From our February '01 issue

Jodi Frediani

We have no problem with the Santa Cruz Sentinel praising Judge Robert Yonts’ December 19 decision on Big Creek Lumber’s latest logging lawsuit. Opinions in this community on logging run the gamut. But it appears that the Sentinel has done a disservice to its readers with its December 20 editorial. Rather than “tell it like it is,” the Sentinel has mixed its facts confusing the issues as well as the readers.

We would like to help set the record straight. Santa Cruz County ordinances have not prevented Big Creek Lumber or any other timber company from logging in Santa Cruz County. Logging can and has continued to take place on lands zoned specially for Timber Production (TP), which over recent years have constituted the bulk of all harvested lands in the county. If Big Creek has not done any logging since the new ordinances went into effect, then it has been by circumstance or by choice. As one of their foresters said to me in personal conversation, many local foresters have been waiting on the court’s decision before submitting new timber harvest plans.

One county ordinance that was challenged prohibits logging on parcels in certain zone districts, yet Judge Yonts upheld the county’s right to restrict logging through zoning. Yonts also upheld the county’s right to prevent logging within fifty feet of perennial streams outside of the TP zone district, a move the supervisors made not to “keep complaining constituents quiet,” but rather to protect our watercourses and fisheries.

The Board of Supervisors’ actions were neither in response to “an attempt by the state in recent years to apply uniform standards for logging operations across the state,” or “a way to prevent logging.” The supervisors passed ordinances in an effort to protect public health and safety and protect our local streams, water supply and endangered fish populations. This was done after the Board of Forestry refused to pass county proposed rules, and then specifically directed the county to handle the matter on its own. As far as the county’s alleged attempt to stop logging, the contrary is true. The supervisors approved a greatly reduced re-zoning fee so that property owners who apply to rezone their land to the Timber Production zone district are actually subsidized in their efforts.

With regard to the issue of fire safety, we urge the Sentinel to review the growing body of scientific data which shows that logging may actually increase fire hazard. Yes, “thinning our forests,” that is removing the smaller trees, could actually reduce fire hazard. But loggers do the opposite. They remove the largest, most commercially valuable and most fire-retardant trees and open up the forest canopy, letting in light which encourages the growth of dense, flammable underbrush.

The Sentinel editorial finishes on a sour note, misinterpreting the court’s decision altogether: “The law is clear: the state is the one that makes decisions about logging.” The law is not clear and the state is not the only one to make decisions about logging. Rather, the law declares that only the state can regulate “how” logging takes place, but counties can determine “where” logging takes place. As evidenced by the legal arguments from both sides, determining the difference between “how” and “where” is not as easy as it seems.

While the precedent-setting 1995 Big Creek vs. San Mateo County court case was decided in favor of Big Creek Lumber at the Superior Court level, the decision was overturned with a ruling in favor of San Mateo County in the Appeals Court. Should Santa Cruz County decide to appeal portions of Superior Court Judge Yonts’ decision, we may again see the courts rule for the county.

And finally, we agree with the Sentinel that some logging projects are badly done and hurt the environment, while others are done well. But until the Board of Forestry chooses to pass rules that protect the forest from the bad projects, and until the California Department of Forestry takes enforcement action against those damaging operations, we urge the county to continue to explore all legal means to protect our forests, our watersheds and our community.