Lake Isabella locals oppose a proposed plan to decommission campgrounds within the Sequoia National Forest.
“2,485.That is how many people who are very concerned about what’s going to happen to the campgrounds,” said Colleen Brun, a registered nurse at the local hospital in Mt. Mesa.
“If we went to all these campgrounds when they’re full, we’d get thousands, literally thousands, more signatures in a couple of weeks,” said Richard Brun, one of the organizers of the petition against the plan.
According to the recreation site facility master plan, 52 campground sites are being considered for conversion to concentrated use areas and partial decommissioning. Water, tables, grills, showers and flush toilets will be removed from these campgrounds.
Although the plan states that most people may not care for the missing items because they may have motorhomes, trailers, etc. to offer the amenities that are missing from the campground, Colleen disagrees.
“I don’t think that’s true at all,” responded Colleen. “I think that they should think about the people that don’t have motorhomes.”
54 sites will remain as developed sites, while other developed sites will be decommissioned.
Among those being considered are the Main Dam, Auxiliary Dam, Miracle Hot Springs, Boulder Gulch, French Gulch, Hungry Gulch, Kissack Cove, Pioneer Point, upper and lower Richbar, and Camp 9.
“A lot of these are very popular sites,” said Colleen.
“There’s a tremendous need for them as witnessed by the fact that they’re full every weekend, a lot of weekdays, too, in the summer,” stated Richard.
Campgrounds were evaluated based on five criteria, according to the plan: “Whether or not giant sequoias exist,” “water exist,” “setting is popular,” “offers opportunities for overnight use,” and “viewing scenery is a reason people visit the setting.”
If this plan was to be implemented, it would be a one-time cost of $2,775,177. “It is a first step to a planning process,” said Porterville forest service representative Mary Cole. “Nothing is actually going to take place anywhere in the near future.”
According to the plan, “The forest cannot accomplish all developed site annual operation and maintenance to standard with existing resources, including concessionaires.”
Population is expected to increase 38 percent by 2030 and the forest service expects an increase of visitors to the Sequoia National Forest.
“I have no idea how they’re going to take care of all the tourism that is coming to the valley,” said Colleen, “I think it would have a very big impact on the tourism up here.”
Not only are residents concerned about the recreation facilities, they are concerned about the impact this plan will have on businesses and the economy. According to Richard Brun, “local businesses rely heavily on the tourist influx in the summer for their support.” When it is summer, businesses receive enough money to last them through the winter months when there is not as many tourists.
“What we’re trying to do is get public input on the site,” said Cole.
However, according to Colleen Brun, the Community Crossroads Project held local meetings to get the public’s opinion, but no one from the forest service showed up. “I have a problem with it,” said Colleen. “They want the public input, and they actually had not any public meetings to be able to get the public input.”
According to Richard Brun, the forest service refuses to accept petitions because they would rather have advice on what to do. “The forest service is very unopen to public input,” Brun said.
When the forest service was created, there were mandates set, said Richard Brun. The third mandate states that the forest service “was to create and maintain quality campgrounds for the recreation of the public,” said Richard Brun. “Rather than creating and maintaining campgrounds, they’re wanting to basically destroy them.”
Even though the forest service turned away the petition, Richard Brun hopes that elected representatives will take them seriously. In fact, Sen. Roy Ashburn has responded to the petition. Richard Brun said, “Get some pressure from the top down rather than having bottom up pressure from the public.”