President’s Transparency and Open Government Memo

by

Given our recent discussions of the People’s Database, CREATE, and federal regulation development procedures, I thought reminding all of the below document would be good. It’s the beginning of the second term. What could we achieve if we put our citizen and agency energies to it? I italicized where it appears that the President called for a People’s Database!

Here’s the link.

Transparency and Open Government
Memorandum for the Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies

SUBJECT: Transparency and Open Government

My Administration is committed to creating an unprecedented level of openness in Government. We will work together to ensure the public trust and establish a system of transparency, public participation, and collaboration. Openness will strengthen our democracy and promote efficiency and effectiveness in Government.

Government should be transparent. Transparency promotes accountability and provides information for citizens about what their Government is doing. Information maintained by the Federal Government is a national asset. My Administration will take appropriate action, consistent with law and policy, to disclose information rapidly in forms that the public can readily find and use. Executive departments and agencies should harness new technologies to put information about their operations and decisions online and readily available to the public. Executive departments and agencies should also solicit public feedback to identify information of greatest use to the public.

Government should be participatory. Public engagement enhances the Government’s effectiveness and improves the quality of its decisions. Knowledge is widely dispersed in society, and public officials benefit from having access to that dispersed knowledge. Executive departments and agencies should offer Americans increased opportunities to participate in policymaking and to provide their Government with the benefits of their collective expertise and information. Executive departments and agencies should also solicit public input on how we can increase and improve opportunities for public participation in Government.

Government should be collaborative. Collaboration actively engages Americans in the work of their Government. Executive departments and agencies should use innovative tools, methods, and systems to cooperateamong themselves, across all levels of Government, and with nonprofit organizations, businesses, and individuals in the private sector. Executive departments and agencies should solicit public feedback to assess and improve their level of collaboration and to identify new opportunities for cooperation.

I direct the Chief Technology Officer, in coordination with the Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and the Administrator of General Services, to coordinate the development by appropriate executive departments and agencies, within 120 days, of recommendations for an Open Government Directive, to be issued by the Director of OMB, that instructs executive departments and agencies to take specific actions implementing the principles set forth in this memorandum. The independent agencies should comply with the Open Government Directive.

This memorandum is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by a party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.

This memorandum shall be published in the Federal Register.

BARACK OBAMA

Roads Case at Supreme Court Enters Regulatory/Judicial Quagmire

by

Maybe it’s time for the third branch to step in and winch this issue out of the muck. Here’s a link.

Also, I find it interesting the Congress asked for an objections rule last year which hasn’t been successful at making it through the rulemaking process.. yet this one was relatively quick.

Here are a few paragraphs on that aspect from Greenwire here (the whole article is worth a read if you have a subscription):

It’s not often that Chief Justice John Roberts is caught by surprise, but he expressed shock yesterday at how quickly U.S. EPA issued a rule that is likely to have a major impact on how a Supreme Court case is decided.

An exchange between the chief justice and federal government lawyer Malcolm Stewart over the administration’s uncharacteristic speediness in drafting and approving the rule cast a spotlight on the murky world of administrative rulemaking. Critics often say it takes much too long for rules to be approved, except in cases where political officials in the White House step in and speed things up.

…

The court debated in some detail whether the rule, which says logging roads should be exempt from Clean Water Act permitting, means a 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruling finding the opposite should be vacated or whether the case should be dismissed altogether, which would leave the appeals court ruling intact (Greenwire, Dec. 3).

The fact that EPA was planning a rule to address the 9th Circuit decision was known to the justices. In fact, the Obama administration had asked the court not to take up the case back in May on the grounds that EPA was planning to issue a rule (E&ENews PM, May 24).

In a later briefing in the case, in which the administration ended up siding with industry groups and states that wanted the appeals court ruling reversed, the government made it clear it was moving forward with its planned rule.

But what seemed to irk the chief justice was that he didn’t know EPA sent the rule to the White House for approval in November, a move that was reported in Greenwire at the time (Greenwire, Nov. 9).

…

The government lawyer conceded that the stormwater runoff rule “happened more quickly than it usually does” but insisted it was intended to make it easier for the court to decide the case.

“Obviously, it’s suboptimal for the new rule to be issued the Friday before oral argument,” Stewart said. “But it would have been even worse, I think, from the standpoint of the parties’ and the court’s
decisionmaking processes if the rule had been issued a week or two after the court heard oral argument.”

Once we are successful with the People’s Database for the Forest Service, we could start a People’s Database for Federal Rulemaking. This one would have the dates into and out of all agencies for clearance, written comments by clearing agencies and responses by the proposing agency, all open for public review.

Budget Information For Forests- Do You Like This White River NF Format?

by

Following our discussion of forest budget figures, I remembered a forest (the White River) which produced an annual report with budget figures. So here it is from 2010white river annual report 9. It is on page 9 of the annual report.

I extracted it from the annual report and converted to a jpg for the image above.
Here is the pdf of the extracted page.

What do you think of the amount of information and the way it’s portrayed? Would you like to see more or less? Or a different format?

Here is a link to the complete White River 2010 Report.

Scientists synthesize best practices for fuels management in dry mixed conifer forests: New RMRS Reportt

by

rmrs_gtr292 1

Thanks to Derek for finding this new paper by Jain et al. from the Rocky Mountain Station. Here’s a link to the press release and below is an excerpt from the press release. Here is a link to the paper here.

USDA Forest Service Rocky Mountain Research Station scientists along with collaborators from Humboldt State University, the University of Montana, and the U.S. Forest Service Pacific Northwest Research Station, synthesized a vast array of information on the ecology, management strategies, and effectiveness of fuel treatments within the dry mixed conifer forests of the northwestern United States. Because dry mixed conifer forests cover such a broad and diverse region of forested landmass, researchers made site-specific visits to federal, state, and tribal land management organizations to conduct over 50 interviews with resource specialists in Montana, Idaho, Utah, Washington, Wyoming, Oregon, South Dakota, and California. By incorporating the most relevant scientific research and best practice approaches, scientists used this information to develop an organizational framework to support land management strategies. This collaborative effort, co-funded by the Joint Fire Sciences Program and National Fire Plan, is published in a technical report, “A Comprehensive Guide to Fuels Management Practices for Dry Mixed Conifer Forests in the Northwestern United States.”

“This synthesis is unique because it is designed to enhance cross-disciplinary communication among key stakeholders and land managers; it’s a gateway to a more robust online portal which provides an interactive literature list to access cited references in the publication,” says Dr. Terrie Jain, Research Forester, and the project’s lead scientist. “We focused on information to directly address questions and concerns presented by land managers, which can also be a useful tool for National Environmental Policy Act planning because it provides key information in one easily accessible location for planning and forecasting,” elaborated Jain.

Key sections of the report include:

A comprehensive summary of dry mixed conifer forest ecology, management, and fuel treatment effectiveness guidelines.
Options to address land management challenges developed through direct discussions with forest and fuels managers.
Various management strategies to treat fuels, including mechanical, biological, chemical, and prescribed fire alternatives to promote fire-resilient ecosystems.
U.S. Forest Service Forest Inventory and Analysis information to assess current conditions and economic feasibility.
Organized and simple to read layouts to enhance understanding and relevance among readers.

Dr. Jain will be presenting this scientific compilation at the upcoming 5th International Fire Ecology Management Congress in Portland, Oregon on Thursday, December 7th, 2012.

Women say discrimination still part of Forest Service culture

by
Margaret Stoughton Abel, first woman forester in the Forest Service, 1930.
Margaret Stoughton Abel, first woman forester in the Forest Service, 1930.

And a less upbeat story…
Here’s the link.

I have pointed out when I was an employee of the Forest Service, that if you do the math and you want to hire more:

People in fire suppression and fuels (lower percentage than 50% are women)
Ethnically diverse people (in natural resources, a lower percentage than 50% are women)
Vets (a lower percentage than 50% are women)

Which I agree are good things to do..if you are not careful you could have many fewer women than in the workforce or the population. Which may if you are not careful lead to a resurgence of the macho culture that we tried to moderate in the 80’s and 90’s. Which makes the workplace less comfortable for women, and so on..

So you have to be conscious of these trade-offs as part of your diversity hiring and Cultural Transformation.

Before I retired I was the first female in an otherwise an unbroken link of testosterone molecules that extended from my boss to the President of the United States. From my boss (black male) to his boss (Hispanic male) to the Chief (white male) to the Undersecretary (white male) assisted by Deputy Undersecretary (Native American male) to the Secretary (white male) to the President (black male) assisted by Vice-President (white male). We had two female forest supervisors on 11 forests. My statement when I looked at the numbers tended to go along the lines of “I can’t believe this is 2012.”

I worked in timber management on the neighboring Eldorado from 88 to 91, twenty years ago, and here is someone in timber on the Plumas today. My experience is that there is something deeper than training will fix, not measured in EEO complaints, and probably addressed more comprehensively and openly than through individual complaints or class actions.

I recommend listening to the mp3 of Elaine Vercruysse (on the left sidebar), one Forest Service employee who is filing a discrimination class complaint. One thing she says is that things used to be better 20 years ago, and that on forests, numbers are way down.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture is tackling a history of discrimination with more training and accountability as part of a cultural transformation program. But some current and former USDA employees say they’re not seeing cultural changes, and sex discrimination is still prominent within the agency.

Specifically, female employees in Region 5 of the Forest Service are objecting to the disparity between how men and women are hired and promoted. The employees also point to hostile workplace conditions, where, in some cases, egregious sexual harassment.

“We want to see more women get the opportunities they deserve, getting promotions … getting jobs and getting paid for their skills and their experience level commensurate to the men,” said Elaine Vercruysse, a logging systems planner with the Plumas National Forest in an exclusive interview with Federal News Radio.

In my experience, in other regions there might not be as much overtly jerky behavior, as a pervasive questioning of folks who are not Good Old Boys (even Diverse Good Old Boys) that may harken back to a lack of acceptance of what leadership without testosterone can look like.

If we went back to my example of “currently no women Station Directors” and you asked someone, they might say “females didn’t work out” and “there are none in the pipeline” or the popular “all the good ones move to the National Forest System.” To which I would reply “I think this is a problem, do you?” “have you asked folks why they aren’t in the pipeline?” “could you hire some coaches or others to help root out people with undesirable traits and encourage those with desirable traits?” “have you ever asked the ones who moved to NFS why they did?”

I suspect this is not the last we’ll hear of this.

Trail users put aside differences to clear path

by
Tannis and Tom Blackwell, with the volunteer group Team Conasauga clean out a water break on the Tearbritches trail in the Chattahoochee-Oconee National Forest

Here’s a very upbeat story to start the week…

Here’s the link and below is an excerpt.

Gary Monk, a retired pilot and Appalachian Trail enthusiast, was more than a bit surprised when the head of U.S. Forest Service in north Georgia asked him to join a panel with bikers, equestrians and off-roaders.

“At first I thought it was a joke,” Monk recalled. “I don’t like the horse people and they don’t like me. And no one likes the ATV people because they’re so loud.”

Monk was joking, or at least playing on the well-defined trail-users’ tribalism, where hikers grumble that horses tear up trails or horse riders complain that bikers frighten their animals or bikers grouse that hikers are fuddy-duddies trying to take over.

George Bain, then the supervisor of the Chattahoochee and Oconee National Forest, wanted to pull together leaders of the various groups to pick their brains and urge their support to maintain their beloved trails. Trail use has consistently gone up through the years, but U.S. Forest Service budgets and manpower have shrunk. More unpaid enthusiasts with shovels was a must, he figured.

Bain’s brainstorm two years ago was to get the trail-using factions in one room, get them to know each other and then work in concert. The groups already did trail maintenance, but some cross-pollination between the groups might bring a massing of forces and extra volunteers, he figured. So far, it has worked and Bain, who recently was promoted to a job in Montana, was named the Forest Service’s Land Manager of the Year.

“Through this effort, the number of volunteers coming out has continued to really grow,” said Bain, who figures the number of volunteer hours is the equivalent of 21 full-time employees working the trails. That’s significant because it is far more manpower than the Forest Service has dedicated to that job.

Introducing CREATE and Goal 1: Track Costs and Create a Clearinghouse

by

Thanks to Derek, Tree and JZ for ideas. This post deals with the first goal of CREATE (formerly REAL), an acronym that I think we should stick with for a while.

First, Tree suggested that improving appeals and litigation processes is really too narrow of a focus (or that’s what I heard) and I agree. The point is that people disagree about how to manage public lands, and we should improve how we handle conflicts. It seems to me, and to others, that we could resolve them better, in a more public and transparent way, and with less expense.

So in responding to Tree’s ideas, I changed the acronym to CREATE. For “Conflict Resolution Effectiveness, Accountability and Transparency Enhancement”. It sounds more positive in the sense that we are looking for a more effective array of processes.

Goal 1 of the CREATE project is to make publicly available relevant information with regard to today’s processes. This is really part of Derek’s idea of “what people should be able to find out” or what I call part of the People’s Database.

I don’t know if any readers remember “Process Gridlock”; but I do, and I remember Fred Norbury’s question “How can we say NEPA takes too long and costs too much, if we don’t know how long it takes or how much it costs?”.

I’d like to expand that question to “if the FS is managing a conflict resolution process, we need the information on how it works and how much it costs, if anyone is ever to study it (and thereby procure “the best science” about this process).” Not to speak of the fact that the public deserves to know how much it costs.

JZ raises several good points in his comments on the previous post here.

A clearinghouse for appeals, litigation, appeal resolution/negotiations, NEPA costs, litigation costs, EAJA costs would be awesome….a one stop shop website that tracks and documents all that info would be extremely instructive.

And he goes on to say:

The real question would be who funds this effort?

As a person who has to respond to innumerable information requests, I can tell you it would take a fleet of full time personnel to archive and update this type of information. Not likely to happen in this climate of downsizing and budget cuts, although the IDIQ contracts already exist. Maybe there is a benevolent non-profit out there who would agree that funding the flow of (unbiased) INFORMATION is the highest and best use of their money with regard to public land management.”

I have a couple of thoughts on JZ’s point. The “keeping track of cost” question and the “filing information that is available somewhere in a central location” are separable problems, in my view.

First, let’s think about costs. What if the FS said it was “too expensive” to keep track of fire costs. I mean, after all, there are multiple federal agencies involved and often states.. it’s just too expensive to keep track of that… So the FS could tell OMB, “sorry, we know you are curious, but we just can’t afford it.” Methinks that would not work ;).

Most business or government folks would tell you that you can’t make wise management decisions without knowledge of costs. And the FS would have to add its costs to OGC’s costs and DOJ’s costs for litigation, so just the FS, and not even just USDA, would have to agree to keeping track of costs. Whoops, I forgot the energy projects I used to work on, where the FS and the BLM and all our mutual lawyers were working on the same lawsuit. This sounds like a possible task for legislators to me (to require it), if OMB doesn’t ask the question. Which would also make me wonder, why is OMB so apparently curious about fuels treatment costs and not so much about litigation costs? Am I missing something?

And if only through “cuff records”, it would not be that hard to keep track of people’s time. Once litigation is begun, for example, people could be asked to keep track of their time, and when they turn in their biweekly timesheet, they also enter hours for each lawsuit into a tracker. Oh, also the work of putting on a “litigation hold” on everyone’s emails and files.

I think it would be very interesting, when I think of meetings with SES people, conference calls with multiple lawyers, etc. in my experience. I think that neither the FS, nor OMB, nor Congress, have the most remote idea of the personnel or other costs involved in litigation.

Second, let’s talk about a clearinghouse of currently available if difficult to find information. Thanks to my experience with other E-NEPA efforts, it’s really about making it easy for folks to post to some central place, and restricting access to those authorized. At the end of the day, having it all posted would make it easier to respond to FOIA’s and possibly save time. So I’m not sure that it would be that expensive to establish a place for people to post things (when you get notes from a settlement discussion, send to x and it will automatically post).

But even if neither the FS nor foundations would not pony up the bucks, we could use either volunteer programmers or volunteer filers. Under this approach, the information would be outlined and when a person got the notes done, or saw a settlement agreement, they would send to an external group of volunteers for posting. There are many folks who have disabilities of one kind or another, in hospitals, prisons, etc., for whom volunteer work on the computer would possibly be a great gift. There is a potential area for partnerships. FS retirees could possibly organize these groups. Even if this worked for,say, 30% of the data, that would be 30% more than we have today, and perhaps enough for academics and others to begin to look more deeply into these processes.

Are We Ready for 12-15 Million Per Year? The Chief Speaks in Boise

by

From the Idaho Statesman here.

If you think fires have gotten big in the past few years, hold on.

U.S. Forest Service Chief Tom Tidwell said Friday that the blazes will only get bigger and that the cost of fighting them could nearly double. But the agency that manages 193 million acres of national forest — including 20 million in Idaho — plans to increase timber sales by 20 percent in the next two years as part of a restoration effort to make communities safer and watersheds more resilient.

Wildfires have burned in excess of 8 million acres six times since 2004, a dramatic increase over the yearly totals seen in the past five decades. But Tidwell told the City Club of Boise that as many as 12 million to 15 million acres will burn annually now because of warming temperatures and drier years.

This comes even as state, tribal and federal agencies put out 98 percent of all the fires that start, Tidwell said. Firefighters jump on those blazes as aggressively as they can, he said.

“It’s that 2 percent that become very large very quickly,” Tidwell said.

Today’s fires are often so ferocious that managers won’t risk putting crews in their path. The thousands of homes that have been built in and on the edges of the national forests have forced managers to shift resources and prompted firefighters to protect communities and lives.

“It has drastically changed the way we fight those fires,” said Tidwell, a forester who grew up in Boise.

Also

Federal budget cuts will make money more scarce, but communities are increasingly taking responsibility, he said. Flagstaff, Ariz., passed a $10 million bond to do forest restoration on private and federal land there.

Experiences in Idaho this year show that fuel-reduction works. On the 340,000-acre Mustang Complex Fire north of Salmon, a logging project in Hughes Creek helped firefighters turn the blaze away from U.S. 93, a critical economic corridor.

“There is no question our restoration work can make a difference,” Tidwell said.

Questions from the audience suggested that many believe the agency is still hindered by lawsuits aimed at stopping timber and salvage sales. But Tidwell said lawsuits are less of a problem today because of collaborative efforts such as the Clearwater Basin Collaborative in north-central Idaho.