Forestry board rejects proposed logging rules

Don Thompson

Wednesday, Oct. 4, 2000 | 5:02 a.m.

SACRAMENTO, Calif. - The state Forestry Board on Wednesday rejected proposed rules that could have eased logging restrictions near streams and on hillsides.

The Board of Forestry, which sets timber policy for private land, had to act this week for new logging regulations to take effect Jan. 1.

The board backed the proposed rules 4-3, one vote short of the five needed for approval.

The vote leaves temporary rules in place for at least one more year, over the objections of the logging industry, which contends the requirements are too burdensome.

"I just think it's a terrible signal to send, our failure to come to terms with the obligations we said we'd keep," said Tharon O'Dell of Simpson Timber Co., one of the board's timber industry representatives.

O'Dell was referring to the board's promise in May to adopt new rules in time for them to take effect next year.

The board's three timber company representatives joined with one public member in supporting a proposal by the logging industry.

Three public members including board Chairman Stan Dixon back an alternative proposed by the Forestry Department that they say would be tougher.

The board will keep trying to pass a plan, said Kirk Marckwald, a board member who opposed the timber industry's plan.

"We have to be committed to the cause of providing these flexible options, but we just didn't hit the mark," Marckwald said.

Environmentalists contend the proposed rules - the timber industry or the Forestry Department plans - would harm streams and salmon.

"We avoided another defeat - I guess you could call that a small victory," said Felice Pace, a coordinator with the Klamath Forest Alliance in Etna.

The decision left neither side happy, however.

Environmentalists want more waterway protections, while timber companies want to switch to a system that would let them set rules for each new timber harvest instead of adhering to statewide regulations.

The now-rejected logging rules would have given timber interests and landowners a choice on how to obtain the necessary approvals to cut timber, either through the existing rules or through the new ones.

The rules would have affected key aspects of logging, including how many trees must be left standing near streams, how much canopy must be retained overhead for shade, and how close to streams loggers are allowed to cut.

The Forestry Board's deadlock cast doubt on its ability to devise new rules next year that would gauge the impact of logging on entire watersheds. Even if those rules are adopted, few logging companies are likely to use them, predicted Sierra Club Forest Conservation Chair Kathy Bailey.

"There's no valid watershed assessment that's going to result in a recommendation of, 'Let's cut more trees than we can already,"' she said. "So there's no incentive for the industry."

O'Dell and Gary Rynearson, also a timber industry representative on the board, said there may be no way of devising new rules that increase watershed protections without overly burdening logging companies.

Wednesday's rejection came a day after demonstrators rallied against the plan at the Capitol. They contended Gov. Gray Davis' acceptance of campaign contributions from timber companies has influenced his administration's timber policies.

Garry South, Davis' top political adviser, rejected the criticism.

"There is no way anyone can satisfy the more radical elements in the environmental community," South said.