The long-term habitat impacts of the DOI USWFS merger

[Justabirdwatcher]

I'm kind of surprised nobody here is talking about the potential habitat impacts brought on by moving all the DOI (and potentially FS) fire programs into the new USWFS.

Does anyone here think that a stand-alone organization, focused primarily on wildfire suppression, will even come close to delivering the amount of prescribed fire on the ground that these agencies have in the past? There are literally hundreds of thousands of acres burned under prescription every year by agency fire personnel. Those burns are essential to so many habitats and wildlife that depend on them. Without that prescribed fire, many of those habitats would be completely lost, some forever. Call me a cynic, but I think we're about to see the single largest reduction in acres of wildlife habitat treatment in the history of the U.S.

I sure hope I'm wrong.

 

[kwyeewyk]

Cautiously optimistic as this moves forward, as of now changes are coming slowly, which is a good thing in this case. Mitigation efforts (prescribed fire, fuels reduction, community assistance) and post fire programs will continue under the new structure, with agency resource staff continuing to be involved/funded with designing and obtaining clearances for projects as has occurred in the past. Suppression has always been priority 1, and that won't change, but so far I've seen no indication that mitigation and post fire programs will take a hit.

It appears that very little will actually change this season, employees moved to the new agency will use a different log in for entering time sheets and get new email addresses, but will still be stationed with and serving the agency they moved from. Funding will be overseen by new people but process will stay the same for now.

The direction I've heard is keep doing everything the same way until new guidance is provided. All of the mitigation and post fire projects I'm involved with are continuing as normal. I do see some potential for benefits from the reorganization, if done properly, but time will tell. Unless someone high up starts throwing rocks in the gears, at this point it seems like the boots on the ground are making sure things are done somewhat logically for now.

 

[Justabirdwatcher]

3900 full time firefighters being moved out of agencies and lumped into their own. No longer responsible for agency priorities. Does anyone honestly think that the new WFS will prioritize Rx burns the way these agencies have? And of all the habitat treatment available to these land managers, Rx burning is by far the most widespread, effective and important.

Kiss it goodbye once the fire season starts and the new leadership is directed to drop everything and head west.

 

[kwyeewyk]

No longer responsible for agency priorities

Source? Not what I'm experiencing, WFS is responsible for implementing agency priorities for both mitigation and post fire.

Does anyone honestly think that the new WFS will prioritize Rx burns the way these agencies have?

As of now, I do, since the direction is to continue with business as usual and so far that is occurring.

Kiss it goodbye once the fire season starts and the new leadership is directed to drop everything and head west.

WFS personnel are staying in their current locations, within the agencies they came from (at least for this fire season), which already happen to be in the west for most part as that is where wildfires are most abundant.

I understand the wariness, a lot could go wrong, but so far I'm not seeing major issues with the reorganization, at least regarding the future of mitigation projects.

 

[mtlilguy]

Does anyone honestly think that the new WFS will prioritize Rx burns the way these agencies have?

Easy there chicken little. If a person had fuels in their job title before, they still do now. You said yourself that fuels treatments are "widespread, effective and important". Those guys think so to and will keep doing them.

Kiss it goodbye once the fire season starts and the new leadership is directed to drop everything and head west.

No different than any previous year when fire season starts....Fuels staff make themselves available and go fight some fire.

 

[Hunting Wife]

3900 full time firefighters being moved out of agencies and lumped into their own. No longer responsible for agency priorities. Does anyone honestly think that the new WFS will prioritize Rx burns the way these agencies have? And of all the habitat treatment available to these land managers, Rx burning is by far the most widespread, effective and important.

Kiss it goodbye once the fire season starts and the new leadership is directed to drop everything and head west.

I find this fairly hyperbolic. Very little prescribed fire gets done once fire season is under way anyway- fire staff are on severity or incidents, burn bans are in effect. That’s not going to change. The last few years, we’re under burn bans by our April/May burn window already anyway. I haven’t really relied on prescribed fire as a management tool for my entire tenure, because it has always been logistically difficult to get the resources together to do it. I don’t see anything changing in that regard for my agency and location. Who knows, maybe having a larger pool of folks during prescribed fire season will alleviate some of the challenges we’ve had up until now.

 

[Justabirdwatcher]

Let's all revisit this in a year, shall we?

I've been red carded since 1988, so I've seen the rise and (now) fall of agency fire programs.

As I said in my initial post, I sure hope I'm wrong.

 

[Justabirdwatcher]

"Easy there chicken little. If a person had fuels in their job title before, they still do *for* now"

fify

 

[David58]

Hmmm...lived in New Mexico for ten years, seemed that prescribed fires caused more damage than good. At least in the years we lived there.

Prescribed burns are essential, I agree. I just observed too many "oh, shit" days, when burns happened in spite of the conditions. The two edged sword is the fact that government manages the burns.

David
ID

 

[Justabirdwatcher]

Hmmm...lived in New Mexico for ten years, seemed that prescribed fires caused more damage than good. At least in the years we lived there.

Prescribed burns are essential, I agree. I just observed too many "oh, shit" days, when burns happened in spite of the conditions. The two edged sword is the fact that government manages the burns.

David
ID

If you look at the facts, you'll find that states and NGO's complete more acres of Rx burns than the feds. But I guess it's popular to hate on the feds, so go ahead.

My point is that I think we're months away from seeing Rx burning on federal lands grind to a halt. That might not bother folks in the west who have mixed feelings about it but it sure as hell will affect central and eastern habitats that cannot be effectively managed without Rx burns, not to mention the fuels build up that will happen. THEN the WFS will have to respond and we'll lose whole systems because they were allowed to get to that point.

But hey, as I keep saying, I hope I'm wrong. Maybe for a little while, those who actually value Rx burns above OT and Haz pay will see to it that they continue to happen. That is, until this admin finds out and "redirects" them to chipping underbrush in Nevada and Utah.

 

[Justabirdwatcher]

I'm also expecting a shift of staffing and resources from the east toward the west from this, and all the implications that will follow. I realize most members here are western-minded and might even support that. But we really shouldn't act as if this is the best thing for wildlife habitat nationwide. This move is not about habitat. It's purely a political knee-jerk reaction that in the minds of most fire professionals is completely unnecessary.

 

[mtlilguy]

Oh it's definitely unnecessary. No argument there. Forest Service might have been smart in saying, "No Thanks, We're Good". That doesn't mean that nothing beneficial can result from it or that it is doomed to fail and is guaranteed to result in all of these sky is falling outcomes your are predicting. Some actions or changes can be just...changes.

 

[kwyeewyk]

I do agree that it is unnecessary, and similar goals might have been achieved without creating a whole new agency. I do know a lot of career firefighters that think it could be a good thing and the idea has actually been floated in the past before the current administration. I do think it's a good thing Forest Service was not included in the reorg for now.

I got my official position change SF50 today, my title stayed the same, for now, I'll update if they end up changing it on me. I don't forsee that happening. My new supervisors, one of which is the assistant fire management officer for Fuels (prescribed fire) who's title also hasn't changed, are very determined to make this a successful endeavor and have been discussing the best ways to make sure agency resource staff continue to be involved in all aspects of fire (prevention/mitigation, serving as resource advisers during suppression, and post fire).

As far as the worry that resources will be shifted to the west and the east would be ignored, not sure I see the risk there? By far most staff are already in the west. There will be geographic regions within the WFS, and for this year nothing is changing for stationing. In the future there may be more movement of resources to address high priority needs in specific locations, but that would occur within geographic areas for the most part. There's already a national system for incident management teams and those resources are already shared based on where the greatest need is. And as was pointed out earlier suppression really doesn't conflict with mitigation projects due to timing.

BLM is the major player in the new WFS, around 250 million acres, with about 40,000 acres in the eastern states. I'd be upset if they didn't prioritize their work in the west. NPS, Fish and Wildlife, BIA all have majority of their acres in the west. But the IMT system already manages resources with a triage system so I just don't forsee much changing there.

My biggest concern is more on the suppression side of things, and the attempt to circumvent NEPA. All the funding comes from one pot of money, more money spent on suppression means less available for prevention/mitigation and rehab. Obviously if the reorg causes inefficiency in suppression it will take away from the others, but conversely it could also be more efficient and help those programs.

But hey, as I keep saying, I hope I'm wrong. Maybe for a little while, those who actually value Rx burns above OT and Haz pay will see to it that they continue to happen. That is, until this admin finds out and "redirects" them to chipping underbrush in Nevada and Utah.

Well, we do get OT and haz pay for RX burns, less than during suppression obviously, but considering those occur outside of fire season, the idea that the lure of suppression OT would take away from mitigation projects doesn't make sense.

Also not sure where the notion that this administration is anti rx burn is coming from? I'd be willing to bet a large sum of money that nobody will ever be redirected from an rx burn to chipping underbrush in Nevada, and honestly that statement makes your argument seem very uneducated.

Here's a link to the WFS website. This administration is well known for using agency websites as a platform for propaganda, so not sure why they'd hold any punches on this one. You'll see that prevention (includes rx fire) is mentioned repeatedly, they'd have scrubbed that language if there was really some political drive against it.

U.S. Wildland Fire Service | U.S. Department of the Interior

Modern wildland fire management for more resilient landscapes and safer communities

www.doi.gov

 

[Hunting Wife]

But we really shouldn't act as if this is the best thing for wildlife habitat nationwide. This move is not about habitat.

I haven’t seen a single person even hint at this being the best thing for habitat. Again, very hyperbolic. And I’m not aware that the main focus of fire programs in any agency, with the possible exception of USFWS back in the day, has ever been strictly habitat. I think the idea that fire is somehow the only or most available or even universally best tool for wildlife habitat management is not entirely based in reality. Is it a great tool? Yes. Does it have its downsides? Absolutely. Has any fed land manager been able to use it as their bread and butter strategy up until now? No, not by a long shot.

A lot of the things you’re worried about have already happened or shifted out of necessity a long time ago, for various reasons. Less Rx burns by the feds? Already there- you said it yourself that states and NGOs make more black than the feds. More staff in the west? Yep, already there, for seemingly obvious reasons IMO.

It hasn’t been catastrophic, and I’m hopeful that some tweaks could potentially result in some efficiencies or improvements. I’m a little concerned with originating agencies losing fire budgets to the new WFS, then having to pay for services we used to have in house. For myself, I no longer have an operational budget that will allow that at any meaningful scale. I’m hopeful we’ll still get the support from Fire to wrangle funds for some of the work.

So far I don’t see indications we’re being abandoned, though I do worry about what happens once the “cultural” attachments between our legacy fire folks and the original agencies fades over time. Hell if I know. We won’t know until we try. The old system wasn’t perfect either, but using fear as a reason to keep from trying something new never helped anything get better.

 

[kwyeewyk]

I’m a little concerned with originating agencies losing fire budgets to the new WFS, then having to pay for services we used to have in house. For myself, I no longer have an operational budget that will allow that at any meaningful scale. I’m hopeful we’ll still get the support from Fire to wrangle funds for some of the work.

This was my biggest concern. At least for now, what I'm hearing is the individual agency staff will still be doing the clearances (NEPA, cultural/ESA consulting, etc) and in theory will be able to job charge for time, in addition to 10% of project costs going to the agency for overhead.

Sounds like labor budget for WFS will be charged against a primary labor fund as it is used, so no distribution of labor $ to individual units.

I hope long term that WFS just remains integrated with the agencies folks were brought over from, and the only real change is having unified command of all DOI fire ops and a bit more efficiency.

 

[Justabirdwatcher]

I haven’t seen a single person even hint at this being the best thing for habitat. Again, very hyperbolic. And I’m not aware that the main focus of fire programs in any agency, with the possible exception of USFWS back in the day, has ever been strictly habitat. I think the idea that fire is somehow the only or most available or even universally best tool for wildlife habitat management is not entirely based in reality. Is it a great tool? Yes. Does it have its downsides? Absolutely. Has any fed land manager been able to use it as their bread and butter strategy up until now? No, not by a long shot.

A lot of the things you’re worried about have already happened or shifted out of necessity a long time ago, for various reasons. Less Rx burns by the feds? Already there- you said it yourself that states and NGOs make more black than the feds. More staff in the west? Yep, already there, for seemingly obvious reasons IMO.

It hasn’t been catastrophic, and I’m hopeful that some tweaks could potentially result in some efficiencies or improvements. I’m a little concerned with originating agencies losing fire budgets to the new WFS, then having to pay for services we used to have in house. For myself, I no longer have an operational budget that will allow that at any meaningful scale. I’m hopeful we’ll still get the support from Fire to wrangle funds for some of the work.

So far I don’t see indications we’re being abandoned, though I do worry about what happens once the “cultural” attachments between our legacy fire folks and the original agencies fades over time. Hell if I know. We won’t know until we try. The old system wasn’t perfect either, but using fear as a reason to keep from trying something new never helped anything get better.

Anyone ever told you your posts always have an argumentative tone?

And "so far" is like, weeks. Just watch it play out... We won't see it immediately as the supervision and funding and accountability and targets have barely even changed. We will see the effects in 27 and future years.

I’m a little concerned with originating agencies losing fire budgets to the new WFS, then having to pay for services we used to have in house.

You're getting warmer...

 

[Hunting Wife]

Anyone ever told you your posts always have an argumentative tone?

Easy tiger. That’s called disagreement and I think it was very civil. I’m clearly not the only one here that thinks your reaction is overly emotional. If you can’t tolerate disagreement, I guess that’s on you. It’s not like there’s a bunch of supporting data either way at the moment, so not sure why you’re so confident about your doom and gloom scenario but to each their own.

Your reaction tells me you don’t actually have a good response to the points I made. If you’re just going to sink to personal jabs now, I’ll bow out.

 

[Justabirdwatcher]

Easy tiger. That’s called disagreement and I think it was very civil. I’m clearly not the only one here that thinks your reaction is overly emotional. If you can’t tolerate disagreement, I guess that’s on you. It’s not like there’s a bunch of supporting data either way at the moment, so not sure why you’re so confident about your doom and gloom scenario but to each their own.

Your reaction tells me you don’t actually have a good response to the points I made. If you’re just going to sink to personal jabs now, I’ll bow out.

Add condescension to that list, tiger. LOL

My reaction only looks over "emotional" (your words) today. But it's based on almost 40 years of experience. So, call it what you want, but it's not based on emotion. It's based on decades of experience. The fact that you bring emotion into it only further illustrates my point about your responses.

I'm arguing that things have changed forever, but aren't yet visible. You're arguing they won't change (at least, until you contradicted yourself). Both of us are arguing things that cannot yet be proven, so the idea that I owe you a response is a bit absurd. As I keep saying, only time will tell. And, as I keep saying, I hope I'm wrong and I actually hope you're right.

There are some really good and caring people in the fire community that see the value in habitat management and fire as a tool to achieve that. I've worked with dozens of them. Hopefully those who are brought into WFS have an opportunity to shape the organization in such a way that the new agency has habitat management, and not just wildfire response, as a core part of its mission.

 

[44hunter45]

Add condescension to that list, tiger. LOL

My reaction only looks over "emotional" (your words) today. But it's based on almost 40 years of experience. So, call it what you want, but it's not based on emotion. It's based on decades of experience. The fact that you bring emotion into it only further illustrates my point about your responses.

I'm arguing that things have changed forever, but aren't yet visible. You're arguing they won't change (at least, until you contradicted yourself). Both of us are arguing things that cannot yet be proven, so the idea that I owe you a response is a bit absurd. As I keep saying, only time will tell. And, as I keep saying, I hope I'm wrong and I actually hope you're right.

There are some really good and caring people in the fire community that see the value in habitat management and fire as a tool to achieve that. I've worked with dozens of them. Hopefully those who are brought into WFS have an opportunity to shape the organization in such a way that the new agency has habitat management, and not just wildfire response, as a core part of its mission.

The funny thing to me is that you seem to think you are the only person on here with any experience. I'm betting you don't know (or care) what @Hunting Wife does, or for how long.
If you are going to start a dick measuring contest, you should at least know what you are getting into.

 

[Justabirdwatcher]

The funny thing to me is that you seem to think you are the only person on here with any experience. I'm betting you don't know (or care) what @Hunting Wife does, or for how long.
If you are going to start a dick measuring contest, you should at least know what you are getting into.

I doubt they need you to run to their defense. And the funny thing to me would be that you, or they, would assume I have less experience in this area than either of you.

Go back and look at the posts if you're really interested in who started the "dick measuring contest", tiger.

Nah, I just call out folks who repeatedly act like they are the only ones who know anything on these forums. Just the opposite of what you are suggesting in fact. I expressed my concern and hunting wife came along to poo-poo it, then followed with a condescending "tiger" comment when I called them out, doubling down on exactly what I called them out for. And now you run to their defense. Comical. You honestly think I don't realize that on a western-based hunting forum, there are dozens if not hundreds of members who have experience in the wildland fire world? LOL

The irony here is that hw contradicts themselves by actually agreeing with me after basically accusing me of crying wolf for no reason. All of this would be hilarious if it wasn't so sad - people feeling like they have to flex on a stranger who did nothing more than share their concerns based on nearly 40 years of experience in the field. So damn unnecessary if we just stick to the topic or simply respectfully disagree, as (again, ironically) hw suggests. No accusations of hyperbole. No condescending "tiger" comments. No need to continuously "correct" other members, as is their pattern.

If they weren't so busy trying to look like the smartest person in the room, hw might actually have a few things to learn from my experience, as I'm sure I could from theirs. For example, their opinion "Has any fed land manager been able to use it as their bread and butter strategy up until now? No, not by a long shot." is simply not accurate. I'm not sure if they are uninformed, or just lack experience in areas where this is true. Because it is certainly the bread and butter strategy on hundreds of thousands of acres of federal land I'm intimately familiar with, hence the entire reason I started the thread.

A lot of our federal lands, and those state and NGO lands that also rely on Rx burning as their primary habitat management tool (read: prairies, pine savannah, coastal wetlands) are at risk of losing significant amounts of federal fire support. Anyone who thinks this administration is concerned in the least with fire as a habitat management tool is either naive or hasn't been paying attention. This WFS merger will have major consequences to wildlife habitats IMO and over the next few years, we will see that play out.