[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 154 (2008), Part 1] [Extensions of Remarks] [Pages 1135-1136] [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]INTRODUCTION OF BILLS TO REDUCE RISKS OF WILDFIRES TO FOREST-AREA COMMUNITIES ______ HON. MARK UDALL of colorado in the house of representatives Tuesday, January 29, 2008 Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Madam Speaker, Colorado and other Rocky Mountain States face a very real risk of severe wildfires in our forest lands, which directly threaten many communities and critical resources, including water supplies. There are several reasons. One is drought. Another is past management that over-emphasized fire suppression, even though fire is an inescapable part of the ecology of our western forests, with the result that in many parts of the forests there is an accumulation of underbrush and small-diameter trees greater than would be present if there had been more, smaller fires over the years. They provide the extra fuel that can turn a small fire into an intense inferno. The problem has been made worse by our growing population and increasing development in the places where communities meet the forests--the ``wildland-urban interface.'' And when you add the effects of widespread infestations of insects, you have a recipe for even worse to come. Many species of bark beetles, such as the mountain pine beetle, are native to our forests. They place stress on trees by burrowing through the bark. If a tree is healthy, it can defend itself by producing sap to repel and expel the invaders. But if the defense fails, the insects lay their eggs in the woody material below the bark. Once the eggs hatch, they feed on the tree's fiber and disrupt the flow of water and nutrients from the tree's roots to its needles and branches. In addition, the invading insects bring in fungi and other invaders that further damage the tree. If enough insects are able to penetrate the tree and lay eggs, the tree dies. The offspring then mature and fly to another tree and the cycle begins anew. These insects help to balance tree densities and set the stage for fires and thereby the generation of new tree growth. And when forests are healthy and there are adequate supplies of water, the insects' effects are relatively low-scale and isolated. But under the right conditions--such as drought, unusually warm winters, or when there are dense stands of even-aged trees--the insects can cause large-scale tree mortality, turning whole mountainsides and valleys rust red. That is what is happening in many mountainous areas in Colorado. And more and more our mountain communities find themselves in uncomfortable proximity to acres of dead trees, turned rust red by the insects and adding to their concerns about the danger of very severe wildfires. All Coloradans were reminded of this earlier this month, when the Federal and State foresters reported that the beetle infestation first detected in 1996 grew by a half-million acres last year, bringing the total number of acres attacked by bark beetles to 1.5 million, and has spread further into Front Range counties east of the Continental Divide. Last year, I introduced legislation to respond to this problem by, first, facilitating more rapid responses to the insect epidemic where that is needed to reduce the wildfire threats to our communities; and second, promoting research on ways to improve the health of our forest lands. That bill--H.R. 3072--was developed through broad consultation with many people in Colorado and discussions among our state's entire Colorado delegation. It is cosponsored by all my Colorado colleagues in the House, and Senators Ken Salazar and Wayne Allard introduced identical legislation in the Senate. I intend to continue to work for enactment of its provisions, as a single measure or otherwise. And that delegation measure would be supplemented in two different ways by the bills I am introducing today. One bill focuses on steps to help our communities act to reduce the potential damages their residents could suffer as a result of wildfires. It is cosponsored by our colleague from California, Representative Filner; I appreciate his support. A House companion to legislation, S. 2390, introduced by Senator Diane Feinstein, this ``Fire Safe Communities Act'' would provide incentives for at-risk communities to adopt a new model Fire Safe ordinance that will set national standards in building codes, creation of ``defensible space'' around homes, and reduction of hazardous fuels. It also would authorize new Federal grants to help communities integrate fire-resisting aspects into local ordinances, and would authorize increased Federal reimbursement of firefighting costs to participating communities. The other bill would amend the recently-enacted Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, P.L. 110-140, to allow material removed from additional forest lands to reduce hazardous fuels to be eligible for some incentives for use of renewable biomass to generate energy. Title II of the new energy law puts new emphasis on developing biofuels that rely on additional sources of biomass, including agricultural wastes, municipal solid waste, and dedicated energy crops such as perennial grasses, fast-growing trees, and algae. Accordingly, the new law requires an expansion of the 2005 law's renewable fuel standard so as to require 36 billion gallons of renewable fuel in motor fuels annually by 2022, of which 21 billion gallons must be ``advanced biofuel,'' defined as biofuel produced from feedstocks other than corn starch and having 50 percent lower lifecycle emissions than petroleum fuels. For purposes of title II, the new energy law defines the term ``renewable fuel'' as ``fuel that is produced from renewable biomass and that is used to replace or reduce the quantity of fossil fuel present in a transportation fuel.'' But its definition of ``renewable biomass'' does not include material removed from Federal or State forest lands in order to reduce wildfire risks, except to the extent that the removal occurs in the ``immediate vicinity of buildings and other areas regularly occupied by people, or of public infrastructure, at risk from wildfire.'' I think this definition is too narrow and would unnecessarily limit the potential incentive for private industry to assist in reducing the buildup of hazardous fuels that threaten forest-area communities in Colorado and other States. So, the second bill I am introducing today would revise the definition of ``renewable biomass'' in that part of the new energy law to include biomass removed in connection with a hazardous-fuel reduction project from lands within the wildland-urban interface, as defined in the Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003. Madam Speaker, since coming to Congress I have put a priority on reducing the wildfire risks to our communities. In 2000, with our then colleague, Representative Hefley, I introduced legislation to facilitate reducing the buildup of fuel in the parts of Colorado that the Forest Service, working with State and local partners, identified at greatest risk of fire--the so-called ``red zones.'' Concepts from that legislation were included in the National Fire Plan developed by the Clinton Administration and were also incorporated into the Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003. As a Member of the Resources Committee, I had worked to develop the version of that legislation that the committee approved in 2002, and while I could not support the different version initially passed by the House in 2003, I voted for the revised version developed in conference with the Senate later that year--the version that President Bush signed into law. Since then, in Colorado there has been very welcome progress in developing community wildfire protection plans and focusing fuel- reduction projects in the priority wildland-urban interface--which we sometimes call the ``red zone'' areas--two important aspects of the new law. But the problem remains very serious, and both H.R. 3072 and the two additional bills I am introducing today would take important further steps to address it. We cannot eradicate insects from our forests--nor should we, because insects are a natural part of forest ecosystems. Instead, we can and should act to reduce the wildfire threats to our communities--and their residents' lives and property--as well as to promote research on ways to improve the health of our forest lands. That is the purpose of H.R. 3072, and it is also the purpose of the two bills I am introducing today. For the information of our colleagues, here are outlines of both bills: Fire Safe Community Act This bill, a House companion to S. 2390, would establish new incentives for communities at risk of wildfire to improve fire-prevention efforts. Key components include: Creating a model ordinance for communities at risk of fire located within the Wildland Urban Interface (WUI). Bill will direct the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) to create a model ordinance, in partnership with the U.S. Fire Administration, the U.S. Forest Service, and the Bureau of Land Management. The purpose of this model ordinance is to provide a baseline for communities to become ``fire safe,'' including suggested water supply, construction materials and techniques, defensible space, vegetation management, and infrastructure standards; Developing a new $25 million grant program to assist local communities in implementing the activities and policies of the NIST model ordinance. To qualify for this [[Page 1136]] grant program, communities must be located in a fire hazard area and take steps toward the implementation of the model ordinance. These grants, administered by FEMA, can be used to enforce local ordinances and codes, develop incentive programs to improve code compliance, educate local planners on fire resistant planning, zoning and home construction, as well as train local fire departments on emerging technologies such as GIS fire mapping; Providing grants to States on a 50/50 cost share basis to create or update fire hazard maps. Authorizes $15 million annually for States to develop or update statewide fire hazard maps which identify communities at risk of wildfire; Establishing incentives for communities that decide to become more fire safe by changing the federal share of firefighting and emergency expenses reimbursed under FEMA's Fire Management Assistance Grants. Currently states and local communities can have 75 percent of their firefighting and emergency service expenses reimbursed by the federal government, if FEMA determines that a fire threatened a significant number of homes and structures. Under this bill, communities in fire hazard areas that adopt the new model ordinance would be eligible to have 90 percent of their firefighting and emergency service expenses reimbursed under the Fire Management Assistance Grants program; Authorizing the U.S. Forest Service and the Department of the Interior to offer grants to local communities for fire safe practices. The bill makes revisions to the authorization of the U.S. Forest Service and the Department of the Interior to allow them to administer grants to local communities for model ordinance compliance and for responsible zoning and fire protection strategies. The U.S. Forest Service would administer $35 million in fire-safe grants. The Department of the Interior would administer $15 million in these grants. ____ Wildfire Risk Reduction and Renewable Biomass Utilization Act This bill would revise the definition of ``renewable biomass'' in section 201 of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 so as to facilitate and encourage the use of biomass removed from certain additional forest lands as an energy source, in order to reduce the risk of severe wildfires to communities, infrastructure, and water supplies. Specifically, the bill would expand the current definition of ``renewable biomass'' to include biomass removed from lands within the wildland-urban interface in connection with an authorized hazardous fuel reduction projects. The bill uses the definitions of ``hazardous fuel reduction project'' and ``wildland-urban interface'' that are used in the Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003. That Act defines the term ``wildland-urban interface'' as including ``an area within or adjacent to an at-risk community that is identified ... in a community wildfire protection plan'' or, with regard to a community that has not developed a community wildfire protection plan, lands within a specified distance from the community's boundary (a distance that can vary depending on the presence of steep slopes or other geographic features) as well as areas adjacent to an evacuation route for an at-risk community that require hazardous fuel reduction to provide safer evacuation from an at-risk community. These definitions provide greater specificity than the term ``immediate vicinity'' now used in this part of the new energy law, and will broaden the scope of its applicability. I supported enactment of the Healthy Forests Restoration Act, and I think it is appropriate to follow its example in this respect. ____________________