As many of you remember, Dave Mertz and I did a FOIA back in April for the Keystone Master Agreements. In July, we asked for the SPAs related to the Master Agreements and the annual reports.   We started at the WO, and it was later farmed out to Regions.  For example, Region 9 received the FOIA on October 18.   So far, we have heard from Regions 10, 4, 2, 1, 9 and 6. So far 3, 5 and 8 haven’t responded.  Some Regions’ FOIA people called and discussed what we were looking for, so kudos to all of them!

Dave and I have concerns about the general approach of farming out work to grantees and various other questions and concerns.. which we’ll get to in a later post.

The reason for posting this now is that we don’t know if people from the new Admin read TSW, but just in case, I hope this encourages them to unfreeze these funds. Yes, I am able to hold both ideas at once.. “this isn’t my favored approach”, and “don’t switch horses in the middle of the stream”, especially since they have at least partially crippled the horse we’re all currently riding (employees).

I think any of us could look at BIL and IRA projects and find ones that look questionable or bogus.  I might think that some projects encompass over-planning and analyzing, and holding conversations about strategies for collaboration,  and under – actually doing things.  Others may not be fond of the NWTF log train.  I also think the new Admin needs to look at the on-the ground projects being funded and not the buzzwords used.

My other request to the new Admin would be… for transparency, please ensure that agencies post their agreements, deliverables, and progress reports online, saving time and effort of FOIA folks and those who are interested in information.

************

Given that background,  let’s dive in and look at the information provided by Datarepublican on the Mule Deer Foundation.  She seems to be one person (not a group)  who has developed an alternative search methodology to USAspending.gov.  She explains it on her Substack. It’s way over my database knowledge (they lost me in the 80’s with S2K), but some may be able to follow. It’s definitely easier to use and faster than USAspending.gov and also links to it for specific grants.

I am not picking on the Mule Deer folks here, I could have picked any group, plus we don’t know that they had anything to do with how their info is portrayed on USAspending.gov.  I mostly picked them because when I search on their EIN, I don’t get random other stuff.   So here is this link, for example.

It shows that $11.5 million was obligated so far and $2 mill has been outlayed.  The bucks appear to come from the IRA, and the description is “increasing capacity for ecological restoration and wildlife habitat projects.” Some say that the IRA was a “climate bill” but it was also “all kinds of stuff we like with large amounts of money going to our friends” bill.

“Increasing capacity” is not exactly “conducting projects”.  What if the fields were populated by “best descriptions of what the grantee plans to do” with links to the agreement,  deliverables and annual reports?  I  would guess  USAspending.gov just picked up the description from the grant somehow.  I think a happy spot might be somewhere between marketing hype and one-line vagueness.

Here’s another one .. it’s only for $180,000 but the description is “KEYSTONE AGREEMENT INFLATION REDUCTION LAW FUNDING.” My guess is that some AI must pull this from the grant.  It doesn’t seem very good from the transparency point of view, and it doesn’t make the agency nor the grantee look good.  My FOIAing suggests that all these grants are for more or less (given personal preference) useful work; but if we can’t see it, folks may assume the worst.  I mean, who else but retirees would spend months FOIAing and reading progress reports?

*****************

Here is a similar search for Trout Unlimited.  For some reason I used their EIN and it pulled up a different group.  This search has TU grants with others mixed in.

Here’s TNC, I used their EIN. Note that many agencies pass $ through them in addition to the FS (and there’s at least one urban tree project).

Here’s the Student Conservation Association .. there’s quite a bit of trail maintenance as well as “advancing climate justice” and fire workforce development.

I used what I thought was the EIN for NFWF -52-1384139 and it showed “no results found.”

Here’s  National Wild Turkey Federation, looks like a total of 120 mill spent by feds but includes USFWS, BLM and NRCS.

Here’s National Forest Foundation.. again the EIN I found didn’t work so NFF grants are mixed in the list with others.

Here’s American Forests. Their EIN worked, but I still got other grantees mixed in.  My own thought is that the FS could have, and has,  developed regional reforestation strategies without needing additional “capacity,” but like I said, to each their own. There are also large chunks for urban and community forestry, but that’s always been a pass-through program, like State and Private without the State part.

Here’s NFWF . The first one that comes up is $11 mill for Copper Fire restoration work.  Possibly there is a description of what they did on the NFWF site, but why not have that information linked somewhere?

There’s an interesting story out of AP. The headline is

Trump wants states to clean up forests to stop wildfires. But his administration cut off funds

So I wondered what was going on, it sounds like S&PF funds from the headline, which may have already been dispersed to the States.

Here’s the story:

PORTLAND, Ore. (AP) — President Donald Trump’s administration is holding up money for wildfire mitigation projects funded through legislation championed by his Democratic predecessor, threatening efforts to prevent catastrophic blazes like the ones that recently ripped through Southern California.

The decision undermines Trump’s repeated insistence that communities need to clear combustible materials like fallen branches and undergrowth — “it’s called management of the floor,” he said while visiting Los Angeles last month — to guard against wildfires.

Elizabeth Peace, a spokesperson for the Interior Department, said via email that mitigation work is “currently undergoing review to ensure consistency” with Trump’s executive orders.

The scrutiny is being applied only to projects using money from the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law and the Inflation Reduction Act, two centerpieces of former President Joe Biden’s administration. They included roughly $3 billion for wildfire mitigation efforts, often known as hazardous fuels reduction programs.

Peace said those programs are continuing if funded by other congressional appropriations.

So the story is that BIL and IRA funding is being reviewed. Technically speaking, I wouldn’t say that was “cutting off funds.”  I know many of us have been involved in projects that required WO review, including Roadless projects, which ultimately went through.  It will be interesting to see what ultimately happens.

If anyone has  experience of grants or contracts at the Forest Service being shut down, it would be helpful to know.  Is the story that they are being reviewed or stopped?  Is there a pattern to which ones are stopped. I’ve contacted various grantees, and people I know there, but so far have received no answer from them. I also have received no replies from the FS medial folks.  I’m sure they are overwhelmed at this point.

I’ve heard that there’s a pause on new agreements, and a pause in spending BIL (and possibly IRA?). Is this consistently applied, or are wildfire suppression related grants and contracts exempt?

I’d like to start by giving a shout-out to the Coconino National Forest.  When I called them, a real person answered the phone at the SO.  She put me directly in touch with a public affairs person.   They also volunteered to answer folks’ questions about the project, so please put your questions in the comments.  This is excellent, since my emails and phone calls to the contacts at the Convention itself have gone unanswered.

Anyway, here is the Forest’s original press release:

Due: Oct 3 / released Oct 16

The National Baptist Convention has put its faith in a Forest Service keystone partnership to execute forest management tied to the USDA Wildfire Crisis Strategy (WCS).

The Nashville-based convention signed a participating agreement Aug. 12, 2024, to reduce forest fuels on the 4 Forest Restoration Initiative (4FRI) landscape as its first venture. The project aims to masticate trees along 20 miles of road edge on the Mogollon Rim Ranger District of the Coconino National Forest. Since the first week of September, trees near Forest Service Road 300 have been pulverized into chips, with slash left on the ground. These areas are treated boundaries allowing firefighters to conduct hundreds of acres worth of prescribed fire ignitions with minimized risk and exposure.

The National Baptist Convention is 7.5 million members strong, comprised of 99% African Americans, of which 49% have a household income of $30,000 or less, 66% live in the top five rural states in the south and 54% have a high school education or less. Opportunities to partner with the Forest Service to complete meaningful work benefits these under-served communities, with increased access to economic benefit and delivery of resources back to their rural communities. The convention has taken on the business of disaster management in the past, requiring cutting down trees and putting down sand bags in harsh conditions. It is now mastering a learning curve to be in the business of forest management.

The convention became a keystone partner aligned with the Department of Agriculture Strategic Plan goal to advance diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility in program and service. Through a trickle-down effect, the National Baptist Convention shared its equity spotlight with its hired contractor Kelly Liu of Innovative Consulting Solutions, which is an Economically Disadvantaged Woman Owned Small Business.  The project aims to be completed in late November 2024 with prescribed fire ignitions planned for next spring.

***************

I was hoping that the trickle-down mentioned in the press release might involve local folks (or even Arizonans) but it seems like the President of Innovative Consulting Solutions is located in Baton Rouge. It also has the same name as several other businesses. Here’s Ms. Liu’s Linkedin page.

Innovative Consulting Solutions provides strategic business development consulting. We specialize in achieving rapid, exponential growth.

Since 2017, we have helped clients secure $900 million in profitable contracts.  We specialize in business development, marketing, content creation, proposals, and project management. Our sectors of expertise include government services, construction management, disaster recovery, and energy management.

It seems to me that the consulting fees on $900 mill may raise employees of that company, whatever their race or gender, somewhere above “economically disadvantaged.”

I find it mildly fishy that there are so many companies with the same name.

*********

But it’s all in the name of “equity”, and I can’t get out of my mind that it’s just another abstraction that means “it sounds good, and it is whatever we say it is.” So I went back to the Executive Order.

Here’s the definition of equity in the Executive Order, which President Biden signed on January 20 (inauguration day) 2021.

Definitions. For purposes of this order: (a) The term “equity” means the consistent and systematic fair, just, and impartial treatment of all individuals, including individuals who belong to underserved communities that have been denied such treatment, such as Black, Latino, and Indigenous and Native American persons, Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders and other persons of color; members of religious minorities; lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ+) persons; persons with disabilities; persons who live in rural areas; and persons otherwise adversely affected by persistent poverty or inequality.

(b) The term “underserved communities” refers to populations sharing a particular characteristic, as well as geographic communities, that have been systematically denied a full opportunity to participate in aspects of economic, social, and civic life, as exemplified by the list in the preceding definition of “equity.”

I’ll have to check with Arizonans, but I would bet that there are Black, Latino, and Native American persons and businesses there.  Both the Native Americans and Latinos have histories of working with these lands, but if not, they too could be funded to develop a “learning curve.”  Also,  some Arizonans are LDS, which qualifies as a religious minority, and there are many “persons who live in rural areas.” So I’m still puzzled as to why the folks getting this funding were chosen.  Perhaps some underserved communities count more than others in the USG equity efforts, either intentionally or accidentally.

*************

Anyway, please put your questions for the Coconino folks in the comments below, and I will ask them.