Pay Raise: Solution to Hiring and Retention Problems?

One thing that’s come up in discussions about staffing up for the Forest Service work under BIL and IRA is the extra pay/benefits for new people, but not for current employees.  The Forest Service is working very hard to get more folks.  What’s interesting to me about this story from Greenwire (this is as far as I could see, so maybe there’s more interesting stuff behind the paywall) is why EPA would have more trouble hiring than any other agency.  Yes, and us old folks retiring (HR folks have been predicting this for the last 20 years or so).  What FS folks say is that people want to work remotely and not be in the field or small towns with few resources.  Seems like EPA jobs would be perfect for that.  I also wonder how some agencies can hire people (although with difficulty) and others cannot..

I particularly liked.. “if we don’t get a pay raise the future of the planet is at stake.”

Anyway I had heard that something like 25% of the positions on the org chart at BLM are open… perhaps BLM and FS jobs need to boost pay as well?

GREENWIRE | EPA employees are pleading with members of Congress this week to help boost pay and retain staff at their agency that’s central to the Biden administration’s climate agenda.

Members of the American Federation of Government Employees Council 238, EPA’s largest union, are meeting with lawmakers this week and plan to rally at the agency’s Washington headquarters Wednesday to draw attention to what they warn is a “mounting staffing crisis.”

The agency’s mission has expanded with the enactment of major laws including the climate law known as the Inflation Reduction Act and the bipartisan infrastructure law, according to the staff union, but hiring and staff retention haven’t matched the new workload.

EPA staffing levels are 20 percent less than under the Clinton administration, according to AFGE Council 238, and 3,000 employees — 21 percent of the agency’s workforce — are currently eligible for retirement.

“Our mission has grown enormously, and climate challenges continue to escalate, but EPA’s inability to hire and retain staff has created a crisis,” said AFGE Council 238 President Marie Owens Powell. “Salaries are not competitive and promotion opportunities are scarce. We need to raise pay and restore career ladders now. The future of the EPA and our planet are at stake.”

 

The Case of the Invisible Natural Resource Practitioners

BAER team for Pipeline Fire https://inciweb.nwcg.gov/incident-photos-gallery/azcof-pipeline-fire-baer

The role of experts seems to be the theme of the week.  This is a much broader political science question, of course- as we have seen with Covid.  But let’s burrow into our little neck of the woods. This may take a few posts.

Jan said yesterday in a comment:

Listen to AND BE RESPECTFUL to the public who are stakeholders in the forest. Don’t tell us that because we don’t have forestry credentials, we have no right to speak.

I hope that everyone is listened to respectfully, and everyone has the right to speak.  At the same time, it seems to me that experts have a unique value in laying out options for the public.  Yesterday Steve posted a piece about academics versus engineers.- they are both experts in different senses- the Curry piece talks about differences in accountability.  And Andy Stahl said that firefighters’ experiences with retardant were “anecdotal” without published scientific papers.  So does field observation and experience count as 0 with published paper as 100?  That too easily transfer “the knowledge keeping” to people further away from the real world (IMHO).  Do we feel the same way about, say, doctors?  If there is a gap between practitioners’ observations and academics, whether medicine, or forests, I’d say that that’s a science situation that shouts “watch out”.  Or at least a joint exploration of why that is.

In DellaSala’s op-ed on the Santa Fe project, he said:

My search for the truth in the Santa Fe National Forest began some three years ago during site visits to this remarkable forest.

Frankly, I was shocked about how much of it was being degraded by overzealous thinning projects resulting in weed-infested savannas lacking in forest complexity. As an “outsider,” I come with a fresh pair of problem-solving eyes, free of government research dollars that can otherwise obscure such fact-finding expeditions.

What’s missing from this and many other discussions is the role of the natural resource specialist.  These are the people who work there every day, archaeologists, fuels folks, suppression folks, wildlife bios, hydrologists, botanists, soils, silviculture, fish bios, engineers, pathologists and entomologists, range cons, minerals and lands folks, recreation and so on. Scattered around are also economists and social scientists.

Then there are the many State folks, and Extension folks who have the same kinds of expertise.  There’s a vast seething mass of specialists who agree and disagree and all work in the same places and interact with each other through time and space- and who are often missing from the “science” dialogue.

Now, I have heard (as a NEPA RO and WO person involved in various “improving NEPA” efforts) lots of stories about ID teams, so I know that many are not perfect.. how could they be? They are composed of human beings.  Still, my own experiences were about 1) learning the whole of the system (sure we had courses in all that, but it’s not the same), and 2) listening to other experts and having to agree on what’s a document.  In some cases, say, the hydrologist and fish bio would disagree about stream impacts, or the silviculturist and the botanist about plants. And we would have to work those out by discussion.

Note that in the DellaSala op-ed, practitioners seem to be missing from the picture.  It’s research scientist vs. scientist, and people who disagree with him do it because they are influenced by “federal research dollars.”(More on that claim in the next post).  But where are the practitioners?

Now I’m not necessarily just picking on DellaSala for this.  When I worked in the Forest Service R&D branch in the WO, there were some co-workers who conceived of  “scientists and managers” and left out the NFS and FHP specialists from the discussion.  Meanwhile there are many, many scientists, NGO, academic and federal who understand and support resource specialists and their needs.

To do a thought experiment, imagine my going to the ..say.. Umpqua on some site visits and determining that they were doing things wrong- because I could come with “a fresh set of eyes” unencumbered by any funding that would obscure “the facts.”  I couldn’t do that because I would have to talk to too many specialists to understand what was going on, what the choices were, what the history was and so on. Now  I’m not saying that I am humble and DellaSala is.. not. What I’m saying is that my experience on the ground gives me the background to know that understanding any place is a complex exercise, and it’s only by much listening and observing, and disagreeing that people can work toward the mutually agreeable tentative conclusions and followup that make up adaptive management.  Which is even more important due to the uncertain impacts of climate change.

And of course, specialists, line officers, researchers and the public can and do engage with each other with mutual respect. It happens every day, and is likely to be more common than not. Which circles back to the concern of stakeholders that specialists move too much to understand the area.  And Jack Ward Thomas’s idea of allowing excellent specialists to be promoted in place.  Frankly, I don’t see how we can claim any management is really “science-based” without supporting the workforce that is responsible for designing and implementing projects.

I sometimes I was not supported by my bosses to take part in professional societies, or for training in my specialty.  On the other hand, in the old days Region 6 funded me for post-doc work at North Carolina State, and funded advanced studies for other geneticists.  I wonder how supported people feel today at being where the science rubber meets the proverbial road?

Happy Thanksgiving, Everyone!

Thanksgiving is a unique holiday because it’s about gratitude- well and food, of course.

It’s also about turkeys.. and interestingly on October 28th of this year, the National Wild Turkey Federation signed a Master Stewardship Agreement with the Forest Service for 20 years. Check it out here.

I’m thankful for… Forest Service (and BLM all this goes for both):

Forest Service partners.

Forest Service employees. I’ll call out a few here. Human Resources folks who are trying to get fire folks their back pay, as well as everyone else their regular pay. And people working on hiring. Those who fill in for the work missed when fire folks are on fires. Employee Relations folks who help people work together and get out of sticky work situations. And Forest Service engineers who do all kinds of helpful things without much press coverage. And NEPA and planning people, of course.

Forest Service families. Especially fire families.

Producers of things we use. Wood, food, minerals, chemicals and energy. Who enable us to gather, eat, heat, and write, as well as run servers.

Journalists. Especially the ones who take time to dig into a situation and present both sides.

ENGO folks. They can help keep the FS on track and are partners, in perhaps a different sense.

Researchers and university types

Professional societies in natural resources, their employees and volunteers

The WordPress people and Cloud Nine Web Design.

And most of all, I am thankful for The Smokey Wire community. It’s not necessarily a popular thing these days to engage with people who disagree. So I appreciate those of you who share your thoughts and experiences and information, and those who engage in civil exchange of views.

So thank you all!

GAO Report on Barriers to Recruitment and Retention of Federal Wildland Firefighters

Here’s a link to the report.

I don’t know how many TSW ites are involved in fire or fire hiring, but I’d be interested in your impressions of the report findings.

Also, I wonder which of these barriers are also barriers to other FS (and possibly BLM) hiring?
The FS retiree rumor network circulated that the FS was trying to hire 800 slots and at the end of the day would only get about 500 reporting (anyone with better info, please add). So it’s possible that there are barriers to hiring all kinds of folks; perhaps not the same barriers. Maybe it also depends on what the alternatives for employment are. I have heard that fewer folks want to work in the woods/brush/grass and more want to work in the office on computers, but I don’t know if that’s true.

But back to fire folks.. there’s an interesting discussion in the comments on Wildfire Today here.

What GAO Found
The federal wildland firefighting workforce is composed of approximately 18,700 firefighters (including fire management and support staff) from the Department of Agriculture’s Forest Service and from four agencies in the Department of the Interior. The Interior agencies are the Bureau of Indian Affairs, Bureau of Land Management, Fish and Wildlife Service, and National Park Service. GAO identified seven barriers to recruitment and retention of federal wildland firefighters through analysis of interviews with agency officials and 16 nonfederal stakeholders and a review of documents (see fig.).

Low pay was the most commonly cited barrier to recruiting and retaining federal wildland firefighters. Officials and all 16 stakeholders stated that the pay, which starts at $15 per hour for entry-level positions, is low. Officials and eight stakeholders also noted that the pay does not reflect the risk or physical demands of the work. Moreover, officials and stakeholders said that in some cases, firefighters can earn more at nonfederal firefighting entities or for less dangerous work in other fields, such as food service. The Forest Service and Interior agencies have taken steps to help address this barrier. For example, in 2022, the agencies worked with the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) to address a provision of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act calling for the agencies to increase firefighter salaries by the lesser of $20,000 or 50 percent of base salary in locations where it is difficult to recruit or retain wildland firefighters. In June 2022, the agencies announced that the salary increase would apply to wildland firefighters in all geographic locations, as their analysis indicated that recruitment and retention challenges existed in all locations. The act authorized funding for the wildland firefighter provisions, including those related to salary increases, for fiscal years 2022 through 2026, and appropriated some funding toward those provisions.

The Forest Service and Interior are taking steps to address other barriers as well. For example, to help improve work-life balance for firefighters, the Forest Service increased the size of some firefighting crews, a change intended to allow crew members to more easily take time off for rest or personal reasons, according to Forest Service officials. In addition, in fiscal year 2021, 84 percent of federal firefighters identified as men and 72 percent identified as White. To increase diversity, the agencies have recruited women and underrepresented racial and ethnic groups, including through a wildland firefighter apprentice program. The agencies are also taking steps to improve mental health services and hiring practices

E&E News has an article on it, here’s an excerpt:

In a wildland fire review on the Forest Service website last Thursday, officials referenced the increased pay and new emphasis on mental health — a reflection of GAO’s finding that emotional strain remains one of the barriers to hiring and retention.

“We look forward to continuing this conversation with the wildland firefighter community as we work to build and solidify the well-supported, more permanent wildland firefighting force needed to address the wildfire crisis,” said Deputy Chief for State and Private Forestry Jaelith Hall-Rivera and acting Deputy Chief for Research and Development Cynthia West.

The Forest Service and the Interior Department together have a firefighting force of about 18,700, including support staff. Some 84 percent of firefighters in 2021 were men, and 72 percent white, although the agencies have focused recent recruitment at women and underrepresented racial and ethnic groups, GAO said.

To make further improvements, the Forest Service may need to pay particular attention to the concerns of people in their 20s who want to be firefighters, or to remain firefighters. That’s a priority for a group called the FireGeneration Collaborative, which sent representatives to the nation’s capital last week.

“They’re failing to connect with our generation,” said Kyle Trefny, a student at the University of Oregon and one of the group’s organizers, who’s also a wildland firefighter in the summer.

Trefny and others who visited with Forest Service officials and lawmakers said they’re pushing the agency to adopt policies and approaches more in line with younger adults who want to pursue careers in firefighting. Those include more diversity in fire crews, an embrace of planned fire as a forest management tool and flexibility in certain hiring practices.

Thank You to Veterans: New Lifetime Pass

Veterans help the Forest Service with conservation projects via SCA on the Nebraska National Forests.

To all Veterans here, thank you for your service!

New this year is a lifetime pass for current service members and their dependents, Veterans and Gold Star Families for federal lands.

On Veterans Day 2022, the National Park Service will unveil a lifetime pass providing free entrance to national parks for Veterans and their families. The Interagency Military Lifetime Pass waives entrance fees for the National Park Service and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and standard amenity recreation fees for the Bureau of Land Management, Bureau of Reclamation, U.S. Forest Service and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers sites for current military service members and their dependents, Veterans and Gold Star Families.

Veterans and their families have free access to approximately 2,000 public locations spread out across more than 400 million acres of public lands, which host activities to fit any lifestyle—from serene to high octane, including hiking, fishing, paddling, biking, hunting, stargazing, camping, and much more.

The Military Pass has been expanded to include a pass that does not expire for Veterans and Gold Star Family members. The National Defense Authorization Act of 2022 authorized a free lifetime pass to national parks and other federal recreational lands for eligible Veterans and Gold Star Families. In recent years, they were able to receive annual passes.

eterans and their families have free access to approximately 2,000 public locations spread out across more than 400 million acres of public lands, which host activities to fit any lifestyle—from serene to high octane, including hiking, fishing, paddling, biking, hunting, stargazing, camping, and much more.

The Military Pass has been expanded to include a pass that does not expire for Veterans and Gold Star Family members. The National Defense Authorization Act of 2022 authorized a free lifetime pass to national parks and other federal recreational lands for eligible Veterans and Gold Star Families. In recent years, they were able to receive annual passes.

 Are you eligible?

For purposes of this program, a Veteran is identified as an individual who has served in the United States Armed Forces, including the National Guard and Reserve, and is able to present one of the following forms of valid (unexpired) identification:

Gold Star Families are next of kin of a member of the United States Armed Forces who lost his or her life in a “qualifying situation,” such as a war, an international terrorist attack, or a military operation outside of the United States while serving with the United States Armed Forces.

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

Also Associate Chief Angela Coleman wrote this note to Forest Service employees:

This Friday, Nov. 11, please join me in thanking and honoring our nation’s veterans for all of their service and sacrifice in defense of this nation and protection of our freedoms as Americans. Friday isn’t just a day off from work. It’s a day to acknowledge the debt we owe our servicemembers and military families who continually put service before self.

In the Forest Service, we acknowledge the many veterans who help this agency fulfill its mission. There are more than 5,000 former military members and military family members who work for the Forest Service, nearly 15% of our permanent workforce.

The veterans who join the federal civilian workforce are choosing to continue service to their country, albeit in a different form. Veterans come to us with considerable skills, extensive training and a huge range of life experiences. They put all of that to use in valuable ways throughout the agency. We are fortunate to have them with us.

To all of our Forest Service veterans and your families, thank you for all you have done, and all you continue to do, for our country.

I also ask all employees to take time this Veterans Day to thank our veterans—your coworkers—for their continued service to our country. Have a safe, wonderful weekend.

Additional resources

Learn more about employee resource group SALUTE, composed of Forest Service military veterans and their allies, in today’s employee perspective and via the group’s SharePoint site.

Will the Forest Service Rise to the Task?: A Guest Post by Dave Mertz

Dave Mertz

Well, the election is almost over, with something to please everyone!  As I predicted, democracy has survived and the wheels of government will continue to grind forward.  So back to our usual forest stuff.

A while back, Jim Furnish posted on the future of the Forest Service vis a vis MOG.  Dave Mertz another Forest Service retiree, had some thoughts on this as well.

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

This may be a watershed moment for the Forest Service. Everyone is looking to the Agency to address the wildland fire crisis in the West. A lot of additional funding has come their way, from the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act in particular. I think we all want them to succeed but are they up to the task? There are a number of things that the Forest Service does really well. They are considered by many to be a premier wildland fire suppression organization. Their ability to mobilize forces and equipment is really quite amazing. Their initial attack success rate is also excellent. In the past, the Agency produced incredible amounts of timber for sale. That of course, has greatly declined over the last 20-30 years.

We probably all have our thoughts on how the Forest Service could be more successful. I enjoy reading the Smokey Wire and seeing what other people think. I don’t consider myself an expert but I had a career with the FS and worked in Timber and Fire on a number of Forests. I would like to share a few thoughts for discussion.

For starters, I think the FS needs to decide what is the mission of the Fire Organization and the associated vegetation management program? Is it to protect WUI? Is it to mitigate fire impacts to the general forest and limit impacts to watersheds, etc.? Is it to reduce the impacts of climate change and/or adapt to it? Each of those require somewhat different approaches. Or, are they trying to do it all? I think an argument could be made that they are indeed trying to do everything and not being overly successful in any of those areas.

Since the Fire Plan in 2000, they said they would greatly increase the amount of fuel treatment and prescribed burning. With the exception of R8, they have not really done anything significant in moving the needle. Even though a lot of fire employees were added and dollars were pumped into the system. Are they being smart with the dollars and spending them in the right places? California has the highest rates/acre by far for fuel treatment and then how much is spent in chaparral and other areas, where the impacts are gone in five years? It’s like that old saying “I don’t know where we’re going but we’re making good time!”

If you pay attention to things like the Smokey Wire and other sources, you surely have seen all of the arguments about how logging is the answer to the wildland fire crisis. If we could just thin millions of acres, we would be fine. Turn the loggers loose! Others say no, you have to prescribe burn, that is the answer. Others say you have to do both. Then again, others say that logging and thinning makes the situation worse (Chad Hanson and others). Doesn’t the FS have the science resources to answer these questions? Of course, they do.

Forest Service Research is well funded and has some of the best in their fields. By now, they should be able to definitively say that they have done extensive research, and these are the types of treatments that will significantly mitigate the impacts of low to moderate fire behavior. Occasionally, it will also work at higher levels of fire behavior but when we are dealing with extreme fire behavior, all bets are off. There are no pre-treatments to address that. Everyone needs to be upfront and honest!

The FS has also been saying for many years that they will increase timber management to create more resilient forests. How have they done at that? The excuses are typically insufficient funding, and the crazy environmentalists keep filing lawsuits and won’t let us get stuff done. Well, it appears that they have plenty of funding now and I don’t necessarily buy the lawsuit thing. Maybe in the past, but not now. They have a number of current, categorical exclusions (CE) that for all practical purposes, make NEPA irrelevant. The Public can’t file objections to them, and the only option is a lawsuit. No one wants to file a lawsuit over a CE, it’s not worth the effort and money. Sure, the CE’s have limits on acres, but it is not really that much work to crank them out. Do a bunch of them!

The FS can’t get a lot done if they don’t have an effective hiring system. Hiring was bad 15 years ago and from what I hear, it is now actually much worse. Most Forests have numerous vacancies, and the process is really cumbersome. They also have a new budget system that from what I hear, is good at the RO level but the Forest folks don’t see any benefit. There is no incentive for them to save dollars in order to spend in another area, because they no longer have that option.

In employee surveys, FS senior leadership consistently ranks low within the Federal Government (I have not seen the latest OPM survey, but I am assuming things have not improved). I believe that one of the reasons for this, is it is a small pool of people that will continually move around and move up to get these jobs and they may not always be the best. The FS has really limited reimbursement for moving expenses and no one wants to move on their own dime. I don’t blame them. The cream will not rise to the top with that kind of thinking.

I am hoping that the Forest Service will rise to the occasion. I also hope that they can stay relevant and once again be seen as a premier land management agency. I certainly wish them all the best, as we all should. They are desperate for strong leadership. It really comes down to that. They have an outstanding workforce that can accomplish amazing things, but they need good leadership.

Let’s see how they do over the next couple of years. If I got some things wrong here, please let me know.

Dave Mertz retired from the Black Hills National Forest in 2017 as the Forest’s Natural Resource Staff Officer.  Over the course of his career with the FS, he was a Forester, Silviculturist, Forest Fire Management Officer and a Fire Staff Officer.  Since retirement, he has stayed involved in Forest Management issues, with a particular interest in the Black Hills NF’s timber program  

 

A Look at the Manchin-Barasso Promoting Effective Forest Management Act

Here’s a link to the announcement. Here’s the bill itself (only 21 pp).

Read a summary of the Promoting Effective Forest Management Act of 2022 here.

Read a section-by-section of the Promoting Effective Forest Management Act of 2022 here.

My comments are in italics.

**********

ITITLE I ACCOMPLISHMENTS OVER RHETORIC
Section 101. Thinning Targets.

Section 101 directs the Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to set annual acreage targets for mechanical thinning projects on National Forests and public lands. Under the
bill, agencies are to double their acreage targets by 2025 and quadruple them by 2027.

Just exhortation and funding won’t do it. Heck the Wildfire Commission couldn’t get going in the Congressionally prescribed timeframe with only picking people and having a meeting.  And there are the workforce problems we’ve discussed many times.  But perhaps timelines would be useful due to the next section.


Section 102. Annual Reports.

Section 102 directs the Forest Service and BLM to report certain acreage accomplishments,including whether the mechanical thinning targets in Section 101 have been met. If the targets
are not met, the agencies must report any limitations or challenges, including litigation or permitting delays that hindered their progress.

I think this one has value by making transparent what’s really holding up projects. We’ve discussed various sources of delays here, but with those reports everyone could get a better picture or what’s going on.


Section 103. Transparency in Fire Mitigation Reporting.

Section 103 increases transparency in fire mitigation reporting by directing the Forest Service and BLM to exclude acres that need to be treated more than once from output measures in
certain reports and budget request documents.

This sounds like cleaning up accounting, about time.

Section 104. Regional Forest Carbon Accounting.
Section 104 directs the Forest Service to, using data from the forest inventory and analysis program, determine whether National Forest System lands are carbon sources or carbon sinks,
and to publish that information online.

This sounds useful.


Section 105. Targets for Wildlife Habitat Improvement.

Section 105 directs the Forest Service and BLM to meet wildlife habitat improvement goals and targets relative to existing management plans.

There must be a backstory of how the FS is not meeting targets, the hook and bullet folks are on board with this bill so they must be concerned. There must be a write-up somewhere, has anyone seen it?


TITLE II FOREST MANAGEMENT

Section 201. Land and Resource Management Plans.

Section 201 directs the Government Accountability Office (GAO) to report on whether shortening the length and development timelines of Forest Service land and resource management plans would help the agency address its backlog of outofdate plans.

I think the FS should convene a Committee of Practitioners and Collaborators to review the successes and failures of the current planning process and recommend changes to NFMA. I don’t think the GAO has the folks to figure out how best to “shorten the length.”


Section 202. Management of Old Growth and Mature Forests.

Section 202 directs the Forest Service and BLM to adhere to the current definitions of “old growth forest,” and requires that any updates or revisions can only been made after a recommendation by a scientific committee, followed by a rulemaking process under the Administrative Procedure Act. Further, this section clarifies that “mature forests” are separate from oldgrowth forests, and that mature forests are to be managed according to current law.
This section also clarifies that executive branch actions shall not modify, amend, or otherwise change the duties of the Forest Service or BLM under current law.

This takes aim at the Moggie process which is I think a time-wasting (to the rest of us)  bone thrown to certain supporters of the current Admin. This bill seems like a step in the right direction, especially the part about mature forests.

2
Section 203. Assessment of Processedbased Restoration Techniques.

Section 203 directs the Forest Service and the United States Geological Survey (USGS) to establish a pilot program to conduct research on and evaluate wetland and riparian restoration
techniques, including utilizing biologicallydriven restoration.

Section 204. Intervenor Status.

Section 204 allows counties and local governments to intervene in lawsuits intended to stop wildfire prevention projects on nearby National Forests.

Help from legal folks here.. I didn’t know they couldn’t be intervenors..

Section 205. Utilizing Grazing for Wildfire Prevention.
Section 205 directs the Forest Service and BLM to develop a strategy to increase the use of grazing as a wildfire mitigation tool. This includes the use of targeted grazing, increasing
issuances of temporary grazing permits, and completing environmental reviews for vacant grazing allotments that could be used for grazing when drought and fires impact occupied
allotments.


TITLE IIIWORKFORCE

Section 301. Logging workforce.

Section 301 directs the Forest Service to work with States to develop a universal, tiered program to train people to enter the logging workforce, and to examine ways to facilitate apprenticeship
training opportunities. This section also allows existing funding to be use for lowinterest loans to modernize logging machinery.

Section 302. Breakinservice consideration for firefighter retirements.

Section 302 ensures that wildland firefighters can retain employment and retirement benefits for
breaksinservice that are 9 months or less.

Section 303. Firefighter rental housing.

Section 303 places a cap on rent for wildland firefighters when they are forced to pay for agencyprovided housing.

TITLE IVCULTURAL CHANGE IN AGENCIES
Section 401. Mandatory use of existing authorities.

Section 401 requires each National Forest and BLM unit to use at least one existing streamlined authority for environmental review on a forest management project within the next three years.

Section 402. Curtailing employee relocations.

Section 402 directs the Forest Service to curtail employee relocations and to develop a program that provides incentives for employees to grow in place. Further, this section places a cap on
employee relocation expenses, and directs the Secretary to solicit employee applications in a manner that does not limit eligibility to current Forest Service employees.

I had to read the bill to see that the relocation is about line officers.  Since BLM and FS line officers are always switching back and forth, I don’t know about this one:

Sec shall solicit applications for line officer positions in a manner that does not limit eligibility for the solicited position to only an applicant who is a current employee of the Forest Service.”


Section 403. Repeal of FLAME reports.

Section 403 repeals a report within the FLAME Act of 2009.

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

Please add your own thoughts and any analyses you run across,  and it would be great if someone would read the entire bill itself.

The Smokey Wire Information Request- FS Accountability Study and a new “What Year Was This?” Quiz

We’ve been discussing Forest Service accountability. Yesterday’s post was about “when things go wrong with serious impacts.” But accountability can also have a more Government Performance and Results Act-ish tone. Like the FS tells Congress it can do things with the budget and doesn’t. I think both those definitions are important, but when we use the word we need to think about the scope and scale of what we mean. In case it’s not obvious, I think the historical perspective is important because we can see what has been tried and worked or not.  Which is what adaptive organizations do, as Chelsea pointed out.  I think it’s hard to be adaptive with seemingly random and shifting political and legal constraints, but perhaps other agencies have been more successful.

I’m looking for a copy of this taskforce report as discussed in this GAO study. I remember that Tom Mills may have been the lead.  Once again, I’ll offer an opportunity to author a post to the winner of the “what year was this GAO report” quiz.

Similarly, the Forest Service has not been successful in achieving the objectives in its forest plans or implementing planned projects. For example, in response to congressional concerns about the Forest Service not being able to deliver what is expected or promised, the Chief, in the fall of 1991, formed a task force of employees from throughout the agency to review the issue of accountability. The task force’s February 1994 report set forth a seven-step process to strengthen accountability. Steps in the process include (1) establishing work agreements that include measures and standards with customer involvement, (2) assessing performance, and (3) communicating results to customers. However, the task force’s recommendations were never implemented. Rather, they were identified as actions that the agency plans to implement over the next decade.

The task force’s recommendations, as well as those in other studies, are intended to address some of the long-standing deficiencies within the Forest Service’s decision-making process that have driven up costs and time and/or driven down the ability to achieve planned objectives. These deficiencies include (1) not adequately monitoring the effects of past management decisions, (2) not maintaining a centralized system of comparable environmental and socioeconomic data, and (3) not adequately involving the public throughout the decision-making process.

Cue this song. Other findings from the same GAO report:

First, the agency has not given adequate attention to improving its decision-making process, including improving its accountability for expenditures and performance. As a result, long-standing deficiencies within its decision-making process that have contributed to increased costs and time and/or the inability to achieve planned objectives have not been corrected.


Second, issues that transcend the agency’s administrative boundaries and jurisdiction have not been adequately addressed. In particular, the Forest Service and other federal agencies have had difficulty reconciling the administrative boundaries of national forests, parks, and other federal land management units with the boundaries of natural systems, such as watersheds and vegetative and animal communities, both in planning and in assessing the cumulative impact of federal and nonfederal activities on the environment.


Third, the requirements of numerous planning and environmental laws, enacted primarily during the 1960s and 1970s, have not been harmonized. As a result, differences among the requirements of different laws and their differing judicial interpretations require some issues to be analyzed or reanalyzed at different stages in the different decision-making processes of the Forest Service and other federal agencies without any clear sequence leading to their timely resolution. Additional differences among the statutory requirements for protecting resources—such as endangered and threatened species, water, air, diverse plant and animal communities, and wilderness—have also sometimes been difficult to reconcile.


However, on the basis of our work to date, we believe that statutory changes to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the Forest Service’s decision-making process cannot be identified until agreement is first reached on which uses the agency is to emphasize under its broad multiple-use and sustained-yield mandate and how it is to resolve conflicts or make choices among competing uses on its lands. Disagreement over which uses should receive priority, both inside and outside the agency, has also inhibited the Forest Service in establishing the goals and performance measures needed to ensure its accountability.

The Need for Alignment: Internal to Agencies, Among Governments, and Within Administrations

Diablo Canyon, California’s last operational nuclear plant, is due to be shut down in 2024.
PHOTO: GEORGE ROSE/GETTY IMAGES
This was the original photo that went with Ted’s op-ed in February. apparently the State decided to keep it open for five more years.

I’ve been thinking about alignment lately.  I’ll tell you three stories, then point you to an op-ed, and ask you for examples where you think alignment needs to be fostered, as well as ways to create alignment. I know some “old Forest Service” types that could produce alignment, perhaps that was a different cultural moment, or they had skills that could still be useful?

(1) First, when I was trying to get input from Forest Service research silviculturists for our MOG letter, I was told (as were others) that they weren’t allowed to talk about it.  So I asked Jamie Barbour and he said that wasn’t the case.  All the National Forest System silviculture folks returned my calls and emails, and answered my questions.  The Forest Service didn’t know there was a problem with alignment until someone from outside told them. How else would they know?  I’m expecting by the next round of comments on MOG, this will be cleared up.

Intra-organizational alignment.  In a large organization, tough to achieve and keep going.

(2) Second, I have a friend in a mountainous subdivision of Denver, who is working wholeheartedly on wildfire mitigation.  I could give many examples, but here’s one.  She’s trying to get infrared cameras placed on mountaintops.. but some telecom group wanted to charge $30K or so a month to put it there.  Other telecom companies would do it as a public service, but perhaps not in the best locations. If it were really important to do whatever to stop fires in communities.. people would be looking at this.  Maybe there are but we don’t know.  So many moving parts, so many responsibilities so much unclear.

Alignment among levels of different government and other authorities.. perhaps the most difficult kind of alignment to achieve.  Often it’s not really clear who is in charge of what, and it’s not clear that anyone is looking at the big picture. And at the same time, looking at the mis-alignments at the local level where the proverbial fire hits the stucco.  I hope that the Wildfire Commission might help with multi-level alignment, but I wonder whether they will solicit input on “why it’s hard to get mitigation done” from all the relevant people and institutions at the local levels.

(3) Third is the obvious challenge of “more energy infrastructure ASAP” versus current permitting procedures.  Some groups seem to feel like the current situation cannot be changed in any way or “the nations fundamental environmental laws will be undermined.” Some groups were pushing President Biden to declare a “climate emergency”.   It seems logical, perhaps, then that emergency CEQ and agency NEPA provisions could be invoked for a very wide range of mitigation and adaptation projects- including ones that would be off-limits if the groups promoting “no cutting of 80 year old trees” win out.  It seems like a major misalignment to me. Because nowadays everything can be linked in some way to climate change mitigation or adaptation.

But back to the renewable build out vs. permitting procedures as sacred text as described by Ted Nordhaus of The Breakthrough Institute in this Wall Street Journal op-ed.

In Nevada’s Black Rock Desert, local environmentalists and devotees of the Burning Man festival are using the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) to oppose a geothermal energy plant. Further south, the Sierra Club has joined with all-terrain vehicle enthusiasts to stop development of what would be the nation’s largest solar farm, which it says threatens endangered tortoises. Along the Atlantic seaboard, plans for major offshore wind farms have been hogtied by provisions of the Jones Act, an obscure law that requires maritime cargo to be transported exclusively by U.S.-flagged ships when it is shipped between domestic ports. It is an obstacle that may ultimately prove beside the point because proposals to develop wind energy in American coastal regions have also faced a constant barrage of NEPA and Endangered Species Act (ESA) lawsuits designed to stop them.

The problem isn’t limited to renewable energy. In California, environmentalists have used a state law designed to protect fish eggs as a pretext to close the Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, the state’s largest source of clean energy, while the California Environmental Quality Act has hobbled efforts to build both high-speed rail and high-voltage transmission lines that the state is counting on to meet its climate commitments. In Washington, D.C., meanwhile, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission peremptorily rejected last month the application of the first advanced nuclear reactor developer to seek a license before the commission, to cheers from leading environmental groups.

Across the country, foundational laws established in the 1960s and 70s to protect the environment are today a major obstacle to efforts to build the infrastructure and energy systems that we need to safeguard public health and save the climate. Though the Biden administration and Democrats currently propose to spend close to a trillion dollars on low-carbon infrastructure and technology, there is little reason to believe the U.S. is capable of building any of it in a timely or cost-effective way.

I particularly liked the ATVs and Sierra Club aligned.  And doesn’t it make you wonder where all the money will actually go? Check the whole op-ed out, I don’t think it’s paywalled.

Will there be environmental costs to clearing away the detritus of decades of environmental regulatory policies? Without question. Some ill-conceived projects will get the green light, and those projects may have a negative impact on local environments. But we have a range of other legal tools to protect our most valuable environmental resources, from federal authority to protect public lands to the Clean Water Act and the Clean Air Act.

The U.S. can no longer continue to neglect its compounding infrastructure and clean-energy needs. We aren’t going to regulate our way to a thriving low-carbon economy and a more stable climate. America needs to get back to building again.

I was reminded of Sally Fairfax’s article in 1978

  • Sally K. Fairfax, “A Disaster in the Environmental Movement,” 199 Science743 (17 Feb.1978)
Unfortunately I can’t get through the paywalls ($30 to Science and it’s not available to free users of JStor) to clip out pieces of the paper, but as I recall, her argument was that NEPA focused environmental groups on procedural rather than substantive statutes.  Nevertheless, I would say to Nordhaus that ESA is a procedural statute like CWA and CAA. Maybe there’s a legal reason those are less often used.