Before we head back to the DOE CWG report, a few news tidbits and a partial “rest of the story”..
1. DOE Report and FACA Claims. The report itself was rescinded due to a lawsuit about FACA. My question is “it really giving the government advice” as would require a FACA committee, or “starting a discussion about the science” as DOE more or less claimed? Let’s look at what plaintiffs say:
But federal law does not permit agencies to create or rely on such secret, unaccountable groups when engaged in policymaking. In the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), Congress mandated transparency in the establishment and operation of any federal advisory committee, including by requiring that the group’s formation be promptly disclosed and that its meetings, emails, and other records be open to the public. Here, Defendants did not disclose the Climate Working Group’s existence until months after it began working, and not a single meeting or record has been made public other than the group’s report. Defendants also violated FACA’s prohibition on stacking an advisory committee with adherents of only one point of view; the Climate Working Group’s members were all chosen for their skepticism of climate science, and the group does not have a single member that agrees with the consensus of the overwhelming majority of the scientific community on the effects of climate change.
Apparently the report was cited in the proposal to rescind the Endangerment finding… but if the study had been contracted to a university, say, and the results were cited in the proposal, would that have been OK? It seems to me that in our humble world, we cite studies all the time (in environmental documents related to federal decisions), including those contracted by agencies or written by agency employees (and the five scientists could have been contracted or given temporary employment). But our FACA Committees generally just give policy advice. Members represent different constituencies and may use scientific reports as a source of info, or not. Anyway, I’m still going to comment on the report.
2. Bear Gulch Fire- The Rest of the Story I thought this impassioned defense of the IMT of the wildfire by the City of Santa Monica was interesting.. it caused me to wonder whether the FS or BLM would have defended their folks with such gusto. As reported by The Hotshot Wakeup.
The city of Santa Monica issued a statement Friday correcting recent inaccurate media reports suggesting that Deputy Fire Chief Tom Clemo coordinated with federal immigration enforcement agents during the Bear Gulch Fire response in Washington state…
During the team’s 14-day deployment, Deputy Chief Clemo, per incident protocol, forwarded allegations reported to him of fraudulent billing practices engaged by Oregon-based private contractors providing hand crews to support the firefighting efforts. A federal criminal investigation — led by federal law enforcement officers — uncovered thousands of hours of falsified timecards, totaling over $250,000 in suspected theft over the course of the incident.
As part of that federal investigation, federal authorities engaged U.S. Customs and Border Protection — not Deputy Chief Clemo — to interview members of the contracted crews. It was through those interviews that two individuals were found to lack work documentation, and one individual was discovered to have an outstanding warrant.
Looking back on the previous coverage of this incident, it seems like the national media swooped in and left (just when it got interesting), which raised some questions in my mind.
a. There is much immigration enforcement going on in different places.. why did two people on a contract crew attract national media attention?
b. Why were so many stories about it, but as more info has come out, there doesn’t seem to be follow-up? Except in places like The Hotshot Wakeup.
c. Many stories said (and THW agreed) that this would cause poor morale among firefighters. I recognize that that’s a bad thing, but I’ve worked in many areas that gave me poor morale without it being seemed to be important to anyone. Are some peoples’ morale more important than others? Or are emotions just more frequent in reporting than they used to be?
d. Some of the stories implied that the wildfire workforce could go down, placing people in danger. At the same time, THW has been getting phone calls from contract crews saying that they haven’t been called out this year. It seems to me like that is relevant, but the reporters probably weren’t aware of this context, since they don’t usually follow wildfire.
3. Bipartisan wildfire bill introduced, and N95 masks authorized.
The Fire Ready Nation Act passed the Senate unanimously on Wednesday, according to Montana Senator Tim Sheehy. The bipartisan bill was introduced in January by Sheehy and Senator Maria Cantwell of Washington, with the main purpose of establishing the Fire Weather Services program at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) to help prevent, forecast and fight wildfires.
4. Inherently Governmental? GNA State Job for South Dakota is posted here.. It seems like a great job, but I’m still confused as to the work seems to be preparing and administering federal contracts (or state contracts?) on federal land. If someone could explain how administering federal contracts isn’t what we called in the old days “inherently governmental” or how this actually works, I’d appreciate it. FWIW, I’m not against it, I’d just like to understand it.
5.Petition Against Forest Supervisor. I think that this is the first I’ve heard of this happening and I think it’s a bad idea (in case you’re wondering). How can you blame one forest supervisor for all the forces that have worked against completing fuel treatment projects? Here’s a link to the petition. I thought it was interesting that an experimental forest (Teakettle) figured in the petition. Here’s what it says:
Researchers have been warning about Teakettle for decades. They secured funding for prescribed burns, worked tirelessly to make their science accessible, and partnered with the Forest Service to get treatments done. They removed obstacles one by one — securing CAL FIRE funding, solving planning challenges — only to face new delays and resistance from leadership. Despite everything being lined up for a large-scale prescribed burn, Sierra National Forest leadership slow-walked the process until it was too late.
This outcome was a choice. Leadership chose inaction. They chose to delay rather than act with urgency. They chose to let fuels accumulate instead of removing them while it could still make a difference. As a result, centuries-old trees — some over nine feet in diameter — were incinerated. Teakettle, a crown jewel of old-growth forest and a world-class research site, is gone.
We cannot continue to accept this pattern of excuses, delays, and catastrophic losses.
Other forests in Region 5 face the same lawsuits, the same environmental reviews, the same funding challenges — yet they are completing fuel reduction projects, maintaining roads, and keeping public access open. Leadership makes the difference. A strong forest supervisor can set priorities, push projects forward, and work with partners to overcome barriers. Unfortunately, under the current leadership of Dean Gould, Sierra National Forest has fallen behind, leaving our communities, wildlife, and firefighters at risk.
This is one of those “there must be more to it than meets the eye” stories, please contact me if you have additional information. The Lookout has some good satellite images of the Garnet Fire here.
GNA is about State’s utilizing State Contracts, using state policies and procedures, and administering state contract. GNA does not give States control or authority to administer federal contracts. The USFS retains the authority to approve NEPA and silviculture prescriptions; everything else falls to the State.
Thank you A!
A lot going on here, so just a few thoughts:
1) CWG – Why did DOE even form this group? Whatever one thinks of the arguments for and against climate action, the arguments are already out there: no further thinking is needed. We are now in the realm of raw political force.
1) The CWG report will stand or fall on its own merits (or, likely, lack thereof). My (not at all legal) advice here is to attack the product, not the process.
2) Bear Gulch – It seemed to me at the time to be a technically righteous – if perhaps overly lurid – bust. Contractors have been rumored to be using undocumented immigrant labor for a while. But what I would want to know is how many similar busts happened in the last 10 years and why or why not? That’s how I would judge the Bear Gulch situation. Early returns indicate that this was, however justified, a highly unusual bust.
5) I’ve never heard of this specific situation either, but I have seen (rarely) severe breakdowns between the FSup and the districts. In the few instances I’ve seen this, it is almost always (as Sharon suggests) the result of personal conflicts that have only limited bearing on policy. We live in a world where many land management conflicts are automatically transposed into red v.blue death matches. Pro Tip: Don’t think that way; go outside instead.
2) I’d like to think that the $250K timesheet problem is rare.
From the complaint: In the CWG Report, the authors assert that DOE commissioned the report to advise the federal government on “climate science relevant for energy policymaking.”
Can the government have a “policy” on what science to use?
From the complaint: The report is replete with conclusions and advice aimed at policymakers, such as that the economic effects of carbon-dioxide-induced warming “are too small to justify aggressive abatement policy and that trying to ‘stop’ or cap global warming . . . would be worse than doing nothing.”31
This example clearly crosses the line and provides a policy recommendation. How much of this makes it an “advisory committee?” How about “replete?”
If you are trying to win, it makes sense to attack both the process and the results. If, because of FACA process violations, the report produced by this group can not be cited in support of EPA’s decision, it’s going to be hard to defend its decision as not being arbitrary and capricious.