Since no one commented on the previous post, I’m substituting this one as a dialogue with Michael Rains. He knows as much about the Forest Service and S&PF as anyone. Here goes. My original writing is the same, his responses are in red. In the Holiday spirit, my responses to his red is in green. The discussion started as “could the FS reprogram” and ended with ideas to reorganize the agency. Thanks to Michael for giving us the benefit of his wisdom and experience!
*********************
Look, no one wants the FS to have a budget crisis. I don’t like thinking about, writing about, nor talking about budgets. But here we are. This discussion of State and Private is relevant because folks are circulating a grant from S&PF and wondering why they are sending bucks out if the FS is in the hole. Tomorrow we’ll talk about the grant itself, but the juxtaposition of this grant and laying off temporaries for next year has caused some concern. So, we need to understand whether those funds could be reprogrammed to help out the National Forest System (NFS); and if they could, should they?
Unfortunately, some NFS people think that if the FS gave up on its State, Tribal and Private responsibilities, that NFS would get more bucks. I thought S&PF had changed its name to include Tribal, but I just looked on the website and it’s not clear, so I’ll refer to it by the old name for now.
Here’s what’s in the S&PF “deputy area” (I will call it that until I hear differently) according to the web link:
Not too long ago, I was asked in my role as Station Director about a more optimal organizational structure for the Forest Service in the Northeast and Midwest. I immediately recited my concern about the Mission Area designations and the lack of conservation decision-making flexibility the Forest Service currently has. The organization might look like the following, using the twenty-state area of the northeast and Midwest as the example:
The key: stop this incredibly stale and in-effective notion of “mission areas.” If I am the Deputy Director of Land Stewardship, then my role is the maintenance, protection and best use of all lands. Yes, I have a direct and indirect role.
During my career, I worked in/on federal lands, non-federal lands, business operations and research. I can absolutely tell you that the way the Forest Service is organized is wasteful and terribly in-effective.
You have folks that spend their entire career in NFS. Want to toss non-federal lands stewardship aside because “they don’t know what they don’t know. So, first we need to address the root problem: that is an archaic organization that does not work.
The benefits of a new, much more contemporary organization seem apparent to me; exciting and full of promise. The dominant feature is a corporate Forest Service that will emerge bolstered by a consistent, powerful voice of one overall leader v. separate administrative units. Program direction immediately becomes more cohesive, consistent and comprehensive (C3); let me call this the C3 Model. You do not need to close down units with the C3 Model. However, combining some functions does become easier and the promise of immediate and future savings while sustaining and improving services becomes very real. The Forest Service will become competitive again.
Look at your mini-mission areas in the current SPF structure. This almost could not be arranged any poorer. Fire was moved to S&PF during the Reagan Administration, because all the “grant funding” was eliminated and the Chief wanted to have a more balanced mission area.
U&CF is part of S&PF. It doesn’t need to be. If you want the Forest Service to be known as a premier land steward along a complex rural to urban land gradient, then you do not stuff education, Grey Towers and U&CF in a mission area that is thought of as a dumping ground. When I was ma Forest Hydrologist in R-2, I decided I wanted to try the Y-LT (the Yahoo-Little Tallahatchie Flood Prevention Project, SPF, MS). I was told that will be the end of my career. The Y-LT could still be with us as a restoration area along the entire Mississippi Delta, if we had not thought of it as some crummy SPF fixture – which it was not. A beautiful federal role with the NRCS, FS and States and Department of Defense.
Fire and Aviation Management works in partnership with federal, tribal, state and local partners to manage wildland fire across the national forests and grasslands. They provide premier leadership in wildland fire management, operations, research, and advanced aviation technologies.
The Office of Tribal Relations is charged with fully implementing Forest Service tribal relations policies and continuing to build long-term, collaborative working partnerships with Indian tribes. Note: If I am Chief, this program is going to be tied to me.
Forest Health Protection provides technical assistance on forest health-related matters, particularly those related to native and non-native insects, pathogens, and invasive plants.
Note: See what happens when you have mission area designations? NFS become the focus, as opposed to “protection.” Forest Health Protection needs to be “protection” focus and not a mission area focus. There are so many ways to arrange work. One that is really goofy, however, is NFS, SPF, R&D. Minimally, Lands, Science, Business Ops. But, even more appropriately would be LANDS and BUSINESS OPERATIONS. You do not need, for example, a Deputy Chief for Research. One has to think first about a CORPORATE Forest Service. Currently, we have a series of tents that are selfish. Thus, NFS says get rid of SPF so we can have their money. IT does not work that way.
Now if it seems to you that there could be some overlap between the technical support that NRCS, Extension, and the FS provide. that might be an interesting area to explore. Also, there seems to be overlap between FS wildfire grants to communities and to BLM.
Anyway, many have observed grant funds being rapidly shoveled out of the FS (and BLM but maybe that’s a potential reprograming too far?) since the election; my question is, given the FS shortfall, is it possible to reprogram from FS S&PF? Note: when you put lipstick on a pig, you still have a pig. Yes, reprogramming can work in a pinch. First, check on Fire, science and overhead funds. I guess I should ask, what is the current shortfall.
Sharon: I think it’s $750 mill or 1 bill.
Let’s face it. The current Forest Service is a mess. We need to put away the lipstick, and address the real problem. That is, the lack of a corporately deployed vision and mission IS THE KEY PROBLEM.
The national office should worry about policy, policy deployment and linking-pin functions. Currently, you have mini-Forest Service organizations at almost every level. You do not need a Region 5 and 6. A Region 1 could equal 3, 4, 2, and 1. Create a design and then work to that design. Allow yourself a decade, as part of the “campaign of your campaign.”
Cooperative Forestry helps people care for the land and their communities. Cooperative Forestry provide financial and technical assistance to landowners, communities, and businesses to actively manage and sustain long-term investment in non-federal forest land.
Conservation Education delivers science-based education about forests, grasslands, and related natural resources to pre-kindergarten through 12th grade students, educators, and families. Note: education buried in a mission area? Are you kidding.
Grey Towers was the home of Gifford Pinchot, first Chief of the US Forest Service. Today, the Forest Service works with partners to deliver public programs, interpretive tours and conservation education programs. And, it is so far under the radar screen that if it vanished by 11:59 PM tonight, no one would care.
I also thought Urban and Community Forestry was part of S&PF, but it’s not listed among the programs on that webpage but can be found here. I think it is a part, but maybe not listed on the webpage? Anyway, the reason S&PF has a budget, is because it is supported by externals, who do quite a bit of lobbying. Imagine you’re a State or Tribe or an urban area.. what’s not to like about federal funding?
Note: Yes, much of the funding had strong supporters. But, when I was Deputy Chief, S&PF, I had a pretty decent command of the Forest Service budget. Being a National Budget Coordinator helped. So, when I was talking with key Members, I did not limit my input to S&PF. Now, can you name one person in the Forest Service that can go to the Senate Appropriations Ranking Member and discuss in a balanced way, the agency budget? Max Peterson could. F. Dale Robertson could.
Sharon: We don’t know that the current people can’t discuss the budget in a balanced way, do we?
**********
Note (original from Sharon): I suppose there is a general question about how much the feds should be involved in giving the states bucks and telling them what to do. There are maybe generally not-agreed-upon principles and the government that we have. So, I don’t think ST&PF is necessarily the right place to be having the broader discussion of “what help, to whom, and what is the federal interest?”
**************
Note: We provide the states with funding to help advance a federal role of sound forest stewardship. We could do a much better job of focusing this federal assistance.
It should also be noted that Forest Health and Fire are very helpful to NFS folks- NFS doesn’t in fact have separate forest health professionals. In fact, there is also a reforestation, nurseries and genetics program funded by S&PF, as well as forest and regional reforestation and genetics funding and expertise. Their website is funded jointly by the Forest Service and Southern Regional Extension Forestry (which is part of Extension via NIFA, a USDA agency I used to work for in its previous incarnation as CSREES). Yes, there could be much better coordination. But, this is not the driving issue. The lack of a corporately deployed vision and mission IS THE KEY PROBLEM
Note: See what happens when you have mission area designations? NFS become the focus, as opposed to “protection.” Forest Health Protection needs to be “protection” focus and not a mission area focus. There are so many ways to arrange work. One that is really goofy, however, is NFS, SPF, R&D. Minimally, Lands, Science, Business Ops. But, even more appropriately would be LANDS and BUSINESS OPERATIONS. You do not need, for example, a Deputy Chief for Research. One has to think first about a CORPORATE Forest Service. Currently, we have a series of tents that are selfish. Thus, NFS says get rid of SPF so we can have their money. It does not work that way.
Now if it seems to you that there could be some overlap between the technical support that NRCS, Extension, and the FS provide. that might be an interesting area to explore. Also, there seems to be overlap between FS wildfire grants to communities and to BLM.
Anyway, many have observed grant funds being rapidly shoveled out of the FS (and BLM but maybe that’s a potential reprograming too far?) since the election; my question is, given the FS shortfall, is it possible to reprogram from FS S&PF? Note: when you put lipstick on a pig, you still have a pig. Yes, reprogramming can work in a pinch. First, check on Fire, science and overhead funds. I guess I should ask, what is the current shortfall. Sharon: I think it’s $750 mill or $1 bill, does anyone know for sure?
Let’s face it. The current Forest Service is a mess. We need to put away the lipstick, and address the real problem. That is, the lack of a corporately deployed vision and mission IS THE KEY PROBLEM.
Of course, it’s possible that if the FS were allowed to reprogram, traditional ST&PF adherents would lose confidence in the FS. However, the most recent grant has not gone to one of them. So, there’s that. More on that grant tomorrow.
We have to define much better what the indirect role is for non-federal lands stewardship. It should not be that every state gets a piece. Like was done in the Northeastern Area so many years ago, “focus federal assistance.”
If I were the Chief of the Forest Service, I would go to about 5 select members of Congress. Tell them what I think the issue is. Ask for their support. Then, develop a team to create an organizational blue print. And, along the way, brief your gang of 5. And, let’s say you get a SES vacancy. STOP. Maybe not filling that position will fit right into the blueprint. Make the blueprint super responsive to corporate vision and mission.
You have 2 choices. Do nothing and watch the Forest Service continue to decline. Or change. I have not mentioned this yet, but the notion of having a Department of Forestland Stewardship (combining NPS, BLM and FS) makes so much sense. Keeping the Forest Service in with corn, wheat and soybeans simply suppresses the importance of forest maintenance, protection and use along a complex rural to urban land gradient.
Again, let’s get the Forest Service to deploy a corporate vision and mission that really does care for the land and service people. With an organization that makes sense you could “reprogram” – not waste – the following minimal amounts to land stewardship just through efficiencies:
Year 1: $98 million.
Year 2: $127 million.
Year 3. $170 million.
Year 4. $315 million.
Year 5. $485 million.
Year 6. $615 million
Year 7. $690 million.
Year 8. $755 million.
Year 9. $817 million.
Year 10. $1.03 billion
FINALLY:
You are on to something really important here. It is not whether or not we should reprogram UCF grants because that seems to be a funding source. It is about rebuilding the Forest Service into a first rate conservation agency that has a clear vision and mission that is corporately deployed for the American people. Currently, the agency is a mess. STALE. Taking a few dollars from UCF because people do not know what they do not know, will solve nothing in both the SHORT and LONG-TERM.
Comments by Michael T. Rains, December 16, 2024.
I think it’s interesting that I think it’s important to make sure that federal efforts across agencies, including R&D, tech support and grant programs are coordinated, and easy and straightforward to access. It’s like Michael wants to design a puzzle, and I want to put the pieces on the table first and see how they fit. I’m just glad we have a place to access a variety of ideas, and that people appear to be interested in making government run better at this point in time.
I hate to start at square 1, but maybe we should talk about “the lack of a corporately deployed vision and mission IS THE KEY PROBLEM.” Michael used the term “mission” 16 times, mostly in criticizing “mission areas,” but I assume an overall “mission” is still important to agree on. Michael named the new organization the “Department of Forestland Stewardship” – which tells me he thinks the mission is “forestland stewardship.” One obvious problem to me is it covers a lot more than “forestland.” I do like “stewardship” better than “conservation,” since it means taking care of something, and does not necessarily imply any “use.”
I worked on a national team led by Urban and Community Forestry that tried to facilitate “cooperation across boundaries” in land management and planning. This was referring to land ownership boundaries, and there was definitely an NFS desire to not blur them, but it felt to me like we were also learning to work across internal bureaucratic boundaries. (I would also be interested in knowing how the public views the “Forest Service” and whether that should matter to its organizational structure.)
Your closing comment connected with a timely concept I came across today which you might find interesting if you haven’t heard of it already: Chesterton’s fence
https://fs.blog/chestertons-fence/?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email
Many thanks for this! I am a fan of Chesterton (and CS Lewis) but had never heard this one.
I think about this when I think of grants vs. contracts.. federal contracting was designed (whether it does so or not) to give the biggest bang for the taxpayer buck and to avoid cronyism. It also had a pretty serious set of inspection criteria, punishments for non-compliance, etc. Even though I like NGO folks, I think we throw those out with some risk to transparency and accountability.
I agree with Rains that we need to clearly lay out a mission statement. We now say the mission is to care far the land and serve the people – does anyone know what that means – I don’t think we can solve
the agencies problems until the mission is clear and can be accountable. The elephant in the room is that the agency has a broken decision making process. Which accounts for a major part of inefficiency of the budget. Both of these two issues should be addressed before reorganization or movement to Interior should be discussed. BLM has many of the same problems in Interior.
If there was a clear meaningful and accountable mission statement and the ability to make timely and efficient decisions toward accomplishment of that mission were available I believe the Agency could and would rise to the occasion. This may be a unattainable task as there are many forces who oppose this kind of resolution.