Fire season is again knocking on the doorstep of many Washington communities. Because of an unusually dry spring and low snow pack in the Cascades, this summer's fire danger is likely to start high and become more dangerous as the summer wears on. Nowhere is the fire danger more evident than in our nation's national forests. Federal officials estimate 190 million acres of federal forest and rangeland face a high risk of catastrophic fire.

The risk of fire is particularly acute in threatened communities surrounded by national forests. Cities like Winthrop, Cle Elum and Roslyn are at the heart of the debate over how to best protect communities from fire risk. But there is more to the debate than just protecting communities from fire damage. Many years of management without fire have left our national forests in a degraded state. Massive fires far from human development still cause unnecessary damage to the environment and pollute the air for residents that live miles away from the actual fire.

Addressing the risk of wildfire requires a comprehensive approach - one that protects communities, reduces the risk of high-intensity wildfires in remote areas and returns control of forest management to the local managers who know the forest best. Two of these objectives are effectively addressed in the Healthy Forest Restoration Act of 2003. The Act received strong bi-partisan support in Congress, winning 80 votes in the Senate before being signed in December by President Bush. It promises to improve conditions in federal forests throughout the western United States.

The Act includes three important components that will help restore ecological diversity and health in the nation's forests. First is a new effort to directly protect communities. By focusing mechanical clearing and selective timber harvest in what is called the urban-wildland interface, federal land managers can significantly reduce the risk of fire damage for many communities.

The second major component of the Act allocates new resources for reducing fuel loads in more remote areas of the national forest. Reducing the accumulation of highly flammable material and thinning densely packed forests will not only lower the risk of wildfire, but will improve the overall health of forests in desperate need of attention. In many areas, thinning the forests can enhance the development of old growth habitat, freeing the trees from the over-crowding that is the result of decades without regenerative fire.

The third major component of the Act is perhaps the most controversial. Over the past ten years forest scientists have developed a general consensus that actively managing the nation's forests will improve fish and wildlife habitat and significantly reduce the risk of massive wildfires. But when Forest Service personnel plan new timber harvests their efforts are often blocked by environmental groups and community activists who come in at the last minute to file an appeal and delay a project.

Under new regulations, forest health activities will include extensive outreach and consultation with community groups, tribes and other interested parties, but to file an appeal against a project, you must first participate in the planning process initiated by the agency. Initial results seem to indicate these new requirements can improve the stakeholder process. Because groups have an incentive to participate from the beginning, final project plans will better reflect the view of the community when the planning process is complete, helping to avoid contentious legal battles that cost money, property and sometimes lives.

What the Act leaves out is the vital need to return important decision-making responsibility to the local and regional managers and scientists who know the forest best. Here in Washington, our state owned forests face much lower risk of devastating wildfire than the national forests in the region. One reason for this is the direct economic interest Washington taxpayers have in maintaining a healthy forest ecosystem. State timber harvests support schools and local government, so if those forest are at risk of wildfire, so is the support provided to many social services.

By increasing local control, federal officials can renew statewide interest in actively reducing the risk of uncontrolled fire. And through an aggressive new program of active management we can help return our national forests to a healthy condition and lower the risk of dangerous and destructive wildfires.