Recent news articles have described a "land splitting" proposal being considered by Congressman Peter DeFazio. The land splitting plan is to further divide the already-fragmented O&C lands and place them under two completely separate management authorities.
The O&C counties appreciate Congressman DeFazio's interest and leadership in addressing the current lack of management on the O&C Lands. We agree wholeheartedly that federal management has failed. And 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 a lot of 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. Our new proposal incorporates several key concepts supported by DeFazio, but with modifications to avoid issues from splitting the lands.
The land splitting plan by DeFazio is to 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 of timber 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 under the plan would contain younger timber and be leased for 99 years to a private corporation for management under the Oregon Forest Practices Act. The corporate leasee would be required to pay for the lease up front with an amount reflecting the value of the timber that would be harvested over the next 99 years. The upfront payment would total approximately $3 billion, which would be invested, with the interest earnings providing payments to the counties approximating 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 by age class are not arranged in neat rows of pre-surveyed parcels lined up like city blocks. A close examination of a stand map shows many thousands of very irregular shapes that have no fixed boundaries. It seems nearly certain that a corporate bidder on a proposed lease would require that the stands be surveyed with legal coordinates, and then the timber volume be determined by an on-the-ground appraisal. This 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 upfront for a lease will harvest the timber on the leased land as fast as possible in order to recover its investment and make a profit, and the sooner it harvests the timber, the bigger its profits. We are not convinced the public would accept the very rapid cutting of timber that would occur.
Conversely, the half of the lands in environmental reserves would have very little management. This raises concerns from the neighboring, interspersed private owners about fire, insect infestation, disease and other conditions on the reserved parcels that would threaten the adjacent private lands. In addition, the O&C checkerboard and interspersed private ownerships are laced with a connected road system that is subject to a web of reciprocal rights of way. These rights of way would require not only cooperation between the 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 their portion of the land.
The O&C counties think there is a better way. Instead of splitting lands, 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 (RACs) that manage projects on federal lands. This model has been very successful nationally and in Oregon. The RAC 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 that comes in large part from Congressman DeFazio's initiative that led to the current pilot projects on the O&C lands under the direction of Dr. Norm Johnson and Dr. 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 O&C counties approximately equaling the Secure Rural School's 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 leasee 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, where of timber harvests.
The counties have carefully examined the land splitting proposal, and we applaud Rep. DeFazio for stepping forward with it. We hope Rep. 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 and economic stability in our communities.
Doug Robertson is president of the Association of O&C Counties.
No comments:
Post a Comment