Deadline for Comments on Giant Sequoia National Monument Management Plan - Extended

Ruth Sandra Sperling





As I have been posting here about the Giant Sequoias and the Giant Sequoia National Monument Management Plan - I thought I would post an Update!

The U.S. Forest Service has extended the official Comment Period for submitting comments on this Management Plan one month - until December 3rd, 2010!!

So, if you would still like to -- you can still submit your comments during an official comment period.

Being public lands, public can always make comments on the Giant Sequoia National Monument, but getting them in during official comment periods mean that your comments are counted in their evaluation for the Final Environmental Impact Statement - in this case, an official Management Plan based on President Clinton's Presidential Proclamation!

I wrote some comments in a previous blog post about my choice of Alternative - Alternative C - with some specific comments, but when I wrote my letter, I went "all-out", as they say -- it ended up 9 pages long!! I want Natural Processes restored as much as possible!!!

But this is an important issue for me - for me, all the meetings, and documents and comments by me and others have been totally worth it!! I wanted to know what was going on with this forest, which is one of my favorites of all I have been in -- and I found out!!

So, if you want to make some comments still - Go for it!!

Time for Comments on the 2010 Giant Sequoia National Monument Management Plan

Ruth Sandra Sperling
- in Southern California





It is time -- for me to make my public statements regarding the writing of the Management Plan for the Giant Sequoia National Monument (GSNM) as regards to the current Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) of August 2010. Since 2000, I have been to numerous public meetings discussing the issues surrounding this monumental job of managing the Giant Sequoia ecosystem for resiliency and ecological integrity.

I have written about this a number of different times here on my blog -- see the blog articles under the label of Giant Sequoia National Monument.

If you choose to, you, too, can make comments on the Giant Sequoia National Monument Management Plan before the Comment Period ends on November 3rd, 2010.

-- You can mail comments to (they need to be postmarked November 3, 2010):

Anne Thomas, Team Leader
Giant Sequoia National Monument
1839 South Newcomb Street
Porterville, CA 93257

-- Or Fax them to (559) 781-4744 (which is what I am doing)

-- or go to the Limehouse Portal, join online and make your comments within that format online.

Here are my comments on this matter that is so important to me -- for my blog!!

After attending public meetings regarding the management of the Sequoia National Forest, the establishment of the Giant Sequoia National Monument and the development of its management plan -- and studying various pieces of information that I learned either by listening to discussions and presentations or reading documents regarding managing the Giant Sequoia ecosystem, including regeneration of Giant Sequoias -- and now having reviewed the Alternatives presented in the current Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the GSNM, I have come to my own conclusion on what is best for this Management Plan for the Giant Sequoia National Monument.

This is my own conclusion -- not offered by anyone to me specifically -- and this is a matter of personal integrity for me, as I feel with the options available and the management direction that will get the results I am hoping for -- it is the only choice.

My choice is Alternative C - not the Preferred Alternative of the Forest Service, Alternative B. I am not sure what the Forest Service will do, so in my comments, in addition to stating that I want Alternative C, I am stating some of the specifics of it that I like -- so that these specifics can be incorporated into a modification of Alternative B, if that is what is done.

Here I am going to quote the "Alternative Theme" for Alternative C from the DEIS and several key statements regarding it exactly:

"Alternative C would protect the objects of interest and manage Monument resources to promote resiliency, adaptability to climate change, and heterogeneity across ecosystems. This alternative responds to the issues of managing the Monument like Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks and fire spreading to tribal lands. It was developed to manage the Monument similar to SEKI in a manner that is consistent with Forest Service regulation and the direction of the Clinton proclamation. It was determined that some management policies or direction from the SEKI would not be applicable to the Monument because of difference in law, regulation, and policy for the two federal agencies. In this alternative, restoration activities would focus on area that have been affected by human use and occupation."

And here are I am going to quote some specific statements from the Alternative C details - as these details are why I think this will make the best Management Plan for the Giant Sequoia National Monument.

"Protection of Objects of Interest: "Alternative C focuses on allowing natural processes, limiting treatments to areas of human use and influence. To address fuels buildup, it allows limited mechanical treatments, with diameter limits for tree cutting, and subject to the restrictions in the Clinton proclamation and focuses treatments on both prescribed fire and naturally occurring fire. …."

"Promotion of Resiliency: Alternative C would emphasize resource conservation that allows natural processes to prevail and focuses on the restoration of natural processes to areas altered by human use by employing tactics that minimize the tools used for restoration."

"Promotion of Heterogeneity: Alternative C focuses on allowing natural processes, limiting treatments to areas of human use. To promote heterogeneity, it would use both prescribed and naturally occurring fire."

"Recreation Opportunities: …. The alternative proposes to change the current recreation opportunities by focusing on developed recreation sites with new development in recreation opportunity areas."

Here are 2 more quotes from the "Resource Areas" section of the Detail on Alternative C, detailing the perspective of The National Park Service, which is what this Alternative C is based on (from page 89 of the DEIS):
"The National Park Service uses the best available technology, within available
resources, to restore the biological and physical components of these systems, accelerating both their recovery and the recovery of landscape and biological community structure and function. …. When a park development is damaged or destroyed and replacement is necessary, the development will be replaced or relocated so as to promote the restoration of natural resources and processes."

" The [National Park] Service will seek to return human-disturbed areas to the natural conditions and processes characteristic of the ecological zone in which the damaged resources are situated."

My decision is based on the fact that, based on scientific discussions I have heard and read, I feel the following points are extremely important in managing the Giant Sequoia National Monument -- and that Alternative C incorporates them and operates per them the best.

1. Ecosystem management
2. The only way to achieve resiliency for the ecosystem (and sub-ecosystems) that the Giant Sequoia National Monument is, is through constant and current on-going site-specific analysis and research to develop current, new science, as needed -- using the methodology of adaptive management to do actions on the land.
3. Fire is the First Tool of Choice -- and that includes managed wildfire of unplanned ignitions (also called Wildland Fire Use). You can study the characteristics of the Mediterranean Climate that the Giant Sequoia National Monument is part of to understand this more fully.
4. Though there are definitely trade-offs between vegetation management, fire and fuels management and wildlife and plant habitat management, I feel that The National Park Service direction to return human-disturbed areas to the natural conditions and processes is the best and will result in the most optimum balance between all managements and less negative impacts to the Wildlife and Plant (including trees) Habitat on the GSNM.
5. Though Recreation and Scenery are important for Tourism and the people who visit the GSNM, I feel that the Ecological Integrity and Resiliency of the ecosystem is of higher importance overall and that when setting priorities, Ecological needs should outrank Recreation and Scenery -- otherwise, I am afraid we would end up with a trampled forest, not a healthy forest. I suggest reading The Land Ethic by Aldo Leopold in his book, "A Sand County Almanac"!!
6. There definitely needs to be current scientific criteria for determining which trees are to be removed so that the Clinton Presidential Proclamation is complied with: “Removal of trees except for personal use fuel wood, from within the monument area may only take place if clearly needed for ecological restoration and maintenance or public safety (Clinton 2000, p.24097).”
7. Dr. Nathan Stephenson, who has many years of experience in restoration and regeneration, including on-going research, in The Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Park Service, stated during the discussions of the Scientific Advisory
Board Meetings in March 2003 (I was there personally and heard it and noted it) that gaps for regeneration result in more successful regeneration of Giant Sequoias - if you burn the hole (gap). As Giant Sequoias are “shade-intolerant” species and require a certain amount of light and fire for ecological health, burning the hole (gap) for regeneration accomplishes both - of course, it needs to be done in safe conditions.

Since the 1980’s, I have spent time in what is now the Giant Sequoia National Monument Lands - unfortunately I saw huge trucks with large logs on them from logging operations; I saw a slashed clear-cut on a back road of the Southern Portion of the Giant Sequoia National Monument west of the Western Divide Highway and east of the Tule River Indian Reservation. I have seen and photographed re-planted areas that look like orchards of trees - looking all the same age (even-aged), looking all the same species (homogeneous) - in the vicinity of Nobe Young Meadow on the "Road to Windy Gap" - not too far from the Peyrone Giant Sequoia Grove.

I have been going to forests since I was a child - in early years with my family, in later years on my own or with friends. I know from personal experience what a real forest or woods are. Due to the past history of logging, homogeneous planting and fire suppression in the Sequoia National Forest, there are areas of the Giant Sequoia National Monument that are not, from my own personal observation, "real" forest. With no personal offense to the current managers of the Giant Sequoia National Monument, I am concerned for the health of this forest ecosystem, hence my choices and opinions above.

My fervent wish is that we can "fix" some of the mistakes of the past and restore the whole ecosystem to a level of health in our current climate conditions, so the forest continues to survive, as the scientists and Forest Services calls it - be resilient - for our pleasure and our health!!

The Giant Sequoia National Monument is a vast mix of living organisms that respond to current conditions and require certain conditions to be healthy, just like you and me. I believe that it will come down to a large amount of continued current on-going, on-site, site-specific analysis and research to see what works NOW!!

I feel that managing the Giant Sequoia National Monument as closely as possible like the Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Park -- and collaborating and co-operating with them and their scientists -- is the only proper way to do it. After all -- the Giant Sequoia National Monument and the Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Park are physically "intertwined" and are both part of the whole Giant Sequoia ecosystem.

PLEASE NOTE: The above is not exactly my official Comment Letter on the 2010 DEIS for the Giant Sequoia National Monument Management Plan. Some of the statements in this blog post are duplicated in my Comment Letter or reflect my statements in it.

ALSO: For information on the Giant Sequoia National Monument Management Plan public process - the Science Data including many documents - and the comments of the Science Review Panel with Sequoia National Forest Responses -- click on the linking phrases!!

If you have read all of this -- I hope you have found this informative - and interesting -- this is all the opinion of Ruth Sandra Sperling (no one else and I do not represent any organization). Why??? Because the Giant Sequoias are important to me -- and I want to share it with the world!!

Giant Sequoia National Monument Management Plan - 2010 Comment Period on Draft Management Plan (and DEIS)

Ruth Sandra Sperling

I have blogged about this before -- but now after years of scientific review and writing and legal court actions -- we have a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) and Draft Management Plan for the Giant Sequoia National Monument established by President Bill Clinton's Presidential Proclamation on April 15, 2000!!

Well, it has taken a while (over 10 years), but hopefully we have one will which will really serve the purpose of the Presidential Proclamation.

They are having Public Meetings during the comment period -- to present the DEIS and Draft Management Plan and explain it to the Public, as given on the Sequoia National Forest website for the Giant Sequoia National Mounment Management Plan.

This is all part of the Public Process -- done per "NEPA" (National Environmental Policy Act - defined in Wikipedia here and you can find more information on NEPA here).

These are Public lands -- and the Public have a right to make comments on the management of these lands!!

And, as I look at it, this may be one of the most important Forest Public DEIS's and Comment Periods in the United States!! After all, as stated on the Conservation International website on Biodiversity Hotpsots, the Giant Sequoias are in one Biodiversity Hotspot, the California Floristic Province - and the Giant Sequoias are "the planet's largest living organism" -- and their ecosystem is Globally Significant for Biodiversity -- and certainly one of the most significant for Carbon Storage!!!!

Tonight the first Public Meeting for this comment period was held in Porterville, CA, where the headquarters for the Sequoia National Forest (including the Giant Sequoia National Monument) are.

There are 5 more scheduled - including one in San Francisco and two in the County of Los Angeles:

•Saturday, September 18, from 1:00 to 4:00 p.m., at the Doubletree Hotel in Bakersfield.
•Tuesday, September 21, from 6:00 to 9:00 p.m., at the Hilton Garden Inn in Clovis.
•Wednesday, September 22, from 6:00 to 9:00 p.m., at the Hyatt Regency in San Francisco.
•Wednesday, October 6, from 6:00 to 9:00 p.m., at the Hyatt Regency in Valencia.
•Thursday, October 7, from 6:00 to 9:00 p.m., at the Hilton in Pasadena

And there is another meeting of the Science Review Panel at the Visalia Convention Center in Visalia, CA on the evening of Tuesday, October 12, 2010, 5 PM until 8 PM. (I plan to attend this one.)

All in plenty of time to get the data -- and make your own comments before the Comment Periods closes on November 3, 2010!!!

I have been going to Public Meetings on the Giant Sequoia National Monument - from the forums for its establishment in March 2000 through all kinds of meetings, including the meetings of the Scientific Advisory Board 2001 through 2003, where they discussed the development of the Management Plan and created their Advisories, which are being used in the development of the Management Plan.

I have learned a phenomenal amount!! Though I have my own ideas of the protection of the Giant Sequoia ecosystem (have the whole ecosystem in the National Park Service, but that is outside this public comment period for the Giant Sequoia National Monument Management Plan, as putting it in the National Park Service is an act of Congress [not a National Forest Service proceeding] - see my earlier posts here on my blog!! I wrote my California Representatives about putting the Giant Sequoia National Monument in the National Park Service and combining it with Sequoia Kings Canyon National Park years ago!), going to these meetings is very educational about what is going on now -- and there is scientific data available on the care and restoration of the Giant Sequoias in the Giant Sequoia National Monument.

I have seen these beautiful Giants many times -- I am a tree-lover, for sure, -- and, whatever happens, this is an important issue for me and I am Reading, Listening -- and then Writing Comments!!!

What do you want to do????

GIANT SEQUOIA NATIONAL MONUMENT - Ongoing Public Process

Ruth Sandra Sperling


There is currently a public comment period right now for the public to comment on the DRAFT ALTERNATIVES for the Management Plan for the Giant Sequoia National Monument.

This Ongoing Public Process is based on the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) , which though documented at the link provided, is explained in more common language at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Environmental_Policy_Act .

Here is the web page covering the current development of the Giant Sequoia National Monument (GSNM) Management Plan: http://www.fs.fed.us/r5/sequoia/gsnm_planning.html

You can read the proposed DRAFT ALTERNATIVES online in the Monument Public Commenting Portal. The documents are downloadable in pdf form there.

You can make (write) comments on them and mail them to:

Sequoia National Forest
Giant Sequoia National Monument
1839 South Newcomb Street
Porterville, CA 93257-9353

- or fax them to the Forest Supervisor's office at (559) 781-4744.

Calling up and leaving comments is a little difficult, but the phone number for their main office in Portervill, CA is (559) 784-1500.

This is just a small part of an Ongoing Public Process for managing one of the most ecologically significant ecosystems in the Continental United States - the Giant Sequoia ecosystem, which is a globally significant biodiversity hotspot within a globally significant biodiversity hotspot (the Sierra Nevada) within a larger globally significant biodiversity hotspot (the California Floristic Province) - check out Conservation International on the importance and locations of biodiversity hotspots!

Our National Forests and all public lands are for public use -- so us public can voice our opinions about how they are run. Some things are just Congressional and then you voice your opinions to Senators and Congressmen or Congresswomen, but this is about writing mangement plans for our public forests -- and public can also read public documents and voice their opinions about the management of the public lands!!

After the GSNM DRAFT ALTERNATIVES, the next step is the GSNM Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS). Watch for upcoming news -- sign up on the Monument Public Commenting Portal!!


HISTORY:

On April 15, 2000, history was made when President Bill Clinton did the Presidential Proclamation establishing the Giant Sequoia National Monument, which you can read yourself at the link!!

But since that date, there has been a series of management and legal activities resulting in the current ongoing public process to get a Management Plan written and implemented that will accomplish the goals of the original Presidential Proclamation!

Yes - it has been going on over 9 years!!

But, if you have ever been to the Sequoia National Forest and what is now the Giant Sequoia National Monument -- and realize the extent of the logging (including removal of actual Giant Sequoias over a hundred years ago) -- and the ramifications of the years of logging there, you would understand, like I do -- that writing an implementable Management Plan that will accomplish the goals of the Presidential Proclamation, as quoted from the Presidential Proclamation itself (page 3 of the proclamation or page 24097 of the Federal Register) below, is no easy accomplishment!

"NOW, THEREFORE, I, WILLIAM J. CLINTON, President of the United States
of America, by the authority vested in me by section 2 of the Act of
June 8, 1906 (34 Stat. 225, 16 U.S.C. 431), do proclaim that there are
hereby set apart and reserved as the Giant Sequoia National Monument,
for the purpose of protecting the objects identified in the above preceding
paragraphs, all lands and interests in lands owned or controlled by the
United States within the boundaries of the area described on the map
entitled ‘‘Proposed Giant Sequoia National Monument’’ attached to and forming
a part of this proclamation."

I went to meetings in various places around southern California for the discussion and public forum for establishing the Giant Sequoia National Monument.

It was in 2001 that I started going to public meetings, including meetings of the Scientific Advisory Board established per the Presidential Proclamation (see page 4 of the proclamation or page 24098 of the Federal Register), to find out what was going on regarding the management of the new Giant Sequoia National Monument.

I learned a tremendous amount listening to U S Forest Service staff and various agency and private scientists discuss the Giant Sequoia ecosystem and its current conditions and how to restore it to what is considered the desirable condition.

I also chose the scientists that I feel are the best to recommend the scientific methods to be used and how to develop the science for this particular ecosystem: Dr. David Graber of the National Park Service and Dr. Nathan Stephenson of the USGS -- and the SNEP authors and other scientists who agree with them.

If you are unfamiliar with what is going on, you might want to read the documents on the following list, which is linked:

-- GSNM DOCUMENTS AT http://www.fs.fed.us/r5/sequoia/gsnm_planning.html
-- Summary of the Interpretations of the Monument Proclamation prepared by Carie Fox as of May 2009 http://www.fs.fed.us/r5/sequoia/gsnm/carie_summary_interp_Proc.pdf
-- Sequoia National Forest Interpretation of the Proclamation dated May 22, 2009 http://www.fs.fed.us/r5/sequoia/gsnm/sqf_interp_Proc.pdf
-- Strategic Framework of June 2009 at http://www.fs.fed.us/r5/sequoia/gsnm/061009_Strategic_Framework.pdf
-- 2008 Symposium Speaker's Presentations at http://www.fs.fed.us/psw/southernsierrascience/speakers/
-- Science Advisories of the GSNM Scientific Advisory Board (2003) at http://www.fs.fed.us/r5/sequoia/gsnm/advisories.html


Also, as regards the Scientific Advisory Board and the current process developing the Management Plan for the Giant Sequoia National Monument, and having attended the majority of the public meetings where they discussed what the Management Plan should be, I have the following comment to make public:

I have read in the Interpretations of the GSNM Presidential Proclamation about
the different views regarding the Scientific Advisory Board with the remanding
(invalidating) of the original Management Plan/Record of Decision from Art
Gaffrey.

As that (original) Management Plan was totally remanded and a
judge ordered them to re-write it, I agree with View 1 stated in Carrie Fox's
Interpretation of the Proclamation:

"View 1: Since the management plan associated with the last Scientific Advisory Board was invalidated, this will be the “initial management plan” and therefore another Scientific Advisory Board is required—one that is empanelled in the same time period in which the plan is being formulated and that will have the opportunity to comment on the draft plan. In apparent support of this, the Proclamation states that the Scientific Advisory Board is to provide scientific advice during the development of the initial management plan. [Lines 147-154]"

- from pages 12 and 13
of http://www.fs.fed.us/r5/sequoia/gsnm/carie_summary_interp_Proc.pdf

That is all I have to say at this moment - except:

If you are so inclined -- I wish you Good Reading!!

Also, in 1999, when I first became aware of the planning going on for the National Forests of the Sierra Nevada, I spent some time in the then Sequioa National Forest, most of which became the Giant Sequoia National Monument. Being a landscape photographer, I took photographs of certain areas. Some of them I mounted. Below is a presentation I prepared. Both were taken in the Southern portion of the Giant Sequoia National Monument - off Western Divide Highway. The photograph on the left was taken in Long Meadow Grove on Western Divide Highway. The photograph on the right was taken on what I call the "Road to Windy Gap" - west of Western Divide Highway and around Nobe Young Meadow - an area that was definitely logged in the past.

One thing I would like to say about the differences between the Grove and the logged area, which is important to me: in the Giant Sequoia Grove there were birds singing and squirrels and chipmunks running around; in the logged area, it was totally quiet - no birds, no animals running around - which brings to mind Aldo Starker Leopold's comment about replanted clearcut areas or plantations: "...where a bluejay would have to pack a lunch to get across" (1978b, p.9). I love the birds and other wildlife in a forest and it "hurts" to see such logged areas!

Draw your own conclusions!!

Giant Sequoia National Monument MANAGEMENT PLAN MEETINGS - Progressing!!

Ruth Sandra Sperling


Wish I had one of my photographs of a Giant Sequoia to post in here, but none of them are digital or on digital media, so I can't. I took them with a manual camera - a Pentax 6x7 (medium format) - and I have yet to get them on digital media.

Living in Southern California, over the years, the Giant Sequoias were my favorite place to go to on the weekends. Living in a variety of places in Los Angeles County - now in the Antelope Valley - the Southern Portion of what is now the Giant Sequoia National Monument was always just a few hours away.

Being such a forest lover, it is no big surprise that I would like to weekend in a forest -- or visit one -- but having a forest with the Giant Sequoias in it has been a real treat!!

Unfortunately, there has been logging in what is now the Giant Sequoia National Monument -- and I have seen it. In the late 1980's I saw logging trucks -- and, yes, a clearcut on a back road.

So, I was a huge supporter of the establishment of the National Monument and went to a Public Forum in Fresno and actually got up and spoke for it -- by some lucky or unusual twist of fate, my number came up as the first speaker in that Public Forum -- and I managed to get up there and say my little bit without any preparation at all -- in favor of the establishment of the National Monument!!

That was in March 2000. In April 2000, President Bill Clinton did the Presidential Proclamation which took the National Monument out of commercial timber yield, which meant no more commercial logging around the Giant Sequoias, which I am totally grateful of -- having been around the Southern Portion of the Sequoia National Forest and seen way too much of the effect of commercial logging in that ecosystem.

I went to a bunch of meetings regarding the Giant Sequoia National Monument in 2000, 2001, and 2003, including a number of 2-day public meetings of the Scientific Advisory Board, who wrote Advisories for the development of the Giant Sequoia National Monument MANAGEMENT PLAN.

So much has happened since then - some of it in the legal arena -- and they are now in a Public Process to write the Giant Sequoia National Monument MANAGEMENT PLAN again.

Tomorrow (June 18, 2009) and Friday (June 19 2009), they are holding Public Meetings regarding the preliminary Draft Alternatives for this MANAGEMENT PLAN.

Let me tell you, as this MANAGEMENT PLAN is based on the Presidential Proclamation and this involves restoration of a commercially logged National Forest area -- from where I sit, this is not an easy PLAN to get done.

This commercially logged area needs restoration based on the most current scientific data for this type of ecosystem available - and as this is an on-going activity with research on such restoration going on all the time - the MANAGEMENT PLAN must allow for this.

I have placed links throughout this post -- take a look at them and read them -- there is a phenomenal amount of information available!!

I, unfortunately, cannot go to these particular meetings -- but I will be reading the documents on the Sequoia National Forest website. I submitted a 5 page letter on the Scoping Letter. I wrote letters in past years -- and I will write more.

This Public Process is an opportunity for all citizens to make comments on what the MANAGEMENT PLAN for the Giant Sequoia National Monument will be.

Do you love them?

Do you care about these gorgeous, fabulous, globally-significant huge (the largest in the world still, I believe) trees???

Even if all you have to say is that you totally support the total restoration of the ecosystem for these wonderful trees -- say it!!

Personally, I was involved in the Sierra Nevada Forest Protection Campaign, whose Conservation Strategy for the Sierra Nevada National Forests (which includes the Sequoia National Forest and the Giant Sequoia National Monument) is based on the Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project (SNEP) (Commissioned by Congress) -- and that is the scientific perspective that I support, including the scientists who were the authors of SNEP - who include Dr. David Graber and Dr. Nathan Stephenson, who work at the Sequoia-Kings Canyon National Park in the Giant Sequoias there.

I learned so much going to Public Meetings and reading various documents -- many of which are available on the Internet.

I invite you to do the same!!

(And, P-S-S-S-T - by the way - the Giant Sequoia ecosystem, which is inside the Sierra Nevada, which is inside the California Floristic Province - is a globally significant Biodiversity Hotspot identified by the scientists of Conservation International!!)


Ruth

UNITED NATIONS MAP SUPPORTS PROTECTION OF HIGH-PRIORITY LANDS GLOBALLY FOR CARBON STORAGE AND BIODIVERSITY

Ruth Sandra Sperling
RSS Designs In Fiber - Internet Shop of Handmade Items
RSS Designs Wearable - Internet Shop of Wearable Items
RSS Crochet Thread Plus - Internet Shop of Crochet Thread


I found out about a pdf document on the internet from the
UNEP (United Nations Environmental Programme) World Conservation Monitoring Centre, which they have named "Carbon and biodiversity, A demonstration atlas".

Here is the link: http://www.unep.org/pdf/carbon_biodiversity.pdf

Some of the environmental groups I strongly support for their work on protecting and restoring biodiversity, The Nature Conservancy and Conservation International, were contributors to this report.

I am glad to see that the United Nations has shown this support for Global Biodiversity.

A large part of it is protecting lands of primary Old Growth - some of the healthiest and most ecologically significant lands left on this planet.

Not logging the primary Old Growth left on this planet may be the most valuable thing that we can do on this planet at this time - for the web of life.

Anyone who has seen a clearcut in a forest first-hand and in-person knows from personal experience what a clearcut looks like and how it must affect the forest -- and I have seen a clearcut that must not have been too old at the time I saw it. It was in the Sequoia National Forest in the late 1980's when logging and clearcuts were still going on there. It wasn't too far off the Western Divide Highway in the southern portion of the Sequoia National Forest in what is now the Giant Sequoia National Monument. I was driving down a back road looking for a good place to take some people hiking - I drove around a corner and was shocked at the devastation of this clearcut. Obviously, I was not going to bring these people hiking here as they liked to photograph live trees, etc. It totally upset me and was part of my motivation for getting involved in public issues regarding managing the National Forests.

And, YES, this was in an area not too terribly far from Giant Sequoia groves, though I don't know exactly how close - it was on the western side of the Western Divide Highway somewhere south of the Wheel Meadow Grove and east of Red Hill Grove and Peyrone Grove. I have a map of the Sequoia National Forest and I know where these are.

It was reading Aldo Leopold - both in his book, A Sand County Almanac, and his paper, The Last Stand - that I found out about the devastating effects of clearcutting on the land in addition to just the removal of the trees.

I would like to quote from these.

From "The Last Stand" by Aldo Leopold as published in The Leopold Outlook Winter 2004, A newsletter published quarterly by The Aldo Leopold Foundation.

"Few laymen realize that the penalties of violence to a forest may far outlast its visible evidence. I know a hardwood forest called the Spessart, covering a mountain on the north flank of the Alps. Half of it has sustained cuttings since 1605, but was never slashed. The other half was slashed during the 1600's, but has been under intensive forestry during the last 150 years. Despite this rigid protection, the old slashing now produces only mediocre pine, while the unslashed portion grows the finest cabinet oak in the world; one of those oaks fetches a higher price than a whole acre of the old slashings. On the old slashings the litter accumulates without rotting, stumps and limbs disappear slowly, natural reproduction is slow. On the unslashed portion litter disappears as it falls, stumps and limbs rot at once, natural reproduction is automatic. Foresters attribute the inferior performance of the old slashing to its depleted microflora, meaning that the underground community of bacteria, molds, fungi, and burrowing mammals which constitute half the environment of a tree.
"The existence of the term microflora implies, to the layman, that science knows all the citizens of the underground community, and is able to push them around at will. As a matter of fact, science knows little more than the community exists, and that it is important."

In the book, A Sand County Almanac, in the section, The Upshot, in the sub-section, "Wilderness for Science", I quote Aldo Leopold again:

"Many forest plantations are producing one-log or two-log trees on soil which originally grew three-log and four-log trees. Why? Thinking foresters know that the cause lies not in the tree, but in the micro-flora of the soil, and that it may take more years to restore the soil flora than it took to destroy it."

So, clearcutting - or "slashing" as Aldo Leopold called it in "The Last Stand", has a destructive impact on the land that affects future growth on that land.

WITH WHAT WE NEED TO DO TO PROTECT THE HEALTH OF THE PLANET AND THE LAND, I THEREFORE CONCLUDE THAT WE CANNOT AFFORD TO DO ANY MORE CLEARCUTTING ON THIS PLANET - ESPECIALLY ON PRIMARY OLD GROWTH LANDS.

Also, in the same issue of The Leopold Outlook of Winter 2004 is an essay written by 2 former Chiefs of the United States Forest Service published originally August 24, 2003, Mike Dombeck and Jack Ward Thomas - "Declare Harvest of Old-Growth Forests Off-Limits and Move On"

I would like to quote one paragraph that I feel contains key, relevant information.

"Second, scientists increasingly appreciate old-growth forests as reservoirs of biodiversity with associated 'banks' of genetic material. Most stands are prtected as habitat for threatened or endangered (and associated) species - to meet the purpose of the Endangered Species Act '...to provide a means whereby the ecosystems upon which endangered species and threatened species depend may be conserved...' It's time to stop fighting over what little old growth remains unprotected."

And part of another paragraph discussing forest management from this same article.

"Forest management should focus on restoring forest health and reducing fire risk, intially in areas where risk to human life and property are greatest - the so-called wildand/urban interface. Then, appropriate management practices should be strategically targeted in the right places and at the right scales across the landscape."

YES, FOLKS, PEOPLE WHO RAN (PAST TENSE MEANING IN THE PAST) THE US FOREST SERVICE FEEL THAT OLD GROWTH SHOULD NOT BE LOGGED.

It is now becoming a global issue - with The Nature Conservancy (see Plant A Billion Trees gadget on this blog!) and Conservation International and Care2 running campaigns for protecting rainforest and planting trees - and the United Nations publishing papers on it.

You, too can join the bandwagon - through these organizations you can contribute to protecting the Old Growth forests left on this planet - incluidng for free by clicking on Care2's Race for the Rainforest!!


Ruth

Commenting on 2 National Public Lands - Giant Sequoia National Monument and Yosemite National Park

Ruth Sandra Sperling
RSS Designs In Fiber - Internet Shop of Handmade Items
RSS Designs Wearable - Internet Shop of Wearable Items
RSS Crochet Thread Plus - Internet Shop of Crochet Thread

Our public lands at all levels -- local, state, federal -- are managed through legal, government planning processes resulting in planning documents, sometimes called Management Plans -- and are very often very complex and complicated -- especially for the average public person who visits these public lands.

Fortunately, we have quite an extensive public lands system in the United States -- including in my home state of California.

In my blog here, I have written about my feelings about protecting ecosystems.

Us humans need to learn to live on this planet and protect it - and the only way to do this is with current scientific analysis to dertermine what the ecosystems on this planet can handle in terms of impact -- and how much protection and restoration they may need to be healthy lands/waters.

Many people have written about this - Aldo Leopold, John Muir, David Brower, Loren Eisley, Thoreau - as well as the spriritual and personal benefit us humans get just from experiencing wilderness areas and other areas of healthy lands.

Right now, within the last 30 days, I have read 2 different websites, downloaded documents, made comments on two nationally recognized public lands:

1. The Giant Sequoia National Monument
2. Yosemite National Park Tuolumne River Meadows Planning.

I commented on both within a comment period.

But the websites are still there - you can still get on mailing lists - and you can read the information for yourself if you would like to.

For the Giant Sequoia National Monument, I would like to give you 2 web addresses:
A. http://www.fs.fed.us/r5/sequoia
B. http://gsnm.ecr.gov/ - this is for actually reading documents, including the Presidential Proclamation and Science Advisory Board Advisories and making comments online!!

For Yosemite National Park and the planning process going on regarding Tuolumne River Meadows, go to:

http://www.nps.gov/yose -- then click on Management (lefthand menu), then click on Park Planning (lefthand menu), then find the 2008 Tuolumne Planning Workbook and comment form.

These are both planning processes going on for popular national public lands that have gone on for years and will be continuing with more comment periods.

Contribute to the public lands you are interested in -- they are public lands and you can make comments as a public person on how you think they should be run!!


Also, I would like to give credit and thanks to John Buckley and his staff at the Central Sierra Environmental Resource Center (CSERC) in Twain Harte, CA (just west of the northern part of Yosemite National Park) for their coverage in an excellent newsletter of what is going on with Yosemite National Park and the different planning and ecological issues. You can see what they are doing in that area of the Sierra Nevada at their website: http://www.cserc.org/. Their phone number is (209) 586-7440. I have known of this center for years and I think they are making a valuable contribution to environmental activities, education and ecological restoration in their area!!

Also, keep in mind that the whole Sierra Nevada is a Biodiversity Hotspot of global significance - and Yosemite National Park and Giant Sequoia National Monument are ecosystems within it and are ecologically globally significant themselves. So whatever you do to help protect these parks/ecosystems, it should help the whole planet. (My references on this come from Conservation International, http://www.conservation.org/).


Ruth