THE Gienger REPORT...Diggin' In

by RICHARD GIENGER 


The perspective from this past rainy season in February is quite different from the perspective in July of the same year. What was a pretty mild winter on the North Coast turned into a rainy season that extended into May and the middle of June, with those late rains often coming close to or topping season storm highs. I haven't heard anyone dispute the common observation by North Coast regulars that they've never seen the South Fork Eel River run this high in June and July. Canoe, kayaks, and rafts are seen in abundance.

Most people think that these truly late rains will be beneficial for survival of the salmon and steelhead young-of-the-year. Not to be overly pessimistic, but what if the fall rains fail and the spawning run-supporting rains don't start until late December? I'm sure there's lots of "outlier" weather years in the past, but there seems to be a trend of the rainy season starting later and later since the late '70s and early '80s. This year's late spring rains have seemingly given some respite in areas that have been grappling with low stream and river flows in late summer and fall. People may have been given a little slack to get their dry-season water-holding capabilities in place and "up to snuff." There are several places to contact for water storage advice. One is Friends of the Eel River at 707/923-2146, and another is Sanctuary Forest, Inc., at 707/986-1087.

This year watershed restoration projects seem to be starting late because of the rains, whereas last year's late starts often seemed to be permit-related. Major work continues in the Mattole Headwaters area above Whitethorn. Seely Creek continues to have a lot of work done. Projects are going on all over the North Coast. The Mattole Watershed Restoration Plan is nearing completion and will lay out five years' worth of projects based on prioritized needs.

Old-Growth Trees often have extremely important habitat features like basalhollows that can house as many as five species of bat including the rare Townsned's Big Eared Bat. Photo: Richard Gienger

Just as the Coho Recovery Team was gearing up to implement the coho Recovery Strategy approved by the Fish & Game Commission, the California Forestry Association (CFA) and other groups such as the Cattlemen's Association and the Eureka Chamber of Commerce sued the Commission and Fish & Game Department over the state listing of coho. It's sort of bizarre, yet not unexpected, that several of those groups actually participated on the Coho Recovery Team. The plaintiffs are basically saying that there's no evidence that coho merit listing and that it's going to cost them a lot of money. The Salmon and Steelhead Recovery Coalition (SSRC) and a multitude of other private and public entities certainly disagree with CFA et al.--coho merit listing and the cost of recovery is the cost of good stewardship necessary to have coho once again be a significant factor in California's economy and forestland communities. It is expected that certain groups in the SSRC such as EPIC and California Trout will intervene in the case to support the listing and its defense by Fish & Game. Meanwhile, recovery efforts will continue along with various modest regulations to prevent "take" of coho.

Funding that would help support restoration efforts, community forests, and other important measures is provided in a Bond Act authored by Senator Chesbro. The Bill, SB 153, has passed the State Senate and the Natural Resources Committee, and currently awaits a hearing in the Assembly Appropriations Committee. SB 153 will require a two-thirds vote in the Assembly and a signature from the Governator by early September. SB 153, the "California Clean Water, Clean Air, Safe Neighborhood Parks, and Coastal Protection Act of 2006" would be on the ballot next year. If it's unsuccessful, there is a coalition that will seek to place it on the ballot through the public initiative process.

At its July meeting the Board of Forestry (BoF) passed regulations related to last year's LaMalfa Bill, AB 2420, Fuel Hazard Reduction. There are significant efforts to reduce fuel hazards and limit impacts generally around roads, ridges, homes, and infrastructure. These are quite a complex array of regulatory rules that your local Fire Safe Council is trying to figure out. Local communities, such as Salmon Creek and areas in the Mattole and Southern Humboldt, continue to carry out fire-safe projects. Get in touch with your local volunteer fire department and/or CDF (California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection) to see how you can participate. Communities working together to reduce fire hazards should build on those relationships to include watershed restoration, road and water, infrastructure improvements, and cooperative sustainable forestry.

Also at the BoF July meeting, a vote on an inadequate Road Management Plan rules package was delayed after public input--and CDF--continued to point out problems. This package has essentially devolved into a "Boy Scout Oath" for roads, lacking adequate standards and processes to be of serious utility to anyone.
In May the BoF passed a set of recommendations for Old Growth disclosure and evaluation on logging plans. CDF also sent out a guidance letter to Foresters. We shall see. They are going to revisit the issue in May of 2006. I beseech the reader to monitor logging plans that impact old growth and to document any adverse impacts that could have/should have been prevented. Good things can happen and should be noted. You can be sure that CDF will be accenting the positive next May. Unfortunately the burden of articulating the problems usually falls on the public, although DF&G comes through now and then. The Heritage Tree Bill failed to make headway this year. Your efforts can help make a difference in the need for old-growth protection.

	A juvenile coho salmon. Photo: courtesy Trees Foundaion archive

The BoF's composition has been problematic. There are nine members: five Public representatives, one Range rep, and three Industry reps. Currently there are two Industry Reps: Mark Bosetti from Sierra Pacific Industries (SPI) and Gary Rynearson (formally of NRM Associates and now a lobbyist for Green Diamond--formerly Simpson Timber Company.) The other Industry seat was vacated by Simpson's Tharon O'Dell and has not been filled. The Range slot is empty. The Public members are Chair Stan Dixon (former Humboldt County Supervisor), Vice-Chair Kirk Marckwald (head of a so-called environmental consulting firm), David Nawi (attorney that has worked in and out of government), and Ron Nehring (from El Cajon and a very conservative vice-chair of the California Republican Party.) Nancy Drinkard, a retired CDF Forester who reviewed logging plans in Santa Cruz, was a Public Member until she was denied a confirmation hearing. It's a long story, but most felt she was more appropriate as an Industry rep. The Santa Cruz Board of Supervisors voted against her confirmation 3-2. The upshot is that the Governator quickly appointed Nehring, who seems to have no experience in forestry except having a close call in the Cedar Fire outside San Diego last year. There's your scorecard. Know of any good ranchers or persons capable and suited to serve on the Board? It's a pretty sad situation. Scientist Sue Britting was denied a reappointment this spring which was a real tragedy, similar to U.C. Forester Bob Heald's failure to be reappointed last year.

On the State and Regional Waterboards front: The State Water Resources Control Board overturned the North Coast Board and its approval of Timber Harvest Plans (THPs) in Elk and Freshwater Creek in December and March. The March approvals were above what the staff said was the maximum permissible to ensure recovery in the two watersheds. Both the March and December approvals violated the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and Water Law according to the State Board. Pacific Lumber is suing the State Board. Expect EPIC and Humboldt Watershed Council to help defend the State Board's decision. Residents in the two watersheds were elated by the State Board's action, which granted some real relief and afforded hope for recovery.

The Buckeye Forest Project is planning a workshop about larger NonIndustrial Timber Management Plans (NTMPs) and longer THPs. Ideally the workshop will include credible processes for accountability that are necessary if certain changes to the current set-up are to be viable. Efforts continue to institute a pilot project(s) for Cumulative Impact process reform and subsequent relief and incentives for small landowners. Work to fold these pilot projects into a Mattole-wide project, "Mattole Watershed Forest Futures," articulated by Chris Larson and the Mattole Restoration Council, is going on.

The Stewardship NTMP (SNTMP), a high-standard NTMP with a real Road Management Plan, real requirements for growing more than you cut, and credible monitoring--a product of the Forest Stewardship Working Group from several years ago--is being reworked into rule language for a BoF rules package. The SNTMP is one of four options developed for relief and incentives for small landowners. Its strong point is that it should satisfy multiagency requirements "off the top." There is some concern that it may only work in Redwood country. We shall see how it goes.
Get in touch with EPIC at 707/923-2931 and Humboldt Watershed Council at 707/822-1166 for the latest information on many of the above topics and other issues. Please get involved in ways that are effective for you, and that contribute to real solutions--rg


This article can be found online at www.treesfoundation.org/publications/article-204

Forest & River News is produced by Trees Foundation.