TSW is in search of a contributor who could track and write about legislation in our areas of interest.
Here’s the link to the House version, if someone has a side-by-side please post in the comments.
RVCC sent out a link to the markup on the Senate bill, many thanks to them and to the Brumidi Group for their analysis.
I really liked how Fulcer at the Brumidi group linked to all the proposed amendments. I got a flavor of the personalities and interests of each Senator.
“The bill saw further changes through a series of adopted amendments – over 30 of which were filed by members of the committee. Here’s the full scope of amendments submitted:
Bennet #1: establishes a pilot program to improve wildfire satellite monitoring.
Bennet #2: creates an emergency forest watershed program at USDA, which would fund projects local NFS watershed protection projects after natural disasters.
Bennet #3: adds a new title to outline the use of funds from cooperative funds agreement.
Bennet#4: prevents the Secretary of Agriculture from terminating Forest Service employees or consolidating offices that “carry out wildfire response, fuels management, prescribed fire, and other fire-related land management activities” until the completion of the GAO study required by section 304 of the bill. It also prohibits RIF-related adverse actions and deferred resignations, while creating a special hiring authority for fire-qualified employees who were let go from the Forest Service earlier this year.
Bennet #5: requires USDA and Interior to submit a report to Congress on pending forest management projects with completed environmental reviews.
Bennet #6: expands public collaboration on the development of emergency fireshed management projects in accordance with streamlined environmental review authorities.
Booker #1: allows temporary variances to the terms and conditions of grazing permits.
Booker #2: removes the litigation reform section (121) from the bill.
Durbin #1: strengthens the Forest Service’s Urban and Community Forestry program by codifying more detailed congressional justification language, expanded public collaboration, and a dedicated office and funding.
Fischer #1: expands USDA’s Emergency Conservation Program to include a catchall to fund the restoration of farmland or conservation structures “requiring an immediate response.” Also clarifies that wildfires “not caused naturally, if the damage is caused by…spread…due to natural causes” in both the Emergency Conservation Program and the Emergency Forest Restoration Program.
Klobuchar #1: adds a study on wildfire smoke in cooperation with EPA.
Klobuchar #2: offers slightly altered text for section 116 (Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration Program), the main change being authorization the program through 2034 (instead of 2031).
Lujan #1: adds definitions and additional functions to the Wildland Fire Intelligence center; establishes Regional Wildland Fire Research Centers at universities,
Lujan #2: authorizes grants and agreements for ecosystem restoration activities, including native plant revegetation. Also codifies claim eligibility for reforestation for damage caused by the Hermit’s Peak fire.
Lujan #3: creates a local contractor preference for hazardous fuels mitigation projects.
Lujan #4: authorizes a local cost-share waiver for wildland fire recovery projects.
Lujan #5: adds the General Services Administration as a “covered agency” for the Public-Private Wildfire Technology Deployment and Demonstration Partnership and expands the public-private partnership function of the pilot.
McConnell #1: directs a USDA partnership with the National Institute of Food and Agriculture to study White Oak health and preservation.
Schiff #1: establishes a Unified Disaster Assistance Intake and Process System at FEMA to streamline the administration of disaster assistance.
Schiff #2: requires a National Academy of Sciences study on the impacts of Fireshed management projects on communities and wildlife.
Schiff #3: authorizes funding throughout the bill, including $3.6 billion through 2023 for landscape-scale restoration activities, $100 million for NEPA reviews, $30 million for the Water Source Protection Program, and more.
Smith #1: adds tribal data sovereignty guardrails and a tribal representative to the board of through the Wildland Fire Intelligence Center. Also adds compacts to Tribal Forest Protection Management processes and a definition of cultural burning to Section 131 (Prescribed Fire).
Smith #2: requires tribal consultation when chemical treatments are used near/would impact tribal lands under Section 104 (Shared Stewardship), prior to the development of Fireshed assessments under section 105, and in exercise of emergency authorities under Section 106.
Thune #1: increases percentage of Firesheds designated for management to 25% if Black Hills Spruce is present.
Tuberville #1: adds the text of the Disaster Reforestation Act, which would provide relief for private forest landowners who experience losses of uncut timber from natural disasters.
Warnock #1: adds state forestry agencies to the Wildland Fire Intelligence Center board of directors.
Welch #1: clarifies that the 10,000 acre cap for categorical exclusions in Section 106 only applies to western projects, while retaining the 3,000 acre cap for projects in the east.
Welch #2: creates a prohibition on Reductions-in-Force at the Forest Service, prevents the bill’s provisions from taking effect until the workforce is restored to Biden-era staffing levels, and invalidates the federal hiring freeze.
Welch #3: authorizes the creation of National and Regional Agroforestry Centers to improve agroforestry practices, with authority to award up to $10,000 million in annual grant funding through 2030.
Vote Results
The ANS passed by a vote of 18-5, with Senators Bennet (D-CO), Smith (D-MN), Durbin (D-IL), Booker (D-NJ), and Schiff (D-CA) voting against passage.
Chair Boozman submitted a manager’s amendment, which included Bennet #1 and #2; Booker #1; Fischer #1; Klobuchar #1 and #2; Schiff #1 and #2; Lujan #1, #2, #3, and #5; McConnell #1; Smith #1; Thune #1; and Warnock #1. The manager’s amendment was adopted by voice vote.
Tuberville #1 and Lujan #4 were withdrawn by their sponsors. Bennet #6, Schiff #3, and Booker #2 were voted down along party lines. No other amendments were offered or considered during the markup.
What Comes Next?
Now that the bill has been favorably reported out of committee, it stands to potentially move to the Senate floor later this year. If passed on the floor, the Senate will move to conference to resolve differences with the House, which passed House Natural Resource Committee Chair Westerman’s version of the bill early this year. The question then becomes: To what extent does the final conferenced bill reflect each chamber’s version of FOFA?”
*******************
I’m interested in what folks think of the amendments… I’m not a fan of Schiff #2. I think in general we need to stop asking groups of scientists what communities think and ask communities directly. My own experience with NAS is that they round up some scientists and come up with something, which generally no one pays attention, to except to use to ask for more money for the science community. I’m sure there are exceptions, but after years of environmental analysis, monitoring and disagreements of all scientific kinds, I don’t see a random bunch of scientists coming up with anything particularly illuminating.
I don’t understand what Thune is asking for here but it appears to be a very niche thing to put in an Act. This is what happens when a timber industry rep has the ear of a US Senator.
I don’t know.. I didn’t know there was a Black Hills Spruce until I looked it up. I don’t think it’s unusual for elected officials to be influenced by various industries and NGOs. An interesting thing is that two states, Colorado and California have two D Senators, one of whom is a cosponsor of the bill and one who voted against it..
Padilla and Schiff
Hickenlooper and Bennet
Of course, voting against it in committee could be seen as performative… since it would pass out of committee anyway.
I agree that it is not unusual to be heavily influenced by various industries and NGO’s but does that make it right? I guarantee Thune and his staff didn’t dream that up on their own. I think I am fairly knowledgeable on what is going on with the Black Hills NF and I don’t even understand what they are trying to accomplish. Somehow, they want to log more spruce. Which industry only takes if they have to, but they are getting desperate.
I also agree it is interesting that in a time when the two parties can’t seem to agree on anything, there is some agreement on this. I think it comes down to political calculation. Is it better to be seen as appearing supportive of addressing the wildfire situation, or pushing back on the limitations of public input and essentially neutering NEPA?
When I first read it, I thought that they wanted to make sure that the designated areas included spruce because spruce are rare and so need more attention to protection from wildfire. Maybe the Senator’s Office would respond to a question from you as a citizen? It would be interesting to hear.
The intention is to log more spruce. Which I agree sounds odd.
That’s a good suggestion. I’ll give it a try!
Thune’s amendment is not about logging more spruce. It’s about moving South Dakota up in the fireshed priority rankings, i.e., above other states, without saying “South Dakota” or “Black Hills National Forest.” A perk of being Senate majority leader is that no other senator will call him out on this cute subterfuge.
Ah, ok. So it’s a play to get more funding? I can see that!