Groups in Western North Carolina continue projects while U.S. Forest Service finalizes choices for comprehensive 20-year plan.
Excerpt:
The forest planning process launched in late 2012. New federal forest planning rules and other federal regulations guide the process and were intended to span a three- to five-year period.
However, navigating the new rules amid substantial public participation and the pandemic has prolonged the planning process. In February 2020, the U.S. Forest Service released a proposed land management plan with four alternatives, each with a slightly different set of conditions.
Previously I posted on the BBB (so-called Build Back Better) or as I call it, for forest policy, SLSA (Spreading Large Sums Around). Like I said in the previous post, I don’t think the line items are bad ideas, but a bunch of them overlap with ordinary appropriations, and are not exactly transformational change; and don’t have much to do with climate change. The name is “building” but in the forest section there’s a great deal of strategizing, assessing and analyzing. I have a copy of the October 28 version and it’s posted below (just the National Forest section). Perhaps thanks to the Forest Service, they have changed the WUI in the “10 Billion for WUI Fuel Treatments” back to the HFRA WUI definition, and there are some other wording changes to the test of whether the WUI is completed enough to use the extra $4 billion. Getting CWPPs back into the mix is a good idea as many places have very old and out of date CWPPs. At least where communities are adjacent to FS land, this would provide more incentive to update them The Colorado Springs Gazette did a recent story on that. Let me know if there’s a paywall.
Apologies if I didn’t remove all the line numbers.
My thoughts: these are enormous sums for activities that the FS usually gets through general appropriations, so I’m having a hard time understanding why (for NFs) this is “Build Back Better” rather than “putting huge numbers of dollars into the usual line items, with tweaks for friendly NGOs.” There’s also a serious capacity issue. Sending too much money when agencies aren’t prepared tends to create waste, in my experience. It seems like no one really looked at these numbers, and no agency (that I know of ) has ever said “no” to more money. It doesn’t seem like a very thoughtful nor inclusive process. Of course, that’s politics, not policy but still… we can hope for better.
******************
For discussion:
Thoughts about what’s in here?
**********************************************
a) APPROPRIATIONS.—In addition to amounts other wise available, there are appropriated to the Secretary for fiscal year 2022, out of any money in the Treasury not
otherwise appropriated, to remain available until September 30, 2031—
1 (1) $10,000,000,000 for hazardous fuels reduction projects on National Forest System land within the wildland-urban interface;
4 (2) $4,000,000,000 for, on a determination made solely by the Secretary that hazardous fuels reduction projects within the wildland-urban interface described in paragraph have been planned to protect, to the extent practicable, at-risk communities, hazardous fuels reduction projects on National Forest System land outside the wildland urban interface that are—
Here’s the previous language:
“On a determination by the Secretary that hazardous fuels within the wildland-urban interface have been effectively treated to prevent the spread of wildfire to at-risk communities, hazardous fuels reduction projects outside the wildland-urban interface that are” I bolded the changes.
(A) primarily noncommercial in nature, provided that, in accordance with the best available science, the harvest of merchantable materials shall be ecologically appropriate for restoration and to enhance ecological health and function, and any sale of merchantable materials under this paragraph shall be limited to small diameter trees or biomass that are a by product of hazardous fuel reduction projects;
(B) collaboratively developed; and (C) carried out in a manner that enhances the ecological integrity and achieves the restoration of a forest ecosystem; maximizes the retention of old-growth and large trees, as appropriate for the forest type; and prioritizes prescribed fire as the primary means to achieve 3 modified wildland fire behavior;
(3) $1,000,000,000 for vegetation management projects carried out solely on National Forest System land that the Secretary shall select following the receipt of proposals submitted in accordance with subsections (a), (b), and (c) of section 4003 of the Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009 (16 10 U.S.C. 7303);
(4) $400,000,000 for vegetation management projects on National Forest System land carried out in accordance with a water source management plan or a watershed protection and restoration action plan;
(5) $400,000,000 for vegetation management projects on National Forest System land that— (A) maintain, or contribute toward the restoration of, reference old growth characteristics,
including structure, composition, function, and connectivity;
(B) prioritize small diameter trees and prescribed fire to modify fire behavior; and (C) maximize the retention of large trees, as appropriate for the forest type;
(6) $450,000,000 for the Legacy Roads and Trails program of the Forest Service;
(7) $350,000,000 for National Forest System 4 land management planning and monitoring, prioritized on the assessment of watershed, ecological, and carbon conditions on National Forest Sys tem land and the revision and amendment of older land management plans that present opportunities to protect, maintain, restore, and monitor ecological integrity, ecological conditions for at-risk species, and carbon storage;
(8) $100,000,000 for maintenance of trails on National Forest System land, with a priority on trails that provide to underserved communities access to National Forest System land;
(9) $100,000,000 for capital maintenance and improvements on National Forest System land, with a priority on maintenance level 3, 4, and 5 roads and improvements that restore ecological integrity and conditions for at-risk species;
(10) $100,000,000 to provide for more efficient and more effective environmental reviews by the Chief of the Forest Service in satisfying the obligations of the Chief of the Forest Service under the
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 2 U.S.C. 4321 through 4370m–12);
(11) $50,000,000 to develop and carry out activities and tactics for the protection of older and mature forests on National Forest System land, including completing an inventory of older and mature 7 forests within the National Forest System;
(12) $50,000,000 to develop and carry out activities and tactics for the maintenance and restoration of habitat conditions necessary for the protection and recovery of at-risk species on National Forest System land;
(13) $50,000,000 to carry out post-fire recovery plans on National Forest System land that emphasize the use of locally adapted native plant materials to restore the ecological integrity of disturbed areas and do not include salvage logging; and
(14) $50,000,000 to develop and carry out non- lethal activities and tactics to reduce human-wildlife conflicts on National Forest System land.
(b) PRIORITY FOR FUNDING.—For projects described in paragraphs (1) through (5) of subsection (a), the Secretary shall prioritize for implementation projects—
(1) for which an environmental assessment or an environmental impact statement required under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 2 U.S.C. 4321 through 4370m–12) has been completed;
(2) that are collaboratively developed; or
(3) that include opportunities to restore sustainable recreation infrastructure or access or accomplish other recreation outcomes on National For est System lands, if the opportunities are compatible 9 with the primary restoration purposes of the project.
10 (c) LIMITATIONS.—None of the funds made available by this section may be used for any activity—
12 (1) conducted in a wilderness area or wilderness 13 study area;
14 (2) that includes the construction of a permanent road or permanent trail;
16 (3) that includes the construction of a temporary road, except in the case of a temporary road that is decommissioned by the Secretary not later than 3 years after the earlier of—
20 (A) the date on which the temporary road is no longer needed; and (B) the date on which the project for which the temporary road was constructed is completed;
(4) inconsistent with the applicable land management plan;
(5) inconsistent with the prohibitions of the rule 4 of the Forest Service entitled ‘‘Special Areas; 5 Roadless Area Conservation’’ (66 Fed. Reg. 3244 6 (January 12, 2001)), as modified by subparts C and 7 D of part 294 of title 36, Code of Federal Regulations; or (6) carried out on any land that is not National Forest System land, including other forested land on Federal, State, Tribal, or private land.
12 (d) DEFINITIONS.—In this section:
13 (1) AT-RISK COMMUNITY.—The term ‘‘at-risk 14 community’’ has the meaning given the term in section 101 of the Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003 (16 U.S.C. 6511).
17 (2) COLLABORATIVELY DEVELOPED.—The term ‘‘collaboratively developed’’ means, with respect to a project located exclusively on National Forest System land, that the project is developed and implemented through a collaborative process that—
22 (A) includes multiple interested persons
23 representing diverse interests, except such persons shall not be employed by the Federal government or representatives of foreign entities; and
(B)(i) is transparent and nonexclusive; or (ii) meets the requirements for a resource advisory committee under subsections (c)
through (f) of section 205 of the Secure Rural 7 Schools and Community Self-Determination Act 8 of 2000 (16 U.S.C. 7125).
(3) DECOMMISSION.—The term ‘‘decommission’’ means, with respect to a road— (A) reestablishing native vegetation on the road;
(B) restoring any natural drainage, watershed function, or other ecological processes that were disrupted or adversely impacted by the road by removing or hydrologically disconnecting the road prism and reestablishing stable slope contours; and
(C) effectively blocking the road to vehicular traffic, where feasible.
(4) ECOLOGICAL INTEGRITY.—The term ‘‘ecological integrity’’ has the meaning given the term in section 219.19 of title 36, Code of Federal Regulations (as in effect on the date of enactment of this
(5) HAZARDOUS FUELS REDUCTION 2 PROJECT.—The term ‘‘hazardous fuels reduction project’’ means an activity, including the use of prescribed fire, to protect structures and communities from wildfire that is carried out on National Forest System land.
(6) RESTORATION.—The term ‘‘restoration’’ has the meaning given the term in section 219.19 of 9 title 36, Code of Federal Regulations (as in effect on the date of enactment of this Act).
(7) VEGETATION MANAGEMENT PROJECT.—The term ‘‘vegetation management project’’ means an activity carried out on National Forest System land to enhance the ecological integrity and achieve the restoration of a forest ecosystem through the removal of vegetation, the use of prescribed fire, the restoration of aquatic habitat, or the decommissioning of an unauthorized, temporary, or system road.
(8) WATER SOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN.—The term ‘‘water source management plan’’ means a plan developed under section 303(d)(1) of the Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003 (16 U.S.C. 23 6542(d)(1)).
(9) WATERSHED PROTECTION AND RESTORA25 TION ACTION PLAN.—The term ‘‘watershed protection and restoration action plan’’ means a plan developed under section 304(a)(3) of the Healthy For3 ests Restoration Act of 2003 (16 U.S.C. 4 6543(a)(3)).
(10) WILDLAND-URBAN INTERFACE.—The term ‘‘wildland-urban interface’’ has the meaning given the term in section 101 of the Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003 (16 U.S.C. 6511).
Bill Gabbert at Wildfire Today recently posted a USFS video on the Caldor Fire. This scene from the video illustrates the fuels problem in the Sierras. Larry might tell us if this amount of fuel is as widespread as I think it is. In any case, the image shows so many piles that burning them might kill some of the green trees. If the fuels had been left in place, a prescribed fire might have killed even more trees, and a wildfire might kill all of them. The material could be removed mechanically, but at what cost? There’s no easy or cheap solution.
Florida Defenders of the Environment v. U.S. Forest Service (11th Cir.) – On October 25, the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals issued a decision favorable to the Forest Service regarding the Kirkpatrick Dam, Rodman Reservoir, and Eureka Lock and Dam located, in part, on the Ocala National Forest, and the associated 1994 special use permit (SUP) that expired in 2002, concluding that enforcement action or inaction by the Forest Service, and the Forest Service’s decision on the related petition for Rulemaking are at the Agency’s discretion, and not subject to judicial review. (The district court decision was addressed here. This article provides more background.)
Sierra Snowmobile Foundation v. U.S. Forest Service (E.D. Cal.) — On October 13, the plaintiff organizations and individuals filed a complaint regarding the over-snow vehicle (OSV) use designation on the Stanislaus National Forest, which would eliminate historic OSV-use areas.
Friends of the Inyo v. U.S. Forest Service (E.D. Cal.) — On October 21, Friends of the Inyo, Western Watersheds Project, Center for Biological Diversity, and Sierra Club filed a complaint regarding the the Kore Mining project in Inyo National Forest’s Long Valley area, which was based on a categorical exclusion for one year or less of mineral exploration and a separate CE for reclamation, and may affect the Bi-State sage grouse and Owens tui chub.
BLOGGER’S BONUS
Fish and Wildlife Service cases
Northern spotted owl: American Forest Resource Council v. Williams(D. D.C.) – On October 13, plaintiffs, a trade association and several local governmental entities located in the Pacific Northwest, were denied a preliminary injunction by the district court against two regulations delaying the elimination of northern spotted owl critical habitat because they failed to show any concrete and imminent injury that an injunction would remedy.
Mexican wolf: Center for Biological Diversity v. Haaland (D. Ariz.) – On October 14, the district court remanded the 2017 Mexican Wolf Recovery Plan to the Fish and Wildlife Service because it failed to include “objective, measurable criteria to assess the threat of human-caused mortality; the threat from inadequate regulatory mechanisms; genetic threats; and threats to habitat.”
Updates to Trump Administration rulemaking litigation
NEPA: On October 7, the Council on Environmental Quality published the first of two proposed rules to “generally restore” NEPA regulations that were in place prior to the 2020 updates. (There is some discussion of the litigation here.)
ESA: On October 27, 2021, the Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service published two proposals in the Federal Register to rescind critical habitat regulations promulgated by the Trump Administration that defined the term “habitat” and promoted consideration of economic tradeoffs of designation. (This earlier note lists some of the litigation, and it was also discussed here.)
On October 21, fishing and conservation groups joined with the state of Oregon, the Nez Perce Tribe and the Biden administration to seek a pause in litigation challenging the latest federal plan for hydropower operations on the Snake and Columbia rivers in an effort to save endangered salmon runs. (A related discussion is here.)
Current plan revision schedule. You can click on this and get higher resolution. I recently heard that the Pisgah-Nantahala (which started in 2012 with assessing) is about to release its draft.
Sure enough, the FS doesn’t actually have a “can’t do” attitude as it appeared from my read of the recent hearing. From chatting further with Chris French, it turns out that they are well down the road with an innovative approach to deal with LMP revisions, and to actually get them back on schedule (!).
Sure enough, (this will not surprise anyone) the 2012 Rule is difficult and complex to do, and the FS decentralized approach makes for inconsistencies. We’ve observed those here at TSW. Despite the unduly optimistic Q&As from the 2012 Rule:
Under the 2012 planning rule the agency should be able to revise more plans with the same amount of money. The 2012 planning rule should reduce the amount of time (3-4 vs. 5-7 years) and the amount of money ($3-4 vs. $5-7 million) that it takes to revise individual forest and grassland land management plans, as compared to the current 1982 procedures.
That’s not the way it’s worked out. Using simple logic, if you do more analysis and involve people more, it takes more time and costs more money. This seemed obvious to everyone at the time, apparently everyone but the people who did the PR for the Rule. So the reality has been more like 7-8 years. And the FS folks noticed that this was a problem, especially since the desired target of NFMA is a plan that is revised every 15 years. It makes sense for them to try something different, because next year will be 10 years since the 2012 Rule was published, and it is a reasonable time to assess how it has been working and to do some adaptive management.
So to that end, the FS is in the process of figuring out the details of a new way to approach forest planning. It’s a hybrid model, with decision authority and stakeholder involvement remaining at the forest level, while analysis and other technical issues are provided in geographic teams that handle multiple revisions. There will also be some national teams or other efforts to ensure consistency. The idea is to be able to get on a national planning rotation of 10-15 years with an expected timeframe of 3-4 years per plan.
Chris also made clear that this hybrid model was developed prior to the current discussions on the Reconciliation bill, which as you may remember calls for (in October 28 version):
$350,000,000 for National Forest System land management planning and monitoring, prioritized on the assessment of watershed, ecological, and carbon conditions on National Forest System land and the revision and amendment of older land management plans that present opportunities to protect, maintain, restore, and monitor ecological integrity, ecological conditions for at-risk species, and carbon storage.
Chris noted that that this funding would indeed be helpful in getting plans done.
So stay tuned, and more information will be forthcoming on the details of the model when the Forest Service has the complete package finalized.
*************************
My view: this approach sounds eminently sensible to me. After all, decentralization is a philosophy, not a commandment. Some regions do some versions of this already, as I understand.
It also reminds me of the BLM RMP approach in Nevada that we looked at here and their rationales. If you do something once every twenty to thirty years, it’s unlikely you will get very good at it compared to those who do it all the time. And in the case of the 2012 Rule, if you’ve never done it, you’re probably not as good at using it as someone who has.
As a wonk, I would have preferred a more formal open process with public involvement in “what is working and what isn’t” after ten years of experience, including the views of stakeholders, scientists, and so on, who actually have been involved in the guts of a revision process. It would include the possibility of tweaks to the Rule itself. Like an LMP, doing a new rule is opening Pandora’s box, whereas specific amendments can be very helpful based on the concept of a “need for change.”
Side note: If the FS chose to prioritize fire amendments instead of revisions (OK, which seems unlikely, still..), the bill language does include “amendment of older LMPs” which almost all are, the FS would have to argue they are protecting eco integrity, conditions for at-risk species and carbon storage. And fire amendments (managed wildfires, prescribed burning, POD delineation and analysis of specific treatments) would do that, IMHO.
Cross-laminated timber can speed up building projects by as much as 40%, Timber Age Systems Inc. co-founder Andrew Hawk said. (Jerry McBride/Durango Herald) Jerry McBride
It’s interesting to see how workers and companies who provide forest products are considered to be bad in some places, but considered environmentally helpful where people are doing fuel treatments. Is it memory of the timber wars, or current practices, or ?? There’s also the local production/use angle, as I’ve written before.. if it’s good for food, why not wood?
Check out this story about a new mill in Durango was interesting.. especially where they got the grant to build a facility. I wonder whether Arizona has such a program (to help out with 4FRI)?. You’d think if these folks could make a go of it in Durango..
Timber Age Systems Inc., a Durango company that specializes in making cross-laminated timber for sustainable building projects, plans to expand its manufacturing capacity and develop a new facility after receiving a grant from the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment’s Recycling Resources Economic Opportunity Program.
The approximately $440,000 grant will cover the creation of a new 2,500- to 3,000-square-foot manufacturing plant in La Plata County that will triple Timber Age’s capacity, said co-founder Andrew Hawk. It will also help the company add more employees and grow its use of locally harvested ponderosa pines.
Also..
Timber Age Systems aims to create usable wood products from fire mitigation efforts across the Southwest. The company sources all of the wood it uses from fire mitigation projects, turning to public and private lands for the ponderosa pines it needs.
Doing so diverts trees that would usually be wasted while creating economic opportunity and a product local builders can use. It’s all a part of Timber Age Systems’ efforts to use sustainable building to create healthy forests.
“If ponderosa pine is going to be removed from the forest from a forest health and fire mitigation standpoint, we as a community need to figure out what to do with it. And we need some sort of market for it,” Hawk said. “So it was as much about figuring out how to utilize the wood and divert it from landfill or burning as it was figuring out how to put it in buildings”
For the past 10 years I have been writing a semi-regular series of article/editorials for the quarterly Oregon Fish & Wildlife Journal. This popular outdoor magazine is now in its 43rd year of publication and has a circulation of about 10,000, including all elected Oregon officials and most rural Oregon barbershops. Founder Cristy Rein still remains firmly in charge as the magazine’s publisher and conservative editor. My writings for her have mostly focused on forest restoration, wildfire history and forestry education and can be found here:
My most recent entry, published in early October, is an article about the risks posed by North Umpqua River basin snags in the aftermath of the 2020 Labor Day Fires. The North Umpqua is in Douglas County, in Oregon’s western Cascades.
This article is the first in a two-part series and details the relative risks posed to people, property and wildlife by leaving snags on the landscape. The next article will suggest mitigating forest restoration strategies for each of the four major landownerships (USFS, BLM, industrial tree farm, rural residential) in dealing with snags created or reburned by these fires. Both articles are directly derived from a commissioned report I wrote last summer for Douglas Timber Operators (DTO) under the direction of Matt Hill, DTO Executive Director.
The following pages contain the 10 images, two maps and table from my article, along with their captions. These give an idea as to the scope of the snag problem as it has developed during the past 20 years, and particularly on Umpqua NF lands within the North Umpqua basin. First, some background, starting with the basics:
A snag is a dead, standing tree. When it falls to the ground it becomes a log. Once a snag is created, the question becomes whether to leave it standing, or turn it into a log.
In western Oregon the most common tree is a Douglas fir. It typically grows in vast stands of even-aged trees numbering dozens or hundreds per acre. Contiguous stands and individual trees can grow and survive for centuries, even when surrounding stands have been decimated by windstorms, floods, landslides, insects, spot fires or other means. However, when a “crown fire” goes through a stand of Douglas fir, nearly all (or all) of the trees are killed and instantly become snags.
The September 8-10, 2020 Labor Day Fires in western Oregon burned nearly a million acres of land — mostly Douglas fir forestland — killed 11 people, destroyed more than 4,000 homes, polluted the air with toxic smoke for nearly two weeks and killed millions of native wildlife.
Of this amount, the Archie Creek Fire, along the North Umpqua River, was responsible for one human death, more than 150 people losing their homes, and over 131,000 acres, mostly forested, being burned. Due to its large size and rapid spread, mortality of native plants — including extensive stands of Douglas fir — and animals approached 100% within much of the fire’s perimeter (see Figures 1 and 2).
Beginning in 1987, and accelerating after 2002, the number of large-scale fires has increased dramatically on the North Umpqua, and particularly on the Umpqua NF (see Table). Immediately following the Archie Creek Fire, the USDA Rapid Assessment Team (RAT) noted:
“Over the past 20 years, 28% of the Umpqua [NF] has burned in wildfires, with the total acreage being higher due to several areas being burned two to three times over the past 20 years. Less than 1% of these past fires in total have been salvaged, with the majority of snag loss occurring along roadsides as danger tree mitigation to keep open public access. Therefore, snag abundance at the landscape level will likely be above the 80% tolerance level on the North Umpqua and Diamond Lake Ranger Districts for quite some time.”
The important statement in this quote is that “several areas [have] burned two to three times over the past 20 years.” Following the 2020 RAT report, the 2021 Jack Fire, Chaos Fire and Rough Patch Complex have burned more than 75,000 additional North Umpqua acres on Umpqua NF lands; much of which already had snags from earlier fires.
Summary: Almost all major wildfires on the North Umpqua during the past 20 years have taken place on the Umpqua NF. Almost all of the snags resulting from these fires have been left in place, many burning a second or third time since they were initially created. Snags provide a continuing and documented threat to burn again; to kill and harm people and wildlife; to disrupt travel, power and communications corridors; to accelerate erosion; and — compared to living trees by most people — are ugly and unsightly. Their value as ephemeral wildlife habitat is open to interpretation.
This take is from the AFRC newsletter..thanks to Nick Smith for putting in the links to all the info, so you can decide on your own interpretation.
Forestry legislation gets hearing in the Senate. On October 21, the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee held a legislative hearing to consider nine forest-related bills, including legislation from Senator Steve Daines (R-MT) to address the Cottonwood litigation hook (S. 2561) and authorize a pilot for binding arbitration judicial reform for collaborative forest management projects (S. 2564). Also on the agenda were Senator Jim Risch’s (R-ID) FIRESHEDS Act (S. 2436) to streamline projects within emergency fireshed management acres, Senator Ron Wyden’s (D-OR) legislation to streamline and mandate greater use of prescribed fire (S. 1734), and legislation from Senators Joe Manchin and John Barrasso (R-WY) to promote reforestation activities and the carbon sequestration benefits of active forest management (S. 2836). Manchin chairs the Committee and Barrasso serves as the Ranking Member.
The Administration was represented at the hearing by U.S. Forest Service Deputy Chief Chris French and Jeffrey Rupert, Director of the U.S. Department of the Interior’s Office of Wildland Fire. Non-federal witnesses included Bill Crapser, Wyoming State Forester, Paul Johnson of the West Virginia Division of Natural Resources, and Tyson Bertone-Riggs of the Rural Voices for Conservation Coalition. A recording of the hearing and witness testimony are available online.
Deputy Chief French noted that forests “are burning at scales and scopes that we’ve not seen before, that are having tragic and unacceptable effects to our communities, our interagency firefighting resources, and the long-term sustainability of our nation’s forests.” French voiced appreciation for the Committee’s efforts and noted that the various bills all seek to address “different aspects” of the challenges facing the Forest Service’s efforts to increase forest management activities and indicated that the agency would like to work with the Committee to improve the proposals.
Jeffrey Rupert pointed to climate change as the cause of the worsening wildfire seasons and signaled Interior’s opposition towards proposals to streamline environmental reviews, including Senator Risch’s FIRESHEDS Act. Tyson Bertone-Riggs championed prescribed fire legislation from Senator Ron Wyden and legislation from Senator Diane Feinstein that focused largely on thinning and other fuels reduction activities near at-risk communities. Senator Wyden claimed that his bill, which would mandate greater use of prescribed fire by the Forest Service and loosen Clean Air Act restriction on prescribed fire smoke, will “give us the chance to do some of the heavy lifting in the cooler weather, and in the process avoid these infernos we see in the summer.”
Here’s the NEPA in Wyden S1734, a CE for Prescribed burns that would be developed by the agencies..
RULEMAKING.—Not later than 2 years after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretaries shall publish in the Federal Register for public review and comment a series of notices of proposed categorical exclusions from the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) for implementing prescribed fire projects in, at a minimum, the following forest types:
(A) Longleaf pine forest.
(B) Shortleaf pine forest.
(C) Ponderosa pine forest.
(D) Pinyon-juniper forest.
(E) Dry-site Douglas-fir forest.
(F) Chaparral shrubland.
Here’s what the FS testimony said about that:
To better meet the intent of Section 204(b), USDA would like to work with the Committee and bill sponsor to more closely align the requirements of this subsection with the guidance provided by the Council on Environmental Quality for the development of National Environmental Protection ActCategorical Exclusions.
This made me curious as to why this bill would ask the USDA and Interior to write CEs instead of just legislating them. As a person who worked on some and supervised people that worked on them, I’d recommend just legislating them. It’s not rocket science.. it’s acre limits and other kinds of limits, that could easily be worked out in legislation. They just have to get out the notices in two years, and there’s an election coming as always. Plus the last time I remember DOI and USDA doing a CE it was lost in litigation, even though the process was probably better than others that did not lose. So you’re rolling the dice.
I’m pretty interested in the arbitration pilot (I don’t think the legislative and executive branches do enough pilots). So here is what the FS written testimony was:
S. 2564 would require the Secretary of Agriculture to establish an arbitration pilot program through rulemaking within two years of the bill’s enactment. The bill limits the types of projects the Secretary can designate for arbitration to those developed within a specified collaborative process, carried out under the Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration Program, or that are part of a community wildfire protection plan. The bill also requires that projects designated for arbitration must be located in whole or in part in the Wildland Urban Interface and must have, as a purpose, reducing hazardous fuels or mitigating insect and disease infestation.
In keeping within the scope of a pilot program, this bill would be carried out only in the States of Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming, and would authorize two projects per year to be designated for arbitration. This program would be in effect for five years.
USDA is open to future discussions with the bill sponsor and Committee staff regarding the proposal for an arbitration pilot program.
I don’t know if that is testimony language for “no way in heck” but it’s still of interest. It would be awkward to tell Congress “we’re not open to discussions.”
There is quite a bit of interesting info in the FS testimony about the bills.. feel free to bring up any others and we can discuss below.
A series of interactive panel discussions designed to connect fire managers and researchers. Each discussion will be built on questions from the registered attendees. We’re working to bring people together to discuss, explore, and address the latest fire science and fire management issues across the eastern United States.
If you click on this screenshot, you can see the FTEM Dashboard more clearly.
Region 6 (Pacific Northwest) is experimenting with making information from FTEM (fuel treatment effectiveness monitoring) more accessible to the public. They produced this Dashboard, which I think is really interesting and fun to play with. My favorite thing to do is to look at the reports for the treatment units on fires in country I’ve worked in, and look at the photos.
FTEM also contains information on how many fires encountered fuel treatments in a given year, and what was the outcome. Clearly fires have been encountering fuel treatments, and having effects. That may be counter to some modeling projections (can’t remember the study offhand).
If you’re interested, please explore it and feel free to ask questions and make suggestions in the comments below.
The FTEM team is also working on loading information for more recent years, and analyzing FY ’21 data.
