Firefighting-drones-in-the-works-as-wildfires-plague-US-nearly-year-round-Ars-Technica. Screenshot of this video.
I was reflecting on the AP story from earlier this week, and it occurred to me that sometimes issues are raised like “full suppression is a problem”, or even “private aviation is a problem” by national media, when it appears that in some cases, states don’t seem to have the same ideological battles. Why is that?
But critics say the administration is trying to fix something that isn’t broken: The four agencies the firefighters were drawn from — the Bureau of Land Management, Fish and Wildlife Service, Bureau of Indian Affairs and National Park Service — have a record of extinguishing 98% of the fires they handle.
Just think if that same concept were applied at the state land local level. LA would be off the hook for improving their wildfire readiness, because after all, the LA Fires were ultimately extinguished! States seem to be more pragmatic and perhaps less ideological. Plus there’s the whole “laboratory of democracy” thing, compared to nationally we need to pick one option for the country. Let’s look at a couple of tweets from CAL FIRE. for example.
Keeping fires small. BAU for the State and highly ideologically questionable for the Feds.
And the importance of air resources…
Of course, it’s not clear if these are contract or CAL FIRE owned aircraft. It seems to me, though, that if you want to make the case that contract air resources is a potentially grafty way to go, then you would have to go much further back in history than the current Admin.
The current wildfire partnerships with States, for me, raises the question “why is it so worrisome if Feds work with States better on fuels management (i.e., forest vegetation) when they already work in an integrated way on wildfire?” As Cissel said in his post yesterday, even in Oregon wildfire has more impact on vegetation than any other activity. States also have responsibility for regulating under the Clean Air Act, with which both prescribed and wildfire have a nexus. We even have stable Roadless Rules done with State/Federal cooperation. If we look at state management of endangered species that also seems to evoke state-o-phobia in some.
“under the proposed rule the states are provided a path to managing those areas that exceed local recovery objectives, while the grizzly remains federally listed.”
Why wouldn’t we trust states with forests and wildlife when we obviously do with air and wildfire?
And Governor Polis, in Colorado (another D-led state) vouches for cattle and goats in their role in fuel reduction.
Here are people in states agreeing on (some) things. And yet, when federal lands enter the picture, there are massive abstract ideological battles. Remember “Cattle-free by 93?”
The California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, also known as CAL FIRE, ran its own field test involving five autonomous drones that worked together to deploy between 500 and 1,000 gallons of foam combined for suppressing fires on July 15, according to the TV station KPMH. The demonstration was organized with the help of the nonprofit FireWERX and the California-based company Seneca, which is making the drones commercially available starting in 2026.
*************
CAL FIRE has not signed up any firefighting drones just yet, but it represents another large potential customer. The California fire agency already operates the world’s largest aerial firefighting fleet with more than 70 crewed fixed-wing aircraft and helicopters, along with using AI-powered camera networks and supporting development of the FireSat constellation designed to spot wildfires from space even faster.
At this rate of innovation, it won’t be long before initial attack becomes more reliable and with less or no risk to firefighters. The conversation may change then to “where and when, and under what conditions, should fire be prescribed?”
The question remains, though, why and where is state-o-phobia a thing?
(Trent Nelson | The Salt Lake Tribune) Gov. Spencer Cox speaks during a news conference at the annual meeting of the Western Governors’ Association in Park City on Tuesday, June 30, 2026. From left are Gov. Brad Little, ID, Gov. Mark Gordon, WY, Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham, NM, Cox, Gov. Josh Green, HI, Gov. Jared Polis, CO, and Gov. Joe Lombardo, NV.
I thought it might be fun to look at some other media reports on Chief Schultz’s remarks at WGA. Let’s look at this one from KUER The western governors are supportive of working better with the feds- if you look at their positions papers over time that’s been pretty standard.
When it comes to the future, governors in attendance and Schultz agreed that more shared stewardship agreements between states and the federal government — like the one Utah has — will allow for faster fire mitigation and reforestation work on a bigger scale than before.
“Our interactions with the federal government and the shared approach to governing those resources is critical for our shared success,” said Colorado Gov. Jared Polis. “Today’s agreements are more powerful than their predecessors. They have longer terms, expanded authorities, bigger project acreages; they’re being used to improve many aspects of our public lands, recreation, grazing.”
For Schultz, recognizing a shared goal regardless of politics is the first step toward meaningfully addressing wildfire risk in the West.
“I don’t hear anybody saying we shouldn’t treat the landscape to protect communities, improve forest health and reduce risks,” he said. “We all want the same thing.”
And that’s the question, isn’t it? Who wants something else, and what do they want, exactly? And if Polis, no friend of many kinds of development also disfavored by ENGO’s thinks it will improve things..?
U.S. Forest Service Chief Tom Schultz honored first responders and firefighters, especially the three killed along the Utah-Colorado border during a speech in Park City Tuesday.
The firefighters – two women and one man – died in a burnover incident while battling the Snyder Fire, June 27.
“There is a role for fire on the landscape. There’s also a time and a place for fire,” Schultz said at the Western Governors’ Association conference in Deer Valley’s Stein Eriksen Lodge. “And right now in the Great Basin, this is neither the time nor the place for fire.”
Forest service personnel are focused right now on firefighting, but Schultz indicated that “active management” strategies like prescribed burns are important to the agency’s overall mission.
They can help prevent the most severe wildfires, which he said fundamentally change forest landscapes and affect local communities and economies.
“To conserve, we need to actively manage the forest,” he said.
My only quibble with this story is:
PBS reports the Forest Service has shuttered three-quarters of its scientific research facilities under Schultz.
Last I heard the FS was still negotiating with Congressionals and others. If the “PBS reports” had a link, we could see when it was posted. Also tense is a thing… “has shuttered” is the past tense, not “is considering” or whatever other words might be used.
****************************
It’s a little strange that the SLT partnered with Grist for a Utah news story, but the story itself is interesting and free. It’s got a new number for relocation, probably less than 300.
The forest service is in the process of remodeling the second floor of the Wallace F. Bennett Federal Building to accommodate the new headquarters, Schultz said, and he expects his staff will start relocating in the fall. The forest chief also doesn’t expect it will cause much disruption for his agency, even as employees uproot their lives and move to the Beehive State.
“We’re looking at probably less than 300 people that are going to have to relocate across the entire agency,” Schultz said. “We’re still going to have a footprint in D.C.”
***
Those same Western governors issued a bipartisan letter supporting the forest service’s relocation to Salt Lake City on June 18.
“Improving state-federal communication and coordination is a goal that transcends party lines,” the letter said, “and it is among the Governors’ highest priorities.”
***********
Utah’s commercial timber industry has lagged for decades, unable to compete with the fast-growing and profitable trees that grow in wetter and cooler climates like the Pacific Northwest and Canada. Two of its few remaining sawmills, in Kamas and Panguitch, burned down in 2024.
The private sector is developing innovative ways to use Utah timber, however, Schultz said in an interview. He sees promise in current industries salvaging timber for firewood, and companies developing biochar and sustainable aviation fuel made from wood.
“This is what we’re trying to focus on — what are the markets we can help create?” Schultz said. “If the forest service is consistent in what we say and what we do, then I think the market can respond.”
****************
Anyone else have a story with interesting tidbits not previously covered?
U.S. Forest Service Chief Tom Schultz delivers the keynote address at the Western Governor’s Association 2026 Annual Meeting in Dear Valley on June 30, 2026.
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.
As became clear by Human Assisted AI in yesterday’s comments, it seems like there are quite a few Forest and Grassland organizations that cross State lines. I thought I’d share some of my experiences with that.
My Stories
The Fremont and Winema (separate, when I was there) vs. neigbhoring R-5 forests. Timber (as a geneticist, that was my department) was vastly different between the Fremont and the Modoc. This was the 80’s. Not sure exactly why, but we had many more roads and our reforestation and tree improvement programs were more substantial. My first mentor was a fellow named John Nesbitt, who told me there were two pieces of info I needed to know for my new job. First he drew a forest with a crown on it.. “in Region 6, timber is king”; then he drew a map of the Region and pointed out how far we were from the RO “the RO exists but it’s very far away.” Was the difference simply due to investment priorities of folks in San Fran (then) and Portland? Or due to real value differences of people in Alturas versus Lakeview? Hard to tell. Of course the 80’s were almost 50 years ago..
Region 2
So at one time (not suprisingly) the R-4 planning director and I did not share views on how plan revisions should be conducted. This wouldn’t have mattered except the BT is in Wyoming and so is the Shoshone. In fact, they are adjacent. If there’s anything worse than plan revisions, it would be having to deal with two RO’s with different worldviews in the same state, at close to the same time. Sure we could have “coordinated” better, I guess, but my peer didn’t seem amenable to that.
I remember the Governor of Wyoming had an annual meeting at the time with all the Forest Supes. At the one I attended, he quizzed them all on projects they were working on with the State. Certainly that wouldn’t have happened in California or Colorado.
We used to have “State coordinators” which were positions intended to coordinate with each State and they worked well.. except sometimes there was tension because the Supes wanted their own relationships with key people in the State. Then we also had states without state coordinators, where it seemed like the Supe (South Dakota) or the Ranger (Cimarron Grassland) also dealt with the State (Kansas).
Now, you may wonder how the national forest folks in those states worked with the R&D and State and Tribal Forestry folks.. (along the lines of Michael Rains’ ideas of One Forest Service) and the answer is… I don’t know.
*******
What are your stories about working with different States? What worked well and what didn’t?
I’m always on the lookout for partisan views submerged under the media sea of our policy issues. One place I look for a nonpartisan view is the Western Governors Association (WGA). They have to agree across partisan divides, and (in my view) tend to be more pragmatic about solutions than national figures, perhaps based on their direct experience with managing agencies, finding common ground and trade-offs within the state, and the complex world of implementation.
Here’s a letter of theirs to Secretary Brooke Rollins on USDA Reorganization.
Regarding the U.S. Forest Service (USFS), the elimination of the regional offices could result in a substantial communication gap between the agency and its partners, who play an increasingly important role in collaborative forest management and shared stewardship agreement implementation. Western Governors encourage you to consider establishing state directors, replicating the model employed by USDA-RD, FSA, and NRCS. The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) also uses this model, and its efficacy is proven. BLM maintains state directors in nine separate western states, two shared state directors for five western states, and one director for eastern states. Establishing a state director framework for USFS would ensure strong communication between the agency and states and promote improved collaboration on forest and rangeland management, recreational use, and wildfire mitigation and response. It would also provide a strong local resource for coordinating activities under the Shared Stewardship Agreements executed between states and the USDA.
It does seem fairly rational to have the same structure as other USDA and land management agencies.. seems like it would help use federal funds jointly better if all the relevant State Directors of the different Fed Agencies met and coordinated, which would conceivably be more easy on them, and on the States themselves. Think EPA, prescribed fire, state responsibilities for the Clean Air Act and state and fed (Interior and USDA) responsibilities for prescribed fire. It might also facilitate better coordination with Tribes.
My own experience on our joint RMP/Forest Plan effort (major windmill tilt) was that the State Director approach worked pretty well. Of course, if they’re SES, that would be 12 field SES for that level instead of 9. What do you all think, especially those of you who have worked in both the BLM and FS?
Western Governors point to the Western Governors’ Association (WGA) – U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Shared Stewardship Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) as an example of an effective framework to establish shared state-federal priorities for forest and rangeland management and encourage the development of similar MOUs with other Executive Branch agencies for other areas of natural resource management.
4. Effective forest and rangeland management is only possible through coordination between federal, state, local, and tribal land management agencies. These agencies should strive to find new ways to collaborate on forest and rangeland management projects, as well as to explore ways to improve state-federal coordination on existing management projects. Shared Stewardship Agreements between states and USDA are a good example.
Note that the point of MOUs came up in this meeting during the previous Admin, when a new MOU with USDA was signed in 2024..
“I will forgive you if you say, ‘okay, what’s the point of another MOU?’” Deputy Secretary Torres Small said. “But the one we signed today will… mark a new beginning for better integration when it comes to how forest and rangeland restoration projects are prioritized across different land ownerships. It creates new opportunities for us to work more closely with you on important issues, such as expanding rural high-speed internet and enhancing our support for farming and ranching communities.”
With all the drama around Utah and their new Shared Stewardship Agreement, thanks to Danielle I started looking around at other SSAs to see what they are called, how they are promoted, and what the media has to say (or not) about them.
The National Association of State Foresters has handy links to some of them. Your state probably has one. In light of peoples’ and groups’ concerns about Utah, I found this California press release by Governor Newsom of interest..
California, U.S. Forest Service Establish Shared Long-Term Strategy to Manage Forests and Rangelands
Agreement will improve coordination to reduce wildfire risks on federal and state lands
Funding included in the federal Great American Outdoors Act
Agreement comes as Lake Fire burns in Angeles National Forest
SACRAMENTO — In a key step to improve stewardship of California’s forests, the Newsom Administration and the U.S. Forest Service today announced a new joint state-federal initiative to reduce wildfire risks, restore watersheds, protect habitat and biological diversity, and help the state meet its climate objectives.
The Agreement for Shared Stewardship of California’s Forest and Rangelands includes a commitment by the federal government to match California’s goal of reducing wildfire risks on 500,000 acres of forest land per year. To protect public safety and ecology, experts agree that at least one million acres of California forest and wildlands must be treated annually across jurisdictions.
A historical transition toward unnaturally dense forests, a century of fire suppression and climate change resulting in warmer, hotter and drier conditions have left the majority of California’s forestland highly vulnerable to catastrophic wildfire and in need of active, science-based management. Since the federal government owns nearly 58 percent of California’s 33 million acres of forestlands, while the state owns 3 percent, joint state-federal management is crucial to California’s overall forest health and wildfire resilience.
Improved coordination also is key since nearly half of the state dollars invested in fuels management in recent years was spent on federal land.
“Wildfires don’t stop at jurisdictional boundaries. As we respond to wildfires in real-time this summer, improving coordination between the major stewards of California’s forested land will help us protect communities and restore forest health across California,” Governor Gavin Newsom said. “We are grateful to secure the U.S. Forest Service’s commitment to help us more effectively address the scale of California’s current wildfire crisis.”
“Collaboration between state and federal agencies on issues of forest health and resiliency is critical,” said U.S. Forest Service Chief Vicki Christiansen. “The Forest Service is fortunate to collaborate on restoration projects across the state and share science and research to address issues to help care for the land and serve people. We are excited to expand our partnership with California to enhance our collaboration though this Shared Stewardship agreement with California.”
The Shared Stewardship Agreement builds on existing coordination between state and federal agencies, and outlines six core principles and nine specific actions that will drive improved state-federal collaboration:
Prioritize public safety;
Use science to guide forest management;
Coordinate land management across jurisdictions;
Increase the scale and pace of forest management projects;
Remove barriers that slow project approvals; and
Work closely with all stakeholders, including tribal communities, environmental groups, academia and timber companies.
Specifically, through this agreement California and the U.S. Forest Service commit to execute the following activities together:
Treat one million acres of forest and wildland annually to reduce risk of catastrophic wildfire (building on the state’s existing 500,000-acre annual commitment);
Develop a shared 20-year plan for forest health and vegetation treatment that establishes and coordinates priority projects;
Expand use of ecologically sustainable techniques for vegetation treatments such as prescribed fire;
Increase pace and scale of forest management by improving ecologically sustainable timber harvest in California and grow jobs by tackling structural obstacles, such as workforce and equipment shortfalls and lack of access to capital;
Prioritize co-benefits of forest health such as carbon sequestration, biodiversity, healthy watersheds and stable rural economies;
Recycle forest byproducts to avoid burning slash piles;
Improve sustainable recreation opportunities;
Enable resilient, fire-adapted communities; and
Share data and continue to invest in science.
*******************
I bolded the ones that seem similar to what’s in the Utah SSA. I looked for media stories about the California SSA and couldn’t find any. I did find this one about Wyoming’s from Wyofile in 2020 with exactly the same talking point (from the same sources?).
Stewardship pact gives Wyo more say on national forests
Based on media reports, SSAs then, are only worrisome in some states, but not others. It’s OK to give California more say, it’s reasonable, shouldn’t states and feds work together? But not so much Wyoming or Utah.. that is a very scary thing, according to some.
I wonder what Wyoming and Utah have in common that would cause some ENGOs and some media to react differently?
This cooperative effort with Utah, BLM and FS predated the new FS SSA. Again, I recommend reading the entire agreement. There is certainly interest in timber, but not nearly to the extent that it has been characterized.
In summary, the mutual commitments outlined in the existing Agreement for Shared Stewardship include a commitment to:
1. Existing partnerships, programs, and initiatives that have been successful in Utah.
2. Working together to identify and map shared priorities.
3. Joint decisions in where and how to use new legal authorities and management tools, share financial resources, leverage those resources to accomplish work in priority areas.
4. Engage with tribes, local governments, industry, and partners to build support and capacity for priority work.
5. Shared planning to address cross boundary priorities.
6. Supporting each other in decisions made together.
I suppose the “joint decisions” part might be worrisome. But the Feds and State have to agree, so “Utah controlling” (as in some media) is not exactly accurate. But really “where to use new legal authorities” doesn’t seem like that big of a decision to be shared in the overall scheme of things. Also, any decision to share resources would have to be joint, by definition.
Based on the mutual commitments set forth in this Cooperative Agreement, the State and the Forest Service agree as follows:
Increase the pace and scale of restoration: The Parties are committed to using all available tools and authorities to increase the pace and scale of active management on National Forests System lands in Utah, including timber sales, mechanical treatments, prescribed fire, hazardous fuels reduction, innovative wood-product utilization, and implementation of treatments through partners. Coordinated planning and implementation will enable larger, more effective projects
that cross jurisdictional boundaries, addressing wildfire risk, forest health, and watershed protection at the scale required by current challenges.
These strategic investments represent our commitment to an all-lands, all-hands approach to investing in rural communities and mitigating the climate crisis.
So if we inserted “climate resilience” for the combo of “restoration” and “forest health” (after all, being more or less the same thing) and put timber sales at the end of the laundry list, or recast timber sales as “investing in rural communities”, (which it also is), then we’d get to the same place. Maybe all this isn’t as partisan as we have been told in media reports. Are the words used more important than the work?
There are certainly poor people in Utah that might be helped by employment at a sawmill or some other “thinning using” facility. The argument for this is well articulated by some folks at Aspengow Timber in North Tahoe, California.
Our goals:
Provide a long-term, sustainable solution to help local agencies in their forest restoration and wildfire mitigation efforts
Find ways to use small diameter, low-grade logs from fuels reduction projects
Reduce forest fuels by creating a more resilient forest ecosystem to better withstand drought and climate change
Sequester carbon
Reduce greenhouse gas emissions from distant transportation of logs from local forest thinning projects
Enhance the local economy through job development and employee housing, recirculating local timber onto the open market for use regionally and beyond, and through cost savings to local agencies by creating a closer, more meaningful fuels outlet
I’d only add.. “what is the alternative for fuel treatment projects?” Burning in situ runs the risk of wildfire escape, may damage soils, and releases carbon and particulates. Not good for North Lake Tahoe, and probably not good for Utah either. Anyway, back to the agreement.
Strengthening and enhancing Utah Good Neighbor Authority: Good Neighbor Authority (GNA) allows the USFS to authorize states, counties, and federally recognized Indian tribes to conduct certain projects on federal lands. Congress originally authorized GNA in 2001 and expanded that pilot to include National Forest System lands in Utah in 2004 (P.L. 108-447, §§336-337). In 2014, Congress permanently passed GNA into law. Since that time, the Parties have been using GNA as a tool to reduce hazardous fuels and to restore or improve forest, rangeland, and watershed health, including fish and wildlife habitat. The Forest Service has invested more than $47 million in GNA agreements in the State of Utah since the Agreement for Shared Stewardship was signed in 2018. The State has added to and leveraged this funding, allowing the Parties to increase the pace and scale of work accomplished on-the-ground.
The Parties agree to continue investing in GNA as a tool to mitigate wildfire risk and.improve forest and rangeland health. Additionally, the Parties agree to explore the development of a new, separate GNA agreement, collaboratively defining opportunities to implement timber-sales in Utah. Both agencies will work together to identify GNA timber focused pilot projects and desired outcomes for National Forest System lands in Utah with the goal of harvesting an annual sustainable timber sale volume that supports local industry needs and creates opportunity for growth. The Parties also agree to continue hosting joint industry meetings on an annual basis to
discuss the needs of wood products industry.
With the expanded GNA authorities under the 2018 Farm Bill, the 2025 EXPLORE Act, the Parties will strive to include other counties, tribes and additional state agencies-facilitating opportunities to accomplish more cross-boundary, landscape-level treatments.
It sounds like they are going to use GNA to support the local wood products industry and creates opportunities for growth. Certainly that might seem scary, if you weren’t familiar with the difficulties of the industry as we’ve seen in Montana and elsewhere. I’d say, “good luck with that, and if you figure it out, please share with Colorado, Arizona and New Mexico.”
Application of the Forest Service Land Management Plans, Utah’s Forest Action Plan, and the State Resources Management Plan to develop an annual action plan of work. The Parties have expended considerable time and effort developing land and resource management plans and a state-specific Forest Action Plan to account for the many interests associated with management of National Forest System lands. Under Utah’s existing Agreement for Shared Stewardship, the Forest Service and State have integrated the State’s Forest Action Plan into its decision-making process, specifically in the identification of wildfire prevention and mitigation priorities. The Parties commit to using these plans and working together to develop an annual action plan that includes mutual goals and opportunities for cross-boundary, landscape level projects that meet resource needs and serve industry and local communities.
It sounds like the FS and Utah already shared priority-setting under the previous SSA (Shared Stewardship Agreement) and nothing bad, that we heard about, happened. That does seem relevant to the “scary sharing” narrative.
Identify mutually agreed upon national forest landscapes to collectively implement active forest management: The identified landscapes can include all land jurisdictions and should include at risk landscapes that are identified using the best available plans and science. The execution of this section is strictly contingent upon adequate capacity and financial resources which may be granted through USDA to support the Forest Service’s National Forest Active Management Strategy, and/or future state appropriations.
It sounds, perhaps, as if instead of the FS integrating the State plan into its decisions, the FS and State will pick some landscapes to focus on together. We can watch as this develops and see how it works. It’s not unusual for partners to influence priorities, though, think Forests to Faucets partnership for example. And if you think PODs are useful, they would have to be planned across ownership boundaries.
Identification of Additional Shared Stewardship Opportunities In addition to collaborating on wildfire and active management of National Forest System lands, the Parties have a long history of collaborating to address other complex land management issues and challenges. For example, the State, working in partnership with the Forest Service, has demonstrated an interest, willingness, and ability to invest in wildlife habitat improvements, postfire restoration, recreation infrastructure improvements, and grazing projects through programs such as the Watershed Restoration Initiative, Grazing Improvement Program, and Division of Outdoor Recreation grants.
**********
Side-trip.. grazing was mentioned in some of the media reports.
In 2006, the Rangeland Improvement Act (HB145) established Utah’s Grazing Improvement Program (GIP) to provide cost-share grants for projects that improve rangeland management and sustainability.
One of the existing joint projects with FS, BLM and ranchers was the Three Creeks LLC Project.
“The forced slow adoption of this huge change in grazing management has been helpful,” Payne reflects. “As each step was taken, we were able to see how it improved wildlife habitat and water quality.” The Three Creeks LLC hires a thirdparty biodiversity monitor, and partners with a non-profit research group, to measure and track rangeland health. Water quality improved quickly when Three Creeks decreased the amount of time cattle spent in a pasture, increased the drinking capacity at the
upland troughs that provide water off of the creeks for the cattle, and with the hired range riders’ effort to prevent cattle from loitering in riparian
areas. Data shows that Greater sagegrouse now initiate more nests than under the previous management style. Additionally, grass regrowth recovers
more rapidly after a grazing period and with increased yield.”
****************
Back to the SSA:
With this Cooperative Agreement, the Parties commit to continuing to support existing successful partnerships in Utah and more closely coordinate in the management of resources on National Forest Systems lands where there is a benefit to the State, Forest Service, and the public, and where there are legal authorities to do so.
Wildlife Management. The Parties agree to meet regularly to identify opportunities to coordinate with respect to managing wildlife and wildlife habitat on National Forest System lands, utilizing agreed-upon best available science.
Grazing Management. The Parties agree to meet regularly to identify opportunities to coordinate with respect to grazing allotments, rangeland improvements, monitoring, and innovative practices (e.g., use of virtual fences), as well as use of targeted grazing as a management tool in accordance with land management plans, legal authorities, and the best available science.
Water Resources. The Parties agree to meet regularly and identify conservation opportunities and consider project proposals ( e.g., new water storage and water projects) that protect mountain watersheds and benefit valley water users. The Parties may continue existing agreements or enter into new agreements to promote water conservation.
Minerals. The Parties agree to work together to increase permitting efficiencies, improve environmental stewardship, and ensure accountability. Specifically, the Parties will coordinate in areas where the State and Forest Service have shared permitting and or regulatory requirements or responsibilities.
State Transportation Facilities and Routes. The Parties agree to update existing agreements and collaborate, to the extent possible, on future projects where efficiencies can be gained.
Recreation. The Parties agree to identify one or more recreation shared stewardship opportunities, which may include construction, re-construction, or improvement of recreational infrastructure and facilities on National Forest System lands. The Parties will also consider whether there are opportunities for the State to operate and maintain recreation facilities and associated infrastructure, including connected or adjacent trails. The Parties agree to collaborate
on implementation of the EXPLORE act and enhance coordination on outfitter & guiding special use permits, specifically where both Forest Service and the State have licensing or permitting requirements, with the goal of improving permitting efficiency, supporting businesses, improving recreation experiences and opportunities, and ensuring consistency and accountability for guide and outfitter operations.
Heritage Management. The Parties agree to uphold existing agreements, commit to completing pending agreements, and work together to identify future priorities, create new tools, increase staff capacity, and streamline compliance with state and federal laws to ensure effective management of Utah’s valuable heritage.
Research and Monitoring. The Parties agree to collaborate on monitoring activities and may partner with universities and institutions to conduct large-scale monitoring and applicable forest, range, and watershed research. The Parties agree to evaluate whether there is a need for the identification and designation of any “experimental forests and ranges” for long-term science and management studies.
National Environmental Policy Act. The Parties agree to work closely on the development of projects. Where appropriate, the parties may also agree to jointly prepare NEPA work.
Goals and Action Plan. Within thirty (30) days after execution of this Cooperative Agreement, the Parties will identify lead points of contact for each resource area identified above. Within approximately 120 days, the Parties will identify a list of mutual goals and potential cooperative opportunities. The Parties will also develop an annual action plan with identified opportunities and timelines.
For me, there is nothing in the least bit scary about the SSA. It seems like coordination that maybe should have been happening all along, or that each state could reasonably adopt, simply good government. Having worked with the State of Colorado on Colorado Roadless, I noticed many complementary skills, knowledge and funding streams between the State and the Feds. Imagine communities filling out the same forms to applying for state and federal wildfire mitigation grants…
And why shouldn’t BLM be part of the same collaborative efforts where their responsibilities and acreage overlap?
Of all the issues we follow, the gap between media accounts and the reality of this SSA is one of the greatest I’ve seen.. why? I’d guess the point would be to paint Utah in a dangerous and bad light.. even though their SSA is similar to neighboring states. It’s all very puzzling.
Here’s a link to the SSA (Shared Stewardship Agreement). I recommend that you read it for yourself.
As Danielle pointed out in Friday’s comments (many thanks to her, this is an important point that I missed completely!):
It’s called a cooperative agreement, but it’s just an MOU with a different name. If you look at the footnote on the first page, this is just window dressing for nothing that’s legally binding. So they get to say they have a “cooperative agreement” except it’s not a CA in the sense that anyone else would understand it. With no authority on the document there’s nothing legally being transferred or agreed to.
Even the mildly curious, and legally impaired, might wonder.. what exactly does a cooperative agreement do?
I found this on the Cornell Law School website:
An executive agency shall use a cooperative agreement as the legal instrument reflecting a relationship between the United States Government and a State, a local government, or other recipient when—
(1)the principal purpose of the relationship is to transfer a thing of value to the State, local government, or other recipient to carry out a public purpose of support or stimulation authorized by a law of the United States instead of acquiring (by purchase, lease, or barter) property or services for the direct benefit or use of the United States Government; and
(2)substantial involvement is expected between the executive agency and the State, local government, or other recipient when carrying out the activity contemplated in the agreement.
The document is pretty clear that its intention is to lay the groundwork for agencies to propose joint activities which would be funded via
Additional Agreements Refining Implementation. The Parties will develop separate instruments, as necessary, to implement management activities associated with National Forest System lands. Specific projects or activities involving a transfer of service, and/or anything of value, require the execution of separate instruments. Such instruments may include but are not limited to Good Neighbor Authority Agreements, Collection Agreements, Challenge Cost-Share Agreements, Participating Agreements, Volunteer Agreement, Domestic Grants, or procurement actions.
And later..
Nonbinding Agreement. This Cooperative Agreement creates no right, benefit, or trust responsibility, substantive or procedural, enforceable by law or equity. The Parties shall manage their respective resources and activities in separate, coordinated, and mutually beneficial manners to meet the purposes of the Cooperative Agreement. Nothing in this Cooperative Agreement authorizes any of the Parties to obligate or transfer anything of value.
Plus there’s a specific paragraph about Tribes.
Tribal rights and responsibilities. The Parties understand that nothing in this Cooperative Agreement, or in any contracts/agreements executed in furtherance of this Cooperative Agreement, affects the federal government’s government-to-government and trust relationship with Tribes or affects the Forest Service’s ability to exercise its authority under, or to comply with, federal law.
Now I’m not blaming the authors of the referred-to (but unavailable?) ENGO letter. They can say whatever they want, and scare people however they want, it’s a free country. But I think reporters ought to be both skeptical and curious about any claims. For example, the reporters could have called anyone and said “what about these claims specifically?” Perhaps our friends in the WO or the State would have answered those specific claims. I have seen this pattern before, though, especially in certain media outlets. “Groups claim something bad will happen” and we don’t hear, for whatever reason, the rest of the story- what about people who think it’s a good thing? or people who think it would be a bad thing but there are reasons it wouldn’t happen the way it was described.. Otherwise we get dueling press releases (this actually happens quite a bit).
The SLT reporter did speak with the State representative. Maybe that State employee was surprised.. “hey we want to work together better! what could be wrong with that?” We each have bucks, needs, professional experts, authorities, and so on. Chief Schultz talks about Cooperative Federalism.. I, too, would be surprised by the idea of “Meh Federalism” or even “Antagonistic Federalims” as a preferred mode of operating.
Well, the third state with one of the new cooperative agreements (Montana, Idaho and now Utah) seems to have much more press coverage than the others. It seems like an organized media campaign to inflame Utahnophobia and tie the mildly innocuous agreement back to partisan politics. Even if it’s quite a bit of a stretch.
This morning, Center for Western Priorities came up with this in its LookWest newsletter..
Utah inks deal giving it more control over national forests
Utah Governor Spencer Cox and U.S. Forest Service Chief Tom Schultz signed a 20-year agreement yesterday that gives Utah a greater role in management decisions on more than 8 million acres of national forest land. State officials say the deal will improve efficiency and collaboration, but conservation groups warn it could be bad for Utah’s national forests.
“This agreement strips federal protections, shuts the public out of decision-making, and puts Utah’s old-growth forests directly on the chopping block,” said Laiken Jordahl, national public lands advocate at the Center for Biological Diversity. Steve Bloch, legal director at the Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, said the change “sets the stage for Utah officials to have both a heavy hand and the loudest voice” in the room, “crowding out all other stakeholders.”
My bold.. they keep saying that the stewardship agreements give more control, but never really explain how that works. Conceivably states can be listened to now in federal decisionmaking, in fact I think RMPs are required to be run by the States. Is there a reason States and Feds shouldn’t work together cooperatively on projects of mutual interest? Or perhaps only if there are certain partisan combinations that these groups find unfavorable?
A reasonable person, who isn’t knowledgeable of all the ins and outs, might wonder whether it’s that easy to throw out federal protections like ESA, NFMA, NEPA and all that. We know that all projects have to be approved in forest and project plans, each of which have public comment. And old-growth forests have their own protections in forest plans, of course. At least SUWA highlights a real concern.. that Utah officials may affect prioritization of projects based on this coop agreement.
Utah has had a Shared Stewardship Partnership with the Forest Service in place since 2019, but this deal goes further than previous agreements, giving the state and counties more say in planning and implementing watershed restoration and grazing and recreation projects, like trails and campgrounds. Utah is the third state to sign an updated stewardship agreement with the Forest Service this year, following Idaho and Montana.
More quantitatively oriented people might ask “how much say did states and counties have before?” Through what mechanisms is this changed? Did the FS previously blow off the opinions of states and counties? What about state forest health and fuel treatment priorities..did the FS always take them into account? I for one, would hope so, including CWPPs unless there was a reasonable argument for not doing so.
************
The CWP link went to a Salt Lake City Tribune news story (headline: Utah, feds ink new deal to manage 8 million acres of national forests. Here’s what it means.)that digs down deeper (after the first few paragraphs of generalized timber production Trump Roadless stuff and the same ENGO quotes)
The new partnership goes further and takes a more “holistic” approach, he said, giving the state and counties more say when it comes to planning and implementing watershed restoration, grazing and recreation projects like trails and campgrounds.
I think that this is an important point (if true). So why are NGOs saying that it’s all about timber, when they are adding other kinds of projects? Am I the only person who would wonder “how could both things be true?”
There are no specific projects identified in the agreement. Instead, Ferry said it will let the state help provide its insight on projects it believes could be beneficial early in the process, rather than providing comment on the backend.
For example, Ferry referenced campgrounds near Flaming Gorge that are owned by the forest service, but are dilapidated and overcrowded.
“Could we, as a state, step in and say, ‘Hey, we’re really good at managing campgrounds. Let us take these over and help manage those and we can provide a better opportunity to people that want to go up there and spend time with their families and recreate,’” Ferry said.
The state could also help provide funding and labor for the collaborative projects.
Given all that, what are people really afraid of happening?
Environmental groups said in a joint statement that the Utah agreement sets the stage for a drastic expansion of commercial logging, as well as mineral extraction and grazing, while reducing the oversight and public input.
It lays the groundwork, they said, for the state to attempt to take control of federal lands.
I’d like to see that joint statement, because it seems to be the basis for these news stories.
“The Shared Stewardship Agreement is nothing more than a sneaky way to clearcut roadless areas in National Forests in Utah,” said Mike Garrity, executive director of the Alliance for the Wild Rockies. “Roadless areas provide clean drinking water and function as biological strongholds for populations of threatened and endangered species.”
Again, the exact same federal legal restrictions via plans and projects apply. We know that. Garrity knows that. So…
Critics also noted it was developed by the Forest Service and state without public input.
They also said it is tied to the Trump administration’s proposed rollback of the Clinton-era roadless rule that limits timber harvesting on 58 million acres, as well as attempts by Utah to gain control of federal lands. “Good governance means including the public in discussions about the national forests we all care about,” Laura Welp, southern Utah director of Western Watersheds Project, said in a statement. “Gov. Cox is once again conducting business with the federal government behind closed doors, with little or no advance notice, bypassing meaningful public involvement.”
This is one of those statements that sound vaguely plausible. Except when you think about it. Is Laura arguing to have public comment on all cooperative agreements? And maybe grants as well? After all, if we think of the Keystone Agreements, I’m sure that there was some joint prioritization going on (just not with elected officials).
As an exercise, let’s imagine a layer down in US governance. Imagine that the State of Colorado and Larimer County developed a coop agreement to share resources and do joint work on state, county and private land, with a goal of increasing capacity to do fuel mitigation work and coordinate between CWPP’s and state priorities, make sure evacuation routes and PODs were linked, and so on. Would that be scary? Would it be open to public comment? I’ll file this under “much ado about very little” and “attempt to inflame Utahno-phobia.”
It’s also of interest that all of the groups quoted are notable for their affecting policy via litigation. And yet their capability to litigate has not been impacted by this agreement. So.. what is this really about.. someone thought that the agreement was an opportunity for rehashing the usual stuff about Utah?
What other groups are out there, and what are their views? What do, say, the recreation groups think? And what about grazing…what kind of cooperation might change? There are many questions that could be reported on.
A few weeks ago, I asked the question “is the newly released Shared Stewardship Agreement for Montana different from all the other Shared Stewardship Agreements?”There are quite a few out there.
At first, I thought it was just marketing talk by the politicals and asked you all how the Montana SSA is different. But then our friends at Center for Western Priorities posted this today:
The Trump administration is moving to give states more control over national forests, U.S. Forest Service Chief Tom Schultz said at a forest policy conference on Wednesday. He pointed to a new 20-year agreement with Montana that allows the state to manage 200,000 acres of national forest for logging, wildfire response, and other priorities. Schultz said the administration plans to sign up to 40 similar agreements with states and private partners.
While Forest Service partnerships with states and nonprofits are not new, they are rarely so long-term or expansive.
Many thanks to CWP for linking to articles without the paywall! Here are the Q&A’s on the FS website for Shared Stewardship:
Shared Stewardship is a collaborative approach to land management that emphasizes partnering with states, tribes, and other groups to identify joint priorities and to develop cross boundary strategies that make an impact at the right scale. To achieve this, the agency will leverage new science and new planning tools to ensure that we are doing the right work in the right places.
Do Shared Stewardship Agreements give States “more control” or is it just this one? How exactly does it give the States “more control”? By jointly prioritizing? But forests have always prioritized projects that partners support, either conceptually or financially.. think Denver Water as an example in Colorado.
But would we want the FS to “independently” prioritize private and public land projects? Doesn’t sound very landscape-scale-y. Or maybe sharing the workload of prepping the project.. but then would giving grants to NGOs also give them “control”? Does the Montana agreement actually “allow the state to manage acres of national forest”? Or are they more like other partners?
CWP says that agreements are rarely so “long-term” or “expansive,” so I selected as a check California’s current one
In California, their SSA show that by 2021, the State and the FS were supposed to develop a coordinated, statewide 20 year project plan for vegetation management. There’s also a section on “expanding forest management and associated infrastructure.”
Supply Signals: Investors are unlikely to build wood product facilities for logs, small logs, and woody biomass without a sustainable, uninterrupted raw material supply. The Parties will make their Joint Plan public so investors will know when and where wood supply will be available. The Parties will work with stakeholders to develop additional supply signal tools to guarantee multi-year supply contracts and incentivize new investments in wood processing facilities in California.
How do we find out how it’s going? Maybe someone in California can let us know.
I’ve looked at Oregon, California and the new Montana SSA now, and I would say the new Montana one is different- more specific, focused, detailed, (less generic “let’s work together”) and definitely more transparent. In a way, it’s more of a joint specific program of work with a public dashboard. Does it hand more “more control” to Montana? You can decide for yourself.
Jointly identify a landscape-size area where the State can take on implementation of authorized restoration goals with a 20-year mutual commitment to planning and implementation. The State of Montana and the Forest Service, utilizing GNA, will select one area in northwest Montana to begin project implementation in federal fiscal year 2026. The project should cover an area of approximately 200,000 acres or more on National Forest systems lands with a focus on areas with marketable timber to meet Executive Order 14225
It sounds like within the existing forest plan, the FS and the State will jointly prioritize projects and the State will take on project planning and implementation. Let’s go back to the CWP quote “logging, wildfire response, and other priorities”, I would probably have said “wildfire resilience and timber projects.” The SSA didn’t say anything about PODs (wildfire response?) although maybe it should. But perhaps those and evacuation routes are included in the Montana Forest Action Plan and didn’t have to be specifically called out. The SSA itself says “addressing wildfire risk, forest health and watershed protection” as well as “expand sustainable domestic timber production.”
Plan for future landscape-scale work. Upon successfully initiating one landscape scale project, DNRC and the Forest Service agree to select two to four additional landscape scale projects for a feasibility assessment and implementation planning.
In addition to the large landscape projects described above, the agencies will identify 5-10 site-specific projects to utilize the expanded authorities and streamlined permitting processes provided by the EXPLORE Act to accelerate and broaden the scope of GNA projects to include recreation infrastructure improvements.
Jointly maintain five-year plans of work for Good Neighbor Authority timber sales and projects across all other National Forests in Montana.
Apply the Montana Forest Action Plan. … The agencies will focus on areas where cross-boundary collaboration can yield the greatest benefits.
Why wouldn’t you want to coordinate with the State plans?
Here’s my personal favorite (quarterly reports! bottleneck ID! documented adaptation..due dates!):
Jointly track and report progress on all projects, including acres treated, board feet harvested, and improvements to forest health and community safety on an interactive dashboard. The agencies will jointly release quarterly progress reports which will be used to assess effectiveness, identify bottlenecks, and adapt project selection and implementation strategies as necessary to meet the goals of this agreement. The joint interactive dashboard shall be released to the public by January 1, 2026.
Also..
Commit to an annual sustainable volume of up to 100 MMBF through DNRC Good Neighbor Authority projects in response to the President’s directive to increase harvested timber volume by 25 percent on federal lands.
Both parties will commit to assigning one staff person to serve in statewide coordination and implementation on Good Neighbor Authority to facilitate progress outlined in this agreement by October 1, 2025.
I know some folks don’t like the timber industry, but each project is litigatable, no matter who does the NEPA work. So all the usual protection factors are in place.
Forest plans are done.. so why not?
*************
Note for Academics: comparing the states’ agreements and exploring the similarities, differences and outcomes would be an interesting project, wonder who might fund it?). There are probably some excellent stories to tell of working together. Maybe even interview those involved to see what is working and what isn’t.
