On March 14th, 2019, the 15 year odyssey known as the Blue Mountain Forest Plan Revision was announced DOA.
Dead.
In a letter issued by the Acting Deputy Chief of the Forest Service and Reviewing Officer Chris French to Regional Forester Glenn Casamassa it specifically instructed the Regional Forester to withdraw the draft Record of Decision, Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), and the three Revised Forest Plans. In a press release Deputy Chief French stated:
“Many factors compounded to produce revised plans that would be difficult to implement,” said French. “While my review did not identify any specific violations of law, regulation, or policy, significant changes occurred over the 15-year time period of the planning process.” (Note 1)
French added that a number of plan modifications occurred that were often complex and not well understood, and there were a number of changes in organizations, stakeholders, and key Forest Service staff
(Note 2). The Revised Plans also did not fully account for the unique social and economic needs of local communities in the area (Note 3). “The resulting plans are very difficult to understand, and I am concerned that there will be ongoing confusion and disagreement as to how each Revised Plan is to be implemented,” added French (Note 4)
“I recognize the hard work and commitment of your employees over the last 15 years,” French explained. “I also realize how much dedication, energy, time, and effort that the public has put into this process. I am confident that the information and data collected and analyzed, as well as the breadth of objection issues, can be used to inform our next steps.”
“We are committed to the responsible stewardship of National Forest System lands and confident that we can find common ground for the long-term sustainable management of these forests,” said Regional Forester Casamassa. “I look forward to joining local and state officials, partners, Tribes, and members of the public to explore how we can best work together in shared stewardship to pursue common objectives.”
NWTRA Take:
NOTE 1: “Significant changes occurred over the 15-year time period of the planning process”. READ: Forest Fires! This effected what the initial conditions described within the plans and therefore the solutions to get to the final desired conditions. Garbage in – Garbage out!
NOTE 2: Key personnel: NWTRA wants all of you to be aware of something specific on this. These Key Personnel are not just a turnover of people that can occur over the 15 year period of this process. NWTRA believe that it is the retirement of Regional Forester Pena. He stewarded these plans over most of that time and then RETIRED shortly after signing the Draft Record of Decision referred to in this article. Regional Forester Casamassa is new in his position on this process.
NOTE 3: The Forest Service did not take into account the significant local push back by the public from organized groups like Forest Access For All, to local politicians in all levels. The public could read the desire to Shut Down significant areas of the forest to Access and had LARGE trust issues with anything the Forest Service was telling them based on previous actions. (Watch an explanation of the Delphi Method)
NOTE 4: The BMFPR had a number of alternatives, a confusing number! These multiple alternatives AND the final record of decision logic from former Regional Forester Pena had many areas flying in the face of Forest Service provided logic (NWTRA Objection Letter)
WHAT DOES THIS ALL MEAN: Short-Term; NWTRA considers this a win, Kind of!. It does not mean that all road closures are going to stop, they have been occurring in spite of this BMFPR process. It could also mean that some decisions from the Forest Service could be delayed using this “setback” as an excuse on their part. But it does mean the Forest Service is backing out of the direction of BMFPR plans, for now. Long-Term; Forest Service representatives have made it clear to NWTRA that “Forest Supervisors and Regional Forester will be reconnecting with our communities, local and state officials, partners, Tribes, and other stakeholders to collaboratively explore ways of working together to support a path forward.” This means a “Starting Over” for the Forest Plan. If the Forest Service follows through with this “Reconnecting” then it could be a very good thing. NWTRA members can hopefully be a part of this new process and be recognized throughout.
BUT: There is a National requirement to develop and maintain Travel Management Plan under specific guidelines, meaning designated routes and uses. Umatilla National Forest has had these in place on their Travel Management Plan for a number of years, Wallowa-Whitman (WWNF) and Malheur (MNF) have not, thus the reason for some of the public pushback, see Note 3. The Travel Management Plan is the device that actually changes how and where we can ride, Access. With further delays on an updated overall guideline that is the Forest Plan, a push will surely come from Big Forest Service in Washington DC to proceed on Travel Management Plan(TMP) update process. This TMP plan in WWNF and MNF have the potential for greatly affecting access. NWTRA will have to stay vigilent.
In the mean time, Existing Land and Resource Management Plans, as amended, will remain in place as the Forest Service determines next steps for the Umatilla, Malheur, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests.
NWTRA will continue to monitor this moving forward.
.