During a recent government meeting focused on the National Old Growth Assessment amendment, significant concerns were raised regarding local engagement and the perceived disconnect between program administrators and community stakeholders. Attendees expressed frustration over what they described as an \"arrogant attitude\" from those managing the initiative, highlighting a disparity in communication and understanding between tribal representatives and local governments.

One of the key developments from the meeting was the reopening of the comment period for the draft assessment, which will now last for 90 days, ending on September 20. This extension aims to encourage broader public input, as previous responses to the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) were lower than anticipated.

A notable point of contention was the introduction of a new category termed \"iconic trees,\" which has sparked confusion due to the lack of a clear definition. This term, also referred to as \"legacy trees,\" adds complexity to existing classifications of old growth, leading to pushback from various stakeholders.

Participants raised critical questions about the implications of the new Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) requirements, particularly regarding funding and staffing necessary to implement these changes. The discussion also touched on the confusion surrounding the terminology of \"old growth tree\" versus \"old growth forest,\" emphasizing the need for clarity in definitions as they relate to different species and ecosystems.

Overall, the meeting underscored the challenges of balancing environmental initiatives with local interests and the necessity for improved communication and collaboration among all parties involved.