[MCN] Fwd: Elk Foundation supports more logging, less public review

[Matthew Koehler]

FYI: The Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation supports more public lands logging
(including in roadless wildlands) and less public review/input on timber
sales.

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: George Wuerthner <gwuerthner at gmail.com>
Date: Thu, Jul 9, 2015 at 8:10 AM
Subject: Elk Foundation supports more logging, less public review
To: Ann Harvey <aharvey at wyom.net>


Not surprisingly the RMEF supports more logging and commercialization of
our national forests. Here is an endorsement of the Resilient Forest Act by
them. Below is the Obama administration objections to this bill--which they
are opposing for all the right reasons. It would expand the use of
categorical exclusion clause to 15,000 acres from current 3,000. It would
require posting a bond if you object to any FS/collaborative approved
proposal, and reduce NEPA review on logging projects.


RMEF Members,


*Urge the House of Representatives to support the Resilient Federal Forests
Act of 2015*

The Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation is a staunch advocate for increased
management of our forests to improve habitat for elk and other wildlife as
well as overall forest health. The House of Representatives is scheduled to
vote on a bill Thursday, July 9, that will give the U.S. Forest Service the
tools needed to do just that.

The Resilient Federal Forests Act of 2015, or H.R. 2647
<http://newsletter.rmef.org/CT00163709NzUzMDI5.HTML?D=2015-07-07>, is the
start of a push for much-needed forestry reform. It contains many valuable
ideas for forest management, including direct input from RMEF. Here are a
few highlighted provisions that would benefit sportsmen and habitat:

• Encourages and speeds Forest Service backlogs for wildlife habitat
improvement for elk, deer, wild turkey, ruffed grouse and other “early
seral” species
• Authorizes a categorical exclusion to improve, enhance, or create early
successional forests for wildlife habitat improvement
• Seeks to reduce the incentives and threat of litigation, which has
encumbered half of the Forest Service’s forest management projects and has
largely been filed by groups that have not been willing to participate in
the collaborative process
• Allows the Forest Service to tap disaster funds during bad wildfire years
when the costs exceed what Congress has appropriated, thereby protecting
other accounts from being depleted that pay for recreation and habitat
enhancement

Find your congressional representative here.
<http://newsletter.rmef.org/CT00163710NzUzMDI5.HTML?D=2015-07-07> Go here
<http://newsletter.rmef.org/CT00163711NzUzMDI5.HTML?D=2015-07-07> to email
your representative and urge them to*VOTE YES* on H.R. 2647
<http://newsletter.rmef.org/CT00163709NzUzMDI5.HTML?D=2015-07-07> before
Thursday’s vote.

Thank you for giving attention to this most worthy effort.

Sincerely,

M. David Allen
RMEF President & CEO



Obama administration 'strongly opposes' GOP logging billScott Streater
<http://www.eenews.net/staff/Scott_Streater>, E&E reporterPublished:
Wednesday, July 8, 2015

The White House Office of Management and Budget today came out swinging
against a Republican-backed forest management bill, saying it has "strong
concerns" with the proposal to expedite logging sales on national
forestland and limit environmental lawsuits.

The OMB statement today ripping Arkansas Republican Rep. Bruce Westerman's
"Resilient Federal Forests Act of 2015" marks the first time the Obama
administration issued a formal position statement on H.R. 2647
<http://www.eenews.net/assets/2015/06/17/document_gw_01.pdf>, which the
full House is expected to vote to approve as early as today.

"The Administration strongly opposes H.R. 2647," according to the OMB
statement.

Among the administration's major concerns are provisions that would allow
the Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management to perform shorter
National Environmental Policy Act reviews for logging projects that are
designed to reduce wildfire risks, increase forest resilience to insects
and disease, protect water supplies, or enhance habitat for at-risk
species. It would also limit the scope of NEPA reviews for any project that
is approved through a collaborative process, such as through a resource
advisory committee, or is covered by a community wildfire protection plan.

The bill would also require groups that challenge collaboratively planned
forest projects in court to post a bond to cover the government's
anticipated legal costs. If the suing party fails to win on all the points
in the case, it would not recover the bond, the bill states.

The House Rules Committee yesterday allowed an amendment from Rep. Jared
Polis (D-Colo.) to go to the full House for debate that seeks to strip the
bonding requirement (*E&E Daily*
<http://www.eenews.net/eedaily/2015/07/08/stories/1060021417>, July 8).

The goal of the bill, Westerman and other proponents say, is to speed the
process to log overgrown forests that are at high risk of sparking
wildfires, as well as helping to fuel out-of-control blazes.

The OMB statement takes strong exception, saying shortening requirements
under "fundamental environmental safeguards" like NEPA "will undermine
collaborative, landscape-scale forest restoration by undermining public
trust in forest management projects and by limiting public participation in
decision-making."

For example, the administration "has serious concerns with the design and
scale" of categorical exclusions in the bill that would allow approval of
logging projects up to 15,000 acres. In general, the Forest Service
currently is able to use categorical exclusions only for projects up to
3,000 acres.

The OMB statement also says the administration opposes the bonding
provisions in the bill. "As the Forest Service has demonstrated, the best
way to address concerns about litigation is to develop restoration projects
in partnership with broad stakeholder interests through a transparent
process informed by the best available science."

Overall, Congress should instead focus its efforts on helping to reform the
wildfire funding system that has often forced the Forest Service to borrow
money from other programs to cover fire suppression costs when budget
suppression funding runs dry.

"The most important step Congress can take to increase the pace and scale
of forest restoration and management of the national forests and Department
of the Interior lands is to fix fire suppression funding and provide
additional capacity for the Forest Service and [Interior] to manage the
Nation's forests and other public lands," the statement says. "H.R. 2647
falls short of fixing the fire budget problem and contains other provisions
that will undermine collaborative forest restoration, environmental
safeguards, and public participation across the National Forest System and
public lands."

The OMB statement encourages Congress to adopt a funding proposal in the
president's fiscal 2016 budget that would allow the Forest Service and
Interior Department to tap disaster funds once they spend 70 percent of
their 10-year average of suppression spending.

The Westerman-sponsored bill would authorize the president to establish a
"specific account" for the suppression of wildfires. But the OMB statement
says funding that account at the 10-year average of wildland fire
suppression costs "would mean that less funding is available each year in
the agencies' budgets for restoration and risk reduction programs as it is
diverted to the ever-increasing ten-year average."
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://bigskynet.org/pipermail/missoula-community-news_bigskynet.org/attachments/20150709/c6d1ff90/attachment-0002.html>