BILL ANALYSIS
AB 2575
Page 1
ASSEMBLY THIRD READING
AB 2575 (Chesbro)
As Amended May 28, 2010
Majority vote
NATURAL RESOURCES 6-0 APPROPRIATIONS 12-5
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Ayes:|Chesbro, Brownley, De |Ayes:|Fuentes, Ammiano, |
| |Leon, Hill, Huffman, | |Bradford, |
| |Skinner | |Charles Calderon, Coto, |
| | | |Davis, |
| | | |Monning, Ruskin, Skinner, |
| | | |Solorio, Torlakson, |
| | | |Torrico |
| | | | |
|-----+--------------------------+-----+--------------------------|
| | |Nays:|Conway, Harkey, Miller, |
| | | |Nielsen, Norby |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY : Imposes conditions on the California Department of
Forestry and Fire Protection (CDF or CAL FIRE) and Board of
Forestry (Board) during its implementation of pilot projects to
assess the cumulative impacts of timber harvest operations on a
watershed. Specifically, this bill :
1)Requires CDF and Board, when implementing a pilot project to
protect and restore the riparian zone in watersheds with listed
anadromous salmonids, to comply with all of the following:
a) Provide the industry, agencies, and public the public with
equal opportunity to participate in the development of a
pilot project in a transparent manner;
b) Adopt guidelines for conducting a cumulative effects
evaluation on a planning watershed scale; address potential
project-specific planning watershed cumulative effects of
timber harvesting activities. In particular, the guidelines
shall require the following:
i) The spatial scale of the cumulative effects analysis
to be consistent with the resources of concern, including
watersheds and soil productivity, and with the physical
processes, including erosion, that influence those
AB 2575
Page 2
resources;
ii) The use of reproducible, quantitative methods of
evaluation as the primary means of determining baseline
physical, chemical, or biological parameters, in estimating
cumulative impacts, and in monitoring implementation of
mitigation measures;
iii) Sufficient documentation that supports the conclusions
and recommendations of an evaluation; and,
iv) The evaluator to have relevant training and
experience.
c) Consult with and seek comment from appropriate scientific
experts in order to develop evaluation guidelines that are
feasible, enforceable, and protective of the public trust.
2)Specifies goals for a pilot project, including restoration of
fisheries and wildlife habitat; reducing the risk of wildfire;
reducing sedimentation and soil loss; achieving long-term carbon
sequestration; and restoring unique attributes of a given
planning watershed.
3)Requires funding for the development and implementation of a
pilot project to be drawn from existing CDF and Board resources
and any additional funding to be sought from private and public
sources.
EXISTING LAW :
1)Requires the Board to adopt rules to address the unreasonable
effects of timber operations on the beneficial uses of waters.
These rules must address effects from:
a) Construction of logging roads and tractor trail stream
crossings;
b) Damage to streamside vegetation and streambeds from
skidding or hauling logs across streams, operating heavy
equipment in streambeds, constructing log landings; and,
c) Slash, debris, or fill that may be discharged into
streams, and erosion.
AB 2575
Page 3
2)Requires, under the California Code of Regulations Section
916.9, the Board and CDF to implement two pilot projects using
site-specific or non-standard operational measures to minimize
cumulative and planning impacts of timber harvesting on
watersheds; CDF must recommend guidelines to the Board for
adoption by June 30, 2011.
FISCAL EFFECT : According to the Assembly Appropriations
Committee, unknown costs, but possibly in the tens of thousands of
dollars, to implement a pilot project.
COMMENTS : The concept of analyzing cumulative impacts is rooted
in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Citing CEQA,
the Forest Practice Rules (FPR) define "cumulative impacts," in
part, as "?two or more individual effects which, when considered
together, are considerable, or which compound or increase other
environmental impacts." Both CEQA and the FPRs require an
assessment of potential cumulative impacts due to timber
operations and both must be satisfied. Moreover, FPR Section
897(b)(2) states that "Individual [timber harvest plans (THPs)]
shall be considered in the context of the larger forest planning
watershed in which they are located, so that biological diversity
and watershed integrity are maintained within larger planning
units and adverse cumulative impacts, including impacts on the
quality and beneficial uses of water are reduced."
In practical terms, the FPRs require THPs to evaluate all "closely
related past [previously approved, on-going, or completed projects
within the past 10 years], present and reasonably foreseeable
probable future projects [other THPs by same landowner to be
harvested within 5 years; other THPs by other landowners] within
the same ownership and matters of public record." The FPRs include
a checklist to focus a cumulative impact analysis on seven
resources potentially at risk (watershed, soil, biology,
recreation, visual, traffic, and other). The checklist must
include a description whether the project, in combination with
past, present, or future projects, will have a reasonable
potential to cause or add to significant cumulative impacts to the
above seven areas taking into consideration any mitigation
measures or alternatives proposed in a THP. The FPRs also include
an appendix that lists the factors a THP should consider in
evaluating impacts. For example, when evaluating watershed
impacts, the analysis should consider the effects of erosion,
water temperature, organic debris, chemical contamination and peak
flow.
AB 2575
Page 4
Criticism of the effectiveness of the FPR's past and current
treatment of cumulative impact analyses has come from many
quarters. Beginning with a 1990 CDF-commissioned report, a 1994
Little Hoover Commission (LHC) report, a 1999 scientific review
panel jointly appointed by the Resources Agency and National
Marine Fisheries Service, a 2001 University of California study,
and 2008 correspondence from the Central Valley Regional Water
Quality Control Board (RWQCB) staff, it has been well-established,
though not without controversy, that the utility of these analyses
is limited. At the same time, the timber industry has expressed
concerns that increased regulatory prescription may significantly
challenge its ability to cost-effectively manage its timberlands,
especially in the face of a depressed housing market.
Among other things, the LHC concluded that the cumulative impact
analyses required under the FPR is both burdensome and
unproductive. While the industry complains that the analyses are
costly and complicated on a THP-by-THP basis, environmentalists
cite the lack of substantive information to sufficiently evaluate
the impacts. Citing three studies, the RWQCB noted that the
cumulative impact guidance in the FPRs has been criticized for,
among other factors, its qualitative nature, lack of
repeatability, lack of required documentation or substantiation,
lack of standards for those conducting an analysis, and the
arbitrary nature of the spatial scope of an analysis. The FPRs'
lack of recognition of physical process interactions and linkages
leads to "piecemeal rather than integrated analysis." Setting
aside the efficacy of the FPRs, the RWQCB pointedly questioned
whether mitigation measures or the FRPs themselves are being
implemented "correctly or are effective in preventing" cumulative
impacts. The LHC report concluded that "The result is that
cumulative assessments are merely guesswork that neither
accurately define an existing baseline of information nor credibly
predict the outcome after harvesting."
This bill codifies and expands on a Board rule requiring the
implementation of two pilot projects to inform the development of
guidance on the implementation of "site-specific measures or
non-standard operational provisions" [hereinafter "measures"].
Implementation of these measures is intended to be in lieu of
specific measures (e.g., minimum buffer zones around streams,
prohibitions on harvesting or road-building), adopted last year as
part of a substantial salmonid protection rules package, to
mitigate potential impacts to listed anadromous salmonid
AB 2575
Page 5
fisheries. According to the FPRs, "Site specific plans may be
submitted when, in the judgment of the [registered professional
forester], such measures or provisions offer a more effective or
more feasible way of achieving the [rules'] goals and
objectives?and would result in effects to the beneficial functions
of the riparian zone equal to or more favorable than the
application of the [rules]."
According to CDF, one initial proposal for pilot study in the
north coast is the intentional placement of "large woody debris
[LWD]" in an anadromous stream (LWD can create habitat or refuge
for juvenile fish). Placement of LWD could be an alternative to a
requirement to retain 10 of the largest trees in certain riparian
buffer zones, in hopes of recruiting fallen branches or trunks
into streams. Such a pilot project would lead to the development
of relevant guidance for timber operators.
However, the objective of this bill appears to be more
comprehensive than the above rule: it attempts to address the
central criticisms and shortcomings of cumulative impact analyses
as implemented today. This bill requires a pilot project to
result in the adoption of guidelines for conducting a cumulative
effects evaluation on a planning watershed scale and specifically
requires the project to incorporate some of the evaluative factors
suggested by the RWQCB.
Analysis Prepared by : Dan Chia / NAT. RES. / (916) 319-2092
FN: 0004720