Fire on the Mountain: Rethinking Forest Management in the Sierra Nevada

Fire on the Mountain: Rethinking Forest Management in the Sierra Nevada Report #242, February 2018 Milton Marks Commission on California State Government Organization and Economy Little Hoover Commission Dedicated to Promoting Economy and Efficiency Pedro Nava Chairman/Subcommittee Member in California State Government Sean Varner Vice Chairman The Little Hoover Commission, formally known as the Milton Marks “Little Hoover” David Beier Commission on California State Government Organization and Economy, is an Iveta Brigis independent state oversight agency. Anthony Cannella Senator By statute, the Commission is a bipartisan board composed of five public members appointed by the governor, four public members appointed by the Legislature, two Joshua LaFarga senators and two assemblymembers. Chad Mayes Assemblymember In creating the Commission in 1962, the Legislature declared its purpose: Don Perata Bill Quirk ...to secure assistance for the Governor and itself in promoting Assemblymember economy, efficiency and improved services in the transaction of Richard Roth the public business in the various departments, agencies and Senator instrumentalities of the executive branch of the state government, Janna Sidley and in making the operation of all state departments, agencies and Subcommitee Chair instrumentalities, and all expenditures of public funds, more directly Helen Iris Torres responsive to the wishes of the people as expressed by their elected representatives... Former Commissioners Who Served During The Study The Commission fulfills this charge by listening to the public, consulting with Scott Barnett the experts and conferring with the wise. In the course of its investigations, the Jack Flanigan Commission typically empanels advisory committees, conducts public hearings and visits government operations in action. Sebastian Ridley-Thomas Assemblymember Its conclusions are submitted to the Governor and the Legislature for their Jonathan Shapiro consideration. Recommendations often take the form of legislation, which the Commission Staff Commission supports through the legislative process. Terri Hardy Executive Director (A) Krystal Beckham Project Manager Contacting the Commission Julissa Delgado Research Analyst All correspondence should be addressed to the Commission Office: Imran Majid Research Analyst Little Hoover Commission 925 L Street, Suite 805, Sherry McAlister Sacramento, CA 95814 Adminstrative Analyst (916) 445-2125 Kunal Jhaveri [email protected] Intern In Memoriam This report is available from the Commission’s website at www.lhc.ca.gov. Carole D’Elia Executive Director With Gratitude To Jim Wasserman Deputy Executive Director Ciana Gallardo Research Analyst In Loving Memory of Carole Jean D’Elia Executive Director, 2013-2017 An extraordinary leader, public servant, mentor and friend This page has been intentionally left blank. Letter From The Chair February 5, 2018 The Honorable Kevin de León The Honorable Patricia Bates President pro Tempore of the Senate Senate Minority Leader and members of the Senate The Honorable Anthony Rendon The Honorable Brian Dahle Speaker of the Assembly Assembly Minority Leader and members of the Assembly Dear Governor and Members of the Legislature, A century of mismanaging Sierra Nevada forests has brought an unprecedented environmental catastrophe that impacts all Californians – and with it, a rare opportunity for transforma• onal culture change in forest management prac• ces. The opportunity should not be lost. Proac• ve forest management prac• ces recommended by the Commission gradually will rebuild healthy high-country forests that store more water, resist new insect infesta• ons and check the speed and intensity of wild• res. Inves• ng upfront to create these healthier forests will pay dividends in the long run by curbing the spiraling costs of state • re• gh• ng and tree removal while building stronger recrea• on and spor• ng economies in the Sierra Nevada. Forests largely restored to the less crowded natural condi• ons of centuries ago – through greater use of prescribed burning to replace unilateral policies of • re suppression and mechanical thinning to remove buildup of forest fuels – also will improve wildlife habitat, enhance environmental quality and add to the resilience of mountain landscapes amidst the uncertain• es of climate change. The immediate crisis is visible to anyone who recently has traveled in the Sierra Nevada, especially in its southern range where en• re mountainsides are brown with dying and dead forests. A plague of bark beetles following years of drought has killed 129 million trees and coun• ng. Rural coun• es are reeling from costs of removing and storing dead trees that threaten their public safety. Rural homeowners, o• en re• red and on • xed incomes, are having to tap their life savings to take down dead trees near homes and buildings. On a larger scale, state government, too, is spending millions of dollars to remove dead trees near highways and other public infrastructure. State and federal • re• gh• ng costs have risen year by year to ba• le catastrophic wild• res during a lengthening • re season on millions of acres of the state’s dense, overgrown forests. California’s public- and investor-owned energy providers are budge• ng emergency funds to remove dead and dying trees near power lines. Water districts are spending their reserves to remove soils from reservoirs in the wake of catastrophic mountain wild• res. All these are symptoms of a larger problem of forest mismanagement and neglect. The Commission spent a year reviewing crisis condi• ons in Sierra Nevada forests and listening to suggested remedies. During three Letter From The Chair | 1 hearings, an advisory commi• ee mee• ng and visits to mountain communi• es, Commissioners heard extensive tes• mony and a wide range of views from government agencies and stakeholders about this environmental disaster and the encouraging developing consensus around policy changes that will begin to resolve it. The obstacles to progress are daun• ng and tremendously complex, however. The federal government owns nearly 60 percent of the forests that cover one-third of California, which complicates a state response to the immediate crisis and plans for longer-term solu• ons. Many of the biomass facili• es that might have burned millions of dead trees for energy genera• on have closed or are closing. A century of • re suppression remains • rmly entrenched within federal and state • re• gh• ng agencies and has le# forest $ oors deep in $ ammable groundcover. Plans for prescribed burning to rid the forests of dense groundcover o# en clash with regional air quality regula• ons, even as emissions from catastrophic wild• res nullify hard- fought carbon reduc• on accomplishments. Finally, familiar old divisions between the • mber industry and environmentalists hinder policy goals to thin overgrown forests to their original condi• ons. The Commission is encouraged by the state’s ac• ons to date. Governor Brown’s Tree Mortality Task Force, established in November 2015, has received high marks for coordina• ng 80 state, federal, tribal and local agencies, u• lity companies, nonpro• t organiza• ons and other stakeholders in a uni• ed response. The Commission recommends that the task force evolve beyond the immediate bark beetle crisis into a long- term forest management en• ty with funding to guide a transforma• on in managing Sierra forests that incorporates transparency and accountability. The Commission also is encouraged by the state’s legal authority to treat and thin federal forests in coopera• on with U.S. agencies. Growing coopera• on between the state and federal governments bodes well for the necessary transforma• on in how both will manage their public forests. Success will require willingness over the course of years to invest more for proac• ve forest management, including greater use of prescribed burning, and less reliance on reac• ve • re• gh• ng. It especially will depend on enhancing public awareness of the role of Sierra Nevada forests in the wellbeing of California. The Commission respec% ully submits these • ndings and recommenda• ons and looks forward to assis• ng you for healthy forests in California. Pedro Nava Chair , Li• le Hoover Commission 2 | Little Hoover Commission Contents 6 Executive Summary 10 Introduction Study Scope ............................................................................................................................ 10 The Commission’s Prior Work on the Subject ............................................................... 10 Study Process ......................................................................................................................... 11 Report Format ........................................................................................................................ 11 12 The Tree Mortality Crisis as an Introduction to Forest Management in California The Tree Mortality Crisis: 129 Million Trees Dead… and Coun• ng ........................................ 12 How We Arrived Here: Policy + Drought + Bark Beetle .................................................. 12 Fire Suppression Led to Overcrowding, Less Forest Diversity ................................ 12 Historic Drought ..................................................................................................... 14 Enter the Bark Beetle ............................................................................................. 14 The Local Impact ...................................................................................................................

Load more