I was trying to find the other Timber Executive Order and ran across this by Snopes.
It’s supposed to be a fact check. Snopes claims
We are the internet’s go-to source for discerning what is true and what is total nonsense. Before you scroll further, a few tips on how to “snopes”:
So what did they say about the Executive Order?
The order allows federal agencies to bypass environmental protection laws in an effort to increase production but doesn’t call for clear-cutting.
It doesn’t take a Ph.D. in government to know that Admins can’t bypass statutes just by issuing EOs. There is the whole “separation of powers” thing, that we learned about in high school.
What’s True
Trump signed an executive order allowing federal permitting agencies to ignore environmental protection laws in an effort to increase domestic timber and lumber production. The executive order also calls for expanding domestic logging production on federal lands.
What’s False
The executive order does not directly call for 280 million acres of national forests and other protected public lands to be clear-cut.
Briefly stated, the Gell-Mann Amnesia effect is as follows. You open the newspaper to an article on some subject you know well. In Murray’s case, physics. In mine, show business. You read the article and see the journalist has absolutely no understanding of either the facts or the issues. Often, the article is so wrong it actually presents the story backward—reversing cause and effect. I call these the “wet streets cause rain” stories. Paper’s full of them.
In any case, you read with exasperation or amusement the multiple errors in a story, and then turn the page to national or international affairs, and read as if the rest of the newspaper was somehow more accurate about Palestine than the baloney you just read. You turn the page, and forget what you know.
That is the Gell-Mann Amnesia effect. I’d point out it does not operate in other arenas of life. In ordinary life, if somebody consistently exaggerates or lies to you, you soon discount everything they say. In court, there is the legal doctrine of falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus, which means untruthful in one part, untruthful in all. But when it comes to the media, we believe against evidence that it is probably worth our time to read other parts of the paper. When, in fact, it almost certainly isn’t. The only possible explanation for our behavior is amnesia.
I “borrowed” these photos from Evergreen Magazine from their interviews with Michael here..https://evergreenmagazine.com/mike-rains-4/
Michael has had a long and distinguished career with the Forest Service, including in senior leadership positions outside of NFS. As he says below, he worked for nine Chiefs and five administrations. He brings up the Carter Admin idea of one Department of Natural Resources, which we haven’t previously discussed. And he’s been in the room for many budget hearings, which many of us have not. So he brings a unique and valuable perspective to all this.
*******************
To begin, I took the last line of Sharon’s recent message: “Anyway, those are all the things I could think of, others? And what do you think makes an “able administrator” as Silcox was thought to be” to direct my comments.”
And please know, I (Michael T. Rains) am trying to be constructive. If my words offend anyone, I am sorry. That is clearly not my intention. Also, you will see that I consistently use the word “we” when I talk about the USDA Forest Service. It’s a habit. I am now retired from the Forest Service. The agency was and remains such an important part of my life. I think about it, mentioned it, or suggest someone should work for it, every day. Albeit somewhat “stale” at this moment in time, the Forest Service is a grand organization that requires the best “RKP” leadership available. I am hoping the new Chief can provide the correct leadership “style” to achieve the next great step for the Forest Service for another hundred years.
Actually, my mind has been racing about whether or not I should respond. That is, comment to this blog. Candidly, I was/am a bit afraid to do so and I am retired; go figure. I thought about my 2007 Student Teaching Experience working on my Teacher Certification in the 9th Grade, Earth and Space Science class at Marple Newtown High School in Pennsylvania, and a poster I made for the classroom. It was entitled, “Everything is Connected.” It focused on ecosystems, but the notion still strongly carries with me today. That is, there is always a reaction to every action. I often take from Newton’s Laws (smile).
Then my thoughts focused on my current position as a substitute teacher at the 6th thru 8th grade levels. I am certified in three subject matters, but as most of you know, a “Sub” has to be flexible; you are there to serve. Now I teach at only one school after years of gaining experiences from grades 5 through high school. In my school, there are signs throughout saying, “no room for bullies.” To me, a “bully” is a “person, organization or notion” that because of position power, can be harsh just because they can. The thing about bullying, eventually it has profound lasting harmful impacts on everyone – even the bully.
We now have a new Administration that is quickly gaining the “rap” of being a bully. Actually, I do think this is only partially true. I have been associated with some of the new appointments and these folks are “solid citizens”, no doubt. However, there are some that wield their position power in less than productive ways and it tends to create a total image; not fair, but it always seems to happen this way. For example, it only takes one or two very disruptive students in a 6th grade math classroom to turn the entire class sideways, creating a “rap” for the entire class; “be careful with Period 8, they are a handful.”
I do not know the new Chief Schultz. I want to assume he is solid for this incredibly important position as “America’s Chief Forester.” Sadly, almost any appointments from this new Administration initially takes my breath away because of my position on “everything is connected.” Allow me to suspend judgment prior to investigation. I think I can. I want to.
During my federal government career with the USDA Forest Service spanning almost 50 years, when asked about the agency, I provided the three brief statements: “…I like being employed. It is an honor to work for the Department of Agriculture. And, I work for the greatest organization in the world, the USDA Forest Service.” I love the Forest Service. However, it has become somewhat “stale” over the last two decades. I retired in 2016, so as a Senior Executive then, and to be fair, I must have been part of the problem. Maybe “stodgy” is a better term. I have often said that since retiring from federal service, I think I am now a much better contemporary “thinker.” Maybe it’s because now I am now working with younger learners (smile).
The notion of being somewhat “stodgy” reminds me of a time almost 40 years ago. I was completing my Developmental Assignment for the Senior Executive Service (SES). A professor asked the class of about 25 “students” (i.e., soon to be official SES members), “how many of you have political appointees as your boss.” 24 hands went up; not mine. All eyes turned to me when the teacher said, “you must be at quite a disadvantage.” I became somewhat indignant and began to let my ego overload by brains, explaining how “it’s possible for anyone in the Forest Service to become the top leader if they had the ability and willingness. A political appointee would stifle that aspirational opportunity.” Just a few years later I began to understand what the teacher was suggesting. I was very wrong and perhaps someone who is a great leader, without any natural resources management skills, could also be an outstanding Chief. In order to be a great leader, you have to be a great follower, as well. A great leader, Charlie Bolden — the former NASA Administrator — taught me that. I believed this strongly today. Great leaders are very good followers and learn quickly. I am getting to a key point. Hang in there with me please. Let my story unfold just a bit more
Most of the Chiefs in my Forest Service career really did not fully understand the level of power and impact the agency had/has. The Forest Service has a direct and indirect stewardship role on 80+ percent of America’s forestlands along a complex rural to urban land gradient, including 138 million acres of urban forests. What always troubled me was the fact that we were enamored with the “193 million acres of National Forests and Grasslands.” When I was deputy Chief of State and Private Forestry, I tried to change the narrative just a little.
I worked for nine (9) Forest Service Chief’s and five Administrations during my career. Some were very good. Only one Forest Service Chief admitted to me the more narrowly defined view he had of the agency’s mission. I will always recall what he said, and this was from a really vibrant Chief: “I must admit that state and private forestry and research do not roll off my tongue very well. It is because I have spent my entire career in NFS. I must change now.” Think about it, almost every Chief, Deputy Chief of the National Forest System, and Regional Forester of the Forest Service spends (or has spent) their entire service time in NFS; at least at that time while I was still in the agency. That’s really a shame. This prompted me to serve in every Mission Area of the agency, perhaps a fact that I am most proud of. There was a time when I was asked about my interest in the position of Deputy Chief for the NFS; I was a Research Station Director at the time. I was honored but nearing the end of my career. Honestly, I wondered about my stamina; that’s a very demanding job. I said “no” after thinking about it all night. I still think I did not have the required stamina at 68 years of age. That was almost a decade ago. I think I made the right decision. I think I did.
So, if the Forest Service is as complex as I say it is, and all the 9 Chief’s that I had the honor to work for were focused mostly on the NFS, why would anyone object to someone being another Chief who is new to the agency that “does not know the entire organization”? I know many will initially be concerned, but I do not think we should be overly concerned. One Chief that I worked for had some terrific ideas and was not a bully. But he had not come up through the agency, and I do not think we gave him an honest chance to fully succeed. Upon reflection, many of us were very wrong.
In the classroom, I always introduce myself by signing on the front white board, “Mr. Rains, R.K.P.” The R.K.P. represents, Respect, Kindness, and Productivity; my core values that I strive to deploy every day. I always ask the students to treat everyone with respect, please be kind, and be as productive in and out of the classroom as you can be. People that are bullies or learn that behavior from organizations that are bullies, will always lose. Maybe it will take some time, but eventually their behavior will be their Achillies heel. Never doubt this. So, if our new Chief Schultz is respectful, kind and productive as he can be, we should give him a real chance to succeed in leading the once greatest organization in the world that “cares for the land and serves people.”
Another thing, it is the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) linkage with the Forest Service that I ponder a lot. As Bernie Casey said in the movie “Another 48 Hours”, “not everything is everything.” Allow me to explain. In 1901, the Division of Forestry was renamed the Bureau of Forestry. The Transfer Act of 1901, at the urging of President Theodore Roosevelt, transferred the management of “forest reserves” from the General Land Office of the Interior Department to the Bureau of Forestry, Department of Agriculture. When Gifford Pinchot talked his friend “Teddy” into moving him (Gifford) to USDA so he would not be so constrained (some suggest not being bullied), the Forest Service was officially created on July 1, 1905. About 60 years later I would have the privilege to join the agency.
During the Carter Administration (Jimmy Carter, 39th President, 1977-1981), it was suggested we have a “Department of Natural Resources”, combining the Department of Interior and the Forest Service to achieve a more contemporary stewardship vision. The notion was quite solid. Thus, it was tossed to the side; too much change, too quickly. I think this proposal needs to be revisited. If one is truly looking for efficiency and effectiveness, it’s worth reviewing. And the Forest Service “Regions” could be reviewed in terms of the stewardship of landscape level ecosystems (i.e., the “Sierra Nevada Ecosystem). Hey, the current Forest Service organization is pretty outdated. It has served the country well for more than a hundred years. I think it’s time for a methodical review. The agency does not need to be bullied by dumping “all new employees”, for example. That’s not thinking. That’s just kicking butt and taking names; nothing good happens.
I heard very recently, the “fire program” with the Forest Service should be turned over to the BLM (Bureau of Land Management). If I may, that is a very bad idea. Believe me, I have some experience on this subject. If anything is to be done – for example, thinking about the “Department of Natural Resources” – keep the bullies at bay and very methodically think about a solid contemporary wildland fire organization that best serves the needs of our country. I do think it is time for a new version of the 2001 National Fire Plan. I would urge to please go slow on this. It has huge payoffs if done correctly.
The Forest Service is still with the USDA. In my view, that’s a problem. Most of the USDA Secretaries have been “wheat, corn and soybean” kinds of leaders, with all due respect to these commodities. That’s what the selected Secretaries understand. There is a Mission Area in USDA called “Natural Resource and Environment (NRE).” Now, it includes only the Forest Service. That’s called inefficiency and I am sorry to say, ineffectiveness. This should change. The Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS), the old Soil Conservation Service (SCS), left and went to another Mission Area – the Under Secretary for “Farm Production and Conservation.” I am not sure that was/is effective either. One needs to ask the NRCS employees. They are also amazing employees. They will know the truth and what works best.
If nothing changes, this means the Secretary or the Under Secretary for NRE need to be very sensitive to the complex Forest Service mission. Most of the time, they are not. Yes, if a huge wildfire causes political concern, their attention surfaces. Administration leaders have to understand that “forestry” is not “wheat, corn and soybeans.” Think about it. Would the USDA Secretary ever be someone with just a forest stewardship background? I doubt it. The farmers would not allow it. Heck, the NRCS probably would not allow it (smile).
This then requires a Chief that is very sensitive to the overall, complex stewardship role of the agency and be quite politically connected, or at least very politically astute. The latter is a problem; so far, most have not been or wanted to be connected effectively with Members of Congress, for example. Sure, they (most Forest Service Chiefs that I have worked for) will be obedient and “go to the Hill” if called. Otherwise, “fuhgeddaboudit.” And we face the alarming results that have surfaced over the last several decades and the impacts of lost land, lost lives and lost communities will continue. Nothing changes if nothing changes.
To be realistic, I am not sure the current arrangement of the Forest Service Chief being assigned to the Under Secretary of the USDA NRE Mission Area is productive or even fair. Allow me to present an example that I witnessed several times. The setting is the “Forest Service Appropriations Hearing” with Congress. The Chairman at the time was the late Senator Robert C. Byrd of West Virginia. At that time, I was the Director of the Northeastern Area, State and Private Forestry. West Virginia was in our twenty-state Area. Senator Byrd was a very big deal; incredibly powerful. Yet, since the topic was the Forest Service budget (vs. the agriculture budget), top leaders from USDA were absent. I know this was an affront to the Senator. In his mind (and in reality), he was a top leader in the Senate and he expected the top leader from the USDA to be present; not a person from an agency within USDA. From some reason, we just could not understand this very predictable dynamic. The result, unfortunately, was the Chief was treated unfairly, I thought. Actually, in my view he was bullied a bit by some Members of the Committee due to his lack of “psychological size.”; it was not good. I know this sounds odd. To me, the Chief’s position was/is iconic. To many others, the Forest Service was/is simply an agency that they do not know much about. “They fight fires, right?” And, in those circumstances, the Chief of the Forest Service simply is clearly at a disadvantage due to her/his position power level. Nothing really new and nothing changes. This need to change “Departmental readjustment” is critical, if the mission of the Forest Service is to rise to the level of attainment that is needed today. Perhaps now a “political appointee” would be better for the Forest Service. That Harvard University Professor sure thought so, even 40 years ago.
Let me be absolutely clear about “some” of the Committee Members treating – in my view — the Forest Service Chief somewhat harshly; unfairly in the example I described. It was not Senator Byrd. I know he was disappointed because he told me later when I was meeting with one of his staff. I loved Senator Byrd. He passionately stood up for America and his state and his constituents. To me, he was always R.K.P; very firm and very fair.
Back to our forests for just a minute. Did you know that about one-half of the National Forests are not healthy and not resilient to disturbances? Are you aware that about one-fourth of all the acres of forestland burned in 2024 probably did not have to burn? In part, due to a very intellectual argument known as “managed” fire. This drives me crazy. You cannot manage wildfire. It is called “wild.” First, put out the fire, then decide the best course of action to help restore the landscape, at least with today’s forest conditions. Ask the trees, they speak. They will tell you, “It is not a fair encounter to let the fire burn. Thousands of Americans’ die each year due to smoke-related health problems. Knowing this, why would anyone ever let a wildfire burn – “monitoring”; it’s called “watching.” It’s not a rhetorical question.
The single most important thing the Forest Service must do is be more aggressive in their direct AND indirect role in the stewardship of most of America’s forestlands. Become a much stronger partner with State Foresters and other leaders at the state and local levels, including cities. On the rural and urban land, many call this “forest management.” I refer to it as “forest maintenance” because so many people understand the word “maintenance.” To most it means “to care for.” In this case, words really matter.
The indirect role, I always refer to as “Federally Assisted State Programs,” is really key. The Forest Service needs to accentuate this. This demands inclusive behavior and actions. On the other hand, “Federalism” sounds a lot like the “Civil War era” and is clearly exclusionary, to the “max”, respectfully. If Chief Schultz is to be really effective as the next America’s Chief Forester, he must embrace a complex federally assisted role along a rural to urban land gradient. Think of the amazing support this stance would garner. It’s called the Forest Service, not the “NFS Service.”
If our new Chief could do just one thing this year, I would strong suggest putting an end – at least for the foreseeable future – to the practice of “managed” wildfire. The very first thing is to ensure that Chief Schultz’ annual “Letter of Intent for Wildfires” that will come out very soon, includes clear direction to “first put out the wildfire with a strong initial attack.” Over the past five years or so, a group of conservation leaders – about 80 or so with literally thousands of years of stewardship experiences, including some of the best fire control leaders in the world – have contributed to a document known as “A Call to Action.” Most everything that I have just said is in the document. Plus, lots of other relevant information that is important to the agency mission in wildland fire control. Check it out. If you want a copy, let me know. My email is [email protected].
“The Center Biological Diversity sued five cabinet-level agencies today seeking to stop the so-called Department of Government Efficiency and its DOGE teams from taking further actions against multiple environmental agencies until each team fully complies with the Federal Advisory Committee Act.
This is the first lawsuit challenging DOGE’s efforts to eviscerate the agencies charged with protecting the environment, natural resources and wildlife.Today’s lawsuit aims to protect the National Park Service, Bureau of Land Management, the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service within the Department of the Interior; the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration within the Department of Commerce; the Environmental Protection Agency; the Forest Service and the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service within the Department of Agriculture; and the Federal Aviation Administration within the Department of Transportation.
President Trump’s Jan. 20 executive order establishing the Department of Government Efficiency requires each federal agency to implement so-called DOGE teams. Because these teams likely include a mix of full-time, part-time, volunteer and special government employees (the designation given to Musk) they must comply with the Federal Advisory Committee Act. To date, no agency has even announced its intention to comply with this important transparency law, which applies to advisory committees established by the president.”
(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.
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.
Rich J. asked this question in a separate thread, but it seemed like a good topic for a Friday.
Maybe a topic for a separate post, but what does everyone think of the new Chief appointment? is an outsider inherently better or worse than a career appointee?
I ask as ask a skeptic of this appointment. But if I had to support someone without any FS experience, Schultz seems like a decent choice.
I’ll start off. And sometimes I remind myself of that old quote about economists (or lawyers or..)
Monotony has now been dispelled, however, by the discovery of the firm which advertised for a one-armed economist, the previous holder of the office having been no good because he always said “On the one hand this . . . on the other hand that . . .”.
That’s me, despite being neither a lawyer nor an economist, but here goes.
1. We have no empirical evidence, because there hasn’t been a true outsider since the 1930’s. I remember Chief Vicky Christiansen coming over to the Forest Service from being a State Forester. According to this Forest History site, she joined the Forest Service in 2010 and moved into being Deputy Director of F&AM in 2010. She was also Acting Regional Forester for the Northern Region, “the same region that produced three of her four immediate predecessors.”
Interesting that the new Chief also worked in Montana’s DNR. What’s up with the Region 1 to Chief thing? I could be argued that La Grande, Oregon, home of Chief Thomas, is in the “social-shed” of Boise, Idaho.
Yes part of Region 1 is in Idaho, (and North and South Dakota) but still… and Schultz was the Director of the Idaho Department of Lands.
Anyway, she was with the Forest Service for eight years before becoming Chief, which is enough time to get the hang of it, I would think.
2. The Forest History Society pointed out in Chief Christiansen’s bio:
She’s the first chief since Ferdinand Silcox (1933-1939) not to have spent the majority of their career in the Forest Service.
Silcox had a masters degree in forestry, and worked for the Forest Service (in the Northern Rockies !) after graduation, then went in the military and the private sector.
Extensive cooperation with the U.S. Army, Department of Labor, and other federal and state land management agencies was needed to get these programs to work effectively. His previous work for the Army and in the private sector proved to be invaluable for getting the job done. An able administrator, Silcox treated his associates and subordinates with great consideration and kindness. He had an enduring humanitarian viewpoint which resulted in doing his best to help the “have nots” in society. His ideas of forest conservation and advocacy of the public regulation of timber cutting all brought strong opponents as well as loyal adherents.
This might argue that “it’s the person, not the background.”
I thought this letter (“A Challenge,” from 1937) was interesting in terms of what has changed since Silcox’s time
3. Back to the topic. What can we expect from someone who hasn’t worked in the outfit?
Pros.. fresh set of eyes, trusted by Admin, (in Schultz’s case) probably has ins with other state organizations, understands State, Tribal and Private programs better than some internal candidates. Does understand wildfire, and various players involved.
Cons.. doesn’t understand processes or bureaucratic quagmires (the flip side of fresh set of eyes), might not have trusting relationships built up over time with some employees (trusted advisors), may not understand FS R&D. Employees may be afraid to work closely with Chief due to possibilities of retaliation in next Administration. Might not understand Eastern, Southern nor Midwestern Forests.
To be fair, though, there are internal candidates who don’t know as much about State Tribal and Private programs and R&D and non-Western Forests as might be desired, depending on their history.
What we don’t know.. commitment to moving Fire to USDI. This seems to me one of the greatest challenges of the new Chief, regardless of career background.
4. Just another random point. Chief Christiansen and Undersecretary Hubbard had both come from being State Foresters, not DNR (or equivalent) Directors. Harris Sherman, for example, had been a DNR Director in Colorado and became Undersecretary. So perhaps it would be more traditional for Schultz, based on his background, to become the Undersecretary and the Chief to have remained career.
5. If most career employees are D’s then if you (career person) were to become Chief in an R Admin and attempt to carry out their policies, you might be seen as a kind of traitor, and it would be fairly clear your time would be limited. Would you sign up for ending your career that way?
***********
Anyway, those are all the things I could think of, others? And what do you think makes an “able administrator” as Silcox was thought to be?
Andy Stahl remembered that the new Chief had been a co-author of an essay in the 193 Million Acres book, edited by our own Steve Wilent and published by SAF in 2018. Chief Schultz’s coauthors were Holly Fretwell (of PERC), Dennis Becker (long-term policy professor at U of Idaho) and Kelly Williams (I think she is a natural resources attorney in Utah).
The good news.. despite the resurgence fear-stoking “state takeover” and “privatization”, those do not seem to be his views, for reasons clearly outlined in the paper. There is a nice history of those tensions in the longer essay linked above. There are many references to successful collaborations and the use of Good Neighbor Authority.
The idea proposed is “Cooperative Federalism”; at first glance, it certainly makes more sense than “Competitive Federalism” or “Antagonistic Federalism” or ” Antagonistic and Cooperative Depending on Party Match between the State and the Feds.”
We detailed a fourth management paradigm for the national forests that relies on the concept of cooperative federalism. Ideas of cooperative federalism are grounded in the US Constitution that specifies that certain authorities are retained by the federal government and others are delegated to the states. The federalist form of government in the US recognizes a shared responsibility for governing the people and resources of this country. Within this framework is a shared responsibility in the administration of federal environmental laws (Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act), wherein the states can attain primacy to administer the federal laws on private, state, and even federal lands under the oversight of the federal government. In a similar fashion, cooperative federalism as a land management framework would dictate a shared responsibility to manage the federal lands. Federal laws enacted to manage and protect federal public lands would be administered by the states in a cooperative fashion with the Forest Service. The states would assist in the planning, development, and execution of land management projects on federal lands, yet the Forest Service (and eventually, BLM) would retain decisionmaking authority for projects. This framework would reduce the underlying causes of the current federal land management conflicts and gridlock.
There are four main reasons why a cooperative federalism framework is well-positioned to address the primary causes of conflict that have and continue to define and typify federal land management.
1. States Have a Legitimate Interest in Protecting Their Citizens
Protecting public health and safety is one of the police powers of state and local municipalities. The state has an inherent interest and responsibility to protect its citizens from natural disasters, including floods, hurricanes, earthquakes, and catastrophic wildfire. Federal agencies like the US Geological Survey and the National Weather Service provide assistance to the states with collection and monitoring of geological data and weather forecasting to help inform local and state government officials about weather or environmental hazards that could affect the lives of their citizens. However, it is the responsibility of state and local government officials to protect their citizens from these hazards
************
The cohesive strategy and the subsequent national strategy and national action plan provide a framework of federal and state cooperation in planning for and management of catastrophic wildfire across federal, state, and private lands. Consistent with cooperative goals identified in the cohesive strategy, a state has the responsibility to protect the health and safety of its citizens from the risk of catastrophic wildfire. It is reasonable and necessary that the state not only has a role in fire suppression actions on federal lands, but also in assisting in the management of these federal lands to reduce the risk of wildfire through active forest management. The vast extent of intermingled ownership patterns, coupled with the imperiled health of the national forests, necessitates an “all hands on deck” approach to managing these lands. Cooperative federalism provides a structure for that assistance by the states.
2. Improved Decisionmaking Process
*********
The Forest Service continues to use those collaborative groups (which now includes participation from the IDL) to help design restoration projects within the designated treatment areas. Under the statewide Good Neighbor Agreement, the State of Idaho implements projects on federal lands utilizing state employees and state contracting procedures. Decisions made by the Forest Service within the HFRA-designated treatment areas and implemented using Good Neighbor Authority include input from local stakeholders, the states, and the federal government. The state then implements those projects using its own contracting procedures. This overall process ensures that all interests, including the states, that choose to participate in the decisionmaking process are represented. Cooperative federalism, with its emphasis on shared decisionmaking, should reduce both local and regional conflict and increase the efficacy of management of the national forests. To date, none of the GNA projects have been litigated in Idaho.
3. States’ Expertise and Governance Experience
Western states employ skilled land, water, fire, and wildlife managers, including foresters, hydrologists, fish/wildlife biologists, fire wardens, engineers, GIS specialists, recreation specialists, procurement specialists, and fiscal staff to manage state trust lands and other state lands. The expertise and experience that these employees have gained through the management of state lands is directly transferable to similar management projects on federal lands. GAO (2009) noted that in Colorado, state foresters have the competence and skill to cruise stands of timber, determine timber volumes in stands to be harvested, conduct timber sale appraisals, and administer timber sale and service contracts. That same GAO report noted that the Forest Service in partnering with the state under Good Neighbor Authority was able to accomplish more restoration work than if they had not had the state as a partner. In effect, under GNA, the whole is greater than the sum of its parts.
4. Move the Locus of Control
The fourth reason that cooperative federalism will succeed in reducing federal land management conflicts is that the locus of control of those lands will shift from Washington, DC, to west of the 100th meridian. Much of the rhetoric regarding the transfer of federal lands to the states and others has originated in the West. Arnold (1982), Cawley (1993), Pendley (1995), and Kemmis (2001) traced much of the history of frustrations expressed by westerners regarding the ownership and management of the federal lands. Absentee landlords in Washington, DC, are ill-equipped to make decisions that affect the livelihoods and experiences of millions of US citizens who use the national forest lands. Cooperative federalism will not only engage local stakeholders in developing reasonable management alternatives, but will also rely on state governments and their employees to implement land management projects in a cooperative fashion.
Conclusion
Reliance on the states as a cooperative partner is a game changer. State land management agencies are run by statewide elected officials or their appointees. This ensures that the citizens, legislators, and locally elected officials of a state are represented by their state governments’ land management agencies in the management of the national forests. Similar to Secretary James Watt’s claim that he won the Sagebrush Rebellion because he was a Westerner who listened to and worked with Western governors, policies of cooperative federalism will tamp down Western calls to transfer the federal lands to the states and will encourage greater levels of engagement and cooperation by western politicians and the citizens that they represent to solve the problems surrounding the management of the National Forests.
If Mark Twain is correct, there are no new ideas. Fortunately, managing the national forests under a framework of cooperative federalism doesn’t require the passage of new laws or the appropriation of millions of dollars by Congress. It requires leadership, pragmatism, and hard-nosed commitment to work together to meet the ever-increasing demands on the federal public lands. America’s history demonstrates that the necessary components for successful forest management already exist. By insisting on a model of cooperative federalism, stakeholders will have fashioned something new from the best parts of prior good ideas, thereby serving as a beacon of light and hope that diverse interests working together can achieve more than when pursuing their self-interests. The whole is truly greater than the sum of its parts. Our nation needs a vision for success that promotes civility, collaboration, and results on the ground. Cooperative federalism provides that framework, which will assist the Forest Service in achieving Pinchot’s grand utilitarian goal of maximizing the public interest over the longest time.
The Forest Service Chief is responsible for the leadership and success in accomplishing the mission of the Forest Service.
WASHINGTON, Feb. 27, 2025 – U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Brooke Rollins today announced Tom Schultz will serve as the 21st chief of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Forest Service.
“Tom is the right person to lead the Forest Service right now, and I know he will fight every day to restore America’s national forests,” said Secretary Rollins. “Together, Tom and the incredible employees at the Forest Service will work to execute the agenda of President Donald J. Trump to make America’s forests healthy and productive again.”
Upon being sworn in, Schultz will replace Chief Randy Moore, who recently announced his retirement in a message to all Forest Service employees after serving the agency for over four decades.
“I’m incredibly grateful for the opportunity to be the next chief of the Forest Service. I will work tirelessly to further support and protect our rural communities. Working with our partners, we will actively manage national forests and grasslands, increase opportunities for outdoor recreation, and suppress wildfires with all available resources emphasizing safety and the importance of protecting resource values,” said incoming Forest Service Chief Tom Schultz. “Chief Moore has been a diligent public servant and has demonstrated his steadfast commitment to stewarding our national forests and grasslands. We thank him for his dedication and leadership.”
Kristin Sleeper, deputy under secretary for the Natural Resources and Environment mission area at USDA, added, “Schultz is a respected leader, who has more than 25 years of land management experience in the West and the South. I am excited to work closely with Secretary Rollins and him as we optimize our workforce and return to our fundamental mission of caring for the land and serving people.”
“Working to further healthier forests and a better Forest Service on behalf of the American people has been the honor of my life,” retiring Forest Service Chief Randy Moore said. “I am confident that Tom will continue to take steps to ensure the longevity, productivity, and splendor of our national forests and grasslands.”
The Forest Service Chief is responsible for the leadership and success in accomplishing the mission of the Forest Service. Established in 1905, the Forest Service manages 154 national forests and 20 grasslands across 43 states and is the foremost leader in federal forest management, research and development and wildland firefighting.
Schultz previously served as vice president of resources and government affairs at Idaho Forest Group, where he led timber procurement operations and managed relationships with government officials at all levels. A former U.S. Air Force officer, Schultz also served as director of the Idaho Department of Lands, overseeing the management of several million surface acres of endowment lands and minerals. He held leadership roles in Montana’s Department of Natural Resources and Conservation, managing the Trust Lands and Water Resources Divisions.
Schultz holds a bachelor’s degree in government from the University of Virginia, a master’s degree in political science from the University of Wyoming, and a master’s degree in forestry from the University of Montana.
On X, Nicholas Bagley posted this thread.. remember what we used to call the HFI CE’s or Category 10? I was working in WO NEPA at the time, and we did the Limited Timber Harvest and the HFI CE’s as I recall, the latter jointly with BLM. Shout out to Dave Sire, happily retired! Much excellent work went into both of them, but the HFI CE was litigated by the Sierra Club and was removed, at least for the Forest Service, not sure about BLM. Bagley raised a legal question about how easy it would be to get Category 10 back. The question is “would Category 10 add any value to the existing Categories?”, since Congress has stepped in several times since then. Tom Hochman asked specifically about the prescribed fire acreage limit (4500 acres in Category 10).
Nothing is simple. So I laid out below what I could find and I’m interested in what you all think.
There are several problems in comparing CEs. First, some apply to only some landscapes or condition classes or WUI. Second, they have different requirements for public engagement/collaboration. Third, they have a a variety of other requirements. But all have the same extraordinary circumstances and required scoping. I would hope the FS has a table somewhere of the different requirements, and someone will provide that.
But basically the question asked was, “would it be valuable to add back a CE that had up to 4500 acres for prescribed fire?”
Can Category 6 Be Used? No Acreage Limit.
The first thing that occurs to me is “what is your position on Category 6?” Remember this case in which the 9th Circuit upheld the use of Category 6 on the Fremont-Winema:
The Ninth Circuit upheld the U.S. Forest Service’s use of the timber stand and/or wildlife habitat categorical exclusion (CE-6) under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), rejecting the claims made by Oregon Wild and WildEarth Guardians that CE-6 has an implied acreage limitation.
The plaintiffs challenged the projects, which cover a total area ranging from 3,000 to 16,000 acres of commercial thinning, on the grounds that the Forest Service had misused CE-6. They argued that the categorical exclusion should not apply to “large-scale” projects like these.
Some of us are still a little hinky about this decision, so let’s let the legal experts weigh in.
2. Other Categories of Note
Hazardous Fuels:
Statutory:
4. Lake Tahoe Basin 5000 acres, with 1500 acres max of mechanical thinning. (Handbook #4, citation Pub. L. 111-8, Sec. 423)
5. Insect and Disease Infestation 3000 acres (amended to include hazardous fuels 2018) (doesn’t separate PB from MT)
8. Lake Tahoe Basin 2016 10,000 acres not more than 3000 acres of mechanical thinning.
9. Wildfire Resilience 3000 acres (doesn’t separate PB from MT).
11. (Linear) Fuel Breaks – up to 1000 feet across, no apparent cap on linear distance?
There is also an administrative category 25 (Restoration) with a cap of 2800 acres. It included a variety of things including thinning and prescribed fire, but not specifically for fuel management objectives.
Enjoined administrative Category 10 was 4500 acres for prescribed fire and 1000 acres for mechanical thinning and crushing or mowing or whatever.
**********
Now if we go to the Fix our Forests proposal, only within designated Firesheds, it sounds like they are saying the FS could use Categories 4, 5, 8, and 9. That’s in (106 B 1) including Lake Tahoe’s 8, gives the largest numbers of acres.
Everyone is invited to check my work and provide more context.
I write to you today for two reasons. One, to let you know effective March 3, I am retiring after 45 years with the Forest Service and two, to address our current situation.
Our agency’s work supports the nation’s wellbeing and its economy by providing community protection, jobs, goods and services and a place to retreat and enjoy nature’s beauty. Many small businesses generate their livelihoods through permits to operate on national forests and grasslands. We provide drinking water to over 80 million Americans. We also help provide energy independence to the nation, issuing nearly 3,000 oil and gas leases. I say that to say this: You and the work you do is vital to the American way of life and you are a valued employee who has performed admirably.
As you have likely read in the news or are personally experiencing, the federal government is undergoing a significant transformation. How agencies are structured, staffed, and operate is shifting and the Forest Service is not exempt from these changes.
The past several weeks has been incredibly difficult. As part of a broader effort to reduce the size of the federal government, we parted ways with colleagues we worked alongside, who successfully contributed to our mission, and who were valued members of our Forest Service team.
If you are feeling uncertainty, frustration, or loss, you are not alone. These are real and valid emotions that I am feeling, too. Please take care of yourselves and each other. I have been silent these last few weeks because these decisions are being made at a level above our organization, and I was and am learning about the changes the same time as many of you. Our focus now is on how we respond and adapt to new priorities and continue delivering on our mission with the workforce we have.
As we work together to meet new opportunities and expectations and leverage those we already deliver upon, give yourself and one another grace and support as our workforce evolves, including as we return to a stance of more in-office work (except for those of you who are always field going). Our workforce must be nimble and flexible, so we will not restrict ourselves to limited roles; instead, we will help one another across boundaries. I invite you to make suggestions about how we can continue to rise to the occasion and improve our service to the American people.
The workforce will continue to be unsettling for a while. Thank you for your dedication to our mission and for the work you carry out every day. You and the work you do are meaningful and do not let anyone make you believe otherwise.
As I end my career and reflect on it, I am validated in knowing and believing that the Forest Service is about its people and its worthy mission. Our impact is global in nature and our mission reaches people around the world. I am so proud of the work we have done together.
ND mentioned the need to update the hiring process. Apparently many in the federal government share these concerns.
Jennifer Pahlka wrote this piece describing some of her associates’ challenges and a test program designed to improve the process. I know many FS and other feds find it very frustrating. For those who haven’t experienced trying to hire someone, Jennifer gives you some stories from the standpoint of trying to hire IT folks.
Jack’s tech skills meant nothing to the hiring process, but there is one skill that is always valued: the ability to cut and paste. Yadira Sanchez, a tech team leader at the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, described to me her attempt to hire a product manager. Like Marina, she knew there were some extremely well-qualified candidates in her pool, some of whom were already doing a great job on the project as contractors. She avoided the mistake the DDS team had made, reminding applicants to get some help from someone who knew how to write a government resume. But none of those candidates made the cert, and in fact, the cert contained no one with product-management experience. The top candidate had just “copied and pasted the exact same language in the exact same font from the bulleted list in the posting into their resume, and that qualified them,” Yadira told me. “They didn’t even put any other language around it. They didn’t even try to disguise what they’d done.” And yet, HR insisted this person was the most qualified for the job per their process.
But why do so many HR teams insist on a process that results in these unqualified candidates and the failure of half their hiring actions? Unhelpful and overly restrictive interpretations of the principle of equity collide with large candidate pools to create a decidedly inequitable and inefficient process. There can be hundreds, even thousands of applicants for a job. HR teams are supposed to consider every applicant with the same level of scrutiny, which makes assessment of large pools of candidates an enormous lift. The way to do that both quickly and “fairly” is to exercise as little judgment as possible.
***********
We know this because during the last Trump administration, the U.S Digital Service and the Office of Personnel Management devised an alternative hiring process (called SME-QA for Subject Matter Expert Qualifying Assessments) that allows domain experts to work with HR to determine who is qualified and eligible – and it works dramatically better. When the team who rolled it out delivered the first set of certs, they would occasionally get calls from the hiring managers they’d work with, complaining about certs full of veterans. “You promised this would be different,” they would say. “Look at the resumes,” the USDS team would tell them. “They’re qualified veterans.” When they looked, they agreed, and they were delighted to hire veterans who’d been properly assessed for their skills. But years of seeing certs on which veterans had floated to the top after assessing solely for knowledge of the hiring process had created understandable bias against the very people veterans preference laws were meant to help.
SME-QA is one example of the seeds of change Mr. Kupor has to work with as he takes on leadership of OPM. These seeds, and the people who champion them, need water, sunlight, and fertilizer. SME-QA started over five years ago, and it hasn’t meaningfully scaled. OPM and GSA published data in 2020 that show that 90% of competitive jobs rely entirely on resume screens and self-assessments. The number of hiring actions that use SME-QA is still quite small, and is unlikely to have moved that overall number at all. Progress is painfully slow, in part because no one has tackled the underlying conditions: the control HR staff have over the creation of the cert that excludes the judgement of the hiring manager, the difficult and finicky processes that make assessments far more time-consuming than they are in the private sector, the unreasonable and unhelpful rigidity of the entire process. There’s so much work ahead even just in this one area. We are just scratching the surface here.
