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 --