Dear HCN,
As an original member of
the Quincy Library Group, I was pleased to read an honest treatment
of the QLG (HCN, 9/29/97).
However, speaking as a
forester and environmentalist who has been actively involved in
Northern Sierra land management issues since 1975, I take issue
with the letters in the Nov. 10 issue. They are from the same
California activists who have been spreading misinformation about
the QLG for months. These groups accuse the QLG of ignoring the
law, preventing public participation and adapting a timber industry
plan to “double the cut” on “too large of a land-base,” with an
“untried” fuel reduction plan. What has sent them into orbit,
however, is that we dare approach Congress without
them.
The truth is that the precursor to the QLG
plan was created in February 1986 by Friends of Plumas Wilderness,
Mother Lode Chapter Sierra Club, Northstate Wilderness Committee
and Altacal Audubon. This carefully crafted document was called the
Conservationist Alternative to the Plumas National Forest Plan. Two
years later, the Wilderness Society and the Natural Resources
Defense Council gave extensive financial and legal support to the
plan.
The U.S. Forest Service rejected the plan
in 1988 and a lengthy appeal process followed. Five years later,
the Quincy Library Group evolved around this plan. From the
beginning, the QLG has been open to anyone who wanted to
participate. During the next four years, California spotted owl
regulations and Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project science were added
to the original Conservationist Alternative, and this became the
QLG plan.
The current bill is guided by more than
good intentions. It is based on good science. The scale of this
plan at two and a quarter national forests is landscape in size –
just right, according to SNEP scientists.
The QLG
Plan is the most environmentally sound national forest management
plan in the United States. One hundred percent of the known
roadless and environmentally sensitive lands are removed from
logging. No other national forest in the country has this much
protection. Creeks and riparian areas have more protection than any
other national forest in the Sierra (Scientific Analysis Team
guidelines). The rotation age for timber is longer (average 175
years) than any other national forest in the
country.
The QLG has made strategic fuel
management a central focus of its land-management proposal. The
fire management section is the most detailed and scientifically
sophisticated plan that I know of and was discussed at length and
recognized in the Sierra Nevada ecosystem report. The amount of
understory fuel removed will be considerably greater than any other
plan for these forests. But less timber will be harvested annually
than in the past. When the bill is signed into law, the Forest
Service will be required to begin an environmental impact study
with full public participation.
In April 1997,
California activists agreed to “work collaboratively” with the QLG
if we would only “kill the bill.” We refused. They threatened to
“get ugly.” We reminded these colleagues that they used the
legislative process for the California Wilderness Bill and
attempted to use it with the Ancient Forest Bill. I know because I
helped them.
After working 11 years with the
national environmental organizations and four years with the QLG,
attempting to get an administrative solution, the best option is
now to seek a legislative solution – an exercise of our First
Amendment rights. Until the California activists come up with a
better plan, or any plan at all, the QLG will continue to press
forward. Our Web page is at
http://www.qlg.org/
Michael
Yost
Quincy,
California
The writer teaches
forestry at Feather River College in Quincy,
California.
This article appeared in the print edition of the magazine with the headline The Quincy Library Group has green credentials.
Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under a Creative Commons license.
