Policy Corner: Wildfire: A Crisis In Need of a Bipartisan Solution (And, What Can the House of Representatives and the Senate Really Do?)

Bryan Pride • May 9, 2025

Across the country wildfires are increasingly more catastrophic; growing larger, spreading faster and burning longer than before. Nationwide, the total acres burned rose dramatically from 2.7 million in 2023 to nearly 9 million in 2024. California is averaging more than 7,500 wildfires annually. Not including the recent Los Angeles fires, six of the top ten most destructive fires, three of the five deadliest fires, and all of the state's nine largest fires have occurred since 2017. 


It is unsustainable for both California and the country to continue burning at this magnitude. This leaves us with the question: "What can be done to solve the wildfire problem?" 


In response to this growing crisis, lawmakers are taking action. Congress is advancing different versions of the Fix Our Forests Act (FOFA) in the Senate and House of Representatives. How these bills progress and the opportunities to amend, change or improve these bills are constrained by the different processes in the House and the Senate.


The House of Representatives


The House of Representatives version of FOFA, (H.R. 471), was introduced by Representative Bruce Westerman (R-AR) in January 2025 with 43 bipartisan cosponsors, including several from California.  With a stated goal to expedite forest management activities under NEPA. H.R. 471, it significantly reflectsExecutive Order 14225, "Immediate Expansion of American Timber Production" (March 1, 2025). While the legislation takes some important steps, there are also significant concerns regarding rollbacks of environmental protections and judicial review. 


FOFA, H.R. 471, establishes an interagency Fireshed Center overseen by the Department of the Interior and U.S. Forest Service comprised of 15 agencies, administrations, departments and bureaus to gather data, provide guidance and work with states and tribes. It sets up a process to designate “fireshed management areas” and expands projects exempt from full reviews from 3,000 – 10,000 acres. The bill heavily favors logging as a form of fire management, but also embraces prescribed burns and prioritizes reforestation and restoration projects. 


H.R. 471 grants numerous “categorical exclusions”, exempting areas and projects from review under the National Environmental Policy Act, Endangered Species Act and National Historic Preservation Act. H.R. 471 also fast-tracks environmental review and consultation. At the same time, the Administration is significantly gutting personnel and expertise through DOGE and its budget.


H.R. 471 alters the judicial process. H.R. 471 limits when a court can grant injunctive relief. What is injunctive relief? That is the ability of the court to say: “Stop doing what you are doing.” Or slow it down, or change it, while we figure this out. It is common. Removing it is unusual. H.R. 471 limits the court’s ability to order corrective actions, limits plaintiff’s ability to sue, limits the court’s ability to require additional data from an agency and allows the challenged activities to go forward while under review. H.R. 471 also decreases the statute of limitations (the time that someone has to sue) from 6 years to 120 days.


Much concern was expressed over the expansion of categorical exclusions, the change in judicial review procedures and timelines and fast-tracking of proposals. However, there was no opportunity to address any of these issues. 


When a bill is introduced in the House of Representatives, much like in the Senate, it is assigned to a committee with subject matter expertise. Committees study bills, hold hearings and gather testimony from experts. Committees hold mark-up sessions to debate and make changes to the bill through amendments. When a House of Representatives Committee passes a bill, it sends the bill to the House Rules Committee. 


The House Rules committee determines the form of the bill, which amendments will be allowed, how long folks will have to speak, or not, and when the bill moves. The House Rules Committee is run by the party in power, by the majority party. The Rules Committee is heavily tilted to favor the majority party, giving it full control over the floor of the House or Representatives. The Rules Committee has nine members of the majority party, Republicans, and 4 members of the minority party, Democrats. There is no comparable Committee in the Senate. 


No committee hearings or mark-ups were held on H.R. 471. Only three amendments and only one hour of debate were allowed. In the House of Representatives, a simple majority vote is necessary for bill passage. In January 2025, the H.R. 471 passed the House of Representatives on a vote of 279-141 without a hearing or mark-up and with scant debate.


In the Senate


Now, attention has turned to the Senate, where Senators Curtis (R-UT), Hickenlooper (D-CO), Sheehy (R-MT) and Padilla’s (D-CA) version of FOFA, S. 1462, introduced in April, is making its way through the Senate process. The bill’s stated goal is to improve forest management on BLM and USFS lands. 


Similar to the House of Representatives, when a bill is introduced in the Senate, it is assigned to a committee for study, hearings, expert testimony, a mark-up session and amendments. In fact, the Senate Agriculture Committeehas already begun reviewing the legislation, holding a legislative hearing on S. March 6. The next step will be a mark-up in committee, where we can expect to see robust debate.


If the Committee decides to move forward with the bill, it sends it to the full Senate. If a committee does not send the bill to the Senate, the bill dies in committee. Once a bill is released from committee, the Majority Leader of the Senate is responsible for deciding when to send the legislation for a vote. There is no Rules Committee. At this stage of floor consideration and debate is when there is the most significant difference in the legislative process between the House and the Senate. During floor consideration, a senator or group of senators can exercise their right to unlimited debate through a filibuster, which can keep legislation off the floor indefinitely. Once a debate is closed through cloture, the Senate can move to a final vote on the bill, which requires a simple majority of 51 votes. 


A bill on the Senate floor requires only 51 votes to pass after a debate has ended, but it takes 60 votes to cut off debate through a process called "cloture." If 60 Senators vote in favor of ending the debate, it will move to a final vote. Because of the razor thin margin in the Senate – 53 Rs, 45 Ds and 2 Independents – Republicans will need Democrats to vote with them to stop debate and advance FOFA to a vote. The requirement for broader consensus often means that legislation passed by the Senate has undergone more compromise. This provides an opportunity for the minority party to shape the bill that is not present in the House of Representatives. 


Thus, the Senate version of FOFA, S. 1462, represents a significant improvement over the House version. It too sets up “fireshed management areas” and calls for fireshed assessments, albeit based on different criteria than the House version. A centerpiece of S. 1462 is the establishment of Wildfire Intelligence Center staffed by wildfire experts, technical leads, and indigenous leaders and governed by a Board of 16 agencies, administrations, departments and bureaus. The legislation removes historical barriers that previously prevented foresters, fire teams, and indigenous communities from implementing these preventative practices, allowing for more proactive management across all phases of wildfire prevention, response, and recovery. These centers create opportunities for multifaceted approaches throughout the entire fire management cycle, from prevention to rapid response to restoration.


The Senate version also retains more authority for environmental reviews and judicial action. While the S. 1462 retains greater environmental review under NEPA and the National Historic Preservation Act, it also rolls back ESA reviews of land management plans and other environmental reviews depending on acreage. S. 1462 too limits injunctive relief, although not as significantly as the House version. S. 1462 leaves untouched other aspects of judicial review.


The Senate version of FOFA has garnered bipartisan support from leaders of the Republican and Democratic parties, as well as from California Governor Gavin Newsom, California Natural Resources Secretary Wade Crowfoot, and CAL Fire Director and Fire Chief Joe Tyler.


Next Steps for the Legislation


If the Senate passes a version of FOFA that is different from the House version, which is highly likely, a conference committee will be formed with members from both the House and the Senate to reconcile the differences. After the conference committee reaches agreement on a bill, both chambers must vote again to approve the reconciled bill before it can go before the President to be signed into law. 


Tuleyome will continue to keep you updated on the Fix Our Forests Acts. We hope to see real-time action and solutions to improve the fire resilience of our communities and our forests and improve forest health and wildfire management. 


Co-Authored by

Bryan Pride and Sandra Schubert

RECENT ARTICLES

Thank You, Stephen!

June 5, 2025
We extend our thanks and gratitude to Stephen McCord as he ends his tenure on the Tuleyome Board of Directors. Stephen has applied his energy and expertise to fulfilling Tuleyome’s mission for many years. In 2016 he managed the first Tuleyome mercury mine remediation project at the Corona/Twin Peaks Mine. He followed that with work on Tuleyome trail projects in the Knoxville Off-Highway Vehicle Area, riding all the trails on his own adventure motorcycle. As a Tuleyome representative, he’s taken many community members on hikes in Berryessa Snow Mountain National Monument and the surrounding areas. Stephen has over 20 years of environmental engineering experience, in California and worldwide. He has overseen extensive projects in water quality field work, management and cleanup, and has applied his knowledge to policy development, analysis and technical support. In short, Stephen is a consummate environmental and water engineer, and he brought his expertise to Tuleyome’s many projects. In 2023 Stephen joined the Board of Directors and agreed to serve as President. He applied his supreme organizational skills to managing board duties and activities. He also brought an optimism to the board about what can be accomplished with foresight, good planning and collaboration. Stephen has been a tireless advocate for Tuleyome, keeping the board on task even while handling numerous other professional responsibilities. Fortunately, although he is stepping down from the board, he will continue to support Tuleyome’s mission in many other ways. -Kim Longworth, Lyndsay Dawkins and Bill Grabert Volunteer Tuleyome Board members 

Game Cameras at Conaway Ranch!

By Geoff Benn • June 5, 2025
A river otter making its way up the slide. Looking to take a break with some cute video content? This month we placed game cameras looking into an otter slide at Conaway Ranch. Otter slides are paths worn into riverbanks by repeated use by otters and other animals. The slides at Conaway are quite active, so we’ve been able to get some great footage, including otters, beavers, racoons, snakes, and more! 

Policy Corner: The Public Lands Rule: The Significance of Conservation

By Bryan Pride • June 5, 2025
Since April 2024, America's public lands had something they'd never had before: a rule that treated conservation as equal to all other land uses. The Public Lands Rule , introduced by the Biden Administration, formally recognized conservation as a legitimate practice of multiple use, putting conservation on equal footing with recreation, grazing, and resource extraction. Built on decades of management experience and guided by science, data, and Indigenous knowledge, it gives land managers tools to maintain healthy ecosystems while supporting all the diverse ways we depend on public lands. It acknowledges a simple truth: conservation must be valued equally to all other land uses. Now there is growing pressure to rescind it. Why This Matters The environment around us is free-flowing, it's not confined to state borders or county lines. When mining operations contaminate watersheds in Northern California, it impacts the local businesses who depend on healthy rivers downstream, the agricultural communities that rely on clean water, and the families who've been camping along those waterways for generations. The Public Lands Rule recognized this interconnected reality and gave land managers agency to address problems before they spread across California's diverse landscapes, protecting the long-term viability of grazing allotments, recreation areas, and rural livelihoods that all depend on healthy public lands. This interconnected reality is exactly why the Public Lands Rule matters. The Rule is designed to ensure that the places we depend on, whether for weekend camping trips, or cattle grazing, stay healthy enough to support these uses long-term. When an area becomes overgrazed and doesn't recover, access to those grazing allotments is permanently lost, reducing ranchers' ability to maintain their livelihoods and harming local food production. Poor use or overuse of our public lands creates ripples of negative impact that hurt all communities. The Rule's main objective is simple but revolutionary: make sure our public lands stay productive for everyone who depends on them, rather than degrade them. The Rule created practical tools that built in accountability and prioritized future generations' access to healthy public lands. Restoration Leases : 10-year agreements allowing a variety of entities such as, conservation groups, tribes, and nonprofits to restore damaged landscapes—fires restoration, restoring wildlife habitats and cleaning up abandoned mining sites that currently scar some of our most beautiful public lands. Mitigation Leases : A tool that allows land users or other entities to offset impacts from their activities over specified time periods, creating partnerships between different land users and conservation groups to address environmental impacts on public lands. Strengthened Protection for Critical Areas : Clearer guidelines for protecting Areas of Critical Environmental Concern—the most special and fragile places that often provide the best wildlife viewing, the cleanest water sources, the most pristine camping experiences and the richest biodiversity. The False Dichotomy: Multiple Use vs. Conservation The main argument being used to encourage the rollback of the Public Lands Rule is " multiple use ", the legal principle requiring Bureau of Land Management (BLM) lands to serve many different purposes. The current Administration claims the Public Lands Rule hinders multiple uses of public lands. Why? The Rule calls for restoring degraded areas and making science based decisions. Contrary to their actual meaning, the current Administration interprets "restoring" and "science based decisions" as "locking up land". Land locking, where access gets completely cut off, is a real concern in some areas—it prevents both recreation and grazing. However, land locking is not what the Public Lands Rule promotes. In reality, it is promoting land healing. Take grazing for example. The Rule empowers BLM to use restoration leases in conjunction with existing grazing permittees to restore degraded rangeland. Monitoring who is grazing where and the number of permits issued for specific areas is a means to ensure sustainable grazing and prevent overuse. Many ranchers and land managers supported the Rule because they understand that healthy land is productive land. Overgrazing and environmental damage hurt their livelihoods too. The same principle applies to fire recovery. When public lands are damaged by sweeping wildfires, there is a need for active restoration: replanting native vegetation, stabilizing soils, removing hazardous debris. Restoration has to take place before safe recreation, grazing and other uses can resume. At times, restoration requires temporarily limiting access to burned areas as they recover. The goal is to allow for our lands to recover and heal before we start depending on them again with our multiple uses. Land restoration is not just limited to grazing or extraction; it is essential for recovering from wildfires. Whether it's grazing, recreation, or extraction, the Public Lands Rule isn't about stopping these uses, it's about understanding that healthy ecosystems are prerequisites for multiple use, not obstacles to it. You can't have sustainable grazing on degraded rangeland, quality recreation in fire damaged landscapes, or responsible extraction without considering long-term impacts We Are Public Stewards The Public Lands Rule represents a historic shift in how we value conservation, its potential rollback is a setback. But the vision it represents, conservation as a form of legitimate multiple use, remains essential and is not gone. As stewards of these 245 million acres, we have the power to practice conservation in our own actions and advocacy. Every time we practice Leave No Trace, support local businesses that operate responsibly on public lands, and make our voices heard in land management decisions, we're building the foundation for balanced stewardship that benefits everyone. Our public lands belong to all of us, which means we each have the power, and responsibility, to be good stewards of the lands we love. -Bryan Pride ( bpride@tuleyome.org ) Certified California Naturalist Policy Director