It is about time the county grew a set and sued the FEDS into submission....Time to separate the CBWR from the O&C Lands as well and it will not happen unless we exert our local authority....Rob T.     

Coos County
April 16, 2019
PRESS RELEASE
For Immediate Release: Coos County Litigation

Effective immediately, Coos County is entering into litigation against the U.S. Department of
Interior (DOI), acting by and through the Bureau of Land Management, and the Secretary of the
Interior, David Bernhardt.

The Board of Commissioners voted today in favor of seeking a federal judgment requiring, in part, that the DOI to meet its statutory duties under the 1939 Coos Bay Wagon Road Act (1939 Act). For many years, DOI has failed to convene a committee designed by the 1939 Act to fairly appraise Coos Bay Wagon Road lands. Convening this committee every ten (10) years is an unconditional requirement of the 1939 Act. DOI’s failure has wrought tangible harm and forced the County to make difficult financial decisions.

The County views this lawsuit as a last resort after years of efforts to bring DOI into compliance.  While this litigation continues, Coos County will not provide further comments.  “All we are asking the federal government to do is comply with their own law,” stated Commissioner Robert “Bob” Main. “Since we have been asking them for over six years, we have no other choice than to believe they aren’t listening.”

BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
250 No. Baxter Street, Coquille, Oregon 97423
(541) 396-7535
FAX (541) 396-1010 / TDD (800) 735-2900
E-mail: bbrooks@co.coos.or.us
JOHN SWEET
MELISSA CRIBBINS
​ROBERT “BOB” MAIN

The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or Commission) with the participation of the cooperating agencies listed below, has prepared a draft environmental impact statement (EIS) for the Jordan Cove Liquefied Natural Gas Project proposed by Jordan Cove Energy Project LP (Jordan Cove) and the Pacific Connector Gas Pipeline Project proposed by Pacific Connector Gas Pipeline L.P. (Pacific Connector) (collectively referred to as the Jordan Cove Energy Project or Project). Under Section 3 of the Natural Gas Act (NGA), Jordan Cove requests authorization to liquefy at a terminal in Coos Bay, Oregon up to 1.04 billion cubic feet of natural gas per day for export for to overseas markets. Pacific Connector seeks a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity under Section 7 of the NGA to construct and operate an interstate natural gas transmission pipeline providing about 1.2 billion cubic feet per day of natural gas from the Malin hub to the Jordan Cove terminal, crossing portions of Klamath, Jackson, Douglas, and Coos Counties, Oregon.

The draft EIS assesses the potential environmental effects of the construction and operation of the Project in accordance with the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). As described in the draft EIS, the FERC staff concludes that approval of the Project would result in a number of significant environmental impacts; however, the majority of impacts would be less than significant because of the impact avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures proposed by Jordan Cove and Pacific Connector and those recommended by staff in the draft EIS.

The United States Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management (BLM); U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service (Forest Service); Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation); U.S. Department of Energy; U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; U.S. Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife Service; U.S. Department of Commerce National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's National Marine Fisheries Service; U.S. Department of Homeland Security Coast Guard; the Coquille Indian Tribe; and the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration within the U.S. Department of Transportation participated as cooperating agencies in preparation of this EIS. Cooperating agencies have jurisdiction by law or special expertise with respect to resources potentially affected by the proposal and participate in the NEPA analysis. The cooperating agencies provided input into the conclusions and recommendations presented in the draft EIS. Following issuance of the final EIS, the cooperating agencies will issue subsequent decisions, determinations, permits or authorizations for the Project in accordance with each individual agency's regulatory requirements.

The BLM, with the concurrence of the Forest Service and Reclamation, would adopt and use the EIS to consider issuing a right-of-way grant for the portion of the Project on federal lands. Other cooperating agencies would use this EIS in their regulatory process, and to satisfy compliance with NEPA and other related federal environmental laws (e.g., the National Historic Preservation Act).

The BLM and the Forest Service would also use this EIS to evaluate proposed amendments to their District or National Forest land management plans that would make provision for the Pacific Connector pipeline. In order to consider the Pacific Connector right-of-way grant, the BLM must amend the affected Resource Management Plans (RMPs). The BLM therefore proposes to amend the RMPs to re-allocate all lands within the proposed temporary use area and right-of-way to a District-Designated Reserve, with management direction to manage the lands for the purposes of the Pacific Connector right-of-way. Approximately 885 acres would be re-allocated. District-Designated Reserve allocations establish specific management for a specific use or to protect specific values and resources. In accordance with Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 36 CFR 219.16, the Forest Service gives notice of its intent to consider amendments of Land and Resource Management Plans (LRMP) for the Umpqua, Rogue River and Winema National Forests. Proposed amendments of LRMPs include reallocation of matrix lands to Late Successional Reserves and site-specific exemptions from standards and guidelines and other LRMP requirements to allow construction of the Pacific Connector pipeline. Exemptions from standards and guidelines include requirements to protect known sites of Survey and Manage species, changes in visual quality objectives at specific locations, limitations on detrimental soil conditions, removal of effective shade at perennial stream crossings and the construction of utility corridors in riparian areas. Further information on Forest Service LRMP amendments is included below.

The Commission mailed a copy of the Notice of Availability of the draft EIS to federal, state, and local government representatives and agencies; elected officials; environmental and public interest groups; Indian Tribes; potentially affected landowners and other interested individuals and groups; and newspapers and libraries in the Project area. The draft EIS is only available in electronic format. It may be viewed and downloaded from the FERC's website (www.ferc.gov), on the Environmental Documents page (https://www.ferc.gov/​industries/​gas/​enviro/​eis.asp). In addition, the draft EIS may be accessed by using the eLibrary link on the FERC's website. Click on the eLibrary link (https://www.ferc.gov/​docs-filing/​elibrary.asp), click on General Search, and enter the docket Start Printed Page 13649number in the “Docket Number” field, excluding the last three digits (i.e., CP17-494 or CP17-495). Be sure you have selected an appropriate date range. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at FercOnlineSupport@ferc.gov or toll free at (866) 208-3676, or for TTY, contact (202) 502-8659.

Any person wishing to comment on the draft EIS may do so. Your comments should focus on the draft EIS's disclosure and discussion of potential environmental effects, reasonable alternatives, and measures to avoid or lessen environmental impacts. To ensure consideration of your comments on the proposal in the final EIS, it is important that the Commission receive your comments on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on July 5, 2019.
​
For your convenience, there are four methods you can use to submit your comments to the Commission.[1] The Commission will provide equal consideration to all comments received, whether filed in written form or provided verbally. The Commission encourages electronic filing of comments and has staff available to assist you at (866) 208-3676 or FercOnlineSupport@ferc.gov. Please carefully follow these instructions so that your comments are properly recorded.

(1) You can file your comments electronically using the eComment feature on the Commission's website (www.ferc.gov) under the link to Documents and Filings. This is an easy method for submitting brief, text-only comments on a project;

(2) You can file your comments electronically by using the eFiling feature on the Commission's website (www.ferc.gov) under the link to Documents and Filings. With eFiling, you can provide comments in a variety of formats by attaching them as a file with your submission. New eFiling users must first create an account by clicking on “eRegister.” If you are filing a comment on a particular project, please select “Comment on a Filing” as the filing type; or

(3) You can file a paper copy of your comments by mailing them to the following address. Be sure to reference the Project docket numbers (CP17-494-000 and CP17-495-000) with your submission: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Room 1A, Washington, DC 20426

​(4) In lieu of sending written or electronic comments, the Commission invites you to attend a public comment session that will be held in the Project area to receive comments on the draft EIS. The dates, locations, and times of these sessions will be provided in a supplemental notice.


Any person seeking to become a party to the proceeding must file a motion to intervene pursuant to Rule 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedures (18 CFR 385.214). Motions to intervene are more fully described at http://www.ferc.gov/​resources/​guides/​how-to/​intervene.asp. Only intervenors have the right to seek rehearing or judicial review of the Commission's decision. The Commission grants affected landowners and others with environmental concerns intervenor status upon showing good cause by stating that they have a clear and direct interest in this proceeding which no other party can adequately represent. Simply filing environmental comments will not give you intervenor status, but you do not need intervenor status to have your comments considered. Subsequent decisions, determination, permits, and authorization by the cooperating agencies are subject to the administrative procedures of each respective agency.

​Questions?

Additional information about the Project is available from the Commission's Office of External Affairs, at (866) 208-FERC, or on the FERC website (www.ferc.gov) using the eLibrary link. The eLibrary link also provides access to the texts of all formal documents issued by the Commission, such as orders, notices, and rulemakings.

In addition, the Commission offers a free service called eSubscription that allows you to keep track of all formal issuances and submittals in specific dockets. This can reduce the amount of time you spend researching proceedings by automatically providing you with notification of these filings, document summaries, and direct links to the documents. Go to www.ferc.gov/​docs-filing/​esubscription.asp.

Dated: March 29, 2019.

​Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
Footnotes

1.  The contents of your comment including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information may be made available to the public. While you may request that your personal identifying information be withheld from public view, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.

Back to Citation [FR Doc. 2019-06715 Filed 4-4-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P

OREGON FARM BUREAU STATEMENT ON HAMMONDS GRAZING PERMIT REISSUANCE
News Release from Oregon Farm Bureau
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Oregon Farm Bureau statement on Hammonds grazing permit reissuance
SALEM, OREGON, February 15, 2019 – “On Feb. 14, 2014, the Bureau of Land Management revoked the grazing permit of Hammond Ranches. Almost five years to the day later, on Feb. 13, 2019, BLM signed documents that reissued the permit, allowing the Hammond family to get back to the business of raising cattle in eastern Oregon.

“This reissued grazing permit signals that justice has finally been achieved for this rural family. While nobody can restore what the Hammonds have lost to years of prosecutorial overreach and bureaucratic vendetta, we are grateful that this awful chapter is closed.

“Oregon Farm Bureau was proud to play a role in advocating on the Hammonds’ behalf, including gathering over 25,000 online signatures and working directly with officials, so the family can return to doing what they love and keep a proud heritage of ranching alive.”
###


* Note to Editors: “Farm Bureau” is a registered trademark; please capitalize in all cases.
Oregon Farm Bureau (OFB) is a grassroots, nonpartisan, nonprofit, general farm organization representing the interests of farming and ranching families in the public and policymaking arenas. First established in Oregon at the county level in 1919 and the state level in 1932, Farm Bureau is organized in all 36 counties.

​Oregon Farm Bureau President Sharon Waterman is an OFB Hall of Fame honoree and operates a Century Ranch raising sheep, cattle, and timber in Bandon. She is OFB’s 16th president.

Contact Info:
Contact: Anne Marie Moss, annemarie@oregonfb.org

Cascade Policy Institute recently commissioned economist Eric Fruits, Ph.D. to do a comparative analysis of nine Western states with large Common School Trust Land portfolios to determine under what circumstances it might make sense for states to sell these lands and invest the net proceeds into stocks, bonds, and other financial instruments.

Management of Oregon’s 1.5 million acre portfolio of Common School Trust Lands has long been a contentious issue. Twenty-five years ago, Oregon Attorney General Charles S. Crookham issued an opinion clarifying that Common School Trust Lands must be managed primarily for revenue maximization.

But environmental groups have repeatedly lobbied and litigated to eliminate revenue generation from the Trust Lands, claiming that commodity production is an outdated concept. They finally succeeded during 2013-15, when Oregon’s Trust Land portfolio lost $360,000/year in net operating income. Those losses had to be paid for by Oregon public school students.

In his report, A Proposal to Generate Adequate Returns from Common School Trust Lands, Dr. Fruits concluded that revenue generated for schools by the Oregon Common School Trust Lands likely would go up by 600% if the lands were sold and the net income were invested in the existing Common School Fund.

Related Posts:
Coos County Grants One Year Extension Approval for LNG Pipeline for the JCEP
BOC ~ Notice of Deliberation on JCEP Tuesday August 16, 2016
Public Meeting for Coos County April 19 & North Bend April 26, 2016 on JCEP
Open Letter to the Coos County Board of Commissioners Concerning the JCEP
Eminent Domain Protest in Coos Bay Monday April 4, 2016 ~ 5pm at The Mill Casino
LTE ~ Proponent Kissing Off Local Concerns About JCEP
LTE ~ More Transparency for the SCCF
Coos Bay School District Contract w/Superintendent Dawn Granger March 2014
LTE ~ Coos Bay School Board Ignoring Parents & Students
LTE ~ Leshley Still Uninformed
BOC ~ County Dog Board, Prisoner Release, Public Meeting for October 13, 14, & 15
Board of Commissioners Op-Ed for Measure 6-152 Transient Occupancy Tax
Coos Bay Alternative Location for Waste Water Treatment Plant Oct. 6, 2015
Bandon Cheese Factory Receives Private Financing & Still Pays No Property Taxes
LTE ~ Leshley Don't Know Dick About the JCEP Work Camp
Jody McCaffree Appeals LNG Road Construction Coos County Planning Oct. 9, 2015
Do Enterprise Zones Work? ~ An Ideopolis Policy Paper February 2011
Educational Enterprise Zone Workshop Roseburg OR Thursday, September 17, 2015
Coos County Planning Decisions on LNG & Effected Roads
LTE ~ CEP appears to be great for Canadian Veresen / JCEP
LTE ~ LNG Pipeline Man and His Bag of Money  
LTE ~ Should We Be Worried Dealing with Veresen and the LNG
LTE~ A Package of Rancor for Coos County Commissioner John Sweet

Wild Rogue River Non-Commercial Float Permit Lottery Moves to Recreation.gov

The Bureau of Land Management & U.S. Forest Service are pleased to make the Rogue River Non-Commercial Float Permit Lottery application process more convenient by making it available online. Non-Commercial whitewater boaters hoping to float the wild section of the Rogue River during the 2017 season will now be able to submit their lottery applications online at: www.recreation.gov. Permits are required May 15 through October 15 to float the wild section of the Rogue National Wild and Scenic River, which extends from Grave Creek to Watson Creek.

The lottery application period will be open December 1, 2016 through January 31, 2017 and will only be available through Recreation.gov.  There is a fee of $6.00 per application to apply to the lottery.  More information and instructions are available at:  www.blm.gov/rogueriver. Lottery application assistance is also available during the open period by calling 1-877-444-NRRS (6777).  

With the permit lottery offered through Recreation.gov, both successful and unsuccessful lottery applicants will be notified for the first time and those notifications will be provided on February 10, 2017, twenty days earlier than the previous system. Applicants will also be able to check their Recreation.gov profile to view details of their lottery results.
After the lottery closes, all successful permit reservations and float space openings resulting from cancellations, will be managed by the Smullin Visitor Center at Rand.  For more information email the Smullin Visitor Center:  BLM_OR_MD_Rogue_River_Mail@blm.gov.

Related Posts:
TNC Benefits from States Loss & $450 Million More from Taxpayers for LWCF
NOAA Proposed Recovery Plan for Coho Salmon September 2015
Fish and Wildlife Commission delists wolves statewide in split vote (4-2) ‏
Coos Bay Area Chamber of Commerce Breakfast Meeting w/ODFW October 16, 2015
Coos County Approves Nature Conservancy's Tide Gate for China Camp Creek
ODFW ~ Conservation Opportunity Areas for Stealing Private Property
USACE ~ Comment on Permit Application Process Wednesday November 18, 2015
USFWS ~ Treating Private Property off the Bandon Marsh
The Mosquitoes Return to the Coquille Valley
Why does the Government Own & Hoard Resources?
Senator Wyden’s O&C Plan will Bankrupt Counties Part #2
Senator Wyden's O&C Plan will Bankrupt Counties  Part #1
Senator Whitsett---Oregon: Transfer public lands from feds?
Natural Resources Committee--State Forests Management Superior to Federal Forests
O&C Land---Timber Bill and Log Prices
BLM---Lawsuit expands to lock-up 90 million bd-ft of timber    
B-Corporations:  The Redefining of what it means to be a Corporation
The Federalization of Local Urban Renewal Agencies
The National Fish & Wildlife Foundation

Hey Folks,
 
A bad piece of legislation concerning the management of federal forest land has passed the house and is headed to the Senate.  The problem with this legislation is that it ignores the root of the problem and that is federal ownership of state land. 
 
Here is a statement from the Natural Resource committee:  “One year ago tomorrow, the House passed the Resilient Federal Forests Act (H.R. 2647) to address the nation's overgrown, fire-prone federal forests. Since then, 8.5 million acres have been destroyed, including 2.3 million acres this year alone.”
 
The citizens of all 50 states have to call all the Senators on the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry to let them know that the federal government should relinquish all authority and ownership of federal land and allow it to revert back to the prospective county, or state.  
 
The reason Coos County should be very concerned with this bill is that it could allow an Indian tribe the ability to manage federal land in the county, including the O&C lands and the Coos Bay Wagon Road land.  The county would lose money to allow some other entity to manage land we are perfectly capable of managing ourselves.   Plus, these management agreements erode the sovereignty of both our Nation and the Indian Nations….Rob T. 

Forest Service Publishes Region’s Travel Analysis Reports

Release Date: Dec 16, 2015  

Portland, Ore -- The U.S. Forest Service Pacific Northwest Region released 17 travel analysis reports this week that outline existing road systems and identify opportunities to achieve a more sustainable system of roads for each national forest in the Pacific Northwest. These travel analysis reports are part of nationwide requirement involving national forests across the country.

These reports are not decision documents—instead, they provide an analysis of where the existing road system is today. All future proposed actions and decisions will involve further opportunities for public input and engagement at the project-level under national environmental policy act processes, according to guidance issued by Regional Forester Jim Peña to all national forests.

“The release of these travel analysis reports is a critical step to ensure our future road system investments promote the greatest good for the great number in the long run,” said Peña. “Given the long-term funding expectations, these reports will help the Forest Service strike the right balance between meeting a diversity of access needs while ensuring the health of your forests and streams.”

The reports will inform future decisions on where and how to invest limited resources on building new roads, managing current roads, or decommissioning old roads. Travel analysis reports identify roads “likely needed” and “likely not needed” in the future, as well as opportunities to change road operation and maintenance strategies, decommission, convert to other use, or add to the system.

As part of a national travel management process, the Forest Service is working to achieve a financially and ecologically sustainable road system that meets access needs, minimizes adverse environmental impacts, and reflects long-term funding expectations.

Through a variety of processes, national forests have worked closely with the public and stakeholder groups to collect information and feedback about social, economic, and ecological concerns and impacts around forest road systems. For many national forests, this is the first time they have looked at their entire road system in a comprehensive way.

The Forest Service manages approximately 90,000 miles of roads in Oregon and Washington that must be maintained to provide safe public and administrative access for a variety of uses, including recreation, fire suppression, commercial activities, forest restoration, and other management purposes. It is a challenge to maintain all roads to proper safety and environmental standards due to increased use, aging infrastructure, and decreasing budgets. Many roads, built between 1950 and 1990, have exceeded their designed lifespan and require costly repairs. Unmaintained roads and infrastructure can impact water quality and wildlife habitat, especially fish-bearing streams. Backlog maintenance projects top $1.2 billion, and funds available for road maintenance each year are only about 15% of what is needed to fully maintain the current road system.

Of the 90,000 miles of Forest Service roads in Oregon and Washington, about 2/3 of those are currently open and maintained for both public and administrative purposes. The other 1/3 of the current road system is managed for specific project uses. These roads are opened during project activities, and closed and put in storage between uses. The travel analysis reports indicate that about 12% of the overall road system is “likely not needed” for resource management purposes in the future. However, the majority of roads in this category are part of the closed and stored road system. Only about 20% (approximately 2,000 miles) of the roads shown as “likely not needed” in the travel analysis reports come from the group of roads that are currently open to the public.

Travel analysis reports for individual national forests in Oregon and Washington can be found here.

The Pacific Northwest Region consists of 16 National Forests, 59 District Offices, a National Scenic Area, and a National Grassland comprising 24.7 million acres in Oregon and Washington and employing approximately 3,550 people. To learn more about the U.S. Forest Service in the Pacific Northwest, please visit www.fs.usda.gov/r6.  

###

Travel Analysis Reports by Forest - Released December 2015
•    Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area

•    Colville National Forest

•    Deschutes National Forest

•    Fremont-Winema National Forest

•    Gifford Pinchot National Forest

•    Malheur National Forest

•    Mt. Baker Snoqualmie National Forest

•    Mt. Hood National Forest

•    Ochoco National Forest

•    Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest

•    Olympic National Forest

•    Rogue-River Siskiyou National Forest

•    Siuslaw National Forest

•    Umatilla National Forest

•    Umpqua National Forest

•    Wallowa-Whitman National Forest

•    Willamette National Forest

Related Posts:
USACE Quarterly Permitting Process Meetings Coos County Feb. May, Aug. & Nov
TNC Benefits from States Loss & $450 Million More from Taxpayers for LWCF
NOAA Proposed Recovery Plan for Coho Salmon September 2015
Fish and Wildlife Commission delists wolves statewide in split vote (4-2) ‏
Coos Bay Area Chamber of Commerce Breakfast Meeting w/ODFW October 16, 2015
Coos County Approves Nature Conservancy's Tide Gate for China Camp Creek
ODFW ~ Conservation Opportunity Areas for Stealing Private Property
USACE ~ Comment on Permit Application Process Wednesday November 18, 2015
USFWS ~ Treating Private Property off the Bandon Marsh
The Mosquitoes Return to the Coquille Valley
Why does the Government Own & Hoard Resources?
Senator Wyden’s O&C Plan will Bankrupt Counties Part #2
Senator Wyden's O&C Plan will Bankrupt Counties  Part #1
Senator Whitsett---Oregon: Transfer public lands from feds?
Natural Resources Committee--State Forests Management Superior to Federal Forests
O&C Land---Timber Bill and Log Prices
BLM---Lawsuit expands to lock-up 90 million bd-ft of timber    
B-Corporations:  The Redefining of what it means to be a Corporation
The Federalization of Local Urban Renewal Agencies
The National Fish & Wildlife Foundation

Hey Patriots,

Please tell me?
What the HELL is the matter with Republicans in DC?
 
Did they get their spines removed? 
 
The US Congress reenacted the Land Water Conservation Fund for three more years.  Both houses have a republican majority, yet the party of limited government cannot find the fortitude to stop funneling tax dollars into groups driven by environmental extremism.   The house republicans negotiatiated a deal with the democrats over bans on crude oil exports. 
 
The cost of this green slush fund will top 450 million dollars and part of the money goes for the Bandon Marsh Mosquito Preserve & NWR.      
 
Scroll down after clicking the following link and on the right side of the page there is a list of projects funded by the LWCF, including the Bandon Marsh NWR.  http://www.lwcfcoalition.org/oregon.html
 
The western states will never be free from federal ownership until the money funding these land acquisitions begin to dry up….Rob T.  

ARLINGTON, VA | December 16, 2015

Congress has released its omnibus federal spending package, which sets funding levels for government agencies for Fiscal Year 2016. It also contains a number of conservation and environmental provisions that will affect America’s lands, waters, and wildlife, including a three-year reauthorization of the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) and funding that program at $450 million next year. The House and Senate are expected to vote on the bill later this week.

The Nature Conservancy released the following statement from its global Managing Director for Public Policy Lynn Scarlett in response to the omnibus bill:

“The omnibus bill shows promise on many of the top conservation issues facing our nation today. The bill includes greater overall funding for critical land and water conservation work that supports secure and prosperous communities across America, and we are grateful for that commitment.

“We are particularly eager to see the Land and Water Conservation Fund continue its critical work for conservation and recreation. The short-term reauthorization of LWCF in the omnibus is helpful progress that will allow continued investment in the lands and waters that sustain our communities, boost our economy and safeguard our environment. And, it will do so with higher funding next year than the program has had for many years. We’re happy to see this vital and successful 50-year-old program continue to deliver important economic, recreation, and natural resource benefits to the American people.

“However, we—and many other Americans from coast to coast—believe we must continue to work toward a fully funded and permanent future for LWCF. Conserving our nation’s lands and waters is not a short-term need; it is a long-term foundation for our future. Congressional leaders on LWCF fought hard for a permanent reauthorization, and we are grateful for their dedication and persistence. We’ll do everything we can to support that continued effort to make a sustainable, long-term future for LWCF become reality.

“In another positive development, the omnibus bill makes enhanced tax deductions for conservation easement donations permanent. This ensures that one of the most effective tools for conserving private working lands across the country will be available for future generations. In addition, dozens of harmful riders that would have undermined environmental law were originally under consideration, but were dropped from the final bill. We appreciate the efforts of members of Congress who steadfastly opposed the riders.

“But we are disappointed this bill did not include a fix for the wildfire funding problem that has plagued forest health and restoration efforts for years. This was a missed opportunity, despite bipartisan support, a great deal of effort from congressional champions and broad consensus that action is urgently needed. We will continue to work with Congress to provide a solution next year.”

“In all, the omnibus bill advances the critical benefits that conservation of lands and waters provide to American communities and families. We are grateful for all of the hard work of our champions in Congress who made this possible. This omnibus is a hopeful signal for the even greater conservation policy progress we believe is necessary and possible in the very near future.

The Nature Conservancy is a leading conservation organization working around the world to conserve the lands and waters on which all life depends. Visit The Nature Conservancy on the web at www.nature.org. To learn about the Conservancy’s global initiatives, visit www.nature.org/global. To keep up with current Conservancy news, follow @nature_press on Twitter.

Hey Folks,

The following is the NOAA draft proposal for the area including the south coast for your reading pleasure.  For those on Johnson and Two-Mile there is even a special section.  These proposed rules will affect not only agriculture, but also timberlands. 
 
Currently ODF is considering extended riparian buffer rules.  Several of you may wonder why you should be concerned.  The new regulations will affect some operations in what NOAA deems "no kill" of beavers rule included in the proposal.
 
Skip to 6.3.5 Strategies and Actions for the Mid-South Coast Stratum on Page 168 if you do not want to go through the entire proposal…..Rob T.  

Healthy Forests, Healthy Communities
Members of the Crook County Court are now considering Oregon Wild’s plan to lock up wide swaths of the Ochoco National Forest and Prineville BLM District.

In addition to lobbying local officials, the group is also pressuring Congress to pass legislation to make these land set-asides permanent. Oregon Wild’s plan is to create 26,000 acres of new wilderness, and set aside an additional 286,000 acres as a “National Recreation Area,” which only brings more top-down regulation and bureaucracy from Washington, D.C.

We need your help. Please take two minutes and click here to tell the Court and your members of Congress that you oppose this wilderness and land set-aside plan. Tell them these lands should be managed for multiple uses and benefits such as wildfire mitigation and forest access, so more citizens can enjoy these lands in the future.

Oregon Wild’s plan is bad news for Central Oregon’s economy and environment. It is intended to curb sustainable forest management activities, as well as motorized and Off-Highway Vehicle (OHV) access onto these lands. This means federal agencies will be further hamstrung in their efforts to reduce the threats of catastrophic wildfire to local forests, wildlife habitat and watersheds. As we’ve seen elsewhere this year, catastrophic wildfire also threatens private lands, homes and recreational opportunities.

As the Central Oregonian newspaper recently noted, the proposal would undermine local collaborative efforts to restore fire-prone forests back to health. It would also undermine the 129-mile OHV trail system the Forest Service has developed for the national forest.

If you think Central and Eastern Oregon’s federally-owned forests should be sustainably managed for economic and environmental benefits, tell elected officials that Oregon Wild’s Massive Wilderness Plan is not a wise use of our public resources.
Please visit Healthy Forests, Healthy Communities’ web site to send a message that you oppose this plan, and share this important message with your friends and family.

Originally Published:
April 3, 2014, 

USFWS Admits Fault for the Bandon Mosquito Infestation 

The US Fish and Wildlife Service released the anxiously anticipated Draft Plan and Environmental Assessment for Mosquito Control for The Bandon Marsh National Wildlife Refuge on March 11, 2014, which was followed-up a week later with an open house in Bandon on March 18, 2014. 

The 209-page document was a thorough evaluation of the mosquito infestation with The USFWS repeatedly and rightfully admitting to the agency’s guilt as sole perpetrator of this biological disaster.  Nevertheless, The Service, already having issues with public relations due to their unsophisticated handling of the Bandon Marsh expansion, now has trouble with their credibility starting on page one of the Environmental Assessment. 

The report states, “In summer 2012, refuge staff noted an increase in mosquito numbers within the newly restored salt marsh habitat and received several telephone calls and one letter describing increased mosquito numbers from landowners directly across the river from the Ni-les’tun Unit.”  It continues on to make the claim that, “In the fall of 2012, refuge staff began coordinating with Coos County Public Health (CCPH) concerning the complaints of increased mosquito numbers.”  It is evident that The Service did very little to nothing to coordinate with the CCPH, when The Public Health Director, Nikki Zogg, was not aware of the problem until mid-summer of 2013.   

The Service contends that due to a large bank of viable eggs left on the Refuge, mosquito populations are likely to remain high indefinitely unless actively managed.  They are developing an Integrated Marsh Management approach to create a long-term solution of modifying the restoration site.  Until then, the agency plans to apply larvicide directly to the infested ponds as one part of a multi-tier solution.  In conjunction, The Service will continue to dig tidal channels to cause more hydrological flow in the marsh, so there will be no more breeding pools remaining.  They theorize that the mosquitos will not be able to lay eggs in the increased turbidity, thus eliminating the insect’s ability to mature into adults. 

However, removing tide gates, digging ditches, and increasing hydrology, is exactly what caused the problem in the first place and the agency’s own vector control experts do not know if these steps will solve the problem.  The USFWS makes no guarantee at all that any of these measures will stop the mosquitoes.  In contrast, most of the professionals and many environmentalists agree that replacing the original tide gates and draining the swamp would be the perfect solution, because it would eliminate the mosquitoes without having to use insecticides once or twice a year.  The main reason for the expansion of the marsh was to promote healthier water qualities, but the threat of adding harsh chemicals to control the infestation would be counterintuitive to the original intent of the expansion.  Diking the marsh would also take away a need to institute a Vector Abatement District, which is a taxing district. 

Just imagine the size of the infestation if The USFWS had begun the 4,500-acre expansion, pulled more tidal gates, and dug more channels further up the Coquille Valley.

The original price tag for the 1000-acre restoration project was $4 million dollars.  It has inflated to $10 million plus and could have grown upwards of $100 million dollars if it were not for the temporary suspension of the marsh expansion this past September.

Considering the enormity of the budget, it is hard to believe that The Service failed to locate outside funding for the inventorying and monitoring of mosquitos, when they were willing to spend so much of our tax dollars on land acquisitions.  The agency’s prioritization of the situation demonstrates their willingness to elevate wildlife over the lives of humans. 

James Lunders is the Manager and Biologist of the Jackson County Vector Control District and The North Pacific Director of the American Mosquito Control Association.  During the first week of February, he gave a presentation at the AMCA Annual Conference in Seattle, Washington, which he cleverly titled, “USFWS Bandon Marsh Wetland Restoration Project-failure to plan is planning to fail!”  Lunders’ presentation is an explanation of how The Service failed to learn the history of the area before beginning the largest wetland restoration project in the state.  He explains how the agency failed to learn from their own mistakes with wetland restoration projects on the east coast.  Many in our community believe the entire infestation was a planned event as a way to coerce property owners into becoming “willing sellers,” thus eliminating the main obstacle to the marsh expansion. 

It was very disappointing that Coos County Commissioner John Sweet procrastinated on convening a citizen committee to analyze the situation and review the actions of The USFWS.  He is the commissioner in charge of this issue.  Sweet’s delayed response and indecisiveness may cause voters to lose confidence in his ability to lead, which may hurt his bid for reelection. 

The USFWS released the EA the same week applicants for the county’s Mosquito Committee received the notification letter.  The lapse in time will make it difficult for this group to have any influence in the final solution to the mosquito problem.  More disturbingly, Commissioner Sweet ignored the advice of the former Public Health Director and did not choose the Director’s recommendations for the committee, instead opting for a more politically correct panel as a way to placate The Service. 

Rob Taylor is the founder of www.CoosCountyWatchdog.com a network of individual government watchdogs.

Please, folks, look at this attachment.  It is the best response to the further closures that the Fed.'s have planned for the Wallowa Whitman, Umatilla and Malheur National Forest.  This response was worked up by FAFA (Forest Access For All ) They were the main reason that this was held off last go'round.  I just received the information from the USFS of the whole plan in their 'legaleeze'.  Had to go to W.W. Dist Office.  They had ONE copy that I could 'read' in the office - none on hand.  This monster is 1400 pages and 9 pounds big!  You can also go to http://www.fs.usda.gov/goto/BlueMtnsPlanRevision to overwhelm yourselves.  Another 'planned overwhelm' in effort to baffle us with their brilliant B.S.!!!  The idea is to restrict our Sundays drives in the mountains, motorized access, just as they have done with wilderness.  This is their attempt to extend the wilderness non-access areas, slowly add more areas to semi-wilderness (soon to become wilderness) and then to restrict travel in the 'what's left' of the general forest.  If they have their way, you will be restricted, in time, to only certain roads and only 20 to 300 feet off those roads over time, even in general forest non-wilderness.  Many of the roads you now enjoy will be gated or blocked to traffic.  This will not happen all in one swoop, but will slowly be implemented over time and they hope you will not notice or object if they take from you little bites.....  Designated roads = limiting passage = WARNING!

Forest Access For All is doing above and beyond the call - trying to wake up the general population as to the seriousness of the takings of our rights to our national forests.  They are holding meetings all over the impacted areas (see their site). There is more at stake than Sunday drives here.  Loss of potential jobs, loss of access for fire protection, loss and restriction of hunting and fishing, mushrooming, woodcutting, and loss of the natural pure enjoyments found in our forests and much, much more.  They do not want you on 'their land' even though you pay for it and it is part of your heritage.  Wake up folks and get with the program, this is for real and forever!!!  The loss will be felt for generations through all of our communities.

You have until Aug. 15th to get your response into their hands. Please, do not wait until Aug. 15th to post.  You can get the 9lb. copy of your own from the main office near Wildhorse Casino (so I was told).  Not sure of that address.  Or you can call them at 541-523-1246 or 541-523-1302 or dist. offices (since, dist. offices may have none on hand to give out -  order your own 9lbs through them.)  Don't let them put you off, insist and stick to it.  Their job is to dissuade you - their real job is to serve you.  Their idea of a good response from you is NO RESPONSE.  If nothing else, copy this attachment and go through it and write in your own words your objections somewhat item by item.  If there is a group of you, you have to do it as individuals or it will only count as one person.  We need to protect our rights to our forest - they have taken enough from us without our awareness - you want to give them more???!!!.  When you write, please be somewhat specific.  Generalities won't cut it. pol Be polite and politely firm!  Send your responses to Blue Mountain Plan Revision, P.O.Box 907, Baker City, Oregon, 97814.  You can email, but it may not have the impact of a letter... http://www.fs.usda,gov/goto/BlueMountainForestPlanRevisionComments  or you can fax at 541-523-6392.  Now, the work has been done for you...you can sit and do nothing...you can think on it until time is passed and hope that the 'some one else's' will have made the impact or you can get off you butts and join in the fight to save your heritage and your freedoms...at last!!!  We need your help!  FAFA needs your help! Anyone that depends on or enjoys the forests needs to deal with this now - politely and firmly!!!   Sorry for yelling, but geeze folks what does it take???  You can go to the Forest Access For All site at www.FAFA.org for tons more information.

Please spread this around to all you know, to groups that use the forest, to anyone and everyone.  Law of averages is that a small portion will take action - shame on you if you don't! Make copies with my e-mail whit explains how to use the rebuttal of it, for businesses that may be impacted....gun shops and clubs, snowmobilers, 4X4 groups, you get my drift.  Ask them to forward it.  Be bold and creative.  All that is needed is for good men to be silent!  O.K. now that I have thrashed you, thanks for your time, my friends... 
Jan Craig,  Milton-Freewater, Oregon TPP