Fixing or Failing Our Forests?

An Act billed as a way to mitigate and restore, but built to fuel private interest and exacerbate the issue.

Winter wildfires are an unnatural disaster. The January blaze that scorched approximately 40,000 acres in Los Angeles is just one event fueling the debate over how to reduce the ever-growing risk of wildfire.

Recently proposed legislation, ‘Fix Our Forests Act,’ purportedly supports forest restoration and stewardship as a means of wildfire mitigation. However, it aims to bypass existing legislation, such as the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the Endangered Species Act (ESA), which have been in place since the 1970s to prevent actions that could harm the environment or endangered species. 

Fix Our Forests Act, introduced by Ark. Rep. Bruce Westerman, passed the House on Jan. 23. The bill was received in the Senate and has yet to be voted on.

“This bill is ostensibly about wildfire mitigation. The truth is that the core components of this bill will do nothing to stop wildfire or mitigate wildfire,” said Blaine Miller-McFeeley, a Senior Legislative Representative at Earthjustice. 

“In actuality, it will probably make wildfires worse and communities more susceptible and threatened by wildfires, because the types of projects that are allowed to go through with no NEPA input, and the incentives that this will allow to move forward, are all about cutting down as much timber as possible,” Miller-McFeeley continued.

Proponents of the Fix Our Forests Act believe the review process through existing policies is too lengthy and causes delay in wildfire management. In reality, it seems they are celebrating an opportunity to engage in unbridled extractive activities that have been proven to exacerbate climate change.

Environmental Scientists and Advocates Sound the Alarm on Pitfalls

Ellen Montgomery, a Colorado Director of Public Lands Campaign for Environment America, told us the bill has “three poison pills,” including aiming to “make an-end run around the Endangered Species Act.”

“It seeks to massively increase the acreage that can be approved for logging under categorical exclusions, and then it shortens the window for judicial review in a way that we think is really harmful for small citizen groups being able to challenge bad logging projects,” Montgomery continued.

This bill, if enacted, could threaten ecosystems and environmental health while it appeals to the public by operating under the guise of reducing the ever-increasing threat of wildfire. 

“It basically means that there are no restrictions and that the logging industry is going to get their day to do whatever they want, wherever they want on our federal lands, and to make matters worse, most of our logging is actually subsidized by taxpayers because they have to build roads,” Miller-McFeeley said. 

“They're extraordinarily expensive, and the Forest Service usually pays for those roads. And so we're destroying our lands, we’re destroying our trees that sequester carbon and keep our drinking water clean, and you know, our outdoor recreation area that creates massive numbers of jobs,” he continued.

In a letter to members of the House Committee opposing the legislation, signed by more than 85 environmental organizations, they wrote, “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.” 

Praise from Those Who Stand to Profit

Entities with more fiscal and political power, including loggers, livestock ranchers and some politicians have praised the bill for reducing restrictions on profitable ventures' use of public land.

The National Association of Home Builders is one of those proponents– linking accessibility to logging and timber for the sake of lower housing prices to the ecological risks of supposedly poorly managed forests. They ultimately endorse the action of expedited logging.

The introduction and passage of this bill by the House conveniently aligns with the Trump administration’s swift efforts to reduce public services and reward private interests for profit. With or without the Fix Our Forests Act, Trump is already using emergency orders to bypass environmental policy.

On March 1, the Trump administration signed multiple executive orders in favor of immediate expansion of timber production in American forests, declaring the dependence on external resources as a threat to national security.

The Potential Damage is far-reaching

Many environmentalists believe the Fix Our Forests Act will silence citizens and scientists and prevent their engagement on public lands, ultimately expediting destructive activity without due process. Public ownership of public lands could be changing.

“Folks like Burgum have said that we need to be using our public lands as a piggy bank, and this is right in line with that,” Miller-McFeeley said.

Doug Burgum, the 55th Secretary of the Interior serving in the Trump administration, has set forth to “unleash American energy.”

Miller-McFeeley emphasized the significance of public lands to the American taxpayer– highlighting public lands’ capacity for job creation, outdoor recreation, clean drinking water, and the economy.

 “To throw multiple use out the window and say that the only thing that matters is to cut down as much as you can, as fast as you can… not only does it undercut the wildfire issue and actually make that worse, but it undercuts all the other uses that are important to Americans like, you know, going for a hike, or fighting climate change,” Miller-McFeeley said.

The Citizens’ Climate Lobby is an environmental entity that endorses the Fix Our Forests Act, claiming it “adds new ways for communities to provide input early and often in planning and implementation.” 

Miller-McFeeley explained that these proponents argue that instead of going through NEPA, the Forest Service should consult with local governments on project planning. But, “Local governments already have an elevated path through NEPA to have their voices heard, so that’s unnecessary. Also, local governments are not the citizens or the scientists on the ground, they do not necessarily speak for everyone,” he said. 

“To be honest with you, there are certain local entities that have reverse incentives, because they make money off of logging— so their entire posture and goal is to support as much logging as possible,” Miller-McFeeley continued. 

He also warned of reverse incentives like plans to build in fire-prone areas– made possible in more ways than one by cutting down massive amounts of trees. 

Notably, the Fix Our Forests Act does not address solutions to wildfires where communities are impacted– because most people aren’t living in national forests. Many of the most devastating wildfires over the last several years also did not take place in forests.

And many of these fires, such as the 2019 Kincade fire or the 2017 Tubbs fire, have been sparked by wind events, electrical problems, and transmission line failures.

Expanded livestock grazing is another initiative within the Fix Our Forests Act. Section 117 specifically aims to utilize targeted grazing, touting this as an effective means of wildfire suppression.

Laura Cunningham, a wildlife biologist and ecologist, and the California Director of Western Watersheds Project noted that the bill largely deflects away from addressing the root causes. She also noted that livestock grazing is not the answer.

“We could have cattle grazing a mile away on the grass, but they’re not eating the chaparral, the woody shrubs, they’re not eating the thickets of trees. When the trees go up, the sparks carried by winds will land on that shrub next to your house and there it goes,” Cunningham said.

“Having cows eat grass everywhere is just ignoring the problem of what’s causing our mega-fires– a century of woody buildup and climate change causing more huge wind events that are spreading fire beyond fuel breaks,” Cunningham continued.

Cunningham cited cultural burns and home-hardening as more practical solutions to mitigate the harmful effects of wildfire.

Montgomery said, “Everybody thinks that wildfire and the conditions that are making it worse are a problem, and we should be able to address those without also throwing out other environmental protections.” 

Miller-McFeeley ended with this, “The fact that the proponents of this bill are trying to line the pockets of the timber industry by using a horrible tragedy like the LA fires and fires around the country, as opposed to focusing on the real solutions, tells you what kind of goals they really have.” 

“Their goals are really about making more money and getting rid of environmental laws that they have hated for decades. This is not about protecting communities, it is not about making our forests healthier. It is unfortunate that they are not actually focused on the right things, but we have to realize how false the narrative is that they are putting out there,” Miller-McFeeley continued.

As of publication, H.R. 471, the Fix Our Forests Act, has passed the House and is with Committees and Subcommittees, but could be seen on the Senate floor any day now.