And now:Ish <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >X-Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Date: Tue, 16 Feb 1999 11:48:14 -0700 >To: "Wild Rockies Alerts" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >From: Wild Rockies InfoNet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Subject: ANOTHER Nasty Colo. Roadless timber sale alert - Please pass it > on! >Sender: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >SHEEP FLATS TIMBER SALES PROPOSED AGAIN! >YOUR COMMENTS NEEDED BY FEBRUARY 19TH > > >Dear Friends of Colorado's Forests, > >Here is yet another alert on proposed destruction of roadless areas. The >Sheep Flats Timber Sales on the Grand Mesa could require a massive invasion >of two roadless areas. The recently-finalized road moratorium will only >temporarily delay that, SO WE MUST TAKE ACTION BY THIS FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 19. > >INTRODUCTION. The Grand Mesa-Uncompahgre-Gunnison (GMUG) National Forest >is once again proposing heavy road construction and logging in the Sheep >Flats area of the Grand Mesa. Your comments are needed to convince >decision makers that this proposal will irrevocably harm local residents >and the unique and important plant and animal communities of the Mesa. > >LOCATION. The Sheep Flats area is located approximately 15 miles south of >Collbran, CO, and 35 miles NE of Grand Junction. The Sheep Flats area is >dominated by old-growth englemann spruce/sub-alpine fir and aspen forests >as well as meadows, wetlands and riparian areas. It is historic habitat to >the declining lynx, boreal toad, boreal owl, northern leopard frog and >Colorado river cutthroat trout. The watersheds in the project area supply >irrigation water for the ranchers and farmers of the Collbran area. The >Sheep Flats area also includes two inventoried roadless areas. > >HISTORY. Logging was originally planned for this area in 1990. The Forest >Service prepared its first Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) on the >project in 1993. The agency was poised to log these forests, but it >realized that it had not properly evaluated or considered the potential >impacts of the proposal. > >On July 15, 1998 Bob Storch, GMUG Forest Supervisor, signed the Record of >Decision for the Sheep Flats Diversity Unit Timber Sales. The >controversial proposal approved four separate timber sales on the Grand >Mesa over the next decade. The Forest Service's goal with this proposal >was to "treat" (i. e., log) more than 2,685 acres, which would produce 11.8 >million board feet of timber (more than 2,200 full truck loads!). The July >15th decision authorized a significantly larger sale than what was >considered in the early 90's. > >Mr. Storch's decision was appealed on behalf of 21 separate appellants >consisting of local residents and environmental groups. On October 1st, >the Forest Service's Rocky Mountain Region overturned Mr. Storch's approval >of the Sheep Flats Timber Sales. Tom L. Thompson, Deputy Regional >Forester, recommended that the decision be reversed in light of >"deficiencies in the water quality and soils analysis". The Region also >found that the GMUG's intention to log at least 3, but not more than 6 >aspen stands would violate the Forest Plan's prohibition on logging stable, >or self-regenerating, aspen stands. Apparently, after a decade of >analysis, the Forest Service still had not adequately evaluated or >considered the impacts of the project. > >THE SUPPLEMENT. On December 17, 1998, the GMUG released a Supplemental EIS >(SEIS) for the project. The SEIS offers 20 pages of additional evaluation, >based in part on limited field work in the sale areas. The SEIS >recommended that, despite the appeal decision, the GMUG could move forward >with any one of the four action alternatives considered in the EIS. The >supplement proposed three possible options for logging two stable aspen >stands: A) log them; B)drop them from the sales; and C) drop them but >replace them with two other units, both in a roadless area. Option A would >violate the Forest Plan. > >ROAD BUILDING MORATORIUM. On February 11, 1999, Secretary of Agriculture >Dan Glickman announced an 18-month moratorium on road building with >roadless areas on National Forests. This moratorium means that >alternatives 3 and 5 of the proposed project would be illegal DURING THE >MORATORIUM ONLY as they would require 12.2 and 17.5 miles of road >construction, respectively, within the roadless areas. Nevertheless, >without entering the roadless areas, the agency can still consider >alternatives 2 and 4 which would impact from 637 to 844 acres, including >344 to 430 of old-growth and require from 4.7 to 6.4 miles of new road. In >addition, the GMUG NF could adopt the most damaging alternative for >roadless areas, wait until the moratorium expires, and hope that the final >USFS roads rule doesn't ban road construction in roadless areas. And every >indication we have now is that the final roads rule WON'T GO FAR ENOUGH. > >WHAT YOU CAN DO > >We need to make sure that the GMUG stays out of the roadless areas, and >protects old growth and watersheds. The Chief of the Forest Service has >said no to road building in roadless areas, and the SEIS fails to do what >the GMUG was ordered to do by the appeal decision. So please write to: > > Sheep Flats Supplement > Forest Supervisors Office > 2250 Highway 50 > Delta, CO 81416 > >Your letter must be postmarked no later than February 19. State that none >of the proposed action alternatives are acceptable. Make some or all of the >following points: > > -- State that alternatives 3 and 5 would violate the Administration of >the Forest Development Transportation System: Temporary Suspension of Road >Construction and Reconstruction in Unroaded Areas. Thus neither alternative >can be legally implemented. No more roads in roadless areas! > > -- Insist that the stable (self-regenerating) aspen stands be dropped >from any proposed sales and not be replaced with other stands. > > -- Too much old growth timber would be cut under any action alternative. >The Sheep Flats area is home to large and healthy old-growth systems that >are poorly represented within the larger landscape area. This area must be >left in tact to maintain adequate old-growth for species like lynx, marten, >wolverine and goshawk on a landscape scale. > > -- Too many miles of road would be built under any action alternative. >The project area is now primarily affected by primitive roads, but this >would change locally under any action alternative. The creation of new >roads and the development of secondary roads in the area will fragment >habitat and degrade watershed health. Low road densities and the >relatively undeveloped nature of this area must be maintained. > > -- The GMUG must consider the impact of illegal roads in the new >diversity unit boundaries identified by the appellants. The SEIS has not >taken a hard look at new information. > > -- Site-specific soil and watershed analysis is still lacking for the >project. What analysis there is indicates the action alternatives would >violate a Forest Plan standard requiring a reduction of 75% after one year >and 95% after five years, of erosion in upland areas adjacent to streams. > > -- Impacts to local communities have not been addressed. > > -- Development of Elk security areas is unacceptable. There are already >problems associated with Elk migration to private property because of the >lack of security on adjacent federal lands. This problem should not be >exacerbated. > >For additional information, call Mike McGowan at (719) 672-3016, >mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] or Rocky Smith (mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]). > >____________________________ > >Ted Zukoski >Land & Water Fund of the Rockies >2260 Baseline Road, #200 >Boulder, CO 80302 >(303) 444-1188 x213 >FAX (303)786-8054 >mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >************************************************************************ >List-Subscribe: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >News Submissions or Problems: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >This list is a public service provided by WIN: http://www.wildrockies.org > &&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&& Tsonkwadiyonrat (We are ONE Spirit) Unenh onhwa' Awayaton http://www.tdi.net/ishgooda/ &&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
