CALIFORNIA ELECTIONS: PROPOSITIONS 128, 130 and 138 : Industry-Backed Measure Battles Environmentalists to Shape Forests

In the midst of a bitter fight between environmentalists and the timber industry, California voters will decide the fate this fall of the last redwood forests remaining in private hands.

For environmentalists, the Nov. 6 election offers the chance to save the ancient redwoods. For the state’s major timber companies, the ballot provides the best hope of preserving their industry and maintaining their historic control over logging operations.

There are three initiatives on the November ballot that would change the rules for timber harvesting and authorize hundreds of millions of dollars in bonds to acquire forests or plant trees.

But beneath the apparent similarity of the propositions, environmentalists and the timber industry are vying to take advantage of increasing public concern over the destruction of California’s forests.

Two of the measures, Propositions 128 and 130, were written by environmentalists to ban the practice of clear-cutting, in which loggers cut down all the trees in an area of the forest. In place of clear-cutting, both initiatives would require timber companies to log selectively, leaving behind trees of all ages and sizes.

Proposition 138 was drafted by the timber industry in a bid to capture more votes and invalidate the two environmentalist initiatives. It also calls for a ban on clear-cutting but contains several loopholes, including one that would allow loggers to leave as few as five trees per acre, industry experts concede.

Arguing that the environmentalists’ proposals would put some companies out of business, the timber industry is spending millions to improve its image and persuade voters it can responsibly protect the state’s forests.

“The forest products industry as a whole is just now becoming aware that the perceptions the public holds are harsher than they realized,” said Bernie Bush, a timber industry forester and spokesman for the Proposition 138 campaign. “We feel the forest ecosystem is being managed very well. We have been hesitant to give credibility to the fact that the public doesn’t agree.”

The timber industry has been widely criticized for cutting down the state’s forests at too rapid a pace, particularly the huge redwood trees of coastal Northern California.

Environmentalists contend that the industry is contributing to the problem of global warming by harvesting forests faster than trees can grow to replace them. In addition, critics say clear-cutting of the forests is jeopardizing wildlife, including such species as the endangered spotted owl that lives among the ancient redwoods.

“Old-growth forests are disappearing rapidly,” said Tom Lippe, an environmentalist attorney who helped draft Proposition 130. “All of (the old-growth redwoods) on private lands are scheduled to be harvested in the next 10 to 15 years. This is the last chance Californians have to protect what’s left of the ancient forests.”

The environmentalists’ ballot drive to save the redwoods began with Proposition 128, the sweeping measure called “Big Green” by its supporters. Among other things, the initiative would ban the practice of clear-cutting and require loggers to use the “selection method” when harvesting redwoods, leaving behind trees of all ages.

Big Green also would provide $300 million in bonds for the purchase of redwood forests and for urban tree planting. The measure would impose a one-year moratorium on redwood harvesting to allow the state to purchase some of the oldest stands of redwood.

But the Big Green initiative is modest in its approach compared with Proposition 130--a separate measure by environmentalists who wanted to go further and fundamentally change the way the timber industry operates.

Called “Forests Forever” by its backers, it would ban clear-cutting and require the selection method of logging for all species of tree. It also would prohibit loggers from taking more than 60% of the timber volume of the forest in a given area.

Advocates of Proposition 130 argue that their measure would restore a proper balance to California’s forests by requiring a system of “all-age” management in which trees of various ages are left standing. Allowing the forests to regenerate in this fashion, sponsors say, actually would help timber companies by assuring a supply of lumber that would last indefinitely.

“Proposition 130 will require timber companies to harvest timber on a sustained yield basis so we will end the boom-and-bust cycle that has plagued the timber companies for the last century,” Lippe said.

In addition, it would impose a variety of new restrictions on logging operations, including prohibiting the use of tractors on steeper slopes and protecting air quality by discouraging the routine burning of debris from logging.

Furthermore, Proposition 130 attempts to reshape the state Board of Forestry by requiring the appointment of environmentalists to a panel long dominated by the timber industry.

And the measure would authorize $742 million in bonds--$710 million for the purchase of prime forest land and $32 million for the retraining of loggers who lose their jobs.

The timber industry also has cast its initiative as an environmental measure, calling Proposition 138 “The Global Warming and Clear Cutting Reduction, Wildlife Protection & Reforestation Act of 1990.”

David Fogarty, a spokesman for the Proposition 138 campaign, said the measure’s restrictions on logging will reduce the timber harvest by 15%. Timber companies also would be required to prepare more detailed reviews of wildlife in areas to be logged, he said.

“It’s a very tough measure,” Fogarty said. “We think it does a good job of balancing the human concerns with the economic concerns of protecting our forests.”

But the measure also would offer the industry some relief from regulations now in effect.

One provision of Proposition 138 would reduce the state’s long-term control over the industry by allowing large landholders to harvest trees under “timber management plans” that would be good indefinitely. Under current rules, timber companies must follow “timber harvest plans” that expire within three years.

Companies that operate under the new timber management plans would be exempt from preparing environmental impact reports. The state would have 60 days to reject a proposed timber management plan; otherwise it would take effect automatically.

Although the proposition provides no money for the purchase of forest land, it also would prohibit the state from buying any redwood forest land unless the owner agrees to sell. Proposition 138 would authorize $300 million in bonds solely for reforestation, including $120 million to help small-scale landowners improve their timber production.

Proposition 138’s most controversial element, however, is the provision that bans clear-cutting in redwood forests and requires a 50% reduction in clear-cutting of other types of trees.

Joseph Remcho, an attorney for the industry, acknowledged that the language of the ban contains “ambiguities” and “drafting errors.” Critics charge that the clear-cutting provision amounts to no ban at all.

For example, under one section of the initiative, companies that operate under the old “timber harvest plans” would be prohibited from clear-cutting redwoods. But under another provision, all major timber companies operating under the new “timber management plans” would be exempt from the ban.

Furthermore, opponents say the clear-cutting ban is so loosely worded that foresters could leave as few as one tree per acre when logging a forest of old-growth redwood. Bush, the industry forester, said such claims are “total nonsense.” The ban would require loggers to leave at least five trees per acre, he said.

Whatever the number of trees remaining, however, loggers could come back under their timber harvest plan and take all the trees within a three-year period, acknowledged Bush, a former president of the California Licensed Foresters Assn.

Or, because the harvested area would no longer be considered an old-growth forest, loggers conceivably could come back within days under a new harvest plan and take the remaining trees, opponents say.

Nevertheless, Bush insisted that Proposition 138 does prohibit clear-cutting and was not drafted to allow the industry to skirt the ban.

“If there was a loophole, it was unintentional and it will be plugged,” said Bush, a forester for the Simpson Timber Co. “To suggest there is anything created there to let you get around the clear-cutting ban is ludicrous.”

Bush defended the practice of clear-cutting as a valuable method of logging that better approximates the natural growth of forests. Without the interference of humans, he said, forests tend to grow in sections of trees that are the same age.

“Clear-cutting does more to mimic nature than the all-age method (of logging),” he said. “Clear-cutting is a silvicultural practice that certainly has a place in forest management.”

Bush also insisted that the timber industry has successfully managed California’s forests to increase the redwood range and protect wildlife. Although the spotted owl has been listed by the federal government as endangered, Bush said the bird actually is thriving as a result of proper management of the forests.

“The number of ancient redwoods is actually increasing,” Bush said. “The spotted owl is neither threatened nor endangered.”

If all three ballot measures pass, it is likely to touch off a prolonged legal dispute over which provisions should take effect.

Under the California Constitution, the initiative that receives the most votes prevails wherever it conflicts with other propositions that pass with fewer votes.

Environmentalists say their initiatives are compatible with each other and would not come into conflict if both are approved. But if Proposition 138 receives the most votes, industry spokesmen say their measure would wipe out the Forests Forever initiative and the forest section of Big Green.

Propositions 128 and 130 have the backing of the Sierra Club, the League of Conservation Voters, the California Teachers Assn., the California Democratic Party and a variety of other groups. In addition, Proposition 128, the Big Green initiative, has the backing of Campaign California, the Natural Resources Defense Council and has received substantial financial support from members of the entertainment industry.

Proposition 130, the Forests Forever measure, also is endorsed by the California State Park Rangers Assn., the National Audubon Society and the National Wildlife Federation and has received much of its financial backing from millionaire investment manager Hal Arbit.

Proposition 138 has the support of most of the state’s major timber companies, including Louisiana-Pacific Corp., Pacific Lumber Co., Simpson Timber Co. and Georgia-Pacific Corp. It also has the backing of the Board of Forestry, the California Professional Firefighters, the California Chamber of Commerce, the California School Boards Assn. and the California State Federation of Labor.

To a large degree, Proposition 130 was sparked by the accelerated logging of Pacific Lumber after it was acquired by Maxxam Group Inc. in a highly leveraged junk bond deal in 1985. Pacific Lumber spokesmen refused to discuss the forest initiatives or the company’s involvement in the campaign.

The timber industry is devoting most of its energy to defeating Proposition 130, which it contends would put some companies out of business and drive up consumer prices.

Bud McCrary, an owner of Big Creek Lumber in Santa Cruz County, has long been praised by environmentalists for his selective logging methods. But he said the Forests Forever initiative would force him to shut down because it is too restrictive. In particular, he said, a prohibition on the use of tractors on slopes over 50% would make it impossible to log much of his land.

“We’re the last of the small companies and they’re going to wipe us out with this,” said McCrary, who for years has led Sierra Club hikes in the woods.

He also contends that the 60% limit on the volume of timber harvested is so low he would not be able to clear enough trees to let sunlight reach the forest floor and help new redwoods sprout.

But Gail Lucas, a Sierra Club leader and a backer of the initiative, said McCrary is misreading the initiative and insisted it would not put him out of business.

Proposition 130 would permit him to clear sufficient space in the forest for new redwoods to grow, she said. Furthermore, the reconstituted Board of Forestry would have the power to draft regulations implementing the proposition and ensuring that provisions such as the limits on tractor logging are not unfairly restrictive.

Opponents of Forests Forever have taken to the airwaves to attack the measure’s restrictions on burning. They predict that without the ability to easily burn branches, chips and other waste, loggers will leave behind debris that would fuel catastrophic wildfires.

Environmentalists, however, point out that the measure allows the controlled burning of logging debris if it is necessary to reduce the danger of fire.

The industry campaign also charges that the $742-million bond in Proposition 130 for the acquisition of forest land and the retraining of loggers is too costly. Opponents say the bond measure would cost the state $1.3 billion in principal and interest over 20 years.

They argue that their $300-million bond in Proposition 138 for reforestation is a worthwhile investment, even though it would cost taxpayers an estimated $535 million over the same 20-year period.

In another argument against the measure, Bush also maintained that Proposition 130’s reductions in logging would be bad for California wildlife, because it would reduce the habitat for hundreds of species that thrive in open areas where trees have been cut.

“They’re trying to impose a single inflexible system of management on an incredibly diverse ecosystem in California,” Bush argued. “They are ignoring decades of sound forest research management.”

TIMBER INDUSTRY: COMPARING THE PROPOSITIONS

Three propositions on the Nov. 6 ballot would change the way the timber industry operates: Proposition 128 and Proposition 130, sponsored by environmentalists, and Proposition 138, sponsored by the timber industry to cancel out the other two measures. These are the key forest provisions of the three initiatives: PROPOSITION 128

Would ban clear-cutting of redwoods.

Would impose a one-year moratorium on cutting of redwoods to give the state time to purchase ancient forests.

Would require loggers to use the selection method when logging redwoods and leave trees of all ages standing.

Would authorize $300 million in bonds, including $200 million for purchase of redwood forests and $100 million for tree planting. PROPOSITION 130

Would ban clear-cutting in all California forests.

Would prohibit logging companies from taking more than 60% of total timber volume.

Would require loggers to use the selection method when logging any forest and require loggers to leave trees of all ages standing.

Would change the composition of the state Board of Forestry to reduce industry influence and add environmentalists.

Would restrict logging near streams and lakes.

Would restrict the use of tractors in logging on steeper slopes.

Would restrict the controlled burning of debris from logging.

Would restrict the export of logs to mills in other countries.

Would authorize $742 million in bonds, including $710 million for purchase of redwoods and $32 million for retraining loggers.

PROPOSITION 138

Would ban clear-cutting of redwoods in name, but leaves various loopholes allowing loggers to take all or most trees in a given area.

Would allow major timber companies to harvest under timber management plans that cover unlimited acreage and are valid indefinitely.

Would require timber companies to conduct wildlife review before logging but exempt them from the requirement that they conduct environmental impact reports.

Would restrict the appeal process now used by logging opponents to stop some timber harvests.

Would prohibit the state from buying redwood forests unless the owner agrees to sell.

Would cancel out Propositions 128 and 130 if it gets more votes.

Would authorize bonds of $300 million for reforestation, including $120 million for smaller timberland owners.