Measure V to play role in logging lawsuit
b'April 18, 2022 \\u2014 Three environmental organizations are suing CalFire over the approval of a timber harvest plan by Mendocino Redwood Company which they say violates Measure V; would degrade the watershed of Russell Brook, which is a tributary of Big River; and would damage spotted owl habitat.\\nThe Center for Biological Diversity, the Environmental Protection and Information Center, or EPIC, and the Coast Action Group, filed in the Mendocino County Superior Court earlier this month, asking a judge to set aside the approval of the plan.\\nIt\\u2019s the first legal challenge invoking Measure V, the 2016 citizens\\u2019 initiative which declared that intentionally leaving dead standing trees is a public nuisance. Mendocino Redwood Company, which uses the herbicide Imazapyr in a practice called hack and squirt, or frilling, to kill tanoaks, maintains that the practice is a legal agricultural method under the Right to Farm Act and other local codes. \\nTom Wheeler, the executive director of EPIC, wants Measure V enforced. \\u201cI\\u2019ve been disappointed that Mendocino County has not, on their own initiative, gone and tried to enforce Measure V,\\u201d he said. \\u201cBecause I believe the large industrial timber companies have used their legal muscle to bully the county into not taking legal action against them. And so I hope we can add some legal clarity about how Measure V is applied, and that through our lawsuit we can give the county greater confidence in their ability to litigate this.\\u201d\\nIn the summer of 2019, Xavier Becerra, who was the State Attorney General at the time, declined Mendocino County\\u2019s request for an opinion on the legality of Measure V, due to an unspecified conflict of interest. CalFire also uses hack and squirt in study areas within the Jackson Demonstration State Forest. \\nWheeler elaborated on the role of Measure V in the lawsuit over the harvest plan, which covers 993 acres. \\u201cSo we are not enforcing Measure V, because we cannot, per the terms of Measure V. The county is responsible for enforcing the nuisance measure there,\\u201d he specified. \\u201cBut we are saying that CalFire, in approving a timber harvest plan that includes hack and squirt, that that is a violation of the Forest Practice Rules.\\u201d\\nBut Justin Augustine, an attorney with the Center for Biological Diversity, said the lawsuit is about more than a citizens\\u2019 initiative that\\u2019s never been enforced.\\n\\u201cSeparate from the Measure V issue, we are also pointing out in our complaint and in this litigation overall that this hack and squirt and killing of tanoaks, it\\u2019s not just a Measure V problem. It\\u2019s an ecosystem problem, because these tanoaks are a major aspect of the integrity of our redwood forests.\\u201d While tanoaks are thought to compete with trees that produce high-value lumber, Augustine argues that they also produce up to 200 pounds of acorns a year, which is a vital food source for wildlife.\\nRegarding the Russell Brook lawsuit, a CalFire spokesperson said in an email that, \\u201cCAL FIRE cannot comment on a project that is currently under litigation. The Timber Harvesting Plan was reviewed by an interdisciplinary team pursuant to the Forest Practice Act and Rules, was found to be in conformance with those rules and was determined to have mitigation measures in the plan to ensure there would not be any significant impacts to the environment.\\u201d\\n\\n\\nMeasure V was championed by Ted Williams, before he became the fifth district supervisor, while he was chief of the Albion Little River volunteer fire department. It was opposed by Jim Little, the Laytonville fire chief, Bruce Strickler, a retired CalFire Deputy Chief, and Marc Jameson, the retired deputy chief and demonstration forest manager. Mendocino Redwood Company claimed that there have been instances where firefighters successfully controlled fires in areas where tanoaks had been treated with herbicide, including the 2008 Mendocino Lightning Complex fires. \\nBut Augustine doesn\\u2019t think the current THP includes enough protection for large old trees that were spared from an earlier plan in 2004. \\u201cThey\\u2019re projecting this idea that, don\\u2019t worry, we\\u2019ll protect these trees, but they have not disclosed what in fact they are going to do with each individual large old tree. For example, they state in their timber harvest plan, which was approved, that their biologists will determine which ones stay and which ones will go, and to us, that\\u2019s really the fox guarding the henhouse,\\u201d he said. \\u201cAnd not what CEQA, the California Environmental Quality Act, is all about.\\u201d\\nWheeler added that the results of surveys for botanical species and northern spotted owls were not made public before the plan was approved. \\u201cThe public has been denied that opportunity to understand what is at stake,\\u201d he complained.\\nBoth organizations have challenged timber harvest plans in the past. \\u201cWe\\u2019ve won some and we\\u2019ve lost some,\\u201d said Augustine, of the track record for the Center for Biological Diversity. \\u201cAnd hopefully, this one will add to the win bag.\\u201d'