 |
 |
By BOB NORBERG
THE PRESS DEMOCRAT
A Sonoma County Superior Court judge has rejected the state’s approval of a timber harvesting plan at the Bohemian Club’s retreat in Monte Rio, ruling that alternatives were not adequately considered.
Environmentalists who brought suit against the Bohemian Club a year ago called the ruling a victory.
“They will have to redo their alternative analysis and that is a very important point,” said Jay Halcomb of the Redwood Chapter of the Sierra Club.
“We want basically to cut at a lower logging rate,” Halcomb said. “They justified the high rate on the basis of fire danger, but you don’t have to cut trees to reduce fire danger, you want to cut brush.”
Bohemian Club officials, however, said they were equally happy with the ruling, which was handed down Thursday by Superior Court Judge Rene Chouteau.
Officials said the ruling didn’t throw out the plan, but just asked for alternatives to be considered, which they consider a technical and procedural issue.
“We will come back with the alternative the judge has requested,” said spokesman Sam Singer. “The question is not whether it is a good plan or not.”
The Bohemian Club is proposing to remove 7 million board-feet of lumber by 2016 at its 2,500-acre property, which it contends will lessen fire danger and protect old-growth redwood groves.
The site is the San Francisco club’s retreat on steep terrain alongside the Russian River in Monte Rio, and known for its summer encampments that attract the rich, famous and powerful from around the world.
The proposed timber plan would remove tan oak and thin the Douglas fir, but it would also include cutting down some young redwoods. The club has promised no old-growth redwoods would be cut.
Cal Fire in December 2009 approved the plan, which was scaled back from the first Bohemian Club plan proposed in May 2006.
The Sierra Club and the Bohemian Redwood Rescue Club filed suit in February 2010 seeking an injunction to harvesting and asking that Cal Fire’s approval be overturned.
The suit contended that Cal Fire violated the California Environmental Quality Act by not including alternatives to the harvest plan and also did not address greenhouse gas impacts.
On Thursday, Chouteau agreed on the major point in the suit, that alternatives to harvesting were not taken into account.
“If the department has concluded that there are no alternatives, it must explain in meaningful detail the basis for that conclusion,” Chouteau wrote in his ruling.
Singer said that within the next month or two, the Bohemian Club will come up with alternatives, which will likely include less harvesting.
Subscribe by Email
Follow us on Twitter
How in the heck have the WEALTHIEST people in this country convinced the normal, everyday man and women to stand up for them.
Goodness people, your signing your own death warrant. WAKE THE HECK UP !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
To get to the trees they would have had to cut the brush. They weren’t going to bypass the brush, their error was assuming it was so obvious that nobody would think that they were going to leave the brush behind.
Nothing is allowed in Sonoma County without taking it to court. Nothing.
Can’t get local sand and gravel, can’t get a crushed rock quarry when we need a LOCAL resource. Can’t have an asphalt plant when the Sonoma County Airport id due for runway work.
A handful of people along with the $$$$ driven Sierra Club lawyers, can postpone needed resources for our county to be productive. Besides the FACT, that is far ‘greener’ using local resources instead of being trucked in from afar.
It’s also a favorite tactic of the Sierra Club to actually help cause their own lawsuits. They are for solar power, but try building a facility in the desert. Lawsuit..
We noe have a system where a small handfull can cause millions of trouble for their -pie-in-the-sky – attitudes.
I thought that locally produced goods is the ‘new green’ but they don’t want it local, they want it shipped in at a tremendous cost of fuel use.
Of course, like anything else, the Sierra Club has paid for legislation to create rules that they can then use to sue.
The Sierra Club gave us MTBE in gasoline that is poisoning our waters.
And here is the kicker.. The Sierra Club is all for a Carbon Tax that will result in more logging of our forests, enriching huge Private Equity firms that they can then sue for each project, I suppose. They have a history of that. Don’t believe that ? Here is the Press Democrat article :
http://www.pressdemocrat.com/article/20101215/ARTICLES/101219664
The Bohemian Grove went through years of red tape when a relatively few people could have figured out proper forest management, but our system leads to a handful of non-experts to decide.
That local timber can provide work to local people. I thought that buying and producing locally was the model system for the Green folks. I see it’s not.
I have a close friend whose property out there adjoins the Bohemian Grove property in the back, he would like it cleaned up for the fire danger aspect.
Real jobs that make real money is exactly what we need.
Another great example of how far California has fallen because of leftest judges and the Sierra Club. If you don’t get what you want, file a suit and get Sierra Club support.
The taxpayers end up paying the total bill and the environment is no better off. Just the attorneys and the Sierra Club bank accounts get rich at our expense. The progressives have done nothing but stopped progress in this state.
The Bohemian Club is dismissing this legal decision as a technical “fix” but, in reality, they are back to square one, including having to re-submit a new plan, a full public comment period and even the possibility of further litigation if they do not come up with a less damaging alternative.
@Susan…Exactly what do you mean by unsustainable? They don’t want or need to sustain the logging. They want to remove a finite amount of wood. It’s their property. Again, the Sierra Club Law Firm has struck again. Addressing “Greenhouse gasses.” give me a break. It’s not your father’s Sierra Club. People really need to wise up about these people really are.
http://activistcash.com/organization_overview.cfm/o/194-sierra-club
Hammer, Normally I would agree with you but you realize that we are talking about one of the most influential groups in the world and to expect the state department to be fair to all is not going to happen!
“alternatives were not adequately considered.” … Fire Extinguishers. LOTS OF FIRE EXTINGUISHERS!
The Bohemian Club can spin this but the fact is they spent the last decade trying to push through an unsustainable logging plan. Environmentalists finally had to take them to court to stop them. The judge’s ruling sends a message to the state Dept of Forestry to uphold the law. The Bohemians likely are surprised that they’ve been reined in, but despite what they may think, the law applies to the rich and powerful, too. Just not often enough.
This should be between the Bohemian Club and State’s departments responsible for forest management. Not those jerks in the Sierra Club and the Bohemian Redwood Rescue Club and some idiot judge.
The State of California has rules for harvesting timber and if the Bohemians’ get permission from the State to cut then so be it. Do forget, all but the homeless live in housing made of wood.
This is one of those articles that makes me sick!