BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SENATE COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES AND WATER
Senator Fran Pavley, Chair
2015 - 2016 Regular
Bill No: AB 2029 Hearing Date: June 28,
2016
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Author: |Dahle | | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Version: |May 27, 2016 |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Urgency: |No |Fiscal: |Yes |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Consultant:|William Craven |
| | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Timber harvesting plans: exemptions
BACKGROUND AND EXISTING LAW
Pursuant to the Z'Berg-Nejedly Forest Practice Act (FPA) and
other statutes, the following are existing provisions of state
law:
1) There is a prohibition on 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 (CDF).
2) A THP is considered a functional equivalent of an
environmental impact report (EIR) under the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
3) A THP is required 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 and
Fire Protection (Board).
4) There are numerous statutory exemptions from the above
provisions that include
Christmas tree farms, rights-of-way for utility
lines, conversions of less than three acres,
fire prevention, defensible space, and dead, dying and diseased
trees.
5) These exemptions do not require the interagency review
that is required of THPs and they are often approved
ministerially based only on a submission from the landowner
AB 2029 (Dahle) Page 2
of ?
or a registered professional forester hired by the
landowner. Such submissions are called a notice of
exemption (NOE).
6) Construction of roads of less than 600 feet in length
may be approved as a minor deviation from a THP upon notice
to CDF.
7) A separate exemption regarding the emergency removal of
fuel hazards allows for trees to be removed that are up to
30 inches in diameter without a THP.
8) One of the exemptions is known as the Pilot Exemption
and is subject to the following restrictions on harvesting
as well as other conditions:
a) Only trees less than 24 inches in stump
diameter;
b) Tree harvesting must decrease fuel continuity
and increase quadratic mean diameter of the stand;
c) No new road construction or reconstruction;
d) No known sites of rare, threatened, or
endangered plants or animals will be disturbed,
threatened, or damaged;
e) The activities are limited to the Sierra Nevada
Region or the Counties of Del Norte, Humboldt,
Mendocino, Modoc, Sonoma, Siskiyou, or Trinity;
f) CDF is required to conduct an onsite inspection
after harvest operations to determine compliance with
the provisions of this exemption;
g) The exemption may be used on parcels of 300
acres or less; and
h) Sunsets three years after the effective date of
regulations adopted by the Board which in this case is
January 1, 2018.
PROPOSED LAW
This bill would extend the Forest Fire Prevention Pilot Project
from January 1, 2018 to January 1, 2023, and expands it by
allowing specified road construction to occur and expands the
diameter of larger trees that could be harvested on forest land
without a THP.
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT
According to the author, the pilot project has thus far treated
about 2,000 acres and those who have used the exemption have
AB 2029 (Dahle) Page 3
of ?
reported barriers which include: (1) Lack of access to land
which is why the author seeks language to include a road
construction amendment; (2) Lands in counties that have some
lands within the boundaries of the Sierra Nevada Conservancy but
some lands not within the conservancy are unable to use the
exemption on those lands not within the conservancy's
boundaries; (3) The diameter limitation of 24 inches is too
restrictive; and (4) the 2018 sunset is fast approaching and
California continues to face a high risk of catastrophic
wildfire.
Note--Assembly amendments added provisions for temporary road
construction on slopes of less than 40%, included the remainder
of the counties' lands that are otherwise included in the Sierra
Nevada Conservancy, and increased the diameter of trees that
could be harvested from 24 to 26 inches.
Numerous other supporters include timber companies and others in
the timber business, regional organizations and land trusts from
the Sierra, firefighter organizations, landowner associations,
and others all of whom make basically the same points:
1) Too much of California's forests are unnaturally dense
because of decades of fire suppression. The treatment
authorized by the exemption could help improve the
resilience of California's forests to fire, pests, and
disease.
2) Forest jobs are important in rural counties and offer a
counterpoint to the trend of the underground drug economy.
3) The ongoing drought is damaging forests with a huge
die-off of trees. If consumed by wildfires, not only will
the result be greenhouse gas emissions, but the ability of
the forests to sequester carbon and provide other
environmental benefits such as wildlife habitat and
contributions to the state's water supply will be adversely
affected.
4) Allowing temporary roads provides access to forest
stands that are otherwise not accessible and allows for the
use of equipment that would not otherwise be able to enter
those areas.
5) Two companies that used the exemption, Beaty and
Associates and Green Diamond, complained that the exemption
is economically infeasible, in part because the prohibition
on harvesting larger diameter trees could not then offset
AB 2029 (Dahle) Page 4
of ?
the costs of removing smaller diameter trees. In two other
situations, the companies said that the 24 inch limitation
prevented the removal of unhealthy or overstocked trees
that were greater than 24 inches in diameter.
ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION
There is significant opposition to this bill from three
environmental organizations with extensive forestry experience:
the Sierra Club, the Environmental Protection Information
Center, and the Center for Biological Diversity. Their points
include:
1) The alleged benefits of thinning forests are
scientifically disputed although there is general agreement
that removing small diameter trees that are densely packed
together have positive benefits on reducing fire risk.
2) Larger trees are more resilient to fire, and provide
numerous environmental benefits, including carbon
sequestration, so expanding the diameter of trees is
counter-intuitive, except for their commercial value as
logs. Large trees serve as a seed source following a fire.
3) Allowing road construction without environmental review
is likely to lead to more erosion, with impacts to water
quality and salmon.
4) The proposed increase in tree diameter smacks of
commercial logging without any environmental review.
5) Removal of larger trees increases the likelihood that
more flammable ground vegetation and smaller trees will
proliferate.
6) Larger trees are already in short supply because of
over-logging, and removing more of them will impair forest
health in many stands.
7) The bill is premature and, although the exemption has
been expanded by previous legislation, there has been no
evaluation of the exemption by CDF.
COMMENTS
1. This exemption was first created in 2004 by AB 744 (La
Malfa). It allowed for removal of trees 18 inches in
diameter with other provisions to reduce the risk of
AB 2029 (Dahle) Page 5
of ?
wildlife. Data maintained by CDF indicated that the LaMalfa
exemption treated an average of 1190 acres/year.
2. AB 744 (Dahle) in 2013 expanded the exemption by
allowing removal of trees up to 24 inches in diameter and
expanded the geographic eligibility of the exemption to the
lands covered by the Sierra Nevada Conservancy. In 2014, AB
2142 (Chesbro) expanded the range of the exemption to
include northern coastal coastal counties. AB 744 resulted
in the treatment of approximately 2000 acres per year.
3. As noted by some of the supporters, the purpose of AB
744 pilot project was to evaluate if an increase in the
diameter of the trees that could be removed under the
LaMalfa exemption would increase the use of this exemption
and contribute to reducing the risk of catastrophic
wildfire. That evaluation has not occurred.
4. As noted earlier, numerous exemptions from the THP
requirement exist. In data maintained by CDF, the following
facts emerge:
a) Approximately 8000 exemptions have been processed
since 2011 covering approximately 280,000 acres;
b) Over the same time frame, there have been
approximately 450,000 acres actually harvested under
ministerial permits (no interagency review) for an
average of 90,000 acres per year.
c) CDF approved harvest plans covering 648,000 acres
with THPs, for an annual average of approximately 130,000
acres per year. THPs have a shelf life of 7 years
compared to the one year shelf life of an exemption.
d) The conclusion from these numbers is that about 40%
of the acres (not harvest volume) approved for harvest
each year do not undergo multiagency review.
e) In separate information provided by the author from
the Board of Equalization, approximately 30% of the
volume of timber harvested in California in 2015 was
through an exemption or emergency notice.
f) The department has identified 14 different types of
exemptions and 8 different types of emergencies that can
be conducted under a non-discretionary 'notice of
operations'.
1. The above explains the rationale for a proposed
AB 2029 (Dahle) Page 6
of ?
amendment in AB 1958 (Wood) in which the Committee
recommendations 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 December 31, 2017.
2. Several of the existing exemptions also target improved
resiliency to fire which is one of the author's primary
concerns. There are two exemptions to remove trees in order
to safeguard houses (one for trees within 150 feet, another
for trees out to 300 feet), two exemptions to harvest dead,
dying, and diseased trees (depending on whether less
than10% or more than 10% of the trees are dead or dying), a
new drought mortality exemption, an exemption for
substantially damaged timberland, and a forest fire
prevention exemption. A homeowner who uses any of these
exemptions may not be able to sell the logs commercially,
but it is possible that the company that does the tree
removal is able to do so.
3. On October 30, 2105, the Governor issued an executive
order on the dead tree crisis in California that especially
plagues high hazard fire zones across the state. That order
directed the removal of dead trees, expanded the use of
prescribed burns, directed several agencies to cooperate to
extend contracts on biomass plants, and suspended both the
California Environmental Quality Act and competitive
bidding requirements to get these tasks done. Additionally,
the administration proposed a significant expenditure of
$130 million in the FY 2016-17 budget from cap and trade
funds for its Healthy Forests initiative that is still
being considered in the context of the overall cap and
trade expenditure plan.
AB 2029 (Dahle) Page 7
of ?
4. These comments are intended to indicate that there is a
lot of ongoing activity regarding improving forest health
above and beyond what occurs pursuant to the pilot project
exemption, although it is safe to say that many do not
believe that the state is doing enough.
5. Because the provisions of AB 744 have not been
evaluated, staff recommends that the provisions of the
exemption itself not be changed further, despite the
Assembly amendments that increased tree diameter, expanded
the geographic range of the exemption, and allow for
temporary road construction. Instead, staff recommends that
AB 744 be extended 2 more years which will allow time for
an evaluation as well as the review contained in Comment 5.
(Amendment 1)
SUGGESTED AMENDMENTS
AMENDMENT 1
Restore original language of exemption and extend sunset
two years.
SUPPORT
American Insurance Association
Associated California Loggers
CAL FIRE Local 2881
Calforests
California Cattlemen's Association
California Chamber of Commerce
California Farm Bureau Federation
California Licensed Foresters Association
California Professional Firefighters
California Ski Industry Association
California State Association of Counties
Forest Landowners of California
Forest Products Industry National Labor Management Committee
Green Diamond Resource Company
Lyme Redwood Forest Company
Michigan-California Timber Company
Pacific Forest Trust
Pacific Gas and Electric Company
Personal Insurance Federation of California
AB 2029 (Dahle) Page 8
of ?
Placer Land Trust
Property Casualty Insurers Association of America
Roseburg
Rural County Representatives of California
Sierra Business Council
Sierra Foothill Conservancy
Sierra Pacific Industries
SMUD
Soper-Wheeler Company
Truckee Donner Land Trust
W.M. Beaty & Associates
One Individual
OPPOSITION
California Native Plant Society
Center for Biological Diversity
Ebbetts Pass Forest Watch
Environmental Protection Information Center
Sierra Club California
-- END --