
Here’s what soon-to-be Prez Trump said in a tweet..
I am pleased to announce that Michael Boren will serve as the United States Under Secretary for Natural Resources and Environment at the Department of Agriculture.
Michael is a successful businessman, who has founded six companies, including Clearwater Analytics. He has also served as a volunteer fireman for Sawtooth Valley Rural Fire Department, and as a board member of the Idaho Department of Parks and Recreation.
Michael will work to reinvigorate Forest Management at a time when it is desperately needed.
I checked here, some of us remember NRE having NRCS and the FS, it looks like right now it’s just the FS.
Boren seems to be an unusual choice from a historic perspective.
Just from my memory, there was Jim Lyons, Clinton Admin, from the Hill.
There was Mark Rey, Bush Admin, from the Hill (and prior from NFPA, the precursor to AF&PA, if I remember correctly).
One of my personal faves was Harris Sherman during the Obama Administration.
Here’s his background from an old EPA site.
Harris Sherman is the Under Secretary for Natural Resources and Environment at USDA. As Under Secretary, he oversees the United States Forest Service and the Natural Resources Conservation Service.
Before joining USDA, Sherman served from 2007 until 2009, as the Executive Director of Colorados Department of Natural Resources, under Governor Bill Ritter where he oversaw Colorados water, energy, wildlife, parks, forestry, and state lands programs. Previously, at an earlier point in his career, he was Colorados DNR Director under Governor Richard Lamm. Sherman has also served as Chairman of the Colorado Oil & Gas Commission, Commissioner of Mines, Chair of the Colorado Water Quality Control Commission, and Chair of the Denver Regional Air Quality Council.
Between his two stints as Department of Natural Resources Director, Sherman was the Managing Partner of the Denver Office of Arnold & Porter, an international law firm, where he specialized in natural resources, water, energy, public lands, and American Indian law. He has served on a wide variety of public and non-profit boards including the Denver Water Board, the National Advisory Board for Trust for Public Land, the Nature Conservancy, and Colorado College.
Robert Bonnie was also Undersec during the Obama Admin. Here’s his Wikipedia page.
Then under Trump 1.0, another Coloradan, Jim Hubbard, who also had a terrific wildfire background.
James (“Jim”) Hubbard worked for the Colorado Forest Service for 35 years, serving as State Forester for the final 20 of those years (1984-2004). During his two decades as State Forester, Jim served on every NASF Committee, most notably as Chair of the Legislative Committee for 10 years.
In 2004, Hubbard accepted a position as Director of the Office of Wildland Fire Coordination for the United States Department of the Interior. In January 2006, Mr. Hubbard was appointed Deputy Chief for State and Private Forestry at the USDA Forest Service (USFS). During his time with the agency, Hubbard guided the agency through years of catastrophic wildfire incidents and worked closely with State Foresters to promote a comprehensive, landscape-scale approach to forest management. In 2011, he was the recipient of the NASF Lifetime Achievement Award.
We wrote about him here on TSW at the time, and the above quote is from NASF (National Association of State Foresters)
In the Biden Admin, Homer Wilke was a career person from NRCS (even though NRCS is in a different mission area. Sec. Vilsack said in his appointment that he hoped Wilkes’ selection would lead to greater integration between NRCS and the FS, which makes sense.
So yes, Boren is very different in his prior experience in federal lands and forest issues, and government.
So far, this is what we’ve gotten on him. Here’s the Idaho Capital Sun view of the lawsuits he’s involved in.
Boren has been involved in several lawsuits related to a private airstrip he owns near Stanley, in south central Idaho. In 2023, he appealed a local judge’s dismissal of his defamation lawsuit against four critics of his airstrip, the Idaho Mountain Express reported.
Clearwater Analytics, based in Boise, has about 1,900 employees with offices in eight countries, according to the company’s website.
Here’s what Clearwater Analytics does. It’s investment accounting and reporting software.
Here’s his bio at Clearwater Advisors:
Michael Boren
Mike’s career in fixed income investment management, consulting, and analysis began in 1984 when he was appointed director of research at The Geldermann Group, a division of ConAgra. In 1986 Mike started an independent brokerage firm specializing in institutional brokerage of arbitrage and relative value transactions involving futures, spot and forward markets. In 1995, Mike and David Boren founded Sawtooth Investment Management, an investment advisor specializing in limited risk and relative value fixed income investment strategies. In 2001, he partnered to form Clearwater Analytics, an investment and accounting reporting software as a service company. Throughout his career, Mike has focused on providing superior investment advice and innovative financial services to sophisticated institutional clients.
Well, he seems like a money person, and the FS needs money, and apparently needs to manage what it has better to avoid large deficits, so there’s that.
So it appears until we find out more, that he will bring less experience in our field. But sometimes people think that that’s a good thing, as in a “fresh set of eyes.” Then there’s those folks who believe a “good leader” can lead any kind of organization.
In my experience, there can also be deputy undersecretaries that do much of the policy heavy lifting; there can also be “special advisors” to the Secretary who may have greater influence than the Undersecretary. As we saw in the Biden Admin, folks in the White House or CEQ could even be calling the shots. We’ll have to wait and see how the Department complex of decision-makers and influencers develops.
I think it’s safe to say that his learning curve is likely to be steep.
If I missed something, please put it in the comments. Also I know many FS employees worked as liaisons with NRE. It would be terrific if someone would write about their experiences, what went on at NRE when you were there. What was your day like? What surprised you? And so on.
Finally, this is not the place for generic “every R is bad, and therefore everything that anyone in Trump 2.0 does will be bad”; there are enough other places on the internet for that.
Great pick, for the reasons listed; too many wall flies from past Administration’s that most likely would not be the “spark” needed….
Full speed ahead!
Republicans always underestimate the opposition in Forest Service issues. This ‘businessman’ will be playing with his 2D spreadsheets, while the 3D world of Government Agencies and court battles will stymie their desire to go back to the 80s-style of “forest management”. He might just have less than 2 years to get done what Republicans want, despite existing rules, laws, policies, funding and Congressional gridlock.
Then again, maybe he is there to destroy the Agency, returning control back to the States, and splitting up the ‘booty’.
Larry, I spent a great deal of time last year in independent political space. I don’t think that there is a clear consensus on “what Republicans want” because the people who joined up with Trump this time are not traditional Republicans. I’m also dubious that a person who made his wealth in financial stuff is necessarily tied to “80’s style forest management.” This is a new bunch and we’ll see how they balance the diverse ideas within the new Admin, and what they pick to focus on.
Just look at Project 2025. There ARE high-level Republicans who want all of the forestry stuff. Some of those insist that ‘America’ has a divine right to use those natural resources, for our benefit. So many things would have to go right in the courts for the Project 2025 forestry goals to come true. Some people want the term “Active Forest Management” to be very flexible and plastic enough to be profitable. Will “Selective Logging” be a fancy name for “Overstory Removal”?
I expect that we will see an “Emergency Declaration” and a suspension of environmental laws, while at the same time, any response to that ’emergency’ MUST be profitable. (See where I’m going?)
#EnvironmentalInsurrection
Hi Larry: What’s wrong with making a profit while managing a resource? Tax money going into the treasury for schools, parks, Medicare, whatever — instead of taxpayers footing the bill to “fight” wildfires and for nonprofits to do “stewardship” busy work?
With profit motives to clean up the mess left by these wildfires and to actually protect our remaining old-growth and maintain our roads and trails, a lot more necessary work will take place. Keep depending on Congress to foot the bill and this is what we get — clearly predicted and totally unnecessary.
“Active management” means boots on the ground and maintenance of our forests for the safety and benefit of all citizens, wildlife, clean air, and clean water. If a profit can be made during this process (impossible, probably, in many NFs), so much the better.
What’s wrong with making a profit while managing a
resource’emergency’?There, I fixed it for you.
Is there any kind of ’emergency’ situation that has cutting old growth (and abusing other environmental laws) as a ‘solution’? I do think that some people intend exactly that. Remember when Representative McClintock proposed a bill that would allow Rim Fire salvage logging inside Yosemite National Park, without any environmental rules? (Yes, he did get some supporters to sign on to it, too.)
Hi Larry: I guess I’m curious why you think declaring an emergency or adopting “active management” somehow translate to “cutting old-growth?” I would say that the emergency is all of the old-growth and wildlife that are being lost by the hundreds of thousands of acres in these predictable and largely avoidable wildfires and reburns. So far as “abusing environmental laws,” I think we’ve witnessed way too much of that by the environmental industry and their legal reps (paid for by taxpayers) the past 35 years. Total abuse, and our National Forests and adjacent communities have been paying the price for this needless destruction. Opinion based on observation and documentation.
They want to cut more old growth, to make the coming emergency declaration a profitable activity. It’s like ‘backwards engineering’. It’s ‘circular logic’.
1) People want to cut more timber (with more ‘active forest management’)
2) People can’t cut more lucrative timber because of environmental laws.
3) Government uses a dubious ’emergency declaration’ to suspend those laws.
4) Emergency solution isn’t profitable.
5) Can now cut large profitable trees, because environmental laws are suspended and funding from Congress is minimal.
6) National (economic) security is enhanced. Emergency is over.
Hi Larry: You can grown a “large, profitable tree” in the south in about 30 years, and here in western Oregon in about 40 or 50 years. Those aren’t anywhere close to “old-growth.” The last two articles I posted here showed examples of the tens of thousands of large, profitable trees that are competing directly with old-growth and are creating potential for deadly crown fires. Here’s a video I did on the topic 20 years ago: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LcG-tNw6_2o
Soooooo, if we have ‘the science’ on our side (and we do!), WHY would we need an ’emergency declaration’ to thin our forests? Timber sales don’t need to cut those trees that are “mature” to make them profitable. This desire to separate mature trees from old growth (and cut them) isn’t required by ‘the science’.
We should bypass the word games and bogus definitions. Thinning from below can be profitable AND supported by legitimate science. We shouldn’t be trusting GS-3s to decide whether a tree is “old growth”, or just a very large mature tree. Hell, even experienced people have trouble with those decisions.
Larry: We are in agreement! I ask the same question: “Why would we need an emergency declaration to cut trees?”
The apparent “reason” is the myriad of laws and regulations that have continued to snowball when it comes to the management of our public forests. Local people with local knowledge should be the ones making decisions on how our forests are managed — just like in previous thousands of years. Centralized government management has a sordid past and no real success stories — just ask Lysenko.
Imagine if many dozens of laws were suddenly instantly suspended, because half the politicians didn’t like them. Is that “Democracy”? I think that Congress MUST go through established process to change laws that the majority party doesn’t like. A disaster declaration won’t hold up in the courts. PERIOD.
But if Republicans want to pursue a dead end attempt at circumventing laws, I’m sure the Appeals Courts will be waiting with a fat TRO. (and another… and another…. and another… and another) Is this eventuality worth the risk, with the Republicans’ false claims of “emergency” notwithstanding? Do you want to risk waiting for months or even a year, before this will reach the Ninth Circuit Court? Reality Happens!
I sure hope you are right! The ‘Let it burn’ policy of the current FS admin needs to stop NOW! Why in the h*ll is it better to burn our forests to the ground rather than log, graze and thin them into healthy stands that don’t scorch the earth, and release millions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere while burning? Do you consider the millions of wild animals that perish in these horrific fires?
I’m not talking of California now. I’m talking about the Salmon Challis National Forest fire two years ago and the Bitterroot fire three years ago. Hundreds of thousands of acres scorched and nothing but black still. Grizzlies, wolves, elk, deer, rabbits, birds, squirls, all gone. Streams ruined from the black sludge pouring into them still, choking out salmon and steelhead. It’s criminal.
I pray a new face will change the FS’s ‘let it burn’ stance.
I’m also not a fan of letting forests burn, for dubious “resource benefits”. However, it is more complicated than that. Would you, personally, be OK with ordering dozens of people to ‘attack’ a raging firestorm, head-on? The ‘safety card’ seems to be used more and more, as a reason to use the “big box” method, instead. The dangers of firefighting are much riskier, these days, with so many dead trees around, and an abundance of flashy fuels. I may not like every safety decision, but I’m not the decision-maker.
I’m a realist about all this. The reality is that when some areas ignite, the fires will not be able to be safely fought, directly. However, it is my opinion that during the peak three months of fire season, all “Let-Burn” fires should be banned. I have a concern that our fire suppression resources are very limited, during that busy time of year. We can’t have fire crews sitting on a “Let Burn” fire, in the middle of summer. Another reality is that, even in a ‘managed forest’, wildfires can race through at high speed, if it has wind behind it. For me, it depends upon conditions, during the other nine months of the year. If it is November, and the woods are wet, yes, we can let it burn, with firefighters working it.
What did all the wildlife, salmon, and streams do before people arrived?
Those fires were due to lightning. Why didn’t everything evaporate and fall into abject disrepair then, never to recover?
https://www.idahostatesman.com/outdoors/hiking/article258923758.html
“In 2020, the Forest Service requested a restraining order against Boren and his brother, Michael Boren, after the pair reportedly used Michael Boren’s helicopter to hover over a construction crew working on the trail.”
Idaho businessman gets role in Trump administration overseeing agency he clashed with
https://www.idahostatesman.com/news/politics-government/national-politics/article298700443.html
HI Sharon. I live in Hailey Idaho and am sort of a “neighbor” to Michael and David Boren, both who own inholdings in the Sawtooth National Recreation Area and have a track record of tangling with the Forest Service and local officials over private use of public lands. I need to review that track record but unfortunately can’t get past paywall of your reference or other newspapers I wanted to check (Idaho Statesman, Mountain Express). I have reached out to a friend of mine, a former Blaine County commissioner who is one of several local officials who were targeted by Michael Boren in defamation lawsuits apparently aimed to discourage and bankrupt those who stood against his attempts to use public lands for private activities. (Conservative Custer County commission allowed Boren a private airstrip on SNRA). I will have further comments when I get my facts straight and possibly some of the skinny behind Trump’s choice of this Boise businessman. Not sure Boren has any natural resources or public service background. More latter.
Yes, if you could dig into this more..that would be greatly appreciated! Apparently he/they have inholdings. I got lost (as usual) in some descriptions of the lawsuits including whether it counted as SLAPP or not.
Michael and David Boren are partners in Boise company Clearwater Analytics as been mentioned in previous media accounts. David owns Sawtooth Mountain Ranch near Stanley and Michael owns Hell Roaring Ranch which I can’t find on map but should be near Hell Roaring Lake in the Sawtooth Wilderness. Sawtooth Mtn Ranch is advertised online as a guest ranch. Hell Roaring Ranch has a $1.1 millionaircraft hangar. Both ranches inholdings within the Sawtooth National Recreation Area. To my understanding Boren’s lawsuit against Blaine County officials, recreation business owners in Kethcum and several individuals who protested the air strip and appealed to Custer County Commissioners (commission turned down the appeal) was a SLAPP. I will summarize more details later.
Maps are good…here’s one
https://boisedev.com/news/2021/03/25/boren-stanley-airstrip/
Apparently the hangar was built with Fox Blocks.
https://www.foxblocks.com/case-studies/hell-roaring-ranch-air-hangar
There’s a photo of in in the link above.
https://www.mtexpress.com/news/blaine_county/sawtooth-valley-ranch-owner-michael-boren-sues-county-commissioner-others-in-defamation-lawsuit/article_beb83f48-e839-11ec-b30f-c34c441b8470.html
It appears Mr. Bowen is not a supporter of public involvement in government decision-making. He filed a SLAPP (strategic lawsuit against public participation) lawsuit to silence critics of his request for a permit for an airstrip on his 480-acre ranch within the Sawtooth National Recreation Area.
https://www.mtexpress.com/news/blaine_county/sawtooth-valley-ranch-owner-michael-boren-sues-county-commissioner-others-in-defamation-lawsuit/article_beb83f48-e839-11ec-b30f-c34c441b8470.html
https://www.idahostatesman.com/news/local/environment/article296814469.html
Somehow, I suspect his land management philosophy might not be entirely consistent with “Caring for the Land and Serving People.”
Well, I’m not defending him, but I followed the Steyn vs. Mann libel lawsuit and whoa, was that complicated as to what needed to be proven, but Mann won and no one accused it of being a SLAPP suit. So that’s my only defamation court experience.
https://firstamendment.mtsu.edu/post/jury-awards-climate-scientist-mann-1-million-in-defamation-lawsuit/
When you “do” Hill visits, or brief on elements of Forest Plans you interact and brief with the Undersecretary for NRE (Natural Resources and Environment). Sometimes, Deputy Undersecretary’s sit in, sometimes Ag staff join and sometimes it’s just one on one.
My experiences were always positive, but some were luck of the draw positive. As you can see, Environmental Defense Fund and Wilderness Society reps were housed in the Undersecretary’s staff area. Some were Deputy Undersecretary’s, and you had to plan on those in attendance.
Sometimes, you talked about Forest Plan issues, why there is not enough Wilderness recommended, why is your “cut” lower (I never had that chat 🤣) or sometimes you talked about something you never even dreamed of…. The whole time period – shooting the breeze about something not even close to NF management.
So to the folks whose hair is on fire, it’ll be alright! Having someone who has stood toe to toe against the bureaucracy will be a plus for most Americans!
Ha, that reminds me of going in to see Mark Rey with either a draft GMUG plan or an oil and gas leasing decision. It reduced O&G acres, and I remember him saying “I just don’t want to get a call from (then-VP) Dick Cheney.”
I can’t find the comment now, but someone mentioned sympathy for Michael Boren
“standing toe to toe against the bureaucracy.” I don’t want to get into the favorite “managmenet” versus preservation issue” but I do want to clarify something based on the 50 year history of Sawtooth National Recreation Area (SNRA). In his actions Michael Boren was not “standing against the bureaucracy.” The Custer County Commission approved his application for a conditional use permit for his airstrip and hangar on his property located on a scenic easement within the Sawtooth National Recreation Area. The Forest Supervisor who oversees SNRA did not object to the permit. However some residents of Blaine County did. An outdoors business owner in Ketchum wrote an op-ed in the Mountain Express opposing the “illegal airport.” A citizen group called Advocates for the Sawtooth NRA filed a written appeal to Custer County claiming (among other things) that the airstrip facilities violated federal regulations including Clean Water Act and Endangered Species Act. Blaine County Commissioners supported this appeal (but had no jurisdiction over the airstrip decision). Custer County commissioners denied the group’s appeal.
Boren subsequently sued four individuals who led the opposition along with a group of 20 unnamed defendants who were part of the Advocates group, claiming he was defamed by the efforts. A district court twice dismissed the lawsuit and found that opposing the airstrip was protected free speech. The judge said the lawsuit “was typical of SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) brought by wealthy individuals…as a way of chilling future opposition and crippling their opponents with legal bills.” Boren’s attorney then appealed to the Idaho Supreme Court which just this year dismissed the lawsuit. One of the defendants started a Go Fund Me site to help her pay legal bills.
I live in Blaine County, which encompasses much of the SNRA (Boren’s ranch is near Stanley in adjacent Custer County). The SNRA was created in 1972 to “assure the preservation and protection of the natural, scenic, historic, pastoral, and fish and wildlife values, and to provide for the enhancement of recreational values associated therewith.” According to a Sawtooth National Forest’s publication on private land ownership, Congress’ intent was to prevent (https://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb5211589.pdf development of high density subdivisions that were growing between Stanley and Sawtooth City. The law authorized Forest Service to acquire land and development rights to preserve SNRA values. Between 1974 and 2005, the Forest Service bought about 5900 acres with most structures removed; in same period, Forest Service acquired 91 scenic easements on about 17,000 acres; 85 percent of the total private land base in the SNRA. The scenic easement allows land to remain in private ownership but protects SNRA values. The Forest Service negotiates with the landowner to purchase right to permanently restrict certain use of a property. Hell Roaring Ranch owned by Michael Boren and Sawtooth Mountain Ranch owned by his brother David are on scenic easements within the SNRA. My point is, many local residents feel strongly about the purposes of the SNRA and will oppose developments they see as threats to those purposes. Sorry to go policy wonk on you, Sharon, but SNRA is one of several NF experiments in public-private land management and many residents are sensitive to keeping that balance! My spouse David Chojnacky is an Idaho native with a 60-year history of hiking and fishing this area, definitely his favorite place in the universe.
HI, sorry to post again. In doing further reading, I found out a statement in my last post was incorrect. The Idaho Supreme Court DID NOT dismiss Boren’s defamation suit. According to the Challis Messenger Dec. 29 (https://www.postregister.com/messenger/news/supreme-court-rules-in-boren-civil-case/article_b494c93e-b8e1-11ef-8e75-4b2f890243f8.html) the Idaho Supreme Court issued a divided ruling Dec. 6 in a civil lawsuit filed by Mike Boren claiming he was defamed by Blaine County individuals. The justices affirmed the district court ruling in part, reversed it in part and remanded part of the issue back to the district court. The high court declined to award any party any costs.
The Supreme Court determined that the district court did err in dismissing most of Boren’s defamation allegations “because the applicability of the litigation privilege is not evident, … and the First Amendment’s petitioning clause does not provide absolute immunity from defamation claims,” the high court’s staff summary of the matter states.
Sorry for misreading another post.
No apologies needed. My understanding of defamation (at least from the Steyn-Mann case) was that plaintiffs needed to prove that the defamer knew they were wrong, and that it cost the plaintiff something, and that the defamers had malicious intent, or some such tests. Maybe the lawyers here can summarize.
After 20 years, I can barely understand the legal intricacies of our own FS cases.
Anyway, I think it would be very interesting if you were to write a guest post on the SNRA and its unique features.. what is a National Recreation Area anyway? Most of us are familiar with ACECs, Monuments and so on that are mostly federal with some inholdings. Do inholders have different requirements in SNRA?
It looks like some folks are against airstrips and cell towers..and the cumulative effects, but it looks like the airstrip is next to a road.
https://boisedev.com/news/2021/03/25/boren-stanley-airstrip/
Maybe a map would be helpful of how large the SNRA is. Also if the intent were to prevent high-density subdivisions.. what exactly are the terms in the legislation?
Thanks!
I’d be interested in it too Sharon, the only thing that I question is it smells like a “taking”; reducing the rights of private ownership (within reason of local zoning laws). I’ve been on both sides of issues with private lands in, or adjacent to federal lands, and resolution of conflicts are slower than a snails pace. Unless a US Senator is involved, then it’s lightning fast – a true and funny story about a church’s land exchange and a cringing Forest Sup (not me, I was the Ranger at the time),,,,,🤣
Do tell.. funny is always good! You don’t have to mention the Sup’s name..
The scenic easements on the private land were not a taking if they were negotiated with the landowner. Presumably they were paid a fair value. These were either Borens’ decisions or they were aware that the prior owner had done so.
Fits the new R mold – wealthy tech bros that like to throw their weight/money around. Their goal in government is less government, not good government, so that doesn’t require any understanding of the agencies they are in change of.
Hmm. Like Jay Bhattachariya? Or RFK, Jr.? Or Tulsi Gabbard?
How about Chris Wright compared to Jennifer Granholm? I think it’s a bit more complicated than that, especially when nominees were Ds until last year.
Today’s news: https://www.mtexpress.com/news/state_regional/trump-taps-michael-boren-to-lead-forest-service-nrcs/article_cbed6070-d9d2-11ef-beb9-7f499e13009b.html
This also made me wonder about Brooke Rollins, the nominee for Secretary of Agriculture. Here’s her opening statement in the Senate confirmation hearing, where she only mentions the Forest Service in an aside about the California Fires.
https://americafirstpolicy.com/issues/brooke-rollins-senate-confirmation-opening-statement-22-january-2025