SUBMISSION STAGE
THP arrives, sent to "Log-in foresters." Support staff lists it on the bi-weekly list of THPs received, mailed to about 1500 persons; make and distribute nine copies of the THP ( for other agencies and CDF)
Log-in RPFs review, check maps, records of other THPs in area, etc. They DRAFT letter to the submitting RPF. 1. For THPs with the more serious errors (aka 'fatal flaws') , the letter says the THP is returned unfiled, and lists reasons why. However, nearly all such returns also list one or more other errors, which are often more forestry-related than 'mechanical' procedural. 2. For non-returned THPs, the Log-in RPFs DRAFT a letter which lists questions to be answered by the RPF or the agencies before or after the Pre-Harvest Inspection ( PHI).
FIRST REVIEW STAGE
Within ten days, the DRAFT letter and the file go to First Review. ALl THPs in this region are first-reviewed at Santa Rosa. This is the Interagency review. Water Quality recently has acquired staff and sometimes sends comments by e mail, providing questions its reviewers want answered. Fish and Game has been mostly absent at this stage since end of 1987. Public can attend this First Review meeting, and sometimes does. The Chair, after listening to public comnments if any, and further reviewing the file, either approves the draft letter, or adds WQ questions or others,and it is sent to the RPF. If the THP is returned unfiled, the nine copy-recipients are notified. For the THPs NOT returned, A PHI will be arranged by Ranger Unit inpsectors in most cases. The Division of Mines and Geology may ask to be included, or other agency reps may attend, about 10% of the time. Typically the RPF does NOT attend first Review to answer questions, nor does the Ranger Unit RPF who will do the inspection.
PRE-HARVEST INSPECTION STAGE
The Ranger Unit RPF thus has only the paperwork at this point. he will be looking for anwers to the First Review questions in addition to inspecting for all the various elements relevant to that THP's conformance to Forest Practice rules. The Ranger Unit in the approriate district does the inspection -- Mendocino, Sonoma, etc. Depending on workload, size of THP, controversiality of THP or other factors, varying percentages of the area will be visited. Some THPs are not inspected even by CDF; Fish and Game has done very few, and during the Headwaters and Pacific Lumber Habitat Conservation Plan efforts, Water Quality for several years was unable to attend many inspections.
The CDF inspector writes an inspection report. This typically describes the stand conditions. If changes have been agreed to on the inspection, these will be noted. The report will finish with a list of recomendations to be agreed to by the RPF before the THP can be recommended for approval. Any other agency attending also writes a report.
SECOND REVIEW STAGE
Within 15 days (unless extension greed to) the file is reviewed in one of four offices of CDF. Sonoma is the only one in which both First and Second Review are done in the same place. The submitting RPF TYPICALLY does not attend this review either; the Second Review Chair relies on the paperwork ; in Mendocino, the CDF inspector sometimes attends, but not in Sonoma.
After reviewing everything to date, the Second Review Chair writes out a list of required additions or changes, based on the answers to the First Review questions, inspection recommendations, and his own. This is sent to the RPF to sign or disagree with or submit changes to. The file is sent to the Enviromental Review Section, see below. The RPF may accept all the recommendations, or decline others or submit alternative measures. When both CDF and the RPF agree, then the agreed-on changes are made part of the plan, and the THP is finally in final form.
POST SECOND REVIEW STAGE
The E. R. (Environmental Review) section is also known as the O. R. (Official Response) section because it writes the ORs, which typically it begins to do BEFORE recommendation for approval. This document contains the answers to significant questions raised by the public, a CEQA requirement intended for keeping the public in a feed-back loop. This section does not make decisions. On very rare occasions, this section detects something not already taken care of, and contacts someone in a decision-making capacity for an extension of time so that the question can be answered. When the OR writers think all questions have an answer that will withstand court challenge, they send the file to the Resource Manager for the Coast side of Coast Cascade. It is rare for questions to occur at this stage, but on some controversial or difficult plans, or those which still have problems which escaped prior stage review, this may happen. In addition to his regular duties of overseeing the four offices from Santa Cruz to Oregon, this person has to decide on approval of hundreds of THPs a year, based on the paperwork in the file. The approval decision and the ORs are released simultaneously.
POST-APPROVAL STAGE
The public, if unhappy, cannot appeal, has 30 days to file a lawsuit
In theory, all THPs get 4 inspections, including PHI and final. If so, the inspection reports are seldom in the file. The few I have seen are several lines long.
Helen Libeu
RRRAUL Home | Search RRRAUL | News | Logging | Fishery | Watershed | Photographs | Contacts | Organization | Calendar | External Links |