Forest Supe Meeting Round-Up: What Have You Heard?

by

Here’s what Deputy Chief John Crockett had to say about the meeting:

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

Perhaps the most important component of creating a shared understanding among many is building community. Last week, that’s exactly what we accomplished at the National Active Forest Management Meeting.

The meeting’s objectives included giving line officers an overview of agency priorities for increasing timber production and reducing wildfire risk, creating a shared understanding of success, and exploring approaches and tools for achieving management goals.

For the first time in 25 years, forest supervisors were together on site to hear directly from agency leaders as a cohort. They were then given the opportunity to participate in small group discussions with leadership. The meeting also incorporated partner perspectives by bringing in representatives from the National Forest Foundation and Society of American Foresters, among others. Topics covered ranged from understanding updated guidance provided by executive orders and memos, to achieving multiple mission objectives while prioritizing timber, and encouraging partner participation in the National Active Forest Management Strategy.

None of these objectives could be met without a foundation of trust, and that trust was built through the week’s practical, solution-focused panels. Panelists highlighted specific projects, steps they took to deliver results on time and on budget, and lessons learned. Attendees asked targeted questions, compared approaches, and shared field-tested practices.

We heard from many attendees that listening and learning from one another across disciplines was key. As White Mountain National Forest Supervisor Derek Ibarguen noted, seeing “how different people have innovated to tackle projects was inspiring,” but equally important to him was learning whom he could call for assistance.

Eli Ilano, Deputy Director of Natural Resources, felt that peer learning had a positive effect—”instead of lectures, people were able to engage with one another both formally and informally” to build networks. He noted that informal sharing helped people see their commonalities, an idea echoed by Scott Tangenberg, Acting Forest Supervisor for Cleveland National Forest. Tangenberg felt that those who may have begun the week thinking their forest challenges were unique began to realize there was more that united them than separated them.

Throughout the week, discussions allowed us to align around our fiscal year 2026 agency priorities, which Chief Schultz announced in last Friday’s Inside the Forest Service. There, participants discussed approaches and were given practical tools for improving efficiencies for timber harvesting, permitting, post-fire recovery and shared stewardship. Foundational to the week’s success was its format and topics. Discussions were led by panels that coupled line officers with subject matter experts and provided specific, distinct perspectives on myriad topics. Participants also split into small groups for breakout sessions, rotating from one session to the next so that each participant learned about each topic.

While talks centered on our agency priorities, other themes that emerged from the week included the need to strengthen shared stewardship, focus on the day-to-day services we provide the public, and address fuels, grazing, and other challenges directly. We aim to lead through transition by staying engaged and helping our teams navigate change, empowering employees, and modeling accountability by demonstrating effective leadership through partnership and follow-through. We also commit to achieving results and building relationships—fostering trust inside the agency and with the people we serve, while supporting one another as a community of leaders.

More importantly, I believe this week was just the first step. As one participant said, “Building communities of practice is critical to success.” We will continue to develop this community by offering ongoing opportunities to engage with one another, both formally and informally, on topics affecting the agency and its people.

We built a shared understanding of current priorities last week. Now, we want people to implement them on the ground and share what works. The meeting organizers intend to solicit feedback from participants to allow for continued discussion and the development of future sessions.

I’ll close with what Chris French said when asked for a quote about this event: “Long overdue and inspiring.” I hope this is the first of many such events that build a shared understanding of our agency’s future.

**********

I’ve heard some things as translated from Supes to others.. nothing too different from what we have been hearing.  I’d be interested in what others have gotten through the grapevine.. each person has different experiences and focuses on different things, and that’s just the attendee, not the people listening to what the Supes coming back have to say.

So it’s a bit like the game of telephone but nevertheless…

Draft Vegetation Categorical Exclusion List with Names: Plus Sierra NF Gigantea CE Example

by

As far as I know,  this is the current list of CEs (the last perhaps adopted from the BLM?).   It is confusing to talk about them (and the numbers have changed), so I have given them names. See if you like the names,  or would prefer other ones.

Is the list complete? I seem to remember that some insect and disease ones (13 and 14?) once existed.  I’d like to keep a complete list and keep it updated so we would be all operating from the same set of information.

If your organization (including the FS) has your own list, please send or link below.

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

I’d like to give a shout-out to the Sierra National Forest for one of the most extensive CE public involvement processes (HFRA 605)  I’ve ever read of for the Gigantea Fuels Reduction and Restoration Project (photo above). The below is from the (32 page) DM. And there’s a separate (27 page) response to comments, with about six pages of scientific citations. It seems to me that, say, if they had used an EA, and the John Muir Project had provided an objection, the context of the discussion would not be all that different from the original public comment.

SCOPING AND PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
In 2022, scoping for the Sierra National Forest Emergency Giant Sequoia Fuel Reduction Project
initiated the environmental review process for treatments in both Nelder Grove and McKinley
Grove. Scoping to the public began November 8, 2022, with multiple stakeholders and interested
parties invited to collaborate in the planning phase of the Sierra National Forest Emergency
Giant Sequoia Fuel Reduction Project. One scoping response related to the Gigantea Project was
received from SFL with a subsequent meeting held to address concerns raised (see above.)
In early 2023 a decision was made to analyze the two sequoia groves in different project
documents and therefore the Sierra National Forest Schedule of Proposed Actions entry for the
Sierra National Forest Emergency Giant Sequoia Fuel Reduction Project was canceled and
replaced with two new projects. Two separate processes continued, one for the Nelder giant
sequoia grove (that used the July 2022 Emergency Response Authorization (USDA Forest
Service. 2022b)) and another, this separate process for the McKinley Giant Sequoia Grove. This
project is listed as “Gigantea Fuels Reduction and Restoration Project” in the Sierra National
Forest Schedule of Proposed Actions, where it has been updated periodically. Due to increases in
the scale of the Gigantea Project and its activities, a second scoping took place between
December 21, 2023, and January 22, 2024. Response to the second scoping was more robust
with six comments received from seven institutions. Fresno County Board of Supervisors,
Stewards of the Sierra National Forest, California Four Wheel Drive Association Sierra Forest
Legacy, and the John Muir Project submitted comments before January 22, 2024. The former
four institutions expressed support for project actions to reduce fuel loading, accomplish
landscape restoration, and reduce wildfire risk for people and nature (including the McKinley
grove). The latter, John Muir Project, was opposed to the project.

The comments received included but were not limited to the following issues: 1) protection of
road and trails during project activities; 2) keeping temporary roads that are constructed during
the project open after the project; 3) ensuring adequate protection of sensitive resources
(including threatened and endangered species, their habitat, and Sierra National Forest sensitive
species/species of conservation concern), and archaeological site/historic/cultural properties).
Sierra Forest Legacy was concerned that the project does not impact sensitive resources to the
point where extraordinary circumstances would arise, necessitating an Environmental
Assessment or Environmental Impact Statement. These comments were all reviewed, considered,
and addressed in a document titled Consideration of Scoping Comments (USDA Forest Service
2024a). Where appropriate, their constructive suggestions have been assimilated in the project’s
proposed actions (including the design criteria developed to protect sensitive resources). Roads
and trails will be protected, as will all categories of sensitive resources. Taking into consideration
the comments that we received, the project’s design criteria to protect sensitive resources, and
our formal consultation with the USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2024), I have
determined that the project will not generate Extraordinary Circumstances.
Subsequently, John Muir Project, Sierra Club Tehipite Chapter, and Sequoia Forest Keepers
(JMP et al.) submitted a collective letter January 26, 2024, opposed to the project. The comments
received from the John Muir Project singly, and then collectively with the Sierra Club and
Sequoia Forest Keepers expressed concerns about a large number of issues that included but
were not limited to the following: 1) the status of the Categorical Exclusion and compliance with
its terms/requirements: 2) adherence to current Forest Service old growth forest protection
Gigantea Fuels Reduction and Restoration Project policy; 3) potential impacts to Pacific fisher and California spotted owl; 4) the commenters’
issues with Forest Service interpretations of giant sequoia fire ecology and management; and 5)
the commenters’ issues with fuels reduction and restoration projects. These commenter’s
expressed assertions that included but were not limited to the following: a) the Categorical
Exclusion we were considering had expired: b) thinning increases fire severity; c) higher-density
closed canopy forests are less prone to severe fire than semi-open canopies; d) tree removal is
not necessary prior to conducting prescribed burns: and e) commercial thinning and post-fire
logging/clearcutting makes wildfires spread fast and/or burn more severely, and this puts nearby
communities at risk. We carefully reviewed all the comments and reviewed the best available
science for each issue raised. We also reviewed the status of the Categorical Exclusion with the
Washington office of the USFS and established that it is current. The record of our review and
consideration of the range of issues raised by the JMP et al. can be found in the document titled
Consideration of Scoping Comments (USDA Forest Service 2024a).

 

‘Train Dreams’ is an ode to the lonely labor of forestry

by

High Country News essay. First paragraph:

“I first read Denis Johnson’s novella Train Dreams outside, leaning against a tree. It was 2019, and my Forest Service trail crew was camped out in a quiet corner of Washington’s Alpine Lakes Wilderness, clearing the Jack Creek trail through a two-year-old burn. In the evenings, after I’d rinsed the grime off in a shallow creek, I savored Johnson’s descriptions of the rough and lonely life of his protagonist, Robert Grainier, a logging-crew laborer in Washington’s forests a hundred years ago.”

New Study Shows That Management For Static Conditions Doesn’t Work in NW Forests

by
University of Washington environmental and forest scientists evaluate fire effects from the 2017 Jolly M

 

Thanks to Nick Smith for this one! It’s an interview with U Washington scientist Gina Cova, published in Phys.org.

File this under  “I think we knew this based on observations.” I was on a field trip on the Wenatchee when the same observations and predictions were made about owls, owl habitat and wildfire.. oh.. twenty or more years ago  (I think it was a field trip associated with the 1999 SAF Convention in Portland, Oregon).  Looking back, we can ask a meta-question- why does it take so long for practitioner knowledge to be incorporated into policy? What is the role of academic, government and political institutions in making sure that that pipeline is working in both directions.. scientist to practitioner and practitioner to scientist?

At the same time, better late than never.

The Northwest Forest Plan, adopted in 1994, helped quell mounting tensions between timber companies and environmentalists. It protected large swaths of old-growth forest in Washington, Oregon and California to preserve habitat for endangered species, including the Northern spotted owl and marbled murrelet.

While the plan is largely considered a success, researchers and land managers have begun to question whether it adequately protects forests threatened by climate change. Wildfires of increasing strength and severity sweep through Northwest forests every year, both on the east side of the mountains where conditions are drier and in wet mossy western forests.

**********

What were some of the key takeaways from the study?

A broad theme is that these are dynamic landscapes and they need to be managed as such. We looked at the environmental factors driving burn severity for 2,200 different wildfires and studied the forest patterns resulting from those events. The effects of wildfire in some areas were surprising. For example, we found that high severity fire affected around 60% of pine-oak woodlands in federally protected reserves throughout the eastern Cascades and Klamath regions. These forests are adapted to frequent, low intensity fires. We know that they need fire, but the severity of these fires reflects a long history of fire exclusion—or lack of fire—across the landscape.

What do you mean by a lack of fire? Aren’t we supposed to stop wildfires?

Because enacting changes to management strategies has been difficult to do in practice, parts of the Northwest Forest Plan inadvertently reinforced the idea of preserving a static forest condition. This approach is analogous to drawing a boundary around a forest to prevent disturbance. It is rooted in conservation ideas from the early and mid-20th century, but we know that disturbances—especially fire—are important for forests. So, you get this kind of fire paradox where many of these forests need fire, but the longer they go without it the more devastating it ultimately becomes.

We wonder what it becomes.. but maybe that was edited out?

These frequent-fire forests—like pine-oak woodlands and dry mixed conifer forests—can ultimately fare better in a warmer climate, so it is really alarming to see how much dry forest cover we are losing to fire under current management strategies.

**********

When you manage land with a focus on a single issue, or a limited set of issues, you’re going to run into problems. The plan accounted for the effects of wildfire as it was in 1994, but did not anticipate how wildfire would shift with climate change. We don’t necessarily need to know exactly what the landscape will look like in the future, but we need policies and management strategies that will allow us to adapt to changing and novel conditions.

******

Actually people were saying that at the time, with those wildfire conditions, but if climate change gives us a reason to switch, so be it.  Better late than never.

Science of Fire and Fuels Deep Dive Panel Discussions

by

Shout out to FS R&D Rocky Mountain Research Station for these timely webinars! I had a choice of copying the announcement with registration links and losing their formatting or posting a screenshot of the announcement. Here is the link to the original, which includes links for registration. They will be posted on their website for later viewing. Note some of our fave topics, fuel treatment effectiveness, maintenance of fuel breaks, post-fire restoration and fuel treatments in grasslands and shrublands.

I don’t post everything they send, so please consider signing up to get this digest and other news from R&D. How to do it is in the tiny print at the bottom of the original post linked above.

 


The Puzzle of Overhiring and the FS Budget Deficit- How Did it Happen? Chief Moore’s View, and More Questions

by

You’ll remember that in the fall of 2024, the FS said that no temporaries would be hired for the summer of 2025, due to a budget deficit. The budget deficit was $750 mill, I had heard. Why did the deficit happen? I think it’s still relevant today because the numbers added in the last few years (5400) compared to the numbers lost (6K or so) don’t seem as different as the real pain units are feeling. So there are probably deeper layers to this story.  Maybe only that the additions were not as vital as those who left via voluntary reductions, but even so..

At the Retiree Reunion in Missoula last fall, Chief Moore talked about it, and I thought it was interesting. You can see what he had to say on this video right around 1:38:28. It’s better to hear Randy talking, but for those who want, I took the Youtube transcript and did some editing for clarity and spelling.

Actually if you are interested in the Forest Service, hearing all the Chiefs talk and reminisce about their time is interesting. You can even download the Youtube and listen in the car or wherever.  We can discuss in the comments. Anyway, back to Chief Moore. I am a big Chief Moore fan, and the venue of his retirement stories and celebration was not the place to get all the details. He’s painting a big picture and the broad sweep of events, which isn’t the same as a budget powerpoint or even a briefing paper.

My questions about his comments at the Retiree’s Reunion do not reflect at all on his legacy and leadership. I’m still trying to put the pieces together, and ask a question “were there other ways to reduce the deficit than reduce employee numbers? Or was the plan to continue into deficit?” One of the problems in finding this out was a complete lack of information from recent retirees. I have only heard second and third hand whispers, which is decidedly  unusual for such an important issue.  There have been no apparent leaks to the media or perhaps the media were not interested.  If someone can help piece this together, it would be greatly appreciated.

Anyway, back to Randy’s talk:

This is my last statement. But I remember with Secretary Vilsack and he called us over and he wants to talk about what we were going to do because we’re going to be getting bipartisan infrastructure legislation and the inflation reduction act monies and the Forest Service got 10 billion dollars of those monies and we needed to do something with it, and so we were asked to develop a 10-year plan, and so we developed a 10-year plan is known as the Wildfire Crisis Strategy and we had 10 years to spend that money. Well, the election was coming around. We probably had to speed it up.

Back to history, the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) was signed into law on November 15, 2021, and the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) was passed on August 16, 2022, just nine months later. As we know, the Wildfire Crisis Strategy was developed in 2022.

It sounds like they felt they needed to spend all the 10 years worth of money in case the funding was retracted by Congress? Or maybe the election he mentions was the 2024 Presidential election?

And so what we did was that and it was at Secretary Vilsack’s request is that he said, you know, Chief, he says, we either got  too much land or not enough money.

Now the FS did receive a substantial chunk of change from the IRA and the IIJA, although not all of it was for NFS and even then some was rather odd. I can’t find it right now, but I did a post on the numbers in the IRA.(e.g $100 mill for improving NEPA efficiency, not actually doing NEPA). I did two searches from different AIs and got different numbers for how much the FS received in IIJA and IRA funds, so gave up.

I said, we don’t have enough money, Mr. Secretary. And he said, well, no. He says, um, how much would you say that we’re doing based compared to what we’re being asked? And so we sent this around to all the regional foresters and station directors. And you, you all know us, you know, when you ask a question like that, we don’t always tell the complete truth when we respond back because here’s what came back. and and they were telling the truth. so I you know it was the real truth, but we get appropriated about $6 billion. When we looked at what we were being asked to do in the budget that we would need, it was about $33 billion.

So we were doing somewhere around 19% we were funded 19% of what we were being asked to do. And all of you probably know that, you know, because you people retire, you did their job and yours, you know, it just went cycle, cycle, cycle, you know, and and and so that was the first revealing piece is that we were underfunded and we’re being asked to do more and more and more, with less and less and less and it and it turned out to be truthful when we looked at what we’re being asked to do versus where we’re being funded.

But maybe  IIJA and IRA added a bunch of bucks..so was it  “less and less” at that point?

And so took that over to the Secretary. So he said, um, $33 billion. And I said, that’s that’s the answer to your question. And so he said, what if we just doubled what you had from 6 billion to 12 billion. I said, okay, we’ll do about 40% of what we’re being asked to do, but we needed to be grateful if we could get another $6 billion. That would be great. And so the Secretary Vilsack was making a move to do that with OPM

To put it in the President’s Budget Request?

and we ran out of time. But here’s what happened. We developed a plan because and we couldn’t in good conscience ask the workforce to do $10 billion more worth of work when we were clearly being underfunded. And so we hired 5,000 additional employees in the agency.

And you know us once we get going,  we are very successful. We actually hired about 5,400 people, you know, we didn’t have a governor in there, you know. We it didn’t it didn’t just stop, you know. So 5,400 people.

And so when you talk about what the Forest Service was behind, it was never $700 million, what was mentioned. It was about $500 million. But here’s the thing. Our plan, we had 10 years to spend that money. More like eight years to spend that money. On the average, we lost about 2,000 employees a year through attrition. So, we know that at worst, we could reach that 5,000 employees over two and a half, three years. And that’s what we were looking at doing, but we needed to hire a lot of people to do that additional work that we’re being asked to do. And so, that’s why we hired the additional 5,000 people.

This seems to agree with the story “not enough people retired as we imagined” but with a different twist than “our model for retirement was wrong.”   It also has the addition “we planned for them to retire over more years but we felt an urgency to hire lots more people .” It would also make sense to have some kind of “governor” in the system so agencies don’t overhire. At the same time, we remember mucho bucks being obligated to an array of  the usual suspect Keystone and other NGOs, as well as ..others (the National Baptists.. for work in.. Arizona?).

Now, we had also needed to look at diversity. And so a part of what we did was try and move into areas that we have not been commonly moved into. And so of that 5,300 people, we had a lot of diversity, gender and ethnicity. And believe it or not, we went from a 18% diversity up to about 27- 28% diversity. And that was that was a record by far. and we moved the gender from about 34 to about 43. Now, what’s interesting is that now the 5,000 people that have left or lost their jobs represent the diversity and inclusion that we had reached through that effort. And I say this, I want to say that diversity and inclusion matters because a lot of the young people, a lot of our young people had the skill set to move us into this direction that I mentioned earlier. carbon sequestration, looking at developing a carbon standard, looking at our research and our science, looking at wood innovations that was what was represented in that 5,300 employees that we hired. And that’s what is being jeopardized with this latest move.

This was confusing to me when I heard it, as news stories in March said the probationary folks were being reinstated, and the Reunion was in . So who left?  It appears that it was a mix of the newly hired but lots of older experienced folks. Some of the probationaries were field- working conversions from temporaries, but others had positions less directly involved with field work. At the time, field folks were complaining that the funding was being used to staff up ROs or hire chiefs of staff.  I have seen recently hired hitherto unnecessary positions myself at GS-12 levels.

And just to make one point, there have been plenty of excellent people who know about carbon sequestration and carbon stuff in the FS for … at least 20 years.

As a female forester hired in 1979, I that if this is 2025 and the % women in the FS was at 34, there might be structural issues involved.. like if most of the budget is in wildfire, and wildfire folks have a smaller percentage of women, then.. we need to consider that. If fire has had trouble getting their numbers up.. does that mean everyone else has to have 70% women to balance out for the agency totals?

Inquiring minds might still wonder… was the deficit $750 or $500 mill?  Why did the  FS intentionally hire on more permanents than it could afford?  What was the hurry to spend the money really about?  What was the long-term plan for the Harris folks to have dealt with the over-hiring problem? Perhaps playing chicken with Congress and  blaming future RIFs on not enough funding? Or maybe not having temporaries for more field seasons?

And what was the story with the Keystones and other large sums in grants- grantees who were hiring temp folks for positions that had formerly been permanent employees? And why has it been so hard to find out these things? There have been no leaks, no retirees speaking out, and no traditional media interest.  It may have something to do with why the Trump Admin reductions have been so difficult and newsworthy for the FS, and not so much for other land management agencies.

Forest Service Trails Budget Increases by 10% in FY 2026 Budget!

by
Del Nelson and Bill Lee of Lander both worked for the U.S. Forest Service seasonally for decades. In 2025, the men volunteered on the Shoshone National Forest, hoping to fill some gaps created by President Donald Trump’s DOGE efforts and other agency cost-cutting measures. (Katie Klingsporn/WyoFile)

Recently I’ve been looking at some funding flows between foundations and various NGOs.. there’s a great deal of funding out there! My dream would be that some foundation would give funding to hire proven reporters to simply report the news in our area (federal lands) fairly and specialize in it, and make it available to the public. I think the closest we might get currently are some reporters at E&E News, which is not accessible to the public. It seems to me that taking the time to develop trusted sources of info will ultimately lead to more sustainable policy outcomes. More so than funding specific “anti-disinfo” efforts.  As we do in collaboration, go slow to go fast. If anyone knows of any likely funding sources, please let me know.

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

It’s so predictable… the Admin proposes a reduced budget, people are rightfully concerned, I quote FDR:

It is the duty of the President to propose and it is the privilege of the Congress to dispose.

Then Congress often, at the behest of interests who pre-date and post-date any given Admin, puts the funding back, or increases it.

Which, if you take it at face value, would be good news, right?

According to a story in E&E News by Marc Heller (as far as I can tell a highly knowledgeable and relatively unbiased knowledge source, but E&E subscriptions price ordinary folks out of the market).  The headline is “Congress bucks Trump to fix decrepit forest trails.”

Lawmakers increased funding for trails in the fiscal 2026 spending package awaiting President Donald Trump’s signature, moving in the opposite direction of what the White House was seeking as the forests’ declining condition makes headlines.

The package, which covers the Interior Department and related agencies, such as the Forest Service, sets trail maintenance at $22 million for the fiscal year that began Oct. 1, or $2 million more than in fiscal 2025. The administration had requested $8 million.

So this would be a 9% increase, right?  Not great, but generally a good thing.

Marc brings up the fact that the FS has previously diverted bucks from what Congress intended, most notably from S&PF programs to employee salaries who took deferred resignation.  Apparently USDA defended that but the link to more info is paywalled. So that’s a possibility, but given what the Chief has said about recreation, it seems unlikely (to me).

“Shared stewardship and local collaboration are essential to improving forest health, wildfire resilience, recreation access and conservation outcomes,” Forest Service Chief Tom Schultz said in a column on the agency’s web site on Jan. 16.

Expanding access and improving the visitor experience are major priorities, Schultz said.

Below is the  “it’s always been the case they don’t have enough funding” argument – I believe that this might be the only issue that all TSW-ites agree on.

Groups like the American Hiking Society say they worry that pledges to work together won’t amount to much more than words if the administration’s budget priorities prevail.

“Asking federal partners to do more with flat or even declining financial support will break the system and result in further deterioration of trails,” Ray said in an email.

The administration’s focus was apparent in the budget request for the current fiscal year, released last spring.

In my experience, Congress doesn’t change that much, especially about popular programs with public support.  As I said about the macro land sales bill,  “that dog is very unlikely to hunt.” If they were going to go along with the Budget request, they would have. But OK, bad things could happen. Which makes me think about the ratio of reporting “things” to “bad things that could happen in the future”. There is a finite supply of things, but an infinite supply of “opinions of things that could happen in the future.” And sometimes I wonder if the discipline of print media (only so many things can fit on a page) led us in one direction, while infinite space leads to infinite opinions about infinite future events, the scarier the more clicks and the more money, and so on.  As yet there is no process to assess prediction performance.   But my guess is that Congress will continue to support trails.

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

Last December, there was a story about a report that the FS rec folks had apparently shared with the WaPo and involving interview with two recreation retirees.  I covered it here. Interesting that Wyofile wrote about it today as a featured top story. The headline is: “Backlogged and DOGE-depleted: Forest Service report raises alarm over trail health”. It doesn’t seem to mention the budget increase.

What was interesting was that there was no mention of the Biden Admin being responsible for the “lack of seasonal people.” Marc Heller (whose reporting is unavailable to most people) has always pointed this out in relevant articles, but sadly, is not available to most people. It does make you wonder about “free” sources of information. In the Wyofile article:

What Lee observes is insufficient staffing and resources to tackle the amount of work necessary to steward and maintain the resource.

Most concerning, Lee said, “is the lack of seasonal people that do the work on the ground. They’ve been wiped out.”

That leaves permanent specialists without the crews to implement their programs and all but guarantees backlogs build up. “As far as maintenance, it just isn’t getting done because there’s not enough people,” Lee said.

**********
The story does say that there’s a disconnect between what Schultz says and what they hear from staffers.
Shultz says:

“Expanding that access and improving visitor experience is a major priority,” he wrote. “We’re modernizing trails, campgrounds, and facilities; improving roads and recreation sites; strengthening on-the-ground engagement; and using tools like Recreation.gov to help visitors plan safe, enjoyable trips.”

Then the same thing as we have heard:

Employees are being asked to do work not in their contracts as well as accomplish their normal workload with severely diminished resources, the employee said. In addition, a string of out-of-left-field directives and disruptions has raised stress to unacceptable levels as staffers fear for their jobs.

“It’s just exhausting, it’s not sustainable and there’s no end site,” the employee said. “I think everybody’s just kind of hanging in there because we really care deeply about our work as public servants and the mission of the Forest Service. But it’s also devastating on a daily basis.”

Nelson sees another disconnect. It used to be that the majority of agency staff, regardless of their title, had hands-on experience on a forest. That no longer seems to be the case, he said. Agency brass, he added, increasingly don’t seem to recognize the value of “just being up there” — spending time on and developing intimate knowledge of the land and water by sleeping under the stars, watching wildlife and enjoying the peace.

I don’t even know what this means.. some of our best employees in my last experiences (retired 13 years ago) were PMFs or from the military or had other non-traditional backgrounds (staff of politicians!). That was long before this Admin. And as we have seen, many of the last hired during the Biden Admin were from various backgrounds (whether they counted as brass or not). How many “brass” have the two sources interacted with?

Anyway, I just think the contrast between the E&E News reporting and the Wyofile approach (find sympathetic people and interview them about their opinions) is striking. The headline, of course, was about DOGE. More on that in the next post.

Deeper into the Fremont -Winema Category 6 Case and Opening of “Favorite EAs” Postings

by

We’ve been having an interesting discussion about the Fre-Wi’s use of Category 6, which has expanded into other areas.  Many thanks to John Persell, who engaged with us and reminds me how much I miss learning from, and strategizing with, my OGC colleagues when I was with the FS.    Here’s a link to his comments directly.

Yes, this case took a long time from when it was first filed until this decision on Tuesday. That included a trip up to the Ninth Circuit and back to the district court on remand. The AFRC press release you link to does not appear to acknowledge that remand. On remand, Judge McShane finally reached the merits of plaintiffs’ claim:

When the Forest Service promulgated CE-6, did it provide findings that supported a “no significant impacts” determination for commercial logging of unlimited acreage?

Judge McShane examined the record and determined the agency had not done so, and thus invalidated this particular CE’s use, including for the three logging projects on the Fremont-Winema National Forest.

John explains why it took so long. That is very helpful to understand.  And if no one could find the record supporting the category, that would be a problem. That’s one of the reasons folks (when I was in NEPA) were cautious to use it.  Without reading the FS arguments (are they available somewhere?) it’s hard to tell what the record for the category was or wasn’t.

Regarding the Trump Administration’s role here, during the most recent round of briefing the Forest Service argued it needed CE-6 to implement Executive Order 14225 (Immediate Expansion of American Timber Production). That EO, of course, directed the Forest Service to identify any and all ways “to fully exploit our domestic timber supply” by avoiding NEPA and ESA “burdens.”

I want to stress that the Forest Service does not choose its litigators, which are provided by the Department of Justice and do not necessarily reflect the views of anyone in the FS.  It’s a bit of a silo wherein DOJ and the FS have separate missions and goals, with separate bosses, albeit always in the same Admin.

Now I am the least litigation-oriented  person imaginable, but I would not be making the argument in a 9th Circuit courtroom that something was necessary for a Trump Admin agenda item.  I can only imagine that there is some context for the DOJ attorney’s comments that we might be missing.   We could check, if we knew where those briefings were filed.

As to “what verbiage” our groups would be seeking regarding logging projects of this scale, it’s important to recognize that a brief scoping notice and a brief CE decision memo do not provide the same consideration and disclosure of impacts and project features as an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement.

I agree that the public needs to see the proposal in more detail to comment.  This would be the “draft EA”.  On the other hand, I’ve seen EAs and CE analysis of about the same length and depth of analysis. And there’s one more tweak.. if the public can see and comment without litigation being possible.. as in CBM (condition based management).

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

That’s why I’d like to open up submissions of  “favorite EA”… we could bring individual EAs up for discussion.  The presenter would give their views on what they like about it- think about criteria like conciseness, readability, visuals, and looking at all the right things in the right depth -and see where we agree.  So please submit yours.. and I will take a look at some in the interim.   During the Process Predicament period, we had an internal FS competition and gave out NEPA awards to units.  I can’t really do that in terms of financial awards to the team, but maybe someone with better funding sources will help out.

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

In addition, commercial logging inherently has greater impacts on environmental values like habitat and soils than non-commercial treatments, which involve less heavy equipment, less use of roads, and generally lighter-touch prescriptions.

I’m not sure that’s always true, depending on where you are. Here in Colorado, for example, I see private folks doing fuel treatments using the same kinds of equipment even when they can’t sell their trees.   They need to remove larger trees and there aren’t many alternatives.  If the ground is flat enough, people bring in harvesting equipment and pile the logs along the road, whether they are sold to sawmills, given away as firewood, or chipped.

I’m a fan of the Bear Wallow Design Criteria document.  I like how it has columns for objective, design features, locations and justification.  Most of the justifications point to the Forest Plan, where the design criteria were no doubt already analyzed in the EIS.

 So we feel full NEPA analysis through an EA or EIS is warranted for commercial logging projects of this scale due to their potential for significant impacts.

The Bear Wallow DM says that commercial thinning “could take place on up to 10,000 acres.”  Interesting that in this letter on FOFA from Megafire Action.

The State of California has requested that Congress “Expand US Forest Service Categorical Exclusion authority from 3,000 to 10,000 acres for fire-prone areas in the western US.” 3 This request was borne out of the success California had with the 2016 Water Infrastructure Improvements for the Nation Act, which created a 10,000 acre CE for fuels reduction projects in the Lake Tahoe Basin. This enabled more land to be treated faster, helping to maintain forest health, create defensible space, and protect communities.

I don’t know that FOFA won’t be/has been changed or passed, but at the time, Megafire Action said:

Under FOFA, forest management projects receiving up to a 10,000 acre CE must first be identified by a fireshed assessment. FOFA mandates that fireshed assessments comply with applicable forest plans which are developed with community input, incorporate the best available science and traditional ecological knowledge from Indian Tribes, and allow for local government participation in their formulation. These added guardrails ensure that CEs will not be used for projects that harm our forests.

So our friends in Congress are discussing almost this very question.. what kind of sideboards to put on a larger CE.

*******

Last, Judge McShane’s ruling does not affect any existing contracts related to these projects: “Existing contracts regarding the sale of commercially thinned timber from the Projects are not affected by this Order.” We only know of a few small GNA contracts related to these projects.

FWIW I put in a request to the FS (the Fre-Wi folks have been extremely helpful) to find out how much work had been done and contracts awarded on the three projects.

 

Focus on the Fundamentals: FY26 Agency Priorities, Chief Schultz

by

Here’s the link:

Since day one, my work as Chief has been to refocus our efforts on the fundamental work that delivers the greatest good to the American people. As we begin this new year together, I want to talk directly with you about the priorities guiding us forward.

Our priorities reflect a back-to-basics approach that centers on the work we know matters most: keeping people safe, protecting communities from wildfire, actively managing our forests for health and productivity, supporting communities recovering after disasters, expanding access to the outdoors, cutting unnecessary red tape, and strengthening the partnerships that bolster our ability to deliver our mission-critical work.

Safety at the core: Safety must always be at the forefront of our minds, so let’s start there. Safety is the foundation of everything we do at the Forest Service. This includes making safety the first and last step of every operation—from fireline to fieldwork. Our work culture must be one of care, where safety goes beyond just avoiding injuries or accidents.

Wildfire readiness and response: To protect lives, property and forests, we will double down on wildfire readiness and rapid response via aggressive, coordinated response to keep fires small. We will focus our investment in interagency, contract, infrastructure and staff resources to match the reality of year-round fires and strengthen communities through partnerships and effective planning. We’ll also reduce wildfire risk with valuable tools we already use by increasing prescribed fire and fuel treatments.

Active forest management—Timber production, grazing and reforestation: We must do more to create resilient forests through active forest management, including fuels reduction through mechanical thinning and prescribed fires. I believe expanding timber production and reducing barriers to grazing are important pillars for keeping our forests open, healthy and productive. Boosting timber production will not just help with our overall forest health but will also support local mills, critical to the success of our forest management work. Additionally, we need to position grazing as a core land management tool by expanding access, modernizing processes and elevating producer voices.

We need to accelerate the reforestation process in areas that have been affected by wildfires and streamline permits and reviews to deliver results faster. The final piece of forest management, I believe, lies in our ability to expand our wood products and energy markets through innovation.

Minerals and energy development: National forests provide more than water and recreation; they’re a foundation for energy security and innovation. I want our agency to unleash American energy and resource potential as part of our multiple-use mission. First and foremost, we must support access to critical minerals essential to energy, defense and technology. We also need to reduce the amount of red tape needed to accelerate responsible exploration and permitting for said resources. Finally, we must also support energy development that complements forest management. I believe that responsible resource use helps strengthen the nation’s economy and resilience.

Disaster recovery: When disasters strike, the Forest Service helps communities recover by repairing trails and other infrastructure, restoring damaged landscape, and restoring damaged forests. Rebuilding and restoration, and being an active part of the community, are integral parts of our mission that I want to not just continue but strengthen. When we help communities and forests affected by natural disasters, we are also helping strengthen relationships and mitigating damage from future disasters. Restoring damaged forests and grasslands benefits us today and well into the future.

Recreation access and infrastructure: Outdoor recreation continues to grow, and millions of people rely on us for access to the places they love. Expanding that access and improving visitor experience is a major priority. We’re modernizing trails, campgrounds, and facilities; improving roads and recreation sites; strengthening on-the-ground engagement; and using tools like Recreation.gov to help visitors plan safe, enjoyable trips. Our goal is simple: more access, better service, and a visitor experience that reflects the pride we take in stewarding our forests.

Deregulation and organizational efficiency: For too long, the Forest Service has been bogged down by excessive processes that hamper innovation and don’t serve the American people. Reducing burdensome processes increases efficiency and delivers results on the ground. I want us all to focus on actions that roll back this red tape. I want to ensure critical projects can be accomplished easier and faster by clearing obstacles that make it hard to do business with the Forest Service. I believe that the people closest to the ground know the forest best, and we should listen to what they have to say about it. We must also work to reduce administrative layers and focus on delivering services more efficiently.

Partnerships and cooperative federalism: And finally, I want to recognize the work we are doing alongside state, tribal and local governments to manage the nation’s forests more effectively. Shared stewardship and local collaboration are essential to improving forest health, wildfire resilience, recreation access and conservation outcomes.

We are all part of this important work. By focusing on the fundamentals, we can do more to support the health and vitality of our forests and grasslands and neighboring communities. These priorities provide us with a clear path forward as we manage America’s forests and grasslands for the benefit of all people, today and into the future.

*******

 

District Court Rules Differently Than Two Other Courts on CE6 and the Fremont-Winema GNA Projects

by

The Fremont-Winema sent me some photos of the Bear Wallow project and this video. 

Although this is generally Jon Haber territory, after the previous post about the various stories on the Shared Stewardship Agreements and my critique of the coverage, I noticed (thanks, Nick Smith!) this reporting by Zach Urness of the Salem Stateman Journal (Oregon), which is an example of trying to understand folks from both sides. So shout out to Zach, and we can support him by contacting him and letting him know we appreciate his work.

A federal judge vacated approvals for three major logging projects in Oregon and ruled that the U.S. Forest Service could not use a so-called “logging loophole” to approve large-scale timber projects in a decision filed Jan. 13.

U.S. District Court Judge Michael McShane said the Forest Service unlawfully used what’s known as a categorical exclusion to approve three timber projects totaling 29,000 acres in Fremont-Winema National Forest.

The case stems from 2021, when the Forest Service sought to use the exclusion, known as a CE-6, to bypass more stringent environmental laws and approve a project they said was aimed at improving forest health and mitigating wildfires.

Conservation groups have increasingly said the Forest Service was using CE-6, under the guise of wildfire prevention, to avoid more detailed study of logging projects that would normally require going through a National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process.

McShane ruled that the Forest Service could not rely on the CE-6 going forward for timber projects across all national forests. He vacated the approval of the Baby Bear, Bear Wallow and South Warner projects.

“This ruling delivers a tremendous victory for forests and communities across the country,” said Erin Hogan-Freemole, attorney for WildEarth Guardians, one of the members of the lawsuit. “The Forest Service can no longer disregard environmental impacts simply because Trump ordered the agency to ramp up logging on the public’s forests. The court’s decision … (closes) this loophole that has allowed the Forest Service to authorize industrial-scale logging under the guise of restoration at great cost to our forests and all who depend on them.”

The lawsuit was brought by conservation groups Oregon Wild, WildEarth Guardians and Go Alliance, who challenged the use of CE-6 to approve the projects’ commercial thinning, and asked the court to block the rule’s application to commercial logging moving forward.

Timber groups said they were disappointed by the ruling, noting that the projects were previously upheld in local and appeals court and that their primary focus was reducing the risk of wildfire.