Clearcut Controversy

A Clearcut Controversy: Gualala Redwoods, Inc.

Logging in Gualala, Then and Now

"The damage done [to the Wheatfield fork of the Gualala] by logging was huge and it will take decades more to approach the pre-harvest conditions we would like to see. The stream canopy on the Wheatfield is generally poor... " From a CDF Pre-harvest Inspection, 1999

RRRAUL recognizes the controversial nature of the clearcutting, burning, and herbicide-dousing practices employed by Gualala Redwoods in the Gualala watershed. Assessment of such practices involves answering a host of difficult issues: scientific, economic, and social questions, as well as sometimes undetermined matters of fact. RRRAUL takes the position that these controversial logging practices adversely and unjustifiably impact the ecological health of the Gualala watershed. (See: Burn Damage on the Gualala). However, it is advisable to hear both sides of a serious and significant dispute, so RRRAULians attended a meeting of the Gualala Watershed Council on Tuesday, Aug. 17, at the Gualala Community Center, at which Gualala Redwoods representatives (a forester, a geologist, and a fisheries biologist) presented their side of the case, including a summary of the GRI monitoring program.

Noteworthy among the GRI remarks were the following (We append our counterexamples pictorially; GRI appears to be a company in denial):

GRI Goals: "Maintain forest types, Mimic natural cycles, Maintain and improve fish habitat, Maintain water quality."

(Right: GRI helicopter dropping jellied gasoline for burn after clearcut. Photo, Steve McLaughlin, Independent Coast Observer)

GRI: "The more we mimic the natural cycles of forests, the better we can grow trees and the less impact we are likely to have on other resources."

GRI: "We are fostering [bio-]diversity by assuring that all seral stages are represented over time."

GRI: "Human activity has little to do with stream temperature."

GRI: "The current Forest Practice Rules prevent us from doing many good things by working in the streams."

(N.B.: unlike the others, these two photos are not photos of GRI activities, but they illustrate disturbance due to instream equipment work.)

GRI: "There is no Salmon problem on the North Coast -- just a natural cycle." (Further GRI explanation: When Alaska has fish, California doesn't, and vice versa -- blame it on El Nino.)

"The SRP concluded that the FPRs, including their implementation (the "THP process") do not ensure protection of anadromous salmonid populations. The primary deficiency of the FPRs is the lack of a watershed analysis approach capable of assessing cumulative effects attributable to timber harvesting and other non-forestry activities on a watershed scale." -- Scientific Review Panel, Watershed Protection and Restoration Committee

Note: Despite the starkness of these photographs, GRI is not without aesthetic appreciation. Recently it donated 11 beautifully wooded acres bordering the Gualala River and $380,000 to the Gualala Arts Center.

Decade Table of Acreage of GRI Harvests, by Year and Method

  YEAR    CLR   SW-R  SW-S   SW-P   ST-R   ST-S    SEL     CT    AP    TRAN    REH  TOTAL

  1989    186    106                                550           190            37   1069
  1990    404   1091    245     38                 1292     15    474    285     31   3875
  1991    103            12                         259           964                 1338
  1992    263                                       130     10    427                  830
  1993    234     10     35             6                    9            26           320
  1994    617    775     11           136     25     56      5     65                 1690
  1995    646   2145                  361           449     85                        3686
  1996    563   1915                  205            95                          54   2832
  1997    318                                        98                   58           474
  1998    309    750                                                                  1059
  1999    152    115                                 82                                349

  TOTAL  3795   6907    303     38    708     25   3011    124   2120    369    122  17522

Key: CLR=Clearcut, SW-R=Shelterwood Removal, SW-S=Shelterwood Seed-Tree, SW-P=Shelterwood Prep., ST-R=Seed Tree Removal, ST-S=Seed Tree Step, SEL=Selection, CT=Comm. Thin., AP=Alternate Prescipt., TRAN=Transition, REH=Rehabilitation

An inspection by the North Coast Regional Water Quality Review Board of some of the recent GRI clearcuts and burns found evidence of significant environmental harm from these practices. Some quotes from that inspection report (May, 1999):

"There was some loss of buffering ability from the loss of ground cover in the WPLZ."

"There must have been significant suspended sediment carried by the runoff... there was no vegetative matter of any kind to prevent the soil from raindrop impact or rilling.... the burned areas were exposed to an entire winter's rains."

"The scale of burning on these units clearly went beyond inadvertent."

"The steep Class III watercourses found on these units are often the source of debris sliding... intensity of the fire may have set back regeneration of the redwood stumps."

"This level of high-impact approach to forestry runs the risk of significant impacts to water quality.... Overstory canopy should be retained in Class III WLPZs."

"The Gualala is listed as impaired for excessive sediment.... a more conservative approach to sediment control is needed."