Legislation

Federal Lands Litigation – update through May 18, 2026

by

 

FOREST SERVICE

Request to clarify the remedy in Defenders of Wildlife v. U. S. Forest Service (W.D. North Carolina)

On April 16, in a case in which the court vacated the Fish and Wildlife Service’s biological opinion for the revised Nantahala-Pisgah National Forest Plan’s effects on four bat species (discussed here), the government asked the court to clarify that it had NOT vacated the revised forest plan.  On April 29, plaintiffs in the case asked the court to explicitly vacate the revised forest plan.  The article includes links to both motions.

  • Black Hills NF graphite drilling

New lawsuit:  Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe v. U. S. Forest Service (D. South Dakota)

On April 30, nine Native American tribes in South Dakota, North Dakota and Nebraska sued the Forest Service in a bid to stop exploratory drilling for graphite within a sacred area of the Black Hills, near lands privately owned by tribes.  This was the second lawsuit against this decision; the first was discussed here.  It is near a meadow called Pe’Sla by the tribes (also known as Reynolds Prairie), which is used by the tribes for tribal ceremonies, prayer and youth camps year-round. The lawsuit alleges a NEPA categorical exclusion was improper because the project includes drilling, road work and other activity near Pe’ Sla, and also that the Forest Service violated the National Historic Preservation Act’s consultation requirements.

TRO granted

On May 5, the district court granted a temporary restraining order applicable to both lawsuits.   The drilling had been partially completed.

Decision withdrawn

On May 7, the mining company sent a letter to the Forest Service asking for the project’s plan of operations and decision memo to be withdrawn. The letter says the company “does not intend” to file another plan of operations for exploratory drilling at the site, and it will conduct reclamation.

New lawsuit

At the end of April, the Gallatin Wildlife Association, Alliance for The Wild Rockies, Native Ecosystems Council, and Council on Wildlife and Fish filed a lawsuit against logging and burning on more than 5,600 acres between Hyalite and South Cottonwood canyons, south of Bozeman, Montana, an area important to both recreation and wildlife.  Issues include the effect on lynx of the delineation of the wildland-urban interface and removal of threatened whitebark pine saplings, as well as concerns about grizzly bears and goshawks.  Plaintiffs claim violations of NEPA, NFMA, ESA, HFRA and the APA.

Decision rescinded

On April 30, the Cooke City Fuels Project on the Custer Gallatin National Forest was withdrawn by the Forest Service after a lawsuit (discussed here).  This case involved the scientific basis for “daylight thinning” around whitebark pine trees, as well as effects of the Project on grizzly bears and lynx.

New lawsuit:   WildEarth Guardians v. U. S. Department of the Interior (D. D.C.)

On May 12, WildEarth Guardians filed a sweeping lawsuit against the Forest Service, BLM, and U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service for failing to respond to 15 separate FOIA requests dating back to 2020. The withheld documents cover environmental analyses for logging projects, livestock grazing permits, and authorizations to harm protected wildlife.  The plaintiff is seeking court orders requiring the agencies to comply with the Freedom of Information Act and release the requested records.  The press release includes a link to the complaint.

BLM

Court decision regarding Oregon Natural Desert Association v. Raby (D. Oregon)

ONDA and the other plaintiffs, Bird Alliance of Oregon and Defenders of Wildlife, won their lawsuit against the BLM for allowing grazing in research natural areas (discussed here).  However, when they then sought more than $1.1 million in attorney fees and other expenses under the Equal Access to Justice Act, the court found that the BLM position was “substantially justified,” so that plaintiffs were not entitled to a payment from the government.  The court pointed to the lack of clarity in the “legal landscape surrounding the threshold question” where the precedent that did exist “was not uniform, with courts employing multiple approaches.”

New lawsuit:  (D. Oregon)

On April 27, the Oregon Natural Desert Association, Great Old Broads for Wilderness and Great Basin Resource Watch filed a complaint against exploratory drilling for a potential lithium mine near the Oregon-Nevada border.  The operation would span 7,200 acres of public land and include the disturbance of 73 acres created by 168 drill sites over a period of five years.  It also would include the construction of 22 miles of new access routes, and require 18,000 gallons of groundwater per day. Plaintiffs allege that the BLM violated the National Environmental Policy Act by failing to prepare a full environmental impact statement for the project, failing to adequately analyze its impacts, and downplaying those impacts while failing to adequately assess mitigation measures proposed by backers.  Issues include greater sage-grouse and Lahontan cutthroat trout, as well as groundwater pumping that, plaintiffs argue, put vital springs used by ranchers and tribal communities in jeopardy.

Amended complaint in Conserve Southwest Utah v. U. S. Department of the Interior (D. D.C.)

On May 11, the seven plaintiffs in this case amended their complaint to include violations of the Endangered Species Act with regard to the effects of highway construction on the threatened Mojave Desert tortoise in the Red Cliffs National Conservation Area.  The press release includes a link to the amended complaint.

Court decision in Cascadia Wildlands v. U. S. Bureau of Land Management (D. Oregon)

On May 14, the district court agreed that the BLM used “inaccurate and misleading” data regarding the age and size of trees it was allowing to be felled and instead, evaluated “stands” of trees with average sizes and ages estimated. While the BLM resource management plan protects trees larger than 40 inches in diameter or established prior to 1850, “Nowhere are individual protected trees mentioned, nor are the measures that BLM will take to identify and protect them” the court said about this Project.  The agency also “failed to take a hard look at the Project’s effects on old-growth trees that BLM is explicitly required to retain.”  It therefore violated both FLPMA and NEPA, and the court vacated the decision.  The article includes a link to the opinion.  (This article discusses what was happening on the ground in the absence of old growth protective measures.)

ENDANGERED SPECIES

New lawsuit:  Western Watersheds Project v. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (D. Oregon)

On May 13, Western Watersheds Project and WildEarth Guardians sued over the Fish and Wildlife Service’s delay in making a decision about whether to list the pygmy rabbit as threatened or endangered.  In January 2024, the Service issued a finding that the petition “presented substantial information” that listing the pygmy rabbit might be warranted. That finding triggered a 12-month period to issue another finding, but the Service has not issued one, now more than two years later.  Pygmy rabbits are found in healthy sagebrush habitat, and according to the complaint, “On the extensive federal lands where much sagebrush steppe occurs, these discretionary policies often allow grazing, energy development, rights-of-way, and vegetation manipulation that, together, significantly reduce sagebrush habitat.”  The complaint is here.

Settlement in Center for Biological Diversity v. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (D. Oregon)

The parties have agreed to settle this listing delay case involving a newt found only in Crater Lake in the national park.  Under the agreement, USFWS must produce a finding regarding listing by Oct. 7 this year.

Court decision in Pesticide Action Network, North America v. Williams (N. D. California)

On May 13, the district court granted partial summary judgment to Pesticide Action Network North America, Center for Biological Diversity and Center for Food Safety, in their challenge to the Fish and Wildlife Service’s 2022 final biological opinion on national reregistration of the pesticide malathion.  The court found that data was too flawed to support the conclusion that its use would not cause jeopardy to any of more than 1500 species or adversely affect critical habitat.   The opinion was arbitrary because “the ’usage’ analysis underlying every determination relies on arbitrary species’ range estimates and/or pesticide usage data.”  The plaintiffs have asked for a new biological opinion within nine months and interim protections while the process moves forward.  The article has a link to the opinion.  Malathion is used by the Forest Service for mosquito control and plantations, and here’s their take on malathion.

OTHER

Court decision in Ambler v. Flathead Conservation District (9th Circuit)

On April 17, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court in holding that in 1911, Montana ceded, and the United States accepted, exclusive jurisdiction over privately owned land located within the boundaries of Glacier National Park.  This meant that in this case, the State could not enforce the Montana Natural Streambed and Land Protection Act, when the Defendants began constructing a home on a highly visible bank of McDonald Creek, excavating the stream bank to create a pad for construction without obtaining the necessary permit.  The property remains subject to federal law, but “the federal government has essentially abdicated their duty by failing to make and publish rules and regulations adequate for the care, protection and management of the resource on private inholdings in Glacier National Park,” according to an FCD attorney.  The article includes a link to the opinion.

New lawsuit:  Conservation Law Foundation v. Trump (D. D.C.)

On May 4, the Conservation Law Foundation, Natural Resources Defense Council, the Center for Biological Diversity and a marine scientist sued the secretaries of Interior and Commerce, and the National Marine Fisheries Service for opening the 3.1-million-acre Northeast Canyons and Seamounts National Monument off the coast of Cape Cod to commercial fishing. They specifically challenge a presidential “Dismantling Proclamation” and a change in federal regulations that reversed actions taken by the Biden Administration to restore the protections.  They argue that the Antiquities Act “delegates authority to the President to create national monuments,” but “does not give the President the opposite power to revoke those protections.”  They also allege the issuance of the regulation violated NEPA and the APA.

New lawsuit (D. D.C.)

Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility has filed a lawsuit against the Department of the Interior for failing to disclose records pertaining to Freedom 250, a private entity.  Reports have surfaced that Interior Department funds are being directed to Freedom 250 through the National Park Foundation and that Freedom 250 is being used to sell access to the president, hide donors, and use taxpayer funds to pay for propaganda.  PEER filed multiple Freedom of Information Act requests seeking documents in February related to Interior’s role in the creation, funding, and operation of Freedom 250, but Interior has refused to turn over any documents.

LEGISLATION NOTES

The U.S. House of Representatives voted 224-200 to pass the Farm, Food and National Security Act of 2026, known as the Farm Bill.   Included in the bill is the latest “Cottonwood fix” (now referred to as the Fir Act).  Here is our most recent extended discussion of how reinitiating ESA consultation on forest plans would no longer be required when a new species is listed that could be affected by the plan. Prior legislation has failed the legislative gauntlet; maybe this one has more momentum.

Federal legislation has been proposed to transfer land in Grant Parish from the Kisatchie National Forest (about 140,000 acres, about 24% of the national forest) to the local Grant Parish Police Jury (similar to county commissioners) and School Board for the purpose of economic development.  It has been opposed by the the Grant Parish Police Jury after public backlash.

JUST BECAUSE

“A crappy situation turned into a happy ending thanks to the quick teamwork of the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and some helpful neighbors in northwestern Arizona.  One morning, the BLM’s Kingman Field Office got an unusual report: a wild burro had fallen into a septic tank in an RV park along the Oatman Highway in Golden Valley, Arizona. This area is known for the Black Mountain Herd Management Area (HMA) and home to the largest herd of wild and free roaming burros in the country.”

Breaking news – Republicans break federal land management

by

 

(from Inside Higher Ed)

FUTURE LITIGATION?

On April 16, the U. S. Senate voted 50-49 to invoke the Congressional Review Act to overturn a 20-year ban on mining on more than 225,000 acres of the Superior National Forest upstream of the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness.  The President is expected to sign it.  Under the CRA, federal agencies must submit new regulations to Congress before they can take effect.  If Congress disapproves by a simple majority, the agency can never issue another rule “in substantially the same form.”

This is the first time Congress has used the CRA to overturn a management decision on national forest land, although the ban on mining was in a public land order mineral withdrawal. by the Secretary of the Interior. The title of the joint resolution is:

“H.J.Res.140 – Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Bureau of Land Management relating to Public Land Order No. 7917 for Withdrawal of Federal Lands; Cook, Lake, and Saint Louis Counties, MN.”

While this resolution describes the Secretarial Order as a “rule,” federal land management agencies have never considered their land management decisions to be regulations, and so have never submitted them for congressional review, apparently leaving them vulnerable to review now.   Last year, Congress employed the CRA to invalidate several BLM resource management plans.  We discussed that here.

During the CRA’s first 20 years of existence, it was used only once. But President Trump and Republicans have worked to dramatically expand and weaponize the CRA.  It appears the current Congress sees no limits to what kinds of agency decisions it may review and reverse.  It’s not hard to imagine the chaos this could cause for federal land management, especially with regard to land management plans.  Plans revised (and presumably amendments) after the passage of the CRA in 1996 would be vulnerable.  Another example, Republican Senator Mike Lee of Utah has proposed a CRA resolution to eliminate the resource management plan for the Grand Staircase Escalante National Monument.

Potential litigants are circling, one referring to the situation as “extraordinarily legally questionable.” Our prior discussion touched on the question of how a lawsuit might arise.

“The U.S. Forest Service is 100 percent opposed to mining in this watershed,” said Marc Fink, director of the Public Lands Law Center and a senior attorney for the Center for Biological Diversity. In 2016, the Forest Service determined that a sulfide-ore copper mine, such as the one Twin Metals is proposing, could cause “extreme” and “serious and irreplaceable harm” to the area. “This clearly goes against the science and the administration’s own agencies,” Fink said.

 

Friday Round-up and Important Correction

by
From NY Times virtual fencing story

Important Error Correction. I was gently reminded by a retiree that I was wrong about who made the appeals decisions, it was the DRF.  Also I didn’t mention that OGC was at the table.  I don’t know that every RO has an OGC office in the same building, but it was very important for our work to have them close at hand.  We had several acting RF’s through time, and they had different levels of interest/experience in the kinds of projects, legal requirements and potential pitfalls.  Again, also substantial variation in personalities. My memory is that if the Forest Supe (Appeal Reviewing Officer) and the RART Team came up with something and OGC raised concerns, the DRF would tend to go with what OGC said, because, after all Appeals were basically pre-litigation checks, in a sense.  I also didn’t point out that objections are different from appeals (or at least were intended to be) so I’m not sure how they are currently handled and whether that varies by Region.

A variety of interesting things..

1. F&AM Director to Stay On. The Hotshot Wakeup reported that the F&AM Director for the Forest Service, Sarah Fisher has agreed to stay on for the FY26 Fire Season to help with transition. According to THW, she is widely respected in the wildfire community.

2. Story in NY Times About PERC’s Virtual Fencing
Via PERC you can get the story for free. Great videos.

Virtual fencing is infinitely adjustable. Ranchers can set precise limits on pastures to keep cows away from sensitive areas like streams or sagebrush. They can move cows around more often to prevent overgrazing, which stresses ecosystems. It can also make cows eat less-palatable invasive species such as cheatgrass and medusahead.

The collars also let ranchers monitor where their cows are, which has many benefits. A big one is reducing conflict with predators. If a rancher sees on their phone that cows are bunched up, it could be a sign that a wolf or grizzly is lurking. Tracking also makes it easier to help a cow or calf that is injured. If ranch hands notice that an animal has died, they can remove the carcass before it attracts predators.

Wild animals can get stuck in wire fences and die, or they can just plow through. One season, Mr. Taylor replaced the same section of fence three times. Now, with virtual fences, he can simply leave gates open.

Mr. Graves is leveraging another perk of virtual fences: They can’t burn down. Last September, wildfire burned nearly 100,000 acres of the Bighorn Mountains, destroying thousands of miles of fence. He’s encouraging private landowners and the United States Forest Service to replace burned fences with virtual fences, and to use virtual fences to keep cattle off the burned landscape while it recovers.

3. Permitting Reform Current Drama
I thought Shawn Regan’s piece in City Journal on the current permitting reform efforts was well done. One of the current disagreements is over permit certainty..

To address those concerns, Westerman recently added an amendment addressing permit certainty. The provision would prohibit federal agencies from revoking, suspending, or otherwise interfering with already-approved permits. The amendment was a direct response to the Trump administration’s efforts to cancel previously permitted wind and solar projects, a campaign that has alarmed clean energy developers and their Democratic allies.

But permit certainty ought to appeal to Republicans too. Republicans have their own scars from the Obama and Biden years, when projects like the Keystone XL pipeline were approved, canceled, revived, and re-canceled again depending on who occupied the White House. A durable permitting regime that protects approved projects from the whims of future administrations should, in theory, attract bipartisan support. Yet some Republicans now worry that the provision too significantly hamstrings Trump’s ability to target disfavored renewable projects—illustrating just how difficult it is to build a coalition around neutral rules.

4. Podcast: Sara Ghafouri and the Legal Frontlines of Forestry
i always like Nick Smith’s interviews as he tends to ask the same questions I would ask, plus others that I would never think of, but have interesting answers.

AFRC General Counsel Sara Ghafouri provides an in depth look at the legal landscape shaping active forest management in the West. Sara shares what is new in AFRC’s Legal Program, recent legal wins, and the biggest challenges and opportunities facing forest management over the next year. She also breaks down how AFRC decides when to engage in litigation, how changes in the courts are influencing outcomes, and why it is essential to bring workers, local governments and community voices into the courtroom.

5. ABA podcasts on forest law.
Here’s a link, it sounds like it is going to be a series. I think their idea is that there are more laws for public forests than private ones, so started there.

We are pleased to be joined by Professor John Leshy, author of Our Common Ground and the preeminent scholar on the history of America’s public lands. Public land management is the cornerstone of forest law in the United States, and Professor Leshy’s insights into its scope and evolution are invaluable in helping to piece together the fundamentals of forest law.

Forest law presents a daunting barrier of entry to the uninitiated. Forest law is composed of and delimited by a broad swath of statutes, regulations, and norms, all shaped by a diverse array of stakeholders. The implications of forest management decisions are vast and varied, ranging from the hyperlocal—with decisions concerning timber harvest and wildfire mitigation bearing directly on the continued prosperity and existence of some rural communities—to the planetary, as climate change intensifies and the health of the world’s forests grows ever further imperative to slow its most devastating effects. Complicating things further, today, forest law in the United States is undergoing rapid changes at the federal level.

6. Salvage Speed Record in Idaho

“This was a collective effort,” said Kyle Laven, Supervisory Forester and GNA Program Manager for the USFS, Boise National Forest. “From start to finish, this sale was prepared and awarded in six weeks; immediately after the categorical exclusion was signed, which was an immense turnaround in itself.”

On Oct. 22, just 22 days after the fire was contained, the GNA Rock Fire Salvage sale on the Boise National Forest sold 224,000 board feet to Tamarack Resort. Harvest work on both the IDL sale and the complementary GNA sale is wrapping up this week and will resume in the spring.

Definition of Emergency in IIJA; Who Voted For It, and Legal Requirements

by

Recently there’s been some discussion about the use of ESD and whether it is really an emergency, and whether interpretations are due to the Trump Admin.  Now I recall Chris French at some hearing or other telling Congress that they were using that authority during the Biden Admin in the Sierra (that is the mountain range, not the Forest although the Forest is included). I also posted about it last spring when the Sec expanded the area, here and here. In the latter, we even had a great discussion (thanks to legal friends) about injunctive relief standards (!).

Our more partisan friends are asking us to believe that it was good and appropriate for the FS under Sec. Vilsack to use this authority; it was wrong for the current Sec to expand those acres.  It seems to me that there are two legal issues then..

Did the Sec inappropriately expand?

Is the FS following the law?

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

But maybe not.. I’m not the lawyer here. Fortunately, the lawyers among us can weigh in.

So let’s go back to the statute that gave ESDs as we understand them, the IIJA.

As folks know, I am not the greatest at Congressional workings, so please correct me if I got this wrong. Here is the Senate vote on IIJA. Note that the nays were all R’s.

The sponsor in the House appeared to be Pete DeFazio (D OR). I’m not too sure about their last votes on the Senate bill and what they mean, but when it left the House it was a very one-sided vote by Ds. Now it’s possible that the ESD language was an amendment required to get some R votes in the Senate and maybe someone out there knows whether that’s the case.  But that goes back to “if you are on record as voting for something, does that count as support in any way?”

Often here at TSW we can fall into holes unnecessarily by mixing up plain English, technical terms of various sciences and practitioners, and what statutes, regs, and case law say something means. Think of the many definitions of species, for example. In this case, “emergency” is defined in the statute.

Here’s my summary.

Sec of Ag gets to make determination (both recent Secs have).

If a project is covered, there only needs to be two alternatives (action and no action)

EA or EIS is done, following rules. Public comment specifically required.

No objection period.

Helpful suggestion to judges about PIs (in my experience, judges resist suggestions from Congress, but we’ll see).

Here is the text of the relevant section, sorry about any formatting issues.  It’s short and relatively easy to understand.

SEC. 40807. EMERGENCY ACTIONS.
(a) DEFINITIONS.—In this section:
(1) AUTHORIZED EMERGENCY ACTION.—The term ‘‘authorized emergency action’’ means an action carried out pursuant to an emergency situation determination issued under this section to mitigate the harm to life, property, or important natural or cultural resources on National Forest System land
or adjacent land.
(2) EMERGENCY SITUATION.—The term ‘‘emergency situation’’ means a situation on National Forest System land for which immediate implementation of 1 or more authorized emergency actions is necessary to achieve 1 or more of the following results:
(A) Relief from hazards threatening human health and safety.
(B) Mitigation of threats to natural resources on National Forest System land or adjacent land.

Note that “mitigation of threats” not the same as the “immanent threat” language in the 2001 Roadless Rule.

(3) EMERGENCY SITUATION DETERMINATION.—The term ‘‘emergency situation determination’’ means a determination made by the Secretary under subsection (b)(1)(A).
(4) LAND AND RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN.—The term ‘‘land and resource management plan’’ means a plan developed under section 6 of the Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974 (16 U.S.C. 1604).
(5) NATIONAL FOREST SYSTEM LAND.—The term ‘‘National Forest System land’’ means land of the National Forest System (as defined in section 11(a) of the Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974 (16 U.S.C. 1609(a))).
(6) SECRETARY.—The term ‘‘Secretary’’ means the Secretary of Agriculture.
(b) AUTHORIZED EMERGENCY ACTIONS TO RESPOND TO EMERGENCY SITUATIONS.—
(1) DETERMINATION.—
(A) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary may make a determination that an emergency situation exists with respect to National Forest System land.

(B) REVIEW.—An emergency situation determination shall not be subject to objection under the predecisional administrative review processes under part 218 of title 36, Code of Federal Regulations (or successor regulations).
(C) BASIS OF DETERMINATION.—An emergency situation determination shall be based on an examination of the relevant information.

That seems fairly vague.  Conceivably any forest on which wildfire could be a threat to human health and safety or natural resources.

(2) AUTHORIZED EMERGENCY ACTIONS.—After making an emergency situation determination with respect to National Forest System land, the Secretary may carry out authorized emergency actions on that National Forest System land in order to achieve reliefs from hazards threatening human health and safety or mitigation of threats to natural resources on National Forest System land or adjacent land, including through—
(A) the salvage of dead or dying trees;
(B) the harvest of trees damaged by wind or ice;
(C) the commercial and noncommercial sanitation harvest of trees to control insects or disease, including trees already infested with insects or disease;
(D) the reforestation or replanting of fire-impacted areas through planting, control of competing vegetation, or other activities that enhance natural regeneration and restore forest species;
(E) the removal of hazardous trees in close proximity to roads and trails;
(F) the removal of hazardous fuels;
(G) the restoration of water sources or infrastructure;
(H) the reconstruction of existing utility lines; and
(I) the replacement of underground cables.
(3) RELATION TO LAND AND RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLANS.—Any authorized emergency action carried out under paragraph (2) on National Forest System land shall be conducted consistent with the applicable land and resource management plan.
(c) ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS.—
(1) ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OR ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT.—If the Secretary determines that an authorized emergency action requires an environmental assessment or an environmental impact statement pursuant to section 102(2) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4332(2)), the Secretary shall study, develop, and describe—
(A) the proposed agency action, taking into account the probable environmental consequences of the authorized emergency action and mitigating foreseeable adverse environmental effects, to the extent practicable; and
(B) the alternative of no action.
(2) PUBLIC NOTICE.—The Secretary shall provide notice of each authorized emergency action that the Secretary determines requires an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement under paragraph (1), in accordance with applicable regulations and administrative guidelines.
(3) PUBLIC COMMENT.—The Secretary shall provide an opportunity for public comment during the preparation of any environmental assessment or environmental impact statement under paragraph (1).
(4) SAVINGS CLAUSE.—Nothing in this subsection prohibits the Secretary from—
(A) making an emergency situation determination, including a determination that an emergency exists pursuant to section 218.21(a) of title 36, Code of Federal Regulations (or successor regulations); or
(B) taking an emergency action under section 220.4(b) of title 36, Code of Federal Regulations (or successor regulations).
(d) ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW OF AUTHORIZED EMERGENCY ACTIONS.—An authorized emergency action carried out under this section shall not be subject to objection under the predecisional administrative review processes established under section 105 of Determination. Study.the Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003 (16 U.S.C. 6515) and section 428 of the Department of the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2012 (16 U.S.C. 6515 note;
Public Law 112–74).
(e) JUDICIAL REVIEW OF EMERGENCY ACTIONS.—A court shall not enjoin an authorized emergency action under this section if the court determines that the plaintiff is unable to demonstrate that the claim of the plaintiff is likely to succeed on the merits.
(f) NOTIFICATION AND GUIDANCE.—The Secretary shall provide notification and guidance to each local field office of the Forest Service to ensure awareness of, compliance with, and appropriate use of the authorized emergency action authority under this section.

House and Senate Hearings Tomorrow: A Plethora of Federal Lands Bills

by

House:

On Tuesday, December 2, 2025, at 10:15 a.m., in room 1324 Longworth House Office Building, the Committee on Natural Resources, Subcommittee on Federal Lands will hold a legislative hearing on the following bills:

 

  • H.R. 4671 (Rep. Harder), “Ensuring Casualty Assistance for our Firefighters Act”
  • H.R. 4931 (Rep. Murphy of NC), “National Park System Long-Term Lease Investment Act”
  • H.R. 5063 (Rep. Kiggans), “Safe Beaches, Safe Swimmers Act”
  • H.R. 5103 (Rep. McGuire), “Make the District of Columbia Safe and Beautiful Act”
  • H.R. 5254 (Rep. Bell), “Gateway Partnership Act of 2025”

The hearing notice, memo and witness testimony can be found on the committee’s repository here.

Senate:

The hearing will be held on Tuesday, December 2, 2025, at 3:00 p.m. in Room 366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington, D.C.

The purpose of this hearing is to receive testimony on the following bills:

  • S.90, to prohibit the use of funds by the Secretary of the Interior to finalize and implement certain travel management plans in the State of Utah (Lee);
  • S. 91, to improve Federal activities relating to wildfires, and for other purposes (Cortez Masto);
  • S. 140, to address the forest health crisis on the National Forest System and public lands, and for other purposes (Barrasso);
  • S. 451, to amend the Mineral Leasing Act to eliminate an administrative fee, and for other purposes (Daines);
  • S. 764, to provide for the designation of certain wilderness areas, recreation management areas, and conservation areas in the State of Colorado, and for other purposes (Bennet);
  • S. 790, to redesignate the National Historic Trails Interpretive Center in Casper, Wyoming, as the “Barbara L. Cubin National Historic Trails Interpretive Center” (Lummis);
  • S. 888, to designate certain land administered by the Bureau of Land Management and the Forest Service in the State of Oregon as wilderness and national recreation areas, to withdraw certain land located in Curry County and Josephine County, Oregon, from all forms of entry, appropriation, or disposal under the public land laws, location, entry, and patent under the mining laws, and operation under the mineral leasing and geothermal leasing laws, and for other purposes (Wyden);
  • S. 902, to require the Secretary of Agriculture and the Secretary of the Interior to establish a standard for the response time to wildfire incidents, and for other purposes (Sheehy);
  • S. 945, to amend the Smith River National Recreation Area Act to include certain additions to the Smith River National Recreation Area, to amend the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act to designate certain wild rivers in the State of Oregon, and for other purposes (Merkley);
  • S. 1005, to provide for conservation and economic development in the State of Nevada, and for other purposes (Cortez Masto);
  • S. 1175, to amend section 6903 of title 31, United States Code, to provide for additional population tiers, and for other purposes (Daines);
  • S. 1195, promote conservation, improve public land management, and provide for sensible development in Pershing County, Nevada, and for other purposes (Rosen);
  • S. 1228, to amend the Public Lands Corps Act of 1993 to modify the cost-sharing requirement for conservation projects carried out by a qualified youth or conservation corps, and for other purposes (Risch);
  • S. 1319, to withdraw certain Federal land in the Pecos Watershed area of the State of New Mexico from mineral entry, and for other purposes (Heinrich);
  • S. 1341, to amend the Colorado Wilderness Act of 1993 to add certain land to the Sarvis Creek Wilderness, and for other purposes (Hickenlooper);
  • S. 1321, to amend the Strom Thurmond National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1999 to provide for the transfer of the Moab site to Grand County, Utah, and for other purposes (Curtis);
  • S. 1363, to provide for greater cooperation and coordination between the Federal Government and the governing bodies and community users of land grant-mercedes in New Mexico relating to historical or traditional uses of certain land grant-mercedes on Federal public land, and for other purposes (Luján);
  • S. 1468, to amend the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act to provide that Alexander Creek, Incorporated, is recognized as a Village Corporation under that Act, and for other purposes (Sullivan);
  • S. 1476, to amend the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act to designate certain segments of the Gila River system in the State of New Mexico as components of the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System, to provide for the transfer of administrative jurisdiction over certain Federal land in the State of New Mexico, and for other purposes (Heinrich);
  • S. 1737, to designate and expand wilderness areas in Olympic National Forest in the State of Washington, and to designate certain rivers in Olympic National Forest and Olympic National Park as wild and scenic rivers, and for other purposes (Murray);
  • S. 1860, to direct the Secretary of Agriculture to convey to Brian Head Town, Utah, certain National Forest System land (Lee);
  • S. 2016, to exchange non-Federal land held by the Chugach Alaska Corporation for certain Federal Land in the Chugach Region, and for other purposes (Murkowski);
  • S. 2033, to direct the Comptroller General of the United States to conduct a study on existing programs, rules, and authorities that enable or inhibit wildfire mitigation across land ownership boundaries on Federal and non-Federal land (Gallego);
  • S. 2042, to provide lasting protection for inventoried roadless areas within the National Forest System (Cantwell);
  • S. 2262, to amend the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 to clarify the nature of public involvement for purposes of certain rulemaking, and for other purposes (Barrasso);
  • S. 2273, to amend the Act of July 10, 1890, to modify certain provisions relating to the disposal of public land in the State of Wyoming for educational purposes (Lummis).

The hearing will be webcast live on the Committee’s website, and an archived video will be available shortly after the hearing concludes. Witness testimony will be available on the website at the start of the hearing.

*********

I haven’t been following these but I did think it of interest (at least to Coloradans) that our two Senators are proposing different bills both with some Wilderness involved. Anyone who is following any of these please comment, and or link to analyses.

A Window Into How Sausage is Made: Proposed Amendments to FOFA From Senate Ag Committee

by

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.

Accurate, Transparent Fuel Accomplishment Reporting- What’s in the Fix our Forests Act

by

Andy brought up the long-term problematic question of fuels reporting, the old double-counting question and so on.  I thought I’d post what’s in FOFA as I think that will take care of it. Perhaps this is the first entry in the Peoples’ Database, provided by Congress, who like us, would like to see where the bucks are going. I’m curious as to what folks think of this approach. Any formatting issues are mine, if you want the original formatting check out Sec.302 of FOFA.

It kind of makes me wonder why Int and Ag didn’t self-organize to do something like this on their own.  Rather than moving the FS to Interior, I think much more doable would be to identify the top 20 interdepartmental annoyances and coordinate them, similar to what the Admin is doing in wildfire.

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

EC. 302. Accurate hazardous fuels reduction reports.

(a) Definitions.—In this section:

(1) FEDERAL LAND.—The term “Federal land” means any land under the jurisdiction of—

(A) the Secretary; or

(B) the Secretary of the Interior.

(2) HAZARDOUS FUELS REDUCTION ACTIVITY.—

(A) IN GENERAL.—The term “hazardous fuels reduction activity” means any vegetation management activity to reduce the risk of wildfire, including mechanical treatments, grazing, and prescribed burning.

(B) EXCLUSION.—The term “hazardous fuels reduction activity” does not include the provision or execution of a contract to carry out an activity described in subparagraph (A).

(b) Materials submitted in support of President’s budget.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—Beginning with the first fiscal year that begins after the date of enactment of this Act, and annually 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 describing the number of acres of Federal land on which the Secretary concerned carried out hazardous fuels reduction activities during the preceding fiscal year, as determined using—

(A) the methodology of the Secretary concerned in effect on the day before the date of enactment of this Act; and

(B) the methodology described in paragraph (2).

(2) REQUIREMENTS.—For purposes of a 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 that 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 that acre during the applicable period; and

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

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

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

(iii) the types of hazardous fuels reduction activities completed with respect to the acres, including a description of whether those hazardous fuels reduction activities were conducted—

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

(II) through a planned hazardous fuels reduction project;

(iv) the cost per-acre of the hazardous fuels reduction 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 with respect to reducing the risk of wildfire.

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

(c) 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 relating 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 those data accurately correlate 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 14 days after implementing the standardized procedures required under paragraph (1), the Secretary concerned shall submit to Congress a report that describes—

(A) the standardized procedures; and

(B) any programmatic or policy recommendations to Congress to address limitations in tracking data relating to hazardous fuels reduction activities under this subsection.

(d) GAO study.—Not later than 2 years after the date of enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General of the United States shall—

(1) conduct a study regarding the implementation of this section, including any limitations with respect to—

(A) reporting hazardous fuels reduction activities under subsection (b); or

(B) tracking data relating to hazardous fuels reduction activities under subsection (c); and

(2) submit to Congress a report that describes the results of the study under paragraph (1).

(e) No additional funds authorized.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—No additional funds are authorized to carry out this section.

(2) SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATIONS.—The activities authorized by this section are subject to the availability of appropriations made in advance for those purposes.

FS Related News Roundup: Contacting the FS, GAO study of the Fire Service, Records and Employees

by

1. Problems With Accessing Employee Contact Info Due to the Trump Admin?

This Mountain Journal piece made the claim that difficulty reaching folks at the FS is due to .. the Trump Admin.

Finding out who’s in charge of those regions has grown unreliable. Before President Donald Trump’s second administration began in January, each Forest Service Region had a public webpage listing contact information of its leadership and staffing

I’m sure there are other worthwhile discussion topics in that piece but access to info on employees is a sensitive subject that has been dealt with extensively by TSW and associates, without any previous apparent interest by other news outlets. It’s the only thing enough TSW-ers have agreed upon enough to send a joint letter to the Forest Service. And here was the response, as of November right after the election, but before Inauguration.

The Forest Service understands the importance of ensuring public communication with Agency employees, especially those tasked with public engagement. We maintain many different avenues for public engagement. The public can find local points of contact at fs.usda.gov by searching by unit, specific topic, or function. Staff in local offices can provide contact information as well. The Agency also uses several local and national social media accounts to engage with the public on various topics. These serve as key access points for information.

Back to the Mountain Journal piece..

Now many websites have a notice that they are under redesign. And the staff listings are either eliminated or disconnected from main pages.

The Region 1 page is simply blank. Region 2 still has a complete page with forester and deputy foresters listed, starting with Troy Heithecker in the forester post. However, that’s an unsupported page; its redesigned website as of April doesn’t have a leadership tab. Region 4 notes that Ben Newburn is the acting regional forester for the Intermountain Region.

Region 3’s leadership page comes back “access denied.” So does Region 8’s page. Regions 9 and 10 are blank, like Region 1.

We have been complaining about the lack of info since last summer.  Note this TSW post comparing access to BLM State leadership vs. a contact form for the FS. A

And here’s a TSW post including  Andy Stahl’s letter as well as the last Admin’s response. Andy responded by saying (see comments on that post).

We don’t know why the Forest Service has chosen to cut itself off from the public. I do know that it was the agency’s own choice; not one imposed by USDA. For example, your sister agency, NRCS, has publicly available employee directories, and contact information for its key staff, including chief, readily available on its website.

We look forward to working with the new administration to restore public trust in the Forest Service.

I have to acknowledge that the effort to do the web migration has been a serious problem for FS communications people who have had to redo links, after being told they wouldn’t have to. It’s a problem for the rest of us who use FS sites and don’t like the current layout for NFS. I am going to say upfront that I don’t know that the new Admin is responsible for web migrations- based on the new standard forest format, I’d guess they had a hand in it. It was/is still a cluster, but agencies are perfectly capable of various kinds of clusters on their own.

I just went to the Shasta T. and clicked on their SOPA.. went to click on a project, and the link doesn’t seem to work.

Description: The Northwest Forest Plan Amendment provides an updated management framework that incorporates best available scientific information, considers public input, recommendations from the Federal Advisory Committee, tribes, and government partners.
Web Link: http://www.fs.usda.gov/project/?project=64745

Maybe it’s just me, but I can’t get any of those links to work.

In May, I noticed this and received this back from the webmasters (who always answer, so shout-out to them)

Good morning, we’re in the middle of a web migration so are having some hiccups. The SOPA docs have moved to forest pages.

 2. Approps GAO Study and Timeline for Analyzing Fire Service.  We can look at this through two perspectives, the political and the policy.  What did the House Approps say specifically?

“To ensure these goals are met and that funding is utilized most effectively, prior to the transfer of any resources or authorities, the Committee directs the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) to conduct a study regarding the proposed creation of a consolidated Fire Service within DOI that assesses the impacts on reaching proposed timber targets, continued cohesion between wildland fire management and the hazardous fuels reduction program, continued use of the available red card-certified workforce, and how this new consolidated Service differs from the role the National Interagency Fire Center (NIFC) already plays to coordinate fire response. Additionally, the study should evaluate the extent to which states, localities, and Tribes were consulted regarding plans for the creation of this new Fire Service and consider what impact this transfer may have on these critical stakeholders.
Not later than 180 days following the enactment of this Act, the Committee directs GAO to report its findings to the Committee, including detailed recommendations for improving performance and addressing any identified deficiencies with the proposal. The Committee further directs DOI and the Forest Service to provide a comprehensive response to GAO’s findings and consider these findings when evaluating future actions and resources related to wildland fire management.
The Committee emphasizes that continued support for this initiative is contingent upon demonstrable progress toward meeting these performance benchmarks, with clear, measurable outcomes.”

First, let’s look at politically.. House Approps seem to be saying “we are not convinced.” They’re asking for a report 180 days after the bill is passed… and we don’t know when that will be.  They hope to pass a funding bill before October.. suppose it passes in mid-September, and that language is used as is, 180 days is mid-March, then DOI and the FS would have to respond.. with no apparent time limit.  If the agencies really want to pursue the idea, it seems like it would make sense for the agencies themselves to work on addressing those concerns, including clarifying what the goals are, how hazardous fuel reduction programs fit including NEPA and timber sale contracts (about that latter of which the House appears to be concerned), and involving stakeholders once they have a clear proposal.  The agencies, could do much of this before the bill is finalized.  It will be interesting to see what happens.  Policy wise, I think the agencies could probably do a better job than GAO, since they have more people who know more about wildfire and about the stakeholders. To those who say they are too busy with wildfires, I’d say that much of it could be done by folks not directly involved and then information added when wildfire folks become more available.  Maybe they have started doing this already?

3.  What Was the Admin Supposed to Do?   Maybe someone has an answer to this.. we know that the FS overhired on soft money (BIL, IRA) and was in the hole.  The first solution was to get rid of temps for 2025.  It was considered very bad to get rid of the new, sometimes still probationary, people, involuntarily (“the future”). It turns out it was also bad to encourage more experienced folks to leave via VERAs and other mechanisms (voluntary)( for experienced employees).  But these seem to be the only mechanisms available to reduce numbers, at least in a timely way.  I think that this would be an interesting topic for someone to explore.  What I heard was that the prior Admin encouraged the overhiring; or that “not enough people retired according to the model”; or that basically the FS had a hiring “on” switch and couldn’t turn it off.  The latter two are of concern, as there’s no reason to think “hiring back to fill the holes” won’t run into the same overshoots.   I think there are people out there who know what the story is and I hope someday they tell us.

4. Records of Previous Reorganizations and Where Are Agency Records in General?  A retiree happened to come up with more records on Transformation. He asked the FS if they wanted them. He felt it was not legitimate to post draft documents to the public (I have been doing it, and hadn’t considered this before).

The FOIA folks wrote back to him and said:

If the records were not copies of the finalized documents, they should have been destroyed in 2017, at the end of the 10yr retention period. If the records do document the final decisions of the reorganization, they are permanent and should have been retained until 2017, then retired to NARA in 2017.  In any case, the Forest Service is compliant in not having these records anymore and they cannot be provided.

I’ve been trying to contact the historian and understand that that position is vacant.  When asking, I get no answer back. Hopefully, when the position gets filled, that person will write a piece describing how all this is supposed to work.   Right now, I don’t think we know if there was a “final document.”  It’s true that no one probably cares about most 10 year old documents, but the FS reorganization efforts are so intermittent.. and I do remember many excellent people doing excellent work, all of whom are no doubt retired.

Senate Approps News

by

NAFSR sent out the below summary last week. Looks like some of the “ideas many of us think are bad” about R&D and S&PF are off the table.

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

Public Lands

  • The bill rejects President Trump’s efforts to shortchange America’s cherished landscapes and ensures that funding for operations of the National Park System, the National Wildlife Refuge System, National Conservation Lands, and the National Forest System is fully protected at enacted levels.
  • The bill provides the funding necessary to maintain personnel at prior year levels and requires the necessary staffing levels to be able to provide visitor services, Tribal consultation, ensure public safety, and carry out the science necessary to respond to growing natural threats and increased visitation.

National Park Service

  • The bill provides $3.27 billion for the National Park Service, including $2.87 billion for the operation of the National Park System, which is equal to the enacted level and is $145 million above the level in House Republicans’ bill and $875 million higher than the level requested by President Trump.
  • The bill provides the resources to sustain fiscal year 2024 staffing levels—rejecting staffing cuts made since January—and to support a full complement of seasonal staff during fiscal year 2026.
  • The bill also provides $168 million for the Historic Preservation Fund and protects all 433 national park units from being sold off or otherwise eliminated from the National Park System.

Forest Service

  • The bill provides $6.17 billion for the Forest Service, excluding additional funding for the Wildfire Suppression Operations Reserve.
  • Of this amount, $3.7 billion is provided for the Forest Service’s non-wildland fire management responsibilities and provides sufficient funds to sustain appropriate staffing levels.
  • The bill rejects the steep $1.4 billion cuts to the Forest Service’s non-fire budget proposed by President Trump.
  • The bill provides funding for the Forest Service to improve forest restoration and fire risk reduction efforts on federal lands and through cross-boundary partnerships.
  • It also provides $175 million for hazardous fuels reduction projects, $31 million for the Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration Program, and $6 million for the Legacy Roads and Trails program to prioritize fish passage improvements and repurposing unnecessary roads as trails.
  • The bill continues funding for state grant programs and federal and cooperative research that were proposed for termination in President Trump’s budget request, including an increase of $8 million for State and Volunteer Fire Assistance Grants, and a total of $8 million for Joint Fire Science research.

Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF)

  • The bill allocates $900 million for federal land acquisition and financial assistance to states provided through the LWCF under the Great American Outdoors Act.
  • This program is critical for improving recreational access to our federal lands, protecting iconic landscapes, delivering grants to states and local governments to create and protect urban parks and open spaces, and providing farmers and ranchers with easements to allow them to continue to steward their private lands in the face of development pressures.

Payment in Lieu of Taxes (PILT)

  • The bill fully funds payments to counties through the PILT program, which are estimated at a total of $550 million.

Protects Full Funding for Wildland Firefighting and Supporting Federal Wildland Firefighters

  • The bill provides funding for the permanent pay fix and job series for federal wildland firefighters to prevent a devastating pay cut for the firefighting workforce.
  • The pay fix was enacted as part of the fiscal year 2025 continuing resolution and began as a temporary bonus for Forest Service and Department of the Interior firefighters provided in the Infrastructure and Investment in Jobs Act.
  • The bill bars consolidation of federal wildland firefighting into one agency in fiscal year 2026 and specifically provides funding to continue wildland firefighting using the longstanding practice of funding both the U.S. Forest Service and the Department of the Interior to allow Congress to consider legislative proposals for such a major change.

Wildfire Suppression

  • The bill fully funds essential wildfire preparedness and suppression efforts by providing $4.25 billion for wildfire suppression, of which $2.85 billion is for the Wildfire Suppression Operations Reserve Fund.
  • The Reserve Fund provides the Forest Service and the Department of the Interior an assured amount of funding to be used when major fire activity requires expenditures exceeding regular base suppression operations funding. This funding level—in addition to carryover balances—will meet projected needs for fiscal year 2026 wildfires.

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

Here is a link to Faith Campbell’s take (focusing on invasive species)..below are some parts that interested me.

The Senate bill provides a total of $8.6 billion for the Forest Service. This includes $308,497,000 for the Research and Development program. This is an increase of $8.5 million above funding for the current year. The Senate bill specifically supports retaining the five regional offices and experimental forests. Remember, the Trump Administration had proposed to eliminate the Research program – other than Forest Inventory and Analysis. The Committee’s report link specifies that the USFS should prioritize projects requested by or benefitting the agency’s mission, not requests by external entities. The benefit to the agency and public should be stated before a project is initiated.  The report specifies funding for several issues, including/

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

There is also $19.6 million to support Congressionally-directed components of Forest Resource Information and Analysis – which is apparently separate from the FIA program.

?? Perhaps someone here understands that.

**********

Reminder: the House Appropriations bill provides $301,706,000 for the research account – almost $7 million less than the Senate. The House’ allocation for the Forest Inventory and Analysis (FIA) program is $34 million. Thus, there is a $9 million difference in funding levels – a significant challenge to reconcile. How will funding for the already-underfunded invasive species programs fare?

Other groups, no doubt, have their own summaries.. please put any you run across in the comments.

Does the Congressional Review Act apply to federal land management plans?

by

House Republicans this week are expected to weigh in on BLM resource management plans in Alaska, North Dakota and Montana, where the GAO has found them to be subject to the Congressional Review Act.  Pursuant to the CRA, any “rule” can be reversed by Congress and the president using this procedure.  The CRA requires that agencies report their rules to Congress and provides special fast-track procedures under which Congress can consider legislation to overturn those rules. The definition of “rule” is broader than formal regulations, but it has exceptions that might apply to something like agency plans for federal lands:

  • any rule relating to agency management or personnel; or
  • any rule of agency organization, procedure, or practice that does not substantially affect the rights or obligations of non-agency parties.

In 1997, the General Accounting Office determined that the Tongass National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan was a rule for the purpose of the CRA.  However, Congress did not act to reverse this decision.

Use of the CRA seems to depend on the GAO of the current administration.  The GAO applied the Tongass reasoning and conclusion to USDI in 2017.  Then, at the end of the Biden Administration, USDI had this to say about BLM plans:  “RMPs have never been considered rules by the Department of the Interior (Department) or any reviewing court.”  This letter provides the analysis leading to that conclusion.

The same letter pointed out the perverse effect of using the CRA for agency land management plans:  “the CRA’s prohibition on issuing a rule ‘… in substantially the same form’ could have extremely far-reaching consequences for BLM plans that make hundreds of overarching allocation decisions across millions of acres …”

Land management plans are not typically presented to Congress by the agencies as rules subject to the CRA (including these BLM plans), and Congress has apparently never applied the CRA to federal land management plans.  If that is done here, it’s not hard to imagine it showing up in a future federal lands litigation update.

A similar effort in Colorado is proceeding outside of the CRA parameters.