NEPA

The Missing Middle: Wildfire Use, the 10AM Policy and Understanding Peoples’ Concerns

by

 

It’s starting to feel like fall here. The monsoons have started.  And if you look at Inciweb, you easily find wildfires with estimated containment dates at the end of October. You might read stories like this, (and the same story has turned up in many outlets) creatively eliding the 10AM policy with the stated goals of full suppression or aggressive initial attack. It is true that some of us want the 10AM policy back, but exactly what does that mean? Does the “10AM policy” mean the same thing to everyone?  And what is actually happening this fire year with the full suppression and aggressive initial attack approach? Since I can’t keep up with the terminology changes, and I think the term “beneficial fire” unhelpfully elides prescribed and WFU, I’ll just use WFU for now to mean what some people call Managed Fire (all wildfires are managed) or Wildfire for Resource Benefits or whatever.

Let’s take a look at one of  today’s current wildfires (as of Aug. 27), the Upper Smith Fire on the Idaho Panhandle Forest:

The Northern Idaho Blue Team assumed command of the fire on August 12, 2026, at 6:00 am. A full suppression strategy will continue to be implemented utilizing direct and indirect tactics to protect critical values at-risk and minimize firefighter risk exposure.

Yesterday it was 30% contained and had 96 people on it, with an estimated containment date of 10/31/2026.

-Monitor and patrol H-2, north and downslope, through the avalanche chute and east along Smith Creek, using ground and aerial resources.
-Patrol DP-17 to above H-5 into burn scar. Patrol line from DP-17 to sling 2, sling 1, into Smith Creek. Patrol spot fires east of sling 2.
-Aerial resources will continue to check fire spread as it moves across the Parker Ridge fire scar.
-Continue to fine tune structure protection and prep the Westside Road for possible firing operation.
-Scout west into Smith Creek and look for opportunities for point protection on critical values.
-Patrol and monitor around associated values at risk from increased fire activity.
-assess ability to contain new starts within the TFR.
-continue to monitor and patrol for new starts and holdovers.
-Support the suppression of new fires within the TFR.

What are the conditions?

The fire is burning in mature mixed conifer with moderate to high loadings of 1000-hr fuels and deep duff layers. Fuels in Long Canyon Fire 2022 and Parker 2015 burn scars include snags, dead and downed woody debris, and conifer regeneration. Fuels in the Long Canyon Fire 2022 burn scar include a slash/blowdown fuel model and pockets of shrubs. Fuel moisture in 1000-hr fuels is 12-14%.

I’m not a wildfire person, but it sounds like a sensible approach.   Note that they are monitoring and doing point protection within the overall strategy of full suppression.

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

Maybe the real issue is “when and how much WFU, and who decides?”  This was a bad fire year, so maybe this wasn’t the year? Or maybe in some windowless cubicle farm in the bowels of Interior, some group is dreaming up a better way to go about it and build more public support.  I

If I listen to some of the voices on the “not ever” side, I hear concerns about the way decisions are made to engage in WFU.  Maybe implicit in that is the difference in public engagement and environmental analysis between major vegetation manipulation categories. For older folks, this is another incarnation of the old tension “should there ever be NEPA for wildfire management?”; “when is wildfire an emergency, and when not?”?

If we look at this handy table (last years below)

We find that the Forest Service FY 2025 Oct 1, 2024 to Sept 30, 2025, did 867,764 acres of WFU, actually twice as much as 2024.   So it looks like the FS did over twice as much WFU in 2025 as 2024 (868k vs. 362K).  From the outside, then, assuming these numbers are as close to correct as the FS and DOI have, it looks like WFU was increased during the first year of the Trump Admin by  over 2x.  Granted that the Admin did not start till January, and maybe lots of WFU happened between 10/01/2024 and January.

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

When I hear Frank Carroll talking about his concerns, I hear the idea that “if it’s intentional and it’s supposed to be good, why don’t we measure its goodness (and decide on what that is) and fund it through non-emergency funds?” It’s hard to disagree with that formulation, or is it?

Then there’s the question of  “if you need a CE to harvest 70 acres (and this CE was litigated!), why you don’t need any NEPA to intentionally burn potentially hundreds of acres.”  Well, you do if it’s prescribed, but not if it’s WFU.  This seems like a bit of a NEPA gap, and maybe folks should pick a lane as to whether it’s intentional or not.  Everyone who follow TSW knows that I am not a fan of Forest Plans and the current planning rule.  But WFU pre-decisions have been made in forest plans and amendments, so it does seem like a particularly useful thing to do in Plans.

To circle back to Roadless, one problem I have with the rescission idea is that land allocations should be made in forest plans.  This one of those concepts that may sound good in theory, but in practice, forest planning is lengthy and often held up by litigation, and potentially too expensive and unwieldy for that to actually work in practice.   Just think of all those assessments where FS employees calculated NRV and all that.. only to find that a couple hundred thousand acres is not in the condition they assessed and it’s already out of date. Still, given all that, I’ve argued for a long time that the FS should cease revisions until fire management amendments are up to speed.

At some point, we would understand the desired future conditions of some landscape, and then could assess whether any specific WFU was successful at moving toward those conditions.

But backing way up to the Three Horizons Framework, perhaps WFU as currently constituted with the inherent fuzziness on emergency applicability for NEPA and funding, is simply the equivalent of an H2 technology, as Google AI tells me:

    • H2 Capture: Governments often use H2 technology simply to extend the life of an outdated H1 system rather than transforming it.

Anyway, I hold both ideas at the same time- we put too much emphasis and effort on forest planning for what we get and let’s not put more on a potentially sinking ship.  And if you’re going to have plans, that’s the best place for pre-WFU planning.

Schifman Suggestions for SPEED Act Improvements: Focus on PIs

by

 

It’s not often that we get the views of former DOJ trial attorneys on permitting. Ben Schifman wrote this piece on Green Tape.

In 2021, after investing tens of millions of dollars and a decade of development, Ormat Technologies received federal approval to build the Dixie Meadows Geothermal Project: a zero-emission, baseload power project located on Bureau of Land Management (BLM) land. Two days before Ormat planned to break ground, a federal judge halted the project; it remains unfinished to this day.

The lawsuit challenging the project alleged (among other things) that the environmental review under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) was not sufficient. From the bench, the Judge was unusually candid about whether he thought the Plaintiffs were likely to prevail on this claim, stating: “I really can’t say as I sit here whether there is a strong likelihood of success on the merits.” He issued a preliminary injunction — stopping the project — regardless.

The Ninth Circuit ultimately stayed the injunction, and Ormat began construction. But the “litigation doom loop” — a cycle of agency review, litigation, judicial remedy, and then more review — had begun. Following the injunction, the Plaintiffs sought an emergency endangered species listing for the Dixie Valley toad in April 2022, which created an entirely new permitting obstacle. Ormat again halted construction, and then downsized the facility to 20% of its original capacity. In 2023 BLM began a supplemental NEPA review. As of late 2025, more than four years after BLM’s original approval, and a decade after Ormat’s permit application, the project remains unbuilt. Ormat is now suing the Fish and Wildlife Service over the toad’s listing, while BLM has attempted to fast-track the project under emergency permitting procedures — which have themselves drawn threats of new litigation.

A single preliminary injunction, issued by a judge who openly doubted the plaintiffs’ ultimate likelihood of success in their lawsuit, triggered a chain of events that may have effectively killed a zero-carbon energy project bringing much needed 24-7 baseload power to the grid — all before any court determined that BLM actually violated the law.

This is an example of the litigation doom loop. And because the SPEED Act, the most significant NEPA reform effort in decades, does not address preliminary injunctions, it doesn’t fully solve it — even in NEPA cases.

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

And here are some of his suggested solutions:

Here are some complementary reforms Congress should consider, which I describe in more detail in a longer piece.

1. Prompt filing requirement

Preliminary injunctions are especially damaging when a plaintiff waits months or years after the challenged decision is made — often after construction has begun — for the purpose of maximizing disruption or leverage.

Existing case law generally recognizes that a plaintiff’s delay in seeking emergency relief undermines a claim of irreparable harm. For instance, in Quince Orchard Valley Citizens Association v. Hodel, the Fourth Circuit held that a plaintiff’s “unexcused delay” in seeking a preliminary injunction is strong evidence that the alleged harm is not actually “irreparable.”9 The logic is intuitive: if an injury is truly imminent and irreparable, a diligent plaintiff would not sit on their rights for months.

But because “promptness” is currently just one of many discretionary factors courts weigh, it hasn’t reliably deterred strategic delay. Congress should codify a rebuttable presumption that any motion for a preliminary injunction filed more than 30 days after the challenged final agency action carries a presumption that the harm is not irreparable. Plaintiffs could rebut this presumption by showing that their delay was not strategic but rather caused by inadequate public notice or significant new information that was not reasonably discoverable within the 30-day window.

This would turn a discretionary judicial factor into a clear legal deadline, motivating opponents to bring challenges forward immediately so they can be resolved more promptly and with less disruption.

2. Multiplicative merit standard

Under current law, to obtain a preliminary injunction, a plaintiff must show a “likelihood of success on the merits.” But courts often evaluate this factor by looking at the plaintiff’s strongest single argument — even when the plaintiff must clear several independent legal hurdles to ultimately prevail.10

The Fourth Circuit identified this problem in the 2025 decision American Federation of Teachers v. Bessent.11Judge Richardson, writing for the majority, argued that when a plaintiff must prevail on several independent, dispositive issues — such as establishing standing, proving final agency action, and winning on the merits — the overall likelihood of success is not the probability of winning the strongest argument. It is the product of the probabilities of succeeding on every dispositive issue.

As the court illustrated, even if a plaintiff is a 3:1 favorite (meaning a 75% chance) on five distinct legal hurdles, the probability of running the table on all five is only about 24%. A plaintiff who is likely to win any single issue can still be a 3:1 underdog in the case overall.

Congress should codify this framework, requiring courts to determine the cumulative probability of success across all independent, dispositive issues and issue written findings specifying the estimated probability assigned to each. This ensures that preliminary injunctions — “extraordinary remedies never awarded as of right” — are reserved for cases where the plaintiff is truly likely to prevail on the merits of the case, not just on a single high-profile merits issue the court may never reach.

3. Prejudicial error standard for preliminary injunctions

Under current law, plaintiffs can obtain injunctions to halt work based on procedural errors that likely wouldn’t change the outcome. If an environmental assessment omitted discussion of an issue but the agency would have reached the same decision anyway, what purpose is served by a preliminary injunction halting the project?

Congress should require plaintiffs seeking preliminary injunctions in NEPA cases to demonstrate not just a likelihood of success in showing a NEPA violation, but a likelihood of success in showing the violation was prejudicial — meaning there’s a reasonable possibility the error affected the agency’s substantive decision.

Requiring plaintiffs to show prejudice is consistent with the Administrative Procedure Act and with recent dicta from the Supreme Court in the recent Seven County Infrastructure Coalition case that I have written about here.12 This reform would preserve preliminary relief for cases where the NEPA violation genuinely calls the agency’s decision into question.

Reforming preliminary injunctions in NEPA cases isn’t enough

The reforms proposed above would help prevent issuance of preliminary injunctions that are brought in cases where a plaintiff is unlikely to prevail or where irreparable harm is not likely. But reforming preliminary injunction standards in NEPA cases alone is not sufficient to break the “doom loop” that limits America’s ability to build infrastructure. Most major infrastructure projects that are subject to litigation are challenged under multiple statutes simultaneously: NEPA alongside the Endangered Species Act, the Clean Water Act, the National Historic Preservation Act, and others. The Dixie Meadows lawsuit — which involved numerous claims aside from those brought under NEPA — illustrates this dynamic.

NEPA-specific reforms like the SPEED Act cannot reach injunctions grounded in other federal statutes, and real-world litigation rarely presents pure NEPA claims. Still, NEPA is among the most frequently litigated permitting statutes, and it is the claim most commonly deployed for strategic delay precisely because its procedural nature makes violations easy to allege and difficult to disprove quickly. Reforming preliminary injunctive relief in NEPA cases would narrow the attack surface available to litigants pursuing delay, and provide a blueprint for similar reforms to remedies available through other laws.

While permitting reform efforts like the SPEED Act are wise to focus on final judgments, they should not be blind to preliminary remedies. Imposing reasonable limits at each stage can ensure that NEPA litigation serves its intended purpose — allowing agencies and the public to be informed about the environmental impacts of federal decisions — rather than functioning as a mechanism to delay the infrastructure our country needs to meet the challenges of the coming century.

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

Schifman also says that judicial deadlines have a history of not working.

But will courts comply with these deadlines? History suggests they likely will not.

Congress has tried mandating judicial deadlines before. The Speedy Trial Act generally requires criminal trials to begin within 70 days of indictment — yet courts routinely grant continuances.5 The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA) imposed timelines for habeas corpus decisions; courts regularly exceed them.6 The Supreme Court has characterized such statutory deadlines “directives” rather than rigid jurisdictional limits.7

Federal judges have existing dockets and competing priorities — including criminal cases where there is not only a statutory but also a constitutional right to a speedy trial. Judges also have limited resources. District court filings have grown by 30% since 1990 but judgeships increased by only 4% in that time. The number of civil cases pending more than three years has risen 346% in the last 20 years.

Under these circumstances, Congressional deadlines without accompanying resources for the judiciary are unlikely to make a difference. Federal judges have lifetime tenure and Congress has never impeached a federal judge over missed deadlines (indeed, only 15 judges have ever been impeached). Ultimately, nothing in the SPEED Act guarantees courts will adhere to its deadlines. And if they don’t, a preliminary injunction granted at the start of a lawsuit could last for months — or even years

On Scoping and Standardization: Guest Post by Peter Williams

by

Posts from Peter Williams always combine his many years of experience and thoughtfulness, so thanks to him for taking on these topics.

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

I’m going to pick up on two discussion threads that have some overlap.  The first is the discussion of scoping and where it comes from.  The other is the discussion of what to standardize in the FS.  I’m going to look at these through a decision process lens.

About 12 years ago I ran what was then called the US Institute for Environmental Conflict Resolution for a few years. Our mission was all about supporting Sect 102 of NEPA. That was after spending many years with USFS focused on collaborative planning.

During my time with USFS, I worked on and with Decision Protocol in the late 1990’s.  It integrated decision-making state of the knowledge and tools, partly to address the idea that NEPA is USFS’s default decision model (it isn’t).  It resulted in an iterative five-cycle process to move from recognizing a problem, diagnosing it, designing a response, acting, and assessing.  Later, I worked on what was called The Safety Journey in the late 2000’s, an effort to reduce serious incidents, including deaths, by improving decisions and accountability.  I helped with rolling out some of the related tools while serving as an Acting Forest Supervisor in about 2012 or so.

Both of those efforts were really about decision making writ large (as opposed to framing decisions only through the lens of NEPA compliance, whether EA, EIS, or even, in some cases, Categorical Exclusions (CEs) like Anon mentions when talking about scoping). I also taught a graduate course on NEPA in the late 1990’s while working on my eventual PhD related to collaboration and decision making.

Scoping, as well as public participation or collaboration, were front and center to all of this.  So was the question of how much process structure is too much and how little is not enough.

Returning to the scoping discussion, something not mentioned yet is that CEQ put out guidance on scoping in 1981 that is consistent with the only use of the term “scope” I find in the 1969 NEPA legislation. The reference in the legislation is to the “…scope, objectivity, and content of the entire statement…” referring to what we now know as an Environmental Impact Statement. It’s in Sec. 102(D). “Scope” originally was about the scope of the document, the scope of the decision, a concept borrowed from project management and dating to pre-WWII. The term scoping, then, refers to the process or processes of determining those scopes, much as is done for project management in so many other circumstances. Is it “in scope” or “out of scope”?

Regarding standardizing process and procedure, at least from a decision process perspective, it seems useful to distinguish between consistent processes that are *rigid* and ones that are *flexible*.

It is possible, for example, for a consistent *design* process to result in somewhat different planning processes tailored to different needs or circumstances. Different Regions or different Forests within the same Region might use a consistent design process to design a tailored collaborative planning process that meets the relevant needs of the Unit, partners, and interested individuals or organizations. That’s an example of a flexible process.  Notice how the NEPA-related concept of tiering fits here. A consistent design process can tier down to planning processes that are appropriately different because they meet different needs.

If done well, projects that are trickier (like coyote, the trickster) can be given more time and attention while less tricky ones can go through faster. That’s the idea of a consistent, yet flexible process that can adjust to circumstances and needs. I often described this as using familiar tools in unfamiliar or varied ways driven by circumstances. A skilled carpenter, for example, can use a hammer in creative ways when faced with challenges the rest of us might just turn into a mess.

In a sense, scoping as a process becomes a way to validate or verify the “trickiness”, an idea that can have aspects like public interest, scientific complexity, or political sensitivity, among others.  CEQ, in 1981, produced a reference document called “40 Most Asked Questions” that includes a question about using scoping prior to a Notice of Intent (NOI), pointing out that scoping after an NOI is only a minimal requirement and that scoping is a useful tool for any number of challenges.

Scoping done well also is a way to engage with interested parties early on so they can better understand what’s being considered and why (like scoping a purpose and need first, and only latter doing a more formal scoping to address significance, effects, and proposed actions or alternatives). Done well, scoping can reduce some concerns while identifying the ones that really deserve attention, that drive an understanding of likely effects or consequences. This seems to be what NEPA means by an interdisciplinary approach that ensures integrated use of natural and social sciences as well as the environmental design arts (Sec. 102(A)).

All this is to say, in answer to the question about where scoping comes from, it has deep roots in various management and planning fields, it has limited appearance in the actual NEPA legislation and much more in CEQ and agency regulations, and agency culture shapes its use even today.  Regarding standardization, it seems helpful to recognize a difference between standardizing a process such that it becomes brittle and using a standard set of concepts to design a locally-relevant, risk-tolerant process.

Does the Forest Service Need a Permitting Dashboard?

by

I’d like to thread together ideas from our Permitting Bro friends,  and Jon Haber and Anonymous.

*********

Permitting Dashboard

Let’s start with the Sam Roland’s work at the Foundation for American Innovation and  Recoding America.  His experience with the State of Virginia suggests that the very existence of a dashboard increases the speed of approval.  I was skeptical but that’s what the report showed.  Now that difference between Permitting Reform as currently envisioned (mostly for energy infrastructure and strategic minerals) is that there are external developers.  This is true for some FS projects, but the FS also has many (think vegetation management) that don’t have external proponents.  So the Permitting Reform folks tend to look at costs to the developer, as well as difficulty of implementing and uncertainty about project outcomes in a different way than the FS does.

Anyway, here is a link to the report, and  below is “what worked” there.  There are elements that the FS has tried at various times.  You can say “all of this is just basic management”, which is true.  I do think, especially when so much traditional in-house work has been outsourced to States and grantees, in addition to the work traditionally contracted, it makes it more important to be transparent about accomplishments and timelines.  You may note that that was my pet peeve about the Keystone Agreements, I had to do FOIAs to get their accomplishment reports.  It also reminds me a bit of what my former boss (2000’s). Fred Norbury used to say: “we run NEPA like an artisan cobbler shop and it should be more like a NIKE factory.”  There are many cultural factors that we looked at at the time (during the Process Predicament) effort.

WHAT WORKED IN VIRGINIA
A Case Study
From Virginia DEQ’s experience dealing with other state agencies and multiple NGOs, these seven elements were Director Rolband’s keys to success:

1. START AT THE TOP
Agency directors and top managers must check permits and progress. Make it explicit that results matter; when leadership looks, the organization moves.

2. USE A COMPLETENESS CHECKLIST
Publish a clear checklist and return incomplete applications. Do not start a review until every required item is in. This stops staff from bouncing among half-done files, deters “get in the queue” tactics, and curbs serial data requests that cause delay. The culture will resist; apply constant attention until the habit sticks.

3. FIX THE PROCESS
Map the steps. Remove steps that add no value. Run steps in parallel where possible. Assign an owner and deadline for each step (including consulting agencies and the applicant). Automate where feasible: one permit stream with 1,000 annual approvals moved from 35 days to same-day turnaround and no longer needed tracking in PEEP.

4. SET TIME GOALS AND TRACK THEM
Establish an overall agency time goal and a goal for each permit type. Track actuals vs. goals and display results publicly. Post daily on the website, include in the weekly report, and make it the first agenda item at every executive and leadership team meeting.

5. REPORT PERFORMANCE PUBLICLY
Show performance on the website using simple dashboards (graphics, numeric scores, or color grades). Use the data to drive action: more training for consultants and staff; tests and credentials to fast-track clean applications by certified professionals. Transparency is a performance tool.

6. MONITOR INTERNAL PERFORMANCE
Track staff and team performance and share it agency-wide, not publicly. Use it to spot issues, rebalance workloads, and tune processes. Compare relative effort by permit type and rebalance weekly (e.g., via “One DEQ”) so help goes where it’s needed.

7. PRACTICE CONTINUAL IMPROVEMENT
Treat improvement as routine work. As adoption grows, keep pruning steps, tightening checklists, refining goals, and expanding automation.

I’d only add that a dashboard should include litigation, since the way we find out about it now is that different entities do different studies on different subsets, and reach different conclusions.  I can’t think of a reason that what can be the most lengthy part of the process should be excluded.

Yes, the feds do have a permitting dashboard already, but I think it could be improved in many ways for all kinds of FS (and BLM (?)) projects. That would help everyone see what the total project workload of a District/Forest is.

I posted a screenshot of that one at the end of this post.

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

Maybe Someone Else Could Do It if the FS Doesn’t Want To

Jon commented:

As for finding out that there is a project, maybe that’s a good job for AI? If the Forest Service puts it in any public internet location, there should be a standardizable way of finding it. A standardized way of storing and displaying it would be nicer, but maybe that could be done by the AI “viewer” now.

That’s pretty brilliant, and one of our NGOs could easily hire someone to do that.  On the other hand,  I like the idea that IFP had “transparency is a performance tool.” It seems to me that it could help resolve misunderstandings, such as why some projects are priority and some are stuck.  It could also help regulatory agencies of various persuasions prioritize their work or ask for more resources.  Actually it’s hard for me to imagine why everyone looking at the same dashboard would be a bad thing.

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

To What Extent are Deregulation/Consistency and Transparency At Odds?

Anonymous commented:

The agency has relied on a complex set of regulations and policies to compel consistency, but a January 2025 Executive Order established a “10-to-1” goal for deregulation, aiming to cut ten regulations for every new one introduced. Additionally, existing regulations are being revised to provide local decision makers greater discretion by reducing requirements.

We are ultimately back to the question of what should be local decisions, and what kinds of consistency are necessary for good governance? Certainly deregulation and transparency can go hand in hand.

I think it’s all about sideboards and boxes.  It seems to me that (just taking NEPA projects for example) the WO could say “you forests have discretion over which you pick for a project, CE, EA or EIS” and “whichever you pick, here are the pieces that you need to (consistently) put on your (consistent with others) website.”  Local discretion and fluffiwuffiness (or “hide the project”) are not the same thing in my mind. Anything that reduces trust, ultimately reduces good governance and efficiency, as in “go slow to go fast” with partners, or as Chief Schultz has referred to, the cost of low-trust organizations in Covey’s The Speed of Trust.

As to forest plans (as Jon brought up), other than their general lack of utility (in my view),  it seems to be common sense for forest to consider neighboring forests’ standards or maps or whatever in their deliberations. In Region 2, we noticed those, but I don’t recall ever suggesting the forests agree.  For one thing, for any new agreement forest 1 would have to amend to agree with what they agreed on with forest 2 (or possibly neighboring 3).  What should neighboring forests agree on? What should they agree on with neighboring BLM managers?

***********

As promised, screenshot of federal permitting dashboard for an FS project.

What to Standardize in the FS? How About Project Information?

by

 

First, I’d like to lay out a couple of organizational thoughts.. ones that haven’t changed over time. I would guess that these are things that FS leadership must be mulling over. Both things are true:
Decentralized decision making is a strength of the FS  AND the public can get confused when neighboring forests and regions have different ways of interpreting regulations and practices.

The question is always, and has always been, “what should be standardized, and what left to local choices, and what criteria should we use to determine which is which?”

Somewhere, in some document or someone’s head, shouldn’t there be some thought given to this?  With input from the public?

If we go a layer (or two)  up from that, why shouldn’t the BLM and the FS try to harmonize their NEPA approaches, public outreach, and so on FOR THE GOOD OF THE PUBLIC AND THE TAXPAYER? I’m also thinking recreation maps. They don’t have to be combined into one department to do things the same way.. think NIFC. It just seems like effective public administration, and aren’t we all in favor of that?

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

Anyway, here’s an illustration of diversity of approaches. Certainly few people would compare the PSICC and the Mendocino. Earlier this week, I posted about the Salida Ranger District and its scoping-like effort on the Bald Mountain project. It strikes me that, at least for vegetation projects, it’s fairly simple to have an outline of what is proposed, at some level of detail, and ask for comment.  The rest is “how to”.  The simplest is to scope and post info on the project website. Maybe even simpler to have a forest project dashboard with links to the project websites (SOPA like, but perhaps updated in real time). I just don’t think it’s good for the public, nor public trust, nor the agency itself to have apparently random approaches across districts and forests.  For example, on the Mendocino, they had to involve the public affairs office to answer my questions- which would have been posted on the web in a scoping document! This is not a good use of the public affairs officer’s time, the project folks’ time, my time, or anyone else’s who wants to know about the project.

Here’s an example of  the Parramore and Elder Creek Projects, which were brought to my attention by Denise Boggs. I wrote to the Forest and received a quick reply, so shout-out to them for that! My questions are in bold, and the answers in italics.

For the Parramore Project, a A USDA spokesperson said:

Where is it located? Can you provide a map?

The Parramore Project is located near the Penny Pines campground, about 10 miles north of Upper Lake in Lake County. The attached map shows the project broken out into North and South areas.

What treatments are proposed?

Targeted vegetation treatments- including thinning, prescribed fire, and removal of accumulated dead and down fuels. The intent of these treatments is to restore appropriate stand conditions, improve growing conditions, reduce fuel loads, improve habitat for biological diversity and foster a more resilient forest landscape.

How large is the analysis area?

The total project area is approximately 2155 acres.

Will scoping be conducted. if so, when do you estimate that will happen?

No, scoping will not be conducted. Under the updated 2025 regulatory framework (7 CFR 1b), this project is being developed under a Categorical Exclusion (CE) rather than an Environmental Assessment. Public scoping is optional for CE-level actions and was not selected for this project. We are engaging with Tribes, partners and FireScape Mendocino.  If through the development of the project it is determined there is an extraordinary circumstance, then the project may be moved to an Environmental Assessment.

 Project milestones with expected dates of completion are posted online on the Parramore project website. However these timelines are estimated and subject to change. Regarding the Parramore project, a decision is postponed and will not likely happen in February. We do not have an updated timeline yet, but as soon as we do, it will be reflected on the project website.

Did you send out an announcement about the project via the “sign up for proposed project updates” button on your project website?

No, the sign-up list is a new tool that we are planning to use to distribute quarterly updates.

We would welcome those who are interested in our projects to subscribe.

Will the decision document be posted on the website?

 Yes, the NEPA finding will be posted on the project website when completed.

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

For the Elder Creek Project:

 Where is it located? Can you provide a map?

The Elder Creek project is located north of Whitlock Campground and approximately 12 miles northwest of Paskenta in Tehama County, California. A map is attached.

 What treatments are proposed?

The project proposes a combination of fuels reduction, green tree thinning, and reforestation activities. The purpose of these activities would be to restore forest structure and function while reducing impacts and losses due to uncontrolled wildfire.

 How large is the analysis area?

The total project area is approximately 1,192 acres. The fuels reduction and selective green-tree thinning would be carried out on approximately 935 acres. Reforestation activities would be implemented on about 257 acres. These activities would occur in high severity burn areas where natural seed banks are inadequate.

 Will scoping be conducted. if so, when do you estimate that will happen?

No, scoping will not be conducted. Under the updated 2025 regulatory framework (7 CFR 1b), this project is being developed under a Categorical Exclusion (CE) rather than an Environmental Assessment. Public scoping is optional for CE-level actions and was not selected for this project. We are engaging with Tribes, partners and FireScape Mendocino.  If through the development of the project it is determined there is an extraordinary circumstance, then the project may be moved to an Environmental Assessment.

Project milestones with expected dates of completion are posted online on the Elder Creek project website. However these timelines are estimated and subject to change. Regarding the Elder Creek project, a decision is postponed and will not likely happen in February. We do not have an updated timeline yet, but as soon as we do, it will be reflected on the project website.

 Did you send out an announcement about the project via the “sign up for proposed project updates” button on your project website?

No, the sign-up list is a new tool that we are planning to use to distribute quarterly updates.

We would welcome those who are interested in our projects to subscribe.

**********

So the Mendocino approach seems to be like scoping notice with more work.  Finding out about a project, in my view, should be standardized across Forests (and Regions).  It shouldn’t be a game of “find the project.”

Where Do Scoping Practices Come From, Statute, Regulation, Agency Culture or Some Combination?

by

Jon asked a great question about scoping..

To your bigger question (I think), would this meet the needs of scoping (for NEPA purposes) – isn’t the purpose of scoping to seek information about potential environmental impacts (so the agency can tell whether an EIS process is necessary)? I don’t see anything like that here.

I decided to search the statute, and could only find one “scoping”. It seems like the statute requires a report that asks when the agency started scoping for EAs and EIS’s.

So it is difficult to discern what parts of scoping are 1) in the statute, 2) in individual agency regulations (which probably recently changed due to the court case and actions thereafter), 3) part of case law? and 4) standard but non-regulatory cultural practices. A brief internet journey suggests that individual agencies vary quite a bit in what kinds of projects they scope, and how they go about doing it.

So what do our legal folks think about all this? It seems like the statute doesn’t mention it for CE’s, but it seems like a matter of convenience or practicality to do some kind of public outreach.

Those of you who remember the Decision Protocol effort, I thought part of that was that the FS needed a model for decision-making that wasn’t so NEPA regulation-dependent. In other words, the FS might want to take public comment on decisions that weren’t “NEPA” decisions.

Scoping By Any Other Name…Would Yield Appropriate Level of Detail for Comments???

by

 

 

I’m definitely going to get back to JWT’s letter (and a guest post on reorganization experiences), and thinning in general, but thanks to Nick Smith I ran across this announcement of a project and comment opportunities.

This project is interesting because apparently a press release (which I was unable to easily locate) gave much information, in some detail, that would usually be found in a scoping notice. In fact, I have seen scoping notices with much less detail.

This is from the Chaffee County Times, a local news outlet. When I clicked on the link, it said that eh story was posted 21 hours ago. Yet the story states that the public comment period ends Feb. 27. Perhaps you had to sign up for emails for Forest projects to get notified in time to comment? It seems to me that it’s a bad look to say “the comment period ends Feb. 27 (although we don’t know for sure that that’s true)” in a story published after the fact. Confusing.

My question to the FS is “shouldn’t generalized outreach approaches be standardized across forests and Regions for potential CEs or EAs?” I’ve been told by (some) leadership that they read TSW, and I think a generalized approach (with documents, posted on the web!) would be less trouble for employees and the public, and generate less potential drama all around.

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

The Salida Ranger District of Pike San Isabel National Forest is seeking public comment on a proposed vegetation treatment project near Buena Vista. The public comment period ends Feb. 27.

If approved, the proposed project would use mechanical thinning methods, hand treatments, and prescribed fire to treat vegetation on about 2,993 acres southwest of Buena Vista around Bald Mountain near the base of Mount Princeton, including 898 acres in the Kreutzer-Princeton Roadless Area. The goal of the project is to “improve forest health and reduce the extent of insect infestation,” according to a Forest Service news release.

“On slopes up to 35 percent, conventional logging equipment (i.e., harvesters and skidders), high floatation equipment (i.e., cut-to-length systems) and mastication equipment would be utilized,” a draft proposed action document said. “On sustained slopes between 35-60 percent, high floatation equipment (i.e., cut-to-length systems) or aerial yarding techniques (i.e., skyline or helicopter yarding) would be utilized. Hand treatments would be used throughout the project area and do not have any slope limitations.”

After harvesting is complete, the slash and fuels in the area may be reduced through fuelwood gathering, broadcast and/or pile burning, mastication, chipping, and/or lop and scattering them to lie within 24 inches of the ground.

Additionally, following the regeneration treatments, heavy equipment may be used to scarify the ground to stimulate new plant growth.

In addition to removal, the planned operations also include planting, where appropriate, trees of the species lodgepole pine (Pinus contorta), ponderosa pine (Pinus ponderosa), limber pine (Pinus flexilis), Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii), and aspen (Populus tremuloides).

The nature of the treatments described in the proposed action differs by tree species.

The project would involve “regeneration harvesting” on 25 percent of aspen stands in the area, where aspen stands are clear-cut with the goal of initiating new sprouting.

For mixed conifer areas, tree thinning through the group selection method would be done with the goal of reducing tree density, reducing susceptibility to insect infestation and creating age class diversity.

The group selection method clears trees in small groups to create openings in the canopy to stimulate the growth of shade-intolerant trees. In the proposed Bald Mountain Project, groups of conifers of 0.25-2 acres would be thinned.

“In areas that are thinned, the goal is to reduce basal area to an average of 60-80 (range 40-100) square feet per acre,” the project document says. Basal area is a measure of forest density referring to the total surface area of all trees in a cross-section about 4.5 feet above the ground.

The project area has been impacted by spruce budworm, Douglas-fir beetle and possibly mountain pine beetle, the project document says. The salvage of dead trees, removal of infested trees, and overstory removal of green trees where the removal of salvage trees would create conditions where the remaining trees are susceptible to blowdown would be done to mitigate insect infestation.

For areas of ponderosa pine, thinning and group selection would be done “irregular in character to a residual basal area of 20-80 square feet per acre and favor ponderosa pine over other species.”

Areas of Lodgepole pine could see clearcuts of up to 40 acres, the project document says.

“Up to 25 percent of the lodgepole pine is proposed to be in clearcuts,” the document says. “Up to 65 percent would be thinned and contain small patch cuts where vegetation management treatments are allowed. In areas that are thinned, the goal is to reduce basal area to an average of 80-120 (range 60-140) square feet per acre. In areas with small patch cuts, the average basal area could be lower than 80 square feet per acre across the stand.”

Stands of Pinyon and Juniper would be thinned mechanically and by hand in a “mosaic of 1- to 2-acre openings to “reduce density, reduce stocking levels, reduce susceptibility to insect and disease infestations/infections, and improve vigor of the remaining trees.”

Spruce fir stands would be thinned through small patch cuts of up to 2 acres. A minimum of 10 percent of Spruce fir trees would be kept in reserves. Overstory removal would be done in areas with high spruce beetle mortality.

The project would also thin conifers encroaching on areas dominated by grasses and shrubs.

Fuel breaks adjacent to private property would extend 400 to 800 feet from the property line.

Broadcast prescribed fire burns would be utilized in stands of ponderosa pine, mixed conifer, aspen, lodgepole pine, and grass and shrubs.

“The objective is to burn the understory fuels in a low-intensity environment with the expectation that occasional torching of live trees would occur,” the project document says.

**********
The below is not from the project document:

Byan Malek Jr., Chaffee County’s weed management supervisor, said that the project area has a population of Dalmatian Toadflax, an invasive perennial forb on Colorado’s noxious weed list. A single plant can produce up to 500,000 seeds, according to the Colorado Department of Agriculture.

“In general, the usage of heavy machinery on projects dealing with organic material does have the potential to move a seed bank around,” Malek told the Times by email. “In the past, bio-control efforts have been made to help reduce this population. It is our hope and expectation that the Forest Service uses the best possible practices to prevent the spread of this noxious weed. We will also continue to monitor this area to ensure our previous control tactics continue to be effective.”

*************
And finally..

To provide comments, please send information in writing, including attachments, to: (persons named)

 

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

Deep Dive into Forest Service Project Info : Making It Easier to Access and to Post

by

Again, this would be a good project for a group to work on as part of the People’s Database.  For my purposes, recent changes made it more difficult to access information.

This post is a bit of a review of recent changes to how the public can view Forest Service projects. I understand completely that many folks left, and that while perhaps our NGO friends are doing more work, maybe the people keeping up the info to the public are probably overwhelmed. I’d be interested in hearing what this looks like from a District or Forest perspective.  Because from here, it looks like “not posting stuff” just makes more work for the public and FS employees.

Let’s go back to the SOPAs (Schedule of Proposed Action). For those who follow FS projects, the SOPA had all you need to know, plus a link to the project website.

Apparently SOPAs aren’t published anymore. I thought they were kind of handy  See above for an example. Note all the info, purpose, status description, link, location, the expected decision time frame, and whom to contact about the project. They are also sorted by whether they apply nationwide, more than one forest, forest wide and then by District.  There were links to the project site, although they all stopped working at some point. They also had contact names, numbers and emails. I think this was around the time the web system was changed. I wrote the FS web people several times and they didn’t seem to understand what I meant (or didn’t tell me that they were getting rid of SOPAs).

Now, I totally understand that some web or political folks might have looked at the SOPAs and said to themselves..”that seems repetitive.” In fact, NEPA people on the Forest who produce SOPAs and the project website might have found them repetitive. Here’s the current standard website  header.

The Forest Service follows NEPA regulations issued by the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Under this rule, Forest Service officials determine which proposed projects are shared for public input.

The agency no longer issues a schedule of proposed actions (SOPA) report. Below is the current list of proposed projects available for review—your opportunity to learn more, share feedback, and stay engaged in decisions that shape the future of our public lands.

OK, so I go to the projects in development and in progress, thinking those could answer my questions about “are folks scoping nowadays?”. Interesting under the “verbenone” project, it says scoping started in December 2025  but there are no documents.  I suppose you could write in and get the scoping document, or maybe the FS can scope without a document? All very confusing. The Sequoia and Sierra Prescribed Fire EA, which we’ve discussed before, had its objection notice published 5/30/25, but is listed as “under development.” So is “in progress” maybe not the decision is in progress but rather the action? They do have the same contact information for a human being as did the SOPA.

Clicking on the project name takes you to this kind of screen

**********

Which brings me to another long-standing pet peeve, which predates this Admin. It’s about objections.  People on some projects post them, and the review response, with the project documents. There is also a site, which appears to be active, where the objection responses are supposed to be posted (???), but not all are, and I have had to ask Forests for both the objection letters and the objection response.

Even stranger, when I query it from two browsers I seem to get different answers for  the same year.

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

Now I am not a fan of “not scoping” for CEs.  In fact, I think what is in a scoping letter (degree of detail) should be more or less standardized and specific. Based on a random sample of random projects on random forests in random regions, it seems that some folks are still doing scoping and posting the letter, and others not.  Some folks may be doing it but not documenting it.

In fact, if all that information were readily accessible, we could put a set of decision memos from neighboring forests for similar projects and ask AI to compare and contrast and possibly get better products and save time (and do better in court?).

Really, in this day and age, couldn’t folks just upload the docs to some kind of application or program? Then we wouldn’t have to write the forests, who have enough to do, and their public affairs folks, who I’m sure have better things to do. So far they have all been very quick and helpful, but a person has to wonder how many times they are responding to the same questions, which could go into a document, which could be (and used to be) posted…

Again, I think there are two issues 1) FS current interpretation of new NEPA regs means “don’t scope” or “don’t document.”  and 2) Putting what docs you have in a place where the public and other forests can easily find them.

Finally, each forest’s project page I found has this.. to sign up for emails about projects. I had read somewhere that a Forest had stopped sending emails? Maybe we need more info on this.

This seems to me to be fodder for bring a group of FS folks and different kinds of users and figuring out a way of showing info that works best for all of us.

The North Yuba Landscape Resilience Project EIS- On Big Trees and Diameter Limits

by

Brad Seaberg mentioned the North Yuba Forest Resiliency Project in a comment.  The NEPA is an EIS linked to specific RODs. Shout out to them for their NEPA experimentation (2023 ROD), for their work with partners, and for their rapid reply to my questions. There has been no litigation.

My questions are in bold and District Ranger Tom Parrack’s answers in italics.

Were there any objections to this project?  
There were no formal objections. The North Yuba Forest Partnership was created during planning and was able to address constituent concerns during the initial environmental impact statement.  This developed a tremendous widespread support for the project.
Has implementation started? 
Yes.  Technically, implementation has been ongoing for several years as pre-existing NEPA was incorporated into the overall project and was immediately acted upon.  The first Record of Decision (ROD) was signed in 2022 and the second ROD in 2024.  Most implementation in the ROD 1 project area is just beginning, with projects in ROD 2 currently in layout and nearing implantation.  ROD 3 is being planned for signature in January of 2028.
Is this an example of condition-based NEPA? In other words, were all the units mapped and analyzed prior to the decision?  
Yes. During each Record of Decision, surveys are conducted to ensure that the initial analysis is still accurate and applicable.  The partnership also has an “monitoring team” whose purpose is to review prior decisions, implementation, and effects to help guide future decisions and planning efforts.  As conditions change across the landscape, the planners are able to adapt within the scope of the initial environmental impact statement and determine the best means to reach desired condition

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

Here’s some of the rationale for thinning some large trees:

A century of excluding fire’s ecological role in this Landscape has resulted in high stand densities and continuous tree canopy cover in areas that would have not historically supported these densities.
The historic role of fire as a frequent, widely occurring ecological process has been largely absent. The lack of fire, combined with human activities and management, has led to alterations in forest structure and species composition. Tree densities are higher compared to historic conditions and overall tree species composition has shifted to more shade tolerant, less fire-resilient species (Knapp et al. 2013, Safford and Stevens 2017, Stephens et al. 2018).
Generally, the number of large trees (greater than 24 inches dbh) have declined by at least 50% in the Sierra Nevada ecoregion (see Figure 1 from McIntyre et al 2015, see also Dolanc et al 2014, Stephens et al. 2018, Easterday et al. 2018). Broadly, this has led to forest management goals that prioritize retention of large trees, restricting removal of all trees greater than or equal to 30 inches dbh. However, species composition has also shifted toward shade tolerant trees, which in some stands may dominate the growing space. In these types of stands, the targeted removal of some larger shade tolerant trees can provide growing space for the shade intolerant pines, recruiting the large diameter pines of the future. Moreover, trees greater than 30 inches dbh in the dripline of even larger pine trees may pose a fire hazard to the larger trees, and their removal may bolster the potential to maintain the desired larger pines on the landscape. Finally, the ability to create heterogeneous stands with openings is challenging with strict diameter limits. Collectively, this suggests that treatment needs may be more complex than the application of a strict diameter limit allows for yet given the importance of large trees on the landscape, the proposal includes stand-level field verification, documentation and disclosure, and formal public comment opportunity prior to implementing this
plan amendment. Currently, a lack of forest diversity/heterogeneity; limited seral-stage variation; and deficiencies in very large, old trees are compromising California spotted owl habitat resiliency (Forest Service 2019). A summary of references of natural range of variability (NRV) conditions for yellow-pine and mixed-conifer forests across the Sierra Nevada can be found in PSW-GTR-256 (Safford and Stevens 2017, pages 177 to 181; table 11, pages 178 and 179). Promoting development of existing large trees into very large trees and retaining existing very large or old trees aligns with the purpose and need for this proposal.

Below is what I could find in the FEIS about 30-39 inch trees. Note that the purpose and need involved both thinning, and making 1-3 acre openings.

Treatment Units with Removal of Some Shade Tolerant Conifers between 30 and 39.9 inches
My decision includes application of TERR-NORTH YUBA-STD-01 to remove shade-tolerant conifers between 30 and 39.9 inches dbh, consistent with this standard and all other applicable Forest Plan standards and guidelines, including modified SNFPA ROD Standard and Guideline #7, on approximately 408 acres in four units in the Galloway area (Units 141, 142, 150, and 151). Figure 2 displays these treatment units in the Galloway area. Consistent with project-specific forest plan amendment TERR-NORTH YUBA-MA-01 (Final EIS Appendix B), a silviculturist has reviewed field conditions in these four units. Stands within these four units are extremely dense and at risk of imminent tree mortality. Data collected in these stands show basal area averaging 400 square feet per acre with a stand density index (SDI) of 550, which is 120 percent of the maximum SDI for mixed conifer stands.6 (To avoid substantial tree mortality, SDI levels should be below 50 percent of a maximum SDI of 450 for mixed conifer stands in
this Landscape, i.e. SDI of 225 or less.7) These stands have between 36 and 44 trees per acre 30 inches dbh or larger,8 and approximately 57 to 67 percent of the trees between 30 and 39.9 inches are shade tolerant conifers9. Large pines within these stands are either dead or at high risk of loss due to high stand densities and there is the possibility of immediate, short- and long-term mortality of fir. At least half of the largest shade intolerant pines and some Douglas-fir trees have already died in these units. White fir is experiencing disease and density related mortality as well, and will continue to see high mortality rates due to root disease as the other species die out. Extensive tree mortality in these units may result in complete large tree stand loss over time without appropriate treatment, including removal of some shade tolerant conifers between 30 and 39.9 inches dbh. Removing some shade tolerant conifers in this size class is needed to retain and promote the growth of larger shade-intolerant trees by more effectively meeting project objectives for tree species composition and forest stand density. An estimated average of 2 to 8 shade tolerant trees between 30 and 39.9 inches dbh per acre could be removed, leaving an estimated average of 30 to 36 trees per acre greater than 30 inches dbh on site. Shade tolerant trees selected for removal would generally be of low vigor (less than 30 percent crown ratio), and reductions in overstory canopy cover would be limited. Removal of some shade tolerant trees between 30 and 39.9 inches in these stands would effectively reduce stand densities within approximately 55 percent of

5 Prescribed fire is not proposed as a follow up treatment for thinning on any of the 345 acres of hydraulic mine sites in the
Galloway and Rattlesnake Skinner areas.
6 Silviculture/Forest Health Technical Report, pg. 20 and pp. 30 -32
7 Silviculture/Forest Health Technical Report, pg.9
8 Silviculture/Forest Health Technical Report, pg. 28
9 North Yuba Drone Based Stand Mapping (available in the Project Record)
Record of Decision – North Yuba Landscape Resilience Project

maximum SDI, thereby largely mitigating density-related tree mortality, including loss of large pines. In contrast, applying a 30-inch diameter limit in these four units would continue to keep stand density levels in the zone of imminent tree mortality (greater than 70 percent maximum SDI) following thinning.10
Opportunities to create 1- to 3-acre openings to enhance stand structural heterogeneity are extremely limited in these four units due to the high density of trees greater than or equal to 30 inches dbh, TERR- NORTH YUBA-STD-01 could be used to create approximately four to eight 1-acre openings across the four units due to the high densities of trees (30 inches dbh and greater) in these units.

Is that enough explanation? Seemingly the same discussion (if considered sufficient)  could be made (in an appendix to) an EA or a CE.

It’s also of interest that four forests to the north of the Tahoe, with similar PP/true fir combos, the forests are required to follow the E side screens “21 inch rule.”

Is that because the Forests (and scientist amicus-filers) didn’t adequately argue their case? The absence of a relevant GTR?

Or is it simply an artifact of  vegetation management by courts?

Sierra-Sequoia Prescribed Burning EA and Some Objection Letters, Including “Untrammeling the Wilderness”

by
A fire technician ignites a burn pile in the Big Stump area of Kings Canyon National Park along Highway 180 east of Fresno, California. NATIONAL PARK SERVICE

The Sierra and Sequoia National Forests took an interesting and creative approach to project planning.  It makes sense for neighboring forests with similar landscape conditions to work together.  They did an EA and apparently tried to take the contentious stuff out… it’s for prescribed burning and the size of trees to be removed cannot exceed 12 inches.  The EA uses CBM which some people don’t like.  I think it’s particularly interesting because of the effort to optimize analysis of practices that are not particularly controversial.  So shout-out to them!

The objectors included Wilderness Watch, Sierra Club and Sequoia Forestkeepers, the John Muir Project and the Fire Restoration Group. Some of the objections were procedural and predictable, but others had interesting (and in one case) stunning things to say…

I thought a couple of the objection letters were interesting…I bolded the parts I found of particular interest.

From the John Muir Project:

Our objection could be resolved if either of the two conditions is met: a) an EIS is prepared; or b) the draft decisions are modified to allow prescribed fire, managed wildfire, and Indigenous cultural burning, but would not involve mechanical thinning of trees up to 12 inches in diameter as is currently proposed.As detailed in our EA comments and attachments, which we incorporate by reference here, the final EA violates NEPA, as amended by the Builder Act of 2023, by failing to take a hard look at the submitted science showing that no removal of trees–not even small trees–is needed before conducting burning, even in the densest and most long-unburned stands, and even in stands with high levels of dead wood. Fire behavior is fundamentally about fire weather, and burning can be safely conducted in any forest if burning is done in mild fire weather during the early or late part of fire season (June or Oct./Nov.). Moreover, the final EA violates NEPA by failing to consider a reasonable range of alternatives, especially a burn-only alternative (nomechanical thinning), and by failing to prepare an EIS.

 

“No removal of trees is ever needed before conducting burning.”  Technically I think this is true.   You can burn through a dense, dead stand without removing any trees. But there’s another goal.. most people would like some living trees at the end of the project.  Because if you lose them all you lose their carbon sequestering, the wildlife habitat, and the parent trees for future stands.  If you want to keep living trees, though, I’ve seen those stands.  No amount of  JMP “science” can make me favor their views over my own experience.  And I wonder about a process that makes federal employees take time to write a rebuttal, plus federal judges to consider it. Maybe, just maybe,  there are more useful activities that feds and judges and OGC and DOJ could be doing.

Apparently the use of PF in Wilderness is an issue.  I thought these comments by folks at the Fire Restoration Group were interesting… of course the link to the research paper in the letter didn’t work because of the FS website conversion, so here it is.

Abstract: Historical and contemporary policies and practices, including the suppression of lightning-ignited fires and the removal of intentional fires ignited by Indigenous peoples, have resulted in over a century of fire exclusion across many of the USA’s landscapes. Within many designated wilderness areas, this intentional exclusion of fire has clearly altered ecological processes and thus constitutes a fundamental and ubiquitous act of trammeling. Through a framework that recognizes four orders of trammeling, we demonstrate the substantial, long-term, and negative effects of fire exclusion on the natural conditions of fire-adapted wilderness ecosystems. In order to untrammel more than a century of fire exclusion, the implementation of active programs of intentional burning may be necessary across some wilderness landscapes. We also suggest greater recognition and accommodation of Indigenous cultural burning, a practice which Tribes used to shape and maintain many fire-adapted landscapes for thousands of years before Euro-American colonization, including landscapes today designated as wilderness.

Human-ignited fire may be critical to restoring the natural character of fire-adapted wilderness landscapes and can also support ecocultural restoration efforts sought by Indigenous peoples. In the DEA page. 77 states, “The existing risk of high-severity wildfires would persist on the landscape and fire suppression and its associated activities, departure of vegetation communities from natural fire regimes, and the potential effects of damaging wildfire would continue to degrade the untrammeled, natural, and undeveloped qualities of wilderness character as described below.”

Remedy: Basically, asserting in Boerigter et al. 2024, that POLICY can also trammel wilderness values, not just bulldozers. While the 1964 Wilderness Act went out of its way to call out the “hand of man” as in many cases damaging to pristine wilderness values, what it failed to consider is that “man” (Tribal men, women, and children) have been living in, traveling through, and actively burning in these wilderness landscapes for thousands of years.
Finally, the 1964 Wilderness Act allows for full suppression in Wilderness Areas, including significant dozer fire line construction, but somehow that action is acceptable, where planned, restorative fire that is a key part of wilderness ecological function and integrity is not-it makes no sense. As long as the planned fire use follows minimum impact strategies you are increasing resilience, ecological integrity, biodiversity enhancement and key wilderness values, i.e., a naturally functioning ecosystem. Point out this incongruency directly and more assertively.

An interesting thought.. “policy can also trammel wilderness values.” I’m not a Wilderness person, but I’d guess that there may be a tension between different sets of Wilderness values.

Here’s Wilderness Watch’s Take Action.