Post by: cougforester on March 18, 2021, 10:56:03 AM
https://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/colville/news-events/?cid=FSEPRD892781
Quote
Proposed Land Exchange with Stimson Lumber Company and the Colville National Forest
Media Contact: Charles Lassiter charles.lassiter@usda.gov
Colville, WA (March 8, 2021) – The Colville National Forest and Stimson Lumber Company are pursuing a land exchange involving approximately 90,000 acres. The potential exchange was initiated when Stimson approached the Forest Service with a proposal to consolidate the relatively fragmented landscape of ownership and management in Northeast Washington. Stimson currently owns several thousand acres of inholdings within the proclaimed boundaries of the Colville National Forest, Kaniksu National Forest, and Little Pend Oreille National Wildlife Refuge in Pend Oreille and Stevens County, Washington. The parties developed an agreement to initiate an equal value exchange of approximately 60,000 acres of land currently owned by Stimson for approximately 30,000 acres of lands currently managed by the Colville National Forest. Although the bulk of the lands acquired from the proposed exchange would be on the Colville National Forest, the United States would also acquire inholdings on the Little Pend Oreille National Wildlife Refuge and within the boundaries of lands managed by the Idaho Panhandle National Forest in Washington State.
Over the last couple of months, notices of the exchange proposal were published in local newspapers and sent to permit holders and others who may be potentially impacted by the exchange. “As we seek to ensure this proposal provides the greatest good for the greatest number in the long run, we are pleased by the responses we’re receiving from permit holders, landowners, and the public,” said Forest Supervisor, Rodney Smoldon. “The input indicates broad support and have highlighted specific concerns from permit holders and others who we will work with to mitigate potential impacts.”
Most of Stimson’s acreage involved in this potential land exchange is part of the checkerboard pattern of ownership granted to Burlington Northern Railroad during the railroad land grants of the mid-1800s. The remaining acreage consists of inholdings acquired by Stimson and their predecessors. This fragmented ownership presents several unique management challenges, along with a continuing need to maintain or develop property lines and cooperative agreements between Stimson and adjoining landowners. For these reasons, along with the potential to consolidate timber and land resources, Stimson proposed an exchange with the United States which would mutually benefit the resource management objectives of both parties and provide economic stability to nearby communities that rely on sustainable forest industries.
Lands acquired by the United States through this exchange would include culturally significant properties as well as habitats for important wildlife and fish species. By creating connected and contiguous areas of public land, the exchange could create enhanced opportunities for recreation, forest restoration, management of natural and cultural resources, as well as fire preparedness, suppression, and protection. Consolidated ownership of land would provide better opportunities to manage property boundaries leading to less public confusion. While potentially impacting some recreation uses on the southern end of Colville National Forest, it would also improve user access to substantial portions of the forest. Seamless landscape-level management could also lead to enhanced habitat management in key watersheds and critical habitats for threatened species including Canada lynx, grizzly bear, and bull trout.
The Forest Service is currently developing the land exchange proposal and performing initial review for feasibility. This is the first stage of a lengthy process which could lead to the title transfer of lands. If the Forest Service determines that this exchange is in the public interest and this potential land exchange is approved, we anticipate title transfer to occur in the Summer of 2023. This project will also be analyzed under the National Environmental Policy Act. There will be additional opportunity to formally comment on this project when we initiate scoping later this year.
Information on the land exchange, including a map of the lands involved, is posted under Developing Proposals on the Land and Resource Management/Projects portion of the Colville National Forest website at www.fs.usda.gov/projects/colville/landmanagement/projects. For additional information about the Colville National Forest, please visit our website at www.fs.usda.gov/colville. For the most current updates about the Colville National Forest, please follow us on Facebook at www.facebook.com/colvillenf/ and Twitter at www.twitter.com/Colville_NF.
Post by: ganghis on March 18, 2021, 11:09:51 AM
Post by: KFhunter on March 18, 2021, 11:30:37 AM
Not all acres are equal, assume difficult to log scrub rock areas.
I'm going to have to see this with a bit more detail before I form an opinion.
Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
Post by: Moe the Sleaze on March 18, 2021, 11:33:30 AM
Post by: cougforester on March 18, 2021, 11:34:41 AM
Post by: KFhunter on March 18, 2021, 11:36:20 AM
I'm leaning towards the negative on this, but I can see why Stimson has the USDA's ear; they are basically offering to give up 2 to acquire 1 as far as the acreage is concerned. I am still analyzing how this swap might affect my recreation up there, but I'm guessing there will be trade-offs, both positive and negative for me.At first glace at the map, look how much easier it would be to expand wilderness in the Selkirk.
Stimson would aquire premium flat timberlands.
Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
Post by: KFhunter on March 18, 2021, 11:41:33 AM
What I like about checker board ownership is diversified habitat, blown out private timber with escapement to NF.
What I don't like is access issues with checkerboard.
But if its "for the grizz" then will access really improve?
I see a big expansion of wilderness, or wilderness 'lite' roadless.
Not against roadless, but am against wilderness.
Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
Post by: Buckhunter24 on March 18, 2021, 12:17:10 PM
It would make the checkerboard easier but remove access to that whole block around Power Peak and Calispell Creek. That's a great area for good vehicle access but still has gated roads to filter people out, but with this they'd be gated wayyyy earlier. Plus that stuff is really nice timber, and I'd assume what the USFS is getting (since it's a 2:1 swap) is cut over and bombed out. I'd rather Stimson partnered with the USFS to get more harvesting done on USFS ground without swapping this over.All this over grizz and trout habitat. No thanks.
:tup:
Post by: hunter399 on March 18, 2021, 01:09:10 PM
I Agree with the above statement.It would make the checkerboard easier but remove access to that whole block around Power Peak and Calispell Creek. That's a great area for good vehicle access but still has gated roads to filter people out, but with this they'd be gated wayyyy earlier. Plus that stuff is really nice timber, and I'd assume what the USFS is getting (since it's a 2:1 swap) is cut over and bombed out. I'd rather Stimson partnered with the USFS to get more harvesting done on USFS ground without swapping this over.All this over grizz and trout habitat. No thanks.
:tup:
No reason the forest service can't award some harvest contracts ,without giving up property.
Post by: Fl0und3rz on March 18, 2021, 02:34:35 PM
Post by: Pegasus on March 18, 2021, 02:49:12 PM
Post by: MtnMuley on March 18, 2021, 03:21:59 PM
Post by: Weatherby92 on March 18, 2021, 03:22:19 PM
Post by: KFhunter on March 19, 2021, 11:37:56 AM
Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
Post by: Alan K on March 19, 2021, 12:02:11 PM
No reason the forest service can't award some harvest contracts ,without giving up property.
The USFS takes entire basins of timber for planning areas and by the time every 'ologist' takes their cut out, usually a 10,000 acre planning area is reduced down to 500 acres of thinning as the only allowable harvest. It's sickening how much they leave behind to burn over. Any time they try and harvest more the green groups threaten lawsuit. The east side sawmills have had their wood sources gutted by the USFS's bowing down to the environmentalists. There is zero doubt in my mind that they've been a constant voice trying to get additional sales put out.
I'm mixed on this, but actually the opposite of what it seems like most people are. I view blocking ownership up as a good thing, and I hope it happens more and more. How many threads have there been on here about the evil timber companies with landlocked public lands? I am not familiar with the area in question, but it makes it easier for everyone involved to have blocked up ownership. From a timberlands perspective I see it as bad because the USFS won't actually do any meaningful harvesting, so in the long term the wood basket is further reduced.
Post by: Buckhunter24 on March 19, 2021, 12:38:43 PM
Post by: hunter399 on March 19, 2021, 01:28:08 PM
The Colville has successfully collaborated on a lot of stewardship projects in the last decade and built a lot of trust that good forestry is taking place. Would I like to see it at a faster pace and larger treatment level? Yes. But good projects are taking place in the Colville NF.Totally agree
There has been Alot more harvests going on in the colville national forest through steward ship harvest sales.
Most of those logs have went to a few mills in the area.
And has kept wood product manufacturer strong in our area.
Post by: KFhunter on March 19, 2021, 01:37:28 PM
The Colville has successfully collaborated on a lot of stewardship projects in the last decade and built a lot of trust that good forestry is taking place. Would I like to see it at a faster pace and larger treatment level? Yes. But good projects are taking place in the Colville NF.Vaagans had a pretty good partnershio going , is that dissolved?
Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
Post by: hunter399 on March 19, 2021, 01:43:41 PM
Yes they was awarded the stewardship contracts.The Colville has successfully collaborated on a lot of stewardship projects in the last decade and built a lot of trust that good forestry is taking place. Would I like to see it at a faster pace and larger treatment level? Yes. But good projects are taking place in the Colville NF.Vaagans had a pretty good partnershio going , is that dissolved?
Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
I don't have a clue now ,I'm not in the circle of trust anymore. :chuckle: :chuckle:
Post by: Buckhunter24 on March 19, 2021, 01:47:59 PM
Post by: hunter399 on March 19, 2021, 01:59:45 PM
I've got no real insight. My understanding from what I've read on the usfs site is every project is open for any bidder to bid on, and each project area is a separate bid.I guess the contracts I'm talking about was a few years ago.
All contracts are like that . Anybody can bid ECT,ECT.
But vaagans can take a pretty small log.
It kinda depends on the stand of timber.
Who can make the most of what's there.
Does that make sense at all ?
Post by: Buckhunter24 on March 19, 2021, 02:01:28 PM
Post by: hunter399 on March 19, 2021, 02:05:21 PM
Except vaagans they love it I guess.
Make a 2x4 out of nothing I guess.
:chuckle: :chuckle: :dunno: :chuckle: :chuckle:
We used to make fun of the brothers said.
Them vaagan brothers must be named bow and wayn.
Cause of the way the straping would hit you in the face.
When you break the straps on there lumber.
With that said ,I don't think it was ever that bad,but it was always funny.
Post by: Alan K on March 19, 2021, 02:11:55 PM
The bad part, is they make very little money, and the selection process of who gets the job is done behind closed doors and doesn't necessarily go to the bidder that returns the highest value. In many cases it does not. Room for some good old boys club corruption there? Stewardship contracts are faaaar from efficient. They rope in a lot of odd ball projects that a logger or lumber mill rarely deals with. For example pre-commercial thinning. Is it good they get some thinning done? Of course! But when the bidder puts $300/acre on that project because of the headache and subcontracting etc. outside of their regular business, when the USFS could have contracted the same work directly for $200/acre it doesn't make much sense...
Traditional, COMPETITIVE timber sales, with the USFS handling the special projects themselves would be better for everyone involved AND stretch the same dollars farther!
Post by: hunter399 on March 19, 2021, 02:16:45 PM
The stewardship sales are a workaround so that dollars stay on the forest. That's the good part of them. Its ridiculous that our government can't figure out a way to just handle the accounting internally and allow dollars from regular timber sales to go back into the lands they were generated on...I don't mind the mill hiring tree thinners,it's better than the forest service hiring migrants to due the work.
The bad part, is they make very little money, and the selection process of who gets the job is done behind closed doors and doesn't necessarily go to the bidder that returns the highest value. In many cases it does not. Room for some good old boys club corruption there? Stewardship contracts are faaaar from efficient. They rope in a lot of odd ball projects that a logger or lumber mill rarely deals with. For example pre-commercial thinning. Is it good they get some thinning done? Of course! But when the bidder puts $300/acre on that project because of the headache and subcontracting etc. outside of their regular business, when the USFS could have contracted the same work directly for $200/acre it doesn't make much sense...
Traditional, COMPETITIVE timber sales, with the USFS handling the special projects themselves would be better for everyone involved AND stretch the same dollars farther!
Does giveing local workers 300 AC make sense.
Sure it's better to do the work for cheap.But it's even better to pay more and keep that money in our community.
Post by: hunter399 on March 19, 2021, 02:27:03 PM
I do agree there is some good ol boy clubs.
Seen it myself ,you can put a certain name on a contract as a Forman,or project leader. And I bet money in some cases those contracts will go to those people.
But at the end of the day you got to ask yourself. WHY
More than likely someone noticed there work ethics or there ability to finish contracts start to finish.
Post by: cougforester on September 27, 2021, 03:40:16 PM
Appears comment period is opening up soon.
Edit: Guess my link won't post. Whoops.
It appears comments will be open for October.
Post by: Boss .300 winmag on September 27, 2021, 04:07:54 PM
This is back.
Appears comment period is opening up soon.
https://www.industryintel.com/i2report/index.cfm?event=view.news&uR=3645246&rname=Industry%20Intelligence%20Forestry%2FTimberland%20Market%20Report&cm1=393593&id=-2,237036,156491103288
Can’t open article, it’s reached its free limits.🤣
Post by: highcountry_hunter on September 27, 2021, 07:37:46 PM
Pro’s-
-Sportsmen and recreationalists receive double the amount of public land
-The public land received has been properly managed by a reputable timber company
-Since the land received has been managed for timber it will be much better hunting than USFS managed land. If you’ve never been on USFS land in NE Washington, think dog hair thick lodgepole pine
-The 30k acres of USFS land that Stimson will receive will be properly managed in the immediate future which is desperately needed due to decades of neglect from the USFS caused by caving to pressure from out of state, extreme environmental groups who still try to stop logging on federal lands, even after witnessing the devastating effects of wildfire on unmanaged lands.
Cons(?)
-Wilderness lite; limited access to public lands IE no road access. To that I say, there are enough public lands in Washington that have road systems running through them. If you want to go into a roadless area you have 2 options. 1 buy a good pair of boots and get into shape. 2 buy a horse.
Just my 2¢