Giant Sequoia

National Monument

Record of Decision

United States

Department of

Agriculture

Forest Service

Sequoia

National Forest

August 2012
The U. S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs 

and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, gender, religion, age, disability, 

political beliefs, sexual orientation, or marital or family status. (Not all prohibited bases 

apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for 

communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact 

USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of 

discrimination, write USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, Room 326-W, Whitten Building, 

14th and Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20250-9410 or call (202) 720-5964 

(voice and TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.
Giant Sequoia National Monument, Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Giant Sequoia National Monument

Management Plan

2012

Final Environmental Impact Statement

Record of Decision

Sequoia National Forest

Lead Agency: U.S. Department of Agriculture

Forest Service

Pacific Southwest Region

Responsible Official: Randy Moore

Regional Forester

Pacific Southwest Region

Recommending Official: Kevin B. Elliott

Forest Supervisor

Sequoia National Forest

California Counties Include: Fresno, Tulare, Kern

This document presents the decision regarding the

selection of a management plan for the Giant Sequoia

National Monument (Monument) that will amend the

1988 Sequoia National Forest Land and Resource

Management Plan (Forest Plan) for the portion of the

national forest that is in the Monument. It summarizes

the reasons for choosing the Selected Alternative as

the basis for the Giant Sequoia National Monument

Management Plan (Monument Plan), which will be

followed for the next 10 to 15 years. The long-term

environmental consequences contained in the Final

Environmental Impact Statement are considered in

this decision.
Giant Sequoia National Monument, Final Environmental Impact Statement
Contents

Giant Sequoia National Monument, Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Introduction............................................................7

The Decision...........................................................8

I. Components of the Decision..............................9

Collaboration .............................................................................................11

Tribal Relations .........................................................................................12

II. Rationale for the Decision...............................13

Strategies....................................................................................................14

Objectives...................................................................................................14

Objects of Interest .....................................................................................15

Wilderness Recommendations .................................................................18

Special Areas, including Special Interest Areas......................................18

III. Issues .............................................................18

Issue 1—Recreation and Public Use ........................................................18

Issue 2—Road and Trail Access ...............................................................18

Issue 3—Diverse Array of Wildlife and Their Habitats.........................18

Issue 4—Fuels Management/Community Protection.............................18

Issue 5—Tree Removal..............................................................................19

Issue 6—Methods for Sequoia Regeneration..........................................19

Issue 7—Fires Spreading to Tribal Lands...............................................19

Issue 8—Obligation to Analyze MSA under NEPA................................19

Issue 9—Manage the Monument Like Sequoia and Kings Canyon

National Parks .......................................................................................19

Issue 10—Convene a New Scientific Advisory Board ............................19

Issue 11—Tribal Access to and Protection of Cultural Sites .................19

Issue 12—Livestock Grazing....................................................................19
Contents

Giant Sequoia National Monument, Final Environmental Impact Statement

IV. Alternatives ....................................................19

V. Public Involvement ..........................................20

VI. Identification of the Environmentally 

Preferred Alternative ........................................21

VII. Findings Required by Other Laws & 

Regulations........................................................22

VIII. Diversity and Viability..................................22

IX. Environmental Justice ...................................23

X. Civil Rights ......................................................23

XI. Implementation ..............................................24

XII. Appeal Rights................................................24
Giant Sequoia National Monument, Final Environmental Impact Statement 

5

Record of Decision
Record of Decision

Giant Sequoia National Monument, Final Environmental Impact Statement

6
Record of Decision

Giant Sequoia National Monument, Final Environmental Impact Statement 

7

Introduction

On April 15, 2000, President Clinton established the

Giant Sequoia National Monument (Monument) by

proclamation in recognition of the rich and varied

landscape and the diverse array of scientific and

historic resources. Giant sequoias are the largest trees

to have lived and are among the world’s longest-lived

trees, making them a truly unique and important

species. The presidential proclamation (Proclamation)

further recognizes the importance of the giant

sequoias, the surrounding ecosystems that support

them, and the role they play in understanding ongoing

environmental changes that are expected to continue

over time. The Proclamation is very clear that the

Monument is not to be used for commercial timber

harvest and that trees can only be removed after an

evaluation determines a clear need to do so. I want

to assure you that none of the alternatives considered

in the environmental analysis include any form of

commercial timber harvest.

I am pleased to present a Monument Plan that

is directed specifically toward the intent of the

proclamation establishing the Monument, including:

● The establishment of a Monument-wide standard

specifying the process and criteria to be used for

an evaluation of clear need;

● Descriptions of desired resource conditions that

are consistent with the intent of the Proclamation

and the expectations of the public;

● The identification of strategies and time-specific,

measureable objectives that are expected to move

conditions toward the realization of the desired

conditions;

● Standards and guidelines that are consistent and

clear in their intent and application; and

● A monitoring plan that is expected to gauge

the performance of the Monument Plan and

its effectiveness in moving toward the desired

conditions.

The Monument is set apart and reserved for the

purpose of protecting the objects of interest identified

in the Proclamation, for their proper care and

management (Clinton 2000). The Monument fills

a unique niche as it is the only national monument

in California that was designated by presidential

proclamation. Giant sequoias (Sequoiadendron 

giganteum) grow only on the western slopes of the

Sierra Nevada mountain range in California. These

trees can tower 270 feet high and reach 30 feet in

diameter. Thirty-three groves and the areas around

them are protected within the Monument.

I have given careful consideration to the interests,

concerns, and comments we have received from

the public. I believe that my decision best meets

the purpose of the Monument, as set forth in the

presidential proclamation (dated April 15, 2000),

by protecting and caring for the objects of interest

and managing Monument resources to restore

ecosystems and provide opportunities for public

use. This decision addresses the need for restoration

of healthy forest ecosystems and restoration of the

natural fire regime. It also maintains a broad range of

recreation opportunities for future generations and the

opportunity for increased understanding of the value

and importance of the scientific and historic objects

in the Monument. I am confident that these benefits

can be realized through the use and application of

proven conservation measures that protect, maintain,

improve, and restore the health of the forest; reduce

risks from uncharacteristically severe wildfire,

invasive species, insects, disease, and other threats;

maintain and restore wildlife habitat and begin the

process of recovery for threatened or endangered

plants and animals.

My decision includes monitoring requirements to

keep information up to date and to ensure that the

Monument Plan is working as expected. It includes

ongoing opportunities for scientific study to improve

our management and adapt management strategies

and objectives over time as conditions warrant. These

principles are the foundation for effectively managing

the Monument to meet the intent of the Proclamation

and to meet the expectations of millions of people

that will use and enjoy this national monument in the

future. 
Record of Decision

Giant Sequoia National Monument, Final Environmental Impact Statement

8

I have reviewed the range of alternatives, read the

public comments, and considered the evaluation of

the alternatives in the final environmental impact

statement (FEIS). Based on my review,

I am selecting Alternative B and one element of 

Alternative E (Moses Wilderness recommendation) 

as the basis for the management plan for the 

Monument. Alternative B was the preferred

alternative published in the draft environmental

impact statement (DEIS) in 2010. The added element

has been analyzed in the FEIS. I am approving the

Giant Sequoia National Monument Management

Plan (Monument Plan) which describes in detail the

strategic vision, strategies, objectives, standards and

guidelines, suitable uses, and land allocations for the

Monument (Parts 1, 2, and 3 of the Monument Plan).

Alternative B (selected) includes a combination of

management strategies and objectives that will be

used for the conservation and management of the

objects of interest. For the purposes of managing the

Monument (and based on Forest Service and public

interpretation of the Proclamation), the objects of

interest include:

● The naturally-occurring giant sequoia groves

and their associated ecosystems, individual giant

trees, rare and endemic plant species such as

the Springville clarkia, and other species listed

as threatened or endangered by the Endangered

Species Act (ESA), or sensitive by the Forest

Service.

● The ecosystems and outstanding landscapes that

surround the giant sequoia groves.

● The diverse array of rare animal species, including

the Pacific fisher, the great gray owl, the American

marten, the northern goshawk, the peregrine

falcon, the California spotted owl, the California

condor, several rare amphibians, the western pond

turtle, and other species listed as threatened or

endangered by the ESA, or sensitive by the Forest

Service.

● The paleontological resources in meadow

sediments and other sources that have recorded

ecological changes in such markers as fire

regimes, volcanism, vegetation, and climate.

● The limestone caverns and other geological

features, including granite domes, spires,

geothermally-produced hot springs and soda

springs, and glacial and river-carved gorges.

● Cultural resources, both historic and prehistoric,

which provide a record of human adaptation to the

landscape and land use patterns that have shaped

ecosystems.

The existing uses in the Monument are expected to

continue. Recreation residences, for example, are a

valid use that will continue, subject to compliance

with the terms and conditions of the cabin owner’s

permit. Although most of the development, such as

roads, developed recreation sites, and administrative

structures, that might be expected to occur in the

Monument has already taken place, in Alternative

B additional development is possible in the future,

to address future recreation demand and the

opportunities identified by the public as important

to them. We do not anticipate much expansion of

the Monument’s permanent road system beyond

what is currently in place, although Alternative B

does not preclude the construction of a new road if

conditions indicate the need, such as developing a

new campground.

My decision strikes a balance between protecting,

caring for, and maintaining the objects of interest;

restoring and maintaining ecosystems; and providing

for visitor enjoyment of the Monument.

Although the responsibility for this decision is

mine, I have made the decision with the help of

many others. Tens of thousands of comments have

been received since we began development of this

Monument Plan in 2001. These included many

comments about the agency’s ability to effectively

manage the Monument in light of recent trends in

budget and a smaller workforce. I recognize that

the optimal implementation rate for the Monument

Plan could require higher funding levels in some

areas than those currently allocated; however, I

believe that the strategic direction described in the

Monument Plan gives managers the flexibility to

implement the plan under current budgets or budgets

that may be even lower. The challenges of effectively

The Decision
Record of Decision

Giant Sequoia National Monument, Final Environmental Impact Statement 

9

I. Components of the Decision

The FEIS and Monument Plan were developed

according to the National Forest Management Act

(NFMA), its implementing regulations at 36 Code of

Federal Regulations (CFR) 219 (77 FR 21260, April

9, 2012), the National Environmental Policy Act of

1969 (NEPA), and the Council of Environmental

Quality (CEQ) regulations at 40 CFR 1500-1509.

NFMA’s current implementing regulations at 36

CFR 219.17 (b)(3) (77 FR at 21270) allow the use

of the provisions of the prior planning regulation,

including its transition provisions (2000 Planning

Rule at 36 CFR 219.35(a) and (b) [2010], December

18, 2009). The transition provisions of the 2000

planning rule allow the use of the prior planning

regulation promulgated in 1982. The Monument

Plan was developed using the process outlined in

the 1982 planning regulations, while considering the

best available science as required by the 2000 rule

transition provisions (36 CFR 219.35(a) [2010]).

Unless otherwise noted, all subsequent citations to

“36 CFR 219” in this document refer to the 1982

planning process: see 36 CFR Part 219 (2000).

The Monument Plan incorporates the direction

provided by the Proclamation and it amends and

replaces, in its entirety, all previous management

direction for the Monument, including the direction

in the 1988 Sequoia National Forest Land and

Resources Management Plan (Forest Plan) for this

part of the Sequoia National Forest. The Monument

Plan also complies with the 1990 Mediated Settlement

Agreement, which outlined proposed amendments to

the 1988 Forest Plan.

The Monument Plan is the single comprehensive

management plan for the Giant Sequoia National

Monument. While the Monument Plan is a standalone document, it is also a subset of the entire Forest

Plan. The Forest Plan for the Sequoia National Forest

now consists of two documents, one which governs

management of the portion of the forest located inside

the boundaries of the Monument, and another which

governs management of the rest of the forest outside

of the Monument.

The Monument Plan is presented in the 3-part

national vision format. This format was developed

in response to recommendations made by the

Committee of Scientists in their 1998 report, and

is based on the concept of adaptive management

(Committee of Scientists 1999). Part 1 is the Vision

for the Monument and includes the purpose of the

Monument Plan, a description of the Monument and

its unique features, and the desired conditions for the

resources of the Monument. Part 2 is the Strategy for

the Monument; it identifies the suitable land uses and

activities and lays out the management strategies and

objectives for the Monument. Part 3 is the Design

Criteria for the Monument and includes the laws

and regulations, the standards and guidelines, and

the monitoring and evaluation procedures that will

be used during site-specific project planning and

implementation.

The Monument Plan describes the strategic direction

that assures compliance with the Proclamation that

created the Monument (Clinton 2000). The FEIS

discloses the environmental consequences of the

alternative management strategies and how they

respond to the issues. I have studied and considered

the consequences of the different alternatives as

discussed in the FEIS in order to make the following

decisions:

● Approval of the vision and desired conditions

described in Part 1 of the Monument Plan for

the next 10 to 15 years. The unique and special

features of the Monument—the giant sequoia

groves, the ecosystems that support them, and

the other objects of interest—are what make the

Monument what it is: a special area that merits

careful management, protection, and preservation.

and efficiently managing resources and providing

a variety of services remain regardless of which

alternative is selected. We are counting on the help of

people working collaboratively with us to move the

Monument toward its desired conditions.

My decision applies only to the Giant Sequoia

National Monument in the Sequoia National Forest

and does not apply to any other federal, state, or

private lands, although the effects to these lands and

the effects of my decision on lands surrounding the

Monument have been considered.
Record of Decision

Giant Sequoia National Monument, Final Environmental Impact Statement

10

● Approval of the suitable uses for each land

allocation as described in Part 2 of the Monument

Plan. The suitability of different lands for

different uses is described for the Monument and

displayed in the accompanying Suitable Land

Uses and Activities by Static Land Allocation or

Management Area (36 CFR 219.13 to 219.27).

The Monument Plan describes the land allocations

and displays them on the Land Allocations map

included with the plan (36 CFR 219.11(c), 219.13

to 219.27).

● Approval of the management strategies and

objectives in Part 2 of the Monument Plan. This

direction provides for and encourages continued

public and recreational access and use consistent

with the purposes of the Monument (Clinton 2000,

p. 24097). It contributes to social, economic, and

ecological sustainability by guiding the restoration

or maintenance of the health of the land in the

Monument (36 CFR 219.11(b)).

● Approval of the standards and guidelines in Part 3

of the Monument Plan. This management direction

will be used in conjunction with the monitoring

and evaluation procedures described in Part 3

to set the parameters for achieving the desired

conditions and provide meaningful direction for

managers when implementing projects [36 CFR

219.14 and 36 CFR 219.16].

● Approval of the monitoring and evaluation

procedures described in Part 3 to ensure that

the Monument Plan is implemented using

the strategies, objectives, and standards and

guidelines; to evaluate the effectiveness of the

Plan relative to the objects of interest; to determine

how well outcomes and effects were predicted;

and to help identify necessary future adjustments

to management direction in the Monument Plan.

Monitoring is clearly emphasized for all activities

and must be accomplished. Monitoring is a key

element in all programs to assure the achievement

of desired conditions over time [36 CFR

219.11(d)].

● Approval of the recommended designations of

Special Areas, including Special Interest Areas,

described in Part 2 of the Monument Plan (36 CFR

219.17(a), 36 CFR 297). The plan recommends

approximately 15,110 acres of the Moses

Inventoried Roadless Area for inclusion in the

Wilderness System, 4,190 acres surrounding and

containing the Freeman Creek Grove for official

designation as a botanical area, and about 3,500

acres in the Windy Gulch area for designation as a

geological area. These proposals, and my decision,

include every addition of or amendment to special

areas that was considered in the FEIS in any of

the alternatives. In addition, the strategies and

objectives for existing special areas are approved

in this decision.

● Establish the Transportation Plan for the

Monument in Part 4 of the Monument Plan

(Clinton 2000, p. 24098).

The FEIS and Monument Plan meet the requirements

of the 1990 Sequoia National Forest Mediated

Settlement Agreement (MSA) as they apply to the

lands within the Giant Sequoia National Monument.

As identified in the letter to our Mediated Settlement

partners dated March 8, 2002, from Sequoia National

Forest Supervisor Art Gaffrey, there were two

categories of items from the MSA that need to go

through the plan amendment process:

● Land allocations created on an interim basis

● Management prescriptions, and standards and

guidelines for some resource areas

The particular MSA topics that are addressed in the

Monument Plan include:

● Giant sequoia guidelines

● Botanical area designation for Freeman Creek

Grove and watershed

● Uneven-aged management in vicinity of Freeman

Creek Grove and its watershed

● Critical habitat for aquatic species in riparian areas

● Special Areas

● Designation for OHV use

● Recommend Moses Inventoried Roadless Area for

wilderness classification

An itemized list of the interim direction from the

MSA, as well as where each item is addressed in the

Monument final environmental impact statement

(FEIS), is provided in Appendix F of the FEIS (FEIS

Volume 2). The FEIS considered alternatives which

would implement all remaining MSA provisions
Record of Decision

Giant Sequoia National Monument, Final Environmental Impact Statement 

11

within the Monument that have not been superseded

by the Proclamation or other management direction

(see the standards and guidelines for the action

alternatives in Appendix A of the FEIS), and the

selected alternative carries forward many of these

MSA provisions.

Collaboration 

In order to fully involve people in the process of

developing a management plan for the Monument,

the Sequoia National Forest offered opportunities for

interested people to engage in a collaborative process

intended to help facilitate its development and to

analyze an appropriate range of alternatives. A thirdparty facilitator was hired through the U.S. Institute

for Environmental Conflict Resolution to lead a

collaborative effort among Forest Service employees

and interested people, including environmental

groups, community leaders, recreation groups,

forest products industry representatives, homeowner

associations, and others. The collaborative effort

included:

● Facilitated meetings held from December 2007

through June 2009, focusing on recreation

management. A working group of members of

the public was formed in these meetings that

eventually became the Giant Sequoia National

Monument Association.

● Other public meetings held between May and

November of 2008, and a field trip in September

2008, focused on ecological restoration and fuels

and vegetation management strategies.

● Websites developed to collect public comments on

the Proclamation and the Science Advisories from

the Scientific Advisory Board, as well as include

the public in evaluating the Multiple Criteria

Decision Support (MCDS) tool.

● A Southern Sierra Science Symposium held in

September 2008, focused on agents of change in

the southern Sierra region.

● A Monument Public Comment Portal developed

so that people could read the scoping letter, draft

environmental impact statement (DEIS), and

related documents on-line, and submit comments

using the website during the scoping period which

began March 18, 2009.

● Four public workshops to discuss giant sequoia

grove management held in April 2009.

● To obtain input from the Tule River Indian

Reservation (TRIR) tribe and landowners adjacent

to the Monument, Forest Service employees met

with different members of the tribe and resources

staff in 10 meetings in 2009.

● Two meetings held in April and May of 2009 with

the appellants who signed the 1990 Mediated

Settlement Agreement (MSA).

● Six public meetings held to discuss the DEIS

and draft management plan (released for public

comment on August 6, 2010) in September and

October of 2010.

● Science Review Panels convened in October

2009 and December 2011 to perform science

consistency reviews of the DEIS and FEIS,

respectively. Public meetings were held in

November 2009 to introduce the first Science

Review Panel, and in October 2010 to discuss the

first science consistency review.

As part of the implementation of the Monument

Plan, the Forest Supervisor and District Rangers

will emphasize collaborative efforts within

the communities inside of and surrounding the

Monument. Much of this effort will emphasize

diverse public access, partnerships, and place-based

recreation opportunities. The following strategies are

included in the selected alternative:

● Emphasize diverse public access, partnerships,

and place-based recreation opportunities, focusing

on connection to place and the recreation settings

(Monument’s recreation niche).

● Establish use fees that are compatible with cost,

and reduce public competition with the private

sector.

● Continue to support and participate in employment

and training programs for youths, older Americans,

and the disadvantaged, in response to national

employment and training needs and opportunities

existing in forest surroundings.	

● Develop partnerships to provide a spectrum

of recreation experiences through a variety

of providers, including the Forest Service,

associations, non-government organizations,
Record of Decision

Giant Sequoia National Monument, Final Environmental Impact Statement

12

permit holders, volunteers, and other community

groups.

● Support the efforts of non-profit, public benefit

organizations promoting conservation, education,

and recreational enjoyment of the Monument and

the surrounding southern Sierra Nevada region.

● Develop partnerships to increase interpretive

materials and programs that reach larger segments

of the general public and to foster stewardship.

● Enhance opportunities to connect people to the

land, especially those in urban areas and of diverse

cultures (connect people to place).

● Work with gateway communities and communities

within the Monument to help foster economic

opportunities.

● Develop bi-lingual communication tools, including

publications, information boards, and radio spots.

● Encourage communities of color, focusing on 

youth, to increase involvement in environmental

education programs to educate and develop the

citizen steward.

● Designate and develop a Children’s Forest in the

Monument to provide a place where youth and

families can participate in and explore forestrelated projects. The criteria for the location of a

Children’s Forest include:

● In or in close proximity to a giant sequoia grove

● Within 1/2 mile of a road

● Close to an existing parking lot or a suitable

area for one

● Close to developed recreation facilities

● Away from high use, congested areas

● Close to water source

● Year-round access

● Does not conflict with existing uses (such as

grazing)

With less of the ‘how to’ prescribed in the Monument

Plan and more emphasis on working together to

choose the ‘right tool’ to achieve desired conditions,

there is more opportunity for interaction among the

public and community organizations. I believe that

collaboration among interested people can lead to

mutually acceptable resolution of resource issues and

I am confident that such interaction and participation

will lead to better management of the Monument,

improve trust and acceptance by visitors and

community members, and promote better relations

among competing interests. 

Tribal Relations

To gain input from the Tule River Indian Reservation

(TRIR) tribe and landowners adjacent to the

Monument, Forest Service employees met with

different members of the tribe and resources staff.

Two formal tribal consultation meetings were held

with the TRIR Tribal Council, on April 14 and July

20, 2009. In addition, three informal meetings were

held with TRIR tribal forestry and environmental

staff members on February 23, August 14, and August

31, 2009, to discuss the Monument planning process

and the MSA. Forest Service employees met with the

Elders Council on October 14, 2009, and attended

four quarterly Forest Tribal Forum meetings on

January 14, April 30, August 19, and December 17,

2009.

The relationship of the Forest Service with

American Indians is important to the management

and restoration of ecosystems in the Monument. To

meet our trust responsibilities and to encourage the

participation of American Indians in the management

of the Monument, I am restating the following

commitments made in the 2001 Sierra Nevada Forest

Plan Amendment Record of Decision (2001 SNFPA

ROD):

● We will work with tribal governments and tribal

communities to develop mutually acceptable

protocols for government-to-government and tribal

community consultations. These protocols will

emphasize line officers’ and tribal officials’ roles

and responsibilities.

● We will consult with appropriate tribal

governments and tribal communities regarding

fire protection and fuels management activities

that potentially affect Rancherias, reservations,

and other occupied areas. We will develop fire

protection plans for such areas in consultation with

appropriate tribal or intertribal organizations. We

will coordinate with tribes and appropriate tribal
Record of Decision

Giant Sequoia National Monument, Final Environmental Impact Statement 

13

organizations regarding training, outreach, and

other items of mutual interest in order to support

tribal and national forest fire programs.

● Traditional American Indian land use practices,

tribal watershed, and other ecosystem restoration

practices and priorities will be considered early

in national forest planning, analyses, decision

making, and adaptive management processes.

During landscape analysis and similar activities,

we will assess vegetation community conditions

where a specific area has an identified importance

to an affected tribe or tribal community. We

will consult with affected tribes and/or tribal

communities to consider traditional and

contemporary uses and needs.

● We will consider traditional American Indian

vegetation management strategies and methods,

and integrate them, where appropriate, into

ecosystem restoration activities. We will cooperate

with tribes, tribal communities, and intertribal

organizations to develop ecosystem stewardship

projects.

● We will consider the relationship between fire

management and plants culturally important to

American Indians. Where fuel treatments may

affect tribes or tribal communities, or plants

culturally important to them, we will consult

on the development of burn plans, and consider

approaches that accommodate traditional

scheduling and techniques of fire and vegetation

management.

● When implementing noxious weed management

programs, we intend to maintain or, if appropriate,

increase the availability of plants traditionally

used by American Indians. We will consult

with appropriate tribes, tribal communities, or

tribal organizations to identify areas of new or

worsening weed infestations and develop plans for

appropriate weed control.

● We will include, where appropriate, culturally

significant species in monitoring protocols related

to management activities. 

● We will maintain appropriate access to sacred

and ceremonial sites and to tribal traditional use

areas. We will consult with affected tribes and

tribal communities to address access to culturally

important resources and culturally important

areas when proposing management that may alter

existing access. After appropriate assessment

and consultation, we will consider proposing

protection of inventoried sacred sites.

● We will protect all sensitive and proprietary

information to the greatest extent permitted by law.

We will secure permission to release information

from the tribe, tribal community, or individual who

provided it prior to release to others.

II. Rationale for the Decision

The purpose of and need for this amendment is

to create a management plan that will protect and

preserve the unique features of the Monument

consistent with the requirements of the Proclamation.

The need is for a single comprehensive management

plan to protect the giant sequoia groves and the other

objects of interest, while providing key resources and

opportunities for public use within the Monument.

Alternative B was designed under the assumption that

current management direction needs to be changed

to comply with the Proclamation and achieve the

desired conditions for vegetation and other resources

in the Monument. I have decided that Alternative B

provides the best combination of moving towards

desired conditions, meeting the purpose and need, and

responding to the issues. In this decision, I have added

one component from Alternative E to Alternative 

B for implemenntation: a portion of the Moses

Inventoried Roadless Area will be recommended for

inclusion in the National Wilderness Preservation

System, as the Moses Wilderness. The 1990 Mediated

Settlement Agreement stipulated that: “Pending

final disposition by the executive and/or legislative

branches, the mapped portions of the Moses Roadless

Area shall be...managed to preserve its wilderness

character” (USDA Forest Service 2007a, p. 70). By

including this special area for implementation, my

decision also includes those management strategies

and objectives pertaining to this proposal, including:
Record of Decision

Giant Sequoia National Monument, Final Environmental Impact Statement

14

Strategies:

1. Special Area Strategy: Manage the Moses

Inventoried Roadless Area within the

Monument as a proposed wilderness, to

preserve the wilderness characteristics until

Congress acts.

2.	 Cultural Resources Strategy: Develop a cultural

resource management plan for the Monument

that prioritizes cultural resource survey, site

evaluation for the National Register of Historic

Places, and Historic American Buildings

survey/Historic Engineering Record survey

and documentation within the proposed Moses

Wilderness.

Objectives:

1. Special Area Objective: In accordance with

Forest Service Manual direction on wilderness

proposals, complete the necessary process.

This recommendation is a preliminary administrative

recommendation that will receive further review

and possible modification by the Chief of the Forest

Service, the Secretary of Agriculture, the President

of the United States, and ultimately Congress.

Congress has reserved the authority to make final

decisions on wilderness designations (FSM 1923.11,

2.). The proposal for Moses Wilderness is being

shown with the original boundaries roughly mapped

in the 1990 MSA. In the wilderness recommendation

proposal, using the manageability criteria for the

evaluation process, the boundaries may be adjusted

to ensure the Forest Service is able to protect and

manage the natural character of the wilderness

adjacent to other landownerships (FSH 1909.12,

Chapter 70, Section 72.1).

Alternative B has been modified with input from the

public and these additions have been made to help

resolve the challenges stemming from the various

issues. An in-depth discussion of what ecological

restoration means in the Monument, and criteria for

determining the appropriateness of tree felling and

the clear need for tree removal, are included in the

Monument Plan. Desired conditions were updated

in response to public comment to better describe the

goals for Monument management; strategies and

objectives were modified to clarify how they differ

between the alternatives; and standards and guidelines

were updated for giant sequoia groves and plantations,

and added for soils, snags and down wood.

In compliance with the Proclamation, an evaluation

of clear need is required and will be completed before

any site-specific projects that propose tree removal

take place in the Monument. Tree removal and tree

felling criteria are given to use when evaluating if tree

removal is clearly needed for ecological restoration

and maintenance or public safety, and when proposing

the felling of standing trees. A decision tree is

provided for use in site-specific projects. It reflects the

desire to ultimately return the Monument to natural

cycles and processes, considering first the use of

managed wildfire if it is available. The availability

of managed wildfire is difficult to anticipate and, if

it is not available, the use of prescribed fire and then

mechanical treatments will be considered.

In addition, the types and amounts of treatment

throughout the Monument, even in the Wildland

Urban Intermix (WUI) defense and threat zones, and

the Tribal Fuels Emphasis Treatment Area (TFETA),

are limited:

● In wilderness (existing and proposed)

● In wild and scenic river corridors

● In inventoried roadless areas

● In research natural areas

● In riparian conservation areas

● On slopes exceeding 35 percent

● In areas greater than 9,000 feet in elevation

● In areas more than 1⁄4 mile from a road

Based on these constraints, only about 23 percent of

the 328,315 acres of National Forest System land in

the Monument could be considered for mechanical

treatments (alone or in conjunction with fire

treatments), compared to approximately 77 percent

that could be considered for fire treatments.

These limitations on implementing site-specific

projects will help guide and control the kind, amount,

and range of management activities that take place in

the Monument.
Record of Decision

Giant Sequoia National Monument, Final Environmental Impact Statement 

15

Though both the WUI and the TFETA are areas

identified for concentrated fuels reduction, they were

designed with different purposes. The WUI is an

area where human habitation is mixed with areas of

flammable wildland vegetation. It is comprised of two

zones: the defense zone and the threat zone.

The WUI defense zone is the buffer in closest

proximity to communities and areas with higher

densities of residences, commercial buildings, and/ or

administrative sites with facilities. The actual defense

zone boundaries are determined at the site- specific

project level following national, regional, and forest

direction. Strategic landscape features such as roads,

barriers, changes in fuel types, and topography are

used in delineating the physical boundary of the

defense zone. Defense zones should be of sufficient

extent that fuel treatments within them will reduce

wildland fire spread and intensity and suppression

forces can succeed in protecting human life and

property.

The WUI threat zone typically buffers the defense

zone. Threat zone boundaries are determined at

the site- specific project level following national,

regional, and forest direction. They are also delineated

with strategic landscape features.

The TFETA was developed in response to

discussions with the Tule River Indian Tribe and

their concern over fires spreading to the Tule River

Indian Reservation. The Tule River Indian Tribe

of California is a federally recognized tribe, and

as such it is the policy of the USDA to consult and

coordinate with them on a government-to-government

basis in compliance with Executive Order 13175

(Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal

Governments) prior to making a decision. This land

allocation was designed along the boundary with the

Tule River Indian Reservation to not only protect the

reservation and its watersheds, but also the objects of

interest and watersheds in the Monument, from fires

spreading from one to the other.

I find that this management direction will be

effective in protecting the objects of interest,

promoting resilient vegetation communities, 

and improving heterogeneity through ecological

restoration and maintenance. This management

direction will be effective in creating ecological

conditions to regenerate sequoias and reduce the

threat of catastrophic fire throughout the giant

sequoia ecosystem, while creating and implementing

opportunities for scientific research, interpretation,

and recreation. In addition to protecting the objects

of interest and Monument ecosystems from

uncharacteristically severe fire, fuels reduction

activities in the WUI defense zone will help to protect

human communities from wildland fires, as well as

minimize the spread of fires that might originate in

urban areas.

This alternative is expected to result in a full range of

recreation opportunities, including dispersed camping,

developed camping, education and interpretation,

access for hikers and equestrians, trail related

activities, and the use of off-highway vehicles on

designated roads.

Alternative B retains all of the land allocations and

standards and guidelines from the 2001 SNFPA,

except where noted in order to ensure the protection

of the objects of interest. In addition to existing

management direction from the 2001 Sierra Nevada

Forest Plan Amendment (2001 SNFPA) and the

1990 Mediated Settlement Agreement (1990 MSA),

Alternative B includes new strategies, objectives, and

standards and guidelines from the 2004 Sierra Nevada

Forest Plan Amendment (2004 SNFPA) Supplemental

EIS and ROD (Monument Plan, Part 2-Strategy,

Strategies and Objectives). This alternative changes

Forest Plan standards and guidelines by adding

improved standards, modifying existing standards,

and eliminating standards that are no longer needed

(see the Monument Plan, Part 3, Standards and

Guidelines).

Objects of Interest

● The naturally-occurring giant sequoia groves 

and their associated ecosystems, individual giant 

trees, rare and endemic plant species such as 

the Springville clarkia, and other species listed 

as threatened or endangered by the Endangered 

Species Act (ESA), or sensitive by the Forest 

Service.

Alternative B would replace the grove influence

zones (GIZs) prescribed in the 1990 MSA with

grove zones of influence (ZOIs). The ZOIs define

a zone, based on the best available science, within

which key ecological processes, structures, and
Record of Decision

Giant Sequoia National Monument, Final Environmental Impact Statement

16

functions should be evaluated to ensure that the

giant sequoia groves are preserved, protected,

and restored. They include area outside the treeline boundary of the groves as determined by

terrestrial considerations, surface water drainage

(watersheds), and the nearest stable stream

channel.

In Alternative B, vegetation management focuses

on reducing fuels by removing smaller trees in the

Wildland Urban Intermix (WUI) zones. Ecological

restoration of forested ecosystems would be

accomplished by reducing fuels, improving stand

resilience and health, promoting heterogeneity,

and encouraging natural regeneration of giant

sequoias and other species. In areas where natural

regeneration is not likely, trees would be planted.

Application of the management tools to be used

for ecological restoration (fuels reduction and

vegetation management) in Alternative B is

prioritized in the FEIS as:

1. Prescribed fire

2.	 Mechanical treatments

3.	 Managed wildfire (unplanned natural

ignitions)

This ordering of management tools for Alternative

B will not direct the order in which these tools

will be considered or used in site-specific projects.

These three tools can be used individually or in

combination based on site-specific analysis and

existing conditions. As made clear in Part 3 of

the Monument Plan, whenever naturally-ignited

wildfires occur and are available to manage for

resource benefits, those managed wildfires will

be used first for ecological restoration (see the

Decision Tree in Part 3 of the Monument Plan).

Based on the strategies adopted in Alternative B,

including the likelihood of moving from one tool

to the next when the prior tool is unavailable or

infeasible, I expect that, under full implementation

of Alternative B, more acres will be treated using

prescribed fire than with mechanical treatments.

Fuels reduction in the WUI defense zone will

focus on the smaller diameter ladder fuels.

● The ecosystems and outstanding landscapes that 

surround the giant sequoia groves.

The proposed fuel reduction activities in the

selected alternative are expected to reduce surface

and ladder fuels, modifying fire behavior and

resulting in fuel conditions that move toward the

desired condition:

Fire occurs in its characteristic pattern and

resumes its ecological role...Fire susceptibility

and severity, and fire hazards to adjacent human

communities and surrounding forest types,

are low. The need to maintain fuel conditions

that support fires characteristic of complex

ecosystems is emphasized and allows for a

natural range of fire effects in the Monument

(Monument Plan, Part 1—Vision, Desired

Conditions, Fire and Fuels).

The selected alternative will decrease fuel

buildups and reduce the risk of uncharacteristically

severe wildfires, which may threaten the objects

of interest. It will be effective over the long term

in restoring the desired fire characteristics of

generally low susceptibility to stand-replacing fires

and a more frequent and low-intensity fire return

interval in fire-dependent ecosystems. This will

lead to greater species diversity, a mosaic of tree

sizes and ages, and therefore to landscapes that

are more resilient and adaptable to environmental

change.

The goal of protecting giant sequoia groves in

the Monument from unusually severe wildfires

includes the re-introduction of fire by utilizing

prescribed fire and managed wildfire as tools to

restore and conserve grove ecosystems. Giant

sequoia groves can be protected from wildfire

by altering fuel conditions inside of groves,

altering fuel conditions outside of groves, or both

(Stephenson 1996).

● The diverse array of rare animal species, 

including the Pacific fisher, the great gray owl, 

the American marten, the northern goshawk, 

the peregrine falcon, the California spotted owl, 

the California condor, several rare amphibians, 

the western pond turtle, and other species listed 

as threatened or endangered by the ESA, or 

sensitive by the Forest Service.

Alternative B replaces the 2001 SNFPA standards

and guidelines for the great gray owl and the
Record of Decision

Giant Sequoia National Monument, Final Environmental Impact Statement 

17

willow flycatcher with standards based on

the 2004 SNFPA. The 2004 SNFPA includes

management direction for these species that is

adaptable to local site conditions, while carrying

forward the protection measures set in place by the

2001 SNFPA. These standards and guidelines will

protect key wildlife habitat.

In the selected alternative, fuel reduction activities

will help protect wildlife habitat by reducing the

likelihood of uncharacteristically severe wildfire,

and snags will only be removed from burned forest

for safety reasons or ecological restoration. This

alternative uses a sound conservation strategy that

balances the need for short-term protection and

long-term sustainability of old forest habitat which

supports important species such as the Pacific

fisher and California spotted owl.

● The paleontological resources in meadow 

sediments and other sources that have recorded 

ecological changes in such markers as fire 

regimes, volcanism, vegetation, and climate.

Effects on paleontological resources within

meadow sediments are unlikely in the selected

alternative. The standards and guidelines for

hydrological and geological resources, including

those for riparian conservation objectives, will

protect paleontological resources within meadow

sediments. The selected alternative includes the

development of a cave management plan and

site-specific standards and guidelines for cave

management, including access to and closure of

caves. These will include standards and guidelines

for paleontological resources within caves which

will help protect these resources.

● The limestone caverns and other geological 

features, including granite domes, spires, 

geothermally-produced hot springs and soda 

springs, and glacial and river-carved gorges.

The selected alternative includes the protection

and preservation of geological objects of interest,

while enhancing interpretation and education,

and allowing appropriate recreational use of these

sites. This alternative includes the designation

of the Windy Gulch Geological Area. A cave

management plan will be developed for significant

caves in this geological area.

● Cultural resources, both historic and prehistoric, 

which provide a record of human adaptation to 

the landscape and land use patterns that have 

shaped ecosystems.

With the selected alternative, a Monument Cultural

Resource Management Plan will be developed

that emphasizes site identification and evaluation,

recognition through national register nominations

and landmark recommendations, education and

outreach programs, continued traditional use

by Native American people, and partnerships to

develop cultural education programs. This plan

will also emphasize:

● Scientific research of past human cultures and

environments

● Using cultural resource data to understand the

evolution of ecosystems

● Preserving and adaptively using historic

structures in place wherever possible

● Preserving the integrity and character-defining

features of historic districts

The Transportation Plan, as required by the

Proclamation, is included in Part 4 of the Monument

Plan. The current road system will generally remain

intact, providing access for protection of communities

and resources from wildfires, and also providing

access to a broad spectrum of existing recreational

opportunities. The road system will provide access for

the Tule River Indian Reservation for the protection

of their resources and culturally important sites and

resources. The overall ecological condition of riparian

areas will gradually improve as portions of roads or

recreational sites that are inconsistent with the Aquatic

Management Strategy are identified for restoration.

I understand that there is scientific uncertainty

regarding the long-term effects of this management

plan. Adapting our management strategies based

on current and reliable monitoring data and

scientific research is vitally important to sound

resource management. Alternative B includes

strategies and objectives for Scientific Study and

Adaptive Management (Monument Plan, Part

2-Strategy, Strategies and Objectives), as well as

a monitoring plan (Monument Plan, Part 3-Design

Criteria, Monitoring and Evaluation). Monitoring
Record of Decision

Giant Sequoia National Monument, Final Environmental Impact Statement

18

Twelve issues were identified during the scoping

process. Six alternatives have been developed,

described, and analyzed that respond to the issues.

The issues are:

Issue 1—Recreation and 

Public Use 

Recreation use and enjoyment of the Monument 

is increasing, resulting in competition between 

different types of public use and a greater need to 

protect the objects of interest.

Issue 2—Road and Trail 

Access 

Maintain a road and trail system that provides 

safe access for a diversity of uses, while reducing 

impacts to sensitive resources and the objects of 

interest, and reducing conflict between different 

types of use (motorized/non-motorized).

Issue 3—Diverse Array 

of Wildlife and Their 

Habitats

Proposed fuel reduction and ecological restoration 

treatments may adversely affect the amount and 

distribution of wildlife species and their habitat, 

especially the Pacific fisher.

Issue 4—Fuels 

Management/Community 

Protection

Fuels reduction as proposed, to protect communities 

and the objects of interest in the Monument, may not 

be effective in terms of how much is treated and the 

kinds of treatments used.

III. Issues

and evaluation are integral parts of the adaptive

management cycle that will provide a framework to

guide future management decisions and actions.

Wilderness 

Recommendations

My decision includes the recommendation from

Alternative E to include approximately 15,110

acres of the Moses Inventoried Roadless Area in the

Wilderness System. The 1990 MSA stipulated that

a portion of the Moses Inventoried Roadless Area

should be recommended:

Pending final disposition by the executive and/or

legislative branches, the mapped portions of the

Moses Roadless Area shall be...managed to preserve

its wilderness character (USDA Forest Service

2007a, p. 70).

I am recommending this area after reviewing public

comments and the evaluation that identifies its

capability, suitability, and need. This area will be

managed to protect its wilderness characteristics

until Congress makes a decision on whether or not to

designate it.

Special Areas, including 

Special Interest Areas

In addition to the existing special areas in the

Monument, which include designated wildernesses,

wild and scenic rivers, backcountry (inventoried

roadless areas), research natural areas, botanical

areas, and scenic byways, my decision includes the

designation of two Special Interest Areas. These areas

are:

● Freeman Creek Botanical Area (4,190 acres)

● Windy Gulch Geological Area (3,500 acres)

These proposals, and my decision, include every

addition of or amendment to special areas that was

considered in the FEIS in any of the alternatives. In

addition, the strategies and objectives for existing

special areas are approved in this decision.

These areas will receive management emphasis for

protection of the unique features for which they are

designated. I am approving these areas based on

the evaluations of forest staff, the stipulations in the

MSA, and comments from the public.
Record of Decision

Giant Sequoia National Monument, Final Environmental Impact Statement 

19

IV. Alternatives

Six alternatives were developed and analyzed in

order to determine the best combination of desired

conditions, strategies, objectives, and standards

and guidelines to resolve the issues. All of the

alternatives are aimed at achieving the desired

vegetative conditions and explore different strategies

for achieving the desired conditions. Since the

alternatives are focused on ecological restoration

rather than targeted resource outputs, they do not

vary in the traditional sense. They do explore various

strategies (including no change) to protect and

care for the objects of interest and achieve desired

conditions over time.

Alternative A: This is the No-Action

Alternative that is required by NEPA. No action

means no change in management direction. The

effects of on-going activities reflecting the day to

day operation of the Monument will be analyzed

in this alternative and used as a baseline for the

analysis of the effects of the rest of the alternatives.

Alternative B: This is the proposed

action, developed to specifically comply with

the presidential proclamation. Strategies are

modeled and analyzed that are responsive to issues

focused on recreation and public use, fire and fuel

management/community protection.

Issue 5—Tree Removal

There is considerable and meaningful debate about 

the conditions under which trees need to be cut, 

and about when and in what form a tree should 

be removed from the Monument, for ecological 

restoration.

Issue 6—Methods for 

Sequoia Regeneration

There is ongoing debate about the methods that 

would successfully promote the regeneration, 

establishment, and growth of giant sequoias.

Issue 7—Fires Spreading 

to Tribal Lands

A large wildfire spreading to the Tule River Indian 

Reservation from the Monument could result 

in irreversible damage to the tribe’s watershed 

resources and community.

Issue 8—Obligation to 

Analyze MSA under NEPA

Bring forward and implement the agreements set 

forth by the MSA, analyzing the effects in the NEPA 

process.

Issue 9—Manage the 

Monument Like Sequoia 

and Kings Canyon 

National Parks

Since this federal land is now a national monument, 

it should be managed like a national park, in 

particular like Sequoia and Kings Canyon National 

Parks.

Issue 10—Convene a New 

Scientific Advisory Board

A new Scientific Advisory Board should be convened 

for the current planning process as stipulated by the 

President Clinton proclamation.

Issue 11—Tribal Access 

to and Protection of 

Cultural Sites

Resource management activities and increased 

public use could negatively affect tribal member 

access to traditional sites and the cultural resources 

in the Monument.

Issue 12—Livestock 

Grazing

Grazing by livestock can be harmful to monument 

ecosystems and, in particular, to meadow and 

riparian ecosystems.
Record of Decision

Giant Sequoia National Monument, Final Environmental Impact Statement

20

The need for this action was declared in the

presidential proclamation which established the

Giant Sequoia National Monument in April 2000

(Clinton 2000). The original proposal to amend the

1988 Forest Plan was listed in the Notice of Intent

that was published in the Federal Register on June 8,

2001. The proposed action was provided to the public

and other agencies for comment during the scoping

period conducted from June 8 to July 24, 2001. The

Forest Service held public meetings on the proposed

action in July 2001, meetings with two groups on the

roads analysis process in February 2002, and public

meetings on the development of alternatives to the

proposed action in March 2002.

The initial draft environmental impact statement

(DEIS) was released for public comment in December

2002, with the comment period running from

December 2, 2002 to March 17, 2003. The Forest

Service held public meetings to review, discuss, and

comment on the DEIS in February 2003.

In January 2004, the final environmental impact

statement (FEIS) and Record of Decision were

published and signed into effect. Two lawsuits

were filed challenging the decision. In October

2006, Federal District Court Judge Charles Breyer

permanently enjoined implementation of the 2004

decision and remanded the plan to the Forest Service.

After the plan was remanded to the Forest Service,

the Sequoia National Forest’s forest supervisor

restarted the planning process. A third-party facilitator

led meetings of people interested in recreation

management from December 2007 to June 2009.

These meetings resulted in the formation of a

working group that later became the Giant Sequoia

National Monument Association. Other public

meetings focusing on ecological restoration and

fuels and vegetation management strategies were

held from May to November 2008. During 2008 and

2009, several decision support tools were evaluated,

including the Strategic Decision Support (SDS) model

and the Multi-Criteria Decision Support (MCDS)

model. Two websites were developed for public

input, one for the MCDS and one for comments on

the Proclamation and the Scientific Advisory Board

advisories.

On March 18, 2009, a new Notice of Intent and

scoping letter were issued with a proposed action for

public comment. During the 45-day scoping period,

a website was provided as another method to provide

comments on the proposed action. The Values and

Interest-Based Explorer (VIBE) website, a version

of the MCDS model, was also available to the public

during the scoping period. Four public workshops

were held in April 2009 to discuss giant sequoia grove

management. 

From November 2008 through May 2009, the Sequoia

National Forest conducted a comprehensive review

to determine which of the provisions of the MSA

have already been addressed or incorporated in the

Forest Plan as amended. This review concluded that

a number of provisions were never fully incorporated

into the Forest Plan. On April 13 and May 19, 2009,

meetings were held with the appellants who were

parties to the MSA to discuss which provisions may

be applicable to the Monument.

The draft environmental impact statement (DEIS)

and draft Monument Plan were released for public

comment on August 6, 2010. This comment period

ran to December 3, 2010. Another round of public

meetings was held in September and October 2010 to

discuss the layout and organization of the documents,

to understand the documents and identify the

V. Public Involvement

Alternative C: This alternative is designed

to manage the Monument using strategies for

ecological restoration that are employed to manage

Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks (SEKI).

Alternative D: This alternative includes

strategies that focus on the use of natural

disturbance processes such as wildfire to manage

the Monument.

Alternative E: This alternative is designed to

manage the Monument as guided by the Mediated

Settlement Agreement (MSA).

Alternative F: This alternative focuses on a

more flexible range of management tools to promote

ecological restoration and maintenance, and forest

health, and achieve the desired conditions in less

time.
Record of Decision

Giant Sequoia National Monument, Final Environmental Impact Statement 

21

VI. Identification of the Environmentally 

Preferred Alternative

NEPA regulations require agencies to specify the

alternative or alternatives which were considered to

be environmentally preferable (40 CFR1505.2 (b)).

Forest Service policy (FSH 1909.15, Section 05)

defines environmentally preferable as:

An alternative that best meets the goals of Section

101 of NEPA...Ordinarily this is the alternative

that causes the least damage to the biological and

physical environment and best protects, preserves,

and enhances historical, cultural, and natural

resources.

Although the Act itself does not define the

environmentally preferred alternative, it does suggest

national environmental policy (42 USC, Section 4331,

Sec. 101 (b)). That policy calls for the continuing

responsibility of the federal government to use all

practicable means to improve and coordinate plans,

functions, programs, and resources so that the nation

may:

1. Fulfill the responsibilities of each generation

as trustees of the environment for succeeding

generations.

2.	 Assure for all Americans safe, healthful,

productive, and aesthetically and culturally

pleasing surroundings.

3.	 Attain the widest range of beneficial uses of the

environment without degradation, risk to health

or safety, or other undesirable and unintended

consequences. 

4.	 Preserve important historic, cultural, and natural

aspects of our natural heritage and maintain,

wherever possible, an environment, which

supports diversity and variety of individual choice.

5.	 Achieve a balance between population and

resource use, which will permit high standards of

living and a wide sharing of life’s amenities.

6.	 Enhance the quality of renewable resources and

approach the maximum attainable recycling of

depletable resources.

Given these criteria, I am identifying Alternative B

as the environmentally preferred alternative. This

finding is based upon the comprehensive balance that

this alternative provides for 1) reducing the risk of

catastrophic wildfire to communities and valuable

resources such as giant sequoia groves, wildlife

habitat, and other objects of interest, and 2) restoring

important ecological processes and forest structures

such as a more natural fire regime, a mosaic of tree

species, ages, and sizes for wildlife habitat, and giant

sequoia regeneration. 

It is my assessment that Alternative B best meets the

goals and the substantive requirements of Section

101 of NEPA. Alternative B will ensure the future

health of the land by providing appropriate strategies,

objectives, standards and guidelines, and management

tools to:

● Protect and preserve the unique features of the

Monument consistent with the requirements of the

Proclamation

● Restore and maintain natural ecological processes

● Provide key resources and opportunities for public

use within the Monument

information most important to the public, and to give

the public ample opportunity to speak with planners

and the interdisciplinary team.

In order to fully involve people in the process of

developing a management plan for the Monument,

the Sequoia National Forest offered opportunities

for interested people to engage in a collaborative

process intended to help facilitate its development

and to analyze an appropriate range of alternatives.

Traditional and non-traditional approaches have been

used that encourage iterative discussion, ensure that

the planning process is transparent, and make certain

that ideas presented for consideration are legal, fair,

and practical. The collaborative process places an

emphasis on understanding the complexity of the

issues and the strategies that may be employed to

resolve them, rather than on total agreement on the

resolution of individual issues.
Record of Decision

Giant Sequoia National Monument, Final Environmental Impact Statement

22

● Reduce fuel loads and improve wildlife habitat

● Replace the multiple and confusing levels of

current management direction with a single

comprehensive management plan

Alternative B includes those uses appropriate to

the Monument such as dispersed and developed

recreation and livestock grazing. The design criteria

in Part 3 of the Monument Plan, including the

standards and guidelines, will be used to guard against

undesirable and/or unintended outcomes.

This Record of Decision has discussed the decision

process and the rationale for the decision. The current

management direction for the Sequoia National

Forest and the Monument is a complicated web of

confusing direction that is difficult to follow and

even more difficult to understand. The selected

alternative addresses the protection of the objects

of interest, including plant and animal species and

their habitat, the demand for human uses, and the

critical need for fuels reduction, so it makes sense for

the Monument. The evaluation process that I have

described in the previous Rationale for the Decision

section includes the evaluation of net public benefit,

the key factors, and the attributes and advantages

that cause Alternative B to stand out, in my mind, as

environmentally preferable.

VII. Findings Required by Other Laws & 

Regulations

This decision to implement Alternative B, with

additional elements analyzed in other alternatives,

is consistent with the requirements of the National

Forest Management Act and the National

Environmental Policy Act as amended, and other

procedural requirements.

VIII. Diversity and Viability

The National Forest Management Act (NFMA)

requires the Secretary of Agriculture to specify:

Guidelines for land management plans developed

to achieve the goals of the [RPA] Program

which provide for diversity of plant and animal

communities based on the suitability and capability

of the specific land area in order to meet overall

multiple-use objectives [16 U.S.C. 1604(g)(3)(B)].

The 1982 planning process utilized in this Monument

Plan implements this provision of the NFMA by

maintaining sufficient fish and wildlife habitat in

the planning area to support viable populations of

existing native and desired non-native vertebrate

species. This Plan incorporates applicable analysis

and management direction from the Sequoia National

Forest Plan and its FEIS, as amended by the 2001

Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment (SNFPA)

and its FEIS, including the viability analyses and

conclusions contained therein. Moreover, the specific

analyses provided in the environmental documents

for this Plan support my conclusion that this Plan is

in compliance with the NFMA and the relevant 1982

planning process.

Among the desired conditions established in this Plan

for the Monument is that “Lands in the Monument

continue to provide a diverse range of habitats that

support viable populations of associated vertebrate

species, with special emphasis on riparian areas,

montane meadows, and late successional forest...

Old forest habitat is in suitable quality, quantity, and

distribution to support viable populations of late

successional dependent species, including Pacific

fishers, American martens, California spotted owls,

northern goshawks, and great gray owls” (Monument

Plan, Part 1—Vision, Desired Conditions, Wildlife

and Plant Habitat).

The planning process for the Monument relied,

in part, on assessments completed pursuant to the

2001 SNFPA that made risk projections regarding

the ecological conditions that are necessary to

maintain viable populations of vertebrate species

well distributed throughout their range under full

implementation of the SNFPA. The Monument Plan

Strategy (including strategies and objective and

land allocations/management areas) in Part 2 of the

Plan, Design Criteria (including the standards and

guidelines, and monitoring and evaluation procedures)
Record of Decision

Giant Sequoia National Monument, Final Environmental Impact Statement 

23

in Part 3 of the Plan, the Partnership Strategy in

Appendix E, and the Transportation Plan in Part 4,

were all designed to contribute sufficient habitat

to support viable populations of these species. The

strategies, objectives, and standards and guidelines,

in particular, are designed to achieve the desired

conditions for the Monument. The standards and

guidelines include requirements to be met in and

design criteria for site-specific projects that will help

meet the strategies and objectives and achieve the

desired conditions. I am confident that compliance

with the standards and guidelines outlined in Part 3 of

the Monument Plan will not lead to a loss of viability

of vertebrate species at the Sequoia National Forest

level.

In reaching this conclusion, I considered existing

and reasonably foreseeable conservation measures

and factors under Forest Service authority or control.

As we have learned in decades of planning, even

as we have considered the best available scientific

information, we cannot guarantee outcomes. Fire,

drought, windstorms, and other phenomena can occur

at times and in ways we cannot predict. Nonetheless,

I believe that this Plan provides direction so that, to

the extent the Forest Service can maintain necessary

habitat, it will do so.

In addition to the strategies and objectives, land

allocations/management areas, standards and

guidelines, and other guidance that are part of my

decision, I looked at other measures that will affect

species’ conservation, including implementation of

internal policy directives (like the Forest Service’s

Sensitive Species program) and additional protections

that can be taken during project planning. Moreover,

interagency efforts may identify additional

conservation measures through inventory and

monitoring, or other sources of new information

relative to species conservation.

Based on my review of the environmental

consequences identified in the record, including

the FEIS, Biological Assessment (BA), Biological

Evaluation (BE), and Management Indicator Species

(MIS) Report, I believe that the management

strategies described in this Record of Decision

for Alternative B will conserve habitat within the

Monument, while also meeting the requirements of

the Proclamation, managing the demands associated

with the projected levels of human population growth,

and managing the risks of wildland fire. I expect this

decision to fully comply with the diversity of plant

and animal community provisions of NFMA and the

1982 planning process.

IX. Environmental Justice

Executive Order 12898 “Federal Actions to Address

Environmental Justice in Minority Populations

and Low-Income Population” requires that federal

agencies make achieving environmental justice part

of their mission by identifying and addressing, as

appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse

human health and environmental effects of their

programs, policies, and activities on minority

populations and low-income populations. As

concluded in the FEIS, no disparate or adverse

effects are identified to groups of people identified

in Civil Rights Statutes or Executive Order 12898

(Environmental Justice) from the Proposed Action.

X. Civil Rights

Civil rights are defined as “the legal rights of United

States citizens to guaranteed equal protection under

the law” (USDA Forest Service Manual 1730). A civil

rights impact analysis for environmental or natural

resource actions is a necessary part of the social

impact analysis package in an environmental impact

statement and is not a separate report (USDA Forest

Service Handbook 1709.11).

The Forest Service is committed to equal treatment of

all individuals and social groups in its management

programs in providing services, opportunities, and

jobs. Because no actual or projected violation of legal

rights to equal protection under the law is foreseen for

any individual or category of people, no civil rights

impacts are reported in the FEIS.
Record of Decision

Giant Sequoia National Monument, Final Environmental Impact Statement

24

I am providing the following transition direction

to ensure the orderly implementation of the forest

plan amendment that is made in this Record of

Decision. My intention is to provide for ecological

restoration of processes and to enhance long-term

ecological integrity, assure the most efficient and

appropriate use of government resources, minimize

costs to holders of existing government contracts and

permits, avoid disruptions to local communities, and

reduce the likelihood of confusion. I have considered

and balanced each of these concerns in making my

decision to issue this direction.

The Monument Plan, which amends the land

management plan for the Sequoia National Forest,

becomes effective 30 days after publication of the

notice of availability of the FEIS in the Federal 

Register. The new direction will apply to all project

decisions in the Monument made on or after the

effective date of this decision. The new direction

does not apply to any projects that have had decisions

made prior to the effective date of this decision.

Projects currently under contract, permit, or other

authorizing instrument are not affected by the

decision; however, projects may be modified to adopt

all or part of this direction where Forest Service

managers deem appropriate. Re-issuance of existing

authorizations will be treated as new decisions, which

must be consistent with the new direction described in

the forest plan amendment.

The forest plan amendment provides the strategic

framework within which project-level decisions

are designed and implemented. As noted above, all

projects in the Monument for which a decision has not

been made prior to the effective date of this decision

must be consistent with the new direction of this plan

amendment. This amendment does not provide final

authorization for any activity, nor does it compel that

any contracts or permits be advertised or awarded.

XII. Appeal Rights

This decision is subject to administrative appeal in

accordance with the provisions of 36 CFR 219.17(b)

(3) of the current NFMA 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/emc/applit/includes/

PlanAppealProceduresDuringTransition.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. At a 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;

2.	 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

XI. Implementation
Record of Decision

Giant Sequoia National Monument, Final Environmental Impact Statement 

25

RANDY MOORE

Regional Forester, Responsible Official

Pacific Southwest Region

USDA Forest Service

Date

7.	 Identify the specific change(s) in the decision that

the appellant seeks (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 carrier or hand delivery*

USDA Forest Service

Ecosystem Management Coordination

Attn: Appeals

Yates Bldg., 3CEN

201 14th St., SW

Washington, D.C.20250

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.
Record of Decision

Giant Sequoia National Monument, Final Environmental Impact Statement

26

Please recycle this document when it is ready to be discarded.