I saw this earlier this year and hadn’t gotten around to posting, but recent discussions brought up the topic.
Description:
This document was developed by members of the 4FRI Stakeholder Group and provides a to-date overview of 4FRI’s accomplishments for interested parties. It summarizes information from 4FRI stakeholders and the Forest Service including implementation progress and investments. Specifically, treatment accomplishment data reflects total acres treated within 4FRI 2010-2024 and includes both mechanical thinning and beneficial fire acres, which may overlap geographically. Information about investments in 4FRI comes from partner leverage and match information 2022-2024 as contributed by stakeholders, industries, and the Forest Service. This document is not a Forest Service publication. For more information about 4FRI please see 4fri.org.
If you click on each of these, they will be larger.
Thanks to the retiree network, I was able to get an answer from Ray Brady, an expert who is also on the Board of the Public Lands Foundation. When he says “we” in this email, he means the Public Lands Foundation.
Yes, there is language in the final approved Reconciliation Bill that changes the acreage rent and megawatt capacity fee for solar and wind energy right-of-way authorizations on public lands. The acreage rent calculations are basically the same as current regulations, so no big deal, and we support the language.
The big change is in the MW capacity fee which now provides for a “royalty” of 3.9 % of gross sales of electricity. This 3.9 % was a change from the earlier version that had a 4.85 % royalty. We have always supported a royalty provision, but FLPMA did not provide authority for a royalty. So this is good and in our minds is a very reasonable rate of return and is in the range of the complex formula that BLM previously used. The big change is that in the recent 2024 regulations the BLM had applied an 80% reduction in the fees to solar and wind energy authorizations for the first ten years of an authorization to encourage renewable energy development on the public lands. We had never supported that level of reduction and have no problem with this reasonable royalty rate.
All revenues from right-of-way authorizations currently go to the Treasury. We have always supported a revenue distribution authority and support the 25% distribution to State and 25% distribution to County.
I believe the section that repealed the right of the Secretary to lower fees for economic reasons was removed from the final version of the Bill that went back to the House for approval. I think the Senate parliamentarian ruled that this provision was not appropriate for a Reconciliation Bill.
**********************
But where does the Secretary’s right to lower fees come from?
It was in Section 3103 of the Energy Act of 2020, which allowed BLM to include reductions to solar and wind energy fees in the regulations that were published in 2024. Initially the Reconciliation Bill proposed to repeal that Section of the Energy Act, but it was removed before the Senate sent it back to the House for final passage.
From the Energy Act of 2020
SEC. 3103. INCREASING ECONOMIC CERTAINTY.
13 (a) CONSIDERATIONS.—The Secretary may consider
14 acreage rental rates, capacity fees, and other recurring an15 nual fees in total when evaluating existing rates paid for 16 the use of Federal land by eligible projects.
17 (b) REDUCTIONS IN BASE RENTAL RATES.—The 18 Secretary may reduce acreage rental rates and capacity 19 fees, or both, for existing and new wind and solar author20 izations if the Secretary determines—
21 (1) that the existing rates—
22 (A) exceed fair market value;
23 (B) impose economic hardships;
24 (C) limit commercial interest in a competitive lease sale or right-of-way grant; or
1 (D) are not competitively priced compared
2 to other available land; or
3 (2) that a reduced rental rate or capacity fee is
4 necessary to promote the greatest use of wind and
5 solar energy resources.
I asked Ray why geothermal was not on this list..and it turns out..
The Geothermal Steam Act already provides that authority and the regulations at 43 CFR 3212.16 allows for the reduction, suspension, or waiver of geothermal lease royalty or rent.
So apparently the authority can be given to, or taken away from, the Secretary by Congress, but not in a reconciliation bill.
Below is the PLF’s general statement in their comments on the 2023 proposed regulations , which brings up the long-standing question of whether these kinds of facilities are best sited on public or private land.
There is immense value in continuing to support the responsible development of renewable energy resources on the public lands and providing financial incentives where necessary, consistent with the provisions of the Energy Act of 2020. Increased renewable energy development has many benefits, however, it is not without its own impacts and challenges, and poorly sited projects can threaten other important natural resource values, wildlife habitat, and cultural resources on the public lands. It may be more appropriate to site some renewable energy projects on non-federal lands than to provide financial incentives for projects on public lands that have potential resource conflicts and impacts. The PLF recommends that the BLM consider opportunities to limit financial incentives to only those lands that the BLM has identified through land use planning efforts as designated leasing areas or preferred development areas.
Below are the PLF recommendations from their position statement from April 2025:
1. The responsible development of solar energy projects, including projects with additional battery storage capacity, and wind energy projects on the public lands, with the support of Renewable Energy Coordination Offices to facilitate the permitting process, should be a high priority of the BLM and the Department of the Interior. Public lands with low natural or cultural resource conflicts, or on previously disturbed or mined lands, are more suitable for solar or wind energy development than are lands with high natural or cultural resource values.
2. SolarMapper and WindMapper data and geospatial tools, developed by DOE in collaboration with the BLM, should be maintained and updated to assist in the early identification of potential natural and cultural resource conflicts with solar and wind energy resources on the public lands. These mapping tools can assist in the early screening of proposed solar and wind energy projects and assist in the siting of projects with low natural and cultural resource conflicts.
3. The permitting of transmission line rights-of-way on the public lands should be streamlined, through upfront corridor land-use planning, to facilitate solar and wind energy development on both BLM-managed public lands and adjacent non-federal lands. Corridor planning efforts should be collaborative efforts that involve State, Tribal and industry partners. The approval of connected-action transmission line right-of-way authorizations on federal lands, to support development of solar and wind energy projects on adjacent non-federal lands, may also be more appropriate in some cases than development on public lands and should be tracked by the BLM and reported as accomplishments in meeting national renewable energy goals.
4. The PLF supports legislation that would provide authority for the distribution of revenues to States and Counties, a conservation fund to restore and protect habitats/resources and improve access to Federal lands, and to the U. S. Treasury. Legislation should also include a provision to establish an appropriate royalty for solar and wind energy authorizations to ensure a fair market value return for the use of public lands. These royalty revenues should also be shared as noted above.
5. The 2005 Wind Energy Programmatic EIS should be updated to identify public lands potentially suitable for wind energy development pursuant to the new solar and wind energy regulations issued in 2024. In addition, updated avoidance areas should be identified that are considered unsuitable for wind energy development based on new resources data, current land use plan decisions, and current policies.
6. The BLM should proceed with an effort to offer lands for competitive leasing in high priority suitable areas pursuant to the solar and wind energy regulations at 43 CFR Part 2809.10. This effort should be initiated with a call for nominations or expressions of interest.
7. Reclamation bonding is required by the regulations for all solar and wind energy authorizations and the BLM needs to ensure these bonds are periodically reviewed and are adequate to protect the interests of the Federal Government.
8. The BLM should consider the utilization of compensatory mitigation tools, as appropriate and consistent with land-use planning, to facilitate the reduction of landscape-scale resource impacts from solar and wind energy projects on the public lands. The DRECP land use plan in southern California is an example of collaboration in mitigation planning to support responsible renewable energy development.
This is really above my pay grade, but it seems like the Big Bill changes the way developers are charged for solar and wind installations on federal land, both FS and BLM. I don’t know what they were before, so I don’t know how significant the changes are. I posted the section below, but it’s both long and cryptic. I’ve been looking for someone knowledgeable to weigh in, but so far all I got was AI based on earlier versions of the bill. IF someone finds an explanation of the current language, please link in the comments.
Two things that are clear.. BLM discretion to lower fees has been removed, and counties get to keep part of the receipts.
Someone can tell us how different the rent calculations are than previous.
Here’s the section.. be glad that you don’t have to calculate these formulas! It appears that of all the various permits and rents, the Bill says that 25% goes to the State and 25% to the Counties, with other 50% going to the Treasury. Hopefully, our BLM friends can tell us if this is like other kinds of rents and permits. I did find this fairly complex chart of what happens to oil and gas revenues in a recently updated Congressional Research Service report.
Anyway, below is the text.
(9) SECRETARY.—The term ‘‘Secretary’’
4 means—
5 (A) the Secretary of the Interior, with re6
spect to land controlled or administered by the
7 Secretary of the Interior; and
8 (B) the Secretary of Agriculture, with re9
spect to National Forest System land.
10 (b) ACREAGE RENT FOR WIND AND SOLAR RIGHTS11
OF-WAY.—
12 (1) IN GENERAL.—Pursuant to section 504(g) of
13 the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1764(g)), the Secretary shall, subject
15 to paragraph (3) and not later than January 1 of
16 each calendar year, collect from the holder of a right17
of-way for a renewable energy project an acreage rent
18 in an amount determined by the equation described
19 in paragraph (2).
20 (2) CALCULATION OF ACREAGE RENT RATE.—
(A) EQUATION.—The amount of an acreage
22 rent collected under paragraph (1) shall be deter23
mined using the following equation: Acreage rent
24 = A × B × ((1 + C)D)).
(B) DEFINITIONS.—For purposes of the
2 equation described in subparagraph (A):
3 (i) The letter ‘‘A’’ means the Per-Acre
4 Rate.
5 (ii) The letter ‘‘B’’ means the Encum6
brance Factor.
7 (iii) The letter ‘‘C’’ means the Annual
8 Adjustment Factor.
9 (iv) The letter ‘‘D’’ means the year in
10 the term of the right-of-way.
11 (3) PAYMENT UNTIL PRODUCTION.—The holder of
12 a right-of-way for a renewable energy project shall
13 pay an acreage rent collected under paragraph (1)
14 until the date on which energy generation begins.
15 (c) CAPACITY FEES.—
16 (1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall, subject to
17 paragraph (3), annually collect a capacity fee from
18 the holder of a right-of-way for a renewable energy
19 project based on the amount described in paragraph
20 (2).
21 (2) CALCULATION OF CAPACITY FEE.—The
22 amount of a capacity fee collected under paragraph
23 (1) shall be equal to the greater of—
24 (A) an amount equal to the acreage rent de25
scribed in subsection (b); and
195
† HR 1 EAS
1 (B) 3.9 percent of the gross proceeds from
2 the sale of electricity produced by the renewable
3 energy project.
4 (3) MULTIPLE-USE REDUCTION FACTOR.—
5 (A) APPLICATION.—The holder of a right-of6
way for a wind energy generation project may
7 request that the Secretary apply a multiple-use
8 reduction factor of 10-percent to the amount of
9 a capacity fee determined under paragraph (2)
10 by submitting to the Secretary an application at
11 such time, in such manner, and containing such
12 information as the Secretary may require.
13 (B) APPROVAL.—The Secretary may ap14
prove an application submitted under subpara15
graph (A) only if not less than 25 percent of the
16 land within the area of the right-of-way is au17
thorized for use, occupancy, or development with
18 respect to an activity other than the generation
19 of wind energy for the entirety of the year in
20 which the capacity fee is collected.
21 (C) LATE DETERMINATION.—
22 (i) IN GENERAL.—If the Secretary ap23
proves an application under subparagraph
24 (B) for a wind energy generation project
25 after the date on which the holder of the
196
† HR 1 EAS
1 right-of-way for the project begins paying a
2 capacity fee, the Secretary shall apply the
3 multiple-use reduction factor described in
4 subparagraph (A) to the capacity fee for the
5 first year beginning after the date of ap6
proval and each year thereafter for the pe7
riod during which the right-of-way remains
8 in effect.
9 (ii) REFUND.—The Secretary may not
10 refund the holder of a right-of-way for the
11 difference in the amount of a capacity fee
12 paid in a previous year.
13 (d) LATE PAYMENT FEE; TERMINATION.—
14 (1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary may charge the
15 holder of a right-of-way for a renewable energy
16 project a late payment fee if the Secretary does not
17 receive payment for the acreage rent under subsection
18 (b) or the capacity fee under subsection (c) by the
19 date that is 15 days after the date on which the pay20
ment was due.
21 (2) TERMINATION OF RIGHT-OF-WAY.—The Sec22
retary may terminate a right-of-way for a renewable
23 energy project if the Secretary does not receive pay24
ment for the acreage rent under subsection (b) or the
1 capacity fee under subsection (c) by the date that is
2 90 days after the date on which the payment was due.
3 SEC. 50303. RENEWABLE ENERGY REVENUE SHARING.
4 (a) DEFINITIONS.—In this section:
5 (1) COUNTY.—The term ‘‘county’’ includes a
6 parish, township, borough, and any other similar,
7 independent unit of local government.
8 (2) COVERED LAND.—The term ‘‘covered land’’
9 means land that is—
10 (A) public land administered by the Sec11
retary; and
12 (B) not excluded from the development
solar or wind energy under—
14 (i) a land use plan; or
15 (ii) other Federal law.
16 (3) NATIONAL FOREST SYSTEM.—
17 (A) IN GENERAL.—The term ‘‘National For18
est System’’ means land of the National Forest
19 System (as defined in section 11(a) of the Forest
20 and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning
21 Act of 1974 (16 U.S.C. 1609(a))) administered
22 by the Secretary of Agriculture.
23 (B) EXCLUSION.—The term ‘‘National For24
est System’’ does not include any forest reserve
25 not created from the public domain.
198
† HR 1 EAS
1 (4) PUBLIC LAND.—The term ‘‘public land’’
2 means—
3 (A) public lands (as defined in section 103
4 of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act
5 of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1702)); and
6 (B) National Forest System land.
7 (5) RENEWABLE ENERGY PROJECT.—The term
8 ‘‘renewable energy project’’ means a system described
9 in section 2801.9(a)(4) of title 43, Code of Federal
10 Regulations (as in effect on the date of enactment of
11 this Act), located on covered land that uses wind or
12 solar energy to generate energy.
13 (6) SECRETARY.—The term ‘‘Secretary’’
14 means—
15 (A) the Secretary of the Interior, with re16
spect to land controlled or administered by the
17 Secretary of the Interior; and
18 (B) the Secretary of Agriculture, with re19
spect to National Forest System land.
20 (b) DISPOSITION OF REVENUE.—
21 (1) DISPOSITION OF REVENUES.—Beginning on
22 January 1, 2026, the amounts collected from a renew23
able energy project as bonus bids, rentals, fees, or
24 other payments under a right-of-way, permit, lease,
25 or other authorization shall—
1 (A) be deposited in the general fund of the
2 Treasury; and
3 (B) without further appropriation or fiscal
4 year limitation, be allocated as follows:
5 (i) 25 percent shall be paid from
6 amounts in the general fund of the Treasury
7 to the State within the boundaries of which
8 the revenue is derived.
9 (ii) 25 percent shall be paid from
10 amounts in the general fund of the Treasury
11 to each county in a State within the bound12
aries of which the revenue is derived, to be
13 allocated among each applicable county
14 based on the percentage of county land from
15 which the revenue is derived.
16 (2) PAYMENTS TO STATES AND COUNTIES.—
17 (A) IN GENERAL.—Amounts paid to States
18 and counties under paragraph (1) shall be used
19 in accordance with the requirements of section
20 35 of the Mineral Leasing Act (30 U.S.C. 191).
21 (B) PAYMENTS IN LIEU OF TAXES.—A pay22
ment to a county under paragraph (1) shall be
23 in addition to a payment in lieu of taxes re24
ceived by the county under chapter 69 of title 31,
25 United States Code.
1 (C) TIMING.—The amounts required to be
2 paid under paragraph (1)(B) for an applicable
3 fiscal year shall be made available in the fiscal
4 year that immediately follows the fiscal year for
5 which the amounts were collected.
SEC. 50301. TIMBER SALES AND LONG-TERM CONTRACTING
23 FOR THE FOREST SERVICE AND THE BUREAU
24 OF LAND MANAGEMENT.
*****
23 (A) IN GENERAL.—For each of fiscal years
24 2026 through 2034, the Secretary shall sell tim25
ber annually on National Forest System land in
1 a total quantity that is not less than 250,000,000 board-feet greater than the quantity of board-feet
3 sold in the previous fiscal year.
4 (B) LIMITATION.—The timber sales under
5 subparagraph (A) shall be subject to the max6
imum allowable sale quantity of timber or the
7 projected timber sale quantity under the applica8
ble forest plan in effect on the date of enactment of this Act.
(3) LONG-TERM CONTRACTING FOR THE FOREST
11 SERVICE.—
12 (A) LONG-TERM CONTRACTING.—For the pe13
riod of fiscal years 2025 through 2034, the Sec14
retary shall enter into not fewer than 40 long15
term timber sale contracts with private persons
16 or other public or private entities under sub17
section (a) of section 14 of the National Forest
18 Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 472a) for
19 the sale of national forest materials (as defined
20 in subsection (e)(1) of that section) in the Na21
tional Forest System.
22 (B) CONTRACT LENGTH.—The period of a
23 timber sale contract entered into to meet the re24
quirement under subparagraph (A) shall be not
189 less than 20 years, with options for extensions or
2 renewals, as determined by the Secretary.
3 (C) RECEIPTS.—Any monies derived from a
4 timber sale contract entered into to meet the re5
quirements under subparagraphs (A) and (B)
6 shall be deposited in the general fund of the
7 Treasury.
Then there are similar clauses for BLM. Perhaps the FS will try to put up sales and long-term contracts, but companies would want to a) buy sales and b) enter into long-term contracts. It seems to me that all Congress can do is make the FS put up sales, and advertise contracts. As my Mom used to say “you can’t get blood out of a turnip.” But it will be interesting to do the experiment and see what happens.
I have heard different things about 4FRI, and Jim Z. definitely knows more than I do, but perhaps long-term contracts are necessary but not sufficient to start/keep industry? Maybe others have ideas about successes and failures of long-term contracts?
The Bill says if unobligated, these $ are rescinded. Basically it pulls the reins in on certain funding that was in the IRA. It’s one of those “both things are true” kinds of bills; while touted as a climate bill, there’s a great deal of random throwing around large sums of money.. in many cases, with a fairly tenuous relationship to climate change. Of course, everything can be related to climate change, with enough imagination. I’ve used this version of the bill, which I hope is the current one.
SEC. 10201. RESCISSION OF AMOUNTS FOR FORESTRY.
3 The unobligated balances of amounts appropriated by
4 the following provisions of Public Law 117–169 are re5
scinded:
6 (1) Paragraphs (3) and (4) of section 23001(a)
7 (136 Stat. 2023).
8 (2) Paragraphs (1) through (4) of section
9 23002(a) (136 Stat. 2025).
10 (3) Section 23003(a)(2) (136 Stat. 2026).
11 (4) Section 23005 (136 Stat. 2027).
What are those?
23001
(3) $100,000,000 to provide for environmental reviews by
the Chief of the Forest Service in satisfying the obligations
of the Chief of the Forest Service under the National Environ-
mental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 through 4370m–
12); and
(4) $50,000,000 for the protection of old-growth forests on
National Forest System land and to complete an inventory
of old-growth forests and mature forests within the National
Forest System.
I never really understood (3) as generally environmental review funding comes out of the program. And $100 mill, was that from the IRA FS funding dartboard?
23002
1) $150,000,000 for the competitive grant program under
section 13A of the Cooperative Forestry Assistance Act of 1978
(16 U.S.C. 2109a) for providing through that program a cost
share to carry out climate mitigation or forest resilience prac-
tices in the case of underserved forest landowners, subject
to the condition that subsection (h) of that section shall not
apply;
(2) $150,000,000 for the competitive grant program under
section 13A of the Cooperative Forestry Assistance Act of 1978
(16 U.S.C. 2109a) for providing through that program grants
to support the participation of underserved forest landowners
in emerging private markets for climate mitigation or forest
resilience, subject to the condition that subsection (h) of that
section shall not apply;
(3) $100,000,000 for the competitive grant program under
section 13A of the Cooperative Forestry Assistance Act of 1978
(16 U.S.C. 2109a) for providing through that program grants
to support the participation of forest landowners who own less
than 2,500 acres of forest land in emerging private markets
for climate mitigation or forest resilience, subject to the condi-
tion that subsection (h) of that section shall not apply;
(4) $50,000,000 for the competitive grant program under
section 13A of the Cooperative Forestry Assistance Act of 1978
(16 U.S.C. 2109a) to provide grants to states and other eligible
entities to provide payments to owners of private forest land
for implementation of forestry practices on private forest land,
that are determined by the Secretary, based on the best avail-
able science, to provide measurable increases in carbon seques-
tration and storage beyond customary practices on comparable
land, subject to the conditions that—
(A) those payments shall not preclude landowners from
participation in other public and private sector financial
incentive programs; and
(B) subsection (h) of that section shall not apply; a
23003 (a) (2)
(2) $1,500,000,000 to provide multiyear, programmatic,
competitive grants to a State agency, a local governmental
entity, an agency or governmental entity of the District of
Columbia, an agency or governmental entity of an insular area
(as defined in section 1404 of the National Agricultural
Research, Extension, and Teaching Policy Act of 1977 (7 U.S.C.
3103)), an Indian Tribe, or a nonprofit organization through
the Urban and Community Forestry Assistance program estab-
lished under section 9(c) of the Cooperative Forestry Assistance
Act of 1978 (16 U.S.C. 2105(c)) for tree planting and related
activities.
And 23005
SEC. 23005. ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS.
In addition to amounts otherwise available, there is appro-
priated to the Secretary for fiscal year 2022, out of any money
in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, $100,000,000 to remain
available until September 30, 2031, for administrative costs of
the agencies and offices of the Department of Agriculture for costs
related to implementing this subtitle.
************
It would be interesting to see exactly where all those funds went, if they were spent. I’ve had trouble tracking it.. maybe others are more budget-astute. The below is from USA spending.gov and you can search on 10.727 | Inflation Reduction Act Urban & Community Forestry Program. What’s interesting is that so much was obligated and so little spent … I pulled this yesterday and I assume it’s current but it might not be. For those who follow this kind of thing, in 2023 Greenlatinos had 2.22 million in revenue. So there’s quite a bit of ramping up required, I guess since the FS gave them $25 mill (but they had only spent $2 mill as of the unknown date in USAspending.gov).
There was some talk about the point being stashing IRA money so it couldn’t be clawed back, so perhaps that was the idea all along, but as we have seen, it’s not working out that way.
But both Greenlatinos and HAF are getting bucks from big philanthropies, ..so not sure about their need for USG bucks. For some reason, the bar on the screenshot is blotting out The Arbor Day Foundation, which got $75 mill and spent $3.5 mill (if this info is correct)..
There’s much (potential for) change bubbling away in the NEPA-sphere, but like improving various aspects of the Forest Service, these ideas and concerns have been in the air for awhile. Here’s a letter in Science from Sally Fairfax in 1978 (yes, almost 50 years ago…). P.S. If you have a copy of her paper on RPA and the Forest Service, or know how to contact her, please let me know.
From what I’ve observed and heard, it seems like the push for One Wildfire Agency may have come from externals, including partners, who have to deal with several federal agencies, as well as some wildfire employees who would prefer to have bosses and direct leadership from the fire world.
I think everyone would prefer to have bosses who know and understand their work, so I don’t think that that’s unusual.
If you don’t have time to listen, Munsey did note that the people working on the One Agency appreciate the connection with land management, and are working on how to do that; and even mentioned planning. The barriers to technology adoption (aka multi-agency bureaucracies) sounded par for the technology (or any other topic) course. He also mentioned the importance of access via roads (ties in with Don Amador’s recent post).
I don’t think the interview is paywalled, but if it is, let me know.
Also, here is Munsey’s testimony before the House Committee on Natural Resources on May 15, 2025. It’s got some interesting ideas about joint land management and history. That’s where I got the above photos.
Here’s THW’s summary of the interview:
Today, I welcome San Bernardino County Fire Chief Dan Munsey to discuss what he believes are the four biggest lies in the wildfire industry, and what the actual truths are behind those lies.
The Four Lies the Chief Addresses:
There is a large wildfire crisis. (Truth: We have a land management crisis.)
There is a fire insurance crisis. (Truth: We have a crisis of homes burning down.)
The Palisades and Eaton Fires were very destructive “wildfires.” (Truth: These were urban conflagrations with a small wildfire component.)
There is a wildfire technology crisis. (Truth: There is a wildfire technology adoption crisis.)
We then discuss the leadership of the new wildfire agency, the reality of moving forward with it, and I ask him if California can realistically achieve success with its wildfire land management under the new “Make America Rake Again” campaign.
Chief Munsey oversees the largest fire protection district in the Nation, spanning almost 20,000 square miles and serving a population of nearly two million. The Chief has testified before Congress multiple times, advocating for better wages, improved technology adoption, and the maintenance of trails and forest roads to help wildland firefighters access wildfires.
From Coram Experimental Forest in Montana. I could have picked any Experimental Forest or Range and found ongoing research equally useful.
The piece below is from Phil Aune, by way of Evergreen Magazine. The Evergreen piece starts with a linked piece by Michael Rains called “Eliminating the Gold Standard in Conservation Science” The below is Phil’s reply to Michael.
Since Phil and I were both involved in silviculture research, and he is much better at writing about it than I am… I thought I’d repost here. Plus I love the Heinrich Cotta quote. At one time, part of my job in DC was defending the Experimental Forests.. currently the poor USG cousin of the (to the Science Establishment) LTERs.
Phil doesn’t mention it, but I also remember the Elevational Transect Study that Tom Conkle did and published in 1973. It made many of the geneticists of my generation leery of willy-nilly seed movement, and today I still look askance at folks who think they can predict which trees will grow where in 100-200 years based on down-scaled climate models. In fact, I tried to run down whether the elevational transect study is with us today, but had trouble finding anyone who knew.
Anyway, hat’s off to Phil!
************
Side note
If you are confused about the budget bill vs. appropriations bills .. join the club. Hopefully Andy or others will correct me if I get this wrong.. but here’s what the American Society for Cell Biology says..
If you’ve read recent news about Congress trying to pass “the budget,” you may have noticed that even Washington, D.C. reporters don’t always have a firm grasp on the details of what they’re covering.
The so-called “Big Beautiful Bill” (BBB) that’s been debated in Congress is not the federal budget. It’s actually a budget “reconciliation” bill. Reconciliation was originally designed to help Congress cut back when the federal checkbook exceeds the budget plan. But over time, this once-technical, green eyeshade tool has been used as a powerful way for the party in control to advance major policy priorities.
Reconciliation has been used to reshape significant federal programs. For example, President Clinton used it to “reform” the welfare system and President Biden used it to pass the American Rescue Plan and the Inflation Reduction Act—his two signature legislative achievements. It has also been used to deliver significant tax reductions.
This year, the BBB will use the Reconciliation process to make certain tax cuts permanent. Current versions of the bill suggest that lost federal revenue from these tax cuts will likely be offset by reductions in Medicaid and other safety net programs.
While the media focuses on the BBB, a separate and critical process is underway: the development of the actual Fiscal Year 2026 spending bills. Members of the House and Senate Appropriations Committees are currently working on funding plans for all federal agencies, including the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the National Science Foundation (NSF).
If this is true, then R&D supporters can still work with Appropriators, particularly the Interior Environment and Related Agencies Subcommittee.
***********
Anyway, back to Phil.
The House version of the Big Beautiful Bill for the 2026 Appropriations basically zeros out both the State and Private and the Research and Development branches of the USFS. Gone with a stroke of pen is over a 100 years of cooperative forestry efforts with the States and over a 100 years of Research and Development efforts.
We both spent a great part of our careers in R&D and the collective R&D efforts have led to the vast scientific knowledge base for management of federal, state, and private forest lands. One of the key features of our R&D work was our abilities to establish long term data sets that most universities cannot do considering the shorter-term nature of their Masters and PhD efforts.
Some examples of long term research that I was personally involved with in our Redding, California silviculture sab’s efforts:
50 year results of the Blacks Mtn. Experimental Forest Methods of Cutting Trials initiated in the late 30’s.
Blacks Mtn Interdisciplinary Biodiversity Study initiated in the early 1990’s involving large scale plots utilization two vastly different forest management treatments featuring high structural diversity and low structural diversity, subdivided by grazing/no grazing, and subdivided by prescribed fire/no fire. These studies are now approaching 30 years of response measurements.
Garden of Eden fertilizer trials initialed in 1985 by Dr. Robert Powers where fertilizers, insect control, and brush/grass control were established on multiple sites throughout California.
Long Term Soil Productivity Studies. The National Forest Management Act calls for the agency to do research and monitoring on the long-term productivity effects of their management practices (paraphrased).
In the late 80’s a group of soil scientists met with Chief F. Dale Robertson to express their concerns that nothing had been done about this mandate since the passage of FNMA. The Chief agreed to a proposal they presented and found several million dollars to establish the National Long-Term Soil Productivity Research effort.
The same research design was established in just about every forested region of the U.S. As an example, three loblolly pine locations were established including east Texas (dry sites), Louisiana (high sites), and South Carolina (coastal plains). These were set up as 30 to 40 year efforts to determine short-rotation effects on soil productivity.
We had five major mixed conifer sites focusing on a 100 year rotation cycle. All of the sites were established in the early 1990’s across the nation. They are all approaching 25 to 30 years of age. Publications have been presented posting results at age 5, 10, and 20 years.
Swain Mtn Experimental Forest Shelterwood regeneration experiments initiated in the 1960’s and 1980′.
Levels of Growing Stock studies for Ponderosa Pine and True Firs in the 1970’s. The Ponderosa Pine LOGS study covered the entire ponderosa region.
Similar to all of these long term studies were other local efforts across every USFS Experimental Forest in the nation. The Madison Forest Products Lab has developed studies in all aspects of wood and cellulose utilization.
Last year I was at the Lab in Madison and as I approached the parking lots there were a couple of truck loads of Vaagen Timbers mass timber panels at the testing lab. As we move into nano technology and cell level wood technology, the national need for a large wood technology is needed more than ever.
The stupidity of canceling out the all R&D efforts of the USFS is staggering. It reminds me of German Scientist Heinrich Cotta who said in 1816 (paraphrased): “Amongst the problems in forestry are:
The many sites our crop grows on.
The long time it takes to grow our crop.
Those who practice much write little.
Those who practice little, write much.
Over 200 years later, those who practice little are writing much to destroy not only USFS Research and Development, but USFS efforts for continuing cooperative efforts with the States.
Those who have practiced much have collectively also written much, but after the Big Beautiful Bill, the USFS research and development effort will be silent if things stays the same in the final big but not so beautiful fill.
The links to the webinars won’t work because this is a screenshot. Here’s the link to the Science You Can Use site. Again here’s the NAFSR letter if you want to write your Congressfolk..
As I said before, I didn’t think that Senator Lee had made his case that land exchanges and sales of federal land couldn’t be done through existing methods; and that new legislation was needed. While those provisions are now gone, as I predicted, it made me curious as to what existing methods were out there. What I heard from BLM folks was that “we can already do those things,” much like what I’d heard about the Public Lands Rule. In terms of examples of exchanges and sales, Bill Dunkelberger (retired Forest Supervisor of the H-T) sent me the example of the Eastern Sierra Landownership Adjustment Project. The way it’s structured made me think of ways that communities, agencies and Tribes may work together to do PODs and evacuation routes and other wildfire-related planning. Anyway, here’s a link to the report. It would be interesting to get an update from any of you working in the area.
Here’s what they set out to do:
Surrounded by an array of public land holdings, the communities in the Eastern Sierra are uniquely protected from over development even as they are sometimes constrained from logical and sustainable growth. With almost 97% of Inyo County and 94% of Mono County owned by public agencies, the Eastern Sierra lacks private land within and adjacent to existing communities. Administering these vast acreages of public land is a task that is sometimes complicated by isolated private parcels. The goal of the Eastern Sierra Landownership Adjustment Project (LAP) is to examine landownership patterns and exchange opportunities to maximize local resource management efficiency, community planning and expansion potential.
LAP Vision Statement
Federal and state agencies, Inyo and Mono counties, local tribes, interested citizens, organizations, and private landowners will collaborate to explore and develop options to create a landownership pattern in the Eastern Sierra that better complements collaborative regional goals while preserving private property rights F focusing on opportunities to concentrate development around existing communities and infrastructure; provide workforce housing; maintain agricultural opportunities; protect water and other natural resources and open space; and consolidate agency lands.
The Sierra Nevada Conservancy funded the LAP in 2008 and an Advisory Committee consisting of representatives from the BLM, USFS, Mono and Inyo Counties, individual citizens, and the Sierra Business Council worked collaboratively to guide the project to completion of its stated goals:
Conduct an inventory of all potential agency lands available for disposal and identified for acquisition, and create a GIS
Disseminate information pertaining to land disposal policies, constraints, and opportunities, and make the GIS land inventory accessible to the
Conduct public workshops to identify community needs that could be addressed through the project, and identify potential landownership
Based on the land inventory and community input, work collaboratively to facilitate mutually beneficial landownership adjustments and institutionalize policies to guide future
Now my BLM friends said it was fairly easy to do all this under FLPMA, but weren’t sure about the FS. I’m just going to copy these authorities, and hope that currently knowledgeable people will let us know whether they are still accurate. There were specifics about the Inyo and HT forest plans, but perhaps they have been revised since then. But forest plans were important pieces of the puzzle. Apologies for any formatting errors.
2.1.1 U.S. Forest Service
Standards and Guidelines
These Federal level policies and standards govern all National Forests. For Forest@level policies and standards that provide more specific guidance, see the individual sections for the Humboldt-Toiyabe and Inyo National Forests.
Land exchanges are a discretionary and voluntary transaction between the Federal government and a non-Federal party (36 CFR 254.3.a).
A determination must be made that the public interest will be well served (36 CFR §254.3.b), which may include:
The opportunity to achieve better management of Federal lands and resources;
To meet the needs of State and local residents and their economies; and
To secure important objectives, including but not limited to: protection of fish and wildlife habitats, cultural resources, watersheds, and wilderness and aesthetic values; enhancement of recreation opportunities and public access; consolidation of lands and/or interests in lands, such as mineral and timber interests, for more local and efficient management and development; consolidation of split estates; expansion of communities; accommodation of existing or planned land use authorizations; promotion of multiple use values; implementation of applicable Forest Land and Resource Management Plans; and fulfillment of public needs.
The authorized officer must also find that (36 CFR §254.3.b.2.):
The resource values and the public objectives served by the non@Federal lands or interests to be acquired must equal or exceed the resource values and the public objectives served by the Federal lands to be conveyed, and
The intended use of the conveyed Federal land will not substantially conflict with established management objectives on adjacent Federal lands, including Indian Trust
Exchanges must be consistent with Forest land and resource management plans (36 CFR
254.3.f, the Land Exchange Handbook [FSH 5409.13 Chapter 30]).
The non@Federal party must be the owner of the non@Federal land to be exchanged, or be in a position to acquire and convey it prior to initiating the land exchange process (the Land Exchange Handbook [FSH 13 Chapter 30]).
Properties must be equal in value, or either party may make them equal by cash payment not to exceed 25% of the Federal value. Payment may be waived to the non@Federal party up to 3% or $15,000, whichever is less. (36 CFR 254.12)
Unless otherwise provided by statute, the Federal and non@Federal lands involved in an exchange must be located within the same state (36 CFR §254.3.d, Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 [FLPMA]).
Exchanges must be conducted with United States citizens (FLPMA).
Marketing considerations: The authorized officer has the responsibility to design land exchange transactions that consider the best marketing configuration. See the Land Exchange Handbook (FSH 13 Chapter 30), for examples.
Reservations or restrictions on the Federal lands shall be required only when needed to protect the public interest or to satisfy a requirement of law, such as those concerning wetlands, floodplains, heritage sites, and so forth (36 CFR §254.3.h., the Land Exchange Handbook [FSH 5409.13 Chapter 30]).
The use or development of lands conveyed out of Federal ownership are subject to any restrictions imposed by the conveyance documents and all laws, regulations, and zoning authorities of State and local governing bodies (36 CFR 3.h.).
Lands must be properly described on the basis of a standard survey or as allowable by law (36 CFR 3.j.).
See 36 CFR §254.3.i for hazard substance
Federal regulations and policy provides for cost sharing and the assumption of costs, and allows for individual Forests to determine the assignment of costs and responsibilities (36 CFR 254.7, the Land Exchange Handbook [FSH 5409.13 Chapter 30]).
The authorized officer shall undertake an environmental analysis (36 CFR §254.3.g). See the Land Exchange Handbook (FSH 5409.13 Chapter 30) for a listing of environmental analysis and protection
Various exchange configurations can be considered (the Land Exchange Handbook [FSH 13 Chapter 30]) including assembled land exchanges, phased closing, multiple transactions, multiple conveyances (direct deeding), and dual authority exchange.
Appraisal requirements are set forth in 36 CFR §254.9. An appraisal is based on fair market value of the highest and best use of the land as set forth in 36 CFR 254.9(b).
General Exchange Act
The non-Federal land must be valuable chiefly for National Forest purposes.
The National Forest land must be non-mineral in character, or the minerals must be reserved and their value considered in the exchange (with BLM approval).
Requires that lands acquired be within proclaimed National Forest Service
Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA)
Authorizes acquisition of land for access across non-Federal lands to units of the National Forest
Requires the Secretary of Agriculture to give full consideration to State and local needs as well as Federal
Requires lands exchanged to be of equal value, within 25%.
Exchange for Schools Act (Sisk Act)
Allows for the exchange of not more than 80 acres of National Forest System land to a State, county, municipal government, or public school authority without limitation to the amount of cash equalization payment made by the non-Federal part
Lands may be conveyed to a State, county or municipal government only if the entity was using the land on January 12, 1983, and for the same use
Tools
Exchanges (the Land Exchange Handbook [FSH 13 Chapter 30]):
Land for Land, including partial interests such as severed mineral estates, rights-of-way easements, leasehold interests, and long-term or perpetual easements.
Legislated Exchanges: Passed by an Act of Congress, and may override the requirements of USFS regulation and
Land for Timber: acquisition of non@Federal land, or interest in land, in exchange for National Forest timber or the value generated from the timber harvested in accordance with a National Forest timber
Competitive Land Exchange: when the Federal land is unique and similar private party transactions are limited or non@existent or there is a known competitive interest in the Federal
Exchange with States and Federally Recognized
Exchange through the Bureau of Land
Administrative Site Exchange: may facilitate acquisition of new administrative sites, conveyance of sites that are no longer needed to accomplish the Forest Service mission, or both. Resource lands may not be conveyed for a new administrative
Limited sale ability to schools via the Sisk Act
National Forest Townsites: up to 640 acres of National Forest System lands adjacent to or contiguous to an established community in California may be sold for fair market value if those lands would serve indigenous community objectives that outweigh the public objectives and values of retaining the lands in Federal See 36 CFR Section 254, Subpart B.
Small Tracts Act: provides for the resolution of land disputes and management problems by conveying through sale, exchange, or interchange three categories of land: parcels encroached on, road rights-of-way, and mineral survey fractions. See 36 CFR Section 254, Subpart
