The Hotshot Wakeup is doing a much better job of covering the FS budget crisis than I am so here’s a link to his latest:
Reducing a budget gap of this size by $700M is no easy task, and the Forest Service did it relatively quickly. However, this did not come without tough decisions. In communications with Forest Leadership last week, the FS said, “The Forest Service has made tremendous progress regarding the budget for FY25 and has reduced the $750M salary budget gap down to $50M.”
They continue saying that this was accomplished through personnel actions and permanent employee actions and was greatly assisted with trust funds and contract adjustments.
As we already know, no non-Fire seasonal hires will happen in fiscal year 2025, likely freeing up a tremendous amount of money. There have also been discussions about providing buy-out opportunities for “close to retirement” employees. I don’t know what this would look like, but multiple employees have come forward saying they have received “hypothetical” offers.
It’s not a huge surprise to hear they utilized trust funds, and contract adjustments were likely coming down the pipe anyway. I think this just really forced their hand.
I don’t have a brain that works all that well with financial instruments, so I asked our resident forest economist, Andy Stahl, to explain how they work.
For example, here is the story I reached out to him about.
“Blue Forest, a non-profit conservation finance organization working in collaboration with the USDA Forest Service, Washington State Department of Natural Resources (Washington DNR), Chelan County, and Chelan Public Utility District (Chelan PUD), proudly announces the launch of the first Forest Resilience Bond (FRB) in the Evergreen state. The Upper Wenatchee I FRB is dedicated to funding fuel reduction activities on the Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest, alongside crucial aquatics work. The project is financed by mission-driven investors through Blue Forest’s FRB Catalyst Facility.
“Collaboration is at the heart of everything we do and instrumental to the success of our Forest Resilience Bond model,” says Kim Seipp, Blue Forest’s Managing Director of Science and Research. “That is one reason why we, along with our partners, are excited to launch the Upper Wenatchee I FRB. Through this collaborative effort, we are catalyzing the funds necessary to ensure wildfire mitigation work starts now, not in a decade. Together, we are creating a more resilient landscape and safeguarding communities.”
The FRB, co-developed by Blue Forest, the World Resources Institute, USDA Forest Service, and National Forest Foundation, is an innovative financing mechanism that taps into private capital to finance forest restoration projects on public lands to protect communities, ecosystem benefits, and rural livelihoods.
Funding contributions from the USDA Forest Service, Washington DNR, Chelan County, and Chelan PUD will accelerate the pace and scale of wildfire mitigation efforts in these high-risk areas, completing activities that would have otherwise likely faced delays of eight to 10 years.”
It seems like a terrific idea, and reflects what I heard on an NGO call a few months ago “we can’t reach the pace and scale needed without private financing.” Not that I agree with it, but it seems to be a popular idea. Which made me reflect on the forest road needs that Mike brought up in Creede, and maybe private financing could be used for that. But what do the people financing get out of it? And why don’t the private entities just give the FS the money and write it off on their taxes?
That’s when I called on Andy. My questions are in italics.
What do the people financing the work get out of it? And why don’t the private entities just give the FS the money and write it off on their taxes?
Andy:
What you really need is an investment broker, but, I’ll take a shot at it.
Bond financing is a type of long-term borrowing that state and local governments frequently use to raise money, primarily for long-lived infrastructure assets. They obtain this money by selling bonds to investors. In exchange, they promise to repay this money, with interest, according to specified schedules. The interest the state has to pay investors on the bonds it issues for public infrastructure is exempt from their federal and state income taxes, which makes the state’s interest cost on the bonds less than it otherwise would be.
Step 1: An “investor” enters into a contract, e.g., a promissory note, with Blue Forest. Under the contract’s terms, the investor gives Blue Forest a lump sum (let’s say $10 million), which Blue Forest agrees to pay back to the investor over a longish period of time, say 10 or 20 years, at an interest rate sufficiently favorable to entice the investor, say 5-10% annually. I suspect the investor has little control over how the money is spent, although Blue Forest uses lots of cool buzz words to get the investor interested. What the investor really cares about is Blue Forest’s liquidity cash flow, i.e., will Blue Forest make its payments, and is the interest rate competitive with what the investor could make elsewhere, taking into account risk. That is, the higher the risk Blue Forest reneges on the deal, the higher the interest rate Blue Forest is going to have to pay to attract investors. I think (but am not sure) that Blue Forest persuaded the California legislature to allow Blue Forest to issue forest bonds with the investor’s interest earnings exempt from state tax, just like a California municipal bond issued by a city.
Step 2: Blue Forest then enters into contracts with “beneficiaries” who agree to borrow money from the Blue Forest Fund to pay for forest restoration work that the beneficiaries would like to see happen. The key attribute required of a beneficiary is having cash-flow sufficient to pay back the Fund’s money plus interest. Blue Forest has persuaded electrical utilities (their cash flow comes from selling power to customers) and insurance companies (cash flow comes from homeowner premium payments) to agree to pay back the Fund the borrowed money. The key point is that it is the beneficiary’s customers who actually pay back the money as the beneficiary passes through the bond costs to its homeowners and power buyers. Do the beneficiary’s customers (homeowners and ratepayers) even know they are borrowing these dollars? I do wonder . . .
Step 3: Blue Forest then contracts with an “implementation coordinator” to do the actual work in the forest. Note that the coordinator can also be a pass-through, e.g., NFF, which then hires the bubbas who do the actual brush removal work.
Sharon: This is helpful indeed. It’s an improvement for beneficiaries rather than paying the work themselves, because… ???
The beneficiaries DO pay for the work. They pay for it on an installment plan with interest, just like owning (sic) a house with a mortgage.
However, unlike the homeowner, who actually knows she bought her own home and thought it a good idea to do so, the beneficiaries are consumers of electricity, purchased from a monopoly utility, who probably have no idea that a portion of their monthly payment is being used to thin some forest property that may be in another county. Same for the homeowner whose insurance premiums went up because the insurance company thinks it’s a good idea to thin forests, figuring that might reduce home loss pay-outs. The homeowner likely has no idea, nor any say in the matter, of whether her dollars should be used on fuel treatments far from her house.
The only entities that are sure to benefit are the investors who earn interest for the use of their money, Blue Forest, which skims administrative expenses and can get rich as there is no meaningful oversight of its staff salaries, and the implementation coordinator who gets more overhead rake-off for passing through the dollars to Bubba. Oh, Bubba makes minimum wage (if lucky) to rake the forest.
Perhaps someone has decided that getting the work done sooner is worth the insurance companies and monopolies paying the interest? Are those analyses reviewed by regulators?
Yes, the beneficiary — insurance company, utility, city government or whoever has access to a steady cash flow from consumers/taxpayers — has decided that it’s worth borrowing money now to do the work and paying the associated interest costs. Who oversees that borrowing decision? Not the ratepayers, not the homeowners, and not the taxpayers who are footing the bill. Although insurance companies and utilities are regulated by states, I doubt that state regulators drill down deeply into these types of financing decisions.
A variation on this theme, which cuts out some of the middle players (e.g., Blue Forest), is Flagstaff’s Watershed Protection Project, which is financed by a $10 million municipal bond voted on by Flagstaff residents (74% of voters approved the bond). Flagstaff property taxes pay back the bond. The City of Flagstaff uses the money to pay Bubba to rake the forest.
Note that most (all?) of the forest raking financed by Flagstaff’s property taxpayers is national forest. Analogy . . . imagine your neighbor’s property was piled high in flammable, noxious garbage, which your neighbor refused to clean-up. In desperation, you offer to pay the clean-up costs to lessen the risks to your home. Your neighbor, quite sensibly, agrees.
****************************
Now I don’t want to get all classist again, but in the interests of social and environmental justice, I’m wondering about another approach that would focus on paying people who work in the woods decent wages, and cutting out unnecessary layers of overhead. Which should be just as true for externals as for the FS (which I agree could do much better and has tried intermittently). Not to dis the people who work at these outfits, who are great, knowledgeable, and well-meaning, it’s the instrument, not the folks, I wonder about.
My plans to attend the SAF Convention have changed, so I will be around posting here after all.
.. in the words of Robert Burns in his poem “To A Mouse”
But, Mousie, thou art no thy lane,
In proving foresight may be vain;
The best-laid schemes o’ mice an’ men
Gang aft agley,
An’lea’e us nought but grief an’ pain,
For promis’d joy!
This continues to be true of plans and policies, full of unintended consequences, that’s why the idea of being able to adjust- a la adaptive management- seems so beneficial. Speaking of adapting, TSW readers sent in a few items of interest on the FS budget.
Below is a letter from Region 6. I’m curious as to what other Regions are doing and saying. Please tell us in comments or email me.
Letter from Region 6:
As we move into FY 2025, it’s important that there is clarity and consistency in our Region for hiring non-fire temporary employees (1039s) and tours for fire and non-fire Permanent Seasonal Employees (PSEs or 18/8s and 13/13s).
As you know, the Forest Service has worked over the last two years to stabilize and strategically grow our workforce. One important action we took nationally was to convert approximately 1,400 non-fire temporary (1039) employees to permanent status. Region 6 held a significant number of those conversions. That change helped provide these employees certainty and better benefits, as well as helping to ensure the agency benefits from a more permanent workforce to accomplish work on behalf of the American people.
We are likely confronting a very budget-limited environment in FY 2025. As leaders, it is our responsibility to plan for the most conservative funding picture. We need to make the best decisions we can now with the information we have. As such, we are planning to use the House Interior Subcommittee funding levels proposed for FY 2025. In addition to focusing on that proposed funding level, we are also navigating the exhaustion of the supplemental funding we received through both the Inflation Reduction Act and the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law.
Additionally, over the last two years, we have absorbed two cost of living increases totaling close to 10%. All these factors mean we are contending with less funding overall in FY 2025 and we need to make adjustments and accommodations.
We are navigating the challenges we face by anchoring to our core values as the guide in our decision making while prioritizing the collective financial health of the agency. As such, in Region 6 the following direction is now in place:
Temporary (1039) Employees
• In FY 2025 we will not be hiring (1039) temporary employees outside of fire.
• Temporary, non-fire employees hired and onboarded in FY 2024, with tours that go into FY 2025, will complete their tours.
Permanent Seasonal Employees (e.g., 13/13s and 18/8s)
• For fire (i.e, employees who charge base 8 salary to WFSE) and non-fire employees, existing tours will not be extended.
• Under certain circumstances when fire activity warrants, extensions may be granted for fire and non-fire PSE extensions. Additional guidance will be forthcoming that will
clarify how employees charge their time if/when their extensions are granted.
• For any Permanent Seasonal employees whose tours cross fiscal years, tours will be honored as specified in individual agreements.
This is a difficult change. Our entire workforce helps us live our core value of Service – to each other and to the public. The services we provide are critical to our Region and the people who live and visit our Forests and Grasslands. We are also all interdependent and we will work to adjust to this change by working together internally as well as our partners communities, volunteers, members of other agencies and Tribes.
As our workforce changes, the amount and type of work we will do will be different than in the past. I know we will all do the best work we can with the resources we have, but it’s a simple reality that producing the same outputs and outcomes with fewer employees isn’t feasible.
However, we will remain focused on our key priority work, especially in our 5 Wildfire Crisis Strategy landscapes. We are putting this hiring direction into place immediately.
Thank you for all that you do to make Region 6 such a success.
Letter from NFFE to USDA and FS on Wildland Firefighter Occupational Series, here’s a link to the letter.
The letter talks about issues around their involvement in the new occupational series, and also draws a line between budget concerns and problems with the series. I’m not so sure they’re related, and I’m interested in the FS side of the story.
It is our opinion that the Forest Service sought to adopt what amounts to largely a “title change only” new occupational series to avoid a devastating budget shortfall by continuing the exploitation of its workforce. Ultimately, it is management’s responsibility to manage the workforce and address the serious issues employees have raised through the union. We did our best to influence and encourage good decision-making. Now we leave it to the members to determine whether the new series works for them.
We will be recommending that employees do not opt-in to the new series to receive the new title. Employees must apply and compete for an opportunity to be placed in a new career ladder under the 0456 series. The Union intends to use early engagement with the Agency to secure fair opportunity for current employees to be selected for any new career ladder positions. We will educate our members on their right to request desk audits once in the new series. It is unfortunate this effort will result in so many desk audits. Desk audits are administratively burdensome, time consuming and results may not be satisfactory. We asked management to make clear what duties are required of a position and what
duties employees may rightfully refuse to perform without fear of retaliation or discipline. Our union will make sure employees have the knowledge needed to navigate the irregularities within the new job series, if they choose to opt-in.
We will also be approaching Congress regarding our critical need for increased appropriations to support the wildland firefighting effort. Congress has oversight on the implementation of the new occupational series and we anticipate legislative inquiries will result from this letter. We have copied Members of Congress on this letter who support wildland firefighters to this end.
We ask OPM to become directly involved to address our raised issues as appropriate. We call on Congress to act and appropriate the necessary additional funds to pay wildland firefighters fairly and correctly for their work. Until federal wildland firefighters are paid at least commensurate with cooperators, we will continue to be short staffed and under-resourced to meet our nation’s forest management goals.
FWIW I submitted the same list of questions that we crowd-sourced here on the budget to USDA Press Office, as requested by the FS Press Office, and have not received an acknowledgement, which the FS Press Office is usually good about.
I wonder whether, if only fire people are hired, we might have a sort of “reverse militia” in which fire folks are trained to do other peoples’ work?
Anyway, please share any further information you have on the budget and related topics.
There’s apparently an employee webinar on the budget on Monday September 16. It would be great if someone would take notes, or even record it, for the rest of us.
Hopefully more knowledgeable people will correct or add. Here is what I’ve been hearing.
The Department told the FS that they had act as if the current House budget numbers for 2025 were going to be final. This usually isn’t ultimately the case, but is conservative.
My view if this is true: well, the Department has to pick a number for now, and I can’t argue for any number, over any other as being more realistic. Plus it’s their call. Here’s what Government Exec said about the numbers.
The Forest Service asked for $8.9 billion in funding in the president’s fiscal 2025 budget request in March.
The House version of the Department of the Interior, Environment and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, released on July 11, includes $8.4 billion for the Forest Service, with a projected 3.5% cut from fiscal 2024 levels, but a 4% increase for wildland fire management.
2. Not as many people retired as predicted. This is also what Gov Exec reported.
“following the findings of a strategic hiring assessment, workforce attrition was “well below 5%,” which signaled the need for more measured hiring plans.
“On one hand, we should celebrate that our staff are staying because they feel connected to the mission, they feel heard, and they are committed to improving our nation’s forests and grasslands,” said Moore. “To stay within budget and continue to deliver on our core mission, we must implement tighter controls on both internal and external hiring.”
Moore said that the Forest Service will move forward with 157 tentative job offers already made to external candidates and will continue to prioritize internal hiring to promote advancement for agency employees, but will focus future outside hiring on “the highest priority positions”.
Those positions include public health and safety roles, those needed to fulfill critical mission deliverables and highly specialized or difficult-to-fill jobs internally. Moore said the Office of the Chief would approve external hiring based on criteria, including converting permanent Forest Service positions from current student employment programs.”
I’m a little puzzled by how making student positions permanent is also “hiring on the highest priority positions.” A few more sentences to connect the dots would have been helpful.
If it’s the potential retirees who haven’t retired who are responsible, I think that it’s particularly interesting. My first guess, as a retiree, is that if I were working now I would be a bit spooked by the recent inflation. For us oldsters who remember inflation, it hasn’t been a thing for so long that we may have forgotten. It was a wake-up call, for sure.
Like the Chief said, “people not leaving,” in general, is a good thing. And some of us remember encouragements to retire, such as early-outs and bonuses, and some folks being in retirement limbo waiting for these. I don’t know if that’s still a motivation.
But having that in the back of my mind, (the generations), I ran across a few other related articles.
A big problem for young workers: 70- and 80-year-olds who won’t retire
With five generations in the workforce, it’s harder for beginners to get hired or promoted.
Paul McCartney and Al Pacino aren’t the only octogenarians with no intention of retiring. Older workers are increasingly postponing retirement, often because they simply don’t want to quit. As a result, the U.S. workforce is now packed with five generations — from the silent generation down to Gen Z.
There are benefits to having so many experienced workers still active, but for younger people, it can be a major hurdle. The career ladder has become crowded at the top, and this dims professional prospects for those at every rung below. Young workers find it harder to launch their careers and to get promoted. The demographic traffic jamalso harms societal cohesion by leaving younger groups behind, according to economists Gabriele Guaitoli and Roberto Pancrazi, who study the issue.
The WaPo op-ed has this interesting chart.
Now if I added up all the workers, and calculated the percentage of 70 and older, I’d get 3%. Let’s go back to the headline. I don’t think the 3% is the “big problem.” It looks to me, in fact, as if the 45 to 64s are the problem. Of course people don’t retire if they like their job, they need the money (to support other, younger, family members?), or they think economic conditions might get iffy (or iffier).
Fewer people climbed Colorado 14ers in 2023 than in any year since 2015
Last year’s figure was 37% below the pandemic summer of 2020
Athearn said it’s hard to know what is driving the decline, but he has two theories: Slower population growth in Colorado and changing age demographics.
Colorado’s population grew nearly 15% from 2010 to 2020, according to census figures, but the influx of newcomers slowed over the past two years. Also, Athearn suspects that the baby boomers who popularized backpacking and peakbagging are aging out of the fourteener culture.
“My Millennial colleagues — another massive generation — are buying houses, having kids and taking on more work responsibilities,” Athearn wrote in a follow-up email. “That likely translates into less time or money to get out to play regularly. Meanwhile, my son is in that Gen Z age group. While his friends are all pretty athletic and outdoor-oriented, I know many of his peers are not.
“We may be in a period of shifting age booms and busts,” Athearn added, “where those who have been large cohorts of active folks with time, money and health to be out climbing peaks are now facing lack of time, money or compliant bodies to do this physically demanding stuff.”
This is a pretty cool thing developed by the Federation of American Scientists, Resources for the Future, and the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation. If you click on the link (not the photo above) you can see all the different programs. Lotsa bucks.
I had a question about the FY 2024 budget (which is recently approved) and the impacts on USFS Research Stations and R&D. It seems like there is a hiring freeze in at least some (if not all) research stations, and it seems like the discussion is that this is a result of some combination of budget shortfalls in the budget (a small cut) as well as some allocation issues within the Budget Modernization efforts. Does anyone know what is happening here, and if hiring will be starting again anytime soon?
I was also wondering, in a possibly related question, because the Trout Unlimited Keystone Agreement included that TU could be paid to:
• Developing the science and tools to address high priority concerns such as climate change, impacts of energy development, restoration of degraded habitats and populations, and control of aquatic invasive species,
It used to be that R&D dollars were said to be necessary for “the science” but I’ve been assured that NFS funds are fine to use for this nowadays.
People with information can post here or contact me directly. I will respect your anonymity.
Here’s what’s in the first spending package from E&E News:
Lawmakers released final fiscal 2024 bills Sunday for most of the federal government’s energy and environment programs.
Interior, natural resources Even though overall discretionary spending at Interior would remain roughly the same, lawmakers took a knife to several of its bureaus. The Fish and Wildlife Service would see a $51 million cut, the National Park Service a $150 million drop and the Bureau of Land Management an $81 million reduction, lawmakers said in summaries.
The bill would cut allocations for BLM’s renewable energy programs by $1.6 million — to $39.3 million from $40.9 million enacted for fiscal 2023. The Bureau of Ocean Energy Management is in line for a $28 million cut. The Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement would get $18 million less. The U.S. Geological Survey would see $42 million below fiscal 2023 levels, and the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement would get $18 million less. The package includes $141.9 million for BLM’s contentious wild horse and burro program, less than either the Biden administration’s request or last year’s level of $148 million.
Even with the widely distributed cuts, congressional Democrats said they were relieved to have fended off more dramatic reductions initially sought by Republicans. “We keep our promises to brave wildland firefighters and protect vital investments to stay the course on historic climate action taken by the Biden administration while safeguarding our public lands,” Murray said. As for riders, the House Republicans’ original plan would have blocked the Fish and Wildlife Service from implementing the rule that moved the northern long-eared bat from threatened to endangered status. The final package opted instead for language acknowledging the “on-the-ground impacts” of ESA listings and urging the agency to “continue to collaborate” with states, local communities and others on “improving voluntary solutions to conserve species.”
Lawmakers also gave FWS and the park service instructions to provide an “in-depth” briefing regarding plans to reintroduce grizzly bears into the North Cascades region of Washington state. The package includes language that would prohibit the Interior Department from listing the greater sage grouse for protection under the Endangered Species Act. This rider has been inserted into every Interior funding bill since fiscal 2015
Forests, wildfire The Forest Service would receive just over $6 billion in discretionary spending, which appropriators said would preserve the pay raise wildland firefighters first received in fiscal 2023. Wildfire suppression would be funded at $4 billion, of which $2.65 billion would be in the off-budget wildfire disaster fund established by Congress in 2018. The bill includes $175 million for hazardous fuels reduction in national forests, such as thinning vegetation. That’s a reduction of $31 million, according to budget documents. Lawmakers also asserted in a joint explanatory statement that wood gained from forest thinning can qualify as renewable biomass under the federal renewable fuel standard
Agriculture The Agriculture-Rural Development bill, with more than $26.2 billion in discretionary spending for the Department of Agriculture and related agencies, reflects a slight increase from USDA’s fiscal 2023 level. Even though the legislation would boost agricultural research programs, it would shave some conservation efforts. The Natural Resources Conservation Service would receive $951 million, down from $1.03 billion in fiscal 2023, and the National Institute of Food and Agriculture would see a $22 million reduction, to $1.68 billion, according to budget documents. Republicans said the NIFA reduction would maintain funding for top priorities and reduce it for “several low-priority research programs.” And they won a provision rejecting the NRCS’s use of funds for equity initiatives, which the Biden administration says help farmers from historically disadvantaged groups that may have been denied agency loans in the past, for example. The Agricultural Research Service would see a $44 million increase, to $1.79 billion. Lawmakers decided that additional research funds should go to matters including soil health, effects of wildfire smoke on wine grapes and other specific areas. Appropriators agreed to a Republican-led provision blocking the USDA from expanding staff in the nation’s capital and instead instructed the department to report on how to improve staffing levels in field offices of the NRCS and other agencies. And while the agreement doesn’t include an effort by House Republicans to heavily cut the Rural Energy for America Program, it does call for a rescission of $10 million from prior appropriations.
**********
“Appropriators agreed to a Republican-led provision blocking the USDA from expanding staff in the nation’s capital and instead instructed the department to report on how to improve staffing levels in field offices of the NRCS and other agencies.” I wonder if that applies to the FS, since the FS is under Interior Approps?
Rumors of OIG Report on FS Spending on the Infrastructure Act
There are rumors of an OIG report that talks partially about the Keystone Agreements that the FS uses to help with BIL and IRA efforts.
I am finding out more about these agreements to report on here.
My current understanding is that large sums of money could go through these agreements, but actually don’t until a specific project is funded. So the FS doesn’t have to “claw back” money because most was never sent out. Which goes to..
FS Funding Shortfall Possibilities and Plans
The Hotshot Wakeup has a story on the FS not having enough money, or tightening their belts due to lower appropriated funds in 2024, 5.2% cost of living adjustment and inflation.
I also heard that there are 33K permanents now, at least in part, due to fire positions going from temporary to permanent seasonals 13/13 or 18/8, which costs more due to benefits. The idea, of course, is that life for these folks will be better under better employment conditions and more people will want to work, and fewer people leave. My understanding is that that (33K) is more than the FS has had in previous years, but I can’t recall the exact figures by year.
I’m hoping commenters can add more context and background.
Note from Sharon: There’s all kinds of topics (porky and non) at this hearing- from firefighter mental health to a climate “hub” in Hawaii. Please add your own observations and interesting news takes in the comments.
Congressional Hearings for the Farm Bill and Agency Appropriations Watching congressional hearings is a really interesting way to find things out that you may otherwise never hear about. Over the past couple of months, there
have been Senate hearings for the Farm Bill with Associate Chief Angela Coleman, and Senate Appropriations hearings with Chief Randy Moore. I found the April 18 th “Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources about the FY2024 budget request for the Forest Service” Chief Moore testimony: to be particularly interesting.
A common theme of all of these hearings is holding the Forest Service accountable to increase timber outputs. Numerous bills have been proposed to hold the Forest Service’s feet to the fire. Too many to even mention here. It’s
interesting that this interest in accountability is coming from Republicans, Democrats and an Independent. They all want to know what the Forest Service is doing with the billions of dollars that have been appropriated to them in the recent past, and why timber outputs have not seen a resulting increase. They all express a concern in dealing with the wildfire crisis.
Chief Moore primarily gives three reasons why there has not been a dramatic increase and why the timber volume sold target was not met last fiscal year. Now, we all know the old metaphor that you don’t turn an aircraft carrier on a dime, and in this instance, the Forest Service is the aircraft carrier. Chief Moore says that both wildfires and storms wreaked havoc on areas that were planned for timber sales, and this drastically impacted their target accomplishment.
He went on to say that they are having real difficulty in hiring. The process is not working well and continues to be cumbersome. Also, they are losing employees through attrition, almost as quick as they can hire them. He provides several reasons for this, that pay levels are a problem as well as housing in the locations where they need people to work. It’s interesting that Chief Moore did not mention NEPA and lawsuits as reasons for the lack of target accomplishment.
Is it finally time to admit that the Albuquerque Service Center was a big mistake? Before ASC, the Forest Service had a relatively well-oiled hiring machine. I believe it could have held its own in comparison to most other Federal Agencies. Chief Moore oversees ASC, if it has serious problems then he needs to fix it. It would take a lot to finally admit that ASC was a mistake, but maybe that is what needs to happen. With regards to housing, the Forest Service used to be in the business of providing housing, but then it was seen as time to move on from that. Much of the government housing was sold off. Now that is not looking like such a great decision.
Chief Moore says that they have a plan to get up to 4 billion board feet by FY 2027. Sen. Angus King from Maine stated that Eisenhower took Europe in 11 months, why would it take the Forest Service so long to get to 4 billion board feet? Interesting question. It’s also interesting that almost all of these Senators expressed concerns about wildfires but there was little said about increasing prescribed fire and pre-commercial thinning. If they were truly interested in reducing wildfire threats, there could be a whole lot of mitigation through those two methods in comparison to cutting sawtimber-sized trees.
The Forest Service is in a tough spot. For years they stated that if they were just provided with enough money (Chief Moore states that they still need more) they could address the wildfire crisis. Just like the dog who never expected to catch the car, and when they finally did, they didn’t know what to do with it. Chief Moore received some hard questions in this hearing. I felt a little sorry for him. He can’t pull a rabbit out of a hat and fix the wildfire crisis overnight, but the Forest Service needs to be upfront about what they can actually do and what the realistic timeframes will be.
Dave Mertz retired from the Black Hills National Forest in 2017 as the Forest’s Natural Resource Staff Officer. Over the course of his career with the FS, he was a Forester, Silviculturist, Forest Fire Management Officer and a Fire Staff Officer. Since retirement, he has stayed involved in Forest Management issues, with a particular interest in the Black Hills NF’s timber program