Forest Service Chief Tidwell announces future advisory committee for Planning Rule
Call for nominations set for later this year
WASHINGTON, Nov. 14, 2011 –The U.S. Forest Service announced today that it will form an advisory committee that will provide advice and recommendations to the Secretary of Agriculture on the implementation of the new Planning Rule set for finalization this winter.
The Federal Advisory Committee – which could be formed early next year – will advise the Secretary on how the new rule is implemented. The U.S. Forest Service manages 155 national forests and 20 grasslands that will be affected by the new rule, which, if finalized this winter, will replace a 1982 version.
“This new committee will keep the collaborative momentum going on what has been a remarkably open and transparent process for the country’s first planning rule in 30 years,” said U.S. Forest Service Chief Tom Tidwell. “Stakeholder input has been instrumental in allowing us develop a strong draft rule up to this point – we need to continue to tap into our strong partnerships to carry this rule forward.”
In the coming months the Forest Service will announce its request for committee member nominations in the Federal Register. More information about the committee and how to seek nomination will be available at that time. Members will be sought with diverse backgrounds, who represent the full range of public interests in management of the National Forest System lands and who represent geographically diverse locations and communities.
Visit the agency’s planning rule website for the latest information on the formation of the committee and the status of the new planning rule.
I think this is great, for the reasons articulated previously on this blog here. Although at the time I was suggesting one for rule development, most of the arguments, I think, are equally valid for rule implementation. It helps to transition from the idea that problems with NFMA planning are “FS problems” to understanding that everyone has a role in improving the planning process.
I’m still quite puzzled (from a rhetorical point of view) about why, with an unprecedented amount of dead and dying forests, and with each and every salvage/rehabilitation project going to the courts, the Forest Service chose not to address the salvage issue in the new Planning Rule. (Of course, we ALL know the answer to that but, everyone pretends nothing is wrong, and that the current system is working just fine, and doesn’t even need to be brought up.)