BILL ANALYSIS
AB 2575
Page 1
CONCURRENCE IN SENATE AMENDMENTS
AB 2575 (Chesbro)
As Amended August 5, 2010
Majority vote
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|ASSEMBLY: |45-29|(June 2, 2010) |SENATE: |23-10|(August 19, |
| | | | | |2010) |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Original Committee Reference: NAT. RES.
SUMMARY : Imposes conditions on the California Department of
Forestry and Fire Protection (CDF) and Board of Forestry (Board)
during its implementation of pilot projects to assess the
cumulative impacts of timber harvest operations on a watershed.
The Senate amendments :
1)Require the Board or a technical advisory committee to develop
recommendations for providing electronic public access to all
relevant documents used in administering timber harvest
regulations for actions that occur on a planning watershed
scale.
2)Clarify that CDF can only implement a pilot project on state
forest land only when a private landowner is not willing to
undertake a pilot project on private lands.
3)Specify that all documents that form the basis for the pilot
projects developed pursuant to the bill be posted on CDF's Web
site.
4)Make related technical and clarifying amendments.
EXISTING LAW :
1)Requires the Board 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;
AB 2575
Page 2
b) Damage to streamside vegetation and streambeds from
skidding or hauling logs across streams, operating heavy
equipment in streambeds, constructing log landings; and,
c) Slash, debris, or fill that may be discharged into
streams, and erosion.
2)Requires, under the California Code of Regulations Section
916.9, the Board and CDF to 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.
AS PASSED BY THE ASSEMBLY , this bill:
1)Required CDF and Board, when implementing a pilot project to
protect and restore the riparian zone in watersheds with
listed anadromous salmonids, to comply with all of the
following:
a) Provide the industry, agencies, and public the public
with equal opportunity to participate in the development of
a pilot project in a transparent manner;
b) Adopt guidelines for conducting a cumulative effects
evaluation on a planning watershed scale; address potential
project-specific planning watershed cumulative effects of
timber harvesting activities; and,
c) Consult with and seek comment from appropriate
scientific experts in order to develop evaluation
guidelines that are feasible, enforceable, and protective
of the public trust.
2)Specified goals for a pilot project, including restoration of
fisheries and wildlife habitat; reducing the risk of wildfire;
reducing sedimentation and soil loss; achieving long-term
carbon sequestration; and restoring unique attributes of a
given planning watershed.
3)Required funding for the development and implementation of a
pilot project to be drawn from existing CDF and Board
resources and any additional funding to be sought from private
and public sources.
AB 2575
Page 3
FISCAL EFFECT : According to the Senate Appropriations
Committee, costs for oversight of the pilot projects authorized
by this bill are absorbable with existing resources. Performing
pilot projects in state forests and making information publicly
available has potential costs in the tens of thousands of
dollars annually. (Forest Improvement Fund and General Fund)
COMMENTS : 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, present and reasonably foreseeable
probable future projects 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.
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
AB 2575
Page 4
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, the
timber industry has expressed concerns 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."
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." Implementation of these
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
AB 2575
Page 5
effects to the beneficial functions of the riparian zone equal
to or more favorable than the application of the [rules]."
Analysis Prepared by : Elizabeth MacMillan / NAT. RES. / (916)
319-2092
FN: 0005737