1. SEQUOIA NATIONAL FOREST AND GIANT SEQUUOIA NATIONAL MONUMENT

3. GIANT SEQUOIA NATIONAL MONUMENT MANAGEMENT PLAN  Need to develop a new plan that incorporates previous management direction from other plans, policies, guides, and standards  Also need to ensure the plan abides by the Presidential Proclamation

4. New Plan Outlook   The new management plan will probably take 1-2 years to complete (does not include the year of collaboration and scoping)  The new Monument Plan will provide strategic management direction for the 329,000 acres of public lands within the Monument

5. Partnerships linking management across boundaries Stewardship Fireshed Assessment (SFA) Starting and continuing the NEPA process Collaborative Process Linking in Science

6. Vision of Collaborative Process  What do we have so far? –Collaborative Process –Linking in Science –Stewardship Fireshed Assessment (SFA) –Starting and continuing the NEPA process –Partnerships linking management across boundaries

7. Linking all five parts Partnerships Stewardship Fireshed Assessment Linking in Science Starting and continuing the NEPA Process Collaboration Mediator/Facilitator

8. COLLABORATIVE PROCESS

9. Timeline for Planning and NEPA  Collaborative Planning Process –Broad Notice of Intent (filed in January 2008) –One year of Scoping –During this one year of scoping working with the public to identify the desired conditions –During this one year of scoping identifying what information gaps we need to fill –During this one year of scoping bringing scientists together to identify issues, agents of change, stressors to the ecosystem –During this one year of scoping field trips with all interested in learning more about how complicated the landscape is and what can be done on the ground

10. Collaborative Planning Process –Collaborative Process Implementation  Scoping  Comments  Commenting in particular on the Presidential Proclamation and the current science advisories  Development of vision  Development of issues and alternatives  Implementation  Monitoring

11. Collaborative Planning Process Begins (Assessment) June 2007 Collaborative Planning Process Accepted by Stakeholders February 2008 A Dialogue with Scientists To Review Advisories Developed in 2003 (Update) May 2008 Convene 2 nd Stewardship Fireshed Assessment Meeting With Stakeholders (linking fire/fuels treatments, smoke management and understanding climate change) May 2008 Science Symposium In Partnership With Sequoia/Kings Canyon National Park and environmental groups September 2008 COLLABORATION (FROM HERE TO THERE)

12. LINKING IN SCIENCE  A Dialogue with Scientists – What did we hear in 2003 and how are we addressing the science of today  Science Symposium  Giant Sequoia Cooperative (giant sequoia inventory)  How do we integrate science

13. Flow Chart Linking Collaborative Process with Science Symposium Linking in Science – An Intermediate Step Toward Science Symposium A Dialogue with Scientists Science Advisories developed in 2003  how are we implementing Convene A Dialogue with Scientists in May 2008  after 3 years  thank scientists involvement in 2003 as a member  showcase how we are implementing advisories  tie scientists with collaborative process Convene Science Symposium  to be held September/October  includes review of science advisories  new science  include scientists from academia Information from science advisories and Science Symposium used for environmental document science advisories  reviewed after SFA meeting in May with stakeholders Smoke management modeling linkage to SFA and then to climate change Climate change modeling linkage to partnership with The Nature Conservancy

14. Stewardship Fireshed Assessment (SFA)  Identified in three science advisories produced in 2003  Links fire planning, fuels treatment, smoke management  Identifies landscape treatments  Links to climate change analysis  Initial SFA meeting with stakeholders in February 2007  Second meeting in May 2008  Information from SFA included in environmental document

15. WHAT CAN SCIENCE TELL US?  How do we treat the land when there are more trees of concern

16. What Should We Do Here?  This is Black Mountain Grove – an area we managed in the 1980’s  Now the area has more small trees then needed on the landscape

18. The Monument Plan NEPA Process Published Notice of Intent Fall 2008 or Winter 2009 Developed Alternatives Spring 2009 Publish Draft Monument Plan & Draft EIS Summer/Fall 2009 Reviewed comments, & identify any new issues, concerns, alternatives Fall/Winter 2009/2010 Published FEIS, ROD, & Monument Plan 2010 Identify values, visions, & issues (collaborative planning effort)

19. NEPA Process - continued  Notice of Intent submitted to the Federal Register in January 2008  Plan developed under the 1982 planning rules  Interdisciplinary Team composed of a diverse group of professionals (Forest Service, National Park Service, EPA, USGS)  Science information (from science advisories, science symposium, Forest Service researchers, university researchers, National Park Service researchers)

20. NEPA Process - continued  Information gaps deal more than just fire, fuels, vegetation treatments  Need information dealing with: –Giant sequoias (inventory not completed) –Recreation research (visitor use data) –Socio-economics –Cumulative Watershed Analysis (CWE) –Fisher analysis

21. Adaptive Management Partnerships  Partnerships linking management across boundaries (adaptive management projects between Park Service and Forest Service)  Re-initiating the Giant Sequoia Cooperative (education and giant sequoia understanding through external partnerships in particular a new partnership with Save-the-Redwoods League)  New partnership with The Nature Conservancy as it pertains to smoke management

22. WHAT’S NEXT?  Finalizing Interdisciplinary Team  Finalizing cooperating agencies  Need to initiate new research projects (recreation research, giant sequoia inventory, cumulative watershed analysis, fisher analysis)  Need to publish updated Notice of Intent with a more defined proposed action and purpose and need

23. What’s Next for the Public?  Involvement in Headwaters Project (socio-economic information that can be used for the environmental document)  Meeting on October 15 with community leaders

24. What Will be Analyzed in the Environmental Document  Vegetation Landscapes  Riparian Areas  Giant Sequoias  Open Space  Scenic Integrity  Plant and Animal Habitats  Watershed Protection and Use  Historical and Cultural  Recreation and Public Use