Pinyon Plain Uranium Mine on the Kaibab

A uranium ore pile is the first to be mined at the Energy Fuels Inc. uranium Pinyon Plain Mine Wednesday, Jan. 31, 2024, near Tusayan, Ariz. The mine began operation in January in the heart of northern Arizona after decades of regulatory battles. | Ross D. Franklin, Associated Press

For those of you not following the energy-climate biz, the fact that tech folks want to do bigtime AI means that they are thinking they need nuclear.  Our Northern Virginia TSW folks can attest to the growth of data centers. And many folks think that depending on other countries for supply is suboptimal.   So here’s an op-ed by a fellow who visited such a mine on the Kaibab National Forest.  I was surprised by the 17 acre footprint.  There’s no doubt that the footprint of nuclear is smaller than wind and solar, plus new transmission also happening on federal lands. Meanwhile, the Admin is “protecting” more land from energy development of all kinds. I think energy needs a cohesive strategy..

Uranium mines, which provide the fuel for nuclear power, were plentiful in the American Southwest until the late 20th century. Once most American uranium mines closed due to heavy regulation, we began exporting uranium mining and production to Russia and Kazakhstan, among other countries with lower environmental standards.

But recently, Congress passed a bipartisan bill banning Russian uranium imports — which is good news for those who want to expand uranium mining in the U.S. at sites such as the Pinyon Plain Mine, which began operation in January in Arizona after decades of regulatory battles. The mine’s ore is processed at the White Mesa Mill in Blanding, Utah.

Unfortunately, Pinyon Plain is still battling environmental groups that have substantially delayed projects like these through intense litigation. They’ve claimed the mine is too close to the Grand Canyon and that it poses serious threats to the people and environment nearby. They are pressuring Arizona Gov. Katie Hobbs to close the mine even though Hobbs has called it “probably the most regulated mine in the entire country.”

We discussed Energy Fuels in this post.  The Grand Canyon Trust folks are not fans of uranium mining nor the White Mesa Mill’s recycling or waste disposal (depending on your point of view) efforts. From this story:

For years, the Energy Fuels White Mesa Mill in Blanding was the only operating uranium mill in the United States. Last week, the company announced it has commenced production at the facility and at two other locations in Utah and/or Arizona. Energy Fuels is also preparing two mines in Colorado and Wyoming to begin uranium production within one year. The company stated it has commenced production due to increased prices, supportive government policies from the Biden Administration, and an enhanced interest in securing domestic supply.

And

Irina Tsukerman, a member of the American Bar Association, Section of Environment, Energy, and Resources (SEER), said she believes domestic interest in uranium mining may now have bipartisan support due to increased trust in our country’s ability to regulate the industry and ongoing wars in Ukraine and the Middle East.

“Utah is one of the few states that harbors most of the uranium in the US,” she said. “It aligns with the goals of both parties: environmental concerns, energy independence, and support for United States security… It simply works, and when something simply works there won’t be much room for political bickering.”

Maybe not, but I think there will be plenty of room for litigation, as always ;).

Anyway, back to the op-ed.

Driving up to the mine on a warm June afternoon, I was struck by what a small area the mine occupies. The mine sits in a natural clearing of trees in the Kaibab National Forest, occupying a 17-acre plot of land. I wondered how this blip on a map could hold enough energy to power the state of Arizona for a full year with carbon-free energy, as the mine’s owner, Energy Fuels, claims.

After a safety briefing, two of the 35 miners who work at Pinyon Plain accompanied me on an elevator descending 1,400 feet below the surface. (That’s roughly equivalent to the height of the Empire State Building.) Once underground, I saw how information about the mine shared by some environmental groups was wildly exaggerated or, in some cases, flat-out wrong. What I saw was an operation that had countless measures in place to protect the safety of those working there and to prevent harm to the surrounding environment.

Underground, I spoke with many of the miners, who were immensely proud to provide clean energy for the country and ensure its production in and for America. I learned the truth about uranium’s radioactivity: that a lifelong uranium miner is exposed to less radiation than an airline pilot, and I even held uranium in my hand. I saw how the mine’s natural geological protections have been supplemented with carefully crafted technological systems to prevent any opportunity for water contamination.

But most of all, I was struck by how small-scale an operation it was, especially when compared to the immense size of the Grand Canyon, which itself is a 40-minute drive from the mine.

Enough protection for the environment and worker safety? I don’t know. I don’t think Benji Backer (the author) knows.  Grand Canyon Trust folks don’t want it to exist, so they may know but will always tell us that it’s not enough.  I guess we have to depend on the regulators, both the state and feds, and unions.

Employee Friday: Non-Federal Positions Doing Federal Work, FS Job Offer Withdrawal, and Fire/NonFire Unpleasantness

In the spirit of investigating what’s going on with the Keystone Agreements, I want to reiterate: we need to have a learning culture.  We need to be able to ask questions and get answers  We need to give multi-million dollar expenditures the same attention we would a  GS-5 rolling a four-wheeler (yes, we would do a lessons learned in the latter case).

So, in that vein, I really like wild turkeys, we have them in our neighborhood.  I also like the people at the National Wild Turkey Federation.  I do think questions need to be asked about the role, in general, of not-for-profits in carrying out government activities.

(1) Joint Positions.  For example, there’s a great job advertisement for a joint position with NRCS and NWTF in Wyoming to support private forest management. The duties sound just like an ordinary NRCS forester, without the federal employee benefits.  It’s a term position.  Again, as I’ve raised before with the seed orchard manager position in California, it seems to me that workers, professional, administrative, or technical, learn on the job and get better through time.  I’m not sure that this is a BIL or IRA funded effort, so again the question comes up,  do we care about learning? Or can’t we afford government employees- even on term appointments? Or?? I wonder  (1) Why is this better than hiring feds directly? (2) What kinds of positions does the USG consider for these kinds of agreements? All? Some? Based on..? 3) it seems to me (at the Forest Service, not NRCS)  that job permanence helps people stand up to the powers that be, based on their knowledge accumulated through time.  Is this kind of knowledge still valued, or will academics (“the science”) be talking to line officers who just came from Congressional staffs with political science degrees? What is the importance of local on-the-ground knowledge when it comes to wildlife, fisheries, silviculture, fuels practitioners, reforestation, and how is that reflected in the recruitment and retention of expertise in the US government?

On another note, when we dealt with partnerships in Region 2, some Supes were concerned that we would always do what partners wanted, and potentially never do other important things, including what the communities wanted.  I’m not so worried about that with NWTF, but it is an idea worth considering.  When the push is to partner, perhaps the easiest thing for FS folks to do is go with the flow and possibly hand over prioritization of projects to people at non-profits who are less readily accessible to the public.

(2)   FS Withdraws Job Offers for Non-Firefighters.  From an E&E News story:

As many as 350 pending job offers for positions not directly tied to fighting wildfire may be withdrawn, the Forest Service said, and future hiring through the bipartisan infrastructure law and the Inflation Reduction Act will be more tightly controlled through Chief Randy Moore’s office.

In a June 27 memo to employees, later posted on the agency’s website, Moore cited a tight budget for the current fiscal year, in which Congress cut spending across federal departments. But he also noted a more optimistic scenario: The Forest Service isn’t losing as many employees to normal attrition as it would typically expect and thus doesn’t have as many slots to fill.

“To stay within budget and continue to deliver on our core mission, we must implement tighter controls on both internal and external hiring,” Moore said.

Moore outlined the new policy in the web posting, adding that hiring for positions such as aviation inspectors — which may not be fire positions but are related to firefighting — remains a topic of “deliberate conversations.”

The jobs most affected are external hires in permanent, non-fire-related positions. Internal hiring, which had been limited, will resume, Moore said, as officials consider career advancement “very important.”

Moore said the Forest Service will move ahead with 157 tentative job offers in positions such as line officers, law enforcement officers, resource assistants and “some hard-to-fill mission critical positions,” for example. And officials will lift a pause in hiring within the agency that was imposed in April.

In addition, Moore said, people hired through student employment programs will be allowed to convert to permanent Forest Service positions.

The pullback on hiring is the latest in an extended set of personnel challenges for the Forest Service. Moore warned employees in April that a strategic hiring assessment was necessary, and he’s repeatedly outlined to lawmakers the agency’s uphill climb to fill positions both for firefighters and non-fire employees.

In 2023, Moore told county officials at a conference that hiring for non-fire positions couldn’t keep pace with long-term attrition. More than 8,000 positions were lost over a decade, and Moore told the National Association of Counties he aimed to hire 4,000 people to address the gap, relying on contractors and local governments to fill remaining needs.

A tight job market at the time was to blame, Moore said.

In his latest memo, June 28, Moore said attrition overall has improved, from a typical level of 9 percent down to less than 5 percent.

“On one hand, we should celebrate that our staff are staying because they feel connected to the mission, they feel heard, and they are committed to improving our nation’s forests and grasslands,” he said.

As for me, I don’t think I’d be having “deliberate conversations” about ..aviation inspectors. Also I’d think prioritizing work itself and people needed to get it done (rather than new people in non-competitive programs) might work better.

(3) The Complaint Heard Round the Region at Least.

The Hotshot Wakeup  discusses this email kerfuflle in his podcast this week. I always thought careful consideration of when to hit “reply all” is an important work skill.  The basic story is that HR sent out an email asking (?) people to (ask their Congressfolk?) to support the Wildland Firefighter Paycheck Protection Act.  Someone was disgruntled about why firefighters should get it, explained and replied all.  I don’t have any of the emails.

Weekend Reading: Three Climate Attribution and Impacts Posts

For those of us with a long weekend and possibly more time for reading, here are three thoughtful pieces by knowledgeable climate folks.

My personal opinion is that I believe something is going on climate-wise, affected by greenhouse gases, irrigation, changes in surface reflection, and many other things humans do or don’t do (and likely some we are not currently aware of).  I also think that a mix of folks with good intentions and grifters of all kinds have jumped on the climate bandwagon, with varying end results in mind.  And I think that better understanding of the various elements of science and practice around mitigation and adaptation (more light and less heat) will ultimately make our world better, as we jointly confront whatever lies ahead.  And I wonder about the tendency for solutions in this space to become both top-down, and stick-y rather that carrot-y.  This does not build trust IMHO.

1) Ricardo Simonds on his direct experience of the Brazilian flood disaster.  Here are a few tables of interest.. also look for his Katherine Hepburn vs. Walter Brennan analogy, probably particularly meaningful to those of a certain age..

As I wrote,

The cast of characters in a disaster is well established, comprised of components and their associated drivers. Any natural disaster is comprised of three components: the hazard, exposure and vulnerability. Each component in turn is affected, or motivated, by drivers.

I recently posted about flooding in Brazil in May, 2024, that left almost 600,000 people displaced, 77,000 rescued, 800 injured and 169 dead (see official data here). It’s a terrible tragedy that has mobilized the nation.

If the Brazilian landslides were a movie and the disasters causes were personified by actors, the Oscars would nominate best actresses and supporting actors. While the media and science activism overwhelmingly promote climate change at the lead actress in every single weather disaster, many times the lead actor is vulnerability or exposure.

The media always tells you climate change is Katherine “Climate” Hepburn (most lead actress Oscars of all time) when climate is often Walter Brennan (most supporting actor Oscars of all time). Never heard of Brennan? That’s my point.

Here’s a few of the many interesting tables in his post-  for those of you who don’t follow this stuff, Swiss Re is a reinsurance group (insures insurers), and is one of the world’s largest. SCS are “severe convective storms”:

If you’re interested in talking with friends over the weekend about trends and attribution, Ricardo posted this Table 12.12 on page 1856 Chapter 12 of IPPC AR6.  Because Ricardo’s post is about landslides, he circled those, but the whole table is interesting.

 

The whole piece is worth a read for sure.  Let me know if there’s a paywall, I’m a subscriber to his Substack.

 

2) Roger Pielke, Jr. is starting a series on extreme events and climate change, which looks to be interesting, including the discussion.

It is now a ubiquitous cultural ritual to blame any and every weather event on climate change. Those hot days? Climate change. That hurricane? Climate change. The flood somewhere that I saw on social media? Climate change.

As he goes through, he wants folks to get more specific and meaningful.  What the stories mean is that “increasing GHGs in the atmosphere have made this event more likely”; but Roger starts back with IPCC definitions.  Maybe it seems like a trivial detail, but short hands for complicated concepts can be misleading.

Climate refers to a “statistical description”1 of the climate systemdefined as:

The global system consisting of five major components: the atmosphere, the hydrosphere, the cryosphere, the lithosphere and the biosphere and the interactions between them. The climate system changes in time under the influence of its own internal dynamics and because of external forcings such as volcanic eruptions, solar variations, orbital forcing, and anthropogenic forcings such as the changing composition of the atmosphere and land-use change.

The climate system. Source: NRC 2005. HT Pielke Sr. Note that the sun, volcanoes, human activities are all defined to be outside the climate system.

The climate system is complicated, but at a high level, we can get our brain around it (above). There is a deeper discussion to be had about why the climate research community decided that people are not included as part of the “climate system,” but let’s leave that for another day.2

Looking forward to that one.

As to detection, he has an interesting thought experiment.

Also, “deck change” cannot be used to attribute the cause of receiving an ace in a single hand. If you know that you have a stacked deck with one additional ace, then you can say with certainty that the odds of receiving at least one ace in your next hand increased from 14.8% to 15.3%.

Did that increase of 0.5% increase cause the ace to appear in your most recent hand?

After 329 hands, you can be 90% confident that the greater number of aces that you received over those hands than you would have expected from an unstacked deck are due to the addition of the extra ace.

A final point for today — The thought experiment described today is a pure statistical example. Dealing two cards from a deck does not remotely describe how weather occurs on planet Earth.

Weather can be characterized statistically, but weather does not occur as a result of simple statistical processes.8 Weather is the the integrated result of at least: dynamical, thermodynamical, chaotic, societal, biospheric, cryospheric, lithospheric, oceanic, vulcanological, solar, and, yes, stochastic processes.

 

3) Patrick Brown tries to clarify language about climate change impacts  in this post .

When the IPCC says “decreasing,” (sometimes) they mean in comparison to what otherwise they would have modeled to occur (and given how complex human/agricultural/environmental interactions are,  I would take such models with several grains of salt), not (as we might commonly use the term) decreased from the past.   Decreasing crop yields compared to the past (observable decreases in something measured regularly on this planet) are very different in real life than overall increases with the increase smaller than what might have been without  (modeled) climate change. Now, I am not against the use of models, but they are not the same thing as observations.

This seems like a very important point. Here’s a piece of his post.

Take, for example, the statement, “Climate change is decreasing crop yields.” This could mean that we are seeing crop yields decrease over time, and this trend is being driven by climate change (left side), or it could mean that crop yields are increasing over time, but they would have been increasing faster if the climate wasn’t changing (right side).

So, which is it? For crop yields, the situation is much more like the right side than the left side. However, the IPCC repeatedly states in its reports that climate change is “decreasing” crop yields, misleadingly conveying the message that the situation is more like the left side.

Climate change impacts on agriculture have been calculated to make up the largest negative societal impact of climate change as quantified in the social cost of carbon, while heat impacts on mortality represent the second largest. So, how does the IPCC report on mortality associated with heat? In its technical summary (B.5.3), the IPCC reports that,

“Increasing temperatures and heatwaves have increased mortality and morbidity (very high confidence).”

Most readers will interpret this to mean that heat deaths are increasing relative to the past (they will infer a direction of trend). But only those who read the technical chapters will understand that only a direction of impact is being reported because there you will read that heat deaths are decreasing over time:

“Heat-attributable mortality fractions have declined over time in most countries owing to general improvements in health care systems, increasing prevalence of residential air conditioning, and behavioural changes. These factors, which determine the susceptibility of the population to heat, have predominated over the influence of temperature change.”

This type of conflation is ubiquitous in climate change impact reporting. In addition to crop yields and heat mortality, I have previously drawn attention to this issue in the context of global wildfire, emissions, hunger, and climate-sensitive diseases like malaria.

What Patrick doesn’t mention in this post is that people who deal with observations (like many of us) tend to read something like “climate is decreasing crop yields” and look around and see that in the meaning of “decreased from the past” it doesn’t appear to be true.   Without digging into the technical chapters, we’ll just think “they don’t know what they’re talking about.”  For myself, I have this crazy idea that we should try as much as we can for people observing the real world, and the people modeling it, to try to get on the same page.  What a simple clause to add, “decreased from where it would be modeled to be without climate change.”

 

Did Smokey Retire Too Early? Human- Caused Ignitions on the Rise

Burnie’s message seems a little abstract- maybe we shouldn’t retire Smokey yet?

Our friends in BC officially retired Smokey. “Stefan Hood of the BC Wildfire Service says they are trying to shift people’s focus away from how to suppress fire toward how to live with it. They are visualizing that change through the retirement of Smokey Bear and the introduction of their new mascot: Ember the Fox.” https://www.coastmountainnews.com/trending-now/smokey-bear-heads-for-retirement-as-bc-wildfire-introduces-ember-the-fox-5674241

The 4th of July seems like a good time to take up the issue of one of the unmodeled-in-all-studies-of-future-fires factors. Yes, the sources of human ignitions and how they change over time. This is what I think we know about human ignitions:

1. Some people do extraordinarily dumb things,

2. Some people set fires on purpose intending to cause wildfires (e.g. Hayman Fire, college prof in California) for a variety of reasons,

3. Some people have campfires or cookfires that get out of control.

4. Some people are doing ordinary things, underestimating fire risk (e.g. dragging trailer chains).

5. Some people have equipment that sparks when it is working incorrectly (e.g. power companies).

6. Some people have prescribed fires, managed fires, or other burning operations that get out of control.

Perhaps there are other that we could add to the list. That’s an extremely broad range of behaviors.

Now if we think about how to change human behavior, we usually think of education (e.g. Smokey Bear), laws and enforcement thereof, and litigation against the deep-pocketed (power companies or timber companies, individuals not so much).

That’s an extremely broad range of behaviors. If we knew the proportion of each group, we could potentially target education programs to them. But it seems like it’s hard to get that data, beyond “human-caused.”

I didn’t verify his numbers, but the Hotshot Wakeup wrote a post that claimed:
92% Of All Wildfires This Year Have Been Human Caused. Those Fires Account For 98% Of All Acres Burned.

Smokey in 1944, still 90 percent 80 years later…

 

He also had a fun rant on his podcast a piece on this Outdoors magazine article that said “let’s shut down campfires entirely” due to ..climate change. Which sounds a bit like the arguments against managed fires (interesting because the people against managed fires tend to otherwise have different views than these folks). When I was hunting for the link to the Outdoor article, I discovered that they had published an opinion piece with almost exactly the same idea by a different author in 2021; the tie-in for that one was to the IPCC report (I’m not making this up).

Last week, I happened to be at a subdivision in the Sacramento area, nowhere near the WUI. We got a text that there was a fire behind the houses on the next street, and police came around looking for the people whom they thought had started it. There are many homeless peoples’ tents in the dried grass around the area; at some point we’d know the people who started it and why-   if it was easy to find the results of investigations (which as far as I can tell, is not easy).   At least for California, maybe there’s a table or spreadsheet that’s updated regularly? A few miles away, a large fire close to another subdivision had been started by a homeless person’s fire, so people are on the alert, and the fire departments in the area seem to be very much on the ball.

There is some discussion that the cause of the Darlene 3 Fire in Central Oregon was a long-term camping group.  In the comments on TwitX, one person spoke about the outreach that goes on in their community to these groups, in terms of fire prevention.  It seems to me that you can sympathize with both groups, the homeless and the local homeowners.  Starting a fire unintentionally is good for no one, nor are fines (for people with money), nor prison terms. But the world has changed, and is changing, and now substantially more homeless people camp and have fires, therefore, due to non-climate-related changes, we can expect more fires. An interventions would be to figure out if the homeless folks are using the fires for warmth (I’m thinking not, at least in Sacramento, as it was in the 100s during the day.  If they were using them for cooking, perhaps supplying them with solar or propane stoves?

Human-caused wildfire are different than lightning fires.  Often lightning occurs with rain.   Human causes can occur at the hottest, driest and windiest (when air resources can’t fly), time of the year, and throughout the year.  Let’s face it, there are a lot more humans around than there used to be.  Check out the trail of campers heading to the woods for next weekend, and think about the numbers 30 years ago. Certainly changes in climate can be correlated with increasing problematic wildfires, but so could increases in population, in population in the woods, and so on.  When we were worried about not enough people enjoying the outdoors (the Nature Deficit, remember that?), we wanted more people to get into the wildlands.   After Covid, we have.. too many?  And if more people mean more fires, then resources will be stretched.. leading to less control, possibly leading to more problematic fires.  Maybe “if you set them, they are bad” was not an untrue message all along. Sometimes nuance gets in the way of clarity.

I’m also pointing out what seems like a serious data deficit.  Somehow we have  wildfire-climate models that predict acreage of wildfires in 2100, yet we don’t have easily accessible data on human ignitions.  At least not to the level of detail that we would need to try, or compare, different policy interventions to reduce ignitions on meaningful scales.  It’s probably too simple to say “there’s lots of money to study climate and lots of satellite data so we tend to see the world through that lens.”  And yet, what are we not seeing when we look through that lens?

For today and this weekend, though, let’s be careful, observe restrictions, and be watchful for those who don’t.

 

 

The Chevron Decision: How Will it Affect the FS and BLM?

I’ve been out hobnobbing with the Coastal Elite at a Breakthrough conference and visiting family, so I’m way behind…

Chevron case

I’m puzzled by the news coverage of this case. It’s always interesting to try to narrow the gap between what news sources tell us and our own lived experience. Here’s an example from CBS:

Proponents of the doctrine have argued that agencies have the expertise and experience to address gaps in the laws enacted by Congress, especially when it comes to administering programs that serve broad swaths of the population. Overturning Chevron would make it more difficult for the federal government to implement the laws passed by Congress, its backers warned.

Kagan, in dissent, accused the conservative majority of usurping the power the legislative branch gave to agencies to make policy decisions and putting judges in the center of the administrative process on all manner of subjects.

“What actions can be taken to address climate change or other environmental challenges? What will the nation’s health-care system look like in the coming decades? Or the financial or transportation systems? What rules are going to constrain the development of A.I.?” she wrote. “In every sphere of current or future federal regulation, expect courts from now on to play a commanding role.”

The Biden administration urged the Supreme Court to leave Chevron deference intact, calling it a “bedrock principle of administrative law.” Justice Department lawyers argued that the framework allows experts at federal agencies to interpret statutes, and have said they, not judges, are better suited to respond to ambiguities in a law.

Hmm. judges in the “center of administrative processes on all manner of subjects.” You mean like whether BLM used the appropriate air quality model in its EIS? Or whether the scientific findings of effectiveness of certain forests treatments are controversial? It’s hard to imagine them being more involved than they already are. But maybe our federal lands litigation is unique. Here’s NRDC:

Sometimes Congress is purposefully inexplicit in order to give the subject-area experts space to decide how best to implement a regulation. For example, an agency made up of occupational safety specialists should already be well equipped to decide how to handle the technical, nuts-and-bolts aspects of imposing workplace protections—rules about equipment usage, say, or the need for periodic employee rest breaks—without the meddling of judges. And given the complexity of weather patterns, EPA scientists are better equipped than judges at determining how much a state should curb its air pollution in order to protect people living in other states downwind.

It’s hard not to read this and add “and Forest Service experts are better than federal judges in determining how to protect people from wildfires.” I guess, according to NRDC, judges only “meddle” when they get involved with NRDC-approved agencies like EPA.

The only thing I could think of was that the Chevron case related specifically to “interpreting statutes” and maybe that’s not exactly what judges in our kinds of cases are doing. When the article says:

limiting the framework would threaten the ability of federal agencies to craft regulations on issues like the environment, nuclear energy or health care.

It seems like judges already get involved when groups litigate regulations (which they do regularly). When folks don’t like proposed regulations, they often say that they are going against the statute at issue.

Hopefully one of legal folks out there can explain this in layperson’s language and give us some ideas of what changes we might expect. Personally, I think it would be a good use of time for legal and agency folks to review any proposed statutes for Possible Problematic Ambiguities with an eye to correcting any problems before they start.

Chief Moore Announces FS Temporary Housing Refund

Here is a link; letter from Chief Moore

Let me begin by saying thank you.  Thank you for sharing your ideas and stories at our all-employee forums and the many other avenues for sharing. We heard you and are using that information to work with employees and the department to find solutions to the housing affordability crisis. 

Today, alongside Secretary Vilsack and Under Secretary Wilkes, I am pleased to announce a temporary housing refund that we estimate will benefit 4,500-5,500 employees in Forest Service housing through the end of fiscal year 2024. This refund will cover half the rent for the following Forest Service employees in government-owned housing:  

1. GS 1, step 1, through GS 10, step 10 

2. Wage-grade employees 

The refund also will cover 10% of the rent for employees GS level 11, step 1, through GS 13, step 10. 

This temporary housing refund will address the March 10 annual rental rate increase and will be retroactive to that date. Secretary Vilsack, Under Secretary Wilkes and the National Federation of Federal Employees were key to getting this refund and I am including messages of support they asked me to directly deliver to you at the bottom of this email. Employees will receive the refund within 9 to 11 weeks. It will be provided within our existing budget; we will make trade-offs to focus on this high-priority need. 

The amount of rent charged for government civilian quarters is determined according to government policy described in Circular A-45. The bipartisan Wildfire Commission has recommended review and potential updates to these policies. We and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) are reviewing these recommendations.

The temporary housing refund is provided under the Secretary’s emergency subsistence authority under Section 5 of the Department of Agriculture Organic Act of 1956, 7 U.S.C. 2228, which was delegated to Under Secretary Wilkes and the Chief of the Forest Service. This emergency subsistence authority authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture to provide subsistence, including for quarters, during emergency conditions. 

Since this refund relies upon specific emergency conditions, it is temporary while emergency conditions last. USDA’s Forest Service anticipates leveraging the emergency authority for no more than a year while we concurrently work on government policy changes that address the emergency conditions. Once emergency conditions are addressed, the Forest Service will provide a 60-day advance notice to employees announcing the end of the emergency housing refund. If you live in government-owned housing, there will be future information sessions to help you understand the housing refund and answer any questions you may have. These sessions are tentatively scheduled for the week of July 8. More information will be provided, to include virtual invitation links. Frequently asked questions are available on the National Housing Hub SharePoint site.

     

I also want to acknowledge that this refund doesn’t benefit all our employees. Housing affordability significantly affects the lives of employees across the agency. We are taking this action with the authority and resources available to us. We need to use all the tools in our toolbox, even if they aren’t as far-reaching as we’d like. We continue to: 

1. Submit housing-specific budget requests for congressional consideration through the annual budget process. 

2. Use all possible funds from the FY 2024 budget to prioritize investments in employee housing. 

3. Finalize the National Housing Strategy, a comprehensive plan that will assist the agency in addressing the affordability, availability and condition of Forest Service housing. 

4. Continue to make progress and administer our existing Quarters Program thanks to employees like our national housing project manager, Procurement and Property Services housing managers, and district-based tenant managers. 

5. Collaborate with NFFE. 

These collective efforts are consistent with our needs and align with the recommendations of the bipartisan Wildland Fire Mitigation and Management Commission. We continue to explore other creative opportunities to assist you with obtaining affordable housing. I want to emphasize our unwavering commitment to ensuring you have access to safe, comfortable and affordable housing near your duty station.  

  

Your well-being is of utmost importance to us, and we will persist in our efforts to provide you with the support and resources you need to thrive in your role for the Forest Service. Thank you for your hard work and dedication.  

Please Call Your Congresspersons About HR 5169 and S 2272

 

You know I don’t usually ask for folks to contact Congressfolk about things.. I’m making an exception today. I listened to the Hotshot Wakeup podcast in which he interviewed folks from NFFE (federal employees’ union). They and Grassroots Wildland Firefighters are walking the halls of Congress this week, as I understand.  It sounded as if some reticence to pass HR 5169 is either due to just the fact it will cost money or in the hope of some horse-trading on something else.

I get the argument about spending money we don’t have, but I think we can still retain the ability to discern necessities from “nice to have” or even “payback for our friends.”  I’m sure that all of us, R, D, Independent or Whatever,  have suggestions about slack in the federal budget that could be cut to.. pay federal wildland firefighters.

According to the NFFE folks, phone calls to particularly House congressfolk might help.  It’s an easy five minutes, so why not?

Here’s the letter from NFFE, Grassroots Wildland Firefighters and others..

Dear Members of Congress,
As constituents and members of Grassroots Wildland Firefighters, we write to you under dire circumstances that demand immediate attention and action from our legislative and agency leaders. The federal wildland firefighting workforce is the cornerstone of our nation’s ability to build resilience against wildfires, protecting communities and landscapes effectively. Yet, their efforts are hindered by a lack of adequate support and expansion due to congressional inaction and administrative barriers.  We implore you to stop playing partisan politics and be a proactive part of helping to solve the wildfire crisis.
We urgently call upon Congress and the Executive Branch to prioritize and enhance the support for these brave wildland firefighters. They sacrifice their families, health, and well-being to protect us, a testament to their dedication and the gravity of their needs.
Immediate Actions Required:
1. Pass the Wildland Firefighter Pay Protection Act, S.2272: We implore you to bring this crucial legislation to the Senate floor for a vote and initiate its progression in the House of Representatives without delay.
2. Implement Administrative Reform: Define clear, accurate job descriptions with correct grading; provide hazard pay for hazard duties such as prescribed burns; ensure proper job classification reflects the diverse roles and extensive qualifications wildland firefighters are required to obtain.
These actions are not just administrative or legislative tasks; they are moral imperatives that safeguard the lives of those who protect us. The ongoing inaction and bureaucratic delays are unacceptable, especially as we face increased wildfire risks exacerbated by climate change and development into the wildland interface.
As we approach another summer with drought conditions in place, the time to act is now. We, along with your constituents, demand decisive action to address these critical issues. The well- being of our communities and the efficacy of our national response to wildfires hinge on your leadership and responsiveness. Only you can correct these conditions.

Thank you for your attention and we look forward to your swift action and resolution.
Sincerely,

Grassroots Wildland Firefighters
– Luke Mayfield, President

National Federation of Federal Employees

– Randy Erwin, National President
U.S. Hotshot Association
– Randy Skelton, President
Wildfire Industry Collective
– Jonathon Golden, Executive Director
Fired Up
– Janelle Valentine, President
Veterans in Fire Foundation
– Blake Toth, President
Eric Marsh Foundation
– Amanda Marsh, Founder
Megafire Action
– Matt Weiner, CEO
FireUP
– Shefali Lakhina, Founder

WAPA NEPA Jobs- Multiple Locations

These look interesting and fun with some in neat places..

Natural Resources Specialist, GS-13,  has posted for multiple duty locations.  The position is open to both current Feds and all US Citizens.  The position is open until June 25, 2024.  Please share with anyone you think may be interested.

https://www.usajobs.gov/GetJob/ViewDetails/795832500 (DE – rest of the US)

https://www.usajobs.gov/GetJob/ViewDetails/795832000 (MP – current Feds and status candidates)

More Hiring Questions: How to Identify NEPA/Project Planning Jobs and Psychological Testing (?)

I have run across folks interested in getting into NEPA/project planning with the feds.  I realize the FS has a hiring pause but BLM is still there.

The question folks have is “what words are used in advertising for those jobs?”

They also observed “if you hear from the feds nine months later that you have an interview, you may have already gotten another job.” Sounds very frustrating for applicants and hiring officials.  Does anyone know what makes the process (es) so slow?

Finally, I’ve been told that there are now personality tests (perhaps BLM) that take hours to complete and they do not tell the applicant the score.  It all sounds very odd.  Any observations from the front lines of applying and hiring would be appreciated.