We’ve had some good discussion recently (which searches couldn’t find) of how to count acres burned by wildfires towards burning targets, and how to comply with project planning requirements (i.e. NEPA and ESA) for such actions. An implication I got was that a national forest could count a lot of acres if it just let a wildfire burn, and there wouldn’t be any process requirements.
Well, this sounds like the opposite of that, and like what I think should be the proper way of doing this – a wildfire started in an area that had been “prepped” for a prescribed burn. Assuming that “prepped” includes the usual public participation and effects analysis.
Fire managers plan to expand the footprint of a 10-acre lightning-caused wildfire burning northeast of Dolores on the Haycamp Mesa next week, and could burn upward of 4,500 acres.
Last month, the Dolores Ranger District announced plans to burn 4,577 acres across Haycamp Mesa Units 5, 6 and 9. Fire managers plan to use existing roads as fire lines within which they would contain the blaze.
The Spruce Creek Fire started Tuesday afternoon along the northern perimeter of Unit 5.
“It’s all prepped and ready to go, conditions are ideal,” said Pat Seekins, prescribed fire and fuels program manager for the San Juan National Forest. “It’s low-intensity surface fire, it’s doing exactly what we need it to do.”
If the weather continues to cooperate, fire managers hope to burn between 4,000 and 5,000 acres. Seekins said crews have prepared around 5,600 acres to burn.
“With prescribed fire this spring, we’ve accomplished just shy of 4,000 acres, which is good – we’ve had a good spring,” Seekins said. “But we’re taking this opportunity to expand those acres.”
It’s not clear exactly how active they would be to “expand” those acres. Interestingly,
Last year, fire managers used three natural blazes that began inside units already prepped for treatment to return fire to the landscape in the San Juan National Forest. With the help of firefighters, those three wildfires ultimately treated 4,000 acres of forest.
Is the San Juan just lucky, or well-prepared, or does this happen a lot?
I’m always interested in people seeking agreement about forest issues, and Oregon seems to be a long-time source of ongoing controversy. Thanks to Nick Smith for this one.
There was an interview on Jefferson Public Radio, but I couldn’t find it. Here’s the description.
The so-called “O&C lands” of Western Oregon have long been a focus of contention. They are lands once given by the federal government to the Oregon & California Railroad (O&C), taken back by the feds, then managed under law by the federal Bureau of Land Management.
The bone of contention comes from the sharing of timber receipts from those lands with the 18 O&C counties, which puts pressure on those lands to produce timber.
The nonprofit Forest Bridges proposes bringing the multiple sides of the debate together, to agree on timber cutting methods, and–more importantly–which land to include in the timber base. Forest Bridges Executive Director Denise Barrett gives us an interview with an overview.
Forest Bridges has a good website with lots of info. Their Principles of Agreement are here.
Below is a snapshot of their principles of agreement. Feel free to discuss anything on the website in the comments.
Awhile back I attended a Western Governors conference, and Lesli Allison of Western Landowners Alliance asked the question “what if we think of ranchers as partners, rather than antagonists”? Could we actually make more progress toward conservation?”
PERC’s collaboration with—and listening to—area ranchers produced an innovative means to help them bear the burden of brucellosis risk. If successful, the fund will help lay the groundwork to address similar challenges throughout the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem and beyond.
Yes, I realize that PERC advocates free-market solutions, but if they work, at no cost to the taxpayer, what’s not to like? They listened and respected the ranchers. They found a way to resolve a conflict and improve conservation.
I think free-range “enemyism” can keep us from solutions, and needlessly subject groups to a position of “forever enemy-hood.” And we all know who the bad guys are… the forest products industry, ranchers, miners, oil and gas folks.. and OHV people. “Enemyism” is particularly annoying (in my view), when it co-occurs with moralizing. For forest products, oil and gas, and mining, it seems to me that there is a certain element of hypocrisy- some people use these things, and rich people use a lot of them. For me, as a person with a Judaeo-Christian background, it’s bit like God saying in Deuteronomy “it’s OK to eat camels but only if the Canaanites prepare them.”
Awhile back I posted this about an interview with Michael Webber, Prof at UT, who thinks we need an “all hands on deck” approach to decarbonization.
Is there a way to work with them, rather than against them, to promote a low-carbon future?
Unquestionably, many oil and gas companies have been bad actors. At best, the petroleum industry has ignored the problem while making a profit off the products that worsened the situation. At worst, it actively worked to delay action by funding misinformation campaigns or lobbying to delay policy action.
But blaming the industry leaves out our own culpability for our consumptive, impactful lifestyles. Oil consumption is as much about demand as supply.
Rather than finding someone to blame, let’s look for who can help.
Meanwhile, around the National Forests, collaborative groups are working together across different interests. But is there anyone whose job it is to find common ground at the national or regional level? Bless their hearts, it seems that politicians are generally more interested in rewarding their friends and punishing their enemies than seeking long-term peace and expediting things everyone agrees on. In fact, it could be in their parochial interests to prolong and intensify divisions. At least some think that it is in their interests. So yes, that’s a difficulty under our current system. What would it take to change this dynamic?
I’d like to go back to this 2001 interview of Chief Jack Ward Thomas (128 pages, lots of interesting history, recommended).
HKS: You’ve introduced a subject that I’d like you to talk a little bit about. I hadn’t heard the term “conflict industry”—eco-warriors and other things. You’ve been critical of the environmentalists. You have said that they have won the war and now they’re wandering the battlefield bayoneting the wounded. They’re not helping anything. They’re only opposing. Do you think it’s because these guys are making three hundred thousand dollars a year, that that’s part of why they are not doing something?
JWT: Let’s not go too far with that. For everybody in the environmental industry that’s making several hundred thousand dollars a year there are probably some number of hundreds working for minimum wage, if that, working for what they think is right. But it matters not what the reason is, people are dedicated to the fight for the environment. There is a time to fight. There is a time for all things under the sun. There is a time to make peace. I think the general environmental war related to the Forest Service is over. In reality, industry needs to abandon sponsoring “ghost dances” to bring back the buffalo—i.e., the good old days. Those days aren’t coming back. It is time for the environmentalists to ease up. They are not going to finish off those who extract natural resources. Now we’ve come to where we stand today. And it is time to ask, “What are some of the things that we could agree upon?” Certainly
an appropriate, well-maintained road system should be one, and there may be others. If one performed an analysis of public opinion related to the management of the national forests considering protection and extraction of resources, you would be looking at a standard U-shaped curve. You might surmise that there was no room for agreement there, but I suspect if you conducted a public opinion poll you would find that the results yield a curve that resembles a bell. This leads me to the conclusion that in a democracy decisions are made by the majority of the minority that cares about the issue. Those that care enough about national forests to participate in planning efforts seem to be split in their opinions. I don’t know how we get them to middle ground, but the general public is much more inclined to accept some middle ground.
HKS: Did you ever discuss this directly, one to one, informally over a cup of coffee with the head of one of these organizations? Why don’t you guys help us?
JWT: Yes I tried that, and most of those from the “industry” believed me to be prone to accept the environmentalists’ view, and most of the environmentalists believed me to favor the industry position. So I guess I did not do so well as a moderator and a broker for the “middle ground.” I think the American people are wearing out with this unrelenting battle, and sooner or later they will insist on some middle ground approach to management. There are management actions by the Forest Service upon which both sides ought to be able to agree. Things such as dealing with issues of forest health. Extreme environmentalists might say, “That’s just another Forest Service excuse to whack down trees.” I’ve even been told that if the trees removed were decked and burned, support for restoration activities might be forthcoming. In other words, there should be no commercial use of trees removed. Well, I think that is a bit goofy.
Here in the Bitterroot Valley of Montana you would think from reading the newspaper reports that the Forest Service is moving ahead with salvage and that dealing with forest health issues in burned areas is overwhelmingly opposed by local people. Yet public opinion polls indicate the vast majority want to move ahead with such activities. They might argue about what “something” is but the vast majority of those polled, at least at this point, are adamant that active management is required. But that is not what you would think after attending public hearings or reading the newspaper.
(my bold)
What do you think? Could we have gotten further down the “national or regional” peace path since 2001? What opportunities have we had that may have been missed? Do you think the NWFP revision/amendment has the ability to lead to a lasting peace? What would you recommend to lead to peace? Do you think real collaboration is only possible at the local level? Why?
Shout out to all our friends at Blue Mountain Forest Partners!
**********
Summary: In December 2023 More in Common and the SNF Agora Institute at Johns Hopkins University published a new report that aims to re-invigorate discussion about a paradigm that long served to strengthen democracy, but which has fallen out of fashion the past several decades. “Collective Settings” describes how, by investing in the design and distribution of civic infrastructure, communities cultivate the capabilities of their residents to work across lines of difference to solve public problems.
What are Collective Settings?
The new report, “Searching for a New Paradigm: Collective Settings,” makes the case for reinvigorating civic infrastructure as a complement to existing institutional reform and bridge-building efforts. Critically, we find that to build a more robust and vibrant democracy, Americans need more experiences where they engage directly with others to address public problems. This happens through collective settings, organizations and spaces designed to bring people to the table and enable them to hash out problems together.
These settings are what Alexis de Tocqueville described as “schools of democracy” and have been a prominent feature of the American landscape throughout history.
Think about neighbors coming together to build a new park, co-manage shared resources, or deliver aid during crises. While these sorts of activities often appear to happen almost spontaneously, we argue that where they are successful, they are the product of well-designed and developed civic infrastructure: collective settings.
Image created with DALL-E
Report Highlights
The report emerged from several years’ worth of convenings, research, and analysis of existing paradigms for how to strengthen democracy. As part of the project, scholar Isak Tranvik produced an essay that lays out the important features that healthy collective settings demonstrate.
Similarly, for this project, scholar Emily B. Campbell conducted a series of case studies to describe how collective settings play out relative to democracy paradigms rooted at the behavioral or institutional level. They feature:
Electoral reform (institutional) in Alaska
The behavioral interventions of Braver Angels of Central Texas
The collective settings of Blue Mountain Forest Partners in Oregon
Emily’s work demonstrates the ways these three paradigms—behavioral, collective settings, and institutional—complement one another while pursuing distinct strategies and approaches.
The intent of the report is not to highlight flaws in existing efforts to improve democracy, but to show that much greater attention needs to be placed on collective settings.
Collective settings, we argue, are where Americans build the skills, habits, and dispositions necessary to successfully navigate an unknowable future together, in ways that preserve and strengthen democratic norms and institutions.
As we write in the report, “By investing in collective settings, we hope to develop the muscles for democracy that people and communities will need to seek, identify, and implement shared solutions that do not accept the world as it is but instead create the world they need.”
Recommendations
We include in the report the following recommendations.
For Researchers: We need much more (widely disseminated) research to help us better understand multiple themes.
Distribution gaps: Where do well-designed collective settings exist, or not? How are they distributed across off-line and online settings?
Design features: What are the design features that influence whether collective settings cultivate healthy democratic capabilities?
Return on investment: What measures can we use to examine the impacts of collective settings? What measurement and evaluation frameworks enable philanthropists and practitioners to maintain rigor even when designing for uncertainty?
For Philanthropy: Collective settings need both funding and philanthropic organizing.
Address distribution concerns: New funding opportunities can invest in creating well-designed collective settings in areas where such settings are rare or absent.
Shift incentives to emphasize designing for contingency: Funding opportunities can emphasize metrics that focus on the cultivation of dynamic democratic capabilities at both the individual and organizational levels.
Empower learning: Resourcing the connective tissue between research and practice, and cultivating fellowships and other human networks to share lessons learned, can strengthen the field.
Nurture the philanthropic community: Funding communities organized vertically (bringing local, state, and national funders together) and horizontally (across ideological, geographic, demographic, and issue-based difference) can coordinate resources and mitigate against unnecessary politicization.
For Civil Society, Business, and Government: Civil society leaders can cultivate collective settings in their work and communities. Likewise, the state and markets each play a crucial role in creating settings (like the workplace) where people interact with each other. All three sectors impact the design and distribution of settings.
Invest in design: Thinking intentionally about the design features of self-governing communities (governance practices, accountability, learning systems) can make collective settings more likely.
Consider distribution: Local and regional groups across civil society, business, and government can consider working together to identify and fill gaps in access to well-designed collective settings.
I guess this is a bookend to Sharon’s “Friday News Roundup.”
BLUE MOUNTAINS
I recently provided an update on the status of the Blue Mountains forest plan revisions here. And here’s a little more detail on that, especially on the question of “access.” (This term gets used for a couple of different things, and this one is about closing roads on national forests rather than creating access across private property to reach public lands.)
One group says its leading the charge to fight for what they call “original rights” is Forest Access for All. “We defend the rights that we’ve had since Oregon was a territory, free reign where we go and utilize the forests which are public lands,” says Bill Harvey, a group member and former Baker County Commissioner. “A couple decades ago the Forest Service began closing off sections of the forest and that’s when Forest Access for All was formed.” Harvey says his group’s particular ire is at the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest (WWNF), which he claims “have closed thousands of miles of roads in the forest the last twenty years.”
The group also has other “conflicts” with the Forest Service include the need for more vegetation management, economic benefits of (motorized) recreation, and better public engagement.
“By law right now, we have an open forest. They will admit it, everybody admits it, and it’s in the books, I’ve seen it a million times. It is an open access forest,” says Harvey. “Why in God’s name would we want to give that up? Nothing benefits us to give up our rights that we have currently. We’re not asking for more rights, we’re asking for the existing rights to stay in place.
I’m going to disagree with him on this one, and I hope the Forest Service does, too (although it looks like they could have done a better job of setting the locals straight on this before now). In 2005, Subpart B of the Travel Management Rule changed the culture of motor vehicle use on roads, trails, and areas from “Open unless closed” to a system of designated routes. As for why? The goal was to reduce resource damage from unmanaged motor vehicle use off that road system.
FLATHEAD
Newly revealed emails show that the Flathead National Forest under then supervisor Kurt Steele looked to keep a proposal of a tram up Columbia Mountain from public view for more than year prior to it being first proposed.
Does this sound familiar? It sounds to me like the “Holland Lake Model” that got the forest supervisor a “promotion” to forest planning. In this case the Forest properly rejected the proposal as inconsistent with its forest plan (thank you forest plan!). But it does suggest a pattern of incentives and behavior that may be broader than the Flathead National Forest.
“The process where the public comes into play is when it becomes the NEPA process,” Flathead Forest spokesperson Kira Powell said about the emails.
“Bringing you into the conversation about this potential project on the Flathead NF because it’s coming from investors who apparently have the financial resources to build a tramway, meaning they likely have political savvy also … wrote Keith Lannom, who was deputy regional forester for Region 1 at the time …”
This account offers a window into the role of “political savvy” in Forest Service decision-making.
ORGAN MOUNTAINS – DESERT PEAKS NATIONAL MONUMENT
Since President Barack Obama created the Organ Mountains-Desert Peaks National Monument in 2014, visitation has tripled and the national monument has spurred economic growth in the Las Cruces area as well as other communities near the national monument, according to a new report.
According to this overview, the report looks at the various factors that made this particular monument so successful, including its location relative to population centers and the uses it caters to. Also local community support.
“We have always recognized that the establishment of the monument was due in large part to the grassroots effort at the local community organizations and individuals,” Melanie Barnes, the state BLM director, said. “And due to this engaged and proud community, the monument has seen an increase in visitation.”
She said the BLM is working on a resource management plan that will address land use and resource protection. The public scoping period for that plan recently ended.
Grand Staircase – “visitutah.com” (Larry C. Price)
Dismissal of a lawsuit against President Biden’s proclamation restoring the boundaries of the Grand Staircase and Bears Ears national monuments allows the NEPA process to develop a management plan for these areas to proceed unhindered. Biden ordered the BLM to work on replacing the Trump Administration’s resource management plan, and the BLM published its draft RMP on August 11 for public comment.
BLM may proceed unhindered, that is unless Congress decides to hinder them. The FY2024 Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Bill the House Appropriations Committee passed in July, which the full House of Representatives is expected to vote on in September, includes a rider that would require the BLM to manage the Grand Staircase NM in accordance with the plan finalized after Trump reduced the monument.
Which is the better planning process – RMPs based on public involvement through NEPA or RMPs based on appropriations riders?
The bill would also deny funding to implement the BLM’s public lands rule (a popular topic with many posts here from Sharon). Another bill would force BLM to withdraw the rule (without considering all those public comments).
Kya Marienfeld, wild lands attorney for SUWA, called the Utah congressional delegation’s lack of support for the state’s public lands disappointing but adds that opposition is offset by more enlightened members of Congress who actively support the Grand Staircase and other public lands.
Appropriation riders seem to be kind of crap-shoot in the turmoil of budget negotiations, so I have no idea what the betting line would be on President Biden signing off on this one. The “more enlightened members of Congress” may have more of an influence on defeating the withdrawal proposal. Is that a bad thing?
On June 9th, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed an appeal in a lawsuit against its revised forest plan. The appeal involved questions about ESA consultation on the plan’s effects on grizzly bears, and the proper environmental baseline for the amount of roads used in the consultation process. After the district court opinion found flaws in the analysis conducted for consultation, the Forest reinitiated consultation with the Fish and Wildlife Service, which has now been completed. The 9th Circuit held that the new biological opinion made that issue moot. (A new lawsuit was filed against the new biological opinion, discussed here.)
However, Kurt Steele won’t be overseeing the Flathead Forest Management Plan. As of Friday, USFS Region 1 press officer Dan Hottle said Steele “was offered and accepted” a new post as deputy director at the regional office that involves “environmental planning,” according to the Flathead Beacon. It is unknown who will be Steele’s replacement.
This was also announced on June 9th, but I assume there is no connection between the Flathead Forest Plan and Steele’s move to the regional office forest planning staff (he wasn’t hired by the Flathead until after the plan was done). However, there may be a connection to his work on Holland Lake (discussed most recently here), since it’s hard to imagine that a forest supervisor would consider a deputy position on a regional office planning staff to be a great career move. That connection is denied by the Forest Service.
“There’s no correlation with this (personnel change) and Holland Lake,” Hottle said. However, he said he did not know whether Steele had initiated applying for the position or if the Forest Service offered it to him first. Hottle characterized the change in position as a “lateral move” with a salary that should stay the same.
This is interesting to me because the regional planning staff didn’t have a deputy director position when I left, and the current agency directory does not show that there is such a position to apply for. It’s not unheard of for the agency to create a position to place someone where they will be out of the way, and I’ve observed that planning staffs tend to be seen as places to put people who need putting (and of course, anyone can be a planner). Or maybe there is some kind of vindication going on because he will nominally be overseeing the revision of the Lolo National Forest Plan, and the Lolo is where a lot of the same people who oppose the Holland Lake development like to hang out.
“Connectivity is the degree to which landscapes, waterscapes, and seascapes allow species to move freely and ecological processes to function unimpeded. Corridors are distinct components of a landscape, waterscape, or seascape that provide connectivity. Corridors have policy relevance because they facilitate movement of species between blocks of intact habitat, notably during seasonal migrations or in response to changing conditions… Increasing connectivity is one of the most frequently recommended climate adaptation strategies for biodiversity management.”
“To the maximum extent practicable, Federal agencies are expected to advance the objectives of this guidance by developing policies, through regulations, guidance, or other means, to consider how to conserve, enhance, protect, and restore corridors and connectivity during planning and decision-making, and to encourage collaborative processes across management and ownership boundaries. Any existing corridor and connectivity policies or related policies should be updated as needed to align with the objectives in this guidance. Federal agencies should have new or updated policies ready to implement by the first quarter of 2024 and make their policies publicly available. Federal agencies should also actively identify and prioritize actions that advance the objectives set forth in this guidance.”
“Federal agencies should not limit engagement in restoration activities only to circumstances when restoration serves as a mitigation strategy to compensate for adverse impacts from projects or actions. Instead, Federal agencies should consider where there are opportunities in their programs and policies to carry out restoration with the objective of promoting greater connectivity.”
One of the specific “focal areas” listed in the memo is “forest and rangeland planning and management.” “Connectivity and corridors should factor into high-level planning and decision-making at Federal agencies as well as into individual decisions that lead to well-sited and planned projects.” “In carrying out large-scale planning required by statutory mandates (citing NFMA and FLPMA) Federal agencies should consider updating inventories of Federal resources under their associated management plans to assess connectivity and corridors.”
The Forest Service 2012 Planning Rule already includes language requiring that forest plans address connectivity as part of its wildlife viability considerations. I had something to do with that, but I was regularly disappointed in the agency’s unwillingness to “think outside the green lines” about how species occurring on a national forest depend on connectivity across other land ownerships, so I’m always happy to see someone try to make them do that:
“Ecological processes and wildlife movement are not limited by jurisdictional boundaries. Therefore, Federal agencies should seek active collaboration and coordination with other Federal agencies, Tribes, States, territorial, and local governments, as well as stakeholders to facilitate landscape, waterscape, and seascape-scale connectivity planning and management, and consider appropriate collaboration with other nations. Prioritization and strategic alignment of connectivity efforts across partners improves the effectiveness of each entity’s activities and enables larger-scale conservation, enhancement, protection, or restoration to occur.”
“Federal agencies with investments on Federal lands or in Federal waters adjacent to designated areas that may have conservation outcomes (e.g., National Park System units, national monuments, national forests and grasslands, national marine sanctuaries, national estuarine research reserves, wilderness areas, national wildlife refuges, etc.) should explore collaborative opportunities to enhance connectivity across jurisdictional boundaries.”
These kinds of initiatives seem to come and go, but we should at least expect to see the land management agencies tell us what they think under this administration by next year. If anyone happens to notice, let us know!
Emery Cowan of the Rural Voices for Conservation Coaliton (RVCC) posted this link to their tools, including a June 2022 report called Forest Service Project Planning to Implementation on another thread, so I’d like to highlight their work with a separate post. RVCC is one of my favorite NGOs. I always learn a lot from their webinars, plus “meet” interesting, dedicated, knowledgeable and enthusiastic people. They are one of my favorite sources of position papers on various topics. I don’t always agree with them, but their positions are always well thought out and well written, IMHO.
They are also looking for a Coalition Director, here’s the link. Which would be a great opportunity!
All this reminded me that I had planned on posting their Fighting Fire with Fire report when it first came out last fall. And was thinking today of the below section because of the discussion yesterday of the problem of hazardous fuel reduction metrics. What do you think of these ideas? (Or other ones in the paper?)
PERFORMANCE MEASURES AND BUDGETING
• Immediate action can be taken by elevating the existing “acres mitigated” KPI to a principal target on par with the two existing timber volume and acres treated targets. “Acres mitigated” is a better measure of the comprehensive action needed to reduce fire risk on one footprint acre than the current “acres treated” target. While any annual output target still suffers from the risk of prioritizing the easiest acres for treatment, use of the existing “acres mitigated” KPI would serve as a good bridge to more outcomes-based performance measures.
• Deprioritize the core performance measure of “timber volume sold.” This metric has long guided agency budget allocation and has been used as a benchmark of individual employee career success. While the agency tracks many KPIs, the timber volume target plays a disproportionate role in agency behavior. Addition of new KPIs is insufficient to motivate agency change without also relaxing the timber volume target. Furthermore, the timber volume target should not be conflated with a fire risk reduction outcome.
• Incentivize exceeding fuels reduction targets. So long as annual output targets remain in effect, performance measurement systems – and accompanying budget impacts – should incentivize overperformance, not penalize it. Currently, if a unit exceeds a fuels reduction target, they are expected to perform to the same advanced level in future budget years, essentially disincentivizing innovation and excellence. Performance above target could be rewarded with additional funding.
• The Forest Service should work with the Office of Management and Budget and key external partners to propose new outcomes-based targets that capture the complex, modern mission of the agency. While outcome measures are more difficult to achieve than simpler annual output targets, there are models for such practices already in existence (see on-the-ground example below).
I know there are many FS partners out there in TSW-land, and you have probably heard this already, but it sounds important.
From Chief Moore:
Today (July 22) I issued interim policy direction that makes it easier for existing and potential partners and cooperators to work together with the Forest Service to achieve mutually beneficial goals. (Read my letter and related attachments at the end of this article.) Specifically, I am directing broad inclusion of values partners bring to the relationship when determining how and when match requirements in partner agreements are met; removing the policy requirement for “substantial cash contributions;” and identifying a process to reduce, and in some cases waive, match requirements that are not statutorily required.
For decades, the Forest Service has known we can’t succeed alone. Today, climate-driven stressors and disturbances such as drought, wildland fire and insect epidemics know no boundaries. Recognizing that we, as land managers and landowners, are all in this together, the Forest Service and our partners have long worked collaboratively across shared landscapes to reach our mutual goals.
The Forest Service regularly joins with Tribes, states and many other partners to address complex and interconnected issues: working with and through partners is a powerful method for achieving shared goals on National Forest System lands and across management jurisdictions. Partners bring resources, knowledge, networks, skills and capacity that leverage agency resources and better enable us to accomplish impactful work.
Partnership grants and agreements are a key tool to facilitate this collaboration: the Forest Service currently has more than 3,500 partnership agreements reflecting the power of partnership and one of our agency’s core values—interdependence.
To better enable our work with partners, the Forest Service took a hard look at our grants and agreements process and found that, in some cases, policy requirements for cash matching or substantial cash contributions have impeded expanding work with partners at the scales needed, including for wildfire risk reduction and implementing Bipartisan Infrastructure Law funding. In some cases, this has created insurmountable barriers for current and potential partners and Tribes to contribute their expertise and capacity in shared service to the health and resilience of America’s forests and grasslands.
Therefore, we are taking a number of actions to modernize our approach to partnerships and make partnering with the Forest Service easier, more accessible and more equitable.
First, I am directing that all the valuable contributions a partner may bring to our relationship be considered, some of which we may have been overlooked or undervalued in the past. In addition to financial resources, volunteer and other in-kind support, these contributions include access to networks and communities that are underrepresented or underserved or increase social license to support critical work; indigenous traditional ecological knowledge; creativity and innovation for effective public outreach and education; experience in managing work projects; and capabilities for project design and management and for subject matter expertise that complement the skills of agency employees or fills a gap in agency capacity.
Second, a policy determination from the early 1990s led the Forest Service to require a separate substantial cash contribution from partners when, as part of an agreement, they contract for goods or services from a third party to complete project-based work. We have no statutory requirement for this practice. Therefore, I am ending this requirement effective immediately.
Third, to live up to one of the agency’s other core values—diversity—I am taking steps to make it easier to partner with tribal governments and partners who work with underserved communities, in recognition of our trust and treaty obligations to Tribes, our commitment to serving all Americans, and the importance of gaining benefit and knowledge through relationships with communities that have been historically underrepresented in our partnerships. Consequently, effective immediately, I am waiving policy match requirements (those not required by statute) for all agreements with tribal governments and creating a process to waive policy match requirements for partners that will serve underserved communities.[1] I also am delegating authority to deputy chiefs, regional foresters and station directors to approve reduced policy match requirements on a case-by-case basis to as low as 5% based on the need and capability of a partner.
I am also directing that agency staff identify and use flexibility where allowed by statute to apply the intent of this direction to statutory match requirements, including for State and Private Forestry programs and International Programs where appropriate. A cross-deputy area team consisting of Washington Office and field leadership will help implement this direction and will develop additional guidance and supportive materials in consultation with the Office of the General Counsel.
Modernizing our approach to partnerships will allow us to accomplish more mission-critical work and better serve all Americans. With additional resources and funding available through the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, our commitment to confronting the wildfire crisis, and our goal of increasing equitable access and use to all national forest and grassland visitors, it is more important than ever that we welcome more partners with valuable services and contributions into partnership agreements.
Through the interim policy I established today, we are taking steps to make this possible, while also living up to not only to our agency’s values, but also our responsibilities to taxpayers and the people we serve.