On December 19, 2001, the Board conducted a second public hearing to consider proposed amendments to Regulation 5 and to consider adoption of a CEQA Negative Declaration for the amendments. An initial public hearing was conducted on November 7, 2001 to consider amendments to Regulation 5 and to Regulation 3: Fees. Amendments to the fee regulation were dropped prior to the December hearing.
Board Adoption of CEQA Negative Declaration. Several speakers expressed concerns about the Negative Declaration presented to the Board for the December 19 public hearing. Though the fee proposal was dropped prior to that hearing, the Negative Declaration was based on the earlier project that included fees. Because of testimony about possible significant environmental impacts from fees, several Board members were concerned that Board adoption of the Negative Declaration was at risk of being overturned.
In response to suggestions from the Board, staff revised the CEQA document to remove language related to the Regulation 3 fee proposal and to further evaluate the proposed amendments to Regulation 5 for potential significant environmental impacts. The revised Negative Declaration and Regulation 5 proposal were re-circulated for a 30-day public comment period that ended February 25, 2002.
One comment was received from the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC). SFPUC was concerned about a provision in Subsection 5-111.4 that would require attempts to end burning if three or more public complaints were received. However, this language had already been dropped from the proposal and the SFPUC concern has been addressed. District staff also discussed the new Negative Declaration with California Department of Parks and Recreation, California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CDF), East Bay Regional Park District, Suisun Resource Conservation District (SRCD), and the California Air Resources Board. These agencies expressed no concerns about the revised document and did not submit any written comments.
Timeliness of DFG Response to Provide Statement of Necessity for Marsh Burning. Under the proposal brought before the Board for the December 19 public hearing, any person who wanted to conduct a marsh management burn would have been required to submit to the APCO a written determination of the necessity of each burn from the California Department of Fish & Game (DFG) at least 30 days prior to burning. Several Board members expressed concerns about this proposal in Section 5-410 because it imposed a burden on the DFG staff and because it made burn authorization dependent upon when DFG responds to requests for the written determination, which may delay or prevent burning.
To address these concerns, staff revised Section 5-410 to remove the 30-day prior submittal language and make the requirement parallel to existing law (Cal. Health & Safety Code Section 41861) that requires a person to obtain a written statement of necessity from DFG and submit this statement to the APCO prior to burning. District staff discussed this revised language with both DFG and SRCD, and neither organization expressed concern about the new language.
The outcome of these efforts includes minor changes to the proposed amendments (including dropping certain language), and additional compliance assistance. The District is committed during implementation of the Regulation to continue outreach efforts with fire agencies and the public to advise burners of the new requirements and to minimize any added workload on fire agencies.
Only minor changes have been made to the proposed amendments since December 19, 2001. Section 5-111 has been modified for clarity and enforceability. Section 5-401.13 has been modified to clarify existing burn hour restrictions for marsh burns. Section 5-410 has been modified to address the concern about DFG necessity determinations as discussed above. In addition, several Sections (Sections 5-213, 5-301.3, 5-401.15, 5-408) were revised to consistently use the term “smoke management plan” instead of “prescribed burn plan.” All of these changes are noted in double underline and double strikethrough format in the attached copy of Regulation 5 (note that any other double strikethrough or underline format found in other sections indicates language revised since the November hearing draft).
