Reorg FOIA II. Bridges and Structures (1) and Funding Needs for Work and Making Government Work Better

I know folks could easily get tired of the reorganization ideas, so I am posting them in bits.

Sometimes, redactions are a bit of a hoot- and we can use them for a FOIA version of Mad Libs.  What lies behind the redacted word or words before “Bridges and Structures Program.” Demonic? Laissez-faire? What would you suggest? It would be interesting to see a copy without the redactions.

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

The next section provided in my interim FOIA results is the “ US Department of Agriculture (USDA) Forest Service (USFS) Bridges & Structures Work – Reorganization Proposal.” OK, so we don’t get to see the recommendations.  What else can we find of interest? I know that this series may be of limited interest to many, that’s why I have the titles of the posts clear.

Here’s my first take on the Roads and Bridges and I don’t know how widely it applies; due to federal requirements that individually seem reasonable, especially when focused on major federal infrastructure, the Forest Service isn’t funded to fulfill those requirements.

Logically, the FS would… consider if they could make requirements that fit better with the FS mission. Perhaps in conjunction with the BLM? We can imagine a school of public administration study that would look at, say BLM and the FS, and see how they implement the same federal regulations.  I guess no one is interested in funding that kind of work to make our government work better? As Anne Healy of Recoding America says in her post “government reform needs a field”

“But the gap is acute, and philanthropy keeps walking past it: dollars flow to working around government’s broken systems far more readily than to fixing them.”

Anyway, we all know that bridges are important for recreation, wildfire, emergencies and so on.  They have a nice description in the report that I won’t reproduce here. Ultimately I will post the whole thing.

Hmm. Sounds like things could be improved.

As Fred Norbury used to say about NEPA, “how can you say it takes too long and costs too much if you don’t know how long it takes and how much it costs?”

******

***

I’ll continue working through the FOIA documents.

Judge Halts USDA Reorganization: What Does That Mean? II. Exploring More About The Court Order

Thanks to a member of the TSW community who shared this court order. This is way above my pay grade, so I’m going to ask lots of apparently stupid questions.  Part of that is due to the fact that I don’t see “reorganization” as one thing for the Forest Service. I see at least four different things

1. Moving HQ to Salt Lake

2.Having one Big RO/WO instead of Regions

3. Having one Big Station/WO instead of Stations

4. Having State Directors

5. Trying to reduce facility costs at the lab/forest level.

It is about USDA reorganization, which the order states is “shutting down offices and relocating employees.”  I wondered how “reorganization” is defined in the appropriations statute.

Isn’t the FS in Interior Approps so (dumb question) is their reorganization language different than USDA’s budget language?

But Interior is, and this is what Google AI says about USWFS

1. The Blotted Executive Action
On January 12, 2026, the DOI unilaterally announced the official creation of the U.S. Wildland Fire Service (USWFS), appointing a new Fire Chief and directing the consolidation of all four internal firefighting units (BLM, BIA, FWS, and NPS) under one command. [1, 2, 3]
2. Bypassing the Reorganization Rules
The DOI proceeded with the internal unification by arguing that it was executing a management alignment “without a change in funding” and without merging external personnel from the USDA Forest Service. [1]
However, because the consolidation restructures the chain of command and impacts far more than the 10-employee personnel threshold, it directly triggered the definition of a “reorganization” or “reprogramming” outlined in Section 421 of the 2026 Act. Critics and congressional appropriators have heavily questioned the legality of this structural change because the DOI bypassed the required written committee approval

So it appears to be OK for USWFS to do it, but not the FS as part of USDA.  Answer: because no one litigated. But why not? Perhaps the unions and Democracy Forward   looked at litigation pros and cons and decided not?

We might wonder “does consolidating people in one building for cost reasons constitute reorganization?” “what if they’re in the same building but have different responsibilities and supervisors?”

As far as I can tell, and I may be wrong, the definition of reprogramming comes from this paper, which is an explanatory statement about the 26 Interior Appropriations Bill. I didn’t check if Ag Approps has the same language.

It’s hard to read, but that’s the copy that came up.

It seems pretty straightforward. I wonder how we could get copies of the DOJ counterarguments?

On the other hand, I’ve worked in offices that moved with over 10 people and I don’t know if Congressional action was required (this was before the current Approps language).

Why the Northern District of California? Forum-shopping?

One story said that DC was exempt. I wonder why?

Finally, when we were talking about Fennessey’s statement about agencies having “the culture of no” perhaps this is another example.  Congress writes language that is fairly vague (that’s my interpretation).. agencies (as perhaps they should) interpret it cautiously… so at the end of the day, it’s just another toggle that has to be on (Congress will approve).  I mean, “the pay’s the same” and all, but it doesn’t make agencies want to invest in updating and improving.  Sure, getting Congressional approval should not be a big deal, but it’s just another toggle at the end of a long line of toggles that have to be switched on.

Wyofile had a copy of the ruling..

 

Judge Halts USDA Reorganization: What Does That Mean? I. Past and Current Reorg Initiatives- Did They Go to Court?

The court case about USDA reorganization is interesting from a number of perspectives.  There is a separation of powers question.. what is the executive branch allowed to do without the explicit approval of Congress? Is this different, for say, rulemaking than for cancelling leases or moving employees? What kinds of decisions trigger Congressional approval? How different is the statutory backdrop to these questions between Interior and USDA? In this post, I’ll give some historical background and next post look more into this specific case.

As an old person, I remember many previous reorganization efforts.  Remember when the research parts of the Interior bureaus were taken out and put together in the National Biological Survey?  It later got folded in to the USGS.  I think it was Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt’s idea.

Then there was BLM getting rid of a management layer, hoping to streamline. Here’s what Google AI says, and I’m hoping humans out there will correct if AI got it wrong.

The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) attempted to remove its district office layer of management in 1994 as part of the Clinton administration’s broader “National Performance Review” initiative (commonly known as “reinventing government” led by Vice President Al Gore). [1, 2]
Under Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt, the plan aimed to streamline the agency by eliminating the intermediate district office level—which sat between the state offices and local field/resource area offices—to reduce costs and speed up decision-making. [1, 2, 3]
However, the restructuring was highly decentralized and met with mixed execution:

  • Inconsistent adoption: Some BLM state directors complied and dismantled their district offices, while others resisted, viewing the move as overly disruptive and expensive. [1]

  • Outcome: The initiative was widely considered a failure due to high relocation costs and broken lease agreements. The management layer was quietly restored across the agency during the subsequent George W. Bush administration. [1, 2]

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

Again, here is what the Clinton Admin did with USDA Reorganization according to Google AI, again, please correct if it is wrong. Note that there was an Act of Congress, which is what the judge points out seems to be lacking for the current Admin effort.

The Federal Crop Insurance Reform and Department of Agriculture Reorganization Act of 1994 (Public Law 103-354), signed into law by President Bill Clinton on October 13, 1994, fundamentally reshaped the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). The legislation represents the modern structural blueprint that the USDA continues to use. [1, 2, 3]
The primary goals of the Clinton administration’s overhaul were to streamline operations, cut bureaucratic red tape, and reduce government spending as part of Vice President Al Gore’s broader “National Performance Review” (reinventing government) initiative. [1, 2]
Key Structuring and Consolidation

The Act granted the Secretary of Agriculture the authority to reduce the number of internal USDA agencies from 43 down to 29: [1, 2]

  • Establishment of Mission Areas: The department was organized along six centralized mission areas overseen by newly created Under Secretary positions:
    • Farm and Foreign Agricultural Services
    • Rural Economic and Community Development
    • Food, Nutrition, and Consumer Services
    • Natural Resources and Environment
    • Research, Education, and Economics (including the Chief Scientist position)
    • Food Safety [1, 2, 3, 4]

  • Agency Streamlining: It combined several functions to build the Consolidated Farm Service Agency (handling price/income supports and agricultural credit) and the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). [1, 2]
  • National Appeals Division: The act set up an independent National Appeals Division to give farmers a neutral forum to dispute adverse decisions made by USDA agencies. [1, 2]

Downsizing and Efficiency Objectives

  • Personnel Reductions: The legislation mandated a workforce reduction of at least 7,500 full-time employees by September 30, 1999. [1, 2]
  • Field Office Closures: To eliminate redundancies, the administration closed or consolidated over 1,100 localized field offices. [1]
  • One-Stop Service Centers: It established unified “USDA Service Centers,” co-locating the Farm Service Agency, the NRCS, and Rural Development agencies so farmers could access multiple services under a single roof. [1]
  • Financial Savings: The restructuring was projected to save taxpayers roughly $3.7 billion in personnel and operating expenses between 1994 and 1999. [1]

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

So, if AI is correct (and I had to add the Clinton Admin to my search to get away from AI getting stuck on current events), USDA had a specific Congressional Act at the time for its previous reorganization, the objectives of which sound surprisingly similar to those of today.

But more recently, the BLM headquarters was moved to Grand Junction, Colorado, and I don’t remember that being stopped by a judge. So, is there a statutory difference between Interior and USDA? Did no one decide to bring a suit? What was different?

Also, the USWFS was formed, and many people disagreed with that. But did no one file a lawsuit against that?

Here are the folks who filed this lawsuit..according to Google AI..

Plaintiffs
  • Federal Labor Unions:
    • American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE)
    • National Treasury Employees Union (NTEU)
    • American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME)
    • National Federation of Federal Employees (NFFE) [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8]

  • Nonprofit Organizations:
    • Including groups like Democracy Forward [1]

  • Cities and Counties:
    • Various local government municipalities and counties across the country

Here’s what Google AI says about why unions went along with Clinton era cuts..

Union Reaction: Major federal employee unions initially raised concerns and cautioned that cutting hundreds of thousands of jobs could strain public services, but the administration’s partnership framework and reliance on attrition/buyouts prevented the severe, chaotic labor friction typical of unilateral workforce slashing. [1, 2, 3]

Of course, many years have gone by since, and at the end of the legal day, this Admin also relied on attrition-buyouts, at least for the FS. As a non-legal person, it’s definitely puzzling. Maybe folks out there have some answers, or at least hypotheses.

Next post:  what are the key issues in this lawsuit?

Welcome to New Contributor Dana Tibbitts!

Welcome to new contributor Dana Tibbitts!  We discuss wildfire quite a bit here, and I hope that Dana’s contributions will get lead to more and better discussion.   Many forces are coming together (the USWFS, technology, and so on) such that wildfire and its management, and fuel treatments and how they are done, may well be in the process of change more than we have seen in our careers.

Note: everyone is welcome to contribute posts, subject to TSW civility constraints, so if you have been thinking “no one has ever expressed my point of view” or “I could do a lot better than what I’ve read at TSW or elsewhere”, please consider submitting!

Biography | Dana Tibbitts

I’ve always been curious about the stories behind the story. That curiosity has led me down unexpected paths, through surprising doors, and more than once left me wondering, How on earth did I get here?

Nine years at UCLA took me from educational policy and legislative affairs to Washington, D.C., and into the vortex of international press operations for the Los Angeles Olympic Games. Corporate communications followed, but I was more interested in the stories nobody was telling.

Then came Harnessing the Sky, the untold story of my grandfather, Vice Admiral Trapnell, godfather of modern naval aviation. From NAS PAX River to Tailhook, we had entirely too much fun taking this on the road.

Along the way, I co-founded a ministry in Ventura County that became a remarkable now 22-year journey of faith, recovery, and service.

Fifteen years in Tahoe opened other doors. My husband and I co-founded TESA, Tahoe East Shore Alliance, and next thing you know, I’m investigating policy, practice and competing narratives on wildfire. Gratefully, my nearly unpublishable License to Burn series found a home with The Smokey Wire.

That venture landed me in the trenches with the National Wildfire Alliance, advancing public awareness, accountability, and determination change wildfire policy:

First put out the fire!

FIGHTING FIRE WITH FIRE

The Fires We Light—and the Acres We Don’t Count

Dana Tibbitts | National Wildfire Alliance

Federal agencies deliberately ignite vast areas of forest in the name of wildfire suppression. A major National Wildfire Alliance investigation exposes how these fires escape separate acreage accounting—and the environmental consequences we still cannot measure.

After Massive Cuts to Forest Service, US Enters Fire Season Woefully Unprepared | Truthout

The federal government is setting fires inside America’s wildfires.

Thousands of acres are deliberately ignited by firefighters using drip torches, helicopters, and drones. These intentional burns become part of the nation’s official wildfire acreage totals, without a separate national accounting of how much land firefighters themselves burned.

This is established federal firefighting practice, known as suppression firing. The rationale is familiar: Fight fire with fire. Burn the fuel ahead of an advancing wildfire, and the approaching flames may have nowhere left to go.

But what happens when the fire deliberately set to stop a wildfire consumes thousands of additional acres? What happens to the old-growth forests, wildlife habitat, soils, and watersheds in its path? And who determines whether the operation saved the land—or unnecessarily burned more of it?

At the heart of this investigation is a question federal wildfire agencies have never adequately answered:

How much of the land burned in America’s wildfires was consumed by the advancing fire—and how much was deliberately burned in the name of stopping it?

That question drives a major September 2026 investigation by Frank Carroll, Vice President of the National Wildfire Alliance (NWA), titled Suppression Firing: Counting the Acres Burned on Purpose.

Federal agencies possess increasingly sophisticated technology to ignite fire across enormous landscapes, yet lack a corresponding national system to account for the acreage and consequences of those operations.

The findings raise fundamental questions about wildfire statistics on which national policy, scientific research, and billions in public spending depend.

The Acres That Disappear Into The Statistics

The magnitude of the practice may surprise Americans who assume firefighters are primarily extinguishing fires, not deliberately setting new ones.

An Australian study of large wildfires in Victoria found suppression firing accounted for an average of 29 percent of the final burned area on fires where the operations could be mapped. On one fire, intentional ignition accounted for an extraordinary 94 percent.

These findings cannot be extrapolated to American wildfires. But they demonstrate how much deliberate burning can contribute to what ultimately appears on official maps as wildfire damage.

How much of America’s reported wildfire acreage results from the same practice?

Nobody knows.

Carroll examined federal National Incident Feature Service archives for 2022 through 2025. Among more than 106,000 distinct completed fireline features, only 1,128 were identified as completed burnouts.

In 2024, just 105 of 988 incidents with mapped firelines included any mapped burnout. In 2025, only 109 of 1,865 did.

These sparse records contrast sharply with federal firefighting doctrine, which describes backfiring as customary during indirect attack.

Worse, burnouts are generally mapped as lines, not areas. Almost none contain the width measurements needed to calculate acreage.

What appears to be a single wildfire footprint may actually combine a naturally or accidentally ignited wildfire with extensive deliberate government ignition operations.

Those are different activities. America’s national wildfire accounting does not adequately distinguish them.

A New Age Of Aerial Ignition

Meanwhile, the technology for lighting fires is advancing rapidly.

Helicopters dispense incendiary spheres or spray burning gelled gasoline across vegetation. Drones deliver hundreds of ignition devices in precisely spaced patterns, including at night and in dangerous terrain.

These tools offer genuine safety advantages, reducing dangerous helicopter missions and exposure for ground crews. But their expanding use demands scrutiny.

According to Forest Service figures examined by NWA, drone ignition treated 128,913 acres in fiscal 2023 and 188,986 acres in fiscal 2024—a 47 percent increase.

The number of incendiary spheres dropped more than doubled, from 322,246 to 733,115.

Those acreage figures do not separately identify wildfire suppression firing versus prescribed burning—the very distinction Carroll’s investigation seeks to establish.

The agencies can count aircraft hours, ignition devices, and acres treated by drones. Yet they do not publish comprehensive figures identifying how much intentional fire is added to active wildfire perimeters.

We have developed remarkable precision in delivering fire without demanding comparable precision in measuring its consequences.

One Fire, Two Sets Of Rules

Perhaps the most revealing finding involves the dramatically different oversight requirements governing intentional fire.

A prescribed burn requires an approved written plan, formal authorization, weather and smoke considerations, contingency procedures, environmental compliance, and monitoring.

But introduce essentially the same fire during an active wildfire, and the rules change.

Federal firing-operations curriculum permits a dynamic, informal plan during wildfire suppression. Decisions to conduct burnouts may be made at the single-resource-boss level.

There is no equivalent national requirement to map deliberately burned acreage, systematically measure ecological effects, or provide prescribed-fire-level documentation.

Consider the implications.

The same forest. The same fuel. The same firefighter. The same ignition device.

Yet profoundly different standards of planning, oversight, and accountability.

Smoke generated by intentional firing becomes part of the wildfire smoke burden without separate attribution. Resource protection relies heavily on incident-level judgment. An escaped burnout does not automatically generate the incident record and mandatory review associated with an escaped prescribed fire.

This is a structural blind spot in the oversight of large-scale government ignition.

 

The Ecological Cost No One Can Measure

The unanswered questions extend far beyond acreage.

Wildfires do not necessarily consume everything within their boundaries. Terrain, weather, moisture, and fuel conditions can leave surviving vegetation—natural refuges that shelter wildlife, preserve seed sources, and help forests recover.

Suppression firing deliberately consumes fuel between an advancing fire and a containment line. Depending on its execution, it may burn areas the wildfire would otherwise have spared.

Research establishes that ignition patterns affect flame length, spread rate, heat exposure, and combustion duration. These factors influence soils, roots, vegetation, and the survival of large, old trees.

Yet Carroll found no controlled field study directly comparing fuel consumption inside mapped wildfire burnouts with comparable free-spreading fire on the same incident. Nor does the national emissions inventory identify how much smoke originates from deliberate firefighter ignition.

Some firing operations have been associated with reduced measured fire severity. But those findings do not resolve what happens beneath the canopy, where prolonged heating can consume organic layers and damage roots.

How much surviving habitat is lost? How much smoke is deliberately generated? How much watershed degradation, soil damage, or delayed tree mortality results? And how often does the acreage burned actually improve containment?

Without distinguishing the deliberately ignited fire from the advancing wildfire, the full costs and benefits cannot be reliably established.

Count The Fire We Light

NWA’s investigation does not argue that all suppression firing should cease. It recognizes legitimate tactical and safety purposes. Nor does it claim every deliberately burned acre would otherwise have escaped the wildfire.

Instead, it demands something fundamental.

Count the acres deliberately burned. Record when, where, and why ignition occurs. Preserve operational decisions. Distinguish suppression firing from prescribed burning and free-spreading wildfire. Measure ecological consequences.

Much of the necessary technology already exists.

Annual wildfire acreage totals inform national policy, management evaluations, research, and public expenditures. Yet if an unknown share of those acres was intentionally ignited by the agencies managing the fires, the statistics are missing a critical part of the story.

The National Wildfire Alliance has placed an essential question before the American public:

How much of the land burned in America’s wildfires was consumed by the advancing fire—and how much was deliberately burned in the name of stopping it?

Until agencies answer, the public cannot fully assess decisions being made in the name of wildfire suppression.

The fires are being lit. The acres are being burned. The consequences are real, even where their extent remains unknown.

The public deserves to know not merely how many acres burned, but who set them burning, why, and what those decisions accomplished.

Because when we fight fire with fire, we must also account for the fire we fight with.

Based on Frank Carroll’s September 21, 2026 research report, “Suppression Firing: Counting the Acres Burned on Purpose,” prepared for the National Wildfire Alliance — Research for Transparency in Government.

National Wildfire Alliance | nationalwildfirealliance.org

 

Managing roadless areas with forest plans

 

Forest planning is not often news these days, but it has shown up as a subheading in some reporting on the rescission of the Roadless Rule.  As in this article from the Asheville Citizen Times (Cory Villancourt, paywalled)

“Shift to local

USDA and the Forest Service argue that forest plans are capable of protecting water, wildlife, recreation, scenery and other resources without a nationwide prohibition.

Under the proposed rescission, individual forests could retain restrictions through their own land management plans. States, tribes and other interested entities could also petition USDA for geographically specific roadless protections.

The department says that system would allow decisions to reflect local ecological, economic and social conditions instead of being governed by a single national rule.

Opponents say that is precisely the approach the Roadless Rule was created to replace.

One of the Forest Service’s own justifications for adopting the rule was that roadless-area management became a major source of conflict and local forest planning did not always account for the national importance of those lands

Without the rule, protection again could become a forest-by-forest and project-by-project fight. Mysliwiec said that would consume time and money on all sides.”

As a planner, I could see that, as a next worse alternative, returning roadless area decisions to forest planning might not lead to much change in most cases – assuming that the status quo for planning purposes is that roadless areas are protected, and that the planning process adequately addresses the values of these areas.  I surmised that in most places, that “major source of conflict” would create a lot of inertia for not amending or revising a forest plan to remove current protections.

Here are excerpts from another perspective from a former Forest Service biologist who worked on forest plans in western states.

“There is something quietly hopeful about forest planning. You are, in effect, shaping the experiences of people and species who will be out in these woods in 2040 and 2050 — trying to ensure the places they inherit will still be whole…

I didn’t leave (the planning job) because I stopped believing in the work. I left because I could see, from inside the agency, what direction the wind was shifting. I sensed that my job was about to pivot away from building a resilient future for these lands to dismantling the safeguards that took decades to develop. I think of it as “unplanning” — the systematic dismantling of protections carefully built over decades…

The U.S. Department of Agriculture released its proposed rule and draft environmental impact statement — the next formal step toward eliminating the Roadless Rule outright. This time, the pitch was largely about forest plans, the same documents in which I specialized. The agency claimed that the “land management planning framework ensures each land management plan addresses similar conservation objectives as the 2001 Roadless Rule was intended to address…

Forest plans matter, don’t get me wrong. They set out a vision for what a forest should look like and, in theory, steer projects toward that vision. But forest plans were never built to be a national conservation strategy. Every forest plan is its own, relatively small-scale document, shaped by its own local pressures, its own local politics and its own planning team working through its own set of tradeoffs.

That’s precisely the patchwork approach the Roadless Rule was created to fix in the first place: the agency recognized the need to protect roadless areas consistently across the National Forest System.”

This author has been looking at the revisions of the Blue Mountains forest plans covering the Malheur, Wallowa-Whitman and Umatilla National Forests, as

“… the first real test case for what forest management looks like without roadless protections.  The results are stark. The draft plan would eliminate roadless-area safeguards outright, open most of these lands to road construction and timber harvest — including old-growth and salvage logging — scrap the road-density limits that keep elk and other wildlife secure and weaken the watershed protections that keep sediment out of salmon and trout streams. This is the unplanning I sensed was coming.”

I’ve also worked a little with the Blue Mountains forest plan revision.  The DEIS labels its alternative without the roadless rule as its “proposed action,” with this explanation:

“In this DEIS, the roadless area issue and alternatives aim to provide a reasonable set of forest planning options so the final forest plan can align with the decision the Department makes about future roadless regulations.”

What it doesn’t do is tell us what that means in terms of individual roadless areas on these national forests.  The Department’s rescission is explicitly NOT making decisions about that, so we should expect forest planning to be clear about it.  We could acknowledge that it’s hard for the NEPA process to hit a moving target, but they seem to be aiming the wrong  way.

The scoped “proposed action” identified all existing inventoried roadless areas as MA 2A Inventoried Roadless Area (IRA).  The no-action alternative would maintain these protections of the Roadless Rule (so the status quo is defined as the Roadless Rule, as I suggested). Alternative 3 (of 3) in the DEIS replicates this management of roadless areas.  (The changes in the proposed action actually suggest a need for rescoping.)

Alternative 2 is referred to as the “Proposed Action, Active Management,” and it appears that the agency position when revising this forest plan would be to just ignore roadless areas.  There is no “IRA” management area in this alternative.  The description of this alternative does not explain what it actually intends to do with roadless areas.  Importantly, the effects analysis does not address specific roadless areas.  While the DEIS includes roadless areas as one of the five issues to address, it purports to do this by a forest-wide accounting of roads and timber management.  There does not appear to be any information in the DEIS that would facilitate examining alternatives for specific roadless areas, or proposing a forest plan alternative that would protect selected areas.

The Forest Service has taken a sledgehammer approach to the history of the development of the Roadless Rule, and the rationale for reversing its policy on these national forests appears to be clearly arbitrary.  The rescission of the Roadless Rule does not require them or authorize them to ignore roadless areas.  In fact, the Roadless Rescission Alternative 3 would require an area-specific look that the Blue Mountains DEIS has not provided.

NEPA requires evaluating the effects of removing existing environmental protections.   Moreover, if you look at the history of litigation of effects on roadless areas (going back to RARE II), it’s clear that NEPA requires disclosure of effects of decisions on specific areas identified as having roadless values (including effects on potential wilderness designation).  There is nothing like that here for the Proposed Action.  The only area-specific information is a listing of roadless areas and acreages protected in Alternative 3.

As a test case, it looks to me like it would flunk. I hope others (and the next try for the Blue Mountains) will take more seriously the agency’s pronouncement that individual forest plans allow for “place-based, collaborative decisionmaking that is responsive to specific on-the-ground resource conditions” with regard to each roadless area.  I think there was even some agreement on this blog that what is needed is a forest-specific look at whether/how each roadless area should be protected.  That hasn’t been done here.  (I haven’t reviewed the DEIS for the national rescission process, which arguably could have provided such area-specific information to tier to, but the Forest Service disclaims any attempt to do this, and this DEIS does not reference anything like that).

(Note that these existing forest plans were written prior to the Roadless Rule, so this doesn’t necessarily serve as a test case for amending or revising newer forest plans to remove protection of roadless areas.)

Mill Closure and Renewal News Roundup

A lumber truck gets weighed while leaving Montrose Forest Products on Sept. 9, 2026. If Colorado’s largest lumber mill doesn’t find a viable buyer by Nov. 6, it will likely shut down. (Tiney Ricciardi, The Denver Post)

As we know, the timber industry in various parts of the country is not in good shape. But it is interesting in terms of roadless talking points… that loggers will be allowed into roadless areas willy-nilly. You’d think someone would have to pick a lane on this- timber as ravenous beast or sick puppy, but .. no. To be sure, the industry is healthier in some parts of the country than others.

What have we heard in the last few weeks?

Closing of the mill in Hulett Wyoming. From Cowboy State Daily:

The company cited a number of factors in a Facebook post about the closure, including high input costs, a limited labor pool, scarce housing, and sustained downward pricing trends. Wyoming’s timber industry has also been struggling for years.

“No single issue brought us here,” the company, owned by Doug and Dena Mills, said in its post. “It was the weight of many.”

The closure is a jolt to the community, whose identity and economy have long been tied to timber and agriculture.

Mayor Brian Kennah estimated the closure leaves about 5% of Hulett’s 349 people looking for work.

Colorado has hope when Neiman bought the Montrose mill but it is going under as well. From the Denver Post business section.

“This is just the latest example of a struggling industry,” said Megan Maxwell, executive director of the Colorado Timber Industry Association. “Losing our biggest mill is going to have a ripple effect across the remaining industry.”

Montrose Forest Products was one of only three commercial-scale mills left in a state that has seen its count fall from 87 to 33, mostly small mills, since 1987, Maxwell said.

The two big players remaining are Colorado Timber Resources near Granby, which focuses on processing beetle-kill timber, and Blanca Forestry Products in Costilla County, a more traditional maker of construction-grade lumber.

Without a viable timber market, restoring forests at scale in Colorado could become much more expensive, Maxwell said.

Both of the above mills are owned by Neiman. As far as I can tell, that leaves them with mills in Spearfish SD and Gilchrist, OR.

And again, it appears that the Lake Tahoe area is trying to go in a different direciton..

The demonstration is part of a new initiative, called Tahoe Wood, which aims to boost local wood utilization to bolster forest health, reduce wildfire risk and support the local community. The initiative, which started earlier this year, is a collaboration between the Tahoe Earth Institute, Tahoe Prosperity Center, and Berkeley Wood Lab. Other demonstration organizers include the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (TRPA), Lake Tahoe Community College, South Tahoe High School, Cody’s Tree Service, Sierra Business Council, and Tahoe Resource Conservation District.

In one of four demonstrations throughout the day, a crescent moon of high schoolers, college students and other participants surrounded the portable sawmill and watched as its operator from Cody’s Tree Service transformed trees into two-by-six-inch boards.

Here’s what Google AI says about Tahoe Wood.

Tahoe Wood is a collaborative regional initiative—rather than a standalone institute—focused on boosting local wood utilization, reducing wildfire risks, and supporting forest health and small-scale entrepreneurship in the Lake Tahoe region.

Key Details of Tahoe Wood

• Core Partners: A collaboration between the Tahoe Earth Institute, Tahoe Prosperity Center, and Berkeley Wood Lab, with support from local agencies like the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (TRPA), Lake Tahoe Community College, and South Tahoe High School.
• Mission: To map and build local markets for excess forest biomass and thinned timber from regional restoration projects, turning local trees into usable building materials instead of hauling or disposing of them off-site.
• Projects & Demonstrations: Features portable sawmill demonstrations (such as at Lake Tahoe Community College) where local students and builders process thinned logs into lumber for community-benefit projects like local bus shelters.

It reminds me of the baseball cap I have from the Colorado Stste Forest Service, “local people, local wood.”. And here we still are.

Perhaps some philanthropic organizations could team up with local people to keep sawmills, or bioenergy or other wood utilization efforts open? Maybe some have and if you know about them you can share in the comments. When I was working with the mountain pine beetle in Colorado, out Wilderness Society friends said that they couldn’t support biomass because they were afraid of it generating its own industrial momentume and taking over, like the bad old days with the timber industry. But that was awhile back.

Then there was apparently a rescue of Malheur Lumber in June of this year (Oregon)

The Malheur National Forest has signed a 20-year Stewardship Agreement with Iron Triangle LLC, a John Day-based forest restoration and wood products company. The agreement establishes a framework for landscape-scale forest restoration, hazardous fuels reduction, timber harvesting, watershed improvement, and habitat restoration across the national forest.

“It is critical to have forest products infrastructure available within our local community. This agreement gives us and our partners the stability to plan and deliver restoration at the scale these landscapes require,” said Ann Niesen, Malheur National Forest Supervisor. “It’s about reducing wildfire risk, improving watershed health, and supporting the communities that depend on these forests.”

The agreement comes at a critical time for Grant County. Malheur Lumber — the county’s largest sawmill — permanently closed in early 2025, a loss the Oregon Employment Department estimated at 206 jobs and $58 million annually. Iron Triangle, which employs more than 110 people locally, has acquired the mill’s manufacturing assets and is investing in local processing infrastructure to preserve the region’s wood products capacity.

“The 20-year nature of this agreement provides important long-term stability for our employees and their families,” said Russ Young of Iron Triangle LLC. “It also gives us the stability needed to invest in our workforce, equipment, and infrastructure for the future. Our workforce takes a great deal of pride in the work they do, and this agreement allows them to continue delivering meaningful restoration work that benefits the forest and the surrounding communities.”

Under a stewardship agreement, the Forest Service partners with qualified entities to achieve land management goals. Iron Triangle will perform restoration activities in exchange for forest products generated through those treatments, with the Forest Service reimbursing the difference where service costs exceed timber value. Iron Triangle was selected using a best-approach determination based on past performance, technical capability, community benefit, and mutual interest.

I wonder why major philanthropies are not in this space? They seem to have moved into the wildfire space without much trouble. Maybe it’s too techy or business-y. Or maybe they are and I haven’t heard. I do recall the US Endowment for Forests and Communities working on a torrefaction plant in John Day.

Also federal bucks can help, via wood innovation grants..

Malheur Forest Products owner, Russ Young, said, “We’ve fought through some difficult years to keep people working and keep the forest products industry alive in Grant County. When times were tough, we stayed, we kept investing, and we kept believing in this community. This $2+ million investment will help us build on that commitment by putting Malheur Forest Products back to work, creating family-wage jobs and strengthening the infrastructure needed to actively manage our forests. We’re grateful to USDA and Senators Wyden and Merkley for investing with us in the future of Grant County.”

According to U.S. Senators Ron Wyden and Jeff Merkley, the U.S. Forest Service is investing a total of $15,091,037 across 20 wood innovations projects in Oregon.

Why We Get the News We Do: SEJ Reporters’ Toolbox on Grazing- Looking For the Bundy-Adjacent

A cattle crossing on public lands in Wyoming. Federal grazing data covering thousands of permits can reveal newsworthy investigative findings. Photo: Bureau of Land Management Wyoming via Flickr Creative Commons (United States government work).

I belong to the Society of Environmental Journalists.. now there are many interesting things that could be reported on. Like the use of cattle for reducing fine fuels that  David Marston wrote about in the Denver Post. Or the recent incursion of 25 cattle that wandered into Yellowstone Park, which provided an opportunity for the Cowboy State Daily to write about some interesting history of cattle in the Park.

 

But I think you can tell from this “Reporter’s Toolbox” what they are looking for and what they will write about.

Reporter’s Toolbox: Grazing Data Unlocks Public Land Stories

Just about anyone can access data on federal grazing permits. But as an environmental journalist, your job may be finding the favoritism behind them.

Almost all federal permits for grazing cattle, sheep and horses on the open range are administered by the Interior Department’s Bureau of Land Management. It keeps records, even though it wants you to keep your nose out of “their” business. Don’t.

The database can be found at what it calls the Rangeland Administration System. The whole grazing system is pretty complicated. But BLM explains it here.

The data is online, searchable and downloadable in both flat file and geospatial forms. You can browse anonymously, but they try to make you sign in.
<h3>Grazing as journalistic gold

This stuff can be actual news. BLM this year revised its grazing regulations, making it illegal for environmentalists to lease land purely to conserve it. Ranchers liked that; conservationists didn’t.

This year, it also kicked bison off some leases. Ranchers liked that; conservationists didn’t. A judge stopped it, at least temporarily.

And the independent news desk Public Domain has been reporting that controversial Interior official Karen Budd-Falen has been skirting conflict of interest rules (her family holds interests in the grazing system).

How to use the data smartly

Toolbox thinks the BLM data probably has considerable integrity — if only because it gets a lot of it. But it’s hard to tell. We do expect this of government data these days.

The best use of this data is probably as a tool in investigations. You can start with a leaseholder name or ranching company — and then follow that leaseholder through other connections in various ways.

What you are looking for, typically, is favoritism. You may remember that grazing rules and fees were at the heart of the armed Bundy standoff between armed ranchers and feds in 2014.

As always, groundtruth everything. Literally, go there. Interview everybody but the cattle.

I looked up the “independent news desk” “Public Domain” – from Google AI.

As an independent, non-profit environmental news desk that relies on public records and litigation to conduct adversarial journalism, its key institutional backers include:
• The Wilderness Society
• The Campion Foundation

While I believe that the foundations don’t edit specific stories (hence “independent”), they don’t really need to, based on whom they give grants to and the people those groups hire.

Some reporters are simply curious and interested in what’s going on. Others are out there looking for bad things that fit their narrative (incipient Bundys). No wonder people are depressed by the news.

Trees Aren’t Going to Grow Back Because… Scary Climate News Stories: I. WaPo

Folks studying reforestation post-fire in New Mexico at UNM:

From this Marsh et al. paper 

 

There have been a couple of these stories recently that follow the same script..with different folks interviewed in different parts of the country. So I’ll place them “in conversation” as they say, with other studies and reporting.  Yes, I think we already knew that if there are no Momma trees left, there won’t be baby trees.  But that is a mechanistic view of the world, I guess, and nowadays we can predict things, so we are told, without understanding the mechanisms.

From the WaPo on October 7..

But in 2011, the Las Conchas Fire ripped through the landscape, breaking what was then the record for largest blaze in state history. The fire was so extreme it killed nearly every conifer across thousands of acres of land. In the aftermath — made hotter and drier by human-caused warming — many species were unable to re-germinate. New plants began to colonize the empty space, including stunted oaks and invasive weeds.

***********

Coop worked with other experts on two recently published studies to show how rising global temperatures are allowing fires to burn bigger, faster and more intensely, making it difficult for vegetation to recover. These blazes are fundamentally unlike those that ecosystems evolved to handle, the research suggests, and the places they strike will likely never be the same.

***********

These fires carry the telltale characteristics of events that can lead to profound ecosystem change, Coop said.

In his first study, published in August in the journal Science Advances, he and his colleagues analyzed nearly 3,500 fires that occurred in conifer forests across the U.S. and Canada. They discovered that the fastest growing fires tended to burn bigger areas and create larger “high severity” patches, where the vast majority of trees are killed and soils are scorched. They also result in greater distances between areas of bare earth and the surviving trees that could be potential seed sources.

What emerges in the aftermath is often quite different from the forest that existed before, Coop said. Grasses and other herbaceous plants, whose seeds can be carried long distances by the wind, rapidly take advantage of any empty space. Ponderosa pines are replaced by trees like aspen, which can regrow from underground root systems.

“It’s still an ecosystem, but it’s not the ecosystem that has dominated this landscape for the last 9,000 years,” said Craig Allen, an ecologist at the University of New Mexico who was not involved with the Science Advances study.

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

Long after a fire is extinguished, the environment remains hostile to species that evolved to grow in a cooler and wetter climate. Even when scientists try to replant burned areas, Allen said, the seedlings frequently don’t survive.

***********

The easiest way to curb such landscape-altering disasters, Allen said, is to allow more low-severity fires to burn. Prescribed fires and naturally occurring blazes that happen under the right conditions — cool temperatures, low winds — can reduce the buildup of vegetation that gives rise to the worst infernos.

OK. Yes. I think we knew that.

Yet these measures can only achieve so much amid the intensifying conditions created by greenhouse gas pollution, Allen said. Fires will continue to burn bigger and hotter as global temperatures rise. Young trees will have an even harder time germinating in a climate that becomes increasingly less like the one in which they evolved.

So…yes the Wildfire Tech summit is this week, and how big the future fires are is more related to suppression efforts than air temperature.

Also, the term germination has a specific definition “germination is the process by which a dormant seed, spore, or pollen grain “wakes up” and begins to sprout, grow, and develop into a new organism.” There are people who studied germination- and you can find info on those studies in the Silvics manual.

I was thinking “why did the reporter not talk to Matthew Hurteau or cover these efforts by those scientists?” This article about New Mexico’s and UNM efforts was from June of this year.

And then there’s evolution. Don’t you think the capacity of a tree species to adapt might depend on its adaptation mechanisms? Which may not be understood by folks with expertise in observing systems as opposed to working directly with forest trees.  It’s a fascinating dichotomy.  Recent research topics of  Coop include:

  • Landscape-scale forest management for ecological resilience

  • Wildfire and climate-driven conversions of forests to alternate and non-forested states.

  • The role of forest residuals and refugia in maintaining species and promoting forest resilience to changing climate and disturbance regimes

  • Prescribed fire as a tool for increasing forest persistence through subsequent wildfire.

To predict the future of forests, wouldn’t you have to understand a) tree species genetic and epigenetic adaptation mechanisms, b) the current status of reforestation knowledge, c) suppression future policies and technologies, d) future presence of PODs, and other fuel treatments across the landscape?

It’s interesting to see how over time, the hiring of different disciplines at universities (generally guided by availability of government funding) leads researchers to notice some things, and overlook other things- like what forest geneticists know about conifer adaptation, or what the people planting trees have observed, or what people know about planting trees after many years of doing it.  And of course, in south central Oregon, we had trouble getting reforestation success in the 80’s.. and had people working on it.  And in SW Oregon there was the FIR program with OSU on improving reforestation.
Maybe the WaPo will feature Hurteau’s lab’s work in another story?