Douglas-fir on left and western hemlock (the thin tree) on right. Note the new growth on the Doug fir seems most impacted. Photo by Dave Shaw, OSU College of Forestry)
Over three days, the heat dome brought temperatures as high as 116 degrees Fahrenheit in Portland, 117 in Salem and 121 in Lytton, British Columbia, the highest temperature ever recorded in Canada. The coastal town of Quillayute, Washington, checked in at 110 – 45 degrees above its average high temperature for the day.
The forest analysis showed that sun exposure, microclimate and aspect – the direction a slope faces – were factors that made some areas more sensitive to the heat dome. Other factors were tree species, stand age, the timing and pattern of budburst – when dormant buds open and begin to grow – and the presence of foliar pathogens such as the fungus that causes Swiss needle cast in Douglas-fir trees.
“The extent of foliar mortality shown in this study, particularly in iconic, old-growth forests, suggests that longer-lasting or hotter heat waves in the future could lead to even more widespread impacts on invaluable Pacific Northwest forests,” said OSU College of Forestry doctoral graduate Adam Sibley.
The researchers found that culturally and economically significant species like western redcedar, western hemlock and Sitka spruce were disproportionately prone to heat damage, including in old-growth stands where they dominate the canopy. The scientists say the findings highlight the multifaceted challenges posed to forests by extreme heat waves, as well as the need to better understand their impact on forest ecosystems as the climate warms.
“The heat dome was an uncontrolled test of the thermal tolerance of trees in their native environments,” said Chris Still, a tree physiologist in the College of Forestry. “To our knowledge, there are no examples of heat wave-induced foliar death at this scale in the historical record. This study provides the first spatially comprehensive estimate of forest canopy damage from the heat dome and provides land managers with important information in advance of future extreme heat waves.”
So, as I’ve pointed out numerous times, changes in climate for individual trees, stands of trees, species of trees and so on are more or less impossible to predict. Because it varies by species, age, microclimate and aspect. And I would bet soil also, as that affects available water. And competition for light or water, and the impacts of diseases, insects, mycorrhizae and who knows what else. Not to speak of their own offspring, including epigenetic effects induced by exposure to the environment and carried into offspring.
************* Below is a bit of a sociology/philosophy of science riff on so-called “assisted migration” only tangentially related to the above study.
We can see that simply by looking at what’s growing on a north vs. south facing slope in many places. So why are some people so keen on moving tree species and populations around based on models that don’t incorporate those factors we know to be important? That’s the currently popular “assisted migration.”
In my memory, we went from fairly casual seed collection, to noticing characteristics of “offsite” plantings, to developing elevation and spatial seed zones, to …thinking we know better based on models that don’t incorporate the factors we know to be important. If this sounds familiar, it’s because it’s like modeling wildfires without considering suppression. Somehow we end up privileging (as they say today) physical models over the known complexity of the real world as experienced daily by practitioners and others. Even in the Dark Ages, when I was working, we used models for tree growth and in economics, but our attitude was much more humble, as in “that’s what the model shows but there are other factors and that’s our best guess given what we know today.” And caution was particularly exercised when large investments were involve.
Another memory is from people who didn’t want us to even use seed zones, and thought only natural regeneration was best, that “the system” was delicate and trees super-adapted to local sites (despite research showing gene flow being a big thing in conifers, at least). This was the “leave it alone or bad things will happen” school. So somehow we have moved into “we aren’t going to wait to how the trees adapt or not because we know better.” It seems like a major philosophical switcheroo within my work-lifetime.
********** Back to the study. I wondered how the trees had recovered or not since 2021 so I reached out to Chris Still and he replied:
We are still trying to unravel what else happened. Tree growth in many places was strongly reduced in the year of the Heat Dome (2021) and for several years after. Some trees that had their canopies damaged by the heat died, but most did not. The impact was lower at higher elevations where the temperature extremes were below damaging thresholds, and in forests where there was more soil water available.
Thank you Chris!!! And thank you Oregon State for having a physiologist on staff!
There’s a fellow Coloradan named Tisha Schuller who has a podcast called “Both things are true.” I’d like to point that out about what we might call the climate-industrial complex. Both things are true: decarbonization is indeed a worthy goal, and large sums of funding cause people to try to cash in, as Hoffer. As far as I can tell they do that by actually help decarbonize (engineering), develop complicated financial instruments to move funds around while folks rake off money at each stage (e.g. cap and trade), and make claims that things they always wanted to do they’re now doing for climate reasons (planting trees in urban areas, and so-called “natural climate solutions.) And I suppose the business/grift distinction is somewhat in the eye of the beholder.
In case you haven’t been following this, Roger Pielke, Jr. has been writing about the apparent unwillingness or slowness of many in the climate community to redo their work based on RCP 8.5.
Back in 2000 the SRES authors warned us:
“The broad consensus among the SRES writing team is that the current literature analysis suggests the future is inherently unpredictable and so views will differ as to which of the storylines and representative scenarios could be more or less likely. Therefore, the development of a single “best guess” or “business-as-usual” scenario is neither desirable nor possible.”
Today, RCP8.5 is deeply woven into the fabric of climate research and policy. Getting back on track will not be easy or without opposition. Understanding how we got here should provide a cautionary warning for how science can go astray when we allow self-correction to fail.
Carbon project insurance company Artio used data from three major wildfire events from across the globe, specifically the 2020 Pantanal fires in Brazil, the Gospers Mountain fire during Australia’s Black Summer in 2019-2020, and the record-breaking 2020 wildfire season in the United States.
The firm found that the amount of area burned in each of the fires was only predicted by severe warming scenarios. More moderate climate warming scenarios missed around half of the land that ultimately burned during the incidents.
The finding underscores how projects working to lessen wildfire severity globally may already be outdated, according to Artio CEO and Co-Founder Bilal Hussain.
“The main risk is that projects are designed for a climate that no longer exists,” Hussain told Wildfire Today. “Using outdated assumptions can result in projects being sited in areas that are now far more fire-prone, threatening the permanence of stored carbon and the credibility of nature-based solutions as meaningful climate tools.”
If you go to the link for the study’s “details” you find an infographic that is almost shorter than the news story. The company that did the report is called Artio and it “provides early-stage insurance for investments in carbon projects.” They apparently insure carbon credits (see graphic).
It was terrific while it lasted; folks could make money from selling carbon credits and other folks could make money from insuring the carbon credits.. and some from checking that the carbon credits behaved the way they should. Of course, there have been obvious conflicts of interest (and some not so obvious, check out Jessica Weinkle in a piece at the Breakthrough Journal, section about COI).
Yes, the military industrial complex is involved, as a commenter pointed out.
Ridiculous. A continuation of our military industrial complex fight against the wildfire problem we have created. How about you use those six figures of cost per year to reduce fuel loads around communities and use prescribed fire to maintain reduced fuel loads and restore ecosystem processes?
I don’t know why some people assume the worst. I think it’s more of a both/and rather than an either/or.
Enhanced technological suppression would be good in terms of initial attack, firefighter safety and so on. I don’t think anyone is saying fuels projects and prescribed fire would be gone if we got better at suppression.
Getting better at suppression could also mean people would be more accepting of PF and MF if suppression worked better (fewer escapes). And folks would have to be more upfront about which fires to suppress and which to use MF because “we couldn’t get there” and “it’s not safe” might be off the table. And AI (overseen carefully by human beings) might add some value.
**********
But perhaps the strangest thing about all of this is how the climate/wildfire folks are planning things to get worse, and the wildfire technology folks are planning to make things better. They’re both making money, but only one side can be right about the future.
We missed you here at TSW, and in the woods and grasslands and offices… and appreciate all the work you do! We also appreciate all the folks who worked during that time.
I’ve been stockpiling posts, as we are definitely missing out on information when you are not here.
FWIW, I and I’m sure many others called our Senators and tried to end the shutdown sooner, but in my case at least, to no avail. So know you are supported, even if those who support you are unimportant in the overall partisan scheme of things. For me at least this was one worthy of tilting at windmills.
Now that the end of the shutdown appears to be within our sight, I thought I’d post about a question that recent news stories have brought up which seems like a critical question as the Forest Service reorganization is concerned. To that end, I’ll posit that “not every forest supervisor does everything to please everyone all the time.” And ask the question “in the new organization, where should complaints go above the Forest level?”
Once a group is concerned, after sharing their concerns with the Forest Supervisor, if they continue to have issues, to whom, or through what process do they go? Let’s review how things have been working with the current Regional structure. In my relatively brief time (seven years) in an RO:
I saw the RF and staff working with forests so that their issues did not “escape containment”: from my seat that looked like folks with concerns who had some kind of leverage, mostly access to politicians, I would guess, who brought them to the attention of the RF or DRFs.
I saw the RF overrule a Forest Supe on a decision (to expand a ski area)
Indeed, I was told that a good Director has “ears on the ground” to forests so that action could be taken before things got out of hand. It seemed to me like a “spy network” at the time, but I now see that it’s extremely useful as an early warning system.
I saw an RF remove a Forest Supe who had more or less of a mutiny (or key staff who didn’t want her) on her hands.. deserved or undeserved, I never figured out.
I saw a settlement agreement with one Forest that set a case law-ish standard for more analysis for the rest of the FS.. tried to get some pushback from the WO (recreation in this case) but they didn’t want to get involved.
WO Triangulation? When I worked in NEPA in the WO, one forest seemed to be engaging in what I would call “CE abuse” which again could have led to a court case and had negative repercussions for everyone else. The Regional NEPA staff brought this to the RF’s attention, but the RF chose not to tell the Supe not to do it (I guess based on different Regional cultures, there are so many chits an RF has per Supe?) so we (WO) had to step in. This worked for the RF perhaps because he could get the desirable result without using his own points (“the WO is telling us what to do.”).
I hope that both internal and external folks share their stories of what has worked and has not worked in terms of “taking it to the next level” above the Forest Supe.
Some recent stories like this one on the Garnet Fire and the damage to the Teakettle Experimental Forest reminded me of this:
The project appeared to be on the agency’s fast track. With full funding from Newsom, the Forest Service promised to get the burn done by September of 2024, reducing the risk of the trees burning in a mega fire by an estimated 80%. To complete the burn as easily as possible, they exempted themselves from all the pesky red tape — no environmental review was needed to get the so-called “good fire” on the ground.
But fall 2024 came and went, and the burn didn’t get done. When the Garnet Fire started in August, the scientists’ worst fears about Teakettle proved correct.
Two months later, the scientists who were part of the stalled project say that the worst of the devastation caused by the Garnet Fire could have been prevented had the Forest Service not found ways to drag its feet every step of the way with the Teakettle burn project. Many pin the blame on the Forest Service supervisor Dean Gould for “slow-rolling” the project despite hundreds of thousands of dollars being spent to hold his staff’s hand on nearly every planning detail of the project.
“We got slow-rolled on everything,” said Matt Hurteau, director of the Center for Fire Resilient Ecosystems and Society at the University of New Mexico and project leader for the Teakettle Project.
“The National Forest Service leaders put in charge of these local ranger districts have no urgency to their actions. They’re not moving at a pace that’s going to result in forests that are resilient to these big wildfire events.”
Scott Stephens, a UC Berkeley professor of Fire Science, said the Teakettle project points to deep dysfunction within the Forest Service, which has failed to implement the forest treatments since the 2020 Creek Fire that are necessary to stave off the collapse of the Sierra Nevada ecosystem in the coming years.
“It really was a lack of engagement from the local unit,” said Stephens on why the Teakettle project didn’t get done. “I don’t know what else to say about it.”
Friedman’s Law is that there are at least two sides to each story. We would need to interview the FS folks to get their side. But we can’t get their side because.. there doesn’t seem to be a structure to do that. Or perhaps we will hear once public affairs folks come back from furlough. How do some forests get things done (like the Stanislaus, the next Forest north?) and others not?
I understand that the scientists are frustrated. And I would bet that many folks have different angles on the story. My point is that there needs to be consideration of an above Forest process to resolve disputes before they “escape containment.”
But given that we did have RFs (an acting one) in this case, I wonder whether the scientists and others took their concerns up the line and what the result was. It’s always interesting to me that when things go wrong on fires, there is a lessons learned but in other parts of the FS not so much. Or it’s not public? When should an organization just march on, and when should they stop and take stock? And why not make those lessons learned publicly available?
Any new structures or organizations, it seems to me, need some kind of process for this kind of oversight and accountability.
Amended complaint in Patagonia Area Resource Alliance v. U. S. Forest Service (D. Arizona)
On September 24, the district court revived this case against the Sunnyside and Flux Canyon mines on the Coronado National Forest (discussed here) by accepting an amended complaint. The complaint is based on new information obtained via the Freedom of Information Act about cumulative effects on at-risk wildlife and water quality related to the Hermosa Mine. The amended complaint is here.
Court decision in Miller v. U. S. Forest Service (D. Alaska)
On September 30, the district court disagreed with the agency’s interpretation that a regulation requiring the Tongass National Forest to manage the Mendenhall Glacier Recreation Area “principally for recreation” is “necessarily a directive to enable as many visitors as possible to come to the MGRA.” This linterpretation led to improperly limiting the range of alternatives considered in its 2023 EIS to expand services, especially those related to commercial use special use permits. The purpose and need is “to accommodate future visitor use resulting from a projected 2% increase in the number of visitors over the next 30 years with a projection of 1 million visitors by 2050.” (This despite the Glacier receding by 2050 to the point that it won’t be visible from the visitor center.) The court held that the Forest Service predetermined that it would provide a level of special use authorizations to commercial operators commensurate with this projection.
The plaintiff owns property adjacent to the road access to the MGRA. The remedy has not been determined. The court affirmed the Forest Service’s treatment of effects on municipal waste facilities, mitigation, and its recreation capacity analyses.
On October 3, Friends of the Clearwater expanded its litigation against logging in the Nez Perce-Clearwater National Forest by challenging six new projects and broadening its attack on two ongoing projects (discussed previously here). Plaintiffs claim that the Forest Service failed to account for the cumulative impact of cutting a total 45,000 acres, which would degrade grizzly bear habitat and old growth forests while violating multiple federal laws. According to the group, the logging will result in 25 square miles of clearcuts.
Court decision in American Whitewater v. U. S. Forest Service (9th Circuit)
On October 17, the circuit court affirmed the district court’s approval of the Forest Service’s NEPA compliance in an EA for post-fire salvage logging on nine national forests in California. The court held that, given the project’s reasonable purpose of prioritizing safety, one action alternative was sufficient. The Forest Service did not improperly tier to the agency’s “Hazard Tree Guidelines.” The EA also adequately considered effects on northern spotted owls, cumulative effects and wild and scenic rivers. Regarding the latter, the failure to provide a relevant specialist report to the public was “harmless error” because the lack of the report “did not change the substance of” plaintiffs’ claim. The article includes a link to the short opinion.
New lawsuit: Western Watersheds Project v. U. S. Forest Service (E.D. Washington)
On October 20, Western Watersheds Project, Kettle Range Conservation Group and WildEarth Guardians sued the Colville National Forest over its approach to livestock grazing in its 2019 revised forest plan, and its project-level implementation of grazing decisions under that plan. With regard to the forest plan, plaintiffs allege violation of the 1982 planning regulations’ requirements for determining and identifying capability and suitability for grazing, failure to consider capability and suitability determinations in the plan’s decisions and the analysis of grazing’s effects (including on the plant and animal diversity required by NFMA), failure to consider alternative suitability determinations in the EIS, and failure to acknowledge in its effects analysis that needed changes in allotment plans or permits would be unlikely to occur during the life of the plan. With regard to renewed permits and ongoing grazing projects, the complaint claims the Forest has failed to comply with the NFMA requirement that such actions be made consistent with the revised plan as soon as practicable.
The complaint states concerns about effects of overgrazing and conflicts with at-risk wildlife species, and seeks to enjoin the Forest Service from continuing to authorize grazing until these errors are corrected. They do not ask that the forest plan be vacated, but do ask that the court retain jurisdiction over compliance with the court’s orders. The complaint is here.
Court decision in Purgatory Recreation I, LLC v. U.S.A. (10th Circuit)
On October 21, the circuit court upheld a 2024 district court decision that dismissed the ski resort’s claims against the Forest Service. As part of a land exchange in 1991, plaintiff retained ownership of certain water rights that are accessible only through the land conveyed to the federal government, but the conveyance documents did not mention these water rights or provide the predecessor with any right of access over the conveyed land, leaving the ski area without a court–recognized right to develop its water rights. The Forest Service has since denied requested permits that it said could reduce stream flows in Hermosa Creek and threaten habitat for the Colorado River cutthroat trout, a sensitive species. The court dismissed the case with regard to application of the Quiet Title Act and the Declaratory Judgment Act, stating, “In deciding this case on statute of limitations and jurisdictional grounds, we do not address whether Purgatory would otherwise be entitled to its asserted right of access or whether Defendants have complied with applicable state and federal law.” The article includes a link to the opinion
Court decision in Wilderness Watch v. U. S. Forest Service (D. Montana)
On October 23, the district court held that the Custer Gallatin National Forest violated the Wilderness Act when it decided to apply poison to 45.5 stream miles and 11 surface acres of a lake in the Absaroka-Beartooth Wilderness north of Yellowstone National Park. To protect downstream (including the national park) Yellowstone cutthroat from hybridization the project would eradicate non-native rainbow trout and replace them with Yellowstone cutthroat trout, including in areas that were historically fishless. Crews would be allowed to build multiple remote field camps, use helicopters to deliver gear and rotenone poison into the wilderness, build and use a radio repeater in the wilderness, put fish barriers at Hidden Lake, and apply the rotenone with motorized pumps for up to five years. The court held:
“According to the Forest Service, poisoning the rainbow trout and restocking the area with Yellowstone cutthroat trout will improve the area’s wilderness character. That conclusion runs counter to both agency guidance and the record in the case.”
“The wilderness neither depended on Yellowstone cutthroat trout for ecological balance nor contributed them to the watershed as a whole. As a result, conserving them serves no wilderness purpose.”
The court’s decision rejected some of the magistrate judge’s recommendations, which would have upheld the Forest Service decision. The article includes a link to the opinion.
Court decision in Center for Biological Diversity v. U. S. Forest Service (D. Montana)
On October 27, the district court enjoined and remanded the Knotty Pine Project (following a preliminary injunction in 2023). The commercial timber harvest and prescribed burning project would have added 3.76 miles of an undetermined road, 1.2 miles of temporary road construction and 35 miles of road maintenance. The court found that the Forest Service had violated the National Environmental Policy Act by failing to take a hard look at the impact of unauthorized road use on grizzly bears. It also held that the forest plan requires illegal roads and roads with ineffective barriers to be considered to have adverse effects on road densities. The agencies must also reinitiate Endangered Species Act consultation on the forest plan because illegal road use has contributed to exceeding the incidental take allowances in the biological opinion. The court upheld the analysis of effects of precommercial thinning treatments and the cumulative effects analysis under NEPA.
The “qualitative analysis” in the Biological Opinion from the Fish and Wildlife Service violated ESA because it failed to include illegal road use in its calculations of road density. According to the court,
“By excluding illegal roads, FWS makes an ‘unsupported assumption’ that illegal roads have no effect on grizzly bears. Such an assumption fails to ‘err on the side of the bear.’”
New lawsuit: MountainTrue v. U. S. Forest Service (W.D. North Carolina)
On November 6, the Southern Environmental Law Center, on behalf of the Center for Biological Diversity and MountainTrue, initiated a lawsuit against the Poplar timber sale on the Nantahala-Pisgah National Forest, alleging that the Forest Service failed to prepare an environmental document, as required under the National Environmental Policy Act and failed to comply with the forest plan, as required by the National Forest Management Act. The project is proceeding using “emergency procedures” pursuant to NEPA in response to Hurricane Helene, but is allegedly not included in the area approved for such projects. This area is in a North Carolina Natural Heritage Natural Area along the Nolichucky River and under the forest plan is supposed to be managed as a backcountry preserve to protect old-growth forest. The complaint is here.
New lawsuit: Center for Biological Diversity v. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (W.D. Washington)
On October 29, The Center claimed in federal court that the government violated the Endangered Species Act by failing to meet a statutory decision deadline after it petitioned the Olympic marmot for listing in May 2024. The species resides almost entirely within the alpine meadows of the Olympic National Park. According to plaintiffs, climate change is shrinking their meadow habitat, adding to losses to increasing numbers of coyotes (which are no longer controlled by wolves). The article includes a link to the complaint.
On October 30, Friends of Animals, WildEarth Guardians, and Western Watersheds Project filed a lawsuit against the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for listing the Great Basin silverspot butterfly subspecies as threatened rather than endangered in 2024, and for failing to designate critical habitat. The current ‘threatened’ listing allows livestock grazing to continue in their wet mountain meadow habitat in Colorado, New Mexico, and Utah. At the time of listing, the butterfly had been designated as “sensitive” in Forest Service Regions 2 and 3.
New lawsuit: Center for Biological Diversity v. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (D. Arizona)
On November 6, the Center sued the Fish and Wildlife Service for missing its May 2025 deadline to determine if the gray cats-eye warrants listing under the Endangered Species Act. Gray cat’s eyes are a plant species that is found exclusively on dunes along the Columbia River in central Washington, including on BLM lands. It is threatened by habitat loss to dams, agriculture and off-road vehicles, invasive species (particularly cheat grass), altered fire regimes, loss of pollinators, altered sand supplies and climate change. The news release includes a link to the complaint.
Supreme Court declines to review Iron Bar Holdings, LLC v. Cape
On October 20, the U. S. Supreme Court declined to consider an appeal of this case involving hunters crossing a corner of private land to reach another section of public land. The circuit court opinion upholding the right to cross the corner was discussed here).
Preliminary injunction granted in American Federation of State County and Municipal Employees v. U. S. Office of Management and Budget (N.D. California)
On October 28, the district court issued a preliminary injunction blocking layoffs of some workers during the shutdown until the lawsuit is resolved. That includes about 2,000 Interior Department employees, many from BLM.
The U.S. Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry passed Alabama Senator Tommy Tuberville’s Talladega National Forest Expansion Act, which would expand the proclamation boundary of the Talladega National Forest by approximately 50,000 acres in three East Alabama counties.
I really liked how Fulcer at the Brumidi group linked to all the proposed amendments. I got a flavor of the personalities and interests of each Senator.
********************
“The bill saw further changes through a series of adopted amendments – over 30 of which were filed by members of the committee. Here’s the full scope of amendments submitted:
Bennet #1: establishes a pilot program to improve wildfire satellite monitoring.
Bennet #2: creates an emergency forest watershed program at USDA, which would fund projects local NFS watershed protection projects after natural disasters.
Bennet #3: adds a new title to outline the use of funds from cooperative funds agreement.
Bennet#4: prevents the Secretary of Agriculture from terminating Forest Service employees or consolidating offices that “carry out wildfire response, fuels management, prescribed fire, and other fire-related land management activities” until the completion of the GAO study required by section 304 of the bill. It also prohibits RIF-related adverse actions and deferred resignations, while creating a special hiring authority for fire-qualified employees who were let go from the Forest Service earlier this year.
Bennet #5: requires USDA and Interior to submit a report to Congress on pending forest management projects with completed environmental reviews.
Bennet #6: expands public collaboration on the development of emergency fireshed management projects in accordance with streamlined environmental review authorities.
Booker #1: allows temporary variances to the terms and conditions of grazing permits.
Booker #2: removes the litigation reform section (121) from the bill.
Durbin #1: strengthens the Forest Service’s Urban and Community Forestry program by codifying more detailed congressional justification language, expanded public collaboration, and a dedicated office and funding.
Fischer #1: expands USDA’s Emergency Conservation Program to include a catchall to fund the restoration of farmland or conservation structures “requiring an immediate response.” Also clarifies that wildfires “not caused naturally, if the damage is caused by…spread…due to natural causes” in both the Emergency Conservation Program and the Emergency Forest Restoration Program.
Klobuchar #1: adds a study on wildfire smoke in cooperation with EPA.
Klobuchar #2: offers slightly altered text for section 116 (Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration Program), the main change being authorization the program through 2034 (instead of 2031).
Lujan #1: adds definitions and additional functions to the Wildland Fire Intelligence center; establishes Regional Wildland Fire Research Centers at universities,
Lujan #2: authorizes grants and agreements for ecosystem restoration activities, including native plant revegetation. Also codifies claim eligibility for reforestation for damage caused by the Hermit’s Peak fire.
Lujan #3: creates a local contractor preference for hazardous fuels mitigation projects.
Lujan #4: authorizes a local cost-share waiver for wildland fire recovery projects.
Lujan #5: adds the General Services Administration as a “covered agency” for the Public-Private Wildfire Technology Deployment and Demonstration Partnership and expands the public-private partnership function of the pilot.
McConnell #1: directs a USDA partnership with the National Institute of Food and Agriculture to study White Oak health and preservation.
Schiff #1: establishes a Unified Disaster Assistance Intake and Process System at FEMA to streamline the administration of disaster assistance.
Schiff #2: requires a National Academy of Sciences study on the impacts of Fireshed management projects on communities and wildlife.
Schiff #3: authorizes funding throughout the bill, including $3.6 billion through 2023 for landscape-scale restoration activities, $100 million for NEPA reviews, $30 million for the Water Source Protection Program, and more.
Smith #1: adds tribal data sovereignty guardrails and a tribal representative to the board of through the Wildland Fire Intelligence Center. Also adds compacts to Tribal Forest Protection Management processes and a definition of cultural burning to Section 131 (Prescribed Fire).
Smith #2: requires tribal consultation when chemical treatments are used near/would impact tribal lands under Section 104 (Shared Stewardship), prior to the development of Fireshed assessments under section 105, and in exercise of emergency authorities under Section 106.
Thune #1: increases percentage of Firesheds designated for management to 25% if Black Hills Spruce is present.
Tuberville #1: adds the text of the Disaster Reforestation Act, which would provide relief for private forest landowners who experience losses of uncut timber from natural disasters.
Warnock #1: adds state forestry agencies to the Wildland Fire Intelligence Center board of directors.
Welch #1: clarifies that the 10,000 acre cap for categorical exclusions in Section 106 only applies to western projects, while retaining the 3,000 acre cap for projects in the east.
Welch #2: creates a prohibition on Reductions-in-Force at the Forest Service, prevents the bill’s provisions from taking effect until the workforce is restored to Biden-era staffing levels, and invalidates the federal hiring freeze.
Welch #3: authorizes the creation of National and Regional Agroforestry Centers to improve agroforestry practices, with authority to award up to $10,000 million in annual grant funding through 2030.
Vote Results
The ANS passed by a vote of 18-5, with Senators Bennet (D-CO), Smith (D-MN), Durbin (D-IL), Booker (D-NJ), and Schiff (D-CA) voting against passage.
Chair Boozman submitted a manager’s amendment, which included Bennet #1 and #2; Booker #1; Fischer#1; Klobuchar #1 and #2; Schiff #1 and #2; Lujan #1, #2,#3, and #5; McConnell#1; Smith #1; Thune #1; and Warnock #1. The manager’s amendment was adopted by voice vote.
Tuberville #1 and Lujan#4 were withdrawn by their sponsors. Bennet #6, Schiff #3, and Booker #2were voted down along party lines. No other amendments were offered or considered during the markup.
What Comes Next?
Now that the bill has been favorably reported out of committee, it stands to potentially move to the Senate floor later this year. If passed on the floor, the Senate will move to conference to resolve differences with the House, which passed House Natural Resource Committee Chair Westerman’s version of the bill early this year. The question then becomes: To what extent does the final conferenced bill reflect each chamber’s version of FOFA?”
*******************
I’m interested in what folks think of the amendments… I’m not a fan of Schiff #2. I think in general we need to stop asking groups of scientists what communities think and ask communities directly. My own experience with NAS is that they round up some scientists and come up with something, which generally no one pays attention, to except to use to ask for more money for the science community. I’m sure there are exceptions, but after years of environmental analysis, monitoring and disagreements of all scientific kinds, I don’t see a random bunch of scientists coming up with anything particularly illuminating.
Interesting story about what’s going on at the Forest Service in NOTUS today..
I’ll start with this ..
Reorganization vs. Struggling to Get the Job Done in the Meantime
On top of the field work that’s missing, the Department of Agriculture, which houses the Forest Service, is starting a massive reorganization over the next year. While that’s ongoing, as USFS announced to staff and Hill offices in October, it will consolidate the regional managers across its nine regions, creating wider realms of jurisdiction for fewer regional chiefs.
The story I heard via the Retiree Information Network was that after the buyouts, the FS had many gaping holes of expertise. For example, I heard that some Regions were left with no employees in certain expertise areas. The idea would be to share scarce expertise resources across Regions for the time being, until the Reorg takes place. Personally, it always seemed odd to me that R-6 had four or five forest geneticists, for example (although other than one were assigned to Areas) and some Regions (including 2) had zero. And perhaps Regions can do fine without forest geneticists, but maybe not so much a recreation special uses expert, nor coal mining experts. This also goes with allocating scarce SES resources across the agency better, helping to organize and structure getting the work done. The individuals in the Regions would not be moved nor their supervisor changed, just that their program of work would include extra-Regional work. But I also heard that these ideas would not be implemented prior to the end of the shutdown, because the shutdown in itself if a big struggle to keep work going and funded..
Who is Still Working and Who is Getting Paid?
Waves of budget cuts, layoffs and buyouts in the last year have decimated the U.S. Forest Service, but the shutdown is testing its staff on a whole new level. The forests, along with national parks, remain open to the public, meaning recreational employees and visitor center staff are still cleaning bathrooms, answering phone calls, and handing out maps. Four weeks into a government shutdown, those that are left are still working – and many have yet to see a paycheck.
Technically, I’m not sure that the “budget” was cut. First, the FS hired more people with BIL and IRA bucks than they could afford based on usual approps, that’s why there were no temps last year. Does not having additional funding mean that the budget is cut? Plus we don’t have a 2026 budget or even a CR. So I think it’s more complicated. Also, some visitor centers are closed, so that’s confusing also. And some people still working are getting paid (at least fire folks) because The Hotshot Wakeup is closely tracking when the funding sources will run out.
It’s interesting that this quote is about restroom cleaning.. because when the Chief spoke with us retirees he talked about how that was one of the most important services that the public sees. On my recent trip, I saw restrooms with signs saying that they wouldn’t be cleaned or toilet paper provided; and restrooms that were in good order. Were some on contract and some done by employees? Different priorities or funding streams for different forests? I’m interested in others’ observations.
Was the Budget Cut or did the FS Overspend or Both?
The former employee based in Oregon who asked not to be named as she is still looking for a job told NOTUS that even before Trump’s downsizing, the USFS was severely understaffed. Congress cut its budget in 2024, and many temporary workers who spend summers working on trail crews and in other roles were told their jobs wouldn’t exist the next year.
Understaffed.. that’s certainly in the eye of the beholder. But I think some things in some places may have been overstaffed, some appropriately staffed and some understaffed. I remember folks on Districts complaining that the IRA funds were used, in some cases, to bulk up Regional staffs. And we get back to “does every forest need its own..?”
I think again, the story is more complicated than the Congress cut the FS budget, the agency had a $750 mill shortfall (or maybe different numbers) and also gave away (never got the numbers but hundreds of millions) to various NGOs.. that never happened before.
Sure, it has been one bad thing after another for the Forest Service, but not all of it was the Trump Admin nor Congress. Right now, though, it is clearly Congress who has caused the shutdown and only Congress can end it.
Andy brought up the long-term problematic question of fuels reporting, the old double-counting question and so on. I thought I’d post what’s in FOFA as I think that will take care of it. Perhaps this is the first entry in the Peoples’ Database, provided by Congress, who like us, would like to see where the bucks are going. I’m curious as to what folks think of this approach. Any formatting issues are mine, if you want the original formatting check out Sec.302 of FOFA.
It kind of makes me wonder why Int and Ag didn’t self-organize to do something like this on their own. Rather than moving the FS to Interior, I think much more doable would be to identify the top 20 interdepartmental annoyances and coordinate them, similar to what the Admin is doing in wildfire.
********************************************
EC. 302. Accurate hazardous fuels reduction reports.
(a) Definitions.—In this section:
(1) FEDERAL LAND.—The term “Federal land” means any land under the jurisdiction of—
(A) the Secretary; or
(B) the Secretary of the Interior.
(2) HAZARDOUS FUELS REDUCTION ACTIVITY.—
(A) IN GENERAL.—The term “hazardous fuels reduction activity” means any vegetation management activity to reduce the risk of wildfire, including mechanical treatments, grazing, and prescribed burning.
(B) EXCLUSION.—The term “hazardous fuels reduction activity” does not include the provision or execution of a contract to carry out an activity described in subparagraph (A).
(b) Materials submitted in support of President’s budget.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—Beginning with the first fiscal year that begins after the date of enactment of this Act, and annually thereafter, the Secretary concerned shall include in the materials submitted to Congress in support of the President’s budget pursuant to section 1105 of title 31, United States Code, a report describing the number of acres of Federal land on which the Secretary concerned carried out hazardous fuels reduction activities during the preceding fiscal year, as determined using—
(A) the methodology of the Secretary concerned in effect on the day before the date of enactment of this Act; and
(B) the methodology described in paragraph (2).
(2) REQUIREMENTS.—For purposes of a report required under paragraph (1), the Secretary concerned shall—
(A) in determining the number of acres of Federal land on which the Secretary concerned carried out hazardous fuels reduction activities during the period covered by the report—
(i) record acres of Federal land on which hazardous fuels reduction activities were completed during that period; and
(ii) record each acre described in clause (i) once in the report, regardless of whether multiple hazardous fuels reduction activities were carried out on that acre during the applicable period; and
(B) with respect to the acres of Federal land recorded in the report, include information relating to—
(i) which acres are located in the wildland-urban interface;
(ii) the level of wildfire risk (high, moderate, or low) of the acres on the first and last day of the period covered by the report;
(iii) the types of hazardous fuels reduction activities completed with respect to the acres, including a description of whether those hazardous fuels reduction activities were conducted—
(I) in a wildfire managed for resource benefits; or
(II) through a planned hazardous fuels reduction project;
(iv) the cost per-acre of the hazardous fuels reduction activities carried out during the period covered by the report;
(v) the region or System unit in which the acres are located; and
(vi) the effectiveness of the hazardous fuels reduction activities with respect to reducing the risk of wildfire.
(3) TRANSPARENCY.—The Secretary concerned shall make each report submitted under paragraph (1) publicly available on the website of the Department of Agriculture or the Department of the Interior, as applicable.
(c) Accurate data collection.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 90 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary concerned shall implement standardized procedures for tracking data relating to hazardous fuels reduction activities carried out by the Secretary concerned.
(2) ELEMENTS.—The standardized procedures required under paragraph (1) shall include—
(A) regular, standardized data reviews of the accuracy and timely input of data used to track hazardous fuels reduction activities;
(B) verification methods that validate whether those data accurately correlate to the hazardous fuels reduction activities carried out by the Secretary concerned;
(C) an analysis of the short- and long-term effectiveness of the hazardous fuels reduction activities on reducing the risk of wildfire; and
(D) for hazardous fuels reduction activities that occur partially within the wildland-urban interface, methods to distinguish which acres are located within the wildland-urban interface and which acres are located outside the wildland-urban interface.
(3) REPORT.—Not later than 14 days after implementing the standardized procedures required under paragraph (1), the Secretary concerned shall submit to Congress a report that describes—
(A) the standardized procedures; and
(B) any programmatic or policy recommendations to Congress to address limitations in tracking data relating to hazardous fuels reduction activities under this subsection.
(d) GAO study.—Not later than 2 years after the date of enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General of the United States shall—
(1) conduct a study regarding the implementation of this section, including any limitations with respect to—
(A) reporting hazardous fuels reduction activities under subsection (b); or
(B) tracking data relating to hazardous fuels reduction activities under subsection (c); and
(2) submit to Congress a report that describes the results of the study under paragraph (1).
(e) No additional funds authorized.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—No additional funds are authorized to carry out this section.
(2) SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATIONS.—The activities authorized by this section are subject to the availability of appropriations made in advance for those purposes.
Figure 1: AI generated image of a logger, conservation scientist, wildland firefighter, and software engineer walking into a bar, an over simplistic metaphor for bringing together diverse talent to spur innovation and trust-building in national forest management.
Kevin has conceived a proposal that is worthy of our joint best thinking and reflection. My hope is that by the time the FS folks come back to work, we might have a series of guest posts engaging with his ideas. So please consider writing a guest post yourself or submitting a comment below. In the text below, Kevin mentions the EPIC report (2024) on Innovation in the Forest Service which I think we missed when it came out; so I’ll post that separately and we can discuss later this week.
Summary:
This summer was the 9 th American Forest Congress where diverse interests gathered to shape the future of forest policy. Among the many topics discussed was the intersection of
information, technology, and innovation. This led to resolutions that address, in part, the need for greater collaboration among public and private entities from within the information and
technology ecosystem. I believe there is a path to use collaborative inquiry to help rebuild trust and foster innovation while recognizing the competing incentive structures at play among
different information producers and consumers. Drawing on my experiences and the groundwork laid during the Forest Congress, I’d like to introduce an idea for an open forest science foundation to the readers of TSW. I want to hear whether the problems I and others have identified with the current information environment are jointly felt by the readership, if the
proposed idea and governance model of the foundation has merit, and what experiences readers can draw from that can help shape the foundation’s creation and increase its likelihood for success.
**********
For a variety of reasons, I found myself in an introspective mood over this past New Year, thinking about my generation’s legacy. It was around this time we saw the Forest Service end its effort to develop national policy concerning the management of older forests (i.e., the “NOGA”), followed by USDA announcing its intent to rescind the Roadless Rule, and the President signing an Executive Order focused on increasing timber production. Different administrations coming to drastically different conclusions about what’s needed to sustain the national forest system is par for the course and unsurprising in today’s political climate. But in the wake of the policy whiplash, I couldn’t help but reflect that our community may be more broken than I thought. From old growth conservation to a blanket rescission of the Roadless Rule, these are policy proposals focused on the margins of resource management and don’t address the most relevant issues of today. I believe we can, and must, recommit ourselves to working together so future generations can have similar or even stronger relationships to the national forests as we’ve had. I’ve asked Sharon to contribute this guest post because the spirit of this blog is in seeking truth, and the depth of experience shared by readers of TSW is a tremendous resource for feedback. I’d like to propose a way to use collaborative inquiry to help solve a series of interconnected issues I think we face. I hope readers will share their perspectives and constructive feedback.
The power of community and truth-seeking have been used to overcome crux moments throughout the history of the Forest Service. The Yale Forest Forum describes American Forest Congresses as “a unique and powerful way to bring together forestry leaders and other stakeholders to resolve big issues and create direction for the future of U.S. forest policy”. Indeed, the 2nd Forest Congress led to the creation of the Forest Service. The 7th American Forest Congress was held in 1996 during a moment of division, mistrust, and fear not unlike what we’re experiencing today. A dear friend and colleague of mine who sat on the board of the Congress likes to remind me that back then I was still “running around in diapers” (inaccurate, but it makes me smile). Listing of the northern spotted owl and subsequent implementation of the Northwest Forest Plan was scarring and timber communities were left reeling. But it was during that Congress that the “Communities Committee” was formed and a vision for collaborative, community-based involvement in national forest policy became expressed. For the uninitiated, the Communities Committee was a self-organized, diverse group that focused on the intersection of natural resources and community revitalization. The legacy of the Communities Committee is reflected in major policy advances like the 2003 Healthy Forest Restoration Act, the Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration Program, and the 2012 Planning Rule, in so much as collaboration was a central tenet. My generation has been fortunate to have listened and learned from those who advanced the community forestry movement. For me, its legacy is felt most when people speak so proudly about their involvement with the Communities Committee and the empowerment they felt to make meaningful contributions to national forest policy. Sounds dreamy.
Fast forward to today, with the Communities Committee well past sunset, and a deep sense of mistrust is pervasive in our community, certainly when it comes to policymaking at the
national level. Agency folk would sometimes look at me sideways when I’d discuss opportunities for active management to restore old growth conditions during NOGA conversations. It could have been for lots of different reasons, but it felt like the baggage of working for an ENGO was hard to shake. While the national scene may be messy, there are examples of progress still being made locally. Place-based collaboratives exist in many, but not all, regions of the country. And while some may be thriving, others have struggled to meet expectations. Nonetheless, we should celebrate their mere existence. True collaboration, not just compromise, is a generative process. I’m no expert in formal forest collaboration a la CFLRP like many who engage with TSW, but I have been collaborating with fellow scientists for much of the past 15 years. It is powerful, and incredibly rewarding, to transcend boundaries with those who view the world differently as you move through a co-production process. I think we all can relate to that in some way. Those who have studied and practiced collaboration point to the benefits of collaborative inquiry to foster trust-building. Collaborative truth-seeking may help us rebuild trust with one another by working towards solutions to problems that affect all of us who care about the national forests. But without an institution like the Communities Committee, many of us who feel like we have something to offer, myself included, feel a little helpless.
The Forest Service has a long history of partnering with outside entities to advance the state of science and deliver data products that support planning (e.g., LANDFIRE). But the agency
appears to be at a crossroads. The institutional arrangements between R&D, academia, NGO, and the philanthropic community that we’ve relied upon to meet our information needs
are struggling to satisfy demand. There are more pressures on the resource and heightened expectations from the public surrounding land management outcomes that strain the agency
(e.g., greater provision of wood fiber, reducing fire risk, adapting to a changing climate). Meanwhile, information holes and outdated/unused decision support tools are abundant. I believe it is largely because of misaligned incentive structures between the major institutional information providers that has given rise to the current situation. Academics are rewarded through peer-reviewed publications and receiving external funds while juggling tremendous responsibility for educating our future workforce. Forest Service R&D scientists don’t have the budget to develop their research programs without competing for external resources like academics, so many spend a bulk of their time writing proposals and publishing papers to be competitive with their academic colleagues. Those at NGOs try to fill information voids and use inquiry to advance conversations not being had, but they understandably stick to issues relevant to their organization’s campaigns and those supported by their donors. And the philanthropic community generously attempts to make progress through their resource allocation, often through NGOs, but their decisions are also mission-driven and funding isn’t necessarily intended to be long-term. It’s come time to question whether or not these institutional arrangements are sufficient for today’s needs.
The agency hasn’t always made it easy on external groups to support them. At the national level, the institutional arrangements I previously described are largely bilateral between the
agency and individual entities, like a hub-and-spoke pattern where the agency is the hub. Without any alternatives, we’ve created a system where the agency can largely dictate the
direction, scope, and speed of innovation absent broader community involvement. The classic “we got this” attitude. This may be because, historically, the agency was the leader in
technological innovation, making major investments into tech infrastructure like the Missoula Fire Sciences Lab and the Forest Products Lab. My colleagues at the Environmental Policy
Innovation Center (EPIC) wrote an excellent report on the challenges and opportunities for technological innovation at the Forest Service that I encourage you all to read here. The big
take home for me, and based on my lived experience, is that it is difficult to bring innovation and creativity into a system where the dominant agency culture is one of ultimate discretion
and a reluctance for change. The report goes on to highlight inadequate staffing of technical talent and high levels of turnover and rotation within the agency as significant limiting factors
to innovation.
As noted in the report from EPIC, the agency is wrestling with whether to continue being an information producer, transition to an information consumer, or the degree to which it can be
both. Meanwhile, the private sector has caught wind of the technology vacuum and there’s a nascent “gold rush” happening. Companies are selling information, decision support tools,
and the promise of AI back to the agency, and have organized themselves to influence policies favorable to their technology (as an example, see Sec. 303 in the Fix Our Forest Act around prioritized technology). People both inside and outside the agency are healthy skeptics of the Forest Service using proprietary data and models, especially as the general scientific community has increasingly embraced open source science. This all raises questions about how best to manage agency discretion with a burgeoning private technology sector, and the consequences for public trust.
Here on TSW, there’s been recent postings about a Peoples’ Database as recent as June of this year and dating back to 2012-2013. This idea of organizing ourselves to identify and
resolve information gaps relevant to management of the national forests resonates with me. But I think this idea goes far beyond a database. I think there's a better way that we, as
curious information providers, can support agency planning and decision making at multiple scales, from folks in the field to decisions made in D.C.
I’d like to propose the creation of a non-profit, open forest science foundation inspired by governance structures found in trade associations (e.g., Linux Foundation) and the mission of boundary-spanning organizations that facilitate collaborative adaptive management (e.g., Southwestern Ecological Restoration Institutes). The goal is to create an institution that can
support applied forest science research, model development, and technology delivery via a collaborative process to stimulate innovation and trust-building with national significance. The
foundation would largely be supported with dues contributed by members representing different stakeholder groups with interest in solving the myriad challenges facing forest resource management (e.g., forest industry, environmental non-governmental organizations, for-profit technology companies, industrial private landowners, universities.). This would spread the financial responsibility among the broader community of information producers and consumers, hedging against overreliance on a single funding stream while creating a shared fiduciary accountability among the diverse members. The foundation’s non-profit status well-positions it to receive philanthropic contributions and serve as a partner in traditional, competitive research grants administered by the federal government, thereby complementing member dues to expand its capacity. Like other national non-profit organizations that directly serve federal land management agencies (e.g., National Forest Foundation), key personnel in government can receive ex officio status to help ensure coordination and communication between the foundation and decision-makers.
The primary functions of the foundation would include:
● Codifying a set of community standards and specifications so all research supported by the foundation is transparent, reproducible, and accessible;
● Collectively identify gaps in scientific information, models, and technology affecting members to set a comprehensive forest science research agenda;
● Allocating resources to internal staff and external entities tasked with delivering on elements of the agenda; and
● Maintaining and moderating information repositories to ensure accountability to the standards.
Individual members, either directly or through a board representative, would receive voting power that ensures their perspectives on technology and information needs are reflected in
the foundation’s research agenda. The hope is whether its spatial vegetation data products, a new forest dynamics model, or technology to support digital prescriptions, what is produced
by the foundation is of the same quality as proprietary products but has far greater social license because of the collaborative, transparent nature by which it was developed. If then
used to evaluate policy proposals or planning decisions, for example, we might find ourselves having more focused discourse about the merits rather than being distracted by various
scientific or technological deficiencies of the supporting analysis. Ultimately, the scope of work carried out by the foundation would be driven by the collective needs of its members. And
through that process of resolving shared information and technology needs, we might start to see ourselves in one another again.
Administration of the foundation would be performed by honest brokers who believe in the inherent value of open science and the need for pragmatic solutions facing the forest sector,
and governed by a board of directors that represent the various membership classes. It would be staffed by technical and subject matter experts who are responsible for managing projects
to ensure scientific quality and posterity beyond the provisions of our peer-review publication system. A crucial aspect of this model, consistent with the open source computing model, is
that value added products and/or services may be derived from work supported by the foundation. An example is how Google is a member of the Linux Foundation which maintains
Linux, a free, open source computer operating system that Google uses to run its products (i.e., Android smart phone) and services (i.e.,. Google Cloud). This governance structure
provides incentive to the for-profit community to participate and contribute to the mission of the foundation, which, in turn, will accelerate scientific progress and discovery. Creating a
membership-based open source forest science foundation offers an alternative to the existing institutional arrangements, draws from our community’s familiarity with place-based
collaboration, ensures investments in science and technology can endure political uncertainty, and gives agency to the broader forest community to steer the direction of technological
innovation.
This past summer was the 9th American Forest Congress, and I showed up in good faith with this idea of a national scale, open forest science foundation in tow. I was pleased to find
others who shared this vision, and learned about existing research cooperatives at Oregon State University and in the Northeast. I was even more heartened that the core concept was
made into aspects of two of the passed resolutions. Some worthy of highlighting include:
Develop and fund open-source, open-access, and other collaborative data and modeling environments to meet diverse and large-scale demands while respecting privacy, proprietary data, and Tribal treaty reserved rights and data sovereignty;
Support multi-sector needs such as planning, monitoring, adaptive management, technical assistance, forest health and risk assessment, supply chain sustainability, and forest management and conservation;
Make these tools readily accessible to local communities to support community-driven and locally-led solutions;
Develop a collaborative, inclusive community that is reflective of the providers and users of forest information, and that incentivizes the creation and use of an open and resilient forest information system; and
Build a more focused and effective public-private forestry research partnership to foster innovation in forest stewardship, conservation, and new forest product development. This partnership should address the environmental, economic, and social problems we face as a nation.
With the hope that something as meaningful as the work carried out by the Communities Committee can come from the 9 th Forest Congress, I’d like to introduce this idea of an open
forest science foundation to the readers of TSW. I want to have a discussion as to whether the problems I’ve identified are jointly felt by the readership, if the proposed idea and
governance model of the foundation has merit, and what experiences readers can draw from that can help shape the foundation’s creation and increase the likelihood that it can succeed. I
think my generation – including the logger, conservation scientist, wildland firefighter, and software engineer – has more interest in solving problems together and healing the divide
than one might think.
****************************
Kevin attended The University of Montana and received a BA in economics and MS in forest management. He then worked as a research assistant at both UM and Montana State University, researching the economics of fuel treatments and wildland fire use, wilderness fire management, the effects of climate change on future whitebark and limber pine distributions, and the global relationships between human pressure and forest structure. He worked for The Wilderness Society as a landscape ecologist where he supported the organization’s work on conservation planning and national forest policy. He most recently worked at the technology and consulting firm, Silvx Labs. Raised in the Pacific Northwest, he now calls Duluth, Minnesota, home.
There was an interesting story in the WaPo over the weekend, which included links to a Grassroots Wildland Firefighters’ analysis of FACTS data (wouldn’t it be nice if the data were more accessible and folks like Grassroots didn’t have to hire outside folks to get it (the Peoples’ Database!).
I was curious about the data.. as we know many IRA bucks (or IRA and BIL bucks? we never really found out) were given to partners to do this kind of work. So how might that balance out with the loss of personnel? And many of us have seen many acres of prescribed fire happening in October that doesn’t appear to match up with the numbers on this chart.
In Grassroots’ report,
Now, with the federal government shutdown for the foreseeable future there is little chance that the USFS will be able to close the enormous wildfire mitigation gap before the end of the year.
But the Forest Service is actually burning quite a bit despite the shutdown, as we have seen the smoke and are frequently getting notifications about from their information folks.
OK, sure it could be less than the last few years and fewer employees (plus possibly having spent the BIL and IRA funding.. doesn’t help. Shouldn’t there be a bump at some point based on that infusion? Where should that occur? Back to the report.
Between CY2021 and CY2024, the Forest Service completed hazardous fuels projects on an average of about 3.6 million acres of USFS managed land per year. In the first nine months of CY2025, less than 1.7 million acres were treated.
They included this helpful table:
The 1.7 mill is the total and the Grassroots Report seems to be saying that in the shutdown no more will get done, which we know not to be true. So we don’t know what the sum of October, November and December will be.
We can see from the second chart that (not surprisingly) that most PF and MT accomplishments are in spring, winter and fall (the charts for MF are not included here, I don’t know where they could be found, but I am curious). So there is a sizeable chunk not done or reported yet. I guess we could model some “what ifs” but why not wait until we get the real numbers?
Now, I wouldn’t be a bit surprised if FACTS accomplishments were actually down due to removal of human beings from the workforce. This seems likely. So I’m not arguing that it isn’t true, but let’s look at the data a little closer. First let’s look at the acres treated by month chart (or is it a graph?) It looks like fall, spring and winter are the key moths for PF and MT. Except for 2021, when there was a lot going on in July (?). March is the biggest month and that was way down this year, in fact, February, March and April. Conceivably those projects were ready to go (planned) and the warm bodies weren’t on board to implement. But if so, who were those folks? Temporaries? Probationary employees? Maybe we can figure it out by looking at the Regions.
Hmm. Region 2 and part of Region 4 (Utah) are doing exceptionally well. Note that the comparison is not September to September across the years. So actually Utah looks like its on its way to exceeding previous years.. making the same assumptions about what months are best for PF work. It would be interesting to see this broken out by PF and MT (back to The Peoples’ Database). Did fewer employees leave Utah, Colorado and Wyoming? Did they have the greatest amount in external grants for this work? Did they have a different mix of what kind of employees and contractors they use to do the work?
Maybe some Regions lost the folks who knew how to enter info into FACTS?
Or were the folks prepping the work redirected to timber sales without a fuel treatment component (that seems unlikely, depending on how the purpose and need is rationalized)?
Back to the WaPo story.. I appreciate that the reporter included this view:
The figures could be skewed because of a lag in recordkeeping, given the shutdown and the busy time of year, said Camille Stevens-Rumann, an associate professor of forest and rangeland stewardship at Colorado State University.
“It probably wouldn’t change the trend,” she added. “But it might change the hard numbers.”
I’m interested in any local observations that might explain some of these data, especially what appear to be State or Regional differences.
According to the story,
The chief attributed the recent reduction in prescribed fire across the country to “operational challenges.” Major blazes nationwide and dry conditions limited controlled burns, he said — as did the need to send resources to Canada in the late spring and early summer. Canada saw its second-biggest fire season on record this year.
“The continued high level of fire activity and extreme conditions in the West are requiring significant resources and personnel,” said Schultz, “which has constrained our capacity to treat additional acres.”
