JOINT POLICIES
CALIFORNIA STATE BOARD OF FORESTRY AND THE CALIFORNIA FISH AND GAME COMMISSION
JOINT POLICY STATEMENT ON PACIFIC SALMON AND ANADROMOUS TROUTReturn
The Fish and Game Commission (Commission) and the Board of Forestry and Fire Protection (Board) find that the four species of Pacific salmon and anadromous trout found in California streams, including chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha), coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch), steelhead trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss), and coastal cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarkii) are vitally important ecological and economic resources in California.
The Commission and the Board also find that there is considerable scientific, commercial, and public concern over the decline of chinook salmon, coho salmon, steelhead trout, and coastal cutthroat trout in California. The goal of the Commission and the Board is to recover harvestable salmon and steelhead populations, restore watersheds, and so contribute to building healthy communities. Several actions have been taken by the State and the federal government to provide legal protective status for many Pacific salmon and anadromous trout. Under the California Endangered Species Act, the Commission listed Sacramento River winter-run chinook as endangered in September 1989, coho salmon south of San Francisco Bay as endangered in December 1995, Sacramento River spring-run chinook salmon as threatened in February 1999, and coho salmon north of San Francisco Bay as a candidate species in April 2001.
Under the Federal Endangered Species Act, the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) listed coho salmon in the Central California coast as threatened in December 1996, coho salmon in the Southern Oregon/Northern California coasts as threatened in June 1997, Sacramento River winter-run chinook salmon as threatened in August 1989 and endangered in January 1994, Central Valley spring-run chinook as threatened in November 1999, California Coastal chinook salmon as threatened in November 1999, Southern California steelhead trout as endangered in October 1997, South-Central California Coast steelhead trout as threatened in October 1997, Central California Coast steelhead trout as threatened in October 1997, Central Valley California steelhead trout as threatened in May 1998, and Northern California steelhead trout as threatened in August 2000.
I. Therefore, the Commission and Board adopt the following joint policy for the Department of Fish and Game and the Department of Forestry and Fire:
A. The departments shall be guided by the understanding that it is the desire of the State of California to: 1) recover Pacific salmon and anadromous trout populations to viable self-sustaining levels; 2) maintain wild populations where they exist; 3) restore populations where feasible; 4) sustain the human uses that depend on them; and 5) ultimately allow for delisting.
B. The departments shall actively cooperate with each other and with other state and federal agencies, private landowners, academic institutions and the public to craft comprehensive multi-species recovery strategies and plans for coastal and Central Valley Pacific salmon and anadromous trout populations and their habitats in coordination with the NMFS and the United States Fish and Wildlife Service;
C. The departments shall develop a coast-wide watershed assessment program and seek funding to implement such a program consistent with the goals and objectives of the assessment program. One goal of this program shall be a GIS database for managing and analyzing population and habitat data. Information collected as part of this program for resource management purposes shall be made available to the public. This program should result in a scientifically sound monitoring program for determining fish population and habitat status and trends;
D. Existing salmon habitat shall not be diminished or have its recovery impeded by land use activities without offsetting the impacts caused by these activities. All feasible steps shall be taken to protect habitat and facilitate habitat recovery. The Board and Commission shall oppose any project which will result in the irreplaceable loss of fish, the net loss of fish habitat and/or impede the recovery of populations and habitat. Artificial production shall not be considered as appropriate mitigation for loss of wild fish or their habitat; and
E. In accordance with the California Endangered Species Act (CESA) and Fish and Game Code Sections 2050 et seq., the departments shall take appropriate action to prevent or mitigate any project that will result in the unauthorized take of Sacramento River winter-run chinook, Sacramento River spring-run chinook, coho salmon south of San Francisco Bay, coho salmon north of San Francisco Bay or any other Pacific salmon or anadromous trout species that subsequently becomes a candidate or listed under the CESA.
II. In addition, the Commission specifically charges the Department of Fish and Game (DFG) with the following:
A. DFG shall continue to implement the Salmonid Restoration Grant program (SB 271) and other assigned programs consistent with the availability of annual funding, and the Commission acknowledges that SB 271 cannot guarantee instream flows or "safeguard" habitat from additional damages to watershed processes stemming from past land use practices. SB 271 funding can help to restore past damages and start to plan for watershed-scale restoration activities.
B. DFG should continue to use its Watershed Academy for education and outreach. The Watershed Academy should be available statewide to any interested persons provided that there is adequate funding;
C. DFG shall continue to review timber harvesting plans based on authorized annual appropriation of funds and, when appropriate, recommend 1) measures which will prevent or mitigate adverse impacts upon salmon and steelhead habitat, and 2) measures that will facilitate recovery of populations and habitat;
D. DFG shall continue to provide an active liaison to the Board and the Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CDF) based on authorized annual appropriations of funds on issues related to timber harvest practices and fire protection on habitats occupied by Pacific salmon and anadromous trout;
E. In the event of disagreement over implementation of this policy with CDF, the DFG shall inform the Commission of the disagreement; and
F. Annually, DFG will include a statement in the Director's report to the Commission addressing the status of implementation of this policy and of Pacific salmon and anadromous trout resources.
III. The Board directs Board staff and the Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CDF) as follows:
A. Administer CDF programs consistent with this policy statement;
B. Provide support to the Watershed Academy, consistent with the extent that it is directed at programs and activities that are funded, permitted, or carried out by CDF.
C. Evaluate the desirability of preparing supportable listing packages for designating any of the Pacific salmon and anadromous trout individually or as a group as a sensitive species under Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations, Sections 919.12, 939.12, and 959.12, in addition to developing protection measures in other rule sections.
D. Prepare and submit to the Board proposed rules packages consistent with multi-species recovery strategies for protecting Pacific salmon and anadromous trout populations and habitat during timber operations;
E. Until Pacific salmon and anadromous trout multi-species recovery strategies are developed for California, provide particular attention to potential impacts to Pacific salmon and anadromous trout in the THP review process and seek input from the DFG where THPs are submitted for areas containing Pacific salmon and anadromous trout habitats;
F. Consider Pacific salmon and anadromous trout habitat in the context of 1) overall aquatic ecosystem assessment and management in the pilot watershed projects of the Klamath Province, and 2) where the information has been developed, consistent with the direction derived from the North Coast Watershed Assessment Program;
G. In the event of disagreement over implementation of this policy with DFG, the CDF shall inform the Board of the disagreement; and
H. Annually, CDF will report to the Board regarding the status of implementation of this policy and of the Pacific salmon and anadromous trout resources.
Approved:
State Board of Forestry and Fire Protection: August 9, 2001
State Fish and Game Commission: August 23, 2001
INTERIM JOINT POLICY ON PRE, DURING, AND POST FIRE ACTIVITIES AND WILDLIFE HABITAT
PREFIRE
I. INTRODUCTION
A. In California, fuel loads are very high. It is known that hot wildfires can do great damage to habitat. Prefire activities such as vegetation management activities, including both prescribed burning and mechanical approaches, are designed to reduce high fuel loads and in other ways reduce the risk of wildfire. Compared to the damage from uncontrolled wildfire, it is advantageous to use prescribed, more controlled, fires or mechanical methods whenever appropriate. In many places wildlife habitat is already badly fragmented. Accordingly, each unique plant community may have different fire cycles and respond according to appropriately timed prescribed burns. Hence there are conditions under which prescribed fires may be more desirable and other conditions under which such fires may have undesirable effects on plant communities. Within this framework, evaluations should be based on available data, supplemented to the extent feasible with site-specific information and analysis developed within a time frame necessary to carry out vegetation management objectives.
B. Complex habitat interrelationships make prefire species-by-species analysis inefficient and costly. Project-by-project analysis is also expensive and inefficient given wildlife dependence on specific ecosystems that cover larger areas and themselves are spatially interrelated and often fragmented. Within this framework, evaluations of agency prefire programs should be made at the largest geographical scale possible to deal with ecosystem and wildlife interrelationships while taking into account sensitive habitats and species.
C. The fundamental problem complicating effective fire protection in California is the existing and rapidly growing linear distance of the developed/wildland interface within a fire prone ecosystem. This represents a logistical challenge for state and local fire agencies and is also an issue in managing wildland ecosystems to be self-sustaining. Consequently, it is critical that fire protection, including fire prevention, requirements be addressed at the earliest stage feasible in both development planning and in the design and maintenance of wildlife reserves. This should be done through the local community planning process with multidisciplinary representation.
D. Vegetation clearance near residences reduces damage to habitat from fires which originate near the residence. It also provides a defensible space from which to protect residences from wildfires burning from adjacent wildland areas. Hence Public Resources Code Section 4291 requires clearance of up to 100 feet around homes and fire safe regulations emphasize the use of fuel breaks. However, clearance may damage small portions of habitat, such as fragile areas like riparian zones, nesting sites, and rare plant populations. Provision for clearance should be made as part of subdivision or reserve design consistent with state laws and local ordinances. For existing homes, clearance may be an essential part of a fire safe strategy and must be completed, giving care to avoiding, reducing, or mitigating adverse impacts on sensitive plant and wildlife communities.
E. Fire breaks, and to a lesser extent fuel breaks, may exacerbate the fragmentation of sensitive habitat, depending on the location, size, and number of breaks, as well as the method of clearance (ie. discing, mowing, blading, etc.).
II. JOINT POLICY FROM BOARD AND COMMISSION TO THEIR RESPECTIVE DEPARTMENTS
A. The Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CDF) has established a working group and policy task force to review the current vegetation management program; the Department of Fish and Game (DFG) is participating. This review should be completed by late summer and a report should be submitted to the Board and Commission. Until CDF and DFG report to the Board and Commission, the Departments shall follow the Board's existing Vegetation Management Policy.
B. Consistent with this policy, for 1994 and 1995 the Departments shall complete as many vegetation management activities as possible on the urban interface, especially in Southern California. CDF and DFG should facilitate such projects on the highest priority. The Departments shall coordinate existing data and surveys, consult as appropriate with federal wildlife agencies, and assign additional staff as needed to facilitate completion of this task. To the extent feasible given staff, funds, fire season dates, and program time frames, the Departments should seek to obtain additional biological data needed to fill information gaps; however, this charge should not delay implementation of an aggressive vegetation management program.
C. For 1996 and beyond, the Departments shall develop or update a joint (CDF, DFG, and other agencies) five year vegetation management program that delineates proposed activities for this time frame consistent with the goals in the Board of Forestry Fire Plan. This process shall: 1) encourage early consultation between fire management agencies and other wildlife agencies; 2) identify all areas that may be candidates for prescribed fire or other pre-fire activities; and 3) assess the resources at stake and the anticipated effect of prefire activities.
D. The Departments shall aggressively seek to incorporate fire protection requirements for both development and wildlife reserve planning. The Departments should coordinate such efforts and seek to have fire protection issues addressed at the earliest planning stage possible, including integrated planning for management of wildlife habitat and defensible space.
E. Consistent with their statutory mandates, the Departments shall support enforcement of clearance laws and recognize that property owners are legally required to provide clearance around structures as specified in Section 4291 of the Public Resources Code; and that communities in high fire hazard areas need to have an aggressive fire safe program, including clearance and fuel breaks around existing structures. The Departments shall aggressively seek to involve the private sector in assuming greater responsibility for fire prevention.
III. POLICY FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME
A. Prior to the start of fire season, DFG shall meet with and keep CDF informed at the regional level regarding the location of important plant and animal communities and their related ecosystems. To the extent that resources permit, the Department shall provide information regarding the location of the plant and animal communities and related ecosystems. The Department shall report to the Commission at its May meeting on the outcome of the sessions, including any issues that could not be resolved.
IV. POLICY FROM THE BOARD TO THE DEPARTMENT OF FORESTRY AND FIRE PROTECTION
A. Prior to the start of fire season, CDF shall meet with DFG at the regional level and keep them informed of the status of the upcoming fire season, the location of areas where fire hazards are especially great, the availability of fire fighting personnel, and other relevant factors. To the extent feasible, CDF shall incorporate the information into the dispatch and Incident Command System planning information bases and make certain that field personnel are familiar with this information and its application to suppression activities. The Department shall report to the Board at its May meeting on the outcome of the sessions, including any issues that could not be resolved.
DURING FIRE
I. INTRODUCTION
A. Some ecosystems are very fragile to intense fires, such as a backfire at the wrong period of the year, or to mechanical disturbance which may increase erosional events or irreparably damage the habitat integrity. The greatest ability to be sensitive to habitat impacts is in presuppression activities. After a fire starts and increases in size and intensity, options usually decrease. After a fire is contained, options may again increase.
II. JOINT POLICY OF THE BOARD AND COMMISSION TO THEIR RESPECTIVE DEPARTMENTS
A. When there is a conflict between protecting human life and other values, human life should receive top priority. Protection of property, habitat of sensitive, threatened, and endangered species, timber, and watershed values should receive careful consideration in choice of suppression tactics from an integrated values at risk approach consistent with the Board's Fire Plan. The Departments shall work together to facilitate this direction and shall report annually to the Board and Commission on operation of this policy.
B. The Departments shall jointly evaluate during fire activities and report to the Board and Commission at their January meetings.
III. POLICY FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME
A. As part of the Incident Command System (ICS), the Department shall make available a local plant, wildlife, and fisheries specialist during large fires or on burns that threaten important wildlife or plant communities to provide advice.
B. The Department shall train appropriate field personnel in use of the Incident Command System and periodically renew this training.
C. The Department shall work with CDF to identify fire suppression tactics on wildfires that could have long term effects on ecosystems at the regional or local level.
IV. POLICY FROM THE BOARD TO THE DEPARTMENT OF FORESTRY AND FIRE PROTECTION
A. On fires that have the potential to become major fires, CDF's ICS structure shall involve DFG and others as technical specialists to advise the planning section regarding sensitive habitat. In the event that DFG cannot provide appropriate specialists, CDF shall seek alternative specialists as necessary to deal with concerns related to plants, fish, and wildlife.
B. Sensitivity should be taken with fire suppression tactics in some ecosystems, where such activities could harm the long term maintenance of the plant or animal communities. CDF incident commanders shall be aware of and consider the impacts of practices listed by DFG as having potential long term effects on ecosystems.
POST FIRE
I. INTRODUCTION
A. By law, revegetation efforts following wildfire focus on rehabilitating watershed lands to conserve water and soil and to prevent destructive floods. Historically, flood related erosional events have been a major issue. Recent studies suggest that seeding with rye grass may not be particularly effective in slowing erosion, at least in some sites and in some places in California. Seeding with native grasses from outside the local area of the burn has raised questions about contamination of local gene pools. Native grasses may also be more persistent than rye grass and prevent the recovery of the on-site vegetation species; these factors could be especially important in critical wildlife habitat areas. Emergency revegetation work may be necessary, but should be evaluated site-by-site. Cost of native grass seed is a significant factor to be examined. Mechanical and structural methods shall also be considered as they may be an effective and cost efficient way of dealing with erosion control and be less damaging to the ecosystem.
B. Under Sections 4675 and 4676 of the Public Resources Code the CDF is authorized to perform specified acts to protect the public interest, including activities related to watershed rehabilitation. Under the California Environmental Quality Act and various Fish and Game Code sections, DFG is charged with protection of fish and wildlife and related habitat, including viability of habitat following wildfire.
II. JOINT POLICY FROM THE BOARD AND COMMISSION TO THEIR RESPECTIVE DEPARTMENTS
A. Emergency watershed protection are those actions taken to assist in the recovery of the on-site vegetation and to protect downstream values of urban and wildland watersheds from excessive erosion and flooding following wildfire. These actions shall recognize the distinct differences between environmental impacts which are suppression-related and human-caused, and those which are wildfire-related and naturally occurring.
B. Program objectives shall be achieved by utilizing the Incident Command System (ICS) to obtain an evaluation of impacts to a watershed for fires occurring in areas of State Responsibility (SRA). This should be done in such a way to:
1. Keep damage to a minimum during mop-up;
2. Have emergency watershed work initiated during the active suppression stage of the fire and have work completed shortly thereafter but before the first heavy rainfall.
C. Emergency revegetation shall be limited to critical areas as defined by the Departments and should consider long term ecosystem health and processes.
D. Mechanical methods of erosion control shall be considered during the evaluation of emergency watershed work. When revegetation actions are determined to be the most appropriate for the site, efforts shall consider enhancing natural plant recovery and succession. In determining the most appropriate watershed treatment, the long-term protection of the environment shall be evaluated along with the costs and benefits.
E. CDF has established a working group and policy task force, including DFG staff, to review the current watershed rehabilitation program and all available related information. The study, among other things, shall specify appropriate limits to where reseeding can occur and how it should be carried out. The study should be completed prior to the end of the next fire season and reports made to the Board and the Commission.
F. The Departments shall evaluate the effectiveness of their efforts in attaining the intent of this policy and report to the Board and Commission at their May meeting.
III. POLICY FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME
A. The Department shall participate in the development of rehabilitation/watershed work response plans.
B. The Department shall report to the Commission annually on the implementation of this policy, including any areas of disagreement with CDF.
IV. POLICY FROM THE BOARD TO THE DEPARTMENT OF FORESTRY AND FIRE PROTECTION
A. Until the Department completes its study, CDFs current policies shall apply.
B. The Department shall report annually to the Board on the implementation of this policy, including any areas of disagreement with DFG.
C. CDF staff shall advise DFG of rehabilitation efforts and request appropriate staff to participate.
(Adopted 5/9/94)
I. INTRODUCTION
The Fish and Game Commission (Commission) and the State Board of Forestry (Board) find that the hardwood resources on hardwood-rangelands and timberlands of California are a vitally important natural and economic resource.
Over 30 species of hardwood trees in California, including oaks of the genus Quercus, occur widely as individual trees and distinct habitat types throughout the State. Hardwoods themselves and hardwood-dominated habitats are extremely important to the fish, wildlife, and natural resources of California. Hardwoods throughout California support a wide variety of wildlife species by providing habitat with feeding, breeding, cover, and related needs. In addition, some hardwoods benefit fishery resources by preventing the erosion of hillsides and stream banks, moderating water temperatures by shading and contributing nutrients and food-chain organisms to waterways.
Hardwoods also provide substantial worth to landowners in the form of aesthetic, open space, recreational, wood products, range and property values and these same values also provide certain public benefits.
California has grown rapidly in population; homes and recreational use have intensified greatly in many formerly rural areas--including those dominated by hardwoods. Lands have been subdivided and ownerships fragmented. Hence, the Board and Commission have determined that human uses in hardwood habitats, such as development and fuelwood harvesting, have produced controversy related to public impacts to water quality, fish and wildlife, and other resources. The Board and Commission are also concerned about the adequate regeneration of some hardwood species.
The Board and Commission recognize that there are local differences in land use conditions, pressures and patterns, and management goals and practices that affect conservation needs that include, firewood harvest in the northern Sacramento valley and development in Southern California, the San Francisco Bay Area, and the Sierra-Nevada foothills. The Board and Commission also recognize that there is local variation in the hardwood resource between larger geographic areas. This variation should be addressed with an array of management approaches for different hardwood species, wildlife habitats, and vegetative communities.
The Board has been concerned with the impacts of population growth and various associated land uses on hardwood resources since 1981. The Commission has had a hardwoods policy since 1985. In 1987, the Board, the Commission, the Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CDF), the Department of Fish and Game (DFG), and University of California Cooperative Extension started an Integrated Hardwood Range Management Program designed to provide for research, education, and monitoring of the hardwood resource. This program has received the support of landowners, governmental agencies, and the public. Since its inception, substantial research and educational efforts have taken place.
In May of 1993, the Board reviewed the results of the Integrated Hardwood Range Program to see if it was accomplishing its goals. This review took place after complaints of the impact of firewood harvesting in a few Northern Sacramento Valley counties and the continued development of hardwood lands in other parts of the state. The Board reviewed the need for statewide regulation of hardwoods and decided that such controls are not warranted at this time. Rather the Board opted for a renewed effort to encourage local government and citizens to design strategies that will address local hardwood management and conservation. Should this fail, the Board, in consultation with the Commission, Department of Fish and Game, Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, Integrated Hardwood Range Management Program, the Range Management Advisory Committee and any interested parties, will examine the need for statewide legislation and take regulatory action, if necessary, to control harvesting and conversion of hardwood-rangelands using existing statutes.
II. JOINT POLICY OF BOARD AND COMMISSION FOR THEIR RESPECTIVE DEPARTMENTS
The Board and the Commission recognize the need to work together to provide for a unified policy for California's hardwood resource. To this end, the following joint policy is established for CDF and DFG:
A. The hardwood resources of California should be managed for the long-term perpetuation of their local and broader geographic representation and to continue to provide for their inherent natural and biological values and processes. These values and processes may include, but are not limited to, regeneration, plant species composition, vegetation structure and age class distribution, water quality, and other biotic and abiotic resources. Management should also address soil resources, air quality, rangeland improvement practices, recreational opportunities, and other benefits. Consistent with such conservation of the hardwood resource, state and local incentive policies should be designed to promote ecological viability as well as economic return from hardwood resource management.
B. The Board and the Commission support continued implementation of the Integrated Hardwood Range Management Program.
C. The Board and Commission support the desire of local government to be able to utilize their expertise in selecting locally appropriate conservation options and encourage them to seek early project review by Departmental personnel.
D. If issues related to hardwood conservation cross county lines, the Board and Commission will encourage multicounty and local approaches and if necessary will provide for assessment, information, and suggested standards. As appropriate, the Board and Commission will encourage collection of data that can assist local government in addressing issues related to hardwoods and which can be aggregated to provide information across larger geographic areas or statewide.
E. To the extent that agency staff are involved with hardwoods, the Board and Commission adopt the following joint policies for their respective Departments:
1. Departmental personnel should be guided by the position that hardwood harvesting and other land uses should be conducted in a sustainable manner which secures regeneration of all hardwood species, enhances the protection of fish, wildlife and plants of hardwood habitats, allows adequate recruitment of other native vegetation in hardwood habitats and meets state and federal water quality standards. The Departments should also consider private landowners goals, property rights, and community economics.
2. Department personnel should cooperate with other state and federal agencies, local governments, University of California Cooperative Extension and other academic programs, non-profit organizations, landowners, groups representing landowners, and the public to provide for necessary research, information, and education programs related to hardwoods;
3. In cooperation with the Integrated Hardwood Range Management Program and Private landowner, Departmental personnel should jointly establish a process, which includes both satellite imagery and ground checking, to monitor the status of the hardwood resource, to examine the effectiveness of local policies with respect to hardwoods, and to evaluate the performance of the Integrated Hardwood Range Management Program; staff should report annually, in joint session, to the Commission and the Board.
III. JOINT PROGRAM REVIEW
The Board and Commission will meet periodically to review implementation of this policy and to clarify and resolve issues that arise from overlapping interests of their respective departments.
IV. SPECIFIC POLICY FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME
In addition to the joint policy, the Commission specifically charges the Department of Fish and Game with the following:
A. Contingent upon funding and staffing availability, the Department conduct, contract and/or support studies involving assessing the effects of the distribution and densities of the following hardwoods on terrestrial and aquatic vertebrates, including: (1) blue oak and associated plant species in blue oak-dominated habitats; (2) black oak and associated plant species in black oak-dominated habitats; (3) valley oak and associated plant species in valley oak-dominated habitats; and (4) Engelmann oak and associated plant species in Engelmann oak-dominated habitats;
B. The Department continue to review proposed timber harvesting activities and, when appropriate, recommend measures which will mitigate significant adverse impacts upon fish and wildlife resources;
C. Relative to the removal of hardwoods, the Department shall recommend, seek and support the adoption of proposals appropriate for the protection and enhancement of fish and wildlife resources;
D. The Department periodically reassess the terms and conditions of existing regulations, permit processes and other administrative measures which affect conservation of hardwood resources and, where feasible, seek corrective action when the original terms and conditions have proven inadequate;
E. If after consulting with the sponsors on project modification, and based on scientific evidence, the Department still opposes the proposed project affecting hardwood resources, it will notify the Commission of its opposition. This opposition may include, but not be limited to, the issuance of permits or licenses, authorization or programs, and the appropriation of funds which it determines will result in the removal of hardwoods and other modifications of hardwood habitats and communities in a manner that will result in significant adverse effects to fish, wildlife, or plant resources for which mitigation and compensation measures are judged to be inadequate;
F. In the event of disagreement over implementation of this policy with the Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, the Department shall inform the Commission of the disagreement;
G. The Department shall provide active liaison to the Board and Range Management Advisory Committee in issues related to hardwoods, fish, wildlife, endangered plant and animal species, and the impacts of vegetation management and wildfire on wildlife; and
H. Annually, the Department will include a statement in the Director's report to the Commission addressing the status of hardwood conservation.
V. SPECIFIC POLICY FROM THE BOARD TO THE DEPARTMENT OF FORESTRY AND FIRE PROTECTION
In addition to the joint policy, the Board of Forestry charges the Department of Forestry and Fire Protection with the following:
A. Administer Departmental programs consistent with the terms of this joint policy statement;
B. Implement the Forest Practice Act, other statutes and this policy consistent with mitigation of adverse impacts to fish, wildlife and with this policy;
C. Continue to implement the Integrated Hardwood Range Management Program;
D. Conduct a program of vegetation management, fire prevention, and Fire Safe to minimize the impact of wildfire on life and property, and where possible at the same time, maximize fire's natural beneficial effects on hardwood ecosystems;
E. As part of the Board and Departmental Fire Plan, and in consultation with the Department of Fish and Game regarding the impacts on fish, wildlife, and plant resources, address issues related to the role of fire in hardwood-dominated ecosystems and the impacts of pre-fire, during-fire, and post-fire agency activities;
F. Support research and development for hardwood utilization and manufacturing;
G. Consistent with available staff and funding, provide for a thorough assessment of the status of the hardwood resource at least once every five years, commencing with 1995;
H. Consistent with available personnel, provide staff support to the Range Management Advisory Committee;
I. In the event of disagreement over implementation of this policy with the Department Fish and Game, inform the Board of the disagreement; and
J. Provide active liaison to the Commission and Range Management Advisory Committee on issues related to forest and vegetation management, wildfire protection and prevention, and the assessment of hardwood resources.
Adopted 05/09/94