24 October 2021

Dear US Forestry Service:

	I am writing regarding the Santa Fe Mountain Project.

	As a resident of Santa Fe, a lover of forests, trees, hiker and concerned citizen:

	I would like to protest the unnatural speed, biased conclusions, related to considering “thinning” burns in the Santa Fe Forest.

	Most citizens who have studied this project, dispute the finding that large, frequent controlled burns such as have been in use recently are helpful.  There is a lot of science to support the conclusion that in fact they are quite harmful to the long term health of the forest, the air we breathe, and the risk of large fires.

	If only scientists who have promoted these burns (without any reduction in the massive fires we have recently experienced) are given voice in these discussions, I believe we will all suffer the consequences.  We will lose the forest, have MORE fires, breathe smoke-filled air from these burns with little or no evidence of benefit, short or long term.

	Please engage in a thorough review, take into account ALL scientific sides of the argument with a proper, honest, environmental review.

Sincerely yours, 

		Oksana Yufa

Some important points:
1) A comprehensive Environmental Impact Statement, with a full range of alternatives, must be completed for this project. This project is very controversial. The effects on the human environment and forest resources have not been adequately analyzed.
2) The condition-based approach must not be utilized in the analysis of this project. Site-specific information must be provided.
3) A broad range of the best available science must be incorporated in the planning and analysis of this project. That has not been done so far, and science that does not support the Proposed Action has been largely ignored.
4) The public must be genuinely included in project planning. The public’s concerns have not been seriously taken into account in relation to their requests that prescribed burning be decreased and health impacts from prescribed burn smoke documented and considered, and in relation to their request that a conservation approach be taken in the planning of the project. The Forest Service has minimized publicly what they intend to do, and what the potential impacts could be.