BILL ANALYSIS �
AB 350
Page 1
Date of Hearing: April 29, 2013
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
Wesley Chesbro, Chair
AB 350 (Wieckowski) - As Amended: April 22, 2013
SUBJECT : Timber harvesting plans: exempt activities
SUMMARY : Expands the timber harvest plan exemption for fuel
reduction (La Malfa Exemption) by increasing the size of the
tree that can be cut from 18 inches in stump diameter to 28
inches in stump diameter.
EXISTING LAW : Pursuant to the Z'Berg-Nejedly Forest Practice
Act (FPA):
1)Prohibits any person from conducting timber operations unless
a timber harvest plan (THP) has been prepared by a registered
professional forester and approved by the Department of
Forestry and Fire Protection (CALFIRE). The Secretary of the
Natural Resources Agency has certified that a THP is the
functional equivalent of an environmental impact report (EIR)
under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
2)Requires CALFIRE to establish interdisciplinary review teams
to review a THP to assist in the evaluation of the plan and
its impacts on the environment. In general, each review team,
when possible, shall consist of representatives from (1)
CALFIRE, (2) the appropriate California Regional Water Quality
Control Board, (3) the Department of Fish and Wildlife, (4)
the Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology,
(5) a representative of county government (when the county
government so requests), (6) the California Coastal Commission
(for plans in the coastal zone), (7) the California Tahoe
Regional Planning Agency (for plans in the Tahoe Basin), and
(8) the Department of Parks and Recreation (for plans that may
affect values in publicly owned parks).
3)Establishes the Forest Fire Prevention Exemption (which is
more commonly referred to as the "La Malfa Exemption") for
tree harvesting that meets specific conditions, including the
following:
a) The harvesting must occur on parcels of 300 acres or
less;
AB 350
Page 2
b) The harvesting must decrease fuel continuity (both
vertically and horizontally);
c) The harvesting must result in making the average
diameter of the trees that remain in the stand larger than
the average diameter of the trees in the stand prior to the
fuel reduction activities;
d) A registered professional forester must prepare the
notice of exemption;
e) The level of residual stocking must be consistent with
maximum sustained production of high-quality timber
products;
f) The activities must comply with the regulations that
protect archaeological sites; and
g) Only trees less than 18 inches in stump diameter,
measured at 8 inches above ground level, may be removed.
However, within 500 feet of a legally permitted structure,
or in an area prioritized as a shaded fuel break in a
community wildfire protection plan approved by a public
fire agency, if the goal of fuel reduction cannot be
achieved by removing trees less than 18 inches in stump
diameter, trees less than 24 inches in stump diameter may
be removed if that removal is necessary to achieve the goal
of fuel reduction.
FISCAL EFFECT : Unknown
COMMENTS :
1)Background and Purpose of the Bill. According to CALFIRE,
since 2004, the La Malfa Exemption has been used to achieve
fuel hazard reduction on 8,408 acres in the state. This
exemption has been mostly utilized in San Bernardino, Plumas,
and Placer Counties, where, as of last year, 2,092, 1,913, and
1,305 acres have been harvested, respectively, over the life
of the program.
The author asserts that the La Malfa exemption is
"underutilized." In response, this bill proposes to expand
the exemption by allowing a person to cut trees that are 10
AB 350
Page 3
inches larger in diameter than what is authorized under the
existing exemption, in order to enable the harvesting of more
commercially valuable trees. As such, with some limitations,
a person will be able to cut trees up to 28 inches in stump
diameter on a 300 acre parcel without the environmental review
process that is normally required for timber harvest plans.
2)Where's CALFIRE? With regard to the two issues that this bill
deals with-fire prevention and timber harvesting-California is
fortunate to have an agency with expertise and responsibility
for both areas: CALFIRE. Given the statutory mandate of
CALFIRE, one may reasonably assume that the agency had been
consulted to determine whether this bill would provide an
effective tool for reducing fire frequency and intensity.
Committee staff has discovered that CALFIRE has not been
consulted or involved in any way in the development of this
bill. It seems prudent that if the Legislature wishes to make
meaningful fire prevention reform through timber harvesting,
that it should first consult the expert agency.
3)What is the Role for the Agencies Under this Exemption?
Timber harvesting in California is subject to CEQA and is
governed by the FPA. Harvesting is generally permitted via a
THP, which is considered the "functional equivalent" of an EIR
and is subject to inter-agency review by CALFIRE, the
Department of Fish and Wildlife, and the Regional Water
Quality Control Board. These agencies collaborate in their
review of the proposed harvest, to ensure that the public
trust values for which they are responsible (fish, wildlife,
and water) are maintained.
The proposed expanded exemption is a ministerial process that
specifically eliminates the ability of the reviewing agencies
to make any modifications to the proposed harvest. The
exemption paperwork is submitted to CALFIRE, and if it is
deemed complete, logging can begin immediately. This proposal
would facilitate widespread commercial logging, while
eliminating the ability of the public trust agencies to review
or modify the logging project.
4)What is the Difference Between an 18 inch tree and a 28 inch
Tree? A tree that is 18 inches at the stump has only marginal
commercial value in the current market, while a tree that is
28 inches stump diameter is commercially desirable. It is
useful to note that just as the area of a 28-inch circle is
AB 350
Page 4
nearly 2.5 times that of an 18-inch circle, the lumber volume
of a tree increases dramatically as the diameter increases.
Increasing access to commercially valuable trees to increase
the area impacted by this exemption is the author's intention.
It should be noted that larger trees tend to have greater
wildlife and habitat value, and expanded application of the
exemption has increased likelihood of adverse environmental
impacts.
5)Is the La Malfa Exemption Underutilized? The legislative
history of the LaMalfa Exemption suggests that it has been
utilized in a manner that the Legislature intended. Because
the LaMalfa Exemption is a THP exemption, it was meant to be
used in limited circumstances where the environmental impact
of timber harvesting is minimal. In fact, the author of the
LaMalfa Exemption, now-Congressman Doug LaMalfa, emphasized
the exemption's success when justifying subsequent bills to
extend the sunset of the LaMalfa Exemption.
6)Why is it called the La Malfa Exemption? In 2004, AB 2420 (La
Malfa) created the timber harvest plan exemption that is the
subject of this bill. AB 2420 contained a sunset date of
January 1, 2008. In 2007, this exemption was extended to
January 1, 2013 by AB 1515 (La Malfa). In 2012, the sunset
date was removed and the exemption became permanent by SB 1541
(La Malfa). Given this legislative history, many in the
forestry community refer to the
exemption as the La Malfa Exemption.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
Amador County Air Pollution Control Board
Amador County Board of Supervisors
Associated California Loggers
BlueRibbon Coalition
The Buckeye
Byng Hunt, Mono County Supervisors, District 5
California Biomass Energy Alliance
California Cattlemen's Association
California Chamber of Commerce
California Fire Safe Council
California Forestry Association
AB 350
Page 5
California Forest Pest Council
California Licensed Foresters Association
California Farm Bureau Federation
California Ski Industry Association
California Women for Agriculture
California Women in Timber, North Coast Chapter
Central Coast Forest Association
Collins Pine Company
Del Norte County Board of Supervisors
El Dorado County Board of Supervisors
Family Water Alliance
Forest Landowners of California
Forest Products Industry National Labor Management Committee
Glenn County Air Pollution Control District
Green Diamond Resource Company
Humboldt County Board of Supervisors
Humboldt Redwood Company
Lassen County Air Pollution Control District
Lassen County Board of Supervisors
Madera County Board of Supervisors
Mariposa County Air Pollution Control District
Mariposa County Board of Supervisors
Matt Rexroad, Yolo County Supervisor, 3rd District
Mendocino County Air Quality Management District
Mendocino Redwood Company
Modoc County Air Pollution Control District
Mojave Desert Air Quality Management District
Northern California Society of American Foresters
Northern Sierra Air Quality Management District
Personal Insurance Federation of California
Placer County Air Pollution Control District
Plumas County Board of Supervisors
Plumas County Fire Safe Council
Recreation Outdoors Coalition
San Diego Adventure Riders
San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District
Shasta County Board of Supervisors
Sierra Pacific Industries
Stewards of the Sequoia
Sustainable Forest Action Coalition
Tehama County Board of Supervisors
Trinity Lake Revitalization Alliance, Inc.
Tuolumne County Alliance for Resources and Environment, Inc.
Yuba Watershed Protection and Fire Safe Council
AB 350
Page 6
Opposition
California League of Conservation Voters
California Native Plant Society
Center for Biological Diversity
Central Coast Forest Watch
Ebbetts Pass Forest Watch
Foothill Conservancy
Forests Forever
Forest Issues Group
Friends of Lassen Forest
National Resources Defense Council
Planning and Conservation League
Sierra Club California
97 Individuals
Analysis Prepared by : Mario DeBernardo / NAT. RES. / (916)
319-2092