Where Exactly Are the Newly Discovered Lithium Deposits?

by

From a USGS press release:

The Appalachian region of the eastern United States contains an estimated 2.3 million metric tons of undiscovered, economically recoverable lithium, enough to replace 328 years of U.S. imports at last year’s level, according to new research by the U.S. Geological Survey.

The southern Appalachians hold an estimated 1.43 million metric tons of lithium oxide, concentrated in the Carolinas, and the northern Appalachians hold an estimated 900,000 metric tons, concentrated in Maine and New Hampshire, according to estimates in a new USGS scientific paper published in Natural Resources Research. The lithium is present in pegmatites, large-grained rocks similar to granite.

“This research shows that the Appalachians contain enough lithium to help meet the nation’s growing needs – a major contribution to U.S. mineral security, at a time when global lithium demand is rising rapidly,” said USGS Director Ned Mamula. “USGS mineral science is the leading edge in the effort to restore America’s mineral independence by mapping our nation’s mineral resources. Everything else follows on the science: permitting reform and other policy changes to support investment in clean, responsible mining to 21st century standards, and mining workforce training for new American jobs. The United States was the dominant world producer of lithium three decades ago, and this research highlights the abundant potential to reclaim our mineral independence.”

The United States had one sole producer of lithium and relied on imports for more than half the lithium used last year, factors that contributed to its inclusion on the 2025 List of Critical Minerals published by the USGS. Lithium is used in the lithium-ion batteries that power computers, military equipment, vehicles, phones, electric tools, and energy-grid storage, as well as in aerospace alloys. Additional lithium is imported into the United States every year inside finished products made elsewhere and containing lithium-ion batteries. While Australia is the world’s largest producer of lithium, China is second, and accounts for the majority of world lithium refining and consumption.

The USGS projects that world production capacity for lithium will double by 2029, driven by increasing demand.  Lithium supply security has become a priority for technology companies.

Media

Map of lithium in the northern Appalachian region, showing higher concentrations in Maine and New Hampshire.
Sources/Usage: Public Domain. View Media Details
Map showing concentration of lithium in pegmatites in the northern Appalachians, and showing use cases for 2.3 million metric tons of lithium oxide, the amount USGS scientists estimate is economically recoverable from the Appalachian region.

The estimated 2.3 million metric tons of lithium oxide in the Appalachian region would be enough lithium for batteries in:

  • 1.6 million grid-scale batteries large enough to stabilize an electric grid

  • 130 million electric vehicles

  • 180 billion laptops, or a 1,000 year-supply of laptops for the world (at 2025 levels)

  • 500 billion cellphones, or 60 cellphones for each person on earth

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

Shout- out to USGS Public Affairs.. within hours, I received an answer to my question.

You may have seen this press release on lithium in the Northern Appalachians.  While indeed there are National Forests in New England, there are many NFs in the Southern Appalachians as well.

Here’s my question

I read your media reports about the lithium in the northern Appalachians, but didn’t find any links to a similar study about the southern Appalachians.  I wonder whether there is a map that overlays the newly found minerals over land ownership… specifically the Forest Service?

Here’s their answer:

The southern Appalachians assessment has not been published, but is expected in the next few weeks, and we’ll send out another news release.
USGS mineral resource assessments don’t look at land ownership, they look at geologic formations. So you would have to do such an overlay.
I am sadly lacking in GIS skills, so maybe the Forest Service is going to do that? Or perhaps we could get a volunteer? Seems like it would be useful info to many.

Consulting Firm Hiring Part-Time Reforestation Subject Matter Expert

by

How many experts do we need, of what kind? Should they be permanent federal employees or grantees’ hires or contractors?  This job ad came across my virtual desk, for a part-time expert at a consulting firm.  Back in the day, when the FS took reforestation seriously, we had people focused on the technical aspects of genetics, nurseries, field treatment of seedling pre- and post planting, who were permanent employees.  We even had the office people have a field day pulling up vexar (on the Ochoco).  We had an entire team of experts working directly on this. In this job advertisement, it seems to me that the contractor is expecting quite a bit from one part-time (temporary?) employee.

If the seed orchard managers are hired by American Forests, and the reforestation planning is done by part-time contractors, it seems like the organizational equivalent of random acts of reforestation by random people in random combinations.   In the 80’s. the Ochoco, Deschutes, Fremont and Winema (before comboing) identified planting ponderosa on drier sites as a problem and shared one full-time reforestation specialist as well as a geneticist (me).  FWIW, I think each group of four forests- at least- should have its own reforestation expertise and access to a geneticist (perhaps in a national services group, the last I counted R2 and 3 had zero, and R6 had several).

As folks have gotten concerned about FS R&D one of the concerns is that long-term research is important, and isn’t funded by NIFA nor NSF. But isn’t it just as, or more important for practitioners to build up knowledge over time?

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

About the job

IEM is seeking a Part-Time Reforestation Subject Matter Expert (SME) to support our continued growth. The Reforestation SME provides specialized technical expertise to support wildfire recovery and long‑term forest restoration efforts. This role requires deep knowledge of Rocky Mountain ecosystems, post‑fire ecological processes, and evidence‑based reforestation practices. The SME will support the development of defensible technical assessments and SME reports used to substantiate claimant recovery amounts in alignment with program guidelines.

Primary Location:

  • Live within the United States including any US territory
  • Work from a personal/home office location

Travel Requirements

  • This position may require travel to complete work assignments or attend meetings/trainings.

Essential Functions

  • Design and oversee reforestation projects in areas affected by wildfire, with a focus on ecological restoration and long-term forest health.
  • Conduct site assessments to determine soil stability, species suitability, and prioritize areas for intervention based on ecological and community needs.
  • Collaborate with land managers, government agencies, community stakeholders, and non-profit partners to develop reforestation plans tailored to Rocky Mountain landscapes.
  • Provide technical guidance on seed collection, native species selection, planting techniques, and post-planting care specific to post-wildfire recovery in the region.
  • Monitor project outcomes, adapt management strategies, and report on progress and ecological impacts.
  • Deliver training and workshops for field personnel and community volunteers on wildfire reforestation methods and safety protocols.

Minimum Qualifications

  • Degree: Bachelor’s or Master’s degree in Forestry, Ecology, Environmental Science, or a related field.
  • Experience: Ten (10) years of combined experience in reforestation, wildfire recovery, land restoration, forestry, or related ecological disciplines.
  • Demonstrated expertise with Rocky Mountain ecosystems, native species, and post‑wildfire regeneration practices.
  • Strong working knowledge of:
    • Wildfire ecology and burn severity effects
    • Forest succession
    • Soil stabilization and watershed dynamics
    • Native plant communities of the Rocky Mountain region
  • Experience preparing technical assessments, valuation summaries, or SME reports related to ecological losses and restoration costs.
  • Proficiency using GIS, remote sensing platforms, and ecological monitoring tools.
  • Excellent written and verbal communication skills; ability to explain technical findings to claimants, FEMA staff, and diverse stakeholders.
  • Ability to work safely in remote, rugged terrain and variable weather conditions.
  • Strong customer‑service approach when interacting with claimants and community members.

Preferred Qualifications

  • Experience collaborating with federal and state land management agencies (e.g., USFS, BLM, NRCS).
  • Certification or training in forestry, ecological restoration, fire ecology, or similar fields (e.g., SAF Certified Forester, Society for Ecological Restoration credentials).
  • Knowledge of climate adaptation strategies in forest recovery and long‑term resilience planning.
  • Experience with grant development, project budget creation, or multi‑stakeholder restoration partnerships.

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

Here’s the company floating the position (IEM):

IEM is a professional services firm dedicated to building a safe, secure, and resilient world. Since 1985, our innovative strategies, technologies, and solutions have helped government and private sector customers achieve measurable results—lives saved, communities resiliently rebuilt, risks reduced, and preparedness increased. For over 40 years, IEM’s skilled professionals have been committed to integrating science, technology, and real-world experience to develop smart, innovative solutions that truly solve each customer’s unique problem. Our list of customers includes federal agencies like the DHS, DOD, FEMA, HUD, SBA; state and local emergency management organizations in all 50 US states and 4 territories; critical infrastructure including nuclear power plants, chemical plants, hospitals, mass transit agencies, ports, and others. Representative IEM projects include: –Program Manager for the State of New York’s disaster recovery housing program after Hurricane Sandy –Public Assistance and Hazard Mitigation Grant Program support to State of New York after Hurricane Sandy –Supporting FEMA response planning since 2003 –Preparedness support to 10 major metropolitan regions of Critical National Importance –Developed and applied unique, scenario-based planning process to support rapid, regional planning for catastrophic hurricanes in Louisiana (Hurricane Pam) and Florida and a catastrophic earthquake in the New Madrid Seismic Zone –Developed epidemiological models helping to reduce the risk of casualties associated with potential bioterrorism attacks –Developed web-based emergency management and response system for a federal program –Support research and development of defensive CBRNE systems for the U.S. Army –Exercise and real-time ground support for air evacuations during disaster response evacuations since 200

You may be curious as to from whom IEM got the contract to do this work (which I would call “inherently governmental” but..). I looked it up as usual on USA Spending.gov but found the site impenetrable as always. Chat GPT tried a bit  and ended up with my guess, that FEMA was probably funding it as part of wildfire recovery.

 

Maybe I’m the only one, I’m all for state and NGO partnerships, but I’d think that the  expertise should be intentionally housed at the FS  (or a shared service with BLM where appropriate) to inform those contracts and grants?

Reforestation isn’t the only thing, soil science, economics, wildlife, fish, engineering and so on. I don’t think you can contract or grant well if you don’t have experts on your staff.

Further, wildfires and wildfire recovery are big bucks nowadays. But agencies could…coordinate who has expertise and use inter-agency agreements.. seems to me. It would minimize gaps, overlaps and wheel reinvention.

Artificial Intelligence at The Smokey Wire: Thoughts and Recommendations for Use

by

Although whether new data centers should exist, and where they should be located is controversial.. AI is already here.  Media outlets are using it. We are using it here. As the other writer suggested, we need to learn to use it.. what is best to help us with our work, as well as what to be wary of.

Commenter Chaz O’Brien gave us very helpful advice:

With support and respect, AI is not yet agentic, which means cannot operate effectively without human in the loop management and controls to produce outcomes via well formulated queries and prompts. The query and prompt shared appears to lack many of those human in loop controls, which is exaclty why the author got the response they described (low latency, hallucinations, etc). Queries must include “without attribution” or “only from verified federal data sources” etc. Otherwise the model will grab any piece of data anyone has put into the ether that the model ingested/ trained on, from conspiracy theories to you name it. AI models need to be trained – they are not a silver bullet and they are not yet agentic (capable of processing and thinkng beyond human capabilities). Human in loop, and learning prompts, is the role and responsibility of the human. The author displayed the AI response to the query “let’s ask AI about the differences between the Park Service and the Forest Service on chainsaw use in Wilderness?”….try instead “Using only verified federal data sources, provide a comprehensive comparative analysis of USDA FS and DOI NPs chainsaw practices in wilderness from 2000 to 2026. Separate the analysis by state and/or geographic conditions. Use only verified federal data sources without attribution and provide hyperlink citations to all data used in the query in a matrix. Develop and apply a comprehensive set of KPIs for the comparison using federal recommended practices. Include a matrix on litigation resulting from the approaches, the litigants and the outcomes of the cases with source citation links. Include any differences of importance related to policy changes during these years and across agencies including wildfire crisis strategies or other initiatives”. You will notice that the AI will a) offer you non hallucinating responses because the human in loop controlled the query and b) the model will offer you quality improvement options for both the queries and its outputs. An incredibly important factor for all AI detractors to consider is the fact that code is law, data is gold, and unless the US and global citizens get engaged in how code is law and ensuring citizens have a governing role in code (law) it there will be much bigger issues to manage than water and data centers. Long story short…. if you dont want a randomly scorched earth you need to Train Your Dragon:)

I asked “what’s a KPI?” as when I left the FS it was a Key Performance Indicator.  Apparently now it’s a Key Process Indicator.

Key Process Indicator. You can allow it to determine the KPIs based on what it finds in authoritative data sets as you directed it to analyze through the prompts OR provide a lot of prompt archtecture to direct it. You can provide it more prompts to refine it afterwards if its not specific enough, and keep refining it via prompt arhcitecture to get where you are trying to go in terms of detail and accuracy/value of deliverable. You could tell it to use FSM and NPS guidelines for operational delivery and national targets or other KPIs in the analysis to compare the efficacy between the two agency approaches/outcomes. Sky’s the limit. Just remember to keep the reins on the dragon through good prompt architecture.

I like Anthropic and CLaude as I have found it most ethical and responsible for my personal needs. Over time, it will begin to write in your style of writing and better understand/align more closely with the way you think as the prompt architect grows in time and length, which matures the AI agents analytic relationship with you over time. Just be sure to mark the settings “off” on “allow Claude to learn from my queries” in personal settings. That way your proprietary knowledge wont be put out into the AI world without your control over it (at least so far – who know where we are headed if we fail to place legal safeguards over AI.)

I noticed a couple of things about Chaz’s answer.  First, you almost have to know upfront what are trustworthy sources and what the key subelements of interest and relevance might be.  So it helps if you’re an expert to start with.  Also writing a good query seems like a lot of work, almost as much work as looking it up yourself.  As we get better at queries, though, that won’t be the case.  If you are an expert, you can use it for “source mining” fairly readily and then look directly at the sources.

So I propose that contributors and commenters follow this set of rules when using AI content.

  1. Note that this was AI generated or sourced where applicable.
  2. Note the AI generator (if that’s the right term) and specific query used.  That was we can query your query and suggest improvements, as Chaz did for mine.

As a group, we can find out together how to use our new tool. New tools are common in our space, think chainsaw (can also be dangerous), drones, and some of us remember when computers were new.

Finally, a brief note to folks who deal with health issues.  This is correlated with age, as we retirees know all too well, but not entirely. Anyway, I recently read a book called Dr. Bot about AI in healthcare, which is already here, both for practitioners and patients.  As this reviewer says:

AI won’t fix everything. But it offers real power:

– Smarter, more equitable diagnoses, especially for rare and overlooked conditions.

– 24/7 vigilance: AI isn’t tired, rushed, or distracted. That consistency can save lives.

– Cutting bureaucracy to let doctors spend time where it matters, with patients.

But these tools are only as fair and effective as their makers allow. If we stay passive, biased data, corporate greed, and regulatory inertia will hardwire our worst inequalities into tomorrow’s technologies.

The healthcare folks are on this… looking for where it can help humans, and carefully watching for the dangers.  We should probably be as well.  I’d guess that the wildfire and research communities are using AI, but I don’t know about other forest-y communities, and whether anyone is watch-dogging the applications.

***********

Finally, I have been following Kyle Saunders, who is a polisci prof at CSU and runs a Substack called “Sacred Cow BBQ”. He has a thoughtful series of posts on the politics and policy of AI.  Here’s today’s. Something he pointed out which I hadn’t heard before.. and I hesitate to post it because of all the value our Anonymous posters bring to TSW, but because we care about them..I wonder whether, if asked, AI can design appropriate befuddlement for those attempting to un-anonymize people.

Set that next to Kelly’s “uncertain uncertainties” frame and it hits differently. Generation breaks trust in what you read. Identification breaks anonymity in what you write. Both blades of the same scissor, and, well, the scissor seems fully assembled.

The political fact buried in McArdle’s piece is that an entire coalition of people who haven’t been part of the AI policy debate suddenly has a stake in it. Not because they want to. Because the capability surfaced this week makes them stakeholders by force.

Think about who depends on anonymous speech.

Journalists with anonymous sources. Law enforcement with anonymous tipsters. Whistleblowers. Survivors of abuse and harassment. Pseudonymous online writers. Reddit commenters who post raw, vulnerable things they couldn’t put under their own names. Patients in patient communities. Members of marginalized groups in countries that punish their existence. Political dissidents under authoritarian regimes who, as McArdle puts it, “are obviously vulnerable if the government can echolocate them through their writing.”

None of these groups have been visible in the AI policy debate. Press-freedom organizations, civil-liberties advocates, dissident-protection NGOs, the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, the EFF — none of them have, as of this writing, issued a statement on what current frontier models can do to the people they exist to protect. The silence is conspicuous, and it’s also a window. The frame is in motion and waiting to be claimed.

More Background on the FS Section of Project 2025: from Frank Carroll

by

As I have said before, when Frank Carroll and Sarah Hyden agree on something…it’s worthy of paying attention to- a Policy Situation That Shouts Watch Out.

Frank has a couple of interesting policy suggestions.. what do you think? Any hate-mail-ish comments will not be approved.

Although people use “Project 2025” as a kind of scare-buzz-word, please consider that it’s full of different ideas, by different authors, with different flavors and all the ideas might not be bad just because they’re included in the document.

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

Joe and I receive our share of hate mail for our role in P25, just about every day.

Most of you will recall helping to prepare the Forest Service overview and issues “briefing books” for the incoming administration, Democrat or Republican. It was a binder with all the stats about us, how many personnel, timber cut and sold, and wildfire stats from the previous year. I looked forward to it because it was interesting to me, a recap of who we were and what we were doing.

Most organizations prepared similar briefing books. They were wish lists, aspirational thoughts, ideas, plans, and programs a new administration could pick up and use to change the [fill in the blank] World. In 2023 and 2024, the Heritage Foundation prepared a briefing book, now called P25.

When Joe called, and we started writing our aspirational view of what needed to change to bring wildfire policy in line with law and public expectations, we were thinking about a number of factors, including the alarming loss of life (16 civilians caught in their beds in Berry Creek in the North Complex) and public and private property (for which there is no recourse in law to compensate property owners for unilateral decisions by AAs and ICs) from letting wildfires burn, and making them bigger on purpose, in line with the new land management agencies’ theology that all fire is good fire. We vigorously oppose the notion that we can burn back better in almost any scenario, absent a combination of management and timing outside of wildfire season. Hell, as Joe rightly points out, there is no provision in law for using fire to manage natural resources, wild or prescribed.

Our tiny effort, in the context of 900 pages of the P25, seemed benign enough, a forlorn hope, as we said in the comment. Imagine our surprise when we not only received a fair hearing, but we made huge strides in changing the whole “applied wildfire” paradigm and stopping it dead as of this writing. Both the Chiefs of the Forest Service and the Wildland Fire Service have issued unequivocal orders to stop the practice and return to putting out wildfires now, immediately, in direct attack, or in indirect attack on the next best ridge, not 30 miles to the northwest, as happened on the 2020 Bush Fire.

The fire organizations at the District and Forest levels haven’t been fully converted yet, as we are seeing with the big-box burn on the Hummingbird Fire on the Gila this morning. But the orders are clear enough. They are not like the Pirates’ Code, more of what you might call “guidelines.”

Following Tom Tidwell’s Chevron Deference Memo in 2009, changing wildfire policies that had devolved into fire as the only significant management tool available to the agency–no one can sue a fire decision maker, there is no scoping, no alternative development outside of WFDSS, and no appeal–and they were using it with abandon. Over 60 percent of the million-acre Dixie Fire was lit by firefighters, for example.

We are now determined to attempt to strip the discretionary authority exception from the law. As things stand, it is virtually impossible to hold agency officers accountable for wildfire decisions or other discretionary decisions because they enjoy an exception that bars lawsuits against them, even for cause. What it means is when a line officer and incident commander decide to let a fire burn, like Dragon Bravo last year, or to make a fire bigger for “natural resource benefits,” like, *sigh*, too many to list, there is no compensation for private and other property owners harmed by those decisions. Ending the discretionary function exception would subject agency personnel to the same standards and liabilities as the rest of us. If you decide to intentionally light stuff on fire, you’d best be prepared to compensate me for the damage. We believe this provision alone would do much to leaven agency decisions about wildfire.

Another angle we are exploring is an amendment to an Act that would require the government to compensate damaged parties in a straightforward claims process outside the Federal Tort Claims Act. We won the first two FTCA cases we ever worked on following our retirements in 2011. It was like catching a 24-inch trout the first time you ever went fishing. From then on, no fish could compare, and every fish was disappointing!

In any event, thanks for checking out our story. It’s been quite a ride.

 

Federal Lands Litigation – update through April 24, 2026

by

FOREST SERVICE

Case dismissed: Arizona State Legislature v. Biden (9th Circuit)

On April 1, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the district court’s decision to dismiss a lawsuit from 2024 that looked to overturn the proclamation designating the Baaj Nwaavjo I’tah Kukveni Ancestral Footprints of the Grand Canyon National Monument, which prevents mining.  (The Monument is mostly comprised of Kaibab National Forest lands.)  In response to claims of economic harm, the court found, “it is speculative whether the right economic conditions and incentives for uranium mining will exist so far into the future” considering an existing 20-year moratorium.   Other arguments rejected included threats to water, reduced land value and higher energy prices, which the court characterized as “fears of hypothetical future harm.”   After finding that none of the plaintiffs had standing to bring the lawsuit, the court did not need to address the question of whether the designation was allowed under the Antiquities Act.  The article includes a link to the opinion.

New lawsuit:  NDN Collective v. U. S. Forest Service (D. South Dakota)

On April 3, an Indigenous rights group known as NDN Collective and the Black Hills Clean Water Alliance, both based in Rapid City, along with Earthworks, challenged the Forest Service’s decision in the Rockford Mineral Exploratory Drilling Project to allow exploratory drilling core samples for graphite in the Black Hills National Forest near Pe’ Sla (or Reynolds Prairie), a site that holds cultural and spiritual significance for Native Americans.  Plaintiffs object to the use of a categorical exclusion for its NEPA process because the project includes drilling, road work and other activity near Pe’ Sla that would take more than the one year authorized by the CE. The plaintiffs also argue that Pe’ Sla’s religious and cultural importance constitutes extraordinary circumstances that should have triggered a fuller review, and they are concerned about drinking water resources.  The article includes a link to the complaint.  This case was also discussed in a comment here.

Court decision in WildEarth Guardians v. U. S. Forest Service (D. Colorado)

On April 10, after the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals had reversed the decision to create the Wishbone domestic sheep allotment, the district court ordered a remand to the Forest Service to reassess risk of disease transmission to bighorn sheep.  The Forest Service had approved the creation of the allotment in close proximity to bighorn sheep core habitat, and the 10th Circuit held that the Forest Service’s explanation for approving the Wishbone Allotment relied “on no science or data, and in fact contradicts the data in the record about bighorn sheep movement and permittees’ compliance with project design features.”

Amended complaint in Apache Stronghold v. U. S. A. (D. Arizona)

On April 22, plaintiffs in this case involving the land exchange of Oak Flats on the Tonto National Forest to facilitate a copper mine (which we last discussed here) responded to the Supreme Court’s denial of their petition for review, and the subsequent implementation of the land exchange by the Forest Service.  They have amended their complaint at the district court level to seek to rescind the transfer and enjoin further actions.  While the exchange had not been enjoined, the Ninth Circuit had not addressed all of the issues in the case, and the rest of the case is now continuing in federal district court in Arizona.

BLM

Preliminary injunction denied in Klamath-Siskiyou Wildlands Center v. Burgum (D. Oregon)

On April 9, the district court denied a motion for a preliminary injunction against the Last Chance Project involving several timber sales and road construction on BLM lands in checkerboard ownership in southern Oregon.  The court found that the ESA consultation process for threatened northern spotted owls complied with the law with respect to scientific data and the way the scope of the project was defined.  There was no violation of FLPMA because the Project conformed to the Resource Management Plan with regard to conservation of the northwestern pond turtle, designated by BLM as a sensitive species.  The RMP contains a management directive requiring BLM to “[i]mplement conservation measures to mitigate specific threats to Bureau Sensitive species during the planning of activities and projects.”  The court held, “Plaintiffs have not raised serious questions that BLM’s use of location-based mitigation efforts (aquatic buffer zones) instead of timing-based efforts (seasonal harvest restrictions) was arbitrary and capricious or inadequately explained.”

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

On April 9, the district court upheld the 16,700-acre Clark Fork Face Project northeast of Missoula, Montana, finding that the BLM adequately reviewed potential impacts to federally threatened grizzly bears and Canada lynx pursuant to NEPA and the ESA, including road density and habitat connectivity.

Preliminary injunction in Renew Northeast v. U. S. Department of the Interior (D. Massachusetts)

On April 21, nine renewable energy organizations secured a preliminary injunction from the district court against USDI, the BLM and other agencies for delaying wind and solar energy projects through five agency actions.  One of these was a Departmental memo requiring additional review of wind and solar projects by the Office of the Executive Secretariat and Regulatory Affairs, subsequent review by the Office of the Deputy Secretary, and final review by the Office of the Secretary.  For that memo, the court held that the administrative record did not show that the agencies were aware that they were changing existing policy or provide a reasoned explanation for the change, rendering the memo arbitrary and capricious.  The article includes a link to the opinion.

ENDANGERED SPECIES

Injunction granted in Center for Biological Diversity v. Quintero (C.D. California)

On April 9, the federal district court reaffirmed an earlier ruling that said that the California Department of Parks and Recreation violated the Endangered Species Act by allowing the threatened western snowy plover and its critical habitat to be harmed by off-roading without possessing an incidental take permit.  The court issued a decision about the remedy; the Defendant is enjoined from issuing new permits or authorizations of motorized vehicle activities in snowy plover critical and occupied habitat.  That injunction order is here.

  • Endangered Species Committee (God Squad)

On March 31, the Endangered Species Committee waived the ESA requirements that would avoid driving species to extinction for Gulf of Mexico oil and gas production activities.  Three lawsuits challenging that action were summarized here.   Two additional lawsuits have been filed. (One article referred to six total lawsuits, so I may have missed one.)

On April 14, Defenders of Wildlife filed a petition for review of the challenged actions in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.  They assert that it is illegal to exempt all federal authorizations of oil and gas activities in the Gulf of Mexico through a blanket exemption from the Endangered Species Act’s protections.  They also challenged Defense Secretary Hegseth’s “National Security Findings” that led to the God Squad’s vote.

New lawsuit:  National Wildlife Federation v. Burgum (D.C. Circuit)

On April 15, the National Wildlife Federation, National Parks Conservation Association, Florida Wildlife Federation, Louisiana Wildlife Federation and Texas Conservation Alliance also filed suit via a petition to the D. C. Circuit Court of Appeals.  The plaintiffs say that the committee met and voted without the legally required notice, review, or application process.  The article includes a link to the petition.

(It now appears that the Administration is trying to backtrack on the decision.)

New lawsuit:  Center for Biological Diversity v. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (N.D. California)

On April 21, the plaintiffs sued the FWS for missing its January 2026 statutory deadline for finalizing its proposed listing of the fish species as threatened. The fish (referred to by Native Americans as “chi”) is designated by the Forest Service as a sensitive species, but only the headwaters of a few tributaries occur on national forest lands on the Mendocino National Forest.  The primary threat is a lack of water resulting from diversions and climate change.  The article links to the complaint.

New lawsuit:  Center for Biological Diversity v. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (D. D.C.)

On April 23, the plaintiffs sued the FWS for missing its one-year statutory deadline after the Service’s August 2023 proposal to protect the salamander mussel as an endangered species and designate 2,012 river miles of critical habitat across 10 states.  Critical habitat was proposed for the Daniel Boone and Hoosier national forests.  Salamander mussels are threatened by habitat destruction, water pollution, invasive species and declines in their host species, the mudpuppy salamander.  The article links to the complaint.

OTHER

Dismissal motion denied in Standing Trees Inc. v. State of Vermont (Vermont Superior Court)

On April 9, the Vermont court denied the state’s motion to dismiss the case.  The court’s ruling affirmed that Standing Trees’ lawsuit could proceed on its two central claims: that Vermont’s Agency of Natural Resources is not complying with its obligations to protect public trust resources like Vermont’s waterways, and that it unlawfully rejected a petition seeking rulemaking to address its recently issued management plan for the CC Putnam State Forest.  The court described, the public trust doctrine as “an elemental feature of American and Vermont common law” which requires state governments to go above and beyond just complying with statutes and regulations when they make decisions affecting public natural resources.  The press release includes a link to the court’s order

New lawsuit:  National Parks Conservation Association v. U. S. Department of the Interior (C. D. California)

On April 15, Plaintiff filed a complaint against USDI and the National Park Service over their “reversal of position permitting renewed industrial mining operations at the decommissioned Colosseum Mine in Mojave National Preserve,” relying on the BLM’s environmental review and approval in 1985.  In addition to NEPA violations, the complaint alleges that continuing operations violates the Mining in the Parks Act of 1976, and the California Desert Protection Act of 1994.

Gold and silver mining since the 1860s had ended in 1993 and reclamation had occurred. In 1994, Congress established the Mojave National Preserve, which transferred federal jurisdiction over Colosseum Mine from the Bureau of Land Management to the National Park Service.  The Park Service had been actively trying to prevent additional mining since then, but unauthorized activity had occurred.  BLM now describes it as “America’s second rare earth elements mine,” and it’s located in an area that’s important habitat for bighorn sheep and boasts the second-highest density of rare plants in California’s mountain ranges. The article includes a link to the complaint.

 

Support for Moving FS Wildfire Folks to Interior Seems Light on Hill and at USDA

by

This is an interesting story from E&E News, not least because the headline and tagline are:

Must Congress OK Wildfire Program Mergers? Trump Officials Aren’t Sure

The administration has consolidated fire response on Interior land and is pushing for the department to absorb Forest Service firefighting.

Whereas the story seems to say “different forces within the Administration seem to want different things.” Predictably,  USDA seems to want to hang on to its firefighting capacity (and budget). My understanding is that reporters don’t write headlines, maybe AI does?

Some of the recent news stories (and opinion) don’t seem to be very clear on whether they mean 1) combining Interior agencies’ wildfire folks (which is currently going on) or 2) moving FS wildfire people over or 3) both.  This story seems to focus on 2.

Interior Secretary Doug Burgum, who has led an effort by the administration to consolidate the fire program across public lands, declined to confirm for Senate appropriators Wednesday that he believes Congress must approve his proposal.

Confusingly, “public lands” is an expression generally used for BLM (e.g. the Public Lands Foundation).   So it’s hard to tell if Congress is against combining within Interior and if they were, they should probably have said something before now.

Elsewhere on Capitol Hill on Wednesday, Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins, who oversees the Forest Service, said while talks are going on between the federal agencies, she suspected Congress would need to weigh in.
“My understanding is it does require congressional approval,” Rollins told reporters after a budget hearing. “But these two organizations have existed successfully as individual organizations for decades and decades and decades now. So it isn’t quite as easy as saying, ‘OK, now we’re going to put them together.’”
She said there were conversations being had at both the Interior and Agriculture departments on the subject. “We want to be as efficient and as aligned as we possibly can be,” she said.
The USDA didn’t immediately respond to a request Thursday for comment on the different perspectives. Interior said in a statement it “will do everything in accordance  with the law.”
The divergent comments are a glimpse at how the Trump administration is reacting internally to frustrated efforts championed by Burgum to build a massive new fire agency within his department.

Because, under Burgum, it appears that there is a “massive new fire agency” within DOI – so is that effort “frustrated”?.

Forest Service Chief Tom Schultz told House appropriators last week the administration will soon seek a formal request for proposals to conduct the study,
which would be completed in around six months — close to the end of the current fiscal year.
Schultz also told the House panel that the Forest Service and Interior have made progress on consolidating work that doesn’t require merging the agencies. That would include firefighter training, for instance, he said……

In the meantime, Simpson said, he hopes the agencies consider combining efforts on acquisition of firefighting equipment, among other measures short of full consolidation.

I would say that from what I’ve heard through wildfire networks, R Congressfolk are wary of moving USDA to Interior.   For whatever reason, Interior has a tendency during D Admins to make “sharp stick in the eye” decisions about federal lands.. against R governors’ and Congressfolks’ wishes.. after elections that don’t go their way.  Western R Congressfolk might still be feeling the pinch of the Rock Springs RMP, the Lava Ridge Wind project, or the Montana RMP amendments.  USDA generally  has other things on its mind than partisan provoking, or appointees are less ideological, or whatever.

So whether Burgum technically  needs Congressional approval or not may not really be the key question.  It might not be worth the political capital to go against his own folks in Congress. Plus D’s (at least the ones I pay attention to) seem to be against anything proposed by this Admin, so there’s that.

I’d say the Firefolk Transfer idea is DOA, but we’ll see.

Wildfire-driven deforestation rates in California among highest in world

by

Nick Smith has a link in today’s HFHC email to a new paper, “Deforestation and reforestation in a world hotspot of fire-driven forest loss: trends in California conifer forests 1991–2023,” Hugh D. Safford and Joseph A. E. Stewart, Front. For. Glob. Change, 09 April 2026. No surprise here, to those of us who have watched forests in the west burn. FWIW, Harold Weaver foresaw this 83+ years ago. See “Fire As An Ecological and Silvicultural Factor in the Ponderosa Pine Region of the Pacific Slope,” Journal of Forestry, 1943, available free from the Society of American Foresters.

Weaver:  “It is the writer’s opinion that … unless the stagnating stands of reproduction can be thinned and the terrific destruction by pine beetles can be checked the success of sustained-yield forest management in the ponderosa-pine region is seriously threatened.”

AI Test: Forest Service vs. Park Service Chainsaw in Wilderness Use

by

I recently read an excellent piece (but I can’t find the link) about AI that basically said “we need to start using it to develop our own skills” so to that end, I thought “let’s ask AI about the differences between the Park Service and the Forest Service on chainsaw use in Wilderness?”

First I tried Google AI- they cite Facebook and The Smokey Wire as sources .. kind of scary..

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

The National Park Service (NPS) generally prohibits the use of chainsaws in designated Wilderness areas under the Wilderness Act of 1964, which bans motorized equipment. Instead, trail crews and rangers typically use “primitive” hand tools like crosscut saws and axes to maintain trails and clear downed trees.
However, there are specific, limited exceptions where the use of chainsaws may be authorized:
1. Administrative Exceptions (“Minimum Tool”)
The Wilderness Act allows for motorized equipment if it is determined to be the “minimum tool” necessary for the administration of the area.
  • Emergency Response: Chainsaws are frequently authorized for life-saving search and rescue operations or for fire suppression (e.g., cutting fire lines).
  • Significant Storm Damage: If catastrophic events like ice storms or widespread “blowdowns” create hazards that cannot be cleared by hand tools in a reasonable timeframe, a park superintendent may issue a temporary exception. For example, Shenandoah National Park has previously approved short “windows” of chainsaw use to clear major trail damage before peak hiking season.
2. Differing Agency Policies
While the law is the same, application can vary slightly between agencies:
  • National Park Service (NPS): Is often cited as having more discretion to use chainsaws for specific management goals, such as large-scale tree cutting for fire risk reduction.
  • U.S. Forest Service (USFS): Traditionally maintains a stricter “no-chainsaw” stance for routine trail maintenance, though it has recently faced internal proposals and public pushback regarding limited chainsaw use to address massive backlogs of downed timber in some regions.
Summary Table: Chainsaw Use in Wilderness
User/Activity Allowed? Rationale/Conditions
General Public No Prohibited for campers, hikers, and hobbyists.
Trail Volunteers No Must use certified crosscut saws and hand tools.
Fire Crews Yes Authorized for active fire suppression/emergencies.
NPS/USFS Staff Rarely Only with high-level approval as the “minimum tool” for specific tasks.

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

Grok was a bit more detailed and wonkish- but also linked to The Smokey Wire (forestpolicypub) and I don’t know if some of its conclusions are accurate..

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

The core difference is one of interpretation and application of the same law, not a difference in the underlying statute. Both the National Park Service (NPS) and U.S. Forest Service (USFS) are governed by the Wilderness Act of 1964 (Section 4(c)), which prohibits motorized equipment—including chainsaws—in designated Wilderness areas, except as necessary to meet the minimum requirements for administering the area for the purposes of the Act (including emergencies involving health or safety).

Shared Legal & Analytical Framework

  • Prohibition with narrow exception: “…except as necessary to meet minimum requirements for the administration of the area for the purpose of this Act … there shall be no … use of motor vehicles, motorized equipment or motorboats…” (16 U.S.C. § 1133(c)).
  • Decision process: Both agencies use a Minimum Requirements Decision Guide (MRDG / MRA) to evaluate whether a prohibited tool (like a chainsaw) is truly the minimum needed. Economic convenience, speed, or ease alone cannot justify it (explicitly stated in USFS policy; NPS applies the same principle).
  • Sawyer certification: Both have formal training/certification programs for chainsaw and crosscut operators (and even a 2022 interagency MOA granting reciprocity for volunteers/cooperators), but this governs who can operate a saw, not whether one can be used in Wilderness.

USFS Policy & Practice (Generally Stricter)

  • Default: Crosscut (hand) saws only for routine trail maintenance, hazard tree removal, etc. Chainsaws are not allowed except in very limited, site-specific circumstances.
  • Key policy reference: Forest Service Manual (FSM) 2320.6 and 2358. Chainsaws may be approved only if non-motorized options are impossible due to time/season limits, safety, or other material restrictions—and only after full MRDG analysis. The manual explicitly forbids approving motorized equipment “solely on a rationale that the method or tool is quicker, cheaper and easier.”
  • Real-world result: Most USFS Wilderness trails are cleared exclusively with crosscuts. Attempts to allow temporary chainsaw use (e.g., 2019 beetle-kill cleanup in Colorado wildernesses or recent Idaho proposals) have triggered lawsuits from conservation groups and were often rescinded. Chainsaws remain “currently not allowed … except under extremely limited circumstances.”
  • Rationale emphasized by USFS: Preserving the “untrammeled” and primitive character of Wilderness.

NPS Policy & Practice (More Permissive)

  • Default: Chainsaws are routinely used when the park superintendent determines they are the minimum tool necessary.
  • Key policy reference: NPS Director’s Order #41 (Wilderness Stewardship) and Management Policies 2006 follow the same MRDG framework, but the agency more frequently concludes that chainsaws meet the “minimum requirement” standard—especially in larger, high-use, or old-growth areas where crosscuts would be impractically slow or unsafe.
  • Real-world result: Chainsaws are “freely used” in many NPS Wilderness areas (e.g., Olympic National Park’s Daniel J. Evans Wilderness for massive Douglas-fir/cedar logs; Yosemite, etc.). Trail crews in NPS Wilderness commonly carry and use chainsaws.

Side-by-Side Summary

Aspect USFS (Forest Service) NPS (Park Service)
Default tool Crosscut saws only Chainsaws when determined minimum tool
Chainsaw approval Rare; requires rigorous MRDG + higher-level approval Common; superintendent-level determination
Routine trail work Hand tools only (in practice) Chainsaws routinely authorized
Philosophy Strict preservation of primitive character Broader emphasis on public use & enjoyment
Recent controversies Proposals for broader use often challenged/sued Generally accepted; fewer legal challenges

Bottom line: The law is identical, but the USFS applies a stricter “only crosscuts unless absolutely impossible otherwise” standard, while the NPS more readily finds chainsaws to be the minimum tool needed to keep trails open and the area administrable. This has produced noticeably different on-the-ground outcomes: many USFS Wilderness trails rely exclusively on hand tools, while NPS Wilderness areas see regular chainsaw use.

If you’re planning work, volunteering, or visiting a specific Wilderness area, always check the local unit (forest or park) for its current site-specific decisions—policies can have narrow exceptions.

*********

Finally, ChatGPT just makes stuff up that isn’t true. Again…

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

🔧 National Park Service (NPS): stricter, preservation-first

  • Emphasizes natural conditions and non-intervention
  • Chainsaws are rarely used
  • Strong preference for:
    • Crosscut saws
    • Non-motorized tools
  • Even for trail clearing, staff are expected to maintain traditional wilderness methods

👉 Chainsaws typically show up only in:

  • Emergencies (immediate threats to life/safety)
  • Very limited, highly justified management actions

🌲 U.S. Forest Service (USFS): more flexible, use-oriented

The USFS manages under a multiple-use mandate, which subtly shifts how wilderness is handled.

  • Still follows the Wilderness Act—but:
  • More willing to approve chainsaws through the Minimum Requirements Decision Guide (MRDG)

👉 In practice, chainsaws are more likely to be used for:

  • Trail clearing after major storms or blowdowns
  • Maintaining access to large wilderness trail systems
  • Fire management or fuel treatments (in limited cases)
  • Situations where crosscut saw use would be:
    • Unsafe
    • Impractically slow
    • Logistically infeasible

⚖️ Why the difference?

It comes down to agency culture and mission:

  • NPS: preserve wilderness character, minimize human imprint
  • USFS: balance wilderness with access, infrastructure, and broader land-use responsibilities

So even though the legal standard is identical, USFS tends to approve chainsaw use more often than NPS.

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

So that’s rating of -2 out of two tries for ChatGPT.  It also doesn’t tell us where it got the info.. which is hardly better than using TSW and Wilderness Watch as the sources of info.  The whole thing is a bit discouraging.

Diving Deeper: Reorganization at the Employee Level and Answers From the Press Office

by
  1.  From the Reorg Website. Having been the subject of a full-court media campaign for two projects I worked on, in which others’ talking points were elevated over real information, I am sympathetic to the folks at the Forest Service involved in this.  The Forest Service provides clarifications, and they seem to be ignored and the talking points of others develop their own momentum.    You can check out the Setting the Record Straight piece on their Reorganization website.

Now if you listened to the WAMU radio show, you would have heard the fellow from the Union of Concerned Scientists saying things that the FS had already said were not true. Some Peoples’ Narrative about what is going on, when you have an issue like this, becomes omnipresent- even though it might be completely wrong and/or assuming the worst. I also thought it was vaguely offensive for him to call R&D “the brain of the Forest Service.” That would conceivably have meant that in 1993 when Interior removed research from the Bureaus (yes, I was there, and yes, USGS is the research equivalent of the USFWS now), that they had de-brained them. Or moved the brains to a separate agency with a more nebulous linkage to the body.

2.  Updated Information from the Press Office. Based on the write-up above, here were my questions, and the answers the Press Office gave:

1) You are evaluating all the other R&D facilities but have not yet made a decision? That is what I interpret from the site.

That’s correct. We are evaluating each closely to determine the economic feasibility of retaining the facility, and we expect that proposed closure number to come down as we move through this process.

As you know, research is the foundation of our decision making as land managers. The reality is, the Forest Service’s facilities footprint is extensive and significantly larger than can be supported under current congressional appropriations, which are declining for facilities — approximately $37 million less in FY 2026 compared to FY 2025. Additionally, our deferred maintenance has grown to $3 billion, and retaining a footprint we cannot adequately maintain would not be responsible stewardship of taxpayer dollars. We have to make a change here so that our research work can continue.

Again, these are proposed closures, nothing is final. We are taking a hard look at the cost of each facility, its utilization, and its deferred maintenance needs – while supporting our people. These decisions are about facilities and upkeep – not jobs or research programs. In all cases, the research and the research staff will continue their important work.

2) Are you not closing any NFS or S&PF facilities?  It’s not really clear.

No, not as part of reorganization. That said, we are in the process of reviewing our broader facilities footprint (much like our fleet) to ensure we are consolidating where it makes sense.

3.  Guesses as to What That Means for Employees- At the Employee Scale

These are my guesses based on what I’ve heard and previous experience with moving offices and changing organizational structures.  But I did not hear this from anyone internal so would really appreciate clarifications.

a) For R&D, one national organization means employees would report through a different structure.  Perhaps if you were in budget in the SO station, you would now be part of a national R&D budget service center.  The new boss of the center would assign work.  If I were the new boss, (as with a national NEPA shop), I would take knowledge and relationships of my employees into account when assigning work, such that former SO units might be serviced by the former SO budget person.  But the employees  don’t have to physically move- it sounds like, unless they are in one of the closing facilities, they would just have a new boss and a new set of work to which they could be assigned.  Not to pick on other Stations but Rocky Mountain, for example, has an extraordinarily good outreach compared to some.  Hopefully this would improve all (and not drag down the over-achievers, always a risk).  How would this improve things? I think there are two pieces… national support can specialize better in niche areas, and having a national research program may enable the agency to better find overlaps and opportunities to partner better.  Dave Cleaves and I both did national research program reviews for wildfire and genetics, respectively, and found some of this, but at the time Station Directors were very territorial- with the WO and with each other.

The idea is probably that .. ultimately… having one administrative team will reduce overhead and get more bucks to the scientists, similar to Districts and Forests with NFS.   But there are many managerial pitfalls as no manager wants to lose budget or staff, consistent attention has to be applied.   We also don’t know how AI will transform administrative work. And some centralized operations have been very successful (Content Analysis Team IMHO) and others not so much (ASC), again, apparently based on how they are managed.

At least, that’s how I currently see it would play out.. folks would report to different people and have different tasks over a broader geographic area.  We’ve all had new bosses and been told to do and/or supervise different things (one day my boss told me I was to supervise Sustainable Operations for the Region). for the good of the Outfit, so would this be different?

b) Facilities closures and moving within the commuting area.  I don’t understand the concern entirely about this.  The history of the FS is that leases come and go, and employees move to different buildings.  The R2 Regional Office moved not that long ago.  The most difficult move I recall was one time when R&D moved from the Yates Building to Rosslyn. What made that difficult is that somehow I was in charge of deciding what to do with old paper files for VMPR (“vampire” for short, Vegetation Management and Protection Research).  We had things like the original plates for the Silvics book; records of the effort to assess how much wood could be used for fuel during the Carter Administration, and we had to decide what to do with it. Fortunately in the building was the Forest Service historian who was helpful.  I do know that if we’d had scanners then, I would have scanned a great deal of it.   Anyway, my point is that moving offices has not been unusual.  Moving computers and field equipment to a new location is not unusual.  Certainly moving hard drives is easier than moving boxes of paper files.  When it comes to currently functioning labs, that’s a different story.  My guess is that those are the kinds of things that the Forest Service is talking about now during the “further evaluation.”

As I said before, these are just my guesses of how things are supposed to work. Others out there have better information, so please add in the comments.

 

The best approach to the preservation of Wilderness continues to be to leave it alone

by

[The following opinion piece was written by Suzanne Cable, who serves on the Board of Directors of Wilderness Watch (an organization that I work for.) Suzanne retired in January 2024 after a 30-year career with the U.S. Forest Service and National Park Service, finishing her career as the forest-wide program manager for Recreation, Trails, and Wilderness on the Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest. Suzanne’s opinion article may be of interest to readers of this blog, especially since it is in response to a recent opinion article by a U.S. Forest Service research fellow. – MK]

The best approach to the preservation of Wilderness continues to be to leave it alone
By Suzanne Cable

Contradictory to what is advocated for in a recent article by U.S. Forest Service research fellow Clare E. Boerigter about protecting Wilderness by purposefully “tending it,” the best approach to the overall stewardship of federally designated Wilderness managed in the United States is to do as the 1964 Wilderness Act dictates: leave it alone.

As a retired Forest Service wilderness manager, reading this article really hit a nerve with me—or I should say several nerves. This approach of advocating for management of Wilderness is contradictory to the intent and letter of the law and disturbing. Attempting to stop the ecological clock by human manipulation of Wilderness areas to achieve human-determined preferred conditions through “tending” (as proposed by Ms. Boerigter) is detrimental to the continued responsible stewardship of federally designated Wilderness areas as intended by the Act.

Effective wilderness stewardship takes the long view, and “leaving it alone”—such as limiting direct human control and deliberate manipulation of the ecology of Wilderness areas—is foundational to the long-term preservation of Wilderness.  Quoting directly from the Wilderness Act, “A wilderness, in contrast with those areas where man and his works dominate the landscape, is hereby recognized as an area where the earth and its community of life are untrammeled by man.” Key concepts of this statement are “in contrast” and “untrammeled by man.” Wilderness must be allowed to be in contrast with other areas of earth that are dominated by humans and free from direct human ecological intervention.

Manipulation of Wilderness to achieve a condition based on a point in the long arc of ecological time to achieve human interests is the antithesis of humility and restraint, hallmarks of wilderness stewardship. It’s a tragedy that climate change caused by humans burning fossil fuels is radically and rapidly changing natural environments and is a key driver of the global biodiversity crisis. However, overlooking the legal mandate to keep Wilderness wild to achieve short term interventionist objectives of manipulating natural conditions—or tending it—is not the answer.

The less than 3 percent of land in the contiguous United States designated as Wilderness, or about 5 percent of all lands including Alaska, is worth protecting from the manipulative arrogance of humans to control natural conditions for the “benefit” of those systems as well as humans. That 5 percent deserves to be left alone, allowing nature to rule, and to be protected from perhaps well-intentioned, but ultimately regretful ecological interventionist actions. Is 5 percent of the over 2 billion-acre U.S. land base too much to leave uncontrolled by humans since humans have decided to have their way with the other 95 percent ? I say no, and in fact, I’d argue 5 percent is not nearly enough.

The article uses the example of manager-ignited fire as necessary tending. Manager-ignited fire damages the very qualities that define wilderness character in all Wildernesses: untrammeled, natural, undeveloped, and offering outstanding opportunities for solitude or primitive and unconfined recreation. And once started to achieve specific desirable conditions, manager-ignited fire and other interventions must continue in perpetuity to hold back the trajectory of change to achieve the historical condition of one point in time. Thereafter, what about the place remains Wilderness and in contrast to other National Forest System lands? It fundamentally changes the place, loses the qualities that define why it is protected as Wilderness, and becomes another landscape controlled and manipulated by humans.

Rather than promoting wilderness “tending,” it would be great to see the Forest Service conduct research that provides land managers and the public with useful information consistent with the Wilderness Act vs. proposing strategies that would lead managers to take actions that are destructive to the intent of the Act. For example, providing decision support tools to managers about how to allow more naturally ignited fire to burn in Wilderness, rather than being suppressed, would really help.

The article feeds the metaphorical fire of human action bias—to try to fix things that aren’t meeting their desired conditions. Wilderness is one land designation where the action bias is both prohibited by law and also contradictory to achieving its preservation objectives.

Suzanne Cable is on the Wilderness Watch Board of Directors. She retired in January 2024 after a 30-year career with the U.S. Forest Service and National Park Service, finishing her career as the forest-wide program manager for Recreation, Trails, and Wilderness on the Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest.