Forest Service: Culture, History, Morale, Organization, Future

Historical Artifact: RO/State Office Review of San Juan Public Lands Center Service First

by
Many very excellent folks worked hard for years on developing this joint plan (which did not survive as joint, as far as I know).

Somewhere there should be  a history of efforts to bring various parts of BLM and the Forest Service together.  Maybe there is and I haven’t seen it.  When I joined the FS the Reagan Administration was exploring the idea of exchange of land called Interchange, as I recall.

A few of us were discussing the more recent Service First approach  in a previous thread.. I think that there may have been important lessons to be learned from those experiments.  I have asked the folks I remember, and their contacts to write posts for The Smokey Wire (note, that offer still holds), to tell their story, but no one has taken me up on it.

So I thought I’d post what our findings were on the Forest Service side of the SJPLC (San Juan Public Lands Center, the joint unit) joint BLM/FS Review by the RO/State Office.  Suffice it to say that there were strongly different cultural norms for each agency in terms of reviews. Our FS review got hung up because the Forest and the RO couldn’t agree on the findings and recommendations. That’s another story.  Nevertheless, below is the Forest Service draft document section on Service First.  As I may have written before, to many of us politically imparied individuals, it was a bit of a mystery as to why the experiments in Colorado were suddenly shut down. Perhaps someone out there knows. Anyway, I think you can hear some of the employees’ pros and cons from this writeup.

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

  1. Service First

Service First is great for customer service, one-stop shopping, and landscape or resource management. However, differences in administration, IT, budget and processes are ongoing barriers to meeting the objectives and intent of Service First. Service First efforts create better products in the end, but in some cases, the process takes much longer to finish.

Many employees question higher level commitment to support Service First. WO/RO/SO levels do not appear to “walk the talk” when it comes to supporting Service First. Initial promises to streamline efforts and remove barriers have not materialized.  Consequently, Service First continues to be difficult. There is little recognition of the increased workload associated with Service First. Following two sets of rules takes more time and money. We heard some instances in which employees follow whatever agency’s rules are most restrictive for joint projects. On the other hand, sometimes both agencies can use the less restrictive practice, such as for hiring.

Service First efforts invariably require more communication between RO/SO and the unit so that all three offices hear the same issues and participate in the solution.

The frustration level is high. Employees are frustrated by the heavy workload and many are working extra hours. Service First may exacerbate workload and burden shift in the sense that dealing with “one ASC is difficult, two would be impossible.” The BLM is considering a similar reorganization of administrative support. It appears as if the LT doesn’t fully understand the level of frustration that some employees are feeling, at least from the employees’ perspective.

There is a perception that there are no consequences for employees that do not support Service First and actively attempt to sabotage or work against Service First goals.

Recommendations

*  SJPLC needs to do a review to examine whether or not Service First (versus individual performance or other issues) is impacting getting work done.

* SJPLC should identify, in a memo to the Regional Forester and State Director, those aspects of administrative procedures that are a barrier to Service First, and that are beyond the unit’s ability to address.

* RO/SO needs to clearly articulate the goals and objectives of Service First. What are the expectations? The RO/SO offices need to consider the impacts of State and Regional policy on Service First units.

* Either devise a way to compensate for a combined unit or allow for inconsistencies.

* Jointly explore opportunities to institutionalize the concept of one interagency budget, one set of interagency targets and one set of budgeting policies and procedures for this (and other Service First units). Pursue with more fervor and persistence than after the identical findings on the Rio Grande review.

* Examine ways to foster better communication between RO/SO/unit.

* Identify representatives from each office and develop a joint communication plan.

* Pursue getting WO employees (BLM Imagination Team) at Dolores to contribute toward operating expenses. Identify other detached employees to determine if they contribute to operating expenses.

* Pursue reciprocity agreements for training (e.g., security). (Copy R-6 and Oregon/Washington BLM.)

* The State Director and the Regional Forester need to agree on their expectations as to how Service First should work.

*  PLC leadership team should use Service First language in employee performance reviews to help hold employees accountable if this isn’t already being done.

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

New Chief of Staff at NRE Hire “Key” to Implementing Wildfire Strategy: Former Lobbyist for UFW and Earthjustice

by

Thanks to E&E news and reporter Marc Heller for this one..

The Agriculture Department today announced four senior staff appointments, including for positions handling conservation and environmental policies.

Andrea Delgado will be chief of staff for natural resources and environment, an area that primarily covers the Forest Service. Delgado comes from the United Farm Workers Foundation, where she was director of government affairs.

Delgado has a bachelor’s degree in international relations from the State University of New York at Geneseo.

In her new role, Delgado will play a key part in implementing a 10-year wildfire strategy the Biden administration released yesterday, with its mix of forest management and measures to protect property in fire-prone areas.

What is her background, one might ask? Well, she worked for the United Farm Workers Foundation most recently, and before that, Earthjustice. She was one of the Hill’s Top Lobbyists of 2018 working for Earthjustice. Wouldn’t it have made more sense to place her somewhere working with agriculture?

But maybe she heard about wildfires around the Earthjustice watercooler… so what does that organization think about wildfires?

In 2018, President Abigail Dillen released this statement:

“The only ‘radicals’ here are Trump administration officials who are exploiting a climate tragedy to try to benefit their friends in the timber industry. There’s no question that climate change is driving these catastrophic wildfires and the deadly air quality that goes along with them.

But what does the 10 year plan say about the timber industry? They’re listed under “Creating Conditions for Success.”

FOREST PRODUCTS. The wood products industry has been and will remain an important partner for helping achieve restoration outcomes and reduce wildfire risk. New and innovative uses
of wood, such as cross-laminated timber, can not only support restoration and risk reduction outcomes but also sequester large quantities of carbon.

Would it be too great a leap to assume that Ms. Delgado’s previous employment did not necessarily set her up with the skills to be successful with some of the envisioned partnerships?

Is it good to have experience in a field before you become a “key part” of leading a difficult effort?

Honestly, I’m having a little trouble believing it. As we’ve talked about previously with the choice of BLM Director at Interior, there are plenty of experienced, knowledgeable and diverse fish in the sea. USDA so far had a good track record on selections.

Say it ain’t so, Secretary Vilsack!

Jerry Perez is New Director of Fire and Aviation Management for the Forest Service

by
Jerry Perez, new USFS National Director of Fire and Aviation Management. USFS photo.

Perhaps it will be of interest to TSW readers with a legal background that Jerry has a law degree, as well as having been the National Litigation Coordinator for the Forest Service.

Also that he has BLM experience as a State Director.  While I think it’s useful for anyone to have experience in both multiple use agencies,  I think it’s particularly important when Fire is run as an interagency effort.

“I welcome Jerry’s 32 years of experience and expertise as he leads our outstanding firefighters and guides the fire and aviation program to meet the challenge of preventing and managing wildfires,” said Forest Service Chief Randy Moore. “He steps into this position as the agency focuses on significantly increasing the pace and scale of hazardous fuels treatments focused in areas that have the highest risks of wildfires and threats to vital infrastructure.”

Here’s a link to his bio. Jerry has over 32 years of federal service across the country in varying roles (and Chief Moore has (43!).
It’s hard to worry about the future of the Forest Service when it’s in such capable hands. If they make mistakes.. it won’t be through lack of experience.

Congratulations, Jerry!

12 Fundamentals of Effective Leadership: Guest Post by Steve Ellis

by
Steve Ellis in the field with Sally Jewell and Idaho Senator Mike Crapo in 2016

 

 

Steve Ellis wrote this piece for our own Steve Wilent’s Natural Resource Management Today.  Here’s the link. It’s on page 18. 

I thought it might open up an opportunity for an interesting discussion.  Do you agree with these? Do you have others to add?  Do you have stories you’d like to share about experiences good and bad? Lessons learned? Aspects that remain puzzling?

12 Fundamentals of Effective Leadership

By Steve Ellis

I have watched various leaders and leader­ ship styles during a federal natural resource career that spanned almost four decades. During this time, I also observed how em­ployees and the public responded to different  styles  of agency career  leadership.  I recently made a list of what is hopefully useful advice for others who strive to be successful leaders within agencies, companies, nonprofits , and other organizations. It is based on my observations and experi­ence in working for both the Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management at many levels of tl1e organization, in both the field and Washington, D.C. This list is not in­tended to be in priority order as they are all fundamentally important. The list could reasonably be longer, but I decided to limit it to  12.

  1. Be ethical. To me this includes prin­ciples of sound natural resource management as well as integrity, honesty, and fairness. They are all key to being a true natural resource professional. I think most people know what is right and what is wrong regarding conduct, and what is lawful and what isn’t. An effective leader leads by ex­ample and encourages the professional and personal development of fellow employees and colleagues.  Together, you will help build a positive image of your organization internally and with the people they serve.
  2. Routinely communicate with em­ployees and be truthful. If there are still unknowns, tell them as such.
  3. Be honest with employees, your or­ganization’s partners, and the public. Give reasons for the decisions you make.  Employees and the public have the capability to figure things out and trying to mislead them has the potential of reducing your credibility.
  4. Treat employees with respect, re­gardless of where they work in an organization. I always watched how leaders treat people regardless of their status in the or­ganization. When I checked references  be­fore hiring an individual into a leadership position, I always looked down as well as up.  By that I mean ask people who worked for and were subordinate to the candidate what they saw as the individual’s strengths and weaknesses.  Good leaders evolve from good followers.
  5. None of us are irreplaceable.  If  you think you are, get over yourself It’s not about you, but about your team working together to accomplish the organization’s mission. Everyone has a key responsibility in getting the job done, regardless of their ability and where they work in the organization.
  6. Strive for having people in your workforce with a positive attitude. If a per­son has a positive attitude, they can generally learn or acquire skills they are deficient in. I always placed an emphasis on attitude when hiring people.  Negativity can  poison a work environment. Deal with issues involving performance and conduct as promptly as the system permits. Make sure to follow approved procedures in addressing such matters.  Avoid letting emotions or political pressure trip you up in the process. If you want an inappropriate conduct or adverse personnel action to legally stick, document it every step of the way and follow the procedures and  process.
  7.  Recognize that people have different skills and abilities. Work to find the best fit for an individual, one that that brings out their strengths.
  8.  Always watch for potential diamonds in the rough. I have seen unassuming employees blossom into becoming terrific leaders, given the opportunity. I would also always watch for the introverts who may not be the first to speak up, but may have tremendously valuable input and ideas.
  9. You are always being watched, so set a good example. Your actions and the words you say matter.
  10.  Stay calm in a crisis. Others will be watching and your behavior and response in a crisis will affect their reaction.  Don’t act as if your hair is on fire. Being calm and collected also helps you think more clearly. My experience working on complex wild­ fires helped me with this.  I vividly remem­ber the day when gunfire rang out just out side our office building and several anxious employees scurried into my office, visibly alarmed about an active shooter who had tragically shot someone in the employee parking lot  and was now on the bottom floor of our 3-story building. As a group, we quickly secured the upper two floors to deny the individual access to our work areas. I was impressed with how composed employees were in such a pressing situa­tion. The gunman was apprehended by local law enforcement before he could harm anyone else.
  11. Some people feel powerful behind a keyboard. My best advice is to be careful what you put in an email or text message. It’s a “paper” trail that reflects on you and can easily be shared. Think before you click on the send button.
  12. Always remember that it is your career colleagues who will carry you through­ out your career, so maintaining a good rapport with them is important. Within agencies, political appointees come and go with elections, but for the most part your career colleagues remain.  This career camaraderie can even carry and maintain its relevance into retirement. Also, it’s helpful to be a member of, and active in, professional societies. Positive relationships with colleagues in your field of expertise benefits your organization and contrib­utes to your personal development and continuing education.

Steve Ellis’s federal career spanned 38-years and included 14-months as a Congressional Fellow in the U.S. Senate. He held leadership positions with both the US Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management (BLM) . He retired as deputy director of operations, BLM’s senior career position in Washington, D.C., in December 2016. He is chair of the National Association of Forest Service Retirees. He holds a bachelor’s degree in forestry and a masters in geographic and atmospher­ic science.

Forest Service Capacity: Or Not? And NAFSR Recommendations

by

Several folks in our Reconciliation Bill discussion have brought up the Forest Service capacity issue.  So this is probably a good time to highlight the NAFSR (National Association of Forest Service Retirees) recent report (2019).  Feel free to read it and let us know what you think.  I thought I’d pull out the results of field interviews. Again, apologies for the length. This was in 2019, so I wonder how Covid has affected these findings.  Current employees?

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

Leadership, Culture and Direction
Working Well
Morale is fairly good
People like their jobs
Local support is mixed across the country
Quality of new personnel is good if adequate leadership is provided
Processes are improving and becoming more efficient
Concerns
Units are below critical mass in terms of people and skills and cannot meet expectations
Administrative requirements are deeply affecting the productivity of all field personnel
New personnel are inexperienced, affecting decisions and results
Districts are responsible for results, but lack the authority necessary to achieve them
Priorities are clear but units are not confident they can be achieved
Technical training is lacking in timber, engineering, wildlife and fisheries
Many zoned personnel are spread so thin they can’t successfully complete priority work.

Workforce Capacity
Working Well
Fire organization
Concerns
Administrative processes and centralized services are not user friendly
The most “broken” administrative practice is the hiring process, which takes too long to complete
and removes many approvals and decisions from the affected field units. This applies to both
seasonal and permanent hiring procedures.
Following the “process” often appears to be more important than achieving desired results
With the exception of fire, all programs are suffering due to a lack of skills, personnel and funding
Those providing centralized services do not seem to understand or care about customers in the field
The perceived focus appears to be national data needs, not achieving work on the ground

Consolidation and Zoning
Working Well:
It is estimated that 15–50% of the work is performed by partners, volunteers and community groups
Concerns:
Some units believe they are zoned to the point of failure
Large land bases, increased travel times, and lack of connection with communities is rendering many zoned units ineffective as they are not able to complete critical work and maintain essential
relationships
To increase the pace and scale of work, units will require a commensurate increase in critical skills including heritage, timber, engineering, soils, NEPA leadership, non–fire forestry technicians,
contracting officer representatives, wildlife biologists and local partnership coordinators
There is broad agreement that the Forest Service is abdicating its land stewardship responsibilities in the program areas of recreation, trails and special use program management.
Forest supervisors and district rangers are very concerned about the continued erosion of funding and skills in the above–listed programs


On the Ground Management
Working Well
The Environmental Analysis and Decision Making (EADM) initiative is positive, and units have high expectations it will bring about needed change
o The level of understanding about and status of the current effort varies widely
o It would be a monumental disaster to morale if this effort failed

Concerns

The necessary skill sets and funding are simply not available to get the work done
The recreation program funding has dropped extensively for a very long time and the Forest Service cannot provide for the needs and expectations of the booming tourism market
Process and administrative burdens exist in hiring, contracting, procurement and grants and agreements
There is a strong disconnect between those leaders who want to get work done and those leaders who are responsible for the administrative functions necessary to get that work done. This is a universal frustration in the field.

Partnerships
Working Well
Good Neighbor Authority (GNA) is a valuable asset and helpful tool in some locations. Its use depends on the individual state’s interest, capacity and funding.
Concerns
Overall, the GNA program is limited by funding and certain authorities not being granted to the states
The limiting factor to expansion of GNA, or shared stewardship, is people, skills and funding to do the job
Field units do not have a clear understanding of what approach is planned without additional funding for the counties or states to fully participate

 

Civilian Climate Corps and Western Reforestation and Mitigation: Rhetoric And/or Reality

by
Fire crews carry a hose down a hill as the Caldor Fire burns on both sides of Highway 50 about 10 miles east of Kyburz, Calif., on Thursday, Aug. 26, 2021, as the fire pushes east prompting evacuation orders all the way to Echo Summit. The Caldor Fire, the nation’s top priority for firefighting resources, grew to more than 213 square miles (551 square kilometers) southwest of Lake Tahoe but containment remained at 12%, according to the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. Climate change has made the West warmer and drier in the past 30 years and will continue to make the weather more extreme and wildfires more destructive, according to scientists. (Sara Nevis/The Sacramento Bee via AP) I used this photo because it was in the Climate Corp AP story.

 

I’d like to start a discussion on a topic I’ve been wondering about, and that Bob Zybach brought up peripherally in a previous discussion of reforestation history.

I know that there is a massive push for a Climate Corps.  It appears that they would plant trees, and do wildfire mitigation, among a host of other things.  But, as Bob pointed out, previously when the Forest Service had big reforestation programs, it went from native workers to undocumented immigrants (how much an artifact of not being desirable jobs/ FS contracting policy?).  The 80’s were really different from today, but then so were the 30s (original CCC). And working in the woods has probably not changed all that much (or has it?)

 

Then there’s the issue of our current low paid positions going unfilled AKA labor shortage.  Certainly it would be an adventure for those wanting to get away from home and not join the military. But the military has had the problem with recruits being overweight and out of shape, I wonder whether the new CCC might have the same problem?

In this AP story:

While the jobs should pay at least $15 an hour, those likely to join the climate corps “are not doing it for the compensation,″ Neguse said. “They know it’s important to connect to nature and do important work for their state and the nation.″

Details are still being worked out, but Neguse and other Democrats say the program should pay “a living wage″ while offering health care coverage and support for child care, housing, transportation and education.

 

It seems to me that those are fundamentally different conditions than during the Depression, the origin of the CCC.  Also perhaps more people then (raised on farms?) were used to hard physical labor?

Here’s what a professor at Syracuse says:

David Popp, a professor of public administration at Syracuse University, said a key distinction between the original Civilian Conservation Corps and the new climate contingent is that the U.S. economy is not in a depression — great or otherwise — as it was during Franklin D. Roosevelt’s presidency.

While U.S. employers added just 235,000 jobs in August, the unemployment rate decreased slightly to 5.2% as the economy continues to recover from the coronavirus pandemic.

Most of those being targeted for the new climate corps “could find employment elsewhere,″ Popp said, noting a proliferation of help-wanted signs at retail businesses across the nation.

“I don’t know that an unemployed coal worker in West Virginia is going to move to Montana to take a minimum-wage job to restore streams,″ he said.

On the other hand, some of his own students are highly motivated by the climate crisis and may want to spend a year or two on an outdoor job that helps address an existential threat to the planet, Popp said.

“Many young people are very passionate about the environment, and they may see this as an opportunity to do something about the environment and still get paid for it,″ he said.

 

A bit puzzling is what Senator Markey of Massachusetts said:

Sen. Ed Markey, D-Mass., a prominent supporter of the climate corps, said such criticism overlooks important benefits.

The program will help communities recover from climate disasters such as Hurricane Ida and Western wildfires while creating “good-paying jobs that can turn into clean-economy careers,″

I’m not sure reforestation or cutting and burning trees have ever led to “clean-economy” careers, but I’m sure they are different kinds of jobs in other parts of the country.  Say, solar installation might have a completely different career path than tree planting. Perhaps they would go  to school afterwards (at the same schools they would otherwise attend)?  And perhaps we have a pathway that has led already to many land managers and park ranger careers-  wildland firefighting.

And also puzzling..

Rep. Joe Neguse, a Colorado Democrat who has co-sponsored a climate corps bill, said it’s important to train the next generation of U.S. land managers, park rangers and other stewards of our natural resources.

“This bold investment is a necessary response to the climate crisis and prioritizes the maintenance and upkeep of public lands,″ he said.

 

I’m not disagreeing with him, but there are places where this training occurs, or at least the training that qualifies people to do those jobs in the federal government.  We’d have to ask the folks, say at CSU (in Neguse’s district) if they have enough students in the pipeline to fill future jobs.  In our world, there has always tended to be more people than jobs.. perhaps this has changed and we need more people in the pipeline?

Like so many political ideas that sound so plausible in DC, I wonder if these concepts have been vetted by those with experience running these kinds of programs.  Or maybe a way forward would be to try it on a smaller scale in different parts of the country, doing different kinds of projects, and learn by doing. We know our wildfire folks have been having trouble with Covid in camps.. is this a good time to start camps, or wouldn’t there be camps? Then there’s the question of locational social justice (I just made up that term).. if these jobs are in underserved or poor communities, should local people have some kind of priority? Maybe those concerns are all addressed in the bill- I haven’t read it, hopefully someone out there is familiar with it.

So I’m raising the question here.. does anyone have recent experience on how this might work in practice? Do States, our laboratories of democracy, have successful examples? Do our friends who run Job Corps centers and fire camps have any relevant observations?  And, of course, the historical perspective on major reforestation efforts is always welcome.

 

Interview with Chief Moore in the LA Times

by
Chief Moore

 

Thanks to NAFSR for posting this link to an LA Times interview with Chief Moore.  The first question relates nicely to yesterday’s post, and the latter questions to common TSW topics of interest. Including the concept that wildfire management choices may look different depending on where you live, and the explanation of WFU and PB policy for this year. There is indeed, as he says, a lot of political steam gathering around forest treatments.

You are the first Black person to lead the Forest Service. In your first address, you said it’s “not going to take another 116 years to have another person of color” serve as chief. What is the agency doing to ensure that happens?

I think this administration is off to a really good start on that with the focus on equity and inclusion. The steps are being put into place where people are in position to be considered for the chief job going forward. I think we have more options these days than what we’ve had in the past, simply because you have a lot of people at the upper end of the organization that are people of color. The opportunities are there, so now it’s a matter of selection.

California is experiencing unprecedented fire behavior. This summer, the Dixie and Caldor fires became the first ever to burn from one side of the Sierra to the other. Does the Forest Service need to change its approach to these fires?

We’ll never be able to hire enough firefighters to fight our way out of what’s going on on the landscape. We’re seeing conditions out there that I have not seen in my 40-plus years of working for this agency. Due to climate change, due to extreme drought that’s taken place, the fire intensity is just off the charts. We’ve always had pyrocumulus clouds at certain nasty fires, but I’ve seen more of them this year. In some cases, fire retardant hasn’t had much of an effect. It’s burning just that hot and moving quickly. I think you have to balance the conversation a bit by not only talking about the need to suppress these fires; we have to talk fuel treatments. We have to do a lot more forest treatment so we have healthy, resilient forests. That’s our biggest weapon against a lot of the fire activity that’s taken place here.

This was a close call for South Lake Tahoe. Did you get lucky with the changing weather? Are there strategic lessons you learned from that experience?

What I saw with my own eyes on the ground is that where we have had fuel treatments, those helped tremendously. If you look at the southern end of [the Caldor] fire and how it moved up toward Lake Tahoe, you can see a blank spot where [a previous fire] was. I’m told the head of that flame was about 150 feet approaching South Lake Tahoe, and when it hit those treated areas, it dropped down to about 20 feet. We have proof that these treated areas really helped slow the fire down. It doesn’t always stop the fire — it’s not intended to stop it — it is intended to slow it down so the firefighters can get out there on the ground and knock it down.

How do you square the need for more prescribed burning with the fact that the Forest Service doesn’t have enough money or trained employees?

The challenge for us has been: Do we have the capacity to burn during the window in which we have to burn? And the answer has been no. We’ve lost about 37% of our non-fire workforce over the last 15 years. The capacity has been lost for quite a while. If you go back far enough, you will see that fire used to be about 14%-17% of the workforce, and now it’s over 50%. It’s not that we need to reduce fire; that’s not it at all. We need to increase our resource-related work. There are some locations out there where we are borderline viable.

Last month, you announced a policy of suppressing all fires, even if they are burning far from populated areas and under close watch. This is increasingly a source of tension between politicians who think “managed fire” is an oxymoron and scientists who say it prevents more destructive fires. Why did you make this decision?

It wasn’t a different policy — it was a clarification of our existing policy. There’s a perception out there that we have a “let it burn” policy, and we do not. We’re placing critically needed resources on fires that present the greatest risk to population centers. The last two years, we’ve had such a historical level of fire activity on the ground, and we had every firefighter that we could muster, so it looks like we have a “let it burn” policy to some people. But the reality is we just had so few firefighters. The other thing is, I have called a temporary pause on prescribed burning, because we simply do not have firefighters to put fires out if they escape.

Has the severity of the fires cut through some of the politicized disagreements over how to prevent them?

Yeah, I think so. When you live away from fire, you tend to have a different perspective about what fire can do to a community. And when you live in these communities that are affected by fire — not only by fire itself but the smoke — you will see more of a willingness, in my opinion, to start addressing this issue. Because you have lost livelihoods, you have lost lives, you have lost whole communities. You have suffered from a health perspective. You have lost all of your mementos and the things you valued your entire life. There’s a lot of loss that’s currently going on in our country from these fires, and it’s in ways that we haven’t even quite measured. Look at the carbon that’s released. Look at the amount of trees we’ve lost in the landscape and the effect that it’s had on sensitive species. There’s a huge impact to our environment.

This was the hottest summer in California history. What’s the Forest Service doing to protect firefighters from heat illness?

That’s a real problem that we have had, and we’ve been trying to be very conscious of that. In fact, we’ve given our firefighters an extra day of rest in between shifts. In the past, they worked 14 days, and they’d be off two; now, they’re working 14 days, and they’re off three days. I think that’s really appreciated. We’ve added COVID coordinators on each of the teams now, not only for health reasons but also to see if we can’t do a better job of monitoring each other.

Is it true that COVID-19 has been a problem in fire camps this year?

Last year, this was new. More people seemed to have been serious about following the mitigation protocols. I don’t know about the attitudes and the perspectives around COVID now, but I will tell you we’ve had an increase in COVID infections this year over last year — matter of fact, quite a bit. We’ve done things like moving away from the large base camps to maybe smaller spike camps. We’re doing temperature checks. We also are offering COVID tests, and at some of our locations, we’ve started pilots where we’re working with the local health department to actually give vaccinations at some of our fire camps.

(A Forest Service spokeswoman said there were 1,373 positive coronavirus cases among employees in all of 2020. There have been 1,142 so far this year.)

Conversations about fire with Californians and other Westerners often tend toward despair. What, if anything, gives you hope?

I think this tragic situation we’ve been in lately with climate change and drought and just all of the fires and destruction and devastation, it’s also created an opportunity for addressing some of the problems we’re having. I’m seeing a willingness even in Congress to come together to look at some solutions to this. I’m hopeful because I know that while there’s a lot of attention on fire suppression, there seems to be gathering steam around forest treatment. There seems to be hope on the horizon in terms of having a budget that’s sufficient enough that we can go out and start doing the fuel treatments that need to take place.

Chief Christiansen Announces Retirement

by

Thanks to Chief Christiansen for all her work throughout her career!

Chief’s Retirement
Later today, USDA Forest Service Chief Vicki Christiansen will announce her retirement after a 40-year career as a professional forester, wildland firefighter and land manager including 11 years of service at the Forest Service.
Secretary Vilsack plans to announce the next Chief later this month as well as a timeframe for a thoughtful transition. During that transition, Chief Christiansen looks forward to demonstrating one of the Forest Service core values of interdependence in handing off leadership to a new Chief.
WASHINGTON, June 8, 2021 – USDA Forest Service Chief Vicki Christiansen today announced her retirement after a 40-year career as a professional forester, wildland firefighter, and land manager including 11 years of service at the Forest Service.
Chief Christiansen brought her experience and passion for connecting people to their natural resources to her tenure as head of the Forest Service, leading more than 30,000 employees working in all 50 states and Puerto Rico.
Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack issued this statement:
“Chief Christiansen’s contributions to the USDA Forest Service cannot be overstated. In her more than three years as Chief, she has provided steady, thoughtful leadership through multiple challenges, including increasingly challenging fire and hurricane seasons, strains on agency budgets and workforce, and the COVID-19 pandemic.”
“Through it all, she has led with empathy, integrity and professionalism, advancing the agency’s work on shared stewardship, climate change, and partnerships while supporting record visitation and improving agency culture around safety and an inclusive work environment.”
“Chief Christiansen’s leadership has been informed by her 40 years of experience in natural resources and wildland fire management, including previously serving as the Forest Service’s Deputy Chief for State and Private Forestry and Deputy Director for Fire and Aviation Management, the Arizona State Forester, the Washington State Forester, and for 26 years in the Washington State Department of Natural Resources.”
“While Chief Christiansen’s decision to retire will leave big boots to fill, I will work closely with the Chief and the Forest Service leadership team in the weeks ahead to support a thoughtful transition. I join many others in offering my heartfelt thanks to Vicki for her service and best wishes for a happy and fulfilling retirement.”
Christiansen stepped into the role of Chief of the Forest Service on March 8, 2018. During Christiansen’s leadership tenure, the agency relied on its strong science, innovation, and partnerships to overcome profound challenges and find new solutions to serve the public. From leading the development of new interagency safety protocols that enabled fire response during a global pandemic to bolstering relationships with partners, states and tribes to improve forest health and combat the effects of climate change, Christiansen led with community in mind.
Her focus on creating a safe, respectful and high-performing work environment led to a cultural transformation at the Forest Service and significant gains in employee morale.
Forest Service accomplishments under Christiansen’s leadership include year after year of historic timber production and millions of acres treated to reduce hazardous fuels and improve forest resilience to fire. The Forest Service also recently completed a suite of regulatory reforms to modernize and align itself to new legislative authorities that reduce regulatory burdens and expedite critical forest management work. And today, thanks to Christiansen’s collaborative approach, 50 states and territories are involved in Shared Stewardship agreements to ensure the right work gets done in the right place at the right time.

And let’s not forget the time-honored activity of “new Chief prediction and rumors.” Here we go again…

Chris French Update on What’s Happening with the Biden Admin and the Forest Service

by

Thanks to NAFSR for this link!.

Chris has includes many items of interest in this update, including about Alaska, Oak Flats, GAOA projects, legislation, and (for those of us who have been concerned) that the Admin is not going for a Wilderness only view of what is included in 30 x 30, even though some groups want this.

For those of you who watched the Department of Interior Public Forum on their Oil and Gas Leasing Review last week, you might wonder whether USDA and Interior (plus Commerce for NMFS) and even more Departments (!)…. could work jointly on improving consultation processes rather than having separate efforts…oh well.

Thoughts?

Reviews by Politicals at the Forest Service: What Are They Looking For?

by

Thanks to Susan and Ted for mentioning Final Agency action review guidance 02012021 v2 FEB 01 (1) and sending it along..

The Forest Service shall submit for NRE’s review all projects and activities that fall within the categories set out below by February 12, 2021. Consistent with applicable law, and subject to any exception expressly authorized by NRE, the Forest Service will defer making any final decision regarding the actions listed below until NRE has reviewed the decision and authorized the agency to proceed with decision-making.
These instructions are applicable to the classes of plans, projects and activities listed below for which the Forest Service expects or intends to make a decision prior to March 31, 2021:
• Activities in designated wilderness areas taken pursuant to Sections 4(c) and 4(d) of the Wilderness Act.
• Road construction, road reconstruction and timber harvesting activities on lands originally designated pursuant to 36 CFR 294, subpart B (2001) as well as any roadless lands designated in a subsequent roadless rulemaking.
• Special Use Authorizations (and any Forest Plan amendments) involving new construction or expansion of infrastructure for conventional energy production, including pipelines or transmission lines.
• New, modified, or expanded locatable or leasable minerals activities involving ground disturbance on greater than 500 acres.
• Activities involving cutting or removal of more than 3,000 acres of vegetation that will be categorically excluded from documentation in an Environmental Assessment or Environmental
Impact Statement.
• Final decisions for revisions or significant amendments of Land Management Plans.

Agency actions should be submitted for review in summary form with a brief description of the purpose and need, the intended selected action, significant effects to natural or social resources, and public involvement including with State, local and Tribal governments, and status of any objection process underway. The summary should include any legal or administrative timelines, including those associated with permit renewal.

The roadless one seems to be about Roadless Areas including those acres included in the Colorado and Idaho Roadless Rules. These all seem to fill the bill of “projects our friends are interested in” and “no PR surprises.” The good thing about having experienced politicals on board is that they have a good sense of what they need to look for.

The only one I thought was unusual was the cutting and removal of more than 3000 acres of vegetation in a CE. Since we know that legislative CEs HFRA Sections 603 and 605 are up to 3000 acres, they are apparently not watching those, so what can it be?

My guess is that it might be projects that use the wildlife habitat and thinning category, which has no acreage limit. Here’s an example of one from the Salmon-Challis. In that case, the project is designed to improve sagebrush habitat by removing conifers.

Here’s the category from the NEPA Handbook:

(6) Timber stand and/or wildlife habitat improvement activities that do not include the use of herbicides or do not require more than 1 mile of low standard road construction. Examples include but are not limited to:
(i) Girdling trees to create snags;
(ii) Thinning or brush control to improve growth or to reduce fire hazard including the opening of an existing road to a dense timber stand;
(iii) Prescribed burning to control understory hardwoods in stands of southern pine; and
(iv) Prescribed burning to reduce natural fuel build-up and improve plant vigor.

It’s easy to imagine large projects fitting this one as written, but the practice as I recall was generally not to use it for large projects.

But I don’t know. Other ideas?

I’d also note that there’s no hiring check, as with the BLM. Again, perhaps experience indicates to the politicals that this wouldn’t be a useful, and might be a demoralizing, exercise.