In a first review of two THPs, each one guaranteed to set off fireworks, the California Department of Forestry on Thursday reviewed timber harvest plans No. 253, the Clar Tree plan, and No. 218, the Jack London Grove plan. Russian River Residents Against Unsafe Logging, Citizen's for Watershed Protection, the Russian River Watershed Protective Association, Austin Creek Alliance, and other groups have all expressed considerable interest in these THPs, and members of each group attended the sometimes vociferous meeting.
The Clar Tree harvest plan area contains that famous tree, the county's tallest old growth redwood, which was controversial and litigated over when Lousiana Pacific Corporation logged the area in 1986. The logging area also includes land upon which the county's Russian River Sanitation District has a 99 year lease to spray treated effluent -- right above the Russian River, on property which already experiences landslides. "What will happen to the land when large numbers of redwoods are felled?" a resident of the River asked. A representative of the Sonoma County Water Agency was present at the review to register the County's concerns about that issue, and requested a delay in closing public comment in order to give the Agency time to respond.
Jack London Grove is that tall group of redwood trees dominating the skyline north of Highway 116, starting at Duncan's Mills. The Grove is contained in the larger plan area and is adjacent to TWO OTHER large logging plans, all situated above Austin Creek, which is a major Russian River tributary and prime fish habitat.
The meeting began on a sour note when the CDF representative conducting the meeting announced that he would not permit tape recording of the proceedings. After objection by the public and press attending, it was determined by a Department lawyer that CDF would not prohibit taping at what was essentially a public hearing.
During the session numerous complaints were voiced by the public about both logging plans concerning: public safety (possible landslides, flooding, road damage, and fire danger), effects upon coho and steelhead habitat, effects upon murrelet and osprey, and inadequate and improper silvicultural planning.
The public attending argued that: (1) the THPs in their present incomplete forms shouldn't be accepted by CDF for filing in the first place ("Why should C.D.F. correct a private forester's work, at public expense?", asked one participant), and (2) that other relevant State agencies, such as Fish and Game, Mines and Geology, and Water Quality needed to look especially closely into the special circumstances of these THPs. None of these agencies were present at this review meeting and also don't often attend either preharvest inspections or second reviews.
The National Marine Fisheries Service recently sent a strongly worded criticism to the State Board of Forestry (the agency responsible for formulation and oversight of the Forest Rules), stating that the rules clearly aren't working to protect California's fish. A brief controversy arose over public release of this lengthy and detailed document, which C.D.F. was reluctant to make public. It was released only after the threat, by Helen Libeu, of a Public Records Act lawsuit. See "Infamous NMFS-CDF Letter"
The Dept. of Forestry has a challenge ahead of it: to show the concerned public, including close neighbors of the plans, that considerations of steelhead and coho (both listed as threatened in the Russian River Watershed), ALONG with many other issues, are going to be dealt with adequately. To do this, the Dept. will have to improve upon its usual process of making final answers to the public's questions ONLY when it is too late for a disgruntled public to do anything but file a lawsuit.
CDF CAN start showing that it can adapt its process. When will it? It started behind the 8-ball because the public was notified of the Clar Tree plan ONLY when it appeared on a list of plan submissions sent out just a few DAYS before the first official review of the plan. Word of THAT review was only available to those public who were informed and dogged enough to call CDF and ask the DAY BEFORE if the plan was scheduled to be reviewed the NEXT DAY. Such (completely typical) short notice prevents the public from arriving at the review with much useful information which might figure importantly in CDF's assessements, and also means that the concerned public is in no mood to trust the State Dept. of Foresty -- which itself is only following rules it did not make (the rules are made by the State Board of Forestry). It is just because of such arrangements that the public often considers CDF timber harvest reviews to be hasty steam-roller affairs, and the Forest Practice Rules conformed to more in the breach than in the intent.
Helen Libeu
RRRAUL Home | Search RRRAUL | News | Logging | Fishery | Watershed | Photographs | Contacts | Organization | Calendar | External Links |