SNFPA Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement
January 2004
Record of Decision
III. Public Involvement and Public Comment
Public Involvement
During the public comment period from early June through August 2003, each forest supervisor strongly attempted to engage the local communities through a variety of comment opportunities. The majority of those contacted were interested in the proposals and clearly some groups expressed high interest in the proposed management actions.
Each national forest worked with the general public, elected officials, Resource Advisory Councils (RAC's), Native Americans, special interest groups, the media and other people in their local area.
Supervisor's and their staffs hosted field trips, attended and presented programs to special interest or local groups, submitted opinion editorials, provided written material or audio visual programs, talked with the media, and discussed with a wide variety of interests the proposals for future management. In addition, a web site was available for further information on management proposals. Citizen participation varied ranging from minimal at some public meetings, to greater participation at special interest group presentations, or at specific events.
USFS employees also were briefed or requested to monitor the development of the Draft SEIS to more adequately discuss the project with the public or participate in its development.
The intent of the public involvement program was to inform people of the opportunity to review the Draft SEIS and to comment on it. The activities focused on explaining the need for action to improve accomplishments of Framework goals, National Fire Plan, HFQLG Pilot Projects and means to reduce impacts of recreation and grazing activities. The public involvement activities explained the proposed changes and compared them to the current SNFPA rules, especially as they accomplished habitat protection and reduced wildfire losses.
A sample of the methods used by each national forest for public involvement includes the following:
- Elected officials - letters or meetings to federal, state, or county government leaders, field trips.
- Public meetings - open house, collaborative or formal meetings.
- Special interest groups - group meetings, field trips, presentations, individual leadership meetings.
- Fire Safe Councils - presentations to council or key leaders.
- Service Clubs - presentations.
- Media - Opinion editorial's, electronic media interviews, reporter briefings, accompaniment on field trips, news releases.
- Native Americans - presentations to tribal leaders, letters of notification on public comment periods,
- Employees - letters or briefings.
- Federal/State/County/City Agency - letters or briefings.
Public Comment
The Draft SEIS was available for public review and comment from June 13, 2003, to September 12, 2003. During the comment period, the Forest Service heard from nearly 56,000 people. The agency received approximately 1,300 individual letters, 3 resolutions, and approximately 600 different form letters. Organized response campaigns accounted for 97.5 percent of the total pieces of mail (53,866 form letters out of a total of 55,258) received during the public comment period. These response campaigns generally fell into one of two categories: forms or multi-signature letter (numerous signatures on one letter). Over 400 public concerns were identified from the comments.
Public concerns reflected a broad range of views relative to the proposed action and analysis of alternatives presented in the Draft SEIS. Numerous concerns were raised about the purpose and need for the proposed amendment and many questioned the agency's decision to propose an amendment. The Forest Service received a wide variety of comments regarding the adequacy of the environmental analysis presented in the Draft SEIS. Generally, the public expressed a desire to see more information in the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement, such as information regarding impacts to recreation, grazing, timber production, cultural resources, and socio-economics.
Many comments expressed concerns that the Draft SEIS did not adequately address impacts to at-risk Sierra Nevada wildlife species, including the California spotted owl, fisher, marten, willow flycatcher, and amphibians, such as the mountain yellow-legged frog and the Yosemite toad. Changes in grazing restrictions and projected increases in mechanical harvesting under the preferred alternative raised concerns about potential fragmentation of important habitats for these species and possible adverse impacts. Concerns were raised that the proposed amendment could undermine the Forest Service's mandate under the National Forest Management Act to maintain viable populations of designated sensitive species. Others asserted that improving forest health should not be overridden by wildlife habitat objectives, and requested the Forest Service to craft an amendment that provides for maximum flexibility in carrying out fuels reduction and forest health projects.
The public expressed a broad range of concerns relative to fire and fuels management. Goals for protecting communities from wildfire and for preserving species and ecosystems were often viewed as conflicting. Public comments regarding fire and fuels management reflected this conflict with comments that were often polarized in a "protect people" versus a "protect the environment" stance. Broad themes in public concerns relative to fire and fuels management included: a need to harmonize planning efforts with national direction, a need to clarify and justify information presented in the SEIS, a need to ensure funding for fire and fuels management, and a need to better define where treatments will occur and what techniques will be used for fire and fuels treatments.