By Ron Sadler

I view this discussion as the ultimate in wishful thinking. Any significant change in the ownership and/or management of the O&C and CBWR lands would require major Federal legislative changes.

The O&C Act of 1937 (which also covers the CBWR lands) would have to be repealed and replaced with legislation that transferred ownership and management to the County, tribe, or whomever. This, in itself, would be a major federal action requiring full compliance with the NEPA process, including the preparation of an EIS, unless exempted by Congressional mandate.

Further, any major change in management emphasis would immediately run afoul of the Endangered Species Act, in that these lands contain a good portion of the old-growth seral stage still remaining in western Oregon. Such a change would immediately endanger somewhere between 300 to 1000 species of plants and animals dependent on old-growth for their existence. Thus, I don’t see how such a transfer of management/ownership would be possible UNLESS the Endangered Species Act was also repealed.

The tragedy of this entire situation is that the O&C/CBWR lands could currently be selling approx. 500,000,000 board feet of timber annually, thus generating a significant and predictable level of income to the counties. The only reason this isn’t happening is that, instead of fully complying with NEPA and the ESA, the political appointtees heading the Department of Interior over the past 30 years have tried time and again to circumvent and nullify these laws thus leading to legal confrontations. Obviously, they have lost most of these legal battles leading the the shut-down of the O&C program and the flow of revenue to the county. How many battles do you have to lose before you change your game plan?

Rather than spending time and effort pursuing what I believe to be a fruitless search for major legislative changes at the Federal level, Coos County should insist, demand, and facilitate the development by the BLM of a new management plan for the O&C/CBWR lands – one that fully complies with the letter and intent of NEPA and the ESA. Only if this is accomplished can a legally defensible level of timber harvest be established and maintained, thus providing a constant and predictable level of timber receipts to the county.

I believe this strategy has a much greater probability of success than seeking a major legislative overhaul at the Federal level.

Ron Sadler