Daines looks for Senate allies for forest funding

Pointing to this summer’s historic fire season in his home state, Sen. Steve Daines, R-Mont., says he is working to advance a bill in the Senate that would attempt to increase forest fuel treatment and harvest while making federal emergency funds available to the Forest Service for wildfire suppression.

“It goes without saying, those of us that were home in August saw a devastating fire season,” Daines said during a media conference call on Wednesday. “That should lead Congress to pass reforms that both improve the management of our forests as well as address the wildfire funding challenge.”

This July the House passed the Resilient Federal Forests Act, which was cosponsored by Rep. Ryan Zinke, R-Mont., and was promoted as a bipartisan effort to tackle both the causes of devastating wildfires and provide the Forest Service with more resources to fight them.

According to a report published Aug. 4 by the Forest Service, the cash-strapped agency is on track to spend more than 50 percent of its entire budget on fire suppression and related programs this year, for the first time in its history.

The legislation is now awaiting consideration by the Senate Agricultural Committee, and Daines said he hopes the bill can quickly pass the Senate and be sent to President Barack Obama this fall.

Daines said he has been working with about 20 Democrats in the Senate to secure bipartisan support for the measure, but noted that the direct approach wasn’t the only avenue available, should it fail to capture 60 Senate votes or the president’s signature. He listed the federal highway, omnibus and debt ceiling bills as three “must-pass” pieces of legislation to which the forest bill could be attached as an amendment.

Acknowledging that such a move would require the blessings of the Senate’s leadership to be successful, Daines singled out Sen. John Barrasso, R-Wyo., as an influential supporter of the bill.

“I’m confident that we’ll get the support we need to get this through, in terms of getting the support of leadership in the Senate,” Daines said.

While Obama has recommended increased federal funding for wildfire suppression, the bill’s mechanisms for increasing forest management could be more problematic. Despite the bipartisan passage of the bill in the House, conservation organizations have criticized its bonding requirement for potential litigants of forest projects.

Under the language of the bill, a person or organization filing suit against the agency would need to post a bond in order first, equal to the anticipated costs to the agency for defending against the lawsuit. If the plaintiff prevails, it gets its bond back. Otherwise, the agency uses it to pay its legal costs.

However, in an effort to promote collaboration on forest projects, no bond would be required of a litigant that participated in a collaborative effort.

“The problem we have with these obstructionist litigators is they’re not the ones coming to the table on collaborations,” Daines said, adding that 54 percent of Montana’s approved timber volume was under litigation. “The issue of obstructionist litigation must be addressed if we’re going to solve the forest mangement problems that we face.”

The bill also expands categorical exclusions for some Forest Service projects, meaning a less stringent environmental review is required for the project to be approved.

The House passed the bill 262-167 on July 9.

Reporter Samuel Wilson can be reached at 758-4407 or by email at swilson@dailyinterlake.com.