In case you didn’t read the comments i the previous post, Joe Reddan had some experiences to share that I think are worth hearing. I’m actually seeing three areas of concern that the next Admin could consider addressing or at least host some kind of open discussion or process about:
(1) Transparency, including making it easier to access information. Our effort to reinstate the employee directory. To some extent, Jim Z.’s concern about employee presence is another part of this.
(2) Farming out FS work without competition such that work formerly done by federal employees with experience and knowledge is learned by others, without qualifications considered relevant. What does it mean to farm out knowledge, and inspection of federally funded work, and what is the rationale? If the FS, via grantees, hire folks and then don’t give them the same benefits as feds (including long term commitments), is this good for them? Why are professional knowledge requirements overlooked? Do the universities who provide that professional knowledge know or care? Joe shares his experiences below.
(3) Concern about certain wildland fire use without the public being involved. If folks from Sarah Hyden to Frank Carroll, to some western governors, have the same concerns, and even Jon and I agree that this would be a good use of forest planning (!), it seems like it should be up for more open discussion. There are also concerns about the role (if any) of private landowners.
The ideologically diverse folks at TSW seem to have concerns about these three things. For me, this is a signal that it is something the FS should pay attention to. And if they are, it would be helpful to share with us what they are doing. Just some way of saying to us “we are listening, we haven’t dismissed your concerns.”
These are the messages I hear instead:
Organizations you don’t know (and we won’t give you a list or share how much funding has been obligated), many without a track record, have been given lots of money off the top to do swell stuff. If you want to find out, you need to FOIA (thank you, Regions 10 and 1!), hundreds of specific agreements. Your area “needs” fire and trust us, the result will be great.. or there’s always FEMA. Oh, and we can’t afford to pay our non-fire temps next year. And it’s too much work to make it easy for the public to contact us, or “it actually is easy our way and you the public just haven’t tried hard enough to do it our preferred way.”
Now I know many of the current FS leadership folks, and I don’t believe that they mean to be sending these kinds of messages. But something appears to be broken between intention and (shades of my old boss RS) the ever-ignored, implementation.
Illustrative of concern 2 Joe Reddan’s comment, posted below.
********************************
I am deep in the middle of this as the chair of the Four Corners Chapter of the Association of Consulting Foresters (ACF), which as its name implies covers the Four Corner States and Wyoming. There are 8 full time members, 4 candidate members, 3 retired members and 3 associate members in Four Corners ACF. Many active members of Four Corners are retirees of the Forest Service including a regional forester, forest supervisor, forest staff officers and district rangers.
ACF membership has educational standards for professional natural resource competency and a rigorous vetting process for practicing members. Nationally, there are approximately 750 members in 38 states and growing.
The ACF has been in discussions with the National Wild Turkey Federation (NWTF) to provide professional forestry services for their forestry operations; however, no agreement has been reached. The big difference between the attached RFP from NWTF and what ACF would offer is educational requirements and professional expertise. No where in the NWTF RFP is there an educational requirement for forestry, no less natural resources. So, no competency requirement based on the science and practice of forestry. ACF members have an average of 30-years of professional forestry experience. Who knows what the RFP awardee will have in terms of education and experience, since it is not required. ACF membership includes names of firms that are widely recognized in and out of the forestry circle.
NWTF is not alone in subverting the Federal Acquisition Regulations (FARs). The National Forest Foundation (NFF) a Congressionally established foundation is inserting itself in operations on Colorado private land along with the alphabet soup of Federal and State agencies under the guise of cross-boundary work. Unfortunately, with all the swirl of agency and environmental non-government organizations (ENGOs) swarming to work both sides of the “fence” the private landowner’s interest is not represented. When one looks at the websites of the ENGO(s) there are few if any personnel with formal forestry education. The NFF Colorado coordinator has a background of wildland fire fighting coupled with a law degree and worked for an organization that is a serial lawsuit litigator against the United States.
In one Colorado case that I am familiar with, the NFF operated on both sides of the “fence,” in a lodgepole pine ecosystem, with little to no plan to remove harvested logs from the private land. Indeed, the private land log decks were not sorted by species, making it difficult for the private landowner to sell the heterogeneous decks. Abandoning the log decks which include lodge pole pine is an open invitation for mountain pine beetle. The activity slash management is decidedly a “Yugo” approach for the private land using a lop and scatter technique, in a “wildfire crisis landscape.” The federal side of the “fence” received a “Cadillac” approach with hand and machine piling for more robust slash disposal. Ostensibly, these government and private lands are within a Colorado “wildfire crisis landscape.” One feature these government/ENGO efforts fail to address is private landowner forest management plans that can provide a property tax benefit under the Colorado Forest Ag Program and responsible land and forest stewardship for 10-years or longer. ACF forester involvement would fully and completely represent the interests of the private landowner in these “cross boundary” endeavors now and in the future and provide a check on the excesses of government and its ENGO partners.
In all situations ACF its member firms and members stand ready to consider partnerships at any level to assist in meeting goals of “Cross Boundary” forestry.
Joe Reddan, Chair
Four Corner Chapter of Consulting Foresters (ACF)
In the Forest Service, “Harvest Inspectors” were seen as a luxury, or an emergency need. During my salvage days each Sale Administrator had several projects, and one Harvest Inspector per project. There was always a wide spectrum of skills levels, and the Sale Administrator had to determine how much authority to delegate. Some HIs could ‘mark trees, mark damaged trees and designate waterbars’, as spelled out in the Timber Sale Contract. Most new HIs weren’t trusted to approve landings and skid trail patterns. If you don’t know the limitations of man and their machines, you shouldn’t be approving such things. Some people also don’t have the writing skills to make official agreements. (For example: There is a difference between the words “accept” and “except” in contract language)