Just found out a few days ago that the USFS is holding scoping meetings to solicit public comment on amendments to the management plans for four SoCal National Forests. This comment period closes on June 11 (MONDAY).

The amendments have come following a successful lawsuit against the USFS by enviro's who accused the FS of not managing its lands to protect ecosystems properly etc etc. Basically, there were some areas on the National Forests that had been identified as "roadless" and were to be given further classification, but this never happened. This amendment and comment period is meant to address that, and unfortunately for us it includes some Wilderness areas as part of the proposed amendment. The proposed Wilderness is one alternative action. The other is to keep the status quo. We need to let the USFS know that we support MTB access, and support the status quo.

There are some other proposed modifications to land use classifications, most of which are adding areas to the designation - Backcountry Non-motorized. Anything on the maps that is cross-hatched is a proposed change to the land use designation. An overview of all maps, including Los Padres, Angelus and San Bernardino forests is here. If you are familiar with these areas, please comment on them as well.


A few of us went to the scoping meeting last night in Alpine. In San Diego County there are really two areas that we would lose MTB access in if Wilderness expansion is approved in Cleveland NF, out of four areas being amended:

1) San Diego backcountry has large proposed recommended Wilderness - everything from Eagle Peak to Cedar Creek Falls to headwaters of SD River. USFS were nice enough to draw lines around the few fire roads that cross this area, so those would still be open. But any trails in the whole area would be off-limits, along with any future possibility of multi-use trails (think Sea to Sea, Trans-county, any other possible singletrack link to Cuyamaca etc). Backcountry Map Link

2) In Barker valley (backside of Palomar Mtn) the Barkley Spur trail would be in proposed Wilderness. Its hard to see on this map but goes south-west from Palomar Divide Rd. This isn't a great loss in itself; the greater loss is any future potential trail development in the area. Palomar/Barker Map Link

3) PCT north of Warner Springs, but this just makes it more illegal for bikes. Caliente Map Link

4) Santa Anas/OC are also affected but there is no new proposed Wilderness there, just minor changes to BC Non-motorized. USFS staff told me, due to the large number of MTB use and trails they did not add any proposed Wilderness. Also thank Main Divide for that! Santa Anas/OC Map Link



WHAT YOU CAN DO:
1) Sign IMBA's petition. Link provided here

2) Provide written comments to the USFS. Comments due Monday June 11, 2012 Link to comments page

The advice we were given is to provide written comments. And since the Forest Service must respond to every comment, it weighs a lot more to provide a list of issues the wilderness proposal creates, being as specific as possible, than to just say you oppose it. If 100 people write in simply opposing Wilderness, it gets lumped into one line in the analysis. If you can identify 5 issues in your letter, you've created 5 lines they must respond to in their analysis.

Examples of issues or questions to include:
- list the specific trails affected by the wilderness proposal and point out that MTB have historic use and would lose access (Barker Spur near Palomar, Cedar Cr Falls Trail, Sea to Sea Trail, Trans-Country Trail, San Deguito River Trail etc)
- point out that any potential for any future MTB access and multi-use trails will be lost, and that MTB are environmentally friendly, good exercise, low impact, passive, etc etc.
- point out how much time MTBers put in to volunteering to construct and maintain trails, and put a dollar value on it if you can
- point out how specific trails affected would impact connectivity to other trails/networks (Cuyamaca to East SD County)
- mention any races or events you know of that would be affected if access to the trails is lost
- other users who would lose access (motos, OHVs)
- that responsible use deters illegal use (poaching, vandalism, etc)
- mention if you are from elsewhere and do trips to SD, how much you typically spend on a trip for food, accomodations, gas etc in the area
- ask them to justify how adding Wilderness will improve recreation opportunities in the area, when one of the biggest user groups is losing access to trails
- Challenge all their math for any financial impact statistics quoted, provide hypothetical calculations of your own.
- point out that NOT having a Wilderness designation will not prevent hikers/horses from using the same trails they use now, so what is the recreational benefit to them?
- ask them how changing designation to Wilderness will allow them to better manage the forests/back country lands. How would they manage them differently than they do now?
- Ask how they would manage the forests to mitigate risk of wildfires, since there are restrictions on use of power tools and machinery in Wilderness areas. This should be a big issue given recent fires.
- point out (with examples if possible) that trails often fall into disrepair once in designated Wilderness due to lack of use. How is this good for recreation?
- how might Border Patrol operations be affected, since some of the proposed Wilderness is within 100miles of the border?

etc etc, whatever you can think of....the more specific you can be the better.

Thank them for their time and for giving the opportunity to comment. These are the people who make the decisions to being rude or abusive will only hurt our cause, please be polite and constructive with any criticism. The FS seems supportive of MTB and I got the impression they only include Wilderness expansion as an option because they are hounded by the enviro's to do so. If we can provide good, specific reasons why Wilderness should not be expanded, we will have a much better chance of maintaining our access to these areas.

Thanks in advance for your time.

Here is the petition from IMBA

http://www.imba.com/form/scalifornia-forest-service-petition

In addition to the foregoing, PLEASE DO NOT VOTE FOR SENATORS BOXER AND FEINSTEIN! These disasters for Senators are killing mountain bike access to "wilderness" areas and expanding the areas so designated. No doubt they are in favor of the latest expansion too. There are other idiot politicians behind these as well, but not from San Diego (that I can tell). We all have a vote on our two state-wide Senators. Feinstein is up for reelection this year. Dump her (and then Boxer next time)!


January 15, 2009

Senate Approves Boxer-Feinstein Legislation To Protect More Than 700,000 Acres Of California Wilderness

Washington, DC - The U.S. Senate today passed the Omnibus Public Lands Package, which includes three bills sponsored by U.S. Senators Barbara Boxer and Dianne Feinstein (both D-CA) designating more than 700,000 acres of federal public land in California as wilderness.

Senator Boxer said, “Working with colleagues from both sides of the aisle, we have put together legislation that protects some of California’s and the nation’s most magnificent places and ensures that they will be preserved for generations to come. I commend my Senate colleagues for supporting these measures, and I look forward to their quick passage in the House.”

“The Senate today has put its stamp of approval on a major effort to establish lasting federal protection for roughly 735,000 acres of some of California’s greatest natural resources – including the rugged White Mountains, the spectacular High Sierras, majestic groves of Sequoias, the unique Ancient Bristlecone Pine Forest, miles of scenic Southern California rivers, and pristine desert lands,” Senator Feinstein said. “The legislation will give these extraordinary public lands a wilderness designation and ensure that they will be enjoyed by generations to come – while preserving the ability of horse enthusiasts to enjoy continued access to the public lands. I’d like to thank Senator Boxer and Chairman Bingaman for their leadership on these bills.”

The three bills were the California Desert and Mountain Heritage Act, the Sequoia-Kings Canyon National Park Wilderness Act and the Eastern Sierra and Northern San Gabriel Wild Heritage Act.

_________________
"New York City is a mismanaged carnival of stupidity that is desperate for revenue and anxious to criminalize behavior once thought benign."
--Alex Baldwin, unknowingly describing his socialist utopia.

Whew!

_________________
"New York City is a mismanaged carnival of stupidity that is desperate for revenue and anxious to criminalize behavior once thought benign."
--Alex Baldwin, unknowingly describing his socialist utopia.

You can always write, petition, even lobby your elected officials with/for your views & concerns. The other "extreme' is development by mineral & realty interest.
I do, constantly, to Rep. Hunter even though, as avowed sportsman, he isn't, imho, not too sporting.

I'm getting the feeling, many people in authority gravely misunderstand mountain biking, it's effect, appeal & fan base.
We & other interest, need to educate politicians, that you can preserve and use Public lands for more than a single purpose.
Let them hear your voice, rather then merely rebel rousing.

Um, I've never considered voting "rebel rousing."

_________________
"New York City is a mismanaged carnival of stupidity that is desperate for revenue and anxious to criminalize behavior once thought benign."
--Alex Baldwin, unknowingly describing his socialist utopia.

_________________
Ambition is a poor excuse for not having sense enough to be lazy. ~Milan Kundera

The period for comment on this is quickly coming to a close (Monday). The best bet now if you have not done so already is to submit comments electronically:

https://cara.ecosystem-management.org/P ... ject=35130

Evan did such a fantastic job above outlining some of the arguments that can be used when making your comments. To make things easier for those who don't have the time to draft a full letter, please feel free to adapt the letter that I sent. Just try to personalize it a bit. Here is is:

Comments Regarding Southern California National Forests Land Management Plan Amendment #35130
June 8, 2012

To Whom it May Concern,

It is my understanding that in four Southern California national forests---Los Padres, Angeles, San Bernardino and Cleveland---the USFS is currently planning for management of backcountry lands. I am writing to express my strongest support for a “Back-country Non-Motorized” designation and my strongest opposition to any kind of “wilderness” designation that would result in a prohibition on bicycles in these areas.

I live in east county San Diego, and am an avid user of many areas of the Cleveland National Forest, as a hiker, biker, and camper. I regularly travel to the other three forests as well. I am particularly concerned that a wilderness designation in these and other areas could cut off access to existing trails to which mountain bikes have had historic use. Examples include the Barker Spur near Palomar, Cedar Creek Falls, the Sea to Sea Trail, the Trans-Country Trail, the San Deguito River Trail, and many others.

I spend thousands of dollars per year on travel and equipment for time in national forests. In the past year alone, I have spent over $4000 dollars travelling to Colorado and Arizona where things like the Arizona Trail and the Colorado Trail allow mountain bikers to responsibly ride hundreds of miles of single track and to connect that single track with other trail systems. I am very concerned that a wilderness designation would negatively impact connectivity to other trails and networks in Southern California (for example, Cuyamaca to East County San Diego where I live). Beyond these existing trails, I am concerned that the potential for any future mountain bike access and multi-use trails will be lost in these areas. The end result is that I will be forced to spend even more money to travel out of state to pursue mountain biking opportunities in places like Colorado and Arizona, money that could have been spent right here in Southern California.

A wilderness designation would be a truly great and senseless loss as mountain bikes have proven to be environmentally friendly and low impact, not to mention good exercise for a nation whose waistline is ever expanding. I belong to the San Diego Mountain Biking Association and the International Mountain Biking Association. Through these organizations, I personally put in dozens of hours per year volunteering to construct and maintain trails. I would be willing to put in dozens more to build and act as a steward for trails in the areas under consideration. Collectively, these organizations do thousands of hours of trail work per year. In my experience, trails designated as wilderness often fall into disrepair once designated due to lack of use and maintenance. This is because it excludes a critical user group—bikers—who tend to do a significant amount of trail work every year. In this sense, a wilderness designation would be counterproductive for all trail user groups.

I would note that responsible use deters illegal use (poaching, vandalism, etc). Because of this, we need to be increasing the constituency of supporters for backcountry lands in Southern California, not diving that constituency. A wilderness designation can only serve to alienate responsible users like myself. I would ask anyone considering a wilderness designation to justify how adding wilderness will improve recreation opportunities in the area when one of the biggest user groups is losing access to trails. On the other hand, not having a wilderness designation will not prevent hikers/horses from using the same trails they use now. Thus, the wilderness designation serves only to alienate and divide user groups, and excludes a very important group of trail stewards.

I would ask anyone considering a wilderness designation to justify how it will better allow them to manage the forests/back country lands than is presently the case. For example, how would you manage the forests to mitigate risk of wildfires, since it is my understanding that there are restrictions on the use of power tools and machinery in wilderness areas? This should be a big issue for all Southern Californians given recent and historic fires.

I want to thank you for your time and the opportunity to comment. I spend time in one of our national forests three out of four weekends per month. I appreciate the hard work that the USFS does to keep these beautiful areas healthy and to allow responsible use therein. To these ends, I strongly urge support for a “Back-country Non-Motorized” designation. It is by far the most reasonable and balanced approach considering all of the equities at stake.

_________________
http://paleovelo.com/

done

_________________
"In a time of universal deciet, telling the truth is a revolutionary act" - George Orwell

BUMP - Important - please read below:

Just found out that meetings on updated Forest management plans are coming up this week (March 26-28ish). Details on meetings are below.

Please make time to attend if you can - and at the minimum it is crucial to write in your comments (even more important than last time!) Here is why:

Since the last public hearings, the USFS has taken comments and updated the proposed alternatives and their recommended alternative. In several cases some significant new Wilderness have been added to one or more of the Alternatives which could impact some of the most popular MTB trails in SoCal:

In OC / Santa Ana's: If this Alternative 3 were chosen the following trails would be in Wilderness and bikes would be prohibited: San Juan Trail, Chiquito, Trabuco, Holy Jim, Los Pinos, Bell Ridge, Coldwater - many of the most popular MTB trails in the area.

Map: http://a123.g.akamai.net/7/123/11558/ab ... 370980.pdf

In San Bernardino NF: significant Wilderness was added to Alt 3 which covers the upper part of Palm Canyon and Santa Rosa Mountain (Sawmill Trail).

Map: http://a123.g.akamai.net/7/123/11558/ab ... 383235.pdf

Same thing is happening north of LA in the Angelus NF (see CORBA site: http://corbamtb.com/news/2013/03/25/anf ... ss-update/) and I'm sure in Los Padres NF too.

In each case above the the USFS' "Preferred" option does not include new Wilderness. But that DOES NOT mean we are safe. The Forest Service is not obligated to choose its "preferred" option and it could easily choose some hybrid, which could mean including some or all of the wilderness proposed in Alternative 3, depending on the public comments they receive. You can bet the enviro's and anti-access people will be screaming loud and hard for as much Wilderness as possible. So we need to be just as loud. Please attend the meetings or send in your comments if you care about the trails listed above!


Local meeting times and locations:

March 26, 2013, 4:00 PM to 7:00 PM, Alpine Community Center, 1830 Alpine Blvd, Alpine, CA 91901 (Hosted by the Cleveland National Forest)

March 27, 2013, 4:00 PM to 7:00 PM, Palomar Ranger District Office, 1634 Black Canyon Road, Ramona, CA 92065

Thanks for the bump/update, EV but this is very short notice. If you read this in the early AM, please let me know where I can send some written comments, and I'll do so. I don't think I can make the meeting in my area, San Diego.

_________________
Scum on a Bike

Done

Yeah I just found out about the meetings. I didn't see a due date for comments but it can't be before the last meeting in April. I'll post up that info as well as a sample letter or comments cheat sheet as soon as I get some time.

Bump!

The current comment period for this process is coming to an end, and final deadline for written comments is this Thursday, May 16. Email your comments to socal_nf_lmp_amendment@fs.fed.us

If you are interested and submitted comments a year ago at the time of the first scoping meeting, then you need to submit comments again based on the USFS proposals presented at the March 2013 scoping meetings (see my post above for links).

This will be your last chance to comment on the plan. It may be possible to file an objection to whatever decision the USFS ultimately makes, but only if you have submitted comments, and you would only be able to file an objection in relation to a comment that you submitted. To be clear, if there are specific trails in the Santa Ana's that you think should not be in Wilderness, you need to include the specific trail names in your comments.

Many of the comments that I posted a year ago would still be valid to submit now, so feel free to use them again along with the sample letters posted.

The USFS will take a couple months to review the comments and then release a draft Record of Decision in July. Then there will be a 60 day objection period. As I said, you must file comments now to be eligible to file an objection later.


The comments in my earlier post are still valid with respect to what areas are affected locally. I didn't realize, however, that there are some singletracks in the San Diego backcountry at Eagle Peak Preserve that are at risk of becoming Wilderness.

http://a123.g.akamai.net/7/123/11558/ab ... 370981.pdf
http://www.sandiegoriver.org/eagle.php

The USFS has been nice enough to draw Wilderness boundaries to keep the trail from San Diego Country Estates in Ramona down to Cedar Creek Falls outside of Wilderness, which will allow us to connect up to Cuyamaca via dirt roads. However, Eagle Peak Preserve is currently shown as Wilderness in the current USFS preferred option. This would be a very cool ride to do now that the trail to the falls is open again. San Diego Mountain Biking Association is working to gain support of the San Diego River Park Foundation to request that Eagle Peak preserve be excluded from Wilderness - the donation SDMBA made to the SD River Park Foundation will help a lot with this. Comments from mountain bikers in support of this exclusion would be helpful, if you are ever interested in riding out there.

Thanks for reading!