It’s not just employees, it’s buildings that remaining employees work at. I happened across a listing of dodgy, sorry DOGE, lease cancellations and I pulled out the ones that mention Forest Service or BLM. It would be interesting to hear how these got picked and whether/how this will affect the agencies.
“A GSA planning document dated March 10 lists the dates when many of the cancellations are expected to go into effect. That does not mean all the locations will close by those dates, but agencies would have to either negotiate new leases or move elsewhere if they remain open. Agencies are still figuring out what to do.”
No big deal? Is there more to “move elsewhere” than meets the eye?
Ackerman, Miss. (4,809 square feet)
Albuquerque, N.M. (22,216 square feet)
Phoenix, Ariz. (32,162 square feet)
Anchorage, Alaska (27,770 square feet)
Fort Collins, Colo. (43,599 square feet)
Montgomery, Ala. (15,792 square feet)
Mount Shasta, Calif. (536 square feet)
Pomeroy, Wash. (10,516 square feet)
Silver City, N.M. (29,554 square feet)
Bureau of Land Management, Baker City, Ore. (7,030 square feet)
But it also looks like this isn’t a complete list, or its being added to – here’s another: https://patch.com/california/sananselmofairfax/blm-field-office-marin-napa-sonoma-more-counties-close
Bureau of Land Management Field Office, Ukiah, Calif.
Or are “offices to be closed” a completely different list?
It really makes you feel old when people you knew as young sprouts are retiring. Happy Retirement, Jennifer, if you are reading this!
Marc Heller of E&E News had a story today about people retiring and changing positions.
The most recent to announce their departures are Leanne Marten in the Northern Region, which covers parts of five states from Idaho to the Dakotas, and Jennifer Eberlien in the Pacific Southwest Region, covering California.
The retirements come as other reshufflings shake up the Forest Service in the new administration. Deputy Chief Chris French has been named acting associate chief — the agency’s second-in-charge — and Keith Lannom has left after serving as a deputy regional forester and associate acting chief for the national forest system, among other titles, according to a Forest Service employee familiar with staff moves.
I’ve heard of associate chiefs and acting associate chiefs, but never “associate acting chief for NFS.” Maybe someone can explain whether this is a new position, and what the role is, for us retirees and others.
But what’s really interesting about the story are the different views of folks about Regional Office reduction. Many of us have been there and done that, at least talked about it, on previous iterations. As I recall, the proposals always foundered on the shoals of local politicians wanting to keep the positions. But today, since Portland, the Bay Area, and Denver all have serious housing crises, maybe they would be happy to see fewer commuters on the roads?
At the Forest Service, that could involve paring back the Washington headquarters as well as staff at the nine regional offices, according to proposals circulating among agency employees and described to E&E News. Such a realignment would put more management decisions for national forests at the local level, an approach in line with the administration’s overall approach. Whether the administration and the new Forest Service chief, Tom Schultz, decide maintaining the regional forest setup fits the policy remains to be seen.
Regional foresters already serve that purpose in many ways, said Char Miller, an associate professor of policy and government at George Mason University in Fairfax, Virginia, who’s studied Forest Service history. Without regional foresters, the power at the Forest Service would probably shift in the opposite direction the administration endorses — and toward Washington — Miller said. “Getting rid of the regional foresters would be a major example of that,” Miller said. Consolidating regions isn’t unprecedented, as Region 7 in the East was wrapped into two other regions in 1965. But that’s the most recent example.
In 2007, Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) asked the Forest Service to estimate the cost of running regional offices. The agency at that time put the cost at $224 million a year, according to a paper by Andy Kerr, an environmental consultant in Oregon who runs the Larch Co. Kerr called for regional offices to be eliminated, which he said would put more control in still-more-local hands.
Budget reductions have forced the Forest Service to share rangers and other staff between ranger districts and merge national forests for administrative purposes. Yet, no Forest Service regional office has been eliminated or merged since 1965. Forest Service regional offices should not be merged or preserved, but eliminated entirely. Little conservation good is generated out of regional offices. The private sector has essentially eliminated middle management. Necessary functions now performed by the regional offices could be transferred to the national forest level, Washington Office level or the Albuquerque Service Center.
Unnecessary functions currently assigned to the regional offices could be eliminated with cost savings used for other purposes—preferably on-the-ground management at the national forest and ranger district level.
I’ll just say that many employees’ experiences with various administrative centralization efforts at Albuquerque and elsewhere at the time did not make us want to say”more service centers, please!”
Here’s Kerr’s last paragraph:
Does getting rid of Forest Service regional offices also mean the elimination of regional foresters? It might or might not. A case can be made to retain regional foresters to coordinate national forests facing similar “regional” issues. However, existing regional boundaries have little to do with geography, ecology or politics. For example, the Northwest Forest Plan (covering an area that is approximately the range of the northern spotted owl) spans parts of two Forest Service regions. In this case, there is a benefit to regional coordination between national forests. These new regional coordinating relationships should be flexible and based on current and emerging ecological and political needs, rather than based on a tradition or arbitrary administrative boundaries.
I didn’t see a date on Kerr’s paper; I suppose it could have been written any time in the last 30 years or so.
What seems to be missing from th e E&E story are the views of anyone who has ever worked in an RO, or been a Regional Forester.
I’ve been involved in many kerfuffles between Forests and DC as a Regional Planning Director. I’ll just take one example, during the Obama Admin. The Bighorn had a shovel-ready project for ARRA funding to move some campsites in a campground, which got funded (hurray!). But it turned out later that other political entities at the FS were concerned about the fact that part of the rerouting (to protect the watershed) was in a roadless area (not so fast, Forest!). So it had to be reviewed. Of course the RO backed the Forest, and we wrote briefing papers that laid out the issue. Could the Bighorn have done the briefings themselves? Yes, of course. Conceivably the centralized Planning Experts Service Center could have helped them and reviewed it. Not every Forest could afford their own Roadless Geek. Did our Regional Forester (Rick Cables’) personal relationships with higher-ups make them listen to him more (or less? who knows?). Clearly, the Chief and Associates and Deputies can’t have the same kinds of relationships with 154 Forest Supervisors as they do with 9 RFs. It seems like perhaps having 154 Supes would make the recommendation of the relevant WO Director mean more to the Deputy Chief, but then many issues cross WO Directorships. Maybe there are other models out there somewhere?
Or a goal could be to harmonize with BLM and have State Directors, perhaps non SES, which could foster better “all lands” kinds of efforts and coordinate better with states. For example, Wyoming currently has to deal with two Regions of the Forest Service. Maybe BLM has some insights into the importance of that middle layer and how it works for them, of course, given that their organization is different and has a political director.
If the intention were to support local decisions (which our RO was in the habit of doing), can we think of a workaround with no RFs and functional service centers for the expertise? Ground folks have been concerned about the new budget system leading to decisions being made in the RO; with no ROs would the budget system have to be reinvented?
Please add your thoughts and experiences below. Finally, we are still interested in seeing and discussing those proposals currently circulating,
“The Bureau of Land Management, the Forest Service and the Fish & Wildlife Service manage more public lands than the Parks Service. And their staffs have also been cut.” (Typo: It’s Park Service)
Questions linger over what this year’s layoffs and ranger protests at the National Park Service will mean for travelers, who made a record 331 million visits to park properties last year. Adding to the confusion is the federal court ruling on Thursday that the firings were done unlawfully and agencies must rehire their cut workers.
The National Park Service’s parks, sites and monuments, however, are not the only public lands affected by the seesawing reports of staffing levels and budget cutbacks brought on by the Trump administration’s goal to trim government spending.
The Bureau of Land Management, the U.S. Forest Service and the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, the three largest managers of public land in the United States, also keep public lands accessible. The B.L.M. alone covers 235 million acres, or nearly one-tenth of the country. If these agencies lose many of their workers, who will be around to handle the influx of visitors as summer travel season gears up?
In Charles Darwin’s 1859 Origin of Species, he describes “race” as members of the same species that typically develop different characteristics when separated geographically over time. Human races were the common focus and “scientific” discussions reflected the bigoted prejudices of that time.
In 1942 a German ornithologist, Ernst Mayr, defined animal species as “genetically distinct populations of individuals” capable of mating with one another and producing viable offspring.
These were the definitions my classmates and I were taught in public grade schools in the 1950s, and in public high schools and colleges in the 1960s.
When the Endangered Species Act (ESA) was adopted in 1973, 36 birds, 22 fish, 14 mammals, six reptiles, and six amphibians were initially listed: 84 animals in all, and each a distinct species. Today there are more than 1770 designated ESA species listed as threatened or endangered in the US, and more than 635 foreign species: 2,400 total!
Of these totals, only 57 species that have been considered “recovered” and 11 considered “extinct” were delisted in the past 51 years. This is a success rate of less than 3%; and an average of listing more than 47 new ESA species a year, while removing only one. The cost to taxpayers can be measured in the billions or trillions of dollars, depending on accounting method.
The barred owl is the most common brown-eyed owl in North America and has been popularly known as a “hoot owl” for many generations. Sometime by the 1950s these birds began expanding their range into the Pacific Northwest and breeding with native spotted owls, producing viable young called “sparred owls.”
The spotted owl had been listed by the ESA as endangered in 1990 and the supposed cause of its low population numbers was claimed to be logging. This determination resulted in dozens of successful “environmental” lawsuits being filed from that time to the present with the specific focus of stopping the sale and harvesting of commercial timber, and particularly on public forestlands.
In 2007 US Fish & Wildlife hunters began systematically killing barred owls and sparred owls on an “experimental” basis. The sole purpose was to control the breeding process in order to maintain genetic purity. Only these were wild owls, not domestic plants or animals, and ethical concerns were raised immediately. And then ignored.
A little over 10 years ago I wrote about this problem in a lengthy article that I also posted to a national blog of (mostly) retired US Forest Service professionals for discussion. I then presented this perspective in two lectures to graduate students, staff, and professors at the College of Forestry and then the Department of Fish & Wildlife at Oregon State University.
These efforts resulted in some meaningful discussions in the public forums, but immediate and adversarial claims of being a racist during my university lectures. Which was my whole point.
I had used polar opposites of the human species — a Pygmy and a Swede — to compare their differences in physiology, vocalizations, diet, coloration, appearance, and preferred habitat with those of spotted owls and barred owls. I was challenging current scientific theory and government policies with documentation, but my work could be safely ignored because someone called me a name.
The cost to US society for the purpose of keeping these brown-eyed cousins from having sex has simply been too great for too many years. The massive economic damage from spotted owl lawsuits — almost entirely funded by taxpayers — is generally well recognized: tens of thousands of lost jobs in the forest industry and US Forest Service; hundreds of sawmill closures; billions of dollars in lost revenues to the US Treasury, states, counties, and schools; and the resulting degradation of our rural communities, roads, parks, and services.
And, as predicted, millions of acres of so-called “spotted owl critical habitat” have gone up in flames, killing millions of wildlife and polluting the air with deadly smoke.
My thought remains that we need to stop playing God with hoot owls and let nature take its course. As Darwin pointed out, nature favors the “survival of the fittest,” and in this instance that seems to be sparred owls.
Schultz has been a topic of interest to this blog, naturally, and it will be interesting to see what others think of Jim’s insights and perspective. Here is the text and most photos to his article, but without direct links to related Evergreen essays:
Tom Schultz: Big Picture Thinker
Money doesn’t grow on trees…
Our mission is public education as it relates to all things forestry – so your contributions matter. Your support means we can continue to bring you the quality of content you have come to expect from Evergreen. If you appreciate our work, let us know – subscribe, donate, or leave us a tip!
On February 27, Tom Schultz was named the twenty-first Chief of the Forest Service. Many of my friends know Tom from his 14 years with the Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation and his years as Director of the Idaho Department of Lands and, more recently, Vice President of Resources and Government Affairs for the Idaho Forest Group.
I know him best from his IFG years. We visited at several conferences in Boise. He is a big picture thinker who brings exceptional leadership skills to the Forest Service at a time when both are desperately needed. He possesses what Vice President George Herbert Walker Bush called “that vision thing” when a Time Magazine writer asked him if there would be an over-arching theme in his 1988 run for the White House.
Schultz is only the third Forest Service Chief to be hired outside the ranks of the agency’s executive chain. The first was Jack Ward Thomas, an elk biologist in eastern Oregon before President Clinton picked him to lead the development of the controversial Northwest Forest Plan. He worked so impressed Clinton that he talked him into accepting the Chief’s post. The second was Mike Dombeck, a fisheries biologist, who was working for the Bureau of Land Management when President Clinton named him Chief in 1997, after Thomas resigned.
That’s Jack shaking hands with President Clinton. The President was so impressed with Jack’s work on the Northwest Forest Plan that he asked him to consider accepting the Chief’s post. Jack’s late wife urged him to accept despite her own illness.
Jack and I got to know one another well during the years I was living in Bigfork, Montana. He had quit the Forest Service and accepted a Boone and Crocket-funded chair in the W.A. Franke College of Forestry and Conservation at the University of Montana. I wanted to know why he quit. His answers led to many heated conversations at his home in Corvallis, Montana, but we remained friends. We had planned one last get together before cancer killed him. I still have the message he left on my cell phone a few days before he died.
Apart from his excellent book, Journals of a Forest Service Chief, Thomas has more than 600 articles to his credit: chapters in other books, essays and articles on everything from elk biology to land use planning. He was a strong advocate for zoning national forests based on eco-types. We have many of his writings in our library, along with dozens of books that trace the history of the U.S. Forest Service.
Of these books, the most comprehensive is Harold Steen’s book The U.S. Forest Service: A History. Steen held a PhD in History and was the Executive Director of the Forest History Society during its rise to prominence after Steen moved it to Durham, North Carolina in 1984.
The Forest Service also published several books of its own that chronicle its progress following its founding in 1905. Among them, 100 Years of Federal Forestry, aka Agriculture Information Bulletin No. 402, a picture book assembled by Forest Service retiree, William Bergoffen in 1976.
My personal favorites were written by Forest Service Chiefs who had lived their stories. These include Bill Greeley’s 1951 book, Forest and Men. Although he was Chief from 1920 to 1928, his book opens on the fire lines in western Montana and northern Idaho during the Great 1910 Fire, still the largest forest fire in our nation’s history.
Bill Greeley, Third Chief of The U.S. Forest Service
This is the Greeley profile written by the World Forestry Center
GREELEY-WILLIAM-B..pdf
60 KB
Greeley was then the District Ranger for District No. 1 which included federal forests in western Montana, northern Idaho and northeast Washington. Among his post-fire responsibilities was the identification and burial of the 78 men who died in the three million acre conflagration.
The tragedy haunted Greeley for the rest of his life and had much to do with his significant behind-the-scenes role in ratification of the Weeks Act in 1911 and the Clarke-McNary Act in 1926. Clarke-McNary put the Forest Service in the firefighting business alongside a series of privately-funded cooperatives assembled by the Weyerhaeuser Timber Company following the 1902 Yacolt Burn. The fire leveled 239,000 acres of virgin timber in northwest Oregon and southwest Washington. Thirty-eight people were killed.
Greeley also wrote a lesser known book in 1953 titled Forest Policy, a three part compendium based on his years at the helm of the West Coast Lumbermen’s Association. He left the Forest Service to join the deeply-troubled association in 1928. He had concluded that WCLA was in dire need of a major course correction that would align it with Forest Service reforestation and conservation interests.
Gifford Pinchot’s Breaking New Ground also well worth reading. It was published by his estate in 1947, the year following his death. The Forest History Society published Jack’s Journals in 2004.
Both men were held captive by political events of their time. With Pinchot it was wildfire and his belief that regulation was the only way to control the harvesting excesses of private forestland owners. With Jack it was the northern spotted owl and wildlife habitat conservation.
Forest Service Chief, Gifford Pinchot [right] with President Theodore Roosevelt on an Inland Waterways Commission tour of the Mississippi River in 1907.
President Theodore Roosevelt named Pinchot the first Chief of the Forest Service at its founding on February 1, 1905. They had been friends and confidants since Roosevelt’s years as New York Governor. On that same day, Roosevelt signed the Transfer Act, moving 63 million acres of designated Forest Reserves from the scandal ridden Department of the Interior to the newly formed Forest Service. About 500 employees answered to Pinchot.
Those 63 million acres were in Forest Reserves designated by Presidents Benjamin Harrison and Grover Cleveland – most of them in the West.
Tom Schultz’s Forest Service includes 154 national forests, about 30,000 mostly demoralized employees and 193 million acres. About 180,400,000 of these acres are located in 84 National Forests in the West and about half – some 93 million acres– are dying, dead or burnt to a crisp.
I have been flooded with questions from worried westerners who want to know what Schultz thinks or how he might tackle the mess he faces. My guess is that he will first hire a Washington Office staff he trusts, then he will turn his attention to the regulatory impacts of the Supreme Court’s Chevron Deference ruling. More on this in a moment.
We are fortunate to already know a few things about Schultz’s 30,000-foot view of the Forest Service and its tattered relationships with states, counties, and stakeholder collaborative groups because he joined three other big picture thinkers who were asked to pen their thoughts in an essay that appeared in 193 Million Acres: Toward a Healthier and More Resilient U.S. Forest Service, a 2018 book published by the Society of American Foresters.
Their essay was titled Cooperative Federalism, Serving the Public Interest: A Policy Analysis of How the States Can Engage Local Stakeholders and Federal Land Managers to Improve the Management of the National Forests.
Cooperative Federalism
An essay co-authored by Forest Service Chief, Tom Schultz
Schultz Cooperative Federalism – FINAL.docx
135 KB
Schultz’s co-authors were Holly Fretwell, then a research economist with the Property and Environment Center [PERC] in Bozeman, Montana, Dennis Becker, then Director of the Policy Analysis Group within the University of Idaho’s College of Natural Resources, now Dean of the College of Natural Resources and Kelly Williams, a natural resources lawyer and Adjunct Professor at the S.J. Quinney College of Law at the University of Utah.
The essay is long, but it will tell you what Schultz and his big picture colleagues saw when the looked at the struggling Forest Service eight years ago and asked themselves what could be done to help the agency get back on its feet again.
It seems inconceivable to think that Schulz ever thought the task of rescuing the Forest Service would fall to him – but he is now at the helm of a shell-shocked agency that is in real danger of tumbling off the crumbling cliff it has occupied since the federal government added the Northern Spotted Owl to its list of threatened species in June 1990.
There is no point in rehashing the history of how the world’s most admired natural resource management agency became one of the most reviled.
Far more important are the tasks that Chief Schultz faces now and in the near future….Here is a brief summary:
Terminate the Forest Service’s Overreaching “Managed Fire for Ecosystem Benefit” Policy
This is one of the most controversial, perplexing, and misled practices the agency has embraced in its 120-year history.
The concept of “managed fire” as a standalone approach is misleading – as it neglects the crucial need for regular thinning and prescribed burns under the right conditions – to restore balance to our overstocked public lands.
New Mexico’s 2022 Calf Canyon/Hermits Peak Fire is a prime example. It started as a prescribed burn on long-neglected land, despite conditions being too windy and too dry—directly contradicting the Forest Service’s own guidelines for a “managed burn.”
The fire quickly escaped its handlers. Some 341,400 acres and several hundred homes were burned.
Taxpayers have thus far paid more than one billion dollars in damage claims. This recurring scenario across the West continues to leave devastation in its wake.
How much more destruction must occur before the Forest Service’s reckless “managed fire” practices are abolished?
Chief Schultz can do it in a heartbeat with his own executive order aimed at forest-to-community health – a holistic, mutually inclusive approach to management, stewardship, ecosystem stabilization, and conservation.
Decades of scientific studies support the necessity of periodic thinning and prescribed burning in overstocked forests. When evidence-based science is applied, there is no safer or more cost effective way to reduce the risks associated with insect and disease infestations – and inevitable wildfire.
Just ask our First Nations citizens—they successfully managed the land long before science recognized the wisdom of Indigenous knowledge.
States, tribes, and private landowners regularly thin and burn to reduce biomass, manage debris, improve soil health, promote a healthy forest ecosystem, improve tree propagation, and mitigate insect and disease infestations. The Forest Service once did the same, but after the spotted owl was listed in 1990, it abandoned these practices. Too often now, the Endangered Species Act is used as an excuse for inaction.
Recasting the Wrecking Ball: Reforming the Equal Access to Justice Act
The EAJA was created to help ordinary citizens stand up to the government overreach, but elite environmental groups have hijacked it into a weapon for their own agendas.
Well-funded organizations, backed by wealthy donors, file endless lawsuits – to block responsible forest management.
They claim to be committed to justice, but they exploit a law meant for the underprivileged, forcing taxpayers to pay for their legal battles.
They claim to fight for conservation, yet their legal obstruction to thinning and prescribed burns has led to more devastating wildfires, insect infestations, and diseased forests.
The EAJA must be reformed to ensure our forests are managed with science – not endless litigation that hurts communities, damages our forests, and squanders public funds.
Reform will take time – but until it is done – all of the current Administration’s forestry-related executive orders will be challenged by serial litigators. This is an ongoing cycle, regardless of the administration – because they risk nothing.
While Congress is unlikely to exempt federal lands from the EAJA, it could replace litigation over forest plans with binding, baseball-style arbitration.
In this process, serial litigators and stakeholder collaboratives would each present their case, and arbitration judges would determine which proposal best aligns with the goals and objectives of the disputed forest plan.
Some experienced advisors suggest that the Equal Access to Justice Act could be improved through executive orders that reverse specific changes made during the Clinton Administration.
These modifications, introduced long after Congress originally passed the Act during the Reagan years, expanded its misuse – allowing well-funded groups to exploit taxpayer dollars for endless litigation.
Restoring the EAJA to its original intent through executive action could help curb these abuses and ensure the law serves those it was meant to protect, rather than elite litigators and obstructionist organizations.
Return to Evidence-Based Forest Service Culture
A profound cultural shift is underway within the Forest Service, driven by a sharp decline in the quality of forest science education at U.S. universities.
This decline stems from universities prioritizing federal research funding tied to political agendas, leading to an education system that promotes selective science rather than comprehensive, evidence-based forestry practices.
Decentralize the Forest Service’s Organizational Structure
Decision-making about our public lands must shift away from Washington and Regional Offices and return to District Ranger Offices. Local staff—who understand the land, have community trust, and can foster collaboration—are best equipped to make informed decisions.
However, given shifts in education and experience, some Ranger Districts may need support. Recent Forest Service retirees and qualified mentors can help by completing essential NEPA documents, including Environmental Impact Statements, Environmental Assessments, and Categorical Exclusions.
Jack Ward Thomas likened NEPA’s regulatory process to a ‘Gordian Knot,’ suggesting it was nearly impossible to navigate without facing lawsuits – lawsuits often used as a delay tactic to stall timber salvage after wildfires.
However, successfully navigating NEPA without litigation is possible. A retired Forest Service expert on our Evergreen Foundation Board has done so multiple times.
With intention and a commitment to collaboration, we can reduce the risk of catastrophic wildfire, disease, and insect infestations while maintaining environmental balance and strengthening the connection between forests and communities.
Align Forest Service Regulations with New CEQ Standards Under the Supreme Court’s Chevron Deference Decision
In Loper Bright Enterprises v Raimondo [Gina Raimondo was the Biden Administration’s Secretary of Commerce from 2021 to 2025] the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Loper Bright, a New Jersey Fishing Company that sued the National Marine Fisheries Service.
Chevron Deference was established in 1984 by the Supreme Court in Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. Justices ruled for NDRC, requiring lower courts to defer to the agency’s interpretation of a statute if the statute was ambiguous. Justices assumed that the agencies were experts in their subject matter areas and that Congress intended for the agencies to fill in gaps in statutes.
By a 6-2 margin the Roberts-led Supreme Court overruled Chevron Deference, citing the 1946 Administrative Procedures Act. APA spells out the process that federal administrative agencies must use to propose or establish administrative laws or regulations. It also grants federal courts oversight over all agency actions.
The upshot of the Loper Bright Enterprises v Raimondo ruling is that CEQ – the Council of Environmental Quality – must now revisit and revise decades of federal regulatory overreach involving federally-owned natural resources.
To wit: Jack Thomas’ Gordian Knot.
Once CEQ finishes its work, it will be Chief Schultz’s job to lead the same effort within the Forest Service. My guess is that he is up to his eyeballs in this process.
CEQ’s draft regulations are expected to be released soon. A 30-day comment period will follow, then a 45-day timeframe for implementation. It will be Chief Schultz’s responsibility to bring Forest Service regulations into alignment with new CEQ standards.
What we have here is a significant opportunity to loosen the “Gordian Knot” by adding much needed efficiency to the National Environmental Policy Act,
NEPA has become a tangled mess after 40 years of improper court rulings and excessive agency regulations. However, the Supreme Court’s decision in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo has undone much of this bureaucratic overreach, providing an opportunity to restore clarity and proper implementation of the law.
The Supreme Court has shredded the litigation-based business model that opportunists and obstructionists have relied on to push a false narrative about public land management.
They only make money if the public believes that conservation and management are mutually exclusive – that any form of active management is harmful – and that humans cannot play a responsible role in maintaining balanced ecosystems.
Chief Schultz is going to need his own chorus – composed of conservationists, forest scientists, stakeholder collaborative groups – everyone who enjoys the environmental and economic benefits that flow from well managed forests…
Clean air, clean water, abundant fish, bird and wildlife habitat and the very long list of year-round outdoor recreation activities that can only be found in healthy, thriving forests.
As I’ve said before but it bears repeating…
It’s time to saddle up and ride hard. We have a long way to go and a short time to get there.
The Northwest Forest Plan lays out how to manage millions of acres across Washington, Oregon and Northern California. But the scientists behind the plan say it hasn’t been very successful. It cost thousands of timber industry jobs and failed to protect vulnerable species. Now that the government is reconsidering it, the scientists reflect on what was considered the best option 31 years ago.
I’m grateful to serve as your next Chief of the Forest Service. First, thank you to Chief Moore for his leadership. He spent his life in service, dedicating a 45-year career to the benefit of the American people. I recognize that I am the first Chief who did not come from or previously work within the agency, but I hope you will see that as I do—as a strength. I have over 25 years of land management experience and I’m a lifelong user of public lands. I grew up roaming the woods of Virginia, not coming home until the streetlights flickered on. My grandfather, an avid birder and Scout leader, influenced my appreciation of the outdoors, as did my father-in-law, who was an avid sportsman, hunting and fishing in Gallatin County, Montana.
Working for state agencies in Montana and Idaho has given me a perspective on the role of the states in managing public trust lands and how that differs from goals and objectives in managing federal lands. My tenure at Idaho Forest Group gave me a deep understanding of markets and the role that raw material availability, quality and price play in being able to support a profitable forest products industry. The logging contractors and truck drivers are critical infrastructure and without them our ability to manage the forest and suppress wildfires can be impaired to a point that management is not feasible. All this gives me a balanced perspective as Chief.
Studying forestry at the University of Montana gave me an academic’s view of the forest management, including wildlife management, watershed management and silviculture. A class in environmental politics at the University of Wyoming, co-taught by Dr. Gregg Cawley and former U.S. Department of the Interior Secretary James Watt helped shape the way I think about public lands today. Cawley, ever the one to look the part of a lost soul from the 60s, looked exactly as you’d picture an environmentalist. He and Watt had different views about public lands and conservation and their respectful dialogue and classroom engagement taught me to think critically about land management issues and the role that values, science and politics plays in what we do.
Leadership Philosophy
I believe humans have two ears and one mouth for a reason, meaning we’re supposed to listen more than we talk and that we should learn from one another. I will come into a meeting with a direction but not all the answers. I want healthy, respectful dissent, but once a decision is made, I believe we must follow through together and hold ourselves accountable. That’s how I’ll present myself as your Chief.
The Forest Service is a decentralized agency, and I want to manage it as such. You are part of this agency’s strengths, which I see as a tripod of people, culture and tradition. I support decisions made locally when aligned with our overall strategies and goals. As Herbert Kaufman noted in his seminal work, “The Forest Ranger,” “It is the man or woman on the ground that is ultimately doing the work and making decisions.” I am committed to this agency, the American people and to supporting all of you, and I ask you to share that commitment. It’s not about me; it’s about us and the American public.
I want to refocus our efforts on safety, active forest management, fire management and recreation. As a field-based organization, safety must always be at the forefront of our minds. Years of fire suppression and declining timber harvest have left us with significant fuel buildup. I want us to do more to create resilient forests through active forest management, including timber sales, fuels reduction through mechanical thinning and prescribed fires, as well as fighting fires safely and protecting resource values.
Our public lands offer some of the best recreational opportunities in the world, and many are on Forest Service lands. I want to increase those opportunities to benefit urban and rural communities, yet we must balance public access with the potential for impacts on adjacent landowners.
The Forest Service carries a fiduciary responsibility to the American public. We must steward tax dollars wisely, so I’ll examine how to best optimize our workforce and our expenditures. We’ll focus on fundamentals—blocking and tackling. In the Forest Service, our motto gets at the core of our mission: “Caring for the land and serving people.” This requires us to be stewards of the public’s land and resources.
There was a time when preservation versus management was the source of significant debate. I believe that time has passed. Land managers, sportsmen and conservationists are allied now. Our largest partners are conservation and sportsmen organizations. Communities across the country depend on national forests and grasslands, and I will work tirelessly to support and protect those communities by partnering to actively manage public lands for multiple uses.
I believe strongly that we are in service to the public. Service is part of who I am, and it runs in my family. I have volunteered with several organizations, including the National Forest Foundation, Boy Scouts of America, Knights of Columbus, and several university advisory boards. My wife co-founded the nonprofit Laryngeal Cleft Network and was a dyslexia tutor. We’ve been married 30 years and have three kids, one in the Peace Corps and two in college. I believe we have to give back and that opportunities to serve are all around us. I know you believe in service, too, or you would not have chosen your career.
You’ve heard of the golden rule. I believe in what is known as the platinum rule: Treat others as they want to be treated. To do that, you have to get to know people and build trust. One way to do that is by soliciting feedback from those who use our public lands, from tribes, states, recreationists, industry, sportsmen, ranchers and the mining community.
I want to hear from you. I want to hear your motivations and ideas. Why did you want to work for the Forest Service? What brings you to work every day? I want you to identify problems and I want you to bring me solutions. We can’t be defined by what we’ve done in the past—we must chart a new path forward to ensure the productivity and health of our National Forest System. I pledge to work with you to protect people and communities and ensure our national forests and grasslands are healthy and productive.
I “borrowed” these photos from Evergreen Magazine from their interviews with Michael here..https://evergreenmagazine.com/mike-rains-4/
Michael has had a long and distinguished career with the Forest Service, including in senior leadership positions outside of NFS. As he says below, he worked for nine Chiefs and five administrations. He brings up the Carter Admin idea of one Department of Natural Resources, which we haven’t previously discussed. And he’s been in the room for many budget hearings, which many of us have not. So he brings a unique and valuable perspective to all this.
*******************
To begin, I took the last line of Sharon’s recent message: “Anyway, those are all the things I could think of, others? And what do you think makes an “able administrator” as Silcox was thought to be” to direct my comments.”
And please know, I (Michael T. Rains) am trying to be constructive. If my words offend anyone, I am sorry. That is clearly not my intention. Also, you will see that I consistently use the word “we” when I talk about the USDA Forest Service. It’s a habit. I am now retired from the Forest Service. The agency was and remains such an important part of my life. I think about it, mentioned it, or suggest someone should work for it, every day. Albeit somewhat “stale” at this moment in time, the Forest Service is a grand organization that requires the best “RKP” leadership available. I am hoping the new Chief can provide the correct leadership “style” to achieve the next great step for the Forest Service for another hundred years.
Actually, my mind has been racing about whether or not I should respond. That is, comment to this blog. Candidly, I was/am a bit afraid to do so and I am retired; go figure. I thought about my 2007 Student Teaching Experience working on my Teacher Certification in the 9th Grade, Earth and Space Science class at Marple Newtown High School in Pennsylvania, and a poster I made for the classroom. It was entitled, “Everything is Connected.” It focused on ecosystems, but the notion still strongly carries with me today. That is, there is always a reaction to every action. I often take from Newton’s Laws (smile).
Then my thoughts focused on my current position as a substitute teacher at the 6th thru 8th grade levels. I am certified in three subject matters, but as most of you know, a “Sub” has to be flexible; you are there to serve. Now I teach at only one school after years of gaining experiences from grades 5 through high school. In my school, there are signs throughout saying, “no room for bullies.” To me, a “bully” is a “person, organization or notion” that because of position power, can be harsh just because they can. The thing about bullying, eventually it has profound lasting harmful impacts on everyone – even the bully.
We now have a new Administration that is quickly gaining the “rap” of being a bully. Actually, I do think this is only partially true. I have been associated with some of the new appointments and these folks are “solid citizens”, no doubt. However, there are some that wield their position power in less than productive ways and it tends to create a total image; not fair, but it always seems to happen this way. For example, it only takes one or two very disruptive students in a 6th grade math classroom to turn the entire class sideways, creating a “rap” for the entire class; “be careful with Period 8, they are a handful.”
I do not know the new Chief Schultz. I want to assume he is solid for this incredibly important position as “America’s Chief Forester.” Sadly, almost any appointments from this new Administration initially takes my breath away because of my position on “everything is connected.” Allow me to suspend judgment prior to investigation. I think I can. I want to.
During my federal government career with the USDA Forest Service spanning almost 50 years, when asked about the agency, I provided the three brief statements: “…I like being employed. It is an honor to work for the Department of Agriculture. And, I work for the greatest organization in the world, the USDA Forest Service.” I love the Forest Service. However, it has become somewhat “stale” over the last two decades. I retired in 2016, so as a Senior Executive then, and to be fair, I must have been part of the problem. Maybe “stodgy” is a better term. I have often said that since retiring from federal service, I think I am now a much better contemporary “thinker.” Maybe it’s because now I am now working with younger learners (smile).
The notion of being somewhat “stodgy” reminds me of a time almost 40 years ago. I was completing my Developmental Assignment for the Senior Executive Service (SES). A professor asked the class of about 25 “students” (i.e., soon to be official SES members), “how many of you have political appointees as your boss.” 24 hands went up; not mine. All eyes turned to me when the teacher said, “you must be at quite a disadvantage.” I became somewhat indignant and began to let my ego overload by brains, explaining how “it’s possible for anyone in the Forest Service to become the top leader if they had the ability and willingness. A political appointee would stifle that aspirational opportunity.” Just a few years later I began to understand what the teacher was suggesting. I was very wrong and perhaps someone who is a great leader, without any natural resources management skills, could also be an outstanding Chief. In order to be a great leader, you have to be a great follower, as well. A great leader, Charlie Bolden — the former NASA Administrator — taught me that. I believed this strongly today. Great leaders are very good followers and learn quickly. I am getting to a key point. Hang in there with me please. Let my story unfold just a bit more
Most of the Chiefs in my Forest Service career really did not fully understand the level of power and impact the agency had/has. The Forest Service has a direct and indirect stewardship role on 80+ percent of America’s forestlands along a complex rural to urban land gradient, including 138 million acres of urban forests. What always troubled me was the fact that we were enamored with the “193 million acres of National Forests and Grasslands.” When I was deputy Chief of State and Private Forestry, I tried to change the narrative just a little.
I worked for nine (9) Forest Service Chief’s and five Administrations during my career. Some were very good. Only one Forest Service Chief admitted to me the more narrowly defined view he had of the agency’s mission. I will always recall what he said, and this was from a really vibrant Chief: “I must admit that state and private forestry and research do not roll off my tongue very well. It is because I have spent my entire career in NFS. I must change now.” Think about it, almost every Chief, Deputy Chief of the National Forest System, and Regional Forester of the Forest Service spends (or has spent) their entire service time in NFS; at least at that time while I was still in the agency. That’s really a shame. This prompted me to serve in every Mission Area of the agency, perhaps a fact that I am most proud of. There was a time when I was asked about my interest in the position of Deputy Chief for the NFS; I was a Research Station Director at the time. I was honored but nearing the end of my career. Honestly, I wondered about my stamina; that’s a very demanding job. I said “no” after thinking about it all night. I still think I did not have the required stamina at 68 years of age. That was almost a decade ago. I think I made the right decision. I think I did.
So, if the Forest Service is as complex as I say it is, and all the 9 Chief’s that I had the honor to work for were focused mostly on the NFS, why would anyone object to someone being another Chief who is new to the agency that “does not know the entire organization”? I know many will initially be concerned, but I do not think we should be overly concerned. One Chief that I worked for had some terrific ideas and was not a bully. But he had not come up through the agency, and I do not think we gave him an honest chance to fully succeed. Upon reflection, many of us were very wrong.
In the classroom, I always introduce myself by signing on the front white board, “Mr. Rains, R.K.P.” The R.K.P. represents, Respect, Kindness, and Productivity; my core values that I strive to deploy every day. I always ask the students to treat everyone with respect, please be kind, and be as productive in and out of the classroom as you can be. People that are bullies or learn that behavior from organizations that are bullies, will always lose. Maybe it will take some time, but eventually their behavior will be their Achillies heel. Never doubt this. So, if our new Chief Schultz is respectful, kind and productive as he can be, we should give him a real chance to succeed in leading the once greatest organization in the world that “cares for the land and serves people.”
Another thing, it is the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) linkage with the Forest Service that I ponder a lot. As Bernie Casey said in the movie “Another 48 Hours”, “not everything is everything.” Allow me to explain. In 1901, the Division of Forestry was renamed the Bureau of Forestry. The Transfer Act of 1901, at the urging of President Theodore Roosevelt, transferred the management of “forest reserves” from the General Land Office of the Interior Department to the Bureau of Forestry, Department of Agriculture. When Gifford Pinchot talked his friend “Teddy” into moving him (Gifford) to USDA so he would not be so constrained (some suggest not being bullied), the Forest Service was officially created on July 1, 1905. About 60 years later I would have the privilege to join the agency.
During the Carter Administration (Jimmy Carter, 39th President, 1977-1981), it was suggested we have a “Department of Natural Resources”, combining the Department of Interior and the Forest Service to achieve a more contemporary stewardship vision. The notion was quite solid. Thus, it was tossed to the side; too much change, too quickly. I think this proposal needs to be revisited. If one is truly looking for efficiency and effectiveness, it’s worth reviewing. And the Forest Service “Regions” could be reviewed in terms of the stewardship of landscape level ecosystems (i.e., the “Sierra Nevada Ecosystem). Hey, the current Forest Service organization is pretty outdated. It has served the country well for more than a hundred years. I think it’s time for a methodical review. The agency does not need to be bullied by dumping “all new employees”, for example. That’s not thinking. That’s just kicking butt and taking names; nothing good happens.
I heard very recently, the “fire program” with the Forest Service should be turned over to the BLM (Bureau of Land Management). If I may, that is a very bad idea. Believe me, I have some experience on this subject. If anything is to be done – for example, thinking about the “Department of Natural Resources” – keep the bullies at bay and very methodically think about a solid contemporary wildland fire organization that best serves the needs of our country. I do think it is time for a new version of the 2001 National Fire Plan. I would urge to please go slow on this. It has huge payoffs if done correctly.
The Forest Service is still with the USDA. In my view, that’s a problem. Most of the USDA Secretaries have been “wheat, corn and soybean” kinds of leaders, with all due respect to these commodities. That’s what the selected Secretaries understand. There is a Mission Area in USDA called “Natural Resource and Environment (NRE).” Now, it includes only the Forest Service. That’s called inefficiency and I am sorry to say, ineffectiveness. This should change. The Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS), the old Soil Conservation Service (SCS), left and went to another Mission Area – the Under Secretary for “Farm Production and Conservation.” I am not sure that was/is effective either. One needs to ask the NRCS employees. They are also amazing employees. They will know the truth and what works best.
If nothing changes, this means the Secretary or the Under Secretary for NRE need to be very sensitive to the complex Forest Service mission. Most of the time, they are not. Yes, if a huge wildfire causes political concern, their attention surfaces. Administration leaders have to understand that “forestry” is not “wheat, corn and soybeans.” Think about it. Would the USDA Secretary ever be someone with just a forest stewardship background? I doubt it. The farmers would not allow it. Heck, the NRCS probably would not allow it (smile).
This then requires a Chief that is very sensitive to the overall, complex stewardship role of the agency and be quite politically connected, or at least very politically astute. The latter is a problem; so far, most have not been or wanted to be connected effectively with Members of Congress, for example. Sure, they (most Forest Service Chiefs that I have worked for) will be obedient and “go to the Hill” if called. Otherwise, “fuhgeddaboudit.” And we face the alarming results that have surfaced over the last several decades and the impacts of lost land, lost lives and lost communities will continue. Nothing changes if nothing changes.
To be realistic, I am not sure the current arrangement of the Forest Service Chief being assigned to the Under Secretary of the USDA NRE Mission Area is productive or even fair. Allow me to present an example that I witnessed several times. The setting is the “Forest Service Appropriations Hearing” with Congress. The Chairman at the time was the late Senator Robert C. Byrd of West Virginia. At that time, I was the Director of the Northeastern Area, State and Private Forestry. West Virginia was in our twenty-state Area. Senator Byrd was a very big deal; incredibly powerful. Yet, since the topic was the Forest Service budget (vs. the agriculture budget), top leaders from USDA were absent. I know this was an affront to the Senator. In his mind (and in reality), he was a top leader in the Senate and he expected the top leader from the USDA to be present; not a person from an agency within USDA. From some reason, we just could not understand this very predictable dynamic. The result, unfortunately, was the Chief was treated unfairly, I thought. Actually, in my view he was bullied a bit by some Members of the Committee due to his lack of “psychological size.”; it was not good. I know this sounds odd. To me, the Chief’s position was/is iconic. To many others, the Forest Service was/is simply an agency that they do not know much about. “They fight fires, right?” And, in those circumstances, the Chief of the Forest Service simply is clearly at a disadvantage due to her/his position power level. Nothing really new and nothing changes. This need to change “Departmental readjustment” is critical, if the mission of the Forest Service is to rise to the level of attainment that is needed today. Perhaps now a “political appointee” would be better for the Forest Service. That Harvard University Professor sure thought so, even 40 years ago.
Let me be absolutely clear about “some” of the Committee Members treating – in my view — the Forest Service Chief somewhat harshly; unfairly in the example I described. It was not Senator Byrd. I know he was disappointed because he told me later when I was meeting with one of his staff. I loved Senator Byrd. He passionately stood up for America and his state and his constituents. To me, he was always R.K.P; very firm and very fair.
Back to our forests for just a minute. Did you know that about one-half of the National Forests are not healthy and not resilient to disturbances? Are you aware that about one-fourth of all the acres of forestland burned in 2024 probably did not have to burn? In part, due to a very intellectual argument known as “managed” fire. This drives me crazy. You cannot manage wildfire. It is called “wild.” First, put out the fire, then decide the best course of action to help restore the landscape, at least with today’s forest conditions. Ask the trees, they speak. They will tell you, “It is not a fair encounter to let the fire burn. Thousands of Americans’ die each year due to smoke-related health problems. Knowing this, why would anyone ever let a wildfire burn – “monitoring”; it’s called “watching.” It’s not a rhetorical question.
The single most important thing the Forest Service must do is be more aggressive in their direct AND indirect role in the stewardship of most of America’s forestlands. Become a much stronger partner with State Foresters and other leaders at the state and local levels, including cities. On the rural and urban land, many call this “forest management.” I refer to it as “forest maintenance” because so many people understand the word “maintenance.” To most it means “to care for.” In this case, words really matter.
The indirect role, I always refer to as “Federally Assisted State Programs,” is really key. The Forest Service needs to accentuate this. This demands inclusive behavior and actions. On the other hand, “Federalism” sounds a lot like the “Civil War era” and is clearly exclusionary, to the “max”, respectfully. If Chief Schultz is to be really effective as the next America’s Chief Forester, he must embrace a complex federally assisted role along a rural to urban land gradient. Think of the amazing support this stance would garner. It’s called the Forest Service, not the “NFS Service.”
If our new Chief could do just one thing this year, I would strong suggest putting an end – at least for the foreseeable future – to the practice of “managed” wildfire. The very first thing is to ensure that Chief Schultz’ annual “Letter of Intent for Wildfires” that will come out very soon, includes clear direction to “first put out the wildfire with a strong initial attack.” Over the past five years or so, a group of conservation leaders – about 80 or so with literally thousands of years of stewardship experiences, including some of the best fire control leaders in the world – have contributed to a document known as “A Call to Action.” Most everything that I have just said is in the document. Plus, lots of other relevant information that is important to the agency mission in wildland fire control. Check it out. If you want a copy, let me know. My email is [email protected].
Andy Stahl remembered that the new Chief had been a co-author of an essay in the 193 Million Acres book, edited by our own Steve Wilent and published by SAF in 2018. Chief Schultz’s coauthors were Holly Fretwell (of PERC), Dennis Becker (long-term policy professor at U of Idaho) and Kelly Williams (I think she is a natural resources attorney in Utah).
The good news.. despite the resurgence fear-stoking “state takeover” and “privatization”, those do not seem to be his views, for reasons clearly outlined in the paper. There is a nice history of those tensions in the longer essay linked above. There are many references to successful collaborations and the use of Good Neighbor Authority.
The idea proposed is “Cooperative Federalism”; at first glance, it certainly makes more sense than “Competitive Federalism” or “Antagonistic Federalism” or ” Antagonistic and Cooperative Depending on Party Match between the State and the Feds.”
We detailed a fourth management paradigm for the national forests that relies on the concept of cooperative federalism. Ideas of cooperative federalism are grounded in the US Constitution that specifies that certain authorities are retained by the federal government and others are delegated to the states. The federalist form of government in the US recognizes a shared responsibility for governing the people and resources of this country. Within this framework is a shared responsibility in the administration of federal environmental laws (Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act), wherein the states can attain primacy to administer the federal laws on private, state, and even federal lands under the oversight of the federal government. In a similar fashion, cooperative federalism as a land management framework would dictate a shared responsibility to manage the federal lands. Federal laws enacted to manage and protect federal public lands would be administered by the states in a cooperative fashion with the Forest Service. The states would assist in the planning, development, and execution of land management projects on federal lands, yet the Forest Service (and eventually, BLM) would retain decisionmaking authority for projects. This framework would reduce the underlying causes of the current federal land management conflicts and gridlock.
There are four main reasons why a cooperative federalism framework is well-positioned to address the primary causes of conflict that have and continue to define and typify federal land management.
1. States Have a Legitimate Interest in Protecting Their Citizens
Protecting public health and safety is one of the police powers of state and local municipalities. The state has an inherent interest and responsibility to protect its citizens from natural disasters, including floods, hurricanes, earthquakes, and catastrophic wildfire. Federal agencies like the US Geological Survey and the National Weather Service provide assistance to the states with collection and monitoring of geological data and weather forecasting to help inform local and state government officials about weather or environmental hazards that could affect the lives of their citizens. However, it is the responsibility of state and local government officials to protect their citizens from these hazards
************
The cohesive strategy and the subsequent national strategy and national action plan provide a framework of federal and state cooperation in planning for and management of catastrophic wildfire across federal, state, and private lands. Consistent with cooperative goals identified in the cohesive strategy, a state has the responsibility to protect the health and safety of its citizens from the risk of catastrophic wildfire. It is reasonable and necessary that the state not only has a role in fire suppression actions on federal lands, but also in assisting in the management of these federal lands to reduce the risk of wildfire through active forest management. The vast extent of intermingled ownership patterns, coupled with the imperiled health of the national forests, necessitates an “all hands on deck” approach to managing these lands. Cooperative federalism provides a structure for that assistance by the states.
2. Improved Decisionmaking Process
*********
The Forest Service continues to use those collaborative groups (which now includes participation from the IDL) to help design restoration projects within the designated treatment areas. Under the statewide Good Neighbor Agreement, the State of Idaho implements projects on federal lands utilizing state employees and state contracting procedures. Decisions made by the Forest Service within the HFRA-designated treatment areas and implemented using Good Neighbor Authority include input from local stakeholders, the states, and the federal government. The state then implements those projects using its own contracting procedures. This overall process ensures that all interests, including the states, that choose to participate in the decisionmaking process are represented. Cooperative federalism, with its emphasis on shared decisionmaking, should reduce both local and regional conflict and increase the efficacy of management of the national forests. To date, none of the GNA projects have been litigated in Idaho.
3. States’ Expertise and Governance Experience
Western states employ skilled land, water, fire, and wildlife managers, including foresters, hydrologists, fish/wildlife biologists, fire wardens, engineers, GIS specialists, recreation specialists, procurement specialists, and fiscal staff to manage state trust lands and other state lands. The expertise and experience that these employees have gained through the management of state lands is directly transferable to similar management projects on federal lands. GAO (2009) noted that in Colorado, state foresters have the competence and skill to cruise stands of timber, determine timber volumes in stands to be harvested, conduct timber sale appraisals, and administer timber sale and service contracts. That same GAO report noted that the Forest Service in partnering with the state under Good Neighbor Authority was able to accomplish more restoration work than if they had not had the state as a partner. In effect, under GNA, the whole is greater than the sum of its parts.
4. Move the Locus of Control
The fourth reason that cooperative federalism will succeed in reducing federal land management conflicts is that the locus of control of those lands will shift from Washington, DC, to west of the 100th meridian. Much of the rhetoric regarding the transfer of federal lands to the states and others has originated in the West. Arnold (1982), Cawley (1993), Pendley (1995), and Kemmis (2001) traced much of the history of frustrations expressed by westerners regarding the ownership and management of the federal lands. Absentee landlords in Washington, DC, are ill-equipped to make decisions that affect the livelihoods and experiences of millions of US citizens who use the national forest lands. Cooperative federalism will not only engage local stakeholders in developing reasonable management alternatives, but will also rely on state governments and their employees to implement land management projects in a cooperative fashion.
Conclusion
Reliance on the states as a cooperative partner is a game changer. State land management agencies are run by statewide elected officials or their appointees. This ensures that the citizens, legislators, and locally elected officials of a state are represented by their state governments’ land management agencies in the management of the national forests. Similar to Secretary James Watt’s claim that he won the Sagebrush Rebellion because he was a Westerner who listened to and worked with Western governors, policies of cooperative federalism will tamp down Western calls to transfer the federal lands to the states and will encourage greater levels of engagement and cooperation by western politicians and the citizens that they represent to solve the problems surrounding the management of the National Forests.
If Mark Twain is correct, there are no new ideas. Fortunately, managing the national forests under a framework of cooperative federalism doesn’t require the passage of new laws or the appropriation of millions of dollars by Congress. It requires leadership, pragmatism, and hard-nosed commitment to work together to meet the ever-increasing demands on the federal public lands. America’s history demonstrates that the necessary components for successful forest management already exist. By insisting on a model of cooperative federalism, stakeholders will have fashioned something new from the best parts of prior good ideas, thereby serving as a beacon of light and hope that diverse interests working together can achieve more than when pursuing their self-interests. The whole is truly greater than the sum of its parts. Our nation needs a vision for success that promotes civility, collaboration, and results on the ground. Cooperative federalism provides that framework, which will assist the Forest Service in achieving Pinchot’s grand utilitarian goal of maximizing the public interest over the longest time.
ND mentioned the need to update the hiring process. Apparently many in the federal government share these concerns.
Jennifer Pahlka wrote this piece describing some of her associates’ challenges and a test program designed to improve the process. I know many FS and other feds find it very frustrating. For those who haven’t experienced trying to hire someone, Jennifer gives you some stories from the standpoint of trying to hire IT folks.
Jack’s tech skills meant nothing to the hiring process, but there is one skill that is always valued: the ability to cut and paste. Yadira Sanchez, a tech team leader at the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, described to me her attempt to hire a product manager. Like Marina, she knew there were some extremely well-qualified candidates in her pool, some of whom were already doing a great job on the project as contractors. She avoided the mistake the DDS team had made, reminding applicants to get some help from someone who knew how to write a government resume. But none of those candidates made the cert, and in fact, the cert contained no one with product-management experience. The top candidate had just “copied and pasted the exact same language in the exact same font from the bulleted list in the posting into their resume, and that qualified them,” Yadira told me. “They didn’t even put any other language around it. They didn’t even try to disguise what they’d done.” And yet, HR insisted this person was the most qualified for the job per their process.
But why do so many HR teams insist on a process that results in these unqualified candidates and the failure of half their hiring actions? Unhelpful and overly restrictive interpretations of the principle of equity collide with large candidate pools to create a decidedly inequitable and inefficient process. There can be hundreds, even thousands of applicants for a job. HR teams are supposed to consider every applicant with the same level of scrutiny, which makes assessment of large pools of candidates an enormous lift. The way to do that both quickly and “fairly” is to exercise as little judgment as possible.
***********
We know this because during the last Trump administration, the U.S Digital Service and the Office of Personnel Management devised an alternative hiring process (called SME-QA for Subject Matter Expert Qualifying Assessments) that allows domain experts to work with HR to determine who is qualified and eligible – and it works dramatically better. When the team who rolled it out delivered the first set of certs, they would occasionally get calls from the hiring managers they’d work with, complaining about certs full of veterans. “You promised this would be different,” they would say. “Look at the resumes,” the USDS team would tell them. “They’re qualified veterans.” When they looked, they agreed, and they were delighted to hire veterans who’d been properly assessed for their skills. But years of seeing certs on which veterans had floated to the top after assessing solely for knowledge of the hiring process had created understandable bias against the very people veterans preference laws were meant to help.
SME-QA is one example of the seeds of change Mr. Kupor has to work with as he takes on leadership of OPM. These seeds, and the people who champion them, need water, sunlight, and fertilizer. SME-QA started over five years ago, and it hasn’t meaningfully scaled. OPM and GSA published data in 2020 that show that 90% of competitive jobs rely entirely on resume screens and self-assessments. The number of hiring actions that use SME-QA is still quite small, and is unlikely to have moved that overall number at all. Progress is painfully slow, in part because no one has tackled the underlying conditions: the control HR staff have over the creation of the cert that excludes the judgement of the hiring manager, the difficult and finicky processes that make assessments far more time-consuming than they are in the private sector, the unreasonable and unhelpful rigidity of the entire process. There’s so much work ahead even just in this one area. We are just scratching the surface here.
