Washington state Commissioner of Public Lands Dave Upthegrove waves to the crowd during inauguration ceremonies at the Washington Capitol, in Olympia, Wash., in January. In an interview with Stateline, Upthegrove discussed how Trump administration proposals on the management of public lands are playing out in his state. (Photo by Ryan Berry/Washington State Standard)
The Trump administration has proposed significantly shifting management of the nation’s public lands toward producing more revenue. President Donald Trump and Interior Secretary Doug Burgum have issued orders aimed at expediting energy production on federal lands. Burgum has repeatedly referred to federal lands as America’s “balance sheet,” pushing for increased oil and gas extraction, logging and mining. The administration also wants to roll back the Roadless Rule, which prohibits logging on millions of acres of national forests. Meanwhile, some congressional Republicans have pushed bills to sell off millions of federal acres.
Other administration proposals include shifting more federal responsibilities — such as disaster recovery — to the states, changing oversight of federal firefighters, and making significant cuts to federal lands agencies.
These proposals especially affect Western states, where 90% of federal lands are located.
In Washington state, nearly 30% of land is owned by the federal government. Stateline reporter Alex Brown recently interviewed Dave Upthegrove, public lands commissioner of Washington state, to ask how these proposals and other federal changes are playing out on the ground in his state. Elected commissioner last year, the Democrat previously served as a state representative in the Washington House and on the King County Council.
This interview has been condensed for length and edited for clarity.
Stateline: We’re currently several weeks into a federal government shutdown that has furloughed thousands of workers at federal land management agencies. What effect is the shutdown having on national parks, forests and other lands?
Upthegrove: We’re still working through what those impacts are going to be. Obviously, it means that the people who care for those lands — rangers, foresters, biologists, more — are furloughed. So the longer the shutdown goes on, the longer people aren’t on the ground to manage the forest, the bigger the impact will be.
We’re concerned about potential impacts to Good Neighbor Authority [a federal collaboration law] projects on federal lands, that we’re essentially losing time on forest health treatments, prescribed burns, at a time when we need to be doing that work to prepare for wildfire season. We’re going to keep working with the feds on those Good Neighbor agreements, but we’re worried those impacts can be widespread.
Trump’s firefighting plan
Q: President Trump has announced plans to create a unified U.S. Wildland Fire Service, combining the firefighting resources of the Forest Service, National Park Service and other land management agencies. You lead an agency that works closely with those agencies to fight wildfires. Do you support the idea of merging their fire crews into a single agency?
A: It’s how it’s done. The improvements and streamlining might be possible. A single federal entity that’s responsible for wildfires on federal jurisdiction, and that’s important — on federal jurisdiction — could be beneficial, but the federal government can’t override or supersede our state and local jurisdiction. So I think it’s really important for the administration to recognize that federal, state and local coordination already exists.
This is a team effort, and what’s been going on at the federal level — the chaos, the lack of communication — is a serious problem. The last thing we want is partners that are disconnected from each other. So consolidation, done properly, maybe could be beneficial. But I really wonder, given the behavior we’ve seen for that administration, if they can implement this cleanly. We were engaging in that — our firefighting experts are offering comments and feedback — and we really value that federal partnership, but it’s really going to depend on what it looks like.
Disaster recovery
Q: Under Trump, the Federal Emergency Management Agency has denied some requests for disaster relief, including here in Washington. He has called on states to play a larger role in disaster recovery and rely less on federal support. Have you gotten any indications that FEMA’s support for wildfire recovery could be diminished, and is the state equipped to handle a bigger role?
A: No, state and local governments are not able to replace the kind of resources the federal government has. That’s why this has always been a federal responsibility, because of the scale and scope of these disasters. So no, we aren’t able to replace it.
We have to be able to trust that they will be there to support everyone in this country when there’s a disaster, regardless of political party or political leanings of a state. And I really worry about that, because the notion that state and local governments can pick up the tab for these huge disasters is laughable.
Selling public lands
Q: Leaders in Trump’s administration have talked about public lands as America’s balance sheet and called for some lands to be sold off to bring in revenue. Here in Washington state, you’re in the middle of similar debates about the role of public lands for revenue or conservation. At a time when budgets are tight and some are looking at public lands as assets that can be sold or managed to maximize their economic value, what is your view of the purpose of public lands, including potentially selling them for revenue?
A: Our state and federal lands belong to we, the people. They’re public lands, our lands, and they need to be managed in the public interest for all the people of the state or in the nation. And I think that’s the vision here in Washington.
The president’s plan to clear-cut national forests to pay for tax cuts for the wealthy is offensive and it sells out future generations. We’re seeing efforts to gut the public lands rule, which [would] put mining and drilling ahead of conservation and recreation, repealing the Roadless Rule [which would threaten] protected forests with industrial logging and development. And we need to manage these lands for the broader benefits.
Land revenue for schools
Q: Your agency oversees millions of acres of trust lands. In many Western states, these lands provide important revenue for schools and local governments and support economic sectors such as logging and mining. Your plans to conserve some older forests have drawn criticism from both timber companies and environmental groups who feel it either goes too far or not far enough. Do you see a way for Western states to manage that tension between the economic and environmental values of these trust lands?
A: We need to always find the right balance, and we also need to acknowledge our world is changing. We’re seeing the impacts of climate change now. We’re seeing a rapid loss in biodiversity. The Washington State Department of Natural Resources has always led the way in sustainable management, and I want us to continue to lead the world and do more, and I believe we can innovate and diversify how we generate revenue from these lands.
What that means is we will continue to have a strong, robust, healthy wood products industry in Washington state for generations to come. … I think there is strong public support for the values those forests bring, in addition to wood products. So I think we are pursuing an approach that strikes the appropriate balance.
That tension will always be there for any trust manager. Any land manager in any Western state will always have those competing values.
Wildfire immigration raid
Q: Shifting gears a little bit, there were national headlines this summer following the immigration raid at the Bear Gulch Fire here in Washington state. How surprised were you to see federal immigration officials targeting wildfire crews?
A: I was shocked. I was offended. Regardless of what someone thinks about immigration policy, enforcing visas at the site of an active, ongoing emergency is irresponsible.
I think it just plays into unnecessary fear that’s being generated intentionally by this administration. But even if there were people sympathetic to the president’s views on immigration, I think this really turned a lot of people off. You know, these were firefighters working hard to keep us safe, and active in the middle of an emergency.
And the more I learn about it, the more upset I am about it, and my hope is that it doesn’t happen again.
Effects of funding cuts
Q: President Trump has made significant cuts at the U.S. Forest Service and other land management agencies, both to staffing as well as grant programs and other funding sources. Your agency obviously works extensively with the Forest Service on its forest health plan and other forestry issues. How significantly have these federal cuts affected your agency’s work and the forest health plan in Washington?
A: They create a lot of uncertainty. We had no communication from the federal government as to their plans. Many of our grants got suddenly turned off without notice, most of them turned back on again. It’s made it very difficult for us to plan our work. We don’t know whether we should keep spending money sometimes, because we don’t know if we’ll get reimbursed, even if we have a signed contract.
A lot of our grants are pass-through funds to other entities, like local governments, fire departments. They submit receipts to us. We pay them back. We submit them to the federal government. We get paid back. We’ve had to make decisions on a daily basis as to what to continue and when to tell people to stop working.
We also are beginning to see impacts from the mass firing of employees at some of these agencies. We had fewer critical incident management teams nationally this year in the fire services in large part due to the reduced staffing levels at these federal agencies. Fortunately, our fire season was able to accommodate that, but it presented risks.
More logging
Q: Trump has also called for an increase in logging on federal lands. You said you’d be open to collaborating on more forest health and wildfire resilience-type work. What have you seen so far about how the feds’ plan to log more timber? And given the cuts we’ve seen, is that even possible with the reduced staffing that they have?
A: I don’t know. We’ve not seen any meaningful movement in that direction. I think they’re kidding themselves if they can lay off a whole bunch of foresters [and] at the same time increase their production. So I think it’s a lot of posturing and bluster on the part of the president.
There’s certainly room to better manage some of these national forests, and we want to be a part of that. We’ve partnered on over 25,000 acres in Washington state through the Good Neighbor agreement, doing forest restoration, forest health and other good work to help manage these forests, including generating wood products in the process.
Stateline reporter Alex Brown can be reached at abrown@stateline.org.
