Forest Service Rebrands, Delays Controversial Logging & Clearing Project

Jeffrey pine forest within the project area. Photo by Bryant Baker.

Officials with the Los Padres National Forest announced that they are rebranding and delaying a controversial logging and clearing project. The project—covering 235,000 acres of national forest land in Ventura, Santa Barbara, San Luis Obispo, Monterey, and southwestern Kern counties—is widely opposed due to the damage it would cause to wildlife habitat, Native American sacred places, and popular outdoor recreation sites.

The announcement was made late Friday afternoon as the Forest Service and other federal agencies were preparing for a possible government shutdown. In social media posts on Facebook and X (formerly known as Twitter), the U.S. Forest Service stated that the name of the Ecological Restoration Project would be changed to the Wildfire Risk Reduction Project “thanks to insightful comments from the public.”

That same afternoon, the name change appeared in a quarterly update of projects in Los Padres National Forest along with a new timeline. The Forest Service now plans on releasing a draft Environmental Assessment in May 2024, and anticipates issuing a final decision on the project in January 2025. The agency previously planned on releasing the assessment next month.

Los Padres ForestWatch, a nonprofit conservation organization spearheading a campaign against the project, released the following statement following the Forest Service’s announcement:

“A full year after this 235,000-acre project was proposed, the Forest Service’s decision to change the project’s name suggests that the agency cares more about optics and branding than about truly listening to the thousands of people, organizations, and local elected officials who have expressed grave concerns about the project.

It’s an interesting development, but it’s going to take much more than a name change to make this project acceptable. Reconsideration of this project is long overdue, and if wildfire risk is now the focus, then forest officials should take this opportunity to reconfigure the project so that it addresses the most effective ways to reduce wildfire risk—clearing defensible space around structures and supporting local programs to retrofit homes with non-flammable materials.

Time will tell whether the Forest Service shifts away from clearing large swaths of remote habitat, and towards community-centered approaches that are proven time and again to be the best ways to reduce wildfire risk. ForestWatch and our allies will continue to carefully track this project.”

When initially announced to the public last year, the so-called Ecological Restoration Project would have allowed the use of heavy equipment to log live and dead trees with no diameter limit in most areas. The project called for leaving only “some” trees standing while logging the rest, and a 24-inch diameter limit only applied to a small fraction of the project area. The project targeted lands set aside for protection such as botanical areas, critical biological zones, roadless areas, and critical habitat for endangered and threatened plants and wildlife. It also targeted lands and rivers in a long-term conservation initiative crafted by local stakeholders over the last decade. The proposed clearance areas included trails, campgrounds, backcountry campsites, day use areas, and scenic routes. More than one thousand sites of cultural and spiritual importance to Native Americans were in the proposed clearance areas.

The project was met with widespread criticism when it was first announced in July 2022, ultimately garnering more than 3,500 comments from members of the public, scientists, forest users, and retired U.S. Forest Service employees. More than 80 conservation organizations also weighed in against the project, along with many local elected officials including members of Congress, state legislators, and county supervisors.

Beyond the name change, it is unclear whether the Forest Service has made any substantive changes to the project. The agency did not release any additional information.

Scientists and conservation organizations have long advocated that instead of going to backcountry logging and vegetation removal projects, funding should be directed to creating defensible space directly next to homes, retrofitting and building structures with fire-safe materials, and reducing development in the wildland-urban interface. Areas where native trees and shrubs are removed with heavy equipment are also prone to being infested with non-native invasive plants that can increase wildfire risk.