A BLM Colorado staff member assesses the amount of fallen tree limbs and vegetation debris in a forested area of King Mountain from horseback. Dead and overgrown vegetation can increase the risk of wildfire spread and damage. BLM fire managers and range specialists routinely scout areas to consider for future fuels management or reduction projects. Implementing these projects offers many benefits to include improving firefighter and public safety and reducing wildfire risk to infrastructure and public and private lands. (BLM photo by Kristy Wallner)
Some folks have a talking point with regard to the fire folks in USDA moving to Interior (I don’t want them to move either but..) “you can’t separate wildfire from land management”. This even is used as a reason for line officers to give up power to fire managers within the FS. Still, Interior is apparently trying this. As usual, the devil is in the details. I’ve sent questions to several BLM communication folks, and I don’t get any answers. Maybe they haven’t figured it out yet. still, I did run across this.. So what happens in a few years when Interior figures it out.. will these folks need to change those talking points? Why not pick more resilient talking points now?
I also wonder whether this project would be litigated if it happened in Montana.. do the legal hooks of certain T&E species provide a critical habitat for litigators?
SILT, Colo. – The Bureau of Land Management’s Colorado River Valley Field Office is moving forward with a plan to reduce wildfire risk, improve forest health, and offer suitable timber for sale. The work will cover nearly 5,500 acres near King Mountain and may begin in summer or fall 2026.
“As we get ready to put this project into action, we’re looking forward to creating conditions to help slow future wildfires,” said U.S. Wildland Fire Service Fuels Specialist Chad Sewell. “The work we’re doing out here will make a noticeable difference on the ground and help keep this ecosystem strong for years to come.”
Expected Benefits:
Improved safety for firefighters and the public
Reduced wildfire risk to recreation areas, infrastructure, and nearby communities
Healthier habitat for wildlife and better recreation experiences
Safer and easier-to-use foot and horse trails after clearing away fallen branches and dead trees
Better livestock distribution, easing pressure on nearby Greater Sage‑Grouse habitat
The BLM will partner with the Colorado State Forest Service under the Good Neighbor Authority to sell appropriate timber as commercial products. This collaboration will help BLM reduce wildfire risk while supporting local industries and strengthening local economies. The authority, approved by Congress, allows BLM to enter an agreement with the state to perform forest, rangeland and watershed restoration work. The state will retain any funds from timber sales under the agreement for use on additional GNA projects.“We’re excited to team up with our partners on a project that benefits the community and the landscape,” said CRVFO Field Manager Lisa Dawson. “Selling the timber we remove reduces waste and helps support local mills and the people who work there.”
***********
So the fuels specialist (seems to be) still there (in the same office), and works for USWFS, and seems to still be involved in project design and communication. Is that how it’s going to work in the future? Is the USWFS just a question of readjusting so that wildfire folks have more control over wildfire-related (and funded) local projects, and continue to be available for national suppression efforts?
Look, no one expects USWFS to have it all figured out, as if it will be forever. Fire folks are famous for doing lessons learned and improving the way they work. But still, what they are currently thinking, and the expected trajectory of where they’re going would be nice to know. But perhaps I should be asking the USWFS and not BLM.
I like it, but why not 550,000 acres? With the loss of the Montrose Mill, finding places to go with merchantable timber will become harder! I think Colorado will have a dismal future of continued insect and diseases, and catastrophic wildfire that will continue to get worse (hard to imagine, with the fatalities this year)!
I watched a video on how Canada has been screwing the US for years, and we (US) are getting tired of it. I know of three large Canadian sawmills in Arkansas, monopolizing and controlling the bidding on FS timber! Either their way or the highway; about time to make it rough on foreign competitors.
As for the West, other than Washington and Oregon, fire is their new “Systems Normal”; well, you can fill in the rest…..
I agree but we need more mills and biomass facilities in California. We have one big operator and a few small mills in the Sierra. The coast still has some mills. Same old story over the past 40 years.
In my asking around the USFWS Refuge system about how things are working with the shift of the fuels staff to WFS, the response has been that it’s working well, for now. The WFS staff are still the same people that were there before, people that were integrated into the Refuge as part of the team, know the people, the land, and projects in the works. The worry is about what happens when people move around and they get WFS staff that don’t have the institutional knowledge and don’t have the same chance to be integrated into the Refuge team and culture.
Yes, Ask the USWFS. However, the BLM and the State are trying to reduce wildfire risk and include timber harvesting as part of this project. Environmental groups might try to interfere with such projects. I hope similar projects are undertaken throughout the West, and that the BLM, USFS, and USWFS stand tall and don’t give in to these groups. My point is that BLM is trying something, and I support projects like this as long as they lead to action. I hope other agencies, including USFS, work with states to implement projects like this. Our Western forests keep burning in this extremely hot year. Action is needed now. If BLM doesn’t get it quite right, modify and proceed accordingly.
Yes, if you asked the USWFS, they might have some updated information, other than what we have to work with at the current time, which is the “Transition Guidance”, issued on 04/10/2026. Here are some quotes from that document:
Bureaus will continue with their current process of review, revision, updating and signature of FMPs during this transition. Bureaus will work with the USWFS to coordinate and align FMPs with LRMP during FMP development and maintenance.
Bureaus will coordinate with USWFS specialists on LRMP revisions and amendments to ensure inclusion of wildland fire goals, objectives, and actions. Bureaus will maintain L/RMP signature authority.
Bureaus will complete all post-fire monitoring and reporting, including IFPRS data entry.
Bureaus may complete fuels monitoring on behalf of USWFS.
Bureaus will complete additional ecological monitoring as desired.
Bureaus will submit post-fire plans and recommended projects. Most plans will be developed locally. Plans may include labor funding for project leads or implementation positions that are housed in either Bureaus or the USWFS.
Bureaus will approve plans before submitting to USWFS.
Bureaus will implement USWFS nationally approved post-fire work, funded by USWFS.
Bureaus may request USWFS implementation assistance to implement non-hazardous fuels management prescribed fire projects.
Bureaus must provide funding for the USWFS to implement non-hazardous fuels management prescribed fire projects.
When USWFS funds are utilized for project implementation, Bureaus will submit projects to the USWFS through an annual POW planning process for funding allocation.
Bureaus will fold into a single POW and projects will be prioritized from this single POW for funding.
Bureaus will negotiate with the USWFS for fuels target funded by the USWFS.
Bureaus will continue to be able to conduct environmental analysis following NEPA requirements and sign decisions based on the analysis, when Bureau funding is spent on non-federal lands.
Bureau authorized officers will retain authority to sign decisions supported by NEPA analysis (e.g., Finding of No Significant Impact, Decision Record, and Record of Decision).
Bureaus will lead environmental compliance including NEPA analysis requirements, consultation and meeting National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) requirements, such as Section 106.
Bureaus will lead the development of fuels projects on DOI lands. Bureaus will be ultimately responsible for project development.
Bureaus will engage the expertise of the USWFS fuels specialists and utilize the USWFS risk map to aid in selection of treatment locations.
Bureaus will need to amend Bureau policies related to wildland fire management based on the new role the USWFS has in the DOI.
Bureaus will coordinate with USWFS on policy updates to ensure alignment across the Department.
From my perspective, these bureau responsibilities will be a very heavy lift.
Thanks, Jesse! it sounds like the Bureaus will do the same stuff they always did, they will use USWFS fuels people to plan projects. But if Bureaus are to use USWFS bucks for projects, they need to be approved by USFWS. I will check with them.
I appreciate the reply. Yes, the bureaus will attempt to “do the same stuff they always did”, but a lot of that “stuff” was done by the fire-funded people. That reality, coupled with the staffing reductions (in the NPS, and probably BIA, BLM, and USFWS), does not paint a rosy picture into the future. If we add up all the tasks/responsibilities listed above (at the national, regional, and field unit level), the sum suggests a situation of nearly mission impossible, with rare exceptions. I will add that this is further complicated by proposed major reorganization of the NPS. There simply are not the personnel or expertise to successfully achieve these tasks.
But won’t the fire parts still be done by fire people with USWFS fire funds? Like fuels folks will charge to USWFS for working on (USWFS approved) fuels projects?
Yes, the USWFS will do the “fire parts”. I can only speak for the NPS (not BIA, USFWS, or BLM), but essentially all NPS staff are based funded. This is very different from the USDA FS. NPS people do no shift their costs to project accounts or preparedness accounts; if assigned to a wildfire, they may shift their base wages to the FireCode account. There are some exceptions in the NPS where archaeologists and other compliance related responsibilities are (base funded) paid for from DOI fuels funding. Please take another look at the list of responsibilities that I included on my original comment. They will require significant commitment by the bureau personnel. Let me give you a few examples:
Bureaus must provide funding for the USWFS to implement non-hazardous fuels management prescribed fire projects.
Bureaus will lead environmental compliance including NEPA analysis requirements, consultation and meeting National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) requirements, such as Section 106.
Bureaus will lead the development of fuels projects on DOI lands.
Bureaus will complete all post-fire monitoring and reporting, including IFPRS data entry.
Bureaus may complete fuels monitoring on behalf of USWFS.
Bureaus will complete additional ecological monitoring as desired.
Frankly, I do not see much capacity to undertake a majority these responsibilites, given the current funding and staffing climate. Please let me know if you see things differently.
I’m wondering about what happens to wildfire use for resource benefits now, and the NEPA process we would hope is included more often.
I’m also wondering about the role of the WFS in putting something in forest plans about wildfire suppression – which in my opinion the FS Fire organization has consistently tried to avoid. (NFMA did not exempt this from “integrated” planning.)
In terms of managed wildfire (aka wildfire use), both the DOI and USDA FS are operating under the federal fire policy, last updated in 2009, and probably due for an overhaul in my opinion. That being said, in 2026, DOI issued leaders intent to the bureaus that all wildfires will be suppressed….in other words, there will be no wildfires managed for resource objectives or ecological purposes, regardless of location. No one knows if the DOI leaders intent for 2027 will look similar. The bureaus are now responsible for all NEPA; however, in many cases, the NEPA that analyzed the impacts of managed wildfire (often in wilderness or other protected lands) has already been completed.
In terms of your second question, I’m not sure I understand fully. The DOI bureaus all use Fire Management Plans (in addition to other land and resource management plans) which are updated annually. The USDA FS does not use Fire Management Plans, but instead a suite of operational and preparedness documents that do not require NEPA.
Your last sentence captures my point – what I have observed about fire suppression is that the fire organization strives to avoid NEPA at any level. (I think I remember that the avoidance of Fire Management Plans is because they were told that would require NEPA.)