Hi all,

While we were all busy dealing with the prospect of a government shutdown, the White House released a long-awaited EO in the dead of the night on Friday<https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/eo-promoting-active-management-americas-forests-rangelands-federal-lands-improve-conditions-reduce-wildfire-risk/>. In summary, it calls for an increase of harvest to 3.8 billion board feet (from the 2.9ish they do now) and another 600 million on BLM land using all available CE’s as well as calling for the development of new CE’s.

Below are talking points and social guidance pushing back against the EO. Please let me know if have any questions or need any additional materials.

-Justin



Forest Service Executive Order -- Talking Points:

President Trump released an Executive Order opening up our National Forests to large-scale logging and clear-cuts by calling for an increase of board feet cut to 3.8 billion on Forest Service land, and additional 600 million on BLM land. It additionally calls for cutting out the public by using Categorical Exclusions from NEPA, and creating new CE’s to reach this new goal.

This Executive Order is a blatant attempt to eliminate local input from government decision-making in the name of reckless logging, weakens the role of science, and undercuts progress made by many forest collaboratives towards responsible, consensus-based management our forests for multiple uses.


 *   FACT: We’re logging more acres and board feet than ever before, but fire seasons are still getting worse. In 2013, a total of 2.6 billion board feet were cut in our National Forests. In 2017, that number increased to 2.9 billion. For 2019, the Forest Service estimates a total of 3.7 billion board feet will be cut in our National Forests.[1]
 *   THE BOTTOM LINE: This Executive Order won’t reduce the risk of fire or make our forests any healthier. It will have the opposite effect. This Executive Order shortcuts responsible environmental review and is a step backward from today’s productive forest collaboratives to the contentious timber wars of the 1980s.

Prioritizes timber industry profits above all concerns and could actually increase the risk of fire


 *   Decades of data show that intense logging can create more destructive fires.
 *   This “industry knows best” policy could result in the removal of the largest and most fire-resistant trees in forests. The young trees planted to replace cut trees are highly susceptible to fire.
 *   This Executive Order would irresponsibly increase the risk of large, unnatural wildfires by promoting large-scale deregulated logging operations. These types of operations dry out remaining vegetation, contributing to ground fuels in the form of slash and destabilizing ecosystems.

Shortcuts environmental review


 *   Smarter planning leads to healthier forests. Laws like the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) are an essential part of this planning process and help to ensure that forest management remains the product of consensus, science-based decision-making.
 *   This Executive Order would exclude tens of millions of acres of National Forest land for any substantive environmental review in favor of an “industry knows best” policy of reckless logging.
 *   No amount of reckless logging, scapegoating or dismantling of NEPA and other environmental protections will constructively address fire risk. We’re logging more acres and board feet than ever before, but fire seasons are still getting worse. In 2013, a total of 2.6 billion board feet were cut in our National Forests. In 2017, that number increased to 2.9 billion. For 2019, the Forest Service estimates a total of 3.7 billion board feet will be cut in our National Forests.
 *   In short, forest management must remain the product of a science-based decision-making process, not politics.

Institutionalizes Climate Denial


 *   Opponents in Congress and the Trump administration refuse to acknowledge the primary role that the dangerous effects of climate change, such as drought, heat, and wind, continue to play in fanning the fast-moving and out of control wildfires plaguing Western states.
 *   Thinning and other science-based forest management activities designed to remove hazardous fuels can sometimes change fire behavior and mitigate fire impacts, but such activities must be science-driven.
 *   We should be protecting and preserving and protecting our forests, not pillaging them for profit. The IPCC’s most recent report underscored the importance of our forests, and the UN Secretary General subsequently declared that “we need to end deforestation and plant billions of trees” to avoid a large-scale extinction-level climate catastrophe.[2]

Silences local communities and undercuts progress made by forest collaboratives


 *   Shortcutting NEPA and the environmental review process will severely restrict the ability of local communities to weigh in on Forest Service projects impacting them. It will also undercut decades of progress made by forest collaboratives towards consensus and away from the timber wars of the 1980s.
 *   These collaboratives really do work:


1.     Oregon: There are over 20 collaboratives in Oregon alone. One great example is that of the Blue Mountains Forest Partners, a collaborative that has been working to restore the Malheur National Forest in eastern Oregon since 2006.[3] The group, like most, began small – the first planning area was about 200 acres in size – and focused on creating restoration prescriptions that had broad agreement: their prescriptions focused on removing small diameter encroaching fir trees from old growth ponderosa pine and western larch stands and reintroducing prescribed fire into thinned areas. Over time, the group has taken on larger planning areas, which now typically comprise 30-40,000 acres. While the Forest Service does retain CE authority, both the agency and Partners believes that these authorities are the wrong tools for the landscape-level decision-making and undermine collaborative partnerships. In 2012, the Malheur was designated as a Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration Project, which has since allowed the Partners to increase the pace, scale, and quality of restoration work. As a result of additional Forest Service regional investment in funding and personnel, the collaborative developed a 10-year stewardship contract to implement planned restoration work. In total, that contract captures 86% of the private employment in Grant and Harney Counties, and all of the wood products manufacturing capacity in the area.[4] There has been no project litigation on the Malheur National Forest since 2003, unemployment continues to decline, school enrollment is up, and the housing market in the local community is tight, indicating increasing economic development.


2.     Montana: These collaboratives also significantly reduce litigation. In Montana, a collaborative was established on the Bitterroot National Forest in 2007 to bring together conservationists, motorized users, outfitters, loggers, mill operators, and the Forest Service. It’s no accident that in the 11 years since environmentalists haven’t sued to stop a single logging project in the forest.[5]


3.     North Carolina: Similarly, the Forest Service recently began work on revising the long-term management plan for the Nantahala and Pisgah National Forests in North Carolina – the first plan revised under new agency regulations introduced in 2012 emphasizing community engagement – the agency was overwhelmed with over 15,000 public comments. Michelle Aldridge, planning and NEPA officer with the Forest Service, called the degree of public involvement “unprecedented.”[6] Although some divisions still remain, significant progress toward consensus has been made by conservationists, hunters, and the logging industry.


 *   The Trump administration’s Executive Order would undermine this type of local collaboration and these consensus-building efforts happening in forests all across the country. It would take us back to the timber wars of the 1980s and, without a dispute mechanism, would needlessly increase the number of Forest Service projects subject to litigation.

Existing laws already provide the Forest Service with the tools and flexibility required to carry out emergency fuel reduction projects


 *   The Forest Service already possesses an astonishingly wide number of administrative categorical exclusions that the agency already employs for activities including thinning, hazardous fuel reduction, prescribed burns, and post-fire rehabilitation.
 *   Congress has also passed legislation giving the Forest Service additional flexibility. The Healthy Forest Restoration Act already established special NEPA procedures for EAs or EISs prepared for authorized hazardous-fuel-reduction projects.[7] These include limited alternatives analysis and modified judicial review for specific projects.
 *   Other legislative measures include the Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, which waives NEPA procedures for certain federal actions carried out within a Presidentially declared emergency or disaster area.[8]
 *   Finally, in emergency circumstances “where emergency circumstances make it necessary to take an action with significant environmental impact without” conducting NEPA analysis, federal agencies can consult directly with the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) to make alternative arrangements.[9] The Forest Service has used this on multiple occasions:


       *   Removal of dead and damaged trees in the National Forests and Grasslands of Texas (1998) due to concerns of high-intensity fires and beetle infestation
       *   Hazardous fuel reduction in Ouachita National Forest (2001) after an ice storm led to a ten-fold increase in forest fuel load
       *   Commercial timber harvest on 6,200 acres in Mark Twain National Forest (2002) after tornado damage increased fire risk to public and private property
       *   Expedited EIS preparation in the Stanislaus National Forest (2013) after the Rim fire burned 154,000 acres and immediate action was needed to mitigate future risk of wildfire
       *   Expedited EIS preparation for fire restoration efforts in the Eldorado National Forest (2015) after the King fire burned 63,000 acres.[10]

This EO imposes unrealistic and arbitrary management targets on the Forest Service that are neither ecologically justifiable nor based on sound science. Science tells us that large-scale logging and clear-cuts that run roughshod over environmental safeguards don’t reduce the risk of fire – they actually increase it.


Forest Fire Executive Order -- Social Media:


Facebook:

[GRAPHIC 1]: 🚨 SIREN!! 🚨 The Trump administration just released a new Executive Order opening up our National Forests to even more logging. Science tells us that large-scale logging and clear-cuts that run roughshod over environmental safeguards don’t reduce the risk of fire – they actually increase it! #ProtectYourVoice

[GRAPHIC 3]: FACT: We’re logging our National Forests more than ever before, but fire seasons are still getting worse. Reducing the risk of fire to Western communities and keeping our forests healthy requires responsible, science-based management, not more reckless logging. #ProtectYourVoice

The Trump administration refuses to acknowledge the dangerous effects of climate change, such as drought, heat, and wind, continue to play in fanning the fast-moving and out of control wildfires plaguing Western states. Their answer? More logging, less public input? #ProtectYourVoice

No amount of reckless logging will reduce the risk of Western wildfires. @realdonaldtrump’s Executive Order gutting environmental review and responsible management of our National Forests will take us backward to the contentious timber wars of the 1980s.

[GRAPHIC 2]: The Trump administration’s latest Executive Order won’t reduce the risk of fire – but it will undercut decades of hard work by forest collaboratives like the one on Bitteroot National Forest towards consensus and away from the timber wars of the 1980s. #ProteectYourVoice


Twitter:

[GRAPHIC 1]: 🚨 SIREN!! 🚨 The Trump administration just released a new Executive Order opening up our National Forests to even more logging. Tell @realdonaldtrump & @secretarysonny aren’t tree farms! #ProtectYourVoice

[GRAPHIC 2]: FACT: We’re logging our National Forests more than ever before, but fire seasons are still getting worse. #ProtectYourVoice

It’s no secret – smarter planning leads to healthier forests. But the Trump administration’s Executive Order does the opposite, shortcutting important environmental reviews in order to increase logging in our National Forests. #ProtectYourVoice

No amount of reckless logging will reduce the risk of Western wildfires. @realdonaldtrump’s “industry knows best” Executive Order gutting is a step backward to the contentious timber wars of the 1980s. #ProtectYourVoice

The Trump administration & @secretaryzinke refuse to acknowledge the role that climate change is playing in fanning dangerous Western wildfires. Their answer? More logging, less public input? #ProtectYourVoice

[GRAPHIC 2]: The Trump administration’s latest Executive Order won’t reduce the risk of fire – but it will undercut decades of hard work by forest collaboratives towards consensus and away from the timber wars of the 1980s. #ProtectYourVoice




Justin McCarthy
Communications Director, NEPA Campaign
[cid:ec3961ce-f3ef-482f-a8a3-dbca9c7fe615]
The Partnership Project
1101 Connecticut Ave NW, 10th Floor
Washington, DC 20036 USA
T: (202) 650-0327
C: (540) 312-3797
E: jmccarthy@partnershipproject.org<mailto:jmccarthy@partnershipproject.org>
protectnepa.org
The Partnership Project, a registered 501 (c) (3) non-profit, is a collaborative effort of over 20 of the country’s most influential advocacy organizations, including Sierra Club, Defenders of Wildlife, League of Conservation Voters, Earthjustice, and Natural Resources Defense Council.


________________________________

________________________________

[1] “FY 2019 Budget Justification.” U.S. Forest Service, Department of Agriculture. February 2018. Available at: https://www.fs.fed.us/sites/default/files/usfs-fy19-budget-justification.pdf

[2] “Statement by the Secretary-General on the IPCC Special Report Global Warming of 1.5 ºC.” United Nations Secretary General. October 8, 2018. Available at:

https://www.un.org/sg/en/content/sg/statement/2018-10-08/statement-secretary-general-ipcc-special-report-global-warming-15-%C2%BAc

[3] “Malheur National Forest: Blue Mountains Forest Partners.” Western Environmental Law Center. Available at: https://westernlaw.org/defending-wildlands/protecting-public-lands/supporting-health-eastern-oregon-forests-and-surrounding-communities/

[4] “Collaboration and the Malheur Ten-Year Stewardship Contract.” University of Oregon. 2015. Available at: http://www.bluemountainsforestpartners.org/work/research-and-reports/
[5] “Protestors walk out of Gianforte forest hearing in Hamilton.” Montana Public Radio. August 7, 2018. Available at: http://www.mtpr.org/post/protesters-walk-out-gianforte-forest-hearing-hamilton

[6] “National forest plan revision nears final draft release.” Mountain Xpress. October 6, 2018. Available at: https://mountainx.com/news/national-forest-plan-revision-nears-final-draft-release/

[7] § 404(d), 16 U.S.C. § 6554(b)

[8] 42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq., and related authorities

[9] 40 CFR 1506.11

[10] “List of alternative arrangements pursuant to 40 CFR Section 1506.11 – emergencies.” Available at: https://protectnepa.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/CEQ-Alternative-Arrangements.pdf

<Forest Service EO social media.docx>

<image001.png>

<Forest Service EO TPs 12-22-18.docx>

<graphic 1.png>

<graphic 2.png>

<graphic 3.png>