Redwoods: a Cash Crop

Junk bonds have been blamed for all manner of things in this age of corporate buccaneering, but for the ravaging of California redwood forests? Pacific Lumber Co. has been cutting old-growth redwoods like crazy on California’s north coast this year, apparently in order to pay off the bonds used by Charles Hurwitz’ Maxxam Group to take control of Pacific in late 1985.

The junk bonds themselves did not create the issue. Any cash-flow problem could motivate accelerated cutting. What Pacific’s actions have done, however, is to reveal a flaw in the state’s timber-harvesting laws.

Environmentalists have sued to halt the clear-cutting of redwoods on Pacific Lumber land in southern Humboldt County. The state Senate has passed a bill sponsored by Sen. Barry Keene (D-Benicia) to limit the annual increase of timber harvesting in individual watersheds. And the entire north coast is tense over threats by environmental extremists to sabotage lumbering operations. Suffice to say, these are not happy days for the redwood country, where unemployment is chronic and controversy over California’s last old-growth redwoods has simmered and flared for decades.

In fairness to Pacific, it must be noted that the accelerated timber cutting is being conducted as state law allows. The trees are on Pacific’s own property, not on state or federal forest or park lands. Violence, or threats of violence, cannot be tolerated, even in the name of preserving the environment. Pacific temporarily has halted some of the controversial logging while it revises its timber-harvest plans, which are subject to review and approval by the state Department of Forestry.

“We’re caught in the middle,” said Jerry Partain, the state department director. State law does not limit how much timber a company can cut on its own land. But firms must first present plans that also serve as environmental-impact reports and satisfy state officials that the cutting will not contribute to soil erosion and stream pollution or unduly harm wildlife habitat.

Pacific received state approval for cutting 4,000 acres in 1984, 5,000 acres in 1985 and 10,000 acres in 1986. In fact, fewer than 1,000 acres each were harvested in 1984 and 1985. But a firm can carry over prior approvals for three years. Thus, the allowable cut in 1986 amounted to 17,000 acres, not just 10,000, and amounted to a seventeenfold increase over the actual number of acres cut in 1985.

Keene’s bill generally would limit the annual harvest in any major river watershed to a 20% increase over the average cut of the previous five years. Only a 5% annual increase would be allowed in clear-cutting. Appropriately, the measure would exempt small operations. There would be liberal exceptions if the state forester could demonstrate that larger cuts would not harm the environment or where no timbering had been conducted in the previous five years.

The Keene legislation was prompted by a unique situation, but it also would provide a reasonable approach to long-term resource management inan area where the rule of thumb too often has been to cut and run.