The Reconciliation Bill and the National Forests: Is it “Build Back Better” or “Spreading Large Sums Around”?

From Colorado Springs Gazette story on old CWPPS.

Previously I posted on the BBB (so-called Build Back Better)  or as I call it, for forest policy, SLSA (Spreading Large Sums Around).   Like I said in the previous post, I don’t think the line items are bad ideas, but a bunch of them overlap with ordinary appropriations, and are not exactly transformational change; and don’t have much to do with climate change.  The name is “building” but in the forest section there’s a great deal of strategizing, assessing and analyzing. I have a copy of the October 28 version and it’s posted  below (just the National Forest section).  Perhaps thanks to the Forest Service, they have changed the WUI in the “10 Billion for WUI Fuel Treatments” back to the HFRA WUI definition, and there are some other wording changes to the test of whether the WUI is completed enough to use the extra $4 billion.  Getting CWPPs back into the mix is a good idea as many places have very old and out of date CWPPs.  At least where communities are adjacent to FS land, this would provide more incentive to update them  The Colorado Springs Gazette did a recent story on that. Let me know if there’s a paywall.

Apologies if I didn’t remove all the line numbers.

My thoughts: these are enormous sums for activities that the FS usually gets through general appropriations, so I’m having a hard time understanding why (for NFs) this is “Build Back Better” rather than “putting huge numbers of dollars into the usual line items, with tweaks for friendly NGOs.” There’s also a serious capacity issue.  Sending too much money when agencies aren’t prepared tends to create waste, in my experience.    It seems like no one really looked at these numbers, and no agency (that I know of ) has ever said “no” to more money.  It doesn’t seem like a very thoughtful nor inclusive process. Of course, that’s politics, not policy but still… we can hope for better.

******************

For discussion:

Thoughts about what’s in here?

**********************************************

a) APPROPRIATIONS.—In addition to amounts other wise available, there are appropriated to the Secretary for fiscal year 2022, out of any money in the Treasury not
otherwise appropriated, to remain available until September 30, 2031—

1 (1) $10,000,000,000 for hazardous fuels reduction projects on National Forest System land within the wildland-urban interface;
4 (2) $4,000,000,000 for, on a determination made solely by the Secretary that hazardous fuels reduction projects within the wildland-urban interface described in paragraph have been planned
 to protect, to the extent practicable, at-risk communities, hazardous fuels reduction projects on National Forest System land outside the wildland urban interface that are—

Here’s the previous language: 

“On a determination by the Secretary that hazardous fuels within the wildland-urban interface have been effectively treated to prevent the spread of wildfire to at-risk communities, hazardous fuels reduction projects outside the wildland-urban interface that are” I bolded the changes.

(A) primarily noncommercial in nature,  provided that, in accordance with the best available science, the harvest of merchantable materials shall be ecologically appropriate for restoration and to enhance ecological health and function, and any sale of merchantable materials under this paragraph shall be limited to small diameter trees or biomass that are a by product of hazardous fuel reduction projects;
(B) collaboratively developed; and  (C) carried out in a manner that enhances  the ecological integrity and achieves the restoration of a forest ecosystem; maximizes the retention of old-growth and large trees, as appropriate for the forest type; and prioritizes prescribed fire as the primary means to achieve 3 modified wildland fire behavior;
(3) $1,000,000,000 for vegetation management projects carried out solely on National Forest System land that the Secretary shall select following the receipt of proposals submitted in accordance with  subsections (a), (b), and (c) of section 4003 of the Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009 (16 10 U.S.C. 7303);
(4) $400,000,000 for vegetation management projects on National Forest System land carried out  in accordance with a water source management plan or a watershed protection and restoration action plan;
(5) $400,000,000 for vegetation management projects on National Forest System land that— (A) maintain, or contribute toward the restoration of, reference old growth characteristics,
including structure, composition, function, and connectivity;
(B) prioritize small diameter trees and prescribed fire to modify fire behavior; and (C) maximize the retention of large trees, as appropriate for the forest type;
(6) $450,000,000 for the Legacy Roads and Trails program of the Forest Service;
(7) $350,000,000 for National Forest System 4 land management planning and monitoring, prioritized on the assessment of watershed, ecological, and carbon conditions on National Forest Sys tem land and the revision and amendment of older land management plans that present opportunities  to protect, maintain, restore, and monitor ecological integrity, ecological conditions for at-risk species, and carbon storage;
(8) $100,000,000 for maintenance of trails on National Forest System land, with a priority on trails that provide to underserved communities access to National Forest System land;
(9) $100,000,000 for capital maintenance and improvements on National Forest System land, with a priority on maintenance level 3, 4, and 5 roads and improvements that restore ecological integrity and conditions for at-risk species;
(10) $100,000,000 to provide for more efficient and more effective environmental reviews by the Chief of the Forest Service in satisfying the obligations of the Chief of the Forest Service under the
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 2 U.S.C. 4321 through 4370m–12);
(11) $50,000,000 to develop and carry out activities and tactics for the protection of older and  mature forests on National Forest System land, including completing an inventory of older and mature 7 forests within the National Forest System;
(12) $50,000,000 to develop and carry out activities and tactics for the maintenance and restoration of habitat conditions necessary for the protection and recovery of at-risk species on National Forest System land;
(13) $50,000,000 to carry out post-fire recovery plans on National Forest System land that emphasize the use of locally adapted native plant materials to restore the ecological integrity of disturbed areas and do not include salvage logging; and
(14) $50,000,000 to develop and carry out non- lethal activities and tactics to reduce human-wildlife conflicts on National Forest System land.
(b) PRIORITY FOR FUNDING.—For projects described  in paragraphs (1) through (5) of subsection (a), the Secretary shall prioritize for implementation projects—
(1) for which an environmental assessment or  an environmental impact statement required under  the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 2 U.S.C. 4321 through 4370m–12) has been completed;
(2) that are collaboratively developed; or
(3) that include opportunities to restore sustainable recreation infrastructure or access or accomplish other recreation outcomes on National For est System lands, if the opportunities are compatible 9 with the primary restoration purposes of the project.
10 (c) LIMITATIONS.—None of the funds made available by this section may be used for any activity—
12 (1) conducted in a wilderness area or wilderness 13 study area;
14 (2) that includes the construction of a permanent road or permanent trail;
16 (3) that includes the construction of a temporary road, except in the case of a temporary road  that is decommissioned by the Secretary not later  than 3 years after the earlier of—
20 (A) the date on which the temporary road  is no longer needed; and  (B) the date on which the project for which the temporary road was constructed is  completed;
(4) inconsistent with the applicable land management plan;
(5) inconsistent with the prohibitions of the rule 4 of the Forest Service entitled ‘‘Special Areas; 5 Roadless Area Conservation’’ (66 Fed. Reg. 3244 6 (January 12, 2001)), as modified by subparts C and 7 D of part 294 of title 36, Code of Federal Regulations; or  (6) carried out on any land that is not National  Forest System land, including other forested land on  Federal, State, Tribal, or private land.
12 (d) DEFINITIONS.—In this section:
13 (1) AT-RISK COMMUNITY.—The term ‘‘at-risk 14 community’’ has the meaning given the term in section 101 of the Healthy Forests Restoration Act of  2003 (16 U.S.C. 6511).
17 (2) COLLABORATIVELY DEVELOPED.—The term  ‘‘collaboratively developed’’ means, with respect to a project located exclusively on National Forest System land, that the project is developed and implemented through a collaborative process that—
22 (A) includes multiple interested persons
23 representing diverse interests, except such persons shall not be employed by the Federal government or representatives of foreign entities;  and
(B)(i) is transparent and nonexclusive; or  (ii) meets the requirements for a resource advisory committee under subsections (c)
through (f) of section 205 of the Secure Rural 7 Schools and Community Self-Determination Act 8 of 2000 (16 U.S.C. 7125).
(3) DECOMMISSION.—The term ‘‘decommission’’ means, with respect to a road—  (A) reestablishing native vegetation on the road;
(B) restoring any natural drainage, watershed function, or other ecological processes that  were disrupted or adversely impacted by the road by removing or hydrologically disconnecting the road prism and reestablishing  stable slope contours; and
(C) effectively blocking the road to vehicular traffic, where feasible.
(4) ECOLOGICAL INTEGRITY.—The term ‘‘ecological integrity’’ has the meaning given the term in section 219.19 of title 36, Code of Federal Regulations (as in effect on the date of enactment of this
(5) HAZARDOUS FUELS REDUCTION 2 PROJECT.—The term ‘‘hazardous fuels reduction project’’ means an activity, including the use of prescribed fire, to protect structures and communities  from wildfire that is carried out on National Forest System land.
(6) RESTORATION.—The term ‘‘restoration’’ has the meaning given the term in section 219.19 of 9 title 36, Code of Federal Regulations (as in effect on  the date of enactment of this Act).
(7) VEGETATION MANAGEMENT PROJECT.—The term ‘‘vegetation management project’’ means an activity carried out on National Forest System land to enhance the ecological integrity and achieve the restoration of a forest ecosystem through the removal of vegetation, the use of prescribed fire, the restoration of aquatic habitat, or the decommissioning of an  unauthorized, temporary, or system road.
(8) WATER SOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN.—The term ‘‘water source management plan’’ means a plan  developed under section 303(d)(1) of the Healthy  Forests Restoration Act of 2003 (16 U.S.C. 23 6542(d)(1)).
(9) WATERSHED PROTECTION AND RESTORA25 TION ACTION PLAN.—The term ‘‘watershed protection and restoration action plan’’ means a plan developed under section 304(a)(3) of the Healthy For3 ests Restoration Act of 2003 (16 U.S.C. 4 6543(a)(3)).
(10) WILDLAND-URBAN INTERFACE.—The term ‘‘wildland-urban interface’’ has the meaning given the term in section 101 of the Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003 (16 U.S.C. 6511).

8 thoughts on “The Reconciliation Bill and the National Forests: Is it “Build Back Better” or “Spreading Large Sums Around”?”

  1. When you consider this is spread over ten years, it’s closer to a start at funded as desperately needed. But your comment on building capacity is spot on.

    Reply
  2. Some favorable views from the National Wildlife Federation and Center for Biological Diversity. They seem to agree with you:
    “It’s the most significant investment ever in our national forests,” O’Mara told Vox. “It’s an astonishingly big deal.”
    “It’s promising, but I think Congress has to have a laser-like focus on the implementation of this money in the years to come,” Hartl said. “It’s an enormous investment in these public lands. One would hope that there are no more excuses for doing a bad job.”
    https://www.vox.com/down-to-earth/2021/10/29/22752019/build-back-better-bill-climate-forest-fires-wildlife

    Reply
  3. We’ve got plenty of very good projects that we can use a lot of funding for, and my district’s internal capacity is much better than most districts, but the success of SLSA will rise or fall on G&A and contracting capacity, which, with history as guide, leads me to believe this will fail miserably. But we’ll do our best!

    Reply
    • Of course, the Forest Service could hire a bunch of temps with no forestry experience. We all know that no experience is required for those positions, including knowledge of tree species. Those funds could possibly lead to ‘for-profit’ contract crews of timber people and ‘ologists’ to get that required work done. Congress seems to purposely insulate themselves from this knowledge, willing to throw a bunch of money at problems that are more complex than they can imagine (or want to imagine).

      Reply
  4. With labor shortages everywhere where is the extra capacity going to come from? Vaccine mandates for federal contractors has many NGOs rethinking stewardship contracting so it is not likely that we can contract our way into enough labor.

    Reply

Leave a Reply to Anonymous Ranger Cancel reply