Fourteen months after Caltrans closed public comment on the draft plan for the Richardson Grove Improvement Project, they have certified the final documents. EPIC and Center for Biological Diversity are teaming up to challenge the plan, as outlined in a media release sent out Thursday. If what you really want to do is “take action now ” (to send a letter to decision makers opposing this disastrous project) click the link.

The agency has stated publicly that they will refuse any further public input on the plan, and have made promises to survey for federally listed species like marbled murrellets to ensure the project does not damage habitat protected by hard fought environmental laws. Unfortunately, EPIC’s research shows clearly that nothing was done to offer the public adequate opportunities to participate in the planning process, and the agency does not, in fact, plan to do their own surveys.

In addition, Caltrans has not bothered to communicate with local businesses, who plan to close their doors for the full duration of the project.

“This project is going to close me down for the entire duration of the construction, and after two bad economic years, it’s hard to face yet another,” said Dan Beleme, a local businessman who owns the tourist attraction One Log House near Garberville. “A lot of the local businesses here may not make it back at all. There are other options that are not even being explored and many other ways to solve the trucking issue without ruining the environment of the area.”

Perhaps some of the most steadfast opposition to the project comes from the InterTribal Sinkyone Wilderness Council, comprised of ten federally recognized Tribes. The organization has sent representatives to virtually all of the public events surrounding the issue, and prepared a stongly worded Statement of Purpose. The Council Chair, Priscilla Hunter submitted the following statement May 13.

“Since time immemorial, the Grove has held and still holds great cultural and spiritual significance for local Indigenous Tribal Peoples, some of whom trace their ancestry to this place. Our stance to defend Richardson Grove is founded on our respect for the ancient traditional belief of local Tribal Peoples that the Grove’s redwood trees are a precious and sacred part of our Mother Earth.”

All of this without mention of the core resistance to the project, the individual members of the Coalition to Save Richardson Grove. With an eye for detail, process and strategy, the local Save Richardson Grove Coalition has provided EPIC, decision makers and the public with much of the information lacking within Caltrans’ planning documents.

Green Diamond has been extremely busy preparing and submitting logging plans in 2010. The timber giant is by far the most frequent logging plan submitter in 2010.  So far in 2010, Green Diamond is responsible for 23 of the 43 plans filed in the North Coast Region. These 23 plans cover a total of 1,935 acres.

While some of this acreage can be accounted for by road construction and no-harvest areas, the vast majority of this logging will be clearcut with some selection near streams and rivers.  These logging operations are planned for a wide range of watersheds from Maple Creek, to Mad River, to Little River,  Redwood Creek and even Lower Klamath River tributaries. Many of these watersheds are currently suffering from impacts resulting from past logging. Furthermore, many of these watersheds show a present concentration of logging activity, such as Maple Creek, and the Headwaters Little River.

The proposed clearcut logging operations will destroy important habitat for Northern Spotted Owls and Pacific Fisher. Sediments, debris, and unstable failures resulting from these primarily clearcut logging operations threaten to choke streams vital the survival and recovery of Coho, Chinook, Steelhead, as well as numerous amphibians.

All these plans reference Green Diamond’s ten year future logging plans. In the case of all these watersheds, significant amounts of clearcutting are proposed for the near future. It is clear that Green Diamond will continue on the course of clearcut, burn, spray, and plant mono culture, repeat. As such, species will continue to be at significant risk of habitat loss on Green Diamond lands.

Clearcuts - Gualala, CA

Two new bills affecting commercial timber harvests are being considered by the California Assembly; one good and one bad.

The good bill, A.B. 2575, introduced by Chesbro includes goals to: restore fisheries and wildlife habitat; reduce the risk of wildfire, recover forest characteristics, reduce sedimentation and soil loss; achieve optimum carbon sequestration; and restore and recover unique attributes of a given planning watershed.

The bad bill, A.B. 2163 as explained in comments provided by the author’s office, would “grant THPs extended in 2008 and 2009 (thus, expiring this year and next) four one-year extensions under specified circumstances” resulting in approximately 50-80 THPs becoming eligible for additional extensions under this bill. “By granting a maximum of four 1-year extensions, some of these THPs, by including previous extensions, would be theoretically eligible for a total of six 1-year extensions, two more than that allowed under A.B. 1066.”

The author if the bill has already indicated that this is not his “intent” and has offered to clarify language in A.B. 2163. But regardless of intent, as the bill reads now it is not consistent with the existing THP process and would result in more THP extensions without further environmental analysis. It is important to halt this bill so that unintended THP extensions would not be granted.

TAKE ACTION
Urge your representatives to support A.B. 2575 and to stop A.B. 2163.

Contact the Speaker of the Assembly John A. Pérez (www.asmdc.org/speaker)

Call or email the following conservation-minded Assembly members on the Appropriations Committee:

Looking out over the hills of the North Coast region, the expansive patchwork of clearcuts and young tree plantations marks a stark contrast from the tiny patches of preserved old-growth redwood forests within parks and the Headwaters Preserve. Private timber operators logged for years without effective regulation, and nearly destroyed the integrity of forest ecosystems for all of the species that depend on them. Since the 1970s local community activists and EPIC have worked to support better logging practices and provide habitat protection in our region, by monitoring industrial timber operations through the Timber Harvest Plan (THP) process.

While the process delineated by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE) for reviewing logging plans can be daunting at first glance, improvements in access to information, online mapping tools, and published opinions can help people interested in monitoring THPs participate more easily than ever before. To quickly find information about THPs online, check out thptrackingcenter.org. This website offers summaries of all THPs submitted to CAL FIRE, with interactive maps and links to CAL FIRE documents.

The THP Review Process

The THP review process for logging operations on private lands in California is defined by the California Forest Practice Rules. This set of regulations adopted by the California Board of Forestry is designed to conform to the dictates of the California Forest Practice Act and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Originating from the 1946 Forest Practice Act that was eventually invalidated, legislation to regulate forestry practices led to the Z’Berg-Nejedly Forest Practices Act of 1974 and other related laws. The THP itself is considered equivalent to an Environmental Impact Report under CEQA. To learn more about case history and related laws, see Guide to the California Forest Practice Act, co-authored by EPIC’s staff attorney, Sharon Duggan.

The THP review process is conducted by CAL FIRE, which acts as the lead agency for private logging operations. As the lead agency, CAL FIRE is charged with reviewing each THP to determine whether the project is feasible and complies with existing laws and regulations. CAL FIRE also must determine whether the plan will result in significant impacts on the environment. To make these determinations, CAL FIRE works with a host of other agencies, depending on the location and scope of planned logging operations and the environmental issues raised. The THP is generally sent to the California Department of Fish and Game, the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, the California Geologic Survey, as well as to each county planning commission. In addition, neighboring landowners receive notification that a plan has been submitted, and grassroots forest advocates monitor new THPs as they are filed. (more…)

Stanley Creek in 1979, note people in the middle of the photo.

By Scott Greacen, for Forest & River News

A decade into the 21st century, the US Forest Service is only beginning to face the challenges that nearly overwhelmed it in the 20th. The tension between competing desires to exploit western forests for immediate gain or to protect them to provide for long-term sustainability first drove Teddy Roosevelt to create the National Forest system to secure both forests and key sources of clean, abundant water. But following World War II, the National Forests became the focus of an enormous logging and road-building boom. By the 1970s, the timber extraction boom had begun to create busts for wildlife and water, with salmon populations crashing and serious questions being raised about the long-term viability and desirability of plantation forestry on the public landscape. The reforms that followed, including laws like the National Forest Management Act (NFMA), sought to mitigate but not to challenge the fundamental premise of “multiple-use” management–that the public forests could continue to support functional, productive ecosystems, endless recreational opportunities, and a timber program that would, not incidentally, pay to build and maintain a road network ten times larger than the interstate highway system.

Today, Northwest California’s four National Forests offer a particularly compelling case study of both the risks of continuing down the path of least resistance–of trying to pretend that we can have our cake and eat it too–as well as the potential rewards of setting a new course for the Forest Service, one that focuses on the restoration and protection of ecosystems for the critical services they provide, including clean water, biodiversity, and climate stability.The Obama administration has a critical opportunity on this front to take actions today that could set us collectively on a better course, and so save a great deal of pain in the future. Unfortunately, there is little evidence that the new administration is paying much attention to the National Forest system as such. Today’s opportunities could too easily become tomorrow’s regrets.

Most Americans believe that our National Forests are “protected,” in the vague sense that they are “the green areas on the map.” It’s certainly true that the Forest Service must meet higher standards in managing the National Forests than, for example, industrial logging corporations have to meet in deciding when and how to log on private lands. (more…)

EPIC's Public Forum on Richardson Grove, February 24.

Who could have thought it so controversial for a non-profit, environmental advocacy organization to work to protect an old growth redwood grove from the machines of progress, within a State park?

Over the last several years, EPIC staff and volunteers have pored over documents and kept a watchful eye on the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) in an effort to protect Richardson Grove State Park from a proposal to construct a larger highway through the famed gateway into Humboldt County from the south. The project’s stated purpose is to provide access for federally standardized commercial trucks (STAA) into the region (This is a truncated purpose. To find out more, please download the Caltrans draft EIR).

Did you know that if EPIC and our allies had not forced Caltrans to follow the law and analyze the impacts of their proposed construction, the project would likely have already been built, without environmental analysis or public input? (more…)