After a century of wildfire suppression across the West, it’s no secret that the approach to forest management has needed to change. And change is, and has been, underway.
But newly proposed changes, now in the form of legislation that would let fuel mitigation projects, including logging, in high-risk zones like the forest surrounding Durango skirt the public input process have some environmental groups up in arms.
The Fix Our Forests Act is an attempt to “undermine public process and judicial review,” said John Rader, an attorney and the Public Lands Program manager at the Durango-based San Juan Citizens Alliance.
In contrast, Rep. Jeff Hurd, the Republican elected in November to represent Colorado’s 3rd Congressional District and one of the bill’s original 43 bipartisan sponsors in the U.S. House of Representatives, said the bill is “sensible and it's appropriate.”
The Fix Our Forests Act passed the House on Jan. 23 in a vote with the support of 215 Republicans and 64 Democrats, over the opposition of 141 Democrats.
If it passes the Senate and is signed into law, the law would direct cabinet secretaries who oversee land management agencies, namely the U.S. Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management, to designate high-priority firesheds and create a registry of those landscapes. The designations would be made using the Forest Service’s 2022 wildfire crisis strategy as well as other areas identified by previous research.
In those areas, of up to 10,000 acres (which includes a swath of the San Juan National Forest north of Durango), the bill outlines a slate of vegetation management tactics that would be exempt from the scrutinous review prescribed in the National Environmental Policy Act.
“It applies to activities like hazardous fuel reduction, thinning, removal of dead or dying trees,” Hurd said in an interview with The Durango Herald. “Those things, I think, are activities that we know are responsible activities with respect to management of these forests, and I think oftentimes, NEPA can serve as an impediment to those in a way that is ultimately damaging to forest and forest health.”
NEPA, a 1970 law, dictates a rigorous review process of federal projects that impact the environment. And, Rader notes, NEPA outlines a critical process for public input that demands that federal agencies inform the public of their actions and take into account feedback.
The bill does not broadly dictate what manner of fuel mitigation should occur.
And that’s probably for the best, according to Aaron Kimple, program director of the Southwest Ecological Restoration Institute’s ReSHAPE program. There’s no one-size-fits-all approach to fuel mitigation, he said.
But, he pointed out, whether a forest is best treated by logging, mastication, prescribed fire or some other method, is a question asked in the early stages of the NEPA process.
“That's the initial stages of NEPA, right?” Kimple said. “Where are we? What does this look like? Where are we in proximity to values?”
Prescribed fire is not universally the right tactic, but it is often put to good use by land managers in Southwest Colorado to reduce the load of ladder fuels, which can facilitate the rapid increase in severity of a wildfire. And there are already some 650,000 acres of national forest approved through NEPA and ready to burn, the SJNF told the Herald in 2023. The Forest Service treated 25,000 acres last year, meaning it’s likely to take many years to burn all acreage that has already been approved.
Although new prescribed fire plans would be exempt from NEPA review, it is fears of unchecked logging projects and heavy livestock grazing nationwide that has environmental groups concerned that the bill is a Trojan horse masquerading as wildfire hazard mitigation.
Attempts to sidestep NEPA are near-perennial occurrences, according to Rader.
“It’s kind of the template to erase all these environmental protections in the name of creating more wildfire protection,” he said.
By exempting projects from NEPA review, the Fix Our Forests Act would keep the public in the dark, Rader fears, while fast-tracking projects that could be detrimental to the natural environment.
“Every step of the way, it's cutting out public input and keeping the public from being informed about the details of these projects,” he said.
Hurd said he looks at the issue from a cost-benefit perspective in terms of the need to reduce the risk of catastrophic wildfire and the impacts of fuel mitigation, which are known, he argues.
“I think that this legislation strikes the right balance,” he said, noting that he wouldn’t want the perfect to be the enemy of the good.
Rather than the traditional NEPA public input process – a lengthy undertaking that can take years to complete – the Fix Our Forests Act would establish a far quicker public comment review timeline and radically overhaul how those projects are subject to legal scrutiny. The bill contains a “common sense litigation reform” provision that limits public comment to a 120-day period with the intention of reducing frivolous lawsuits.
Rader warns this “really insidious” provision could have the opposite effect, arguing that the shot-clock may increase the proportion of poorly prepared lawsuits.
The legislation passed the House shortly before reductions in force began to take place, including an effort to fire 3,400 Forest Service employees nationwide. In Southwest Colorado, numerous public lands workers have lost their jobs.
Included in those firings are forestry technicians and timber cruisers and other positions that would be critical to implementing the Fix Our Forests Act.
Although the cost-cutting of the Fix Our Forests Act is something he can get behind, Hurd called the recent firings concerning, and said he plans to work in a quiet manner with the current presidential administration to try and reinstate essential personnel. To that end, he said he was “cautiously optimistic” that the forest would have the staff it needs to combat the wildfire crisis.
Colorado Sen. Michael Bennet took the offensive last week, lambasting the firings on the Senate floor (he also introduced an amendment, which did not pass, to this year’s budget that would have reinstated fired public lands workers).
A spokesperson for Bennet said the senator is reviewing the bill, and supports both cutting red tape and investing in the Forest Service’s mission and workforce.
A spokesman for Sen. John Hickenlooper said he is reviewing the bill and would consider leading a Senate version if there is “agreement on several changes.”
rschafir@durangherald.com
