First, let me apologize for my absence from Statewide meetings, and or my lack
of reports. As many of you know, I’ve moved up to Humboldt County
(my new contact information is at the bottom of the page), and I’ve been delinquent in many of my duties. I apologize for the delay, and hope to join you soon at a meeting.
In the meantime, I’d to catch you up on some issues.
California Forestry Legislation-The year 2007 was remarkable in that that it
is the first year in recent memory that a bill did not make it through the process that did any serious damage to the rights
of individual forest property landowners or the forest products industry. Kudos
to the legislative representatives for keeping legislative representatives and their staff up-to-date on the consequences
of many of the ideas that usually get introduced and debated throughout the session.
While the actual bills provided no significant extra burden, the budget and increased regulation continues to whittle
away at landowners’ ability to sustainably manage their lands. The Department
of Fish and Game has increased the fees for the review of Timber Harvest Plan review, in addition, due to the budget have
announced they will no longer review the spotted owl portions of the plan. It
is unknown at this time who will pick up this duty, further delaying the review of these plans. The Center for Biological Diversity has petitioned Fish and Game to list the Pacific Fisher as an endangered
species, and several fish species, including Coho, are currently under discussion by several agencies. Industry and landowners are currently working with the California Water Resources Boards and the administration
to find ways to ensure that the Regional boards interpret and enforce laws and regulations in a uniform manner.
California Board of Forestry-The Senate recently confirmed the governor’s
four appointees to the Board of Forestry, Lloyd Bradshaw (RPF, Hearst Forests), Gary Nakamura (UCCE and NorCal Society of
American Foresters), Dr. Douglas Piirto (Natural Resource Department Chair, Cal Poly SLO) and Tom Walz (RPF, Sierra Pacific
Industries). All of these appointees received support from a coalition of forest
landowners, agriculture, business and labor groups.
The things to keep an eye on this season:
Green Building legislation-Over
20 different bills were introduced last session attempting to push the author’s idea of “green” building
standards or requirements. As the new session begins, it is important that our
representatives are educated to review these bills for the use of real science and facts to determine if the intent of the
bill is to actually promote the use of truly sustainable and renewable products, and lower emissions and/or energy use, or
if it is being used as a cover to push a political agenda. Legislative representatives
may want to be on the watch for bills that exclusively use the LEED certifications for approval, which does not use full life
cycle analysis in its calculations, which tends to make it anti-wood, many times preferring concrete and steel. There are several 3rd party certification systems out there, and any LEED-specific bill should
be review careful.
Carbon Protocols -The California Air Resources Board is currently working to put in place the protocols, regulations
and measuring systems to follow up on recent legislation that require California emission reductions. The panel includes members from industry, agriculture, agencies and other interested parties. Agricultural interests should stay heavily involved in all facets of this work and on top of any legislation
and/or regulations that come from the process. It is important that the emissions
from farm and construction equipment not be unfairly burdened with reduction targets when urban commuter traffic and industry
numbers are far larger contributors. The current CARB plan seems to be moving
toward a certain set of protocols with different options to include the land-use objectives.
Offset programs (carbon credits, see below), will be part of the program also.
Carbon (Credits, Markets)- Several markets for Carbon Credits are up and running now, all with different methods of
calculation. Most have in common that they look for additional carbon sequestration
that exceeds what is either being done now, or what a specific baseline establishes (i.e. what is required by the California
Forest Practice Act). This is another area to watch to ensure that the method
of calculation and/or payment is based on science rather than a group trying to further a political agenda. Most of the current programs require that the land be put into a conservation easement as a way to “ensure
the long term net sequestration.” Some programs are looking at ways to
allow non-easement properties to sell the credits at a lower value and/or set aside a portion of the credit pool as a “security
portion.”
It is clear that California is
on the leading edge on both of the emissions and carbon credit fronts. The federal
government is in the process of trying to stop California from setting their
own unique, and more stringent targets as we speak. This will be a “hot”
topic for quite a while (pun intended!).
Fire-While the USFS budget for fiscal 2009 has an increased amount for fire suppression, the budget for fuels reduction
projects has been reduced from $310 to $297 million. The increased danger and incidence of catastrophic wildfire will continue
to threaten lives, homes, wildlife habitat, and water quality as long as we do not deal with the unnaturally high fuel loads,
especially on our public lands. (Not to mention that millions of tons of carbon
that are released into the air with each high intensity fire!)
I realize this report is fairly general in nature and would be glad to research
any of these areas to provide more specific information and will report on specific legislation as it comes up. Please feel free to let me know if the report is helpful, needs more information in an area, contains any
errors, or any other feedback.
Thank you.
Lisa Perry
Sacramento Valley
Chapter
