Fuel Break Squabble

I recall when SB fire breaks were cleared by sheep herders from a local commune. With the healthy and economical advantages of locally grown organic meat, I am confused why the Forest Service would even need to pay for clearing fire breaks.

I do have a home in Mission Canyon, and here's my input: If you must clear "brush" (=native vegetation), do NOT do so during bird nesting season February to July. There is absolutely no reason why it cannot be done during the rest of the year.

Why can't the forest service get things right the first time?
They are getting free advice from professionals who know what they're doing. If I had my choice, I know which group I'd send my tax dollars too.

Wow, the Forest Service's comments above make it sound like ForestWatch is one of the most effective organizations around. Kudos to them for protecting our local songbirds, and shame on the Forest Service for playing on people's fears about wildfire.

Here's an idea for the Forest Service -- do your job, stop violating the law, and try to work more cooperatively with the public. After all, these are public lands, and the public has entrusted you with them to do the right thing. I'm glad there are groups like Forestwatch around to keep the Forest Service bureaucracy in check.

Just work together and it will work out for everyone...Oh an instead of hiring outside companies to do the work why don't you try local first. People need jobs here too...

Just follow the rules = no money wasted on lawsuits.

Sometimes rattling the lawsuit sabre is the only way to get bureaucrats' attention. As usual, Jeff's position sounds reasonable. Why whack down nests when the work can be scheduled for other times? Firebreaks are necessary. Fire prevention is necessary. Birds are, too.

Any resident who loses their home or has to evacuate due to a fire that could have been prevented by brush clearing should consider joining Forest Watch in a lawsuit, class action perhaps. The sabre can rattle in both directions.

The request/ threat amounts to asking them not to do the work during the low fire risk months (Feb-Jul). Some times, something has to give. Cutting fire breaks reduces fire risks after the fact, but the process itself raises fire risks during the clearing. Doing it in the dry months is foolish. Some reasonable compromise should be able to be reached.

I don't appreciate having Forrest Watch waste spartan Forrest Service time and resources in adversarial ways. Suggest more reasonable solutions; don't threaten to sue.

Becky, our first approach is always one of communication and negotiation. We only rely on litigation when all else fails, as a last resort.

Case in point: We first notified the Forest Service about this nesting songbird issue in 2009, and again in early 2011. When those letters fell on deaf ears, we had two face-to-face meetings with Forest Service staff in January and March 2012. During those meetings, the Forest Service still refused to make reasonable adjustments to their project. That's why we sent them this Notice of Intent. When we repeatedly suggest reasonable solutions (avoid clearing brush from Feb through August) that are required by law, and the Forest Service ignores them, the only other option we have left is to pursue legal remedies.

As we've suggested repeatedly to the Forest Service, they can complete the project outside of the songbird nesting season. This would accomplish their objectives AND protect nesting birds, a win-win for everyone. It's unfortunate that the Forest Service -- in its bureaucratic stubbornness -- would rather go to court than take simple steps to comply with the law. This is our last-ditch effort to get the Forest Service to do the right thing.

Thumbs down to Los Padres Forest Service spokesman, Andrew Madsen, for attempting to turn public opinion against ForestWatch for trying to get the Forest Service to comply with a law that has been on books since 1918. "Us versus them" politics and rhetoric are not what this community needs to understand emotionally charged issues such as wildfire and species protection.

Where are the quotes from independent bird experts on the value of migratory bird species? A further discussion on why the Forest Service cannot seem to accomplish this work during the other EIGHT MONTHS of the year? How about an objective review of the fuel breaks by fire personnel - do these things even work?

I have been up on West Camino Cielo and I have seen these supposed "fuel breaks" and they do not look like any other fuel breaks I have ever witnessed. The areas are constructed haphazardly with some located near the road while other penetrate deep into the chaparral, with patches and stands of untouched vegetation located even within their perimeters. Few, if any, look like they would be useful in a wildfire situation. What I see are fire hazards that contribute to habitat fragmentation, new areas for invasive weeds to take root, and miles of illegal trails constructed where the formerly lush vegetation has been ripped out (you want to start a fire, then keep letting the off-roaders ride their combustion, yes that means fire, engine machines on illegal trails).

If money is an issue, then help homeowners who live in and near the forest create defensible space around their structures - this has been shown over and over again (throughout forests of all types in this country) to be the most effective way to prevent loss of life and property damage in a wildfire. Don't waste it on some Idaho contractor, who no local knowledge of the area, to drive his giant lawnmower randomly around our incredible Los Padres Forest.

Can't teach old government new tricks. The more we cut, the less service and talent we get. You ever had a banker make you a sandwich?

I totally agree with Becky. Sorry Forestwatch, I think you are acting like ducks (bird joke). So, we take weed whackers, tractors, bulldozers and anything that runs on an internal combustion engine and a cutting edge that can hit rocks and cause sparks in thoroughly dried brush and hope that anything else happen differently than on the Jesusita Trail on May 4th? Seems ForestWATCH needs to get some safety glasses! I think you are endangering more song birds and people with your actions. So you are saying maybe November to January? What if there is no or very little rain and an off shore event? Or there is a #$%@# load of rain, and the equipment won't be able to get there and do the job? I bet you the Forest Service knows a lot more about fire prevention/fighting, brush clearing than you do. I doubt the birds will only nest in a 300 foot band on the very top of the mountain. Please stop wasting my tax money with litigation and threats of it.

If you are worried about your tax dollars, you should be protesting at B of A's. We should all be shareholders by now.

Agreed. I wonder if they will make me a sandwich?

I wholeheartedly support the U.S. Forestry Service and its spokesperson Andrew Madsen. These are hardworking, low-paid men and women who serve the people of this great country out of passion and a sense of community responsibility rather than kowtowing to the big money of one special interest group or another. In addition to potentially saving hundreds of millions of dollars in property, many families' homes, (oh, and people's lives!), they are working to preserve one of our nation's most valuable resources: the pristine wilderness. Papering these men's and women's desks with frivolous threats of lawsuits is a waste of taxpayer money. Instead of taking an adversarial stance toward them, how about you strapping a shovel or an axe to your back and parachuting in behind an active fire line to help them do their jobs the next time a big wild fire rages? I love birds. But I love people and their families' homes even more.

I and my neighbors who live in Painted Cave and other mountain communities support well-considered and lawful efforts by the Forest Service and others to plan and implement fire protection measures in our areas. I am confident that I speak for for most of us when I say that we do NOT support careless and illegal efforts by the Forest Service or any other organization in this regard.

In the present instance, I think most of us would join most others in the wider community in thanking ForestWatch for insisting that the Forest Service conduct its planning efforts in full compliance with all legal requirements.

Mr. Madsen's effort to characterize Mr. Kuyper as some kind of misguided troublemaker makes me wonder about Mr. Madsen's fitness to serve as the Public Information Officer of the Forest Service. Mr. Kuyper speaks for ForestWatch, an environmental protection organization whose effective work has earned the respect and support of thousands of citizens throughout the region.

If litigation becomes necessary to make the Forest Service do its work in a lawful manner, many of those thousands will be providing support to ForestWatch.

Lawsuits are a source of income for environmental groups.
Two good reads: http://www.hcn.org/wotr/extreme-green
http://www.eenews.net/assets/2011/07/...

Remember that the tactic is to freeze agencies, to flood them with paperwork to prevent them from doing their job, as Andrew Madsen says.

After you read the second page, remember, they are discussing the time period 1999, to 2005, 6 mil, I think it is safe to say that another 6 mil has been spent in the past 6 years. That is $12,000,000 of your tax dollars going to support private groups.

The assertion by "Tolyabe" that "lawsuits are a source of income for environmental groups" is a clumsy attempt to deflect attention from what is really going in the instant case.

S/he wants the uninformed reader to believe that ForestWatch is an "extreme green" group that uses "lawsuits as a source of income."

If "Tolyabe" could set aside his/her ideological ax-grinding for a moment and take a close look at what is actually going on in this case, s/he might learn a thing or two about the reasons why Congress and state legislatures continue to encourage environmental groups to litigate in the public interest in order to assure that governmental agencies carry out their duties in a lawful manner.

It sounds to me like both groups are trying to do their jobs to the best of their ability. I too live within the forest boundaries and appreciate their efforts to protect us and to keep our forest wild and native. Here's another way to look at the issue:
I can see why the forest service prefers to clear fire breaks after the rainy season and before the start of fire season, which happens to coincide with the nesting habits of these bird species.
My arguments for why the forest service needs to do the clearing in February through May, and not before are:
1) It sometimes doesn't rain much before February (like this year) and the vegetation is still too dry for clearing to be safe
2) If they clear it too early (like during the fall months) and then it rains, the brush will be growing back in earnest by the start of fire season on May 1st.
 
I'm wondering why are they allowed to start clearing after July 10th anyway?  Don't we still have some of our driest months in July, August, September, October?

I repeat, compromise is not a dirty word. Legal action against an underfunded, overworked agency should always be a last resort. This doesn't sound like you're at that point yet.

Among the reasons many "causes" lose credibility is their refusal to consider financial, logistic, or any factors other than their specific narrow goal. It is not a mark of maturity, nor likely to win respect from reasonable people, when you fail to understand that life is almost always a series of compromises.

Most of the time, filing lawsuits when you don't get your way pisses people off, and hurts your cause. Suing government agencies costs every citizen tax dollars, both in diverting resources from their purpose to this response, and in growing the bureaucracy you are challenging. Please don't do it unless and until you have exhausted all other methods.

I’m sick and tired of Forest Watch. They’ve lost their direction over the past couple of years. Their intent to do good for the Forest has been replaced with an objective to nickel and dime the Forest Service over anything they can. We need a new group called Forest Help, or Forest Assist. Forest Watch is no longer helping or assisting anyone outside of themselves. In my opinion they've become more of a detriment than a benefit to our Forest.

I thought by now everybody knew, that you can't have the cake and eat it.

Had to evacuate during the Gap and Jesusita Fires.

I've been up to take a look at the area along West Camino Cielo where the brush clearing is occurring and I can tell you with certainty that this is not a bird-friendly habitat enhancement activity. I lived through the Tea Fire and defended my home in Sycamore Canyon against a wildfire so this is a topic near to my heart. I know there to be value in some of what the Forest Service is doing. However, the law on migratory bird habitat protection certainly applies here and the Forest Service is not above that statute. So what's the issue? It's illegal. Forest Watch has pointed this out. The forest Service has blown it off. Forest Watch has threatened legal action. The Forest Service is digging in their heels with a "frivolous distraction from our duties" argument. You know what? Tough sh**t. Adhere to the law or be held accountable. It's a wonderful system we have here in America where citizen suits are explicitly written into environmental law for precisely this kind of reason. As public servants the forest Service should be setting an example for all of us on sensitivity to the environment they are mandated to protect.

Late to the dance, maybe Jeff or someone can help me understand a bit better:

1) If these fire breaks have been cleared annually for the past forever, then what features exist within these breaks that would attract these migratory birds? It would seem there wouldn't be trees, since its been cleared and stripped of trees. Am I correct to think that these breaks are vacant of migratory birds and have been so for many decades?

2) Does the FS have an official stance as to why they can't do the clearing in the summer? Makes sense that the risk of fire during that time, or the lack of resources (since most fire personnel might be needed elsewhere) are reasons - but I'd like to hear that from the FS directly. Or did I miss that somewhere?

The company contracted to complete the work uses a machine called a masticator which resembles an excavator but instead of a hydraulic bucket it has a blade that acts like a huge lawnmower. This type of machine should not be operated in SB during the summer due to issues related to fires.

This community needs to reach a compromise on what is more important, the birds or all the peoples homes in the foothills. My family lives on a ranch in the front country and personally would like to see this fuel break completed so as to prevent events such as the Gap, Tea and Jesusita Fire.

Forestwatch, instead of issuing this Notice of Intent, why haven't you considered negotiating with the Forest Service on a suitable time to complete the fuelbreak. Litigation should be the last resort and frankly the Forest Service has a little more on their plate than your little organization. Throw them a bone and work with them instead of playing the blame game. Lets provide some solutions instead of just pointing out the problems.

Greenbean - it might help your understanding of the issue if you read ForestWatch's comments to this article (the 10th comment of this list). Seems like they tried to work with the Forest Service for two years to resolve this issue before issuing a Notice of Intent. Are you condoning illegal behavior by government agencies because they are broke and underfunded? Should I be allowed to break the law if money gets tight? I just do not understand how people are willing to look the other way when it comes to complying with the law of the land. What happened to accountability? You can throw a dog a bone, but you can't make him chase it - but a judge can.

Greenbean, we agree that negotiation and communication are key here. That's exactly what we've been doing for the last three years. The discussion first began in 2009, and several email, written, and in-person conversations have occurred since then, most recently in January and March 2012. During all of these conversations, the Forest Service adamantly refused to make reasonable adjustments to their project. That's why we sent them this Notice of Intent. When we repeatedly suggest reasonable solutions (avoid clearing brush from Feb through August) that are required by law, and the Forest Service ignores them, the only other option we have left is to pursue legal remedies.

The County of Santa Barbara, CalFire, and the California Department of Fish & Game all prohibit clearing from Feb thru August to protect nesting birds. In fact, the recently-completed Mission Canyon Community Wildfire Protection Plan (signed by the County and CalFire and prepared by Mission Canyon residents) contains a February through August avoidance period. All we're asking is that the Forest Service get with the program.

BeBe - While some ground-nesting birds can (and do) nest in previously-cleared areas, what we're concerned about is clearing pure stands of native chaparral. This is where birds nest. Fall and early winter would be the ideal time to do this work, before bird nesting occurs.

Interestingly, the Forest Service approved a similar project (a 70 mile wide fuelbreak) in Ojai back in 2006, and imposed a March 1 through August avoidance period. Same bird species, same mountain range, same elevation. That project is currently being implemented, and it's unclear why the Forest Service isn't willing to make this project consistent with past practices.

"Greenbean, we agree that negotiation and communication are key here. That's exactly what we've been doing for the last three years." How ironic that you would say that ForestWatch. From what I see in this article, and your replies, unless the forest service does exactly what you want, when you want, and where you want, you are threatening to sue them. This break was cut long ago, and the birds are gone in this 300ft swath. There is plenty of other habitat in the near proximity. You note the Forest Service clearing other breaks at other times... I don't think they have an infinite amount of people or masticator's laying around and are forced to do it when they can and in conditions that provide the safest opportunity to complete for PEOPLE not song birds. Does the chaparral really grow fast enough in 1 year for the birds to make or break their sustained populations nests in these areas?

Bimboteskie, these are new areas being cleared. We're not talking about areas cleared last year -- we're talking about mature native vegetation, some of which is decades and decades old and provides excellent bird habitat. I encourage you to go out and visit the area to familiarize yourself with it.

Ok, Point taken. How would one know these areas you speak of to be cleared?

Oh Forest Watch, someone needs to start watching you. How many notice of intents to sue have you served the Forest Service since your existence? How many lawsuits have you filed against them? How many FOIA's (freedom of information act) requests have you sent them? How many emails and daily phone calls have you plagued them with? How much money have you made off them with legal fee reimbursement? It seems like you are in the business of harassment and eco litigation and if you're always running around like chicken little crying the sky is falling the sky is falling, hyping these big "threats" all the time, guess you wouldn't have anything to protect or sue, would you? You demand transparency, yet you yourself fail: where is your latest financial report? it appears you are 3 years overdue. Where is your non-profit status 501c tax return— aren't you a little late for 2010? Can you provide us taxpaying citizens this information or are you just going to use our money to keep suing? With all the chaparral we have around here, causing the loss of some bird life along Camino Cielo once in awhile is not going to cause the sky to fall. Maybe that law and it's ridiculous time constraint is what needs a reality check. Get a life...

Maybeso, please check your facts before levying such serious accusations. ForestWatch timely filed its 2010 tax return last year, in accordance with all legal requirements, and it is publicly available on the internet.

maybeso = Lori Rafferty

It had appeared that ForestWatch had filed for several extensions over the last year so now maybe they could re-define the word timely. Questions to seek information are not accusations and many would like the info and answers to the other questions.

...we're talking about mature native vegetation, some of which is decades and decades old and provides excellent bird habitat....

It might be just a coincidence, but I think it also provides excellent fuel.

If you think it's ok to destroy the nesting habitat of federally listed endangered species (technically considered a taking, thus the illegal designation) because "humans are more important" wouldn't it be way more effective to take eminent domain of people's homes in the urban-wildlife interface zone to protect them from wildfire?

Andrew Madsen is the alleged professional "spokesman" for Los Padres National Forest, and by extension, the entire Federal Government?

He is PATHETIC.

Like his predecessors did (yes, really they did) in the 1970s and early 80s, is he next going to say that women should not be wildland firefighters because they are too weak or menstruate?

I thought this particular National Forest learned their lesson on stupid policies and stubbornness by hiring a smarter Forest Supervisor who is supposed to fix these bad attitudes?

And furthermore about this pathetic USFS official speaker, if anyone in Mission Canyon is subject to higher risk to wildfire, is that the fault of the enviro group that wants The Federal Government to comply with the law about protecting migratory bird nesting, or is that the fault of the County government that approved and keeps approving the same residential development up in the wildfire-guaranteed-to-happen zone of Mission Canyon?

Did the Indy reporter Matt Kettmann apply some kind of Jedi Mind Trick to get the official National Forest Federal Government spokesperson to say these absurd, pathetic, fake wedge anti-environmental comments to a news reporter during an on-record interview?

I agree that it would be nice to see if a local contractor could be used instead of an Idaho based company.

I love birds too, but come on people, we are talking about a 300 feet wide swath. By my reckoning, that leaves millions of acres available for bird nesting. Common sense dictates that the best time to cut the brush is after the rains, not before, and not in hot dry weather when a single spark can result in another wildfire.

If everyone cleared a few acres here and a few acres there during bird nesting season, we sure wouldn't have many birds around, would we? That is the whole purpose of having a law to protect bird nests. The law doesn't say to protect bird nests only if it is convenient. It says to protect bird nests, period. Sounds like this law has been on the books for decades. C'mon, Forest Service -- suck it up, follow the law, protect our birds, and do the right thing.