In the case of L-P's plan the answer was found - not in the 150 pages of the THP paperwork which, for all its pages, contained little-to-no information about the trees to be harvested - but in a tip from some timber workers who insisted that what L-P was proposing to cut was the heart of an old-growth forest.
Old growth?! This seemed like nonsense to all who know that the Big River watershed has long since been badly and repeatedly cut over. But the workers were persistent in their claims and the environmentalists began an investigation.
First, a re-reading of the plan itself, carefully checking those parts of all that 150 pages of paperwork which might give some clues:
"Will tractor-constructed layouts be used?" This is a standard question asked on all THPs, answered by the forester preparing the plan. In order to prevent an old growth tree from cracking and shattering when it hits the ground, thus reducing the amount of lumber which can be obtained from it and thereby reducing its value, workers construct a "bed" to receive it, removing fallen trees that may be in the way, leveling and softening the ground, pushing up a mound of dirt to cushion the fall. This question was answered "NO" by the forester. A "YES" answer is an indicator of big trees.
"Are any Late Succession Forest Stands proposed for harvest?" Another standard question. Straightforward. To you and me it means, "Is there any old growth?" Again, answered "NO" by the forester.
"Biological Resources?" This is the section of the THP that discusses wildlife. The names of the species that are dependent on and associated with old growth are well known to us all: the Northern Spotted Owl, the Marbled Murrelet, the Northern Goshawk, and many others.
What does the THP have to say about them? Here are quotes from the forester himself: "Northern Goshawk...Habitat suitable for this species is not present within the Russel Brook watershed." (THP, page 43)
"Marbled Murrelet...surveys one completed in 1995 and one ongoing for 1996 has (sic) found no presence of these birds." (page 44) Now this bit of information did make us wonder why L-P was surveying for murrelets if there were no large trees (which murrelets need for nesting) on the site.
"Northern Spotted Owl...Within the Russel Brook watershed assessment area, one pair of owls has been verified during the 1992 to 1996 breeding seasons...A report regarding habitat (italics mine)...has been submitted to Department of Fish and Game for review." (page 43) Well, says we, then Fish and Game must know what type of forest is out there. But a check of their input on the plan (page 68) merely said, "Harvest plan areas consist of residual and second growth redwood, douglas fir and tanoak." Use of the word 'residual' might be a clue. It sometimes means old growth. Sometimes it just means whatever trees were left from the last harvest.
None of the answers to these and many other questions in the THP gave any definitive answers as to the presence of old growth.
Second, a stop at California Department of Forestry (CDF) to check their maps of THPs done on Big River. Yes, the map of the Russel Brook area was plastered with drawn-in boundary lines of previous plans. Surely no old growth could have escaped the chain saws of that many plans.
Then, into the CDF files to check the records of completed THPs in Russel Brook. Aha! There it was, some data at last. An L-P plan done in 1994 included a map showing habitat types.The entire area on the south side of Russel Brook encompassing all of the proposed L-P plan was designated as 'RDW5M'. Translation: old growth!
Third: Check in with Ecotopia Department of Forestry (EDF), the environmentalists' answer to the state bureaucracy of CDF. The approach of EDF as an agency involves no paper work and is simplicity itself: Ground truthing. That is, go and look. Sure enough, some EDF hikers had endured an 8-hour round-trip trek over steep terrain to be rewarded with an inspiring visit with old growth trees.
But, fourth, talk to California Department of Forestry inspectors and re-read the Forest Practice Rules. As you know, the rules are written by the timber industry and approved by a politically-appointed Board of Forestry. Just because it is old growth doesn't mean the rules will agree. Between them, industry and the Board of Forestry know all the tricks for defining what is obviously (to the creatures that inhabit it) an old growth forest right out of existence: it has to have a minimum acreage, continuity, it has to have all of the components of that forest type, etc, etc.
And, fifth and most importantly, let the public know and let the agencies who are supposed to be regulating the timber industry know that the public knows.
As you may know, CDF, after much soul searching (with help from the public), decided that the old growth was indeed old growth, allowed as how the forester should have known and revealed that in his plan, and positioned themselves to disapprove the plan. L-P beat them to it, withdrew the plan, and is right now reportedly working on a new one which will more accurately reflect what's out there.
And, finally, an answer to the question of why L-P filed such a 'strung-out' (ahem) plan.
If L-P had been able to slip this plan past the scrutiny of the public and if L-P had been able to convince the single CDF inspector responsible for this plan that the forest didn't meet the technical definition of the rules for old growth, then all the scattered bites L-P planned to take throughout the forest would have so fragmented it as to largely destroy its value as old growth habitat and would have made it that much easier on their next entry to skip around the rules.
There are more fascinating details to this story, particularly of the people involved, which I'll share in the next MEC Newsletter. In the meantime, call the MEC for updates and to get involved. We don't want this forest cut at all, ever. And L-P will be back.
Copyright Mendocino Environmental Center 1996
Permission granted to excerpt or use this article if source is cited