Mendocino County has four timber companies which will be filing SYPs, but most of the Council's attention has been focused on L-P's plan, filed in mid-September, a 7,000-page, enormously complicated document that has cost L-P $5 million to develop.
The most important thing to know about L-P's so-called Sustained Yield Plan, as originally submitted, is that it calls for a steep decline in timber inventory over the first three decades. It's not until well into the 21st century, after most of those who're promoting this plan have passed on to their rewards, that L-P plans to start growing more board feet than it cuts.
Council members have agreed that this steep decrease in inventory is unacceptable to the County, and after considerable discussion at the November meeting, they directed the Council's consultant, Registered Professional Forester Stephen Smith, point man on the SYP review process, to inform L-P that, in fact, an inventory increase of 10% each decade would be considered minimal. Smith worked with CDF in Santa Cruz for nine years, part of that time as Interagency Review Team Chair, and has been allotted $9,000 of County of Mendocino money to review the SYPs. There's been some public comment, from L-P's Anna Sparks (at the October meeting) and forester Charlie Groff (in a November letter to the Willits News), to name two, about not wasting taxpayers' dollars on a review that state agencies are mandated to do Ñ as Henry Gundling replied to Anna at that meeting: if the state had done its job in the first place, "we wouldn't be in this position now."
Steve Smith reported to the Council in March that the technical review of L-P's Mendocino County SYP had elicited 80 pages of questions Ñ 12 pages from him regarding the County's concerns, and the rest from the agencies - CDF, Fish & Game, etc. Originally, the SYP approval process was supposed to be completed by right about now; instead, L-P's Tommy Thompson told a private group in Albion recently that it may not be until the end of 1996 that a revised plan incorporating the agencies' review questions and concerns will be approved. So, does L-P have an incentive to stretch out the SYP approval process? Is this delay another window of opportunity for L-P to log a little bit further to infinity Ñ as deposed CEO Harry Merlo used to say?
There was some discussion about this at the March meeting, and also some questions about how current THPs fit into the SYP scheme. L-P's document doesn't exactly make this clear; as Charles Peterson said, all the graphs and summaries he's seen start 10 years from now Ñ we haven't seen any info from decade zero to 1. Peterson added: "It's certainly inventory-depleting logging that we're seeing now." Albion activist Bill Heil stood up to say that if today's THPs are supposed to be part of the first decade of the SYP, at the rate they're going now, L-P will have used up its "allotment" for the first 10 years, in the Albion at least, very soon. L-P's "sustained liquidation plan" (thanks, Hans Burkhardt) proposes to cut the relatively densely-wooded Albion until the inventory is reduced down to the county-wide average Ñ a half or a third of what's standing now.
Pete Passof said he'd look into whether there were penalties or sanctions for a timber company if their SYP plan is delayed.
Smith told me before the March meeting that though there's a lot of work to be done, he is confident that a revised SYP will be "much more palatable to the public," and that the Albion, in particular, won't be "put under the gun so much." He added that he was pleased to work with such an informed public, and appreciated all the help he has gotten. Smith did note that in the current deregulatory climate in Sacramento, it was possible that the SYP process could be completely eliminated, a note that was later echoed by Hans Burkhardt who spoke briefly about a package of bills currently in the California Senate Natural Resources Committee that would undo decades of efforts to regulate forest practices in the state.
Council member Duane Wells told me he was fully confident in Smith's abilities: "If Steve Smith isn't satisfied [with LP's final plan], I'm not satisfied. The Board of Supes shouldn't be, and the county shouldn't be either." Linda Perkins of the Albion Nation agrees that the Council hired a good person to comment on the SYPs, and thinks that Smith's doing "a credible job."
So, what if the County and the agencies' concerns aren't adequately addressed in L-P's revised SYP? What if the plan still shows a decreasing inventory? Will the County back down, or will they refuse to accept the plan? If they did file a "non-concurrence," L-P would most likely appeal to the state Board of Forestry. And Mendocino folks have had some experience with the Board Ñ as council member Charles Peterson says: "I continue to remain frustrated about Mendocino County's powerlessness to determine its own future regarding timber issues."
Little River THP
In any case, as Linda Perkins says, the Forest Council remains a good political forum, and council members seem to have done a "pretty good job of listening to the public." In addition to the SYPs, the Council has considered the increase in herbicide use on Mendocino County timberlands over the last couple of years, the concerns of Mendocino residents about overharvesting of hardwoods in the County, and the logging of the County-owned Little River Airport parcel.
Mendocino County is proceeding with plans to log the Albion site, and the Forest Council has hired forester Stephen Smith to do so. Smith plans to conduct the timber harvest according to Mendocino County's proposed local rules, and in March, the Council directed him to look into working with the Institute of Sustainable Forestry's "green" timber certification program. The Council also discussed the advantages of preparing a NTMP - a Non-Industrial Timber Management Plan - an alternative to the THP process which sets up a long-term management style for perpetuity, and agreed to suggest an NTMP as one option to the Board of Supervisors. Smith's draft THP is available for public review at the Supervisors' office in Ukiah.
Hardwoods
The issue of commercial harvesting of hardwoods is a relatively new one in the County. Up until recently L-P's historical philosophy on hardwoods was, as L-P's Jim Lemieux said at the October meeting, to "leave them for the wildlife." Now, LP claims that it's necessary to "maximize production of hardwoods to utilize conifers fully."
CDF deputy chiefs, John Teie and Tom Osipowich, told the Council in October that they saw a need for regulating hardwood harvesting, they were currently writing specific language about hardwoods into each THP, and that they had been "reviewing the literature," with an eye to writing guidelines for minimum hardwood retention.
Linda Perkins told the Council that dealing THP by THP with hardwood removal resulted in uneven standards, and that in any case less than 5% of THPs were inspected by a Fish & Game representative. David & Ellen Drell and Meca Wawona all spoke on the importance of oaks to the County. The Council asked Greg Giusti, Wildlands Ecology Advisor with UC Extension, to prepare a draft resolution on hardwood retention standards. Greg Guisti's eventual draft guidelines, based on other counties', consisted of a list of four "shoulds":
1) Landowners should coordinate their management activities with local and state fire protection agencies re: potential fire hazard concerns;
2) THPs should incorporate a minimum threshold of hardwood retention on a per acre basis to insure protection of non-timber resources;
3) Management of hardwoods should consider impacts to community viewsheds;
4) Hardwood management should be viewed in the larger context of forest management and not in the narrow focus of timber management.
At the January and February meetings, representatives from the Cattleman's Association, the Farm Bureau and other private landowners in the County came to express their concerns over how this resolution might affect private property rights, while other speakers contended the draft resolution's "shoulds" were too vague, and meaningless without enforcement power. The Forest Council decided that Giusti should set up a working group to resolve differences and prepare a proposal to present to the Council in June; those who'd like to get involved should contact Greg Giusti at the UC Extension office (463-4495). At the April meeting, the Council also agreed to co-sponsor an informational workshop/field trip to be held late this summer, for non-industrial landowners who'd like to learn more about how to protect their oaks, how to deal with fire concerns, and even how ranch owners might profit from two species, wild turkeys and wild hogs, that feed off of Mendocino County's oak trees.
"Toxic Tresspass"
The final issue I'd like to discuss is the Council's investigation of the use of forestry herbicides in the County, which has increased from 697 acres sprayed in 1992 to more than 8,700 acres in 1995. Garlon is the primary forestry herbicide used here, and its active ingredient is triclopyr, a synthetic plant hormone which kills by causing "disorderly growth." And L-P uses by far the most of it Ñ 7,202 acres sprayed last year.
Last December, the Forest Council heard testimony regarding Garlon use from state and county regulators and by a consultant flown in by Garlon's manufacturer, Dow Elanco, a Dr. Frank Dost, who told us not to worry. (Of course, according to a 1985 UPI newspaper article, Dost also told a jury in a chemical poisoning suit brought against Monsanto Chemical Co. by seven retired Monsanto employees that "his study of research literature showed no evidence that dioxin exposure produced long-term negative health effects.") We also learned in January that there is very little monitoring of forestry herbicides in the County, that CDF has no jurisdiction in the matter, and that there are no regulations regarding how close to fish-bearing streams these toxics can be sprayed.
Rancho Navarro's Neighbors for Alternatives to Herbicides (NAH) organized a "rebuttal" hearing for the January meeting, which was broadcast live on local public radio, KZYX. A dozen well-informed speakers presented the Forest Council with independent evidence on the hazards of Garlon use; studies showing toxic effects on vitally important soil microorganisms and on young salmon; what the U.S. Forest Service calls "marginal to inadequate" testing of human health effects; triclopyr's similarity to the now-banned, and deadly, 2,4,5-T (only one atom different); the fire danger of thousands of acres of standing dead dry trees; persistent anecdotal reports over the years of unsafe application procedures and violations of worker-safety regulations; the fallacy of thinking we can certify a poison as "safe" by testing it individually in a lab, overlooking the cumulative effects of the multiple toxic compounds we've let loose in the environment; and, in general, the basic bottom-line lunacy of adding synthetic growth hormones to the eco-system.
Most importantly, we also talked about why L-P has started using so much Garlon. Because of L-P's unsustainable forestry practices, wide areas of their overcut/clearcut timberlands have become dominated by tan oaks and quick-growing brushy species. L-P is trying to short-circuit this natural re-growth process by poisoning what's there now, planting conifer seedlings, and turning these unprofitable areas into chemically managed tree farms. Application of Garlon is just the first step: they'll then need to apply chemical fertilizer, because the damaged and eroded soil won't grow trees without it; and chemical pesticides, because monoculture tree farms don't provide habitat for the wildlife that keeps destructive insects in check Ñ a never-ending cycle of synthetic intervention.
The Council listened; we hope they've been reading the many documents we've given them; and council members have expressed sympathy with our concerns. The question is, what can this "advisory" Council really do? Unfortunately, as the result of state "pre-emption" legislation specifically designed to render null-and-void an anti-aerial spraying ordinance Mendocino County passed 2-1 some 10 years ago, local governments in California no longer have regulatory authority over the application of herbicides. The Board of Supervisors did unanimously sign a resolution calling for a County ban on the industrial use of forestry herbicides back in September of 1994, and then sent it off to the state Board of Forestry, but that has pretty much been ignored. The California Department of Forestry, as previously stated, has no jurisdiction over the use of forestry herbicides either.
One local official who does have some authority over herbicide use is our county Agricultural Commissioner, Dave Bengston, who, under the supervision of the Director of the state Dept. of Pesticide Regulation, is mandated to enforce the state's pesticide statutes and regulations. Bengston told the Council in January that his hands were tied; that he can't require herbicide users to do anything beyond what the state requires. He can't require advance notification; he can't require buffer zones around streams; he can't even do the surprise inspections he is supposed to do, because he doesn't know in advance where the herbicides are going to be used. At this point, Supervisor John Pinches expressed his dismay that the County can tell people where they can't smoke a cigarette, but can't require timber companies to notify neighbors of upcoming herbicide sprays.
We say that if Bengston's hands are tied, it's more of a political problem than a legal one, and we have requested the Forest Council to get a legal opinion from County Counsel Peter Klein on just what authority the agricultural commissioner does have. Out-of-county regulators have suggested to me that the commissioner can certainly at least initiate a request for local rules or application procedures, based on special local conditions (for example: the vulnerability of our endangered Coho salmon population, or the fact that, in Mendocino County, many families live in rural subdivisions right next to commercial timberlands). Supervisor Peterson told us in March that he is preparing such a request for the County Counsel.
We have also suggested the Council look into whether the Board of Supervisors can legally require that for timberlands to receive the local TPZ (timber production zone) designation, thus paying 10 cents on the dollar in local taxes, they must be managed without the use of herbicides. We've urged the County to challenge the state legislation banning local control Ñ attorney James Kovacs has told the Council the law has never been challenged in appeals court. And we've asked the Council to direct the local regulatory agencies to look into the independent evidence and studies we presented.
After hearing us out, Council member Henry Gundling suggested that, considering new CEO Mark Suwyn's statement that L-P would from now on be logging with full concern for the community, it might be worthwhile to ask L-P officials to meet with residents concerned about herbicide use, and attempt to work out a voluntary, compromise agreement. The Council agreed, and sent such a letter later in January, but as of March 5th, had not had a response from L-P. Sometime later in March, however, L-P did offer to take Forest Council members on a guided tour to show them "what's out there" and "what we're trying to control." This invitation most definitely did not include members of the public, so there was quite a bit of discussion at the April meeting over whether the tour would violate the Brown Act open meetings law (which, according to Mark Heimann of the AVA, it certainly does), but at presstime, as far as I know, the tour was a go.
In the meantime, we've discovered new indications that hormone-mimickers like triclopyr may be hazardous to the reproductive systems of humans and of wildlife. In January 1996, there were many major news stories about new research that has re-affirmed a reported 50% drop in human sperm counts worldwide (in the New York Times, the New Yorker, Esquire, etc.). Many scientists interviewed in these stories now believe that industrial chemicals, including hormone-mimickers, or "endocrine system disrupters," are implicated in this drop. Previously, it was thought that "estrogenetic," or female-mimicking, compounds were the primary culprits; now, new data on environmental hormones has "muddied the waters É expanded the list of suspected crimes, the cast of potential troublemakers, and the sites of their potential villainy" (Science News, July 15, 1995). These subtle endocrine-disrupting effects, like other long-term health hazards, are not considered by U.S regulatory agencies in their assessments of risk from using pesticides, and we have found no reports of triclopyr ever having been tested for them. In fact, an on-line file on triclopyr, maintained by the (pro-pesticide) Oregon State University, states: "There is not enough data to draw any conclusion about the reproductive hazards of triclopyr due to chronic exposure to humans."
So here we are: it seems clear that the majority of County residents are opposed to the industrial use of forestry herbicides, we've collected thousands of signatures opposing such use, and we've got a sympathetic local government. Nonetheless, this spring, like every spring, the spraying is poised to resume as soon as the rains stop. In fact, L-P did an aerial herbicide spray here for the first time in years last December, over their Sanhedrin Tract in eastern Mendocino County, and plans to do more. We must all speak with a louder voice. Please take the time to contact the Forest Council or your Supervisor and insist that they take every possible action they can. We are starting to organize statewide to change the "preemption" law, to give control over pesticide use back to local government Ñ by legislative action (the successful Democratic candidate for state Assembly, Virginia Strom-Martin, gave us a strong statement of support during the March campaign) or, if necessary, by ballot initiative in 2000. Mendocino County should be at the forefront of this battle. Let's put an end to this "toxic trespass" now!
Forest Council Meetings
The Mendocino Forest Council generally meets on the first Monday of each month from 1:30-5pm at the Supervisors' Chambers, 301 S. State St. in Ukiah. The public is welcome. Contact the Forest Council with your opinions: c/o the Board of Supervisors, 301 S. State, Ukiah, 95482; tel: 463-4221; fax: 463-4245. Friends of Sherwood Forest can be reached at P.O. Box 1698, Willits, CA 95490; 459-3330; jtpoole@zapcom.net.
Copyright Mendocino Environmental Center 1997
Permission granted to excerpt or use this article if source is cited