Saving Habitat, Not Just Big Trees

Is the deal to save some of the ancient redwoods in the Headwaters Forest a victory for all who value these irreplaceable, majestic trees? Or does the agreement more accurately represent a victory for Pacific Lumber Co. and a triumph of symbolism over substance in the arena of environmental politics?

A decade-long struggle to protect this Northern California redwood forest came down to an intense 100 hours of closed-door negotiations in Washington last week. Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), Deputy Interior Secretary John Garamendi and state Secretary of Resources Douglas P. Wheeler squared off against financier Charles Hurwitz’s Maxxam Inc., which owns Pacific Lumber, which owns the ancient redwoods. Meanwhile, celebrities and other protesters massed in the forest itself, singing and blocking logging equipment. High drama on both coasts.

That drama may have helped raise the ante, to Hurwitz’s benefit. In exchange for acquiring 7,500 acres of forest, the Clinton administration and Gov. Pete Wilson jointly agreed to pay Hurwitz $380 million in unspecified government real estate and cash.

The land that Pacific Lumber is selling will become a public preserve, protected from logging. This is a major accomplishment.

The company, however, retains 207,000 acres in the Headwaters area, which it can log if within 10 months it produces a wildlife habitat conservation plan and a sustained yield plan acceptable to state and federal officials. If in the judgment of the officials the company’s logging plan fails to protect the coho salmon, the northern spotted owl and a seabird called the marbled murrelet, among other species, the deal is off and it’s back to square one. Environmentalists fear that no scientifically valid plan can be produced in so short a time.

Whatever benefits Hurwitz derived from the Washington and Headwaters developments last week, the events also made it imperative that he settle rather than take the heat for cutting his old trees. Indeed, this deal not only protects the core area of the ancient growth but is rightly hailed as the largest effort at habitat conservation in U.S. history. It is an important test of this alternative to species-by-species protection efforts, one that Wilson and others have warmly embraced.

Will this planning effort sufficiently protect vulnerable trees and other plant life? Is this deal a win-win, as Feinstein and Garamendi are anxious to characterize it? It certainly could be, but everything depends on the extent of good faith on both sides.

One lesson is already clear: The state forestry laws that would have let Pacific Lumber log its Headwaters lands should be revisited. Wilson and the Legislature have tried but failed twice to reform forest practice laws; they should try again. Next time they should aim to more tightly limit logging in California’s old-growth forests and clear-cutting across the state.