Northwest Forest Plan Review

Plans & Reports

Appropriate Roles of Line Officers and Technical Staff

Prepared for the USDA Forest Service Pacific Southwest Region Review of Northwest Forest Plan Implementation by Jack Ward Thomas, Boone and Crockett Professor of Conservation, University of Montana, Missoula, Montana, June 26, 2003.

The Laws That Changed Things

The Forest Service has a long and sometimes contentious history of working out appropriate relationships between technical staffs and line officers. Without doubt, this relationship was much less strained prior to the decades of the 1960’s and 1970’s that were marked by the passage of a plethora of laws that were a harbinger of dramatic changes in the management of the national forest system. These laws included: the Multiple-Use Sustained Yield Act of 1960; the Wilderness Act; the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965; the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act; the National Environmental Policy Act; the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972; the Endangered Species Act of 1973; the Forest and Rangelands Renewable Resources Act of 1974; the Freedom of Information Act; the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976; the National Forest Management Act of 1976; and 65 other miscellaneous acts bearing on National Forest System management.

Foresters – Present at the Creation

With these laws came the necessity for hiring technical specialists from outside the ranks of foresters and engineers. Yet, as late as the 1980’s, the professional ranks of Forest Service personnel were still composed of well over 90 percent foresters. As line officers rose from the ranks, and because the vast majority of foresters were males, the supervisory cadre was almost totally composed of male foresters. Further, most of these line officers came to maturity in the agency in period following the close of World War II.

Dreams of Timber Production – The Right Way

From the inception of the Forest Service with the Transfer Act of 1905 through the end of World War II in 1945, the agency was consistently thwarted by the political clout of private industry from carrying out Forest Service founder Gifford Pinchot’s vision of becoming a significant source of timber and other wood products for a growing nation. These products were to come from national forests managed in a sustainable fashion and provide a source of revenue for the federal treasury.

Wood from private lands was in increasingly short supply after the end of World War II. As a result, at the urging of the timber industry, the Forest Service was, at long last, called upon to provide wood to meet the pent up demand for housing that had been accumulating since the onset of the Great Depression in 1929.

The “can do” agency was ready, willing, and able to meet the challenge. The timber cuts from the national forests ramped up year after year to essentially universal applause. The Forest Service exemplified what an efficient, dedicated, professional, highly motivated government agency could and should be. In turn, the agency prospered in terms of budget and personnel and a broadened mission.

The first timber stands cut on national forests were most commonly at low elevation, on highly productive sites with relatively gentle ground, and in close proximity to the mills that were springing up as rural “timber communities” grew and prospered. Regardless of which political party held congress and the presidency, there was over whelming bi-partisan support for the Forest Service as the annual timber harvest inexorably increased until reaching a peak in the late 1980’s of approximately 11.5 billion board feet.

Overrunning the Headlights

As a spider web of roads increased year by year and clear cuts replaced mostly virgin forests over more and more of the landscape, questions began to arise. In the late 1960s there was backlash - first against clear cutting and terracing in the Bitterroot National Forest in Montana and clear cutting on the Monongahela National Forest in West Virginia. The Isaac Walton League successfully sued the Forest Service on the grounds that clear cutting was in express violation of the Organic Act of 1897.

The Three-Legged Stool That Collapsed

The Forest Service responded by engineering the National Forest Management Act (NFMA) of 1976 that retained the professional flexibility to continue clear cutting and the mandate to produce plans for each national forest. This authority was coupled with the earlier passed Multiple-Use Sustained Yield (MUSY) Act of 1960 which was engineered to mandate that the agency was to focus on fish and wildlife issues and recreation in addition to timber supply and watershed protection.

The idea was to head off further raids by the National Park Service on national forests. The third leg of the legislative support stool was the Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act (RPA) of 1974 that mandated the Forest Service to periodically evaluate the nation’s renewable resources and point out opportunities for enhanced management. The three-legged stool was in place - the MUSY mandated what was to be considered, the RPA pointed out opportunities, and the NFMA directed planning. The assumption was that these three mandates would add up to the ability to control, or at least strongly influence, the fate of the agency. It would prove to be a false hope.

Political Dreams and Dogma Push Too Far

These planning efforts came to final fruition under the oversight of Undersecretary of Agriculture John Crowell (former Chief Counsel of Louisiana Pacific Corporation) in the Reagan Administration who pressed relentlessly for the Forest Service to commit to an annual sale quantity of some 25 billion board feet per year. To his consternation, the final total was approximately one-half that figure. But, to even reach that figure the Forest Service declared suitable for harvest many relatively low-site acres in rugged terrain which would require expensive roads with increasing risks of adverse environmental effects and increasing numbers of “below cost” timber sales.

To make matters worse, both congresses and administrations became adept, and consistent, at fully funding only the portions of forest plans considered politically attractive with significant constituent support. And, that, by and large, were timber sales and the roads necessary to facilitate those sales. Other, mitigating aspects of those plans routinely received short shrift with promises of catching up later. “Later” never came. The carefully constructed concept of “plan it and they will fund” collapsed and trouble was inevitable.

These promises not met, and the rapidly accumulating impacts of the environmental laws passed in the late 1960s and 1970s - most obviously the National Environmental Policy Act and the Endangered Species Act - were dramatically constraining the old ways of doing business. By the end of the Reagan-Bush era, the timber harvest from national forests had plummeted quite suddenly and quite dramatically by well over 80 percent. This is a little recognized fact by those who wish to paint the decline in timber yields from federal lands as an issue driven by which political party is in power.

Enter the “Techno-Wonks”

The environmental laws essentially compelled the Forest Service to begin hiring biologists in diverse specialties, hydrologists, ecologists, social scientists, economists, planners, and may others. Many of these new employees were relatively young, not house-broken to agency mores, more loyal to their disciplines than to the agency, and most significant of all-they were not foresters. But, overwhelmingly, the line officers to whom these new employees reported who were, by and large: older than the “newbys;” acculturated to Forest Service ways; and selected as line officers due to exemplary performance in “getting out the cut” on time, under budget, and within (usually) the environmental constraints of the day.

This was the caldron within which a changed Forest Service would evolve. In many cases, it was indeed a seething caldron that only time and circumstances would calm. There is an ancient Chinese curse that can be translated as “May you live in interesting times!” Well, the two decades following 1970 were indeed the most interesting of times. These decades produced what became known as the “combat ‘ologists” of one kind or another as they struggled to both become part of the agency culture and assure that the new mandates of law were met as the Forest Service adjusted to a new world view.

By the late 1980s the Forest Service was increasingly turning to teams of technical specialists to come up with answers to management problems and management approaches that would stand scientific and legal scrutiny. This was not a willing change and was resorted to only after accumulating losses in the courts forced the issue.

Old-line managers were increasingly relegated to the bleachers as teams of “techno wonks” produced plans that the line officers would be charged with executing. The “pendulum had swung” or, as some put it, “the worm turned.”

Then, when it came time to execute the plans, the line officers more and more routinely deferred to technical specialists to either “makes the rules” or to be the final arbiters of compliance to plans increasingly dictated by teams of technical experts. These rules and “concerns” of technical experts whittled away at managerial “decision space.” The world of Forest Service management had, to a large extent, turned upside down, or, as some put it, “turned wrong side out.”

Changing of the Guard

As time passed, the composition of the cadre of line officers changed. The foresters that had entered the Forest Service ranks in the late 1940s, 1950s, and 1960s, many of the best and the brightest of whom became line officers, either mellowed to be more accepting of developing needs and circumstances or retired to be replaced by the new breed that were trained and gained experience in, or immediately after, the environmental 70s. Many of these new line officers were from the ranks of technical specialists other than foresters and engineers - and more than a few were female or ethnic minorities. To quote Bob Dylan, “The times, they were a’changin.”

The Progressive Era Hits the Wall - Hard

But, in the process, something else happened. A dark side became obvious in the form of an increasing inability to carry out plans efficiently, effectively, and in a timely manner. The nation was in the throes of distrust of institutions, “professionals” of all kinds, and the “establishment” in all of its forms.

The Forest Service was born of the progressive era and was, perhaps, the most sterling example in government of science-based management by an elite group of professionals. It should be no surprise that this agency, perhaps more than any other, was caught up in the new wave of rejection and distrust of establishment power. The blow was doubly difficult to absorb with the associated collapse of the carefully constructed three-legged stool – the Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act, the Resources Planning Act, and the National Forest Management Act.

There is simply no denying this unacceptable set of circumstances, whether called “analysis paralysis” (which by the way was originally coined by James Watt, Secretary of Interior under President Reagan), “the can’t do outfit,” or the “gang who can’t shoot straight.” I don’t know of a single Forest Service employee, past or present, that does not abhor this state of affairs.

Hobbling a Thoroughbred – Unexpected Consequences

I served the American people in the Forest Service through 30 years of active duty and another 6 years since as a loving critic, enthusiastic supporter, and vocal advocate. I know what the Forest Service was, and still has the capability to be. I think of the Forest Service as a high-bred race horse - a former Triple Crown winner, harnessed to a heavy wagon loaded down with bundles of laws and regulations and case law that fit together poorly, feet hobbled fore and aft, blinders on, with several different drivers screaming instructions and jerking the reins different directions at the same time. The old thoroughbred desperately wants to respond but can’t do much more than buck up and down in the harness and kick at the restraints.

Physician Cure Thyself

Much of that problem has to be solved by the Administration and Congress. Your Chief is doing what he can, and I think quite effectively, to encourage appropriate changes. But, the Chief and his deputies can only do so much. What is needed now is to determine what the Forest Service itself, i.e., the rank and file, can do to address the problems that beset the agency.

Policy gurus speak glibly of “adaptive management” as if it were the latest innovative idea in the management of people and organizations. In reality, it is the oldest concept in human behavior and goes something like this. Do the best job possible, using all the experience and information available, to derive a course of action. Then, institute action observing carefully what works and what doesn’t. Keep what works and alter or replace what doesn’t work. Try again. That is all there is to it. But remember, “stuff happens” and times and circumstances change.

And, we too must change. But, in doing so we must build on the good from the past. We must make it clear to those who went before that they are honored and respected and that change to meet new circumstances is in keeping with the legacy that they left. They adeptly changed when required and left a better, stronger, more effective Forest Service. May your successors be able to say the same of you.

Changing Horses in Mid-Stream

Some Forest Service line officers of the past, highly praised for their activities, continued in a straight line even when experience and new laws were demanding change. The newly arrived technical people were unable to play effectively in the rapidly evolving game and sought ways around, under, and through line officers to bring about a “new day” that was clearly mandated by law, public displeasure, and court actions.

The technical folks attained the ability to constrain line officers with page after page of detailed direction and constraints. The technical support staff became so enamored of the precautionary principle - “first, do no harm” - and was so insulated from the consequences of failure to meet plan objectives that “no action” became acceptable.

Going Too Far

That must change. Land management plans must be carefully derived, and adjusted in a timely manner, to meet laws, mandates, and changed circumstances. The place for disagreement, expression of alternative points of view, and negotiations occurs during the process of plan development. Once the plan is complete and in place, it is the job - and the duty - of line and staff to carry out the plan. If that cannot be achieved due to constraints of law or budget or change in policy, it is important to make it clear to all concerned why the plan cannot be executed as written and, then, use adaptive management techniques to modify either the approach or the plan. To merely continue to fail to meet objectives, year after year, without modifying the management approach is neither acceptable nor responsible. Further, performance, or the lack thereof, makes all involved appear (whether true or not) to be incompetent, less than honest, unwilling to face the truth, or any or all of the above.

When faced with having to execute a legally derived plan with which one finds oneself in disagreement, there are three choices. These choices have been identified as “voice,” exit,” or “disloyalty.” In the case of voice, reasons for disagreement are expressed and alternatives are openly presented. If differences cannot be reconciled, there are two choices: full participation in achieving plan objectives; or, exit from the organization. The last option is disloyalty wherein the employee remains in place, draws a paycheck, goes through the motions, and clandestinely sets out to thwart of the plan’s goals. The first two are professional and honorable courses of action and the last is not. Disloyalty should be dealt with in summary fashion, i.e., punishment or dismissal.

Upon failure to prevail in a disagreement, it is the duty of an employee to abide by the decision of superior officer in a professional way. In the Navy, the appropriate reply to a final decision is “Aye, aye” - i.e., I understand and will obey. In doing so, it is neither expected nor necessary to recant objections. It is, however, necessary to strive fully to comply with the decision. Anything less than full effort should be considered unacceptable.

Accountability – A Necessity for Success

Line officers should be held accountable for execution of plans in an effective, efficient manner and for pointing out problems and potential corrective actions. Superiors should assure performance including the quality and consistency of technical support. Technical support personnel have the responsibility to assist in that achievement. They, in turn, should be held responsible for the quality of their technical input to the process. Their advice and technical support data should be subject to enough verification to assure quality control, either by the line officer (if qualified to do so) or by higher level more experienced experts.

There is no insult or lack of confidence implied in such checks for quality control. There is nothing wrong with seeking a second opinion. Such checks should be a routine part of doing business. Some folks call such “quality control.” It should be considered absolutely unacceptable that technical experts are not “up to speed” on the latest “science” upon which their input and responses are based. Line officers are dependent upon technical support staff for timely, accurate, and complete information. That means, however, that line officers must provide time, means, and incentives for technical experts to remain current in their technical field and broaden their horizons.

It is part of the line officer’s responsibility to pointedly question management protocols, guidelines, and constraints that appear to be ill advised or inappropriate (whether technically or in terms of costs). All management plans and associated guidelines should be subject to scheduled and routine reevaluation and appropriate adjustments. Doing the same wrong thing over and over and expecting to get a different result is one definition of insanity.

Playing Dead or Taking Charge

After 47 years in the business, I am not overly naïve. I know that there is such a beast as the “conflict industry” one side of which struggles mightily to assure that there are never any changes in plans and guidelines, particularly when such constraints preclude meeting plan objectives. That is simply unfortunate. But, don’t roll over and play dead. If things need to be changed, try to change them and explain exactly why.

Be absolutely transparent in your actions or, as I said when I was Chief, “Tell the truth and obey the law.” You might be stunned in how much support might be forthcoming for doing your job. I detect that more and more people are simply fed up with rules and guidelines that, from experience, don’t make sense and should be changed. Don’t flinch from trying to do a better job. You will be criticized no matter what you do, even to the point of questioning your integrity and motives (and maybe your ancestry). Get used to it. It comes with the territory.

I was asked the other day, in the course of an interview, if I was satisfied with the job I did as Chief of the Forest Service. I said I would leave that overall evaluation of my tenure as Chief to history. My own test, was to look in the mirror every night before going to bed and ask myself, “Did you do the very best you could today to be worthy of the trust placed in you?” Even when I had screwed up that day, the answer was always “yes.” I could answer that way because I did the best I could. I could live with that then and I can live with that now. Give it a try.

Line officers should be LEADERS, not mere functionaries. LEADING means taking risks. LEADING means being out in front, pointing the way, taking responsibility, and making a difference. To MANAGE is to make things happen. If one is not consistently achieving the objectives of the plan under which one operates and does not strive to modify the plan to reflect reality, he or she is neither a leader nor a manager.

And, it is the job of the technical expert or support staff to be the means by which the leader or manager achieves the objectives of the plan. Both roles must be successfully filled if success is to ensue. That is teamwork. But make no mistake; technical support staffs have a leadership and management role in assuring the quality of their own performance and that of their subordinates and colleagues.

Risk – Short-term and Long-term

Both line officers and technical support staff must deal with risk. Clearly, all land management actions entail risks: political, economic, and ecological. Equally clearly, but much less well recognized, is the fact that doing nothing also entails risk, though the time frame is obviously different.

For example, the Forest Ecosystem Management Assessment Team clearly recognized that stands of trees in Late Successional Reserves east of the Cascade crest and those in southern Oregon and northern California, to some degree at least, were likely the result of successful fire protection and could be maintained only with determined action to reduce the risk of stand-replacing fires. Yet, the abhorrence of the possibility of short-term risk of even a minor and temporary negative response from a threatened species precluded aggressive actions over the ensuing decade. And, what happened in 2002? Taking risks is inherent to leadership. But, doing nothing seems so much safer, in the short run, that it is obviously tempting to put off the risks and leave matters to the “night crew” that will come along later. This is the easiest and most politically correct approach for regulatory agency personnel. And, when “stuff happens” such as broad-scale stand-replacing fire it can be marked off as “an act of God.”

The Forest Service – Different Focus at Different Times

So, in summary, we are quite clearly, entering a new era of national forest management. The Forest Service went through an organizational and establishment phase from 1905 to 1945. That was followed by the timber production emphasis phase from 1945 to the mid-1980s. The mid-1980s to the present were spent in coming to grips with the age of environmental concern and grasping and instituting what had emerged from ongoing debate as the concepts of ecosystem management. I believe we are entering a “readjustment period” wherein there is recognition that the coming to grips with quite valid environmental concerns produced overly constraining, overly rigid, overly prescriptive approaches, to addressing preservation of biodiversity.

Our nation’s population is increasing and seems likely to continue increasing for the foreseeable future. Our per capita consumption of wood is increasing and seems likely to continue increasing for the foreseeable future. Maybe that should not be the case, and that situation should be addressed. But, such cosmic questions are not currently within the portfolio of the Forest Service. Clearly, the economic policy of the United States is, and has been for many decades, one of growth. I.e., “A rising tide raises all boats.”

Inescapably, we must exploit natural resources in order to live. The question is how that will be accomplished so that those who come after us will retain most of the same opportunities that we have enjoyed related to renewable natural resources. There are limits to how much of our nation’s demand for natural resources can be shifted to “elsewhere” along with the economic opportunities and social impacts that go along with such shifts.

Being Light on the Feet

The Forest Service folks of today come from proud stock that rendered proud service for a century. The agency has been agile enough to adjust course with changing knowledge, shifts in public demand, and still maintain a role of leadership. I have faith that such will continue when we break the bonds that bind the agency and have produced irrational fits of inaction.
What Makes a “Bureaucratic Superstar”?

Jeanne Nienaber Clarke and Daniel C. McCool, in their 1996 book, Staking Out the Terrain – Power and Performance Among Natural Resource Agencies, called the Forest Service and The Army Corps of Engineers “Bureaucratic Superstars.” They attributed this status, consistently maintained over the past half-century, to eight factors. In closing, I will go over those factors and ponder how germane they remain today.

The first factor was the nature of the agency’s mission. Agencies that were pro-development, multiple-use oriented, with utilitarian values, and were created by an organic act with an expandable mission had advantage. The age of the organization seemed unimportant. Organizations created by executive order were much weaker. Agencies with a narrow or esoteric mission; had a dominant use; or, were focused on preservationist values were much weaker.

Since 1994-1996, the Forest Service has become more focused on preservation and less focused on production of goods. The agency’s clear utilitarian orientation has slipped and what remains is under determined attack. Oddly enough, the Forest Service responded more quickly and with more vigor to environmental concerns than any other natural resources agency but it has remained the “whipping boy of choice” for many environmental advocacy groups.

However, the Bush Administration seems to have some interest in increased emphasis on utilitarian values. There are those who believe that “commercial timber harvest” should cease on the national forests. That is for others to decide. However, until Congress cancels out or changes the Organic Act and the Multiple-Use Sustained Yield Act, some level of timber production is part of your mission. The circumstances of the moment have dramatically changed the playing field upon which you perform. Gifford Pinchot’s commitment to making local decisions based upon local conditions has been largely modified by sweeping national laws, by dispersion of powers across agencies, and by judges that have abandoned deferral to the agency’s professional discretion. But, there are questions that will emerge front and center during the emerging period of “readjustment.” Be cognizant of where you are in history. As Shakespeare put it:

There is a tide in the affairs of men,
Which, taken at the flood, leads on to fortune;
Omitted, all the voyage of their life
Is bound in shallows and miseries.

The second factor was the foundation and reliance on a dominant, established profession with a “scientific” base of expertise. Those agencies that were interdisciplinary or were a “melting pot” of expertise were the least powerful. The Forest Service was credited as being dominated by natural resources based professionals though weakened by professional dilution relative to the days when foresters dominated.

The Forest Service has become less and less dominated by a single strong profession, foresters, and has become more and more a “melting pot” of various specialists. However, that could turn out to be a positive factor if the myriad natural resources professions coalesce around a “theme” as the focus of their activities. Ecosystem management has emerged as one possible focus.

The third was astute leadership based on scientific credentials; recruitment of leaders was internal to the agency. Politically appointed leaders typified weaker agencies.

Professionals that matured and came to power from within their agencies headed the Forest Service and the Army Corps of Engineers, alone among all government agencies.

The fourth was Esprit de Corps typified by a coherent public image; well-defined agency character; with a fully integrated organization. The weaker agencies had a servile attitude; inferiority complex; and lack of a competitive edge.

Esprit remains relatively strong but seems less universal among employees than was true in the past. The agency’s public image is, perhaps, slightly less coherent. The agency is perceived to be much less in control of its own destiny today - and somewhat more servile. However, tracking polls related to public perception of public agencies that have been run over the past several decades continue, consistently, to indicate the Forest Service’s status in this regard. This is contrary to perception, both interior and exterior to the agency, and is nothing short of amazing giving the constant pounding that the Forest Service has taken from both extremes of the conflict industry and the elected officials that support their positions. The vast majority of the American people who express an opinion to pollsters seem to hold the agency in consistently high esteem.

The fifth was constituency size. Those more powerful agencies had large, evenly distributed, well-educated, and well-funded constituencies. Those with narrow, exotic interests or broad, amorphous interests were weaker.

Former strong constituencies of timber extractors, graziers, and rural communities have weakened in both “clout” and effectiveness as a political force. The key to remaining strong in this factor will be expansion of the constituency base to be more inclusive of recreationists with emphasis on hunters and fishers who are consumptive users.

The sixth was linkages to “majoritarian interests” typified by concrete economic interests. Those that were weakest had focus on poor, ethnic minorities.

Former connections with regional “majoritarian” interests with significant economic force have weakened as the timber industry and grazing interests have been lesser national and regional economic players. However, consumptive users in the realm of recreationists, particularly those who hunt and fish, have increased rapidly in numbers and organizational efforts.

The seventh was related to service or regulatory pursuits. The more powerful agencies had a service orientation and functions. The weakest had regulatory functions.

The Forest Service has become more and more perceived as a “regulator” due to constraints imposed on utilization for timber, grazing, and intensive recreation. This perception will likely increase as populations increase and demand, especially those of recreationists, increases even faster leading to the necessity of rationing of opportunities. Such rationing must be perceived to be equitable and fair and such users appreciated as constituents.

The eighth, and last, factor was intra-governmental support. The strongest agencies had strong and consistent congressional and presidential support. The weakest were subject to heavy judicial oversight. Obviously, the Forest Service has become the subject of intense and intensifying judicial oversight. And, no doubt, this increased oversight and the demise of judicial restraint in interjecting the courts into technical matters has damaged the agency’s discretion; and, reputation (though to a much lesser extent). One solution may well be for line officers to become known and more accessible to elected officials and more able to call upon local constituencies for support. There is little doubt that there has been a declining willingness of Forest Service line officers to cultivate relationships with elected officials.

Facing Up to the Consequences of Schizophrenia

If these eight factors are indeed the predictors of a natural resource agency’s prestige and power, the Forest Service remains in relatively good position but has obviously slipped in several categories as described above. But, some slippage seems true of all the natural resources agencies and is likely the result of a national “schizophrenia” produced by the strain of coming to grips with the paradox of societal/political acceptance (even encouragement of) increasing demands for natural resource utilization (largely focused on “elsewhere”) and simultaneous enhanced protection of environmental values (largely focused on public lands). The nation’s political leaders, over the next several decades will be forced to deal with that schizophrenia. We are squarely in the midst of a mid-course correction wherein we will take a more pragmatic and considerably more flexible approach to doing our best to “have our cake and eat it too.”

Seizing the Moment – Carpe Diem!

The Forest Service is, I believe, destined to once again assume leadership during this pregnant moment of readjustment. This period, between 1990 and 2010, will be as significant in the history of natural resources in the United States as was the period between 1890 and 1910. As the Forest Service was the best-positioned agency to take the lead then, it is the best positioned to fill that role today.

So, the trick is to recognize that opportunity and seize the day. Carpe diem! If the Forest Service can do just that it will continue as the “bureaucratic superstar” that it has been since its inception. But, time is short and waits for no one – nor agency. You have the honor and responsibility of being in the right place and the right time to make it happen. I would love to be there with you with a chance to make a difference. I wish you well.

USDA Forest Service - Northwest Forest Plan Review
Last Modified: Tuesday, 05 August 2003 at 11:55:47 EDT