This communication from WA6CDR should bring the Board up to date on the previously discussed Forest Service restoration bond requirements, which impact repeater site users on federal lands. Obviously, this may eventually also impact repeater sites in other ARRL Divisions. 73, Dick Norton, N6AA ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Robin <wa6cdr@cq160.net> Date: Mon, Jan 15, 2018 at 5:10 PM Subject: USFS bonding report in e mail body To: richardjnorton@gmail.com Hi, Dick. Jan 15, 2018 I want to bring you up to date on the status of the new Forest Service requirements for restoration bonds being imposed on repeater sites and other permittees. During the summer of 2016, the owners of amateur radio repeater sites located in Angeles National Forest (ANF) began receiving notices that the renewal of their use permits would henceforth require the permittee to pay a permit processing fee ($ 1,156) and furnish a bond in an amount determined by USFS to guarantee the removal of repeater facilities and restoration of the property at the termination of the permit period. The dollar amounts of the required bond ranged from $10,000 to $100,000. We were told this was a nationwide program and that ANF was the initial roll-out location. The bonding requirement caught us all by surprise, and there was great concern that we might not be able to meet such a heavy financial burden. Without an alternative solution, several major repeater sites would have to be abandoned, sold, or given away. I actually started negotiations with a public entity to take over one of our Cactus sites. We also started discussions with qualified attorneys. The attorney discussions led nowhere as it became immediately clear that only very high level or congressional action would stop this issue. We were eventually able to arrange a meeting that November among about a dozen permittee representatives, the ANF supervisor (Jeff Vail) and his staff, the Communications Use Issuance Project Strike Team Leader (Heidi Hoggan) and, by conference call, the Communications Site Program Manager (Joey Perry). Marty Woll N6VI, who was our ARRL vice director at the time, also joined representing himself and helping me represent the Cactus Intertie system, of which he is a member. At the meeting, we were told that the bonding requirement grew out of other communication sites having been abandoned and cleaned up at taxpayer expense. Being suspect of the source information, we asked for specifics and were told only that the sites were in Oregon. After arguing without success that the risk of site abandonment by amateur repeater owners was minimal, we asked how the bond amounts had been determined. Ms. Hoggan said they had developed cost estimates based on tower and building sizes and their internal estimates for the amount of concrete present. We were told we could submit alternate estimates if prepared by USFS-approved contractors, but we had only a short time window in which to do that. Marty suggested an alternative funding arrangement in which the bond amount was paid over the permit period rather than up front. Mr. Vail said he would like more detail on that idea. The USFS also supplied us a long list of government approved bonding entities telling us to call them and purchase a bond. After our meeting, Marty and I began contacting bonding companies, including those recommended by USFS. It quickly became apparent that the radio clubs and small commercial operators that host amateur repeaters could in no way qualify for the required restoration bonds. One of the bonding entities we contacted actually took the time to call Ms. Hoggan and explain to her how such bonds actually work, that the 30 year bond the USFS wanted did not exist, and that small entities would not qualify even for annually renewable bonds. Our only alternative was to deposit cash with USFS. This made the need to spread the payment out even more critical. Marty honed the idea he had introduced in our meeting and sent it to Mr. Vail and Ms. Hoggan. He made a compelling case, and they eventually agreed to a 20-year accumulation rather than over the full 30-year term of the renewal permits. In the person of Ms. Hoggan, they have agreed to the 20 year payment plan, but as of today, no details have been supplied, and none of us have received any billing or other payment instructions. While dealing with the funding mechanism, a parallel effort took place to negotiate the bond amounts down from the size-based standard amounts demanded by USFS. Marty filed a FOIA request on behalf of Cactus Intertie and received the Forest Service’s restoration cost details from several permitted but abandoned communication sites in Oregon. Those costs turned out to be an order of magnitude lower than the amounts USFS was requiring us to put up, a fact that helped us in our negotiations. Several of our repeater site owners developed and documented their own cost estimates for dismantlement and restoration of their sites, submitted those to USFS and were able to get to agreement on substantially reduced bond amounts. (The USFS applied a Davis Bacon wages increment of 21% AND a USFS “overhead” fee of 42% to the submitted cost estimates!) These reductions, combined with the ability to pay in installments, turned the situation from hopeless to painful but possible. At this point I am unaware of any amateur repeater sites in the ANF that will be unable to comply with the modified requirements. While we all acknowledge our obligations for site cleanup at the end of the facilities’ useful lives, we remain hopeful that the requirement to deposit cash with USFS might eventually be overturned through the intervention of Congress. The cash deposit, even though spread over 20 years, still represents a severe burden, and badly damages our ability to sustain site operations. In our specific case, we have to deposit a total of $ 60,000 over 20 years for our two sites. That is $250 a month, every month, for 20 years. And this is for only two of our sites. We own two other buildings on federal land that have not come up for renewal. We rent space at amateur rates in more than a dozen commercial facilities, and share costs in several amateur owned sites. The bond requirements also apply to the commercial site owners. The smaller commercial entities are the ones most commonly willing to rent space to Amateur systems. We expect our site rental costs in those sites to go up materially as the commercial site owners simply pass on their costs. I can provide more detail if you wish, but I hope this will give you a good understanding of the history and current status of this issue, which clubs within and outside the Southwestern Division may soon have to grapple with. 73, Robin Critchell WA6CDR Director, Cactus Intertie, Inc. Chief Coordinator, Southern California Repeater and Remote Base Association A note on Bonds. The bonding entities we contacted explained that the cost of a bond would run between 2% and 4% PER YEAR (IF you qualify). This amount is a FEE for the bond and does NOT accumulate value toward any restoration that the bond is intended to cover. They further explained that, if the bonding entity was required to perform, they would do so, but would then come after the signatory individuals to recover their costs. A Bond is NOT an insurance policy. For Amateur site owners, and small business site owners, a Bond is the worst choice. You pay every year to have the bond, then the bonding entity comes after your family for their costs.