Are these people pyromaniacs, arsonists or crazy. Instead of wanting to prevent fires, they want MORE fires. How? By not managing the forest and cleaning up dead trees and brush.
““While we share the goal of protecting communities and improving ecological resilience to wildfire,” the letter reads, “we remain concerned that the current project proposal is unnecessarily broad in scope, lacks critical environmental safeguards, and falls short of providing the site-specific analysis needed to ensure ecological integrity and public safety.”
The downsize was a step in the right direction, they said, but left “significant room for improvement.” They charge that the current rendition of the project would disturb sites sacred to local tribes, intrude into untouched wilderness, and remove vegetation across more than 26,000 acres of critical habitat where endangered and threatened species like California red-legged frogs and condors “cling to survival.”
Instead, the groups want to see a “community alternative” that reduces the Forest Service’s plan by 83 percent, “avoids ecologically critical areas, and focuses vegetation treatments in areas close to communities where they are most effective.”
Actually, the environmentalists are right. We should cut the plan down by 83%. By the time they start the Plan a forest fire will burn it all and we will not have to pay for the proper management. Instead, let it burn, do no send in the firefighters (just as they do in Portland, Seattle and now Los Angeles). Let it burn, then the environmentalists can blame government for doing nothing.
Environmentalists Oppose Largest-Ever Los Padres Vegetation Removal Project
While Forest Service Has Downsized Project, Opponents Argue There Is Room for Improvement
By Callie Fausey, Independent, 6/9/25 https://www.independent.com/2025/06/09/environmentalists-oppose-largest-ever-los-padres-vegetation-removal-project/?fbclid=IwY2xjawK1hNtleHRuA2FlbQIxMQBicmlkETFMb1RXYm5NN1VIRWs2NFlrAR58oe7IFZGq6ETGbpMvnp_WQ4d4oxizVODD3GJxYVi5R4ZjUTYv5GfMv0zzrw_aem_eHdmzxlyGAt5NYM8atMLdg
A historically large vegetation removal project in Los Padres National Forest was downsized last month, but environmental organizations are still sounding the alarm about the U.S. Forest Service’s plans.
When it was first announced in 2022, the Wildfire Risk Reduction Project (formerly the Ecological Restoration Project) outlined vegetation removal and tree thinning across 235,000 acres of the forest.
In April, the Forest Service released the draft environmental analysis for the project, having reduced it by more than 140,000 acres, down to 90,796, and giving it a new name to boot.
However, as noted by the nonprofit Los Padres ForestWatch, it would still constitute the largest vegetation removal project in the forest’s history.
“We received comments during our initial scoping period about the name; as well as other things,” said Kyle Kinsport with the Forest Service. “We decided it necessitated another look, and what we call it now is better aligned with the project’s purpose and intent.”
Both the Forest Service and the forest watchers claim to have the land’s best interest at heart. Spanning nearly two million acres in Central and Southern California, Los Padres is a lush and diverse landscape, known for its mix of coastal mountains, redwood trees, and desert-like ecosystems. A large portion of the forest lies in Santa Barbara County, where much of the work will take place.
The Forest Service says the project is centered on “forest health,” and increasing resilience to wildfire. That includes fuel breaks and defense zones — sites with less vegetation to give firefighters some ground to stand on and add a buffer between blazes and nearby communities. Chaparral-dominant areas in California, it notes, are burning much more frequently now than ever before. It also claims the work will help improve conditions to protect forested areas from “environmental stressors” like drought and insect infestation.
According to the Forest Service, planned treatments will include the mechanical thinning of trees, piling and burning of vegetation, mowing and weed whipping, prescribed fire, targeted grazing, and planting and seeding, which “may limit public access while work is being done.”
It anticipates up to 10,000 acres of treatments on average that would be implemented annually over multiple years.
But while wildfire preparation is often the expressed intent behind forest “treatments” such as this, environmentalists make it seem like a scapegoat. They argue that alternative methods of wildfire preparation, such as home hardening, should be the first resort, not clearing acres of forest.
On June 2, 91 environmental, tribal, and community organizations submitted a joint letter asking the service to significantly reduce the size of the project and to prepare a full Environmental Impact Statement.
“While we share the goal of protecting communities and improving ecological resilience to wildfire,” the letter reads, “we remain concerned that the current project proposal is unnecessarily broad in scope, lacks critical environmental safeguards, and falls short of providing the site-specific analysis needed to ensure ecological integrity and public safety.”
The downsize was a step in the right direction, they said, but left “significant room for improvement.” They charge that the current rendition of the project would disturb sites sacred to local tribes, intrude into untouched wilderness, and remove vegetation across more than 26,000 acres of critical habitat where endangered and threatened species like California red-legged frogs and condors “cling to survival.”
Instead, the groups want to see a “community alternative” that reduces the Forest Service’s plan by 83 percent, “avoids ecologically critical areas, and focuses vegetation treatments in areas close to communities where they are most effective.”
Kinsport, however, maintained that the service is looking to protect, not destroy. “We’re not removing larger diameter, mature old-growth-type trees. We want to promote those large trees,” he said. “The idea is to restore those areas to a composition that is what they used to look like before we got real active with fire suppression. So that’s the idea: protect the forest.”
The ForestWatch has also expressed concerns about the removal of trees through timber sales, but Kinsport said that they usually chip or burn the removed vegetation. “For trees and stuff, there is an opportunity to sell it potentially, but we haven’t been too successful in the past,” he said. “There are no mills nearby. Usually, we have to pay to remove it.”
It’s not the first time the ForestWatch has objected to the service’s plans, which they charge has taken on a “misguided” rake-the-forest mentality repeatedly promoted by the Trump administration. The advocates recently appealed an approved 755-acre tree-thinning project atop Pine Mountain and Reyes Peak — which touted the same purpose of wildfire resilience — but lost in court.
“To be clear, reducing wildfire risk is a laudable and necessary goal — our neighborhoods depend on it,” said Los Padres ForestWatch executive director Jeff Kuyper. “Unfortunately, the Forest Service’s plan continues to rely on an outdated fire mitigation approach by clearing vegetation in remote areas, far away from where any of us live. The Community Alternative minimizes damage to our wild places and advances more effective solutions closer to home.”
The Forest Service has received more than 1,000 public comments on the Wildfire Risk Reduction project, building on an earlier comment period from which they used feedback to refine the project. They are starting to go through the newest comments now, submitted between May and June this year, some of which are positive and some of which provide “feedback suggesting different approaches along the lines of what the ForestWatch has submitted,” Kingsport said.
As the service reviews comments, “We are hopeful that they will seriously consider our Community Alternative, and we have already reached out to begin a conversation towards this better approach,” Kuyper said.
The news comes at an interesting time, as Trump recently nominated Michael Boren, founder of a billion-dollar tech company, to oversee the National Forest Service. Boren has repeatedly butted heads with the very same agency, including flying a helicopter dangerously close to a crew building a Forest Service trail and building an unauthorized cabin on National Forest land.
“In this case, we hope Senators ask the nominee tough questions about whether his conflicts of interest make him suitable to oversee the Forest Service,” Kuyper said of the nomination.
A decision on the Wildfire Risk Reduction project is expected by the end of the year, according to the Forest Service. Implementation of the project could begin as soon as January 2026.
To learn more about the project and its timeline, visit fs.usda.gov/r05/lospadres/projects/62369.
