Since I criticized the FS there in a couple of previous posts, here’s a couple of things I think they’ve done right.
It’s important that the public understand the relationship between forest planning and travel management planning, and this explanation from the Wallowa-Whitman is reasonably clear. I think it should work about as well as it can if the Subpart A (roads analysis) precedes forest plan revision, and Subpart B (designation of roads open to motorized vehicles) follows it.
A little further back, I faulted the FS for not being honest about the legality of the local ordinance that sought to regulate the federal government. That came up again at this Malheur meeting, and the FS set the record straight: “Our attorneys do not believe the Grant County ordinance is legal,” Beverlin said.