> IF YOU GET A QUICK LETTER OFF BY THURSDAY, IT SHOULD GET THERE, OR FAX
IT.
>
> Quincy Library Group EIS Process Commences
>
> ****COMMENTS NEEDED BY JANUARY 19, 1999****
>
> Direct comments to:
>
> David Peters, Project Manager
> USDA Forest Service
> Herger-Feinstein Quincy Library Group Forest Recovery Act Pilot Project
> PO Box 11500
> Quincy, CA 95971
>
> FAX:  530-283-4156
> =====================================================
> On Dec. 21, the Forest Service announced its publication of the Notice of
> Intent commencing the planning process for the Herger-Feinstein Quincy
> Library Group Forest Recovery Act (The Quincy Bill). There is an
unusually
> brief initial comment period of only 30 days.
>
> Despite the hard work of conservation groups, this bill passed after
being
> attached to a large appropriations bill in the final minutes of the last
> congressional session. The bill covers the Sierra Nevada's Plumas,
Lassen,
> and part of the Tahoe National Forests that together make up over 2.5
> million acres of publicly owned land. The Forest Service has estimated
that
> the Quincy Bill has the potential to result in doubling logging and
> tripling road construction on the three affected National Forests. House
> Republicans have touted the Quincy Bill as a potential model for National
> Forest management because it enacts a plan developed by local interests
> that permits increased logging.
>
> The ambiguous nature of the legislation gives conservation groups the
> opportunity to make sure that the legislation is implemented by the
Forest
> Service in a manner that is consistent with environmental law, that is
> based on recent scientific information, and that avoids potentially
serious
> environmental consequences.
>
> COMMENTS FROM THE CONSERVATION COMMUNITY ARE CRUCIAL TO ENSURING THAT
THIS
> DANGEROUS LEGISLATION DOES NOT END UP RESULTING IN SERIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL
> DEGRADATION.
>
> We must urge the Forest Service not to implement the bill in a manner
that
> compromises environmental protection by catering to local interests.
> COMMENTS ARE DUE JANUARY 19, 1999, and should request that at least one
> alternative include the following measures:
>
> 1) PROTECTION OF THE 59,000 ACRES OF OLD GROWTH FOREST IDENTIFIED IN THE
> SIERRA NEVADA ECOSYSTEM PROJECT (SNEP) REPORT.
>
> These areas ARE NOT IDENTIFIED FOR PROTECTION in the Quincy Bill. While
the
> Quincy Bill provides no explicit protection for numerous acres of old
> growth forest, the legislative history supports interim protection of old
> growth in the implementation of the bill, and we should insist on such
> protection.
>
> 2) FULL PROTECTION OF RIPARIAN AREAS...
>
> ......based on the strategy outlined in the Sierra Nevada Ecosystem
Project
> Report (SNEP). The bill currently calls for buffers for riparian areas
but
> fails to acknowledge recent scientific information (the SNEP Report).
This
> new information details why greater protection is needed for riparian
> areas, particularly around headwater streams.
>
> 3) PROTECTION OF ALL ROADLESS AREAS OVER 1000 ACRES.
>
> The Quincy Bill would defer logging in some (BUT NOT ALL) roadless areas
> greater than 5000 acres, but fails to provide protection for smaller
> roadless areas, and provides no permanent protection. Request that all
> roadless areas receive protection, especially all roadless areas over
5000
> acres.
>
> 4) MINIMIZE INTENSIVE LOGGING PRACTICES.
>
> The Quincy Bill calls for 40-60,000 acres of 1/4 mile Defensible Fuel
> Profile Zones (DFPZs) across the landscape, and for group selection
logging
> on .57 percent of the pilot project area per year (over 9000 acres), this
> could cause serious habitat fragmentation. Legislative history notes that
> this target may not be achieved if other environmental objectives cannot
be
> met, or if funding is inadequate. Conservation groups are calling for
> limiting sizes of openings to 1/2 acres and for locating of fuels
treatment
> in the urban/wildlands interface in order to reduce habitat fragmentation
> and new road construction. In addition, request that the number of acres
> affected be minimized.
>
> 5) ANALYSIS OF THE IMPACTS OF THE QLG PLAN AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE
> ALTERNATIVES MUST OCCUR IN THE CONTEXT OF THE SIERRA-WIDE EIS PROCESS NOW
> UNDERWAY.
>
> Analysis must be based on the Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project Report,
> including the Report's identification of Areas of Late Successional
> Emphasis. The Sierra is an ecosystem and cohesive environmental
protection
> is needed to maintain viability of wildlife species, integrity of
> California's water supply, and health of Sierra old growth forest
> ecosystems.
>
> In addition to these substantive points, request that the Forest Service
> ensures full public involvement, including all interested people outside
of
> the Quincy area. Comment periods should be of sufficient length (e.g.,
more
> than 30 days). Ask to be put on the Forest Service's mailing list for any
> Quincy Library Group related projects, including development of the EIS.
>
>

----------------------------------------------------------------------
To get off the IOWA-TOPICS list, send email to [log in to unmask]
Make the message text (not the Subject): SIGNOFF IOWA-TOPICS