Here’s what the text says:
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?
Interesting that they think much money is going to be generated to go to the general fund. Many timber sale contracts are IRSC, which means it’s a cash outlay for the FS. Jim Z can say how much White Mtn. Stewardship cost prior to 4FRI. What about KV? Just bypassing that law? What about all the forests that don’t have the mill capacity to increase their timber sale program let alone employee capacity? Just because a 25 year old Forest Plan had a high number for ASQ doesn’t mean those numbers are even close to still being valid. Chris French should know this stuff.
Oh, I would be that Chris knows this stuff, but I also doubt if Congressional staff are asking his opinion. As I said to Sam, career civil servants (even executives) are not calling the shots.
Sadly, I’m quite sure that is true. I think the subject matter experts are extraneous. DOGE certainly didn’t seem to use them.
I don’t think that this is about technical know-how, it’s about signaling to constituencies.. whether anything happens is perhaps beside the point. This is about Congressional staff and interest groups.
DOGE was an Administration thing and was not setting policy.
Regarding DOGE, I guess I believe they needed some people with actual knowledge of the organization before they started firing people. Maybe I’m crazy but that would seem to make sense. Yes, politicians can do all kinds of things for all kinds of reasons, doesn’t mean they shouldn’t be called out for doing stupid stuff. I believe that is a citizen responsibility.
I think what DOGE did first was try to fire all the probationary folks because they thought they’d be easier to do it, and logically (except for the FS because of conversions from temp) the USG would have less invested in them that in more experienced workers. I’m not arguing that it was a good idea, but if you want to get numbers down, it could be argued that it made more sense to let those folks go (except for the converted temps) than to encourage VERA of more knowledgeable folks some of which you will have to hire back or get as contractors.
Well Dave, White Mountain Stewardship paid $500/acre, but then stumpage was paid back to the FS by the Contractor. So, heavily timbered brought it down to $350-ish/ acre, lighter timber was $450-ish. 4-FRI fizzled, so all those millions spent on the planning were never recouped! They (4-FRI) claimed lots of acres but they were mainly managed fire – double/triple count shenanigans. Central Colorado is paying $4,000/acre currently, but that doesn’t include any slash treatments; slash just left on the ground!
I was griping about this to the FS National Stewardship Coordinator and he said $4,000/acre is “chicken feed”, there are areas paying upward of “25,000/acre currently!
Good grief, I’m beginning to think we need to start all over….. The timber wars, environmental meddling, lawsuits and public sentiment has caused a major collapse in the West; the East South and North are doing swell, and no amount of $ will rebuild that trust and infrastructure west of the 100th Meridian!
That was my memory, that it was around $500/acre and I thought that was outrageous at the time. There was a steep slope logging project on the Northern Hills that cost $6,000/acre. Just nuts! The 4FRI was well-intentioned but maybe it was doomed from the get go. I hate to think about all the time and money spent on that. Now they’re thinking 20 year contracts are the way to go. I’m hoping someone has done a real study on 4FRI and lessons learned. There needs to be some innovative thinking with actual practitioners involved. Research needs to be in on this. It does seem a little hopeless.
The failure of 4-FRI was the prohibition against anything over a ten-year contract. Industry told us they needed 20 years to develop the infrastructure needed for 50,000 acres per year. We were limited to two contractors; there was another bid but it was 15 minutes after closing. Anyway, the FS was not equipped to succinctly rate the differences in the two competing contractors. And to tell the whole truth, we (FS) picked the wrong one! Being a timber forester from the beginning, I can tell you the whole process stunk to high Heaven ! There was fraud, there was insider affiliation, and the list goes on and on!
Excellent Planning outcome and extremely deep diving in Collaborative support, but the train had no rails….
These are all excellent points. I suspect that the minimum sale provision as written is unenforceable. If the FS falls short for the reasons Dave suggests or simply because there is no demand, it seems improbable that anyone will have a remedy for that. It is unlikely any particular timber operator will have standing to sue, because no individual operator has any personal claim to any of the alleged timber sales shortfall. Also, no federal judge wants to adminster a complex timber sale program injunction; the judges will look for a way out, and the way out is the standing doctrine.
As discussed on this site sometime in the past, industry has long sought to make ASQ/PSQs legally enforceable minimum sales requirements. In that regard, this statutory language swings and misses. The law does not specifically tie the minimum sales requirement to any particular forest, so the agency will have discretion in how to implement it.
I’m guessing the FS will adminster this provision as though it directed the agency to use its best efforts to meet the statutory goal. The provision as written is (as suggested elsewhere in this thread) an absurd one that would not have survived even routine legal review in its present form. This is just one reason why 1000-page bills are a bad way to legislate, regardless of which team is in power.
Sharon makes a very good point about the long-term contracts: not every operator (indeed, perhaps not *most* operators) will want a 20-year deal. The FS perhaps has a way through here – draft the contract for “20 years” but allow the operator to opt-out every, say, 5 years. The FS already uses something like this technique in other contexts to comply with certain obligation restrictions imposed by OMB.
As I was reading the PLF docs on renewables, I came across this successful goal-setting by Congressfolk:
“The Appropriations bill for FY2021 included several policy riders, including a goal to approve 25
gigawatts (GW) of solar, wind and geothermal energy projects on the public lands by 2025 and a
requirement to establish BLM Renewable Energy Coordination Offices to streamline the
permitting process for renewable energy projects. The BLM, with the approval of solar, wind,
geothermal and gen-tie projects, has surpassed the goal of permitting 25 GW of clean energy
projects on the public lands. “
I think there’s a lot more pain ahead for the Forest Service, due to the major leadership problems. French has obviously become ‘marginalized’ into political compliance, in search of his “High-3” (or is it “High-5”, now?) If he thinks industry can be trusted to select their own cut trees, he’s crazy. If he thinks environmental laws can be erased with a Sharpie, again, he’s crazy. If he thinks every National Forest can all put up timber sales, without opposition, he’s loony, bonkers and out of touch.
Some of us would be OK, with a total collapse of the Forest Service, trusting that a rebuild (years from now) would be much better, and less ‘top-heavy’.
Sam, that’s not how this works.. Chris is a career federal executive.. Congress could ask his opinion, but usually doesn’t. Further I would bet that none of these ideas are his.. but the way the government works is that career folks are not in charge. Elected Congressfolk do their deals, judges weigh in, and political appointees show up and tell career folks what to do.
“Elected Congressfolk do their deals, judges weigh in, and political appointees show up and tell career folks what to do.”
(AKA “Leadership”)
I don’t understand what you’re saying.. are you saying if a career fed showed enough “leadership” then Congressfolk, judges, and political appointees would listen to them?
What I am saying is that all of them ‘lead’ the Forest Service, and are responsible for what the USFS does. They all need just one shared reality, without the propaganda. I don’t see that changing, and the rudderless ship has also lost the ability to navigate by the stars. (Too ‘sciency’)
I would disagree.. they are responsible for what the FS does within the constraints and budgets imposed by Congress, the Courts and the Administration. Their job is to do the best they can to chart a course given the shifting winds and currents of entities, designed by the Constitution, to be more powerful than career federal employees. What specifically would you like Chris (or other SESers) to do that they are not doing?
Tell Americans (and their Congressfolk) WHY they cannot do better. Are they afraid of the truth? (Yes, yes they are. If they tell the truth, they are labeled as “leakers”.)
Sam, you are being kind of vague. Let’s do it this way…
FS leaders should say.. “x” in the form of “y” to “z” outlets.
Also exactly what do you mean by “the truth”? Anonymous the Philosopher is probably not following this comment thread but I’m sure he’d have something to say.
In my experience, the exact same people who talk about “telling truth to power” are the same ones who say in other contexts “everyone has their own truth and we should honor diverse perspectives.” So it’s very confusing to me what people actually mean.
Well, let’s put people like Chris French in front of Congress, under oath, to get some real answers. Of course, NO ONE should be against such a plan, eh? Americans need to know about any ‘secret agenda’ being pursued ala “Project 2025”.
I don’t know how to read these things without some legal help. If receipts go to the general fund, does this mean no 25% revenue sharing from these long-term contracts? And it appears Secure Rural Schools was stripped by the Senate. If part of the idea here is to boost rural economies by cutting more trees, cutting off revenue for counties and schools seems counter productive. Is this simply accelerating wealth extraction from rural counties?
Excellent point. Were the counties with FS land in the loop on this? One has to wonder who came up with this stuff? Was it just politicians who think they know more than they actually do? Was it the Honorable Bruce Westerman who never fails to let it be known he has a forestry degree? Was the FS consulted or was it just at the Department level, or not even there? Who knows but much of this is not based on any semblance of reality.
Those are all good questions, Mark! Hopefully you can find out and report back.
Here’s the current 1908 revenue-sharing law, as amended in 2008:
16 USC § 500. Payment and evaluation of receipts to State or Territory for schools and roads; moneys received; projections of revenues and estimated payments
On and after May 23, 1908, an amount equal to the annual average of 25 percent of all amounts received for the applicable fiscal year and each of the preceding 6 fiscal years from each national forest shall be paid, at the end of such year, by the Secretary of the Treasury to the State or Territory in which such national forest is situated, to be expended as the State or Territorial legislature may prescribe for the benefit of the public schools and public roads of the county or counties in which such national forest is situated: Provided, That when any national forest is in more than one State or Territory or county the distributive share to each from the proceeds of such forest shall be proportional to its area therein. In sales of logs, ties, poles, posts, cordwood, pulpwood, and other forest products the amounts made available for schools and roads by this section shall be based upon the stumpage value of the timber. Beginning October 1, 1976, the term “moneys received” shall include all collections under the Act of June 9, 1930, and all amounts earned or allowed any purchaser of national forest timber and other forest products within such State as purchaser credits, for the construction of roads on the National Forest Transportation System within such national forests or parts thereof in connection with any Forest Service timber sales contract. The Secretary of Agriculture shall, from time to time as he goes through his process of developing the budget revenue estimates, make available to the States his current projections of revenues and payments estimated to be made under the Act of May 23, 1908, as amended, or any other special Acts making payments in lieu of taxes, for their use for local budget planning purposes.
Let’s break it down. The law applies to “all” money received, which includes recreation fees, grazing leases, and special-use permit fees. There is no carve-out for long-term timber sale contracts. All receipts go first to the U.S. Treasury, which then distributes the payments to the states.
Those with a long memory will recall that Oregon’s Fourth District congressman, Jim Weaver, was pissed-off at the Forest Service for skimming Knutson-Vandenberg into its K-V slush fund, thus depriving the counties, which at that time received 25% of the net receipts. Jim used his subcommittee chairmanship to ensure that NFMA fixed this problem by requiring the 25% payment be made from the gross timber receipts, i.e., before the K-V withdrawals. With the counties now made whole, the Forest Service was free to ratchet up its K-V skimming, which it did to great effect!
The downside to 20-year contracts is that they don’t address the urgency in completing fuels reduction/restoration projects in a timely manner. Perhaps the answer lies in the Forest Service becoming more trusted in providing a steady flow of shorter-term contracts and relying on many smaller scale forest products businesses rather than a few large-scale mills that have a major negative impact on communities when they shut down. Think small in a big way. Smaller scaled businesses are likely to be able to more quickly retool for different forest products as time goes by.
Barry, I don’t think it’s all or none; the 20 year option would be specific to volume offered, the traditional four-year contract length could stay the same. Industry told us that 20 years would be a minimum to build out a new, 50-100 million dollar investment. This was in an area where no larger mills were still in play, and the smaller guys could not handle that much volume. The 4-FRI goal was 500,000 acres over 10 years! Pretty aggressive goal.
Jim, I’m all for whatever it takes to rebuild appropriate scaled forest products businesses. I’m familiar with the 4FRI and precursor White Mtn Stewardship projects, having toured the area a couple times and having minor consulting involvement concerning smallwood utilization possibilities for the Apache-Sitgreaves NF when I was still working for the FS on the IPNF. I believe that reforming NEPA/ESA procedures is more important and useful than a 20-year contract, which would help mills more quickly accumulate what we used to call “shelf volume” lasting that long. I’m happy to read that the 4FRI project has been slowly making progress, it’s been a long haul. Time will tell if the latest efforts to reform NEPA/ESA will have the intended results.
We must have met; I was the Sup on the A-S and presenter at Smallwood in Milwaukee, and attendee at Coeur d’ Alene. I hope I spelled that correctly….🤣
Speaking of NEPA, what’s the NEPA process look like for a 20-year contract?
Look at the 4-FRI NEPA as a guide. The NEPA was not for 20 years, the contacts needed to be. NEPA operated just like Action Plans of days gone by; projects had individual Planning efforts, just like all NF’s operate!
Here is the 4FRI NEPA, links to documents
4FRI covers 2.4 million administrative acres across the four forests. Within the 4FRI footprint, close to 2 million acres have been analyzed through the National Environmental Policy Act. Two large 4FRI-specific NEPA analyses are complete. Planning documents include:
1st 4FRI EIS (signed 2015) –580,000 acres https://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/4fri/planning/?cid=stelprdb5361003
4FRI Rim Country EIS (signed 2022) — 1,240,000 million acre https://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/4fri/planning/?cid=stelprd3837085
We may have met Jim but I came down to the A-S at the request of Elaine Zieroth, Forest Sup at that time and she was my Ranger in Bonners Ferry before moving to Springerville. So she knew and was a great supporter of the smallwood sales I was implementing and wanted me to give pep talks to R3 TSI/Refo and A-S Timber staff and at a public meeting in Show Low just prior to launching the White Mtn Stew project. My last visit to Flagstaff was as a presenter at Smallwood 2012 a year after I retired and I got to see some of that project being implemented. Whole tree yarding juniper (roots and all) was something to see. I also toured the biomass plant in Snowflake. Building back the forest products industry from zero was a condition I never wanted to have to deal with in the Panhandle and we were fortunate to have a healthy industry up there.
Yes you did have a healthy industry, the Vaagans probably operated in some of that country. Elaine was there before me. I never met her but she certainly was the inspiration for Stewardship and really, WMS, as it was for 4-FRI. I arrived on the A-S in May, 2010 as DFS, became Forest Sup November of 2011.
Great country down there….
Yes Vaagans and Plummer helped kick our smallwood program into higher gear from relying on small diameter lower value pulplog sales marketed through Fodge Pulp in Bonners Ferry and allowed the IPNF to sell logs as small as 13ft length to 2 1/2″ tops. I toured both of Vaagans mills and those Hewsaws are awesome machines. I was also fortunate to have innovative loggers to work with. Yes, nice country down around the A-S and Flagstaff.
After 20 years in the USFS (gs-5 to gs-13) heavily involved in the 5 year timber sale program, on four heavy timbered forests in the hay days of the 70’s and 80’s, any chances of the USFS resurrecting the 3 or 5 year action plan is nill. After the spotted owl court order and NFM act, the USFS quickly purged their skilled and seasoned foresters and engineers , and line officers with experience, and evolved into a Public Relations, DEI, and Land holding group versed in pamphlets, outreach, visitor production and coordination with the environmental community, This current increased cut effort will only increased lumber prices and promote successful private timber REIT companies taking up the slack in USA lumber production Without skilled personnel and rural lumber producers, Colorful maps and good intentions won’t yield decks of logs .
So…..
No solution?
You think we should go back to clearcutting spotted owl habitats, to fix everything? (like in the 70s?)
Ronon, Good Lord, what a nonsensical thing to say; spotted owls are only a barrier to forest management in a few areas! Mexican Spotted Owl (MSO) in the Southwest and Northern in the Northwest. The news is though, the MSO is just about ka-put due to losing 90% of their population to wildfire! The Southwest still is able to successfully log around Owl PACs so I reckon only the Northwest is tied up in knots over perceived conflicts. Add to that, the South, East and Lake States are positioned to accelerate an already impressive cut!
The US timber industry no longer revolves around the Northwest, hasn’t for many years now, and will probably only feed the wildfire industry for years to come….
Northern goshawk habitats extend much farther than spotted owls, though. Of course there are many wildlife barriers to bad forest management practices of the now-distant past. Those obsolete practices (including Overstory Removal) are very bad for multiple use public forests. Prove me wrong!
Ronon: Don’t “need” to prove you wrong, you ARE wrong! Overstory removals are the best economic returns on any given acre, of any forest at any time. Given pines intolerant ecology, if you growing trees you are growing for the biggest bang for the buck. Even trail users, both motorized and not, like the diversity of seeing changing seral dynamics, even though most people have no idea what they are looking at.
If you are growing trees for multiple use benefits, nothing wrong with overstory removals. Final seed removal in shelterwoods and seed tree removals in seed trees are called nothing else. Northern goshawk is an adaptable bird, they do well in all types but f management. Even at that, their range is very limited in the grand scheme of things!
Northern goshawk are officially “Threatened”, due to nesting habitat loss. Your lack of knowledge about the birds is appalling.
Making money is not a goal of the Forest Service. That idea surely won’t hold up in court. That is why we have NEPA hoops to jump through. To prevent profit-driven ‘cornfield forestry’.
Ronon, I don’t know what area you’re talking about but in Region 1 of the Forest Service the Northern Goshawk was removed from the sensitive list over a decade ago due to the determination that the species is more prevalent than first assumed. I’ve read that 5 of 9 Forest Service Regions do not list the species as sensitive nor as Threatened but didn’t see the date of that statement.
I would guess that it is Regions 4, 5 and 6 that still survey for northern goshawks. Remember, the birds are territorial and need ‘unsoiled’ nests, every year, to reproduce. In Regions 5 and 6, they have to compete with owls for existing nests, too. If you remove the overstory from nesting habitats, you no longer have nesting habitat. PLUS, that logging won’t enhance fire safety, or resilience.
Ronan, the bird can fly. If you look at where protected habitats used to be, we have a choice of disturbing the bird or incinerating their habitat! I guarantee, the fire burning on the North Kaibab/Grand Canyon has not only destroyed the lodge, it has most likely destroyed every nesting profile within the burn perimeter!
As for knowledge about goshawk, I worked with one of the premier scientist of the Southwest working group. You seem to be only a one-track thinker, having little experience in real world conservation… Eh?
When I surveyed for goshawks, finding a nest meant setting aside 5000 acres around it. That doesn’t mean no management at all. You present a false dichotomy, ignoring other options.
The Northern Goshawk (Accipiter gentilis) is not listed as endangered or threatened under the U.S. Endangered Species Act (ESA). It was petitioned for protection in both 1991 and 1997, but in each case the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service determined that listing was not warranted.
On a global scale, the IUCN lists the northern goshawk as “least concern.”
Ronan, your concept of “multiple use” doesn’t seem to take into account all the acres in designated wilderness, RHCAs, old growth reserves, areas unsuitable for timber harvesting and other “no touch” areas that leave a small percentage of forest actually suitable for timber harvesting/forest management/public use of forest products. Those areas where natural fire ignitions occur will determine what habitat is available for all those T&E and sensitive species. Conducting clearcutting/overstory removals and other even and uneven-aged silviculture treatments in those areas are legitimate activities and will also provide habitat for a wide variety of plant and animal species.
When the rarest habitats are ‘managed’, they cease to be rare. They simply cease… to be. Thinning is almost always better than even-aged liquidation.
Hey, why not include an even-aged management alternative in EVERY Federal timber project? Would THAT help? (it would educate, at the very least)
Also when wildfires are left to burn they can often cause rare habitat to “cease to exist”. What are you going to do after you thin a stand, thin again? Then what? Thin again? Perhaps you should read books on forest ecology and silviculture to help educate yourself.
You manage using site-specific conditions. The goal would be to reach a balance, where trees of many sizes can be ‘picked and plucked’, over a wider area. Your belief in “natural succession” is a flaw, in today’s real world.
Last response to this imposter (Ronon) about a goshawk; looks like others are now asking questions on what might be best…..
“Not long ago a lot of conservation groups were concerned about saving Northern Goshawk habitat from logging. Those same forests are now being burned by the Dragon Bravo Fire. After the rains come that end the Dragon Bravo Fire, I hope someone has the budget and people to go back and analyze the fire effects on Goshawk habitat compared to the logged areas.” Taken from a Facebook group who despair at losing, not disturbing, critical habitat!
Important fact. Goshawks in Regions 5 and 6 share nesting habitats with spotted owls. That sure seems like an important reason to survey for nests. It’s not just the birds that wildlife biologists want to find. The nests, even when inactive, must continue to be preserved. I doubt that the courts will agree that such areas MUST be commercially logged, before they burn up. There ARE other options.
Also…. my opinions are not any less valid, due to being anonymous.