Environmental groups propose plan to replace federal forest payments to Oregon counties

By Eric Mortenson, The Oregonian
AND By CHARLES POPE
Read the full story with images and links here: http://www.oregonlive.com/environment/index.ssf/2012/02/environmental_groups_propose_p.html

A coalition of environmental groups, hoping to head off congressional action they believe would increase unsustainable logging, propose a three-prong approach for replacing federal forest payments to hard-hit Oregon counties.

The groups called Wednesday for "shared responsibility" in solving the severe budget problems facing 18 rural Oregon counties that are among those that lost federal payments last year. They said the state, federal government and the counties themselves could each provide a third of the estimated $110 million needed annually to sustain services:

The state would increase the harvest tax assessed to private forest owners to $9.21 per 1,000 board feet from $3.21, and disperse revenue to the counties.

Federal management of 2.6 million acres of what's known as the O&C forestland would be transferred from the Bureau of Land Management to the U.S. Forest Service, with savings from the consolidation going to the counties.

County voters would be asked to approve property tax increases. Many counties now have extremely low tax rates and collect much less than is allowed under state property tax limitations.

The proposal is an alternative to bipartisan legislation expected soon from Democratic Reps. Peter DeFazio and Kurt Schrader, and Republican Rep. Greg Walden. Details haven't been outlined, but the Oregon congressmen propose dividing the O&C forestland into two trusts. Half would be preserved and half would be managed for timber production and county revenue.

The congressmen rejected the environmental groups' proposal.

"Their plan is simple and it won't work," they said in a joint statement. "They propose increasing property taxes in counties that are struggling with record unemployment. They propose nearly quadrupling the state tax on logging, diverting that money from the state's general fund to pay the affected counties. Finally, they suggest transferring lands to the United States Forest Service which the Forest Service itself has said will not result in savings."

Nonetheless, Oregon Wild, the Sierra Club, Geos Institute, Coast Range Association, Klamath-Siskiyou Wildlands Center and the Larch Company said it's time for a new approach.

"The best we can do is put out reasonable and fair measures for people to consider," said Randi Spivak of the Geos Institute, the plan's principal author. "Let's look forward; let's change the paradigm."

Douglas County Commissioner Doug Robertson, president of the Association of O&C Counties, said increasing the harvest tax would produce additional revenue, but other parts of the proposal are "fraught with misstatements and false assumptions and a host of other data that is questionable if not outright wrong."

As an example, he noted the assertion that transferring forest management from the BLM to Forest Service would save money. The conservation groups said the BLM spends four times more to manage an acre of land. However, a Nov. 14, 2011 letter to DeFazio from the Forest Service said the cost difference is in fact double, and attributes it to the BLM producing more timber per acre. If the Forest Service took over and was expected to manage the same level of harvests, the cost would be about the same, the letter said.

Congressional aides added that moving 2.6 million acres from one agency to another would touch off a turf battle in Congress at a time when quick action is needed.

Management of the O&C lands -- the name comes from the defunct Oregon & California Railroad -- is part of a larger issue involving federal forests. The federal government owns 53 percent of the land in Oregon and 60 percent of the forests. Because the feds pay no property taxes, they shared timber sale receipts with counties.

For decades, the arrangement provided millions for schools, county roads and general county government. But policy changes and environmental restrictions for spotted owl and salmon recovery sharply reduced harvests and devastated county budgets.

Congress provided replacement funding with the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act in 2000. After a couple last-minute extensions, counties received the last payments this winter. Many of them relied on federal payments for half or more of their general fund budgets. A 2009 state task force said a dozen counties would face severe shortfalls within one or two years.

With it being uncertain that Congress would revive the payments nationally, DeFazio and the others have focused on the narrower issue of changing management of the O&C lands, which are only in Oregon.

Spivak, of the Geos Institute, said relying on timber production to finance payments to the counties is flawed. The alternative proposal is designed in part to shift the conversation.

"Every time the counties are about to go over the cliff, the Congress found the money and pulled them back over the edge," she said.

Steve Pedery, conservation director with Oregon Wild, predicted the DeFazio proposal won't gain traction in Congress. "It's just smart planning to hedge your bets and look at alternatives," he said.

-- Eric Mortenson