I posted about GBI on May 1, and on May 2, Marc Heller posted about them on E&E News.
The hiring spree illustrates the chronic need for forest technicians and others whose work on national forests picks up in summer — a requirement that’s only grown with the Forest Service’s decision last year to suspend hiring for seasonal jobs not directly tied to wildfire. Organizations like the GBI that routinely work on national forests say they can’t bring on enough people to meet all the demand.
CEO Peter Woodruff told POLITICO’s E&E News that some of his group’s hiring would have occurred anyway through long-term partnerships already in place with the Forest Service. And while the hiring freeze predated the Trump administration, deep steep staff reductions directed by Elon Musk’s so-called Department of Government Efficiency have added to the strain, he said.
Indeed, Woodruff said, the GBI would probably be hiring more seasonal workers if not for lingering pauses on Forest Service grants that help make the organization’s work possible.
“This year, it’s an open question. It could be a tough year, or a productive year,” Woodruff said. “It’s hard to say.”Adding to the uncertainty: The Trump administration has pulled back funding from the volunteer program AmeriCorps. Woodruff said the GBI is AmeriCorps’ largest grant recipient in Nevada, and his group recruits AmeriCorps members for a variety of forest work. In some cases, Woodruff said, federal payments to the GBI are still in limbo, putting additional seasonal hires in doubt. Projects to protect biodiversity — the variety of plants and animals native to forests — have sometimes fallen victim to the Trump administration’s effort to stamp out diversity, equity and inclusion programs, he said.
Woodruff said it’s not clear how many seasonals the GBI will hire. Last summer was its busiest, he said, with 900 seasonal hires across federal, state and other lands. The national forest positions recently posted include a timber sale administrator on the Stanislaus National Forest in California; an archaeology crew leader on the Sequoia National Forest in California; and forestry technicians “to perform timber-sale preparation, vegetation management and restoration projects” in the Sierra Nevada region for $21 an hour.
**********
While the hiring reflects an urgent need to fill Forest Service gaps this summer, it also fits into a larger trend toward relying on outside organizations to handle many tasks
not directly tied to fighting wildfires. Some of the work involves trail maintenance and other tasks plainly visible to the public. But much of the hiring is for more highly skilled work in preparing timber sales, conducting surveys of sites’ historical value and performing environmental analyses required by the National Environmental Policy Act.
The arrangements have critics who point to a potential lack of accountability when work is taken out of the direct hand of federal agencies. Deals with the GBI and others often aren’t subjected to competitive bidding as they replace civil servants with contractors, said Andy Stahl, executive director of Forest Service Employees for Environmental Ethics.
It seems to me that grants by definition are never “subjected to competitive bidding.” Check out Rich J.’s comment on the intent of grants, cooperative agreements and contracts. And again, I’ll say if it’s so hard for feds to hire or contact because of the difficulties of regulations (and in some cases, poor organizations and programs like USA Jobs) the ultimate solution would be to streamline and improve, not farm out the work without competition. And although this piece doesn’t mention it, permanent kinds of work is also being farmed out to grantees. Also grantees are not subject to FOIA, and presently Dave Mertz and I have had to FOIA to find out what the grantees are doing. The latter could easily be helped by the FS simply posting the SPAs and quarterly and annual reports, or even regular summaries of activities.
For the organizations involved, the relationship with public land agencies can be a financial lifeline; the GBI reported $39 million in various government grants in 2023 out of $44 million in total revenue, according to its most recent publicly available income tax filing with the IRS. Ideally, the Forest Service wouldn’t need to rely on the GBI or other groups for seasonal jobs, Woodruff said.
But organizations that work with the agency say the outsourcing is mostly positive, filling needs the government can’t meet alone — and probably never will — and building relationships with communities. “To me, they’re being creative in a positive way,” said Steve Ellis, chair of the National Association of Forest Service Retirees. “There needs to be more active forest management out there.”
Officials haven’t said how long the hiring pause will last — and the Forest Service is still moving toward reductions in permanent staff. Agency employees familiar with the discussions say jobs not directly tied to fire or timber — such as research or headquarters administration in Washington — are likely most affected by voluntary departures and a future reduction in force.
With those changes looming, and the pre-Trump administration strains still in place, tapping nongovernmental partners makes sense, said Nick Smith, a spokesperson for the American Forest Resource Council. “Contracting with the private sector represents the future of federal forest management,” Smith said in an email.
He added, “The Forest Service will inevitably face continued budget and staffing constraints, even as demands increase — from reducing wildfire risk and addressing climate change to supporting timber production and other land management priorities. Embracing this new paradigm will enable the agency to leverage outside expertise, expand its capacity, and more effectively fulfill its mission in a time of urgent need.”
While Nick Smith mentions contracting in his email, since the grant idea seems to be catching on, why not have timber sale grants instead of contracts? Seems like it would also save a great deal of administrative time, paperwork and hassles.
Like I’ve said, I think that this is possibly a good short term fix, but transparency and accountability need to be improved, and long-term, the FS needs to decide what it wants to be when it grows up. There’s also a potential (not with folks like GBI or American Forests, NWTF, Mule Deer, TU or NFF ) for inexperienced entities to receive grants for unclear reasons.