Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Forest Management Plan topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Public commenters urge Board to tighten Forest Management Plan language and performance measures
Summary
During public comment the board heard multiple speakers urge changes to the draft Forest Management Plan: requests included enforceable goals tied to the best available science, limits on clearcutting until targets for complex structure are met, and clearer KPMs to ensure public accountability.
Members of the public used the Board of Forestry’s public forum to press for stronger specificity and accountability in the draft Forest Management Plan (FMP).
Joseph Yoren of the 7 Capes Bird Alliance told the board the draft is “a big warm fuzzy blanket of rhetoric without accountability” and urged amendments requiring management based on the best available science and explicit implementation plans. “The FMP should not allow clear cut harvest of complex layered forests until we reach the 30% minimum,” Yoren said.
Michael Lang, senior policy manager at Wild Salmon Center, told the board administrative rules require the FMP be based on the best available science and include measurable goals. “The plan does not satisfy these requirements for specific goals and specific strategies,” Lang said, urging incorporation of performance measures by reference into the plan to ensure legal accountability and compliance with the HCP.
Industry and contractor voices also addressed the board. Laura Wilkinson of Hampton Lumber said certain key performance measures (KPM 10 — the 30% target for complex structure — and KPM 5 — a 5% annual revenue target) do not dictate where or when those outcomes must occur, and she warned of the financial consequences of low harvest volumes (fiscal year 2025 harvest cited at 182,000,000 board feet).
Greg Jacob of the Sierra Club asked the board to identify forest areas with high carbon-storage potential and to encourage passive management in those areas. Ronnie Daniels (Polk County) and other commenters emphasized local economic impacts from reduced harvests.
Board members acknowledged the testimony and one board member clarified that the FMP includes commitments to comply with Habitat Conservation Plan measures that are incorporated by reference, but several public speakers and presenters said the FMP needs clearer, enforceable goals for public accountability.
Why it matters: The public comments underscore tension between conservation goals, carbon and habitat protections, and economic and revenue concerns for local communities and industry — core issues that the board must reconcile as it finalizes the FMP and related performance measures. Several commenters indicated they will follow up in writing.
