### EPAExceptional Events Rule Revision Hearing Testimony Phoenix, Arizona
12-8-15 Members ofthe Hearing Panel, Introduction: Craig Thomas, ConservationDirector for Sierra Forest Legacy (SFL}-formedin 1996, we are a conservation coalition ofover 80 environmental organizations focused primarily on federal land managementpolicy and practice in the SierraNevadaBioregion ofCalifornia. Increasing fire use for ecological sustainability, forest carbon stability and in support ofpublic safety and public health are key concerns ofthe coalition. We are experiencing increasingly alarming fire events inthe SierraNevada. Manyofthese events have made the national daily news cycle where fire intensity and scale is discussed and largely forgotten bythe next news cycle. What is seldom discussed is the longer term impacts to water quality, air quality, loss ofecological 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 ofthe matter is rarely mentioned. The issue ofincreasingly uncontrollable fires inthe West, stemming from a century offire exclusion and the loss offire's critical role in ecosystem resilience, is seldom mentioned. We are pleased to see such a robust discussion ofthese issues in recent EPA 

### Air Quality Rulemaking, proposed revisions and guidance letters. We support much oftheproposed recommendations that focus on enabling fire's critical role in establishing and maintaining ecosystem sustainability and protectingpublic health and safety. We believe thatprotection of public health goes hand-in-hand witp. increased managed fire use, not atthe expense ofit. We basethis statement on a clear understanding offire and its critical role in forested ecosystems of California and the fact thatfire suppression efforts are increasingly overwhelmed byfire intensity during >95 percentile fire weather events. Promoting thoughtful fire use (FR 72866) at meaningful ecological scales is the path forward to protect ournatural resources and public health. Scale matters greatly. We do not comment at this time onthe efforts to lower the work andprocess burden on regulators and land managers**ex~ept** to say that collaborative efforts to lower thatburden**~s** agood thing. Comments on whether proposed language should be broughtinto the rule revision will be discussed in our detailed letter inJanuary. 

### I. Comments in 

### support ofproposed EERRevisions
A. Three key elements ofthe Exceptional Events Proposed Rule revisions are proposed changes or clarificationpertaining 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 "ahuman activity not likely to recur at a particular location." (1) Not Reasonably Controllable Defending a NAAQS exceedance based upon having control measures inplace including reliance on SIPs and "evidence ofeffective implementation" such as a Smoke Management Program (SMP) and Basic Smoke ManagementPractices (BSMP) compliance are reasonable control measures to continue. However, there needs to be clarificationthat giventhe current fuel loading in many areas ofthe West, exceedances will be increasingly common, in spite of the best intentions, butthese exceedances are not a sign ofnon-compliance. The reason for this is that fuels loads are generally high inmuch ofthe West due to a century offire exclusion and in order to get to any significant ecological scale offire use (for the range of stated purposes) burn frequency will need to approachthe 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 orto only focus onregulatory compliance and not ecological need will cause Federal Land Mangers (FLMs) and EPA to fail to reach shared goals ofecological health and public health. Robust, well-managed fire use ofa significantlybroader scale will trump mega-fire ecological impacts to ecosystems and mega-emissions impacts onpublic health. Additionally, the EERRevisions at (FR 72870) cites to the 1998 Interim Air Quality Policy on Wildland and Prescribed Fire (referenced inthe 2007 EERpreamble). These six provisions make up the "basic components ofa certifiable SMP." We offer an additional important criterion for EPAto consider either as part of"program evaluation" or as a separate evaluation offire accomplishment arid improved public safety. Confirming reduced uncharacteristic wildfire and pollutant risk as a result ofan ecologically relevant fire program in California and elsewhere where fire is part ofthe natural disturbance regime, benefits public health and is consistent with EPAprimary role under the Clean Air Act. Finally, there needs to be a make-up period ofregulatory "forgiveness" that is non-punitive thathas significant collaborative engagement around ecological recovery and increased public health outreach. A reasonable definition of"controllable" must include a recognitionofthe circumstances we are in due largelyto fire exclusion and now also exacerbated by climate change. Assumptions regarding what is "reasonably controllable" needs increased scrutiny during this EERulemaldng. 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 bymanyfactors with steep slopes and lack ofroads being two primary factors. (See North et al. 2012-Joumal ofForestry; North et al 2015-Joumal of Forestry; North et al. 2015-Science Insights). 2. Any scaled use ofherbicides to reduce fuels is socially and ecologically unrealistic and damaging

### to multiple resources.

(2) Not Reasonably Preventable The "notreasonably preventable" demonstration criteriathat includes consideration ofthe natural fire return interval orinterval determined byrelevant FLM forest plan is a positive step forward. We request EPA be more explicit regarding the scale offire return (FR72869 "mimicking the natural role offire") which is directly tied to fire resilience and scale offire returned to any particular landscape. Minimal increases inthe number ofbum days and minimal changes in burn duration will not remedy the impacts ofa century offire exclusion.

(3) Human activity not likely to recur SLF supports a reasonable, science-based definition ofnot likely to recur that encompasses the natural fire return interval, maintenance burns thatmaintain ecological values established in previous treatments and protection ofpublic safety. The key pointbeing that we need fire to return at regular intervals to "mimic the natural role offrre" inforest, shrubland 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 withinthe prevue ofEPAs authority to allow exceedance demonstrations for such purposes. Such uses may have unique fire frequencies.



### II. EPA's Regulatory Influence OverFire-Associated Landscapes. We do not accept the rationale in the 2013 EER Guidance Letterthat grants authority to state air quality regulators to exempt 

### airpollution impacts resulting from wildfires during annual 

### air quality emissions accounting. The authorityto exempt wildfire emissions from annual ormulti-year accounting should only occur ifthe state and 

### air district regulators are supportive of, and not hindering, an ecologically significant fire program within thestate boundary. Regulatory oversight ofan active fire program (consistent withfire regimes and scales 

### ina particular landscape) should be a benefit to ecosystems and public health. While we readily admit AQ concerns are notthe onlyreason for limited fire accomplishments 

### iri California. Butrestrictive regulatory oversight is a commonly mentioned concern. With an improvedregulatory environment as exhibited 

### inthe EER Proposed Rule and increased collaboration we canreach dual goals ofecologically

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



### III. An Example ofthe Current Fire Situation in California Over the past century fire has been seen, within our Western culture, as an enemy ofpeople, their possessions and our shared natural resources. The resulting past century offire 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 andmega-emissions rarely witnessed in the recent past. Example: King Fire (9-14-14) from the Eldorado National Forest inthe central SierraNevada: 

### 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 oflimited frre use and early "successful" suppression efforts. While these public health, science-based standards createdto limit the public's exposureto harmful airborne pollutants are not questioned here, there have been only limited direct conversations with the fire, vegetation and wildlife ecology community regarding what itwould take in terms ofscale offire use to limitpublic exposure to increasingly commonmega-fire and mega-emissions events. Hopefully this important dialog will grow and inform future efforts.

Thank you for this opportunityto 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