Coalition Signs On in Opposition to Troubling “Fix Our Forests Act”

On behalf of our millions of members and supporters, our organizations write to express our strong opposition to Chairman Westerman’s and Representative Peters’s legislation, the “Fix Our Forest Act” which was heard under a different title before the Subcommittee on April 17, 2024 and will be marked up in Committee on June 26, 2024. We respectfully request that this letter be included in the markup record.

This legislation purports to be about sound forest management and fire, but it is really about stifling citizen voices, removing science from land management decisions, and legislating a large-scale rollback of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) on millions of acres of federal lands. Its sweeping provisions remove scientific review and accountability to benefit the short-term interests of extractive industries.

Instead of focusing on proven ways to protect communities such as home hardening and science-based forest management projects close to communities, this legislation will open millions of acres of federal land to logging without scientific review and community input, which may increase the risk of wildfires. This bill also paves the way for increasing road density and removing large old trees that naturally confer fire resilience. Older trees also store a disproportionately high amount of carbon, mitigating against climate change that fuels fires. Road density has been linked with an increase in human-caused wildfires—as the density of roads increase, so do wildfire ignitions. Logging roads also fragment forest habitat and are sources of chronic sediment that harm water quality in rivers and streams. During a time of mass extinction, the bill also removes ESA consultation requirements designed to prevent harm to imperiled species. Finally, compounding these harms, it removes rights to judicial review, effectively barring citizens from holding federal agencies accountable.

Our organizations recognize the challenge in addressing threats posed by climate change, including increased risks from fire. Unfortunately, the majority of this bill would harm forests, communities, the climate, water, and biodiversity. Federal land managers already have broad procedural authorities: 85% of management on National Forest lands now proceeds under categorical exclusions (CEs). Further changes to bedrock environmental laws will only exacerbate harm to our forests. In particular, Congress should not be undermining ESA protections amidst an extinction crisis. As such, we are fully opposed to this legislation as a whole.

Our organizations welcome the chance to be part of this critical discussion, and we detail our concerns with specific sections of the legislation below.

Section 2: Definitions
(7) HAZARDOUS FUELS MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES.—Section 2 of the bill defines “hazardous fuels management activities” in a way that does not require that the activity be intended for the purpose of reducing hazardous fuels. Instead, it encompasses “any vegetation management activities (or combination thereof) that reduce the risk of wildfire….” This leaves room to justify any “mechanical thinning” or other vegetation management activity (such as clear cut logging) as risk reduction and could therefore fall within the definition of “hazardous fuels management activities.” Our organizations oppose the use of this broad definition, which invites confusion and potential abuse.

Title I: Landscape Scale Restoration
Subtitle A – Addressing Emergency Wildfire Risks in High Priority Firesheds
Subtitle A Section 101 waives the designation of fireshed management areas from the requirements of NEPA. A fireshed, as delineated by the Forest Service, is a very large area, typically 250,000 acres (390 square miles), and fireshed management areas comprise multiple firesheds. The fireshed assessments of these fireshed management areas are also waived from NEPA review. Doing so cuts critical scientific and public input from the process and risks inaccurate assessments and designation.

Subtitle A Section 106 encourages logging and other activities within designated fireshed management areas and categorically excludes these activities from detailed NEPA review. Along with unfettered logging, Section 106(a) calls for removal of dead and dying trees (trees which are essential for forest health and regeneration), chemical applications, undefined mechanical thinning, and grazing to be used on federal and non-federal lands deemed to have higher wildfire risk. This provides a vehicle for the agencies to carry out fireshed management projects for reasons unrelated to fire management and without the standards, responsibility, and accountability that would otherwise exist. Section 106(b) amends the Healthy Forests Restoration Act to increase numerous existing CEs to 10,000 acres, or 15 square miles (an acreage that the Forest Service has testified may have significant impacts). Treatment across this large acreage is likely to have significant impacts on habitats, watersheds, and ecosystems. Authorizing huge logging projects without objective and detailed environmental and administrative review, which limits public engagement and the use of best available science, is unacceptable because it does not facilitate appropriate projects for our forests and community safety.

Although this Subtitle is couched as wildfire-related, in fact it is simply a rollback of environmental laws. Section 106(a)(3)(A) states that “emergency” provisions in regulations implementing the ESA and NEPA are applicable “[f]or any fireshed management area designated under section 101” of the bill.¹[1] These provisions include 50 C.F.R. § 402.05, which allows informal consultation under alternative procedures, with formal consultation deferred until after the emergency is under control. Under this bill, consultation appears intended to be deferred as long as the bill is in force. As a result, it would not occur until long after the harm to endangered and threatened species has happened, and it is too late to avoid or mitigate that damage. In so doing, the legislation requires no finding of an actual emergency. Instead, it extends these emergency provisions to areas comprising hundreds of thousands of acres – without requiring that the exempt projects be directed at reducing wildfire risk. Our organizations oppose these provisions within Subtitle A.