I was told that this was a handout from the Supe’s Meeting.. I don’t have independent confirmation. It does sound plausible, given what Chief Schultz and others have previously said. A few things I found worthy of note.
Aggressive coordinated approach to keep fires small. I assume that this is the same approach as the new USWFS?
Positioning grazing as a core land management tool by expanding access, modernizing processes, and elevating producer voices. I’d be interested in what they mean by “expanding access.”
Supporting energy development that complements forest management I think this means “producing energy from wood waste from fuel treatments” but I don’t know.
My favorites were the first three recreation bullets.. improving trails, campgrounds and facilities and maintaining infrastructure such as roads and bridges.
I also like personalizing and expanding visitor access through on-site staff and volunteer engagement.
“Onsite engagement” I vote yes. I wrote about this in 2012 as the importance of presence, comparing the Park Service focus vs. the FS (in that case, concessionaires).
2012. I would argue with “virtual concierge services, like Recreation.gov”. It seems to me that in today’s AI age, we could do better and save the taxpayers mega-bucks by doing the concierge-ing in-house. Anyway…what strikes or surprises you? Sorry about the gaps between pages.
Those priorities are posted on the FS website
Thanks! Do you have a link?
https://www.fs.usda.gov/about-agency/priorities
Oddly enough, I don’t see anything about “following the laws”. Eco-lawyers are licking their chops and there will be some big paydays for those folks. Again, I wouldn’t be expecting to see Congress support massive changes.
So, here is where we are. Time is ticking on this situation. “November is coming!”
Right – add to #7 “cut more corners; hire more lawyers.”
Thanks for sharing. I think the list of topics covered at the recent ALL Forest Supervisors with the Chief is accurate since it dovetails with what I have also heard about that meeting. Really glad to see more focus on managing our recreation infrastructure and facilities. It looks like the constant drum beat from the motorized and non-motorized advocacy corps is being heard.
Just for the heck of it, here are my thoughts on each item:
1. Safety. Largely, the most dangerous work that the Forest Service does is wildland fire. I personally think that there have been a lot of strides in improving safety over the last 15-20 years or so. I think the culture of safety has improved in the fire organization. There is always room for improvement and constant reinforcement. As a former Type II Safety Officer, I would like to know what will be different now? I understand this is just a briefing paper but the listed items come across as the platitudes we have seen for a long time. Let’s see if there is some meat on the bone.
2. It looks like the “Put the fires out!” crowd has won out. Maybe it’s the right approach, I don’t know. I think that a lot of fire people will say that this approach just transfers the risk to someone else down the road. Also, the mindset that every fire requires aggressive attack is not always the safest approach. Fire history is full of fatality incidents where that mindset led to tragedy.
3. “Reducing the barriers to grazing”? I am not sure what those are, but I am far from a grazing expert. In my limited experience, in good (good moisture and range conditions) years, permittees are usually allowed to run the number of head that their allotment allows, unless there are some other circumstances.
4. What does this mean? Are we going to remove as many safeguards as possible related to more mining? The western forests have many mines that remain a blight on the land, including superfund sites. Do we need more open pit mines on the National Forests? Great.
5. Good stuff if there are the support and funding.
6. Good emphasis on recreation. My only concern is that with the talk of the repeal of the Travel Management Rule, does this mean the OHV folks have the ear of the administration and what will this mean to the forests?
7. Yep, I agree that the Forest Service under Schultz is trying to remove pretty much every possible impediment that there is to cutting more trees. No marking boundaries, DxD, DxP, advertise at base rates, no escalation clause, on and on. Maybe that’s a good thing, I don’t know. A lot of the “burdensome” regulations came about because someone screwed something up in the past.
8. Yep, let the States manage the National Forests through agreements. Kind of plays into Senator Lee’s hands. And yes, the Keystone Agreements live on. The NWTF is now running a timber sale on the Black Hills National Forest. I guess they are still working through the Biden money.
One comment, well maybe more than one Dave; driving leads to many more fatalities than fighting fire. Look it up – it kind’a shocked me too!
Grazing should have been promoted all along for areas in the “suitability” category. DXD, DxP, just shifts burden to the TS Administrator. No issue if they have the background, but that’s kin to fast tracking a neurosurgeon.
Most timber is now sold without escalation since it’s located east of the 100th. Folks on the PSICC are paying over $4,000 per acre to clearcuts lodgepole; no escalation needed….🤣. After several hundreds of millions of dollars, 4-FRI is cutting a lot more timber but the slash issue is still there. No resolution other than burning it or leaving it lay!
Final thought: I never worked under the Biden Administration – thank God!! 👍
Thanks Jim, interesting points! Are you saying that the FS has more fatalities from driving than from wildfire operations? I must say, if that’s true, it is kind of surprising. I’ll look it up!
I think that a number of the measures being pushed right now like DxP and DxD may make sense, particularly with low value timber. It does put more responsibility on the purchaser/operator for what the final outcome will be, and like you say, the sale administrator. Marking timber was getting pretty expensive and it may not have been always worth the cost.
Wow, $4,000/acre to clearcut lodgepole! Things have really gotten turned upside down. The FS is paying $3,500/acre to do steep slope logging here on the BHNF. I watch congressional hearings and those politicians suffer from the delusion that the timber program is a money maker.
I am glad that it seems like 4FRI is finally starting to work. Slash seems to always be an issue, it is here. Someone really needs to come up with a way making use of it, even if it’s subsidized. Why not? Everything else is.