Sawmill article misleading
The Kathy Hedberg article concerning the recent vote by the Idaho County commissioners in support of the small business sawmills in the Clearwater Basin was misleading. Hedberg stated the commissioners backed away from full support in a letter to the Small Business Administration commenting on a rulemaking proposal.
In fact, both Commissioners Jim Chmelik and Skip Brandt signed the letter. Idaho County is on record supporting leveling the playing field between large and small business sawmills in their ability to fairly compete for federal timber as required by the Small Business Act and agency agreements directing implementation.
The proposed rule to include stewardship timber in the small business set-aside is neither flawed, nor would volume be awarded to small sawmills to the detriment of the citizens of the United States.
The Grangeville mill has not been excluded from bidding on "significant" volume as the set-aside program has rarely triggered. Rather, by not counting stewardship timber in the set-aside program, that large business has been able to purchase timber it should have been ineligible to bid on. It has been able to exploit a broken Forest Service small business program.
Chmelik and Brandt joined a host of other area county commissioners, all of whom should be commended in taking the position to support small business on this issue. It is essential if we are to give small mills in rural counties a chance to fairly compete. This process needs to be completed by October.
Bill Mulligan
Kamiah
Shortchanged
Marty Trillhaase (May 26) got it right when he suggested Congressman Raul Labrador's plan to give management authority (read log unsustainably) over certain national forest land to the states doesn't hold up to scrutiny. It sure doesn't.
However, an example he used as a counter to Labrador's goofy idea - the Clear Creek Project, actually a massive timber sale pushed by the Forest Service and the Clearwater Basin Collaborative - doesn't hold up to scrutiny either.
The Clear Creek area does not meet water quality objectives in the current forest plan. Pages 3-10 of the Clear Creek Integrated Restoration Project Final Environmental Impact Statement show that is the case for Clear Creek and the Middle Fork Clear Creek.
Also, the Forest Service is not monitoring key measures of sediment as it promised the public it would do in the forest plan. Simply put, the data that are available suggest the wrong-headed proposal to substantially increase logging is not sustainable.
The Nez Perce Tribe formally objected to the proposed decision for Clear Creek, as did individuals and conservation organizations. Even one of the collaborative member groups, the Idaho Conservation League, raised concerns about water quality.
Backroom deal-making, as occurs with these self-named collaborative groups and the Forest Service, cuts out the rest of the public - the citizens who own the national forests. Rather than being a counter to proposals like Labrador's, these efforts are cut from the same cloth. Both shortchange the public and benefit special interests.
Gary Macfarlane
Troy