HikeArizona.COM

Hobbs called the agreement a new chapter of collaboration between the state, the federal government, the Arizona Department of Forestry and Fire Management and the U.S. Forest Service.
Hobbs said that Arizona had faced nearly 2,000 wildfires in the past year.

https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/lo ... 612457007/

my initial thought is more than 80% of AZ wildfires are human caused so..... ban humans? I'll read the article and then have further comments. I'm sure this all for the best but I'll leave my response with any real meat to it until I read the full article.

She said the agreement has five key points:

1. The establishment of annual planning meetings to ensure regular coordination between the state Forestry Department and the federal Forest Service to prioritize fire prevention, mitigation and restoration efforts.

Oh good. Meetings. The hallmark of efficiency and productivity in any large organization. Especially government.

2. The expansion of cooperative projects with the goal of removing invasive species, reducing hazardous fuels, harvesting timber, performing controlled burns, and restoring watersheds in 40,000 acres by the end of 2026, supporting both wildfire mitigation and the timber industry.

Sounds vague. And expensive.

3. A shared transportation agreement to facilitate easier access for forest operators to move products.

Who exactly is a forest operator? Me?

4. Implementation of a centralized GIS system to provide a shared mapping resource for managing restoration projects.

This might actually be useful!

5. The development of a plan within 18 months on the disposal and use of forest biomass.

Where have I heard the term "concepts of a plan" before?

Main reaction: Where is the money coming from, and how much is it? (AZDFFM budget for FY22 was $60 million. For FY25 it is $154 million )
The agreement mentions the US Forest Service. There is no mention of BLM nor tribal lands, which seems strange to me.

Random query: Where did the Department of Forestry and Fire Management even come from? As far as I can find, it didn't exist before 2013, and has only really started doing anything public-facing in the past 3-4 years. Just four years ago Gov Ducey described: "DFFM provides protection to Arizona State Trust Land and private land located outside incorporated municipalities for fire, natural resource and watershed issues." In the past couple of years, it seems that DFFM has taken a lead role in managing wildfires that occur even entirely on USFS land. I suspect that it has everything to do with funding, and where that money comes from.

If this helps relieve Tonto NF from their catastrophically land management over the past 5 years, I'm all for it. If DFFM is the real reason WHY Tonto has been so exceptionally inept, then I fear that expanding their role will have further detrimental impacts to lands statewide.

I imagine that timber companies will like this agreement

Most "invasive species" were introduced by well-meaning, ill-informed government.
Oh good.... biomass boondoggle rises AGAIN! [ New forest thinning contract awarded ]
Taxpaying voters have a da mn short memory.

hikeaz wrote:Most "invasive species" were introduced by well-meaning, ill-informed government.

Citation needed. Generally speaking, in Europe and ANZ which is what I'm more familiar with on this topic, almost all invasive species of animal were introduced by private parties for either hunting or pest control. Plants are *usually* accidental introductions due to travel but some (lupine in Iceland for example) were the result of government intervention, which would fit your statement. That's not the majority though, especially in the US where land travel isn't limited in any way and is, in fact, encouraged. We got a big ol' country here with a lot of different crap and it travels.

@xsproutx
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science- ... 180956878/

Probably not quite what you want but one example where the government approved of it's import. I must say dried and cut Tamarisk makes awesome long burning firewood, with almost no smoke.

Wasn't buffelgrass introduced for cattle grazing? Not sure if that was done by ranchers without supervision or approval from the government, or if it was Grade-A USDA approved.

@RedRoxx44
Tamarisk (which I agree with you is honestly pretty great for fire) was originally brought over and sold as an ornamental via private parties, roughly 50 years before the government started using it (for erosion control, similar to lupine... lesson being I guess... just use rocks or something?). There's obviously a case to be made that if the government hadn't started using it that it wouldn't be as widespread but the fact that it's insanely invasive really just means it probably would have taken longer, not that it wouldn't happen. It had already been in California and Utah previous to the government efforts.

Christensen, Earl M. 1962. The rate of naturalization of Tamarix in Utah. The American Midland Naturalist. 68(1): 51-57
Robinson, T. W. 1965. Introduction, spread, and aerial extent of saltcedar (Tamarix) in the western states. Professional Paper 491-A. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of the Interior, Geological Survey. 11 p.
Horton, Jerome. 1964. Notes on the introduction of deciduous tamarisk. Res. Note RM-16. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 7

Now they have introduced a beetle to take care of it... surely chasing the chain of invasive species will work out

@chumley
Buffelgrass is absolute a government one; the NRCS, previously known as the soil conservation service, introduced it for... erosion control primarily with grazing as a secondary benefit.

[ youtube video ]

They know what they're doing.