Uncategorized

NY Times: Rx Fires Can Save Homes. Why Aren’t More Happening?

by

New York Times today: In California, Controlled Fires Can Save Homes. Why Aren’t More Happening?

Excerpt:

The state’s budget maintains $2.6 billion in funding for tackling wildfires and improving forest health. An additional $200 million per year is designated for healthy forest and fire prevention programs, which include prescribed fire projects.

The money is most likely not enough, especially because it is spread across a number of initiatives, said Mark Schwartz, a professor emeritus at the University of California, Davis, who has studied controlled burns and other wildfire management methods.

In addition to the need for more funds, Mr. Schwartz said, controlled burn programs face a number of other hurdles. Already limited in number, firefighters who would staff a prescribed fire are often called away to battle an active blaze. There are also only so many days in a year that conditions are right for a fire, and access is a challenge in some locations. And local communities may oppose a controlled burn, he said.

“It’s hard to wag a finger too much at agencies,” he said. “Getting prescribed fire on the landscape at the scale we’d like is very difficult.”

Yale Forest Forum on Mature and Old Growth

by

Old growth seems to be the above.. not the below..

We were discussing how forest policy in the US seems to have been  in the hands of people living in mesic forests.  It’s interesting to look at who exactly counts as an expert on, say, mature and old growth (wouldn’t that be almost all forests?) , and where they are located.  While the Yale Forest School folks were developing this series, I suggested that they get someone from the Interior West.   I suppose Sue Pritchard and SJ are at least over the crest of the Cascades, but PJ people, I guess, need not apply.   In the old bad days, this country didn’t count because it didn’t produce lumber. Now it still seems.. not part of the MOG conversation.

According to this fact sheet,

Pinyon and juniper woodlands are the most abundant forest type in the federal inventory of mature and
old-growth forests, with 9 million acres of old-growth pinyon-juniper across BLM and Forest Service
lands and an additional 14 million acres of mature pinyon-juniper.

Anyway, the talks are recorded and here is the list of speakers and where to register.

Forest Service estimates costs of fighting wildfires in a hotter future

by

Report produced by the White House Office of Management and Budget: “Over the last decade, suppression has cost the USDA Forest Service and the Department of the Interior an average of $2.9 billion per year.”

And:

“But according to the analysis, a central estimate across the 10 future climate scenarios shows that lands in the National Forest System would experience a near doubling of the area burned by mid-century (2041-2059). In one scenario, the area burned by wildfire would quadruple (estimates range from a 42% to a 306% increase).

“Suppression expenditures also are projected to rise. A middle-of-the-road estimate is a 42% increase in costs by 2050, to $3.9 billion, while some estimates suggest that costs would increase by 84%. In the decades after 2050, costs could rise by 17% to 283%, with a median annual expenditure of $4.9 billion by late century. The team accounted for inflation by converting all future spending to 2022-dollar equivalents.”

USFS hiring Wildland Firefighters into permanent seasonal positions

by

This is from Aug 20….

Hold the line! The Forest Service is Hiring Wildland Firefighters in Oregon and Washington

Release Date: 

Jennifer O’Leary Risdal
Fire Communications Officer
(541) 731 – 0390
jennifer.o’[email protected]

PORTLAND, Ore., Aug. 20, 2024— The Forest Service is hiring Wildland Firefighters into permanent seasonal positions on hand crews, engine crews, hotshot crews, and more. Make a lasting impact on the world around you and unlock opportunities for professional growth and career advancement. Join the Forest Service’s Oregon or Washington fire organization and be a part of the team that is committed to caring for the land and serving people. Our mission is to protect our natural resources for multiple uses for today and future generations.

The Forest Service is holding an in-person recruitment event to fill approximately 200 entry level, GS-3/4 wildland firefighter permanent seasonal positions. Join us on Sept. 12, 2024, from 12 PM to 6 PM PST at any of the following locations:

  • Wenatchee, WA – Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest Supervisors Office, 215 Melody Lane, Wenatchee, WA 98801.
  • Redmond, OR – Deschutes County Fairgrounds, OSU Extension Office, 3800 SW Airport Way Bldg. 4, Redmond, OR 97756 *Note, this event takes place from 1:00-6:00 PM PST
  • Mt. Hood National Forest Supervisor’s Office, 16400 Champion Way, Sandy, OR 97055
  • La Grande Ranger District, 3502 Hwy 30, La Grande, OR 97850

Applicants are invited to come and meet regional fire staff, get application help, and learn about the benefits of working for the Forest Service.

Applicants can also apply online. Jobs will be posted on USAJobs.gov from Aug. 23 – Sept. 24 using the direct hire authority. Review the job announcement carefully for deadlines and required information to include in your application. Employment start dates may vary.

For more information visit the National Wildland Firefighting Hiring webpage. Find a detailed list and a map of positions and duty locations on our Regional Fire Hire webpage.

Visit the Forest Service Careers webpage to learn more about career opportunities, benefits, hiring events, and resources to help with the application process.

###

Forest Service Budget Q&A’s

by

Here are the original questions I sent to the Forest Service collected from folks on TSW:

During the Town Hall, the Chief said “BLM has a COLA” that allows BLMers to get more money than FS folks in the same building.  He implied that that was due to energy funding to the BLM in some way.

1.       My understanding is that both locality pay and COLAs are government-wide and set by OPM.  The Chief implied that he couldn’t bring influence to bear on OPM, nor (he implied) could the Secretary.  What exactly is he asking OPM to do or not do?

2.       My understanding is that rents on Forest Service buildings are set by GSA. Is that correct? How are rental rates determined, and do local units have any flexibility on them?

3.       How much funding has gone to the Keystone and Navigators agreements? It seems like that could alleviate some of the problems if they haven’t spent it all.  Is it possible for the currently unspent funds in these coop agreements to be returned?

4.       Does the Forest Service have an explanation for why the shortfall occurred? Were the results of the audit a surprise?

a.       The structural issues (e.g. pay increases, COLAs) are common to all land management agencies; does the Forest Service have an explanation for why they have a uniquely large deficit?

5.       Has there been direction to use KV and BD funds to offset payroll shortfalls?

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

The Press Office was helpful in telling me that it wasn’t a Town Hall but rather this session, the Housing Update Information Session which occurred July 15 and was posted August 19. There may be answers related to our questions on the Sharepoint site, but that isn’t available to non-employees as far as I know.

I asked to see those Q&A’s and the Press Office said:

“We don’t have any additional information to provide beyond Chief Moore’s recent budget remarks (Fiscal year 2025 budget updates | US Forest Service (usda.gov)). We won’t speculate beyond what’s already provided in the remarks. Questions related to the budget should be directed to the Department of Agriculture.”

Meanwhile the Hotshot Wakeup posted this on his Substack. I will keep everyone posted as I hear more, if you have more info please email me. Thank you!

In the Rocky Mountain Region, they announced that all seasonal positions or 1039 appointments will be cut, and no extensions will be offered starting October 1st. On top of that, I’ve heard there are conversations about perm staff cutting hours if a 2025 budget is not passed by October as well.

This comes after years of pressing the workforce to stay on longer to complete prescribed burning that was funded in the billions of dollars by the Infrastructure Bill. It seems that will take a back seat now, as it was announced October 1st will be the cutoff, no matter the funding source for the employee’s wages.

Here is the memo that went out to the Rocky Mountain Employees:

Good Afternoon All,

As an agency it is our responsibility and number one priority to pay our employees. In working through the budget challenges, we are currently facing; a decision has been made that no 1039 appointments will be extended beyond the end of the fiscal year regardless of funding source. This applies to all 1039 appointments in the Rocky Mountain Region with no exceptions.

Carbon Credits: Jobs & Wildlife vs. Smoke & Wildfire

by

Indian Trail Spring, Jerry Phillips Reserve, Elliott State Forest, October 10, 2017. Photo by Bob Zybach.

The Oregon Capital Chronicle just published my editorial on the Elliott carbon credit scheme that the Department of State Lands has been pushing instead of logging for the past seven years: https://oregoncapitalchronicle.com/2024/08/20/oregon-state-has-valid-reasons-for-opposing-elliott-forest-carbon-crediting-scheme/
This is in response to an article the Chronicle had posted the previous day in support of the DSL plan, which will be presented to the Governor and State Treasurer for approval this October 8. Here is the article, which is also linked in my editorial: https://oregoncapitalchronicle.com/2024/08/19/controversial-plan-for-elliott-state-forest-would-put-its-83000-acres-into-fighting-climate-change/
Here is the text to the editorial, which was condensed from the section on Carbon Credits in my peer review of the current Elliott State Forest draft forest management plan, submitted on August 4:
Oregon State has valid reasons for opposing Elliott forest carbon-crediting scheme 

 

Oregon State University and the Department of State Lands agreed in February 2019 to produce a research and management plan for the Elliott State Forest by the end of that year. The proposed plan was supposed to focus on “key conservation values,” with the second “key value” being “a carbon sequestration program.”

Nearly five years later, in November 2023, OSU President Jayathi Murthy told the department  that the university would be terminating its agreements regarding research and management of the Elliott. OSU said the primary reason for this decision was the university’s  “significant concerns” regarding the department’s “intent” to move forward with a scheme by the department to use the forest to store carbon and then sell credits instead of actively managing for jobs and income.

Murthy’s decision to terminate the agreement came just over a year after an August 2022 email from OSU’s  Forestry Dean Thomas DeLuca to the department and the State Land Board listed several reasons why OSU opposed a carbon-crediting scheme. DeLuca said the credits would pose a “serious financial risk,” would increase the cost of managing the forest and that it would be difficult over the long term to meet the sales requirements.

Three days before Murthy’s decision to pull out of the agreement,  the Department of State Lands circulated a confidential report that stated the Elliott might not qualify for the carbon market – and even if it did, credits would likely generate less than $1 million per year and 20% of that amount would go to administering the program.

Nevertheless, the department recently announced plans to continue their efforts to sell carbon credits rather than logs from the Elliott.

The Elliott grows about 70 million board feet of timber a year and has a well-documented history of catastrophic wildfires, windstorms, floods and landslides. Less than 1% of the forest is old growth, more than 40,000 acres are in industrial plantations and the remainder is made up of mature trees grown  following major wildfires in 1868 and 1879.

From 1960 until 1990, the Elliott sold 50 million board feet of timber a year, producing hundreds of millions of dollars for Oregon schools and more than 400 rural taxpaying jobs. There also were no wildfires during that time. Since the Department of State Lands took over management in 2017, the forest has lost more than a million dollars a year and only funded two road maintenance jobs, with an ever-increasing likelihood of catastrophic wildfires due to the increasing amount of unmanaged fuels growing every year.

An example of the ephemeral nature of carbon sequestration related to the sale of carbon credits is shown by the active Shelly Fire in northern California, which has burned more than 15,500 acres. A July 19 report about the fire included a map that outlined 11,000 acres of burned forest owned by Ecotrust Forest Management in Portland that had been used to sell carbon credits.

So, what happens next? Will money be returned to investors? Will the dead trees be salvaged or left in place to rot or burn again?

These are key questions that need to be considered and that the Department of State Lands hasn’t answered, according to Oregon State University.

The plan to sell carbon credits from the Elliott trees has already resulted in a significant amount of time and cost to Oregon taxpayers. Yet, there are no indications that carbon markets are stable, and even  if credits could be sold, their value would be very low in comparison to traditional timber sales. The Elliott was created to help fund schools through timber sales and as a working forest.  For two generations, it has done both and could continue to do so but not by selling carbon credits.

Friday Tidbits: Questions on Community Navigators, FSM 2470 Update Comment Period and FS Budget Post Request

by

1. So far the only question I’ve seen about Community Navigators is how much funding went into each agreement, plus I’m curious as to what pot it came from. If you have any other questions please comment below or email me and I will send all the questions in together.

2. A Fed Reg notice came to my attention via an alert TSW reader about an update to the 2470 Silviculture Manual with a comment period. I couldn’t link to the update so contacted the FS, and they will republish a new Fed Reg notice with the correct link.

Here’s a link to the original Fed Reg notice. Comments are due by October 15. Many TSW readers may be interested in this, having been some of the people who have worked with the old one. Improving and updating direction is often tedious and unappreciated, but necessary for government to work better, so I hope some of you take a look.

3. Post Request For those of us who have been out of the FS for awhile or were never in, a post on the FS “newish” budget process and how it is working in practice would be greatly appreciated.

Federal Lands Litigation – update through August 14, 2024

by

FOREST SERVICE

I’ll “feature” the first case because it delves into the relationship between NFMA and NEPA, and claims for damages under the Federal Tort Claims Act and its discretionary-function exception to government liability (and a Smokey Wire contributor was involved).  The FTCA is a federal law that allows people to receive compensation from the United States for damages caused by federal government employees’ negligence or wrongful acts, but not for acts where those employees have discretion to act.

Court decision in Strawberry Water Users Ass’n v. U. S. A. (10th Cir.)

On July 30, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a district court’s dismissal of claims against the Forest Service for damages to private property from two 2018 fires on the Uinta-Wasatch-Cache National Forest that were initially managed to contain rather than suppress the fires.  The court held that the Federal Tort Claims Act exception for discretionary functions of government applied in this case to prevent jurisdiction by the court.

The court examined the provisions in the applicable forest plans, which allowed for wildland fire use.  Forest Plan guidelines also require the Forest Service to produce annually a “Default Initial Fire Response Map,” referred to as the “Red/Green Map,” which  communicates to the public the “areas in which fire starts might be considered as a means to meet Forest Plan objectives.”  The Bald Mountain Fire and Cold Creek Fire started in areas where fire use could occur, and an incident decision was made to monitor and contain the fires after considering many factors.  Unexpected winds caused the fires to burn over 100,000 acres over the next month.

Plaintiffs alleged that the Forest Service acted outside of its authority by burning lands outside of its jurisdiction, and therefore this was not a “discretionary function.”  Plaintiffs relied heavily on “a declaration by its expert, Franklin Carroll, a retired Forest Service policy analyst, to support the contention that ‘the Forest Service implemented a national strategy of purposefully using anticipated natural wildfire to immolate private and nonfederal public lands and communities, forcing upon them its vision for people beyond its boundaries to live with wildland fire.’”

The court disagreed, stating that NFMA “expressly requires the Forest Service to develop and maintain Forest Plans that permit the limited use of wildfires,” and pointing out the National Cohesive Wildland Fire Management Strategy’s authority to “use fire where allowable.” The court concluded “there is no evidence to indicate that the Forest Service intended to burn land outside the UWC National Forest.”

Plaintiffs also contended that NEPA compliance was necessary for the Red/Green Map, and without that the Forest Service had no discretion and must suppress fires.  The court pointed out that, “The relevant statutes, National Strategy, and Forest Plans do not declare that extinguishing fires is the default action,” and held that,

 The Forest Service’s authority in responding to wildfires does not come from the Map, but from the FLAME Act and the NFMA. Those statutes grant the Forest Service the clear discretion to manage wildfires that arise on its lands. The Red/Green Map merely functions as a means to communicate to the public “areas in which fire starts might be considered as a means to meet Forest Plan objectives.” It is far from “specific and mandatory.” Whether or not the Red/Green Map was properly promulgated, the Forest Service still had the discretion necessary for application of the discretionary-function exception.

(And in any case, NEPA compliance must be determined under the Administrative Procedure Act rather than the Tort Claims Act.)

Here’s what I take home from this (which should not be considered legal advice):

  • Compliance with NEPA has no bearing on the authority for discretionary functions under the Tort Claims Act.
  • If a forest plan (or larger policy) made fire suppression mandatory (for all or part of a national forest), then deciding to not suppress a fire there could expose the agency to liability under the Tort Claims Act because the discretionary-function exception would not apply.)

 

TRO imposed and lifted in Salt River Wild Horse Management Group v. U. S. Department of Agriculture (D. Arizona)

On August 2, the district court found that plaintiffs were unlikely to succeed on the merits of their argument that the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forest did not give proper notice to the public that they would sell 13 horses considered to be feral.  The court did require a new 5-day notice, which may enable plaintiffs to acquire the horses and prevent their potential slaughter.  According to this article (which has a link to the order):

Since 2022, the forest service has been removing horses, known locally as the Alpine herd, at the request of the Center for Biological Diversity and other conservation groups who say the horses — who disappeared from the fossil record during the last ice age before their return alongside the Spaniards — are now destroying the native ecosystem that evolved in their absence.

New lawsuit:  BlueTriton Brands v. U. S. Forest Service (D. D.C.)

On August 6, the company producing Arrowhead 100% Mountain Spring Water sued the Forest Service for denying its application for a new permit to continue to pipe water from Strawberry Creek on the San Bernardino National Forest. (The article includes a link to the complaint.)  State officials determined last year that the company has been unlawfully diverting much of the water without valid water rights.  The Forest Service had also been unable to verify how the water was actually being used.  They ordered BlueTriton to remove their infrastructure a month after a local environmental group, Save Our Forest Assn., filed a lawsuit against the Forest Service arguing the agency was illegally allowing the company to continue operating under a permit that was past its expiration date.

New lawsuit:  Center for Biological Diversity v. Moore (D. New Mexico)

On August 12, the Center for Biological Diversity and Maricopa Audubon Society sued the Forest Service for the third time over its authorization of livestock grazing on the Sacramento Allotment on the Lincoln National Forest.  The complaint alleges that the Biological Opinion improperly assumes that conservation measures that have failed in the past will protect the New Mexico jumping mouse from cattle grazing in riparian areas.  The news release includes a link to the complaint.

BLM

New lawsuit:  Hualapai Indian Tribe v. Haaland (D. Arizona)

On August 2, the Hualapai Tribe and Earthjustice sued to stop the BLM from allowing 131 test holes to be drilled over 613 acres to find lithium in the Big Sandy River watershed.  The site surrounds tribal land that includes Ha’Kamwe’, a hot springs, which has long been central to Hualapai culture and traditions, and there is a particular concern about effects on water resources.  The article includes a link to the complaint, which alleges violations of NEPA and the National Historic Preservation Act.

New lawsuit:  Washington County, Utah v. U. S. Department of the Interior (D. Utah)

On August 6, plaintiffs filed a lawsuit against the BLM and Fish and Wildlife Service for withdrawing their Biological Opinion and reinitiating consultation on a proposed highway through the Red Cliffs National Conservation Area and its effects on the Mohave desert tortoise.  The county also alleges violations of Section 10 of ESA, which governs a habitat conservation plan the county prepared to allow incidental take of the species.  The withdrawal of the Biological Opinion was the result of settlement of a prior lawsuit brought by conservation groups, discussed here. (The article includes a link to the complaint.)

ENDANGERED SPECIES

Notice of Intent to Sue

On July 15, Wilderness Watch, Western Watersheds Project, WildEarth Guardians, and Friends of the Clearwater sent a notice of intent to sue the State of Idaho for violations of the Endangered Species Act over state hunting authorizations that put grizzly bears at risk.  Idaho allows hunters to attract black bears to baiting sites in some parts of the state, which has resulted in killings and habituation of threatened grizzly bears.  This lawsuit, alleging illegal incidental take by the State under the ESA, was filed shortly after a previous lawsuit against the Forest Service (discussed here) was dismissed because “new information” was not sufficient to require reinitiation of consultation by the Forest Service on their 1995 national policy on bear-baiting.  (That dismissal occurred on the same day that another grizzly bear was mistakenly shot at a bait station.)  This notice was not sent to the Forest Service.

  • 2024 ESA regulations

New lawsuit:  Center for Biological Diversity v. U. S. Department of the Interior (N.D. Cal.)

On August 1, the Center for Biological Diversity, Sierra Club and WildEarth Guardians challenged the Biden Administration’s revised Endangered Species Act regulations, focusing on the portions that retained some of the changes previously made by the Trump Administration in 2019.  They seek to reinstate the pre-2019 Regulations.

New lawsuit:  National Hydropower Association v. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (D. D.C.)

On August 2, the National Hydropower Association and Northwest Hydroelectric Association challenged the same regulations.  They seek to reverse the new requirement to include mitigation measures as a condition of obtaining a hydro license.  They allege that this is outside of the authority granted to the regulatory agencies by the Endangered Species Act.

(Both articles include links to the complaints.)

Court decision in Center for Biological Diversity v. Haaland (D. Montana)

On August 6, the district court reversed the decision by the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service to not list the Upper Missouri River Distinct Population Segment of Arctic Grayling under the Endangered Species Act.  The judge faulted the FWS’ reliance on the benefits of a voluntary conservation program set to expire in two years, and its flawed analysis of the stability of the species in the Ruby River.  The few remaining populations face a variety of threats, including irrigation withdrawals that reduce flows and raise stream temperatures, climate change, and habitat degradation due to livestock grazing, roads and agriculture.  The article includes a link to the ruling.

OTHER

Court decision in Xerces Society for Invertebrate Conservation v. Shea (D. Oregon)

On August 2, the district court invalidated the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service’s program to control grasshopper and Mormon cricket populations, which allowed insecticide spraying on millions of acres rangelands, much of it public lands.  The court held that the 2019 EIS and associated Record of Decision, as well as associated state-level EA/FONSIs for Oregon, Idaho, Wyoming, and Montana, violated NEPA.  The court found APHIS failed to consider preventative strategies (not just pesticides), the baseline conditions of butterflies, moths and native bees in spray areas, and the cumulative effects of its program when combined with other pesticide spraying in these areas.  The news release has a link to the opinion.

 

 

 

Community Navigators and Grants and Agreements IV. Changes in Match Requirements.. and the EJ Screening Tool?

by

This cool table is more relevant to the previous post.

This is about needing matching contributions to receive grants. Chief Moore has changed the policies since many of us might remember based on this 2022 letter.

Partnership grants and agreements are a key tool to facilitate this collaboration: the Forest Service currently has more than 3,500 partnership agreements reflecting the power of partnership and one of our agency’s core values—interdependence.

To better enable our work with partners, the Forest Service took a hard look at our grants and agreements process and found that, in some cases, policy requirements for cash matching or substantial cash contributions have impeded expanding work with partners at the scales needed, including for wildfire risk reduction and implementing Bipartisan Infrastructure Law funding. In some cases, this has created insurmountable barriers for current and potential partners and Tribes to contribute their expertise and capacity in shared service to the health and resilience of America’s forests and grasslands.

Therefore, we are taking a number of actions to modernize our approach to partnerships and make partnering with the Forest Service easier, more accessible and more equitable.

First, I am directing that all the valuable contributions a partner may bring to our relationship be considered, some of which we may have been overlooked or undervalued in the past. In addition to financial resources, volunteer and other in-kind support, these contributions include access to networks and communities that are underrepresented or underserved or increase social license to support critical work; indigenous traditional ecological knowledge; creativity and innovation for effective public outreach and education; experience in managing work projects; and capabilities for project design and management and for subject matter expertise that complement the skills of agency employees or fills a gap in agency capacity.

Second, a policy determination from the early 1990s led the Forest Service to require a separate substantial cash contribution from partners when, as part of an agreement, they contract for goods or services from a third party to complete project-based work. We have no statutory requirement for this practice. Therefore, I am ending this requirement effective immediately.

Third, to live up to one of the agency’s other core values—diversity—I am taking steps to make it easier to partner with tribal governments and partners who work with underserved communities, in recognition of our trust and treaty obligations to Tribes, our commitment to serving all Americans, and the importance of gaining benefit and knowledge through relationships with communities that have been historically underrepresented in our partnerships. Consequently, effective immediately, I am waiving policy match requirements (those not required by statute) for all agreements with tribal governments and creating a process to waive policy match requirements for partners that will serve underserved communities.[1] I also am delegating authority to deputy chiefs, regional foresters and station directors to approve reduced policy match requirements on a case-by-case basis to as low as 5% based on the need and capability of a partner.

I am also directing that agency staff identify and use flexibility where allowed by statute to apply the intent of this direction to statutory match requirements, including for State and Private Forestry programs and International Programs where appropriate. A cross-deputy area team consisting of Washington Office and field leadership will help implement this direction and will develop additional guidance and supportive materials in consultation with the Office of the General Counsel.

I’m a little skeptical of this, “though a) access to networks and communities that are underrepresented or underserved or increase social license to support critical work; indigenous traditional ecological knowledge; creativity and innovation for effective public outreach and education; experience in managing work projects; and capabilities for project design and management and for subject matter expertise that complement the skills of agency employees or fills a gap in agency capacity”

It seems a little like “if we feel like it”. Starting with the last, using experts’ time would be “in-kind contributions” (if not, that’s another problem). Other than TEK, we have “access”, “creativity and innovation” “experience” and “capabilities.” It doesn’t sound like actual… work.

On another note, it seems like it would be important to know if you are serving an underserved community from this letter:

Policy match requirements (meaning any match requirements not required by statute) are waived for all agreements that will serve underserved communities that have been systemically denied a full opportunity to participate in aspects of economic, social, and civic life, as set forth in Executive Order 13985, Advancing Racial Equity and Support for Underserved Communities Through the Federal Government.

I asked at the webinar and the folks there said that the whole USG uses the EJ Screening Tool we talked about here and here. What the Screening Tool does is not what Chief Moore said “denied a full opportunity”, it’s a lot more complicated and includes wildfire risk maps from the First Street Foundation including future climate predictions and hasn’t been ground-truthed. In other words, the maps are questionable at best. On the other hand, if they are going to use them to apply for a grant.. if you get over the fact that the USG is using bogus maps not really fit to purpose…you might be pleasantly surprised by what you find on the map.

Community Navigators III. Information Sources for Grants and Agreements

by

This table  is from this site.

There was an excellent webinar organized by The Watershed Center that had all kinds of useful information about FS grants and agreements.

They rounded up this information and links. The webinars are recorded and the one I watched (the second one) was very informative. I still have some questions, so if others have questions let me know and I will ask around until I get an answer.

Thank you for registering for the “Forest Service Grants and Agreements 101” webinar hosted by the Fire Adapted Communities Learning Network, the Watershed Research and Training Center, and Coalitions and Collaboratives. This was the second webinar in a three-part series about Forest Service grants, agreements, and partnerships. Click here to view recordings of our first and second sessions and to register for our third session:

  • Grants & Agreements: People and Processes – Thursday, August 15th, 2:30 – 4:00 p.m. Eastern Time / 11:30 – 1:00 p.m. Pacific Time.

If you were able to attend the webinar, please take a few minutes to respond to this short survey to provide feedback on the session and suggestions for future training offerings.

If you missed the webinar or would like to view it again, you can watch the recording on our YouTube page. That page also includes a recording of our first webinar, “Understanding and Navigating the U.S. Forest Service.” We are still preparing PDFs of the presentation and will share that as soon as we’re able.

Below are resources provided during the webinar