(Note, previously I thought there was one EO but there are two timber EO, will discuss the second one in the next post. Sorry about that.)
But rare indeed is the government doing anything “immediately”.
I’m posting it in its entirety below along with my thoughts and questions.
By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, it is hereby ordered:
Section 1. Purpose. The production of timber, lumber, paper, bioenergy, and other wood products (timber production) is critical to our Nation’s well-being. Timber production is essential for crucial human activities like construction and energy production. Furthermore, as recent disasters demonstrate, forest management and wildfire risk reduction projects can save American lives and communities.
The United States has an abundance of timber resources that are more than adequate to meet our domestic timber production needs, but heavy-handed Federal policies have prevented full utilization of these resources and made us reliant on foreign producers. Our inability to fully exploit our domestic timber supply has impeded the creation of jobs and prosperity, contributed to wildfire disasters, degraded fish and wildlife habitats, increased the cost of construction and energy, and threatened our economic security. These onerous Federal policies have forced our Nation to rely upon imported lumber, thus exporting jobs and prosperity and compromising our self-reliance. It is vital that we reverse these policies and increase domestic timber production to protect our national and economic security.
So while the case is made more generally for producing our own timber, the EO focuses only on federal forests. As we’ve discussed here, the problem tends to be that people can’t run businesses effectively and mills are closing or have closed in many places, and supply is one of many issues. I suppose another intervention would be to increase tariffs, but that would raise prices and make life more difficult for people who use wood, which is pretty much everyone, either directly or indirectly.
Sec. 2. Directives to the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture.
(a) Within 30 days of the date of this order, the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture, through the Director of the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and the Chief of the United States Forest Service (USFS), respectively, shall each issue new or updated guidance regarding tools to facilitate increased timber production and sound forest management, reduce time to deliver timber, and decrease timber supply uncertainty, such as the Good Neighbor Authority described in 16 U.S.C. 2113a, stewardship contracting pursuant to 16 U.S.C. 6591c, and agreements or contracts with Indian tribes under the Tribal Forest Protection Act as contemplated by 25 U.S.C. 3115a. The Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture shall also each submit to the Director of the Office of Management and Budget any legislative proposals that would expand authorities to improve timber production and sound forest management.
As we have seen via the Keystone Agreements, much timber work has been farmed out to NGOs, which may or may not have been stopped. The first thing I’d do is figure out which mills really need the supply and focus workers in those areas. And stop firing people related to that work(although this may already have happened, as with the Black Hills folks). Also analyze where people needed to do projects are missing from the workforce, including folks needed for project NEPA including specialists. For example, last fall, I was thinking of working for ACES and was told a certain forest needed NEPA help and couldn’t find anyone. I also heard that between timber sale contracts, stewardship agreements, and so on, it seemed difficult for folks to enter the needed info into various databases. There were thought to be a few timber assistants near retirement that actually understood all the complexities. Maybe that could be streamlined. Other ideas?
(b) Within 60 days of the date of this order, the Secretary of the Interior, through the Director of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), and the Secretary of Commerce, through the Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, shall complete a strategy on USFS and BLM forest management projects under section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) (16 U.S.C. 1536) to improve the speed of approving forestry projects. The Secretary of the Interior, through the Director of the FWS, shall also examine any applicable existing authorities that would permit executive departments and agencies (agencies) to delegate consultation requirements under section 7 of the ESA to other agencies and, if necessary, provide a legislative proposal to ensure consultation is streamlined.
Others may remember various efforts to streamline consultation but I’m sure they all depend on having employees do it. I’d get a bunch of FWS, NOAA Fisheries and FS folks working in the consultation space to make recommendations.
(c) Within 90 days of the date of this order, the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture shall together submit to the President, through the Assistant to the President for Economic Policy, a plan that sets a target for the annual amount of timber per year to be offered for sale over the next 4 years from Federal lands managed by the BLM and the USFS, measured in millions of board feet.
Setting targets is good for accountability; and yet, puts the agency between a rock and a hard place if legal challenges are not taken into account.
(d) Within 120 days of the date of this order, the Secretary of the Interior, through the Directors of the FWS and the BLM, and the Secretary of Agriculture, through the Chief of the USFS, shall complete the Whitebark Pine Rangewide Programmatic Consultation under section 7 of the ESA.
Maybe folks can help me with this one- I don’t often see whitebark growing in stands with traditional timber trees, usually the sites are too high and cold. Maybe this is a regional issue somewhere?
(e) Within 180 days of the date of this order, the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture shall consider and, if appropriate and consistent with applicable law, adopt categorical exclusions administratively established by other agencies to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act and reduce unnecessarily lengthy processes and associated costs related to administrative approvals for timber production, forest management, and wildfire risk reduction treatments.
I’m not sure that any other agencies have CEs associated with those things, but OK. And I don’t exactly know what “unnecessary lengthy processes” are.. I suppose folks not using existing CE’s? If you go back in the NEPA literature, you’d find things like “had to wait for archaeologist, they were too busy to get to this project” or “got new ranger who wanted to start over” and other internal issues. Even I as a planning director, spent time encouraging people who didn’t work directly for me to prioritize NEPA work (in my case on the Southern Rockies Lynx Amendment).
Contractors, Enterprise units, States via GNA and so on.. even the recent EADM effort we covered here had many suggestions for improving processes. Plus, does BLM have the same issues?
I think the least favorite suggestion was centralized and dedicated project planning teams. Like my old boss Fred Norbury said “we run NEPA like a cobbler shop, and it should be more like a Nike factory.” Culturally, that was a non-starter.
(f) Within 280 days of the date of this order, the Secretary of the Interior shall consider and, if appropriate and consistent with applicable law, establish a new categorical exclusion for timber thinning and re-establish a categorical exclusion for timber salvage activities.
I think that they could just adopt the FS CEs under the 2020 Regs as the FS did in the Federal Register on 11/08/2024?
Sec. 3. Streamlined Permitting. All relevant agencies shall eliminate, to the maximum extent permissible by law, all undue delays within their respective permitting processes related to timber production. Additionally, all relevant agencies shall take all necessary and appropriate steps consistent with applicable law to suspend, revise, or rescind all existing regulations, orders, guidance documents, policies, settlements, consent orders, and other agency actions that impose an undue burden on timber production.
If I were the FS, I’d also look at when regulations, etc. made it more difficult to dispose of woody material with no timber value. In fact, I’d take this part of the EO and ask “what holds up timber production AND what holds up fuels reduction without valuable timber?” I think a case could be made that since the EO mentions bioenergy, that it takes a broader look at removing materials of different and possibly negative value.
Sec. 4. Endangered Species Committee. (a) Agencies are directed to use, to the maximum extent permissible under applicable law, the ESA regulations on consultations in emergencies to facilitate the Nation’s timber production. The Secretary of the Interior, as Chairman of the Endangered Species Committee, shall ensure a prompt and efficient review of all submissions to such committee, to include identification of any legal deficiencies, in order to ensure the timely consideration of exemption applications and, where possible, to resolve such applications before the deadlines set by the ESA.
(b) Federal members of the Endangered Species Committee, or their designees, shall coordinate to develop and submit a report to the President, through the Assistant to the President for Economic Policy, that identifies obstacles to domestic timber production infrastructure specifically deriving from implementation of the ESA and recommends procedural, regulatory, and interagency improvements.
(c) The Secretary of the Interior shall ensure that the Director of the FWS, or the Director’s authorized representative, is available to consult promptly with agencies and to take other appropriate action concerning the applicability of the ESA’s emergency regulations. The Secretary of Commerce shall ensure that the Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, or the Assistant Administrator’s authorized representative, is available for such consultation and to take such other action as may assist in applying the ESA’s emergency regulations.
I’m not an expert on ESA, but it might be a good thing again, using timber as an example, to look at “procedural, regulatory, and interagency improvements” including employee and contractor capacity and budget.
Sec. 5. General Provisions. (a) Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:
(i) the authority granted by law to an executive department or agency, or the head thereof; or
(ii) the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.
(b) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.
(c) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.
Note 5b.
A reader wrote in and had these excellent questions about the EO.
Would this actually expedite projects, both on the FS side and consultation?
Who knows? It depends on what they analyze and recommend, and the factors of employees and funding.
Is that delegation of consultation mentioned in sec 2b a real thing, and what would that look like?
I think it’s been done before in certain situations, but others know more than I do about this.
How big of a deal is the deadline for WBP consultation?
I would guess that if the agencies had good reasons and seemed to be doing their best, at least in the minds of the Secretaries as briefed, it would be OK.
Does 2a mean a handbook revision (which I thought were already under revision but have been delayed several years)?
I’d think “guidance” in that sense could mean a variety of things.. including, say, a letter from the Chief.
Other questions? More background and context? I’d look at the EO as an opportunity to look at the range of providing services- contracts, enterprise, GNA, grants and figure out how best to streamline and still ensure that the work is planned, done, monitored and the contract administered, and documented in a transparent way by qualified people.
Quick comment: fixing the problem of the removal of non economic wood is not easy. My experience is with the Bush HFI and standing up a woody biomass and stewardship contracts initiative at Interior. The issues are the length of contract needed -20 years- for the private sector to get a loan to buy equipment and the lack of density in the woody material relative to the cost of transport. Solving the contract problem is easier than the latter problem.
Stripping public lands, ending sanctions on Russian timber and slapping tariffs on Canadian lumber? What a shocker.
“Stripping” public lands? not particularly likely. .. the EO doesn’t say anything about Russian timber, and I have economist friends who have spent entire careers and since retired dealing with the Canadian softwood dispute, tariff, WTO and all that.
Notice the date on this was 2024 https://www.canada.ca/en/global-affairs/news/2024/01/canada-challenges-us-decision-to-maintain-softwood-lumber-duties.html
Or you could read the history. https://pennstatelaw.psu.edu/_file/aglaw/Lumber_Trade.pdf
Russia is just behind Canada as the world’s largest lumber exporter but the Trump order is aimed at Canada, Germany and Brazil. That the US becomes a net exporter of wood products seems not particularly likely but putting a timber industry executive as Forest Service chief seems cataclysmic to the private forests that provide most of the lumber in the US, right?
Larry, if you read up on your assertion, Russia had a 50% tariff since 2022 on plywood entering the US. So, the good old past Administration just kind of ignored it anyway…. As for “catastrophic to private forests”, that’s been the case for the past few years – stumpage for conifer species is in the toilet….
Hi, Mr. Zornes. The following is from a Faceberg post by sawmill owner and Republican former South Dakota legislator, Alan Aker.
Yes, yes; KV is up to the 25%, but the “essential KV can take most of the stimpage values from an advertised sale. However, I was speaking of private timber stumpage, and they do not have the road credits. Back in the day, Purchaser Credit took that amount of construction off the advertised rates – that could cause a sale to become deficit. Deficit sales are normally bid up to make them positive anyway…..
Back to my point, I was speaking of private timberlands; but, the South (Region 8) is blowing and going not only in volume but in $ collected!
A note on your stewardship connection: stewardship funds are not part of the Secure Rural Schools, another 25% fund paid to counties in addition to PILT. What a mess…..🤠
The EO tells the agencies to figure out how “to fully exploit our domestic timber supply.” “Stripping public lands” doesn’t sound far-fetched when resource specialists are gone, public notice and involvement is further limited, and the few guardrails provided by the ESA will be circumvented.
I also expect that the Administration will look into exporting Federal logs, as part of that ‘exploitation’. We will not be managing for fire safety, resilience, silviculture and forest health. We will be looking to maximize profits by cutting all the valuable trees. If there is no ‘proper’ mill capacity, that’s where we’ll see the log exports. (Will there be tariffs on those, too?)
There’s nothing in this EO that would limit public involvement in forest management decisions. Categorical exclusions have been around since NEPA was enacted. “Stripping public lands” is absolutely far fetched as each forest has its own forest plan that must be adhered to. The courts have consistently decided against the agency when forest plans have not been followed.
By increasing the acreage allowed for CE’s, what would have been an EA in the past, is now a CE. CE’s do not have a comment period on the draft as EA’s do. Also, there is no opportunity to file an objection on a CE. So, it would appear that there would be less opportunity for public comment.
New CXs and increased use of CXs = less public notice and involvement for the broad-scale increased logging this EO aims for. And the EO tells agency officials to propose ways to get around “burdens” on full exploitation of our forests that might be found in existing plans, regulations, and statutes, including through new legislation.
I wonder how increasing the timber targets will help reduce government spending, given that the federal timber program already loses over $2 billion per year of taxpayer money.
My concern is Section 2(c) 90 days to set targets for the next four years. How will this happen? Will the Forests be allowed to provide their input into this? Or will it be the RO’s and WO that come up with this? Will the targets be based on capacity? Some semblance of reality? When I worked in R8, our timber targets for the Forest were based on a back-and-forth with the RO. I thought that was reasonable. In R2, there was never any discussion with the Forest on what you could do in an FY, it was simply that the RO got a target, and they divided it up to the Forests. There was never a back-and-forth on the target number. The Forest input was not needed and was irrelevant. I am afraid this is what will happen at a National level.
Once upon a time (maybe when the RPA Program was still a thing), at least in some places, that back-and-forth considered forest plans and their limitations on timber harvest (I remember spatial distribution limits on logging being a factor). I think that is the intent of NFMA. The 1982 planning regulations said forest plans “determine … levels of resource production” and “budget proposals shall be based on the plan.” I would like to think that extreme targets could be found inconsistent with forest plans, but depending on the forest plan, it would probably not be as straightforward as direct violations of plan components. I think that targets that completely ignore forest plans could be considered arbitrary.
As I recall, as an RPA Program staff person, that despite being Congressionally mandated, we just stopped doing it at the behest of the Clinton Administration. The corporate story was that it turned into GPRA, which is more of an accounting thing. Not sure anyone missed the Program except us employees and now, you.
Somewhat related: https://www.gov.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/2025-3-1.-Forest-Management-Proc.FINAL-2.pdf
I was a federal forester for 35 years and have been active in a group collaborating with the Forest Service since retiring 15 years ago. My first comment is that every directive in this EO states it’s to be carried out “consistent with existing laws”. So enough already with statements that it will lead to clearcutting large swaths of public forests. Those days are over and they aren’t coming back.
Second, there is very little new in this EO that wasn’t in the EO Trump signed in 2018. Or, for that matter, is it that much different from the language contained in the 2017 Infrastructure Act that directed the federal agencies to increase forest management to reduce wildfire risk to communities and infrastructure.
The main problem I see with this EO is that it isn’t really anything new that would signal a significant increase in federal forest management, which is desperately needed to make forests more resilient to address climate change. There is no new funding or authorizations here. When you couple this EO with the mass firing of federal land management staff and freezing hiring for at least the next 4 years there is little chance that the Forest Service or BLM will be able to accelerate forest management in any meaningful way.
When I read all these responses, and they are all good, I can’t help but wonder what it would be like without our instant communication – which everybody, now has. In the past, the FS trudged along and done what they needed to do, mostly out of sight and mind. It was a top down, non-committe governance, until the long-haired “hippie types” (a line from The Greatest Good) meddled in their operation, and worse, got those Congressional critters involved!
The FS does need to get back to managing; they also need to quit hypothesizing about managing wildfire – Michael Rains, that one is for you! 😎. Remembering the timber machine of Region 6 in the late 1970’s, early 80’s, the FS has neither the expertise nor qualified “boots” to pull of even a semblance of what was. I suspect, the outcome will be an all tado without nothing! Should they (FS) just start harvesting mortality rates; speaking of the Western Forest, the East, Lake Staes and South have it figured out, that’d be a win!
FYI, “Trump’s ‘God Squad’ Timber Logging Mandate Is Legally Murky”
https://news.bloomberglaw.com/health-law-and-business/trumps-god-squad-mandate-to-expedite-logging-is-legally-murky
The god squad only reviews projects that have a jeopardy/adverse mod opinion. Those are really rare and I’m betting none will be signed under this administration. Even if one were signed, the god squad would have to determine there isn’t a reasonable alternative. If there isn’t an alternative, then they’d need to mitigate. NTM, their work is subject to judicial review. All said, that’s not an easy or quick process.
The emergency consultation stuff is more squishy. Under the emergency EO the Army Corps has already issued nearly 700 clean water 404 permits and more keep rolling in. There is nothing in the act about emergencies for section 7, it’s only in the regulations and the regulations are sorta clear, but I see a little wiggle room there.