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).
This is a long and comprehensive look at the history and challenges of the Forest Service, but I excerpted some parts that might give us a clue as to the inclinations of the new Chief.
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.
Not one word about tribal sovereignty, land repratriation or even co-stewardship? What a shocker.
The book was published in 2018. Most of us authors were writing in 2017. I think there would have been more attention to Tribes if the same folks had written it today.
BTW, the recent EXPLORE Act has language to include Tribes under the Good Neighbor Authority. https://www.stateforesters.org/newsroom/state-foresters-laud-expansion-of-good-neighbor-authority-to-bolster-cross-boundary-forest-management/
The chapter by Schultz et al does at least mention tribal interests. For example:
In 2009, Congress passed the Federal Land Assistance, Management, and Enhancement Act (FLAME Act). In the act, Congress directed the Forest Service to develop a National Cohesive Wildland Fire Management Strategy (WFLC 2014). The cohesive strategy was developed collaboratively with federal, state, local and tribal government participants, as well as nongovernmental partners and members of the public. The cohesive strategy has three main goals:
1. Restore and maintain landscapes—Landscapes across all jurisdictions are resilient to fire-related disturbances in accordance with management objectives;
2. Fire-adapted communities—Human populations and infrastructure can withstand a wildfire without loss of life and property; and
3. Wildfire response—All jurisdictions participate in making and implementing safe, effective, efficient risk-based wildfire management decisions.
…
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.
I was asked by Steve W to be a reviewer for this particular essay. At the time of my review, I relied on my 30+ years of FS experience to discern whether “cooperative federalism” was even a worthy concept pursuing for implementation. I also had the benefit of my experience to see what cooperative possibilities exist between the federal government and national forests/grasslands both west and east of the Mississippi River (yes, there is a difference!).
One thing that struck me in reviewing the draft given to me was how the authors state-based experience tended to favor state employees’ effectiveness in managing land over federal employees. I was offended by that – I am sure many of the readers in this forum have their own experiences with working along side state (or even local) land managers. The experiences likely run the spectrum, but I would argue there is no clear winner on who is best suited to manage public lands.
Now that Good Neighbor Authority has been in practice for several years, it would be interesting to see whether today’s relationships between the state and federal agencies resulted as predicted in this essay.
Wow, spent the day out riding snowmobiles and came back in to see a new Chief? Talk about an outsider, this may be the catalyst the FS needs to actually wedge in some management….. git ‘er done!
Maybe a topic for a seperate 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 have to question this basic premise: “This framework would reduce the underlying causes of the current federal land management conflicts and gridlock.”
I suppose from the perspective of some states (Idaho for one), the underlying causes are related to states not having enough of a say in federal land management, and having more say would address that. But others would say the underlying cause is too much state-driven political influence on federal land decisions, and not enough attention paid to the national interest in how those lands are managed, such as endangered species, to point out probably the leading example of national interest conflicts that play out in the courts.
Yes, Jon, those exact thoughts were running through my head when reviewing this essay. I felt the “states are right” tone was disrespectful to how federal public lands are being managed and the considerations that must occur to approve any management action.
I interpreted it more like “hey, we have expertise, too!”. Mostly I think about the Colorado wildlife and forest folks I worked with. They know much stuff, and in Colorado are responsible for wolf reintroduction. Shouldn’t interspersed lands make use of all the knowledge it can?
Maybe I’m more at the “let’s use all the experts we have” level and not the “our politicals make better decisions” level.
Sure, use their expertise (which I think they do a lot of already), but I don’t think doing that would “reduce the underlying causes of the current federal land management conflicts and gridlock.” It ends up feeling like a cover for a power grab.
Is/should cooperative federalism be any different from arguments about “co-management” with Native governments?