Willow Creek Controversy

A Willow Creek Controversy

To: Editor Russian River Times
Re: "Willow Creek News," July 30-Aug 13

Editor:

Jay Halcomb didn't quite get it right in his reporting on Western Watershed Alliance's court date regarding Willow Creek [see: Willow Creek News]. Judge Sawyer did not rule on the merits of the case, but turned back the petition because of various procedural errors. A hearing on the merits will resume at a later date. Meanwhile, litigation has not even begun on the larger timber harvest plan (THP- 136) which represents two thirds of the area Mendocino Redwood Company wants to log.

At issue is the health of the beautiful Willow Creek watershed and its potential future restoration as a viable habitat for salmon. steelhead, and other endangered species. Sadly, some local forest watchers have bought into Mendocino Redwood Company's PR line that they plan to restore the watershed while logging it. This is nothing but an allegation, backed up by nothing; no science, no studies, no measurements, nothing. There is nothing in their THP to guarantee that they will not make the situation in the creek worse than it already is. That is illegal and that is what the litigation is about, for more detailed information, call WWA 865-0224.

Sincerely ,
Pieter S. Myers for WWA
P.O. Box 190
Occidental, CA 95465
August 4,1999

To: Editor, Russian River Times
A Reply to Pieter Myers

August 8, 1999

Dear Pieter,

We agree, Pieter, that Willow Creek is in bad shape, partly due to years of overlogging by Louisana Pacific, partly for other reasons. Where you and I disagree is on the remedy. You think Nature should run her course; although that's often wise, I think it's not good enough in this case. I think that current and planned restoration measures, including the planned THP mitigations, will bring long-term relief

Thus, in the last year RRRAULians have donated hundreds of dollars worth of materials to Trout Unlimited's Willow Creek restoration work; have helped with fencing and dams, and have helped plant some 600 redwood trees beside the Creek.

As to the merits of the recent WWA legal request, the following are among Judge Sawyer's statements from the transcript on THP 100: "First of all, the evidence submitted convinces the Court that the petitioner will not succeed on the merits of this particular action. And I have several reasons for that.... as to whether there was a failure to evaluate cumulative impacts.... this is simply a bald assertion on the part of the petitioner... the Spittler [DMG geologist] memorandum discusses at length the cumulative impacts related to sedimentation and the mitigation measures designed to actually improve the sedimentation problem caused by previous logging....With regard to the mitigation measures, the evidence shows that extensive mitigation measures will be taken and that the real party will spend about $44,000 to actually improve existing problems with regard to sedimentation in the area...

...that leads the Court then to the conclusion that the petitioner will not succeed on the merits of this action. The other test that the Court employs in deciding on preliminary injunctions is whether there will be irreparable harm as a result of the timber harvest plan... the petitioners do not offer any evidence of what amount of sedimentation is likely to occur as a result of this THP; nevertheless, the real party has offered evidence of plans to address the sedimentation problems in Willow Creek in its mitigation measures proposal, and thus the net effect, according to the evidence currently available to the Court, is that the long-term effect of THP 100 will be a positive rather than a negative impact...."

Sincerely,
Jay Halcomb, Chair
RRRAUL