Trump issues orders to the Forest Service

In case you missed it, on December 21, President Trump issued an executive order: “EO on Promoting Active Management of America’s Forests, Rangelands, and other Federal Lands to Improve Conditions and Reduce Wildfire Risk.”  This should answer all of our questions about what the agency’s priorities are for the duration of his administration.  It’s a short read, but here’s my take.

The problem: ” For decades, dense trees and undergrowth have amassed in these lands, fueling catastrophic wildfires.”   (No mention of climate change of course.)

The cause:  “Active management of vegetation is needed to treat these dangerous conditions on Federal lands but is often delayed due to challenges associated with regulatory analysis and current consultation requirements. In addition, land designations and policies can reduce emergency responder access to Federal land and restrict management practices that can promote wildfire-resistant landscapes.”  (In other words, the laws and the public.)

The solution:  “Post-fire assessments show that reducing vegetation through hazardous fuel management and strategic forest health treatments is effective in reducing wildfire severity and loss.” “To protect communities and watersheds, to better prevent catastrophic wildfires, and to improve the health of America’s forests, rangelands, and other Federal lands, the Secretaries shall each develop goals and implementation plans for wildfire prevention activities and programs in their respective departments.”  This includes, “Reducing vegetation giving rise to wildfire conditions through forest health treatments by increasing health treatments as part of USDA’s offering for sale at least 3.8 billion board feet of timber from USDA FS lands…,” and, “the Secretaries shall identify salvage and log recovery options from lands damaged by fire during the 2017 and 2018 fire seasons, insects, or disease.”  (I’m looking forward to a definition of “health treatments” so that we can tell if they are increasing that share of the volume targets.)

The EO “promotes” this solution by calling for the kind of coordination, streamlining and speeding up the legally required processes that has been ongoing in the agency, and for a new “wildfire strategy” by the end of the Trump Administration.  For the most part it sounds to me like the traditional charge of “cut corners to get the cut out” “consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.” That last part usually doesn’t seem to get the same priority, which typically leads to more litigation.  Interesting that there is no mention of the wildland urban interface (which is where pretty much everyone agrees should be the priority).

Producing the wildfire strategy does include a requirement to “Review land designations and policies that may limit active forest management and increase the risk of catastrophic wildfires…”  That seems to implicate forest plans, but it doesn’t suggest changing them, and if there are such limits they are probably there for a good, publicly supported reason.

Oh, and no mention of science.

20 thoughts on “Trump issues orders to the Forest Service”

  1. It sounds to me that Trump is trying to reduce laws and regulations (processes) that protect the environment to increase cutting timber. I worked as a professional forester for the USDA Forest Service for 28 years and producing as much timber as possible has always been a real priority within the agency. Rolling back environmental protections will NOT reduce the threat of wildfires. More clearcutting will NOT reduce wildfires. We need a LOT more salvage of lands devastated by insects and drought conditions, plus those affected by global climate change. We need more thinning and other treatments. We need to reintroduce fire into areas where it’s a natural part of the ecosystem but where fire has been excluded. Trumps dictates far miss the mark.

    Reply
    • Melody.. I didn’t see any mention of clearcutting in the EO. I also did see requirements for thinning, invasive species and watershed restoration for both Interior and Agriculture. I’m not so sure the EO is all that different from what you think.

      Reply
      • Well, in addition to clearcutting, you also don’t see any specific mention of shelterwood cutting, regeneration harvest, seed tree cutting, selective cutting…however, all of those logging methods – as well as clearcutting – are very common in current U.S. Forest Service “thinning,” “fuel reduction,” and “salvage” logging projects, especially in the northern Rockies.

        Reply
          • I specifically said the U.S. Forest Service is still clearcutting on federal public lands in the northen Rockies…because that’s the truth. I was immediately going to point out that Larry Harrell would say there is no clearcutting allowed on Sierra Nevada National Forests, but I thought I wouldn’t steal your thunder on that one Larry.

            Reply
            • “however, all of those logging methods – as well as clearcutting – are very common in current U.S. Forest Service “thinning,” “fuel reduction,” and “salvage” logging projects, especially in the northern Rockies.”

              That implies that it happens on all National Forests, Matthew. “Very common” seems like quite a reach.

              Reply
              • Good catch Larry. I had meant to remove the word “especially” as it was a hold-over from a different way I was written that comment. I’ve edited my comment above.

                Also, I would say that the majority of timber sales in the northern Rockies include one of the following logging methods: shelterwood cutting, regeneration harvest, seed tree cutting and/or clearcutting.

                So, yes, I’d say it’s “very common.”

                Reply
  2. ANY plan that includes hiring inexperienced Temporary Employees is doomed to failure. Remember that, next summer, when more wildfires burn up more ‘protected’ wildlife habitats, along with human improvements on both public and private lands. There are no pools of talent waiting for phone calls from the Forest Service.

    Reply
  3. For those of you who are interested in the specific actions in the EO here is what it says- honestly it doesn’t seem all that outrageous to me, especially given that the Secretaries should “consider” it with the entire string of feasible, appropriate and consistent with law and regulations.. Larry has a good point that you can’t do it right away with current capacity, but if you don’t budget for it you will never be able to do it.

    Sec. 2. Goals. (a) To protect communities and watersheds, to better prevent catastrophic wildfires, and to improve the health of America’s forests, rangelands, and other Federal lands, the Secretaries shall each develop goals and implementation plans for wildfire prevention activities and programs in their respective departments. In the development of such goals and plans:

    (i) The Secretary of the Interior shall review the Secretary’s 2019 budget justifications and give all due consideration to establishing the following objectives for 2019, as feasible and appropriate in light of those budget justifications, and consistent with applicable law and available appropriations:

    (A) Treating 750,000 acres of Department of the Interior (DOI)-administered lands to reduce fuel loads;

    (B) Treating 500,000 acres of DOI-administered lands to protect water quality and mitigate severe flooding and erosion risks arising from forest fires;

    (C) Treating 750,000 acres of DOI-administered lands for native and invasive species;

    (D) Reducing vegetation giving rise to wildfire conditions through forest health treatments by increasing health treatments as part of DOI’s offering for sale 600 million board feet of timber from DOI-administered lands; and

    (E) Performing maintenance on public roads needed to provide access for emergency services and restoration work; and

    (ii) The Secretary of Agriculture shall review the Secretary’s 2019 budget justifications and give all due consideration to establishing the following objectives for 2019, as feasible and appropriate in light of those budget justifications, and consistent with applicable law and available appropriations:

    (A) Treating 3.5 million acres of Department of Agriculture (USDA) Forest Service (FS) lands to reduce fuel load;

    (B) Treating 2.2 million acres of USDA FS lands to protect water quality and mitigate severe flooding and erosion risks arising from forest fires;

    (C) Treating 750,000 acres of USDA FS lands for native and invasive species;

    (D) Reducing vegetation giving rise to wildfire conditions through forest health treatments by increasing health treatments as part of USDA’s offering for sale at least 3.8 billion board feet of timber from USDA FS lands; and

    (E) Performing maintenance on roads needed to provide access on USDA FS lands for emergency services and restoration work.

    (b) For the years following establishment of the objectives in subsection (a) of this section, the Secretaries shall consider annual treatment objectives that meet or exceed those established in subsection (a) of this section, using the full range of available and appropriate management tools, including prescribed burns and mechanical thinning. The Secretaries shall also refine and develop performance metrics to better capture the risk reduction benefits achieved through application of these management tools.

    (c) In conjunction with establishment of goals, and by no later than March 31, 2019, the Secretaries shall identify salvage and log recovery options from lands damaged by fire during the 2017 and 2018 fire seasons, insects, or disease.

    Reply
    • Additionally, right now is prime time for National Forests to put together their Temporary hires but, it won’t happen until the shutdown ends. Here in California, progress is made in “Acres Treated”, and that means more temporary ‘Ologist’ people doing surveys and site visits, over vast acreages. It will also need armies of timbermarkers that the Forest Service just doesn’t have. It takes one to two seasons of experience for a timbermarker to become competent but, most new Temporary Employees don’t last that long.

      I also expect some litigation against doing more projects. Here in California, there shouldn’t be much but, the Forest Service will have to jump through some legal hoops, with cumulative impacts maybe being on center stage.

      Reply
      • Timber markers are not needed if DxD or DxP are used in the contract, but all stand types aren’t suitable for those types of timber designation.

        Reply
        • Using DxD also requires more experienced personnel to monitor and report on deficiencies. Of course, not everyone is comfortable with confronting loggers, as well. How many of these types would be needed to cover 10,000 acres in one summer, on one Ranger District, on one National Forest? Again, there is no pool of experienced contract inspectors looking for jobs. The amount of Timber Sale Administrators is also dwindling, and it is unknown how many internal candidates are “suitable and capable”. Ditto for FSR’s and CO’s. It’s quite sad that the leadership hasn’t seen this situation coming at them. I also fully expect a higher retirement rate over the next 2 years.

          Reply
    • One thing I have been wondering about is what “weight” an executive order carries vs. a target from the WO. The EO basically takes the FY19 targets (and a few other things) and puts them in an EO…

      I was glad to see that the EO mentioned prioritizing where fuels treatments go.

      Reply
      • I think Executive Orders have a different legal basis but like you say, hopefully the Prez doesn’t need to strongarm agencies into adopting ideas into the President’s budget.

        Maybe it’s communicative- to clarify to externals what the Prez is asking for and what the priorities are- so they don’t get lost in a 3000 page budget document that very few people read.
        Maybe it’s symbolic- to show that he is very interested in and serious about dealing with wildfires.

        Reply
  4. A lot could be accomplished if the FS would change their fire fighting procedures and put the fires out when they start and are small.

    Reply
    • Wait a second? Didn’t the USFS attempt to do this for much of the first half of the 20th century? And isn’t there pretty much universal agreement within the scientific community that suppressing all wildfires was a terrible idea, and it has just helped to create a feedback loop where you guarantee larger wildfires in the future? I’m pretty sure there’s nearly 100% consensus on that.

      Reply
      • I agree with you Matthew. Lots of areas need fires to be left to burn as lands are too steep or rocky. Also those in wilderness should be allowed to burn but being aware of getting out of wilderness into area that are suitable for other uses.

        Matthew, when you visited the Routt NF in the early ’70s I am sure you saw lots of lodgepole pine forests that needed cutting and many areas cut and regenerated (Gore Pass area). Other than clearcutting in small blocks, I don’t know how else one would manage these forests if one is after some timber production. These cutover areas are now reforested with stands of timber. Clearcutting is one of the most effective methods of getting a new stands. Why be against this?

        Reply
        • I think we need a ban on ‘Let-Burn’ fires in the middle of peak fire season. Those unnecessarily tie up scarce initial attack resources, when they are needed the most. Sure, if a fire starts in a Wilderness in early May, we should consider ‘managing’ the fire.

          Right before the Yarnall Hill incident, the West Fork Complex in Colorado was allowed to burn, instead of safely being contained and controlled. Safety was not really an issue, with only 150 acres burned after 9 days of burning. The weather changed and the fire became a monster, burning over 100,000 acres and costing over $100,000,000, while causing health alerts in Denver, over 100 miles away. So much for “resource benefits”, eh?

          Reply
    • A lot of folks are wishing this was the case due to all of the smoke that some communities have endured the last couple of summers. But as the other commenters note, we have to be careful what we wish for. And what we really don’t acknowledge well is that a sizable proportion of the burning that we are “missing” right is is burning that was done by people (not by lightning fires).

      Reply
      • With over 84% (some say this number has risen) of US wildfires being human-caused, dangerous wildfires are a certainty, and need to be dealt with. Managing fires for dubious “resource benefits” is not a good idea during the middle of fire season.

        Reply

Leave a Reply to Anonymous Cancel reply