United States Forest Sequoia National Forest 1839 South Newcomb Street
USDA Department of Service Giant Sequoia National Porterville, CA 93257-9353
=——— ee = Agriculture Monument (559) 784-1500

ae al (559) 781-6650 TDD

File Code: 1920
Date: November 28, 2012

Dear Interested Parties:

The Giant Sequoia National Monument Management Plan (Monument Plan) and Final Environmental Impact
Statement (FEIS) were published in September of this year. These documents are posted on the Sequoia National
Forest website at: http://www.fs.fed.us/r5/sequoia/gsnm/feis_index.html

Since the Monument documents were published, several errors have been found and corrected, as follows:

1. Add missing references in Vegetation/Silvicultural Report, Literature Cited section (p. 81):

Piirto, D.D.; Wilcox, W.W.; Parmeter, J.R.; Wood, D.L. 1984. Causes of Uprooting and
Breakage of Specimen Giant Sequoia Trees. UC Berkeley Division of Agriculture and
Natural Resources, Bulletin 1909. Berkeley, CA. 12 p.

Piirto, D.D. 1992. Giant sequoia insect, disease, and ecosystem interactions. In: Aune, P.,
ed. Giant sequoias: their place in the ecosystem and society. Visalia, CA: 82-89.

Piirto, D.D.; Rogers, R.R. 1999. An ecological foundation for management of national
forest giant sequoia ecosystems. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific
Southwest Region, RS-EM-TP-005.

Piirto, D.D.; Rogers, R.R. 2002. An ecological basis for managing giant sequoia
ecosystems. Environmental Management 30(1): 110-128.

i)

Add missing reference in FEIS, Volume 1, Literature Cited section, p. 713:

Piirto, D.D.; Wilcox, W.W.; Parmeter, J.R.; Wood, D.L. 1984. Causes of Uprooting and
Breakage of Specimen Giant Sequoia Trees. UC Berkeley Division of Agriculture and
Natural Resources, Bulletin 1909. Berkeley, CA. 12 p.

3. Correct date on p. 14 of the Vegetation/Silviculturalist Report, and on p. 163 of the FEIS, Volume |
Change “(Piirto & Rogers, 1998)” to “(Piirto & Rogers 1999).”

4. Add missing language on p. 63 of the Monument Plan (Special Areas section of Part 2) similar to that in
the 2001 Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment Record of Decision (2001 SNFPA ROD, p. A-33)
regarding Inventoried Roadless Areas:

National management direction from the decision for the Roadless Rule Final EIS prohibits road
construction and reconstruction in inventoried roadless areas. Tree removal will only be permitted
following a determination that removal of the trees is “clearly needed for ecological restoration
and maintenance or public safety” (Clinton 2000, p. 24097), using the criteria in the Clear Need
Criteria section of Part 3 of the Monument Plan. Fuel treatments in inventoried roadless areas are
considered permissible under the Roadless Rule.

”
Caring for the Land and Serving People patedsirmacearae: SO


nN

wn

Add missing word on p. 63 of the Monument Plan (Special Areas section of Part 2), to be consistent with
the Strategy for the Proposed Moses Wilderness on p. 59 of Part 2. Change “It will be managed as

wildernes

to “It will be managed as proposed wilderness...”

6. Modify text on p. 31 of the Monument Plan (Land Allocations and Management Areas section of Part 2),
and on p. 54 of Volume | of the FEIS, to clarify what management direction will be used where land
allocations overlap. Change “Where they overlap, the area with the most restrictive direction is given
priority,...” to “Where they overlap, the more restrictive standards and guidelines would be applied,...”

7. Modify table on pp. 33-34 of the Monument Plan, and on pp. 58-59 of Volume | of the FEIS, to clarify
what management direction will be used where land allocations overlap.

e Where Wildland Urban Intermix (WUD): Defense Zone and Giant Sequoia Groves overlap,
change “Apply WUI" to “Apply both.”

e¢ Where Wildland Urban Intermix (WUI): Threat Zone and Giant Sequoia Groves overlap,
change “Apply WUI” to “Apply both.”

e Where Tribal Fuels Emphasis Treatment Areas (TFETA) and Giant Sequoia Groves overlap,
change “Apply WUI threat” to “Apply both.”

As a reminder, the decision in the Record of Decision is subject to administrative appeal in accordance with the
provisions of 36 CFR 219.17(b)(3) of the current National Forest Management Act regulations (77 FR 21260,
21270, April 9, 2012), which allow for use of the optional administrative appeal procedures in the prior planning
regulations. Under the transition provisions of the reinstated 2000 Planning rule (36 CFR 219.35(b) and 219.35
(Appendix A) [2010]), the responsible official may elect to use the administrative appeal procedures for land
management plans and amendments approved during the planning rule transition period. A written Notice of
Appeal must be filed within 90 days of the date the legal notice of this decision is published in the Porterville
Recorder and Sacramento Bee.

The administrative appeal procedures for this plan amendment can be found at

http://www.fs-fed us/eme/applit/includes/PlanA ppealProceduresDuringTransition.pdf, or by requesting them from
the Pacific Southwest Regional Office of the Forest Service. Section 8 of these procedures explains that it is the
responsibility of the appellant to file the notice of appeal on or before the last day of the filing period.

The appeal must be filed with the Chief of the Forest Service and contain sufficient narrative evidence and
argument to show why this decision should be changed or reversed. Ata minimum, the written notice of appeal

must:

1. State that the document is a Notice of Appeal filed pursuant to 36 CFR 219.35, Appendix A;

i)

List the name, address, and telephone number of the appellant:
3. Identify the decision about which the requester objects:

4. Identify the document in which the decision is contained by title and subject, date of the decision, and
name and title of the deciding officer;

5. Identify specifically that portion of the decision or decision document to which the requester objects;

6. State the reasons for objecting, including issues of fact, law, regulation, or policy, and, if applicable,


specifically how the decision violates law, regulation, or policy; and,

7. Identify the specific change(s) in the decision that the appellant (54 FR 3357, Jan. 23, 1989, as amended
at 55 FR 7895, Mar. 6, 1990; 56 FR 4918, Feb. 6, 1991).

Appeals must be filed with the Chief of the Forest Service at any of the following addresses:

For delivery by the U.S. Postal Service
USDA Forest Service

Attn: EMC Appeals

Mail Stop 1104

1400 Independence Avenue, SW
Washington, D.C. 20250-1104

For delivery by private
USDA Forest Service
Ecosystem Management Coordination
Attn: Appeals

Yates Bldg., 3CEN

201 14th Si
Washington, D.C.20250

arrier or hand delivery*

Main phone**: (202) 205-0895
Fax: (202) 205-1012
E-mail: appeals-chief@fs.fed.us

*Appeals may be hand delivered to this address between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through
Friday, excluding federal holidays.

**The main phone line can be used for carrier deliveries. This number is staffed during regular business hours.

Thank you for working with us on the Giant Sequoia National Monument Management Plan. For additional
information, please contact Annette Fredette at (559) 784-1500, extension 1138

Hing Sek,

) KEVIN B: ELLIOTT
Forest Supervisor