Edvard Pettersson

(CN) — A group of conservation organizations asked a Ninth Circuit panel on Monday to overturn a lower court judge and vacate the U.S. Forest Service's approval of forest thinning in Southern California.

The Forest Service has violated the National Environmental Policy Act by relying on so-called categorical exclusions to avoid completing a standard environmental review for the logging project on Pine Mountain Ridge in Ventura County, Margaret Hall, an attorney for the organizations, told the appellate panel in San Francisco.

Such categorical exclusions, Hall said, can only be used when there are no significant impacts or extraordinary circumstances. The Forest Service, however, ignored evidence of the significant impact the project may have on Native American cultural and religious sites, she argued.

Reyes Peak, the tallest point on Pine Mountain Ridge, is a well known observation point saturated with cultural and ceremonial significance, Hall said. There are also documented Chumash trails and trail shrines in the project's area as well as cited evidence of medicinal plants and "grinding bowls," she said.

"The peak itself?" asked U.S. Circuit Judge Ronald Gilman, a Bill Clinton appointee sitting with the panel by designation from the Sixth Circuit, when trying to determine whether there were any specific sites such as burial mounts in the project's area. "That's just a place of reference, but OK, so what?"

"The agency didn't even attempt to analyze impacts to the peak," Hall responded. "It didn't say 'we've looked at Reyes Peak, in light of these comments, and we determined there are no significant impacts.' It entirely failed to consider that problem."

The project's purpose — to reduce the likelihood of a massive wildfire and to combat insect infestation — wasn't relevant to whether the Forest Service needs to analyze the impact under the National Environmental Policy Act before it can proceed, she added.

Hall said the Forest Service also ignored impacts on roadless areas on the assumption that no large trees would be removed. The project, however, allows for exemptions to remove some large trees from the area, according to the attorney. In addition, the service ignored the possibility that project's area could be designated as a wilderness area.

The Forest Service wants to "thin" 755 acres of land, mostly within Los Padres National Forest, to reduce wildfire risk. But seven environmental groups, the city of Ojai and Ventura County say the agency violated federal law by using an expedited environmental review process.

The service's decision, made in May 2020 during Donald Trump's last full year as president, aims to "to improve forest health by reducing mortality risk, provide safe and effective locations from which to perform fire suppression operations, to slow the spread of a wildland fire," according to the agency's decision memo. Dense forests, it argues, are susceptible to both fire and disease.

U.S. District John Walter in Los Angeles last year sided with the Forest Service and granted the agency summary judgment on the conservationists' claims.

An attorney for the Forest Service told the appellate panel that, contrary to what the conservationists claim, the agency considered the impacts the project may have on cultural and religious resources and that the project specified only narrow exceptions to cut down large trees.

U.S. Circuit Judge Kim McLane Wardlaw, another Clinton appointee, and U.S. Circuit Judge Daniel Collins, a Trump appointee, rounded out the panel, which did not say when or how it will rule.