Warning – Pace Yourself, it’s a long story with lots of subtleties and complications!
Rick Gardner, Chris Mastrandrea and myself reached out to the Water District with specific questions about Forest Legacy Program (FLP) contractual obligations pertaining to public access, recreation and logging of our Watershed. Unsure about the answers to the questions, Phil Chick put us in touch the with Oregon Department of Forestry (ODF) coordinator who is responsible for administering our “contract”.
Based upon what we have now learned, this conversation outlines:
- The District’s contractual obligations for public access, recreation and logging. Importantly, a Multi-Resource Management Plan (Management Plan) must be submitted to ODF by the District that describes how these obligations will be addressed in the Watershed.
- A proposed set of Management Plan elements that are consistent with those obligations for public access, recreation and logging.
- A comparison of these management elements to what is in the most current draft of the Management Plan that is scheduled to be reviewed by the Board on December 15th.
- A call to the Board to slow down, do prudent financial due diligence and involve the owners of the Watershed so that we get this right.
The Reader’s Digest version is drawn from a series of emails with the ODF coordinator and an in-person meeting with her and her Federal counterpart The detailed emails and the meeting synopsis with ODF’s clarifications are linked at the very end. Everyone is welcome to review the detail information to determine if the digest is accurate.
Reader’s Digest Version of our Obligations
Q: Does the grant obligate the District to do anything specific with the Watershed in regards to public access, recreation and logging?
Yes! When North Coast Land Conservancy (NCLC) and Sustainable Northwest wrote the FLP Grant applications in 2018 & 2019, in partnership with the District, they obligated the District to public access, recreation, and logging in the Watershed. (Given the first linked email below, the implications for the District of what NCLC and Sustainable Northwest were doing may not have been fully understood.)
The initial version of the application did not meet FLP’s ‘funding threshold’ of requirements related to access, recreation and logging. So NCLC, Sustainable NW and Phil continued to “improve” the applications to exceed this funding threshold. Funding was granted based upon the “affirmative statements” that were made in the applications.
Q: What is the District REQUIRED to do to comply with the FLP ‘contract’?
1. A Management Plan for how the Watershed will be managed must be submitted by the District, approved by ODF and updated at least every 10 years.
2. Since the “affirmative statements” in the applications specified that Public access will be formalized and expanded in the Watershed …
The District must continue to allow some level of hiking, non-motorized biking, horse-back riding and hunting in at least some parts of the Watershed and cannot limit access to just the local residents. The Management Plan must a) define the activities that will be allowed in specific areas of the Watershed, b) identify improvements, if/any, to support access, and c) identify limitations if/any, to protect cultural and natural resources.
The FLP would consider allowing the District to: a) restrict recreational activities to certain parts of the Watershed if there is supporting rationale in the Management Plan that addresses the risk to water quality, forest health, etc. and/or b) restrict one of those activities, e.g., hunting, altogether if there is supporting rationale in the Management that addresses the risk to water quality, forest health, etc.
3. Since the “affirmative statements” in the applications specified that there will be harvesting (commercial logging) in the Watershed …
Commercial logging in the Watershed cannot be restricted by policy, i.e., logging can never be prohibited. However, depending upon forest conditions and economics for a specific timeframe, the Management Plan for that timeframe can indicate that logging is not intended. Logging cannot be altogether restricted during a timeframe because “harvests are a tool that may be needed in unforeseen circumstances even if they are not planned, such as for fire/wind salvage”.
4. There is an “affirmative statement” to “provide clean, safe and affordable drinking water to Arch Cape residents”.
5. No activities, including tours, can occur in the Watershed until there is a Management Plan that is accepted by ODF that defines how those activities are consistent with FLP.
6. ODF will review the Management Plan once finalized and communicate any issues or concerns with the District.
Q: What is the District NOT REQUIRED to do?
1. Access and recreation does not need to be allowed everywhere in the Watershed. They can be restricted to specific areas of the Watershed in order to protect natural resources.
2. The District is not required to log in the Watershed when it is not economically viable and when it does not improve the health of the Watershed.
3. Involvement in the National Park Service public access/recreation process is not a requirement of the FLP or ODF.
Note: An Arch Cape ratepayer who was appointed by the Board to this committee recently resigned because “it was a waste of time”.
4. Though public recognition needs to be given to FLP for its role in funding the Watershed, publicizing and promoting public access and recreation in the watershed is not a requirement of the FLP or ODF.
Proposed Elements for the Management Plan
The FLP applications that were drafted by NCLC and Sustainable Northwest have contractually obligated the District to some level of public access and recreation in the Watershed and to log it if/as it makes senses. These obligations and the Board’s lack of understanding/ disclosure of them is unfortunate. However, the impact of these obligations is manageable since the FLP gives the District some latitude in determining, with supporting rationale, which specific activities will be allowed in which parts of the Watershed and during what timeframes. It all comes down to how the Management Plan is written.
There are now 4 management objectives for the Watershed; 1) protect the quality of the source water (which is what the community was told was the reason for purchasing the Watershed, 2) operate the Watershed in a fiscally responsible manner and provide affordable water, 3) incorporate the community’s interests for recreation as outlined in the Community Survey on Recreation, 4) comply with FLP contractual obligations.
Consistent with those objectives, we propose the below management elements. These elements, in addition to meeting FLP obligations, gives the owners of the Watershed (ratepayers and lot owners) “a say” in protecting the source water and gives them insight into the financial risks of operating the Watershed and how we might manage that risk.
1. Identify whether public access and recreation will be allowed across the entire Watershed OR only in those areas of the Watershed that are outside of the Drinking Water Source Area. (The Drinking Water Source Area is the area of land that likely recharges or passes groundwater through it. It is a very specific area designated on maps of the Watershed.)
The rationale for restricting access and recreation to outside of the Drinking Water Source Area is to protect the quality of the source water, which is the primary goal and objective for purchasing the Watershed. (Management Objectives #1 and #4 above)
Note: Neither Portland Bull Run Watershed nor Astoria’s Bear Creek Watershed are open to the public, specifically to protect the source water. There is strong precedence for restricting public access and recreation in our Watershed to outside the Drinking Water Source Area.
This topic will be a focus of Public Comments on the Management Plan.
2. Limit recreational activities to no more than those that were in place upon the purchase of the Watershed, i.e., hiking, biking (not e-bikes), horse-back riding and hunting, most of which are supported by the results of the Community Survey on Recreation. (Management Objectives #3 & #4 above)
Given the recent hunting-season fire in our Watershed, consider the level of risk to our Watershed posed by hunting.
This topic will be a focus of Public Comments on the Management Plan.
3. Include with the Management Plan, a 10-year financial plan to indicate how the improvements to the Watershed and the ongoing operations of the Watershed will be funded, whether or not logging is intended during that time period and how “affordable drinking water” will be achieved. (Management Objectives #2 & #4 above)
4. Restrict any promotion or public communication about the Watershed to recognition of FLP for its role in funding the Watershed to protect Arch Cape source water. (Management Objective #4 above)
Current Draft of Management Plan scheduled for Board Review is Lacking
The current draft of the Management Plan is scheduled for review by the Board at their December 15th meeting. That draft assumes public access and recreation across the entire Watershed and may expand activities to include e-bikes.
The current draft of the Management Plan is not supported by a financial plan. Without a financial plan, ratepayers and lot owners have no awareness of: 1) the costs to operate the Watershed, 2) how those costs will be paid and 3) whether logging will be necessary.
Note: The very optimistic financial plan that was previously approved by the Board (before the current economic downturn when inflation was at 2.5% rather than 8%) has been removed from the web site and has not been replaced. There is no financial plan for next year much less that next 10 years.
Below is a comparison of the key forecasts of the previous financial plan and the current situation:
1) In the previous financial plan, the one-time costs to improve the Watershed were “best-guessed “estimated. These costs would be paid with the $1 Million COVID relief funds.
Currently, almost $200,000 of the $1 Million has been obligated and costs of the previously guess-timated $500,000 big ticket items, such as road work and thinning of the Watershed, among others, are still unknown.
Note: The COVID money can only be used for specific types of costs, e.g., it cannot be used for operating costs, and it has an expiration date – all contracts to be paid by those funds must be in place by the end of 2024.
2) In the previous financial plan, the annual operating costs of the watershed were previously guess-timated at $65,000-$70,000/year. These costs would be paid by logging the Watershed in 2023-2024. Operating the Watershed would in no way contribute to affordable water and may actually require tax levies and/or rate increases in order to pay the operating costs.
Currently, there is no documentation of the expected operating costs or an explanation for how they are currently being paid. There is no documentation for how they will continue to be paid, i.e., by logging, by donations, by rate increases or a combination.
The currently drafted Management Plan does identify the need to plan for some of these operating costs as follows;
The current version of the Management Plan does identify the need for annual operating plans for the activities including
- Road Maintenance
- Timber Stand Improvement
- Planting
- Access / Fire Management
These four areas of stewardship activity are net costs to the owner, with no potential
for revenue generation. Each is described in the following sections. Revenue focused timber harvest is not recommended by the Advisory Committee. Any timber harvest would be proposed and reviewed by the forest management committee and approved by the water district board. Furthermore, any timber harvest would need to comply with all policies and practices outlined in the Plan.
Very Biased Commentary – A Call to the Board
To date, the majority of the owners of the Watershed (ratepayers and lot owners) have not been included in any of the decisions about the Watershed’s purchase or operations. This is in stark contrast to the free reign given to NCLC and Sustainable Northwest in defining the contractual obligations for the Watershed, to the free reign given to NCLC in defining the easement across our Watershed and the latitude given to Sustainable Northwest in managing the project and writing the “news” that is sent out monthly.
What’s the rush to get the Management Plan submitted? Everyone, including the Board, just came to understand these obligations less than a month ago. Let’s get this right before the Management Plan is submitted and before rate payers and lot owners are locked into it.
This is a call to the Board to pause, do prudent financial due diligence and understand your constituent’s perspective BEFORE committing the owners of the Watershed to a path, so that we know how much that path will cost us and if/how we can afford it! (Otherwise, it harkens back to the oppressive era of taxation without representation – a very American concern.)
The Gory Detail – not for the faint of heart
The below links are to email correspondences with the ODF Coordinator about the District’s contractual obligations pertaining to the Forest Legacy Grant of $3.5 million. Information from the District was obtained through Public Records Request.
In each link, the most relevant information is highlighted in yellow so that you can more easily scroll through this dense materials. To allow full transparency you can stop and read where ever you want.
- The District’s mis-understanding of the obligations
- NCLC/Sustainable Northwest’s Application with “affirmative statements”
- FLP latitude in meeting obligations
- No obligations to promote access & recreation in the Watershed or to participate in National Park Service project.
- November 16 meeting synopsis with ODF clarifications
- Current Draft of Management Plan
A.C. Water District Board (Go to Home Page) 