Why are we purchasing the forest? That is the foundational question. In other words, what is our purpose/ intent of going from not owning the forest to owning the forest? (Click here to see the forest by tax lot.)
If you have a moment, pause and reflect on what you have heard – then read on.
The answers given for “why we are purchasing the forest” are a dog’s breakfast of unsubstantiated optimism, fear mongering, NCLC’s need, and an assumed expectation.
I don’t put forth any of these answers in support of a pro or con position for purchasing the forest. I do so to try to help us all get to a better understanding of the path that got us to where we are. And of course I would hope for full and honest disclosures.
Unsubstantiated Optimism
Answers that you hear that fall into this category are:
Buying the forest will improve the quantity and quality of water
The Oregon Health Authority has certified Arch Cape water as the highest quality since 2011 – click to see certification. How much more is realistic or needed?
Improvement in water quantity and quality by purchasing the forest is possible in theory. However, there has been no cost/benefit analysis or evidence documenting how much more water there will be or how much cleaner the water will be after buying the forest then if we don’t buy the forest at all. (The Board will point you to the Forest Management Plan for this evidence, but it’s not there.)
State law requires forestry practices that protect against logging and pesticides in buffers along streams in forest like ours. With those practices in place, our water has continued to pass state safety standards. Better yet, last month, a change to Oregon State law further increased protections against logging and pesticide use. From a business case perspective, this change needs to be factored into any theoretical or actual quantification of the level of water improvement that can be realized from purchasing the forest.
There are other alternatives for improving the quantity and quality of water other than buying the forest;
a) Digging a well has the advantage of providing an additional clean water source that is independent of stream flow. So, if something happens to one of our two streams, there is an alternative source of water. At least two options are possible in our District; working with a local ratepayer to hook into their unused, existing well (I have confirmed that there are two possible wells) or digging for a new well.
b) Building a sedimentation pond, which is a common technique to eliminate sedimentation from stream water before it goes through the expensive filters. A pond like this has the advantage of removing sedimentation caused by natural forces as well as removing sedimentation caused by logging.
c) A “conservation easement, which is a customary approach where the forest land owner (timber company) and the adjacent community (Arch Cape) work out an agreement whereby restrictions are voluntarily placed on forest operations. These restrictions can include things like increased buffers, no herbicide use, or even no logging in certain areas. A conservation easement gives the community the advantage of having all the benefits of protecting what they want to protect in the forest without any of the risks of owning the land. The Forest Legacy Program (FLP) who gave us a grant to purchase the forest, also gives grants for conservation easements.
I am not aware of any consideration or cost/benefit analysis of these alternatives as part of the deliberations about purchasing the forest.
Buying the forest will will provide economic benefits
In the past, ‘economic benefits’ were identified as affordable drinking water However, given the Board’s current plan, the logging and operations of the forest is unlikely to pay for itself much less have money left over to reduce rates and pay for plant and equipment upgrades.
More recently, ‘economic benefits’ has been identified as job creation. The out-of-area consultants soon to be contracted for forest operations will definitely realize this economic benefit.
Fear Mongering
Answers that fall into this category take shape as: ‘This is our last chance to buy the forest and if we don’t buy it, then a timber company will buy it and cut down 94+ % of the trees [which will have a bad effect on our water].”
I’ve talked with 3 members of our community that are in the timber industry. Their perspective is that the above answer is more speculative fear than reasonably likely. Here’s what they tell me:
- The property being referred to as the Arch Cape Forest has been previously managed by many different companies. Now, most if not all of the timber companies have limited interest in that piece of land. It is a difficult property to manage. There isn’t much area ready to harvest. (This perspective is supported by the Board’s operating plan which indicates that there are only 124 acres of timber that is mature enough for commercial cutting. And it will take until 2050 for the other acres to mature enough to be cut.)
- The three community members seem to agree that, in the highly unlikely case that a timber company would buy the property, that company could log more than the 63% planned by the Board’s, but not to the 90% level . About 100 acres of the forest are designated as other than CFOR (Commercial Forest) and thus can’t be logged by anyone. And about 250 acres are so steep that they are cost prohibited to log. Also, with the private forest practices that are newly becoming Oregon law, the protective buffer widths are already increasing to a level comparable with the goals set by the Arch Cape Forest Advisory Committee in the Management Plan.
- As mentioned above, timber companies typically work with the neighboring communities allowing the community to designate ‘conservation easements’ of whatever specifications the community is willing to afford. (The Forest Legacy Program which gave us the grant to buy the forest also provides grants for conservation easement).
NCLC’s Need
North Coast Land Conservancy’s (NCLC) owns the Rainforest Reserve which is on the eastern boundary of the Arch Cape Forest. Currently there are two entry points for public access to that Reserve. The north access point is via the Hug Point road. The south access point is via a small parking area off 101 between Falcon Cove and Short Sands. There is speculation that NCLC would like the public to also have access to their Reserve through the Arch Cape Forest.
Trying to get clarity on this issue of recreational commitments between the Board and NCLC has been a bit problematic and ripe with mixed messages:
On the one hand, the Board has said that no such commitments exists:
“The District does not have any such records that you have requested for contracts, agreements, or other such documents that establish commitments between NCLC and the District related to NCLC’s offer of putting up a land easement as matching funds for the purchase of the property” April 27, 2022 – Public Records Request
“There is no agreement in place that requires Arch Cape to provide recreators access to cross over the Arch Cape Forest property to access the Rainforest Reserve in order to hike, etc.” April 28, 2022 – Public Records Request
On the other hand, there is an easement on the Arch Cape Forest property that was granted by the current owner to NCLC just last October “for vehicular and pedestrian access to and from the [Rainforest Reserve] using the existing roads comprising the easement area [click here to see that it is ALL of the current roads in the forest]. Use of the easement will be restricted to [NCLC] and their tenants, invitees, licensee’s, agents and employees.”
NCLC has said that the easement will remain in effect even after the Arch Cape Water District Ratepayers become owners of the forest. “That easement is associated with the deed not the landowners. The easement will remain when Arch Cape Water District becomes the land owner“. May 2, 2022 – NCLC
How can NCLC make that statement? When a property changes hands, can’t the new owners grant different access rights?
NCLC has also said “NCLC is not interested in promoting recreation on our property [the Rainforest Reserve]. Quite the opposite, we are very concerned about any increases in recreation.” May 2, 2022 – NCLC
And yet they are selling raffle ticket for tours on their property [click here for flyer]. These flyers can be found online and posted in various places.
Assumed Expectation
The answer that seems to have most captivated the imagination of the community is conserving/ preserving the forest.
The Board never actually said that conservation is the reason for buying the forest, nor did they directly say it wasn’t. In newsletters they would use obscure, ecologically friendly terms like “sustainable timber harvest”, or “responsible forest management” or “sustainable forestry”. From their omission of the term “logging” arose the common mis-perception that conservation was the intent for purchasing the forest. That mis-perception was reinforced by the Board’s negative reference to “historic logging practices [that] have contributed to a decrease in our drinking water quality & quantity and increase the cost of our drinking water production”. (Even though for over two years the Board has planned to “log” 60ish% of the trees in the forest over its lifecycle.).
The mis-perception about conservation was cemented when donation checks were made out to NCLC and NCLC conserves forests. And it is further etched in the imagination whenever NCLC distributes fund raising flyers that talk about a “conservation corridor” that includes the Arch Cape Watershed (click here to see the flyer). So I think that most people assumed that the answer to “Why are we buying the forest?” is to conserve it.
In my discussions, the difference between the expectation of conserving the forest and reality appears to be the greatest source of discord across the community.
A.C. Water District Board (Go to Home Page) 
2 responses to “#2 – Rationale for the Purchase: The Straight Scoop”
Interesting points and discussion, but isn’t the “ horse already out of the barn” on this? The land sale decision seems to have been made already. I’ve read most of your 10 or so discussion points, which seem to raise a number of troublesome issues. Why are there no responses from the community in the month or so that you put this information together?
LikeLike
Yup. I think the horse is pretty much out, though the deal hasn’t been inked. I think our only opportunity is to try to influence how things move on from here – though it’s been problematic to get the Board to engage directly with the community. A large proportion of the community has signed a petition that has been ignored. As for blog replies – it may not be commonplace here
LikeLike