Idaho Task Force Offers Wish List For Forest Lands Environmentalist Who Left Panel Says Plan Lacks Appeal

There would be no appeals of individual timber sales.

Local folks and state officials including the governor would have more say over how federal forest land is managed. And the forests would make money.

That’s the plan in a report going to the state Land Board today, calling for one or more “pilot projects” involving the state in management of federal forests in Idaho. Nearly two years in the making, the report by a state task force declares that current forest land management is hurting both communities and the environment.

“In short, the system is broken,” the report says.

But the solutions offered in the report - all of which would need Congressional action before the pilot projects could start - may run into opposition outside of timber-dependent communities in Idaho.

“There is no public consensus nationally on what our national forests are for,” said Boise State University professor John Freemuth. “And this kind of truncates the debate by saying the forests are to make money. You’re going to see a lot of people opposed to that.”

Freemuth served on the task force that developed the report, but resigned in March. He was upset over a set of “talking points” distributed to members that he felt belittled the views of environmental groups.

“My thought was, ‘You’re kidding. We’re writing this kind of stuff?”’ he said. “We’re not going to get anywhere here.”

The report recommends three possible new ways of managing forests in Idaho:

A trust, patterned after the way state trust lands are managed. The purpose of the trust would be to generate revenue for schools, counties, fish and wildlife and recreation. The 15-year pilot project would cover an entire national forest, or a large chunk like the western half of the Clearwater forest. The governor would name three of the trustees to oversee the project, and have veto power over four U.S. Department of Agriculture appointments.

A collaborative model, in which a 15-member board representing various interests would work together to manage a forest or Bureau of Land Management district. Decisions would be by majority vote.

A cooperative agreement between the state and the federal government, to manage an area including both state land and federal forest land as a single unit. An area like the Clearwater’s Palouse Ranger District, where a district is geographically separate from the rest of the forest, would be targeted.

“I think we’re about to have a large debate over how public lands are going to be managed anyway,” said Joe Hinson, a timber industry lobbyist. “I think it’ll serve Idaho well to be at the forefront of that debate.

As a task force member, Hinson helped shape the report that will be presented to the Land Board today.

A provision in the report that Hinson sees as key would sharply limit appeals.

Under each of the three options, a local advisory council would help draw public comments for a five-year plan to manage the forest land, and a more specific one-year plan. Those who participate could appeal the plan if they disagree. But no one else could, and no appeals would be allowed later of any individual timber sales or projects.

“I think it’d make a lot of difference,” Hinson said. “Then you have the fight one time.”

The report doesn’t name any specific locations for the pilot projects, but outlines the type of area that would work best for each option. Wilderness areas would be avoided because they produce little revenue.

Scott Brown, state issues director for the Idaho Conservation League, also resigned from the task force in March. He said his group felt its concerns about protecting water quality and wildlife habitat weren’t being addressed. The lone representative of environmental groups on the 16-member panel, Brown also said he thought the plans didn’t allow enough public input.

“We’re all for collaboration where the ground rules are clear and we have a fair shot at being heard,” he said. “A plan like this just creates more conflict.”

Freemuth said he found the trust idea intriguing, but was disappointed that other types of trusts weren’t considered. Any purpose people see as central to why we have national forests could have been incorporated as an aim of the trust, he said.

To gain the national support needed to get the plan through Congress, Idaho’s proposal can’t be seen simply as a way of getting around environmental laws, Freemuth said.

The report says federal environmental laws still would apply to the pilot projects, but says the way they’re carried out would be modified.

The idea is to cut more timber, to generate more revenue.

Hinson said detailed economic and legal analyses still are needed before a plan could be presented to Congress. But he said if the Land Board likes the plan, that could be done within six months to a year.