Question about how USAJOBS works. A forestry student of mine applied for a technician job with a federal agency. The student was very well qualified, has a related associate’s degree, relevant work experience, and had done related volunteer work for an NGO (a watershed council) in the same watershed, plus had the president of the NGO as a reference. The student also reached out to the agency’s staffer who would make the hiring decision and was well received.  The student now has received an email from “usastaffingoffice” saying that “You are tentatively eligible for this series/grade combination based on your self-rating of your qualifications.” But: “You have not been referred to the hiring manager” for the position, and “If you were not referred, you were not found to be among the most highly qualified for the position.” Naturally, this very well qualified applicant is disappointed not to be selected for an interview with a real person.

Questions:

Did a human being evaluate the student’s application at any point? Or was it completely automated?

Can hiring managers request that USAJOBS re-evaluate the student’s application?

New open-access paper in Forest Ecology and Management. A meta-analysis of 220 previous papers. Thanks again to Nick Smith!

Tamm review: A meta-analysis of thinning, prescribed fire, and wildfire effects on subsequent wildfire severity in conifer dominated forests of the Western US

Thanks (again!) to Nick Smith for this link…. It’s an Oregon Public Broadcasting article from April 2 on the eastside screens, which we’ve discussed several times, such as here and here.

Federal judge finalizes protections for large trees east of the Cascades

A federal judge has finalized the return of national forest protections for large trees growing east of the Cascades.

The order brings back protections that had long prohibited logging trees larger than 21 inches in diameter from six national forests in eastern Oregon and Washington.

During the final days of the Trump Administration, the U.S. Forest Service amended its guidelines known as Eastside Screens. The amendment removed the agency’s 21-inch standard that had protected large trees across 8 million acres of forestland since 1994.

The agency at the time determined the change wouldn’t significantly impact the environment, and it bypassed procedures that would typically give the public opportunities to comment. The Forest Service claimed this sudden change was needed to thin forests and prevent major wildfires.

Six conservation groups sued the agency in 2022, arguing the policy change violated national forest and species protections laws. The following year, U.S. Magistrate Judge Andrew Hallman recommended the Forest Service restore the large tree protections, calling the agency’s decisions “arbitrary and capricious.” But his recommendations needed final approval from a U.S. district court judge.

On Friday, District Judge Ann Aiken issued an order agreeing with Hallman. Aiken concluded the Forest Service violated several federal laws and “failed to take a hard look at the amendment’s change and its impact on aquatic species.”

Aiken’s order calls on the Forest Service to prepare an environmental impact statement, which is required when a new policy could harm the environment. That process also requires the agency to collect public comments.

The Forest Service did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Conservation groups applauded Aiken’s decision, calling it a win for eastside forests where just 3% of trees are larger than 21 inches in diameter.

The nonprofit Greater Hells Canyon Council was among them.

“The amount of trees that this actually applies to is very few,” conservation director Jamie Dawson said. “So it’s very important that they stay standing and are providing that wildlife habitat value: Storing carbon dioxide, cleaning pollution from the air, influencing the water cycle, cleaning our drinking water, all of the stuff that large and old trees do.”

Two stories about forest management in SW Oregon.

Helicopter logging project to begin in Ashland watershed and Siskiyou Mountain Park

Background on Ashland’s Forestland Climate Adaptation Project in its city watershed:

The first phase of work to help forests transition and adapt to the changing climate is reducing wildfire fuels that threaten our community and the forest’s ecological integrity. Phase 1 will utilize a helicopter to remove dead, dying, and crowded trees from Siskiyou Mountain Park and City-owned land in the lower Ashland Watershed. Helicopters have been used extensively in the Ashland Watershed over the past 20 years due to their low impact on resources. Phase II, expected to last several years, will involve replanting with species adapted to drought, heat, and frequent fire, along with ongoing use of prescribed fire for wildfire safety and ecosystem benefit. 

IMHO, Ashland is being very proactive — a great example for other communities.

The Klamath-Siskiyou Wildlands Center objects and plans a rally outside the courthouse next week:

“Integrated Vegetation Management” Is Not What It Sounds Like

It sure sounds benign, doesn’t it? The words “integrated vegetation management” evoke visions of thoughtful fuel reduction efforts designed to restore and protect public forests and surrounding communities. There’s no doubt the name was chosen for a reason. Unfortunately, BLM timber planners are using their new Integrated Vegetation Management (IVM) project to target old-growth forests within Late Successional Reserves for conversion into “open seral” stump-fields devoid of trees.

The other project is on BLM land in neighboring Josephine County.

Three conservation groups challenging BLM forest plan in Medford federal court

BLM Late Mungers project info:

Why is the BLM conducting commercial treatments in Late Successional Reserves?

Fifty-one percent of all forests in southwest Oregon are overly dense and our area has the highest need for restoration, via thinning and prescribed fire, in all of Oregon and Washington. The Southwest Oregon Resource Management Plan identifies active management objectives for Late Successional Reserves (LSR), including commercial thinning/group selection harvest on 17,000 acres in LSR per decade. These commercial treatments are designated to develop, maintain, or promote northern spotted owl (Strix occidentalis caurina) nesting-roosting habitat. In addition, the BLM manages LSRs to: 1) enable forests to recover from past management measures, 2) respond to climate-driven stresses, wildfire and other disturbance events, 3) ensure positive or neutral ecological impacts from wildfire, and 4) contribute to northern spotted owl recovery.

How is BLM protecting large, fire resilient trees in the Late Mungers Project Area?

Late Mungers is designed to protect and culture large, old trees. The project protects large trees by removing adjacent trees and fuels. Clumps of fire tolerant legacy trees would be retained. Conifer trees (pine [Pinus spp.] and Douglas fir [Pseudotsuga menziesii] greater than or equal to 36-inches DBH) and hardwoods greater than 24-inches DBH would be retained. In non-conifer plant communities, large conifers and hardwoods (often greater than 24-inches DBH) would be retained. Thinning also creates growing space for the next generation of legacy trees.

FYI, plan watchers….

Open-access paper in Nature Communications, “Fire suppression makes wildfires more severe and accentuates impacts of climate change and fuel accumulation.”

Abstract:

Thanks, Nick Smith, for adding this to your Healthy Forests news roundup today….

Apologies if someone posted about this already…. Link is here.

Amidst the increasing threat of wildfires, the USDA Forest Service has taken a proactive stance by implementing the comprehensive 10-year Wildfire Crisis Strategy designed to confront the crisis in areas posing the most immediate threats to communities. The NWTF, with a longstanding history of partnering with the Forest Service on stewardship projects nationwide, recognizes the urgency of addressing western landscape issues and fully supports the Wildfire Crisis Strategy.

The Participating Agreement enables the NWTF to enhance its support for this critical initiative by providing funding for new positions dedicated to supporting the implementation of the Master Stewardship Agreement. Funding for this agreement comes entirely from federal dollars authorized in the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law and the Inflation Reduction Act. This includes covering expenses such as personnel costs, including travel, and supporting essential meetings like Partner Coordination Meetings and Industry Coordination Meetings to foster effective communication and collaboration among stakeholders.

Currently, the NWTF has two key staff positions dedicated to implementing the Master Stewardship Agreement under the Wildfire Crisis Strategy, a Wildfire Crisis Manager and a Regional Wildfire Crisis Coordinator.

CNN story:

Over the last three decades, the number of US homes destroyed by wildfire has more than doubled as fires burn bigger and badder, a recent study found. Most of those homes were burned not by forest fires, but by fires racing through grass and shrubs.

The West is most at risk, the study found, where more than two-thirds of the homes burned over the last 30 years were located. Of those, nearly 80% were burned in grass and shrub fires.

Back in November,  I posted “Old Growth: How Much is Enough?” with a link to the Dovetail Partners report of the same title. (Only 2 comments on TSW.)

Now Dovetail has posted 4 “guest responses” to the report. The group explains:

In November 2023, Dovetail Partners released a report titled, “Old growth forests: How much is enough?”. In the report, we explored the different definitions of “old growth” applied globally and in regions of North America and Europe, including their scientific basis. The report considered why we need old growth forests, and conversely, why we do not, and included a discussion of old growth forest protection and management. We concluded with a discussion how much old growth is ‘enough’, how we can create more, and how our understanding of the relationship between people and forests is evolving.

We asked the following individuals to respond to the report, “Old growth forests: How much is enough?”, and compiled their feedback into one document.

Marcella Windmuller-Campione
Marcella is an Associate Professor with the Department of Forest Resources at the University of Minnesota.

Dr. Alexander Evans, Forest Stewards Guild
As an Executive Director, Zander focuses on building partnerships, promoting sound policy, and supporting on-the-ground implementation of ecological forestry. He has a PhD from the Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies and worked as a cartographer and spatial analyst with the US Geological Survey.

Dave Atkins
Dave is a Family Forest Owner and President of the Montana Forest Owners Association; he is one of the authors of the Mass Timber Report.

Joseph Vaughn, CF
Joseph is a Key Account Manager at NCX and has a deep rooted passion for sustainable forest management.

Nick Smith has this in his Healthy Forests, Healthy Communities email today. Interesting that it’s from Outdoor Life, which says it “has been the go-to publication of America’s diehard hunters, shooters, and anglers since 1898. Our stories are written by hunters, for hunters. We value experience in the field, at the range, and on the water above all else. Our mission is to deliver stories about success in the field, cutting-edge gear, and adventures in far-off wildernesses and close-to-home woodlots. We inspire America’s outdoorsmen and women to chase the critters they’re passionate about and fight for the wild places they love.”

Here’s Why No One Can Agree on How to Manage America’s Old Growth Forests