Conceivably, the EPA could demand changes in forest stewardship, but a lot of the wildfires are already in national forest land, so the nation forest service would be a more appropriate agency.
EPA could perhaps help issue guidelines and emission allowances for prescriptive burns that should probabalistically reduce wildfire emissions, but will absolutely have emissions during the burns.
The issue highlighted in the article seems to be with the broad classification of all wildfires by the EPA as “natural” or “uncontrollable” events - it's pretty clear that this isn't the reality for the majority of recent wildfires. Though wildfires are historically a natural & necessary occurrence, manmade wildfires are a well-documented occurrence & something the EPA seems well-positioned to take action on.
Unless, that is, I as an ignorant non-US observer am unaware of some other regulatory body that is already (or is better suited to) regulating human contribution to wildfire frequency.
But from an emissions standpoint, the proximate cause of a wildfire is irrelevant. The fact is that a wildfire's emissions are not due to industrial pollution, which is what the EPA regulates.
They can be and are regulated, often by controlled burn bans. Climate change isn't the sole human cause of uncontrolled wildfires, nor do they need to be intentional to be suggested to (proximate) human decisions.
> Mother nature doesn't respond to court summons...
Conceivably, the EPA could demand changes in forest ownership. When government owns things it does whatever. Some of the worst pollution was from socialst countries without meaningful private property.
Not in the US so I'm perhaps missing some context related to which bodies are responsible for which regulation but... why can't EPA regulation reduce wildfires?