Update: Humboldt County Changes Policy to Better Protect Large, Old Trees

In case you missed it, a property owner recently logged five old-growth redwood trees because, he claimed, they were a hazard. In permitting, Humboldt County disclaimed that it had any regulatory ability to review this logging despite an ordinance from 1987 that would have required the property owner to obtain a county permit to remove the trees. And so the logging went forward. Now five old-growth trees have been felled.

In response, EPIC asked our members to reach out to the Humboldt County Planning and Building Department to ask that the Department enforce the existing 1987 ordinance. Over 620 people answered that call. And thanks to your work, the Humboldt County Planning and Building Department is changing its policy. Below is an email received by EPIC: 

Up until 2022 the county required permits associated with CalFire issued permits and exemptions where a permit would be required.  In 2022 a small grove of Redwoods were removed.  We working towards enforcement of this action when the county was called into a meeting with area foresters, and CalFire and it was presented to the County that the Forest Practices Act precludes the County from requiring permits that would supersede a Timber Harvest Plan or exemption from the Forest Practices Act.   Forest Practices Act Section 4516.5 (d) states that “Except as provided in subdivision (e), individual counties shall not otherwise regulate the conduct of timber operations, as defined by this chapter, or require the issuance of any permit or license for those operations.”  Section ( e) is a requirement for performance bonds for the repair of County Roads.  Section 4516.5(a) states that “Individual counties may recommend that the board adopt rules and regulations for the content of timber harvesting plans and the conduct of timber operations to take account of local needs.”  Section 4516.5(a) would not expand to allow the County to issue a separate discretionary permit. 

Since that time the County has stayed away from tree removal done under the authority of the Forest Practices Act.  With this understanding the County signed off on the permit for Hazard Tree Removal.

 As part of the discussion about the removal of the trees in Redway, the department has become aware of a provision in the California Code of Regulations that states;  "Timber Operations conducted under this subsection shall conform to the applicable city or county general plans, city or county implementing ordinances, and city or county zoning ordinances within which the notice of exemption is located. The LTO, timberland owner, or if applicable the RPF, shall certify that the city or county has been contacted and the notice of exemption conforms with all city or county regulatory requirements." 

There seems to be an inconsistency between the premise that the County has been operating under and the California Code of Regulations and possibly how the Forest Practices Act was interpreted to the County.  I am working on developing a better understanding of this and am not ready to say anything conclusively. 

As of now, the Planning and Building Department staff has been instructed to require permits for all activities where a permit would normally be required associated with tree removal.  I know this does not help in the Redway case.

I hope in some small way this helps