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)
It’s not only NGO’s, or ENGO’s; the FS is losing its influence on sensible forest management in parts of the West.
Back when the “Great American Outdoors Act” (GOAA) became a thing, the FS was behind the eight ball on getting the Agreements in place for projects. Those G & A folks were overwhelmed – the ones still around, and the shrunken number of FS employees were pinned to very short timelines, causing costs of work between three and ten times normal amount (personal communication). What a deal!that’s the beauty of these quick-lay agreements, get the ink on the sheet, we’ll figure it out later….
And now, the silvicultural and presale/fuels experienced employees are either overwhelmed, or retired! I’ve seen work done where the FS is paying, yes paying $4,000/acre to thin! And, the slash is being left as it. After I regained consciousness, I found about half of that amount was donated funds, but still…. The actual figure was $3,900/acre, but that didn’t include inspection or layout. 😜. Mostly I hear “ we’ve expended our funds on getting these areas thinned so we can’t afford dozer line for Rx fire”, and these are FUEL treatments? Good grief!
I’ve written, posted, pouted, etc. on trying to get slash taken care of, at least Rx fire, to no avail! Clearcuts remain non-stocked five years after work, but no one cares. NFMA is just alphabet soup to the newbies, I reckon. Hundreds of thousands to millions of acres of wildfire need to be replanted but no funds available. Garden Clubs in metro areas donate more $ than some Forests budget for fire reforestation!
NGO’s are great, sometimes, but can also start steering the ship instead of building steam. Unfortunately, it’s only getting worse; maybe the new Administration will correct these ills but only time will tell. And, I won’t get into specific acronyms of overbearing groups but the ACF’s are spot on….
Some ENGOs try to help steer the ship because it seems like the ship may be about to hit an iceberg, and go under water. We don’t want to help build steam in order to go in a wrong direction.
Often times, landowners are subjected to the bureaucratic process where they are put on a wait list or have to jump through hoops to talk to one forester just to be pointed to another that may or may not be able to help in a timely manner when dealing with a state forestry agency and this leaves landowners with a lot to be desired. Rather than focusing on the specific needs and wants of clients at the personal, case-by-case level, there appears to be this near-panic desire to plug holes in the ship by throwing money and personnel at the problem so arbitrary acreage and volume targets can be accomplished as a way to justify increased funding sources when and where they arise. As Jim Z eluded to, the Forest Service as well as NGOs and state agencies are loosing influence when it comes to sensible forest management therefore the desperate attempt to stay relevant is just that, desperate. The more money that can be brought in, the more these entities can fund projects and pay staff to remain relevant but the near-panic posture is doing a disservice to landowners by undervaluing and under-utilizing quality professional services by trained an experience foresters that address landowner-specific forest management goals and objectives.
The technical skills gap is prevalent across the forestry domain and rather than employing the expertise of skilled and qualified foresters that are in short supply across the profession, especially independent foresters that have the freedom of movement to work with whatever entity needs it at the time. Instead, the prevailing trend is that “everyone has all the answers” and do not need additional skills or expertise from trained foresters despite engaging in the sphere of technical forest management. Combine this with things like the influx of IRA dollars such as the $12.5 million NFF just received from the USFS Office of State, Private, and Tribal Forestry to complete work on private land and soon, money and the desperation of staying relevant to the public matters much more than almost anything else including the collaboration that is touted in press releases and most importantly, the landowners that they are supposed to be serving in the first place.
If work falls short of the needs of landowners, it may require additional time and money that the landowner may or may not have to correct the deficiencies. In my experience, it is usually the situation of “land-rich, money poor” where do not have additional resources to correct subpar work. This subpar works leaves landowners with few options and often that includes reaching out to an independent forester that wants to help but is unable to because the landowner doesn’t have the money to pay an independent forester out of pocket. In the instance Joe is referring to, that makes things even more difficult because current western log markets are pretty dismal therefore landowners are unable to recover the economic value from decked timber that could be used to pay an independent forester that has the skills and abilities to bridge the gap between what the landowner needs and what was left behind for the landowner to figure out like inadequate slash disposal or substantial amount of decked harvested timber that has to be utilized before sap rot or other decay sets in. Meanwhile, it is business as usual for these NGOs and their partners as they continue their ambitious campaigns that only prioritizes money and influence for political gain.
The attitudes and behaviors that under-value and under-utilize professional forester expertise can also be seen as a near-adversarial approach to independent foresters, especially when multiple organizations, including ones that are taxpayer funded, team up on numerous “landscape-level” projects that encroach on the traditional marketplace of independent foresters, NIPFs. In Lake and Chaffee County, Colorado, NFF has launched the Central Colorado Wildfire Mitigation Program (CCWMP) that is deliberately soliciting private landowners. Because NFF is a congressionally chartered NGO that is tasked with assisting in with managing lands under the National Forest System, this is a deliberate act to step outside of their lane to advance their agenda without any regard for anyone but themselves and their “partners”. From personal experience I can attest to how difficult being an independent forester can be in places like Colorado or New Mexico and although being an independent forester is a profession that necessitates the ability to improvise, adapt, and overcome, being iced-out by multi-organizational iron triangles can be extremely frustrating when being looked at from the independent forester perspective.
This is especially true that this is being practiced while collaboration is being preached by these same organizations simultaneously. Collaboration is by far one of the most successful things we have in this line of work and that was established as far back as the White Mountain Stewardship Project when the USFS piloted the program. However, to have effective collaboration, all stakeholders must have a seat at the table and if there is inadequate representation across stakeholder groups, the collaborative process is going to fall short of its potential at best. Worst case scenario, it presents a multitude of missed opportunity that hurts everyone in the long run and creates a lot of hard feelings along the way. These organizations need to get out of their own way because their willful ignorance (if not outright spitefulness) is hurting everybody, especially the landowners that are supposed to be helped in the first place.
Hi Ty, what I don’t understand is why these organizations just don’t hire independent foresters to work on private land?
Hi Sharon,
That is what I’m also trying to fully understand myself. A quick Google search or better yet, a visit to the ACF website would show anyone with these organizations independent foresters within a reasonable geographic area that could help provide technical forestry services for their projects. Given how dire the forest management crisis across the West has become, one would think any help would be welcomed, especially when it comes to the aptitude of experienced foresters.
Hi Sharon,
Given how dire the forest management crisis is in the West, one would think that any and all help would be welcomed, especially if it involves the aptitude of an experienced independent forester. However, human nature often complicates things especially in the realm of natural resource management. The natural resources profession demands a high level of competency therefore to maintain credibility, the answer of “I don’t know” is often seen as a surefire way of reducing it. The problem is perception and therefore people seem to think that you have to have all the answers in this line of work even though that couldn’t be further from the truth. That could be one explanation of the more innocent sort.
On the other hand, values and beliefs, both at the individual and organizational level, can vary considerably therefore creates conflict that can clash with other individuals and organizations. Money and politics make rational people do irrational things and I saw that a lot of that working in the water realm and the same holds true for other areas of natural resources like forestry. Some people believe that government and NGOs should have a larger role in how forests are managed as part of “the social good” while others believe that free enterprise creates innovation and provides unique opportunities to solve problems.
I would like the government to pay someone to mow my lawn. All that grass biomass is a hazard to my community. Just because I own my property, that shouldn’t mean I have to pay for its upkeep myself, right? Surely some well-meaning NGO, with a liberal dose of federal dollars, could step up to the plate and save me the money?
Andy, if they will subcontract to my own 501 c(3), I will make sure a migrant crew mows your lawn to government standards at some point. Also, this will be helpful to Mexican and Guatemalan economies, so they will be doing even more good than just keeping another non-profit profitable so we can continue to operate. And you can thank the taxpayers for this service — it’s not cheap!