Below are most of the questions that we were not able to answer in our recent webinar about the Pine Mountain logging and chaparral removal project. If you missed the webinar, you can watch it here:
And remember to visit LPFW.org/pine to submit a comment!
Q: What is Chaparral?
A: Great question! We were able to answer this during the Q&A portion of the webinar. But if you’re still curious about chaparral, we highly recommend checking out the California Chaparral Institute for more information. They are also one of our partners pushing back on this particular project. Visit californiachaparral.org for more information.
Q: Will the dwarf mistletoe eventually kill the tree?
A: Like any parasite, our native dwarf mistletoes can eventually kill their hosts. This can take a long time with dwarf mistletoe, but it does happen to some extent. One of the reasons this plant is important is because it is a natural source of tree mortality over long periods of time. This is critical to maintaining balance in the ecosystem.
Q: Is LPFW requesting an EIS or EA?
A: For those unfamiliar with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process, there are essentially three scenarios for a project in terms of environmental review: categorical exclusion (CE), environmental assessment (EA), or environmental impact statement (EIS). A CE is the fastest process and involves the least amount of environmental analysis. These CEs often act more as loopholes to avoid preparing an EA or EIS for larger projects, which are both more rigorous analyses. An EIS is the most robust environmental review document an agency can prepare. This type of document is relatively rare, but there are occasions when the Forest Service must develop an EIS. For this project, the agency is attempting to use two CEs, and we believe that the agency is using them incorrectly at the expense of thorough environmental review and public input. If the project is to move forward, we are asking the agency to prepare an EA at minimum.
Q: How hopeful are you guys that we can really stop this on a legal basis?
A: Hopefully the agency will determine that the project is unnecessary and will involve serious impacts, therefore dropping it altogether. If they proceed without preparing an EA, our only option to have changes made to the decision or to stop the project altogether will be to go to court. We don’t yet know if this is what will happen. We’re currently looking at all the possibilities and are working on laying the groundwork for a legal case if necessary.
Q: What can I do to help out?
A: If you haven’t already, please submit a comment by visiting LPFW.org/pine. You can also donate to our Pine Mountain Defense Fund, which will help us conduct wildlife and plant surveys, prepare our own technical documents, and mountain a legal challenge if necessary.
Q: What is the Forrest service justification for removing trees impacted by dwarf mistletoe?
A: The agency is using an outdated view of dwarf mistletoe that is rooted in industrial forestry. When forests are treated as crops of timber, anything that can weaken trees or eventually cause mortality is considered a bad thing. The science, however, indicates that dwarf mistletoe is an important component of healthy forests.
Q: Can you share those internal forest service memos publicly?
A: Yes, you can read them here and here.
Q: Has there been a logging company that has already been contracted?
A: Contracting wouldn’t begin until after the final project decision is made. However, we know from two recent similar proposals near Iwihinmu/Mt. Pinos and another project we successfully challenged in court in 2006 that there are logging companies interested in doing this type of work in the Los Padres National Forest.
Q: Where would the timber be sold?
A: That is unclear at the moment. The nearest mill is in Terra Bella and belongs to Sierra Forest Products. That company expressed interest in a post-fire salvage logging project in 2006 that we successfully challenged in court.
Q: Do we have effective strategies for restoring habitat where fire breaks have injured chaparral?
A: Unfortunately it is very difficult to restore chaparral after it has been type converted to non-native grasses and weeds. It can be done on small scales, but even then it is difficult and requires intensive work. Our best strategy at this point is to prevent further loss of these habitats to unnecessary backcountry projects.
Q: Would tree cutting and sales be economically feasible?
A: Yes, especially considering the administration’s move last year to lower the base price of timber that has a lengthy distance to market.
Q: Can you emphasize how important it is for us to donate to your efforts, and what other orgs are getting involved alongside you?
A: Most of our funding is through donations from individuals or grants from foundations. We simply cannot do this work without our amazing supporters. Fighting this project takes an immense amount of time and effort, so any donations are greatly appreciated and helpful. We’re working with several other groups on pushing back on this project. We will post a list of all of our partners soon, but our first web post about this project includes quotes from our partners at John Muir Project of Earth Island Institute and the California Chaparral Institute.
Q: How are they able to use the loophole when it was for gates and painting? Do you know the wording they’re using? I guess I’m just looking for more details on how this part of it all is working.
A: Originally, CEs (the loopholes) were intended for small activities like installing a gate or painting a bathroom. Over the last few decades, more and more CEs have been created either by the agency itself or by Congress. Some of these CEs are very vague and the agency interprets them to cover large, potentially damaging projects such as this. Whether or not the agency correctly used a CE is one of the primary issues in court cases for these types of projects.
Q: What do you think of a controlled burn project instead this proposed project?
A: Prescribed fire (sometimes called controlled burning) could have fewer impacts, but there are many factors that have to be considered. This would include vegetation type, the season it would be conducted, whether large fire lines would have to be cleared to prevent escape, etc. In chaparral, the use of prescribed fire can be very damaging if done during the wrong time of year, and this can also be true in forests. Additionally, prescribed fire in chaparral can contribute to what is generally already a problem of overly frequent fire, though Pine Mountain has not yet experienced this issue. You can read more about this here. Regardless, we would still advocate that the agency prepare an EA if they were going to be doing prescribed burning over such a large area.
Q: Is there any kind of action/intervention that the Forest Service could take in the region that reduces catastrophic fire risk but avoids significant ecological damage?
A: The science has consistently shown that actions taken immediately adjacent to homes and communities are much more beneficial for fire mitigation than actions taken in the backcountry. We have long advocated that the agency direct their efforts to these areas next to communities. Over a decade ago, we supported two projects that helped landowners create defensible space for their homes if they lived along the national forest boundary and needed to do vegetation management on national forest land. We also believe that the agency can be doing more to address ignition prevention, especially as it relates to powerlines that cross national forest land, as well as preventing invasive plants from spreading across the landscape. In general, however, we believe that society needs to change its approach to dealing with wildfire by focusing more time and resources on actions such as home hardening, community shelters, and limiting development in fire-prone areas. You can read more about some of those positions here.
Q: Why is it more beneficial to the forest service to begin logging more in Southern California vs elsewhere? And is there any forest that is a “good candidate” for being logged in the way that’s proposed?
A: Overall, the Trump administration is directing the agency throughout the country to increase logging in national forests. Doing this type of work in the southern California national forests would help the regional office show that they are meeting targets and quotas. Additionally, southern California forests have some of the last remaining unlogged forests in the state.
Q: If they prepare an EA, would it be honest and should we trust they care what it says?
A: We have certainly seen poorly prepared EAs. However, the EA process allows for more public input and an objection period, which helps hold the agency accountable for its decisions.
Q: When can we expect the Central Coast Heritage Protection Act to go into effect and will this protect the areas that overlap with the project area?
A: That legislation is still in the Senate, and it’s unclear if and when it will pass or if it would be signed by the current president. If these areas were designated wilderness, however, it would be essentially an automatic requirement to conduct at least an EA.
