Forest Service launches ambitious effort to restore Dude Fire Scar

by

Nick Smith had an article about t his in his Wildfire News of the Day email today, but the link at the Payson Roundup doesn’t work.  This is all I see:

“The US Forest Service will remove overgrown brush and saplings on 7,600 acres burned by the Dude Fire in 1990 in an attempt to restore the natural, fire-resistant Ponderosa Pine forest that once grew there. The devastation from the Dude Fire can still be seen in Rim Country.”

FWIW, the USFS has this page about the project and a June 12 update here.

 

Chief Moore Announces FS Temporary Housing Refund

by

Here is a link; letter from Chief Moore

Let me begin by saying thank you.  Thank you for sharing your ideas and stories at our all-employee forums and the many other avenues for sharing. We heard you and are using that information to work with employees and the department to find solutions to the housing affordability crisis. 

 

Today, alongside Secretary Vilsack and Under Secretary Wilkes, I am pleased to announce a temporary housing refund that we estimate will benefit 4,500-5,500 employees in Forest Service housing through the end of fiscal year 2024. This refund will cover half the rent for the following Forest Service employees in government-owned housing:  

1. GS 1, step 1, through GS 10, step 10 

2. Wage-grade employees 

 

The refund also will cover 10% of the rent for employees GS level 11, step 1, through GS 13, step 10. 

 

This temporary housing refund will address the March 10 annual rental rate increase and will be retroactive to that date. Secretary Vilsack, Under Secretary Wilkes and the National Federation of Federal Employees were key to getting this refund and I am including messages of support they asked me to directly deliver to you at the bottom of this email. Employees will receive the refund within 9 to 11 weeks. It will be provided within our existing budget; we will make trade-offs to focus on this high-priority need. 

 

The amount of rent charged for government civilian quarters is determined according to government policy described in Circular A-45. The bipartisan Wildfire Commission has recommended review and potential updates to these policies. We and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) are reviewing these recommendations.

The temporary housing refund is provided under the Secretary’s emergency subsistence authority under Section 5 of the Department of Agriculture Organic Act of 1956, 7 U.S.C. 2228, which was delegated to Under Secretary Wilkes and the Chief of the Forest Service. This emergency subsistence authority authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture to provide subsistence, including for quarters, during emergency conditions. 

 

Since this refund relies upon specific emergency conditions, it is temporary while emergency conditions last. USDA’s Forest Service anticipates leveraging the emergency authority for no more than a year while we concurrently work on government policy changes that address the emergency conditions. Once emergency conditions are addressed, the Forest Service will provide a 60-day advance notice to employees announcing the end of the emergency housing refund. If you live in government-owned housing, there will be future information sessions to help you understand the housing refund and answer any questions you may have. These sessions are tentatively scheduled for the week of July 8. More information will be provided, to include virtual invitation links. Frequently asked questions are available on the National Housing Hub SharePoint site.

     

I also want to acknowledge that this refund doesn’t benefit all our employees. Housing affordability significantly affects the lives of employees across the agency. We are taking this action with the authority and resources available to us. We need to use all the tools in our toolbox, even if they aren’t as far-reaching as we’d like. We continue to: 

1. Submit housing-specific budget requests for congressional consideration through the annual budget process. 

2. Use all possible funds from the FY 2024 budget to prioritize investments in employee housing. 

3. Finalize the National Housing Strategy, a comprehensive plan that will assist the agency in addressing the affordability, availability and condition of Forest Service housing. 

4. Continue to make progress and administer our existing Quarters Program thanks to employees like our national housing project manager, Procurement and Property Services housing managers, and district-based tenant managers. 

5. Collaborate with NFFE. 

 

These collective efforts are consistent with our needs and align with the recommendations of the bipartisan Wildland Fire Mitigation and Management Commission. We continue to explore other creative opportunities to assist you with obtaining affordable housing. I want to emphasize our unwavering commitment to ensuring you have access to safe, comfortable and affordable housing near your duty station.  

  

Your well-being is of utmost importance to us, and we will persist in our efforts to provide you with the support and resources you need to thrive in your role for the Forest Service. Thank you for your hard work and dedication.  

WUI Building Codes and Effects of Wood Products Industry

by

This isn’t a forest-planning story, but interesting. From the Softwood Lumber Board (SLB). Mentions the American Wood Council (AWC). It makes sense to reduce the use of wood in decks and siding, but using non-renewable products has an environmental impact. OTOH, there are wood products treated to be “fire-resistant, such as this one.

 

June 2024

SLB Study Reveals Importance of WUI Code Work in Defending Market Share

Up to 150 MM BF of siding and 770 MM BF of decking from the repair and remodeling market are at risk from Wildland-Urban Interface code changes and adoption, according to an SLB-funded study by Forest Economic Advisors. The study quantifies the importance of the AWC and the SLB’s codes and standards work defending the use of lumber in regions with wildfire hazard.

 

“The FEA study is timely and relevant given recent major wildfire losses and significantly increased WUI code activity as a result,” says Phil Line, Vice President of Codes & Regulations at the AWC. “The study findings that lumber siding and decking are at risk aligns with WUI code requirements that regulate exterior building materials to reduce the spread of fire.”

 

Wildfires have been on a steady increase in recent years. Between 2005 and 2022, more than 100,000 structures were lost to fires in areas where structures and development meet undeveloped wildland or vegetative fuels. More jurisdictions are considering implementing building codes to mandate wildfire-resistant construction in these areas.

 

FEA’s analysis shows that while the use of lumber and structural panels is not affected by WUI codes when used structurally in roofs, walls, and floor systems, lumber volumes in the repair and remodeling market, especially decks and siding, are at risk. While the higher end of the estimates is not likely to be lost over the short to medium term, the potential volumes represent between 7% and 17% of total consumption for siding and 4% and 14% for decking.

 

The AWC is active in the development process for WUI codes including ICC 605, the new standard for residential construction in regions with wildfire hazard. The AWC is also using full-scale fire tests of hardened wood-frame buildings to demonstrate the viability of fire-resistant wood construction versus noncombustible materials alone.

Science Review Shows Fuel Treatments Reduce Future Wildfire Severity

by

This is not news to most foresters, but it’s good to have such a review from three parties, including TNC. Will the review help courts make decisions in cases where enviro groups claim that thinning, etc., do more harm than good? The debate, as ever, centers on whether taking any tree considered mature or old-growth. (Thanks once again to Nick Smith for the link.)

Comprehensive Science Review Shows Fuel Treatments Reduce Future Wildfire Severity

Researchers from the USDA Forest Service Rocky Mountain Research Station, The Nature Conservancy and the University of Montana examined 30 years of fuel treatment effects on wildfire severity.

Excerpt:

Researchers found overwhelming evidence that in seasonally dry mixed conifer forests in the western U.S., reducing surface and ladder fuels and tree density through thinning, coupled with prescribed burning or pile burning, could reduce future wildfire severity by more than 60% relative to untreated areas. The study results were recently published in Forest Ecology and Management. You can download this Science You Can Use in 5 minutes for an overview of the research methods, key findings, management considerations and links to related publications.

Federal Lands Litigation – update through June 20, 2024

by

FOREST SERVICE

New lawsuit:  WildEarth Guardians v. U. S. Forest Service (D. New Mexico)

On June 4, WildEarth Guardians, Western Watersheds Project and Caldera Action sued the Forest Service and Fish and Wildlife Service over continued trespassing by cattle from the Santa Fe National Forest onto the Valles Caldera National Preserve, managed by the National Park Service.  Plaintiffs allege several violations of the Endangered Species Act related to effects on the endangered Jemez Mountain salamander and New Mexico meadow jumping mouse, and the threatened Mexican spotted owl.  The article includes a link to the complaint.  Quote of the month:

Tuell (WWP) acknowledges that fence maintenance and other means of keeping the Valles Caldera free from trespass cattle is expensive. She proposes increasing grazing fees to cover the costs.  “The fee is decades old,” she said. “It’s $1.35 to graze a cow and a calf for a month. I challenge you to find another animal you could feed for $1.35. Maybe a goldfish?” 

End of the road for Sawtooth Mountain Ranch v. U. S. Forest Service

On June, 10 the U. S. Supreme Court refused to weigh in on whether plaintiff’s claim about a trail easement within the Sawtooth National Recreation Area is time-barred, or whether they have any relief available under the Fifth Amendment takings clause.  The district court opinion in favor of the government (upheld by the 9th Circuit) was discussed here.

New lawsuit:  Center for Biological Diversity v. U. S. Forest Service (D. Oregon)

On June 11, the Center filed a lawsuit to protect the federally threatened distinct population segment of Pacific marten from the detrimental effects of off-road vehicle activity in the Oregon Dunes National Recreation Area.  It claims that the Forest Service has failed to comply with ESA, NEPA and its land management plans for the Siuslaw National Forest and the Recreation Area in allowing motorized use to occur.  The complaint specifically targets Forest Service special use permits for large off-highway vehicle events.

New lawsuit:  Oregon Wild v. Warnack (D. Oregon)

On June 13, Oregon Wild and WildEarth Guardians filed a lawsuit against the Youngs Rock Rigdon project on the Willamette National Forest.  They object to the parts of the project that would occur in mature and old growth forests, “given the significant loss of carbon storage and impacts to threatened and endangered species such as the northern spotted owl.”  The complaint alleges violations of NEPA’s requirements for a hard look at environmental impacts and consideration of reasonable alternatives.  The press release includes a link to the complaint.

Court decision in WildEarth Guardians v. U. S. Forest Service (9th Cir.)

On June 18, the 9th Circuit affirmed the district court holding that reinitiation of ESA consultation was not required for the Forest Service’s 1995 national policy on black bear baiting because of increased grizzly bear populations or because two grizzly bears were killed by bear baiting 15 years ago.  (Meanwhile, another grizzly bear was killed by a hunter at a bait station on June 10.  And the new information is not so much that populations are growing but that their range is expanding, and this grizzly was “outside of the species’ known range.”)

BLM

New lawsuit:  Center for Biological Diversity v. Berger (D. Colorado)

Welcome to the world of AI summaries from Google – this is what it gave me for “Pawnee grassland lawsuit:”

“On June 10, 2024, the Center for Biological Diversity, represented by Advocates for the West, filed a lawsuit against the U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to challenge the agency’s authorization of drilling permits in Colorado’s Pawnee National Grassland. The suit claims that the BLM has failed to protect the grassland’s shortgrass prairie from oil and gas extraction, which is a threat to the area. The lawsuit also asks a federal judge to throw out a 2018 policy and 26 permits for wells on and near the grassland.  The lawsuit also claims that the BLM is violating its responsibilities under the Mineral Leasing Act and the Federal Land Policy and Management Act. The BLM stated that it lacked the authority to consider the potential harm to wildlife, air, water, dark skies, or the grassland’s visual character because the federal minerals would be extracted by horizontal fracking from wells built on private or state lands.”

Could be I’ll soon be obsolete.  (The news release has a link to the complaint.)

New lawsuit:  Utah v. Haaland (D. Utah)

On June 18, the states of Utah and Wyoming challenged the recently issued BLM regulations that authorized management of lands for conservation because the agency used a categorical exclusion to meet NEPA requirements.  BLM’s categorical exclusion covers “[p]olicies, directives, regulations, and guidelines: that are of an administrative, financial, legal, technical, or procedural nature; or whose environmental effects are too broad, speculative, or conjectural to lend themselves to meaningful analysis and will later be subject to the NEPA process, either collectively or case-by-case.” 43 C.F.R. §46.210(i).  The complaint alleges that the rationale for applying this CE to this regulation, including  a summary dismissal of extraordinary circumstances, is inadequate and therefore arbitrary (and there is a link to the complaint in this article).

ENDANGERED SPECIES

Notice of Intent to Sue

On June 18, the Flathead-Lolo-Bitterroot Citizen Task Force filed a 60-day notice of intent to sue the state and the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service over the state’s plan to capture grizzlies in the Northern Continental Divide Ecosystem and transport them to the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem to improve the genetic health of the Yellowstone population and contribute to species recovery.  Plaintiffs allege this will harm those grizzly bears and no effects analysis was done. They also disagree with designating the translocated bears as “experimental” with the intent of decreasing their protection under ESA.

Notice of Intent to Sue

On June 20, Center for Biological Diversity, Bird Alliance of Oregon, Cascadia Wildlands, and Oregon Wild threatened to sue the Fish and Wildlife Service over its February decision pursuant to ESA to (again) not list the north Oregon coast population of red tree voles.  Tree voles are harmed by logging and fires, and the area involved is dominated by private lands and Oregon state forests, while the population’s stronghold is now on federal lands.  The news release includes a link to the Notice.

OTHER

Court decision

On June 7, Canada’s federal court determined that Canada’s Minister of the Environment and Climate Change took too long when he waited eight months to recommend the federal cabinet issue an emergency order to protect the northern spotted owl.  This was a violation of the Species at Risk Act.  As discussed here, the Canada population of spotted owls is about to flatline, and logging is still occurring in owl habitat.  According to the recent article,

Logging — alongside roads, railroads and hydro and gas lines — remain primary threats to the spotted owl, wrote the judge in his decision.  Roy said the spotted owl is threatened by climate change, noise disturbance, and competition over prey and habitat with the invasive Barred owl. But the evidence before the court, he said, identified the loss of mature old-growth forest habitat from logging as the primary reason for the owl’s decline.

(No mention of fire.)

Motion to dismiss denied in Atencio v. New Mexico (County of Santa Fe district court)

On June 10, a New Mexico judge cleared the way for a lawsuit filed a year ago to proceed that alleges the state has failed to meet its state constitutional obligations for protecting against pollution from oil and gas wells.  The State has in recent years adopted rule changes aimed at limiting emissions from the oil and gas industry; however, environmental groups have raised concerns about enforcement.  The complaint is here.

Criminal conviction

An individual has pleaded guilty to illegally digging at an archeological site on the DeSoto National Forest in Mississippi, violating the Archaeological Resources Protection Act.  According to court documents, the accused used a tractor to illegally dig at an archeological site that was later determined to have been labeled as a protected site because it contained material remains of past human activities that are of archeological interest.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Please Call Your Congresspersons About HR 5169 and S 2272

by

 

You know I don’t usually ask for folks to contact Congressfolk about things.. I’m making an exception today. I listened to the Hotshot Wakeup podcast in which he interviewed folks from NFFE (federal employees’ union). They and Grassroots Wildland Firefighters are walking the halls of Congress this week, as I understand.  It sounded as if some reticence to pass HR 5169 is either due to just the fact it will cost money or in the hope of some horse-trading on something else.

I get the argument about spending money we don’t have, but I think we can still retain the ability to discern necessities from “nice to have” or even “payback for our friends.”  I’m sure that all of us, R, D, Independent or Whatever,  have suggestions about slack in the federal budget that could be cut to.. pay federal wildland firefighters.

According to the NFFE folks, phone calls to particularly House congressfolk might help.  It’s an easy five minutes, so why not?

Here’s the letter from NFFE, Grassroots Wildland Firefighters and others..

Dear Members of Congress,
As constituents and members of Grassroots Wildland Firefighters, we write to you under dire circumstances that demand immediate attention and action from our legislative and agency leaders. The federal wildland firefighting workforce is the cornerstone of our nation’s ability to build resilience against wildfires, protecting communities and landscapes effectively. Yet, their efforts are hindered by a lack of adequate support and expansion due to congressional inaction and administrative barriers.  We implore you to stop playing partisan politics and be a proactive part of helping to solve the wildfire crisis.
We urgently call upon Congress and the Executive Branch to prioritize and enhance the support for these brave wildland firefighters. They sacrifice their families, health, and well-being to protect us, a testament to their dedication and the gravity of their needs.
Immediate Actions Required:
1. Pass the Wildland Firefighter Pay Protection Act, S.2272: We implore you to bring this crucial legislation to the Senate floor for a vote and initiate its progression in the House of Representatives without delay.
2. Implement Administrative Reform: Define clear, accurate job descriptions with correct grading; provide hazard pay for hazard duties such as prescribed burns; ensure proper job classification reflects the diverse roles and extensive qualifications wildland firefighters are required to obtain.
These actions are not just administrative or legislative tasks; they are moral imperatives that safeguard the lives of those who protect us. The ongoing inaction and bureaucratic delays are unacceptable, especially as we face increased wildfire risks exacerbated by climate change and development into the wildland interface.
As we approach another summer with drought conditions in place, the time to act is now. We, along with your constituents, demand decisive action to address these critical issues. The well- being of our communities and the efficacy of our national response to wildfires hinge on your leadership and responsiveness. Only you can correct these conditions.

Thank you for your attention and we look forward to your swift action and resolution.
Sincerely,

Grassroots Wildland Firefighters
– Luke Mayfield, President

National Federation of Federal Employees

– Randy Erwin, National President
U.S. Hotshot Association
– Randy Skelton, President
Wildfire Industry Collective
– Jonathon Golden, Executive Director
Fired Up
– Janelle Valentine, President
Veterans in Fire Foundation
– Blake Toth, President
Eric Marsh Foundation
– Amanda Marsh, Founder
Megafire Action
– Matt Weiner, CEO
FireUP
– Shefali Lakhina, Founder

WAPA NEPA Jobs- Multiple Locations

by

These look interesting and fun with some in neat places..

Natural Resources Specialist, GS-13,  has posted for multiple duty locations.  The position is open to both current Feds and all US Citizens.  The position is open until June 25, 2024.  Please share with anyone you think may be interested.

https://www.usajobs.gov/GetJob/ViewDetails/795832500 (DE – rest of the US)

https://www.usajobs.gov/GetJob/ViewDetails/795832000 (MP – current Feds and status candidates)

More Hiring Questions: How to Identify NEPA/Project Planning Jobs and Psychological Testing (?)

by

I have run across folks interested in getting into NEPA/project planning with the feds.  I realize the FS has a hiring pause but BLM is still there.

The question folks have is “what words are used in advertising for those jobs?”

They also observed “if you hear from the feds nine months later that you have an interview, you may have already gotten another job.” Sounds very frustrating for applicants and hiring officials.  Does anyone know what makes the process (es) so slow?

Finally, I’ve been told that there are now personality tests (perhaps BLM) that take hours to complete and they do not tell the applicant the score.  It all sounds very odd.  Any observations from the front lines of applying and hiring would be appreciated.

Bipartisan Fix Our Forests Act Introduced

by

I found this on Thomas Hochman’s TwitX feed , and I’m always interested in bipartisan stuff, so went to Rep. Peters (D) press release.

The D’s all look like Californians.

Original cosponsors include Representatives Tony Cardenas (D-CA-29), John Curtis (R-UT-3), Ami Bera (D-CA-6), Pete Stauber (R-MN-8), Jimmy Panetta (D-CA-19), Tom McClintock (R-CA-5), Jim Costa (D-CA-21), Tom Tiffany (R-WI-7), John Duarte (R-CA-13), and James Moylan (R-GU).  

Interesting roundup of folks supporting..

The Fix Our Forests Act is supported by the National Congress of American Indians, Bipartisan Policy Center, the National Association of Counties, the Property and Environment Research Center (PERC), American Forests, the Evangelical Environmental Network, Edison Electric Institute, the Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership, MegaFire Action, the American Conservation Coalition Action, the National Wild Turkey Federation, the American Forest Resource Council, the American Loggers Council, the Arkansas Forestry Association, Associated California Loggers, the Boone and Crockett Club, the Dallas Safari Club, the Forest Landowners Association, the Forest Resources Association, the Hardwood Federation, Potlach Deltic, and Rayonier.

Not the usual suspects on this list include the Bipartisan Policy Center and Megafire Action.

  • Simplify and expedite environmental reviews for forest management projects in the highest risk areas
  • Promote federal, state, tribal and local collaboration on wildfire mitigation while encouraging engagement with landowners and communities
  • Recognize the role that natural fire plays in healthy ecosystems – which is backed by the best available scientific information – while acknowledging Tribal sovereignty in providing for practices like cultural burning
  • Support wildfire resiliency for local communities by focusing on the built environment, innovative technologies and modernized standards
  • Deter frivolous litigation that delay essential forest management projects
  • Create a framework for interagency collaboration to advance wildfire and land management R&D, provide technical and financial assistance to communities, and support efforts by tribes and other governments to address the effects of wildland fire on communities, including property damages, air, and water quality
  • Create a federal-state-tribal framework for prioritizing projects in the forests at highest risk of catastrophic wildfire
  • Encourage the adoption of state-of-the-art science and techniques for federal land managers, including innovative methods to sequester carbon dioxide
  • Ensure that utilities are able to better work with federal partners harden their rights-of-way while mitigating hazards
  • Strengthen tools like Good Neighbor Authority – which presently excludes Tribal Nations – and Stewardship Contracting

The bill may not be going anywhere but we can still discuss the ideas in it.. which might be cannibalized and used elsewhere.  I don’t have time to go through it today but Hochman’s TwitX piqued my interest. Maybe someone has an analysis they would like to share and discuss?

I’d just like to focus on the Fireshed Center for now.. (sorry about the formatting)

SEC. 102. FIRESHED CENTER.
6 (a) ESTABLISHMENT.—
7 (1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary, acting
8 through the Chief of the Forest Service and the Sec9 retary of the Interior, acting through the Director of
10 the U.S. Geological Survey, shall jointly establish a
11 Fireshed Center (hereinafter referred to as the
12 ‘‘Center’’) comprised of at least one career rep13 resentative from each of the following:
14 (A) The Forest Service.
15 (B) The Bureau of Land Management.
16 (C) The National Park Service.
17 (D) The Bureau of Indian Affairs.
18 (E) The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
19 (F) The U.S. Geological Survey.
20 (G) The Department of Defense.
21 (H) The Department of Homeland Secu22 rity.
23 (I) The Department of Energy.
24 (J) The Federal Emergency Management Agency
1 (K) The National Science Foundation.
2 (L) The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
4 (M) The National Aeronautics and Space
5 Administration.
6 (N) The National Institute of Standards
7 and Technology.
8 (2) DIRECTOR.—The Secretary, acting through
9 the Chief of the Forest Service and the Secretary of
10 the Interior, acting through the Director of the U.S.
11 Geological Survey, shall jointly appoint a Director of
12 the Center, who—
13 (A) shall be an employee of the U.S. Geological Survey or the Forest Service;
15 (B) shall serve an initial term of not more
16 than 7 years; and
17 (C) may serve one additional term of not
18 more than 7 years after the initial term de19 scribed in subparagraph (B).
20 (3) ADDITIONAL REPRESENTATION.—The Sec21 retary, acting through the Chief of the Forest Serv22 ice and the Secretary of the Interior, acting through
23 the Director of the U.S. Geological Survey, may
24 jointly appoint additional representatives of Federal
1 agencies to the Center, as the Secretaries determine
2 necessary.
3 (b) PURPOSES.—The purposes of the Center are to—
4 (1) comprehensively assess and predict fire in
5 the wildland and built environment interface through
6 data aggregation and science-based decision support
7 services;
8 (2) reduce fragmentation and duplication across
9 Federal land management agencies with respect to
10 predictive service and decision support functions re11 lated to wildland fire;
12 (3) promote interorganizational coordination
13 and sharing of data regarding wildland fire decision 14 making;
15 (4) streamline procurement processes and cybersecurity systems related to addressing wildland
17 fire;
18 (5) provide publicly accessible data, models,
19 technologies, assessments, and fire weather forecasts
20 to support short- and long-term planning regarding
21 wildland fire and post-fire recovery; and
22 (6) maintain the Fireshed Registry established
23 under section 103.

No one can be against “interagency coordination” but I can’t help but wonder if some of this will distance the modelers from the people on the ground.  I also note that procurement processes and cybersecurity systems will be streamlined, but why not streamline… hiring?  Maybe some or all of this comes from the Commission Report?  How can the agencies make this more effective than what we have currently and not a cluster? Perhaps this is just the beginning of the discussion that needs to happen.