What they were after was no-cut buffers on the non-fish bearing creaks and seasonal streams. As stated in the article:
The rules do not contain protections for streams without fish or gullies that become watercourses during the rainy season. The large landowners presented maps to the Board when these rules were debated showing in graphic detail how these buffers would overlap one another, thus rendering over half of their land off-limits to logging.
The enviro's are right in that the big companies are benefiting from the status quo. This is because the timber industry has always been plagued by over production. Regulation always falls heaviest on the smallest, thus we now have regional monopolies in California's timber industry - they are the only ones that can afford to do business here. These regulations restict production from the small private landowners thus preventing unwanted competition. Saving the fish hell - it's a protection racket.
Thanks for the info. In our case, the watercourse is not a fish bearing creek. Due to a golf course taking too much water. We are actually interested in bringing the steelhead back on our land, despite the regulations, because we would like to see spawning runs there. The F & G is not helping us get a year round run above ground into the Smith River but they do regulate our cutting in the river zone, and include a river that does not flow all year in the restrictions. Oh well, more trees to grow. (Our trees are not old growth, as the land was logged before we purchased it.) The golf course is signing on to a water district and so may need less of the water from our creek in the future, maybe we will have fish someday soon.