Forestry activists were astounded to learn recently that Sonoma County is home to 800 acres of pristine, never-harvested old-growth redwood, one of the largest remaining tracts in Sonoma and Mendocino Counties, with trees thatÑas people who have seen them sayÑrival in magnificence and beauty any redwood forest in California.
The public learned of these trees when the landowners, the Richardson family, filed a timber harvest plan to selectively cut 55 acres of the ancient giants.
The plan, THP 1-00-484 SON, has been slowly wending its way through the public review process since its submission on December 26, 2000. The process, delayed by the as-yet unsuccessful attempts of preservation groups to buy the timber rights, would appear to be ending soon. Activists expect that the descent of California Department of Forestry (CDF)'s rubber stamp of approval will eventually deliver these 500-to-1,000-year-old giants to the chainsaws.
There are a myriad of reasons why these trees should not be cut, not the least of them being the massive amount of knowledge that will be lost with the trees' loss, the willful destruction of a library whose wealth of information we have hardly begun to read.
MEC members will need no instruction on the innumerable species of wildlifeÑranging from marbled murrelets and spotted owls to rare bats, amphibians and plants, invertebrates and bryophytesÑthat these huge trees harborÑnor reminders of the increasing scarcity of the old forests.
However, we will point out that, for the rare marbled murrelet, their only confirmed nesting stands in Sonoma County are associated with the Gualala watershed. The trees on this property must remain to serve as a component for this species' recovery by providing the critical link between their populations in Humboldt County and San Mateo County. We should also remember that research on communities of upper canopy wildlife species in these towering trees is still new, and that these particular trees have had no such surveys performed. We simply don't know what's there. We have no idea what we may be destroying.
And to what purpose is this project? None. Not a single person has demonstrated that society will receive any needed benefitÑother than a short-term economic gain for a fewÑby laying waste to this irreplaceable treasure.
Even the bureaucracy has balked. Both California Department of Fish and Game and Water Quality staff have written reports that provide technical and scientific underpinnings for the predicted degradation of water and wildlife that will follow removal of these trees.
Water Quality staff's on-site inspection of the plan assessed the potential impacts of the plan to the listed fish species found in the Gualala River system. The watershed has already been cited as impaired by excessive sediment and high temperatures. This has led to the loss of the deep, cool pools necessary to the survival of the resident Coho salmon and steelhead. Photographs accompanying this article were taken during the site visit, and are part of Water Quality's report; they provide a grim warning of what this harvest might mean.
Photos taken within the bounds of the ancient forest show beautiful old trees and a pristine creek, with clear water swirling over rocks and past mossy, fern-covered banks. Other picturesÑtaken in adjacent areas that had similarly-sized trees but were recently loggedÑdepict the sad effects of cutting these huge trees from their steep slopes; landslides and gullies a dozen feet deep have contributed so much sediment to the creek that it has gone underground. These photos show, instead of a creek, only a "road" where vehicles now drive.
Fish and Game's report draws a vivid picture for us of the unique assemblage of habitat components found on the plan areaÑcavities hollowed in the trees by fire; large, deformed tree limbs; a multitude of conifer snags; large fallen trees, decaying, recycling nutrients and providing shelter for species of the forest floor. The report goes on to say that it is just this structural complexity, plus the sheer size of the trees, and the continued threat of logging, that has led the World Wildlife Fund to name the redwood region as a "globally significant ecoregion."
What are we to do? How can we make people see the incalculable loss entailed in a "simple" timber harvest plan of 55 acres? We can only try to make ourselves heard; among other things, we are calling our elected officials and telling them that this public treasure must be preserved in perpetuity for all of us and for all of the species that live there.
The CDF meeting for review of the plan was held on April 24. The outcome was that the timber plan review was delayed due to "insufficient information" for CDF to use as a basis for a recommendation of approval or denial. The forester will be asked to supply additional material regarding such things as effects of the harvest on stream temperatures and on the Sonoma tree vole, a "Species of Concern" that nests in these trees.
Since the review process for this plan has been extended, there is still time for people to submit comment letters to CDF at 135 Ridgway Avenue, Santa Rosa 95401. Reference THP 1-00-484 SON. You can call the MEC for details, or Linda Perkins at 937-0903.
Copyright Mendocino Environmental Center 2003
Permission granted to excerpt or use this article if source is cited