OC board opposes ‘blanket’ national forest plan amendments

The Oneida County board of supervisors voted unanimously this past week — with two members absent — to oppose implementation of blanket amendments that would be applied to all 128 Forest Service federal lands that have property management plans, rather than the current practice of making revisions on a property-by-property basis.

The Forest Service owns such land within the boundaries of Oneida County, and the board went on record that one size definitively does not fit all.

Oneida County forestry director Paul Fiene pointed out that, right now, all of those 128 properties have their own property management plan, “so there is not one current plan that is blanket overall,” Fiene said.

However, a proposed amendment — which will pertain to old growth forests — would be the only amendment applied nationally in the history of the plans, and critics of the rule fear it is the forerunner to adopting an overall national management plan for all the properties.

The Oneida County resolution passed Tuesday called for the plans — and any amendments to them — to continue to be done on a property-by-property basis, not as blanket changes to all property management plans.

Late last year, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) announced a “first-of-its-kind” national forest plan amendment with great fanfare.

 Ostensibly, the coming plan—which will actually be a rule — seeks to conserve and steward Old Growth Forests as part of the Biden administration’s climate-change initiatives, and the USDA says it is consistent with an executive order issued by President Biden to address climate change.

“Old-growth forests are a vital part of our ecosystems and a special cultural resource,” agriculture secretary Tom Vilsack said in announcing the amendment. “This proposed nationwide forest plan amendment — the first in the agency’s history — is an important step in conserving these national treasures. Climate change is presenting new threats like historic droughts and catastrophic wildfire. This clear direction will help our old-growth forests thrive across our shared landscape.”

According to the USDA, the amendment would prohibit vegetation management within old-growth forest conditions when the primary purpose is to grow, tend, harvest, or regenerate trees for economic reasons.

Until a new rule is adopted, any projects proposing vegetation management activities where old growth forest conditions exist on National Forest System lands must be submitted to the National Forest system deputy chief for review and approval.

No coordination or collaboration

The USDA says the new amendment — the actual language of which has not been released — is being developed in partnership with tribal communities and in collaboration with local stakeholders, but the Oneida County resolution asserts that the county has not been consulted.

“In regard to old growth, the 2012 planning rules states that the forest service will ‘provide for a transparent collaborative process that allows effective public participation,’ …. Oneida County and the towns within Oneida County have not been consulted or collaborated with during the drafting of these proposed changes,” the resolution states.

Local governmental units have a stake in the outcome of the proposed changes and should have been consulted in the planning process, the resolution continues. 

“The 2012 planning rule sought to create a planning process, which ‘is science based and additionally, recognizes the value of local knowledge’ and was intended to ‘balance the need for national consistency with the need for local flexibility to reflect conditions and information on each unit,’” the resolution adds.

Each individual forest property should consider changes to their management plans on an individual property basis to account for the wide variety of conditions present on each property and the community surrounding them, the board asserted, and it voted to request that plan revisions be done on a property-by-property basis.

At the county board meeting, Fiene said the purpose of the resolution was to give voice to the board’s belief that the county and towns should all be involved in the process.

“To my knowledge, no wording has been released saying what this new rule is even going to contain,” Fiene said. “So I don’t believe this resolution is saying we’re opposed to the rule itself because we don’t know what it is. It’s hard to oppose something when you don’t know what it is.”

Rather, Fiene continued, the resolution was more about the process of involving local government units and considering changes on a property-by-property basis. Fiene also said he had invited a U.S. Forest Service representative to the meeting but the official declined the invite, saying it was “being done through Washington” and he had nothing to add. 

As far as local involvement is concerned, Fiene said he had gone through the Forest Service’s planning documents and could not find any specific list of things the Forest Service has to do to involve those governments. 

“Is it just putting out a public notice that this is being done?” he asked. “Does that satisfy their collaboration with the local units of government? I don’t know. … I’m sure you’ve all read federally produced documents. They’re purposely written so you can’t understand what they’re saying.”

With respect to property-by-property amendments, Fiene said the USDA was conducting a National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) study and environmental impact statement, but he could not say whether there would be local flexibility after those are completed.

“But once that’s covered, it is possible that they may be considering these changes on their own property, not somebody from Washington saying ‘Here’s the new blanket policy that you’re all going to follow,’” he said. “So I was unable to find an answer to either one of those questions as to what the process is for involvement and whether or not for sure this is going to be a single document that will cover all 128 properties or is each property going to consider these on their own.”

To be sure, in its announcement, the USDA said the environmental impact statement will evaluate the effects of a national land management plan amendment, and a December 18 Forest Service memo to regional foresters said the interim policy while the final amendment was being developed would not “alter or prescribe any substantive standards for the management of old growth forests.”

Still, though, the memo directed that all projects within old-growth areas needed to be approved by Washington, suggesting that while local properties will still develop plans, federal authorities will have the final say. 

The stated intent to “prohibit vegetation management within old-growth forest conditions when the primary purpose is to grow, tend, harvest, or regenerate trees for economic reasons” also suggests little flexibility for local properties. Once the environmental impact statements are completed, which is expected to be in May, and when the final rule language is released, a 90-day comment period will begin.

During discussion, supervisor Steven Schreier said he couldn’t help but juxtapose the resolution asking for local involvement with a resolution passed earlier that morning asking the state to adopt certain wakeboard regulations without local town input.

“Did we reach out to all the towns and ask them what’s your opinion on this resolution regarding wake?” Schreier asked. “And to my knowledge, I don’t think we’ve bothered to do that. … A part of me just says, we’re just asking now for a federal agency to adopt a relationship with the locals that we ourselves don’t bother to adopt. So we didn’t bother to reach out to anyone at the local level about the wake. It’s just well if you happen to be paying attention to what we’re doing, feel free to drop us a line or stop in.”

That said, Schreier said, reading through the resolution, he didn’t understand the purpose of it other than the county wanted more cooperation from the federal agencies and that the county would like a direct voice. 

“I don’t have a problem with that,” he said. “I always think that’s a good idea.”

As for the final amendment’s language, Schreier said it was premature to question something when no plan has been released and the Forest Service hasn’t given any indication about what it might be.

“So I'm guessing that when the plan is released, they will also then have a period in which you can question, respond, public comment, a hearing, et cetera, which may be the more appropriate time then for us to address whatever it is in the plan that we object to,” he said.