I know that there are many NGOs with folks in DC watching the budget, but I’m not on their mailing lists. So here is an update from AFRC. Sounds like Congress is not going with the Budget Request numbers… pretty much as expected.. back to what they have allocated previously (with an increase for some line items). So for now, it looks like we can stop using the Budget Request numbers and have a cheerier view of FS and BLM funding into the future, which doesn’t look like a big change from the past (but of course the IRA IIJA infusions and where they went make things confusing.) Maybe a volunteer would like to keep track of the budget process?
Fiscal Year 2026 Appropriations. After a record 43-day long government shutdown, Congress passed three of the 12 regular, individual appropriations bills along with a Continuing Resolution funding the rest of the federal government through January 30. Agencies within the Interior Department and the U.S. Forest Service were funded under the CR.
On January 5, House and Senate appropriators announced agreement on an additional three appropriations bills, which included a $38.6 billion Interior and Environment appropriations bill. Overall, the measure is $2 billion below the current enacted level, but $9 billion above President Trump’s budget request that proposed major cuts.
The Forest Service would receive $3.71 billion for its non-fire programs, including $1.86 billion for the management of the National Forest System – a very slight reduction over the FY25 funding level. The proposal would maintain critical investments in key budget line items that support the Forest Service timber program, including Forest Products ($39M, level with current funding), Hazardous Fuels ($176.9M, $1.4M increase) and Roads ($73M, level with current funding).
The Trump Administration had proposed zeroing out State, Private, and Tribal forestry programs at the Forest Service. This proposal would provide $310.6M, a $27M increase over the FY25 funding level.
The bill also maintains the Forest Service’s wildland fire programs that were proposed to be consolidated at the Department of the Interior. Report language calls for an independent study of consolidating wildland fire programs to “asses the impacts a consolidation would have on reaching proposed timber targets, continued cohesion between wildland fire management and the hazardous fuel reduction program, continued use of the available red card-certified workforce….”
The Department of the Interior also avoided large reductions proposed in the President’s budget request.
The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) would receive $115.5M for the management of the Oregon & California Grant lands, level with the FY25 funding level and $46M above the President’s budget request. The Public Domain forestry program is also level funded at $10.3M.
If you have additional/better info from your sources, please add. High Country News has this:
The U.S. Senate passed a limited spending package on Thursday that will largely fund several science- and land-related agencies, including the Department of Interior, the U.S. Forest Service, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, at current levels. Having passed the House on Jan. 8, the bill now heads to President Donald Trump, who is expected to sign it.
Ruby Ranch fuel project in adjacent Wilderness, Dillon RD, White River NF
We’ve been discussing the Shared Stewardship Agreements and the concept of joint priority-setting with the State. Which reminded me of many years ago when I worked in Region 2, there was thinking that partnerships were the way to go. If I remember correctly, the thinking was something like “we’ll never get all the funding we need to do the work that’s needed, so we should use partnerships.) For our partisan friends out there, this was an observation (not enough funding) based on decades of different R/D combos in the Executive Branch and Congress.
Even back in those long-ago days, some Forest Supes raised questions… “but what if the partnerships change the Forest’s priorities?” I think that particular discussion was about the Forests to Faucets partnership with Denver Water. Denver Water has an important role in providing water to Coloradans, and brought funding to the table.
Which raises another question… “should bringing funding to the table change FS priorities?”. For example,
SE Group was contracted by Willow Brook Metropolitan District (WBMD) in 2021 assist WBMD and the White River National Forest (WRNF) Dillon Ranger District with National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) compliance for 33 acres of fuels treatments on National Forest System lands. The area proposed for treatment is located near Silverthorne, Colorado, adjacent to WBMD’s Ruby Ranch Subdivision, and entirely within the Eagles Nest Wilderness.
Aside: the Wilderness part is kind of interesting, especially since that’s an issue in another project I was looking at recently. Apparently it was done with a CE, but was only 33 acres. The photo above gives you an idea of the area.
In March 2020 a Minimum Requirements Decision Guide (MRDG) was completed by Forest Service staff to help make the determination that an administrative action is necessary in wilderness and to design a project that preserves wilderness character and represents the “minimum necessary” action. SE Group’s subconsultants completed cultural, wildlife, botany, and wetlands and waters of the U.S. field survey and reporting of the area in the summer of 2021.
Recently, we’ve seen a variety of other kinds of financial cooperation..this agreement for example, which is not characterized as “Forest Service Gives Control to DOD”.
COLORADO SPRINGS, Colo. (KOAA) — The U.S. Forest Service and the U.S. Department of Defense are launching a 10-year partnership to prevent wildfire risk around the Air Force Academy and Cheyenne Mountain Space Force Station.
The $7.3 million investment from the DOD will treat 2,000 acres of National Forest System land and non-federal lands near the two military installations. The partnership aims to do the following:
It seems to me that if say, Trout Unlimited brings money to the table for a particular project, that would increase the priority of that particular project, as the FS can get more watershed improvement done for the same dollars. Or fuel treatment, or whatever. Why would setting priorities with the State be any different? or is it?
On background, if a beneficiary was receiving benefits that were reduced by WEP and/or GPO when the SSFA was passed into law on January 5, 2025, their benefit should have been automatically adjusted, and they should have received a mailed notice. If a person believes they are eligible and their benefits were not adjusted or they were not notified, they should call 1-800-772-1213 Monday through Friday, from 8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. local time to discuss their specific case and to verify the information we have on file.
So it sounds like if you were not receiving benefits because you weren’t eligible to get them pre-2025, you wouldn’t have been notified. Since I first posted about this, I’ve heard from folks who were automatically notified and adjusted. But there are those of us out there who were not notified, so you or your friends or relatives could be among them. Since folks in this situation have to apply and won’t get the benefits back in time (I think they go back six months), it’s important for them to apply as soon as possible.
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 orgchart is from the Prez Budget 26. The Megafire Action Report also has orgcharts showing the current situation and their two preferred alternatives.
It’s been a bit confusing, especially with the Wildfire Today story, about how Interior can combine wildfire responsibilities. It’s also confusing because while it is occurring during the Trump Admin, it is something that has been pushed for by fire folks and folks on the D side, most notably Megafire Action. I could write it either way, for R’s or D’s.
I reached out to Megafire Action for more info on the question “why does DOI think they can do this internally” and “do Congressfolk much care if they leave out the FS?”. Shout out to them for answering these questions!
Short answer: While Congress did not provide new appropriations specifically for unification, the Administration can proceed with unifying DOI WFM because the appropriated funds are already a consolidated wildland fire management account, folding in the Forest Service would require congressional action.
More detail: The Administration is working to unify the Federal wildland fire management mission to the maximum extent possible under existing appropriations structures and legal authorities. The Administration has determined that through administrative action it may restructure existing programs to establish a USWFS and unify DOI WFM programs under that Service.
The Administration has likely come to this legal determination that they can move forward with DOI consolidation without additional Congressional action primarily due to the unique appropriations structure for DOI WFM programs. This structure already consolidates appropriations that fund the WFM programs of multiple DOI bureaus (e.g. BLM, NPS, FWS, BIA) under one department-wide account. This consolidated appropriation, which is provided without restrictions on which component of DOI administers the funded programs, will be used to fund USWFS programs, including those currently administered by the bureaus.
However, in order to fold in the Forest Service WFM into the USWFS as well, as envisioned in the FY26 President’s Budget request, Congress would have to take additional action, both on the authorizing and appropriations side.
There is a diversity of opinion on the consolidation effort within Congress. From our perspective, if the Administration is moving forward with consolidation – at the very least on the DOI side – we’d like to help inform their decision-making. Last fall released a report highlighting important challenges and opportunities related to consolidation, I’ve attached the report for you.
Their report is very interesting. MegaFire Action is a fan of moving the FS to Interior. They have some good questions and observations.. some specifically about IRA and IIJA bucks.
Splitting the federal WFM mission between two departments hampers comprehensive, authoritative management—particularly in restoring landscapes to a fire-resilient state. For example, when Congress provided billions for hazardous fuels management through the IIJA and IRA, USDA and DOI were directed to create an integrated strategy to deploy the funding. Instead, USDA produced a 10-year plan ultimately focused on 21 discrete National Forest landscapes, while DOI issued a 5-year plan and did not focus resources within defined landscapes, thus introducing significant strategic misalignment from the outset of IIJA and IRA implementation.
Furthermore, a September 2024 report by the USDA Office of the Inspector General (OIG) revealed that the Forest Service “. . . could not accurately report how much it spent for FYs 2022 and 2023 hazardous fuels management, resulting in $205.6 million in questioned costs.” Additionally, the OIG “. . . found that FS did not fully document its rationale for prioritizing and selecting projects. As such, FS’ decision-making process is not transparent, resulting in reduced assurance that the
most critical projects were selected.”
The scale of the crisis demands more accountability, efficiency, and efficacy in federal fuels management.
Not to seem too critical of the Forest Service, but to me, it was a bad look to try to change accountability from the concrete but problematic “acres treated” to the modeled and nebulous “outcomes.” Then there was the difficulty of even finding out where the bucks had gone (even FOIAs didn’t pick up all the info. Still, I think harmonizing the obvious across Int and USDA could do as well without the drama. Like fire hiring. And transparency and accountability.
Below is based on my experience.
With Service-First- where there’s a consistent will, including Congress when needed, there’s a way.
With LEO- stove-piped programs are not the end.
With FS firefolks: there were (already, before I retired) instances in which they followed different rules than others in the FS based on interagency agreements. I’m sure that structure was leveraged toward desirable outcomes for fire folks in both agencies. Wouldn’t you?
With Interior leadership: tend to be more partisan than USDA, for whatever reason. Think Jim Hubbard vs. Tracy Stone-Manning or Robert Bonnie vs. Laura Daniel-Davis.
Aside from experience, though, I could imagine that in a D Admin, timber would be the bad guys (once again), and in an R Admin timber would be overlooked and invisible compared to the Usual Energy Suspects. Just at the time when there is (some) bipartisan support for wood utilization and rebuilding timber infrastructure.
Communities, including low-income and underserved, with federal forests could lose out either way.
For those of you who are younger, with the older people retiring and moving on.. I thought it might be interesting to share some of what Chief Thomas was thinking back in the day. I ran across this March 1997 interview..the context was the South Canyon Fire.
Q: What could we best do to improve fire fighting and fire management — from your perspective now, after three years in Washington?
We probably could start by appreciating firefighters a bit more than we have. It’s pretty hard to build a career in the fire business. The grades are not high enough, so you get diverted off into other things in order to make a decent living. If you’re going to college and fighting fire in the summertime, that’s one thing. But when you’ve got these really good firefighters that are coming back season after season, after a while you’re kind of torn up about it because you know that you’ve got them in a dead-end operation. This is like playing professional baseball or something. You can’t make it after so many years. And so you’re torn between being ecstatic when you see that you’re getting them back, and then knowing that you’re participating in keeping them hanging on year after year when there’s nothing you can do for them. You look at these heroes out there, and everybody’s applauding at the end of the fire season — and they go home and cough for another three months. They’ve got no hospitalization, they’ve got no retirement, we don’t pay them enough — and they just keep coming back for more.
You’ve got people in a tough job that doesn’t pay very well, and there’s not much room for advancement. Civil service has been devalued to the point that no matter what you do, you’re wrong. The press beat on you, and you try to make your case for the way you did it — you have to explain why you didn’t fight a fire this way or that way, and what do you hear? “Well, didn’t you make a mistake?” Yeah, it’s real easy fighting one of those fires from a distance, sitting on your butt with a cold one in your hand. Enough of that and after a while you’d think firefighters would look up and say, “I don’t need this.”
I’ve been around long enough to witness many of the big strides made in forestry and wildlife management. And I’ve been lucky to have been a part of all that. When I started out in wildlife conservation, I was out in the field counting deer pellets. Now we look at the big picture with ecosystem management. And we look at the big picture with fire — we used to figure fire was just bad, and it burned stuff up. Now we study the history of fire — how often did it burn? How hot did it burn? What were the consequences of the burn? How do we think our way through this and make sure we do better than we did before?
It’s pointless to complain about where we are. What’s important is to ask, “How did we get here? And how do we now get to a better place?”
So…in 1997, Chief Thomas thought that firefighters aren’t paid/treated well enough (I’ve heard Senator Tim Sheehy say that in the last year) and “civil service has been devalued to the point that no matter what you do, you’re wrong.” So being devalued (even by Admins) is not particularly new.
AS far as I can, Interior is trying to get to a better place with wildland fire and FS wildfire people are likely to benefit in some ways.
As much as I would have liked an acronym not easily confused with USFWS (and that I have to check meticulously every time I write it), it appears that the announcement is out. The new Chief is Brian Fennessy, which we knew already.
Here’s his background from the press release.
Interior selected Brian Fennessy to oversee the creation of the U.S. Wildland Fire Service, bringing decades of experience leading large, complex wildfire response operations in California.
“Wildfire response depends on coordination, clarity and speed,” Chief Brian Fennessy said. “This initial planning effort is about bringing programs together, strengthening cooperation across the Department and building a framework that better supports firefighters and the communities they serve. I want to thank Secretary Burgum for this opportunity to serve in this role and look forward to working alongside of the brave men and women of the fire community.”
Fennessy comes to Interior with extensive experience in wildland and structural fire management. He previously served as Chief of the San Diego Fire-Rescue Department and as Fire Chief of the Orange County Fire Authority, one of the largest fire departments in California. Fennessy began his career with the U.S. Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management, and throughout his distinguished career, he has led wildfire suppression, aviation operations, and emergency response during some of the state’s most challenging fire seasons, while building strong partnerships with federal, state, local, and Tribal partners.
It seems that the Wildfire Today folks might be confused about the part about incorporating the FS (which they are not doing) and uniting the activity in DOI.
The Service already faces financial and legislative hurdles. A group of both Democratic and Republican lawmakers effectively blocked the service from being funded in a new appropriations bill package. The bills included $0 for the U.S. Wildland Fire Service, despite the Department requesting around $6.5 billion for the agency’s wildland fire operations. The lawmakers also specifically said they don’t agree with the administration’s consolidation efforts in a recent press release.
“The bill does not endorse the consolidation of federal wildland firefighting into one agency as proposed in President Trump’s budget request,” a press release from the United States Senate Committee on Appropriations’ Democratic members said. “Instead, it specifically provides funding to continue wildland firefighting using the longstanding practice of funding both the U.S. Forest Service and the Department of the Interior to allow Congress to consider legislative proposals for such a major change.”
Monday’s announcement did not mention the funding discrepancy.
Apparently DOI thinks it has the authority based on this:
Sec. 2. Authorities. This Order is issued under the authority of sections 2 and 5 of Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1950 (64 Stat. 1262), as amended; EO 14308; the Department’s authorities relating to its Bureaus’ land management activities; and relevant statutes that authorize or relate to wildland fire management, reparedness, suppression, response, pre- and post-fire activities, and recovery.
Here’s what it’s intended to do:
This unification of fire programs within USWFS will allow the Department to better respond to the increasing risks that wildland fire presents to people, property and infrastructure, as well as the hazards faced by firefighters every day. This historic effort will modernize wildland fire management to support the long-term resilience of America’s public lands, while enhancing national security and economic competitiveness. Through the establishment of USWFS, and as set forth in the transition plan, the Department will:
• Streamline the chain of command and decision-making by aligning Bureau fire personnel
into USWFS, while maintaining coordination with the land management Bureaus.
• Simplify and align budget structures, allocations, and spending.
• Establish programmatic authority within USWFS.
• Standardize compensation policies, position descriptions, and retirement benefit
structures to ensure equitable pay, consistent classification, efficient recruitment, and
strengthened retention across the unified wildland fire workforce.
• Improve interagency and stakeholder coordination.
• Enable more strategic use of resources across landscapes.
• Establish an integrated wildland fire intelligence and data capability.
• Uphold DOI’s treaty and trust responsibilities to Tribes.
Following unification, USWFS will maintain close coordination with Bureau leadership and staff on all wildland fire-related land management issues, ensuring that all activities remain fully integrated with local resource management priorities. Geographic area and local wildland fire leadership will ensure that resources, ersonnel, and equipment are ready to meet wildland fire management needs across DOI-managed landscapes.
****************
Director, USWFS. The Director, USWFS, in coordination with the Deputy Secretary, shall take immediate steps to finalize the organizational structure and
deployment of USWFS, including:
1. issuing final organizational structures for USWFS;
2. reviewing the current distribution of DOI fire response units and assets and protection responsibilities and determining the extent of any necessary
redistributions of such units, assets, and responsibilities;
3. engaging fully with, and assuming leadership roles as appropriate in, relevant existing coordinating bodies, such as the Wildland Fire Leadership Council;
4. collaborating with land-management Bureau leadership to precisely identify those planning and decision-making activities that have been transferred to USWFS pursuant to this Order and those that remain with the Bureaus, as well as seeking leadership resolution for areas in which alignment has not been reached; and
5. pursing deeper engagement, transparency, mutual support, and interoperability among the USWFS and its Federal, State, Tribal, and local partners.
I bolded #4 because how that turns out will be of interest to many of us.
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.
