 |
| Click to view/enlarge |
Baker County currently has the power to take the lead in deciding how the National Forest system lands within the county are to be managed. The power that local governments have under the law has long been underestimated. The National Forest Management Act (NFMA) states, "The Secretary of Agriculture shall develop, maintain and, as appropriate, revise land and resource management plans…coordinated with the land and resource management planning process of State and local governments…"
Baker County has the power to require the Forest Service to coordinate with the County on all activities on National Forest system lands within Baker County. This includes the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest (WWNF) proposal to close over 4,000 miles of existing Forest roads.
It is obvious that the WWNF was worried that Baker County might try to stop the proposed Travel Management Plan. After all, a petition with over 6,000 signatures from three counties protested the road closure plan; this petition was submitted to the Forest Service and to the counties. Seeing that public sentiment was against their Travel Management Plan, the Forest Service got all five counties to sign a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), which gives the Forest Service "lead agency status" and reduces the counties, to "cooperating agency status". By signing this MOU, the counties agreed to let the Forest Service make final decisions about road closures. This agreement is contrary to the strong local governmental status that the U.S. Congress conveyed to the local governments. Baker, Grant, Wallowa, Union and Umatilla all became "cooperating agencies", negating their power that was granted to the counties through the U.S. Congress.
Management of historic Baker County roads (RS2477) within the Forest is one area where Baker County actually passed a resolution that requires all federal agencies to coordinate with Baker County. This direction is outlined in Resolution 94-1003, and is based on Federal law. 43 USC 932, states "...no regulation of any agency of the Federal Government pertaining to the recognition, management, or validity of a right-of-way pursuant to Revised Statutes 2477..." is legal. Yet the Forest Service recently closed the historic RS2477 Mill Creek road on Dooley Mountain. When it was pointed out to them that this was an historic county road, the WWNF did not appear to care. The Forest Service is operating outside their authority, and Baker County has an obligation to its citizens to bring the WWNF in line.
Baker County, as well as the other four counties where WWNF system lands are located, needs to assert their governmental status, for the sake of the public and for the sake of the counties' economic base. All Counties must rescind their participation in the Travel Management MOU with the Forest Service. The counties can then require the WWNF to come to the counties' table and coordinate with them.
In order for all of this to be effective, the counties must have a plan on how to manage the National Forests in their counties. What better plan to choose as the county's plan than the 1990 access-friendly Wallowa-Whitman Forest Plan? The WWNF has been ignoring the guidance in this plan, since it encourages public access and allows for access on all roads and cross country travel, as long as there is no resource damage occurring. If the counties adopt the Wallowa-Whitman Forest Plan, as their plan to manage the WWNF, the Forest Service will have to accept it to be in compliance with NFMA. The counties can then call the shots on keeping the Forest open for all the public.
The 1990 Forest Plan is a good plan, that incorporates land use, roads and environmental concerns, yet it is access friendly. The Forest Service is supposed to be operating under this plan now. The counties can't lose by adopting the 1990 Forest Plan as their own plan for managing the National Forest portions of their counties.
We need to take back our Public Lands, and keep our right to access within our Forests.
