The Lompico Headwaters THP finally came to a deserved end on December 17, 2004. This is when CDF finally gave it up for dead.

The Lompico THP was disapproved by the Board of Forestry on appeal by Santa Cruz County. This occurred on April 7th, 2004. Thanks to the many of you who helped in this effort.

CDF then attempted to illegally re-start this THP by using a rule which does not apply to this situation. CDF laid out this path in their August 25, 2004 letter to the plan submitter (see below). They intended to send the plan back to "second review", a step that every THP goes through on the way to eventual approval. They asked that some dubious sounding new justifications regarding sediment pollution be added into the THP. Santa Cruz County wrote to the director to object to this maneuver as did the Conservancy and others. Evenually on December 17th of 2004 CDF wrote back to the THP "plan submitter", stating: ______________________________________________ "The California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CDF) has received a number of letters, challenging CDF's action of sending THP 1-01-170 SCR back to the step of second review in the CDF process of considering the THP. Copies of the letters are attached. The letters make the point that under the Forest Practice Act and the Forest Practice Rules, the Board of Forestry had only two choices for action on the THP at the end of the appeal process - to approve the THP or to disapprove the THP. The final resolution adopted by the Board disapproved the THP.

In rescinding approval of the THP, CDF was responding to the comments of the Board's members during consideration of the motion at the end of the appeal hearing. It appears that we should have responded to the precise language in the formal resolution rather than the suggestions of board members during the discussion.

Based on our consideration of the letters, we believe that CDF should recognize that the Board of Forestry disapproved THP 1-01-170 SCR and rescind the action of lsending the THP back to second review." ______________________________________________

So…….. after over 3 years the Lompico Headwaters THP of Redwood Empire was finally dead. CDF did their best to keep it alive despite disapproval by the Board of Forestry.

A short history……..

During the summer of 2001 the THP is filed and begins the review process. There is a huge noisy public hearing at the Zayante Fire House when more than 225 citizens show up to express their objections to the plan. The Conservancy hires experts to review the plan and do geologic analysis on the logging area. The National Marine Fisheries Service makes recommendations for extensive changes to the logging plan in order to protect the ESA listed steelhead trout in Lompico Creek. The Regional Water Quality Control Board asks for water quality monitoring and the forester for the plan refuses.

On Septermber 20th, 2001 the plan closes public comment and is ready for CDF approval. Santa Cruz County makes it clear that they intend to appeal. The THP's approval is delayed for 25 months and 43! extensions of a "Directors Decision". In October of 2003 the plan is finally approved by CDF and Santa Cruz County appeals the approval to the Board of Forestry.

After 3 hearings the Board of Forestry denies the THP on April 7, 2004. This is an unprecidented event. The Timber Industry and the staff of CDF and the Board of Forestry are astonished.

CDF tries to keep the plan alive but finally gives in to the letter of the law on December 17, 2004.

This was a long and arduous process. Many people helped oppose this logging plan and the Conservancy worked constantly to stop it. Our original solution to this dillema was to purchase the land. Redwood Empire was able to purchase it very cheaply in 1995 before the Conservancy had formed. It was not appealing land to the logging industry. It is very steep and inaccessable. It can only be logged with helicopters and has very fragile geology. Also, and most important to stopping the plan, the community of Lompico relies on Lompico Creek for the majority of its water supply and has inadequate water resources. Non-the-less Redwood Empire was not interested in appraisal price (many times what they had paid for the land) and we were unable to work out a sale.

Redwood Empire can still file another logging plan for this headwaters land. This problem is not yet solved and the entire struggle may have to play out all over again until this critical headwater area is finally in public trust conservation ownership.

Below you will find the letters concerning CDF's attempt to re-start THP 1-01-170

Below is a transcription of the CDF letter indicating that they intended to re-start THP 1-01-170.

This is the Lompico THP from September 2001 that was denied by the Board of Forestry. ________________________________________________

Letter head CDF Coast Cascade Region, Santa Rosa Office Santa Cruz Timber Company [Redwood Empire associate] P.O. Box 1198 Santa Cruz, CA 95061

As you are the plan submitter of the above referenced timber harvesting plan (THP), I am writing you to notify you that under a Board of Forestry order effective June 10, 2004, the Department's approval of the above referenced plan is rescinded.

In response to the Board order, the Department will re-analyze the cumulative impact issues involved with this THP. We wish to see if there is a way to include offset work in the THP so that we can demonstrate that the plan will have a beneficial effect on the sediment problems in the stream system, rather than an adverse impact on an already bad cumulative sediment problem. Because a TMDL was recently adopted for the stream system, the THP will also need to demonstrate how the THP will comply with the TMDL.

Pursuant to 14 CCR 898.1(d), the Director has determined that for the purposes of this review the information and potential mitigation will require returning the plan to second review and reopening the comment period for a minimum of 10 working days. Public comment will be limited to new information submitted to the record. The public comment period will not be reopened until the Department receives all of the information requested. Notification of the reopening on the pubic comment period will be sent under a second cover.

Timber operations may not commence under the referenced plan until the plan has again been approved by the Director. Please advise if you have any questions. For your information, please find attached a copy of the Board Order.

Sincerely, Signed by Leslie Markham William E. Snyder Deputy Director, Resource Management RPF # 1760 ______________________________________________________

 

This is the Lompico Watershed Conservancy's response to CDF's letter September 22, 2004 Leslie Markham Region Chief, Forest Practice Coast Cascade Region CA Dept. of Forestry 135 Ridgeway Ave. Santa Rosa, CA 95402-0670

Ms. Markham

I have obtained a copy of your letter dated August 25, 2004 addressed to the Santa Cruz Timber Company, plan submitter for the denied THP 1-01-170 SCR.

As you are well aware, this THP was denied by the Board of Forestry on appeal by Santa Cruz County. The specific language of the Board decision was "disapproved". The date of that appeal hearing decision was April 7, 2004. During the public testimony portion of the hearing at the February 4, 2004 meeting of the Board of Forestry, the Executive Officer of the Board, George Gentry was asked by our attorney Tom Lippe, if denial of the THP by the Board of Forestry would require the plan's proponents to submit a new THP. Here is that exchange (quoting from the official transcript of the hearing);

Page 133-134: MR. LIPPE: "My question was -- I am familiar with that rule. I interpret that to mean that if the Board disapproves the plan, that it is no longer subject to processing by the Department absent submitting a new plan (my emphasis). And that was the only clarification I was looking for. EXECUTIVE OFFICER GENTRY: "That is correct." MR. LIPPE: "Thank you."

Your letter contradicts this clear statement requiring a new THP if timber operations are to be considered by CDF for this land.

14 CCR 898.1(d) does not apply to a plan that has been disapproved by the Board of Forestry, as referred to in you letter of August 25, 2004. 898.1(d) reads as follows:

898.1 Review of Plan by Director

The Director shall review plans to determine if they are in conformance with the provisions of PRC 4582.75 which requires that rules adopted by the Board shall be the only criteria employed by the Director in reviewing plans pursuant to PRC 4582.7. (d) If the Director, before the public comment period has ended, finds that a plan cannot be approved without a change in the conduct of timber operations, the Director shall, consistent with the rules and procedures adopted by the Board, communicate with the preparer of the plan, explain any probable causes for disapproval and suggest possible mitigation measures.

The preparer of the plan shall then have the opportunity to respond to the Director and provide appropriate mitigation measures prior to the end of the public comment period. Any substantial deviations (as described in 895.1), except as covered in 1040, in the conduct of a timber operation, or the inclusion of significant new information, made between the close of public comment and the date of the Director's decision will require returning the plan to the review team and reopening the public comment period for ten working days. Public members who participated in the review of the plan will be notified of the significant changes in the conduct of the timber operation and/or the significant new information and the reopening of the comment period. You are confusing this rule that refers to plans in review before public comment has ended with a plan disapproved by the Board of Forestry upon county appeal.

Public comment for THP 1-01-170 SCR closed on September 20, 2001. The "Director's Decision" approving the plan is dated October 30, 2003. This rule clearly does not apply to a THP disapproved by the Board of Forestry. Section 4516.6 of the Act which refers to county appeal of THPs makes no provision for any action by the Board other than approval or denial. It merle allows the Board to explain its reasoning for denial. As required by 4582.7 of the Z'Berg-Nejedly Forest Practice Act, public comment must be for at least 35 days, not the "10 working days" in your letter to Santa Cruz Timber Company (see 4516.6 of the Act). Any submittal of a THP for the property in question requires full public notification to all parties as required by the Forest Practice Rules and the Act. The Lompico Watershed Conservancy, through myself as Board President, insists that we be notified of any submittal of a new, or somehow potentially active THP under consideration by CDF. Also we require that in the event of any new submittal of a plan or improper and illegal re-activation of THP 1-01-170 SCR that we be provided copies of any documents or justifications as described in you letter of August 25, 2004.

These documents must be received by us before public comment is opened. These documents (as described in your letter) would refer to cumulative impacts analysis and related matters, and compliance with the TMDL for Lompico Creek. Nothing in this paragraph or this letter should be construed as acceptance by the Conservancy that the "re-activation" of THP 1-01-170 SCR is somehow legal and within the intent and language of the Rules or the Act.

We have made it clear that we consider such action to be illegal and reserve the right to seek judicial relief on this issue if we choose to do so.

Regards, Kevin Collins

Board President, Lompico Watershed Conservancy cc Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors Santa Cruz County Planning Lompico County Water District Board Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board Fish and Game,

Yountville NOAA Fisheries, Santa Rosa Board of Forestry Tom Lippe ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ This is the text of the Board of Forestry decision in the Lompico Appeal. Transcription of Board of Forestry order dated June 10, 2004 In the Matter of the Appeal of the Director's Approval of a Timber Harvesting Plan in a County For which Rules and Regulations have been Adopted Pursuant to PRC 4518.5 THP Number 1-01-170 SCR Santa Cruz County Appellant Decision This matter was heard before the State Board of Forestry and Fire Protection on February 4, 2004, and April 7, 2004 in Sacramento, California. Following a review of the hearing record and public hearing of the appeal, the Board disapproved Timber Harvesting Plan 1-01-170 SCR. Order WHEREFORE, based on the Board's finding that the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (Department) applied an incorrect legal standard in addressing cumulative impacts, and pursuant to 14 CCR # 1055.6, the Board disapproves Timber Harvesting Plan 1-01-170 SCR. The Board finds that the plan is not in conformance with the rules and regulations of the Board and the provisions of the Z'berg Nejedly Forest Practice Act.

Timber operations shall not take place. The Board directs the Department to re-analyze cumulative impacts utilizing the correct legal standard as one that does not assume that when a single projects impacts are insignificant, cumulative impacts are insignificant. The Board further directs the Department to analyze any issues it deems appropriate that were raised in the course of the proceedings. This order is effective on June 10, 2004 ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ The fact that the Board of Forestry gave its reasoning for denying the THP in the Order does not change the fact that the THP was "disapproved" or denied. When the Board decided to hear the County's appeal they knew that they would have only 2 options for a decision. Those options were approval or denial.

A Board denied THP cannot be re-started under the authority of a rule that does not apply to the situation. CDF is attempting to exploit the fact that the Board of Forestry explained their decision and gave CDF direction on how to deal with THPs that are in conflict with water quality law. Report on the Public Hearings before the Board of Forestry considering Santa Cruz County's appeal of the Lompico THP. This was mainly written before the April 2004 decision from the Board of Forestry which denied the THP In Sacramento on February 4th, 2004 at 8:45 AM the California Board of Forestry and Fire Protection began a public hearing to consider Santa Cruz County's appeal of THP 1-01-170 SCR, the Lompico THP.

This logging plan had closed public comment on September 20, 2001 after a large raucous public hearing and substantial controversy. Hundreds of letters opposing the plan were received by CDF. It was extended 43 times over a period of 25 months until its approval on October 30, 2003 by the California Department of Forestry (CDF). The outcome of the hearing on Feburary 4th was that the Board of Forestry did not know how to proceede and asked for information from the State Attorney General's Office. They will receive the AGs report during the March (actually April after a delay) meeting of the Board of Forestry in an open session extension of the public hearing.

Testimony will not be taken at this meeting but the discussion and vote will take place before the public. The THP has been vigorously opposed by the community of Lompico in Felton, by the Lompico Watershed Conservancy (the Conservancy), a non-profit organization, by the Lompico County Water District and other organizations including the Sierra Club and the San Lorenzo Valley Women's Club. When the THP closed comment Santa Cruz County, and the Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board, issued non-concurrences on this logging plan. The THP was also subject to recommendations by the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) (now NOAA Fisheries) requiring much more protective limitations for logging near streams than were described in the THP document and specified in the CA Forest Practice Rules. NMFS made its recommendations based on the condition of the stream and the presence of Endangered Species Act listed steelhead trout in Lompico Creek and coho salmon which have been extirpated from the entire San Lorenzo River watershed.

The THP is largely a helicopter operation because of the extreme and fragile terrain, and impossibility of building a road network on this complex headwaters landscape. This area has lain undisturbed for 100 years and is nearly recovered from the 1900 clear-cut which left only scattered old growth trees. The Regional Water Quality Board asked that water quality and stream monitoring be incorporated into the THP. This was never done. At the time that the THP was approved the only acknowledgement of this discrepancy in the THP document's final version, and in the Official Response to Public Comment by CDF, was to state that undefined monitoring would be done. Santa Cruz County and the Lompico Watershed Conservancy through its legal council, pointed out in the record of the appeal, that this maneuver did not meet the requirements of state law. Both the Conservancy and the Lompico Water District had tried for years to arrange a sale or transfer of this crucial headwaters area into public trust ownership.

The landowner required a sale price far above appraised value despite the fact that he purchased the property in 1995 for much less than the appraisal value. The Conservancy submitted extensive comments and scientific reports to CDF pointing out the flaws in the geology report in the THP, the mistakes is assessments of hydrologic impacts, effects on endangered fish and water supplies, helicopter noise and more. The most substantial report was a stereo air photo analysis of landslide features on the headwaters land by an internationally recognized Ph.D. engineering geologist. The photos used were at resolutions far higher than used in the disclaimer like report in the THP. The Board of Forestry received presentations on behalf of the County by the Assistant Planning Director Mark Deming, by Kevin Collins of the Lompico Watershed Conservancy and by Jane Wyckoff a Director of Lompico Water. CDF was represented by Deputy Resource Chief William Snyder. The Conservancy's powerpoint presentation showed maps of Lompico Canyon, the headwaters logging area and its geology. Included were a series of photos demonstrating the large amount of sediment transport from the headwaters of Lompico Creek even in its relatively undisturbed condition and color aerial photos of the headwaters showing the stream gorges and their close relationship to the logging areas. The existing cumulative impacts to Lompico Creek were clear from this presentation. Jane Wyckoff explained the tenuous nature of the community's water resources and the moratorium on the release of water connections due to a lack of supply.

Diversion from Lompico Creek is limited by sediment laden water and other factors. The District's limited storage supply for battling house fires has required the District to truck water into the canyon in tankers in the past when they were unable to produce enough water because of low stream flow and depleted wells. Both the Water District and the Conservancy presented documents demonstrating their long, good faith efforts to purchase this headwaters land for conservation purposes. The Board of Forestry was addressed by about 16 people from Lompico and Santa Cruz County supporting the appeal. The Conservancy's attorney addressed the Board and explained legal and factual errors in the THP approval. Redwood Empire was supported by the plan's forester, another Redwood Empire forester and a Big Creek Lumber forester. Roger Burch, the landowner and owner of Redwood Empire, arrived at the hearing about 2:30 PM to address the Board. The Board was obviously impressed by the strength and clarity of public testimony and the legal issues involved. They engaged in dialogue with Roger Burch, with Lompico Water representatives, with Mark Deming and with the Conservancy's attorney. Board members asked questions of CDF staff attempting to clarify discrepancies in staff testimony. They delayed a decision on the appeal until the March meeting of the Board when they will receive advice from the State's Attorney's office and attempt to rule on the County's appeal of this THP. The proceedings of this hearing were unprecedented in the history of County Appeals. Everyone who attended this hearing to support the protection of the Lompico Creek headwaters should be commended for the strong impression made on the Board of Foresty. In many ways this hearing and the final decision hearing in April 2004 were a unique events, as was their outcome.