Many thanks to Phil and Frank for posting their ideas for FS improvement. This seems to be a window of opportunity to make suggestions, both because of the current situation in the Forest Service, and also because there are people in the new Admin interested in organizational improvement and efficiency. And, as I’ve pointed out before, it’s been awhile since organizational improvement of the USG received any kind of focused attention by an Admin. When I say “current situation in the Forest Service”, I mean the idea of no temporaries next year- something that has never happened before, and dare I say, shouldn’t actually happen. Plus, there’s the mystery of why it is so difficult to find out what happened to all the BIL and IRA funding- where it went and what was done with it. It’s both puzzling and annoying that millions of dollars have gone out without, apparently, one salary for communicating with the public. Perhaps that position would seem like an unnecessary remote GS 12 or 13.. but, as we see, “unnecessary” is in the eye of the beholder. This is definitely an inflection point, and hopefully someone (the agency? a FACA committee? politicals? all of the above?) to take a look at what’s been going on with the agency and determine what they should do going forward.
Unlike Frank, I am not sure that Agency leadership is the problem. For one thing, we don’t know how much of the two problems above was brought on, directly or indirectly, by politicals. For another, it is the most natural thing in the universe for institutions to accrete layers of bureaucracy, and the most unnatural (and likely to get you in trouble) to question or attempt to reduce it.
What surprised me about our discussion of Frank’s and Phil’s ideas was how much people agreed.
Something different is needed. (Jim F., Phil, Frank, Anonymous)
There are things in FAM that need a closer look: examples, managed fire (Frank, Phil), retardant (Frank and probably Andy), contracting (Lesa).
From Anonymous
” Most important is responsiveness of the agency to targets, to public requests, and to Congressional committees that hold the purse-strings. This includes being seen being responsive. How you get there is less important. Leadership should absolutely consider new ways of doing business to make this refocusing….
So doing the tasks of a bureaucracy in a “non-bureaucratic” way to meet mandates in a transparent, fast(ish) way. Eliminating check-box type steps in planning, NEPA, and public engagement. Not being cagey on wildfire strategy. Better websites. “
I think most of us would agree on those, although “check-box steps” may be in the eye of the beholder.
Jim Furnish and Dave Mertz point out that we really can’t go back, and we need a “new place to land”. I think the next step is to ask for posts on “what the new place to land looks like.”
I agree with them. I feel the same way about HRV or HRV- infused NRV.. time’s arrow works one way.
Pragmatically, as Dave points out, the infrastructure is not there. We need new infrastructure to even handle piles of fuel reduction material without burning into the atmosphere.
Here are my thoughts.
1. Identify places of success.. say the SERAL project in California on the Stanislaus. Whatever “it” is they seem to be doing it. Ask them to identify what would make their jobs better. The mission is still probably “caring for the land and serving people”. At least, that’s what I see on the forests I visit.
**To any future political appointees possibly reading, the fact is that employees can have great ideas that are often quelched by various organizational forces. That was the beauty of the 1980’s Pilot effort, until it in turn was quelched. Plus you will get employee positive vibes by making their jobs easier, which may be useful in building good relationships, that will pay off if you want to institute less popular changes. Finally, you don’t have to believe in the Deep State to think that changes with employee support can have more staying power during future Admins.
2. To go forward instead of back, it seems to me that we need a plan at the Forest or landscape level. This would be a wildfire (PODs, fuel treatments, evacuation route) plan amendment with an EIS that covers establishment and maintenance and prescribed fire, and managed fire parameters. I’d stick a fork in plan revisions until this work was accomplished for all “wildfire forests.” Of course, this plan would be integrated with county, State and community plans. Right now, in some places I know, it seems to be a cluster of State and federal grant programs doing random acts of preparedness.
So maybe the new way is ” the Forest Service, with our partners, are managing vegetation and fire to promote resilience of National Forests to stressors, and to continue to provide watershed protection, wildlife habitat, and recreation opportunities.” We don’t need to overthink this.
3. Remember those old SWOT analyses? Strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats? We can ask the question “what does this Admin bring to the table that is an opportunity?” I see two obvious ones:
a) helping fix longstanding federal hiring and accounting obstacles and systems. USA Jobs. The story of how the FS got so deeply in the hole without knowing. Does accounting for timber sales/stewardship/ service contracts have to be so complicated? Not to diss partners but if the FS is giving them funding because contracting and hiring is too difficult, that’s a problem, in my view.
b) fuel treatment waste wood utilization. The Admin has many folks outside of government to call upon, knowledgeable about business and technology, operations, markets and capital, and all that. For forty years or more, folks have been trying to find uses for extra woody material. As Dave points out.. 4FRI, and they are still trying. I’d get some top folks on this.. interviewing people who are trying right now, maybe reviewing the last 40 years of lack of success, including wood utilization grants. We (in our communities) have been unable to solve this problem. We need help!
**************
Other ideas? Also, even if you have not posted here before, please consider writing a post on what Jim F. calls “a new place to land.” I’d especially like to hear from someone in the Eastern half of the country. Current employees: you can always be anonymous. Someone out there is an inspiring writer, I’m sure!
I think we need a Forest Service Congressional Coordinator, who will tell lawmakers (in a single unified non-partisan voice) exactly what they need. Then, the pressure would be on Congress to fund, or not fund many of the mission-critical needs of the Forest Service, including changing Federal laws to allow the USFS to function best. (We didn’t see all the Forest Service’s problems presented to Congress, for remedy in the BIL.)
“A new place to land”? I think it’s a new planet to launch from; to get to beginning to fix all the issues with current NF management, the tool needs to be a bulldozer instead of a shovel! Just my two cents, but good gracious granny, our old Agency is in a mess…..
“there are people in the new Admin interested in organizational improvement and efficiency.”
Really? Is that your translation of “retribution,” “fire the professionals” and “kill diversity,” and would it take priority over “drill baby drill” and “own the libs” (the last one meaning “log baby log”)?
Jon: I think you may have been watching too much MSNBC lately. You probably think you are stating facts rather than propaganda, because that’s how propaganda works. Take a deep breath and relax. You are afraid of something that doesn’t exist except in the minds of fevered opposition to anything Trump. I’m pretty sure “own the libs” doesn’t mean “log baby log,” and whatever you are imagining as “retribution” is probably highly unlikely, illegal, and/or goofy. But at least you are very clear and transparent regarding your political biases, so there’s that.
Don’t plan on a second career in mind-reading. There are plenty of mainstream sources (I don’t think I’ve ever watched MSNBC) that tell us that Trump should be taken seriously but not literally. I don’t think viewing his interests as “organizational improvement and efficiency” is taking him seriously. Having a Department of Government “Efficiency” could be as misleading as a “Freedom” Caucus or “Christian” nationalism.
Here is what the focus is really going to be (according to someone inside the “DOGE” Caucus): “how many positions we’ve cut, agencies we’ve cut, what the actual number is.” https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/musk-and-ramaswamy-visit-capitol-hill-to-discuss-trumps-plans-to-slash-federal-government
(I think the best case for the Forest Service would be that they are ignored.)
And this: https://www.newslooks.com/federal-workers-brace-for-trumps-relocation-plans-redux/
“risk mass staff departures, operational disruptions, and diminished government efficiency”
Where to land? While I like the idea of talking about what and how to fix the broken situation (which I believe it is), the idea that the new administration is interested in fixing things doesn’t seem to be based on anything I have seen. It’s such a depressing time to be a federal employee. It wasn’t easy a few months ago when we were told the agency misplaced tens of millions and there would be no seasonals next year, but now we have rhetoric from those representing the new administration stating that we need to get rid of half of all federal workers by any means necessary (e.g., fire those of us with an odd numbered SSN). This is beyond demoralizing rhetoric. It suggests that there isn’t any desire to land this thing thoughtfully. For example, we have 5 key support staff that have remote agreements, each of which are some of our best, most dedicated, and experienced. Ending those remote agreements will be a huge blow to our office’s work output as they serve essential roles, including our GIS lead support staff person, which is often a bottleneck as it is. The DOGE talk is what it is. Are we not supposed to take it seriously?
Obviously, they want to shrink the size of the Forest Service, which will lead to massive failure. Then, the Feds can divest itself of the land management tasks, and give it (minus the firefighters) back to the States. Some Republicans have desired such a situation for many years, always denying more funding, over the last 3 decades. That would also hand over the diversity issues to the individual States, too.
Hi Larry: As a reformed Libertarian, I supported the idea of privatization — or at least State management — of our federal lands for more than 40 years. So far, no success.
But to say that mass lay-offs now would result in “massive failure,” is to repeat the same predictions that I and others made in the early 1990s with the Clinton Plan. And, unfortunately, we were right. No idea how it could get much worse than now, biologically, economically, or aesthetically.
Our National Forests are a mess, and it is wrong to hold most current employees accountable. This is the doing of politicians, lawyers, and U.S. taxpayers who have created this dysfunctional result. In my opinion, based on observation and documentation.
Whoops! I am not a member of the Anonymi, and sent this out accidentally w/o revealing myself. This is actually my opinion, based on observation and documentation.
What I would say is that clearly Parts of the new Admin are interested in fixing Parts of Agencies and right now we don’t know how it will balance out, nor how that will affect the FS.
For example, I’ve been following picks like Marty Makary and Jay Bhattacharya in the health sector. They are clearly interested in fixing things (making them better). Or take Medicare fraud, clearly you can’t fix that by getting rid of employees. So what I see is a tension between the appointees a) knowledgeable about the system who want to fix it and b) the DOGE folks. Given the history of USDA I would think the FS will respond by offering up what it thinks are the low hanging fruit to DOGE and see where it goes from there. What will be very important is the new Sec picking someone for undersec who cares about the FS and its mission, and also cares about wise use of taxpayer resources who will be able to thread the needle, so to speak.
Interesting side note.. if you look on the ACES contractor New Solutions jobs, there is one in public affairs and a soil scientist remote. (https://newsolutions.org/jobs/open-positions-in/?state_abbr=REMOTE&program=), which supports your view that people who are remote get hired when no one wants the position locally.
Again, if I were the FS, I would be thinking (and talking to communities now to develop support) about what positions they feel are most important to keep in the community.
“undersec who cares about the FS and its mission”
Agree – as opposed to one who is opposed to the agency’s mission, which is the case for some so far. And probably the FS is low enough profile for this to be true. But it also may be low enough profile to be viewed as expendable – since having the states take over would thread that needle nicely (depending of course on what the “mission” is).
Just passing this on from the Washington Post (who I would expect to know as much about federal employees as any general media source): https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/12/08/federal-employees-trump-fear-purge/?utm_campaign=wp_post_most&utm_medium=email&utm_source=newsletter&carta-url=https%3A%2F%2Fs2.washingtonpost.com%2Fcar-ln-tr%2F3fdd8d0%2F6755c762a455f90cfe244bfa%2F5d3a0ebdae7e8a7c4f4664c2%2F16%2F52%2F6755c762a455f90cfe244bfa
“Federal employees are scrubbing their Facebook and X accounts for any negative posts about Trump. Some, including at least one prominent official who testified in Trump’s first impeachment inquiry, are weighing putting in retirement papers, while others maneuver to transfer to seemingly safer agencies. D.C. recruiting firms are seeing booming business from those looking for private-sector work.
Meanwhile, some agencies have moved to reclassify jobs with titles that could clash with Trump’s agenda, especially those promoting Diversity, Equity and Inclusion, boosting environmental justice and fighting the effects of climate change.
There is shock and there is actual fear, and there is self censure in the sense that people are scared about retaliation,” said Jesus Soriano, president of the American Federation of Government Employees Local 3403, which represents more than 1,000 scientists and administrators at the National Science Foundation.
As they wait to see whether Trump and his allies will be able to follow through, the resistance that many career civil servants showed to his first-term agenda is largely going underground this time — with staff keeping their heads down rather than speaking out and risk being singled out.”
This is what intimidation looks like; maybe the Forest Service can keeps it head down.
Improves efficiency? 🤣