Monthly Archive for April, 2009

ALERT: PRESERVATION RANCH: PUBLIC SCOPING, INITIAL STUDY

ALERT: PRESERVATION RANCH: PUBLIC SCOPING, INITIAL STUDY
PUBLIC NOTICE of the EIR (Environmental Impact Report) for “PRESERVATION” RANCH ACTION ALERT: PRESERVATION RANCH — NOTICE of Environmental Impact Report Public Scoping Sessions WEDNESDAY, APRIL 29, 2009, 4:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. PRMD Hearing Room, 2550 Ventura Avenue, Santa Rosa. SATURDAY, MAY 2, 2009, 1:00 p.m. to 3:00 p.m. Horicon Elementary School 35555 Annapolis Road, Annapolis. The PRMD website provides a link to the project proposal and background information at:
Please attend and express your concerns. Or write to PRMD at:
PRMD, Attention: David Schiltgen – File No. PLP06-0107, 2550 Ventura Avenue, Santa Rosa, CA 95403-2829. 
DETAILS & ISSUES:
The “Preservation” Ranch proposal is the largest forest-to-vineyard conversion project ever proposed in California coastal forestlands. Premiere Pacific Vineyards, Inc. has now started the formal applcation process for a permit to convert 1,681 acres of timberland to vineyard on an approx. 19,000 acre project in northwest Sonoma County near Annapolis. As a result, the Permit and Resource Management Department (PRMD) of Sonoma County has initiated the required Environmental Impact Report (EIR) process to publish detailed information on this proposal. Forest conversion to vineyards is prohibited under current zoning. The core components of the proposal are: permanent rezoning from timber production use to rural residential development; use permits for 17 ridge top vineyard blocks; and “consideration” of other project activities. Over 1700 acres of forest is proposed to be permanently deforested. 
The Initial Study describes a project that includes a 3 to 5 year construction period for ridge top vineyards, reservoirs, gravel quarries, internal road expansion and upgrades, drainage and water delivery systems, worker housing and renewed timber operations. The current proposal does not appear to include any vineyard estate luxury homes, however past versions of the project proposed over one hundred such residences, and they might appear in subsequent proposals after initial permits are issued. 
This land has been over-logged for decades, which is why it now looks profitable for a land conversion and this new use. Consider, what will the landscape look like in thirty years if this project goes ahead? Is there a better alternative than vineyard conversion for this property? 
Potential adverse impacts and issues of the project include:  
Water impacts: The project will affect tributary creek flows, requiring 40 new reservoirs to be constructed, each of 10 to 40 acre-feet capacity; will result in greatly increased agricultural water demand for irrigation and frost protection; over 10 miles of seasonal creeks are to be filled; the impacts on water quality and salmonid recovery for the Gualala watershed. 
Forest impacts: invasive species spread; loss of the actual and potential carbon sequestration values of the landscape; permanent loss of 1700 acres of ridgetop forest and habitat through conversion; potential for piece-mealing of residential development and of future logging. Habitat, wildlife and fishery impacts: over 85 miles of 8 foot high wildlife fencing are to be installed, resulting in habitat fragmentation and permanent wildlife hazards; the vineyard buffer zones will be adopted from the forest practice rules, providing inadequate protections. 
Fire impacts: fire ignition risks due to agricultural and construction operations; and increased need for fire protection services. Current fire response time for this area is estimated to be about 45 minutes. 
Road impacts: increased public road use; major road expansion in forestland; gravel quarry mining to be done on-site with gravel trucking from off-site. Noise and permanent lighting impacts, both during construction and normal operations. 
Vineyard impacts: soil fumigation for vineyards is not prohibited; the “sustainable” agriculture proposed may be unenforceable; there is potential for emergency pesticide spraying targets. Tax impacts: the public would need to support greatly increased road maintenance, fire protection, and other infrastructure needs resulting from forty or more permanent workers and more than 200 seasonal workers serving the project. The PRMD website provides a link to the project proposal and background information at:
 What can you do? Contact these groups of concerned citizens:
Friends of the Gualala Rriver website:
Contact: Chris Poehlmann, poehlman@mcn.org , 707-886-5182 
Sierra Club website:
Contact : Dan Kerbein, dkerbein@earthlink.net
707-535-0326
View the video at YouTube: “Worse than a clearcut
Attend one of the two initial public scoping meetings scheduled on the EIR:
WEDNESDAY, APRIL 29, 2009, 4:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. PRMD Hearing Room, 2550 Ventura Avenue, Santa Rosa 
SATURDAY, MAY 2, 2009, 1:00 p.m. to 3:00 p.m. Horicon Elementary School 35555 Annapolis Road, Annapolis.

Controversial Preservation Ranch proposal braces for public review

Preservation Ranch, in the heart of the Gualala River watershed

Preservation Ranch, in the heart of the Gualala River watershed

by Frank Robertson Sonoma West Staff Writer

PRESERVATION OR EXPLOITATION? – A map of the area that will be potentially affected by the Preservation Ranch. The 20,000 acre project will include more than 1,600 acres of vineyards, as well as a 2,702-acre wildlife preserve, 1,635 acres of Riparian Management Areas, 221 acres dedicated for the expansion of Soda Springs Reserve, and a 5-mile public trail easement. ANNAPOLIS – Public review begins this week on the high-end vineyard and real estate venture called Preservation Ranch that proponents say would restore and protect nearly 20,000 acres of logged-over timberland between Healdsburg and the Sonoma Coast.

“Scoping sessions” to get public input on the project’s potential pros and cons start next Wednesday (April 29) in Santa Rosa at the Sonoma County Permit and Resource Management Department and again on May 2 at Horicon Elementary School in the little hamlet of Annapolis which is near the site of the proposal.

Three pre-scoping sessions also take place at Horicon School this Saturday, April 25, at 10 a.m., 1 p.m. and 4 p.m.

“We want people to pay attention. We want the community to really take a good look at this,” said Eric Koenigshofer, a consultant for Premier Pacific Vineyards, Inc., the vineyard development company that five years ago acquired the Preservation Ranch property and is proposing an ambitious long-term plan to restore the watershed as well as build homes, develop vineyards and dedicate hundreds of acres for wildlife preservation and public parks.

The project’s most controversial aspect is the conversion of more than 1,600 acres of designated forestland to vineyards, a plan that enrages environmental groups such as the Sierra Club which has called the proposal “worse than a clearcut.”

Preservation proponents counter that for every acre of timber converted to grapes, two acres must be dedicated and restored to permanent timber production under the terms of a two-year-old county timber conversion ordinance. In addition, Premier Pacific is promising to plant a million conifers on the property, repair old logging roads to reduce sediment runoff into streams and dedicate wide protected streamside riparian corridors to help restore the Gualala River watershed’s fish and wildlife habitat, said Koenigshofer.

If Premier Pacific’s plan succeeds the 19,300-acre property would contain 1,861 acres of vineyards and nearly 15,000 acres of timberland managed in perpetuity as a sustained yield forest.

The controversial vineyards are the key to making the larger forest restoration projects work, say proponents. The vineyards “fund all the rest of the undertaking,” said Koenigshofer.

Preservation Ranch needs state and county permits for the project that includes merging 160 recognized legal existing parcels that without the Preservation Ranch project could all be sold and developed separately.

The parcels, created before there was a county General Plan, exceed General Plan recommended densities by 85 parcels, according to an Initial Study completed by the county Permit and Resource Management Department.

“The applicant proposes to merge parcels so that the total number of parcels on the Site is reduced from 160 to 63, a reduction of 97 parcels,” according to the initial study that can be accessed online at the county PRMD web site. Portions of 26 of the existing parcels would be encumbered by a single 2,627-acre easement for a proposed Windy Gap Preserve and five parcels would be merged for a 221-acre dedication for expansion of Soda Springs Reserve, a county regional park. A total of 17 vineyards are proposed plus 40 reservoirs to store winter rain water for irrigation. No groundwater would be used for vineyard production.

An environmental impact report will determine whether the project can include about 60 proposed new homes on large acreage parcels.

Easements over the site would determine and limit the vineyard locations and provide governance for ongoing timber and grape harvesting surrounding the potential new homes.

Public benefits identified by the applicant for in the initial study include:

  • a 14,590-acre Sustainable Timber Management Area that includes preservation and enhancement of 11,355 acres of commercial timberland within Sonoma County,
  • approximately 1,878 acres of Large Tree Management Areas and approximately 1,635 acres of Riparian Management Areas.
  • a 2,702-acre wildlife preserve (Windy Gap Preserve) on which no commercial timber harvest would be permitted,
  • 221 acres dedicated for the expansion of the existing Soda Springs Reserve,
  • a 5-mile public trail easement, and
  • increased county tax revenues for Sonoma County by producing higher quality varietal wine grapes on the project site. The required environmental impact report will probably take at least a year to complete a draft, which would then be put out for public comment and hearings. The April 29 scoping session at PRMD runs from 4 to 6 p.m. The May 2 session at Horicon School goes from 1 to 3 p.m.

Preservation Ranch: Public Scoping, Initial Study

PUBLIC NOTICE of the EIR (Environmental Impact Report) for “PRESERVATION” RANCH ACTION ALERT: PRESERVATION RANCH — NOTICE of Environmental Impact Report Public Scoping Sessions WEDNESDAY, APRIL 29, 2009, 4:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. PRMD Hearing Room, 2550 Ventura Avenue, Santa Rosa. SATURDAY, MAY 2, 2009, 1:00 p.m. to 3:00 p.m. Horicon Elementary School 35555 Annapolis Road, Annapolis.

The PRMD website provides a link to the project proposal and background information at: Click Here for PRMD Website

Please attend and express your concerns. Or write to PRMD at:
PRMD, Attention: David Schiltgen – File No. PLP06-0107, 2550 Ventura Avenue, Santa Rosa, CA 95403-2829.

DETAILS & ISSUES:
The “Preservation” Ranch proposal is the largest forest-to-vineyard conversion project ever proposed in California coastal forestlands. Premiere Pacific Vineyards, Inc. has now started the formal application process for a permit to convert 1,681 acres of timberland to vineyard on an approx. 19,000 acre project in northwest Sonoma County near Annapolis. As a result, the Permit and Resource Management Department (PRMD) of Sonoma County has initiated the required Environmental Impact Report (EIR) process to publish detailed information on this proposal. Forest conversion to vineyards is prohibited under current zoning.

The core components of the proposal are: permanent rezoning from timber production use to rural residential development; use permits for 17 ridge top vineyard blocks; and “consideration” of other project activities. Over 1700 acres of forest is proposed to be permanently deforested.

The Initial Study describes a project that includes a 3 to 5 year construction period for ridge top vineyards, reservoirs, gravel quarries, internal road expansion and upgrades, drainage and water delivery systems, worker housing and renewed timber operations. The current proposal does not appear to include any vineyard estate luxury homes, however past versions of the project proposed over one hundred such residences, and they might appear in subsequent proposals after initial permits are issued.

This land has been over-logged for decades, which is why it now looks profitable for a land conversion and this new use. Consider, what will the landscape look like in thirty years if this project goes ahead? Is there a better alternative than vineyard conversion for this property?

Potential adverse impacts and issues of the project include:

Water impacts: The project will affect tributary creek flows, requiring 40 new reservoirs to be constructed, each of 10 to 40 acre-feet capacity; will result in greatly increased agricultural water demand for irrigation and frost protection; over 10 miles of seasonal creeks are to be filled; the impacts on water quality and salmonid recovery for the Gualala watershed.

Forest impacts: invasive species spread; loss of the actual and potential carbon sequestration values of the landscape; permanent loss of 1700 acres of ridgetop forest and habitat through conversion; potential for piece-mealing of residential development and of future logging.

Habitat, wildlife and fishery impacts: over 85 miles of 8 foot high wildlife fencing are to be installed, resulting in habitat fragmentation and permanent wildlife hazards; the vineyard buffer zones will be adopted from the forest practice rules, providing inadequate protections.

Fire impacts: fire ignition risks due to agricultural and construction operations; and increased need for fire protection services. Current fire response time for this area is estimated to be about 45 minutes.

Road impacts: increased public road use; major road expansion in forestland; gravel quarry mining to be done on-site with gravel trucking from off-site. Noise and permanent lighting impacts, both during construction and normal operations.

Vineyard impacts: soil fumigation for vineyards is not prohibited; the “sustainable” agriculture proposed may be unenforceable; there is potential for emergency pesticide spraying targets. Tax impacts: the public would need to support greatly increased road maintenance, fire protection, and other infrastructure needs resulting from forty or more permanent workers and more than 200 seasonal workers serving the project.

The PRMD website provides a link to the project proposal and background information at: Click Here for PRMD Website

What can you do? Contact these groups of concerned citizens:

Friends of the Gualala Rriver website: www.gualalariver.org
Contact: Chris Poehlmann,
poehlman@mcn.org ,
707-886-5182

Sierra Club website
Contact : Dan Kerbein
dkerbein@earthlink.net,
707-535-0326

View the video at YouTube:
“Worse than a clearcut”

Attend one of the two initial public scoping meetings scheduled on the EIR:

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 29, 2009,
4:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m.
PRMD Hearing Room,
2550 Ventura Avenue, Santa Rosa

SATURDAY, MAY 2, 2009,
1:00 p.m. to 3:00 p.m.
Horicon Elementary School
35555 Annapolis Road, Annapolis.

Clean Water Restoration Act UPDATE

Clean Water Restoration Act UPDATE

On Thursday, April 2, 2009 Senator Russ Feingold of Wisconsin introduced the Clean Water Restoration Act of 2009 (S.787).  To read the text of this legislation go to the Library of Congress website and do a bill search for S.787:
http://thomas.loc.gov/

Senator Barbara Boxer is an original co-sponsor of the bill, but to date Senator Dianne Feinstein has yet to sign on.  Please contact Senator Feinstein (202-224-3841) TODAY and urge her to become a co-sponsor of this critical legislation!

We also encourage you to use the release of Courting Disaster as an opportunity to write a Letter to the Editor or an Opinion Editorial for your local paper in order to express that Congress must act quickly to pass the Clean Water Restoration Act of 2009.  This legislation would restore federal Clean Water Act protections for all of the waters that were protected before the law was broken.

Scoping Meetings on Preservation Ranch Set

I received a notice in the mail for-

Public Scoping Meetings for Preparation of a Draft EIR

These meetings are for an application received by Sonoma County PRMD to 
convert 1,681 acres of timberland to vineyard on a 19,300 acre ranch, 
residential development and lots of roads referred to as Preservation 
Ranch located just east of Annapolis and Sea Ranch on the very northern 
boundary of Sonoma County (just south of the Mendocino County border).

PRMD’s website has maps and an Initial Study for the project at-

       http://www.sonoma-county.org/prmd/presranch/presranch.htm

Two public scoping meeting are scheduled for -

       Sat April 25, 2009 from 1-3 p.m. at Horicon Elementary School, 
35555 Annapolis Road, Annapolis

       Wednesday, April 29, 2009 from 4-6 p.mp. at PRMD Hearing Room, 
2550 Ventura Avenue, Santa Rosa

Sign up for the mailing list on the Sonoma County PRMD website and come 
to the scoping meeting to identify impacts and issues that need to be 
addressed in the EIR.

Jo Bentz

The Clean Water Restoration Act

In 1972, Congress passed an expansive Clean Water Act to protect all “waters of the United States.” For almost 30 years, both the courts and the agencies responsible for administering the Act interpreted it to broadly protect our Nation’s waters. However, in two recent decisions, Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (SWANCC) in 2001 and Rapanos v. United States in 2006, the Supreme Court misinterpreted the law and placed pollution limitations for many vital water bodies in doubt. After the decisions, the Bush administration’s Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) excluded numerous waters from protection and placed unnecessarily high Executive Summary F or decades, the Clean Water Act protected the Nation’s surface water bodies from unregulated pollution and rescued them from the crisis status they were in during the late 1960s and early 1970s. Now these vital protections are being lost. This report details the threat to our Nation’s waters by examining dozens of case studies, and highlights the urgent need for Congress to restore full Clean Water Act protections to our waters. These decisions shattered the fundamental framework of the Clean Water Act. Today, many important waters – large and small – lack critical protections against pollution or destruction. The case studies in this report provide telling examples of how dire the situation is and how urgent it is for Congress to take action. Congress must reverse the damage done by the Supreme Court’s decisions and the agency policies that followed by restoring Clean Water Act protections that were in place prior to 2001. Without such action, a generation’s worth of progress in cleaning up our Nation’s waters may be lost. We cannot afford to return to the days of dirty water. Wastewater must be regulated to ensure all waters of the U.S. remain healthy.

Continue reading ‘The Clean Water Restoration Act’

NEW REPORT: In California and Across Nation, Waters in Crisis!

Today Clean Water Network members from Clean Water Action, Earthjustice, Environment America, National Wildlife Federation, Natural Resources Defense Council, Sierra Club and the Southern Environmental Law Center released Courting Disaster: How the Supreme Court Has Broken the Clean Water Act and Why Congress Must Fix It. This new report details how muddied Supreme Court decisions and misguided policies by federal agencies have threatened water quality in many rivers, lakes, streams and other waters across the country.

This report contains numerous specific examples of waters that have lost protections or where safeguards were called into question, including an example in California. Caliente Creek is a 20-mile ephemeral stream that flows into a series of waterways and into a wetland “highly likely” to have a subsurface flow to the Eastside Canal, a diversion of the Kern River. Apparently because the direction of the flow in the canal is away from the Kern River, the Army Corps concluded that flow from Caliente Creek would not substantially affect the health of the river.

Click here to learn more about this case and to read the full report.

Public Meetings and Comments on Prop 84 Drinking Water

This is a message from the State Water Resources Control Board.
_________________________________
Announcement from the California Department of Public Health Drinking Water
Program

Interested Parties:

The California Department of Public Health (CDPH) Drinking Water Program is
required by Senate Bills X2 1 and 732 to establish new criteria for
Proposition 84, Section 75025 funding.  This fund is intended for projects
to prevent or reduce the contamination of groundwater that serves as a major
source of drinking water.

The Proposition 84, Section 75025 draft criteria are available for public
comment.  Public comments can be emailed to prop84@cdph.ca.govor.  Public
comments are due by 5PM on April 22.  Below is the link to the draft
criteria and mailing address.

In addition, CDPH will hold two Proposition 84 Public Meetings to consider
public comment on the draft criteria.  Please click on the below link for
dates and locations of these public meetings.

http://www.cdph.ca.gov/services/funding/Pages/Prop84DraftCriteria.aspx

Should the Samoa Pulp Mill be Transferred?

Friends and Colleagues:

As you may know Evergreen Pulp, Inc. purchased the old Samoa pulp mill and promised to upgrade and make the operations green.  Instead they ran the plant at as high a capacity as they could, violated their NPDES permit almost daily, then skipped town owing RWQCB a half a million dollars in fines with another half a million pending.  

Evergreen was able to operate under a diluted NPDES permit which included waivers from the EPA.  RWQCB sent the new owners a notice of termination which in part states:

    “Neither Evergreen Pulp, Inc. nor the new owners of the Facility have contacted the Regional Water Board regarding transferring the current WDRs Order R1-2004-0047. Even if such request were made, the Regional Water Board would likely not grant a request for transfer, and would instead notify the new permittee of its intent to modify or revoke and reissue the permit because the permit does not properly reflect many legal requirements, including the California Ocean Plan and effluent limitation guidelines for the production of unbleached kraft pulp. Before the Regional Water Board could modify or revoke and reissue, the new owner would need to submit a report of waste discharge to describe how it intends to operate the Facility.” 

On February 23 the new owners sent the EO of RWQCB a letter requesting transfer. If the EO does not respond within 30 days the transfer becomes automatic. The EO is under political pressure to allow the transfer by taking no action.   Currently staff need community support to overcome these political pressures. The new owner Robert Simpson (yes Simpson Timber) is seeking a “fundamentally different factor” (FDF) variance which will allow the mill to discharge without having to meet technology-based standards for existing sources.  Those sources include dioxin, aldrin, DDT and hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH).  

I’ve attached a number of documents to this email.  Feel free to contact me if you have any questions. Please let me know if you have or intend to email or write to Catherine Kuhlman so I can be sure the community has made its interests known. Thanks.    

Please write or email to:

Catherine Kuhlman
Executive Officer
North Coast Water Board
ckuhlman@waterboards.ca.gov 

Please state the importance of the public process. That a transfer of the permit would not be in the public’s or environment’s interest. Request that the Regional Water Board not grant a request for transfer, and instead notify the new permittee of its intent to modify or revoke and reissue the permit because the permit does not properly reflect many legal requirements, including the California Ocean Plan and effluent limitation guidelines for the production of unbleached kraft pulp. Request that the new owner submit a report of waste discharge to describe how it intends to operate the Facility including its process and what chemicals are used. 
     
Please CC Representative Mike Thompson  
HUMBOLDT DISTRICT OFFICE
317 3rd Street, Suite 1
Eureka, CA 95501
Phone: (707) 269-9595
Fax: (707) 269-9598 

Eventually we would all like to see a modern plant that is green and moves away from timber as it sole sorce of fiber.  Other sources are much better including bamboo and hemp.

Headwaters: 10 Years After World’s Largest Unprotected Ancient Redwood Forest was Saved

photo: redwoods

Ten years ago, on March 1, 1999, the federal government and the state of California agreed to pay Charles Hurwitz of Maxxam Corp. $380 million for an imperfect and yet miraculous 7,472 acres of Pacific Lumber Co. land east of Humboldt Bay between Fortuna and Eureka. The acquisition of that nearly 7,500 acres — 3,000 acres of unlogged old growth forest in a cushion of 4,400 acres of heavily logged and roaded land — plus two less-intact smaller groves elsewhere was the relatively simple part of the deal, he said.

“You bought that, and you also bought agreements from the company that they would log the land that remained in private ownership in a way that would complement the purchase of the reserve to make it a habitat for the endangered species,” Sher said. “And those covenants run with the land.” That means the new owner, Humboldt Redwood Company, which took over after the bankruptcy, must follow the agreements.

Phil Detrich, a U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service biologist who was his agency’s lead negotiator in the Headwaters Deal, said the deal also bought — or so it was hoped — something else that was critical. People were climbing into the trees and not coming down. And, two years before the deal was finalized, Sheriff’s deputies had begun swabbing activists’ eyes with pepper-spray-dipped Q-tips.

Less than a year before the deal, a young man was crushed to death by a tree felled by an angry logger. “It was increasingly getting violent, the conflict was escalating, and that was of concern especially to the politicians,” said Detrich. “So, we bought some peace in the woods.” “You know, 96 percent of the two million-acre redwood biome had been chopped down already … and here we had the last of the last,” King said.

“And so when Maxxam took over Pacific Lumber, a whole bunch of bells went off throughout the country because people who watched old growth redwood and the protected status or lack thereof had been looking at these lands for a long time. And now they were basically watching it be cut down.” Mitch Farro, projects manager of the nonprofit Pacific Coast Fish, Wildlife and Wetlands Restoration Association, has been working with another group, Pacific Watershed Associates, on decommissioning roads and restoring the landscape both inside the preserve and on adjacent private timberlands owned by Green Diamond ever since the reserve was created.

He said in a phone interview last week that they tackled roads in the Salmon Creek watershed first. “We took out the Worm Road first,” said Farro. “The environmentalists call it the Road of Death. It was punched right into the middle of the main grove in about 1996 — it started at the top of the Salmon Creek watershed and went up the ridge and over the ridge into the Little South Fork watershed.” Heppe said the BLM has also been thinning out some of the Douglas firs on the reserve, where they’ve come in thickly on logged lands that once held old-growth redwood. “We’re trying to remove some of those to allow the redwoods to come back,” he said.

In addition, the BLM also is studying and preserving the reserve’s cultural resources — from the site of the mining town of Falk, to older sites possibly once used by Native Americans, to the history of fire — natural and human-caused. Many activists, and some biologists, say the reserve, though managed well, only goes so far to help protected species. “Unfortunately, the Headwaters Deal took the charismatic Headwaters Forest, but it did not protect the whole watershed for salmon,” said fisheries biologist Patrick Higgins, who serves on the board of the Humboldt Bay Harbor, Recreation and Conservation District.

“And I counseled those decision makers at the time that this strategy of preserving this postage stamp and its geography would not obtain that objective, and it hasn’t.” Higgins said most of the land in the Headwaters Forest, especially along the Little South Fork Elk River and the Salmon Creek watershed, is too steep for coho salmon, although steelhead and cutthroat trout fair somewhat better. “It’s really good amphibian habitat,” he said. “There’s probably a ton of tailed frogs and Torrent salamanders. The tailed frog is a species that breathes through its skin and can only live in water and air temperatures colder than 60 degrees, and it thrives in the microclimates of the Headwaters Forest.” “The rest of the area around the Headwaters has been highly fragmented — there’s extremely high road densities, there’s very bad geology and the rate of timber harvest has been in the 80 percentile in Elk River since 1980,” Higgins said.

“Salmon are not thriving in Humboldt Bay nor in the lower Eel nor in the Van Duzen. We haven’t done that well on private land, or even on protected park lands like Humboldt State Parks and the lower end of those tributaries that go across parks. So we don’t have any coho salmon refugia.” Detrich remembers one moment in particular that brought that home to him. “In one of the public hearings on the draft habitat conservation plan, where people were limited to three minutes each, we had a long series of young and old environmentalists read The Lorax by Dr. Seuss — you know, ‘I speak for the trees,’” he said. “They read the entire book into the record as public comment. And that we, the biologists and scientists, had to consider these comments in the context of our dry reports — it was a ludicrous concept. At the same time, it was one of the most moving moments of my life. “And at the end, a crowd chanted “I speak for the trees. I speak for the trees. I speak for the trees.’ It was just remarkable, to contrast that spiritual approach to nature with the laws and regulations and science — to see the different paradigms of how we approach nature.”

Click here to get full text; and support the writer, producer of the words.