Deschutes National Forest Annual Report 2023

 

Thanks to the Old Smokeys’ mailing list for this.  I’m up for posting any Forest annual reports that folks send.  We’re always talking about things people disagree about, controversies and difficulties.   I can’t even get journalists interested in the Stanislaus success story.  I think it’s important to try to highlight all the great work that Forest Service employees are doing.

Here’s the link.  Lots of great work and great photos.  Thanks Deschutes (and for this publication)!

Firefighter Pay: Something We All Agree on? Op-ed by Steve Ellis

 

Mad River Hotshots set out in the morning to work on the Smith River Complex in Oregon in September.
Inciweb

Many of our public policy issues are too important to fall prey to “death by partisan tomfoolery.”  Firefighter pay is one of them.  Probably too “small” in the eyes of some to be anything more than a political football; maybe, just maybe, it’s the right size to be influenced by folks like us reaching our to our Congressional folks, Tweet Xing, or however people think they might influence the process.  Here’s an op-ed by Steve Ellis of the National Association of Forest Service Retirees in the Bend Bulletin. If you can’t access the link, try different devices/browsers, I’ve had success with some but not others.

Wildland firefighter pay is not a partisan game

Our federal wildland firefighters need our help, and time is of the essence. The Infrastructure Investments and Jobs Act of 2021 provided funding to increase base salaries for federal wildland firefighters up to $20,000 or 50% of their current wages in an effort to address historically and comparatively low pay and widespread staffing shortages. However, without action, that funding expired in September 2023. Although Congress extended the current funding levels through the three separate stopgap measures, they have yet to pass a permanent solution, and the next congressional deadline for a solution is March 1. The National Federation of Federal Employees estimates up to half of wildland firefighters might possibly leave the federal service if Congress does not permanently secure their pay and benefits.

The National Association of Forest Service Retirees is dedicated to sustaining the Forest Service mission by adapting to the challenges of today and tomorrow. We believe Congress and our country should work to ensure that these brave men and women who put their lives on the fireline to protect human life, our communities, watersheds, wildlife and fisheries habitat, and other forest and rangeland values, should not have their employment fraught with financial insecurity and instability. Their commitment and sacrifice should allow them to provide a living wage for themselves and their families.

Forest Service Chief Randy Moore recently met with our organization’s board of directors and told us that many federal firefighters cannot afford housing, and some are even living out of their cars. We understand that such a pay reduction could amount to up to $20,000 for some of these firefighters, forcing them to leave personal and family decisions in the hands of Congress. Alternatively, many might leave the service for more assured compensation and stability. Solidifying these benefits would help to successfully implement the National Cohesive Wildland Fire Strategy and the recommendations from the Congressional Wildland Fire Commission. At the most basic human level, it’s simply the right thing to do.

This is one of the factors that can contribute to a shortage of federal wildland firefighters, and the timing couldn’t be more important. While we may not yet be in the thick of wildfire season, agencies are actively finishing the recruiting for the upcoming season. Timeliness is important for meeting the hiring demands for the needs for this summer. This is not a United States issue alone. Last year the federal wildland fire community responded across Canada to support our northern neighbors and personnel have been assisting in Chile. Our international agreement with Australia and New Zealand is ready for implementation.

It could be argued that the longer Congress waits, the more our elected officials are putting our communities at risk. This shouldn’t be another “partisan game” over which party will get their way. We are talking about real communities that could be left without adequate services due to insufficient staffing, or firefighters leaving the service. We are talking about real men and women with a duty to provide for their families. We are also talking about putting our firefighters in harm’s way by stretching them too thin. We are conceivably talking about life-and-death consequences for firefighters and anyone who lives within the possible reach of wildfires as a result of Congress’ inaction. For Oregonians, that’s most of us.

It’s time for Congress to fix this issue, permanently.

Steve Ellis is chair of the National Association of Forest Service Retirees and lives in Beavercreek, Oregon.

Donate Now: National Museum of Forest Service History Has Opportunity for Up to $500K Match

 

I don’t usually make donation requests for anything besides TSW, but this is an amazing opportunity for the Museum.  A group of  dedicated folks, current employees, retirees and a wide array of partners, have been working on the Museum since at least the 90’s and groundbreaking in Missoula is THIS spring (!).

The National Museum of Forest Service History is close to finalizing our Capital Campaign to build the National Conservation Legacy Center in Missoula, Montana. Once it is built, the Center will be a one-of-a-kind, world class destination. It will showcase America’s conservation history – the U.S. Forest Service, its people, partners, and legacy.

If you’ve ever thought about donating, now would be the time, because donations will be matched (individual or corporate!).  Please forward this post to anyone who might be interested..

BIG NEWS!
Donor has offered us up to $500,000. IF WE CAN MATCH IT!

Our highest priority continues to be completing the Capital Campaign for the National Conservation Legacy Center (CLC), the flagship building on our Missoula campus. We will break ground this spring but still need to raise funds to ensure all costs are covered for both the building and exhibition.  Here’s the website.. the video of the Museum is above.


MORE ON THE BIG NEWS
: At the end of December, one of our long-time donors, offered to help us finish the capital campaign. He and his wife will donate up to $500,000 by matching every new cash donation (both individual and corporate) we can raise by June 30,2024. In essence, any new capital campaign cash donation we receive by June 30,2024 will be doubled! Our very generous donor has provided us a tremendous opportunity to complete the capital campaign!

 

A Three Sisters Wilderness Trailhead Presence: As Summers Went By

With apologies to Les and to readers, Les had sent me a series and I got them out of order.  He recently sent me the correct order, so here goes…-Sharon

By Les Joslin

I often reflect on the variety of people and predicaments experienced during my Green Lakes Trailhead summer duties. A few anecdotes make one believe just about anything could happen there. That, of course, meant volunteer information specialists and I had to be ready for just about anything.

A Couple Wilderness Old-Timers

On July 7, 1995, Forbes W. “Buck” Rogers of Spokane, Washington, and John Barton of Bend, Oregon, visited the Green Lakes Trailhead Information Station. Mr. Barton had been the Sparks Lake recreation guard in the summer of 1964 and Mr. Barton the first Bend Ranger District wilderness guard in the summer of 1965. I enjoyed their stories of those days, particularly when Buck told me part of his job in 1964 was to bury the garbage visitors left behind in the Green Lakes basin—before the Wilderness Act of 1964 had been signed that September, and John told me part of his job in 1965 was to dig it up and pack it out. In those days, they told me, the parking area and trailhead were across Fall Creek from their current location, and both had stayed in the old Fall Creek Guard Station cabin just a few hundred yards north of the current trailhead. We ambled up that way, poked around in the pumice, and actually found a small piece of green-painted wood from the structure.

A Shooting Incident

On July 29, 1995, I heard gunshots to the west of the Green Lakes Trailhead Information Station. Within a couple of minutes, visitors drove in and reported a man indiscriminately shooting at the Devil’s Garden not far west of my location.  I reported the incident to Central Oregon Dispatch, and within fifteen minutes a Forest Service law enforcement officer arrived, arrested the person at gunpoint, and took him to the Deschutes County Jail.

A Fire on Devils Hill

My daughter Wendy, who served 17 days as a volunteer wilderness information specialist in 1996, was staffing the Green Lakes Trailhead Information Station on July 26 when a violent lightning storm ignited a fire on Devils Hill just over a mile to the northwest. In response to her report of the smoke to Central Oregon Dispatch, she watched eight smokejumpers jump the fire about 30 minutes later. I often wonder if this experience influenced her toward studying forestry at Oregon State University.

A Los Angeles Times Writer

On August 23, 1996, John McKinney, Los Angeles Times hiking columnist, visited the Green Lakes Trailhead Information Station. He was researching his book Great Walks of North America: The Pacific Northwest, published by Henry Holt and Company in 1997, for which I provided him information and photographs and in which he profiles my wilderness service and my wilderness education project. “When hikers meet a helpful wilderness ranger, it adds to their experience and makes their trek all the more special,” he quoted me.

A Controversial Fee Program

In 1997 it fell to me to help implement the Pacific Northwest Region’s controversial Trail Park Pass program mandated by the Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act of 1996. By that act Congress permitted—and, for all practical purposes, required—federal land management agencies to charge fees to cover recreation facility operation expenses previously covered by appropriated funds. In the Pacific Northwest Region of the National Forest System, wilderness visitors in “participating national forests” paid a parking fee at wilderness trailheads.

Public protests resulted and cost my project some good trailhead volunteers. I couldn’t blame them for not wanting to be targets of the more vitriolic protesters. Others stuck, helped explain that Congress had required the Forest Service to charge user fees in lieu of reduced appropriated funds to maintain recreation facilities including wilderness trails, and we sold $6,337 worth of the passes at the station that summer. Those receipts increased to $7,975 in 1998 but decreased to less than a third of that sum in 1999 as more visitors purchased annual passes prior to visiting and day passes became available at self-service pay stations. Although the public increasingly accepted the fees, protests continued as the system evolved pursuant to subsequent acts and programs.

 

A Revisit with Chief Thomas on the Eve of a New Journey Down the Old-Growth Trail

Jack Thomas in the Eagle Cap Wilderness, Oregon, August 1996.

 

Since this could be 2023’s Old Growth Week, based on a stakeholder update planned for tomorrow with news of some MOG policy, I thought it might be fun to go back in time to the 90’s, 92, to be exact, and see how far we’ve come on the Old Growth issue. We can revisit Chief Jack Ward Thomas’s 1992 Albright Lecture. It’s interesting to think about what has or has not changed, with the increased focus on climate change, carbon and wildfire- and what hasn’t, in the last thirty years.  And to think about where the issue will be in the next thirty years.  Will we still be fighting about it?  Will old growth be dead from climate change or burned up or …? Or will we have finally reached some kind of peace, in the direction that Chief Thomas describes.

It’s got a bit about planning and is worth rereading in its entirety, but I picked out a few excerpts below.

HA! Things Are Not What They Seem

Perhaps, further down line, it will be possible to discern exactly the attributes of owl habitat. If so, perhaps such habitat can be provided through innovative silviculture (Thomas et al. 1990).

Aha! So it is simply a question of habitat for spotted owls. If we can provide for owls with appropriate silviculture, there will be no need for reserving mature and old-growth forests. But, on the other hand, other species of plants and animals have evolved with or are disproportionately associated with old-growth. Some of these species will, almost certainly, end up in threatened status.

Aha! This is not only a question about owl habitat. It is, really, a question of old-growth management. But, the attributes of old-growth that provide the niches that support the animal species interact in mysterious ways to make up a forest ecosystem.

Aha! So, it is not really an old-growth question. It is an ecosystem question.

But, increasing knowledge indicates that the sizes, distribution, and connectivity between habitat patches are critical variables to consider in ensuring that the peculiar ecosystem retains the full inherent complement of species and ecological processes (Thomas 1979, Nass 1983, Harris 1984, and Probst and Crow 1991).

Aha! The issue is not just an ecosystem question. It is an ecosystem question and at landscape scale.

But, some people devoted to the preservation of old growth know or care little about the biological aspects of the issue. They simply see great beauty in the old-growth forests. Some perceive a spiritual value in the contact with and the existence of such forests.

Aha! So, it is not only a question of biological attributes but also of aesthetic and spiritual values.

But, if it is an ecosystem question that must be addressed at the landscape scale, what must this landscape accommodate? There are people in that landscape – part and parcel along with the plantations, the “ancient cathedral” forests, clearcuts, the elk and owls, and the streams and fish.

These people have desires, differing values, and untold aspirations that demand satisfaction. Each sees and wants different things from the landscape of which they too are part. And, they want their children and grandchildren to have these same things.

Aha! Then it really is an ecosystem sustainability question at a geographic scale where protection of nature, the production of goods and services for people, and the lifestyles of forest users must strike an enduring balance.

How do we do that?

And this..

Will the path we have been on for 50 years take us and our forests to a desired future state?

Consider the following. The first word in the pairs of words is where we have been and are. The second word is what we need to cultivate within ourselves to do a better collaborative job of stewardship. These word pairs are:

functional-interdisciplinary;
competitive-cooperative;
reductionist-holistic;
deterministic-stochastic;
use-value;
linear-interdependent;
rain in g-education;
simplify-diversify;
short term-long term;
site-landscape;
individuals-communities;
gladiator-diplomat;
rigid-flexible;
clever-wise; and
narrow-broad.
But, the fighting goes on and accelerates infrequency and intensity. The people, our sense of community, and the forest are bruised and battered in the process. The gladiators never tire of the fight – it is what they do. The fight itself provides their sustenance. I detect, however, that many concerned about forests we collectively own have long since approached exhaustion.

That may be good news, for with exhaustion, there may come a willingness to seek an answer to the statement made earlier, “There must be a better way.”

That better way can be built on new knowledge and past experiences and on changes in personal and societal concepts. And, that better way can be embraced because the old way has led us to a place where we cannot stand for long.

Shakespeare said (Julius Caesar, Act 1, Scene 2) “…the fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars, but in ourselves…”

If the fault lies within us, the solution also resides in us as well.

Jack, .. we’re still on the path you laid out.. still looking for the diplomats. If you and your upstairs associates can help, we’d like to put in a request for more of these.

“You Might Be a District Ranger” and Fall Blogging Break

I’m taking a fall blogging break until October 9. I’m thinking the report of the Wildfire Commission will be coming out next week. Some people already have it. The rumor mill says it will say something about more money and more agency coordination. I hope that someone will read it and post about it.

I thought I’d leave you with this post I found on LinkedIn by Camille Howes, Forest Supervisor on the Gila National Forest. It gave me a smile as many of these resonated with me.. except the topic of “endless conversations” varies by position. And I still like “endless conversations” about trees..

Now, I realize some folks might not be sure if they are “ranger material” so below I have provided some self-reflection thought starters to help you ascertain if you might already be ranger and not even know it.

* If you like dragging a can of dripping fire through the forest…you might be a District Ranger.
* If you find yourself craving endless conversations about livestock…you might be a District Ranger.
* If you desire a close, personal connection with your local elected officials…you might be a District Ranger.
* If you enjoy long, scenic drives to attend meetings at the supervisor’s office…you might be a District Ranger.
* If you own over a dozen Yeti travel mugs with various logos from across the agency… you might be a District Ranger.
* If you love the sounds of chainsaws ripping through wood on a crisp autumn morning…you might be a District Ranger.
* If you can simultaneously manage multiple personalities, including a few of your own…you might be a District Ranger.
* If you love talking about your district at the post office, grocery store, laundromat, beauty salon, church, or gym…you might be a District Ranger.
* If you know the maximum number of allowable persons at an event without a SUP, but can’t remember your oldest kid’s name…you might be a District Ranger.
* And lastly, if you find deep, personal satisfaction in serving your staff, your community, your landscape, your country, and future generations…you are a District Ranger.

Challenge yourself today…join us! Become a District Ranger in Region 3. I assure you, the rewards are endless.

And here’s a link to USAJOBS  openings for District Rangers.
Also, here’s  a handy description of some current internship opportunities.

Smokey is Baaack! Channel the Smokey Within

Here at TSW, we’re all for that.. the you can’t get to the videos from the photos below.. but they are linked here.

The Ad Council, National Association of State Foresters and the USDA Forest Service are releasing new PSAs today as part of the iconic Smokey Bear Wildfire Prevention campaign. Inspiring the public to share in the same values of responsibility and empowerment as Smokey himself, the new campaign reminds audiences that when we practice fire safety, Smokey is within us all, encouraging individuals to learn more about how to help prevent wildfires at SmokeyBear.com.

Experience the full interactive Multichannel News Release here: https://www.multivu.com/players/English/9094556-new-smokey-bear-psa-channel-the-smokey-within-and-help-prevent-wildfires/

“Smokey has been a household name for the last four generations. His message has been heard and heeded by countless Americans who carry his iconic ‘Only you can prevent wildfires’ with them daily,” said USDA Forest Service National Wildfire Prevention and Community Mitigation Branch Chief Maureen Brooks. “What better way to continue his legacy and illustrate the power we all have in preventing wildfires than by showing the public how Smokey is within all of us.”

For nearly 80 years, Smokey has been the nation’s favorite bear educating the public on how to prevent human caused wildfires and his message is as important now as ever. Nine out of ten wildfires are human-caused and fully preventable. Recent data from FCB and AYTM Research shows that while 95% of Americans feel that they can make a difference in preventing fires, many don’t always know how.

WATCH THE NEW PSA, “FRIENDS,” HERE

Developed by FCB, the creative agency behind Smokey Bear since he was first introduced to the world in 1944, the new “Smokey is Within” campaign highlights everyday people who channel their inner Smokey Bear in moments of need. Whether on a camping trip, using the drown-stir-drown-feel method when putting out campfires or avoiding sparks by crossing tow chains or more, the new PSAs remind us that we all have Smokey’s wisdom within us and can always access his message and wildfire prevention tips at SmokeyBear.com.

More Federal Firefighters Moving On

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/firefighters-are-leaving-us-forest-service-better-pay-benefits-rcna93689

“The situation has grown so dire that the San Bernardino National Forest in Southern California saw 42 resignations in 48 hours in May, officials said.”

 

I guess we’ll see Congress extend the extra pay, but the firefighters want other issues addressed, too.

Last Day for ANPR Comments: II. How Can the FS Respond to Rapidly Changing Conditions? (Associated with Climate-Amplified Impacts)

The comments requested in the ANPR seem to me to be pretty much about everything the FS does.  Which is great, in a sense, because I think it’s an open door to make any comments you think would improve the FS.  For example, you could make an argument …. unknown climate changes=changing quickly=flexibility for FS to respond=more trust= better data for the public and more transparency= the People’s Database.

I copied the questions from the ANPR so you can check them out in this post.

Some of it seems like the same old problems.. like adaptive management. Remember Chief Thomas and the inception of the Inventory and Monitoring Institute?  And I think many TSW readers have had their own experiences and ideas which you could write up and send in today, if you haven’t. For me adaptive management always goes down to “how structured? and by whom, to what end?”  We also have examples like the Watershed Condition Framework- how did that work out? Some of us were on the front ends of these efforts.. some seem to have fizzled out and maybe we never hear what happened. Michael Ligquri had an interesting comment on that here when I first posted about the ANPR questions.

Two comments:

1) we tend to bog ourselves down with these kinds of open-ended, subjective, and unanswerable questions. All great questions, no doubt. But they tend to promote more “analysis paralysis”, and often fail to advance any significant “adaptation” to management. I’ve participated on several multi-year committees assigned to resolve these types of questions, and while we end up wordsmithing complex answers, little changes. To anyone who understands design theory, such “overconstrained, over-complex problem sets” is an inherently poor frame for solutions.

2) An effective approach that I’ve used to inform “adaptive management” is using performance-based monitoring/research approaches. This starts with structured working hypotheses that are both measurable and testable. It also includes specific targets and action thresholds based on objectively measurable existing conditions and trends analysis. Ideally, such approaches must include an understanding of geographic diversity. Watershed Analysis was originally designed to help inform such standards, but failed in its implementation (for many reasons, too complex to elaborate here).

And the more structured the framework, the less able to adapt to “rapidly changing” concerns and impacts. Not easy. But here are some quotes from the front end of the ANPR:

Climate change and related stressors, such as wildfire, drought, insects and disease, extreme weather events, and chronic stress on ecosystems are resulting in increasing impacts with rapid and variable rates of change on national forests and grasslands. These impacts can be compounded by fire suppression, development in the Wildland Urban Interface (WUI), and non-climate informed timber harvest and reforestation practices.

Multiple Forest Service plans, policies, and regulations already include direction on climate adaptation. However, given (1) increasing rates of change, and (2) new information and ways of assessing and visualizing risk, USDA and the Forest Service are issuing this ANPRM to seek input on how we can develop new policies or build on current policies to improve our ability to foster climate resilience, recognizing that impacts are different in different places across the country.

There’s a couple of interesting things about this framing.  First of all, apparently according to this, everything bad is climate or climate-related that needs to be adapted to.  So.. if we have a new introduced invasive insect, does that only require attention if it’s “climate-related”? If that’s the case, you can see people making the argument why it is climate-related, even when it isn’t.  Pretty soon everything is climate-related.  Even Covid-related recreation pressure (if it’s hotter in the cities, then more people will go to the mountains?).  If we keep going, then, all resilience is climate resilience, and we’re gone from multiple-use to ecological sustainability to ecosystem integrity to climate resilience, and at the end of the day it’s all the same stuff the FS has been doing with different words. You might also notice that after multiple use in this line-up, people and the social sciences seem to take a backseat. And yes, I understand that “without ecosystem/climate resilience, there would be no recreation” that’s kind of the “ecological sustainability is primary” 2001ish argument. But do all these definitional meanderings actually help any employees and users and neighbors make better decisions about the problems that confront them every day?

The other thing that struck me about this is the “development in the WUI and non-climate informed timber harvest and reforestation practices”.  I retired quite a while ago, and even then silviculturists, fuels practitioners and reforestation folks were considering climate in their work.  And one of the first papers on reforestation strategies and climate was in 1992, over 30 years ago. I also don’t see how “development in the WUI” contributes to “wildfire, drought, insects and disease, extreme weather events, and chronic stress on ecosystems” except for the obvious way that people who live in the area may start fires (but maybe homeowners are more careful than recreationists because it’s their properties.. do we know?), and neighbors not treating their trees could lead to more insects and disease? But why WUI folks and not other neighbors?

The concern about matching adaptation to “rapid and variable rates of change” reminds me of Chief Jack Ward Thomas on forest plans:

“Land use planning should be a meaningful – a guide to management action and funding – achieved within a year at much less costs. Before embarking on new efforts in planning it is critical to determine why such planning has failed so miserably and short comings rectified. Flexibility should be a component so as to deal sudden alteration in conditions – fires, markets, economics, and, insect and disease outbreaks.”

I think he said this about 30 years ago.. but note he mentions fire and insect and disease outbreaks.  Anyway, perhaps this is a good time to consider amending NFMA to help the FS be able to  respond to “rapid and variable rates of change”  and use the latest science at the period a project is proposed.

Recreation doesn’t play much of a role in this ANPR for some reason and it’s probably the #1 important use of National Forests now, so that’s also interesting.  Anyway, if you think they are asking “hey climate resilience is a new and different thing, how should we manage it?,” it seems like an opportunity to respond with any ideas you have for improvement in general.

You can post parts of your comments below or email me.  I’m curious about what people come up with.

 

How Representative of Local Communities in Race/Ethnicity Should Forest Service Employees Be? Let’s Discuss – the Locke et al. Study

Last week I got wrapped up in reviewing all the fascinating discoveries about conifer adaptation that have been made in the last ten years. More on all this later- as I don’t have time to finish reviewing and emailing authors this week.  So now on to something completely different.. Thanks to Forrest Fleishman for suggesting this paper, Spatially Explicit Assessment of the USDA Forest Service as a Representative Bureaucracy, as a topic of discussion. Since most of the authors are FS employees, it is fortunately open access.

Some Historical Background

Now I’ve always been a fan of increasing diversity and bringing more different kinds of people into the workplace. The FS has had notable successes at recruiting. At the same time, it could be that some groups that have traditionally been kept down economically would prefer to work in jobs with more .. I guess.. what can I call it.. cachet? Career earnings? Living in certain areas? And while targets go by percentages, it could be easier to achieve some percentages than others. Suppose you asked the question “why can’t we get more Black forestry techs in the South?” versus “why aren’t there more Asian fish bios in Region 1?”.

Questions I Have

In the paper, the authors talk about the importance of matching race and ethnicity groups (REGs) to those in a 1 hour driving distance. But that’s not what the FS tries to do (unless they have changed). It was more like “we should hire to the national labor force everywhere.” Believe me, I’ve spent time observing people trying to hire Blacks in parts of Wyoming. Not impossible, but if you have 30 people on your District, and there are 1.7% Black people in the State we are looking at small numbers- 1/30 is 3% . Maybe you could look at a Forest as a unit to get the percentages more manageable, and then maybe get the target percentages from weighting each unit by the number of employees, and use the 1 hour from that unit. How should temporaries and contractors be considered, or should they?

Note- I am not saying that the FS wouldn’t be low on certain groups no matter how you count them; what I’m trying to get at is the target should be clear to everyone who is working on getting there.

Matching local areas (note that DC is 44.2% Black, so does that mean the WO should be?) is different from diversifying all units to national percentages. Following the DC logic (you should have the national labor force percentages at HQ), you would need the regional figures, not 1 hour from the RO for Regional Offices, and 1 hour from each RD for Supervisor’s Offices?

Additionally, Riccucci and Van Ryzin state, “the social origins of a bureaucrat can produce a sense of trust and legitimacy among citizens who share those social origins, thereby resulting in
cooperation from the citizens and ultimately the production of more effective policy outcomes, without any action by the bureaucrat (in other words, without active representation)” (2017, 25).

I agree with the argument that matching like to like makes some sense for representative government. But is that true only for racial and ethnic matches? What percentage of FS employees should be, say, LDS in Utah? Could other things than race and ethnicity be considered important cultural factors to match? But would you want a Forest Supe of your own race whom you frequently disagree with or one from another race you frequently agree with? And if the Supe were “too much like” the local community, wouldn’t she tend to agree with them. And that leads back to our other discussion of what is “too much” local power over decisions on everyone’s federal land.

Here’s how the researchers did it:

First, the proportion of each race/ethnicity group within the total United States (via the ACS), at Forest Service workplaces, and the seven types of drive time polygons were visually compared. Second, for each workplace and race/ethnicity group, the proportion of employees was plotted against the corresponding proportion from the surrounding 1-hour drive time. These scatter plots per race/ethnicity group depict which workplaces have higher or lower representation, aided visually with the 45-degree line to indicate parity.

Another interesting point made was that “These workplaces across the country also serve visitors who might be coming from farther away than the 1-hour drive catchment.” The formula for precise measurement of what percentages gets way more complicated. Think ski resorts.

Some findings:

When aggregated by Forest Service region, the gap between race/ethnicity make-up of the workplaces’ surrounding communities does vary. For instance, the gap between drive time percentage of white populations and workplace representation of white employees is smallest in the Northern Region and largest in the Pacific Southwest, indicating a larger overrepresentation of white employees in the latter than the former (Figure 3). Conversely, although the percentage of people identifying as Hispanic or Latino alone is relatively high at the International Institute of Tropical Forestry (IITF) in Puerto Rico, the fraction surrounding the workplaces is higher, indicating an underrepresentation of Hispanic populations in that region’s workplace. American Indian and Alaskan Natives make up ~8% of the population around Alaskan workplaces but only ~2% of the employees. Another large gap can be found in the Southern Region, where people identifying as Black/African American alone make up ~22% of the surrounding 1-hour drive time area but only ~12% of Forest Service employees.

And I agree that more work needs to be done..

National aggregate estimates show that the Forest Service has an ~20 percentage point higher white workforce than the US population as a whole. However, the proportions of the population in a given race/ethnicity group vary across the country, making the local areas potentially a more suitable reference. When comparing each workplace with its surrounding population, that 20 percentage point gap widens to ~25 to 27 percentage points depending on the chosen drive time duration (Figure 2). Hiring locally could be one opportunity to close the gap. There are exceptions, however, as shown in Figure 4; in some workplaces, members of BIPOC groups are present in proportions greater than their surrounding drive time areas. By making data from this larger project freely available (Sachdeva et al. 2022), further inquiry is invited and encouraged. The findings are ripe for additional qualitative research in particular, and we hope the pattern-based findings can provide a platform for additional process-oriented inquiry. There is a clear need to understand why the diverse communities surrounding duty stations do not work for the Forest Service. Another opportunity for future research is in-depth examination of specific workplaces and their surrounding communities via case studies. In addition to gaining more a mechanistic understanding of what may lead to these patterns, such a close look may also provide a more precise tabulation of small rural communities’ demographic composition than the national ACS can provide.

To follow through with our previous discussion, to hire locally we would need more local people to get natural resource or other degrees. So the universities that produce these folks are inextricably linked to this, and I think should be studied as well as part of the same system. Meanwhile, demographics in communities can fluctuate on shorter timeframes than employees transferring out or retiring. I guess the key question is “should the FS match or not?” “does the USG require that, or is it additional, or at odds with matching the Civilian Labor Force?”