I wanted to double back and let retirees to catch up… Dale pointed out in a comment that the FS doesn’t use “charge as worked” either.
I keep seeing reference to “charge as worked” in this and other recent posts. I don’t know about BLM and other DOI agencies, but the USFS essentially dropped project or resource job codes five or more years ago. When that change happened and before retiring from FS less than 2 years ago, basically all non-fire employees (including timber) charged their time to one job code – NFSE (the SE was for “salary and expenditures”). Funding for equipment and to pay for contracts still may have used resource specific job codes, but that was very minimal for shops like wildlife. For example, as a wildlife biologist (or for other resource specialists) I no longer was given or had to track multiple job codes from timber, fuels, lands, recreation, special use/permits, etc. for project support/NEPA analysis work and how many hours I charged to each. All my time was charged to NFSE on my timesheet (with minor exceptions), no matter what projects I worked on. Another huge funding bucket for a time anyway were special job codes from the “Wildfire Crisis” money bucket. Fire folks may have had a different code, and I think there still may have been timber budget line items to track payment to contractors for timber contracts, for example, or special codes for external project proponents. This greatly simplified everyone’s timesheets and resulted in every permanent full-time employee having 261 days of funding at the start of the fiscal year, versus the annual paper funding chase of permanent full-time (PFT) employees not being “fully funded” because line officers and supervisors would not ensure that the mix of job codes would add up to or fully fund PFT employees at fiscal year start.
I mention this also because it seems, even though the USWFS Chief seems to be saying above (and others have said the same thing in other TSW posts) that fuels planners under a USWFS model would not change chairs or locations for working on NEPA approvals with agency interdisciplinary teams. But if they are essentially part of another organization (USWFS) versus BLM (or USFS if they are merged in to a USWFS at some point), they would be in a different org and chain of command, funding requests and time requests would need to be made and approved between the 2 orgs, etc. creating unnecessary inefficiencies it would seem to me.
It sounds like the FS can’t report to Congress by program code? I don’t think we want feds to bill their time in 15 minute segments, but maybe there is an explainer out there for how the budget is tracked? Some of us are interested in reforestation, and others recreation, and so on. Not to speak of tracking via grantees’ work. We must be missing something in reporting and accountability.
I think Dale raises an interesting point about two organizations coordinating time. Like I have said, there’s probably someone in the bowels of the Interior building who has all the details figured out. But this goes back to Service First.. they managed to have BLM and USDA fund the same people. And they seemed to think it worked better, because they jointly were able to afford specialists that they couldn’t afford separately (if I recall correctly). Even when I began my career, we had area specialists and our workplans were coordinated among our four forests. The Supes negotiated it- it didn’t seem like it was a big deal, except competition for the Area Ecologists’ time required some horsetrading.
Oops. The last post (comms problems) was number III of discussing the Fennessey interview, and this one is actually IV, and the final one in the series.
I said, well, in many cases, and I’ll just speak about the DOI, it’s a culture of no, you know? And when you ask, well, why not? It’s like we have no money. And that’s not true. That’s not true. It’s all about priorities. And I think when you go through a career, maybe for decades, where the answer is always no, why would I surface any new idea? Why would I step forward and do anything? All they’re going to do is say no, and they’re going to say there’s no money for it. That’s not true.
When I moved from Region 6 to Region 5, I noticed that the Forest Service trucks were dirty where I was. When I asked why, they said “we don’t have the money”, implying that Region 6 could have clean trucks because they had more money. So as Fennessey points out, even in my own non-fire experience, culture is a thing. But back to the “culture of no.”
I’d add something, again, from my experience. It’s not just a “culture of no” but at least these three things (and you can add your own). First, so many people all have to agree to change anything important. I think of it as a long line of toggle switches that all need to be switched on. Only one “off” means that your idea goes nowhere. And with the large centralized shops (say IT or HR) you don’t have the human relationships with the folks working there to give them the encouragement to broach a new idea with their superiors.
Second is a culture (this is FS, I don’t know about Interior) in which trying to make things better can be seen as complaining. And complaining about things that can’t be changed (see 1 above) is bad for morale. I used to say (back to the fleet analogy,) that the culture was if you complain about the tire pressure, you might be put in charge of fleet management. So there was a grumbling aspect (not good for teams) plus a “you point it out, you fix it” aspect.
Third is the existence of “antibodies to change.” If you managed to get past 1 and 2, there is a tendency to go back to the way it was, and again, it only takes one person higher up to squash your innovation.
My example has to do with Service First on the San Juan Public Lands Center. As I recall, the Forest Service and BLM there used dual delegation of the Forest Supe and Deputy (Mark Stiles and Bill Dunkelberger). At one time, we were going to do a joint RMP/Forest Plan (this was finalized in 2013) , and we did do a joint review of the unit between BLM and the FS (I was one of the co-leads, hence my knowledge). As part of the review, we spoke with many members of the public, who were all enthusiastic. And things were going along swimmingly, or so it seemed. One day, as far as I know, they received a phone call from a higher up who said “stop.” I don’t know why, maybe they do, or maybe the people who decided do. What leader would want to put people through the excitement of doing something grand for the land, the people, and the taxpayer, only to have everyone’s hopes crushed by apparently random decisions of higher-ups? Which may have been rooted in power or control issues, who knows?
One side note to all this. Through many parts of Colorado, BLM and FS land is adjacent. And yet, the BLM did various assessments that sounded the same as FS assessments of the same thing. Why couldn’t they a joint assessment using the same variables measured the same way? Wouldn’t it be interesting to have a joint Interior/FS team nationally that looked at “things we could do together and save bucks?” Plenty of that goes on locally, but does anyone look at that more broadly?
**********
Circling back to the wildland fire organization, in this THW interview with Dan Kleinman, Kleinman notes that there was an experiment with siloed wildfire people in the FS, which gradually changed back. Apparently the antibodies were at work again, or maybe there is a document somewhere that says it was an experiment that didn’t work? Kleinman is the Chair of the Alliance of Retired Forest Service Fire Leaders. I couldn’t find their website, but here is info about them from THW.
Welcome back from Labor Day, everyone!
I wanted to give a shout-out to all the great Forest Service employees who continue to be helpful and doing their work. I think sometimes this gets lost, as from the media it may sound like all they do is complain and worry. I’m sure that much of that goes on, (it always has but there wasn’t social media to amplify it) but let’s not focus on that, instead of all the good work they are doing.
And a special thank you to wildland firefighters, support folks, LEOs and recreation folks who had to work over the weekend. And a very special thank you to the folks who do extra work back at the unit while others are on fires. And of course, thank you to families who support all these folks.
***************
A few posts ago I was thinking about “affirm everywhere, counsel in private” and who and what that applies to. Certainly we can criticize policies without criticizing individuals in public. In general, I think we do that fairly well here at TSW. It seems like it’s a new thing (in some retiree circles) to criticize Chief Schultz personally, I don’t really know why, when that seemed to be off-limits in the past. Anyway, with a special tip of the hat to Jim Z, who may have been on the Ochoco at the time, I thought I’d share these working guidelines. For me, they still make sense, although their application to an idea-exchange forum like this one is more complex.
Anonymous brought up what he had heard from wildlife folks, and I think it’s worth talking about more deeply. Most Administrations help their friends by doing what the friends want. Is it who are the beneficiaries, or what exactly is done that’s the issue, and do we apply those tests fairly across Administrations? That would be a great thing for us to figure out, since we might be the only people who care about a consistent set of judgements across Admins.
Bios are people, some can be trusted and others cannot. Bios are not a decision maker and are subject to political pressure.
In my recent work on grazing as a senior agency wildlife bio, I’ve been told by forest leadership that ranchers have been directed to contact HQ if they feel regulations are affecting them in a negative way. There is no ability to push back on anything involving extractive interests in the name of wildlife. I have also personally witnessed a very shady situation with a wealthy connected rancher complaining to DC and getting special treatment that amounted to a massive subsidy of their operation. Please stop painting this with broad brushstrokes as a D vs R thing or an industry vs enviro thing. There is a deep state, it’s working for the producers and is very real. I have also worked on projects for which the white house receives a weekly briefing and those in my chain of command are on notice that their job is on the line. The staff bios are sickened by what they are doing.
When I read this, I had a strange flashback to 1981, when our local ranchers (I worked in Lakeview, Oregon) were invited to the Inaugural festivities for President Reagan. It does seem that there is an R vibe to the ranching community, so as much as I’d like to, I’m not sure we can completely remove the fact that they tend R. Also, mainstream media tends to report D people who are discomfited by agency actions, and not so much R people or even independent people. So unless you are involved directly, it is hard to know who minds silly things D’s dream up, or the way they influence decisions on the ground. Plus more employees are D’s and some are quite strongly so. As my old friend used to say “it’s not good or bad, it just is.”
I’d also add that decision makers in the Forest Service are also subject to political pressure, possibly a great deal more, through meetings they might not tell us underlings about. For example a Chief supposedly told my boss “unless you make NGO x happy, Colorado Roadless is not going out.” Perhaps this came from higher up? States, counties and the feds all have friends they would like to put a thumb (or a sack of feed) on the scale for their druthers. Then there is litigation, where plaintiffs sit with DOJ and come to a settlement- where neither elected officials nor folks who read the public comments get a voice (in my experience).
From what I’ve read, it wouldn’t be unusual for individuals to contact HQ in the interests of getting their way. As far back as the Clinton Admin, I remember folks calling the Undersec with concerns about specific projects on specific districts. And when you think about ranchers contacting HQ, I would also think about many folks and groups know and have the political standing to get meetings with DC FS folk. Let’s take solar folks in the last Admin- I’m suspicioning that they had industry groups that yarded up concerns and delivered them to the folks at Interior. Perhaps the difference is how the Admin reacts- with more general “nice things”
The Biden administration finalized a Bureau of Land Management rule reducing public land acreage rental rates and cutting capacity fees for solar and wind energy projects by up to 80% through 2035
– say via rulemaking or RMP decisions (determined by phone calls from DC) compared to goodies are more directed at individual landowners and therefore must go through more layers to specific allotments, involving more field people? So is it the level involved?
Or is it the exact nature of the goodies? A rulemaking, a reduction in fees, a local decision for or against something, a change in how a permit is administered?
Or there’s simply the idea that there is a “right answer” out there somewhere with no political influence, which could be a Forest Supe’s or Ranger’s druthers, or their idea of the appropriate balance, given what they’ve heard from everyone. In my work, I’ve seldom found there to be one right answer to any land use dispute.
It seems to me Administrations favor certain groups and give them a preferred seat at the decision table. In settlement of litigation certain groups also have a preferred seat at the table. Does it really matter for these purposes whether the benefits granted are financial or ideological?
In the old days, line officers seem to have been left more or less alone. Older folks tell me that the inflection point was the Clinton Admin in terms of what we might call “meddling from above to the forest or district level.” But as my retiree friends tell me, Admins tend to just double down on what the previous Admin got away with for their friends, and never go back to a more hands-off posture. And now most of those who remember the old way are probably retired.
NAFSR has signed a Memorandum of Understanding with the USDA Forest Service to provide a framework for cooperation on our mutual interests.
Signed by Chief Tom Schultz and NAFSR Chair Bill Avey, this agreement formalizes something NAFSR retirees have done informally for
years: sharing decades of institutional knowledge, technical expertise, and lessons learned with the current generation of Forest Service employees.
As experienced employees retire and exit the agency, as they have done in the last 18 months at an unprecedented rate, the Forest Service loses irreplaceable know-how.
This MOU is intended to facilitate a more structured path for retirees to stay connected, mentor, and support remaining employees – and those new to the agency – as they tackle wildfire, forest health, recreation access, leadership, and supervision with more limited resources than in recent years.
As a next step to put the new MOU into action, the NAFSR Employee Care Team is working with the Forest Service Workforce Development Team to set up a pilot knowledge transfer project to begin in Fall 2026.
The pilot will focus on supervisory skills, pairing retired supervisors with employees attending New Supervisor Training (NST).
Each pair will meet virtually over the course several months, using suggested
topics and discussion guides to support each discussion session. Volunteer retired supervisors would be asked to share their time and experience to help new supervisors navigate their new roles and challenges during the training period.
More details on the pilot and how to participate will be forthcoming to NAFSR members soon!
Meanwhile, please consider this upcoming volunteer opportunity to share your
time, experience, and expertise to assist a new Forest Service supervisor.
We look forward to more opportunities for collaboration between NAFSR and Forest Service!
******
I know many retirees I speak to are interested in helping via volunteering in various ways, so hopefully this effort will expand.
Photo by Emily Fagan https://roadslesstraveled.us/rv-boondocking-black-hills-national-forest-sd-camping-cows/
I could post many more, but you get the idea.
Today calls for writing that creates powerful word-pictures and evokes strong emotions. Unfortunately I haven’t found the right piece out there, so here are my own thoughts. As always, others are welcome to share.
Sure, National Forests weren’t around when the Declaration of Independence was signed. Still, we can celebrate this country as having the ideas that led to the establishment of the National Forests, and in some aspects, the BLM, and the structures that allowed the ebb and flow of dealing with interests and issues over time. The Executive branch, Congress, the Courts, the States, local governments and so on all have roles to play as well as employees, permittees, any people who use or recreate on the Forests, and so on. All balancing and blending over time as issues and challenges change. And here we are at TSW, discussing these dynamics as they present themselves today.
National Parks have superior marketing, for whatever reasons- probably the corporations involved in concessions help out. I currently see National Parks honored on my six-packs of Sierra Nevada- corporate Parkism seems fairly common. Yet, I also remember the problems associated with the Subaru Forester marketing- somehow related to Lamar Beasley’s efforts? It would be interesting to hear that story from someone who remembers. In my view, “America’s best idea” perhaps was not designating areas for public enjoyment and Park-ness, but the idea that locals and states and feds could somehow work out their disagreements over how best to manage or not-manage various pieces of land. Land that is uniquely open to dispersed recreation of all kinds, and that depends on -more than law enforcement- the good behavior and character of Americans (mostly)- for its success. Think of hunting season- thousands of people out there with guns and alcohol, and yet.. So that is one key thing about the National Forests – a certain amount of freedom, to pursue whatever. A basic trust in the goodness of people to behave -perhaps mediated by the fact that fencing people out would be practically difficult or impossible.
A second key thing for me is the “use” idea, that miners, oil and gas folks, ranchers, forest products folks, firewood, mushroom and berry collectors, , ski areas and summer camps, pipelines and cell towers, all can go on National Forests subject to constraints. Perhaps we inherited from our British forbears the idea that producing food, experiences and products is somehow lower than leaving things alone, perhaps a bit of a classist undertone. An innovation by Americans was to develop practical education for people who do things via the Morrill Act of 1862, education “for the benefit of agriculture and the mechanical arts” . As this article in the National Archives says “Nevertheless, land-grant support became a substantial factor in providing education to most American children who could never hope to attend private or charity-supported schools.” Many TSW readers, including me, can resonate with that, even today. While many have criticized the financial origin of the land-grants (selling Native lands), certainly private universities are not necessarily morally superior.
Finally, while many ideas have changed about the Forests through time, they are still there, and not going anywhere. Which is to be celebrated! When you think about the changes in organizational structure and technology over time, and yet, the Forest Service is still functional and still adapting.
Last winter, American Affairs Journal published a historical piece by Kevin Hawickhorst called Personnel is Policy: The Fabric of Government Organization, which describes some of the post WWII organizational changes that reduced the importance of what he called “vocational communities”. What’s interesting to me is that given the changes that Hawickhorst describes, the Forest Service, for whatever reason, has retained “research, regulation, and grants under one roof” ; in that sense, it is a relic whose ultimate wisdom is now being revealed.
At the turn of the twentieth century, agencies followed a distinct blueprint: they were organized by subject matter, not by abstract function. Each bureau focused on a single domain—such as soils, mines, or forests—and combined research, regulation, and grants under one roof. In the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), the Bureau of Entomology, for example, studied insect-borne diseases, issued rules to contain them, and funded farmers to protect their crops, all as part of a single mission. This structure helped agencies recruit experts by offering broader, more meaningful work than corporations could, and it built a shared sense of mission rooted in a vocational community.
Today’s agencies look very different. After World War II, reformers dismantled the integrated subject matter bureaus and reorganized government along what they called “functional” lines. In this system, regulation is one bureau, research another, and grant administration still another; each bureau covers a wide range of subjects and is defined by its activity rather than its mission. It is the model we now take for granted. The Bureau of Entomology is gone, and USDA now houses all agricultural research in a single unit. New agencies were built this way from the outset: the Department of Housing and Urban Development, created in 1965, was designed as a grantmaking machine, never a vocational community.
The shift was a well-intentioned one and backed by a wide coalition of reformers, businessmen, and interest groups. Functional departments looked modern, rational, and efficient: they simplified charts, tightened chains of command, and promised to reduce duplication. But what seemed like sensible reform gradually hollowed out the structures that had made expertise durable. Once government agencies lost their vocational missions, they stopped drawing on networks of expertise and started looking like paper mills, less able to command political respect, and more vulnerable to capture and drift.
This history carries lessons for anyone hoping to rebuild government competence. First, organization is not a technical detail but the core of state capacity. The way agencies are structured determines who they attract, what work they privilege, and whether expertise can endure. Second, organization is never neutral. Every reorganization embodies political choices about whose voices count and which functions dominate, driven by coalitions bargaining for influence and control. Third, competence endures only when agencies are organized to draw upon professional networks and put that technical expertise to use for politicians. When functional reorganizations stripped agencies of that role, agencies lost talent and prestige. For government reformers today, the task is to design agencies that anchor vocational communities and make excellence indispensable once more.
Yes, the feds or the states (laboratories of democracy) can go off on tangents and do things that don’t turn out well. And our governments have the capacity to notice that and change, or change back.
And so we perhaps can disagree about organization, about the importance of vocational communities (and their professional societies), and, of course, exactly what should be done, or not done, on any particular piece of the Federal landscape. Dynamism plus disagreement yields both change and some stability (think NFMA). And yet, the land is still here, and will be for the foreseeable future. One of the many blessings of living in the USA.
Beckley chose the Rio Grande National Forest because of its proximity to the Continental Divide – and because it was a large forest that could easily hide his memorial. (Photo: Chris Hansen/9NEWs)
I originally posted this in 2015 for Memorial Day, and many current readers were not around here then, so here goes. If you know of memorials on other Forests, please share in the comments.
**********************************
Here’s what I thought was the best story about this…thank you, Kevin Torres (KUSA), -the link no longer works, but below is an excerpt.
The Mountains of the Rio Grande National Forest conceal mystery. The sort of mystery that fills a field as it fills a void.
Hidden away in the 1.8-million-acre forest is a treasure few people are aware of. It was created nearly 20 years ago by a man who devoted the remaining years of his life to honoring soldiers who fought in the Vietnam War.
“He was really enchanted with it. It was his only goal in life for the last 30 years,” Phyllis Beckley Roy said.
Roy is referring to her brother, Lieutenant Colonel Stuart Allen Beckley. Beckley fought in Vietnam from 1962 through 1973. After the war, Roy said her brother was deeply impacted by Vietnam and wanted to do something for his fellow soldiers – as well as the other countries affected by the war.
“He just couldn’t believe that people could not know what was going on, and he decided he would take any penny he could scrape together to build a memorial to honor the people who were not honored,” Roy said.
Beckley’s idea to build a stone memorial on national forest land was initially denied. But when the forest supervisor for the Rio Grande National Forest, Jim Webb (now retired), discovered Beckley was dying of cancer, he changed his mind.
Beckley’s last mission in life was to establish a lasting tribute in memory of the soldiers of Vietnam and Laos. His dream eventually became reality. By the mid-90s, SOLDIERSTONE had been built.
“He designed it, and he bought everything that went into it,” Roy said.
Beckley didn’t have many connections to Colorado. He chose the Rio Grande National Forest because of its proximity to the Continental Divide – and because it was a large forest that could easily hide his memorial.
According to Roy, Beckley didn’t want many people to know about it. He never intended for large crowds to visit it and to take pictures of it.
“The idea was he wanted it to be secluded. He didn’t want people to vandalize it,” Roy said.
This is an interesting story from E&E News, not least because the headline and tagline are:
Must Congress OK Wildfire Program Mergers? Trump Officials Aren’t Sure
The administration has consolidated fire response on Interior land and is pushing for the department to absorb Forest Service firefighting.
Whereas the story seems to say “different forces within the Administration seem to want different things.” Predictably, USDA seems to want to hang on to its firefighting capacity (and budget). My understanding is that reporters don’t write headlines, maybe AI does?
Some of the recent news stories (and opinion) don’t seem to be very clear on whether they mean 1) combining Interior agencies’ wildfire folks (which is currently going on) or 2) moving FS wildfire people over or 3) both. This story seems to focus on 2.
Interior Secretary Doug Burgum, who has led an effort by the administration to consolidate the fire program across public lands, declined to confirm for Senate appropriators Wednesday that he believes Congress must approve his proposal.
Confusingly, “public lands” is an expression generally used for BLM (e.g. the Public Lands Foundation). So it’s hard to tell if Congress is against combining within Interior and if they were, they should probably have said something before now.
Elsewhere on Capitol Hill on Wednesday, Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins, who oversees the Forest Service, said while talks are going on between the federal agencies, she suspected Congress would need to weigh in.
“My understanding is it does require congressional approval,” Rollins told reporters after a budget hearing. “But these two organizations have existed successfully as individual organizations for decades and decades and decades now. So it isn’t quite as easy as saying, ‘OK, now we’re going to put them together.’”
She said there were conversations being had at both the Interior and Agriculture departments on the subject. “We want to be as efficient and as aligned as we possibly can be,” she said.
The USDA didn’t immediately respond to a request Thursday for comment on the different perspectives. Interior said in a statement it “will do everything in accordance with the law.”
The divergent comments are a glimpse at how the Trump administration is reacting internally to frustrated efforts championed by Burgum to build a massive new fire agency within his department.
Because, under Burgum, it appears that there is a “massive new fire agency” within DOI – so is that effort “frustrated”?.
Forest Service Chief Tom Schultz told House appropriators last week the administration will soon seek a formal request for proposals to conduct the study,
which would be completed in around six months — close to the end of the current fiscal year.
Schultz also told the House panel that the Forest Service and Interior have made progress on consolidating work that doesn’t require merging the agencies. That would include firefighter training, for instance, he said……
In the meantime, Simpson said, he hopes the agencies consider combining efforts on acquisition of firefighting equipment, among other measures short of full consolidation.
I would say that from what I’ve heard through wildfire networks, R Congressfolk are wary of moving USDA to Interior. For whatever reason, Interior has a tendency during D Admins to make “sharp stick in the eye” decisions about federal lands.. against R governors’ and Congressfolks’ wishes.. after elections that don’t go their way. Western R Congressfolk might still be feeling the pinch of the Rock Springs RMP, the Lava Ridge Wind project, or the Montana RMP amendments. USDA generally has other things on its mind than partisan provoking, or appointees are less ideological, or whatever.
So whether Burgum technically needs Congressional approval or not may not really be the key question. It might not be worth the political capital to go against his own folks in Congress. Plus D’s (at least the ones I pay attention to) seem to be against anything proposed by this Admin, so there’s that.
I’d say the Firefolk Transfer idea is DOA, but we’ll see.
People keep talking about Project 2025, so I decided to read the Interior and USDA sections. Following that I decided to ask two AIs… here’s what Grok says, which is basically what I got from reading it:
Project 2025 (formally Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise, the Heritage Foundation’s 2025 policy blueprint) addresses the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) only briefly in its Department of Agriculture chapter. The discussion is limited to roughly one page under the subheading “Reform Forest Service Wildfire Management.”
Key Points from the Document
The section criticizes the current approach to wildfire management on national forests and grasslands, arguing that wildfires have effectively become the primary method of vegetation management (including through “unplanned” fires or what it calls “pyro-silviculture”). It states that the agency should shift away from heavy reliance on burning.
Direct recommendations include:
“The Forest Service should focus on proactive management of the forests and grasslands that does not depend heavily on burning. There should be resilient forests and grasslands in the wake of management actions.”
Address the “precipitous annual amassing of biomass” (fuel buildup) that drives wildfire behavior by thinning trees, removing live fuels and deadwood, and taking other preventive steps.
Increase timber sales as a way to reduce biomass and “change the behavior of wildfire.” The document notes that timber harvest volumes on public lands dropped sharply from the late 1980s/early 1990s (around 11–12.6 billion board feet sold/harvested) to much lower levels in recent years (e.g., 2.4–2.8 billion board feet in 2021). It presents ramping up commercial logging as a tool for fuel reduction.
It also calls for embracing and building on prior executive actions (such as Executive Order 13855 from the first Trump administration) and pursuing legislation or executive steps to reduce regulatory obstacles to active vegetation management and boost timber production.
************
But… here’s my experience with Chat GPT, remember there is nothing about reorganizing, decentralizing or shifting authority.
Yes — there is a section that addresses forestry, but not as a standalone, detailed “forestry chapter” in the way you might expect from a technical policy report.
The document you’re referring to, Project 2025 (formally Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise), is organized by federal agencies. Forestry shows up primarily within the section on the U.S. Forest Service, which sits under the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
How forestry is covered
Rather than a single chapter titled “Forestry,” the document discusses forestry policy through:
Forest Service management and structure
Proposals for reorganizing or decentralizing the agency
Shifting authority toward regional or state levels
Wildfire policy
Expanding active forest management (e.g., thinning, prescribed burns)
Increasing timber harvesting as a fuel-reduction tool
Timber and land use
Encouraging commercial timber production on federal lands
Streamlining environmental review processes
Regulatory changes
Revisiting the role of laws like National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) in forest projects
Reducing litigation and procedural delays
We went through several layers of my asking “what pages say this?” Then I looked at the pages, which were about another agency entirely. I told it so. I believe those are called “hallucinations” in AI world. Here’s the final answer.. I thought it was particularly funny that it didn’t honestly say that it was wrong.. it says there was a mismatch of page numbers, which may be true, but does not explain why it made things up that weren’t in the document.
You’re right to push back — the page numbers I gave earlier were off, and the reason is that the document’s pagination is easy to misread.
Here’s what’s actually going on in Project 2025:
The key issue: two different “page numbers”
The PDF has:
Printed page numbers (inside the document)
PDF page index numbers (what your viewer shows)
Those are not the same, and that’s what caused the mismatch.
Where the Forest Service content actually is
The real forestry / Forest Service material appears in:
📍 USDA chapter (Chapter 10: Department of Agriculture)
Starts around PDF page ~290–300 (viewer page number)
Not ~270 in most versions
Within that chapter, the Forest Service discussion is not a long standalone section — it’s short and embedded, which is why it’s easy to miss.
A concrete anchor point (verified text)
Here is a direct excerpt from the USDA chapter:
“Reform Forest Service Wildfire Management. The United States Forest Service…”
That language appears inside the Agriculture chapter, not in a long dedicated forestry section.
What you’ll notice when you go there
When you scroll to the correct spot (around PDF page ~295+):
The Forest Service is discussed briefly, mainly in the context of:
wildfire management
vegetation management
It is not a multi-page, detailed forestry policy section
There is no long sequence of pages (like 10–15 pages) focused only on forestry
Bottom line (correcting my earlier answer)
❌ There is not a continuous Forest Service section spanning pages ~270–285
✅ The actual content is shorter and appears later, embedded in the USDA chapter (~PDF 290s)
✅ It focuses mainly on wildfire and management philosophy, not a full forestry framework
I think that the below is important context for some aspects of the Reorganization proposal, and I’m reposting for new folks who haven’t necessarily been following all the ins and outs.
One of our problems was the challenge of going back in time. Different sources seemed to have different numbers. Here’s what someone pulled from Onboard in March of 2025.
1. Before the Biden Admin and IRA and IIJA, the Forest Service was down in terms of many districts and forests had serious holes. Budgets? Boomers retiring? Too many folks in the ROs and WO?
2. IRA and IIJA came along, and the Forest Service (probably the Admin) decided to use partners to spend the funding, so handed out large chunks (hundreds of millions) to favored NGOs (apparently without an analysis or cost comparison, or even competition). Then the FS went on a bit of a hiring spree of permanents. I heard complaints about RO staffs going up by 100%, new “chief of staff” positions and so on. Possibly to get more diversity, many folks were hired on less-common hiring authorities that had a two- year instead of a one-year probationary period.
Meanwhile the FS ended up $740 million in the hole (according to a reliable source not authorized to speak on the matter) and had to get rid of all temporaries for field season 2024. I wonder if that included R&D temporaries?
3. If you’re thinking “uh-oh, didn’t the Trump Admin decide to fire all probationary employees, and wouldn’t that mean the FS was uniquely hanging out having just hired 5K new people in 2023 and 2024?” As Chief Moore said at the Retirees’ Reunion in Missoula:
We developed a plan because and we couldn’t in good conscience ask the workforce to do $10 billion more worth of work when we were clearly being underfunded. And so we hired 5,000 additional employees in the agency.
in another spot in the same talk, Moore said 5300. Suppose you were a seasonal. There was an effort to convert some long-term regulars to permanents during the Biden Admin. This seems like a good idea for those who want it. It still looked good when the other temps were laid off. But then you were still on your probationary period, so..
Meanwhile, I think a judge said to the Admin, “no, you can’t do that with probationaries.” So the probationaries could come back, (how many did?) but the FS still needed to have fewer perms to meet budget requirements. Based on the court case, the FS could only use voluntary authorities or develop a RIF plan. Many of us retirees have gone through RIFs and it’s not pretty in so many ways. So the only tool left was voluntary, leaving bunches of people who hadn’t necessarily been hired to do District or Forest level work, and were not as experienced as the people who left.
Meanwhile, people hired by the NGOs mentioned earlier are doing some of the on-the-ground work that employees used to do. Positions that my co-workers used to hold as permanent positions are now advertised by NGOS and the newly hired can be seen driving FS trucks, working on FS ground, and wearing NGO-labelled gear.
If you’re confused, it’s OK. I think we’re all confused. That’s why one consistent ask from me for the past 17 years has been the People’s Database, where the Agency brings together stakeholders and partners and regular people to determine what information to collect consistently.
