This is an excerpt from a Greenwire article today, “3 years to show visitors a tree? Slow permits hamper guides”… The article offers quotes from one guide, and there may be more at play in this instance than a shortage of staff and a slow process.
An Alaska guide’s three-year wait for a permit to show hikers a big tree in Tongass National Forest has ended — but only after the state’s senior senator intervened last week.
“It’s effectively taking an act of Congress,” Senate Energy and Natural Resources Chairwoman Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) told E&E News yesterday, days after she raised the subject with Forest Service Chief Vicki Christiansen at a committee budget hearing. “They recognize that it is not right.”
Dan Kirkwood, guide and general manager with Pack Creek Bear Tours in Juneau, has been trying to arrange tours of five to 10 people at a time in a wilderness area on Admiralty Island, part of the nearly 17-million-acre Tongass — the country’s biggest national forest. The Forest Service requires special-use permits for commercial activities to guard against overuse of sensitive sites, a system Kirkwood told E&E News he supports.
Kirkwood’s bureaucratic tangle isn’t unheard of: The Forest Service continues to struggle with delays handling the thousands of requests it receives nationally for special-use permits. The trouble is more profound in Alaska, where the agency has a shortage of staff, although Christiansen said officials continue to work at shortening the wait times.
The main attraction for Kirkwood: a giant spruce called the Candelabra Tree. It’s an example of the kind of old growth that endures in areas of the Tongass that haven’t been logged. But it’s not far from areas the public might visit; the spot is about 20 feet away from a state-owned beach, and it’s between two bear-viewing areas that Kirkwood said he already has permits to visit.
“This is a place we knew of because it’s a cool thing to look at,” said Kirkwood, who received a one-year temporary permit that might be extended. “We want to play by the rules.”
Congress and the Forest Service agree that staffing levels are largely to blame for the crunch. Budget cuts have played a role, Murkowski said, especially because the Forest Service appeared to apply them unevenly, with Alaska taking more than its share.
A Forest Service spokeswoman didn’t immediately return a request for comment from E&E News, but Christiansen said at the hearing that she’s making permits a high priority.
Vehicles waiting to enter the North Entrance of Yellowstone; Jim Peaco; July 28, 2015; Catalog #20471d; Original #IMG_9185
I wanted to highlight some interesting information from Lance, which was embedded way down in a different thread here. I’d like to start by reiterating one of my favorite Andrew Greeley quotes
in which Bishop Blackie Ryan says about individualism:
“Actually, individualism doesn’t exist”..””the word is a label, an artifact under which one may subsume a number of often contrasting and sometimes contradictory developments and ideas. Such constructs ought not be reified as if there is some overpowering reality in the outside world that corresponds to them.” From The Bishop and the Beggar Girl of St. Garmain. Today we might also ask of popular abstractions “who or what communities initiated these abstraction?” “why” and what other people or communities might win or lose from such framing?”
We old people remember forest management before the idea of sustainability took hold, and then the idea of ecosystem management,then ecosystem health, restoration, and ecosystem integrity. Basically, you could have the same thinning project and discuss whether it was sustainable, whether it fits in to ecosystem management, whether it contributes to ecosystem health, or ecosystem integrity, or restoration. But if you were watching, often the same folks were on the same side of arguing that the project is, or is not, sustainable, etc. all the way to integrity. I call this the “abstraction of the decade.” It’s great for producing new conferences and scientific papers with basically the same on-the ground information with a few new ideas thrown in. basically the same old disagreements (bad vs. good) under the mantle of a new abstraction. Again, as an old person, I’m not sure we’re moving the ball forward, however we might mutually envision what that would look like, by changing labels. Nevertheless it appears that a new abstraction has entered our abstraction corral.. the “intact” ecosystem.
Given that, let’s go on to what Lance observed in his comment here:
When the Greater Yellowstone Coalition talks about ecosystem integrity they state as their vision, “Our vision is a healthy and intact Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem where critical lands and waters are adequately protected, wildlife is managed in a thoughtful, sustainable manner and a strong, diverse base of support is working to conserve this special place as part of a larger, connected Northern Rocky Mountain Region.”
When the Trust for Public Land talks about an intact ecosystem they highlight the area having all the species that were present during the Lewis and Clark expedition.
In my quick review a few key themes came out: viable populations of historic flora and fauna, clean water, and connectivity to other regions. Less explicit were a relative lack of a human presence and natural process progressing unimpeded by human intervention (dare we say untrammeled.) I don’t have an issue with a definition based on these key points. I would disagree with a definition based on , “ those hunks of landscape we all know of that deserve more protection than they’re getting…” since it is presumptuous of me assume that my preferences are universal. We are lucky in Montana to have ecosystems so intact. Much like the Eastern Wilderness Act allowed more trammeled land to become wilderness along the east coast than we we consider pristine in the west, a certain amount of flexibility would need to be applied to implement in other states.
Now the Bitterroot Front abuts the Selway-Bitterroot and is part of the Central Idaho ecosystem and at this time is one large furry omnivore away from having it’s full complement of animals. So one issue of the Bitterroot Front Proposal impact the future introduction of grizzlies naturally, as one did this summer, or by introduction. A related question would be impacts on connectivity to the Glacier region and the Yellowstone region. As an aside it is interesting the the core of both of these ecosystems are trammeled National Parks, indicating that wilderness designation is not an absolute requirement for a healthy ecosystem.
I am still puzzled by how you can have a heavily trammeled Park in the middle of an “intact” ecosystem. Is it really as simple as “grizzly bears and wolves are there?”. Or does it mean “impacted by recreation and tourism only”?
I have been sucked into the “let’s comment on the CEQ NEPA regs” vortex. I’m of two minds about the page limit idea, so I thought I’d open it up for discussion.
Viewpoint 1. NEPA docs are long to bullet-proof them for litigation. Sure, there are cultural agency/NEPA team differences. Perhaps there are cultural reasons to overwrite (associated with importance of your professional area) but no one wants them to be long and impenetrable, or to spend more funding or time than necessary. Therefore, a page limit is pointless. CEQ’s story is that “if only agencies would be more focused and not blather on” but agency NEPA people continue to see things differently. After observing this for the last fifteen years or so, I think that they are continuing to talk past each other.
Viewpoint 2.If agencies really held to the page limits, then possibly projects would go to court sooner and work would be transferred from NEPA folks to OGC, DOJ, plaintiffs and the courts. Then we could have court-based iterative NEPA. It would either dragging on interminably (as in the North Fork Coal litigation, the Jarndyce v. Jarndyce of federal lands) or possibly, might goes to court, judge says to add a, b and c, agency adds a, b, and c, and everyone goes home. Pretty much it would depend on the pocketbooks and tenacity of the plaintiffs, which it pretty much does now, but there would be no expectation of “perfect” at the first go-round in court for anyone involved.
I’d call this the focused court-based NEPA strategy. Strategically, this might move the extra work to the courts-creating pressure among those with more power (judges and attorneys vs. NEPA practitioners) to find a different approach.
Of course, my realistic viewpoint is that agencies would ignore or make lots of exceptions for page limits, even if the proposed NEPA regulation isn’t thrown out in court or settled behind closed doors. Nevertheless, I know TSW readers come from a variety of experiences and perspectives and would appreciate what you all might add to this discussion.
If you have any specific comments on the rest of the reg, that would also be potentially helpful. Also, I’m requesting photos of piles of FS environmental documents for future use.
In my experience, there have been lots of controversies where the issue is about what scientific information was considered by an agency but was suppressed or ignored by an administrator, often for allegedly political reasons. It’s not unusual for the results of litigation to turn on documents that show an agency decision being arbitrary and capricious (violating the Administrative Procedure Act) because it is not supported by the record. But do those kinds of documents have to be available to the public, and what if they weren’t? The Supreme Court will be addressing such questions in U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service v. Sierra Club. The case involves the Freedom of Information Act, and its requirement to make government records available subject to exceptions that may cause harm, in particular protection of an agency’s “deliberative process.” (This exception generally lines up with requirements for what must be in an agency’s administrative record for a decision.)
The dispute stems from the Environmental Protection Agency’s 2011 proposal to change how it regulates power plants’ cooling water intake structures, which can crush or boil fish and other aquatic creatures.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service advised the agency on how the plan would affect threatened and endangered species. The services crafted draft opinions that said the EPA’s proposal was likely to harm protected species, but they later changed their conclusion and issued a “no jeopardy” finding.
When the Sierra Club used FOIA to get records related to the consultation process, the agencies withheld the draft opinions. After years of litigation, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in 2018 ordered the government to turn over the records.
The Trump administration in October asked the Supreme Court to step in, arguing that the circuit court ignored FOIA Exemption 5, which protects records from an agency’s “deliberative process.” The Sierra Club countered that the documents were labeled drafts but functioned as final opinions.
While this article doesn’t talk about it, the major federal environmental statutes have requirements to use the “best science,” including the Endangered Species Act involved in this case, but also NEPA and the Forest Service Planning Regulations. Agencies must prove they have done this by “showing their work.” This includes disclosing contrary science, and providing the rationale for not relying on it. It seems to me that any changes in the use of science or how it is viewed would be relevant to this requirement and must be explained to the public. This is probably why there are comments like these on this case:
Margaret Townsend, a Center for Biological Diversity attorney who focuses on government transparency, said her group will be watching the case closely, as the Supreme Court “has a crucial opportunity to tell agencies they can’t hide science at the expense of our endangered animals and plants.”
Brett Hartl, government affairs director for the center, noted that expanded use of FOIA’s “deliberative process” exemption could allow the EPA and others to block disclosure of critical documents that explain agency decisions.
Lewis and Clark Law School professor Daniel Rohlf said a win for the government at the Supreme Court could help agency leaders overrule their own scientists and other experts.
Here’s what the government would like us to believe (according to the apparently pro-government-secrecy advocates the Pacific Legal Foundation):
“And here the agencies decided that the draft should not be finalized because further consultation was necessary, and then actually engaged in more consultation before issuing a final opinion.”
Consultation with whom, I wonder. Since the Supreme Court agreed to review the case, the assumption is they would like to reverse in favor of the government. The Sierra Club may decide to fold, also because FOIA has been amended since this case was filed to restrict the use of this FOIA exemption and promote greater disclosure.
“Legal battles slow timber industry, forcing mill closure in Townsend,” an article by NBC Montana, has the usual back and forth over the issue, but includes a table from the USFS with the number of acres and volume affected by legal actions. Totals: 17588 acres, 138.3 mmbf. Anyone know how much of that is sales vetted by collaborative groups?
Ed Regan, resource manager at RY Timber, said: “I think the solution is that timber sales within timber management areas on national forests should not be subject to federal court review.”
That’s unlikely to happen, but it makes come sense to use CEs for timber sales within timber management areas, if there’s no unusual potential effect. After all, most timber sales are common activities and environmental effects are well understood.
Anyone know how much USFS land in Montana is in “timber management areas”?
“The Trump administration can’t sacrifice public lands at the expense of our climate,” said Jeremy Nichols, WildEarth Guardians’ climate and energy program director. “Today’s ruling is another win for the American public over the dirty coal industry and their climate-denying cronies in the federal government.”
“The Forest Service failed to provide a logically coherent explanation for its decision to eliminate the Pilot Knob Alternative,” the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit wrote. The court held the Forest Service illegally refused to protect 4,900 acres in the Gunnison National Forest’s Pilot Knob roadless area when it reopened nearly 20,000 acres to coal leasing and mining.
“The Forest Service can no longer ignore the climate and wildlife benefits of keeping Pilot Knob’s roadless forest free from coal mining,” said Matt Reed, public lands director for High Country Conservation Advocates. “Pilot Knob is an irreplaceable treasure, providing winter range for deer and bald eagles, severe winter range for elk, and historic and potential future habitat for the threatened Gunnison sage grouse. It is the last place we should be tearing up for coal mining.”
“Colorado roadless areas are a treasure we all share. The U.S. Forest Service long ago decided that these areas needed protection,” said Peter Hart, staff attorney at Wilderness Workshop. “Nonetheless, when the agency implemented the Colorado Roadless Rule, it exempted thousands of acres of pristine roadless lands outside of Paonia from protection to allow for coal mining. Today’s decision vacates that exception and it will, hopefully, ensure that North Fork Roadless Areas, including spectacular Pilot Knob, are properly protected for generations to come.”
“This is a big victory for Colorado’s wildlife and wild places,” said Allison Melton, an attorney at the Center for Biological Diversity. “Trump officials have been ruthlessly sacrificing our national forests and beautiful wilderness at the behest of polluters. Now they must do their jobs and consider an alternative that would protect important wildlife habitat. It’s encouraging to see the court stand up for bald eagles, mountain lions, mule deer and sage grouse.”
Located in the West Elk Mountains just east of the town of Paonia, the West Elk mine is the single-largest industrial source of methane pollution in Colorado. In 2017 it released more than 440,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide, equal to the annual emissions from more than 98,000 cars.
“While the Trump administration attempts to put our most treasured places in Colorado into the hands of corporate polluters, this victory undermines their blatant disregard for protecting our planet,” said Emily Gedeon, acting director of the Sierra Club’s Colorado chapter. “These are our public lands, and we’re proud to fight for them.”
“This is a victory for the remarkable wild forests of the North Fork Valley,” said Robin Cooley, the Earthjustice attorney who argued the case on behalf of the conservation groups. “The court reversed the Forest Service’s decision to carve out an exception to Colorado’s roadless area protections in order to pave the way for expansion of a dirty and destructive coal mine. As a result of the ruling, the Forest Service must go back to the drawing board and consider whether to protect more of the Valley’s irreplaceable roadless forests.”
A case filed by a ranch and Idaho state officials was voluntarily dismissed because the BLM and Forest Service subsequently submitted the 2015 sage grouse plan amendment decisions to Congress in accordance with the Congressional Review Act.
(Blogger’s note: The Forest Service summary refers to the plan amendments once as the “Sage Grouse Rules.” These court document do not use this term, and I don’t believe a court has ever determined that forest plans are “rules” requiring submission to Congress under the CRA.)
The plaintiffs are challenging the Darby Lumber Lands Phase II Project on the Bitterroot National Forest, which involves “restoration” of lands formerly owned and logged by the Darby Lumber Co., and changing forest plan management direction for elk. (D. Mont.) (More of the context is provided here.)
The plaintiffs bring various claims under ESA and NFMA related to the effects of management of the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forest riparian areas on the endangered New Mexico meadow jumping mouse and its critical habitat. (D. Ariz.) (More of the context, including a Forest Service response, is included here.)
BLOGGER’S BONUS
More on sage grouse
(Update) In response to a court ruling against the 2019 amendments to the 2015 amendments to sage grouse management in BLM land management plans in seven states, the BLM is publishing six draft supplemental environmental impact statements. They are not proposing to change the 2019 decision. (They are currently operating under the 2015 amendments in accordance with the court ruling.) An article from Colorado is here.
Waters of the US (WOTUS)
(Notice of Intent) More than a dozen conservation groups notified the Trump administration that it will challenge its compliance with the Endangered Species Act when it changed a federal rule aimed at protecting rivers and streams across the United States. EPA’s new rule, announced January 23 and expected to go into effect in mid-March, would exclude ephemeral waters, such as washes, that do not flow year-round, plus “millions of acres of rivers, streams, lakes, wetlands, impoundments, and other waterbodies,” the groups wrote. (This article includes a link to the notice through the CBD press release.) We previously discussed this here.
(Court opinion) The District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals has upheld a decision by the BLM to remove wild horses from the Caliente Complex in Nevada. The court found that a challenge to the land management plan decision to not manage the area for horse was beyond the 6-year statute of limitations for litigating agency decisions. It also found that the project “gathering” decision complied with the Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act and NEPA.
(Fallout) “Although Benson does not explain the decision to cancel the objection period in his written notice, and in a statement to the Beacon merely said it had been placed on hold and will be reinstated at a later date, Mike Garrity, executive director of the Alliance for the Wild Rockies, explained that a 2019 federal court decision surrounding his group’s lawsuit over a separate but adjacent timber project found that road closures were ineffective to protect the declining population of grizzly bears.” That court decision on the Pilgrim project was provided in this Litigation Weekly.
(Update) After the Supreme Court hearing, both sides seem to agree that the Court would allow the pipeline to be built on national forest land under the Appalachian Trail. That’s assuming the other flaws in the process can be corrected (as discussed here).
A man in Colorado was cited for using a snowmobile in a designated wilderness on fragile bare ground. The prosecution was partly the result of social media.
(New case) The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission was sued by the Center for Biological Diversity for approving a permit for building reservoirs and associated infrastructure to generate electricity from pumped water. It would affect lands on the Gila and Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests, and the San Francisco River is being considered for recommended protection under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act in the Gila forest plan revision.
NC Rep. John Ager, D-Buncombe, asks the panel a question about the national forests during Carolina Public Press’ Feb. 19 forum at the University of North Carolina at Asheville.Thanks to the Carolina Public Press for hosting the Newsmakers Forum on the Pisgah-Nantahala Forest Plan and making it available as a live broadcast with questions from those online. They deserve a shout-out, as does reporter Jack Igelman, for following the tedious (to many) twists and turns of the planning process. He has really dug into the details (where the Devil is thought to dwell) and tried to understand different points of view. If The Smokey Wire had a “Best Coverage of a Forest Plan” award, Jack would win hands down.
Here are some of my thoughts from the discussion. I know folks on The Smokey Wire (especially Sam Evans) have been very involved, so I’d appreciate any thoughts of your own and corrections.
1) While the history of pre-National Forest cultures and livelihoods on the land is generally better known and documented in the east, many of the issues discussed sound similar to parts of the West. They spoke of increasing/recreation, second homes and subdivisions, fire management, and vegetation management including commercial tree removal. Topics like sustainable recreation, increased pressure, and increased visitation are just as difficult in many places in the West.
2) One of the advantages of strategic planning or large landscape planning ideally is that people can work together to find common ground at a broader scale than “this project” or “that problem.” Based on the discussion, and comments by Sam Evans here, that generally seems to be how it is working. One person said that this collaboration might continue into implementing the plan. It did sound as if the forest plan perhaps provided a nexus for discussions and collaboration that otherwise would not have happened, as a “good forest planning process” ought. I am not sure how much of that is due to the Forest Service individuals, to collaborators, or to the unique culture, history and relationships on this land. Would be an interesting social science study to look at the the different forest planning efforts in about 10 more years.
Sidenote: I think we might disagree that, for example, a rancher from Burns, Oregon should have as much say about the Pisgah-Nantahala as someone in the collaborative group, and an insurance agent from Oklahoma who has never been there should have as much say as someone whose family has traditionally used the land for four generations. It’s interesting to think about “who cares about forests that are far away from their home” and why. I didn’t get the impression that this plan has major out-of-area interests, but I could be wrong.
3) Someone on the panel cited a book, Blue Ridge Commons, 2012 book by Kathryn Newfont. Here’s an excerpt from a blurb by University of Georgia:
In the late twentieth century, residents of the Blue Ridge mountains in western North Carolina fiercely resisted certain environmental efforts, even while launching aggressive initiatives of their own. Kathryn Newfont examines the environmental history of this region over the course of three hundred years, identifying what she calls commons environmentalism-a cultural strain of conservation in American history that has gone largely unexplored.
Efforts in the 1970s to expand federal wilderness areas in the Pisgah and Nantahala national forests generated strong opposition. For many mountain residents the idea of unspoiled wilderness seemed economically unsound, historically dishonest, and elitist. Newfont shows that local people’s sense of commons environmentalism required access to the forests that they viewed as semi-public places for hunting, fishing, and working. Policies that removed large tracts from use were perceived as “enclosure” and resisted.
These battles often pitted industrialists against environmentalists. Newfont argues that the side that most effectively hitched its cause to local residents’ commons culture usually won. A few perceptive activists realized that the same cultural ground that yielded wilderness opposition could also produce ambitious protection efforts, such as Blue Ridge residents’ opposition to petroleum exploration and clearcut timber harvesting.
I still don’t see Jane’s Sawmill as “industrial” but.. Perhaps there is an element of “keeping traditional people and uses out” that we also see in closing access in the West (outside of the Designated/Wilderness debate), although the argument is that it’s better for wildlife and the Forest Service can’t afford the upkeep on roads. But I have definitely heard a dislike for reduced access in comments on western forest plans (and travel management). Maybe east and west are not all that different.
from this website https://www.270towin.com/2020-democratic-nomination
In yesterday’s post, I quoted from Bloomberg’s website. It’s harder to find this information for others, but this article in the Desert Sun, did a nice job of rounding up the other candidates’ answers (although like for my requests from the campaigns, not everyone responded). Thanks to Susan Britting for providing this link! Also note that Malcolm North, a Forest Service Research scientist, was allowed to talk to the press and even design a thoughtful question for the candidates.
Warren
Wildfires pose an especially serious threat to low-income communities, people with disabilities, and seniors. That’s why Elizabeth has committed to:
*Improving fire mapping and prevention by investing in advanced modeling with a focus on helping the most vulnerable — incorporating not only fire vulnerability but community demographics.
*Prioritize these data to invest in land management, particularly near the most vulnerable communities, supporting forest restoration, lowering fire risk, and creating jobs all at once.
*Invest in microgrid technology, so that we can de-energize high-risk areas when required without impacting the larger community’s energy supply.
*Collaborate with Tribal governments on land management practices to reduce wildfires, including by incorporating traditional ecological practices and exploring co-management and the return of public resources to indigenous protection wherever possible.
*She’s also committed to prioritizing at-risk populations in disaster planning and response and strengthening rules to require disaster response plans to uphold the rights of vulnerable populations. A Warren administration will center a right to return for individuals who have been displaced during a disaster and while relocation should be a last resort, when it occurs, she is committed to improving living standards and keeping communities together whenever possible.
My take: not so sure more modeling is needed, I’m assuming “more vulnerable” means old and/or poor and/or minority. It sounds like spending a lot of money to figure out how to prioritize spending money. This is one of those things that it would be interesting to see what it would look like in practice. Maybe poorer communities get fuel treatments around them, and richer communities need to pitch in? Perhaps it already works that way in practice. The idea of “returning public resources to indigenous protection wherever possible” sounds interesting. I’m not sure how I think the federal government should be involved in a “right to return.” Seems to me like something that should be worked out between people, communities, their local governments, and insurers.
Pete Buttigieg: wildfires are included in climate change and resilient infrastructure.
Tom Steyer:
As part of my Justice Centered Climate Plan, I will invest nearly $500 billion in the upkeep and protection of our watersheds, wetlands, national parks, and forests — and this includes fire management as well as protecting our clean drinking water. Because while some of the impacts of climate change are already here, there are levelheaded preventative measures we can take to protect ourselves and our forests from the worst dangers. My plan puts $555 billion into developing climate-smart communities and housing and an additional $755 billion into adaptation, resilience, and green infrastructure. This will ensure that the people who are displaced from fires and flooding have affordable places to live with access to green space. And it will also ensure that they have good-paying jobs building our new climate-resilient infrastructure, protecting our lands and waters, and serving communities hit by the climate crisis as long-term disaster recovery workers.
That’s a lot of money, but I’m curious about the “levelheaded preventative measures” and if those are the same as “developing climate-smart communities and housing” or “upkeep and protection” of private and federal lands.
Bernie Sanders:
We must invest now in mitigating these more frequent and severe wildfires, making our infrastructure more resilient, and preparing for disaster response. We must change our framework of fire suppression and forest management to take the whole local ecosystem into account, including the rural communities who are most vulnerable.
In California, developers are building houses in fire hazard zones, a move partially driven by the housing shortage. Bernie is committed to fully closing the 7.4 million unit shortage of affordable housing to guarantee housing to all as a right. We will work to ensure housing growth is climate-resilient, with experts and impacted communities included every step of the way.
We’ll expand the wildfire restoration and disaster preparedness workforce. We’ll increase federal funding for firefighting by $18 billion to deal with the increased severity and frequency of wildfires. Furthermore, we must facilitate community evacuation plans that include people experiencing homelessness, and increase social cohesion for rapid and resilient disaster recovery to avoid the use of martial law and increased policing in disaster response.
We’ll also amend the Stafford Act to ensure that FEMA ensures that recovery and rebuilding efforts make affected communities stronger than they were before the disaster so they are more resilient to the next disaster.
There are certainly many more voters (and delegates) in California, as the map above shows, so perhaps a California-centric view of wildfires is appropriate. Still, the relationship between housing shortages and living in fire-prone areas (grasslands, shrublands and forests) is more complicated in the Interior West than a lack of affordable housing in the cities. People would rather be here, and many are retired or work from home.
I like the idea of increasing social cohesion (but the martial law thing is a little scary). However, I wonder how politicians who spend their lives saying bad things about their opponents (and sometimes their supporters) can quickly spin to uniting people and community-building. I’ll be glad to see it if he is elected.
The other candidates apparently did not respond to the Desert Sun’s query (nor mine).
I’d have to give the “thoughtfulness about wildfire” aka “not just another climate issue” award to Bloomberg and Warren. Others have told me that they have more staff and that could be the reason. Certainly they are the only two who answered my questions, so there might be something to that. What do you think?
One problem with the proposal, IMHO: federal funding. 57 percent (nearly 19 million acres) of California forestlands are managed by the US Forest Service and other federal agencies, but will they have funding for adequate treatments?
Conclusion
Various factors are contributing to the state facing growing risks of destructive wildfires, which could continue in the decades to come. Given the long‑term and complex nature of wildfire risks—as well as the challenges and costs associated with effectively addressing those risks—we find it is important for the state to develop a statewide strategic wildfire plan. The purpose of the plan would be to inform and guide state policymakers regarding the most effective strategies for responding to wildfires and mitigating wildfire risks. This could include guidance on future funding allocations to ensure the highest‑priority and most cost‑effective programs and activities receive funding and that the state achieves an optimal balance of funding for prevention and mitigation activities with demands to increase fire response capacity.
In addition, we find that in the absence of such a strategic wildfire plan, the Governor’s 2020‑21 budget proposals are difficult to evaluate and in some cases might not align with some of the key elements we think might be included in a strategic approach. Consequently, it is possible that under the Governor’s budget plan, the state could be committing to wildfire strategies that are not the most effective or efficient. Therefore, until the state has developed a strategic wildfire plan, we recommend that the Legislature consider limiting certain ongoing budget commitments that would be difficult to change in the future. In so doing, the state would better maintain budget flexibility to implement the most effective and efficient wildfire risk reduction strategies recommended by the strategic wildfire plan.
