| Central Coast Regional Water
Quality Control Board (CCRWQCB)
(Note: The meeting went very well for us -- on the surface. We outnumbered and outgunned them, exposing that the activists were lying about photos they showed of "horror harvests." The danger -- someone was there from the Ocean Conservancy requesting very specific, onerous regulations. I continue to warn the foresters that this is the real threat. There is a bill before Gray Davis which would do the same thing that was being pursued here -- give water quality control boards co-lead status over all timber operations in the State.) September 12, 2003 895 Aerovista Place, Suite 101 San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 ITEM # 14 on agenda of 9/12/03 Dear Board Members, For the past ten years I have witnessed certain "nonprofit" groups in Santa Cruz County systematically attack all local forestry practices. This is in spite of the fact that the forestry practiced in this region is likely the best in the world. If the activist groups were truly concerned with good forestry, they would likely want to share this careful forestry with other parts of the state, the country and the world. This observation is coupled with the fact that it has been documented that several of the most hardcore members of these groups stated in a meeting in 1997 held in Boulder Creek, CA, that they planned to "determine how much effort is needed to eliminate profit to the landowner." See Attachment 1- letter of December 13, 1999, from Mr. Stephen Dousman. These same groups and individuals will be present before your board today -- presenting the usual skewed "information" of the horrors of timbering in the region. During the years of 1997 through 2001, timber farming in Santa Cruz County declined a full 66% according to the California Employment Development Department (CEDD), included as Attachment 2. This is largely due to Santa Cruz County timber zoning ordinances that began being implemented in 1997. These ordinances were based on the testimony of many of these same activist groups which included many tall tales. These same groups were against full environmental review of these same ordinances, even though I continuously asked why 'environmentalists' would not want environmental review. Additionally, these same zoning ordinances were adopted "to address the issue of stream protection" -- since the State board of Forestry rejected proposals for strict 'no entry zones' near streams. The subject of stream protection is fully covered within the State Forest Practice Rules. I have included a comparison chart of rules governing watercourse protection as Attachment 3. It is imperative to understand that -- through their support of increasingly onerous environmental regulations -- many local groups are in lockstep with a program being implemented across the country known as The Wildlands Project, whether they are aware of it or not. The Wildlands Project seeks to return at least 50% of the continental United States back to wilderness available for large carnivores. If one visits the website for The Wildlands Project -- http://www.TWP.org -- one discovers that our region is within the Ventana Wilderness Project. See Attachment 4 - "International Implications on Water Use in America." Please consider my comments as you decide today whether to participate in this effort to drive landowners off the land through increasingly draconian regulations. I personally know folks in the Santa Cruz Mountains who own a wealth of timber that they cannot harvest due to the regulations, and who are now surviving on food stamps. This does not benefit anyone -- not in this generation or "future generations" -- which is a concept constantly touted within 'preservationist' documents. Sincerely, Lisa Rudnick, Ben Lomond, CA Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control board website: http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/rwqcb3 CCRWQC 'Strategic Plan:' |