Each program area should produce a flow-chart style process guide for each major task. In addition to listing steps, at each step the who/what/when/where/why/how would be very succinctly listed (bullet points, probably). Included in this key info would be what directives and guides apply, what records are created, and where records are filed. As I imagine this type of guide, most program areas should be able to summarize or diagram their processes on one poster-size print, or maybe a couple posters.
The FSM and FSH and their various supplements certainly do exist, as do various guides and references. These are about as user friendly as a durian. A flow chart guide would help cut through the complexity and may highlight areas where simplification or greater control are advisable.
Flow charts have been created for the timber gate system, contract agreement selection, timber contract administration, and other areas of timber management I find them very useful. Often works like a dichotomous key in a guide book. Never been easier to make flow charts and they certainly simplify things in our process driven agency! Many are imbedded in the 2400 handbooks.
There are a bunch of ideas for organizational improvement in the book I edited, 193 Million Acres: Toward a Healthier and More Resilient US Forest Service, “a collection of essays that examine the challenges the US Forest Service faces and propose solutions that would address them. Contributors include numerous retired agency leaders, including two former chiefs, as well as long-time outside observers.” https://www.shopsaf.store/products/193-million-acres-toward-a-healthier-and-more-resilient-us
But it’s hard to see any of those ideas being implemented during the current chaos. The Hotshot Wakeup once again has solid reporting on the latest carnage: High Level Resignations And Mass Layoffs Begin In The Forest Service Just 24 Hours After The Deferred Resignation Closes. 3,400 non-fire employees let go. https://thehotshotwakeup.substack.com/p/high-level-resignations-and-mass
I’ve been imagining, what if I were appointed Chief of the FS in 2025 and the Secretary (or Under Secretary) told me I needed to reduce staff dramatically inline with the EO — by say 30%. What would I do? I definitely don’t want to see anyone lose their jobs, but am trying to wrap my head around what the possibilities are.
First, I probably would not cut the jobs that are producing widgets. That pretty much leaves the SO’s, RO’s, Research and Technology, and WO vulnerable.
In some Regions, such as California, that have not moved this direction already, it seems like there could be room to combine some of these smallish land area NF’s together as was done more aggressively in other Regions in the past. Eliminating half or 2/3 of the SO’s in some areas would make a dent.
At least in my experience, the field gets little support from the RO’s given how much money they take off the top and the size of their staff. Transitioning from RO’s to program area Service Centers organized under the WO could provide better service to the field and reduce costs substantially. The WO Comm Site Special Uses staff is an existing, successful model of this organization structure. The Enterprise organization functions in a similar way.
As a last resort, I might consider contracting out positions on ID Teams to the private sector and just have a few specialists in the SO’s to administer those contracts to oversee environmental documentation and NEPA reviews. That is not likely going to be more efficient or save money, but I don’t think that is the ultimate goal of this administration. It is to dismantle the administrative state and cut numbers of Federal jobs.
I have a lot of empathy for everyone who has lost their jobs so far, and especially for those mid-career folks who don’t have enough time in to retire soon and have their careers at risk.
Read an article that folks were searching for documents produced by the Forest Service Transformation Team. I was on that team. I might be able to find some documents and PowerPoints that I have on a thumb drive. Also, not sure of proper protocol for sharing. Maybe it would have to go through FS first, before sharing publicly. Let me know.
Bill, it appears that there is no one in the position of Historian right now, and I tried asking various other individuals who don’t answer emails. I will try asking WO Comms and then if not I think we have done due diligence. Anyone else know whom we might ask?
Note: when I post things from the distant past, I have never thought to ask. For one thing, conceivably they are government records that are archived for history and historians somewhere.
Sharon, as a non-USDA “Friend-of-the-Family” who keeps stuff, I always assumed that if I had obtained a map or a memo or a Study it was public information, and I could use it in any way I chose. It is important when publicizing old stuff to identify it precisely – Record of Decision, draft, comment, and date and author. I’ve never had a problem.
The commotion since 20 Jan 2025 has shown the value of preserving the historic record, but this is not new. The USFS as an institution has valued maintaining the record of its actions and the decision-process behind those actions as long as I’ve had a “continuing interest in forest management.” Others in the Smokey Wire community know more than I, but my impression is Gifford Pinchot built a commitment to “maintaining the record” deep in the Service’s institutional memory.
Being “on the public record” only matters if someone knows a document exists. Publicly-available Indices to archived information are as important aa the documents themselves. But It’s all public record. Persevere.
Restore employee directory.
Keep updated plan information.
Each program area should produce a flow-chart style process guide for each major task. In addition to listing steps, at each step the who/what/when/where/why/how would be very succinctly listed (bullet points, probably). Included in this key info would be what directives and guides apply, what records are created, and where records are filed. As I imagine this type of guide, most program areas should be able to summarize or diagram their processes on one poster-size print, or maybe a couple posters.
The FSM and FSH and their various supplements certainly do exist, as do various guides and references. These are about as user friendly as a durian. A flow chart guide would help cut through the complexity and may highlight areas where simplification or greater control are advisable.
Flow charts have been created for the timber gate system, contract agreement selection, timber contract administration, and other areas of timber management I find them very useful. Often works like a dichotomous key in a guide book. Never been easier to make flow charts and they certainly simplify things in our process driven agency! Many are imbedded in the 2400 handbooks.
Thank you!
Thanks, Jay! I seem to remember doing this once for NEPA as part of one or another process improvement scheme.
There are a bunch of ideas for organizational improvement in the book I edited, 193 Million Acres: Toward a Healthier and More Resilient US Forest Service, “a collection of essays that examine the challenges the US Forest Service faces and propose solutions that would address them. Contributors include numerous retired agency leaders, including two former chiefs, as well as long-time outside observers.”
https://www.shopsaf.store/products/193-million-acres-toward-a-healthier-and-more-resilient-us
But it’s hard to see any of those ideas being implemented during the current chaos. The Hotshot Wakeup once again has solid reporting on the latest carnage: High Level Resignations And Mass Layoffs Begin In The Forest Service Just 24 Hours After The Deferred Resignation Closes. 3,400 non-fire employees let go.
https://thehotshotwakeup.substack.com/p/high-level-resignations-and-mass
Yes, I agree, someone should condense the recommendations and send them in, once we know the people in the new Admin.
Sharon, I posted the Introduction to 193 Million Acres: Toward a Healthier and More Resilient US Forest Service.
https://forestpolicypub.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/193-Million-Acres-Introduction.pdf
I’ve been imagining, what if I were appointed Chief of the FS in 2025 and the Secretary (or Under Secretary) told me I needed to reduce staff dramatically inline with the EO — by say 30%. What would I do? I definitely don’t want to see anyone lose their jobs, but am trying to wrap my head around what the possibilities are.
First, I probably would not cut the jobs that are producing widgets. That pretty much leaves the SO’s, RO’s, Research and Technology, and WO vulnerable.
In some Regions, such as California, that have not moved this direction already, it seems like there could be room to combine some of these smallish land area NF’s together as was done more aggressively in other Regions in the past. Eliminating half or 2/3 of the SO’s in some areas would make a dent.
At least in my experience, the field gets little support from the RO’s given how much money they take off the top and the size of their staff. Transitioning from RO’s to program area Service Centers organized under the WO could provide better service to the field and reduce costs substantially. The WO Comm Site Special Uses staff is an existing, successful model of this organization structure. The Enterprise organization functions in a similar way.
As a last resort, I might consider contracting out positions on ID Teams to the private sector and just have a few specialists in the SO’s to administer those contracts to oversee environmental documentation and NEPA reviews. That is not likely going to be more efficient or save money, but I don’t think that is the ultimate goal of this administration. It is to dismantle the administrative state and cut numbers of Federal jobs.
I have a lot of empathy for everyone who has lost their jobs so far, and especially for those mid-career folks who don’t have enough time in to retire soon and have their careers at risk.
Read an article that folks were searching for documents produced by the Forest Service Transformation Team. I was on that team. I might be able to find some documents and PowerPoints that I have on a thumb drive. Also, not sure of proper protocol for sharing. Maybe it would have to go through FS first, before sharing publicly. Let me know.
Bill, it appears that there is no one in the position of Historian right now, and I tried asking various other individuals who don’t answer emails. I will try asking WO Comms and then if not I think we have done due diligence. Anyone else know whom we might ask?
Note: when I post things from the distant past, I have never thought to ask. For one thing, conceivably they are government records that are archived for history and historians somewhere.
Sharon, as a non-USDA “Friend-of-the-Family” who keeps stuff, I always assumed that if I had obtained a map or a memo or a Study it was public information, and I could use it in any way I chose. It is important when publicizing old stuff to identify it precisely – Record of Decision, draft, comment, and date and author. I’ve never had a problem.
The commotion since 20 Jan 2025 has shown the value of preserving the historic record, but this is not new. The USFS as an institution has valued maintaining the record of its actions and the decision-process behind those actions as long as I’ve had a “continuing interest in forest management.” Others in the Smokey Wire community know more than I, but my impression is Gifford Pinchot built a commitment to “maintaining the record” deep in the Service’s institutional memory.
Being “on the public record” only matters if someone knows a document exists. Publicly-available Indices to archived information are as important aa the documents themselves. But It’s all public record. Persevere.