Violation of ARA Reg Page 2 lines 10-18
|
Tepusquet residents
dispute this violation of ARA claim as the were notified and involved
in the projects from the beginning. Jeff Kuyper himself, Executive
Director of Forest Watch a plaintiff in the law suit provided 20
comments which are documented in the the Tepusquest Fuels Treatment
Project Decision Memo. In addition there are about fifteen other
individual's comments listed in Appendix C of the Decision Memo.
|
They oppose portions of the Fuels Treatment; page 3, lines 1 to 8
|
Tepusquet Residents
state that this is very misleading and does not indicate knowledge of
fuel or ground conditions in the area. Tepusquet Canyon parallels the
National Forest boundary at a variable distance from contact to 2
miles, they state this is not several miles removed. They state that
the La Brea Fire moved 14 miles in 5 days due, not to winds but to
heavy fuel buildup (chapparal) that had not burned in 60 years. They
state that the nearly conclusive reason the canyon ranches and
residences did not burn was due to existing Forest Service prescribed
burn areas. They feel that a buffer against fast moving fires is a
priority for them. They state that one of the only habitats that
survived the fire was where the Forest Service had done prescribed
burns.
|
They again state they were unable to comment, Page 3, lines 16 to 21
|
Yet their comments are in the Decision Memo.
|
Claims of visitation and use, page 4 lines 13 to 19
|
I find these claims disengenuous,
this area is primarly used by off highway vehicle users, dirt
bikes and quads, and hunters. This year access is of course limited due
to the Forest Watch Anti Brushing lawsuit which has resulted in closed
roads throughout the Forest.
|
Chapparal Institute Page 5, lines13 to 18
|
These lines indicate
to me that Chapparal Institute does not understand fire behavior in
chapparal. A small scale project is not defined, but, apparently the
existing Fuels Treatment plan was too large for their taste, yet, a
wind driven fire through old chapparal growth is something to see. If
the Forest Service is to fulfill its mandate it needs to be allowed to
have its, professional experienced experts make the decisions as to
what is appropriate, not untrained urban dwellers.
|
Page 5, 19 to 24
|
Most
public land users
prefer to use land that is not burned to a crisp. Adjacent land and
home owners prefer that their land and homes not be burned to a crisp.
Allowing the Forest Service experts to use their judgement is the
environmentally superior alternative. A chapparal environment is not
conducive to visitor use, unless one is perhaps an llegal marijuana
grower.
|
Page 14, lines 8 to 9
|
This is the infamous
"Equal Access to Justice" The mechanism by which the United States
Forest Service has paid over $12,000,000 to "environmental" groups and
their lawyers in the past 12 years. By United States Forest Service,
let us remember we are talking about you, the taxpayer.
|