Did Smokey Retire Too Early? Human- Caused Ignitions on the Rise

by

Burnie’s message seems a little abstract- maybe we shouldn’t retire Smokey yet?

Our friends in BC officially retired Smokey. “Stefan Hood of the BC Wildfire Service says they are trying to shift people’s focus away from how to suppress fire toward how to live with it. They are visualizing that change through the retirement of Smokey Bear and the introduction of their new mascot: Ember the Fox.” https://www.coastmountainnews.com/trending-now/smokey-bear-heads-for-retirement-as-bc-wildfire-introduces-ember-the-fox-5674241

The 4th of July seems like a good time to take up the issue of one of the unmodeled-in-all-studies-of-future-fires factors. Yes, the sources of human ignitions and how they change over time. This is what I think we know about human ignitions:

1. Some people do extraordinarily dumb things,

2. Some people set fires on purpose intending to cause wildfires (e.g. Hayman Fire, college prof in California) for a variety of reasons,

3. Some people have campfires or cookfires that get out of control.

4. Some people are doing ordinary things, underestimating fire risk (e.g. dragging trailer chains).

5. Some people have equipment that sparks when it is working incorrectly (e.g. power companies).

6. Some people have prescribed fires, managed fires, or other burning operations that get out of control.

Perhaps there are other that we could add to the list. That’s an extremely broad range of behaviors.

Now if we think about how to change human behavior, we usually think of education (e.g. Smokey Bear), laws and enforcement thereof, and litigation for the deep-pocketed.

That’s an extremely broad range of behaviors. If we knew the proportion of each group, we could potentially target education programs to them. But it seems like it’s hard to get that data, beyond “human-caused.”

I didn’t verify his numbers, but the Hotshot Wakeup wrote a post that claimed:
92% Of All Wildfires This Year Have Been Human Caused. Those Fires Account For 98% Of All Acres Burned.

Smokey in 1944, still 90 percent 80 years later…

 

He also had a fun rant on his podcast a piece on this Outdoors magazine article that said “let’s shut down campfires entirely” due to ..climate change. Which sounds a bit like the arguments against managed fires. When I was hunting for the link to the Outdoor article, I discovered that they had published an opinion piece with almost exactly the same idea by a different author in 2021, the tie-in for that one was to the IPCC report (I’m not making this up).

Last week, I happened to be at a subdivision in the Sacramento area, nowhere near the WUI. We got a text that there was a fire behind the houses on the next street, and police came around looking for the people who they thought started it. There are many homeless tents in the dried grass around the area; at some point we’d know the people who started it and why if it was easy to find the results of investigations (which as far as I can tell, is not easy).   A few miles away, a large fire close to another subdivision
was started by a homeless person’s fire.

There is some discussion that the cause of the Darlene 3 Fire in Central Oregon was a long-term camping group.  In the comments, one person spoke about the outreach that goes on in their community to these groups in terms of fire prevention.  It seems to me that you can sympathize with both groups, the homeless and the local homeowners.  Starting a fire unintentionally is good for no one, nor are fines (for people with money) nor prison terms. But the world has changed and now substantially more homeless people camp and have fires, therefore due to non-climate-related changes, we can expect more fires.

Human-caused wildfire are different than lightning fires.  Often lightning occurs with rain.   Human causes can occur at the hottest, driest and windiest (when air resources can’t fly), time of the year, and throughout the year.  Let’s face it, there are a lot more humans around.  Check out the trail of campers heading to the woods for next weekend, and think about the numbers 30 years ago. Certainly changes in climate can be correlated with increasing problematic wildfires, but so could increases in population, in population in the woods, and so on.  When we were worried about not enough people enjoying the outdoors (the Nature Deficit, remember that), we wanted more people to get into the wildlands.   After Covid, we have.. too many?  And if more people mean more fires, then resources will be stretched.. leading to less control, possibly leading to more problematic fires.  Maybe “if you set them, they are bad” was not an untrue message all along. Sometimes nuance gets in the way of clarity.

I’m also pointing out what seems like a serious data deficit.  Somehow we have  wildfire-climate models that predict acreage of wildfires in 2100, yet we don’t have easily accessible data on human ignitions.  At least not to the level of detail that we would need to try, or compare, different policy interventions to reduce ignitions on meaningful scales.  It’s probably too simple to say “there’s lots of money to study climate and lots of satellite data so we tend to see the world through that lens.”  And yet, what are we not seeing when we look through that lens?

For today and this weekend, though, let’s be careful, observe restrictions, and be watchful for those who don’t.

 

 

Environmental Lawsuits, Wildfire Smoke & Death

by

Hello everyone:

Here is the editorial I just wrote for SW Oregon Rogue Valley Times based on recent email discussions with many of you:
This post was made possible by support of Healthy Forests, Healthy Communities and I have also shared with the wider “Call to Action” and “National Wildfire Institute” email groups and will also post to social media for wider consideration. Some of you also participate in one or more of these other organizations, so you will be getting duplicates that you can ignore.
I originally titled this “Environmental Lawsuits Are Killing People,” but the editor thought that was a little harsh, and also might open them to lawsuits, so the official title is a little more user-friendly now. Here’s the text (650 words):
Oregon is now beginning this year’s fire season, and southwest Oregon will likely be inundated with days and weeks of deadly smoke. It’s been happening most summers sometime from June until October since 1987.

For the first 40 years of my life, we didn’t have a fire season. We had wood heat, field burns, wigwam burners, bonfires, and clearcuts; but from 1952 until the Silver Complex Fire in 1987 there was only one wildfire bigger than 10,000 acres in all of western Oregon: the 1966 Oxbow Fire in Lane County.

The 2002 Biscuit Fire was nearly 500,000 acres in size, the largest wildfire in Oregon history, and the Kalmiopsis Wilderness has now burned four times. Anyone who has lived here a few years has likely experienced the catastrophic Chetco Bar, Taylor Creek, Klondike, South Obenchain, Almeda Drive, Slater, and/or Flat fires — and breathed their smoke.

Anybody less than 40 years of age, or that moved here in the last 35 years, probably thinks major fire seasons are “normal,” or even “natural,” and that breathing wildfire smoke part of the year is mostly unavoidable. But we didn’t used to have fire seasons, and wildfire smoke can be deadly.

The 2020 Labor Day Fires killed 11 people in southwest Oregon and burned more than 4,000 homes. During these fires, Oregon Department of Environmental Quality recorded the worst air quality in the world, including record-setting “Air Quality Index” (AQI) numbers for Portland, Eugene, Bend, Medford and Klamath Falls communities.

AQI numbers for these communities varied from 332 to more than 500. A “Good” AQI number is from 0 to 50; “Unhealthy” numbers are 101 to 200; 200-300 is considered “Very Unhealthy,” and anything 300 and above is considered “Hazardous” — 500 is the highest number that can be measured, and Bend even exceeded that rating.

According to recent National Library of Medicine research, short-term health effects of “wildland smoke,” such as asthma attacks, are well known and recognized, but a study from 2007 to 2020 indicated more than 11,000 US deaths per year from long- term effects of wildfire smoke. Lung cancer and cardiopulmonary diseases were identified as major causes.

A University of California study of smoke-related mortality from 2008 to 2018 estimated 52,000 to 56,000 Californians suffered “premature death” due to wildfire smoke inhalation during those years, or about 5,000 deaths per year.

If major wildfires and their smoke were mostly uncommon during the 35 years from 1952 to 1987, and they have now become an almost annual concern, what changed? And can it be fixed?

According to the US Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management (BLM), West Coast governors and environmentalists, the principal culprits in this deadly development are “climate change” and “wildfire suppression.”

Those are misleading excuses and not supported by facts. First, the climate in western Oregon has been pretty much the same for centuries; and second, the build- up of fuels is almost entirely due to changed federal forest management policies, as documented, and has little to do with fire suppression history of the past 120 years.

What did change, and dramatically, was the reaction of the federal government to anti-logging lawsuits first brought by environmental organizations when spotted owls became an “endangered species” in 1990. Active forest management was mostly stopped as a direct result, fuels built up rather than being harvested or treated, and they subsequently burned, as clearly predicted.

The recent litigation on local BLM projects initiated by Oregon Wild and Cascadia Wildlands is the most current example. BLM wanted to manage hazardous forest fuels and the environmentalists wanted to stop logging and get attention.

Our ancestors on the land showed us how to fix this problem. Stopping these costly lawsuits is key. Restoring active management of our public roads, trails, and forests will mostly end these deadly events, and also provide jobs and income needed to restore our rural schools, industries, communities, and clean, healthy air.

The Chevron Decision: How Will it Affect the FS and BLM?

by

I’ve been out hobnobbing with the Coastal Elite at a Breakthrough conference and visiting family, so I’m way behind…

Chevron case

I’m puzzled by the news coverage of this case. It’s always interesting to try to narrow the gap between what news sources tell us and our own lived experience. Here’s an example from CBS:

Proponents of the doctrine have argued that agencies have the expertise and experience to address gaps in the laws enacted by Congress, especially when it comes to administering programs that serve broad swaths of the population. Overturning Chevron would make it more difficult for the federal government to implement the laws passed by Congress, its backers warned.

Kagan, in dissent, accused the conservative majority of usurping the power the legislative branch gave to agencies to make policy decisions and putting judges in the center of the administrative process on all manner of subjects.

“What actions can be taken to address climate change or other environmental challenges? What will the nation’s health-care system look like in the coming decades? Or the financial or transportation systems? What rules are going to constrain the development of A.I.?” she wrote. “In every sphere of current or future federal regulation, expect courts from now on to play a commanding role.”

The Biden administration urged the Supreme Court to leave Chevron deference intact, calling it a “bedrock principle of administrative law.” Justice Department lawyers argued that the framework allows experts at federal agencies to interpret statutes, and have said they, not judges, are better suited to respond to ambiguities in a law.

Hmm. judges in the “center of administrative processes on all manner of subjects.” You mean like whether BLM used the appropriate air quality model in its EIS? Or whether the scientific findings of effectiveness of certain forests treatments are controversial? It’s hard to imagine them being more involved than they already are. But maybe our federal lands litigation is unique. Here’s NRDC:

Sometimes Congress is purposefully inexplicit in order to give the subject-area experts space to decide how best to implement a regulation. For example, an agency made up of occupational safety specialists should already be well equipped to decide how to handle the technical, nuts-and-bolts aspects of imposing workplace protections—rules about equipment usage, say, or the need for periodic employee rest breaks—without the meddling of judges. And given the complexity of weather patterns, EPA scientists are better equipped than judges at determining how much a state should curb its air pollution in order to protect people living in other states downwind.

It’s hard not to read this and add “and Forest Service experts are better than federal judges in determining how to protect people from wildfires.” I guess, according to NRDC, judges only “meddle” when they get involved with NRDC-approved agencies like EPA.

The only thing I could think of was that the Chevron case related specifically to “interpreting statutes” and maybe that’s not exactly what judges in our kinds of cases are doing. When the article says:

limiting the framework would threaten the ability of federal agencies to craft regulations on issues like the environment, nuclear energy or health care.

It seems like judges already get involved when groups litigate regulations (which they do regularly). When folks don’t like proposed regulations, they often say that they are going against the statute at issue.

Hopefully one of legal folks out there can explain this in layperson’s language and give us some ideas of what changes we might expect. Personally, I think it would be a good use of time for legal and agency folks to review any proposed statutes for Possible Problematic Ambiguities with an eye to correcting any problems before they start.

Forest Service launches ambitious effort to restore Dude Fire Scar

by

Nick Smith had an article about t his in his Wildfire News of the Day email today, but the link at the Payson Roundup doesn’t work.  This is all I see:

“The US Forest Service will remove overgrown brush and saplings on 7,600 acres burned by the Dude Fire in 1990 in an attempt to restore the natural, fire-resistant Ponderosa Pine forest that once grew there. The devastation from the Dude Fire can still be seen in Rim Country.”

FWIW, the USFS has this page about the project and a June 12 update here.

 

Chief Moore Announces FS Temporary Housing Refund

by

Here is a link; letter from Chief Moore

Let me begin by saying thank you.  Thank you for sharing your ideas and stories at our all-employee forums and the many other avenues for sharing. We heard you and are using that information to work with employees and the department to find solutions to the housing affordability crisis. 

 

Today, alongside Secretary Vilsack and Under Secretary Wilkes, I am pleased to announce a temporary housing refund that we estimate will benefit 4,500-5,500 employees in Forest Service housing through the end of fiscal year 2024. This refund will cover half the rent for the following Forest Service employees in government-owned housing:  

1. GS 1, step 1, through GS 10, step 10 

2. Wage-grade employees 

 

The refund also will cover 10% of the rent for employees GS level 11, step 1, through GS 13, step 10. 

 

This temporary housing refund will address the March 10 annual rental rate increase and will be retroactive to that date. Secretary Vilsack, Under Secretary Wilkes and the National Federation of Federal Employees were key to getting this refund and I am including messages of support they asked me to directly deliver to you at the bottom of this email. Employees will receive the refund within 9 to 11 weeks. It will be provided within our existing budget; we will make trade-offs to focus on this high-priority need. 

 

The amount of rent charged for government civilian quarters is determined according to government policy described in Circular A-45. The bipartisan Wildfire Commission has recommended review and potential updates to these policies. We and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) are reviewing these recommendations.

The temporary housing refund is provided under the Secretary’s emergency subsistence authority under Section 5 of the Department of Agriculture Organic Act of 1956, 7 U.S.C. 2228, which was delegated to Under Secretary Wilkes and the Chief of the Forest Service. This emergency subsistence authority authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture to provide subsistence, including for quarters, during emergency conditions. 

 

Since this refund relies upon specific emergency conditions, it is temporary while emergency conditions last. USDA’s Forest Service anticipates leveraging the emergency authority for no more than a year while we concurrently work on government policy changes that address the emergency conditions. Once emergency conditions are addressed, the Forest Service will provide a 60-day advance notice to employees announcing the end of the emergency housing refund. If you live in government-owned housing, there will be future information sessions to help you understand the housing refund and answer any questions you may have. These sessions are tentatively scheduled for the week of July 8. More information will be provided, to include virtual invitation links. Frequently asked questions are available on the National Housing Hub SharePoint site.

     

I also want to acknowledge that this refund doesn’t benefit all our employees. Housing affordability significantly affects the lives of employees across the agency. We are taking this action with the authority and resources available to us. We need to use all the tools in our toolbox, even if they aren’t as far-reaching as we’d like. We continue to: 

1. Submit housing-specific budget requests for congressional consideration through the annual budget process. 

2. Use all possible funds from the FY 2024 budget to prioritize investments in employee housing. 

3. Finalize the National Housing Strategy, a comprehensive plan that will assist the agency in addressing the affordability, availability and condition of Forest Service housing. 

4. Continue to make progress and administer our existing Quarters Program thanks to employees like our national housing project manager, Procurement and Property Services housing managers, and district-based tenant managers. 

5. Collaborate with NFFE. 

 

These collective efforts are consistent with our needs and align with the recommendations of the bipartisan Wildland Fire Mitigation and Management Commission. We continue to explore other creative opportunities to assist you with obtaining affordable housing. I want to emphasize our unwavering commitment to ensuring you have access to safe, comfortable and affordable housing near your duty station.  

  

Your well-being is of utmost importance to us, and we will persist in our efforts to provide you with the support and resources you need to thrive in your role for the Forest Service. Thank you for your hard work and dedication.  

WUI Building Codes and Effects of Wood Products Industry

by

This isn’t a forest-planning story, but interesting. From the Softwood Lumber Board (SLB). Mentions the American Wood Council (AWC). It makes sense to reduce the use of wood in decks and siding, but using non-renewable products has an environmental impact. OTOH, there are wood products treated to be “fire-resistant, such as this one.

 

June 2024

SLB Study Reveals Importance of WUI Code Work in Defending Market Share

Up to 150 MM BF of siding and 770 MM BF of decking from the repair and remodeling market are at risk from Wildland-Urban Interface code changes and adoption, according to an SLB-funded study by Forest Economic Advisors. The study quantifies the importance of the AWC and the SLB’s codes and standards work defending the use of lumber in regions with wildfire hazard.

 

“The FEA study is timely and relevant given recent major wildfire losses and significantly increased WUI code activity as a result,” says Phil Line, Vice President of Codes & Regulations at the AWC. “The study findings that lumber siding and decking are at risk aligns with WUI code requirements that regulate exterior building materials to reduce the spread of fire.”

 

Wildfires have been on a steady increase in recent years. Between 2005 and 2022, more than 100,000 structures were lost to fires in areas where structures and development meet undeveloped wildland or vegetative fuels. More jurisdictions are considering implementing building codes to mandate wildfire-resistant construction in these areas.

 

FEA’s analysis shows that while the use of lumber and structural panels is not affected by WUI codes when used structurally in roofs, walls, and floor systems, lumber volumes in the repair and remodeling market, especially decks and siding, are at risk. While the higher end of the estimates is not likely to be lost over the short to medium term, the potential volumes represent between 7% and 17% of total consumption for siding and 4% and 14% for decking.

 

The AWC is active in the development process for WUI codes including ICC 605, the new standard for residential construction in regions with wildfire hazard. The AWC is also using full-scale fire tests of hardened wood-frame buildings to demonstrate the viability of fire-resistant wood construction versus noncombustible materials alone.

Science Review Shows Fuel Treatments Reduce Future Wildfire Severity

by

This is not news to most foresters, but it’s good to have such a review from three parties, including TNC. Will the review help courts make decisions in cases where enviro groups claim that thinning, etc., do more harm than good? The debate, as ever, centers on whether taking any tree considered mature or old-growth. (Thanks once again to Nick Smith for the link.)

Comprehensive Science Review Shows Fuel Treatments Reduce Future Wildfire Severity

Researchers from the USDA Forest Service Rocky Mountain Research Station, The Nature Conservancy and the University of Montana examined 30 years of fuel treatment effects on wildfire severity.

Excerpt:

Researchers found overwhelming evidence that in seasonally dry mixed conifer forests in the western U.S., reducing surface and ladder fuels and tree density through thinning, coupled with prescribed burning or pile burning, could reduce future wildfire severity by more than 60% relative to untreated areas. The study results were recently published in Forest Ecology and Management. You can download this Science You Can Use in 5 minutes for an overview of the research methods, key findings, management considerations and links to related publications.

Federal Lands Litigation – update through June 20, 2024

by

FOREST SERVICE

New lawsuit:  WildEarth Guardians v. U. S. Forest Service (D. New Mexico)

On June 4, WildEarth Guardians, Western Watersheds Project and Caldera Action sued the Forest Service and Fish and Wildlife Service over continued trespassing by cattle from the Santa Fe National Forest onto the Valles Caldera National Preserve, managed by the National Park Service.  Plaintiffs allege several violations of the Endangered Species Act related to effects on the endangered Jemez Mountain salamander and New Mexico meadow jumping mouse, and the threatened Mexican spotted owl.  The article includes a link to the complaint.  Quote of the month:

Tuell (WWP) acknowledges that fence maintenance and other means of keeping the Valles Caldera free from trespass cattle is expensive. She proposes increasing grazing fees to cover the costs.  “The fee is decades old,” she said. “It’s $1.35 to graze a cow and a calf for a month. I challenge you to find another animal you could feed for $1.35. Maybe a goldfish?” 

End of the road for Sawtooth Mountain Ranch v. U. S. Forest Service

On June, 10 the U. S. Supreme Court refused to weigh in on whether plaintiff’s claim about a trail easement within the Sawtooth National Recreation Area is time-barred, or whether they have any relief available under the Fifth Amendment takings clause.  The district court opinion in favor of the government (upheld by the 9th Circuit) was discussed here.

New lawsuit:  Center for Biological Diversity v. U. S. Forest Service (D. Oregon)

On June 11, the Center filed a lawsuit to protect the federally threatened distinct population segment of Pacific marten from the detrimental effects of off-road vehicle activity in the Oregon Dunes National Recreation Area.  It claims that the Forest Service has failed to comply with ESA, NEPA and its land management plans for the Siuslaw National Forest and the Recreation Area in allowing motorized use to occur.  The complaint specifically targets Forest Service special use permits for large off-highway vehicle events.

New lawsuit:  Oregon Wild v. Warnack (D. Oregon)

On June 13, Oregon Wild and WildEarth Guardians filed a lawsuit against the Youngs Rock Rigdon project on the Willamette National Forest.  They object to the parts of the project that would occur in mature and old growth forests, “given the significant loss of carbon storage and impacts to threatened and endangered species such as the northern spotted owl.”  The complaint alleges violations of NEPA’s requirements for a hard look at environmental impacts and consideration of reasonable alternatives.  The press release includes a link to the complaint.

Court decision in WildEarth Guardians v. U. S. Forest Service (9th Cir.)

On June 18, the 9th Circuit affirmed the district court holding that reinitiation of ESA consultation was not required for the Forest Service’s 1995 national policy on black bear baiting because of increased grizzly bear populations or because two grizzly bears were killed by bear baiting 15 years ago.  (Meanwhile, another grizzly bear was killed by a hunter at a bait station on June 10.  And the new information is not so much that populations are growing but that their range is expanding, and this grizzly was “outside of the species’ known range.”)

BLM

New lawsuit:  Center for Biological Diversity v. Berger (D. Colorado)

Welcome to the world of AI summaries from Google – this is what it gave me for “Pawnee grassland lawsuit:”

“On June 10, 2024, the Center for Biological Diversity, represented by Advocates for the West, filed a lawsuit against the U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to challenge the agency’s authorization of drilling permits in Colorado’s Pawnee National Grassland. The suit claims that the BLM has failed to protect the grassland’s shortgrass prairie from oil and gas extraction, which is a threat to the area. The lawsuit also asks a federal judge to throw out a 2018 policy and 26 permits for wells on and near the grassland.  The lawsuit also claims that the BLM is violating its responsibilities under the Mineral Leasing Act and the Federal Land Policy and Management Act. The BLM stated that it lacked the authority to consider the potential harm to wildlife, air, water, dark skies, or the grassland’s visual character because the federal minerals would be extracted by horizontal fracking from wells built on private or state lands.”

Could be I’ll soon be obsolete.  (The news release has a link to the complaint.)

New lawsuit:  Utah v. Haaland (D. Utah)

On June 18, the states of Utah and Wyoming challenged the recently issued BLM regulations that authorized management of lands for conservation because the agency used a categorical exclusion to meet NEPA requirements.  BLM’s categorical exclusion covers “[p]olicies, directives, regulations, and guidelines: that are of an administrative, financial, legal, technical, or procedural nature; or whose environmental effects are too broad, speculative, or conjectural to lend themselves to meaningful analysis and will later be subject to the NEPA process, either collectively or case-by-case.” 43 C.F.R. §46.210(i).  The complaint alleges that the rationale for applying this CE to this regulation, including  a summary dismissal of extraordinary circumstances, is inadequate and therefore arbitrary (and there is a link to the complaint in this article).

ENDANGERED SPECIES

Notice of Intent to Sue

On June 18, the Flathead-Lolo-Bitterroot Citizen Task Force filed a 60-day notice of intent to sue the state and the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service over the state’s plan to capture grizzlies in the Northern Continental Divide Ecosystem and transport them to the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem to improve the genetic health of the Yellowstone population and contribute to species recovery.  Plaintiffs allege this will harm those grizzly bears and no effects analysis was done. They also disagree with designating the translocated bears as “experimental” with the intent of decreasing their protection under ESA.

Notice of Intent to Sue

On June 20, Center for Biological Diversity, Bird Alliance of Oregon, Cascadia Wildlands, and Oregon Wild threatened to sue the Fish and Wildlife Service over its February decision pursuant to ESA to (again) not list the north Oregon coast population of red tree voles.  Tree voles are harmed by logging and fires, and the area involved is dominated by private lands and Oregon state forests, while the population’s stronghold is now on federal lands.  The news release includes a link to the Notice.

OTHER

Court decision

On June 7, Canada’s federal court determined that Canada’s Minister of the Environment and Climate Change took too long when he waited eight months to recommend the federal cabinet issue an emergency order to protect the northern spotted owl.  This was a violation of the Species at Risk Act.  As discussed here, the Canada population of spotted owls is about to flatline, and logging is still occurring in owl habitat.  According to the recent article,

Logging — alongside roads, railroads and hydro and gas lines — remain primary threats to the spotted owl, wrote the judge in his decision.  Roy said the spotted owl is threatened by climate change, noise disturbance, and competition over prey and habitat with the invasive Barred owl. But the evidence before the court, he said, identified the loss of mature old-growth forest habitat from logging as the primary reason for the owl’s decline.

(No mention of fire.)

Motion to dismiss denied in Atencio v. New Mexico (County of Santa Fe district court)

On June 10, a New Mexico judge cleared the way for a lawsuit filed a year ago to proceed that alleges the state has failed to meet its state constitutional obligations for protecting against pollution from oil and gas wells.  The State has in recent years adopted rule changes aimed at limiting emissions from the oil and gas industry; however, environmental groups have raised concerns about enforcement.  The complaint is here.

Criminal conviction

An individual has pleaded guilty to illegally digging at an archeological site on the DeSoto National Forest in Mississippi, violating the Archaeological Resources Protection Act.  According to court documents, the accused used a tractor to illegally dig at an archeological site that was later determined to have been labeled as a protected site because it contained material remains of past human activities that are of archeological interest.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Please Call Your Congresspersons About HR 5169 and S 2272

by

 

You know I don’t usually ask for folks to contact Congressfolk about things.. I’m making an exception today. I listened to the Hotshot Wakeup podcast in which he interviewed folks from NFFE (federal employees’ union). They and Grassroots Wildland Firefighters are walking the halls of Congress this week, as I understand.  It sounded as if some reticence to pass HR 5169 is either due to just the fact it will cost money or in the hope of some horse-trading on something else.

I get the argument about spending money we don’t have, but I think we can still retain the ability to discern necessities from “nice to have” or even “payback for our friends.”  I’m sure that all of us, R, D, Independent or Whatever,  have suggestions about slack in the federal budget that could be cut to.. pay federal wildland firefighters.

According to the NFFE folks, phone calls to particularly House congressfolk might help.  It’s an easy five minutes, so why not?

Here’s the letter from NFFE, Grassroots Wildland Firefighters and others..

Dear Members of Congress,
As constituents and members of Grassroots Wildland Firefighters, we write to you under dire circumstances that demand immediate attention and action from our legislative and agency leaders. The federal wildland firefighting workforce is the cornerstone of our nation’s ability to build resilience against wildfires, protecting communities and landscapes effectively. Yet, their efforts are hindered by a lack of adequate support and expansion due to congressional inaction and administrative barriers.  We implore you to stop playing partisan politics and be a proactive part of helping to solve the wildfire crisis.
We urgently call upon Congress and the Executive Branch to prioritize and enhance the support for these brave wildland firefighters. They sacrifice their families, health, and well-being to protect us, a testament to their dedication and the gravity of their needs.
Immediate Actions Required:
1. Pass the Wildland Firefighter Pay Protection Act, S.2272: We implore you to bring this crucial legislation to the Senate floor for a vote and initiate its progression in the House of Representatives without delay.
2. Implement Administrative Reform: Define clear, accurate job descriptions with correct grading; provide hazard pay for hazard duties such as prescribed burns; ensure proper job classification reflects the diverse roles and extensive qualifications wildland firefighters are required to obtain.
These actions are not just administrative or legislative tasks; they are moral imperatives that safeguard the lives of those who protect us. The ongoing inaction and bureaucratic delays are unacceptable, especially as we face increased wildfire risks exacerbated by climate change and development into the wildland interface.
As we approach another summer with drought conditions in place, the time to act is now. We, along with your constituents, demand decisive action to address these critical issues. The well- being of our communities and the efficacy of our national response to wildfires hinge on your leadership and responsiveness. Only you can correct these conditions.

Thank you for your attention and we look forward to your swift action and resolution.
Sincerely,

Grassroots Wildland Firefighters
– Luke Mayfield, President

National Federation of Federal Employees

– Randy Erwin, National President
U.S. Hotshot Association
– Randy Skelton, President
Wildfire Industry Collective
– Jonathon Golden, Executive Director
Fired Up
– Janelle Valentine, President
Veterans in Fire Foundation
– Blake Toth, President
Eric Marsh Foundation
– Amanda Marsh, Founder
Megafire Action
– Matt Weiner, CEO
FireUP
– Shefali Lakhina, Founder