Science X -Forest Service R&D- Next Week is Human Dimensions Week

Some of you may remember the Patrick Brown and Nature kerfuffle.  I’ve got a whole future post that on “Patrick Brown didn’t go far enough” and one of the “emperor has no clothes” issues is that many climate modelers don’t, or can’t, incorporate actions of people on the landscape to adapt.  Often, they don’t involve or model the work of what we might call “adaptation communities” or specialists in hydrology, wildlife, botany, forests and so on.  As historically, in science world, physics (as in atmospheric modeling and vapor pressure deficits and so on) is cooler than.. all the other sciences.  And as I’ve said before, the models don’t include new and improved technologies that the US is spending megabucks on, either (think wildfire sensors and unpersonned helicopters). It looks like one of the talks is by a person studying ignitions.. which seems important.

So I wanted to give a shout-out to the sciences who always seem to be at the bottom of the scientific pecking order.. the social scientists. And these have continuing ed credits for the Society of American Foresters and the Wildlife Society.

Forest Service R&D has a week devoted to their work: ScienceX Human Dimensions week.  Here’s a link. Here’s the agenda:

Monday, Mar. 25

Recreating Equitably

  • Barriers and facilitators for accessing outdoor spaces among urban Hispanic recreationists | Lee Cerveny
  • Women hunters and the role of community in changing hunting representation | Lauren Redmore
  • ‘Anywhere outside my room:’ Urban BIPOC youth perceptions of the outdoors |​ David Flores

Tuesday, Mar. 26

Partnering with Communities

  • Strengthening understanding of and support for Indigenous agroforestry in Hawaiʻi |​ Zoe Hastings-Silao
  • Stewardship mapping: Connecting those who care for nature | Michelle Johnson
  • Community forests in the U.S.: Diverse approaches to collaboration in forest governance and management under different ownership regimes | Kathleen McGinley

Wednesday, Mar. 27

Valuing Benefits of Nature

  • Land use change and forest markets |​ Jesse Henderson
  • Managing urban forest pests: Using game theory to model cost share programs for pest treatments | Andrew Tilman
  • The value of information for spongy moth management | Matthew Sloggy

Thursday, Mar. 28

Managing Urban Forests

  • Management where homelessness and nature intersect | Monika Derrien
  • Selection and the city: A nursery supply chain analysis exploring domestic selection of urban trees | Nancy Falxa Sonti
  • Sustainability and resilience of social and ecological technology systems in the tropics | Tischa Muñoz

Friday, Mar. 29

Preparing for Wildland Fire

  • Are you set? California residents personal preparations for wildfire | Alyssa Thomas
  • Examining the influence of socioeconomic factors in human-caused wildfire ignitions | Jeff Kline
  • Systemic challenges for the federal wildland firefighting workforce | Erin Belval

Wildfire Crisis Hearing Tuesday and Thursday: E&E Story

Thanks to a TSW reader for this. Anyone interested in viewing and reporting back, please let me know.

Biden officials due on the Hill to address wildfire crisis

Two Senate committees plan hearings this week on reducing the threat of wildfires for forests and nearby communities.

**************

On Tuesday, The Energy and Natural Resources Committee will take testimony from Biden administration officials on the findings and recommendations of a federal wildfire commission created through the bipartisan infrastructure law.

On Thursday, the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee will hear from state, federal and local officials on responding to the continuing crisis.

The federal commission’s report issued in September 2023 lays out the situation in and around the nation’s forests, especially in areas of the West prone to drought and other climate-related dangers.

Federal fire suppression costs exceed $2.5 billion a year, and total wildfire costs across all types of landscapes and ownership may be in the tens or hundreds of billions of dollars a year.

Commissioners — made up of state and local officials, researchers and others — recommended greater coordination among officials at all levels of government, including tribal agencies, as well as a re-thinking of land management approaches.

At the same time, the leaders on Energy and Natural Resources, Chair Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) and ranking member John Barrasso (R-Wyo.) have pushed their own solutions to the problem.

Last fall, they introduced legislation titled the “Promoting Effective Forest Management Act,” S. 2867, which would tilt federal policy toward timber harvesting by boosting logging workforce training, requiring forest-thinning targets and pushing back on Biden administration policies that could result in less harvesting of mature and old growth trees.

The Biden administration, however, has been cool to the proposal, as well as a separate revegetation plan from Manchin.

Officials from both the Interior and Agriculture departments, among others, will be on hand to answer questions about the recent wildfire commission’s report.

The report noted that the federal government has put more money into reducing hazardous fuels such as dead trees or thick overgrowth, but it said officials have paid less attention to reducing the danger in built-up environments. Emphasis could be placed on fire-safe construction and defensible space near homes and other buildings, for instance, the report concluded.

As a person with several friends in the local wildfire preparation space, it seems to me that the way the Commission was structured did not necessarily hear from the “boots on the ground” community types and the difficulties they run into, accessing and spending the federal dollars that are already there.  Again, as I’ve said before, it’s not about homes alone, it’s about infrastructure and barns and animals and evacuations and so on.

In addition, the report said, federal officials should consider policies that encourage a new relationship with fire, recognizing fire as an “integral and beneficial component” of forest management.

The commission said the government should “dramatically increase” the use of prescribed fire and cultural burning practices to make fire-adapted forest more resilient, in addition to maintaining timber harvesting, forest thinning and managed grazing of livestock.

Fire use
The recommendation for greater use of fire may raise questions with some lawmakers, as many Western communities already struggle with smoke from wildfires and face public pressure not to create more with fires lit on purpose.

Allowing some naturally lit fires to burn for ecological benefit is still more divisive, as some lawmakers and policy advocates press the U.S. Forest Service to return to an old policy of quickly extinguishing every reported fire, especially in places experiencing drought.

All of those approaches together are needed to lessen the crisis, while the government helps communities to coexist with wildland fire that’s a natural part of the landscape in many areas.

“Just as there is no single cause of this crisis, there is no single solution,” the report said.

Such changes will come at a cost, the report said, including establishing a year-round federal workforce aimed at wildfire policy and increasing wages and benefits for firefighters.

Congress has acted on the wages, extending a raise implemented a few years ago by the Biden administration, most recently in appropriations for the current fiscal year that ends Sept. 30. But lawmakers have done so in patchwork fashion in recent years, advocates say, failing to make the increases permanent and ensuring that the money will be available for the long term.

The Government Accountability Office, among witnesses for the Homeland Security hearing, has made several recommendations on wildfire policies, including tightening controls on contracted services and procurement for disaster recovery, bettering recruitment and retention of wildland firefighters and improving delivery of post-fire assistance from the Federal Emergency Management Agency and the Department of Housing and Urban Development.

Schedule: The Energy and Natural Resources hearing is Tuesday, March 12, at 10 a.m. in 366 Dirksen and via webcast.

Witnesses:

Meryl Harrell, deputy undersecretary, natural resources and environment, Department of Agriculture.
Joan Mooney, principal deputy assistant secretary for policy, management and budget, Department of the Interior.
Cody Desautel, executive director, Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation.
Madelene McDonald, senior watershed scientist, Denver Water.
Kelly Norris, Wyoming state forester.
Schedule: The Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs hearing is Thursday, March 14, at 10 a.m. in 342 Dirksen and via webcast.

Witnesses:

Lori Moore-Merrell, administrator, U.S. Fire Administration.
David Fogerson, chief, Division on Emergency Management and Office of Homeland Security, Nevada Department of Public Safety.
Jamie Barnes, director, Forestry, Fire and State Lands, Utah Department of Natural Resources.
Lucinda Andreani, deputy county manager and Flood Control District administrator, Coconino County, Arizona.
Christopher Currie, director, Homeland Security and Justice, Government Accountability Office.

TSW Exclusive: A Tale of Two SERALs- Making Landscape Scale Resilience Happen With the Stanislaus Forest and YSS

I am reposting this because I think it’s important and perhaps people missed it because Steve also posted yesterday. The question for readers who are currently working or involved in collaborative groups is “do you think some of these ideas are worth considering in your part of the country?”

 

There are many news stories about projects in litigation, or where there are controversies.   Forest Service folks may remember the management training of “catching people doing something right.”  The SERAL (Social and Ecological Resilience Across the Landscape) efforts are successful at getting large-landscape treatments done. Are there ways that other Forests and communities can learn from these efforts?

This story deserves much greater play in larger media IMHO. I’m thinking a NY Times, WaPo, or NPR-style set of emotion-inducing interviews, drone overflights, and all that.  I’ll be sending this to journalists with that wish.   It would also be an interesting case study for social scientists interested in trust building and collaboration.

From this January

“SONORA, Calif. (January 11, 2024) – In an incredible show of faith and recognition for work already accomplished, the Stanislaus National Forest recently received its annual budget for work on the Stanislaus Wildfire Crisis Strategy Landscape of $57.6 million.

“This funding level is a clear indicator that we are on the right path with our work and should continue at full speed,” said Stanislaus National Forest Supervisor, Jason Kuiken. “Not only is that apparent as people drive up Highway 108 and see with their own eyes the work, but it’s an acknowledgement all the way from Washington, D.C. that this work should continue.”

Part of the Forest Services’ Wildfire Crisis Strategy, the Stanislaus National Forest is currently into year three of a ten-year, 305,000 acres project to reduce fuel loads on the forest through a variety of methods to include mechanical thinning and the application of prescribed fire.”

********************

First of all, the Forest has an very helpful website on this project,  well worth checking out. It includes a story map that tells the story with photos and videos.

Background:  The first decision is Seral 1.0, which called for work on 55,000 acres; currently the Forest is taking public comment on Seral 2.0, which covers another 100,000 acres. The area is part of the one of the priority landscapes for the Wildfire Crisis Strategy (think $).  The priority landscape itself encompasses more than 300K acres and the non-SERAL parts include Wilderness and other decisions and collaboratives (see map above).

So let’s look at some of the ways that this success became possible.

1. Yosemite Stanislaus Solutions Collaborative Group

In an interview, the first thing that Supervisor Kuiken pointed to was the efforts of a collaborative group called Yosemite Stanislaus Solutions.  You can learn about them here on their website.  It includes everyone from Audubon and the Sierra Club (local chapters) to Sierra Pacific, Dirt Riders, Tribal folks and so on.  You can check the partners out here.

From the YSS webpage:

“After decades of adversarial “wrangling” over forest management policy, 25 local industry, environmental, and recreational groups decided it was time to focus on what we could agree on,” said Mike Albrecht, president, Associated California Loggers.

“When we sat down together, we found out we agreed on a lot, and so Yosemite Stanislaus Solutions (YSS) was born. YSS agreed to salvage logs the Rim Fire, get it reforested, develop a fuel break network to protect our local communities, and restore meadows, streams, and wetlands to better health,” Albrecht said. “This agreement has gotten us national attention and subsequent funding to undertake large “landscape level” forest management projects. This would not have been accomplished without the close 3-way partnership between Tuolumne County, YSS, and the U.S. Forest Service. Kudos to everyone that has worked so hard to make this happen!”

2. The Rim Fire Galvanized the Community

The Rim Fire burned 402 square miles (260K-ish acres) with a “wide range of intensity and impacts.” These photos show that, at least in some areas, much restoration work for watershed, and to restore tree cover will be needed.  The experience of this fire showed the need for work at the landscape scale. It was the third largest wildfire in the State at the time.

“John Buckley, executive director of the Central Sierra Environmental Resource Center in Twain Harte, is also active with Yosemite Stanislaus Solutions. An immediate lesson learned was that doing scattered piecemeal fuel reduction projects, timber sales, mastication of brush, and isolated prescribed burns simply wasn’t going to be enough to prevent more Rim Fire type catastrophes. “That led the YSS forest stakeholder group to come together stronger than ever before to work to get tens of millions of dollars in grants to supplement the work that the Forest Service was already planning to accomplish,” Buckley said.”

3. At First Collaborators Worked Together on Reforestation

Perhaps getting to the “topics with more disagreement” was helped by relationships forged during the work on “topics with agreement.” Also, jointly doing work instead of just talking about how the FS should do it, perhaps caused a greater sympathy for difficulties and trust in Forest Service actions.

4. Getting Work Done Through Partners

Various master agreements, including with the County, enabled finances to be transferred and work to be done without federal hiring or FARs difficulties.  Counties and others can hire locally, so that issues like housing affordability may be less pressing.

5. Consistency of Forest Service Personnel and Alignment

Partners are always asking for this.  While personnel have indeed changed, the commitment to the process has not.  There have been three Forest Supervisors involved during and since the Rim Fire. How did the Forest Service pull this off? Personalities, policy or processes or all of the above?

6. They Were Able to Work Together on Traditionally Tougher Issues.

Example: fire salvage. As TSW readers know, salvage can be controversial, even in the Sierra Nevada.

“Because all the YSS stakeholder interests supported the compromise salvage logging plan, it managed to gain Forest Service approval and got implemented without any legal delays that would have meant a lot of the wood could have rotted,” Buckley said. “By working for consensus middle ground on the issue of salvage logging and then the following debate over how to do national forest reforestation, YSS set a national example — showing the benefits of diverse stakeholders working together in a spirit of compromise and cooperation.”

7. Role of Models and Scientists

Because this work was at the landscape scale, it required thinking beyond the stand level, including the development of PODs. This includes practitioner knowledge, and newer technologies (e.g., Lidar) and models were used; including workshops for the collaborative group with scientists.   Supervisor Kuiken would advise anyone “these new technologies and models can be very helpful and save a great deal of time.”

Probably a heavy direct involvement by scientists also helps collaborators learn together and operate from the same knowledge base.

8. NEPA Opportunities and Choices.

They did an EIS for Seral 1 and will do one for Seral 2. You can read the notice of intent on the Federal Register here.  I get the feeling that the way that the decisions are structured such that analyzed activities may occur over time with no new decisions required.  So big EIS, but considers many kinds of treatments over a large area over a long time period. For example, ongoing maintenance of fuelbreaks is included in the decision. If stands die due to bark beetle, that is also incorporated.

They are using some emergency authorities, specifically “only the proposed action and a no-action alternative” and “no pre-decisional administrative review process.” In the case of Seral 2.0, potentially more controversial decisions will be covered in separate RODs based off the EIS.

They have used new technologies, like Lidar, to help with the analysis.

Inquiring NEPA minds might want to know  “does this decision incorporate “condition-based management””?

Katie Wilkinson, the Forest Environmental Coordinator, addressed this in an email.

“The SERAL projects only have aspects of condition-based management – salvage, rapid response to newly discovered non-native weed infestations, hazard tree mitigation (only in SERAL 1.0).

The large majority of the SERAL projects proposed or authorized actions however, would not be considered condition-based management.  The SERAL decisions authorized site-specific vegetation management actions (other than those listed above) and the SERAL 2.0 decision will do the same. Modifications do occur from planned units to implementation units, regularly, based on a variety of factors or updated survey information considered and obtained internally.

None of the SERAL implementation will go through additional public review or comment periods.  The SERAL analysis document includes the site-specificity necessary to provide meaningful feedback and public comments and for the decision maker to make an informed decision.  That doesn’t diminish the amount of work left for the implementation team to complete after the decision and prior to implementation. “

9. Lack of Litigation. We’ve all seen collaborative groups work together well, with the decision then followed by litigation. This was not the case for Seral 1.0. We can’t FOIA internal documents of potential litigants to understand why they did not file.  Certainly litigation does occur with similar kinds of projects in the Sierra Nevada.   When asked why  Supervisor Kuiken replied in an email: collaboration on developing the proposed action (and associated response to the public concerns) and second that the IDT made a DEIS/FEIS that was both thorough and readable/understandable.

I’m thinking that it may also have something to do with the choices made by potential litigators, and the political horsepower behind the project.  Certainly a previous effort (salvage) was litigated, as we covered earlier on TSW.  I’ll try to find out more about this.

Summary

The SERAL efforts have been successful.Let’s look more deeply and share this information.

TSW readers: what aspects of this effort do you think are replicable where you work? Why or why not? Ideas for reporters to send this to.. either in comments or contact me directly.

Reporters: What might be interesting angles..

*What makes people who usually disagree come together? Interview various members of YSS.  Link to election year and reducing polarization? Something like this NY Times story about Blue Mountain Forest Partners.

*When Litigants Stay Home and Why: Interview folks who litigated on the Rim Fire and not on SERAL 1.0, and ask them about their rationale.

*Climate change and carbon:given the many op-eds that simply claim “leaving mature and old growth trees alone is best for carbon” how does the Forest and YSS think about carbon. Interview some scientists involved (and those who disagree).

*Old -growth.. how will old growth be delineated and protected in Seral 2.0?

*Digging into how they used new technologies in their work, and new ideas like PODs.

 

Burn Boss Arrest: Editorial Board of Eastern Oregon News Outlets Steps Up to Reduce the Heat

Right after I posted Steve’s op-ed, I was sent a piece by the editorial board of the East Oregonian media group along the same lines.  That’s what peacekeeping leadership looks like.  Local journalism is more than just coverage of local issues; it’s the people involved.   They can be voices in the community who are interested in its well-being, not stoking resentments, or finding the shortest distance between the facts and a narrative such as “incipient Bundys.” People in communities need to get along over time; people in our country do, too, but, sadly, some national media seems to see their role as furthering divisions and encouraging outrage.  It’s not their fault in a way, it’s a business model that works, but we can support local journalism and journalists to the best of our ability.  Here’s a link.

 

There comes a time during a controversial situation where public officials need to step back, take a deep breath and start acting like adults.

A good case in point is the current hullabaloo around the U.S. Forest Service and Grant County regarding a 2022 prescribed fire that spread beyond its start on the Malheur National Forest onto private land owned by the Holliday family.

On Oct. 19, 2022, Grant County Sheriff Todd McKinley arrested Rick Snodgrass, a Forest Service employee, while the prescribed fire that Snodgrass was in charge of was still burning south of John Day.

On Feb. 2, 2024, a grand jury indicted Snodgrass on one count of reckless burning, a Class A misdemeanor.

The entire case should leave most readers with a slight distaste on the palate.

On the big picture level, the case is in some ways a classic local versus federal dispute, but why this incident has been drawn out for this long is a mystery.

Snodgrass was doing his job, a job delegated to him by his superiors. The arrest is believed to be the first case of a Forest Service firefighter being arrested in the course of his normal duties.

Anti-government sentiment is nothing new to Eastern Oregon. As a culture, we tend to be suspicious of the federal government and hold dear the concepts of personal land ownership and dislike interference from federal and state governments. Those sentiments are ingrained into our culture as Americans.

Yet this case in Grant County remains baffling on many levels. Local and federal officials are at loggerheads while an individual who was following orders and adhering to established protocols for prescribed fires is left holding the bag.

This incident should have been handled in a totally different way and through appropriate channels.

The prosecution of this case only serves to exacerbate already existing tensions about federal land management in Grant County and Eastern Oregon. Feeding and stoking anti-government feelings may be convenient for some but hardly qualifies as problem-solving.

Instead it looks absurd. Worse, the prosecution could impede efforts to find common ground and solutions to the growing danger that wildfire poses.

Prescribed fire is a vital tool, but not always a perfectly precise one.

Legitimate concerns or disagreements regarding prescribed burns or other land-use issues should be addressed through proper legal channels and in a manner that is in line with our system of laws.

The fire ignited by Snodgrass and his crew torched some trees during the afternoon, when the wind picked up, and embers spread onto land owned by the Hollidays.

The ember started a fire that burned an estimated 20 to 40 acres of the Hollidays’ land.

If the Hollidays can show that the fire damaged their property, or reduced its value, then they have legitimate grounds for a civil suit against the federal government.

That, rather than a criminal case, is the appropriate legal venue for trying to punish the Forest Service.

What this matter needs is some adult leadership to bring everyone to the table to find a viable solution. Indicting people isn’t the answer. Compromise is.

Steve Ellis Op-ed on “Arresting Burn Boss” Episode

I’ve been noticing a tendency for federal agencies to become more vague and abstract about what exactly they’re doing, with many agencies seemingly having identical programs, or overlap (or run against each other). At the other end of the spectrum, we need to ask “what is the work that needs to be done that doesn’t have anyone stepping up to do it?”  When I read Steve Ellis’s  op-ed about the Arrested Burn Boss case, I wonder how many Forest Service folks are assigned the role of peacemakers.  And if the Forest Service doesn’t have that role because they are involved in a dispute, what is the role of local institutions in peacemaking? I’m thinking here of Steve’s previous piece in which members of a religious group did the work of protecting a community from flooding.  I would bet that many folks in religious institutions have excellent dispute resolution skills, and are acknowledged community leaders, but there are plenty of others who are community leaders of various kinds.  Perhaps this is an opportunity for them to exercise their skills for the well-being of all.

Here’s Steve’s op-ed. It ran in newspapers in Pendleton, Baker City and LaGrande this AM:

 

Destructive wildfires have resulted in the devastating loss of communities, loss of life, impacts on human health, untold damage to our watersheds, and the pumping of massive amounts of climate-changing carbon dioxide into our atmosphere. Conditions are such that large fires are becoming difficult, if not impossible to suppress.

People who live in rural parts of Oregon are especially aware of this and the pressing need for effective landscape fuel treatments that include thinning, fuels reduction and prescribed fire. Practitioners, the research community, and most members of Congress have recognized the need for management activities.

We are the National Association of Forest Service Retirees, and our experience has been that this is best achieved by the agency, communities, landowners, Tribes, state forestry organizations, and various partners working cooperatively together. The good news is trust has been on the upswing and more of these partnerships are having success around the country.

Building the trust that enables prescribed and managed fire where there is not already a strong foundation of trust will be a challenge for the U.S. Forest Service. However, even with the best intentions, damage may sometimes occur to neighboring properties that was clearly not part of the plan.

Using fire to help forests become healthier and more resilient is a delicate balancing act. The intent is to work collaboratively in increasing “good” or beneficial fire and decreasing “bad” fire. Prescribed burning on National Forest System lands is designed to also protect neighbors’ homes, property and livestock from intense and destructive wildfires.

Regrettably, putting fire on the landscape, no matter how well meaning, does have its risks. Several of us had experiences during our careers where a well-intended prescribed fire went beyond the planned burn area.

I recall one instance in Idaho where the fire progressed onto some private land and burned approximately 10 acres of a rural mix of forest and rangeland property. We worked with the landowner, paid for replacing the fence and some other costs, and ended up with a very good working partnership. The landowner did not call the sheriff and ask that federal fire personnel be arrested.

Beneficial fire has been missing from many western landscapes for decades with profound impacts on forest health and resilience. Restoring fire’s role in the forest is critical. We all jointly need to properly use fire on the landscape. Along the way, unplanned events will no doubt occur, even with the best of plans and safety measures in place.

When accidents do happen, impacted landowners should be appropriately compensated. At the end of the day, if ultimately fire is to be managed well, cooler heads must prevail. Arresting an agency employee while he is performing his duties for the agency is not a productive path to building partnerships, and only exacerbates bad feelings and mistrust.

We look forward to Grant County and the Forest Service working to build cooperative relationships and stakeholder success to proactively manage forests and rangeland landscapes at risk of large destructive wildfires, regardless of ownership. Success makes for better media headlines.

Steve Ellis, former supervisor of the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest, is chairman of the National Association of Forest Service Retirees.

Firefighter Pay: Something We All Agree on? Op-ed by Steve Ellis

 

Mad River Hotshots set out in the morning to work on the Smith River Complex in Oregon in September.
Inciweb

Many of our public policy issues are too important to fall prey to “death by partisan tomfoolery.”  Firefighter pay is one of them.  Probably too “small” in the eyes of some to be anything more than a political football; maybe, just maybe, it’s the right size to be influenced by folks like us reaching our to our Congressional folks, Tweet Xing, or however people think they might influence the process.  Here’s an op-ed by Steve Ellis of the National Association of Forest Service Retirees in the Bend Bulletin. If you can’t access the link, try different devices/browsers, I’ve had success with some but not others.

Wildland firefighter pay is not a partisan game

Our federal wildland firefighters need our help, and time is of the essence. The Infrastructure Investments and Jobs Act of 2021 provided funding to increase base salaries for federal wildland firefighters up to $20,000 or 50% of their current wages in an effort to address historically and comparatively low pay and widespread staffing shortages. However, without action, that funding expired in September 2023. Although Congress extended the current funding levels through the three separate stopgap measures, they have yet to pass a permanent solution, and the next congressional deadline for a solution is March 1. The National Federation of Federal Employees estimates up to half of wildland firefighters might possibly leave the federal service if Congress does not permanently secure their pay and benefits.

The National Association of Forest Service Retirees is dedicated to sustaining the Forest Service mission by adapting to the challenges of today and tomorrow. We believe Congress and our country should work to ensure that these brave men and women who put their lives on the fireline to protect human life, our communities, watersheds, wildlife and fisheries habitat, and other forest and rangeland values, should not have their employment fraught with financial insecurity and instability. Their commitment and sacrifice should allow them to provide a living wage for themselves and their families.

Forest Service Chief Randy Moore recently met with our organization’s board of directors and told us that many federal firefighters cannot afford housing, and some are even living out of their cars. We understand that such a pay reduction could amount to up to $20,000 for some of these firefighters, forcing them to leave personal and family decisions in the hands of Congress. Alternatively, many might leave the service for more assured compensation and stability. Solidifying these benefits would help to successfully implement the National Cohesive Wildland Fire Strategy and the recommendations from the Congressional Wildland Fire Commission. At the most basic human level, it’s simply the right thing to do.

This is one of the factors that can contribute to a shortage of federal wildland firefighters, and the timing couldn’t be more important. While we may not yet be in the thick of wildfire season, agencies are actively finishing the recruiting for the upcoming season. Timeliness is important for meeting the hiring demands for the needs for this summer. This is not a United States issue alone. Last year the federal wildland fire community responded across Canada to support our northern neighbors and personnel have been assisting in Chile. Our international agreement with Australia and New Zealand is ready for implementation.

It could be argued that the longer Congress waits, the more our elected officials are putting our communities at risk. This shouldn’t be another “partisan game” over which party will get their way. We are talking about real communities that could be left without adequate services due to insufficient staffing, or firefighters leaving the service. We are talking about real men and women with a duty to provide for their families. We are also talking about putting our firefighters in harm’s way by stretching them too thin. We are conceivably talking about life-and-death consequences for firefighters and anyone who lives within the possible reach of wildfires as a result of Congress’ inaction. For Oregonians, that’s most of us.

It’s time for Congress to fix this issue, permanently.

Steve Ellis is chair of the National Association of Forest Service Retirees and lives in Beavercreek, Oregon.

Wrestling with the Moose Fire Story Map: Window into Suppression Strategies and Tactics

If you read various news outlets, they are always saying (as are our insurance companies) that wildfires will get worse due to climate change.  Meanwhile the USG is spending beaucoup bucks on new technologies (e.g early detection, drones, etc.), prescribed fire, fuel treatment, PODs and so on.  The technologies are likely to trickle down to those of us away from federal lands. I think it would be more honest to say “the climate is changing, and we’re working hard on managing fire better, so we don’t know if the end result will ultimately be more, less or the same.

What I’ve noticed, though, from these kinds of stories and academic studies, is that the role of fire suppression folks is generally not considered.  It’s not like hurricanes or floods.. there are not hurricane stoppers or flood stoppers, yes there are various long-term strategies to reduce damage, but not people who know a lot about how it works in the thick of things (oh, and with questionable pay).

Thanks to a colleague who shared this excellent story map on the Moose Fire!  Especially for you TSW readers who aren’t familiar with suppression efforts, or those for whom it’s been awhile, I point you to the videos of the Fire Management Officer, the Fire Behavior Analyst, the Incident Commander and their roles and how they went about dealing with the fire; and the concerns and roles of those in the community .

 

 

 

Sara C.’s Answers on PM 2.5, and Happy Valentine’s Day!

It’s Valentine’s Day, and I would like to give a special Smokey Wire Valentine to Sara C., who answered my questions on the PM 2.5 Rule in a very clear and concise way.  In case you didn’t read it in the comments, here are her answers.  As hard as our regular contributors work, we can’t keep up with everything of interest, and so that’s why we all appreciate folks who step up with their knowledge.  Here’s what Sara had to say in this comment link.

Hi all – I’m an environmental attorney and work with a number of prescribed fire and cultural burning advocates on these issues. Here are the brief answers to Sharon’s questions:

(1) What new things do wildfire folks have to do (if anything)? The Clean Air Act puts the onus on state air pollution control agencies, not wildfire folks. With a stricter standard, more air basin will fall into “nonattainment” for PM2.5 (from both wildfire and other pollution) – these new designations will be made by February 2026. For those areas in nonattainment, the air agencies/states will have to come up with “state implementation plans” to demonstrate to EPA how they’ll come back into compliance. Those “SIPs” will be due in August 2027.

The wrinkle is that wildfire smoke can also be “excluded” from consideration using a process called the Exceptional Events Rule. It’s still the air agencies that are responsible for preparing Exceptional Events “demonstrations”, but they may look to wildfire folks for help with data, etc. Once “excluded,” then the wildfire smoke doesn’t count for regulatory purposes.

(2) What new things do prescribed fire folks have to do (if anything)? It depends whether your state falls out of attainment, and if so, how your state chooses to come back into attainment through the SIP. Some states may choose to make permitting for prescribed fire more difficult in response, or may require prescribed fire practitioners help with exceptional events demonstrations if they get permits. For now, prescribed fire practitioners should be paying attention to how their states are going to respond, and work to make sure that smoke from prescribed fire isn’t the source that’s targeted for curtailment.

(3) Does EPA think “hey since we have wildfires (this year? over time? future using computer models?) and prescribed fire, and then we have to ratchet all other activities further down (e.g. industry, cars, etc.)? Under the Clean Air Act, EPA leaves the targeting of specific sources to the states. Some states may want to use it as a reason to ratchet down other activities, some states may chose to ratchet down prescribed fire instead. There are some unique incentives though, given that wildland fire and prescribed fire can be excluded via an exceptional events demonstration, and traditional sources of pollution cannot.

(4) What does it mean in practice to deal with Exceptional Events? What is a demonstration? The Exceptional Events Rule is the part of the clean air act that allows states to exclude certain emissions. Generally speaking, the CAA regulates the “ambient” air quality — no matter the source, states can be on the hook exceedances of the standards. But the CAA recognizes that states sometimes have no control over a particular source, and therefore shouldn’t be penalized for it – the prototypical examples are dust storms and wildfire. In 2016, the EPA revised the regulations for exceptional events to make clear that prescribed fires might also qualify, but until the demonstration above, this path had never been used. The main reason is that exceptional events demonstrations — i.e., the name for the pathway to get EPA to agree to exclude the data — are technically complicated and resource intensive. The one referenced above took experienced EPA staffers 3 months. So instead of agreeing to let a prescribed fire happen and then preparing to file a difficult and uncertain exceptional events demonstration, air regulators may simply deny or condition prescribed fire permits so no exceedance is likely.

(Note, I edited the last sentence a bit, I’m hoping that’s what she meant and that she will comment if it’s not.)

Anyone else who would like to add information or links, please add below.

Commenter Shaun recently pointed out that many of the policy changes he’s seen, for the last little while (he mentioned 38 years), have tended to centralize decisions.  Of course, there has always been a partnership between the Feds and States with regard to the Clean Air Act.  What is also  interesting to me to watch is Agency Encroachment in the form of EPA seeming to get regulatory tentacles further into everything else (energy production, WOTUS, plant genetics, fire retardant) while at the same time saying they don’t have enough budget or employees.   It would indeed be a paradox if EPA is very worried about climate change, but also makes more difficult our efforts to protect ourselves from those same negative impacts. Anyway, I think watching new policies as to what more work is involved, and who makes the decisions, will be a worthwhile exercise.

Can Someone Explain? What the EPA PM 2.5 (Soot) Rule Means for Wildfire and Prescribed Fire

Here’s a link to their Fact Sheet. There are many words in it about wildfire and prescribed fire.

Here are my questions for someone who is involved in this:

(1) What new things do wildfire folks have to do (if anything)?

(2) What new things do prescribed fire folks have to do (if anything)?

(3) Does EPA think “hey since we have wildfires (this year? over time? future using computer models?) and prescribed fire, and then we have to ratchet all other activities further down (e.g. industry, cars, etc.)?

Perhaps if we can find an expert, they can also answer your questions.

What does it mean in practice to deal with Exceptional Events? What is a demonstration?

Prescribed Fire Demonstration Example. EPA is committed to ensuring that air agencies have a clear pathway for needed exceptional events demonstrations for prescribed fires ignited to mitigate the effects of high-severity wildfires. EPA recognizes the importance of significantly increasing the application of prescribed fires to wildlands. To that end, EPA is working closely with the State of California, the United States Forest Service, and other collaborators to develop an exceptional events demonstration for a prescribed fire in Northern California. A public review opportunity on this document was offered in December 2023. This actual prescribed fire demonstration will go through the entire exceptional events process as an example of a successfully developed demonstration and will identify opportunities for land management and air agencies to efficiently collaborate on prescribed fire exceptional events demonstrations.

From The Hotshot Wakeup: The Story of the Beachie Creek Fire and Team Prescribed Fire Tabletop

OK, I get it.. permitting reform is not everyone’s favorite topic.  So I thought I’d highlight some interesting stuff on Wildfire, before I get back to permitting.

The Hotshot Wakeup Person had a couple of interesting items on Substack.  If you’re interested in this stuff, please consider subscribing to The Hotshot Wakeup Substack. I always learn something from his posts and often I find myself laughing out loud as well.

The Story of The Beachie Creek Fire: Put It Out, Or Let It Burn? Both Have Consequences.

I know some TSW readers are very interested in Oregon fires.  I  like how Tim explains to us non-Fire folks some of how pre-planning is done and MIST techniques and what I like best of all is that he can see both sides.  I do think we get better reporting from people who can understand different points of view. Anyway, I recommend it.  The PG&E part is a little depressing, especially since, as I’ve pointed out before, the Princeton study say to meet net zero by 2050:

“The current power grid took 150 years to build. Now, to get to net-zero emissions by 2050, we have to build that amount of transmission again in the next 15 years and then build that much more again in the 15 years after that. It’s a huge amount of change,” said Jenkins.

And PG&E can’t afford to bury the lines they have..  oh, well.

Here’s his summary of the podcast contents.

  • The story of the Beachie Creek Fire in Oregon.
  • Multiple lawsuits on how the fire was handled by the Forest and $1B demanded from the power company.
    The Beachie Creek Fire
  • MIST tactics V.S. full suppression. Safety V.S. engaging. What’s the cost in the end?
  • PG&E come to a settlement on the Dixie Fire trial.
  • Did PG&E just pay itself as a result? Where does the money actually go?

I’ve never heard anyone report on this PG&E stuff before..

Team Prescribed Fire Tabletop Exercise

A lot of Region 5 folks were involved in the large-scale Team Prescribed Fire out on the Stanislaus National Forest last year, as California’s weather allowed for it. It was a live-action “sand table” that a lot of people in the D.C. office were watching. A full ICP was brought in, caterers, loads of crews, and drones.

A lot of kinks were worked out during this operation. It was new to a lot of those involved, and things like overtime limits, R&R issues, people on crews timing out before others, and more arose. It wasn’t expected to go off without a hitch, and plenty was learned from this operation. Now they can implement those lessons learned going forward.

Just last week, the Forest Service put out their Strategy to Expand Prescribed Fire Training in the West. This new report lines out what federal firefighters, contractors, NGOs, tribes, and tech folks can expect as policy and money flow into prescribed fire across the nation.

The announcement, made by Alex Robertson, Director of Fire and Aviation Management, looks to expand the National Interagency Prescribed Fire Training Center into the Western United States.

The National Interagency Prescribed Fire Training Center is currently operating out of Florida; however, this new policy and working group aims to expand its operation and reach into the western United States.

The three key elements for building out PFTC-West include:

  • increasing staffing
  • establishing focus groups to explore new curriculum and prescribed fire modules, including unmanned aircraft systems (UAS)
  • expanding the PFTC Steering Committee.

The current committee is comprised of national leadership from the USDA Forest Service, DOI agencies, TNC, the Florida Forest Service’s State representative for the National Association of State Foresters, and a Tall Timbers Research Station representative. The committee is looking to add representatives from the western states into the mix.

While there are many stated goals, one is to increase training and qualifications for prescribed fire across the West and bring in operators from the private, state, and local sectors.

They are also looking to create a new “drone division” in this expansion, bringing on new tech, pilots, and operators.

The National Interagency Prescribed Fire Training Center is currently operating out of Florida; however, this new policy and working group aims to expand its operation and reach into the western United States.

The three key elements for building out PFTC-West include:

  • increasing staffing
  • establishing focus groups to explore new curriculum and prescribed fire modules, including unmanned aircraft systems (UAS)
  • expanding the PFTC Steering Committee.

The current committee is comprised of national leadership from the USDA Forest Service, DOI agencies, TNC, the Florida Forest Service’s State representative for the National Association of State Foresters, and a Tall Timbers Research Station representative. The committee is looking to add representatives from the western states into the mix.

While there are many stated goals, one is to increase training and qualifications for prescribed fire across the West and bring in operators from the private, state, and local sectors.

They are also looking to create a new “drone division” in this expansion, bringing on new tech, pilots, and operators.

**************

So what does this all mean for the future?

It means lots of new positions, career paths, large-scale Team ignitions, completely new divisions for UA S platforms, pilots, and operators, and hopefully, plenty of good quality acres burned across the American West.