🚀 go-pugleaf

   Yep, Western Ancient Forest Campaign on 30 Oct 94  07:15:00 
	about: Eastside Update and Alert....

  Forest Plan; government wants your comments!  
  
  How do we cut, how much yield, what is important?  
  They want to know!

  I believe this is the first action letter that I have
  actively supported.
 
 W> From: Western Ancient Forest Campaign <wafcdc@igc.apc.org>
 W> Date: 30 Oct 94 15:15 PST
 W> @Subject: Eastside Update and Alert

 W> Eastside Ecosystem Management Project (EEMP) Treads Water
 
 W> The upper CRB EIS project area includes all lands within the
 W> Columbia River Basin in Idaho and Montana, as well as portions of
 W> Wyoming and Nevada!

 W> With all the delays, the Draft Eastside EIS is expected to be
 W> released in October of 1995 and the upper CRB EIS the following
 W> month.  The Final EISs for both regions will be released in August
 W> of 1996.  The final versions of two accompanying documents, the
 W> Columbia River Basin Assessment and Scientific Framework for
 W> Ecosystem Management, will be released in September of 1995.

 W> Upper Columbia River Basin EIS Process Moves Forward
 W> While launching the upper Columbia River Basin (CRB) EIS
 W> process has taken longer than expected, it appears to be underway.

 W> The upper CRB EIS Team is taking a different approach than
 W> the Eastside EIS Team.   The upper Basin EIS Team plans to put
 W> forth a proposed action that will serve as a management
 W> alternative to comment on during the public scoping process.
  -                                      ^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^
 W> According to Public Affairs Officer Carl Gidlund, the Team wants
 W> to offer the public a "target" at which it can aim its comments.
 
  How cool!  We can get in on the bottom floor!  I believe that due
  to the nature of this, our comments will be 10,000 times more powerful
  than voting in a national election.  I believe that each comment must
  be addresses in writing in the Forest Plan itself.

 W> In contrast, the Eastside EIS process has not put forth a proposed
 W> action and will not put forward any management alternatives to the
 W> public until the draft EIS is completed.


 W> Public Input Continues to be Important

 W> While the EEMP process appears to be treading water at the
 W> moment, public input continues to be critical.  The EEMP Project
						     ^^^^^^^^
 W> leaders have made it clear that they are accepting public comments
 W> throughout the entire EEMP process.  There are many scientists
 W> involved in the EEMP who appreciate the public comments, because
 W> they are better able to push for particular issues and questions
 W> to be addressed by the EEMP when there is public support to do so
 W> as well.

  Hi O Silver!!!

 W> It will be especially important for activists to comment on
 W> the impact of fires and post-fire salvage on forests.  Comments on
 W> grazing impacts, the need for soil protection, damage to
 W> watersheds, and the state of BLM lands in southern Oregon are of
 W> particular importance as well.  The EIS Teams will soon move
 W> forward on developing management options for the forests of
 W> Eastern Oregon and Washington and the upper CRB, and it is
 W> important to get comments in before the EIS Teams start putting
 W> management alternatives down on paper.  For more information on
 W> the EEMP process contact WAFC's Eastside Office at 509/527-0471.

  One problem not addressed is long term forest degradation.  
  Some areas do not grow back, and in others, "weed tree" 
  monocultures such as lodge pole pine take over after clearcuts 
  or disturbance.  Also sometimes the trees become stunted in second 
  or third growth.  
  
  How can we determine this if we do not know what was there before, 
  and what types of harvesting has been done in the past?  And how 
  can future generations tell -- if they cannot figure out what we 
  had today???
  
  In my opinion; a very important big-picture need is historical 
  harvest maps, as well as detailed maps describing at least major 
  plant species such as trees and shrubs, and the proportions of each.  
  A reasonable target map resolution might be this information for 
  each square mile or better.

  While such detailed species mapping may not be affordable(?), it can 
  be done cheaply at the time of timber-sale surveys, and recorded 
  for posterity.  Existing maps based on tree species are often far too 
  crude and provide almost useless resolution to be useful for modern 
  and future planning needs.
  -   ^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^

  Also in great need is getting historical records of past harvests 
  and yields mapped before they are lost, and this can be done rather 
  cheaply.  This information should be included in the Environmental 
  Impact Statements (EIS) as well as the Forest Plan itself.  Also 
  some effort should be spent checking other sources for major harvests 
  before the Forest Service existed.
  
  Please cross-post this letter.  Smoky Bear wants to hear from you!
  --Doug
 
 W> Comments should be sent to:

 W>        EEMP Office                   UCRB-EIS Office 
 W>        112 E.Poplar                  304 N. 8th St., Rm 246
 W>        Walla, Walla WA  99362        Boise, ID  83702
 W>        Ph 509/522-4030               Ph 208/334-1770
 W>        Fax 509/522-4025              Fax208/334-1769 
 
 
 W> Toll Free 800/599-8926 Email 509/522-4085
 W>        (8,1,N) 9600 Baud
 W>        Samantha
 W>        Mace




... Support your right to keep and arm bears!