I realize I went on a bit yesterday about the information in the NPR story and trying to relate it to FS figures. The numerical weeds are my natural habitat. Here’s what the Press Office folks said about the data in the story:
The recent reporting contains several inaccuracies and mixes data sources in ways that do not reflect Forest Service data. Total hazardous fuels reduction work in 2025 decreased by about one million acres, not 1.5 million. On National Forest System lands, hazardous fuels reduction work was just over three million acres, not the 2.6 million stated.
The story also blends total fuels treatment acres with NFS‑only acres for 2023 and 2024, which leads to misleading comparisons. When combining NFS lands with State Fire Assistance and Community Wildfire Defense Grant activities, the correct numbers are 4.35 million total acres in fiscal year 2023 and 4.29 million total in fiscal year 2024, with lower figures representing NFS‑only work.
It also may be relying on incomplete 2025 data from a Grassroots Wildland Firefighting report. Prescribed burning did decline in 2025, but the correct data are 1.95 million acres in 2023, 2.19 million in 2024, and 1.17 million in 2025—not the 900,000 reported. Accurate comparisons require using consistent, official datasets, which the reporting did not do.
It is important to understand most of this reduction occurred in the southeastern United States because of elevated wildfire activity and elevated fire behavior due to excessive fuel loads from Hurricane Helene and other environmental factors. While we recorded the highest number of wildfire starts on national forests since 2016, we held total acres burned to nearly half the 10-year average.
Lastly, despite these challenges, 2025 was one of the most successful wildfire years in recent history. This success is the direct result of proactive forest management, aggressive initial attack policies, and favorable weather that kept fires small and communities safe.
As I said yesterday, I think part of the confusion is that the story used calendar years and the FS uses fiscal years, plus the difference using NFS-only versus all sources, and then using the complete year (not done in the original GWF study, posted about here and here) The only way to check would be to have access to FACTs ourselves. I don’t think we would need a great deal of sophisticated analysis to add up columns and rows of numbers.
It’s also a bit weird that the same story seems to resurface every few months.. whenever lawmakers of a certain party write a new letter of concern to the Admin. Here’s one from January from Boise State Public Radio.
**********
Anyway, today I’d like to give an opportunity for some reporters to look deeper into this.. the story might be “why did the the FS in 2025 accomplish so much more WMO than in 2024?” The answer actually may have nothing to do with the specific Admin, although that seems to be the go-to answer for many outlets, especially when something can be portrayed as bad.
One thing I found out by talking to a variety of reporters over the last few weeks is that many people are concerned about many things. But it’s relatively infrequent when reporters go back to see what happened. But not everything that could go wrong, will, or at least not all the time. So a reader could be left with a much more pessimistic view than is ultimately warranted.
Again, I know TSW readers disagree about Managed Fire (MF, Fire with Benefits, or Wildfire Meeting Objectives as the above table). Some say things are fine, leave us alone.. some say “don’t do it”, and many of us are in the middle as in “it’s great sometimes, and we shouldn’t stop, but perhaps various practices could be improved, and more planning and public involvement beforehand.”
Anyway, let’s take this story from March in E&E News.. which was about Interior but some of the same worries may apply to the Forest Service. I’ve heard the same concerns about the emphasis on initial attack.
Over time, many land managers have come to embrace wildfire as an inevitable — and often beneficial — force that shapes forests, grasslands and wildlife. In some cases, fires should be allowed to burn, said Tim Ingalsbee, executive director of Firefighters United for Safety, Ethics and Ecology, an advocacy group of current and former wildland firefighters.
“All suppression, all the time, is basically a failed — failing and failed — strategy,” he said. “We are losing the war on wildfire, and the whole paradigm needs to shift to working with fire instead of fighting against fire.”
Again, here’s what the FS said about the increase- keeping all the tools in the toolbox.
Our priority is reducing wildfire risk for communities, and we use every tool in the toolbox to do that. When lightning ignites a fire, we assess whether parts of the fire can safely help meet Forest Plan objectives, but that does not change our overall approach. The Forest Service maintains an aggressive initial attack posture to contain fires quickly and protect firefighters and the public.
*****
Sidenote about PF: remember when people were concerned about the stand-down after the Calf Canyon-Hermits Peak fire? In the overall scheme of things, given the chart above, it seems to have been a blip on the screen.. except for improving practices, as we see below.
Apparently the Carson this year..
Fire crews conducted 13 prescribed fires last fall and winter, treating close to 14,000 acres across the forest, according to the release. The work reduces the threat of wildfire to communities, watersheds and wildlife habitat.
Carson National Forest fire managers have declared all prescribed fires from last fall and winter as out. The declaration comes after fire crews spent months patrolling and monitoring over a dozen prescribed fires on site, ensuring no heat was detected. Drones and an airplane, both outfitted with infrared detection capabilities, were also used in the process.
“While no heat has been detected for some time, our approach has been to patrol and monitor for longer periods of time and more thoroughly, utilizing tools like drones and airplanes outfitted with infrared for heat detection” Fire and Fuels Staff Officer Jamie Long said in a forest press release
***************
I’m surprised no one has had a “peck” on this information. The only concerns I have are the manipulation of inputs into FACTS, including double/triple/quadruple counting the same acres. That said, I was an “inputer” for NFPORS back in the day, and that wasn’t any better for accuracy! It just does a disservice to the hard work from being able to count acreage, just once, to begin with. If those fabricated practices still exist, this information is no better than an uninformed guess!
I guess that there are three questions for me..
1. Is that the right way to count accomplishments for fuels reduction (and shouldn’t other feds and states all count them the same way?) Maybe they do.
2. Is there quality control on the inputs? including making sure that they’re entered correctly?
3. Why can’t the public see them?
Except for 1, you could say the same things about PALS or perhaps any database.