Bipartisan Fix Our Forests Act--which aims to reduce forest fire risk via logging--faces criticism for potentially sidelining public input and environmental reviews; supporters include Nature Conservancy, with Wilderness Workshop and Earthjustice opposing

May 19, 2025 (The Denver Post) –

A wildfire prevention bill championed by western U.S. senators — including Colorado’s John Hickenlooper — aims to fast-track some logging projects to reduce fire risk.

But several environmental groups say the bill would sideline the public and skirt environmental protection laws.

Wildfires in Colorado are growing larger and spreading faster as climate change-fueled drought desiccates the landscape and longer fire seasons create more opportunity for destructive blazes. Four of the state’s five largest fires have ignited since 2018, charring more than 1,000 square miles combined.

The escalating crisis demands a swift response, Hickenlooper said in an interview. The wide-ranging, 176-page Fix our Forests Act would address the problems by expanding prevention programs, consolidating federal resources and funding more research. It also would streamline environmental and public review of wildfire prevention work, like chopping down trees and prescribed burns.

“We’re trying to figure out how to do things faster,” Hickenlooper said. “We’re trying to do things faster because we can’t wait four years or eight years to address this issue — and obviously, the administration that is in office now does not view it as a serious problem.”

While the bill has backing from a contingent of environmental groups, provisions that would eliminate environmental review for some forest-thinning projects or shorten opportunities for public input have made other advocates wary — especially as President Donald Trump’s administration seeks to expand logging on public lands.

“Anything that puts power back in the hands of the government and away from the people is a negative,” said Will Roush , the executive director of Wilderness Workshop , a public lands advocacy group based in Carbondale .

The U.S. Senate Committee on Agriculture , Nutrition and Forestry heard the bill on May 6 and the legislation is now being revised through the markup process. It will then return to the committee for a vote.

The bipartisan bill includes provisions that would:

Many environmental groups have signed on in support of the bill, including the Nature Conservancy , the Environmental Defense Fund and the National Audubon Society . In Colorado , Gov. Jared Polis , the Colorado State Forest Service and the Colorado Division of Fire Prevention and Control have given their approval.

“This critical legislation will bolster our shared stewardship ethic in Colorado and enhance our ability as a state to improve forest health; protect lives, communities and water supplies from wildfire; and ensure that the forests that define Colorado endure for generations to come,” Matt McCombs , Colorado’s state forester and the director of the Colorado State Forest Service , said in a statement.

But Roush and other environmental advocates with reservations point to three parts of the bill that would limit public participation and unravel protections:

“Effective wildfire prevention starts by funding and staffing key agencies and investing in proven fire-mitigation techniques like home hardening and science-based forest management,” said  Blaine Miller-McFeeley , the senior legislative representative of Earthjustice, a nonprofit environmental legal group, in a statement. “This bill instead would codify the Trump administration’s attacks on our national forests and open the door for the timber industry to recklessly log our forests under the guise of forest management.”

Roush cited the impact of public comment on a federal forest management plan that called for clear-cutting trees in the Upper Frying Pan Valley outside Basalt. The input helped protect a cave and karst system and multigenerational aspen stands, Roush said.

When citizens told the Forest Service about those unique resources, the service altered its plans to protect those areas.

“It didn’t shut the project down or stop it from happening, it just made it better for everyone — and that’s what would be lost without the opportunity for robust community engagement,” Roush said. “We felt like we got into a good compromise.”

Hickenlooper said that the public should always demand the right to transparency, but there must be a time limit.

“It doesn’t mean they can come back and start litigating years later,” Hickenlooper said. “That just makes it impossible to get projects done.”

The bill sponsors spent a year trying to find that balance as well as make compromises with Republican senators, whose support will help the bill get funding, he said.

“My grandfather used to say, ‘Only God is perfect,’ ” Hickenlooper said. “But this is pretty good.”

Get more Colorado news by signing up for our Mile High Roundup email newsletter.

©2025 MediaNews Group, Inc. Visit at denverpost.com. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.