NAFSR has signed a Memorandum of Understanding with the USDA Forest Service to provide a framework for cooperation on our mutual interests.
Signed by Chief Tom Schultz and NAFSR Chair Bill Avey, this agreement formalizes something NAFSR retirees have done informally for
years: sharing decades of institutional knowledge, technical expertise, and lessons learned with the current generation of Forest Service employees.
As experienced employees retire and exit the agency, as they have done in the last 18 months at an unprecedented rate, the Forest Service loses irreplaceable know-how.
This MOU is intended to facilitate a more structured path for retirees to stay connected, mentor, and support remaining employees – and those new to the agency – as they tackle wildfire, forest health, recreation access, leadership, and supervision with more limited resources than in recent years.
As a next step to put the new MOU into action, the NAFSR Employee Care Team is working with the Forest Service Workforce Development Team to set up a pilot knowledge transfer project to begin in Fall 2026.
The pilot will focus on supervisory skills, pairing retired supervisors with employees attending New Supervisor Training (NST).
Each pair will meet virtually over the course several months, using suggested
topics and discussion guides to support each discussion session. Volunteer retired supervisors would be asked to share their time and experience to help new supervisors navigate their new roles and challenges during the training period.
More details on the pilot and how to participate will be forthcoming to NAFSR members soon!
Meanwhile, please consider this upcoming volunteer opportunity to share your
time, experience, and expertise to assist a new Forest Service supervisor.
We look forward to more opportunities for collaboration between NAFSR and Forest Service!
******
I know many retirees I speak to are interested in helping via volunteering in various ways, so hopefully this effort will expand.
One of many conifers seedlings among the shrubs the Forest Service would like to eradicate using herbicide. (Scott Sady / For The Times)
We covered the Lassen National Forest Dixie Post-Fire herbicide issue as articulated by the Mother Jones article here. The article, and the people quoted, did not mention the restrictions easily found in the EA.
The LA Times has an interesting story comparing the views of Lake Tahoans to Butte County (Camp Fire) on that specific topic.. post-fire herbicide use. Shout-out to reporter Noah Haggerty for this report. Nice photos as well.
Increasingly severe wildfires — fueled by climate change and more than a century of forest mismanagement — have forced an environmental reckoning on mountain towns nestled in California’s Sierra Nevada. Their residents face difficult questions: Will some kind of forest grow back? And, if not, should humans intervene to make that happen? Two communities, 100 miles apart, may be choosing different answers
*********
“I’ll never see it like it was in my entire lifetime, and we need to be OK with that,” said Madeline Moritsch, who spent summers at her parents’ Tahoe cabin growing up and now lives in town. “It’s really sad … to lose connection to the forest, but then also, it is part of the forest life cycle. I have great trust that the forest is going to do what it’s going to do.”
In the Tahoe basin, opposition to the herbicide reached a fever pitch after an article chronicling the Forest Service’s use of the chemical across California appeared in Mother Jones magazine.
The agency had posted newspaper notices and sent emails mentioning herbicide use and seeking public input last year, but Tahoe residents said they had missed them or didn’t make much of them.
“We continue to welcome feedback from community members and appreciate the ongoing interest and involvement from the public,” the Forest Service said in a statement.
The controversy over reviving the forest is a shame, some say, because, done right, these projects can help restore the identity of forest towns and a feeling few have felt in decades: safety.
***********
About 100 miles northwest of the Tahoe Basin, lower down in the foothills, survivors of the epic 2018 Camp fire that destroyed the town of Paradise have a very different relationship with forest stewards.
The Butte County Fire Safe Council — made up of three dozen foresters, former firefighters and local fire survivors — has countless stories of working with local landowners to heal forests and reduce wildfire risk.
In a ride with four of them in one of the council’s heavy-duty white pick-ups, conversation is constantly interrupted as they point out areas across the county’s rugged wild lands that they’ve worked on.
More than a third of Butte County’s 1 million acres have burned over the past decade. That has made taking action and having tough conversations — including about herbicide — unavoidable.
Connor Gilmartin, the Fire Safe Council’s director of development, sympathized with residents in the Tahoe Basin. “It’d be completely reasonable that people feel slighted if they were to have something happening in their proverbial backyard without knowing about it,” he said. “It’s a non-option for us.”
The Fire Safe Council and forestry herbicide experts stressed that when herbicide is used, crews take significant precautions to protect ecosystems and communities. They post signs along trails and mix in dye so residents can see where the chemical has been used. It can’t be applied near streams and lakes.
Experts also said it is extremely unlikely for people using trails to get accidentally exposed to glyphosate levels that scientists deem unsafe.
************
Now when a fire ignites, it’s often high-intensity, devouring virtually everything in its path — including hundred-foot-tall trees.
After such a fire, shrubs that usually fight for scarce sunlight on the forest floor suddenly have it all day and take over.
It’s for this reason many experts say intervention is necessary if the forests are to grow back within the next several decades.
Without intervening, “the Forest Service is not getting a forest back. That’s pure and simple,” said Scott Stephens, UC Berkeley professor of fire science. Hoping fire stays out of the forest during its slow recovery process, “I would call that risky business,” he said.
To cut back on the shrubs and give the conifers a chance, Stephens said land managers have a few options: Goats, hand crews and herbicides.
Goats are great at munching up unwanted vegetation; however, if they aren’t introduced immediately, the goats are no match.
Land managers can also send in hand crews to take down shrubs with loppers, hoes and chainsaws. But that is labor intensive, and when a fire burns thousands of acres, the time and cost involved can be too high.
That leaves herbicides.
Of those, glyphosate is one of the few reasonably priced, effective and, many argue, comparatively safe herbicides that land managers can rely on for restoration work
****************
In the Tahoe Basin, the Caldor fire restoration plan outlines roughly 3,600 acres where the Forest Service could use ground crews to apply herbicide directly to shrubs — no aerial spraying.
“Even though it’s gotten a bad name because so much attention has been focused on it, it’s actually effective and comparatively benign,” Jon Souder, retired Oregon State University forestry professor, said of glyphosate.
Whether glyphosate causes cancer is still debated.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency determined it is not likely a human carcinogen. The cancer research arm of the World Health Organization says it probably is.
For many residents near Lake Tahoe, it’s not a risk worth taking.
*******
Then there’s a section about Maidu restoration in which it’s mentioned that they use herbicides to get rid of invasive species.
I see that you can argue it either way, California and its wildfires have so many cancer-causing chemicals already..e.g., this story on toxic carcinogens from the LA wildfires, or this on on 82% of Californians live in counties with unhealthy air. With that, you could go one of two ways – “we have enough carcinogens already (the status of glyphosate a a carcinogen is controversial but assuming the worst), I’d rather have shrublands than have one more use, even with restrictions.” Or “since we have so many already, given the amount and the restrictions, it’s no big deal.” Another way to look at it is personal choice. Choosing to eat barbecued meat, knowing it increases your cancer risk, for example is one thing, but having a carcinogen applied when you don’t know where is different. Perhaps there is a middle ground for glyphosate avoiders- to leave the warning signs up permanently.
Finally, there are probably Tahoans who are OK with it and Butte County residents who are concerned. Still Haggerty deserves credit for interviewing and listening to all sides.
Many thanks to Nick Smith who posted this on his HFHC News Roundup!
I was originally against the idea of moving (xome) WO folks to SLC. It’s obviously an Admin, not FS, idea. It does have advantages, as I’ve said before. My own experience of trying to hire people in DC as 14s.. it could be very difficult.As I found it easier to hire in Denver, it would probably be true for SLC. What I didn’t think of was the difference in quality of reporting comparing local news in SLC to that of the WaPo.
This story has an editor’s note: “A lawsuit only portrays one side of the story. ” Even the TV news in SLC has an editor. How many litigation stories have we seen without that caveat?
SALT LAKE CITY (ABC4) — A group of unions, environmental and civic organizations, and local governments has filed a lawsuit challenging the planned restructuring of the U.S. Forest Service, which includes moving the agency’s headquarters to Salt Lake City and closing regional offices and research facilities across the country.
The plaintiffs are alleging that the reorganization would impair the Forest Service’s ability to manage national forests, and they are seeking a preliminary injunction to prevent the USDA administration from moving forward with its reorganization plan.
In March, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) announced that the Forest Service headquarters would move to Salt Lake City as the first step of a massive agency reorganization intended to shift the organization to a “state-based” model. The move aims to get leadership closer to the landscapes managed by the agency and strengthen partnerships on the local level.
This is a fair statement by reporters about the stated intentions.
The lawsuit was filed by Democracy Forward on behalf of more than 30 groups, including the American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE) and American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME), which represent the USDA employees that will be impacted by the reorganization. Many employees will lose their jobs, and the lawsuit states that restructuring will make the jobs of those who remain significantly more difficult.
This is one of those “and how would that work, exactly?” questions. It’s also interesting that the claim “many people will lose their jobs” sounds like they will leave, but the FS says there are jobs for everyone although perhaps different, and for less than 300, requiring relocation. Of course, we don’t have to believe the folks at the FS, but we don’t have to believe these folks either. Now, who exactly, we might ask is “Democracy Forward?” Not surprisingly, we find that they are funded heavily by two DAFs, and run by D political operatives.
Democracy Forward (DF) is a left-of-center litigation and advocacy nonprofit created in early 2017 by high-level Democratic Party operatives. The organization has been aggressive in targeting the Trump administration.
So, the lawsuit is not particularly surprising.
The lawsuit alleges that restructuring the Forest Service in this way will reduce the agency’s capacity to sustainably manage national forests and engage in fire response and prevention efforts.
Specifically, the plaintiffs claim that the USDA is exceeding its authority in implementing this reorganization plan and that it is violating the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).
My question is “why so much focus on USDA reorg by this group, compared to Interior, which actually started a new agency? If folks are really worried about “fire response and prevention” wouldn’t that be a good place to focus? Maybe they’re litigating that also, although perhaps the fire truck is out of the parking lot on that one. I do think this sudden interest by these groups for “livestock sustainability” is notable.
Many of the news stories you might read do not have the context of previous efforts to reorganize the Forest Service. If I recall correctly, the Transformation effort of 2007 was the last major such effort. Many, many thoughtful employees put much effort into this, as we’ve discussed before. It was one of the efforts used in designing this Reorganization. My FOIA for some of the other documents is in process.
I ran across this note in my Transformation file.. thoughtful, well-considered and well-written as we’d expect from Mr. Forsgren. The numbers and emails have changed (and all of them have since retired) , so I didn’t x them out. “Gail” was Chief Kimball FYI.
Once and current concerns:
– Communication
– Measures and baseline
– How do we know that service units won’t be troubled (as ASC) rather than successful (from my experience, the Fr. Collins timber folks, the CAT team, WO Minerals, but I’m sure there are many others).
Perhaps the budget deficit made the need for change clearer this time.
“Burden shift” is not as much of a concern now. That was the idea that administrative processes were taking the time of field people unnecessarily.
Wyoming’s a great state, it is blessed with beautiful scenery, abundant natural resources and good people. It also has two news outlets, the Cowboy State Daily (funded by a Wyoming businessperson) and Wyofile (funded by national philanthropic organizations and readers). It’s interesting to see what the different media outlets focus on when they interviewed the Chief. The point of this first post on the Chief Schultz Wyofile story is to focus in on why people would or would not apply for the State Director positions and question the Wyofile narrative about how the numbers may reflect the interest in the new State Director positions.
The U.S. Forest Service received roughly 300 applications for the 15 new state director jobs created during a major agency reorganization that’s dissolving regional offices the agency’s first chief, Gifford Pinchot, created nearly 120 years ago.
That’s 20 applications per job, on average, for well-paying “senior executive service” positions at a federal agency that employs roughly 30,000 staff.
It’s a figure that, to many, suggests stunningly little interest in the jobs and a reminder that it remains a tough time to be a Forest Service employee tasked with managing 193 million acres of the United States.
I wonder who these “many” are and how much they know about SES and how the FS works.
But U.S. Forest Service Chief Tom Schultz on Tuesday sounded upbeat about the 300 applications, a datapoint he offered without prompting. Applicants are a mix of Forest Service veterans and outside candidates, and there are more than he needs to fill the state director jobs and restructure. Schultz’s team has already narrowed the pool of candidates and is starting to arrange for interviews, he told WyoFile from a boardroom at Park City’s Deer Valley Resort.
“I expect [interviews] to begin within the next couple weeks,” Schultz said.
I have never selected SES candidates, but part of my job in R2 as an RO Director was that we reviewed positions choices, including Supes, although my understanding was that the WO made the final choice for them. When I read “to many” this suggests “stunningly little interest”, I was surprised. I wonder whether the “many” put themselves in the place of reviewers. I’d reserve “stunningly little interest” for 1 or 2 applicants, or maybe zero, as we have had for ranger jobs on grassland districts in the Dakotas. Or the many times I tried to hire 14s in DC. Neither was particularly “stunning” though, the advantages to applicants didn’t outweigh the disadvantages.
Twenty per position seems bountiful to me- for those who have gone through 20 applications, reference checking, interviews and so on, if you do it right, it’s a lot of work.
Picking people for these kinds of leadership positions is probably the most important task in any organization. You don’t want people who create drama, and against whom employees will revolt. And those are just the internal criteria.. getting along with obstreperous States, other Federal agencies, NGO’s, politicians and so on is also required. The most likely people to be qualified would be Forest Supes or other 15s with Forest Supe experience (Regional Directors, Deputy Regional Foresters, and miscellaneous WO types).
One thing we don’t know is how many of the candidates are in the FS. Given that the positions were open outside the FS, and that there is some switching between the FS and BLM, I would guess that highly qualified candidates might have applied from those places also. So if we were to look at the proportion of FS employees applying over the total number of FS employees eligible, it turns out we know neither one.
The number of eligible employees should be current 15s, likely with backgrounds as Forest Supervisors, which is not 30K. I would look it up, but with people retiring the number is no doubt a moving target. Like most organizations, the FS is a pyramid with fewer people near the top.
The next question would be “why would 15’s not apply?” I can answer for myself, as I considered applying to SESCDP (the candidate development program). When I was going through it, they told us that as part of the SES pool, we could be moved wherever. I wasn’t mobile at the time due to family reasons. I tried to address some ECQs but just didn’t have a fire in my belly for it, in fact, quite the opposite. I have always been perfectly happy as a 15 and the additional hassle and money and potential moving drama just wasn’t worth the responsibility for me. Some 15’s are probably happy where they are, the Forest, the community, their employees, their family and so on. It’s probably true that the locations of these positions are better for families than DC, but moving… The older among us (generally some correlation between grade and age) may have health concerns and may not want to move their medical care.) So many reasons not to move..
My wise retired SES associates tell me that the strategy is to wait until you are retirement eligible to move to SES, that way if the higher-ups want to move you, for big or small “p” political reasons or needs, you can just retire.
There is some risk that being a State Director now will get you reassigned when a D Admin comes in. As my BLM retiree friends tell me, both parties do this. You might have given someone the impression that you were too helpful to the Trump Admin, however that would be measured. Or maybe the fact that you accepted the position during the Trump Admin put you on the list. Or someone who doesn’t like you could start the rumor that the R politicals liked you (not everyone in the FS is a good person). Perhaps someone in the new Admin is owed a favor and wants an SES position in your location.
I know all this sounds negative, so hoping that an SES retiree will chime in with the positive side- it probably has something to do with the good that can be done in those positions.
Photo by Emily Fagan https://roadslesstraveled.us/rv-boondocking-black-hills-national-forest-sd-camping-cows/
I could post many more, but you get the idea.
Today calls for writing that creates powerful word-pictures and evokes strong emotions. Unfortunately I haven’t found the right piece out there, so here are my own thoughts. As always, others are welcome to share.
Sure, National Forests weren’t around when the Declaration of Independence was signed. Still, we can celebrate this country as having the ideas that led to the establishment of the National Forests, and in some aspects, the BLM, and the structures that allowed the ebb and flow of dealing with interests and issues over time. The Executive branch, Congress, the Courts, the States, local governments and so on all have roles to play as well as employees, permittees, any people who use or recreate on the Forests, and so on. All balancing and blending over time as issues and challenges change. And here we are at TSW, discussing these dynamics as they present themselves today.
National Parks have superior marketing, for whatever reasons- probably the corporations involved in concessions help out. I currently see National Parks honored on my six-packs of Sierra Nevada- corporate Parkism seems fairly common. Yet, I also remember the problems associated with the Subaru Forester marketing- somehow related to Lamar Beasley’s efforts? It would be interesting to hear that story from someone who remembers. In my view, “America’s best idea” perhaps was not designating areas for public enjoyment and Park-ness, but the idea that locals and states and feds could somehow work out their disagreements over how best to manage or not-manage various pieces of land. Land that is uniquely open to dispersed recreation of all kinds, and that depends on -more than law enforcement- the good behavior and character of Americans (mostly)- for its success. Think of hunting season- thousands of people out there with guns and alcohol, and yet.. So that is one key thing about the National Forests – a certain amount of freedom, to pursue whatever. A basic trust in the goodness of people to behave -perhaps mediated by the fact that fencing people out would be practically difficult or impossible.
A second key thing for me is the “use” idea, that miners, oil and gas folks, ranchers, forest products folks, firewood, mushroom and berry collectors, , ski areas and summer camps, pipelines and cell towers, all can go on National Forests subject to constraints. Perhaps we inherited from our British forbears the idea that producing food, experiences and products is somehow lower than leaving things alone, perhaps a bit of a classist undertone. An innovation by Americans was to develop practical education for people who do things via the Morrill Act of 1862, education “for the benefit of agriculture and the mechanical arts” . As this article in the National Archives says “Nevertheless, land-grant support became a substantial factor in providing education to most American children who could never hope to attend private or charity-supported schools.” Many TSW readers, including me, can resonate with that, even today. While many have criticized the financial origin of the land-grants (selling Native lands), certainly private universities are not necessarily morally superior.
Finally, while many ideas have changed about the Forests through time, they are still there, and not going anywhere. Which is to be celebrated! When you think about the changes in organizational structure and technology over time, and yet, the Forest Service is still functional and still adapting.
Last winter, American Affairs Journal published a historical piece by Kevin Hawickhorst called Personnel is Policy: The Fabric of Government Organization, which describes some of the post WWII organizational changes that reduced the importance of what he called “vocational communities”. What’s interesting to me is that given the changes that Hawickhorst describes, the Forest Service, for whatever reason, has retained “research, regulation, and grants under one roof” ; in that sense, it is a relic whose ultimate wisdom is now being revealed.
At the turn of the twentieth century, agencies followed a distinct blueprint: they were organized by subject matter, not by abstract function. Each bureau focused on a single domain—such as soils, mines, or forests—and combined research, regulation, and grants under one roof. In the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), the Bureau of Entomology, for example, studied insect-borne diseases, issued rules to contain them, and funded farmers to protect their crops, all as part of a single mission. This structure helped agencies recruit experts by offering broader, more meaningful work than corporations could, and it built a shared sense of mission rooted in a vocational community.
Today’s agencies look very different. After World War II, reformers dismantled the integrated subject matter bureaus and reorganized government along what they called “functional” lines. In this system, regulation is one bureau, research another, and grant administration still another; each bureau covers a wide range of subjects and is defined by its activity rather than its mission. It is the model we now take for granted. The Bureau of Entomology is gone, and USDA now houses all agricultural research in a single unit. New agencies were built this way from the outset: the Department of Housing and Urban Development, created in 1965, was designed as a grantmaking machine, never a vocational community.
The shift was a well-intentioned one and backed by a wide coalition of reformers, businessmen, and interest groups. Functional departments looked modern, rational, and efficient: they simplified charts, tightened chains of command, and promised to reduce duplication. But what seemed like sensible reform gradually hollowed out the structures that had made expertise durable. Once government agencies lost their vocational missions, they stopped drawing on networks of expertise and started looking like paper mills, less able to command political respect, and more vulnerable to capture and drift.
This history carries lessons for anyone hoping to rebuild government competence. First, organization is not a technical detail but the core of state capacity. The way agencies are structured determines who they attract, what work they privilege, and whether expertise can endure. Second, organization is never neutral. Every reorganization embodies political choices about whose voices count and which functions dominate, driven by coalitions bargaining for influence and control. Third, competence endures only when agencies are organized to draw upon professional networks and put that technical expertise to use for politicians. When functional reorganizations stripped agencies of that role, agencies lost talent and prestige. For government reformers today, the task is to design agencies that anchor vocational communities and make excellence indispensable once more.
Yes, the feds or the states (laboratories of democracy) can go off on tangents and do things that don’t turn out well. And our governments have the capacity to notice that and change, or change back.
And so we perhaps can disagree about organization, about the importance of vocational communities (and their professional societies), and, of course, exactly what should be done, or not done, on any particular piece of the Federal landscape. Dynamism plus disagreement yields both change and some stability (think NFMA). And yet, the land is still here, and will be for the foreseeable future. One of the many blessings of living in the USA.
(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.
The Community and Watershed Resilience Program led to many forest- and watershed-health projects, two new community resilience centers, and two new biomass facilities, which will help the region address unmet recovery needs from the Rim Fire, while also supporting community protection and resilience.
I saw this on X today, even thought the story is from March. It’s a longer story of collaborative efforts after the Rim Fire. We’ve talked about the SERAL project before. I wonder what it is about this part of the country that encourages people to get along and get things done?
The Community and Watershed Resilience Program and its three-tiered goals aim to change all that. Through extensive forest health and forest-restoration efforts, the landscape in and around Stanislaus National Forest and Yosemite National Park will now be more resilient to disasters, while the jobs provided and the products produced will help boost the local economy.
Here’s the biomass section:
**********************************
Final program goal – two biomass facilities
Under the Biomass Utilization Fund portion of the program, the RCAC partnered with the SNC to distribute $17 million in available funding to support projects that create local jobs through the utilization of biomass from forest-restoration activities. Biomass facilities not only bring employment opportunities but also remove and process woody material that would otherwise be left to degrade in place, be masticated, or piled and burned in the forest.
“This Biomass Utilization Fund is not just about biomass utilization, but a more holistic approach to forest resilience and wildfire-risk reduction,” said Cyndi Spencer, chief operating officer with the RCAC. “In addition, the economic development and creation of living wage jobs support local families and strengthen regional economies. This not only improves forest health but also fosters long-term economic resilience and community prosperity.”
The Biomass Utilization Fund invested in two facilities, Tuolumne Biomass in Jamestown and Tuolumne BioEnergy in Sonora. Being a recoverable grant fund also means that funding for both facilities will be paid back in time to then be reinvested in similar projects across the state. This revolving loan fund strategy aims to create additional biomass projects across California in the future.
The first $9.7 million from the Biomass Utilization Fund, along with other grants and loans, created Tuolumne Biomass, which opened in October 2024.
“We were invited here many years ago after Tuolumne County was first approached with some federal funding around response to the Rim Fire and looking to establish a business here,” said David Schmidt, CEO of Tuolumne Biomass, which is owned by Heartwood Biomass out of Oregon. “We took that invitation, spent time in the community, and really came to a place where we knew the infrastructure was here, support from the local government was here, and the U.S. Forest Service was supportive. It really has the right ecosystem for doing a business like ours.”
The facility utilizes material from forest-restoration projects, such as small-diameter trees, brush, branches, and non-merchantable logs and turns it into usable, profitable products – mostly bundled firewood for residential use and peeled poles for agricultural use. In operation for over a year, it currently processes roughly 30,000 tons of biomass annually and employs up to 16 full-time staff.
David Schmidt, CEO of Tuolumne Biomass, leads a tour of the facility in Jamestown, Ca.
Basically, Schmidt added, “if you can put it on a truck and get it to our facility, we will utilize it.”
To complement the critical forest-restoration activities taking place in nearby forests, the remaining funds in the Biomass Utilization Fund went toward creating Tuolumne BioEnergy, which started operating in January of this year.
This facility removes non-sawmill material out of the forests, brings it to its Sonora location, and turns it into wood-burning pellets to be sold directly to homeowners and commercial outlets, like Lowe’s and Tractor Supply. When in full operation, the facility is expected to produce roughly 30,000 tons of bagged pellets per year and employ up to 25 full-time staff.
“This has been done a hundred times before, but not at a scale we are doing here, and specifically not with using forest residues as the source,” said Etienne Patenaude, CEO of Force Energy Systems, Inc., owner of Tuolumne BioEnergy. “The problem on the waste side was it was just all getting pile burned in the forest. So, that means 100 percent emissions and no value to anyone. Not to mention it costs the Forest Service or loggers to have to go out and pile burn it. So, this operation completely alleviates all that burden.”
Tuolumne BioEnergy is also powered and heated through the energy generated through its pellet-making process, making it energy independent. In fact, Patenaude added the facility may sell power back to the local utility company in times of surplus production.
With the opening of the two facilities, both the communities of Tuolumne County and the surrounding natural landscape will benefit.
“These facilities create a sustainable outlet for hazardous forest fuels, enabling large-scale reduction efforts in the Stanislaus National Forest and improving the overall landscape health,” Spencer added. “The conversion of excess biomass into usable products helps to reduce wildfire risk and supports ecological resilience.”
Note that the BLM is working on an amendment, at least for the Rock Springs RMP.
Rich J.’s Points.
Rich J. brought up a couple of points here last Friday, I thought worthy of note. Again, it seems like a major kerfuffle about a few RMPs where the decision was made that the Governors did not support, and, as I recall, were even considering litigating.
“(A)Before a rule can take effect, the Federal agency promulgating such rule shall submit to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General a report containing—
(i)a copy of the rule;
(ii)a concise general statement relating to the rule, including whether it is a major rule; and
(iii)the proposed effective date of the rule.
To my (perhaps excessively picayune) mind this not “very specific” at all. The argument turns on the phrase “submit to.” Does it mean presenting the plan (er – rule) to Congressional leaders on a velvet pillow with trumpets and drums? Or does it mean something less?
The bigger question, as previously discussed on this blog, is whether there is any time limit on the CRA, or whether a Congress 10,000 years from now could invoke this law to reject some executive branch action from the benighted 21st century. I understand the arguments of the people who say the CRA will apply until the sun devours our sad planet. I simply reject those arguments as inconsistent with the administration of a rational polity.
That said, I think this complaint is awesome – it is, as the chess folks say, a forking check, and (whether intentionally or not) illustrates the absurdity of this ridiculous statute.”
2. Bit’o’History re Rock Springs RMP
It appears that, at least for the Rock Springs RMP, the BLM is also pursuing an amendment. See the link above.
There was a certain amount of what I call “sharp stick in the eye” with the Rock Springs RMP decision, which is the one I followed most closely. I haven’t been following the others affected by the CRA.
How do I define “sharp stick in the eye”? In this case there are at least two factors:
a. Decision made after election of different party (in this case, decision released December 20, 2024).
b. Blowing off states and Governors. We’ve all been there, there’s a variety of choices an Admin and Gov can work out, or not, but this appears to be an intentional “sharp stick in the eye.” Decided by folks in DC calling the BLM manager, as with some other of these end of term decisions.
Interesting that in this December 30, 2024 news story, CRA is already mentioned as a possible :
“As expected, the BLM dismissed the governor’s consistency review as well as his (appeal),” West said. “We stand firm that this ROD will have detrimental effects to the economy of Sweetwater County and the state of Wyoming. Anyone who thinks the opposite clearly (hasn’t) read through the entirety of the plan.”
West noted there wasn’t much change, if any, from the draft to the final Environmental Impact Statement.
“We’ve worked hard to offer input and factual data as a cooperator for many years, but political agenda has become more important than the people with the boots on the ground, and as such, we’re all left paying the price,” he said.
West expressed hope for the new administration’s desire to listen to the local control in the months ahead, whether that be through litigation, the Congressional Review Act, or an amendment to the newly established RMP.
“It’s evident in the meantime that getting this out before January 20 was a bigger priority than working with those closest to the people.”
Another question would be that the Wilderness Society announced that the Director of BLM was joining them as president on Feb. 24, 2025. Of course, she must have recused herself from the Rock Springs RMP discussions.
I can imagine that if the situations were reversed, that the Trump Admin approved an RMP, that say, did not take into account comments of, say Gov. Newsom, and the BLM Director took a position with the oil and gas industry right before the decision came out, it would be considered a shockingly bad thing and any method to overturn it would be OK, in fact, noble. I’m thinking that the CRA (never done!) can be a distraction from the “sharp stick in the eye” issue.
I don’t know what case law says about requirements in FLPMA for interaction with states on plans. There is a process for a consistency review, and perhaps the legislators assumed that the State and the Feds could work things out in one way or another.
Why use the CRA instead of litigation or an amendment? I would have chosen an amendment. I don’t know what they were thinking, but here are some guesses. Litigation is a crapshoot as a notable FS planning director once said, so there’s that. The amendment would probably be litigated, and the next Admin might not defend it, when The Wilderness Society birds flock back into political positions. But I’m not a lawyer so can’t guess. There’s plenty of work for them (lawyers) via CRA, litigation, or amendment.
3. Pandora’s Box Redux
Folks like the Center for Western Priorities call using the CRA “opening Pandora’s box.” As readers know, that’s how I think of the NFMA plan revision process. “Need for change” somehow devolved to “assess everything.” So, of course, I was curious about whether the 2012 Planning Rule had been reviewed by Congress. Here’s what Chat-GPT said:
The short answer is that the Congressional Review Act (CRA) provides only a limited time window for Congress to disapprove a rule. Once that window closes without a joint resolution of disapproval becoming law, the CRA can no longer be used against that rule.
Here’s how it works:
The agency submits the rule.The USDA submitted the 2012 Forest Service Planning Rule to Congress and the Government Accountability Office, as required by the CRA.
A review period begins.Members of Congress have a limited number of legislative (session) days—not calendar days—to introduce and act on a joint resolution of disapproval. The period is generally described as 60 legislative days in the House and 60 session days in the Senate after Congress receives the rule.
Congress did not enact a resolution of disapproval.Although members could have introduced a CRA resolution, none was enacted into law before the review period expired.
The opportunity expires.Once the CRA review period closes, Congress cannot later use the CRA to invalidate that same rule.
And the look-back used..
The CRA has a “lookback” provision for rules submitted near the end of a congressional session. In those cases, the next Congress gets a fresh review period. That provision does not apply to the 2012 Planning Rule because it was issued and submitted early in 2012, well before the end of the 112th Congress. By the time the 113th Congress convened in January 2013, the CRA review period for the rule had already expired.
Of course, Chat GPT could be wrong. Hopefully legal folks here will let us know.
4. Forest Service Divination Strikes Out
My experience with going back in time legally was with the so-called “Gap Leases”, which had been issued in IRAs during the time period that the 2001 Rule was enjoined (by Judge Brimmer, in Wyoming). Many people thought that they were illegitimate- or at least said so quite loudly, as if the FS had some kind of divinatory powers. How handy that would be..the National Divination Service Center! But if plans didn’t count as rules in times prior, and rules must go through the review process.. well, you can see the problem as Rich J. pointed out above.
5. Why Litigate?
In my view, this is a standard “disagreement over plan content” with a “sharp-stick in the eye” overlay. I wonder what the purpose is of this litigation. Are groups really that attached to these specific RMPs? Is it really worth all the effort and resources? Hopefully, again, someone can explain.
6. Ongoing Amendment Process
Seems like there is also an ongoing amendment process.
