Shoshone Forest use revision plan draws county ire
By Martin Reed
Staff Writer

County commissioners on Tuesday complained to Shoshone National Forest supervisor Rebecca Aus about a perceived lack of participation in the forest plan revision process.
“We’ve always treated you with respect, and we felt like this planning process was going awry,” County Commission chairman Doug Thompson said during the meeting that attracted 17 audience members.
The forest supervisor responded to leaders’ concerns by saying a federal court ruling on forest roadless areas in the last year stalled the plan revision process. But forest officials have appreciated all comments from participating parties and they want people to view the draft plan that should be released in a couple of weeks, she said.
“It’s very disturbing to me to think you might not want to be cooperating” as forest planning partners, Aus said.
She added their concerns may change “if we could ask for your patience for a couple of weeks until we get the new revision out.”
The forest service is preparing to release a draft of the Shoshone National Forest’s revised plan outlining use and management of the nearly 2.5 million-acre forest in north and central Wyoming, including Fremont County.
The discussion during the commission’s regular meeting in Lander arrived after leaders sent a Feb. 19 letter to Aus about their “frustration with the process previously used.”
“Fremont County is not convinced that our land use plan is being incorporated into this forest plan,” according to the letter signed by the five commissioners.
“As of January 8, 2008, Fremont County no longer wishes to participate in the Shoshone Forest plan revision as a cooperating agency member. Instead, Fremont County chooses to exercise its authority and power of coordination as found in several federal and state statutes,” the letter reads.
During Tuesday’s meeting, Aus acknowledged that completely incorporating the county’s various plans into the new forest document is not happening.
“I can assure you we haven’t 100 percent been able to meet” the county’s planning documents for various reasons, she said.
“Some topics were not included because they are not directly related to the forest service,” according to a Forest Service memo provided to commissioners.
“For example, objectives on wildlife populations are not addressed since that is under the jurisdiction of either the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service or the Wyoming Game and Fish Department.”
However, she presented a document to commissioners that shows how the proposed forest plan meets the county’s planning priorities.
The list of similar interests between the county and forest plans addressed cooperation, recreation, firefighting, grazing, mineral development, timber harvest and management, land access and water usage.
Commissioner Pat Hickerson told Aus the county board has a greater level of responsibility in the planning process as elected leaders.
“We feel like we have a higher level (of participation) ... and that’s what coordination is all about,” Hickerson said.
The Forest Service’s perceived inaction concerning influence of outside participation in the plan revision is hurting the process, he said.
“I know there is a high level of frustration out there through the comment process,” Hickerson said. “I think some of the participation is down as a result of that.”
Hickerson and Thompson criticized the forest plan’s previous effect on the Dubois area and its failure to adhere to the county’s land use plan.
Forestry and timber industries and ranching as a result of decreased grazing on forest lands took severe hits because of limited use of public lands, Hickerson said.
“Tourism and recreation is the third leg that’s doing OK (in Dubois) but it’s hard to take two-thirds of your economy away” and remain a viable community, he said.
Thompson said the forest plan needs to allow use of public lands, including harvesting timber.
“That’s why you’re under the Department of Agriculture because you have a renewable product,” he said.
The effects of the forest plan require the commission to take a hard-line stance to help shape the revision’s outcome, Thompson said.
“Those have real social consequences. Those have real economic consequences,” he said.
“We would like an equal respect to our elected responsibilities. We would like an equal respect of our plan and our authority there,” Thompson said. “Bottom line is we need to have adequate influence as this plan unfolds.”
Aus tried to assuage commissioners, and she asked them to hold any decision until after reviewing the draft revision plan.
“I’m hoping when you take a look at some of this information you might think that we have made progress since last April,” she said. “If you don’t come to the same conclusion we can visit about how to move forward from there.”