Volume 4, No. 6
July 24, 2000

The Forest Service wants your help. The agency recently released an environmental document that proposes new management direction for the 11 national forests of the Sierra

Nevada. While the draft plan seems better than what the Forest Service has proposed in the past, it falls short of what is needed for the restoration and protection of ecological values. Now is the time for public input. Please submit a comment letter by the August 11 deadline (for ideas on what to write, see the sample letter near the end of this message).

The Sierra Nevada is a rich land of magnificent forests, lakes, rivers, wildlife, and wild places. But through people's use and enjoyment, it has become a threatened land. Roads,

dams, and diversions have impacted water quality and channeled natural flows into reservoirs and other man-made bodies of water. The natural role of fire has been altered.

Old-growth forests have been significantly reduced and fragmented, threatening the future viability of many wildlife species.

Today, we have an outstanding opportunity to begin reversing the environmental damage of the past. On May 5, the U.S. Forest Service released for public comment its long-awaited Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for management of the 11.5 million acres of national forest lands in the Sierra Nevada and the Modoc Plateau.

The DEIS offers eight management options, presented as alternatives. In a highly unusual move, the Forest Service selected two options - Alternatives 6 and 8 - as the agency's

preferred alternatives. When it adopts its final plan, the agency must, of course, choose only one. On balance, the preferred alternatives appear to constitute a significant improvement over past management. Yet, they do not go far enough if the Forest Service is to avoid the pitfalls of the past. In particular, unless key institutional issues related to

funding and managerial accountability are addressed, the new management direction is unlikely to be fully implemented. And today's opportunities to restore and protect the Sierra's remarkable ecological values could be lost.

At this time, the government is inviting your input. Please write a letter to the Forest Service by August 11, the deadline for public comment on the DEIS.

First the positive side: The Forest Service is proposing to reduce significantly the level of logging allowed compared to recent decades. It plans to shift the management focus toward fire and fuels treatments, in particular greater use of prescribed fire. The agency's draft plan would also designate more than 30 percent of the Sierra landscape as old forest emphasis areas. On each of these points, the Forest Service is to be commended. Taken together, these actions would constitute a significant change from past management.

Unfortunately, there is a significant down side: Although watershed analysis is considered a primary tool for informed decision-making, the preferred alternatives do not require such analysis prior to implementing new management activities, except in certain designated areas. With regard to fire risk, the preferred alternatives give little attention to the critical need to follow mechanical thinning of overly dense forests with underburning. This oversight could increase, rather than reduce, the risk of high-intensity wildfire. In 1996, the highly respected Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project (SNEP) identified hundreds of ecologically significant areas and recommended coordinated management of them at the landscape level, yet the agency's draft plan fails to call for special management of these and other areas. And the draft plan comes up short in addressing road management issues, particularly as they relate to water quality and cumulative effects at the watershed scale.

A large team of scientists and resource professionals assisted FSEEE in the development of a regional plan for the Sierra Nevada. This plan was submitted to the Forest Service last year. The FSEEE plan is centered on the restoration of natural processes, such as fire, the protection of water quality, and the conservation of forests and wildlife through scientific management rather than political expedience. What distinguishes the FSEEE plan is its pragmatic approach to problem solving, based on analysis of local environmental conditions.

The preferred alternatives in the DEIS do not offer a strong, watershed-based approach to land management capable of taking advantage of site-specific opportunities for the restoration and protection of ecological values. The FSEEE plan does. The preferred alternatives do not recommend special management of SNEP-identified ecologically significant areas, rare and declining plant communities, or roadless areas. The FSEEE plan does. In addition, the preferred alternatives do not address the critical issues of funding and managerial accountability to the extent that the FSEEE plan does.

For all of these reasons and more, over 225 American scientists, including Dr. Paul Ehrlich and renowned conservation biologists Dr. Peter Brussard, Dr. Reed Noss, and Dr. Michael Soule, have asked the president to give careful consideration to the FSEEE-sponsored plan. You can read the scientists' joint letter to President Clinton at http://www.fseee.org/sierra/sierra-225scientists.html. The full text of the FSEEE-sponsored plan is available at http://www.fseee.org/sierra/SierraReport.html.

The Forest Service is currently soliciting public comment on the DEIS until August 11. The agency will analyze and consider all comments received, so your feedback counts. This is your opportunity to tell the Forest Service what kind of management you want for the 11 national forests of the Sierra Nevada and the Modoc Plateau.

Letters should be sent to:

USDA Forest Service - CAET
Sierra Nevada Framework Project
PO Box 7669
Missoula, MT 59807

Or by e-mail to: mailroom_wo_caet@fs.fed.us (please enter "sncf comments" in the subject line)

Letters in the mail may have more impact than letters sent by e-mail. Remember: your comments should be postmarked by August 11 to receive full consideration as the Forest

Service finalizes the Sierra Nevada Forest Plan.

Here is a SAMPLE LETTER that you may use to help write your own personal letter:

USDA Forest Service Sierra Nevada Framework Project

Dear Sierra Nevada EIS Team:

The preferred alternatives constitute a step in the right direction. I applaud your proposal to cut significantly less timber than in past decades, to shift emphasis to more fire and fuels treatments, particularly prescribed fire, and to designate more than 30 percent of the landscape as old forest emphasis areas.

In addition, I urge you to adopt the recommendations contained in the FSEEE plan, entitled Restoring Our Forest Legacy: Blueprint for Sierra Nevada National Forests. The strength of the FSEEE plan is its reliance on scientific management and analysis of local environmental conditions, including the requirement to complete watershed analysis prior to the implementation of new management activities. The FSEEE plan also adds a comprehensive system of special management areas, including old-growth forests, ecologically significant areas, rare and declining plant communities, and roadless areas. Please consider these and other recommendations contained in the FSEEE plan as you prepare your final management plan for the forests of the Sierra Nevada.

Sincerely,
YOUR NAME
YOUR MAILING ADDRESS

As always, please forward this message to your friends and colleagues.

Note: The FSEEE E-Activist is distributed about 12 times per year. To subscribe or unsubscribe, please reply to list-request@list.fseee.org. In the body of your email request, simply include the word, "SUBSCRIBE" or "UNSUBSCRIBE". Subscription requests are case sensitive, so be sure to use all capital letters.