May 11, 2010
You've just learned that a logging plan is proposed in your backyard or watershed. Maybe you're concerned about adverse impacts to the steelhead or coho salmon that once were plentiful in area streams, but now seem more a dream than a reality. Or perhaps you're worried about your private road that is slated to be used for log hauling. Maybe your water intake is in a creek that runs through the land to be logged. What can you do and where should you start? The Fight Back! Forest Defenders Handbook, A Citizen's Guide to Timber Harvest Regulation may be able to help. But before getting into the particulars, it will be useful to understand a bit of the history of logging regulation.
| |
Timber harvest regulation on private lands in the state of California has had a less than stellar history and was not always a given. Until 1937, the law of the "wild west" prevailed; then San Mateo County adopted the first timber harvest ordinance for private lands. In 1945, the first statewide Forest Practice Act (FPA) was adopted, nearly 100 years after the California Gold Rush. However, timber industry self-regulation and a lack of real standards sufficient to prevent environmental degradation allowed practices of overcutting to continue, leading to degraded watersheds and dwindling timber supplies.
Over the ensuing years, various California legislative committees produced a series of reports outlining the failure of the original Forest Practice Act. In 1957, the California Senate Interim Committee on Soil and Beach Erosion "identified timber harvesting and logging road construction as the primary cause of stream erosion, adversely affecting watershed ecology and the health of fish populations."1 A 1962 legislative committee found that "the regulations in effect at that time implementing the FPA had failed to provide adequate enforcement and to hold timber owners, timberland owners, and timber operators responsible for protecting public values in water, fishing and recreation."2
In 1971 the original Forest Practice Act was found to be unconstitutional by the State Supreme Court, largely because it was a self-regulatory process. The Board of Forestry, established by the Act, was mostly composed of individuals with a financial interest in logging operations. By then, logging had been identified "as one of the primary causes of an 80 percent decline in salmonid and steelhead fish runs in California."3
The state legislature enacted the current Z'Berg-Nejedly Forest Practice Act in 1973 as a remedy, though there are many who feel the problems it was meant to rectify are still with us today.
Inclusion of a Public Process
A 1972 report by the Institute of Ecology at the University of California at Davis, commissioned by the Assembly Committee on Natural Resources and Conservation, suggested that ecological values be considered on the same level as timber values, and that
public review become an integral part of forest management.
In response, the Z'Berg-Nejedly Forest Practice Act of 1973 now incorporates provisions to address both identified deficiencies. Since the creation of the FPA, the "new" Board of Forestry established under the "new" FPA has had the job of developing a set of Forest Practice Rules to implement the FPA.
Until 1982, counties could exercise their authority to approve or disapprove timber harvest plans using the FPA as well as local ordinances. Then at the urging of the timber industry, the legislature took away that power, giving sole authority to the state to determine how logging would take place.
Since 1982, the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE) has been the agency responsible for overseeing rule implementation and enforcement. Most logging occurs through the permit process established for Timber Harvest Plans (THPs) or Non-industrial Timber Management Plans (NTMPs).
 |
Of course, the complexity of the Forest Practice Rules and the timber harvest review process can also present a seemingly insurmountable obstacle to citizens interested in participating in that process. Thus the Fight Back! Forest Defenders Handbook, A Citizen's Guide to Timber Harvest Regulation was born. Originally created by Elizabeth Herbert for the Santa Cruz Group, Sierra Club, more than ten years ago, the Handbook has just been re-released in an updated version completely revised by Jodi Frediani, Director of Central Coast Forest Watch and Forestry Consultant for the Santa Cruz Group, Sierra Club. A copy can be found at www.treesfoundation.org.
How to Fight Back!
The Handbook was designed to address issues specific to the Southern Subdistrict of the Coast Forest District, where logging occurs in close proximity to mountain residential communities. However, it can also provide valuable guidance to other concerned citizens. Each District has a different set of rules and a somewhat different review process. Counties with Special Rules have a minimum 45-day review period, where as all other counties have a minimum 15-day review. While these are minimums, other agency involvement, especially when backed by public comment, often introduces additional information that can lead to an extended period of review. The sooner one gets involved once a plan is submitted, the more likely one's voice will be heard.
Regardless of differing regional rules, the principles of citizen review remain the same. The Timber Harvest Plan review process has been deemed the functional equivalent of an Environmental Impact Report under the California Environmental Quality Act. Thus, the opportunity for public participation is guaranteed under California law.
The Handbook is divided into ten Sections plus an Introduction and pages for note taking. Background on logging regulation is covered including useful online links to the Forest Practice Act and Forest Practice Rules. While these are the primary governing documents, CAL FIRE also uses a little-known Resource Management Handbook that provides additional guidance. A link to this is included along with links to various CAL FIRE Memorandums, the California Natural Diversity Data Base, and other useful resources.
The THP review process for the Southern Subdistrict is outlined, step by step. This will differ for other areas. Some steps may be deleted and timing may differ. Issues identified may also vary from region to region, though CAL FIRE is required to respond to all significant issues raised regarding the environment and public health and safety. Rural-urban interface residents may have concerns about private road use, protection of private water intakes, noise, landslides, and other public safety issues. Environmental concerns may include riparian and watercourse protection, loss of old growth or late-seral habitat, and the host of threatened or endangered species and species of special concern.
Many of the links and various resources identified in the Handbook will apply statewide. Sample comment letters and the featured Case Study may give folks inspiration and help in formulating a campaign and effective participation in the review process.
NTMPs must conform to a different set of rules from THPs. To confuse matters, some of the criteria for NTMPs are only found in the Forest Practice Act itself. Because NTMPs are good forever, citizens reviewing them should try to be particularly thorough. Once approved, there will be no further opportunity for public input. In fact, operations can commence simply with submission of a Notice of Operations to CAL FIRE.
One of the key differences between counties with Special Rules and all others is that the former can require public hearings. While these seem critical in concept, they are often underutilized largely because CAL FIRE does not require the plan submitter to make a presentation. The hearing is used by CAL FIRE to simply gather info from the public. No decisions are made at public hearings, but they do allow for a sense of community. Important info presented at such hearings should also be submitted in writing prior to the close of Public Comment.
 | |
Litigation
Citizen participation, though often grueling, can bear fruit. Some plans have been amended for the better. A very few have been withdrawn or denied. But the greatest strides toward improved environmental protection have been achieved through litigation. To successfully litigate a plan, it is essential to actively participate in the CAL FIRE review process first. The Handbook now includes a list of attorneys knowledgeable about the California Environmental Quality Act and/or the Forest Practice Rules.
When All Is Said and Done
And don't forget, your presence alone can make a difference. Engaging the media may be one of your most valuable tools. Get the word out, network, learn which agency folk are your allies, do your homework, know the rules that apply to your situation and dig in. Without public watchdogs, a lot can happen in the woods that is good for business, but not for the planet nor for those of us, human and non-human, who rely on it for our sustenance. Good luck!
1 Guide to the California Forest Practice Act and Related Laws, Duggan, Sharon, and Mueller, Tara, Solano Press Books, Point Arena 2005, p. 1.
2 Ibid.
3 Ibid, originally from "Advisory Committee on Salmon and Steelhead Trout, An Environmental Tragedy," 1971.
More Information About
Central Coast Forest Watch
More Articles...
TOC for Forest & River News, Spring 2010