IF YOU GET A QUICK LETTER OF 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