BILL ANALYSIS �
-----------------------------------------------------------------
| |
| SENATE COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES AND WATER |
| Senator Fran Pavley, Chair |
| 2013-2014 Regular Session |
| |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
BILL NO: AB 904 HEARING DATE: June 25, 2013
AUTHOR: Chesbro URGENCY: No
VERSION: June 19, 2013 CONSULTANT: Bill Craven
DUAL REFERRAL: No FISCAL: Yes
SUBJECT: Forest practices: working forest management plans.
BACKGROUND AND EXISTING LAW
Existing law authorizes "non-industrial timber management plans"
(NTMPs) for landowners who have fewer than 2,500 acres of
timberland. Two of the basic considerations embedded in NTMPs
are (1) a ban on clearcutting (even aged management), and (2)
that the plans last indefinitely and generally remain subject to
the Forest Practice Rules and statutes that were in effect at
the time the NTMP was approved. Operations pursuant to a NTMP
are authorized by a notice, valid for one year, that is approved
ministerially.
This approach contrasts with other timber harvest permitting
mechanisms which may be used by other, often industrial, timber
landowners. These other approaches may not prohibit the use of
clearcutting (assuming compliance with all other regulatory
requirements) and new permits must comply with new regulations
or new statutes. Additionally, operations are approved through a
discretionary approval.
The regulatory agency for timber harvesting is the Department of
Forestry and Fire Protection (CDF). The California Board of
Forestry is generally responsible for the development of
forestry-related regulations that CDF implements.
There have been 763 NTMPs approved by CDF covering a combined
area of 315,000 acres according to a finding in the bill.
According to a separate analysis by the Pacific Forest Trust, of
the 763 approved NTMPs, the average size of a NTMP is 400 acres,
a number skewed by the fact that more than half (413) are less
than 200 acres. By acreage, 27% of the NTMPs come from plans of
1
less than 500 acres which is included in the 50% or so of the
plans that are less than 1,000 acres. About 93 plans are greater
than 1,000 acres.
The proposed bill would affect acreages of from 2500 to 15000
acres. According to CDF, 81 landowners have forestland acreage
between 2500 and 15,000 acres. Sixty of those landowners used
even-age management at some point.
CDF estimates that 80 of these 81 landowners own between 2500
and 10000 acres, although the sponsors believe CDF data is
incomplete and that there could be more landowners in the
10,000-15,000 acre range.
PROPOSED LAW
This bill would create a "working forest management plan" (WFMP)
for non-industrial timberland owners with less than 15,000 acres
who agree to harvest timber through "uneven-aged management" (to
distinguish the process of harvesting trees planted and
harvested in a uniform age class which is called "even-aged
management" or "clearcutting") and other conditions. The bill
defines uneven aged management, and establishes certain
objectives and plan requirements that must be followed in order
for a WFMP to be approved.
Included in these objectives and plan requirements are
requirements related to the content and preparation of the plan,
how the plan will minimize erosion damage to the land and
watercourses, how the landowner plans to manage his or lands
over time to balance growth and harvest, and related provisions.
WFMPs would be public documents, with provisions for public
comment as well as multi-agency review. The multiple agencies
involved are typically CDF, the Department of Fish and Wildlife,
the Department of Conservation, and regional water boards.
Affected county governments often participate in the review
process as well. There are separate proposed provisions for
management of late succession forest stands that require a "no
net loss" approach to protecting such forest stands.
The bill contains timelines that would govern the approval of
the plan and when public comment and multi-agency reviews would
occur. The bill also contains mechanisms to ensure public notice
is provided.
2
Plans may be rejected by CDF if the proposed plan is not in
conformance with the rules and regulations of the board or other
forest practice statutes. The bill provides for an appeals
process for landowners facing such a circumstance.
Additionally, the bill provides mechanisms for plans to be
amended and for the director of CDF to approve those amendments.
Timelines are proposed in the bill for the review of proposed
amendments. The timelines are staggered based on the proposed
acreage that would be added to a plan. Plans that add acreage in
excess of 10 percent or 500 acres would also be submitted for
public comment and interagency review. An option exists within
the plan amendment provisions of the bill that would allow
amended plans to conform to laws and regulations in effect at
the time of the amendment, or alternatively, in cases of
economic hardship and where no additional, significant
environmental impacts would occur, the bill would authorize an
amended plan to function under the laws in effect when the plan
was approved.
The bill contains provisions for plans to survive changes in
land ownership and allows landowners to cancel a plan.
Like NTMPs, a WFMP would authorize operations to begin following
a ministerial notice. The notice must include specified
information and would be a public record. Operations under the
notice would be required to comply with the rules and laws in
effect when the plan was approved. The bill would also authorize
operations pursuant to "best management practices" that would
protect beneficial uses of water, soil stability, forest
productivity, and wildlife.
Monitoring . The bill would require CDF to convene a meeting with
the interdisciplinary review team every five years to review the
plan's administrative record and any other information relevant
to the plan. If at this meeting a member of the review team
determines that a field review is necessary to verify the plan's
compliance with the appropriate rules and regulations, then a
field review may be conducted.
The forester who is working for the landowner would be required
to report deviations from the plan, and foresters who make
material misstatements would be subject to discipline.
If CDF determines that the objectives of uneven aged management
and sustained yield are not being met by a working forest
landowner, or there are other persistent violations detected
3
that are not being corrected, CDF would be required to cancel a
previously approved WFMP and terminate operations.
The bill directs the Board to adopt regulations for the
transition of NTMPs to WFMPs that could occur at the discretion
of landowners.
Modified Small WFMP.
In addition to the "regular" WFMP proposal, the bill would also
authorize a "modified small WFMP" for landowners of less than
160 acres along the Central Coast and for landowners of less
than 320 acres in the Northern and Southern Forest Districts
(north coast, Cascades, and Sierra Nevada). The details of the
"modified small WFMP" would be established by regulations of the
board. The bill would establish a basic framework for those
regulations.
Grant Programs. The bill provides that if a person with a WFMP
or an NTMP applies for state restoration grant funding for a
restoration project that has a significant public benefit, that
the reviewing agency shall not summarily deny such an
application on the basis that the project is a required
condition of the harvesting plan.
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT
According to the author, the bill is intended to create a
regulatory incentive for landowners with less than 15,000 acres
to commit to uneven aged timber management. The WFMP would be
more stringent in some respects than the NTMP according to the
author by requiring more stringent harvesting standards, erosion
control implementation plans, monitoring, and greater protection
of late successional (older, more complex) forests that are
critical for wildlife and other environmental attributes.
The bill is based on discussions within a working group that the
author convened 18 months ago. It has had 19 meetings in
Sacramento and elsewhere to discuss NTMP program improvements.
The joint letter from the California Licensed Foresters
Association, the Buckeye Conservancy, and the Forest Landowners
of California states that the deficiency in the current NTMP
program is that landowners from 2500-15000 acres are not able to
participate. They argue that the more rigorous standards in the
bill, the increased monitoring, and the "no net loss" policy for
late seral forests are public benefits that the bill would
provide.
4
According to a joint letter from Pacific Forest Trust, The
Conservation Fund, the Trust for Public Land, and The Nature
Conservancy, their "support if amended" position suggests two
areas of potential amendments, but they do support the rationale
behind the bill. These groups are requesting longer review
timelines for larger plans and stronger language on late
successional forest protections.
Big Creek Timber Company, based in Santa Cruz County, stated
that the bill will provide regulatory certainty for smaller
landowners while holding them to the highest environmental
standards in California law. It also suggests that alternative
harvesting options, such as full-blown timber harvest plans, are
prohibitively expensive for smaller landowners.
WM Beaty and Associates, a timber management company from
Redding, states that the bill would increase the forest land
acreage managed without clearcutting, would reduce conversions
of timberland to other uses, and would result in greater
environmental benefits than other forms of timber harvest.
ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION
The opposition to the bill (Sierra Club, Center for Biological
Diversity, Central Coast Forest Watch, Califonia Native Plant
Society, Environmental Protection Information Center, Committee
for Green Foothills, and others), raise numerous issues.
They are concerned that the proposed acreage increase is too
much and would result in the approval of plans without adequate
agency review or without improving deficiencies in current
forest practices. A partial list would include: they want the
current NTMP program to be phased out while grandfathering in
current, approved plans, so that all future small landowner
plans would be in the WFMP program. They are asking for specific
standards for late seral habitat and older forests, not just
qualitative language. They want a mechanism in the bill to
retain more trees on the landscape. They want more rigorous
language on erosion control to include road management, a
significant source of sediment in rivers and streams.
This coalition also strongly opposes inclusion of the southern
sub-district (Santa Cruz, San Mateo, and Santa Clara counties)
in this bill based on the fact that this area of the state is
much more urbanized and long-term plans will not provide
adequate opportunity for the public to know about proposed
logging. For that reason, they strongly oppose the "smaller
WFMP" proposal as well. They point out that existing rules in
5
this region prohibit clearcutting so that the same benefits that
the author is promoting for other regions of the state would not
apply.
Also, the San Lorenzo Valley Water District and Chemeketa Park
Mutual Water Company are concerned that logging in these
counties will adversely affect public water supplies.
COMMENTS AND AMENDMENTS
Staff is proposing a series of technical, clarifying amendments
that are not reflected below in order to preserve the focus of
the Committee discussion on the policy amendments that are
reflected below. The technical amendments have been discussed
with the author and are more in the nature of proofreading
edits. The substantive amendments below are in part conceptual
and drafting will be undertaken with the cooperation of the
author. That said, some of these may require another look by
this Committee and the bill may be brought back to this
Committee before the bill leaves the Senate.
1. Acreage. Given the data that CDF has identified only 1
landowner in the 10,000-15,000 range (and whatever the actual
number, it is not very large) staff is recommending that the
acreage amount for WFMP be reduced to 10,000 acres, except for
timberlands managed by non-profits and community forests owned
by municipalities. A separate provision could allow a WFMP
amendment for acreages of 10,000-15,000 acres that is subject to
interagency review and public comment as provided in the bill.
2. Staff is recommending that the purpose of the WFMP on page 5,
lines 15-22 be broadened to focus on some larger environmental
concerns other than harvesting. For example, the definition of
WFMP should include a demonstration of management objectives to
protect and improve riparian corridors, wildlife habitat, and
other important public values.
At the same time, the bill should emphasize to landowners that
the WFMP is a long-term commitment that will require some
prudent fiscal reserves for purposes of managing the plan.
Inventory sampling, undertaking a sustained yield analysis, road
maintenance, and surveys are just some of the costs associated
with a WFMP that landowners can reasonably expect. The forester
working for the landowner should make this clear.
3. Similarly, the timber harvesting description should provide
information on the proposed harvesting techniques that will be
consistent with, or help achieve, these other environmental
6
management objectives.
4. Page 6, line 13. The erosion management plan, as currently
drafted, does not specifically include a road management
component. Staff is recommending that it should.
5. Page 6, line 17. This subdivision shall not apply to the
extent that the RPF provides documentation to the department
that the WFMP is in compliance with substantially similar
requirements of other applicable provisions of law.
6. Page 7, line 2. This bill shall adopt the definition of late
succession forest stands that are in the Forest Practice Rules
except that the acreage minimum shall be 10 acres although there
may be further discussion to have the minimum be 5 acres.
7. Page 7, line 10. Add, after "no net loss" a provision that
maintains the general quality of late successional forest
stands.
8. There are several places in the bill that require the
landowner to comply with the applicable rules of the board and
forest management statutes. This should be expanded to include
all other applicable statutes, by which staff means such laws as
state endangered species act and the Porter-Cologne Water
Quality Act among others. This amendment is not intended to add
additional regulatory compliance issues but simply to make
compliance with these existing statutes explicit.
9. On page 9, staff is recommending an expansion of the public
review time for larger WFMPs. As a suggestion, the bill could
add 20 working days for plans of up to 5000 acres and an
additional 20 days for plans of up to 10,000 acres.
10. The WFMP amendment should be revised to provide that the
certifications by the forester adequately explain and justify
the certifications. Also, the provision about compliance with
rules and regulations of the board that were in effect at the
time the plan was approved should be amended to ensure that
those rules are not otherwise violating any other applicable
law.
11. The reference on page 11, line 17 needs to clarify that in
the case of major amendments that the interagency review process
will occur. That is not intended to change what staff thinks is
the intent of the author.
7
12. Page 13, line 27. Should be re-stated to drop "best
management practices" reference.
13. The WFMP notice provision states that an annual notice shall
comply with the rules that were in effect when the WFMP was
approved, but then it says that current rules would apply unless
the forester certifies that compliance with the current rules
would cause unreasonable additional expense. The same amendment
in Comment 10 should be added.
14. It should be explicitly stated that the WFMP, notices,
interagency review comments, monitoring reports, and other
documents are to be posted on the department's website.
15. This provision needs some attention, although the concept is
good. Staff and the author will work on this. But for now, page
15, line 34 should be re-stated: Harvest shall not exceed 80% of
growth since the previous harvest. Areas harvested under this
provision shall have a minimum re-entry period of 10 years.
SUPPORT
Associated California Loggers
Association of Consulting Foresters of America, Inc.
Big Creek Lumber Company (in concept)
Buckeye Conservancy
California Council of Land Trusts (if amended)
California Licensed Foresters Association
City of Arcata
Forest Landowners of California
Institute for Sustainable Forestry (if amended)
Land Trust of Santa Cruz County
Mattole Restoration Council (if amended)
Pacific Forest Trust (if amended)
Sonoma Land Trust
The Conservation Fund (if amended)
The Nature Conservancy (if amended)
Trust for Public Land (if amended)
W.M. Beaty and Associates
OPPOSITION
Center for Biological Diversity (unless amended)
Central Coast Forest Watch (unless amended)
Chemeketa Park Mutual Water Company (unless amended)
Committee For Green Foothills (unless amended)
Forest Products Industry National Labor Management Committee
San Lorenzo Valley Water District
8
Santa Cruz Mountains BioRegional Council
Sempervirens Fund
Sierra Club California (unless amended)
1 Individual
9