Planning and Conservation League
Legislature Poised To Weaken Timber Harvest Plans
Over the last several months, the environmental community has defeated many legislative attempts to weaken California's environmental protections. However, with only two weeks left in the session we're still racing to fix several measures that could be adopted at any moment.
Here's one that's particularly troubling:
AB 1066 by Assemblymember Tony Mendoza threatens the health of our forests, water, and air by allowing numerous extensions of Timber Harvest Plans (THPs).
The California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection's program for approving timber harvest plans is a "certified regulatory program" that is supposed to be "functionally equivalent" to the traditional CEQA process. Unfortunately the department has had a history of failing to live up to the substantive and procedural requirements of CEQA, and the courts have repeatedly found that implementation of the certified regulatory program does not measure up.
By allowing repeated one and two year extensions, AB 1066 increases the difficulty of THP reviewing agencies like the Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, regional water boards, and the Department of Fish and Game to effectively analyze environmental impacts. In addition, with longer compliance periods, timber companies may concentrate their logging activities at times when lumber prices are high, exacerbating the industry's boom and bust cycle.
AB 1066 is now on the Senate floor. Even after several rounds of amendments, it's clear that the bill will have significant negative effects on our state. We hope the Senate sees fit to send it back to the drawing board one more time.
[i]"By allowing repeated one and two year extensions, AB 1066 increases the difficulty of THP reviewing agencies like the Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, regional water boards, and the Department of Fish and Game to effectively analyze environmental impacts"[/i]
ReplyDeleteReally? How so? The agencies actually are supposed to analyze environmental impacts prior to operation...right? Otherwise if there was potential for a negative environmental impact, it can be addressed and properly mitigated prior to the implantation of the project. That makes sense...doesn't it?
I prepare THPs for a living, and the way I see it, one of the big problems we are having (as a dying industry) is such a short life on these projects, which are very expensive to prepare. I am an advocate for a 10 year THP with no extensions. That gives a landowner plenty of time to be able to market their logs.
What about THPs which are going to remove scores of active erosion sites from legacy logging? This is a very common element of the modern THP. If the plan expires - becuase the landowner could not operate do to poor markets, then is it better to let it expire and not fix these problems in the woods? Not implementing certain projects could lead to negative effects.
I hope you are willing to have a honest discussion about this.
The analysis done at the time of THP aproval could not possibly forecast future impacts to wildlife and plants beyond 4 years, nor would there be a process to evaluate impacts if watershed conditions suddenly changed - flooding, fire or cumulative impacts from clearcuts for example. Also, the public would be cut out of the evaluation and input process as conditions changed over time. Under the current rules problem roads and culverts are more likely to get fixed faster because of the THP deadline than they might if the industry was relying on favorable market conditions.
ReplyDeleteActually, you can not file for an extension if there have been substantial changes within the watershed. One of the requirements within the cumulative impact assessment is to address potential and reasonable future projects. If major projects end up occurring within your assessment area that were not addressed in this section you may not be able to get an extension. This is true if extreme events occur as you suggested, like a big fire, flood, etc..
ReplyDeleteNow in the case of non-clearcut plans, this may not be as big of a deal. Like lets say you have 200 acre selection plan. You have done all of your assessments, botany surveys ect...and any other requirements such as ongoing NSO surveys, blah blah blah. It is unlikely that a THP like this would lead to some cumulative effect regardless of what was happening in the watershed, barring some major event like fire or nuclear war.
In the case of road issues, almost 99% of the time, if you have a serious road issue that is contributing sediment, it generally is a requirement to treat the crossing prior to the first winter following operations. This has generally replaced the "prior to the completion of opps" which you may have seen more often in previous THPs. Minor crossings such as small Class IIIs, or crossings which only require minimal work may still be treated following ops. Sometimes this is the best, especially when you are abandoning crossings (you don't want to re-install temp crossings more than once).
Another thing to keep in mind, is that beyond a THP, there are two other required permits that will be needed for crossings/road use. The DFG 1600 and the Water Quality Waste Discharge Requirements. The 1600 permit is only good for 5 years - and is the driving permit behind the installation/removal of crossings. The Waste Discharge permits are renewed annually, and cost money, so there is some pressure on landowners to get the job done... To comply with these WQ permits, bi-annual monitoring and reporting is required on all active THPs. Any changes noted in reporting is required to be amended into the THP and treated.
Extensions are not an exploit as inferred by many who are following this AB 1066. I think it is hard for most to get into the longterm thinking which is required in forest management. A few years is not much time in the ecology of a watershed, or the climate of an economy. In our society we live in a way where resources are used (just a fact, not an excuse to over consume which would be the fault of fat Americans, not the timber industry, right?), and while many many mistakes have been made to get to where we are now, the current system is set up to make it work while reaching certain objectives our society has decided we want to protect. The extension is set up to maintain this balance between economy and reasonability.
I have seen forestry in OR, WA, Canada, and in a few third world states, Belize, Mexico, Guatemala, Thailand, Laos, and Burma - and I promise you, it is for the best that we dont export our environmental impacts to these places (Im sure there are worse places from what Ive read e.g. siberia, brazil...). The intent of this extension rule is to keep these markets in our country, and to help keep this small industry here in CA. Trust me, we are not so far away from this potential collapse, unregulated wood is cheep.