[Date Prev][Date Next][Date Index]

RE: E-M:/ Roadless corrections



-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Enviro-Mich message from "Harris, Craig" <Craig.Harris@ssc.msu.edu>
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

anne's original comment about stewardship logging may have implied that some
sort of definitional remedy was needed, e.g., to qualify as stewardship
logging, the logging must have the following characteristics . . . 
another alternative would be a procedural rememdy, e.g., any proposed
stewardship logging must be the subject of public review and comment before
approval . . . this would at least give the "strict constructionists" of
stewardship logging an opportunity to bring in professional and scientific
opinion about the stewardship of the proposed logging
does anyone have any thoughts as to which of these two types of remedies
might be more appropriate in this situation
cheers,
craig

craig k harris
department of sociology
center for integrated plant systems
michigan state university
429b berkey hall
east lansing  michigan  48824-1111
tel:  517-355-5048
fax:  517-432-2856



-----Original Message-----
From: David E. Allen [mailto:dallen@nmu.edu]
Sent: Friday 17 November 2000 10:28
To: anne.woiwode@sfsierra.sierraclub.org
Cc: enviro-mich@great-lakes.net
Subject: Re: E-M:/ Roadless corrections


-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Enviro-Mich message from "David E. Allen" <dallen@nmu.edu>
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Folks:

I don't think that stewardship logging is something to get up in arms 
about.  However, it is something that us forest watchers have to 
watch.  For example, Stevan Christiansen, District Ranger, HNF, constantly 
refers to "forest health" in justifying some possible logging in the 
Rudyard Clay Flat LTA project set.  This is most likely simple hogwash - a 
healthy forest (stand) has some dead and dying trees, has some disease, has 
some bugs - and most likely should be discredited (there is the 
possibility, of course, that forest health is a real issue, but that is a 
statement demanding empirical support).

Dave

At 09:47 AM 11/17/00 -0800, anne.woiwode@sfsierra.sierraclub.org wrote:
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Enviro-Mich message from <anne.woiwode@sfsierra.sierraclub.org>
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>  The trouble with Quick and Dirty reviews of documents is that they are
>  often both!  Taking a closer look at the Final Env. Impact Statement for
>  Roadless Areas on our National Forests, I realize I looked at the current
>  info as opposed to the preferred alternative.  Here is what I hope is
more
>  accurate information!!
>
>  At this time, the Final EIS has been compiled and a Record of Decision
>  will be issued by the Chief of the Forest Service no sooner than 30 days
>  after the issuance of the FEIS.  That Record of Decision will be the
final
>  decision of the Forest Service on this matter, although as I understand
it
>  the President can take steps as well, through executive order or perhaps
>  some other vehicle, to modify the decision of the Chief.
>
>  The information provided in a previous message was based on the EXISTING
>  status of Michigan's roadless areas -- there are actually 4 -- the
Norwich
>  Plains area in the Ottawa National Forest, the Fiber Area and Government
>  Island in the Hiawatha National Forest, and Bear Swamp in the Huron
>  Manistee National Forest.  Total acreage is about 16,000.  Each CURRENTLY
>  allows for road construction and reconstruction.
>
>  The Preferred Alternative presented by the Forest Service in its FEIS is
>  one with the following policy elements:
>
>  "Prohibit Road Construction, Reconstruction and Timber Harvest Except for
>  Stewardship Purposes Within Inventoried Roadless Areas, While Excepting
>  Road Reconstruction Needed for Road Safety Improvement and Federal Aid
>  Highway Projects"
>
>  One of the uncertainties that is most concerning is that Stewardship
>  activities are not clearly defined.  There is concern that timber
activity
>  may be justified across the country for all sorts of activities that
>  aren't warranted.
>
>  My apologies for previous misinterpretations of the FEIS!
>
>  Anne Woiwode
>
>
>
>==============================================================
>ENVIRO-MICH:  Internet List and Forum for Michigan Environmental
>and Conservation Issues and Michigan-based Citizen Action.   Archives at
>http://www.great-lakes.net/lists/enviro-mich/
>
>Postings to:  enviro-mich@great-lakes.net      For info, send email to
>majordomo@great-lakes.net  with a one-line message body of  "info
enviro-mich"
>==============================================================



==============================================================
ENVIRO-MICH:  Internet List and Forum for Michigan Environmental
and Conservation Issues and Michigan-based Citizen Action.   Archives at
http://www.great-lakes.net/lists/enviro-mich/

Postings to:  enviro-mich@great-lakes.net      For info, send email to
majordomo@great-lakes.net  with a one-line message body of  "info
enviro-mich"
==============================================================


==============================================================
ENVIRO-MICH:  Internet List and Forum for Michigan Environmental
and Conservation Issues and Michigan-based Citizen Action.   Archives at
http://www.great-lakes.net/lists/enviro-mich/

Postings to:  enviro-mich@great-lakes.net      For info, send email to
majordomo@great-lakes.net  with a one-line message body of  "info enviro-mich"
==============================================================