I happened to pick up this post from LinkedIn that looks like it netted many of Trump’s recent executive orders that are most likely to affect federal lands.
Partizanizing Issues
Let’s Review Some Forest Service NEPA Stats
If you all have been following the California wildfires, you’ll discover that everyone tends to attach their favorite hobby horse to the disaster.
Politicians, climate change, patterns of housing, and even… vegetation treatments and permitting. My pet peeve about coverage is how easily folks get into a forest discussion about what, in this case, was coastal scrub and grasslands. Having said that, I think we need to engage with the permitting folks for many reasons, not least because permitting reform of various kinds will be on the table in Congress again. However we might disagree about what should be done, it seems to me that we should work together to get both facts and disagreements on the table.
I try to be hospitable to new people entering the space. Interestingly, permitting reform folks, who work on permitting infrastructure, renewables and so on, tend to use the Forest Service as an example. So we can help them out by adding value and/or questioning their observations.
I’m going to reprint Tom Hochman’s Substack post below. Remember, we want to share our knowledge with a welcoming spirit. Also it doesn’t seem (as usual) that partisan-ness helps our policy discussions in any way. I’ve spent some time talking to DC folks in the last few weeks, and I think both sides needs to take a deep breath and try to move on past the acrimonious past (do politicians forgive?) so we all can move forward together.
So, from what you know, do these observations make sense and track with your experience? Here’s Hochman’s piece.
***********************
By now, everyone has heard about the wildfires sweeping through the Los Angeles area. The sheer scale of destruction is hard to make sense of. My cousin, aunt, and uncle in Pasadena spent days anxiously packed, ready to evacuate at any moment. Their friends lost their homes; the local elementary school is rubble.
It’s tough to pinpoint a single cause for any given wildfire—and wildfires sometimes happen regardless of human activity or government policy. But there’s no doubt that forest management and wildfire-prevention policies can reduce both the probability and severity of wildfires. In California and at the federal level, those policies have often fallen disastrously short.
With that, here’s a wildfire-focused edition of NEPAstats. I’ve compiled data (all cited at the bottom) on how NEPA and similar review processes intersect with wildfire prevention, and I’ve pulled together a number of specific case studies.
Case Studies
- Proposed thinning/underburning across 900 acres + underburning 220 more
- EIS and Decision Notice released in May 2001
- Project appealed despite support from 12 of 22 local landowners, county disaster services, and a tri-county fire group
- By July 2003: ~45% of the proposed project area had already burned in a wildfire (Kimbell, 2005)
Six Rivers National Forest
- December 1995: A storm topples trees across 35,000 acres
- Fuel loads reach 300–400 tons per acre—10x normal
- 1996–1999: Only 1,600 acres treated while “wrestling through analytical and procedural requirements”
- September 1999: The Megram and Fawn Fires consume the remaining blowdown area plus 90,000 additional acres
- Seven years later: The project remains in limbo after a court injunction (USFS, 2002)
Berry Creek (California)
- Critical thinning projects were delayed by CEQA reviews
- The North Complex Fire hit in 2020 before completion, resulting in 16 fatalities (Regan, 2025)
Grizzly Flats (California)
- A forest-restoration project was held up for nearly a decade by NEPA and other environmental reviews
- In 2021, two-thirds of the community burned before the project was completed (Regan, 2025)
Timing and Delays
- 3.6 years to start a mechanical treatment once the Forest Service initiates review
- 4.7 years to start a prescribed burn under the same conditions
- For projects requiring an EIS:
- 5.3 years on average for mechanical treatments
- 7.2 years for prescribed burns (Edwards & Sutherland, 2022)
Forest Service resource allocation
- The Forest Service manages 192 million acres—8.5% of U.S. land area—but spends ~40% of direct work hours (>$250 million/year) on planning/assessment rather than active project work (USFS, 2002)
- An estimated $100 million annually could shift from “unnecessary planning” to on-the-ground treatments with improved procedures
- Annually, the Forest Service completes:
- ~5,000 EAs,
- ~120 project-level EISs
- 15,000 CEs per year (USFS, 2002)
Litigation Patterns and Impact
- Sierra Club v. Bosworth (2007) invalidated the Forest Service’s attempt to create a CE for fuel-reduction projects, meaning prescribed burns require a full EA/EIS
- For NEPA-Related Appellate Court Cases:
- Fuel-treatment projects that face legal challenges see an additional 1+ year of delay on average
- Agencies prevail in 93% of NEPA fuel-reduction appeals, with 96% of these challenges brought by NGOs
- An average of 3 years elapses between permit issuance and final resolution in these cases (Chiappa et al., 2024)
The Human and Environmental Costs
- Forest density: Parts of the Sierra Nevada are now 6–7x denser than a century ago, fueling more intense megafires
- GHG impacts: California’s 2020 wildfire emissions wiped out nearly two decades of the state’s greenhouse gas reduction progress
- Species: Giant sequoias are dying in megafires; conifer forests are sometimes replaced by shrubland in the aftermath (Regan, 2025)
State-Level Barriers: CEQA and CalVTP
- In 2020, California pledged to treat 500,000 acres per year by 2025—but remains far off due to lengthy reviews, public comment periods, and litigation (Regan, 2025)
- California Vegetation Program aka CalVTP:
- Projected 45,000 acres of treatments in the first year, but zero completed after 2+ years
- 28,000 acres approved but not implemented
- Project managers cite “unfamiliar and burdensome” documentation, multiple CalFire unit boundaries, and a pending lawsuit from the California Chaparral Institute and Endangered Habitats League (Friedman, 2022)

Recent Reform Efforts
- California SB1159 (2024)
- Would have exempted roadside vegetation clearing within 30 feet from CEQA
- Died in committee
- Federal TORCH Act
- Would expand NEPA Categorical Exclusions for forest thinning and post-fire recovery, limit repeated ESA re-consultations for new species listings, and create larger “CLEAR Zones” for power line vegetation management (Regan, 2025)
- Didn’t make it to the Senate floor
- Fix Our Forests Act (2024)
- Would expand NEPA Categorical Exclusions for certain forest management projects
- Passed the House, didn’t make it through the Senate
******************
What are your thoughts?
DePartisanizing Issues: Biomass Utilization and Fuel Treatments
It’s been interesting to watch the mechanics of how an issue becomes partisanized.. or departisanized. Two cheery notes on this wherein what used to be considered that bad R people had are now the same ideas that good D people from states like California and Colorado have.
At a alumni gathering a few years ago at Yale, Gina McCarthy gave what amounted to a rousing very partisan political speech (personally that’s not why I show up for reunions, but that’s a different topic) that included the concept of biomass being bad for climate as if it were something everyone knows the “right answer” to.
Fast forward a few years and here’s Senator Feinstein saying what we’ve always said here- it depends.. Don’t look at our problems through an “east coastal” lens.
“I write to request that the Environmental Protection Agency use its administrative authority to revise the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) to expand allowable sources for biomass to include vegetation cleared from human-occupied areas where it creates wildfire hazards,” Feinstein wrote in a letter to EPA Administrator Michael Regan. “Since 2010, California has experienced unprecedented wildfires and this change would help reduce risk in my state, improve forest health, and make use of cleared vegetation.”
Here’s what her letter said:
As you may know, Section 201 of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA) allows biomass from federal land to be sourced “from the immediate vicinity of buildings and other areas regularly occupied by people, or of public infrastructure, at risk from wildfire.” In 2010, the EPA published implementation guidelines for that category in its final rule, “Regulation of Fuels and Fuel Additives: Changes to the Renewable Fuel Standard Program.” Unfortunately, the implementation of this law did not account for areas with wildfire hazard potential and excluded most of the Western United States where catastrophic wildfires are increasing common. (See attached map, “2020 U.S. Forest Service Wildfire Hazard Potential,” which underscores the risk in the West.)
As this year’s fuel quantities become finalized, I urge the EPA, in conjunction with federal land management agencies, to expand the criteria for which qualifying biomass could be sourced and, thus, eligible for credits under the cellulosic category in the RFS. This determination should be made in accordance with the latest science, and to recognize the exacerbating threat that climate change poses to catastrophic wildfire in the American West.
This one from the formerly “fuel treatments don’t work” Los Angeles Times.. (this is from a political reporter, not an environmental reporter, so..)
Democrats are proposing a potentially seismic shift in how the nation battles wildfires by dramatically increasing funding for efforts that aim to prevent blazes, rather than focusing on the tools to put them out.
Under the social safety-net and climate bill passed by the House and now being negotiated in the Senate, Democrats would funnel $27 billion into the nation’s forests, including a sizable $14 billion over a decade for clearing vegetation and other dry debris that can fuel a fire.
What this article seems to overlook is that there is a substantial chunk of change in the bipartisan Infrastructure bill, and that the BBB $ come with restrictions that may make them less useful than they could be.
Still, the $27 billion would represent the largest investment the federal government has made in its forests, according to Sen. Michael Bennet (D-Colo.), who introduced a similar forestry bill this year. Funding for the preventative hazardous fuels reduction — to be spread over a decade — is more than double what Congress spent on such efforts annually between 2011 and 2020, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service.
Traditionally, the federal government has focused its wildfire spending on suppression at the expense of prevention. The Interior Department and Forest Service are even allowed to unilaterally move money from any of its programs, including fire prevention, to fund more urgent suppression efforts.
“When you combine the effects of climate change with the profound negligence of the federal government in terms of managing its national forests, these places are profound dangers to our communities and to our economy,” Bennet said.
“Profound negligence of the federal government in terms of managing its national forests”.. sounds almost like an R Congressperson from the Sierra, or dare I say, the Western Slope.
Possible Salvage Strategy for Dixie and Caldor Fires
Since a battle for salvage projects is brewing, I think the Forest Service and the timber industry should consider my idea to get the work done, as soon as possible, under the rules, laws and policies, currently in force. It would be a good thing to ‘preempt’ the expected litigation before it goes to Appeals Court.
The Forest Service should quickly get their plans together, making sure that the project will survive the lower court battles. It is likely that such plans that were upheld by lower courts, in the past, would survive the inevitable lower court battles. Once the lower court allows the project(s), the timber industry should get all the fallers they can find, and get every snag designated for harvest on the ground. Don’t worry too much about skidding until the felling gets done. That way, when the case is appealed, most of Chad Hanson’s issues would now be rendered ‘moot’. It sure seems like the Hanson folks’ entire case is dependent on having standing snags. If this idea is successful, I’m sure that Hanson will try to block the skidding and transport of logs to the mill. The Appeals Court would have to decide if skidding operations and log hauling are harmful to spotted owls and black-backed woodpeckers.
It seems worth a try, to thin out snags over HUGE areas, while minimizing the legal wranglings.
Seeing Through the POG: Federal Oil and Gas Leasing and the BLM Move
One of the things I like about Democratic administrations is that we can talk about issues without what I call a cloud of POG, or Partisan Outrage Generation. It’s hard to see through it when it is so prevalent. So I’m going to pick two issues that have aroused a great deal of concern and see what they look like without POG. Unfortunately, many media outlets and sources of journalism funding actually promote POG, so it takes some careful looking for articles to get past it.
1. Oil and gas leasing on federal lands. The WaPo had this story from November 19.
Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham (D), a Biden ally, has said she would ask for an exemption from any leasing ban. Three New Mexico Democrats — Rep. Deb Haaland and Sens. Tom Udall and Martin Heinrich — are all in the running to be Biden’s interior secretary, and they have differing views on whether to prohibit new drilling on public lands and waters.
Both Udall and Heinrich have expressed reservations about a total ban. In a recent interview, Udall called for setting a goal of “carbon-neutral” public lands, where the emissions from fossil fuel extraction could be offset by reforestation and other activities that remove carbon from the atmosphere. “That’s where we should be headed,” he said.
I like Udall’s idea with one addition. For those of you with a historic bent it’s a bit like the National Grasslands becoming an experiment station for the best practices following the Dust Bowl. It could be an opportunity to produce fossil fuels in as environmentally sensitive a way as possible- an experimental ground for innovation. We’re going to use the stuff anyway (and perhaps help other countries convert from coal to natural gas?), so we might as well be an example as to how to do it. I’m imagining a multi-university consortium with industry to develop and test best practices. Now Udall’s bonafides are a 98% lifetime rating from the League of Conservation Voters, so I don’t think you can attack him for being in the pocket of corporate polluters and all that familiar anti-R rhetoric.
2. Moving Some BLM Folks to Grand Junction.
This has been a target of the usual suspects; Center for Western Priorities, Grijalva, et al. Colorado Politics had this interesting POG-free article.
GRAND JUNCTION — Colorado U.S. Sen. John Hickenlooper says he is urging President Joe Biden’s Interior secretary nominee to keep the headquarters of the Bureau of Land Management in the Western Slope city of Grand Junction.
Hickenlooper met Tuesday with Deb Haaland, a Democratic U.S. representative from New Mexico, and invited her to western Colorado to “hear from the community firsthand” about why the public lands agency headquarters should stay, his office said in a statement.
The Democratic senator said that “I made the case that, done correctly, we can better protect and manage our public lands by having a BLM headquarters out west. I look forward to working with her when she’s confirmed as Interior Secretary to make this a reality.”
Hickenlooper sits on the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, which will hold a hearing on Haaland’s nomination in the coming weeks.
The meeting came a day after Hickenlooper, Democratic U.S. Sen. Michael Bennet, Republican Rep. Lauren Boebert and Gov. Jared Polis met remotely with local officials to discuss a lobbying effort aimed at Haaland.
“Tracking Biden’s environmental actions”
The Washington Post has put together a “scorecard” for “environmental actions” to be taken by the Biden Administration to reverse over 200 Trump policies in seven categories, sorted by how hard they would be to overturn. Those marked by dark orange are already “overturned,” those in lighter orange are “targeted,” and the rest “not yet targeted.” Overall, 8 have been overturned, 60 have been targeted, and 139 are not yet targeted. Here’s the categories and total amounts.
Air pollution and greenhouse gases (64)
Chemical safety (14)
Drilling and extraction (61)
Infrastructure and permitting (26)
Transparency (2)
Water pollution (13)
Wildlife (27)
Public land management may be affected by actions in several of these categories, but “Drilling and extraction” includes logging, so I’ve copied some of that list above. Among the priority actions (overturned or targeted) include Utah national monuments, timber harvesting on BLM lands, the protest process for federal timber sales, the Tongass roadless rule, and fracking rules. Also, in the “wildlife” category, ESA critical habitat designation, spotted owl critical habitat and Endangered Species Act consultation have been targeted. Not yet targeted include many things we have discussed on this blog, such as: the Eastside Screens old growth plan amendment, the executive order encouraging logging on federal lands, sage grouse protection, Twin Metals mine leases near Boundary Waters, the Tonto NF copper mine, Forest Service NEPA regulations, and CEQ NEPA regulations. It’s also interesting to note the number of these that are “under litigation,” which may also provide leverage to undo Trump actions.
I hope this is something they will continue to update with successes and failures and new targetings.
Hundreds of Giant Sequoias Considered Dead From Wildfires
It appears that rumors of ‘natural and beneficial’ wildfires in the southern Sierra Nevada have been ‘greatly exaggerated’. Even the Alder Creek grove, which was recently bought by Save the Redwoods, was decimated. Of course, this eventuality has been long-predicted.
https://www.latimes.com/environment/story/2020-11-16/sierra-nevada-giant-sequoias-killed-castle-fire
Sierra Club Comments
I have seen a trend in postings from the Sierra Club, on their Facebook page. Online petitions have been popular with eco-groups but, those petitions really don’t do anything. They seem to be a way of riling up their followers, gathering personal information, and receiving donations. There is also a sizable amount of people commenting who do not side with the Sierra Club.
The particular posting I will be presenting regards the Giant Sequoia National Monument, and how the Trump Administration would affect it. The Sierra Club implies (and their public believes) that Trump would cut down the Giant Sequoia National Monument, without immediate action. With over 500 comments, there are ample examples of what people are thinking.
“So much of the redwoods and Giant Sequoias have already been cut down… the lumber trucks involved had signs which read ” Trees… America’s renewable resource”… and just exactly how to you “renew” a 2 thousand year old tree??? When a job becomes even remotely scarce, one must find a new occupation. Having cut down the redwoods,(RIP Pacific Lumber and the “Redwood Highway”) and when they’ve cut down the national forests (public lands), are “they” going to insist on the right to come onto my land and cut down my trees as well… to provide jobs for the lumber industry? The National forests and Monuments are public lands, and no one has the right to turn them over to private interests for money making purposes. When are they going to see that there is a higher calling here? The forests provide for much of the fresh air we enjoy… they take in the carbon monoxide we exhale, and they exhale the oxygen so necessary to us. They each also take up 300 gallons of water, so provide for erosion control, and I could go on forever with the benefits of trees… but there will still be short sighted detractors who are only able to see the dollar signs in this issue. If providing jobs is the object… bring back our manufacturing jobs from overseas, all you big companies… your bottom line profit will be less, but you will have brought back the jobs to the USA, and you claim that is the object…???? Investing in the big companies in order to get rich does not make the investing noble or honorable when it is condoning taking jobs off-shore to enrich the few. … at the cost of the lost jobs for our people. Love your neighbor..”
I think that statement speaks for itself. Well-meaning but, misinformed.
“Give them an inch and they’ll take a mile. Keep loggers out of National Giant Sequoia Forests. Forest rangers and the National Parks already do controlled burning when needed to protect forest ecosystem health. The idea that commerical logging companies can be trusted with that task is preposterous.”
I wonder if he had noticed all those dead trees inside the Monument. Another example of not knowing who is taking care of the Monument.
“No such thing as controlled logging look at the clear cut coast. Once you let them in they will take it all and say Oops. A long time ago Pacific lumber clear cut thousands of acres illegally and Department of forestry did nothing. Things have not changed.”
Yes, things have changed. Logging IS controlled in Sierra Nevada National Forests… for the last 26 years.
“Destroying over 200k acres of sequoias and leaving ONLY 90k acres is NOT “CONTROLLED LOGGING “. OUR planet needs trees to produce oxygen and just how long do you think those jobs will last?”
Someone thinks there is a HUGE chunk of pristine pure Giant Sequoia groves. Thinning forests is not destruction, folks.
“I went to sign this and put my address and what not but then I skipped over my phone number and it won’t let me sign it! Unless you give your phone number it’s not going to San. I will not give out my phone number. Is there another way to sign for this?”
There were many comments like this one.
“They are both classified under same genisus of Sequoia, It’s their enviroment that makes them different. The Redwood trees (Sequoia sempervirens) along N Cal coastline and then the Sequoias trees (Sequoiadendron giganteum) found in the Sierra Nevadas mountain regions are the same yet very different trees because of the chactoristics. Both trees share their unique and acceptional height and massive girth size, they share the same red wood tones.”
Someone thinks they are an authority in tree Taxonomy.
“As someone who works in timber, don’t blame it on us! Many foresters care about sustainable forestry. I hate Donald Trump just as much as anyone who cares about the environment”
Well, that is sure saying something, eh?
“The forests are being burned down by all these un-natural wild fires that are created by the powers that be to carry out agenda 21/30. It’s not a secret but most people don’t want to see it & the common mentality is if we don’t see it, or address it, it will go away. Right?”
There’s more and more loonies out there saying this stuff, and blaming “Directed Energy Weapons” for starting all the wildfires.
“There will be no more forest in America, it will be a big cacino and golf courses.”
And there’s other conspiracy theories out there, too!
“The most deushiest thing ever! Poor Trees “
People do believe that Trump would clearcut the Giant Sequoias.
“Oh yes look what tree hungers did to Oregon”
I love a well-mispelled insult!
“No More RAPE AND MURDER OF OUR TREES”
I wonder what real violent crime victims think of this comparison. Should we let those trees be horribly burned alive, or eaten by insects, resulting in a long and slow starvation death? *smirk*
“Wth…. He truely is satin”
Soooo smoooooth!
“Drop big rocks on their heads. Something like Ewoks from Return of the Jedi all those years ago. Ewoks were “original” monkey wrenchers.”
That’s a lovely solution! Violence will fix everything!
“I think you could stand to be a bit less adversarial in your comments. Oil has nothing to do with this subject and devalues your argument. There is no reason why the land cannot be managed without giving it away to unregulated for-profit companies. That is the right answer.”
Yep, there just might be oil underneath those giant trees. Yep, gotta cut em all down to make sure! Misguided but, kinda, sorta, on the right path.
“The devil could burn it all down there because most of the state is so ungodly. Trump isn’t your problem. Godlessness and son keeps your minds and state in a state of anarchy. Poor people. I will keep praying you will find out that you all need to pray to the living God.”
Yep, because…. ummm, …. God recognizes where California’s boundaries are???!!??
“Try direct energy weapons”
Certainly, the Reptilians and Nibiru are to blame, fer sure, fer sure.
“Because of Monoculture”
Blame the old clearcuts!
“Anyone cutting a tree should be SHOT!!!!”
And another violent solution.
“The lumbar goes to China and else where, not used used in USA, great loose loose thing.the logs get shipped out of country destroys old growth forest well some one will make $$$$$ of it but it won’t be you”
Dumb, dumb!
“Its not about forest management its about trumps business buddies being allowed to buy the land and develop it”
And even another conspiracy theory. People love to say “I wouldn’t put it past him” when promoting such stuff.
This American mindset, on a world stage, is troubling. People proudly display their ignorance and stupidity to fight a non-existent issue. America doesn’t believe the truth anymore, and the Sierra Club, and others, are spreading misinformation through phony petitions.
Slanted News?
I found an LA Times article regarding the Rim Fire, as well as the future of forest management within the Sierra Nevada. Of course, Chad Hanson re-affirms his preference to end all logging, everywhere. There’s a lot of seemingly balanced reporting but, there is no mention of the Sierra Nevada Framework, and its diameter limits. There is also the fact that any change to the SNF will take years to amend. There was also no mention that only about 20,000 Federal acres of the Rim Fire was salvaged, with some of that being in 40-year old plantations.
http://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-rim-fire-restoration-20180718-story.html
There might also be another ‘PictureGate“, involving Chad Hanson displaying supposed Forest Service clearcut salvage logging. His folks have already displayed their inability to locate themselves on a map. If he really had solid evidence, he SURELY would have brought it into court
Additionally, the comments are a gold mine for the misinformation and polarization of the supposedly ‘progressive’ community of readers.
Trump “demands” more logging. Really? Does he ever request, suggest or ask for information? I’m tired of hearing of Trump’s “demands.” It could be that some logging would be beneficial but the minute Trump “demands” it, it is suspect. One of his friends will be making millions on the logging and probably giving a kickback to a Trump business. Trump is the destructor of all things beautiful or sacred, the King Midas of the GOP.
A tiny increase in logging of small trees is very unlikely to generate “millions”.
You have no idea what “forest management” is. You want to clearcut all of the old growth forests and then turn them into Christmas tree lots and pine plantations. That is industrial tree farming, not forest management. That is the dumb dogma, speaking, not actual management of the forests.
Most people in southern California don’t know that Forest Service clearcutting and old growth harvesting in the Sierra Nevada has been banned since 1993. The article makes no mention of that.
Riddle me this, Lou. How did the forests manage before we spent $2.5 billion dollars a year on fire suppression? Are we the problem or the cure? Is this just another out of control bureaucracy with a life of its own?
Of course, no solution offered.
(A reminder that Executive Orders and Presidential Memoranda are policy and priority statements and directives to staff from a president that offer interpretation within the limits set by all the laws of the country… all Presidents use them) https://lnkd.in/eTxhxheF
These orders are found here – if you want a document/section reference for something let me know:
https://lnkd.in/euDE8tvR
1. 🫎 Requires the ‘god squad’ under the Endangered Species Act to meet every 3 months and directs the Secretary of Interior to figure out procedures that would allow the committee to complete it’s reviews of every submission within 140 days; this authority has very rarely been used within the last 50 years, but could be used to allow big infrastructure projects to have no, fewer, or different requirements to avoid, minimize, or offset impacts on endangered wildlife and plants.
2. 🌊 Directed the Army Corps to use general permits and emergency procedures under the Clean Water Act far more often and the same for emergency procedures for permitting (or consulting) on projects under the Endangered Species Act.
3. Weirdly revoked President Carter’s executive order on NEPA that told agencies to make environmental impact statements shorter, clearer and more useful to the public; I assume this is because it also gave CEQ direction to issue regulations under NEPA.
4. 🌲 Rescinded the executive order protecting ancient forests across US National Forests and that created a national goal to reforest areas in the US where trees have been lost.
5. 🌵 Rescinded direction for US agencies to expand international work and cooperation to fight deforestation.
6. Rescinded the order that directed the Office of Management and Budget to provide guidance on ecosystem service valuation
7. Rescinded direction to federal agencies to report and act on ways to expand the use of nature-based solutions.
8. Required all agencies to develop action plans to change or eliminate all regulations, orders, guidance, policies, settlements or other actions that hinder or slow down US energy production (except offshore wind energy permitting and leasing which is suspended completely and agencies are directed to add policies to slow down)
9. Suspended about a dozen policies or decisions related to energy production and roads in Alaska.
10. Makes thousands of “policy-influencing” career federal jobs into a new category of employment that is subject to different performance requirements and dismissal if they fail to “faithfully implement” policies of the current president.