12/05/2017 FULL 8 (b)(1) ISOR Page 1 of 21

Board of Forestry and Fire Protection INITIAL STATEMENT OF REASONS

“Cumulative Impacts Assessment Checklist, Technical Rule Addendum No. 2 and

Appendix Amendments”

Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations (14 CCR), Division 1.5, Chapter 4: Subchapter 1, Article 1

Subchapter 4, 5, & 6, Article 2 Amend: § 895, 895.1 and 912.9[932.9, 952.9]

INTRODUCTION INCLUDING PUBLIC PROBLEM, ADMINISTRATIVE REQUIREMENT, OR OTHER CONDITION OR CIRCUMSTANCE THE REGULATION IS INTENDED TO ADDRESS (pursuant to GC § 11346.2(b)(1))…NECESSITY (pursuant to GC § 11346.2(b)(1) and 11349(a))….BENEFITS (pursuant to GC § 11346.2(b)(1)) Pursuant to the Z’berg-Nejedly Forest Practice Act of 1973, PRC § 4511, et seq. (Act) the State Board of Forestry and Fire Protection (Board) is authorized to construct a system of forest practice regulations applicable to timber management on state and private timberlands. PRC § 4551 requires the Board to “adopt district forest practice rules… to ensure the continuous growing and harvesting of commercial forest tree species and to protect the soil, air, fish, wildlife, and water resources…” and PRC § 4553 requires the Board to continuously review the rules in consultation with other interests and make appropriate revisions. In correlation to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the regulation of timber harvesting operations by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (Department) and the Board and the regulatory program of the Board in adopting, amending, or repealing standards, rules, regulations, or plans under the Act, are programs that that have been certified by the State of California Secretary for Resources as meeting the requirements of PRC § 21080.5. Since 1983 there have been a number of law suits filed against the Board and the Department. The litigation has typically involved claims that the Department, through the regulation of timber harvesting operations, violated substantive provisions of the CEQA. Consequently, decisions in case law have largely determined the aspects of CEQA that apply to the regulation of timber harvesting. Accordingly, the review and processing of Plans has been found by the courts (NRDC vs. Arcata Redwood) to be a project under CEQA. Court decisions resulting from these law suits have generally upheld the THP process as functionally equivalent, but found that the evaluations of individual THP’s, in some cases, had failed to meet the broad policy standards of CEQA. Specifically, the decisions made in EPIC v. Johnson and Laupheimer v. California affirm that CEQA's

12/05/2017 FULL 8 (b)(1) ISOR Page 2 of 21

substantive provisions and broad policy goals of environmental preservation apply to timber harvests in California. Plans as “functionally equivalent” to an environmental impact report (otherwise required under CEQA for Projects that could potentially have significant effects on the environment) require project proponents to disclose potential significant adverse impacts to reviewing agencies and the public, and to provide mitigation measures to prevent significant and/or avoidable environmental damage. The determination of whether or not a Plan has the potential to result in a significant adverse impact(s) must be determined and supported by substantial evidence. Substantial evidence, pursuant to 14 CCR § 15384, means enough relevant information (e.g., facts, reasonable assumptions predicated upon facts, and expert opinion supported by facts) and reasonable inferences from this information that a fair argument can be made to support a conclusion, even though other conclusions might also be reached. The primary means for disclosing potential significant adverse impacts in Plans is through 14 CCR § 912.9 [932.9, 952.9], which the Board adopted in 1991. Guidance is given in Technical Rule Addendum No. 2 to assist the Registered Professional Forester (RPF) in addressing the potential cumulative impacts that may occur as a result of timber harvesting. Additionally, the Department provided a memo from Deputy Director of Resource Management Bill Snyder (Retired) on August 2, 2004 that help clarify the expectations of the RPF to address cumulative impacts. In reviewing Plans for potential significant impacts, the Department requires enough detailed information from RPFs to make a determination on both the incremental effect of the proposed operations, and the cumulative effect of the proposed operations when taken in consideration with closely related past, current, and reasonably foreseeable probable future projects (CEQA Guidelines Section 15355). The evaluation of whether a project may have a significant effect on the environment calls for careful judgment on the part of the public agency. Since the Board adopted 14 CCR § 912.9 [932.9, 952.9], Technical Rule Addendum No. 2 and Appendix, there have been a number of changes to CEQA in PRC §§ 21083.01 and 21083.05 (pursuant to SB1241 and SB97, respectively) and Guidelines for CEQA in 14 CCR § 15064.4 involving environmental resources (fire hazard impacts and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions), which have the potential to be significantly adversely impacted by timber harvest activities. Additionally, in 2010, the legislature, pursuant to Assembly Bill 1504, amended the Act (in PRC §§ 4512.5, 4512.5, 4513 and 4551(b)(1)) to include findings and declarations associated with GHGs. Subsequently, Plan submitters started submitting GHG analyses with their Plans. However, until now, the Board Rules have not addressed GHGs

12/05/2017 FULL 8 (b)(1) ISOR Page 3 of 21

Furthermore, in 2012 the California legislature passed SB 1241, which identified the need to assess fire hazard impacts within the CEQA review process via the initial study checklist (PRC § 21083.01(a)). The problem is the existing Board Rules do not address these substantive provisions (fire hazard impacts and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions) or offer any guidance on determining the significance of impacts from GHG emissions and determining wildfire risk and hazard. Although, the Department does provide a THP GHG emissions calculator and user guide on its’ resource management memorandum webpage for use by plan submitters. Absent regulations, proposed in this action, the RPF and Director will continue to attempt to assess cumulative impacts, specific to fire hazard impacts and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, in a manner not specifically guided by Board Rules. Another problem is that some of the guidance is outdated and some of the existing language is unclear regarding what is enforceable and what is guidance. For the reason that certified regulatory programs must follow CEQA's substantive requirements, an update of the Board Rules is compulsory. The purpose of the proposed action is to align CEQA (and Guidelines) with Board Rules (and Guidelines) to address these substantive provisions (fire hazard impacts and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions) through regulation and commensurate guidance and to a certain extent update the existing 30 year old guidance, including providing additional clarity in 14 CCR § 895, 895.1, 912.9 [932.9, 952.9], Technical Rule Addendum No. 2 and Appendix. However, the Board decided to delay a comprehensive update of the biological resources guidance given ongoing scientific investigation, being undertaken by the Board’s Effectiveness Monitoring Committee, the California Department of Fish and Wildlife and other entities. Moreover, the Board is constantly searching for additional technical information to balance resource protection and timber harvest activities. Commonly, the Board conducts outreach efforts to determine the extent of technical knowledge available in many areas. This outreach includes areas such as wildlife and related habitat requirements; water quality protection; evaluation of unstable geologic conditions to prevent mass movement; studies of surface soil erosion; post-fire impacts; tree mortality; pest and diseases; and development of monitoring criteria to determine rule effectiveness. Additionally, this proposed action represents over four years of collaborative effort, involving input from CAL FIRE, Department of Fish and Wildlife, California Geologic Survey, Water Quality Control Boards and the regulated public, and is the third movement to supplant the Threatened and Impaired Rules (following the Boards adoption of the 2009 Anadromous Salmonid Protection (ASP) and 2013 Road Rules). The effect of this proposed action is regulation and commensurate guidance to determine the significance of impacts from GHG emissions and determine wildfire risk and hazard and to a certain extent update the existing 30 year old guidance including providing additional clarity between requirements and guidance.

12/05/2017 FULL 8 (b)(1) ISOR Page 4 of 21

The primary benefit of the proposed action is a more clear and standardized Plan preparation and review process that maintains transparency for the Director of the Department, other agencies and the regulated public. Additionally, the proposed action through aligning the existing environmental statutes, and regulations, specifically PRC §§ 21083.01 and 21083.05 (pursuant to SB1241 and SB97, respectively) and Guidelines for CEQA in 14 CCR § 15064.4, which are intended to minimize environmental impacts, may result in improvements to environmental quality. Further, the proposed action may improve the health and welfare of California residents and worker safety, by way of better planning, through guidance to determine wildfire risk and hazard in the current context that California will continue to experience large and damaging wildfires that threaten people’s lives and destroy homes. SPECIFIC PURPOSE OF EACH ADOPTION, AMENDMENT OR REPEAL (pursuant to GOV § 11346.2(b)(1)) AND THE RATIONALE FOR THE AGENCY’S DETERMINATION THAT EACH ADOPTION, AMENDMENT OR REPEAL IS REASONABLY NECESSARY TO CARRY OUT THE PURPOSE(S) OF THE STATUTE(S) OR OTHER PROVISIONS OF LAW THAT THE ACTION IS IMPLEMENTING, INTERPRETING OR MAKING SPECIFIC AND TO ADDRESS THE PROBLEM FOR WHICH IT IS PROPOSED (pursuant to GOV §§ 11346.2(b)(1) and 11349(a) and 1 CCR § 10(b)). Note: For each adoption, amendment, or repeal provide the problem, purpose and necessity. The Board is proposing action to make permanent, through regular rulemaking, amendments to Title 14 CCR §§ 895, 895.1, 912.9, 932.9 and 952.9 Technical Rule Addendum No. 2 and Appendix. The problems are:

• The existing Board Rules do not address substantive provisions of CEQA, specifically fire hazard impacts and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.

• The existing Board Rules do not offer any guidance on determining the significance of impacts from GHG emissions and determining wildfire risk and hazard.

• Absent regulations, proposed in this action, the RPF and Director will continue to attempt to assess cumulative impacts, specific to fire hazard impacts and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, in a manner not specifically guided by Board Rules.

• Some of the guidance is outdated and some of the existing language is unclear regarding what is enforceable and what is guidance.

The purpose of the proposed action is to align CEQA (and Guidelines) with Board Rules (and Guidelines) to address substantive provisions of CEQA, specifically fire hazard impacts and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions) through regulation and commensurate guidance and, to a certain extent, update the existing 30 year old guidance, including providing additional clarity in 14 CCR § 895, 895.1, 912.9 [932.9, 952.9], Technical Rule Addendum No. 2 and Appendix.

12/05/2017 FULL 8 (b)(1) ISOR Page 5 of 21

Pursuant to the Board’s authority granted by the legislature in PRC § 4551 and § 4553, the Board is authorized to implement, interpret, or make specific statute and/or existing Board rules. SUBSTANTIVE AMENDMENTS § 895.1 Definitions Updating the term, “species of special concern” in the definition of “Nest Tree” in 14 CCR § 895.1 is necessary for clarity and congruency. The defined term of “Nest Tree” and “Sensitive Species” conflict, to avoid this conflict it is not possible to capitalize both given that the convention is to capitalize the first letter of each word in a defined term. The Board originally opted not to capitalize nest tree pursuant to the convention that the definition of “general use” should be applied as opposed to the definition in 895.1. However, since then, the Board discovered that the term “species of special concern” was equivalent in meaning to “sensitive species” in 1991 when this provision was adopted.

From 1991 Rules: "Species of special concern" means those species designated by the Board of Forestry pursuant to 14 CCR 898.2(d). These species are the Bald Eagle, Golden Eagle, Great Blue Heron, Great Egret, Northern Goshawk, Osprey, Peregrine Falcon, California Condor and Great Gray Owl. Species of special concern” was changed to “Sensitive Species” and the meaning remained the same.

From 1992 Rules: sensitive species means those species designated by the Board of Forestry pursuant to 14 CCR 898.2(d). These species are the Bald eagle, Golden eagle, Great blue heron, Great egret, Northern goshawk, Osprey, Peregrine falcon, California Condor, Great gray owl, Northern spotted owl, and Marbled Murrelet.

14 CCR § 912.9, 932.9, 952.9, Technical Rule Addendum No. 2 and Appendix [All Districts] In general, the proposed action amends the portion of 14 CCR §§ 912.9, 932.9, 952.9, titled “Board of Forestry and Fire Protection Technical Rule Addendum No. 2 Cumulative Impacts Assessment” to align the Forest Practice Rules with current statutory and regulatory definitions and terminology. This section has also been revised to provide additional clarity and more accurate language and information. Changes have been made to provide more accurate criteria for assessing potential environmental impacts to the identified resources, which are necessary to both standardize and improve the efficiency of the Plan review process. § 912.9 [932.9, 952.9] CUMULATIVE IMPACTS ASSESSMENT CHECKLIST

1. Incorporating additional resource subjects, Greenhouse Gases and Wildfire Risk and Hazard, into the Cumulative Impacts Assessment Checklist is necessary to align the Board rules and guidance with CEQA's substantive requirements and

12/05/2017 FULL 8 (b)(1) ISOR Page 6 of 21

add these additional primary environmental resources that have the potential to be impacted by timber harvesting activities.

2. Adding “and application of Board Rules” to (c)(3)(footnote) is necessary to further clarify that if after application of the Board Rules, no mitigation measures or alternatives are necessary to reach the threshold of “no reasonably potential significant Impacts”, this selection may be chosen.

3. Adding the note at the end of provision (c) is necessary to provide direction to the regulated public that guidance on evaluating impacts to resource subjects is provided within the Appendix to Technical Rule Addendum #2.”

4. Adding “or alternatives” to provision (d), is necessary for consistency in the section.

5. Removing “except for those mitigation measures or alternatives mandated by application of the rules of the Board of Forestry.” from provision (d), is necessary to clarify that, since mitigation measures are additional to the Board Rules and the Board Rules are not required to be described, any mitigation measure or alternative selected to substantially reduce or avoid reasonably potential significant Cumulative Impacts must be described. Introduction, TECHNICAL RULE ADDENDUM NO. 2

6. Adding “the potential” to the third paragraph is necessary to qualify “on-site impacts” given that although the “on-site impact” is possible it has not yet occurred.

7. Replacing “that are mitigated by application of the Forest Practice Rules and the interactions of proposed activities” with “of the Plan’s proposed activities”, in the third paragraph, is necessary for clarity because the original phrase dilutes the requirement that the RPF distinguish between the potential on-site Impacts of the Plan’s proposed activities and the Impacts of Past Projects and Reasonably Foreseeable Probable Future Projects. Additionally, adding reference to 14 CCR § 15130(b)(1)(A) is necessary to provide direction, to the regulated public, to the source of this requirement, so that they made better understand it.

8. Replacing “are expected to” with “shall”, in the fourth paragraph, is necessary to clarify that it is a requirement that the RPF submit sufficient information to support their findings if significant issues are raised during the Department’s review of the Plan.

9. Replacing “should” with “shall justify and”, in the fifth paragraph, is necessary to clarify that it is a requirement that Agencies justify and support their recommendations. B. Identification of Assessment Areas, TECHNICAL RULE ADDENDUM NO. 2

10. Replacing “addresses, and phone numbers“ with “and contact information” is necessary to be additionally inclusive to reflect the contemporary and ubiquitous use of digital communication.

11. Adding “topographic maps”, changing “relevant federal agency documents or plans” to “relevant public agency documents or plans”, adding “relevant watershed or wildlife studies (published or unpublished) and adding “available

12/05/2017 FULL 8 (b)(1) ISOR Page 7 of 21

modeling approaches” is necessary to capture additional common sources of information that should be utilized for review to comprehensively assess Cumulative Impacts.

12. Updating “Map(s) shall be reproducible on black & white copiers” to “Color coding on maps may be used if they are able to be reproduced in black and white and clearly show all details.”, is necessary to provide flexibility to the project proponent, but at the same time not incur additional cost to the Department to reproduce color maps. The Board also recognizes that the Natural Resources Agency is working with the Department on electronic THP submission that may include the allowance of color coding.

13. Adding the requirement that “A legend shall be included indicating the meaning of the symbols used.” is necessary for efficiency to facilitate map reading. preamble, Appendix

14. Adding a more robust introductory sentence is necessary for clarity. A. Watershed Resources, Appendix

15. Adding the phrase, “include those”, is necessary to signal the RPF that there may be factors in addition to those factors “listed below” to consider in the evaluation of cumulative watershed Effects.

16. In 1991, when this provision was originally developed, the relationship between sediment and turbidity was not well understood. Adding the discussion regarding the relationship between sediment and turbidity and qualifying that, although chronic turbidity can be an indicator of cumulative effects, both turbidity and suspended sediment are subject to extreme inherent variability is necessary to bring this provision up to date.

17. Adding turbidity increases to the list of situations where potentially adverse impacts are most likely to occur is necessary to bring this provision up to date.

18. Adding impaired spawning and rearing habitat for salmonids to the list of situations where potentially adverse impacts are most likely to occur is necessary to bring this provision up to date and emphasize salmonids since they are in decline.

19. Adding accelerated channel filling to the list of situations where potentially adverse impacts are most likely to occur is necessary to bring this provision up to date given the increased frequency and magnitude of overbank flooding that may result.

20. Deleting “that should be maintained” from the provision on organic debris Effects, is necessary to keep the informative tone consistent.

21. Deleting “bigger” from the provision on organic debris Effects, is necessary for clarity given that unstable volumes of debris of any size can obstruct and divert streamflow.

22. Deleting (after decomposition of logging-related litter.) from the provision on organic debris Effects, is necessary for clarity given that logging-related litter is no longer regarded as a source of organic debris to watercourses due to the restrictions afforded by the Watercourse and Lake Protection Zone Rules.

12/05/2017 FULL 8 (b)(1) ISOR Page 8 of 21

23. Adding rainfall interception to the provision on peak flow Effects is necessary to provide another essential mechanism that influences peak flow.

24. Deleting site preparation from the provision on peak flow Effects is necessary for accuracy given that it is the removal of vegetation (from timber harvest) that produces openings in contrast to the secondary activity of site preparation.

25. Adding roads and Landings to the provision on peak flow Effects is necessary because they constitute openings where snow can accumulate, which can influence peak flow.

26. Deleting the latter part of the provision on peak flow Effects is necessary to bring this provision up to date.

27. Adding, to the provision on peak flow Effects, that increases in peak flow are likely to be small relative to pre-harvest peak flows, but that extensive Canopy removal over a short period of time on a watershed scale can increase peak flow Effects on streambank erosion, channel incision, and headward channel extension in erodible landscapes is necessary to bring this provision up to date.

28. Adding, to the provision on peak flow Effects, that the timing and concentration of flows affecting lower order Watercourse channel morphology can also be affected by the routing of runoff from roads, Landings, and skid trails and that peak flow Effects diminish with decreasing intensity of Canopy removal, increasing time since harvest, and during larger flow recurrence intervals is necessary to bring this provision up to date. C. Biological Resources, Appendix

29. Replacing “can” with “will” is necessary for clarity. 30. Moving “habitat” is necessary to clarify that the variation can occur within the

habitat of the biological assessment area as opposed to the habitat of the species.

31. Deleting the sentence “that significant cumulative effects on listed species may be expected from the results of activities over time which combine to have a substantial effect on the species or on the habitat of the species” is necessary for clarity because it is a general statement that is an obvious aspect of the assessment of Listed Species.

32. Replacing “woody debris”, a defined term, the meaning of which is not appropriate in the context that it is used, with “large woody material” or “woody material” is necessary for clarity and consistency

33. Replacing “should” with “may”, in the provision on Snags, den trees and Nest Trees, is necessary to clarify that consideration of Snag recruitment over time is recommended but not required (in this context).

34. Replacing “should” with “may”, in the provision on multistory Canopy, is necessary to clarify that considering timber site capability as a factor is recommended but not required (in this context).

35. Deleting “permanent and secondary”, in the provision on Road Density, as a qualifier to roads is necessary for clarity because secondary road is undefined and although Permanent Road is defined, the definition of it is too narrow to be used in this context.

12/05/2017 FULL 8 (b)(1) ISOR Page 9 of 21

36. Deleting “permanent and temporary”, in the provision on Road Density, as a qualifier to roads is necessary for clarity because although Permanent Road and Temporary Road are defined, the definitions of them are too narrow to be used in this context.

37. Deleting “receive some level of maintenance”, in the provision on Road Density, as a qualifier to roads, is necessary for efficiency because the purpose of this provision is captured in the remaining qualifier “open to the public”.

38. Replacing “should” with “can”, in the provision on Road Density, is necessary to clarify that accounting for the effects of vegetation screening and the relative importance of an area to wildlife (on a seasonal basis) is recommended but not required in this context.

39. Adding the introductory sentence, in the provision on Hardwood Cover, is necessary to update this provision.

40. Deleting the first sentence, in the provision on hardwood cover [Northern and Southern only], is necessary to remove reference to the “Joint Policy on Hardwood” because it is outdated and has limited applicability for the preparation of Plans. However, the Board is considering updating this joint policy or a version thereof for future use.

41. Adding “and optimize” and “habitat”, in the provision on hardwood cover, as qualifiers of “wildlife” is necessary to update this provision.

42. Replacing “should” with “can”, in the provision on hardwood cover, is necessary to clarify that although sufficient recruitment of hardwoods to replace mortality of older trees is desirable it is excessive to require it.

43. Adding “large decadent trees”, to the provision on late seral forest characteristics, in the list of characteristics of late seral forest is necessary to update this provision, which was done in cooperation with the Department of Fish and Wildlife.

44. Adding “all of which”, to the provision on late seral forest characteristics, is necessary to update this provision to clarify that large trees as part of a multilayered Canopy, large decadent trees, and the presence of large numbers of Snags and downed logs all contribute to an increased level of stand decadence and complexity. This provision was updated in cooperation with the Department of Fish and Wildlife.

45. Adding “and complexity”, to the provision on late seral forest characteristics, is necessary to update this provision, which was done in cooperation with the Department of Fish and Wildlife.

46. Replacing “should” with “are” and deleting “should”, in the provision on late seral forest characteristics, is necessary to keep the informative tone consistent.

47. Replacing “area” with “stand”, in the provision on late seral forest characteristics, is necessary for clarity.

48. Deleting the first sentence, in the provision on late seral habitat continuity, is necessary for clarity and efficiency.

49. Revising the second paragraph, in the provision on late seral habitat continuity, is necessary to update a approach to evaluate fragmentation, which was developed in cooperation with the Department of Fish and Wildlife.

50. Revising the entire provision on special habitat elements, is necessary to update it.

12/05/2017 FULL 8 (b)(1) ISOR Page 10 of 21

G. Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Impacts, Appendix The proposed action adds guidance to assess GHG Impacts to secure alignment with 14 CCR § 15064.4, one of CEQA's substantive requirements, and make it specific to Plans. In the absence of the proposed action, RPFs would still be required to determine the significance of Impacts for GHG emissions pursuant to 14 CCR §15064.4. Specifically, 14 CCR § 15064.4 requires a lead agency “…to describe, calculate or estimate the amount of greenhouse gas emissions resulting from a project.” However, to avoid having the RPF and Director continue to attempt to assess cumulative impacts, greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, in a manner not specifically guided by Board Rules, this amendment is necessary Three options for the assessment of cumulative GHG impacts which range from qualitative analysis to more technical and quantitative methods of assessment are supplied. H. Wildfire Risk and Hazard, Appendix Climate change and forest condition have exacerbated wildfire damage. There are now more wildfires that are larger in size and more intense. This context prompted the Board to require an assessment of Wildfire Risk and Hazard. Correspondingly, the proposed action adds guidance to determine the significance of fire hazard impacts. This portion of the proposed action provides a brief discussion of the resource subject, as well as several options for the assessment of potential cumulative impacts related to wildfire risk and hazard. This guidance is necessary to both improve efficiency and accuracy of the Plan preparation and review processes, as well as to ensure that Plans align with one of CEQA's substantive requirements in PRC § 21083.01(a). Absent the proposed action, the RPF and Director will continue to attempt to assess fire hazard impacts in a manner not specifically guided by Board Rules, hence necessitating this amendment.

I. Other, Appendix The proposed amendment prompts RPFs to assess resource subjects, not identified in A.-H., if relevant to the Plan, in terms of Cumulative Impacts.

12/05/2017 FULL 8 (b)(1) ISOR Page 11 of 21

Summary of Nonsubstantive Amendments to 14 CCR §§ 895, 895.1, 912.9 [932.9, 952.9], Technical Rule Addendum No. 2 and Appendix

1. Added “GHG” to list of acronyms in 14 CCR § 895 for efficiency and clarity. 2. Added definition of “Impacts” to 14 CCR § 895.1 for clarity. 3. Changed all uses of the “past, present, or reasonably foreseeable probable

future projects” (or any iteration thereof), to reflect the terms “Past Projects” and “Reasonably Foreseeable Probable Future Projects” as defined in 14 CCR § 895.1.

4. Capitalized additional defined terms including the following: o Cumulative Impacts o Effects o Impacts o Significance of Cumulative Impacts o Project o Plan o Planning Watersheds o Silvicultural Methods o Timberlands o Timber Operations o Beneficial Uses o Quality of Waters o Species o Sensitive Species o Erosion Hazard Ratings o Unstable Areas o Canopy o Lake o Landings o Watercourse Banks o Flood Flows o Skidding o Mechanical Site Preparation o Fills o Feasible o Yarding o Structure o Snag o Riparian o Basal Area Per Acre o Functional o Logging Area o Public Roads

12/05/2017 FULL 8 (b)(1) ISOR Page 12 of 21

5. Increased rule text congruency, consistency and clarity as compared to rule text

used in other provisions of the Board Rules and used defined terms where relevant including the following:

o Replaced “THP” with “Plan”. o Replaced “forest practice rules” and “rules of the Board of Forestry” with

“Board Rules”. o Used “Effects” and “Impacts” interchangeably, occasionally, one term was

replaced with another for consistency within a provision. o Replaced the term “effects” to “impacts” when it follows the term

“Cumulative” because “Cumulative Impacts” is a defined term. o Replaced “significant Impact” and “significant Cumulative Impact” with

“significant adverse Impact” and “significant adverse Cumulative Impact”, respectively.

o Replaced “problem” with “impact”. o Replaced “changes” with “impacts” where appropriate. o Replaced “significant wet areas” with the defined term “Wet Meadows or

Other Wet Areas”. o Replaced “Stream” with “Watercourse” where the context applied to all

Watercourse classifications. o Replaced “stream” with “Class I or II Watercourse” where the context was

relevant to “Class I or II Watercourses”. o Replaced “slash burning” with “burning of Slash and Woody Debris”. o Changed “woody debris”, a defined term, to “wood” because the defined

term is too narrow for the context, in which it is used, in the “Organic Matter Loss” provision.

o Replaced “rare, threatened, or endangered species or sensitive species (as described in the Forest Practice Rules)” with the defined term “Listed Species” because it constitutes the definition of “Listed Species”.

o Replaced “section” with “provision” for correctness. o Replaced “CALWATER 2.2 identification number” with “CALWATER 2.2

Planning Watershed number(s)”. o Removed “stage” from the term “late seral stage forest” for consistency

with the term “late seral forest”, which is also used. 6. Uncapitalized undefined terms. 7. Changed the identification of subordinate provisions to conform to the

identification convention used, most commonly, elsewhere in the Board Rules (a), (1), (A), for 912.9 [932.9, 952.9] and A., 1., a. and • in Technical Rule Addendum No. 2 and Appendix.

8. Corrected grammar (e.g. changed terms from singular to plural or vice versa where necessary.)

12/05/2017 FULL 8 (b)(1) ISOR Page 13 of 21

9. Added clarity and consistency through the addition, deletion or reorganization of

rule text including the following:

§ 912.9 [932.9, 952.9] CUMULATIVE IMPACTS ASSESSMENT CHECKLIST o Added “within the assessment area(s)” to question 2 for clarity. o Added “after mitigation” to provision (c)(1)(footnote) for consistency with

(c)(1). o Replaced “cumulative effects” with “impacts” in provision (c)(3) (footnote) to

unclutter the provision; the meaning that follows clearly states that this selection is available only if the operations proposed under the Plan and application of Board Rules do not have a reasonable potential to join with the Impacts of any other Project to cause, add to, or constitute significant adverse Cumulative Impacts.

A. Introduction, TECHNICAL RULE ADDENDUM NO. 2 o Added a cross reference to 14 CCR § 912.9 [932.9, 952.9] (c) in the second

paragraph to facilitate the regulated public in their navigation to the resource subjects to be considered in the assessment of Cumulative Impacts.

o Duplicated part of the definition of “Cumulative Impacts” from 14 CCR § 15355 to minimize the need of the regulated public to have to cross reference the Guidelines for CEQA for a ubiquitously used term.

o Added reference to “14 CCR § 15130(b)(1)(A).” to facilitate the regulated public in their navigation to the source of the requirement that the RPF must distinguish between the potential on-site impacts of the Plan’s proposed activities with impacts of Past Projects and Reasonably Foreseeable Probable Future Projects”.

B. Identification of Assessment Areas, TECHNICAL RULE ADDENDUM NO. 2 o Replaced “resource” with “assessment”, to achieve consistency with the

term used in 14 CCR § 912.9 [932.9, 952.9] and to circumvent the introduction of a new term.

o Deleted “geographic” for consistency, since the use of assessment area has been regular and geographic assessment area has not.

o Deleted “to be assessed” for efficiency. o Added “each established assessment area” for clarity.

C. Identification of Information Sources, TECHNICAL RULE ADDENDUM NO. 2 o Moved what is now the first sentence from deeper in the provision because

it serves as an essential opening statement given that it captures the purpose of identifying information sources.

o Moved and modified what is now the last sentence of the second paragraph, which was initially positioned deep within the provision, to

12/05/2017 FULL 8 (b)(1) ISOR Page 14 of 21

bundle it with other sources of information for better organization and to accentuate that a survey of adjacent landowners is encouraged, and may be required by the Department, to identify past, and future land management activities and significant adverse environmental Impacts on adjacent ownerships.

o Deleted “As provided in Section 898 of the rules, the RPF or supervised designee and the plan submitter must consult information sources that are reasonably available” for efficiency because this requirement is in the introduction to Technical Rule Addendum No. 2

preamble, Appendix o Added a cross reference to 14 CCR § 912.9 [932.9, 952.9] (c) to facilitate

the regulated public in their navigation to the resource subjects to be considered in the assessment of Cumulative Impacts.

Watershed Resources, Appendix o Moved and modified what is now the third, fourth and fifth sentences of the

first paragraph, all of which were initially positioned deeper within the provision, for better organization, better flow and to accentuate the subject matter they contain.

o Deleted the list of watershed Effects to minimize duplication, because the watershed effects are provided further in the provision with their description.

Soil Productivity, Appendix o Deleted the list of primary factors influencing soil productivity (that can be

affected by Timber Operations) to minimize duplication, because the primary factors are provided further in the provision with their description.

Biological Resources, Appendix o Moved what is now the first sentence from deeper in the provision because

it serves as a suitable opening statement. o Deleted the list of significant factors to consider regarding biological

habitat condition to minimize duplication, because the factors are provided further in the provision with their description.

10. Eliminated erroneous references (e.g. 14 CCR § 1034). 11. Updated references, particularly in 895 and 895.1.

12/05/2017 FULL 8 (b)(1) ISOR Page 15 of 21

TECHNICAL, THEORETICAL, AND/OR EMPIRICAL STUDY, REPORT, OR SIMILAR DOCUMENT RELIED UPON (pursuant to GOV SECTION 11346.2(b)(3)) The Board of Forestry and Fire Protection relied on the following list of technical, theoretical, and/or empirical studies, reports or similar documents to develop the proposed action.

1. Excerpts from Public Resources Code (PRC), 2017: §§ 4512, 4512.5, 4513, 4526, 4551, 4551.5, 4553, 4562, 4562.5, 4562.7, 4582.5, 5093.50, 21000(g), 21001 (f), 21080.4, 21080.5, 21083.01(a), 21083.05, and § 21081.

2. Excerpts from Water Code, 2017: § 100

3. Excerpts from Fish and Game Code, 2017: § 5650(c)

4. Excerpts from California Code of Regulations Title 14(14 CCR), 2017: §§ 895.1 912.9 [932.9, and 952.9], 15183 et seq, 15130 et seq, and 15126 et seq.

5. Excerpts from California Code of Regulations Title 14(14 CCR), 1991: § 895.1

6. Excerpts from California Code of Regulations Title 14(14 CCR), 1992: § 895.1

7. State Board of Forestry and Fire Protection: The 2008 Strategic Plan and Report to the California Air Resources Board on Meeting AB 32 Forestry Sector Targets, October 2008

8. Senate Floor Analysis of Senate Bill 97, prepared August 22, 2007

9. Senate Committee on Natural Resources and Water Legislative Analysis of

Assembly Bill 1504, prepared by Bill Craven on June 17, 2010

10. Senate Committee on Natural Resources and Water Legislative Analysis of Assembly Bill 1504, prepared by Jessica Westbrook on January 27, 2010

11. Senate Committee on Natural Resources and Water Legislative Analysis of

Senate Bill 1241, prepared by Bill Craven on March 27, 2012

12. Senate Governance and Finance Committee Legislative Analysis of Senate Bill 1241, prepared by Kehoe on April 10, 2012

13. Natural Resources Agency, CEQA Guidelines, amended December 1, 2016

14. Bergman et al. The Carbon Impacts of Wood Products. Forest Products Society, May 2014

12/05/2017 FULL 8 (b)(1) ISOR Page 16 of 21

15. Bill Stewart, What Carbon to Count? January 2015 Board Presentation

16. Dr. John Battles, California Forest and Rangeland Greenhouse Gas Inventory Development, January 2015 Board Presentation

17. Supplemental Instructions For Completing The Timber Harvesting Plan (THP) Form Memo (8/04) (2.7MB PDF) http://calfire.ca.gov/resource_mgt/downloads/SuppInstcompTHPmemo8_2_04.pdf,

18. California Natural Resources Agency Initial Statement of Reasons for Regulatory Action, Proposed Amendments to the State CEQA Guidelines Addressing Analysis and Mitigation of Greenhouse Gas Emissions Pursuant to SB97 http://resources.ca.gov/ceqa/docs/Initial_Statement_of_Reasons.pdf

19. Health and Safety Code – HSC Division 25.5. California Global Warming Solutions Act Of 2006 (Ab 32) [38500 - 38599] (Relevant Provisions Only)

20. GHG calculator link

21. FPC 1.2 THP Greenhouse Gas Emissions Calculator User Guide

22. Excerpts from rulemaking file 137: B.9.

23. FPC 1.1 Staff Report_Turbidity in TRA #2_9_30_14

24. FPC 1.0 Cumies Staff Scoping Memo 11_14

25. FPC 1.1 Cumulative Effects Review Concept DFW 10_14_14

26. Mark Rosenberg, FRAP, update on the AB 1504 process. FULL 17.C Rosenberg Briefing BOF 1-28-15_final

12/05/2017 FULL 8 (b)(1) ISOR Page 17 of 21

DESCRIPTION OF EFFORTS TO AVOID UNNECESSARY DUPLICATION OR CONFLICT WITH THE CODE OF FEDERAL REGULATION (pursuant to GOV § 11346.2(b)(6) The Code of Federal Regulations has been reviewed and based on this research, the Board found that the proposed action neither conflicts with, nor duplicates Federal regulations. There are no comparable Federal regulations for timber harvesting on State or private lands. POSSIBLE SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS AND MITIGATIONS CEQA requires review, evaluation and environmental documentation of potential significant environmental impacts from a qualified Project. Pursuant to the case law, the review and processing of Plans has been found to be a Project under CEQA. Additionally, the Board’s rulemaking process is a certified regulatory program having been certified by the Secretary of Resources as meeting the requirements of PRC § 21080.5. While certified regulatory programs are excused from certain procedural requirements of CEQA, they must nevertheless follow CEQA's substantive requirements, including PRC § 21081. Under PRC § 21081, a decision making agency is prohibited from approving a Project for which significant environmental effects have been identified unless it makes specific findings about alternatives and mitigation measures Further, pursuant to PRC § 21080.5(d)(2)(B), guidelines for the orderly evaluation of proposed activities and the preparation of the Plan or other written documentation in a manner consistent with the environmental protection purposes of the regulatory program are required by the proposed action and existing rules. The proposed action would be an added element to the State’s comprehensive Forest Practice Program under which all commercial timber harvest activities are regulated. Board Rules which have been developed to address potential impacts to forest resources, including both individual and cumulative impacts, project specific mitigations along with the Department oversight (of rule compliance) function expressly to prevent the potential for significant adverse environmental effects. Specifically, Plans contain a mix of project relevant avoidance and mitigation measures to reduce the risk for potential significant adverse effects. After considering the rules of the Board and any mitigation measures proposed in the Plan, the RPF must indicate whether the operation would have any significant adverse impact on the environment. The cumulative impacts assessment, which is made more robust through the proposed action, is the essential mechanism to determine the significance of impacts to aid in the RPF’s avoidance and mitigation measure development. Successively, state representatives review every Plan to a determine if a Project will have a significant adverse impact environmental impact. Prior to making a decision of

12/05/2017 FULL 8 (b)(1) ISOR Page 18 of 21

approval or denial, the review team (the Director) often supplements the information provided by the RPF and the plan submitter when necessary to ensure that all relevant information is considered. The review team (the Director) has broad discretion to request the necessary information be provided to the Department and responsible agencies to facilitate review and development of appropriate mitigation measures to ensure that the Project will not cause a significant adverse environmental impact. Local and federal agency representatives are also involved in the review process. Pursuant to 14 CCR § 896(a), it is the Board's intent that no Plan shall be approved which fails to adopt feasible mitigation measures or alternatives from the range of measures set out or provided for in Board rules which would substantially lessen or avoid significant adverse impacts which the activity may have on the environment Once Plans are approved, state representatives continue with compliance inspections of approved Plans until the conclusion of the Plan’s lifespan. Where Board Rules or approved Plan provisions have been violated, specified corrective and/or punitive enforcement measures, including but not limited to financial penalties, are imposed upon the identified offender(s). In summary, the proposed action does not have the potential to result in significant adverse environmental effects. REASONABLE ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD, IF ANY, INCLUDING THE FOLLOWING AND THE BOARD’S REASONS FOR REJECTING THOSE ALTERNATIVES (pursuant to GOV § 11346.2(b)(4)(A) and (B)):

• ALTERNATIVES THAT WOULD LESSEN ANY ADVERSE IMPACTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND/OR

• ALTERNATIVES THAT ARE LESS BURDENSOME AND EQUALLY EFFECTIVE IN ACHIEVING THE PURPOSES OF THE REGULATION IN A MANNER THAT ENSURES FULL COMPLIANCE WITH THE AUTHORIZING STATUTE OR OTHER LAW BEING IMPLEMENTED OR MADE SPECIFIC BY THE PROPOSED REGULATION

Pursuant to 14 CCR § 15252 (a)(2)(B), alternatives are not required because these regulations will not have any significant or potentially significant effects on the environment. Additionally, pursuant to 14 CCR § 1142(c), the discussion (of alternatives) may be limited to alternatives which would avoid the significant adverse environmental effects of the proposal. Consequently, the alternatives provided herein are provided pursuant to the APA (GOV §§ 11346.2(b)(4) and 11346.9(a)) exclusively. The Board has considered the following alternatives and rejected all but the “Proposed Action Alternative”. Alternative #1: No Action

12/05/2017 FULL 8 (b)(1) ISOR Page 19 of 21

The Board considered taking no action, but the no action alternative was rejected because it would not address the problem. The Board rejected this alternative in favor of addressing the substantive provisions of CEQA, specifically fire hazard impacts and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, and providing corresponding guidance. Additionally, given that climate change and forest condition have exacerbated wildfire damage and that there are now more wildfires that are larger in size and more intense, the Board is further propelled, at this time, to require an assessment of Wildfire Risk and Hazard. The Board also rejected this alternative to regulate assessment of cumulative impacts in a manner specifically guided by Board Rules. Finally, the Board rejected this alternative in favor of updating the guidance and introducing additional clarity regarding what is enforceable and what is guidance. Alternative #2: Take Action to Make the Regulation and Corresponding Guidelines More Prescriptive This alternative would make the regulation and corresponding guidelines more prescriptive. The Board rejected making the regulation and corresponding guidelines more prescriptive (to determine the significance of the environmental effects that have the potential to be caused by the Project) in recognition of the rapidly evolving understanding of these resource subjects and how best to assess them in the context of a Project, on both an individual and cumulative basis. The Board also rejected this alternative in recognition of the diversity in timberland, management, and mitigations; to allow the final level of assessment to be developed by the RPF during Plan preparation and by the review team (the Director) during Plan review. The Board recognized that a “one size fits all” collection of prescriptive standards may not be optimal in all circumstances. Further, this alternative does not provide enough flexibility for the RPF during Plan preparation and for the review team (the Director) during Plan review to meet the statutory requirements in alternative ways that are more site-specific and at least as effective in implementing the statute or other provision of law. Alternative #3: Proposed Action Alternative The Board accepted the “Proposed Action” alternative to address the problem and represents a product based upon compromise and the greatest degree of consensus achievable at the time the Board authorized noticing of the proposed action. Public and agency representatives have reviewed the proposed action and provided input, which is reflected in the proposed action. The proposed action is the most cost-efficient, equally or more effective, and less burdensome alternative. Alternatives 1 and 2 would not be more effective or equally effective while being less burdensome or impact fewer small businesses than the

12/05/2017 FULL 8 (b)(1) ISOR Page 20 of 21

proposed action. Specifically, Alternatives 1 and 2 would not be less burdensome and equally effective in achieving the purposes of the regulation in a manner that ensures full compliance with the authorizing statute or other law being implemented or made specific by the proposed regulation than the proposed action. Additionally, Alternatives 1 and 2 would not be more effective in carrying out the purpose for which the action is proposed and would be as effective and less burdensome to affected private persons than the proposed action, or would be more cost-effective to affected private persons and equally effective in implementing the statutory policy or other provision of law than the proposed action. Further, none of the Alternatives would have any adverse impact on small business. Small businesses means independently owned and operated, not dominant in their field of operations and having annual gross receipts less than $1,000,000. Prescriptive Standards versus Performance Based Standards (pursuant to GOV §§11340.1(a), 11346.2(b)(1) and 11346.2(b)(4)(A)): The regulation does not mandate the use of specific technologies or equipment, but does prescribe specific actions or procedures. The proposed action is, in fact, a mix of performance based and prescriptive standards as is the entire Board Rules. Performance standards were considered in lieu of the prescriptive standards (that constitute the proposed action) however, the increasing of performance based standards was not reasonably expected to be as effective and less burdensome. Alternative #3 is preferred for the reasons described above and the rationales for individual provisions serves as the explanation for why a standard, if required to be prescriptive, is prescriptive. ECONOMIC IMPACT ANALYSIS (pursuant to GOV § 11346.3(b)(1)(A)-(D) and provided pursuant to 11346.3(a)(3)) The effect of this proposed action is regulation and commensurate guidance to determine the significance of impacts from GHG emissions and determine wildfire risk and hazard and to a certain extent to update the existing 30 year old guidance including providing additional clarity between requirements and guidance. The types of entities that will have to be responsive to the proposed action are businesses, including small businesses, and individuals that prepare Plans. However, there will not be any significant net cost increase in the Plan preparation process for these entities because these entities already submit GHG analyses with their Plans and many address fire risk and hazard in their Plans. The consequence of the proposed action is that these assessments will be guided by Board Rules, which, for these entities, will result in a redirection of effort already expended by the RPF preparing the Plan. For entities not already addressing fire risk and hazard in their Plans, the additional expense is not anticipated to be significant. The primary benefit of the proposed action is a more clear and standardized Plan preparation and review process that maintains transparency for the Director of the

12/05/2017 FULL 8 (b)(1) ISOR Page 21 of 21

Department, other agencies and the regulated public. However, the proposed action is not expected to result in an increase in the openness and transparency in business and government. Additionally, the proposed action through aligning the existing environmental statutes, and regulations, specifically PRC §§ 21083.01 and 21083.05 (pursuant to SB1241 and SB97, respectively) and Guidelines for CEQA in 14 CCR § 15064.4, which are intended to minimize environmental impacts, may result in improvements to environmental quality. However, at a minimum, the level of protective effect upon the environment will not be reduced as a result of the proposed action. Further, the proposed action may improve the health and welfare of California residents and worker safety, by way of better planning, through guidance to determine wildfire risk and hazard in the current context that California will continue to experience large and damaging wildfires that threaten people’s lives and destroy homes. Finally, the proposed action is not expected to have an effect on the prevention of discrimination, or the promotion of fairness or social equity. Summary The proposed action:

(A) will not create jobs within California; (A) will not eliminate jobs within California; (B) will not create new businesses; (B) will not eliminate existing businesses within California; (C) will not affect the expansion or contraction of businesses currently doing

business within California. (D) may yield nonmonetary benefits.

Business Reporting Requirement (Pursuant to GC § 11346.5(a)(11) and GC § 11346.3(d)) The proposed regulation does not require a business reporting requirement. FACTS, EVIDENCE, DOCUMENTS, TESTIMONY, OR OTHER EVIDENCE RELIED UPON TO SUPPORT INITIAL DETERMINATION IN THE NOTICE THAT THE PROPOSED ACTION WILL NOT HAVE A SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE ECONOMIC IMPACT ON BUSINESS (pursuant to GOV § 11346.2(b)(5)) The proposed action will not have a significant statewide adverse economic impact directly affecting business, including the ability of California businesses to compete with other states (by making it more costly to produce goods or services in California). Pursuant to GOV § 11346.5(a)(8), the agency shall provide in the record facts, evidence, documents, testimony, or other evidence upon which the agency relies to support this initial determination:

• Contemplation by the Board of the economic impact of the provisions of the proposed action through the lens of the decades of experience practicing forestry in California that the Board brings to bear on regulatory development.