An analysis of public comments shows widespread opposition to a 90,796-acre logging and clearing project in Los Padres National Forest.
The U.S. Forest Service received 1,019 comment letters during a formal 30-day comment period on the draft proposal in May and June. ForestWatch requested copies of all letters the agency received, and reviewed them to determine whether they supported or opposed. This comprehensive review showed nearly unanimous opposition to the agency’s logging and clearing plan.
Agencies, elected officials, experts, and community groups were united in expressing serious concerns. Only four commenters expressed support for the plan, which the Forest Service plans to finalize by the end of this year.
Agencies Express Concerns
Local and state agencies submitted letters voicing concerns about the plan. The California Coastal Commission submitted a letter focused on the Big Sur portion of Los Padres National Forest. The agency noted “several concerns and considerations” including impacts to rare plants, animals, and habitats. The Commission urged the Forest Service to prepare a full Environmental Impact Statement before approving the plan. The Commission also expressed concern about the project’s scope, pointing to massive fuel breaks up to 1,500 feet wide:
Fuel breaks of this size may result in large areas of cleared vegetation that are harmful to habitat integrity and connectivity, open up large areas of habitat to edge effects, have the potential to adversely impact sensitive species and habitats, potentially result in areas of invasive annual plants that may be contrary to wildfire containment, and are unsightly to park-goers.
The Santa Barbara County Parks Division expressed concern that the plan would impede use of the County’s trail system, requiring popular trails to be closed for weeks or months at a time to accommodate logging and clearing activities. County Parks urged the Forest Service to avoid closures and notify the public in advance if trails must be closed.
Elected Officials Urge Full Environmental Study
Several elected officials weighed in during the comment period, including Congressmembers Carbajal and Brownley, Senators Monique Limon and John Laird; Assemblymembers Bennett and Hart; Ventura County Supervisor Matt LaVere; Santa Barbara County Supervisors Laura Capps and Joan Hartmann; and Santa Barbara City Councilmember Oscar Gutierrez. All expressed concerns about the plan. In addition, they all urged the Forest Service to prepare a full environmental study and to evaluate less damaging alternatives.
A joint letter signed by Sen. Limon, Asm. Bennett, and Asm. Hart states:
We have serious concerns with the project moving forward without the preparation of a full Environmental Impact Statement…. Given the scale and complexity of the project area, an EIS can provide a comprehensive analysis of the short- and long-term ecological impacts. Furthermore, an EIS process will allow for more robust public engagement, giving local residents and important stakeholders meaningful opportunities to provide input.
Experts Express Concerns Over Environmental Impacts
Several experts weighed in on issues ranging from tribal cultural sites, to rare plants and animals, and the proliferation of flammable invasive weeds. One anthropologist expressed alarm over several known cultural sites and landscapes:
These sites are part of one of the most complex and elaborate cultural landscapes in the Los Padres, and authorizing fuel break activities in their vicinity without thorough archaeological survey, resource planning, in-depth Tribal consultation, and consideration of avoidance represents an existential risk to the perpetuity of these sites and the cultural value they hold. The glaring omission of these sites, and the district itself, from impact analysis constitutes a clear failure to identify, evaluate, and protect known cultural resources.
Environmental, Tribal, and Community Groups Stand Together
In a remarkable show of unity, 91 environmental, tribal, and community organizations submitted a joint letter asking forest officials to significantly reduce the size of the project and to prepare a full Environmental Impact Statement. The groups are endorsing a “Community Alternative” that reduces the Forest Service’s plan by 83%, avoids ecologically critical areas, and focuses vegetation treatments in areas close to communities where they are most effective.
The groups are asking the Forest Service to significantly scale back the project. They want the agency to focus strategically on areas immediately surrounding communities instead of remote areas in the forest’s interior. They are also asking the Forest Service to prepare a more detailed Environmental Impact Statement in lieu of the shorter, less thorough assessment it prepared earlier this year.
Very Little Support for Plan
Our analysis only found four of 1,019 letters supporting the Forest Service’s plan. These letters of support came from CAL FIRE San Luis Obispo, the Fire Safe Council for Monterey County, the Santa Barbara County Fire Department, and one resident from Carpinteria.
The Forest Service plan, dubbed the Wildfire Risk Reduction Project, would allow commercial timber sales, heavy machinery, and other methods to clear trees and shrubs across national forest land stretching from Big Sur to the Ventura-Los Angeles county line. Altogether, the plan covers six counties: Santa Barbara, Ventura, San Luis Obispo, Monterey, Kern, and Los Angeles.
As it stands, the Forest Service proposal would cause significant harm to important ecological and historical sites. The area is popular for local recreation, home to rare plants and wildlife, and contains numerous cultural and religious sites. Specifically, it would affect 26,048 acres of designated critical habitat for nine imperiled wildlife and plants including the California condor and the purple amole, 38,345 acres of inventoried roadless areas, 270 miles of trails, and 73 recreation sites. The proposal’s impacts are sweeping and raise serious questions about ecological damage, cultural site protection, and the effectiveness of backcountry fuel treatments.
We’ve published a web page with FAQs, an interactive map, and more information to show what’s at stake.
Background: More Effective Ways to Protect Our Communities from Wildfire
Despite claims that logging and remote vegetation clearing will reduce wildfire risk, decades of scientific research and recent wildfire incidents consistently show that they do not prevent the most destructive fires—those driven by extreme winds and climate conditions. The kinds of wildfires that threaten communities are not fueled by dense forests, but by winds that can hurl embers miles ahead of a fire front. These embers ignite homes and structures regardless of nearby vegetation.
Firefighting experts agree that protecting communities starts at the home—not in the backcountry. Investments in retrofitting homes, creating defensible space and maintaining “Zone Zero” (the area within five feet of a structure), and improving emergency response systems are far more effective than remote logging and clearing projects that do little to alter fire behavior when it matters the most—during extreme wind events. Remote clearing often leaves communities more vulnerable at a critical time when climate change is worsening fire risk.
Header photo by Bryant Baker depicts a forested area on Alamo Mountain, which is included in the proposal.