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
Statement. First, for carl to respond. So you have noted that natural gas and leads to the displacement of coal in the power sector has what assumptions have you made about natural gas Going Forward the next 15 years, and what are the implications of that assumption for sailing up renewables and methane . We dont assume changes from those trajectories. Clearly, the four Building Blocks between the power plant will cause a mixture of both increases in natural gas use along with renewables in Energy Efficiency. Most of our projections assume that the state consistent with epas projections that the states will take advantage of all four Building Blocks. So we dont have we dont have explicit renewable additions beyond that in our coram business pathway. Rather the Clean Power Plant projections show significant increase in renewables and no disruptions or price pressure on the natural gas sector. Could i add something on this point, with respect to natural gas . I think one of the stories a