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]