Interpretation of California Forest Practice Rules in the Context of the Climate Action Reserve’s Preliminary Guidance on Forest Protocol Version 3.1, Section 188.8.131.52
Discussions between California landowners, environmental groups, the Climate Action Reserve, and government agencies have focused on the nature of legal requirements under California’s Forest Practice Rules and how they should be interpreted for the purposes of determining a baseline for forest projects under the Climate Action Reserve’s Forest Protocol (FP). Specifically, the question is whether the California Forest Practice Rules’ requirements related to Maximum Sustained Production of High Quality Wood Products (14 CCR 913.11 (933.11, 953.11)) should be considered a “legal constraint” on the baseline for improved forest management projects, as specified in Section 184.108.40.206 of the FP Version 3.1.
Final Proposed Revisions
Reserve staff proposed clarifications and amendments to Section 6.2.1 and 220.127.116.11 of the Forest Protocol Version 3.1, taking into consideration the public comments received on the Reserve draft guidance and alternative proposal (see below).
Staff Response to Comments on Final Proposed Revisions
Reserve staff responded to public comments received on the proposed amendments to the baseline determination guidance (released June 24, 2010). The summary document is available below.
Staff Response to Public Comments on Revised Baseline Guidance (August 20, 2010)
Public Comments on the Reserve Final Proposed Revisions
The Climate Action Reserve staff drafted preliminary guidance that would require treating Maximum Sustained Production (MSP) plans filed with the California Department of Forestry and Fire (CalFIRE) as a “legal constraint.” Under this guidance, project proponents would have to model a baseline growth and harvest regime that reflects the same mix of silviculture and management intensity used in the MSP document.
DRAFT Preliminary Guidance on California MSP Requirements (February 24, 2010)
The Reserve received one alternative proposal for the interpretation and application of legal requirements under California’s Forest Practice Rules. This proposal was presented and discussed at the March 18, 2010 workshop.
- PFT Comments in Support of Alternative Proposal
- California Forestry Association et al. Comments in Support of PFT Proposal
Staff Response to Comments on Draft Guidance and Alternative Proposal
Reserve staff responded to public comments received on the Reserve draft guidance and the alternative proposal. The summary document is available below.
Public Comments on the Reserve Draft Guidance and Alternative Proposal
|Augustus Kent||Kelly Conner|
|Center for Biological Diversity||Nicholas Kent|
|Center for Biological Diversity – Supplemental||Paul Harper|
|C. F. Landenberger||Roseburg Resources Co.|
|Dennis Possehn||Stan and Roxanna Leach|
|Forester’s Co-Op||The Green Firm|
Previously Received Public Comments on the Interpretation of California’s Forest Practice Rules
|California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE)||Equator LLC|
|California Forestry Association||Forest Protocol Workgroup|
|California Farm Bureau Federation||Kent & Associates|
|Forest Landowners of California||North Coast Resource Management|
The Reserve heard from a number of stakeholders regarding the interpretation of California’s Forest Practice Rules and held a public workshop to bring stakeholders, the public, and the Reserve together to fully examine and understand this issue. The workshop took place on Thursday, March 18, 2010 at the California EPA Building in Sacramento. Workshop materials can be found below.
Please contact the Reserve with questions or comments.