Renewable Resources and Climate Change

Renewable Resources and Climate Change Report
Lisa Perry
January 2010

California Forestry Legislation
AB1066: This bill extends the length of a Timber Harvest Plan to 5 years. While forest landowners originally wanted ten years, this compromise is one of the first positive bills for the forest products sector to pass through the legislature in years. To summarize, before any commercial harvest on private land in California, the landowner must prepare and have approved an extensive environmental review and plan, a Timber Harvest Plan. This can take years and thousands ($8,000-$40,000 typically) of dollars. Once approved, historically the landowner had only 3 years (plus a couple of extensions) to complete the harvest, which in times such as these can be during a down market and not make economic sense. This bill allows the extensions on top of a 5-year window. The forest products legislative interests worked with labor groups as part of a “jobs” platform.

With the current budget woes, the outlook for the 2010 session appears to be legislation and regulation to increase fees and costs for resource managers. For example, AB1054 has been introduced and Section 7 allows for CalFire to increase fees to cover costs for administering Timber Harvest Plans. These types of general statements are worrisome to any land or business owner, with state agencies looking for ways to supplement their budgets, increasing costs in trying economic times.

California Board of Forestry
The Board of Forestry approved new salmon habitat protection rules which further reduce harvesting around year-round streams.

Carbon/Climate Change
The California Air Resources Board (CARB) recently delayed the new rules for diesel admissions due to the economy. Several studies have estimated millions of dollars in increased expense for businesses and landowners due to these regulations.

Initiative to Suspend AB32 the California Global Warming Solutions Act- There is currently a drive to place an initiative on the ballot to suspend the regulations that have come from this legislation due to the economy. AB32 gave CARB the authority to put into place protocols, regulations and measuring systems that require Californians to reduce emissions. A recent statewide poll shows that 71% of respondents support delaying these types of regulations until the economic situation has stabilized.

Carbon Protocols – Several of the protocols have been released by CARB, allowing landowners to enter into agreements to sell carbon credits, including the forestry protocols. The forest products sector was very involved in the working groups for these protocols. As has been reported in the media, Sierra Pacific Industries, the largest forest landowner in California, has entered into an agreement on 100,000 acres (they own 1.6 million in California). Some of this land will be set aside with no harvesting, and some will have active management. As we look forward and set protocols on other types of land use it is important to note:
Conservation Agreements vs. Long-term monitoring: The forest products sector fought vehemently to ensure that the protocols did not require conservation easements, which they felt could devalue the land. The agreements do have long-term (100-year) carbon sequestering agreements, but do not require the easement.
Baselines: Carbon credits are sold based on additional carbon sequestered for a term, not for carbon sequestered as part of standard operating procedures. The group had to set a baseline for forest management such as: managing the forest as aggressively as allowed by California Forest Practice regulations or at the current level of management. The second option would have punished those that had been practicing sustainable forestry for generations.
Site specific practices vs. broad-based ideas: Several groups fought to have certain silvicultural techniques, such as clear-cutting, excluded from use in carbon credit trading agreements. It is important that any protocols not specify land management techniques, but rather the measurement of science-based carbon accounting and sustainable practices.

Renewable Resource/Global Climate Change
Director’s Report – November 2008
Lisa Perry

Forest Products Sector-The good news from the legislative front is that industry groups and partners were able to stop all legislation that would have been detrimental to the well-being of the forest products sector this session. Many of these appear annually and a quick review of those will help us keep an eye on them for next session:

-“Anti-Clear cutting” bill, this year: AB 2926. While the term “clear cut” conjures up images of vast moonscapes, it is important to remember that clear cutting in California has a very clear definition. The working maximum acreage of 20 (the Forest Practice Acts [FPA] allows up to 40 in some instances, however they are not used and the average statewide is 17) is only done under the guise of a full environmental plan (Timber Harvest Plan) which requires proof of sustainability, reviews and mitigations for soils, water quality, watershed protection, endangered species reviews, air quality, archeological site protection, clear adjacency rules (not allowing adjoining acreage to be cut until the harvested site is re-established, and required replanting and stocking requirements. The FPA also defines any harvest in which more than 70% of the canopy is removed to be a “clear cut” in California, so a harvest that leaves 25% of the trees is still defined as a clear cut. Keep in mind, all of these rules are for private property, as federal land managers no longer use this silvicultural practice due to public opinion, not Science. All commercial harvesting is done under the review of a Registered Professional Forester and I believe that CWA should support legislation in these areas that allows these highly educated natural resource professionals to use their expertise to meet the landowner’s management objectives while adhering to the already stringent regulations in California that protect public trust values. Every single forest site is a unique blend of location, climate, plants, and animals and deserves a review based on the science, not a political agenda. This bill was stopped in committee, but will be re-introduced in some form again next session.

-Required LEED certification on state buildings: Several bills and regulatory packages were introduced to require this “green building” certification for state buildings, schools, even in construction classrooms. While true “green building” is a noble goal, the LEED certification has several components that do not give credit for any third-party certification for wood production other than the plan by Forest Stewardship Council (FSC). This particular certification excludes many of our California producers (including the 2 largest) A study done by Cal Poly, SLO has shown that anyone producing lumber by either of the two largest certification programs (FSC and SFI, the Sustainable Forestry Initiative) and/or adhering to the California Forest Practices Act, are all equally protecting the environment (very small differences between them). In fact LEED, in my opinion, has an anti-wood bias, choosing other non-renewable building materials. I propose that CWA work to defeat legislation that promotes the practice of buying agricultural products, in this case lumber, from out of state producers that we know work under less environmental regulation and do not support our economy. All of the bills, again several,
industry, labor and moderate Democrats were able to either kill the bill entirely or reword the legislation to include other certification programs.

-In addition to legislation, severe budget problems continue to bring scary items to the table. Some examples were the Legislative Analyst’s Office recommendation to increase Timber Harvest Plan Fees by $60,000 per plan....no that’s not a typo! Remember a THP is required on ANY commercial harvest, whether you own 100 acres or 1 million. These plans already cost $8,000-$40,000 and up. The administration also looked at adding additional fees or cutting review services by Cal Fire and California Fish and Game, again adding financial burdens to the process. Whether you call it taxes or fees, it’s still a financial burden for an already burdened industry.

-Carbon: The California Air Resources Board is still working on protocols in the areas of both emissions and sequestration/credits. The Forestry sector was so contentious that the elected a separate sub-committee to hammer out some agreements which will include baseline and goals. In all of these areas, it is important that producers, farmers and ranchers be given credit for good practices already in place and that undue burdens are not placed on this very small sector, number-wise, while large-scale urban sources go unchecked.

-California Regional Water Boards-A coalition was also able to stop the legislation that would have changed the make-up of the Water Boards, removing industry and other professional seats. We’ve all seen what power these boards can yield, and removing working professional requirements could have been disastrous.

Mainly, as we go forward on these issues it is important that we be vigilant to ensure that all of these legislative areas, whether it be forestry, “green building”, carbon credits or emissions, proceed using real science and are not used to further political agendas. With the incredible, environmentally-friendly practices already in place across the California agricultural sector, it is imperative that we not allow these agendas to sway public policy. Urban legislators and citizens need to be consistently educated and informed to ensure that advocacy groups do not use the good intentions of actions in the carbon, climate, and “green” arenas to drown out the professionals that really know how to do this right!

Lisa Perry Office 707-826-3273 Cell 707-497-9445 (NEW!) Email This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it