The complexity and range of issues to be addressed in the draft EIS, many feel, will require a year for the public to fully understand. People point to the panels of experts explaining the project at public meetings and argue that mere citizens need more than three months to digest the technical aspects of the project. The scope of the proposal and the potential ramifications have some people concerned that the Forest Service is trying to accomplish too much without proper public and more importantly, to them, Congressional oversight. Citing the Multiple-Use Sustained Yield Act and the Organic Act several respondents believe the Forest Service is neglecting preservation of multiple uses of public forest land in favor of strict preservation of the land.
Several people request applicant status for grazing permittees.
Unless logging and other mechanical methods are used to reduce the build up of fuels some respondents are concerned that the Sierra Nevadas will see an increased risk of catastrophic fire. Some people do not want to see the plan amendment foreclosing public access to national forests for recreation and fuel wood gathering. The message from these two campaigns mirrors the content of many other letters. These people call for permanent protection of remaining ancient forests and roadless areas through a no new roads policy , a system of corridors to link old forests and use of SNEP guidelines for forest reserves. In addition they call for placing all eligible rivers into Wild and Scenic River status, and expanded use of prescribed fire in place of mechanical treatments for fuel reduction.