Forest Service: Culture, History, Morale, Organization, Future

Here’s a human interest/ Forest Service history story for Friday. It’s about employee Glenn Ryan and the Region 2 Packstring, from the Colorado Springs Gazette.

SHAWNEE – In the late 1960s, freshly removed from college for what he says were false accusations of “mouthing off,” Glenn Ryan did not go home. He hit the road and slept where he could, under trees or in chicken coops.

“Spent about three years being a bum,” he says, “which was actually training for this job.”

Now he’s spent 13 years living in Colorado forests, working as an Old West packer, leading a string of mules that make up one of the last two hooved trains across the U.S. Forest Service.

“If it involves getting dirty, bloody and blistered, then we’ll work with ya,” says Ryan, 67, a Forest Service employee who rides horseback while commanding the Rocky Mountain Specialty Pack String.

The Rocky Mountain Field Institute, a Colorado Springs nonprofit, has called upon Ryan’s string yearly to deliver thousands of pounds of equipment to a base camp deep in the wilderness surrounding Kit Carson Peak.

Other frequent requests come from the Colorado Fourteeners Initiative, which also employs trail builders on the state’s highest mountains and counts on the mules to move heavy necessities such as tools and stoves.

“The amount of work and the type of work he does is just mind-blowing,” says Ryan’s boss, Brian Banks, head of the South Platte Ranger District. “There really are very few professions left in the world like that, and his is not only one of the most unique positions, but also one of the most dangerous. It’s one of the most difficult positions in the Forest Service.”

Ryan spends summer days driving a trailer around the state and beyond; missions are also in Wyoming’s Medicine Bow-Routt National Forest, South Dakota’s Black Hills and Nebraska’s grasslands. Often his team of 11 mules starts before sunrise and finishes after sunset, performing as their ancestors did.

Here’s the link to the packstring site itself.

I had heard some rumors about the Undersecretary position which intrigued me, so when I heard that there were confirmations last week, I checked to see if “our gal/guy” had been on the list, but she or he was not. Now this is not necessarily a bad thing, because it shows that the wheels of the executive branch can run smoothly (like appointing a Chief who doesn’t seem very controversial) with vacancies unfilled.

Anyway, I thought we could take a trip back in time to the last “new administration first Undersecretary” to see what people said about him. You may remember it was a fellow named Harris Sherman, who had experience as the Department of Natural Resources Director in Colorado (and was amazingly qualified for the job, IMHO). When I first met Harris, he was a lawyer for some ski areas. Were people concerned about his background as an attorney for evil corporations? Or even that he perhaps did not do enough as DNR director with oil and gas regulation? As it turns out.. not so much. If we look at national media and the people they interviewed..they were concerned about his involvement with.. the Colorado Roadless Rule (!).

The New York Times here reposted a piece from Greenwire.. first let’s look at who got quoted in what order..

TRCP- why them? What is it about this group that would make them go-to people about the new undersecretary? Whatever they have/had going on, it would be nice to know how to get that kind of position on someone’s contact list.

Yesterday, the Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership responded to Sherman’s nomination by stressing the need for safeguarding roadless areas.
“We would like to congratulate Mr. Sherman and ask that he promote the long-term conservation of our backcountry hunting and fishing traditions, including upholding and defending the Roadless Area Conservation Rule, which safeguards our nation’s roadless areas, should he be confirmed as undersecretary,” Joel Webster, associate director of campaigns for the TRCP Center for Western Lands, said in a statement.

TWS- makes more sense.

In June, Michael Francis, director of the Wilderness Society’s national forest program, said Sherman’s work on the Colorado rule makes him a poor choice for Agriculture undersecretary. “The process that Mr. Sherman has been leading in Colorado would essentially eviscerate the protections of the 2001 rule,” Francis said. “I question whether he could do what the president would want him to do” (Greenwire, June 11).

Earthjustice Vice President Marty Hayden said that while Sherman’s biggest challenge will be the roadless rule debate,

And then, and only then, do the reporters quote Coloradans. What I think is interesting to reflect on now is that Idaho and Colorado Roadless are pretty much history (ho-hum, what State Roadless Rules?), and as far as I know, nothing worth the rhetoric has happened. In fact, when part of the compromise finally made it through (8 years later) our friends at the Sierra Club issued a release here saying it was Trump’s doing and related it to the Paris Climate Talks. No, I’m not making this up. Anyway, the Durango Herald had a more nuanced view of Harris and his history and qualifications, including important work he did with oil and gas here.

When the new undersecretary is nominated, we can look at national coverage and see what the national “issue of the day” is. Or maybe a Republican nominee will get a rating better than Harris’s “poor” from TWS?

Colorado native Rick Cables, a veteran Forest Service boss who led Colorado Parks and Wildlife before joining Vail Resorts as vice-president of natural resources and conservation, is on the shortlist to become the new chief of the U.S. Forest Service, according to news reports.

The energy and environmental network E&E News last week reported that Cables, a native of Pueblo who spent 35 years with the Forest Service, could be the Trump Administration’s choice for chief of the 34,000-employee Forest Service. (Another rumored choice is Lyle Laverty, a Colorado-based Forest Service veteran who served under the Bush Administration in the Interior Department. And there is speculation that the Trump Administration may retain Forest Service Chief Tom Tidwell, who served for most of the Obama Administration.)

The idea of Chief Cables excites Colorado’s recreation and ski industry officials as well as public land managers.

“I think he’s a perfect, perfect choice for that role,” said Luis Benitez, the head of the Colorado Outdoor Recreation Industry Office, citing Cable’s experience in both the private and public domains. “It is the logical conclusion for their search for a new chief.”…

Jim Bedwell, the retiring Forest Service’s Rocky Mountain Region director of recreation, lands, minerals and volunteers, said Cables would be the best choice as chief.

“He has the Forest Service in his blood,” said Bedwell, noting how Cable’s mother was a pioneer as one of the first female leaders in the agency. “His work with Colorado Parks and Wildlife and now Vail Resorts, it’s really rounded him out. His experience with Vail has brought him heightened awareness of how important that industry is and what it can deliver and our need to manage that appropriately for them to reach their potential.”

This is an interesting example of good industry (skiing), bad industry (imagine if the head of BLM had retired and gone to work in the oil and gas industry). As to “best” and “perfect”, reasonable people, including me, could disagree.

Happy Fourth of July, everyone!

From an announcement . this is excerpted.

As you know, USDA announced a reorganization on May 11, 2017. In accordance with a directive in the 2014 Farm Bill, we created a new Under Secretary of Trade and Foreign Agricultural Affairs as part of a realignment of several mission areas. The reorganization also included a reconstituted mission area reporting to a newly-named Under Secretary for Farm Production and Conservation. The U.S. Forest Service, given its size and importance, will be the only agency to report to the Under Secretary for National Resources and Environment. For these three mission areas, we have named Acting Deputy Under Secretaries, who will serve in their roles until the Senate confirms permanent presidentially-nominated appointees.

Natural Resources and Environment

Dan Jiron will fill the role of Acting Deputy Under Secretary for Natural Resources and Environment. With more than 29 years of public service and natural resources management, Jiron was appointed Associate Chief of the Forest Service in July 2016. Prior to this appointment, Jiron served in many leadership positions, including Regional Forester of the Rocky Mountain Region; Deputy Regional Forester in the Pacific Southwest Region; Forest Supervisor of the Santa Fe National Forest; District Ranger on the Salt Lake Ranger District of the Uinta-Wasatch-Cache National Forest; District Ranger on the South Park Ranger District of the Pike and San Isabel National Forest, Comanche, and Cimarron National Grasslands; Director of Communications and Legislative Affairs of the Intermountain Region, National Press Officer in Washington, D.C.; and aide to United States Senator Ben Nighthorse Campbell of Colorado. Jiron earned a bachelor’s degree from Colorado State University and a Master’s degree from Regis University of Denver.

Under the reorganization plan, the Under Secretary for Natural Resources and Environment will retain supervision of the U.S. Forest Service.

For those of you who aren’t familiar with USDA bureaucracy, there is one Secretary and Undersecretaries who are right below him. A Deputy Undersecretary works for the Undersecretary.( In the Obama administration, there were two Deputy Undersecretaries, at first Harris Sherman and Robert Bonnie, and Harris Sherman moved on and was replaced by Butch Blazer.) Parentheses indicate that this information may not be correct and I welcome corrections.
Perhaps with the reorganization, they will only need one Deputy Undersecretary?
FWIW, as far as I’m concerned, Dan is a great choice for this job.

Here’s an excellent piece of history by by Andy Mason and Sarah Karle from the Rendezvous (Rocky Mountain FS retiree newsletter).  I particularly liked these photos that show how a few folks with a big dream for improving the environment, almost a hundred years ago, succeeded (after hard work, research and experimentation) succeeded, and is still working today.

Prairie States Forestry Project (1934-1942)

In 1934 President Franklin D. Roosevelt initiated the New Deal’s Prairie States Forestry Project to create “shelterbelts” of newly planted trees to mitigate the effects of the Dust Bowl in America’s Great Plains. The project stretched from North Dakota to northern Texas and helped stabilize soil and rejuvenate farm communities affected by the dust storms. Under Roosevelt’s Administration from 1934 to 1942, the program both saved the soil and relieved chronic unemployment in the region. The U.S. Forest Service was responsible for organizing the “Shelterbelt Project,” later known as the “Prairie States Forestry Project.” Paul H. Roberts from the agency’s Research Branch directed the project that was headquartered in Lincoln, Nebraska.

When FDR came to office in 1933, the Great Plains and other regions were suffering from what would become an almost decade-long period of economic, environmental, and social crises.  Several large-scale factors led to the environmental devastation of the Dust Bowl and contributed to the economic hardships of the Great Depression, leading to the social upheavals that followed. As president, FDR used conservation projects as a job-creation tool against the Great Depression, and within months of becoming president, he devised the Prairie States Forestry Project. The project, based to some degree on Roosevelt’s personal experience with forest management, was proposed as an ambitious “Great Wall of Trees” using shelterbelts across the Great Plains to reduce soil wind erosion, retain moisture, and improve farming conditions. Trees were typically planted in long strips at 1-mile intervals within a belt 100 miles thick. At the time, it was believed that shelterbelts at this spacing could intercept the prevailing winds and reduce soil and crop damage. The project used many different tree species of varying heights, including oaks and even black walnut. The plan engaged scientific knowledge with shifting political ideals, including regionalism and the role of government in the conservation of private land.

Though seemingly beneficial, the Forestry Project was ridiculed from its inception. Some professional foresters expressed doubts about its chances of success, while the general public perceived it as an outdated scheme of dubious credibility to “make rain.” Despite a general lack of scientific and Congressional support, the Forest Service worked across six states with local farmers, the Civilian Conservation Corps, and the Works Progress Administration to plant over 220 million trees, creating more than 18,000 miles of windbreaks on 33,000 Plains farms. Although Works Progress Administration and Civilian Conservation Corps workers planted the trees and shrubs, landowners were responsible for their long-term care and maintenance.  At the height of the Great Depression, the project employed thousands of residents (notably both men and women) of the Plains states and CCC members from around the country.

The program officially ended in 1942, but by 1944 (scarcely a decade after its inception} environmental and economic benefits from these shelterbelts, including land management practices, control of wind erosion, soil conservation, cover for game birds, and the creation of snow traps along highways, were already apparent. Since 1942, tree planting to reduce soil losses and crop damage has been carried out primarily by local soil conservation districts in cooperation with the Soil Conservation Service (now Natural Resources Conservation Service) with help in later years from State forestry agencies aided by U.S. Forest Service programs. Today the rows of shelterbelt plantings, while diminished by subsequent changes in agricultural policies and practices, continue to communicate culturally recognized signs of human intervention and interaction with the landscape.

here. Norman’s comment reminded me of this piece I read about FS and BLM coordination/reorganization, that describes how Senator Wyden is against “senseless reorganization”. Since I personally think it makes a lot of sense (as opposed to senseless), I was curious as to why he cared.. since the last time this was proposed that I remember from Oregon (Interchange, Reagan Administration), it seemed to me like it was Republican ranchers who opposed it at that time. Do any Oregonians have any ideas for why Wyden has these ideas?

Here’s the story from Wildfire Today.

Oregon Senator Ron Wyden was more vocal than most and expressed his displeasure with the proposal. When the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee voted on Rep. Zinke’s confirmation as Secretary of the Interior on January 31, Senator Wyden abstained, citing the movement of the FS as a problem. Rep. Zinke was approved in the committee on a vote of 16-6-1 (yes-no-abstain).

A source we talked with on Capitol Hill who asked to remain anonymous told us that after the committee vote Senator Wyden extracted a pledge from Rep. Zinke that if confirmed as Secretary, he would not pursue reorganizing the FS. With that promise, on March 1 the Senator voted for the confirmation in the full Senate.

Just after that vote, the Senator issued a statement, saying in part:

After several discussions, I received an assurance that as secretary of the Interior, Rep. Zinke will focus on doing his job, which includes protecting our special places and managing the forests already within the Interior Department’s control, instead of engaging in senseless reorganization of bureaucracies.
Our Capitol Hill source said now that Secretary Zinke is on the job, he still can’t completely let go of the desire to move the FS.

In fact, when the Secretary spoke before the Public Lands Council on March 28, he talked about a “joint command” of the FS according to E&E news:

“I may not get the Forest Service, but we’re going to work with the Forest Service and figure out how to not be so stove-piped,” the Interior chief said. Zinke indicated that he and Agriculture secretary nominee Sonny Perdue had discussed a “joint command” model like the ones used by the Pentagon to manage personnel across the military services.
Secretary Zinke may be thinking that this arrangement would not violate his promise to Senator Wyden. However, the Senator expressly mentioned he did not want to see “senseless reorganization of bureaucracies”.

This seemed like a good summary from Faith Campbell at The Center for Invasive Species Prevention.

Here’s one of my favorites quotes:

The hearing was friendly – except to the President’s proposed budget, which calls for a 21 percent cut in USDA’s discretionary spending. Ranking Minority Member Debbie Stabenow (D-MI) said the budget makes it clear that “rural America is an afterthought.” But Chair Pat Roberts (R-KS) and others noted that “the President proposes and Congress disposes,” with a nod down the table to Sen. John Hoeven (R-ND), who chairs the Senate Appropriations Committee’s agriculture subcommittee. Sens. Thad Cochran (R-MS), Mitch McConnell (R-KY), and Patrick Leahy (D-VT) — each with considerable seniority — serve on the same subcommittee.

I’m around many younger people nowadays who are really worried about the President’s budget. After spending a number of years watching this “President proposing and Congress disposing,” I am not as worried. Of course, I’m worried about their being worried…

And as for the Forest Service:

Only the U.S. Forest Service received more than passing attention. Its management of national forests was criticized. Several senators noted the crisis in funding fire-fighting. Forests, Gov. Perdue said, provide “opportunities clothed in challenges,” e.g., to implement best management practices and be better neighbors. Sen. Steve Daines (R-MT) urged him to restore active management of forests, as well as to limit litigation by “extremist groups.” Perdue sympathized.

Here’s the link to this article.

Any other interesting quotes or summaries from other sources?

Thanks to the Rocky Mountaineers, our Region 2 retirement group, for this link to an Evergreen interview with Lyle Laverty.  I have been out of the loop on potential Secretaries, Undersecretaries and Chiefs and perhaps others can share what they’ve heard…

Interesting that Lyle has worked in both DOI and USDA.  I notice that Evergreen said that he and Michael Rains were candidates. I have worked with both of these folks, and they are both very good.  I wonder who else is on the list?

Any folks can contribute a post on “if I were Chief” to this blog, we are not limited to folks identified by the new administration.  Just email me at [email protected]. Y ou all can pick any of Lyle’s statements to discuss..because we have folks outside the agency here, we can kick it off with:

“There is great value in tenure. Land and resources are complex. As an agency, we need to encourage folks to become established members of communities. We need them to understand the complexity of the resources they are stewarding. Tenure translates into learning and accountability. With constant changes, the individual never sees the full outcome of the decisions they make or the work they perform, they never understand the community, or develop the relationships necessary to achieve outcomes. Perhaps a bonus system for tenure could change the active movement. The current alignment of the agency’s human capital does not encourage learning or the formation of the strong community ties that were for decades an integral part of the Forest Service’s great success.”