Reorganization and spring are in the air.. and so Char Miller was kind enough to offer his thoughts (on reorganization). I also asked him to write about how his thoughts have changed, or not, since he wrote the original Journal of Policy History piece in 2009, and the revision for 193 Million Acres in 2018. First, here’s his introduction from today (2025)

At the heart of this essay—which appeared first in the Journal of Policy History (2009) and was revised for Steve Wilent, ed. 193 Million Acres (SAF 2018)—lies what is now a quaint set of assumptions. That whatever transformations might occur in the structure and mission of the US Forest Service, that they would be devised in collaboration with Congress, in consultation with a wide array of interest groups, and abide by then-current federal laws. There were, I thought, sturdy guardrails in place that, regardless of the structural changes, would ensure the continued stewardship of the national forests, wildernesses, and grasslands. Since January 20 th , those assumptions have been blown to pieces. This administration’s dismantling of the agency’s capacities has been disturbingly intense—the firing of hundreds of employees, the retirement (forced or voluntary) of hundreds more, has left the Forest Service bereft of rangers, supervisors, and directors. Their departure is by design, of course: without staff, the agency cannot enforce the laws its public servants swore to uphold (and did). Absent these principled individuals, the administration seems poised to off-load federal lands to the states (see Martin Nie’s brilliant discussion of this threat in The Smokey Wire, April 21, 2025); or let them be picked apart by private interests (as an example, see David Mertz’s discussion of the Maude family case in The Smokey Wire, May 7, 2025).

So, if you’d like to step outside of the current (and cynical) chaos, and contextualize it by reading how the Forest Service has evolved over time and how change might have occurred in a more transparent, consultative, and democratic fashion, read on.

Here’s a link to the original piece in the Journal of Policy History.

As I did yesterday, I’ll pick some pieces out from the 2009 paper that I find interesting, which might not be yours, so feel free to comment on anything in the paper.

Scenario One: Evolutionary Dynamics

Since these laws were adopted, the agency has appeared to be wandering in the forest. Pounded in federal court, faced with drastic budget cuts and sharp reductions in personnel, it has struggled to find its way, leading one former chief to argue that it is mired in “analysis paralysis,” a logjam preventing it from doing its proper work. Complicating this struggle to define its contemporary mission has been steep declines in timber harvests, escalating population pressures along the urban-wildland interface, increased recreational use, intensifying forest fires, and serious water-management issues.

No wonder the agency’s morale is low. 10

The footnote goes to 10. Jack Ward Thomas, “What Now? From a Former Forest Service Chief,” in A Vision for the Forest Service: Goals for Its Next Century, ed. Roger Sedjo (Washington, D.C., 2000), 10–43; Char Miller, “Identity Crisis,” Forest Magazine, Winter 2008, 44–47. I don’t recall my morale being low in 2009, and if it had been low, it would have been more about irritating supervisors or employees, byzantine hiring practices, and inscrutable computer applications, and not so much about an agency identity crisis. But that’s just me.

And “analysis paralysis” was actually part of a broader social tendency, which we find in articles about “why we can’t build things” and similar topics.  Although when we worked on it (I was the NEPA person on the Process Predicament team) we never thought ourselves as part of a larger societal movement. For example in the recent discussions of Abundance by Brink Lindsey (April 25, 2025 to be exact:

The irony, as Klein and Thompson point out repeatedly, is that this new progressivism has ended up empowering an especially hidebound kind of conservatism: an enervating “procedure fetish” within government, combined with a hydra-head “vetocracy” outside. This combination has saddled us with a woefully underperforming public sector generally, and an especially profound disability with respect to any project involving the large-scale rearrangement of atoms in the physical world.

The FS was talking about this in the 90’s, but no one was listening. The change that I see is that due to climate change mitigation, different and more important folks want to rearrange atoms.

Scenario Two: Devolutionary Process:

Indeed, a proposed alteration that the Forest Service has faced—and to date has fended off —is the devolution of its lands and authority to the individual states in which its forests and grasslands are located.

********

Much more plausible are calls for the creation of a cooperative conservation strategy in which local groups and federal land managers together develop forest plans. Th is has a historical basis, too: Circular 21 (1898), which promoted the agency’s cooperation with private landowners, found its analogue in other initiatives that encouraged forest rangers to discuss with local communities and economic interests how best to manage the forests. More recently, cooperative actions have been nurtured by the National Forest Management Act and the Endangered Species Act, which require public participation and interagency coordination. They have also been energized by community environmental initiatives promoted at the 1997 Seventh American Forest Congress. Bolstered by university-sponsored think-tanks,such as the Public Policy Research Institute at the University of Montana, they have launched several successful ventures, including the Quincy Library Group (1992) and the New Ranch program developed by the Quivira Coaltion (1997). The latter seeks to operate within what it calls the “radical center—a neutral place where people could explore their interests instead of argue their positions—and at the grassroots, literally the ‘grass’ and the ‘roots,’ where, we believed, trust needed to be built anew.” 16 The “Lubrecht Conversations,” held outside Missoula, Montana, in 1998, shared this commitment to a “bottom-up” approach to national-policy reform. Local consensus management would evolve to include wider water-shed and bioregional perspectives that then would shape the national agenda.

Most captivating was the group’s call for the creation of a “virtual” Region 7 within the Forest Service wherein districts and forests would propose “to develop practical collaborative decision-making processes at the local/regional level, which might eventually evolve into a national restatement of basic mission.” If acceptable, the Forest Service would fund the experiment but would not retain authority over its design or implementation. 17

Although to date “Region 7” remains but a tantalizing idea, other experimental formats have been enacted. One on-the-ground example is the Valles Caldera Trust (2000), a government-owned entity that provides management and administrative services for the Valles Caldera National Preserve in northern New Mexico. This national preserve suggests the array of options that have been emerging in timber towns and ranch country in response to decades of political discord, legal wrangling, and bureaucratic entanglement.
This development received another push in August 2005, when the White House Conference on Cooperative Conservation convened, a sign that community-oriented, collaborative conservation has captured considerable political interest and generated significant momentum. 18

I thought all this was interesting because it makes me wonder what happened to those groups? QLG, Quivera, Valles Caldera? And if Collaborative Conservation was a thing in 2005, how did we end up with the recent Rock Springs RMP, Lava Ridge Wind Project (granted those were BLM, and therefore more overtly/organizationally political). Are “bottom-up” efforts to some extent overwhelmed by national partisan political inclinations and the wills of key Admin allies?

Scenario Three: Revolutionary Impulse

The creation of a new Department of Conservation in the executive branch, by contrast, would expand the federal managerial presence and its regulatory authority. With a seat in the cabinet, this department would house the nation’s most important land-management agencies—the Bureau of Land Management, the Bureau of Reclamation, the Fish and Wildlife Service, the Forest Service, the Geological Survey, the National Resources Conservation Service, and the National Park Service, among other entities. By creating economies of scale and greater efficiencies of action, this new department would save money and would serve as a standard bearer for the modern environmental movement.

Miller has a history of related efforts on pages 98-99

Despite the failure of these various presidents to create a conservation superagency, there are signs that an integration of agency function is under way. In 1997, Congress authorized a program called Service First: Working Together, in which the Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management were authorized to merge various functions. One such joint venture is the Durango Public Lands Center. Th rough it, the two agencies manage their lands in southwestern Colorado. Th e leadership of the San Juan National Forest and the San Juan Field BLM Office, like the twelve-person staff , is “cross delegated.” Because each employee is responsible for “all aspects of the two agencies’ work and is equally responsible to the USFS Regional Forester and BLM State Director,” because each is required to be fluent in both agencies’ statutory regulations and wears the two uniforms, this is an innovative, even unusual, arrangement. The San Juan is “the only organization in the country with a single team providing leadership in all aspects of land management and public service for the two federal agencies.” 23

These interchanges are part of a larger attempt to merge scarce skills and resources among the nation’s land-management agencies. Forest policy expert

Sally K. Fairfax has argued that more should be done to facilitate the convergence of the identities and missions of these agencies. Noting that “the historic distinctions and feuds” between the Forest Service, the National Park Service, and the Bureau of Land Management “no longer matter,” she observes: “The hostility between the advocates of forest reserves and park reserves that began before either agency was formed conceals the fact that for most of their existence, they have been more alike than not. As timber fades as a Forest Service preoccupation, and recreation emerges as dominant [in] present and future concerns, the justifications for having multiple and distinct federal management agencies fade as well.” 24

The often-prescient Fairfax said this in 2005. Of course, both BLM and the FS have fuel management as goals, and BLM has the additional responsibility for minerals.. but still her views seem eminently reasonable.

Lending further credence to her argument is a November 2006 Memorandum of Understanding that the Bureau of Land Management and the Forest Service signed in partnership with the Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Park Service. It committed the four agencies “to carry out shared or joint management activities to achieve mutually beneficial resource management goals.” Service First authority has been utilized primarily for merging offices, issuing joint permits, sharing management, and creating single points of contact for resource programs. Given the patchwork of lands each agency manages and the proximity of their holdings, this integrative approach makes considerable sense, so much so that the Bureau of Indian Affairs, the Bureau of Reclamation, and the Army Corps of Engineers are considering seeking Service First authorization. In this incremental fashion, the dream of a Department of Conservation that has eluded several presidents.

Whatever happened to Service First? Often critics of rapid change will argue that change should occur slowly, but organizational antibodies tend to react strongly to change. For example, I was told by a knowledgeable person that the San Juan experiment was stopped by one State Director. I found this hard to believe, but organizations survive, I guess due to their strong immune systems.

I should note here that the alignment of the Dept of Conservation is not the same as moving the FS to Interior and not the same as “one Wildfire Agency”.  Still it gives us the picture of the long-term signal versus any individual reorganizational effort.

From Miller’s summary:

Separately, none of the three scenarios sketched out here—evolution, devolution, revolution—will have much chance of redefining the Forest Service’s twenty-first century structure or its guiding perspectives. None of these possibilities will be achieved without reference to or in combination with the others. Moreover, although any change in the agency’s land-management mission will require internal support from the leadership and staff of the Forest Service, the real locus of any such transformation lies in Congress and the executive branch.

But of course many structures can support the same mission.  What do you think?

French Testimony at Senate Ag (video).
Here’s the written testimony. Items of interest. In general, this hearing had a much more professional and collegial tone than the House.. to be expected.  I suspect that the Senate Ag Committee might be more collegial than ENR, but I don’t know that for sure.  It’s more of a gentle, respectful tone of questioning and less partisan grandstanding.

FOFA (Fix Our Forests Act)  is a bipartisan bill in the Senate, introduced by  U.S. Senator Alex Padilla (D-Calif.), co-chair of the bipartisan Senate Wildfire Caucus, and Senators John Curtis (R-Utah), John Hickenlooper (D-Colo.), and Tim Sheehy (R-Mont.).

Number of Employees and Changes Could be Clearer

According to this E&E News article, the FS is down about 5,000 people, and French said in his testimony that they had lost 25% of non-fire positions.  I tried to put this together with the numbers in our previous discussion here.

In 2023, 3080 were added of which 740 were fire.
in 2024, 2780 were added of which 690 were fire.
So in two years, 23 and 24, the FS added 5860 permanent positions, of which 1430 were in fire? If we take, say, 28,500 (the average of 2018-2022), that would be about a 20% increase in perms in two years?

If I heard correctly, I think French said the total was 35,000 and so that would be 8750 positions.  It would be handy if the FS would (when the last buyout is done) provided a spreadsheet or table which included the conversion of temps to seasonals and fire/non-fire positions.

Expedited Contract Reviews

Monday I posted “It seems odd that the FS doesn’t have an expedited review process within itself for safety and time-sensitive contracts and purchases, even if DOGE needs to review it.”  As it turns out, they do have one.  French elaborated that there were separate categories for disaster relief and time-sensitive contracts (the example was a seedling contract.)

Chris’s Request for Statutory CE

He asked the Senators to please make CEs statutory so the agency doesn’t have to promulgate them.  Having done that with Limited Timber Harvest, I am 100% with Chris, if Congress knows what it wants to do, why make the agency do extra work? Especially in this time of fewer employees, smaller budgets, and so on.

Weirdest Question

“How would it be possible to do anything other than timber harvesting contemplated in this bill with those kinds of reductions?” Schiff asked.  I think it’s weird because the Congress funds programs, and if they don’t want timber harvesting, the simple answer would be to … not fund it…  And of course, Padilla, the other D California Senator,  introduced the bill…

Invasive Species- Spongy Moth formerly Known as Gypsy Moth

I was surprised to hear in the hearing of a major concern over an insect species I hadn’t heard of.   Of all the funds that were spent predicting future threats to forestsbased on climate models, perhaps we lost track of current forest threats due to invasive species.  Remember the four threats of Dale Bosworth? Andy Stahl wrote this piece in 2010.

Former Chief Dale Bosworth had his Four Threats: fire and fuels, invasive species, loss of open space, and unmanaged recreation. Current (but for how long?) Chief Tidwell’s signature initiative was to be his “Four Pillars”: Restore and Sustain Landscapes, Protect and Enhance Water Resources, Jobs and Sustainable Communities, and Climate Change Resiliency.

But Tidwell’s pillars have fallen before construction even began because he wasn’t paying attention to one minor detail. His boss, Secretary of Agriculture Vilsack, already had “Four Pillars” — renewable energy, broadband internet access, responding to climate change and harnessing local food production.

Perhaps invasive species got lost in the shuffle.  I know it has fallen off the radar screen of some ENGOs previously interested, or fallen under the rubric of “climate change.”  Which is fairly untrue in many cases (think Chestnut blight) and gets lost in the climate generality shuffle.

About the President’s Budget
Don’t forget, the President proposes and Congress disposes. From 2017

“The president proposes and Congress disposes. Congress has the power of the purse strings. I’ve never seen a president’s budget proposal not revised substantially,” Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, said.

*******************

Chief’s Letter: Our Next Steps, Planning for Priorities and Interim Operations During Workforce Reshaping

Thanks to Nick Smith for this link:

As I begin my third month as your Chief, I have come to fully understand the dedication, talent, and professionalism our employees bring to their work and our mission. These last few weeks have been challenging as we’ve shared our appreciation and farewells with many departing colleagues, and there is no doubt that transformational changes in policies and our workforce will continue to reshape how we approach this important work today and into the future. As such, we are implementing interim governance structures and operating plans to ensure proper and intentional coverage resulting from attrition and voluntary separation program departures, such as DRP 1.0, 2.0 and VERA. Plainly, the Forest Service workforce is evolving and will look different by the fiscal year’s end.

My intent is to share a general framework and priorities for the next few months as broader USDA reorganization plans are being finalized. It’s important to understand that these interim and temporary operational plans developed as part of this effort are not reflective or designed to inform broader agency reorganization planning. They are necessary to maintain mission readiness during the reshaping process.

Today, there are several working groups developing interim operational guidance to maintain critical services and support and ongoing work consistent with executive orders and national priorities. In short, we are focusing our resources where they are needed most. This means we’ll be exercising tools like lateral reassignments, additional training in priority areas, and introducing temporary oversight and approval structures for greater flexibility and decision speed. Below outlines our must-dos for minimum mission viability.

Firstly, we will ensure safety above all while supporting our agency’s readiness and response to wildfire suppression efforts. Everything else comes second. Eligible employees may be asked to take training and gain qualifications needed to support these efforts as we head into a potential “above normal” fire season for much of the West.

Next, we will focus on our fundamental work improving the health and productivity of our forests and related actions to support rural prosperity. This includes implementing the executive orders received to date that focus on active forest management, energy, minerals and geology. Lateral reassignment opportunities in these critical areas of our field operations are underway, and we will lean on our partners to assist in areas of greatest need. In addition, disaster recovery projects will continue since they help support economic recovery and community infrastructure needs, as well as improve public safety and critical access.

We have an obligation to provide customer services for visitors while maintaining safe, reliable access to our national forests. The outdoor recreation economy continues to boom with nearly 160 million visitors to national forests just last year, and we anticipate that statistic to remain steady despite our current workforce sizing. Be prepared to lean in and adapt responsibly. Lastly, we must ensure the “business” of our workforce remains steady and smooth by meeting supervisory responsibilities including timely paychecks and approving necessary travel, as well as coordinating training logistics for critical areas.

This week we will share details of our interim operational plans with the National Leadership Council, line officers and subject matter leads as we prepare to implement them. The interim operational framework is designed to ensure a continuity of operations while obtaining maximum flexibility and adaptability. We will adapt and step forward together. If there is an immediate need for mitigation, line officers should elevate through regular channels for awareness and proceed as indicated. Ultimately, adaptability doesn’t mean uncertainty—it means readiness. I’m certain these temporary measures will allow us to adjust confidently and deliberately until we officially transition into our future organizational structure.

In closing, I want to emphasize this agency will continue to evolve on the foundation built on generations of talented and committed professionals—it’s our duty to carry this legacy forward and adapt responsibly to meet our mission requirements for future generations. I’m proud to serve as your Chief and deeply appreciate your patience, grace, and flexibility as we navigate these challenges together.

Secretary Rollins on Hiring People Back

From E&E News:

Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins told lawmakers Tuesday that  she is planning to hire replacements for key roles across USDA after allowing more than 15,000 employees to leave through a Trump administration resignation program.
“Whether it’s [the Farm Service Agency, the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service or] wildlife firefighters … we are actively looking and recruiting to fill those positions that are integral to the efforts,” Rollins said at a House Appropriations subcommittee hearing on the White House’s fiscal 2026 budget proposal for the Agriculture Department. “We’re having those discussions right now.”

Job of the Day

Lead Project Forester, Colorado State Forest Service

I posted about GBI on May 1, and on May 2, Marc Heller posted about them on E&E News.

The hiring spree illustrates the chronic need for forest technicians and others whose work on national forests picks up in summer — a requirement that’s only grown with the Forest Service’s decision last year to suspend hiring for seasonal jobs not directly tied to wildfire. Organizations like the GBI that routinely work on national forests say they can’t bring on enough people to meet all the demand.
CEO Peter Woodruff told POLITICO’s E&E News that some of his group’s hiring would have occurred anyway through long-term partnerships already in place with the Forest Service. And while the hiring freeze predated the Trump administration, deep steep staff reductions directed by Elon Musk’s so-called Department of Government Efficiency have added to the strain, he said.
Indeed, Woodruff said, the GBI would probably be hiring more seasonal workers if not for lingering pauses on Forest Service grants that help make the organization’s work possible.
“This year, it’s an open question. It could be a tough year, or a productive year,” Woodruff said. “It’s hard to say.”

Adding to the uncertainty: The Trump administration has pulled back funding from the volunteer program AmeriCorps. Woodruff said the GBI is AmeriCorps’ largest grant recipient in Nevada, and his group recruits AmeriCorps members for a variety of forest work. In some cases, Woodruff said, federal payments to the GBI are still in limbo, putting additional seasonal hires in doubt. Projects to protect biodiversity — the variety of plants and animals native to forests — have sometimes fallen victim to the Trump administration’s effort to stamp out diversity, equity and inclusion programs, he said.

Woodruff said it’s not clear how many seasonals the GBI will hire. Last summer was its busiest, he said, with 900 seasonal hires across federal, state and other lands. The national forest positions recently posted include a timber sale administrator on the Stanislaus National Forest in California; an archaeology crew leader on the Sequoia National Forest in California; and forestry technicians “to perform timber-sale preparation, vegetation management and restoration projects” in the Sierra Nevada region for $21 an hour.

**********

While the hiring reflects an urgent need to fill Forest Service gaps this summer, it also fits into a larger trend toward relying on outside organizations to handle many tasks
not directly tied to fighting wildfires. Some of the work involves trail maintenance and other tasks plainly visible to the public. But much of the hiring is for more highly skilled work in preparing timber sales, conducting surveys of sites’ historical value and performing environmental analyses required by the National Environmental Policy Act.
The arrangements have critics who point to a potential lack of accountability when work is taken out of the direct hand of federal agencies. Deals with the GBI and others often aren’t subjected to competitive bidding as they replace civil servants with contractors, said Andy Stahl, executive director of Forest Service Employees for Environmental Ethics.

It seems to me that  grants by definition are never “subjected to competitive bidding.”  Check out Rich J.’s comment on the intent of grants, cooperative agreements and contracts. And again, I’ll say if it’s so hard for feds to hire or contact because of the difficulties of regulations (and in some cases,  poor organizations and programs like USA Jobs) the ultimate solution would be to streamline and improve, not farm out the work without competition.  And although this piece doesn’t mention it, permanent kinds of work is also being farmed out to grantees. Also grantees are not subject to FOIA, and presently Dave Mertz and I have had to FOIA to find out what the grantees are doing.  The latter could easily be helped by the FS simply posting the SPAs and quarterly and annual reports, or even regular summaries of activities.

For the organizations involved, the relationship with public land agencies can be a financial lifeline; the GBI reported $39 million in various government grants in 2023 out of $44 million in total revenue, according to its most recent publicly available income tax filing with the IRS. Ideally, the Forest Service wouldn’t need to rely on the GBI or other groups for seasonal jobs, Woodruff said.
But organizations that work with the agency say the outsourcing is mostly positive, filling needs the government can’t meet alone — and probably never will — and building relationships with communities. “To me, they’re being creative in a positive way,” said Steve Ellis, chair of the National Association of Forest Service Retirees. “There needs to be more active forest management out there.”
Officials haven’t said how long the hiring pause will last — and the Forest Service is still moving toward reductions in permanent staff. Agency employees familiar with the discussions say jobs not directly tied to fire or timber — such as research or headquarters administration in Washington — are likely most affected by voluntary departures and a future reduction in force.
With those changes looming, and the pre-Trump administration strains still in place, tapping nongovernmental partners makes sense, said Nick Smith, a spokesperson for the American Forest Resource Council. “Contracting with the private sector represents the future of federal forest management,” Smith said in an email.
He added, “The Forest Service will inevitably face continued budget and staffing constraints, even as demands increase — from reducing wildfire risk and addressing climate change to supporting timber production and other land management priorities. Embracing this new paradigm will enable the agency to leverage outside expertise, expand its capacity, and more effectively fulfill its mission in a time of urgent need.”

While Nick Smith mentions contracting in his email,  since the grant idea seems to be catching on, why not have timber sale grants instead of contracts?  Seems like it would also save a great deal of administrative time, paperwork and hassles.

Like I’ve said, I think that this is possibly a good short term fix, but transparency and accountability need to be improved, and long-term, the FS needs to decide what it wants to be when it grows up. There’s also a potential (not with folks like GBI or American Forests, NWTF, Mule Deer, TU or NFF ) for inexperienced entities to receive grants for unclear reasons.

Here’s what the current situation looks like to me.   A new Admin was elected, which wanted to downsize federal government.  The last time this happened (government-wide) was the Clinton Administration, so many current employees don’t remember.   The Clinton Admin analyzed first and cut second.   This Admin cut first, and is apparently analyzing at present, and trying to recover from some of the previous cuts.  Perhaps all of us (?) agree that that was a bad move (cutting first and asking questions later).  Given that, the FS has a number of ways to get work done.  In this post, I am focused on NFS, but it’s important to acknowledge that R&D (and S&PF via RGNR) also houses some expertise that is essential to NFS.

So in a previous post, I went from “helping” to “volunteering” and skipped many other ways of helping.  It’s the intent of this post to contextualize “volunteering.”

1. First we have existing what I’ll call “super-grants.”  These include, but are not limited to, Keystone Agreements. For example, the Great Basin Initiative has several positions open now.

Of course, I think that this kind of work is best done by federal employees, because of the learning done over the long-term, because of the interaction between the forest folks and R&D   If getting rid of employees willy-nilly is bad (which I think it is), is farming out work willy-nilly equally or almost as bad?

This is from Data Republican, not 100% sure it’s accurate, but couldn’t find anyone to contact on GBI website for media.

Now, I’m not criticizing any of these NGOs.. from my perspective, they are only trying to help. Like we would be, if we volunteered or got paid via:

2. Other grants (including ACES)
3. Contracts
4. Hiring new people (term or perm)
5. Authorities like reemployed annuitants.
6. Volunteers

So when I said, let’s us people with skills “help”, I, I didn’t mean just as volunteers, I meant via all the possibilities.

Now in my view, what the FS hasn’t done, and let’s not let the change in Administration get us all muddleheaded about this.. is decide what jobs are important to keep in-house, based on what criteria. Even though I am not a fan of either granting willy-nilly,  nor firing people willy-nilly, the current situation offers the Forest Service the chance to get its head straight on this.

At one end of the extreme is having one ranger in communities for local relationships, with a grants and agreements person to get funding to grantees to get work done. You wouldn’t need contracting expertise, because the grantees would do all the contracting. Pesky old FARS and government hiring hassles- out the door. Also potential worries about conflict of interest, and the government getting the best pricing. As far as I can tell, the deliverables and funding to grantees should be transparent, but they have not been and their work can’t be FOIAd so those might be concerns.

At the other end is the idea that each unit needs a certain set of skills in-house, and work to be contracted, granted, permitted or concessionaired is overseen by Contracting officers and experts in the disciplines. There is a basic level of expertise required to be available to each District (although resources can be shared among Districts), with higher levels of technical support of various kinds provided by Regions (think recreation special uses or genetics or engineering) or other shared entities (like the Content Analysis Team or other national teams). Maybe the FS can’t afford this. But I don’t think it’s been analyzed.

The latter has been the traditional approach, but there have been major gaps even before the budget crisis of last November.

We can look at all this through (at least) five lenses 1) relationships, 2) federal work and the old “inherently governmental” discussion and 3) what Andy Stahl would call the “bubba” factor or  maybe “economic justice for the working class”, 4) is competition for government bucks still a thing? when is it important? and 5) where should the technical expertise reside?
You can add your own lens in the comments.

Then there’s the question of “how much of farming things out is simply a response to overgrown, byzantine and impenetrable FARS and hiring requirements?  Perhaps some Admin will do something about those. I’m generally full of hope about the future, but on this one, I’m not holding my breath.

Then there is the political angle.. if we are not careful, what are the chances of developing an NGO-industrial complex, similar to the military-industrial complex that lobbies for its funding and whose interests are not strictly aligned with national interests? The FS can’t advocate for itself in Congress, but outside groups certainly can.

As the FS builds back from the retirements and RIFs, I think having a vision for what it wants to be,  what kind of presence to visitors it wants to portray (this is just the National Forest perspective, but lets not forget that some of R&D is essential)  and so on is important.

Right now it seems to be a patchwork.. volunteers here, grantees there, concessionaires here, employees there. These are all no doubt the best creative local adaptations to various conditions and opportunities that presented themselves through time. Can the FS as an organization, though, help everyone to be able to do their work by thinking all this through and organizing and budgeting differently in the long run? I think it’s worth a try.

The Forest Service Chief is announcing today that Gordie Blum will serve as Acting Regional Forester for the Eastern Region, effective May 1, 2025, and that Ben Newburn will serve as Acting Regional Forester for the Intermountain Region, effective April 28, 2025.  Blum will temporarily succeed Regional Forester Tony Dixon as he reaches his retirement date after 34 years of dedicated service.  Newburn will temporarily succeed Regional Forester Mary Farnsworth, who is retiring after 38 years of dedicated service.

Gordie Blum Bio:  

Gordie Blum comes to the Eastern Region from his position as director of Recreation, Heritage and Volunteer Services in the USDA Forest Service Headquarters in Washington, D.C.

Gordie has over 30 years of federal service. After serving in the U.S. Army from 1991-1997, he began his career with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in Chicago, Illinois before joining the Forest Service in 2000 as the communications director for the Forest Products Laboratory in Madison, Wisconsin. He has also been a legislative affairs specialist in Washington, D.C., the deputy and acting forest supervisor on the Willamette National Forest in Eugene, OR, Pacific Northwest Region Recreation, Lands and Minerals Director in Portland, and Eastern Region Recreation Director. Throughout his career he has served in numerous acting leadership assignments; including USDA Natural Resources and Environment liaison, deputy director of Fire and Aviation Management, and acting forest supervisor on the Chequamegon-Nicolet National Forest.

Gordie has a Bachelor of Arts degree from the University of Wisconsin, and a Master of Arts from the State University of New York. He is also a graduate of the Federal Executive Institute, and the USDA Senior Executive Service program. A father of two and husband to his wife for 30 years, Gordie enjoys all sorts of outdoor activities and doing restoration work on their property in southern Wisconsin.

******************

Ben Newburn Bio:

Ben Newburn has been selected as acting regional forester for the Intermountain Region, following his role as the region’s director of Fire & Aviation Management since 2021.

Newburn attended Eastern Washington University where he earned a degree in biological sciences with an emphasis in botany. He brings over 25 years of land management experience to the position, gained through his work with both the Bureau of Land Management and the Forest Service. His previous roles include deputy forest supervisor, deputy regional director, and various positions in Fire & Aviation Management in Montana, Washington, California, and Utah. He has also served as an incident commander on several significant and complex incidents.

Ben, his wife and their young son enjoy a variety of outdoor activities, traveling, and sports. In his free time, Ben renovates their home in Ogden, Utah.

********************

I ran across this in my files..since probably everyone from then is retired, I thought it worth sharing.  Some problems seem to be resolved (or adjusted to, like “burden shift”), while others are the same or worse.

X Forest Integrated Resource Review

September 2007

 Major Themes from Employee Surveys

 

Workload

• Frustration and stress cause by heavy, complex workload.
• Too many priorities and initiatives; targets too high.
• Overworked ID teams – too many projects, too few specialists.
• Burden shift – everyone must be an expert in travel, HR, computers, budget, etc.
• Mandatory training takes too much time.
• Need more LEOs to enforce travel management, etc.
• Failure to meet planning deadlines.

 

Working on the Right Things

• Too much time spent on planning vs. implementation, monitoring, on-the-ground work.
• Three themes are too vague, hard to measure
• Need to focus on travel management
• Pay more attention to recreation – increasing demand!
• Roads and trails are deteriorating
• Too much attention to public/interest group/political demands vs. needs on the ground.
• Good work in partnerships and volunteers.

 

Leadership

• Leaders need to say no more often to members of the public seeking permits, land exchanges, etc.
• Leaders need to set firm, clear priorities and say no to other expectations.
• Leaders need to communicate more, be more open about decisions.
• Leaders don’t deal with performance issues.  Need to hold people accountable.
• Leaders need to recognize and reward good work.

 

Service First

• Frustration with Service First: two sets of procedures, targets, priorities, etc.
• Service First provides good service to the public.
• Service First promotes integration.

 

Workforce Planning

• Cuts in workforce resulted in huge workloads.

• Employees feel their work isn’t respected.

• Employees stressed about coworkers losing their jobs.  Morale is low.

• Were the right cuts made?

• Leadership didn’t communicate well about workforce planning, withheld information.

• Impact on effectiveness (fire suppression, fuels, etc.).

• Wellness program reduced, but did it save money?

We served national forests under both parties, and know today our public lands are in danger (Opinion)
Divesting our public lands from public ownership would be a grievous error

But maybe the authors didn’t select the title or the tagline.

Collectively, we have over 200 years of experience in public land management and have served as U.S. Forest Service chiefs under both Republican and Democratic administrations. We are adamant that divesting our public lands from public ownership would be a grievous error. We encourage all Americans to support the public servants who work for you and, most importantly, the public lands that belong to all of us and define us as Americans.

There’s the “divesting” thing again. Some of us are still exhausted from the last decades of hearing about this.. for example this Center for American Progress Action write-up from 2015. It, of course, mentions the ever-unpopular Sagebrush Rebellion.

The idea that the federal government should transfer ownership of public lands to state governments or sell them off to private interests has percolated on the conservative fringe for decades. The concept briefly gained attention during the Sagebrush Rebellion—an anti-government movement in the West in the 1980s—but has not been able to overcome criticism that it is unconstitutional, fiscally irresponsible, and environmentally reckless.

Back to the op-ed:

This year started with the catastrophic fires in southern California. It is now only spring, and already we have an active fire season across parts of the southeast. Is this a time to dismiss thousands of trained firefighters? Most U.S. Forest Service employees have collateral firefighting jobs and are called on as fire season escalates.

We believe that the current administration’s abusive description of career federal employees is an unforced and, frankly, unforgettable error. These fired employees, we know from experience, represent the best of America. Many gave up other potentially financially lucrative jobs to serve the public interest, many were military veterans. To see them treated the way they have been over the past few months is incompetence at best and mean-spirited at worst.

We believe that the current administration’s abusive description of career federal employees is an unforced and, frankly, unforgettable error.

Is this really about FS employees or a more general concern about Administration statements? What exactly do the Chiefs mean by “unforgettable”? “incompetence at best and mean-spirited at worst”.

There was the random firing of some 3,400 probationary Forest Service employees, some with years of experience as seasonal firefighters, others with jobs ranging from managing prescribed fire and fuel reduction, timber sale layout, fish and wildlife habitat improvement to campground maintenance. This was followed by a court order to reinstate the fired employees, who were only soon to be fired again. Additionally, there was the buyout and retirement incentives of another 3,000 employees.

I am totally with them on the probationary employees, but on the other hand, the FS had hired more than they could afford, as we’ve described in other posts. So will future RIFs be “non-random?” will that be OK? Again, this takes a twist (one that I’ve heard before) about buyouts and incentives, which to me are a different kettle of fish. For one thing, they are voluntary. I don’t think that we can say “buyouts are disrespectful” when we didn’t say that for previous buyouts. In fact, some of us (including me) were told the FS would be better off if we would retire, and make room for fresh ideas and give a chance for the next generation to flourish. Kind of like overstory removal of trees with decreasing vigor.

While the exact numbers are changing daily, the chaotic approach resulted in many of the top leaders, including the Forest Service chief and another dozen top agency leaders to leave or be demoted. Further, major reductions in the workforce are expected. The administration has asked USDA to significantly cut more funding and people.

For me, if I had been SES, it would be all about pay retention, not demotion. GS-15 jobs can be more fun than SES, as far as I’ve observed. Not as much power, but not as much stress. And I would guess that there are many folks out there equally capable and desirous of being SES, given the chance. Unless things have changed, we always had pretty stiff competition for Forest Supervisors and above, and there are relatively few SES positions in the FS (and will possibly be fewer with consolidations).

This is occurring while a recent Executive Order calls for the immediate expansion of timber harvest from the National Forests and other federal public lands.

If the White House continues to dismiss the employees who manage the campgrounds, visitor information centers, trails systems for hiking, biking, horseback riding and motorized uses, facilities will have to be closed. The summer vacation season is just around the corner.

Permit holders for animal grazing, oil and gas leases, logging and mining activities will also be affected. It appears the intent is to create a number of crises for the millions of Americans who use the national forests and grasslands for their livelihoods and for their recreation.

How do we discern the intent of the Admin? If they want to reduce employees at the DOE, for example, does that mean that they want to create crises for users of energy? or CDC and public health?

And I believe the Secretary of Agriculture said that efforts to reduce would focus on middle managers (shades of Clinton Administration!) and administrative functions. I’m sure many folks including elected officials, who are probably giving their opinions to the Admin directly, don’t want any recreation, grazing, timber or other holdups.

Rural economies are intertwined with the uses on these lands, bringing millions of dollars to local economies.

Are these drastic actions the first steps toward crippling the agencies so they cannot carry out their Congressionally mandated mission? If so, they portend a cynical effort to divest and transfer federal public lands to the States and private interests.

Oh for Gifford’s sake! Here we go again with the standard privatization fear-mongering (as in above CAP 2015). States don’t want them, and the private dog (except for local housing) won’t hunt.

The national forests are public lands that are owned collectively by all U.S. Citizens and managed under the Multiple Use Sustained Yield Act and a host of other laws. These laws allow for responsibly managed oil and gas development, mining, timber harvest, as well as recreation development, untouched wilderness, and many other uses. Most importantly, they are the backyard of families that camp, hike, bike, cut firewood, ski, float rivers, hunt or fish on their public lands without “no trespassing” signs.

More than 60 million Americans get their drinking water from streams that flow from the 193 million acres of national forests. Truly, we have a federal public land system in the U.S. that serves us daily and is the envy of natural resource professionals around the world for the benefits realized by our citizens daily. Divesture of these precious lands, that belong to all citizens rich and poor, would be an irreparable tragedy.

The first Forest Service Chief Gifford Pinchot famously wrote, “Where conflicting interests must be reconciled, the question shall always be answered from the standpoint of the greatest good of the greatest number in the long run.” We believe the greatest good is keeping the National Forests and all federal public lands in the hands of all citizens for future generations.

It seems like the Chiefs are saying “don’t get rid of employees who provide important services.” I think the Administration probably agrees with that. Legally, though, they have to follow OPM procedures for RIF and VERA, which means that the outcome can’t be precisely controlled, as many of us have experienced in the past. Fortunately for the mission, if particularly knowledgeable and useful people retire, they can and do come back as Reemployed Annuitants, contractors, hired by partners/grantees, or via the ACES program.

We all support the National Forests, I think everyone here can agree. And yet, the Forest Service apparently has more employees than it can afford. The op-ed is arguing against selling public lands, which isn’t on the table. The writeup sounds like it was mostly Dombeck and associates, and the others signed on. Wouldn’t it be interesting, instead to hear what their desired solutions would be, given the situation? Here are some possibilities.

(1) No one should be RIFed or take early out, despite the fact that FS is over budget.(Every position is needed? I would say I don’t agree with that.
(2) We recognize the problem, but think a better way to reduce numbers would be to…. Keep everyone red-carded who has been on say…more than three fires in the past three years?
(3) Increased the budget to cover the recent hires? Keep everyone red-carded who has been on say…more than three fires in the past three years?
(4) The Admin should stop disrespecting employees by making negative statements. I don’t think the Chief or the Secretary is, so .. they would have to be more specific. There are other ways of disrespecting, possibly including pulling purchase cards?
(5) Temporaries are very important to summer field work, so the FS should find the money to hire them, even if it may be too late.

Vinegar or Honey?

In contrast to the Dombeck et al. op-ed, on X this morning I saw an open letter to Secretary Wright from various energy groups who all benefit from the DOE Loan Programs Office:

As budget and staffing decisions are weighed across the Department, we encourage the administration to ensure LPO remains fully equipped to carry out its mission. The office’s ability to underwrite and monitor large-scale energy projects depends on specialized technical staff and institutional capacity. Without them, the federal government risks slowing or stalling the diverse mix of energy projects that serve national priorities, such as new nuclear energy development for powering AI data centers—undermining investment certainty and weakening American competitiveness.

….

These are precisely the kinds of projects the administration has championed: American-made, job-creating, pro-growth, and foundational to national strength and security.We respectfully urge you to preserve LPO’s robust financing capabilities. As your administration advances its energy and industrial agenda, maintaining the Loan Programs Office will be critical to delivering results.Thank you for your leadership and commitment to American energy excellence.

It’s quite a different tone (and audience) from the op-ed in the Denver Post. Recalling:
“Are these drastic actions the first steps toward crippling the agencies so they cannot carry out their Congressionally mandated mission?”
“current administration’s abusive description of career federal employees is an unforced and, frankly, unforgettable error.”

Maybe the Chiefs would be more likely to have their ideas considered by the new Administration by taking a less histrionic approach, and dealing directly with the Administration? Or maybe they are and this is a two-pronged approach? It would be easy to imagine rewriting the DOE letter to incorporate their/our concerns. They/we could write one to the current Chief and relate our concerns to the Chief’s stated priorities of “safety, active forest management, fire management and recreation.”

If I said “respect is a two-way street” you might say “this Admin should not be respected because…”, but I am a pragmatist. As the old saying says, “you can catch more flies with honey than with vinegar.” I think the authors of the DOE letter are obviously interested in procuring flies (loans). Not so sure about folks using vinegar.