Federal Lands Litigation – update through July 13, 2025

by

Things got away from me a little …

FOREST SERVICE

Injunction denied in Native Ecosystems Council v. Webber (D. Montana)

On June 10, the district court denied Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction and/or Motion for Temporary Restraining Order in their case against the Helena-Lewis & Clark National Forest’s Wood Duck Project.  The Project seeks to minimize potential widescale tree mortality while creating a landscape that is more resilient, and includes 1,241 acres of commercial logging with no permanent road construction.  The court found that plaintiffs failed to establish serious questions about the EA’s consideration of effects on elk and grizzly bears under NEPA, or consistency with forest plan desired conditions for these species under NFMA because the project does not foreclose the opportunity to achieve desired conditions.  It also found compliance with a guideline for elk.  In balancing the equities for an injunction, the court found that, “the mitigation of widescale tree mortality and the promotion of a more healthy, desirable forest, combined with the economic benefits to the local community outweigh any public interest in maintaining the Project area’s current state.” The court was also bothered by Plaintiffs’ delay in filing the lawsuit.

Bankruptcy order lifted pertaining to Center for Biological Diversity v. U. S. Forest Service (S.D. West Virginia)

On June 17, the Bankruptcy Court overseeing South Fork Coal Co. bankruptcy proceedings lifted an automatic stay at the request of plaintiffs in an ongoing lawsuit against the Forest Service and the coal company involving hauling coal through the national forest, which will allow that lawsuit to proceed.  West Virginia Highlands Conservancy, Appalachian Voices, Greenbrier River Watershed Association, Kanawha Forest Coalition, Center for Biological Diversity and the West Virginia chapter of the Sierra Club are all plaintiffs in the ongoing lawsuit, discussed here.  (And there’s a link to the bankruptcy decision in the press release.)

Delay requested by the government in Forest Service Employees for Environmental Ethics v. U. S. Forest Service (D. Montana)

On June 20, the Justice Department asked lawyers for FSEEE for a two-month extension to review the group’s lawsuit on fire retardant’s effects on threatened and endangered species.  The letter cited “current workload and staffing constraints” at the Forest Service, the Fish and Wildlife Service, and NOAA Fisheries.  (First of many?)

New lawsuit:  Standing Trees, Inc. v. U. S. Forest Service (D. New Hampshire)

On June 23, Plaintiffs filed another lawsuit against the White Mountain National Forest, this time over the environmental review of the Sandwich Vegetation Management Project, which includes commercial logging near a popular recreation area, and allegedly includes mature and old forest.  Plaintiffs also claim the project is inconsistent with several forest plan components, violating NFMA.  The article includes a link to the complaint.

New lawsuit:  Idaho Conservation League v. U. S. Forest Service (D. Idaho)

On June 25, Idaho Conservation League and Golden Eagle Audubon Society challenged the 2023 approval of the CuMo Exploration Project on the Boise National Forest.  The Project is looking for copper deposits, and plaintiffs are concerned about water quality and viability of a rare plant that is mostly endemic to the Forest.  The complaint alleges violations of NEPA by the EA, NFMA (several forest plan provisions) and the Forest Service Organic Act.  The article includes a link to the complaint.

Court decision in Alliance for the Wild Rockies v. U. S. Forest Service (D. Idaho)

On July 1, the district court upheld the Forest Service decision to approve the Buckskin Saddle Integrated Restoration Project on the Idaho Panhandle National Forest.  The lawsuit had alleged that the project’s environmental analysis didn’t disclose sufficient details about how cutting trees of certain sizes will bring the forest closer to the forest plan desired conditions for (1) tree size, (2) tree composition, and (3) tree size and composition in different biophysical settings within the Project area.  The court concluded, “there is nothing to indicate more analysis, investigation, or examination was necessary to reach an accurate conclusion.”  The court also upheld the analysis of effects on the flammulated owl, pygmy nuthatch, and the fringed myotis (a bat species).  In a “closer call” than these issues, the court also upheld the cumulative effects analysis related to a road maintenance project.  Here is what the DOJ had to say (which is not something I usually see.)

Court decision on the administrative record in Oregon Wild v. Warnack (D. Oregon)

This case was filed in June, 2024.  On July 1, the court granted plaintiffs’ motion to supplement the administrative record for the Youngs Rock Ridgon Project on the Willamette National Forest with nine documents cited in their public comments.  These exhibits consist of  “scientific literature relating to the effects of logging on climate change, carbon emissions, and carbon storage.”  Court-ordered record supplements allow a court to review how particular records were used, and are fairly unusual, but here the court specifically held that these documents must be part of the administrative record because:

“Oregon Wild’s comment contains extensive citation to and quotation from the Exhibits, as well as hyperlinks to allow Defendants to access them. Defendants provided a response to those comments that specifically summarizes and responds to the points made. Defendants could not have responded to Oregon Wild’s comment without at least indirectly considering the Exhibits, which were central to many of the points made in the comment.”

BLM

Settlement in Friends of the Floridas v. U. S. Bureau of Land Management (D. New Mexico)

On July 8, the BLM agreed to prepare a revised EA focused on analyzing water quality impacts from the proposed milling site.  The district court had found the proposed American Magnesium mine lacked necessary review of the waste from the mill, and the government had appealed to the 10th Circuit.  The district court opinion, which upheld the BLM on other issues, is linked to this article.

ENDANGERED SPECIES

New lawsuit

On June 17, Alliance for the Wild Rockies and Save the Bull Trout filed a lawsuit against the National Park Service under the Endangered Species Act for failing to adequately consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service on bull trout when it diverts water to grow hay on the Grant-Kohrs Ranch historic site in western Montana.  Plaintiffs allege dewatering of the Clark Fork River “has altered bull trout critical habitat so adversely that the species can no longer survive in that portion of the Upper Clark Fork, much less migrate to headwaters streams to spawn.”

New lawsuit:  Center for Biological Diversity v. U. S. Department of the Interior (D. D.C.)

On June 18, the Center sued the federal government for failing to release public records about its proposal to rescind the definition of “harm” in the Endangered Species Act’s regulations that would exclude significant habitat modification as a cause of prohibited “take” of listed species.

Settlement in Center for Biological Diversity v. National Marine Fisheries Service (D. Oregon)

On June 27, the district court granted a Joint Motion to Enter Settlement Agreement to resolve this case involving a petition to list three coastal Chinook/king salmon runs.  The National Marine Fisheries Service has agreed to complete a listing determination for Oregon Coast and southern Oregon/Northern California coastal Chinook salmon by Nov. 3, 2025, and for Washington coast spring-run Chinook salmon by Jan. 2, 2026.  Threats to the species include logging and road construction.  The news release includes links to the order and the stipulated settlement agreement.

Settlement in Wild Salmon Rivers v. National Marine Fisheries Service (D. Washington)

The National Marine Fisheries Service has agreed to determine whether listing is warranted or not for the Olympic Peninsula steelhead by December 1.  That decision was required by the ESA in August, 2023.  The article includes a link to the complaint.

New lawsuit:  Center for Biological Diversity v. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (D. Oregon)

On July 3, the Center sued the Fish and Wildlife Service for failing to meet a deadline for deciding whether to list the species after finding that listing may be warranted.  That decision was due in November, 2024.  This species of newt is unique to Crater Lake, and is threatened by introduced invasive crayfish that are benefitting from a warming climate (see this article).

Court decision in Center for Biological Diversity v. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (D. Arizona)

On July 8, the district court ruled that the Fish and Wildlife Service unreasonably delayed its decision on a December 2017 petition submitted by the Center for Biological Diversity and Maricopa Audubon Society seeking critical habitat expansion for the squirrels.  “A reasonable time for agency action is typically counted in weeks or months, not years,” the judge said.  The court gave the FWS until Jan. 30, 2027, to decide whether to update the squirrels’ critical habitat or deny the 2017 petition.  Mount Graham red squirrels live only in the Pinaleño Mountains, an isolated “sky island” range on the Coronado NF. Nearly all the squirrels now live at elevations below the currently designated critical habitat areas because the squirrels’ original critical habitat was destroyed by construction of mountaintop telescopes, wildfires and fires set to protect the telescopes.  We last visited this topic here, and here is some more.

OTHER

Court decision in Center for Biological Diversity v. County of Los Angeles (California Court of Appeal)

On June 26, a California appeals court affirmed a lower court ruling in favor of the California Native Plant Society, and rejected a controversial development proposed in a fire-prone area.  It ordered Los Angeles County to set aside its approvals because the County violated state law by failing to thoroughly analyze and reduce climate and wildfire risk when approving Tejon Ranchcorp’s Centennial, a proposed development for 57,000 residents on 12,000 acres. The news release includes a link to the opinion

New lawsuit:  Center for Biological Diversity v. Noem (D. Arizona)

On July 9, the Center for Biological Diversity and Conservation CATalyst, filed a lawsuit alleging that the Department of Homeland Security unconstitutionally waived dozens of environmental laws, including the ESA, NEPA, NFMA and FLPMA, to expedite the construction of 27 miles of border wall.  The complaint attacks the amended Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 for unconstitutionally delegating authority to DHS.  They are concerned about effects on federally listed jaguars and ocelots and other species, the San Rafael Valley migration corridor in particular.  The affected area includes some of the Coronado National Forest and BLM lands.  The article includes a link to the complaint.

Stay lifted in Trump v. American Federation of Government Employees (Supreme Court)

On July 8, the Supreme Court lifted an injunction granted by the 9th Circuit, which now allows the Trump Administration to plan to fire large numbers of federal employees while the case continues.  This decision does not bar challenges to particular termination actions after they occur.  The article includes a link to the opinion.  This article focuses on public lands.

New lawsuit:  Center for Biological Diversity v. Office of Management and Budget (D. D.C.)

On July 10, the Center sued the Office of Management and Budget for failing to respond to its request for records associated with “agency environmental safeguards targeted for cancellation or modification” by the Department of Government Efficiency.  The Center submitted a Freedom of Information Act request for these potential regulatory rollbacks in April but has received no communication from the Office of Management and Budget for more than two months; a response is required within 20 business days.

House Committee Appropriators Take Their Own Path re: FS R&D and State and Private

by

From E&E News:

Remember House Interior Approps does both FS and BLM appropriations. Here’s a link to the bill text, but Marc at E&E did us a big favor by pointing out the key elements of interest.

House appropriators Monday turned away a Trump administration effort to slash the Forest Service’s research budget, proposing to hold spending steady at about $300 million in fiscal 2026. The proposal by the Republican-led House Appropriations Committee is part of an $8.5 billion annual spending plan for the Forest Service that largely ignores the administration’s most far-reaching proposals.

Total spending for the fiscal year beginning Oct. 1 would be $16.8 million less than this year’s level. Spending not directly tied to fire suppression would total $3.6 billion, or about $107 million less than this year. The measure is scheduled for a subcommittee markup Tuesday.
The research budget would total $302 million, of which $34 million would be reserved for forest inventory and analysis — the data-collecting operation that the administration hadn’t looked to scale back.
Lawmakers’ decision to stick with research funding follows a strenuous lobbying campaign by Forest Service retirees and others who said the programs have a distinguished, long history worth continuing.
The committee proposed $2.43 billion for wildland fire management at the Forest Service, plus the $2.48 billion disaster fund that’s mandated by Congress and likely to be tapped to cover rising wildfire costs.
Lawmakers didn’t endorse the administration’s proposal to move wildfire suppression to the Interior Department, which would require creation of a new sub-agency there.
Appropriators also opted not to endorse the administration’s proposal to eliminate funding for state and private forestry programs, including international forestry.
State and private forestry programs would receive $281 million, a slight decline from this year and a bigger drop compared to the $337 million spent three years ago.

These include many of the grants the Forest Service provides to states and localities for practices from reducing potential wildfire fuel to planting trees, although the bill doesn’t dictate exactly how the funds are to be distributed.
As appropriators have learned this year, a top-line spending number doesn’t guarantee that the administration will spend the money as Congress likes.
The Agriculture Department this year has siphoned money away from some of the state forestry grants to pay employees who took deferred resignation, and a USDA official told lawmakers last week that the administration intends to shift already-appropriated grant funding to boosting timber production.
The appropriations bill also includes $202 million for reducing hazardous fuels such as dead or dying trees in national forests. Up to $30 million of that amount may be used to promote increased use of biomass such as in wood products.

***********

There are a variety of things that there may be a backstory on.. like why NFF and NFWF are singled out as non-profits.  Here’s a peculiar one:

Notwithstanding any other provision of law, of any
2 appropriations or funds available to the Forest Service,
3 not to exceed $500,000 may be used to reimburse the Of4 fice of the General Counsel (OGC), Department of Agri5 culture, for travel and related expenses incurred as a re6 sult of OGC assistance or participation requested by the
7 Forest Service at meetings, training sessions, management
8 reviews, land purchase negotiations, and similar matters
9 unrelated to civil litigation: Provided, That future budget
10 justifications for both the Forest Service and the Depart11 ment of Agriculture should clearly display the sums pre12 viously transferred and the sums requested for transfer.

Were OGC folks jetting around the country in some unusual way?

What does this mean?

That $20,000,000 may be used by the Secretary of Agri1 culture to enter into procurement contracts or cooperative
2 agreements or to issue grants for hazardous fuels manage3 ment activities, and for training or monitoring associated
4 with such hazardous fuels management activities on Fed5 eral land, or on non-Federal land if the Secretary deter6 mines such activities benefit resources on Federal land.

Does that mean that only 20 mill may be used?  Line 20 of the previous pages says “not to exceed” for another purpose, which makes sense, but what does “may be used” mean? Is it gently encouraging that amount?

Please add questions or answers in the comments.

“Non-survivable” evacuation routes threaten some of Colorado’s most wildfire-prone areas : Gazette

by
Dense forests line Colorado Road 73 just south of North Turkey Creek Road on Saturday, June 18, 2022, in Evergreen, Colo. (Timothy Hurst/The Denver Gazette)
Timothy Hurst

This article is extensive and paywalled so I have had to excerpt  carefully. I think perhaps Jim Z. used to live in Evergreen and I know several readers (including me) are former JeffCo residents. The Gazette family incorporates the Co Springs Gazette, the Denver Gazette and Colorado Politics, so shout-out to them for this story. What are your counties doing about evacuations?

 All told, more than 100,000 Coloradans dotted up and down the Front Range, or about 1 in every 50 Colorado residents, lives in areas where safely evacuating could be a problem.

**********

Population data from the U.S. Census Bureau, combined with geospatial roadway data from Open Street Maps, shows that more than 35,000 residents — not accounting for seasonal or weekend visitors — in the state’s highest exposure area, in Evergreen, have only a few possible evacuation routes, putting the number of people per lanes of egress routes near or above the number in Paradise, Calif., where residents burned in their cars trying to evacuate, depending on the particulars of a future fire’s location and behavior. Estimates that include more of the outlying areas put the possible evacuation total as high as 60,000 people for the area.

A computer program designed to simulate evacuations, called the Fast Local Emergency Evacuation Times Model (FLEET), operated by Old Dominion University in Virginia, similarly shows the Evergreen area has the longest evacuation time for wildfire-prone parts of the state.

Roxborough Park and Woodland Park are not far behind Evergreen, either for computer-simulated evacuation times or the simpler people-per-lane of evacuation rates ratio.

*******

The FLEET tool estimates evacuation times based on population data, roadway data and traffic simulation modeling. The Gazette’s roadway analysis looks only at population and road data.

But things could be even worse than they indicate.

What neither accounts for is the condition of roadways and the threats that could arise from roadside trees becoming a conduit for a fast-moving fire, catching fire and falling into the roads or making them impassable, or the size of roadway shoulders and how that could affect the flow of vehicles.

The threat to roadway access posed by overgrown vegetation becomes obvious on any drive through the Evergreen area. In many of the area’s neighborhoods, the narrow, winding roads are lined with dense thickets of lodgepole and ponderosa pine.

Older, larger ponderosa pine trees along the roads, if they were to catch fire or fall over, could easily stop vehicles from passing.

Some of the younger pines just feet from the roads’ shoulders, with 3- or 4-inch trunk diameters, can be found growing in tight clusters. They’re the first trees that would be cleared to prevent rapid wildfire spread or threats to road access, experts say, indicating that years have passed since serious mitigation has happened there.

***********

The Evergreen Fire Protection District’s wildfire protection plan, updated in 2020, includes a roadway analysis that estimates “non-survivable” evacuation routes are spread throughout the area, meaning the roads risk putting drivers adjacent to 8-foot or larger flames, based on the fuels along the roads.

Bernie Weingardt, an Evergreen resident who worked for the U.S. Forest Service for 37 years, said the report told him and other residents what they had long suspected.

“They ran the simulations on it, and in Evergreen, you see it will bottleneck really fast,” Weingardt said. “Just a normal day out here, with everyday traffic, you have cars backed up at the main intersections. So the small roads feeding into the main arteries, they’ll end up gridlocked, with traffic backed up into the neighborhoods.”

*********

This is an interesting micro-political take:

County sheriffs are tasked with managing evacuations, and elected county commissioners decide how to allocate the county’s resources. And the three Jefferson County commission districts each run east to west, like a stack of pancakes, meaning the non-metro portion of the county is split three ways, with each of the three mountain-area slices paired with a dramatically larger urban population. The three county commissioners, like 88% of the county’s population, live in the metro portion of the county.

The County Board of Commissioners launched a Wildfire Risk Reduction Task Force that met in 2019 and 2020, then produced a report in November 2020.

But Cindy Latham, of the local Rotary Club and who was appointed as a designated community leader on the task force, said she was disappointed that the group didn’t adequately address evacuation.

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

Jefferson County Sheriff Jeff Schrader said residents have asked him about evacuation routes more in the past couple years, but that he doesn’t support proposing evacuation routes ahead of an emergency.

“When the question comes up: ‘how do I get away from trouble?’ You have to ask questions before that. And the question is, ‘what is the trouble, and where is it?’

“To give pre-planned evacuation routes, in my view, may be irresponsible,” Schrader said. “We can’t necessarily go post signs that say ‘evacuate this way in case of a fire’. Because we don’t know if that’s going to be the best way if a fire does occur.”

To me, that’s true AND it’s also true that lots of trees along potential evacuation routes could be cleared up.. and potentially make fuel breaks.

Hal Grieb, the county’s emergency management director, said he intends to have upcoming updates to the county’s formal wildfire plans include an “evacuation annex,” modeled on San Diego County’s 2018 annex, or a document that describes how multiple agencies should cooperate during evacuations.

What Other Counties Do:

Residents with a close eye on the county’s wildfire preparations say they think the rest of the IWUI codes should be adopted already. Their criticisms of the county are often contrasted with how nearby Larimer, Boulder or Douglas counties have approached wildfire preparation.

In the Larimer County approach, as described by Lori Hodges, the county’s emergency management director, the county coordinates across departments in ways that other counties don’t, like having a land-use code that connects the planning and development departments with county emergency management staff to ensure that any new development meets standards for mitigation and safe emergency planning.

Justin Whitesell, the Larimer County emergency operations director, said he’s pushed not just for mitigation on public land, but that his department has had success with leading mitigation efforts on private land, using what he describes as an initial-attack module.

“The Girl Scout Ranch, the Boy Scout Ranch, some HOAs, on green belts, but we’re trying to push more into communities,” Whitesell said. “And a lot of the roads are choked out, or the vegetation has grown up against it on private land. And so we’re working with a lot of HOAs, trying to get that using our initial attack module, and using some county money to open up those roadways so that if we are doing evacuations that we can get people out.”

Once the two ThinAir Communications tower technicians reached the top of the tower, they got to work, installing a state-of-the-art, “near-infrared” video camera with the ability to swivel and capture an almost 360-degree view of the Evergreen area.

The camera provides real-time surveillance of wildfires in the area, using a camera monitoring system operated by Advanced Environmental Monitoring, a Canadian company that specializes in wildland surveillance. It can help to identify, within its field of view, where a fire is with high precision, and it can provide useful information about the fire’s behavior.

Flying insects are backlit by the sun while ThinAir Communications tower technician Ryan Heisler installs an infrared camera at the top of a 120 for tower on Thursday, June 16, 2022, at Elk Creek Fire Station 3 in Conifer, Colo. (Timothy Hurst/The Denver Gazette)

The cost of the camera and the real-time monitoring system is being picked up by Core Electric, one of the utility companies that serves electricity to the Evergreen area. Their communication tower was an optimal place to mount the camera, and as Mark Riggs, the Core Electric engineer who oversaw the camera’s installation, said the cost — a few thousand dollars for the camera, a few thousand dollars to install the equipment and a few thousand per year for the online hosting and web services for the camera — is negligible, compared to the benefit of the early detection of fires.

Colorado Springs resident Walter Lawson has urged El Paso County to put in a similar system after firefighters failed to find the Waldo Canyon fire, then left the area, allowing it to take off the following day.

“These are sentinels that watch your city,” said Lawson, a member of Westside Watch, a Colorado Springs advocacy group that works on wildfire preparedness.

**********

Cameras are only so useful, though, others say. Quick wildfire detection can help save time and even lives in the worst-case scenario, by alerting residents earlier about potentially devastating wildfires. But if the roadways can’t handle an evacuation, then early detection can give some people a head start, but it still might not prevent people from getting stuck.

“It’s another step in the right direction,” said Bill Wysong, another Westside Watch member, but he said doesn’t think they can replace evacuation planning.

For a fire that moves fast, Wysong argued, like the Marshall fire that destroyed more than 1,000 homes in Boulder County in December 2021, it’s unlikely infrared cameras would have made much of a difference for the firefighting effort.

*********

While I was trying to link to the story (I’m a subscriber) I ran across this story from yesterday in the Gazette which talks about the Ladris evacuation model.

The application is part of a growing field using AI to predict disaster scenarios like wildfire and floods. CEO Leo Zlimen said the tool can help local planners find the best routes to move populations out of the way of fast-moving natural disasters threatening urban areas.

The 26-year-old University of California, Berkeley graduate started Ladris with his college roommate in their hometown of Nevada City, Calif.

“There is a path where everyone gets out in a reasonable amount of time,” he said.

This summer, the company added the Pikes Peak Office of Emergency Management to its client list. Director Andrew Notbohm said the regional office will be incorporating the software into the newest iteration of its wildfire evacuation planning process this year.

Dozens of local fire, police and other agencies have been trained on Ladris. The goal is to help “challenge

assumptions” about the best evacuation strategies in the event of a fast-moving, wind-driven fire, Notbohm said.

The application works by creating a virtual representation of traffic patterns based on presets about population levels and vehicles on the road. When an emergency planner simulates an evacuation, the hope is the software can accurately identify possible bottlenecks and backups.

“It basically creates a digital twin,” Notbohm said.

At the beginning of the month, Palmer Lake Fire Department Chief John Vincent’s staff was using Ladris for the first time to simulate an evacuation during the small town’s Fourth of July celebration, an event that attracts thousands. With three cardinal directions to take traffic out of town and few roads, he said his options are naturally limited.

“It just help us with thought process,” Vincent said of the software.

Using technology to simulate evacuation routes is not a new idea. The Gazette in 2022 used the Fast Local Emergency Evacuation Times Model (FLEET) and its analysis to show that the community of Evergreen had some of the longest wildfire-evacuation times in the state. FLEET is operated by Old Dominion University in Virginia and is accessible to the public.

What makes Ladris different — and worth its more than $100,000 price tag for an 18-month contract — is the user interface, Notbohm said.

Help Understanding 2026 US Wildland Fire Service Budget Request

by

One of our Anonymous friends asked this question and provided a link to the Interior Budget Justification 2026 for the US Wildland Fire Service (should abbreviations for different agencies within the same department be so similar, e.g. USFWS and USWFS- could this lead to confusion)?.

“USFWS Proposed Budget FY26, need help comparing real numbers to current, they seem inflated here.”

 

I’m not good with budget documents, but perhaps what is missing is the FS budget from 2024 and 2025 that is expected to be included in the 6.5 bill in the USWFS 2026 budget request?

Maybe some budget-watchers out there can help?

4FRI NEPA: Rim Country Project- Multiforest CBM EIS on Over One Mill Acres

by

In responding to Jon’s comment on 4FRI NEPA, I noted that the 4FRI Rim Country Project covered 1,240,000 acres, which seems like it might be one of the largest we have run across.
Sadly, I couldn’t get the story map to come up. Maybe others will have more luck. Below is a map of the 4FRI area and the different NEPA decisions.

Apparently, the Rim Country (2022) decision used condition-based NEPA and was not litigated.. (don’t know that for sure as that info wouldn’t be on the same page).

The objections were interesting.. I could spend days looking at CBD’s list of references in their objection letter. And the responses to objections were also interesting, including much discussion of why CBM is OK, that others may use.

From the response letter to the CBD objection, here’s the FS response to a proposed alternative with less mechanical treatment..

The project purpose and need includes objectives to restore forest structure, composition, and functions, to improve ecosystem functionality and multiple resource attributes beyond simple mitigation of uncharacteristic wildfire events. The absence of characteristic fire for 120+ years has resulted in forest structures and fuels accumulation in much of the project landscape which exceed levels that can be restored to desired comprehensive characteristics by fire alone. The response to Contention 3c addresses the dismissal of the STFU alternative from detailed consideration.

And here’s their rationale for using CBM:

As stated in the project record, the Rim Country EIS uses a CBM approach because (1) the diversity of landscapes and size of the project contribute to dynamic and variable conditions, with processes such as fire, insects, encroachment, and competition resulting in a changing environment; (2) project implementation is expected to span 20 or more years; and (3) it is not feasible to have completely up-to-date information about current conditions on every acre of the project area, which encompasses approximately one million acres [PR 646, p. 4].
NEPA’s “twin aims” are to ensure that an agency informs the public of a proposed action and considers environmental concerns in its decision-making process. In the Rim Country Project, the Forest Service has worked closely with the 4FRI Stakeholder Group (SHG) to develop the condition-based management process collaboratively [PR 688, pp. 191, 198]. Throughout the planning process, the Forest Service has been transparent about the use of CBM and provided opportunity for public comment on this approach. The proposed action provided for public review during scoping identified a “toolbox” approach for implementing treatments [PR 76, pp. 21-22] and acknowledged that, “we do not have complete information on the conditions found on every acre, but we do have enough data to make an informed decision about what types of treatments… would work best in certain conditions” [PR 76, p. 21]. The DEIS that was made available for public review and comment included a “Flexible Toolbox Approach” (FTA; essentially condition-based management) [PR 315, p. 30; PR 312, pp. 599-661] and included
maps of different types of treatments [PR 309, pp. 530-534]. The FTA process was renamed CBM in the FEIS [PR 686, p. 31] and the process was clarified in the FEIS based on public comment to make it more predictable, reliable, and repeatable [PR 688, pp. 187-195, 197, 202,
235, 237; see updated implementation plan at PR 687, pp. 313-383]. Further, the FEIS clarifies that stakeholder involvement will continue during project implementation under the CBM framework [PR 688, pp. 186-187].
The record clearly demonstrates that, throughout the planning process, the Forest Service was transparent about the use of CBM and, in accordance with NEPA, provided ample opportunity for the public to comment on the CBM approach and resulting effects. The Forest Service was responsive to public comment on CBM and made corresponding updates to project documents, and the agency demonstrates a continued commitment to a collaborative approach during project implementation.

In my quest to understand more about the utility of the objection process, it would have been handy to have the minutes to the objection meeting, but perhaps they weren’t taken or posted.

The ROD is very informative as well. Here’s a handy table that gives you an idea of the scope and scale across three forests. That’s 873,420 acres of MT and 991,060 acres of PF.

It sounds like it was a great deal of work to do this EIS, but not having to do more NEPA on these activities for twenty years seems like it might be worthwhile.

Overview of 4FRI Accomplishments

by

I saw this earlier this year and hadn’t gotten around to posting, but recent discussions brought up the topic.

Description:
This document was developed by members of the 4FRI Stakeholder Group and provides a to-date overview of 4FRI’s accomplishments for interested parties. It summarizes information from 4FRI stakeholders and the Forest Service including implementation progress and investments. Specifically, treatment accomplishment data reflects total acres treated within 4FRI 2010-2024 and includes both mechanical thinning and beneficial fire acres, which may overlap geographically. Information about investments in 4FRI comes from partner leverage and match information 2022-2024 as contributed by stakeholders, industries, and the Forest Service. This document is not a Forest Service publication. For more information about 4FRI please see 4fri.org.

If you click on each of these, they will be larger.

BLM Renewables in the Big Bill: Answers From Ray Brady of the Public Lands Foundation

by

Thanks to the retiree network, I was able to get an answer from Ray Brady, an expert who is also on the Board of the Public Lands Foundation. When he says “we” in this email, he means the Public Lands Foundation.

Yes, there is language in the final approved Reconciliation Bill that changes the acreage rent and megawatt capacity fee for solar and wind energy right-of-way authorizations on public lands. The acreage rent calculations are basically the same as current regulations, so no big deal, and we support the language.

The big change is in the MW capacity fee which now provides for a “royalty” of 3.9 % of gross sales of electricity. This 3.9 % was a change from the earlier version that had a 4.85 % royalty. We have always supported a royalty provision, but FLPMA did not provide authority for a royalty. So this is good and in our minds is a very reasonable rate of return and is in the range of the complex formula that BLM previously used. The big change is that in the recent 2024 regulations the BLM had applied an 80% reduction in the fees to solar and wind energy authorizations for the first ten years of an authorization to encourage renewable energy development on the public lands. We had never supported that level of reduction and have no problem with this reasonable royalty rate.

All revenues from right-of-way authorizations currently go to the Treasury. We have always supported a revenue distribution authority and support the 25% distribution to State and 25% distribution to County.

I believe the section that repealed the right of the Secretary to lower fees for economic reasons was removed from the final version of the Bill that went back to the House for approval. I think the Senate parliamentarian ruled that this provision was not appropriate for a Reconciliation Bill.

**********************
But where does the Secretary’s right to lower fees come from?

It was in Section 3103 of the Energy Act of 2020, which allowed BLM to include reductions to solar and wind energy fees in the regulations that were published in 2024. Initially the Reconciliation Bill proposed to repeal that Section of the Energy Act, but it was removed before the Senate sent it back to the House for final passage.

From the Energy Act of 2020

SEC. 3103. INCREASING ECONOMIC CERTAINTY.
13 (a) CONSIDERATIONS.—The Secretary may consider
14 acreage rental rates, capacity fees, and other recurring an15 nual fees in total when evaluating existing rates paid for 16 the use of Federal land by eligible projects.
17 (b) REDUCTIONS IN BASE RENTAL RATES.—The 18 Secretary may reduce acreage rental rates and capacity 19 fees, or both, for existing and new wind and solar author20 izations if the Secretary determines—
21 (1) that the existing rates—
22 (A) exceed fair market value;
23 (B) impose economic hardships;
24 (C) limit commercial interest in a competitive lease sale or right-of-way grant; or
1 (D) are not competitively priced compared
2 to other available land; or
3 (2) that a reduced rental rate or capacity fee is
4 necessary to promote the greatest use of wind and
5 solar energy resources.

I asked Ray why geothermal was not on this list..and it turns out..

The Geothermal Steam Act already provides that authority and the regulations at 43 CFR 3212.16 allows for the reduction, suspension, or waiver of geothermal lease royalty or rent.

So apparently the authority can be given to, or taken away from, the Secretary by Congress, but not in a reconciliation bill.

Below is the PLF’s general statement in their comments on the 2023 proposed regulations , which brings up the long-standing question of whether these kinds of facilities are best sited on public or private land.

There is immense value in continuing to support the responsible development of renewable energy resources on the public lands and providing financial incentives where necessary, consistent with the provisions of the Energy Act of 2020. Increased renewable energy development has many benefits, however, it is not without its own impacts and challenges, and poorly sited projects can threaten other important natural resource values, wildlife habitat, and cultural resources on the public lands. It may be more appropriate to site some renewable energy projects on non-federal lands than to provide financial incentives for projects on public lands that have potential resource conflicts and impacts. The PLF recommends that the BLM consider opportunities to limit financial incentives to only those lands that the BLM has identified through land use planning efforts as designated leasing areas or preferred development areas.

Below are the PLF recommendations from their position statement from April 2025:

1. The responsible development of solar energy projects, including projects with additional battery storage capacity, and wind energy projects on the public lands, with the support of Renewable Energy Coordination Offices to facilitate the permitting process, should be a high priority of the BLM and the Department of the Interior. Public lands with low natural or cultural resource conflicts, or on previously disturbed or mined lands, are more suitable for solar or wind energy development than are lands with high natural or cultural resource values.

2. SolarMapper and WindMapper data and geospatial tools, developed by DOE in collaboration with the BLM, should be maintained and updated to assist in the early identification of potential natural and cultural resource conflicts with solar and wind energy resources on the public lands. These mapping tools can assist in the early screening of proposed solar and wind energy projects and assist in the siting of projects with low natural and cultural resource conflicts.

3. The permitting of transmission line rights-of-way on the public lands should be streamlined, through upfront corridor land-use planning, to facilitate solar and wind energy development on both BLM-managed public lands and adjacent non-federal lands. Corridor planning efforts should be collaborative efforts that involve State, Tribal and industry partners. The approval of connected-action transmission line right-of-way authorizations on federal lands, to support development of solar and wind energy projects on adjacent non-federal lands, may also be more appropriate in some cases than development on public lands and should be tracked by the BLM and reported as accomplishments in meeting national renewable energy goals.

4. The PLF supports legislation that would provide authority for the distribution of revenues to States and Counties, a conservation fund to restore and protect habitats/resources and improve access to Federal lands, and to the U. S. Treasury. Legislation should also include a provision to establish an appropriate royalty for solar and wind energy authorizations to ensure a fair market value return for the use of public lands. These royalty revenues should also be shared as noted above.

5. The 2005 Wind Energy Programmatic EIS should be updated to identify public lands potentially suitable for wind energy development pursuant to the new solar and wind energy regulations issued in 2024. In addition, updated avoidance areas should be identified that are considered unsuitable for wind energy development based on new resources data, current land use plan decisions, and current policies.

6. The BLM should proceed with an effort to offer lands for competitive leasing in high priority suitable areas pursuant to the solar and wind energy regulations at 43 CFR Part 2809.10. This effort should be initiated with a call for nominations or expressions of interest.
7. Reclamation bonding is required by the regulations for all solar and wind energy authorizations and the BLM needs to ensure these bonds are periodically reviewed and are adequate to protect the interests of the Federal Government.

8. The BLM should consider the utilization of compensatory mitigation tools, as appropriate and consistent with land-use planning, to facilitate the reduction of landscape-scale resource impacts from solar and wind energy projects on the public lands. The DRECP land use plan in southern California is an example of collaboration in mitigation planning to support responsible renewable energy development.

****

What’s In the Big Bill for Us? Renewables Revenue and Counties

by

This is really above my pay grade, but it seems like the Big Bill changes the way developers are charged for solar and wind installations on federal land, both FS and BLM.  I don’t know what they were before, so I don’t know how significant the changes are.  I posted the section below, but it’s both long and cryptic. I’ve been looking for someone knowledgeable to weigh in, but so far all I got was AI based on earlier versions of the bill. IF someone finds an explanation of the current language, please link in the comments.

Two things that are clear.. BLM discretion to lower fees has been removed, and counties get to keep part of the receipts.

Someone can tell us how different the rent calculations are than previous.

Here’s the section.. be glad that you don’t have to calculate these formulas! It appears that of all the various permits and rents, the Bill says that 25% goes to the State and 25% to the Counties, with other 50% going to the Treasury. Hopefully, our BLM friends can tell us if this is like other kinds of rents and permits. I did find this fairly complex chart of what happens to oil and gas revenues in a recently updated Congressional Research Service report.

Anyway, below is the text.

(9) SECRETARY.—The term ‘‘Secretary’’
4 means—
5 (A) the Secretary of the Interior, with re6
spect to land controlled or administered by the
7 Secretary of the Interior; and
8 (B) the Secretary of Agriculture, with re9
spect to National Forest System land.
10 (b) ACREAGE RENT FOR WIND AND SOLAR RIGHTS11
OF-WAY.—
12 (1) IN GENERAL.—Pursuant to section 504(g) of
13 the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of  1976 (43 U.S.C. 1764(g)), the Secretary shall, subject
15 to paragraph (3) and not later than January 1 of
16 each calendar year, collect from the holder of a right17
of-way for a renewable energy project an acreage rent
18 in an amount determined by the equation described
19 in paragraph (2).
20 (2) CALCULATION OF ACREAGE RENT RATE.—

(A) EQUATION.—The amount of an acreage
22 rent collected under paragraph (1) shall be deter23
mined using the following equation: Acreage rent
24 = A × B × ((1 + C)D)).

(B) DEFINITIONS.—For purposes of the
2 equation described in subparagraph (A):
3 (i) The letter ‘‘A’’ means the Per-Acre
4 Rate.
5 (ii) The letter ‘‘B’’ means the Encum6
brance Factor.
7 (iii) The letter ‘‘C’’ means the Annual
8 Adjustment Factor.
9 (iv) The letter ‘‘D’’ means the year in
10 the term of the right-of-way.
11 (3) PAYMENT UNTIL PRODUCTION.—The holder of
12 a right-of-way for a renewable energy project shall
13 pay an acreage rent collected under paragraph (1)
14 until the date on which energy generation begins.
15 (c) CAPACITY FEES.—
16 (1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall, subject to
17 paragraph (3), annually collect a capacity fee from
18 the holder of a right-of-way for a renewable energy
19 project based on the amount described in paragraph
20 (2).
21 (2) CALCULATION OF CAPACITY FEE.—The
22 amount of a capacity fee collected under paragraph
23 (1) shall be equal to the greater of—
24 (A) an amount equal to the acreage rent de25
scribed in subsection (b); and
195
† HR 1 EAS
1 (B) 3.9 percent of the gross proceeds from
2 the sale of electricity produced by the renewable
3 energy project.
4 (3) MULTIPLE-USE REDUCTION FACTOR.—
5 (A) APPLICATION.—The holder of a right-of6
way for a wind energy generation project may
7 request that the Secretary apply a multiple-use
8 reduction factor of 10-percent to the amount of
9 a capacity fee determined under paragraph (2)
10 by submitting to the Secretary an application at
11 such time, in such manner, and containing such
12 information as the Secretary may require.
13 (B) APPROVAL.—The Secretary may ap14
prove an application submitted under subpara15
graph (A) only if not less than 25 percent of the
16 land within the area of the right-of-way is au17
thorized for use, occupancy, or development with
18 respect to an activity other than the generation
19 of wind energy for the entirety of the year in
20 which the capacity fee is collected.
21 (C) LATE DETERMINATION.—
22 (i) IN GENERAL.—If the Secretary ap23
proves an application under subparagraph
24 (B) for a wind energy generation project
25 after the date on which the holder of the
196
† HR 1 EAS
1 right-of-way for the project begins paying a
2 capacity fee, the Secretary shall apply the
3 multiple-use reduction factor described in
4 subparagraph (A) to the capacity fee for the
5 first year beginning after the date of ap6
proval and each year thereafter for the pe7
riod during which the right-of-way remains
8 in effect.
9 (ii) REFUND.—The Secretary may not
10 refund the holder of a right-of-way for the
11 difference in the amount of a capacity fee
12 paid in a previous year.
13 (d) LATE PAYMENT FEE; TERMINATION.—
14 (1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary may charge the
15 holder of a right-of-way for a renewable energy
16 project a late payment fee if the Secretary does not
17 receive payment for the acreage rent under subsection
18 (b) or the capacity fee under subsection (c) by the
19 date that is 15 days after the date on which the pay20
ment was due.
21 (2) TERMINATION OF RIGHT-OF-WAY.—The Sec22
retary may terminate a right-of-way for a renewable
23 energy project if the Secretary does not receive pay24
ment for the acreage rent under subsection (b) or the
1 capacity fee under subsection (c) by the date that is
2 90 days after the date on which the payment was due.
3 SEC. 50303. RENEWABLE ENERGY REVENUE SHARING.
4 (a) DEFINITIONS.—In this section:
5 (1) COUNTY.—The term ‘‘county’’ includes a
6 parish, township, borough, and any other similar,
7 independent unit of local government.
8 (2) COVERED LAND.—The term ‘‘covered land’’
9 means land that is—
10 (A) public land administered by the Sec11
retary; and
12 (B) not excluded from the development

solar or wind energy under—
14 (i) a land use plan; or
15 (ii) other Federal law.
16 (3) NATIONAL FOREST SYSTEM.—
17 (A) IN GENERAL.—The term ‘‘National For18
est System’’ means land of the National Forest
19 System (as defined in section 11(a) of the Forest
20 and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning
21 Act of 1974 (16 U.S.C. 1609(a))) administered
22 by the Secretary of Agriculture.
23 (B) EXCLUSION.—The term ‘‘National For24
est System’’ does not include any forest reserve
25 not created from the public domain.
198
† HR 1 EAS
1 (4) PUBLIC LAND.—The term ‘‘public land’’
2 means—
3 (A) public lands (as defined in section 103
4 of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act
5 of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1702)); and
6 (B) National Forest System land.
7 (5) RENEWABLE ENERGY PROJECT.—The term
8 ‘‘renewable energy project’’ means a system described
9 in section 2801.9(a)(4) of title 43, Code of Federal
10 Regulations (as in effect on the date of enactment of
11 this Act), located on covered land that uses wind or
12 solar energy to generate energy.
13 (6) SECRETARY.—The term ‘‘Secretary’’
14 means—
15 (A) the Secretary of the Interior, with re16
spect to land controlled or administered by the
17 Secretary of the Interior; and
18 (B) the Secretary of Agriculture, with re19
spect to National Forest System land.
20 (b) DISPOSITION OF REVENUE.—
21 (1) DISPOSITION OF REVENUES.—Beginning on
22 January 1, 2026, the amounts collected from a renew23
able energy project as bonus bids, rentals, fees, or
24 other payments under a right-of-way, permit, lease,
25 or other authorization shall—
1 (A) be deposited in the general fund of the
2 Treasury; and
3 (B) without further appropriation or fiscal
4 year limitation, be allocated as follows:
5 (i) 25 percent shall be paid from
6 amounts in the general fund of the Treasury
7 to the State within the boundaries of which
8 the revenue is derived.
9 (ii) 25 percent shall be paid from
10 amounts in the general fund of the Treasury
11 to each county in a State within the bound12
aries of which the revenue is derived, to be
13 allocated among each applicable county
14 based on the percentage of county land from
15 which the revenue is derived.
16 (2) PAYMENTS TO STATES AND COUNTIES.—
17 (A) IN GENERAL.—Amounts paid to States
18 and counties under paragraph (1) shall be used
19 in accordance with the requirements of section
20 35 of the Mineral Leasing Act (30 U.S.C. 191).
21 (B) PAYMENTS IN LIEU OF TAXES.—A pay22
ment to a county under paragraph (1) shall be
23 in addition to a payment in lieu of taxes re24
ceived by the county under chapter 69 of title 31,
25 United States Code.
1 (C) TIMING.—The amounts required to be
2 paid under paragraph (1)(B) for an applicable
3 fiscal year shall be made available in the fiscal
4 year that immediately follows the fiscal year for
5 which the amounts were collected.

What’s in the Big Bill For Us? II. Selling More Timber and Long-Term Contracts

by

Here’s what the text says:

SEC. 50301. TIMBER SALES AND LONG-TERM CONTRACTING
23 FOR THE FOREST SERVICE AND THE BUREAU
24 OF LAND MANAGEMENT.
*****
23 (A) IN GENERAL.—For each of fiscal years
24 2026 through 2034, the Secretary shall sell tim25
ber annually on National Forest System land in
1 a total quantity that is not less than 250,000,000 board-feet greater than the quantity of board-feet
3 sold in the previous fiscal year.
4 (B) LIMITATION.—The timber sales under
5 subparagraph (A) shall be subject to the max6
imum allowable sale quantity of timber or the
7 projected timber sale quantity under the applica8
ble forest plan in effect on the date of enactment of this Act.

(3) LONG-TERM CONTRACTING FOR THE FOREST
11 SERVICE.—
12 (A) LONG-TERM CONTRACTING.—For the pe13
riod of fiscal years 2025 through 2034, the Sec14
retary shall enter into not fewer than 40 long15
term timber sale contracts with private persons
16 or other public or private entities under sub17
section (a) of section 14 of the National Forest
18 Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 472a) for
19 the sale of national forest materials (as defined
20 in subsection (e)(1) of that section) in the Na21
tional Forest System.
22 (B) CONTRACT LENGTH.—The period of a
23 timber sale contract entered into to meet the re24
quirement under subparagraph (A) shall be not
189 less than 20 years, with options for extensions or
2 renewals, as determined by the Secretary.
3 (C) RECEIPTS.—Any monies derived from a
4 timber sale contract entered into to meet the re5
quirements under subparagraphs (A) and (B)
6 shall be deposited in the general fund of the
7 Treasury.

Then there are similar clauses for BLM.  Perhaps the FS will try to put up sales and long-term contracts, but companies would want to a) buy sales and b) enter into long-term contracts. It seems to me that all Congress can do is make the FS put up sales, and advertise contracts. As my Mom used to say “you can’t get blood out of a turnip.”  But it will be interesting to do the experiment and see what happens.

I have heard different things about 4FRI, and Jim Z. definitely knows more than I do, but perhaps long-term contracts are necessary but not sufficient to start/keep industry? Maybe others have ideas about successes and failures of long-term contracts?

What’s in the Big Bill For Us? I. Rescission of Unobligated IRA Bucks

by

The Bill says if unobligated, these $ are rescinded. Basically it pulls the reins in on certain funding that was in the IRA.    It’s one of those “both things are true” kinds of bills; while touted as a climate bill, there’s a great deal of random throwing around large sums of money.. in many cases, with a fairly tenuous relationship to climate change.  Of course, everything can be related to climate change, with enough imagination. I’ve used this version of the bill, which I hope is the current one.

SEC. 10201. RESCISSION OF AMOUNTS FOR FORESTRY.
3 The unobligated balances of amounts appropriated by
4 the following provisions of Public Law 117–169 are re5
scinded:
6 (1) Paragraphs (3) and (4) of section 23001(a)
7 (136 Stat. 2023).
8 (2) Paragraphs (1) through (4) of section
9 23002(a) (136 Stat. 2025).
10 (3) Section 23003(a)(2) (136 Stat. 2026).
11 (4) Section 23005 (136 Stat. 2027).

What are those?

23001

(3) $100,000,000 to provide for environmental reviews by
the Chief of the Forest Service in satisfying the obligations
of the Chief of the Forest Service under the National Environ-
mental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 through 4370m–
12); and
(4) $50,000,000 for the protection of old-growth forests on
National Forest System land and to complete an inventory
of old-growth forests and mature forests within the National
Forest System.

I never really understood (3) as generally environmental review funding comes out of the program.  And $100 mill, was that from the IRA FS funding dartboard?

23002

1) $150,000,000 for the competitive grant program under
section 13A of the Cooperative Forestry Assistance Act of 1978
(16 U.S.C. 2109a) for providing through that program a cost
share to carry out climate mitigation or forest resilience prac-
tices in the case of underserved forest landowners, subject
to the condition that subsection (h) of that section shall not
apply;
(2) $150,000,000 for the competitive grant program under
section 13A of the Cooperative Forestry Assistance Act of 1978
(16 U.S.C. 2109a) for providing through that program grants
to support the participation of underserved forest landowners
in emerging private markets for climate mitigation or forest
resilience, subject to the condition that subsection (h) of that
section shall not apply;
(3) $100,000,000 for the competitive grant program under
section 13A of the Cooperative Forestry Assistance Act of 1978
(16 U.S.C. 2109a) for providing through that program grants
to support the participation of forest landowners who own less
than 2,500 acres of forest land in emerging private markets
for climate mitigation or forest resilience, subject to the condi-
tion that subsection (h) of that section shall not apply;
(4) $50,000,000 for the competitive grant program under
section 13A of the Cooperative Forestry Assistance Act of 1978
(16 U.S.C. 2109a) to provide grants to states and other eligible
entities to provide payments to owners of private forest land
for implementation of forestry practices on private forest land,
that are determined by the Secretary, based on the best avail-
able science, to provide measurable increases in carbon seques-
tration and storage beyond customary practices on comparable
land, subject to the conditions that—
(A) those payments shall not preclude landowners from
participation in other public and private sector financial
incentive programs; and
(B) subsection (h) of that section shall not apply; a

23003 (a) (2)

(2) $1,500,000,000 to provide multiyear, programmatic,
competitive grants to a State agency, a local governmental
entity, an agency or governmental entity of the District of
Columbia, an agency or governmental entity of an insular area
(as defined in section 1404 of the National Agricultural
Research, Extension, and Teaching Policy Act of 1977 (7 U.S.C.
3103)), an Indian Tribe, or a nonprofit organization through
the Urban and Community Forestry Assistance program estab-
lished under section 9(c) of the Cooperative Forestry Assistance
Act of 1978 (16 U.S.C. 2105(c)) for tree planting and related
activities.

And 23005

SEC. 23005. ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS.
In addition to amounts otherwise available, there is appro-
priated to the Secretary for fiscal year 2022, out of any money
in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, $100,000,000 to remain
available until September 30, 2031, for administrative costs of
the agencies and offices of the Department of Agriculture for costs
related to implementing this subtitle.

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

It would be interesting to see exactly where all those funds went, if they were spent.  I’ve had trouble tracking it.. maybe others are more budget-astute. The below is from USA spending.gov and you can search on 10.727 | Inflation Reduction Act Urban & Community Forestry Program. What’s interesting is that so much was obligated and so little spent … I pulled this yesterday and I assume it’s current but it might not be.  For those who follow this kind of thing, in 2023 Greenlatinos  had 2.22 million in revenue. So there’s quite a bit of ramping up required, I guess since the FS gave them $25 mill (but they had only spent $2 mill as of the unknown date in USAspending.gov).
There was some talk about the point being stashing IRA money so it couldn’t be clawed back, so perhaps that was the idea all along, but as we have seen, it’s not working out that way.
But both Greenlatinos and HAF are getting bucks from big philanthropies, ..so not sure about their need for USG bucks. For some reason, the bar on the screenshot is blotting out The Arbor Day Foundation, which got $75 mill and spent $3.5 mill  (if this info is correct)..