UCLA Communication Paper

Question1Writing your first leads
Use the news from this link below
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/05/14/sports/basketball/ja-morant-memphisgrizzlies-suspended-gun-video.html
Being able to craft a good lead really combines all of the principles of coherent writing
we have been covering thus far. The news lead is different from the opening of a
narrative writing piece. It is supposed to be concise, informative and compelling. To do it
right takes a lot of practice.
Find the 5W’s:
1. Who is this event about? It doesn’t have to be just one person but there
should be a main person?
2. What does this person do/what makes them special?
3. Why are they important? Think critically here.
4. Where is this happening?
5. When did it happen?
NOTE:
-Sometimes people fail to highlight the most interesting part of the story.
-Sometimes reporters will ‘bury the lead’ -meaning fail to highlight the most
important part of the story.
Rewrite the Lead Headline: Using the information you pulled together above, craft one
sentence, or two short ones, that summarizes the five basic questions to form your lead:
For Discussion Post:
1. Copy and paste the lead paragraph of the story you chose in your
discussion post.
2. Include the 5W’s:
1. Who is this event about? It doesn’t have to be just one person
but there should be a main person?
2. What does this person do/what makes them special?
3. Why are they important? Think critically here.
4. Where is this happening?
5. When did it happen?
3. Rewrite the lead headline (what you did in activity) and lead paragraph of the
story using your own words. Make it about the most interesting part of the story.
4. Below that, in a brief paragraph, write what you think the original author
missed in the lead they wrote, and why you made the choice you did to rewrite it.
5. Give constructive feedback (using the prompts below) to one of your
classmates by Sunday 11:59 p.m. Look at your peer’s leads and answer these
prompts:
● Is it compelling, informative, accurate? Why?
● What is strong about your peer’s lead?
Responses one guys
1. Who is this event about? It doesn’t have to be just one person but there
should be a main person.
1. U.S. Secret Service, Jake Sullivan, unnamed intruder
2. What does this person do/what makes them special?
1. Jake Sullivan is one of Pres Biden’s national security advisers.
3. Why are they important? Think critically here.
1. Mr. Sullivan advises the President on matters of national security.
These matters have global implications and could result in, worst
case scenarios, a war.
4. Where is this happening?
1. This happened at Mr. Sullivan’s home in Washington D.C.
5. When did it happen?
1. 3am May 1st
Lead from story:
Secret Service is investigating how unidentified man entered Jake Sullivan’s home
undetected by his protective detail.
My new lead:
Investigation into break-in by unknown intruder at home of Biden national security
advisor highlights failure within U.S. Secret Service protection details
The original author seems to have missed the importance of such a failure is. Is this a
single incident or is this a systemic issue within the Secret service? I added the
“highlights failure” to emphasize the importance of the issue.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2023/05/16/national-security-adviser-homeintrusion/
Question 2
Purpose
The point of this assignment is to ground your work for this course in personal terms. It
aims to provide you the opportunity to reflect on your own ecological roots to sharpen
your critical engagement with the key themes of this course. The feminist adage, “the
personal is the political,” is a helpful framework for considering how we ask questions,
connect the dots, and link issues you are reading about to the story of your own
ecological roots, upbringing, and knowledge.
Background
In her book Living Downstream, biologist and ecologist Sandra Steingraber writes: “Just
as awareness of our genealogical roots offers us a sense of heritage and cultural
identity, our ecological roots provide a particular appreciation of who we are biologically.
It means asking questions about the physical environment we have grown up within, the
molecules of which are woven together with the genome we inherited from our
ancestors. . . Going in search of our ecological roots has both intimate and far-reaching
dimensions. It means learning about the sources of our drinking water (past and
present), about the prevailing winds that blow through our communities, and about the
agricultural system that provides us food . . . . It demands curiosity about how our
apartment buildings are, and have been, exterminated, our clothing cleaned” (279).
Living Downstream functions as equal parts scientific and personal inquiry: Steingraber
investigates the community-county-region where she grew up in order to track the
possible causes of the bladder cancer that has shaped so much of her life.
Steingraber’s book underscores that “the story of cancer’s ecological roots is a story of
disconnections.” Connecting the dots is both her method and her objective in the book.
Although we only read an excerpt from Steingraber’s book, this concept of knowing our
ecological roots is an important groundwork for a course entitled “natural resources.”
This assignment asks you to write your own version of an ecological roots memoir
where you similarly identify, consider, and learn about some of the physical
environment(s) where you grew up.
Instructions
There are two different tracks you can take with this first-person assignment:
First track
You can follow Steingraber’s example of environmental autobiography by examining
your early environment(s)to focus on toxic exposures. Consider these questions as
guideposts, not prescriptive: What kind of environment–urban, rural, suburban–were
you born into or where you spent your early childhood? Did you swim in oceans, lakes
or rivers? Which ones? What do you know about agricultural operations or industrial
development in your community? What do you know about the water supply? Check out
the EPA’s Consumer Confidence Reports
Links to an external site.
. For more context, review this article about unsafe tap water
Links to an external site.
.
Were herbicides or pesticides used at home or in your neighborhood? What kinds of
foods did you eat growing up? What kinds of cleaning materials were used in your
home? Make sure to look up the Toxics Release Inventory (TRI)
Links to an external site.
for your county.
Second track
You can use any of our course materials as inspiration for considering your relationship
to place through your identity and community. How is your sense of ecological roots
informed by where you lived, where your family is from, your family and community
histories, whether reservation, rural, urban, migrant, or suburban? By cultural or spiritual
knowledges? By gender, race, class, or other categories of identity? How do the
concepts of “nature,” “environment” and “land” that we have been addressing inform
your environmental autobiography?
Note: it may well be that it makes the most sense to combine tracks 1 and 2, and that
works too!
Question 3
Using the letter above as a visual reminder of the history of structural bias and barriers
for women in forestry:
What were one or two “take-away” lessons from the Module 7 – Learning Materials
you engaged with this week?
What is one question you are still wrestling with? Recall that our learning materials
were addressing a host of issues, from gender norms and gendered spaces, to
questions of how to transform male-dominated fields in natural resources.
Make sure to respond to at least one peer’s post, with a thoughtful question, a follow-up
idea, or an elaboration. Remember our shared community guidelines for engaging one
another in these interactive spaces.
Responses
1 The learning materials for this week really got me thinking more about the challenges
that women go through when they enter male dominated occupations. There is a
certain level of pressure to do well, in some cases to go above and beyond, to prove
that they are capable of doing the jobs that they are held back from the opportunity of,
for the most part until changes of more equity are made. To not ruin the chances for
more women to obtain similar jobs. This form of pressure is especially high for women
of color. Other forms of pressure include trying to fit in. When you are the only woman
or one of the very few in your work group it can be really challenging to fit in and be
treated with the respect that is deserved. In some situations, women try to show
themselves as close to equals as they can with their male co-workers. I can relate to
this from personal experience, not in the forest service but in a work environment that
was male dominated. I wanted to move up within the business and I went above and
beyond trying to prove my worth. Looking back, I don’t think it was a fully conscious
decision, but I even started dressing more like the men in the office. So, I started
wearing pants suits. I would try to think of anything I could to try to be treated as more
of an equal. I wanted them to take me seriously. Which reminds me of what I’m
learning in the Social Psychology class that I’m taking this term as well with regards to
in-groups and out-groups. In these types of scenarios, the men are the “in-group” and
the few women are a part of the out-group, trying to be a part of the in-group to fit in and
be accepted, not outcast. A combination of what we learned this week and personal
experience, not only is it challenging for a woman to make her way into a male
dominated field but it is also challenging for her to bring new or looked past ideas to the
table, which is really important to find a way to make happen when ways of change are
needed or alternative ideas can make a healthy impact.
It also really stood out to me when Gloria Brown said something to the effect of, if you
want to do something you find a way to make it happen and don’t let others hold you
back. Which is something else that I connected with on a personal level. There are so
many times throughout my life that people tried to “keep me in my place.” I had to push
past so many obstacles to achieve what I have accomplished in my life so far. She also
brought up the importance of having and maintaining business relationships. This can
make a huge difference in being able to make things happen especially when in a field
that women aren’t very supported in.
I’m left with still wondering, How do we create a shift in the forestry service that would
allow for more women to be supported in joining this particular workforce?
Question 2 and 3 readings
Readings
● The “Catch-22” of Representation of Women in the Forest Sector
● Links to an external site.
●
Pipiet Larasatie Taylor Barnett and Eric Hansen. “The “Catch-22” of Representation of Women in
the Forest Sector: The Perspective of Student Leaders in Top Global Forestry Universities”
(Forests: an open access journal from MDPI, April 9, 2020)
Question 4
Annotated Bibliography
At the end of week 7, you will submit a ten-source annotated bibliography on your
chosen research topic. I.e., this annotated bibliography is the first step toward your final
research paper, so you should use this opportunity to gather relevant sources. Each
annotation will be 150 to 250 words and will focus on a single peer-reviewed source.
Peer-reviewed sources include only academic books and research articles from peerreviewed academic journals; websites are not acceptable. See attached assignment
sheet for appropriate formatting and rubric for grading criteria.
● 25 Points. Due by Sunday at 11:59 PM PST.
Question 5
Discussion Prompt
What is the difference between Foucault’s disciplinary society, as exemplified by the
panopticon, and Deleuze’s control society? Give an example of both, and explain how
those examples illustrate the core differences between these two concepts. Make sure
to explain how your examples are both directly relevant to media technology.
● 4 Points (two for an original post; one for each reply). Post once by
Wednesday at 11:59 PM PST and two responses/rebuttals by Sunday at
11:59 PM PST. See Rubric below.
Discussion Rubric
● Initial post: 2 points — Posted Opening Argument on time that presents
information in a concise and appropriate manner and is written with good
conventions, spelling, and grammar. 200–400 words.
● Responses: 1 point each — Posted Two rebuttals on time that cited examples
in an appropriate manner and is written with good conventions, spelling, and
grammar. 100 to 200 words each.
CHAPTER 7
Can You See Me Now?
r WAS HEADING BACK TO CORVALLIS, only this time I had truly arrived: I
was the first female African American forest supervisor in the nation. I was
proud of my tenure at Mount St. Helens, and this new appointment felt
like the reward for a job well done. The Eugene Register-Guard, Corvallis
Gazette-Times and the Oregonian newspapers introduced me to my new
constituency as a pioneer blazing a trail from Washington, DC, through
Montana, Washington State, and Oregon. My position as forest supervi­
sor was new territory not only for me, but also for the Forest Service. We
were betting on each other, and the stakes were high. I had watched and
participated in the continued unfolding of Mount St. Helens’ ecological
network, the flora and fauna that brought back an ecosystem. Just as wild­
life, birds, and sprouts of green reemerged on the once-barren landscape,
I realized that I, too, had blossomed toward my new assignment. I knew
my dream job would present huge and unexpected challenges.
This would be a test of my survival as a leader, and of the Siuslaw
ational Forest and its employees. It was also a test for women of color.
There were a few, very few, other black women reaching for high-level
positions in the Forest Service. Melody Mobley, a forester, had held a staff
position in the WO, but left the agency a few years earlier. Leslie Weldon,
a wildlife biologist, also had a staff position in DC. ow, it was 1999, and
I was the first black woman to manage an entire national forest-ever.
Weldon, who later became deputy chief for the ational Forest System,
followed me the next year as the second African American female forest
131
132
CHAPTER 7
CA
YOU SEE ME
OW?
133
supervisor-on the Deschutes National Forest. Leslie later said she stood
on my shoulders to get there. 1
And the Siuslaw, with its diverse and productive landscape, was
special. The forest includes 630,000 acres, bordered by the Willamette
Valley on the east and the Pacific Ocean on the west. As the USFS website
describes it, “From forest floor to ocean shore the Siuslaw National Forest
stretches from the lush forests of the coastal mountains to the unique
Oregon Dunes and the beaches of the Pacific Ocean:’ The major rivers,
the Nestucca, Alsea, Siuslaw, and Umpqua, provide excellent habitat
for anadromous fish, while a variety of trees fasten a mountain range
buttressed by the sea. The forest extends from Tillamook to Coos Bay,
Oregon, and is one of only two national forests in the lower forty-eight
states to claim oceanfront property.
The Siuslaw has four major recreation sites, all unique in their own
way. The Oregon Dunes area, deemed a national recreation area by Con­
gress in 1972, includes 31,500 acres of “large oblique dunes found . . .
nowhere else in the world:’ Mist shrouds the interface between dunes,
forest, and ocean, so close together they are described as “rare and haunt­
ingly beautiful:’ The forest also hosts my beloved Marys Peak, the 1,076acre Sand Lake Recreation Area, and Cape Perpetua National Scenic
Area.
At Cape Perpetua, forested crag meets the sea, with an eight-hun­
dred-foot-high headland, the topmost viewpoint on the Oregon coast
that is reachable by car. Anytime I had a chance to parade my forest to
higher-ups, I took them to Cape Perpetua, a place with seventy miles of
coastland, where a visitor could see nearly forty miles out to sea on a clear
day. The site is so ecologically unique that in the 1960s it became a scenic
area, 2,700 acres of temperate rainforest where spruce forest meets the
ocean. A Civilian Conservation Corps camp, followed by a World War II
camp for conscientious objectors, also left marks on the landscape, from
campgrounds to trails to trees planted decades earlier. 2
The Siuslaw is rich with ecological diversity. As in other Northwest
forests, treasured old-growth stands burst with life. From the massive
ferns that spring out of the damp ground alive with micro-organisms
to huge fungi that hang from dense bark to treetop canopies alive with
birds, a variety of species thrives at every level. The forested ecosystem
is priceless, and the shoreline ecology is also inval ua ble. Sh orehne
.
th
intertidal sites where land meets water, are some of th e most n ‘..
1t1v
ecological zones of all, places that are home to unique spec1es
· wit
. h lim
ited habitat. Pools of seawater host a plethora of mari·ne spec1es,
· star fi h
anemones, and barnacles, at the mercy of humans and animals but als~
of winds and tide. When a tidal pool dries up, it can kill the biota. Rare
microorganisms often live in these intertidal zones, part of an invisible
food chain that works its way up to sea and land alike. Shoreline vegeta­
tion also prevents erosion, while invasions of nonnative grasses contrib­
ute to loss of habitat. This delicate system, devoted by Forest Service to
public recreation, had to be carefully managed. Driving cars along the
beach could be disastrous for natural ecosystems, as could too many visi­
tors. The use of off-road vehicles plagued my tenure. 3
Clashes on the Siuslaw
The previous Siuslaw forest supervisor, Jim Furnish, had been promoted
to deputy chief for national forests in Washington, DC, under Chief
Mike Dombeck (1997-2001), formerly the acting director of the BLM.
Dombeck returned to Forest Service, where he had earlier served as a
fisheries biologist and followed the first non-forester to run the agency,
Chief]ack Ward Thomas (1993-1996). It had been a big deal for a wildlife
biologist to lead Forest Service in 1993, and it still was. A lot of the old
guard resisted the ecosystem-management ideals pioneered by Thomas,
but Furnish, who faced problems from decreasing budgets to downsizing
to environmentalist challenges, had supported the approach. His own
long-term career as a forester and observer of the environmental effects
of clear-cutting had convinced him to take steps that matched his ethics,
which, in turn, stressed his budget but got him to DC.
In his book, Toward a Natural Forest, Jim identified three main
challenges that came with declining timber production: “Spotted-owl
population declines; then conflicts over the marbled murrelet, a small
oceanic bird that nests in big coastal conifers; and finally plummeting
salmon stocks:’ Jim inherited a forest plan that took the allowable timber
sale quantity from 320 million board feet (mmbf) to 215 mmbf, but also
made cutting mature timber the “highest prioritY:’4 I saw Jim Furnish as
132
CHAPTER 7
CA
YOU SEE ME
OW?
133
supervisor-on the Deschutes National Forest. Leslie later said she stood
on my shoulders to get there. 1
And the Siuslaw, with its diverse and productive landscape, was
special. The forest includes 630,000 acres, bordered by the Willamette
Valley on the east and the Pacific Ocean on the west. As the USFS website
describes it, “From forest floor to ocean shore the Siuslaw National Forest
stretches from the lush forests of the coastal mountains to the unique
Oregon Dunes and the beaches of the Pacific Ocean:’ The major rivers,
the Nestucca, Alsea, Siuslaw, and Umpqua, provide excellent habitat
for anadromous fish, while a variety of trees fasten a mountain range
buttressed by the sea. The forest extends from Tillamook to Coos Bay,
Oregon, and is one of only two national forests in the lower forty-eight
states to claim oceanfront property.
The Siuslaw has four major recreation sites, all unique in their own
way. The Oregon Dunes area, deemed a national recreation area by Con­
gress in 1972, includes 31,500 acres of “large oblique dunes found . . .
nowhere else in the world:’ Mist shrouds the interface between dunes,
forest, and ocean, so close together they are described as “rare and haunt­
ingly beautiful:’ The forest also hosts my beloved Marys Peak, the 1,076acre Sand Lake Recreation Area, and Cape Perpetua National Scenic
Area.
At Cape Perpetua, forested crag meets the sea, with an eight-hun­
dred-foot-high headland, the topmost viewpoint on the Oregon coast
that is reachable by car. Anytime I had a chance to parade my forest to
higher-ups, I took them to Cape Perpetua, a place with seventy miles of
coastland, where a visitor could see nearly forty miles out to sea on a clear
day. The site is so ecologically unique that in the 1960s it became a scenic
area, 2,700 acres of temperate rainforest where spruce forest meets the
ocean. A Civilian Conservation Corps camp, followed by a World War II
camp for conscientious objectors, also left marks on the landscape, from
campgrounds to trails to trees planted decades earlier. 2
The Siuslaw is rich with ecological diversity. As in other Northwest
forests, treasured old-growth stands burst with life. From the massive
ferns that spring out of the damp ground alive with micro-organisms
to huge fungi that hang from dense bark to treetop canopies alive with
birds, a variety of species thrives at every level. The forested ecosystem
is priceless, and the shoreline ecology is also inval ua ble. Sh orehne
.
th
intertidal sites where land meets water, are some of th e most n ‘..
1t1v
ecological zones of all, places that are home to unique spec1es
· wit
. h lim
ited habitat. Pools of seawater host a plethora of mari·ne spec1es,
· star fi h
anemones, and barnacles, at the mercy of humans and animals but als~
of winds and tide. When a tidal pool dries up, it can kill the biota. Rare
microorganisms often live in these intertidal zones, part of an invisible
food chain that works its way up to sea and land alike. Shoreline vegeta­
tion also prevents erosion, while invasions of nonnative grasses contrib­
ute to loss of habitat. This delicate system, devoted by Forest Service to
public recreation, had to be carefully managed. Driving cars along the
beach could be disastrous for natural ecosystems, as could too many visi­
tors. The use of off-road vehicles plagued my tenure. 3
Clashes on the Siuslaw
The previous Siuslaw forest supervisor, Jim Furnish, had been promoted
to deputy chief for national forests in Washington, DC, under Chief
Mike Dombeck (1997-2001), formerly the acting director of the BLM.
Dombeck returned to Forest Service, where he had earlier served as a
fisheries biologist and followed the first non-forester to run the agency,
Chief]ack Ward Thomas (1993-1996). It had been a big deal for a wildlife
biologist to lead Forest Service in 1993, and it still was. A lot of the old
guard resisted the ecosystem-management ideals pioneered by Thomas,
but Furnish, who faced problems from decreasing budgets to downsizing
to environmentalist challenges, had supported the approach. His own
long-term career as a forester and observer of the environmental effects
of clear-cutting had convinced him to take steps that matched his ethics,
which, in turn, stressed his budget but got him to DC.
In his book, Toward a Natural Forest, Jim identified three main
challenges that came with declining timber production: “Spotted-owl
population declines; then conflicts over the marbled murrelet, a small
oceanic bird that nests in big coastal conifers; and finally plummeting
salmon stocks:’ Jim inherited a forest plan that took the allowable timber
sale quantity from 320 million board feet (mmbf) to 215 mmbf, but also
made cutting mature timber the “highest prioritY:’4 I saw Jim Furnish as
134
CHAPTER 7
a hero for proclaiming he would not cut old growth on the Siuslaw. He
committed to an ecological vision of forest management that many forest
supervisors in the region disliked. For most of them, the New Perspec­
tives program, proposed in the early 1990s, followed by the Northwest
Forest Plan, and then “ecosystem management” were just words, not the
reality of daily, on-the-ground land management. Many forest supervi­
sors still found ways to cut old growth, and Jim received a lot of push back
from his traditionalist peers for halting revenue-producing old-growth
cuts. Even his staff resisted. Still, it was clear to me that Jim’s sense of
ecological responsibility got him out of Region 6, which left this opening
for me. By this time, my own land management ethos had developed into
a full-blown sense of environmental responsibility. I agreed with Jim’s
vision and intended to follow it. I had no idea how hard that would be.
One of our concerns was how to achieve a healthier ecosystem at the
same time as we underwent staff reductions. Unfortunately, one casualty
of downsizing on the Siuslaw included downgrading Jim’s GS-15 forest
supervisor position to GS-14. This meant a newbie-me-coming in at
lower pay, with no backup deputy to show me the ropes, even though I
had the same responsibilities as any other forest supervisor. I could have
applied for a GS-15 from a GS-13, but there were no such openings at
the time. I could have waited for a GS-15 forest supervisor position and
stayed on Mount St. Helens, but I received counsel to take this opportu­
nity now. If I had to compete with a white male GS-15 forest supervisor,
I would be less likely to get the job. If I waited, I’d probably have to go up
against traditional foresters who had been in resource management much
longer than I had, and who had the “quals:• I had the qualifications, but I
needed the experience.
The downgraded position meant less cost to the forest, but there was
no consequence for Furnish. He moved to a senior executive service (SES)
position in the WO, a status ranked in the same category as the chief.
The RO (regional office) had a GS-14 recreation staff job opening, and
Phil wanted me to take it so I would remain in Portland, but that was not
an option for me. I had already been a staff person in the RO and I had a
goal: forest supervisor. I wanted it more than I had wanted anything in a
long time.
CA
YOU SEE ME NOW?
135
The Price ofAmbition
It turned out that my ambition would have more personal costs than I
knew. Things had seemed to be looking up, even though Catrina wa ick.
But not long after I arrived on the Siuslaw, things got worse. Trina had
transferred to DC as an analyst for the Smokey Bear and Woodsy Owl
programs. Then she met Alan, who became her longtime partner, and
decided she really wanted a baby. So, they counseled with an entire board
of doctors, who talked with her honestly. They said it wasn’t a good idea,
that they didn’t think she would make it through a pregnancy. “It could
end up with you needing a new heart or problems with the baby;’ they said.
Trina considered this carefully, and then decided to take her chances. She
did okay through the first part of the pregnancy, but the end did not go
well. At seven months pregnant, Trina walked into the WO Forest Service
building as an employee for her last time. She had to go on bedrest until
Alana, my beautiful baby granddaughter, was ready for birth.
Alana was born prematurely on March 12, 2000. I headed to DC
right away when Trina went into labor, and by the time I arrived, she was
in the operating room. She had gone into heart failure while having the
baby. My uncle was with her when she went in, and he told me Trina had
left a message: “Don’t worry, Mommy, if I don’t come out, I will be okay,
because it’s God’s will:’ Trina has a deep faith, and that’s how she saw it.
I was worried.
Thank God, she made it. Little Alana went into neonatal ICU because
she was born with fluid on the brain. It was three weeks before they could
let her go. I had stayed there to help her daddy with the baby, but had to
leave before Trina came home. You can imagine how hard that was! Trina
was in the ICU for another week, and went home on medication and with
restrictions for her heart. That June, on Father’s Day, her symptoms got
worse. She went to the hospital, and this time they said the medication
wasn’t enough. She needed a transplant. They put her on a defibrillator,
and two weeks later the new heart came, on August 15, 2000. Alana was
five months old. It was a hellish summer.
Catrina hasn’t worked since then, not just because of her own health
issues, 5 but also because it turned out that the fluid on Alana’s brain didn’t
dry up as the doctors had predicted. It wasn’t until Alana started walk­
ing that we knew something was wrong. She was about a year old when
Trina, icki, and Alan learned that Alana had epilepsy. She would stare
134
CHAPTER 7
a hero for proclaiming he would not cut old growth on the Siuslaw. He
committed to an ecological vision of forest management that many forest
supervisors in the region disliked. For most of them, the New Perspec­
tives program, proposed in the early 1990s, followed by the Northwest
Forest Plan, and then “ecosystem management” were just words, not the
reality of daily, on-the-ground land management. Many forest supervi­
sors still found ways to cut old growth, and Jim received a lot of push back
from his traditionalist peers for halting revenue-producing old-growth
cuts. Even his staff resisted. Still, it was clear to me that Jim’s sense of
ecological responsibility got him out of Region 6, which left this opening
for me. By this time, my own land management ethos had developed into
a full-blown sense of environmental responsibility. I agreed with Jim’s
vision and intended to follow it. I had no idea how hard that would be.
One of our concerns was how to achieve a healthier ecosystem at the
same time as we underwent staff reductions. Unfortunately, one casualty
of downsizing on the Siuslaw included downgrading Jim’s GS-15 forest
supervisor position to GS-14. This meant a newbie-me-coming in at
lower pay, with no backup deputy to show me the ropes, even though I
had the same responsibilities as any other forest supervisor. I could have
applied for a GS-15 from a GS-13, but there were no such openings at
the time. I could have waited for a GS-15 forest supervisor position and
stayed on Mount St. Helens, but I received counsel to take this opportu­
nity now. If I had to compete with a white male GS-15 forest supervisor,
I would be less likely to get the job. If I waited, I’d probably have to go up
against traditional foresters who had been in resource management much
longer than I had, and who had the “quals:• I had the qualifications, but I
needed the experience.
The downgraded position meant less cost to the forest, but there was
no consequence for Furnish. He moved to a senior executive service (SES)
position in the WO, a status ranked in the same category as the chief.
The RO (regional office) had a GS-14 recreation staff job opening, and
Phil wanted me to take it so I would remain in Portland, but that was not
an option for me. I had already been a staff person in the RO and I had a
goal: forest supervisor. I wanted it more than I had wanted anything in a
long time.
CA
YOU SEE ME NOW?
135
The Price ofAmbition
It turned out that my ambition would have more personal costs than I
knew. Things had seemed to be looking up, even though Catrina wa ick.
But not long after I arrived on the Siuslaw, things got worse. Trina had
transferred to DC as an analyst for the Smokey Bear and Woodsy Owl
programs. Then she met Alan, who became her longtime partner, and
decided she really wanted a baby. So, they counseled with an entire board
of doctors, who talked with her honestly. They said it wasn’t a good idea,
that they didn’t think she would make it through a pregnancy. “It could
end up with you needing a new heart or problems with the baby;’ they said.
Trina considered this carefully, and then decided to take her chances. She
did okay through the first part of the pregnancy, but the end did not go
well. At seven months pregnant, Trina walked into the WO Forest Service
building as an employee for her last time. She had to go on bedrest until
Alana, my beautiful baby granddaughter, was ready for birth.
Alana was born prematurely on March 12, 2000. I headed to DC
right away when Trina went into labor, and by the time I arrived, she was
in the operating room. She had gone into heart failure while having the
baby. My uncle was with her when she went in, and he told me Trina had
left a message: “Don’t worry, Mommy, if I don’t come out, I will be okay,
because it’s God’s will:’ Trina has a deep faith, and that’s how she saw it.
I was worried.
Thank God, she made it. Little Alana went into neonatal ICU because
she was born with fluid on the brain. It was three weeks before they could
let her go. I had stayed there to help her daddy with the baby, but had to
leave before Trina came home. You can imagine how hard that was! Trina
was in the ICU for another week, and went home on medication and with
restrictions for her heart. That June, on Father’s Day, her symptoms got
worse. She went to the hospital, and this time they said the medication
wasn’t enough. She needed a transplant. They put her on a defibrillator,
and two weeks later the new heart came, on August 15, 2000. Alana was
five months old. It was a hellish summer.
Catrina hasn’t worked since then, not just because of her own health
issues, 5 but also because it turned out that the fluid on Alana’s brain didn’t
dry up as the doctors had predicted. It wasn’t until Alana started walk­
ing that we knew something was wrong. She was about a year old when
Trina, icki, and Alan learned that Alana had epilepsy. She would stare
136
CHAPTER 7
into space; we just thought it was a baby staring, but she was having mini­
seizures. By that time, I had been in Corvallis for about a year, working
my dream job and contending with other kinds of hard issues. None of
them matched the possible loss of my daughter. But they did tap into
long-standing regional tensions, made stronger by the law.
A Perfect Storm
Jim’s groundbreaking success in ecological management left the water­
sheds of the Siuslaw in better condition than he found them. But the
employees were in worse shape, not just there but everywhere, left
behind on forests with decreased budgets, without financial support
to do their work. Significant downsizing happened on the Siuslaw just
before I arrived, and further cuts hit as I came on the scene. This was a
perfect storm of colliding factors that I knew would make it difficult to
successfully continue Jim’s legacy. Furnish recognized the unpredictable
challenges in protecting the spotted owl and salmon. He and I both had
to ask, How can we follow guidelines for ecosystem management with so
many traditionalist attitudes inside the agency, a timber industry pushing
for massive cuts, and a budget that privileges harvests over habitat?
Forest Service is supposed to operate based on science, but there is an
inherent contradiction in its funding and management. You would think,
in the environmental age, that sustainable forestry would drive funding
allocations from Congress. But no, the government distributes money
based on timber harvest numbers. That’s why Region 6 raked in the
money in the 1980s. Revenues determined our budgets, something I had
to contend with in trying to get work done on the ground. No one talks
about this flaw when it comes to ecological goals. Another factor affects
forest management: who the president is. Jim managed the Siuslaw under
President Bill Clinton, who took charge soon after the spotted owl went
on the Endangered Species list in 1990.
A year later, Judge William Dwyer placed an injunction on all timber
sales in spotted owl habitat. This led to court battles among environ­
mentalists, industry, and Forest Service, prompting President Clinton
to call for a Pacific Northwest Forest Summit in 1993. This intervention
led to the Northwest Forest Plan (NWFP), meant to coordinate efforts
to sustainably manage forests. Timber harvests continued, but at levels
CA
YO U SE E M E NOW?
137
nowhere near those earlier periods. The Siuslaw, which sold about eleven
billion board feet of timber between 1960 and 1990, had possibly been
one of the most intensively cut in a forest of its size. By the early 1980s,
damage to soil, rivers, and fish habitat halted timber sales on the Maple­
ton District, the very place I had researched when in the WO. 6 Other sales
were stopped all around the region in light of the spotted owl ruling.
The Northwest Forest Plan had reduced the Siuslaw’s allowable sale
quantity from 213 million board feet to 23 mmbf by creating three dis­
t inct ecological zones. Two of the zones hosted very diverse biological
communities and sensitive populations. The late successional reserves
(LSRs) were forested areas alive with organisms and wildlife like the spot­
ted owl and the marbled murrelet, and stands on their way to becoming
old growth. Riparian, or streamside, zones four to five hundred feet wide
protected terrestrial and aquatic habitats-often the home of endangered
salmon. Neither LSRs nor riparian zones allowed commercial harvests.
Timber cutting was allowed in the third zone, the matrix, which made
up only 6 percent of the Siuslaw’s land base.7 The final blow to timber
harvests came when staff realized that they had only one available mature
timber stand; all other stands housed owls and murrelets. The thriving
timber program could not continue on the Siuslaw, the nation’s beautiful,
lush, coastal rainforest, rife with wood.
I arrived on the Siuslaw with a Republican president in office, George
W. Bush, who supported industry’s timber harvest goals. Couple this with
communities dependent on timber jobs to support schools and other
local public services like libraries, and by 1999 national forests were in a
real pickle-low harvests, fewer revenues, and conflict between industry
and environmentalists. The agency responded to these issues by push­
ing for community and public/private partnerships, doing “more with
less;’ and creating a formal partnership program. While large numbers of
people lost their jobs at the forest and district levels, the agency hired a
GS-14 partnership program person for the WO and in the RO. Downsiz­
ing and partnerships were not new to me. I knew that working with the
public would be the key to accomplishing anything, and I also needed to
sit down with the environmentalists responsible for the injunction.
I had inherited a budget deficit, declining personnel, and the westside
injunction, which halted all cutting, not just old growth. Mine was one
of nine national forests affected. Judge Barbara Rothstein had declared
136
CHAPTER 7
into space; we just thought it was a baby staring, but she was having mini­
seizures. By that time, I had been in Corvallis for about a year, working
my dream job and contending with other kinds of hard issues. None of
them matched the possible loss of my daughter. But they did tap into
long-standing regional tensions, made stronger by the law.
A Perfect Storm
Jim’s groundbreaking success in ecological management left the water­
sheds of the Siuslaw in better condition than he found them. But the
employees were in worse shape, not just there but everywhere, left
behind on forests with decreased budgets, without financial support
to do their work. Significant downsizing happened on the Siuslaw just
before I arrived, and further cuts hit as I came on the scene. This was a
perfect storm of colliding factors that I knew would make it difficult to
successfully continue Jim’s legacy. Furnish recognized the unpredictable
challenges in protecting the spotted owl and salmon. He and I both had
to ask, How can we follow guidelines for ecosystem management with so
many traditionalist attitudes inside the agency, a timber industry pushing
for massive cuts, and a budget that privileges harvests over habitat?
Forest Service is supposed to operate based on science, but there is an
inherent contradiction in its funding and management. You would think,
in the environmental age, that sustainable forestry would drive funding
allocations from Congress. But no, the government distributes money
based on timber harvest numbers. That’s why Region 6 raked in the
money in the 1980s. Revenues determined our budgets, something I had
to contend with in trying to get work done on the ground. No one talks
about this flaw when it comes to ecological goals. Another factor affects
forest management: who the president is. Jim managed the Siuslaw under
President Bill Clinton, who took charge soon after the spotted owl went
on the Endangered Species list in 1990.
A year later, Judge William Dwyer placed an injunction on all timber
sales in spotted owl habitat. This led to court battles among environ­
mentalists, industry, and Forest Service, prompting President Clinton
to call for a Pacific Northwest Forest Summit in 1993. This intervention
led to the Northwest Forest Plan (NWFP), meant to coordinate efforts
to sustainably manage forests. Timber harvests continued, but at levels
CA
YO U SE E M E NOW?
137
nowhere near those earlier periods. The Siuslaw, which sold about eleven
billion board feet of timber between 1960 and 1990, had possibly been
one of the most intensively cut in a forest of its size. By the early 1980s,
damage to soil, rivers, and fish habitat halted timber sales on the Maple­
ton District, the very place I had researched when in the WO. 6 Other sales
were stopped all around the region in light of the spotted owl ruling.
The Northwest Forest Plan had reduced the Siuslaw’s allowable sale
quantity from 213 million board feet to 23 mmbf by creating three dis­
t inct ecological zones. Two of the zones hosted very diverse biological
communities and sensitive populations. The late successional reserves
(LSRs) were forested areas alive with organisms and wildlife like the spot­
ted owl and the marbled murrelet, and stands on their way to becoming
old growth. Riparian, or streamside, zones four to five hundred feet wide
protected terrestrial and aquatic habitats-often the home of endangered
salmon. Neither LSRs nor riparian zones allowed commercial harvests.
Timber cutting was allowed in the third zone, the matrix, which made
up only 6 percent of the Siuslaw’s land base.7 The final blow to timber
harvests came when staff realized that they had only one available mature
timber stand; all other stands housed owls and murrelets. The thriving
timber program could not continue on the Siuslaw, the nation’s beautiful,
lush, coastal rainforest, rife with wood.
I arrived on the Siuslaw with a Republican president in office, George
W. Bush, who supported industry’s timber harvest goals. Couple this with
communities dependent on timber jobs to support schools and other
local public services like libraries, and by 1999 national forests were in a
real pickle-low harvests, fewer revenues, and conflict between industry
and environmentalists. The agency responded to these issues by push­
ing for community and public/private partnerships, doing “more with
less;’ and creating a formal partnership program. While large numbers of
people lost their jobs at the forest and district levels, the agency hired a
GS-14 partnership program person for the WO and in the RO. Downsiz­
ing and partnerships were not new to me. I knew that working with the
public would be the key to accomplishing anything, and I also needed to
sit down with the environmentalists responsible for the injunction.
I had inherited a budget deficit, declining personnel, and the westside
injunction, which halted all cutting, not just old growth. Mine was one
of nine national forests affected. Judge Barbara Rothstein had declared
138
CHAPTER 7
that Forest Service and BLM had not complied with NWFP mandates
intended to protect endangered and threatened species. Collectively,
Rothstein said, because surveys to identify harmful conditions weren’t
completed properly, there was “a discrete and immediate harm posed”
to salmon and steelhead. This meant that millions of board feet of tim­
ber could not be sold, 8 which affected both local communities and forest
funding. And me. I began to fear I had taken on a sinking ship. I also
wondered, If I fail at this job, will it make it harder for African American
women who come after me? I didn’t have a playbook, so I knew I had to be
smart and make things up along the way.
Working Together
After the NWFP, Jim had turned to thinning harvestable wood in areas of
past clear-cuts, a practice called salvage logging. My job was to use what
Furnish had started and add it to my own record. I was a nontraditional
selection and did not always speak the party line (timber). I was a black
woman who did not necessarily think like some of my white male coun­
terparts, and I knew my empathy for people and places didn’t always align
with typical agency behavior. Still, I had to try to do something. These
clear-cut areas were often so densely covered with downed brush and
other debris that they presented a fire hazard and wildlife couldn’t use
them, aside from a few deer munching at twilight. Massive amounts of
wood lay on the ground, along with overstocked stands of second-growth
timber. I needed to harvest it, so I could address my budget issues, but I
also reconfirmed with the employees, the RO, environmentalists, industry
and the public at large that, like Furnish, I would not cut any old growth,
even if the injunction lifted.
I led with this when I asked Oregon Wild and other environmental
groups 9 to support me in getting out from under the injunction by con­
tinuing the practice of second-growth thinning for harvestable wood. I
told them I would listen to all stakeholders, the environmental groups, the
Siuslaw community, and my employees. I asked them to give me a chance
to work together. “You don’t know me;’ I said, and “I want to be honest. In
all fairness, this means I will have to listen to industry too:• But, “I believe
in the agency’s ecosystem management principles:’ Finally, I asked them
to look at my earlier Forest Service and BLM accomplishments before
CA
YOU SEE ME NOW?
139
they judged me. I believed my past work spoke to my integrity. I just
needed a chance.
Fortunately, the environmental organizations decided to support me.
Since we weren’t cutting old growth in the first place, they agreed to ask
the judge to take the Siuslaw off the injunction and the appeal. My suc­
cessful negotiation with the plaintiffs suing the Forest Service started us
on a path toward honest and trusting negotiations. I still think that maybe
a positive relationship with environmentalists throughout the region
could have led to less conflict all around. But it had been a long haul for
the agency, one that had required a cognitive shift in how land managers
viewed their jobs. Even with the “ologists” regularly weighing in, most
leaders still saw environmentalists as the enemy.
ow we could start planning and implementing projects on the
Siuslaw, but it would take augmenting my declining budget. Everyone in
the agency respects the fact that forest supervisors manage thousands of
acres, sometimes millions. We also supervise a lot of people and are held
responsible for results on the ground. We are often venerated. The WO
and RO make rules and policies, but forest supervisors provide the lead­
ership that improves watersheds, creates healthy fish and wildlife habitat,
and provides recreational opportunities for millions of people. Despite
this, I knew it would be useless to talk with the timber staff in the RO
about more money for my forest. Our refusal to cut the big trees put us at
the bottom of the barrel for funding allocations. Not only do old-growth
trees produce a lot of wood, they are durable, rot resistant, and the main
moneymaker for industry and for timber and recreation programs. My
dilemma was how to maintain my forest’s budget in these conditions. It
would take time to find partners and volunteers to assist us. In the mean­
time, I had to make sure our budget from the RO could last until I found
ways to increase funding. When Furnish announced that the Siuslaw
would no longer cut old growth, he sealed the forest’s fate of a deceasing
timber budget. With the westside injunction in place regionally, money
was even harder to come by than before. I had to do something. I decided
to go see Margaret Peterson, the partnership program manager, to try to
get more money.
Margaret and I had known each other for a long time. My daughter
Catrina babysat for her when Margaret had small children, so we started
with a hello and hugs. Then I said, “Margaret, I need your help:’ She knew
138
CHAPTER 7
that Forest Service and BLM had not complied with NWFP mandates
intended to protect endangered and threatened species. Collectively,
Rothstein said, because surveys to identify harmful conditions weren’t
completed properly, there was “a discrete and immediate harm posed”
to salmon and steelhead. This meant that millions of board feet of tim­
ber could not be sold, 8 which affected both local communities and forest
funding. And me. I began to fear I had taken on a sinking ship. I also
wondered, If I fail at this job, will it make it harder for African American
women who come after me? I didn’t have a playbook, so I knew I had to be
smart and make things up along the way.
Working Together
After the NWFP, Jim had turned to thinning harvestable wood in areas of
past clear-cuts, a practice called salvage logging. My job was to use what
Furnish had started and add it to my own record. I was a nontraditional
selection and did not always speak the party line (timber). I was a black
woman who did not necessarily think like some of my white male coun­
terparts, and I knew my empathy for people and places didn’t always align
with typical agency behavior. Still, I had to try to do something. These
clear-cut areas were often so densely covered with downed brush and
other debris that they presented a fire hazard and wildlife couldn’t use
them, aside from a few deer munching at twilight. Massive amounts of
wood lay on the ground, along with overstocked stands of second-growth
timber. I needed to harvest it, so I could address my budget issues, but I
also reconfirmed with the employees, the RO, environmentalists, industry
and the public at large that, like Furnish, I would not cut any old growth,
even if the injunction lifted.
I led with this when I asked Oregon Wild and other environmental
groups 9 to support me in getting out from under the injunction by con­
tinuing the practice of second-growth thinning for harvestable wood. I
told them I would listen to all stakeholders, the environmental groups, the
Siuslaw community, and my employees. I asked them to give me a chance
to work together. “You don’t know me;’ I said, and “I want to be honest. In
all fairness, this means I will have to listen to industry too:• But, “I believe
in the agency’s ecosystem management principles:’ Finally, I asked them
to look at my earlier Forest Service and BLM accomplishments before
CA
YOU SEE ME NOW?
139
they judged me. I believed my past work spoke to my integrity. I just
needed a chance.
Fortunately, the environmental organizations decided to support me.
Since we weren’t cutting old growth in the first place, they agreed to ask
the judge to take the Siuslaw off the injunction and the appeal. My suc­
cessful negotiation with the plaintiffs suing the Forest Service started us
on a path toward honest and trusting negotiations. I still think that maybe
a positive relationship with environmentalists throughout the region
could have led to less conflict all around. But it had been a long haul for
the agency, one that had required a cognitive shift in how land managers
viewed their jobs. Even with the “ologists” regularly weighing in, most
leaders still saw environmentalists as the enemy.
ow we could start planning and implementing projects on the
Siuslaw, but it would take augmenting my declining budget. Everyone in
the agency respects the fact that forest supervisors manage thousands of
acres, sometimes millions. We also supervise a lot of people and are held
responsible for results on the ground. We are often venerated. The WO
and RO make rules and policies, but forest supervisors provide the lead­
ership that improves watersheds, creates healthy fish and wildlife habitat,
and provides recreational opportunities for millions of people. Despite
this, I knew it would be useless to talk with the timber staff in the RO
about more money for my forest. Our refusal to cut the big trees put us at
the bottom of the barrel for funding allocations. Not only do old-growth
trees produce a lot of wood, they are durable, rot resistant, and the main
moneymaker for industry and for timber and recreation programs. My
dilemma was how to maintain my forest’s budget in these conditions. It
would take time to find partners and volunteers to assist us. In the mean­
time, I had to make sure our budget from the RO could last until I found
ways to increase funding. When Furnish announced that the Siuslaw
would no longer cut old growth, he sealed the forest’s fate of a deceasing
timber budget. With the westside injunction in place regionally, money
was even harder to come by than before. I had to do something. I decided
to go see Margaret Peterson, the partnership program manager, to try to
get more money.
Margaret and I had known each other for a long time. My daughter
Catrina babysat for her when Margaret had small children, so we started
with a hello and hugs. Then I said, “Margaret, I need your help:’ She knew
140
CHAPTER 7
about my promotion to the Siuslaw. She also knew I needed money for
my forest. I told her what was happening, that no staff in the RO would
give me more money, and I hadn’t had time to establish volunteers and
partners. I said, “Margaret, I need dollars, because my program of work
is underfunded:’ Margaret had just received a partnership proposal from
Ecotrust, a nonprofit that seeks environmental solutions in the orth­
west through public/private partnerships. Their proposal said they were
“excited about the potential of working with the Forest Service and its
many partners:’ I got lucky.
Ecotrust encouraged the Forest Service to apply for grant funding,
and Margaret agreed to recommend the Siuslaw. This was great news,
because I knew the Siuslaw could meet any criteria needed to qualify. Eco­
trust supported an environmental position that precluded major timber
harvests, and so did we. By coming under Ecotrust and the RO umbrella, I
became eligible for other funds for ecosystem management, the buzzword
for where there was money, in wildlife for example. I found financing to
supplement my budget and get work done on the ground with the help of
partnerships like this. Margaret helped a struggling forest supervisor to
realize her goals and objectives, and to this day I am very grateful.
My goal was to improve watersheds within the coast range. In 2001,
a year after my arrival, the Siuslaw published my vision for the forest for
decades to come. In the business plan, titled “Decades of Change .. . A
Challenge for the Future;’ I wrote, “Our restoration projects will have
measurable and evident outcomes. Outcomes that emphasize species
and habitat recovery across entire watersheds:’ 10 I wanted results on the
ground, and I knew my staff could produce them. They were smart and
innovative, educated and informed. I trusted them and made decisions
based on their recommendations. I also focused on finding contracts and
jobs in rural communities.
I decided that we had to increase the acres thinned in the overstocked
second-growth forests. My staff also committed to appropriating funds
for completing connected work on private land. We worked tirelessly with
our partners to ensure regional and national recognition of our watershed
restoration work on the Siuslaw. We also created the second largest fee
demonstration program in Oregon and Washington. Ours had been the
first forest to collect fees for special forest products, woodcutting, and
other activities on national forest land. We needed the revenue.
CA
YOU SEE ME
OW?
141
When we delivered revenue from our projects, the RO recaptured
funds for our budget. I credit my recreation taff officer for working with
the rangers to secure tho e funds for reinvestment. The way ForeS t Ser­
vice funding works is that ranger districts are funded last. The WO and
RO take their money to upport work and staff. Then, they divvy it up to
·
· t funding; I kept as little
forest supervisors,
who dec1·d e on ranger d”1s t nc
of that money for operations as possible. I didn’t try to increase my staff.
I supported the staff I had by giving them what they needed fo~ p~ojects
as they saw fit. The recreation staff put money back into the district. By
maintaining operational levels, rather than trying to grow, we had more
money to get the work done.
Stewardship and Strategy
. pilot
. program meant money com1·ng in to the forest that
Our tewardsh1p
.
enabled us to do work enhancing clean water and clean air and improvmg
wildlife and fish habitat. Getting projects planned and implemented in
coastal Oregon was ometimes contentiou and time-consuming. 1 had
to work with groups from the Association of Forest Service Employees
for Environmental Ethics (AFSEEE) to local business owners who felt
strongly about how the forest should be managed. It was their natio~al
. scope an d som e were so controversial
forest. Some I. sues were loca1 m
they ended up in the WO. Even an easy project could be taken out of
· hands by the W o. Th e more cont roversial the issue-like
a supervisor’s
putting a trail or logging road into a roadless area-the more likely the
national office was to get involved. Lucky me-a recent storm had cre­
ated an issue with blowdown: logs and debris were strewn over dozens of
acres in a roadless area north of the economically depressed community
of Coos Bay. The storm had also hit neighboring Weyerhaeuser’s property
to the east-private land.
With acres and acres of untouched downed wood, community mem­
bers clamored for us to do something. Environmentalists said to leave
it alone. The scenario got worse when I learned that Weyerhaeuser had
started salvage logging on their land, and the county had an in-holding
within the blowdown area. Worse yet, the county was building a road to
salvage their blowdown, because they had an easement that predated the
140
CHAPTER 7
about my promotion to the Siuslaw. She also knew I needed money for
my forest. I told her what was happening, that no staff in the RO would
give me more money, and I hadn’t had time to establish volunteers and
partners. I said, “Margaret, I need dollars, because my program of work
is underfunded:’ Margaret had just received a partnership proposal from
Ecotrust, a nonprofit that seeks environmental solutions in the orth­
west through public/private partnerships. Their proposal said they were
“excited about the potential of working with the Forest Service and its
many partners:’ I got lucky.
Ecotrust encouraged the Forest Service to apply for grant funding,
and Margaret agreed to recommend the Siuslaw. This was great news,
because I knew the Siuslaw could meet any criteria needed to qualify. Eco­
trust supported an environmental position that precluded major timber
harvests, and so did we. By coming under Ecotrust and the RO umbrella, I
became eligible for other funds for ecosystem management, the buzzword
for where there was money, in wildlife for example. I found financing to
supplement my budget and get work done on the ground with the help of
partnerships like this. Margaret helped a struggling forest supervisor to
realize her goals and objectives, and to this day I am very grateful.
My goal was to improve watersheds within the coast range. In 2001,
a year after my arrival, the Siuslaw published my vision for the forest for
decades to come. In the business plan, titled “Decades of Change .. . A
Challenge for the Future;’ I wrote, “Our restoration projects will have
measurable and evident outcomes. Outcomes that emphasize species
and habitat recovery across entire watersheds:’ 10 I wanted results on the
ground, and I knew my staff could produce them. They were smart and
innovative, educated and informed. I trusted them and made decisions
based on their recommendations. I also focused on finding contracts and
jobs in rural communities.
I decided that we had to increase the acres thinned in the overstocked
second-growth forests. My staff also committed to appropriating funds
for completing connected work on private land. We worked tirelessly with
our partners to ensure regional and national recognition of our watershed
restoration work on the Siuslaw. We also created the second largest fee
demonstration program in Oregon and Washington. Ours had been the
first forest to collect fees for special forest products, woodcutting, and
other activities on national forest land. We needed the revenue.
CA
YOU SEE ME
OW?
141
When we delivered revenue from our projects, the RO recaptured
funds for our budget. I credit my recreation taff officer for working with
the rangers to secure tho e funds for reinvestment. The way ForeS t Ser­
vice funding works is that ranger districts are funded last. The WO and
RO take their money to upport work and staff. Then, they divvy it up to
·
· t funding; I kept as little
forest supervisors,
who dec1·d e on ranger d”1s t nc
of that money for operations as possible. I didn’t try to increase my staff.
I supported the staff I had by giving them what they needed fo~ p~ojects
as they saw fit. The recreation staff put money back into the district. By
maintaining operational levels, rather than trying to grow, we had more
money to get the work done.
Stewardship and Strategy
. pilot
. program meant money com1·ng in to the forest that
Our tewardsh1p
.
enabled us to do work enhancing clean water and clean air and improvmg
wildlife and fish habitat. Getting projects planned and implemented in
coastal Oregon was ometimes contentiou and time-consuming. 1 had
to work with groups from the Association of Forest Service Employees
for Environmental Ethics (AFSEEE) to local business owners who felt
strongly about how the forest should be managed. It was their natio~al
. scope an d som e were so controversial
forest. Some I. sues were loca1 m
they ended up in the WO. Even an easy project could be taken out of
· hands by the W o. Th e more cont roversial the issue-like
a supervisor’s
putting a trail or logging road into a roadless area-the more likely the
national office was to get involved. Lucky me-a recent storm had cre­
ated an issue with blowdown: logs and debris were strewn over dozens of
acres in a roadless area north of the economically depressed community
of Coos Bay. The storm had also hit neighboring Weyerhaeuser’s property
to the east-private land.
With acres and acres of untouched downed wood, community mem­
bers clamored for us to do something. Environmentalists said to leave
it alone. The scenario got worse when I learned that Weyerhaeuser had
started salvage logging on their land, and the county had an in-holding
within the blowdown area. Worse yet, the county was building a road to
salvage their blowdown, because they had an easement that predated the
143
142
CHAPTER 7
roadless-area designation. The community and local politicians called for
Forest Service to also salvage logs within the roadless area.
I worried this could be one of those tough issues that the national
office would want to take over. If I authorized salvage logging, envi­
ronmentalists would take me straight to court, and my decision would
automatically go to the regional office and maybe to the WO for the final
decision. All of this would require a lot of time and money. My problem
was that the WO did not understand local sensitivities. I knew I had to
be strategic: we started working with stakeholders, talking through their
issues, and we visited the site several times. My personal opinions aligned
with the environmentalists: Why touch it? But this was not about me.
Many stakeholders agreed that the integrity of the roadless area had
already been compromised. Weyerhaeuser was already logging, and the
county was building a road to their lands, no matter what I said. Then
there was the fire hazard to the adjacent community with all that downed
wood. We also considered the economic situation in Coos Bay. The com­
munity wanted the tax revenue from timber sales, and they needed it. If
we wanted to harvest the downed timber, we needed to write an envi­
ronmental assessment agreeable to all. Ultimately, working with all sides,
we published an EA in May without appeal. We sold the salvage in July,
stipulating the company must use local workers. The contract was imple­
mented in October. I felt good about how industry, environmentalists,
and the community came together to do the right thing for the roadless
area. There was no recognition from the RO.
Meanwhile, downsizing kept rearing its ugly head, as it did for Heceta
Head Lighthouse on the Oregon coast. The lighthouse was a valuable
asset; however, Ranger Doris Tai could no longer afford to manage the
maintenance and staff. I remember thinking, Here I go, Mount St. Helens
all over again. On MSH, we had looked at the National Park Service and
state parks to consider more efficient site management. So, we decided to
ask whether NPS was interested in the lighthouse, and we sought input
from the RO and the community. The National Park Service turned us
down.
We then came up with a risky idea. I had concluded, after Mount St.
Helens, that sometimes the best practice is to turn government business
over to an eager entrepreneur or agency. We proposed contracting the
lighthouse out under the Granger-Toye Act of 1950, which authorized us
CA
YOU SEE ME
O\J ?
.
al identified interpretato permit lands under our pur 1e, . 0 ur propo
.
h bl’gations
of the le ee.
1
tion and building maintenance erv1ce a t e o
•
l 7 percent of all revenue,
Under Granger-Toye, the government rece1 e
had a lot of re pon e to
·
.
plus the cost of administering the permit. e
th
our solicitation, and we elected a couple who turned th e ligh ou e mto
a bed and breakfast.
While I was on the Siuslaw, this couple doubled the number of
·ty) and completed the
lighthouse employee (many from th e commuru
.
c th B&B as man a three ear
restoration. They booked reser ations 1or e
.
.
. 1 d d t’ le about the hghthou e.
out, and several travel magazines me u e ar ic
.
‘ale ent uch a wedding
Their success enabled them to expan d to speci
. al
k
that now include a
and retirement parties, with promotion pac age
d ther pecial perk . The be t
.
la carte photographers, catered mea ls, an o
.
h
· s from local bu me
part of the deal was subcontracting t e ervice
.
. .
t Three year earlier, we had
Reservations were also available via interne •
. hh
.
I left the for t, the
been faced with shutting down the 11g t ou e, a
. .
B&B turned a profit. Waldport Ranger Doris Tai did the heavy lifting, I
h
rewarded her, and the RO rewarded me.
.
‘th the lighthouse but w en
Downsizing had pushed us to innovate w1
‘
·
mployee was tough.
it came to actual land management wor k , losmg e
.
at Hebo near Tilh
l had a wonderful staff. George Burns was t e ranger
B’ll Helphinstine was the
.
lamook; Doris Tai at Waldport, near Yac h ats; 1
for the Oregon Dunes m
.
Mapleton ranger; and Ed Becker was ranger
Reedsport. My staff included Mary Zuslage, resources; Mi~e- Har~ey’.
.
. . Woody Fine adm1mstrat1on,
recreation; Doug McDonald, engineering,
‘
.
.
S 01
d Joni Quarnstrom, both
Bob Vanderlinden, administration; ue son an
.
. . .
p ul B
fish biologist; Karen
public affairs; Maria elson, civil nghts; a
urns,
arnett hydrologist; and Dale Edwards, my secretary and gatekeeperk.
B
‘
· d paperwor
Dale planned all my meetings, kept my cale nd ar, organize d’ b d
. .
d erved as my soun mg oar .
for signature in the order o f pnonty, an s
.
Th
f
story on the Smslaw. ey
All or some of these individuals are part o my
did the work behind the many awards I received.
.
The need to do more with less had begun under Jim Furnish,_ budt
.
t ff that came after I arnve .
h’
d ·t
im did not have to deal with sh anng s a J
d s· 1 to ‘mplement t IS, an 1
The RO pushed for the Willamette an ms aw I
ff d later
uickl became a reality. This dictate affected me and my sta an
:y fo;r ranger districts. Willamette forest supervisor Darrel Kenops and
143
142
CHAPTER 7
roadless-area designation. The community and local politicians called for
Forest Service to also salvage logs within the roadless area.
I worried this could be one of those tough issues that the national
office would want to take over. If I authorized salvage logging, envi­
ronmentalists would take me straight to court, and my decision would
automatically go to the regional office and maybe to the WO for the final
decision. All of this would require a lot of time and money. My problem
was that the WO did not understand local sensitivities. I knew I had to
be strategic: we started working with stakeholders, talking through their
issues, and we visited the site several times. My personal opinions aligned
with the environmentalists: Why touch it? But this was not about me.
Many stakeholders agreed that the integrity of the roadless area had
already been compromised. Weyerhaeuser was already logging, and the
county was building a road to their lands, no matter what I said. Then
there was the fire hazard to the adjacent community with all that downed
wood. We also considered the economic situation in Coos Bay. The com­
munity wanted the tax revenue from timber sales, and they needed it. If
we wanted to harvest the downed timber, we needed to write an envi­
ronmental assessment agreeable to all. Ultimately, working with all sides,
we published an EA in May without appeal. We sold the salvage in July,
stipulating the company must use local workers. The contract was imple­
mented in October. I felt good about how industry, environmentalists,
and the community came together to do the right thing for the roadless
area. There was no recognition from the RO.
Meanwhile, downsizing kept rearing its ugly head, as it did for Heceta
Head Lighthouse on the Oregon coast. The lighthouse was a valuable
asset; however, Ranger Doris Tai could no longer afford to manage the
maintenance and staff. I remember thinking, Here I go, Mount St. Helens
all over again. On MSH, we had looked at the National Park Service and
state parks to consider more efficient site management. So, we decided to
ask whether NPS was interested in the lighthouse, and we sought input
from the RO and the community. The National Park Service turned us
down.
We then came up with a risky idea. I had concluded, after Mount St.
Helens, that sometimes the best practice is to turn government business
over to an eager entrepreneur or agency. We proposed contracting the
lighthouse out under the Granger-Toye Act of 1950, which authorized us
CA
YOU SEE ME
O\J ?
.
al identified interpretato permit lands under our pur 1e, . 0 ur propo
.
h bl’gations
of the le ee.
1
tion and building maintenance erv1ce a t e o
•
l 7 percent of all revenue,
Under Granger-Toye, the government rece1 e
had a lot of re pon e to
·
.
plus the cost of administering the permit. e
th
our solicitation, and we elected a couple who turned th e ligh ou e mto
a bed and breakfast.
While I was on the Siuslaw, this couple doubled the number of
·ty) and completed the
lighthouse employee (many from th e commuru
.
c th B&B as man a three ear
restoration. They booked reser ations 1or e
.
.
. 1 d d t’ le about the hghthou e.
out, and several travel magazines me u e ar ic
.
‘ale ent uch a wedding
Their success enabled them to expan d to speci
. al
k
that now include a
and retirement parties, with promotion pac age
d ther pecial perk . The be t
.
la carte photographers, catered mea ls, an o
.
h
· s from local bu me
part of the deal was subcontracting t e ervice
.
. .
t Three year earlier, we had
Reservations were also available via interne •
. hh
.
I left the for t, the
been faced with shutting down the 11g t ou e, a
. .
B&B turned a profit. Waldport Ranger Doris Tai did the heavy lifting, I
h
rewarded her, and the RO rewarded me.
.
‘th the lighthouse but w en
Downsizing had pushed us to innovate w1
‘
·
mployee was tough.
it came to actual land management wor k , losmg e
.
at Hebo near Tilh
l had a wonderful staff. George Burns was t e ranger
B’ll Helphinstine was the
.
lamook; Doris Tai at Waldport, near Yac h ats; 1
for the Oregon Dunes m
.
Mapleton ranger; and Ed Becker was ranger
Reedsport. My staff included Mary Zuslage, resources; Mi~e- Har~ey’.
.
. . Woody Fine adm1mstrat1on,
recreation; Doug McDonald, engineering,
‘
.
.
S 01
d Joni Quarnstrom, both
Bob Vanderlinden, administration; ue son an
.
. . .
p ul B
fish biologist; Karen
public affairs; Maria elson, civil nghts; a
urns,
arnett hydrologist; and Dale Edwards, my secretary and gatekeeperk.
B
‘
· d paperwor
Dale planned all my meetings, kept my cale nd ar, organize d’ b d
. .
d erved as my soun mg oar .
for signature in the order o f pnonty, an s
.
Th
f
story on the Smslaw. ey
All or some of these individuals are part o my
did the work behind the many awards I received.
.
The need to do more with less had begun under Jim Furnish,_ budt
.
t ff that came after I arnve .
h’
d ·t
im did not have to deal with sh anng s a J
d s· 1 to ‘mplement t IS, an 1
The RO pushed for the Willamette an ms aw I
ff d later
uickl became a reality. This dictate affected me and my sta an
:y fo;r ranger districts. Willamette forest supervisor Darrel Kenops and
1 5
144
CHAPTER 7
I met to determine which staff to share. We agreed to share Mary Zus­
lage as resource staff for both forests. We would share Doug McDonald
in engineering, Woody Fine in administration, and Sue Olson, public
affairs. When we combined staff, Joni Quarnstrom was put under Sue,
and Bob Vanderlinden eventually retired. Sharing staff was the epitome of
“doing more with less:’ It saved money for the region because both forests
contributed to salaries, but it was hard on the people doing the work.
They had to commute between two forests, complete a program of work
for both, and supervise staff at two sites. Scheduling meetings and field
trips sure was complicated. The Willamette benefited, though. By sharing
Mary, the Siuslaw could make up the shortfall on their allowable timber
harvest. There was not a lot of fanfare regarding the Siuslaw bailing out
the mighty Willamette, but I saw pride and joy on the faces of my staff.
Community Challenges and Politics
Some of our important constituencies included politicians, and one of our
favorites was Governor Barbara Roberts. We knew she supported ecosys­
tem management, so we took her on show-me trips so she could see how
things worked on the ground. I remember escorting her and some of our
partners to talk about what a timber sale in second growth would look
like. She was very happy to hear about our future projects. Governor Rob­
erts was not the only official I met with. Once a year, forest supervisors
went to Washington, DC, to meet with their congressional delegations.
We spent some time with Senator Mark Hatfield and his chief of staff
while there. I had met the senator once, in a lunch at the University Club.
I wasn’t intimidated, but I didn’t feel like I was part of the conversation, or
could be, without someone bringing me into it. That didn’t happen. When
we went to his DC office, Senator Hatfield stayed long enough to thank us
for our service, but we made our presentation to his chief of staff. Maybe
he was just busy, but the senator’s exit made me think that innovative
approaches to forest management didn’t interest him. What I know is that
because of his advocacy for logging, industry loved Senator Hatfield, as
did people in rural communities-environmentalists and ecologists, not
so much. Our experience with Congressman Peter Defazio was different.
Not only did he stay for our presentation, he already knew specifics about
CA
YOU SEE ME
OW?
man i 1t d
some of our projects. Like Governor Robert , th e congr
the Siuslaw for a show-me trip. e had earned hi upport.
· ·
nna
r1 really had trouble with one Lane County comm1 toner,
· ht · She wanted to mak
.
.
. a d•a:
nson
who seemed to view
me m
1ueren t 11g
ffi · tl
ething I agreed ~ ith.
‘
sure the taxpayers’ money was spent e c1en y, om
.
She also took a hard stand on timber sales, knowing the upported )Ob
.
.
d
d th t and I wanted to build
a,
.
and schools m her community. I un erstoo
a positive relation hip with her. But I quickly realized that he a u pt­
cious, even challenging, of almost everything I did. I tried building op n
1
communication by going to her, especially when a big project loo_m d.
knew a face-to-face relationship was as important with her a with ~
environmentalists, and I didn’t understand her animo ity. \1 ithout a mg
GI · ” I have
, ·
ona.
it, her hostile body language told me, “I don t like you,
no idea why she was so dismissive and combative. lndu try didn’t hout
th
about my projects and idea , and they seemed le aggre ive than e
0
commissioner. I didn’t think she had that kind of relation hip with Jim,
I asked around. I wanted to build trust between u •
What I found was something I had never had to deal with before: a
. behmd
.
· things to the comm1 my b ac k an d saymg
staff member gomg
.
all h
Th·1s person had known
sioner about me. Honestly, this re y urt me.
friends lived in the
the commissioner personally for years. Th ey were
‘
h’ district resource staff
same community went to the same c h urc h, an d is
,
. .
‘ h’ldren sometimes. I had
person even babysat for the comm1ss1oner s c 1
never been na’ive about relationships. They matter in order to support
th
the work; that was the bottom line. Agency relationships should get _ e
1
1
work done and make the outcomes even better. Did I listen like said
h · ·
t made
would? Was I honest? Did I make concessions when t eir mpu
sense? I had no time to dwell on anything but my job. Did I th ink about
.
. t woman a black woman,
‘
.
their impression of me? Did they see me as JUS a
If
th 0 ught about these thmgs
7
1
someone who grew up on the East Coast.
at all, I brushed them away. I had no time for such nonsense. alk
. t ff Employees may t
among
But leaders expect loyalty from th eir s a ·
. .
accept sabotage from
d that this
themselves, but rarely did a leader ant1c1pate or
. d’ .d l I never would have guesse
their staff with outside m 1v1 ua s.
.
h d ‘th my leadership
.
conversation I a WI
1
ranger was repeating a most eve~y .
ould not change how I moved
team to the commissioner. Despite this, I w
1 5
144
CHAPTER 7
I met to determine which staff to share. We agreed to share Mary Zus­
lage as resource staff for both forests. We would share Doug McDonald
in engineering, Woody Fine in administration, and Sue Olson, public
affairs. When we combined staff, Joni Quarnstrom was put under Sue,
and Bob Vanderlinden eventually retired. Sharing staff was the epitome of
“doing more with less:’ It saved money for the region because both forests
contributed to salaries, but it was hard on the people doing the work.
They had to commute between two forests, complete a program of work
for both, and supervise staff at two sites. Scheduling meetings and field
trips sure was complicated. The Willamette benefited, though. By sharing
Mary, the Siuslaw could make up the shortfall on their allowable timber
harvest. There was not a lot of fanfare regarding the Siuslaw bailing out
the mighty Willamette, but I saw pride and joy on the faces of my staff.
Community Challenges and Politics
Some of our important constituencies included politicians, and one of our
favorites was Governor Barbara Roberts. We knew she supported ecosys­
tem management, so we took her on show-me trips so she could see how
things worked on the ground. I remember escorting her and some of our
partners to talk about what a timber sale in second growth would look
like. She was very happy to hear about our future projects. Governor Rob­
erts was not the only official I met with. Once a year, forest supervisors
went to Washington, DC, to meet with their congressional delegations.
We spent some time with Senator Mark Hatfield and his chief of staff
while there. I had met the senator once, in a lunch at the University Club.
I wasn’t intimidated, but I didn’t feel like I was part of the conversation, or
could be, without someone bringing me into it. That didn’t happen. When
we went to his DC office, Senator Hatfield stayed long enough to thank us
for our service, but we made our presentation to his chief of staff. Maybe
he was just busy, but the senator’s exit made me think that innovative
approaches to forest management didn’t interest him. What I know is that
because of his advocacy for logging, industry loved Senator Hatfield, as
did people in rural communities-environmentalists and ecologists, not
so much. Our experience with Congressman Peter Defazio was different.
Not only did he stay for our presentation, he already knew specifics about
CA
YOU SEE ME
OW?
man i 1t d
some of our projects. Like Governor Robert , th e congr
the Siuslaw for a show-me trip. e had earned hi upport.
· ·
nna
r1 really had trouble with one Lane County comm1 toner,
· ht · She wanted to mak
.
.
. a d•a:
nson
who seemed to view
me m
1ueren t 11g
ffi · tl
ething I agreed ~ ith.
‘
sure the taxpayers’ money was spent e c1en y, om
.
She also took a hard stand on timber sales, knowing the upported )Ob
.
.
d
d th t and I wanted to build
a,
.
and schools m her community. I un erstoo
a positive relation hip with her. But I quickly realized that he a u pt­
cious, even challenging, of almost everything I did. I tried building op n
1
communication by going to her, especially when a big project loo_m d.
knew a face-to-face relationship was as important with her a with ~
environmentalists, and I didn’t understand her animo ity. \1 ithout a mg
GI · ” I have
, ·
ona.
it, her hostile body language told me, “I don t like you,
no idea why she was so dismissive and combative. lndu try didn’t hout
th
about my projects and idea , and they seemed le aggre ive than e
0
commissioner. I didn’t think she had that kind of relation hip with Jim,
I asked around. I wanted to build trust between u •
What I found was something I had never had to deal with before: a
. behmd
.
· things to the comm1 my b ac k an d saymg
staff member gomg
.
all h
Th·1s person had known
sioner about me. Honestly, this re y urt me.
friends lived in the
the commissioner personally for years. Th ey were
‘
h’ district resource staff
same community went to the same c h urc h, an d is
,
. .
‘ h’ldren sometimes. I had
person even babysat for the comm1ss1oner s c 1
never been na’ive about relationships. They matter in order to support
th
the work; that was the bottom line. Agency relationships should get _ e
1
1
work done and make the outcomes even better. Did I listen like said
h · ·
t made
would? Was I honest? Did I make concessions when t eir mpu
sense? I had no time to dwell on anything but my job. Did I th ink about
.
. t woman a black woman,
‘
.
their impression of me? Did they see me as JUS a
If
th 0 ught about these thmgs
7
1
someone who grew up on the East Coast.
at all, I brushed them away. I had no time for such nonsense. alk
. t ff Employees may t
among
But leaders expect loyalty from th eir s a ·
. .
accept sabotage from
d that this
themselves, but rarely did a leader ant1c1pate or
. d’ .d l I never would have guesse
their staff with outside m 1v1 ua s.
.
h d ‘th my leadership
.
conversation I a WI
1
ranger was repeating a most eve~y .
ould not change how I moved
team to the commissioner. Despite this, I w
I 7
146
CHAPTER 7
forward with my program of work and communications with the team.
Commissioner Morrison continued to challenge me on all fronts.
The strain between us increased when the RO directed all forests
supervisors to work with local commissioners and form a six-person
community-based board of citizens. These boards would determine how
to use the forest’s timber sale receipts. We could allocate funds only for
ecosystem projects on the ground, not for general operations or even
processes like meetings, show-me trips, or preparing maps or EAs. The
board would decide which conservation projects to address. Each board
should include three individuals from industry and three environmental­
ists, recommended by the commissioners to me, the forest supervisor. I
could accept or veto their suggestions, but they could not veto mine. Still,
I knew that meeting summaries would show veto actions, which meant
I couldn’t reject the proposals. Working with the commissioners took
precedence over halting nominations, even if I didn’t like them.
Putting that board together really brought me head-to-head with
Commissioner Morrison. I also knew that she wanted to stack the board
with conservatives, whose ideas about forest management privileged
timber harvest rather than healthy forests, so I decided to be strategic. I
accepted all of her nominations until we got to the last pick. Earlier that
week, I had called Andy Stahl, the AFSEEE guy who followed Jeff DeBo­
nis, and asked him to attend our meeting. I knew Andy was a good orator
and could hold his ground against any industry person. Chalk one up for
the good guys! I rejected only the last nominee, and proposed Andy as
my final decision. There would be five conservatives and Andy, who had a
region-wide reputation for speaking out about bad practices on national
forests. I knew I needed a strong environmentalist like him on the board.
There would be no more nominations, votes, or discussions. This board
would decide how we could use the funds. I believed that by working with
the board, the commissioners, and the community we could make good
things happen on the ground. My choice did not improve my relationship
with the commissioner, but my staff supported it and remained highly
motivated.
CA , YOU SEE ME
0~ ?
Great Things Happening
•
dd
e econd-gro-. th for t
We were doing important work. We th10ne en
d
.
..
f
Id
vth. ~ e do ed roa ,
to establish ecolog1cal conditions for uture o gr O”
.
.
for fi h habitat. ne
took out dikes and put back meandering tream
‘
S d t
became a critical oic
of our watershed partners, Johnny an rom,
.
.
10
between the fore t and his community. We worked on e eral n er
‘th
one of the mo t memo.
the Siuslaw Basin, but Johnny worke d wt u on
.
‘b t
f the Siu Jaw Rt er. Mar
O
rable the Karnowsky Creek proJect, a tn u ary
d
tt the fi h biologi t an
‘
B
Zuslage supervised Paul Burns and Karen enne ,
·ect Mary did a great
.
hydrologist, respectively, who spearheade d th 1 proJ ·
job on both fore t ! At Karnow ky, we took what we knew about treamd
·a11
reating the path an
ecology and pu hed even further by e senti Y rec
nd
photo to create a
shape of the original creek. We used oId maps a
k
. f h t
hoped Karnow ky Cr e
ma terfully done painting, a cenano o w a we
d
. fi
ut Then my taff an
‘
and the Siu Jaw River would look hke ve year O ·
. • al thway of the creek. 0 ur
contractors dug a ditch to re tore th e ong10 pa
h
.
. • k d th creek’ hi torical ape,
unprecedented, meandering design m1m1c e
e
Id eturn fish to the tream.
and we hoped this experimental metho d wou r
.
k
. k’10d of innovative wor ·
1
th
f
O
Staff and I di cussed the challenges
f.
.
weren’t aware o it. e
If anyone else was doing this in the region, we
.
held regular meetings,
kept the community and our partners c1ose,
.
.
.
f h
eek to share. The proJect
O
and brought in maps and aerial views t e er
.
di tely
.h
t d coming back imme a .
F
.
was overwhelmingly successful. 1s star e
d the boulders we put 10
d
that
Recently planted poplars provided sha de, an
fish I am prou to say
eventually created resting pools an d cover 6or
·
.
Nobody
. d 10
. ternational attention.
this work in the Siuslaw Basin receive
d • flow Our
d stored its mean enng
.
had completely dug out a stream an re
. .
Th’
International
.
d 6 the prestigious iess
J omination
river was one of five nom 10ate or
. al R’ rFoundation-the on y n
ive .
b t the forest won in
Riverprize from the Internatton
from the United States! We did not wm th at year,. ~ d that the regional
June 2005, the year after I moved on. I was disappom e
t while I was there.
. . h c
I had so many
forester did not v1s1t t e iores
d
the Siuslaw because
Great things happene on
, f ‘d t think creatively and
h
ho weren t a ra1 o
extremely bright emp Ioyees w
‘d ff happily received t e
k . ks that pa1 o . 1
.
try new challenges. I also too ns
.
ffi
f the Year award m
.
h F ture Lme O cer o
k we did on the forest.
agency’s nationwide Rise to t e u
. t d me for the wor
2003. The RO must have nomma e
I 7
146
CHAPTER 7
forward with my program of work and communications with the team.
Commissioner Morrison continued to challenge me on all fronts.
The strain between us increased when the RO directed all forests
supervisors to work with local commissioners and form a six-person
community-based board of citizens. These boards would determine how
to use the forest’s timber sale receipts. We could allocate funds only for
ecosystem projects on the ground, not for general operations or even
processes like meetings, show-me trips, or preparing maps or EAs. The
board would decide which conservation projects to address. Each board
should include three individuals from industry and three environmental­
ists, recommended by the commissioners to me, the forest supervisor. I
could accept or veto their suggestions, but they could not veto mine. Still,
I knew that meeting summaries would show veto actions, which meant
I couldn’t reject the proposals. Working with the commissioners took
precedence over halting nominations, even if I didn’t like them.
Putting that board together really brought me head-to-head with
Commissioner Morrison. I also knew that she wanted to stack the board
with conservatives, whose ideas about forest management privileged
timber harvest rather than healthy forests, so I decided to be strategic. I
accepted all of her nominations until we got to the last pick. Earlier that
week, I had called Andy Stahl, the AFSEEE guy who followed Jeff DeBo­
nis, and asked him to attend our meeting. I knew Andy was a good orator
and could hold his ground against any industry person. Chalk one up for
the good guys! I rejected only the last nominee, and proposed Andy as
my final decision. There would be five conservatives and Andy, who had a
region-wide reputation for speaking out about bad practices on national
forests. I knew I needed a strong environmentalist like him on the board.
There would be no more nominations, votes, or discussions. This board
would decide how we could use the funds. I believed that by working with
the board, the commissioners, and the community we could make good
things happen on the ground. My choice did not improve my relationship
with the commissioner, but my staff supported it and remained highly
motivated.
CA , YOU SEE ME
0~ ?
Great Things Happening
•
dd
e econd-gro-. th for t
We were doing important work. We th10ne en
d
.
..
f
Id
vth. ~ e do ed roa ,
to establish ecolog1cal conditions for uture o gr O”
.
.
for fi h habitat. ne
took out dikes and put back meandering tream
‘
S d t
became a critical oic
of our watershed partners, Johnny an rom,
.
.
10
between the fore t and his community. We worked on e eral n er
‘th
one of the mo t memo.
the Siuslaw Basin, but Johnny worke d wt u on
.
‘b t
f the Siu Jaw Rt er. Mar
O
rable the Karnowsky Creek proJect, a tn u ary
d
tt the fi h biologi t an
‘
B
Zuslage supervised Paul Burns and Karen enne ,
·ect Mary did a great
.
hydrologist, respectively, who spearheade d th 1 proJ ·
job on both fore t ! At Karnow ky, we took what we knew about treamd
·a11
reating the path an
ecology and pu hed even further by e senti Y rec
nd
photo to create a
shape of the original creek. We used oId maps a
k
. f h t
hoped Karnow ky Cr e
ma terfully done painting, a cenano o w a we
d
. fi
ut Then my taff an
‘
and the Siu Jaw River would look hke ve year O ·
. • al thway of the creek. 0 ur
contractors dug a ditch to re tore th e ong10 pa
h
.
. • k d th creek’ hi torical ape,
unprecedented, meandering design m1m1c e
e
Id eturn fish to the tream.
and we hoped this experimental metho d wou r
.
k
. k’10d of innovative wor ·
1
th
f
O
Staff and I di cussed the challenges
f.
.
weren’t aware o it. e
If anyone else was doing this in the region, we
.
held regular meetings,
kept the community and our partners c1ose,
.
.
.
f h
eek to share. The proJect
O
and brought in maps and aerial views t e er
.
di tely
.h
t d coming back imme a .
F
.
was overwhelmingly successful. 1s star e
d the boulders we put 10
d
that
Recently planted poplars provided sha de, an
fish I am prou to say
eventually created resting pools an d cover 6or
·
.
Nobody
. d 10
. ternational attention.
this work in the Siuslaw Basin receive
d • flow Our
d stored its mean enng
.
had completely dug out a stream an re
. .
Th’
International
.
d 6 the prestigious iess
J omination
river was one of five nom 10ate or
. al R’ rFoundation-the on y n
ive .
b t the forest won in
Riverprize from the Internatton
from the United States! We did not wm th at year,. ~ d that the regional
June 2005, the year after I moved on. I was disappom e
t while I was there.
. . h c
I had so many
forester did not v1s1t t e iores
d
the Siuslaw because
Great things happene on
, f ‘d t think creatively and
h
ho weren t a ra1 o
extremely bright emp Ioyees w
‘d ff happily received t e
k . ks that pa1 o . 1
.
try new challenges. I also too ns
.
ffi
f the Year award m
.
h F ture Lme O cer o
k we did on the forest.
agency’s nationwide Rise to t e u
. t d me for the wor
2003. The RO must have nomma e
148
CHAPTER 7
I appreciated the recognition but wished there had been some monetary
reward, too. Over the years, I’d seen guys get monetary awards left and
right. Even though I did not receive as many of these financial awards as I
thought I should, I still gave them to my staff all the time. It never felt like
we got a lot of kudos from inside the agency, but we received recognition
from our communities, other agencies, and our partners. I felt really good
when Bill Possiel, president of the ational Forest Foundation and one of
our partners, asked me to join him at a national meeting in Washington,
DC. Congress chartered this nonprofit foundation in 1993, with a simple
goal that appealed to me: “Bring people together to restore and enhance
our National Forests and Grasslands:• Bill wanted me to think about join­
ing the board. 11
I knew Bill from show-me trips on the Siuslaw. He clearly appreciated
our partnership work and results. I remember feeling like a fish out of
water at that meeting in DC, as I looked around to see regional forest­
ers up and down the table. Neither of us knew, but Bill and I learned
that day-the board was made up only of regional foresters! Oh well, I
thought, I have enough to do already! I went home smiling and thinking
about the many times I’d watched a meeting like this from the outside.
Now I am at the table; in fact, I’m at a lot oftables. That was good enough
for me.
Bill’s recognition satisfied me. Others were silent, but I stood on their
shoulders: Tom Hamilton, -Arlen Roll, Barbara Ingersoll, Mike Kerrick,
Bev McCulley, and Karen Tressler, to name just a few. I also stood on
the shoulders of Jim Furnish. I based my plans on the vision Jim had left
behind. This is what we do; a leader comes in and takes up where his or
her predecessor left off, or starts with a new vision. Jim’s work got him a
senior executive service (SES) job in the Washington office. Mine got me
a GS-15; I applied for SES, but was turned down. As I recall, Gary Larson,
GS-15 on the Mount Hood NF, got the SES training. I didn’t get feedback
regarding my application, so I decided that maybe GS-14s, even forest
supervisors, need not apply. I was not bitter, but some feedback would
have been nice. After all, I had demonstrated my willingness to work for
anything the agency put in front of me. I guess I did not get to my GS-15
soon enough to take the next step, but it was a great consolation prize. I
could do SES another day. I would have to wait and see.
CA
YOU SEE ME , 0\1 ?
Challenges for the Future
01
I left the Siuslaw with accompli hment that m ed u to-. ard
j.
th
cally sustainable watersheds. My taff and I had car ed a clear pa to
munity and other
the future. Our large cadre of partner from th e com
. also contributed
.
agencies
to our succe . o u r accompli. hment and
· ·
· th e 1ore
c
t’ 2004 onitoring and
more were highlighted
the year I 1e ft , m
Evaluation Report, which included my earlier tatement about “m~a u~­
able and evident outcome ” and took me beyond pride b ho-. mg l