OS ANGELES, Sept. 9 — Gov. Gray Davis announced a plan today for closing a loophole in the protection of certain old-growth trees in California, but some environmentalists attacked the proposal as far too modest and vowed to place an initiative on the ballot next year to strictly limit the cutting of the state's remaining old trees.
Mr. Davis appeared to be seeking to head off the ballot initiative and to satisfy the many competing concerns battling over the older trees, but even environmentalists who backed the proposal insisted that it had to be a first step. Other environmentalists expressed anger that the governor appeared to have abandoned a campaign promise, in which he suggested that he would end the cutting.
Mr. Davis said in a radio address today that he had asked the state's Department of Forestry and Fire Protection to pass a regulation this week that would prevent private landowners from cutting old-growth trees before filing a harvest plan and receiving state approval.
Most of the state's remaining old- growth forests are on federal lands and are regulated mainly by the United States Forest Service, not the state agency. The private timber companies that own and harvest old- growth forests must submit extensive plans to the state and receive approval before cutting. In general, they would not be affected by the proposed regulations.
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The new rule would have a far more limited scope. The state now offers an exemption for landowners who want to cut old-growth trees for purposes like clearing trails for power lines, clearing dead or dying trees, or harvesting Christmas trees. The new rule would apply to those situations and require those landowners to file a reduced harvest plan for approval.
The proposed rule would generally define old-growth trees as 200 years old or older, a definition that many environmentalists reject. They prefer a definition of trees that were present when California became a state, in 1850.
Mr. Davis said today that the plan "would provide the strongest protection for California's old-growth trees in the history of the state."
Mary Nichols, the state's secretary for resources, said in an interview that although the scope was modest, the proposal was important because "it would draw into the process for the first time a lot of people who were not covered before."
Ms. Nichols added that landowners would have to hire a forest expert to prepare their harvest proposal, an expense that some would not want to absorb. Those landowners would abandon their cutting plans, she said, adding that that was something the state wanted.
But some environmentalists reacted angrily.
"This does not get the governor off the hook for his campaign promise," said Carl Zichella, the Sierra Club's regional staff director for California, Nevada and Hawaii. "This does nothing to stop the worst abuses. Clear- cutting in the state has increased in recent years, and this won't stop it."
Mr. Zichella said the Sierra Club was moving toward supporting the ballot initiative being prepared for next year. He said today's announcement would do nothing to stop that.
Even one group that offered tepid support for the proposal said it was just a start. Jay Watson, a regional director for the group, the Wilderness Society, said it was important because it would regulate smaller landowners for the first time.
"It's a step forward, a modest step, but sometimes the first step is the hardest step." Mr. Watson said.