“A New Place to Land” for the Forest Service: And How the New Administration Can Help

by
I typed in “Forest Service landscape people future” to MicroS Designer AI and got this.. oh well. I wonder what’s in the box? A toilet-cleaning drone? 40 external hard drives with documentation for one forest plan?

 

Many thanks to Phil and Frank for posting their ideas for FS improvement.  This seems to be a window of opportunity to make suggestions, both because of the current situation in the Forest Service, and also because there are people in the new Admin interested in organizational improvement and efficiency.  And, as I’ve pointed out before, it’s been awhile since organizational improvement of the USG received any kind of focused attention by an Admin.  When I say “current situation in the Forest Service”,  I mean the idea of no temporaries next year- something that has never happened before, and dare I say, shouldn’t actually happen.  Plus, there’s the mystery of why it is so difficult to find out what happened to all the BIL and IRA funding- where it went and what was done with it.   It’s both puzzling and annoying that millions of dollars have gone out without, apparently, one salary for communicating with the public.  Perhaps that position would seem like an unnecessary remote GS 12 or 13.. but, as we see, “unnecessary” is in the eye of the beholder.  This is definitely an inflection point, and hopefully someone (the agency? a FACA committee? politicals? all of the above?) to take a look at what’s been going on with the agency and determine what they should do going forward.

Unlike Frank, I am not sure that Agency leadership is the problem.  For one thing, we don’t know how much of the two problems above was brought on, directly or indirectly, by politicals.   For another, it is the most natural thing in the universe for institutions to accrete layers of bureaucracy, and the most unnatural (and likely to get you in trouble) to question or attempt to reduce it.

What surprised me about our discussion of Frank’s and Phil’s ideas was how much people agreed.

Something different is needed.  (Jim F., Phil, Frank, Anonymous)

There are things in FAM that need a closer look: examples, managed fire (Frank, Phil), retardant (Frank and probably Andy), contracting (Lesa).

From Anonymous

” Most important is responsiveness of the agency to targets, to public requests, and to Congressional committees that hold the purse-strings. This includes being seen being responsive. How you get there is less important. Leadership should absolutely consider new ways of doing business to make this refocusing….

So doing the tasks of a bureaucracy in a “non-bureaucratic” way to meet mandates in a transparent, fast(ish) way. Eliminating check-box type steps in planning, NEPA, and public engagement. Not being cagey on wildfire strategy. Better websites. “

I think most of us would agree on those, although “check-box steps” may be in the eye of the beholder.

Jim Furnish and Dave Mertz point out that we really can’t go back, and we need a “new place to land”.  I think the next step is to ask for posts on “what the new place to land looks like.”

I agree with them.   I feel the same way about HRV or HRV- infused NRV.. time’s arrow works one way.

Pragmatically,  as Dave points out, the infrastructure is not there.  We need new infrastructure to even handle piles of fuel reduction material without burning into the atmosphere.

Here are my thoughts.

1. Identify places of success.. say the SERAL project in California on the Stanislaus.  Whatever “it” is they seem to be doing it.  Ask them to identify what would make their jobs better.  The mission is still probably “caring for the land and serving people”.   At least, that’s what I see on the forests I visit.

**To any future political appointees possibly reading, the fact is that employees can have great ideas that are often quelched by various organizational forces.  That was the beauty of the 1980’s Pilot effort, until it in turn was quelched.  Plus you will get employee positive vibes by making their jobs easier, which may be useful in building good relationships, that will pay off if you want to institute less popular changes.  Finally, you don’t have to believe in the Deep State to think that changes with employee support can have more staying power during future Admins.

2.  To go forward instead of back, it seems to me that we need a plan at the Forest or landscape level.  This would be a wildfire (PODs, fuel treatments, evacuation route) plan amendment with an EIS that covers establishment and maintenance and prescribed fire, and managed fire parameters. I’d stick a fork in plan revisions until this work was accomplished for all “wildfire forests.” Of course, this plan would be integrated with county, State and community plans.  Right now, in some places I know, it seems to be a cluster of State and federal grant programs doing random acts of preparedness.

So maybe the new way is ” the Forest Service, with our partners, are managing vegetation and fire to promote resilience of  National Forests to stressors,  and to continue to provide watershed protection, wildlife habitat, and recreation opportunities.”  We don’t need to overthink this.

3.  Remember those old SWOT analyses? Strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats?  We can ask the question “what does this Admin bring to the table that is an opportunity?”  I see two obvious ones:

a) helping fix longstanding federal hiring and accounting obstacles and systems.  USA Jobs. The story of how the FS got so deeply in the hole without knowing.  Does accounting for timber sales/stewardship/ service contracts have to be so complicated?  Not to diss partners but if the FS is giving them funding because contracting and hiring is too difficult, that’s a problem, in my view.

b) fuel treatment waste wood utilization.  The Admin has many folks outside of government to call upon, knowledgeable about business and technology, operations, markets and capital, and all that.   For forty years or more, folks have been trying to find uses for extra woody material.  As Dave points out.. 4FRI, and they are still trying.  I’d get some top folks on this.. interviewing people who are trying right now, maybe reviewing the last 40 years of lack of success, including wood utilization grants.  We (in our communities) have been unable to solve this problem. We need help!

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

Other ideas? Also, even if you have not posted here before, please consider writing a post on what Jim F. calls  “a new place to land.”  I’d especially like to hear from someone in the Eastern half of the country.  Current employees: you can always be anonymous.  Someone out there is an inspiring writer, I’m sure!

 

Time for Leadership Change: Guest Post by Frank Carroll

by

I asked Frank Carroll to write a piece on what he thinks Forest Service leadership should do differently..here’s what he sent. Thank you, Frank!  I’m sure this will lead to some interesting discussion.

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

It’s time to clean house in the upper ranks of the USDA Forest Service. The just-concluded election offers an opportunity to do so. As in life, so in government; the status quo requires a reset periodically to recognize and adapt to changed conditions. There is precedent for executive action to rewire government agencies to be responsive to the realities of the incoming administration and radically new approaches.

Following Western settlement and government efforts to rescue an agricultural Eden from the vast arid West by building and operating water impoundments to irrigate fields and provide power to newly rising communities, the USDI’s Bureau of Reclamation (BoR) found itself without a portfolio and facing bureaucratic extinction. Nimble thinkers in politics and government recast the Bureau as a flatwater recreation outfit and changed its mission and political support base accordingly. A new social license gave them a very popular water sports constituency and left them intact with the engineering technicians and professionals to maintain the complex system.

For over 90 years, Forest Service Chiefs sought to operate above the fray of Senate confirmation hearings and wrangling for political appointments. Agency leaders asserted their leadership as a professional class of neutral experts overseeing the greatest good for the greatest number over time. It worked for almost a century. Career Chiefs were tolerated and even encouraged. When the Agency’s mission, workforce, and ecosystem services were fully functional, clearly understood, and socially licensed by a supportive public, there was no need to shake up the sober and highly respected foresters and range scientists who make sure trees and grass grow sustainably, in perpetuity.

Today, the Forest Service is a mess. Deeply in debt (a billion dollars this fiscal year alone) and reduced for its social license to dependence on its role as a wildland fire department, the Agency is badly off course. Lacking accountability and poorly led and managed, the decentralized model that once made the outfit among the most effective in government has fallen into a caricature of past competence. The Chief has abandoned his role in sustainably managing our natural resources. He gives millions of dollars and direct management responsibility to outside, environmental non-governmental organizations (ENGOs) to manage what he will not or cannot.

Many employees no longer report to the office to share the synergies of working together, provide immediate access to the public, build esprit de corps, raise new generations of employees by mentoring and daily example, share knowledge, skills, and common sense, and form the beating cultural heart of their local communities. No champions have risen in the ranks since the pandemic to redefine its role in the larger government. Without a solid footing and a firm base of public and cooperator support, no future path would compel the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE pronounced doggie) to keep the Forest Service going in its current state.

The Forest Service never recovered from the profound effects of the upheaval around agency management prerogatives following the Forest Wars of the 1990s in the Pacific Northwest. Spotted owls and the greater good suffered from myopic political compromises that crashed traditional community relationships with the National Forests and Ranger Districts and subjected the Agency to narrow political and environmentalist interests for which the Chief had no social license. Top-down decrees sought to “save spotted owls” at the price of sustainable rural economies. Agency strength and capabilities dwindled as increasingly restrained leadership searched in vain for a new place to land.

As Service leaders teetered on the brink of irrelevance in their search for a path forward, the disruptive power of the late pandemic struck like lightning on a summer afternoon, further isolating, confusing, and shredding any hope of leveraging the synergies of people and communities that long served as the bedrock of ecosystem services and public confidence in the Agency. The forest and grassland bureaucracy found itself stumbling into its old white-hat standby, wildfire management, as its raison d’etre.

Fear of the pandemic, low morale in the transition from natural resources management to virtually full-time wildfire management, failed legal support to back the multiple-use mission against often-frivolous lawsuits, lost public confidence in the government, and employee personal work preferences in an otherwise rudderless agency conspired to scatter the Green Machine and her people to the wind, leaves randomly falling wherever whimsy might lead.

The Chief and the Executive Leadership Team surrendered management priorities and future direction to a “Fauchian” cabal of misinformed CDC initiatives, uninterested OGC attorneys, a focus on work consolidation for its own sake, and a new focus on employee-centric remote work and telework. After all, any duty station and work method would do in an agency without meaningful purpose and direction. Employee safety and comfort became the single focus of agency leaders. Chief Moore has promised to keep employees safe and protect their salaries as his preeminent mission. “The goal of the agency,” he wrote, “[is] to ensure we continue to pay and take care of all employees currently working for the Forest Service.” The motto “Caring for the land and serving people” is a dim memory from a formerly very intentional provider of a wide array of  ecosystem services.

As the pandemic unfolded, absent scientific evidence and without the courage of their convictions, fearful leaders first cajoled and then intimidated the workforce into accepting the medical judgment of people no one trusted and the management advice from people no one knew. Employee confidence hit rock bottom, replaced by the fiction that any activity was better than no activity and that any path would be acceptable in the crisis. Employees retreated to their homes, sealed the doors, and joined the Laptop Class of teleworkers now under universal  condemnation because of excesses of illiberal bureaucratic power to grant any boon to those who do not directly contribute to the financial health and capacity of the Nation. Those who spend our taxes are less cautious with our collective bank accounts than those who pay taxes or make a living from private efforts and sacrifice.

Suppose telework and remote duty stations were a good idea on a limited basis. In that case, they are now anathema to a Nation resurgent in its need to ramp up economically vital industries, including our War industries, to support the international interventionism of the past four years worldwide. A new sheriff has arrived with a new message: get back to work. As Van Elsbernd so presciently observed, when the Agency decides to do something, you’d best figure out how to get it done or get out of the way before you find yourself under the bus.

As in World Wars One and Two, the urgent priority for our precious natural resources is to provide raw materials for our weak but rising industrial base. Focused on intentionally using wildfire to “restore fire to fire-dependent ecosystems,” Forest Service leaders have neither recognized nor pivoted to the most urgent change in National priorities in the current century. The lack of a coherent policy and compelling leadership on issues related to the new priorities, like healthy and efficient ecosystem services, means the Executive Leadership Team has been asleep at the wheel.

A new Chief and Executive Leadership Team will have urgent priorities to address in the first two years of the Trump administration.

1. Forest Service wildfire suppression and control policies aimed at sustainable outputs and outcomes in perpetuity (living functional forests) have been replaced by “alternative suppression strategies” like “monitoring.” The new leaders mustquickly pivot to a regulated, transparent, and accountable fire suppression and control policy that prioritizes private property, public safety, agency accountability, and environmental protection. There is currently no legal basis for intentional wildfire use and no adequate or comprehensive effort to document and disclose cumulative effects. Alternative arrangements from CEQ have now fallen away along with the Chevron deference, both of which provided cover for current
policies.

2. Common fire-retardant chemistries pose environmental and health concerns due to their compositions, which contribute to nutrient pollution, threaten water quality, inhibit plant growth, and pose potential health risks to the public and firefighters. Phosphorous and magnesium chloride are famously ill-suited to safe effective use in either ground or aerial operations. Continuing lawsuits for the past 15 years increasingly threaten the viability of what should be one of our most effective suppression and prevention tools. The EPA Safer Choice program has identified new chemistries that are more effective and much safer, and that require much less handling and maintenance than current products. They can be sprayed or dropped in advance and work bone dry until washed away in fall rains.

3. An otherwise promising agency contracting system, VIPR Virtual Incident Procurement, has been preempted and neutralized. The Agency organization in charge of VIPR insists on forcing a potentially effective, computer-based system that would quickly order equipment and services for emergencies, into a 1960s style review and authorization maze of old school, Soviet-style bureaucracy.  Urgent reform of the incident management system for wildfire response is needed by separating emergency and non-emergency operations, promoting
district-level contracting, and increasing efficiency through proactive planning and resource management within 24 months. As it stands, VIPR is several steps back from improved service, embracing instead a slow and unresponsive jobs program for underemployed SES and GS Fantastics who work from home in scattered teams and stove-pipe organizations who answer to no one. The entire premise for system success, that all contracting would proceed directly from the Ranger District to the contractors, is subsumed under a suffocating and employee-centric management scheme.

Leadership change is key to an entirely new outlook and performance expectations. The new Chief will be a disruptor, a person in a hurry, and a change agent on an epic scale. The mediocre comfort zone, the shattered and scattered agency employees and organizations, and the days of working from home in a place far removed from your physical duty station are ending.

My peers and I would tell you it’s going to be alright. All will be well. Current employees will get it figured out through attrition, resignations, voluntary transfers, and by making themselves committed and dedicated members of Smokey Bear’s personal friends, the United States Forest Service.

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

Frank Carroll is managing partner of Professional Forest Management, LLC, PFMc, a full service forestry and grassland consultancy.

Phil Aune: Our Forest Legacy

by

A few months ago I posted about the ongoing and informal National Wildfire Institute (NWI) and its current efforts in context to its past history: https://forestpolicypub.com/2024/10/02/burned-out-us-forest-service-is-destroying-our-western-towns/

One of these efforts is the “National Wildfire Emergency” project envisioned and spearheaded by Lake Tahoe writer, Dana Tibbitts, whose current and former homes have been subjected to evacuations, wildfire threats, and deadly smoke pollution several times in the current and recent years.

A cornerstone to this effort has been three recorded Zoom meetings with 16 prepared statements by 14 participants — including a dozen national and regional experts on wildfire management and forest restoration. I have been working with Dana and Nadine Bailey and Luke Van Mol by developing transcriptions of the various statements in order to better document these events and contribute to the video editing process.

One of the experts contributing to this project is Phil Aune. His statements are very much in accordance with recent discussions on this blog regarding the abrupt departure from proven reforestation methods and research by the US Forest Service and others in the 1980s:

My name is Phil Aune. I have a 50-year career in the forestry arena — 37 years with the U.S. Forest Service, and with my last assignment as 13 years as a research program manager. After that I served six years as Vice-President of the California Forestry Association, and since I flunked retirement after we moved to Spokane, Washington, I went to work as a consultant for the American Forest Resource Council.

We’ve lived in Spokane, Washington for the last 20 years, but I constantly go back to California [to] see my grandchildren, and on the way I usually take time to look at some of the wildfires. It’s easy to see —  they’re everywhere.

I’m also on the Board of Directors of the Evergreen Foundation, that’s Jim’s [Petersen] foundation, and I’m also a member of the Board of Directors of the National Museum of Forest Service History.

What I’m here to talk about today is what I call “the legacy.” The legacy of wildfires. And I’m primarily talking about Oregon, Washington, and California, where I have some experience. I also see it in Idaho and Montana, in my travels around those States.

The first point I see is the vast majority of the dead trees are not being salvaged. The first legacy that we’re going to see is thousands and thousands of acres of black, standing trees, as long as they’re standing for the next 20 to 30 years.

Meanwhile, trees will ultimately die and fall to the ground and become fuel for the inevitable next wildfire, making it even more difficult to control and, more importantly, all that fuel will now be on the surface, and that surface fuels will concentrate the heat on the upper end of the soil profile, severely damaging the soil.

So it’s a long-term productivity effect that no one has really researched extensively — to follow up exactly what’s happening to these wildfires, especially the reburns that have occurred in wildfire areas.

Very little of the ground in the legacy is being reforested, and we’re developing a huge reforestation backlog. Keep in mind that in 1976, in a National Forest Management Act portion, Congress dictated us — to the Forest Service — to develop the reforestation background.

And here’s what the National Forest Management Act said, in Section 4 (d)(1): “It is the policy of Congress that all forested lands in the National Forest system shall be maintained in appropriate forest cover . . .”

“Shall be maintained in appropriate forest cover!” Where in the heck is that going on?

“. . . with the species of tree, degree of stocking, rate of growth, and conditions of stands designated to secure the maximum benefits for multiple use and stained yield concepts in the land management, according to the land management plans.”

So why aren’t they reforesting these lands? That’s a big question.

Congress even developed the funding mechanism necessary to reforest all the lands in the backlog. It was called R and I Fund: “Reforestation and Stand Improvement.” The money came from offshore oil receipts. It wasn’t even a problem in getting the funds — and if we start looking at our resources in total, we can expand our oil production, expand our revenues from that. It all works together to making life easier for everyone.

The real reforestation backlog that was declared in 1976 has grown substantially. And if you look at the last 20 years, that’s where the bulk of the backlog is growing.

Well, what’s going to happen to all of these lands?

The lands that are not actively reforested will change into brush and hardwood communities for the next 75 to 100 years. Yes, they will naturally regenerate, but how much time do you have? How much time do our children have?How much time do our grandchildren, our great grandchildren? This is a real issue. We’re leaving black forest and brush fields in what once was magnificent conifer forest . . . that’s the condition that our grandchildren will receive.

Next point I’d like to make is we don’t have to do that. We have the knowledge and skills from science-based reforestation. And I can speak personally from that, as a research program manager whose mission was to look at the entire reforestation cycle for the last . . . 13 years of my career — plus the practical experience I had during the time Iwas in active management.

The Forest Service has this background, and it includes the following necessary steps:

Collection and storage of the seeds — the cones and the seeds that we’re going to need to reforest the land. It’s a no-brainer. We have to establish nurseries to grow these seedlings. We don’t have to have bare-root nurseries. We can go with container nurseries. But the Forest Service has to start expanding if they’re ever going to get back on top of thereforestation backlog.

Here’s probably the most critical point: you need prompt salvage of the wildfires. Roger [Jaegel] spoke about that at length. That what’s happening — if you don’t salvage them, those trees are still going to be there, and they’re fuel. And then, from a common-sense point of view: does it make sense to cut green trees when you got thousands and thousands of dead trees to cut that are still utilizable?

We need to do proper site preparation. We’ve got to have planting crews available. It’s a temporary work job, and we definitely need to provide for common-sense planting crews and have that workforce available.

The biggest point we have to do is prepare to reduce plant competition after planting because, as we live in most of the California, Oregon, and Washington, in the dry Mediterranean type of environments, the seedlings have to survive with the moisture that’s left in the soil, and unless you control the grass and the brush — competing plants — all of your planting efforts will be for nil, as many, many of the trees die. I’ve investigated thousands of acres of dead seedlings, and the biggest factor that you find after planting, and you go look at why they die, is we didn’t control plant competition.

Reforestation is a commitment to all of these processes — and just as much as not reforesting is a commitment to understanding and recognizing that it’s going to take centuries for all these forests to eventually regenerate naturally.

Joe [Reddan] mentioned the Organic Act of 1897. When Congress [passed the Act, it had as] one of the key purposes to provide for the protection and maintenance of our National Forests [ . . .]. How can we look the public in the eye and say: “we are providing for the protection and maintenance?”

The second major factor was: protect the headwaters of navigable streams. Where, on God’s Green Earth, have theyever protected the headwaters of navigable streams with using concepts like “managing wildfires for resourcebenefits,” which is just a euphemism for not fighting fires promptly.

The last one was that they — after they provide the protection and maintenance — the third purpose was to provide for continuous supply of timber for the citizens of the United States. Good luck on that one! Thank you very much.

Happy Thanksgiving! And Walter Lippman Quotes

by

Happy Thanksgiving to all! I’ll be off until next Monday.

I am grateful to all of you at TSW, official contributors, guest posters, and commenters.  I’m thankful for Forest Service (and BLM) folks of all geographical areas and kinds of jobs, both for how they help us at TSW , and more generally for the great work that they do.  I’m calling out some of the less-appreciated folks here, special uses, including recreation; lands and minerals, and engineering. I’m thankful for FS partners and volunteers of all sizes and descriptions.

And, of course, the folks at Cloud Nine Web Design, WordPress, and all the folks keeping energy going to the various servers.

Roger Pielke, Jr. had some applicable quotes  from early 20th century American pragmatist, journalist and political commentator for our work here in his Thanksgiving post this morning.

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

“Lippmann recognized that intellectual hospitality is easy to call for but difficult to achieve. In The Public Philosophy (1955), Lippmann observed presciently that achieving disagreement is not so easy:

[T]he modern media of mass communication do not lend themselves easily to a confrontation of opinions. The dialectical process for finding truth works best when the same audience hears all the sides of a disputation. . . Rarely, and on very few public issues, does the mass audience have the benefit of the process by which truth is sifted from error – the dialectic of debate in which there is immediate challenge, reply, cross-examination, and rebuttal.

Today’s legacy and social media, rather than ushering in an era of healthy democratic debate, have arguably made it easier for those so motivated to avoid encountering — and to prevent others from encountering — a diversity of legitimate views necessary to sift truth from error. Echo chambers, epistemic bubbles, block lists, partisan media, censorious content moderation, cancel culture and so on are dynamics that many of us are familiar with — some of us a bit too familiar, ahem — and that get in the way of the discourses that make democracy healthy and effective.

Lippmann argued that freedom of speech and genuine debate go together — each depends on the other. Politics best serves common interests when ideas are subjected to genuine debate.

Lippmann argues that genuine debate offers a check on what some today call “misinformation” and, perhaps ironically, the lack of genuine debate motivates calls for censorship by the most strident amongst us (emphases added):

[W]hen genuine debate is lacking, freedom of speech does not work as it is meant to work. It has lost the principle which regulates and justifies it – that is to say, dialectic conducted according to logic and the rules of evidence. If there is not effective debate, the unrestricted right to speak will unloose so many propagandists, procurers, and panders upon the public that sooner or later in self-defense the people will turn to censors to protect them. . .

For in the absence of debate unrestricted utterance leads to the degradation of opinion. By a kind of Gresham’s law the more rational is overcome by the less rational, and the opinions that will prevail will be those which are held most ardently by those with the most passionate will. For that reason the freedom to speak can never be maintained merely by objecting to interference with the liberty of the press, of printing, of broadcasting, of the screen. It can be maintained only by promoting debate.

(Roger’s bold)

Here at THB, the core values of intellectual hospitality and genuine debate mean that we share a commitment to learning together and also, to figuring out how to live together. These values also underly the foundation of the American project — If there is American exceptionalism, it no doubt lies in the belief that an incredibly large and diverse collection of people desire to figure out how to live together, acknowledging the realities of differing values, opinions, and beliefs.

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

I’ve been reading FDA nominee Marty Makary’s book “Blind Spots”.  In it he relates what researchers (in their appointed silos) work on, and relates that to his personal experience as a doc in a hospital.   Both practice and research inform his thinking and questions.

I’ve always intended TSW to be a place where practitioners and academics of all stripes, from legal to natural resources, can place their views and experiences in conversation.  So again, thanks to you all for your contributions.

Back to the Future : Rocky Mountain Institute: Using Small-Diameter Material to Build Affordable Housing

by

Last week we talked about the resurgence of coolness of reforestation.  Could it be.. that at least in areas away from the mental baggage of the timber wars’ “timber industry are bad guys” worldview, that forest products might be cool again? Not only cool in the trendy sense, but cool in the climate mitigation sense.

According to themselves, RMI (Rocky Mountain Institute) does this kind of work:

We identify the interventions and work to scale transformative change in the global energy system to cut greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by at least 50% by 2030.

Now if you were to hear about forest products being climate solutions from, say, AFRC, as in another AFRC podcast, this one with Dr. Nate Anderson, one of my favorite Rocky Mountain Station researchers, you might think “those folks are biased.”
********
Why is Dr. Anderson one of my faves? He’s into the nitty-gritty of pursuing the Holy Grail of Dry Forests- finding practical uses for small diameter material from fuel treatment thinnings. There have been entrepreneurs, scientists and many, many, others working on this for at least 40 years, and they need research support to make these uses economically viable. You’ve got to give them credit, these folks are not deterred by many years of difficulties, trials and failures, and keep on keepin’ on, as they say.
**************
But it’s hard to say that RMI is biased. Looking more broadly, trees die for many reasons and finding something to do with them, other than burning them (and adding to PM2.5 pollution), and at the same time, storing the carbon, seems like a good idea. And we love our Canadian sisters and brothers, but jobs here for our folks, and the taxes they pay, are good also, and conceivably building material could be cheaper without the tariffs in our longstanding and renegotiated Canadian Lumber Agreements. Although I don’t know if Mass Timber is included in the agreement (that’s the kind of stuff forest economists know.)

Report

From Wildfire to Wealth

Growing resilient forest economies in Colorado’s wildfire-prone communities

By Tracy Huynh,  Aurimas Bukauskas,  Victor Olgyay

Download the report below

Colorado is facing more frequent wildfires, a shortage of affordable housing, and limited high-quality job opportunities in rural areas. Businesses that process small-diameter trees (9 inches or less) from wildfire mitigation efforts into mass timber, a class of high performance wood building products, could help tackle these issues while also reducing carbon emissions from the construction sector, which is the state’s third-largest source of pollution.

Challenges to developing a mass timber industry in Colorado include supply uncertainties from federally managed forests and a limited logging and milling infrastructure. However, growing demand for sustainable building materials and updated building codes present significant opportunities for businesses and communities if these obstacles can be addressed.

The study recommends a phased strategy for wood product businesses:

  • Rightsize Now (2–3 years): Increase log supply to existing mills and launch small-scale operations producing nail-laminated timber, dowel-laminated timber, and cross-laminated timber. This approach can quickly boost wood product output, strengthen local businesses, and prepare for future growth.
  • Plan for Scale (5–10 years): As timber supply expands, scale up to high-volume production of cross-laminated timber, glue-laminated timber, wood fiber insulation, and other advanced products using automated techniques, unlocking new business opportunities and adding value to forest residues.

We would like to express our sincere gratitude to the Gates Family Foundation, Mighty Arrow Foundation, National Forest Foundation, and the United States Forest Service for their generous support. Their contributions have been instrumental in our efforts to efficiently and accurately gather the relevant information for this report. We also acknowledge and appreciate the valuable collaboration of the Colorado Mass Timber Coalition for their tireless work in advancing this initiative.

What’s Going on With 2025 Fire Positions?: Hotshot Wakeup Reporting

by

The Hotshot Wakeup (again, I encourage you to subscribe) has news on his Substack about fire hiring and staff changes.

Now, regions are looking to implement new hiring policies to reduce the workforce, reduce staffing time, and turn some permanent firefighters back into seasonals for Fiscal Year 2025.

The resources that will be the most affected will be Type 2IA crews, Engines, and Wildfire Modules. However, it seems all resources will be directed to return to the old regional hiring standards and away from the “new modernization.” It is also being floated that engines will return to 5-day effective staffing.

This is basically a complete 180 from what folks were told when hiring season kicked off. These changes have not been fully disseminated, but a briefing paper is expected soon with more direction to follow.

I have talked to folks in Region 6, where this is being discussed, and folks in Region 1, who said many fire positions that were left vacant this year will not be hired for in FY25. Folks are also saying some of the positions being flown are now “ghost jobs.”

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

I was told these moves are being made due to continued budgetary issues.

I have spoken to firefighters who were converted into permanent positions and actually welcome this change. They want their winters back and are going crazy sitting in an office with nothing to do.

That said, supervisors worry about the total staff reduction and the implementation of these changes late in the hiring season. Also, overall wildfire staffing across forests may take a 15-20% cut in the total workforce in FY25. One person familiar with the situation said, “It looks like we are going to fight fire with aviation, not people.”

Some firefighters even changed their lifestyles to accommodate these new permanent positions. Many moved permanently to their duty station, bought homes, and accepted positions for health and retirement benefits.

***********

His view is:

It’s clear the budget issues have not subsided, and instead of cutting many unnecessary and arguably useless new programs, the workforce is taking the hit: both non-fire and fire.

I’m sure there is a rationale laid out for these changes in some document somewhere.. if anyone has access to that, I would like to post it.  Or even, from current employees, what you think is going on and what it means to you and your unit.  I’m not criticizing because I know there is a rationale, and we just haven’t seen it, even if it’s “no money so Fire has to be impacted as well.” Maybe that’s in the forthcoming briefing paper.

Explaining the Barred Owl Management Strategy: AFRC Podcast, Plus Discussion of “Invasiveness” of Barred Owls with Friends of Animals

by

Many thanks to Jon for another excellent litigation round-up! The discussion of the barred owl strategy reminded me of what I think is an excellent AFRC podcast talking about how the strategy works on the ground.  Thanks to Nick Smith and Andy Geissler!

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

Since we discussed the genetics study of barred and spotted owls previously, that was mentioned in the complaint,  I thought Jon’s  link to the Friends of Animals complaint was worthy of its own set of comments.

FWS claims that the historical range of barred owls was initially limited to the eastern United States before some barred owls began to expand west around the turn of the 20th century through natural ecological processes. FWS states that climate change and increased trees in the Great Plains enabled barred owls to reach the Pacific Northwest.
75. There is also genomic evidence, including a 2021 study, that shows substantial differentiation between eastern and western barred owls, which suggests barred owls have likely existed in the Pacific Northwest for thousands of years. Today, barred owls’ range overlaps much of the range of northern spotted owls and California spotted owls.

(I wrote to the authors of the study, one I couldn’t locate, and one did not answer my email, so see whether they had updated information.)

The below is on pages 21 and 22 of the Friends of Animals complaint.

F. Lethal Barred Owl Management Plan
139. The stated purpose of the Decision is to “reduce populations of non-native barred owls in selected areas to provide for the survival of the native northern spotted owls and prevent the invasion of non-native barred owls into the range of California spotted owls.”
140. The central premise underlying the Decision is that barred owls meet the definition of an “invasive species” under Executive Order 13751.
141. Barred owls are not an invasive species under Executive Order 13751 or the MBTA.
142. Barred owls did not come to the Pacific Northwest by way of “introduction.”
143. There was no “introduction” of barred owls to the Pacific Northwest because they did not arrive there “as a result of human activity” by “escape, release, dissemination, or
placement.”
144. Barred owls were not introduced to the Pacific Northwest because, according to FWS, they migrated there on their own over the course of many years.
145. FWS determined that the “probable explanations” for the migration of barred owls to the Pacific Northwest were climate change and increases in trees in the Great Plains.
146. Whether or not their migration to the Pacific Northwest was aided by human changes to the environment is not determinative of whether barred owls came to the Pacific Northwest through “introduction.”
147. FWS thus based the Decision on the erroneous classification of barred owls as an invasive species.
148. Barred owls are native to the areas in the Pacific Northwest where the Decision will be implemented because they arrived there through a natural ecological process

I didn’t realize that the concept of “introduction” was so important (if it is, or it’s just plaintiffs “throwing it at the wall and seeing if it sticks”).  It seems to me that human activities and post-glaciation time frames are almost entirely correlated.  How could anyone parse out the importance of each in a long-term process like migration? And if it’s impossible to parse out, should it be in regulation (if it is)? I don’t have a bird in this fight, but I think the concepts are worthy of discussion.

 

 

Federal Lands Litigation – update through November 21, 2024

by

FEATURED CASE

Court decision in Marin Audubon Society v. Federal Aviation Administration (D.C. Cir.)

On November 12, the circuit court reviewed a decision by the FAA and the National Park Service to adopt an Air Tour Management Plan governing tourist flights over four national parks near San Francisco.  The agency decision used the Park Service’s categorical exclusion for “[c]hanges or amendments to an approved action when such changes would cause no or only minimal environmental impacts.”  Here is the holding:

“Petitioners, without invoking CEQ regulations, argue that the Agencies relied on an improper baseline for their environmental analysis by using the existing level of flights under interim operating authority as the baseline for assessing the environmental effects of the Plan. We agree and hold that it was arbitrary and capricious for the Agencies to treat interim operating authority as the status quo for their NEPA analysis.”

The court added that, “It was unreasonable for the Agencies to avoid fully treating the environmental effects of the Bay Area Parks Plan on the ground that those effects would minimally alter a status quo that itself has never been adequately assessed.”  This was especially relevant where the National Parks Act required that, “The objective of any [Plan] shall be to develop acceptable and effective measures to mitigate or prevent the significant adverse impacts.”  The plan was vacated (despite the interim plan not including the new mitigation measures sought by the agencies, and vacatur was an outcome neither party had sought), but the court indicated a willingness to stay that order.

The court prefaced its holding in the case with an extensive discussion of why the categorical exclusion that was used by the agencies, and the CEQ regulations in their entirety, are invalid, despite this argument not being made by the parties to the case.  The court found that the CEQ had no statutory authority to promulgate binding regulations.  NEPA gave the CEQ authority, to “develop and recommend to the President national policies to foster and promote the improvement of environmental quality.”  The regulations were issued pursuant to executive orders from two presidents.  The court found that, “the Constitution does not permit the President to seize for himself the ‘law-making power of Congress’ by issuing an order that, ‘like a statute, authorizes a government official to promulgate . . . rules and regulations.’”  The court did not address the validity of NEPA regulations issued by individual agencies (which tend to include their categorical exclusions).

There is a dissenting opinion objecting to deciding the CEQ authority issue: “the court contravenes “our established ‘principle of party presentation’”” (of the issues to be decided).  There are differing opinions regarding how earthshaking this case will be, with even the possibility that, since it was not the basis of the court’s decision in the case, it could be regarded as non-binding dicta.  Here’s another take on this new uncertainty in the world of environmental law.

“The implications of this decision are highly uncertain. Many of the CEQ regulations have been legislatively adopted either in particular statutes or in 2023 amendments to NEPA in connection with the Fiscal Responsibility Act. Thus, there is a plausible argument that regardless of whether the CEQ regulations were lawful in the first instance, they may have been ratified by Congress. Furthermore, since so much caselaw has grown on the structure of the CEQ regulations, it is conceivable that little will change in the courts; instead they could conceivably treat the regulations as invalid but the principles as unchanging.”

(It’s probably worth pointing out that this is a circuit court opinion, and while the D. C. Circuit is often central to federal administrative law, this opinion is not binding on other circuits.)

FOREST SERVICE

Court decision in Western Watersheds Project v. Vilsack (D. Wyoming)

On October 28, the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the 2020 plan amendment for the Thunder Basin National Grassland, comprised of 553,000 acres of USFS-managed land and more than one million acres of land that is either state or privately managed.  The amendment was intended to change management of habitat for black-tailed prairie dogs.  After several past changes in the plan to improve protection of the prairie dogs, this amendment would relax some of that protection, following a boom and bust (resulting from plague) in prairie dog population.  It changed the focus of a key management area from reintroduction of black-footed ferrets (which are endangered species dependent on prairie dog colonies that are being reintroduced to suitable grasslands), to managing the prairie dog population (including to better control population booms), and it reduced the size of this management area.  It also relaxed restrictions against lethal control of prairie dogs.

Plaintiffs argued that the reduced opportunity for black-footed ferret reintroduction was not in compliance with NEPA, ESA and NFMA, but the district court found no violations.  The NFMA claims were not raised on appeal, and the circuit court found that the amendment process violated NEPA, and that it could not rule on the ESA claim in light of the NEPA flaws.  The circuit court disagreed with the district court’s conclusions about each of the NEPA issues.

In a 2009 amendment, the Forest Service “specifically recognized that the combined effects of poisoning and recreational shooting could prevent prairie dog population recovery.”  In a 2013 study, the Forest Service found, “[p]oisoning and plague, along with other known threats, can each have a significant impact to prairie dogs. However, when these threats are combined, eradication of entire populations of prairie dogs is possible.”  The Forest Service based a 2015 amendment decision to further protect prairie dogs on this conclusion.

The population grew to well beyond the desired acreage in 2017, then crashed in 2018.  For the 2020 amendment, all action alternatives reduced the area to be managed for prairie dogs and increased the availability of poisons and recreational shooting of prairie dogs.

The court held that, “despite recognizing its obligation under the ESA to contribute to recovery of endangered and threatened species, and the particular need to support black-tailed prairie dog populations on Thunder Basin to enable the reintroduction of the endangered black-footed ferret, the USFS’s Purpose and Need statement limits the consideration of alternatives to those that will “increase the availability of lethal prairie dog control tools.”  Therefore, “the USFS has defined the Purpose and Need statement so narrowly as to ‘preclude a reasonable consideration of alternatives…’”

As for the range of alternatives, the court found that the record “does not provide an adequate explanation in its discussion of why expanding lethal control options was the only viable choice,” such as infeasibility of other options.  The court also found no adequate explanation for rejecting alternatives that would have increased the acreage of prairie dog colonies or reduced livestock grazing.  With regard to the no-action alternative, the court said, “USFS fails to provide an adequate explanation as to why it rejected those alternatives” (referring to the existing protection measures).  In sum the court found, the Forest Service violated NEPA by “failing to consider alternatives that ensured conservation …” (an “overarching” purpose).

The court also faulted the Forest Service for failing to discuss the combined effects of poisoning, plague, and recreational shooting on prairie dog populations in relation to its previous position that these things in combination could result in eradication of the prairie dogs.  While the Forest Service looked at effects individually, and documented an overall conclusion that “all activities combined” are “not likely to result in a loss of viability in the planning area,” there was no analysis or discussion of why.  Moreover, in the context of the agency’s prior positions, “This ‘[u]nexplained conflicting finding[] about the environmental impacts’ of the 2020 Plan Amendment violates the APA.”  The court notes in a footnote, “It may be true that, in light of information learned during the 2017-18 plague outbreak, the concerns expressed in prior years regarding the combined impacts of plague, poison, and recreational shooting are no longer scientifically sound. But this is never explained in the FEIS or ROD.”

There was a dissenting opinion in the case.  The court’s decision was remanded to the district court to determine whether the amendment decision should be vacated.  The article includes a link to the opinion.

Court decision in Los Padres Forest Watch v. U. S. Forest Service (9th Cir.)

On November 12, the circuit court affirmed a district court holding in July that upheld the Reyes Peak Forest Health Project on the Los Padres National Forest.  The decision was based on Categorical Exclusion (e)(6): “Timber stand and/or wildlife habitat improvement activities that do not include the use of herbicides or do not require more than 1 mile of low standard road construction.”  According to the brief opinion from the court (a link is included in this article):

“Specifically, plaintiffs argue that the Forest Service did not properly evaluate the project’s potential impact on religious or cultural sites, the removal of large trees in the Sespe-Fraizer Inventoried Roadless Area, and the existence of potential wilderness. But the agency properly analyzed each of these resource conditions as required by 36 C.F.R. § 220.6(b), so the Forest Service’s determination that there are no extraordinary circumstances that preclude it from relying on CE-6 was not arbitrary or capricious.”

This case was discussed previously here. 

New lawsuit:  American Whitewater v. U. S. Army Corp of Engineers (W.D. North Carolina)

On November 18, American Whitewater and American Rivers sued to stop work by CSX Transportation in the Nolichucky River Gorge to repair damage to its railroad from flooding in September.  Defendants are the Army Corps of Engineers, the Forest Service and the Fish and Wildlife Service.  Plaintiffs object to the use of rock from the river channel as riprap.  In allowing CSX’s ongoing work, the lawsuit alleges, the three federal agencies have collectively violated multiple environmental protection laws, including the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899, the Administrative Procedure Act, the Clean Water Act, the Organic Act of 1897, the National Forest Management Act of 1976, the National Environmental Policy Act and the Endangered Species Act.  The complaint is here: (1) 2024-11-18 Complaint

Court decision in Blue Mountains Biodiversity Project v. U. S. Forest Service (9th Cir.)

On November 18, the circuit court affirmed the lower court’s summary judgment in favor of the Malheur National Forest’s Camp Lick Project.  The court found that “conditions in the Project Area necessitated a site-specific amendment, above and beyond conditions in the Malheur National Forest (“Forest”) as a whole,” which justified thinning stands to promote old growth.  The Forest also complied with NEPA regarding cumulative effects, an EIS was not required and a supplemental information report adequately addressed new information.

New lawsuit (D.C. Wyoming)

An adjacent property owner has filed a lawsuit to stop the Britania land exchange on the Medicine Bow-Routt National Forest because it would cut off land used by the public, alleging violations of NEPA public participation and other requirements.  The land to be conveyed to private parties is, and provides access to, highly sought hunting activities, especially for bighorn sheep.  The land acquired would be more accessible to the public.

BLM

New lawsuit:  Center for Biological Diversity v. Haaland (D. Nevada)

On October 31, Center for Biological Diversity, Great Basin Resource Watch and Western Shoshone Defense Project sued the Department of the Interior, BLM and U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service over approval of the Rhyolite Ridge Lithium/Boron Mine in Nevada.  The complaint alleges that the decision:

“… among other things: failed to ensure that the Project will not jeopardize the continued existence of Tiehm’s buckwheat or adversely modify its critical habitat, as required under the ESA; failed to prevent unnecessary and undue degradation of the public lands, as required under FLPMA; failed to take a “hard look” at the Project’s environmental impacts, as required under NEPA and FLPMA; and relied on vague, generalized, and insufficiently developed minimization and mitigation measures, in violation of the ESA, NEPA and FLPMA.”

“The end use of minerals, whether for EV’s or solar panels, does not justify this disregard of Indigenous cultural areas and keystone environmental laws,” said John Hadder, director of Great Basin Resource Watch, in a statement.   We’ve talked about the Tiehm’s buckwheat a few times, such as here.

Preliminary injunction in Hualapai Indian Tribe v. Haaland (D. Arizona)

On November 5, using language similar to the plaintiffs in the case above, the district court extended its temporary restraining order by granting a preliminary injunction against Phase 3 of the Sandy Valley Exploration Project that would explore for lithium on BLM land surrounding a hot springs the Tribe holds sacred.

“Lithium exploration is an important public interest at a time when the United States is striving to transition to renewable sources of energy. …  However, this interest does not outweigh the potential damage the Phase 3 drilling project may cause to Ha’Kamwe’, which is central to the Hualapai Tribe life-way.  Nor does it permit a federal agency to short-cut its regulatory consultation obligations or reasoned evaluation of the effects of its undertaking.”

The court found likely violations of the National Historic Preservation Act and NEPA’s requirements for a “hard look” at effects on groundwater and range of alternatives.  The article includes a link to the opinion.

New lawsuit:  Klamath-Siskiyou Wildlands Center v. U. S. Bureau of Land Management (D. Oregon)

On November 19, Klamath-Siskiyou Wildlands Center, Cascadia Wildlands and Oregon Wild filed a lawsuit against the BLM’s Last Chance Timber Sale, which would include commercial logging in “late-successional reserves” to promote the development of northern spotted owl habitat.  The complaint claims violation of FLPMA’s requirement for consistency with the resource management plan and that the EA violates NEPA for failing to disclose various effects.  Here’s a short article.

ENDANGERED SPECIES

  • Barred owl shooting

New lawsuit:  Animal Wellness Action v. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (W.D. Washington)

On October 31, Animal Wellness Action and the Center for a Humane Economy filed a  lawsuit in U.S. District Court in Washington state challenging a plan by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to kill as many as 450,000 barred owls over the next 30 years.  They allege violations of NEPA with regard to the impacts and range of alternatives.

New lawsuit:  Friends of Animals v. Morrison (D. Oregon)

On November 19, Friends of Animals filed a similar lawsuit in the District of Oregon.  These plaintiffs disagree with viewing the barred owl is an invasive species.  This release from the plaintiffs includes a link to their complaint.

Court decision in WildEarth Guardians v. Bucknall (D. Montana)

On November 7, the district court held that, “plaintiffs are correct that the [environmental assessment] failed to take a ‘hard look’ at the effects of Montana’s predator damage and conflict management on grizzly bears and an [environmental impact statement] is required.”  However, the court permitted grizzly bears to be killed while Wildlife Services prepares an EIS for its Montana program within two years.  Plaintiffs want them to address the effect on connectivity between recovery zones.  The article includes a link to the opinion.

OTHER

Court decision in Horses of Cumberland Island v. Haaland (N.D. Georgia)

On November 8, the district court dismissed a case seeking removal of feral horses from Cumberland Island National Seashore because for the wellbeing of the horses and the ecosystem.  The court found no agency action that could be reviewed.

It’s not too soon to start thinking about this – here’s one forecast: “The second Trump administration’s federal lands agenda is widely expected to promote fossil fuels development and reverse Biden administration conservation efforts, moves environmental groups say they’ll litigate at every opportunity.”

 

 

Reforestation is Back! CBS News and Calfire Videos

by

It’s interesting how the practices and technologies of reforesting were cool and important in the 80’s and may be coming back into vogue.  The 80’s were the time of Andy, Bob Z., Jim Z and I all being involved in one or another angle of cone collection, nurseries and reforestation.  As I posted earlier this week, we were supported by reforestation specialists and cooperative research  including the Fundamental FIR program  Anyway, here we go with a CBS News story on reforestation and genetics on the Fremont-Winema.

My thoughts about the coverage.. again, the Forest Service seems to take a back seat as reported. Bryan Reatini, the geneticist, is definitely Forest Service, but when asked about the big picture, the interviewer speaks to American Forests.  The folks from AF are authorized to use FS vehicles, and I wonder whether the FS runs  the risk of losing FS identity, which could be problematic in the long run, with both communities and Congress.  Also, I wouldn’t call Collins a “logging company”; I’d call it a wood products company.  Note that Collins’ Lakeview Forest is FSC-certified.

Generally, it seems that using partners will probably yield better-paid workers and less-poorly-treated workers than the directly contracted lowest-bidder approach. I’m looking forward to cone-drones, though.

Here is a fun video from the viewpoint of a seed, from Cal Fire, formerly known as CDF , and currently the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, in case you’re wondering why fire folks are collecting cones.

Latest Activities of Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee on Wildfires, Forests, Ski Fees and Grazing

by

We really need one or more volunteers to take a look at current bills, this time in the Senate.
So thank you to a TSW reader for the E&E News story on this.

“The Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee approved 74 bills during a markup Tuesday, including legislation that could generate billions of dollars to address worsening coastal erosion.
The committee also cleared a slew of wildfire, mineral, public land and livestock grazing bills without much debate or discussion.”

Here’s a link to these, there’s also a video of the business meeting. I think you would have to know what the original bill said to understand what the amendments are doing. I know that there are many people in DC and elsewhere paid to keep track of these things, and have probably written this up. Sharing your perceptions with the public via TSW I think would be a good thing. In fact, I bet government agencies do this analysis, and I could FOIA it, but a leak would be quicker.

Here’s the E&E News summary of forest and wildfire bills.

Among the bills approved en bloc were a handful of wildfire and forest management measures. Those included an amended version of S. 2867, by Barrasso, which would set targets for forest thinning and prescribed fire. Late changes to Barrasso’s bill removed a section on workforce training for loggers and on putting limitations on the Biden administration’s definitions of mature and old growth trees in national forests. The administration has finalized those definitions since the bill was introduced.

Other wildfire bills included S. 1764, from Sen. Catherine Cortez-Masto (D-Nev.), to improve wildfire planning and suppression grant programs and create post-wildfire recovery programs. An amended version of the bill dropped a provision calling for dedicated accounts for wildfire, a spokesperson for the committee said.
Lawmakers approved S. 2132, from Lee, for a pilot program that would establish standards for forest density. The Utah Republican said forests in fire-prone areas are too dense.
The committee advanced legislation by Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), the “National Prescribed Fire Act,” S. 4424, to encourage more use of controlled burns on federal lands.
Manchin’s legislation, S. 2991, to encourage greater revegetation on federal lands, including abandoned mine sites, also passed easily.

Some of these below sound interesting from our perspective. Many seem to be about boundary adjustments, putting land into the National Park System, and naming visitor centers after themselves, but others may be more interesting and/or controversial. These were agreed to en bloc by voice vote.

Agenda Item 1: S. 254, a bill to amend the Omnibus Parks and Public Lands Management Act of 1996 to provide for the establishment of a Ski Area Fee Retention Account, and for other purposes. (Mr. Bennet).

Agenda Item 7: S. 1553, a bill to amend the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 to improve the management of grazing permits and leases, and for other purposes (Mr. Barrasso), with an amendment in the nature of a substitute (Joint Staff-4, as modified (FLO24827)).

Agenda Item 8: S. 1764, a bill to improve Federal activities relating to wildfires, and for other purposes (Ms. Cortez Masto), with an amendment in the nature of a substitute (Manchin-5 (RYA24540)).

Agenda Item 9: S. 2132, a bill to require the Secretary of Agriculture to establish a pilot program for the establishment and use of a pre-fire-suppression stand density index, and for other purposes (Mr. Lee), with an amendment in the nature of a substitute (Lee-6 (RYA24537)).

Agenda Item 10: S. 2151, a bill to amend the Southwest Forest Health and Wildfire Prevention Act of 2004 to require the establishment of an additional Institute under that Act. (Mr. Lee).

Agenda Item 11: S. 2156, a bill to amend the John D. Dingell, Jr. Conservation, Management, and Recreation Act to authorize additional entities to be eligible to complete the maintenance work on Bolts Ditch and the Bolts Ditch Headgate within the Holy Cross Wilderness, Colorado. (Mr. Bennet).

Agenda Item 13: S. 2169, a bill to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to carry out watershed pilots, and for other purposes (Mr. Wyden), with an amendment in the nature of a substitute (Wyden-12 (FLO24732)) and an amendment to the title (Wyden-11 (FLO24597)).
( I wonder what’s keeping the Sec of Int from carrying out watershed pilots?)

Agenda Item 19: S. 2867, a bill to address the forest health crisis on the National Forest System and public lands, and for other purposes (Mr. Barrasso), with an amendment in the nature of a substitute (Barrasso-17, as modified (FLO24825)).

Agenda Item 21: S. 2991, a bill to improve revegetation and carbon sequestration activities in the United States, and for other purposes (Mr. Manchin), with an amendment in the nature of a substitute (Manchin-18, as modified (RYA24592)).

Agenda Item 22: S. 3123, a bill to provide for the standardization, consolidation, and publication of data relating to public outdoor recreational use of Federal waterways among Federal land and water management agencies, and for other purposes (Mr. Barrasso), with an amendment in the nature of a substitute (Barrasso-19 (FLO24677)).

(Is other recreation data standardized, consolidated and published?)

Agenda Item 34: S. 3631, a bill to require reports on critical mineral and rare earth element resources around the world and a strategy for the development of advanced mining, refining, separation, and processing technologies (Mr. Cornyn), with an amendment in the nature of a substitute (King-29 (ROS24F44)).

Agenda Items 35: S. 3790, a bill to make additional Federal public land available for selection under the Alaska Native Vietnam era veterans land allotment program, and for other purposes (Mr. Sullivan), with an amendment in the nature of a substitute (Murkowski- 66 (FLO24876)).

Agenda Item 36: S. 3985, a bill to a bill to amend the Colorado Wilderness Act of 1993 to add certain land to the Sarvis Creek Wilderness, and for other purposes. (Mr. Hickenlooper).

Agenda Item 51: S. 4424, a bill to direct the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture to encourage and expand the use of prescribed fire on land managed by the Department of the Interior or the Forest Service, with an emphasis on units of the National Forest System in the western United States, to acknowledge and support the long-standing use of cultural burning by Tribes and Indigenous practitioners, and for other purposes (Mr. Wyden), with an amendment in the nature of a substitute (Manchin-44, as modified (RYA24596)).

Agenda Item 54: S. 4451, a bill to require the Secretary of the Interior to enter into an agreement with the National Academy of Sciences to carry out a study on reservation systems for Federal land (Mr. Padilla), with an amendment in the nature of a substitute (Joint Staff-46, as modified (FLO24776).

Agenda Item 55: S. 4454, a bill to provide for the establishment of an Operational Flexibility Grazing Management Program on land managed by the Bureau of Land Management, and for other purposes (Mr. Barrasso), with an amendment in the nature of a substitute (Joint Staff-47, as modified (FLO24850)).

Agenda Item 73: S. 5125, a bill to provide for certain improvements to the housing and workforce programs of Federal land management agencies, and for other purposes (Mr. Barrasso), with an amendment in the nature of a substitute (Barrasso-62, as modified (FLO24845)).

Agenda Item 78: H.R. 5443, an Act to establish a policy regarding appraisal and valuation services for real property for a transaction over which the Secretary of the Interior has jurisdiction, and for other purposes. (Rep. Lee).

Agenda items agreed to by roll call vote

Agenda Item 25: S. 3346, a bill to amend the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act to designate certain streams in the greater Yellowstone ecosystem and Smith River system in the State of Montana as components of the Wild and Scenic Rivers System, and for other purposes (Mr. Tester), with an amendment in the nature of a substitute (Manchin-22 (FLO24729)).
Agreed to by roll call vote (10-9)

Agenda Item 31: S. 3593, a bill to provide for economic development and conservation in Washoe County, Nevada, and for other purposes (Ms. Rosen), with an amendment in the nature of a substitute (Manchin-27, as modified (FLO24864)). Agreed to by roll call vote (10-9)

Agenda Item 53: S. 4432, a bill to allow certain Federal minerals to be mined consistent with the Bull Mountains Mining Plan Modification (Mr. Daines), with an amendment in the nature of a substitute (Daines-45 (NEW24792)). Agreed to by roll call vote (12-7)

Agenda Item 56: S. 4457, a bill to provide for conservation and economic development in the State of Nevada, and for other purposes (Ms. Cortez Masto), with an amendment in the nature of a substitute (Manchin-48, as modified (FLO24863)). Agreed to by roll call vote (13-6)

Agenda Item 77: H.R. 4984, an Act to direct the Secretary of the Interior to transfer administrative jurisdiction over the Robert F. Kennedy Memorial Stadium Campus to the District of Columbia so that the District may use the Campus for purposes including residential and commercial development, and for other purposes. (Rep. Comer). Agreed to by roll call vote (17-2)