The City of Watsonville began massive tree-felling on the 200-acre Grizzly Flat just days before a lawsuit testing the legality of the timber plan was heard in court. In fact, trees were falling as attorneys for Citizens for Responsible Forest Management (CRFM) and the city were making their arguments to the judges at the Sixth District Court of Appeals in San Jose on March 18.
During the appeal hearing, James T. Farrar, attorney for the City of Watsonville, told the judges that, "The city considers Grizzly Flat as their garden," and he described their massive logging operation as "just pruning the trees." The city expects to remove 1.1 million board feet (about 220 double logging trucks full) of timber this spring.
CRFM had assumed that the logging wouldn't start until well after the March 18 court date, since the timber plan specified April 1 as the first allowable day of logging. But according to Tom Osipowich, Regional Director of the California Department of Forestry, the agency granted the city a "minor amendment" to the timber plan last fall, allowing them to start logging whenever the weather permitted. Minor amendments require no public notice.
Neighbor Harold Short heard chain saws and went down to inspect just a few days before the court date and found that substantial cutting had already taken place.
By March 30, still no decision had been reached by the court. When several members of CRFM, the Sierra Club and Rain Forest Action inspected the logging operation, they found 4-5 foot diameter giant redwoods and firs -- some as old as 100 years -- felled into creeks and on steep slopes. They estimated that about one third of the property had been cut.
CRFM had previously filed a Santa Cruz County Superior Court suit against CDF and the City of Watsonville, alleging that the Grizzly Flat timber plan had been approved illegally. They lost their case in October of 1995, but later filed an appeal hoping to overturn that decision. Just a year ago, the appeals court agreed to hear the case and granted an emergency injunction to stop the logging. However, the injunction expired near the end of the logging season last year, and the case still had not been heard. To continue the injunction, the court required CRFM to post a $100,000 bond, as demanded by the City of Watsonville. When CRFM was unable to raise the money, the city began logging, but had to stop when winter rains began.
It remains to be seen if any of the marked trees will be standing by the time the judges have finally made their decision.
Mark Morgenthaler, Executive Director of Citziens for
Responsible Forest Management (CRFM) reported that attorneys for his group
filed a Notice of Appeal February 6 at the Santa Cruz County Superior
Court, seeking to overturn the decision by Judge Samuel P. Stevens last
October 13. Stevens'decision allowed the City of Watsonville to proceed
with their hotly contested logging plan for publicly owned Grizzly Flat.
Logging could begin as early as April 1 unless a stay is granted by the
Sixth District appellate court.
Meanwhile, Mary Tsalis, Executive Director of the Open Space Alliance in
Santa Cruz County, has asked Steve Salomon, Watsonville City Manager, to
consider selling a conservation easement for the property. Tsalis said "An
easement could provide a win-win solution for everyone with regard to this
highly controversial logging plan. The City would retain ownership of
Grizzly Flat, and gain substantial income from the property without having
to log it. Watsonville water users would have peace of mind knowing that
the Water Department would not log the heart of the Corralitos Creek
watershed, and so would not risk damaging the source of Watsonville's
highest quality water."
The Open Space Alliance is a project of the Environmental Council whose
purpose is to identify lands worth preserving as open space, and to arrange
for either the purchase of such properties, or the purchase of protective
easements.
Tsalis explained that there is some seed money available immediately, but
before she could begin recruitiing purchasers of the easement, the City of
Watsonville needs to agree to meet with her and a group of concerned
stakeholders in order to negotiate a fair price for the easement.
WHAT YOU CAN DO
Write letters to the editor of the Watsonville Register Pajaronian, the Santa Cruz Sentinel, and the San Jose
Mercury News pointing out that the City of Watsonville owes it to the
public to meet with the Open Space Alliance to consider selling an easement
for Grizzly Flat. Explain that for the City to proceed with their logging
operation without exploring this option would be a breach of the public
trust.
Even though the legal petition to stop the logging on Grizzly Flat has been
denied in court, our efforts were not in vain, since the City of Watsonville cannot
legally begin logging this critical watershed forest until next spring. Restrictions
in the Timber Harvest Plan do not allow any falling of marketable timber
(redwoods and Douglas firs) until April 1, 1996.
We still have four months to convince the City Council to scale back or stop the
logging of Grizzly Flat. There is good reason to keep the pressure on, because
we are now getting the best possible preview of what's to come with Grizzly Flat,
by looking at the logging operation on the adjacent parcel. This privately owned
land immediately upstream from Grizzly Flat, known as Golitzin/Diesel, is being
logged as I write this article.
The match of situations couldn't be closer: the same creek, the same forest, the
same soils and the same steep slopes. As with Grizzly Flat, members of the
public objected to the California
Department of Forestry (CDF) about the
Golitzin/Diesel plan's proposed road-building and cutting on steep slopes. The
County Board of Supervisors appealed CDF's decision to approve the
Golitzin/Diesel logging plan, as they did with the Grizzly Flat plan, to the State
Board of Forestry. The Board of Forestry turned down both appeals.
Logging began on the Golitzin/Diesel property this past summer. So far, only a
small area has been felled, but already the bad practices are showing their
effects: besides the road-building and felling trees in the creek, there are slash
piles 20 feet deep laying on nearly 100% slopes--inviting erosion and fire
hazard; there is destabilization of the creek bank; and soil in the creek waiting to
be washed downstream.
The County Planning Department has protested practices used on the
Golitzin/Diesel plan to the highest levels of CDF. According to Mark Deming,
Principal Planner, the logging operation is not complying with the timber harvest
plan as it was approved. He says loggers have violated the Coho salmon shade
requirements for the creek, and they've graded a road 70 feet wide, more than
three times the approved width.
An August 9, 1995 letter from County Planning Director Daniel K. Shaw to CDF
charges that this illegal road had already eroded into Rattlesnake Creek. The
letter said, "Serious sedimentation impacts are possible as a result of this road.
The short time between now and the beginning of the rainy season is of serious
concern to the County."
CDF's dismissal of these serious complaints from County officials demonstrates
a complete lack of local control and accountability to the public.
But the Watsonville City Council has demonstrated an even more shocking lack
of sensitivity to the public. First, they sold the timber for $550,000 to a mill near
Fresno, six months before the timber harvest plan was approved by CDF. Once
this premature contract was made, stopping or scaling back the cut was
probably no longer an option for the City Council.
Since July 1994, folks from all over the county have organized an intensifying
effort to get the City Council to listen to its populace, to respond to petitions
requesting a public hearing, to survey the area for sensitive species, and to stop
or scale back the cut.
But instead of addressing the public's concerns, the City Council has dug their
heels in. Ignoring legitimate regional interest in conserving a threatened public
water supply, they have labeled those who live near Grizzly Flat as "outsiders"
who weren't entitled to have a say about how this watershed property should be
used. This is ironic, since the Watsonville Water Department is the "absentee
landlord" of Grizzly Flat, which lies 5.5 miles north of Corralitos, many miles
outside the Watsonville city limits. Yet we are the outsiders! Never mind that we
are paying customers of the Watsonville Water Department, who pumps water
out of Corralitos Creek, and sells it back to us! The bottom line is that because
we can't vote in City Council elections, the Watsonville City Council has
arrogantly dismissed our concerns, calling us alarmists.
But the Watsonville City Council could afford to be arrogant. They knew that the
California Department of Forestry approves 99.9% of all logging plans submitted
in the state!
Because of the City Council's lack of response to the public, and later CDF's and
the Board of Forestry's, our effort to be heard ended up in court. The suit
brought by Citizens for Responsible Forest Management (CRFM) --and
supported by the Sierra Club, Watsonville Wetlands Watch, Coastal Watershed
Council, and Committee for a Green Foothills--was heard October 13 and the
judgment went against the environment. But the judge's decision to uphold the
legality of the Grizzly Flat logging plan does not mean that the environment will
be protected, or that logging the most critical part of the watershed is a smart
thing to do.
Just because the issues we have presented remain unaddressed does not
change the fact that they are real issues that affect all of us. Watershed and
ecosystem protection are increasingly critical. Wide-spread media coverage has
increased public awareness of these issues. More informed people are debating
Grizzly Flat, on the streets and cafes, as well as by members of the State
Legislature and in water resource planning meetings.
No matter what happens at Grizzly Flat and Golitzin/Diesel, those who care will
be vigilantly monitoring both logging operations, and reporting to The Ventana
what they observe.
Harold Short is a nearby neighbor of Grizzly Flat. He alerted the Sierra Club and
other groups to the large scale timber harvest proposed for the area by the
Watsonville City Council. His first article about Grizzly Flat appeared in the July
1994 Ventana.
It was Friday the 13th--the trial was scheduled to begin at 8:30 AM at the Santa Cruz
County Superior Court, and I was caught in Highway One rush hour traffic.
Checking the time on the dashboard clock, I recalled the first hearing three weeks before, on September
18. The courtroom was packed with folks from the Sierra Club, Environmental Council, Citizens for
Responsible Forest Management (CRFM), Coastal Watershed Council and Watsonville Wetlands Watch.
This coalition had worked diligently and passionately for the past year trying to save Grizzly Flat from the
Watsonville Water Department's plan to log the heart of City's watershed.
Representing the plaintiffs, CRFM, was attorney Thomas N. Lippe, whose name had appeared lately on
the front pages of major newspapers for his work on behalf of Headwaters Forest. Lippe had taken our
case on a partially pro bono basis. Opposing him was a team of attorneys representing the California
Department of Forestry (the agency that approved the plan), the City of Watsonville, and the sawmill that
had bought the timber on Grizzly Flat. The Honorable Judge Samuel A. Stevens presided.
We had just settled into our seats and were waiting in great anticipation for the proceedings to begin. At
last, we thought, after the Watsonville City Council had repeatedly ignored our petitions for a public
hearing, we would finally have a chance to air our grievances. At last, we thought, after CDF had ignored
and belittled our concerns for months during the review process, we would now have our say in court. At
last, we thought, after the County's request for an appeal hearing to the Board of Forestry was summarily
dismissed, we could plead our case to a neutral party.
But just as we had seated ourselves to hear our case argued by Lippe, Judge Stevens stunned the
courtroom by announcing that he had already tentatively ruled against us! I was sitting behind Lippe, who
momentarily flinched, but then launched into the groundwork for an appeal.
Throughout the courtroom, incredulous faces were asking the same question: "How can this be?" How can
it be, once again, that the state agency that refused to address legitimate issues raised by the public will
not be held accountable?
Our lawsuit argued that CDF did not properly consider the cumulative impacts of logging in the
watershed, ignoring the potentially deleterious affects on water quality, ground water recharge, and
wildlife. Lippe asked that the judge view the videotape that we had prepared for the public record,
featuring hydrologist Bob Curry, who explained the significance of Grizzly Flat to the watershed, and to
the people of Watsonville. But when attorneys for CDF and the City objected, the judge decided against
viewing it. That meant the fate of Grizzly Flat would be decided by a man who had never set foot there,
and who wouldn't even take the time to watch it on TV.
But while the judge dismissed our arguments, he found fault with the way that both sides had addressed a
wildlife issue relating to the older forest stands at Grizzly Flat. He called for another hearing to allow both
sides to re-argue the issue. That court date was scheduled for Friday, October 13.
For the next two weeks, Mark Morgenthaler, President of CRFM, and I worked with Lippe to re-address
this issue. Had CDF provided significant evidence to show that the wildlife habitat in the older forest
stands would be protected during the logging operation? We knew that CDF had not disclosed the
information necessary to show that the wildlife habitat would be protected because they had not done a
biotic survey. The problem was to convince the judge that legally, they had not provided enough
information.
The following statement from the Grizzly Flat timber harvest plan illustrates the extent to which CDF, the
City of Watsonville, and our court system protect the wildlife habitat of our forests:
"Mobile species will be able to avoid significant impacts by temporarily moving off site. Individuals of
immobile species may be harmed, but species will survive as disturbance is only partial . . ."
As I turned off Highway One onto Ocean St., I saw a loaded logging truck barreling toward me in my side
view mirror. The driver obviously wasn't slowing down for me, so I knew I had better get out of the way
fast, which I did. What a way to miss the trial, I thought, to be wiped out by a logging truck!
I parked the car, crossed the street, rushed toward the small building where the trial was scheduled, took a
deep breath, and walked through the door. Everyone had just taken a seat. Ida Hills from the Sierra Club
Forestry Task Force pointed to an empty chair next to her in the front row.
As I sat down and prepared myself for another round, Judge Stevens did it again--without hearing
anything from either side beyond the obligatory introductions, he announced that he had decided to deny
our petition. It was over, just like that.
So where do we go from here? An appeal is still being considered--we are waiting to read Judge Stevens'
written decision.
I believe Dick Bernard from Watsonville Wetlands Watch speaks for us all when he says, "It ain't over
yet!"
Building on the foundation that we've established throughout the County, and beyond, we must continue
to fight the battle to protect our watersheds, to preserve our dwindling old-growth forests, and to increase
protection for riparian (streamside) corridors.
The California State Forest Practice Rules offer no protection for old-growth trees. However, the City of
Santa Cruz recently passed an ordinance to protect old-growth trees on city property. That's a step in the
right direction, that can serve as a model for other locally owned land held in the public trust.
While the Forest Practice Rules require a "buffer zone" around streams, the rules allow roads to be built in
that buffer zone, and trees can be cut there and even felled into the stream. That's substandard protection
for our public water supply, as well as the wildlife that depends on cool clear water.
We must continue to advocate improvements in the Forest Practice Rules to bring standards of protection
for our watersheds nearer to those defined by Federal guidelines on public lands. These guidelines
establish 300 foot no-cut, no-entry zones on each side of major streams.
The integrity of an important watershed is at risk, calling into question also the integrity of
the system appointed to hold it in trust. Because of the system's haste for a few more
quick logging bucks, Citizens for Responsible Forest Management has filed a lawsuit
against the California Department of Forestry (CDF) and the City of Watsonville, seeking to
overturn the approved logging plan for the area. The suit will have gone to court by
September 18, after this writing.
At issue, really, are two processes: The integrity of the natural filtration system of the
area's water supply, as well as the responsiveness of the political system to the call for
clearly needed environmental protection. The CDF-approved logging plan has not
addressed certain key issues, such as the need to monitor the high potential for
logging-related soil erosion and sedimentation, despite public concern that it do so. Why has it
not? At issue is a conflict of values. I'd like to filter those values through a close look at
the place itself: Mountain, Canopy, Understory, Creek.
The area to be logged is around the unique wetlands of the aquifer, as well as up the steep
and narrow gorge of fragile Rattlesnake Gulch, a beautiful natural flue delivering water
out of the mountain. When I was there in late June, the mountains loomed as I drove
towards them, solemn presences defining the surrounding green terrain. Guardians. And
Sentinels. For they offered to my imagination a view--the higher, wider one from which
we see all that has been lost: once lush land now cut, built and congested, and our
watersheds and wetlands shrinking, as if they were not useful, precious, irreplaceable.
Beyond mythic presences, who actually guards this watershed?
The irony is that, bottom line, it is reckoned that the logging revenues supposed to keep
water bills from going up will return at best only seven cents a month to each user. And
what of the quality of the water after the watershed is cut, compacted, trashed? And what
of the quality of the public's trust in the system when it becomes obvious (when all
around, the dust finally doesn't settle) that what was held for us, for our unborn future,
was sold down the river? I viewed our public officials' bottom line as I hiked up
Rattlesnake Gulch. It was blue and spray-painted around the many Redwoods slated for
cutting, even those stump-sprouting, even those directly bordering the Creek.
There is no way to mitigate the damage logging would wreak on this watershed. Any
proposals suggesting otherwise--as in an aerial grid of cables to take out the trees,
helicopters to lift them out--any language attempting to shovel under, cover over or
hover above the potential for real harm here, has no coherence in the face of the actual. In
fact, let me call it what it is: A cynical, short view, quick-buck-based deception. Language
has life, meaning, by virtue of rooting itself in truth--referential, collectively understood
on the slope we all inhabit.
A decision-making process affecting something as basic, as collectively necessary, as a
steady supply of clean water has been polluted. On less steep slopes, I've stood in the rain
and heard thousands upon thousands, millions, of needles and leaves register their voice. It
is a basic, bottom line process: "Trust", which like "Truth" roots back into the old
Indo-European word for "Tree".
The process of public referendum has already been damaged. The Watsonville City
Council has not responded to a petition signed by hundreds of residents asking that the
logging be stopped. Despite requests, the logging plan failed to provide a system to
monitor erosion and sedimentation. It is only by virtue of the suit brought against them
and CDF that any meaningful hearing will happen. As Betsy Herbert, spokesperson for the
Coalition to Save Grizzly Flat, says: "This was a land-use policy decision that could affect
thousands of people, but it was made without a public referendum, quickly and quietly by
the City Council, based only on information provided by timber interests, for the sole
purpose of short-term financial gain."
The New York Times recently called the Republican attack on the laws and regulations protecting our natural resources "a masterpiece of legislative subterfuge." But politicians at all levels of government advance pet projects with serious environmental consequences by misleading the public.
One prime example is the timber salvage rider, which was hidden in the Rescissions Bill. Just the name alone is pure doublespeak. A Sierra Club press release described it as "a 'logging without laws' provision that will devastate our public forests . . . and will bar citizens from exercising their right to challenge illegal logging plans in court. It allows the logging of live, healthy trees and would open up many of the last remaining roadless areas in the country to widespread logging." And guess who's going to pay for those new roads? As Jessica Mathews recently put it in the Washington Post, "The taxpayer is to pay for the privilege of getting raped."
After being advised of its egregious consequences, President Clinton promised to veto the bill. But then he caved in and agreed to sign it. "After his steadfast promise to oppose this provision, this flip-flop is a betrayal of the American people who are counting on him to protect our national forests from special interests like the timber industry," said J. Robert Cox, President of Sierra Club.
At the state level, the State Parks Department is under intense political pressure to develop portions of the parks to become, as officials put it, "more economically self-sufficient." But the real push may be coming from concessionaires and land developers. Ironically, some of the proposed projects would damage the unique natural and scenic features that the parks were created to protect, for the enjoyment of all. (See articles about Wilder Ranch and Henry Cowell Redwoods State Parks.)
At the city level, while the Watsonville City Council acknowledges that it is facing a critical water shortage, it has sought and obtained approval for a logging plan to build roads and remove 1.1 million board feet of timber from city-owned Grizzly Flat, the heart of the Corralitos Creek watershed. The City refused to call a public hearing before making the decision.
The Watsonville Water Department manages Grizzly Flat, and has publicly opposed other logging projects in the watershed because of their potential impact to the source of Watsonville's highest-quality water. But their own logging plan proposes tractor logging on steep slopes, and tree-cutting on stream banks. . . the same operations they objected to in nearby logging plans.
In addition, logging on Grizzly Flat will compact the forest floor, inhibiting the ability of the area to soak up water -- water which keeps the Corralitos Creek running all year long, providing recharge for the Corralitos aquifer that is now being threatened by salt water intrusion.
David Koch, Director of Watsonville Public Works, used standard timber industry doublespeak in defending the city's logging plan to the County Board of Supervisors last fall: "The actual timber harvest focuses on the removal of dying, deformed, and damaged trees . . . and removal of low-vigor trees is intended to increase the overall stand health and provide opportunities for natural regeneration and tree planting." (Don't think of it as chopping down a tree -- think of it as "a tree-planting opportunity"). By the way, almost without exception, the trees marked for cutting are big, healthy specimens.
When public lands are proposed for development or resource extraction, private industry is the winner, but the public may be misled into feeling like winners. For example, the state parks department may claim that taxpayer costs are reduced when a concession is brought in because the concessionaire pays the operating costs and the public gets part of the profit. But according to ABC news correspondent John Martin, our National Parks aren't getting a fair return on their concessions. For example, AMFAC resorts at the Grand Canyon grossed $67 million in 1993 and paid only $2 million to the park.
In the case of Grizzly Flat, Watsonville city residents may believe that logging revenues will keep their water bills from going up, but even if the revenues were actually paid back to water users, each user would save an average of 7 cents per month. Big deal. How much will they have to spend on bottled water?
But the solution is not getting more money in exchange for development of our public lands! Let's be vigilant in reminding our legislators and the public servants who manage our public lands that turning a profit is not the goal of public land management.
The primary goal should be to preserve the public trust, to protect clean air, clean water, unique habitat, wildlife, beautiful scenery, and peace and quiet. The public loses immensely when the value of these gifts is dismissed or overlooked because they cannot be measured in dollars and cents. We must not be tricked into allowing our most priceless assets to be treated as worthless just because their value can't be recorded on a balance sheet.
Return to VENTANA ARCHIVES MENU
| | | Return to 