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

This effort involves restructuring the Directives System and clarifying the purposes of its two components, the Forest Service Manual and Handbooks. We are preparing to take the first step—issuing a proposed rule—this spring.

I’ll tell one story, and I’m sure you have your own which we would like to hear about directives. In the early 2000s, I was working on developing the Limited Timber Harvest CE with my the EMC Deputy, Pam Gardiner. The process was basically we worked on stuff, CEQ asked questions and we worked on more stuff in return, for months, until Mark Rey (our undersecretary) had a chat with Jim Connaughton, at that time head of CEQ.

Pam and I convinced the nice attorneys at CEQ that certain bad things wouldn’t happen because of requirements in the FS Manual and Handbook in timber management or whatever it was called at the time. We were quite happy until we returned to the Yates Building, and the timber folks told us that they didn’t actually follow those requirements (implying that we should have known). Point being their existence did not, in this case, contribute to clear inter-staff communication.

On the other hand, the NEPA handbook has all the relevant information a person would need to find out what the FS is required to do. I used it all the time when I worked in NEPA, and it’s also helpful to externals and even me here at TSW to know that the info is in one place.

My conclusion is that some roundups of info are useful and others are not so much. In the Tree Improvement Program in Region 6, we had Regional Tree Improvement Papers that gave people advice on best practices, but didn’t have requirements and could be easily updated. So there are other ways to standardize advice, compared to requirements.

What has been your experience with the Manual and Handbook? And what would you like to see changed?

******************
Here’s the Chief on this:

For too long, the Forest Service has been bogged down by excessive processes that hamper innovation. I want every employee to focus on actions that roll back this red tape. Doing so ensures critical projects are easier and faster to accomplish. I believe that the people closest to the ground know the forest best, and we should listen to what they have to say.

As I stated in my FY26 priorities, deregulation is a top priority for our agency. Most would agree that our directives are overly complicated, lengthy and outdated. At my direction, the Forest Service Policy Office has developed and begun implementing a “Directives Modernization” strategy. This strategy will streamline and simplify our directives and return discretion to decision-makers in the field.

This effort involves restructuring the Directives System and clarifying the purposes of its two components, the Forest Service Manual and Handbooks. We are preparing to take the first step—issuing a proposed rule—this spring.

Through this rulemaking we propose to redefine the nature of the Forest Service Manual and Handbooks. All mandatory directions will be contained in the manual. These requirements will be reduced to the minimum necessary to ensure we comply with the law, keep people safe and manage taxpayer dollars responsibly.

Once the rule is finalized, handbooks will contain only non-binding advice to help employees get their jobs done—no more inflexible mandates or prescriptive procedures. The new handbooks will support employees who are new to the agency, to their role or to a place while empowering those with more experience to make decisions based on their hard-earned knowledge and expertise.

Additionally, we will rescind most regional, station and unit-level directive supplements to provide a more consistent set of expectations for agency employees—and greater predictability for our partners, visitors and customers—across all Forest Service units.

We aim to complete this part of the strategy by the end of the current fiscal year. We also plan to revise national directives to align with the pending agency reorganization. That revision will ensure authorities are delegated appropriately.

Rightsizing our directive system is a substantial undertaking that will require input from a range of stakeholders inside and outside the agency. The Policy Office will lead this effort and work collaboratively with programs to make the necessary directives changes. Public and tribal notice and comment opportunities will be provided for the upcoming rulemaking and for each subsequent step required by law. We look forward to your engagement and feedback.

It sounds like employees and stakeholders will have time to think about this.. we can start with some discussion here.

Stay tuned… I am reflecting on the comments on thinning as well as the Lindenmeyer et al. paper, so we will be back to that in a while.

For now, though, I’m posting a Blast From the Past, in which Chief Jack Ward Thomas talks to WO employees about reorganization (1995). You can read the piece in its entirety on the Forest History Society site (shout out to them!). I picked out the parts that seem similar or different to today. Sometimes I think that older people don’t have “wisdom” as such, but the experience of having lived through time gives us the ability to discern the signal (long term trends) from the noise (the fads or approaches of the current day.)

For those of a political persuasion, here is the political context for 1995. Reinventing Government was a Clinton initiative and both houses of Congress were controlled by Republicans. According to Google AI “Key Conflict: A major budget impasse between the Republican Congress and President Clinton led to two federal government shutdowns in late 1995 and early 1996.”

Many of the concerns expressed by Chief Thomas are still concerns, and hopefully folks who remember will add how they pereceived these changes, and why they think some of them didn’t work as intended over time.

Sidenote: at this time I was a WO drone as the Research Coordinator for the RPA Program, and I don’t remember the Chief’s talk or being reorganized. Hopefully some other retiree, maybe Michael, who remembers better can give some relevant context. I do remember JWT’s mantra “change or die.”

Jack Ward Thomas
Remarks to WO Employees
January 5 & 9 1995
Restructuring the Washington Office

Thirteen months ago, in my first all-employees meeting with you, I said “change or die” and later presented the corollary ~ “change and live. Today, we meet to begin a process of change that will bring us into the 21st century as the leaders in conservation that we want to be.

We face many challenges. We will overcome those challenges together. They include reduced budgets, Congressional mandates to reduce Washington Office and Regional Office staffing, reorganization of USDA, seemingly ever-increasing skepticism of federal government by the American people, mandated increases in supervisor to employee ratios, orders to disproportionately reduce GS-14 and above positions, and other edicts which seem to occur with ever-greater frequency. Global markets and perspectives which have accelerated the “ripples” of change moving through our country. Adjusting to this instability is complicated by the dramatically shifting paradigms in natural resource management.

It is not just the Forest service going through such changes. The entire government is being dramatically changed altered by several interacting factors. It is appropriate to examine some of the reasons.

The civilian work force is declining dramatically — dropping 272,000 government-wide, the Forest Service share is to go from the present level of 40,612 to to 37,523 FTEs by 1999. This is on top of a decline of some 4,000 since 1992. Reductions are targeted in several categories such as personnel involved in policy making in the WO and administrative and supervisory staff throughout the agency. We are supposed to reduce to 1,003 personnel at grade 14 and above by the end of FY95. The Washington Office share off these reductions is to drop at least 25% from FY92 levels. To make the minimum 25% cut, the FTE count must be not more than 680 by 1999. The current FTE count is 850.

Budgets continue to decline. In facing up to the Nation’s $4 trillion deficit, the Forest Service is helping by spending less. Budgets have been generally “flat• for the past several years. This simply means, when inflation is considered, that the Forest Service budget is and will continue, for the foreseeable future, to decline at a rate of 3-5 percent per year. Congressional committees are considering recissions of over $100 million for the Forest Service for 1995 with similar cuts in the 1996 budget.

Public expectations seem to be changing. Political pundits describe the recent elections as indicative of the people’s desire for a changed approach to federal government. People are described as wanting a smaller, more efficient federal government that is more responsive to their needs. It is difficult to not agree. Such agrees with our basic premises set forth in the Reinvention report.

There have been significant effects of law and legal challenges on the way the Forest service does business. Much has been learned from a series of court cases involving the Endangered Species Act and the National Forest Management Act. Our recent victory in the Ninth Circuit Court on the President’s Forest Plan for the federal forests, in the Pacific Northwest is an indicator of what works and where we can go to have a firm basis for our management. Recent set-backs in the Pacific River cases in eastern Oregon and Washington and the Columbia Basin have brought forth similar lessons.

The national policy to undertake ecosystem management changes the way we do things. Our scientific knowledge and technological strengths now make it possible to assess, monitor, analyze, and manage with an ecosystem view. The Forest Service faces vast changes in our work as priorities and budgets have shifted away from production and targets to land condition and ecosystem management. In the face of these challenges — most far beyond our ability to control — we have the will to change and live!

How will this be done? As a way of gaining insight from the experience of others in government and private industry that have gone through the reinvention experience. I have read a number of books on the subject recently. A list of such books and articles is attached to the handout you have received here today.

The January 1st’s Washington Post “Business” section summed up the basics to be gleaned from these sources nicely. Perhaps you saw Steven Pearlstein’s article, “Two at the Top: ’95’s Odd Couple, A Pruning Primer as Gingrich and Company Prepare to Cut,… “. It had eight messages: “Be Bold, Arbitrary is Okay, Decide Your Direction, Reorganize the Work, Change Personnel Rules, Nurture the Survivors, Outsourcing Works, and Honor the Risk Taker.”

First Message: Be Bold
I have called for each team that has served in the progressive attention Reinvention to “be bold.” I told them not to stop at timid half-measures and to settle for incremental changes. Instead, they were instructed to reach for truly sweeping changes — for such change is essential. Those teams have done that. Together, we will continue on course to the future.

Second Message: Arbitrary is Okay
I have said we will avoid “no-brainers” during reinvention such as across the-board percentage staff or budget reductions. We will not do those things for to continue on such course merely produces debilitation and general mediocrity. We will spend the next 75 days consulting with you to help to, simultaneously, prevent “no-brainers” and how to emphasize areas of our mission that are most critical. This implies doing “less with less” while concentrating our efforts on being the very best at those things we do emphasize.

On the other hand, at some point over the next 75 days the National Leadership Team~ decide the future structure of the WO. Inevitably such decisions will seem arbitrary to some of those who do not like the decisions. But, believe me, by then, you will have been listened to and heard — if you take advantage of the opportunity to participate. The National Leadership Team will reflect on and help address the personal or professional problems that arise from restructuring the WO. But, make no mistake, a change in WO purpose, culture, structure, role, and work is already happening and will continue. The opportunity for participation is open to all of you. The time is now.  In 75 days, the die will be cast.

*

I was told that this was a handout from the Supe’s Meeting.. I don’t have independent confirmation. It does sound plausible, given what Chief Schultz and others have previously said. A few things I found worthy of note.

Aggressive coordinated approach to keep fires small. I assume that this is the same approach as the new USWFS?

Positioning grazing as a core land management tool by expanding access, modernizing processes, and elevating producer voices. I’d be interested in what they mean by “expanding access.”

Supporting energy development that complements forest management I think this means “producing energy from wood waste from fuel treatments” but I don’t know.

My favorites were the first three recreation bullets.. improving trails, campgrounds and facilities and maintaining infrastructure such as roads and bridges.
I also like personalizing and expanding visitor access through on-site staff and volunteer engagement.

“Onsite engagement” I vote yes. I wrote about this in 2012 as the importance of presence, comparing the Park Service focus vs. the FS (in that case, concessionaires).

2012. I would argue with “virtual concierge services, like Recreation.gov”. It seems to me that in today’s AI age, we could do better and save the taxpayers mega-bucks by doing the concierge-ing in-house. Anyway…what strikes or surprises you? Sorry about the gaps between pages.

I b

Here’s what Deputy Chief John Crockett had to say about the meeting:

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

Perhaps the most important component of creating a shared understanding among many is building community. Last week, that’s exactly what we accomplished at the National Active Forest Management Meeting.

The meeting’s objectives included giving line officers an overview of agency priorities for increasing timber production and reducing wildfire risk, creating a shared understanding of success, and exploring approaches and tools for achieving management goals.

For the first time in 25 years, forest supervisors were together on site to hear directly from agency leaders as a cohort. They were then given the opportunity to participate in small group discussions with leadership. The meeting also incorporated partner perspectives by bringing in representatives from the National Forest Foundation and Society of American Foresters, among others. Topics covered ranged from understanding updated guidance provided by executive orders and memos, to achieving multiple mission objectives while prioritizing timber, and encouraging partner participation in the National Active Forest Management Strategy.

None of these objectives could be met without a foundation of trust, and that trust was built through the week’s practical, solution-focused panels. Panelists highlighted specific projects, steps they took to deliver results on time and on budget, and lessons learned. Attendees asked targeted questions, compared approaches, and shared field-tested practices.

We heard from many attendees that listening and learning from one another across disciplines was key. As White Mountain National Forest Supervisor Derek Ibarguen noted, seeing “how different people have innovated to tackle projects was inspiring,” but equally important to him was learning whom he could call for assistance.

Eli Ilano, Deputy Director of Natural Resources, felt that peer learning had a positive effect—”instead of lectures, people were able to engage with one another both formally and informally” to build networks. He noted that informal sharing helped people see their commonalities, an idea echoed by Scott Tangenberg, Acting Forest Supervisor for Cleveland National Forest. Tangenberg felt that those who may have begun the week thinking their forest challenges were unique began to realize there was more that united them than separated them.

Throughout the week, discussions allowed us to align around our fiscal year 2026 agency priorities, which Chief Schultz announced in last Friday’s Inside the Forest Service. There, participants discussed approaches and were given practical tools for improving efficiencies for timber harvesting, permitting, post-fire recovery and shared stewardship. Foundational to the week’s success was its format and topics. Discussions were led by panels that coupled line officers with subject matter experts and provided specific, distinct perspectives on myriad topics. Participants also split into small groups for breakout sessions, rotating from one session to the next so that each participant learned about each topic.

While talks centered on our agency priorities, other themes that emerged from the week included the need to strengthen shared stewardship, focus on the day-to-day services we provide the public, and address fuels, grazing, and other challenges directly. We aim to lead through transition by staying engaged and helping our teams navigate change, empowering employees, and modeling accountability by demonstrating effective leadership through partnership and follow-through. We also commit to achieving results and building relationships—fostering trust inside the agency and with the people we serve, while supporting one another as a community of leaders.

More importantly, I believe this week was just the first step. As one participant said, “Building communities of practice is critical to success.” We will continue to develop this community by offering ongoing opportunities to engage with one another, both formally and informally, on topics affecting the agency and its people.

We built a shared understanding of current priorities last week. Now, we want people to implement them on the ground and share what works. The meeting organizers intend to solicit feedback from participants to allow for continued discussion and the development of future sessions.

I’ll close with what Chris French said when asked for a quote about this event: “Long overdue and inspiring.” I hope this is the first of many such events that build a shared understanding of our agency’s future.

**********

I’ve heard some things as translated from Supes to others.. nothing too different from what we have been hearing.  I’d be interested in what others have gotten through the grapevine.. each person has different experiences and focuses on different things, and that’s just the attendee, not the people listening to what the Supes coming back have to say.

So it’s a bit like the game of telephone but nevertheless…

Here’s the link:

Since day one, my work as Chief has been to refocus our efforts on the fundamental work that delivers the greatest good to the American people. As we begin this new year together, I want to talk directly with you about the priorities guiding us forward.

Our priorities reflect a back-to-basics approach that centers on the work we know matters most: keeping people safe, protecting communities from wildfire, actively managing our forests for health and productivity, supporting communities recovering after disasters, expanding access to the outdoors, cutting unnecessary red tape, and strengthening the partnerships that bolster our ability to deliver our mission-critical work.

Safety at the core: Safety must always be at the forefront of our minds, so let’s start there. Safety is the foundation of everything we do at the Forest Service. This includes making safety the first and last step of every operation—from fireline to fieldwork. Our work culture must be one of care, where safety goes beyond just avoiding injuries or accidents.

Wildfire readiness and response: To protect lives, property and forests, we will double down on wildfire readiness and rapid response via aggressive, coordinated response to keep fires small. We will focus our investment in interagency, contract, infrastructure and staff resources to match the reality of year-round fires and strengthen communities through partnerships and effective planning. We’ll also reduce wildfire risk with valuable tools we already use by increasing prescribed fire and fuel treatments.

Active forest management—Timber production, grazing and reforestation: We must do more to create resilient forests through active forest management, including fuels reduction through mechanical thinning and prescribed fires. I believe expanding timber production and reducing barriers to grazing are important pillars for keeping our forests open, healthy and productive. Boosting timber production will not just help with our overall forest health but will also support local mills, critical to the success of our forest management work. Additionally, we need to position grazing as a core land management tool by expanding access, modernizing processes and elevating producer voices.

We need to accelerate the reforestation process in areas that have been affected by wildfires and streamline permits and reviews to deliver results faster. The final piece of forest management, I believe, lies in our ability to expand our wood products and energy markets through innovation.

Minerals and energy development: National forests provide more than water and recreation; they’re a foundation for energy security and innovation. I want our agency to unleash American energy and resource potential as part of our multiple-use mission. First and foremost, we must support access to critical minerals essential to energy, defense and technology. We also need to reduce the amount of red tape needed to accelerate responsible exploration and permitting for said resources. Finally, we must also support energy development that complements forest management. I believe that responsible resource use helps strengthen the nation’s economy and resilience.

Disaster recovery: When disasters strike, the Forest Service helps communities recover by repairing trails and other infrastructure, restoring damaged landscape, and restoring damaged forests. Rebuilding and restoration, and being an active part of the community, are integral parts of our mission that I want to not just continue but strengthen. When we help communities and forests affected by natural disasters, we are also helping strengthen relationships and mitigating damage from future disasters. Restoring damaged forests and grasslands benefits us today and well into the future.

Recreation access and infrastructure: Outdoor recreation continues to grow, and millions of people rely on us for access to the places they love. Expanding that access and improving visitor experience is a major priority. We’re modernizing trails, campgrounds, and facilities; improving roads and recreation sites; strengthening on-the-ground engagement; and using tools like Recreation.gov to help visitors plan safe, enjoyable trips. Our goal is simple: more access, better service, and a visitor experience that reflects the pride we take in stewarding our forests.

Deregulation and organizational efficiency: For too long, the Forest Service has been bogged down by excessive processes that hamper innovation and don’t serve the American people. Reducing burdensome processes increases efficiency and delivers results on the ground. I want us all to focus on actions that roll back this red tape. I want to ensure critical projects can be accomplished easier and faster by clearing obstacles that make it hard to do business with the Forest Service. I believe that the people closest to the ground know the forest best, and we should listen to what they have to say about it. We must also work to reduce administrative layers and focus on delivering services more efficiently.

Partnerships and cooperative federalism: And finally, I want to recognize the work we are doing alongside state, tribal and local governments to manage the nation’s forests more effectively. Shared stewardship and local collaboration are essential to improving forest health, wildfire resilience, recreation access and conservation outcomes.

We are all part of this important work. By focusing on the fundamentals, we can do more to support the health and vitality of our forests and grasslands and neighboring communities. These priorities provide us with a clear path forward as we manage America’s forests and grasslands for the benefit of all people, today and into the future.

*******

We’ve been discussing the Shared Stewardship Agreements and the concept of joint priority-setting with the State.  Which reminded me of many years ago when I worked in Region 2, there was thinking that partnerships were the way to go.  If I remember correctly, the thinking was something like “we’ll never get all the funding we need to do the work that’s needed, so we should use partnerships.)  For our partisan friends out there, this was an observation (not enough funding) based on decades of different R/D combos in the Executive Branch and Congress.

Even back in those long-ago days, some Forest Supes raised questions… “but what if the partnerships change the Forest’s priorities?”  I think that particular discussion was about the Forests to Faucets partnership with Denver Water.  Denver Water has an important role in providing water to Coloradans, and brought funding to the table.

Which raises another question… “should bringing funding to the table change FS priorities?”.  For example, 

SE Group was contracted by Willow Brook Metropolitan District (WBMD) in 2021 assist WBMD and the White River National Forest (WRNF) Dillon Ranger District with National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) compliance for 33 acres of fuels treatments on National Forest System lands. The area proposed for treatment is located near Silverthorne, Colorado, adjacent to WBMD’s Ruby Ranch Subdivision, and entirely within the Eagles Nest Wilderness.

Aside: the Wilderness part is kind of interesting, especially since that’s an issue in another project I was looking at recently. Apparently it was done with a CE, but was only 33 acres.  The photo above gives you an idea of the area.

In March 2020 a Minimum Requirements Decision Guide (MRDG) was completed by Forest Service staff to help make the determination that an administrative action is necessary in wilderness and to design a project that preserves wilderness character and represents the “minimum necessary” action. SE Group’s subconsultants completed cultural, wildlife, botany, and wetlands and waters of the U.S. field survey and reporting of the area in the summer of 2021.

Recently, we’ve seen a variety of other kinds of financial cooperation..this agreement for example, which is not characterized as “Forest Service Gives Control to DOD”.

COLORADO SPRINGS, Colo. (KOAA) — The U.S. Forest Service and the U.S. Department of Defense are launching a 10-year partnership to prevent wildfire risk around the Air Force Academy and Cheyenne Mountain Space Force Station.

The $7.3 million investment from the DOD will treat 2,000 acres of National Forest System land and non-federal lands near the two military installations. The partnership aims to do the following:

• remove unhealthy trees
• reduce dangerous fuels
• create firebreaks
• control lines

The following agencies partnered for the project:

• Colorado Springs Fire Department

• Forest Service

• Colorado State Forest Service

• Colorado Springs Utilities

• Air Force Civil Engineer Center

• U.S. Army

• Palmer Land Conservancy

• Pikes Peak Area Council of Governments

Or this $2.5 mill of Colorado State funding for recreation work around Pike’s Peak.

It seems to me that if say, Trout Unlimited brings money to the table for a particular project, that would increase the priority of that particular project, as the FS can get more watershed improvement done for the same dollars.   Or fuel treatment, or whatever.  Why would setting priorities with the State be any different? or is it?