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

Transcription

1 United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service Cleveland National Forest SO Rancho Bernardo Rd. Suite 200 San Diego, CA (858) (858) FAX (800) CRS File Code: 1950/1920 Date: November 15, 2013 Dear Interested Agencies, State and Local Governments, Tribes, and Public: On behalf of the Angeles, Cleveland, Los Padres, and San Bernardino National Forests, I am pleased to announce the release of our Final Supplemental (Final SEIS), Land Management Plan (LMP) Amendment. The Final SEIS incorporates the changes made in response to comments on the Draft SEIS, including an additional land use zone alternative. With that change, the Final SEIS includes an evaluation of four land use zone alternatives, and three monitoring alternatives. A copy of the document cover page and summary is attached, and the Final SEIS is available on the project website at: The Final SEIS is not a decision document, and is not subject to formal review and comment. Although the document identifies an agency preferred alternative, the Forest Supervisors may select any of the alternatives considered in the analysis. The decision process is described in the next steps section of this letter. Next Steps The next step for the proposed plan amendments is the pre-decisional objection process. The objection process gives an individual or entity an opportunity for an independent Forest Service review and resolution of issues before the approval of a plan, plan amendment, or plan revision. We are waiting until early 2014 to begin the objection process to avoid overlapping the objection period with the holiday season, while we are releasing the Final SEIS now to provide the public with additional time for its review. The objection process starts with the release of a Draft Record of Decision (ROD) for each forest plan, and the 60 day objection period begins when a legal notice informing the public of the availability of the Draft ROD is published in the newspaper of record for each national forest. The relevant documents will also be made available on the project website, and a notice will be sent to any individual or entity that is eligible to file an objection. Objections must be filed within 60 days of the publication date of the legal notice. More detailed information on the objection process will be included in the notice. Because we are waiting until next year to begin the objection process, objections received prior to the publication of the legal notice for the Draft ROD will not be accepted, acknowledged, or reviewed. I d encourage those of you interested in the objection process to visit the Forest Caring for the Land and Serving People Printed on Recycled Paper

2

3 Final Supplemental Kern, Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Diego, San Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara, San Bernardino, and Ventura Counties, California Lead Agency: Cooperating Agencies: USDA Forest Service State of California Natural Resources Agency US Fish and Wildlife Service US National Marine Fisheries Service US Environmental Protection Agency Orange County Fire Authority Ventura County Responsible Officials: For Information Contact: Peggy Hernandez, Los Padres National Forest Thomas Contreras, Angeles National Forest Jody Noiron, San Bernardino National Forest William Metz, Cleveland National Forest Bob Hawkins, Project Manager Abstract: This supplemental statement describes four alternative land use zone allocations for 35 inventoried roadless areas, along with three alternative monitoring strategies. Alternatives 2, 2a, and 3 would apply more restrictive land use zones and increase recommended wilderness allocations than currently is allocated as described in Alternative 1. Alternative 2A, the Preferred Alternative, was developed in response to comments on the Draft SEIS. In addition, new monitoring protocols are proposed. Alternative B is the preferred Monitoring Alternative. The effects analysis concludes that allocating more of the study area to restrictive land use zones would benefit resources such as watershed, wildlife, and dispersed recreation by limiting future activities. The suitable area available for development of roads, developed recreation, special uses, and energy developments would decrease. No change is expected for grazing. Management for the reduction of hazardous fuels would likely shift from mechanized treatments to less intensive treatments, particularly in recommended wilderness areas. There would be no effects on fire suppression, law enforcement or other emergency response for the proposed action, and limited effects under Alternative 3 related to reduced road access. i

4 This page left blank intentionally ii

5 Summary The Angeles, Cleveland, Los Padres and San Bernardino National Forests propose to amend their respective Land Management Plans (LMPs) as they relate to roadless area management and to monitoring. The Regional Forester approved LMPs for the four forests in Those LMPs allocated lands within Inventoried Roadless Areas (IRAs) to various Land Use Zones (LUZs) based on wilderness evaluations that were completed as part of the environmental review. This proposed LMP amendment is a result of the Settlement Agreement approved January 3, 2011 as the remedy for two lawsuits challenging the revised LMPs (California Resources Agency, et al vs. United States Department of Agriculture, and Center for Biological Diversity, et al vs. United States Department of Agriculture. Scoping began with the publication of the Notice of Intent on April 27, 2012 and concluded on June 11, The four forests held nine public meetings with over 250 people attending. Over 10,000 comments were received during the scoping period. The proposed action identified 80,000 acres of Recommended Wilderness in four new recommended wilderness areas. The proposed action also added approximately 300,000 acres of proposed Back Country Non-Motorized areas on the Los Padres National Forest. Existing motorized roads and trails were retained by developing road and trail corridors within the proposed non-motorized areas. An alternative monitoring strategy based on the current strategy was also proposed. Scoping identified a wide range of issues related to resource management, access, commodities, recreation, wildfire, and wilderness designation. These issues led the agency to develop alternatives to the proposed action including: Alternative 3 Recommended Wilderness Emphasis this alternative allocates a larger share of the IRAs to the recommended wilderness land use zone. Alternative C Extensive Monitoring this alternative proposes more extensive monitoring, including the use of a sampling approach for baseline surveys. The effects analysis concludes that allocating more of the study area to restrictive land use zones would benefit resources such as watershed, wildlife, and dispersed recreation by limiting future activities. The suitable area available for development of roads, developed recreation, special uses, and energy developments would decrease. No change is expected for grazing. Management for the reduction of hazardous fuels would likely shift from mechanized treatments to less intensive treatments, particularly in recommended wilderness areas. There would be no effects on fire suppression, law enforcement or other emergency response for the proposed action, and limited effects under Alternative 3 related to reduced road access. The Draft SEIS was released for public comment in February Over11,000 comments were received by the close of comments on May 16, Based on these comments and new information, several corrections were made to Alternative 2. These include small adjustments in the LUZ boundaries to exclude a utility corridor in the West Fork IRA and a portion of a permitted ski area facility in the Cucamonga B IRA. iii

6 A new Alternative, Alternative 2a, the Preferred Alternative, was developed that slightly modifies Alternative 2 based on comments and new information. The focused changes are located within the Black Mountain, Salt Creek, Fish Canyon, Raywood Flat, No Name, and Sill Hill IRAs and the Upper San Diego River and Cedar Creek Undeveloped Areas. All other aspects of Alternative 2a are the same as Alternative 2. The scope of Alternative 2a is within the scope of actions analyzed in the Draft SEIS. The proposed monitoring strategy is within the agency budget and would meet the agency requirements. The extensive monitoring alternative exceeds agency requirements and current budget levels and can only be implemented if public services are reduced. Based upon the effects of the alternatives, the responsible officials will decide if the plans should be amended, and if so what land use allocations and monitoring strategies will be applied. iv