Taking a Look at Keystone Funding and Projects: Some Advice to New Administration

by
First page of Mule Deer Foundation grants from datarreublican website

 

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?

Federal Lands Litigation – update through February 17, 2025

by

FOREST SERVICE

  • California roadside hazard tree project

In the news:  Klamath Forest Alliance v. U. S. Forest Service (N.D. California)

On July 20, 2023, seven environmental organizations sued the Forest Service over its Region 5 Post-Disturbance Hazardous Tree Management Project, which would remove roadside hazard trees from nine national forests in northern California.  (We discussed that decision here – but apparently missed the lawsuit.)  Here is the complaint.

On August 23, 2024, the lower court found that the three EAs complied with NEPA and held that the Forest Service’s policy choice in the purpose and need statement to focus on burned trees’ chance of endangering traffic on public roads “was well within its considerable discretion.”  Here is the opinion.  An appeal is now pending in the 9th Circuit.

This case and that holding have recently appeared as a basis for speculating about how the Supreme Court’s Loper Bright decision overruling deference to agency interpretations of the law might affect the Forest Service.  I’m not convinced this case is a good example (but this article does quote a couple of Smokey Wire contributors.)

Court decision in New Mexico Cattle Growers v. U. S. Forest Service (D. New Mexico)

On January 29, the district court upheld the authority of the Forest Service to shoot feral cattle on the Gila National Forest.  The case turned on the determination that feral cattle do not meet the Forest Service’s definition of livestock — animals that humans keep or raise for use or pleasure.  Even though the species is domesticated, these cows are descendants of a herd abandoned in the 1970s, so have had no human connection for decades.  The news release (from the Center for Biological Diversity, on the side of the Forest Service) has a link to the opinion, and this article provides other perspectives.

Preliminary injunction denied in Mahler v. U. S. Forest Service (S. D. Indiana)

On February 10, the district court rejected a motion to enjoin the Paoli Tornado Response and Research Project in the Paoli Experimental Forest on the Hoosier National Forest.  The Project involves salvage logging of 138 acres and other clean-up within the boundaries of another planned project, and it was approved using three categorical exclusions.  It began operating in December.  The case involved a trial with witnesses (instead of being based entirely on the administrative record), which the Forest Service objected to, and the court sustained the objection except with respect to evidence they provided relevant to irreparable harm.  The court relied on testimony from Forest Service employees to find that there would not be irreparable harm to listed tricolored bats, or historic sites, nor would irreparable harm be likely to remaining old growth trees.

The larger project area is for the Buffalo Springs Project, which is still pending, and has attracted considerable opposition, including from Republican Indiana Governor Mike Braun, and a film called, “Saving the Hoosier: A Fight for the Lungs of America.”  More on that here.

Court decision in Western Watersheds Project v. Washington (9th Circuit)

On February 11, the circuit court upheld a lower court decision that the Forest Service adequately considered effects of the Stateline Project on the federally endangered Mexican gray wolf population, and that the EA complied with NEPA.  The Project reauthorized livestock grazing on allotments in the Apache-Sitgreaves and Gila National Forests. Plaintiffs had raised issues concerning effects of livestock-related wolf removals and prey displacement, but they also found, “You know, the Forest Service started doing a much better job at this right after we filed our first lawsuit on this case.”  The article includes a link to the short opinion.

New lawsuit

On February 12, cattle ranchers alleged the Forest Service promulgated arbitrary grazing rules for livestock allotments in the Fishlake National Forest.  The agency didn’t use the best available science when setting legal grass heights for allotments that overlap the habitat of the greater sage-grouse, according to a complaint filed in the US District Court for the District of Utah.  The ranchers are challenging the environmental impact statement published last year for the Southern Monroe Mountain Allotments Livestock Grazing Authority.  These allotments have been subject to prior litigation from Western Watersheds Project, and the Forest is implementing a new decision.  (This was the only information I found and could access on the new lawsuit.)

  • Arson prosecutions

Two recent arson prosecutions revealed the motivations behind some arson fires.  One man has been indicted for setting fires on the Osceola National Forest because he was “trying to do the Forest Service a favor” by conducting a controlled burn, and claiming that he was a “sovereign citizen,” meaning that “he had the authority to do what he wanted.”  A former southeastern Ohio fire department administrator will serve 18 months in federal prison after admitting to starting dozens of wildfires in Wayne National Forest in order to “give the boys something to do.”

BLM

Stay granted by administrative law judge

The Nature Conservancy holds grazing permits for its Dugout Ranch within Bears Ears National Monument on national forest and BLM lands.  Their proposal to add 13 reservoirs for cattle and additional fencing has been stayed in response to an objection by Western Watersheds Project, who is concerned about grazing being introduced to new parts of the Monument.  The BLM’s ALJ held, “Given that the only stated purpose in the (environmental analysis) for constructing 13 reservoirs and five fences is to redistribute livestock, BLM had an obligation to analyze how optimized livestock distribution would impact rangeland health.”  (The opinion was not provided.)

Case dismissed:  Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance v. U. S. Department of the Interior (D. Utah)

On February 4, the district court found that claims challenging four oil and gas leasing decisions were not ripe for judicial review because the leases at issue were suspended, and dismissed the case without prejudice.  The court held that, even though the leases have been issued, “the BLM’s suspension and active reconsideration of its leases mean that its decision is not yet “final.””  Judicial review would be available if and when “the BLM decides to uphold some or all the leases after it has completed its NEPA Analysis and supplemental EIS.”

New lawsuit:  Center for Biological Diversity v. U. S. Bureau of Land Management (E.D. California)

On February 5, the Center for Biological Diversity, Wilderness Society, Friends of the Earth, Sierra Club and Central California Asthma Collaborative sued the BLM over permits it issued for 29 oil and gas wells on public lands in the San Joaquin Valley.  The BLM prepared three separate EAs.  This case follows at least two prior lawsuits (one settled, one still pending) that seek a review of the cumulative effects of continuing development in the area, which is heavily polluted.  Claims include violations of the Clean Air Act, the National Environmental Policy Act, the Federal Land Policy and Management Act, and the Mineral Leasing Act.  With regard to FLPMA, the complaint alleges, “The agency should have analyzed these impacts when it prepared its Resource Management Plan (“RMP”) for the region, but ultimately failed to do so.”   The article has a link to the complaint.

ENDANGERED SPECIES

Stipulated settlement in Center for Biological Diversity v. Haaland (D. D.C.)

On January 15, the district court approved a settlement agreement regarding 76 remaining species (of 241 originally) that CBD had petitioned for listing or critical habitat designation.  The agreement establishes a schedule for completing petition findings by the end of Fiscal Year 2029.  (It does include this caveat allowing renegotiation of deadlines that now seems pretty relevant: “The Parties acknowledge that the Service has entered into this Agreement based on the Service’s projection that it will have sufficient resources to fulfill the requirements of the Agreement.”)

Post litigation action:  WildEarth Guardians v. BNSF Railway Company (D. Montana)

On February 12, the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service issued an incidental take permit that will allow the Company’s trains to take 19 grizzly bears near Glacier National Park over a seven-year period, based on a recently adopted habitat conservation plan.  Under the new plan, BNSF will use a “rapid response protocol” to quickly remove any grain spills or carrion; inspect grain cars for leaks and set out any leaking cars; manage vegetation in the right-of-way to reduce attractants; and fund fencing to prevent livestock from accessing sections of the railbed. BNSF will also fund three new grizzly technicians.

New lawsuit:  WildEarth Guardians v. Burgum (D. D.C.)

On February 17, WildEarth Guardians challenged the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s decision to deny Endangered Species Act protections for three plants found only near Arches National Park: cisco, stage station, and Isely’s milkvetches.  Threats to these plants include climate change, oil and gas extraction, energy and transportation corridors, motorized recreation, and invasive vegetation.  The press release includes a link to the complaint.

OTHER

Preliminary injunction denied in South Carolina Coastal Conservation League v. U. S. Army Corps of Engineers (4th Circuit)

On January 31, the circuit court upheld the decision of a lower court denying a preliminary injunction that would have stopped development on the Cainhoy peninsula that could eventually encompass over 9,000 residential units.  Plaintiffs sought to void a permit granted by the Corps of Engineers.  The area involved is shares a two-mile border with the Francis Marion National Forest (a map is provided here), which was a factor considered by the court.  The court agreed that listed northern long-eared bats are unlikely to be measurably harmed, “considering the fact that the 263,904-acre Francis Marion National Forest is adjacent to Cainhoy, all of which is in a protected status” (my emphasis, wondering how this was determined).  Also, an EIS was not necessary because (among other reasons) plaintiffs failed to make the case that the EA had not adequately addressed, “the impact on the Francis Marion National Forest, including making it more difficult for the Forest to execute necessary prescribed fires for maintenance.”  More of the story is here.

Court decision in Iowa v. Council on Environmental Quality (D. North Dakota)

On February 4, 21 Republican attorneys general were successful in vacating the CEQ’s current regulations used by all federal agencies to implement NEPA.  In invalidating the Biden Administration’s Phase II regulations, the district court repeated a finding made in an earlier case where the issue was not raised by plaintiffs (featured here) – but these plaintiffs did.  The district court ruled that Congress never gave the CEQ authority to issue binding regulations — and that the president could not claim such authority through an executive order.  The article has a link to the opinion (ABC is not the news site – it’s Associated Builders and Contractors).  While this may reinstate the previous Trump Administration CEQ regulations, they are also based on his Executive Order to CEQ, so could be vacated for the same reasons, and Trump has since rescinded the 1977 executive order granting CEQ rulemaking authority.  (More about “chaos” in the NEPA world, too.)

New lawsuit:  National Treasury Employees Union v. Trump (D. D.C.)

On February 12, five unions sued the President to stop terminations of probationary federal employees, including about 3400 in the Forest Service.  A representative for the plaintiffs stated that “They’re being terminated, essentially for a performance issue, even though their performance appraisals have been fully successful.” The lawsuit also alleges that the federal administration has pressured employees to voluntarily resign, and the large-scale reduction in federal workforce violates the law.  This article about effects in Alaska includes a link to the complaint.

 

What’s Happening to Grants and Contracts?

by

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?

Let’s Talk About: What’s Partisan, What’s Professional and Who Decides?

by

This may not be the right timing to talk about this, and I apologize for that if anyone is offended.  But I think there are many generalizations made about federal employees, on either side, and as usual, the situation is more complicated than expressed in news stories.

Over the weekend, Joe Reddan and Jim Zornes talked about a change in attitudes they’d perceived before they retired. I’ll quote from their comments.  I’d like to clarify that I think the current situation is unequivocally bad.

1.  I also think that the way all career employees are portrayed does not match anyone’s lived experience of all employees. People, if left to their own devices, will generalize, as Dave Mertz says in this comment:

 the unfounded stereotypes of federal employees, that they are lazy, somehow getting rich in their jobs, on and on. They now look on with glee when federal employees are getting the axe. It does not help that a lot of our politicians reinforce the stereotype.

I’d say some reporting doesn’t help, when employees are quoted as not feeling they should go back to in-person work because they’ll have to commute or get child care, or when they are quoted as saying they are going to fight the new Administration.  Of course, no one can control what other people say, so there’s that.

As we know,  most feds are D’s, and some agencies have engaged in insubordination, intentionally over-reacting to decisions, leaking documents, and so on.  I experienced the document leaking long before Trump 1.0.  People generalize from what they’ve experienced, it’s human nature, and maybe the FS feds can’t help that people generalize from other agencies and experiences to them.  Or maybe they can, by intentionally carving out a separate space? Or maybe they already have?

Here’s a quote from a comprehensive Wyofile story on the cuts in Wyoming:

Most federal employees in Wyoming are not performing their jobs with partisan politics in mind, they said. Yet those workers are being inundated with a public discourse that paints them as either partisan or lazy — simply on the public dole, they said.

That sentiment is reflected in emails sent from the administration’s higher-ups in recent weeks.

“They have this language that was very clearly not written by a federal employee,” they said. “It has no formality, it has no professionalism and it has these snarky comments like, ‘We’re giving you the opportunity to quit being a lazy employee and you can go be more productive in the private sector,’” they said, summarizing the tone of emails. “The language in those letters is condescending and insulting.”

“I feel like this tactic — by the person who’s instigating it — their concept is that it’s an acceptable way to go about things,” they said. “But in the public- and in the civil-service sector, those are different people.

“For one, you take an oath before you’re hired. Everyone takes a live oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States and to serve the people of the United States, not an administration. And that’s different [than the private sector]. That feeling of dedication is different, I think, when you’re a civil servant. They’re not just doing a job just to make money and go home. There’s another component to it.”

2. Was there a change in culture around overtly political conversations and actions in the last 15 years or so?  What was this due to?  Can the culture intentionally change back?

From Joe Reddan:

Chief Tidwell held an optional all employee meeting in the Yates Building Conference Room on the afternoon of November 9th. At that meeting a colleague stood up and demanded that the Chief oppose Trump, citing the Yates Building proximity to the Holocaust Museum of North America and disparaging Trump as a Nazi. To say the least, the chief was flummoxed. This same guy channeling Woody Guthrie would bring his special chili to employee potlucks with the admonition that this chili kills fascists!

Then came the “pink pussy” hats worn conspicuously in the Yates Building.

To me this was surprising, a Forest Service professional since the Carter Administration, I had seen administrations come and go. But we were a professional workforce and could serve any administration, even if that wasn’t our guy.

Nearly 8-years before that the GW Bush Administration ended and President Obama was inaugurated. There was much rejoicing in the Yates Building and many of us attended the Obama celebration at the Lincoln Memorial “We are One” on Sunday as well as the Inauguration on Tuesday. Obama was not my guy, but he was the elected President and deserved my respect.

I moved to SW Colorado after retirement in April of 2017. At the local national forest supervisor’s office (SO), the parking lot was full of vehicles with resist bumper stickers. Again, partisan and not professional.

At one point in 2018, my truck was parked in the SO parking lot. My truck was adorned with the following stickers: a Gadsden flag; NRA sticker, a Steal Your Face Sticker (Grateful Dead) and an American Flag sticker. A friend told me that an employee reported my truck to the forest LEO, who attempted to run my vehicle tags, but was stopped by probable cause issues. Yet, the vehicles with resist stickers were not investigated.

From Jim Z

Joe Reddan, that’s exactly my point of contention with how far the FS slipped into partisanship! I never, ever allowed political influences, nor promotion of one party over another. As a Forest Sup, it was harder to manage the zero tolerance because of the shear number of employees on these larger Units, but by dang there was no question in the employees on what was tolerated.

Before I retired in early 2017, I had relocated to the Regional Office, with a very talented and dedicated group of employees. I might add – professional, these types of disrespect were never seen! However, I saw the rapid decline in discipline and professionalism, magnified by the advent of social media and the ever present Internet. I still never uttered a political word until I exited that door for the last time.

I found this on Government Executive in 2022, of course they were Gov Exec subscribers and could be from any agency.  I think that’s part of the problem, you can’t generalize and yet people regularly do.

While feds overwhelmingly say their workplaces are collegial, 72% said they do not feel comfortable expressing their political views at the office. That was particularly true of Republicans, 30% of whom said they have been threatened at work due to their political views. Several agencies across government have reported spikes in threats against federal workers, pointing to backlash to the FBI’s search of President Trump’s Mar-a-Lago property in Florida and recent funding provided to the Internal Revenue Service. Only a slight majority of Republicans say lawmakers’ rhetoric has contributed to those threats, while 81% of Democrats said the same.

It seems to some extent that partisan-ness has expressed itself differently and more overtly (in some places) than the old days.  Why?

When I worked on the Fremont, we talked about “the ranchers” getting invitations to the Inauguration for President Reagan (yup, 1981) and a generalized feeling of the ranchers having too much political power.  I also remember thinking, and maybe saying, that since Reagan spoke against federal employees, maybe we shouldn’t go on fires to protect his property.  But that was against agency culture to think that way and certainly behave that way.  I guess the vibe was “that’s the way it is, and this is the work we get paid to do and the system we’re under.”

Here’s what Gov Exec said about Reagan’s policies  in a review of them in  2004 (he initiated a government-wide hiring freeze immediately after he was sworn in.. as in.. before he even left the Capitol Building.

OPM Director Kay Coles James said Tuesday that Reagan’s opposition to big government did not mean he was opposed to federal workers.

“I think a lot of people who covered Reagan did not make that distinction well,” James said in an interview. Critics say that “because he didn’t like expansive government, he didn’t like federal workers. You can’t make that leap, and you shouldn’t.”

Regardless of how Reagan felt about federal employees, Pfiffner said the president’s efforts to depict the government as bloated and ineffective have tarred civil servants ever since.

“He did damage to the federal civil service, with his really negative attitude at them,” Pfiffner said. “Reagan encouraged [Americans] to think that government administrators were bad or lazy.”

3. Is there a relationship between visibility of employees (again, highly uneven across the FS),  accessibility and public support?  When the public sees USG rigs and NGO employees in their branded clothing, helping  them out with information, or a concessionaire at a campground,  does that give them the impression that FS employees are less necessary?

4.  If it’s important to have employees that reflect local culture, would that be equally true of local political alignments?  No, I’m not suggesting a new diversity hiring process, but I don’t think we’ve ever talked about it.  If diversity is good, then maybe having employees more reflective of different political alignments would help with public understanding, acceptance and support of employees, budgets and priorities?

 

 

USAID and Forestry at a US College

by

In my nearly 30 years as a part-time forestry/wildlife instructor at Mt. Hood Community College in Gresham, Oregon, one of the most valuable and interesting experiences was over the 15 years or so that our Natural Resources Technology program hosted young students from the Central American Students for Scholarship (CASS) and Scholarships for Education and Economic Development (SEED) programs, both funded by USAID. Each year about two dozen students from Central America, including Mexico and the Caribbean (Haiti, Puerto Rico), attended MHCC to earn degrees, t hen take their knowledge back to their countries and communities, and use them to solve real-world problems. These were young folks from rural areas. I remember one student who had never seen concrete until he went to the airport for the flight to the US. And another who asked about why flooding had in recent years damaged his family’s small farm fields — it was over-harvesting of timber in the mountains upstream and the lack of reforestation or any other work to keep soil from streams. The young man eventually started a tree seedling nursery and a planting program. Imagine going to a college in a foreign country when you speak little, if any, of the native language. That’s what these students did. They were warm, smart, and engaging young men and women, and I think I and MHCC’s Oregon students learned as much from them as they did from us.

Sad to see USAID dismantled.

NAFSR Statement of Support and Resource Guide for Forest Service Employees

by

 

I excerpted from the letter which is available here.    I strongly support their advice to write things down as soon as you can, and to save the stuff you may need from your computer, or copy the whole hard drive and sort through it later.  What do you have to lose? Anyway, here is an excerpt from the statement of support…

To current Forest Service employees, we appreciate your service in producing valued benefits for the American people. We encourage you to stay proud and strong in your commitment to the agency mission. Forest Service retirees are here to support you.

To employees adversely affected by current workforce actions, we value your public service. We are heartbroken by the sudden, severe impacts on you and your families.

To NAFSR members and other Forest Service retirees, we urge you to support agency employees by offering assistance with navigating existing workforce challenges. We ask you to join us in advocating on behalf of the workforce by engaging at all levels in support of public land management. We also encourage you to support other organizations working to assist Federal civil servants.

Here’s the complete Resource Guide:

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

Here are some recommendations from the National Association of Forest Service Retirees (NAFSR) and resources for Forest Service employees who may be faced with sudden notice of termination, administrative leave, reduction in force, or other job changes:

  • Continue to do your job. Until you are notified of a change, continue doing your job to the best of your ability.
  • Document what happens to you. During highly stress situations, it is difficult to remember details of how things happened, what you were told, and who was there. Take time to write a “memo for the record” as soon as possible after you are given verbal directions that significantly change your job status, conditions of work, and the work you are normally assigned. Document what you were told, when, by whom, and who else was there to hear the conversation. Retain these notes for future reference.
  • Anticipate the loss of computer access. If you are terminated or placed in a leave status, expect to immediately lose access to your email, computer systems, and internal intranet and Sharepoint information.
  • Gather Your Personal Records and Contacts. Take these actions NOW, before you lose agency computer access.
    • Download to a personal drive and keep copies of your personal employment records (you may also request copies from the HRM Contact Center):
      • Your recent performance plans and ratings
      • Your electronic Official Personnel File (eOPF), especially SF 50 Notifications of Personnel Action documenting your appointment type and job assignment, including pay plan, occupational series, grade, step, salary, and service computation date (SCD). The SCD is a key factor in a reduction in force (RIF) action.
      • Your position description and organization chart where you are assigned
      • Your most recent earnings and leave statement (ELS) showing balances for your leave and any credit hours.
      • Your most recent benefits statements from CONNECTHR showing health insurance (FEHB), life insurance (FEGLI), Thrift Savings Plan (TSP), and retirement details.
    • Ensure you have phone, email, and public web site information for supervisors, colleagues, and organizations you may need to contact after you leave.
    • Be ready to gather personal items at the office in case of a short-notice dismissal.

 

  • Is your position in a union bargaining unit? Check with your supervisor or check the bargaining unit code on your SF-50. If your code is NOT 7777 (exempt), then your position is likely covered by a union contract and you can contact a union representative for help, even if you are not a dues-paying member. Over 20,000 jobs are covered under the master agreement between Forest Service and the National Federation of Federal Employees – Forest Service Council (https://www.nffe-fsc.org/). A small number of jobs are in units covered by the American Federation of Government Employees (https://www.afge.org/about-us/agencies/USDA/AFGE).
  • If you are notified of termination or other personnel action, ask questions about anything you need clarity on, including the reasons for the change, what happens to your leave, timesheet, and benefits, and if you have appeal rights.
  • If you are placed on administrative leave, ask:
    • Who is your point of contact if you have questions during the leave period?
    • Who will be updating and approving your timesheet and what will happen to your accrued annual leave and credit hours?
    • Will your health and life insurance, retirement and TSP contributions continue?
    • What options do you have to continue FEHB health insurance when your job ends?
    • Can you access your TSP funds when your job ends?
    • Are you eligible for early, optional, discontinued service, or deferred retirement?

 

  • Ask about the Forest Service Employee Assistance Program (EAP). The following info is currently available on the public Forest Service web page.
The Employee Assistance Program (EAP) offers free professional guidance to you and your family members when personal or work-related problems become difficult to manage.

 

Working with the EAP to find solutions to problems or develop better coping techniques will help you navigate life’s difficulties. Take advantage of free assessments, short-term counseling, and referral information.

o    Life adjustments

o    Childcare referral

o    Substance abuse

o    Relationship issues

o    Eldercare resources

o    Marital and family problems

o    Financial matters

o    Emotional issues

o    Crisis

o    Legal issues

o    Work problems

o    Stress

This service is available to all employees and their families. Further, employees and their families may continue to use the EAP for up to six months after separation from employment.

EAP company name: Acentra

o    Call:   1-833-621-2989   Acentra offers a toll-free line answered by certified clinicians 24 hours a day, seven days per week. Clinicians with experience supporting first responders (fire and law enforcement) will also be available to help you.

o    Text the EAP:  1-833-621-2989

o    Web: https://forestserviceeap.com/ (Member login/Company ID: USFS)

o    App: Acentra Connect (Install on work or personal cell phone using Google Play or the App Store.

 
  • Talk to your family about what could happen and what options you might have if you lose your job. What options do you have for health care and paying monthly bills if you lose your job?
  • Are you eligible for retirement now, early, or deferred? There are numerous scenarios in which you may be eligible to retire. This article from govexec.com explains how to navigate retirement amid the current chaos.
  • Get help with federal benefits and retirement questions. The National Association of Active and Retired Federal Employees narfe.org has loads of information on federal employee benefits including webinars, FAQs, and pending and proposed legislation applicable to current, former, and retired employees.

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

We retirees care and want to help! If you think this is helpful information, please forward to any employees you know.

Bill Aims to Eliminate Antiquities Act

by

First draft of a bill in the House, called the ‘‘Ending Presidential 5 Overreach on Public Lands Act’’.  The only provision:

‘‘The establishment or extension of a national monument may be undertaken only by express authorization of
Congress.’’

Note that it does not mention reducing the size of monuments.

I’m disgusted with the current Congress, but I think this bill is worth considering. The act has been in the news recently in Oregon. The Oregonian reported in December:

Gov. Tina Kotek just made one last plea to President Joe Biden to protect a stunning stretch of the state known as “Oregon’s Grand Canyon” before he leaves office.

Kotek wrote to Biden on Nov. 22, asking that he invoke the Antiquities Act of 1906 and designate more than 1 million acres of the 2.5 million acre area in southeast Oregon, including 15 miles of the Owyhee River, a national monument, a move that would limit ranching use and development. The letter is a follow-up to a similar request in August to protect the area if Congress failed to act.

This land deserves consideration as a monument, but such a designation is more properly one Congress ought to make. The Antiquities Act was never intended to be used in such a way.

Planting Trees Helps Forests Grow Back: New Study

by
Remotely sensed rates of cover change.

Based on this post, a new study finds:

Overall, the researchers found that tree planting can enhance post-fire forest recovery rates, though its effects are dependent on a range of environmental and operational factors.

Researchers discovered that 79.5% of planted trees survived at least one summer, but success is heavily influenced by the planting season and moisture availability. Cold and wet areas experienced higher rates of forest cover change and early seedling survival due to reduced moisture stress.

Planting in spring and early summer (before June 30) was most effective in these regions, while late-season planting was better suited for warm, dry areas where aridity limits seedling establishment.

Post-planting weather also played a significant role: moderate to wet conditions improved survival by up to 20%, while warm, dry conditions reduced it. These findings underscore the importance of environmental conditions and seasonal timing in reforestation success.