Grampa Dave, because I found this so late, perhaps you could post it tomorrow or Monday on your thread. Where I live on the Umpqua Nat'l Forest, the 'old growth' designation of 120 years essentially takes the majority of this forest off the 'thinning' map....even IF west-side forests were included.
SUMMARY OF THE FOREST RESTORATION AND PROTECTION ACT OF 2002
ON THE WESTSIDE during the first 90 days following enactment:
The FS establishes, with the BLM, F&W, NMFS and the Department of Justice, the Northwest Forest Plan Legal Settlement Team (Team) to negotiate a Universal Settlement on all existing Northwest Forest Plan area lawsuits: Concurrently: the Team immediately negotiates a moratorium on any new timber sales while the Universal Settlement is being negotiated and while the Surveys (below) are being completed AND negotiates a settlement on the Rothstein decisions (PCFFA II and III) that protects fish habitat and releases timber for harvesting.
The FS and BLM complete an Old Growth Survey to identify the 120 year plus old growth stands for protection;
The FS and BLM complete an Active Management Survey to identify where ecologically sound active management can occur immediately in the Late Successional Reserves (up to 80 years) and in the Matrix (up to 120 years).
IF the Team can resolve the Rothstein decisions, then during the next 120 days they continue negotiations on the Universal Settlement, informed by the Surveys. The Universal Settlement must include the following commitments: (1) no old growth stands (120 plus) will be harvested; (2) priority timber harvest projects are given to LSR thinning and Matrix areas to promote development of diverse age stands; (3) the plaintiffs must agree NOT to the sue on the priority timber harvest projects; (4) Survey and Manage and other Northwest Forest Plan procedures are replaced by whatever the negotiations determine are the new procedures necessary to meet ESA requirements; (5) in the case of the loss of old growth due to natural occurrences, the area affected shall be managed only to promote the redevelopment of old growth.
For the future:(1) If there are new lawsuits on the Settlement sanctioned projects, then the FS and BLM carry an evidentiary presumption in their favor in court; (2) The Forest Service shall create in the Northwest Forest Plan area watershed and stream restoration programs which will be authorized at $20 million over five years.
ON THE EASTSIDE (OR,WA, ID) during the first 60 days after enactment:
The Forest Service shall identify projects on the Eastside as follows: NEPA-ready; ecologically beneficial hazardous fuels reduction; active management; thinning from below; Fire Risk Class III and II; using only temporary roads; blowdown or burns.
The Forest Service forms a Collaborative Review Board (15 members) to review the projects for expedited implementation. The CRB contains representatives from the environmental community, timber industry, community based forestry, Forest Service, and State foresters from each state.
During the next 15 business days (total 75 days after enactment) the CRB reviews projects for suitability for expedited implementation. To move forward on an expedited basis a project will have a 2/3 vote. During the next 15 business days (total 90 days after enactment) the public has an opportunity to review and comment on the projects expedited.
No later than 90 days after the bill is enacted, the FS shall implement the CRB approved hazardous fuels reduction projects. Anyone can challenge these projects in court, but not administratively, if they commented during the 15 day comment period; The plaintiff must prove, on the merits, that their plan for the forest is more ecologically sound than the project they are opposing. the FS carries a court presumption in their favor if the project has been reviewed by the CRB;
For the Future: The Forest Service may create Eastside Stakeholder Monitoring Groups (seven members) that discusses each project before it occurs to develop consensus on the condition the project shall leave the land and how the project shall be implemented. Projects that have an Eastside Stakeholder Monitoring Group will carry the same appeals processes as for the CRB projects.
_______________________________________________________________
There are some significant changes between this bill and the 'Daschle Exemption Amendment' that was signed. One HUGE difference is that THESE fire thinning projects must be NEPA ready. Daschle exempted his forests from NEPA regulations. And then of course, as I read this, all other states are not addressed at all.