Federal Lands Litigation – special edition: the Supreme Court’s rewrite of NEPA

In my comments on the earlier post on this case, I questioned the role of deference, given the Supreme Court’s turnabout from Chevron deference to Loper Bright scrutiny.  And I said I’d better read the whole opinion.  That answered my question.  And raised a few others, so I thought it worth a separate post.  Maybe it’s not very productive to criticize a Supreme Court decision, but I think it provides a good example of  an “activist” court.  (I’m sure there’s been lots written about this case, but these opinions are my own.)

  • Court decision in Seven County Infrastructure Coalition v. Eagle County, Colorado (Supreme Court)

On May 29, the Supreme Court reversed a lower court decision that would have required the U. S. Surface Transportation Board to consider the effects of increased oil and gas drilling and refining that would be facilitated by a proposed railroad.  Based on the procedural nature of NEPA, the court stated emphatically that, “The bedrock principle of judicial review in NEPA cases can be stated in a word:  Deference.” It distinguished NEPA cases from the new non-deference approach adopted by the Supreme Court in Loper Bright (quotes are not in the same order as in the opinion, which I found to be disorganized):

As a general matter, when an agency interprets a statute, judicial review of the agency’s interpretation is de novo. See Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, 603 U. S. 369, 391–392 (2024). But when an agency exercises discretion granted by a statute, judicial review is typically conducted under the Administrative Procedure Act’s deferential arbitrary-and-capricious standard.”

While NEPA requires an EIS to be “detailed,” 42 U. S. C. §4332(2)(C), and the meaning of “detailed” is a legal question, see Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, 603 U. S. 369, 391–392, what details need to be included in any given EIS is a factual determination for the agency… based on the usefulness of any new potential information to the decisionmaking process.

So long as the EIS addresses environmental effects from the project at issue, courts should defer to agencies’ decisions about where to draw the line—including (i) how far to go in considering indirect environmental effects from the project at hand and (ii) whether to analyze environmental effects from other projects separate in time or place from the project at hand…

The Court first determined that oil and gas development projects should not be considered “part of the proposed action.”  It then held, “when the effects of an agency action arise from a separate project—for example, a possible future project or one that is geographically distinct from the project at hand—NEPA does not require the agency to evaluate the effects of that separate project.”

The circuit court had found that these effects were reasonably foreseeable, and the agency did actually acknowledge them (it found the effects of future oil and gas drilling to be “speculative” and attenuated, but it forecasted the number of additional oil wells; and it anticipated refining the oil and gas, but could not identify specific destinations where refineries would be located).  However, the Court dismissed the relevance of foreseeability:

The effects from a separate project may be factually foreseeable, but that does not mean that those effects are relevant to the agency’s decisionmaking process or that it is reasonable to hold the agency responsible for those effects…  Simply stated, a court may not invoke but-for causation or mere foreseeability to order agency analysis of the effects of every project that might somehow or someday follow from the current project.

The court reasoned that the federal action must be the “proximate” (but-for) cause of the effects, and “a separate project breaks the chain of proximate causation.”  Therefore, “agencies are not required to analyze the effects of projects over which they do not exercise regulatory authority,” such as these separate oil drilling and oil refining projects.

The concurrence takes a different approach, finding that, “the Board had no authority to reject petitioners’ application on account of the harms third parties would cause with products transported on the proposed railway.”  The circuit court had held that statutory language stating, “the Board ‘shall’ issue a certificate ‘unless’ inconsistent with public convenience and necessity” (emphasis by the court) allowed it to consider environmental impacts in making its decision, and therefore made it subject to NEPA.  The concurrence disagreed because of other statutory language prohibiting the Board from making its decision based on what might be transported on the railroad.  The plaintiffs had conceded this point, and their argument was therefore foreclosed by prior case law (Public Citizen).

Commentary

After establishing the principle of deference, the Court did not grant such deference to the agencies to determine whether these kinds of indirect effects could be relevant to decisionmaking.  Instead, it drew a bright line for all future cases that contradicted previous policy interpretations of NEPA.  This is a situation where you would expect Congress to decide whether the law needs clarifying, not the Court.

The Court has now limited the effects that must be considered to those from “connected actions” (“closely related and therefore should be discussed in the same impact statement”) even though the CEQ regulations in effect at the time required consideration of any reasonably foreseeable indirect effects.  The court also did away with the accepted NEPA principle that effects of future decisions by other parties were the kinds of “induced” indirect effects an EIS should address, regardless of the agency’s lack of any authority for the future actions (36 CFR §1508.8, the version that was in effect at the time the decision was made):

Indirect effects, which are caused by the action and are later in time or farther removed in distance, but are still reasonably foreseeable. Indirect 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.)

The Court may have considered effects of other actions to be “detail” that is up to the Court to exclude.  However, the Court has provided very little basis for revising the decades-old conventional interpretation of NEPA’s statutory language, now excluding effects based on how subsequent decisions are related instead of letting agencies apply the Court’s own stated principles – a “rule of reason” based on “usefulness” of the information.

The main precedents the Court cites are distinguishable.  Metropolitan Edison was about effects that would be attenuated because they are “psychological” reactions to nuclear risk, which is a greater and different kind of attenuation than in this case.  Public Citizen involved lack of authority to make the decision at issue, and therefore NEPA did not require effects of the decision to be addressed at all, which is not the case here.

The concurrence would have isolated this case based on the application of railroad laws and left the traditional NEPA requirement of reasonable foreseeability intact for other kinds of decisions.  If the majority did not like the concurrence’s reasoning, there was another easy way to decide this case.  The concurrence had characterized the circuit court decision as a holding “that the Board should have more carefully considered the deleterious environmental effects of increased oil production made possible by the Railway’s construction” (my emphasis). This Court could have simply disagreed and held that, given the degree of attenuation and affording deference, the agency did consider the nature of these indirect effects to the degree necessary to inform this decision.  This would have left it to future agency factual determinations of the relevance of separate actions, instead of the Supreme Court reinventing NEPA for energy development policy and disturbing decades of precedents.

The Court’s editorial comments about how NEPA “has transformed from a modest procedural requirement into a blunt and haphazard tool employed by project opponents” were unnecessary and inappropriate to decide this case, and simply reveals its policy bias. So too is this extraneous opinion: “In deciding cases involving the American economy, courts should strive, where possible, for clarity and predictability.”  That’s found nowhere in NEPA that I am aware of.

The court can speculate that Congress never thought NEPA would produce fewer and more expensive projects, but if not, what was the point?  There was no discussion of legislative history to support the Court’s reasoning.  Even though NEPA is a procedural statute, it purpose was not just to produce paperwork but to reduce environmental impacts – which would obviously require changes in projects that are sometimes more expensive, or even not pursuing the project.

Here’s a strange statement from the Court: “Even if an EIS falls short in some respects, that deficiency may not necessarily require a court to vacate the agency’s ultimate approval of a project, at least absent reason to believe that the agency might disapprove the project if it added more to the EIS.”  This is clearly dicta, but it suggests that there must be evidence of how important different factors would be to the agency before a decision can be vacated.  That would be nice, but how often do you see this in the administrative record?

 

Guest Post on Wildfire Agency from Dan Reese

This was a comment but I thought it deserved its own post.

********

Where to start? I’m not a noted person in the wildfire industry, but I have spent my entire adult life in it at various levels. Having worked a career in government service and the last 10 years in the private sector, I have a unique perspective regarding the challenges. I’ve worked for great mentors, sought to hear both sides of the story, been fortunate to advocate for the industry, write articles, present and moderate panels at state and international conferences, and am active on LinkedIn, all in the name of wildfire. There is much to unpack regarding the executive order and the excellent engagement from so many knowledgeable and experienced people on this forum. Regardless of our experiences, I do think we need a deep overhaul. Pendulums swing, policies are made, and our environment changes. We have all witnessed the unintended consequences of something we thought was a good idea at the time. Although I have concerns and questions about some of what is being proposed, I remain hopeful that engaged organizations and experienced people will prevail in molding the outcome of the Federal Fire Service should it materialize. I’d be lying if I told you I wouldn’t want to be a part of it.

Will it be perfect? I fear not. Will it be better than what we have now? I know so. Will the pendulum swing too far? Probably. Will we get it back to center? I believe in balance and am confident it will.

The comments here remind me why the United Aerial Firefighters Association was established. It wasn’t due to the industry’s differences but to each company’s shared interests. No one on this platform wants to lose resources we don’t need to lose, and none of us knows what we don’t know. Fires will burn regardless of our efforts. The questions and comments people discuss here are simple. When do we extinguish, and when do we burn? Many have it right, that some fires will burn with such intensity and in such conditions that we will not succeed until Mother Nature dictates. Sometimes we can dictate; however, we and the public need to be better prepared. We will never outsmart the weather and need more standardized data to make better informed decisions. I don’t think we align on data collection or its use. Small, prescribed fires on the shoulders of peak burning periods are not enough to accomplish what needs to be done. We cannot dictate these burns on a calendar, and more funding and resources must be assigned to these types of burns on many levels if we are to make an appreciable difference.

Much of what agencies do now works, but can it work better, more efficiently, and effectively? The answer is yes. Do we know what works and what doesn’t? I’d say to a significant extent, but we still have much to learn. The preservation of what we have now is what’s at stake. Does that mean doing nothing? Absolutely not, we have caused a lot of what’s transpired, and it will take a lot of time and expense to dig us out. I do feel it’s a fantasy to think we will save money in this venture. I already know from the data available that we need to do more on the front end than we currently do, but the savings on the back end will be exponential. Contrary to popular belief, the feds pay for a large percentage of many State and Local fires through the FMAG process. The question needing answered is, if there were more of a partnership between these agencies, could we alleviate overall costs? The analogy for spending in this industry is this. By day, we shovel a little money out of the front door of the Capitol for preparedness and suppression, but by night, when no one is looking, we truck cash out the back door. We need a change that will work best for our common interests.

Grassroots Wildland Firefighters on National Wildland Fire Service Proposal

I’d like to post a big thank-you, both to Kelly Martin and to Riva Duncan of Grassroots Wildland Firefighters.   Some have accused this thinking as being a creature of the current Admin, which we know would be a death-knell for a policy position from the perspective of any person who has correct thinking (just kidding), but as with so many issues, it’s more complicated than that.

It seems to me that we live in a world where everything is connected, and yet organizations can’t handle everything.  So there need to be divisions.  Think NRCS and FS State and Private, both deal with private landowners, one with all plants, and one with trees.  Plus there’s NIFA Forest Extension to give technical advice. So the agencies are kind of organized by topic (trees) and kind of organized by landowners (targets of policies).  My point being that there will always be organizational hinges or links, that work better or worse, for individuals, inside and outside government, to negotiate.  And folks interested in making government work better try to  a) ensure that the hinges are not hindrances (by organizational design)  and b) oil the hinges that squeak.

Just to back up, Megafire Action, which has ties to D’s,  calls for one department and moving FS to Interior,  from their report.

The Fit for Purpose Wildfire Readiness Act of 2025 marks the new beginning of a broad discussion among Congress, federal agencies, firefighters, land managers, Tribes, and forestry/wildfire policy groups on how to best modernize and streamline federal wildland fire mitigation and management. The bill directs the Secretaries of Agriculture and Interior submit a plan with three primary elements—

  1. a budget for the National Wildland Firefighting Service;
  2. a description of the qualifications required for an individual to be appointed to be the Director of the National Wildland Firefighting Service, who shall be appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate; and
  3. a description of the resources and authorities necessary to consolidate Federal wildland fire response efforts of the Secretaries in the National Wildland Firefighting Service.

The plan that comes out of this process will require careful coordination and input from all stakeholders. For nearly a year, Megafire Action has been researching past proposals to reorganize and improve the federal wildland fire response. Our assessment has included proposals to relocate the Forest Service under DOI and the creation of a “National Wildland Firefighting Service’’ as envisioned by Senators Sheehy and Padilla.

Note also that the Fit for Purpose Wildfire Readiness Act is bipartisan.  So the idea long predates this Admin.

Now let’s listen to what Riva is saying; I’m with her when she says “we (GWF) know we don’t have all the answers or necessarily the “right” answers, but we do believe the time is right for a real discussion” :

Grassroots Wildland Firefighters (GWF) has had a National Wildfire Service as one of our Four Pillars since the organizations establishment in 2019. We released our proposal shortly after the introduction of the Sheehy/Padilla Bill, but it was lost in a lot of the administration’s chaos at that time. Like the discussion about a NWFS in DOI, and several comments here, a separate agency doesn’t automatically divorce fire suppression from mitigation, ecosystem health, or the land management agencies, nor does it discard the collateral duty workforce (always hated the word “militia” to describe our non-primary fire employees). Ours certainly does not. Also, we (GWF) know we don’t have all the answers or necessarily the “right” answers, but we do believe the time is right for a real discussion. GWF exists in order to represent the boots on the ground and those that directly support them, and that will always be our priority — and something that has been absent in all the other discussions. Our argument has always been that the status quo no longer serves the firefighters. The agencies have failed to protect the workforce, and it’s time to not only think about how we must be able to serve our publics AND our public lands, but also how to serve the people doing the work in an ever riskier and more demanding profession. For those who care to read our proposal, you can do so here: https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5f6ced5b8d33bb20b5c97c0b/t/67a964eb7f17585b0fd3fdf5/1739154668441/GWF+National+Wildland+Fire+Service.pdf

Let’s dig into the GWF report a bit. I recommend reading the whole paper, because I’m not a fire person and what was interesting to me might not be to you and vice versa. Based on the citations, the report was developed since 2023, but Riva can tell us exactly when.

It is past time to build and implement a National Wildland Fire Service (NWFS). For decades, the US Forest Service and Department of Interior (DOI) have refused to do any kind of study or white paper to look at the pros and cons of removing wildland fire, fuels, and aviation response/management from the natural resource agencies. Any serious requests or suggestions have been met with disdain and refusal to even consider such an exercise. Now the FS and DOI struggle to retain experienced wildland firefighters, managers, and support staff such as dispatchers. While the rest of the non-fire workforce is faced with hiring “pauses” and plummeting program budgets, removing fire from these agencies is not only necessary to efficiently address the wildland fire situation, but it just may “save” the rest of the FS and DOI agencies.

 

Background
The current system of five federal agencies (US Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management, the National Park Service, the US Fish and Wildlife Service, and the Bureau of Indian Affairs) under two different departments (USDA and DOI) being tasked with responding to wildland fires on federal lands (and assist cooperators) is extremely inefficient. This is largely due to the fact that while the employees across the agencies essentially do the same jobs, the agencies have different budgets, position descriptions, training standards, payment processing systems, health support programs to only name a few. Even the four agencies within the DOI have numerous inefficiencies and redundancies between them. Wildland firefighters move between agencies regularly, and, when they do, they have to deal with discrepancies in position descriptions, training standards, background checks, HR issues, etc. After the passage of the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law and the mandate for the FS and DOI to change to a new federal job series, the DOI agencies re-graded Interagency Hotshot Crew (IHC) Superintendents at the GS-10 level, while the FS kept these critical positions at the GS-09 level. It is the exact same job. These inefficiencies and duplications are confusing even to those within the agencies and are costing the American taxpayers.

What I hear is “the status quo is not working for us people doing the work.” We can imagine another solution.. “fix those interagency problems without reorganizing” and yet, no one, over all these years, has seemed to be very interested in oiling these particular hinges. So it is not surprising that the workers want to place the hinges elsewhere in the hope that someone else will have to deal with them.

There is a very interesting, and somewhat depressing, review of the National Fire Plan and associated history since the year 2000 starting on page 4. It even cites a report by Michael Rains (frequent TSW contributor) and Jim Hubbard.

Why was FPA never actually implemented? According to 2016 Denver Post interviews with original developers and the Chief of the Forest Service at the time, it came down to the fact that FPA showed that the most efficient way to manage resources and budgets was to shift resources, and therefore funds, from places with less wildfire activity to places with more. The team lead said that initial version took agencies’ objectives and then optimized them to determine how to best allocate resources for the greatest impact. The idea was to figure out how much money to devote to fire suppression and to reducing fuels to improve overall forest health, and where to do it. But when the tool was used for a preliminary analysis in 2006, not everyone liked what it found. The results showed which areas needed more resources and which needed less, throwing into uncertainty budgets used for staff programs and some administrative overhead. Forest Service officials began to publicly cast doubts about the efficacy of FPA, but Douglas Rideout, the CSU wildland-fire economist and researcher, defended the methodology behind the original FPA, noting it passed a peer review published in a scientific journal the year prior. The Former team leader on the project said FPA became a shadow of what it was supposed to be, the victim of forces opposed to a process that would take decisions about where to put resources out of their hands (Olinger and Gorski, 2016). To this date, no other fire planning analysis tool has been developed for implementation.

Neither department, USDA nor DOI, have any current data on the appropriate numbers, mix, and locations of federal wildland firefighting resources. They continue to cling to what has become an arbitrary number of approximately 14,000-16,000 firefighters. None of the federal agencies have developed a modern formula for determining how many wildland firefighters and support personnel are truly needed to address 21st century issues. It can be done. The California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CALFIRE) has one and bases its staffing and funding from it. Many municipal fire departments in California have similar formulas.

My experience was with a GAO review that suggested that beltway-bandit- generated models would be better at determining allocations. Peer review is great, but people have fears and if those fears are not dealt with directly, telling them that something about budget allocation is “scientific” is not particularly helpful.  When resources don’t come, “the AI told us that optimal allocation was for someone else” will not make people feel better.  And undersecretaries will probably still order air tankers to Long Island.  Still, an interesting question.. how did CALFIRE successfully do it?

There’s a strong concern about background of people deciding about wildfires.

Historically, before promoting into these positions, people worked their way up through the agencies in forestry, engineering, biology, range, and wildland fire positions. They spent years as field-going employees and then mid-level managers before moving into positions such as District Ranger, District Manager, Park Superintendent, Refuge Manager, etc. Many had fought fire early in their careers. However, over the past 15 or so years there has been a significant push to hire people from non-traditional programs or even from outside the natural resource agencies. A by-product of this shift is that the average age of a District Ranger in the FS has dropped dramatically, which means people holding those positions are at earlier stages in their career instead of later. We can argue that most now don’t bring fire experience into these jobs, but what is also alarming is many bring little work experience of any kind as they come from special placement programs such as the Presidential Management Fellow program (very popular in the FS) after graduate school. The FS is placing numerous people from this program into line officer positions on national forests with large, complex fire programs.

What this really means is that individuals with no fire education or experience are being tasked with making extremely critical decisions about wildfire within their jurisdictions. Decisions that could have catastrophic results. The situation has gotten so dire that the federal agencies developed an accelerated fire management training program for people in these positions.
However, rather than competency, the goal seems to be rapid certification, which does nothing to resolve the issue. These agency administrators oversee wildfire incident commanders, which is unsettling. Much like if someone with only a basic first aid class were put in charge of a hospital’s emergency department.

My bold.  That’s a pretty strong statement, but it’s very clear about their concerns.

What this has meant is individuals with the ultimate wildfire decision-making authority have put wildland firefighters, and often the public, in harm’s way, by making poor and/or uniformed decisions. These are not usually malicious actions, but typically come from places of ignorance, inexperience, incompetence, or fear of torpedoing their young careers. This also means that line officers can “hold” resources back from critical suppression needs. It is common for some line officers to cancel suppression resources’ availability to assist other regions when those requesting regions are experience high fire activity.

I first heard these concerns at the Retirees Roundup in Vail in 2012. When the retirees expressed concerns about the fire experience of line officers, I felt like the FS was saying “this is the way it’s got to be, so we’re doing the best we can with more training.” As to holding resources back, of course people are worried about how decisions are made to use resources. That’s why States like Colorado and California are buying their own.

Cure Your PERC-o-Phobia? A Round-up of Their Current Work

Some projects of the PERC innovation lab.

 

Thanks to the folks at PERC for giving us this round-up of what they’re currently working on.

Each of us can pick and choose what positions of theirs they support.  I like their views on voluntary conservation efforts and “pay to protect.”  Also I support charging international visitors more to visit taxpayer-supported National Parks. And anyone who takes on Wild Horse and Burro policy voluntarily deserves some credit. I would think almost everyone would find one PERC position that they can support.. PERC supports conservation leasing, a priority for the last (D) Admin, so it seems they are generally libertarian/free market regardless of political party.  My general view is that if folks can work things out (making peace) by exchanging funds (not taxpayers’ funds) isn’t that better than court cases, competing op-eds, attorneys’ fees, and ultimately somewhat random outcomes, appeals and so on?

***********

On National Parks: By empowering outdoor recreationists and visitors to take a more direct role in the care and maintenance of our national parks and other public lands, PERC believes we can make these treasured places less reliant on the whims of political funding decisions and ensure they are well taken care of for generations to come.

On private land conservation/virtual fencing: PERC is excited to explore the conservation potential of virtual fencing technology. Traditional barbed wire presents a challenge for wildlife, whose migration depends on unobstructed and expansive landscapes. Virtual fencing technology can help open migration pathways and restore sensitive habitats without sacrificing a ranch’s financial viability.

On wildlife conservation and the ESA: The presence of certain species on private lands can impose significant costs on landowners, such as forage loss and depredation, or burdensome environmental regulations that limit land use. As a result, private landowners often view wildlife as a liability to be avoided instead of an asset to be protected. And because most species depend on private lands for habitat, these negative incentives can adversely impact wildlife. PERC seeks to increase ESA recovery rates by making wildlife an asset rather than a liability and giving private citizens clear incentives to invest in habitat conservation.

On forest health and wildfire mitigation: A century of fire suppression has disrupted natural fire cycles and impaired forest health, leading to the crisis of catastrophic wildfires we experience today. To reverse these trends and foster more resilient forests, we must increase the pace and scale of active forest management. Prescribed fire and mechanical thinning are two essential tools in the forester’s toolbox, but expanding the use of these tools on both public and private lands is often hamstrung by overlapping regulations, litigation, and inadequate funding. By reducing existing regulatory hurdles and finding more creative funding approaches, we can fix America’s forests.

On the wildhorse crisis: PERC research helped innovate the Bureau of Land Management’s Wild Horse and Burro Adoption Incentive Program, which has successfully increased adoptions of wild horses from BLM holding facilities. PERC believes that such tools are critical to alleviating the wild horse overpopulation crisis on our public lands and improving the ecological health of our public rangelands.

On public lands/conservation leasing: Conservation is a legitimate use of public lands that people should be empowered to pursue. PERC believes a better, market-based approach to federal land leasing would allow competing groups to negotiate with or bid against each other to determine which use has more value to prospective leaseholders, whether that be traditional uses like mining or grazing or new uses like conservation or restoration.

Solutions to Restore the Great Salt Lake: PERC is actively working with Utah’s Great Salt Lake Commissioner’s Office to help find sustainable solutions to restore the lake. A recent report explores the potential of voluntary water leasing.

Theft of Government Property or an Innocent Mistake?

The Smokey Wire original reporting

The irrigation half-circle shows an old line where the FS boundary should be. The Custer County GIS shows the location of the FS parcel.

 

The Custer County GIS shows the location of the FS parcel.

 

Perhaps you have heard of the story of Charles and Heather Maude, a ranching family in western South Dakota, who were charged in June of 2024 with theft of government property.  The Maude family owns land on three sides adjacent to a parcel of the Buffalo Gap National Grassland, along the Cheyenne River in Custer County.

Sometime in March of 2024, a hunter reported to the US Forest Service that it appeared that there was a boundary issue between private land and the Forest Service.  An investigation followed that led to Charles and Heather Maude being indicted by a federal grand jury for government theft.  The indictment stated that they “did knowingly steal, purloin, and convert to their own use” land managed by the US Forest Service.  Punishment could have been up to 10 years in prison and fines up to $10,000.

There has been significant press coverage of this case, but it has largely been one-sided.  This is because the case was pending, and the Forest Service was not allowed to speak about it.  What was presented in the press was that the Maudes had made an innocent mistake, and the Forest Service was unreasonable and took a very heavy-handed approach.  Often, it was blamed on the Biden Administration, and that it was a purposeful attack on the Maudes.

All of this led to a lot of politicians and federal officials getting involved, and eventually, the charges being dismissed prior to the trial.  This, in turn, led to a press conference held by the Secretary of Agriculture, Brooke Rollins, with a variety of politicians and the Maude family in attendance.

When you hear one side of a story, it is really hard to get to the truth.  So far, the Forest Service is not talking about the case and presenting its side, even though the case has been dismissed.  I live in Custer County, the same County where all of this occurred.  I decided to look into things and see what I could come up with.  The parcel where this occurred is along the Cheyenne River in eastern Custer County.  It’s a pretty area with rugged hills along the river, but the area in question is on a flat adjacent to the river.  The acreage involved is either 25 acres or 50 acres, depending on which article you read.

At some point after 2020, the Maudes put in place a center-pivot irrigation system on this flat area.  This is confirmed by Google Earth imagery.  A half-circle of irrigated land was established.  Looking at the Custer County GIS records, it clearly shows that about a third of the half-circle was on the Forest Service parcel.  The Maudes apparently claim that they did not know they were putting the irrigation system partially on Forest Service land.  It does appear, however, that a simple internet search of the County’s records would have indeed shown that what they were doing was essentially trespassing onto Forest Service property.

I decided to visit the area in question, and while staying on Forest Service property, it was quite evident that something was amiss.  You could see a line across the irrigation half-circle that indeed closely coincided with the legitimate Forest Service boundary.  What created this line, I am not sure.  It may have been an old fence line or possibly an irrigation ditch.  It does show, however, that there was some recognition in the past that this was the legitimate boundary.

What really happened here?  It’s hard to know because we don’t have all of the information.  What we do know is that only one side has been presented, and it appears that Senator Rounds (SD), Representative Johnson (SD), Representative Hageman (WY), Governor Rhoden (SD), Secretary Noem, and Secretary Rollins have all taken the Maudes’ side.  Did they pursue all of the information, or did they follow an inclination to only believe the Maudes?  It’s hard to know.  As a retired Forest Service employee, it does appear that Rollins threw the Forest Service under the bus.

Are there any issues with all of this?  I would imagine that any similar event in the future would certainly make a Forest Service Line Officer wonder whether the Secretary of Agriculture would have their back.  If the Maude family did intentionally and knowingly construct an irrigation system on Forest Service land, as apparently was charged, is that ok?  What would you do if your neighbor did something similar to your personal property?  Did the Forest Service overreact?  We need more information.  The Forest Service needs to be allowed to talk about the whole affair.  Some news organizations have filed FOIA requests for more information.  Let’s hope they’re successful.

Meanwhile, Back at the Forest Service… Contracting and Procurement Face Extra Layers and Time for Approval

USDA Forest Service Chief Tom Schultz visits the Rocky Mountain Research Station and tours the research lab in Fort Collins, Colo., on April 16, 2025. Preston Keres/USDA via Flickr
As we’ve been covering, in the last Administration, the FS gave hundreds of millions in grants without competition. In one of the all-time greatest pendulum swings ever, this Admin has removed purchasing cards from many units and also made it more difficult to do contracting and procurement.

Here’s the link:

The Department of Government Efficiency has instituted new layers of review at USFS, as it has at most federal agencies. Processes that typically took minutes are now taking a month or longer and a wide range of functions are feeling the impact. In some cases, that has led to trash piling up and pit toilets—restrooms that include only holes in the ground, as is common as Forest Service recreational centers and campgrounds—going uncleaned or unemptied.

Getting a contract approved for janitorial services, said one USFS who works on those procurements, previously took a day-and-a-half. With the added layers that DOGE has installed, it now takes six weeks.

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

Another Forest Service employee who works in contracting said that even a modification of an existing contract, such as picking up an option year, goes to the General Services Administration and DOGE for approval. What previously took a maximum of 15 minutes now takes about a month to get money out the door.

When a new solicitation occurs, a “requisitioner” establishes what is needed, a senior executive signs off, the budget office approves the use of the funds, a contract coordinator conducts a review before this employee approves the solicitation going out. A new layer of review within USFS then conducts an extra review. The process essentially repeats itself when bids come in to select the best proposal. Once a winner is determined, DOGE personnel can either accept or reject the contract.

Another contracting officer said the process for getting procurements approved has changed 15 times since Trump took office.

The employee said DOGE has denied funding to continue using “sniffers”—a device that measures air quality to detect smoke or other pollutants. It has also eliminated support for a platform that agency firefighters use to get equipment, and for devices that track which of those supplies USFS has in stock.

The Trump administration has sought to put sweeping freezes on federal spending, but those efforts have largely been blocked in court. One contracting employee suggested the contracting restrictions were having the same effect: by making funding so difficult to obligate, it has essentially blocked congressionally appropriated funds from being expended.

‘Operational collapse’

Other employees said it has become difficult to purchase small things that need replacing, like when a trailer jack breaks. One worker said his forest was slated to plant over one million new trees for reforesting, but the contract to plant them has been held up for weeks. The trees become worthless if too much time passes and they are no longer the right size for planting. Another noted DOGE has slowed down the purchasing of firefighting helicopters for his local Helitack crew.

The contracting employee said leadership has expressed that any purchasing related to firefighting will be greenlit, but that has not been the case in practice.

“It’s kind of like they’re talking out of both ends of their mouth,” he said. “‘We’re all about fire and safety but we’re not supporting fire and safety.’”

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

It seems odd that the FS doesn’t have an expedited review process within itself for safety and time-sensitive contracts and purchases, even if DOGE needs to review it. At one time when ASC was not paying our employees, our region established a strike team to get people paid. I wonder whether a “time sensitive strike team” might work to reduce the time to get to the DOGE review. Over time, as happened in the past, trust will be built and the reins loosened, but no seedlings should have to die before that happens. IMHO. People who know about this, please share your views in the comments.

***********

The cuts are having significant impacts. At some USFS locations, employees who work on wildland fire management are being pulled into cleaning duties. They are also working on issues ranging from marking trees for timber sales—Trump has issued an executive order calling for increased timber production, which led USDA Secretary Brooke Rollins to announce USFS will boost logging by 25% and make 43 million acres, or 30% of forested USFS land, available for that purpose—to culling invasive frogs. One employee said the non-fire team as his location has lost 40% of its staffing, meaning firefighters are now doing the alternative work.
The cuts are having significant impacts. At some USFS locations, employees who work on wildland fire management are being pulled into cleaning duties. They are also working on issues ranging from marking trees for timber sales—Trump has issued an executive order calling for increased timber production, which led USDA Secretary Brooke Rollins to announce USFS will boost logging by 25% and make 43 million acres, or 30% of forested USFS land, available for that purpose—to culling invasive frogs. One employee said the non-fire team as his location has lost 40% of its staffing, meaning firefighters are now doing the alternative work.

It’s interesting that many units are still doing prescribed burning (evidence on X with photos). Maybe it depends on how many employees were lost? And of course possibly looming on the horizon is the Mega Fire Agency. Which reminds me that Mega Fire Action has four positions open, including a federal policy advisor.
*************

Patience Requested for Comment Approvals

I’ve been approving all comments myself for awhile because some people were going off track, some seemed like AI or bots that weren’t caught by the spam filter.  So I would request some patience. I’ve also discovered that the WordPress app I have been using doesn’t always show unapproved comments on my Apple devices, so I don’t see them until I get to a Windows device. I’m working on troubleshooting that with the WordPress app folks.  Today I’ll be away for large blocks in an area without any phone service, so again please be patient with my approving your comments.

Happy Friday!

Burned Out: Deadly National Forest Fires Now Entering Towns (part 2)

Here is the text (part 2) to my current article on this topic that was just published in Oregon Fish & Wildlife Journal. Because it is pretty long, I have posted the illustrations, captions, tables, and a map separately, as “part 1.” Here is the complete published version of the text: http://nwmapsco.com/ZybachB/Articles/Magazines/Oregon_Fish_&_Wildlife_Journal/20250401_Burned_Out/Zybach_20250425.pdf

Burned Out: Deadly National Forest Fires Now Entering Towns

 The 2025 Los Angeles wildfires caught everyone’s attention because of their size and affected population: 29 people died, more than 18,000 homes and structures were destroyed, and 57,800 acres burned. The location, politics, litigation, and insurance claims associated with this catastrophic event will likely be in the news for many years to follow for those reasons.

Compare this with the 25+ towns, 124 fatalities, 31,000+  homes and structures lost, and 4,327,600 acres burned from 2018 through 2024 in northern California and western Oregon within the bounds of the Northwest Forest Plan (NWFP). And consider these were not the only acres and structures burned during those years in NWFP lands — just the ones that burned into towns.

More towns have burned in National Forest wildfires in the last seven years — and mostly in NWFP territory — than had taken place in the entire US over the previous 100 years — a lot more. How did this happen? And how to fix?

This article is not intended to be a memoriam for these towns and affected residents; rather, it is a much hoped-for action plan to help repair these communities and to resume active management of our public roads and forests to reduce wildfire damage for their benefit and for the benefit of all US citizens.

1897 Organic Act: In The Beginning

In 1897 Congress passed the “Organic Act” to manage and protect the recently created US Forest Reserves. The bill was signed into law by President William McKinley and has never been repealed. The guiding principal of the Act remains fairly well-known to this time, and has been the stated theoretical basis to all subsequent US Forest Service (USFS) planning:

“No public forest reservation shall be established, except to improve and protect the forest within the reservation, or for the purpose of securing favorable conditions of water flows, and to furnish a continuous supply of timber for the use and necessities of citizens of the United States.”

A lesser-recognized portion of the Act also states it was “for the purpose of preserving the living and growing timber and promoting the younger growth on forest reservations” — and, in that regard, authority was given to “designate and appraise so much of the dead, matured, or large growth of trees found upon such forest reservations” for sale at “not less” than the appraised value, under the sole condition it couldn’t be “exported” to another State or Territory.

In a nutshell, “living and growing timber” was intended to be “preserved,” “younger growth” was to be “promoted,” and a “continuous supply” of “dead, matured, or large” trees were to be sold at market value: “For the use and necessities of citizens of the United States.”

In 1905 President Theodore Roosevelt created the USFS by transferring 56 million acres in 60 Forest Reserves from the US Department of the Interior (USDI) to the US Department of Agriculture (USDA). His good friend and collaborator, Gifford Pinchot, was put in charge of the new agency as its first “Chief.”

Roosevelt signed HR Act 460 on February 1, 1905. On the same day James Wilson, the Secretary of Agriculture, sent Pinchot a letter outlining the basic principles and public-service policy the new “Forest Service” was to follow. Key excerpts included:

“In the administration of the Forest Reserves, it must be clearly borne in mind that all land is to be devoted to the most productive use for the permanent good of the whole people and not for the temporary benefit of individuals or companies . . . You will see to it that the water, wood, and forage of the Reserves are conserved and wisely used under business-like regulations enforced with promptness, effectiveness and common sense.”

And, “. . . Where conflicting interest must be reconciled, the question will always be decided from the standpoint of the greatest good for the greatest number in the long run.” By 1910, Pinchot had been able to expand the agency to 150 National Forests covering 172 million acres when everything changed.

 1910 Fires: Course Change

The year 1910 was when the mission, focus, and budget of the USFS was dramatically changed. An estimated 1700 spot fires were driven together with unexpected hurricane-force winds for six hours and burned and uprooted 3 million acres of forestland, destroyed several railroad towns from Montana, through Idaho, and into Washington, and killed 86 people — mostly firefighters under the direction of the new US Forest Service.

The 1910 Fires galvanized the new agency into action and its mission became “fire prevention” above all else. Funding, research, and a great expansion in personnel took place. In 1915 the first fire lookout tower was built on Mt. Hood, and by the 1930s nearly 8000 were in operation across the US, connected by a functional network of roads, pack trails, and telephone lines.

The mission and focus became to spot and extinguish wildfires in USFS lands as quickly and completely as possible. By 1935 the “10 a.m. policy” was firmly in place, with the “rule” that all fires were to be extinguished by 10 a.m. the following day. With the advent of WW II, airplanes and smokejumpers were added to the firefighting effort.

This system became remarkably effective over time. From 1952 until 1987, only one forest fire in all western Oregon was greater than 10,000 acres; the 1966 Oxbow fire was 42,000 acres in size, and it took place on USDI Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Land, not USDA Forest Service.

But things began to change in the 1960s and 70s. Forest fires were increasingly seen as past events from earlier times and focus changed to Wilderness areas, endangered species, riparian buffers, critical habitat, and Deep Ecology. In 1964 the Wilderness Act was signed into law and created 54 areas over 13 states, including the Kalmiopsis in southwest Oregon.

The Endangered Species Act (ESA) was enacted in 1966. On December 22, 1969 Congress enacted the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), and a short distance away on the same day, 50 other lawyers were incorporating the Environmental Law Institute (ELI).

In 1973, Congress passed a completely rewritten ESA, revised to “protect critically imperiled species from extinction” and including “the ecosystems upon which they depend.” The new law distinguished”threatened” from “endangered” species; allowed listing threatened species in just part of their range;allowed listing of plants and invertebrates; authorized unlimited funds for species protection; and madeit illegal to kill, harm, or otherwise “take” a listed species. In effect, “the law made endangered species protection the highest priority of government.”

In 1978, the Forest Service officially abandoned the 10 a.m. policy, marking a significant shift in strategy from fire suppression to “fire management.” This approach included “allowing naturally caused fires to burn” and “the use of prescribed fires.” The stated intent was to “return fire to the land.”

The Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA) was enacted in 1980  to authorize the payment of attorney’s fees “and other expenses” to a prevailing party in legal actions against the United States. The Act was initially designed to aid very small businesses and poorer citizens, but an odd loophole allowed wealthy “nonprofit” environmental organizations to hire costly legal teams to sue the government at taxpayer expense. Which they did, in dozens of subsequent “environmental” lawsuits.

NEPA, ELI, the ESA, and EAJA had formed the perfect strategy for environmental organizations to file series of lawsuits to “stop clearcutting” and “preserve old-growth,” and “save spotted owls” by ending logging on public lands. The lawsuits, funded by taxpayers, were generally successful and the “Timber Wars” soon developed between litigious environmentalists and the forest industry, creating bitter feelings between the factions, and widespread unemployment and business failures in affected rural communities.

Then, in 1987, more than 42,000 acres of the Kalmiopsis Wilderness burned in the Silver Complex Fire in the Siskiyou National Forest. More than 96,000 acres burned in all, making it the largest forest fire in western Oregon since WWII and the 1945 Tillamook Fire; fully two generations of residents earlier. Lawsuits followed.

In 1990, the northern spotted owl was listed as “threatened” under the ESA. A federal judge placed an injunction on all timber sales in spotted owl habitat until forest managers could “produce a plan to ensure preservation of the entire ecosystem.” More lawsuits followed.

 1993 Clinton Plan: Environmentalism

In the 1980s and 90s there had been a lot of interest in such concepts as “preserving old-growthforests,” “maintaining spotted owl habitat,” and “riparian enhancement.” These concepts were typicallyrationalized by untested “ecological” theories of “steady state ecosystems” and idealistic descriptions of such circumstances as “non-declining, even-flow, naturally functioning” forests and grasslands.

The conflict initially involved commercial sales of old-growth trees on public lands in the Douglas Fir Region. A principal claim was “endangered” spotted owls required old-growth trees to survive. Logging old-growth should therefore be illegal.

In 1993, President Bill Clinton held an all-day public “timber summit” in Portland to address the ongoing “timber wars” between environmental activists and the forest industry. In his opening speech, Clinton told the crowd he wanted to move beyond confrontation and build consensus “on a balanced policy to preserve jobs and to protect our environment.”

Clinton’s summit resulted in the formation of FEMAT, or Forest Ecosystem Management Team: a small group of like-minded scientists from Oregon State University and University of Washington: forest ecologists, wildlife biologists, GIS technicians, and economists — but no foresters, planners, Americans Indians, or affected industries.

Clinton challenged FEMAT to achieve “a balanced and comprehensive policy” that recognized the importance of rural jobs and economies to the region, while preserving “our precious old-growth forests.” The single, regional plan was to protect spotted owls and local economies for “100 years,” and was based on “five principles”:

Clinton’s  first principle was to “never forget the human and the economic dimensions of these problems,” that timber sales be based on “sound management policies,” and “where this requirement cannot be met, we need to do our best to offer new economic opportunities for year-round, high-wage, high-skill jobs.”

Second was to protect our forests for future generations; third, use sound science; fourth, a “sustainable level of timber sales”; and fifth, “make the federal government work together and work for you.”

The FEMAT scientists sequestered themselves for 90 days and produced 10 reduced-timber-sales management options. The President’s choice then became the “Clinton Plan For Northwest Forests,” and then the NWFP. The selected plan stipulated one billion board-feet of timber sales a year to support rural communities. Today, less that 10% of the amount is, or ever has been, actually sold.

In 2002, the Kalmiopsis burned again, in the 500,000-acre Biscuit Fire, which remains the largest forest fire in Oregon history. Then it burned again in the 190,000-acre 2017 Chetco Bar Fire, and a fourth time in the 175,000-acre 2018 Klondike Fire.

In each instance, salvage logging, site preparation, and reforestation were either severely limited or entirely stopped  by litigation from environmental groups, whose lawyers were then well compensated by US taxpayers. And in each instance, the fuels left behind through these actions only made the following fire burn hotter, create more smoke, and kill even more old-growth and wildlife.

2018 California: Paradise Lost

About 15 years ago, retired USFS forester Bruce Courtwright became very concerned about increasing wildfires and wildfire risks to the communities of northern California, so he helped gather a number of other wildfire experts to collectively address the problem. This group eventually became known as the National Wildfire Institute (NWI).

In 2016 NWI wrote a formal letter to incoming President Donald Trump expressing strong concerns regarding the increased wildfire risk, and with expert recommendations on how to fix the problem. The paper was titled, “Our Dying National Forests: A Disaster or Perfect Opportunity for Bold Action by a New President.” The paper was widely distributed, published by Healthy Forests, Healthy Communities, and then ignored and not even acknowledged.

The following year, 2017, California suffered the worst wildfire losses in its history as more than 3,000 homes burned in the city of Santa Rosa, more than 191,000 acres burned in the northern Sacramento Valley vineyards and farmlands, and 42 people were killed.

In 2018 things became worse.

2018 Camp Fire. The 2008 Butte Lightning Complex burned 50 homes in Cancow, but the town had been largely rebuilt. Ten years later, on November 8, a wind-driven wildfire came out of Feather River Canyon and within six hours totally destroyed Cancow and Paradise, killing 85 people and doing heavy damage to Maglia, Pulga, and Butte Creek Canyon. More than 153,000 acres burned, Pacific Gas & Electric was held liable, paid $13.5 billion in damages, pled guilty to 84 counts of involuntary manslaughter, and went bankrupt.

2018 Carr Fire. The Carr Fire started near Whiskeytown Lake on July 23 when a trailer had a flat tire and the wheel’s steel rim began sparking on the asphalt, igniting dry weeds along the highway. Three days later it burned into the town of Redding, causing the evacuation of 38,000 people. The fire caused a 143 mph, 18,000-foot “fire whirl” to develop in town, causing heavy “tornado-like” wind damage and further spreading the fire. The town of Keswick was completely destroyed, Old Shasta State Park heavily damaged, and six people died, including two firefighters.

2020 August Complex. The August Complex began as 38 separate lightning fires on August 17 that combined to burn over a million acres, making it the largest wildfire in California history. The fire primarily burned in the Mendocino National Forest but also burned the small communities of Ruth and Forest Glen. One firefighter was killed and two injured.

2020 North Complex. The North Complex also started as 21 separate fires ignited by the August 17 lightning storm. A USFS “firing operation” backfired on September 8 when strong winds caused the fire to “blow up” and leveled the towns of Berry Creek and Feather Falls. More than 318,000 acres burned, 16 people were killed, and more than 100 injured. Toxic fumes from the fire inundated Quincy and other nearby communities for weeks.

2021 Dixie. The Dixie Fire began in Feather River Canyon on July 13 and eventually burned more than 963,000 acres. It is the first wildfire known to cross the Sierra Nevada and leveled the towns of Greenville on August 4, Canyondam on August 5, and Warner Valley on August 12. An ex-criminal justice professor, Gary Maynard, was arrested and convicted for setting arson fires in conjunction with the Dixie Fire and sentenced to a five-year prison term.

2022 McKinney. The McKinney Fire started on July 29 in the Klamath National Forest, burned 60,000 acres along the Klamath River, and destroyed the town of Klamath River. The fire burned through areas previously burned in the 1955 Haystack Fire and the 2014 Beaver Fire. The fire killed four people and “tens of thousands of fish” in the river and its tributaries.

2024 Park. The Park Fire started on July 24, possibly as a result of arson by Chico resident and ex-convict Ronnie Stout II, who set his mother’s car on fire and rolled it over a cliff. The fire burned more than 429,000 acres, more than 700 homes and other structures, and heavily damaged the town of Cohasset.

2020 Oregon: The Labor Day Fires

While California towns have been burning in NWFP wildfires since 2018 at a frequency of every one or two years, all of the Oregon towns damaged or destroyed by National Forest wildfires the past 20+ years took place in just four days. With three days of sustained east winds beginning on the evening of Monday, September 7, 2020, nearly a dozen major wildfires in western Oregon burned through more than a dozen towns, killed 11 people, destroyed more than 4,000 homes, caused 40,000 emergency evacuations, killed millions of wild and domestic animals, and blanketed much of the state with a thick, acrid smoke that obscured the sun for days.

Because September 7 was a Labor Day, these tragedies became known as the Labor Day Fires. The fires also burned more than a million acres of land, much of it in old-growth and merchantable timber, making them the most catastrophic wildfires in Oregon history, by a very wide measure. The destroyed towns were burned in five of the named fires, described below, and located in five different counties within four National Forests: Rogue River/Siskiyou, Siuslaw, Umpqua, and Willamette.

When the towns, counties, fatalities, and NWFP Forests that burned in the 2020 Labor Day Fires are considered in combination with 2020 California’s North Complex and August Complex Fires, the numbers are startling: 28 deaths, at least 16 towns destroyed or severely damaged, and nearly 2 1/2 million acres of burned forestland — in only two months, seven counties, and seven National Forests.

When considered in combination with all of the other fires in the NWFP region and in the rest of the US, 2020 must be considered one of the worst Fire Years in the Nation’s history — on par with the 1910 Fires and 1881.

Santiam Fire. This was the deadly convergence of three fires that had started with August 16 lightning strikes on the Warm Springs Reservation and on the Opal Creek and Mount Jefferson Wildernesses in the Willamette National Forest and blew up with the Labor Day east winds [Note: an Oregon Department of Forestry report on this fire claims there was no indication of lightning for 30 days before thiese fires, yet lightning clearly started major wildfires in California]. The fire devastated the towns of Detroit and Gates, with roughly 80% of homes and businesses burned. More than 1,500 structures in the Santiam Canyon were destroyed, including significant damage to the towns of Idanha, Mill City, and Lyons. A total of 402,000 acres burned and five people were killed.

Archie Creek Fire. Much of the fuel in the 131,500-acre Archie Creek Fire was provided by the standing snags remaining from the 2009 Wiliams Creek, 2015 Cable Crossing, and 2017 Fall Creek Fires. There is evidence the Fire may have actually started in the Williams Creek snags. The resulting fire was so hot that virtually all plants and animals within the fire’s perimeter perished. One person also died and more than 400 homes were destroyed, including several in the towns of Glide and Idleyld Park.

Holiday Farm Fire. This fire started near the Holiday Farm RV Resort in Rainbow on the evening of September 7, ignited by falling powerlines. From there it traveled west down the McKenzie River Valley, destroying or doing great damage to the towns and communities of Blue River, Finn Rock, Nimrod, and Vida. One person was killed, 517 homes destroyed, and 173,000 acres burned.

Almeda Drive. A 41-year old arsonist, Michael Jarrod Bakkela, was arrested for setting fires and possessing meth on September 8, the day the Almeda Drive Fire killed three people, destroyed 2,400 homes, burned 5,700 acres, and did serious damage to the towns of Phoenix and Talent. These were the only two towns burned during the Labor Day Fires that were not associated with a National Forest. Rather, principal fuels were provided with the overgrown “buffer” of Himalayan blackberries along the Bear Creek Greenway, and by aging “trailer parks,” mobile homes, and RVs sandwiched between the I-5 and Highway 99 firebreaks. Bakkela later pleaded guilty and was given 11 years.

Echo Mountain. A large part of the coastal town of Otis burned, along with a portion of the Siuslaw National Forest, but the entire fire was among the smallest of the Labor Day Fires at 2,600 acres. There were no fatalities, but 293 homes were burned, and PacifiCorp settled a lawsuit with 403 plaintiffs for $178 million.

Conclusions & Solutions

Whether intended or not, the US Forest Service has been systematically destroying our public forests and rural communities with fire the past 35 years on physical, economical, biological, and aesthetic levels. Hundreds of people have been killed, tens of thousands of homes destroyed, businesses have gone bankrupt, schools have gone broke, millions of acres of old-growth and tens of millions of wildlife have been killed, deadly smoke has filled our cities for weeks, and somehow there is no accountability — and all expenses have been covered by taxpayers

This can be fixed. Our parents and grandparents showed us how. Put an end to these catastrophic wildfires so much as possible; salvage the dead trees as quickly as possible and turn them into building materials for new homes and fuels to heat them; maintain the roads and trails; plant new trees for the next generation; and pick up after yourselves. Then with the money you make, pay your taxes, buy a home, build a school, donate a park, and take a vacation. All documented in publications, film, video, memories, and photographs.

For too many years we’ve been fed the political propaganda (“science”) that a “healthy” forest is full of big snags, big logs, and a “multi-layered canopy” of biodiversity connecting the earth to the highest old-growth canopies. Endangered plants and animals everywhere, safe at last. In such an “idealized” environment, man is a pathogen — a transitory visitor who leaves no trace and only visits occasionally.

This is one of the most misleading, deadly, and costly falsehoods imposed by a central government on its rural populations since Russia had Lysenko take over wheat production. Maybe not as deadly for people, but certainly worse for wildlife, and far more costly. And the same “science”-driven process.

Dead and dying trees are signs of a dead and dying forest, as has been clearly observed and documented the past 35 years. For thousands of years before then, the surest sign of a healthy forest was one that was regularly visited and inhabited by healthy human populations.

This can be fixed. We just need to follow the law by returning to the Organic Act of 1897, the Forest Service principles and mission of 1905, the 1935 10 a.m. policy, and the Multiple-Use, Sustained-Yield Act of 1960. And go from there. Start with a clean slate and fix this mess for future generations.

We can start by returning to active management of our roads, trails, and forests, with a focus on preserving the remaining old-growth, restoring our ruined forests, and carefully monitoring our wildlife populations.

The experts on rebuilding our damaged towns, restoring our dying forests, and maintaining our roads and trails are the people rebuilding the towns, managing the local forests, and keeping our roads and trails in good shape. They’re the experts — not the university professors, government bureaucrats, or even the elected officials that have steered us to this result.

In my world, our schools, roads, forests, and visitors should all be managed at the county or river level, with local businesses and residents. There is a lot of work to be done, it will take thousands of people to do it, and long-term, local contracts could be the start.

https://forestpolicypub.com/2025/04/28/burned-out-deadly-national-forest-fires-now-entering-towns-part-1/

 

Burned Out: Deadly National Forest Fires Now Entering Towns (part 1)

My current article on this topic was just published in Oregon Fish & Wildlife Journal. It is pretty long, with a number of illustrations, captions, tables, and a map, so I am going to post in two parts, with these illustrations first and the body of the text to follow.Here is the published version: http://nwmapsco.com/ZybachB/Articles/Magazines/Oregon_Fish_&_Wildlife_Journal/20250401_Burned_Out/Zybach_20250425.pdf

1-Title_Page. Historic downtown of Greenville, California, which burned in 30 minutes during the Dixie Fire on August 4, 2021. Photo courtesy of Doug Stoy and Green Ribbon Report.

2-Repeat_Photos. These before and after pictures show the destruction to historic Greenville buildings; several more than 100 years old, and some even having survived the 1881 Greenville Fire 140 years earlier. At that time the town had a population of 500; before the Dixie Fire it was 1100. Greenville was founded as a Gold Rush town in the 1850s and acquired a trading post in 1862. Principal occupations transitioned from mining to logging in the mid-1900s. Photographs courtesy of Doug Stoy and Green Ribbon Report.

3-Greenville_Aftermath. The remains of Greenville, following the Dixie Fire, with Indian Valley and unburned portions of Lassen National Forest in the background. These photographs of Greenville were originally published in the Green Ribbon Report, the newsletter of the Family Water Alliance, Inc. (FWA), based in Colusa, California. They are selected from a series of photographs taken and collected by Doug Stoy, who lost his home in the fire. Permission to republish the photos was given by the newsletter editor, Nadine Bailey, who is also Chief Operations Officer of FWA.

4-Paradise_Compass. Frank Carroll, Professional Forest Management, took this photograph of the remains of a business on Main Street in Paradise, California, using the Solocator app on an iPhone 14, which records the exact time, location, and direction of documentary field photos. While surveying and recording the destruction of Paradise, Frank noted: “The Camp Fire burned the town in a single burning period. Homes, businesses, schools, fire stations, community buildings, restaurants, and government buildings burned to the foundations across the city. Cleanup and PFAS soil mitigation had not begun. Surveying the destruction, we were struck by the uniform sense of PTSD among residents, government workers, service workers, and emergency personnel. The Camp Fire was a fire bomb cyclone, impervious to suppression efforts and moving so quickly people died in their homes and their vehicles and were killed when the fire caught them isolated and on foot. Much of the overhead tree mast in large conifers survived intact, indicating a fast-moving ground fire with radiant and convective heat moving horizontally to the ground. Planned emergency egress and warning systems utterly failed to protect residents, as did an almost universal disregard for Firewise planning and zoning, which appears to have been disregarded today as people rebuild traditional structures and inadequate emergency ingress and egress.”

5-Detroit_Market. The Detroit Highway Market with Gene’s Meat Market and gas pumps was a popular local landmark on Highway 22 at the corner of Breitenbush Road. It was a well-known stopping place for many of the hunters, boaters, fishermen, and other recreationists who regularly visited Detroit. The market was destroyed in the Santiam Fire on September 9, along with most of Detroit and Gates, and with significant portions of Idanha, Mill City, and Lyons. Photo by McKenzie Peters, NW Maps Co., November 21, 2020.

6-Phoenix_Trailer_Park. There was a total of 18 aging “trailer parks” and more modern “mobile home estates” destroyed in the towns of Talent and Phoenix between Highway 99 and Bear Creek Greenway during the Almeda Drive Fire on September 8. This videoclip by McKenzie Peters, NW Maps Co., shows the remains of Rogue Valley Mobile Park on October 26, 2020.

7-McKenzie_Street. McKenzie Street and Library sign in Blue River, destroyed in the Holiday Farm Fire on September 7. On November 16, 2024 the Grand Opening of the rebuilt and volunteer-operated Frances Obrien Memorial Library was held in a new location. It marked a very significant day in the recovery of Blue River. Video-clip by McKenzie Peters, NW Maps Co., October 6, 2020.

https://forestpolicypub.com/2025/04/28/burned-out-deadl…ing-towns-part-2/

Helping to Fill the Current Gaps: The “FS Needs Help” App

Last Wednesday, I was driving home from the gym and saw our Volunteer Fire Department putting out a grass fire.  Then Thursday, I spent some time as a volunteer cleaning a kitchen.  Many of the other folks volunteering were in their 70’s, and certainly we weren’t as spry climbing on and off the countertops as younger folks would have been. And we certainly weren’t as knowledgeable or quick as professionals. Yet the job got done.  Plus conversation was had, information exchanged and community bonds were formed.   Some of the volunteers were talking about their (many) other volunteer activities.  It made me reflect on the different framings of “what can we do about the reduction of Forest Service and BLM employees?”.

It appears that many people are leaving, some retiring, some due to future RIFs. I don’t know when this will be done, nor what gaps will exist, but there will be gaps. And field season is starting.

For those of us who can’t influence elections nor Congress, at least for me, putting positive energy into helping is better for my psyche than sending negative energy to the Admin. Plenty of folks are doing the latter.

And it kind of goes back to our previous discussion about “what is an emergency?”. There are certainly large groups of volunteers and others who help out during an emergency and do other things once the emergency is over.

If we looked at the actions of the Admin as something we can’t help (which is probably true in the short-term), how would we react? How did people react to wildfires and hurricane disasters? By trying to help. When the temporary hiring freeze was announced last fall,  this Colorado Sun story had the vibe of “the Forest Service is in trouble, we (volunteer groups) have to step up.”

Volunteer groups that work with the Forest Service are braced for “some frustration and challenges upcoming for 2025,” said Doozie Martin, executive director of Friends of the Dillon Ranger District.

Forest Service officials have warned most of their partners to not anticipate big projects in 2025 as the agency struggles through the hiring freeze.

The 20-year-old Friends of the Dillon Ranger District regularly delivers about 1,000 volunteer days a year on 60 projects in the White River National Forest’s Dillon Ranger District, which accounts for about half the visits to the White River National Forest, the most trafficked forest in the country. The nonprofit last year provided more than 8,500 volunteer hours and collected 500 bags of trash on the public lands around Summit County and helped educate 1,516 local kids through its youth programs.

“We are lucky we live in an area where we get a lot of support from the community and that is not something I expect will recede,” Martin said. “Perhaps we will need to adjust our programming … but right now I still anticipate having our 1,000 volunteers patrolling the trails and reporting back to land managers. I think we can accomplish a similar amount to what we have in the past.”

And the question has been raised about who is going to pump the toilets.. which led to a link to this NPR story about the Bridger-Teton

But the federal government is limited by who and how it can negotiate contracts for work like pumping toilets. It was quoted about $120,000 for the job; Kosiba said that would have bankrupted the BTNF’s recreation budget.

“We’re talking no trails cleared. We’re talking no campground hosts,” he said.

The agency’s hands were tied. But that was not the case for Kosiba’s nonprofit.

For about five years, the BTNF has partnered with the ‘Friends’ group to help fill in the gaps, like pumping toilets. The nonprofit model is a relatively novel concept in the Forest Service and could be a key model for the agency going forward.

“We’re able to do collectively, far more than the agency [USFS] is able to do,” Kosiba said, adding that it is because of how the agency is funded, staff capacity and bureaucratic limitations.

The BTNF essentially granted funds to Kosiba’s group, which could then contract out with other private companies. They agreed to do the job at about a third of that $120,000.

Not a good argument for federal contracting regulations (I bet there’s a very interesting story there) but a great story about 1) seeing the need, 2) noticing what the agency isn’t funded to do and 3) filling the gap.

Maybe this is an opportunity for groups to get started and say “how can we help? What do you need?”  And there are many retirees who would work for nothing in different kinds of jobs (for sure, we’d prefer to be paid, but if this is a crisis and they need us to get over this particular hump, then…  Of course, there is the ACES program and NGOS have various hiring authorities and funding from donations and grants. And of course many retirees are still working on fires, as Mike pointed out.

And apparently grants are going forward, for example, I saw jobs advertised for a forestry stewardship program manager, a hydrology technician and a reforestation technician to help National Forests to be hired by the Great Basin Institute (the latter in cooperation with American Forests).  And some of the recreation sites near where I live are handled by concessionaires.  So each unit may end up having different needs with employees missing, and different ways to fill in the gaps.

Sure, all of us could call our neighboring district and ask what we can do, but figuring that out and training people up to fill the slots would be a body of work that they probably don’t have time for.  And yet, I think that this is work that could be done by, perhaps, retired people with organizing skills. Via some centralized app, folks could find out about in-person and online, volunteer and  paid (via NGO or States or ?)  opportunities to help out the National Forests.  Only some of us still want to do this stuff, but we don’t know how many of us are out there until we ask.

I wonder whether a group like the National Forest Foundation could develop an app with missing capabilities, and all of us who care, with whatever skills or financial capabilities, could see where we could contribute?  Or other partners could use their donations (or grants if that would be OK) to hire volunteer coordinators to do the match-making for any gaps (including Regions and the WO). There are definitely work-at-home possibilities, at least in the documentation world, so that someone in DC could help out folks on the Nebraska, for example. And fieldwork sometimes has a fun aspect which might help people want to do it.

Maybe we’d like our volunteer work so much we would stay on past the crisis.  Maybe we’d form new friendships and alliances which would open doors to future kinds of help and work and partnerships.

Some of these gaps aren’t even new. In fact, last fall folks were asking me to help out in some areas (via ACES) that had crucial gaps even before the current Admin cuts.

Not that volunteering is the only answer, becoming a reemployed annuitant or getting paid via ACES or grants, are always opportunities.  And helping, of course, is not just for retirees. Many skills are not unique to folks who have been employed by the Feds.

For me, it doesn’t matter that the FS made a budgetary mistake (no temporaries this year) or whether the new Administration decided to go on a firing spree, for the purposes of contributing to the Forest Service mission when they are in trouble. The reality is that I could call my Congressional delegation, and they’ve already decided what they’re going to do.  Senators- complain about it; Congressperson- not complain about it, based on their political parties.  The only way I can see to help is.. to help.

Sure, all of us could call our neighboring district and ask what we can do, but figuring that out and training people up to fill the slots would be a body of work that they probably don’t have time for.  And yet, I think that this is work that could be done by, perhaps, retired people with organizing skills. Via some centralized app, folks could find out about in-person and online, volunteer and  paid (via NGO or States or ?)  opportunities to help out the National Forests.  Only some of us still want to do this stuff, but we don’t know how many of us are out there until we ask.

On a related note, I think the FS needs to decide what it wants to be when it grows up. For example, it looks like much reforestation work was farmed out to American Forests. Does the FS want to keep its own knowledgeable people? What kind of expertise does it want to keep in-house? What on-the-ground work should be done by employees versus contractors or grantees or volunteers? Right now I think it’s “whatever works wherever” and perhaps that’s fine. But first getting rid of temps for budget reasons, and now getting rid of people via various forms also gives the FS an opportunity to decide whether it wants to develop a vision of how it wants to work in the future.

What do others think?