Steven P. Rice (SBN 094321)
CROWELL & MORING LLP
3 Park Plaza
20th Floor
Irvine, CA 92614-8505
Phone:  949-263-8400
Facsimile:  949-263-8414
srice@crowell.com 

Steven P. Quarles
squarles@crowell.com
J. Michael Klise
jmklise@crowell.com
Thomas R. Lundquist
tlundquist@crowell.com
CROWELL & MORING LLP
1001 Pennsylvania Ave., NW
Washington, D.C. 20004-2595
Phone:  202-624-2667
Facsimile:  202-628-5116 

Attorneys for Applicants for Intervention 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SACRAMENTO DIVISION 

I, W. Tom Wheeler, do make this declaration based upon my personal knowledge and belief and state:

1.      I am President of the Coarsegold Resource Conservation District (CRCD) and the Eastern Madera County Fire Safe Council (FSC), under Joint Powers Authority in the County of Madera, State of California, dated June 24,2004, and in that capacity am familiar with the nature and activities of the CRCD/FSC.  I make this Declaration based upon personal knowledge, and in support of the CRCD/FSC’s motions to intervene in these related cases.

2.      The CRCD/FSC is an entity authorized by the Agricultural Code of California,  Public Resource Code, and State Soil Conservation District Law and Farm Bills, to review, evaluate and recommend to the property owners of the District how best to manage land, water and air resources in Eastern Madera County, California.  Over half of the District area is contained in the Sierra National Forest and subject to actions of the US Forest Service in management of the federal lands. The CRCD/FSC Governing Board is made up of landowners in the District.  The CRCD/FSC is deeply concerned with the US Forest Service’s ability to manage the forest fuels to keep a healthy forest and minimize exposure of local District communities to fire dangers.  Any limiting ability to manage the forest fuels build up and maintain a healthy forest is considered detrimental to the adjoining communities.

3.      The CRCD/FSC has been involved in the development of the Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment (SNFPA) (2001 version) for many years having made comment on the first Plan and later the Supplemental Plan (2004).  CRCD/FSC has joined with others in the District and jointly filed comments on both these plans.  CRCD/FSC’s primary concern is economic management of fuels build up to protect the landscape from catastrophic fires.  Such fires cause excessive erosion, sterilization of the soil, loss of natural healthy forest, loss of habitat for threatened species and damage to existing facilities. The protection of native species is part of our District’s interest and such fire exposure seriously damages species habitat. The SNFPA Supplemental Plan allowed better management practices than was originally allowed in the 2001 SNFPA.

4.      I understand that the plaintiffs in these related cases challenge the legality of the 2004 Framework, and that they ask the Court to set it aside and effectively reinstate the 2001 Framework.  If that relief were granted, the interests of the CRCD/FSC would be harmed because the limiting 2001 Standards and Guides and tree cutting dimensions would seriously limit the US Forest Service in economically thinning the fuels to maintain a healthy forest.  It is always CRCD/FSC’s intent to support “best management practices” and allow the management entity the ability to make decisions based on local field evaluation of the landscape.  The 2001 version of the plan seriously limited this ability.

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct to the best of my knowledge.

Executed this 15^th  day of April, 2005                                                                                      

W. Tom Wheeler 

April 28, 2005

Tracie Billington, Department of Water Resources 
Sudhakar Talanki, State Water Resources Control Board  

RE:  Madera County Application to Integrated Regional Water Management Grant program 

Dear Sir and Madam: 

I am President of the Coarsegold Resource Conservation District (CRCD) and the Eastern Madera County Fire Safe Council (FSC), under Joint Powers Authority in the County of Madera, State of California, dated June 24,2004, and in that capacity am familiar with the nature, natural resources, water production options, and activities in/of the CRCD/FSC.  The CRCD/FSC is an entity authorized by the Agricultural Code of California, Public Resource Code, and State Soil Conservation District Law and Farm Bills, to review, evaluate and recommend to the property owners of the District how best to manage land, water and air resources in Eastern Madera County, California.  The CRCD/FSC Governing Board is made up of landowners in the District and 38 partnerships.  The CRCD/FSC is deeply concerned in the ability to manage the forest environs to keep a healthy forest and watershed and minimize exposure of local District communities to fire dangers.  Any limiting ability to locally manage the forest environs and maintain a healthy watershed is considered detrimental to the private property rights of the sovereign citizens of the Region. 

1.   The Coarsegold Resource Conservation District and Eastern Madera County Fire Safe Council, under the Joint Powers Authority, are pleased to support Madera County’s application to the IRWM Grant program.  The goal of this application is to produce an integrated water management plan for the eastern Madera County region.  This region is greatly in need of a plan to manage the water resources for a variety of reasons, including a projected increase in development that threatens to tax groundwater resources, natural groundwater contaminants that threaten the quality of water for certain areas, and conflicts over land-use planning restrictions that impact the economic, social, cultural, freedom of historical rights, and sovereign private property rights of each individual. We are also concerned about support, use, and increase in the production of water through management of the natural resources and water holding capacity of various soil types. 

2.   The proposed planning process will provide the objective information needed to make decisions on the important water-related issues facing this region.  It will also be helpful in developing options for water supply reliability, water conservation and other positive actions that can maximize water resources and benefit the ecosystem of this watershed.  This planning process is also structured to include the many stakeholders in the area, making it more likely that the plan will be adopted and implemented. 

3.   This broad-based inclusion will also help prevent disputes and conflicts over water in the future. Our staff contains two professionals, which are among the few in the Region permitted under the California Licensing Law to conduct ‘wildland planning’.

4.   If this proposal is funded the Joint Powers Agreement Authority agrees to participate as a stakeholder in the planning process.  We also agree to submit the resulting plan to the governing board for approval, and if approved, we will use this plan to guide and inform our water-related policies, decisions and activities.

This grant will greatly benefit the eastern Madera County region and will provide a model of comprehensive integrated planning for other hard-rock aquifer areas.  We hope you will give it your full consideration for funding. 

Sincerely,  

W. Tom Wheeler
President of the CRCD/FSC

October 25, 2001

Mr. David Crow, CEO
SJVUAPCD
1990 E. Gettysburg Ave.
Fresno, CA 93726 

Dear Mr. Crow and Staff, 

Refer: Hazard Reduction Burning District Rule 4106 

It was no surprise when we received your mass mailing of the document on Hazard Reduction Burning recently. It continues to demonstrate the dictatorial attitude, inaccuracies, lack of professional judgment, and disregard for CEQA. Your actions will continue to jeopardize the safety and well-being of this region. It appears that the testimonies of fire experts from public agencies were ignored during pubic hearings, the promise of full CEQA documentation on social, cultural, and economic impacts were omitted, and economic impacts to private property disregarded. 

Your apparent attempt at ‘pitting American against American’ and ‘neighbor against neighbor’ as perceived by the regional landowners and businesses, will not turn us into ‘smoke cops’ at the expense of our homes. The citizens of this region hold you personally accountable for the future losses to the natural resources, homes, life and property of the area. 

The “A Property Owner’s Guide to Reducing the Wildfire Threat, University of California” addresses defensible space up to 400 feet, and PRC 4291 can require clearances up to 150 feet under law. 

We will recommend that citizens only call your complaint number during catastrophic wildfire so you can demonstrate similar response as you did during the recent North Fork Fire. We appreciate your staff and ‘smoke cops’ respect the private property rights of the regional landowners and refrain from entry without needed warrants and police accompaniment.   

Yours truly, 

W. Tom Wheeler, President

Fire Protection Thru Partnerships 
(Article to Sierra Star, September 2001)

“The fire preplanning and fire breaks held in the recent North Fork fire,” says Tom Wheeler, President of the Coarsegold Resource Conservation District. “If you want the full stories and pictures of this fire look at the CRCD Web Page at http://www.crcd.org/nf-fire.html. This fire protection only happened through partnerships with local landowners, CRCD, public and private agencies.” 

“In 1991, we clearly could see that our forest health was the poorest in history and getting worse. Public agencies could no longer protect our mountain communities and natural resources- Partnership was our only survival,” says Larry Ballew, CRCD Director and Project Coordinator. “In the past 10 years we have constructed 95 miles of major fuel breaks and conducted over 14,000 acres of fuel modification with local landowners. In the last week we have conducted herbicide maintenance on 364 acres of fuel breaks with the Natural Resource Conservation Service, USDA. An un-maintained firebreak should never be constructed; only with maintenance can we survive. We can also no longer accept 4,000 acre ($5,000,000 cost) planned forest clear-cuts of our natural resources through use of catastrophic wildfire by public agencies as was done near North Fork.” 

“The Fires Safe Council, Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, CRCD, Forest Service, community groups, and Pacific Gas and Electric have cooperated in the fire protection efforts of the communities of North Fork, Ponderosa Acres, John West/Jean East and West, Mudge Ranch, and Cascadel Woods. This fall the team will be working in fire protection in the Road 601 area near Nipinnawassee,” says Wheeler. 

“Once you see the pictures of the North Fork fire on the Web Page, and see how neighbors can help neighbors in community fuel breaks that save homes, lives and property, everyone will want to be part of this effort”, says Paul Rich, CRCD lead forester. “We are currently constructing 3 miles of main fuel breaks and 300 acres of fuel modification in the Willow Creek drainage. This year’s work saved numerous homes in the North Fork area, in particular mine. This fire is only the beginning of a future of annual catastrophic fires, due to forest health. No one is doing anything about it except thru local leadership.” 

“In the past three years Pacific Gas and Electric Company in cooperation with local ranchers have constructed a 90 foot wide fuel break along the electrical transmission line from Oakhurst to O’Neals. Another is planned this year from the San Joaquin River to Manzanita Lake near North Fork. It will protect the local school and the town from the east”, say Ballew also a PG&E Vegetation Management and Forest Consultant. “This week we have identified 16 additional projects which will continue to complement the community fuel breaks system proposed in the fire preplanning done by the local groups. We hope to be start clearing these additional 50’ fuel breaks in the next two weeks. As the locals have always said these fires are not ‘if’ but ‘when’. As in the North Fork fire, we must protect our utilities. Once we loose electricity to our wells we loose water to fight fire at our homes.” 

“The CRCD has been fighting the regulations, fees and permits system being evoked by the San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District on hazard reduction pre-burning.  We heard testimony at the our meeting on August 23 from landowners, contractors, and Directors how these regulations and threats had significantly increased the losses in the North Fork Fire”, says Wheeler. “ The Department of Forestry has had a great program of hazard reduction burning until the last couple years, when the threats of SJVUAPCD regulations on private land started.  With these regulations come bigger fires, more often, and only the smoke now on non-burn days will include the smell from buildings burning. We must kill these regulations and encourage the CDF to increase the control burns in the region. Other Regulatory public agencies are also impacting our ability to save our communities, through placing humans second to a bunch of non-professional ‘maybe what if’s’. Support your right of ‘self-determination’.”

August 25, 2001

Mr. Gary Gilbert, Chairman  
Madera County Board of Supervisors
209 West Yosemite Ave.
Madera, CA 93637 

            Refer: Fire Loss Increases Due to SJVUAPCD Regulations 

Dear Chairman Gilbert: 

At the Coarsegold Resource Conservation District meeting on August 23 we heard testimony from Directors, contractors, and landowners on the increased fire losses in the current North Fork fire due to San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District regulations.  We have been predicting these increased losses and the number of catastrophic fires for the past several years. This is regardless of the 95 miles of fuel breaks and 14,000+ acres of fuel modification by our Grass Root partners and us.  People are not able to freely protect their private property from fire in Madera County by hazard reduction without unnecessary government intervention from the SJVUAPCD.  The fees, permits, invasion of private property by inspectors, and regulations are extreme issues as we have notified your Board in past actions. 

We are requesting that you and the Board take positive action on elimination of any regulations regarding or impacting hazard reduction and fire protection within the County by this agency. Lack of this action is only condoning the continued loss of homes, and property to fire in this County. 

Yours truly, 

W. Tom Wheeler, President
Coarsegold Resource Conservation District

August 25, 2001
 

Chairman Koligian, Chairman                                                         
Fresno County Board of Supervisors
Room 301, Hall of Records
2281 Tulare Street
Fresno, CA 93721-2198 

Refer: Refer Transfer of SCE Assets to Private or Conservatory Ownership

 Dear Chairman Koligian: 

The Madera County Coarsegold Resource Conservation District, which is your neighbor north of the San Joaquin River, strongly supports your opposition to SB78XX and the transfer of any Southern California Edison’s assets in the Shaver Lake area to the State or any conservation group. On August 23, 2001 the Board unanimously passed a resolution to enjoin you any lawsuit against the State to block this land grab which will have an extreme adverse impact on the natural resources of Madera County and the beneficial down stream uses. The adverse impact on agriculture and loss of water production from the San Joaquin Watershed would be extreme. 

We are asking the Madera County Board of Supervisors to support your efforts to stop any transfer of these properties from private ownership. 

Please keep us informed as to the status of your lawsuit. There should be no mediation or compromise on this issue. 

Yours truly, 

W. Tom Wheeler, President
Coarsegold Resource Conservation District 

attachment 

Cc.       Madera County Board of Supervisors
            State Legislature

*Attachment

August 24, 2001

Resolution form “CALIFORNIANS FOR SHAVER LAKE” Regarding SB78XX

WHEREAS SB78XX and specifically Article 17, titled “Conservation Lands”, will have an adverse impact on the people, businesses and visitors to the community of Shaver Lake, located in Fresno County; and 

WHEREAS SB78XX states that “It is the intent of the Legislature, through enactment of the act…, to set the conditions under which an electrical corporation may become creditworthy and meet its obligations to serve consumers with reliable electricity service at just and reasonable rates.”; and 

WHEREAS the transfer of Southern California Edison’s (SCE) private lands to the state, as required in Article 17, to determine the management and disposition of these lands will not aid in the financial recovery of  SCE or make available to SCE’s customers any electricity; and 

WHEREAS the community of Shaver Lake has examined the genesis of Article 17 and has documented evidence that Article 17 was crafted by special interest groups without any involvement of the people or the local government of Fresno County; and 

WHEREAS SCE should be applauded for their stellar management of these lands and not penalized by removing the current and future management of these lands to the state; and 

WHEREAS the Legislature’s and the special interest group’s contention that the threat of bankruptcy on the part of SCE is justification for the transfer of these lands to the state is unjustified and specious because should SCE file bankruptcy it would be for restructuring and not to dissolve this public utility; and 

WHEREAS SCE’s forest management practices have afforded the community of Shaver Lake and Fresno County with numerous benefits, such as, protection from catastrophic fire, superior water quality and quantity, enjoyment of habitat for rare and endangered species, and significant revenues to Fresno County from taxes paid on timber revenues; and 

WHEREAS, the annual visitation to Shaver Lake exceeds 500,000 visitor days annually which results in significant economic benefits from tourism to the community of Shaver Lake and to Fresno County;  

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY “Californians for Shaver Lake” that the Assembly not support SB78XX or Article 17 of SB78XX. 

July 9, 2001 

President George W. Bush
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Ave, NW
Washington DC 20500 

Dear President Bush: 

On January 29, 1998, members of the Coarsegold Resource Conservation applied for a grant through the Governor‘s Office of Emergency Services Disaster Assistance Program to Federal Emergency Management Assistance (FEMA).  The grant for $127,000 was to tie in several previously constructed fuel breaks within the Oakhurst Basin.  This area is within the area burned in the 1961 Harlow Fire, which is still recognized as one of the fastest burning fires in California history.  The need for this project is great because of heavy brush and oak fuels and the tremendous growth in population in the area.  A fire of the magnitude of the Harlow fire would kill people!   

The application was on file with both the state and FEMA until recently when we were told by the Governor’s Office of Emergency Services that it would be approved if we complied with the National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA) by October 1, 2001.  Along with many other tasks, this process would entail consulting with the Federal Fish and Wildlife Service.  This alone would take several years to accomplish!

Our other option was to change the grant from doing the work that needs to be done, to informing the public about the huge fire threat we are now facing.  The ranchers and private property owners over-which these fuel breaks would be constructed all ready know what the problem is and they want to help solve it.  More public information concerning the threat of fire to the Oakhurst Basin would be a waste of money.  

Neither FEMA nor the state’s Office of Emergency Services is at fault.  The funding comes from the federal government and even though it is being applied to private land, somewhere there is a law or a bureaucratic requirement that the project go through the NEPA process.   

President Bush, we need your help.  We are a small organization which is trying frantically to keep a catastrophic fire from destroying our homes, our property, and our beautiful countryside.   

One of your campaign promises was to give the states block grants instead of grants from the federal government so organizations such as ours would not have to go through so much red tape to accomplish needed work.  The state requires that we comply with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) which we intend to do.  There is no reason for us to go through NEPA too. 

You are the only one who can help.  Thank you for your consideration of our need. 

Sincerely,

Tom Wheeler, President
Coarsegold Resource Conservation District 

cc:            Congressman George Radanovich 
cc:            Senator Barbara Boxer
cc:            Senator Diane Feinstein
cc:            Mr. Jorge Hunt, Governor’s Office of Emergency Services
cc:            Mr. Roscoe Rowney, Department of Forestry and Fire Protection
cc:            Mr. Steve Laughlin, FEMA 
cc:            Mr. Gary Gilbert, Madera County Board of Supervisors  

July 9, 2001

To whom it may concern:                                                  

 My name is Tom Wheeler.  I live at 29555 Wyle Ranch Road, North Fork, CA 93643.  My telephone number is 559-877-4516.   

I am president of the Coarsegold Resource Conservation District.  Members of the Coarsegold Resource Conservation District are concerned about the management of natural resources and the economic viability of the rural towns within our district. 

The potential injunction against the pack stations that operate in the Ansel Adams and John Muir wildernesses, is a grave threat to the town of North Fork. 

North Fork has been economically depressed since the temporary guidelines for the California spotted owl were implemented.  Despite considerable efforts by federal, state and county government, business after business in North Fork closed and a domino effect began. When our doctor, dentist and pharmacist left, their clients had to go to Oakhurst, Madera, or Fresno for services.  While there, they shopped.  Next, the clothing store and a grocery store closed.  This meant people shopped elsewhere.  The other stores cut back on their products and carried only those things that moved quickly.  This reduced selection, and again more people shopped elsewhere.  This domino effect has been going on since 1994, and it won’t take much more for the town to fold. 

Reducing visitors to the Ansel Adams Wilderness through a court injunction may virtually be the accumulative effect that closes many of the remaining businesses.  Virtually every visitor to the Ansel Adams Wilderness stops in North Fork because it is the last place to pick up supplies, gasoline, a map, eat in a restaurant, use the restroom or get direction.  The federal, state, and local governments have spent considerable time and money in North Fork to help maintain a viable town.  A court injunction against the pack stations would help keep viability of North Fork dependent on the “dole” rather than primed to help it’s self. 

A court injunction against the packers is not needed.  The problems presented are grossly exaggerated and misrepresented.  I would appreciate the opportunity to discuss this matter further with anyone who has a need. 

Sincerely,  

Tom Wheeler, President 
Coarsegold Resource Conservation District      

June 30, 2001

Mr. Bradley E. Powell, Regional Forester
U.S.D.A. Forest Service
Pacific Southwest Region
1323 Club Dr. 
Vallejo, CA 94592 

Dear Mr. Powell:                                                                  

Members of the Coarsegold Resource Conservation District pursuant to 36 CFR part 217, give notice of appeal of the Record of Decision for the Management Direction for the Ansel Adams, John Muir, and Dinkey Lakes Wildernesses. 

1.  The FEIS and ROD did not address the economic impacts the decision would have on businesses in North Fork as required in NEPA and in various other laws and regulations.   

Discussion: North Fork has been economically depressed since the temporary guidelines for the California spotted owl were implemented.  Forest Service managers do not understand or do not care what their actions create and the domino effect they have.  When our doctor, dentist and pharmacist left, their clients had to go to Oakhurst, Madera, or Fresno for services.  While there, they shopped.  Next, the clothing store and a grocery store closed.  This meant people shopped elsewhere.  The other stores cut back on their products and carried only those things that moved quickly.  This reduced selection, and again more people shopped elsewhere.  This domino effect has been going on since 1994, and it won’t take much more for the town to fold.  

What does this mean to the Forest Supervisor of the Sierra National Forest and the new Wilderness Plan?  Quite frankly, everything!  Reducing visitors to the Ansel Adams Wilderness may virtually be that accumulative effect that closes many of the remaining businesses.  The FEIS and ROD did not reflect that many visitors to the Ansel Adams stop in North Fork because it is the last place to pick up supplies, gasoline, a map, eat in a restaurant, use the restroom or get directions.  The Forest Service has spent considerable time and money in North Fork to help maintain a viable town.  Decisions like this keep viability of the town dependent on the “dole” and grants rather than primed for self-help.   

2.  The FEIS and ROD do an inadequate job describing the need for the new Plan within the Sierra National Forest as required in NEPA.  Forest Service Manual 2323.04d.3 makes the Forest Supervisor responsible for approving: “Limiting the number of visitors, parties, party size, or duration of visitor stays in a specific area when the wilderness resource is threatened or damaged because of use by an excessive number of people.“  The “resource” includes not just conditions on the ground but also the “resource” as related to how the users view their wilderness experience. 

Discussion:  The Forest Supervisor of the Sierra National Forest should rethink why he needs a new Plan.  It appears the ROD and FEIS are mainly based on eastside conditions and managers on the Sierra National Forest are along for the ride.  The facts do not demonstrate that either condition required in Forest Service Manual 2323.04d.3 has been reached: 

a.  The rangeland is in satisfactory or improving condition with only a few areas of concern.  No data has been generated to support alternatives. 

b.  Visitor use is declining even though Wilderness acreage has increased 27 percent.  

c.  The Sierra Nevada Framework documents water quality is excellent through out the Sierra Nevada Range.  

d.  There is plenty of firewood on the Westside of the Sierra’s near all campsites.  

e.  A study by the University of Arizona documents a visitor trip rating of good, very good or excellent of between 94% and 97%.  The public is having a good time when they go into the wilderness.    

f.  This same study shows that “solitude” was experienced 71% of the time.  At first glance, this might raise some question but one must realize some wilderness users, feel the solitude experience is ruined when they see one other group.  This should not be the standard.  We know of many quality areas on the Sierra National Forest where the chance of seeing anyone is remote.  

3.  The FEIS and ROD do an inadequate job documenting the effect of the Plan on the disabled and elderly as required by law.  

 Discussion: This Plan will affect pack stations.  Pack stations will probably go out of business.  Pack stations cater to those who are unable to back pack into the wilderness.  Implementation of this Plan discriminates against the disabled and the elderly.  

4.  The FEIS and ROD were written with the assumption the new planning regulations would be approved.  The FEIS and Plan are based on a philosophy found only in the unapproved planning regulations.  

Discussion:  The unapproved planning regulations champion a philosophy called ecosystem sustainability.  Ecosystem sustainability is not authorized in the 1964 Wilderness Act or in any Wilderness designation.  In fact, congress wrote in 1977 that they wanted the public to use our wilderness.  Wilderness use is down and the local Forest Service wants to reduce it further.  The decision appears to be based on the unapproved regulations!  

5.  The Forest Supervisors have not documented problems associated with current conditions. 

Discussion:  The Forest Service has no basis for their decision.  The ROD and FEIS support the approved alternative because it poses less risk to the environment.  This sounds good to the uninformed public but what the Forest Service does not disclose is current conditions.  Use is down, cattle are gone and the Forest Service has no idea whether unacceptable levels of sediment or pollution are getting into waterways.  This is not the way to manage our public land.  The Forest Service should first establish the existing condition of the Wilderness and then fix the things that are broken.  To say that Alternative 3 poses more of a risk than the preferred is not accurate, if nothing bad is happening under Alternative 3. 

The Wilderness Management Plan should be based on science and visitor experience.  The science is missing from the FEIS.  The Forest Service should follow the example from the 1970’s.  To establish existing quotas, an inventory was made, problems identified, and quotas used to fix the problems.  For the new Plan, no problems have been identified, only a risk assessment.       

6.  The FEIS and ROD fail to adequately consider the value the small dams in the Ansel Adams Wilderness provide for maintaining summer flows.   

Discussion: The small dams constructed in the 1930’s have provided enjoyment and value to downstream users, riparian vegetation, fish and wildlife for 70 years.  Removing these dams will be expensive and the result will be a permanent eyesore.  

In conclusion, remember, except for a few elitists (most of them are in the Forest Service), the public is really pleased with current management.  Change should be to improve things; not make the public jump through one more “hoop.”  

Sincerely,  

Tom Wheeler, President

Coarsegold Resource Conservation District

April 16, 2001

Chief
USDA Forest Service
Attention: Appeals-Barbara Timberlake (Mail Stop 1104)
P.O. Box 96090 

Dear Ms Timberlake: 

The Board of Directors of the Coarsegold Resource Conservation District (CRCD) pursuant to 36 CFR part 217 gives notice of appeal of the Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment, Record of Decision and Final Environmental Impact Statement.   

Even though it is the only bright spot in the Forest Plan Amendment, we salute the Forest Service for recognizing the danger our urban communities face from wildfire.  The Plan appropriately provides an aggressive approach to reducing fuels that threaten our towns and lower elevation watersheds from eminent disaster.   

However, other parts of the Plan are a disaster.  The CRCD appeals the Forest Plan Amendment for the following reasons: 1. Lack of a range of alternatives, 2. Unattainable fuel reduction standards in pine and mixed conifer forests, 3. Lack of data to support reduction in recreation and unfairness to the public, 4. Lack of data to support the non-renewal of Special Use permits and fairness to the public, 5. Lack of accumulative effect analysis for reduction in grazing permits, 6. Inaccurate economic analysis, 7. Inadequate public notification of the drastic effects of this Plan and 8. The arbitrary and capricious selection of the preferred alternative. 

LACK OF A RANGE OF ALTERNATIVES 

The Regional Forester chose modified alternative 8 because the Fish and Wildlife Service would render a jeopardy opinion for currently listed species and cause a trend toward listing of proposed species if any other alternative was selected.  Rather than suggest reasonable and prudent measures for each of the developed alternatives as intended by the Endangered Species Act, the Forest Service and the Fish and Wildlife Service negotiated only one legally sufficient alternative.  Contrary to law, the Regional Forester was thereby limited to only one choice for the Record of Decision. 

Moreover, the alternatives presented to the public for comment in the draft EIS were not valid choices.  The only valid choice was negotiated between the Forest Service and the Fish and Wildlife Service after the close of the comment period.  Following negotiation, the Regional Forester issued the ROD without presentation to the public for review or comment.  Therefore the only alternatives upon which the public was permitted to comment were not valid and the only alternative that was valid prohibited public comment. 

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 1972, that an agency could not abdicate its NEPA authority by relying on the certifications of another agency that specific environmental standards were met.  “NEPA mandates a case-by-case balancing judgment on the part of federal agencies; in each case, the particular economic and technical benefits of an action must be weighted against the environmental costs.  Certification by another agency that its own environmental standards are satisfied involves an entirely different kind of judgment and attends to only one aspect of the problem---the magnitude of certain environmental costs...The only agency in a position to balance environmental costs with economic and technical benefits is the agency with the overall responsibility for the project” (Calvert Cliffs vs. Atomic Energy Commission). 

The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 requires that all environmental analyses “consider a full range of reasonable alternatives to the proposed action that address the significant issues and meet the purpose and need for the proposed action. 

To rectify this portion of our appeal, the Regional Forester must modify all of the developed alternatives based on specific alternative by alternative input from the Fish and Wildlife Service. 

UNATTAINABLE FUEL REDUCTION STANDARDS IN PINE AND MIXED CONIFER FORESTS 

The prescription in Old Forest Emphasis Areas on the Sierra and Sequoia National Forests will destroy the very habitats the Forest Service and the public are seeking to protect and promote.  John Muir wrote that he could ride three abreast throughout the Sierras.  Members of the CRCD also remember wide open stands where it was easy to walk and ride.  Based on old photographs and written records, it has been estimated there were 60 to 80 trees per acre on average in the Sierras.  Now our stands often average 600 trees per acre.    

The standard, which is the cause for our concern and the basis for this portion of our appeal, is found in the Record of Decision in Appendix A-41.  “Where mechanical treatments are necessary, design treatments to achieve or approach the fuels outcomes described above by reducing surface and ladder fuels less than 12 inches DBH.”  Even though the standard allows removal up to 20 inches DBH for operability, the standard cannot be implemented.  The result will be that no fuels work will be accomplished in these habitats and they will be destroyed by wildfire. 

This standard is flawed and does not comply with requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act, which requires alternatives to be achievable.  By arbitrarily imposing a 12-inch diameter limit, the only prescription available to the manager is pile and burn, pile and chip, or masticate and burn.  Because of the dense stands (600 trees per acre), these prescriptions will cost over $500 dollars per acre and if the prescription includes pile burning or mastication and burning, residual trees will be scorched, badly burned or killed. 

Congress is not so foolish as to fund such an expensive venture with no visible return for the investment.  The result will be nothing accomplished in these habitats and our pine and mixed conifer forests above 4500 feet in elevation will burn catastrophically.  Not having a feasible strategy for treating these fuels makes this plan at odds with the CRCD goal of promoting healthy forests and ecosystems. 

The Regional Forester hopes and prays material smaller than 12 inches in diameter will somehow have magical value and will be removed by someone as biomass or small log products.  Many members of our board have extensive expertise in small log and biomass utilization.  In our area, removal of fuels will not happen without extensive subsidies, which cannot be counted on.  Meanwhile our forests will burn catastrophically. 

The animal kingdom flourished when our forests were in an open “park-like” condition.  To think they would not adapt and do well in a similar setting is inconceivable.  The prescription in the Plan will result in our pine and mixed conifer forests burning with intensity not seen before.  Wildlife biologists are trained in our universities that wildfire is good for wildlife.  Conditions have changed over the last 20 years.  The fires we are now experiencing permanently destroy habitats for the spotted owl, fisher, pine martin and the other sensitive species the Regional Forester is trying to protect. 

Our appeal can be resolved by changing the standard from cut no trees greater than 12 inches in diameter to leave 60 to 80 of the largest trees per acre.  The result would be an open forest with large trees that could be maintained by fire.  The costs would be greatly reduced since “real” products would be utilized. 

The benefits of this approach are many: 1. The Plan could be implemented. 2. Fire could be returned to maintain treated areas. 3. Watersheds in the pine and mixed conifer forests could be protected from catastrophic fire. 4. Water quantity and quality could be improved. 5. Scenic beauty could be maintained. 6. Forest visitors could walk and ride through the forest. 

LACK OF DATA TO SUPPORT REDUCTION IN RECREATION OPPORTUNITIES AND UNFAIRNESS TO THE PUBLIC 

The 1997 Resource Planning Act update is the basis for the Regional Forester’s decision to change from the Forest Service tradition of providing a wide range of recreation opportunities too... recreation must fit within an ecosystem’s sustainability.  While the public was busy replying to all the land uses the government was planning to eliminate, the Forest Service snuck in this major shift in policy that has the potential to greatly change recreational use of our National Forests.        

The CRCD board agrees that basing such a change on updating an obscure document no one reads is a terrible way to treat the public that relies on openness and truth.  While we do not see that the Forest Service or the Regional Forester broke any laws, we do think the Regional Forester had the responsibility to tell the public that there is great potential that many of their recreational uses of the Sierras will no longer be allowed.  None of the public meetings attended by our board, included disclosure that there is a high likely-hood that many recreation opportunities would be lost.  Businesses in North Fork have invested capital to make themselves more attractive to tourists.  They have not been told that many of their potential customers will not be coming because of this Plan. 

The Forest Service has insufficient data to make such a decision.  The goal of the Plan is to close one campground at a time and eliminate one use at a time when they find problems.  This keeps the public from seeing the enormous accumulative effects of “picking off” one campground or one recreation use at a time.    

To satisfy this portion of our appeal, the Regional Forester must spend this planning period collecting data and trying to resolve problems without closing campgrounds and eliminating public use.  Once good scientific information is gathered for a whole forest, individual forest land plans should be amended so the accumulative effects of campground closures and closed recreation opportunities can be examined.   

LACK OF DATA TO SUPPORT THE NON-RENEWAL OF SPECIAL USE PERMITS AND UNFAIRNESS TO THE PUBLIC 

Members of the public, having special use permits to use National Forest, do not know if their activity or use will come to an end because of this Plan.  As with recreation, the status of holders of special use permits is not known.  This should have been a cornerstone of public information service description of the Plan so the public would know that special use permit holders were at risk.  Instead, it was hardly discussed at public meetings.  Public meetings should not have been held to highlight areas of agreement but to make sure the public knows the parts that might affect them personally. 

The Forest Service has insufficient data to make decisions about special use permits.  To satisfy this portion of our appeal, the Regional Forester must spend this planning period collecting data about special use permits.  Once it is known which special use permits on an entire forest have environmental problems that cannot be resolved, individual forest land plans should be amended.  This would prohibit the Forest Service from canceling permits one at a time in a manner that would not allow the public to see the accumulative effect.    

LACK OF AN ACCUMULATIVE EFFECTS ANALYSIS FOR REDUCTION IN GRAZING PERMITS 

The Plan includes an estimate there will be a 20 percent reduction in grazing permits that will result from the new standards and guides.  The CRCD board estimates the number on the Sierra and Sequoia National Forest will be considerably higher because of designated fur bearer habitat and restrictions for the willow fly catcher. 

In many cases, these permits have been held in the same family for generations and the operation is historical.  Because of the number of permits affected, the FEIS should have had a detailed accumulative effects analysis of what this means in loss of an important part of our American heritage.   

Another analysis should have been included that speculates the overall effect of home ranches being sold and the “open” space of the foothill landscape turned into housing developments.  This analysis should include, but not be limited to, effects on water, air, fish and wildlife. 

INACCURATE ECONOMIC ANALYSIS 

Professor William McKillop, College of Natural Resources, University of California, Berkeley prepared an analysis of the failure of the ROD to properly display losses in jobs and payrolls using a comparison of the selected alternative to Alternative 4.  Doctor McKillop’s estimate of losses based on Forest Service figures in the ROD and FEIS was a total annual direct wage, plus indirect wage, plus induced wage loss in timber and recreation of $405,488,000.  This loss will be directly felt in communities through-out the Sierras and especially in North Fork. 

The Regional Forester could not make an informed decision without benefit of an accurate economic analysis as required in the NEPA.  Our appeal can be mitigated by the completion of an accurate economic analysis and an opportunity for the public to review the new figures. 

INADEQUATE PUBLIC NOTIFICATION OF THE DRASTIC EFFECTS OF THIS PLAN 

In public meeting after public meeting, the Forest Service was unable to disclose the effects the Plan would have on recreation, special uses, and grazing.   >From the first public meeting through the entire planning effort, the Forest Service was challenged to include recreation, special uses and grazing as emphasis items.  The final FEIS includes these three issues almost as an after thought...by the way, the Plan will eliminate many recreation opportunities; those of you who own special use permits can “kiss them good bye” if they are within riparian areas; and many grazing permits will become “a thing of the past.”  Despite pleas from many individuals and groups, the Regional Forester did not respond to requests that these three important issues be made emphasis topics.  Instead, they became the casualty.  By not displaying the effects to recreation, special uses, and grazing in a forth right manner during the planning process, the Regional Forester did an inadequate job informing the public of the possible effects.  The public still does not know because even at this stage of the process, the Forest Service is not telling the public and the press that the decision will affect recreation, special use permits, and grazing. 

To remedy this appeal, the Plan must be changed to data gathering to see what effect, both positive and negative, recreation, special uses, and grazing have on ecosystem sustainability.       

THE DECISION TO SELECT A MODIFIED ALTERNATIVE 8 WAS ARBITRARY AND CAPRICIOUS 

The selection of a modified alternative 8 was an arbitrary and capricious decision.  No decision maker we know would decide on an alternative when the document his decision is based on has the following analysis: 

1.  Alternative 4 produces 12 percent more large trees (over 30 inches) than the selected alternative. 

2.  Alternative 4 produces 15 percent more very large trees (over 50 inches) than the selected alternative. 

3.  Alternative 4 produces 22 percent more late successional old growth class 4 and 5 than the selected alternative      

4.  Alternative 4 produces 45 percent more late seral stage forests than the selected alternative. 

5.  Alternative 4 achieves the desired forest condition of 50 percent late seral stage forests, but the selected alternative never achieves 40 percent. 

6.  Alternative 4 produces 41 percent more owl nesting habitat than the selected alternative. 

7.  Alternative 4 produces 12 percent more large (over 15 percent) hardwoods after 10 decades than the selected alternative. 

8.  Alternative 4 burns 30 percent less acres by wildfire than the selected alternative. 

9.  Alternative 4 produces 18 percent less lethal damage to all vegetation than the selected alternative. 

10.  Alternative 4 produces 30 percent less mixed lethal damage to all vegetation than the selected alternative.    

11.  Alternative 4 produces 67 percent less lethal stand replacement fires in forestlands than the selected alternative. 

12.  Alternative 4 produces 8 times as much green and salvage timber compared to the selected alternative. 

13.  Alternative 4 produces 2/3 more biomass compared to the selected alternative. 

14.  Alternative 4 generates $105 million annually in net benefits more than the selected alternative. 

15.  Alternative 4 exceeds all alternatives when ranking values collectively.  The selected alternative ranks last. 

Arbitrary and capricious are the only words the CRCD board can use to describe the Regional Forester’s decision to make modified Alternative 8 the preferred decision for the management of the Sierras.  To remedy this appeal, the Regional Forester must either pick another alternative or seriously modify the selected alternative to better meet the goals and objectives he set out to accomplish. 

In summary, we believe the current decision will produce the opposite of everything it intended.  Rather than produce a balance for all interests in the forest, it provides imbalance, based on a single alternative that the public neither reviewed nor commented on.  Based on the Forest Service’s own analyses, it will protect fewer, not more old growth forests, which in turn will imperil rather than protect species targeted for special care.  It will increase fire danger outside of urban interface.  It will promote the removal of campgrounds and recreation opportunities one at a time rather than view the whole issue collectively.  It will cause special use permits to be cancelled one at a time rather than view them collectively.  It will remove historic grazing operations, one at a time without viewing them collectively. 

We urge the Forest Service Chief to withdraw the Sierra Nevada Conservation Framework Record of Decision and remand it back to the Regional Forester for corrective action, consistent with the best available science.  We strongly recommend the Secretary of Interior assign a high-level official to oversee the development of reasonable and prudent measures for each alternative to provide the regional forester with a range of alternatives each of which protect threatened and endangered species.  We request the remand not be delayed.

 Sincerely,  

Tom Wheeler, President

January 25, 2001

Mr. Gary Gilbert, Chairman                                                              
Madera County Board of Supervisors
209 W. Yosemite Ave.
Madera, CA. 93601 

Dear Honorable Gilbert and Board Members:

     Refer: Public Comment on Report of Parcel Map Standards and Recommendations 

The Coarsegold Resource Conservation District is not in support of the document that addressed the perceived problems and issues under the above County Document. Members of or Board and Partners have attended all the public meetings held on this document in eastern Madera County. 

There appears to be overwhelming opposition to the document, especially by property owners. Our Board and Partners have received numerous complaints and request for assistance to stop this action plus the proposed Grading and Erosion Control Permit. From our knowledge of both documents as presented at public hearings and written information these landowners have valid concerns. 

We are requesting that end of the public comment period that a full EIR is prepared on both these documents with full disclosure of cost/benefit analysis, implementation cost, resource implications, and impact on the social, family, and populations of the County. We are very concerned that placing every one in the same box with subdividers and developers with the required unlimited funds for implementation of these County requests, will lead to a major private property rights revolt in the county at the expense of the natural resources. 

We will be very pleased to volunteer our staff and partnerships of agency and landowners to assist the County in meeting some common ground in the reconsideration of these documents. 

Yours truly,
 
(signed)

W. Tom Wheeler, President
Coarsegold RCD
cc. Grass Root partnership

January 25, 2001

Madera County Board of Supervisors                 
209 W. Yosemite Ave
Madera, CA 93637 

Dear Honorable Chairman Gilbert;

Refer: Withdrawal from San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Quality Control District 

On October 10, 2000, your distinguished Board heard testimony from communities, agriculture, public agencies, resource management coalitions, landowners, voters, and the County Resource Conservation Districts regarding the need for the County to withdraw from the SJVAPCD. You also heard from CEO David Crow, SJVUAPCD, who clearly did not justify the existenance of that District in this County. 

Members of the Grass Root Group have since attended the workshops on open, agriculture, conservation, and hazard reduction burning in the County. There have also been personal interviews with SJVUAPCD staff.  It continues to be very clear this agency is not interested in public input and has no intentions of working with landowners or public groups or agencies to solve the critical issues of saving lives and property. 

We understand now the County Representative on that District is Supervisor Moss. We would like you to direct County Council to determine the procedures and implications of withdrawing from the District.  In the very near future we would like our Board of Directors and Partners to meet with you and Supervisor Moss to discuss the time lines, and process to achieve this objective. We continue to discuss opportunities with adjacent Districts. 

Thank you for your timely and continued support of Madera County Home Rule. 

Yours truly,

(signed) 

W. Tom Wheeler, President
Coarsegold RCD
cc. Grass Root Partners and Agencies

January 25, 2001

Mr. Michael Kirn, County Engineer  
Engineering and General Services
135 W. Yosemite Avenue
Madera, CA 93637

Dear Mike:

Refer: Proposed New Grading and Erosion Control Permit 

On January 25, 2001, the Board of Directors of the Coarsegold Resource Conservation District, and it’s grass root planning partners [both public and private] evaluated the ‘proposed’ Grading and Erosion Control Permit.  We find this to be a major public action and require full CEQA reporting and public hearings before this document precede any further in Madera County.  As presented, this document is so impacting on the social, cultural, economic stability, conservation, agriculture, forestry, and utility management that a full EIR will be required. 

These proposed requirement and associated costs appear not justified by public or resource needs or protection, and may be discriminatory against private property rights and the rights of self-determination to the citizens and businesses of this County.  This document and other recent documents on Parcel Map standards and Recommendations clearly are perceived to attack the individual private landowner, when the full intent is to correct issues related to major subdivision problems. 

We are requesting you to hold several public hearings over a several month period with full public availability of the proposed permits changes.  Before the public hearings are held a clear cost/benefit analysis by your office must be disclosed outlining the permit cost and implementation to the average citizen in the County wishing to build a home, obtain a building permit on a 5 acre parcel, or impact on agriculture and the utility companies. 

We feel very strongly that any voluntary activity associated with conservation, agriculture, forestry, and utility be exempt from this permit.  By copy of this letter we are requesting the Madera County Board of Supervisors to direct your Department to implement a series of public hearing and full justification of cost/benefit analysis on this proposal. 

Yours truly,
   
(signed)

W. Tom Wheeler, President
Coarsegold RCD
Cc. Grass Root Partners and Public Agencies

January 25, 2001 

Regional Director 
Department of Fish and Game, Region 4
1234 East Shaw Avenue
Fresno, CA 93710 

Dear Sir,

            Refer: Continued Adversary Relationship with yr. Department 

We wish to thank Mr. Rod Goss and John Beam, Senior Biologists with your office for meeting with the Coarsegold Resource Conservation District, the Grass Root Panning Group, and citizens of Madera County on December 7, 2000. The purpose was to make a final attempt to resolve the adversary relationship between your office and the citizens of this County.  As you are fully aware that this relationship has further deteriorated since our letters and discussions with your office beginning in early 1998, and specifically the letter of August 27, 1998. 

At the current time this relationship is irreparable, and we will be asking the Madera County Board of Supervisors by resolution to remove your agency from any statutory standing on County issues on land use practices. We will immediately notify the citizens of this County in the press of the “California Fish and Game Code, Section 857: Entrance on Private Land”, and request they not allow personnel from your agency on any lands without specific written permission and only on issues of absolute statutory standing on specific legal matters. 

As stated at the meeting and previous correspondence, biologist from your agency will no longer be a team player in any of our planning or implementation of resource management in the County unless absolutely specifically specified by statutory law. This recommendation will apply to both public and private lands, and team players in the County are being notified by press and copies of this letter. 

Yours truly,
   
(signed)

W. Tom Wheeler, President 
Coarsegold RCD

Attachment: CFGC Section 857  
cc. Grass Roots Planning Team and Legislative members