Present law does not even authorize payments in lieu of taxes for conservation easements, so this claim is disingenuous at best. The aforementioned John Hancock easement sale to Vermont is compelling evidence of the folly of this argument. The Forest Service has free rein to negotiate a study with a friendly university professor to confirm what the Forest Service wants confirmed. Local interests will be unable to complain as they won't know about it. Even if they were informed, they likely wouldn't have the resources to present a cogent response.
Case law suggests that the requirement for state consultation is limited to one time.
Subsequently, federal agencies may be free to interpret their mandate as they see fit. Once real estate title has passed to the Federal government, the transaction is irreversible. The hard, cold fact is that this bill will result in a massive increase in control of Northern Forest lands by government agencies which do not have the people's welfare at heart. This very important constraint, which circumscribed all the deliberations of the Northern Forest Lands Council, seems to have been scrapped in the Northern Forest Stewardship Act. We all have seen the human agony and dreadful land mismanagement endured by western states at the hands of uncaring federal land management agencies.