At this week’s BOC meeting, commissioner Bob Main declared that the hotly debated proposal to have the Coquille Tribe take over management of the Coos Bay Wagon Road lands from the BLM will bring in millions to the county. A summary of the proposal provided to me by Commissioner Cam Parry promises 1,600 new jobs and $185 million in “governmental revenue” over a decade but so far neither the commission or the tribe have provided a detail of their projections or whether these numbers can be attained following existing environmental laws, amendments and policies.

The House Natural Resources Subcommittee met in DC Thursday to discuss two bills, neither of which mention the CBWR lands, H.R. 2852, the “Action Plan for Public Lands and Education Act of 2011” and the “National Forest County Revenue, Schools, and Jobs Act of 2011” that would effectively privatize millions of acres of federal land through long term leases without the benefit of due process. Ron Sadler explains

A legislative environmental impact statement shall be considered part of the formal transmittal of a legislative proposal to Congress. (A legislative environmental impact statement is meant to be) an accurate statement which can serve as the basis for public and Congressional debate (emphasis supplied). The statement must be available in time for Congressional hearings and deliberations ” (40 CFR 1506.8).

You may view a video archive of the hearing here

A five member witness panel presented testimony to the committee. Panel members were Harris Sherman, Under Secretary of Agriculture for Natural Resources and Environment, Steve Swanson, President & CEO of Swanson Group, Inc., Ron Walter, Commissioner Chelan County, Andy Stahl, Executive Director Forest Service Employees for Environmental Ethics and Dave Alberswerth, Senior Policy Advisor The Wilderness Society.

Sherman, Alberswerth and Stahl were critical of the bills cautioning against “the environmental reporting proposed in this draft” because it does not “provide for meaningful analysis or public input.” Sherman testified that the administration objected to bills because they “…preclude trust projects from judicial review, these changes would invite more, not less, controversy over timber sales on NFS lands”.

Stahl warned that subsidized timber could cost the US Treasury “untold amounts of money” and forsake thirty years of environmental protections. Stahl testified that “For each county to receive payments equal to the average of the past four Secure Rural Schools payment years, Trust Project timber cut would have to increase by over 20 billion board feet. The additional timber cut, above current levels, necessary to simply maintain 2011 SRS payment amounts is 15.3 billion board feet.”

Stahl was quoting from an analysis prepared by Headwaters Economics entitled “Analysis of the Draft National Forest County Revenue, Schools, and Jobs Act” which arrived at these conclusions [Emphasis added]

 Based on current timber prices, annual timber cuts would have to increase dramatically—up to total cuts levels of 14.8 or 42.8 billion board feet—to maintain current county payments or to produce timber equivalent in value to historic averages.
The cost of implementing the County Revenue Act would require significant new federal spending—from $1.8 billion to as much as $5.9 billion annually above current SRS appropriations—based on the current cost of preparing and administering timber sales.
 The County Revenue Act would create winners and losers among counties compared to current county payments; for example, $61 million more would go to Oregon counties and $14 million less would go to New Mexico counties.

This analysis, by the way, whether you agree with its conclusions or not is an excellent example of the type of due diligence we should all expect and demand our paid county commissioners and the paid staff at the Port of Coos Bay conduct before they commit public resources. The study authors share their methodology, formulas and source material offer comparisons to support their conclusions allowing the reader to double check the work.

Regrettably, the sum total of constructive due diligence provided to the public from either the Port or the County commission consists of unsubstantiated claims of new jobs and revenue followed by empty and factually incorrect bromides from the county about how the BLM just isn’t offering timber sales and is too inconsistent to be relied upon even though they meet or exceed their target ASQ.

There are many unanswered questions regarding the CBWR/Coquille Tribe proposal that include, how does the tribe arrive at its claim of 1,600 new jobs and what time period is considered in this calculation? How does the tribe arrive at its claim of $185 million in “governmental revenue” over ten years? How does the tribe propose to meet these revenue targets and still comply with all environmental laws, policies and amendments? How is Bob Main so confident the arrangement will bring in “millions of dollars in revenue” to the county?