YOUR CALLS NEEDED NOW BEFORE NOON EDT THURSDAY

On Oct. 3, Thursday we'll see a very bad compromise fire policy bill being
marked up in the House Resources Committee. Sierra Club and all other
conservation groups are in the position of having to oppose a bill that has
been put together and is wholeheartedly supported by some dear
Congressional friends. However, the impending bad legislation is set to
pass without strong opposition and your help is needed.

Bad News:
For the last few weeks some Representatives have been discussing a
compromise and have agreed to a compromise bill. Representatives actively
supporting the compromise bill are George Miller (D-CA), Scott McInnis
(R-CO), Mark Udall (D-CO), Peter DeFazio (D-OR), John Shadegg (R-AZ) and
Greg Walden (R-OR.)  This bill is known as the McInnis/Miller Substitute
Amendment to HR5319 and has more than a few flaws.

Good News:
Reps. Jay Inslee (D-WA) and Tom Udall (D-NM) plan to offer an alternative
substitute as an amendment.  We have the chance for MOCs to support a
pro-active, solution oriented bill that would make progress on protecting
communities and reducing fire hazards.  I hope you can dig in and help get
the attention of Representatives and urge them to oppose a bill that is not
only anti-environmental but also drastically limits citizen involvement in
the management of public land. Please be sure to weigh in before 12:00pm
EDT.

Call the Representatives listed below and urge them to OPPOSE the
McInnis/Miller compromise and SUPPORT the Inslee/Udall alternative.  Phone
and fax numbers are listed below.

Iowans:  Since we have no Representatives from Iowa listed, please focus
your calls to:

Rep. George Miller (D-CA)         202/225-2095      FAX 202/225-5609
Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-OR)         202/225-6416      FAX 202/225-0032
Rep. Mark Udall (D-CO)             202/225-2161       FAX 202/226-7840

1) TROUBLESOME PROVISIONS OF THE MCINNIS/MILLER SUBSTITUTE:

- Overly broad definition of Wildland Urban interface. This definition is
wide open to abuse and puts lands far from communities at risk of harmful
logging practices.

- Allows for "chemical and biological treatment" to be used in conjunction
with thinning or burning.  This allows application of herbicides and
pesticides in municipal watersheds and grazing as a fuel reduction
treatment.

- Includes "other at risk Federal lands" which means any area where the
federal agency determines there has been a windthrow, blowdown or insect
outbreak. Also includes condition II and condition III lands adjacent to
municipal watersheds or in endangered species habitat. Opens up for more
abuse.

- Does NOT protect roadless, wild forests from logging as long as the
project is deemed a "fuel reduction project" under this bill.

- Creates a different, convoluted system of public comments and appeals for
projects under this bill.  Changes the implementation of NEPA for these
projects and severely limits the effectiveness of public review and the
ability of citizens to be involved in the process.

- The McInnis bill drastically limits judicial review. This is a ridiculous
requirement that puts a logging project on the scale with ANY criminal or
civil case including, for example, terrorism.

- Creates 26 new "stewardship contracting" projects for BLM lands and 15
for USFS lands.  These are part of a new experimental contracting authority
that allows for contractors to remove large, healthy trees as their payment
for removing fuel buildup.  There is no accountability and this is wide
open to abuse.  These projects are on top of another 84 current projects
that are supposed to be "experimental" in nature.

- This bill authorizes $3.8 billion for USFS and BLM until the end of FY07.
These funds will likely be spent on commercial timber projects outside of
Community Protection Zones and do not have to be spent on home protection
or education such as the FIREWISE program. This promotes the spending of
taxpayer dollars on fuel reduction program that is, at best, ineffectual
and, at worst, destructive.


2) BENEFITS OF THE INSLEE/TOM UDALL SUBSTITUTE TO HR5319

- The Inslee substitute provides for categorical exclusions of fuel
reduction projects in Community Protection Zones, a half-mile line around
interface communities. The projects may also be around reservoirs in
condition class 3.

- The Inslee substitute narrowly defines hazardous fuels reduction projects
so that unlike the McInnis bill, does not include chemical or biological
treatments.  The Inslee substitute requires projects covered by the bill to
be designed with a "primary purpose of hazardous fuels reduction". While
the McInnis bill has a 70% minimum on funds expended on projects in the
interface and municipal watersheds, the Inslee bill has an 85% minimum to
be spent in the quarter-mile Community Protection Zones.

- Projects, including any logging or thinning may not be in wilderness
areas, WSA's, inventoried roadless areas, Native American cultural and
religious sites, or areas where acts, presidential proclamation, (National
Monuments) or land management plans prohibit removal of trees.  Some of
these categories, such as Native American sites and land management plan
prohibitions, are not in the McInnis compromise.

- Unlike McInnis's compromise, the Inslee substitute prohibits road
construction. It does not change the appeals structure, change how NEPA
works, impose deadlines on courts or change venue, or expand stewardship
contracting. Finally, it includes a provision for state block grants for
fuel reduction on non-federal lands in the wildland-urban-interface and
directs an NAS study on diameter limits.

3) Resources Committee MOCs to contact -- Urge them to OPPOSE the McInnis
compromise and SUPPORT the Inslee alternative.  Call on Thursday, before
Noon, Eastern Daylight Time.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
To get off the IOWA-TOPICS list, send any message to:
[log in to unmask]