19–006

107TH CONGRESS REPT. 107–770 " HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ! 2d Session Part 1

HEALTHY FORESTS AND WILDFIRE RISK REDUCTION ACT 

OF 2002

OCTOBER 31, 2002.—Ordered to be printed 

Mr. HANSEN, from the Committee on Resources, 

submitted the following 

R E P O R T 

together with 

ADDITIONAL AND DISSENTING VIEWS 

[To accompany H.R. 5319]

The Committee on Resources, to whom was referred the bill 

(H.R. 5319) to improve the capacity of the Secretary of Agriculture 

and the Secretary of the Interior to expeditiously address wildfire 

prone conditions on National Forest System lands and other public 

lands that threaten communities, watersheds, and other at-risk 

landscapes through the establishment of expedited environmental 

analysis procedures under the National Environmental Policy Act 

of 1969, to establish a predecisional administrative review process 

for the Forest Service, to expand fire management contracting authorities, to authorize appropriations for hazardous fuels reduction 

projects, and for other purposes, having considered the same, report favorably thereon with amendments and recommend that the 

bill as amended do pass. 

The amendments are as follows: 

Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the following:

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS. 

(a) SHORT TITLE.—This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Healthy Forests and Wildfire 

Risk Reduction Act of 2002’’. 

(b) TABLE OF CONTENTS.—The table of contents for this Act is as follows:

Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents. 

Sec. 2. Purpose. 

Sec. 3. Definition of wildland-urban interface and process for revision of definition. 

Sec. 4. Other definitions. 

Sec. 5. Hazardous fuels reduction projects covered by this Act. 

Sec. 6. Reservation of hazardous fuels reduction project funds for projects in wildland-urban interface. 

Sec. 7. Environmental analysis. 

Sec. 8. Forest Service administrative appeal process. 

Sec. 9. Judicial review in United States district courts. 

Sec. 10. GAO audit. 

2

Sec. 11. Stewardship contracting. 

Sec. 12. Duration. 

Sec. 13. Rules of construction. 

Sec. 14. Relation to Collaborative 10-year Strategy for Reducing Wildland Fire Risks to Communities and the 

Environment. Sec. 15. Monitoring by independent panel. 

Sec. 16. Authorization of appropriations.

SEC. 2. PURPOSE. 

The purpose of this Act is to reduce the risks of damage to communities, municipal water supplies, and some other at-risk landscapes from catastrophic wildfires. 

SEC. 3. DEFINITION OF WILDLAND-URBAN INTERFACE AND PROCESS FOR REVISION OF DEFINITION. 

(a) INITIAL DEFINITION.—In this Act, the term ‘‘wildland-urban interface’’ means a geographic area designated by the Secretary concerned, the Chief of the Forest 

Service, or the Director of the Bureau of Land Management as an area— (1) that includes an Interface Community or Intermix Community (as those 

terms are defined on page 753 of volume 66 of the Federal Register, as published on January 4, 2001); 

(2) on which conditions are conducive to large-scale fire disturbance events; 

and 

(3) for which a significant risk exists of a resulting spread of the fire disturbance event, after ignition, that would threaten human life and property. 

(b) REVISION OF DEFINITION.—Within three years after the date of the enactment 

of this Act, the Secretary of Agriculture and the Secretary of the Interior shall submit to Congress any proposed revision of the definition of wildland-urban interface 

in subsection (a) that the Secretaries find would better reflect regional and local differences in the intermixing of homes and other structures with Federal lands, the 

types of fire threats facing such lands, and the forest and rangeland types and conditions on such lands. 

(c) CONSULTATION.—In the case of Federal lands located in States participating 

in the Western Governors’ Association, the Secretary of Agriculture and the Secretary of the Interior shall consult with the Western Governors’ Association in revising the definition proposed for wildland-urban interface. 

SEC. 4. OTHER DEFINITIONS. 

In this Act: 

(1) CONDITION CLASS 2.—The term ‘‘condition class 2’’, with respect to an area 

of Federal lands, means that—

(A) fire regimes on the lands have been moderately altered from their historical range by either increased or decreased fire frequency; and 

(B) there exists a moderate risk of losing key ecosystem components from 

fire. 

(2) CONDITION CLASS 3.—The term ‘‘condition class 3’’, with respect to an area 

of Federal lands, means that—

(A) fire regimes on the lands have been significantly altered from their 

historical return interval and fire frequencies have departed from historical 

ranges by multiple return intervals; 

(B) there exists a high risk of losing key ecosystem components from fire; 

(C) vegetation composition, structure, and diversity have been significantly altered; and 

(D) the lands verge on the greatest risk of ecological collapse as a result 

of fire. 

(3) CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEES OF JURISDICTION.—The term ‘‘congressional 

committees of jurisdiction’’ means the Committee on Resources and the Committee on Agriculture of the House of Representatives and the Committee on 

Energy and Natural Resources of the Senate. 

(4) DAY.—The term ‘‘day’’ means a calendar day. 

(5) FEDERAL LANDS.—The term ‘‘Federal lands’’ means—

(A) National Forest System lands; and 

(B) public lands administered by the Secretary of the Interior acting 

through the Bureau of Land Management. 

(6) HAZARDOUS FUELS REDUCTION PROJECT.—The term ‘‘hazardous fuels reduction project’’ means a project undertaken on Federal lands for the purpose of 

reducing the amount of hazardous fuels present on the lands through the use 

of prescribed burning or mechanical treatment. Chemical or biological treatment 

may only be used in conjunction with prescribed burning or mechanical treatment. 

(7) MUNICIPAL WATER SUPPLY SYSTEM.—The term ‘‘municipal water supply 

system’’ means the reservoirs, canals, ditches, flumes, laterals, pipes, pipelines, 

or other surface facilities and systems constructed or installed for the impoundVerDate 0ct 31 2002 16:38 Nov 05, 2002 Jkt 019006 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6621 E:\HR\OC\HR770P1.XXX HR770P1
3

ment, storage, transportation, or distribution of drinking water for a community. 

(8) OTHER AT-RISK FEDERAL LANDS.—The term ‘‘other at-risk Federal lands’’

means Federal lands identified by the Secretary concerned as an area where 

windthrow or blowdown or the existence or threat of large-scale disease or insect infestation pose a significant threat to forest or rangeland health and an 

attendant increase in the risk of catastrophic wildfire. 

(9) SECRETARY CONCERNED.—The term ‘‘Secretary concerned’’ means—

(A) the Secretary of Agriculture (or the designee of the Secretary) with 

respect to the Federal lands described in paragraph (5)(A); and 

(B) the Secretary of the Interior (or the designee of the Secretary) with 

respect to the Federal lands described in paragraph (5)(B). 

(10) SCOPING.—The term ‘‘scoping’’ means an open process conducted in accordance with applicable regulations and agency guidelines, including section 

1501.7 of title 40, Code of Federal Regulations, where applicable, as in effect 

on the date of the enactment of this Act, during the preparation of a hazardous 

fuels reduction project. 

(11) THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES HABITAT.—The term ‘‘threatened 

and endangered species habitat’’ means Federal lands identified in the listing 

decision or critical habitat designation as habitat containing a threatened species or an endangered species consistent with the Endangered Species Act of 

1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). 

SEC. 5. HAZARDOUS FUELS REDUCTION PROJECTS COVERED BY THIS ACT. 

(a) COVERED PROJECTS.—This Act applies only with respect to a hazardous fuels 

reduction project undertaken by the Secretary concerned on Federal lands found by 

the Secretary concerned to be in condition class 3 (or condition class 2 and adjacent 

to, or intermingled with, condition class 3 lands) if the Federal lands—

(1) are located in the wildland-urban interface; 

(2) are located in such proximity to a municipal water supply system that the 

risk of adverse effects to the water quality of the municipal water supply from 

a catastrophic wildfire, including the risk of erosion following a catastrophic 

wildfire, necessitates use of the processes established under this Act; 

(3) are other at-risk Federal lands; or 

(4) are not covered by paragraph (1), (2), or (3), but, subject to subsection (b), 

are found by the Secretary concerned to contain threatened and endangered 

species habitat. 

(b) ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS FOR THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES HABITAT.—This Act does not apply to Federal lands described in subsection (a)(4) unless—

(1) natural fire regimes are identified in a species recovery plan as being important for the threatened species or endangered species at issue or its habitat; 

(2) the project will provide enhanced protection from catastrophic wildfire for 

the species or its habitat; and 

(3) the Secretary complies with any applicable guidelines specified in the species recovery plan. 

(c) ACREAGE LIMITATION.—Not more than 2,000,000 acres of the aggregate of the 

Federal lands described in paragraphs (3) and (4) of subsection (a) may be treated 

in any fiscal year by hazardous fuels reduction projects for which the processes established under this Act are used. 

(d) ADDITIONAL LIMITATION.—In conducting a hazardous fuels reduction project 

for which the processes established under this Act are used, if the Federal lands 

to be treated by the project contain fire resistant, pre-fire-exclusion old and large 

trees, the Secretary concerned shall limit the removal of such trees so as to maintain as nearly as possible an ecologically optimum number of such trees, as determined by the Secretary concerned on a project-by-project basis, appropriate for each 

ecosystem type. The Secretary concerned shall also emphasize thinning from below 

for the project. 

(e) EXCLUSION OF CERTAIN FEDERAL LANDS.—This Act does not apply to the following Federal lands: 

(1) A component of the National Wilderness Preservation System. 

(2) Federal lands where, by Act of Congress or Presidential proclamation, the 

removal of vegetation is prohibited or restricted. 

(3) Wilderness Study Areas. 

(f) PROTECTION OF ROADLESS AREAS.—The Secretary of Agriculture shall not construct any new road in any Inventoried Roadless Area as part of any hazardous 

fuels reduction project for which the processes established under this Act are used. 

4

SEC. 6. RESERVATION OF HAZARDOUS FUELS REDUCTION PROJECT FUNDS FOR PROJECTS 

IN WILDLAND-URBAN INTERFACE. 

(a) RESERVATION.—Of the total funds expended by the Secretary concerned during 

each of the fiscal years 2003 through 2005 to plan and carry out hazardous fuels 

reduction projects covered by this Act, not less than 70 percent shall be expended 

for hazardous fuels reduction projects on Federal lands in the wildland-urban interface. 

(b) PRIORITY PROJECTS.—In conducting hazardous fuels reduction projects covered 

by this Act, the Secretary concerned, in the sole discretion of the Secretary, shall 

seek to give priority to those projects that would provide the greatest protection to 

human lives and property. 

SEC. 7. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided in subsection (b), the Secretary concerned 

shall conduct the environmental review for a hazardous fuel reduction project covered by this Act in accordance with section 102(2) of the National Environmental 

Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4332(2)). 

(b) DISCRETIONARY AUTHORITY TO ELIMINATE ALTERNATIVES.—In the case of a 

hazardous fuels reduction project covered by this Act, the Secretary concerned is not 

required to study, develop, or describe any alternative to the proposed agency action 

in any environmental assessment or environmental impact statement prepared for 

the proposed agency action pursuant to section 102(2) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4332(2)). At the discretion of the Secretary concerned, the Secretary may consider alternatives to the proposed agency action. 

(c) EFFECT OF PROPOSED PERMANENT ROAD CONSTRUCTION.—If a proposed hazardous fuels reduction project covered by this Act includes the construction of a new 

permanent system road, the Secretary concerned shall include consideration of one 

alternative that does not include such road construction in any environmental assessment or environmental impact statement prepared for the proposed agency action. At the discretion of the Secretary concerned, the Secretary may consider alternatives to the proposed agency action. 

(d) PUBLIC NOTICE.—

(1) QUARTERLY NOTICE.—The Secretary concerned shall provide quarterly notice, in the Federal Register, a local paper of record, and on an agency website, 

regarding all hazardous fuels reduction projects of the Secretary concerned for 

which the processes established under this Act are to be used. 

(2) PUBLIC HEARING.—Upon publication of the quarterly notice under paragraph (1), the Secretary concerned shall conduct a public meeting at an appropriate location in each unit of the Federal lands for which hazardous fuels reduction projects are proposed in the quarterly notice at which interested persons may provide input on the quarterly notice. 

(3) SPECIAL RULE.—If an incident arises shortly after a quarterly notice under 

paragraph (1) is published that the Secretary concerned determines should be 

promptly addressed through a hazardous fuels reduction project for which the 

processes established under this Act are to be used, notice of the project in the 

paper of record shall suffice for purposes of this subsection. 

(4) CONTENT.—The notice required by this subsection shall include the approximate date on which scoping for the hazardous fuels reduction projects will 

begin and information regarding how interested members of the public can take 

part in the development of the project. 

(e) PUBLIC COMMENT.—With respect to each hazardous fuels reduction project for 

which the processes established under this Act are to be used, the Secretary concerned shall conduct scoping in accordance with applicable regulations and administrative guidelines in effect on the date of the enactment of this Act. The Secretary 

concerned shall provide an opportunity for public comment. 

SEC. 8. FOREST SERVICE ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL PROCESS. 

(a) ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL PROCESS.—The Secretary of Agriculture shall use the 

following administrative appeal process to consider appeals regarding hazardous 

fuels reduction projects covered by this Act to be conducted on National Forest System lands. 

(b) NOTICE OF OPPORTUNITY TO APPEAL.—

(1) AVAILABILITY.—Under this administrative appeal process, the environmental analysis document, analysis file, and decision document for a hazardous 

fuels reduction project shall be complete and available for public review once 

notice of the decision document is provided in the local paper of record. 

(2) SUBSEQUENT REVISION.—Except as provided in subsection (e)(2), the environmental analysis document, analysis file, and decision document may not be 

revised after it is made available to the public unless the Secretary concerned 

5

provides new public notice and recommences the time limits specified in this 

section for the project. 

(c) SUBMISSION OF NOTICE OF INTENT TO APPEAL.—

(1) ELIGIBILITY.—To be eligible to appeal a hazardous fuels reduction project 

under this administrative appeal process, the person submitting the notice must 

have submitted specific and detailed comments during the preparation stage of 

the project on an issue specifically related to the project for which the appeal 

is sought. 

(2) TIME LIMITS.—Eligible persons shall be given a 10-day period, beginning 

on the date the signed decision document for the hazardous fuels reduction 

project is made available to the public, during which to submit written notice 

of an intent to appeal the decision. Notice submitted after the end of such period shall not be accepted. 

(3) EFFECT OF FAILURE TO SUBMIT NOTICE OF INTENT TO APPEAL.—If valid notice is not submitted within the required 10-day period, the hazardous fuels reduction project shall not be subject to appeal under this administrative appeal 

process or any other provision of law, and the decision document shall be considered the final agency decision. 

(4) EFFECT OF TIMELY SUBMISSION.—Upon the timely filing of notice under 

this subsection, the Secretary of Agriculture shall take no action to implement 

the hazardous fuels reduction project until the completion of the appeal process. 

(d) FILING OF APPEAL.—If an eligible person timely submits notice under subsection (c) with regard to a hazardous fuels reduction project, the Secretary of Agriculture shall give the person a 15-day period during which to file the administrative 

appeal. The 15-day period shall begin at the end of the 10-day period required by 

subsection (c), not on the day the notice is filed. 

(e) REVIEW OF APPEAL.—

(1) TIME FOR REVIEW.—Upon receipt of the administrative appeal with regard 

to a hazardous fuels reduction project, the appeals officer shall consider and 

render a decision on the appeal within 25 days. 

(2) NEW DECISION DOCUMENT.—The appeals officer may sign a new decision 

document correcting errors or otherwise modifying the decision document, rather than remanding the case for further proceedings. If the appeals officer signs 

a new decision document, the appeals officer shall supplement the record with 

explanatory analysis and documentation. The new decision document shall be 

considered the final agency decision. 

(f) NEGOTIATIONS.—The appeals officer may enter into negotiations with the appellants and other interested persons who filed comments during the preparation 

stage of the hazardous fuels reduction project. Any decision document resulting from 

the negotiations shall be considered the final agency decision. 

(g) RELATION TO EXISTING AUTHORITY.—Section 322 of the Department of the Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 1993 (Public Law 102–381; 16 

U.S.C. 1612 note) shall not apply to a hazardous fuels reduction project covered by 

this Act. 

SEC. 9. JUDICIAL REVIEW IN UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTS. 

(a) PLACE AND TIME OF FILING.—A hazardous fuels reduction project covered by 

this Act shall be subject to judicial review only in the United States district court 

for the district in which the Federal lands to be treated under the project are located. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, any challenge to the hazardous 

fuels reduction project must be filed in such district court before the end of the 15-

day period beginning on the date on which the Secretary concerned publishes, in 

the local paper of record, notice of the final agency action. The Secretary concerned 

may not agree to, and a district court may not grant, a waiver of the requirements 

of this subsection. 

(b) EFFECT OF FILING ON PROJECT.—Upon the timely filing of a challenge to a hazardous fuels reduction project covered by this Act, the Secretary concerned shall 

take no action to implement the project until the district court has rendered a decision on the merits of the appeal. 

(c) TIME FOR DECISION.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—Civil actions filed under this section shall be assigned for 

hearing at the earliest possible date. Except as provided in paragraph (2), the 

district court shall render its final decision relative to any challenge within 60 

days after the date on which the challenge is brought. The challenge shall not 

be dismissed as moot by the district court for failure of the court to render its 

final decision within this time period, including any extension provided pursuant to paragraph (2). 

(2) EXTENSION.—The district court shall extend the deadline specified in paragraph (1)—

6

(A) if the court determines that a longer period of time is required to satisfy the due process requirements of the United States Constitution; 

(B) at the request of the United States (but not to exceed 15 days and 

not on more than one occasion); 

(C) at the request of one appellant (but only one appellant and not to exceed 15 days and not on more than one occasion); and 

(D) at the discretion of the court (but not to exceed 30 days and not on 

more than one occasion) . 

(3) SPECIAL MASTER.—In order to reach a timely decision on a challenge, the 

district court may assign all or part of any such case or cases to one or more 

Special Masters for prompt review and recommendations to the court. 

(d) JUDICIAL RELIEF.—The district courts shall have authority to enjoin permanently or void a hazardous fuels reduction project covered by this Act. On account 

of the effect of the timely filing of a challenge to the hazardous fuels reduction 

project on the authority of the Secretary concerned to implement the project, as provided by subsection (b), no temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction 

shall be issued by the district court in connection with the project. 

(e) PROCEDURES.—The district court may set rules governing the procedures of 

any proceeding brought under this section which set page limits on briefs and time 

limits on filing briefs and motions and other actions that are shorter than the limits 

specified in the Federal rules of civil or appellate procedure. 

(f) APPEAL.—Any appeal from the final decision of a district court in an action 

brought pursuant to this section shall be filed as otherwise provided by law. 

SEC. 10. GAO AUDIT. 

(a) AUDIT REQUIRED.—Not later than 18 months after the date of the enactment 

of this Act, and from time-to-time thereafter, the Comptroller General shall conduct 

an audit of the implementation of this Act to determine the extent to which the 

processes established under this Act and the hazardous fuels reduction projects 

planned and implemented using those processes are achieving the purpose of this 

Act. 

(b) REPORT REQUIRED.—The Comptroller General shall submit to the congressional committees of jurisdiction a report containing the results of each audit. 

SEC. 11. STEWARDSHIP CONTRACTING. 

(a) SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE.—During the period beginning on the date of the 

enactment of this Act and ending on September 30, 2005, the Secretary of Agriculture, via agreement or contract as appropriate, may enter into not more than an 

additional 15 stewardship and end result contracts under the authority provided in 

section 347 of the Department of the Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations 

Act, 1999 (as enacted by section 101(e) of division A of Public Law 105–277; 16 

U.S.C. 2104 note), for the performance of hazardous fuels reduction projects (for 

which the processes established under this Act are used) on National Forest System 

lands. 

(b) SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR.—During the period beginning on the date of the 

enactment of this Act and ending on September 30, 2005, the Secretary of the Interior, via agreement or contract as appropriate, may enter into not more than 26 

stewardship and end result contracts for the performance of hazardous fuels reduction projects (for which the processes established under this Act are used) on Federal lands described in section 4(5)(B), other than revested Oregon and California 

Railroad and reconveyed Coos Bay Wagon Road grant lands. The stewardship and 

end result contracts shall be entered into in the same manner as provided for the 

Forest Service under section 347 of the Department of the Interior and Related 

Agencies Appropriations Act, 1999 (16 U.S.C. 2104 note). 

(c) PAYMENT BASIS.—Notwithstanding subsections (a) and (b), payments under a 

stewardship and end result contract entered into under such subsections may be on 

a fee for service basis to achieve the goals of the hazardous fuels reduction project. 

Cash payments may be reduced by the value of goods delivered by the contract, except that tree removal or thinning under the project shall be governed solely by the 

goal of fulfilling the purpose of this Act, not by the value of the goods delivered. 

(d) COOPERATION.—To the extent practicable, the stewardship and end result contracts authorized by this section shall be developed using a collaborative process 

that includes local communities and public land interest groups. 

(e) REPORT ON BLM EXPANSION.—Not later than 180 days after the date of the 

enactment of this Act, the Secretary of the Interior shall submit to the congressional 

committees of jurisdiction a report regarding the desirability of expanding the authority under subsection (b) to include—

(1) hazardous fuels reduction projects on those revested Oregon and California Railroad and reconveyed Coos Bay Wagon Road grant lands that are in 

7

condition class 3 or condition class 2 and for which the processes established 

under this Act may be used; and 

(2) hazardous fuels reduction projects on any revested Oregon and California 

Railroad and reconveyed Coos Bay Wagon Road grant lands that are in condition class 3 or condition class 2, but are covered by an exclusion under section 

5(e). 

SEC. 12. DURATION. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—The processes established under this Act shall be available 

through September 30, 2005, with regard to hazardous fuels reduction projects described in section 5(a). 

(b) CONTINUATION OF NOTICED PROJECTS.—A hazardous fuels reduction project 

identified in a quarterly notice published in the Federal Register as required by section 7(c) before the date specified in subsection (a) may proceed to completion after 

that date using the processes established under this Act. 

SEC. 13. RULES OF CONSTRUCTION. 

(a) RELATION TO OTHER AUTHORITY.—Nothing in this Act shall be construed to affect, or otherwise bias, the use by the Secretary concerned of other statutory or administrative authorities to implement a hazardous fuels reduction project on Federal 

lands identified in section 5(e) where the use of the authorities established under 

this Act is prohibited. 

(b) RELATION TO LEGAL ACTION.—Nothing in this Act shall be construed to prejudice or otherwise affect the consideration or disposition of any legal action concerning the Roadless Area Conservation Rule, part 294 of title 36, Code of Federal 

Regulations, as amended in the final rule and record of decision published in the 

Federal Register on January 12, 2001 (66 Fed. Reg. 3244). 

SEC. 14. RELATION TO COLLABORATIVE 10-YEAR STRATEGY FOR REDUCING WILDLAND FIRE 

RISKS TO COMMUNITIES AND THE ENVIRONMENT. 

The Secretary concerned shall conduct immediately and to completion hazardous 

fuels reduction projects on Federal lands consistent with the implementation plan 

for the ‘‘Collaborative 10-year Strategy for Reducing Wildland Fire Risks to Communities and the Environment’’, dated May 2002, which was developed pursuant to the 

report to accompany the Department of the Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2001 (House Report 106–646). Any project carried out pursuant to 

this section shall be consistent with the applicable land and resource management 

plan, land use plan, or other applicable agency plan. 

SEC. 15. MONITORING BY INDEPENDENT PANEL. 

(a) MONITORING REQUIREMENTS.—The Secretary of Agriculture and the Secretary 

of the Interior shall jointly establish an independent panel to conduct a general assessment, using accepted measures, indicators, and sampling techniques, of the general success of hazardous fuels reduction projects for which the processes established under this Act are used in achieving the purpose of this Act. The panel shall 

catalogue any adverse environmental effects or unforeseen ecological consequences 

associated with the projects, if any occur. 

(b) MEMBERSHIP.—The panels established under this section shall consist in part 

of members nominated by the Chairmen and ranking minority members of each of 

the congressional committees of jurisdiction. 

(c) ANNUAL ASSESSMENT AND REPORTING.—The assessment required by subsection 

(a) shall be performed on an annual basis, and the panel shall submit to the Secretary concerned and the congressional committees of jurisdiction an annual report 

containing the results of the assessment. 

(d) SECRETARIAL RESPONSE.—The Secretary concerned shall respond to the annual 

report of the panel, and that response shall be included in the copy of the report 

submitted to the congressional committees of jurisdiction. 

SEC. 16. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS. 

(a) NATIONAL FOREST SYSTEM LANDS.—There are authorized to be appropriated 

to the Secretary of Agriculture such sums as may be necessary to carry out this Act 

and to plan and conduct hazardous fuels reduction projects on National Forest System lands. 

(b) BLM LANDS.—There are authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary of Interior such sums as may be necessary to carry out this Act and to plan and conduct 

hazardous fuels reduction projects on Federal lands described in section 4(5)(B).

Amend the title so as to read:

A bill to improve the capacity of the Secretary of Agriculture and the Secretary 

of the Interior to plan and implement hazardous fuels reduction projects on National 

Forest System lands and Bureau of Land Management lands in the wildland-urban 

8

interface, in areas containing municipal water supply systems, in areas containing 

threatened and endangered species habitat, and in areas where windthrow or blowdown or the existence or threat of large-scale disease or insect infestation pose a 

significant threat to forest and rangeland health and an attendant increase in the 

risk of catastrophic wildfire, and for other purposes.

PURPOSE OF THE BILL

The purpose of H.R. 5319, as ordered reported, is to improve the 

capacity of the Secretary of Agriculture and the Secretary of the Interior to plan and implement hazardous fuels reduction projects on 

National Forest System lands and Bureau of Land Management 

lands in the wildland-urban interface, in areas containing municipal water supply systems, in areas containing threatened and endangered species habitat, and in areas where windblow or blowdown or the existence or threat of large-scale disease or insect infestation pose a significant threat to forest and rangeland health 

and an attendant increase in the risk of catastrophic wildfire, and 

for other purposes. 

BACKGROUND AND NEED FOR LEGISLATION

Millions of acres of federal lands are at unnaturally high risk to 

catastrophic wildfire because of the unhealthy build-up of fire fuels. 

The impending specter of large-scale catastrophic wildfire on these 

federal lands presents a clear and present threat to the health and 

safety of scores of communities, homes and ecosystems. Active forest and rangeland management is the only way to lessen the growing risk of catastrophic wildfire on the federal forests and rangelands. 

The Committee agrees with assertions made by the Secretary of 

Agriculture, the Secretary of the Interior, and other senior federal 

land managers that the legal morass of laws, regulations, administrative procedures, and court decisions impose undesirably cumbersome process requirements that make active forest and rangeland management a virtual impossibility on any meaningful scale. 

The Committee finds that these statutory and regulatory burdens 

should be reduced on certain at risk landscapes in order to empower federal land managers to address wildfire prone conditions 

on where these conditions threaten communities, watersheds, and 

other areas. 

Geographic scope 

As ordered reported, H.R. 5319 establishes truncated analysis 

and review procedures applicable to hazardous fuels reduction 

projects on certain National Forest lands and lands administered 

by the Bureau of Land Management. The expedited authorities established under the bill are limited to use on certain lands in the: 

(1) wildland/urban interface, which is defined by density of homes 

and populations; (2) municipal watersheds where municipal water 

supplies are present; (3) habitat for threatened and endangered 

species where wildfire risks are identified in the recovery plan of 

a threatened or endangered species; and (4) lands where windthrow 

or blowdown or the threat of large-scale disease or insect infestation pose a threat to forest or rangeland health and an attendant 

increase in the risk of catastrophic wildfire. The bill as amended 

limits the number of acres treated in the threatened and endangered species and forest health categories (categories 3 and 4) to 

9

two million acres a year combined. The legislation additionally provides that, of the total funds expended under the bill, not less than 

70 percent must be expended to treat the wildland/urban interface. 

National Environmental Policy Act 

Currently agencies are required under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) to consider three to five alternatives to 

the proposed federal agency action, which takes considerable time 

and resources. Some NEPA experts estimate that each alternative 

developed and considered results in a 20 percent increase in the 

amount of analysis and documentation. H.R. 5319 as ordered reported provides the agencies discretionary authority to limit analysis during the NEPA phase to the proposed action, meaning the 

agencies would not be required to study, develop or analyze a range 

of alternatives. The one exception is for projects implemented 

under the bill that include the building of new permanent roads, 

in which case the agency would be required to study, develop and 

analyze an alternative that does not provide for the building of new 

roads. While narrowing the number of alternatives considered, the 

amendment increases public notice requirements and codifies 

scoping requirements in effect on the date of enactment of the bill. 

Administrative appeals 

The appeals process prescribed by H.R. 5319 as ordered reported 

would be limited to 50 days, reduced from the current process, 

which lasts 120 days, and sometimes more. The new appeals process gives appellants 10 days to give notice of their intent to appeal, 

15 days to file an appeal, and the Forest Service 25 days to decide 

on the merits of the appeal. Additionally, only persons who submitted specific and detailed comments during the preparation stage 

of the project are eligible to file administrative appeals. Finally, the 

bill as ordered reported gives appeals review officers the discretionary authority to sign a new decision document at the end of the 

appeals process, instead of requiring project and/or analysis modifications made pursuant to an administrative appeal to go through 

the time-consuming remand process. 

Judicial review 

Under the bill as ordered reported, judicial review can only be 

sought in the federal district court with jurisdiction over where the 

proposed action is located. The bill as ordered reported directs that 

plaintiffs file causes of action within 30 days following the end of 

the appeals process. On the filing of a challenge, the Secretary concerned is required to stay the project until the completion of the 

District Court’s review. With this administratively imposed stay in 

place, motions for temporary restraining orders and preliminary injunctions are moot, and are therefore expressly prohibited. 

Because of the exigent circumstances surrounding these projects, 

Congress mandates that federal District Courts decide on the underlying merits of an action brought in relation to a project proposed under this bill within 60 days, though the Court may extend 

that deadline under narrowly drawn and expressly limited circumstances. These deadlines are binding, and not merely advisory. 

The Committee finds that the projects covered by the bill are of 

great importance and urgency and that, as such, federal District 

10

Courts should move with maximum dispatch, consistent with the 

deadlines in the bill as ordered reported, in deciding on the merits 

of judicial actions brought against these projects. 

Annual General Accounting Office audit 

The bill as ordered reported requires the Comptroller General to 

conduct an audit of the implementation of the bill to determine the 

success of the processes established under the bill and the hazardous fuels reduction projects implemented in achieving the purpose of the bill. 

Stewardship and end result contracts 

The Forest Service is given the authority to enter into 15 additional stewardship contract pilot projects. The Bureau of Land 

Management is authorized to enter into 26 stewardship contract 

pilot projects, with the restriction that those projects cannot be implemented on Oregon and California lands. These additional Stewardship Contract Pilot Projects are confined to implementing 

projects authorized by this bill. 

Duration, limitations and rules of construction 

The authorities established under H.R. 5319 shall be available 

through September 30, 2006. Projects noticed under the procedures 

outlined in the legislation by this date shall be completed under 

the processes established under this bill. 

The Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management are prohibited from using the expedited analysis procedures established in 

this bill in wilderness areas, and lands where, by Act of Congress 

or Presidential proclamation, the removal of vegetation is prohibited or restricted. Nothing in the bill, however, places any limits 

whatsoever on the authorities of land mangers to implement hazardous fuels reduction projects under other allowances and authorities. 

Additionally, the bill provides that the Forest Service will not be 

allowed to build new roads in Inventoried Roadless Areas (IRAs) 

under the bill’s expedited procedures, though the Forest Service 

would be allowed to implement fuels reduction projects in IRAs 

under the expedited provisions provided they do not have a roadbuilding component. Moreover, the bill does nothing to diminish 

the Forest Service’s authority to build roads in IRAs as needed in 

IRAs under existing procedures. 

Finally, nothing in the bill as amended is intended to bias or otherwise affect the following: (1) litigation involving the Roadless 

Area Conservation Rule; or (2) the authority of the Secretaries to 

implement hazardous fuels reduction projects under other available 

authorities on any federal lands, including those lands where the 

expedited procedures in this bill are expressly allowed, in Section 

5(a), or expressly prohibited, in Section 5(e). 

COMMITTEE ACTION

Congressman Scott McInnis (R–CO) introduced H.R. 5319 on 

September 4, 2002. The bill was referred primarily to the Committee on Resources and additionally to the Committee on Agriculture. On September 5, 2002, the Resources Committee held a 

11

hearing on the bill. On October 8, 2002, the Resources Committee 

met to consider the bill. 

Mr. McInnis offered an amendment in the nature of a substitute 

which reflected negotiations among several Members of the Committee and the Administration. Congressman Jay Inslee (D–WA) 

offered a substitute amendment to the McInnis amendment in the 

nature of a substitute. The Inslee amendment was not agreed to by 

a roll call vote of 12 ayes to 25 noes, as follows:

12


Insert offset folio 13 here HR770.001
13

Congressman Tom Udall (D–NM) offered an amendment to the 

McInnis amendment in the nature of a substitute which added a 

new provision to section 9 entitled ‘‘Relation to Criminal Case 

Workload’’. This amendment was not agreed to by a roll call vote 

of 13 ayes to 24 noes, as follows:

14


Insert offset folio 15 here HR770.002
15

Congressman Mark Udall (D–CO) offered an amendment to the 

McInnis amendment in the nature of a substitute reducing the 

number of acres subject to the hazardous fuels reduction projects 

authorized by the bill and increasing the percentage of funds which 

must be spent on projects in the wildland-urban interface. This 

amendment was not agreed to by voice vote. 

The McInnis amendment in the nature of a substitute was then 

agreed to by a roll call vote of 23 ayes to 14 noes, as follows:

16


Insert offset folio 17 here HR770.003
17

COMMITTEE OVERSIGHT FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Regarding clause 2(b)(1) of rule X and clause 3(c)(1) of rule XIII 

of the Rules of the House of Representatives, the Committee on Resources’ oversight findings and recommendations are reflected in 

the body of this report. 

FEDERAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE STATEMENT

The functions of the proposed advisory committee authorized in 

the bill are not currently being nor could they be performed by one 

or more agencies, an advisory committee already in existence or by 

enlarging the mandate of an existing advisory committee. 

CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY STATEMENT

Article I, section 8 of the Constitution of the United States 

grants Congress the authority to enact this bill. 

COMPLIANCE WITH HOUSE RULE XIII

1. Cost of Legislation. Clause 3(d)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of 

the House of Representatives requires an estimate and a comparison by the Committee of the costs which would be incurred in carrying out this bill. The bill authorizes ‘‘such sums’’ to be appropriated to carry out this bill. The Committee believes that enactment of this bill have no significant effect on the federal budget. 

2. Congressional Budget Act. As required by clause 3(c)(2) of rule 

XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives and section 

308(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, this bill does not 

contain any new budget authority, spending authority, credit authority, or an increase or decrease in revenues or tax expenditures. 

3. General Performance Goals and Objectives. As required by 

clause 3(c)(4) of rule XIII, the general performance goal or objective 

of this bill, as ordered reported, is to improve the capacity of the 

Secretary of Agriculture and the Secretary of the Interior to plan 

and implement hazardous fuels reduction projects on National Forest System lands and Bureau of Land Management lands in the 

wildland-urban interface, in areas containing municipal water supply systems, in areas containing threatened and endangered species habitat, and in areas where windblow or blowdown or the existence or threat of large-scale disease or insect infestation pose a 

significant threat to forest and rangeland health and an attendant 

increase in the risk of catastrophic wildfire, and for other purposes. 

4. Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate. Under clause 

3(c)(3) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives and 

section 403 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the Committee has requested but not received a cost estimate for this bill 

from the Director of the Congressional Budget Office. 

COMPLIANCE WITH PUBLIC LAW 104–4

This bill contains no unfunded mandates. 

PREEMPTION OF STATE, LOCAL OR TRIBAL LAW

This bill is not intended to preempt any State, local or tribal law. 

18

CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW

If enacted, this bill would make no changes to existing law. 

(19)

ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF REPRESENTATIVE MARK UDALL 

INTRODUCTION

Many western communities are at risk of catastrophic wildfires. 

The cause is a combination of severe drought, the overgrown conditions of many federal forest lands resulting from a past fire-suppression policies, and the growing number of settlements pressing 

against or into those forested areas. I have consistently worked to 

reduce those risks. 

This year’s terrible fires in Colorado and other States were a dramatic confirmation of those risks, but my concerns began much earlier. Since my first election to Congress, I have made it a point to 

visit parts of Colorado that have been burned by catastrophic 

wildfires or that are at risk of similar fires. I have walked areas 

that have been treated through controlled fires and mechanical 

thinning and seen the dramatic difference that such treatments 

can make in reducing wildfire risks. I have been to the front lines 

of a burning wildfire—the Big Elk Meadows fire near Estes Park—

and I have talked with homeowners, foresters, forest ecologists, forest users and conservationists to get their perspectives and to try 

to understand what strategies can reduce the risks to lives and 

property. 

What I have learned from these tours and conversations is that 

we need to do more to reduce the risks to our communities, our 

water supplies, and our citizens. That is why I have introduced legislation (H.R. 5098 of the 106th Congress and H.R. 3948 of the 

107th Congress) to expedite the work of removing excessive fireprone materials and to require the government to focus its efforts 

in the areas where this work will have the most immediate benefit 

for the most people. 

H.R. 5913 shares some of these purposes—but, as introduced, it 

included many provisions that I considered not only unnecessary 

but unwise and inappropriate. So, I think that Chairman McInnis 

is to be commended for his willingness to work on a bipartisan 

basis to try to develop revisions that would reshape the bill toward 

one that would deserve and attract broad support. 

I think it would have been preferable for the Committee to defer 

action on the legislation until that result was achieved. However, 

that did not occur. 

When the Committee considered the bill, I voted for the Inslee 

substitute because while it had some serious flaws it would have 

made many necessary improvements to H.R. 5319 as originally introduced. After that substitute was rejected, I voted for the alternative substitute proposed by Representatives McInnis and Walden 

for the same reason. To lessen any misunderstandings, I want to 

explain my reasoning. 

20

ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS AND PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT

I do not think our national environmental laws are the obstacle 

to improving our response to the wildfire-related risks to our communities. So, I see no real need to make any fundamental changes 

in those laws. This is not to suggest that our national environmental laws are beyond improvement, nor that we cannot explore 

ways to reduce bureaucracy and lawsuits. But I think we should 

be very cautious about proposals to lessen public involvement in 

decisions about the management of the federal lands. 

Both the Inslee substitute and the bill as reported would permit 

the Forest Service of Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to implement a fuel-reduction project without the full documentation normally required by section 102(2) of the National Environmental 

Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA). 

I do not think such provisions are necessary. However, if the bill 

is to include any such provisions, I think those in the Inslee substitute would have been preferable because under that substitute 

the reduction in analysis would have applied in fewer instances 

and only to a limited number of projects involving a clearly-defined 

amount of merchantable wood products or salvage timber. 

I think those provisions of the Inslee substitute more accurately 

reflected the reality that the real obstacles to progress in reducing 

fire risks have not been the environmental laws. Instead, the main 

obstacles have been inadequate focus on the highest-priority areas 

and a failure by the relevant land-managing agencies—under both 

the last Administration and this one—to do enough to develop and 

narrowly-tailored thinning projects that can enjoy broad support. 

PRIORITY AREAS

I think the highest priority for fuel-reduction work needs to be 

on the forest lands that present the most immediate risks to our 

communities—those within the wildland/urban interface, or the 

‘‘red zone,’’ as it is called in Colorado—and to municipal water supplies. These are the places where forest conditions present the 

greatest risks to people’s lives, health, and property, and so they 

should be where our finite resources—time, money, and people—

are concentrated. 

But to properly focus on these areas, we have to properly identify 

them. And in that regard, I considered the McInnis-Weldon substitute to be clearly preferable to the Inslee substitute—because 

the Inslee substitute included a seriously flawed definition of what 

would be considered ‘‘interface’’ areas. 

The Inslee substitute defined the term ‘‘wildland-urban interface’’

as referring only to ‘‘an area within a half-mile of a community,’’

without specifying what was meant by the term ‘‘community.’’ I 

think such a definition is simultaneously too broad and too narrow. 

It is too broad because it would give the land-managing agencies 

total discretion to decide what would qualify as a ‘‘community’’—

regardless of whether a place so identified had any residents at all. 

And it is too narrow because in many instances an arbitrary halfmile limit would exclude lands whose characteristics and proximity 

to actual communities should make them priority areas for fuel-reduction work. 

21

I think the ‘‘interface’’ definition in the McInnis-Walden substitute is clearly preferable. By limiting the term to an area including either an ‘‘interface’’ or ‘‘intermix’’ community—and by adopting 

existing definitions of those terms—it provides an appropriate limitation on the discretion of the agencies in this regard. And, on the 

other hand, by not drawing an arbitrary mileage line, it appropriately reflects the reality that such a community’s exposure to 

the risk of wildfire depends on terrain, forest conditions, and other 

factors that can vary greatly from one place to another and over 

time. 

On the other hand, the McInnis-Walden substitute also applies 

to certain federal lands unrelated to communities or municipal 

water supplies, subject to the limit of 2 million acres annually. I 

think fuel-reduction projects on these lands should not have the 

same priority as the other lands covered by the bill, which is why 

I sought to reduce that limit by half. I regret the Committee did 

not adopt my amendment on this point, and may renew my efforts 

at a later point in the legislative process. 

‘‘ANALYSIS PARALYSIS,’’ APPEALS, AND JUDICIAL REVIEW

As introduced, H.R. 5319 included (in section 2(a)(9)) a finding 

stating in pertinent part that ‘‘Federal land managers need immediate relief from certain procedural requirements that substantially 

burden land management professionals without bringing any value 

to the decision-making process.’’

That and all other findings were deleted by adoption of the 

McInnis-Weldon substitute—a definite improvement. But, like the 

original version, the bill as reported clearly is based on a similar 

premise—that the land-managing agencies are laboring under procedural burdens that unnecessarily delay work on fuel-reduction 

projects. 

I think that premise has not been proved beyond doubt. 

The Chief of the Forest Service has told our Committee that the 

agency has been slow to act to reduce the risks of catastrophic 

wildfire because of ‘‘analysis paralysis,’’ meaning that the fear of 

appeals or litigation has made Forest Service personnel excessively 

cautious in the way they formulate and analyze fuel-reduction (and 

other) projects. 

The chief may be correct in that diagnosis—certainly he is in a 

better position than I am to evaluate the mental states of his subordinates. But it is important to remember that the Chief has also 

testified that he does not think revision of the environmental laws 

is required in order to treat this condition—and on that point I am 

in full agreement. 

And if fear of appeals and litigation is the cause of ‘‘analysis paralysis,’’ how realistic is that fear? Over recent months, there has 

been considerable debate over that point, in our Committee and in 

the press. I think it is fair to say that debate has been more heated 

than enlightening, and that the question remains unresolved. I am 

not convinced that the case has been fully made that the ability of 

people to seek administrative or judicial review of Forest Service 

decisions has had such adverse effects that stringent limitations on 

those processes are essential. 

22

As introduced, H.R. 5319 would have repealed the law that currently provides for appeals of Forest Service decisions, and would 

have instituted a new ‘‘predecisional review process’’ for certain 

agency actions. The bill as reported does not include such provisions, and does provide for administrative review of projects covered by the bill—another improvement made by the McInnis-Walden substitute. 

On the other hand, projects covered by the Inslee substitute 

would have been exempt from any administrative appeal process—

meaning that the only option for someone seeking to have it reconsidered would be litigation. I think it likely that in at least some—

and perhaps many—instances problems could be resolved more 

quickly and with less expense through administrative, rather than 

judicial, review. 

I think with regard to administrative appeals the bill as reported 

is a definite improvement over the original version, and also preferable to the Inslee substitute. 

However, the bill as reported includes provisions related to judicial review that I think are imperfect at best, and probably completely unnecessary. The only reason that I could support their inclusion is that both these provisions and those related to administrative review include an automatic stay of agency action until the 

completion of the review process and the rendering of a decision on 

the merits of each issue raised by those seeking to change the outcome of an agency decision. 

I think it would have been better if the bill did not attempt to 

make any change in the procedures of the courts, for reasons well 

stated in the dissenting views of Representative Udall of New Mexico. 

OTHER DIFFERENCES FROM ORIGINAL BILL

In my opinion, the bill as reported represents an improvement 

over H.R. 5319 as introduced in many respects. These include the 

fact that the reported bill applies only to National Forest System 

lands and public lands managed by the Bureau of Land Management. The original bill would have applied to National Park System and National Wildlife Refuge System lands, which I think is 

not necessary and would be inappropriate. 

I also think the fact that the bill as reported does not apply to 

designated wilderness or to wilderness study areas is a major improvement, as is the fact that National Monuments, National Conservation Areas, and other areas where removal of vegetation is 

prohibited or restricted. Those provisions of the reported bill are especially important to me because they make clear that the bill will 

not apply to the James Peak Protection Area designated by a bill 

I introduced that was recently enacted as Public Law 107–216. 

On the other hand, the Inslee substitute would have more fully 

and appropriately recognized the special qualities of inventories 

roadless areas of the National Forests and the importance of retaining existing procedures applicable to activities in those areas. 

And it also would have provided similar recognition for Native 

American cultural or religious sites, which I think deserve more 

consideration than is provided by the bill as reported. 

23

OTHER SHORTCOMINGS OF REPORTED BILL

As noted above, I voted for McInnis-Weldon substitute—that is, 

for the bill as reported—because it is far better than the original 

bill. However, I am under no illusion that it is perfect. It includes 

provisions that I think are imperfect, unnecessary, or undesirable, 

and it omits some things that I would have preferred be included. 

I want to highlight some ways in which I think the bill should 

be revised further. 

To begin with, I would further narrow the scope of the bill by excluding all the lands that would have been excluded by section 3(c) 

of the Inslee substitute. I would also reduce—or, better yet, eliminate—the amount of ‘‘other-at-risk Federal lands’’ and the lands 

containing threatened and endangered species habitat covered by 

paragraphs (3) and (4) of section 5(a) of the reported bill. While 

thinning projects likely should be done on some of these lands, I 

do not think it is appropriate to include them in this bill because 

I think the only reason for considering any changes in current law 

applicable to such projects is to respond to the threats to our communities and municipal water supplies. 

Similarly, I would further heighten the priority the reported bill 

places on using funds provided for fuel-reduction projects in the 

‘‘red zone’’ areas. Toward that end, when the Committee considered 

the bill I offered an amendment to require that 85% of such funds 

be expended on interface projects. That amendment was not adopted, but I think that such a change would be an improvement and 

I may seek to revisit this issue later in the legislative process. 

I also think it would have been an improvement for the Committee to have adopted the amendment proposed by Representative 

Udall of New Mexico, in order to assure that the bill’s provisions 

on judicial review—if they are retained at all—would not interfere 

with the timely handling of criminal cases. 

I also think the bill would be improved by the addition of provisions related to community and private-land wildfire assistance 

similar to those that were included in section 7 of the Inslee substitute. 

CONCLUSION

I do think it is appropriate for Congress to act to improve the effectiveness of the way the Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management are undertaking to reduce the risks of catastrophic 

wildfires to the lives, health, and property of people living in communities near federal forest lands. 

However, I thought that H.R. 5319 as originally introduced was 

not well designed to accomplish that goal. That is why I have 

sought to improve it—and the bill as reported, while still defective 

in important ways, is much better than the original version. 

I think the essential point of any legislation on this subject is to 

require the agencies to focus on work in the highest-priority areas. 

The reported bill does do that, to some extent. It would give a priority—not high enough, but a priority—to efforts to reduce the fire 

risks where they are needed most. It also is more limited in scope 

than the bill as introduced and relies to a greater extent on existing, time-tested administrative and judicial procedures. 

24

Further, and importantly, the reported bill’s provisions will terminate on September 30, 2005—a much shorter and more appropriate duration for provisions that I think should not be considered 

except as provisional and in the nature of an experiment. 

In short, I voted for the reported bill because I am willing to consider legislation—although I am not convinced such legislation is 

necessary—to revise the administrative procedures applicable to 

Forest Service and BLM fuel-reduction projects intended to reduce 

the risks to our communities from catastrophic wildfires. I want to 

work with my colleagues on the Committee and in the Congress to 

try to make further improvements to H.R. 5319. But I will reserve 

final judgment and will want to watch closely how events unfold 

before deciding whether to support enactment of this or any similar 

measure.

MARK UDALL. 

(25)

DISSENTING VIEWS OF REPRESENTATIVE TOM UDALL 

Introduction 

I, like other western members take very seriously the need to 

find a balanced approach to reduce the threat of catastrophic 

wildfires from occurring. Unfortunately, I could not support H.R. 

5319 as amended during our committee mark-up because it fundamentally missed the mark of protecting our communities and 

their water supplies. H.R. 5319, as modified in our Committee, is 

far better than what was originally introduced on September 4, 

2002 by Mr. McInnis. I believe that working together we can put 

together a bill that protects our communities from catastrophic 

fires without the need for expedited processes, without deadlines 

imposed on the federal judiciary, and without emasculating our environmental laws. 

I would like to commend Forests and Forest Health Subcommittee Chairman McInnis, Mr. Walden, Mr. George Miller, and 

Mr. DeFazio for attempting to bring to our committee a bipartisan 

bill that reduces the threat of catastrophic wildfires, which threaten the livelihood of our communities, their water systems, and our 

pristine forests. 

I participated in one of the several member level meetings to 

help find a balanced, bipartisan approach to reduce the threat of 

catastrophic wildfires. However, since members pressed the need to 

bring a bill before the committee prior to Congress’s adjournment, 

I withdrew from the negotiations because I felt we were moving in 

such an expedient manner that any bill brought before the committee would reek of hurried work and would not afford other 

members of the committee the necessary time to review any final 

product. 

The ongoing drought in the western United States has caused 

communities to band together to reduce the threat of catastrophic 

wildfire. These communities recognize that something has to be 

done to accelerate fuel reduction activities because the risk of severe fire is a harsh reality. Back in New Mexico’s 3rd Congressional District, I have frequently met with ranchers, farmers, elected officials, community activists, and environmentalists who all 

agree that the Congress should spend more federal dollars to conduct proactive forest restoration and fuel reduction projects within 

the at-risk wildland/urban interface. 

I voted for the alternative substitute offered by Mr. Inslee because I believe its adoption would have made several improvements 

to H.R. 5319, which I will discuss further in my dissent. However, 

I respectfully disagree with the definition of ‘‘wildland/urban interface’’ in the Inslee substitute and would have preferred the definition found in H.R. 3948, which was introduced by my close friend 

Representative Mark Udall, and which I, along with Representative Joel Hefley joined as original cosponsors. 

26

H.R. 5319, the Healthy Forests and Wildfire Risk Reduction Act of 

2002

The amendment in nature of a substitute to H.R. 5319, which 

was offered by Mr. McInnis and Mr. Walden, falls for short of our 

focus to reduce hazardous fuel in the wildland/urban interface, 

around communities that fall within the interface, and around key 

municipal water supplies. The amendment instead creates an expedited administrative appeal process that in my opinion, as a former 

federal prosecutor and Attorney General for the State of New Mexico, would likely lead to more litigation. This amendment would 

disqualify appeals filed by people who did not previously comment 

on the specific issues that they are raising in their appeals, and 

also those who did not file a notice of intent to file an appeal with 

the agency. Consequently, this would make it too easy for the Forest Service to dismiss troublesome appeals on the procedural 

ground that the appellants did not properly raise the issue in their 

comments or file a timely notice. Also, while the amendment authorizes the Forest Service to negotiate with appellants, it does not 

provide adequate time extensions to conduct the negotiations and 

reach an agreement before end of the appeals period. I also have 

concerns over the amendments authorization of 15 new Forest 

Service projects and an entirely new BLM program of 26 projects 

within the stewardship-contracting program. I believe that before 

Congress starts to expand further pilot projects that we wait for 

the data concerning the effectiveness of stewardship contract pilot 

projects approved in 1999, since implementation of nearly all of 

those projects is not yet complete.

What Is Wrong With Judicial Review? 

The area of the bill that causes me particular concern pertains 

to section 9 of H.R. 5319 that addresses judicial review. This section in no way contributes to protecting our communities through 

its necessitating unprecedented deadlines, restrictions, and burdens on the federal judiciary for lawsuits challenging expedited appeals of hazardous fuel reduction projects. Furthermore, any subsequent judicial review of an agency decision would be rushed and 

unfair to citizens, and could wreak havoc on the federal courts in 

some regions. 

Section 9 would require federal judges to hear expedited fuel reduction project cases ‘‘at the earliest possible date’’ and then issue 

final decisions within 60 days after the lawsuits are filed, with only 

a very limited allowance for time extensions. Thus, under the law 

fuel reduction projects would be assigned top priority in the federal 

court system virtually above all other civil and criminal cases. 

Even if only a small fraction of those projects are controversial 

enough to provoke a challenge, some district courts—particulary in 

the western states like New Mexico—could quickly be overwhelmed 

by having to meet the bill’s legal prioritization and inflexible deadlines. This is why I hoped the amendment I offered during committee would have been adopted to ensure that civil cases filed pursuant to H.R. 5319 would not take precedence over criminal cases. 

In addition, the time limitations contained within Section 9 do 

not reflect the policies of the Judicial Conference of the United 

States, the policy-making body for the federal judiciary, for three 

27

1See General Policy Statement of the Judicial Conference of the United States regarding expediting provisions for civil cases in the federal courts. 2See Forest Service: Appeals and Litigation of Fuel Reduction Projects. GAO–01–1114R August 31, 2001. 3See Letter from Representative John Conyers, Jr., Ranking Member, House Judiciary Committee to Chairman James V. Hansen and Ranking Member Nick J. Rahall, II, House Resources 

Committee, (October 8, 2002). 

primary reasons.1 First, the Conference strongly opposes the statutory imposition of litigation priority and expediting requirements 

except in those cases warranting such review under 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1657. Secondly, the Conference strongly opposes any attempt to 

impose statutory time limits for the disposition of specific cases in 

all branches of the federal courts. The Conference views Section 

1657 as sufficiently recognizing the appropriateness of federal 

courts generally determining case management priorities. Third, 

the expansion of statutorily mandated priorities and expediting requirements run counter to the principles of effective case management. As the number of cases receiving priority treatment increases, the ability of the court to expedite review of any of these 

cases is restricted. 

Section 9’s expedited judicial review provision is unnecessary because the litigation of hazardous fuel reduction projects in federal 

court is infrequent and practically non-existent. An August 31, 

2001, report by the General Accounting Office (GAO) demonstrates 

that the need for expedited judicial review does not exist. The GAO 

report found that of the 1671 hazardous fuels reduction projects 

identified for implementation in FY 2001, only 20 (or approximately 1%) of them were appealed.2 None of these projects were 

litigated in federal court. Considering this, Section 9 is an exercise 

in frivolity, imposing unrealistic and unnecessary deadlines on the 

federal judiciary for lawsuits challenging final administrative decisions regarding fuel reduction projects. 

The absurdity of the potential outcome due to the implementation of Section 9 is heightened by the fact that, according to the 

GAO, none of the Forest Service’s hazardous fuel reduction projects 

were litigated during the first 9 months of FY 2001. Tragically, 

H.R. 5319 would almost certainly cause many of these projects to 

be litigated, due to public distrust and opposition caused by the 

loss of normal environmental safeguards and public participation 

opportunities. 

In considering any national wildfire prevention and protection 

legislation, we should not diminish judicial review, but we should 

encourage and enhance public participation in the decision-making 

process. Moreover, the Committee on Judiciary has exclusive jurisdiction over matters relating to the federal courts and judicial review. As such, I share the concerns of the Ranking Member of the 

Judiciary Committee, Mr. Conyers, that the provisions in H.R. 

5319, as they pertain to judicial review, ‘‘raise serious questions regarding the efficiency and efficacy of the federal courts that are 

best addressed by the Judiciary Committee.’’ 3

What Is Lacking in H.R. 5319? 

What H.R. 5319 lacks is the emphasis on protecting communities 

as well as providing the tools necessary to assist them in those endeavors. I do not view H.R. 5319 as a Healthy Forest initiative; 

28

rather I view H.R. 5319 as a failed initiative to reduce the threat 

of catastrophic wildfires, which threaten communities and their 

water systems. 

There are a lot of communities throughout the country and in my 

home state of New Mexico who are undertaking proactive efforts to 

reduce the fire risk. Unfortunately, H.R. 5319 contained not one 

provision that could assist communities and tribes with their work 

on fire reduction or restoration projects. Restoration projects greatly contribute to reducing the potential for a catastrophic fire to 

occur. I agree that funding proactive forest restoration projects to 

reduce the chances for fire is important rather than continuing to 

spend billions of dollars each year fighting fires. Two amendments 

that I had planned to offer would have strengthened H.R. 5319 in 

this regard. Both provisions were in the original text of the Inslee 

Substitute, which I supported. 

The first amendment would have allowed the Secretary of Agriculture to make grants to States and Indian tribes for the purpose 

of promoting optimal firefighting efficiency at the Federal, State, 

Indian tribe, and local levels in the wildland/urban interface. These 

grants would also allow these communities to expand outreach and 

education programs to homeowners and communities about fire 

prevention. 

Working to prevent fires is not only a job undertaken by the Federal Government but also a job that is being tackled by local communities and tribes. There are several key programs that are part 

of the National Fire Plan which include economic action programs, 

community and private land fire assistance, and burned area restoration and rehabilitation that have been drastically cut by the 

Administration over the last two budget cycles. 

These funding constraints clearly affect the work that is being 

done on the ground by communities and tribes. My amendment 

would have provided needed assistance that tribes and communities could currently use to protect their communities from fire. 

Broad community involvement to prevent fires should be encouraged at all levels; however, it is not encouraged through the provisions of H.R. 5319. 

My second amendment would have created a new section of H.R. 

5319 entitled Forest Restoration and Value-added Centers. 

This amendment would allow the Forest Service to enter into 

partnerships, and cooperative agreements with other Federal agencies or other organizations, including local nonprofit organizations, 

conservation groups, or community colleges in creating and maintaining the Restoration and Value-added Centers. The Forest Service regional offices through a competitive ‘‘request-for-proposal’’

process would select the Centers. 

In addition, the Forest Service would provide financial assistance 

equaling 75 percent of each Center’s budget. After the Center has 

operated for five years, the Secretary shall assess the Center’s performance and begin to reduce, by 25 percent annually, the level of 

funding. 

I believe these Centers would provide needed technical assistance 

to small communities and enterprises adjacent to public lands. This 

will make the latest technology and innovations available to rural 

communities and provide rural entrepreneurs an opportunity to use 

29

and share their expertise and knowledge of the land and wood 

products, and be part of finding solutions to reducing fires as well 

as restoring our forest. 

Why do we need Forest Restoration and Value-added Centers? 

We need them because the success of our efforts to restore fire 

prone forests to their natural condition will depend on how work 

is structured and byproducts are utilized. We need an integrated 

approach that includes three components: • Building a high-skill, high-wage workforce especially in 

rural areas which can respond to the needs of the landscape; • Investing appropriately to get the work done on the land. • And adding value to by-products that result from restoration work 

The establishment of Forest Restoration and Value-added Centers, through my amendment, would ensure we are being environmentally and socially responsible in how we go about the restoration of our public lands and stimulating economic development. 

These Centers would ensure that forest restoration occurs in a collaborative fashion and assists rural communities and enterprises in 

accessing the best information to develop good jobs that will help 

restore the health of our forests. 

Forest Restoration and Value-added Centers will help federal 

land management agencies create effective partnerships with communities and others by providing authority to enter into cooperative agreements with nonprofit organizations and others to implement restoration projects. 

Conclusion 

It is my hope that, should H.R. 5319 come before the House, the 

areas I have covered in my dissent will be incorporated in a manager’s amendment to the underlying bill. We need legislation to reduce the potential for catastrophic fires, protect our communities, 

and provide assistance to Tribes and states in the work they are 

currently undertaking to reduce the risk of fires. We do not need 

a bill that increases the potential for lawsuits, emasculates our environmental laws, and fails to protect our communities and their 

citizens. 

For those reasons stated above I respectfully dissent from H.R. 

5319 in its modified form.

TOM UDALL. 

VIEWS OF THE JUDICIAL CONFERENCE OF THE UNITED STATES

PERTAINING TO EXPEDITED REVIEW

The Judicial Conference of the United States, the policy-making 

body for the federal judiciary, strongly opposes the statutory imposition of litigation priority, expediting requirements, or time limitation rules in specified types of civil cases brought in federal court 

beyond those civil actions already identified in 28 U.S.C. § 1657 as 

warranting expedited review. The Judicial Conference also strongly 

opposes any attempt to impose statutory time limits for the disposition of specified cases in the district courts, the courts of appeals, 

or the Supreme Court. (Report of the Proceedings of the Judicial 

30

Conference of the United States, September 1990, p. 80.) Section 

1657 currently provides that United States courts shall determine 

the order in which civil actions are heard, except for the following 

types of actions that must be given expedited consideration: cases 

brought under chapter 153 (habeas corpus petitions) of title 28 or 

under 28 U.S.C. § 1826 (recalcitrant witnesses); actions for temporary or injunctive relief; and actions for which ‘‘good cause’’ is 

shown. The Judicial Conference views 28 U.S.C. § 1657 as sufficiently recognizing both the appropriateness of federal courts generally determining case management priorities and the desire to 

expedite consideration of limited types of actions. 

Expansion of statutorily mandated expedited review is unwise for 

several reasons. Individual actions within a category of cases inevitably have different needs of priority treatment, which needs are 

best determined on a case-by-case basis. Also, mandatory priorities 

and expediting requirements run counter to principles of effective 

civil case management. In addition, as the number of categories of 

cases receiving priority treatment increases, the ability of a court 

to expedite review of any of these cases is restricted. 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, 

Washington, DC, October 8, 2002. 

Hon. JAMES V. HANSEN, 

Chairman, Committee on Resources, House of Representatives, 

Longworth House Office Building, Washington, DC. 

Hon. NICK J. RAHALL II, 

Ranking Member, Committee on Resources, House of Representatives, Longworth House Office Building, Washington, DC.

DEAR CHAIRMAN HANSEN AND RANKING MEMBER RAHALL: I understand that on October 8, the Committee on Resources intends 

to mark up a version of H.R. 5319 that contains a section that 

places significant limitations on the federal courts’ ability to review 

a Hazardous Fuels Reduction Project (‘‘HFRP’’). Among other 

things, the October 3 version of the bill: (1) limits the venue for 

challenging a HFRP, (2) limits the time period for filing a court 

challenge to a HFRP, (3) requires the federal district courts to expedite consideration of these actions, (4) sets a 60-day timetable for 

a federal district court to render a decision in a challenge to a 

HFRP, (5) limits extensions of the 60-day deadline for a federal district court to render a decision in a challenge to a HFRP, and (6) 

sets a 60-day timetable for a federal court of appeals to render a 

decision in any appeal from a district court decision regarding a 

HFRP. 

The Committee on the Judiciary has exclusive jurisdiction over 

matters relating to the federal courts and judicial review. I believe 

that the judicial review provisions in H.R. 5319 raise serious questions regarding the efficiency and efficacy of the federal courts that 

are best addressed by the Judiciary Committee. 

I request that the Resources Committee drop the judicial review 

provisions from H.R. 5319. In the alternative, I will encourage the 

31

Judiciary Committee to exercise its jurisdiction and mark up the 

sections of H.R. 5319 over which the Committee has jurisdiction. 

Sincerely, 

JOHN CONYERS, Jr., 

Ranking Member, House Judiciary Committee. 

(32)

DISSENTING VIEWS 

Years of fire suppression and forest mismanagement have created build-up of forest fuels that in turn fuels unnaturally large 

and intense fires. H.R. 5319 as reported attempts to address the 

perceived need to expedite fuels treatment to reduce the risk of catastrophic fire in order to protect communities and homes. While its 

goals are meritorious, its approach is misguided and flawed. 

H.R. 5319 undermines the National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA) by eliminating the requirement that alternatives to the 

proposed action be considered. The premise of NEPA is that examining reasonable alternatives allows for mitigation of ill-effects and 

improves decision making. CEQ has called the analysis of all alternatives ‘‘the heart of the NEPA process.’’ Under the bill, the agency 

would not even be required to consider a ‘‘no action’’ alternative. 

Thus, the bill reduces public participation opportunities and diminishes environmental safeguards. 

Expedited procedures combined with a broad scope serve to 

threaten forest health. The scope of H.R. 5319 is so vast and definitions so vague as to allow the Secretaries virtually unfettered discretion to conduct projects on large swaths of national forest and 

BLM land. Broadly defined hazardous fuels treatment projects 

under expedited procedures can take place in the wildland-urban 

interface, in watersheds, in certain critical habitat, and on ‘‘at-risk 

lands.’’ Within these categories, only some of the treatments are 

limited to those lands at greatest risk of catastrophic fire. The definition of interface lacks a distance demarcation. thereby making 

the geographic scope of the bill extremely broad. The definition of 

water supply systems has the same effect. The inclusion of threatened and endanger species habitat and ‘‘other at-risk’’ lands also 

creates significant loopholes for lands far from communities on 

which projects with expedited NEPA analysis can occur. Under the 

terms of the bill, up to six million acres over three years could be 

treated outside of municipal watershed interface areas, and an unlimited amount of acres could be treated in the ill-defined interface 

and watershed areas. 

H.R. 5319 fails to adequately protect old-growth and sensitive 

areas, such as roadless areas, by allowing projects to proceed with 

truncated environmental analysis. Accordingly, under the bill, 

large-scale logging in roadless areas may occur under an expedited 

process. The Forest Service has previously concluded that logging 

of roadless areas is one factor that can disqualify an area from wilderness designation for up to a century. The bill reverses the presumptions that roadless areas should be afforded a high degree of 

protection and that logging should be allowed in roadless areas 

only under very rare circumstances. By allowing road construction—an environmentally damaging activity—in projects using exVerDate 0ct 31 2002 16:38 Nov 05, 2002 Jkt 019006 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6604 E:\HR\OC\HR770P1.XXX HR770P1
33

pedited procedures, the bill further fails to protect resources or instill public trust. 

H.R. 5319 not only changes how NEPA works on much of the 

federal landscape, it also repeals the Appeals Reform Act, which 

codified the Forest Service’s administrative appeals process in 

1992. In its place, it establishes a truncated procedure that gives 

interested citizens less time to prepare an appeal and forecloses opportunities to challenge government actions. Limitations on citizen 

access to the courts are so strict on issues that can be raised in an 

appeal and subsequent suit, i.e., the appellant must have submitted ‘‘detailed and specific comments’’ on an issue related to the 

project, that it effectively changes standing and exhaustion requirements. Currently, an appellant can raise any issue on appeal that 

was raised by any party during the comment period. The appeals 

provisions of H.R. 5319 have the effect of greatly diminishing opportunities for public comment on environmental assessments as 

well as denying citizens the right to challenge implementation of 

treatment projects in court as the issue raised during implementation could not have been foreseen during the comment period. 

Similarly, H.R. 5319’s judicial review provisions change Federal 

Rules by limiting venue, reducing time in which to bring suit (from 

6 years to 15 days), and imposing tight deadlines on courts in 

which to act. The effect is to severely curtail access to the courts 

and to place thinning cases above all others in terms of judicial priorities. The time frames are such under appeals and suits provisions that citizens may be forced to sue to preserve their limited 

right to hold the agency accountable, and may be foreclosed from 

bringing Endangered Species Act, Clean Air Act, or other claims requiring 60 days notice. At the same time, an automatic stay provision regardless of the merits of the case will encourage suits and 

contribute to gridlock. These draconian changes to how the agencies and courts allow for public input and challenge is in the face 

of questionable evidence of any problem with litigation of hazardous fuels reduction projects; according to an August 31, 2001 

General Accounting Office report, approximately 1 percent of the 

nearly 1,700 hazardous fuels reduction projects were appealed and 

none were litigated in the first nine months of FY2001. 

Finally, H.R. 5319 expands the controversial stewardship contracting program by authorizing 15 new Forest Service projects and 

an entirely new BLM program of 26 projects. This program would 

give both agencies authority to pay for thinning with large diameter trees with no environmental sideboards, when logging has in 

large part contributed to the fuels build-up problem. Furthermore, 

the bill ties the pilots not only to hazardous fuels projects alone but 

to those done with streamlined NEPA processes pursuant to the 

bill. Thus, these provisions would give the Forest Service, an agency notorious for its lack of fiscal and environmental accountability, 

even more license to abuse assets free of public scrutiny. 

In sharp contrast to H.R. 5319, the Inslee substitute leaves 

NEPA intact and focuses thinning and prescribed burns in highrisk areas near communities. The proposal uses an already existing 

NEPA authority (categorical exclusions (CEs)) that exempts noncontroversial projects from full NEPA analysis and administrative 

appeals. Projects covered by the CE provisions can take place only 

34

in the interface areas and watershed areas, are limited to 2.5 million areas a year, and may remove a limited amount of timber. 

Furthermore, the Inslee substitute focuses 85% of the funds for all 

hazardous fuels projects in the interface and key municipal watersheds. The provision applies to all expenditures for hazardous fuels 

projects, not the limited subset of funding for projects covered by 

expedited procedures, as is the case in H.R. 5319. H.R. 5319 limits 

only 70% of funds expended on projects covered by the bill to the 

interface and watershed—leaving 30% of funding for projects covered by the bill and 100% of other funding to be spent on controversial projects in the back country. Under the terms of the Inslee 

substitute, expedited projects may not take place in sensitive areas 

such as roadless areas and road-building is prohibited. The Inslee 

substitute includes small diameter trees as the focus of projects, 

and water quality as the goal of watershed projects. These provisions, along with narrow definitions, serve to focus the expedited 

thinning activity in areas where consensus exists. 

While the Inslee substitute’s CE provision forecloses appeals on 

all projects covered by the bill (including timber sales), it means existing appeals procedures, citizens’ rights to challenge government 

actions in court, and judicial discretion to set priorities. The substitute also removes perverse incentives to log by directing all receipts to the Treasury. Finally, the substitute includes a provision 

for block grants for tribes and states, as the majority of at-risk 

lands are on non-federal lands. 

In short, H.R. 5319 fails to focus fuel reduction projects in noncontroversial areas to protect homes and communities; undercuts 

NEPA, our fundamental environmental law; fails to provide assistance to states or tribes; creates significant roadblocks to citizen 

participation in government decision making on federal land management; curtails the right to sue, while at the same time creating 

a judicial train wreck; and expands a pilot program that could give 

the agencies carte blanche to log. Rather than getting the muchneeded work of protecting communities and restoring landscapes 

done, H.R. 5319 has the potential to deepen public mistrust of land 

management agencies, to generate further polarization, to degrade 

our forests, and to create chaos in the courts.

JAY INSLEE. 

BETTY MCCOLLUM. 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES, 

Washington, DC, October 11, 2002. 

Hon. F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, Jr., 

Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary, Rayburn House Office 

Building, Washington, DC. 

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: On October 8, 2002, the Committee on Resources ordered reported H.R. 5319, the Healthy Forests Reform 

Act of 2002. The bill was referred to the Committee on Resources 

and additionally to the Committee on Agriculture. 

Earlier this week, my Chief Counsel forwarded a copy of the reported text to your staff for your review. You will note that section 

104 of this bill affects judicial review of certain decisions made 

35

under the authorities granted to the Secretaries of Agriculture and 

the Interior under this bill. I believe this provision is in the purview of the Committee on the Judiciary. 

Given the importance of moving this legislation before we adjourn and the dwindling number of days remaining in the 107th 

Congress, I ask that you not seek a sequential referral of H.R. 

5319. 

By foregoing a sequential referral of H.R. 5319, the Committee 

on the Judiciary would not be waiving its jurisdiction over section 

104, nor would this action serve as precedent for other similar 

measures. In addition, if a conference committee is convened on the 

bill, I would support your request to have the Committee on the 

Judiciary represented on the conference for those matters in your 

jurisdiction. Finally, I would be pleased to include in the Committee on Resources bill report on H.R. 5319 our exchange of letters regarding this bill. I plan to file the report on Tuesday, October 15. 

Thank you for your cooperation and that of Robert Tracci of your 

staff. It has been a pleasure to work with both of you during my 

tenure as Chairman of the Committee on Resources. 

Sincerely, 

JAMES V. HANSEN, Chairman. 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, Washington, DC, October 15, 2002. 

Hon. J. DENNIS HASTERT, 

Speaker, House of Representatives, 

Washington, DC. 

DEAR MR. SPEAKER: In recognition of the desire to expedite floor 

consideration of H.R. 5319, the ‘‘Healthy Forests Reform Act of 

2002,’’ the Committee on the Judiciary hereby consents to waive 

further consideration of the bill. H.R. 5319, as introduced and reported by the Committee on Resources, contains subject matter 

that falls within the legislative jurisdiction of the Committee. 

The Committee on the Judiciary takes this action with the understanding that the Committee’s jurisdiction over the provisions 

in H.R. 5319 within the Committee’s jurisdiction is in no way diminished or altered, and that the Committee’s right to the appointment of conferees during any conference on the bill is preserved. 

Sincerely, 

F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, Jr., 

Chairman.

Æ