Sequoia ForestKeeper  works to effectively participate in the planning of our national monument and to help guide the Forest Service into creating a management plan that truly protects the Monument's resources; and to ensure that logging conducted in the Sequoia National Forest and National Monument (read the Proclamation) does not continue to destroy ecosystems, including logging under the guise of forest health, fuels reduction and resource management. Commenting and appealing on proposed projects affecting the Sequoia National Forest and Giant Sequoia National Monument is one of the key ways we participate in this process.

Ara's Declaration of the logging in Trail of 100 Giants

October 30, 2008

I, Ara Marderosian, declare as follows.

1.         I am a resident of Weldon, California 93283-0988 and have been involved in monitoring forest management on the Sequoia National Forest for 12 years.  In 2000, I founded a conservation organization, Sequoia ForestKeeper, and have been its executive director for 8 years.  I have also been a member of the John Muir Project of Earth Island Institute since we jointly pursued judicial review of the Burnt Ridge timber sale in 2003.

2.         President Clinton signed the Presidential Proclamation creating the Giant Sequoia National Monument (GSNM) out of the Sequoia National Forest on April 15, 2000.  The signing ceremony was held in the premier tourist area within the GSNM, the Trail of 100 Giants, which is within a giant sequoia grove.  The Proclamation stated that the purpose of the newly designated monument is to protect the Sequoia forests and end logging for timber.

3.         The Fresno Bee of April 25, 2004 announced that there will be a meeting with professional foresters held in the parking lot at the Trail of 100 Giants on Thursday April 29, 2004 to discuss hazard trees.  At the April 29, 2004 Forest Service meeting in the parking lot of the Trail of 100 Giants, the Forest Service stated their intention to fell “hazard” trees along the Trail of 100 Giants.  They also announced that they intend to close the Trail of 100 Giants throughout the summer of 2004. I asked for data and documentation on the project, but received nothing. The Order to close the trail was posted on April 30, 2004.

Read the declaration

To read the letter you will need to have Adobe Acrobat Reader. Most likely you already have this software on your computer.  If you don't, you can go here to get it for free.

Comment Letter on Tule River Reservation Protection Project

September 24, 2008

The Forest Service should not conduct fuel reduction within the Black Mountain Grove, or any other grove, without first preparing a Monument Management Plan.  The Mediated Settlement Agreement (MSA) contains strong language regarding preparation of a grove specific management plan and fuel load reduction plan.  These plans must employ the most environmentally sensitive methods available to preserve, protect, restore and regenerate the Giant Sequoia Groves, without damage to trees in the Grove.  The Forest Service must disclose, in detail, existing and future conditions of the Black Mountain Grove in light of the proposed action.  This analysis should address the cumulative impacts of the proposed action as well as all past, present, and foreseeable future actions on all other groves in the monument. 

The NOI scoping document says “The proposed project area is approximately 1,574 acres on National Forest lands and is located along the northern boundary between the Sequoia National Forest, Giant Sequoia National Monument, and the Tule River Indian Reservation. The project is bounded by Forest Service Roads (FS) 21S12 on the west and north, FS 21S94 on the east, and the boundary between the Sequoia National Forest and the Tule River Indian Reservation on the south (see enclosed map). The legal description for the project area is T215, R3OE, Sections 1, 12, 13, 14,15, 16; andT2lS, R31E, Sections 3,4,6,7,8,9,10, 15, 16, 17 and 18. Elevations in the area range from 4,800 to 7,000 feet, The project area encompasses portions of the Black Mountain Giant Sequoia Grove, planted conifer stands, mixed conifer forest, Montane chaparral, and private lands.” This statement fails to disclose that implementation of the project would extend beyond 21S12 to the west and north.

Read the entire letter

To read the letter you will need to have Adobe Acrobat Reader. Most likely you already have this software on your computer.  If you don't, you can go here to get it for free.

Comment Letter on Ponderosa Urban Interface Project EA

July 26, 2008

Thank you for the opportunity to comment, again, on the Ponderosa Project as proposed in the July 15, 2008 Preliminary EA (PEA). 

The purpose of Sequoia ForestKeeper (SFK) is to protect and preserve the natural environment of the Sequoia National Forest, and especially to prevent any excessive or unnecessary logging.  As such, we are very concerned about the Ponderosa Urban Interface Project (formerly titled Ponderosa Fuels Reduction WUI Project).  While we thank you for the effort to respond to some of the issues we raised in our scoping comments, we herein reiterate those concerns.  As described below, some of the responses were inadequate and there are others with which we disagree, a number of concerns that need to be addressed, and a number of questions that need to be answered.

Read the entire letter

To read the letter you will need to have Adobe Acrobat Reader. Most likely you already have this software on your computer.  If you don't, you can go here to get it for free.

Comment Letter on Fox Meadow Plantation Thinning Project scoping

June 23, 2008

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Fox Meadow Plantation Thinning Project scoping.  We support projects that would prevent catastrophic wildfire.  We support projects that protect wildlife habitat.  As set forth below, we suggest the Fox Meadow Plantation Thinning Project scoping be modified to reduce the compaction that would result from implementation, as proposed.

On May 23, 2008, the Forest Service disclosed the scoping document for the Fox Meadow Plantation Thinning Project, which is included herein in its entirety, by reference. The Forest Service disclosed in the scoping document that the Fox Meadow Plantation Thinning Project would reduce fuels with heavy equipment known as a masticator on 290 acres of plantations in the vicinity of Fox Meadow.

Read the entire letter

To read the letter you will need to have Adobe Acrobat Reader. Most likely you already have this software on your computer.  If you don't, you can go here to get it for free.

Comment Letter on Clear Creek Revised EA

May 30, 2008

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Revised EA for the Clear Creek Forest Health Fuels Reduction Project.  We support projects that would protect the health and safety of the residents in forest communities.  We support projects that protect communities by thinning the trees in the 200 foot-wide areas immediately surrounding structures.  As set forth below, we oppose the Clear Creek Forest Health Fuels Reduction Project on a number of bases and ask that the project be withdrawn as written.  

We are concerned with the Revised EA for the Clear Creek Forest Health Fuels Reduction Project because the language, as cited below, indicates that the EA fails to adequately consider the cumulative impacts to the forest ecosystem, the wildlife habitat, and the human environment. The Forest Service many times claims it does not have to obey the law, because there were no comments indicating the law should be followed.  Therefore, we wish to raise the issue that all laws that apply to the project need to be followed whether mentioned in this letter or not. 

Read the entire letter

To read the letter you will need to have Adobe Acrobat Reader. Most likely you already have this software on your computer.  If you don't, you can go here to get it for free.

Comment Letter on Coy Flat Land Exchange Scoping

April 15, 2008

Please address the following concerns and information in the environmental assessment for this project:

 1.      Please provide clear maps—this is truly critical to our understanding many aspects of the proposed exchange. These should clearly show the location and configuration of the federal and non-federal lands and, in particular, their relationship to other ownerships (state, private, federal) and other major features such as roads. Including topographic characteristics in the maps would also be helpful to our understanding of the project.

2.      Please provide a thorough description of the environmental characteristics of all the lands involved.

 3.      Please provide some characterizations or evaluations of the potential for development to occur on the private inholdings in or adjacent to the groves if they are not traded to the public.

Read the entire letter

To read the letter you will need to have Adobe Acrobat Reader. Most likely you already have this software on your computer.  If you don't, you can go here to get it for free.

Comment Letter on Vista Fire Restoration Salvage and Hazard Tree Project

February 29, 2008

We are concerned about removing trees, because for all times of day, except at high noon in mid summer, when the sun is at an angle to true vertical, burned trees provide a tremendous amount of shade for the ground and for bodies of water. Shadows that cover 30 percent of the ground between 2:00 and 4:00 PM, in the Vista Fire area of the burned forest, would provide protection from the sun for natural and planted seedlings.

We believe that this project would increase the temperature of the forest, for the particular areas where natural and planted seedlings will exist, and for water flowing through the forest by removing the burned trees that currently provide some shade for the project area, including streams, springs, fens, and bogs and riparian areas. The EIS for this project must present evidence that such an increase in ground, air, and water temperature would not adversely affect the beneficial uses. 

Read the entire letter

To read the letter you will need to have Adobe Acrobat Reader. Most likely you already have this software on your computer.  If you don't, you can go here to get it for free.

Comment Letter on Revised Ponderosa Fuels Reduction Project Scoping

February 26, 2008

Thank you for the opportunity to comment, again, on the Ponderosa Project as proposed in the December 19, 2007 scoping document and revised on February 7, 2008.  Your revised scoping document indicates that “comments received from the March 1, 2006 and the December 19, 2007 letter will still be maintained and considered.” We submitted comments then and we expect that appropriate comments from those letters to be considered in addition to those comments and questions found below.  

The proposed revised Ponderosa Project has one component that we can support, a number of concerns that need to be addressed, and a number of questions that need to be answered.  The information provided in the Ponderosa Project scoping documents is inadequate and insufficient for a proper and thorough response that would include all of the issues that could possibly be involved in this project.  Due to the inadequacy of the revised Ponderosa Project scoping documentation provided to us by the Forest Service, we reserve the right to introduce additional issues of concern, which should be analyzed for this project, after we have received the missing information.  In addition, we request that all laws applicable to this project be followed whether mentioned in this letter or not.

Read the entire letter

To read the letter you will need to have Adobe Acrobat Reader. Most likely you already have this software on your computer.  If you don't, you can go here to get it for free.

Comment Letter on Ponderosa Fuels Reduction Project Scoping

January 25, 2008

The proposed Ponderosa Project has one component that we can support, a number of concerns that need to be addressed, and a number of questions that need to be answered.  The information provided in the Ponderosa Project scoping documents is inadequate and insufficient for a proper and thorough response that would include all of the issues that could possibly be involved in this project.  Due to the inadequacy of the Ponderosa Project scoping documentation provided to us by the Forest Service, we reserve the right to introduce additional issues of concern, which should be analyzed for this project, after we have received the missing information.  In addition, we request that all laws applicable to this project be followed whether mentioned in this letter or not. 

We are concerned because similar projects in the Camp Nelson area were very damaging, no standards were established, the EA/Decision Notice was not followed, and an outside fire crew carried it out even though they didn't understand what was wanted.  We have concerns regarding the potential effects of the actions proposed, as described below.

            We support projects that would protect the health and safety of the residents in forest communities.  We support projects that protect communities by thinning the trees in the 200 foot-wide areas immediately adjacent to and surrounding structures.  (Wildland Fire Threat to Homes; Where and How Much” by J. Cohen)   As set forth below, we oppose the Ponderosa Project on a number of bases and suggest that the project be postponed or severely narrowed.

Read the entire letter

To read the letter you will need to have Adobe Acrobat Reader. Most likely you already have this software on your computer.  If you don't, you can go here to get it for free.

GSNM Proclamation Statement on the Primacy of Protection and Ecological Resoration in Future Monument Management Decisions

January 9, 2008

To: Carie Fox, Fox Mediation

In preparation for the next public meeting on recreation use in the Giant Sequoia National Monument, we are writing to ask your help in assuring that the essential requirements of the monument proclamation be kept firmly in mind by all participants.  Recreation, of course, receives special attention in the proclamation.  We agree with and support that.  Most monument visitors, often including us and our groups’ members, come at least in part for recreation.  You, of course, are aware that the proclamation also places important, mandatory, qualifications on recreational use.  Because, however, some meeting participants may not be so well-versed in the proclamation’s terms, we think it will be important to help communicate to them this background for their discussions. 

Most fundamentally, while it directs, appropriately, that management “provide for and encourage continued public and recreational access and use,” the proclamation requires that all such use be “consistent with the purposes of the monument.”  The purposes of the monument, by statute, are the care and management of “objects of historic or scientific interest.”  Thus recreational uses must be thoroughly examined in light of the monument’s over-riding purposes of protection, preservation, and restoration.  To meet this standard, decisions to allow recreational activity need to show clearly that they do not, in any way, set back these fundamental goals.

Read the entire letter

Shirley Meadows Snowmaking Appeal

Nov. 11, 2007

Pursuant to 36 C.F.R. § 215.14, Sequoia ForestKeeper hereby appeals the decision to proceed with the Shirley Meadows Snowmaking Project because the Decision Memo neglects important issues described below and jeopardizes the ecological health and integrity of the Sequoia National Forest. See also Earth Island Institute v. Ruthenbeck, 490 F.3d 687 (9^th Cir. 2007) (invalidating the 36 C.F.R. § 215.12(f) exemption of categorically excluded projects from appeal).

Appellant respectfully requests that the Forest Service withdraw the decision being appealed and prepare an EIS to more fully investigate and disclose the environmental impacts and tradeoffs associated with this project. Another change that we strongly support (and argue below is required) is analyzing the entire Shirley Meadows Ski Area Master Development Plan in one EIS, rather that considering the snowmaking separately from related impacts.

Read the entire appeal

To read the letter you will need to have Adobe Acrobat Reader. Most likely you already have this software on your computer.  If you don't, you can go here to get it for free.

Hume Lake Roadside Hazard Tree Salvage Project Appeal

Nov. 2, 2007

Pursuant to 36 C.F.R. § 215.14, Sequoia ForestKeeper hereby appeals the decision to proceed with the Hume Lake Roadside Hazard Tree Salvage Project because the Decision Memo neglects important issues described below and jeopardizes the ecological health and integrity of the Sequoia National Forest. See also Earth Island Institute v. Ruthenbeck, 490 F.3d 687 (9^th Cir. 2007) (invalidating the 36 C.F.R. § 215.12(f) exemption of categorically excluded projects from appeal).

Appellant respectfully requests that the Forest Service withdraw the decision being appealed and prepare an EIS to more fully investigate and disclose the environmental impacts and tradeoffs associated with this project. Other changes that we support include queuing the project until an acceptable Monument Management Plan has completed the NEPA process, non-removal hazard tree prescriptions, and prescriptions that do not include a timber sale component.  As discussed further on page 6 of this appeal, our primary proposal for this and future hazard tree projects is to cut down the hazard tree, thus rendering it harmless, then leave it behind to serve as habitat.  This is not only more environmentally sound, but also removes the conflict of interest in tree-selection.

Read the entire appeal

To read the letter you will need to have Adobe Acrobat Reader. Most likely you already have this software on your computer.  If you don't, you can go here to get it for free.

Comment Letter on Montecito Lake Resort Expansion Project

October 20, 2007

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Montecito Lake Resort Expansion Project.  To begin with, and as we have commented in the past, decisions on proposed projects in the Monument should be deferred until a Monument Management Plan is completed.

In general, we support providing public facilities in the Monument, if they will protect the objects listed in the Proclamation, which is the overriding purpose of the Proclamation.  The Giant Sequoia National Monument was created “for the purpose of protecting the objects” identified in the Proclamation, and “all lands and interests in lands. . . within the boundaries of the . . . Giant Sequoia National Monument.”  The Presidential Proclamation also states that, “The Secretary of Agriculture shall prepare, within 3 years of this date, a management plan for this monument, and shall promulgate such regulations for its management as deemed appropriate.”

 The purpose of having a management plan in place is to provide us with guidance in dealing with decisions such as the one before us here.  It seems unwise to allow development in the Monument while such a plan is not yet in place.  We recommend that no expansions of facilities or increases of lands under special use permit on the Giant Sequoia National Monument should occur until after a Final GSNM Plan is in place; this Plan should spell out the standards and guidelines for the types of uses that are compatible with the Monument’s purposes as set forth in the Proclamation.

Read the entire letter

To read the letter you will need to have Adobe Acrobat Reader. Most likely you already have this software on your computer.  If you don't, you can go here to get it for free.

Letter on Logging in Golden Trout Wilderness

Sept. 25, 2007

I am writing to inform you of an unfortunate series of events that has taken place in the Sequoia National Forest and Inyo National Forest this year, specifically in the Golden Trout Wilderness area (GTW).  One error has built upon another, leading to extensive damage along the trails in the wilderness.  Although this damage has already been done, my hope in sending you this letter is that we may shed some light on how this happened and thereby prevent any reoccurrence.  I will share with you in this letter the information that I have, and would greatly appreciate a written response advising us regarding what steps you have taken and/or will take to prevent this from happening again.  I realize that you are going to retire next week, so I would greatly appreciate it if you would pass this on to Randy Moore when you do, but am directing it to you in the hope that you will have an opportunity to respond sooner. 

            On May 14, 2007, Forest Supervisor Tina Terrell signed an authorization to use motorized equipment, specifically chainsaws, to clear trails in the GTW.  Her authorization letter is attached to the same email as this letter.  In late summer of this year this chainsaw work was done, and trees were cut down to great distances off either side of the trail, ranging from ten to twenty feet, which was not necessary to serve any of the values set forth in the Wilderness Act.

Read the entire letter

To read the letter you will need to have Adobe Acrobat Reader. Most likely you already have this software on your computer.  If you don't, you can go here to get it for free.

Proposed PSW MIS Amendment Comment Letter

July 23, 2007

In general we are concerned that the proposed changes to MIS monitoring will erode the significant impacts analysis for future projects by emphasizing the broad, forest-wide scale over project level monitoring. This is a problem the courts have identified as plaguing NEPA analysis. The Forest Service must consider the impacts of future projects at the project level and may not downplay the affects of a project on a species simply by looking at the effects from the forest-wide scale. See Klamath-Siskiyou Wildlands Center v. Bureau of Land Management 387 F. 3d 989, 994 (9^th. Cir. 2004).  Furthermore, the 10^th Circuit reads MIS regulations to require project level monitoring. See Utah Environmental Congress v. Bosworth, 372 F.3d 1219, 1225 (10th Cir. 2004).  These decisions call into question the propriety of this amendment, which is largely motivated by a desire to conduct generalized forest-wide monitoring.  

The dangers of over-broad monitoring are already evident in the proposed action, such as the elimination of monitoring of peripheral critical habitat (e.g. bald eagle habitat,) state protected species (e.g. Tule elk) and entire habitat types such as lodgepole pine forests. Project level data is valuable and in our experience, often the only scale at which species data is actually gathered.

Read the entire letter

To read the letter you will need to have Adobe Acrobat Reader. Most likely you already have this software on your computer.  If you don't, you can go here to get it for free.

Scodie Mountain North Grazing Comment Letter

June 18, 2007

Thank you for this opportunity for Western Watersheds Project and Sequoia ForestKeeper to provide scoping comments as the Kern River Ranger District of the Sequoia National Forest considers whether to authorize continued livestock grazing on these allotments under current management or to defer any action at this time.

 We have reviewed the proposal and accompanying maps for the Scodie Mountains North Grazing project.  We have the following information relating to this project that indicates that the proposed action may cause significant environmental effects.  Please incorporate our comments in planning for the proposed grazing activities on the Smith Canyon and the Jack's Creek Allotments.

Read the entire letter

To read the letter you will need to have Adobe Acrobat Reader. Most likely you already have this software on your computer.  If you don't, you can go here to get it for free.

Blackrock Hazard Tree Comment Letter

June 14, 2007

Although we would prefer that the Forest Service forgo the cutting of hazard trees entirely, leaving nature in its natural state and warning the public of the dangers inherent in a wilderness environment, we recognize that there is a value to the public in eliminating any truly imminent dangers.  That said, our primary concern with hazard tree removal projects is that they are not narrowly tailored to cause the minimum amount of harm to the forest necessary to protect the public from realistic dangers.  Indeed, to do so would require the focus to be entirely on that protection, without regard to providing timber to logging interests.

             Because our concern is based on prior experience observing far more trees cut than necessary, we would like to be as informed as possible throughout the implementation of this project.  During our visit to the site we were unable to locate 350 marked trees, leaving us uncertain as to all of the trees to be cut.  Worse, however, was the fact that many of those trees that were marked did not appear to be hazard trees at all.  In some cases, only the very tops of the trees (about 8 feet or so) were dead, and those were very weathered to suggest they had been that way for some time and posed no imminent danger.  One of the trees we observed had a black-back woodpecker living in a hole in the top of the tree - it took a long time for this bird to create a nest in that tree.

Read the entire letter

To read the letter you will need to have Adobe Acrobat Reader. Most likely you already have this software on your computer.  If you don't, you can go here to get it for free.

Big Meadows Improvement Project Draft Memorandum Comment Letter

June 1, 2007

We have read your draft memorandum describing the proposed pond and plug project at Big Meadows, and we do not believe that this project is necessary or natural as it is presently planned.  We recognize that there is a desire to repair damage in the area, but submit that there are better and more natural methods for doing so.  Because we agree with the comments filed by Richard Kangas, we are including portions of them herein, along with some additional comment of our own. 

            Pond and plug methods are extremely invasive no matter your expressed expected outcome.  Heavy tractor work along more than a mile (6,100 feet) of streambed and building a dam at the lower end of the meadow are not “normal practices” as you imply in your cover letter.  Since this project would be within the Giant Sequoia National Monument (GSNM) and because it would dig ponds, fill other areas, install downed trees in waterways, plant trees in the meadow where none exist, alter flows in a major meadow and stream (both within and beyond the meadow), and affect the fauna and flora within and beyond the meadow, you must write a full Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and not simply assume the Forest Service Handbook concepts of “normal practices” covers this extraordinary case under categorical exclusion.

Read the entire letter

To read the letter you will need to have Adobe Acrobat Reader. Most likely you already have this software on your computer.  If you don't, you can go here to get it for free.

Greeley Pasture Grazing Allotment Project Comment Letter

May 29, 2007

Thank you for providing the opportunity for the public to comment on the Greeley Pasture Grazing Allotment Project.  This comment letter contains general comments on the Greeley Pasture Grazing Allotment Project since the scoping document provided few details about the project.  In general, we are in favor of projects that would return damaged forest, oak woodland, and pasture areas to natural conditions.   

The information provided in the Greeley Pasture Grazing Allotment Project scoping letter (Greeley Pasture Grazing document) is insufficient for a proper and thorough response that would include all of the issues that could possibly be involved in this project.  Due to the inadequacy of the Greeley Pasture Grazing document provided to us by the Forest Service, we reserve the right to introduce additional issues of concern, which should be analyzed for this project, after we have received the missing information and toured the project area.  The Forest Service many times claims it does not have to obey the law, because there were no comments indicating the law should be followed.  Therefore, we wish to raise the issue that all laws that apply to the project need to be followed whether mentioned in this comment letter or not. 

Read the entire letter

To read the letter you will need to have Adobe Acrobat Reader. Most likely you already have this software on your computer.  If you don't, you can go here to get it for free.

Hume Lake Roadside Salvage Project Comment Letter

May 3, 2007

...We are very concerned about the Hume Lake Roadside Salvage Project (formerly titled Hume Lake Roadside Hazard Tree Removal).  While we thank you for the effort to respond to some of the issues we raised in our scoping comments, we herein reiterate those concerns.  As described below, some of the responses were inadequate and there are others with which we disagree. 

            Although we would prefer that the Forest Service forgo the cutting of hazard trees entirely, leaving nature in its natural state and warning the public of the dangers inherent in a wilderness environment, we recognize that there is a value to the public in eliminating any truly imminent dangers.  That said, our primary concern with hazard tree removal projects is that they are not narrowly tailored to cause the minimum amount of harm to the forest necessary to protect the public from realistic dangers.  Indeed, to do so would require the focus to be entirely on that protection, without regard to providing timber to logging interests.

Read the entire letter

To read the letter you will need to have Adobe Acrobat Reader. Most likely you already have this software on your computer.  If you don't, you can go here to get it for free.

Proposed Changes to Management Indicator Species Comment Letter

Read the entire letter

To read the letter you will need to have Adobe Acrobat Reader. Most likely you already have this software on your computer.  If you don't, you can go here to get it for free.

Shirley Meadows Ski Area Master Plan Snowmaking Project Comment Letter

March 23, 2007

...We are concerned about the Shirley Meadows Ski Area Master Development Plan and the associated Snowmaking Project for two main reasons. First, we were not sent scoping for the issuance of a Winter Recreation Resort Special Use Permit to Shirley Meadows Incorporated and we found no record of the publication of scoping in the file for this project even though we found a record of the Decision that approved the Winter Recreation Resort Special Use Permit to Shirley Meadows Incorporated.  Second, the Forest Service is ANALYZING AND APPROVING each separate stage separately and not looking at the entire Shirley Meadows Ski Area Master Development Plan in one NEPA document. There is this Shirley Meadows Ski Area Master Development Plan that the lessee wants to eventually carry out, so the impacts of that master plan need to be addressed. The Forest Service can't pretend the full build out plans do not exist. By separating the project into components, the Forest Service never addresses the real impacts to the affected environment. NEPA insists that a project not be subdivided for purposes of analysis of impacts.

Also, by allowing the developer to proceed with beginning steps to full build out, the Forest Service is implying that the developer will be allowed to continue because the agency is allowing the developer to put his money into what amounts to the foundation for the full project. The Forest Service will believe it is compelled to approve subsequent requests for further build-out of the master plan, because the agency has let the developer start or let the developer go further...

Read the entire letter

To read the letter you will need to have Adobe Acrobat Reader. Most likely you already have this software on your computer.  If you don't, you can go here to get it for free.

Clear Creek Forest Health Improvement and Fuels Reduction Project APPEAL

 March 21, 2007

  ...Appellant respectfully requests that the Forest Service withdraw the decision being appealed and prepare an EIS to more fully investigate and disclose the environmental impacts and tradeoffs associated with this project. Other changes that we support include applying a 9 inch diameter cap for fire resilient species, and a 12-14 inch diameter cap for fire intolerant tree species; retaining all large snags; implementing the project as a variable density treatment, with skips and small gaps...

Read the entire appeal

To read the letter you will need to have Adobe Acrobat Reader. Most likely you already have this software on your computer.  If you don't, you can go here to get it for free.

Hume Lake Roadside Hazard Tree Project Scoping Comment Letter

Read the entire letter

To read the letter you will need to have Adobe Acrobat Reader. Most likely you already have this software on your computer.  If you don't, you can go here to get it for free.

Johnsondale Reforestation Project Comment Letter

March 15, 2007

Dear Ms. Summers;

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed Johnsondale Reforestation Project.  To assist the Forest Service in identifying and considering issues and concerns on the proposed action, we are providing comments that are as specific as possible given the lack of data and specific information provided in the scoping document.   

We support projects that would restore forest health. As set forth below, we oppose the Johnsondale Reforestation Project on a number of bases.

The information provided in the Johnsondale Reforestation Project scoping letter is inadequate and insufficient for a proper and thorough response that would include all of the issues that could possibly be involved in this project.  Due to the inadequacy of the Johnsondale Reforestation Project scoping documentation provided to us by the Forest Service, we reserve the right to introduce additional issues of concern, which should be analyzed for this project, after we have received the additional and missing information from the Forest Service. 

Read the entire letter

To read the letter you will need to have Adobe Acrobat Reader. Most likely you already have this software on your computer.  If you don't, you can go here to get it for free.

North Road Hazard Tree Project Scoping Comment Letter

Read the entire letter

To read the letter you will need to have Adobe Acrobat Reader. Most likely you already have this software on your computer.  If you don't, you can go here to get it for free.

Recreation Site Facility Master Planning 5 Year Work Project Comment Letter

February 27, 2007

Dear Mr. Handley: 

            The purpose of Sequoia ForestKeeper (SFK) is to protect and preserve the natural environment of the Sequoia National Forest, as well as to encourage public appreciation and enjoyment of its natural beauty.  As such, we are very concerned about the proposed 5-year program of work affecting recreational use of the forest.

             The proposal to decommission or reduce more than half of all the campgrounds is of great concern to us.  Recreational use is one of the purposes of the forest and brings in significant revenue.  While it may be possible to maximize the economic benefit from the ratio between revenues and expenses by having fewer campgrounds, to do so is to treat the forest as a business purely for profit.  It ignores the need for facilities in a greater number of locations and seeks to concentrate concessions into fewer locations to save money, while still spending significantly more on logging and other projects.

             We write primarily to oppose the mass closing of campgrounds, as explained below, but would like to express special concern over one in particular: Redwood Meadow.  This campground is one of the two closest to the extremely popular Trail of 100 Giants (the other is Long Meadow, which we are also concerned about though it is less-frequented).  Redwood Meadow is a very popular site, and we cannot understand why it would be reduced to a mere parking lot.  Our organization promotes public awareness of giant sequoias, and the Trail of 100 Giants is an important contributor to that goal.  Not only would this conversion result in the loss of a very important campground, but the $5 parking fees are also a deterrent to visitors, who should be welcomed to the Trail.

             There are two most significant reasons for our concern regarding the environmental impact of the proposed reduction in campgrounds.  First, this will lead to even further privatization of camping concessions, thus placing more forest land in the hands of less accountable decision-makers (indeed, some such hand-overs are even described in the proposal).  Second, fewer developed campgrounds will lead to more offsite camping, which creates both environmental and public safety problems.

             Privatization of campgrounds will lead to fewer campgrounds, each larger and more densely packed, as opposed to the environmentally preferable scattering of smaller campgrounds.  This is because private campgrounds will be planned solely based on potential for profit rather than respect for the forest environment.  It will also lead to higher prices for consumers, thereby excluding those from lower socioeconomic classes (whose children might best benefit from experiencing nature).  Privatization allows the Forest Service to pass on a very important responsibility to private corporate interests, which is not in the best interests of either the forest or the public.

             With regard to the second concern – an increase in people camping offsite – there are many reasons why this is problematic.  There is simply no way to ensure that people will restrict themselves to environmentally safe behaviors outside the rule-oriented structure of official campgrounds.  People will drive further off-road, causing damage to the flora and potentially killing wildlife.  They will clear away areas to set up camp, thereby altering the ecosystem.  Without toilets human fecal matter will be introduced into the watershed in greater quantity, causing both environmental harm and health risks to people and wildlife.  The lack of fire rings will not prevent people from building campfires, creating a significant risk of wildfire.

             Not only do diverse and plentiful campgrounds encourage recreational use of the forest, which is one of the purposes of public land, but they also discourage irresponsible behaviors by recreational users.  We believe that the significant funds that have been earmarked for maintenance of recreational facilities be used for this purpose, allowing most (if not all) of these campgrounds to stay open.  The Giant Sequoia National Monument was created, in part, to protect and enhance recreational opportunity.

             In making the decision to close or modify so many campgrounds, were the cumulative impacts of doing so considered?  This should be taken into account during the upcoming NEPA process (clearly such a major action as this will require an EIS). Because the Sequoia National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan is the plan by which forest resources, including recreation, are to be managed, how does the RSFMP comply with this forest management requirement?

              Finally, we would like to ask whether any trees will need to be cut during the process of converting campgrounds into concentrated use areas.  This question should be addressed in any future documents discussing these plans, especially any NEPA documents.

McKenzie WUI Fuels Reduction Project Comment Letter

Dear Mr. Exline,

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the McKenzie WUI Fuels Reduction Project.  In general, we support fuels reduction projects implemented within 200 feet of structures, because scientific research indicates that such projects would protect communities. But decisions on proposed projects in the Monument that propose fuels treatments, including tree removal, beyond 200 feet from structures should be deferred until a Monument Management Plan is in place. The court that declared the Monument management plan to be illegal agrees that hand thinning of trees less than ten inches in diameter adjacent to communities pursuant to a service contract would be acceptable for the court until a legal management plan is approved...

Read the entire letter

To read the letter you will need to have Adobe Acrobat Reader. Most likely you already have this software on your computer.  If you don't, you can go here to get it for free.

Bearskin Meadow Camp Renovation Project Comment Letter

Dear Mr. Exline,

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Bearskin Meadow Camp Renovation Project.  In general, I support providing public facilities in the Monument, if they will protect the objects listed in the Proclamation, which is the overriding purpose of the Proclamation.  But decisions on proposed projects in the Monument should be deferred until a Monument Management Plan is in place...

Read the entire letter

To read the letter you will need to have Adobe Acrobat Reader. Most likely you already have this software on your computer.  If you don't, you can go here to get it for free.

Tule River Grazing West Comment Letter

Dear Ms. Summers: 

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the revised Environmental Assessment (revised EA) for the Tule River West Grazing Project that includes management proposals for the North Grouse, South Grouse, Grouse Valley, Rancheria, East Bear, West Bear, Middle Tule, Cow Mountain, and Black Mountain grazing allotments, on the Tule River Ranger District of Sequoia National Forest.

The following comments are submitted on behalf of Sequoia ForestKeeper, the Center for Biological Diversity, the Sequoia Forest Alliance, the Tule River Conservancy, the Kerncrest Audubon Society, Forest Forever, the Sequoia Task Force of the Sierra Club, Western Watershed Project, Forest Guardians, and Ronald J. and Carol Holmes Wermuth, and our members nationwide and in California who are affected by public lands management. Our members use our National Forests and the Giant Sequoia National Monument for a variety of recreational, spiritual, scientific, and aesthetic purposes and are impacted by livestock grazing and the degradation of the resources that results from this use. We are commenting on procedural and substantive issues that the EA failed to consider and address.

We are pleased that the EA addresses two of the problem areas where livestock grazing has drastically impacted the habitat and one area where a species requires protection from grazing in order to survive. We appreciate the fact that the District Ranger has chosen to address those areas of concern and to specify remedies in this revised EA that could address those specific impacts in these allotments that require attention.

However, our concerns are for protecting the entire Giant Sequoia National Monument and the failure of the EA to address the overwhelming scientific research cited in our previous submissions and appeal for this project, which are included herein in their entirety, by reference, which confirms that livestock grazing is harmful to the ecosystem in which it has been implemented. This revised EA fails to provide evidence to prove that every other location except for the three that are identified as being out of compliance in these allotments is in compliance.

Read the entire letter

To read the letter you will need to have Adobe Acrobat Reader. Most likely you already have this software on your computer.  If you don't, you can go here to get it for free.

Blackrock Hazard Tree Removal Project Scoping Comment Letter

Dear Mr. Freeland;

 Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Blackrock Hazard Tree Removal Project proposed for implementation on the Kern Plateau of Sequoia National Forest.  An eighteen-day comment period for the public review period is insufficient for an adequate review.  Fifteen days is insufficient time for receiving comprehensive public input. Your letter indicates that public comments and input into this process are very important, but 15 days is insufficient time to have a letter delivered by US Postal Service and still give sufficient time for a comprehensive comment.

“The Forest Service is seeking comments on this proposed action and to be informed of any unusual situations or extraordinary circumstances that may lead this proposed action to cause significant environmental effects.”

Unless the Forest Service is not interested in receiving public comments, a minimum of 30 days must be provided for the public to submit input.  We request that this comment period be reopened and 30 more days be given for public comment.

Read the entire letter

To read the letter you will need to have Adobe Acrobat Reader. Most likely you already have this software on your computer.  If you don't, you can go here to get it for free.

Big Meadows Creek Watershed Improvement Project Scoping Comment Letter

Dear Mr. Exline:

 Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Big Meadow Creek Watershed Improvement Project scoping.  We support projects that would restore creeks and meadows damaged by past livestock grazing and logging.  As set forth below, we suggest the Big Meadow Creek Watershed Improvement Project scoping be adjusted to reduce the compaction that would result from implementation, as proposed. We would like more complete information and a tour of the project area to understand the scope of the project.

 On March 22, 2006, the Forest Service disclosed the scoping document for the Big Meadow Creek Watershed Improvement Project, which would “cut and fill . . . approximately 13,150 cubic yards of existing gullies to eliminate the downcutting, 16 lodgepole pines (< 30 inches diameter) would be uprooted from a designated 23-acre area along the southern margin of Big Meadows, uprooting and hauling would be accomplished mainly using crawler type, machinery with the haul route approximately 0.3 miles, or 200 feet, across the upper dry terrace in the southern part of the meadow to restore 6,100 feet of degraded stream within the meadow to enhance aquatic species habitat while maintaining existing land uses including recreation and grazing.” The project proposes to use a method called "pond and plug".

Read the entire letter

To read the letter you will need to have Adobe Acrobat Reader. Most likely you already have this software on your computer.  If you don't, you can go here to get it for free.

Frandy Park Expansion Conditional Use Permit Request Comment Letter

Dear Mr. James:

...This property is of particular interest because it is in the view shed of Riverside Park in the center of Kernville and along the sensitive Wild and Scenic Kern River. This property is one of the first view sheds that visitors see upon entering the town of Kernville. Since the Kern River has been designated as a Wild and Scenic River, it is deserving of greater protection. How does the designation effect this expansion – is it honoring this designation?

A number of questions still remain unanswered due to the lack of clarity of the information provided for this project, including the following questions.

 1.  Are the three rafting companies in question currently operating out of this location?

2. How many additional persons will this project bring, due to the 64 tent sites,30 RV sites, and parking spaces for 176 vehicles?

3. Will this project pave the parking spaces or just the roads?

4. How can a Conditional Use Permit allow the permanent retention of a whitewater rafting landing site for three rafting companies; will this make the permit no longer conditional?

5. How can a conditional use permit be permanent?

We reserve the right to submit additional comments as additional information is provided.

We recommend that Kern County not approve this Conditional Use Permit; to do so would lead to the loss of biodiversity, viewshed, open space, and agricultural uses.

Read the entire letter

To read the letter you will need to have Adobe Acrobat Reader. Most likely you already have this software on your computer.  If you don't, you can go here to get it for free.

Red Mountain Thinning Efficacy Research Project Comment Letter

Dear Mr. Freeland,

...We support projects that would “determine better ways of treating fuels layers within plantations.”  However, if heavy equipment is to be used, the Red Mountain and Bradshaw Thinning Research Project proposes to implement treatments that could cause sediment flows into a habitat that is already heavily impacted by sediment flows form past logging projects. For instance, one of the streams that would receive more intense sediment flows due to this project is the Bradshaw Creek which flows through the Bradshaw Spotted Owl PAC.

Most of this project is on the west side of Poso Creek, an area that has been damaged by up-stream logging and grazing. The project description fails to mention that the project map shows that the project would also be implemented in Section 31 of Township 27 South, Range 32 East, which is on the slope above the Bradshaw Spotted Owl PAC.

Read the entire letter

To read the letter you will need to have Adobe Acrobat Reader. Most likely you already have this software on your computer.  If you don't, you can go here to get it for free.

Ponderosa Fuels Reduction Scoping Comment Letter

Dear Ms. Summers:

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Ponderosa Project as proposed.  We support projects that would protect the health and safety of the residents in forest communities.  We support projects that protect communities by thinning the trees in the 200 foot-wide areas immediately adjacent to and surrounding structures.  As set forth below, we oppose the Ponderosa Project on a number of bases and suggest that the project be postponed or severely narrowed.

On March 1, 2006 the Tule River Ranger District started the scoping process for the Ponderosa Fuels Reduction Project (Ponderosa Project). The Ponderosa project area encompasses approximately 1,079 acres, and is located in Township 21 South, Range 31 East, Sections 7, 8, 9, 15, 16, 17, 20, 21, and 22 of Mount Diablo Meridian. The elevation ranges from 7,100 to 7,200 feet. The Ponderosa Project area is adjacent to private land that contains the community of Ponderosa and two camps with special use permits; Quaker Meadow camp and Camp COTYAC. Also in the project area is Quaking Aspen Campground. The project area consists of old forest, stands of planted pines, stands of quaking aspen, and meadows. Nineteen acres of the old forest is part of the Wheel Meadow Giant Sequoia Grove.

Read the entire letter

To read the letter you will need to have Adobe Acrobat Reader. Most likely you already have this software on your computer.  If you don't, you can go here to get it for free.

Tule River Reservation Protection Fuels Reduction Pre-Scoping Comment Letter

Dear Ms. Summers:

 Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Tule River Reservation Protection Fuels Reduction Project pre-scoping (TRRP Fuels Reduction Project) proposed for implementation in the Giant Sequoia National Monument (Monument).  We support projects that would protect the health and safety of the residents in forest communities.  We support projects that protect communities, based on sound science, by thinning the trees in the 200 foot-wide areas immediately adjacent to and surrounding structures.

Due to multiple past failures of the Forest Service to be honest with the public and to follow forest management laws and regulations, in regard to other projects and planning in the Giant Sequoia National Monument, the public requires copies of all proposed agreements and project specifics. The public must make sure that the Forest Service follows all laws and regulations and especially that the Forest Service complies with the protective intent of the Proclamation that created the Monument.

The Forest Service’s environmental analysis of the proposed project must show that Forest Service managed land bordering on or adjacent to the Indian forest land poses a fire, disease, or other threat to the Indian forest land or to a tribal community; or that the land is in need of land restoration activities and that the proposed project is based on sound science and could achieve the goals of the project.

Read the entire letter

To read the letter you will need to have Adobe Acrobat Reader. Most likely you already have this software on your computer.  If you don't, you can go here to get it for free.

Tule River Reservation Protection Fuels Reduction Pre-Scoping Comment Letter #2  March 24, 2006

Dear Ms. Summers:

 The Monument lands do not need the type of treatment suggested by the Forest Service’s Tule River Reservation Protection Project.  We question the methods used to determine the condition of the forest near the reservation. We also suggest that the Forest Service logging of the past has caused the flammable conditions that exist, including all of the clearcuts, plantations, and brush in the Black Mountain, Peyrone-Red Hill area.  The treatment suggested by the Forest Service would cause more brush and dryer, more flammable conditions than already exist. 

The scope of the analysis and the issues to consider for the Tule River Reservation Protection Project must include a comprehensive evaluation of the current conditions and how and why these conditions exist, including the impacts that all past logging and plantations have had on forest conditions. This analysis by the Forest Service must include the impacts on fire weather conditions as described in the Forest Service Handbook 360 titled “Fire Weather.”

We want the Forest Service to complete an analysis of the area including the existing condition of the lands/plantations, failed or otherwise, original vegetative cover, alternatives for restoration that are consistent with the Proclamation and with scientific data showing that the strategies proposed for implementation have been successful elsewhere. The Forest Service has responsibilities under NEPA to be thorough in the evaluation.  

Respectfully Submitted,                              &nbs