Tuesday, October 21, 2014     Volume: 15, Issue: 32
Signup

Weekly Poll
Are you going to vote in the election?

Absolutely! It's the best way to participate in the democratic process.
No, my vote won't have an impact.
I've already sent in my absentee ballot!
What election?

Vote! | Poll Results

RSS Feeds

Latest News RSS
Current Issue RSS

Special Features
Delicious
Search or post Santa Barbara County food and wine establishments

Santa Maria Sun / News

The following article was posted on April 9th, 2013, in the Santa Maria Sun - Volume 14, Issue 5 [ Submit a Story ]
The following articles were printed from Santa Maria Sun [santamariasun.com] - Volume 14, Issue 5

Los Padres land-use designations up for review

Four national forests are taking public comment on a management plan responding to a 2009 lawsuit settlement

BY CAMILLIA LANHAM

Forest management is complicated. There are off highway vehicle users to consider. And environmental advocates. And land-use contracts, horseback riders, backpackers, and resource development revenue. The list goes on and on.

When coming up with a land-management plan, the Forest Service has to take the opinion of every one of its users and all of the land’s potential uses into consideration.

Thus, there are three alternatives outlined for Los Padres National Forest in the draft land management plan amendment recently released by the National Forest Service.

“We’re a multi-use agency; we have to manage the land for a variety of uses,” said Los Padres National Forest NEPA Coordinator Kyle Kinports. “Trying to find the right balance is basically what our challenge is.”

One of those three choices could strike the right land-use balance and be the way of the forest’s future, which has been up in the air since 2006, when the original land management plan was approved, appealed in a lawsuit, and took a jaunt through the federal court system, ending with a settlement agreement in 2009.

Groups involved in the lawsuit alleged that the land management plan for the Los Padres, San Bernardino, Angeles, and Cleveland national forests didn’t account for all the environmental impacts of certain land-use designations in roadless areas of the forests. The settlement agreement sent the forest service back to the zoning table for an amendment to the plan.

The draft plan amendment released in February 2013 is the culmination of that settlement agreement. It maps out new potential land-use designations for the Los Padres, San Bernardino, Angeles, and Cleveland National forests. The last two public meetings on the plan were held on April 9 and 10 for the Los Padres portion. The public comment period ends May 16.

Kinports said he wasn’t sure how the meetings went for the three other forests, but hadn’t heard of any major issues thus far. Groups with a highly vested interest include environmental advocates, ranchers with grazing contracts on forested land, and off-highway vehicle users, according to Bob Hawkins, project manager for the management plan amendment.

Hawkins said the Forest Service held public scoping meetings in 2012, before going ahead with the work on the proposed plan amendment. Based on concerns voiced by the public at those meetings, land grazing contracts and off-highway vehicle users shouldn’t be “adversely affected” by any of the proposed alternatives.

Each alternative basically zones the land a little differently. In some sense forested land works the same as city land: Different areas of a city get zoned for commercial, residential, or no development, just as different sections of the forest get zoned for resource development, motorized use, non-motorized use, or wilderness.

Alternative 1 proposes no change and would keep the forests operating as they currently are. Alternative 2 leans heavily on zoning large tracts of land as back country non-motorized, which does allow for some resource development as long as it doesn’t require building a road. Alternative 3 designates the majority of the land in question as recommended wilderness area. Wilderness areas have to be designated by congress, but the Forest Service will manage recommended wilderness areas as if they’re already wilderness.

The Forest Service is pointing to Alternative 2 as the proposed action based on its analysis, but public comments will ultimately push the final decision in one direction or another.

Los Padres Forest Watch would love to see Alternative 3 put into action. It designates 338,011 acres of the Los Padres forest to be recommended wilderness as opposed to Alternative 2, which allocates about 380,000 acres of Los Padres to back country non-motorized. The land is much more protected as recommended wilderness, according to Jeff Kuyper, executive director of the group.

“We need to protect what we have left,” Kuyper said. “How can you have too much wilderness?”

Los Padres has 10 wilderness areas that encompass almost half of the forest’s acreage, which runs from north of Big Sur to south of Santa Barbara.

Each forest will implement its own section of the plan after the decision is made, but that decision most likely won’t be released until the beginning of 2014. Once the public comments are in, the Forest Service has to slog through them, provide answers for the most pertinent ones, potentially amend the plan accordingly, issue a draft decision, and go through an objection process, which gives the public two to three months to reject the Forest Service’s decision.

If the decision stands, each forest can move ahead with implementing new land management.

The plan can be accessed through the Los Padres National Forest website, fs.usda.gov/lpnf. Until May 16, public comments can be emailed to socal_nf_lmp_amendment@fs.fed.us or sent to Cleveland National Forest 10845 Rancho Bernardo Road, Suite 200, San Diego, CA 92127-2107, Attention: LMP Amendment.

Contact Staff Writer Camillia Lanham at clanham@santamariasun.com.