Sierra Club

Hi @George Banziger. See here and also this section of our training page.

@Dana Nuccitelli and @George Banziger Thank you! I had the same question and concerns and I appreciate Dana's clear perspective.

The Sierra Club just sent out emails and texts to its members about FOFA. There are several points in their summary of the bill that don’t align with the actual text. They claim,

it prioritizes industrial logging and weakens critical environmental safeguards across millions of acres of public land. This pro-logging legislation would roll back bedrock conservation laws, silence public input, and fast-track destructive logging projects. It's a giveaway to timber industry lobbyists, not a real solution to wildfire risk.

If passed, the Fix Our Forests Act would:

• Cut environmental reviews so logging projects can move forward with little oversight
• Roll back protections for endangered species and critical habitats
• Shut the public out of decisions about our forests and block citizens' ability to hold the government accountable
• Not provide any resources for real wildfire solutions like home hardening, defensible space, and community planning. This isn't a wildfire bill. It's a logging giveaway.

None of that is true. Wildfire management is very different from industrial logging, it doesn't roll back any environmental laws, it doesn't silence public input, etc. It would be fine to say something like 'we’re worried the Trump administration is going to misuse this bill to clearcut forests,' if that's your concern. I don't agree, as discussed on the forums here, but at least that would be a valid concern.

That said, it’s frustrating to see the bill described in ways that don’t reflect what’s actually in it. After spending 15 years pushing back against climate misinformation, I care deeply about keeping the conversation grounded in facts, especially among groups working toward the same broader goals. I know we won’t always agree on strategy, but I hope we can all aim for accuracy in how we represent the work.

@Dana Nuccitelli

Thank you for posting this. Any advice from you, Jenn and Mindy about navigating this in our upcoming lobby meetings would be appreciated. (In addition to upholding our CCL values, of course.) Our MOC indicated that he voted against FOFA last time around due to concerns that I'm guessing were related to this kind of opposition. While I'm disappointed that our MOC and his very capable staffers did not see through this, on some level they must respond to constituent concerns. And they're only human - sometimes whoever is making the most noise gets the most attention. All the more reason for CCL to get in the game and get our message across.

@Dana Nuccitelli
Dana, I appreciate that you are creating some space between CCL and the Sierra Club on the FOF issue.
We nought never apologize for speaking truth.
The issue of modifying NEPA shines a light on the large donor-funded NGOs, who promote the opinions of a dozen or so billionaire families.
There is an honesty problem in the climate movement that goes much deeper than EPA reform, and if we hope to grow our base into the middle class, climate activists ought to do some soul-searching.

Hi @Paul Kane. I think we just make our case for FOFA as best as we can and answer any specific questions that we get from MOCs. If they ask about other environmental groups, we can just say we disagree for these reasons, and perhaps note that we feel that some groups are misrepresenting what's actually in the text of the bill.

We know we can't persuade every MOC and that's okay too, there should be plenty of support to pass FOFA, and groups like Sierra Club are very trusted and influential messengers among many MOCs.

@Paul Kane What Dana said, Plus, we can identify and encourage trusted messengers to raise their voices. That might mean writing op-eds, submitting letters to the editor, or pursuing any creative idea you or your chapter members can imagine to help your member of Congress see that there’s strong support for climate-smart forestry legislation when it’s the right thing to do.

Of course, they may have legitimate concerns, and it’s important we acknowledge and address those respectfully rather than dismiss them. Yet, I encourage us to let any MOC who’s not yet supporting the legislation know that we’re inspired by the courage of those in their party who are, and, that you’d like to feel that same sense of inspiration from them. Use this as an opportunity to boost their desire to legislate and do what’s right.

👆Creating political will!

My hope is they listen to all the arguments and decide based on the merits of the legislation.

On a related note, CCL is often labeled as an “environmental organization,” but that’s not quite accurate. Citizens’ Climate Lobby is a climate organization with a focus on creating political will for solutions to solve climate change. That distinction matters. It shapes our advocacy, our policies, and the partnerships we pursue in ways that differ from environment-first groups.

Of course, our volunteers and supporters care deeply about the environment. But in this age of climate consequences, this work we do demands urgency. To safeguard the places and people we love, we must move quickly and strategically to reduce the impacts of climate change while there’s still time. That's what FOFA aims to do.

If your MOC asks about “other environmental groups" opposition, it might be a good opportunity to explain CCL's unique voice on these issues. Plus, I'd list off the traditional environmental groups who support FOFA (FOFA Toolkit > Support and Opposition), including Audubon, The Nature Conservancy, and The Environmental Defense Fund.

Thanks for all you do!

@Dana Nuccitelli thank you for all the insights and training on FOFA, including the comments on the Sierra Club's messaging.

I am trying to understand two items:

1. How much risk is there to habitats in increasing categorical exclusions from 3000 (about 5 square miles) to 10,000 acres (about 15 square miles)? With a categorical exclusion, no environmental assessment (EA) is required unless there are exceptional circumstances. An EA would assess things like impacts to rare plants or animals, and habitats like wetlands and its findings published. An EA is supposed to be completed within a year, which I recognize is still a long time. Is the Forestry Service required to conduct and publish even a brief analysis of environmental impact if they declare a categorical exclusion area?
2. How do we know that more carbon in total is retained in forests if all forests are managed with best practices that reduce wildfires? If best practices (thinning, prescribed burns) are used everywhere then we will not have highly dense forests, but we will have less wildfires so we will have less completely burnt out areas where a lot of carbon has been lost. On the other hand, if we let forests grow without thinning and prescribed burns, we will have some very dense forest areas where a lot of carbon is retained but there would be more areas that are badly burned and a lot of carbon is lost. I'm not sure I have seen an analysis of actual carbon content that is stored across a very large area and over a long period of time if on the one hand we have more of a steady state situation (best forestry management practices) versus a “hands off approach.”
   

Hi @Waqar Qureshi. Over 80% of forest management projects are already done under categorical exclusions (CatExs). Expanding the area just allows the Forest Service to cover 10,000 acres under one instead of three-plus CatExs, so they're not wasting resources on a bunch of unnecessary paperwork. And yes, CatExs still require consideration of environmental impacts.

For a discussion of research regarding the impact on carbon storage and emissions from these projects, see here.

@Dana Nuccitelli

What is the process for getting a CE for a project ?

Did you say that the 3000 acre CEs are not in NEPA, but rather a rule. Is that why we say we are not changing NEPA ?

Hi @Rob Johnson. Federal agencies establish that certain types of projects qualify as categorical exclusions, if those types of projects generally have a relatively small environmental impact. I don't know the details, but presumably the Forest Service has said that activities like thinning and prescribed burns fall into these categories, and thus can be done under CatExes in most cases, unless there's a particular sensitivity in the area in question.

CatExes are nevertheless part of the NEPA process and still require considering environmental impacts, it's just that it's less involved than a big Environmental Assessment or Impact Report. And then one of the things FOFA is doing is allowing the Forest Service to do these wildfire management projects under a CatEx in an area as large as 10,000 acres rather than the current 3,000 acre limit. But it's all under NEPA – nothing in NEPA itself is changing, just the maximum allowable size of a wildfire management CatEx project.