BILL ANALYSIS
-----------------------------------------------------------------
| |
| SENATE COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES AND WATER |
| Senator Fran Pavley, Chair |
| 2009-2010 Regular Session |
| |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
BILL NO: SB 144 HEARING DATE: March 24, 2009
AUTHOR: Pavley URGENCY: No
VERSION: March 18, 2009 CONSULTANT: Bill Craven
DUAL REFERRAL: Environmental QualityFISCAL: Yes
SUBJECT: Forest resources: management.
BACKGROUND AND EXISTING LAW
1. AB 32, the Global Warming Solutions Act, directs that
California reduce its greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by
2020. The Air Resources Board (ARB) Scoping Plan adopted a "no
net loss" target for the forest sector by which the ARB intends
that forestry sector maintain or increase the carbon
sequestration (savings) potential of California's forestlands.
The ARB Scoping Plan has identified a minimum of a 5 million
metric ton (MMT) potential increase in the net uptake of carbon
through forest management techniques and reduced levels of
losses from land-use change and catastrophic disturbances such
as wildfires.
2. Forests are both a source of carbon dioxide emissions into
the atmosphere and a place where carbon dioxide can be held in
trees and soil and removed from the atmosphere and contained for
very long periods of time if properly managed. The Board of
Forestry has determined that the target of 5 MMT can be exceeded
through a combination of actions including but not limited to
the improvement of forest inventory and monitoring,
consideration of additional statutory and regulatory needs,
including a review of the effects of existing regulations on
carbon sequestration, reducing barriers and providing incentives
to landowners to increase inventory and growth rates while
decreasing risks of carbon losses.
The ARB estimates that the forest sector, in 2004, directly
emitted nearly 5 MMT of carbon dioxide from disturbances such
harvesting and wildfires, and 4.5 MMT from the decomposition of
forest products in landfills. At the same time, the forest
1
sector absorbed (sequestered) more than 14MMT of carbon dioxide
from the atmosphere. The uncertainty in these numbers is
estimated by the ARB to be nearly 40%.
3. The Board of Forestry, the California forest products
industry, environmental organizations, the Department of
Forestry and Fire Protection (CDF) and many conservation
organizations are in agreement that improved, sustainable
forestry practices are consistent with, and even essential, for
achieving California's long-term climate objectives. The
forestry sector is one of the few where increased sequestration
of carbon is achievable in the short-term. There is also general
agreement that for these climate benefits to accrue, forestland
must be retained as forestland. This goal requires agreement on
regulating conversions of forestland to other uses. It also
requires a method to insure that the "no net loss" of
forestlands and the carbon sequestration capabilities of
California's forestlands can be maintained and enhanced in the
future.
4. The Air Board, in consultation with the Board of Forestry and
CDF, is developing more technical expertise about the
capabilities of the state's forestlands to sequester additional
amounts of carbon dioxide. This activity is an integral part of
the administration's approach to implementation of AB 32.
5. The California Forest Practice Act defines "timber
operations" to include the harvesting of trees during the
conversion of timberlands to uses other than the growing and
harvest of timber. Unless exempt, existing law requires
applicants for such conversions to obtain a timberland
conversion permit. "Timberland" has different definitions
depending on whether the land is zoned for timber production.
The most common conversion activities involve conversions of
forestlands to agriculture (such as vineyards) or to rural
subdivisions. A "timberland conversion permit" (TCP) and the
subsequent land use are subject to review by CDF and the
appropriate local government, respectively, under the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). However, such projects are
often considered to be exempt from CEQA, or subjected to only
cursory CEQA review in the form of a negative declaration. The
timber that is harvested prior to the conversion also requires
approval of a traditional Timber Harvest Plan (THP) or a
Nonindustrial Timber Management Plan, depending on the acreage;
CEQA review of these entitlements occurs under CDF's certified
regulatory program.
2
6. CDF assesses a fee of $700 for TCP permits on land zoned for
timberland production and a $600 fee on other lands. Existing
law authorizes CDF to increase the fee in order to cover its
costs of reviewing the application. Other specific requirements
apply to conversions of lands zoned for timber production.
7. CDF is the lead agency for the CEQA review of a TCP, but in
many circumstances a local government is the lead agency for
purposes of analyzing the environmental impacts of the proposed
new land use, which, as noted above are often not substantively
addressed. CDF acts as a responsible agency in the latter
situation. Many experts, including CDF professional staff, have
noted that the environmental review of conversion projects under
both THP provisions and CEQA provisions is ineffective and
problematic.
8. In many instances, when a landowner obtains a zoning change
or project approval from a local government prior to applying
for TCP, CDF is never informed of the proposed conversion. CDF
tracks all conversions for which it has been notified and
includes these projects in its conversion data. In timberlands,
between 2003 and 2007, CDF tracked 63 TCP applications affecting
2,000 acres and 67 subdivision exemptions affecting 5,800 acres.
CDF also tracked 3,340 3-acre conversion exemptions.
9. It is worth noting that other entities such as the US Forest
Service or the Integrated Hardwood Range Management Program at
the University of California, Berkeley, have compiled higher
numbers of conversions, including conversions of oak woodlands,
which also have sequestration value.
10. Conservation groups such as the Pacific Forest Trust (PFT)
and others are concerned not only about the under-reporting of
conversion data, but express the additional concern that the
currently collected data does not quantify forest carbon loss.
PFT and other organizations are very interested in improving the
scientific baseline of this information in California as a means
to implement AB 32 and other associated requirements and goals.
11. CEQA has a special provision to address mitigation for oak
woodland conversion. This provision requires counties to impose
specified mitigation responsibilities on the applicant, although
conversions to agriculture are exempted.
12. The policy of CDF and the Board is to oppose conversions
except when necessary to meet an overriding public interest.
Several large conversions (involving planned housing
3
developments) in various parts of the state have received media
attention in recent months. Additionally, the Attorney General
has taken notice of these proposed conversions, and submitted
written inquiries to the relevant local governments regarding
the adequacy of analysis and mitigation for the potential
climate change impacts of these projects. One of the Attorney
General's major concerns is the loss of carbon sequestration
potential when lands are removed from production during the time
period in which the carbon sequestration capabilities of the
land would be maximized. Reviews of proposed conversions by CDF
and local governments under CDF has been to approve TCP through
use of the equivalent of a negative declaration, which generally
does not involve a detailed analysis of environmental impacts,
including cumulative impacts. The current regulations do not
specify when more in-depth analysis of proposed conversions is
required.
13. Exemptions from the TCP process (requiring CDF approval)
include the development of subdivisions on lands not zoned for
timber production and a 3-acre exemption that applies to both
zoned timberlands and lands not zoned as timberlands.
Subdivisions have been approved by local governments without
consideration of the effect on maintaining the timberland
production base in the county or the effects of the approval on
maintaining timberland production for climate purposes or other
environmental considerations.
For the development of rural subdivisions, the local government
must also approve a tentative map pursuant to the Subdivision
Map Act and grant any necessary use permit and address any other
land use permitting requirements.
14. Voluntary forestry protocols established at the California
Climate Action Registry are one way for landowners to manage
their lands to improve the rate at which carbon dioxide is
sequestered. These protocols provide a scientific and generally
accepted accounting method for tracking the rate of carbon that
is sequestered. They require landowners' management to exceed
what is required by the current regulatory framework of state
law and regulations adopted by the Board of Forestry.The
protocols also require a demonstration that carbon stocks
increase over time, a provision that is absent from existing
regulatory provisions. The protocols are also intended to
promote healthy, diverse forest ecosystems that are more
resistant to fire, disease, and pests. Even though this is a
voluntary program, there has been some resistance to some of the
4
protocols' provisions among some of California's industrial
forestland owners.
15. As might be expected in the arena of California forestry
policy, there are aspects of this topic on which industry and
conservation groups disagree. These include, but are not limited
to issues such as: (1) quantification of the rate and retention
of carbon sequestration in young forests compared to
established, older forests; (2) the best management techniques
for reducing wildfire risks; and (3) appropriate incentives to
manage forestlands in ways that increase the rate of carbon
sequestration while still providing economic returns to
industrial and smaller landowners.
PROPOSED LAW
This bill would direct CDF to:
1. Develop options and incentives for the management of
private forestlands that are consistent with AB 32.
2. Establish, in consultation with the ARB, a standardized
baseline upon which to project future scenarios of carbon
emissions and sequestration.
3. Develop, in consultation with the ARB and the Department
of Fish and Game, regulations that would implement a full
mitigation program for the carbon stock and sequestration
losses due to forest land conversions. A fee that offsets
the costs of CDF's new responsibilities with respect to
conversions under this bill would be authorized.
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT
According to the author, this bill is intended to begin a
discussion with landowners, environmental organizations, state
agencies and local governments to improve the state of
scientific knowledge concerning the carbon sequestration
potential of California's forestlands. The author is also
interested in clarifying mitigation requirements for carbon
stock and sequestration losses due to forestland conversions.
The author has made it clear to those with concerns about the
bill that their participation in these discussions will be
welcomed.
The bill is sponsored by Pacific Forest Trust and the Natural
Resources Defense Council, with additional support from the
Sierra Club and The Nature Conservancy. These groups commented
that a scientifically credible baseline estimate of the amount
of carbon stored in California's forests is a critically
5
important piece of information for the development of a carbon
market for the forest sector. These groups expressed support for
working with the author as the bill is further developed.
The American Federation of State County and Municipal Employees
stated that the bill would help achieve the goals of AB 32 by
projecting future emissions and by establishing in state law the
important relationship between forestland uses and public
health.
ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION
The California Forestry Association addressed the version of the
bill as introduced. It objects to the fee provision in the bill,
expresses concern about existing regulations, objects to what it
characterizes as a "new" policy for timberland conversion, and
contends that the bill duplicates ongoing activities at the Air
Board and other agencies.
The Resources Landowners Coalition is concerned that the
definition of "forestland" includes oak woodlands which, as
noted in the analysis, have a separate mitigation requirement in
CEQA under existing law.
The California Chamber of Commerce views the bill as imposing
new duties on CDF without adequate funding. It also argues that
the bill burdens landowners.
The California Licensed Foresters Association supports the
development of incentives that the author is committed to
develop, but it is concerned about a possible fee on the review
of conversions.
COMMENTS
It is clear that this bill will be amended in the future and the
Committee will retain the right to re-hear those provisions.
6
SUPPORT
American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees
Natural Resources Defense Council
Pacific Forest Trust
Sierra Club California
The Nature Conservancy
OPPOSITION
California Forestry Association
California Chamber of Commerce
California Licensed Foresters Association
Resource Landowners Coalition
7