FYI…
The Northwest Forest Plan Amendment Federal Advisory Committee (FAC) will meet on June 25-27, 2024, at Courtyard Marriott Conference Room, 2301 Henderson Park Lane SE, Olympia, Washington.
The FAC meeting will be livestreamed at Northwest Forest Plan Federal Advisory Committee Meeting (hd1live.com) . The meeting will be held from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. each day. Further details regarding the upcoming meeting, including how the public can provide information to the committee is posted on the Forest Service’s regional website at: https://www.fs.usda.gov/goto/
FAC meetings are open for the public to observe in-person or via live stream. Additionally, written and oral comments will be accepted, with oral comments taken during a designated portion of the meeting.
Anyone wishing to provide in-person oral comments must pre-register by 11:59 p.m. PST on June 14, 2024. Written public comments will be accepted through 11:59 p.m. PST on June 14, 2024. Comments submitted after this date will be provided by the Forest Service to the Committee, but the Committee may not have adequate time to consider those comments prior to the meeting.
Meeting Purpose
This will be the Federal Advisory Committee’s fifth meeting for members to provide and vote on their recommendations for an amendment to the Northwest Forest Plan.
What is the Federal Advisory Committee’s role?
The FAC was established by the Secretary of Agriculture as part of ongoing efforts to amend the Northwest Forest Plan. The purpose of the FAC is to bring together diverse perspectives representing the experiences of communities, experts, Tribes, and other interested parties across the Northwest Forest Plan landscape to inform ways that forest management can effectively conserve key resources while considering social, ecological, and economic conditions and needs.
How can I get involved and learn more?
The Federal Advisory Committee does not replace the public involvement process or the public’s opportunity to engage directly with the Forest Service regarding Northwest Forest Plan amendment efforts during the planning process. To learn more about the Northwest Forest Plan and future engagement opportunities please visit the Northwest Forest Plan website.
The Northwest Forest Plan covers 24.5 million acres of federally managed lands in northwestern California, western Oregon, and Washington. It was established in 1994 to address threats to threatened and endangered species while also contributing to social and economic sustainability in the region. After nearly 30 years, the Northwest Forest Plan needs to be updated to accommodate changed ecological and social conditions.
For future Northwest Forest Plan Amendment updates please sign-up using USDA Forest Service (govdelivery.com).
Additional Background: The Forest Service is required by law to develop plans that guide the long-term management of public lands. The Forest Service will amend the Northwest Forest Plan in accordance with the 2012 Planning Rule, using public input and other public, private, and nonprofit organizations and governments. Land management plans establish priorities and provide strategic direction for how the plan area is to be managed.
Amendments to this plan will be informed by findings in the Bioregional Assessment and Science Synthesis as well as input from the Federal Advisory Committee and a range of other interested organizations and individuals. This effort builds on the agency’s Northwest Forest Plan work, including information gathers via monitoring, listening sessions and bioregional Assessment.
It would be good if the NWFP FAC could address the two key failures with the plan over the past 30 years — widespread rural unemployment and catastrophic forest wildfires. Both results were clearly predicted by me and others at the time it was adopted, and these major problems still need to be resolved.
Unemployment and wildfires were not the intended result of this effort, rather saving our remaining old-growth trees and maintaining our rural labor forces and industries were supposed to be the focus, and both efforts have clearly failed.
Following an all-day meeting with forest scientists and national politicians in Portland on April 2, 1993, President Clinton made the following proclamations:
“How can we achieve a balanced and comprehensive policy that recognizes the importance
of the forest and timber to the economy and jobs in this region, and how can we preserve
our precious old-growth forests, which are part of our national heritage and that, once
destroyed, can never be replaced?”
And —
“This is not about choosing between jobs and the environment, but about recognizing the importance of both and recognizing that virtually everyone here and everyone in this region cares about both.”
He said that “five principles” should guide the work — beginning with jobs:
“First, we must never forget the human and the economic dimensions of these problems. Where sound management policies can preserve the health of forest lands, sales should go forward. Where this requirement cannot be met, we need to do our best to offer new economic opportunities for year-round, high-wage, high-skill jobs.
“Second, as we craft a plan, we need to protect the long-term health of our forests, our wildlife, and our waterways. They are a . . . gift from God, and we hold them in trust for future generations.
“Third, our efforts must be, insofar as we are wise enough to know it, scientifically sound, ecologically credible, and legally responsible.
“Fourth, the plan should produce a predictable and sustainable level of timber sales and nontimber resources that will not degrade or destroy the environment.
“Fifth, to achieve these goals, we will do our best, as I said, to make the federal government work together and work for you. We may make mistakes but we will try to end the gridlock within the federal government and we will insist on collaboration not confrontation.”
*********************
It would be great if the current FAC could revisit Clinton’s principles — along with reinstating the 10 AM Policy and the 1897 Organic Act — in their deliberations, but that seems highly unlikely. My current predictions are more committee meetings, more costly wildfires, more deadly smoke, more rural business closures, and many more wasted taxpayer dollars in the process. Something has seriously needed to be done with this mess for too many years, and this ain’t it.
Current predictions, based on facts, personal experience, widespread observations by others, and documentation.
Thanks for digging these up, Bob. Here’s some things I think they would find if they looked at them again.
2 and 3 are tied to substantive legal requirements (ecological integrity based on the best available science); and there is a minimum required level of public participation (5).
So is 4, but note that the “will not degrade or destroy the environment” part limits what is sustainable timber yield.
Same for 1, where it prioritizes “preserve the health of forest lands;” however, “we need to do our best to offer new economic opportunities for year-round, high-wage, high-skill jobs” is based on no legal authority that I’m familiar with. I’m left wondering who the “we” was (not just the Forest Service?) and what they may have done.