Last month, the United States Senate introduced H.R. 471, the Fix Our Forests Act, for legislative consideration. The bill, cosponsored by Colorado Senator John Hickenlooper (D), passed the House in late January with support from representatives Jeff Crank (R-CD5), Jeff Hurd (R-CD3), Brittany Peterson (D-CD7), and Lauren Boebert (R-CD4) and 275 other congressional members.
The legislation has been highly controversial, with different reactions from various environmental stakeholders. According to Hickenlooper’s office, the bill is meant to “strengthen wildfire resilience by improving forest management, supporting fire-safe communities and streamlining approvals for projects that protect communities and ecosystems from extreme wildfires.” He and his co-sponsoring senators claim that it will accelerate forest management projects and response, increase public input capacity and improve collaboration between interest groups.
Several Roaring Fork Valley and Western Colorado environmental organizations disagree. Carbondale-based conservation group Wilderness Workshop notes that the bill would limit the window for public input on proposed projects and does not require additional evaluation when endangered species or critical habitats are identified in a proposed project area.
Regional advocacy group Western Watersheds Project goes further, saying that the Fix Our Forests Act “creates massive exemptions from bedrock environmental laws designed to ensure that projects are thoroughly analyzed, use the best available science and involve the public in decision [making].” Western Watersheds also asserts that the bill creates massive hurdles for judicial review by limiting courts’ ability to review plans prior to implementation.
Sponsors of the bill cite support from the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF), The Nature Conservancy, Alliance for Wildfire Resilience and Colorado Governor Jared Polis among others. EDF Executive Director Amanda Leland said “The U.S. Forest Service needs new tools and more resources now to prevent and control these wildfires, and with the right funding this bipartisan proposal will help.”
As of press time, The Nature Conservancy had not released a public statement about H.R. 471. However, in March, the organization released a statement “in response to recent discussions about United States government funding for projects and programs.” In that release, Kameran Onley, the organization’s managing director of North American Policy and Government Relations, said, “The Nature Conservancy supports efforts to enhance the efficiency and effectiveness of the United States government. However, it is crucial that — on behalf of all Americans — the government meets its responsibilities to care for the country’s land, air, water and wildlife.”
Later in the statement, Onley emphasized that The Nature Conservancy is “alarmed by the negative impacts we already are seeing from recent sweeping and sudden decisions related to the elimination of key staff, science-supported tools, regulations and investments to protect nature. Governments are most effective when their decisions are data-driven, backed by science and well-thought-out by the experts they have on staff.”
Wilderness Workshop Executive Director Will Roush said that the act will limit public input rather than expand it, and exclude evaluation of small projects which can have widespread environmental impacts.
“I’ve seen firsthand how local knowledge can positively influence forest management,” Roush said. “Categorically excluding projects up to 15-square-miles in size from any meaningful analysis or public input does a great disservice to our communities, wildlife and forests alike. At a time when our public lands are under attack, limiting public participation while undermining environmental analysis and the Endangered Species Act is altogether the wrong way to go.”
Wilderness Workshop noted specific objections to provisions in H.R. 471. The organization takes issue with: the exclusion of a variety of logging projects across as much as 15.6 square miles of National Forest from requirements for public input and scientific analysis; the limitation of judicial review to 150 days from the standard six years; and negation of the Cottonwood Decision, which requires the Forest Service to reinitiate forest planning consultation when a new endangered species or critical habitat is found.
Western Watersheds Project Public Policy Director Josh Osher said, “At one of the most crucial moments for the future of our public lands, waters and wildlife, Congress is abandoning ship and handing over control to the cattle and timber barons who got us into this mess in the first place.” He continued, “What we need right now is a new paradigm that values life over profit and extraction, not the same tired ideas wrapped in deceptive new packaging.”
Western Watersheds Project prefers other legislation to address wildfire related decision making. “The Fix Our Forests Act will exacerbate the problems caused by decades of excessive logging, grazing and vegetation management on our public lands by prescribing more of the same with even less caution or foresight,” Osher stated. “In contrast, bills such as H.R.582, [the] Community Protection and Wildfire Resilience Act introduced by Rep Huffman, actually provides solutions to increased wildfire risk to communities.”The public can view updates to H.R. 471 on the congressional website, www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-bill/471
CD3 residents can submit comment to Senators Hickenlooper, Michael Bennet and Rep Hurd at their respective websites and/or listed Colorado office phone numbers.