“Community Protection Project”: Plumas National Forest at Risk from Herbicides, Industrial Logging, Likely Worsening Fire Safety

Sorry to interrupt your summer vacation but this is important……

If you love the Plumas National Forest you need to be aware of this: The Forest Service has opened a 30 day comment period starting June 19th, 2023 for a project that could let loose industrial logging on more than 175,000 acres near communities and hazardous herbicides on more than 200,000 acres, potentially leaving lush diverse forestlands a dry, dead and dying tinderbox, as in the photo below of Crocker Mtn. Rd. off of Grizzly Rd. This whole area was clearcut as a fire break after the Forest Service failed for many years to underburn the area, as was planned.

The US Forest Service considers competition, never cooperation between plants and trees (despite much peer reviewed evidence to the contrary) and focuses on reducing fuels while ignoring how mechanical “thinning” (AKA logging) lets sunlight and winds into the canopy and results in dried out and heated up environments that are more- not less- prone to fire. Plus, often piles of slash are left to burn and spread embers across the landscape.

While the USFS claims that the Dixie and other recent fires are a result of accumulation of fuels in the forest, a recent analysis points directly to the human-caused climate crisis as being directly responsible for additional land burned in California over the past fifty years. We should not be running projects on public land that exacerbate — rather than heal– the climate crisis.

Make sure to read the Environmental Assessment and submit your comments ASAP, tell everyone you know, especially in this area, to do the same.

Middle aged trees marked for cutting in the Mapes project, now slated for felling in the “Protection” Project. These more fire-resistant trees could grow old, truly “protect” local communities and absorb unwanted carbon from the atmosphere over their lives if they are allowed to do so.

“Substantive Comments” and Opposition “Suspends” Asphalt Plant Application

M Fk, Milsap Bar

We spoke with Tracey Ferguson of Plumas County Planning earlier. They received over 220 comments from the public on the asphalt plant IS/ MND. Good work Plumas County! She said that because of substantive comments (comments that would require them to add to or modify their MND) and other factors they and project applicant are pausing this application and will not be moving forward or answering questions / responding to comments submitted as part of the 30 day comment period. If Hat Creek decides they want to proceed after all, they can re-activate the application anytime within a year, but they would need to go through another comment period and/ or respond to existing questions/ comments in the record. See below.

So basically, substantive information in the record showing their analysis was flawed was what tipped the balance and ground this thing to a halt. Thank you to our attorney Rae Lovko with GreenFire Law, and Andrew Shapiro of Roux Associates Environmental Consultants for their excellent comments and analysis (which is now posted here), and especially Plumas Preservation Coalition and all of you who contributed and worked so hard individually and collectively in our area to prevent this development.
This version of events from Tracey as described to me this morning and below is substantially different than what was reported in the paper, and put out by Hat Creek yesterday, by the way. Interesting that Jon Kennedy, City Manager was out again spinning Hat Creek’s version of events on Facebook (that Hat Creek suspended on their own because they are likely not going to get the Caltrans contract. (the face-saving version).
The permit application was “suspended” because the site is inappropriate, there were photos of flooding as recent as 2017, the public was working hard (as we all were against the first plan), united against them, and Hat Creek submitted a flawed and inaccurate Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) which was torn apart by many of us.
Thank you all for your donations! We are still collecting contributions for the postcards sent to 96106, 96103, 96122, banner, attorneys fees and environmental consultant fees, and at this time, we welcome contributions from the public as these expenses are not insignificant. Donate here—-> DONATE.
Donating to FRA! will help us cover our costs, prepare to oppose this project if it surfaces again in the next year, or other inappropriate projects if (when!) they come up. We hope to receive the results of our public records act request for all communications between the planning dept. and Hat Creek/ Caltrans etc. in the next week or two and will share anything of significance here on our website.
Begin forwarded message:
From: “Ferguson, Tracey” <TraceyFerguson@countyofplumas.com>
Subject: RE: asphalt plant
Date: June 13, 2023 at 8:11:54 AM PDT
To: Josh Hart <joshuahart@baymoon.com>
Hi Josh – I will be making a comment before the Board of Supervisors today during the meeting and submitting a statement to Plumas News, as follows:
The Hat Creek Construction Site Development Permit (SDP 8-22/23-01) project CEQA MND – Mitigated Negative Declaration (State Clearinghouse Number 2023050270) comment period ended June 10, 2023. Due to the CEQA MND response to comments deliverable now pending, the application has been deemed “incomplete” (Plumas County Code, Site Development Permits, Section 9-2.1133(a)(3)) until such time the response to CEQA MND comments is satisfactorily provided to the Planning Department. The “incomplete status” is effective, Monday June 12th, 2023.  Once deemed incomplete, the Plumas County Code provides a 1-year time frame for the application to be made complete. Should the application not been made “complete” by June 12, 2024, the project will be considered “withdrawn.”
Tracey Ferguson, AICP
Planning Director
Plumas County Planning Department
P: (530) 283-6214