|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||
| Recreational Access and Conservation - Conservation and Public Service Activities | Short Cuts | ||||
| | Introduction | News | Notices | Activities | Education | Forums | Columns | Links |
Edited by: John Stewart |
|||||
Public Comment: Sierra Nevada Framework Comments
The Draft EIS to amend Sierra Nevada Forest Plans was released on May 2, 2000 and is open for public comment until August 11, 2000. The Sierra Nevada Framework for Conservation and Collaboration is an effort by the USDA Forest Service to better integrate the latest science and a collaborative approach into national forest management. The EIS will allow the forest service to update forest plans for the eleven national forests in the Sierra Nevada and Modoc Plateau. The Draft EIS proposes eight action alternatives to address five problem areas.
Do you enjoy hiking, camping, hunting, fishing, birding, off-road vehicle use, mountain biking, backpacking, nature photography, horseback riding, rock hounding, climbing, or any other recreational use in the Sierra Nevada Mountains? If so, you need to comment on this important document! COMMENTS MUST BE SUBMITTED BY AUGUST 11TH.
The Forest Service is accepting public comments until August 11, 2000 on the Sierra Nevada Framework. The 4x4Wire is providing the following comments ready to send via e-mail. A copy of these letters will be forwarded to the Sierra Nevada Framework Project Office.
Requesting Copies of the DEIS and Submitting Comments:
The DEIS is available in 4 formats: a printed summary (40 pages); a printed 3-volume set of the full draft EIS, appendices and maps (1500 pages); compact disk (CD); or downloadable at www.r5.fed.us/sncf. To request hardcopies or a CD, write (Subject: SNFP Request): USDA Forest Service--CAET, Sierra Nevada Framework Project, PO Box 7669, 200 E. Broadway, Room 301, Missoula Mt 59807. Email: mailroom_wo_caet@fs.fed.us. Fax: (460) 329-3021. Review and Comments on the DEIS may be sent to the above address (Subject: SNFP Comments)
Sierra Nevada Framework Project
PO Box 7669
200E Broadway Rm. 301
Missoula, MT 59807
E-mail: mailroom_wo_caet@fs.fed.us
Subject: Comments on Sierra Nevada Framework DEIS (Opposition)
It is very difficult to find and determine the projected effect the Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment (SNFPAAA) will have on recreational use in the 12 million acres covered by the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS). Recreation is discussed but limited, primarily in the context of disturbance and projected future desired conditions of the areas outlined. This is unsatisfactory in that according to Forest Service estimates, recreational users of the forest are expected to increase. This document does not address how that increased user base will be provided with the expected recreational opportunity
The threat of catastrophic fire because of improper management and the potential obliteration of vast landscapes are a threat to public safety. These same landscapes are a part of the recreational heritage users cherish and want to continue to have available for future generations of users. None of the alternatives properly address this problem. The Forest Service fire models used fire conditions represented by the 27-year average to justify the proposed alternatives. The FS acknowledges that if it used present-day conditions as represented by the past ten-year average, wildfire would destroy old growth faster than nature can replace it under all alternatives.
The two preferred alternatives are based upon top-down, one-size-fits-all directive that only recognizes Federal agencies as the source for the preferred alternative. Local public input was basically ignored in the selection of the preferred alternatives.
I urge the adoption of Alternative 1: Continue exiting management direction.
Sincerely,
Sierra Nevada Framework Project
PO Box 7669
200E Broadway Rm. 301
Missoula, MT 59807
E-mail: mailroom_wo_caet@fs.fed.us
Subject: Comments on Sierra Nevada Framework DEIS (Opposition)
Of the five problem areas covered by the DEIS, the "Aquatic and Riparian Area" problem covers the largest landmass in the 11 National Forests involved. It is estimated that 50% of the total area involved falls in Aquatic and Riparian area conditions. It is also estimated that 50% of the trails, camping areas and trailheads are in these same areas. It seems irrational that the DEIS says so little about the effect these Aquatic and Riparian Area set-asides will have on recreational usage. This is unsatisfactory in that according to Forest Service estimates, recreational users of the forest are expected to increase. This document does not address how that increased user base will be provided with the expected recreational opportunity.
When the Protected Activity Centers (PACs) for the many species being considered for protection are examined, there is huge unknown of what area will remain for historic recreational use. Again, this is unsatisfactory in that according to Forest Service estimates, recreational users of the forest are expected to increase. This document does not address how that increased user base will be provided with the expected recreational opportunity.
Recreation is discussed but limited, primarily in the context of disturbance and projected future desired conditions of the areas outlined. Ecosystem and habitat preservation is the primary purpose of the SNFPAA Aquatic and Riparian area process listed in the Standards and Guidelines of the DEIS. Given that, it is very difficult to find and determine the projected effect the Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment (SNFPAAA) will have on recreational use in the 12 million acres covered by the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS). This is unsatisfactory in that according to Forest Service estimates, recreational users of the forest are expected to increase. This document does not address how that increased user base will be provided with the expected recreational opportunity.
The two preferred alternatives are based upon top-down, one-size-fits-all directive that only recognizes Federal agencies as the source for the preferred alternative. Local public input was basically ignored in the selection of the preferred alternatives.
I urge the adoption of Alternative 1: Continue exiting management direction.
Sincerely,
Sierra Nevada Framework Project
PO Box 7669
200E Broadway Rm. 301
Missoula, MT 59807
E-mail: mailroom_wo_caet@fs.fed.us
Subject: Comments on Sierra Nevada Framework DEIS (Opposition)
None of the eight alternatives allow reasonable public involvement in the effects of possible closures of trails, camp sites, trailheads and meadow grazing caused by the projected desired conditions.
There is no base line to draw a comparison in the DEIS to evaluate the implied degradation of the Aquatic and Riparian areas. All of the questions ask at information meetings "Where is this degradation so we can go look" were answered with "The Sierra Nevada systems are in good condition". If the Sierra Nevada systems are in good condition, why are millions of acres needed in set backs?
Access roads are to be generally reduced in all the alternatives based on ecosystem impact and need, not the need of recreational users to reach desired locations. There is no public review process outlined to allow the general public comment when roads are to be closed or removed.
The SNFPAA Preferred Alternatives (Alt 6 and 8) aquatic and riparian areas will have restricted usage 300 feet either side of perennial streams (continuous flow), 150 feet either side of intermittent streams and 75 feet either side of ephemeral streams (any area showing scouring from water passage). Even though statements have been made "that recreation is not anticipated to be affected", how can the standards and guideline setbacks be applied and not have an effect on hundreds of miles of trails, camp sites, trailheads and meadows that fall in these zones?
According to Forest Service estimates, recreational users of the forest areexpected to increase over time. This document does not address how theincrease in recreational users will be provided a recreational opportunity. Thebasic assumption is that one set of directives will be applied throughout the11 National Forests. Given that these forests cover diverse ecosystems acrossa widely dispersed geographic area, one set of directives is insufficient to manage the diversity.
I urge the adoption of Alternative 1: Continue exiting management direction.
Sincerely,
| Contacts: | Related Links: |
|
| Please support 4x4Wire by visiting our featured sponsors | ||||||
|
||||||
|
| 4X4Wire Portal | About 4x4Wire | Search 4x4Wire | TrailTalk Forums | Advertiser's Guide | |
