Kimberly Baker inspecting logging within the Orleans Community Fuels Reduction project.

I work with the Klamath Forest Alliance and EPIC to protect and defend our North Coast Watersheds. Our organizations strongly support the Traditional Ecological Knowledge and cultural management techniques of the Tribes. This is a very brief rendition of a very heated story. The Orleans “Community Fuels Reduction” Project (OCFR) is a tangled mess of broken assurances. Four years ago the Orleans Ranger District on the Six Rivers National Forest came to the community and the Karuk Tribe with a map and a Healthy Forest Restoration Act (HFRA) plan. Forced collaboration from the start got this project off on the wrong foot. After hundreds of meetings, field trips and discussions it has proven to be worse than we all imagined.

The OCFR plan consists of treating over 2,500 acres-1,404 acres of hand thinning and commercial logging on 1,179 acres. Within the Panamniik World Renewal Ceremonial Area, which is culturally and spiritually significant to the Karuk Tribe, 941 acres of treatments are proposed.

It is hard to know where to begin listing the violations of laws and promises. Each purpose and need spelled out by the agency has run counter to their word in the Environmental Impact Statement.

1) Reduce hazardous fuels and promote restoration of fire-adapted ecosystem functions.

A 10-foot width limit was identified in the EIS for skyline logging corridors and on average they are 20-40 feet wide. Most of these corridors seem to target the largest, most fire resistant trees, many over 4 feet in diameter. Collectively these swaths of open forests will lead to increased brush growth, which increases the fire risk. Canopy closure in these stands is now less than the 60 percent that was pledged.

2.) Enhance cultural values associated with the Panamniik World Renewal Ceremonial District

In order to secure logging equipment, cables (guy-lines) are wrapped around large trees and in effect these trees are mortally damaged. Large tan oak trees that are in very sensitive areas have been damaged. Logging equipment has been parked in spiritually sensitive areas. The EIS promised the use of different equipment in these logging units so this would not happen. Furthermore, non-local crews did hand thinning with no regard to cultural interests, including slashing hardwoods.

3.) Improve forest health and promote stand diversity

Throughout the EIS the Forest Service emphasizes the importance of hardwood species not only from a forest health perspective, but also from a traditional ecological perspective and it assures hardwood retention and protection. However there is an economic incentive for cutting these trees for firewood and that is what this logger has done. Hundreds of “protected” hardwoods have been cut. Not only is this devastating to forest health but will also increase the risk of fire.

It doesn’t end there. Tyrone Kelly gave his word in the EIS and in person that “Multiparty monitoring would be an effective way to build trust and collaborate with local communities and diverse stakeholders including interested citizens and Tribes. As contracts develop, we will continue to work with collaborators to establish priorities for implementation and monitoring.” Well, up until a couple weeks ago, because of pressure from bad press, Tyrone said that he would not allow or take any part in monitoring. He said it was a conflict of interest. The collaborative group was supposed to have access to files, contracts and basic information. We had to send in formal Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests for the project file (minus the culturally and endangered species information), which any citizen in the country is allowed access. Even then thy have denied our request saying that it was not specific enough. Where will it end?

In his book Doug Bevington describes the three types of environmental organizations that have been prominent in the United States from the 19th century to the present. He defines the earliest traditional type of environmental groups as National Environmental Organizations. A few examples include: the Sierra Club, the Wilderness Society, the National Parks and Conservation Association, and National Wildlife federation. These groups all use an insider strategy to pursue their environmental goals. Insider strategy entails the use of lobbyists and conventional political participation. These groups receive the most funding and have been able to make connections in government. The problem with big National Environmental Organizations is that they are often forced to make big compromises in order to keep their position within government.

Bevington uses the group Earth First! to demonstrate the new radical environmentalists that were prompted to attack in part because of the shortcomings of National Environmental Organizations. Their slogan is “no compromise in defense of mother earth.” This group used an outsider strategy, taking direct action to fight against environmental injustice. This group was not interested in political compromises and didn’t avoid confrontation or conflict. For example they often used their own bodies in protest by sitting in trees or lying in front of bulldozers. While their tactics drew attention, they failed to promote long-term solutions

His main focus is on the emergence of Grassroots Biodiversity Groups. These groups arose as a third path between the effectiveness of National Environmental Organizations and the uncompromising nature of Earth First!. These groups are made up of a small number of intelligent specialists such as environmental lawyers. They use litigation as a powerful tool to ensure that environmental laws are enforced and that biodiversity is protected. The tactics Grassroots Biodiversity Groups create long-term beneficial results. Bevington argues that these groups are so successful because they are both influential and uncompromising (complete text available here).

EPIC and our allies look forward to hosting a public forum in February on the issue and will host a number of activities before the final Environmental Impact Report and Environmental Assessment publication, expected at the beginning of March. Once the final proposal is released, the agency has indicated it will not accept further comment on the plan. Charlie Fielder, Director of District 1 Caltrans, reported to EPIC that planners have made major changes to the original proposal. Last week Humboldt Supervisors Mark Lovelace and Cliff Clendenen attended a private tour of the proposed changes within the grove. These changes have not been made public and local southern Humboldt media coverage shocked even those close to the issue.

Stay tuned! Sign up on EPIC’s Save Richardson Grove Listserv here. You can donate to EPIC’s Richardson Grove campaign here.

We hope you enjoy the billboard.

EPIC wants to offer special thanks to all of the volunteers that made this project possible, including Aliana Knapp-Prasek, Jefferson, Bob Slayton, Bruce Edwards, Barbara Kennedy and local sponsoring businesses who supplied the materials.