Legislation

Fix Our Forests Act: Tracking Accurate Fuel Treatment Numbers and Increasing Transparency

by

This has been a sort of Holy Grail since way before I retired.

Now, we know that there are many ways of calculating, and in fact, thinking about wildfire risk, including many ways already researched by folks at the Rocky Mountain Research Station and elsewhere. Maybe the bill should pick one or make sure that both Secs pick the same one?

Also fuel treatment effectiveness, in fact many bucks were sent to CSU and NAU for fuel treatment effectiveness monitoring, which perhaps has devolved into this ReShape effort.. Plus there was the FS’s own Region 6 FTEM that we covered here and seems to have stopped.   I’d sure like to hear the history of all this.

Again, WUI, many different definitions.  Perhaps the bill should pick one?

What do you think of this approach?

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

SEC. 302. Accurate hazardous fuels reduction reports.

(a) Inclusion of hazardous fuels reduction report in materials submitted in support of the President’s budget.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—Beginning with the first fiscal year that begins after the date of enactment of this Act, and each fiscal year thereafter, the Secretary concerned shall include in the materials submitted to Congress in support of the President’s budget pursuant to section 1105 of title 31, United States Code, a report on the number of acres of Federal land on which the Secretary concerned carried out hazardous fuels reduction activities during the preceding fiscal year.

(2) REQUIREMENTS.—For purposes of the report required under paragraph (1), the Secretary concerned shall—

(A) in determining the number of acres of Federal land on which the Secretary concerned carried out hazardous fuels reduction activities during the period covered by the report—

(i) record acres of Federal land on which hazardous fuels reduction activities were completed during such period; and

(ii) record each acre described in clause (i) once in the report, regardless of whether multiple hazardous fuels reduction activities were carried out on such acre during such period; and

(B) with respect to the acres of Federal land recorded in the report, include information on—

(i) which such acres are located in the wildland-urban interface;

(ii) the level of wildfire risk (high, moderate, or low) on the first and last day of the period covered by the report;

(iii) the types of hazardous fuels activities completed for such acres, delineating between whether such activities were conducted—

(I) in a wildfire managed for resource benefits; or

(II) through a planned project;

(iv) the cost per acre of hazardous fuels activities carried out during the period covered by the report;

(v) the region or system unit in which the acres are located; and

(vi) the effectiveness of the hazardous fuels reduction activities on reducing the risk of wildfire.

(3) TRANSPARENCY.—The Secretary concerned shall make each report submitted under paragraph (1) publicly available on the websites of the Department of Agriculture and the Department of the Interior, as applicable.

(b) Accurate data collection.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 90 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary concerned shall implement standardized procedures for tracking data related to hazardous fuels reduction activities carried out by the Secretary concerned.

(2) ELEMENTS.—The standardized procedures required under paragraph (1) shall include—

(A) regular, standardized data reviews of the accuracy and timely input of data used to track hazardous fuels reduction activities;

(B) verification methods that validate whether such data accurately correlates to the hazardous fuels reduction activities carried out by the Secretary concerned;

(C) an analysis of the short- and long-term effectiveness of the hazardous fuels reduction activities on reducing the risk of wildfire; and

(D) for hazardous fuels reduction activities that occur partially within the wildland-urban interface, methods to distinguish which acres are located within the wildland-urban interface and which acres are located outside the wildland-urban interface.

(3) REPORT.—Not later than 2 weeks after implementing the standardized procedures required under paragraph (1), the Secretary concerned shall submit to Congress a report that describes—

(A) such standardized procedures; and

(B) program and policy recommendations to Congress to address any limitations in tracking data related to hazardous fuels reduction activities under this subsection.

Law Concepts for the Non-Lawyer: Rich J. on Preliminary Injunction Factors and the Balance of Equities

by

A big thank you to Rich J. for giving us not only an explanation of the factors involved in preliminary injunctions, but also some legal history on the concept of “the balance of equities.”
The background of this discussion was the litigation reform currently in the Fix our Forests Act. Rich J wrote:

With respect to section 121(a),

To obtain a preliminary injunction, a plaintiff must establish “[1] that he is likely to succeed on the merits, [2] that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, [3] that the balance of equities tips in his favor, and [4] that an injunction is in the public interest.” Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008).

The 9th Circuit at one time (and perhaps it still does this) would weigh all four factors, and if factors 2-4 strongly favored an injunction, a district court might issue one even if the likelihood of success on the merits was a close question. Section 121(a) would prevent courts from using that sort of overall balancing test in cases involving covered agency actions.

In theory this would save judicial time since the judge would only need to look at one factor. But if the merits question is a difficult one, this language would force a judge to spend more time analyzing it. I would guess, from a judicial resources standpoint, this language would be a wash. Indeed, in circuits outside the 9th, it might have little effect since I believe the other circuits used the overall balancing approach less (if at all).

With respect to section 121(b), language like this has appeared in various bills since (I think) the 1990s. I think it stems from proposed logging projects that would have adversely affected spotted owl habitat (in the short term) but (the agency argued) protect owl habitat from future fires (in the long term). Courts were not generally sympathetic to this argument, considering the long-term argument to be too speculative. Section 121(b) would force judges to take the long-term argument more seriously, although I agree that the new language would not itself dictate a particular outcome.

(I’m being deliberately vague using the the term “the agency” – I don’t remember if this issue first arose with FS, BLM, or both. It’s also possible that the owl originally at issue was the CASPO – so take all of this with salt!)

My additional question was “what does it mean to “balance equities”?

“Balance of equities” can indeed mean a variety of things!

So there is no fixed definition. The term “equity” is a vestige of English common law. Back in the medieval day most suits between private parties (think feuding nobles or merchants) were for money damages – these suits were termed to be suits “in law.” But not every private dispute can be solved with money damages.

For example, if Duke of Blowhard has occupied Earl of Windbag’s pasture, money damages don’t remedy the Earl’s harm – he doesn’t need the money, he needs that valley to graze his sheep. So the Earl would bring a suit “in equity” – a suit that seeks an injunction to force the Duke off the land claimed by the Earl. The court would then evaluate the facts and circumstances in a fairly free-form way and craft an order that could be a complete wiin for either party or something in between.

Judges evolved this “equity” idea slowly – in the middle ages documents (like land titles) were notoriously forgeable and violence was always near the surface. Balancing the interests of the Duke and the Earl was the best way for the judge to ensure that he would live to hear the next case (and not issue a ruling that would inadvertently disturb the King’s peace).

This idea – that two opposing litigants often both have a point – has survived to the present day as the “balance of equities” test. It is perhaps better characterized (and often is) as “balance of harms.” Given that, in order to obtain an injunction a plaintiff must already establish that it will suffer “irreperable harm,” the “balance of harms” test then requires the court to look at the injury to the government if the injunction is issued. But, as you suggest, this evaluation of harms is often at least somewhat subjective.

Here are a couple of cases illustrating the balance of equities.

https://casetext.com/case/earth-island-inst-v-muldoon-5

https://casetext.com/case/envtl-prot-info-ctr-v-carlson-1

In both cases, environmental plaintiffs establish that failure to issue an injunction against a veg management project will result in irreperable harm. (In logging cases, this isn’t hard to achieve – a tree, once made horizontal, cannot be made vertical again). But in the first case, the court holds that the harm of issuing an injunction (delaying a Park Service project that would make future firefighters in the area safer) clearly outweighed the recrational harm suffered by the plaintiffs.

In the second case, the court strikes the opposite balance. This is probably because the court also held that the Forest Service had attempted to use an inapplicable CE for the project at issue. The court seemed to believe that the Forest Service could well have achieved its stated safety aims with a smaller project that would have fit within the CE.

And re: the long-term issue, it’s not that courts don’t believe that fire will happen, but they (or at least those that are skeptical) do not think the relevant administrative record establishes the likelihood that an owl-habitat-destroying fire will occur in the project area. This is a special case of the more general difficulty the agencies have had in establishing that fuel treatment projects are cost-beneficial. I suspect (though cannot document) that courts will gradually move at least somewhat away from this position as large and costly fires continue to become more prominent in general public discourse.

Fix Our Forests V. Power Line Maintenance and CE

by

Some of you may remember the Environmental Analysis and Decisionmaking effort the FS conducted. At our Region 2 session, the power folks were concerned that if they had a power line that went through numerous Districts, they had to get approval separately and wondered if there were an easier way (say, a giant EIS). This seems particularly important as power lines (perhaps less so for transmission and more so for distribution, still..) can start wildfires, leading to litigation, possible bankruptcy and increasing charges to customers, let alone impacts of the wildfires themselves. Then there are the costs and health impacts of turning off power to communities in high winds.

Different sources have different estimates of how many transmission lines need to be replaced, e.g.

Over the next three decades, we estimate that upward of a hundred and forty thousand miles of transmission lines will come due for replacement. To simply upgrade this infrastructure and maintain the status quo would require an investment of more than seven hundred billion dollars, by our calculations.

Different sources have different estimates for how much new transmission is required for solar and wind buildout (and of course nuclear and geothermal might need more as well, depending on where they are built.)
According to this article NREL says

According to NREL’s 100% clean electricity study, these high load growth and high clean electricity futures would require building 91,000 miles of new high voltage interregional transmission lines by 2035. This appears unattainable when it takes 10 years on average to move a transmission line from conception to operation, and only 386 miles of high voltage transmission were built in 2021. The projects required are not even in the pipeline — the Needs Study says all regions are behind on utility planning for even the moderate/high scenarios, let alone the high/high scenarios.

Apparently the kind of growth desired is not happening, but I think given current uncertainties, transmission and distribution lines are very important.; hence their maintenance is very important.  It appears the the Fix our Forests Act tries to make maintenance easier.   It also says no new permanent roads. Does anyone think that this is not a good idea? Also I wonder if this CE should apply to BLM, NPS, FWS and DOD as well?  I know the new CEQ regs allow agencies to adopt others’ CEs but there seems to be work involved that may not be necessary. See these examples, DOI adopts FS and Navy’s CEs, FS adopts USGS CE. It doesn’t look like a great deal of work.. but why not obviate it?

 

 

SEC. 203. Vegetation management, facility inspection, and operation and maintenance relating to electric transmission and distribution facility rights-of-way.
(a) Hazard trees within 150 feet of electric power line.—Section 512(a)(1)(B)(ii) of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1772(a)(1)(B)(ii)) is amended by striking “10” and inserting “150”.

(b) Consultation with private landowners.—Section 512(c)(3)(E) of such Act (43 U.S.C. 1772(c)(3)(E)) is amended—

(1) in clause (i), by striking “and” at the end;

(2) in clause (ii), by striking the period and inserting “; and”; and

(3) by adding at the end the following:

“(iii) consulting with a private landowner with respect to any hazard trees identified for removal from land owned by the private landowner.”.

(c) Review and approval process.—Section 512(c)(4)(A)(iv) of such Act (43 U.S.C. 1772(c)(4)(A)(iv)) is amended to read as follows:

“(iv) ensures that—

“(I) a plan submitted without a modification under clause (iii) shall be automatically approved 120 days after being submitted; and

“(II) with respect to a plan submitted with a modification under clause (iii), if not approved within 120 days after being submitted, the Secretary concerned shall develop and submit a letter to the owner and operator describing—

“(aa) a detailed timeline (to conclude within 165 days after the submission of the plan) for completing review of the plan;

“(bb) any identified deficiencies with the plan and specific opportunities for the owner and operator to address such deficiencies; and

“(cc) any other relevant information, as determined by the Secretary concerned.”.

SEC. 204. Categorical exclusion for electric utility lines rights-of-way.
(a) Categorical exclusion established.—Forest management activities described in subsection (b) are a category of activities hereby designated as being categorically excluded from the preparation of an environmental assessment or an environmental impact statement under section 102 of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4332).

(b) Forest management activities designated for categorical exclusion.—The forest management activities designated under subsection (a) for a categorical exclusion are—

(1) the development and approval of a vegetation management, facility inspection, and operation and maintenance plan submitted under section 512(c)(1) of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1772(c)(1)) by the Secretary concerned; and

(2) the implementation of routine activities conducted under the plan referred to in paragraph (1).

(c) Availability of categorical exclusion.—On and after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary concerned may use the categorical exclusion established under subsection (a) in accordance with this section.

(d) Exclusion of certain areas from categorical exclusion.—The categorical exclusion established under subsection (a) shall not apply to any forest management activity conducted—

(1) in a component of the National Wilderness Preservation System; or

(2) on National Forest System lands on which the removal of vegetation is restricted or prohibited by an Act of Congress.

(e) Permanent roads.—

(1) PROHIBITION ON ESTABLISHMENT.—A forest management activity designated under subsection (b) shall not include the establishment of a permanent road.

(2) EXISTING ROADS.—The Secretary concerned may carry out necessary maintenance and repair on an existing permanent road for the purposes of conducting a forest management activity designated under subsection (b).

(3) TEMPORARY ROADS.—The Secretary concerned shall decommission any temporary road constructed for carrying out a forest management activity designated under subsection (b) not later than the date that is 3 years after the date on which the forest management activity is completed.

(f) Applicable laws.—Clauses (iii) and (iv) of section 106(a)(3) shall apply to forest management activities designated under subsection (b).

Fix Our Forests IV. Title II: Protecting Communities in the Wildland-Urban Interface

by

It wasn’t until I got to this section that I put some of the pieces together.

There are actually three pieces with three different sets of players.
I. Fireshed Center
Who: Every Agency Except EPA
Purpose: Predicting fire and smoke and informing people on the ground. Not clear how differing views on modeling would be incorporated, or exactly what “coordination” means.

Odd thing: streamline procurement processes and cybersecurity systems related to addressing wildland fire and smoke;
Could be interpreted: ease giving funds to our friends. Is cybersecurity a problem? Seems like arsonists are..

This strikes me as less of a traditional model of useful science (talk to users and develop appropriate) than “we’ll develop it without you and tell you you’re unscientific if you don’t use it.”
If you were on the Wildfire Commission, I’d be interested in whether this was noted or discussed in any way.

II. Fireshed Assessments

Who: Reps of States, Feds and Tribes and local governments if they ask.
Purpose: Figuring out what makes, for lack of a better word, a cohesive strategy for a given fireshed (what should be done where).

Here’s the info they’re using for fireshed assessments:

(A) MEMORANDUMS OF UNDERSTANDING.—In carrying out a fireshed assessment under this subsection, the Secretary concerned may enter into memorandums of understanding with other Federal agencies or departments, States, Indian Tribes, private entities, or research or educational institutions to improve, with respect to such assessment, the use and integration of—

(i) advanced remote sensing and geospatial technologies;

(ii) statistical modeling and analysis; or

(iii) any other technology or combination of technologies and analyses that the Secretary concerned determines will benefit the quality of information of such an assessment.

(B) BEST AVAILABLE SCIENCE.—In using the best available science for the fireshed assessments completed under subsection (a)(1), the Secretary concerned and Governor shall, to the maximum extent practicable, incorporate—

(i) traditional ecological knowledge from Indian Tribes;

(ii) data from State forest action plans and State wildfire risk assessments;

(iii) data from the Fireshed Registry maintained under section 103; and

(iv) data from other Federal, State, Tribal, and local governments or agencies.

What they’re saying is that the Fireshed Centers going to put a great deal of $ into developing a variety of tools, some of which won’t be online in time to help with Fireshed Assessments.
What’s also interesting to me is what role agencies like DOD and DHS have in this, which seems to be none. So why are they there in the Fireshed Center? Maybe it makes some sense to coherently separate new suppression technologies from more generalized “we think it would be helpful” modeling.

And so now we come to..
III. Community wildfire risk reduction program.

a) Establishment.—Not later than 30 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretaries shall jointly establish an interagency program to be known as the “Community Wildfire Risk Reduction Program” that shall consist of at least one representative from each of the following:

(1) The Office of Wildland Fire of the Department of the Interior.

(2) The National Park Service.

(3) The Bureau of Land Management.

(4) The United States Fish and Wildlife Service.

(5) The Bureau of Indian Affairs.

(6) The Forest Service.

(7) The Federal Emergency Management Agency.

(8) The United States Fire Administration.

(9) The National Institute of Standards and Technology.

OK, so this time they rounded up the usual federal agency suspects..

(b) Purpose.—The purpose of the program established under subsection (a) is to support interagency coordination in reducing the risk of, and the damages resulting from, wildfires in communities (including tribal communities) in the wildland-urban interface through—

(1) advancing research and science in wildfire resilience and land management, including support for non-Federal research partnerships;

(2) supporting adoption by Indian Tribes and local governmental entities of fire-resistant building methods, codes, and standards;

(3) supporting efforts by Indian Tribes or local governmental entities to address the effects of wildland fire on such communities, including property damages, air quality, and water quality;

(4) encouraging public-private partnerships to conduct hazardous fuels management activities in the wildland-urban interface;

Whoa.. I think we have plenty of people funded by current agencies who study wildfire resilience and land management. What is the role of these agencies in “supporting adoption of fire-resistant building codes, etc?” Is that technical assistance? What work is it to “encourage public-private partnerships?” Doesn’t doing WUI fuel treatment overlap a bit with Fireshed Assessments?

(5) providing technical and financial assistance targeted towards communities, including tribal communities, through streamlined and unified technical assistance and grant management mechanisms, including the portal and grant application established under subsection (c), to—

(A) encourage critical risk reduction measures on private property with high wildfire risk exposure in such communities; and

(B) mitigate costs for and improve capacity among such communities.

(c) Portal and uniform grant application.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—As part of the program established under subsection (a), the Secretaries and the Administrator of the Federal Emergency Management Agency shall establish a portal through which a person may submit a single, uniform application for any of the following:

(A) A community wildfire defense grant under section 40803(f) of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (16 U.S.C. 6592(f)).

(B) An emergency management performance grant under section 662 of the Post-Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act of 2006 (6 U.S.C. 761).

(C) A grant under section 33 of the Federal Fire Prevention and Control Act of 1974 (15 U.S.C. 2229).

(D) A grant under section 34 of the Federal Fire Prevention and Control Act of 1974 (15 U.S.C. 2229a).

(E) Financial or technical assistance or a grant under sections 203, 205, 404, 406, or 420 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5133, 5135, 5170c, 5172, 5187).

(2) SIMPLIFICATION OF APPLICATION.—In establishing the portal and application under paragraph (1), the Secretaries and the Administrator shall seek to reduce the complexity and length of the application process for the grants described in paragraph (1).

(3) TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE.—The Secretaries shall provide technical assistance to communities or persons seeking to apply for financial assistance through the portal using the application established under paragraph (1).

(d) Sunset.—The program established under this section shall terminate on the date that is 7 years after the date of enactment of this Act.

It seems like we might not need Community Navigators for specific communities if they did this simplification and standardization. Honestly, it’s not clear to me why Congress has to tell them to do this, they should probably have thought of it on their own. Again, this could use a formal evaluation.

SEC. 202. Community wildfire defense research program.
(a) In general.—The Secretaries shall, acting jointly, expand the Joint Fire Science Program to include a performance-driven research and development program known as the “Community Wildfire Defense Research Program” for the purpose of testing and advancing innovative designs to create or improve the wildfire-resistance of structures and communities.

(b) Program priorities.—In carrying out the program established under subsection (a), the Secretaries shall evaluate opportunities to create wildfire-resistant structures and communities through—

(1) different affordable building materials, including mass timber;

(2) home hardening, including policies to incentivize and incorporate defensible space;

(3) subdivision design and other land use planning and design;

(4) landscape architecture; and

(5) other wildfire-resistant designs, as determined by the Secretary.

(c) Community wildfire defense innovation prize.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—In carrying out the program established under subsection (a), the Secretaries shall carry out a competition through which a person may submit to the Secretaries innovative designs for the creation or improvement of an ignition-resistant structure or fire-adapted communities.

(2) PRIZE.—Subject to the availability of appropriations made in advance for such purpose, the Secretaries may award a prize under the competition described in paragraph (1), based on criteria established by the Secretaries and in accordance with paragraph (3).

(3) SCALE.—In awarding a prize under paragraph (2), the Secretaries shall prioritize for an award designs with the most potential to scale to existing infrastructure.

(d) Sunset.—The program established under subsection (a) shall terminate on the date that is 7 years after the date of enactment of this Act.

This seems like a great idea and to run it through JFSP.
****************
So for me, there are great concrete ideas here.. simplify, streamline, do research via JFSP, and there are fuzzier, with some potential overlaps with Fireshed Assessments. Then there is a potential agency clusterf with tasks of “advancing, supporting and encouraging.” Here’s my thing, if we can’t imagine what it would be like to put this in a person’s job description in terms of specific accomplishments, maybe it’s not ready for prime time.

I know that a way for R’s and D’s to come together is to hand out funding to preferred folks (pork-swapping) but I, perhaps naively, think that there are other things we could agree on that wouldn’t add unnecessarily to the deficit.

Fix Our Forests III. Litigation Reform

by

Help from the lawyers at TSW would be greatly appreciated for this section.

SEC. 121. Commonsense litigation reform.
(a) In general.—A court shall not enjoin a covered agency action if the court determines that the plaintiff is unable to demonstrate that the claim of the plaintiff is likely to succeed on the merits.

Maybe our legal friends can help us understand here, 1) what, if any criteria do judges use now? 2) Does this make extra work for judges (would they have to come to a pre-decision and do more work?)

(b) Balancing short-and long-term effects of covered agency action in considering injunctive relief.—As part of its weighing the equities while considering any request for an injunction that applies to a covered agency action, the court reviewing such action shall balance the impact to the ecosystem likely affected by such action of—

(1) the short- and long-term effects of undertaking such action; against

(2) the short- and long-term effects of not undertaking such action.

I don’t know how this will help.. some judges will think cutting trees is bad and wildfires won’t happen while the project is enjoined, and others think the other way. Judges, who are lawyers, tend to write really well, and will be describe quite eloquently how their decisions fit this requirement. Plus they make take some separation of powers umbrage, which I don’t think will help. Judges are, after all, necessarily human.

(c) Limitations on judicial review.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding any other provision of law (except this section), in the case of a claim arising under Federal law seeking judicial review of a covered agency action—

(A) a court shall not hold unlawful, set aside, or otherwise limit, delay, stay, vacate, or enjoin such agency action unless the court determines that—

(i) such action poses or will pose a risk of a proximate and substantial environmental harm; and

(ii) there is no other equitable remedy available as a matter of law; and

(B) if a court determines that subparagraph (A) does not apply to the covered agency action the only remedy the court may order with regard to such agency action is to remand the matter to the agency with instructions to, during the 180-day period beginning on the date of the order, take such additional actions as may be necessary to redress any legal wrong suffered by, or adverse effect on, the plaintiff, except such additional actions may not include the preparation of a new agency document unless the court finds the agency was required and failed to prepare such agency document.

(2) EFFECT OF REMAND.—In the case of a covered agency action to which paragraph (1)(B) applies, the agency may—

(A) continue to carry out such agency action to the extent the action does not impact the additional actions required pursuant to such paragraph; and

(B) if the agency action relates to an agency document, use any format to correct such document (including a supplemental environmental document, memorandum, or errata sheet).

This seems to be about “when courts determine that something needs to be done with the document, just fix it don’t do a new document (unless..)”. This seems, together with the 180 day agency requirement, it would help with “you didn’t do this”, FS issues new doc, “you didn’t do that” recursive court cases, which are probably just as annoying for judges and their workload as for the agency.

(d) Limitations on claims.—Notwithstanding any other provision of law (except this section), a claim arising under Federal law seeking judicial review of a covered agency action shall be barred unless—

(1) with respect to an agency document or the application of a categorical exclusion noticed in the Federal Register, such claim is filed not later than 120 days after the date of publication of a notice in the Federal Register of agency intent to carry out the fireshed management project relating to such agency document or application, unless a shorter period is specified in such Federal law;

(2) in the case of an agency document or the application of a categorical exclusion not described in paragraph (1), such claim is filed not later than 120 days after the date that is the earlier of—

(A) the date on which such agency document or application is published; and

(B) the date on which such agency document or application is noticed; and

(3) in the case of a covered agency action for which there was a public comment period, such claim—

(A) is filed by a party that—

(i) participated in the administrative proceedings regarding the fireshed management project relating to such action; and

(ii) submitted a comment during such public comment period and such comment was sufficiently detailed to put the applicable agency on notice of the issue upon which the party seeks judicial review; and

(B) is related to such comment.

The time limit seems useful since this says that the party filing the claim must have participated in the administrative proceedings and submitted a comment. This also streamlines the process such that it requires the plaintiffs to have specific claims related to previous concerns. This signals to the agency what the real issues are. Perhaps it would relieve plaintiffs of writing “kitchen-sinkery” complaints?

(e) Definitions.—ln this section:

(1) AGENCY DOCUMENT.—The term “agency document” means, with respect to a fireshed management project, a record of decision, environmental document, or programmatic environmental document.

(2) COVERED AGENCY ACTION.—The term “covered agency action” means—

(A) the establishment of a fireshed management project by an agency;

(B) the application of a categorical exclusion to a fireshed management project;

(C) the preparation of any agency document for a fireshed management project; or

(D) any other agency action as part of a fireshed management project.

(3) NEPA TERMS.—The terms “categorical exclusion”, “environmental document”, and “programmatic environmental document” have the meanings given such terms, respectively, in section 111 of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4336e).

“Fix Our Forests” Cleared the House Bipartisanly: Let’s Take Our Own Look I.

by

I was asked to take a look at the Fix our Forests Act, which just passed the House, from the NEPA perspective. Last week, I was on an NGO webinar in which the general feeling was that none of the NEPA provisions would last in the Senate. However, it appears that some deals were made in the House, as 55 Democrats supported it. I will leave it as a student exercise to map exactly what Districts those 55 represent. Now the news stories say that the President is, or perhaps more accurately, some members of the Administration who have been designated to speak for it on this issue, are against it. I did go off on a bit of an R&D tangent in this section, so there will be two sequential posts.

Let’s take a look at the bill ourselves, then we’ll look at the media coverage.

The Firesheds;

The bill would designate some areas as high-risk firesheds. These would include firesheds already identified in the Wildfire Crisis Strategy plus:

(B) shall be comprised of individual landscape-scale firesheds identified by the Secretary, in consultation with the Secretary of the Interior, as being in the top 20 percent of the 7,688 firesheds published by the Rocky Mountain Research Station of the Forest Service in 2019 for wildfire exposure based on the following criteria—

(i) wildfire exposure and corresponding risk to communities, including risk to structures and life;

(ii) wildfire exposure and corresponding risk to municipal watersheds, including tribal water supplies and systems; and

(iii) risk of forest conversion due to wildfire;

My take: for years, GAO has wanted to use models instead of political gimmees and/or random agency “give some to everyone” to distribute hazardous fuels bucks, so this seems like it might be useful.

Designation of these fireshed management areas, in and of itself, is not a NEPA decision; nice to be specific about that.

Fireshed Center

Yes, I know this came from the Wildfire Commission, and I know many people I respect worked hard on that. Nevertheless, it looks to me as if wildfires and fuel treatments are being managed fairly well by the FS, BLM, States, Tribes (and less so by FEMA). It looks to me like 1) other agencies sense big money and want to get in on it and 2) an opportunity for an interagency clusterf as in “too many cooks spoil the broth.” The only thing many of these agencies have in common is… not being involved in wildfire heretofore. Unfortunately I can’t remember why all these agencies were represented on the Wildfire Commission, but given they were, I suspect that they want seats at the table when the funding is handed out, and/or to reframe wildfire as being about them.. climate, national security, and so on.

The Directors of the Center are Forest Service, and instead of BLM, USGS. Now what could go wrong when a research agency is running something operational? I remember when R&D was taken from Interior agencies in the guise of efficiency. As I recall, it had a negative impact on the ability of “doing” agencies to get the research they felt they needed. Recently we had the example of NIH (a research agency) taking over from CDC (public health agency) on Covid response. I think that many of us following that issue remember that it did not go well. People in research organizations can have greater loyalty to funding their fave scientists than to the public interest.

Now, I am definitely a fan of coordination across agencies! I would like it if a USGS/FS team reviewed all proposals among their own folks, NSF, NIFA, NASA, and so on that are related to forests. Nevertheless, we are clearly making a reseach pool where field folks and their needs are not centered as they are often with FS R&D. Let’s face it, NSF NOAA and NASA have zillions of bucks already and are sharks in the pool, while the Joint Fire Sciences Program and FS R&D are minnows. Yes, “science” has politics imbedded in it.

Of course, as I recall there were only a few folks with wildland fire experience on the Commission, Kelly Martin and Neil Chapman. Interesting, now that I think about it, that no folks from the Union were on the Commission.

Let’s just do a thought experiment.. round up the same agencies for coordination but as oversight instead have a committee of wildland firefighters, FS researchers, and IMT folks including representation from States. That would subject research and tech development dollars to coordination, but with a clear filter of utility. I am generally concerned with the idea that the climate-military industrial-AI efforts will make wildland fire decisions even more opaque than they already.

Don’t worry little community, we have National Security eyes on everything you do so we can “protect you from wildfire”; oh, and we are giving that info to favored NGOs. Oh, and our drones operate off AI which is smarter than real human beings with experience, which we have displaced. After all, we’ve perfected our technology killing people. You have to trust that we know what’s best for you.

**************
Fireshed Registry

A publicly accessible website should provide a variety of useful information and be updated and folks can use it for CWPPs. Yes.

Shared Stewardship

With Tribes. Yes.

Fireshed Assessment

Seems useful, especially to communities, who may not understand if the FS has a POD plan or not, and should also deal with the prioritization of treatment question and make that more accessible and comprehensible to the public. And the local government gets to participate so this should tie nicely with local efforts with CWPPs and evacuation planning.

Emergency Fireshed Management Projects

2) FIRESHED MANAGEMENT PROJECTS.—The responsible official shall carry out the following forest and vegetation management activities as fireshed management projects under this section:

(A) Conducting hazardous fuels management activities.

(B) Creating fuel breaks and fire breaks.

(C) Removing hazard trees, dead trees, dying trees, or trees at risk of dying, as determined by the responsible official.

(D) Developing, approving, or conducting routine maintenance under a vegetation management, facility inspection, and operation and maintenance plan submitted under section 512(c)(1) of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1772(c)(1)).

(E) Removing trees to address overstocking or crowding in a forest stand, consistent with the appropriate basal area of the forest stand as determined by the responsible official.

(F) Using chemical or re-seeding and planting treatments to address insects and disease and control vegetation competition or invasive species.

(G) Any activities recommended by an applicable fireshed assessment carried out under section 105.

(H) Any activities recommended by an applicable community wildfire protection plan.

(I) Any combination of activities described in this paragraph.

It seems like the bill uses existing categorical exclusions:

(i) IN GENERAL.—Fireshed management projects carried out under this section shall be considered authorized projects under the following categorical exclusions:

(I) Section 603(a) of the Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003 (16 U.S.C. 6591b(a)).

(II) Section 605(a) of the Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003 (16 U.S.C. 6591d(a)).

(III) Section 606(b) of the Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003 (16 U.S.C. 6591e(b)).

(IV) Section 40806(b) of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (16 U.S.C. 6592b(b)).

(V) Section 4(c)(4) of the Lake Tahoe Restoration Act (Public Law 106–506; 114 Stat. 2353).

(VI) Subject to subsection (d) of section 40807 of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (16 U.S.C. 6592c) in the same manner as authorized emergency actions (as defined in subsection (a) of such section) are subject to such subsection.

(ii) USE OF EXPEDITED AUTHORITIES.—In carrying out a fireshed management project, the Secretary shall apply a categorical exclusion under clause (i)—

(I) in a manner consistent with the statute establishing such categorical exclusion; and

(II) in any area—

(aa) designated as suitable for timber production within the applicable forest plan; or

(bb) where timber harvest activities are not prohibited.

So here’s the kicker. The bill expands the existing CEs to 10K acres. from 3000 or 4500. It also changes the Lake Tahoe legislative CE

Here’s the original text of the Lake Tahoe CE

(4) AVAILABILITY OF CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION FOR CERTAIN FOREST MANAGEMENT PROJECTS.—A forest management activity conducted in the Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit for the purpose of reducing forest fuels is categorically excluded from the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) if the forest management activity—
(A) notwithstanding section 423 of the Department of the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2009 (division E of Public Law 111–8; 123 Stat. 748), does not exceed 10,000 acres, including not more than 3,000 acres of mechanical thinning;
(B) is developed—
(i) in coordination with impacted parties, specifically including representatives of local governments, such as county supervisors or county commissioners; and
(ii) in consultation with other interested parties; and
(C) is consistent with the Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit land and resource management plan.

Fix our Forests would amend that to:

3) LAKE TAHOE RESTORATION ACT AMENDMENTS.—Section 4(c)(4)(C) of the Lake Tahoe Restoration Act (Public Law 106–506; 114 Stat. 2353) is amended—

(A) by striking “Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit”; and

(B) by inserting “applicable to the area” before the period at the end.

This is puzzling because the project still has to be conducted in the LBTMU, so why wouldn’t it be consistent with the LTBMU? Someone out there must understand this.

If we look at the text of the LBTMU legislation, we could wonder why wouldn’t that CE apply to other areas, with perhaps lower economics and fewer high profile politicians? Is that environmental justice or climate justice? You don’t get your fuel treatments as easily as Lake Tahoe folks, because…

.. on to Fix our Forests II

Horse Gulch Fire and Middleman Project: More Montana Late Litigation

by

This is HFHC’s take. What I think is interesting..

The Environmental Assessment for the Middleman Project totaled 584 pages and the project took over a year and a half from scoping to assessment to decision.

A year and a half doesn’t seem that long to me for 53K acres (and 584 pages).

Two years after the project was approved, two anti-forestry groups sued to stop the project, claiming it violated federal law and in particular the National Environmental Policy Act. The litigants focused on the adequacy and detail of the 584-page Environmental Assessment.

According to the Frontier Institute, instead of a lengthy court battle over the adequacy of the environmental analysis, in April 2024 the Forest Service agreed to a settlement in which it made huge concessions to reduce the scale of the Middleman Project, forgoing almost all of the planned timber harvest and temporary road construction. The Forest Service even agreed to pay a bonus of $39,000 of taxpayer dollars to the anti-forestry groups to cover attorney fees!

Now the Frontier Institute may not be objective source of info.. are settlements and payments filed somewhere so we can go look for ourselves?  I would like to see the results of litigation including the settlement documents and payments, posted somewhere by the FS.  Also note the litigation started “two years after projects were approved”.  Jon said in an earlier comment on the Pintler Face project, that the reason for lateness was that not enough environmental attorneys were available due to former President Trump’s administration policies.  FWIW, I didn’t find that a compelling argument.  Perhaps that’s also the case here?

Below is the entire HFHC post.

 

Writing recently on X (formerly Twitter), Frontier Institute President and CEO Kendall Cotton observed that Montana’s Horse Gulch Fire is burning in a portion of Helena-Lewis and Clark National Forest that was slated for landscape-scale thinning and controlled burns, that is, before anti-forestry litigation dramatically scaled back the planned effort.

 

According to an analysis by the Frontier Institute, Middleman Project planned active forest management on 53,131 acres to mitigate wildfire risks, improve forest health, enhance wildlife habitats and reduce carbon emissions. The U.S. Forest Service’s Environmental Assessment for the project noted that a substantial proportion of the project area contains accumulations of hazardous fuels that “pose a risk to the communities of York and Nelson (including outlying developed subdivisions of El Dorado Heights and American Bar), as well as to public and firefighter safety in the event of a wildfire.”

The proposed Middleman Project would have addressed these risks via a combination of active forest management strategies, including logging and prescribed burns, conducted on 53,131 acres out of the total 141,799 acres included in the project.

Ultimately, the Environmental Assessment for the Middleman Project totaled 584 pages and the project took over a year and a half from scoping to assessment to decision. The Forest Service determined the Middleman Project “will not significantly affect the quality of the human environment, nor will it significantly impact any resource areas,” meaning that it did not require preparation of an even lengthier Environmental Impact Statement.

Two years after the project was approved, two anti-forestry groups sued to stop the project, claiming it violated federal law and in particular the National Environmental Policy Act. The litigants focused on the adequacy and detail of the 584-page Environmental Assessment.

According to the Frontier Institute, instead of a lengthy court battle over the adequacy of the environmental analysis, in April 2024 the Forest Service agreed to a settlement in which it made huge concessions to reduce the scale of the Middleman Project, forgoing almost all of the planned timber harvest and temporary road construction. The Forest Service even agreed to pay a bonus of $39,000 of taxpayer dollars to the anti-forestry groups to cover attorney fees!

Just as the Forest Service warned, the area was ripe for wildfire. To date the Horse Gulch Fire has burned almost 15,000 acres, threatening nearby communities and tragically claiming the life of a firefighter. To date, the wildfire has cost an estimated $6 million to contain.

Horse Gulch Fire

In celebrating the settlement, one of the anti-forestry litigants proclaimed, “We can now be happy that grizzly, elk and lynx habitat will not be sacrificed to subsidize the timber industry in the Big Belt Mountains northeast of Helena.”

As the Horse Gulch Fire continues to burn, it’s unclear how much grizzly, elk and lynx habitat has been sacrificed in a wildfire that possibly could have been prevented through active forest management.

Bipartisan Fix Our Forests Act Introduced

by

I found this on Thomas Hochman’s TwitX feed , and I’m always interested in bipartisan stuff, so went to Rep. Peters (D) press release.

The D’s all look like Californians.

Original cosponsors include Representatives Tony Cardenas (D-CA-29), John Curtis (R-UT-3), Ami Bera (D-CA-6), Pete Stauber (R-MN-8), Jimmy Panetta (D-CA-19), Tom McClintock (R-CA-5), Jim Costa (D-CA-21), Tom Tiffany (R-WI-7), John Duarte (R-CA-13), and James Moylan (R-GU).  

Interesting roundup of folks supporting..

The Fix Our Forests Act is supported by the National Congress of American Indians, Bipartisan Policy Center, the National Association of Counties, the Property and Environment Research Center (PERC), American Forests, the Evangelical Environmental Network, Edison Electric Institute, the Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership, MegaFire Action, the American Conservation Coalition Action, the National Wild Turkey Federation, the American Forest Resource Council, the American Loggers Council, the Arkansas Forestry Association, Associated California Loggers, the Boone and Crockett Club, the Dallas Safari Club, the Forest Landowners Association, the Forest Resources Association, the Hardwood Federation, Potlach Deltic, and Rayonier.

Not the usual suspects on this list include the Bipartisan Policy Center and Megafire Action.

  • Simplify and expedite environmental reviews for forest management projects in the highest risk areas
  • Promote federal, state, tribal and local collaboration on wildfire mitigation while encouraging engagement with landowners and communities
  • Recognize the role that natural fire plays in healthy ecosystems – which is backed by the best available scientific information – while acknowledging Tribal sovereignty in providing for practices like cultural burning
  • Support wildfire resiliency for local communities by focusing on the built environment, innovative technologies and modernized standards
  • Deter frivolous litigation that delay essential forest management projects
  • Create a framework for interagency collaboration to advance wildfire and land management R&D, provide technical and financial assistance to communities, and support efforts by tribes and other governments to address the effects of wildland fire on communities, including property damages, air, and water quality
  • Create a federal-state-tribal framework for prioritizing projects in the forests at highest risk of catastrophic wildfire
  • Encourage the adoption of state-of-the-art science and techniques for federal land managers, including innovative methods to sequester carbon dioxide
  • Ensure that utilities are able to better work with federal partners harden their rights-of-way while mitigating hazards
  • Strengthen tools like Good Neighbor Authority – which presently excludes Tribal Nations – and Stewardship Contracting

The bill may not be going anywhere but we can still discuss the ideas in it.. which might be cannibalized and used elsewhere.  I don’t have time to go through it today but Hochman’s TwitX piqued my interest. Maybe someone has an analysis they would like to share and discuss?

I’d just like to focus on the Fireshed Center for now.. (sorry about the formatting)

SEC. 102. FIRESHED CENTER.
6 (a) ESTABLISHMENT.—
7 (1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary, acting
8 through the Chief of the Forest Service and the Sec9 retary of the Interior, acting through the Director of
10 the U.S. Geological Survey, shall jointly establish a
11 Fireshed Center (hereinafter referred to as the
12 ‘‘Center’’) comprised of at least one career rep13 resentative from each of the following:
14 (A) The Forest Service.
15 (B) The Bureau of Land Management.
16 (C) The National Park Service.
17 (D) The Bureau of Indian Affairs.
18 (E) The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
19 (F) The U.S. Geological Survey.
20 (G) The Department of Defense.
21 (H) The Department of Homeland Secu22 rity.
23 (I) The Department of Energy.
24 (J) The Federal Emergency Management Agency
1 (K) The National Science Foundation.
2 (L) The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
4 (M) The National Aeronautics and Space
5 Administration.
6 (N) The National Institute of Standards
7 and Technology.
8 (2) DIRECTOR.—The Secretary, acting through
9 the Chief of the Forest Service and the Secretary of
10 the Interior, acting through the Director of the U.S.
11 Geological Survey, shall jointly appoint a Director of
12 the Center, who—
13 (A) shall be an employee of the U.S. Geological Survey or the Forest Service;
15 (B) shall serve an initial term of not more
16 than 7 years; and
17 (C) may serve one additional term of not
18 more than 7 years after the initial term de19 scribed in subparagraph (B).
20 (3) ADDITIONAL REPRESENTATION.—The Sec21 retary, acting through the Chief of the Forest Serv22 ice and the Secretary of the Interior, acting through
23 the Director of the U.S. Geological Survey, may
24 jointly appoint additional representatives of Federal
1 agencies to the Center, as the Secretaries determine
2 necessary.
3 (b) PURPOSES.—The purposes of the Center are to—
4 (1) comprehensively assess and predict fire in
5 the wildland and built environment interface through
6 data aggregation and science-based decision support
7 services;
8 (2) reduce fragmentation and duplication across
9 Federal land management agencies with respect to
10 predictive service and decision support functions re11 lated to wildland fire;
12 (3) promote interorganizational coordination
13 and sharing of data regarding wildland fire decision 14 making;
15 (4) streamline procurement processes and cybersecurity systems related to addressing wildland
17 fire;
18 (5) provide publicly accessible data, models,
19 technologies, assessments, and fire weather forecasts
20 to support short- and long-term planning regarding
21 wildland fire and post-fire recovery; and
22 (6) maintain the Fireshed Registry established
23 under section 103.

No one can be against “interagency coordination” but I can’t help but wonder if some of this will distance the modelers from the people on the ground.  I also note that procurement processes and cybersecurity systems will be streamlined, but why not streamline… hiring?  Maybe some or all of this comes from the Commission Report?  How can the agencies make this more effective than what we have currently and not a cluster? Perhaps this is just the beginning of the discussion that needs to happen.

 

 

 

The latest and greatest NEPA requirements

by
Image: Scout Environmental

For any NEPA nerds out there, the last few years have seen an unprecedented tug-of-war over the law’s requirements.  In 2020, the Trump Administration put its stamp on the CEQ regulations implementing NEPA, the first substantial editing of its procedural requirements since 1978.  Upon taking office, the Biden Administration began to undo many of the changes.  On October 7, 2021, CEQ finalized the first phase of its changes to the 2020 Regulations, in which the agency made a handful of targeted revisions.  On June 3, 2023, President Biden signed into law the Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2023 (FRA), which made a number of changes in the law itself, summarized here as follows:

  • Codify that environmental impact statements should include discussion of reasonably foreseeable effects of a proposed action, reasonably foreseeable effects that cannot be avoided, and a reasonable range of alternatives to the proposed action. (Sec. 102(2)(C); 42 U.S.C. § 4332(2)(C)).
  • Clarify requirements for determining whether to prepare an environmental document and the appropriate level of NEPA review. (Sec. 106; 42 U.S.C. § 4336).
  • Clarify the roles and responsibilities of lead agencies and cooperating agencies, including designation of such agencies. (Sec. 107(a); 42 U.S.C. § 4336a(a)).
  • Promote development of a single environmental document. (Sec. 107(b); 42 U.S.C. § 4336a(b)).
  • Set page limits and deadlines for environmental impact statements and environmental assessments. (Sec. 107(e) and (g); 42 U.S.C. § 4336a(e) and (g)).
  • Direct agencies to develop procedures for how, under Federal agency supervision, project sponsors may prepare environmental assessments and environmental impact statements. (Sec. 107(f); 42 U.S.C. § 4336a(f)).
  • Provide time lengths and circumstances for when agencies can rely on programmatic environmental documents without additional review. (Sec. 108; 42 U.S.C. § 4336b).
  • Establish a process for Federal agencies to use another agency’s categorical exclusions. (Sec. 109; 42 U.S.C. § 4336c).
  • Require CEQ to conduct a study of online and digital technologies to help provide for efficient reviews and improve public accessibility and transparency. (Sec. 110; 42 U.S.C. § 4336d).
  • Define terms used in NEPA, including cooperating agency, environmental document, lead agency, major Federal action, participating Federal agency, programmatic environmental document, and special expertise. (Sec. 111; 42 U.S.C. § 4336e).

On July 31, 2023, CEQ published proposed Phase 2 Revisions to the agency’s NEPA implementing regulations.   On May 1, 2024, the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) published its final Bipartisan Permitting Reform Implementation Rule (Final Rule).  These will be the NEPA requirements for the foreseeable future (that would be until January, 2025 anyway).  The Federal Register Notice with the final regulations may be found here.

Nossaman is providing a series of reviews of various aspects of the changes that have been made.  They provided this initial overview of what they think is noteworthy (their perspective seems usually be that of a private party):

  • Changes in the definition of “major federal action”;
  • Changes to the way federal agencies approach NEPA’s threshold question of whether the effects of a major federal action are “significant”;
  • Codifying environmental justice and climate change as among the effects that must be examined during the NEPA process;
  • Updated requirements relating to public engagement;
  • Codification of CEQ’s 2023 greenhouse gas guidance;
  • Additional flexibility for federal agencies to establish new categorical exclusions;
  • Codification of CEQ’s longstanding practice of relying on mitigated findings of no significant impact (FONSI);
  • Providing clarity on the requirements for mitigation to form the basis of a mitigated FONSI;
  • Removal of language added by the 2020 Regulations that sought to limit the ability of third parties to challenge NEPA determinations; and
  • Adoption of provisions intended to speed the NEPA review process.

The second installment, discussing the first two bullets, is found here (others will follow).  One of the topics it addresses is the criteria for “significance” that would require an EIS.  The new regulation mostly affirms past practices, but it explicitly recognizes a situation that may arise for “restoration” proposals on public lands.  In determining significance:

Agencies may also consider the extent to which an effect is adverse at some points in time and beneficial in others (for example, in assessing the significance of a habitat restoration action’s effect on a species, an agency may consider both any short-term harm to the species during implementation of the action and any benefit to the same species once the action is complete).  However, agencies shall not offset an action’s adverse effects with other beneficial effects to determine significance …

The Preamble warns:

In some circumstances, an effect may be significant due to the harm during one period of time regardless of the benefit at another.  For example, if implementation of a habitat restoration action may extirpate a species from the area, then an agency could not reasonably rely on long-term habitat improvements resulting from the action to determine that the overall effect to the species is not significant.

(I would like to say this is just an extreme example to make the point that if short term effects may be significant, you can’t discount them based on long-term benefits to avoid preparing an EIS.  However, they follow this with a comparison to mitigation, where it IS possible to offset adverse effects with beneficial mitigation to the point that they are no longer significant.)

E&E News Story on the Westerman Bill Hearing : Focus on the 10 AM and Out Idea

by
Chris French, the Forest Service’s deputy chief, on Capitol Hill on Wednesday. Natural Resources Committee/YouTube via E&E News

The Westerman bill is a compendium of policy ideas from various sources, some of which have been floating around for a long time. I think this E&E News story did a pretty good job of focusing on some of the main themes of the hearing.

I don’t think the 10am idea is going anywhere. I fully respect individuals who disagree, and I hope they move on to more detailed ideas for “being more careful.” If this Xprize or other technological innovations are successful, people will have to choose for every ignition and what will inform that choice? Human safety would seem to be less of a factors with unpersonned aircraft and so perhaps that will change the possibilities and choices of suppression as well.

What can we learn from fire with benefits that worked vs. those that didn’t work? How can we reimburse people who suffer when they don’t work? When wildfires are likely to hit private land, should landowners have a voice? It seems to me that there are many questions to be worked out. Perhaps with forest plan amendments or other pre-planning. Here at TSW we have seen a variety of people with concerns (Sarah Hyden and Michael Rains) and even Jon and I agree on the utility of plan amendments, which is fairly rare. Anyway, I think there’s a conversation around “if not 10 AM and out, how can FWB (fire with benefits) proponents build trust with impacted communities?”; a conversation that would be more complex than “10 AM or not.” Maybe the appropriate Congressional committee (perhaps not this one) can examine why FEMA seems to be uniquely unsuccessful at getting relief to impacted individuals after the Hermits Peak/Calf Canyon escaped prescribed fires, as reported on in detail by The Hotshot Wakeup. I know that fire folks and academics are working on the trust issue.

Meanwhile, there’s a big story from NPR KRCC this morning on wildfire smoke health risks..

New research shows that the health consequences of wildfire smoke exposure stretch well beyond the smoky days themselves, contributing to nearly 16,000 deaths each year across the U.S., according to a National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) analysis released in April. The analysis warns that number could grow to nearly 30,000 deaths a year by the middle of the century as human-driven climate change increases the likelihood of large, intense, smoke-spewing wildfires in the Western U.S. and beyond.

“This really points to the urgency of the problem,” says Minhao Qiu, a researcher at Stanford University and the lead author. “Based on our results, this should be one of the policy priorities, or the climate policy priority, of the U.S., to figure out how to reduce this number.”

Another analysis, led by researchers from Yale University, finds that the human death toll every year from wildfire smoke could already be near 30,000 people in the U.S. Deaths from cardiovascular disease, respiratory problems, kidney disease, and mental health issues all rise in the days and weeks after smoke exposure.

Together, the studies point to an underappreciated threat to public health, says Yiqun Ma, a researcher at Yale and an author of the second study.

“It’s a call to action,” she says—outlining the real, and significant, human stakes of failing to rein in further human-caused climate change.

Wildfire smoke is bad for people but fire is good for forests. How best to manage the trade-offs? How will climate change and the new technologies above balance out in terms of new future “large intense smoke-spewing wildfires”? How does planned prescribed fire, compared to Wildfire With Benefits fit into that? I don’t know, but I’m fairly certain health researchers don’t know either. Interestingly, it looks like the Wildland Fire Commission did not include folks from CDC?.

Anyway, here’s what Marc Heller reported on this.

Fire suppression debate
Westerman’s draft combines many ideas that haven’t advanced far in Congress, in some cases because Democrats won’t support them, but in others because they haven’t been attached to legislative vehicles that can get through the congressional logjam. The farm bill, for instance, covers the Forest Service but has languished for months on unrelated issues.

The quick extinguishing of wildfires has become a rallying point for some Republican lawmakers but would face hurdles with forest policy groups. It would place the requirement on drought-inflicted areas and on places the Forest Service has designated among the most at-risk landscapes, for instance.

One witness at the hearing, Kimiko Barrett, a member of the Wildland Fire Mitigation and Management Commission, said the 24-hour proposal goes against recommendations the panel made in a report to Congress several months ago.

“Calls to return to a 24-hour suppression policy are antithetical to allowing more beneficial fire, supersede local decisionmaking and are in direct opposition to the commission’s recommendations,” said Barrett, a senior wildfire researcher at Headwaters Economics in Bozeman, Montana.

********

The chilly response to the fire suppression provision contrasted to more positive views of other aspects of Westerman’s draft, which calls for creation of “firesheds” that would receive expedited thinning and prescribed fire to reduce the threat of wildfire, as well as updates to shared stewardship arrangements that allow the Forest Service to partner with outside groups for forest improvement projects.

Westerman, the only professional forester in Congress, said the draft resulted from years of work and bipartisan cooperation on a number of issues.

A proposal to streamline consultation with the Fish and Wildlife Service on endangered species issues has some Democratic support as well, and the community-based wildfire risk reduction programs and research have broad appeal.

In addition, the proposal would incorporate 10 of the nearly 150 recommendations the federal Wildland Fire Mitigation and Management Commission made to Congress several months ago and adopt other policies that align with the commission’s findings — although it veers from that commission on the scope of fire suppression.

For some reason, Westerman said, forests have become politically divisive even though healthy forests benefit everyone through cleaner air and water, recreational areas and economic rewards of the wood products industry.

“It’s something we should all work toward,” Westerman said, adding that he took a bipartisan delegation to his alma mater, the forestry school at Yale University, last year to see how researchers manage its lands in Connecticut.

“People realize this shouldn’t be a divisive issue,” Westerman said.

French said a number of provisions in the draft that have been proposed in earlier legislation align with Forest Service goals. In the case of expedited environmental reviews for forest projects, he said the agency would want to clarify Westerman’s intent.

But in exchanges with lawmakers, French also acknowledged that tasks such as endangered species consultations, litigation and environmental reviews sometimes add substantial costs to forest management projects.

**************
Like I said, since this bill is a lengthy mix of different ideas, and the folks testifying had many interesting things to say (also in their written testimony), I’ll be posting in depth about some of the testimony and my observations.