Budget

The Shut-Down Shuffle: One Step Ahead, Two Steps Back

by

It seems almost criminal to post these links after Travis’s photos below. Sigh. But here goes. Despite my exhortations to have a consistent approach..
as regular readers know, I am a fan of logic, and not so much concessionaire management. But here goes:

Here’s a link to a story titled:US Forest Service Reverses Itself and Suddenly Closes Hundreds of Private Concession-Run Campgrounds

We were certainly taken by surprise by this closure order,” said Warren Meyer, CEO of Recreation Resource Management. “In all past government shutdowns, such as those in the mid-1990’s, concession recreation operations have always remained open. This only makes sense, since our operations don’t use any government funds or employees. While we do partner with the US Forest Service on certain activities, none of these are critical to day-to-day operations. We are convinced this closure is an unjustified and unnecessarily punitive action that hurts the recreating public while doing nothing to reduce government spending.”

At this time, the closure orders appear to be aimed only at smaller, private operators. At least three Arizona State Parks that operate on USFS lands under very similar agreements apparently have not been asked to close. The closure order also appears to exempt large corporations that operate ski resorts on USFS land.

Here’s the ski area scoop:

DENVER – A group representing the nation’s ski industry said Monday it expects no major impact on this year’s ski season because of federal furloughs, even though about a third of the more than 350 resorts are located on federal land regulated by the U.S. Forest Service.

Michael Berry, spokesman for the National Ski Areas Association, said most expansion projects and construction that require federal approval have been completed as opening days approach in the $6 billion a year industry. Delays could occur as a result of other projects in the pipeline, he said.

Berry said he talked with Forest Service chief Tom Tidwell to clarify how the shutdown would affect the 121 ski areas operating on federal land and was assured resort leases are not immediately affected.

“The fact of the matter is, this will have no impact on ski area operations. Having said that, there are certain things in progress, and Forest Service furloughs may slow things like that down,” he said.

The federal government regulates expansion projects, environmental reviews and lease agreements that are subject to public review.

The ski association sent a memo last week to all ski areas operating with a special use permit on public lands administered by the Forest Service, advising them about the federal agency’s decision.

“Ski areas may continue to operate, as the improvements are not government-owned. Privately owned improvements are not to be affected by the shutdown,” the memo said.

The ski areas were advised that the U.S. Forest Service will work with areas that are under construction on a case-by-case basis if an agency inspection or other action is needed.

And finally, shutting down timber folks. Here

The agency plans to notify 450 timber purchasers across the country early next week that timber sales and stewardship contracts will be suspended, Forest Service spokesman Leo Kay said in an email.

“We regret the continued impact on the American public; however we must cease activities that require Forest Service oversight and management during the funding lapse,’ he said.

Now my logic is that 1) if special use permits, large and small, are monitored by people and 2) people aren’t there, is that the same or not, or why, as contracts that won’t be monitored? What about elk season and outfitter-guides who won’t be monitored?

Public affairs FS or USDA folks, please provide a consistent,logical approach. Otherwise it looks like you are a) random, b) don’t understand what the FS actually does (and that would be more likely USDA’s error), or c) are picking on people politically. So many people in this day and age will jump to “c”. You can circumvent that downward spiral of partisanization just explaining why you’re closing some and not others.

Rec-tech for a day: Misty Fiords by floatplane

by

DSC_0138_edited-1

DSC_0155_edited-1

DSC_0161_edited-1

DSC_0169_edited-1

This is a guest post by Travis Bushman.. thanks for being so generous with your (furloughed) time to share these with us!

This is partially a meditation on the challenge of developed recreation on the Tongass, and partially an excuse to post some spectacular aerial photos of Misty Fiords.

The week before the furlough hit, I had a chance to get out of my third-floor office at the SO and get into the field — both to provide an extra pair of hands to the Ketchikan district recreation staff and to gain an understanding of the challenge they face in maintaining the Tongass’ developed recreation infrastructure.

Our day’s work plan involved making end-of-season visits to a number of recreation cabins in Misty Fiords National Monument. We’d be cleaning out garbage, hauling skiffs out of the lakes, inspecting facility conditions and documenting any urgent maintenance problems that would need attention before the winter hits. On any other district of any other national forest, this would likely involve two people getting a pickup truck out of the motor pool and spending the day driving around forest roads.

Not on the Tongass.

Rather, the three of us drove down to the docks and boarded a contract DHC-2 Beaver floatplane, which proceeded to hopscotch across the 2.3-million-acre monument, setting us down at eight lakeside rental cabins in breathtaking, almost-inaccessible settings. There is no way into any of these cabins except by floatplane or helicopter. Many of them are in designated wilderness and must be maintained without power tools. Cabin maintenance crews even split logs with a maul and wedge to provide fuel for those cabins which have wood stoves.

We returned after a full day in the monument with 13 full garbage bags, 11 empty propane cylinders and a couple broken fishing poles all loaded in the floats — and I brought back a new appreciation for the hard work of the cabin crews, whose numbers continue to dwindle.

That, and it hit home just how much it costs to do anything in Misty Fiords. This one trip to eight cabins — out of the ~150 the forest operates — cost about $3,000 just for the flight. Or, put in another way, we expended 125 nights of rental fees from a single cabin. That’s the cost of doing business in the 17-million-acre maze of islands and fjords that is the Tongass, and it’s an increasing challenge in an era of declining budgets.

Forest Service Closing Concessionaire Campgrounds

by

Here’s a link to a story from New Hampshire NPR.

The shutdown of the federal government is expanding to include privately run campgrounds in national forests across the country, a spokesman for the U.S. Forest Service said late Thursday.

“We are in the process of shutting these operations down at facilities across the country due to the lapse in funding,” wrote spokesman Leo Kay in an e-mail. “Some closures have already taken place while others are still in progress.”

That is expected to include twenty-two campgrounds in The White Mountain National Forest operated by Pro Sports Inc. of Campton.

However Kent Tower, the owner of Pro Sports, said he has not yet been told to close and expects to be open this weekend. The campgrounds were scheduled to close October 14th.

The closings are unwarranted because the campgrounds are operated by private businesses that do not need federal help, said Marily Reese, the executive director of the National Forest Recreation Association. It represents about 150 companies nationwide that operate campgrounds in national forests.

“It is a huge impact to our business owners for this loss of business and it is just a heartbreaking, heartbreaking result for the public and there is really no reason because these sites don’t require federal funding,” she

She said the closing is puzzling because in previous shutdowns the campground operators were allowed to remain open.

U.S. Forest Service spokesman Kay said the decision to close campgrounds in the national forests is consistent with the closing of national parks but he declined to answer additional questions.

Sounds a bit confusing…perhaps the idea is that the overseers are not there so they can’t proceed? But how much overseeing is really done regularly, do we know? And plenty of other things are overseen that are not recreation, that aren’t closed down. If this goes on until mid-October ski areas will or will not be opening.

Dear FS, USDA or Whomever.. please have a logical explanation for what you shut down, share it with the public (your logic) and be consistent across the country. I ask in the name of Gifford Pinchot. Amen..

Fire Borrowing.. The Beat Goes On With House Approps

by

Excerpt from an E&E story here (subscription needed).

House CR provides $600M to restore USDA wildfire shortfall

The House Appropriations Committee yesterday proposed a bill that would restore $600 million to Forest Service programs whose funding was siphoned last month to help pay for wildfire suppression.

The continuing resolution, which would extend government funding through mid-December, would also allow flexibility for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration to maintain satellite programs that provide data for weather warnings and forecasts of severe weather events.

The bill would keep government programs funded at post-sequestration levels and is free of riders or policy changes, said Appropriations Chairman Hal Rogers (R-Ky.). However, riders contained in currently enacted appropriations legislation would carry forward, he said.

“Our country desperately needs a long-term budget solution that ends the draconian cuts put into place by sequestration and that provides for a responsible, sustainable and attainable federal budget,” Rogers said in a statement. “It is my hope that this stopgap legislation will provide time for all sides to come together to reach this essential goal.”

The overall bill would fund the government at $986.3 billion, slightly below current, post-sequestration levels.

The proposal comes about a month after Forest Service Chief Tom Tidwell ordered his agency to halt spending on restoration programs, employee travel, hiring and overtime in order to scrounge up additional funds to fight wildfires (E&ENews PM Aug. 21).

That move angered lawmakers, conservation groups and timber interests, which warned it would delay important forest restoration activities that reduce the risk — and cost — of future catastrophic wildfires.

How we can fix wildfire funding: Oregonian Op-Ed by Hank Kashdan

by

Here’s the link.

By Hank Kashdan

When U.S. Forest Service Chief Tom Tidwell announced on Aug. 16 that the agency would “borrow” $600 million from non-fire-suppression funds to cover the cost of wildfires this season, I could feel the gut shot to Forest Service employees across the nation.

The national forests compose 8 percent of the nation’s land base and provide 40 percent of its fresh water. Imagine having a job where your work contributes directly to improving forest health and reducing the risk of wildfire, only to have funds for your project taken at the last minute.

As director of budget for the Forest Service during the height of fire borrowing in 2000 through 2005, I managed the largest fire borrowing in the agency’s history, including 2002, when $999 million was moved from other budget lines to cover fire-suppression costs. Then in 2009, I thought this senseless process was over with passage of the FLAME Act (Federal Land Assistance, Management and Enhancement Act). Not so. As the Forest Service enters its second consecutive year of fire borrowing, it is clear the FLAME Act has been ignored.

Although this year’s borrowing of $600 million may not be the largest, it will likely be the most impactful. With sequestration, the Forest Service is increasingly getting work done through third-party partnerships. In greater proportions, this on-the-ground work is focused on treating the land to make it less vulnerable to serious wildfire, and it is exactly this work that is being cancelled, with the cooperating third parties left “holding the bag.” Our first responders who risk their lives on the fire lines, the communities and residents who live and work adjacent to these lands, and employees of the land management agencies deserve more. And in fact, with only a reasonable legislative effort, this problem can be fixed.

Recent press articles cite critics who say Congress is to blame. As a Forest Service employee who lived wildfire funding for the last 15 years of my career, I know the blame is very shareable. Former President George W. Bush, President Barack Obama and Congress own this problem equally. Even Mother Nature takes a hit in the blame game.

During the FLAME Act development, the Bush administration opposed alternatives to the funding process that caused fire borrowing. With the nation in economic crisis, the Obama administration wanted no distraction from focus on recovery and continued the Bush administration’s opposition. Only through advocacy from a coalition spanning the spectrum from the most active environmental organizations to the largest forest products producers was Congress compelled to enact FLAME. It was a victory for good government and an example of cooperation among diverse interests.

Then came Mother Nature, delivering successive years of “below average” fire seasons that resulted in budgeted suppression funds being sufficient (2009 through 2011). The good news: Reserves of cash totaling $1.16 billion were generated, which under the FLAME Act would be available for “above-average fire years.” The bad news: Nature’s kindness erased the short-term memories of the Obama administration and Congress. As the nation faced its economic woes, the cash reserves were ripe for the taking, and it didn’t take long. Considering these reserves, the administration low-balled its request for suppression funding, and Congress obliged by erasing the reserves from the ledger. Nature then retaliated with two years of hot and dry conditions, leading to large wildfires and the fire borrowing that Forest Service Chief Tidwell announced Aug. 16.

With the nation’s budget challenges a national priority, it is unfortunately certain that any cash reserves from below-average fire years will be too tempting a target for use by the administration and Congress. Thus, we must acknowledge that the FLAME Act is ultimately not going work. Thankfully, there can be a permanent solution. It now appears the administration and Congress are willing to consider a fix. The solution is to amend the Stafford Act (authority under which FEMA covers the cost of national disasters) to include wildfire. Hurricanes are like wildfires; a specific date for the event can’t be determined, but future occurrence is a certainty. The Stafford Act provides FEMA with funding that doesn’t disrupt its internal operations. This same authority could be available to the states and federal land management agencies to cover the cost of wildfire suppression.

An end to this senseless process is possible, but only if the president and Congress know they have to act. Let’s get this fixed.

Something we can all support?

The Shifting Winds of Fire Policy

by

This fire policy stuff is more confusing than a person might think. Here’s a new story from the Standard Journal about letting fires burn to save money. But I thought last year, the reason the fire policy came out about being careful to not let fires big and out of control, was also to save money. It seems to me that both can’t be true?

I guess folks need to be able to predict which ones will do fine if watched and which ones might get out of control. Certainly we have read about the latter. I wonder if the Lessons Learned Center or others are compiling information on how well we are doing at predicting.. if our predictions were not so hot (sorry) then letting fires get out of control might not actually be saving money. Plus it might have a domino-like effect from people and material being sent to the large fires, and more other fires are necessarily managed less intensively, necessarily risking that they too will become larger and suddenly take off due to unforeseen events.

Below is an excerpt.

Forest rangers told Madison County Commissioners that the fire suppression policy in the Caribou-Targhee National Forest has changed to a more limited response, even with a big fire season predicted for this summer.

Tracy Hollingshead, Palisades District Ranger for the Forest Service based in Idaho Falls, along with Jay Pence, the district ranger based in Driggs, along with Spencer Johnson of the Eastern Idaho Interagency Fire Center in Swan Valley, introduced a new map of immediate fire suppression areas. These small areas, marked in red on the map, are the only areas the Forest Service will respond immediately to in the event of a fire, which is a change from previous policy.

“Last year we had direction to put every fire out,” Hollingshead said on Monday.

The change came down to funding, they told the county commissioners.

“We definitely have a limited amount to spend,” Hllingshead said.

Red areas in Madison County include small portions of the Big Hole Mountains on the southern border of the county.

If a fire flares up in other areas, it will be dealt with on a conditional basis. Fire agencies will battle forest fires aggressively if the fire nears structures or population, even if it isn’t in a red-marked area on the map. But if the fire doesn’t threaten anything immediately, the fire will be allowed to burn out based on certain conditions.

“Other areas we’ll let burn depending on the time of year, weather and fuel conditions,” Hollingshead said.

Now it seemed like Andy (Stahl) was quoted last year as saying… Here.

Things like this have a tendency to become indelible,” he said. In order to reverse the policy next season, he thinks the Forest Service will have to make the case that budget and weather conditions are significantly different than this year—something he worries might not happen.

Here are a couple of other links to our discussions last year..
http://ncfp.wordpress.com/2013/04/15/the-fire-policy-in-plain-english-high-country-news/
http://ncfp.wordpress.com/2013/03/05/fanning-the-smouldering-pile-of-controversy-last-years-fire-letter/

Idea for Congress: Give Forest Service Flexibility

by

Two articles of interest this morning.. reductions in firefighter hires due to sequestration.. as in the LA Times story here…

Here is an excerpt:

The U.S. Forest Service will hire 500 fewer firefighters this year, the result of “line by line” budget reductions required by Congress, Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack said in a conference call with reporters. The reduced staffing also means 50 fewer fire engines will be available, Vilsack said.

Vilsack and Interior Secretary Sally Jewel said much of the West would face severe fire danger this summer.

“We will no doubt be seeing some fires of significant size,” Vilsack said.

The Interior Department is also expected to cut its firefighting forces.

The Forest Service hires firefighters in spring and retains them through fall, Tom Harbour, the Forest Service’s national director of fire and aviation management, said in an interview Monday. Last year, when 9.3 million acres burned in the United States, the Forest Service hired 10,500 firefighters. The Interior Department fielded another 2,500.

California is expected to be the most imperiled of the dry Western states. The state this year has received only 25% of the rainfall that it received in the same period for 2012, National Interagency Fire Center fire analyst Jeremy Sullens said. Other states expected to be hit hard are Arizona, New Mexico, Oregon and Idaho, along with portions of other states.

Because of the danger California is in, the Forest Service does not plan to reduce hiring there, Harbour said. The reductions will more likely affect Eastern states, where the danger is less serious this year.

I also saw this here:

The U.S. Forest Service is awarding $772,820 to help national forests improve or implement conservation education programs for kids in 16 states and the U.S. Virgin Islands. This award is part of the more than $2.26 million dedicated to connecting American kids to Nature. It includes more than $1.49 million in partner contributions, according to a spokesperson for the Forest Service.

“Forest Service conservation education programs inspire young people to start exploring the natural world around them, which develops a life-long appreciation for the environment,” said U.S. Forest Service Chief Tom Tidwell. “Our partnerships help ensure that we bring the great outdoors to children, whether in an urban or rural setting.”

Remember, the same Forest Service had to ask for money back from States (asked for money back) but is also giving out new grants…

It seems to me that if Congress would let USDA/FS switch among line items.. then we could apply my bureacratic prioritization process, or some other rational process that could be explained to the public.

1. Real danger to people, fish, soil, air, tourism, water storage, and properties. Fires yes, lack of conservation education, not.

2. Critical as to timing– fires this year, either there is real danger of bad fires this year or it’s fire hype.. someone in government should be able to tell the difference. Not so timing-critical is conservation education.

3. Across the government, how many uncoordinated efforts are there? Just in my everyday dealings before I retired, I ran across the National Park Service, NSF and EPA having some form of conservation education. Maybe Congress could ask for volunteers (retirees) from all these agencies (and the others no doubt) to review the different programs (I’m sure other agencies do it as well) and make recommendations for combinations and coordination. They might even be “educating” at cross purposes.

Just to be clear, I have nothing against conservation education, it is a great and important program. I do have something against apparent inability to prioritize and coordinate among federal agencies. And if it would take some freeing action by Congress to allow agencies to do it, then let’s ask Congress to do it.

What are your thoughts? How would you prioritize?

Federal workers would get cash for pinpointing government savings

by

Thanks to an alert reader for this submission:

Hope there is a panel of (volunteer) externals to review these for each agency..otherwise we’ll we might have suggestions like “answering the phone even less often when federal retirees call OMB..”

I think the FS might have done something like this during the Pilot period. It was very incentivizing! Hopefully retirees can also input suggestions and maybe get a half of one percent? How about contractors and the public?

P.S. I don’t know anyone who believes that end-of-year spending flurries are the optimum use of federal resources.

WASHINGTON — By MICHAEL COLLINS

Federal employees could soon have a big incentive to help the government save money: They could take home a share of the savings.

A bill filed Thursday by U.S. Rep. Chuck Fleischmann, R-Tenn., would give bonuses to federal workers who come up with ways for the government to save money. The employees could receive 1 percent of the total cost savings, or up to $10,000.

Fleischmann said offering the bonuses would not only be a way to encourage workers to cut wasteful spending, it also could return to the U.S. Treasury millions of unused tax dollars that could then be applied toward deficit reduction.

“This is a bill that I think will appeal to all fiscally responsible members of Congress — Republicans and Democrats — because it’s just a good, common sense bill,” Fleischmann said.

Federal agencies are appropriated a certain amount of funds every year. “Right now, sadly, what happens is when a government agency is allotted funds, sometimes those funds are not really needed,” Fleischmann said.

Regardless, critics say, agencies rush to spend unused dollars in the last quarter of the fiscal year, encouraging a “use-it-or-lose-it” mentality.

Fleischmann’s bill, known as the EASY Savings Act, seeks to end that practice by encouraging government workers to look for and suggest ways to stop frivolous spending. Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., has filed the Senate version of the bill.

The legislation has bipartisan support and has been endorsed by the American Taxpayers Union and other government watchdog groups.

“In order to bring spending reform to Washington, we need to make fundamental changes such as improving the incentive structure,” said James Valvo, director of policy for Americans For Prosperity. “The EASY Savings Act would provide better incentives for federal agencies and grant recipients to return unused funds for deficit reduction.”

Forest Service to states: Give subsidies back

by

Why the Forest Service? Of all the agencies who gave all the bucks to all the other entities already, why would you pick the Forest Service bucks and States to try to get money back from? Really?

I’ve been known to be “politically impaired,” so if someone with better sensitivities would explain why it is considered a good idea to poke both red and blue governors and states with a sharp stick, please enlighten us.


Here’s an AP story..
So far I’ve seen stories where Alaska and Wyoming are not giving it back..