Published: (Sunday, Aug 21, 2011 05:00AM)
Recent news articles have described a “land-splitting” proposal for the O&C lands in Western Oregon that would place these already-fragmented lands under two completely separate management authorities. The Forest Service Employees for Environmental Ethics, or FSEEE, organization has advanced the concept, and U.S. Rep. Peter DeFazio has expressed interest.
The Association of O&C Counties appreciates leadership in addressing the current lack of management on the O&C lands, which once belonged to the Oregon & California Railroad but reverted to federal ownership a century ago. While the counties find the land-splitting plan intriguing, we have identified difficulties that give us reservations.
Last year, the counties also proposed splitting the O&C lands, with half dedicated to timber production, but we gathered information and feedback that told us splitting the lands is not the best solution.
Based on what we learned, the counties have been working on a new approach to management on the O&C lands that incorporates several key concepts supported by FSEEE, but with modifications to avoid issues that would arise from splitting the lands.
The employees’ plan would divide the O&C checkerboard into two groups of parcels totaling approximately 1.1 million acres each. The division would be based on the age of the timber. One would contain older stands and would have very little management except what is provided by “natural processes.” It would be under the control of a board of trustees made up of members from environmental organizations.
The second, separately managed group of lands would contain younger timber and be leased for 99 years to a private corporation for management under the Oregon Forest Practices Act. The corporation would be required to pay for the lease upfront with an amount reflecting the value of the timber that would be harvested over the next 99 years. The payment would total approximately $3 billion, which would be invested. The interest earnings would provide payments to the counties approximately equal to the amount they currently receive from the Secure Rural Schools Act safety net.
While dividing the lands sounds appealing, we learned from our own previous proposal that there would be great practical difficulties. Stands of timber are not arranged in neat rows of pre-surveyed parcels, lined up like city blocks according to age class.
A stand map shows many thousands of irregular shapes with no fixed boundaries. It seems nearly certain that a corporate bidder would require that the stands be surveyed, and then that the timber volume be determined by an on-the-ground appraisal. That preliminary work would take several years, at least.
Even if these preliminary difficulties could be overcome, there are other problems with dividing the land.
By taking half the O&C acres out of active management and putting them into a preservation trust, logging on the remaining, leased half would of necessity be extremely intense. A private corporation that pays $3 billion up front for a lease will harvest the timber as fast as possible to recover its investment and make a profit — and the sooner it harvests the timber, the bigger its profits.
We’re not convinced the public would accept the rapid cutting of timber that would occur.
Conversely, the half of the lands in environmental reserves would have little management. Owners of neighboring interspersed private property would have concerns about fire, disease and other conditions on the reserved parcels.
In addition, the O&C checkerboard and interspersed private lands are laced with a road system that is subject to a web of reciprocal rights of way. These rights of way would require not only cooperation between current private owners and the new environmental trust, but also financial participation for road repair and maintenance. Even if there were a will to cooperate, it would be difficult for the environmental trust to participate financially with little or no management on its portion of the land.
The Association of O&C Counties thinks there is a better way. The counties propose to keep the lands in one piece. Management authority would be transferred to a board of trustees representing broad stakeholder interests, much like the current Resource Advisory Committees that manage projects on federal lands.
That model has been very successful nationally and in Oregon. The committees’ model has been supported by the entire Oregon congressional delegation. The counties’ proposal would adopt it as the structure for the management authority for all of the O&C lands.
The O&C board of trustees would adopt a scientifically sound plan developed by leading experts under the Oregon Forest Practices Act. The plan could, on a portion of the lands, incorporate the concept of integrated forest management, which comes in large part from DeFazio’s initiative that led to the current pilot projects on the O&C lands under the direction of professors Norm Johnson and Jerry Franklin.
Tens of thousands of acres proposed for wilderness would be excluded from trust management and remain available for wilderness designation. The counties’ plan would require minimum and maximum annual harvest levels sufficient to pay the management costs and make payments to the counties approximately equaling the Secure Rural Schools payments in 2008.
The board of trustees would include environmental representatives who would have a veto over any proposed timber sales, so long as the trust sold an amount of volume annually that fell within the required minimum and maximum range. Instead of harvest levels set by a private corporate leaseholder to service debt and maximize shareholder profits, the counties propose to give a local stakeholder board of trustees the authority to decide the amount and the how, when and where of timber harvests.
The counties have examined carefully the land-splitting proposal. We hope the employees group, DeFazio and other stakeholders will give the counties’ proposal an equally close examination. We share many common concepts and are seeking the same goals: Jobs, environmental balance and economic sustainability in our communities.
No comments:
Post a Comment