Policy Corner: Wildfire: A Crisis In Need of a Bipartisan Solution

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

< Older Post

Newer Post >

RECENT ARTICLES

Thank You, Bill!

By Nate Lillge • August 6, 2025

Bill Grabert is stepping down from his position as treasurer on Tuleyome’s volunteer Board of Directors – we thank him for his many years of service! Bill first joined Tuleyome as a staff member in 2016. His nature-based teaching influenced many youth over the years with school field trips throughout the Berryessa Snow Mountain National Monument region, from Redbud Trail to Conaway Ranch. As part of Tuleyome’s team of instructors for the California Certified Naturalist program, Bill inspired adults to care for the region. His love of the area began as soon as he graduated from college and began working as a geologist in Lake County. Bill has devoted his diverse knowledge and skillset to care for, steward, and enjoy California’s northern Inner Coast Range Mountains for many years. He will be missed on the Board but we look forward to seeing him on the trails! -Nate Lillge (Adventures and Engagement Director) and Lyndsay Dawkins (Volunteer Tuleyome Board President)

Policy Corner: Keeping Our Forest Wild: The Roadless Rule

By Bryan Pride • August 6, 2025

Fifty-eight and a half million acres of America's wildest forests have been protected for nearly 25 years by the Roadless Rule, a conservation cornerstone that could soon disappear. Established in 2001, the Roadless Area Conservation Rule (RACR) , more commonly known as the Roadless Rule, designated "Inventoried Roadless Areas" (IRAs) across our nation's forests, prohibiting new roads from being built. Now, USDA Secretary Rollins wants to rescind it . From Alaska to California, the losses from this rollback would be massive. In Alaska, 92% of the Tongass National Forest could lose protection, threatening one of the world's most pristine ecosystems and the indigenous communities who call it home. California would lose protections across 4.4 million acres spanning 21 national forests , which has the potential to impact treasured places like Inyo, Shasta-Trinity, and the Berryessa Snow Mountain National Monument. Rule Born from Necessity, Not Ideology The Roadless Rule traces back to 1998, when U.S. Forest Service Chief Mike Dombeck saw the agency's vast road system as a major environmental and fiscal problem . To put this in perspective: the Forest Service maintains eight times more miles of road than the Interstate Highway System. The agency had too many roads to properly maintain for safety and environmental purposes, with poorly maintained roads contributing to erosion and other harms across national forests. The road maintenance backlog had ballooned to $8.4 billion while the agency received only 20% of the funding needed to maintain roads to environmental and safety standards. Dombeck proposed a moratorium on road construction in undeveloped forest areas across most of the National Forest System. The agency adopted an 18-month moratorium in February 1999 pending completion of an overall road management plan. Later that year, the agency undertook a rule making process to provide long-term administrative protection for roadless areas. The Forest Service conducted an extensive public involvement process that produced 1.7 million comments , with the majority favoring a strong national policy protecting roadless areas. The resulting Roadless Rule was not and is still not a blanket ban: it makes exceptions to allow access to non-federal land inholdings and pre-existing mineral leases, and allows logging to reduce fire risk, improve habitat or aid in the recovery of endangered species. What began as a fiscally prudent solution to an unwieldy road network became a cornerstone of forest conservation, one that Americans overwhelmingly supported then and continue to support today. The Administration's Claims vs. Reality According to USDA Secretary Rollins , the rule is “overly restrictive”, hinders fire prevention and responsible timber production, therefore the Rule poses “real harm to millions of acres of our national forests.” Rollins linked rescinding the Rule with Presidential Executive Order 14192, "Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation .” The reality is different. Rollins' claim ignores what's actually at stake. Roadless areas are essential ecosystems that provide clean air and water while keeping wilderness intact. They also serve as critical refuges for wildlife; 57% of America's most vulnerable species depend on roadless areas for habitat. For the 156 million Americans who visit national forests annually, these areas offer irreplaceable backcountry recreation experiences. Most strikingly, the administration's fire prevention argument is backwards. Scientific research reveals that 88% of wildfires are human-caused , and 95% of these fires start within half a mile of a road. Areas closest to roads experience 53% more fires than would occur by random chance. Less than 3% of wildfires start in wilderness areas more than a mile from roads. This research indicates that more roads through our forests are more likely to increase fires and would outweigh the effects of improving fire containment. While the administration claims roads improve fire response, fire management teams consistently identify inadequate resources and personnel shortages, not roads , as the primary barriers to effective wildfire management . Rather than building roads that increase fire risk, fire management experts advocate for investing in cultural and prescribed burns, fire mitigation and forest restoration, proven approaches that are underfunded but key to preventing future fires and reducing fire magnitude. What's Next? Rescinding the Roadless Rule will require a public comment period that has yet to be announced. This is when we can all share our views. Tuleyome will be following this issue closely and will be commenting. For more information on the Roadless Rule and how to participate in the public comment process or other advocacy opportunities, contact B ryan Pr ide .

Monumental Questions - Where in the Monument can I view the Perseid Meteor Shower?

By Kristie Ehrhardt • August 6, 2025

The short answer is honestly, pretty much anywhere! Because the 344,476 acre Berryessa Snow Mountain National Monument (the Monument) is located in the rural areas of Colusa, Glenn, Lake, Mendocino, Napa, Solano and Yolo counties you will have a great view of the dark night sky, free from urban light pollution from virtually anywhere within its boundaries! The Monument is an easy drive from not only the metropolitan Sacramento area but also from the San Francisco Bay Area as well as the North Bay communities making it an easy day trip. If you’re here especially for the Perseid meteor shower though it might be a very long day since best viewing happens between the hours of midnight and early morning. If you’re adventurous and up for an all-nighter, be certain to pack plenty of water and snacks and be sure to pull over only where it is safe and you’re not blocking a road, especially when it’s dark. Also always keep safety in mind and look out for wildlife as the Monument is home to black bears, mountain lions, coyotes, tule elk and bobcats that may be traveling through the area as well. If you’d like to stay a night (or several), there are multiple developed campgrounds to choose from inside the Monument boundaries. If you’re up camping, check out The Blue Oaks Campground, Indian Valley Campground, Hunting Creek Campground, Deer Valley Campground, Lower Nye Campground, West Crocket Campground or Kowalski Camping area just to name a few of the sites available for overnight stays. Before you go though, please do check with the United States Forest Service or the Bureau of Land Management websites for details on the particular camping area you’re interested in as well as current conditions, requirements and fire restrictions. The Monument also offers primitive camping in the three wilderness areas located within the Monument boundaries. Cache Creek Wilderness, Cedar Roughs Wilderness and Snow Mountain Wilderness present nearly unlimited opportunities for dispersed camping or backcountry camping (areas located outside of designated campgrounds). Although camping is allowed and encouraged, these areas have no amenities such as tables, toilets, available water or waste removal and require you to pack out all trash and waste. There are no motorized vehicles allowed within Wilderness areas and they provide places for deep solitude with nature. Camping in Wilderness areas or other dispersed camping areas require visitors to understand and follow the Leave No Trace principles of outdoor recreating as well as planning ahead and knowing the area and what to pack. That said, other than the trees potentially blocking some of the night sky, you’re sure to avoid urban light pollution and have an unobstructed view of the night sky from practically anywhere within the Monument! -Kristie Ehrhardt ( kehrhardt@tuleyome.org ) Tuleyome Land Conservation Program Manager

Contact Info