Same way they have in the past decade. And will talk more about why this is. Make sure we discuss what our response is going to be to this evolving problem. Weekrchers just last published a major scientific report. The report made it clear if we are ever going to get ahead of the problem the Forest Service needs to respond to wildfires in a fundamentally different way. A self reinforcing cycle of counter effective actions. The same keep using tired approaches we have for the last 100 years. We need to make sure we are focused on getting different results. Common sense tells us our response these to be modified now that the problem is different. The Service Report does a great job tell great job summing up what the report needs to do. Altering the current trajectory will require a total system transformation. States thebluntly status quo increases losses we suffer from wildfires and significantly affects the ability to meet the core mission. We need new solutions. My chairg to work with
Catastrophic fires have severe longterm impacts to watersheds which are felt far beyond the area directly impacted by the fire. Unlike the more employers the aftermath from the severe fires we are experiencing as a result of the unnatural force conditions increased sediment loads and debris the reduce the Storage Capacity and a reservoirs and affect the predictability of runoff. Increased organics and sediment led to increase capitol. The cost of hundreds of millions of dollars. We know from science and experience and we know we need to act quickly to then overcrowding. The levels of government to facilitate and invest in Forest Restoration. Actively involved in efforts to commit resources in all these areas through our engagement and publicprivate partnerships. Were starting the Northern Arizona forest fund in partnership with the National Forest foundation to protect there watershed and are involved in a project the Forest Service bureau of reclamation, city of pace and in the Nation
Protect our watershed. Were also involved in a project with the Forest Service, bureau of reclamation city and national tore rest foundation to treat the 634,000 acre watershed that drains into the cc craigen reservoir. The projects were currently involved with highlight the need to improve federal policy to more efficiently make progress in restoring our forests and protecting our watersheds. Specifically there is a need to improve both Fire Suppression budgeting and the planning and compliance process for restoration proper skrektss. The cc craigen is a perfect example of why we need to address both issues at the same time. We appreciate the priority of the tore rest service and department of interior have praised on this project, however, despite the significance funding and staff dedicated, it is expected to take at least two if not three years before any thinning can be done on the ground. This is too long to simply hope that a fire doesnt destroy the craigen watershed. We must fi
Misleading by omission. I point the court to page 295 of that decision where it said cloak of office phrase is not inherently novel or objectional way of describing the action. In this setting to consider criminal conduct both and describes conduct that was not potentially criminal. Did the trial court there cite the statute explain the statute to the jury or not. No your honor. First Circuit Decision wasnt turning on instruction, it was turning on whether the conduct alleged was illegal. The instruction could encompass lawful action it didnt. Here if you instruct the jury as your honor was saying that official action potentially includes everything under the sun, when it in fact does not potentially include everything under the sun. Thats not what it did. You have to tell them what it doesnt include. This is an area thats some black official action some white not official and some gray. The District Court only instructed on black, didnt instruct on any of the gray. Gave the good faith
Criminal conduct both and describes conduct that was not potentially criminal. Did the trial court there cite the statute explain the statute to the jury or not. No your honor. First Circuit Decision wasnt turning on instruction, it was turning on whether the conduct alleged was illegal. The instruction could encompass lawful action it didnt. Here if you instruct the jury as your honor was saying that official action potentially includes everything under the sun, when it in fact does not potentially include everything under the sun. Thats not what it did. You have to tell them what it doesnt include. This is an area thats some black official action some white not official and some gray. The District Court only instructed on black, didnt instruct on any of the gray. Gave the good faith instruction which wrapped it up, in good faith no criminal intent and no crime. If he does it in good faith theres no crime. And if good faith is what saves him. And you called all the character witnesses