I hope that this is the Sioux Ranger Station or someone will tell me if it’s not.
From James Keyser on the Data General.
From: James D. Keyser:R6/PNW
Date: ## 03/03/97 10:20 ##
I always liked the sign I saw (my FIRST month in the agency) at a VERY remote ranger station on the Custer NF in South Dakota (R1).
Above the ranger’s desk hung a sign that said: “Last Year was a GOOD year. I saw the Forest Supervisor THREE times. He saw ME ONCE!”
And it was a Ranger District on which that REALLY could have happened
30 mile drive to it on dirt roads. All the NFS land is sparsely forested mesa country from which you can see for miles.
You’ve probably heard it before- it may not even be original to the Forest Service but…it does convey the deep value of decentralized decisionmaking (yes, and a certain mistrust of the next level up). Decentralization is indeed an important value, but in this hyper-connected day and age, it can also be frustrating sometimes for employees and the public alike.
A GAO Report released Monday documents incidents where employees of the Forest Service, BLM, Fish and Wildlife Service and National Park Service were threatened or assaulted. The security review was requested by the Democratic chairman of the U.S House Natural Resources Committee, Rep. Raul Grijalva, and there is a hearing today before a House subcommittee. According to Snopes (so it must be true):
Grijalva said the findings underscore growing concerns over the safety of government workers on public land. The Arizona lawmaker also criticized the Trump administration’s appointment of Bureau of Land Management Acting Director William “Perry” Pendley, who has expressed support for Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy. Bundy’s family played central roles in a 2014 standoff over grazing fees in Nevada and the 2016 occupation of Oregon’s Malheur National Wildlife Refuge. “Making a folk hero out of Bundy, that sets a dangerous precedent,” Grijalva said. “At the top of the agency, they reinforce and embolden some of these actions by doing nothing and previously being in support of them.”
Professor John Freemuth, an expert on U.S. land policies at Boise State University, said it was true that the Trump administration’s pro-development policies could help quiet resentments toward the government. But Freemuth added that anti-government rhetoric also gets legitimized when it’s espoused by prominent figures.
President Trump demonstrated his position last year on those anti-government ideologues who violate federal facilities, and it is not a comforting one for federal employees. He pardoned two men whose convictions on public-land arson charges helped ignite the six-week Malheur National Wildlife Refuge occupation in Oregon in 2016. He absolved Dwight Hammond Jr. and Steven Hammond, father-and-son cattle ranchers in southeastern Oregon whose convictions carried mandatory five-year sentences.
In a formal response to the GAO report, Interior Department Assistant Secretary Scott Cameron agreed with recommendations to carry out security assessments at hundreds of government facilities. In a separate response, Forest Service Chief Victoria Christiansen also agreed with the recommendation for security review. Neither response gave details on when the security work would occur.
This is perhaps the first chance (in history) to synthesize a group history from the ways different people remember it. As such, this is an invitation for all of us to give our perspectives from that time period, and see how or if they fit together. And if it only covers a piece of our own humble Forest Service history rather than say, the Cuban Missile Crisis, well then so be it. Now, back to Jim Furnish and his experience with Undersecretary Jim Lyons. For those of you who don’t remember that period, there was a Committee of Scientists which included a lawyer (I think they really meant a “committee of scholars”). Note as different groups of scientists and scholars are brought in to give advice, disagree (at least the COS) internally, and are used to support essentially the answer to a non-science question (which thread of sustainability should be dominant in forest planning). Is that a question that should be resolved by “eminent scholars”? For newbies to all this it’s not hard to draw a line between the “sustainability is #1” esoteric discussion, as Jim terms it, and the concept of “ecological integrity” in the 2012 Rule.
“The Good: Along with the Roadless Conservation Rule, the FS was revising NFMA planning regulations (remember?). To be blunt, Dombeck loved the Roadless issue; Planning, not so much. But Jim Lyons was another matter. He was totally into the planning regulation, and behaved very hands-on throughout the process. Regrettably, almost anything Lyon said when the national leadership team met to process sections of the new regulation (even if credible) was met with skepticism, owing to a lack of trust. Sally Collins, later to become Assoc Chief, had joined my staff from Deschutes NF in OR as my Assoc Dep Chief. We both had abundant planning experience, and had each served on a planning advisory group appointed by Lyons to prep for the new regulation. Sally and I concluded that Lyons needed to allow the regulation to proceed without his direct intervention; his efforts were counterproductive as he was not the right messenger.
We approached Lyons with our assessment, and asked that he trust us to shepherd the regulation through to its publication as a draft rule in the Fed Register. We promised to keep him abreast of progress, and would see to it that his concerns were addressed along the way. Bear in mind that the planning regulation was “his baby”, but he weighed the matter seriously and begrudgingly agreed. This was a difficult regulation, as it forwarded concepts and ideology at odds with past practice, but we got it done after smoothing out the process. I give credit to Lyons for harnessing his ego to serve a cause he cared deeply about.
A brief sidebar: the concept of sustainability fostered heated debate while preparing the planning regulation, the crux of the matter being whether economic, social, and ecological sustainability were indivisible, or could be viewed as unique but related features. This topic devolved into a largely esoteric argument between research station directors and Lyons, while regional foresters seemed dull to the topic. Researchers argued for indivisible, tilting at the notion that ecological sustainability become the “guiding star” for the Forest Service, as was articulated by the Scientific Committee headed by Norm Johnson (OSU). Lyons and Dombeck decided the sustainability issue emphatically at a national leadership meeting for one “3-stranded rope” made up of unique and separable economic, social, and ecological parts. End of story! Remarkably, FS science leaders then created a 21-page “encyclical” making their case yet again. Lyons had had enough. He asked Oregon St Univ to empanel a group of eminent scholars to tackle the question. They sided with Lyons. End of story, again.
I use the planning regulation, which was achieved toward the end of Lyons’ 8-year tenure, to make the argument that Lyons learned some valuable lessons along the way about how to work effectively with the agency. He behaved arrogantly and could be condescending early on, and few could forget his handling of the firing of Robertson and Leonard, and appointment of JW Thomas. I found him to be dedicated, thoughtful, and supportive, all things which Tenney was not.
And here’s my main point about the intersection of politics and resource policy: the days of the FS being relatively immune from political tampering are long past (if they ever existed). Each administration will make personnel changes (i.e. fire Chiefs and others) to suit their aims, in hopes that “their people” will be compliant. The illusion that a “career Chief forester” is an essential ingredient to an independent agency is sort of laughable today. That said, because the FS has a trust relationship with the public and their lands, they have an obligation to engage in “principled dissent” when necessary to blunt ill-advised political machinations. Any Chief might lose a tough argument, but every Chief should fight for what’s right by the land. And fight hard!”
There are so many interesting things we can discuss about Jim’s observations.. the personal chemistry of liking and trusting, the buddy system, litmus tests for worldviews and “ethics”, figuring out what people are like based on what you hear about them (AKA..gossip?). Holy Smoke! It’s amazing that any of us stayed employed :). Oh, that’s right, it’s hard to fire us…
Sidenote: I checked back on the question of whether the Regional Foresters work for the Deputy Chief for National Forest Systems or for the Chief. From another former Deputy Chief for NFS.
I suppose it is a bit of both of in reality. As I remember it, I actually gave them their performance reviews and felt every bit their supervisor but whenever the Chief wanted he certainly had direct ties to each and in some cases an specific RF would try to go directly to the Chief if they thought that might be to their advantage, especially on cross functional issues regarding S&PF or administration and budget.
(Note that Fire is in S&PF).
Now on to Jim Furnish’s post.
“Next up: Jim Lyons, who came to USDA in 1993 from a lead staff position with the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, and remained Undersecretary for Clinton’s full term.
The Bad: I’ll be honest; I did not claim membership in the good ol’ boys club of forest supervisors when I became Deputy Chief in 1999. As timber production plummeted following the spotted owl crisis, Siuslaw NF, as well as I, became somewhat inconsequential in the larger scheme. I turned my attention to fixing roads, and protecting owls, salmon, and marbled murrelets, and struggling to develop a restoration model for a way forward out of the timber morass. Although, we were largely ignored in the PNW, Dombeck and Chris Wood, his policy advisor (and now Pres of Trout Unlimited) liked what they saw.
As Deputy Chief for National Forests, all personnel selections at the level of forest and deputy supervisor, regional director, regional and deputy forester, and DC NF program directors, had to be endorsed by me. Selections came to me as #1, #2, and #3 for my approval; I then had to brief the national leadership team on my assessment and selection rationale, occasionally bypassing the #1 candidate in favor of another. After discussion, the Chief made the final call and an offer was processed through. Except for Senior Exec positions, which went to the Undersecretary, who had veto power. For context, there are about 125 NFs, 9 Regions,and 10 national directors. In my brief 2 ½ year tenure, I processed about 125 selections.
We had a big problem when I arrived in May 1999. A huge backlog existed of unfilled positions, or more accurately, “pending decisions.” I assessed that Dombeck, having spent several years at BLM, was out of touch with FS field leaders. Lyons, similarly, didn’t know many except by reputation, but had strong views about personnel. As he traveled throughout the US, he met many leaders; some he liked, many he was wary of. After Dep Chief Gray Reynolds was ousted by Dombeck and Lyons, Bob Joslin filled the post but retired quickly thereafter. Distrust and indecision filled the gap as Dombeck felt he simply could not trust the process to deliver people with a necessary “land ethic” to carry his agenda. This engendered distrust on the part of regional foresters in particular, whose selections stood idling in DC.
I had been around enough that I knew, or had at least met, virtually every candidate for these select jobs. And I knew who I could trust when vetting a candidate for a particular position. I’m not bragging when I say I was key to breaking the gridlock. Dombeck trusted me enough to (almost always) accept my decisions. Lyons was another matter. He enjoyed his ability to pull strings to get people he knew and liked into positions (and prevent those he didn’t like), and had been infamously active in this arena since early in his tenure as Undersecretary, earning much scorn. This had a negative effect on field morale (putting it mildly). To be fair, both Dombeck and Lyons had legitimate concerns about finding leaders who shared their vision for a more progressive and “green” agenda, less reliant on logging.
Lyons and I did not visit this issue often, but we had a quite blunt talk about him needing to trust me and relinquish his grip on personnel selections. Slowly, the spigot opened and water flowed. I can well remember Lyons looking into my eyes occasionally and asking if so-and-so was “up to the job.” I think he had interfered unreasonably in personnel matters (Lyons would disagree, I’m sure), but he changed. He learned to let go.”
Next post: The Good, about Jim Lyons and the 2001 Planning Rule
Former Deputy Chief for National Forest Systems, Jim Furnish. Photo by Amanda Cowan of the Corvallis Gazette-TimesI think it’s important for folks who haven’t worked in the agencies, or with politicals, to hear what the interface between politicals and career civil servants can be like, in terms of the day-to-day management of the agency. For the Forest Service, anyway, pressure by politicals can be less like an assembly line of policy from DC to Ranger District, and more like the Administration punching a pillow, where the pressure dissipates through time and space.
To open the discussion, I asked Jim Furnish, former Deputy Chief of the National Forest System, to share the good and the bad of his experiences with politicals. For those of you who are not Forest Service folks, the chain of command goes like this: the Secretary of Agriculture (now Sonny Perdue) is over the Undersecretary over the Forest Service (now Jim Hubbard, formerly State Forester of Colorado). Those are political folks, and under that is the Chief of the Forest Service (not technically political, that’s a historic discussion in and of itself, but new Administrations of a different color tend to get rid of the old ones, in more or less dramatic ways), and the Deputy Chief for the National Forest System is the next layer down. There are other Deputy Chiefs, e.g. State and Private, that are over state and private programs and Fire, and Research and Development, Administration and International Programs, but the main issues that concern us here (other than fire) are all within the purview of the Deputy Chief for NFS. For example, the Director of Ecosystem Management Coordination (EMC) where litigation, NEPA and Planning are housed, works for that person in DC. One of the ways it’s confusing is that the Regional Foresters actually work for the Chief, but when Jim Furnish was Deputy Chief they worked for him. (See it’s even confusing to former employees). It’s fairly complicated-both the way it sounds and the way it works, with lots of opportunities for tension between the line and staff folks at various levels. Oh and let’s not forget that the Washington Office, at least before efforts for “work at home”, was a six-story rumor mill with tendrils of information, of unknown quality, like the game “Telephone” dissipating throughout the country.
For non-FS people this may be all too much bureaucracy, but it can help to understand the ways that authority can be both straightforward (line to line) and diffused (all those staff people at different levels).
I think Jim’s stories are all worthy of consideration, so this will be a series. Others are welcome to submit their own advice or stories, either as a separate post (email me) or in the comments below. As usual, let’s reflect on irritating or helpful behaviors on the part of politicals, not so much saying bad things about individual human beings. Also, I’d ask you to note how important trust is..the interface is people suddenly working together who feel that there are high stakes, and don’t have experience working together, nor, many times, any basic level of trust. I like the way Jim does the Good and the Bad, so these posts will be longer than usual. Now onto Jim’s post.
It Was the Best of Times; It Was the Worst of Times . . .
The interface which resource agencies and their leaders navigate between “doing right by the land” and doing the bidding of politicos is fraught with intrigue. As Deputy Chief of the Forest Service (1999-2002), I had a front row seat as observer and occasional participant during the latter part of the Clinton administration and early Bush one. The politicization of the agency has ramped up in an ever more partisan manner, especially since the spotted owl crisis. With Congress in gridlock, the executive branch has become the primary driver of policy formulation. I thought it might be instructive to share a couple “inside stories” that illustrate both the best and worst of agency politics. Each involves the Undersecretary for Agriculture — a political appointee overseeing the Forest Service and its Chief – a person I had frequent direct contact with while dealing with national forest issues.
Dave Tenney came to USDA in 2001 from a lead staff position with the House Natural Resources Committee. He remained in an “acting” capacity for many months while Mark Rey awaited Senate confirmation.
The Bad: When Ann Veneman of CA became Secretary of Agriculture, it seemed every party there with a bone to pick with the FS pestered her office for a fix. Early in 2001, Dave Tenney asked to see me about a matter involving TV towers atop Mt. Wilson in Angeles NF. Univision claimed that a tower that Disney had started to build would interfere with its transmission. Tenney noted these were “powerful, influential” parties and he directed me to “fix it” as he dropped an issue folder in front of me. I quickly examined the contents, and then explained that lawyers were already involved, the issue had a technical component that would require FCC involvement, and it would also be necessary to confer with the Region and Forest to inquire about background and what had already transpired. Then we could get the parties together with FCC and see about brokering a deal. “How long will that take?” I estimated about a week. He said he needed this done “tomorrow”. I noted this was unrealistic; simply impossible. He pressed on saying it was essential to get this fixed now (reflecting Veneman’s demand, I suspect). I quietly stared at him contemplating my next move. I told Tenney I understood the gravity and the urgency, but a substantive, reasonable solution needed a lot of work and coordination, many meetings, and a need to calm the lawyers while we found a solution that fit the facts. Tenney glared and demanded faster action. I then said “If you want me to take care of this I will – I need a week. If you want it done faster, then you do it.” Then I returned the folder. He reluctantly told me to deal with it and brief him when solved, which I did a week later. This was about March 2001, and I left the FS in January 2002. What little trust and optimism existed for a Clinton-era deputy chief to work effectively with a Bush appointee evaporated. Tenney and I almost never spoke again.
The Good: The tragic Thirtymile Fire (July 2001) in WA burned over a fire crew and 2 civilians, killing 4 firefighters and nearly all 16 hunkered in fire shelters. I received a midnight call asking if I would lead the fatality investigation. I agreed to do so. Chief Dombeck, shortly before he retired in April, had ripped into all his leadership group saying that the last time a fatality occurred, the safety officer had fielded 17 declinations until someone said ”Yes” to lead an investigation. In the future, Dombeck said “if your name is on top of the list when called, you WILL serve!” My name was on top for July 1-15. I departed for WA the next morning after briefing Chief Bosworth, who had just succeeded Dombeck.
The investigation team, including OSHA reps, proceeded briskly to determine the basics of what happened. Intensive Regional TV coverage covered every development and clamored for answers.
After 1 week we readied for a major press conference to lay out our findings. A lengthy report would follow after further investigation, but we had established a basic fact pattern that could dispel many myths. Then Chief Bosworth called to say he was sending his communications director to “manage the event”. This did not sit well with me. Our local public affairs officer and investigation team had performed well and we were ready as could be. My interactions with the natl comm dir led me to conclude he screwed up everything he touched and this event was too important. Further, I sensed the Chief had little or no confidence in me. I told the Chief he need not send him. Bosworth said it had “already been decided” (though I do not know if Tenney was involved, I suspected so). So I said he needed to understand that if he came to WA I would resign my position as investigation team leader immediately. I knew that the Chief could not stand the scandal of my departure one week in. There was a long pause on the phone.
Bosworth said “I’ll see what I can do”. The comm dir stayed home, and we had a good press conference that effectively addressed the media’s questions and allowed us to proceed with the balance of our work. In this case, I think my taking a stand had a good outcome and fostered improved respect and trust — with Bosworth, at least, who listened and understood and agreed to a mutually satisfactory outcome.
Joan Friedlander, former District Ranger of the Palomar Ranger District on the Cleveland NF
We’re at a bit of an intersection between discussing the proposed NEPA regulations, and a discussion on the role of political appointees and career folks in policy development. But let’s go back to Sam Evans’ op-ed in the NY Times:
But under the Trump administration’s proposal, a host of potentially harmful projects — including timber sales of up to 4,200 acres (about 6.6 square miles), construction of up to 5 miles of roads, and permits for pipelines and fracking pads — would be approved without public involvement.
Sam assumes that if it’s not specifically required, line officers, in this case District Rangers for the most part, won’t do any public involvement (even using a 4200 acre CE). As a person who worked in NEPA in DC and in Region 2, my experience is that generally District Rangers wouldn’t do that. Which I think leads me to an important point, especially for externals. In the Forest Service, there is a cultural inclination not to overrule the local line officer, and I think we need to understand the cultural context of line-officerhood before we can project any real world impacts from a change in regulations.
After ten years of discussing the Forest Service on The Smokey Wire, it’s high time we talked about this aspect of Forest Service culture. I’m hoping that others will volunteer posts about different aspects of line officer-hood, including their own experiences- that’s why I’m calling this The Cult of the Line Officer I. Now, you might say that this is really “The Cult of the District Ranger,” and we can talk about what that might mean also. I’m particularly interested in thoughts from those of you who have had line responsibilities in both the Forest Service and the BLM. In my career, I spent a great deal of time trying to convince people that folks from my staff “had what it takes” to be a line officer when that was their career goal; and I’m still not sure I get it. Hence this discussion.
Why am I calling these posts “The Cult of the Line Officer”? I am using it in the sense of the “derived sense of “excessive devotion” arose in the 19th century.”(Wikipedia) I don’t know if it’s actually excessive, but that’s something we can talk about.
There are almost metaphysical elements of caring and responsibility for a particular piece of land. There is the responsibility for people’s safety and lives, and being the person who speaks to the family if there has been an accident. I’m sure that there have been people who have written beautifully about what this means for them, and culturally for the Forest Service. I’m hoping people will post these expressions below or attach links.
The other side, though, is that for some to have that unique role, other roles are, at least to an extent, considered “less than.” Let me tell two stories that illustrate this.
First, in about 1981, we had a Women in Timber meeting in Region 6. It was held at Hood River, and I remembered two things. First was that the Timber Director said that women could never be sale administrators as the contractors would not respect us. The second was that the women in line had a separate meeting. As I remember, there were only two, and one was a nursery manager (still line, but not quite as OK as being a District Ranger). As a relative newbie to the Forest Service, I didn’t quite get it.
Second, (I’ve told this story before), when I worked in Region 5 during the Consent Decree, we had to have a Consent Decree Action Plan as part of our performance. Since we didn’t have many women in line at the time, I came up with the idea of having a field course to teach women in administration all the things they would need to know so that they could become District Rangers.
I was thinking that some natural resource courses from a university would do it, and perhaps more importantly, history and culture. For me it almost bordered on mysticism. This was when the RO called me and told me to stop talking about it, as it might give those administrative folks “ideas.”
Finally, the question “do we expect too much from these human beings, and how has that changed over time?” One story. At the Retiree Rendezvous in 2012, I happened to attend a session on fire. Many of the retirees were conveying to Tom Harbour, the WO Fire Director, that they believed that every line officer needed to have fire experience. This seemed to me not remotely practical and I tried to break in to say so, but the other retirees at this meeting were very adamant.
So three ideas to riff on:
What is that exactly that being a line officer means? Yesterday, today and tomorrow?
Is it just a mid-level manager in the government, or something more culturally or metaphysically resonant?
We depend on their judgment calls to “care for the land and serve people,” are they up to it?
Are (internal and/ or external) expectations too great for these positions? (E.g., liked externally and internally, inspiring, make wise decisions, and so on..)
Reflecting their solid training and professionalism, Pine Knot Job Corps Civilian Conservation Students (JCCCC) students worked 13,129 hours on 40 assignments during the 2016 fire season.
I don’t know how many of you saw this editorial in the Wall Street Journal.
You’d think all of this would be reason enough to shut down more centers. But if the Administration had proceeded as planned, some 1,065 Forest Service employees might have lost their jobs. Commence the lobbying. Randy Erwin, their union president, slammed the Administration for “a coordinated attack on the most vulnerable populations in this country: Rural and urban low-income young people hoping to succeed in life.”
On June 5 a bipartisan group of 51 lawmakers signed a letter expressing “strong opposition” to closing the centers. They warned that it was “precisely the wrong time” to cut the centers “after a difficult year of natural disasters and with hurricane and wildfire season quickly approaching.” But fewer than 150 of the 30,000 students served by the Forest Service Job Corps centers train to fight fires. Others sometimes support disaster-response efforts, but the central mission of Jobs Corps is to launch students toward steadier work.
(My bold)
I was curious. Given the locations of the Job Corps centers, I would have thought that more than 150 are trained to fight fires. So I looked online and found this. Job Corps
Participation in CY 2017
Approx. 1200 students deployed to nearly 200 wildfire assignments with over 450,000 hours of support.
Boxelder Mobile Kitchen Unit mobilized within R2.
It shows that combined, they provided help on 412 assignments involving 1,971 participant assignments (many had more than one), for a total of 368,998 hours.
Does anyone know where we could get an accurate number for firefighting and support for 2018, and then, perhaps, we can send it to the WSJ editorial board?
Thanks to NAFSR for these two links, Politico and the WaPo.
The Trump administration, under heavy pressure from Congress, will withdraw plans to end a U.S. Forest Service program that trains underprivileged youth, spokespersons for the Agriculture and Labor departments told POLITICO.
The Job Corps Civilian Conservation Centers, a program within the Job Corps, trains low-income young people to to become first responders to natural disasters, to work on rural infrastructure projects and to maintain national forests. The administration’s reversal on its shuttering the centers comes after significant pushback from lawmakers of both parties — including Senate Majority LeaderMitch McConnell — and also from the union that represents USDA Forest Service employees.
“For the time being, USDA does not intend to transfer these centers to DOL to allow management to determine a pathway that will maximize opportunity and results for students, minimize disruptions, and improve overall performance and integrity,” the USDA and DOL spokespersons said in an emailed statement. “DOL and USDA will conduct a robust organizational review to determine the appropriate course of action keeping in mind the [Forest Service] mission, the students we serve, and the American taxpayers.”
DOL announced in May that it accepted Agriculture Secretary Sonny Perdue’s decision to pull out of the Job Corps program. Perdue stated in a letter to Labor Secretary Alexander Acosta that the Forest Service had to step away from activities that were not essential to its core mission to improve “the condition and resilience” of America’s forests.
The decision was sudden; Forest Service Vicki Christansen told employees she had learned of the plan only four days prior. And members of Congress said they weren’t consulted or notified.
Now I am probably one of the least political people on the planet, but any Trump administration effort would get pushback from D’s almost by definition, so it seems like they would check if they had any R’s with them before they launched this effort. Unless, of course, the effort, not the outcome, was some true goal (as in, “we tried but what could we do (shrug)?)”. I’d like to get the inside story on this apparent extreme political ham-handedness if anyone knows anything…
For those of you not familiar with the Forest Service Job Corps program, it’s a training program for at-risk youth to help them learn job skills.
For some reason (“efficiency?”), the Department of Agriculture apparently wants to close some and move the rest to the Department of Labor.
Here is a piece from Michael Rains on the Evergreen website that calls the idea “incredibly short-sighted, ineffective and stupid.” I’m with Michael, and I just don’t get why of all the important potential things to fix, Perdue et al. would find one that isn’t at all broken. Like I said, I get the idea of efficiency at some superficial level (the flip chart level of analysis), but there are plenty of voices that say the Job Corps is part of the heart and soul of the Forest Service, and those voices should be listened to. The Secretary may have poked the slumbering retiree giant. When an EA or a project is long done, the spark the FS will light in a youth may brighten families and communities, and ripple through generations.
NAFSR has ideas for how to raise our voices:
We have heard from many of our members that are concerned about this decision and asked what they could do.
We would like our members to send emails with your comments to the following people in the Department of Agriculture –
We would also like you to send your comments to your congressional delegation.
You can also leave a message for Secretary of Agriculture, Sonny Perdue, by clicking on this link – https://www.usda.gov/tellsonny
Here are some potential talking points:
* The importance of this program to many of the rural communities we serve.
* The long standing success of the Forest Service in not only carrying out the intent of the Job Corps program from its inception in 1964 but the importance of the “conservation centers” and the special locations and ability to connect with outdoors and involve students in conservation work including silviculture and fire management activities.
*Not recognizing the fact that this program and the Forest Service involvement is in fact a “classic” example of the vision espoused in the objective of “shared stewardship” and the Forest Service has been a leader in in this.
*The confidence that the Department of Interior placed in the Department of Agriculture in the recent past when eight of their Centers were transferred to the USDA Forest Service.
*The impact of the closing on 1,100 USDA employees who will lose their jobs or be displaced.
*The fact that many of our members have spent a good part of their careers working to make the Job Corps Conservation Centers successful through their leadership and expertise
*And lastly the manner in which this decision was made and the lack of transparency and inclusion of those impacted by the decision.
I’m also curious as to what about the FS you would improve if you were the Secretary, and interested in efficiency. I don’t think he has asked us yet 😉 but still… Mine would be to review R&D projects between NSF, EPA, Interior and Agriculture (all in-house and grants) for duplication and set in motion processes to avoid duplication in the future. Yours?
