Jobs

Two Interesting TNC Positions Helping the Forest Service

by

I’m always interested in positions that sound like things that Forest Service employees used to do. Like I’ve been saying for the past three or so years, I still think it would be great if the larger NGO’s would post what they’re doing with the federal bucks.  We know they have to tell the Feds. And FOIAing is painful for both me and the FOIA people. My question is “did the FS have a plan for what kinds of work would be farmed out, and which kept in-house?” And “do we need as many employees under this new model?”

I am a fan of keeping the work in-house. I think the NGO’s and their folks are generally great.  I’ve already seen situations in which NGO employees use FS vehicles and the lines seem to be a bit blurred in some cases, at least to the public.  It also can’t be good for public interest in funding the FS.   And to be honest, I’ve seen cases where NGO priorities don’t exactly line up with (my idea of) FS priorities. Do Interior agencies operate this way? I also understand that when the FS had a hiring freeze it had to do something to get the work done.

Also they sound like fun jobs!  So here’s two of these..first, the Landscape-Scale Restoration Manager:

The Landscape-Scale Restoration Manager leads one of the most ambitious forest and fire restoration efforts underway in Washington State’s dry forests. This role focuses on advancing equitable, climate-resilient cross-boundary restoration from planning through implementation on federal lands, in close partnership with Tribes, the U.S. Forest Service, WA State and regional partners.

The manager serves as a practical integrator across forestry, prescribed fire, science, and partnerships, working to resolve bottlenecks, align projects and partners, and ensure restoration work moves forward at the pace and scale required. This role is both strategic and deeply operational, requiring the ability to navigate federal systems, advance complex agreements, and deliver real on-the-ground outcomes. This role is critical to ensuring that decades of investment in forest restoration translate into durable, on-the-ground outcomes.

We’re Looking For You

The Landscape-Scale Restoration Manager helps translate restoration priorities into implementable projects on the ground. They coordinate with Tribal, federal, state, and community partners to refine priority landscapes, support National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)-ready restoration pathways, oversee key agreements and deliverables, and help design implementable treatment packages that integrate mechanical thinning, prescribed fire, cultural burning opportunities, workforce development, and community-informed smoke management. The role focuses on removing barriers to delivery, including aligning partners, advancing agreements, coordinating contracting and implementation pathways, and ensuring that NEPA-ready work progresses through thinning, prescribed fire, and follow-on stewardship.

This role requires a strong understanding of how restoration work is implemented on federal lands, including familiarity with stewardship contracting, partner agreements, and agency processes. The manager works closely with agency staff, contractors, and partners to align timelines, resolve constraints, and maintain momentum through complex, multi-party projects.

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

Then there’s this one for three Forest Recovery Program Zone Coordinators for the GW/Jeff- it says that they are funded by a “long term grant that ends in January of 2036”.. that is pretty long-term!

What We Can Achieve Together:

The Zone Forest Recovery Program Coordinator is a position that will work directly and coordinate with the George Washington and Jefferson National Forests to implement on-the-ground restoration of fire-adapted oak- and pine-dominated forests impacted by hurricane Helene. Specifically, this position will provide accountability and oversite for contracted fuels and silviculture modules, participate in controlled burns, support ecological monitoring, and support resource coordination between partners to support RX projects. We are hiring three coordinators, one each at the following locations in Virginia; Abingdon, Blacksburg and Lexington. The positions are funded by a long-term grant that ends in January of 2036.

We’re Looking for You:

This position will supervise seasonal/term fire crews and interns. Responsibilities include fire-line construction and maintenance, monitoring fuel conditions, burn implementation and mop up, equipment maintenance, vegetation monitoring, data entry and compilation, and assisting with burn plan development. This position will also coordinate with District/Zone Forest Service staff to support timber stand improvement and non-native invasive species activities, specifically development of program of work for contract solicitations. This position will also have responsibility for accomplishment reporting of all Helene recovery efforts to include planning and implementation. Accomplishing most of these duties requires effectively communicating between, work with, and often leading diverse teams of other Conservancy or partner agency staff, volunteers, and interns.

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

by

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

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

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

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

More Federal Firefighters Moving On

by

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.

Possible Salvage Strategy for Dixie and Caldor Fires

by

Since a battle for salvage projects is brewing, I think the Forest Service and the timber industry should consider my idea to get the work done, as soon as possible, under the rules, laws and policies, currently in force. It would be a good thing to ‘preempt’ the expected litigation before it goes to Appeals Court.

 

The Forest Service should quickly get their plans together, making sure that the project will survive the lower court battles. It is likely that such plans that were upheld by lower courts, in the past, would survive the inevitable lower court battles. Once the lower court allows the project(s), the timber industry should get all the fallers they can find, and get every snag designated for harvest on the ground. Don’t worry too much about skidding until the felling gets done. That way, when the case is appealed, most of Chad Hanson’s issues would now be rendered ‘moot’. It sure seems like the Hanson folks’ entire case is dependent on having standing snags. If this idea is successful, I’m sure that Hanson will try to block the skidding and transport of logs to the mill. The Appeals Court would have to decide if skidding operations and log hauling are harmful to spotted owls and black-backed woodpeckers.

 

It seems worth a try, to thin out snags over HUGE areas, while minimizing the legal wranglings.

Budd Falen: Standing Up for Rural Constituents

by
Salon

Karen Budd Falen was the Deputy Solicitor for Parks and Wildlife in the Department of Interior for three years, and she left with the rest of the Trump administration, capping off a notable career in opposing public lands.  She appears to come by that view honestly, being raised on a Wyoming ranch and representing ranchers as an attorney (including the Bundys).  She reflects in this short piece on her legacy of changing the Endangered Species Act regulations and National Environmental a Policy Act regulations to promote more “local control” (as well as with the Land and Water Conservation Fund).

I take issue with her arguments in both cases that the laws the regulations implement (ESA and NEPA) were intended to allow social and economic considerations to play the role she has provided for them.  These statutes are both clearly aimed at the “natural environment,” and not local “custom and culture.”  Remarkably, she appears to admit that, “the listing of a species should be based only on science,” but then she has made it harder to do that with various changes in the ESA implementing regulations (which go beyond those she describes here in relation to critical habitat).

My fundamental disagreement with her and those she represents concerns this statement (and I suspect it may be a reason for differing opinions on this blog):

In my view, local elected officials should have more sway on issues directly affecting them than someone from midtown New York who has never faced the realities of making a living from the land.

The major gloss-over here is that endangered wildlife and federal lands don’t belong more to local people and their elected officials.  Her view that local interests should have more influence is not supported by either of these laws, and it is not the view held by most of the people that these resources do belong to.  Should the Biden administration not reverse these regulations, courts will have another opportunity to slap down the misinformation from her, and organizations she has worked for like the Mountain States Legal Foundation, that has led to ideas like “county supremacy” limiting how national forests are managed.

(Here is a little background from just before Trump decided she could not get confirmed as BLM Director.)

Has the Helena-Lewis and Clark got jobs for you

by
source: gustavofrazao / Getty

The Helena-Lewis and Clark National Forest revised forest plan was released recently and is now in the objection period.  A local newspaper decided to profile the benefits of the revised forest plan to “jobs” – 400 new ones are projected as a result of the revised plan.  As a former forest economist, I know how meaningless the economic analysis of forest plans can be, and this seemed a little far-fetched, so I thought I would take a look at it.

The EIS discloses the number of jobs resulting from recreation, grazing, timber, minerals, transfer payments and Forest Service expenditures.  That last item (which I think is mostly federal employees) makes up about half of the total employment benefit depending on alternative.  Actually, the number of jobs is the same for all of these categories in all alternatives, except for jobs related to timber harvest.  There, the preferred alternative (F) increases the timber jobs by five times over current levels (EIS Table 243, I get an increase of 497 from current levels), while roughly doubling the projected timber harvest volume over that resulting since 1980.  Elsewhere the EIS says, “An estimated 804 private industry timber jobs exist in this multi-county area.”  That doesn’t match the 119 shown in this table, but would mean the Forest would only increase industry employment by 50% or so, but still …  My point is just that this is suspicious and confusing.

The reality is that jobs created by Forest Service outputs are usually a very small part of a regional economy (the total number of jobs in this region is over 100,000, so that the total timber-related jobs is less than 1%) and the actual number of jobs will usually vary because of many factors that that Forest Service has no control over.  This is a good example of stuffing an EIS with information that does not help with the decision, and in fact may confuse it.

Then there is the question of why should we care.  The “regulatory framework” for social and economic benefits (p. 189 of the EIS) provides no authority for “creating jobs.”  (I doubt if there is one for doing something about “poverty levels” either, as Mac McConnell intimated here.)   The “findings required by other laws” included in the draft ROD do not include any related to social or economic growth.   And under NEPA, creating jobs would be a bad thing, since indirect adverse effects “may include growth inducing effects and other effects related to induced changes in the pattern of land use, population density or growth rate, and related effects on air and water and other natural systems, including ecosystems” (40 CFR §1508.8).

Of course, considering a specific effect on a specific industry or employer, might be a reasonable and relevant factor to consider for a long-term planning decision, if it were related to meaningful criteria about the “right” number of jobs and why, and properly disclosed in a record of decision.  I’m just not seeing that here, in this draft ROD:

The Plan also contributes to social and economic sustainability by providing plan components that collectively support an array of public benefits including jobs and income, … (p. 20)

This statement would have been true for any alternative, so the economic analysis contributed nothing.  It’s unfortunate that this was picked out as “news,” giving the wrong message about what our national forests are for, as well as raising questions about what is really going to happen.

Sierra Nevada Logging Examples

by

Back in 2012, I worked my last season with the Forest Service, on the Amador Ranger District of the Eldorado National Forest. In particular, I led the crew in marking the cut trees in this overcrowded unit.

The above picture shows the partially logged unit, as well as the sizes of logs thinned.

This part of the same unit shows a finished portion, and two other log landings.

Here is a link to the larger view.

https://www.google.com/maps/@38.6022239,-120.3284245,1019a,35y,90h/data=!3m1!1e3?hl=en

There are also other completed cutting units in the area, which I worked in. Most of those were also cut in 2018, six years after they were marked. The existing plantations were cut back in the 80’s. At least one new goshawk nest was found, and the cutting unit was dropped.

Headwaters: Lessons from the Timber Transition

by

 

Lessons from the Timber Transition

“Performance is shaped more by current challenges and opportunities in the regional economy affecting all types of communities than it is by changes in the timber industry alone.”

“Counties doing better than average leveraged natural amenities; took an active, collaborative approach to planning; embraced adaptability; and took advantage of access to metropolitan markets.”

WA murrelet strategy should “meet only minimum federal standards for protections”

by

At least that’s what the Washington state politicians are urging their Department of Natural Resources to adopt for its lands.

The DNR is currently considering five different proposals to protect the bird species. A final decision is expected within the next few weeks. Walsh has come out in favor of “alternative B” which he says would meet minimum federal standards for species preservation while ensuring the least amount of negative impact on local economies.

A press release noted that Walsh, and his peers who signed off on the letter to the DNR, believe that reduced timber sales in coastal communities would “create significant economic hardship on counties and communities that can least afford it.”

In other words, let’s manage this species so it stays on the edge of extinction.  This is why we have endangered species (and a federal Endangered Species Act).

Federal lands and transitional economies

by

Headwaters Economics has released this update to a report discussed at length here last year:

 “Rural counties in the West with more federal lands performed better on average than their peers with less federal lands in four key economic measures.”

“This update of research from last year finds that from the early 1970s to the early 2010s, population, employment, and personal income on average all grew significantly faster—two times faster or more—in western rural counties with the highest share of federal lands compared to counties with the lowest share of federal lands. Per capita income growth was slightly higher in counties with more federal land.”

An article on “transitional communities” adds:

“Rural decline is a large and complex issue that appears to be accelerating. According to the Pew Charitable Trust, during the period between 1994–2010, 38.4 percent of U.S. rural counties lost population; since 2010, over two-thirds of rural counties lost population.  This level of decline has far-reaching national and international implications for food and energy production, tourism, and national culture and identity.”

Putting them together, it looks like public lands can be an important asset for minimizing or avoiding rural decline, if communities can get their act together to embrace this potential and plan for it.

“Particularly in declining communities where long-established residents remember the charm of life in simpler times, residents can have considerable resistance to change. This connection and preservation of the past, while a rural virtue, can impede its adaptation into the future. Resistance to any proposed solution that “hasn’t been done before” simply impedes innovation or positive transition.”