The Healthy Forests Restoration Act

The Healthy Forests Restoration Act

This paper will discuss the origins of HFRA, summarize the issues debated during its passage, provide an overview of its provisions, and the lay out what has been done to implement it.

The root causes that led to passage of HFRA can be traced to two unrelated situations: 1) the increased intensity and destructiveness of wildfires in the western U.S. over the last two decades, and 2) the perception that activities intended to reduce the risk of wildfire on federal lands through thinning and fuels treatment are being inordinately delayed by administrative appeals, lawsuits, and other administrative process requirements (sometimes called process “gridlock”).

Origins of the Forest Health and Wildfire Issue

A multi-year drought in the western U.S. combined with a multi-decade build-up in forest density and forest fuels on federal lands to create a significant increase in uncharacteristically severe wildfires (with consequent damage to sensitive watersheds, ecological values, and adjacent communities) (Sampson et al. 1993, GAO 1999).

Many areas in the western U.S. which in the 19th century were subject to frequent, low intensity non-lethal fires are now subject to uncharacteristically intense and destructive wildfires (Arno and Allison-Bunnell 2002; Sampson et al 1993; Pyne 1984). The buildup in forest density is often attributed to modern fire control. The reality is that a significant reduction in ecosystem fire occurred in many parts of the West in the 1870s and 80s, predating modern fire control by half a century. It was associated with the elimination of burning by indigenous peoples and the introduction of large numbers of livestock which changed fuel dynamics and often prepared a mineral seedbed for forest regeneration (Arno 1985; Denevan 1992: Gruell 1985; Pyne 1984). Modern fire control, which became increasingly effective after 1930, has certainly exacerbated the situation.

Federal land managers estimate that over 40 million hectares (100 million acres) of Federal forest lands are at unnaturally high risk of catastrophic wildfires and large-scale insect and disease outbreaks because of unhealthy forest conditions (Senate Agriculture 2003). A series of disastrous wildfire seasons in the late 1990s and early 2000s in which millions of acres were burned, thousands of homes destroyed and citizen and firefighter fatalities occurred, set the stage for political action to address the issue. The expansion of residential development adjacent to federal lands in recent decades has also created a new and growing local and community constituency supporting active thinning and restoration of adjacent federal and private forests to reduce the risk of severe wildfires.

Some observers believe that the twin problems of fuel build‑ups and declining forest health, and their effect on ecosystem diversity and sustainability, are some of the most significant environmental challenges facing federal land managers in the early 21st century (Sampson et al. 1993; Clark and Sampson 1995). Active management of vegetation, including thinning and prescribed use of fire, is viewed by many as important elements in restoring ecological health and reducing hazardous fuels buildups.

Development of “Process Gridlock” on National Forests and BLM Lands

After World War II, timber harvests on national forest and BLM lands increased dramatically to help meet the post-war housing boom. By the 1970s, national forest and BLM lands were meeting about 25 percent of U.S. softwood timber demands (USDA/Forest Service 2004). But recreational demands on federal and other public lands also increased dramatically during this period (Fedkiw 1999). In addition, public demands to set-aside large areas of federal lands in their natural or “pristine” condition increased after passage of the Wilderness Act of 1964 and set the stage for public conflict over the management of national forest and BLM lands. Evolving public preferences and lawsuits brought against Forest Service and BLM timber management activities under the National Environmental Policy Act, Endangered Species Act and other federal environmental laws caused national forest and BLM timber harvests to decline by more than 80 percent since 1985 (USDA/Forest Service 2005).

Due to a lack of social consensus as to how the federal lands should be managed, the tendency over the years has been for the Forest Service and BLM, federal regulatory agencies, Congress, and the courts to add process and procedure to the federal land planning and decision making processes. Consequently, federal land management has become increasingly costly and time consuming, while also providing opportunity for individuals and interest groups opposed to these activities to intervene to delay or block proposed actions. National forest planning and environmental analysis have been estimated to consume 40 percent of total direct work at the national forest level (or an expenditure of more than $250 million per year) (USDA/Forest Service 2002). This has extended the time needed to arrive at final management decisions.

Today, even though much of the harvest on national forest and BLM land is focused on thinning and fuels treatment activities in support of forest restoration and to reduce the risk of uncharacteristically severe wildfires, nonetheless these activities have been controversial and subject to the same process delays as projects designed to produce commercial timber.

When Dale Bosworth became Chief in 2001, he asked for an agency review of the gridlock issue. A 2002 report, “The Process Predicament: How Statutory, Regulatory, and Administrative Factors Affect National Forest Management, ” found that, while the statutory requirements of environmental laws are not necessarily in conflict, over the years overlapping procedural requirements, procedural redundancy, court decisions, and multiple layers of interagency coordination have created inefficiencies in decision-making (USDA/Forest Service 2002). Many of the actions that were to come later to streamline administrative process requirements responded to the specific problems and issues identified in this report.

Efforts to Streamline Fuels Treatment and Ecosystem Restoration Efforts on National Forest Lands

In 2002, President George W. Bush announced the “Healthy Forest Initiative” (HFI) designed to reduce administrative, regulatory and statutory barriers to increasing the area of federal lands treated to reduce forest fuels. A variety of actions were taken under HFI to put these reforms in place.

Some of these regulatory changes include: 1) procedures which allow certain fuel-treatment and rehabilitation projects to proceed in compliance with NEPA, but with limited documentation (termed categorical exclusions); 2) joint Endangered Species Act (ESA) counterpart regulations by the Departments of the Interior, Agriculture, and Commerce that make the ESA consultation process more effective for fuels treatment projects; and 3) new stewardship contracting instruments that encourage integrated treatment of fuels in one operation, often using the value of removed timber to help fund treatment costs (HFI 2006).

In addition to administrative streamlining, the Bush Administration proposed a number of statutory changes to expedite fuels reduction on national forest and BLM lands. This became HFRA.

Issues Surrounding Passage of HFRA

When HFRA was introduced in the House on May 1, 2003 it was controversial. Opponents claimed that it would undermine needed environmental analyses and short-change important opportunities for the public and national forest stakeholders to be involved in federal land decision-making. Proponents claimed that communities, wildlife habitat, watershed, and other important values were being put in jeopardy by delays of critical federal fuels treatment and forest restoration activities due to redundant and unnecessary administrative processes, appeals and litigation brought by the opponents of these activities. The main issues were related to:

• Streamlining the existing Forest Service administrative appeals process for fuels treatment activities
• Streamlining the environmental analysis process for fuels treatment under the National Environmental Policy Act
• Protecting old growth and large trees during fuels treatment activities
• The relative priority to be given to treating federal lands near communities at risk of wildfire vs. areas distant from them
• Rules governing judicial review of legal challenges to federal fuels treatment decisions

The Republican-controlled House passed HFRA on May 20, 2003 by a vote of 256 to 170. Although the Senate was also under Republican control, a 60 vote margin was needed to avoid a potential filibuster. Several modifications were made to the House-passed bill in a bi-partisan effort to gain the necessary votes. Among other things, these included provisions to protect old-growth forests and large trees in HFRA authorized projects and also modification of the House-passed judicial review language to make it more broadly acceptable.

A series of major wildfires in southern California in October 2003 also set the political stage for passage of HFRA, which passed the Senate by vote of 80 to 14. A reconciled HFRA was passed by both Houses of Congress on November 21, 2003, and signed by the President on December 3, 2003.

Summary of Provisions of HFRA

HFRA did not replace any existing Forest Service or BLM authorities to reduce hazardous fuels. It merely added options for agency field managers to use in certain circumstances. The following is a summary:

Title I

Among other things, Title I of HFRA would expedite environmental analyses and administrative appeals processes associated with reducing hazardous fuels on four categories of national forest and BLM land. These four categories are:

1. The wildland-urban interfaces of communities that are at risk to intense wildfire;

2. Municipal watersheds that that are at risk of uncharacteristically intense wildfire;

3. Where threatened and endangered species or their habitats are at-risk to catastrophic fire and where fuels treatment can reduce those risks; and

4. Where ice storm damage, windthrow, or insect epidemics threaten forest ecosystem components or resource values.

Within these four categories of land, HFRA:

• Encourages collaboration between federal agencies and local communities in the preparation of community-based fuels treatment plans.

• Authorizes federal agencies to analyze a reduced number of options or alternatives under the National Environmental Policy Act if the proposed fuels treatment actions are developed collaboratively with interested stakeholders.

• Requires allocating at least 50 percent of the funds for HFRA projects to protect communities.

• Provides for expedited pre-decisional administrative review of fuels treatment projects on national forest land.

• Requires courts considering legal actions that seek to halt implementation of a fuels reduction project to balance the environmental effects of undertaking the project against those of not carrying it out.

• If carrying out fuels reduction projects in areas that contain old growth forests, it requires federal agencies to maintain or restore those forests. In other areas, it requires agencies to maintain larger trees consistent with the objective of restoring fire resilient stands.

• Authorizes the use of HFRA on up to 20 million acres of federal land and expenditures of $720 million annually for hazardous fuels reduction activities.

Titles II through VI

• Title II encourages research and technology transfer on biomass utilization and authorizes grants for removal of hazardous fuels to encourage their utilization for energy and other products.

• Title III provides for assistance to private landowners and Indian Tribes in protecting and restoring healthy watershed conditions.

• Title IV authorizes large-scale research projects designed to evaluate ways to treat forests to reduce their susceptibility to insects, diseases and fire.

• Title V provides for acquisition of short and long-term agreements and easements from private landowners to protect and enhance habitats for endangered and threatened species, protect biodiversity and sequester carbon.

• Title VI encourages and directs monitoring and early warning programs for insect and disease outbreaks.

Implementation of HFRA

In March 2004, the Forest Service and BLM issued an “Interim Field Guide” summarizing the provisions of HFI and HFRA and giving federal field managers guidance as to how to implement them (USDA/Forest Service and USDI/BLM 2004). In addition, training materials were prepared and a variety of other steps were taken to encourage national forest and BLM managers to utilize HFRA authorities.

A large number of community wildfire protection plans have been prepared under HFRA. While a major effort has been made to accelerate the treatment of hazardous fuels over the last several years, most of this activity has been carried out under existing authorities, rather that those provided by HFRA (HFI 2006). It often takes several years of planning and preparation before federal vegetation treatment projects can be put on the ground. It will likely be 2008-2010 before HFRA can be fully assessed in terms of its effectiveness in achieving its objectives.

For more detail on HFRA and its implementation, see MacCleery (2002), HFRA (2003), USDA/Forest Service and USDI/BLM (2004), and HFI (2006).

References and Further Reading

Arno, S.F. 1985. “Ecological Effects and Management Implications of Indian Fires.” In Proceedings: Symposium and workshop on wilderness fire. November 15-18, 1983. Missoula, MT. Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, General Technical Report INT-182, USDA/Forest Service. Ogden, Utah.

Arno, S.F. Allison-Bunnell, S. 2002. Flames in Our Forest: Disaster or Renewal? Washington DC. Island Press, 227pp.

Clark, Lance, and R. Neil Sampson. 1995. Forest Ecosystem Health in the Inland West: A Science and Policy Reader. Washington, DC: Forest Policy Center, American Forests.

Denevan, W.M. 1992. The pristine myth: the landscape of the Americas in 1492. Annals of the Association of American Geographers. Vol. 82, No. 3.

Fedkiw, John. 1999. Managing Multiple Uses on National Forests, 1905-1995. USDA Forest Service. Washington, DC. FS-628. 284 p.

GAO 1999. Western National Forests: a Cohesive Strategy Is Needed to Address Catastrophic Wildfire Threats. General Accounting Office, Washington, D.C., GAO/RCED-99-56. On line at: http://www.gao.gov/archive/1999/rc99065.pdf (May 24, 2006)

Gruell, G.E. 1985. “Indian Fires in the Interior West: A Widespread Influence.” In Proceedings: Symposium and workshop on wilderness fire. November 15-18, 1983. Missoula, MT. Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, General Technical Report INT-182, USDA/Forest Service. Ogden, Utah.

HFI 2006. The background and descriptions of the administrative changes under HFI, the current status of activities and related topics can be viewed at: http://www.healthyforests.gov (May 24, 2006)

HFRA 2003. The full text of HFRA can be found on line at: http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=108_cong_public_laws&docid=f:publ148.108.pdf (May 24, 2006).

For information on House and Senate action on HFRA and supporting reports and documents, go to: http://thomas.loc.gov/ . Click on “Search Multiple, Previous Congresses.” In the next window check the box for the 108th Congress and then type “HR 1904” in the search window. The enrolled bill and its supporting documents will be then available for viewing.

MacCleery, D. 2002. Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003: What Does It Do? USDA/ Forest Service, December 11, 2003. Available on line at: http://resourcescommittee.house.gov/issues/ffh/hfrasumdrft.pdf (May 24, 2006).

Pyne, S.J. 1982. Fire in America: A Cultural History of Wildland and Rural Fire. Princeton, NJ. Princeton University Press.

Senate Agriculture 2003. Report on the Healthy Forests Restoration Act (H.R. 1904). Senate Agriculture Committee. November 2003. U.S. Congress.

Sampson, R.N. & D.L. Adams ed. 1993. Assessing Ecosystem Health in the Inland West. Overview papers from an American Forests scientific workshop. November 14‑19, 1993, Sun Valley, ID. American Forests, Washington, D.C.

USDA/Forest Service. 2002. The Process Predicament: How Statutory, Regulatory, and Administrative Factors Affect National Forest Management, USDA/Forest Service, Washington, DC. June 2002. On line at; at: http://www.fs.fed.us/projects/documents/Process-Predicament.pdf (May 24, 2006)

USDA/Forest Service. 2005. National Forest Cut and Sold Reports, FY 1950 to date, USDA/Forest Service, Washington, D.C. Available on line at: http://www.fs.fed.us/forestmanagement/reports/index.shtml (May 24, 2006)

USDA/Forest Service. 2004. Forest Resources of the United States, 2002. General Technical Report NC-241, St. Paul, MN: North Central Research Station. Available on line at: http://www.ncrs.fs.fed.us/pubs/viewpub.asp?key=1987(May 24, 2006)

USDA/Forest Service and USDI/BLM. 2004. The Healthy Forests Initiative and Healthy Forests Restoration Act: Interim Field Guide. FS-799, February 2004. Washington, D.C. Available on line at: http://www.fs.fed.us/projects/hfi/field-guide/documents/interim-field-guide.pdf (May 24, 2006)

Posted: 21 April 2007

Updated: 23 August 2007