The Plan was supposed to be a starting place for discussion within the Citizens Advisory Committee, but it got nowhere for two months. In January, forester Jim Greig circulated some proposals for JDSF management with some very good points. The committee went over it item by item and reached consensus on the following items:
1. The non-industrial forest landowner shall be the primary client base for JDSF research and demonstration.
2. JDSF shall demonstrate orderly conversion of even-aged forest to all-aged forest and work to develop old-growth minor components within young-growth stands.
3. Disavowal of clear-cutting as a management tool on JDSF. Develop large-scale demonstrations of all-aged management using single tree and small group (less than 2.5 acres) selection. Demonstrate various levels of harvest (i.e. 30, 40, 50% of stands). Demonstrate various rotation ages (i. e. 50, 75, 100, and 150 years) on a large scale.
4. Demonstrate the effects of single tree selection and other all-aged silvicultural systems on wildlife and streams.
5. Stop using chemicals in vegetation control as a means of site preparation or timber stand improvement. Develop alternative means of vegetation control while a moratorium is in effect.
Moratorium
A 9 to 4 majority recommended a three year moratorium on spraying. The vote reflects differences within the group not just on herbicide usage but on stopping clear-cutting and other issues as well. Almost everyone wants to see the forest managed without using herbicides and clear-cutting. Most feel the only way to accomplish that is to ban herbicides and clear-cutting, thinking that without an outright ban, management will go on as they have. Others feel that a ban would tie the hands of the forest managers and lead to problems. I had seen this difference as an insurmountable deadlock preventing consensus for several months. Now I think we all see a need to change the wording of the new Management Plan being formulated by JDSF. Will they take the recommendations of this very diverse group into account?
Our last Citizens Advisory Committee meeting was February 25th. Ronnie James, President of the Board of Directors of the Mendocino Woodlands gave an overview of the Woodlands' history He said that the resource agency in Sacramento is looking at the entire federal gift mandate of the 5500 acre Woodlands area. One proposal would transfer the 2500 acre Special Treatment Area of the Woodlands from the Dept. of Forestry into the Dept. of Parks. Another option is to transfer almost the entire 5500 acres from the Dept of Forestry into the Dept. of Parks. The Committee took no action.
Presentation
The remainder of the meeting was a presentation I gave to the committee on the Citizens Management Plan's proposal for stream buffers to give habitat protection for many threatened, endangered and sensitive species including the coho salmon. The proposal was to follow Federal Option 9 stream protection. Option 9 was adopted after the most extensive review and study of scientific data and social considerations ever undertaken of various timber harvest options on federal land in the Pacific Northwest. I read about 4000 pages of documentation and presented grafts, charts and selected text. This was the first proposal to actually take any land area out of commercial production of timber. It went nowhere. It was defeated by vote.
At our next meeting JDSF will present the data they have on sedimentation, stream temperature, large woody debris, and salmon studies. I already know it will be a very rosy picture of coho salmon habitat done by some very renowned scientist.
The finger of low (no) salmon population is always pointed at logging practices 100 years ago even though there were still substantial salmon runs into the 1970's. That is when the last of the old-habitat was destroyed. The finger is pointed to the oceans even though it is the same Pacific Ocean where most of the Alaskan salmon runs are still abundant (except in Southeast Alaska with dramatic habitat loss due to logging). The finger is pointed to the years of drought, as though salmon populations have never survived drought conditions before. The one thing that people who only look at timber seem in total denial about is that salmon can not survive without a forest habitat. Our State Forest should provide a demonstration of how to harvest a sustainable amount of timber while providing intact habitat for all of the other species in close to historic population levels. Most species are protected with adequate riparian buffers.
Copyright Mendocino Environmental Center 1998
Permission granted to excerpt or use this article if source is cited