BILL ANALYSIS Ó
------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | SB 455|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|1020 N Street, Suite 524 | |
|(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
------------------------------------------------------------
THIRD READING
Bill No: SB 455
Author: Pavley (D)
Amended: 1/4/12
Vote: 21
SENATE NATURAL RESOURCES AND WATER COMM : 8-0, 1/10/12
AYES: Pavley, Cannella, Evans, Fuller, Kehoe, Padilla,
Simitian, Wolk
NO VOTE RECORDED: La Malfa
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE : 6-0, 1/19/12
AYES: Kehoe, Alquist, Lieu, Pavley, Price, Steinberg
NO VOTE RECORDED: Walters, Emmerson, Runner
SUBJECT : Forestry: watersheds: timber harvesting plans
SOURCE : Author
DIGEST : This bill establishes a new process for
landowners to develop a watershed timber harvest plan
(WTHP), rather than completing many individual timber
harvest plans (THPs).
ANALYSIS : Existing law:
1.The Z'berg-Nejedly Forest Practice Act of 1973
(commencing with Section 4511 of the Public Resources
Code) prohibits any commercial harvesting of timber
unless a THP has been prepared by a registered
professional forester and approved by the California
CONTINUED
SB 455
Page
2
Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CDF).
Generally, a THP must contain a description of the
location of the planned harvest, the harvest method,
measures to avoid excessive erosion, timeframe of
operations, and other information required by forest
practice rules adopted by the Board of Forestry (Board).
Most THPs from industrial landowners involve a few
hundred acres although the acreage can vary. The Forest
Practices Act contains various exemptions and provides
other requirements for lawful timber harvest operations.
2.The effective period of a THP is three years but may be
extended for two, one year extensions under certain
conditions.
3.The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) covers
timber harvesting activities because discretionary
permits from public agencies are required and the
activities have potential environmental impacts that must
be mitigated. However, instead of an environmental
impact report, the timber harvest environmental review
process is considered "functionally equivalent" to CEQA
pursuant to the CEQA Guidelines. As such, approved
applications are granted a THP and therefore do not need
to prepare an EIR.
4.Timber harvesting may also occur pursuant to a
programmatic timber environmental impact report (PTEIR)
in which an EIR is prepared. Rarely used, a PTEIR could
cover an entire large ownership of commercial
timberlands. Subsequent harvesting activities could use
the baseline document as the foundation for subsequent
harvesting activities. However, a PTEIR requires
subsequent harvesting to be authorized pursuant to a THP.
5.Small landowners of 2,500 acres who harvest trees through
uneven age management techniques (i.e., not clearcutting)
may harvest timber pursuant to a non-industrial timber
management plan that does not require a THP. Harvesting
activities are authorized pursuant to an expedited notice
procedure.
6.Other timber harvesting activities are authorized
CONTINUED
SB 455
Page
3
pursuant to a narrow range of exemptions from the normal
THP process. Some are complete exemptions and some are
partial exemptions. These exemptions cover such
activities as the removal of dead and dying trees, fuel
reduction, and other specified actions.
7.Existing law requires permits conversion of timberlands
into non-timber purposes. THPs are required to remove
the timber and conversion permits are required for the
change in land use. Those permits do not expressly take
into account the loss of carbon or the foregone ability
to sequester carbon into the future nor is mitigation for
that loss required.
This bill:
1.This bill creates a voluntary, optional method to harvest
timber on a watershed (or multiple watershed) scale. The
permit would be called a Watershed Timber Harvest Plan
(WTHP). The overarching requirement of the WTHP is to
maintain lands in timber production and to ensure that
those lands are managed in a way that increases
sequestered forest carbon and improves the resilience of
the landscape to climate change and naturally occurring
fires.
As a quick summary of the proposed law, the duration of
harvesting permits would be extended to 20 years and
annual operations would be triggered through a notice
provision (similar to those used in non-industrial timber
management plans). The various reviewing agencies (CDF
plus in most cases the Departments of Fish and Game,
Conservation, and a regional water quality board) would
be required to synchronize their permits to coincide with
the 20-year term. The applicant would pay a fee of up to
$100,000 to pay for the initial environmental review of
the WTHP. The landowner would disclose all harvest
activities planned over the next 20 years with refined
mapping every 4 years. Reports on attaining structural
retention (trees remaining on the land for habitat or
other environmental purposes) goals would be filed every
5 years. Also on a five-year schedule is the requirement
to report on planned harvesting activities, methods of
harvest, and other related items. Every two years, the
CONTINUED
SB 455
Page
4
landowner would file a compliance report with CDF.
The bill would also impose a requirement that a landowner
must increase carbon stocks on the land to help mitigate
the effects of climate change. This must be demonstrated
by the landowner and conveyed to CDF every fifth year.
Another provision would require mitigation for the loss
of carbon stocks for the conversion of more than one acre
of timberland into non-timberland purposes.
2.The WTHP would include all information required by
current law for a THP, and in addition, specifically
require mitigation of environmental impacts to a less
than significant level. All other applicable provisions
of habitat protection laws, water quality laws, and all
other provisions of state law that apply to timber
harvesting activities would not be affected and would
remain in effect.
The environmental analysis, although on a larger expanse
of land than historic THPs, would be required to contain
sufficient information that the need for further
environmental review for purposes of annual harvesting
activities would not be needed. However, the bill does
allow plans to be amended in the event of new information
or if reviewing agencies discover compliance problems.
A WTHP would cover one or more designated watersheds but
would normally not exceed 100,000 acres. Watersheds are
already designated in California and mapped by the
Department of Water Resources and that methodology is
referenced in and incorporated into the bill.
3.Additionally, three separate elements would be included
in a WTHP: a sustained timber production assessment, a
fish and wildlife assessment, and a watershed assessment.
The sustained timber production assessment would detail
all the relevant information about the composition of the
forest structure and how the proposed harvesting
activities would be consistent with the protection of
wildlife, water quality, carbon sequestration, and the
projected economic activity within a region.
CONTINUED
SB 455
Page
5
The fish and wildlife assessment must contain all the
provisions in the plan that address all wildlife and
endangered species issues. This assessment must disclose
impacts to wildlife and what management techniques will
be used to retain necessary forest structure for affected
wildlife.
The watershed assessment and the planning assessment
requires an integrated analysis of all the potentially
significant adverse environmental impacts within a
proposed WTHP. This analysis will be on a watershed
basis, or on a multiple watershed basis where
appropriate. This is assessment that will disclose
erosion and landslide risks, how the WTHP will comply
with water quality laws, a schedule for road repair, and
related issues. This assessment must also include a
discussion of the range of projected impacts of climate
change in the region covered by the WTHP.
4.As drafted, the proposed structural retention language is
in the fish and wildlife assessment. These provisions
are subject to future negotiations by the parties, but in
their current form would do the following:
A. Require an unspecified increase in the total volume
of forest carbon over the life of the permit and have
these increases demonstrated to CDF every five years.
B. Intent language that the structural diversity of
the landscape is enhanced and that the landscape
becomes more resilient throughout the area comprising
the WTHP.
C. Mandatory retention of trees of specified sizes in
each clearcut harvest unit that is along a federal or
state highway corridor that could be as much as a mile
wide. This retention would vary depending on the
topography of the specific corridor.
D. For other areas outside of the highway corridors,
additional retention requirements would apply. Two
basic models would apply depending on how the
CONTINUED
SB 455
Page
6
landowner plans to comply with the retention
requirements. Where retention is dispersed across the
landscape, it would be based on a per acre minimum
that would be based on a specific percentage of
minimum stocking standards in the California Code of
Regulations. The author and the stakeholders have not
resolved the specific percentage at this time.
Where retention is to be aggregated into groups,
retention would be based on a minimum size within each
harvest unit. Again, those percentage numbers have been
resolved as of yet.
1.The bill contains several provisions related to the
agency review and public availability of a proposed WTHP.
The WTHP would be reviewed by CDF and all of the other
reviewing agencies in a coordinated fashion. The public
would be provided electronic access to all documents.
The review of the proposed WTHP will be paid for by a
maximum $100,000 fee paid by the applicant. All of the
reviewing agencies must agree to the WTHP prior its
approval. All of the reviewing agencies must participate
in comprehensive field review prior to approval of the
WTHP.
If after a regularly scheduled compliance review
inspection, the WTHP is found to be out of compliance,
the director of CDF must suspend the WTHP until it is
brought into compliance either by changes in operation or
by an amendment.
At the tenth year, there shall be another full field
review with all of the reviewing agencies. If the WTHP
is not in compliance, the WTHP shall be suspended and the
WTHP must be brought into compliance or amended as
provided in the Forest Practices Act.
The bill contains an appeals process for landowners whose
WTHP application is denied.
2.There are several provisions related to the notice of
operations pursuant to a WTHP. It must be filed 30 days
before operations, available to the public
electronically, and must describe all proposed operations
CONTINUED
SB 455
Page
7
for a period of 12-18 months. The notice must also
certify the operations will be conducted pursuant to the
WTHP and that there have been no substantial changes or
new information that would alter the information or
analysis of the WTHP. Minor deviations from the WTHP as
defined in the Forest Practice Rules would be permitted
with the approval of the director.
Within 10 days of the receipt of the notice, the director
shall contact the reviewing agencies to determine if a
field review is necessary. Operations can commence
provided that no reviewing agency objects.
If there is an objection, the bill provides a mechanism
for resolving the objection, and in addition, the
director may initiate consultation among the reviewing
agencies to try to resolve the dispute which, if
successful, would then be memorialized in an amendment to
the WTHP.
At the point the notice is determined by CDF to be
consistent with the WTHP, the director is required to
approve the notice.
3.The bill contains enforcement provisions that require the
suspension of the WTHP if persistent violations are
detected, the terms of permits are being violated, and
other conditions. While suspended, no operations
pursuant to the WTHP may continue.
4.After operations are completed, all areas on which
operations occurred must be inspected by CDF with one
year.
5.Timberland conversions of greater than one acre shall be
fully mitigated, including the depletion of current and
future carbon stocks.
FISCAL EFFECT : Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes
Local: Yes
According to the Senate Appropriations Committee:
Fiscal Impact (in thousands)
CONTINUED
SB 455
Page
8
Major Provisions 2012-13 2013-14
2014-15 Fund
WTHP review and ongoing Unknown
additional costs, potentially
General
monitoring in the millions per year
Future THP review costs
Unknown potential cost savings over time
General
Fee revenues Potential
fee revenues in the hundreds
General
of thousands to millions per year
SUPPORT : (Verified 1/19/12)
Pacific Forest Trust
The Nature Conservancy
California Forestry Association (if amended)
OPPOSITION : (Verified 1/19/12)
Forests Forever (unless amended)
Environmental Protection Information Center (unless
amended)
Sierra Club California (unless amended)
Center for Biological Diversity (unless amended)
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT : Pacific Forest Trust and The
Nature Conservancy are co-sponsors of the bill. In a joint
letter, these groups not that the loss of forests is a
major source of carbon emissions amounting to nearly 20% of
global carbon emissions annually. They note that the
California Air Resources Board has identified preventing
and mitigating further loss of California's forests is a
key element of meeting California's emission reduction
goals. This bill would discourage conversion of timberland
and when timberland is converted, the bill would require
full mitigation the climate impacts. The mitigation
requirement would apply only to timberlands, not other
lands that are not capable of generating a commercial
CONTINUED
SB 455
Page
9
timber product.
ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION : An environmental coalition
consisting of Forests Forever, Sierra Club California, and
the Center for Biological Diversity have an oppose unless
amended position. These groups believe that the bill, if
intended to strengthen the state's approach to sustainable
forestry, should prohibit clearcutting. These groups also
state that the bill does not provide any specific
enhancements in the way cumulative effects are assesses by
state agencies. The Center for Biological Diversity asks
for clarification on the mapping provision to ensure that
sufficient specificity is provided of the areas that will
be harvested. It asks for clarification on when lands
outside the ownership covered by WTHP would be included in
the environmental analysis covered by the WTHP. It (along
with the sponsors and the supporters) recognizes that the
current language on retention is incomplete and it has
great interest in making sure the final retention language
is acceptable. It asks for clarification on the current
language concerning making forests more fire resistant that
distinguishes between all tree removal as compared to
logging that legitimately makes forests more resilient to
natural fire.
CTW:nl 1/25/12 Senate Floor Analyses
SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE
**** END ****
CONTINUED