Sharon

Clearcuts, Openings, Definitions and Some Reasons for

by
Now that’s a clearcut ! Illustration for Climate Forest Campaign’s writeup on the Timber EO. forest in the Oregon Coast Range. Photo credit: David Herasimtschuk

Our definition clearing up effort does not seem to be successful, so I’ll try to clarify that there seem to be four choices. 1. Clearcut (standard) the definition fuzzy as it is, in the handbook and the dictionary definitions. 2. Clearcut (L) Looks like one, so any seed tree or shelterwood after overstory removal. 3. Clearcut (O) Any opening.  4. Clearcut (P) used in polemics, could mean anything writer wants.

Some Habitat Requires Openings  (1993 to today)

I had a vague memory that our social scientist friends used to study what people think about clearcutting.   I looked around and found a study on Google Scholar study from 1993

In the 1993 monitoring report for the White Mountain National Forest, forest supervisor Rick Cables wrote that “there is a wide and increasing interest in the concepts of ecosystem management, a principle which we believe is well addressed in the existing plan although subject to change as our monitoring efforts continue. The growing question, though, is the ‘place’ of the Forest in the wider landscape” (Cables, 1993, p. xi). One of the Forest’s goals in response to this issue of ‘place’ is to conduct all management activities with full recognition of the effect on Forest appearance. The foundation of this sensitivity to scenic value is “realizing the importance to society of a natural (appearing) landscape distinct from the man-made environments otherwise dominant in the East (USA).” As a result, project plans are frequently adjusted. “This is especially true for those areas that have experienced residential development since completion of the original (forest plan) inventory. Awareness of the concern over clearcutting has led to reduced clearcut acreage or identification of alternative prescriptions for many projects” (Kokx, 1993, pp. 52–53).
Irrespective of its effect on harvesting volume, Rick Cables observes that “with respect to clearcutting, the problem boils down to this: Of the 339 inland animal species in New England, 257 of them have a primary or secondary dependence on a forested habitat. Of these 257 species 90% (233) of them have a primary or secondary dependence on forest vegetation in the regeneration (0–10 years old) or young (from 10 up to 69 years for some species) age classes. Clearcutting is the vegetative management practice that produces these various age classes of the Forest. It is difficult to provide enough of this habitat when the means of doing so is one that so many people find objectionable — clearcutting” (Cables, 1993, p. v).
Looking back, Rick’s argument was that openings are needed for certain wildlife species. I would say that seedtree and shelterwood also produce those age classes. And here we are having the same discussion about openings pretty much 30 years later.  I think we made a detour to “openings are OK if they fit NRV” but as it turns out, the same groups that were against cutting trees before that detour, are still against cutting trees!
How Many, How Spatially Distributed, Under What Conditions?
How many openings should there be, distributed how, with what characteristics? Should humans make openings directly, or guide wildfire in making openings?
I think the idea of NRV was (perhaps descended from coarse-filter/ fine-filter thinking) that if you had the distribution of ecological characteristics as sometime in the past, then you would be providing habitat for critters as in the past.  I remember when these ideas first came to the WO.. we’ll cut trees to “restore”, who could be against that?  It turns out the same people.
 Some Groups Don’t Want Human-Initiated (or for Salvage, post Natural- Initiated Disturbance, Human- Assisted)  Openings
And we still have folks like WEG and other members of the Climate Forest Campaign who think no cutting (or just commercial?) should occur in stands over 80 years old. It seems like some people and groups are either “anti-opening” or “anti-opening if it involves commercial wood products.” Or perhaps it’s OK to have openings in under 80 years old stands, just recycle the same sites as they grow in.  However, this runs against thinking like “the process of stand development is important”. as per this work by Swanson et al. (note that Beschta and DellaSalla are coauthors)
Early-successional forest ecosystems that develop after stand-replacing or partial disturbances are diverse in species, processes, and structure. Post-disturbance ecosystems are also often rich in biological legacies, including surviving organisms and organically derived structures, such as woody debris. These legacies and postdisturbance plant communities provide resources that attract and sustain high species diversity, including numerous early-successional obligates, such as certain woodpeckers and arthropods. Early succession is the only period when tree canopies do not dominate the forest site, and so this stage can be characterized by high productivity of plant species (including herbs and shrubs), complex food webs, large nutrient fluxes, and high structural and spatial complexity. Different disturbances contrast markedly in terms of biological legacies, and this will influence the resultant physical and biological conditions, thus affecting successional pathways. Management activities, such as postdisturbance logging and dense tree planting, can reduce the richness within and the duration of early-successional ecosystems. Where maintenance of biodiversity is an objective, the importance and value of these natural early-successional ecosystems are underappreciated.
So early-successional communities are important for biodiversity, but only if you don’t log post-disturbance, and don’t plant trees “too” densely.
It doesn’t appear to me that there is any scientific answer to the correct amount of openings and what they should or should not contain.  I guess I could understand the idea of only allowing “natural” disturbances.  Except that we’re told by many of the same groups that today’s disturbances are caused by climate change and are therefore unnatural.
It’s very confusing.  Plus we can’t go back in time in terms of population, past practices and so on.
I do think the idea that openings are created by others in a mixed landscape, and therefore the FS should consider that, does have some merit. However if people want to observe early-successional wildlife and conditions, they can’t do that on private land.  Plus private landowners tend to have different management objectives and practices, and may not want to encourage biodiversity the same way the FS does. Then there are species that prefer wildfire.. which leads to openings.  Fire is more likely to be managed on federal lands than on private.
Sometimes Clearcutting is Used For Any Cutting by Interest Groups (P)
I should also note that some groups seem to use the term clearcutting for any cutting at all, including what we might imagine to be commercial and non-commercial thinning. From the Climate Forests Campaign on the Expansion of American Timber Production Executive Order:
Clearcutting our public lands for private profit will destroy mature and old-growth forests, pollute our air and water, and in bypassing the Endangered Species Act, actively drive vulnerable wildlife to extinction.”
Of course, they argue that thinning is also bad..
Removing large trees and reducing overstory canopy opens the forest to more sunlight, hot, dry winds and higher temperatures, which can encourage growth of flammable shrubs and increase wildfire risk.
The problem I have with this is that the FS really does clearcut (S) and if we want to understand why, we need to focus on those prescriptions in those units.
Conditions That Lead Landowners to Clearcut (S) in Minnesota
I thought that this 2020 JFor paper by Windmiller-Campione et al. of landowner changes over time in Minnesota was fairly interesting.  Similar studies would be of interest in the West, perhaps they exist and I haven’t found them.  The FS does not always tell us clearly in NEPA documents why clearcutting (S) was chosen.
In the Minnesota study, National Forests, industry and small landowners were surveyed. One gets the impression of clearcutting being used when a species is having trouble with native or invasive insects or diseases. It’s interesting that clearcutting went up from 2008 to 2017 for dealing with a couple of these problems.
*************

Wildfire Executive Order of June 12, 2025: What Are Your Thoughts?

by

Generally, I think that wildfire has done pretty well at not getting partisanized.  I do think that any future partisanization that occurs will just obfuscate the policy and organizational choices..in the fog of saber-rattling, fear-mongering and other political theatrics. So let’s help them not go there.

Anyway, here’s the link to the EO.

Section 1. Purpose. The devastation of the January 2025 Los Angeles wildfires shocked the American people and highlighted the catastrophic consequences when State and local governments are unable to quickly respond to such disasters. In too many cases, including in California, a slow and inadequate response to wildfires is a direct result of reckless mismanagement and lack of preparedness. Wildfires threaten every region, yet many local government entities continue to disregard commonsense preventative measures. Firefighters across the country are forced to rely on outdated technology and face challenges in quickly responding to wildfires because of unnecessary regulation and bureaucracy. The Federal Government can empower State and local leaders by streamlining Federal wildfire capabilities to improve their effectiveness and promoting commonsense, technology-enabled local strategies for land management and wildfire response and mitigation.

Some have thought that this is dissing local fire people.  To me it’s just partisan blather. Certainly the Feds reducing unnecessary regulations and bureaucracy and streamlining Federal wildfire capabilities would be helpful, as would giving them more funding.

Sec. 2.  Streamlining Federal Wildland Fire Governance.  Within 90 days of the date of this order, the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture shall, to the maximum degree practicable and consistent with applicable law, consolidate their wildland fire programs to achieve the most efficient and effective use of wildland fire offices, coordinating bodies, programs, budgets, procurement processes, and research and, as necessary, recommend additional measures to advance this objective.

Senator Merkley reads this as:

“Instead of focusing on preparing for fire season and directing all energy to actively respond to wildland fires on the ground—like the Rowena Fire in Oregon—President Trump is telling the agencies responsible for keeping us safe to instead make it their top priority to move ahead with a hasty, poorly planned reorganization of their agencies. Congress has not authorized or provided funding for this consolidation and telling the agencies to do this in 90 days, at the height of summer fires, is literally playing with fire that will only burn our communities.”

I would, instead, interpret the EO as a tabletop exercise by people not directly involved in firefighting. I don’t see calling people off the fireline to work on procurement processes.

In fact, rumor has it that the current effort is more like Service First and less like “move to Interior.”

I liked Marc Heller’s take..”The executive order calls for consolidating efforts, without directly telling officials to shift wildfire management to a new agency,” and “Trump’s watered-down wildfire order skirts fight with Congress.” Because the EO does say “consistent with applicable law.”

But maybe Merkley read something different?:” The Trump Administration is once again acting with a blatant disregard for the law and constitutional separation of powers. ”

Sec. 3.  Encouraging Local Wildfire Preparedness and Response.  (a)  Within 90 days of the date of this order, the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture, in consultation with the Secretary of Homeland Security, shall:
(i)   expand and strengthen the use of partnerships, agreements, compacts, and mutual aid capabilities that empower Federal, State, local, tribal, and community-driven land management that reduces wildfire risk and improves wildfire response, including on public lands; and
(ii)  develop and expand the use of other measures to incentivize responsible land management and wildfire prevention, mitigation, and response measures at the State and local levels.
(b)  Within 180 days of the date of this order, the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture, in consultation with the Secretary of Commerce and the heads of executive departments and agencies (agencies) represented at the National Interagency Fire Center, shall:
(i)   develop a comprehensive technology roadmap, in consultation with the Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP), to increase wildfire firefighting capabilities at the State and local levels, including through artificial intelligence, data sharing, innovative modeling and mapping capabilities, and technology to identify wildland fire ignitions and weather forecasts to inform response and evacuation; and
(ii)  promote the use of a risk-informed approach, as consistent with Executive Order 14239 of March 18, 2025 (Achieving Efficiency Through State and Local Preparedness), to develop new policies that remove barriers to preventing and responding to wildfires, including through year-round response readiness, better forest health, and activities outlined in Executive Order 14225 of March 1, 2025 (Immediate Expansion of American Timber Production).

Those all seem useful.

Sec. 4.  Strengthening Wildfire Mitigation.  Within 90 days of the date of this order:
(a)  The Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency shall consider modifying or rescinding, as consistent with applicable law, Federal rules or policies that impede the use of appropriate, preventative prescribed fires.
(b)  The Secretary of Agriculture and the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, in consultation with the Secretary of the Interior, shall consider modifying or rescinding, as consistent with applicable law, Federal rules or policies hindering the appropriate use of fire retardant to fight wildfires.
(c)  The Secretary of Agriculture, in consultation with the Secretary of the Interior, shall consider promoting, assisting, and facilitating, as consistent with applicable law, innovative uses of woody biomass and forest products to reduce fuel loads in areas at risk of wildfires.
(d)  The Secretary of the Interior, the Secretary of Agriculture, the Secretary of Energy, and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission shall consider initiating rulemaking proceedings to establish, as consistent with applicable law, best practices to reduce the risk of wildfire ignition from the bulk-power system without increasing costs for electric-power end users, including through methods such as vegetation management, the removal of forest-hazardous fuels along transmission lines, improved engineering approaches, and safer operational practices.
(e)  The Attorney General, in consultation with the Secretary of Agriculture and the Secretary of the Interior, shall review pending and proposed wildfire-related litigation involving electrical utility companies to ensure the Department’s positions and proposed resolutions in such matters advance the wildfire prevention and mitigation efforts identified in this order.

I see something like (hey EPA let’s relook at PM2.5 and fire retardant); I don’t find it particularly surprising.  Innovative uses of biomass.. sigh.  If only more words would help.. I like the idea of departments working together,  so I like getting Interior, Ag, Energy and FERC on the same page.   It also seems to make sense that we would pay attention to lawsuits and what they have to tell us.

Sec. 5.  Modernizing Wildfire Prevention and Response. 
(a)  Within 120 days of the date of this order, the Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the Director of OSTP, the Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs, and the heads of relevant agencies, shall, as appropriate, identify, declassify, and make publicly available historical satellite datasets that will advance wildfire prevention and response and improve wildfire prediction and evaluation models.
(b)  Within 180 days of the date of this order, the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture, in consultation with the Secretary of Commerce and the heads of agencies represented at the National Interagency Fire Center, shall:
(i)   Identify rules that impede wildfire prevention, detection, or response and consider eliminating or revising those rules, as consistent with applicable law.  This consideration and any resulting rulemaking proceedings shall be reflected in the Fall 2025 Unified Regulatory Agenda.
(ii)  Develop performance metrics for wildfire response, including metrics related to average response times, annual fuels treatments, safety and cost effectiveness, and other subjects, as appropriate for inclusion in strategic and annual performance plans.
(c)  Within 210 days of the date of this order, the Secretary of Defense shall evaluate and, as appropriate and consistent with applicable law, prioritize the sale of excess aircraft and aircraft parts to support wildfire mitigation and response.

Speaking of Holy Grails (biomass), performance metrics for annual fuels treatments.. yup.   I didn’t know that there was an issue with historical satellite datasets.

 

So that’s basically it.  Hey you all, work together better. And fix those problems we identified even the ones we’ve been working on for decades. Plus get some consistent performance measures going.

Let’s Define “Clearcut”and Reduce Unnecessary Disagreement

by
A variable retention site with 23% retention illustrates the impact of aggregate size on the amount of forest influence. Sites with smaller aggregates have higher levels of calculated forest influence. However smaller aggregates are more edge-affected and susceptible to windthrow and regeneration burn impact. Figure produced by Robyn Scott. I think it’s from this paper.

What if.. we agreed on a definition of clearcutting?  It seems like originally it meant a practice used in even-aged regeneration of forests used (and still used in the SE) by timber industry.  The impression was big openings, removal of all trees, burning broadcast or piles and replanting. During the 80’s I remember an economist from Oregon State on a field trip to Weyco’s Klamath Tree Farm, telling us that we needed to move from “pick and pluck” or Keen classification to clearcutting because it was more efficient. Yes, that was apparently the best available science at the time.

Then as I recall, (and others remember more) it was important to retain wildlife trees and snags.  Then there was an effort to make clearcuts smaller. Then there was the suggestion of “Big Messy Clearcuts”. Well, I couldn’t find those words when I searched in Duck Duck Go, but I do remember them.  Some Region 6 retiree should probably write a history of silvicultural terminology and practices through time.

I did find something when I searched Google Scholar.  It was from a 1991 (35 ish years ago) Focus on Forestry, put out by OSU.

Franklin sees New Forestry as an alternative “to the stark choice between tree farms and total preservation”a way for real multiple-use management to occur on the same parcel of forest at the same time. “It’s a way we can integrate, not allocate, the resource among interest groups,” he says.
However, New Forestry has drawn fire from both the timber industry and environmentalist groups. Industry managers point to a host of problems associated with leaving green trees and snags fire hazard, logger safety, difficulties in regeneration, high costs, and plain ugliness”these places look like messy clearcuts,” says one critic.

Environmentalists, for their part, are suspicious of any scheme that asks them to modify a fundamental tenet: preservation of intact forests. There’s no guarantee, they say, that New Forestry will really do the job of protecting the ecosystem over the long haul.

So now folks are talking about variable retention harvesting, which apparently allows openings (clumps and openings?).   We know that some species require openings to regenerate.  No openings means true fir success, which can compete with ponderosa and die off from bugs leaving material for a wildfire, which indeed makes openings.

I was surprised when I read that the BLM was proposing (according to Oregon Wild):

a massive logging proposal that would clearcut thousands of acres of public forest, including mature and old-growth trees.”

This was surprising to me, as in my definition, it wasn’t clearcutting.  So I asked Victoria Wingell (the author) what she meant by clearcutting. I appreciate her response, as many folks do not respond to my emails.

The 42 Divide Draft EA indicates that as many as 1,040 acres would receive Variable Retention Harvest (VRH). Although BLM does not call this clearcutting, from a practical standpoint it is the equivalent, leaving behind a very small number or percentage of trees in a given stand. The 42 Divide Draft EA also indicates BLM could authorize as much as 3,919 acres of commercial thinning with up to 25% gap creation (mini-clearcuts). 25% of 3,919 is nearly 980 acres. 1,040 acres of VRH plus 980 acres of gaps is over 2,000 acres.

In other documents, BLM has acknowledged that VRH and “group selection openings” (gaps) are the equivalent of clearcutting from a watershed analysis. For example, see the Last Chance EA , pp. 86-87, found here:

I’m not sure about her math, if 1040 acres receive VRH, conceivably it’s not all openings.  So a person  could claim  if a “very small number” is left, it’s the “equivalent” of clearcutting. And if gaps are “mini-clearcuts” then how much of a gap is a mini-clearcut?
If we were going to develop a shared definition of clearcutting, it seems to me it should have some characteristics, like:
1. The trees were alive before being cut down (is cutting a dead stand of lodgepole with some dead leave trees really a “clearcut”?)
2.  The size of openings
3. The spatial relationship of openings
Let’s imagine a a 1 acre opening.  It seems to me the impact would be different if another 1 acre opening were 20 feet away versus two miles. That’s what the literature on variable retention shows. So for me, you can’t add openings across space and by doing so call it a clearcut.
It’s perfectly fine to say “we don’t want openings larger than….”.  Or “over this 1000 acre block, we only want 50 openings less than 1 acre.”
I think using the term “clearcut” without defining it by some kind of mutual agreement leads to unnecessary disagreement and confusion.
In my view, we have enough necessary disagreements (and apparently have had the same ones since the 80s’s) without having unnecessary ones!
*******************
For those who want to philosophize, I also found this quote that seems, in retrospect, somewhat sanguine about the power of research to resolve disputes. I’ve always found it curious that forest science has always been so resistant to the sociology of science work directed at understanding when more science helps or doesn’t.  From Focus on Forestry Winter 1991.
Crucial to resolving the disagreements surrounding New Forestry and the other contentious issues posed by natural-resource management today is good science leading to new knowledge, says Dean George Brown. “We are fully equipped to be the center for that science. We have hundreds of studies going on, looking at everything from the biological processes of forest soils, to manipulating the vegetation to get better growth from seedlings, to finding more-efficient ways to use the wood we have. “This kind of effort is what it’s going to take.”

Human Beings Expunged From USDA Research Websites, Including the Forest Service, But Not Interior (USGS)- Why?

by

USGS website “staff profiles”.

 

Dear USDA,

What happened to you? Agricultural research has always been fundamentally networked with farmers and their needs.  But for some reason, at least with Forest Service R&D and ARS, there seems to have been an intentional effort to make it difficult for citizens to contact researchers.

IMHO we need to foster relationships between the public and scientists, not put barriers up to those relationships.

Why are you doing worse at this than Interior (USGS)? What’s going on?

Signed,

One Very Grumpy Retired Employee

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

Well, I had the idea of posting a useful researcher and research project each day until the budget discussion has led to not zeroing out R&D.  But sadly, I found that I couldn’t do this… because I associate great research with specific researchers.. and guess what? Instead of making NFS human beings more accessible, the FS has made R&D human beings less accessible. It doesn’t seem to be the FS’s fault though, because it happened to ARS as well (the other intramural research agency at USDA).

I suspect, but can’t prove that this effort started in the previous Admin (remember the disappearance of the employee directory?) and appears to have been driven by some non-partisanal force that we don’t yet understand.

Here’s how I used to look for researchers (and research)- the information was organized.

This is the site as captured by the Wayback Machine June 24, 2024.

When you go to the people link, you got this alphabetized list.

And if you selected a person, say Nate Anderson, you would get an extremely useful set of tabs. I picked Nate because he’s  on the first page of names, and he’s working on biomass as well as other things which are Congressional and Admin priorities.  Note that with this page, interested members of the public could contact him.  Also note that you can still use the Wayback Machine to locate scientists the old way.

 

This all seems very useful, at least to me.

But what does the homepage for RMRS look like now?

The people appear to be gone, and contact forms for the Station are supposed to substitute.. which I think would actually make more work for folks to route the questions. The same thing we noticed with NFS last year.

I tried to figure out if this was a USDA-wide thing by looking at ARS. I noticed that ARS also doesn’t have their data on people anymore, and did a Wayback to April 2024.

 

So it seems like it’s a USDA thing..not a Forest Service thing.  Then I checked USGS, and they do have their people listed. So it appears to be only USDA? It would be sad if the agency that is the home of the Land Grant model, liking education, research, and extension, somehow decided it was important to build walls between people and the peoples’ researchers.

 

The Wildland Fire Service Can Work—But Not Without the Forest Service: Post by Eric Horne of Megafire Action

by

Many thanks to the Megafire Action folks for digging into this- I was confused about the Senate bill vs. the budget justification and so on.  Just to get this on the table: Megafire Action is not associated with this Admin, in fact the CEO has a D California legislative background. So here’s one issue that hasn’t been partisanized, thank Gaia!

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

The Wildland Fire Service can work—but not without the Forest Service

New Details on the Wildland Fire Service: budget, land management, and what’s left behind

By Eric Horne, National Policy Director, Megafire Action

The Trump Administration’s Fiscal Year 2026 budget formally proposes consolidating wildland fire programs across the Departments of Interior and Agriculture into a unified U.S. Wildland Fire Service housed within DOI. While we still await further details, the newly released FY26 Interior Budget in Brief and Forest Service Congressional Justification—published June 8th—provide sufficient detail to broadly assess what the proposed consolidation looks like: what is the rough budget, what programs would move from USDA to DOI, and what would remain behind. As the President’s Budget acknowledges, the proposed reorganization is “contingent upon the enactment of legislation,” placing the responsibility squarely with Congress. In February, Senators Padilla and Sheehy introduced a bill requesting a plan to establish a National Wildland Firefighting Service, but beyond that there are few indicators about how Congress will respond to the Administration’s proposal, offering the wildland fire and forestry community the opportunity to present its view(s). In our February piece on One Department for Wildfire Management, we argued that unifying wildland fire and land management under one department—specifically, moving the entire Forest Service to Interior—could streamline preparedness, mitigation, and suppression, improve transparency, strengthen Tribal partnerships, and deliver better value to taxpayers. In short: if the Wildland Fire Service is going to work, it needs the whole Forest Service, not just parts of it. As Congress takes up this proposal in budget hearings this month, here are some considerations:

U.S. Wildland Fire Service overview: The Fire Service has a proposed FY26 budget of $6.55 billion—$3.70 billion for operations and $2.85 billion for the reserve fund. This is relatively flat with the combined FY25 fire budgets for USDA and DOI, which together totaled over $6.3 billion—$2.43 billion in operations and $2.39 billion in reserve funding for the Forest Service, and $1.15 billion in operations and $350 million in reserve funding for Interior. The Fire Service would oversee wildfire suppression, fuels management, preparedness, post-fire recovery, intelligence and technology, and fire-related research across more than 693 million acres of federal land, while also funding Tribal firefighting personnel. By centralizing command, appropriations, and other key functions, the Administration aims to improve efficiency, enhance initial attack success, and reduce long-term wildfire risk through a more integrated approach. The proposal’s effectiveness will ultimately depend on careful operational integration—as Bob B. noted in his Smokey Wire piece last month—and how well remaining land management functions are aligned.

Fuels management: The transfer of fuels management to the new Fire Service is a critical step toward more effective wildfire mitigation—one Megafire Action has been advocating for. The FY26 budget funds this work at $770 million, which is roughly flat with the combined FY25 fuels management budgets of Interior ($228 million) and Forest Service ($175 million plus an estimated $393 million in salaries and expenses for FY25). Note: the salaries and expenses estimate is based on the historical share of National Forest System (NFS) staff working on fuels, since the Forest Service hasn’t reported FTEs for this program since FY20 (this shift may also account for a significant share of the NFS budget drop from $1.86 billion in FY25 to $1.3 billion in FY26.) While unified fuels management under one department promises better integration of mitigation and suppression, its success depends on aligning land management authorities as well. Putting the Wildland Fire Service in Interior in charge of fuels management, while keeping responsibility for 193 million acres of Forest Service land under a separate secretary at USDA, risks repeating the same fragmentation that has long undermined effective wildfire prevention.

What is left behind at USDA: While it is promising that suppression and fuels management will stay linked under the new Fire Service, key wildfire mitigation programs and expertise will be left behind at the Forest Service—undermining the proposal’s overall efficiency. The Vegetation and Watershed Management Program, cut from $30 million to $21.3 million, supports prescribed fire, invasive species control, and post-fire restoration. The Forest Inventory and Analysis (FIA) program—also cut by a third down to $21.5 million—provides vital data on pre- and post-fire conditions. Land Management Planning is left behind at the Forest Service and drops from $14.5 million to $10 million, raising questions about how the Fire Service will accomplish its stated objective of “integration of fire into land-use planning.” Meanwhile, the Forest Products Program—flat-funded at $39 million—is tasked with increasing timber production on high-risk fire lands in accordance with the President’s Executive Order. The $283 million State, Private, and Tribal Forestry account and $300 million Forest and Rangeland Research account—both of which have major wildfire and fuels management functions—are planned for complete elimination in the FY26 budget. All of these underfunded functions—and there are many more—are critical to fuels management but have been left out of the proposed consolidation, raising the specter of a significantly divided and weakened wildfire mitigation system. Other functions like law enforcement, recreation, and minerals management also have clear synergies with Interior agencies, prompting a critical question: if the goal is an “integrated, cost-efficient, and operationally more effective organization”, why not move the entire Forest Service to DOI?

Moving the entire Forest Service to DOI: the Administration appears to be keeping this possibility open, stating in the FY26 budget that “additional operational capacity will be transferred from USDA FS to Interior in the future to ensure effective USWFS mission implementation.” This could eventually include relocating the entire Forest Service to the Department of the Interior, but we believe this should be done in conjunction with the creation of the Wildland Fire Service.  The Administration’s proposal—particularly the inclusion of fuels management within the new Fire Service—is a promising step toward a more integrated wildfire response system. However, by leaving key land management functions underfunded and siloed at USDA, the proposal risks recreating the very fragmentation it seeks to solve. By going half-way, we would forgo cost and performance synergies with DOI’s land management agencies and worsen the challenges facing an already overstretched land management workforce. Based on our research, we remain convinced that a truly effective, coordinated, and fiscally responsible Wildland Fire Service requires relocating the entire Forest Service to the Department of the Interior. Keep the green patches and distinct Forest Service identity, but rationalize and unify land management under a single, responsible Secretary.

As we have noted previously, structural reform on this scale comes with real risks and significant opportunities. Success will require the entire land management and wildfire community to engage Congress and ensure reforms strengthen responsible land management alongside suppression. Megafire Action is eager to continue to partner with other leaders and organizations on this initiative.

Megafire Action is a non-profit dedicated to ending the crisis of destructive wildfires by promoting a holistic approach to natural lands management, wildfire response, and community resilience to ensure that fire-dependent ecosystems and fire-affected communities thrive. 

 

Colorado Communities and Counties Supporting FS Recreation: Colorado Sun Story

by
Stewardship coordinators for the National Forest Foundation in Gunnison County staff an information kiosk at the Judd Falls trailhead near Gothic, Colorado on August 1, 2021. The staff dispenses information about the new designated camping regulations in Gunnison County and hands out portable toilet kits maps and brochures to aid hikers and campers. (Dean Krakel, Special to The Colorado Sun)

I’ve always found some of the recreation discourse to be complex

Sometimes, folks will use “outdoor recreation economic benefit” numbers to argue for Wilderness, and yet the economic benefit numbers include RVs and OHV’s (and possibly soccer balls, sometimes it’s hard to tell.) That’s always been a bit puzzling to me.

Then there is the general feeling that federal lands provide recreation that communities make money from, so federal taxpayers should pay for it.  Let’s look at this news story, for example. This is a Colorado Sun story about how the locals are and have been stepping up in Colorado. The story is from June 4 and incorporates concerns about the GMUG’s toilet cleaning contract and DOGE.  Although Chris French said they were working on those contracts.

Anyone who remembers locked toilets at trailheads and boat ramps during the early months of the pandemic in 2020 knows that does not stop people from pooping. That could lead to widespread closures of those public lands as the government grapples with serious health and safety concerns.

(Local U.S. Forest Service officials have been ordered not to speak with the media and direct all inquiries to regional and national offices that do not respond beyond saying they have received the request for comment.)

I haven’t tried separately from reporter Blevins, so we don’t know.

I’d only add, there were not “widespread closures” of FS land then and are unlikely to be now. And the pre-Trump loss of this years’ seasonals seems to be elided with Trump Admin buyouts or layoffs(and I thought those laid off were rehired?). Indeed it is hard to keep up.

It’s interesting that different counties have different views (or at least individual Commissioners do).

Could local support set a dangerous funding precedent? 

There’s also some concern that if local communities contribute financial support to federal management of public lands, budget-slashing bureaucrats may pinch future funds.

Hmm “budget-slashing bureaucrats”.. are those the same as federal elected officials- or federal employees?

What if they say ‘See, you don’t need us. You can take care of this,’” Gunnison County Commissioner Laura Puckett Daniels said. The county actually declined to pitch in for the backcountry Forest Service workers, not because of a lack of appreciation for public lands but to save funding for health and human services that could be slashed as the federal government shrinks.

For those of you not familiar with Colorado counties, the other counties mentioned are more wealthy than Gunnison County based on per capita income, according to Wikipedia.

Local budgets — even in communities where second homeowners pay big property tax bills — feel the strain of funding public land management, Daniels said.

I went down a bit of a side trail here. How did second homeowners get into the mix? Don’t primary homeowners also pay big property tax bills? Then I cam across this interesting NWCCOG (Northwest Colorado Council of Governments) report from 2024

. Quality of life perception is dramatically different between some respondent cohorts. Full-time, year-round residents who own or rent their residence feel dramatically more negative about the impacts of the tourism economy and QoL than their Second Homeowner counterparts that either do or do not rent their home as an STR. These residency-based
differences are the most pronounced in the study.

The whole report is very interesting. When we think about FS recreation, we tend to think about everyone, local and others. But the communities clearly have a “tourism economy” which can result in overcrowding and lessening the quality of the experience for residents. So perhaps it makes sense to think about “tourism industry-based recreation.”

Anyway, back to the original story.

“I don’t want to create the case for the federal government to divest,” she said. “We just don’t have the income the federal government does to absorb the magnitude of this work for very long at all even with the help of our partners. We can do this as a Band-Aid but we don’t have the funding streams to do it for the long term.”

Pitkin County is supporting two backcountry rangers through the county’s sheriff’s office, giving the rangers the ability to enforce rules around fires and reservations in heavily-trafficked zones.

I hadn’t heard of this approach before to ramp up LEO presence.

Pitkin County Commissioner Patti Clapper is not too troubled by setting a precedent for local-over-federal funding of public lands because the county – like Eagle, Gunnison and Summit counties – has been supporting seasonal Forest Service workers for several years.

“We see this more of a continuation of efforts we have done in the past to maintain our focus on public safety and forest safety,” Clapper said.

Eagle County and its towns launched its Front Country Ranger program in 2018 as “a way to enhance support for the Forest Service,” said Marcia Gilles, Eagle County’s first director of open space and natural resources, who spent more than two decades working for the Forest Service and Park Service.

“The Front Country Rangers was about enhancing a seasonal program we considered underfunded and now we are the sole support system,” Gilles said. “If it was not for this program, we would not have anyone out in a forest that sees 18 million to 20 million visitors a year.”

While Eagle, Gunnison, Pitkin and Summit counties are well-positioned to weather the loss of staff in public lands, the counties’ seasonal programs “are not sustainable,” Gilles said.

“It’s a stewardship responsibility of the federal government to support the Forest Service management,” she said. “We do have a recognition that there is a community-level need for support as well. This is about stewardship and partnership.”

Still, Daniels worries that local funding could lead a newly overhauled federal government to scale back support for public lands. That would create a patchwork of management policy that may hinder access and injure wildlife and habitat.

“If this becomes a state and county or regional management system, we could see a huge breakdown in what public lands mean,” Daniels said.

***************
So if we grant that communities and the feds have responsibilities, what should those be? Should it vary by the wealth of the communities, or by the amount that Forest-based recreation contributes to the local economy? Does advertising for more visitation bring with it responsibility to address the impacts?

Wildfires and Data?: Guest Post by Dan Reese

by

Last week I posted again about the need for The Peoples’ Database, in which some group of citizens would give advice to the Forest Service on what information in what formats it should make available to the public.  Having FOIAd various master agreements, SPAs and quarterly reports, for example, I didn’t see anything that couldn’t be made public (with names redacted perhaps).  Matthew Haggerty brought up the need for budget and personnel data.

Dan Reese wrote these pieces on Wildfire Data on Linked-In on the same topic, so I’m re-posting here. Compatible data sets across agencies seems like one of the Holy Grails of our world.. do I remember John Teply in Region 6 in the 80’s and a discussion about whether FS data should match nationally, Oregon, or with BLM? Conceptually, it seems like it should be simple.

1. Defining who needs the data (across agencies and landowners)

2. Asking them what they need

3. Prioritizing based on that

4. Collecting info.

Clearly it is not, and has never been, that simple. Perhaps with today’s platforms and sensing capabilities, it should be easier?

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

Post Title: Wildfires and Data: Where Are We Falling Short?

Wildfires are relentless, wreaking havoc on our communities and costing lives, resources, and billions of dollars. Despite living in an era of advanced technology, why are we still struggling to manage them effectively?

The truth is, the challenges are complex. Bureaucratic red tape, fragmented response efforts, and cautious decision-making (often influenced by litigation) create significant obstacles. But perhaps the biggest hurdle is our incomplete understanding of data.

We still lack a fully integrated system that combines information from drones, satellites, dispatch records, flight logs, ground resource data, and beyond. Firefighters, often overwhelmed and exhausted, cannot reliably input this data manually. Without automation and advanced analytics—potentially powered by supercomputers—fire managers are left navigating a maze without a map.

The opportunity is clear: better data integration and analysis could transform how we prepare for and respond to these infernos. So, how do we get there? Stay tuned for more insights in the next post.

Post Title: Wildfires and Data; Bridging the Data Gap to Fight Wildfires

Imagine a world where fire managers have access to real-time, integrated data to guide their strategies. Predictive models anticipate fire patterns, and advanced analytics inform decisions—before fire suppression efforts even begin.

This isn’t wishful thinking; it’s achievable. But to unlock this potential, we must break down silos between government and private sectors. Standardized data collection and analysis across agencies and jurisdictions is essential. No more “chess games with mismatched pieces.”

Yet collaboration alone isn’t enough. Leaders must advocate for funding, create testing environments for new technologies, and foster innovation in the private sector. Without real-world testing opportunities—like on active wildfires—companies can’t refine their solutions.

The good news? The fire service, environment, and public would all benefit from these advancements. Let’s commit to bridging this gap and creating a unified, data-driven approach to wildfire management.

Post Title: The Future of Wildfire Management: A Call to Action

The wildfire crisis demands more than incremental change—it requires a bold, transformative shift. The tools and technologies we need are within reach, but they require decisive leadership and investment.

Here’s what we need:
1️⃣ Standardization: Compatible data sets and equipment across agencies.
2️⃣ Collaboration: Foster partnerships between public and private sectors to share expertise and resources.
3️⃣ Real-World Testing: Agencies must provide environments for testing and scaling innovative solutions.
4️⃣ Appropriate Funding: Agencies must encourage the use of new innovations by providing exclusive proof-of-concept use contracts to help grow and refine these technologies.

The private sector alone can’t simulate the complexities of managing massive wildfires. Government agencies must support these efforts, ensuring new technologies are field-tested and ready to deploy.

The stakes are too high to settle for less. Let’s equip the next generation of fire managers with the tools they need to protect our communities and planet.

 

Forest Roads Provide Critical Access to Recreation, Wildfire, and Forest Health Activities: Guest Post by Don Amador

by

 

POST 2020 AUGUST COMPLEX FIRE ROADSIDE HAZARD TREE MITIGATION
Mendocino National Forest

Don Amador writes:

There are a growing number of FS staff and partners who are voicing concerns about the issues of Roads is mostly AWOL  in current policy statements, etc. when no management takes place when a road is washed out during heavy rains in the winter.

If we take the long view, there was a time when Travel Management planning was the thing.. then I remember Sustainable Recreation seemed to argue that budgets were never going to improve, so roads should be right-sized so the FS could afford to maintain them.  Then people (at least in some parts of the country) started using forest roads more during Covid.

There is the idea that roads are bad for wildlife because people use them, but wasn’t Travel Management supposed to settle that (yes, I know some plans are still in litigation)? So does everyone agree that the roads that survive travel management (and various veg projects don’t have permanent roads, so there are probably no new ones) should be maintained?

What’s the status on your local unit, and do you agree that roads need more policy attention?

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

FOREST ROADS PROVIDE CRITICAL ACCESS TO RECREATION, WILDFIRE, and FOREST HEALTH ACTIVITIES

As a long-time partner that depends on access to Forest Service System Roads and Trails for OHV recreation and post wildfire trail stewardship efforts, QWR appreciates Chief Tom Shultz’s commitment to managed outdoor recreation, resource management, fuel projects, and wildfire mitigation activities.

In fact, the Forest Transportation System functions as the common thread that binds or connects virtually all forest recreation, management, research, or cultural activities.

KEY FOREST ROAD NORTH/SOUTH TRANSPORTATION ROUTES

Mendocino National Forest

Yet to date, none of the Administration’s stated policies or guidelines – including the May 20 post by Acting Associate Chief Chris French – highlight “roads” as a key focus area or acknowledge that none of the on- the- ground Forest management objectives or goals happen unless Forest roads damaged or blown out during winter storms are repaired in a timely manner.

ACTING ASSOCIATE CHIEF CHRIS FRENCH, MAY 20, STATEMENT ON OPERATIONAL PLANNING

https://www.fs.usda.gov/inside-fs/leadership/update-interim-operational-planning

French notes the actions below aim to maintain essential services, address critical risks, and support the agency’s priorities. Key focus areas (sans ROADS) with dedicated working groups include:

  • Employee and public safety
  • Disaster recovery
  • Active management (timber/vegetation/fuels)
  • Recreation
  • Energy, minerals and geology
  • NEPA planning
  • Grants and agreements
  • Information technology
  • Communication and legislative affairs
  • Fire response (incident management capacity)
  • Human resources
  • Law enforcement and investigations
  • Budget
  • Chief Finance Office (payments, billings & reimbursable agreements)
  • Procurement & property services/contracts, facilities & leasing

Over the last 4-5 years, the subject of not having the funds and resources to effect post-winter repairs of FS storm damaged roads is almost always part of any conversation that QWR has had with agency staff or partners.


POST 2020 AUGUST COMPLEX FIRE ROADSIDE HAZARD TREE MITIGATION

Mendocino National Forest

QWR believes the Administration and Congress should make maintaining a quality Transportation System a top priority if they plan on increasing the pace and scale of forest management treatments and providing access to outdoor recreation.

CHIEF TOM SHULTZ POSTS MAY 6 UPDATE ON NEXT STEPS

https://www.fs.usda.gov/inside-fs/leadership/our-next-steps

PS- Thanks to the hard work by Mendocino NF crews and partners to recover forest lands and recreation facilities damaged by the 2018 Ranch Fire and 2020 August Complex Fire.

# # #

 

Don Amador has been in the trail advocacy and recreation management profession for 35 years.   Don is President of Quiet Warrior Racing LLC. Don is Past President/CEO and current board member of the Post Wildfire OHV Recovery Alliance. Don is a Co-Founder and Core-Team member on FireScape Mendocino, a forest health collaborative that is part of the National Fire Learning Network. Don served as an AD Driver for the Forest Service North Zone Fire Cache during the 2022, 2023, and 2024 Fire Seasons. Don is a  Northwest  California native and writes from his home in Cottonwood, CA.  Don may be reached by email at: damador at cwo.com

 

The People’s Database Redux: New Admin, New Transparency?

by

 

I couldn’t get the MS AI to remove the smoke from Smokey. Smokey looks puzzled and slightly disappointed. He must have tried to round up personnel data.

Mark Haggerty of Headwaters mentioned the need for the FS to produce information.. which reminded me of an earlier concept of “the People’s Database” in which an Admin could bring people together to prioritize information to be publicly available and develop formats, etc. So that IT and other folks wouldn’t have to guess. Could be a FACA committee (although establishing those is painful and long). As far as I can tell, transparency is an idea generally favored by both kinds of Admins, and yet our simple world with our few relatively simple requests seems to be overlooked.

Anyway, I’m reposting The People’s Database post below. For the previous comments, you can go here.  Also there’s a category for People’s Database which has several posts from 2012 on.

When I think about this now, I think perhaps we don’t need the Chief to get a FACA committee, some organization (Headwaters?) could organize a group to develop recommendations for what data should be public and in what format, similar to how AF&PA organized the Blue Ribbon Panels for FIA.

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

Needed: Coalition for Public Access to Information on National Forests (AKA The People’s Database)

(originally posted

Recently, SAF signed on to an effort to get funding for FIA- forest inventory and analysis- which collects information about forests across the US. A couple of times I served on two “Blue Ribbon Panel” of users of the information who (excerpted from this):

The American Forest and Paper Association has organized two Blue Ribbon Panels (1991 and 1997) to review the national FIA program and provide recommendations to the Forest Service on needed changes to the content and capabilities of the program. The most recent panel recommended that the Forest Service should 1) elevate the priority of FIA in the Forest Service program, 2) convert the FIA program from a periodic inventory to an annual inventory, 3) fulfill the congressional mandate of reporting on all lands regardless of ownership, 4) concentrate on the core ecological and timber data, and 5) develop a strategic plan to implement the full FIA program.

FIA also has regular meetings with user groups to help guide their activities and generate support.

It seems to me that we are missing a group (Coalition) that can reach across different interest groups and ask for information that we might agree that we all need about National Forests. We don’t have an AF&PA to speak for us and get things started, so perhaps we have to organize ourselves.

We could ask the Chief to convene a panel of citizens representing different groups to ask 1) what information is important to be collected in a standard format across forests and regions? and 2) how best do we make that accessible to the public? For example, PALS has searches that internal folks can do but not external.. should it remain that way?

Stakeholders outside of the FS could lobby strongly for this information the same way that they lobby for FIA.

Some topics we’ve mentioned here are budgets and outputs, costs of environmental document developments, number of acres treated, etc., as in the “vegetation management” thread here and here. it seems to me that we could take advantage of having an Administration who promotes transparency to set such a framework of an advisory committee.

At first, I was thinking volunteers could find and enter the data, but then I thought “if the public wants this information, why doesn’t the agency just provide it?”. I’m sure that the agency could save some bucks by stopping collecting information on a variety of things that someone used to be interested in, and focus on things the public is currently interested in. The public could actually help the Forest Service prioritize information across silos, something that is problematic internally.

But we can’t ask poor Region 1 to do more work on their own.. when these are national forests, and data should be captured and made available consistently across regions. Besides, they appear to already be doing more work than some other regions, based on the GAO reports and Derek’s observations.

What do you think?

 

Useful FS Research and Researcher: Dr. Reeves and the West-Wide Rangeland Fuel Assessment

by

This video series “Reading the Tea Leaves” on fuel moisture by Dr. Reeves of the Rocky Mountain Research Station reminds me of what intramural pragmatic FS R&D can be. Researchers who have been paying attention to the same things for their careers become experts. Practitioners give them info, they do research and provide info back to practitioners as researchers and practitioners mutually learn through time.

For me, it’s about researchers engaging directly with the folks their research is supposed to help. Reaching out via mechanisms other than journal publications. Not using more abstract or trendy terminology than is necessary to get the point across. These folks are treasures.

Reeves’ Fuelcasting system is an important component of the Rangeland Production Monitoring System. Both sound extremely useful to me.

Anyway, to the Index:

Who benefits: fuels, wildfire and grazing folks
Scale: West-wide
Time: The current year, comparison to past years
What Questions: How are fuel conditions looking this year in terms of wildfire?

A West-Wide Rangeland Fuel Assessment: Reading the Tea Leaves
In this monthly recorded series, Dr. Matt Reeves – an RMRS Research Ecologist specializing in remote sensing and ecological modeling – will analyze current rangeland fuel conditions across the west, with emphasis on emerging hotspots. New episodes will be posted every month and more frequently as the summer progresses.

Projections are based on Reeves’ Fuelcasting system, a new program that provides projections of expected fuel conditions this grazing season. It is an important component of the Rangeland Production Monitoring System.

***********

Wildfires are a result of fuels, weather, and topography. Topography is static, but weather and fuels change constantly and require regular monitoring. One of the techniques used to monitor fuel conditions is analyzing the Seven-Layer Cake. The Seven-Layer Cake consists of:

Standardized Precipitation Evaporation Index (SPEI; both 6- and 12-month varieties)
Change in fine fuel production compared to long term average
Total fine fuel amount
Wildfire history
Density of larger diameter fuels
Density of invasive annual grasses

In this webcast, USDA Forest Service Research Ecologist Dr. Matt Reeves analyzes rangeland fuel conditions around the western United States and draws parallels to the 2017 fire season in the northern Rockies, especially western Montana. Moreover, conditions in California, northern Great Basin, central and southeastern Arizona, Columbia Basin and eastern Cascades, and parts of the Black Hills region exhibit interesting fuel characteristics. All previous recordings are located on the Reading the Tea Leaves page.