia Forest Keeper, CA
Sierra Club, D.C.
Siskiyou Education Project, OR
South Yuba River Citizens League, CA
Southern Appalachian Biodiversity Project, NC
Southern Appalachian Forest Coalition, NC
Southern Environmental Law Center, VA
Southwest Environmental Center, NM
Southwest Forest Alliance, AZ
Taking Responsibility for the Earth and Environment (TREE), VA
The Clinch Coalition, VA
The Lands Council, WA
The Wilderness Society, D.C.
United Church of Christ Network for Environmental and Economic Responsibility, MD
Umpqua Watersheds, OR
U.S. Public Interest Research Group, D.C.
Utah Environmental Congress, UT
Virginia Forest Watch, VA
Voice for Animals, TX
Western Colorado Congress, CO
Western Montana Mycological Association, MT
Western Slope Environmental Resource Council, CO
Wild Wilderness, OR
Wilderness Study Group, CO
Wilderness Watch, MT
Wildlands Project, VT
Williams Watershed Council, OR
World Stewardship Institute, CA
World Wildlife Fund, D.C.