BILL ANALYSIS
AB 2575
Page 1
Date of Hearing: April 19, 2010
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
Wesley Chesbro, Chair
AB 2575 (Chesbro) - As Introduced: February 19, 2010
SUBJECT : Timber harvesting: watershed pilot project.
SUMMARY : Imposes conditions on the California Department of
Forestry and Fire Protection (CDF) during its implementation of
a pilot project to assess the cumulative impacts of timber
harvest operations on a watershed; requires CDF, on or before
July 1, 2011, to reorganize all timber harvest plan information
on its Internet Website by watershed.
EXISTING LAW :
1)Requires the Board of Forestry to adopt rules to address the
unreasonable effects of timber operations on the beneficial
uses of waters. These rules must address effects from:
a) Construction of logging roads and tractor trail stream
crossings;
b) Damage to streamside vegetation and streambeds from
skidding or hauling logs across streams, operating heavy
equipment in streambeds, constructing log landings;
c) Slash, debris, or fill that may be discharged into
streams, and erosion.
2)Section 916.9 of the California Code of Regulations requires
the Board and CDF implement two pilot projects using
site-specific or non-standard operational measures to minimize
cumulative and planning impacts of timber harvesting on
watersheds; CDF must recommend guidelines to the Board for
adoption by June 30, 2011.
FISCAL EFFECT : Unknown
THIS BILL :
1)Requires CDF, when implementing a pilot project to protect and
repair the riparian zone in watersheds with listed anadromous
salmonids, to comply with all of the following:
AB 2575
Page 2
a) Provide the industry, agencies, and public with balanced
equity and involvement in the pilot project, which must be
represented by appropriately qualified representatives
respected by all parties;
b) Adopt guidelines for conducting a cumulative effects
evaluation on a planning watershed scale, supported by the
industry, agencies, and public; address the cumulative and
planning watershed impacts, including project-specific
issues or site-specific issues, or both;
c) Consult with credible experts in order to achieve a
sound process that is feasible, enforceable, and of a
standard that is protective of the public trust. The pilot
project must rely on qualitative and quantitative methods,
including factors such as repeatability, documentation,
expertise, scale, and adequacy of analysis;
2)Specifies goals for a pilot project, including restoration of
fisheries and wildlife habitat; reducing the risk of wildfire;
reducing sedimentation and soil loss; achieving optimum carbon
sequestration; and restoring unique attributes of a given
planning watershed.
3)Requires CDF, on or before July 1, 2011, to place all
electronically available logging plan information on its
Internet Website organized by a particular planning watershed
and easily accessible to the public.
COMMENTS :
1)Purpose of bill : According to the author's office:
'Blue ribbon panels', court decisions, numerous reports,
conferences and workshops have pointed to the need for an
effective process for the evaluation and response, on a
watershed-scale, to cumulative impacts. This is a process
that has been sorely lacking, and that the normal
California forest practice regulatory system has been
unable to adequately come to grips with and achieve.
The 'normal' regulatory process has been able to, over many
years, hammer out certain specific conservation and
protection measures in very adversarial settings with
opposing parties usually entrenched in predetermined
AB 2575
Page 3
conceptual conflict. This is not the way to arrive at a
comprehensive and effective way to evaluate and respond to
cumulative effects -- which has been a major unresolved
issue for at least three decades. Pilot projects, with all
parties engaged with qualified and universally respected
representatives, in an on-the-ground case study real
example, are likely the only way to arrive at a doable,
credible methodology and practice.
2)What is a cumulative impact and how is it currently assessed?
The concept of analyzing cumulative impacts is rooted in the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Citing CEQA, the
Forest Practice Rules (FPR) define "cumulative impacts," in
part, as "?two or more individual effects which, when
considered together, are considerable, or which compound or
increase other environmental impacts." Both CEQA and the FPRs
require an assessment of potential cumulative impacts due to
timber operations and both must be satisfied. Moreover, FPR
Section 897(b)(2) states that "Individual [timber harvest
plans (THPs)] shall be considered in the context of the larger
forest planning watershed in which they are located, so that
biological diversity and watershed integrity are maintained
within larger planning units and adverse cumulative impacts,
including impacts on the quality and beneficial uses of water
are reduced."
In practical terms, the FPRs require THPs to evaluate all
"closely related past [previously approved, on-going, or
completed projects within the past 10 years], present and
reasonably foreseeable probable future projects [other THPs by
same landowner to be harvested within 5 years; other THPs by
other landowners] within the same ownership and matters of
public record." The FPRs include a checklist to focus a
cumulative impact analysis on seven resources potentially at
risk (watershed, soil, biology, recreation, visual, traffic,
and other). The checklist must include a description whether
the project, in combination with past, present, or future
projects, will have a reasonable potential to cause or add to
significant cumulative impacts to the above seven areas taking
into consideration any mitigation measures or alternatives
proposed in a THP. The FPRs also include an appendix that
lists the factors a THP should consider in evaluating impacts.
For example, when evaluating watershed impacts, the analysis
should consider the effects of erosion, water temperature,
organic debris, chemical contamination and peak flow.
AB 2575
Page 4
3)Longstanding concerns about the effectiveness and utility of
cumulative impact analyses : Criticism of the effectiveness of
the FPR's past and current treatment of cumulative impact
analyses has come from many quarters. Beginning with a 1990
CDF-commissioned report, a 1994 Little Hoover Commission (LHC)
report, a 1999 scientific review panel jointly appointed by
the Resources Agency and National Marine Fisheries Service, a
2001 University of California study, and 2008 correspondence
from the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board
(RWQCB) staff, it has been well-established, though not
without controversy, that the utility of these analyses is
limited. At the same time, there are legitimate concerns from
the industry that increased regulatory prescription may
significantly challenge its ability to cost-effectively manage
its timberlands, especially in the face of a depressed housing
market.
Among other things, the LHC concluded that the cumulative
impact analyses required under the FPR is both burdensome and
unproductive. While the industry complains that the analyses
are costly and complicated on a THP-by-THP basis,
environmentalists cite the lack of substantive information to
sufficiently evaluate the impacts. Citing three studies, the
RWQCB noted that the cumulative impact guidance in the FPRs
has been criticized for, among other factors, its qualitative
nature, lack of repeatability, lack of required documentation
or substantiation, lack of standards for those conducting an
analysis, and the arbitrary nature of the spatial scope of an
analysis. The FPRs' lack of recognition of physical process
interactions and linkages leads to "piecemeal rather than
integrated analysis." Setting aside the efficacy of the FPRs,
the RWQCB pointedly questioned whether mitigation measures or
the FRPs themselves are being implemented "correctly or are
effective in preventing" cumulative impacts. The LHC report
concluded that "The result is that cumulative assessments are
merely guesswork that neither accurately define an existing
baseline of information nor credibly predict the outcome after
harvesting."
4)So, then, what to do? This bill codifies and expands on a
Board rule requiring the implementation of two pilot projects
to inform the development of guidance on the implementation of
"site-specific measures or non-standard operational
provisions" [hereinafter "measures"]. Implementation of these
AB 2575
Page 5
measures is intended to be in lieu of specific measures (e.g.,
minimum buffer zones around streams, prohibitions on
harvesting or road-building), adopted last year as part of a
substantial salmonid protection rules package, to mitigate
potential impacts to listed anadromous salmonid fisheries.
According to the FPRs, "Site specific plans may be submitted
when, in the judgment of the [registered professional
forester], such measures or provisions offer a more effective
or more feasible way of achieving the [rules'] goals and
objectives?and would result in effects to the beneficial
functions of the riparian zone equal to or more favorable than
the application of the [rules]."
According to CDF, one initial proposal for pilot study in the
north coast is the intentional placement of "large woody
debris [LWD]" in an anadromous stream (LWD can create habitat
or refuge for juvenile fish). Placement of LWD could be an
alternative to a requirement to retain 10 of the largest trees
in certain riparian buffer zones, in hopes of recruiting
fallen branches or trunks into streams. Such a pilot project
would lead to the development of relevant guidance for timber
operators.
However, the objective of this bill appears to be more
comprehensive than the above rule: it attempts to address the
central criticisms and shortcomings of cumulative impact
analyses as implemented today. This bill requires a pilot
project to result in the adoption of guidelines for conducting
a cumulative effects evaluation on a planning watershed scale
and specifically requires the project to incorporate some of
the evaluative factors suggested by the RWQCB.
5)CDF's online THP database needs reform : Since January 2009,
CDF has posted THPs, various notices (Intent to Harvest,
Preparation, Submission) and other related information by
region (North Coast, Cascade, Sierra). However, CDF's Web
interface is a "user-unfriendly" file-transfer protocol
technology (instead of a graphic interface) with document
naming conventions that are unintelligible to the uninitiated
(e.g., section 1 of a THP is listed as
20050922_1-04-036SON_Resubsec1). This bill also requires CDF
to reorganize its electronic THP database on a watershed basis
in a manner that is easily accessible to the public.
6)Amendments : The author's office, sponsor and committee staff
AB 2575
Page 6
have negotiated technical and substantive amendments to the
bill that are intended to clarify the intent of the bill.
These amendments are attached to this analysis.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
California Native Plant Society
Sierra Club California
Forests Forever
Opposition
California Forestry Association
California Licensed Foresters Association
Analysis Prepared by : Dan Chia / NAT. RES. / (916) 319-2092