The Gienger Report...Diggin' In

May 1, 2001


The last ?Diggin? In? column briefly summarized a broad array of issues ranging from the Mattole conflict over the Pacific Lumber (PL) predation of old-growth fir on highly unstable slopes, to political stonewalling of action by the North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board on five impaired North Coast watersheds. I also discussed the Redway PL Timber Harvest Plan (THP) 044 temporary settlement.

To update the Redway forest issue: The Redway
Forestry Council has met three times with PL in
negotiation and discussion of issues. The Council is
comprised of representatives from five local
organizations: the Institute for Sustainable
Forestry, the Ruby Valley/James Creek Watershed
Alliance, the Eel River Salmon Restoration Project,
Redway Forest Defense, and the Redway Community
Services District. PL was amenable to having Tim Metz,
a Registered Professional Forester, independently
included on the Council in the negotiation process.
General ground rules have been established, with PL
representative Craig Anthony (PL Timber Manager)
focusing on herbicides, monitoring, and silviculture.
Acquisition issues will be addressed by other PL
personnel. The second meeting featured a presentation
on conservation easements by Amy Chesnut of the
Pacific Forest Trust (PFT). PFT was a lead in helping
to establish protection of a forest adjacent to the
Mendocino County town of Comptche through a
conservation easement.

There has been one field inspection by the Council
with PL?s contract RPF, Brian Talbert, to PL?s Redway
holding. The focus was on old growth/residuals at risk
that are in two units of THP 044, visible from Redway
on the slopes above the South Fork Eel . The trip
began with a hike up a 1964-65 debris torrent track
above James Creek, traversing the THP units twice and
then crossing the spectacular 1981 landslide and
debris track, ending in Whittemore Grove. There are
significant unhealed instabilities and erosion on the
1981 slide, and the earlier torrent track still has
appreciable unhealed instabilities.

Two more inspections are currently planned?one for the
latter part of May to document the residual old growth
for acquisition/easement negotiations. Another
inspection in June will focus on erosion problems on
the 1981 slide and at other locations affecting the
South Fork Eel River. This trip is intended to come up
with some prescriptions for increasing slope stability
and scheduling corrective measures to prevent erosion
and sedimentation.

A couple of conditions in the settlement have been
clarified. The ?no new THPs on the slopes over the
South Fork until after the Watershed Analysis and
Management Plan are completed? has been expanded to
cover the entire 581-acre PL holding. The Watershed
Analysis will probably not commence until 2002. PL is
doing a timber inventory on the holding this year.
Such a timber inventory is basic to getting a real
valuation on the property, which is necessary for
whatever acquisitions or conservation easements might
come to be. Of course, we the public have to come up
with the funds to comprise adequate ransom for the THP
units at immediate risk and the bigger
protection/stewardship for the holding. PL officially
is not a ?willing seller? but they?re ?open??basically
?show us the money!? Well, we do have some money to
show them: more than $20,000 dollars in the Stable
Slopes (account #6740 at the Community Credit Union)
in Garberville. About $15,000 of that came from a
fabulous community benefit gala in March at the Mateel
Community Center. Ancient Forest International is
providing fiscal sponsorship.

The high-end hope is to establish a Jan Iris
Stewardship Forest that protects old growth and
unstable slopes. State Senator Wesley Chesbro has made
a Members Request in the coming year?s budget for
$150,000 for Redway. There is also legislation that
would slate some money for Redway from remaining
Headwaters money, if PL/Maxxam doesn?t negotiate in
good faith over the Mattole and the South Fork Elk
River by September 1.

Cumulative Watershed Effects: The struggle continues
in the state to establish real Cumulative Watershed
Effects evaluation and response?to protect and recover
watersheds and fisheries. Paralleling this, in varying
degrees, is the effort to provide relief and
incentives to ?small landowners? to keep their
productive forestlands and not sell out to development
or large corporations.

The Board of Forestry in the latter part of April
finally held a workshop, featuring a bona fide panel
of experts, on Cumulative Watershed Effects (CWEs) and
Watershed Assessment/Analysis. The panel of experts,
in particular Professor Tom Dunne, chair of the U.C.
Committee on the Prediction of CWEs (previously known
as the University of California Freshwater Committee),
is calling for a interdisciplinary team of highly
qualified experts to use the tools available for CWE
prediction in a pilot watershed to prove the concept
that risks can be determined. The big problem is a
lack of response to cumulative impacts until after
they?ve happened.

AB 1231, carried by freshman Assembly Member Joe
Nation from Marin County, could be the vehicle to
carry out the U.C. Committee?s prescription. Nation?s
bill requires the Resources Agency to develop a model
watershed analysis in an appropriate watershed,
thereby establishing adequate standards and measures.
This whole issue will be ongoing in a number of
venues, including the Board of Forestry, for the rest
of this year.

In other news: Progress is being made to remove the
old-growth loophole from CDF?s exemption process. Four
measures to help provide relief and incentives for
small forestland owners are being developed by the
Forest Stewardship Committee of the Board of Forestry.
There may be money in the state budget to help provide
direct consultation with California Indians and
Tribes, and direct participation by them in the THP
process. The State Fish and Game Commission voted to
make Coho salmon north of San Francisco a candidate
species under the California Endangered Species Act,
which ostensibly grants immediate protection. Listing
as ?threatened? or ?endangered? is likely by next
year. Actual measures to achieve protection and
recovery are less certain. Please participate in the
above issues as possible?and those that space and time
would not permit me to cover. Contact your favorite
conservation/protection organization and see how you
can help. If you can?t think of one?call EPIC at
707-923-2931.



This article can be found online at www.treesfoundation.org/publications/article-84

Forest & River News is produced by Trees Foundation.