American Forest Resource Council supports Trump's executive orders to boost domestic timber production; orders aim to expand federal forest management, strengthen lumber industry security

The American Forest Resource Council (AFRC) today voiced its strong support for two Executive Orders signed by President Trump on March 1, aimed at expanding U.S. timber production and strengthening the domestic lumber industry. The Executive Orders address key challenges facing federal forest management, wildfire prevention, and the economic sustainability of the nation’s wood products sector.

Executive Orders Prioritize Domestic Timber and Lumber Supply

The first order, titled “Immediate Expansion of U.S. Timber Production,” underscores the importance of timber, lumber, paper, bioenergy, and other wood products to the nation’s economy and directs federal agencies to take decisive actions to increase timber supplies and reduce regulatory barriers.

The second order, “Addressing the Threat to National Security From Imports of Timber, Lumber,” classifies the wood products industry as essential to U.S. national security and economic stability. It tasks the Secretary of Commerce, in collaboration with other federal agencies, with investigating the national security implications of timber and lumber imports and recommending policies to fortify the domestic supply chain.

AFRC Supports Immediate Action to Address Federal Forest Crisis

AFRC President Travis Joseph praised the Executive Orders as long-overdue steps toward responsible federal forest management and economic revitalization.

“These are common sense directives Americans support and want from their Federal government, which owns about 30 percent of our nation’s forests.  Our federal forests have been mismanaged for decades.  Americans have paid the price in almost every way.  Lost jobs, lost manufacturing, and infrastructure.  Lost recreational opportunities like hunting and fishing, and access to our lands.  Degraded wildlife populations, water, and air.  Landscapes and communities devastated by wildfire.  Our federal forests are facing an emergency. It’s time to start treating it like one by taking immediate action,” Joseph said.

“These executive orders state the obvious but provide the clarity and leadership past administrations have failed to say out loud and prioritize: America’s wood products should come from America. Whether for economic, environmental, or national security reasons, better managing our federal forests benefits everyone.  Who opposes American workers, stewarding and protecting American lands, to make American products and create opportunities – all while reducing wildfire risks to public health and safety?  It’s a call to action to come together, get to work, and deliver better outcomes for Americans and our forests.”

The Executive Orders come amid a federal forest health and wildfire crisis; losses in recent years of U.S. wood products manufacturing facilities and jobs; and a severe national housing shortage.

Executive Orders Address Federal Lands in Crisis

The Forest Service manages 193 million acres of forests and grassland nationally.  Only 35 percent of national forests are available for timber harvests, while 65 percent is designated for non-timber uses, such as wilderness and other areas set aside for protection.  One-half of one percent of national forest lands is harvested for timber each year.  For the past 20 years, forest mortality (tree death) on national forests has exceeded timber harvest. Our federal forests are so neglected today that mortality is now exceeding the net growth of these forests.

On average, it takes the Forest Service 3.6 yearsPERC POLICY BRIEF | JUNE 2022 Does Environmental Review Worsen the Wildfire Crisis? How environmental analysis delays fuel treatment projects by Eric Edwards and Sara Sutherland Does Environmental Review Worsen the Wildfire Crisis? 1 Does Environmental Review Worsen the Wildfire Crisis? How environmental analysis delays fuel treatment projects by Eric Edwards and Sara Sutherland W ildfires are burning record numbers of acres Highlights in the western United States each year. More than 10 million acres burned nationwide in three 4 Fuel treatment projects designed to of the past seven years, most of them in the West. reduce wildfire risks, including mechanical In California, nine of the 20 largest wildfires in the treatments and prescribed burns, often state’s history have burned in the past two years. take longer to implement than other Changing patterns of temperature and precipitation, U.S. Forest Service projects because coupled with growing populations near fire-prone they are more likely to require rigorous landscapes, make wildfires increasingly destructive environmental review or be litigated. and costly. The arid climate and vast federal estate make western states especially prone to large wildfires. 4 Once the Forest Service initiates the More than half of the land in the 11 contigu- environmental review process, it takes ous western states is federally owned and managed. an average of 3.6 years to begin a While multiple federal agencies must deal with mechanical treatment and 4.7 years wildfires, the largest burden falls on the U.S. Forest to begin a prescribed burn. Service. Of the 640 million acres of federal land in 4 For projects that require environmental the United States, the Forest Service manages 193 impact statements—the most rigorous million.1 In 2020, 7.1 million acres of federal land form of review—the time from initiation burned in wildfires, including 4.8 million acres of to implementation averages 5.3 years Forest Service land.2 for mechanical treatments and Wildland fire management is the top budget item 7.2 years for prescribed burns. for the Forest Service, with suppression costs reaching 4 Given the time it takes to conduct $1.76 billion in 2020.3 Increasingly, legislators, agen- environmental reviews and implement cy officials, and forest science researchers are conclud- fuel treatments, it is unlikely that the ing that more proactive fire mitigation activities are Forest Service will be able to achieve needed to lessen the severity and costs of western its goal of treating an additional 20 wildfires. For instance, a new initiative by the Biden million acres over the next 10 years. Does Environmental Review Worsen the Wildfire Crisis? 1 administration aims to carry out fuel treatments on implementing treatments exacerbate wildfire risk and an additional 50 million acres over the next 10 years limit the flexibility of managers to use new informa- to reduce extreme wildfire risks, including an addi- tion to quickly address emerging risk. In 2021, for tional 20 million acres of national forest lands.4 example, several proposed treatment areas burned in To preemptively reduce the impacts of large and large wildfires while facing delays from environmen- costly wildfires, forest managers use methods that tal review and litigation.12 remove fuels—brush, trees, and other flammable This policy brief examines the amount of time materials—to lessen the intensity of burns. The two it takes the U.S. Forest Service to implement fuel most common fuel treatments are prescribed burns treatment projects while navigating the requirements and mechanical treatments.5 The effectiveness of of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). these measures was demonstrated in 2021 during NEPA is a procedural law that requires federal agen- Oregon’s Bootleg Fire, which ultimately burned cies to assess the environmental impacts of proposed 400,000 acres. Firefighters reported that where actions. Under NEPA, proposed projects are treated both treatments had been applied, fire intensity was in one of three ways: Projects determined to have reduced, the crowns of trees were left intact, and the no significant impacts receive categorical exclusion blaze became a more manageable ground fire. Such (CE) from more stringent review. For projects with low-intensity fires, which frequently burned in the uncertain impacts, agencies must conduct an envi- West before aggressive fire suppression policies were ronmental assessment (EA). For projects deemed adopted, are ecologically important. Managed forests to cause significant environmental impacts, federal are more resilient to drought, high temperatures, fire, agencies must complete an environmental impact and insects.6 statement (EIS), the most stringent type of review While these approaches have proven effective at under the law. During an EIS, agencies gather infor- reducing the likelihood and severity of wildfire, the mation about expected project impacts to the quality Forest Service has not been able to undertake miti- of the human environment, solicit public comments, gation activities at the scale needed to address the and respond to all substantive comments.13 While threat in a meaningful way. Indeed, reports from only some fuel-reduction activities require an EIS, the Bootleg Fire suggested that an area where sched- the NEPA process can be time-consuming and uled prescribed burns had been delayed suffered resource-intensive for all projects. more damage than areas where treatments had been The NEPA process increases the time it takes to completed.7 As of 2018, 80 million acres of national implement fuel treatments through direct and indi- forest land needed restoration to reduce susceptibility rect channels. Direct effects come from administra- to wildfire, disease, and insects, according to Forest tive and processing time associated with preparing Service officials,8 yet the agency has treated just 2 and approving an analysis, plus potential objections million acres annually in recent decades.9 and litigation of the agency’s analysis. Indirect delays Forest Service estimates suggest that an invest- occur when agency officials proactively attempt to ment of $5-$6 billion over 10 years would be ward off future controversy, objections, and litigation required to perform fuel treatments on all of the through additional processing time and analysis.14 highest-priority areas. Regulatory processes and liti- Advocacy groups, firms, and the general public gation, however, pose significant barriers to achiev- can file objections to NEPA decisions to the Forest ing these mitigation goals.10 One survey of forest Service and, once that avenue is exhausted, can also managers suggested that environmental policies are file lawsuits to overturn decisions or compel addi- viewed as an important hurdle to prescribed burns, a tional analysis. Objecting is a pre-decision process key method of reducing fuels.11 Regulatory processes designed to avoid future litigation by allowing the that increase the time between identifying and agency to resolve concerns over a project before a 2 PERC POLICY BRIEF NEPA decision has been made.15 Although most proj- ects are not litigated, the depth of analysis and time spent on the NEPA process is commonly based on the threat of litigation, as well as the level of public and political interest and defensibility in court.16 This brief compiles new NEPA data to exam- ine the duration of administrative review for Forest Service wildfire mitigation activities. It documents how long it takes to implement fuel treatment proj- ects and then separates out the portion that involves NEPA review from other factors, including litigation. Figure 1 Average Time to Begin U.S. Forest Service Fuel Treatments All NEPA Analysis Types Mechanical Treatment 476 494 356 3.6 Years Initiation NEPA First Treatment Decision Activity Begins Begins Prescribed 463 512 736 4.7 Years Burn Initiation NEPA First Treatment Decision Activity Begins Begins Projects That Require Environmental Impact Statements Mechanical Treatment 955 467 502 5.3 Years Initiation NEPA First Treatment Decision Activity Begins Begins Prescribed Burn 998 399 1,246 7.2 Years Initiation NEPA First Treatment Decision Activity Begins Begins 0 365 730 1095 1460 1825 2190 2555 2920 Days The timeline for a U.S. Forest Service fuel treatment project includes the following steps: initiation of the NEPA environmental review process, NEPA decision, first on-the-ground activity (often an inventory of fuels or similar preparation step) begins, and, finally, treatment begins. Once the Forest Service initiates the environmental review process, it takes an average of 3.6 years (1,325 days) to begin a mechanical treatment. Prescribed burns average 4.7 years (1,711 days) from initiation to beginning of treatment. For both types of treatment, projects that require rigorous review in the form of an environmental impact statement take significantly longer to begin on average: 5.3 years (1,924 days) in the case of mechanical treatments and 7.2 years (2,643 days) in the case of prescribed burns. Does Environmental Review Worsen the Wildfire Crisis? 3 © USFWS Reducing Hazardous Fuels effective in conifer forests that had previously burned Fuel levels are the most influential factor, on and in grasslands and least effective when only average, driving high-severity fire in the west- mechanical rearrangement had been undertaken. ern United States.17 Mechanical treatments and The researchers found no difference in effective- prescribed burns are the primary management tools ness between the southern and northern latitudes for proactively reducing the severity of wildfires. of the western United States. In the face of changing Mechanical treatments use machinery to remove climate, proactive forest management via mechani- and rearrange vegetation in forests with the intent cal treatments, prescribed burns, or both in concert of reducing ladder and canopy fuels.18 Prescribed is well-justified in the scientific literature.24 burns are planned fires that aim to achieve specific Although mechanical treatments and prescribed management objectives such as reducing fuel loads burns are important tools to lessen the severity of or improving habitat. wildfires, both treatment types come with risk. Fuel treatment objectives and effectiveness differ Mechanical thinning, for example, may reduce between the wildland-urban interface and wilder- land productivity due to soil compaction and other ness areas.19 Mechanical treatments are often used machine-related land damage, including erosion. The in the wildland-urban interface because they are major short-term risk of prescribed burns is escaped more precise, create lower emissions, do not entail fires, but air quality concerns and potential damage the same risks of fire escape, and have the poten- to property also constrain their use.25 Activities that tial to create wood products or biomass.20 Mechan- reduce hazardous fuels modify the natural landscape ical treatments may also be preferred to prescribed and are subject to NEPA when they meet the defini- burns in dense forests, areas with limited resources tion of a “major Federal action.”26 to implement burns, and areas with nearby markets for small-diameter trees. The NEPA Process While less precise and more risky, prescribed The National Environmental Policy Act is burning offers a lower-cost and less labor-inten- a procedural statute that ensures agencies consid- sive method of reducing fuels by applying fire in er significant environmental consequences of their a controlled manner. By burning low-level fuels proposed actions and inform the public about such as dead trees and brush—often called ladder their decision making. When agencies anticipate fuels because they carry flames from the ground that an action will have significant environmental to the tree canopy, where fires are more destruc- impacts, NEPA requires them to prepare a detailed tive and spread faster—prescribed burns disrupt statement on: the growth and limit the intensity of future wild- fires.21 Prescribed burns can only be implemented (1) the environmental impact of the proposed action; under a narrow window of specific weather condi- (2) any adverse effects that cannot be avoided; (3) tions, occurring outside of the most dangerous fire alternatives to the proposed action; (4) the relation- seasons, and they require expert planning personnel. ship between local short-term uses of man’s envi- Because prescribed fires emit air pollution, various ronment and the maintenance and enhancement of permits and permissions are typically required prior long-term productivity; and (5) any irreversible and to conducting them.22 irretrievable commitments of resources that would One Forest Service meta-analysis of research on be involved in the proposed action.27 fuel treatments and subsequent fire severity found a reduction in canopy scorch from 100 percent to 40 As a procedural law, NEPA requires that any percent and a significant reduction in scorch height proposed action be in compliance with other envi- and flame length.23 Treatments were found to be most ronmental laws such as the Endangered Species 4 PERC POLICY BRIEF Act, Clean Water Act, and Clean Air Act. The Forest potential timber sales or increased wildfire suppres- Service organizes its environmental review process sion costs incurred due to continued fire risks. There around NEPA compliance, and every on-the-ground is little information, however, on the costs and bene- action must be linked to an approved NEPA authori- fits of completing a NEPA analysis. Most agencies zation. The agency’s process differs depending on the do not directly track the costs associated with the degree of potential environmental impacts of a proj- process. The Department of Energy is an excep- ect, but all projects undergo proposal development tion; its median per project direct cost for an EIS and scoping, which determine the analysis category contractor in 2013 was $2.9 million.31 The process that applies to a proposed action.28 at the Forest Service may be even more costly: There are three potential analysis categories: From 2008 to 2012, the agency had the lowest categorical exclusion (CE), environmental assess- share of projects classified as CEs—those that are ment (EA), and environmental impact statement exempt from stringent environmental analysis—at (EIS). CEs require the least-intensive analysis, typi- 78 percent. (Over the same period, the Department cally because the type of project has previously been of Energy share was 95 percent.) In 2020, the Forest determined to have no significant environmental Service published 30 EISs in the federal register, impact or has been statutorily excluded from NEPA which was more than all other agencies except the review. If it is determined that the proposed proj- Bureau of Land Management and U.S. Army Corps ect will receive a CE designation, it exits the NEPA of Engineers.32 system and is exempt from further analysis. An EA NEPA itself does not provide any standard by is chosen if it is uncertain “whether the proposed which environmental impacts are weighed nor any action may have a significant effect on the environ- criteria for whether a project can proceed. Advocates ment.”29 The purpose of an EA is to provide suffi- of the review process argue it “reduces overall project cient evidence and analysis to justify a finding of “no costs by identifying and avoiding problems that may significant impact,” or, when this is not the case, to occur in later stages of project development.”33 NEPA facilitate the transition to an EIS. The EA process also serves as a tool that allows citizens to partici- involves scoping, analysis, a period for formal public pate in federal agencies’ environmental reviews. The comment, and a “concise” public document, but it public may submit written comments on proposed does not require as much public comment or analysis projects, challenge a proposed project or final deci- as an EIS.30 The EIS is a detailed written document sion by filing an internal objection, or bring litiga- providing a full discussion of significant environmen- tion. The extent of public participation depends on tal impacts of proposed actions and potential alterna- the analysis category. tives to avoid or mitigate the damages. The process Stakeholders use the federal court system to of preparing an EIS entails research and analysis, resolve major concerns over Forest Service decisions, formal public comments, and preparation of several and the number of lawsuits has increased over time.34 drafts as well as a final document. The final state- Between 2001 and 2008, the Forest Service was ment includes a full description of the entire analysis, litigated more than any other federal agency under public comments, and responses to comments. NEPA.35 Litigation occurred most often in the U.S. Administering the NEPA process is costly Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (65.8 percent and time-consuming. The Forest Service incurs of all cases), whose jurisdiction covers eight western direct costs to perform analyses, administer public states, Hawaii, and Alaska, which includes more than comment periods, respond to comments, and half of all national forest acreage. Overall, the agency respond to objections and litigation. When projects won 53.8 percent of its NEPA cases.36 Litigation is are delayed and forests are left untreated, indirect costly due to legal fees, analytical and administrative costs arise as well, such as the foregone value from costs, loss of timber sale revenue, and consultation Does Environmental Review Worsen the Wildfire Crisis? 5 costs.37 According to a 2011 Congressional Research NEPA Processing Times Service report, “a project sponsor may be mindful We measure the time it takes for a project to of previous judicial interpretation when preparing complete the Forest Service NEPA process as the NEPA documentation in an attempt to prepare a number of days from its entry into the project ‘litigation-proof ’ EIS.”38 Such behavior may also be management system (also called project initiation) costly in that it increases the time and money spent until the date a NEPA decision is signed. For the on all analyses, whether ultimately litigated or not. period 2006 to 2017, the average NEPA process across all three categories of analysis took more Analysis than nine months (288 days). More than 81 percent To analyze the NEPA review process for forest of NEPA approvals are for projects that receive a restoration projects, we use a large dataset on NEPA CE designation, which although exempt from more decisions maintained by the Forest Service.39 (For stringent environmental analysis still take about more background on our analysis, access the Appen- seven months to complete on average (208 days). dix at: perc.org/nepa-fire-app). Because the NEPA For projects receiving an EA designation, the aver- dataset does not document on-the-ground activities age NEPA duration is 19 months (572 days), and conducted after reviews are completed, we match EIS projects take more than three years on average the NEPA data with another dataset to look more (1,194 days). Table 1 shows the number of projects granularly at fuel treatment projects. Our novel and duration statistics by analysis category. NEPA-Activity Dataset provides the most complete Of the 30,111 NEPA decisions in the dataset, picture of the administrative process from the time a we identify 7,385 that are related to forest resto- project is proposed through the entirety of its activ- ration.40 These activities tend to fall into the more ities conducted to date. We first calculate a measure rigorous analysis categories. While less than 25 of how long the NEPA process takes for a broadly percent of all NEPA approvals fit into the forest defined set of forest restoration projects. We then restoration category, 45 percent of all EA decisions use the NEPA-Activity Dataset to look at the subset and almost 49 percent of all EIS decisions were of these projects that have implemented fuel treat- related to forest restoration activities. Because more ments, either mechanical treatments or prescribed intensive analysis categories have longer NEPA burns. We conclude with an analysis of the effect of process durations, average times for the subset of litigation on the NEPA duration measure. projects related to forest restoration across all analysis Table 1 U.S. Forest Service NEPA Projects Observations Percent Average NEPA Duration (days) Analysis Type All Forest Forest Restoration Restoration All Forest Restoration Categorical Exclusion 24,509 4,836 19.7% 208 220 Environmental Assessment 5,004 2,258 45.1% 572 590 Environmental Impact Statement 598 291 48.7% 1,194 1,018 Total 30,111 7,385 24.5% 288 366 6 PERC POLICY BRIEF categories take a full year, about 80 days more than activity.44 For mechanical treatments and prescribed the overall average. burns, the first activity is any activity associated We perform a statistical analysis to estimate the with a project that ultimately includes fuel treat- effect of different NEPA designations on project ment. The first activity is not necessarily the fuel duration.41 Relative to a CE, an EA designation adds treatment itself because other activities, such as a more than nine months (284 days) to the process, fuel inventory or construction of a firebreak, might and an EIS designation adds nearly two years (715 be undertaken first. days).42 These results remain consistent even when The data reveal that mechanical treatments and including different controls and are similar when the prescribed burns are more likely to require more analysis is limited exclusively to forest restoration intensive NEPA analysis than the average project, projects. The results suggest that the analysis cate- as shown in Table 2. While 5.2 percent of all Forest gory of a proposed action is the key determinant of Service NEPA projects require an EIS, the share its processing time. The odds that a project with an is 7.7 percent for mechanical treatments and 6.5 EA or EIS designation will be completed quickly are percent for prescribed burns. low. While almost 85 percent of Forest Service CE The first activity undertaken on the average agen- projects are approved within one year, this is true for cy CE project occurs 2.5 years (909 days) after it only 42 percent of EAs and only about 20 percent of is initiated; this time increases to 3.4 years (1,242 EISs.43 Because forest restoration projects are more days) for an EA and 4.9 years (1,790) days for an likely, on average, to require an EA or EIS, they are EIS. For CE analyses, the NEPA duration represents also less likely to be completed quickly. only about 25 percent of the total time from proj- ect proposal to first activity. The proportion of time Fuel Treatments spent on the NEPA process increases to about 50 The most important metric for understand- percent for EA analysis and 60 percent for an EIS. ing the Forest Service’s ability to implement fuel We can further examine the timeline from treatments is how long it takes before the agency project initiation to the actual implementation can begin performing an action in the forest. Our of a mechanical treatment or prescribed burn. NEPA-Activity Dataset provides the granular activ- As mentioned above, the first activity conducted on ity data to address the role of NEPA in the over- many NEPA-approved mitigation projects is not a all time from project initiation to on-the-ground fuel treatment because both mechanical removal of Table 2 Share of Projects by NEPA Analysis Type Analysis Type All Mechanical Prescribed Projects Treatments Burns Categorical Exclusion 59.5% 52.5% 50.4% Environmental Assessment 35.3% 39.8% 43.0% Environmental Impact Statement 5.2% 7.7% 6.5% Does Environmental Review Worsen the Wildfire Crisis? 7 Figure 2 Average Time to Begin Fuel Treatments by NEPA Analysis Type Mechanical Treatment Overall Average 476 494 356 3.6 Years Initiation NEPA First Treatment Decision Activity Begins Begins Categorical 283 506 261 Exclusion 2.9 Years Initiation NEPA First Treatment Decision Activity Begins Begins Environmental Assessment 638 483 453 4.3 Years Initiation NEPA First Treatment Decision Activity Begins Begins Environmental 955 467 502 Impact Statement 5.3 Years Initiation NEPA First Treatment Decision Activity Begins Begins Prescribed Burn Overall Average 463 512 736 4.7 Years Initiation NEPA First Treatment Decision Activity Begins Begins Categorical Exclusion 276 583 456 3.6 Years Initiation NEPA First Treatment Decision Activity Begins Begins Environmental Assessment 602 446 987 5.6 Years Initiation NEPA First Treatment Decision Activity Begins Begins Environmental Impact Statement 998 399 1,246 7.2 Years Initiation NEPA First Treatment Decision Activity Begins Begins 0 365 730 1095 1460 1825 2190 2555 2920 Days Across all mechanical treatment projects, it takes an average of 3.6 years (1,325 days) to move from project initiation to start of treatment. For all prescribed burn projects, the corresponding time averages 4.7 years (1,711 days). For both types of project, it takes longer to begin the treatment as the level of environmental analysis becomes more rigorous. Similarly, the average time to complete NEPA review, displayed as the orange interval between Initiation and NEPA Decision, noticeably increases as the rigor of analysis increases. 8 PERC POLICY BRIEF fuel and prescribed fire require extensive planning Litigation and assessment, which must occur before imple- Litigation can affect the duration of the NEPA mentation. To get a better idea of the time from approval process via direct and indirect channels. project initiation to first mitigation treatment, we A legal challenge that enjoins an approved NEPA review project data on three periods: initiation to decision directly affects the time to implementa- decision, decision to first activity, and first activity tion. Similarly, anticipation of litigation can be to first fuel treatment, as shown in Figure 2.45 We a key indirect consideration when Forest Service find that across all analysis types, the average time staff choose which analysis type to undertake and from initiation to treatment for a mechanical treat- the level of detail to include in the analysis. If the ment is 3.6 years (1,325 days) and 4.7 years (1,711 agency anticipates litigation, it may engage in a more days) for the average prescribed burn. thorough regulatory analysis to reduce the chances The duration between NEPA initiation and of a challenge or the odds the proposed action will be first fuel treatment increases with the rigorousness overturned, in essence trying to construct a “bullet- of analysis type. From the date it is initiated, the proof NEPA.” average mechanical project designated as a CE takes Our review of NEPA projects finds that litigation nearly three years (1,050 days) before implementing is quite different across analysis categories: Less than its first treatment, 4.3 years (1,574 days) for EAs, and 1 percent of CE approvals are litigated, while nearly more than five years (1,924 days) for an EIS. For a 18 percent of EIS projects are, as shown in Table 3. prescribed burn, the average time to implementation Projects that are eventually challenged in court spend of the burn is 3.6 years (1,315 days) for a CE designa- more time in the NEPA process than non-litigated tion, 5.6 years (2,035 days) for an EA, and 7.2 years ones. For EIS reviews, projects that are ultimately (2,643 days) for an EIS. litigated spend almost 500 more days—nearly a year Figure 2 also displays which segments of the and a half—under review. process cause the increase in total duration to To better understand underlying causes, we implementation as analysis rigor increases. NEPA compare litigated and non-litigated fuel treatment processing time increases by almost 700 days (nearly projects that go through the EIS process. Table 4 two years) from CE to EIS for both types of treat- shows that on average, non-litigated projects under- ment. Conversely, the time from NEPA approval to going an EIS take 1,809 days (5.0 years) before a first activity decreases with more rigorous analyses mechanical treatment is undertaken, while those that for both treatment types. Where differences between are litigated take 2,488 days (6.8 years), a difference the two treatment types emerge is in time from first of 679 days (nearly two years). Similarly, non-litigat- activity to first treatment. While mechanical treat- ed prescribed burns take an average of 2,474 days ments see about 240-day (eight-month) increases (6.8 years) from initiation to burn treatment, but moving from a CE to an EIS, the increase is much 3,413 days (9.4 years) if litigated, a difference of 939 larger for prescribed fire, from 456 to 1,246 days days (2.6 years). (1.2 to 3.4 years). Reasons may include the need for Table 4 also allows us to observe where these various permits and the limited windows, in terms increases in process duration occur. Litigated of time of year and weather, during which prescribed projects see longer NEPA processing times, and this burns can be undertaken. These results suggest that is true for both mechanical treatments (increas- there are several reasons for the amount of time it ing from 907 to 1,190 days, a difference of more takes to implement fuel treatments and that the time than nine months) and burn treatments (from 935 to complete a NEPA review becomes a larger share to 1,285 days, a difference of nearly one year). Liti- of the total time as the rigor of analysis increases. gation also has a post-decision effect, lengthen- ing the time from first activity to first treatment. Does Environmental Review Worsen the Wildfire Crisis? 9 Table 3 Forest Restoration Projects and Litigation Average NEPA Percent Analysis Type Duration (days) Litigated Not Litigated Litigated Categorical Exclusion 0.7% 284 370 Environmental Assessment 3.2% 533 717 Environmental Impact Statement 17.5% 623 1,119 For mechanical treatments, litigation has a limit- size of a team.47 Our research shows that the level ed effect—100 days—on time to first activity but of analysis is the key determinant of the length of increases time from first activity to first treatment NEPA review. by about 300 days. For prescribed burns, litigation Over the past two decades, Congress and the does not appear to increase the time to first activity Forest Service have attempted to reduce the cost but does increase time to the first treatment by about and burden of NEPA requirements for wildfire 600 days. mitigation activities. As a response to widespread While this analysis suggests litigation and forest fires in 2000, the Forest Service launched the NEPA duration are correlated, it does not establish Healthy Forest Initiative in 2002, which included causation. It is not clear if the expectation of litiga- creation of a fuel-reduction CE. That CE, however, tion causes NEPA processing times to increase or if was struck down in litigation.48 In 2003, Congress the most complicated and difficult to review projects enacted the Healthy Forest Restoration Act, which are also the ones most likely to be litigated.46 limited the number of alternatives the Forest Service must consider under NEPA for projects in partic- Conclusion ularly high-risk areas.49 In 2018, Congress created The growing severity and cost of wildfires in a CE for collaborative restoration projects under the western United States has brought new atten- 3,000 acres, subject to several technical limits.50 tion to the fuel treatment options available to public In November 2020, the Forest Service established land managers. While mechanical treatments and a CE for restoration projects under 2,800 acres prescribed fire are effective, the scale of the area (a significant decrease from its original proposal needing treatment—more than 80 million acres— of a 7,300-acre CE).51 And in 2021, Congress en- suggests more intensive effort is needed. Broadening acted the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, the types of projects that qualify for categorical which created a CE for constructing fire breaks exclusions could provide significant time-savings under 3,000 acres, eliminated NEPA’s alternatives in the NEPA review process. Environmental assess- analysis for emergency actions to reduce wildfire ments and environmental impact statements involve risks, and set a government-wide target of complet- significantly more administrative effort and several ing NEPA reviews in less than two years and under rounds of public comment. Even compared to an certain page limits.52 EA, an EIS has higher costs and nearly double the 10 PERC POLICY BRIEF Table 4 Environmental Impact Statement Project Time to Implementation by Litigation Status Average Duration (days) Mechanical Treatments Burn Treatments Not Litigated Litigated Not Litigated Litigated Initiation to NEPA Decision 907 1,190 935 1,285 NEPA Decision to First Activity 450 550 398 402 First Activity to First Treatment 451 749 1,140 1,726 Total: Initiation to First Treatment 1,809 2,488 2,474 3,413 Although past attempts at increasing wildfire conducts environmental reviews and implements fuel mitigation have focused on more categorical ex- treatments are likely needed, as a 10-year timeta- clusions, these efforts have not had a large impact ble is infeasible for EIS approvals under the current on on-the-ground treatment relative to the scope of system. Our analysis shows that for EIS approv- the forest acreage in need. The range of projects that als, the average prescribed burn project takes 7.2 qualify for a CE have been continually challenged years before first burn treatment, and the average in court, and the environmental review process has mechanical treatment is not far behind at 5.3 years. increased in duration and intensity over time. Across Finding ways to reduce the 2.7 years mechanical all agencies, the National Association of Environ- treatments and prescribed burn projects spend, on mental Professionals estimated the average time to average, in NEPA review for an EIS, or the extra 1.9 prepare an EIS increased at an average rate of 34.2 or 2.6 years, respectively, that such litigated projects days per year between 2000 and 2012.53 take prior to implementation, would work in tandem Legally, the Forest Service is only obligated to with budgetary increases to meet ambitious fuel-re- pursue an EIS when significant impacts to natural duction targets. resources and the physical environment are expect- ed to occur. In practice, research suggests that the decision to pursue an EA or EIS instead of a CE is commonly based on threat of litigation, level of public and political interest, and defensibility in court.54 Anecdotal accounts from Forest Service employees suggest that litigation aversion limits the implementation of the streamlining tools that would allow the use of more categorical exemptions. In 2022, the Biden administration proposed a plan to treat 50 million additional acres to mitigate wildfire over the next decade. To be successful, this type of initiative will require sufficient fiscal support. However, even with adequate appropriations, changes in the process by which the Forest Service Does Environmental Review Worsen the Wildfire Crisis? 11 Endnotes 1. Congressional Research Service, “Wildfire Statistics,” IF10244 (2021) https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/IF10244. pdf. The 193 acres managed by the Forest Service is only slightly less than the 224 million acres of the largest federal land-management agency, the Bureau of Land Management. 2. CRS, Wildfire Statistics. 3. Department of the Interior agencies spent an additional $500 million. 4. U.S. Forest Service, “Confronting the Wildfire Crisis: A Strategy for Protecting Communities and Improv- ing Resilience in America’s Forests,” FS-1187a (2022). 5. Other activities such as livestock grazing, timber stand improvements, and commercial timber harvests may also serve the same purpose as traditional fuel treatments but are often undertaken for other reasons. 6. J.E. Halofsky et al., “Changing Fire, Changing Forests: The Effects of Climate Change on Fire Regimes and Vegetation in the Pacific Northwest,” Fire Ecology 16, no. 4 (2020). 7. H. Fountain, “This Vast Wildfire Lab Is Helping Foresters Prepare for a Hotter Planet,” The New York Times, January 5, 2022. 8. “National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Compliance,” 84 Fed. Reg. 27544-59 (2019). H. Fretwell and J. Wood, “Fix America’s Forests: Reforms to Restore National Forests and Tackle the Wildfire Crisis,” Property and Environment Research Center (2021). 9. U.S. Forest Service, Confronting the Wildfire Crisis. 10. M. Wibbenmeyer and L. Dunlap, “Wildfires in the United States 102: Policy and Solutions,” Resources for the Future (2021) https://www.rff.org/publications/explainers/wildfires-in-the-united-states-102-policy- and-solutions/. 11. C.A. Schultz et al., “Prescribed Fire Policy Barriers and Opportunities: A Diversity of Challenges and Strategies Across the West,” Ecosystem Workforce Program, Working Paper No. 86 (2018). 12. R. Sabalow and D. Kasler, “Wildfire Experts Escalate Fight Over Saving California Forests,” The Sacramento Bee, October 17, 2021. 13. Environmental impacts are broadly defined to include social, cultural, and economic resources, as well as natural resources. 14. Much of NEPA’s effect on project implementation timelines occurs during NEPA review; however, the direct litigation effect typically occurs after the NEPA review process is complete but before on-the- ground implementation. Congressional Research Service, “The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA): Background and Implementation,” RL33152 (2011) https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/RL/ RL33152/10. 15. Objections may be filed by parties who previously commented on draft plans and must specify concerns with a plan, suggest how the proposed decision could be improved, and note previous formal comments on the draft plan. Objections must be filed within 30 days (for projects authorized under the Healthy Forests Restoration Act) of completion of the environmental analysis document, and the agency must respond to objections within 30 days. U.S. Forest Service, “The Forest Service Objection Process for Project-Level Decisions,” (undated) https://www.fs.fed.us/emc/applit/includes/20160531Final218ObjectionBrochure. pdf. 16. M.J. Mortimer et al., “Environmental and Social Risks: Defensive National Environmental Policy Act in the U.S. Forest Service,” Journal of Forestry 109, no. 1 (2011): 27-33. 17. S.A. Parks et al., “High-Severity Fire: Evaluating Its Key Drivers and Mapping Its Probability Across Western U.S. Forests,” Environmental Research Letters 13, no. 4 (2018): 044037. 12 PERC POLICY BRIEF 18. P.S. Cook and J. O’Laughlin, “Fuel Treatments in Idaho’s Forests: Effectiveness, Constraints, and Oppor- tunities,” University of Idaho, Policy Analysis Group: College of Natural Resources (2014). 19. A.A. Ager et al., “A Comparison of Landscape Fuel Treatment Strategies to Mitigate Wildland Fire Risk in the Urban Interface and Preserve Old Forest Structure,” Forest Ecology and Management 259, no. 8 (2010): 1556-70. Cook and O’Laughlin, Fuel Treatments in Idaho’s Forests, 27. 20. E.D. Reinhardt et al., “Objectives and Considerations for Wildland Fuel Treatment in Forested Ecosystems of the Interior Western United States” Forest Ecology and Management 256, no. 12 (2008): 1997-2006. J.J. Rhodes et al., “Evaluation of the Efficacy of Forest Manipulations Still Needed,” Bioscience 54, no. 11 (2004): 980-82. Cook and O’Laughlin, Fuel Treatments in Idaho’s Forests. 21. D.L. Peterson, “Forest Structure and Fire Hazard in Dry Forests of the Western United States,” U.S. Depart- ment of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-628 (2005). R.T. Graham et al., “Fuel Management in Forests of the Inland West,” in Cumulative Watershed Effects of Fuel Management in the Western United States, eds. W.J. Elliot et al.,U.S. Department of Agricul- ture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-231 (2010): 19-68. Prescribed fire typically refers to fires ignited by forest managers, but it may also include fires that occur naturally but are managed for resource objectives such as fuels management. 22. Wibbenmeyer and Dunlap, Wildfires in the United States. 23. E.J. Martinson and P.N. Omi, “Fuel Treatments and Fire Severity: A Meta-Analysis,” U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Res. Pap. RMRS-RP-103WWW (2013). 24. S.J. Prichard et al., “Adapting Western North American Forests to Climate Change and Wildfires: 10 Common Questions,” Ecological Applications 31, no. 8 (2021). 25. Cook and O’Laughlin, Fuel Treatments in Idaho’s Forests. Graham et al., Fuel Management in Forests of the Inland West. R.H. Palmer III, “A New Era of Federal Prescribed Fire: Defining Terminology and Properly Applying the Discretionary Function Exception,” Seattle Journal of Environmental Law 2 (2011): 279. 26. U.S. Government Accountability Office, “Information on Appeals, Objections, and Litigation Involving Fuel Reduction Activities, Fiscal Years 2006 through 2008,” GAO-10-337 (2010) https://www.gao.gov/ assets/gao-10-337.pdf. 27. 42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(C). 28. Scoping involves “clarifying and refining the proposed action, identifying preliminary issues, identify- ing possible use of a CE, and identifying interested and affected persons.” U.S. Forest Service, “Forest Service Handbook,” FSH 1909.15, Chapter 30 (2020): 35, https://www.fs.fed.us/emc/nepa/documents/ FSH_1909-15_Ch30_Amend-2020-1.docx. 29. U.S. Forest Service, Forest Service Handbook Chapter 30, 5. 30. U.S. Forest Service, “Forest Service Handbook,” FSH 1909.15, Chapter 40 (2020) https://www.fs.fed. us/im/directives/fsh/1909.15/wo_1909.15_40_Environmental%20assessments%20and%20related%20 documents.doc. 31. U.S. Government Accountability Office, “Little Information Exists on NEPA Analyses,” GAO-14-370 (2014) https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-14-370.pdf. 32. National Association of Environmental Professionals, “2020 Annual NEPA Report,” (2021): 5, https:// naep.memberclicks.net/assets/annual-report/NEPA_Annual_Report_2020.pdf. 33. U.S. GAO, Little Information Exists. 34. M. Shapiro, “The United States,” in The Global Expansion of Judicial Power, eds. C. Tate and T. Vallinder (New York: New York University Press, 1995) 43-66. Does Environmental Review Worsen the Wildfire Crisis? 13 35. A.M. Miner et al., “Twenty Years of Forest Service Land Management Litigation,” Journal of Forestry 112, no. 1 (2014): 32-40. 36. Miner et al., Twenty Years. 37. T. Morgan and J. Baldridge, “Understanding Costs and Other Impacts of Litigation of Forest Service Proj- ects: A Region One Case Study,” USDA Forest Service, Northern Region and Montana Forest Products Retention Roundtable (2015) http://www.bber.umt.edu/search/..%5Cpubs%5Cforest%5CBBERLitiga- tionRpt2015.pdf. 38. CRS, The National Environmental Policy Act, 26. 39. Fleischmann et al. and Ruple et al. performed analysis on this dataset to understand overall Forest Service NEPA process times across all project classifications. We build on their analyses by looking specifically at forest treatment projects. For a detailed description of the data and methodology, see Data Appen- dix. F. Fleischman et al., “U.S. Forest Service Planning, Appeals, and Litigation Data on NEPA compli- ance, 2005-2018,” retrieved from the Data Repository for the University of Minnesota (2021) https://doi. org/10.13020/3xfe-2m18. J.C. Ruple et al., “Evidence-Based Recommendations for Improving National Environmental Policy Act Implementation,” Columbia Journal of Environmental Law 47, no. S (2022): 273. 40. See Data Appendix for detailed explanations of project classification. 41. See Analysis Appendix for details of the statistical analysis. 42. See Appendix Table A3. 43. See Appendix Table A4. 44. Note that project initiation represents the date the project enters the NEPA system, and it does not account for any pre-entry preparation the agency might conduct. 45. Figure 2 corresponds to Appendix Table A5. 46. We perform a statistical analysis (see Appendix Table A6) to control for observable characteristics of the projects. The results show that after controlling for observable characteristics, litigated burn treatments take 202 days longer from initiation to decision and 432 days longer from activity to treatment. These differences, however, must be interpreted with caution as we do not find any statistical significance. 47. M.J. Stern et al., “Visions of Success and Achievement in Recreation-Related USDA Forest Service NEPA Processes,” Environmental Impact Assessment Review 29, no. 4, (2009): 220-228. Mortimer et al., Environ- mental and Social Risks. 48. Sierra Club v. Bosworth, 510 F.3d 1016 (9th Cir. 2007). 49. 16 U.S.C. 84. 50. U.S. Forest Service, “Annual Report on the Use of Categorical Exclusions Under Section 605, Wildfire Resilience Projects (P.L. 115-141),” (2019) https://www.fs.usda.gov/sites/default/files/2019-11/categoric- alexclusionsreport.pdf. 51. “National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Compliance,” 85 Fed. Reg. 73620-32 (2020). 52. Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, Pub. L. No. 117-58 (2021). 53. H. Draper, “The Seventh Annual Report on the National Environmental Policy Act—2013,” Environmental Practice 16, no. 3 (2014): 13, https://ceq.doe.gov/docs/get-involved/NAEP_2013_NEPA_Annual_Report. pdf. 54. Mortimer et al., Environmental and Social Risks. Access the Appendix at: perc.org/nepa-fire-app 14 PERC POLICY BRIEF Eric Edwards is an assistant professor in the Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics at North Carolina State University and a senior research fellow at PERC. Sara Sutherland is a lecturer at the Sanford School of Public Policy at Duke University and a senior research fellow at PERC. PERC—the Property and Environment Research Center—is a nonprofit research institute dedicated to improving environmental quality through markets and property rights. Located in Bozeman, Montana, PERC pioneered the approach known as free market environmentalism. PERC’s staff and associated scholars conduct original research that applies market principles to resolving environmental problems. Learn more by visiting PERC.org. Cover: Prescribed fire burn, Colville National Forest © U.S. Forest Service Pacific Northwest Region 16 PERC POLICY BRIEF to complete necessary environmental paperwork (National Environmental Policy Act analysis) before beginning mechanical treatments on national forest lands, including critical thinning and fuel reduction projects to reduce wildfire risks to communities and infrastructure.  The timeline increases to 5.3 years if a longer analysis is required (Environmental Impact Statement).  The Forest Service is one of the most litigated agencies in the federal government.

In the wake of the devastating Los Angeles wildfires, and due to similarly cumbersome, expensive, and time-consuming permitting hurdles, California Governor Gavin Newsom also proclaimed a state of emergencyE X E C U T I V E D E P A R T M E N T STATE OF CALIFORNIA PROCLAMATION OF A STATE OF EMERGENCY WHEREAS in October 2015, Governor Brown proclaimed a State of Emergency to exist in California due to a vast tree die-off throughout the state, which increased the risk of wildfires; and WHEREAS this tree die-off has continued to worsen forest conditions, creating extremely dangerous fire risk; and WHEREAS in March 2019, I proclaimed a State of Emergency to exist in California due to catastrophic wildfire risks created by forest conditions, facilitating the completion of high-priority forest management projects through suspensions of various permitting and environmental review provisions; and WHEREAS wildfires in California have grown in size, duration, and destructiveness because increasing whiplash between periods of extreme rain and extreme drought has caused accumulation of fuels in the State’s forests, the majority of which are owned and managed by the federal government; and WHEREAS several of the most costly fires have occurred in the Wildland Urban Interface, including most recently the January 2025 firestorms in Los Angeles County; and WHEREAS there are millions of housing units in the Wildland Urban Interface, and the majority of these structures reside in high or very high fire hazard severity zones, and immediate action is needed to prevent similar wildfires in the imminent future; and WHEREAS because of these conditions, the Board of Forestry and Fire Protection developed the California Vegetation Treatment Program (CalVTP) in 2019, to streamline environmental review of vegetation management projects through reliance on a programmatic environmental impact report covering 20 million acres of the State; and WHEREAS 106 projects have been approved to date under CalVTP, including prescribed burns, mechanical treatment, manual treatment, herbicide application, and prescribed herbivory projects; and WHEREAS even with the success of CalVTP, more is needed to expedite critical fuels reduction projects in more areas of the State, including those not yet covered by CalVTP, to protect the lives and property of Californians; and WHEREAS certain statutory, regulatory, and administrative requirements, including, but not limited to, studies, publication periods, and season-specific surveys, significantly impede State and local agencies’ ability to immediately permit and implement necessary projects to protect the lives and property of Californians; and WHEREAS under the provisions of Government Code section 8558(b), I find that the circumstances of the catastrophic wildfire risks created by forest conditions across the state, by reason of their magnitude, are beyond the control of the services, personnel, equipment, and facilities of any single local government and require the combined forces of a mutual aid region or regions to combat; and WHEREAS under the provisions of Government Code section 8558(b), I find that conditions of extreme peril to the safety of persons and property exist within the State of California due to these conditions; and WHEREAS under the provision of Government Code section 8625, I find that local authorities lack the resources needed to cope with the emergency; and WHEREAS under the provisions of Government Code section 8571, I find that strict compliance with various statutes and regulations specified in this order would prevent, hinder, or delay the mitigation of the effects of the catastrophic wildfire risks created by forest conditions across the state. NOW, THEREFORE, I, GAVIN NEWSOM, Governor of the State of California, in accordance with the authority vested in me by the State Constitution and statutes, including the California Emergency Services Act, and in particular, Government Code section 8625, HEREBY PROCLAIM A STATE OF EMERGENCY to exist within the State of California due to these conditions. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT: 1. All agencies of the state government utilize and employ state personnel, equipment, and facilities for the performance of any and all activities consistent with the State Emergency Plan. Also, all residents are to obey the direction of emergency officials with regard to this emergency in order to protect their safety. 2. State statutes, rules, regulations, and requirements that fall within the jurisdiction of boards, departments, and offices within the California Environmental Protection Agency and the California Natural Resources Agency are hereby suspended to the extent necessary for expediting critical fuels reduction projects, as defined in Paragraph 4, are initiated this calendar year, and that the suspension is approved by the appropriate Agency secretary as provided in Paragraph 3, and subject to Paragraph 5. Laws suspended by this paragraph include, but are not limited to, the California Environmental Quality Act (Division 13 (commencing with section 21000) of the Public Resources Code and regulations adopted pursuant to that Division) and the California Coastal Act (Division 20 of the Public Resources Code, commencing with section 30000, and regulations adopted pursuant to that Division). 3. Individuals or entities who desire to conduct activities under the suspension of statutes, rules, regulations, and requirements specified in Paragraph 2 shall first request that the appropriate Agency Secretary, or the Secretary's designee, make a determination that the proposed activities are eligible to be conducted under the suspension. The Secretary of the California Environmental Protection Agency and the Secretary of the California Natural Resources Agency shall use sound discretion in applying this authority to ensure that the suspension serves the purpose of accelerating critical fuels reduction projects, while at the same time protecting public health and the environment. Each Agency shall maintain on its website a list of all suspensions approved under this Paragraph. 4. Critical fuels reduction projects eligible for suspension of statutes, rules, regulations, and requirements specified in Paragraph 2, shall include as a primary objective at least one of the following activities: a. Removal of hazardous, dead, and/or dying trees; b. Removal of vegetation for the creation of strategic fuel breaks as identified by approved fire prevention plans, including without limitation CAL FIRE Unit Fire Plans or Community Wildfire Preparedness Plans; c. Removal of vegetation for community defensible space; d. Removal of vegetation along roadways, highways, and freeways for the creation of safer ingress and egress routes for the public and responders and to reduce roadside ignitions; e. Removal of vegetation using cultural traditional ecological knowledge for cultural burning and/or prescribed fire treatments for fuels reduction; or f. Maintenance of previously-established fuel breaks or fuels modification projects. 5. Any activities performed under the suspension of statutes, rules, regulations, and requirements specified in Paragraph 2 shall be in accordance with the State Environmental Protection Plan, or a comparable plan describing how such actions will balance expeditious fuels reduction and environmental protection. 6. The Board of Forestry and Fire Protection shall take immediate steps to update the California Vegetation Treatment Program Environmental Impact Report (CalVTP EIR), in consultation with the California Natural Resources Agency and others as appropriate, to increase CalVTP’s efficiency and utilization, in order to continue promoting rapid environmental review for large wildfire risk reduction treatments. In addition to accessing expertise from all appropriate state agencies, this process should also include public workshops with practitioners to solicit feedback on experiences during implementation in the first five years of the CalVTP and suggested improvements. 7. As necessary to assist local governments and for the protection of public health and the environment, state agencies shall enter into contracts to arrange for the procurement of materials, goods, and services, including housing for hand crews and required pre-work environmental surveys, to quickly assist with the response to this emergency and to achieve the purposes of this Proclamation. Applicable provisions of the Government Code and the Public Contract Code, including but not limited to travel, advertising, and competitive bidding requirements, are suspended to the extent necessary to address the effects of this emergency and to carry out the purposes of this Proclamation. 8. The Secretary of the California Environmental Protection Agency and the Secretary of the California Natural Resources Agency shall confer with subject matter experts, including those within their respective Agencies, and provide to me, within 60 days, their consolidated recommendations for increasing the pace and scale of beneficial fire in California. These may include recommendations to ensure more consistency among local air pollution control districts and increasing allowable burn days. 9. The restrictions set forth in Penal Code section 396, which are automatically triggered upon proclamation of a state of emergency, are suspended, and no such restrictions are imposed, with respect to this State of Emergency. I FURTHER DIRECT that as soon as hereafter possible, this Proclamation be filed in the Office of the Secretary of State and that widespread publicity and notice be given of this Proclamation. This Proclamation is not intended to, and does not, create any rights or benefits, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity, against the State of California, its agencies, departments, entities, officers, employees, or any other person. IN WITNESS WHEREOF I have hereunto set my hand and caused the Great Seal of the State of California to be affixed this 1st day of March 2025. _________________________ GAVIN NEWSOM Governor of California ATTEST: _____________________________ SHIRLEY N. WEBER, PH. D Secretary of State to speed up wildfire prevention projects ahead of the peak wildfire season.  This will include suspending the California Environmental Quality Act and California Coastal Act to accelerate forest management projects.

Meanwhile, it is estimated that nearly 80 million acres of national forest land need restoration to reduce the susceptibility to wildfire, disease, and insect infestations.  The Forest Service has outlined the need to treat at least 20 million acres of national forest system lands in the next 10 years but is currently treating less than 800,000 acres per year.  On average, the Forest Service spends more than $1.5 billion annually on wildfire suppression costs.

 America’s Wood Products Industry is Capable of Meeting Domestic Demand

The U.S. is the largest consumer of wood products in the world.  Collectively, Americans use 10-15 billion cubic feet (more than 100 million tons) of wood each year in the form of wood and paper products as well as wood energy.  This translates to roughly 640 pounds of wood per person per year, or 1.75 pounds of wood per person per day.  U.S. Forest Service lands grow 25 billion cubic feet of wood per yearIndicator 2.13: U.S. Forest Sustainability Indicators https://www.fs.fed.us/research/sustain/ Annual harvest of wood products by volume and as a percentage of net growth or sustained yield Sonja N. Oswalt June 1, 2021 What is the indicator and trees on timberland is considered sustainable from a simple materials balance standpoint. This measure, however, conveys why is it important? no information about ecological quality, biodiversity, other ecological attributes, or management objectives, and should This indicator compares net growth with wood harvest be considered in conjunction with other indicators to monitor (removals) on timberland. The ratio of growth to removals the sustainability of a specific species, resource attributes, or is frequently used to assess whether wood harvesting is the forest ecosystem as a whole. reducing the total volume of trees available for wood production on timberland. As defined here, growth is the What does the indicator average annual net increase in growing-stock volume between inventories after accounting for mortality effects show? but before accounting for harvest effects. Removals are a measure of the average annual volume of growing-stock Across the United States, average annual net growth in trees harvested between inventories. Timberland is assumed 2016 (25 billion cubic feet) was twice average annual to be the subset of forest land on which some level of wood removals (13 billion cubic feet). Removals were stable harvesting is potentially allowed. So long as average annual from 2011 through 2016 (fig. 13-1). As shown in figure net growth exceeds average annual removals, the volume of 13-2, in the North, growth outpaced removals by 2.4 to 1. Figure 13-1—Average annual removal volume by inventory year, 1976 to 2016 (Source: Oswalt et al. 2019). Citation: Oswalt, S. N. 2021. Sustainable Forest Indicator 2.13. https://www.fs.fed.us/research/sustain/criteria-indicators/ Southern average annual net growth was 1.8 times that of Nationwide, average annual net growth was about 3 average annual removals. Growth was twice removals in percent of standing inventory volume, while average the Pacific Coast, while removals outpaced growth in the annual removals and total mortality were about 1 percent Rocky Mountains due to high mortality rates. each. While national growth has continued to exceed removals and standing growing-stock inventory appears Average annual net growth per-acre was highest on private to be plentiful, removals did exceed average annual net land at 57 cubic feet per acre, and lowest on National growth in three western States: Colorado, Utah, and Forest System land at 20 cubic feet per acre. Net growth Wyoming. In those States, mortality was exceedingly accounts for mortality, yielding clues about the low net high, resulting in negative net growth. Removals were growth on National Forests. Mortality was highest on not the cause of the negative growth rates, as average National Forest System land, and lowest on private land. annual removals were quite low, at 9 million cubic feet Removals were, conversely, highest on private land (32 in Colorado, 2 million cubic feet in Utah, and 13 million cubic feet/acre) and lowest on National Forest System land cubic feet in Wyoming. Softwood species in those States (5 cubic feet/acre; fig. 13-3). were primarily affected. Figure 13-2—Growth and removals by region (Source: Oswalt et al. 2019). U.S. Forest Sustainability Indicators 2 Figure 13-3—Average annual net growth (gross growth minus mortality), average annual mortality, and average annual net removals by ownership group (Source: Oswalt et al. 2019). What has changed since References 2011? Oswalt, S.N.; Smith, W.B.; Miles, P.D.; Pugh, S.A., coords. 2019. Forest resources of the United States, 2017: a Growth continued to exceed removals nationally, while technical document supporting the Forest Service 2020 RPA three States in the western United States experienced Assessment. Gen. Tech. Rep. WO-97. Washington, DC: negative growth rates due to excessive mortality. Despite U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Washington high rates of mortality in those three States, mortality at Office. 223 p. https://doi.org/10.2737/WO-GTR-97. the national scale declined from 11 million cubic feet to 10 million cubic feet. Annual average removals of growing stock have remained relatively stable at 13 million cubic feet, nationally, and remain approximately 1 percent of total standing volume in the United States. U.S. Forest Sustainability Indicators 3.  Yet, the U.S. is also the largest importer of wood products in the world to help meet up to one-third of its needs.  Imports are coming from dozens of countries, include Canada, China, Brazil, Mexico, Germany, Vietnam – and even Russia.

The U.S. is also facing a housing shortage of at least 4.5 million homes.  Total housing starts for 2024 were 1.36 million, a 3.9% decline from the 1.42 million total from 2023.  For the average sized American home of 2,600 square feet, approximately 16,400 board feet of lumber is required.  Currently, the Forest Service sells enough timber to frame 175,000 homes annually.  If the Forest Service implemented its current forest plans, it would sell enough American-made lumber to frame more than 385,000 American homes per year.

AFRC urges swift implementation of these Executive Orders to restore balance in federal forest management, support rural economies, and ensure the sustainability of America’s timber and lumber industries. With immediate action, the nation can reduce wildfire risks, protect communities, and increase domestic timber production to meet growing demand.