+ The basics

+ Is this really an “ecological restoration” project?

No. This hurried project will negatively impact wildlife habitat, promote the spread of flammable invasive grasses and weeds, and will interfere with the natural and often unique ecology of many areas across the Los Padres National Forest. The U.S. Forest Service initially called this project the “Ecological Restoration Project," but have sense rebranded it to the "Wildfire Risk Reduction Project." So even the agency proposing the project seems to have acknowledged that calling it "ecological restoration" does not accurately reflect the significant alteration of habitats and ecosystems that will occur.

+ What exactly is the Forest Service proposing?

The project includes two categories of work: (1) constructing a vast web of “fuel break and defense zones” across the national forest, and (2) clearing larger blocks of habitat called “forest health treatment units.” Areas identified as “fuel breaks” would be stripped of nearly all native plants and trees. According to the official project description, these areas would be hundreds of miles long and up to 1,500 feet wide, although official mapping data suggests that these deforested areas could be up to twice that wide in certain areas.

The work would be completed using heavy industrial equipment such as feller-bunchers, masticators (giant tractors with a large arm and rotating blade) and mowers as well as through use of chainsaws, livestock grazing, pile burning, and an unspecified amount of prescribed fire.

+ How much vegetation will be cleared?

This project represents the largest mechanical alteration of land in the history of Los Padres National Forest, and one of the largest projects proposed for any national forest in the country.

The Forest Service is proposing to clear 235,497 acres (368 square miles) of native habitat across all vegetation types, including conifer forests, hardwood forests (such as oak woodlands and riparian forests), chaparral and other shrublands, and grasslands. Nearly 80% of the project area (the “fuel break and defense zones”) will be almost entirely scraped of native trees and vegetation. The Forest Service indicates that only “some” trees will remain. The remaining 20% of the project constitutes the “forest health treatment units” that will be subject to significant logging and shrub removal with few restrictive guidelines.

+ How can I learn what specific areas are targeted by this project? Do you have a map?

The Forest Service provided maps with their plan, but they did not show the level of detail needed for the public to properly evaluate the project and submit comments. To gain a better understanding of the plan’s scope, we requested and received Forest Service data for the boundaries of each clearance area and used this data to create an interactive map.

Our map is interactive and accessible to all, so anyone can zoom in to specific areas of the forest to see how your favorite spots will be affected by this project. Zoom out for a bird’s eye view. The map also allows searches by address or other landmarks. We are providing the map on this website as a public service. Click here to explore the map.

+ How many acres are proposed for clearing in my area?

The largest portion of the project would affect Santa Barbara County, where 94,319 acres would be cleared. Here’s the county-by-county breakdown, according to Forest Service GIS data:

• Santa Barbara County: 94,319 acres
• Ventura County: 46,767 acres
• San Luis Obispo County: 41,209 acres
• Kern County: 26,543 acres
• Monterey County: 26,265 acres
• Los Angeles County: 142 acres

+ What are "forest health treatment units" and where are they located?

The plan includes 16 proposed “treatment units” covering 48,681 acres. The Forest Service wants to log trees and remove shrubs across these larger blocks of habitat because the agency claims the trees are growing too close together. However, most of these treatment areas are shrublands, with only a few thousand acres of forestland targeted. This means that thousands of acres of native chaparral and other shrublands will simply be ground up and left bare, making them vulnerable to infestation by invasive, highly flammable weeds. Of the 20% of forest lands that are targeted, the Forest Service has not disclosed any tree stand data showing how these areas are overgrown.

The 16 “treatment units” are located in the Santa Ynez Mountains near Lake Cachuma, Figueroa Mountain, the Tepusquet backcountry, the Sierra Madre Mountains, Mt. Pinos, Cerro Noroeste, Alamo Mountain, Frazier Mountain, Tecuya Ridge, Cuesta Ridge, Huasna Valley, and portions of the Big Sur coast.

+ Will this project really promote “forest health”?

No. The forests in Los Padres National Forest are naturally made up of a variety of large and small trees growing in a wide range of densities. There are also at least 10 different types of forests and woodland ecosystems within the project area (in addition to the many types of shrubland and grassland ecosystems), each with their own unique fire regime. The use of industrial equipment to cut trees and shrubs will cause damage to soil and understory plants, while spreading invasive grasses. These impacts are already abundantly evident along forest roads and in existing fuel breaks. Weedy, invasive grasses outcompete native grasses and forbs that naturally grow in the forest understory.

Cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum) is an invasive grass commonly found in disturbed forested areas. Its shallow roots do not hold the soil in place very well, and is more flammable than native perennial bunchgrasses such as squirreltail grass (Elymus elymoides). Cheatgrass rapidly spreads in areas disturbed with industrial equipment. This annual grass has shallow roots, dries out early in the year, and ignites more easily than native plants in the area.

+ Why is the Forest Service proposing this project?

To be honest, we're not quite sure. But what we do know is that Congress is providing billions of dollars to the Forest Service for “hazardous fuels reduction” projects. If the Forest Service doesn’t spend this money, then the agency risks losing future funding.

For example, the 2021 infrastructure bill awarded the Forest Service and the Interior Department $2.13 billion for vegetation clearing projects, plus an additional $2.854 billion specifically to the Forest Service, plus an additional $1 billion for mechanical thinning and timber harvesting, and another half-billion dollars for constructing fuel breaks. In addition, the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act provides the Forest Service with another $1.8 billion and prioritizes projects with a completed EA or EIS, providing an additional incentive to quickly complete the EA for the Los Padres National Forest.

+ Is this project mainly about prescribed burning?

No. Most (80%) of the project is fuel breaks and defense zones and their linear features are difficult to accomplish with landscape-scale prescribed fire. Industrial equipment such as mowers, masticators (giant tractors with a large arm and rotating blade), and feller-bunchers will be used to complete most of the work. Even in the “forest health treatment units” the agency is proposing mostly mechanical logging and other vegetation removal with prescribed fire potentially used later “as needed.”

+ How is this related to other controversial logging projects such as the Pine Mountain project?

This project massively expands the size of four widely opposed logging projects in Los Padres National Forest, nearly doubling their footprint. It would expand the Pine Mountain project by 30%. This 755-acre project was approved in 2021 and is currently being challenged in court by several conservation groups, Patagonia, the City of Ojai, and the County of Ventura.

The project would also expand the Mt. Pinos logging project by 80%. This 1,600-acre project is located on a mountain sacred to the Chumash and other Native Americans and is scheduled for approval by the end of this year.

It also significantly expands the recently approved Tecuya and Cuddy logging projects.

+ Will this project help the climate?

No. Forests offer the single most powerful and effective way to remove carbon from our atmosphere. Mature forests and big trees are the natural champions of carbon sequestration, storing carbon for decades, if not centuries. Leaving these trees standing—not cutting them down—is the best way to safeguard communities from the future impacts of climate change.

Most of the aboveground carbon in any forest is found within the trunks (also called boles) of trees. During a wildfire, only a very small proportion of the total carbon in a forest is emitted as carbon dioxide, mostly coming from the combustion of leaves, small branches, and understory plants. Nearly all the biomass found in trunks and large branches as well as in root systems is left behind after a fire. In a logging project, however, most of the aboveground biomass in a tree is removed and transported to a mill or cut, piled, and burned on site. Large scale tree and vegetation removal also requires use of heavy equipment that itself generates greenhouse gas emissions.

+ Who is paying for this project?

We all are. Congress is handing the Forest Service billions of dollars of taxpayer money with little accountability or oversight.

Interestingly, Pacific Gas & Electric donated $1.681 million to the Forest Service in 2020 to prepare the environmental assessment for this project and conduct some vegetation clearing. PG&E is an investor-owned utility responsible for some of the state’s largest and deadliest wildfires including the 2018 Camp Fire that killed 85 people in the town of Paradise and destroyed nearly 19,000 structures. In 2020—the same year it awarded the grant to the Forest Service—the utility pled guilty to 84 counts of manslaughter. The utility also faces 31 criminal charges including manslaughter and other felonies stemming from a fire in 2020 near Redding that killed four people.

Because PG&E’s service area does not cover southern Ventura County, the entire Ojai Ranger District stretching from Rose Valley to Ojai has been excluded from the project.

+ Public involvement

+ How can the public weigh in?

During the initial 30-day comment period in August, the Forest Service received more than one thousand requests to extend the comment period an additional 90 days. The comment period was only extended an additional 30 days to September 27. Comments can be submitted to the Forest Service via our online comment portal online comment portal or via mail to Los Padres National Forest Supervisor's Office, Attention: Kyle Kinports, Forest Planner and Vegetation/Fuels Program Manager, 1980 Old Mission Drive, Solvang, CA 93463. The public will have an opportunity to review the draft Environmental Assessment and file a formal objection. However, the time allowed for such a review is often limited.

+ Is the plan controversial?

Yes, there is significant opposition to the plan. So far, nearly two thousand people have submitted comments opposing the project based on impacts to wildlife, wilderness and roadless areas, Native American sacred sites, trails and campsites, and old growth forests. Many people are urging the Forest Service to change course and pursue more effective ways to protect communities from wildfire including home hardening and fire-resistant retrofits, clearing defensible space near structures, and reducing ignitions.

Congressman Salud Carbajal—whose district spans most of the project area—has expressed concerns about the project and lodged a formal request for the highest level of environmental review. A coalition of 70 conservation and community groups submitted a joint letter of opposition to the Forest Service, and several scientists have expressed concern about the environmental impacts of the project.

+ Where can I learn more about the project and how to get involved?*

Explore this website to find an interactive map and an easy way for you to submit your input to the Forest Service and ask that they change course.

+ Trees

+ Will large trees be cut down?

Yes. Mature trees up to 24” wide will be cut in the “forest health treatment units.” Trees of this size can sometimes be more than a century old. Any number of trees of all sizes, including larger trees—with no diameter limit—will be removed from the fuel break areas. There are no restrictions against the removal of mature or old-growth trees. There is also no estimate on the number of trees to be removed. According to the Forest Service’s project description, “some” trees would be left standing—a vague standard that could result in potentially tens of thousands of trees being cut. It is unclear whether trees would be felled by Forest Service employees, private logging companies, or other outside contractors.

+ Could trees be logged and sold to commercial companies?

Yes, trees and shrubs could be made into lumber, particle board, and biofuels and sold for profit. The nearest lumber mill is less than two hours away from some of the proposed logging areas. There is absolutely nothing in this plan that limits the sale of timber and wood products to private commercial companies.

The Forest Service has an active timber contract with a logging company from Oregon to remove trees from Los Padres National Forest. The Pine Mountain logging proposal allows for commercial timber harvest. The American Forest Resource Council—the lobbying arm of the timber industry—is actively promoting these projects, even going so far as to help the Forest Service defend them in court.

+ Will only dead trees be removed? Will living healthy trees be cut?

The project will remove live and dead trees, including many healthy, old-growth and mature trees. In addition, the removal of small live trees—particularly young conifers that have grown successfully during recent drought years and are adapted to surviving in drier conditions—may diminish the forest’s long-term ability to deal with rising temperatures.

Dead trees, or snags, are ecologically vital to forests as they provide habitat for countless species from woodpeckers to fungi. Snags eventually fall and become downed woody debris, which not only decomposes over time and recycles nutrients but also provides important habitat for chipmunks and other small rodents, lizards and salamanders, insects, and more.

+ Environmental studies

+ Will any environmental studies be performed?

Yes, an out-of-state Forest Service contractor based in Montana is preparing an Environmental Assessment for this project. Commonly referred to as an EA, this document contains a “concise” analysis of ian activity’s mpacts. It is much less detailed and thorough than an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), which is the highest level of analysis. An EIS includes thorough studies and explanation, extensive public involvement, and requires an examination of alternatives that might better achieve the same goal with less harm to communities and the environment.

There is no doubt that the size and proposed actions in this plan will absolutely cause widespread and significant impacts and warrant an EIS. The Forest Service has received many requests to prepare a full EIS. Officials have rebuffed those requests, insisting that a simple EA is the appropriate level of review. If this project doesn’t qualify for an EIS, then what does? This is the largest project proposed in Los Padres National Forest history, and one of the largest projects ever proposed in any national forest across the country. It is difficult to comprehend a more appropriate situation deserving the highest level of environmental review.

The Forest Service prepared a detailed EIS for a similar but much smaller fuel break project (542 acres) in the Monterey Ranger District just a few years ago. This project is more than 400 times larger.

+ Who is preparing the environmental assessment?

The Forest Service has hired an out-of-state consulting firm based in Montana to complete the environmental assessment. There is no indication that the proposal was field-checked or vetted by local forest officials. In fact, in many cases, the plan seems unaware of past projects, local conditions, and areas that are unsuited for logging and habitat removal, like protected areas, trails, and camps.

+ Right now, there's just a general study underway focusing on the project as a whole. Will there be additional studies performed for site-specific areas?

No. Once the Forest Service completes the overarching EA for the entire forest wide project, no additional site-specific environmental review will be performed. Instead, the Forest Service is proposing to implement what is called “condition based management” or CBM. CBM is a broad set of goals that are kept in mind during the implementation of the project—a period that can span years or even decades. Under CBM, the Forest Service (or contractors) may—but is not required to—conduct site-specific surveys and identify what types of impacts may occur from work in a specific location. Any site-specific assessment that is performed is completed behind closed doors without any public or independent expert review. This means that for any given work area, the Forest Service won’t have to disclose which rare plants or animals are present or what measures they are taking to avoid them. CBM deprives the public of opportunities to review site-specific data, which limits transparency and avoids public input.

+ Wildfire risk

+ Will this project help protect communities from wildfire?

No. Removing trees and vegetation in the backcountry—miles from the nearest town—does not make communities safer. Time and again, working from the home out—rather than from the forest in—has proven to be the best approach to protecting communities from wildfires. Most homes that burn during wildfires are ignited by wind driven embers that can travel miles ahead of a fire before entering attics, crawlspaces, windows, and other openings in the home, igniting it from the inside. Homes that are hardened with materials to withstand these embers, and that have defensible space maintained around them, are most often the ones left standing after wildfires.

Most studies that have examined this issue have found that vegetation removal beyond 100 feet from structures does not decrease wildfire-related risks to that structure. According to our analysis of GIS data provided by the Forest Service, less than 0.1% of the project area is within 100 feet of a structure. In fact, only about 7% of the project area is even within 0.25 miles (1,320 feet) of a structure.

+ Will this project increase fire risk?

Quite likely. Logging and removing shrubs can increase the risk of wildfire. Reducing protective canopy causes hotter, drier, windier conditions that can make wildfire travel faster and burn more intensely. Cutting trees and grinding up native chaparral introduces more flammable and fast burning invasive grasses.

+ Do you support fuel breaks next to communities at risk?

Yes, our groups have a long history of supporting strategically-placed, properly-planned fuel breaks immediately adjacent to communities. Science shows that’s the most effective location for wildfire mitigation activities, not in remote areas far from homes.

+ What is home hardening and defensible space?

Home hardening refers to things that can be done to a structure directly to reduce chances of ignition from a wildfire. Defensible space is the area directly adjacent to a home that is maintained in a way that allows firefighters to safely protect the structure. Though there are many things one can do to harden homes and maintain defensible space in the wildland-urban interface in preparation for wildfires, some fire preparedness tactics are simple and can be executed at little or no cost. For example:

• Keep the first 5 feet from structures free of anything that could ignite in a fire
• Regularly clear leaves and pine needles from roof and rain gutters
• Install fine (2 mm) mesh screens over any vents to block embers from entry
• Plant fire-safe native vegetation
• Move all combustibles such as lawn furniture, firewood, etc. away from structures

+ Sacred sites

+ Does the project affect Native American sacred sites and cultural landscapes?

The plan would affect countless sites and landscapes that are spiritually and culturally important to Tribes, including the Chumash, Salinan, Esselen, and Tataviam people. These sacred sites hold deep significance to indigenous people throughout the region, serving as sites for ceremony and prayer, gathering and harvesting of plants, backdrops for intergenerational stories, and ancestral territories that formed the foundation of indigenous cultures, communities, and traditions. The project would construct a fuel break through the heart of the Sierra Madre Ridge National Archaeological District. According to the Forest Service, more than 1,000 cultural sites have been recorded in the project area.

+ Trails and camps

+ How will the project affect hiking and riding trails?

The project will profoundly diminish the outdoor recreation experience. Vegetation could be cleared across 238 miles of trails used by hikers, mountain bikers, trail runners, and equestrians. It also targets 48 miles of the proposed Condor National Scenic Trail, a route that traverses the entire forest from Big Sur to the Los Angeles County line.

Specific trails affected include (in alphabetical order):

• Alejandro Trail
• Aliso Canyon Loop Trail
• Aliso Trail (Cuyama)
• Arroyo Burro Trail
• Buckeye Trailhead
• Buckhorn Primitive Road
• Cerro Alto Loop Trail
• Cold Spring Trail
• Davy Brown Trail
• Franklin Trail
• Fremont Trail
• Gifford Trail
• Hot Springs Trail
• Jesusita Trail
• La Jolla Trail
• Little Sur Trail
• McGill Trail
• McPherson Peak Trail
• Mt Pinos - Tumamait Trail
• Munch Canyon Trail
• North Fork Lockwood Trail
• Prewitt Loop Trail
• Rinconada Trail
• Rocky Ridge Trail
• Romero Canyon Trail
• Salmon Creek Trailhead
• San Ysidro Trail
• Snyder Trail
• Sunset Valley Trail
• Tequepis Trail
• Tunnel Trail
• White Rock Trail
• Willow Springs Trail

+ How will the project affect popular campgrounds and recreation areas?

The project targets some of the most popular recreation areas of the forest. Fuel breaks, defense zones, and “forest health treatment units” are proposed for the Santa Ynez River Recreation Area including popular recreation sites like Red Rock, White Rock, First Crossing, and Lower Oso day use areas, as well as campgrounds like Upper Oso, Sage Hill, and Paradise.

The project also targets the Figueroa Mountain Recreation Area, including Figueroa Mountain Campground and the Pino Alto day use area, along with the Davy Brown Campground and Nira Campground. In the Cuyama Valley, hundreds of acres around Bates Canyon and Aliso Park campgrounds are slated for clearing. Nearly the entirety of West Cuesta Ridge in San Luis Obispo Country is slated for clearing, as are large segments of the Big Sur Coast including areas surrounding Plastkett and Kirk Creek campgrounds, San Dollar Beach, and Pfeiffer Beach.

Lush campsites are a hallmark of the Los Padres National Forest and draw locals and tourists alike to enjoy nature in a natural outdoor setting. The plan calls for clearing shade trees, protective shrubs, and scenic habitat around 24 campgrounds, including popular spots like Plaskett Creek and Nira. It will also strip and expose day use recreation sites near the Santa Ynez River, Figueroa Mountain, Mt. Pinos, and Big Sur.

Additionally, vegetation will be removed around 49 primitive campsites used for overnight exploration and adventure in the backcountry. This would dramatically increase sun and wind exposure, heat, dust, mud, and erosion to some of the favorite family-friendly outdoor destinations in our region.

+ Rivers and wilderness

+ How will the project affect rivers and creeks?

Streams are the lifeblood of the forest, providing havens for wildlife in an increasingly arid climate. Many of these waterways provide spawning grounds for steelhead, a unique species of fish that lives parts of its life in fresh water and parts in the ocean, returning to its native stream to spawn and start the cycle anew. The plan would pollute their habitat with sediment and erosion. The plan calls for a fuel break along 20 miles of Piru Creek, which is proposed for protection under the Wild & Scenic Rivers Act. Other proposed Wild & Scenic Rivers affected by the plan include Manzana Creek, Mono Creek, Indian Creek, Munch Creek, and Davy Brown Creek.

A 16-mile fuel break is proposed for the Upper Santa Ynez River from upstream of Lake Cachuma to Red Rock, Gibraltar Reservoir, Jameson Reservoir, and beyond to the headwaters. This fuel break would be more than 4,000 feet wide in places.

The project would clear vegetation along portions of popular waterways in the Santa Barbara frontcountry, including Romero Creek, Hot Springs Canyon, Mission Creek, San Jose Creek, San Pedro Creek, Tecolote Creek, Arroyo Hondo, Carpinteria Creek, and many other creeks.

A few short segments of the Big Sur Wild & Scenic River overlap with a proposed fuel break.

+ Does the project affect lands being considered by Congress for wilderness designations and other protections?

Stakeholders throughout the community have been working for more than a decade to secure permanent protections for some of the last remaining unprotected areas of Los Padres National Forest. This diverse coalition is seeking formal designation of more than 250,000 acres of land under the Wilderness Act. Working with local members of Congress, this long-term conservation initiative—known officially as the Central Coast Heritage Protection Act—has been approved by the House of Representatives and is currently awaiting action in the Senate before it goes to the President for final approval.

The logging and clearing plan targets tens of thousands of these lands that are currently awaiting protection in Congress. It would clear vegetation across 27,780 acres of high-quality wilderness lands that are currently proposed for protection under the Wilderness Act. The Forest Service’s targeting of these lands could potentially make them ineligible for wilderness designation and disrespects the efforts of many stakeholders who have been working to gain formal protection for these lands for the past twelve years.

The legislation would also establish the Condor Ridge Scenic Area in Santa Barbara County and the Black Mountain Scenic Area in San Luis Obispo County. The project would clear 7,300 acres from these two areas, severely degrading their scenic qualities.

+ Wildlife and plants

+ How will the project harm wildlife?

The project overlaps with 56,250 acres of “critical habitat” that federal biologists have identified as essential to the survival of threatened and endangered species. The project would eviscerate this habitat, destroying a safety net for imperiled wildlife like California red-legged frogs and arroyo toads, a rare bird called the southwestern willow flycatcher, and a rare plant called the Camatta Canyon amole that’s found nowhere else on Earth.

The project overlaps almost the entire Cuesta Ridge Botanical Area, Big Pine Mountain Research Natural Area, and Black Butte Research Natural Area, which support unique habitats for knobcone pine, Sargent’s cypress, several rare and sensitive herbaceous plant species, and high elevation montane vegetation types.

The project would clear vegetation in several areas that the Forest Service has classified as Critical Biological Zones, the most important areas on the national forest to manage for the protection of species-at-risk.

+ How would the project affect endangered California condors?

Condors—the most endangered bird in North America— require places to rest during long flights across the landscape. Large, old-growth and mature trees are their preferred roosting locations. Based on official tracking data, this plan would clear hundreds of active roosting sites, interfering with their flight patterns and placing these endangered birds in harm’s way. According to data provided by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, California condors roosted 1,027 times within the project area just in the southern Los Padres National Forest between 2019 and 2021. We are still analyzing data collected for the Big Sur area, which may reveal even more instances of condor roosting in the Monterey Ranger District portion of the project area.

+ How would the project affect rare plants?

There are 94 rare plant types located within the project’s footprint, according to California’s Natural Diversity Database. These rare plants are found at 531 locations throughout the project area. All but eight of these species are included on Rank 1B (rare, threatened, or endangered in California and elsewhere) of the California Rare Plant Inventory, indicating that they are globally rare. For 35 of these plants more than 20% of all known locations are found within the project footprint, and more than 50% of all known locations of 12 plants are found in the project.