EPA Exceptional Events Rule Revision Hearing Testimony 

Phoenix, Arizona 

12-8-15 

Members of the Hearing Panel, 

Introduction: Craig Thomas, Conservation Director for Sierra Forest Legacy (SFL}-formed in 

1996, we are a conservation coalition of over 80 environmental organizations focused primarily 

on federal land management policy and practice in the Sierra Nevada Bioregion of California. 

Increasing fire use for ecological sustainability, forest carbon stability and in support of public 

safety and public health are key concerns of the coalition. 

We are experiencing increasingly alarming fire events in the Sierra Nevada. Many of these 

events have made the national daily news cycle where fire intensity and scale is discussed and 

largely forgotten by the next news cycle. What is seldom discussed is the longer term impacts to 

water quality, air quality, loss of ecological benefits to humans, damage to plants and wildlife, 

soils, recreation opportunities and recreation economies, community safety and other factors. 

While the roaring blazes and the dangerous fire. suppression efforts make an exciting network 

news cycle and provide attention-garnering images, the real heart of the matter is rarely 

mentioned. The issue of increasingly uncontrollable fires in the West, stemming from a century 

of fire exclusion and the loss of fire's critical role in ecosystem resilience, is seldom mentioned. 

We are pleased to see such a robust discussion of these issues in recent EPA Air Quality 

Rulemaking, proposed revisions and guidance letters. We support much of the proposed 

recommendations that focus on enabling fire's critical role in establishing and maintaining 

ecosystem sustainability and protecting public health and safety. We believe that protection of 

public health goes hand-in-hand witp. increased managed fire use, not at the expense of it. We 

base this statement on a clear understanding of fire and its critical role in forested ecosystems of 

California and the fact that fire suppression efforts are increasingly overwhelmed by fire 

intensity during >95 percentile fire weather events. Promoting thoughtful fire use (FR 72866) at 

meaningful ecological scales is the path forward to protect our natural resources and public 

health. Scale matters greatly. 

We do not comment at this time on the efforts to lower the work and process burden on 

regulators and land managers ex~ept to say that collaborative efforts to lower that burden ~s a 
good thing. Comments on whether proposed language should be brought into the rule revision 

will be discussed in our detailed letter in January. 

I. Comments in support of proposed EER Revisions 

A. Three key elements of the Exceptional Events Proposed Rule revisions are proposed 

changes or clarification pertaining to pollutant exceedances and the demonstration 

required to defend, and therefore not count, NAAQS violations for certain activities 

which are appropriately not "controllable", "preventable" and "a human activity not 

likely to recur at a particular location." 

(1) Not Reasonably Controllable 

Defending a NAAQS exceedance based upon having control measures in place including 

reliance on SIPs and "evidence of effective implementation" such as a Smoke Management 

Program (SMP) and Basic Smoke Management Practices (BSMP) compliance are reasonable 

control measures to continue. However, there needs to be clarification that given the current 

fuel loading in many areas of the West, exceedances will be increasingly common, in spite of 

the best intentions, but these exceedances are not a sign of non-compliance. The reason for 

this is that fuels loads are generally high in much of the West due to a century of fire 

exclusion and in order to get to any significant ecological scale of fire use (for the range of 

stated purposes) burn frequency will need to approach the natural fire frequency for th.e fire 

regime and vegetation types involved. More importantly the burn duration will need to 

expand from a few days to weeks. To ignore this fact or to only focus on regulatory 

compliance and not ecological need will cause Federal Land Mangers (FLMs) and EPA to 

fail to reach shared goals of ecological health and public health. Robust, well-managed fire 

use of a significantly broader scale will trump mega-fire ecological impacts to ecosystems 

and mega-emissions impacts on public health. 

Additionally, the EER Revisions at (FR 72870) cites to the 1998 Interim Air Quality Policy 

on Wildland and Prescribed Fire (referenced in the 2007 EER preamble). These six 

provisions make up the "basic components of a certifiable SMP." We offer an additional 

important criterion for EPA to consider either as part of"program evaluation" or as a 

separate evaluation of fire accomplishment arid improved public safety. Confirming reduced 

uncharacteristic wildfire and pollutant risk as a result of an ecologically relevant fire program 

in California and elsewhere where fire is part of the natural disturbance regime, benefits 

public health and is consistent with EPA primary role under the Clean Air Act. 

Finally, there needs to be a make-up period of regulatory "forgiveness" that is non-punitive 

that has significant collaborative engagement around ecological recovery and increased 

public health outreach. A reasonable definition of "controllable" must include a recognition 
of the circumstances we are in due largely to fire exclusion and now also exacerbated by 

climate change. 

Assumptions regarding what is "reasonably controllable" needs increased scrutiny during this 

EE Rulemaldng. Two examples: 1) Reliance on mechanical treatments (FR 72869) as an 

alternative to increased fire use will not lead to ecological, landscape-level resilience. While 

there is a role for ecologically appropriate, strategic mechanical fuels reduction, the scale of 

mechanical treatments is limited by many factors with steep slopes and lack of roads being 

two primary factors. (See North et al. 2012-Joumal of Forestry; North et al 2015-Joumal of 

Forestry; North et al. 2015-Science Insights). 2. Any scaled use of herbicides to reduce fuels 

is socially and ecologically unrealistic and damaging to multiple resources. 

(2) Not Reasonably Preventable 

The "not reasonably preventable" demonstration criteria that includes consideration of the 

natural fire return interval or interval determined by relevant FLM forest plan is a positive step 

forward. We request EPA be more explicit regarding the scale of fire return (FR 72869 

"mimicking the natural role of fire") which is directly tied to fire resilience and scale of fire 

returned to any particular landscape. Minimal increases in the number of bum days and minimal 

changes in burn duration will not remedy the impacts of a century of fire exclusion. 

(3) Human activity not likely to recur 

SLF supports a reasonable, science-based definition of not likely to recur that encompasses the 

natural fire return interval, maintenance burns that maintain ecological values established in 

previous treatments and protection of public safety. The key point being that we need fire to 

return at regular intervals to "mimic the natural role of frre" in forest, shrub land and grassland 

ecosystems where the fire regime defines the frre need. While some fire regimes have longer 

intervals between fires (lodgepole pine types), others are quite narrow. Public safety that is 

improved by fire use is within the prevue of EP As authority to allow exceedance demonstrations 

for such purposes. Such uses may have unique fire frequencies. 

II. EPA's Regulatory Influence Over Fire-Associated Landscapes. 

We do not accept the rationale in the 2013 EER Guidance Letter that grants authority to 

state air quality regulators to exempt air pollution impacts resulting from wildfires during 

annual air quality emissions accounting. The authority to exempt wildfire emissions from 

annual or multi-year accounting should only occur if the state and air district regulators 

are supportive of, and not hindering, an ecologically significant fire program within the 
state boundary. Regulatory oversight of an active fire program (consistent with fire 

regimes and scales in a particular landscape) should be a benefit to ecosystems and public 

health. While we readily admit AQ concerns are not the only reason for limited fire 

accomplishments iri California. But restrictive regulatory oversight is a commonly 

mentioned concern. With an improved regulatory environment as exhibited in the EER 

Proposed Rule and increased collaboration we can reach dual goals of ecologically 

, significant frre use and improved public health and safety outcomes. 

III. An Example of the Current Fire Situation in California 

Over the past century fire has been seen, within our Western culture, as an enemy of people, their 

possessions and our shared natural resources. The resulting past century of fire exclusion and 

intensive frre suppression has led to highly uncharacteristic fuel loading and vegetation density 

(a.k.a, surface and ladder fuels) that are contributing to increasingly uncharacteristic fire events 

and mega-emissions rarely witnessed in the recent past. 

Example: King Fire (9-14-14) from the Eldorado National Forest in the central Sierra Nevada: 

King Fire burned 97,717 acres 

50,000 acres (lg. red area) burned 

in one 6-hour burn period 

Area had seen significant 

management and mechanical fuels 

reduction 

The King Fire footprint had not 

seen any significant fire since 1908-

King Fire DEIS-Eldorado .NF 

Mean Fire Return Interval for this 

national forest landscape 8-12 

years 

NAAQS have been established in an era of limited frre use and early "successful" suppression 

efforts. While these public health, science-based standards created to limit the public's exposure 
to harmful airborne pollutants are not questioned here, there have been only limited direct 

conversations with the fire, vegetation and wildlife ecology community regarding what it would 

take in terms of scale of fire use to limit public exposure to increasingly common mega-fire and 

mega-emissions events. Hopefully this important dialog will grow and inform future efforts. 

Thank you for this opportunity to comment. We will provide detailed comments by the January 

19, 2016 deadline. 

Sincerely, 

Craig Thomas 

Conservation Director 

Sierra Forest Legacy 

P.O. Box 244 

Garden Valley, CA 95633 

916-708-9409 

craig@sierraforestlegacy.org 

www.sierraforestlegacy.org