Forest Plan Summit - Draft Objectives - Your thoughts?
The following draft objectives have been established for the Forest Plan Summit, we’d like your thoughts:
• Demonstrate how input is used in proposal development.
• Establish relationships between District personnel and stakeholders as a foundation for forest plan implementation.
• Provide opportunities for objective discussions on science topics (water, forest health/fuels, species protection, and social/economics).
• Enable a collective conversation between the Forest Service, key interests, and cooperating agencies for critical plan components.
Do you like these objectives? Which objectives are most worth pursuing? Which objectives can you live without?
Do you have suggestions for additional objectives? Please share and explain.
I’d like to see included in the topics of “objective discussion” the values of
Comment by James W. Thompson — March 23, 2006 @ 10:45 amroadless areas and how they protect resources, such as watershed, wildlife habitat,
forest health. Quite frankly, I’m not sure if people understand that often letting
nature take its course, even if it means “beetle die-off” or “fire”, without human
intervention is a good management approach. I’m not suggesting that every road-
less area be absolutely “pristine”, but those containing important and abundant
natural resources-(i.e. clean water or suitable unfragmented habitat), should be
kept that way as a “long-lasting” resource–even if it means wilderness designation
for some portions.
I feel the objectives are fair, allowing input from all stake holders is important on our public lands. There are varying viewpoints in the scientific community relating to the roadless status and the concept of resource/watershed management. This is evident in the more current understanding of the use of fire in our forests.
Comment by Betty Stokes — March 23, 2006 @ 2:09 pmTwo additonal objectives:
Clarify the role that protection of native biodiversity (plants, animals, habitat) will play in the coming decade.
Clarify the issue of reciprocal responsibility for tracking the conditon of the Forests: the monitoring commitments of the Forest Service; and how the Forest will seek to involve the public and independent monitors of conditions and movement toward (or away from)desired conditions on the Forset.
Comment by Mary O'Brien — March 24, 2006 @ 3:53 pm