Gratifying. Somewhere between vindication and validation. Astonishment, elation, excitement. Those were some of the emotions swirling through me and my fellow co-op members on Tuesday, October 26, when the Mendocino County board of supervisors decided to award a contract to develop a "sustainable, long-term management plan" for the County-owned 26 acre forested parcel near the Albion-Little River Airport, to the Mendocino Real Wood Co-op under supervision by co-op advisor and RPF, Dr. Rudolf Becking.
It hasn't been easy, getting even this far. Behind us is not only a scant year in our fledgling organization's development, but the past five years of intensive engagement with the forces of corporate-mandated forest depletion, from the halls of academia, to the Forest Advisory Committee (FAC), to the courts and the forest of Albion, the "Timber Wars" and nonviolent Redwood Summers. All this formed the backdrop for the supervisors' hesitantly historic decision to implement the innovative, yet traditional method of all-age/all-species forestry of European origin known as the "Plenterung" system.
This was the co-op's second appearance before the supervisors, who'd postponed a decision earlier due to what they said was "insufficient information" from their appointed "Select Timber Committee". As a few FAC- followers may recall, this body was set up and headed by Supervisors Norman deVall and Jim Eddie after the Board of Supervisors rejected the now dormant FAC's 1992 recommendation to limit cutting on corporate-owned land to 2% of inventory, and on nonindustrial small forestland-ownerships under 5,000 acres to the Santa Cruz County rules, limiting cuts to 60% of volume, using selection silviculture.
To evaluate the proposals the County had requested, the Select Timber Committee had been expanded to include County Planning Commission Chair Billy Cornet, retiring U.C. Extension Forester, Pete Passoff, and Willits logger Walter Smith of the Institute of Sustainable Forestry. But with its two Supervisor heads in opposition and without a written evaluation of the proposals, the Committee had split 3-2, recommending a motion to adopt the competing proposal submitted by RPF Christopher Hipkin, with the Real Wood Co-op "to be considered only for a possible role in the harvesting and milling of the timber".
A memo from County Administrator Mike Scannel's office did not bode well for the Becking/Real Wood proposal. It warned the Supervisors that the Plenterung method was "untested in the United States and was not well accepted by professionals in the field". It could, according to Passoff, actually pose "a significant risk to the Board's stated objectives of creating a sustainable stand of trees".
Not only that, but Scannel wrote that the co-op was "too new and inexperienced an organization" for the job. Though they were "impressed with the research and zeal of the Real Wood Co-op", our proposal was viewed, said the memo, as "a request to perform an experiment, by an unproven organization, on one of the County's most valuable, long-term assets".
At the other end of our spectrum of critics sat some of our friends who were opposed to any and all cutting on the narrow, windblown coastal parcel, bordered by Pigmy Forest, the airport and L-P, believing that nature is the best forest manager and time heals all wounds.
With the odds stacked against us like a mountain of Masonite chips, the Real Wood Board Members had filed into the Supervisors' chambers, doggedly determined to be The Little Co-op that Could. But would the County Supervisors say yes to Plenterung when they could barely pronounce the word?
As Chairman Eddie opened the afternoon session, the back row filled with the faces of familiar opponents to the FAC reforms: Farm Bureau folks, ex-Masonite manager John McGregor and Louisiana-Pacific's Roger Kruger, now a realtor.
Discussion on the motion see-sawed between economical and ecological considerations, as the Supervisors struggled once again to reconcile the needs to both produce income on the one hand, and insure sustainable, long-term management on the other. Just how much income?, how soon?, and how sustainable?, were the questions.
Norman suggested the board just pick a percentage of volume it wanted removed -- say 20 percent in ten years -- and go with it. But Liz Henry wondered how they could know if that harvest level was sustainable. Wasn't that why they'd asked the two RPFs, Becking and Hipkin, to clarify their proposals and answer the supervisor's questions directly?
Dr. Becking summarized the basics of the Plenterung method he's been propounding over the 40-year span of his internationally recognized professional career. "Plenterung", he explained, means literally, "pick and choose," and is a form of uneven-aged, selection silviculture that stimulates quality growth and maintains constant volumes and closed canopies, and works towards optimum productivity levels for all species. The method emphasizes natural regeneration for increased genetic strength, protects old growth and seeks to restore the environmental quality of soil, water and wildlife.
Plenterung operates on a 100% inventory basis and creates a permanent record for monitoring and adjustment. The system is designed to provide an even cash flow from an increasing supply of high quality timber and other diverse forest products in perpetuity.
A Professor Emeritus of Forestry retiring this year from Humboldt State University, at 72 Dr. Becking is a large, robust man whose craggy bulk belies the quick wit twinkling from his sharp blue eyes. When Rudi talks about "regeneration", his gnarled hands make vigorous motions -- Up! Up! -- seeming to spur the seedlings from the dark forest floor towards the sunlight of the canopy.
Becking's proposal called for a maximum of 15% initial volume removal, with successive harvests at seven-year intervals.
"But won't such frequent re-entries cause a lot of erosion?" Supervisor McMichaels voiced a common concern.
"This is a common fallacy," responded Rudi. "But we're talking about a permanent, well-maintained, minimum-width road net with no landings to take up growing space. Zero sedimentation is possible using Plenterung methods of proper road maintenance, just like conventional roads", he said. The Supes nodded at this novel notion, though it was unclear whether it was Rudi's Dutch-Indonesian accent, or the concept of permanent sustainability that was foreign to their deficit-deafened ears.
"Won't the road system be expensive," the Supes continued questioning. Although the initial cost of road layout is slightly higher, subsequent costs are lower or non-recurring, replied Becking, adding that "it usually ends up costing about the same to do a good job as a lousy one."
Next came questions about growth. Would the Plenterung closed-canopy approach "open up the forest enough to allow sufficient sunlight for regeneration", queried County Administrator Scannel.
Dr. Becking referred him to the comparative analysis of growth projection included in his comprehensive proposal, based on 1981 data from a 1/5-acre growth plot by Pete Passoff and a "point sample" inventory by Burton and Baldo of Willits Redwood Company, along with a current 100% inventory of 2.5 representative acres performed by the Real Wood Co-op in July. These figures, though incomplete, all indicated a growth rate of 1%-1.5%. Thus, a 15% initial removal on a 7-10 year cycle would represent the upper limit of a conservative cut while stimulating overall productivity.
In European forests where Plenterung has been successfully practiced for 400 years, growth rates of 5%-6% of inventory had been reached, according to Becking, until acid rain had damaged many forests. A letter to the supervisors from Real Wood Co-op founding member, Bill Mannix, praised Becking's proposal, noting that "if Becking's method was not well-received by local professional foresters, that was -- if anything -- an advantage, considering the devastated state of our locally harvested forests".
"But are the forests in Europe, where this, er . . . , Plenterung system is done, the same as our forests?" asked Frank Mc Michaels, pronouncing the term correctly. "They are similar," answered Rudi, "in latitude and climate, although if anything, European and Scandinavian forests grow on steeper slopes at colder, higher elevations, with more snow than our Pacific Northwest coastal forests. The danger of avalanches is a constant motivation for careful practices."
"Many species are related, the fir family and hemlock, for example, and the beach tree, which is like our tan oak as a soil binder and source of wildlife sustenance," said Becking, compressing the comparison into a nutshell.
"But what about redwood?, Mc Michaels questioned. "Ah, redwood is unique," replied Rudi, "that is why we must be very careful."
Mannix's memo predicted the Becking-Real Wood plan would "definitely stimulate quality growth", whereas "opening too much ... produces excessive limbs and knotty wood, instead of clear, fine-grained boards from trunk height growth".
Supervisor Sugawara spoke up, apologizing for his unfamiliarity with forestry, and hence, the "elementary" nature of his questions. "I just can't see how the county's asset can be harmed by taking out fewer trees," he speculated, "but what's the real difference between 15% and 20% or 25% removal?"
"Well," replied Dr. Becking, with a distinctly non-technical analogy, "suppose I'm a surgeon, and you come to me for an operation and transfusion. You have Type A blood, but I offer you Type B. Will you take the risk? The maximum Plenterung prescription calls for 15% -- if you want 20%, don't blame the surgeon if the patient dies!"
The Becking-Real Wood Co-op proposal projects about 250 thousand board feet removal volume and an approximate revenue of $150,000, pending 100% inventory and variable log prices, from the first harvest.
Next, it was Chris Hipkin's turn at the podium. A young man of medium build and a moderate manner, the 1980 U.C.-Berkeley graduate of Forestry and Botany received his RPF license in 1986 and had been involved in the 1983 Railroad Gulch "uneven-age" silvicultural demonstration area in Jackson State Forest near Mendocino Woodlands, as well as working for small landowners, the Forest Service, and Georgia-Pacific Corporation.
Mr. Hipkin's proposal was short and relatively simple. Describing the airport parcel as an even-aged stand, Hipkin suggested a multi-stage "move ... toward a desired stand structure that reflects the county's goals for sustainable production of timber, open space and diversity of plant and animal life". Using a group selection with target basal area removal method much like the Woodlands experiment, a 20% removal would be "in the ballpark to initiate this transition", he felt. But at the same time, he emphasized that he could be flexible to meet the county's needs.
"We know what our needs are, but we don't know what's sustainable" repeated Liz. "Tell us, don't ask us!"
"Is it true," deVall asked bluntly, "that your proposal calls for up to five acres of 1/2 to 1 acre clearcuts on the 700' wide piece of property?"
"They'd be more like small openings," rejoined Hipkin, to "provide regeneration space for redwood sprouts and other tree seedlings."
The genetic superiority of naturally selected redwood seedlings over the clonal sprouts was a subject co-op members had debated with Hipkin and USDF forester Norm Henry on a recent tour of the Mendocino Woodlands project. The airport parcel contained an unusual number of redwood seedlings in the under-story that Hipkin's plan would thin from below. But there was no way to elucidate these details to the supervisors, crucial though they might be to the long-term survival of a species that evolved with the Gynko tree.
A statement submitted by RDF Alan Mohr, Chair of the local Resource Conservation District and project manager for New Growth Forestry, raised reservations about the group selection openings' vulnerability to blow-down in the storm-exposed coastal zone and said large gaps were unnecessary for good regeneration on this site. After three or four such entries, a "pattern of small, even-aged stands would be created", he said, not the diversity of a truly uneven-aged stand.
"If the size of the holes is a problem, we can close them up," offered Chris reasonably, "or just get rid of them completely."
The Hipkin proposal included no on-site inventory data, no specific estimates of volume or revenues to the county, nor assurances of local employment, no in-county milling or value-added marketing, nor mention of the demonstration and educational elements called for in the county's original Request for Proposals. But Chris was interested in working with the Real Wood Co-op on these aspects, and would be open to the Plenterung method, if he were selected as the RPF.
Could the Real Wood Co-op work with Mr. Hipkin?, Norman wanted to know. We affirmed the co-op would work with anyone who agreed to implement Plenterung principles and practices of sustainable forestry.
Supervisor Eddie called a short recess and the two foresters immediately put their heads together while the room buzzed with discussion. Identifiable by their T-shirt, an Albion Nation representative asserted the accuracy of 100% field inventories done with tree forks over computer simulations based on partial plot samples and average yield tables. Behind the video camera, an Ecotopia Earth First!er recorded the proceedings for the public and posterity.
Public comment was brief, and solidly in support of the Real Wood Co-op and Dr. Becking's proposal, with the exception of the opinion expressed by Mr. Passoff. Walter Smith told the Board he expected the timber harvest plan prepared according to Plenterung would "meet or exceed CDF standards". Supervisor Sugawara confessed he'd already shown Dr. Becking's proposal to CDF officials and was pleased to report that they saw no problem.
"This kind of management would qualify for certification as sustainably harvested wood," continued Walter, "just like the organic label for produce, the certified sustainable stamp adds value in itself and will command a premium price in a growing market."
Alan Mohr said the Little River Forest was a "diamond in the rough, that if intelligently managed on the Plenterung basis would not only produce a 'golden egg' of periodic income for the County but would also play an equally valuable educational role by establishing a forestry model that will open doors to the small-landowner timber supply".
Jim Eddie said he didn't believe there was any such method or market, but allowed that he wouldn't "organize folks against it." He called for the vote. But Norman floated an amendment to utilize the services of both foresters on the job.
A voice burst out from the back row: "Does that mean this is going to cost the county twice as much?" inquired an applauded Kathie Cooke, L-P secretary and prominent Woman in Timber. Were the Supes about to lose their marbles?
Rudi rose to the occasion. Legally and ethically, he declared, there can be only one RPF signing the bottom line on any THP or contract, and supervising the timber operator and workers. "I will take full responsibility for the plan and operations," he said, "but Mr. Hipkin is welcome to come on board."
Norman's rider died and Seiji introduced a new motion, seconded by Liz, to give Plenterung and the Real Wood Co-op a chance.
Plenterung passed 3 to 2, with supervisors Eddie and McMichaels opposed.
"Gee," remarked Liz, "I don't think we've ever done anything like this before."
"Yes," murmured Seiji, "time for a change."
Copyright Mendocino Environmental Center 2004
Permission granted to excerpt or use this article if source is cited