BILL ANALYSIS Ó SENATE COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES AND WATER Senator Fran Pavley, Chair 2015 - 2016 Regular Bill No: AB 1958 Hearing Date: June 28, 2016 ----------------------------------------------------------------- |Author: |Wood | | | ----------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------- |Version: |June 21, 2016 Amended | ----------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------- |Urgency: |No |Fiscal: |Yes | ----------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------- |Consultant:|William Craven | | | | ----------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Forestry: timberlands: restoration and conservation forest management activities BACKGROUND AND EXISTING LAW 1) Prohibits timber operations unless a timber harvest plan (THP) has been prepared by a registered professional forester and approved by the California Department of Forestry (CDF). 2) Considers a THP the functional equivalent of an environmental impact report (EIR) under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). 3) Requires a THP to 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 (FPR) adopted by the Board of Forestry (Board). 4) Requires any person who owns timberlands that are to be devoted to uses other than the growing of timber to file a timberland conversion permit with the Board. Prohibits the Board from approving a timberland conversion permit unless the Board makes written findings. AB 1958 (Wood) Page 2 of ? 5) Exempts many timber removal activities from the regulatory requirements of THPs, including Christmas tree farms, right-of-ways for utility lines, conversions of less than three acres, fire prevention, defensible space, and dead, dying, and diseased trees. Exemptions are often ministerial, requiring no multi-agency review, but are subject to inspection by CDF. 6) The University of California, Agriculture and Natural Resources, Cooperative Extension office in Eureka provided background information that indicates clear patterns of conifer encroachment in white oak and black oak systems across the North Coast region. Even young conifers are larger than many older oak trees, and that the dominance of trees like Douglas firs can occur in as little as 50 years. Oaks woodlands have conservation values that are worthy of preservation as biological hotspots, and as fire- and drought-resistant woodlands. PROPOSED LAW This bill creates an exemption for the restoration of oak woodlands that would allow landowners to remove conifer trees that are crowding out oaks provided various restrictions are met. ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT According to the author, oak woodlands are the most biodiverse terrestrial ecosystems in California and are disappearing at a rapid rate. In some parts of the state, a significant issue is the encroachment of conifers in oak woodlands. Conifers grow rapidly and quickly provide excessive shade that kills oaks, some of which have survived for hundreds of years. Historically, low intensity, but frequent fires prevented this phenomenon, but under our current fire regime the firs are successfully choking out the oaks. AB 1958 (Wood) Page 3 of ? AB 1958, the author states, clarifies that restoring oak woodlands through the removal of conifers does not require a timber harvest plan from landowners who want to restore their oak woodlands. Pacific Birds, a habitat joint venture of public agencies and nonprofits, points out that habitat losses in oak woodlands exceed 90 percent in some areas and several oak-dependent bird species have been extirpated from significant portions of the region because of conifers becoming increasingly dominant in many oak woodlands. This group states that this bill would enable private landowners who are interested in oak woodland restoration to face fewer hurdles in accomplishing that goal. This view is shared by the Rural County Representatives of California. ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION None received COMMENTS 1. While this proposed exemption is very well-intended, the Committee has become concerned with the over-use of exemptions for the purposes of commercial harvesting of trees. These exemptions are generally ministerial, with no discretionary review by CDF or any of the other sister agencies that normally review THPs such as the Department of Fish and Wildlife or a regional water board. Much of the data regarding exemptions is contained in the analysis of AB 2029 (Dahle) also heard this date by the Committee. The Committee recommends that language be placed into the bill that directs CDF and the other trustee agencies to make recommendations to the Legislature on how the use of these exemptions can be reduced, and how multi-agency review of harvesting activities can be increased. Staff notes that multi-agency review was the primary intent of AB 1492 (Cmte. on Budget, c.289, statutes of 2012) which established the fee on lumber products that is paid by consumers. This direction to CDF could also involve some participation by the public, which would strengthen the final work product. To the extent feasible, any agency costs for developing these recommendations should come from the fund balance in the AB 1492 special fund, and not the general fund. The recommendations would be due on or before AB 1958 (Wood) Page 4 of ? December 31, 2017. (Amendment 1) 2. The bill contains a sunset date of 7 years after the adoption of appropriate rules and regulations by the Board of Forestry, which seems too long. The bill directs the Board to finish regulations by January 1, 2018, so the seven years could extend until January, 2025. AB 2029 (Dahle) proposed a sunset extension until 2023, which staff recommended should instead go until 2020. In the interest of fairness, staff recommends that the sunset in this bill also be set for December 31, 2020 so that it can be evaluated for its effectiveness and considered in the context of the department's review of all exemptions and emergency notice provisions. (Amendment 2) SUGGESTED AMENDMENTS AMENDMENT 1 Direct CDF and other trustee agencies to make recommendations to the Legislature on how the use of exemptions and emergency notices can be reduced, and how multi-agency review of harvesting activities can be increased. Any costs from this analysis and reporting shall be paid by the special fund established by AB 1492 which is intended to pay the public costs associated with the multi-agency review of timber harvest activities. This review should be done in a public process with an opportunity for public participation. The recommendations would be due on or before December 31, 2017. AMENDMENT 2 Reduce sunset to January 2020. SUPPORT Pacific Birds Habitat Joint Venture Rural County Representatives of California Pacific Forest Trust Trust for Public Land The Nature Conservancy AB 1958 (Wood) Page 5 of ? OPPOSITION None Received -- END --