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 know that 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.
**********
Couple of comments…..
Complex analysis processes lead to bad decisions. The focus shifts to all the “small” problems which are easy to fix and ignores the major problems. Focus. The Forest Service lacks focus in its planning processes.
In my first professional job with the Forest Service I wrote the St. Joe Wild and Scenic River Plan. My first draft of the plan was a handwritten 10 page document. I presented it to the Special Areas Forester (Tom Kovalicky) and my boss.
I told them that was the “guts” of the plan, did they have any issues with what I wrote?? I was pretty verbose in my writing, the Planning Staff for the IPNF (Ed Javorka) wrote an answer to Senator Church on the management of the river after classification. His answer was only two pages.
A little over a year later, and over 120 typeset pages the plan was sent to the Chief for approval. It still was basically a two or ten page document depending on whether you preferred my version or Ed’s version.
The problem with the Forest Service is not its organizational structure. The problem is that there is very little contact with the public anymore, and that translates to a lack of support for the agency.
The Forest Service needs to get more District Rangers into communities throughout the west. That was the MOST IMPORTANT thing Gifford did when he set up the agency. That and the Use Book to insure consistent management throughout the agency. People should read the Use Book.
One comment on Regional Offices aligned on a state basis. When I worked for BLM they viewed that as one of their major weaknesses. The Governor of the state could easily get the State Director fired, and that happened in Idaho when I was working for the agency. Splitting the RO’s across state lines was done deliberately by Gifford for that reason.
As to the Undersecretary question. IF it was me………
I would ask each National Forest to make a list of cultural sites, important natural areas, communities, important infrastructure, etc. etc. that needs protection from wildfire.
The Rocky Mountain Region went negative in net growth in 2017, and R6 and R5 are probably negative in net growth after the 2020 and 2021 fires and insect and disease losses. It really doesn’t matter from a fiber perspective, but think about the ecological change that negative net growth represents from a ecological perspective.
We have burned 90 million acres in the west since 1990. We have lost 20% of the Giant Sequoia’s over six feet in diameter. There is a FS research paper that 20% of the sensitive species in California were lost in TWO years due to wildfires. North Idaho and western Montana is primed for a repeat of the 1910 fires. Do we want to save the old-growth Cedar Groves that the Forest Service set aside and promised to protect in the part of the world??
The National Forests and adjacent National Parks will be very different ecosystems in the next 30 years particularly after the second round of fires.
We need to insure that we save some of the bits and pieces of our national forest landscapes, before they are changed forever.
That is a agency decision. Very few folks outside the forestry profession understand the magnitude of the change on the landscape.
Here is the fire history map from 2000. It really needs to be updated with fires from 1986 when the modern wildfire era started.
https://caltopo.com/map.html#ll=40.46993,-121.64612&z=8&b=mbh&a=fire_recent
Scroll around and be sure to add in the 1990 fires that are missing and recent fires.
It is sobering.
Thanks for the history, Vladimir!
That is an advantage to Regions rather than States, although I daresay if an RF ticked off a Governor, she might still get transferred to another position. It might depend on the alignment of the specific State and Admin.
It did seem a bit odd to me that Wyoming is in two Regions, requiring two sets of connections with the State.
I think each forest making a list of sites would be covered by the same effort that I called “wildfire plan amendments” which would cover that and how to protect them.
That’s a great map.. Also if you toggle to see all the fires since 1990. What I noticed was that state capitols and universities are in the no-fire parts of OR and WA. It seems to explain (plus the Cal maps) why the approaches are so different among the States.
Good afternoon. It’s Thursday, November 7, 2024. Hopefully today we will get some rain here in eastern Pennsylvania. Let me say a few words about “organizational stuff” for the Forest Service. I do understand that every time there is a change in the Administration, talk about change is very common. I just want to express some ideas that for me are pretty basic about the Forest Service, an organization that I had a very long, kind and productive career with.
During my time with the agency, I was fortunate to have assignments in all four major Mission Areas: the National Forest System (NFS); State and Private Forestry (Tribal Lands was not in the title then) (SPF); Business Management Operations; and, Research and Development. I mention this in hopes to qualify myself in terms of perspective, recognizing that I have been retired for about seven years and of course, one can become easily dated while viewing from afar.
I was always a bit disappointed when someone from the NFS, for example, would say “we need to let go of SPF, that’s not our business…” And, the person from NFS making the statement had spent their entire career only in NFS. Clearly, as former Chief F. Dale Robertson would often say, “they don’t know what they don’t know.” However, those types of statements still have some currency and made me want to work in different Mission Area to be the best “student of the game” in the agency.
A long time ago when I was Director, Information Resources Management in the national office, I made this statement: “…the Mission Areas designations will prove to the demise of the Forest Service.” I believed that then, as I do now. The Forest Service is in the business of land stewardship and making sure the societal connections with that stewardship help improve planet Earth. Yes, the reach of the agency is far. Yesterday I was reading again, what Gifford Pinchot said as the Chief of the Forest Service:
“Without natural resources life itself is impossible. From birth to death, natural resources, transformed for human use, feed, clothe, shelter, and transport us. Upon them we depend for every material necessity, comfort, convenience, and protection in our lives. Without abundant resources, prosperity is out of reach.”
Notice not a word about the Mission Areas. Then, I read the following:
“If we don’t protect and manage out natural resources – soil, water, trees, rangelands, minerals and oil – we will lose them or lose access to them. This train has already left the station – but it is not too late to stop it. To do so, we must return to our conservation roots, shelving the mistaken notion that nature knows best.”
Again, nothing said about the Mission Areas as being a lynchpin to conservation. Further, I saw what, for me, is an iconic statement that is rightfully more reflective of what today’s approach to landscape scale conservation should be:
“We the people, campaign to awaken the public to the national crisis that is actively destroying not only national forests and rangelands, but public health, communities, wildlife and natural resources across the nation. Our goal is the restoration of truth and justice in governance and land management across America.”
Yes, the National Forests are mentioned, but nothing about the NFS Mission Area, per se. Then, finally, I wrote this to focus on a critical conservation issue we all are facing now:
“America is facing a National Emergency. That is, uncontrolled wildfires due to the lack of forest maintenance. The cost of destruction is approaching $1 trillion annually. Thousands of people are dying each year due to the impacts of wildfires, including smoke. We must begin a campaign of change, now.”
I have tried with these four statements to show the mission, vision and guiding principles of the United States Forest Service. Before, we begin talking about changes in “boxes in lines,” those involved must first know the social reproduction basis of the agency. Pinchot, Petersen and Tibbitts know. I think I do, as well. Others have to know, as well. We must have a Campaign of our Campaign, now, to right this terrible injustice that is happening to our forests and rangelands.
Let’s talk about “boxes and lines” just for a bit. My basic premise: Let there be no doubt that “organizations with a mission that is designed for a greater good and have efficient infrastructure paths, led by high task-relevant maturity leaders, who embrace their followers, almost always become great.”
Dissecting the above, we see mission, structure, leaders and followers. When I look at the Forest Service now, the word “stale” comes to mind. Let’s see:
1. Mission: Exceptional, but few inside the agency actually know what it says or means,
2. Structure: Archaic for achieving the agency mission, today. Real mission attainment will not happen under the current structure.
3. Leaders: Respectfully, the overall “ability” and “willingness” of agency leaders to achieve the mission in today’s called for interconnectivity, is too low.
4. Followers: Great leaders are also great followers. The designated leader of a campaign designed to continually achieve the mission, must genuinely count on and appreciate the work by the followers; that is, everyone. Forest Service employees enjoy working. Most, I suspect, enjoy their jobs. If the tasks within the work become stale and stall, insights into the motivations behind public policy choices will also slow and the organization will methodically lose its way.
Yes, I think the words “stale” or “stodgy” well describes the current agency. And this is coming from a person who loves the Forest Service. So perhaps, do not dismiss me too quickly.
In 2012, I was formally asked, in my role as the Director of the Northern Research Station Director, to think about a more optimal organizational structure for the Forest Service to serve the 20 states in Northeast and Midwest. I immediately repeated my concern about the Mission Area designations and the lack of decision-making flexibility about conservation issues that existed. I came up with a few basic ideas. I had to be careful. The agency, then and now, tends to “vapor lock” when hallowed ground is stepped on. For example, the closer of a Regional Office.
One notion was to eliminate the Directors for Research (Northern Research Station and the Forest Products Laboratory) and the Northeastern Area (SPF). Not the work, but the leadership structure that could be achieved in different ways with improved outcomes IF one was to keep their eye on the cohesive mission stated by Pinchot. Actually, along the way, some changes were made. Progress is good. However, let’s be candid. Eliminating a Research Station Director in the Forest Service is not a shattering action, like eliminating a Regional Forester. Oh my gosh, was that an earthquake I just felt?
Let’s think bigger about adjustments that need to be made in the Forest Service organization. Recently, I was communicating with a person much more skilled in organization design and much more aggressive than me. Vapor locking does not make this person shy or fold like a cheap suit. In part, here is what was said (edited for brevity):
“Of course, we also need some refreshing changes in how the Forest Service is organized. Changing the culture of enabling centralized decision to an emphasis of decentralized decision-making will help as long as there is some strong bottom-line direction. For example, one entire level of administration of the National Forests has to be eliminated and that should be the Regional Offices. I would recommend combining the authorities of both the current RO and Forest Supervisor into one, but with major changes. Establish Regional Proveniences…”
Like I have said, bold thinkers produce bold results. But, if the organization is afraid to make an error, and compelled to constantly retreat back to the batters’ circle, maybe the grip will not be that much better the next time. I like baseball.
Staying with my baseball metaphor, the best player in Major League Baseball history, in terms of batting average, was Tyrus “Ty” Raymond Cobb. He played for the Detroit Tigers. He batted 0.367 during his 24-year career. This means for every 10 at-bats without walking, Ty Cobb FAILED to get a hit about 6+ times. Sometimes we miss. A baseball player that hits for an average of 0.300 is considered excellent. 70 percent of the time, the objective of getting a hit is not achieved. But one does have to swing to get a hit.
The great former Forest Service Chief, F. Dale Robertson, would always talk about “taking reasonable risks; one does not have to be foolish.” Clearly he was not suggesting a 70 percent failure rate is okay. The operative word is “reasonable.”
The equally effective Forest Service Chief, Dale Bosworth, concluded that if you succeed 80 percent of the time, that may be good enough. I recall that admonition often. I transcribed their urging into a speech I made several times on “Facets of Leadership” with a section on “Don’t Be a Dot Person.” Trying to describe this graphically, picture in your mind a circle. In the middle is a “dot.” The “dot” signifies a “risk averse” position. It means 100 percent of the time you do not make an error or fail, because one does not step off the “dot.” The outer edge of the circle represents being foolish or illegal; this is the area to obviously avoid.
As one moves from the “dot” to the edge of the circle, you are taking on more risk. The trick is to find that “Empowerment Zone” where “the best is the enemy of the good” (Voltaire, circa 1772). Simply put: to be a good leader, you have to take risks. You cannot remain a “dot” person emboldened by “DMU” — “Don’t Mess Up.” To avoid taking a risk 100 percent of the time means you do nothing. Taking risks does not require you to be foolish. The Forest Service Chief, for example, cannot be a “dot” person. They (Chief’s) also can make “dot” selections for leadership positions. This is social reproduction, and the outcomes can be and often are, stifling. This is where the current Forest Service is, in my view; afraid, stifled, stale, stodgy. That’s a shame. This situation is not insurmountable, however.
This lack of courage by the current Forest Service brings me to the National Emergency that America is now facing, uncontrollable wildfires as a result of the lack of forest maintenance over the last 30+ years. This issue has lots of parts and pieces. Going back to an earlier statement (Tibbitts, 2024), things like public health, communities, wildlife and natural resources across the nation, restoration of truth and justice and governance all lead and follow this National Emergency. We also know that lack of forest maintenance, an older climate cycle we are within and an expanding wildland-urban interface, are reasons that connect with the stress on trees, water, wildlife habitat and truths. Let’s think of a broader, sometimes hidden interconnectivity. What about a stale organization and the comfort of staying on the “dot” in the middle of the “decision-circle?”
For example, the Forest Service currently has time-warped notion that wildfires can be managed. They are WILD. It’s really hard to manage WILD things like a wildfire. One should not “monitor” (it’s known as watching) wildfires. First, you put them out. This year, about 2.4 million acres probably did not have to burn if the Forest Service would have deemed “watching” as a bad wildfire suppression tactic. Each year, America’s Chief Forester writes a “Letter of Intent for Wildfires.” It’s policy for controlling wildland fire for the agency. I always thought this letter was one of the most important pieces of correspondence the agency produces.
I am working with a band of conservationists, some of which are the best wildfire tacticians in the world, without question. We want to make the Chief’s Letter of Intent for Wildfires much more rational and contemporary by including this statement: “…all wildfires will be put out as quickly as possible with a strong initial attack.” I know that most people would say, “of course.” Not so fast. The Forest Service has this science Mission Area that believes that wildfires are the primary maintenance tool for healthy ecosystems. Intellectually, it is a decent concept. But, NOT NOW. Some say NEVER. I know it – letting wildfires burn to maintain forested ecosystems – will not work in my lifetime.
America’s forests are clogged up with flammable fuels. The climate cycle we are in stresses trees, shrubs and grasses. So, at least for the foreseeable future, we should direct our firefighters to extinguish wildfires quickly, aided by clear direction from the Forest Service Chief’s Letter of Intent for Wildfires. Our group, currently known as “NWI (National Wildfire Institute) and Others,“ has a mantra. It is: “First, Put Out the Fire,” copied from Jim Petersen’s wonderful book by the same name. Getting just one small, but crucial, action in this Letter of Intent for Wildfires would have huge, positive impacts. If you knew that letting a wildfire burn helped cause up to 10,000 smoke-related deaths in 2023, would you not want to put the fire out immediately? This is not a rhetorical question. Smoke is also a killer. I am seeking help from the new Administration Transition Team to make the inclusion of our statement, “…all wildfires will be put out as quickly as possible with a strong initial attack” to shape a sound wildfire policy in 2025.
To summarize, the best one-half dozen:
1. What used to be the premier conservation agency in the world has become stale. Lots of reasons why, none of which are insurmountable. But change is called for now.
2. The conservation mission created by Gifford Pinchot must be re-surfaced. Minimally, it should be known by everyone that works for the Forest Service.
3. The interconnectivity of the Forest Service with our society and planet Earth is well documented. Now, it is time the agency acknowledges these connections with courage, strength and gratitude.
4. The current organization of the Forest Service is out of date. The mission cannot be effectively and efficiently achieved within the current structure. Time takes time. Begin where societal benefits are be the most profound.
5. America is faced with a National Emergency. That is, deadly and costly wildfires due to the lack of forest maintenance for over. 30+ years. The 2025 annual Chief’s Letter of Intent for Wildfires must include: “…all wildfires will be put out as quickly as possible with a strong initial attack.”
6. If our forests could talk, they would say to us something like: “We deserve better. We helped you. Why won’t you help us? It has been far too long since we have been cared for. Now is our time.” New Legislation being advanced will help surface the forests’ voice.
A lot to chew on here Mike… I strongly disagree with your approach to “first, put out the fire” – not so much that failure will occur in spite of best efforts, but I live near Gila NF where monitoring or “watching” natural ignitions (and is this not the very essence of Rx fire?) is routinely practiced to good effect. This is not true everywhere, obviously, but applying such a broad generalization as yours to ALL fire is simply inappropriate and counterproductive to sound resource mgmt.