Monument management plan's 6 alternatives open for comment

The public is invited to comment on the U.S. Forest Service’s revised plan on how to manage the 328,315-acre Giant Sequoia National Monument.

Comments pertaining to the Giant Sequoia National Monument Draft Environmental Impact Statement and the Giant Sequoia National Monument Draft Management Plan, which were developed in response to public input, will be accepted until Nov. 3.

The commenting period began Thursday when the documents were made available to the public.

“This is another opportunity for the public to get involved in the process,” Forest Service Supervisor Tina Terrell said Friday. “It’s a moving target. We realize we could have missed some things, but that’s why we open it up for public scrutiny.”

President Bill Clinton’s presidential proclamation, which was signed April 15, 2000, established the monument. His proclamation required the Forest Service to establish a monument management plan within three years.

A Giant Sequoia National Monument Final Environmental Impact Statement Record of Decision was signed Jan. 12, 2004.

The original management plan, however, was challenged in court by the Sierra Club in January 2005 and by the state in March 2005 because the plaintiffs argued certain “environmental procedures” were not followed by the Forest Service, Terrell said.

In October 2006, Federal District Court Judge Charles Breyer ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, saying a new management plan needed to be developed “in accordance with the presidential proclamation... and in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act.”

The Forest Service went back to the drawing boards and began working on a draft EIS and a draft management plan in May 2007, when the federal agency hired the U.S. Institute for Environmental Conflict Resolution.

The institute, another federal agency, hired Carie Fox, a third-party facilitator, to initiate meetings with the public, which began in October 2007.

The meetings lasted for more than a year, and in March 2009, the Forest Service developed its proposed action, which, according to Forest Service documents, “would protect the objects of interest and manage monument resources to promote resiliency, adaptability to climate change and heterogeneity across ecosystems.”

The proposed action also “responds to the issues of fuels management/community protection and fire affecting adjacent tribal lands” and “would continue to provide recreation opportunities that include dispersed camping, developed camping and motorized travel on designated roads,” the documents say.

Terrell said the draft EIS and the draft management plan are more “wholistic in nature” compared to the originals because there are no site-specific provisions in the documents.

The draft EIS and the draft management plan focus on all of the themes — the Giant Sequoias, hydrology, the Pacific fisher, wildlife species and the cultural aspect, just to name a few — detailed in the presidential proclamation, Terrell said.

She said the original management plan primarily focused on cultural, recreation and vegetation components.

“We focus on every aspect of the proclamation in this plan,” Terrell said.
A scoping period, which allowed the public to comment on the proposed action, took place from March 18 to May 4, 2009. The Forest Service received 347 comments during this time, Terrell said.
Nine issues — recreation and public use, road and trail access, diverse array of wildlife and their habitats, fuels management/community protection, tree removal, methods for Sequoia regeneration, fires spreading to tribal lands, obligation to analyze Mediated Settlement Agreement under NEPA, and manage the Monument like Sequoia and Kings Canyon national parks — were identified by the public and addressed by the Forest Service.

The Forest Service analyzed the comments and the issues and drew up six alternatives.

Alternative A is a no-action alternative, and Alternative B is the Forest Service’s proposed action. The four other alternatives were developed in response to public input.

All of the comments will be analyzed by an interdisciplinary team once the commenting period ends in November, Terrell said.

Based on public input and any new relevant scientific information, a final decision will be made by Regional Forester Randy Moore, based in Vallejo, on what action to take.

A copy of the draft EIS, the draft management plan and maps are available at Sequoia National Forest Headquarters, District Ranger offices, public libraries and online.

Documents can be reviewed online at http://gsnm-consult.limehouse.com/portal.

Comments can be submitted online at http://gsnm-consult.limehouse.com/portal or mailed to Anne Thomas, Team Leader, Giant Sequoia National Monument, 1839 S. Newcomb St., Porterville.

Contact Alex K.W. Schultz at 784-5000, Ext. 1049 or aschultz@portervillerecorder.com.