FOFA in the news

An article appeared in the Sunday edition of our local paper about FOFA that I haven't seen flagged in the Forums (perhaps I missed it). It was distributed by The Conversation, so I suspect that it's appeared in other places.

The authors are experts in fire science and policy. They support support some of the proposed solutions but also express concerns.

Here's their basic thesis:

Research shows that environmental reviews are rarely the main barrier to forest projects aimed at reducing fire risk.

The bigger obstacles are the shrinking of the federal forest workforce over the past two decades, the low commercial value of the small trees and brush that need to be removed, and the lack of contractors, processing facilities and markets for low-value wood.

I found the arguments compelling and would like to know if anyone thinks they're misguided, especially @Dana Nuccitelli.

CCL's September campaign asked people to ask Congress to fund key climate and energy programs (NOAA, NASA, DOE). This seems like an important point to include in our lobbying going forward, especially given the growing skepticism in the public and with some of our MOCs about whether important laws will become hollow shells without the budget or staffing to implement them.

Here's the full article:

Sunday, September 21, 2025

Timber harvesting alone won't curb fire risk Courtney Schultz and Tony Cheng Colorado State University Forrest Fleischman University of Minnesota THE CONVERSATION The Western United States is facing another destructive wildfire season, with more acres burned in Colorado alone in 2025 than in the past four years combined. If global warming continues on its current trajectory, the amount of forest area burned each year could double or even triple by mid-century. In other words, more fire is coming, more often. As U.S. forests burn, Congress and federal agencies are asking an important question: What role should federal land management play in reducing fire risk? About two-thirds of forest land in the West is publicly owned, with the majority of it managed by federal agencies such as the U.S. Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management. These public lands are treasured for recreation, wildlife habitat, timber production and open space. They are also where many of today's largest fires burn. Historically, lightning- and human-ignited fires kept forests less dense and reduced forest litter and undergrowth that can easily burn. While some controlled burning continues today, the violent displacement of Native people, criminalization of Indigenous fire stewardship and more than a century of federal fire suppression have largely removed fire as a critical ecological process in fire-prone forests, leaving fuel to accumulate. When those forests burn today, the result is often hotter and more severe fires that elude any attempt at control. And rising global temperatures are raising the risk. Several of the current federal proposals for managing fire risk focus on increasing timber harvesting on federal lands as a solution. They also propose speeding up approvals for those projects by limiting environmental reviews and public oversight. As experts in fire science and policy, we see some useful ideas in the proposed solutions, but also reasons for concern. While cutting trees can help reduce the severity of future fires, it has to include thinning in the right places to make a difference. Without oversight and public involvement, increasing logging could skip areas with low-value trees that need thinning and miss opportunities for more effective fire risk-reduction work. Harvesting timber to reduce fire risk President Donald Trump cited wildfire risk in his March executive order calling for 'an immediate expansion of American timber production.' And the U.S. Forest Service followed with a commitment to increase timber sales on federal land by 25% over the next four years. Trump, federal officials and members of Congress who are advancing legislation such as the Fix Our Forests Act have also called for speeding up approval of timber-harvesting projects by reducing public comment periods on proposals, limiting environmental analyses of the plans and curtailing the ability of groups to sue to block or change the projects in court. These proposals are often framed as pragmatic solutions to clear the way for action to reduce fire risk faster. The urgency is real, and this argument can seem intuitive. No one wants burdensome processes to stand in the way of reducing wildfire damage. But it's important to take a hard look at the problem and real solutions. Environmental reviews aren't the problem Research shows that environmental reviews are rarely the main barrier to forest projects aimed at reducing fire risk. The bigger obstacles are the shrinking of the federal forest workforce over the past two decades, the low commercial value of the small trees and brush that need to be removed, and the lack of contractors, processing facilities and markets for low-value wood. Data from the U.S. Forest Service supports these conclusions. Between 2005 and 2018, over 82% of the U.S. Forest Service's land management projects were approved using categorical exclusions. Categorical exclusions allow agencies to skip environmental assessments and are the fastest and least burdensome form of National Environmental Policy Act, or NEPA, review, with limited analysis or opportunity for public involvement. Less than 1% of the projects were challenged in court, and most of those challenges targeted the largest and most complex projects, where public oversight and analysis are critical to getting it right on the ground, such as large mining operations or forest management projects that would cover hundreds of thousands of acres. An analysis of the bulk of U.S. Forest Service land management projects between 2009 and 2021 found that complying with NEPA took between 7% and 21% of the projects' timelines, often shorter than the timelines for issuing contracts. Some degree of planning, intergovernmental coordination and public involvement must happen before starting a fuel-reduction project to know where the work is appropriate and necessary. Why reviews and public oversight matter What would be lost if requirements for environmental analysis and public involvement were curtailed? Oversight helps ensure that projects happen where they are needed to reduce fire risk. Without that, political and economic pressures can lead to more forest thinning in locations where there are mills and valuable timber – rather than in the areas where wildfire risk is higher but the trees aren't as valuable. The Conversation is an independent and nonprofit source of news, analysis and commentary from academic experts. The Conversation is wholly responsible for the content. Copyright © Reno Gazette-Journal, a Gannett Newspaper. Use of this site signifies your agreement to the Terms of Service and Privacy Policy/Your California Privacy Rights, updated 03/12/07 Powered by TECNAVIA