Image provided by: University of Oregon Libraries; Eugene, OR
About The Baker County press. (Baker City, Ore.) 2014-current | View Entire Issue (Jan. 30, 2015)
THE BAKER COUNTY PRESS — 9 FRIDAY, JANUARY 30, 2015 Local & Entertainment MOU still unsigned Continued from Page 1 Also attending were field representatives from US Senator Ron Wyden’s (D-OR) and US Repre- sentative Greg Walden’s (R-OR) La Grande offices and a representative for US Senator Maria Cantwell (D-WA). Notably absent from the meeting were the Baker County Commissioners. “I didn’t attend the meeting on purpose,” began Bill Harvey, Chair- man of the Baker County Board of Commissioners. “I really don’t agree with the process. Economic development and forest management are my forte and I don’t agree with the Forest Service process.” During the USFS meet- ing, county commissioners were asked by Peña to sign the MOU designating each county in a subordinate role as a “Cooperating Agency” and assigning the USFS as “lead agency” during the development and implementation of the final Blue Mountain Forest Plan revision. While none of the commissioners signed the MOU during the meeting, several of the commission- ers attending advocated for signing the cooperative agreement. Among the strongest advocates for entering into the cooperative relation- ship with the USFS during the forest plan revision were Harney County Com- missioner Steve Grasty and Union County Commis- sioners Mark Davidson and Bill McClure. Armand Minthorn, board member for the Umatilla Confederated Tribes at- tended the meeting. The Tribes have not signed the MOU and instead have entered into a “government to government” working relationship with the USFS during the forest planning process. “It would lessen our capacity on decision- making,” said Minthorn when asked why the Tribes may not sign the MOU to become a cooperating agency. Harvey and his fellow Baker County Commis- sioner Mark Bennett also don’t see the benefit in signing the MOU and accepting the status of cooperating agency. Instead of accepting the designation of cooperating agency, Harvey advo- cates for Baker County to exercise the coordination process during the federal forest planning project. The coordination process has been used, most no- tably in Owyhee County, Idaho and Modoc County, CA, to assert a local plan whereby the federal agency plan must remain consis- tent with the local plan. When the federal land plan deviates from the local plan, under coordination, the federal agency must then show legal reasons for the deviation. “In the MOU it says that the Forest Service will be in charge of making deci- sions on the Forest Plan and not follow what’s in the Baker County natural resource plan—and that’s not what our county coordination ordinance says. Our coordination ordinance says to follow what’s in FLPMA (Federal Land Planning Manage- ment Act),” Harvey said. While voicing displea- sure and disagreement with the USFS process, Harvey said the final decision on whether to sign the MOU has not yet been made and would be addressed during the next meeting of the Baker County Com- missioners on Wednesday, February 4. “Baker County is not planning to sign. We signed on the plan (USFS Travel Management Plan 2007) and got nothing but spent a large sum of mon- ey, in contrast on the sage grouse plan we did not sign up and ‘got nothing’ but at least we did not waste a great deal of money,” Ben- nett responded in an email message. As forest supervisors discuss the forest plan revision, they look to com- missioners for methods of “engaging” the public during the next year as the plan is finalized. Co - missioners told the USFS supervisors that the main concerns they hear from the people in their counties as mistrust of the USFS and maintaining access to the forest land. “I hope the Forest Ser- vice realizes there was a shift that occurred when the thousands of people turned back the Travel Management Plan,” said Harney County commis- sioner Grasty. “If you are ever going to have trust you’ll have to address the fears and make people comfortable.” Malheur forest supervi- sor Beverlin responded, “We need to listen to the public. Locally I’m com- mitted to transparency and slowly and working toward rebuilding that trust.” Wallowa-Whitman forest supervisor Montoya stated, “I’m encouraged by the dialogue today. We need to address the fears and I’m willing to work with the counties to do that. Trust relates to addressing the fears. My job is to try to do that.” “We need to separate this plan out from Travel Management,” Peña responded. “We are going to have to complete Travel Management though. By definition the forest plan guides the Travel Manage- ment Plan. There are deci- sions in the forest plan that will affect travel manage- ment.” Two main decisions came out of the Jan. 26 meeting. First, the county commissioners decided to take 30 to 45 days to bring the MOU in front of their county legal counsels to decide whether or not to sign on as a cooperating agency. And, commission- ers formed a small com- mittee to formulate ideas for further public engage- ment as the final forest plan unfolds over the next year. The committee didn’t set a meeting time or agen- da, but agreed to schedule the meeting through email communication and then, after the meeting, to take recommendations back to the larger group. “Between the draft and the final plan we want to engage with the counties to make adjustments or add adjustments to the alter- natives in the plan,” said Peña. “If we need to make adjustments we need to make adjustments. I don’t want it to sound like we are defending a decision that hasn’t been made yet. Every issue has opposing views. The question is how do we set up a dialogue that allows us to get away from that polarized view. At the end of the day I don’t have illusions that everyone will support it but the collaborative al- lows us to find common ground… What adjust- ments we need to make should be the start-point.” Constituents throughout the Blue Mountain region contacted many of the commissioners prior to the January 26 meeting to complain about what was perceived by many as a lack of public notice given on the meeting. Only two members of the public, Baker County miners and board members of the Eastern Oregon Mining Association Chuck Chase and Ed Hardt and one member of the media, The Baker County Press, attended the meeting. January 26 marks Cascadia event 315 years ago January 26 marked the anniversary of the last major Cascadia Subduc- tion Zone earthquake that shook the Pacific Nort - west 315 years ago. Scien- tists predict the next major Cascadia Subduction Zone earthquake could strike our state at any time. "Scientists believe Oregon is in the average window of time during which another massive, destructive quake could occur," said Althea Rizzo, Geologic Hazards Program Coordinator. Oregon is located in the Cascadia Subduction Zone a fault line stretching from offshore British Columbia to Northern California. Experts say a rupture on the Cascadia Fault line will likely result in a 9.0 or higher earthquake with the potential to devastate the area. "A quake of this size will produce severe damage-buildings will be so damaged that restoring full utility service could takes months to years," said Rizzo. "We are taking steps right now to prepare our state for a potential Casca- dia earthquake." Rizzo said new guide- lines recommend individu- als prepare an emergency kit for at least two weeks, prior recommendations were for a three day kit. "Highways may be down and electricity out for days making it critical for you to have enough supplies to sustain yourself for weeks," said Rizzo. State and local govern- ment, private businesses and non-governmental organizations are doing much to prepare for the next Cascadia quake but individual preparedness is critical. There are many actions one can take to prepare for the next earthquake. This week’s word search This week’s crossword puzzle Across 1- Mild cigar; 6- Deal (with); 10- Pull abruptly; 14- Sublease; 15- Taylor of “Mystic Pizza”; 16- “___ Brockovich”; 17- Proverb; 18- Prolific autho , briefly; 19- Flat-fish; 20- Legendary creature; 22- Shelter for a dog; 24- Hit with an open hand; 25- One playing alone; 26- Native drum; 29- Other, in Oaxaca; 30- On ___ with; 31- Privileged; 37- Grandmas; 39- Not emp.; 40- French school; 41- Having keen hear- ing; 44- Draft classification; 45- What’s ___ for me?; 46- Group of nine; 48- 1000 tons; 52- Voting group; 53- Tooth covering; 54- Cave in; 58- Against; 59- Dept. of Labor div.; 61- Everglades bird; 62- Nair rival; 63- Will of “The Wal- tons”; 64- Connected series of rooms; 65- Makes a boo-boo; 66- American football measure; 67- Long stories; Down 1- Cancer’s critter; 2- Mother of Helen of Troy; 3- Woeful word; 4- Official recorder; 5- Verdi opera; 6- Fastener; 7- Hog sound; 8- Arafat’s org.; 9- Primitive form of wheat; 10- Kind of question; 11- Rice-___; 12- Frasier’s brother; 13- Prepared to pray; 21- ___ Camera; 23- Gladden; 25- Cabinet department; 26- Makes brown; 27- Colorful fish; 28- “Give that ____ cigar!”; 29- Not concealed; 32- Draw off liquid gradually; 33- Mountain in W Ar- gentina; 34- Vanished; 35- Zeno’s home; 36- Spent, as batteries; 38- Ill will; 42- Science of winemak- ing; 43- Big name in PCs; 47- Surprisingly; 48- “The Family Circus” cartoonist Bil; 49- Type of sanctum; 50- “See ya!”; 51- Leaves out; 52- Flat slab of wood; 54- “Believe” singer; 55- Bluenose; 56- Biological bristle; 57- French summers; 60- Ocean;