State and federal co-management of national Forest?

[R.K.]

Had this article pop up and I haven’t had the chance to read all of it yet. But for some odd reason, this immediately felt like a slightly underhanded first step towards state ownership and sale of federal lands.

I’m probably wrong on that, but thought it was at least worth sharing. With any luck, they’ll focus on habitat improvements, and not just board feet of lumber.

State takes on co-management of 200,000 federal acres in Northwest Montana

About 214,000 acres on the Kootenai and Flathead national forests will serve as what Montana Gov. Greg Gianforte called the “initial sandbox” for a shared stewardship agreement between the state and U.S. Forest Service.

dailyinterlake.com

 

[SAJ-99]

Had this article pop up and I haven’t had the chance to read all of it yet. But for some odd reason, this immediately felt like a slightly underhanded first step towards state ownership and sale of federal lands.

I’m probably wrong on that, but thought it was at least worth sharing. With any luck, they’ll focus on habitat improvements, and not just board feet of lumber.

State takes on co-management of 200,000 federal acres in Northwest Montana

About 214,000 acres on the Kootenai and Flathead national forests will serve as what Montana Gov. Greg Gianforte called the “initial sandbox” for a shared stewardship agreement between the state and U.S. Forest Service.

dailyinterlake.com

Shared management means state gets some money from the output. My main question is 100m board feet is a lot. Is that even possible with current employment levels or we there need to be an influx of people to the region? That’s probably why the timber is still standing now.

I’m sure there will be both good and bad from this. Kind of how it works with all these projects.

 

[sapperJ24]

Had this article pop up and I haven’t had the chance to read all of it yet. But for some odd reason, this immediately felt like a slightly underhanded first step towards state ownership and sale of federal lands.

I’m probably wrong on that, but thought it was at least worth sharing. With any luck, they’ll focus on habitat improvements, and not just board feet of lumber.

Thanks for posting this article. As this impacts where I work and recreate, I've been following this Shared Stewardship agreement since the announcement in June. I agree with your initial sentiments that this feels like a way for the state to 'own' (dictate) federal lands. One of the initial press releases stated something to the effect of, "Montana's national forests..."

One thing the Daily Interlake glossed over a bit is that the Good Neighbor Authority (GNA) has already been successfully used for numerous projects in NW Montana since its expansion in 2018. Some GNA projects have been more focused on habitat improvements, but I would trust Gianforte when he says the goal of the Shared Stewardship is to keep the logs moving.

It should also be noted that the Blacktail Powerline Project had been in the works, likely under GNA, prior to the existence of the Shared Stewardship Agreement so that may also illuminate how this agreement will go, the state solely taking credit for joint state/federal work.

Shared management means state gets some money from the output. My main question is 100m board feet is a lot. Is that even possible with current employment levels or we there need to be an influx of people to the region? That’s probably why the timber is still standing now.

I’m sure there will be both good and bad from this. Kind of how it works with all these projects.

Agree that there can be good an bad. The agreement is non-binding and either party can leave at any time in the next 20 years.

I think it is also worth taking a look at the below link and looking at the 5 year history. With prices being where they are at, it makes it more difficult for the agencies to sell timber for profits or recoup costs.

https://tradingeconomics.com/commodity/lumber

 

[Straight Arrow]

Had this article pop up and I haven’t had the chance to read all of it yet. But for some odd reason, this immediately felt like a slightly underhanded first step towards state ownership and sale of federal lands.

I’m probably wrong on that, but thought it was at least worth sharing. With any luck, they’ll focus on habitat improvements, and not just board feet of lumber.

State takes on co-management of 200,000 federal acres in Northwest Montana

About 214,000 acres on the Kootenai and Flathead national forests will serve as what Montana Gov. Greg Gianforte called the “initial sandbox” for a shared stewardship agreement between the state and U.S. Forest Service.

dailyinterlake.com

'Don't think this infers sale or transfer of federal lands. Montana, as well as other states, has long been concerned about the downturn of the logging and timber milling industry, which has been an economic multiplier for a hundred years. State and federal forest managers have been hinting about collaborating and now it seems it will happen. Lack of viable wildfire mitigation, high lumber prices, uncertain availability of timber for mills, and other factors form a motivational basis for this plan.
It will be interesting to monitor and analyze the results of this co-management plan for the designated "sandbox" area of Montana forests.

 

[SAJ-99]

I think it is also worth taking a look at the below link and looking at the 5 year history. With prices being where they are at, it makes it more difficult for the agencies to sell timber for profits or recoup costs.

https://tradingeconomics.com/commodity/lumber

I get it, but lumber prices are set by the market. The Agencies sell the leases through a competitive bidding process. That won't, and shouldn't, change. They don't have to recoup any cost. You can also look at threads from the Covid era and see people complaining about the price of 2x4s when prices went crazy. I'm for trying new things, but I suspect this is just the state trying to suck off the teat of the Federal process. Clearing timber for fire suppression is beneficial only in narrow, local, specific instances. Impact at scale is difficult in those landscapes. I also certainly don't want area lumber mills closing, so that may be good. The question is : Do I think it will result in meaningful net positive impact on habitat, economy, or pretty much anything else? No.

 

[Ben Lamb]

I get it, but lumber prices are set by the market. The Agencies sell the leases through a competitive bidding process. That won't, and shouldn't, change. They don't have to recoup any cost. You can also look at threads from the Covid era and see people complaining about the price of 2x4s when prices went crazy. I'm for trying new things, but I suspect this is just the state trying to suck off the teat of the Federal process. Clearing timber for fire suppression is beneficial only in narrow, local, specific instances. Impact at scale is difficult in those landscapes. I also certainly don't want area lumber mills closing, so that may be good. The question is : Do I think it will result in meaningful net positive impact on habitat, economy, or pretty much anything else? No.

Perhaps there is also the long-standing frustration with not advancing projects that would have positive benefits for wildlife and overall forest health due to the constant threat of, and actual, litigation that comes with a large number of timber sales.

Add that, along with declining elk numbers, loss of jobs both in the mills and the woods, and I can see why states would want more input in management, especially in areas with significant state trust land timber as well (NW MT has a good chunk of state land).

There is some wisdom in shared management of resources like this. It will be interesting to see how the budget reflects this at the state level.

I'm more inclined to agree that the increase and impact won't be as significant as folks may want to believe, but that's just because the gears of gov't grind slowly and by the time these can get momentum, the political climate will have shifted and things like this may not survive.

 

[sapperJ24]

I get it, but lumber prices are set by the market. The Agencies sell the leases through a competitive bidding process. That won't, and shouldn't, change. They don't have to recoup any cost. You can also look at threads from the Covid era and see people complaining about the price of 2x4s when prices went crazy. I'm for trying new things, but I suspect this is just the state trying to suck off the teat of the Federal process. Clearing timber for fire suppression is beneficial only in narrow, local, specific instances. Impact at scale is difficult in those landscapes. I also certainly don't want area lumber mills closing, so that may be good. The question is : Do I think it will result in meaningful net positive impact on habitat, economy, or pretty much anything else? No.

I think we are generally in agreement. With a desire for brevity, I think I lost some clarity in my initial post.

I was trying to speak to the process for getting bids on sales as the loggers and mills have to pay their bills. The mills aren't desperate for logs and bids reflect that. The FS can, and does/will, lose money on a sale, but the logger can't.

Locally (and presumably elsewhere), the FS has used GNA to pay for work to get do through service contracts which is great for getting projects accomplished that wouldn't get done based on existing merchantable timber in the project area. As long as funding from Congress remains for these types of additional projects then there is a chance for increased benefits with the SSA.

 

[SAJ-99]

Perhaps there is also the long-standing frustration with not advancing projects that would have positive benefits for wildlife and overall forest health due to the constant threat of, and actual, litigation that comes with a large number of timber sales.

Add that, along with declining elk numbers, loss of jobs both in the mills and the woods, and I can see why states would want more input in management, especially in areas with significant state trust land timber as well (NW MT has a good chunk of state land).

There is some wisdom in shared management of resources like this. It will be interesting to see how the budget reflects this at the state level.

I'm more inclined to agree that the increase and impact won't be as significant as folks may want to believe, but that's just because the gears of gov't grind slowly and by the time these can get momentum, the political climate will have shifted and things like this may not survive.

Your collegially always brightens my day. The lawsuits are definitely a problem but require a different solution. My skepticism comes from knowing politics and seeing the effects of timber harvest in a similar landscape. It looks positive on a satellite picture but at ground level you see a lot of knapweed and cheatgrass. You might have gone two steps forward and one step back in the short term on habitat. I guess that is better if you’re an elk hunter. It is just frustrating there are no simple solutions to the big problems.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Your collegially always brightens my day. The lawsuits are definitely a problem but require a different solution. My skepticism comes from knowing politics and seeing the effects of timber harvest in a similar landscape. It looks positive on a satellite picture but at ground level you see a lot of knapweed and cheatgrass. You might have gone two steps forward and one step back in the short term on habitat. I guess that is better if you’re an elk hunter. It is just frustrating there are no simple solutions to the big problems.

Lawsuits may require a different solution, totally agree on that. I'd love to see someone with gravitas and understanding take on reform of NEPA to deal with things like the Cottonwood decision, etc. Very similar to how the ESA is used against projects - moderate reforms to allow for some habitat restoration/logging is a centrist approach and one that would still provide the protections that wildlife need from man.

Aftercare of a project is a huge issue that cannot be glossed over. Most states aren't investing in control programs like they should even though the infrastructure is in place to accelerate the work (local conservation districts in particular are frontline warriors on this).

MT just invested significant resources in noxious weed mgt through the establishment of a Noxious weed trust for the local conservation districts, and the expansion of the Wildlife Habitat Improvement Program.

But - politics usually trump policy. Always has, always will. That's just part of the human condition.