File Code: 1920-2-1
Date: November 20, 2001
Giant Sequoia National Monument
Scientific Advisory Board Meeting
October 31 and November 1, 2001
Visalia Convention Center, Visalia, California
The following minutes are intended as a record of the discussion and general agreements of the Scientific Advisory Board (Board) and are not to be considered final or official advice of the Board. The Advisories as posted on the website ( are the final and official advice of the Board.
Speakers notes and handouts associated with this meeting can be found in Appendices A through E, which accompany this document. Due to size constraints, some of the handouts were not included in the Appendices. These documents can be found in the Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project: Final Report to Congress. These documents and their locations are as follows: Figure 30.3 from Volume II, Chapter 30; Volume III, Chapter 23, Economic Assessment of the Ecosystem, William C. Stewart; Volume II, Chapter 16, Effects of Silvicultural Practices and Wildfire on Productivity of Forest Soils, Roger J. Poff.
Board members present: Dan Tormey, Karen Nissen, Jeanne Clarke, Paul Waggoner, Nate Stephenson, Doug Piirto, and Dave Graber. George Woodwell was absent.
Forest Service employees present for all or part of the meeting: Jim Whitfield, John Grenz, Art Gaffrey, Annette Fredette, Judi Perez, Tom Henry, Marianne Emmendorfer, Terry Henry, Nancy Ruthenbeck, and Mary Allison.
Members of the public in attendance included: John Keyes (Porterville Area Business Association), Ara Marderosian (Sequoia Forest Keeper), Joe Fontaine (Sequoia Task Force), Horace Wells, Mike Jorgenson, Mark Baker, Jeff Lilley (Hume Lake Christian Camp), Brian Rueger, Terry Daniel, Randy Gimblett, Francisco Valenzuela, Glen Duysen, Lee Belau, John Grenz, Fritz Sculer, Helen Schuler, Robert Rogers, James H. Brown (Tulare Co. Resource Management Agency), John Mendoza, Ruth S. Sperling, Ken Cauwet, Duane M. Garfield (Tule River Tribal Council), Steve M. Peyrone, Jr. (Tule River Tribe), Rol McDarment (Tule River Tribe), Curtis Neiro (Tule River Tribe), William Stewart (California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, and Robert Gonzales (Tule River Tribe).
Chairman’s Introductory Remarks
The Board was created by the Presidential Proclamation in April of 2000. The Proclamation states that the purpose of the Board is to “provide scientific guidance to Secretary of Agriculture through the Forest Service during development of the initial Giant Sequoia National Monument management plan.” The term of the Board ends upon completion of the management plan. Science discussed in the Proclamation includes social science as well as physical/biological science. The Proclamation forms sideboards for operation of the Board.
To date, the Forest Service has issued a Proposed Action, collected public comments and used the comments to develop issues. The Board first met at Hume Lake and developed an operating format. Since June, the Board has met at River Island in Springville and at Wuksachi in Sequoia National Park. At these meetings, the Board worked to create advice to the Forest Service. Minutes of all the meetings, Advisories and procedures for the Board are posted on the web (http: //
This meeting was scheduled to create advice on alternatives being developed for the management plan. In October, the Forest Service informed the Board that the timeline for completing the plan was being revised and alternative development would not be completed until December. The Designated Federal Official (DFO), Art Gaffrey, asked the Board to devote this meeting to gaining a better understanding of the human dimensions of natural resource planning. The Chairman thanked Vice Chair Clarke for her generous and diligent examination of public comments and other documents to present the Board with issues on social science that would make their meeting worthwhile.
The Forest Service will send alternatives to the Board by December 21. The Board will schedule a meeting in January to consider the alternatives. Further, the Forest will send the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) to the Board on May 15, making a June meeting appropriate for the Board.
A section of this meeting, specifically the morning of November 1, will constitute a virtual “field trip.” The “field trip” on social science will be held here and will include informational speakers. It will be similar to a touring field trip, in that the public will be allowed to participate by asking questions. The Chairman thanked Vice Chair Clarke for organizing the 'field trip'.
The Chairman reminded the Board that Board member Karen Nissen was nominated by the Tule River Indian Tribe, and appointed to the Board as provided by the Board’s Charter. No other Board members were selected in a similar manner. In the afternoon the Board Chairman recognized Tule River Tribal Council Chairman, Duane Garfield, and foresters from the reservation, who were present at the meeting.
Public Participation
Four speakers chose to address the Board:
Mike Jorgenson – Back Country Horsemen,
Joe Fontaine – Sequoia Task Force of the Sierra Club,
Ara Marderosian – Sequoia Forest Keeper, and
John Keyes – Porterville Area Business Association.
Speakers notes were submitted and are included in the public record. They are available on request.
The Board Chair called attention to statements by Ara Marderosian and John Keyes. Ara made a strong statement regarding the inadequacy of the Forest’s Cumulative Watershed Effects (CWE) analysis. Board member Dan Tormey addressed the concern. The CWE model used on the Sequoia has undergone scrutiny and peer review. Experts have chosen methodology similar to the CWE process. The CWE process considers Equivalent Roaded Acres (ERA). The model includes variables and monitoring. Dan stated the Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project (SNEP) considered the CWE program a valid option to model effects of actions. Though he felt that some parts of the model need to be adjusted for various actions, the model is accurate and adequate for planning purposes in the National Monument.
John Keyes statement considered the balance of mechanical and prescribed fire for fuels reduction. This is a key concern throughout the management plan. Further, the Southern Sierra Messenger, a local paper, feels that the Board ‘danced around’ the issue. The fuels reduction issue is addressed in Advisory IV and is amplified in Advisories VIII and IX.
The Chairman pointed out that Board members have been given a chapter of the SNEP report by Roger Poff, which brings together evidence on the impacts on soils of fuels reduction by prescribed fire and mechanical treatment methods.
Amendments to Wuksachi Minutes
The spelling of Jeanne Clarke’s name was corrected.
On the bottom of page 8 and the top of page 9, amend the discussion that considered places where the Management Plan would have to deviate from direction provided in the Framework. It is felt that this situation exists, but there are no numbers to prove it. Under the Implications to the Monument section, change “show” to “determine whether there is a”. Seven lines down: change to “conducting study will test the issue.” Page 9, under Step 2, change 100 to 500 and change “conduct” to “model.” In the next paragraph, change the line “Conducting this study would ‘test’…” (in place of validate).
Pages 9 and 10, state that most gaps are about 2/10 of an acre. This is generally true but it needs to include some flexibility.
The Board will add a disclaimer to future minutes stating that the minutes are a record of discussion and general agreements of the Board. The final Advisories, following edits, and approval of words, are the final and official advice of the Board.
By consensus the Board accepted the above amendments to the minutes of the meeting held at Wuksachi, September 5 and 6.
Scope and role of the Board, including watershed planning
The Chairman began the discussion. At the Wuksachi meeting, George Woodwell asked that the Board play a larger role and promote watershed planning. Board members received a map (SNEP) of basins and rivers that serve the San Joaquin Valley. Another map was distributed (Appendix A) that displays watershed basins to help with the concept of watershed planning. The Kings River Basin extends from the Sierra down to the valley; it covers Fresno and Tulare Counties. The Kaweah Basin extends through Three Rivers into Visalia. Lake Success, on the Tule River drains the central part of the Monument. The Kern River drains the east and central portions of the Monument, into Lake Isabella and through Bakersfield.
Asking the Board to consider watershed level planning at such a grand scale is far beyond the ability of this Board as scientists.
The Board needs to continue to refer back to the purpose of the Board as stated in the Proclamation. The Board may wish to revisit the rule of unanimity established at Hume Lake; this seems to have become a hurdle in getting advisories posted.
The questions to be considered:
Are we being as effective as we should be?
Should we be taking a larger point of view?
It is not up to the Board to develop the plan; the Board will provide scientific advice that will influence the plan.
Stepping beyond the role of the Board involves getting into policy direction. This larger role becomes too broad and could result in putting forth a vision of management that would serve as a model for how to do a large-scale plan, but would not be able to be implemented. This does not seem to be a good use of the Board’s time; the Board needs to put forth advice that will be included and useful in the plan. The Board does have a role in pointing out contradictions that are within the scientific realm.
After discussion the Board decided there is a need to produce a final report to the Forest Service transmitting and integrating Advisories that would include watershed analysis.
By consensus, the Board adopted the following refinement of the Board’s role:
The purpose of the Scientific Advisory Board is to provide scientific advice to the Secretary of Agriculture though the Forest Service during the development of the initial Giant Sequoia National Monument Management Plan. A primary role of the Board is to provide timely information and advice during this process, the ultimate objective being to promote the best possible decision.
We envision that the Advisories of the Scientific Advisory Board will be transmitted a lengthy letter, which will comprise the final report to the Secretary of Agriculture.
The Board will need to consider the scope and organization of this transmittal letter and how it will be published and reflected in the Final EIS (FEIS).
Advisories from September 5 and 6 that were not posted
The Board considered that Advisories VI and VII need not be posted. Their discussion is captured in the minutes. After some discussion, the Board reached consensus that Advisories X and XII are different and need to be considered separately.
The Watershed Advisory assigned to Dan has been re-drafted to include some of the issues that will be considered today. Dan feels his revision better addresses the issues.
Copies of Advisory XII, Wildlife, were distributed without the latest edits. (The latest revision of the Advisory was presented and approved on November 1.)
The Board chose not to reconsider the unanimity rule reached at the Hume Lake meeting.
Forest Service Presentations
Terry Henry of the Forest Service described the watershed planning process used by the Monument planning team (see Appendix A).
Marianne Emmendorfer explained the Roads Analysis Process (RAP) and how it relates to the Monument Management Plan (see Appendix B).
The RAP analysis, the watershed assessment and the monument plan process are moving concurrently. The information derived in the RAP process will be included in the Management Plan. The processes are using many of the same databases. The watershed process will display whether roads are a concern to the watersheds.
The RAP involves developing criteria to evaluate existing roads. Resource specialists are developing the criteria, but the decision to close roads due to resource concerns is made outside of the RAP. The actual closure of individual roads becomes an ‘opportunity’ and is determined during site-specific project-level analysis.
The team must be aware that the question is not “do you want roads?” The question is “where do you want to get?” The concern is not the roads; it is getting there. Tomorrow, Francisco Valenzuela, a recreation planner with the Forest Service, will address the Board. Francisco was the transportation planner on the Mt. St. Helen’s National Monument when they developed that Management Plan.
Planning Process Update
Jim Whitfield updated the Board on the planning process.
Some have questioned why the Board must follow the Forest Service’s Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) process. The Forest is required to follow this process, so it seems logical that the Board do so as well.
A new timeline (see Appendix C) for completion of the plan was given to all members. The original timeline had 6 months of slack. The alternative development phase has been extended, because the alternatives are developed to address significant issues, and more time is needed to address the issues. The Forest Service needs final Advice on the issues by November 16.
The DEIS will be sent out in mid-May. Mailing of the DEIS begins a 90-day public comment period. This will be another time for the Board to meet to review the DEIS and provide comments to be included in the FEIS. The planning team will try to plan a public meeting immediately prior to the Board’s meeting to allow Board members to attend.
The 90-day comment period following the DEIS allows the public an opportunity to comment on the analysis and the preferred alternative. Comments received during this time are responded to and included in the FEIS. The comments are also used as necessary to adjust the FEIS. An appeal period follows the creation and publication of the Record of Decision.
When the alternatives are given to the Board, the planning team will be analyzing the effects of the alternatives. The NEPA (National Environmental Policy Act) is an iterative process and, if compelling reasons arise for changing or adjusting alternatives, the Forest will respond accordingly.
An issue, as defined in the NEPA process, is a point of debate, discussion or disagreement regarding the effects of the proposed action.
An issue is considered non-significant if it:
Is outside the scope of the Proposed Action,
Is already decided by law,
Is irrelevant to the decision, or
Is conjectural and not supported by science.
On the other hand, geographic extent, duration of effects, or intensity of interest or conflict make an issue significant. A significant issue is used to formulate alternatives, mitigation measures, or analyze environmental effects.
Social Science Issues
Jeanne distributed packets (see Appendix D) that contained the following information:
- A diagram displayed as an overhead.
- A list of references on human dimensions issues.
- Information from the U.S. Institute for Conflict Resolution. This is a federally funded program whose goal is to reduce litigation on issues.
- Four excerpts from books and articles pertaining to these issues.
There are groups on both sides of the issues: the non-consumptive uses groups (minimal management, protect the resource and not much else) and the consumptive user groups. Over the years, uses of the National Forests have been moving from consumptive to non-consumptive. As we have heard, some people feel that nothing should leave the Monument except smoke; they see the Monument managed essentially as a wilderness. The Proclamation did not set the Monument up to be managed in this way. The Monument has to be managed to reduce fire risks and repair a century of logging (Presidential Proclamation (PP), 2000). The Board will work within the Proclamation sideboards, unless convinced otherwise.
It will be important to understand the goals of group analysis, group dynamics, and consensus building. The Management Plan will stand or fall on public acceptance. Unless groups find the Plan acceptable on a range of issues, endless litigation or congressional action will ensue. The Board needs to advise the Forest Service and public on what is and isn’t a reasonable option based on physical or social sciences.
List of Issues and Discussion
Vice Chair Clarke began the discussion of the issues she had framed.
1. Public Access and Use “consistent with the purposes of the monument” (PP 4/00). Key issues are:
1a (Clarke) Shall the Forest Service continue its policy of dispersed recreational use within the Monument?