About half of the Helena National Forest's employees need to reapply for their jobs, or similar positions, under a reorganization meant to cut 25 percent of the local forest's fixed costs.

Up to five of the 80 to 90 forest employees involved in the reorganization may be left without a job, and 40 to 50 have to reapply for their old jobs or newly created ones. The 20 or 30 firefighters employed by the Helena forest are excluded from this reorganization because their jobs are going through a separate analysis.

"It's kind of like musical chairs, and we anticipate that when the music stops, three to five people will not have a chair," said Chris Feutrier, a representative for the recently unionized Helena forest employees.

He's quick to add that the reorganization is putting some employees on edge, but could be beneficial overall.

"We expect that maybe 15 of those people will be better off than they are now. About 10 people will be doing a similar job to what they're doing now, and there probably will be three to five employees who will be looking at taking a job elsewhere," Feutrier said. "… If we don't do this ourselves, we'll have it done for us and it will be much more painful. We are the first forest in the region that's taking a look at restructuring, and that reorganization will set us up for success in the future."

Others don't see it in quite the same way.

"Telling half of an entire National Forest's employees to re-apply for their own jobs is not only a morale killer but an unnecessarily disruptive abdication of responsible personnel management," said Jeff Ruch, executive director of the federal employee watchdog group Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility.

"If the forest needs to cut five jobs, then seek out new positions for the chosen five rather than hassling 50 workers," he said.

He added that the proactive staff cuts likely won't mean much if future reductions are mandated by the Bush administration.

Mike Garrity, executive director of the Alliance for the Wild Rockies - which often squares off against the Helena forest on environmental issues - said the proposed cuts probably would make it easier for groups like his to prevail in court.

"But we would rather they not give us opportunities to win lawsuits," Garrity said. "The less we win, the better the job they're doing. The better the job, the fewer lawsuits we file.

"In our opinion, they don't have enough people to do what is required for the proper management of our public lands."

And Sen. Max Baucus questioned whether the reorganization is another attempt by the administration to downsize the Forest Service.

"Between proposals to sell off public lands and requesting reduced funding for the agency, the higher-ups in Washington just don't understand how much Montanans value our public lands," Baucus said. "Forest Service employees in Montana are dedicated public servants and good stewards of our public lands. This administration seems determined to hobble their efforts."

The Helena Forest reorganization is the result of nationwide budget cuts to national forests, according to forest officials. In a January memo, Forest Service Chief Dale Bosworth noted the need to "reduce operating costs of the Washington Office and Regional Offices by approximately 25 percent" by the end of fiscal year 2009.

"We can achieve the more efficient government our citizens expect with the use of new technology that provides service from a smaller overhead organization to a larger number of field units," Bosworth wrote.

He added that the new organization will be smaller, and it will maximize capabilities and efficiencies through economy of scale and elimination of duplication.

Amy Teegarden, Helena forest spokesperson, said employees were asked in October to take a hard look at how their actual duties reflected their job description. Through a series of meetings, employees consolidated some job duties while creating a few new positions.

While efficiency and flexibility were the stated goals, the changes also were needed to cut the Helena National Forest's budget by 25 percent, Teegarden and others said. With about 90 percent of the fixed costs being personnel, employees were the obvious place to start.

While the cuts weren't mandated by the national or regional office, Teegarden said the reorganization was done with the thought that they would be required in the future. By making the cuts now, she said, employees can get the jump on looking for jobs on other forests or within the Helena forest.

"This is a good way to freshen up a little bit and take a good look internally to make sure we are on the right track," said Teegarden, who is among those who need to reapply.

Charlie McKenna, one of the Helena forest management staff, said employees were asked to reapply if the new job description didn't match their current duties or job description.

"So the majority - over two thirds of the people on the forest - will have to participate to some degree," McKenna said. . "For some, it's a confirmation they're doing what we want them to do. For others, they'll have to reapply and compete for their job. In a worst-case scenario, they might lose that job."

Jobs that look like they'll be eliminated include one of three fisheries biologists, one of four wildlife biologists and the combined job of Elkhorn mountain coordinator/community outreach officer in Townsend.

The people in those positions may be able to find a different one on the Helena forest or different forest. Another option is to become a private contractor.

People with seniority are first in line for the jobs. Archie Harper, who needs to re-apply for his fisheries biologist position, expects to retain his job in the Helena Ranger District.

But that means he'll probably need to travel to the Lincoln Ranger District on a regular basis, since the fisheries biologist there, even with 16 years of experience, has the least seniority. It also places responsibility for fisheries on the 1 million-acre forest on two people.

The Lincoln Ranger District is home to the bull trout, which is listed as threatened under the Endangered Species Act. Fires in 2003, along with the subsequent soil runoff, damaged the fish habitat and increased the vulnerability of the forest service to lawsuits by people opposed to logging the burned lands.

Harper said the two remaining fisheries biologists would try to take on the job duties of the Lincoln biologist, but worries that both efficiency and effectiveness will be compromised.

"You have to familiarize yourself with new streams and new watersheds, plus an extra amount of travel will be required. It doesn't make sense," Harper said.

He hopes to make one more plea to retain that position, at least in a part-time manner.

By the time seasonal employees including college students, are brought up to speed on the project, little time is left to complete the work, Harper said.

Contract workers, which Teegarden and McKenna said can pick up some of the extra work, are considered unreliable by many Forest Service employees.

Harper added that more than the field data itself, insight is needed on how that information correlates with National Environmental Policy Act and the National Forest Management Act.

"They (private contractors) cost three to four times that of an internal biologist working for an agency, and we don't get the same quality product from them," he said.

He said he understands that a lot of people want to see the government run as a private business, but that doesn't work in every situation. It's also a difference of philosophies between a public servant and a private contractor who is in business to make money, he said.

"At the end of the contract, they drop things and move on," Harper said. "The civil work force is different. Their loyalty is to the land."

Still, he's cautiously optimistic that the reorganization will have an overall good effect, and may even save some money - but only in the short term.

"Some people may be shifting careers, and there's some excitement in that. There are some silver linings," Harper said. "I've been through this a couple of times in my career and more often than not, the change that comes about is better than it was before.

"The down side is it creates uncertainty and fear and can bring out the worst in people who are jockeying for positions. … And if we lose one of our professional level biologists, we will not be able to keep up to speed with the existing scope of work. They're setting that position up for failure."

Reporter Eve Byron

can be reached at 447-4076 or by e-mail at eve.byron@helenair.com