HCPC Lostine River Scoping Comments Page 1 of 5

March 18, 2016 Jacob Lubera, Acting District Ranger Wallowa-Whitman National Forest Wallowa Mountains Office Attention: Lostine Public Safety Project 201 East 2nd Street Joseph, OR 97846 Submitted electronically to sitkapence@fs.fed.us

Dear Mr. Lubera,

I am writing on behalf of the Hells Canyon Preservation Council (HCPC) regarding the Lostine Corridor Public Safety Project. HCPC is a non-profit conservation organization based in La Grande, Oregon with over 1000 members. HCPC’s mission is to protect and restore the inspiring wildlands, pure waters, unique habitats and biodiversity of the Hells Canyon-Wallowa and Blue Mountain Ecosystems through advocacy, education and collaboration, advancing science-based policy and protective land management. HCPC actively participates in Forest Service proceedings and decisions concerning the management of public lands within the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest and is an interested public for timber sales and other management proposals within the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest.

The Proposed Action This project proposes the following actions across approximately 2.110 acres:

Removal of hazard/danger trees Creation of defensible space around identified historical areas Removal of fuels to increase canopy spacing and decrease ground and ladder fuels Thinning of dense forest stands to improve forest health and resilience

Comments on the Proposed Action

The proposed actions do not fit into any CE authority and thus must be analyzed under an EA or EIS. HCPC looks forward to working with the district as alternatives are developed that meet the purpose and need of this project: to address public safety issues in the Lostine River corridor.

1. A Section 603 CE is not appropriate for this project

The scoping notice does not state how this proposed action will be analyzed and documented. In conversations with district staff they have stated that the district is planning to use authority under Section 603 of the Healthy Forests Restoration Action (HFRA) as amended by the 2014 “Farm Bill” to

HCPC Lostine River Scoping Comments Page 2 of 5

categorically exclude (CE) this project from analysis and documentation in an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) or Environmental Analysis (EA). This project does not fit the criteria found in HFRA, Sections 602(c)(1)(2) & (3) and therefore cannot be carried out under this authority. A Section 603 CE may be used to carry out an insect and disease project in an insect and disease treatment area designated under HFRA section 602. Projects developed under this authority must be developed and implemented through a collaborative process that includes multiple interested persons representing diverse interests; and is transparent and nonexclusive; or meets the requirements for a resource advisory committee under subsections (c) through (f) of section 205 of the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act of 2000 (16 U.S.C. 7125). (HFRA, Sections 603(b)(1)(A) - (C)). The language of the Act would suggest that in order to use this authority, projects must be developed though formal collaborative groups made up of diverse members. This was acknowledged when former Oregon Governor John Kitzhaber requested that the lands in this project area be designated under HFRA section 602.

Oregon is fortunate to have many fully engaged local forest collaborative groups to help advance constructive public dialogue and management effort tied to National forest lands. As noted in the attached materials, the lands in this request designation are associated with collaborative groups comprised of diverse members working with engaged, committed Forest Service employees. The work of Oregon-grown groups and the Forest Service’s positive engagement in our state is consistent with the type of collaboration called for in HFRA.

Kitzhaber 2014 Designation Request (attached). This requirement that a project be developed through a collaborative effort is in addition to the scoping requirement that applies to all projects. HCPC is not aware of any collaborative process that went into developing this project. When district staff were questioned, they stated that they were collaborating with the public through the scoping process. This is insufficient to meet the requirements of HFRA, Sections 603(b)(1)(A) - (C)). As this project has not been developed through a collaborative process that is transparent and includes multiple interested persons it cannot be authorized under HFRA Section 603. Furthermore, the existence of extraordinary circumstances, as identified in 36 CFR 220.6(b) and FSH 1909.15 precludes the use of a CE. The project area contains federally listed species and designated critical habitat, wetlands, potential wilderness areas, cultural sites, and historic properties and areas. The proposed actions pose potential significant effects on these listed resources and thus extraordinary circumstances exist precluding the use of a CE.

2. Proposed fuel reduction activities HCPC carefully evaluates projects that propose fuels reduction treatments such as this project against the following criteria:

Fuels reduction thinning should be applied only in ecologically-appropriate dry ponderosa pine

and pine intermixed with Douglas fir plant association group forests. This is the only fire-regime where fire suppression has potentially outlasted the range of the fire return interval and therefore stand structure may be outside of a historical condition. These projects should be ecologically constrained by elevation and by site-based evidence of surface fire on a short return interval.

HCPC Lostine River Scoping Comments Page 3 of 5

Protect all trees with old growth characteristics regardless of their diameter or species. Old growth characteristics include thick bark, colored bark, asymmetrical growth, large braches, and dead tops. These old trees will generally be the some of the most fire resilient trees on the landscape.

Protect all large trees. All trees 21 inches in diameter at breast height (dbh) and larger of all species should be retained. These large trees will generally be the some of the most fire resilient trees on the landscape.

Holistic landscape management, with an awareness of effect of fuels reduction activities on wildlife species, non-native species, soil and soil processes, and insect and disease risks.

A compelling ecological need that is clearly identifiable and warrants the proposed action. Returning stands to the Historical Range of Variability (HRV) alone should not be used as a justification for commercial logging.

Focus on previously logged sites. Forests that have not experienced the same logging and road-building regime as other federal lands are relatively rare and have high conservation value.

Utilize existing roads for removing and hauling wood products. Eliminate unneeded roads. No construction of new temporary roads.

Protect all Inventoried Roadless Areas and Potential Wilderness Areas from commercial logging and mechanical activities. These intact lands are critical for climate adaption and mitigation, biodiversity conservation, wildlife viability, and other environmental values.

Crosschecking the proposal against the above criteria shows that the Lostine River project proposes ecologically inappropriate logging activities in areas with high conservation value. The entire project area cuts deep into the core of the Eagle Cap Wilderness. Most of the proposed logging unit likely qualify as Potential Wilderness. The forests in the project area are moist to wet mixed-conifer forests that are adapted to moderate to high severity fire with long fire return intervals. There is substantial scientific evidence that thinning in the moist and cold forests can increase the risk of wildfire. In the pending NEPA analysis, the Forest Service needs to recognize that logging can exacerbate fire risk by removing fire-resistant trees, putting more fine fuels on the ground, and increasing fuel loading by spurring the rapid growth of small shrubs and trees. Hanson and Odion, 2006; Raymond and Peterson, 2005.1 There is also evidence that fires may burn more severely in early seral vegetation, and burn less severely in closed canopy forests. This may be related to the fact that closed canopy forests maintain a cool-moist microclimate that helps retain higher fuel moisture and more favorable fire behavior. Odion 2004.2 It is important to recognize the potential to increase the fire risk due to logging because it confirms the importance of applying cautious fuels reduction treatments in ecologically appropriate areas. The mixed conifer zone is in general not the appropriate area for fuels reduction work. Even when extensive thinning occurs, this zone will still burn when climatic conditions are conducive for wildfire (extreme heat, drought or winds).

1 Hanson, C.T., Odion, D.C. 2006. Fire Severity in mechanically thinned versus unthinned forests of the Sierra

Nevada, California. In: Proceedings of the 3rd International Fire Ecology and Management Congress, November 13-

17, 2006, San Diego, CA; Raymond, Crystal L. 2004. The Effects of Fuel Treatments on Fire Severity in a Mixed-

Evergreen Forest of Southwestern Oregon. MS Thesis.

2 Odion, D.C., E.J. Frost, J.R. Strittholt, H. Jiang, D.A. DellaSala and M.A. Moritz. 2004. Patterns of fire severity

and forest conditions in the western Klamath Mountains, California. Conservation Biology 18(4): 927-936.

HCPC Lostine River Scoping Comments Page 4 of 5

3. Danger/hazard tree removal Ideally, a hazard tree assessment should be done every year before recreation sites are open to the public. If such an assessment was done on an annual basis, hazard tree removal could focus on high risk trees. The USDA Region 6 Field Guide for Hazard-Tree Identification and Mitigation on Developed Sites in Oregon and Washington Forests (2014) supports such an approach. Hazard/danger tree removal should also focus on all hazards, not just the large, economically valuable trees. Small hazard trees must also be addressed. In Riparian Habitat Conservation Areas and other sensitive areas hazard trees should be felled but not removed from site. Retaining these trees provides important ecological functions, such as inhibiting sediment flow. Hazard trees should also be retained as down woody debris. Retention should focus on large trees, as large down structure is vastly deficient across the Wallowa-Whitman forest. Heavy logging equipment should be restricted to established roads. Driving off roads will damage soils, set back natural regeneration, and spread invasive weeds.

4. Temporary road construction In talking with district staff it appears that this project includes as many as 20 temporary roads off of the Lostine River Road to access the identified units. Spurs would radiate off of these temporary roads. This will create a huge visual impact to visitors of the river corridor. These temporary roads will also increase erosion and stream sedimentation, and accelerate run-off during precipitation events causing aquatic and watershed damage. For that reason, the scientific literature suggests that mechanical fuels treatments aimed at reducing fire severity have so much inherent uncertainty in their effectiveness that the application should be limited and the most damaging activities such as temporary road building should be avoided. For example see Crist et al. 2009, Noss et al. 2006, Rhodes et al. 2008.3 The following is an excerpt from The Watershed Impacts of Forest Treatments to Reduce Fuels and Modify Fire Behavior by Jonathan Rhodes, 2007.

Avoid practices that consistently cause severe and persistent watershed damage, including machine piling and burning and the construction of roads and landings, including “temporary” ones. The numerous negative effects of roads are one of the primary sources of aquatic and watershed damage on a continental scale. Additional road construction is inimical to reducing road effects. (citing USFS et al., 1993; USFS, 2000b; Beschta et al., 2004).

There are many sensitive aquatic resources within the Lostine River corridor including threatened and endangered species. These resources will be impacted by the proposed temporary road construction. Therefore, HCPC requests an alternative that would eliminate or reduce temporary roads and spurs. HCPC also requests that any alternatives that propose temporary roads/spurs include an analysis of the trade-offs associated with the purported benefits of the treatment versus the negative impacts to wildlife, soil structure, hydrology, invasive weed spread, from temporary road building and road reconstruction.

3 Crist, M.R., T.H. DeLuca, B. Wilmer, and G.H. Aplet. 2009. Restoration of Low- Elevation Dry Forests of the

Northern Rocky Mountains: A Holistic Approach. Washington, D.C.: The Wilderness Society; Noss, R.F., J.F.

Franklin, W.L. Baker, T. Schoennagel, P.B. Moyle. 2006. Managing fire-prone forests in the western United

States. Frontiers in Ecology and Environment 4: 481-487; Rhodes, J. J., W. L. Baker. 2008. Fire Probability, Fuel

Treatment Effectiveness and Ecological Tradeoffs in Western U.S. Public Forests. The Open Forest Science

Journal. 1: 1-7.

HCPC Lostine River Scoping Comments Page 5 of 5

5. Native forest insects and diseases The proposed action does not discuss how or if this will factor into forest treatments. Forest insects and pathogens are increasingly being recognized as important agents in shaping the structure and composition of forests. The forest uses mistletoe, fungi and insects as a way to thin and maintain space between trees. These disturbance processes also recruit dead wood and snags, and provide unique habitat, benefiting many species of birds and wildlife. Removal of these trees has a negative impact on future recruitment of these important habitat features. HCPC requests an alternative that leaves diseased trees and those with mistletoe. If the pending NEPA analysis includes alternatives that propose to remove diseased trees and trees with mistletoe, those alternatives should also address how removal of these trees will affect future snag and dead trees retention with regards to habitat needs and historic ranges.

6. Sensitive plant species The moist mixed conifer forest of the Wallowa Mountains contain many sensitive species. The understory is composed of lichen, mosses, bryophytes, fungi and other sensitive species. These species are poorly adapted to frequent disturbance as they have evolved with an infrequent moderate to high severity fire regime. It is imperative that the ground cover is protected from heavy machinery. HCPC requests that new botanical, moss, bryophyte, and fungi surveys are completed for every unit and that the results of these surveys are disclosed in the pending NEPA analysis.

Conclusion

Thank you for the opportunity to participate in this planning process and for your review of these comments. HCPC looks forward to working with the district as this project progresses. Please do not hesitate to contact me with any questions. Sincerely,

Veronica Warnock, Conservation Director HCPC PO Box 2768 La Grande, OR 97850 541-963-3950 veronica@hellscanyon.org Encl: 2014FarmBillTitlesII_VII_VIII_IX_XII_SummaryAndFAQsV10 Kitzhaber 2014 Designation Request

May 1, 2014

1 | P a g e

Agriculture Act of 2014 Forest Service Summary of Provisions in

Titles VII, VIII, IX, XII

May 1, 2014

2 | P a g e

TITLE VII—RESEARCH, EXTENSION, AND RELATED MATTERS Subtitle B – Food, Agriculture, Conservation, and Trade Act of 1990 Sec. 7209. High-Priority Research and Extension Initiatives. (FS is not the lead agency)

The Secretary, in consultation with the Secretary of the Interior and the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, shall publish guidance on enhancing pollinator health and the long-term viability of populations of pollinators, including recommendations related to:

o Allowing for managed honey bees to forage on National Forest System lands where compatible with other natural resource management priorities; and

o Planting and maintaining managed honey bee and native pollinator foraging on National Forest System lands where compatible with other natural resource management priorities.

USDA has established a pollinator working group, which includes two Forest Service representatives, to strategize on how to mitigate pollinator decline.

Subtitle C—Agriculture Research, Extension, and Education Reform Act of 1998 Sec. 7310. Forestry products advanced utilization research

Amends the Agricultural Research, Extension, and Education Reform Act of 1998 (7 U.S.C. 7651 et seq.) to require the Secretary to establish a forestry and forestry products research and extension initiative to develop and disseminate science-based tools that address the needs of the forestry sector and their respective regions, forest and timberland owners and managers, and forestry products engineering, manufacturing, and related interests. The initiative includes:

o Research conducted for the purposes of wood quality improvement with respect to lumber strength and grade yield; the development of novel engineered lumber products and renewable energy from wood; and enhancing the longevity, sustainability, and profitability of timberland through sound management and utilization.

o Demonstration activities and technology transfer to demonstrate the beneficial characteristics of wood as a green building material, including investments in life cycle assessments.

National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA) is responsible for making competitive grants to carry out the above activities.

Any activities will be carried out in coordination with the Forest Service, including the Forest Products Laboratory.

May 1, 2014

3 | P a g e

TITLE VIII—FORESTRY SUMMARY Subtitle A—Repeal of Certain Forestry Programs Sec. 8001. Forest land enhancement program.

The Farm Bill repeals the Forest Land Enhancement Program (FLEP).

The Forest Service is taking actions to remove the regulation (36 CFR 230 subpart C) from the Code of Federal Regulations.

Sec. 8002. Watershed forestry assistance program.

Repealed.

Sec. 8003. Expired cooperative national forest products marketing program.

Repealed.

Sec. 8004. Hispanic-serving institution agricultural land national resources leadership program.

Repealed.

Sec. 8005. Tribal watershed forestry assistance program. Repealed.

Sec. 8006. Separate Forest Service Decision Making and Appeal Process. Repeals the Appeals Reform Act (ARA), which required Notice, Comment, and Appeal of Decisions (section 322

of the Department of the Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 1993) for certain projects and activities implementing land management plans. Consequently, the ARA’s implementing regulations (36 CFR Part 215 for post-decisional administrative reviews) are obsolete.

Directs that the Pre-decisional Objections process (Section 428 of division E of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2012) shall not apply to decisions that are categorically excluded from documentation in an environmental impact statement or an environmental assessment.

The FS issued a letter to field offices on March 5, 2014 providing direction to execute an orderly shutdown of 36 CFR 215, which stated:

o Immediately cease issuance of all legal notices pursuant to Part 215 per the date of the Chief’s instructions.

o Accept and consider all timely submitted public comments per Part 215.5. o Accept and conduct an appeal review and disposition where the legal notice of a decision memo (Part

215.7) was published in the newspaper of record on or prior to the date of the Chief’s instructions. o Inform affected/interested persons of the legislative enactments and the orderly shutdown.

The FS is also taking actions to make corrections to the appropriate CFR’s including repeal of Part 215 and an amendment of Part 218. Anticipated publication date is June, 2014.

May 1, 2014

4 | P a g e

Subtitle B—Reauthorization of Cooperative Forestry Assistance Act of 1978 Programs Sec. 8101. State-wide assessment and strategies for forest resources.

The Farm Bill reauthorizes the requirement for State Forest Action Plans through fiscal year 2018 and requires States, in developing the plans, to coordinate, as feasible, with military installations where the voluntary participation and management of private or State-owned or other public forestland is able to support, promote, and contribute to the mission of such installations.

The Forest Service will coordinate with States to update or revise State Forest Action Plans as needed and include coordination with military installations as appropriate.

Subtitle C—Reauthorization of Other Forestry-related Laws Sec. 8201. Rural revitalization technologies. Section 2371(d)(2) of the Food, Agriculture, Conservation, and Trade Act of 1990 (7 U.S.C. 6601(d)(2)) is amended by striking ‘‘2012’’ and inserting “2018”.

Extends authority for the Forest Service rural revitalization technology program through fiscal year 2018.

This authority is used to administer the Forest Service Wood Energy grants and State-wide Wood Energy Team Cooperative Agreements, which are part of the USDA Wood to Energy Initiative that is designed to mesh with Rural Development’s financing programs for energy projects.

Sec. 8202. Office of International Forestry. Section 2405(d) of the Global Climate Change Prevention Act of 1990 (7 U.S.C. 6704(d)) is amended by striking ‘‘2012’’ and inserting “2018”.

Extends the appropriations authority for the Office of International Forestry through fiscal year 2018.

The Global Climate Change Prevention Act established the Global Climate Change Program within the Department of Agriculture and directs the Office of International Forestry to coordinate Forest Service activities related to implementing the requirements of the Global Climate Change Program and other provisions of the Act.

The Office of International Forestry will continue to implement this program as it has been previously.

Sec. 8203. Healthy forests reserve program. (Administered by NRCS)

Information will be provided at a later date. Sec. 8204. Insect and disease infestation.

Amends Title VI of the Healthy Forest Restoration Act of 2003 (16 U.S.C. 6591 et seq.) by adding section 602 (Designation of Treatment Areas) and section 603 (Administrative Review) to address qualifying insect and disease infestations on National Forest System lands.

Not later than 60 days after enactment, if requested by a Governor of a State, the Secretary is required to designate as part of an insect and disease treatment program at least one landscape area (such as a sub-watershed - 6th level Hydrologic Unit Code) in at least one national forest in each State that is experiencing an insect and disease epidemic.

The Secretary may designate additional areas to address insect and disease threats after the initial 60 day period.

An area may be designated as part of an insect and disease treatment program if it meets at least one of the following criteria. The area is:

o Experiencing forest health decline based on annual forest health surveys; o At risk of experiencing substantially increased tree mortality based on the most recent Forest Health

Protection Insect and Disease Risk Map; or o Contains hazard trees that pose an imminent risk to public infrastructure, health, or safety.

May 1, 2014

5 | P a g e

Under section 602(d), priority projects that reduce the risk or extent of, or increase the resilience to, insect or disease infestation may be carried out in designated areas in accordance with sections 102(b)(c)(d), 104, 105 and 106 of the Healthy Forest Restoration Act, which provides for expedited NEPA reviews, pre-decisional objection review, and guidance on judicial review. This authority is available for projects for which scoping has been initiated by September 30, 2018.

Under section 603, an insect and disease project may be categorically excluded from documentation in an environmental assessment or an environmental impact statement and exempt from pre-decisional objections. In order to use this CE, projects must:

o Maximize old growth and large trees to the extent the trees promote stands that are resilient to insect and disease threats;

o Consider the best available scientific information; and o Be developed through a collaborative process that:

o includes multiple interested persons representing diverse interests; o and is transparent and non-exclusive, or meets the requirements of a resource advisory

committee under subsections (c) through (f) of section 205 of the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act.

Projects that carry out part of a proposal that complies with the eligibility requirements of Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration Program will meet the collaborative process requirements of section 603.

Section 603 imposes limitations on the use of the section 603 CE. A project that is categorically excluded : o May not exceed 3,000 acres; and o Shall be located in the wildland urban interface, or in an area in condition classes 2 or 3 in Fire Regime

Groups I, II, or III, if outside the Wildland Urban Interface. o May not include the establishment of permanent roads, but may allow for necessary maintenance and

repairs on existing permanent roads and may allow for the construction of temporary roads (where not otherwise prohibited) for the purposes of carrying out this section. Temporary roads would have to be decommissioned no later than three years after the date of project completion.

The section 603 CE may not be used in areas that are: o Congressionally designated Wilderness and Wilderness Study Areas; o Areas where the removal of vegetation is restricted or prohibited by statute or by Presidential

proclamation; and o Areas where the activities described above would be inconsistent with the applicable Land and

Resource Management Plan.

Authorizes, but does not appropriate, up to $200 million annually through 2024 to carry out projects under section 602.

Sec. 8205. Stewardship end result contracting projects.

Amends Title VI of the Healthy Forest Restoration Act of 2003 to include section 604 (Stewardship End Result Contracting Projects).

Grants permanent authority for Stewardship End Result Contracting. This law is fundamentally the same as the stewardship contracting authority the BLM and Forest Service has implemented for the past 10 years.

Includes a provision directing the Chief to issue fire liability provisions that are in substantially the same form as the fire liability provisions in the Integrated Resource Timber Sale Contract (IRTC) stewardship contract and the timber sale contract.

o The IIRTC and the stewardship agreement templates already conform to this requirement, so the change in the law will mostly affect the Integrated Resource Service Contracts (IRSCs).

o IRSCs operate under the Federal Acquisition Regulation. A change in the fire liability provision in the IRSC will likely necessitate approval of a new provision in the Department of Agriculture’s Acquisition Regulation (AGAR), which is a formal process that involves the opportunity for notice and comment in the Federal Register.

May 1, 2014

6 | P a g e

Includes provision allowing the Secretary to consider a stewardship service contract as a contract for the sale of property under such terms as the Secretary may prescribe.

FS Stewardship Contracting Handbook was revised and released on March 14, 2014.

Sec. 8206. Good Neighbor Authority. The Farm Bill gives the FS and BLM permanent authority for Good Neighbor and expands it to all States and

Puerto Rico, but also contains some limitations on the types of work that can be performed under the Good Neighbor Authority, namely, the exclusions mentioned below relating to roads, parking lots and public buildings and works.

This section provides permanent authority for the Forest Service and BLM to enter into cooperative agreements or contracts with States and Puerto Rico to allow the States to perform watershed restoration and forest management services on National Forest System lands, excluding:

o the construction, reconstruction, repair, or restoration of paved or permanent roads or parking areas; and

o the construction, alteration, repair or replacement of public buildings or works. o This authority also excludes projects in wilderness areas, wilderness study areas, and lands where

removal of vegetation is prohibited or restricted.

The Forest Service retains all NEPA responsibilities and must approve silvicultural prescriptions and marking guides.

For the past decade, implementation of the Good Neighbor Authority has been limited by statute to Utah and Colorado.

Subtitle D—Miscellaneous Provisions Sec. 8301. Revision of strategic plan for Forest Inventory and Analysis.

Requires the Strategic Plan for Forest Inventory and Analysis to be revised with 180 days of enactment and identifies 11 elements to be described in detail.

In anticipation of enactment of the Farm Bill, the Forest Service has been working on revising the strategic plan and is anticipating its release this summer 2014.

Sec. 8302. Forest service participation in ACES program. Clarifies Section 1252 of the Food Security Act of 1985 to include the Forest Service in the Agricultural

Conservation Experienced Services Program.

Expands the Secretary’s existing authority, initially only for NRCS, to allow the Forest Service to utilize conservation-related program funds to establish an Agriculture Conservation Experience Service (ACES) Program to provide technical services for conservation-related programs and authorities carried out on National Forest System land.

The purpose of the ACES Program is to use the talents of experienced individuals, age 55 or older, to help agency employees address high workload goals and better serve our customers.

The ACES Program is a grant-funded employment program under which enrollees will work on a temporary basis in support of Forest Service projects and activities through agreements with eligible nonprofit organizations. It is not a Forest Service employment program.

Forest Service will provide program oversight for the respective ACES positions, while a nonprofit organization handles all the administration of advertising, recruiting, hiring, and payroll for each position.

The NRCS ACES Program will be used as a framework for implementing the Forest Service’s ACES Program. Establishment of a pilot program is being considered to help identify target positions and shape the final program.

May 1, 2014

7 | P a g e

Sec. 8303. Extension of stewardship contracts authority regarding use of designation-by-prescription to all thinning sales under National Forest Management Act of 1976.

Amends the National Forest Management Act to allow designation-by-description and designation-by-prescription as valid tree harvesting designation methods, other than individual tree marking.

Harvest operations may be supervised by post-harvest cruising, sample weight scaling or other methods determined by the Secretary as appropriate.

Sec. 8304. Reimbursement of fire funds. Subsections (a) through (e) of section 8304 provides for state-to-state reimbursement of amounts expended for

resources and services for the management and suppression of a wildfire. The provision authorizes the Secretary to accept funds from the state that is reimbursing and pay those amounts to the state seeking reimbursement. It also considers prior reimbursements to be made in accordance with this section.

Section 8304(f) provides separate authority. It amends 42 U.S.C. 1856d(b) to authorize the Secretary to retain any funds received as reimbursements for costs incurred by the Secretary for fire protection and to credit the amounts to the same appropriation from which the expenses were paid.

Sec. 8305. Forest Service large air tanker and aerial asset firefighting recapitalization pilot program. This authority is subject to the availability of appropriations and provides that the Secretary, acting through the

Chief of the Forest Service, may establish a large airtanker and aerial asset lease program. Under the program, the Forest Service may enter into a multi-year lease for up to five years for up to 5 aircraft that meet the criteria of the Large Airtanker Modernization Strategy.

A lease entered into under this section may not provide for the purchase of the aircraft by, or the transfer of ownership to, the Forest Service.

The agency is working with States and other partners to explore the use of the leasing authority to add next generation airtankers to the agency’s available fleet.

Sec. 8306. Land conveyance, Jefferson National Forest in Wise County, Virginia. This authority requires the Forest Service to convey the Mullins and Sturgill Cemetery in Wise County, VA if the

Cemetery Association pays market value.

TITLE IX—ENERGY Sec. 9001. Definitions.

Adds the definition of forest product to title IX and defines the term to mean a product made from materials derived from the practice of forestry or the management of growing timber and includes pulp, paper, paperboard, pellets, lumber, and other wood products, and any recycled products derived from forest materials.

Sec. 9002. Biobased markets program. (Administered by USDA Biopreferred program) Details about the program administration should be directed to Ron Buckhalt or Kate Lewis in the USDA

Biopreferred program.

The Farm Bill language expands the array of wood products eligible for the Biobased Markets Program. There are two parts to the program:

o Federal procurement preferences for biobased materials; o Product labelling with USDA Biobased Product for enhanced marketing value.

Federal procurement is required to use biobased products preferentially.

The intent of this program is to raise awareness and increase demand for wood based products.

May 1, 2014

8 | P a g e

The Farm Bill designates the Forest Products Laboratory with the responsibility to determine whether products are eligible for the ‘USDA Certified Biobased Product’ label. In determining whether products are eligible for the ‘USDA Certified Biobased Product’ label, the Secretary (acting through the Forest Products Laboratory) shall provide appropriate technical and other assistance to the program and applicants for forest products.

Sec. 9011. Repeal of Forest Biomass for Energy.

Repealed. Sec. 9012. Community Wood to Energy

Continues authority for the Community Wood to Energy program established in the 2008 Farm Bill, which includes Grants for helping to establish new wood energy systems, through FY 2018.

Adds a definition of Biomass Consumer Cooperative and defines it to mean a consumer membership organization to provide members with services or discounts relating to the purchase of biomass heating products or biomass heating systems.

Establishes a grant program allowing grants up to $50,000 to biomass consumer cooperatives for the purpose of establishing or expanding biomass consumer cooperatives.

Authorized for $5 million, but to date no money has been appropriated.

TITLE XII—MISCELLANEOUS Sec. 12312. Payment in lieu of taxes.

Extends PILT through FY 2014.

DOI administers the program and is responsible for reporting requirements.

By the end of the fiscal year, FS provides DOI with annual acreages for entitlement lands that are a part of the National Forest System for purposes of calculating payments to local governments.

Sec. 12313. Silvicultural activities. Amends Section 402(l) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1342(l)) by adding “the

Administrator shall not require a permit under this section nor directly or indirectly require any State to require a permit under this section for a discharge from runoff resulting from the conduct of the following silvicultural activities conducted in accordance with standard industry practice: nursery operations, site preparation, reforestation and subsequent cultural treatment, thinning, prescribed burning, pest and fire control, harvesting operations, surface drainage, or road construction and maintenance.”

May 1, 2014

9 | P a g e

Agriculture Act of 2014 Forest Service Frequently Asked Questions

Disclaimer: Currently this document contains frequently asked questions (FAQs) for only a subset of provisions the Forest Service is responsible for. This document will continue to be updated with more FAQs as the Forest

Service proceeds with implementation of Farm Bill provisions.

May 1, 2014

10 | P a g e

TITLE VIII: FORESTRY Section 8006: Separate Forest Service Decision Making and Appeal Process

Q. Will the FS continue to process appeals if the Responsible Official published a legal notice of the decision (Part 215.7) in the paper of record on or prior to the Chief’s instructions? A. Yes, the Agency is implementing an orderly shutdown of the appeal process. The Forest Service will accept and conduct an appeal review and disposition where the legal notice of a decision memorandum was published in the newspaper of record on or prior to the Chief’s instructions issued on March 5, 2014. Q. If the Agency published a legal notice of the proposed action and opportunity to comment (Part 215.5) in the paper of record and comments were received in a timely manner, does the commenter still have appeal rights? A. If the opportunity for appeal was not initiated with a legal notice of the decision published in the paper of record on or prior to the Chief’s instructions issued on March 5, 2014, the Agency cannot offer appeal opportunities for that specific project. However, the comments received would be considered by the Responsible Official.

Q. Will there still be public involvement opportunities for categorically excluded projects? A. Yes, the FS will continue to offer public involvement opportunities for categorically excluded projects as provided for in its NEPA procedures found in 36 CFR 220 (e.g., scoping). The FS will also continue to provide notice, comment and pre-decisional objections as provided for in 36 CFR Part 218 for projects and activities that are documented in an EA or EIS. Section 8204: Insect and Disease Q. What is the process for working with the Governor’s office to recommend landscape areas? What is the process for reviewing, evaluating and approving designation of areas for insect and disease treatments? A. The Forest Service will work with States, at their request, to provide information in helping States identify areas to recommend for designation. The Forest Service views this as an iterative process and intends to coordinate with States throughout the designation process. The framework for designation of treatment areas is described below:

1. States will identify potential areas to designate using publicly available information such as annual forest health surveys, the current National Insect and Disease Risk Map, or maps showing areas where hazard trees pose imminent risk to public infrastructure, health or safety, and submit their requests to the Chief of the Forest Service.

2. The Chief will form a review team to evaluate the requests from the Governors and make recommendations for designations of landscape-scale areas.

3. The Chief will respond to Governors through a letter to inform Governors of the area(s) designated. Information regarding designations will be made available to the public.

Review team The Chief will form a review team composed of representatives from Forest Management, Fire and Aviation Management, Ecosystem Management Coordination and Forest Health Protection staffs as well as a field representative from the regions to evaluate the requests from the Governors. The review team will ensure that each potential designation area meets the criteria specified in the Farm Bill and will identify any areas of concern such as wilderness,

May 1, 2014

11 | P a g e

wilderness study areas, roadless areas, and threatened and endangered species areas for the Chief to consider when designating areas. The team will consult with the field representative frequently throughout the review process. Evaluation criteria All requests from States will be evaluated against the requirements for a landscape-scale area designation stated in section 602(c) of the Farm Bill. Areas must meet at least one of the following criteria for designation:

1) the area is experiencing declining forest health based on annual forest health surveys, or 2) the area is at risk of tree mortality over the next 15 years based on the National Insect and Disease Risk Map, or 3) the area is in an area where hazard trees pose imminent risk to public infrastructure, health or safety.

Any request that does not meet at least one of the criteria will be rejected. Evaluation process Step 1: All requests will be evaluated by the review team to determine whether they meet at least one of the evaluation criteria. Specifically, the team will validate that the requested designation is in an area currently experiencing an insect or disease outbreak based on Forest Service aerial survey maps or is an area at risk of experiencing insect and disease mortality based on the National Insect or Disease Risk Map. To validate if the area is in an area where hazard trees pose imminent risk to public infrastructure, health or safety, the review team will coordinate with field representatives as needed. Additionally, the team will identify any areas of concern such as wilderness, wilderness study areas, roadless areas, and threatened and endangered species areas. Step 2: The team will make recommendations for designations of landscape-scale areas to the Chief and will give sufficient and clear reasons for both approval and rejection of an area recommended for designation. Step 3: The team will document, in an administrative record, their review findings of State’s submissions, rationale for recommendations made to the Chief, and final designation decisions made by the Chief. Step 4: The Chief will review and approve areas for designation and respond to Governors through a letter to inform them of the area(s) designated. Q. How are areas designated after the initial 60 days? A. After the initial 60-days, the Secretary may designate additional landscape-scale areas as needed to address insect and disease threats. No requests from Governors are required after the initial 60 days, but the Secretary, acting through the Chief, will continue to work with the Governors where appropriate. The criteria for designating areas remain the same:

Areas should be experiencing decline of forest health based on annual forest health surveys;

Areas are at risk of tree mortality over the next 15 years based on the National Insect and Disease risk Map; or

Areas where hazard trees pose imminent risk to public infrastructure, health or safety.

May 1, 2014

12 | P a g e

Q. What types of treatment options are permitted under section 8204? Can we use herbicides, insecticides, pheromones? A. Allowable treatments are those that reduce the risk or extent of, or increase the resilience to, insect or disease infestation in designated treatment areas. Herbicides, insecticides and pheromones may be used, but their use must be consistent with the applicable Land and Resource Management Plans (LRMPs). Pesticides, prescribed fire, and timber harvesting also are examples of acceptable treatment options that may meet the objectives of Section 8204. All projects must comply with the applicable LRMPs. Q. Section 102(c) of HFRA sets a national limit of 20 million acres treated using the authorities in Title I. Where does the Forest Service stand against this limit? A. Acres treated by both FS and BLM using authorities in Title I count towards the 20 million acre limit. Projects carried out by the Forest Service under section 602 also will count towards this limit. However, projects carried out under the section 603 CE will not. On National Forest System lands, the current total of HFRA-treated acres is approximately 1.7 million acres. Q. Is the $200,000,000 in authorized funding in section 602(f) going to be distributed like the Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration (CFLR) funding? Will the units need to compete for it? A. Section 602(f) is an authorization of appropriations. It authorizes, but does not appropriate, $200 million per year from FY 2014 to FY 2024 to carry out this section 602. Funding used to carry out this section will come from appropriations otherwise available to carry out the projects. Units will not be required to compete for funds nor will funds be distributed for specific projects like CFLR funding. Units will be responsible for implementing projects within their allocated budgets. Q. How does Section 8204 relate to the Healthy Forest Restoration Act (HFRA)? A. Section 8204 amends the Healthy Forest Restoration Act of 2003 by adding sections 602 and 603 to Title VI of the HFRA. Sections 602 and 603 provide authority that is separate from the authority for authorized hazardous fuel reduction projects in Title I of HFRA. Q. What is the difference between the existing insect and disease provisions in Title I of the HFRA (section 102(a) (4)) and the authority under section 602? A. Section 102(a) (4) authorizes projects where any of three specified conditions are present that pose “a significant threat to an ecosystem component, or forest or rangeland resource, on the Federal land or adjacent non-Federal land.” Those three specified conditions are:

1. Wind throw or blow down, or ice storm damage, 2. The existence of an epidemic of disease or insects on NFS or BLM land, or 3. The presence of an insect or disease epidemic on immediately adjacent (non-federal) land and the imminent risk

that it will spread. Section 602 authorizes projects in designated treatment areas that meet at least one of the following three requirements:

1. Areas are experiencing decline of forest health based on annual forest health surveys, 2. Areas are at risk of tree mortality over the next 15 years based on the National Insect and Disease risk Map, or 3. Areas where hazard trees pose imminent risk to public infrastructure, health or safety.

Q. What is the difference between the procedures used to carry out an authorized hazardous fuel reduction project under section 104 of HFRA and the authority to carry out an insect or disease project under section 602(d)? A. Both provisions authorize the use of the same expedited NEPA procedures in section 104 of HFRA. To utilize the expedited procedures in 602(d), scoping shall be initiated by September 30, 2018.

May 1, 2014

13 | P a g e

Q. What is the difference between Section 602 and 603? A. Section 602 provides for (1) a definition of declining forest health; (2) methodologies for the designation of treatment (landscape-scale) areas; and (3) the requirements under which treatments can be undertaken in the designated areas. Sections 602(d)(2) and 602(d)(3) provide the procedures that may be used to carry out the insect and disease projects within designated areas. Read together they provide that insect and disease projects may be carried out using the same expedited NEPA procedures in section 104 of HFRA that apply to authorized hazardous fuel reduction projects. Section 603 creates a new categorical exclusion (CE) for insect and disease projects within designated landscape-scale areas that are collaboratively developed. This section also identifies how the CE can be used, limitations of the CE, and that there will be no administrative review process for this CE. Q. Is section 603(a)(1) a statutory exemption from NEPA or a categorical exclusion under NEPA? A. The legislated CE created under section 603 is intended to operate within the provisions of NEPA, not as an exception to NEPA.

Q. Do the NEPA procedures in section 602 or 603 have different compliance requirements for laws such as the Endangered Species Act (ESA) or regulations such as the Agency’s Roadless Rules?

A. No, neither section 602 or 603 exempt compliance with other laws such as ESA, Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, National Historic Preservation Act, or Agency regulations such as the Roadless Rules. Q. Can environmental analysis and decision making for insect and disease projects in areas designated under section 602 be documented in an EIS or EA? A. Yes, the responsible official has the discretion to document a project in an EIS or EA. In exercising that discretion, the responsible official may use the expedited HFRA NEPA procedures referenced under section 602(d)(2) or traditional, non-HFRA, provisions in chapters 20 and 40 of FSH1909.15. Q. Are units required to use the section 603 CE? A. No, the use of section 603 CE provisions is discretionary. However, if units use the section 603 CE, they must be implemented in an area designated under section 602. Also, traditional CEs identified in chapter 30 of FSH1909.15 may be used in designated areas. Q. What requirements apply to the section 603 CE? A. Section 603 allows for an insect and disease activities to be categorically excluded from documentation in an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement and exempt from pre-decisional objections when the project:

maximizes the retention of old growth and large trees;

considers best available scientific information; and

is developed through a collaborative process that: o includes multiple interested parties representing diverse interests; and o is transparent and non-exclusive, or meets the requirements of a resource advisory committee under

subsections (c) through (f) of section 205 of the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act of 2000.

An insect and disease project that carries out part of a proposal that complies with the eligibility requirements of the Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration Program would meet the requirement that it has been developed collaboratively.

May 1, 2014

14 | P a g e

Section 603 imposes limitations on the use of the section 603 CE. An insect and disease project that is categorically excluded:

must not exceed 3,000 acres;

must be located in the Wildland-Urban Interface, or must be in Condition Classes 2 or 3 in Fire Regime Groups I, II, or III, outside the Wildland-Urban Interface; and

must not include the establishment of permanent roads, but may allow for necessary maintenance and repairs of the existing permanent road system and may allow for the construction of temporary roads that would have to be decommissioned no later than three years after completion of the project. (see FSH 1909.15, 32.2 (3))

The section 603 CE may not be used for insect or disease projects in areas:

Congressionally designated as wilderness or a wilderness study area;

on which, by Act of Congress or Presidential proclamation, the removal of vegetation is restricted or prohibited; or

in which an insect or disease project would be inconsistent with the applicable land management plan; or

outside of landscape-scale areas designated under section 602.

Q. How should the responsible official determine if the section 603 CE is appropriate for a project?

A. As with all projects, responsible officials are required to conduct scoping. In addition to scoping, section 603 requires that projects be developed through a collaborative effort. This collaborative effort and scoping should help inform the responsible official as to which NEPA document is appropriate. Also, agency policy requires that when deciding whether to utilize a categorical exclusion two screens apply. First, the proposed action must fit the category. In this case the proposed action must meet the criteria in subsections (b), (c), (d), and (e) of section 603. The second screen is the consideration of extraordinary circumstances. The responsible official must determine if extraordinary circumstances precludes the use of a CE, as identified in 36 CFR 220.6(b) and FSH1909.15 (31.2):

”The mere presence of one or more of these resource conditions does not preclude use of a categorical exclusion (CE). It is the existence of a cause-effect relationship between a proposed action and the potential effect on these resource conditions and if such a relationship exists, the degree of the potential effect of a proposed action on these resource conditions that determine whether extraordinary circumstances exist. (36 CFR 220.6(b))

In considering extraordinary circumstances, the responsible official should determine whether or not any of the listed resources are present, and if so, the degree of the potential effects on the listed resources. If the degree of potential effect raises uncertainty over its significance, then an extraordinary circumstance exists, precluding use of a categorical exclusion.”

Q. How should the responsible official meet the requirements for a collaborative process specified in section 603? A. To use the section 603 CE, a project must be developed and implemented through a collaborative process. To meet the collaborative process requirement in section 603(b)(1)(C), the responsible official should: (1) include multiple interested persons representing diverse interests in the development and implementation of a project ;and (2) use a process that is transparent and nonexclusive. Collaboration should involve States, counties, communities, tribal governments, non-governmental organizations, and interested stakeholders in a public process to provide input on development, implementation, and monitoring of projects. Efforts should be made to involve a variety of diverse local and national interests and engage key stakeholders in collaboration throughout the life of the project, from project development through implementation and monitoring. Some key principles behind collaboration should include:

May 1, 2014

15 | P a g e

Identify and Involve Relevant Stakeholders. The responsible official at the appropriate level shall seek to involve the public in a collaborative manner while developing the project. Seek early involvement of Federal, State, and local government agencies; tribal governments; non-governmental organizations; communities; and interested groups or individuals, including resource advisory committees, fire safe councils, resource conservation districts, and watershed councils. A cross-section of businesses, including timber industry representatives, should also be part of the collaborative group. Collaboration for projects is expected to go beyond the public involvement requirements of NEPA analysis. This involvement should begin at the project design stage and continue throughout the life of the project.

Design a Strategy to Conduct an Open, Inclusive, and Transparent Process. Establish clear objectives, roles, and responsibilities for all participants at the beginning. The process should create incentives for a variety of interested individuals and organizations to participate, yet the decision space should be clearly defined at the start. The responsible official must clearly explain the project principles, share ideas, and ask for input from collaborators. Responsible officials shall not ask the group for a consensus decision, rather the collaborators should share ideas and priorities with the responsible official. The method for facilitating the collaborative process should be discussed and decided upon early in the process. The responsible official shall work to set realistic expectations, while encouraging participants to think creatively, optimistically, and pragmatically throughout the process. It should be clear from the outset that the decision is the sole purview of the responsible official.

Plan for Implementation and Evaluation as Part of the Collaborative Effort. Share information widely and continuously. Utilize local knowledge in conjunction with scientific research. Honor commitments made by the responsible official to the collaborative group, consistent with existing laws and regulations. The collaborative group may remain involved in monitoring after project completion.

Document the Collaborative Process in the Decision Memo. Efforts undertaken to meet the collaborative process requirement should be documented in the decision memo.

Q. Is a section 603 CE project that carries out a part of a proposal that meets the eligibility requirement of the CFLRP required to be developed and implemented using the collaborative process requirements in section 603(b)(1)(C)? A. To meet the eligibility requirements of the CFLRP, a proposal must be developed collaboratively. Under section 603(b)(2), a project that carries out part of a proposal that meets the eligibility requirements of the CFLRP is considered to have met the collaborative process requirement for using the section 603 CE. No further collaboration is required. Q. Can a Secure Rural Schools (SRS) Act Resource Advisory Committee (RAC) propose an insect and disease project to be carried out by the section 603 CE? A. The role of a SRS RAC is limited by the SRS Act and the RAC charter. A RAC would be authorized to review an insect and disease project proposed by an interest group or other person and recommend such a project to FS. If the responsible official approves the project, the responsible official in his or her discretion may determine whether use of the section 603 CE to carry out the project is appropriate. Because the process used by the RAC is collaborative, the RAC’s recommendation of the project would meet the collaborative process requirements in section 603.

Q. Does the 3,000 acre limitation apply to the size of the identified project area or to the number of acres treated?

A. The acreage limitation applies to the number of acres treated. If the identified project area is greater than 3000 acres but 3,000 or less acres will be treated, the project is within the 3000 acre limitation for the CE. If the identified project area is 3,000 acres or less and the entire project area or less is treated, the project also is within the 3000 acre limitation for the CE.

May 1, 2014

16 | P a g e

Q. Do the requirements for scoping (36 CFR 220.4(e) and FSH 1909.15, 11) apply to projects categorically excluded under section 603? A. Public notice and scoping are required by section 603(f). Projects implemented under section 603 should be entered on the schedule of proposed actions via the Project Appeals and Litigation System (PALS). This will assist in providing public notice. Units should follow their processes for scoping and collaboration, which should be in compliance with FSH 1909.15.

Q. Can more than one project categorically excluded under section 603 occur in the same landscape-scale area?

A. Yes, more than one project categorically excluded under section 603 can occur within each designated landscape-scale area under section 602, so long as each project does not exceed 3,000 acres and the use of a CE is not precluded after the application of the screening criteria for extraordinary circumstance.

Q. Can we utilize this Congressionally-created CE with our recent administratively-adopted CE to decommission unauthorized roads? A. Yes, you can use more than one CE category when undertaking independent activities. Care must be taken to ensure the underlying rationale for each project’s use of a CE category is documented and clear, including the screening for extraordinary circumstances. Furthermore, in cases where two different CE categories are being applied in overlapping or adjacent areas, units should look at them cumulatively and decide if the use of the CEs is appropriate.

Q. Will the section 603 CE be part of the 1909.15 Handbook? A. FSH 1909.15, Section 32.3, Categories Established by Statute, is being amended to include this new CE. Q. Does the section 603 CE need to be entered into the Project Appeals and Litigation System (PALS)? A. Yes, units need to report on the use of the CE through PALS. Use of PALS will facilitate the Act’s annual reporting requirements to Congress and minimize the need for field level inquiries and data gathering. Q. Will the responsible official be required to prepare a Decision Memo for a section 603 CE? A. Yes, the forthcoming amendment to FSH 1909.15, Section 32.3, Categories Established by Statute, will identify this requirement. Documenting use of the CE through a decision memo will facilitate reporting requirements associated with the CE’s use as required by the Act. Also, use of a decision memo will provide a method to document compliance with the criteria associated with the CE in section 603. Please pay particular attention in documenting the collaborative efforts used to develop the project and how the project will be carried out in a collaborative manner. Q. Section 603(f) requires Public Notice. Does public notice require publishing a legal notice in the newspaper of record? A. No, there is no requirement to publish a legal notice. However, projects implemented under section 603 should be entered on the schedule of proposed actions via the Project Appeals and Litigation System (PALS). The PALS application provides early public notice by automatically uploading the information onto the unit’s schedule of proposed actions. The public notice requirement will be met by entering the project into PALS. Should units decide that publishing legal notices or other notices in local newspapers is appropriate to meet their public involvement and collaboration objectives, they have the discretion to utilize such methods. Additionally, if a project is being implemented using the section 603 CE, the project must be developed and implemented through a collaborative process. Q. Will the section 603 CE be subject to appeals, objections or any other administrative review process? A. Projects relying on the section 603 CE will not be subject to appeals, objections, or an administrative review. Q. Will decisions under section 603 be subject to judicial review? A. Yes. Decisions for projects carried out under section 602(d) that are documented in an EA or EIS also will be subject to judicial review but that review will be carried out in accordance with section 106 of HFRA.

May 1, 2014

17 | P a g e

Q. Is this authority permanent? A. The authorities to carry out projects under section 602(d)(2) require scoping be initiated by September 30, 2018; therefore, no further projects can be initiated after that date and utilize section 602. Section 603 CE authorities are permanent. Q. What is the difference between the CE for applied silvicultural assessments in section 404 of HFRA and the CE in section 603? A. The Applied Silvicultural Assessment CE is for research to treat 1,000 acres in a silvicultural manner. Whereas, the section 603 CE is for any activity whose goal is to reduce the risk or extent of, or increase the resilience to, insect or disease infestation in designated areas.

Q. Can otherwise available funds be used to cover the planning costs associated with carrying out projects under sections 602 or section 603?

A. Yes. There are no restrictions, unlike the Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration Program, on using otherwise available funds for planning and NEPA analysis to carry out sections 602 or 603.

Section 8302: Forest Service Participation in Agriculture Conservation Experienced Services (ACES) program Q. What is the purpose of the Agriculture Conservation Experienced Services (ACES) program? A. Congress authorized the ACES Program in Section 1252, Subtitle F of Title XII of the Food Security Act of 1985, as amended by the 2008 Farm Bill. The ACES program allows NRCS to utilize experienced workers to help agency employees address workload gaps and better serve our customers. It is an opportunity to obtain the services of experienced workers on a temporary basis through agreements with eligible nonprofit organizations. The program has been expanded through the Agricultural Act of 2014 (2014 Farm Bill) to include the Forest Service. Q. Who is eligible to participate in the Agriculture Conservation Experienced Services (ACES) program? A. The program is focused on individuals who are age 55 or older. The Forest Service, through request for proposals process, will select a nonprofit organization(s) through which to carryout ACES under a national cooperative agreement(s).

Section 8303: Extension of Stewardship Contracts Authority Regarding use of Designation by Prescription to all Thinning Sales under National Forest Management Act of 1976 Q. Section 8303 revised Section 14(g) of the National Forest Management Act of 1976 to specify that, in addition to individual marking of timber and forest products, Designation by Description and Designation by Prescription are also valid methods for designating trees, portions of trees, and forest products. The designation of trees and forest products, as well as the supervision of harvesting activities, must be conducted by employees of the Department of Agriculture who (1) have no personal interest in the purchase or harvest of products and (2) are not directly or indirectly in the employment of the purchaser. Furthermore, Designation by Prescription and Designation by Description may be supervised by the use of post-harvest cruise, sample weight scaling, or other methods determined by the Secretary of Agriculture to be appropriate. How does the Forest Service plan to implement this direction? A. Section 8303 provides clarity to the direction that the Forest Service has implemented since the passage of the National Forest Management Act. Where appropriate to meet land management objectives and to protect the Government’s financial interests, the Forest Service has used Designation by Description and Designation by Prescription

May 1, 2014

18 | P a g e

utilizing either Forest Service employees or procurement contracts requiring that the contractor marking the timber does not have a personal interest in the purchase or harvest of the products and is not directly or indirectly in the employment of the purchaser. Contract provisions that use these approaches are available on a national basis and include instructions for their use. These provisions are periodically reviewed to determine their continued applicability to existing situations. In addition, the Forest Service has utilized both weight and sample weight scaling as cost effective measures to determine volumes for payment. Furthermore, the Forest Service handbook will be amended to include the clarity in the Farm Bill pertaining to the use of Designation by Description and Designation by Prescription.