Public Comment: Sierra Nevada Framework Comments

Public Comment: Sierra Nevada Framework Comments; Request for Extension

The information in the Sierra Nevada Framework is flawed at best when it deals with fire and the dangers in the Sierra Nevada Mountains. With the recent fire in Los Alamos, NM, fire is in the forefront and it is felt if the Governor is going to step in, fire is the best tool. PLEASE send your letter TODAY! Please add your own comment to these letter as well. We need to get hundreds if not thousands of letters to the Governor ASAP. Thank you in advance for your help and tell a friend to send one also.

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 Governor Davis, State of California and the Sierra Nevada Framework Project Office.

Enter your e-mail address, name and address and send this comment letter. (All fields required)

Your E-mail:
Name:
Address:
City:
State:
Zip Code:
Governor Gray Davis Governor, of the State of California State Capitol Sacramento CA 95814 E-mail: graydavis@governor.ca.gov Dear Governor Davis: The Forest Service has recently released The Sierra Nevada Framework. I remain concerned that fire and fuels has not been adequately integrated into the analysis and that California will end-up funding expensive forest fire suppression efforts that could be avoided. Worse yet, a California city could easily be the next Los Alamos if some of the proposed alternatives are implemented. The National Research Council and the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) recognized the wildland fires in California during 1993 as among the defining natural resource disasters of the 1990s. In terms of damage, the magnitude of these catastrophic fires were compared with the Northridge earthquake, Hurricane Andrew, and flooding of the Mississippi and Red rivers. Wildfire acreage burned in California has been accelerating in intensity and acres burned for the past several decades. Yet, the Forest Service fire models used fire conditions represented by the 27-year average to justify the proposed alternatives. The Forest Service 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. I find the fire analysis inadequate and believe the Forest Service should: 1. Conduct thorough evaluation of each alternative using fire models based upon the most recent 10-year wildfire average. 2. Include a federal prescribed fire policy that reduces the risk of a Sierra version of the Los Alamos fire. 3. Conduct an evaluation of the risk of prescribed fire escape by alternatives, considering the availability of pre-fire treatments, stand conditions proposed for burning and availability of control methods such as roads, fuel breaks, etc. 4. Conduct a soil impact analysis that describes the effects of prescribed burning with present fuel loads compared to pre-European fuel levels. 5. Conduct an assessment of the acres classified as Condition Class 1, Class 2 and Class 3 as defined in the Forest Service National Cohesive Strategy and a comparability analysis of each alternative to the National Cohesive Strategy. 6. Conduct a baseline analysis that assesses the rate of change in the forest without human intervention, including growth, density, mortality, insect, disease, wildfire, habitat conditions, plant species, water quantity and quality, and air quality. 7. Conduct a feasibility analysis from the air Resources Board of the maximum level of prescribed burning by region that can be conducted without violation of state and federal air standards, and without curtailment of traditional permitted projects. I appreciate the political implications of the Framework and the problems you face in dealing with problems in it. However, I am among the many environmentally concerned that you and the State of California are going to be left with a major political and financial disaster if the Framework does not perform as it claims. I am suggesting only that you ask for more time for public review and comment and that you direct your staff to give you their candid opinions on the Framework's potential risks. Sincerely,

Contacts: Related Links:

US Forest Service SNFP
USDA Forest Service
Sierra Nevada Framework Project
Room 419
801 I Street
Sacramento, Ca 95814
Phone Number 916-492-7554
TTY via PacBell relay (800) 735-2929
Ask Yourself......

4x4Wire's Environmental Policy
Links from the 4x4Wire Link Index
Blue Ribbon Coalition
Tread Lightly!

Please support 4x4Wire by visiting our featured sponsors

TreadLightly	UFWDA

This site and all original materials contained herein are Copyright © 1999 - 2008 by OutdoorWire, Inc.. -- All Rights Reserved.
The use of this website, OutdoorWire, or any of its publications or services is subject to the terms of use agreement.
You may link freely to this site, but no further use is allowed without the express written permission of the owner of this material.
All corporate trademarks are the property of their respective owners.
This publication and OutdoorWire, Inc. assume no liability for your use of the material contained within this site.
OutdoorWire, 4x4Wire, SUVWire, JeepWire are all trademarks and publications of OutdoorWire, Inc.

Contacts:	Related Links:
US Forest Service SNFP USDA Forest Service Sierra Nevada Framework Project Room 419 801 I Street Sacramento, Ca 95814 Phone Number 916-492-7554 TTY via PacBell relay (800) 735-2929 Ask Yourself......	4x4Wire's Environmental Policy Links from the 4x4Wire Link Index Blue Ribbon Coalition Tread Lightly!