Tidwell Interviewed by the Missoulian
Newly appointed Chief of the US Forests Service Tom Tidwell was interviewed by the Missoulian, published today. The questions were weak, the answers fairly stock.
Personally, I take little inference from the interview. The emphasis on climate change is not realistic, in the sense that climate realism provides evidence that global warming is a hoax and fraud. There has been global cooling for 10 years. There has been no change in snowpack. There has been no change in date of snowmelt. Catastrophic fires are late-season, anyway. But official obeisance to irrational paranoia might be expected in today’s political climate of global warming madness. The implication is that “climate change” will continue to be used as an excuse for megafire. That is not reassuring.
Tidwell’s emphasis on water and watersheds is a refreshing change, however. I am also pleased that he did not use the term “wildlands.”
The interview:
New USFS chief to address climate effects, watersheds
By ROB CHANEY of the Missoulian, June 19, 2009 [here]
Watershed management and climate change science will become top priorities for national forest management, according to newly designated U.S. Forest Service Chief Tom Tidwell.
The 32-year veteran of the Forest Service spent the past two years leading the Region 1 headquarters in Missoula. He spoke with the Missoulian on Thursday while wrapping up a senior executive service training session in Maine.
Missoulian: Tell us about the selection process. Who was in charge of the choice, and what were they looking for in a new chief of the Forest Service?
Tidwell: The Secretary of Agriculture (Tom Vilsack) was in charge. They wanted someone who had demonstrated they can work with people, be able to reach out. I expect to develop a collaborative approach. We’ve very successfully been able to move those concepts forward in the Northern Region. And also to have someone who’s been with the agency.
Missoulian: Homer Wilkes backed out of the undersecretary of agriculture job last week. That was the post formerly held by Mark Rey, and it oversees the chief of the Forest Service. Who’s going to be your boss?
Tidwell: Jay Jensen is our acting undersecretary. He’s my boss.
Missoulian: What sorts of unfinished business from the previous leadership awaits you when you get to Washington?
Tidwell: I’m going to have a transition with Chief (Gail) Kimball [sic, Missoulian error]. The thing we see as our focus is implementing the economic recovery projects, the opportunity we had there to not only get a lot of essential work done but to provide jobs, especially in counties across the country where there’s high unemployment. We continue to move forward with our focus on climate change, to use the science that we have and apply that science so that natural systems are able to adapt to the various stressors that are occurring in the changing climate.
Missoulian: What sort of stresses are you focused on?
Tidwell: Definitely we’re seeing effects on snowpack and the effect that has on streamflow. We’re seeing places where there’s definitely an extension to our fire season. Even though it’s by a couple weeks, you get a bit longer fire season where things are drying out two weeks earlier, and it just adds to the potential for wildfire.
We’re also seeing areas where we have to factor in the species composition. (For example) for years we had conifer stands where, if we had fire or something go through there, we need to understand what is the potential for that site? Can we reforest that area, or do we need to look at some other options?
Missoulian: What about the Legacy Project (Plum Creek Timber Co.’s effort to transfer thousands of acres of timber land to public and conservation ownership in western Montana)? Are there loose ends to tie up there?
Tidwell: That project will continue. My understanding is it’s moving forward and we’re looking forward to receiving the donation of that land that will come to the national forest. The cost-share road agreement - that’s something we’re going to continue to work on with the counties and Plum Creek. We’ll find a way to address those concerns as we move forward.
Missoulian: What new initiatives or directions does the Obama Administration have for forest management?
Tidwell: I haven’t had a chance to have any extensive briefing on that, but definitely climate change is going to be one of our focused areas. Water will be another area where we will be increasing our emphasis of our management on watersheds. It’s one of the things we’re seeing with the change of climate, the change of streamflow. The importance of our watershed is something that’s very undervalued. We must make sure these watersheds are in the best condition they can be in, to provide the abundant flow of water that so many people depend on.
Missoulian: What practically does that mean?
Tidwell: It’s one of the things we’re taking a look at. I don’t have any specifics at this time. We’ll definitely look to make sure we’re doing everything we can to manage for watershed health. Maintain that clean abundant flow of water that comes off the national forest and grasslands.
Missoulian: Does that mean possible restrictions on forest activities?
Tidwell: At this time, we don’t have any details on what that will be. Water’s been one of the foundations of this agency. One of the reasons many of our national forest lands were reserved in the first place was to maintain healthy watersheds. As we see the effects of climate, snowpacks and waterflows, and there’s more and more people moving into especially arid parts of this country, there’s an increasing need for clean water. We want to make sure we’re factoring in the things we need today, to make sure these watersheds are in the best health they can be to serve the needs of 10 or 15 years from now.
Missoulian: You’ve spent a lot of time fighting fire. Congress just finished restructuring how firefighting gets funded. Will we see any changes on the ground in coming fire seasons?
Tidwell: I don’t know if you’ll see any changes, but you’ll see a continued increase with our level of collaboration and cooperation with various agencies and the states and local fire agencies so that we can work together and have the most effective response.
Missoulian: Recent new legislation was intended to keep you from having to raid other budgets for the rest of the year’s activities in order to fund the fire season. Does that give you some flexibility?
Tidwell: Yes. The consequence of the last few years of having to transfer a portion of our budget for other programs toward the middle of each summer in order to pay for fire suppression has had an impact on other programs. Not having to do that will definitely help us be more effective and efficient with programs and be able to move forward with the benefits that derive from those programs on recreation and wildlife and watershed work and trails and roads and that sort of thing.
Missoulian: One of your predecessors, Dale Bosworth, told me yesterday that climate change and its impact on forests will be a major topic. Does the Forest Service have a leadership role in that discussion, or does it need to wait for guidance on national wildland priorities?
Tidwell: We do have a leadership role. Part of it comes from the extensive research that our research-and-development branch of the agency has been doing for the last few decades. We have some of the best science, and we need to make sure we’re applying that, using that and sharing that as we move forward. I think we have a key leadership role, not only in the application of science but to help inform and educate our community and the folks we work, so they can understand the changes that are occurring, how it’s affecting the landscape and help us find solutions about how we need to change our management so these natural systems are able to adapt to various climate change stressors.
Missoulian: A big part of that is the interest in using timber biomass for fuel and energy. Is the Forest Service prepared to manage that kind of demand?
Tidwell: There’s going to be a need to remove material - biomass - from the forest, especially around our communities and watersheds. And there needs to be a way to use that material, not only to offset the cost, but there’s the potential to convert that to energy. It’s one of those things that needs to be part of the solution.
Missoulian: What about biomass uses that are unproven or uneconomically viable? Do you need to wait, or does the Forest Service have role in clearing that up?
Tidwell: It will be both. The industry is moving forward with innovations and developing technology. And we do work and other federal agencies are doing work to help explore new technologies. It becomes more of a partnership between our research branch and other research agencies along with industry.
Missoulian: The traditional role of the Forest Service to “get the cut out” has been on the decline with the collapse of the timber industry. At the same time, recreational users are bringing whole new challenges to forest management, like motorized vs. wilderness access. How do you see the agency adapting to this changing management landscape?
Tidwell: It’s been a long while since we had the focus on timber harvest. For years now we’ve been focused on managing land and using timber harvest as one of the tools to improve forest health. As we move forward, the increased recreation is just a part of what we’ll need to manage for and provide opportunities for people who use the national forests and places they want to recreate. That is just continuing. That change occurred a long time ago and we’ll just keep moving forward, doing the things we have been doing the last few years.
by bear bait
It looks like Tidwell is in lock-step with the ObamaNation in solely blaming “climate change” for the nation’s forest problems. It also looks like a “gag-order” is in effect in case he says something not in line with the approved party line. Phrases like “At this time, we don’t have any details…” and “I don’t have any specifics at this time” and “I haven’t had a chance to have any extensive briefing on that” are obvious examples of how he will be kept on a VERY tight leash. It’s pure bull-pucky that he says he is out-of-the-loop on all these key issues. If he doesn’t have a scientifically original thought of his own, then he has no business whatsoever being in a position of this power.
I would like to ask him a specific question in terminology that the eco’s are very familiar with.
Chief Tidwell?? How would you eliminate the “Indirect Land Use Change”, which positively changes lands from forests to other vegetative cover through catastrophic wildfire, that occur with your past, present and futures uses of Alternative Management Response and Wildland Fire Use? This IS an important question if “climate change” is such an important issue to the Obama Administration, Chief Tidwell.
My position is to not pre-judge, to wish him every success, and to offer advice, which I have done.
Tidwell is facing a lot of serious problems, not the least of which is “indirect land use change”. The decline of the agency and parallel decline of our public forests are not new problems.
In his favor, Tidwell is a professional forester and a career civil servant. He is not a political operative like so many of Obama’s appointments. My hope is that he will take a professional approach and listen to other professionals.
I also wished his predecessor well when she became Chief. I withheld criticism until she made numerous misjudgments and poor decisions that harmed our forests and the agency.
Let’s give Tom a chance and benefit of the doubt, for now.
Yes, it wouldn’t be nice to pre-judge him, especially since he hasn’t been in office more than a few days. However, we DO have to take him at his word and this interview is already showing us a glimpse of things to come. We also have a recent history lesson that tells us the Chief position is merely a figurehead for the undersecretary. With the addition of political advisors to monitor and evaluate activities to make sure that political unity is enforced, I don’t think that this Chief will be making many important decisions on his own.
I think that if my original question was asked of him, that he would give us another “We are very concerned with climate change and might look at re-evaluating those policies”. A classic non-answer.
Also, since he was in charge of Region One, we can look at the shape of those Forests to gauge how well he’ll manage all of our National Forests. The last time I was on the Bitterroot NF, it was in a horrible condition. It seemed that there were more dead trees than live trees. He seems to have not made any headway in “reaching out to eco-groups” to deal with an ongoing disaster. Another question comes to mind here; Just when will the “potential lynx habitat” designation be lifted? When EVERY tree is dead?!?
There’s no time for a honeymoon, Chief Tidwell! Chop chop, let’s go, get to work, we’re burnin’ daylight, get in the crummy!!
The Florist Service will “just keep on moving forward,” is a crock. They have going backwards at full flank speed for 25 years.
And if “doing the things we have been doing the last few years” is something to applaud, look forward to, heaven help us.
He is taking the wheel of a ship that is mostly sunk, the most capable of the crew having long abandoned ship, and he knows it. It is sad to see that he can’t talk about it. But, this is ObamaNation, and they find a way to fire career bureaucrats who won’t pack their water, even if the bucket has a hole in the bottom. Which fire buckets do. Round the bottom out and put a hole in it, and the homies don’t steal the buckets. Same with berry picking buckets. First, drill a hole in the bottom, or a bunch of little ones. Hard to use a holy bucket at home. Stand around and do nothing, and real soon your bucket is empty. That is the US Florist Service. An empty vessel, with a holed bottom, and no plug in sight.