Folks, here’s the Forestry section of the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022. Apologies for the formatting. I cut and pasted this from the text of the act. The full text is here. Note the definition of hazardous fuels reduction project….
Subtitle D—Forestry
SEC. 23001. NATIONAL FOREST SYSTEM RESTORATION AND FUELS REDUCTION PROJECTS.
(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) $1,800,000,000 for hazardous fuels reduction projects on National Forest System land within the wildland-urban interface;
(2) $200,000,000 for vegetation management projects on National Forest System land carried out in accordance with a plan developed under section 303(d)(1) or 304(a)(3) of the Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003 (16 U.S.C. 6542(d)(1) or 6543(a)(3));
(3) $100,000,000 to provide for 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 U.S.C. 4321 through 4370m–12); and
(4) $50,000,000 for the protection of old-growth forests on National Forest System land and to complete an inventory of old-growth forests and mature forests within the National Forest System.
(b) RESTRICTIONS.—None of the funds made available by paragraph (1) or (2) of subsection (a) may be used for any activity—
(1) conducted in a wilderness area or wilderness study area;
(2) that includes the construction of a permanent road or motorized trail;
(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—
(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 of the Forest Service entitled ‘‘Special Areas: Roadless Area Conservation’’ (66 Fed. Reg. 3244 (January 12, 2001)), as modified by subparts C and 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.
…
(3) HAZARDOUS FUELS REDUCTION
22 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.
Does this mean that any new USFS trails that are developed for use/access on lands for which these reforestation funds (2 billion dollars) are being spent in the urban-wildlands interface can not allow e-bikes? The USFS has set a policy that e-bikes can only be used on “motorized trails” even where e-bikes are the only designated motorized use. The RESTRICTIONS section prohibits permanent motorized trail construction.
Good question..! I don’t think the authors meant to do that.. but maybe someone missed it. Don’t know how involved the FS was in drafting, have heard different things.
Liberals sure despise motorized access, that’s for certain!
Interesting a “new” definition that is the same as incorporated in the 2400-6 Timber Sale Contract. I guess since selling timber is now taboo, the temporary road disclosure will make everyone feel better about them, since the FS will now be paying to log, and reduce fuels.
Will be interesting (or entertaining) to see how and when these taxpayers dollars are spent. The good ol’ Forest Service is now “wallowing” in money.
Here’s hoping for many successes, and a real concerted effort in helping curb this Nation’s wildfires…. We will be watching!
A colleague added these numbers:
• Forest Conservation: $700 Million for the USFS Forest Legacy Program
• Climate-smart Forestry: $450 Million to USFS for forest carbon incentives to private landowners
• Conservation Programs: $20 Billion to “Climate-Smart Agriculture” via NRCS programs that in many cases include tree and forest-related practices (e.g., RCPP)
• Science, Data and Innovation: $100 Million for USFS Wood Innovation
• Urban Forests: $1.5 Billion for grants to cities and non-profits through USFS Urban and Community Forestry, with an additional $4 Billion to DOT and EPA climate justice programs that can and likely will provide substantial additional funding for urban forestry activities
Have they defined “climate-smart” forestry that would qualify?
I found this document that explains the USDA/FS “climate-smart agriculture and forestry strategy”:
https://www.usda.gov/sites/default/files/documents/climate-smart-ag-forestry-strategy-90-day-progress-report.pdf
Key phrase: “improve forest management to increase forest resilience and health.”
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) welcomes the President’s focus on developing a climate-smart agriculture and forestry strategy that employs proven conservation practices to achieve enhanced productivity and economic sustainability for U.S. agriculture and forestry; improved ecological, social, and economic resilience to climate change; increased carbon sequestration; and reduced greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Climate-smart practices include activities that store carbon and improve resilience and soil health, such as reduced and no-till, cover crops, and prescribed grazing; reduce GHG emissions, including methane and nitrous oxide, using practices such as ruminant feed management, manure management, and fertilizer management; improve on-farm energy effciency, such as improved irrigation effciency, reduced fuel use, and energy conservation; and improve forest management to increase forest resilience and health.
The Department also is committed to implementing a CSAF strategy that furthers equity, environmental, and racial justice, and is accessible to and will beneft all farmers, landowners, land managers, Tribes, and communities — particularly low-income communities and communities of color. The USDA’s climate smart strategy builds on the administration’s whole-of-government approach to tackling the climate crisis, including its America the Beautiful conservation campaign, which focuses on locally-led conservation activities that employ nature-based climate solutions, including on working lands.
Thanks. “Increase resilience and health.” In other words, “no,” they didn’t define it.
Steve, thanks so much for doing this! If anyone wants to compare with Build Back Better here’s a link to an earlier TSW post https://forestpolicypub.com/2021/11/02/the-reconciliation-bill-and-the-national-forests-is-it-build-back-better-or-spreading-large-sums-around/
The NEPA one changed from “$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);”, it sounds like before it was a “NEPA improvement” effort (100 mill? really?) and now it’s just doing NEPA. Which I guess gives the FS the ability to spend it on NEPA for whatever? Not as odd as before, but still puzzling.
Notice that nothing can be done to prevent fires in a Wilderness area, in order to preserve the pretense that these are untouched lands from time immemorial and don’t need any kind of management—an ahistorical fallacy that is embraced by both the Wilderness-advocacy fundraising apparatus and its gullible followers.
Apropos of the real-world effects of nutty Wilderness policies, did anyone read about the doctor who fell to his death in the Weminuche Wilderness? Perhaps he is a victim of the fact that both the government and the Wilderness religion incorrectly believe that Wilderness trails can’t be maintained by efficient methods like wheelbarrows and chainsaws, leaving some (maybe most) trails in poor shape. I bet a number of deceased individuals have been sacrificed to the Wilderness volcano gods in such ways.
We should look at how Canada manages its wildlands and follow suit. Nothing can be nuttier than the current regime, which makes a mockery of the in-vogue slogan, “follow the science.”
https://www.durangoherald.com/articles/climber-falls-to-death-in-chicago-basin-north-of-durango/
I doubt trail maintenance had anything to do with this climber’s fall on Windom Peak. There is no discernible trail on this > 14,000′ mountain to maintain.
I agree that a discernible trail wouldn’t be expected. But maybe that’s because our expectations for Wilderness amenities are low. Switzerland has well-maintained trails in difficult terrain at high elevations. The National Park Service has a difficult but discernible trail to the top of Wheeler Peak (13065′) in Great Basin National Park.