New GAO Report Shows Public Participation, Appeals Do Not Interfere with Fuel Reduction

5/14/2003

From: (Listed below)

WASHINGTON, May 14 -- For the second time in two years, a review by the General Accounting Office has demonstrated that public comment and appeals process do not hamper hazardous fuel reduction efforts. This new GAO report, which the agency is expected to release to Congress today, finds that the overwhelming majority of projects go forward in a timely manner, even when questions are raised by citizens, industry, recreation groups, conservationists or other interested parties.

The GAO found that more than 95 percent of the 762 hazardous fuels reduction projects reviewed by the GAO -- covering some 4.7 million acres of federal forest lands -- were ready for implementation within the standard 90 day review period (724 out of 762). These findings severely undermine efforts by Rep. Scott McInnis (R-Colo.) and others to short-circuit the existing process for public input regarding hazardous fuel reduction efforts on U.S. Forest Service and BLM lands.

"The GAO report shows that the process worked," said Marty Hayden, legislative director for Earthjustice, the nation's largest non-profit environmental law firm. "The overwhelming majority of projects get the green light to proceed in 90 days or less."

Rep. McInnis has introduced a bill that would reduce the ability of the public and the courts to challenge illegal or misguided projects. The current GAO report is the third independent study to undermine the bill's fundamental premise that lengthy review and appeals are hamstringing the Forest Service's ability to conduct fuel reduction projects, joining another similarly damning GAO report from 2001, and a study from Northern Arizona University released in April 2003.

"For McInnis it's three strikes and you're out," said Michael Francis, director of the National Forest Program at The Wilderness Society. "As the latest GAO report and earlier studies show, McInnis is attempting to fix a problem that doesn't exist. Appeals are not the problem."

The report includes no evidence to support the Forest Service's contention that fuel reduction efforts have been obstructed by conservationists. More than 97 percent of the 762 hazardous fuels reduction projects reviewed by the GAO were not challenged by a single lawsuit, the report shows. In all, just 23 projects were litigated in court.

"The McInnis bill really distracts us from the important work of reducing fire danger in the Community Protection Zone," said Sean Cosgrove of the Sierra Club. "His proposal would put communities in more danger -- not less."

"This latest GAO report shows without a doubt that efforts to protect homes and communities from wildfire are not being hampered by the public appeals process," added Matthew Koehler with the Montana-based Native Forest Network. "In truth, it's Congressman McInnis and the Bush administration who are hampering home protection efforts with their plan to spend scarce resources increasing logging in America's national forests."

The McInnis bill is being debated today by the House Judiciary Committee, and is expected to be before the full House next Tuesday.

"The GAO report shows that the McInnis bill is a red herring," said Nathaniel Lawrence, a senior attorney with the Natural Resources Defense Council. "Job number one is protecting homes and communities from fires. The McInnis bill is worse than a distraction. It's slowing agencies and officials by embroiling them in pointless controversy."

"The GAO report confirms that Representative McInnis and the Bush administration should stop trying to cut the public out of the process and start protecting communities at risk from forest fires," added Tiernan Sittenfeld, Conservation Advocate for the U.S. Public Interest Research Group.

"It is astonishing that Rep. McInnis and the Bush administration's so-called Healthy Forest Initiative continue to blatantly ignore the true facts from the GAO -- as well as fire science -- on how best to protect communities and lives from wildfires," said Randi Spivak, executive director of American Lands. "They are underestimating the public's ability to see through their transparent agenda that caters to the timber industry and increases risk to communities."

NOTE: A "Wildfire Fact Sheet" from The Wilderness Society follows this release.

CONTACT: Sierra Club, Annie Strickler, 202-675-2384; The Wilderness Society, Michael Francis, Director, National Forest Program, 202-833-2200; Earthjustice, Marty Hayden, Legislative Director, 202-667-4500 x 218; American Lands, Randi Spivak, Director, 202-547-9029; Natural Resources Defense Council, Amy Mall, Policy Analyst, 202-289-6868; U.S. Public Interest Research Group, Tiernan Sittenfeld, Conservation Advocate, 202-546-9707; Alaska Coalition, Laurie Cooper, Forest Outreach Director, 202-628-1843; National Environmental Trust, Robert Vandermark, Policy Analyst, 202-887-8800; Defenders of Wildlife, Brad DeVries, President, 202-772-0237; Matthew Koehler, Native Forest Network 406-542-7343

------

The Wilderness Society: WILDFIRE FACT SHEET

FOREST SERVICE CONTINUES TO BLOW SMOKE: LATEST GAO REPORT, UNIVERSITY STUDY SHOW McINNIS WILDFIRE BILL BASED ON FLAWED ASSUMPTIONS

Summary: During the past several wildfire seasons, the Forest Service, a few elected officials, and the timber industry have been quick to blame conservationists for obstructing wildfire prevention efforts. For the second time in two years, however, an independent study by the General Accounting Office has demonstrated that wildfire prevention efforts are not hampered by the public comment and appeals process. The current GAO report is the third independent study that undermines these claims. The new GAO analysis joins a similarly conclusive GAO report from 2001, and a study from Northern Arizona University released in April 2003.

Latest GAO Report Shows Projects Have Green Light to Move Forward: This new GAO report, which the agency is expected to release to Congress on May 14, finds that the overwhelming majority of projects go forward in a timely manner, even when questions are raised by citizens, recreation groups, conservationists or other interested parties. The GAO found that more than 95 percent of the 762 hazardous fuels reduction projects reviewed by the GAO -- covering some 4.7 million acres of federal forest lands -- were ready for implementation within the standard 90-day review period. These findings severely undermine efforts by Rep. Scott McInnis (R-Colo.) and others to short-circuit the existing process for public input into wildfire prevention efforts on U.S. Forest Service lands.

NAU Report Also Demonstrates that Appeals Are Not the Problem: A recent independent study by the Northern Arizona University's Ecological Restoration Institute (ERI) also found that appeals have not obstructed wildfire prevention efforts. The University report, "Analyzing USDA Forest Service Appeals," was released earlier this spring (NOTE 1). The researchers for the first time created a database of Forest Service appeals records between January 1, 1997 and September 30, 2002 and then systematically analyzed the true record on appeals. The report's findings include:

-- Overall the appeals process has been used by a broad range of interests from grazing permittees and timber companies to concerned local residents, and conservation groups. -- Appeals are on a downward trend since peaking in 1998. -- Roughly one-third of appeals are filed by individuals participating in the democratic process.

Latest GAO Report, NAU Study Reinforce Earlier GAO Review: An August 31, 2001 General Accounting Office Report demonstrated that over 99 percent of fuel reduction projects proposed by the Forest Service for fiscal year 2001 went through without appeal, and none were litigated. The Forest Service proposed implementing 1,671 hazardous fuel reduction projects for that year. Of those, only 20 (about one percent) had been appealed by ANY interested party, including recreation groups, conservationists, industry interests or individuals (NOTE 2).

Western Media Agrees Appeals Are Not the Problem: A number of media outlets have written about the issue of appeals and wildfire prevention:

-- The Denver Post editorialized: "The study undercuts the claims by politicians who want to gut environmental laws on grounds they hinder the removal of potential wildfire fuel from national forests. Congress shouldn't write laws based on faulty information, but instead should use the research to craft thoughtful, fact-based legislation. The study particularly calls into question assumptions used by U.S. Rep. Scott McInnis about his pending Healthy Forest Restoration bill...Researchers found little evidence to support claims that environmental appeals delay efforts to reduce the risk of large wildfires" (NOTE 3).

-- The Arizona Sun wrote that "ERI also found that lawmakers and government officials used the issue of forest project appeals to 'shift the blame for damage caused by wildfires' from the Forest Service, which had suppressed fires to protect trees for commercial logging and timber companies, to environmental groups" (NOTE 4).

GAO Reports and NAU Study Demolish Forest Service Report on Appeals: Last summer, the Forest Service attempted to spin the appeals issue by releasing its own report -- a report done in less than 24 hours that utilized Enron-inspired accounting. The Forest Service report is flawed for many reasons. The report:

-- Fails to Consider Prescribed Burn Projects -- Includes Projects Not Designed to Reduce Fire Risk -- Does Not Include Projects "Not Subject to Appeal"

The Forest Service's Real Record: Recent reports by the GAO and USFS Inspector General show that the Forest Service's record on fire prevention is plagued by mismanagement and delay:

-- The Forest Service is Not Focusing Its Work on Protecting At-Risk Communities. During fiscal year 2002 just over a third of the acres where the Forest Service planned to reduce hazardous fuels will be in and around communities. This year, the Agency's plan is for only 55 percent of acres mitigated to be in "wildland-urban areas" (NOTE 5). Instead of protecting communities, the Forest Service continues to favor projects far from homes or towns.

-- Federal Agencies Have No Standard to Measure Results: The March 2002 GAO report also notes that "although the Forest Service and Interior have received substantial additional funding, they have not yet developed performance measures to determine the extent that these additional resources have resulted in more effective fire fighting as envisioned under the National Fire Plan" (NOTE 6).

-- Federal Agencies Lack a Coordinated Management Plan, Required Eight Years Ago: A March 2002 GAO report notes that "over half of all federal land management units (1,384) still do not have fire management plans that meet the requirements of the 1995 fire management policy" (NOTE 7). The report further observes that these management units have not identified high-risk areas, specifically communities in the wildland-urban interface that are the most threatened by fire.

Forest Service Has No Database of Appeals: One of the NAU researchers' biggest hurdles was the lack of comprehensive records kept by the Forest Service. Researchers found the Forest Service has not systematically collected or analyzed project appeals. "People have a difficult time believing and understanding that this information has not been compiled before now," said Dr. Jacquline Vaughn, associate professor at NAU. "One would assume the Forest Service would have complete records on appeals and litigation. They don't. There are bits and pieces at the local, regional, and national level" (NOTE 8).

What Are Appeals? The appeals process allows interested citizens to challenge Forest Service management policies and projects without having to go to court. Appeals are less expensive and faster than lawsuits and result in only a minor delay -- 65 days at most when denied. As U.S. District Judge Donald Molloy explained, the appeals process serves a very legitimate function: "Ultimately its force is to allow the democratic process of participation in governmental decisions the full breadth and scope to which citizens are entitled in a participatory democracy" (NOTE 9).

There Is a Better Way, the Miller-DeFazio Wildfire Bill Protects Communities First: The Miller-DeFazio bill, through block grants to states, would provide funds for fuel reduction on private, state and tribal land -- which comprise 85 percent of the forested land near vulnerable communities -- as well as on federal lands. This approach would put available funds to use where they are most effective: where wildfires pose a real threat to human lives and homes. It is far superior to the McInnis bill.

For more information: Contact Mike Francis (202-429-2662), Jay Watson (415-518-2604) or Chris Mehl (406-586-1600).

------

NOTE 1: Northern Arizona University, "Analyzing USDA Forest Service Appeals," Cortner, Teich, and Vaughn. 2003.

NOTE 2: General Accounting Office, "Fuel Reduction Projects." GAO-01-1114R. August 31, 2001.

NOTE 3: The Denver Post, "Public Didn't Cause Forest Ills," May 4, 2003.

NOTE 4: The Arizona Sun, "Blame Misplaced in Forest Appeals?" April 22, 2003.

NOTE 5: USDA Forest Service, "FY 2003 President's Budget Overview," page B-13. February 4, 2002.

NOTE 6: Ibid, pages 3-4.

NOTE 7: General Accounting Office, "Wildland Fire Management." GAO-02-158, page 2. March 2002.

NOTE 8: Press Release, Northern Arizona University, "ERI Study Examines Forest Service Decided Appeals," April 22, 2003.

NOTE 9: Order in The Wilderness Society v. Rey, No. 01-219, slip op. at 18 (D. Mont. Jan. 7, 2002).