More than two years ago a group of citizens came together to address serious concerns for the mismanagement of our forest. During this time, we have researched every aspect of the Department of Agriculture use of the United States Forest Service (USFS) and their relationship to the State of California and the Counties of Fresno, Madera, and Mariposa. During our investigation, we read all of the relevant Federal documents and came upon a Federal Law, “The Healthy Forest Restoration Act”, which mandates that the our nation’s forests be properly managed. President G.W. Bush signed this law on December 3, 2003, and it was not implemented to manage our National Forests, even though the USDA-USFS commissioned a group of North America’s top forest scientists to define a healthy forest. The product of this collaboration is a comprehensive document titled “An Ecosystem Management Strategy for Sierran Mixed-Conifer Forests”, but commonly known as General Technical Report PSW-GTR-220. Within this document, the ideal number of trees comprising a healthy forest is defined as an average of 120 to 209 trees per acre. At present, our Sierra National Forest (SNF) has an average of 600 trees per acre, which should be very concerning to every resident of the Central Valley, California in this severe drought. The American Forests organization stated that: • In one day, one large tree can lift up to 100 gallons of water out of the ground and discharge it into the air. • For every five percent of tree cover added to a community, storm water runoff is reduced by approximately two percent (americanforests.org). What does this overgrowth mean to our valley? With a minimum of 400 extra trees per acre in our forest, every tree consumes an average of 50 to 100 gallons of water per day. In Fresno County, the SNF occupies 655,000 acres. Just using the minimum usage figure of 50 gallons of water per day, and approximately one third of a year the trees lie dormant we can do some math. Therefore 655,000 acres x 400 trees x (50 gallons x 243 days) = 3,183,300,000,000.00 gallons of water annually. Here is some more math of particular interest to farmers: 3,183,300,000,000.00 gallons annually divided by 325,853.383688 gallons of water per acre foot = 9,769,117.5214186 acre feet of water per year. The average residential water usage according to the USGS per person is up to 100 gallons of water per day x 365 = 36,500 gallons per year. Taking our annual gallons of water usage by trees figure of 3,183,300,000,000.00 divided by gallons per person annually 36,500 = 87,213,698. We are wasting water that 87,213,698 million people could use in a year. That quantity of water would be more than enough to replenish our aquifers, supply water to our vital agricultural community, recharge rural residential well water, and supply all the water needs of the central valley, including enough water for the elusive salmon. Another effect of having 400 extra trees per acre, and overgrowth of ground foliage, is catastrophic fire. These conditions are the most dangerous in modern history, as demonstrated by the Rim and Aspen Fires last year, and the 233 fires recorded from January 1, 2014 to October 15, 2014 in the SNF (WildCAD – SNF). What makes these fires more dangerous than in previous years? The ground fuel is as bad as it has ever been, with growth reaching in some areas 8’ high, the smallest ignition can start fire with unimaginable destruction. If the fire reaches the canopy, the fire can jump tree top to tree top at the speed of the wind. Imagine a 30 mph wind blowing, downwind towards firefighters, camper, hikers, hunters, or equestrians. These people would have no chance of escape. Catastrophic fires contribute to bad air quality, with dangerous amounts of particulate matter blowing away from the fires into our Central Valley communities. Everyone’s health is at risk from this bad quality air. Our committee’s biggest fear is that a fire could start in the Auberry area, and travel up the western slope and close the bottle neck at the top of the 168 four lane. There is no alternate escape route for passenger vehicles above the four lane, so everyone would be trapped on the mountain at the mercy of the fire and wind. This worst-case scenario should concern every public official at the County and State levels as the responsibility and liability would rest directly on your shoulders. The good news is that nothing this tragic has happened yet, but it is time to seize control of the situation and exercise your authority by demanding that the forestry service utilize the current Federal laws, and the properly managed forest plan that has been determined by the USFS’s own document. A respected environmental advocacy group, The Sierra Nevada Conservancy, recently published their own study of the current forest conditions. Everything that we have listed was verified within their document, and they advocate solutions that are consistent with our recommendations. Over a year ago, the Fresno County Board of Supervisors enacted a resolution acknowledging its authority to effect change within the Sierra National Forest. On October 21, 2014, the Madera County Board of Supervisors approved a similar resolution to improve the health of the Sierra National Forest. The primary consideration with the passage of these resolutions was the question of jurisdiction, after all we are talking about the Sierra NATIONAL Forest. In close proximity we have the Yosemite National Park and the Sierra National Forest. The National Park Service is under the Department of the Interior and has Federal Jurisdiction. The National Forests are under the Department of the Agriculture, they are a management service, managing the forests at the pleasure of the County. The title NATIONAL, with the United States Forest Service is meant to imply Federal jurisdiction, which is misleading to local government and the public. After obtaining legal opinions as to the relationship between the USFS Sierra National Forest and our elected county, and state representatives. The opinion suggested a simple test; if a crime is committed, who investigates, and where is the crime adjudicated? In Yosemite National Park, a crime is investigated by Federal Law Enforcement, it is adjudicated in Federal Court. The Federal Government has jurisdiction. In the Sierra National Forest, a crime is investigated by the County Sheriff, the prosecution is done by the County District Attorney General, and the trial is conducted in the appropriate court. The County has Jurisdiction. This realization is both welcome and it also presents another challenge to making our forest healthy. As a “management service” the USFS is under obligation to properly manage our forest, and our counties have recourse if their obligation is not fulfilled. The challenge is that the SNF is located in Fresno, Madera and Mariposa Counties (F.M.M.) so the communication, cooperation, and coordination will need to be established to have a coherent process to effect the changes required. What would the current Sierra National Forest management feel about coming under the jurisdictional control of the (F.M.M.) combined counties? A major challenge for the USFS is litigation brought by a neo-environmental legal firm out of New Mexico. They use the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA), a Federal Law that pays legal fees to prevailing litigants. In just the last couple of months, this law firm has taken the SNF to court twice to stop the “Salvage Logging” of the Rim Fire. As the SNF does not have the budget to devote to fighting these legal actions the forest always settles the action with an arbitrated compromise. Exercising county jurisdiction would eliminate the EAJA litigation, as EAJA funds only covers actions taken against the Federal Government, NOT cities, counties or states. Additionally, the “Healthy Forest Restoration Act” has instruction to the courts to expedite their cases if legally challenged. How would the exercise of the Fresno, Madera, and Mariposa counties jurisdiction be implemented with the Sierra National Forest management? Our proposal is that the F.M.M. counties would create a procedure which would require the SNF management to submit a yearly plan for the restoration of the forest. The F.M.M. counties would pass a resolution affirming the plan, then send it back to the SNF for implementation. Who would pay for these changes? For the SNF to start the restoration process, it would have to open areas to logging bids, which would be more than enough to finance the entire restoration, in addition to the increased employment opportunities which would ripple throughout the counties economies. The taxes derived from these new enterprises could pay for numerous shelved projects within the counties. All of these changes would be in addition to the increased watershed in our underground aquifers, and down our streams and rivers. The reduction in catastrophic fires would immediately impact the county budgets for firefighting efforts. We thank you for taking time to read this letter and the accompanying documents. Please seriously consider working alongside our group to make the changes necessary to improve the health of our Sierra National Forest, thereby relieving the serious drought, and reducing the danger of catastrophic fires. Sources • Healthy Forest Restoration Act, 2003 retrieved July 30, 2014, from gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-108hr1904enr/pdf/BILLS-108hr1904enr.pdf • An Ecosystem Management Strategy for Sierran Mixed-Conifer Forests, General Technical Report PSW-GTR-220 retrieved on October 8, 2014 from Robert Jeffers, Madera County Supervisor Rick Farenelli’s office. • American Forests, retrieved on November 17, 2014 from americanforests.org • USGS The Water Science School, retrieved on November 17, 2014 from water.usgs.gov/edu/qa-home-percapita.html • WildCAD retrieved on October 15, 2014 from wildcad.net/WCCA-SNF.htm • Equal Access to Justice Act
Posted on: Thu, 20 Nov 2014 22:38:29 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015