An editorial from our October '99 issue

LOGGERS CUT THEMSELVES DOWN
NEIL WILEY

As I predicted from the start, greed would overcome good sense. The Board of Forestry (Logging). a pro-commercial logging state board rubber-stamped their timber industry masters by voting down a reasonable compromise for improved forest practice rules in Santa Cruz County. The result is that Santa Cruz County Supervisors have promised to zone logging out of existence in all but TPZ lands. In August, Santa Cruz County Principal Planner Mark Deming led a tour for the Board of Forestry, CDF (California Department of Logging that is supposed to enforce logging rules but doesn’t), so-called professional foresters (logger-henchmen), a local saw mill operator, loggers from throughout the state, and a very few local non-logging citizens. Using our own Villa del Monte as an example, the planner tried to show the loggers the need for better forest practice rules, including a modest 300 foot buffer between residences and industrial logging. It should have been obvious that large-scale logging should be severely limited in an urban area. Of course, the loggers countered that this was once a forest for loggers. Yes, and once dinosaurs ruled the earth. But Villa del Monte has been here since the sixties, long enough to become an established community, one that may have more wealth than all the visiting loggers put together. And the vast majority within that community do not want commercial logging. It was amusing, however, to see the so-called foresters bowing and scraping before the local saw mill operator, a man who claims to be an environmentalist but who sues local governments that would curb his appetite for sawdust. I’m from Chicago, and it reminded me of gang bosses and their henchmen. Certainly, logging is a small and dying industry in Santa Cruz County. Their total industry employs fewer people than one computer company. They no longer have the economic power and the jobs to operate as robber barons. If they don’t act responsibly, they will join whalers, professional hunters and other obsolete professions. Santa Cruz County gave them the opportunity to act responsibly. They didn’t. They lose. THE RESULT Elise Moss Neighbors for Responsible Logging Los Gatos www.responsible-neighbors.org On Tuesday, September 14, the Board of Forestry held a hearing in Sacramento to review the proposed Santa Cruz County rules. The Santa Cruz folks weren’t heard until 5 PM. The hearing continued until around 8 PM. Santa Cruz County Supervisor Almquist opened the hearing by asking the board to continue the hearing until October to give the Santa Cruz Board of Supervisors additional time to review the rules, but since many Santa Cruzans had traveled so far and endured the entire day’s hearings, he asked that public comments be received. The timber faction was supported by five speakers, including RPF Steve Butler and Lisa Rudnik. They said that the rules were unnecessary and onerous. California Department of Forestry representatives said that they did not support the rules package and felt that it would be a burden for CDF to enforce. Speaking for local residents were Julie Hendricks, Jodi Frediani, Mark Morganthaler, Larry Prather, Kevin Collins, Philippe Stassart, Elise Moss, a representative from San Lorenzo Valley Women’s Club, and a few others. They explained the necessity for the rules, their support for Jeff Almquist and the Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors, and the growing conflict when logging occurs in residential neighborhoods. The Board of Forestry denied the rules. On the record, they stated that they did not see the need for the rules. They also expressed dismay at the fact that the Santa Cruz Board of Supervisors had failed to substantially change any language in the proposed rules package since the last time it was presented. Off the record, the Board of Forestry feels that while the Santa Cruz rules balance the needs of the timber industry with the needs of the community, they do not feel it is viable. Given the continued urbanization of the Santa Cruz Mountains and the continuing loss of forest land in the area, they feel it would be more appropriate for the County to simply zone out timber as a land use. Additionally, the Board is concerned that if they should allow more stringent logging regulations for the Santa Cruz area in order to protect the population, less populated areas where the rules are less necessary would ask for similar protections. One board member noted that his county’s population is roughly one-fourth that of Santa Cruz County, yet has almost four times the amount of acreage. In light of the Board’s actions, it is assured that the County Board of Supervisors will act to zone out logging. In many ways, the timber industry has been the greatest contributor to their own demise in the Santa Cruz Mountains— By selling logged land for development in order to make a quick profit, by failing to act as "good neighbors," by failing to police their own "bad apples" and by failing to live up to existing regulations, the timber industry holds equal if not greater responsibility. At this juncture, it is most critical for the residents to show their support for the Board of Supervisors by writing or faxing letters and attending future hearings. At the Board’s hearing, there were fewer than six letters from residents supporting the rules package. There were more than fifty letters from the opposing side. X X X You can save loggers from themselves. Write your local and state representatives. Ask them for better forest practice rules and enforcement to ensure responsible logging. And if that fails, ask them to end commercial logging in Santa Cruz and Santa Clara Counties.   Logging Links CRFM Gamecock Canyon Neighbors for Responsible Logging Pigs, Bears & Dogs Slides SWPL             Mark Deming, Principal Planner for Santa Cruz County, explains county's request for better forest practice rules.   Loggers see (but don't understand) the urban/logging interface.   Supervisor Almquist smells something.   Dave Hope, Resource Planner for Santa Cruz County, has done more for our forests than the entire State Board of Forestry, the CDF unenforcement agency,  and the so-called professional foresters.

Santa Cruz County may prohibit logging on SU-zoned land.

The following is a report of the 11-25-98 Board of Supervisor meeting from

TTAC member Jodi Frediani (jodifredi@aol.com)

***********************************************************

On a 3-2 vote on a motion by Jeff Almquist, seconded by Mardi Wormhoudt, the

following was approved:

1) Directed staff to prepare a new rules package incorporating some version of the previous rules that were not adopted by the Board of Forestry in the last round. What this package will ultimately look like remains to be seen. It is to come back to the Board of Supervisors for approval on December 15.

2) Attachments 6 & 7 were approved "in concept" and will be sent to the Coastal Commission for processing. This is the stringent zoning package allowing timber harvesting in the TP, PR and M3 zone districts only. This package will come before the Board of Supervisors on May 25. At that time they will decide whether or not to adopt it depending on what action the Board of Forestry has taken on the new rules package.

* Included in Attachment 7 is language restricting helicopter yarding of timber from parcels zoned TP only. Helicopter service and log landing areas must be sited within the THP on land zoned TP or PRor M3. Almquist amended 13.10.378 (b) to read: "No helicopter flight may occur within 1,000 feet horizontally of an inhabited residence." He deleted the clause that would have allowed the Director to reduce that to 500 feet with the written concurrence of the residential inhabitant.

* Also included in Attachment 7 was an amendment to subsection (h) of Section 16.20.180 - Design Standards for Private Roads, Driveways and Bridges. This is part of the County Code which applies to all newly constructed roads and previously required either oil and screen or asphalt on roads with gradients exceeding 15%. The new language (which was amended by Supervisor Almquist to include base rock) requires 6 inches drain rock or base rock for 0 - 10 % gradient; oil and screen for 10-15 % gradient; and 1 1/2 inches asphaltic concrete or 4 inches of concrete for gradients greater than 15 %. This will apply to all new roads in the County,   including logging roads.

* Attachment 7 also includes a 300 foot residential buffer from dwellings on adjacent parcels not zoned TP.

Supervisor Almquist moved to have the Locational Criteria pertaining to riparian corridors put into a separate ordinance to go into effect immediately. This new ordinance will come back to the Board of Supervisors at their next meeting for final approval.

* It would prohibit timber harvesting within 5 feet' from Class 1 and 2 streams and within 30 feet of Class 3 (intermittent) streams on lands zoned TP as well all other zones which specifically lists timber harvesting as an allowed use.

These will be the first no-cut zones implemented on TP lands. The San Mateo Court Case established that counties could determine where logging takes place on lands not zoned for timber production (TP). However, it did not address whether Counties also had the authority to do the same on TP lands. Supervisor Almquist researched the matter and believes counties do, in fact, have such a right.

Assuming that the Board of Supervisors will approve this riparian corridor ordinance, it will go into effect, 60 days after approval outside the Coastal Zone, but must go to the Coastal Commission to be approved within the CZ. And it may be challenged in court. The rest of the zoning will not go into effect until the Board votes again in late May. The less stringent zoning Amendment which allows logging on SU and Ag lands has been continued till May 25, 1999. At the moment it is logging business as usual, but with lots of heat and pressure for change. The struggle to improve local logging practices and protect neighborhoods and the environment is not over yet.

If the Office of Administrative Law (OAL) finishes their review of the Board of Forestry approved forestry rules in time (as anticipated), they will take effect on January 1, 1999. Otherwise, they will not go into effect until Jan 1, 2000.

Summit Watershed Protection League members and others interested in protecting mountain neighborhoods from industrial logging may wish to attend the Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors  meeting Tuesday, November 24 at 1:30 PM to hear public comment regarding proposed zoning. As you my know, the county asked the California Board of Forestry to pass new logging practice rules for the county. The Board of Forestry did not pass the most significant proposed rules. The county had warned the Board of Forestry that if they didn't pass the rule package, the county would pass new zoning. The proposed new zoning would prohibit logging on SU (special use) land, such as the property next to Villa del Monte.

This would be a giant win for SWPL and all those interested in protecting the "Koppola" and "Benbow" properties from logging.

Attending this meeting is important. The Board of Supervisors needs to see popular support for their stand.

You are needed. Attend the Board of Supervisor's meeting, 1:30 PM, Tuesday, November 24 at the Santa Cruz County Building, Ocean Street, Santa Cruz.

Changes in Forest Practice Rules

Reported by Kathy Dean

Jodi Frediani submitted a breakdown of the rules passed (and not passed) by the Board of Forestry on November 3 based on the package submitted by Santa Cruz County. Here is a quick summary.

They  passed some of the rules, however, mostly administrative items, not the really important buffer rules, helicopter rules, etc. I believe the County was upset that some of the no-brainers also did not pass. Now the County must put into place the restrictive zoning ordinance and take the remaining rules to a new Board of Forestry! Let's let Davis know we need some accountability on the Board.

Please pass this on to anyone you think might be interested.

The following is the essential information regarding approved rules (may not be 100% complete on details w/in rules.) (NO GO means not enough support to get a motion for a vote.)

Santa Cruz Rules Proposal

1. 926.1 RPF Advice passed Simply adds that silvicultural provisions of S.C. County Rule 926.25 apply.

2. 926.2 Field Review and Timber Operator Certification passed. It adds that the LTO must certify in writing to the Department that the LTO or his supervised designee participated in a field review with the RPF prior to commencement of operations, and understands the plan or major amendment and acknowledges responsibility to communicate this info to those who will conduct the timber operations.

3.926.3 Plan Submittal and Notice of Intent passed Notice of Intent must state that property lines have been flagged (where applicable), in theevent of helicopter operations, will include a map of helicopter operations, will mail notice of helicopter operations w/in 3000' radius to property owners and occupants. Must post sufficient notices within two mile radius of helicopter operations within 10 days of plan submission, will notice all members of private road associations of haul routes, must notice any publicly owned water district or community water system downstream from timber operations.

4. 926.7 Review Team Field Review passed. Gives review team members five WORKING days following review team meeting in which to file a notice of non-concurrence.

5.926.9 Hours of Work passed. Changes hours of operations for chain saws and other powerdriven equip from 7:00am-9:00pm to 7:00am-7:00pm. The Director may make an exception to this rule. Within 300' of a legal occupied dwelling chain saws and power equipment shall be restricted to hours between 8:00am and 6:00pm, reduced from 6:00am and 9:00pm. To make an exception here, Director must have written permission from occupants. Limit on staging hours outside submitter's property.

6. 926.10 Log Hauling passed. Adds private roads to public roads where hauling hours may be restricted. (Remember even this engendered discussions of concern.)

7. 926.11 Flagging of Property Lines passed. Adds that those property lines that need to be flagged shall be done prior to plan submission

8. 926.13 Performance Bonding passed. Allows owners/easement holders of private roads or private road associations to request a bond be posted on private roads. The Department may (the word shall was deleted just prior to passage) grant such a request.

9. 926.15 Road Construction and Maintenance NO GO. Would have provided additional limits on road construction and provided for major increased road maintenance

10. 926.16 Flagging NO GO. Would have a required additional flagging of truck roads, tractor roads, landings, watercourse crossings and water breaks w/in the WLPZ on unstable areas and steep slopes.

11. 926.17 Abandonment of Roads and Landings NO GO. 

12. 926.19 Erosion Control Maintenance passed. Provides for gating, etc. of roads, all skid trails, landings and work areas shall be reseeded, mulched or protected by compacting slash and debris. More strict measures may be incorporated and the County rep may attend work completion inspection to review erosion control measures.

13. 926.22 Treatment of Logging Slash NO GO. Would have required lopping tree top limbs to 8 in or less from the bole the tree. Was considered too dangerous for loggers.

14. 926.23 Contents of Plan passed. Requires information substantiating the timber owner's legal right to access or sue private roads as haul roads. Must state estimated number of log truck loads to be removed and approx. number of haul days. Location of proposed truck staging areas. A statement of how "obligations to maintain the road shall be satisfied commensurate with use." Specify measures to provide for safe hauling--signage, pilot cars, etc. Documentation of existing condition of private roads. Provide a map of location of flagged property boundaries with "any documentation that substantiates the property line.' The words "the accuracy of" (the property line) were deleted.

15. 926.24 Residential Buffer Zone FAILED. Would have provided a 300' no cut zone adjacent to legal occupied dwellings and improved slash treatment w/in a 300' dwelling buffer.

16. 926.25 Special Harvesting Methods passed (a) only. (The portion passed was proposed by industry) New cutting standard: Where the proposed harvest rate is 51-60% of trees greater than 18 in. dbh, minimum re-entry shall be 14 years. Where rate is 50% or less, reentry is 10 years. No more than 40% of trees between 14 in and 18 dbh shall be harvested.

Other stricter cutting proscriptions were deleted as was protection for old growth trees and new standards for NTMPs.

17. 926.26 WaterCourse and Lake Protection. NO GO. Would have provided riparian no-cut buffer zones.

18. 926.27 Non-native Plants. FAILED. Would have given direction to invasive, non-native plant eradication and suggested use of appropriate plants or seeds for erosion control. (Mr. Odell thought broom was a nice flowering plant and impossible to eradicate anyway.)

19. 926.28 Helicopter Operations FAILED. Would have limited cumulative helicopter flying hours within any watershed and within any 5 year period. Would also have put restrictions similar to haul hours and days for truck hauling. Would have limited how close to occupied dwellings helicopters could fly.

20. 926.29 Emergency Conditions NO GO. Defined a "financial emergency" as minor in scope and done without any significant adverse impact on any adjoining landowner or on the environment. CDF did not know what a "significant adverse impact on any adjoining landowner" meant.

21. 926.30 Entry by County Representative for Inspection NO GO. Would have allowed a county representative to inspect timber operations after giving 24 hours notice and when the RPF or LTO's employees were engaged in activities on site. County rep could video tape.

From  our August issue

NEIL WILEY

You hear them throughout the Santa Cruz Mountains. The chain saws sound like angry bees. And the skid tractors crash through the forest like charging rhinos.

But the strongest smell is greed. Surely, some loggers are responsible, but we are seeing more evidence that money is more important than environmental concerns or neighbor’s rights.

Loggers, claiming to work for Greg Koppola, trespassed over a neighbor's land to cut trees near Redwood Estates. Two neighbors reported that more than one hundred trees were cut on Tuesday, July 14. A neighbor called the sheriff's department. When the responding deputy asked the loggers for their permit, they left. When I called CDF, Karen in "Resource Management" first said that Koppola's permit was valid for three years. When questioned further, she said they had received several calls, but that they wanted only "first-hand" information. But when a "first-hand" witness called, CDF was "closed for the day." Neighbors say the logging took place on or near the slide above Highway 17, an area that was expressly excluded from logging. Pictures of the area show extensive damage resulting from cut and run tactics. Witnesses say it looks like a war zone.

In the Villa del Monte subdivision during July, loggers cut at least five truckloads of redwoods and fir in the middle of a residential neighborhood. The landowner's permit was granted for "fire safety."

Although quick to claim property rights, some loggers are ignoring the rights of adjacent landowners. Not content to log their own land, several loggers in the Santa Cruz Mountains have been accused of cutting their neighbor’s trees. In one recent case, more than thirty large trees were stolen from an adjacent property. The California Department of Forestry ignored the neighbor’s complaint.

Although the California Department of Forestry is charged with policing logging, they may well be the most arrogant, poorly managed and incompetent agency in state government. They have become the enemy, not only of the public, but of responsible loggers who are trying to follow mandated logging practices.

It’s time for a change. Call your state legislator, and ask for reform of the California Department of Forestry. You could be doing more than saving a tree. You could be saving your neighbor’s property.

Local Logging Contol in Santa Cruz County
Betsy Herbert

In a resounding victory for local residents who have struggled for 17 years to curtail damaging logging practices, the Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors on June 2 voted 3-2 to send a much improved set of logging rules to the State Board of Forestry in July. (Supervisors Almquist, Beautz and Wormhoudt voted yes). They also voted to prohibit commercial logging in some residential areas, and on thousands more acres if their proposed rule package is not approved by the Board of Forestry. The vote followed a standing-room-only public hearing, where proponents of logging reform outnumbered opponents 2 to 1.

The new rules would protect all remaining old-growth trees in the county, establish 50 to 125 foot no-cut zones around major streams and 300 foot no-cut zones around residences, restrict helicopter logging, require performance bonding on private roads, and greatly reduce the cut on parcels that are not zoned primarily for commercial logging.

The nine-member Board of Forestry, appointed by Governor Wilson and heavily dominated by timber industry interests, has previously rejected requests for improved rules from both Mendocino and Sonoma Counties.

Forest advocates throughout California are now watching to see what will happen as Santa Cruz County attempts to regain local control of commercial logging from the state. Please contact Supervisor Jeff Almquist, who will present the rule package to the Board of Forestry, and tell him how important it is to return local control of logging to the county (701 Ocean St., Santa Cruz, CA 95060; fax 454-3262, telephone, 454-2200).

We are hopeful that all mountain residents will support this proposal and attend the June 2nd Board of Supervisor’s Meeting at the County Building at 1:30. Supervisors Beautz and Wormhoudt have been very supportive of this initiative and the other supervisors need to hear from you. Just tell them you support the "Win-Win Solution."

May Update

These county zoning regulations were effective beginning April 14, 1998, and will be re-considered on June 2 as part of a permanent ordinance.

Logging Update (March)

Elise Moss

Although the Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors did not extend the temporary interim ordinances, permanent ordinances forbid logging in the following zones: Special use (SU) with no timber overlay, residential (R), residential agriculture (RA), commercial (C) and commercial agriculture (CA).

Logging is still allowed in special use zones with timber overlay and timber protection zones (TPZ). The ordinance regarding helicoptering is in effect until August.

The Timber Technical Advisory Committee has been disbanded. The planning department will look at the committee’s recommendations.

In my opinion, the first order of business is to create buffer zones around residential areas in order to protect private property.

The Neighbors for Responsible Logging web site will be posting the complete Timber Technical Advisory Committee report on our web site (www.responsible-neighbors.org).

Moore's THP. Encroachment permits still have not been granted for the Moore's THP. They are still proposing an encroachment at a hairpin turn on Bear Creek Road. This section of road is collapsing at the existing residential road. If the encroachment is allowed, there is a strong likelihood that the road will collapse at this location. This means that Bear Creek Road could be reduced to a single lane at a blind hairpin turn. Please contact Russ Albrecht at County Public Works (408) 454-2302 with your concerns.

Petition available. An initiative developed by environmental groups in Santa Cruz County to return some control over logging to local cities and counties needs your support. The reason for this initiative is that the California Department of Forestry has not provided sufficient control over logging, impacting the health and safety of local communities. If you wish to sign a petition favoring this initiative, or if you have questions, please call Neil Wiley at 353-1546, or Neighbors for Responsible Logging, 354-2496.

You can get a petition two ways. You can download a copy of the petition from the www.responsible-neighbors.org web site, fill it with signatures (you only need six to fill a page) and mail it back to Neighbors for Responsible Logging at the Los Gatos address. Or you can call NRL at (408) 354-2496 and ask for a copy.

PETITIONING FOR LOCAL LOGGING CONTROL

Elise Moss

The following initiative was developed by environmental groups in Santa Cruz County to return some control over logging to local cities and counties. The reason for this initiative is that the California Department of Forestry has not provided sufficient control over logging, impacting the health and safety of local communities. If you wish to sign a petition favoring this initiative, or if you have questions, please call Neil Wiley at 353-1546, or Neighbors for Responsible Logging, 354-2496..

You can get a petition two ways. You can download a copy of the petition from the www.responsible-neighbors.org website, fill it with signatures (you only need six to fill a page) and mail it back to Neighbors for Responsible Logging at the Los Gatos address. Or you can call NRL at (408) 354-2496 and ask them to mail you a copy.

INITIATIVE MEASURE TO BE SUBMITTED DIRECTLY TO THE VOTERS

The Attorney General of California has prepared the following title and summary of the chief purpose and point of the proposed measure:

(Here set forth the title and summary prepared by the Attorney General. This title and summary must also be printed on the top of each page of the petition whereon signatures are to appear.)

TO THE HONORABLE SECRETARY OF STATE OF CALIFORNIA

We, the undersigned, registered, qualified voters of California, residents of ___________ County (or City and County), hereby propose amendments to the Public Resources Code, relating to forest practices, and petition the Secretary of State to submit the same to the voters of California for their adoption or rejection at the next succeeding general election or at any special statewide election held prior to that general election or otherwise provided by law. The proposed statutory amendments (full title and text of measure) read as follows:

SECTION 1. Section 4516.9 is added to the Public Resources Code, to read:

a) Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, a county or city may, in accordance with this section, review and approve or disapprove any timber harvesting plan where the greater portion of the land subject to the plan lies within the jurisdiction of the county or city.

(b) To initiate county or city review and approval or disapproval of timber harvesting plans, a county or city shall adopt a resolution stating all of the following:

The intent of the county or city to act as a reviewing and approving agency for all timber harvesting plans where the greater portion of the land subject to those plans lies within the jurisdiction of the county or city.

The procedures for the review and approval or disapproval of timber harvesting plans and procedures for reconsideration of a disapproved timber harvesting plan pursuant to subdivision (d).

The fees that will be imposed on a timber harvesting plan submitter for the administrative costs of a plan review or reconsideration.

Requirements that, if not met, will require the disapproval of a proposed timber harvesting plan or the issuance of a stop work order pursuant to paragraph (2) of subdivision (g), including, but not limited to, all of the following requirements:

The area subject to a timber harvesting plan shall be located in an area zoned for timber production.

The logging vehicles that will be used in timber operations conducted under the timber harvesting plan shall not have a major impact on traffic conditions or constitute any hazard.

Less than 25 percent of the timberland area of the watershed in which the area subject to the timber harvesting plan is located shall have been previously harvested within a ten year period.

No timber operations shall be conducted under the timber harvesting plan in a landslide area or in an area that has a slope of 65 percent or greater.

No water uptake or spring used for direct human consumption shall be located within 1,000 feet of any timber harvesting operations.

Road construction necessary for the conduct of timber operations under the timber harvesting plan shall meet all relevant county or city code requirements.

No occupied manmade structures shall be located within 1,000 feet of any timber harvesting operations.

No activities conducted pursuant to the timber harvesting plan shall violate any county or city ordinance or regulation pertaining to human health or safety or pertaining to the environment, including noise control.

Any operations involving helicopters shall be confined to the area subject to the timber harvesting plan.

(c) A county or city may, at any time, amend or repeal a resolution adopted pursuant to subdivision (b).

(d) If a county or city disapproves a timber harvesting plan, the plan submitter may request the county or city to reconsider its disapproval, and the county or city shall give due consideration to that request.

(e) The criteria for county or city review and approval or disapproval of a timber harvesting plan pursuant to this section shall be whether the plan is in conformance with this section, and with all other applicable requirements of law, including both of the following requirements:

(c) 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009 mountain network news All rights reserved.