NOTICE – Court Hearing on Suit Challenging Regulations for In-Perpetuity Logging Plans – Save Our Forests

NOTICE – Court Hearing on Suit Challenging Regulations for In-Perpetuity Logging Plans – Save Our Forests

For almost 30 years CAG has fought for recovery of our north coast rivers and reform of the Forest Practice Act.

An important court hearing and determination on this case that challenges the Board of Forestry actions that subvert the language and intent of the Forest Practice Act (and other Caliornia Code) will take place on April 20th.  Please support CAG and the cause by being at this hearing and indicating to the judge there are more who care about these resources – other than CAG.

We have worked hard on this case.  Sharon Duggan has done a superlative job in the Petition and Briefs  (if you had not read them – please let me know and I will send you copies).

Your help and support will be appreciated.

See information – below. 

 By Alan Levine

Coast Action Group has filed suit in state court challenging the California Board of Forestry and Fire Protection adoption of regulations that fail to meet standards of environmental protection or to ensure long-term sustained yield of forest products for in-perpetuity logging plans as required by state law.

Coast Action Group (CAG) filed suit in  Alameda County to challenge the adoption of regulations by the Board of Forestry to implement the mandates of Assembly Bill 904 (Chesbro 2013), which requires, among other things, assurances of unevenaged (no clear-cut) management, long-term sustained yield of forest products, and environmental protections to be built into the regulatory permitting structure for an in-perpetuity timber harvesting permit, known as a “Working Forest Management Plan.”

Assembly Bill 904 created the framework for the development of a “Working Forest Management Plan” for logging on private land.  The “Working Forest Management Plan” offers a landowner with less than 15,000 acres and who qualify for the program a logging permit in perpetuity, in exchange for a commitment to superior forestland management, practicing unevenaged forest management, attaining maximum sustained production and long-term sustained yield of forest products, and providing enhanced environmental protections.

The regulations adopted by the Board of Forestry in May, 2017  to implement the mandates of Assembly Bill 904 fail to contain essential standards or provisions that would ensure attainment of unevenaged (multi-age  class  timber stands = no clear-cuts) management, long-term sustained yield, or environmental protections.

The regulations enacted by the Board of Forestry fail to provide the benefits  intended by the legislation  –  increased timber productivity with benefits of increased carbon, improved water quality and other forest values.
Instead – the regulations allow for abuse –  avoidance of future environmental review, clear-cutting, aggregation of ownerships under one plan – allowing for management challenges and absurd outcomes and threats to water quality, fish and wildlife.
“To put it simply, the Board of Forestry is simply not doing its job,” said Alan Levine, of Coast Action Group. Levine called the “Working Forest Management Plan” regulations, “a planning device that evades the legislative intent of superior management, reasonable environmental standards, and legal requirements.”

CAG is  asking the State Court to set aside the Board of Forestry’s approval of the “Working Forest Management Plan” regulations, and to remand the regulations back to the Board to make significant improvements that would meet the intent of the enabling legislation to achieve unevenaged management, long-term sustained yield, and environmental protections as part of any approved “Working Forest Management Plan.”

The court hearing is on Friday, April 20, 2018 at 2:00 p.m. The court location is the Alameda County Superior Court in the Alameda County Administration Building, 3rd Floor, Dept. 24.  This is located at the corner of 12th and Oak Streets in Oakland (and across the street from the main Rene Davidson courthouse). There are 2 parking options: (1) the Oakland Museum, which is kitty corner to the Administration Building, entry on Oak between 10th and 12.   Oak is a one-way street.  I generally park here, as it is simply more convenient and not as crowded.  It will cost a bit more.  Also, if you visit the Oakland Museum you get a discount. (2) The other option is the Alcoa Parking lot on Jackson Street between 12th and 13th.  12th is also one-way, and 13th may be as well. Jackson is parallel to and above Oak as you go toward downtown and away from Lake Merritt. It will be less expensive, and also more crowded, as I believe this is where government employees from various buildings park. It is a tall structure.

Alan Levine
Coast Action Group
Affiliate of Redwood Coast Watersheds Alliance
126 Steiner Ct.
Santa Rosa, CA 95404

Phone:  707 542-4408