As became clear by Human Assisted AI in yesterday’s comments, it seems like there are quite a few Forest and Grassland organizations that cross State lines. I thought I’d share some of my experiences with that.
My Stories
The Fremont and Winema (separate, when I was there) vs. neigbhoring R-5 forests. Timber (as a geneticist, that was my department) was vastly different between the Fremont and the Modoc. This was the 80’s. Not sure exactly why, but we had many more roads and our reforestation and tree improvement programs were more substantial. My first mentor was a fellow named John Nesbitt, who told me there were two pieces of info I needed to know for my new job. First he drew a forest with a crown on it.. “in Region 6, timber is king”; then he drew a map of the Region and pointed out how far we were from the RO “the RO exists but it’s very far away.” Was the difference simply due to investment priorities of folks in San Fran (then) and Portland? Or due to real value differences of people in Alturas versus Lakeview? Hard to tell. Of course the 80’s were almost 50 years ago..
Region 2
So at one time (not suprisingly) the R-4 planning director and I did not share views on how plan revisions should be conducted. This wouldn’t have mattered except the BT is in Wyoming and so is the Shoshone. In fact, they are adjacent. If there’s anything worse than plan revisions, it would be having to deal with two RO’s with different worldviews in the same state, at close to the same time. Sure we could have “coordinated” better, I guess, but my peer didn’t seem amenable to that.
I remember the Governor of Wyoming had an annual meeting at the time with all the Forest Supes. At the one I attended, he quizzed them all on projects they were working on with the State. Certainly that wouldn’t have happened in California or Colorado.
We used to have “State coordinators” which were positions intended to coordinate with each State and they worked well.. except sometimes there was tension because the Supes wanted their own relationships with key people in the State. Then we also had states without state coordinators, where it seemed like the Supe (South Dakota) or the Ranger (Cimarron Grassland) also dealt with the State (Kansas).
Now, you may wonder how the national forest folks in those states worked with the R&D and State and Tribal Forestry folks.. (along the lines of Michael Rains’ ideas of One Forest Service) and the answer is… I don’t know.
*******
What are your stories about working with different States? What worked well and what didn’t?
I also began my career on the Winema, only in 1967. I’m sure we have recollections of common co-workers from those early days. I also worked with John.
I worked on the Medicine Bow-Routt NF for 21 years and transferred out in 2000.
I was there for the merger.
My experience combining Forests was with the merger of the Medicine Bow NF in Wyoming with the Routt NF in Colorado. Most of us on the.Med Bow considered the shotgun marriage a total disaster from the reception onward. The combined Forest stretches from NE Wyoming to central Colorado.
The combining occurred when the FS of the Med Bow retired and R-2 thought the Region could save big bucks by having one group of Forest Staff personnel instead of two. So, we still kept two Supervisor Offices, one in Steamboat Springs and another in Laramie. The various Resource were split between the two offices. To get everyone together, half the people had to drive over 100 miles, over 2 mountain passes. Real fun in the winter. Put a lot of highway miles on the fleet
To get approval from Congressional Delegations for the merger, the RO promised to keep the primary Supervisor’s Office located in Laramie and the new Forest Supervisor would be the current Supervisor from the Routt. What made the Med Bow employees upset was that it took well more two years for the FS to actually move themselves and their physical office to Laramie. This was a promise which took too long to full-fill.
Other problems included reporting requirements. All reports had to separate data by State so they could move up the report chain. Took a lot of extra time and effort. There was a lot sub-staff functions which were never merged such fleet management, fire dispatch, service contracting, and road maintenance. Budget & Finance still maintained two offices, staffed the same but just one less staff officer. Eventually, fire dispatch was moved to the BLM in Casper, WY. (Just look at the Laramie RD to see what that accomplished!)
Now it’s been more than 30 years since the merger and hopefully things are better. I don’t have many good memories of the merger but the people on both Forests were fantastic and and did their best to make a bad situation work.
Just another case of management not listening to their employees.
Dave
I was on the Fre-Wi a few years ago and they also had two SOs, one difficult to attract people to, and much driving back and forth (across two passes, although Duck Duck Go AI doesn’t seem to think so..)
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=how+many+passes+between+lakeview+and+klamath+falls+oregon&ia=web
I understand why Lakeview wants to keep people there.
Here I go with recreation again. When R-1 created a directive to exclude non-conforming uses from Recommended Wilderness, R-4 didn’t follow. This created a rift with those in the Idaho Panhandle who lost access to backcountry areas and those in the rest of Idaho, who did not lose access to backcountry RWAs. As Montana closed access they realized that shared trails, in places, couldnt be easily closed as the Idaho portions were managed more permissively. Even under the 2012 Planning Rule, closures have been optional with some regions embracing closures and others not so. Is this what you were looking for? (Its not timber management)
Yes, all these things are what I was looking for..
An example of how an RO can’t coordinate adjacent forests in the same region (R1) but different states. Too much state influence already.
The Legion Lake Fire represented strategic failures by Black Hills Energy, the State of South Dakota, Game, Fish and Parks and the South Dakota Republican Party. The absence of prescribed burns and the persistence of invasive cheatgrass in the state park named for a war criminal are just two more examples of poor planning by GFP. Instead of allowing native aspen to be restored stands of doghair ponderosa pine that grew after the Galena Fire feed current blazes. Just as the State of South Dakota sued Black Hills Power and Light after the Grizzly Gulch Fire Black Hills Energy should have sued the sh!t out of South Dakota for the Legion Lake Fire for not letting crews cut ladder fuels in a right of way under a power line.
Since 2013 alone at least 41 fires in the Black Hills region have been caused by trees falling on transmission lines because my home state of South Dakota is a perpetual welfare state and a permanent disaster area. Counties should be able to fine property owners who fail to create defensible space or clear dry fuels. Well-funded local and volunteer fire departments could conduct prescribed fires and burn road ditches to create buffers where contract fire specialists don’t exist. But even government can’t always protect you from your own stupidity. Roughly 4 million trees stand close enough to Black Hills Electric Cooperative lines to potentially cause damage and high wind events in the region frequently causing trees to fall so an interim governor can beg DC for bailouts for utilities.
Millions of home insurance contracts have been dropped as companies like State Farm and lobbyists like the American Property Casualty Insurance Association acknowledge humanity’s role in a burning planet. Now, as utilities scramble to avoid liability for wildfires, insurance companies are bilking homeowners and denying coverage interfering with mortgages, real estate values and property ownership.
https://www.sdpb.org/politics/2026-01-27/utility-wildfire-mitigation-bill-could-raise-bar-of-proof-for-landowners-in-lawsuits