Co-authored with Ron Sadler
A proposal put forth by the Coquille Indian Tribe and tentatively endorsed by the Coos County Commission to transfer management of the Coos Bay Wagon Road lands from the BLM over to the tribe is causing quite a stir and has raised a lot of questions. To provide a little background , following is a brief discussion of the O&C lands and the Coos Bay Wagon Road lands (CBWR).
In 1937, Congress passed The O&C Lands Act (Public Law 75-405), putting the O&C lands under the jurisdiction of the Department of the Interior. The Act provided for: permanent and sustainable forest production; protection of watersheds and regulation of stream flows; creation of recreational facilities – all intended to contribute toward the economic stability of local communities and the timber industry; Currently, 50% of the revenues from timber sales are returned to the O&C Counties, 25% are invested back into the management program, and 25% are returned to the Federal Treasury.
The CBWR lands were initially overlooked in 1937, but they were later incorporated under the management mandates of the O&C Act, except that revenues returned to the counties from these lands was limited to a property tax equivalent.
These revenue-sharing provisions worked well through the 1980’s, but revenues were drastically reduced thereafter because of a failure to properly integrate the effects of the National Environmental Policy Act and the Endangered Species Act into the O&C Timber program. This was the direct result of attempts by political appointees to skirt the requirements of existing regulations.
Since 2000, supplemental payments to O&C counties have been legislated under the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act (Public Law 06-393).
As everyone knows the SRS payments end at the end of September of this year which is prompting some frantic, last minute fixes proposed by the Coos County Commission these last few months, despite having ten years of advance warning.
There are simpler and more workable options for Coos County to pursue other than a frenetic rush towards major Federal legislation.
Former BLM Forestry Planning Chief Ron Sadler has stated “…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.” Sadler says the 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” and is thus implementable and legally defensible.
Another option presented by Don Gurney would renegotiate an arrangement with the BLM and “will provide the counties, in which the Coos Bay Wagon Road Lands reside, a static source of revenue of Federally Appropriated Funds in-lieu of tax. A base of funding that is not dependent upon receipts, deferred tax systems, fluctuating economic markets, and or U. S. Treasury receipt collection accounts.”
Neither of these options has gained any traction with the commissioners. Instead they appear to favor a plan proposed by the tribe requiring a major Congressional legislative action that will only succeed with the support of the county. According to Commissioner Parry, the tribal proposal is identical to how the BLM administers O&C lands now. Gross revenue from forest management activities will be distributed equally between the county and the tribe. The proposal carries four key elements –
• No-cost creation of up to 1,600 Oregon jobs
• Financial independence for Rural Oregon governments
• Positive yield to the U.S. Treasury
• Strong environmental protection
Assuming the tribe adheres to all the policies, laws, and regulations currently affecting the BLM, how does it benefit the county to proceed down this path with all the legislative hurdles as opposed to just working with the BLM?
Plus, in an amazing display of a lack of understanding regarding existing Federal law and regulations, our County Commissioners do not seem to realize that a legislative proposal such as they are proposing would require a legislative environmental impact statement, as spelled out in 40 CFR 1506.8. These regulations call for “an accurate statement which can serve as the basis for public and Congressional debate…..and must be available in time for Congressional hearings and deliberations” (1506.89(a)).
So much for trying to do this under the table. It will be very interesting to finally learn how someone can create 1,600 jobs at “no cost”.
Other factors must also be taken into account when discussing job creation. From scoping comments submitted to the Coos Bay BLM from Cascadia Wildlands.
14. Jobs
A big part of the Pilot Project purpose and need is about providing local jobs. Therefore EA should consider all the cumulative aspects of the local economy. Making a statement like xyz mmbf provides xyz jobs is a shallow analysis.
The “jobs” economic analysis should compare the amount of jobs provided by regeneration harvest vs. the usual BLM thinning sales. The thinning sales have produced 150% of Coos Bay BLM’s timber target over the last 5 years, so consider that figure when figuring mill jobs.
The EA should consider the export market’s influence on jobs. The Pacific Northwest Research Station announced May 21 that for the first quarter of 2011, West Coast softwood timber exports were up 50.5 percent from the first quarter of 2010. Log exports from Oregon and Washington totaled 379.5 million board feet. Logs and lumber went primarily to China and Japan as well as to Taiwan, Indonesia and South Korea, exporting mill jobs with them.
On the other hand, the Bureau of Land Management exceeded its volume of trees offered for sale in Oregon and California in 2010. According to agency data, the BLM was congressionally financed to offer 184 million board feet of wood, and it offered for sale 192 million board feet. Specifically, Coos Bay BLM is averaging over 150% of its 27 mmbf annual timber target.
The EA should consider if logs from a BLM regeneration harvest could ever make a dent in the jobs lost to the log export market. Because logs from BLM lands cannot be exported, for every raw log that is exported, the BLM would have to produce two logs to make up for the mill jobs lost and to increase local jobs. If the export market has grown 50%, how many more logs can the BLM realistically produce to grow local jobs.
If this pilot project is tied to local jobs, while local jobs are being lost through the export market, the export market is relevant to this project and must be considered in the EA.
Junket or Junk-it
Finally, the Coos County Commission asserts that Parry’s recent trip to DC to explore the process by which the management of this land can be transferred to the tribe is a valid expense as it relates to county business. However, the county doesn’t own the Coos Bay Wagon Road lands and the public have not been asked to weigh in on the transfer. The only opportunity for input the public is being offered is to review a draft memorandum of understanding between the tribe and the county in the event a transfer somehow makes it through Congress. Further, the commission has clearly taken a position that, if successful, will forfeit any present or future rights, options and opportunities the county may have to negotiate with the BLM for a new management agreement on the CBWR lands in favor of relinquishing everything to the tribe. How can lobbying on behalf of the tribe be construed as county business or even in the county’s best interest?
Ceding the county’s rights without a vote of the people may explain why Congressman DeFazio does not appear to favor the proposal. An unintended consequence of Parry’s trip is that the tribe’s proposal has been brought to the attention of the GEOSInstitute, a nonprofit, science-based organization with offices in DC concerned with carbon sequestration and climate change.
I would encourage all readers here to read the scoping report linked in this story.
There is no doubt that the commissioners are setting up this land deal for the tribe so logging companies can avoid the current rules they must operate under.
They want no oversight, or a whole lot less than is currently being applied on BLM land.
These Commissioners are betraying the public trust with their positions, by helping to transfer public lands into private hands. They and their friends don’t want to play by the rules, (to restrictive to exploitation) so they intend to change them, before they are tossed from public office.
Your right about questioning this as county business, but when a select few citizens appoint a lobbyist as our county commissioner, all transactions involving tax dollars become suspect. Adding Fred as a commissioner and seating Jon Barton as chief interviewer for dept. heads just destroyed the public trust of their motives and dealings.
For me the question remains as to whether this trip, the legislative push, can legitimately be deemed “county business” because without a thorough review from the public it could actually turn out to be counter to county interests
The tribe is very generous if it paid the way for everyone, even non-tribal personnel that accompanied them on this trip, except Cam.
Unless Cam was the only person not connected to the tribe, on this trip.
According to Main, the tribe paid its own way but the county paid for Cam’s trip out of his regular expenses. This means they didn’t vote to approve the expense because “we don’t vote on those”.
Thank you to all involved in getting this video to the public. Its very informative.
Who else did the county pay expenses for to assist the tribe? Not all the others were tribe members or staff of the tribe, Did the county pay the tab for the other travelers?