The Gienger Report

by Richard Gienger


Statewide and regional issues are tracking along ? main track, sidetrack, sometimes trainwreck. The Board of Forestry actually passed some rule language that will make it harder for Old Growth trees to be cut under the exemption process (the no Timber Harvest Plan, 'ministerial', fill-out the form & cut process). The issue was getting high profile, with Governor Davis putting the big, ?never before has California moved to protect Old Growth for its inherent worth?, spin in a Sunday press conference on the projected action by the Board in early September. The focus took a blow with September 11th events -- overwhelming -- but, the Board managed to meet the next day and did pass modest language that will help protect some Old Growth trees, but by no means closed all the loopholes in the exemption process.
What was once a very controversial Heritage Tree Preservation Initiative has been refiled with the California Secretary of State. The vision of the authors? is pure, but much heated debate has gone on over the content and spin of the actual language of the initiative. The initial filed version was reworked and reworked over several months. Much tension remains over whether the measure is too punitive or too loose, easily supportable by a majority of voters or too easily discredited by foes. The new version is VERY MUCH IMPROVED and is VERY SUPPORTABLE! Get more information, help gather signatures, and check out the initiative via the web site: www.ancienttrees.org/initiative.html -- if the initiative doesn?t make the November ballot, the March 2003 ballot would be the next best target.
The struggle between California Dept. of Forestry and Fire (CDF) and Water Quality (WQ) continues with a partial victory for WQ, establishing their authority to protect the beneficial uses of water and to require monitoring above that which CDF deems appropriate. The State Water Quality Control Board modified a stronger North Coast Regional WQCB monitoring order, but progress was made. UNFORTUNATELY, the subject Timber Harvest Plan (THP) where this progress was made is the 700 acre+ Hole-In-Headwaters Plan (THP 520). Logging commenced soon after the WQ order was made. The struggle to protect the Coho refugia of Elk River has been going on for years and must continue ? through heart-breaking adversity obviously ? until the watershed residents and Coho Salmon are adequately protected.
The State Board sent the issue of Waste Discharge requirements and other matters regarding the impairment of Elk River and Freshwater, Bear, Jordan, and Stitz Creeks? watersheds back to the North Coast Board for action. It?s been over five years since these watershed were overwhelmed by high rates of cut and the New Year?s storms of 1997 ? with adequate and comprehensive response still lacking. This drama continues in the affected watersheds and at the monthly North Coast Board meetings, and periodically at the State Board. Get in touch with Ken Miller at 707-839-7444 for updates.
One of the constant problems for Timber Harvest Plans, different interpretations by different entities, plays out in the general THP review and approval process ? and in the specific arena of cumulative impacts. CDF?s interpretation is different than Water Quality?s is different than Fish & Game?s is different than the public?s is different than industry?s. These conflicts are coming to coming to some kind of showdown in the coming year. The Board of Forestry was supposed to have a full day workshop in January 2002, which was delayed and held at the beginning of March, to hash out the ?broke down? plan review process. Ironically the immediate catalyst for the workshop was a Petition brought to the Board by industry rep Jere Melo (remember Georgia-Pacific and the Sinkyone Wilderness?) requesting a Bill of Rights for THP submitters and an ombudsman to help THP submitters through the regulatory maze. Helen Libeu, renowned forest activist and forest landowner, roasted some of Melo?s spun notions quite thoroughly: Registered Professional Foresters need an ombudsman to help them with the process? Who?s there for the public? The agencies will weigh in on the issue at a second workshop scheduled for April 4th at the Resources Agency Building Auditorium in Sacramento.
Well, reader, YOU are the public and you better weigh in! We (the public) are used to being outnumbered by industry reps in various forums, like the Board of Forestry or legislative committees, 20 to 1 or more. Please participate in these issues. Contact your favorite conservation/protection organization and see what?s going on and how you can help. BACH (510-835-6303), EPIC (707-923-2931) and Trees Foundation (707-923-4377) are a good places to start ? call them.
A couple more notes: Progress is being made on getting together three pilot projects for incentive and relief for small forest landowners. These involve certifiably ?light touch? forestry, extensive agency preconsultation with landowners, and an interagency team that includes watershed landowners and residents to consense on a Planning Watershed analysis and recovery plan. Work on these concepts have been going on for more than a year and include real monitoring and response to individual and cumulative impacts.
It was a bit disheartening to have the ?relief and incentive pilot project? package for large industrial landowners, called the Interim Watershed Mitigation Addendum (IWMA), to be put prematurely into regulation passed by the Board of Forestry in a little over three months this year. What the large industrial landowners are hoping to get that couldn?t be done under existing regulations was the lowering of protection for alternative practices to a standard that does not have to be equal or better than protection under existing regulation. Public participation in the big industry watershed ?pilot project? is sorely limited.
The industry package had to get by the Office of Administrative Law (OAL) review and litigation filed by EPIC for implementation to go forward on January 1, 2002. Lo and behold the package failed to pass muster with OAL and it was sent back to the Board. The Board is pressing hard to correct the package and send it forward again. Public hearings on this will probably start at the Board in May 2002, in Fresno. The Board is failing to come to grips with substantive problems that have been raised by EPIC, the Sierra Club, Coast Action Group, and others. EPIC?s litigation is in place, but on hold until Board actions on this package, this year, come into full light.
Meetings have been ongoing to act administratively and with legislation and funding to bring about real participation by California Indians in logging plan review and protection of cultural heritage. Meetings have been going on to fight for effective protection and recovery of Coho through its current candidate status for listing under CESA (under the authority of California Department of Fish & Game and the Fish & Game Commission), with Endangered status north of San Francisco possible in June 2002. There are some key meetings this Spring of organizations from all over Northern California, and throughout the state, to effectively address a range of issues in the coming year. A Coalition/Campaign called Clean Water Healthy Forests is starting up. Please stay tuned and please get involved.


This article can be found online at www.treesfoundation.org/publications/article-99

Forest & River News is produced by Trees Foundation.