This story is by long-term environmental reporter Bobby McGill and Allison Prang for Bloomberg Law. Seems kind of fear-mongery to me since the FS said they are not pursuing primacy (as if they could, as lawyers know). Perhaps this should go in the Schultz Superpower column along with the ability to single-handedly wrest control of Rec. gov from the other agencies…

Forest Service Chief Eyes More State Control of Federal Land (1)

As readers of Bloomberg Law may know, there is a complex (as we discuss here frequently) statutory regime that determines who makes decisions about federal land.

The US Forest Service is considering giving states and local counties more control over national forests and other public lands, Forest Service Chief Tom Schultz said Tuesday.

“You think about the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act, and we delegate primacy to the states to manage those programs under state authorities,” Schultz said, speaking at the Western Governors’ Association’s annual meeting in Utah. “And that’s what we’re thinking about.”

The Forest Service in a statement on Wednesday denied the agency is pursuing “primacy” specifically. But Schultz’s statements suggest the Trump administration’s possible next steps include giving more control of federal lands to states and local governments—moves public lands advocates have long feared because they say local officials are often more interested in economic development on public land than conservation and endangered species protections.

If I read the actual quote from the Chief (which he has said more or less a few times), he is saying “if we trust States to carry out other federal programs, why not trust them with (a more active role of some kind)?” If you’re talking to the Western Governors, it’s probably a good thing to honor their states’ work and abilities.  As a person who worked on Colorado Roadless with State folks, it seems like a good idea to work together. If someone’s  against Schultz’s “cooperative federalism”, I wonder what their preference would be..”uncooperative federalism”, maybe “actively hostile federalism”? Maybe the latter was the philosophy behind the Rock Springs RMP decision of  December 2024.

Sure enough, the story says:

We have opportunities working with states and tribes and counties to identify landscapes that they can manage for the national forest system,” Schultz said.

“We still have to maintain the decisions. We still have a national environmental framework we have to operate within, but there is interest among states in stepping up and assisting in the management and driving the management of the national forest system,” he said.

Once again,  Schultz uses the “they can manage” as in a contractor like relationship  between jointly identified projects that fit within forest plans.  “Driving the management” might actually mean the same thing as “bringing money to the table for their priorities (within forest plans)” or “the FS pays attention to State Forest Action Plans or Wildfire Resilience Plans”.. we don’t actually know the details.  What we do know is that the FS’s choices are determined within a forest (so to speak) of existing statutes and regulations.

The Forest Service apparently agrees with me.

The Forest Service, in an unsigned email Wednesday, said, “Chief Schultz was discussing the importance of strengthening partnerships with states to improve land management outcomes.”

“The Forest Service has not proposed changes to federal land management authority, nor is it pursuing a delegation of ‘primacy’ to states,” the agency said.

*********

“The agency continues to operate under existing statutory authorities, including the National Forest Management Act,” the Forest Service said in its email. “There is no formal proposal, timeline, or request to Congress related to this topic.”

Who does the article quote.. an attorney from PLF? Of all the folks with opinions on the subject…

Schultz was on the right track because too many federal lands decisions for decades have been made from afar in Washington, said Frank Garrison, an attorney for the Pacific Legal Foundation, which fights for private property rights.

“Putting those decisions closer to the people affected can lead to better, more active management than we’ve gotten from a system run out of DC,” he said. “The Founders never intended for Washington to be a permanent landlord, holding huge tracts of land rich in natural resources forever.”

So the FS never used the word “primacy” and said that they weren’t pursuing it. End of story.. right?

There’s no precedent for state “primacy” over federal lands, said Pat Parenteau, an emeritus law professor at Vermont Law School who served as EPA regional counsel under President Ronald Reagan.

“There’s no authority under NFMA or FLPMA to delegate or create primacy for states—let alone counties—to manage federal lands,” he said. “Legally, states can’t take over management of public lands. That would require an act of Congress.”

Schultz’s statements are “shocking and outlandish” because primacy goes far beyond shared-stewardship agreements and “into the realm of disposal of federal lands to counties,” said Susan Jane Brown, an attorney for nonprofit environmental law firm Silvix Resources.

But that’s not what he said.

“Primacy” represents the Trump administration’s shift in narrative toward state control after the movement to transfer federal land to the states lost steam in the wake of the US Supreme Court’s 2025 rejection of Utah’s bid to declare nearly all federal land holdings in the state unconstitutional, Kalen said.

****************

I’d like to say three things about this article:

“moves public lands advocates have long feared because they say local officials are often more interested in economic development on public land than conservation and endangered species protections.”

1. I’m a public lands advocate and I believe in cooperative federalism- even when states do things I disagree with- because, heck, governance may, and does, get undesirable outcomes, but being ruled by a one-size fits all oriented group in DC will also have bad outcomes.   In my experience with Colorado Roadless, I saw it happen. The State knows things, the Feds know things.  The State does things, the Feds do things.  During the Vilsack period , it was “All Lands All Hands.”

2. Many of the same entities were not so concerned about private entities taking over so-called “conservation leases”, even though their relationship to existing RMPs was not exactly straightforward.

3. And yet, are western governors so scary? Polis,  Newsom, Kotek, Grisham?

4. One thing about many scary stories is that no mechanism for how these bad things could happen is actually postulated. Probably because whatever intentions an Admin might have, it would have to make its way through Congress.

********