Some of us have been wondering “how does it work exactly (who does what?) when grantees (such as the Keystones) do projects?” So many thanks to our friends at AFRC for their February newsletter, in which they tell us more details of how this works.
The Partner Paradigm- Timber Contracting in the Golden State
The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (BIL), and Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) provided hundreds of millions of dollars to the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) and selected ‘Keystone Partners’ to address the wildfire crisis in California. The size and scope of these Keystone Master Stewardship Agreements
(MSA) is unique. and have created opportunities for a few of our National Forests. These Forests have capitalized on an additional workforce as well as implementation funding to increase the number of acres treated. These agreements allow for the partners to act as an extension of the USFS in many stages of project design, preparation, contracting, and administration.Background. The USFS is undergoing its most significant operational shift in decades. Facing a mandate to treat millions of acres and a historic infusion of federal cash, the agency is increasingly delegating forest management to non-profit partners. The shift is driven by a stark reality: the scale of the wildfire
crisis is beyond what the agency can address alone. In response, the USFS established a “Shared Stewardship” strategy with the goal of treating one million acres annually by 2025.In California, the Tahoe National Forest (TNF) has become a primary staging ground, with projects like the North Yuba Landscape Resilience Project receiving approximately $160 million to treat 275,000 acres. The TNF and the National Forest Foundation (NFF) entered a 20-year Keystone Agreement with the intention of executing priority projects quickly and efficiently.
NFF began their work in 2023 and have been successful in preparing and implementing fuels reduction work across thousands of acres of the Forest. These projects were packaged and advertised to forestry consultants, contractors, and sawmills. Project preparation was completed by NFF employees and
multiple California consultants. Projects were advertised to interested parties as ‘service work’ contracts and were paid on a per acre basis. Forest products were advertised on a ‘delivered log’ rate, with delivery of logs included as a service work item in the awarded contractor’s service contract. The ‘NFF Tahoe
Pilot Model’ has not been without the expected, and unexpected, issues that arise when a new model is introduced. At the base of these issues was NFF’s lack of experience in their acting role of contracting officer, timber management officer, and sale administrator.
Conceivably, if NFF is trained up to do those jobs… is the FS paying for two parallel organizations on the same acres? And the FS is paying to train up non-permanent people..is that a good investment? I am a fan of all the Keystone partners, but I think the questions need to be asked. And I continue to think that the FS should make public the annual reports (at least) so folks can see where the funding is going and what is being accomplished (I had to FOIA to get them).
These were not skill sets that NFF could bring to the table when given the authorities in their agreement.
Moving Forward. To resolve these issues, AFRC has worked with our membership, the Tahoe National Forest, and National Forest Foundation. Standards are being developed through extensive discussion, a framework of expectations, and protocols. Monthly meetings will continue to occur to ensure that all
parties have clarity on NFF offerings from the TNF’s projects. The NFF staff have created a ‘contract and communications plan’ that provides a detailed outline of the organization’s expectations and policies. This plan looks to ensure that issues with the timing of deliveries, log quality, and quantity are addressed on a weekly basis. A work in progress and a movement in the direction our members need to be successful.
Future items to address include:
• BIL and IRA funding being obligated prior to the end of 2028 rather than 2032.
• The Plumas National Forest adopting and implementing the NFF Tahoe standards.
• Allocation and use of retained receipts between the National Forests and their Partners.
• Contract content, authorities and administration.
This partner paradigm aims to accelerate forest restoration and allow for greater flexibility and creativity to implement treatments. As the USFS continues to shift its authorities and responsibilities to its partners, AFRC will continue to engage with USFS and its partners in California to ensure our industries needs and concerns are addressed.
It’s interesting that some folks are worried about partnering with States giving “State control.” But folks are not worried about partnering with NGOs giving “NGO control.” I’m not worried about either, but more transparency about all kinds of partners and the joint work can’t hurt.
****************
Next post will be on the NEPA approach of the North Yuba Landscape Resilience Project. There seems to be much innovative NEPA work in the Sierra Nevada area.. there is the SERAL project on the Stanislaus, the two-forest prescribed fire EA on the Sierra and Sequoia. So shout out to all those innovators!
Thank you for this information. It provides some answers on how they are trying to make this work. I am worried about both the States and NGO’s gradually replacing work that the Forest Service should be able to do. I was not against (and still am not) limited use of the GNA with States, I have seen examples where this went pretty well. Some States are fairly involved in their own timber sale activities with State land (thereby having sufficient experience running timber sales) and while their operations and requirements are usually less stringent than federal requirements, the likelihood of something seriously wrong happening is not likely. It does appear that some of this is a work-around of the Federal Acquisition Regulations. Things that we were told were important for decades are now just a burden. It appears that with some of these NGO’s, they are not advertising these timber sales competitively but instead going to direct to purchasers/contractors.
Here is my main question, how did we get here where we have to have the States and NGO’s running timber sales? For decades, the Forest Service was able manage its timber program on its own and now it no longer can? I know, it’s the lawsuits, NEPA and enviros that have wreaked havoc on the system. But how does having the States and NGO’s run timber sales solve that?
So, a bunch of employees get fired and now the Forest Service has to get outside help. Why are the States and NGO’s willing to do this work? Because they are good deed doers? I suspect that in both cases, it is a way for them to bring funding into their organizations and add personnel. Many of these States are tightwads, Wyoming is notable for not wanting to spend money on much of anything. Many of these projects are a long way from WUI, so that can’t be it. With the exception of a few National Forests with high value timber, the Forest Service’s timber program runs in the red. But not for these States and NGO’s? Why is that?
Lastly, doesn’t turning over work to the States play directly into the hands of those who want federal land turned over to the States? “The Forest Service can’t even manage its own land anymore, they have to let the States do it. The States do a better job anyway, let’s just give the land to the States.” Is it not possible that with all of the firings and now demands for increasing outputs, that the Forest Service has been set up to fail? Maybe not deliberately but in practice.
Dave, I think the NGO effort started because there was so much funding coming in due to short term funding, the IRA and the IIJA. They needed to bulk up to get the work done, but couldn’t hire permanents with soft money (although they also did that, then were deficit and had to not hire temps due to the deficit. The question is.. if they hired 5K extra people (knowing that some of these were conversions from temps) then do they still need more employees if others are doing the work?
And I wasn’t able to get any media folks interested in the FS farming out work non-competitively during the previous Admin. But some outlets are against cooperating with States..some more than others.. and try to fit it into their narrative of “they are trying to get rid of federal lands”.
I agree with you, that’s how it got started, under the Biden Administration. It just seems like Shultz wants to continue down the path of farming out work. I really need to listen to Randy Moore’s explanation of the whole temp employee mess that you discussed a while back. I just don’t understand all of that. Getting dumped with all that extra funding certainly had to be a challenge and maybe they did the best they could given the circumstances. I hope Shultz knows what he’s doing. It’s a really challenging time for the FS and not a lot of room for bad decisions.
I’m with you Dave, not a fan of NGO’ at the wheel! GNA worked very well in my opinion, in States capable to handle that type of workload. I’ve worked with NFF on certain projects, in different Regions, and at best would rate that as marginal! Too often, do gooders in the FS always wanted more bigger, faster…..
NWTF is getting paid over a million bucks to manage a timber sale on the Bearlodge!! Can you believe that? It just seems crazy to me.
“I know, it’s the lawsuits, NEPA and enviros that have wreaked havoc on the system.”
That didn’t show up at all in this reporting on the 2026 Montana Economic Report, put out by the Bureau of Business and Economic Research at the University of Montana.
https://www.msuexponent.com/news/state/economist-forestry-industry-in-montana-faces-declines-uncertainty/article_cf1ed710-6ae1-5bd3-a78e-d316b02f96c1.html
Quotes from the article:
“Supply-side bottlenecks, including labor shortages and high housing costs, will continue to limit growth. Expanding timber harvest would require additional in-woods and in-mill labor, which has proven difficult to secure across the West.”
“Finally, continued volatility in the housing market may keep wood products demand, and prices, subdued.”
Scott said low lumber prices and rising production costs are pressuring mills. Those two factors were part of why Pyramid and Roseburg had to close.
He said the Trump administration’s tariff policy remains another wildcard.
Good article! Thanks for sharing! I was being somewhat sarcastic by listing the usual suspects when people are looking to place blame. The situation is complex. Solving the issues is a lot more difficult than the FS offering 25% more timber. Schultz comes from the timber industry. I’m sure he knows these things.
“I know, it’s the lawsuits, NEPA and enviros that have wreaked havoc on the system.” Sounds legit to me! My whole career I’ve watched the NEPA process ground projects to a halt, or slow them to a snails pace over bullet proofing the Planning process.
Any larger project, be it fuels or recreation takes years to complete. One such project in Region 2 dealing with designated dispersed camping is into its third year – maybe fourth. I’ve seen projects fast tracked to a successful conclusion nut that is the exception. Appeals/Objections take an inordinate amount of time and money, usually over disagreement on policy rather than any violation of Law.
EAJA made it much worse and contributes to the major funding of some of the shadier environmental organizations. The general public really has no concept of NEPA or Planning, and fails to understand the bigger “why”……. So Dave, I totally agree with you!
It looks like we have different interpretations of the “system” Dave was referring to. You are talking just about the ability of the Forest Service to get things done, rather than the health of the timber industry. When you blame the NEPA process for that, you are also (and maybe mostly) blaming the people who manage the process (including the decision to start the process for a particular project). Especially when they lose objections and court cases. (I’m curious what your criteria are for “shady” environmental organizations.)
I disagree that concerns about the process also blame the people involved.. that’s the whole permitting reform discussion. Reasonable people can disagree about the climate/biodiversity trade-offs, for example, for lithium mines vs. endangered plants. The point of permitting reform is to refine processes so that projects can be accomplished.. even though people who can afford lawyers will sometimes disagree.
I think any process could be made to work if it were funded in a way that reflects its supposed priority. But this government would rather reduce public participation opportunities than spend more money.
NFF has made great leaps and bounds since its first stewardship agreement on the Tahoe NF in 2019. The North Yuba Project has been a major undertaking and there have been several hiccups along the way, but the participation by NFF has certainly increased the pace and scale of timber harvest on the Tahoe. Currently NFF has resident staff at the Tahoe Forest Supervisor’s office and there is daily interaction with Forest timber contracting staff. I would also add that unlike Good Neighbor authority sales, the Forest Service has not completely ceded its contract authority. The Forest Service and NFF jointly prepare roles and responsibilities and the Forest Service retains the authority for final acceptance of completed work.