HST Community      SEKI FEIS out

SEKI FEIS out | High Sierra Topix  


Grab your bear can or camp chair, kick your feet up and chew the fat about anything Sierra Nevada related that doesn't quite fit in any of the other forums. Within reason, (and the HST rules and guidelines) this is also an anything goes forum. Tell stories, discuss wilderness issues, music, or whatever else the High Sierra stirs up in your mind.


Postby oldranger » Thu Jun 09, 2016 4:02 pm

SEKI has made available The Final Environmental Impact Statemen for Restoration of Aquatic Habitat (i.e. mylf protection and restoration) http://parkplanning.nps.gov/aquatics
It has selected the most aggressive alternative. In reviewing their response to comments to the Draft I found the most arrogant unhelpful responses that I have ever reviewed. Some comments were totally ignored and others addressed or shined on without careful analysis. I was particularly peeved by the selective choice of the pieces of the Organic Act and other legislation in justifying the purpose and need-- a perfect case of cherry picking to meet their desires. There are conflicts in the legislation they cite but the NPS chose to ignore them rather than addressing them and explaining why one aspect outweighs the other.

They also chose to totally ignore my request to clearly define the historic habitat of the frog. It seems they either don't know or for some reason they don't want us to know.

There were a couple other places where they addressed comments without actually addressing the question or statement. Kind of like what happens in a presidential debate. Reminded me of Ted Cruz saying before answering a question saying, "before I answer that I want to say this ... " and his time was up before he answered the question. You know the routine.

The point of an FEIS is to consider all relevant information and guidance and lay it out so the public can understand and the decision maker can make a fully informed decision in a transparent manner. While I am in favor of the principle of habitat restoration I think the full disclosure necessary for an EIS is lacking. If I had the resources I would challenge the FEIS and the all but accomplished Record of Decision.

Who can't do everything he used to and what he can do takes a hell of a lot longer!

User avatar
Topix Junkie
Posts: 2491
Joined: Fri Jan 19, 2007 9:18 pm
Location: Bend, Oregon
Experience: N/A


Postby rlown » Fri Jun 10, 2016 4:12 pm

sorry you're bummed. Public really has no say as we're not sitting next to them (those that draft and review with peers) day to day or how they decide to play the game out.

You could always re-up?

Not sure I expected any different approach. It avoids CBD lawsuits.
User avatar
Topix Junkie
Posts: 6589
Joined: Thu Oct 25, 2007 5:00 pm
Location: Petaluma, CA
Experience: Level 4 Explorer


Postby giantbrookie » Sat Jun 11, 2016 10:22 am

Indeed, I received notice of the FEIS release and downloaded it and was more than a bit chagrined to see the adoption of the most aggressive option that included the chemical treatment and the larger number of targets. I do not have the familiarity with the background legislation to know the extent to which they've stretched their justification.

That having been said, I think the most treasured of Seki's fishing lakes are not in the crosshairs and the knocking out of the fisheries on the list will have a relatively small impact on trip planning for Seki fisherpeople. I wonder, however, if the remote basins I haven't visited did in fact have some good fish (I think Swamp was supposed, to, for example). The Laurel Creek and Coyote Creek drainages would be classed as very remote destinations and if they had big fish, they would have been the sort of places I would have wanted to go check out.... We'll I guess I don't want to know now. If this had gone down 20 years ago, I would have have scheduled trips to fish them one last time before the trout were exterminated, but I don't have the time nowadays to do this.

The early bias of knocking out the very remote versus less remote (but boring stunted brookie fisheries) seems to have held for many of the targets.

From a practical standpoint, my biggest complaint is how poorly the targets are identified in the document. The maps of fish removal localities (Appendix B) would be totally unacceptable as figures for any scientific journal that I have ever reviewed or edited for. In fact,they are so poor, they would fail to get a B grade or better in any class I teach. Is this following in the unfortunate recent tradition of making such information (ie which lakes fish are being removed from) difficult to access for the public? I wonder.

Annoying as this is, however, it is still better than Yosemite, where I have yet to see any sort of a map or formal list of fish removal targets, and we seem to have a new "surprise" every summer.

Moving forward, I have done my best to give somewhat better written explanations for the kill locations in the opening post on the Fish Kill log thread (ie: viewtopic.php?f=6&t=3243&p=19223#p19223). Because the Seki list of targets increased markedly in extent, I have reorganized that subsection to go from approximately north to south.

If folks see any errors in the fish kill list (on the thread) or have suggestions to better clarify the locations, please let me know.
Since my fishing (etc.) website is still down, you can be distracted by geology stuff at: http://www.fresnostate.edu/csm/ees/facu ... ayshi.html
User avatar
Founding Member & Forums Moderator
Founding Member & Forums Moderator
Posts: 2733
Joined: Wed Dec 28, 2005 10:22 am
Location: Fresno
Experience: N/A


Postby Troutdog 59 » Sun Jun 12, 2016 9:16 am

I'll admit I was surprised the option of using the pisicide was selected, but mainly due to being told by DFW friend who was involved in their response that he had been told they were expecting to approve the project for physical removal only. In the end I'm a lot like Russ when it comes down to it, They do what they want to do, but I'll admit I was also disappointed with the various responses they provided. They seem to ignore the responses submitted by many including the Department of Water Resources , the Regional Water Quality Control Board, and the Department of Fish and Wildlife. They seem to just ignore the statements from those organizations and cite what they call compliance with the NEPA (Federal) regulations when there is any suggestion they aren't complying with the CEQA (State) regs. It's actually pretty typical in my limited experience of working with the National Parks (Yosemite and SEKI). They follow the beat of their own drum.
Once in a while you can get shown the light
In the strangest places if you look at it right.

The Grateful Dead
User avatar
Troutdog 59
Topix Expert
Posts: 602
Joined: Thu Dec 23, 2010 12:11 pm
Location: Clovis
Experience: N/A

Return to The Campfire

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests