Western Slope Colorado Mining and Drilling Take Job-Hurting Hits

This is a methane drainage well for an underground coal mine like Elk Creek mentioned in this story.
This is a methane drainage well for an underground coal mine like Elk Creek mentioned in this story.
OIl and Gas drilling
Oil and Gas drilling, not methane drainage wells (from Huff Post)

We have been discussing different forested communities and their desire to have jobs… based on natural resources, when they have them (like trees). In the Montana-Idaho-Washington-Oregon thinking, it tends to be about trees. So I think it’s interesting to compare Colorado, because Colorado has less timber and more of other natural resources (which impacts you could argue are more or less than timber harvesting.. I’ve read many EIS’s on all of the above).

It’s clear people in these communities are hurting. Is there something that should be done? Who should decide? Should the US give up on producing natural resources and outsource them, hoping to have the funds to buy them from others and to focus on tourism? Are tourism jobs paid well enough to support families? If so, why do they need to get folks from other countries to do them (documented and undocumented)?

Maybe we retirees could move to these places and thereby boost the economies with our retirement income? But who wants to move somewhere with few health services, where the stores downtown are boarded up?

I can safely say I don’t know the answers to all these questions. But I think people of goodwill should be working together on these questions. Colorado’s leaders don’t seem to see this as a partisan issue.. and I don’t think we should either. I have this crazy idea that we all can, and should, care about people AND the environment.

Notice also that this is in the local news section of the Post. If something happens to our regional press, I really wonder where people will get their understanding of the interior West. For example, I was looking for a photo of the Elk Creek mine to illustrate this post. I found an article on Elk Creek mine in the Huffington Post that actually had a photo of an oil and gas operation not a methane drainage well. Here’s the link to that. Yes, it’s a photo of a completely different operation.


Here’s
a link to the Denver Post story.

Below is an excerpt (italics mine):

Despite all the bad news, there are reasons for optimism beyond 2014.

The Western Slope’s clean-coal sources are expected to still be in demand in international markets. Exploratory wells in the Piceance have shown there are decades of shale gas to be developed in that area. The reported drilling of the new vent at Revenue-Virginius indicates owners plan to reopen that facility.

And the move toward a new source of metal for solar- and wind-energy batteries is raising hopes that southwest Colorado could see a spike in mining for vanadium.

That could revive some of the uranium and vanadium mines in the area. Many have been waiting for a new mill to be built near Naturita. The proposed Piñon Ridge mill has been permitted, but low uranium prices have kept Energy Fuels Resources Corp. from moving ahead with construction.

Petersen said Club 20 leaders are also having discussions about finding new industries or revving old ones to replace some of the jobs lost in the energy sector. She said they are looking at tourism and the timber and aerospace industries for new opportunities.

Say, Why Not Apply D.C.’s “Structural Deficit” Concept to Counties and Schools with National Forests? Ron Roizen

dcnewz

Here’s a link to Ron’s post from the new blog here “Not Without a Fight.” I like that new ideas are coming forward from the ground up; we need all the ideas we can get! Below is an excerpt:

All of which brings us back to the question posed in the title of this post: Why not apply the GAO’s structural deficit concept and methodology to forested counties and their school systems? At a historical moment when fresh approaches to the issue of the federal government’s obligation to forested counties are called for, the structural deficit concept may provide valuable new insights. The process of applying the concept to forested counties, moreover, should be considerably less complicated than the D.C. calculations. After all, counties and school districts are regular features of the nation’s political geography — and not exotic creations like D.C. Some adjustments may have to be made for the huge expanses of territory – and associated road systems – in forested counties of course. But these should pose little difficulty to GAO analysts who’ve already surmounted the D.C. calculation’s dizzying obstacles.

Indeed, why not take the structural deficit idea a step farther? Why not hold congressional hearings specifically addressing the issue of structural deficits in forested counties and school districts with the decline of federal timber harvests and the sunsetting of SRS? The structural deficit concept may offer a useful new tool for understanding the enduring hardship imposed on forest counties by the presence of the national forest system.

Check out the “about” of the blog “Not Without a Fight”.

Tomorrow is Small Business Saturday: Sawmills and Local Wood

local money

Since January, when I sent letters to my two Senators about getting the objections rule out, I have been on Senator Udall’s mailing list (I’ll say more about that experience in a later post).

Here’s his email, which you can apply to your own area:

Dear Fellow Coloradan,

Small businesses are the cornerstone of our local economies and the embodiment of the American dream. Colorado’s small businesses create thousands of home-grown jobs and are the primary engine of our economic growth. From Durango to Greeley and Lamar to Craig, these Main Street businesses support good-paying jobs, sustain middle class families, and reinforce that entrepreneurial spirit which encourages the best and brightest to set up shop right here in Colorado.

Mark Udall

This Saturday, Nov. 30 is Small Business Saturday — a day dedicated to supporting our local small businesses on one of the busiest shopping weekends of the year. Small Business Saturday is also an opportunity to support our friends, families and neighbors who work tirelessly every day to keep their businesses and our communities running strong.

Do you know an outstanding small business in your community? I’d love to hear about it.

From the restaurants that line Main Street in Grand Junction to the Old Colorado City shops in Colorado Springs, Colorado small businesses have something for everyone. I’ve met many small business owners throughout our state, and they never cease to impress me with their innovative drive and that ever-present Western spirit of strength and independence.

Recently, for example, I visited Hester’s Log and Lumber sawmill in Kremmling, a small business that the Hester family has owned and operated for 26 years. And on a visit to Pueblo I dropped by Hopscotch Bakery, where local residents can find homemade cakes and sandwiches.

I hope you will join me in pledging to support Colorado small business owners and participate in Small Business Saturday.

It made me wonder whether, in some states, like Oregon, visiting a lumber mill would be seen to be a political statement. In Colorado, it’s just another small business, like a bakery. And it’s considered to be good to buy from local folks from which money stays in the community. I wonder why that wouldn’t be the case, say, in Oregon. Are timber harvesting practices more destructive (don’t think so)? Are the aesthetics more important to people there? Is it the history of Big Timber and the Timber Wars? I don’t know, but since I’ve been a resident of both states, I wonder.

Wyden’s Bill Preview (?)

I can’t vouch for the accuracy of this Preview. I received on an email trail that supposedly starts from Wyden’s office. I am as likely as the next person to be bamboozled. Still, just in case, I thought it worth sharing. As I reformatted this from the email, I had many thoughts, but I will reserve them until I find out for sure that it’s not an elaborate and brilliantly crafted hoax.

For too long, Oregon’s 2.1 million acres of O&C grant lands have been ground zero for the battle between those seeking to halt logging in the Northwest and those seeking to return to the unsustainable logging levels of a bygone era.

This legislation would end the gridlock by using science to guide management of the O&C lands, roughly doubling timber harvests over the next 10 years compared to the last 10 years and providing certainty for local communities. At the same time, this bill will permanently protect old growth trees, ensure habitat for sensitive species, and put in place strong safeguards for drinking water and fish.

This bill amends the Oregon and California Revested Lands Sustained Yield
Management Act of 1937, so the O&C Grant Lands in 18 Oregon counties are
managed to foster long-term forest and environmental health while producing
sustainable levels of timber.

It achieves these goals and resolves longstanding land management disputes by separating the Oregon and California Grant Lands into roughly equal “forestry emphasis” and “conservation emphasis” areas.

Ensuring Predictable and Sustainable Timber Harvests
The legislation requires the Secretary of the Interior to provide a long-term sustained yield of timber in forestry emphasis areas, using forestry principles developed by Drs. Norm Johnson and Jerry Franklin, two highly respected Northwest scientists. It includes specific directions for managing dry and moist forests. In forestry emphasis areas, sustainable timber production is a clear management priority, eliminating the uncertainty and conflicting direction that have contributed to the decline in forest management on O&C lands.

Over the past decade, harvests have averaged 149.5 million board feet per year, and were at just 167 million board feet in 2012, according to the BLM. Even that low level is likely to fall off by more than 30% in about a decade, according to the agency’s projections. The status quo, thinning only approach leads to only about 115 million board feet of harvests in about 10 years, unless the agency can move forward with a new strategy for the O&C forests. This bill represents a new strategy that works and can become law.

This strategy takes the most controversial harvests off the table. It ensures that:
● Old growth stands over 120 years old and trees over 150 years old cannot be harvested.

● Timber harvests and thinning projects cannot significantly impact stream
quality, fish, highly erodible land, wetlands, endangered or threatened
species, or tribal cultural sites.

● Spotted owl nest trees are protected and harvests that may impact endangered species require coordination with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service.

Moist Forests

● Harvests must retain 30 percent of the original trees in a stand. Trees along streams can count toward this 30 percent, but any old growth trees protected are above and beyond this threshold. The remaining trees are to be no uniformly spaced throughout a stand, ensuring more natural distribution of trees.

● Stands in the moist forests will be harvested when the average age of the
trees in the stand reach 80 to 120 years of age.

● Continues thinning projects that leave more than 50 percent of trees in stands.

Dry Forests

● Resiliency to fire is the management emphasis for dry forest stands.

● Harvesting to reduce the density of trees in dry forests is promoted;
however, one third of all of the dry forests must be selected to remain as
denser landscape scale patches for endangered species.

● Harvesting must ensure the oldest 35 percent of the trees in an area remain after the operation.

● Provides new flexibility for county governments to reduce fire danger within half a mile of homes, and private landowners to within 100 feet of their own homes.

Streamlining Environmental Reviews

This bill would cut environmental and court reviews of proposed timber sales nearly in half, taking commonsense steps to streamline review procedures, while maintaining environmental laws.

While federal Environmental Impact Statements take an average of 3.6 years,
according to one study, this bill would require the BLM to finalize its O&C
environmental impact statements within 18 months after the bill becomes law.

First, it streamlines the timelines for environmental and judicial reviews;

Second, it eliminates the individual environmental impact statements for each timber sale, and replaces them with two large-scale environmental impact statements – one each for dry and moist forests – that examine 10years’ worth of timber sales on O&C lands;

Third, it requires frontloaded coordination between federal agencies during
environmental reviews; and Fourth, it requires upfront studies of areas to prioritize treatments.

● The streamlined EIS procedures continue to allow for judicial review, but
eliminate unnecessary delays by setting strict, but achievable deadlines. For example, the draft Environmental Impact Statements must be released within a year of enactment, and finalized within 18 months of enactment.

● Lawsuits must be filed no later than 30 days after a final decision is made by the BLM. In addition, only those who participated in the BLM comment
process and raised their objections are eligible to file suit. An expedited court procedure requires trials to begin within 180 days, to ensure lawsuits are heard in a timely manner.

● Once the 10year EIS is finalized, the BLM must simply document that a
proposed project meets the criteria analyzed in the EIS, rather than
conducting a project specific environmental review. Projects may only be challenged on the grounds that they failed to conform with the EIS.

● Eliminates the time consuming “survey and manage” requirements of the
Northwest Forest Plan on the forestry emphasis areas of the O&C lands.

● The US Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service will conduct a five year check in, to ensure operations and impacts to species follow the original EIS.

● This bill leaves the Endangered Species Act untouched, and the habitat for
the plants and animals that the Endangered Species Act protects are managed
to help try to recover these species.

Protecting Streams, Drinking Water and Fish

The bill creates the first specific legislative protections for aquatic areas and watersheds on O&C lands, by requiring the BLM to protect and restore water quality for drinking water and aquatic species in streams and lakes.

● It protects water quality for all O&C lands. In forestry emphasis areas,
riparian reserves would encompass an area 150 feet from streams containing fish, and 75 feet from other streams. The modified reserves allow for greater timber harvests, while maintaining habitat and water quality protections.

● Within those reserves, thinning is allowed to improve forest and stream
health. Thinning is allowed for trees under 80 years old in moist forests,
and for trees under 150 years in dry forests. An additional buffer of 75
feet on streams without fish can be used for sustainable harvests in stands
less than 80 years of age.

● In conservation emphasis areas, riparian reserves are permanently protected under the same approach currently used under the Northwest
Forest Plan.

● Watershed assessments will be conducted to identify streams most in
need of protection. Riparian reserves can be adjusted based on those
assessments.

● Permanent road construction is prohibited in key watersheds, and the
BLM is directed to generally decrease the quantity of roads on its lands.

● Sets aside $1 million per year for transporting and placing large trees in
streams to improve water quality and fish habitat.

● To speed up restoration accomplishments, the following clearly beneficial
restoration activities are excluded from analysis typically required by
NEPA: Placing trees in streams to benefit fish species, planting of native
trees along streams, replacing culverts that prevent fish from migrating,
and removal of user created roads.

● The removal of excess roads on BLM lands is a priority. A new “Legacy
Roads and Trails” program is created for these lands and is authorized to
spend $5 million annually.

Management in the Conservation Areas

Conservation areas will be managed for general conservation benefits, including old growth protection, watershed health, native wildlife, climate management, recreation, and tourism.

● In the conservation areas, road building with limited exceptions and
mineral development is prohibited. Timber harvests are allowed, but are
limited to those that improve habitat and forest health. This is achieved by
thinning and retaining older and larger trees.

Portions of the conservation areas will be designated for more specific management and additional protections:

● Oregon Treasures: Wild Rogue Wilderness expansion (56,400 acres),
Rogue River Wild and Scenic Rivers expansion (93 miles), Molalla
Recreational River designation (15.1 miles), Table Rock Fork Recreational
River designation (6.2 miles), Chetco Wild and Scenic River update

● Devil’s Staircase Wilderness: 30,540 acres

● Cascade Siskiyou National Monument Expansion: 5,700 acres

● Illinois Valley Salmon and Botanical Area: 16,300 acres

● Recreation and Backcountry Areas: Rogue National Recreation Area
(nearly 95,000 acres); Molalla National Recreation Area (24,000 acres);
Pacific Crest Trail Protection Corridor (8,200 acres); Primitive
Backcountry Areas: Grizzly Peak (3,000 acres), Dakubetede (27,700
acres), Wellington Wildlands (5,700 acres), Mungers Butte (9,800 acres),
Brummitt Fir (1,500 acres), Crabtree Valley (2,000 acres)

● Drinking Water Special Management Units (total acres: 47,000):
McKenzie, Hillsboro, Clackamas, and Springfield Drinking Water Special
Management Units.

● Special Environmental Zones: 95,600 acres of current or proposed
BLM Areas of Critical Environmental Concern

● Wild and Scenic Rivers (total miles: 47): Nestucca River, Walker Creek,
North Fork Silver Creek, Lobster Creek, Jenny Creek, Spring Creek,
Franklin Creek and Wasson Creek

Increasing Revenues for Counties

The revenues generated from the sale of timber from these lands will be shared with the counties and pay for the cost of managing the lands, without increasing the federal deficit.

● Every county is guaranteed at least as much funding as it would have
received under the O&C Act of 1937, if it had elected to receive those funds
in Fiscal Year 2013.

● The BLM will receive 25 percent of revenues – up to $20 million – to fund
management of the O&C lands.

● Each year, $4 million of the revenue generated from timber harvests will go to the U.S. Treasury, to prevent an increase in the federal deficit.

● The remaining revenue shall be paid annually to the O&C counties.

● If there is insufficient revenue to meet the county’s minimum payment,
money will be taken from the U.S. Treasury payment and then the BLM
administrative repayment to cover the balance.

Consolidating the Checkerboard of Land Ownership

The bill provides new ways to consolidate land ownership and reduce the
checkerboard of public and private lands. Within six months of the date of
enactment, BLM will identify lands suitable for sale or exchange with private or state owned lands. BLM is authorized to sell or exchange Federal land in order to consolidate land in an effort to improve management efficiency and productivity or to improve the ecological value of conservation areas.

● BLM will sell a portion of the acres it identifies or has previously identified for disposal and use the revenue from the sales to purchase land near to BLM holdings.

● If land in forest emphasis areas is sold, the land purchased with these funds will be managed as a forest emphasis area. Sales of conservation emphasis area lands shall be used to purchase lands for conservation emphasis.

Additional provisions

● This Act sets aside 50,000 acres for special joint management and research
by the BLM and Oregon State University and other institutions of higher
education. The Secretary will choose lands near Oregon State University
from both the timber emphasis areas and the conservation areas. The lands
will be managed to conduct ecological forestry demonstration projects,
research and monitor suspected impacts, and produce timber. If the land fails to be actively managed, it will revert back to management by the BLM.

● Land is restored to two Oregon tribes: the Cow Creek Band of the Umpqua
Tribe of Indians, and the Confederated Tribes of Coos, Lower Umpqua, and
nds may not be used for gaming, and commercial forestry activities on these lands must follow applicable federal laws, and there will be no net loss of O&C lands.

● Management restrictions on the Coquille Tribe’s lands are lifted to make their treatment equal to other tribal” (sorry that’s the way the email ended).

Land Transfer in Idaho: No One Chomping at the Bit

Eric Anderson sent this and wondered why the timber industry didn’t support it. I don’t know that we know anyone from the timber industry in Idaho who is on this blog, but still someone might have an idea. If I had to venture a guess, I would say they know that dog won’t hunt and distracts from finding dogs that might hunt. But who knows?

Land takeover

The special interest group that would benefit most from a state of Idaho takeover of federal lands is the timber industry. Yet on Oct. 28, during a legislative interim committee hearing on this issue, the timber industry balked at the idea.

Only one on the four-member panel, timber industry lobbyist Jim Riley, even suggested it was a “fruitful avenue to pursue.” Beyond that, timber industry representatives offered familiar alternatives to expand logging on federal lands, such as hobbling environmental review.

The timber industry’s tepid rejection of federal land disposal came after three panels representing tribal, sportsmen and environmental interests strongly condemned the idea.

This marked the second of two public lands hearings where the facts and public opinion line up against advocates of a state takeover. At the Aug. 9 hearing, Deputy Attorney General Steve Strack definitively proved Idaho’s founders did not want responsibility of federal lands.

The irony is that the interim committee was created by state lawmakers who supported a state takeover. Seven months later, that committee has become a powerful soapbox for why land transfer is a bad idea.

DEREK FARR, Grangeville

Here’s the link.

Pinchot’s Promises to Counties: History Remembered

The Use Book Committee
The Use Book Committee
Here’s a link to the op-ed.

Congress recently passed and the president signed a one-year extension of Secure Rural Schools (SRS). Most commentators, however, see dim prospects for SRS’s renewal beyond 2014. The SRS program has been widely characterized as an interim safety net and transitional measure intended to tide counties over a period of dwindling timber harvests on national forests. It’s been said – even back in 2000, when SRS began – these payments were never intended as a long-term or permanent federal program. SRS would merely lend counties a hand as they shifted and diversified their local economies, making them less dependent on federal timber harvests.

Yet, this characterization of SRS misrepresents and misremembers a deeper and ongoing federal obligation to counties with national forests. Congress enacted a 10 percent timber revenue sharing measure in 1906, only a year into the Forest Service’s young life, and then raised the county share to 25 percent in 1908. The sharing provision sprang from a general recognition that counties hosting national forests suffered hardships on that account. Most notably, wherever national forests were laid out, counties lost potential property tax revenues, which in turn implied an increased tax burden for private landowners. Property taxes collected by local governments have traditionally supported schools, roads, police and fire protection, libraries, and other local services. Federal ownership also blunted potential growth in population and commerce. Moreover, counties retained the responsibility and expense of maintaining roads in national forests. The national forest land grab was by no means trivial. Here in Idaho almost 40 percent of the state’s area was appropriated for national forests. In our county – Shoshone County, Idaho – fully 72 percent is national forest.

Small wonder Idahoans and other westerners fought vigorously against the great and rapid expansion of forest reserves and national forests in the first decade of the 20th century. For his part, Gifford Pinchot, the national forest system’s great architect and advocate, sought to reassure westerners that their perceived negatives were really positives. In his 1907 book, The Use of the National Forest, Pinchot argued that federal forest ownership wouldn’t limit the uses of these lands but instead would insure that they achieved their highest use. The homesteader, the miner, the stockman, and “the small mill man” could go about their enterprises unfettered by the national forest designation, Pinchot confidently suggested.

Pinchot specifically addressed the issue of lost county property tax revenues in a section of the book titled “What happens to county taxes?”

“People who are unfamiliar with the laws about National Forests,” wrote Pinchot, “often argue that they work hardships on the counties in which they lie by withdrawing a great deal of land from taxation. They say that if the lands were left open to pass into private hands there would be much more taxable property for the support of school and road districts. The National Government of course pays no taxes. But it does something better. It pays those counties in which the Forests are located 10 percent of all the receipts from the sale of timber, use of the range, and various other uses, and it does this every year. It is a sure and steady income, because the resources of National Forests are used in such a way that they keep coming without a break.”

From the get-go, the chief purpose of the Forest Service’s timber revenue sharing was compensation for lost county property tax revenue. This provision was a foundational feature of the new Forest Service agency. Huge expanses of national forest land inevitably imposed (and continue to impose) great losses in property tax revenues upon counties. SRS, initially passed in 2000, provided for compensation of counties when timber revenue broke down. When SRS sunsets after 2014, however, the federal obligation to compensate for lost property tax doesn’t evaporate. Property tax is collected year-by-year by counties. Hence, compensating for lost property taxes isn’t a one-time, sometime, or time-limited matter. In our county – as in many counties – three years of delinquent property tax payments results in a property’s title being transferred to the county. Come to think of it, we’re not averse to applying the same principle to our county’s national forest lands. We need a long-term solution to the issue.

This column was written by the following: Jim Best, Leslee Stanley, and Larry Yergler, Shoshone County commissioners; and Chris Asbury, William Woodward, Robin Stanley, Dr. Robert Ranells, school superintendents in Avery, Kellogg, Mullan, and Wallace (respectively).

“Timber Trouble” in Wisconsin

chequamegon-nicolet o2

Since Norman brought up Wisconsin, and I had seen this earlier, thought it would be a good time to post this.

Buried deep in Wisconsin’s northwoods is a story that warrants statewide attention.

In the coming days, the Gannett Wisconsin Media Investigative Team will bring you “Timber Trouble.”

Our three-part series focuses on the growing mistrust between the logging industry and the national forest service.

Gannett Wisconsin Media Investigative Team reporter Nick Penzenstadler and Post-Crescent Media photojournalist William Glasheen traveled north to do the reporting, photo and video work for the “Timber Troubles” project..

The Chequamegon-Nicolet National Forest and Laona area, in Forest County, serve as ground zero for our report.

Penzenstadler and Glasheen investigated whether the timber harvests inside northern Wisconsin’s national forest are being mismanaged. As a result of smaller harvests, the number of logging jobs has plummeted. That in turn has triggered a huge decline in student enrollment for Laona schools because of a drop in the Forest County population as people have had to move elsewhere in search of work.

It’s an intensely emotional issue, said Penzenstadler, adding that it’s hard to overstate the frustration of people in the logging and timber industry in northern Wisconsin.

They’re exasperated, disheartened and discouraged.

Their way of life is at stake. Their local school districts, businesses and economy are on the brink of collapse — and it does not have to be this way.

Millions of board feet of wood could be taken out of the Chequamegon-Nicolet while still preserving important portions of the forest.

The author says it merits “statewide attention.” I would think that the situation in the Lake States and the west merits national attention. If someone finds a story, please post in a comment. Required: in national news media, looks at situation nationally.

UPDATE: Looks like the entire series, which includes articles and video, is now available on-line. -mk

Everything You Always Wanted To Know About Timber In Oregon and Much Much More

city of beaverton library This is the city of Beaverton, OR library.

You would think that information about the forest sector would be readily available in Oregon, and sure enough, thanks to a helpful friend of the blog at OSU, these reports were found. An amazing amount of information and helpful graphics. Check them out!

..they probably are on the web, but that’s not how I got them, so they are attached.
OR 2012_Oregon_Forest_Report
OR_Forest_Facts_and_Figures_2013
If someone finds them online, please put the link in a comment and I will transfer the links up here on the post.

Thanks to the Oregon Forest Resources Institute for summarizing all these data.

Quid Pro Nada: Be Wary of Trading Wilderness for Managed Acres

olympic plantation

Now some people don’t agree with the concept of Place-Based Bills (or PBB’s as I call them). I am not an ideologue about that. But I do think that if you have one that trades more wilderness for more management, then you should get what you trade. I apologize to those offended by my mixing of Latin and Spanish in the title..

Check out this op-ed that a group of us had in the Oregonian last Sunday.
Here’s the link.

Timber production deserves equal treatment on public lands: Guest opinion
(I didn’t like this title as it sounds like we think harvesting and wilderness have equal value; our point was that if you do a deal, there should be ways to make sure that each side actually gets what’s in the deal. Oh, well. I do appreciate the Oregonian printing it, though!)

By Robert Malmsheimer, Sharon Friedman, Jay O’Laughlin and Paul Adams

As Oregonians consider ways to promote the sustainable use of the O&C lands and other publicly owned forests and provide communities with sources of jobs and income, we ask you to critically consider an important problem and a new idea to address it. Negotiated, place-based bargains, such as Rep. Peter DeFazio’s O&C Trust, Conservation and Jobs Act, legislatively designate some lands as wilderness or similar “set-asides” (e.g., old-growth, stream buffers), while requiring timber harvesting on other lands. Although this may seem like a reasonable “trade,” in reality it is not equitable.

The problem is in the legal protections of the bargains themselves. The lands designated by Congress as wilderness and other set-asides will have little or no management, and we have nearly 50 years of judicial decisions interpreting the Wilderness Act of 1964 to safeguard this expectation. However, the same is not true for the agreed-upon timber harvesting. While the language in most of these place-based proposals limits, or makes more difficult, some types of legal challenges, it does not prevent them. Nor does it ensure that judges will enforce the bargain that forest management proponents faithfully negotiated.

Is there a solution? Yes. In order to guarantee that the lands designated for the management and production of forest products are not subject to appeals and litigation, these legislative proposals must include language that explicitly states that actions authorized in these bargains are not subject to judicial review. Such language would prevent litigation.

How would it do so? This concept has a precedent in section 706 of Public Law 107-206, which authorized the Forest Service to respond to a severe beetle outbreak, including requiring timber sales in the Black Hills National Forest, while simultaneously expanding the Forest’s Black Elk Wilderness area by 3,600 acres. This exchange was upheld in Biodiversity Associates v. Cables (2004), thereby safeguarding an equitable bargain in the Black Hills.

Some may criticize this proposal, arguing that using such legislation will lead to “logging without laws.” But that is not so. By requiring the public land managers to comply with all current environmental laws (e.g., National Environmental Policy Act, Clean Water Act, Endangered Species Act), the agency still must undertake relevant environmental analyses and follow all relevant resource protection directives. While the judicial system would not be available to address agency failures, the political system, through Congress and the administration, would do so. More important, such failures are unlikely because the resource professionals who manage our public forests have extensive expertise and experience incorporating environmental protection into land management.

Lacking such a guarantee for timber production, the two sides to a place-based bargain have agreed to inequitable deals. One has guaranteed that some lands will be managed as wilderness and the other has provided no comparable safeguard. There is simply no assurance that the lands designated for forest management will actually produce anything but continued legal conflict; conflict that keeps public land managers from sustainably delivering community, social and economic benefits for Oregonians.

Robert Malmsheimer is a professor of forest policy and Law at the SUNY College of Environmental Science and Forestry in Syracuse, N.Y.

Sharon Friedman retired from the Forest Service as director of planning in the Rocky Mountain Region and currently runs the “A New Century of Forest Planning” blog (forestpolicypub.com).

Jay O’Laughlin is a professor of forestry and policy sciences at the University of Idaho.

Paul Adams is a professor and extension specialist in the OSU College of Forestry.