Thanks to everyone who responded to the previous question! Especially those currently working.
Since our last post on this, we have found out about the election. But looking over what people have written, it’s interesting how much is within the purview of the Forest Service itself to improve and fix. And like we used to do in NEPA in the WO, we can take good ideas, and argue for them in a way that appeals to the new Admin’s interests and goals. As with other years, we can generate our own TSW Transition Recommendations.
So let’s dig deeper into the discussion.
Here’s my first cut at Things We Agree On (and if we don’t, let me know)
1. More funding for LE
2. More funding for access and encroachment issues.
3. Data systems should be built to answer the questions line officers and specialists face on a regular basis that could help them make decisions, define trade-offs, and communicate such to the public. This includes funding and accomplishments of grantees.
4. Making sure that appropriate orientation is given new employees.
***************************
Then we have the organizational stuff. Both FS and BLM have experiences with this.. for example, reducing or eliminating the RO in Region 9 (was anyone here involved? How did it go? Why did they go back? And then the story of the BLM removing a layer during Reinvention and restoring it. Then there was an effort (I don’t think it was called Reformation, but the names all run together) when I worked in the R-2 RO where the engineers carefully outlined the different kinds of tasks they had (budget formulation, quality control, and expertise) and reoriented and downsized their staff. Probably many other staffs in other Regions did this as well. So there’s a great deal of knowledge out there. But what has changed since then? The budget, work at home, more new employees and so on.
Jim Furnish: “I also favor getting rid of Regional Offices (but leave a small cadre there to deal with States, interagency stuff). The computer era can deal with budget formulation/distribution. Yes, get more people back at the RD level.
As everyone knows, I am not a political animal. So I don’t know if the idea of a Regional Forester gives the FS more political heft than a group of Supes. And that may vary by state. Maybe have a State Director instead of an RF, like the BLM? And if there is interagency stuff, wouldn’t the State have to pull from forest people to do the work, which defeats the purpose of getting more work to the ground. I guess there’s a workload for Interagency Stuff Bigger Than One Forest (say a lynx amendment). Which perhaps leads us to Greg’s suggestion:
Thorough analysis of all permanent positions as to what they are really contributing.
Or getting some idea of what the work actually is. I think this is particularly important today, as with agreements like the Keystone Agreements, there is potential for grantees to be doing certain kinds of jobs previously thought to be federal. It seems like this would help the FS be conscious of which work to farm out and which work to keep.
Then we have some really big picture thoughts from Jim Zornes:
Remove NFS from the WO and make it its own entity. Take all the other Deputy Areas (Business Ops, CIO, Planning, Lands and Special Uses, S & PF, Research and HR) and put them together with the BLM! Reorganize that mess to remove repetitive functions between the two Agencies, making one service area for everything but NPS. NFS would be extractive resources; mining, timber, wildlife, range and recreation. I may have missed something – sorry. Close all Regional Offices and supercharge the Supervisors Offices with those RO staff areas in SO’s that would make sense for that old Region. Those SO’s would become the only other management center between the BLM/FS and RD’s.
That organization would remove at least 1/3, if not 1/2 of the employees, saving $ and streamlining work on the ground. Fire would be in NFS, but not stovepiped as it is now. More boots on the ground – cross trained in resource management and fire/fuels. LE & I would not be under the NFS.
I’ve probably told the story that when we in Region 2 had trouble getting our folks paid through ABQ, our Regional Forester (Rick Cables) talked about contracting with BLM at their Denver Center for HR). On the other hand, as I’ve also said, for some HR topics (employee relations), human to human relations are critical
I’m not with Jim on planning (although an analysis and maybe modernizing NFMA might be good), and lands and special uses actually need more attention. Pulling S&PF out of the FS would tend to break down their natural alliances with NIFA-Extension and NRCS (although someone might want to look at all three for gaps and overlaps). R&D would be folded into USGS which I think would be bad for the linkage to real-world problems with FS folks.
I would be wary of getting too much with the BLM due to their political bent. However, it might be helpful to go back and look at past successes to streamline position sharing, budget exchanges, harmonizing shared regulations (to help the public understand better) and dual delegation. On interspersed lands, visitors can’t tell whose ownership they’re on and how different the rules might be, nor even to whom they should direct questions and complaints. I remember we had two Public Lands Centers at one time in Region 2 (and we conducted a joint administrative review with the BLM on the San Juan Public Lands Center) and there the public liked it, as well as many employees.
There is another election coming up. TSW has been around for the 2012. 2016, 2020, and now 2024 Presidential elections. So now is a good time to ask the question “what would you do if you were appointed to be undersecretary?” What issues would you focus on?
What initiatives that you think are important might appeal more to R’s or D’s? This is the time, before the election results are in, to think outside the box, that is.. way outside the box if possible. And no partisan vitriol today, thank you.
It’s only fair that I give my own.
1. I am concerned that forest policy wonks, (NGO’s and the foundations who support NGOs) focus on the big picture, including getting more money, and the nuts and bolts of doing things, spending the money, and what is accomplished with what degree of difficulty, gets overlooked. So I would go back to the basics. I would host some kind of conversation with FS employees (focused on the District level, but with input from other levels) on what are the main barriers to their work, and their ideas for fixing them, large and small. And of course, going ahead and streamlining the path for folks to try new things. I was part of the Pilot effort in the 1980’s (on the Ochoco) for administrative helpful changes and was able to get the FS paying by check established as a practice. It sounds a bit silly nowadays, but it meant something to us then. And there was the spirit that we could actually identify new, better ways of operating and be supported in making change, which was great for morale.
2. What would it take for the Forest Service to be able to be visible and helpful to the public? As I’ve said, humility and invisibility is a value, but people are doing great work out there and should be, say, appropriately visible. Many forests are doing this, or trying to. What are the obstacles? What few things might make a big difference? Where do human beings matter most? Where should federal employees (not contractors or grantees) matter most?
Planning:
3. Put plan revisions on hold until each “wildfire forest” has a wildfire (including PODs, conditions for WFU, prescribed fire and maintenance, reducing ignitions) amendment and EIS with public involvement and comment.
4. Set up FACA committee (and employee and stakeholder and retiree workgroups) to answer the questions “what values come from forest planning in the 21st century, and can those values be achieved more directly?” with an eye to potentially revising NFMA with bipartisan support.
****************
Hopefully those ideas will spark something in you. Like I said, there are only certain times we can dream big, and today is one of those before we find out what new Admins want to do and whom they pick for political jobs.
It’s past time for a follow-up to Sharon’s post on the BLM’s western solar plan. The final plan was released at the end of August. The BLM says it received 162 formal protests during that 30-day protest period that are being reviewed (but apparently won’t release the names of the parties, unlike the Forest Service objection process).
A number of conservation groups have protested the failure to protect the integrity of the Old Spanish National Historic Trail. Lynn County, Nevada, just southeast of Reno, is concerned the proposed plan will “result in fiscal impacts as it will be left to deal with speculative solar applications in inappropriate areas.” Apparently, the Western Congressional Caucus doesn’t like it because it “risks taking lands offline for purposes other than solar use, limiting the potential for mining, grazing and public access.” And, of course, enviros are unhappy, too.
According to the BLM,
“It would make over 31 million acres of public lands across 11 western states available for potential solar development, driving development closer to transmission lines or on previously disturbed lands and avoiding protected lands, sensitive cultural resources and important wildlife habitat.
Steering project proposals away from areas where they may conflict with other resources or uses will help ensure responsible development, speed the permitting process, and provide greater predictability to the solar energy industry.”
That sounds like good planning. However, a scientist says that, instead, “It makes available to solar areas that are ecologically sensitive, areas that include sensitive species. It stands to significantly impact and alter ecosystems across the Great Basin and Mojave Desert.” The federally threatened desert tortoise is a particular concern.
The Center for Biological Diversity would have opted for an alternative that prioritized already developed or degraded areas on public lands and rooftop solar on structures. There seems to be some debate about whether it is necessary to essentially plow up the desert in order to install solar facilities. But things may be different in Wyoming, where local conservationists see this as additional protection for big game habitat.
There are also questions about how responsive the BLM will be to site-specific concerns that arise when more information is available for a proposed project. We have an early example of that with the Rough Hat Clark Solar Project in Nevada. According to E & E news, “The Bureau of Land Management is paving the way for a major solar power project to be built in a valley west of Las Vegas despite the objections of environmental groups that have petitioned the agency to protect the region.”
This is obviously a very large-scale planning effort, where it is not possible to identify more localized issues (though it seems like there was local knowledge that was provided by the public that might have been incorporated). The total acreage “available” is admittedly much greater than what is needed, so presumably further “unavailability” is expected and will be provided as future projects are considered. As a Wyoming representative of the Wilderness Society put it, “The implementation is going to matter.” A final decision is expected by the end of the year.
I have been writing about the oak and pine savanna project on Jim’s Creek for more than 10 years. This summer I revisited the site with its architect, Tim Bailey, who spent the majority of his career on The Willamette National Forest in Lane County, Oregon.
The text is 2700 words, but here are the concluding two paragraphs:
“Jim’s Creek needs to be completed. All 638 acres should have been burned 10 years ago, as planned and paid for. If people actually care about “critical habitat” and “biological diversity” — which are legal terms, not science — they should burn Jim’s Creek now, this fall, when the Molala would have burned it. If the Forest Service can’t do it, how about a local business, as in pre-spotted owl litigation times? Or the volunteer fire department? Prescribed fires are a lot cheaper and safer than wildfires, and this would be a great opportunity to publicly display that difference.
“Jim’s Creek has good road and stream boundaries, fuel preparation could be done in a few days time, and trained crews are available as wildfires are being extinguished. Late summer and fall burns, as people have done for thousands of years, would greatly reduce risk and severity of wildfires, and is the pattern that native plants and animals have both adapted to and thrived until now.”
A new peer-reviewed study from USC’s Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering finds alarmingly high levels of toxic metals in Phos-Chek fire retardant.
Bottom-line conclusion: “Long-term fire retardants contained concentrations of toxic metals (V, Cr, Mn, Cu, As, Cd, Sb, Ba, Tl, and Pb) 4−2,880 times greater than drinking water regulatory limits, and potentially greater than some aquatic toxicity thresholds when released into the environment.”
This is the first publicly available chemical analysis of Phos-Chek’s toxic metals. If the Forest Service has conducted such an analysis, it has never disclosed the results. Nor has the Forest Service ever assessed the effects of dumping these heavy metals hither and yon on our national forests.
To readers: I have been traveling and my laptop died, so for various reasons I haven’t been able to comment. I’ll respond when I get home this weekend.
Thanks to Nick Smith for this one from the Summit Daily. Who knew that temps couldn’t be had even with external funding?
“Colorado Senators Michael Bennet and John Hickenlooper as well as Colorado Representatives Joe Neguse and Brittany Pettersen penned a letter Monday, Oct. 28, to U.S. Department of Agriculture Secretary Thomas Vilsack.
In particular, the letter takes issue with the Forest Service applying the hiring freeze not only to positions funded through the federal budget but also to positions supported by local funding.”
In 2023, almost $750,000 in taxpayer funds raised through the Strong Futures Initiative went toward the Forest Service’s seasonal wildfire mitigation and education in Summit County, with much of that money going directly to the federal agency to hire seasonal staff.
“The voters of Summit County passed (the Strong Futures Initiative) because the White River National Forest was so understaffed that these critical functions weren’t getting done,” Summit County Commissioner Tamara Pogue told Summit Daily News last week. “We’ve literally been paying for them because the federal government isn’t doing its job.”
But Forest Service regional press officer Donna Nemeth said that only two positions supported by the Strong Futures Initiative will be hired next summer because they are considered “fire series” employees. The remaining positions supported by those local dollars are “recreational technicians” who focus on fire prevention and education, and currently won’t be hired back next summer, Nemeth said.
Other local governments — including Eagle County, Pitkin County, Chaffee County and the towns of Vail and Aspen — have also provided local funds dedicated to supporting Forest Service seasonal hiring that could be impacted by the hiring freeze.
The congressional delegation wrote in its letter that the Forest Service’s Rocky Mountain region, which includes Colorado, “typically accepts millions of dollars from external partners to hire seasonal employees.”
One of the hills I died on near the end of my Forest Service career was an attempt to get national forest planning to coordinate with future plans for adjacent ownerships to provide for wildlife habitat connectivity among them, including local government planning and land trust conservation easements. I thought the Forest Service could play a leadership role in coordinating this. The response I got was that anything to do with private lands was a “third rail” that they didn’t want to go near. This sounds different.
On October 21, a Department of Agriculture memo announced “a Department-wide effort to support connectivity of wildlife habitat on working landscapes through the management of National Forests and voluntary conservation assistance on private agricultural lands.” Specifically, a new Secretary’s Memorandum directs USDA agencies to:
Incorporate consideration of terrestrial wildlife habitat connectivity and corridors into relevant planning processes, programs, and assessments.
Improve the coordination, compatibility, and delivery of USDA planning processes and programs to improve outcomes for terrestrial wildlife connectivity.
Increase inter-jurisdictional coordination with states, tribes and other federal departments.
Coordinate within USDA to implement the actions outlined in this memo, with the goal of improved delivery of USDA programs and outcomes for terrestrial connectivity.
Needless to say, I like the recognition in the first bullet that planning, specifically recognized later to include “FS land management planning,” is important to a desired outcome that requires designing bridges connecting multiple owners; otherwise, the result may be bridges to nowhere or with missing spans.
The memo recognizes that “A recent revolution in animal tracking, remote sensing, and computational analysis is improving the prioritization of conservation and restoration actions.” It also notes, “The agency’s 2012 planning rule, which governs land management planning across these lands, included requirements for evaluating, maintaining, or restoring connectivity” (my contribution to posterity). The directive includes a specific proposal related to forest planning:
Improving planning through Forest Service analytic tools, including a Climate Risk Viewer that identifies climate change-driven risks to key resources, such as corridors and connectivity, as well as migration corridor tool development among the National Forest System, Research Stations, and partners.
Because “Federal lands often serve as anchor points for wildlife, but most of the country’s wildlife reside on private lands,” much of the emphasis may be on supporting private land conservation. However, “this collaboration will build on the crucial connection between public lands and the private lands around them.” (Or at least to the extent that a Secretary’s memo can accomplish anything.)
Appeal dropped in Blue Mountains Biodiversity Project v. Trulock (D. Or.)
The government’s appeal of the district court’s decision to keep the 21” diameter limit in eastern Oregon and Washington in place, discussed here, has apparently been dropped. (I don’t have any documentation confirming this).
Court decision in Front Range Equine Rescue v. Vilsack (D. D.C.)
On October 11, the district court dismissed a challenge to a herd management plan on the Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest, ruling the plaintiff organization didn’t have standing to sue because it hadn’t shown how the Forest Service and BLM decisions to use surgical sterilization impaired the plaintiff in its efforts to protect the species.
Court decision in Cottonwood Environmental Law Center v. Olson (9th Circuit)
On October 25, the circuit court affirmed the district court’s dismissal of this case involving seven sheep-grazing allotments on the Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest. The court found that issues raised by plaintiffs should have been raised in a prior lawsuit on the same allotments, and that alleged new information about domestic and bighorn sheep contact was not specific enough to warrant additional NEPA procedures.
New lawsuit: Oregon Wild Horse Organization v. U. S. Department of the Interior (D. Oregon)
On October 1, Oregon Wild Horse Organization, Central Oregon Wild Horse Coalition and Western Watersheds Project sued the BLM over its plan to gather and reduce two herds of horses in southeast Oregon without first considering whether privately-owned livestock operations are to blame for degraded conditions. The news release includes a link to the complaint, which alleges violations of NEPA, FLPMA and the Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act.
Settlement in Burning Man Project v. U. S. Department of the Interior (D. Nevada)
On October 7, plaintiffs announced settlement of their litigation against the BLM’s approval of the Gerlach Geothermal Exploration Project. Under the terms of the agreement, Burning Man will buy back drilling leases issued by BLM to Ormat Technologies, and the exploratory drilling project will be canceled in an area that would be managed as a conservation area. Development could continue outside of this area. The original complaint, filed April 2023, is here.
Court decision in Center for Biological Diversity v. Culver (N.D. California)
On October 15, the district court reversed BLM’s approval of land management plans that designate route networks for off-highway vehicles for 3.1 million acres in the Western Mojave Desert, a second iteration of plans that have been litigated since 2006. The court found that the BLM failed to show how designating thousands of routes for off-road vehicles in critical desert tortoise habitat and conservation areas “aligns with the objective of minimizing impacts to this threatened species,” as required by BLM’s regulations pertaining to designation of OHV routes. The court held that, “the 2019 OHV route network does not comply with the minimization criteria because the record does not affirmatively demonstrate how the BLM designated OHV routes with the objective of minimizing impacts on the desert tortoise, the Lane Mountain milk-vetch, and other resources, and because the BLM improperly relied on optional, post-designation “mitigation” measures to satisfy its obligation to designate OHV routes that complied with the regulatory criteria.” The court upheld BLM’s NEPA procedures. (The article includes a link to the opinion.)
Court decision in Colorado Conservation Alliance v. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (D. Colorado)
On October 10, the district court dismissed three claims against the State of Colorado’s actions related to the capture and release of gray wolves in Colorado. Plaintiffs represent agricultural, and outdoor recreational interests, while conservation groups intervened as defendants on these claims. The court dismissed a claim that NEPA applied because the reintroduction is primarily a state-led effort with limited federal involvement. It dismissed an ESA claim related to taking wolves from Oregon and found no standing to sue over effects on Mexican wolves because plaintiffs had not shown that would harm their interests. The opinion is here. A claim by conservation groups as plaintiffs remains pending.
On October 15, Living Rivers, the Great Basin Water Network, a river guide and water rights holders filed a lawsuit in Utah’s Seventh Judicial District Court, seeking to overturn a decision by Utah’s Office of the State Engineer granting access to groundwater for the Green River Lithium Project. The BLM had previously noted that the applicant had not yet sought a permit for the use of federal land. The Bureau of Reclamation is concerned about protecting its water supply.
Court decision in Jewell School District vs Mukumoto (Clatsop County Circuit Court)
On October 22, the county court dismissed a challenge by a school district to the adoption of the Western Oregon State Forest Habitat Conservation Plan, a decision by the Oregon Department of Forestry that would reduce the amount of timber harvest on State Trust Lands that provides funding to the school district. The court found that it could not grant relief that would necessarily provide additional funding to the school district. The article includes a link to the opinion.
Court decision in California v. County of Lake (California appeals court)
On October 23, the California court of appeals vacated Lake County’s analysis of impacts from a proposed 16,000-acre wine country property development. The court found that the single paragraph in the environmental impact report required by the California Environmental Quality Act did not adequately analyze wildfire risks. The article includes a link to the opinion. According to plaintiffs, “This is the first time a California appeals court has set aside an environmental review because the agency failed to look at wildfire ignition risk. This ruling is a clear signal to those who continue to push for building low-density development in California’s wildfire-prone areas.”
There’s some additional interest in Seven County Infrastructure Coalition v. Eagle County, Colorado, the case involving a railroad through the Uinta National Forest that the Supreme Court has accepted for review this term. Following critiques of other Supreme Court justices for conflicts of interest, Justice Gorsuch is now being asked to recuse himself because of his prior association with Philip Anschutz, the owner of a company that would benefit “heavily” from construction of the railroad (heavily enough to file an amicus brief). Gorsuch served as counsel to Anschutz and his companies in the early 2000s, has detailed annual hunting retreats on Anschutz’s estates and bought an investment property with Anschutz business associates. The Supreme Court will hear this case on December 10.
It seems to me that new Admins have a variety of ideas. Agencies are composed of human beings who have differing views of any ideas, and also different views of how seriously to engage in doing what the Admin wants, and what tactics are ethically OK to avoid doing so.
One interesting thing about this retiree’s story is that the State Offices who disobeyed the order to take out a layer (at least according to the retiree) was that the State Office had good relationships with Congressionals, who gave the State Offices political cover. So that’s an interesting admin/Congress/agency dynamic.
When Bill Clinton became President he almost immediately initiated one of his campaign platform planks which was to “reinvent government”. He put Vice President Al Gore in charge of the effort. I was working for Interior in Washington, D.C. at the time and can honestly say; it didn’t work out so well, at least not for BLM. I remember going to a “town hall meeting” with Al Gore in the MIB (main Interior Building) basement cafeteria not long after the inauguration. Gore sat on a stool in the middle of the room and preached about reinventing government. The majority of career employees rolled their eyes and thought, here comes another political driven and probably not really thought out government reorganization. I remember Gore preaching about eliminating bureaucrat layers from Interior and other organizations. Veteran Interior civil servants were accustomed to these distracting and costly efforts with Administration changes. Regrettably, BLM political leadership took this literally and quickly decided to remove a layer from the field; the District Offices. It wasn’t thought out…no studies were done to asses the pluses, minuses, or options. Area Managers became “Field” Managers, a term which still sticks today. In the Forest Service world, this would have been equivalent to removing the Forest Supervisor layer and having all District Rangers reporting directly to the Regional Forester.
As it turned out, some states in the BLM organization did as they were told and removed the District office layer. Other states decided it was a bad, disruptive and costly idea (it was all these things) and “declined” to implement. The only part of the initiative all states adopted was changing the title of Area Manager to Field Manager. When the Bush administration came in, BLM quietly reverted back to the traditional three level field organization and have remained as such ever since.
All the BLM Field Managers (who had been Area Managers) received upgrades to GS-13 as part of the title change. This was done agency-wide.
************
Lessons Learned:
All Admins can have bad ideas.
Cultivating relationships with congressional delegations can be helpful in dealing with bad ideas.
New Admins.. take your time! It’s about good governance, not (always) about getting talking points for your next job or next election.
Changes supported by (at least some) career folks are likely to last longer than those not.
Chelsea, in a recent comment, linked to a post by Don Moynihan letter signed by some academic folks in public administration. Again, I think Schedule F is a bad idea, and I agree with these academics that there are areas of broad bipartisan agreement. I also think that any real reform needs to be reality-based. Which would be terribly difficult to generalize, because agencies and subagencies and missions are so different.
The letter the academics wrote said
Government workers will not take justified risks or innovate if they feel they are being judged on the basis of political loyalty rather than results.
I’m only speaking of the Forest Service here:
There are many reasons that government workers don’t take justified risks or innovate. We used to talk about how new ideas are dissolved by anti-novelty antibodies (actually there is a much better way of saying this, but I can’t remember). And of course, say with IMTs and managed fire, “justified” risk is in the eye of the beholder.
When I worked in WO NEPA, we had a list of policies we wanted to push in either variety of Admin. Admins, when interested, can actually overcome natural organizational inertia, so there’s that. For example, the 2001 Roadless Rule. I happened to be at a Chief and Staff meeting with Chief Thomas and we in RPA presented the idea that we could adopt a roadless policy. But organizational inertia prevailed – “but what about Alaska?” end of discussion. But with Admin interest and pressure..
Then we have to address “political loyalty” and try to determine whether, or how it is different from “policy alignment.” I think it’s a key question, since folks with different policy orientations can be in different parties. Meanwhile folks are Ramspecked in from Congressional staffs who clearly had some kind of partisan affiliation. So, is it OK to pick people due to policy alignment for SES jobs? It seems like it would be, or at least that’s what people already do.
Jim Furnish was kind enough to let us sample from his book on his own history of how he went from Forest Supervisor to Deputy Chief. In this part of his story, politicals sensed his alignment and put him in an SES position, from which he was able to do many innovative things in alignment with the Admin’s goals. Also note the intensive coaching for the SES application.
Anyway, let’s let Jim tell his story:
*******************
Chapter 8: Opportunity Knocks
Washington, DC, Part II, 1999–2002
Capitol Politics
Chris Wood was Forest Service Chief Michael Dombeck’s policy advisor. Wood had followed Dombeck to the Forest Service from the Bureau of Land Management, where Dombeck had served, though never confirmed by the Senate, as acting director for four years. Dombeck, a fisheries biologist, had risen rapidly through the ranks of the Forest Service before detouring to the BLM, assured by then-Chief Dale Robertson that he had a “get home free” card. Now he was home again.
No Forest Service chief had ever employed a policy advisor before. It was hard to discern Wood’s role exactly, but not difficult to know that he was important. I first met Wood when he came to a Forest Service leadership meeting in Oregon in about 1996. Numerous stories about his influence with Dombeck preceded his arrival. It seemed Wood served as the chief’s gatekeeper. If you wanted to talk with the chief, you had to talk to Wood first.
This alarmed anyone who’d learned how to work the ropes in an agency with a very tight chain-of-command tradition. The chief’s office had historically kept a very open door to field officers, especially forest supervisors. Basic respect made stopping by to say hello to the chief de rigueur when in town. Now, anecdotes dribbled through the rumor pipeline about Wood’s unwelcome intervention in the affairs of the chief’s office. People longed to see this arrogant badass in the flesh.
When Wood came to Oregon, I found I liked him from the get-go. He was bright, energetic, optimistic, and smiled a lot, a high-minded go-getter with a real passion for issues. Youngish, he didn’t iron his shirts. He kept no pretenses, and he radiated confidence and power.
I suspect he sensed that many agency people viewed him with a wary eye, so I approached him warmly at coffee break, quickly discovering we shared a love of fishing. Then the questions started popping. He wanted to know all about the Siuslaw—what were our hot issues, what did I see as needing to happen to move Dombeck’s agenda forward? I had a vague awareness Wood used such questions to gauge my land ethic. I eagerly shared our work on thinning, road closures, and watershed restoration. Based on what I’d seen of Dombeck’s agenda, I thought my ideas about managing national forests were similar to the chief’s.
Wood enthusiastically encouraged me to keep up the good work. He mentioned that Chief Dombeck believed we were in a time of flux, and the chief wanted to find change agents. Wood said he planned to talk with Dombeck about the Siuslaw’s road closures, fisheries restoration, and thinning of plantations to promote old growth. Wood wanted me to stay in touch and keep him abreast of any new developments. This was the badass people feared? I saw nothing to fear.
To respond to Wood’s curiosity, I sent him a copy of “Torrents of Change,” a half-hour video produced by the Forest Service Employees for Environmental Ethics following the big flood of 1996. The video began by relating how the storm had affected the forests and rivers. It described how we on the Siuslaw had storm proofed our roads with water bars and how well our preventive measures had worked to absorb the punch of the storm. I also sent Wood a speech I’d just given at a Siuslaw forestwide celebration of human diversity. The talk included my thoughts on Forest Service obligations to tribes, since virtually all our western national forests had once been Native American ancestral homelands. Wood sent a note back saying that he really liked what he saw and would share it with the chief.
Wood must have sensed that I operated on a different wavelength than most other forest supervisors. On his next trip West, he confided to me that Dombeck had concerns about the willingness of agency leaders to break away from past traditions and dogma to assert bold change.
I agreed with Dombeck’s assessment. I had a certain dread and uncertainty about the future, but a keen sense that inaction was deadly. I felt compelled to break out of the mire and do something.
As we charged ahead with our programs on the Siuslaw, I mentioned to Wood how much I appreciated the newfound support I had received from the environmental community. He could appreciate that because it was so rare. Also, a fresh energy and enthusiasm was evident within the Siuslaw organization as we pursued our new mission. Yet, I explained, many of my peers had little use for or interest in the Siuslaw’s resurgent agenda.
I remember that Wood said something like, “We need this kind of stuff back in DC.”
On Wood’s next trip, he came right out and asked if I’d consider coming back to work in the chief’s office. “As what, for instance?” I replied. I loved my work in Oregon. Besides, I’d already spent a two-and-a-half-year tour in DC. I was not eager to return. In fact, going back to DC had not occurred to me since I arrived in Oregon.
“Well, the associate chief and deputy chief for national forests are both open.”
I let this cannonball bang in my brain for a moment. No forest supervisor had ever made that kind of jump.
I found Wood’s suggestion extraordinary. The associate and deputy positions were, respectively, the number-two and number-three positions in the agency. Both fell under the category of Senior Executive Service (SES) appointments, which normally involved an arduous evaluation just to get qualified, then usually six months of “charm school” training. I had done neither. Furthermore, plum positions like a deputy chief’s post always went to people already in the queue for SES positions, like regional foresters or associate deputy chiefs. This was how the old Forest Service did things.
Undeterred, Wood said the chief didn’t put much stock in all that. Dombeck just wanted to get people in these jobs who would move the Forest Service ahead. Wood said they had ways to cut through all the bureaucracy—evidenced by Dombeck’s recent appointment of Francis Pandolfi, an executive from the Times-Mirror Corporation and a complete outsider, to an SES job through open competition. Dombeck wanted people with new ideas, big ideas.
I asked if Dombeck was serious. Wood said yes, but he could guarantee nothing, since both positions would be filled through open competition. Dombeck wanted someone like me, but he couldn’t hand me the job. I understood.
I told Wood I needed time to consider his request.
I knew something about the recent rapid changes at the top. Almost immediately after Dombeck became chief, he’d fired several top SES leaders, including the former deputy chief, Gray Reynolds. Reynolds had issued a bitter rejoinder that had hit the inbox of almost all employees, saying his firing was unwarranted, unwelcome, and an offense to Forest Service tradition. Dombeck had replaced Reynolds with Bob Joslin, southern regional forester from Atlanta, but Joslin retired after only a year and a half amid rumors that he couldn’t handle the environmental politics of the Clinton administration.
Gloria Manning stepped in behind Joslin as the acting deputy chief.
There was turmoil elsewhere. Phil Janik had replaced Dave Unger, the recently retired associate chief. Dombeck chose to split Janik’s duties to create a second associate chief position. The person filling this new job would supervise the deputy chief of the national forest system.
Substantive questions needed answers before I could even think about being that person.
Could any forest supervisor succeed in such an environment, especially a supervisor from the Siuslaw, which was a small forest relative to many others? I would not be regarded as a particularly powerful or credible forest supervisor. I anticipated strong resistance and pushback because of an agency culture that respected power. If Dombeck selected me, largely unknown, as either associate or deputy chief, I would leapfrog about four or five rungs on the organizational ladder. How would this affect agency leaders’ trust in the chief? Bypassing all the more likely candidates would send a strong signal that he doubted them. This would echo in their doubts about him.
Could I succeed? Regardless of how positive Dombeck was about my accomplishments, he didn’t really know me, and I didn’t know him. My biggest concern was not my ideology, but my capacity to develop and build followership. Would regional foresters and national program directors willingly roll up their sleeves with me to get things done? A long career in the Forest Service had convinced me that a failure in either of these important jobs would be costly to both the chief and the agency.
I harbored doubts. Such a move carried steep risks. If Dombeck selected a nontraditional person like me, it would be difficult for me to bring others along, and I could easily become isolated. Yet I also sensed that Dombeck intended to pursue an ambitious agenda, and he wanted and needed like-minded people to help him. The possibility of helping shift the trajectory of the Forest Service held a tantalizing appeal.
I had long talks with my wife, Judy. Surprisingly, she supported my going after the job. She knew the inherent uncertainty that I’d get either job. Yet she’d enjoyed living in the DC area. We both knew a promotion would bring a big jump in pay, too.
Until now, Chris Wood had done all the talking with me. I told Wood that I thought it was time for me and Mike Dombeck to speak directly. Could Dombeck call me personally? Days went by, and then weeks. I began to wonder whether all my speculation was for naught.
Then, as often happens, about the time my anxiety began to burn away, Dombeck called.
We had a good talk. I shared my concerns and asked the chief his thoughts. He said he admired my accomplishments on the Siuslaw. He thought I had what he and the Forest Service needed to move the agency forward. He mentioned the scarcity of big ideas, much less big accomplishments, in crafting a twenty-first-century agenda. He and Jim Lyons, the under secretary of agriculture, both wanted people on the leadership team who would forge change.
We discussed the SES hiring process. He said he had hired others without SES experience via open competition. It was a tricky deal, though, and I needed to quickly get acquainted with Tom Leeper, who was the Forest Service’s SES expert. Dombeck asked me to tell Leeper, “The chief wants you to shepherd me through the application process.”
It was now summer 1998. Wood had mentioned that Sally Collins, Deschutes National Forest supervisor in Bend, Oregon, was also in the running. Collins and I tended to think alike, and we got along well. She and I discussed the merits of going after these jobs, and we both thought it was a big gamble. Collins told me her daughter was entering her senior high school year in Bend, and a move at this time seemed imprudent for the family. I countered that it would take many months before a decision was made, and she could bargain to delay her starting date until after graduation the following June. After much soul-searching, Collins decided not to go after either job.
I called Tom Leeper. He stood ready to help, but he warned of the arduous process before me. To receive a favorable review by the Office of Personnel Management, I would need to put together a sterling application. He said he would coach me along the way. I did ask if being a GS-14 would be held against me, since almost all those who qualified for SES selections came from the higher-level GS-15 pool. He said that would not be a problem.
The process required that candidates develop narratives demonstrating their competence in five evaluation factors: leading people, leading change, building coalitions, being results-driven, and having business acumen. Applications had to be approved by a panel of three government reviewers. If rejected, the application could be revised and submitted again, but only once.
I dove in and spent many evenings preparing my application until I felt it represented my best effort. I ran it by Tom Leeper, who said, “Looks OK.” So I submitted it. Weeks went by before Leeper called to tell me I hadn’t made it. The panel found four out of my five elements “deficient,” and the fifth just marginal. Leeper said I had another shot, but I had to pass the second time or it would be a dead end.
I begged for some insight on what I had done wrong and how to fix it. Leeper said they really looked for a “certain style” of writing (what I privately described to myself as elite bureaucrat or self-aggrandizing). Could he provide some examples? No, but he’d work with me when I sent him the next write-up. This he did: he said the application was still not there.
Desperate now, I asked if he could rewrite a few paragraphs to illustrate what he meant by a certain style. Then I submitted another heavily edited round for the Leeper test. Leeper remained nervous about my application, and I even more so.
I then invoked the Dombeck imperative. To “shepherd me” through this process, I told Leeper that he needed to give me more hands-on help. I told him that Dombeck wanted me to be a candidate available for selection. If I didn’t get through the SES gate, we’d all look bad. I asked him to work with me line by line, editing it strongly to make sure it passed the SES panel review. I was grateful when he helped me prepare my last-chance version for reconsideration.
I later discovered a couple of interesting things. Francis Pandolfi confided to me that he applied for his SES job with just one handwritten paragraph for each of the five evaluation elements. Seeing this, Leeper had delicately advised Pandolfi that this wouldn’t do, since SES applications were serious business, and Pandolfi had a lot of work to do before he could submit his work. Pandolfi said he told Leeper, “No, Tom, you’ve got a lot of work to do.” Pandolfi got the job after Leeper polished those few paragraphs to a luster that passed the SES board.
I talked with another SES person who served on review panels. He said the Office of Personnel Management took a very dim view of GS-14 candidates (like me), deeming them unworthy of consideration, since SES candidates were usually from the higher-level GS-15 pool. He indicated that GS-14s were routinely rejected without serious consideration.
Do these anecdotes indicate a double standard, or was I simply naïve? Even though I think Leeper should have been more helpful from the beginning, my application squeaked through the second time, and I became an applicant in good standing for both high-level jobs. As associate chief, I would report directly to Dombeck, and my responsibilities would include national forests and the agency’s research branch. As deputy chief, I would report to the associate chief, and I would manage all national forest issues, supervising nine regional foresters, ten national program directors, and a staff of about fifteen, with an overall budget of about two billion dollars. I knew I would be thrilled, and fully challenged, if offered either one.
