Coalition News and Events hourly 1 1970-01-01T00:00+00:00 LAC Meeting Cancelled <div class="plain"><p class="plain">We have cancelled the  LAC Meeting Wednesday, February 20th due to scheduling conflicts and hazardous road conditions. </p></div><div class="plain"><p class="plain"><br></p><p class="plain">Gary</p></div><div class="plain"><p class="plain"><u></u> </p></div> payetteforestcoalition 2019-02-19T17:26:09-08:00 LAC Meeting Cancelled Forest Supervisor's Notes - January 2019 <p class="plain"><img width="400" daid="17930315" src='//' border="0"></p><div class="plain"><br></div><div class="plain">Here are the <a link="" rel="" target="_blank" href="" class="plain">Supervisor's Notes for January 2019</a></div><p class="plain"></p> payetteforestcoalition 2019-02-04T14:46:59-08:00 Forest Supervisor's Notes - January 2019 PFC February Meeting Agenda <p class="plain">The PFC February 21st meeting agenda is posted in the <a link="" rel="" target="_blank" href="" class="plain">Meeting Notes/Agenda Library</a>.</p><div class="plain"><br></div><div class="plain">Please note that appended to the agenda for your review is background information on projects that could benefit from FY20 retained receipts.</div><p class="plain"></p> payetteforestcoalition 2019-02-04T14:36:17-08:00 PFC February Meeting Agenda Land Allocation Committee January 16 Meeting <p class="plain">The Land Allocation Committee will be at Bistro 45 on Wednesday January 16th.</p><div class="plain"><a link="" rel="" target="_blank" href="" class="plain"><br></a></div><div class="plain"><a link="" rel="" target="_blank" href="" class="plain">Please see the Meeting Notes & Agenda Library</a> for the meeting agenda.</div><p class="plain"></p> payetteforestcoalition 2019-01-15T16:18:33-08:00 Land Allocation Committee January 16 Meeting January meeting cancelled The January PFC meeting is cancelled.<span style="" class="plain">  </span>Assuming the shutdown ends by then, our next meeting will be February 21.<span style="" class="plain">  </span>Stay tuned... <p class="plain"><br></p> Paul_Litow 2019-01-14T06:56:11-08:00 January meeting cancelled PFC January Meeting Agenda <p class="plain"></p><div class="plain"><font style="" class="plainlarge">The agenda for the January 17th PFC meeting is posted in the <a link="" rel="" target="_blank" href="" class="plainlarge">Meeting Notes/Agenda Library.</a><font style="" class="plain">   <font style="" class="plainlarge"> Note the hints on the Library page (left column) to navigate the library.</font></font></font></div><div class="plain"><font style="" class="plainlarge"><br></font></div><div class="plain"><font style="" class="plainlarge">If the shutdown has not ended by open of business Monday, January 14, we will cancel the January meeting.  I will confirm either way via post to the PFC’s Coalition News page. </font></div><div class="plain"><br></div><div class="plain"><font style="" class="plainlarge"> Paul</font><br></div><p class="plain"></p> payetteforestcoalition 2019-01-05T09:48:38-08:00 PFC January Meeting Agenda Reminder: Next PFC Meeting January <p class="plain">A reminder of the PFC meeting schedule - the next meeting will be January 17, 2019.</p><div class="plain"><br></div><div class="plain">There is no meeting scheduled for December.</div><div class="plain"><br></div><div class="plain">Hope you find time to get outside this holiday season and enjoy the Payette National Forest.</div><p class="plain"></p> payetteforestcoalition 2018-12-14T06:19:30-08:00 Reminder: Next PFC Meeting January Forest Management in the Conference Committee Farm Bill <p class="plain">To:       Interested Persons      <u></u><u></u></p><p class="plain">From:  Mike Anderson, The Wilderness Society<u></u><u></u></p><p class="plain">Re:       Forest Management in the Conference Committee Farm Bill<u></u><u></u></p><p class="plain">Date:   December 11, 2018<u></u><u></u></p><p class="plain"><u></u> <u></u></p><p class="plain">Following is a quick summary and analysis of forest management-related provisions in the 2018 Farm Bill that was agreed to by Senate and House conferees and publicly released on December 10.  The final bill that emerged from the conference committee is based on different versions of the Farm Bill that passed the House and Senate in June 2018.  Notably, <b>the conference bill does not contain any of the House bill’s provisions that would have weakened the National Environmental Policy Act, the Endangered Species Act, the Roadless Area Conservation Rule, or other bedrock environmental laws.  </b>The conference committee’s bill must now be approved by both chambers of Congress and signed into law by the President.<u></u><u></u></p><p class="plain"><u></u> <u></u></p><p class="plain"><u>A. Key Forestry Provisions in the Conference Committee Farm Bill</u></p><p class="plain"><u></u> <u></u></p><p class="plain">The Forestry Title (Title VIII) of the Conference Committee Farm Bill contains seven subtitles and dozens of sections covering a wide range of topics.  Following are brief description of several significant forest management-related provisions, in the order they appear in the conference bill.<u></u><u></u></p><p class="plain"><u></u> <u></u></p><ul><li class="plain">State and Private Forest Landscape-Scale Restoration<u></u><u></u></li></ul><p class="plain">Like both the Senate and House bills, Section 8102 establishes a non-federal counterpart to the Forest Service’s Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration Program (see Sec. 8629, below).  The conference committee authorizes $20 million in annual funding – same as the Senate bill, versus the House bill’s $10 million.<u></u><u></u></p><p class="plain"><u></u> <u></u></p><ul><li class="plain">Cross-Boundary Wildfire Mitigation<u></u><u></u></li></ul><p class="plain">Like the Senate bill, Section 8401 establishes a federal grant program to promote cooperative efforts to reduce hazardous fuels across federal and non-federal lands. The bill provides $20 million in funding authority. <u></u><u></u></p><p class="plain"><u></u> <u></u></p><ul><li class="plain">Water Source Protection<u></u><u></u></li></ul><p class="plain">Like the Senate bill, Section 8404 creates a Water Source Protection Program, with $10 million in funding authority, to encourage watershed restoration partnerships between the Forest Service and downstream water users such as water utilities.<a link="_EXT_" target="_blank" href="" name="m_2901001297120186098__ftnref1">[1]</a><u></u><u></u></p><p class="plain"><u></u> <u></u></p><ul><li class="plain">Watershed Condition Framework<u></u><u></u></li></ul><p class="plain">Similar to the Senate bill, Section 8405 provides statutory authority for the Forest Service’s Watershed Condition Framework, a science-based process in which the agency (1) identifies the condition of all watersheds in the National Forest System and (2) develops watershed restoration action plans to improve the condition of priority watersheds in each national forest and grassland.<u></u><u></u></p><p class="plain"><u></u> <u></u></p><ul><li class="plain">Insect and Disease Treatment and Fuel Reduction<u></u><u></u></li></ul><p class="plain">Comparable to the House bill, Section 8407(b) provides a five-year extension for the 2014 Farm Bill’s insect and disease treatment provisions, including the categorical exclusion (CE) for collaboratively-developed insect and disease projects up to 3,000 acres in size.  The conference committee did <u>not</u> agree to the House bill’s proposal to increase the size of the CE to 6,000 acres and to make the CE authority permanent.  The bill also broadens the purpose of the treatments to include fuel reduction as well as insect and disease reduction.<u></u><u></u></p><p class="plain"><u></u> <u></u></p><ul><li class="plain">Sage Grouse and Mule Deer Habitat CE<u></u><u></u></li></ul><p class="plain">Similar to the Senate bill, Section 8611 authorizes both the Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to develop and use a new categorical exclusion (CE) for sage-grouse and mule deer habitat projects up to 4,500 acres in size.  The conference committee increased the maximum size of the CE from 3,000 acres in the Senate bill to 4,500 acres. <u></u><u></u></p><p class="plain"><u></u> <u></u></p><ul><li class="plain">Good Neighbor Authority for Tribes and Counties<u></u><u></u></li></ul><p class="plain">Similar to the Senate bill, Section 8624 gives tribes and counties the same ability as state governments to implement forest management projects on National Forest System or BLM lands by entering into Good Neighbor agreements with the Forest Service or BLM.  The conference committee added language to clarify that any receipts from timber sold by a state must be used by the state to pay for other Good Neighbor management activities on federal lands.<u></u><u></u></p><p class="plain"><u></u> <u></u></p><ul><li class="plain">Tennessee Wilderness<u></u><u></u></li></ul><p class="plain">Like the Senate bill, Section 8626 designates new wilderness areas and wilderness additions in the Cherokee National Forest in Tennessee.  The conference committee decided not to include the Senate bill’s wilderness designations in Virginia. <u></u><u></u></p><p class="plain"><u></u> <u></u></p><ul><li class="plain">Forest Service Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration<u></u><u></u></li></ul><p class="plain">Section 8629 reauthorizes the Forest Service’s Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration Program (CFLRP) through 2023 and – like the Senate bill -- increases the funding authorization from $40 million to $80 million.  Unlike either the Senate or House bills, the conference committee bill allows the Forest Service to extend funding current CFLRP projects beyond the normal 10-year maximum on a case-by-case basis if the projects continue to meet eligibility guidelines.  Both the Senate and House bills reauthorized CFLRP for five years, but the House bill would have maintained the $40 million funding level. <u></u><u></u></p><p class="plain"><u></u> <u></u></p><ul><li class="plain">Utility Infrastructure Rights-of-Way<u></u><u></u></li></ul><p class="plain">Like the Senate bill, Section 8630 creates a pilot program to encourage utility companies to voluntarily clear flammable brush and cut trees adjacent to their rights-of-way on national forest lands.  The brush clearing and tree cutting activity can extend no farther than 150 feet from the power line and it cannot occur within inventoried roadless areas or other protected areas.  <u></u><u></u></p><p class="plain"><u></u> <u></u></p><ul><li class="plain">Timber Products Innovation<u></u><u></u></li></ul><p class="plain">Sections 8642 promotes research and development for innovative uses of wood products, such as for tall building construction.  Section 8643 establishes a matching grant program to promote innovative timber products, including by retrofitting existing lumber mills.  Similar provisions were in both the Senate and House bills.<u></u><u></u></p><p class="plain"><u></u> <u></u></p><ul><li class="plain">Community Wood Energy and Innovation<u></u><u></u></li></ul><p class="plain">Like the House bill, Section 8644 creates a competitive federal grant program to help cover the capital cost for installing a community wood energy system or building an innovative wood product facility. <u></u><u></u></p><p class="plain"><u></u> <u></u></p><ul><li class="plain">Secure Rural Schools Resource Advisory Committees<u></u><u></u></li></ul><p class="plain">Comparable to the House bill, Section 8702 reduces the size of Resource Advisory Committees (RAC) established under Title II of the Secure Rural Schools Act from 15 members to 9 members in counties where there are insufficient numbers of applicants.  This section also sets up a pilot program in Montana and Arizona whereby the regional foresters, rather than the Secretary of Agriculture, will appoint RAC members. <u></u><u></u></p><p class="plain"><u></u> <u></u></p><p class="plain"><u>B. What Is <b>Not</b> in the Conference Committee’s Farm Bill Forestry Title</u></p><p class="plain"><u></u> <u></u></p><p class="plain">In welcome contrast to the House Farm Bill, which narrowly passed the House this summer despite unanimous Democratic opposition, the Forestry Title of the Conference Committee bill contains <u>none</u> of the controversial forest management provisions of the House bill. <u></u><u></u></p><p class="plain"><u></u> <u></u></p><ul><li class="plain">National Environmental Policy Act Exemptions<u></u><u></u></li></ul><p class="plain">The House Farm Bill contained numerous categorical exclusions (CEs) from the environmental review and public involvement requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).  For example, the House bill would have legislatively established new CEs for salvage logging and clearcutting projects up to 6,000 acres.  The House bill would also have doubled the size of the insect and disease CE in the 2014 Farm Bill from 3,000 to 6,000 acres.  In addition, the House Bill would have eliminated current environmental safeguards in the Forest Service’s NEPA regulations for potential wilderness areas, imperiled wildlife and plant species, cumulative effects, and other “extraordinary circumstances.”<u></u><u></u></p><p class="plain"><u></u> <u></u></p><p class="plain">The Conference Committee bill contains none of these controversial legislative exemptions from NEPA requirements.  Instead, the bill requires the Forest Service to administratively create a CE for projects up to 4,500 acres to improve sage-grouse and mule deer habitat (Sec. 8611, discussed above). <u></u><u></u></p><p class="plain"><u></u> <u></u></p><ul><li class="plain">Endangered Species Act Self-Consultation<u></u><u></u></li></ul><p class="plain">The House Farm Bill would have significantly weakened the interagency consultation requirements of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) by authorizing what amounts to a self-consultation process.  The House bill would have exempted the Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management from consulting with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service regarding forest management activities if the federal land managers determined that their actions were not likely to adversely affect an endangered or threatened species or its designated critical habitat<u></u><u></u></p><p class="plain"><u></u> <u></u></p><p class="plain">The Conference Committee bill omits any self-consultation authority or other weakening of existing legal safeguards for threatened or endangered species.  <u></u><u></u></p><p class="plain"><u></u> <u></u></p><ul><li class="plain">Roadless Area Conservation Rule Exemptions<u></u><u></u></li></ul><p class="plain">The House Farm Bill could have eliminated current regulatory protection of millions of acres of Inventoried Roadless Areas under the national Roadless Area Conservation Rule and the Idaho and Colorado roadless rules.  In addition, a House bill amendment sponsored by Rep. Don Young and adopted by the full House by a one-vote margin would have entirely exempted Alaska’s two national forests from the Roadless Rule.  The bill put many of the Tongass National Forest’s 9.3 million acres of roadless areas in Southeast Alaska at potential risk of taxpayer-subsidized logging and road construction.<u></u><u></u></p><p class="plain"><u></u> <u></u></p><p class="plain">The Conference Committee bill does not eliminate or weaken existing protection of National Forest Inventoried Roadless Areas. <u></u><u></u></p><p class="plain"><u></u> <u></u></p><ul><li class="plain">Secure Rural School Funding Shift from Conservation to Logging<u></u><u></u></li></ul><p class="plain">The House Farm Bill would have shifted Secure Rural Schools (SRS) Title II funding from environmental restoration to timber production.  The House bill would have repealed and replaced the existing requirement to dedicate at least 50 percent of the SRS Title II funding to stream and watershed restoration or road maintenance or removal.  Instead, the bill would have required that at least 50 percent of the SRS Title II funds in each county must be used for commercial logging projects. <u></u><u></u></p><p class="plain"><u></u> <u></u></p><p class="plain">The Conference Committee bill does not alter the purposes of the current SRS program to require more logging.<u></u><u></u></p><p class="plain"><u></u> <u></u></p><p class="plain"><u></u> <u></u></p><p class="plain"><u></u> <u></u></p><p class="plain"><b>Scott Brennan</b><u></u><u></u></p><p class="plain"><b>Montana State Director</b><u></u><u></u></p><p class="plain"><b>The Wilderness Society</b><u></u><u></u></p><p class="plain"><b>The Wilderness Society Action Fund</b><u></u><u></u></p><p class="plain">406.600.7846</p> payetteforestcoalition 2018-12-11T12:05:50-08:00 Forest Management in the Conference Committee Farm Bill Conditions, Law Prevent More Harvest of Mesa Fire Timber <p class="plain"><b><font style="" class="plainlarge"><b>To the Star-News Editor:</b></font></b></p><p class="plain"><br></p><p class="plain">Last week Brenda Howard expressed discontent with the Payette Forest’s plan for salvaging timber on 250 acres burned in the Mesa Fire near Council (“Remove burned timber before it becomes fuel for another fire,” Letters to the Editor, The Star-News, Nov. 29, 2018).</p><p class="plain">She wants the forest to harvest more than 250 acres. To Ms. Howard and others who question the limited acres, I say the forest would attempt to harvest more if post-fire conditions warranted it, and if the planning required by law to harvest a larger area could be completed before the burnt timber loses its economic value to the timber industry.</p><p class="plain">Of the 34,720 acres burned in the Mesa fire, only 16,483 were on the national forest, and many of those acres burned with low to moderate intensity due in part to proactive forest management that had been completed in the area. Several other factors reduced the amount of acres where salvage logging is possible or, even needed.</p><p class="plain">The Mesa Fire burned into the 2007 Gray’s Creek Fire, and those acres were previously salvaged after that fire. The Mesa Fire burned into the Council Mountain Inventoried Roadless Area and into a Forest Plan management prescription category area, neither of which allow salvage logging.</p><p class="plain">For the remaining acres, we used satellite imagery and extensive field reconnaissance to assess the post-fire conditions and determined only 3 percent, or 494 acres, of the burned area warranted salvage (i.e. areas with high burn severity and wide spread tree mortality) and was available for salvage within the limits of the Forest Plan.</p><p class="plain">To offer an economically viable timber sale, we evaluated options for ground based and helicopter logging operations, as the use of a helicopter would expand the amount of acres we could access.</p><p class="plain">We had two options for the legally required environmental planning. A categorical exclusion (CE) that could be completed within a span of weeks, but is limited to 250 acres. Or an environmental assessment (EA) that could cover more acres but would take until late spring or early summer 2019 to prepare.</p><p class="plain">We asked timber industry representatives about the operational feasibility and economics of helicopter logging. Their consensus opinion is that even with the increased acreage potentially covered by an EA, helicopter logging was not economically viable due to the recent drop in timber prices, and that the burned wood will deteriorate by summer.</p><p class="plain">Even though it would result in a smaller volume timber sale, they recommended the Forest Service to use the CE option to offer a salvage sale in the winter months because the trees would still have economic value. Furthermore, logging over snow would minimize soil impacts, require fewer restrictions to protect the high severity burn areas, and keep contract loggers employed.</p><p class="plain">In addition to the 250 acres of salvage the Forest is pursuing in Cottonwood Creek, 175 more acres burned by the Mesa Fire are being salvaged under the Bear Claw timber sale that was planned as a part of the Middle Fork Weiser River Landscape Restoration project prior to the fire taking place.</p><p class="plain">We do not have authority to use the CE option and go beyond the 250 acre limit set by Congress. I agree with Commissioner Paradis, and the others that the CE option with the 250 acre limitation is not ideal, but of the two options, the CE will accomplish salvage logging this winter while the burned trees still have economic value to industry.</p><p class="plain"><br></p><p class="plain">Keith Lannom, Supervisor, Payette National Forest, McCall</p> payetteforestcoalition 2018-12-06T13:35:14-08:00 Conditions, Law Prevent More Harvest of Mesa Fire Timber Payette Supervisor's Notes: November 2018 <p class="plain"><img width="400" daid="17903926" src='//' border="0"></p><div class="plain"><br></div><div class="plain"><a link="" rel="" target="_blank" href="" class="plain">Here are the Supervisor's notes for November 2018>></a></div><p class="plain"></p> payetteforestcoalition 2018-12-06T09:38:40-08:00 Payette Supervisor's Notes: November 2018