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

Unions of Government Workers AFGE and NARFE Call For Clean CR

by

From FedSmith

AFGE and NARFE Call for Clean Resolution to End Shutdown

With the federal government still shut down and hundreds of thousands of federal employees not getting paid, the nation’s largest federal employee union—the American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE)—has broken its usual silence to call for a “clean continuing resolution” to reopen the government. And, in the latest event, NARFE has also joined with a similar press release.

It’s a rare and politically notable move. AFGE, usually closely aligned with Democrats, is now openly urging passage of a measure that Republicans have been pushing in recent days: a continuing resolution (CR) that restores government funding without policy riders or partisan add-ons.

**********

So why would AFGE break with that pattern?

1. Strategic Frustration Over Partisan Gamesmanship

The union’s leadership has made clear that this shutdown has moved beyond a policy dispute—it’s a crisis for workers’ livelihoods. In its official statement, AFGE warned that “political brinkmanship has gone too far” and urged lawmakers to fund the government first, then continue debating longer-term budget issues later.

By publicly backing a clean CR, AFGE is effectively saying that workers’ immediate needs outweigh partisan alignment.

2. Signaling to Democrats to Prioritize Relief Over Leverage

AFGE’s statement may be aimed as much at Democratic leaders as at Republicans. By endorsing the quickest available route to reopening the government, the union underscores that maintaining a united front isn’t worth weeks of unpaid labor. This places pressure on Democrats to compromise in order to restore pay and stability.

3. Political Optics and Moral Positioning

The timing of the announcement—just as the Senate considered new CR proposals—appears calculated to influence the debate. By calling for action while bills are under discussion, AFGE reinforces its image as the moral center of the shutdown debate, representing the human cost of inaction rather than any party’s legislative strategy.

Political Crosscurrents

The coming two weeks will likely determine whether this shutdown becomes one of the shortest in recent memory—or stretches into Thanksgiving and beyond.

AFGE’s public intervention may give moderates in both parties political cover to support a clean CR without appearing to cave. But if either side continues to treat the shutdown as leverage for unrelated policy goals, the voices of federal workers may again be drowned out by partisanship.

As the union’s Kelley stated in an open letter:

AFGE’s hope since October 1 has been that the spending impasse would be resolved to the satisfaction of both sides of the aisle, including on the critical question of healthcare affordability that members of both parties have acknowledged must be addressed. In the meantime, the government must be funded. With less than a month before Thanksgiving, no federal worker should have to turn to a food pantry to help prepare the family table. Please vote for cloture.

Whether that appeal finally shifts the debate—or simply highlights Washington’s paralysis—will become clear in the days ahead.

Double the Regions, Double the Fun? Temporary Assignment of Duo-Regional Foresters

by

Several retiree sources told me that some Regional Foresters were going to be assigned to two Regions.  The corporate story I heard (granted, a bit like playing “telephone”, but hopefully TSW readers can add what they have heard) is that:

1. There will be a reorganization and plans are ongoing, but this isn’t it.

2. There are excellent 15s acting in RF roles, but new hires of any ilk are not allowed, and apparently there is some rule that details to SES can only be 180 days (or something like that).

3. Given that many SESers have retired, and the FS can’t hire new ones, they need to spread the “qualified leaders”(eligible for SES jobs) around and place them where they are crucially needed.

Given that information, a TSW reader sent me a link from a news source that we don’t usually hear from.

Here’s the NOTUS story..

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

The U.S. Forest Service is consolidating the oversight of its regional offices, part of “interim” changes that mean fewer staff will oversee larger expanses of land.

If all the DRFs are still there, it would be technically true that one fewer staff person per dual region would “oversee”.  That person would have twice the relationships to deal with or possibly would farm out some to DRFs. The RF also rules on internal disagreements among various internal entities, so perhaps the combo regions would work out a different conflict resolution system.

In a letter to Hill offices obtained by NOTUS, the agency presented a map that showed its regional oversight had been consolidated into five hubs. The agency cited “significant changes in our workforce during the last eight months,” which is most of the second Trump administration. The agency said those changes included staff leaving, as well as “reassignments.”

I wish the story had included the map (why not?) instead of the link going to the current regions.  I have heard 8 and 9 under Ken Arney, and 5 and 6 are combined. Hopefully together we can glean info on the other individuals and combos. Maybe a Hill person can forward the letter and map?

“As we await information from USDA on departmental reorganizational efforts, it is necessary for us to adapt how we function in the interim,” Jake Donnay, the legislative affairs director for the Forest Service, said in the letter sent Thursday to the Hill.

“We have developed interim operations to ensure we can safely and effectively deliver our mission, focus on agency priorities, and maintain stability and oversight. Regional foresters in permanent positions will temporarily expand oversight to include additional regions until a permanent structure under the pending reorganization is implemented.”

Donnay noted that the changes were “operational” and “do not affect our organizational structure or regional office locations. ”

The changes are part of a larger plan from Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins to reorganize the Department of Agriculture. And they are happening as many Forest Service employees are furloughed due to the government shutdown, and as more than 5,000 employees have taken deferred resignation options in the last year.

In a statement to NOTUS, a Forest Service spokesperson confirmed the changes.

“Until further direction on departmental reorganizational efforts is established by USDA, the Forest Service is taking interim steps to ensure essential executive leadership and oversight is in place,” the statement said.

“The Forest Service is taking steps to continue stable, seamless operations while the future organization is developed,” the statement continued, noting that its senior executive service members’ “roles are being expanded, and portfolios are being redistributed as an interim measure to ensure there is continued support for our priority work.”

“These actions are not a reorganization. All nine Forest Service regions remain in place,” the statement added.

Which is pretty much what the retiree network provided.  Do others have information or rumors to check out?

Mike Lee Bill to Move Forest Service to Interior?

by

I’ve been out observing the National Forests directly..so my approval of comments and responses are delayed.  Apparently Mike Lee is dropping a bill to move the FS to Interior and the draft legislation made its way to E&E  News.

My take- that dog won’t hunt either.  There are Republican reasons it’s a questionable idea, and I suspect those factors will influence the enthusiasm of other Rs for the idea.  Interior is notoriously political, as Governor Freudenthal (D) of Wyoming noted  in 2010 for the BLM:

Unfortunately, Washington, D.C. seems to go from pillar to post to placate what is perceived as a key constituency. I only half-heartedly joke with those in industry that, during the prior administration, their names were chiseled above the chairs outside the office of the Assistant Secretary for Lands and Minerals. With the changes announced yesterday, I fear that we are merely swapping the names above those same chairs to environmental interests, giving them a stranglehold on an already cumbersome process.

I think less name-chiseling rather than more would lead to better governance.  Right now, folks at Center for Western Priorities are concerned that the recent decisions to stop RMP revisions and amendments will throw the legal context into disarray.  At the same time, folks like me wonder whether not making extreme decisions (especially after elections) based on phone calls from DC might have been better- and the CRA efforts wouldn’t have happened.  Various D Admins have not been the friends of ranchers or oil and gas folks or the timber industry for that matter.. remember the MOG?

I don’t know how many of you remember the Reagan-era Interchange effort.  The idea was to have all grazing land administered by BLM and forest land by the Forest Service. Ranchers (Rs, in general) did not like the idea, as rational as it was. My take on their lack of enthusiasm was that the ranchers were thinking  “the devil you know is better than the devil you don’t know.”

More rational, in my mind, would be to start with wildland fire coordination among agencies and build on the old Service First model.

Anyway, Marc Heller of E&E News had a good round-up of the history (note there are links in the article but I don’t have access to that version):

The draft legislation, called the “Forest Service Reorganization Act of 2025,” would also create the separate wildland fire agency Lee’s promoted for the Interior Department, and it would waive overtime pay caps for wildland firefighters.
In an executive order released in June, President Donald Trump stopped short of calling for a separate wildland fire agency, seemingly leaving the matter to Congress.

The proposed shifting of the Forest Service to the Interior Department carries the most historical baggage of the ideas. Proponents — including the environmental group Forest Service Employees for Environmental Ethics — have said the concept has merit and that the Interior Department in the long run might be more focused on caring for the land than exploiting it.
Critics say the move, in addition to being disruptive for employees, might sacrifice longstanding ties between the USDA’s Forest Service and state and local governments. Those connections are important to managing lands that cross jurisdictional
boundaries.
The idea has also ridden on officials’ egos and personal aspirations through the years, according to historians and long-time employees. Responsibility over forest reserves, as they were then called, fell to the Interior Department beginning in 1891. The Forest Service was created in 1905 at the USDA, where forest research was already housed.
Jurisdictional tussles occasionally followed: In 1934, Interior Secretary Harold Ickes tried to wrestle the Forest Service away at the same time the USDA was angling for the Interior Department’s National Park Service.
During the administration of Bill Clinton, Agriculture Secretary Dan Glickman called the Forest Service “my little Marine Corps” and wondered if the Interior secretary at the time, Bruce Babbitt, secretly coveted it.

Of course he did!  Bureaucracies exist to aggrandize and grow.. think NPS taking over various parts of National Forests.

Then Ryan Zinke, as a nominee for Interior secretary in the first Trump administration, made no secret of his desire to pluck the Forest Service for himself. Senators were skeptical: Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) abstained from a committee vote to advance his nomination, citing worries Zinke would divert his attention from land management to “shuffling bureaucracies.”
The Government Accountability Office had looked into the issue in 2009 and found flaws.
While moving the Forest Service to Interior might provide efficiencies in the long run, the GAO said, it could diminish the agency’s role in working with farmers, ranchers and state foresters, traditionally a strength of the USDA.
“Numerous officials and experts believed that it would be more effective, and perhaps more efficient, to leave the Forest Service in USDA and work to increase collaboration.

This seems to be another case in which good governance (Service-First like efforts continuously applied through time) lost out to “reorganization or not,” and then .. give up.  Maybe just improving coordination is .. too hard? I guess we’ll find out how coordination will go with wildfire first.

FS Chunk of USDA Shutdown Guidance in Toto

by

Thanks to Anonymous for sending this! It seems like a key clause is :

“Management and maintenance of National Forest System lands for their sustained safety and use, including agency contract and permitted activities and public activities that do not
require consistent employee oversight.”

I also liked that they called out pack and saddle stock.. “Protection of Federal lands, infrastructure to ensure health and safety of the public such as
buildings, waterways, equipment and other property including pack and saddle stock and investments owned by the United States when the suspension of such activities would
cause an imminent threat to human life and property.”

Although “property” probably covers it.  Hopefully seed and seedlings are covered under “property” as well.

More Forest Service Shutdown Info from The Hotshot Wakeup

by

It seems that The Hotshot Wakeup has the info that was sent out, so I will copy excerpts below. I don’t feel comfortable copying the whole thing. Please go to his link for the entire info and donate, if you can, to his work.  What seems new to me compared to previous shutdowns is that timber sales are seen to be essential, but I don’t really know since I didn’t pay attention to those who were not furloughed, as I was always furloughed.

When it comes to fuel treatments, we know that some are carried out via timber sales, some by other contracts and various other authorities, and some by grantees.  My understanding is that when employees are furloughed they will be paid back, but when contractors have to stop, they are not paid back. And if the contract is administered via a grant, does it continue to go forward?  Are grantees and their employees themselves affected?  If you know the answer, please let us know in the comments.

Total number of agency employees expected to be on board before implementation of the plan: 32,390

I had heard that numbers were down about about 5K from early outs and VERA. So I decided to try looking on the OPM site, which conceivably I read incorrectly so would appreciate anyone double-checking. It’s not the easiest to navigate (at least for me). BTW, the OPM site doesn’t have the weird banner either.

FS Employee Numbers from OPM website  
Sept 2020 36,748
Sept 2021 35,779
Sept 2022 35,797
Sept 2023 37,941
Sept 2024 39,285

But that doesn’t add up either..based on just looking at 39285 and 32,390 it seems more like 7000- ish down since Sept 2024, so I’m sure we’re missing something about how employment numbers are calculated.  It sure would be nice to see a chart of  employees by year, by temporary and permanent, and by fire and non-fire.  Sadly my previous info sources have dried up.  More generally, it would be nice if this Admin would round up some folks to give input on what a Forest Service Dashboard might look like. Anyway, back to Tim’s post..

Total number of agency employees expected to be furloughed under the plan (unduplicated count): 12,744

 

The plan then gets into the specifics of what positions will be retained:

 

Total number of employees to be retained under the plan for each of the following categories: (may include duplicated counts)

(Cat. 1) Compensation is financed by a resource other than annual appropriations: 3,569

(Cat. 2) Necessary to perform activities expressly authorized by law: 0

(Cat. 3) Necessary to perform activities necessarily implied by law: 433

(Cat. 4) Necessary to the discharge of the President’s constitutional duties and powers: 0

(Cat. 5) Necessary to protect life and property: 15,644

 

Next, we see what those positions are and a description of the legal basis for retaining them:

 

Brief summary of significant agency activities that will continue during a lapse. Also include the legal basis for retaining categories of employees who will be carrying out these activities.

Category 1: Employees already financed from other available funds will continue to work as deemed appropriate to support life and property. This includes employees financed by:

• Job Corps (transfer funds from Department of Labor).

• Permanent and trust fund accounts (mandatory appropriations).

• Cost recovery funds (mandatory appropriations and reimbursable funding)

• Supplemental and Emergency Supplemental Funding (GAOA, IIJA, IRA, Disaster).

Category 3: Business functions necessary to support continuing work and the exempt and excepted employees.

Category 5: This includes but is not limited to:

• Responding and preparing for wildland fires 🚨

• Law Enforcement

• Emergency and Natural Disasters Response or Preparation and defense preparedness

• Implementation of Executive Order (EO) 14225, Immediate Expansion of American Timber Production to increase domestic timber production to protect our national and economic security.

• Protection of Federal lands, infrastructure to ensure health and safety of the public such as buildings, waterways, equipment and other property including pack and saddle stock and investments owned by the United States when the suspension of such activities would cause an imminent threat to human life and property.

• Contracts in support of cyber security and infrastructure operations to support key positions and essential personnel.

• Management and maintenance of National Forest System lands for their sustained safety and use, including agency contract and permitted activities and public activities that do not require consistent employee oversight.

• Protection of studies where lack of continuation measurements or maintenance would destroy or endanger validity of research findings.

• Agency leadership to ensure alignment of activities.

Weird Partisan Banner on Some FS Websites: Apparently It’s a USDA Thing

by

I was trying to find some things on the FS website about the amazing Missoula Technology and Development Center.. we had an excellent field tour at the Retirees’ Reunion last week.  But I ran across this weirdly partisan banner.. and checked with DOE’s and NIH’s websites .. no banners there. So it seems to be a USDA thing (I checked ARS, ERS, and Rural Development, and sure enough they all have it) , and hopefully will go away soon.

There’s an interesting story in OregonLive

Clearly it’s not something that was the FS’s idea, even though the headline of the article is “Message on U.S. Forest Service websites blamed ‘Radical Left Democrats’ amid government shutdown.”

Anyway, when I searched on Duck Duck Go searching for the Missoula Technology and Development Center, it gave me this.. which I think it out of date. This one also seems out of date and maybe is not connected to the current website.  Which is not related to the banner question, but does relate to finding FS material.

The below link is  about the National Technology and Development Program is connected to the current website (I think) but doesn’t have the banner.

This one doesn’t have the banner either..  they are one of the groups at MTDC.

Some Chief’s Thoughts from Retirees’ Reunion

by

As I sat down with my notes from last week, I realized that I am really bad at taking notes.  With any luck, I will hear from someone else who was there if I say something wrong, or left out something the Chief  said that’s important.  Chief Schultz also sat down with Chief Bosworth for a Fireside Chat, which was recorded by the Museum and will be available on their Youtube channel.

You can also hear the Chief on this “Chat with the Chief” from April. He hasn’t done any more of these, and is communicating directly with folks in the field.  But his themes seem consistent. The FS has a mission, it needs to get back to the basics… managing the land, and focus on doing that, and driving organizational change and improvement to focus on that.

As an outsider, it will be hard for him to earn trust and respect, especially when many FS employees and retirees are not supportive of this Admin and assume the worst. Like I say about any Admin, there will be decisions I agree with (including personnel decisions)  and decisions I disagree with, there will be decisions I agree with that turn out badly and decisions I disagree with that turn out well.  That’s the humility that comes with observing them all since the Reagan Admin, and the way the decisions roll out and change through time.

Personally I am a fan of a continuous efforts toward organizational improvement, and remember when that was something both colors of Admin found important (remember Reinventing Government during the Clinton Admin?). His background is managing a state agency, which tends to have less funding and perhaps less bureaucracy, so that could be helpful. It could also lead to great frustration on his part when he runs across “can’t do that”.. OPM, OMB and so on. So we’ll see.

Most of us who have been following this won’t find anything surprising, except that Chief Schultz said was that they plan to get temporaries back next year, which I hadn’t heard before.

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

5300 employees have left. (note that this is in the ballpark of the number of employees that were hired in the last few years with IRA and BIL funding). There was a $750 mill deficit (we have heard that number before, but Chief Randy Moore, later at the meeting, said it was only $500 mill, more on that later).

He said he is on the road three weeks out of the month talking to employees.

The reorganization effort started when the funding hole was first discovered, before the election.  He said that FS leadership is at the table providing input on reorganization and there are teams of FS individuals working on various aspects of it, but they need to review the public comment before they come out with anything.

Some options considered included three Regions, and there was a fair amount of dialogue. They identified support the Regions provide, and thought about which could be performed by national service centers (like Content Analysis, or ski area engineering..).  The ideas are not fully baked yet.  It’s a thoughtful process and not going to happen overnight.  The proposed hubs are more for USDA not FS employees, the existing facilities make sense.

The Associate Chief’s (Chris French’s) role is more “hands on” with operational elements like forest plan implementation and the Wildfire Crisis Strategy.

There has been a hiring freeze since August of last year.

Communications:

Comms need to be vetted, he has seen in the last 5-6 months social media for fire and safety has opened up.  There is a coordination effort and clearance to find the best person to talk to the media.  At the same time, his experience is that it’s better to have people talk about the projects they are directly involved with.

Recreation:

Most people know the FS via recreation. As silly as it sounds, clean toilets are key to peoples’ impression, and he pays attention to them.  There was a problem early on with contracts, on his “Rides with Rangers” that came up and they dealt with it.  Recreation is set to grow, we need to work with the public to develop a plan to support recreation and clarify expectations, then execute the plan.

Fire:

They are going to create efficiencies, there will be a Deputy Chief in Fire, and the focus will be on implementing contracting, position classification, pay structure system, and improving payments to the workforce.

He wants to hear from employees about things that frustrate them (processes) and he will try to make things better.

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

If I missed something or got it wrong, please let me know in the comments.

 

Chief Schultz’s vision

by

The first Chief of the Forest Service with no experience working for the Forest Service gave a keynote speech at a policy summit for the all-GOP Congressional Western Caucus, a gathering of Republican members of Congress in Whitefish, Montana on August 19.  I’m not sure how widely this has been reported but these excerpts are from reporting in the Missoulian., which is probably paywalled.  (Indents are quotes from the Missoulian, quotes are the reported words of the Chief.)

… he left few doubts about the agency’s priorities under President Donald Trump.

“We’ve seen this happen throughout the West,” he said. “… We pulled back as an agency over time, and then what happens? The industry goes away. The jobs go away. The education declines. People become addicted to different things.”

“We’re going to manage for minerals management, we’re going to manage for active forest management, grazing management,” Schultz said. “We’re looking at recreation, how we encourage and increase access, even to the existing lands we have. I met with the recreation community, the motorized folks here just a few weeks ago.”

That’s (recent personnel actions) left the Forest Service with a 25% loss of permanent full-time staff who don’t primarily fight wildfires — 5,200 workers, Schultz confirmed in an interview outside the event. And he acknowledged that some of those losses include the types of expertise needed to plan and implement logging projects on federal forest lands.

“We did have people that had that expertise that left,” Schultz told the Missoulian. “They were close to retirement and they left, but what I’m excited about is the people that are here really want to be here, I mean there are a lot of dedicated Forest Service people.”

“In terms of the firefighting effort, we have 11,400 firefighters grade GS 9 and below that are currently on staff, which is what we’re supposed to have,” Schultz told the Whitefish audience on Tuesday. “So when you’re hearing people saying we don’t have firefighting resources, that’s not accurate.”

“There’s still going to be a footprint in Missoula, we haven’t decided exactly how that’s going to function yet,” he said. “… So it could be fire, it could be other things. We haven’t figured everything out there just yet.”

“If there is no certainty from government, industry cannot function,” he said.

It’s not clear whether the “firefighters” he referred to that are “what we are supposed to have” includes those regular employees activated for fires.  I’ll only comment that the multiple uses of fish and wildlife and non-motorized recreation were NOT among the things “we’re going to manage for” (or apparently for “addictions” either).  And it’s kind of laughable for this administration to talk about “certainty in government” being necessary (unless this administration plans on never leaving).  Less snarkily, lack of certainty has always been an issue for federal timber supply and it would be interesting to see what they have in mind to change that.  Not hard to believe they “haven’t figured everything out.”

Oh, and for employees who are “really wanting to be here,” see the new hiring questions  (and trust that this Administration won’t use this as “an ideological litmus test on candidates” taking precedence over their professional skills).

 

Employees vs. Contractors: A Pilot Asks for Your Thoughts

by

One of our Anonymous colleagues sent in this question:

I am curious about thoughts on agency vs. contract pilots, specifically in the smokejumper program. There is some fear that if everything ends up under DOI, given their current model, that FS agency smokejumper pilots may be relieved of their positions while being replaced by contract pilots/aircraft. Are agency pilots that stay in their area of operations long term, gaining and passing on institutional knowledge of the mission and locale worth keeping around? Are contractors actually cheaper in the long run? Should agency aviators step out of the way and not be bothered about losing their fed jobs and doing the same thing for a contractor with fewer benefits and more time away from home? You might have guessed where my bias is, but I’m truly open to others’ honest (and hopefully kind) opinions on the subject.

Boy howdy, does that bring back memories of many discussions! Most recently my concerns about seed orchard manager and reforestation positions being farmed out as temporaries to NGO’s. Of course, contracts are not grants, but the impacts to the workforce can be the same. I’m not sure that has ever been explored, but I think GAO could probably take a look at employees vs. contractors vs. granting and check out various measures of efficiency.

My experience is almost entirely with vegetation work, so I don’t know how widely applicable that would be to aviation. But here goes…

When I entered the FS scene, timber sales were contracted. There are folks out there who remember more. Cone collection and planting contracts could be force account (employees) or contracts. The contractors tended not to reside in local communities.. and tended to be the lowest bidders. Of course, in some cases, the contracts were cheap because the contractor was taking advantage of people who weren’t legally in the country and there were horror stories about how some were treated. The problem of what it takes to be the “lowest bidder” and what shortcuts are taken via safety or quality maybe can’t be quantified.

What is “inherently governmental”? Would a successful Ranger District just be three people, a Ranger, a contracting officer and a grants and agreements person? But as we’ve seen, recently the FS has granted funds for outside groups to administer federal contracts, which seems like it should be “inherently governmental.” It’s all very puzzling and seemingly inconsistent.

What’s the value of knowledge and experience and where should it be placed in employees? There may be no right answer, just what works currently with some idea of costs and risks.

What do others think?