So there’s a Federal Register notice today terminating the NWFP FACA committee and pausing the termination of the Black Hills National Forest Advisory Board.
For context, I thought I’d find a list of FS related FACA committees this is from the USDA site. On the FS site there are more FLREA RACs listed than on the USDA site.
Pay no attention to the list of FLREA committees at the FS link. The whole Recreation RAC process was a giant Fail; none of those committees has held a meeting in many years. The links at the FS site used to at least go to an archive of info about the previous meetings, minutes, etc. but now I see that with the website remodel that’s all gone and they go off into Never Never Land instead.
For approval of new/increased fees under FLREA, FS has been using a combination of BLM Resource Advisory Councils and FS Secure Rural Schools Title II Advisory Committees. None of which have ever voted against any fee proposal presented to them. Ever.
Thanks, Kitty! I clicked on the link for the Secure Rural Schools (spelled incorrectly) and clicked on the charter to see if it was a FACA committee, and it said (in two different browsers) that I am not authorized to access that page..
The SRS Committees are all FACA committees. If you know the name of the specific one you can find info about it at the FACA database. Usually it’s [Forest Name] Resource Advisory Committee.
https://www.facadatabase.gov/FACA/s/account/Account/00Bt0000001I5GFEA0
Or you can go to the Forest home page and find info hidden under About>Working With Us>Committees. There seems to be a lot of committee merging going on so it takes some sleuthing.
SRS used to be FACA committees, I haven’t kept up for the past seven years but used to be the way it worked. FLREA was never anything I saw do much, it seemed the FS was almost afraid to “bother” them with any proposals.
As for the Black Hills National Forest Advisory Board, I thought they were a great assert! However, Senior Management, and I mean RF and above hated the BHNFAB! I never understood why….. I think it was more of fear of an end-around approach to usurp local control….
Stewardship Committees, especially monitoring, were pivotal in continuing large stewardship contacts, but I believe, if I remember correctly, they were below FACA status…
Here’s some previous posts about FACA committees.. https://forestpolicypub.com/2021/09/21/the-smokey-wire-question-of-the-day-whats-holding-up-advisory-committee-paperwork/
And about why a FACA committee would have been helpful in the development of a planning rule. https://forestpolicypub.com/2010/02/18/faca-frolics-or-when-a-ac-has-your-back/
There was one for implementation? https://forestpolicypub.com/2014/05/29/usfs-national-advisory-committee-meeting-in-missoula/ https://forestpolicypub.com/2012/06/05/advisory-committee-named/
https://forestpolicypub.com/2022/02/01/legislation-with-time-limit-to-streamline-faca-approvals/
And some thoughts of mine about the Black Hills Advisory Committee from back in 2010 https://forestpolicypub.com/2010/04/25/forest-advisory-boards-history-and-future/
I think I had another post about the BH committee but can’t find it.