Michael Rains took the time to write this lengthy comment. As he says, he’s worked in different parts of the Forest Service, and has a great deal of knowledge and experience. I moved this to a post so others can see it.
*******************
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 closure 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 Provenances…”
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.
Our Chief of Staff in R-2 once suggested that the FS get rid of State and Private and switch the bucks to NFS. She didn’t understand that the reason the FS got the bucks was that it was going to States who lobbied for it. And this is an otherwise politically knowledgeable person. Affirming that you can be in NFS for a long time without understanding the whole organization (including International Programs).
Which reminds me of some organizational oddities.. in NFS we used Forest Health (SP&TF) for expertise in bugs and diseases, but had our own expertise in other areas. But maybe what Michael is saying is that with landscape management and GIS overlays and relationships, the organization could rethink what goes where and who does what to what lands.
Mr. Rains appears to have changed some of his views on “fire management.” From a 2018 interview published in Evergreen Magazine:
RAINS: Again, not as Chief, but as a very concerned former employee, I would strive to apply a minimalist – just enough – high efficiency approach to the control of wildfires. Allow me to explain. My approach is shaped by the fact that consistently escalating short-term operational opposition to wildfires, which endanger societal values, has contributed to wildfire becoming more damaging to societal values. Unintentionally and unknowingly over a century of past practice, we have created a Wildfire Paradox. That is, current fire suppression practices lead to wildfires with higher intensities and rapid growth causing future fires to be even larger and more difficult to control for fire responders.
…
RAINS: … The best available science strongly concludes that striving to extinguish all forest fires quickly with “overwhelming mass” applied to every fire inevitably leads to ecologically significant wildfires with higher intensities and rapid growth that are unable to be suppressed. The Forest Service needs to more fully understand what true fire management really means and leaders must be able to change attitudes and behavior to reflect a more corporate doctrine. Restoring managed and planned fire to the landscape does not mean we embrace a “let burn” policy. Absolutely not. It does mean that the Forest Service begins to deploy a fire management philosophy that encompasses restoring and maintaining resilient landscapes; creating fire-adapted communities; and, responding to wildfires. It’s the right kind of fire, in the right place and the right time.
If one is charitable (which I see no reason not to be), the fire seasons between 2018 and the present might lead one to change their mind. A key problem with the “first put out the fire” approach is that for it to be effective in the longer term (as in, producing good social and ecological outcomes in line with the agency’s mission), it requires a really spectacular increase in acres under active management that will reduce fire risk. This, in turn, requires that such work be made a priority by those holding the strings of the purse, and that they open the purse accordingly to fund that work.
Given that the agency has just had to suspend hiring seasonal workers, I have significant doubts about the attainability of this kind of expansion of ecologically useful active management in the current political environment.
Hi Anonymous: It is good to be “charitable,” as you say. The 2020 fires were the worst in US history since 1910 and 1871. The amount of fuel that follows a crown fire is usually many times more than what preceded it, as large trees filled with water are transformed to air-dried firewood, filled with pitch. If they aren’t harvested immediately, the risk of wildfire is increased dramatically and subsequent fires are almost certain of being hotter and more severe due to the great increase in volume and flammability of the fuels. As predicted and as documented.
Between 2018 and 2024 the forest fuels volume in public lands increased dramatically, along with the costs, severity, extent, and mortality of our nation’s timberlands. There is a huge difference in present circumstances now than then.
And how do you pay for that really spectacular increase in acres under active management? Is there strong evidence that very large increases in recently harvested areas will result in substantial declines in regional and national fire extent and severity despite trends in increasing frequency of extreme burning conditions (weather and fuel moisture)? How frequently do treated acres need to be “re-treated” to maintain their hoped-for reduced resistance to control and “immunity” to high severity fire? What are the likely impacts to other resource values of that spectacular increase in acres under active management? Is there no limit to how much are we willing to pay for ultra-aggressive fire suppression knowing that it will lead to more severe wildfires and further amplify fuel accumulation and the impacts of climate change?
Mechanical vegetation treatments combined with prescribed fire can reduce the probability of extreme fire behavior in treated acres for a few years. It works better in some forest types than others, and in some topographic settings than others. The social benefits may exceed the high costs in some areas but not others. However, it requires an unbelievable amount of hubris to think we can solve “the wildfire crisis” with a blanket prescription of ultra-aggressive fire suppression combined with a spectacular increase in acres under active management. I wonder how forests and other pyric ecosystems persisted before our efforts to save them?
Hi Anonymous: Those are really good questions and answers vary considerably by fuel-type, ownership, topography, climate, etc. Ther main thing we learned from WW II to spotted owls is that active management almost entirely limits the majority of destructive large-scale fires. This is partly due to fuel management and related income to work with, but also the presence of good roads and trails being used regularly by experienced workers and recreationists have greatly limited the extent and severity of wildfire for decades at a time.
A real problem with all of the metrics, polygons, Latin, and acronyms crowd is that they need to homogenize the landscape in order to define “critical habitat,” the width of streamside “buffers,” and the boundaries to “roadless areas.” Pretty easy on a computer, but doesn’t work in nature. That history is obvious and well documented, but politics is more powerful than scientific research and even common sense at times.
Ah, your bias and agenda is showing again, as always. No different than Hanson, DellaSalla, etc.
Weird that you write off objective scientific, quantitative studies, for your articles in fringe magazine. But you do you. Keep expecting the same results (and funding).
Hi Anon: You know my distaste for cowardly trolls, yet you persist with your stupid insults. If you ever want to come out of hiding and discuss your problems I can meet you halfway. Otherwise, you keep revealing yourself to be an obsessive clueless idiot. Like any troll. A good Mom would have intervened long ago.
Hi Sharon: Is there a way to block this nitwit? I know we have never done it before on this blog, and maybe I’m taking it more personal because he/she/it keeps trolling me in particular and offers nothing of value in return. They have claimed to be a “scientist” (!) at one juncture, but use the grammar, vocabulary, and childish insults of a high school student. This is a 90% great discussion forum, but accepting the distractions of a documented troll does more damage to open discussion than good in my opinion.
This particular Anon (I don’t know who they are, but I can tell the Anons and Anonomyi apart) also says things that are not detrimental to specific people and I think, while I disagree with him/her/them, I continue to want to listen to them.
To that end, I will exhort them to better behavior.
At the same time, when it happens to me. I do one of these:
Ignore the person
Reply with specifics “that felt like a personal attack.”
Make fun of the comment. “yes, I know you think I am the concubine of the Sith Lord, but I still think…”
Anyway, hopefully the exhortation will work. I do think that will the general poor spirit of much online communication, it’s difficult for people to tell when they’re crossing a line.
Anon, please stick to more specific and less personal expression of your views. Thank you!
Thanks Sharon: Several/most of the Anonymous Commenters seem fine and typically contribute to a discussion or ask good questions. I’ve never seen anything of the sort from “Anon” — just snarky statements and supposedly “insider” insults anyone can develop with real people and Google. The reason I don’t ignore these trolls is because others may think this is acceptable behavior and become less likely to comment on — or even read — these discussions. I don’t believe in censorship, but separating the wheat from the chaff would be good, if possible.
Your statement that “active management almost entirely limits the majority of destructive large-scale fires” is nonsense.
According to who? Anyone can criticize a statement out of context, but they usually have a name in order to be credible. Here is the entire statement you have cherry-picked of WHAT (fewer major wildfires) and WHEN (1946-1990) we LEARNED (clearly demonstrated and documented) this lesson:
“The main thing we learned from WW II to spotted owls is that active management almost entirely limits the majority of destructive large-scale fires.”
Question: Are you the latest iteration of the troll “Anon?” The selective quote and the cowardly insult are hallmarks of his style. If you are someone else, please stop, or at least come out of hiding and be responsible for your opinions.
Here is research that appears to contradict that statement: https://esajournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/fee.2499
“We found that where fires occurred, the odds of high-severity fire on “private industrial” lands were 1.8 times greater than on “public” lands.”
Your turn.
That’s a great paper to look into further, let’s make a placeholder for that.
Hi Jon: The key word is “where.” Almost all of the major fires in the Pacific Northwest since WW II have occurred on federal land, not industrial. Also, in my instance, I am far (far) more interested in mortality than someone’s interpretation of relative “severities.” To me, the historical standard of “mortality” is far more useful. Death is the worst-case scenario, not an artificial gradient.
Ok, here’s a partly FS-funded report on the 2020 PNW fires: https://esajournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ecs2.4070
“We found minimal difference in burn severity among stand structural types related to previous management in the 2020 fires.”
You’ll have to explain why “severity” (which includes mortality and seems to be a preferred measure by fire and forest ecologists) is less relevant than mortality alone (to whatever point you are making). https://www.nwfirescience.org/sites/default/files/publications/Fire%20Severity.pdf
Hi Jon: As a certified “forest ecologist” myself, I can say that definitions and interpretations of relative “severity” following a fire can be extremely variable, depending entirely on the individual(s) defining and mapping this condition. And what is it good for? Post mortem analysis by a handful of individuals for what purpose? And it has close to zero value for informing the public — but everyone knows what mortality means and can readily tell what it infers regarding past management actions. Also, note that these experts found “minimal differences” between the fires despite constructing this perspective. I’m guessing lots of Latin, acronyms, and metrics were also used in this process because it is “science” meant for a chosen audience, and not the voters. Skeptical opinion based on experience and academic research.
About one third of the area burned in the Caldor fire had been subject to regen harvest in the last 2-3 decades.
https://bloximages.chicago2.vip.townnews.com/sfexaminer.com/content/tncms/assets/v3/editorial/e/3f/e3f2d3c3-b081-5d4b-a0d8-821cf77df2c6/628e67f0d73ba.image.jpg?resize=1024%2C595
The areas within the Caldor Fire footprint have been ‘managed’ in many different ways, partly due to the checker-boarded land ownership pattern. SPI mostly ‘managed’ by clearcuts. The Forest Service has been doing CASPO-compliant thinning-from-below projects since 1992. From 1989 to 1992, we logged 300 million board feet of insect salvage, over a high percentage of that Caldor Fire footprint. The Placerville RD has always had an aggressive timber program, with the current ASQ being 1/13th of what it was in 1988.
You cannot make too many conclusions about the Caldor Fire, without factoring in all the mortality that didn’t get cut. With all the unique variables in play, those conclusions can’t really be applied to other forests.
My last career thinning project was along the SE fireline, and a ‘slop-over’ was contained in one of the thinned units.
*“science” meant for a chosen audience, and not the voters.*
I thought that audience was future decision-makers, but we’re out of space here, and maybe Sharon would like run with this question ……..
Success can be measured in other ways. Sticking with baseball, Ted Williams had a great eye at the plate, and drew lots of walks, getting on base at a .482 On Base Percentage. One could also include those times when his outs ‘advanced the runner’, but still counted against him, in his statistics. There were more ‘measures of success’ that could be applied to his career. Ironically, in the prime of his career, he had to serve in the military.
Few outside of the Forest Service can see the ‘successes’ of the Agency, but many appear to be ‘buried in the stats’. Resilience is difficult to quantify, but it is there, where proper active management was completed.
This line of reasoning should appeal to a very limited audience – one that accepts a scientific position that this is “an older climate cycle we are within,” and one that thinks “the conservation mission created by Gifford Pinchot” has any relevance today to the extent that it differs from the statutory mission and framework in current laws.
Hi Jon: You are exactly right. The mass media isn’t buying this, and most of the general public has no idea who Gifford Pinchot is or was. It is only intended for a very limited audience of folks in a position to do something about it. The new administration is the very type of limited audience who might be interested in these perspectives and able to take action if they think it is warranted. Remember what Einstein said about “only needing one” person to disprove a theory. Still true.