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;