Eons ago it seems, Eco-Trust Forest Management (EFM) put up for sale 5000 acres of forest land that lies to the east of Arch Cape.  North Coast Land Conservancy (NCLC) wanted to buy the top 3500 acres so that they could develop it as a “Rain Forest Reserve” and bring tours of people into it – click ‘a’ here (ecotourism is a growing business these days and it is a good way for NCLC to augment their donations with an ongoing revenue stream – click ‘b’ here).  However, this upper 3500 acres is virtually inaccessible without the lower 1500 acres.

For their Rainforest Reserve tours to become a reality, control over and access through the lower 1500 acres of Watershed is essential. Rather than buying the whole 5000 acres themselves, NCLC promised EFM they would get a different buyer for the lower 1500 acres. NCLC went to work convincing our Arch Cape Water District Board to buy the lower 1500 acres in the interest of protecting the water (even though the Oregon Health Authority has certified our water to be of the highest quality since 2011 – click ‘c’ here). Our Board bit at the hook and has been “partnering” with NCLC and Sustainable Northwest ever since to bring to fruition NCLC’s “One” vision for District’s 1500 acre Watershed.

And all the time, our Board and NCLC were lulling the Arch Cape community to sleep with platitudes of a conservation corridor – click ‘d’ here …

.. And with subliminal messaging ….

We need to step back a moment and consider if a “One” Vision makes any sense at all for NCLC’s Rainforest Reserve and the District’s Watershed.

The business model, operational objectives, financing sources and management structure of NCLC and the District are fundamentally different.

• NCLC is a private land trust and the Water District is a public ‘special district’ legislated for “supplying inhabitants of the district with water for domestic purposes”.
• For NCLC, Public Access & Recreation is the financial lifeblood of their Rainforest Reserve ecotourism. For the District, Public Access & Recreation is a threat to health of the Watershed, the cleanliness the water and to existing wildlife habitats.
• For NCLC, financial viability of the Rainforest Reserve is well supported through a healthy financial return on their stewardship reserve funds, discretionary contributions from donors and revenues from ecotourism. For the District, financial viability of the Watershed is precariously dependent on logging, tax levies and rate increases.
• For NCLC, the management structure is corporate, full time, experienced, specialized. For the District, the management structure is elected, part-time, volunteer, generalized.

Our Board formally authorized an ‘Option to Purchase’ a piece of property from EFM which did not include an easement for NCLC. The ‘Option to Purchase Agreement’ was filed in July of 2020 without such an easement. Recently released district documents indicate that a brand new easement was “negotiated with EFM” by Dan Seifer, Ben Dair and Phil Chick, outside of compliance with Public Meeting Law (i.e., without authorization of the Board). This easement was granted by EFM to NCLC on October 26th and filed with the County shortly thereafter. HOWEVER, the easement was not included or referenced in any way in the ‘Amendment to the Purchase Agreement’ that was authorized by the Board to be signed on behalf of the District with EFM just this last March of 2022. The easement represents a material change to the property and that change was never authorized by the Board. From the records provided so far by the District, it does not appear that there is a legal authorizing document where the District accepts the easement that was granted by EFM to NCLC. Does such a document exist? What is that document?

If there isn’t a legal authorizing document accepting EFM’s easement, will our Board draft and grant a different easement to NCLC that better supports the objectives of protecting the Watershed and water for which the property was purchased?

Public Access & Recreation in the Watershed IS NOT in the District’s mission statement.

Furthermore, Public Access & Recreation IS NOT PART OF the Water District Board’s ‘Public Engagement Strategy’ of December 1, 2017 which was “developed in partnership with North Coast Land Conservancy and Sustainable Northwest” and was approved by official motion and vote of the Board at their January 18, 2018 public Board Meeting. The ‘core messaging’ within that strategy, highlighted in yellow within the document, has NOT A WHISPER about Public Access & Recreation – click ‘e’ here.

However, since the very outset, Public Access & Recreation in the Watershed seems to have been a foregone conclusion of the Board; ignoring the clear and focused ‘core messages’ within their own authorized Public Engagement Strategy, without due legal diligence about whether recreation is within the District’s legislated authority (ORS 264), without specific Board action authorizing staff or Board members to pursue recreation, and without community consideration of recreation. (Why not take these steps?)

Though our Board continues to claim that no decisions have yet been made regarding Public Access & Recreation, starting at least as far back as 2017, District Staff, NCLC and Sustainable Northwest (ignoring the Public Engagement Strategy) have been actively promoting Public Access & Recreation in the Watershed in the press, in industry forums, in grants, etc – click ‘f’ here . Since June 2021, District Staff has been working with NCLC and National Parks in recreation planning without being specifically directed to do so by a quorum of the Board in a Public Meeting (very similar to how the easement was done). Though public action is required of the Board in this regard, all references to Recreation in Board Meeting Agendas/Minutes between Jan 2018 – Dec 2021 have been ‘Informational’ and not ‘Action’ – click ‘g here . The Community’s preference for limited-to-no Public Access & Recreation in the Watershed, as documented in the Recreational Use Survey, has been ignored by the Board (see April 2022 Board Meeting Zoom Recording).

Note: Anyone – if I’ve missed any relevant Board Meeting Minutes where action is approved on Public Access & Recreation in our Watershed – please reply below with reference.

To date, the Board has been aligning themselves with the vision of NCLC and Sustainable Northwest that favors Public Access & Recreation at the expense of protecting the Watershed and in direct opposition to Community preferences. Will the Board switch their allegiance to the interest of the Watershed and the Community?