Southern California National Forests Land Management Plan

Strongly suggest you read this and make sure that you understand what's at stake. Please choose to participate in good trail advocacy:

Southern California National Forests Land Management Plan Amendment - Objection Period Notice
United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service Cleveland National Forest
SO 10845 Rancho Bernardo Rd.
Suite 200
San Diego, CA 92127-2107
(858) 673-6180
(858) 673-6192 FAX
(800) 735-2922 CRS

Dear Interested Agencies, State and Local Governments, Tribes, and Public:

On behalf of the Forest Supervisors for the Angeles, Los Padres, and San Bernardino National Forests, I am providing notice that we are beginning the pre-decisional objection process for the proposed Southern California National Forests Land Management Plan (LMP) Amendment. As I described in my November 15, 2013 letter, the objection process begins with the availability of the Draft Record of Decision (Draft ROD) for each of the four southern California national forests. Each Forest Supervisor has reviewed the alternatives and associated analysis in the “Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (Final SEIS), Southern California National Forests Land Management Plan (LMP) Amendment” and developed a Draft ROD for their proposed LMP amendment. The four Draft RODs, the Final SEIS, and the associated supporting documents are all available on the project website at:

<a class="postlink" href="http://www.fs.fed.us/nepa/fs-usda-pop.php?project=35130" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.fs.fed.us/nepa/fs-usda-pop.php?project=35130</a>

The Draft RODs identify Alternative 2a as the selected land use zone alternative and Alternative B as the selected monitoring alternative for each forest. Alternative 2a would allocate more area to Recommended Wilderness and Back Country Non-Motorized land use zones across the four forests. Alternative B would change the monitoring strategy to update the monitoring questions and clarify the process used for project monitoring.

Each plan amendment is subject to objection pursuant to 36 CFR 219, Subpart B. Separate objections should be filed for each plan amendment. Objections will be accepted from individuals and entities who have submitted substantive formal comments related to the plan amendment during the opportunities for public comment. Issues raised in objections must be based on previously submitted comments unless based on new information arising after the designated comment period.

Objections must be submitted within 60 days following the publication of a legal notice of the opportunity to object in the newspaper of record for each forest. The date of this legal notice is the exclusive means for calculating the time to file an objection. Legal notices are being published concurrent with this notice letter. Publication copies of the legal notices will be available on the project website.

The newspapers of record are:

Forest Newspaper of Record
Angeles National Forest Los Angeles Times
Cleveland National Forest San Diego Union-Tribune
Los Padres National Forest Santa Barbara News-Press
San Bernardino National Forest San Bernardino Sun

Those wishing to object should not rely upon dates or timeframes provided by any other source. It is the objector’s responsibility to ensure evidence of timely receipt (36 CFR 219.56(c)).

Objections must be submitted to the reviewing officer: Randy Moore, Regional Forester, USDA Forest Service; Attn: SoCal LMP; 1323 Club Drive, Vallejo, CA 94592. Phone (707) 562-8737. Objections may be submitted via mail, FAX (707-562-9229), or delivered during business hours (M-F 8:00am to 4:00pm). Electronic objections, in common (.doc, .pdf, .rtf, .txt) formats, may be submitted to: objections-pacificsouthwest-regional-office@fs.fed.us with Subject: SoCal LMP – [include the forest name].

Objections must include (36 CFR 219.54): 1) name, address and telephone; 2) signature or other verification of authorship; 3) identify a single lead objector when applicable; 4) name of plan amendment [include the forest name], and the name and title of Responsible Official [the Forest Supervisor’s name]; 5) A statement of the issues and/or the parts of the plan, plan amendment, or plan revision to which the objection applies; and, 6) A concise statement explaining the objection and suggesting how the proposed plan decision may be improved. If applicable, the objector should identify how the objector believes that plan amendment is inconsistent with law, regulation, or policy; and 7) A statement that demonstrates the link between prior substantive formal comments attributed to the objector and the content of the objection, unless the objection concerns an issue that arose after the opportunities for formal comment. Objections may only incorporate documents by reference as provided for at 36 CFR 219.54(b).

For more information about the objection process to visit the Forest Service National Objection webpage at: <a class="postlink" href="http://www.fs.fed.us/objections/objections_related.php#app_work" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.fs.fed.us/objections/objecti ... p#app_work</a>, and select the link to the planning objection rules at 36 CFR 219.

For Further Information

Contact Bob Hawkins, Project Manager at socal_nf_lmp_amendment@fs.fed.us, or visit the project website at <a class="postlink" href="http://www.fs.fed.us/nepa/fs-usda-pop.php?project=35130" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.fs.fed.us/nepa/fs-usda-pop.php?project=35130</a>.

Sincerely,

/s/ William Metz
WILLIAM METZ
Forest Supervisor

 

Re: Southern California National Forests Land Management Pla

If I read the governmentese correctly, the Fish Creek plan was amended to keep Golden Eagle trail open to mountain bikes by keeping the back country non-motorized designation. Is that true? Motos are out but mtbikes are still allowed? Are vehicles allowed on Liebre Mtn Rd? Can you still use the beast on the trail since it's motorized? What about our hedge trimmers? :? Is an official objection necessary here or should we be happy that mtb's are still allowed?

 

Re: Southern California National Forests Land Management Pla

The way i read it, the main fire roads on Libre, Burnt Peak, etc are open to vehicles (7N23 for example) but trails are not. However on the South side of Libre looks like no bikes or anything but non-mechanized all the way down to Tapia.

I am bummed that the forest managers feel that fire roads are adequate for mountain biking. They refer to biking opportunities on existing trails and dirt roads. Plenty of dirt fire roads but as far as I know the only legal trail in that area is Golden Eagle. I'm pretty sure looking at the maps that some of the hoped for behind Tapia area trail building is now a big NO GO. This just emphasizes how little the forest service understands about the mountain biking community and just how much power the "environmental" groups wield.

I'm positive the process the forest manager refers to for planning and building new trail would be time consuming, expensive and full of ridiculous mountains of red tape. I am also certain the Sierra Club, and nuttier groups would fight the process tooth and nail.

Bummer!

 

Re: Southern California National Forests Land Management Pla

If I'm not mistaken (and often Am), This is our opportunity to submit our Objections to the plan preferably in triplicate :roll: .

I think we need to remember that the Forestry Service does not care either way. They are the servants that supply the service to what is established by us and unfortunately the Left Wing Activists that think you all are monsters, hate nature, and your only goal is to surprise tree huggin' nature nutjobs when you come bombing around a corner on illegal trails.

So I encourage you to take the time to read this, and determine what you need to submit to officially object to what you feel is worth fighting for.
I'm going to solicit some folks I know to sign up and post their experienced perspective on this to help us get in proper alignment and assist us to make good decisions...