Natural resources in southern California are scarce. The land base is shrinking due to loss of habitat through development and non-native species invasion. The southern California National Forests are caretakers of some of the remaining original and irreplaceable habitats in southern California. These forests provide habitat for more than 60 threatened and endangered species (T&E) species. Restoring and maintaining these habitats, and the plant and animal populations they support, is an enormous challenge, particularly given the growing demand for recreation opportunities and open space in the southern part of the state.

The Southern California Conservation Strategy is a long-term effort shared by the Angeles, San Bernardino, Cleveland, and Los Padres National Forests to promote ecosystem health and protection of species while also allowing for recreation and other activities on National Forests. The outcome of the strategy will be Forest Plan revisions which restore, recover, and maintain species and continue to provide for various uses of the forests.

In September, 1998, The Southwest Center for Biological Diversity filed a lawsuit against the four southern California National Forests seeking to prohibit a wide range of management activities and projects such as range, mining, road construction, land exchanges and recreation, and fire management until the Forests' Land and Resource Management Plans (Forest Plans) are in compliance with the Endangered Species Act (ESA). Under ESA, the Forest Service is required to consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service concerning the effects of Forest Plans on all federally listed threatened and endangered species. National Forests in southern California have always consulted with Fish & Wildlife Service on specific projects, but not on the plans as a whole.

The Forest Service and the Southwest Center for Biodiversity are negotiating a settlement that will remove the threat that all activities across the forests will be enjoined, so long as identified species’ protection measures are completed. Under the terms of the settlement, the Forest Service will continue activities to protect species. Forest Service biologists, in consultation with the Fish & Wildlife Service, have identified high priority areas where immediate action is needed to protect threatened or endangered fish, wildlife, and plants. Actions such as habitat surveys, barriers, closures, improved road crossings, fences, and interpretive signs have already been taken.

Some of these necessary measures affect large numbers of forest visitors and are highly controversial. For example, immediate threats to the Arroyo Southwestern Toad, a recently listed species, resulted in the Angeles National Forest implementing a 3,000 acre closure that affects off-highway vehicle use. Additionally, several developed recreation facilities in the Los Padres, Cleveland, and San Bernardino National Forests have been temporarily closed to protect endangered inhabitants.

Forest Plans provide guidance for all resource management activities on a national forest and establish multiple use goals and objectives and management requirements (also known as standards and guidelines). The current southern California Forest Plans were among the first completed in the Pacific Southwest Region 10 to 15 years ago. There have not been any significant amendments or revisions made to these plans, but many new issues and information common to all four forests necessitate a coordinated update. The changes needed in the Forest Plans to comply with ESA will be significant. The Forest Service is beginning the revision and is expected to start the public involvement process in January 2000. Forest Plans are prepared in accordance with the National Forest Management Act (NFMA) National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), which requires Environmental Assessments of all actions, and other laws such as the Endangered Species Act (ESA), which requires protection of federally listed species. Using these tools, the National Forests of southern California will evaluate all forest programs and activities and propose revisions to Forest Plans that set forth direction for the future management of lands and resources within the forest boundaries.

Due to numerous species listings during the mid 1990s, and to prepare for updating Forest Plans, the southern California National Forests initiated a large scale assessment of habitat condition for species on all National Forest lands in southern California. This project is called the Mountain and Foothill Assessment. Utilizing information from the assessment, key issues across all four national forests were highlighted, and a review of management direction in existing Forest Plans was conducted to determine how well existing Forest Plan direction addressed these key issues and how they might be changed to better address habitat conservation problems and promote needed management actions. These findings are documented in a monitoring and evaluation report.

The monitoring and evaluation report identifies needed changes and frames the questions to be addressed in a Forest Plan revision process. The report is focussed on the following problem areas:

consistent direction between forests, describing desired conditions, understory densification and crown fire risk in montane conifer forests, invasive non-native plant and animal species, conservation measures in areas within special use permit boundaries and areas of impact, water releases from dams and diversions, stand replacing fires in big cone douglas fir forests, effects of recreation activities on habitat, degradation of coastal sage scrub due to frequent fires, livestock grazing in riparian habitats, managing fire return intervals in chaparral, poor recruitment of foothill oaks and walnut woodlands, winter spring burning, unauthorized activities associated with vehicular access, infrastructure and special uses, mining related in stream habitat degradation, stand replacing fires in pinyon pine woodlands, minerals extraction.

A draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for all four Forests that outlines alternatives for addressing these issues will be developed in the near future. It will be less expensive to use a centralized team, rather than four separate efforts, to work out the majority of the new direction. And use of a single EIS will result in greater consistency of direction and more easily allow the development of recovery strategies over broad geographic areas. The draft EIS is planned for release for public review 2002.