Working Forest Management Plan rules challenged

In 2013 the California Legislature passed SB 904 which created a new logging plan called a Working Forest Management Plan (WFMP).  The industry-dominated Board of Forestry was required to promulgate regulations implementing the WFMP.  True to form, the Board attempted to subvert the strong environmental requirements of the legislation.  Consequently in November Environmental Protection Information Center, Coast Action Group and challenged the regulations in court.  Forest Unlimited has financially supported this suit.

Oral arguments on the case were heard in Alamedia Superior Court on Friday April 20 and members of Forest Unlimited were there.  The Atroney General’s office and a CalFire attorney defended the regulations.  Well know attorney Sharon Duggan represented our side.  Ms. Duggan is the author of Guide to the California Forest Practice Act and Related Laws, a tome used by attorneys and ordinary citizens alike to understand forestry law.

Alan Lavine, Director of Coast Action Group, said “I think we did well in Court.  Sharon Duggan was well prepared and thorough in her presentation on the issues.   The Attorney General’s Deputy was not prepared as she admitted.  Judge was very thorough and had obviously done a lot of reading and studying and was well versed on the details.”

The Judge seemed a little upset with the AG.   For example, in response to one of his cogent questions she had no response.  The judge responded “Really -that is all you have?  Your kidding !, You must have more. That is it?  Huh.”  In contrast, Sharon Duggan did a masterful job.  After viewing Sharons’s performance, Forest Unlimited’s Executive Director Rick Coates commented “It was a pleasure to watch Sharon demonstrate her well-honed skills.  I am optimistic that the judge will rule in our favor.”

We should see the final ruling a week or so.  Hopefully, the Board of Foresty will learn that it can not just do whatever it’s wants and must actually follow the law.  Given their history, we know that is a lot to ask.

Felta Creek Logging Court Dates Set

Friends of Felta Creek have challenged the approval of a logging plan 1-17-017 SON which will damage the salmon run in Felta Creek!

Please attend these court dates if you can. Showing the judge that lots of people care about protecting Felta Creek and stopping this timber harvest plan can only strengthen our case.

May 16, 3:00pm Courtroom 18, 3055 Cleveland Avenue in Santa Rosa is the hearing to hold off timber operations.

August 17, 3:00pm Courtroom 18, 3055 Cleveland Avenue in Santa Rosa is the main trial hearing where Friends of Felta Creek is suing CalFire for approving this THP.

April 13, 2018: Dogwood Logging Plan on the Gualala River is Back!

STOP “Dogwood” floodplain logging plan! Revised version as bad as original.

Rick and Jeanne Jackson
Gualala, CA

APR 13, 2018 — Friends of Gualala River, FoGR, along with Forest Unlimited, is taking legal action against the resubmitted Timber Harvest Plan “Dogwood,”.

This THP that would log in the floodplain of the Gualala River. CAL FIRE approved this Logging Plan on March 30, 2018.  Dogwood contains the largest tracts of mature redwoods in floodplains, beginning at the boundary of Gualala Point Regional Park’s campground and extending up over 5 miles of the river.

These floodplains are wholly special riparian habitats: they are part of the river, which naturally occupies the floodplain when it flows over its banks. It’s a potent natural sediment trap, or “sink” for the silt and clay that runs off of the eroding slopes and landslides above it. When its vegetation is flattened, the floodplain loses its capacity to trap sediment. This plan in effect logs the river itself, as the river includes its floodplains.

The Gualala River’s floodplain supports extensive seasonal wetlands. Salmon and steelhead feed and fatten on the floodplain, including its wetlands, during those special flooding events such as we had in early April.

Among the environmental reasons and legal basis for the lawsuit to protect the Gualala River are:

• Gualala Redwoods Timber (GRT) essentially re-filed the same unacceptable GRI Dogwood logging plan, without substantively addressing either public or FoGR comments.

• GRT dismissed public concerns, and disregarded meaningful reduced project alternatives.

• GRT dismissed the existence of seasonal wetlands in the floodplains, which is not credible.

• GRT disregarded CAL FIRE’s own scientific guidance on how to assess riparian redwood logging plans. They didn’t even assess the effects of winter 2017 flooding of the floodplain on the part of Dogwood they did harvest (lower Buckeye Creek) or compare it with unharvested areas to validate their predictions of how benign their floodplain logging plan is. If they were serious about environmental protection, they would have at least monitored to verify their predictions and assurances. They didn’t.

• GRT didn’t assess the endangered red-legged frog adult impacts during the non-breeding season, when they move away from breeding ponds and into floodplains to feed at night and hide out under cover by day. They treated frogs impacts as though they were in a hot, arid inland climate (inactive or close to ponds in the dry season) rather than on the more humid coast (where they move overland in foggy, cool weather and at night). And the plan still says the nearest known occurrences of red-legged frogs are 21 miles away, contradicting added information that they are present in the plan area! Careless and confusing contradictions show how sloppy the RPF and CALFIRE are in preparing a revised plan, even after losing last year’s CEQA lawsuit to FoGR and their allies.

• GRT didn’t even do a cumulative IMPACT analysis of the floodplain logging. They just tallied up cumulative PROJECTS: total plan acreages of different silvicultural treatments in other logging plans, and didn’t even distinguish acreages of floodplain from slopes, or wetlands from non-wetlands. So, there was no assessment of the cumulative environmental effects of those projects on fish, wildlife, floodplains, wetlands, plants, etc.

• The THP acknowledges that the river “regularly floods its banks,” but omits any reference to the special salmonid feeding habitat it provides when it does, or the impacts of disturbing the floodplain soils and habitat with skid road use, logging, and hauling. That’s why there are special scientific guidelines and rules for assessing logging plans that venture into floodplains. And GRT and CALFIRE either disregards them or asks for “exceptions” to the rules. We refuse to allow this.

• GRT and CAL FIRE really didn’t fix anything in the old THP. They made minor technical amendments that still dismiss the public’s legitimate concerns.

FoGR and their allies will continue their fight against this egregious logging plan, which would harm the river, its floodplain, and the wildlife that live in or beside it. Logging in the floodplain is a terrible idea that needs to be stopped before it inflicts damage on the Gualala River.
The importance of this area is demonstrated by Sonoma County plans to make it centerpiece of River Park as far back as 1950s, when timber and salmon fishing were still booming.
Logging of Dogwood is set to start on May 15, 2018. FoGR and their allies will be in court before that date. Please help us in our fight by donating to Friends of Gualala River. http://gualalariver.org/

Friends of Gualala River (FoGR) is a non-profit association dedicated to protecting the Gualala River watershed and the species that rely…
http://gualalariver.org

Court Halts Gualala River Floodplain Logging

Redwood Logging – “Dogwood” Timber Harvest Plan

On Tuesday, September 13, Sonoma County Superior Court granted a Preliminary Injunction to petitioners Forest Unlimited and Friends of Gualala River to temporarily halt further logging of the controversial Gualala River floodplain within the “Dogwood” timber harvest plan area while litigation proceeds.

The court determined that “Petitioners have demonstrated a clear, imminent threat of irreparable injury. Without the injunction, the logging activities under the Project will permanently remove trees and alter the environment. Petitioners’ evidence also demonstrates that the logging activities may harm ecologically sensitive, protected wetlands, flora, and fauna.

The court also agreed that the other requirement for a preliminary injunction – a sufficient basis for finding a likelihood of success on the merits of the lawsuit – was met.
The text of the decision is provided below.

“Motion is Granted. Undertaking of $10,000 is required. Petitioners have demonstrated a clear, imminent threat of irreparable injury. Without the injunction, the logging activities under the Project will permanently remove trees and alter the environment. Petitioners’ evidence also demonstrates that the logging activities may harm ecologically sensitive, protected wetlands, flora, and fauna.”

The evidence provided also demonstrates some basis for finding a likelihood of success on the merits. Petitioners raise several arguments about the validity of the timber harvest plan (“THP”) which they claim were raised in the administrative proceedings. Petitioners’ evidence in their moving papers provide explanations about deficiencies in the THP while the portions of the THP to which both real party in its opposition and Petitioners in their reply cite further demonstrate possible defects which Petitioners raise and which were raised in the administrative proceedings. For example, real party’s opposition appear to shows that the THP relied on only a generic list of plants that might be affected, as the basis for its findings, instead of demonstrating evidence of what plants are actually on the Project Site. Some of these pages are headed “common plant species list.” This failure to determine what plants are actually on the site, and thus likely to be affected, is clearly a potential violation of CEQA.

Petitioners’ Ex.1 at 122-124, 130 demonstrates that a botanist expert on wetlands provided comments explaining how the Project may affect wetlands and the responses consisted solely of an assertion that two foresters walked the area and felt that no sensitive, protected wetlands were there but, as Petitioners argue, it is arguably not demonstrated that they were necessarily qualified to make such an assertion. The responses also state that real party is “confident” that it located all of the sensitive wetlands, an equivocal statement that arguably shows a lack of meaningful evidence.

Although Petitioners’ initial evidence may arguably be objectionable with respect to the merits of the action because not taken from the administrative record, this is not fatal to Petitioners’ motion and the court overrules any objection to the evidence on that basis. The court notes that at this time the record is not yet available and thus the parties should not be restricted to it while real party in its opposition, despite objecting to extra-record evidence, presents and relies on similar extra-record evidence itself. Moreover, the documents which are presented in the opposition and reply are ostensibly from the THP and thus clearly could be considered.

Finally, the balancing test and goal of preserving the status quo weigh in favor of the injunction due to the nature of the likely harms. Despite some weaknesses in Petitioners’ showing of a probability of success, the balancing test involves a mix of the two elements and the greater the showing on one element, the weaker it may be on the other. Butt v. State of Calif. (1992) 4 Cal.4th 668, 678. In contrast to the clear, and certainly irreparable nature of the harm which Petitioners raise, Real Party demonstrates no threat of irreparable injury that the injunction would cause, only a possible and temporary monetary injury to it. Real Party will merely suffer a delay in logging and if it ultimately prevails may still conduct the logging, obtaining the profits it would have obtained. Real Party claims that the injunction will threaten a sawmill which relies on the logs and that it will suffer $1.4 million in expenses, but this is not persuasive. Nothing shows that Real Party owns and operates the mill, the relationship between them being unclear at best. Even if Real Party owns the mill, the issue for threatened injury is not the lost profits, which again will be delayed only, but injuries that may result from going out of business due to a lag in production, which Real Party has not shown. Real Party also only asserts that it needs to proceed with the logging in order for the mill to operate at “full capacity” but this does not demonstrate that without this logging this mill could not operate adequately, at less than full capacity.

Because of the lack of evidence of injury resulting from the injunction, the court finds no support for the requested undertaking of $700,000. Due to Petitioners’ demonstrated lack of financial resources, and the unclear, tenuous nature of any material harm from the injunction, the court finds that an undertaking of $10,000 is appropriate.

For more information:

contacts: Forest Unlimited  Rick Coates 707.632.6070 or Larry Hanson larryjhanson@comcast.net  Peter Baye, Friends of Gualala River botanybaye@gmail.com 415.310.5109 www.gualalariver.org

Coastal redwoods battle heats up along the Gualala River

by Will Parrish, Bohemian.com

The fight to save majestic coastal redwood groves in California has been waged for more than a century, starting with the campaign that created Big Basin State Park in 1902.

A RIVER TRICKLES THROUGH IT According to the EPA, the Gualala River has been “impaired” due to sediment caused by logging. - RORY MCNAMARAIn 1978, the Sierra Club dubbed its successful campaign to expand Redwood State and National Park the “last battle” of “the redwood war,” but the battles to protect this globally recognized icon of nature would only intensify.

In 1985, a junk-bond dealer named Charles Hurwitz engineered a hostile takeover of Humboldt County’s most respected logging company, Pacific Lumber, and folded it into Houston-based investment company Maxxam. Meanwhile, Louisiana-Pacific, a Georgia-Pacific spin-off, was cutting its more than 300,000 acres in Mendocino and Sonoma counties at roughly three times the forest’s rate of growth.

“We need everything that’s out there,” Louisiana-Pacific CEO Harry Merlot told the

Press Democrat in 1989 “We log to infinity. Because it’s out there and we need it all, now.”

This unruly phase of the story involves the birth of radical environmentalism on the North Coast, complete with tree sits and road blockades, and culminates in the campaign to save the largest remaining area of unprotected old-growth redwoods in California, and thus the world: the Headwaters forest, located between Fortuna and Eureka. President Bill Clinton made saving Headwaters an election pitch in 1996, and in 1999 the state and federal governments purchased 7,500 acres to establish the Headwaters Forest Reserve.

Continue reading “Coastal redwoods battle heats up along the Gualala River”