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

We’ve been having an interesting discussion related to the role of the Regional Offices.

As we dove in during the 2007 Transformation effort,  we looked at what RO’s did. Regional Offices apportion budgets (and targets), provide technical support to the Forests and exercise some kind of oversight of forest decisions.  When I said in the post:

As a former RO employee in “environmental planning”.. I don’t actually remember the RO doing much decision-making. The RF signed off on Forest plans (at the time).. we did a Regional lynx amendment (not sure who signed it). It’s not that I disagree with the idea, it’s just one of those content analysis things where you don’t really know if the commenters were responding to something specific, or they had a different idea of how decisions are currently made.

I was talking about technically signing decision documents.  In our Region, the appeals process was run by Regional Review teams from forests, and a Forest Supe worked on them as Deciding Official.  They all took this work very seriously and put an incredible amount of effort into it.

When I was in NEPA in DC, we ran into one forest who seemed to want to do what we thought of as CE abuse in a certain (not 2) Region.  The RO staff called it out, but the RF did not tell the Forest Supe to stand down.  I wonder whether RFs have to ration their interference with Forest decisions, based on culture or personality or number of other conflicting objectives.

But as I think back on it, I suspect that different Regions have different cultures. In fact, probably different staffs within different Regions have different cultures about the advice to oversight continuum.  Indeed, for different time periods and different Forest Supe -DRF -RF-Director personalities might have an impact as well.  So I am hoping commenters with different Regions, staffs and time periods experiences will weigh in.

I’ll highlight a few comments here that make me think there is that kind of diversity.

Okey Dokey Smokey said in this comment:

I think this is driven by non profit environmental groups who for years had been given a cozy reception at Regional Offices any time they did not like decisions made at forest level, or wanted to force Forest Sups to make the similar decisions on zone or regional issues… I believe many Forest level employees saw Regional Offices as bloated high graded inefficient controlling and strongly biased toward protection and against multiple use. I say good riddance to that system.

If you think of the different staffs in an RO,  in our case we had Veg Management, Recreation, something like Lands and Minerals, Planning, Engineering, Fire, Coop Forestry, Tribal Relations, as well as more administrative functions.  My own experience was that specialists like hydrologists, botanists, wildlife, silviculture, timber and so on basically had to work it out within their staff (whew for the rest of us).  During one Colorado Roadless EIS, I had to ask the hydrologist and the fish bio to coordinate because they wrote different things about the same impacts. We had our own technical specialists in planning, economists and social scientists, but for some reason there didn’t seem to be as much internal staff or external conflict with them. Perhaps because forests didn’t have their own, they seemed happy to get the work done.  Folks in minerals seemed like they didn’t have ideological problems with minerals, nor did recreation folks with recreation (mostly), nor engineers with roads or bridges, nor wildfire folks with prescribed fire or fires suppression.

Suelo said:

“As a former RO employee in “environmental planning”.. I don’t actually remember the RO doing much decision-making.”

The implied innocence of RO leaves me dumbfounded. When it comes to resource protections – which is the source of NEPA dilation in management actions – RO culpability is a given. Generally, you want to rely on the RO but disconnectedness keeps you from making that call for ‘support’

I’m not sure Suelo meant “dilation,” and I thought NEPA was a procedural statute (I think the Supreme Court agrees, FWIW).  We hired the best people we could find to be experts and they were called by forests plenty   In some cases, I don’t think it was because the Forest folks didn’t have a very good idea of what they were doing, but various aspects could be questioned and so it was thought to be good to have the RO “blessing” just in case something went awry later.

I also think asking, at least in NEPA,  is partially personality dependent, forest expertise dependent, and sometimes people are hired for say dual career or other reasons and the forests know they don’t have the NEPA chops and don’t call them.  Word gets around.

Finally, in terms of oversight, we did whole-Forest reviews (including separate employee and public input) and some forest program reviews.  Do RO’s still do those? What has been your experience, as reviewer or reviewee?

So my question to all folks out there with experience on Forests and in RO’s…  what kind of important oversight did they do? And especially for those with experience in several Regions- are the cultures very different?

I don’t know much about BLM folks so I wouldn’t have thought that this E&E News story would be of interest, except for one thing.

Reviving the liaison role is part of a senior staff reshuffling that BLM staff began learning about on Monday and also involves several other senior program directors
and state office directors. BLM and the Interior Department declined to comment. But details about many of the reassignments were outlined to the bureau’s resources and planning staff during a conference call Tuesday, a recording of which was obtained by POLITICO’s E&E News. The senior staff reshuffling involves temporarily reassigning nine officials to new positions for at least 120 days, starting Jan. 12. The reassignments can be extended another 120 days or eventually made permanent.

This seems like a new thing to me, but perhaps not.  Someone in a conference call recorded it, and shared it with Politico. Politico is generally thought (although, sigh, the bias reporting folks also have biases, so there’s that) to be a left of center publication. At the beginning of this Admin, purchasing E&E News subscriptions was cut off for some federal entities.  I don’t know if those subscriptions were started again, but it’s reasonable to assume some potential bad blood between Politico and this Admin.

It seems to me that this raises all kinds of issues.

1. Is this a step further than just leaking draft documents to interested parties? Does it matter whether the leak is to an ENGO or to the press?
2. Personally, I would consider it a bit of a stab in the back if a co-worker recorded a conference call I was in without telling me.  Mistrust among co-workers is not a good thing, is it?
3. It’s legal to record with only one party consenting in DC apparently.. but do state laws apply when parties to the call are in different states?
4.  Would it be OK for someone to record a conference call in some future D Admin and leak it to some R -leaning outlet?
5. I noticed that Senator Wyden has a banner across the top of his webpage “submit a whistleblower complaint“.. I didn’t notice that during the last Admin. I also didn’t notice it on Senator Padilla’s, Hickenlooper’s, Bennet’s, or Merkley’s webpages.  I like his definitions “if you wish to report waste, fraud, abuse, or retaliation, potential violations of law or threats to public safety.”  I can see whistleblowing, and running through the internal review processes first, but this was just a … conference call.

I recall very few of these kinds of stories during the Biden Admin, and yet I’m sure that BLM politicals were having conference calls about positions.  Were people not leaking (if not, why not?) or were sources like Politico not as interested (if not, why not?).  It seems to me that if federal employees want people to believe that they are not partisan, they should behave similarly for each color of Admin.

What do you all think about .. is there a line for leaking? How does it relate to whistleblowing? Of course, maybe the recording wasn’t leaked.. the story is careful to say it was “obtained”, so perhaps Politico is bugging Interior offices?

A number of interesting things have happened over the past week or so..

Saturday- at a meeting it was announced at a meeting that the Forest Service would be moving its headquarters to Salt Lake City if Congress approves.  Tim at the Hotshot Wakeup has a story about this, including comments from the Department and other sources.

I think it’s a bad idea, and at the same time, I don’t think all the positions in DC need to be there.  Having tried to recruit people to DC, both in R&D and in NEPA, to GS-14 and 15 positions.. well, it wasn’t easy and I didn’t often get the cream of the crop.  In fact, I wasn’t necessarily the cream of the crop either, as I was in DC for dual-career reasons.

Just let’s suppose for a minute, that a foundation existed that was interested in good government in general, and not making partisan political points.

They might fund a school of public administration (or more than one) to ask questions like:

The BLM Experience

What happened to the BLM’s HQ in Grand Junction? What were the goals? Were they successful at meeting them? Did the next Admin ever bring career people back to DC? Which ones? What was their rationale for bringing them back?

The Forest Service Minerals Experience

FS Minerals moved their WO staff to Denver.  As I recall the Director had two offices, one in DC and one in our RO, perhaps this changed.  Did this “work”? How did the employees feel about it? How did those using their skills feel about it? I know as a client (in the same building) it worked for me, in fact there was a coal expert in Salt Lake who was very knowledgeable and helpful.  In fact, we cared more about their expertise and helpfulness than where they were.

Do Certain Positions Lend Themselves to Being in DC? What Kind of Criteria Would We Use?

Of course! Legislative Affairs, for one, and high ranking officials (Directors and above?).  My own experience was that I often met with CEQ in person (as AD of NEPA) but others not so much.   We met with OGC quite a bit working on a planning rule, and occasionally we’d meet with NRE (when forests flew into town to present their plans).

Moving People Vs. Hiring the Next Person at the New Place

If policies were reasonable, we would analyze these situations and likely determine that many positions did not need to be in DC.  Letting the current employees work in DC and hiring new positions in the new place would be the least disruptive to employees and their families. This is very rational, but would require consistency in policies over time, which is hard to do when the issue becomes a partisan football.

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

How do we end up with irrational policies, and alternating throwing out babies with the bathwater as each color of Admin replaces the next? Probably because each Admin can count on only four years to do what they do.. reward their friends and punish their enemies.

I attribute to a lack of interest in government effectiveness from rich people who fund foundations and charities. I don’t expect reporters to do this kind of work.  We have schools of public administration and they are likely to do whatever they are funded to do.

There is no center of reasonableness, but there could be.

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

Frankly, I always found it difficult to reconcile the view of some D’s that moving any positions from DC would be bad, even though their Admin’s work from home policies meant that the Yates Building (and some ROs) had very few people actually in them.  So that’s another seemingly incongruent position that reasonable people might be curious about.

And I think moving all of headquarters willy-nilly to SLC is a bad idea.   So here we are.. there is a pathway to reasonable change, but will the underlying analysis be there to take it? Or will we be swept up in another round of partisan sniping and unnecessary drama to the detriment of employees and after all the main objective of all, I would think, getting the work done.

The Sierra Club example (and the New York Times examples) seemed to be targeted bullying of those with different views, or those who had the same views but didn’t pass some kind of test of acquiescence to enthusiam.  The behavior is often tolerated because the targeters think themselves to be operating from a state of righteousness. It’s kind of the natural result of “ends justify the means” thinking.  Bystanders are probably hoping to get their work done and not get involved.  I don’t know how common that is in the Forest Service.  Lesa Donnelly, who is very experienced with bullying and other misbehavior in the Forest Service has a comment here.

I found this set of definitions, which was helpful.

Here are more thoughts on the Sierra Club story in the New York Times. Forrest Fleischmann raised some interesting points on Bluesky.

Groups of Employees Bullying Others. The guise is almost always “we are the good guys as defined by us” but the undercurrent is a power play.. sort of a “Lord of the Flies” at work. To these kinds of the folks, the ends always justify the means. If you don’t agree with their views of goodness, by definition you are a bad person and should leave the organization. But these dynamics are much broader than just the Sierra Club, in fact, ironically, one of the most widely known stories is from the Times itself.

Remember the “Tom Cotton’s op-ed episode” which led to the resignation of the op-ed page editor (sidenote: Bennett is the brother of Senator Michael Bennett of Colorado)? Bennett wrote about his experience (caution, this piece is depressing) in an article in the Economist.

My fellow editorial and commercial leaders were well aware of how the culture of the institution had changed. As delighted as they were by the Times’s digital transformation they were not blind to the ideological change that came with it. They were unhappy with the bullying and group-think; we often discussed such cultural problems in the weekly meetings of the executive committee, composed of the top editorial and business leaders, including the publisher. Inevitably, these bitch sessions would end with someone saying a version of: “Well, at some point we have to tell them this is what we believe in as a newspaper, and if they don’t like it they should work somewhere else.” It took me a couple of years to realise that this moment was never going to come.

Which is a bit ironic, I think, given that here is the Times calling out what sounds like the same behavior in another organization  (the Sierra Club) including interviews with those bullied. If you remember Bari Weiss’s letter after she left the very same Times..

What rules that remain at The Times are applied with extreme selectivity. If a person’s ideology is in keeping with the new orthodoxy, they and their work remain unscrutinized. Everyone else lives in fear of the digital thunderdome. Online venom is excused so long as it is directed at the proper targets.

It reminds me of Carl Jung’s view of projection, only on an organizational level

“Projection is one of the commonest psychic phenomena…Everything that is unconscious in ourselves we discover in our neighbour, and we treat him accordingly.” (Carl Jung, Archaic Man)

On the other hand, maybe the piece was intended as an internal warning of what can go wrong in a workplace with a bullying culture.

In fact, if we go to Times publisher Sulzberger’s Columbia Journalism Review’s piece (long, and worth reading but not pay-walled)

As a result, minority groups often carry deep skepticism that the same institutions and institutional values that badly served them in the past can now do better and actually capture the breadth of the world they live in. The conversation about those failures has left lingering uncertainty inside newsrooms as to whether those failures should be blamed on lack of representation or on outmoded values that may no longer fit the moment.

***********

Many journalists from underrepresented groups have stories about being recruited in part because of the different perspectives they bring but, once on board, being told to put aside those perspectives to avoid being dismissed as biased.

Sulzberger’s basic point is that reporters shouldn’t throw out the baby (objectivity) with the bathwater (white male bias) as many argue they should.  Similarly, perhaps the employees of the Sierra Club should focus on the environment, as the Times so clearly points out in its reporting.

It seems like one way of framing both the Times and the Sierra Club experience is a power struggle between the old guard, who wanted diverse-appearing people to think like them, and the new folks, who want to take the old organization in a new directions.  The new directions may or may not be financially supportable.

But back to the bullying. I don’t remember that kind of bullying at the Forest Service.. was that because I happened to work in healthier places? Or because I left before bullying became popular in workplaces for cultural or other reasons? Or because FS first line supervisors somehow managed to shut it down? Or maybe the FS has its own variants of bullying? I’m interested in others’ experiences.

Don’t blame me.. I’m not the person who appointed a Senior Advisor at the Forest Service who has written a book.. Given that Ken Verheyen has, inquiring minds want to know “what can we tell about what value he will bring to the Forest Service based on this book?” Just so you know, I’ll be moderating the comments carefully.

I’m going to address his book in three parts: 1) a very brief summary translated into generic spirituality, 2) some interesting stories in the book, and my ideas for how they may be related to the question above “what of value does Ken bring to the FS table, and if he asked us, what would be our advice to him?” Finally there is 3) a deeper theological dive for the one or two people out there interested in that- that can be skipped for most folks.

I.  Summary: I know Bible Christian terminology can be off-putting to many, so I translated into Generic Spiritual language.

Life is better if you align with the Source, and have an open heart. Success is not about money, power and possessions, but about how loving you are to each and every human being and how you treat them.

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

II.  Stories that Ken tells about himself.

It’s fairly unusual for an appointee to write a book that includes their personal struggles, but here it is. Ken started at his Dad’s company and worked his way up. He’s pretty open about mistakes he made.. what we might call “over-marketing” and working too much, and how he realized what was wrong through prayer and the support of his spiritual community. Of course, if being with your family is one of your principles, perhaps you can’t take particular kinds of jobs like wildland firefighting. There are also stories about treating employees well, forgiving them for betraying the company, and giving them options to stay on when they are old and not performing well. I think these are all stories that resonate with us to some degree. At the same time, what a corporate board might agree to in terms of generosity might not be a good use of taxpayer resources.

One story he tells is how people wanted coaching and mentoring from him, and how he felt having a desk he felt interfered with that.

“One weekend, I dropped by a Pottery Barn and purchased two identical expensive and oversized leather chairs for my office. from then on, whenever someone asked to “have a word” with me, I led him or her to the comfy leather chairs situated in the corner of my office. I wanted to talk as equals, as fellow travelers down this road called life.

And this is what I have been doing for the last fifteen years. I listen to whatever is on people’s minds and in their hearts. Then I encourage them to find their purpose in life, how to handle their business or navigate their marriage and family. When the opportunity presents itself, I share one, two or three, or all of the Super Six verses God gave me.”

This reminded me of the character Deanna Troi on Star Trek: The Next Generation, the ship’s counselor. But Feds don’t have an equivalent position, and Deanna wasn’t upfront about her own spiritual values as I recall. I also imagined a new political trying to “drop by Pottery Barn” and buy something without layers of approvals. Maybe they have special rules or lack thereof.. I don’t know.

In the book, he talks about his spiritual gift being encouragement. Certainly after the last few years (beginning with the budget-no temps problem of 2024, layoffs, the shutdown and proposed reorganization) employees could use some encouragement. But as a cog in the Administration machine, what could he do? The ultimate quandary of a middle manager.. which he was once. I’d be interested in how he handled those situations as a middle manager.But I wonder what employees would trust a member of the Admin? Then there is the question of “Evangelophobia” which my Progressive Christian friends seem to have, so I would expect many others do. Could that wall be broken down with goodwill on both sides?

Of course, I have an idea how he could be helpful. He could find some employees and lead a listening tour of FS units (not online, no recordings) organized somehow so that people felt safe. We used to do that on Forest reviews, meet with employees separately. They could then write a report on what employee concerns were and how they could be addressed or not, and give feedback to the employees on what would be done or not done. Since I would guess that most employees are affiliated with Ds more or less, they would take a great deal of partisan flack, but beyond that and deeper would come ideas for improvement.

Anyway, that’s how I’d use a person with that particular talent. At the end of the book, he has a list of 100 values to live by, based on the Golden Rule. I wish he would publish those for free online somewhere (maybe it is) because they are so specific that they challenge us in ways that maybe we haven’t previously considered. One relevant example comes to mind, #38 “I will respect your religious beliefs because I want you to respect mine.”

In federal service, we don’t talk about the specifics of our religious beliefs except when we leave “work” space and enter “friend” space. Most political appointees have always understood this. I think it’s absolutely inappropriate for Secretary Rollins to quote scripture in her X feed.

How would she feel if the next Sec of Ag quoted the Quran or the Book of Mormon, or the Upanishads?
Anyway, my advice would be for the new appointee to practice being helpful to people without the specifics of his own religious beliefs.

III.  Ken has six go-to Bible verses that he calls the Super Six. He talks about them in the Christian context, but remember Jesus was a Jew, and so were his followers during the early periods so it’s not particularly surprising that they are Jewish ideas.

1. Matthew 6:33 NASB (that’s the Bible version he uses).  “But seek first His kingdom and His righteousness, and everything will be added unto you.”  That’s what Ken uses, but the same idea is found in the Hebrew Bible Psalm 37:4 “Delight yourself in the Lord and He will give you the desires of your heart.” It seems likely that most spiritual traditions have some form of this alignment with the Divine, in whatever form or formlessness that tradition defines.

2. Matthew 20:26-28 (NASB) “whosoever will be great among you shall be your servant.” Some of us may remember the concepts of Greenleaf’s Servant Leadership book in 1977.  Based on a quick search on Amazon, it appears that there have been quite a few books written on the topic.  According to this website (who knows if it’s true?)

The idea of servant leadership came to Robert K. Greenleaf, a retired AT&T executive, after reading Hermann Hesse’s novel Journey to the East. The storyline is simple: A group of men heads out on a mythical journey accompanied by their servant Leo, who sustains the group with his song and spirit. After Leo disappears, the group falls apart, and the journey is abandoned. Years later, the narrator of the story finds out that Leo was in fact the head of the order that had sponsored the journey. He wasn’t just a servant—he was the guiding spirit, their great leader.

I know Forest Service folks who took these ideas to heart and spoke of them in the workplace, but got to them via Greenleaf instead of (or in addition to, I never asked) Matthew.

3. Colossians 3:17 (NASB) Whatsoever you do in word and deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to him through God the Father.” Regardless of who wrote Colossians (which scriptural scholars contest).   I wonder what it means to “do it all in the name of”. I would prefer maybe “align yourself with the Divine and be grateful.” It could seem a little repetitive of 1, but adds the “as you do everything” part.

4. 1 Chronicles 29:11-13 (NIV). It’s longer, but the point is that God is the head over all and God is the ruler of all things.  While again, Chronicles is part of the Hebrew Bible that Christians call the “Old” Testament, so again it’s not a uniquely Christian idea.

5. Malachi 3:10-12 (NIV) This is about tithing, and the point is that blessings will happen, and your crops will do better, if you tithe. Once again, this is from the Hebrew Bible, is post-exilic and is generally focused on improving the behavior of the Jewish community.

Which brings us to #6, Luke 6:31 (NASB): “Treat others the same way you would want them to treat you”.   This reminds me of a Hillel story (remember Hillel predated Jesus)

When someone challenged Hillel the Elder (b. 110 BCE) to teach the entire Torah while his listener stood on one foot, he famously replied, “That which is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow. That is the entire Torah, and the rest is commentary. Now go and study.

Now there have been many interesting discussions about the negative vs. the positive formulation (do treat others as you want to be treated, don’t treat others as you don’t want to be treated). Still for me, at least, it’s very hard work either way it’s formulated. And of course, the Golden Rule idea is common across almost all traditions, regardless of variation in other beliefs.

To summarize, I think “both things are true” about these spiritual values.  Each expression of these truths (say, Ken’s) is unique and valuable, and, at the same time, there are underlying commonalities across traditions. If we are to welcome this new person to our world (in the spirit of the Golden Rule) as we would want to be welcomed, we shouldn’t be distracted by his language or beliefs (or currents of Evangelophobia in our society). At the same time, he should be respectful of others’ beliefs and of the culture of federal agencies that has served us well these many years.

When I first started reading this E&E News piece

More than a month after the Senate confirmed Michael Boren as an Agriculture Department undersecretary overseeing the Forest Service, the Trump administration won’t say when he’ll actually step into the job. Instead, USDA said, Boren remains in a temporary position at the Interior Department as an acting assistant secretary for policy, management and budget that doesn’t require Senate confirmation.

I thought “what’s the problem? Chief Schultz seems to have a good handle on what’s going on and much work got done during the shutdown. Does he need political oversight? Would Boren be an asset (representing the FS to USDA) or a political shifter with the wind, or just lead to Secretary-Chief miscommunication and confusion? Boren is no Jim Hubbard, experience-wise. Maybe it’s better this way.

Uncertainty around Boren’s status continues to swirl within the Forest Service, two current employees told POLITICO’s E&E News. The ambiguity comes as USDA faces a reorganization that might ultimately pull some or all of the forest agency into Interior and make it more political in nature. Employees who discussed the situation at the Forest Service were granted anonymity because they’re not authorized to speak with reporters. Asked whether Boren has been or is scheduled to be sworn in as undersecretary, a USDA spokesperson said in an email, “Mr. Boren is currently serving on a temporary basis within the Department of Interior.”

****

Outside organizations that work with the Forest Service said they’ve seen no indication Boren has taken on the USDA duties.

Republican lawmakers were eager to see Boren step into the USDA position as wildfire season was settling in and the administration was seeking to increase the pace and scale of forest management. At the nomination hearing, committee Chair John Boozman (R-Ark.) said lawmakers would look to Boren to quickly implement the “Fix Our Forests Act,” a forest management bill that’s passed in committee and awaits action by the full Senate. “Your leadership and background will be critical in ensuring the Forest Service is efficient and effective in carrying out the critical job of the mission area,” Boozman said at the hearing.

“His leadership and background will be critical”.. those are just political buzzwords. The FS has been following and testifying on FOFA since long before Boren was a gleam in whomever’s eye.

The delay leaves the Forest Service without the political appointee who would typically be the direct channel to the Agriculture secretary. Kristin Sleeper remains deputy undersecretary for natural resources and environment, a position not subject to Senate confirmation.

Kristin has worked for the Forest Service, BLM and the State of Montana as well as NAFO, but perhaps doesn’t carry the political weight of a contributor like Boren. Still, last Trump Admin we had Jim Hubbard (former State Forester), and there have been several Undersecs who worked in States (Harris Sherman, DNR Director) or came from Congressional Staffs.. Mark Rey, Jim Lyons. Seems like there is potentially a deep field to choose from.

As undersecretary for natural resources and environment, Boren’s responsibilities — once sworn in — will be solely over the Forest Service. A reorganization during the first Trump administration switched conservation programs from the NRE mission area to a farm programs mission area.

The Trump administration has sought to blur the lines between the Interior Department and the Forest Service, although the two agencies have long cooperated on wildfire management, for instance. The administration has proposed moving wildfire management entirely into Interior, and there’s narrow support in Congress — mainly from Senate Energy and Natural Resources Chair Mike Lee of Utah — for moving the entire Forest Service there. Having Boren in place at the Interior Department could help facilitate the migration of the Forest Service, either in pieces or wholesale, according to former senior USDA employees.

I’m not sure that I agree that “the Trump Admin has sought to blur the lines”. Some R’s want to move the FS to Int, but then so do some D’s like Megafire Action. I totally understand where they are coming from, it’s very rational. At the same time, there’s only so much change people can handle at once, and much low-lying fruit of coordination that would only take some focused attention to achieve.

Just like the last Admin, there are varying forces with varying druthers battling it out for dominance. And forces in Interior have always had eyes on the FS, either by piecemeal action (e.g. Great Basin National Park) or wholesale.

In fact, if we go back to this 1994 (!) piece in High Country News

Babbitt also said he is the first secretary of Interior who doesn’t harbor an ambition to snatch the Forest Service back into Interior.

It is an interesting story, how much has changed in the last 30 years and how much.. not.

This statement of Babbitt’s seems a bit hyperbolic..

At his press conference, Babbitt told the reporters, “The most under-reported story is how the Forest Service and Interior came together to make the Northwest forest plan. Compare it to the 1980s, when the Forest Service, the BLM and the Fish and Wildlife Service were standing in separate corners in Judge Dwyer’s courtroom blaming each other for gridlock. Now, the federal boundaries have literally been erased in Washington, Oregon and northern California.”

Perhaps this is the first use of the term “literally” to mean “not literally?”

********
Back to the story..

All leadership roles at the Forest Service are presently considered nonpolitical, career jobs. But the administration in September announced that President Donald Trump had appointed two people to the agency with the open-ended title of “senior adviser.”

Like I said, I do remember political folks showing up in the WO during the Clinton Admin, don’t remember any in the Bush Admin (but perhaps they were there and I wasn’t interacting with them). I’m curious as to whether there were any during the Obama, Biden or Trump I Administrations. Anyone remember?

Welcome to two new political appointees at the Forest Service! Here’s a link to the announcement and below are the new Senior Advisors to the Forest Service.

Ken Verheyen Appointed as Senior Advisor, U.S. Forest Service

Ken Verheyen serves as Senior Advisor for the U.S. Forest Service. Ken spent over 40 years building a values-driven, industry-leading, world-class technology service company. Leveraging his operational expertise, Ken led the company to build a strong reputation of excellence in customer service and innovation across the life science, aerospace, food and beverage, and multiple government sectors. Ken is an avid outdoorsman and enthusiastically supports responsible stewardship of our amazing national forests.

Layne Bangerter Appointed as Senior Advisor, U.S. Forest Service

Layne Bangerter serves as Senior Advisor for the U.S. Forest Service. Layne created and operates a successful farm and ranch operation in Utah, Nevada, and Idaho. He previously worked on the first Trump campaign and in the Administration, serving at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as Deputy Associate Administrator, and later serving at USDA as the Idaho Rural Development State Director. Layne has an extensive federal service résumé and policy experience, having worked for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, USDA-APHIS, and 14 years with the U.S. Senate. He holds a degree in Wildlife and Range Resource Mana

I guess there are two obvious questions.. 1) who are these people? and 2) is having politicals at the Forest Service unusual?

I’ll take the last one first. Certainly politicals are not unusual after all there are designated political jobs, like Undersecretary and that person’s support.
Politicals located at the Forest Service? From the Clinton Admin, I remember Chris Wood and Mark Gaede, who seemed to be around the Yates Building.. I don’t know if they had offices there, nor the details of their appointment. During the Obama Admin, I was called in to the Chief’s section of the Yates 4th floor and in the corner office (one of the few with walls). I was supposed to meet someone from information at USDA who was apparently stationed there to keep an eye on the FS and who was going to dress me down about this blog. Note: I would have stopped doing this at the time if anyone had listened to me and been helpful about getting a glide path out.

Point being, I’m not sure how unusual it is to have politicals imbedded with career folks in the WO. I don’t know the exact details of their appointments, but they were certainly around and influencing policy and probably learning about the work and the career folks. I’d be interested in hearing from folks who worked in other Admins in the WO.

So it’s not particularly new or unusual to have politicals in the Yates mix.
That leaves us with “who are these people?”

Ken Verheyen appears to have retired from a company called Astro-pak

From their site:

Years later, Carl’s son, Ken Verheyen, became the CEO of Astro Pak and set his sights on an enormous feat – to guide Astro Pak to a position of industry leadership through delivering excellence. Mr. Verheyen built a leadership team to scale the business and position it for its next phase. In January 2025 The Stephens Group purchased Astro Pak and looks to continue to build on the amazing legacy of the company. Astro Pak is one of the largest and most respected precision cleaning & surface treatment technology contractors in North America. Astro Pak hopes to sustain its growth while never losing sight of our most important purpose – delighting our customers with excellence.

There’s probably more info about him at Bloomberg if anyone has a subscription.
He apparently lives in southern California (Costa Mesa?)
He wrote a book (I’m going to read it and report back here.)

Layne Bangerter seems to be more “one of the usual suspects”, more recently the USDA Rural Development Idaho State Director.

Layne Bangerter comes to the United State Department of Agriculture (USDA) Rural Development (RD) with 33 years of federal service, most recently from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). At the EPA Bangerter served as the Deputy Associate Administrator for Intergovernmental Relations, where he facilitated interactions with state and local governments, and coordinated those activities with 10 EPA regional offices around the nation.

He also previously served as State Director for Agriculture, Natural Resources, and Environment for U.S. Senator Mike Crapo of Idaho from 2003 to 2017. In this capacity, he represented Senator Crapo on various issues involving federal agency oversight and legislation. Additionally, he worked various roles for the Fish and Wildlife Service, and the USDA from July 1985 to April 2003 as a Wildlife Biologist.

Layne was the Donald J. Trump Campaign Director for the State of Idaho. He was a valuable member of the Trump campaign team throughout the West, orchestrating efforts and traveling with Vice Presidential Nominee, Mike Pence. He was also a Donald J. Trump Delegate to the Republican National Convention. Following the election, he served on the Trump/Pence Transition Team from November 2016 to January 2017.

Layne initially was sworn into the Administration on January 21, 2017 as a member of the President-Elect’s Transition “Beachhead Team” for EPA. He led this team at the EPA for the Office of Congressional and Intergovernmental Relations and the Office of Water.

Layne was born to American parents in Sao Paulo, Brazil. He grew up in Alpine, Utah and attended college at Brigham Young University in Provo, Utah where he received his Bachelor’s Degree in Wildlife and Range Resource Management. He has had a passion for hard work from a young age. He has worked in home construction, farming, ranching, and agribusiness. His love of family, natural resources, sports, agriculture and private property rights are what drives him.

Layne and his wife, Betsy, have been married for 34 years; they have eight children, and 10 grandchildren. He is the owner of a Farm, Ranch, and Land Company in Melba, Idaho. The Bangerter family focus their lives on service to their church and country.

Layne is fluent in Portuguese and Spanish. He is an avid outdoorsman and conservationist. His interests include camping, hunting, fishing and horses.

As State Director, Layne will use his leadership experience to oversee RD programs in a customer-focused manner to restore prosperity in rural Idaho.

Apparently he tried to run for lieutenant governor in Utah in 2024 but apparently did not meet the residency requirement (5 years) because he had been working for USDA RD in Idaho.

Here’s an AI summary of a meeting (I am skeptical of AI in this case, but you can also watch the full meeting if you are interested.)

In a recent government meeting in Utah, discussions centered around the challenges facing rural America and the role of government in supporting local communities. Layne Bangerter, a prominent voice in the meeting, emphasized the need for a shift in focus towards preserving rural livelihoods and addressing the burdens of excessive regulation.

Bangerter expressed concern over the increasing complexity of federal regulations, which he described as “regulatory slavery.” He argued that these regulations, while intended to protect the environment and public interests, have instead made it difficult for rural residents to maintain their farms and ranches. He noted that many small dairies have been replaced by larger corporate operations, leading to a loss of community and family-run businesses. “If you don’t allow rural America to stay on land, they are going to split it up,” he warned, highlighting the urgency of the situation.

The discussion also touched on the importance of government support in rural development. Bangerter, who previously held a position with the USDA, shared his experiences in providing grants and assistance to small communities facing infrastructure challenges. He underscored the necessity of affordable housing and reliable water systems to sustain rural populations. “We could go in and remedy that,” he said, advocating for a government role that prioritizes the immediate needs of local residents.

Moreover, Bangerter called for a reevaluation of the government’s responsibilities, suggesting that many functions should be delegated to state authorities. He argued that the federal government should focus on essential services like maintaining infrastructure and protecting individual liberties, while allowing states to handle other matters.

The meeting highlighted a growing concern among community leaders about the future of rural America. As discussions continue, the emphasis remains on finding solutions that empower residents to thrive on their land and preserve the unique character of their communities.
***********

The concerns of someone who used to work in USDA Rural Development are not surprising. If we are looking for signals, we might think that this is a way of encircling the Forest Service in the broader USDA mission.. something like the common argument for not moving the FS to Interior.

What else can we say? They are both older white guys, so no fiery young true-believer types.
One is from California and one from Utah, so there’s spatial and some cultural diversity.
Verheyen would seem to mostly relate to the Forest Service through recreation, so that might be good news for recreation folks, as the Chief also talks about how important that is.
Verheyen probably brings a fresh set of organizational eyes, but may stymied in improvement efforts by government red tape.
Bangerter knows about the way things work and probably has ideas how to change them, which may also run into the usual obstacles.

Other information or direct experience with either of these folks?

Now that the end of the shutdown appears to be within our sight, I thought I’d post about a question that recent news stories have brought up which seems like a critical question as the Forest Service reorganization is concerned. To that end, I’ll posit that “not every forest supervisor does everything to please everyone all the time.” And ask the question “in the new organization, where should complaints go above the Forest level?”

Once a group is concerned, after sharing their concerns with the Forest Supervisor, if they continue to have issues, to whom, or through what process do they go? Let’s review how things have been working with the current Regional structure.  In my relatively brief time (seven years) in an RO:

•  I saw the RF and staff working with forests so that their issues did not “escape containment”: from my seat that looked like folks with concerns who had some kind of leverage, mostly access to politicians, I would guess, who brought them to the attention of the RF or DRFs.
• I saw the RF overrule a Forest Supe on a decision (to expand a ski area)
• Indeed, I was told that a good Director has “ears on the ground” to forests so that action could be taken before things got out of hand.  It seemed to me like a “spy network” at the time, but I now see that it’s extremely useful as an early warning system.
• I saw an RF remove a Forest Supe who had more or less of a mutiny (or key staff who didn’t want her) on her hands.. deserved or undeserved, I never figured out.
• I saw a settlement agreement with one Forest that set a case law-ish standard for more analysis for the rest of the FS.. tried to get some pushback from the WO (recreation in this case) but they didn’t want to get involved.
• WO Triangulation? When I worked in NEPA in the WO, one forest seemed to be engaging in what I would call “CE abuse” which again could have led to a court case and had negative repercussions for everyone else.  The Regional NEPA staff brought this to the RF’s attention, but the RF chose not to tell the Supe not to do it (I guess based on different Regional cultures, there are so many chits an RF has per Supe?) so we (WO) had to step in.  This worked for the RF perhaps because he could get the desirable result without using his own points (“the WO is telling us what to do.”).

I hope that both internal and external folks share their stories of what has worked and has not worked in terms of “taking it to the next level” above the Forest Supe.

Some recent stories like this one on the Garnet Fire and the damage to the  Teakettle Experimental Forest reminded me of this:

The project appeared to be on the agency’s fast track. With full funding from Newsom, the Forest Service promised to get the burn done by September of 2024, reducing the risk of the trees burning in a mega fire by an estimated 80%. To complete the burn as easily as possible, they exempted themselves from all the pesky red tape — no environmental review was needed to get the so-called “good fire” on the ground.

But fall 2024 came and went, and the burn didn’t get done. When the Garnet Fire started in August, the scientists’ worst fears about Teakettle proved correct.

Two months later, the scientists who were part of the stalled project say that the worst of the devastation caused by the Garnet Fire could have been prevented had the Forest Service not found ways to drag its feet every step of the way with the Teakettle burn project. Many pin the blame on the Forest Service supervisor Dean Gould for “slow-rolling” the project despite hundreds of thousands of dollars being spent to hold his staff’s hand on nearly every planning detail of the project.

“We got slow-rolled on everything,” said Matt Hurteau, director of the Center for Fire Resilient Ecosystems and Society at the University of New Mexico and project leader for the Teakettle Project.

“The National Forest Service leaders put in charge of these local ranger districts have no urgency to their actions. They’re not moving at a pace that’s going to result in forests that are resilient to these big wildfire events.”

Scott Stephens, a UC Berkeley professor of Fire Science, said the Teakettle project points to deep dysfunction within the Forest Service, which has failed to implement the forest treatments since the 2020 Creek Fire that are necessary to stave off the collapse of the Sierra Nevada ecosystem in the coming years.

“It really was a lack of engagement from the local unit,” said Stephens on why the Teakettle project didn’t get done. “I don’t know what else to say about it.”

Friedman’s Law is that there are at least two sides to each story.  We would need to interview the FS folks to get their side.  But we can’t get their side because.. there doesn’t seem to be a structure to do that.  Or perhaps we will hear once public affairs folks come back from furlough.  How do some forests get things done (like the Stanislaus, the next Forest north?) and others not?

I understand that the scientists are frustrated.  And I would bet that many folks have different angles on the story.  My point is that there needs to be consideration of an above Forest process to resolve disputes before they “escape containment.”

But given that we did have RFs (an acting one) in this case, I wonder whether the scientists and others took their concerns up the line and what the result was.  It’s always interesting to me that when things go wrong on fires, there is a lessons learned but in other parts of the FS not so much.  Or it’s not public?  When should an organization just march on, and when should they stop and take stock?  And why not make those lessons learned publicly available?

Any new structures or organizations, it seems to me, need some kind of process for this kind of oversight and accountability.

Interesting story about what’s going on at the Forest Service in NOTUS today..

I’ll start with this ..

Reorganization vs. Struggling to Get the Job Done in the Meantime

On top of the field work that’s missing, the Department of Agriculture, which houses the Forest Service, is starting a massive reorganization over the next year. While that’s ongoing, as USFS announced to staff and Hill offices in October, it will consolidate the regional managers across its nine regions, creating wider realms of jurisdiction for fewer regional chiefs.

The story I heard via the Retiree Information Network was that after the buyouts, the FS had many gaping holes of expertise.  For example, I heard that some Regions were left with no employees in certain expertise areas.  The idea would be to share scarce expertise resources across Regions for the time being, until the Reorg takes place.  Personally, it always seemed odd to me that R-6 had four or five forest geneticists, for example (although other than one were assigned to Areas) and some Regions (including 2) had zero. And perhaps Regions can do fine without forest geneticists, but maybe not so much a recreation special uses expert, nor coal mining experts.    This also goes with allocating scarce SES resources across the agency better, helping to organize and structure getting the work done.  The individuals in the Regions would not be moved nor their supervisor changed, just that their program of work would include extra-Regional work. But I also heard that these ideas would not be implemented prior to the end of the shutdown, because the shutdown in itself if a big struggle to keep work going and funded..

Who is Still Working and Who is Getting Paid?

Waves of budget cuts, layoffs and buyouts in the last year have decimated the U.S. Forest Service, but the shutdown is testing its staff on a whole new level. The forests, along with national parks, remain open to the public, meaning recreational employees and visitor center staff are still cleaning bathrooms, answering phone calls, and handing out maps. Four weeks into a government shutdown, those that are left are still working – and many have yet to see a paycheck.

Technically, I’m not sure that the “budget” was cut.  First, the FS hired more people with BIL and IRA bucks than they could afford based on usual approps, that’s why there were no temps last year.  Does not having additional funding mean that the budget is cut? Plus we don’t have a 2026 budget or even a CR.  So I think it’s more complicated.  Also, some visitor centers are closed, so that’s confusing also. And some people still working are getting paid (at least fire folks) because The Hotshot Wakeup is closely tracking when the funding sources will run out.

It’s interesting that this quote is about restroom cleaning.. because when the Chief spoke with us retirees he talked about how that was one of the most important services that the public sees.  On my recent trip, I saw restrooms with signs saying that they wouldn’t be cleaned or toilet paper provided; and restrooms that were in good order.  Were some on contract and some done by employees? Different priorities or funding streams for different forests? I’m interested in others’ observations.

Was the Budget Cut or did the FS Overspend or Both?

The former employee based in Oregon who asked not to be named as she is still looking for a job told NOTUS that even before Trump’s downsizing, the USFS was severely understaffed. Congress cut its budget in 2024, and many temporary workers who spend summers working on trail crews and in other roles were told their jobs wouldn’t exist the next year.

Understaffed.. that’s certainly in the eye of the beholder. But I think some things in some places may have been overstaffed, some appropriately staffed and some understaffed.  I remember folks on Districts complaining that the IRA funds were used, in some cases, to bulk up Regional staffs.  And we get back to “does every forest need its own..?”

I think again, the story is more complicated than the Congress cut the FS budget,  the agency had a $750 mill shortfall (or maybe different numbers) and also gave away (never got the numbers but hundreds of millions) to various NGOs.. that never happened before.

Sure, it has been one bad thing after another for the Forest Service, but not all of it was the Trump Admin nor Congress.  Right now, though, it is clearly Congress who has caused the shutdown and only Congress can end it.