Extraction, Extremism, Insurrection: The ties that bind.
Let’s Examine the Ties Between the Timber Industry and Extremists
Monumental climate action by President Biden
Executive action halts new oil and gas leasing on public lands and offshore waters
More work lies ahead, but today’s climate orders mark big steps toward a just transition, protecting public lands, and keeping dirty fossil fuels in the ground
Denver—WildEarth Guardians today celebrated President Biden’s bold actions to confront the climate crisis, safeguard public lands, and ensure the United States justly transitions away from fossil fuels.
“Today’s actions by President Biden are historic and absolutely what’s needed to restore and bolster the United States’ momentum in confronting the climate crisis and achieving a just economic transition,” said Jeremy Nichols, Climate and Energy Program Director for WildEarth Guardians. “We still have our work cut out for us, but no U.S. president has done more to energize climate action and make environmental justice a priority.”
In a series of Executive Orders, President Biden issued sweeping direction to align the United States’ federal government with scientifically-based greenhouse gas reduction targets and clean energy goals.
The Orders set bold conservation objectives, including conserving 30% of U.S. lands and oceans by 2030, establish audacious economic revitalization initiatives, and create new, high level agencies and working groups to direct and lead climate action in America.
Notably, President Biden ordered a ban on the sale of public lands and waters for fracking and directed a review of federal fossil fuel management programs. The action represents a monumental step toward winding down and ultimately phasing out coal and oil and gas production on public lands in the American West.
“President Biden’s actions today are a refreshing and long-overdue acknowledgment of the reality that we can’t frack our way to a safe climate,” said Nichols. “It’s time to get the federal government out of the fossil fuel business and into the business of helping communities transition to become cleaner, healthier, more equitable, and more prosperous than ever.”
Added Nichols, “Most importantly, today’s actions ensure public lands will not continue to be sacrificed to oil and gas companies at the expense of our clean air and water, fish and wildlife, and the health and sustainability of the landscape of the American West.”
Five years ago, WildEarth Guardians helped launch a campaign to halt federal coal and oil and gas leasing on public lands. While coal leasing has ground to a virtual halt due to plummeting market demand, oil and gas leasing surged under both President Obama and Trump.
Today’s actions by President Biden are the culmination of intense and persistent grassroots organizing, coalition building, and legal pressure brought by WildEarth Guardians and other groups committed to keeping fossil fuels in the ground.
“’Keep it in the Ground’ has been our rallying cry from day one and today, that commonsense approach to climate action is finally being put into action by our federal government,” said Nichols. “With today’s orders, public lands are thankfully being put to work for the climate, not for fossil fuels.”
“We still have our work cut out for us, the fossil fuel industry will certainly fight back under the flags of climate denial and greed,” added Nichols. “But today, President Biden has set the stage for bold reforms that cut through the oil, gas, and coal industry’s denial and deception and make justice a reality.”
For an additional fact sheet provided by the Biden administration, click here.
Ideas for the Biden Administration: Support Employees’ Participation in Professional Societies
I think federal employees are like the glue that holds the government together, proceeding onward daily, sending out Social Security checks, fighting wildfires, enforcing federal laws, and unseen and unglamorous government activities as Administrations ebb and flow. I missed a mention of them in President Biden’s Inaugural Address. It seems like all the drama and coverage is for the elected officials, political appointees, donors, campaign volunteers, etc., and yet.. so THANK YOU ALL for keeping the government train on the tracks for the past four years, the next four, and so on hopefully forever.
I thought it might be interesting to look at ideas for the new administration from different groups. One is from the Society of American Foresters. I’d like to pull this out for discussion:
Support Forestry and Natural Resources Professionals
Active participation and engagement among federal employees in the professional society related to their scientific discipline benefits the employee, the agencies, and, ultimately, the public.
Professional societies, like SAF, provide opportunities for federal employees to maintain professional competencies through in-person and virtual continuing educational opportunities, access to scientific journals, and engagement with professionals working in different disciplines across the country. In addition, professional societies also provide federal employees ample opportunities to test and hone leadership skills and give back to communities through service projects.
Forestry is a dynamic and demanding science with many specialty disciplines. Maintaining the professional competencies of the federal workforce is necessary to assure sound, scientific principles are applied to resource management. Through engagement with professional societies, federal employees are better equipped to understand the challenges facing forest management professionals in state agencies, universities, non-governmental organizations, and the private sector.
Recommendations
• We urge the Biden Administration to not only remove current barriers to attending scientific conferences and meetings, but also encourage and empower employees to actively participate in their professional societies.• In particular, the Secretary of Agriculture should review the meetings management system to evaluate whether this policy is meeting its intended purpose. We recommend exploring a new system where conferences could apply for certified status with the Department, which would reduce the burdens of evaluations and allow employees to plan ahead and avoid paying premiums for last-minute travel and conference fees.
It seems to me that “using the best science” involves training folks working on the ground and making it important for them to keep abreast of the latest findings. Perhaps equally important is the feedback that practitioners give to researchers in terms of ground-truthing their findings. I’d say at the interface between researchers and practitioners is where the “science” rubber meets the proverbial road.
Perhaps we’ll have more virtual conferences and webinars, so that will help. Certainly all of society has had to adapt and we may never go back to in-person meetings the same way. But even if conferences cost less, they still will cost. And if we look at science agencies, being involved in science societies is usually encouraged. So I would agree that the Biden Administration should come out with not only the words supporting involvement, but also work with the natural resource professional societies and others to figure out what the barriers are and take steps to remove them.
Sometimes, at least in the past, weird things happened. Once I was told I couldn’t give an invited talk at an SAF meeting even if I took annual leave to do so, because of liability. Hopefully, those kinds of restrictions, which can put a damper on the most enthusiastic professional, have retreated into the mists of time.
“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.
Team-building for Congress and Other Unlikely Proposals to Promote Unity
President Biden again stressed unity and civility in his Inaugural Address. Last week I wrote an op-ed, published in the Colorado Springs Gazette with some helpful, if potentially unpopular, suggestions. Here’s a link.
I think our country needs to take a deep breath now that this election is over. I don’t think the problem is really the existence of people who disagree with each other-we always have- but rather the way we disagree, and how politicians and the current media business models tend to inflame those disagreements. If we frame the problem this way, the goal would be simply to calm the seas of civic life.
President-elect Joe Biden wants to promote unity. Based on my experience in DC, both as a career federal employee, and assignments In Congress and at the White House, I’ve got a few suggestions.
First, Congress clearly needs the mother of all team-building sessions. As a veteran of many, I’d suggest AOC and Lauren Boebert be assigned to the same small group. No one will be assigned their office until they’ve worked in a small group composed of Members from both parties and have signed on to five agreed upon proposals.
Second, have you ever noticed that proposed federal regulations have public comment periods, and yet legislative proposals don’t? If they did, everyone would be able to weigh in, not just interest groups of various kinds.
Each interest group wants something that’s best for them, not necessarily for the public. They could start with the list of all the proposals developed in the above team- building.
Third would be no Twitter accounts for elected officials. If the past four years have shown us anything, it’s that Tweeting instead of press releases is anathema to thoughtful public discourse. I actually went on Senator Cory Gardner’s once and felt like I needed a cleansing ritual afterwards. People were simply nasty. Why intentionally provide a safe space for hate? I’d make a rule that like career feds, elected officials can’t have their own Twitter accounts.
Fourth would be no money seeking for elected officials. I volunteered to work on now-Governor Jared Polis’ campaign via the website, but I never heard back except with emails asking for donations. Perhaps because I was on that list, I also received emails from an account in his name after he was elected, asking for more donations. Not a good look for public officials, in my opinion.
When people take their oaths of office, I think they should also suspend all donation seeking or other activities related to campaigning or future campaigns. They would only be able to campaign for themselves and only starting, say, four months before the election. That way we would know for sure they were working on what we were paying them to work on (governing, not stumping).
Fifth, we need a bipartisan Internal Peace Commission led by retired legislators and others with input from academic and practicing conflict resolution folks. We’re always talking about “using the best science” in policy. What policy could be more important than making our mutual public life better? Good policies flow from good people, quality and open discussions, and working in good faith.
It’s a simple idea. We know what’s broken. Let’s take a deep breath, reset our mistrust and hate levels to zero and get at it.
Other suggestions?
FAST 41 and Adding Mining Projects
She said “In reviewing Fast 41 requirements, it in not quite clear to me on how the Jan 8 2021 revised rule will be implemented and if a mining project (such as Stibnite Gold Project) are included under Fast 41, what changes for agency staff and applicants?”
Fast-41 Rule; revised to include mining industry
The origin of Fixing America’s Surface Transportation (FAST) Act was to “improve the timeliness, predictability, and transparency of the Federal environmental review and authorization process for covered infrastructure projects.” Eligible projects under the statute are those subject to NEPA, over a $200M investment and are not included under other abbreviated authorization or environmental review processes. The Jan 8 2021 rule includes the mining industry projects as defined by the permitting council and consistent with E.O. 13807, “Establishing Discipline and Accountability in the Environmental Review and Permitting Process for Infrastructure Projects,” and E.O. 13817, “A Federal Strategy to Ensure Secure and Reliable Supplies of Critical Minerals.”Guidance for the Coordinated Project Plan from the permitting council (May 26, 2020 https://www.permits.performance.gov/fpisc-content/fast-41-process#whatiscpp) include the following:
The Coordinated Project Plan (CPP) is a tailored roadmap to the permitting process, developed by Federal agencies in partnership with the project sponsor. In developing the CPP, agencies collaborate to establish:
• Roles and responsibilities for all entities with permitting responsibilities
• A permitting schedule with interim and final milestones, with potential focus areas for additional interagency coordination noted
• Potential avoidance, minimization, and mitigation strategies
• Plans and a schedule for public and tribal outreach and coordination
She asks “Would mining project proposed for inclusion under the Fast 41 program develop a CCP to submit to the lead federal agency for the project along with a Plan of Operations?”
It sounds to me from a brief review that the developer would choose to opt in (here are the pros and cons according to one law firm). Then the Lead Agency would initiate the CPP. Possibly the FS would be the lead agency; I’m not clear when BLM is the lead on minerals.
Here’s a summary from DOT about FAST41.
It looks like while BLM has quite a few projects enrolled in Fast41, the FS only has one project (one was cancelled), the Kake to Petersburg Tranmission Line.
Here’s a roadmap of the coordination process. The Forest Service has its own website about FAST41 here.
This might sound pretty specialized, but with the Biden Administration potentially encouraging many new wind and solar installations plus the necessary transmission lines on federal lands, we may all become more familiar with FAST41 and using it for projects.
Forest Management Direction for Large Diameter Trees in Eastern Oregon and Southeastern Washington
One of the many things that went into the Trump dump the last couple of weeks was the amendment of the Forest Service Eastside Screens old growth protection standard: “Forest Management Direction for Large Diameter Trees in Eastern Oregon and Southeastern Washington.” We discussed that at length here. The Forest Service documentation for the amendment is here. The standard prohibiting harvest of trees >21” dbh has been replaced by this guideline (“LOS” is late and old structure, and it refers to “multi-stratum with large trees” and “single-stratum with large trees”):
Outside of LOS, many types of timber sale activities are allowed. The intent is still to maintain and/or enhance a diverse array of LOS conditions in stands subject to timber harvest as much as possible, by adhering to the following plan components: Managers should retain and generally emphasize recruitment of old trees and large trees, including clumps of old trees. Management activities should first prioritize old trees for retention and recruitment. If there are not enough old trees to develop LOS conditions, large trees should be retained, favoring fire tolerant species where appropriate. Old trees are defined as having external morphological characteristics that suggest an age ≥ 150 years. Large trees are defined as grand fir or white fir ≥ 30 inches dbh or trees of any other species ≥ 21 inches dbh. Old and large trees will be identified through best available science. Management activities should consider appropriate species composition for biophysical environment, topographical position, stand density, historical diameter distributions, and Adapting the Wildlife Standard of the Eastside Screens 5 spatial arrangements within stands and across the landscape in order to develop stands that are resistant and resilient to disturbance.
The proper way to read a guideline is that its purpose is a standard: “Managers must maintain and/or enhance a diverse array of LOS conditions in stands subject to timber harvest as much as possible.” It’s not clear to me how you maintain LOS “outside of LOS,” so maybe only “enhance” is applicable, but even that term assumes what you are enhancing is already there to a degree. This is also weakened by the qualifier “as much as possible.” This could be interpreted to allow timber harvest even if enhancing LOS conditions is not possible.
The rest of the boldface language should be interpreted as actions that would always be allowed because they would always promote the LOS purpose. This means that a decision to NOT retain all old and large trees could only be made if it is demonstrated that LOS is enhanced. “Generally emphasize” allows probably unlimited discretion regarding recruitment. A decision to NOT prioritize old trees (i.e. to log any old tree before logging large trees) could also only be made if it is demonstrated that LOS is enhanced. This could be reasonably effective, but it puts a significant burden on project analysis and documentation to deviate from the terms of the guideline. This is as it should be. The last part of the guideline lists things that “should be considered,” which shouldn’t be given much weight.
There are also changes in standards and guidelines for snags, green tree replacement and down logs.
The last part of the “decision” is to adopt an “Adaptive Management Strategy.” This strategy proposes monitoring and thresholds intended to trigger additional restrictions on large tree removal:
If large trees are not increasing in number with appropriate composition, the Regional Forester will impose the Age Standard Alternative across the whole analysis area or by national forest or potential vegetation zone.
If effectiveness monitoring does not occur, the Regional Forester will impose the Age Standard Alternative across all six national forests.
However, under the Planning Rule, these are not plan components and are not mandatory. While there are “requirements” for regional forester review every five years, this is not a plan component either. Since none of this “strategy” is enforceable it is of much less benefit than if it had been included as plan components like standards.
(For those interested in how the “natural range of variation” (NRV) is used in forest planning, there is a desired condition for the amounts of LOS in different habitat groups and it is based on NRV. These new amendments leave in place the desired conditions for LOS previously determined in accordance with the original amendments in 1995. An appendix in the decision notice includes a “Table 3” that is “only an example” of NRV because, “The number and kind of biophysical environments and the historic and current distribution of structural conditions vary by landscape.” In order to fully understand the effects of this amendment on a particular landscape, we would need to see the definitions of LOS and actual desired conditions for LOS incorporated into a plan for that landscape. I didn’t find them in or see them referred to in the amendment documentation, I suppose because they are not changing).
The Surprising Ways American Wilderness Intersects with the COVID-19 Pandemic
FYI, Smokey Wire wilderness watchers….
The Forest History Society presents the “Unprecedented Seasons” virtual lecture series
ISOLATION AND WILDERNESS:
The Surprising Ways American Wilderness Intersects with the COVID-19 Pandemic
with DJ Lee
Acclaimed author and historian DJ Lee will deliver a virtual talk on January 29, 2021. The talk is FREE but registration for this Zoom event is required.
DJ Lee spent significant portions of the last 15 years in the secluded mountains of Idaho and Montana conducting the Selway-Bitterroot Wilderness History Project. Drawing on that and other wilderness experiences and research and wilderness-themed art work, Lee will discuss the ways American wilderness, as a concept and a physical place, intersects with some of the causes and effects of the COVID-19 pandemic. For more information about this event and to register, visit our website.
January 29, 2021
2:00 – 2:45 p.m. EDT
FREE
NFS Litigation Weekly January 08, 2021
The Forest Service summary is here: Litigation Weekly January 08 2021 Email
The bullets here include links to court documents.
COURT DECISIONS
Cottonwood Environmental Law Center, v. Bernhardt (D. Montana) – On December 10, 2020, the District Court of Montana issued an order that directed the Department of Interior, National Park Service, and Forest Service to conduct an additional NEPA analysis of the Interagency Bison Management Plan for bison leaving Yellowstone National Park.
(Blogger’s note: This plan and management of bison on the Custer-Gallatin National Forest has also been an issue during its forest plan revision.)
Western Watersheds Project v. USDA APHIS (D. Idaho.) – On December 11, 2020, the District Court of Idaho granted Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service’s request to dismiss the case against APHIS for failure to sufficiently analyze the environmental impacts of their predator control activities in Idaho and the operation of the Pocatello Supply Depot.
(Blogger’s note: While the alleged actions of APHIS were not reviewable, there were also claims against the BLM and Forest Service, which authorized APHIS’s aerial gunning of coyotes and other wildlife on federal lands. The summary does not mention the disposition of those claims or whether they remain pending.)
Cottonwood Law Center, v. Marten, et al. (D. Mont.) – On December 17, 2020, the District Court of Montana granted the Agency’s Motion to Dismiss regarding new information pertaining to the 1987 Custer Gallatin National Forest Plan and the Bozeman Municipal Watershed, North Hebgen, North Bridgers Projects on the Custer-Gallatin National Forest.
(Blogger’s note: One of the claims rejected was that the announcement of forest plan revision constitutes new information that should be considered pursuant to NEPA with regard to the existing forest plan or proposed or ongoing projects.)
WildEarth Guardians v. U.S. Forest Service (D. Idaho) – On December 23, 2020, the District Court in Idaho denied the Forest Service motion to dismiss the case’s remaining claim for reinitiating consultation based on take of grizzly bear resulting from black bear baiting for hunting in national forests in Idaho and Wyoming.
NEW CASES
Alliance for the Wild Rockies v. Marten (D. Mont.) – On December 11, 2020, AWR and Native Ecosystems Council filed a complaint in the District Court of Montana against the Forest Service and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service challenging the Stonewall Vegetation Project and Forest Plan Amendment #35 on the Helena-Lewis and Clark National Forest. The plaintiffs’ claims relate to new information, including effects of the Park Creek Fire that affected the project area (which was discussed here). (More on the plaintiffs’ perspective, especially on elk, may be found here.)
(Blogger’s note: With regard to this project-specific amendment, plaintiffs challenge the “practice of issuing successive site specific amendments to evade the analysis of what is actually a significant Forest Plan amendment.” While this issue of “cumulative amendments” has been raised under the 1982 planning regulations (unsuccessfully, as I remember it), under the (amended) 2012 Planning Rule a “significant amendment” under NFMA is now one that requires preparation of an EIS, which was the case for this project – “except for an amendment that applies only to one project or activity.” And the 2012 Planning Rule adds no “analysis” requirements for such amendments, though NFMA may.)
Blue Mountain Biodiversity Project v. Shane Jeffries (D. Or.) – On December 11, 2020, the plaintiff filed a complaint in the District Court of Oregon against the Forest Service, concerning the Walton Lake Restoration Project on the Ochoco National Forest and associated project-specific amendment to the forest plan. This project was previously enjoined but the contract for logging has remained in effect. (More about the area and the project may be found here.)
(Blogger’s note: This complaint also alleges that the project-specific amendment is significant under NFMA. In contrast to the Stonewall project above, an EIS was not prepared here. Under the agency Directives for the 1982 planning regulations there were criteria that determined an amendment’s significance, but those no longer exist. Now the only criterion in the Planning Rule is the existence of significant environmental impacts requiring preparation of an EIS.)
- 0007_AWR 20-570 Yellow Stone Middle Henrys Complaint
- 0009_Yellowstone Unitas_NOI_CaribouTargheeNF_MiddleHenryAspenProject
Alliance for the Wild Rockies v. U.S. Forest Service (E.D. Idaho.) – On December 16, 2020, AWR, Yellowstone to Uintas Connection and Native Ecosystems Council filed a complaint in the Eastern District Court of Idaho against the Middle Henrys Aspen Enhancement Project on the Caribou-Targhee National Forest, which used the categorical exclusion for timber stand and wildlife habitat improvement. It includes claims of failure to comply with the forest plan.
In addition, plaintiffs filed a notice of intent to sue the Forest Service and Fish and Wildlife Service under ESA, dated December 14, 2021. Issues include the need to reinitiate consultation on the forest plan because grizzly bears are newly present in the area. (This article provides plaintiffs’ perspectives.)
Organized Village of Kake v. Perdue (D. Alaska) – On December 23, 2020, five Alaska native tribes, small businesses, and more than a dozen conservation organizations filed a complaint in the District Court of Alaska against the Department of Agriculture and the Forest Service concerning the 2020 Exception that exempts the Tongass National Forest from the Roadless Area Conservation Rule. (We have discussed this several times, including recently here, and more background is provided in this article.
NOTICE OF INTENT
- Middle Henrys Project (see above)
The Forest Service, BLM and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service received a 60 Day Notice of Intent to Sue, dated December 22, 2020 from the Alliance for the Wild Rockies and Native Ecosystems Council pursuant to the Endangered Species Act regarding the Castle Mountain Project on the Helena Lewis & Clark National Forest and its effects on whitebark pine.
(Blogger’s note: Whitebark pine was proposed for listing as a threatened species on December 2, 2020. The news release from the Fish and Wildlife Service is here, and states, “White pine blister rust, a non-native fungal disease, is harming native whitebark pine trees across the American West. Mountain pine beetles, altered wildfire patterns, and climate change are all negatively affecting the species’ health.”)
BLOGGER’S BONUS (links are to news articles)
(Update.) This litigation concerns the Bridger-Teton National Forest’s decision to reauthorize cattle grazing on 170,000 acres of the Upper Green and Gros Ventre rivers, for which the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service approved incidental take of up to 72 grizzly bears over the following decade, as we discussed here. The District of Columbia district court granted intervenors’ request to transfer the case to the district court in Wyoming, saying, “this case is decidedly a more local controversy than a national one.”
(Court decision.) In its 2014 petition, the Center for Biological Diversity asked the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to update its recovery plan and add several new areas of historic grizzly bear range as potential recovery areas. In a 2011 status review, the wildlife service had said areas in Colorado, New Mexico, Arizona, Utah, Nevada, Oregon and southern Washington should be evaluated for their potential for grizzly bear recovery areas, but then the agency declined to include them.
Plaintiffs were denied standing to sue. “A court may review a recovery plan to the extent that it is missing one of the required plan components,” the court order states, “but it may not entertain disagreements with the agency concerning the substance of those components.”
Former Forest Service Chief Dale Robertson on the Chief’s Job
I asked former Forest Service Chief Dale Robertson for his memory of the transition to the Clinton Administration, as previously discussed here, and his own views on the role of the Chief.
The Chief’s Job
First, maybe it would be helpful to clarify the nature of the Chief’s job. The Chief is the only FS employee who has a political boss, who in turn represents the Administration. The Under Secretary of USDA overseeing the FS is expected by the Administration to see that the FS is responsive and sensitive to the Administration’s philosophy, policies, and priorities in the management of the FS. The Chief is normally a career member of the Senior Executive Service (SES) with its own set of rules and procedures. Senior Executives have the same protection against being fired as other career employees. However, the big difference is that Senior Executives may be reassigned to any other SES position pretty much at the discretion of their boss with the concurrence of the Secretary. In my case, I was reassigned to a SES position in the Department of Interior with advance agreement that I would turn the offer down and opt for early retirement. I stayed on at USDA for a couple of months to wind up my work as Chair of the USDA-1890 Black Land Grant Universities Task Force.
I was always supportive of Jack Ward Thomas coming in as my successor and took no action to make it difficult for him as the incoming Chief. Chief Peterson did object to JWT for not being in the SES and was quite vocal about it. However, it was not an issue with me and I said so on occasion. I think the Forest Supervisor’s letter was probably prompted by Chief Peterson’s concerns. JWT was a world-class scientist and was probably the most knowledgeable person about ecosystem management and Spotted Owls at that time. Jack and I had known each other for several years going back to my time in R-6. At the height of Spotted Owl controversy, I asked Jack to lead a group of scientists to try to figure out how the FS could best deal with the issue. I had to personally persuade Jack that he was the best person to take on the job. He kept saying to me that “I’m an elk guy, not a Spotted Owl expert”. Further complicating the situation was that Jack wife was being treated for cancer. In the end, Jack agreed but neither of us knew that decision would eventually lead to him being the next Chief. The work of this group of scientists greatly expanded the FS knowledge and understanding of how the survival of endangered species is dependent on healthy ecosystems and protection of critical habitat requirements.
The Spotted Owl situation was one of the most controversial issues ever faced by the FS, to the point that both President Bush and Clinton got directly involved. I was trying to change the management of the NF’s to better protect the Spotted Owl, but keep some lower sustainable level of timber sale program going in R-5 and R-6. The Bush Administration thought that I was being too protective of the owl and too supportive of the Thomas Report recommendations and not concerned enough about the timber sale program. At the request of the Department of Interior, the Bush Administration even activated the God’s Squad to exempt the Spotted owl from the requirements of ESA. Fortunately, the Secretary of Agriculture voted against the proposal. I came very close to being reassigned under the Bush Administration for being too concerned about the Spotted Owl. Then overnight, there was a change in Administration and I suddenly was too protective of the timber sale program and was not supportive enough of Spotted Owl. There simply was no easy solution to the Spotted Owl issue and I got caught up in a sudden change in philosophy and policies by changing Administrations. The Clinton Administration decided to put the most knowledgeable person with a scientific background, JWT, into the Chief’s job to see if he could bring about a reasonable solution. Jack was likely the only FS employee that would have been acceptable to the new Administration and may have saved the FS from having a “real political Chief”!
As far as I am concerned, things worked out as they are supposed to in Government. The Administration has the right to choose who they want as Chief. Fortunately so far, all Chiefs have been professionals with a strong background in land and resource management. All Chiefs go into the job knowing that they may be reassigned at any time when their political bosses would rather have someone else in the job that is more in line with their thinking.
I also asked former Chief Robertson “how did you convince the Secretary of Agriculture not to go along with the idea of a God Squad?” He answered “It was a combined effort by everyone at USDA with OGC playing a vital role in the final decision.” The Office of General Counsel usually has one or more political appointees and many career folks, and are always involved in any big decisions but their role often tends to be behind the scenes.