CGF weighs in on Timber Harvest Regulations
by Lennie Roberts

The redwood forests of the Santa Cruz Mountains are prized for their natural scenic beauty, habitat for wildlife, value as watersheds and protection of water supplies, as well as their economic benefits as forest products. Where people live in or near forested lands, conflicts in land use can occur. CGF has long advocated good zoning practices that minimize these conflicts by identifying areas for harvest and providing buffer zones around residential areas to reduce the impacts of logging on homeowners.

A case now before the State Supreme Court is challenging the right of counties to enact this kind of zoning, by seeking to overturn the right of local governments to regulate logging operations outside of designated commercial timber zones.

CGF and four other environmental organizations have filed a "Friend of the Court" brief in this case, which we expect the State Supreme Court to hear sometime this year. The Court's decision is critical to the principles underlying zoning laws where conflicts in land uses - such as between residents and logging - may occur.

Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP, working pro bono for Citizens for Responsible Forest Management, Committee for Green Foothills, the Lompico Watershed Conservancy, the Planning and Conservation League and the Sierra Club, filed the Amicus Curiae brief supporting the County of Santa Cruz, a defendant in a lawsuit filed by Big Creek Lumber. Big Creek had filed a similar challenge to the San Mateo County Timber Buffer Zone ordinance in the early 1990s. San Mateo County's regulations were upheld in 1995 by the First District Court of Appeal in a decision now referred to as "Big Creek I."

The current Big Creek case, known as "Big Creek II," seeks to overturn the right of local governments to regulate logging operations outside of designated commercial timber zones. In the late 1990s, Santa Cruz County sought to restrict logging on lands not zoned specifically for timber production, in an effort to minimize impacts to residents in the forested rural areas of the county.

Contending that state law preempted the regulations, Big Creek Lumber and the Central Coastal Forest Association sued Santa Cruz County and the California Coastal Commission. Santa Cruz County Superior Court Judge Robert Yonts Jr. upheld the restrictions on logging outside specified zoning districts, but ruled that other provisions of Santa Cruz County's ordinances were pre-empted by State law. Both sides appealed.

The Sixth Appellate District's decision in Big Creek II fundamentally changed the balance between state and local control of timber harvesting operations. This decision would remove local jurisdiction's power to regulate the location of timber harvesting activities on land not designated as Timberland Preserve Zones. It effectively demolishes local control over those other lands and the natural resources they contain.

CGF has been involved in the logging issue since the 1960s when public outcry over devastating logging practices such as clear-cutting resulted in State legislation which gave counties the ability to regulate timber harvesting. Subsequently, San Mateo and other counties in the Santa Cruz Mountains established local timber harvesting rules and placed large tracts of commercial timberland into "Timberland Preserve Zones." Within these designated timber areas, the forest resources are committed to be harvested, and landowners receive a tax break until the land is logged. Residential or other development is only allowed if it does not interfere with timber operations.

However, under pressure from timber interests, the State legislature in the mid-1980s passed a new law pre-empting County control over timber harvesting. This law did not specifically address non-commercial forested areas at issue in the Big Creek cases. In these areas, zoned for other uses, the forest resources are marginal.

An interesting historical report from the San Mateo County Forest Resources Study Committee (composed of representatives of the timber industry, landowners, and conservationists) acknowledged just this point in 1970, and recommended:

Non-Commercial Forested Areas: "Forested areas now exist where commercial timber harvesting is impossible - notably in forested residential areas. Trees are felled in these areas for safety, to open up views, etc., but this cannot be considered commercial forestry and these areas should be excluded from a forestry zone. Areas other than residential may fall into this class - scenic corridors and streambank areas, for example. An effort to define these areas, prohibit commercial logging in them, and draft regulations for the removal of trees should be made."

We are grateful to the talented team at Orrick, Herrington, and Sutcliffe LLP who will be providing the State Supreme Court with the specific perspective of the impacts of timber harvesting on the residents and affected communities.

Published March 2005 in Green Footnotes.

Page last updated March 23, 2005 .