California Coastal Commission approves Tomales Bay forest plan

A passionately protested forest restoration and fire prevention plan — one that calls for the use of prescribed burns, masticators and herbicides — has been approved for Tomales Bay State Park.

The California Coastal Commission voted unanimously Thursday to certify a version of the plan that was revised to add stronger protections of tribal cultural resources.

A key component of the revision is that it requires state park staffers to consult the Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria on project design and implementation.

The 10-year plan outlines acceptable forest restoration standards for projects. California State Parks staffers will still need to seek approval of projects from the commission at a public hearing before starting any work. Having an approved public works plan, or PWP, will streamline that process.

“These forests that we’re talking about, they are not healthy right now,” said Marin County Supervisor Katie Rice, a member of the state commission.

“This is really important work,” Rice said. “This PWP provides the umbrella, the guidelines, the rules to move forward with consistent best practices … and the work can’t happen soon enough.”

Park officials said that the lack of fire, both from natural events such as lightning strikes and from past prescribed burns by the Coast Miwok, has created unhealthy forests in the parkland bordering Tomales Bay.

Specifically, park officials said they are concerned about the potential loss of bishop pine and hardwood forests that require fires to regenerate and are now threatened by disease, pests and drought that have been exacerbated by climate change.

Erin Prahler, the statewide planning manager for the California Coastal Commission, said the agency’s ecologist agreed with the park’s assessment.

“Staff believe that the PWP will provide an important tool for helping reduce the dangers of catastrophic wildfire while also protecting and enhancing ecosystem health,” Prahler said.

The program area encompasses more than 2,400 acres, with different areas receiving different types of treatments based on local plants and wildlife, topography and other factors. Much of the work will occur on the western side of the bay, which is mostly forested, though some work will take place on the eastern side, which consists of more grasslands.

The plan describes the use of prescribed burns; mechanical treatment, which includes use masticators and other heavy machinery; manual treatment, which includes hand tools such as chainsaws and brush cutters; prescribed herbivory, or the deployment of livestock to graze the land; and the use of herbicides.

Herbicide application would target invasive species “when other methods are not feasible due to their costs, effectiveness, or potential environmental impacts,” the report notes.

The plan drew mass criticism from environmentalists and animal rights groups who argued that the projects described are too aggressive for the sensitive habitat.

Critics submitted more than 200 emails to the coastal commission urging officials to reject the plan.

Critics told the commission that a majority of the park is in environmentally sensitive habitat areas, or ESHA, which require full protection from disruption. Some critics said the coastal commission should require the plan be subject to the California Environmental Quality Act, forcing the state parks to pay for an environmental impact report. The report would require state parks to look at project alternatives and follow environmental mitigations to offset the impact of the work.

Fleur Dawes, a spokesperson for In Defense of Animals, told the commissioners that they needed to pause their vote on what she described as a “destructive deforestation project.”

“Ten years of heavy machinery noise, chainsaws, chipping and masticating machines, often operating over 100 decibels, will terrorize and ultimately drive away hundreds, even thousands of animals, many of them permanently,” Dawes said. “Without their homes, animals can’t survive.”

Nancy Okada, chair of the Sierra Club’s coastal subcommittee, said dead trees and downed logs provide habitat for small animals, fungi, mosses and more.

“I know you’ve been working on this for a number of years, but to go in and strip it of its natural environment in the name of restoration is not what this forest needs,” Okada said.

Critics also argued that opening the tree canopies will allow more sun and more heat to dry out the forest floor. They said that would increase the fire risk, and not improve it.

Nona Dennis, a member of the Marin Conservation League, said her organization supports the plan. She said the nonprofit has monitored projects across the county that aim to reduce vegetation as fire fuel.

“We believe that this can be done in a way that preserves and enhances biodiversity and ecological functions,” Dennis said.

In response to critics, Bree Hardcastle, an environmental scientist for the state park, said the forest is not in good health and it is well documented in a 2019 park forest inventory, a county vegetation map and regional forest health strategy.

Hardcastle said those all show that there are high levels of disease in the parks forests due to pathogens like western gall rust, sudden oak death and pine pitch canker.

“The public works plan, having it be an overarching document, really ensures that the protective measures are consistent across projects and activities that are done in the park over that 10 years,” Hardcastle said.

“And that 10 years of treatment period really allows us to implement restoration within work windows to avoid impacts to those sensitive species, to rare plants when they’re in bloom, to spotted owls and all other birds when their nesting,” she said.

Buffy McQuillen, tribal heritage preservation officer for the Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria, said the tribe is pleased to have been included in the plan.

“Long-term plans like the PWP must be developed with an eye to the future so that the tribe is never an afterthought, but is always considered a partner in our efforts to protect forest health, wildlife and importantly our sacred sites and tribal cultural resources,” McQuillen said.

More information is at bit.ly/3TVda46.