A 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals judge ruled in favor of the U.S. Forest Service’s controversial tree and chaparral removal project in the Pine Mountain area that’s caused contention between the federal agency and local environmental groups.
“Specifically, plaintiffs argue that the Forest Service did not properly evaluate the project’s potential impact on religious or cultural sites, the removal of large trees in the Sespe-Fraizer Inventoried Roadless Area, and the existence of potential wilderness,” Presiding District Judge John Walter stated in the ruling. “But the agency properly analyzed each of these resource conditions as required.”
The Reyes Peak Forest Health Project proposes removing chaparral and trees across 755 acres that extend along Pine Mountain between state Highway 33 and Reyes Peak in Ventura County, bordering Cuyama in Santa Barbara County. The Forest Service approved the project in 2020 as part of an effort to mitigate wildfire impacts and declining health conditions in the area.
About 16,000 people submitted comments against the project when it first went through its public process—with several people and agencies requesting the Forest Service conduct further environmental analysis to better understand the impacts.
The Environmental Defense Center, the Los Padres ForestWatch, Center for Biological Diversity, and Patagonia filed the lawsuit against the Forest Service in 2022. After a federal judge ruled in favor of the Forest Service in July, the group appealed the decision in late September.
“We’re proud to have taken a stand with the community opposing the logging and vegetation clearing on Pine Mountain, and there’s still more work to be done,” Los Padres ForestWatch Executive Director Jeff Kuyper told the Sun. “It was never going to be easy to start with, and we gave everything we could throughout the process, and unfortunately the court just didn’t agree with us on this issue.”
The parties that filed the lawsuit claimed that this project was too large in its scope to be exempt from further environmental assessment.
“It’s a very large logging and vegetation removal project that involves cutting down trees and the mastication of chaparral or grinding up of chaparral,” Environmental Defense Center Deputy Chief Counsel Maggie Hall told the Sun. “The project’s exceptions allow for the removal of large trees; trees that are the largest in that area could be removed under the project’s circumstances.”
The area is rich in cultural sites that are significant to tribes, and that was not considered in analyzing the project, she added.
Trees between 24 inches and 64 inches in diameter would be left alone unless they pose a safety risk to existing roadways or campgrounds, or are infested with disease. Los Padres Project Manager/Forester Gregory Thompson told the Sun that the exemptions are to ensure safety for healthy trees and recreational users or campers in the area and that removing the smaller trees helps protect the larger trees.
“It’s not carte blanche, we don’t want that; we want those trees on that landscape,” Thompson said. “I don’t think you’ll find anyone in the Forest Service that wants to see harm come to our forest. I’d say we take on projects to try and protect it.”
Despite the efforts from the environmental groups, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals judge agreed with the Forest Service in both analyses regarding environmental and cultural site impact. In the ruling, Walter said that the Forest Service consulted with both federally recognized and non-federally recognized tribes and incorporated recommendations from its Cultural Resources Report in the project’s design and found that the Forest Service’s approval track “was not arbitrary or capricious.”
“In fact, the Forest Service determined that the project will likely have a positive impact on Reyes Peak’s long-term sustainability as a cultural resource by slowing the spread of a wildland fire and reducing the potential for the loss of life, property, and natural resources,” according to the ruling.
Environmental groups can petition for a rehearing from the 9th Circuit Court, but as of Nov. 19 all parties were still evaluating next steps.
This article appears in Nov 21 – Dec 1, 2024.