Home > environment, Eureka California, Land Use > Good news for Eureka salmon, spotted owls

Good news for Eureka salmon, spotted owls

Aerial photo of the McKay Tract.

The environment-rich Ryan Creek watershed may get its death sentence commuted in a deal that would protect forest and fish habitat by ditching most development plans.

The Times-Standard reports that logging company Green Diamond is working with the Trust for Public Land on a plan that could keep the area that borders the City of Eureka in timber production and create a community forest rather than subdivide it. A smaller portion could be retained for development.

Depending on the way the forest is managed, it appears to be an idea that everyone could support.

But it does touch on a hot button issue that still simmers in Humboldt County politics — whether development has a greater impact on fish populations than logging.  The Humboldt Herald agrees with Fish and Game on this one:

”I would say the damage to fisheries by most timber harvest activities is slight compared to subdivision,” [Fish and Game Senior Biologist Scott] Downie said.

And though it’s not mentioned in the article, the area has been a focal point of protest and civil disobedience for the past two years and would no doubt have been clear-cut in preparation for development if not for the efforts of local activists.

[Photo source.]

  1. Decline to State
    December 15, 2010 at 9:28 am

    My mind was blown by the Times Standard’s article on this. The county senior planner, EPIC, the N. CA Assn of Homebuilders and a county Supervisor ALL agree that this is a great idea.

    I’ve never seen that happen before.

  2. skippy
    December 15, 2010 at 9:41 am

    “At first glance, I think it shows a lot of promise, (Supervisor) Smith said.”

    I agree. The tract is beautiful, large, and easily accesible for Eureka citizens. Many use it already; some with dogs, bikes, or simply for a quiet walk or jog. I would welcome the open space for all to enjoy, one of tha last parcels and available choices to do so.

    If you haven’t seen it for yourself, please do so. The area is adjacent to Redwood acres; the logging road for access is just to the West of the entrance to Redwood Acres, opposite of Girard Court. The gate has been opened for years. It’s a pleasant and fairly flat stroll once you’re past the entrance, veer onto the easterly road to the left and over the locked metal gate about a 1/4 mile in (if you stay on the right side of the road you’ll come across residences).

    The flat road of the McKay Tract extends for many miles past Ryan creek, vernal ponds, and large trees in a southerly direction towards Fortuna. It’s an extraordinary, easy, and quiet walk considering how close you are to the City limits.

  3. longwind
    December 15, 2010 at 10:29 am

    I also agree with Jimmy and skippy. On the other hand, Heraldo, you say:

    “But it does touch on a hot button issue that still simmers in Humboldt County politics — whether development has a greater impact on fish populations than logging.”

    Spin lesson, kids: Heraldo is ‘conflating,’ as he used to say, subdivisions like the ones proposed for south Eureka, with individual homesteads. This is comparable to confusing rowboats with aircraft carriers.

    No one, at least beneath my bulging eyeballs, has ever asserted that large-scale subdivision is good for fish. Have they?

    Take home: Downie said ‘subdivision.’ Heraldo slurred his word to ‘development.’ Development is the word for any house, anywhere, as in the previous ‘hot button issue.’ Take that, reality!

  4. Plain Jane
    December 15, 2010 at 10:31 am

    How does the Green Diamond development differ from the Forster-Gill development?

  5. anonymous
    December 15, 2010 at 10:38 am

    This is such good news for Eureka, the county and the earth!
    Thanks for the info, Skippy.

  6. Fence
    December 15, 2010 at 11:54 am

    It looks like Green Diamond copied Forster-Gill.

  7. Anonymous
    December 15, 2010 at 12:06 pm

    The little people must learn to appreciate our benevolent dictators, only the rich can save us now.

    Distinguish growth from development and we’ll start to get somewhere. So far, “growth” has meant haphazard development, more traffic, less affordable housing, higher utility bills, decayed infrastructure, massive public subsidies, collapsing budgets, subdivisions miles from downtown. Salmon used to run up Martin Slough Creek in the 1940′s before Eureka allowed homes to be build within the slough.

  8. Sven
    December 15, 2010 at 12:12 pm

    longwind, what of the subdivisions of yesteryear? They’re “developed”. Subdivision is step one, you know it.

    Pay attention, kids, to who ultimately supports what.

  9. longwind
    December 15, 2010 at 12:17 pm

    Sven, we’ve spent the past four years arguing over the right to put individual homes on individual parcels. That’s not subdivision. It’s rural life.

    Large subdivisions, on the other hand, are subdivisions. They are not rural life. I hope this helps.

  10. Sven
    December 15, 2010 at 12:30 pm

    I think we’re misunderstanding eachother, longwind. What do you think the arial photo above will look like in 50 years?

  11. Anonymous
    December 15, 2010 at 1:00 pm

    I don’t think we should allow any development in Humboldt County anymore. We have too many people already.

  12. Anonymous
    December 15, 2010 at 2:12 pm

    You’re going to have to set up checkpoints at the county line to turn people away. Or make a rule that new arrivals and children born now have to live in the bushes behind the Bayshore Mall. Is that what you’re thinking of?

  13. Anonymous
    December 15, 2010 at 3:01 pm

    If they keep coming and we don’t allow new houses to be built, where will they live? Won’t the shortage of houses drive up prices?

  14. skippy
    December 15, 2010 at 3:03 pm

    One thing I’m wondering is with the proposed developments slated, who’s going to live here and buy homes? What are the demographics?

    The county population hasn’t really increased over the years. The economy is poor, manufacturing gone, lumber and fishing limping along. Some schools are closing. The entire real estate bubble and values in California has gone bust. It seems an equal number of folks move away as move in. We’re fairly isolated and the weather is still harsh at best compared to the rest of California.

    We’re talking hundreds to a couple thousand new homes. Are these for new residents or old, retired or working?

    Do the developers know something I–or we– don’t? It just seems to good to be true to believe there’s a new gold– or land– rush going on here in our little rural corner of the state.

  15. High Finance
    December 15, 2010 at 3:07 pm

    Looking at my old charts, we had 108,000 in 1980 and we have something like 135,000 now.

    That is a gain of 27,000 in 30 years. An average of about 900 a year which means we need 400 to 450 units a year in the county overall.

    We need the houses.

  16. Anonymous
    December 15, 2010 at 3:37 pm

    Can’t argue that, Hi Fi. Just saying ” I’m here so now close the door” isn’t realistic. I understand that our newer neighbors that moved here from L.A. or the Bay Area don’t want our little slice of heaven to turn into L.A. but you gotta have housing and infrastructure. No getting around it. It’s a human rights issue of sorts.

  17. Dwayne Montane
    December 15, 2010 at 7:58 pm

    I think we can all agree that this shows a good faith effort by Green Diamond. The potential community forest could provide 1000s of acres for public access, protect wildlife and allow truly sustainable timber harvests.
    I imagine another 200 acre development planned for Cutten would be as controversial as Forester Gill. Although these developments are in different watersheds, they are literally across the street from each other. That said, undeveloped areas outside the largest town in the county are most appropriate for future developments. Stay tuned!

  18. Steak n Eggs
    December 15, 2010 at 8:06 pm

    The whole “death sentence to Ryan Creek” is a little over the top, but this is very good news! If people of all likes can enjoy the forest during periods of logging inactivity then lets do it! We need more accessible open space and it doesn’t necessarily need to be pristine old growth, Parkland, or Forest Service land, which is located 30+ miles inland. Let people walk their dogs and ride their Mtn. bikes on the logging roads between logging entries and there will be less people protesting logging. Duh!

  19. Plain Jane
    December 15, 2010 at 8:15 pm

    The Ridgewood Village property is completely surrounded by development while the GD property in question is on the edge of a vast forest. Have there been any numbers mentioned as to how many houses are planned for the GD project?

  20. Bolithio
    December 15, 2010 at 8:51 pm

    Depending on the way the forest is managed, it appears to be an idea that everyone could support.

    Is there any idea of how large the ‘community forest’ would be? This is seriously a huge opportunity for our city. Assuming Eureka could acquire a significant chunk – 1000 acres or more – it could really take the pressure off the city during tough times like now. These redwoods stands really can provide for a sustainable and steady stream of revenue, all while conserving and enhancing the values we all want: wildlife, recreation, etc…

  21. Dwayne Montane
    December 15, 2010 at 9:14 pm

    The terms of the easement are still unknown. The easement will likely define additional protections for fish & wildlife, address public access, set sustainable timber harvest rates and possibly create the framework for the community forest.
    GD submitted a plan to subdivide in the past and i’m not sure how many houses were included. Cutten is the most appropriate place for development in Humboldt County. It’s the rate of growth that has some wondering.

  22. Dwayne Montane
    December 15, 2010 at 9:23 pm

    I think the challenge is who will acquire or help co-manage the community forest, Eureka or Humboldt County? Maybe a nonprofit like the Redwood Forest Foundation? Bolithio, i wouldn’t get to excited about timber revenues for the city. I think the City of Eureka doesn’t really have its act together to manage this and revenue will be needed for operating and maintaining the community forest. People tend to not get very excited about forests being cut down for $ to fill pot holes.

  23. "HENCHMAN OF JUSTICE"
    December 15, 2010 at 10:29 pm

    If anyone can help out on this, it would be appreciated.

    Question: With regard to the picture, where WOULD HAVE THE EUREKA BYPASS gone had it went through that McKay tract?

    Jeffrey Lytle
    McKinleyville – 5th District

  24. skippy
    December 15, 2010 at 10:36 pm

    I made a comment about visiting the McKay Tract @9:41. Please note, a friend mentioned two important notes I should pass on: it’s still private property and would consequently be trespassing; and the area potentially preserved is to the west of Ryan creek and not in that area proper. Both points are of excellent merit for everyone’s knowledge. In hindsight, I don’t advocate anyone to trespass or to unfortunately incur a citation. My bad.

  25. Not an Expert
    December 15, 2010 at 11:02 pm

    Did you notice that the land would continue to be managed by Green Diamond? Interesting…I’m cautiously optimistic. Ryan Slough is the last best refugium for coho in the Humboldt Bay area.

    However, if Jill Duffy hadn’t caved in the TPZ ordinance and decided to enforce state law rather than the Humboldt M.O. it wouldn’t be an option to develop TPZ land–subdivision or otherwise.

    Saying you’re against subdivision but for development on TPZ is ridiculous. What’s going on on TPZ land currently is parceling out without the rules that govern subdivisions, but it has the same result. Only subdivisions require environmental analysis.

  26. Big Al
    December 15, 2010 at 11:23 pm

    I was out there a few weeks ago. the are bears out there so don’t surprise them, and watch your step…

  27. December 16, 2010 at 12:21 am

    A solid, truly sustainable forestry plan for the Ryan Creek watershed is far better than subdivision in terms of potential harm to salmonids. The City of Arcata has done a fine job of providing saw logs while actually improving the habitat of the Community Forest over the past 25 years. This could certainly occur in Ryan Creek. Needed will be legal protections, such as a strong conservation easement, that disallows all but “light touch” selective logging, and enforces erosion control, stream protection, soil retention and management for a return of old-growth characteristics. Again, the Arcata model is the best. This land should really be turned over the the city of Eureka. Seeing how this is virtually the last decent remaining habitat for Coho salmon in the Humboldt Bay watershed, a deal is certainly in order.

    Greg King
    Siskiyou Land Conservancy

  28. Kale Estanoche
    December 16, 2010 at 12:21 am

    Before folks get excited about this project one way or the other, it is important to think about the future extent of development in and around eureka. More information needs to be put on the table regarding development projected by Green Diamond, Eureka and the County before any decisions are made regarding a community forest. Likewise, the type of development and the method/rotation of timber harvest needs to be specified.

  29. anadromous
    December 16, 2010 at 1:18 am

    I would agree with HiFi on the point that we need [to plan for] more houses (unless we get truly draconian and seal off our borders and prohibit the county’s birth rate from exceeding the death rate). The serious question we need to consider is – what kind of development and where? Let’s think about the county’s development over the past 30 years (27,000 new units), and look at projections for the future (20,000 more units in 30 years). The projected growth equates to around 666 units per year. Would another 1,000 households be acceptable in and around Petrolia? Ferndale? Redway? Shelter Cove? Hoopa? Trinidad? Orick? Would that impact the rural lifestyle?

  30. December 16, 2010 at 1:26 am

    Greenwash. I wouldn’t trust them…

    “A smaller portion could be retained for development.

    Depending on the way the forest is managed, it appears to be an idea that everyone could support.”

    You sure seem comfortable in that statement, Heraldo. What makes you so sure of that?

  31. Fence
    December 16, 2010 at 7:46 am

    They are simply selling the development rights on tpz lands in the Mckay tract for money. Then they continue to own and manage those lands for profit. No gifts this is about selling subdivision rights before they lose some of those rights to rezones to industrial timber. 600 acres per unit instead of currently 160 acres per unit about four extra units per 600 acres, sell them now before they lose them.

  32. Sven
    December 16, 2010 at 8:17 am

    “WE NEED JOBS!!!” Tell anybody who says this to take a look right this very second at any newspaper, take a walk down any commercial street, and ask them what they’re talking about. There’s plenty of jobs.

    “WE NEED MORE PLACES TO LIVE!!!” Same thing, pretend you don’t have a place to live right now and take a look. There’s tons of all kinds of living available.

    It’s like if everybody regurgitates the same lie over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again, you’re gonna believe it. What’s a good job to have? Construction! I see infinitely more construction guys driving around in their jacked up trucks towing boats than pot farmers. “Development” buzzword of the week is a solid job.

    We need to redirect our efforts into other venues and STABILIZE instead of DILUTE. Make the value of ALL the jobs increase. Local government is feeding the national human cattle market.

  33. tommyboy
    December 16, 2010 at 8:19 am

    It is County land not the City

  34. "HENCHMAN OF JUSTICE"
    December 16, 2010 at 8:32 am

    blockquote>Greg King says:
    December 16, 2010 at 12:21 am
    A solid, truly sustainable forestry plan for the Ryan Creek watershed is far better than subdivision in terms of potential harm to salmonids. The City of Arcata has done a fine job of providing saw logs while actually improving the habitat of the Community Forest over the past 25 years. This could certainly occur in Ryan Creek. Needed will be legal protections, such as a strong conservation easement, that disallows all but “light touch” selective logging, and enforces erosion control, stream protection, soil retention and management for a return of old-growth characteristics. Again, the Arcata model is the best. This land should really be turned over the the city of Eureka. Seeing how this is virtually the last decent remaining habitat for Coho salmon in the Humboldt Bay watershed, a deal is certainly in order.

    Greg King
    Siskiyou Land Conservancy

    Response: What would be far better is less people, less greedy people on an already way over-populated planet. See how the dualopolists deny the truth for power, control and political greeds? If Greg is honest, he’ll admit it is better for the environment to have less people. He should also admit that knowing that bearing children is an individual choice, that there also now exists an excuse or reason or justifiable accord that “people need to lose rights in order to save the planet.” How about saving the planet by controlling world over-population?

    So, the choice is 2-fold:

    1) Have no children, reduce the population and live with more liberty and freedom without regulations that restrict.

    or

    2) Over-populate the planet and experience MORE socio-political and socio-economic manipulations of deceits and launderings with the populus subsidizing better lifestyles for those who are fascists while forcing the rest of lower mankind to take it as it is.

    The choices are not very opportunisitic, nor desireable! Besides, if sardine lifestyles is what people DON’T WANT, then bet your bottom dollar that government will provide what people DON’T WANT.

    JL

  35. "HENCHMAN OF JUSTICE"
    December 16, 2010 at 8:33 am

    Greg King says:
    December 16, 2010 at 12:21 am
    A solid, truly sustainable forestry plan for the Ryan Creek watershed is far better than subdivision in terms of potential harm to salmonids. The City of Arcata has done a fine job of providing saw logs while actually improving the habitat of the Community Forest over the past 25 years. This could certainly occur in Ryan Creek. Needed will be legal protections, such as a strong conservation easement, that disallows all but “light touch” selective logging, and enforces erosion control, stream protection, soil retention and management for a return of old-growth characteristics. Again, the Arcata model is the best. This land should really be turned over the the city of Eureka. Seeing how this is virtually the last decent remaining habitat for Coho salmon in the Humboldt Bay watershed, a deal is certainly in order.

    Greg King
    Siskiyou Land Conservancy

    Response: What would be far better is less people, less greedy people on an already way over-populated planet. See how the dualopolists deny the truth for power, control and political greeds? If Greg is honest, he’ll admit it is better for the environment to have less people. He should also admit that knowing that bearing children is an individual choice, that there also now exists an excuse or reason or justifiable accord that “people need to lose rights in order to save the planet.” How about saving the planet by controlling world over-population?

    So, the choice is 2-fold:

    1) Have no children, reduce the population and live with more liberty and freedom without regulations that restrict.

    or

    2) Over-populate the planet and experience MORE socio-political and socio-economic manipulations of deceits and launderings with the populus subsidizing better lifestyles for those who are fascists while forcing the rest of lower mankind to take it as it is.

    The choices are not very opportunisitic, nor desireable! Besides, if sardine lifestyles is what people DON’T WANT, then bet your bottom dollar that government will provide what people DON’T WANT.

    JL

  36. Bolithio
    December 16, 2010 at 8:51 am

    I think the City of Eureka doesn’t really have its act together to manage this and revenue will be needed for operating and maintaining the community forest. People tend to not get very excited about forests being cut down for $ to fill pot holes.

    The cost of administrating the management of the forest would be negligible. They would set the policy. Define the goals, rate of harvest, etc… Meeting all of these goals will be easier to meet that many think. Arcata’s city forest is the exemplifying proof that this works.

    The key is the size of the acquisition for the plan to be feasible, and the ability for the city to get its act together, secure the funds, and acquire it.

    Humboldt County would be wise to do the same.

    People tend to not get very excited about forests being cut down for $ to fill pot holes.

    First of all we talking about cutting trees down not forests.

    In response to trees for potholes, ask someone; would you favor having your city invest money into a sustainable investment that will produce a cash flow to provide services and lessens the tax burden – all while simultaneously providing jobs, recreation, wildlife and water quality objectives?

  37. Bolithio
    December 16, 2010 at 9:00 am

    Not an Expert says:
    December 15, 2010 at 11:02 pm

    However, if Jill Duffy hadn’t caved in the TPZ ordinance and decided to enforce state law rather than the Humboldt M.O. it wouldn’t be an option to develop TPZ land–subdivision or otherwise.

    Saying you’re against subdivision but for development on TPZ is ridiculous.

    Ah, state law is pretty clear regarding “development” on TPZ. A house is principally permitted. So are acreage sizes, and as it turns out – breaking a large parcel into parcels no smaller than minimums is permitted too. So whats the problem?

  38. Sven
    December 16, 2010 at 9:00 am

    haha, bolitio…can’t see the forest through the trees? I see a patch of forest in the picture above, not individual trees worth whatever to “green” diamond. Sorry, mang…that’s what I see. If left alone, groups of “trees” become thriving ecosystems that give back life to the entire planet in every sense of the word.

  39. tra
    December 16, 2010 at 9:42 am

    The point Bolithio was making was that it’s possible to harvest timber is such a way that while some of the individual trees are cut, the forest itself is not destroyed. As others above have noted, the Arcata Community Forest provides a potential model for the portion of the McKay Tract that could become the Eureka Community Forest.

  40. Bolithio
    December 16, 2010 at 9:44 am

    Sven: Go take a walk in the Arcata city forest. Not just on the edge, like spend several hours. Or go on a bike. Witness the logging, witness the forest, the roads, the creeks, and so on. Then reconsider your position!

  41. "HENCHMAN OF JUSTICE"
    December 16, 2010 at 9:45 am

    It is paperwork collage for political nows and tomorrows with regard to community/econonomic development processes. How many bloggers here would bet that the “process” paperwork is not the same as what is on the ground AFTER ANY DEVELOPMENT IS FINAL. IOW, those users after-the-fact take what was once on paper as conforming to a level of impacts that render any CEQA or DEIR process as useless and wasteful for every appropriate reason known to mankind. Good for the tax collectors though as revenue is higher based on inflated valuations due to regulations inappropriate, inadequate or just plain unenforced.

    Just think how many more building lots a developer could have got instead of any dedications of land toward compromising government paperwork that then systematically changes due to consumer impacts that go untold because it is not as if the government comes back and audits its own wasteful takings and graftings, especially environmental damages that render previous finalized government documents as incorrect or universally flawed. Most political insider type people only spew their diatribes because of paperwork (a result of power, control and greed), nothing really more.

    JL

  42. "HENCHMAN OF JUSTICE"
    December 16, 2010 at 9:56 am

    The logging up behind HSU a couple years back was less than quality – looked like a hurricane roared through. Then again, how is a quality logged area supposed to look – definately not untouched! So, one has to use rational and best judgements; and, being the case, the logging up behind HSU (disc golf area) was a mess and looked way worse than other sites that I have seen being protested in years past.

    Just sayin there exists no uniformity in processes and regulation enforcements – either on the private side or the public side of a quasi relationship where a Logging outfit can be regulated to log, while the government regulators and agencies can fill-out their paperwork and everyone has proven their worth and need to society. Afterall, processes appear to be about finding ways to justify one’s job and economic being to many of those in society who can’t or simply won’t rationalize life’s many issues due to human impacts – a problem is over-exerting regulations in certain areas of society while under-exerting regs in other societal areas.

    JL

  43. Sven
    December 16, 2010 at 10:10 am

    Bolithio, you call yourself a forester, not a logger. Why? Because people aren’t too cool with loggers like they were before. Green Diamond doesn’t call itself a logging company anymore, but a renewable resource company. It’s one thing to do your job to keep food on the table, it’s another to bullshit everybody working a hussle.

  44. Sven
    December 16, 2010 at 10:13 am

    People in real estate would call it “land”.

  45. tra
    December 16, 2010 at 10:26 am

    I’m not in the industry myself, but from my understanding:

    “Logger” is a general term that could refer to any of a number of jobs, from the tree fellers who actually cut the trees down to those who do the yarding, those who operate various pieces of equipment, etc.

    “Forester” refers to a particular job mostly involved in planning rather than execution. Registered Professional Forester (RPF) is the formal name for the person who creates the Timber Harvest Plans (THPs).

    At least that’s my layman’s understanding of the difference in how these two terms, “logger” and “forester” are used.

  46. Sven
    December 16, 2010 at 10:32 am

    Yeah, tra, I understand that. But that says nothing of the intentional hussle. Green Diamond Renewable Resources is a calculated name. Ask the man on the street who knows nothing about them what they do, logging company wouldn’t be their first guess.

    I’m not going to give Green Diamond any brownie points until they stop lying to us about how much they cut down, how much of what kind of chemicals they use when they do it, and passing environmental blame on to people who aren’t cutting down huge swatches of forest at a time. If they’re philanthropic, there’s other options for the land than profit motive, that keeps the forest a forest. Or…let’s huge groups of “trees” become “forest” if that’s how you want to spin it.

  47. Steak n Eggs
    December 16, 2010 at 11:07 am

    Oh my…the big bad companies are destoying our forests in California. What to do? I’ve got it! Lets quickly stop them so our global demand for wood products can be met by other States and Countries that employ superior environmental practices. just another NIMBY.

  48. December 16, 2010 at 11:15 am

    Henchman,

    I’m with you on the overpopulation question. Check out the current issue of National Geographic, which points out that sometime in 2011 we’ll hit 7 billion people. Scary.

    However, I wouldn’t currently call Humboldt County overpopulated, though from this point on planning will be crucial to make sure that the Arcata-Eureka area (not to mention Fortuna) remains livable. Fact is that we don’t need to decimate one of the most important forest/fish habitats in the entire Humboldt Bay Area to provide housing. In-fill, multiuse paths, live-work communities, and better public transportation are some of the answers to the very real questions regarding our livable future in Humboldt. Sprawling development of TPZ lands also provides an answer, though not one any of us really want to hear.

  49. For the Trees
    December 16, 2010 at 1:38 pm

    The McKay Tract is home to endangered Northern Spotted Owls,and Ryan Creek is one of the best Coho rearing grounds off the Bay, as well as bears, osprey, flying squirrels, etc. Not to mention some of the most productive forest in the world. It needs to be protected and managed well. I am suspicious of Green Diamond’s intentions, but also happy to see they are considering alternatives to mowing down trees.

    I have long thought a community forest would be the answer, but wonder what the human impacts on the forest’s animal inhabitants would be? After many trips into the Arcata Community Forest and seeing how trashed and trampled it gets, I doubt that the Spotted Owls (or many of the other animals) would stay in their current homes. People and logging both displace animals and increasing human traffic through the forest will upset the creatures almost as much as logging in nearby units.

    If the McKay Tract is to become a community park it needs to monitor and restrict visitors during breeding season or else it risks becoming just another non-functioning forest.

  50. Not a Native
    December 16, 2010 at 1:40 pm

    Just one point about Bolithio’s fantasy. The Arcata forest hasn’t been adding to city revenues. Its actually cost the city more than the logging receipts. Lots of reasons for that, including personnel costs for rangers to patrol and city ‘forester’ to manage, volatile lumber prices, and lack of competition among local mills. Lately, the forest budget has been stablized and the city expects it to not be an expense in the future. But no one is projecting net revenues. And luckily theres no taxes on publically owned property.

    Sustainably managing private forests pretty much eliminates net revenues for return of capital, but it does keep people employed. But no profit isn’t a problem if its a hobby or the property was acquired with Government land grant, bequest, or public funds.

    Of course Bolithio says you need to log more land to make money. Thats the story of HumCo and see where thats gotten us to. No money, and devastated land thats now seen as primarily valuable to domicile people. The only sure way to get net income from logging here is rip ‘em all out and leave the restoration work for nature to handle. Thats the economic good ole’ days that Bolithio dreams about.

  51. Bolithio
    December 16, 2010 at 3:27 pm

    lol

  52. Random Guy
    December 16, 2010 at 3:32 pm

    Steak n’ eggs @ 11:07, I don’t live in paraguay, so dang straight nimby. Just because the problems of overpopulation, overdevelopment and the resources involved aren’t going to go away anytime soon, is no excuse to keep digging that downward spiral here.

  53. Bolithio
    December 16, 2010 at 3:39 pm

    The only sure way to get net income from logging here is rip ‘em all out and leave the restoration work for nature to handle. Thats the economic good ole’ days that Bolithio dreams about.

    Bullshit. Along with most of NaN’s post regarding sustainable logging. And you have no idea about what Bolithio dreams about. I always get a good laugh when regulars here start accusing me of good ole boy this and that because I support logging. You all support logging too, you just dont see your arrogance in justifying the procurement of your resources in other parts of the world.

  54. Steak n Eggs
    December 16, 2010 at 3:57 pm

    Hypocrites indeed. You are all wiping your asses with pulp and paper products imported from somewhere besides California. Fortunately, if this dream ever comes to be, the stakeholders who help craft the project are going to continue to ignore the goofballs from the fringe left who just cannot get behind anything except a periodic lawsuit or two to feed the trough . No good ideas of your own and definitely no money besides Big Brother’s to make anything happen.

  55. tra
    December 16, 2010 at 5:11 pm

    Adjacent to the Arcata Community Forest, Arcata also has Redwood Park, which requires a good deal of revenue to operate. I’m not sure if the accounting for the Community Forest includes the upkeep of Redwood Park or not, but if it does, that might explain part of why the Forest hasn’t been producing net revenue for Arcata.

    Perhaps someone who knows could comment on whether the City of Arcata counts the revenues and expenses for Redwood Park and the Community Forest together, or separately.

    It’s relevant because so far as I know, no one is proposing a Redwood Park-style use for any part of the McKay Tract (Eureka already has Sequoia Park). So I guess my question is: Is it possible that a Community Forest, on it’s own, might be able to create some revenue for Eureka, or at least be counted on to break even and not cost the city money?

  56. Random Guy
    December 16, 2010 at 5:22 pm

    Bolithio, do you support 10 year olds making the clothes you wear? The toothbrush you use? Bagging the remote controls for all the gizmos you got? I didn’t know you supported that. I definitely don’t support logging. Not even for the toilet paper I wipe me bloomin’ arse wid.

  57. Random Guy
    December 16, 2010 at 5:23 pm

    the funk is with this avatar change up?

  58. Dwayne Montane
    December 16, 2010 at 5:39 pm

    Revenue generated through the Arcata Community Forest covers all operation and maintenance of the community forest. Timber revenue has funded various staff positions, the Arcata Community Center and additional community forest land acquisitions. All timber harvests in the Arcata Community Forest are FSC certified and usually range from 3 to 7 acres.

  59. "HENCHMAN OF JUSTICE"
    December 16, 2010 at 5:47 pm

    Steak n Eggs says:
    December 16, 2010 at 11:07 am
    Oh my…the big bad companies are destoying our forests in California. What to do? I’ve got it! Lets quickly stop them so our global demand for wood products can be met by other States and Countries that employ superior environmental practices. just another NIMBY.

    Response: Other countries and their forresting practices are based on quantity within short time periods. In fact, I here the logging in the USA is very good compared to other countries. Yet, I don’t accept the excuse or reasonings that Ameicans are so good at logging cuz if we were, we sure as heck would be doing many things much better (remember, we are Americans and WE CAN – but don’t too often). It is as if this country put itself up on some untouchable pedastal for which gets used as some sort of “excellence metric or comparable” for which ain’t really “top notch” any longer, but just outdated toutings that need re-amendings here and there for all intents and purposes.

    JL

  60. "HENCHMAN OF JUSTICE"
    December 16, 2010 at 5:56 pm

    Greg King says:
    December 16, 2010 at 11:15 am
    Henchman,

    I’m with you on the overpopulation question. Check out the current issue of National Geographic, which points out that sometime in 2011 we’ll hit 7 billion people. Scary.

    However, I wouldn’t currently call Humboldt County overpopulated, though from this point on planning will be crucial to make sure that the Arcata-Eureka area (not to mention Fortuna) remains livable. Fact is that we don’t need to decimate one of the most important forest/fish habitats in the entire Humboldt Bay Area to provide housing. In-fill, multiuse paths, live-work communities, and better public transportation are some of the answers to the very real questions regarding our livable future in Humboldt. Sprawling development of TPZ lands also provides an answer, though not one any of us really want to hear.

    Response: Your accurate, but also I would add that since Humboldt is still desireable to city life for more and more people who will eventually emmigrate to Humboldt, the population loads will have that “taking effect” on the local waterways, mineral rich areas, air qualities, noise pollutions, etc… Don’t get me wrong, I would never control population by telling people they can’t reproduce, but rather that education and symbolisms of reality be used to SHOW PEOPLE THE CONSEQUENCES in forms that can hit home – kinda like how corporate fascists use television, radio, movies, video games, etc… to encourage children to flock toward certain social traits, productions or consumptions.

    Also, TPZ and other outlying lands are necessary for those who efuse to live in a urban environment because THEY CAN’T. Problem is still the same – how to accommodate that lifestyle while not taking away what the environment has to offer. I have always felt that can’t is not an option, nor realistic. “Won’t”, now that is the discussion to have.

    JL

  61. Bolithio
    December 16, 2010 at 5:59 pm

    Thanks Dwayne. And its good to point out their ownership is relatively small and very very light touch. With a larger acreage like the McKay, the sustained rate could be much higher. Regardless of size, a community forest would be a boon to any community.

  62. "HENCHMAN OF JUSTICE"
    December 16, 2010 at 6:03 pm

    For the Trees says:
    December 16, 2010 at 1:38 pm
    The McKay Tract is home to endangered Northern Spotted Owls,and Ryan Creek is one of the best Coho rearing grounds off the Bay, as well as bears, osprey, flying squirrels, etc. Not to mention some of the most productive forest in the world. It needs to be protected and managed well. I am suspicious of Green Diamond’s intentions, but also happy to see they are considering alternatives to mowing down trees.

    I have long thought a community forest would be the answer, but wonder what the human impacts on the forest’s animal inhabitants would be? After many trips into the Arcata Community Forest and seeing how trashed and trampled it gets, I doubt that the Spotted Owls (or many of the other animals) would stay in their current homes. People and logging both displace animals and increasing human traffic through the forest will upset the creatures almost as much as logging in nearby units.

    If the McKay Tract is to become a community park it needs to monitor and restrict visitors during breeding season or else it risks becoming just another non-functioning forest.

    Response: A community Park will impact the environment in a compounding manner much worse than to keep land “off-limits” to wandering litterers and condom ejectors. Fact is, for years, public trail systems and associated infra-structures have been “skimped” with respect to environmental mitigations for human caused impacts above and beyond what the developer and the government agency will admit or put in document form – often, this is the deceitful and fraudulant gerrymandering part of local politics with respect to getting things done on paper to appease “higher-up” state oversight officials.

    JL

  63. "HENCHMAN OF JUSTICE"
    December 16, 2010 at 6:10 pm

    Dwayne Montane says:
    December 16, 2010 at 5:39 pm
    Revenue generated through the Arcata Community Forest covers all operation and maintenance of the community forest. Timber revenue has funded various staff positions, the Arcata Community Center and additional community forest land acquisitions. All timber harvests in the Arcata Community Forest are FSC certified and usually range from 3 to 7 acres.

    Response: Yes, environmentally friendly Arcata cuts trees down to fund itself above and beyond just that which is directly associated with maintaining a community forrest. Actually, there is a bit of hypocrisy with anyone who uses Arcata as a template for success on environmental issues when it is really about TAX REVENUES AND A DEPLETED CITY BUDGET. The forrest up behind HSU shows that money was the only concern.

    JL

  64. Bolithio
    December 16, 2010 at 6:45 pm

    Steak is right. Imagine what Arcata’s forest plan would look like if every goofball got to interject their conspiracies into it? There likely wouldn’t be one, and Arcata would likely be in similar finical woes as Eureka.

  65. "HENCHMAN OF JUSTICE"
    December 16, 2010 at 7:21 pm

    Bolithio says:
    December 16, 2010 at 6:45 pm
    Steak is right. Imagine what Arcata’s forest plan would look like if every goofball got to interject their conspiracies into it? There likely wouldn’t be one, and Arcata would likely be in similar finical woes as Eureka.

    Response: Good thing there exists more than one logging company/outfit qualified to do the job right the first time. Too many instances of “practices gone wild”.

    It is true that goofballs are everywhere regardless of political affiliations – left, center, right, center-right, center-left, moderate, conservative, liberal, independent, etc….. ona case by case basis.

    JL

  66. Not A Native
    December 16, 2010 at 8:42 pm

    Redwood Park is operated by Parks and Rec but the community forest is operated by Environmental Services. Different budgets, different missions, and different properties. Redwood park is adjacent to the Forest but logging isn’t done near the park. Its simplistic and incorrect to assume that because two things are next to each other their management is related.

  67. tra
    December 16, 2010 at 9:09 pm

    As I said, I wasn’t sure, and that’s why I asked. So I wasn’t “assuming” anything, I was wondering, and asked for clarification which you have been kind enough to provide. So, thanks for clearing that up.

  68. Frank Drinkard
    December 16, 2010 at 10:00 pm

    NAN,
    Check your facts. A quick look at the City of Arcata web site shows they do not have a Parks and Recreation Department. They have a Recreation Department which is under Environmental Services and Parks department which is under Public Works. Environmental Services is responsible for the community forest. The Parks Department is responsible for maintenance of the Redwood Park. No need for calling others simplistic.

  69. Anonymous
    December 16, 2010 at 10:51 pm

    Yeah Park and Rec. was reorganized but the point is that Redwood Park and Arcata Forest are managed separately because they are completely different entities with different missions.

    My “simplistic” comment was directed to someones imagining that just because the Park and Forest are adjacent and have similar outward appearances with trees, grass, and bushes, they must be under the same management. I think thats simplistic or just fuzzy thinking.

    The budget issue for the Forest is real. In 2007 Arcata eliminated the Ranger position because the Forest fund was depleted and the council didn’t want to further subsidize the Forest. Logging had diminished since public sentiment to logging was very negative due to the PALCO debacle. Not having a Ranger became a cause celebre for the Eye because campers proliferated. So a new Forest Management Committee ‘got the cut out’ to secure funding for security. Since then, saw log prices have increased, larger harvests have been made, and some grant monies have been obtained. Basically, the Arcata Forest wasn’t being run as an independent financial entity. Mark Andre was hired with the understanding he would cut more or he would get cut. Since then, the city forester’s pay and benefits have increased greatly and another forester was hired. I’ve no issue with the way the Arcata Forest is managed, my point is it can make a returen only if fairly aggressive logging is done. In that vein its ‘sustainable’ only if it ‘sustains’ the livelihoods of the people managing and operating it, including Rangers that provide security.

  70. Not A Native
    December 16, 2010 at 10:52 pm

    previous post is mine

  71. Frank Drinkard
    December 17, 2010 at 8:27 am

    Arcata owns over 2000 acres. Last year they selectively cut around three to five acres. Some years they don’t cut at all and rarely they cut up to ten acres. I don’t think anyone would call that aggressive. In fact if you visit the areas that were harvested a year later you would never know they were. Arcata is lucky to have Mark Andre. Let’s hope the County or Eureka gets their act together to manage their potential new forest!

  72. tra
    December 17, 2010 at 10:31 am

    “My “simplistic” comment was directed to someones imagining that just because the Park and Forest are adjacent and have similar outward appearances with trees, grass, and bushes, they must be under the same management. I think thats simplistic or just fuzzy thinking.”

    I never said that they “must be” under the same management, I wondered aloud if they MIGHT be, speculated about what that might mean, and asked for clarification from someone who knew more about it.

    I don’t know why that’s simplistic or fuzzy thinking. But…whatever…I still appreciate the information provided by you and others.

    To me, it seems like the bottom line is that the Arcata Community Forest is a good thing for Arcata, and a Eureka Community Forest could be a good thing for Eureka, though it seems like neither one should be counted on as a major source of revenue.

  73. Bolithio
    December 17, 2010 at 10:56 am

    To me, it seems like the bottom line is that the Arcata Community Forest is a good thing for Arcata, and a Eureka Community Forest could be a good thing for Eureka, though it seems like neither one should be counted on as a major source of revenue.

    Well said. Regarding the source of revenue, if people could open their minds to the benefit of modern forest management, the revenue could be much, much more promising.

  74. mtDana
    December 17, 2010 at 12:14 pm

    Don’t confuse the 80 acres of private land east of HSU and west of the Arcata Community Forest as Arcata’s forest management. It is managed for a private ownership under a more intensive regime than Arcata’s timberlands.

  75. Save it ! Don't Pave it !
    December 21, 2010 at 4:28 pm

    New plan or not the Eureka Community Plan (ECP) remains.

    It is the largest conversation of timber production land (TPZ) to high-density development in the history of Humboldt County. The ECP is NOT good for spotted owls.

    It involves enormous urban sprawl into the forest, including massive urban expansion into North McKay, South McKay and Mid-McKay – from the Headwaters Forest Reserve to Redwood Acres.

    The timber companies, county planning dept., and the board of supervisors, are not telling the public the whole truth. “ Getting in front of public opinion (AKA telling people what to think before they think it), deception through spin, and most importantly omitting the central information about the enormous size and scope of the Eureka Community Plan is deplorable.

    Spin is too often seen as fact, especially when we “follow the lead” of our trusted, but untrustworthy leaders and politicians who employ backroom deals on an on-going basis.

    Plans for the majority of Humboldt County’s development involve paving-over one of the most valuable redwood forests and biologically diverse habitats in the world. Is that what makes it “the best place for development?

    To find-out more about what is really going on regarding paving-over the McKay Forest, contact the Humboldt Community Services District (443-4550) for details on the urban expansion of the forest. They are busily working on creating infrastructure for the sprawl.

    We should challenge ourselves to create housing the does not include paving-over the redwood forest, one of our earth’s most important biological resources.

    The McKay: Save it ! Don’t Pave it ! No Greenwashing !

  76. Farmer
    December 22, 2010 at 11:39 pm

    I need more information than was provided in the T-S article before I can decide for myself whether or not this is a good thing. It could be a whole lot of greenwash with no real ecological gain. So what if they open up some roads to recreation and agree not to develop what they already aren’t allowed to develop? If they are still practicing the same clear-cut logging regime prescribed under their HCP’s then the whole thing is a load of recreational horse puckey.

    On the other hand, this could be a step in the right direction. They could start by abandoning their plan to clear-cut the grove that folks have been defending for over two years. There are magnificent old-growth trees scattered amongst the large 120 year old-second growth. It would be a great thing if this old grove was allowed to survive and naturally develop in perpetuity.

  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,162 other followers