Protect Pine Mountain! URGENT PLEASE READ!!!!

This is for anyone who loves Pine Mountain or wildlands just as much as I do. PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE spread the word on this developing tragedy.

https://p2a.co/zhen6Tl

Done. Wrote to Kevin Elliot, the local USFS Forest Supervisor too.

Emailed them. Thanks for posting 

Here are some important links: The project proposal is here. And, apparently, there'll be a virtual public meeting June 11 from noon to 1 pm on Adobe Connect, accessible here. 

Just signed. What a bunch of bullshit. 

A fire broke out today near lake Piru, pretty far away but same general area.

I wrote,  thank you. 

Is this a fuel management project?  Southern California mountains are thick with trees and vegetation that is not natural to the environment.   If you want to see what a forest looks like that was allowed to grow without occasional fire look at Hwy 2 between the Mt Wilson turnoff and Newcombs Ranch, miles and miles of dead burned out trees.   We have been too aggressive in preventing fires to do what is natural and now we are left with forests that are thick with trees and heavy undergrowth.  When we do have a fire it’s massive and burns down to mineral earth sterilizing the earth preventing native plants from growing in the future

If this is a pure commercial logging venture that’s one thing but if it’s fuel management that is not necessarily a bad thing.

ok, I just read the link, it is for fuel management and whoever wrote your plea to stop the fuel management doesn’t know a thing about wildfires   

Whoever thinks because this area is far from any urban area and therefore poses no risk has their head firmly planted up their butt.    It could easily reach Filmore or any other town in less that 24 hours in a sundowner event.  

Kevin is local, wise and experienced in these regards. 

Using loopholes to fastrack projects and get around standard NEPA regulations has huge implications for public lands. The process is long to get anything done on federal land but it's that way for a reason and you can probably guess who's been pushing to change that (hint, it's the Trump administration). Whether fuel management is warranted here or not, they should still be required to conduct a standard environmental review before they do it. Thanks for sharing.

I don't understand why some people are all up in arms about this.  This is done everywhere.  Back in the day, before we lived near them, natural fires would regularly do this.  We now intervene and stop these fires so the forests need to be managed.  I don't see how this is controversial?

Also, its not a loophole.  I'm a civil engineer and work with environmental documents all the time.  CE's or exclusions were put in place to save taxpayer money on projects that are considered "no-brainers".  Mitigating fire risk is one of these...  They have also done a bunch of technical studies to support this so its not like it wasn't thought out.

Finally, if you think anyone is benefiting from this, yes... the company that wins the bid will make a profit but.... since this is all in National Forest, any material that is taken out of the forest has a monetary value that the federal government gets compensated for it. Also, many times these trees are brought to a yard within the National Forest and the federal government sells the materials to third parties.  So this isn't a timber company coming in to reap the benefits and getting free timber.  Timber companies would be much more efficient and cost effective filing a normal tree harvest permit.

Jeff Bwrote: I don't understand why some people are all up in arms about this.  This is done everywhere.  Back in the day, before we lived near them, natural fires would regularly do this.  We now intervene and stop these fires so the forests need to be managed.  I don't see how this is controversial?

Also, its not a loophole.  I'm a civil engineer and work with environmental documents all the time.  CE's or exclusions were put in place to save taxpayer money on projects that are considered "no-brainers".  Mitigating fire risk is one of these...  They have also done a bunch of technical studies to support this so its not like it wasn't thought out.

Finally, if you think anyone is benefiting from this, yes... the company that wins the bid will make a profit but.... since this is all in National Forest, any material that is taken out of the forest has a monetary value that the federal government gets compensated for it. Also, many times these trees are brought to a yard within the National Forest and the federal government sells the materials to third parties.  So this isn't a timber company coming in to reap the benefits and getting free timber.  Timber companies would be much more efficient and cost effective filing a normal tree harvest permit.

These are good points Jeff, however... I've expressed concerns about the plan mostly in direct contact with some of the officials involved, in part because of the abysmal record the current administration is cultivating with regard to everything to do with managing natural resources. I need to point out here that I've NOT read the official USFS documents that I linked higher up in the thread, and that my own "final" opinion for what that's worth will be contingent on doing so unless I hear from some credible forestry/conservation scientist who's done the work for me. That said, it's not unreasonable to take the initial position that this plan could well be little more than another give-away to the timber industry at the cost of protected species, threatened and dwindling natural habitats, and the interests of recreational users. 

Regarding fire mitigation, yeah, frequent, low-intensity fires as was probably common prior to anthropogenic fire suppression likely made the big ones rare and somehow we've got to fix this through managed burns, fuel suppression, etc. This rationale has also been used as an excuse! Part of being good stewards of the environment means electing responsible politicians, hiring (through proxy) honest and well-trained professionals, AND keeping tabs on how everyone's doing.

Having interacted with Los Padres ForestWatch when they tried to prevent the Tecuya Ridge fuels management project, I can say they intentionally distort the science. 

Sent. Thanks for sharing this

I have studied information available about the proposed project, emailed a comment to the forest supervisor, and donated to Los Padres Forest Watch. I see a lot of big problems this project. The area that would be affected is 755 acres, for six miles from Hwy 33 to Reyes Peak. Heavy machinery would be used to log trees that are up to 64 inches in diameter and clear old-growth chaparral. This ecosystem has been intact for many hundreds of years.

If the only thing you care about is climbing, Pine Mountain is a primo bouldering area in beautiful mountain country. Read the Pine Mountain page (and comments) on MP (Central Coast), and you’ll get an idea of what would be lost if this project proceeds.

This isn’t the first time in which administrations have sought to eliminate environmental assessments in order to fast-track projects that are profitable for a few and leave scars lasting for centuries. Such administrations have often used “fire mitigation” as the excuse for logging big trees for prime lumber products, although the resulting slash, cheat grass and second-growth forest is more of a fire hazard.

Fire suppression, which began in the 1880s, and removal of the big, naturally spaced trees have led to unnaturally thick stands of younger trees, resulting in greater wildfire risk. Science has observed this connection. 

Science is being ignored in promoting the project on Pine Mountain. Some communities in the region may be at risk of wildfires; yet this project wouldn’t make those communities safer. The risk of fire would still exist because of the miles of fuels that remain between Pine Mountain and those communities. Getting rid of all the trees that are upwind of communities doesn’t eliminate fire risk and would be undesirable for many reasons. Would we log Yosemite Valley because the Ahwahnee is downwind from a forest?

Thanks to the OP for sharing this. I don't know enough about the arguments for and history of fuel management projects in the region to comment, but I do believe such a project will be disruptive to the Pine Mountain ecosystem and to the human experience of Pine Mountain for some time. With that in mind, it seems reasonable to at least adhere to the NEPA guidelines around ecosystem impact study. Clearly not everyone agrees as to whether or not such logging is kosher, so due diligence and public input are warranted. 

Can someone post a link to where we should send public comment emails to. I clicked the link in the OP and it took me to the website of Los Padres ForestWatch , who wanted MY name and email from the jump (which I am not OK giving them as I don't know anything about them). I also could not find anything in a quick scan of the proposal.
Thanks

NickMartelwrote: Can someone post a link to where we should send public comment emails to. I clicked the link in the OP and it took me to the website of Los Padres ForestWatch , who wanted MY name and email from the jump (which I am not OK giving them as I don't know anything about them). I also could not find anything in a quick scan of the proposal.
Thanks

cara.ecosystem-management.org/Public/CommentInput?Project=58012

When you electronically submit a comment, your name and address are requested to help establish that you are a real person who hasn’t already submitted a comment. You can comment anonymously, but you won’t be allowed participation in the administrative review. The last day to comment is June 30, although this form says it’s August 14.

Big thanks to the OP for putting this on the radar.

The organizing/host group behind the petition (Los Padres ForestWatch) is an invaluable asset and ally to the wildlands we love.

If you're curious about the history of LPFW successes on your behalf, read below:
https://lpfw.org/fifteen-years-of-conservation-victories/

And then make your voice be heard!
https://forestwatch.p2a.co/vWmxfK0

Here's one of the past issues described by lpfw,
which is relevant to recreational access in California.
>>>
"For nearly a century, the public has traveled along a popular route leading to swimming holes, unique geologic formations, and the beautiful Matilija Falls in the Matilija Wilderness Area of the Los Padres National Forest near Ojai. But in 2009, an adjacent landowner began discouraging the public from using the area. ForestWatch formed an association of several local organizations and trail users and began negotiations with the landowner. After years of little progress, the association—known as Keep Access to Matilija Falls Open—filed legal documents in 2015, asking a judge to declare a permanent public easement through the property so that the public could continue to access the falls in perpetuity.
Hikers visiting Matilija Falls in 1910.
Based on longstanding California law dating back to the 1850s and affirmed several times by the California Supreme Court, a public right-of-way exists if five or more years of continuous public use can be shown predating 1972. As a result of our legal efforts, the landowner agreed to establish a permanent public easement across his property so that current and future generations can continue to enjoy this corner of the Los Padres National Forest."

Another accomplishment
https://lpfw.org/californias-lead-ammunition-ban-for-hunting-goes-into-full-effect/

I finally read some of the proposal.
So far it seems like a somewhat reasonable fuels reduction project to thin the woods, not to cut it all down.
And the largest trees will generally be protected.  (Not what was suggested above).  So it is not an old growth logging scheme.   see page 18:
"Consistent with the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule, generally only smaller diameter timber would be cut or removed within the inventoried roadless area. Within the project area, trees range between 1-inch up to 64 inches diameter at breast height. The project is proposing to thin the lower one-half of the diameter class level within the inventoried roadless area between less than 1-inch and 23.9 inches diameter at breast height. Large trees are defined by the Forest Plan as those larger than 24 inches diameter at breast height (LMP Part 2). Small trees are those less than 24 inches diameter at breast height. Trees 24 inches diameter at breast height and larger would be retained within the project’s inventoried roadless area unless removal is needed for safety reasons or dwarf mistletoe infestations."

page 19:  However,  proposal will cut about 3/4 of all trees under 24inches, which does seem like a lot.   I don't think the point of trees in southern California is to be cut down to save the homes a few miles away.  It's mostly the responsibility of those homes to provide their own firebreaks on their own land.
https://www.noozhawk.com/article/dan_mccaslin_reyes_peak_on_pine_mountain_thinning_proposal_for_old_growth
page 11 shows 1930 typical tree density.
page 4-7 shows the project size and fire risks.
page 10   good map of other fires in the area
page 3  Figure 3 is a little misleading since it is cropped exactly to not show the Thomas fire just south of the edge.

FYI  in general, When you need info on a project, start by searching for the NF SOPA page.   In this case "Los Padres National Forest SOPA"
leads to:  https://www.fs.fed.us/sopa/forest-level.php?110507  Click on the most recent quarter.
Then scroll down to find the project of interest.   https://www.fs.usda.gov/project/?project=58012
which will include all the official materials,  including how to comment,
https://cara.ecosystem-management.org/Public//CommentInput?Project=58012
and will show for example the comment period is extended to AUGUST 14