Paul Castilleja

Dunn and Roberts sense Forest Service is listening to criticism

By Rocky Wilson

Wallowa County Chieftain

Kevin Martin, one of three forest supervisors in attendance at a Jan. 8 meeting held in Pendleton to discuss the Forest Service’s proposed plan to manage the Wallowa-Whitman, Umatilla, and Malheur National Forests in upcoming years, surprised some by his opening remarks.

With minimal preamble, the supervisor of the Umatilla National Forest referred to a statement made by Wallowa County Natural Resources Advisory Committee (NRAC) Chairman Bruce Dunn in a front page article of the previous day’s Chieftain.

The topic of the meeting was a forest management plan the Forest Service has taken 14 years to draft called the Blue Mountains Forest Plan Revision, the same plan Dunn had dissed the previous day by saying that document “sucks.”

And yet, said Dunn, Martin later told him the Forest Service knew going into the meeting that there were concerns about the 1,400-page document, and referring to the newspaper quote from Dunn opened grounds for discussion.

Wallowa County Commissioner Susan Roberts, who along with fellow Commissioner Paul Castilleja and Dunn attended the meeting, said progress at the session far exceeded her expectations.

“I think the Forest Service understands that the plan, as written, isn’t tenable,” she said. “I think the three forest supervisors – Tom Montoya of the Wallowa-Whitman, Steve Beverlin of the Malheur, and Martin – get it and will try to make it right.”

Martin expressed the same sense of optimism following the meeting as did Dunn and Roberts. “I felt very hopeful after the meeting,” said Martin. “People are very passionate (about their forests), and that’s a good thing. We knew a lot of folks are not very pleased about where we are sitting. That was clear as a bell.”

Early during a meeting attended by an estimated 50 persons representing environmental groups, counties, foresters, Forest Service personnel, and others, Commissioner Roberts asked for a show of hands of those who had read the entire 1,400-page draft. By Castilleja’s count, about seven hands were raised,

According to Martin, more than 1,000 comments have been received by the Forest Service since the draft was opened for public review. He said their calculations do not decipher pros and cons to the draft, but instead focus on specific issues.

Martin says he cannot speak for the Forest Service, yet expressed his approval of an idea aired Jan. 8 where non-Forest Service groups such as county commissioners might host future forest management plan informational meetings.

Dunn says he thinks it’s likely the proposed plan will be revisited and now include public feedback in the writing process. “They are not going to throw this down our throats,” says Dunn. In regard to the 1,400-page proposed document he still contends requires a complete re-write, Dunn said, “You can put lipstick on a pig, but it’s still a pig.”

Roberts, too, is outspoken about the proposed plan, the fate of which the Forest Service has yet to officially declare. She, like Dunn, is seeking more public involvement in the process of drafting a plan to manage three national forests that include a total of 4.9 million acres of public land.

“You can’t go off in a room for 10-15 years and write a document, hand it out, and ask people what they think,” Roberts says.

Castilleja said he read about 300 pages of the draft document, found little differentiation from previous efforts, and read no further. One big concern Castilleja has about the Forest Service’s proposed plan, a concern expressed by Dunn as well, regards the accuracy of science utilized to reach conclusions within the document. “I don’t trust their data,” says Castilleja, referring to input from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and by Endangered Species Act personnel that was reflected in the draft document.