Compromise on Logging of State’s Forests Turned Down : Ecology: The timber industry’s rejection of the plan increases the chance of another costly ballot fight.

A compromise intended to slow the logging of California’s forests was rejected Monday by the timber industry, greatly increasing the chances of another costly ballot fight over the harvesting of privately owned timberland.

The Timber Assn. of California, turning down a proposal negotiated by environmental groups and a major timber company, offered its own proposal that would provide fewer restrictions on logging and permit the continued clear-cutting of old-growth redwoods.

The Sierra Club, in a strongly worded response, blasted the industry proposal as a “cynical environmental hoax” and charged, “It’s a formula to allow out-of-state companies to continue raiding the North Coast,” where most of the state’s redwoods grow.

The timber industry rejection of the compromise marks the end of months of delicate negotiations aimed at halting the rapid cutting of California’s forests without putting logging companies out of business.

The Sierra Club and Sierra Pacific Industries, one of the state’s largest logging firms, reached agreement last week on a compromise that would have protected some environmentally sensitive forests and permitted loggers to harvest only as much timber as grew each year.

Both sides had hoped the agreement would avoid another divisive initiative campaign like last year’s battle over Proposition 130, the environmentalists’ “Forests Forever” measure, and Proposition 138, the timber industry’s alternative. After a $17-million campaign, both ballot measures were rejected by the voters.

In the coming months, the Legislature will have the chance to salvage a compromise between the warring groups. But Gail Lucas, the Sierra Club’s negotiator, said environmentalists will not give any more ground and will step up plans for an initiative campaign next year.

At a press conference Monday, representatives of the timber industry cast their latest proposal as an environmental measure that would reduce clear-cutting, limit the annual harvest to the rate of growth and give environmentalists a greater role in regulating the timber industry.

“This historic proposal responds to the public’s concerns about responsible forestry, proposes real reforms and enables the forest resources industry to continue to produce wood and paper products for California’s families,” said William N. Dennison, president of the Timber Assn.

Lucas, however, accused the association of negotiating in bad faith and attempting to mislead the public by claiming that its proposal would benefit the environment.

Like the earlier compromise backed by environmentalists, the timber industry proposal would mandate the practice of sustained yield so that the rate of harvest equals the rate of growth.

But Lucas pointed out that in critical watershed areas, the industry plan would phase in the sustained yield policy so slowly that logging companies would hardly be affected. For example, the plan could allow a logging company to take 90% of the trees in just over 10 years, she argued.

The industry proposal also would require the preservation of some ancient forests, but it specifically excludes redwood forests from the definition of what constitutes an ancient forest, according to the proposal released by the Timber Assn.

Overall, the proposal negotiated by the Sierra Club and Sierra Pacific Industries is more restrictive when it comes to the total annual harvest, the preservation of ancient forests and the protection of wildlife, streams and watersheds.

The controversial issue of clear-cutting illustrates how the proposals differ: Under the current law, logging companies can clear-cut areas as large as 120 acres. The timber industry plan would limit the size of clear-cuts to 40 acres, but would permit loggers to go back and take the adjoining acreage after five years. The plan backed by the Sierra Club would restrict clear-cuts to 20 acres and prohibit cutting the adjacent area for 20 years.

“It is my fervent hope and desire that the Sierra Club and others evaluate this proposal on its merits and that we can all work together to achieve lasting forestry reform,” Dennison said.

But Lucas characterized the proposal as a “cynical back-door attempt by the timber industry to undercut a carefully balanced negotiated agreement. . . . Clearly they’d rather fight an initiative than make a compromise.”