BILL ANALYSIS ----------------------------------------------------------------- | | | SENATE COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES AND WATER | | Senator Fran Pavley, Chair | | 2009-2010 Regular Session | | | ----------------------------------------------------------------- BILL NO: AB 2163 HEARING DATE: June 29, 2010 AUTHOR: Mendoza URGENCY: Yes VERSION: May 17, 2010 CONSULTANT: Bill Craven DUAL REFERRAL: No FISCAL: Yes SUBJECT: Forest practices: timber harvesting plans. BACKGROUND AND EXISTING LAW The Forest Practice Act provides that timber harvest plans are valid for a three year period. A maximum of two one-year extensions to timber harvest plans may be extended when good cause is shown and the plan is being lawfully administered. Last year, as a response to poor economic conditions in the housing market and the forestry industry, a provision was added that allowed four one-year extensions for plans that expired in 2008 or 2009. Also, for plans that were approved in 2010 or 2011, a maximum of two two-year extensions were provided. These provisions were adopted last year in AB 1066 (Mendoza). The two two-year extensions would not be granted if listed species were discovered in the logging area of the plan since it was first approved or if other significant physical changes occurred since the plan was first approved. AB 1066 contained a sunset clause of January 1, 2012 that applied to the new extension provisions in AB 1066 as well as the law as it existed prior to the adoption of AB 1066. PROPOSED LAW This bill would allow up to a maximum of four one-year extensions to be obtained for timber harvest plans that were extended prior to January 1, 2010. In other words, this bill would provide a method for extending plans that had not expired, but were instead extended less than four times under specified conditions. 1 According to an estimate from the California Forestry Association, a minimum of 50 THPs would be eligible for further extension under this bill. This bill contains an urgency clause in order that the bill, if implemented, could apply to timber harvest plans that may otherwise expire. ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT According to the author's office, the Legislature approved AB 1066 (Mendoza), Chapter 269, Statutes of 2009 to give short-term relief to landowners during the economic crisis. However, that legislation, contrary to the intent of the author, inadvertently excluded certain THPs extended in 2008 and 2009 pursuant to the law as it existed prior to the implementation of AB 1066. AB 1066 authorized the extension of THPs that expired in 2008 and 2009 (eligible for four 1-year extensions) and THPs that are approved between January 1, 2010 and December 31, 2011 (eligible for two 2-year extensions). As strictly interpreted by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, AB 1066, in part, only includes THPs that officially expired in 2008 and 2009. The sponsor of this bill, the California Forestry Association, believes this provision should also include those THPs that had been extended in these years. This bill grants THPs extended in 2008 and 2009 (thus expiring this year and next) four one-year extensions under specified circumstances. The sponsor, the California Forestry Association, argues that the bill is technical and fixes an omission in language adopted last year. It also says that if the bill is not passed, that new THPs that otherwise would have been extended would cost landowners over $2 million to develop new plans and would cost the state nearly $5 million in review costs. Sierra Pacific Industries supports the bill and offers that it has more than 30 THPs that would be affected by this bill. ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION Three organizations oppose this bill. Ebbetts Pass Forest Watch, Sierra Club California, and Forests Forever make several assertions including their belief that AB 2163 does not fix the problems that they believe are inherent in the current regulatory approval process. 2 1. While the economy has not fully recovered, timber prices have recovered modestly and are now at 2006 levels. If AB 1066 was need to help landowners through a depressed period of log prices, they argue, that time has passed. Additionally, they argue that these plans were intended to be completed within the timeframes provided by existing law and that further extensions are unneeded. 2. Extensions of the plans that would be affected by this legislation could actually postpone logging to the detriment of rank-and-file workers. 3. Extensions of previously approved plans will avoid compliance with new rules adopted by the Board of Forestry regarding salmon protection, and will not be consistent with emerging science on carbon sequestration, greenhouse gas analysis of impacts from a project, fire ecology, effects of herbicides used in clearcutting, and what they believe is enhanced public interest in the retention of oak trees within areas subject to clearcutting. 4. Extensions of previously approved plans are ineffective in protecting endangered species that may have been listed subsequent to the approval of the timber harvest plan. Ebbetts Pass Forest Watch is aware that the timber operators may be required to conform to rules or practices that were instituted prior to a plan's approval, but that, in practice, it says "it is not done" and that landowners successfully claim that compliance would constitute a hardship. COMMENTS If one views this legislation as essentially a clean-up to last year's bill, AB 1066, by this same author, then the present bill will likely be considered non-controversial. If one views this legislation as a bill that fails to resolve historic and ongoing grievances with forestry laws or practices in California, then this, and most other, forestry legislation will not only be controversial but also, by definition, inadequate. Staff has concluded that the outcome proposed by this legislation was intended by the author in last year's legislation. SUPPORT American Forest & Paper Association (AF&PA) Associated California Loggers 3 Association of Western Pulp and Paper Workers California Business Properties Association (CBPA) California Cattlemen's Association (CCA) California Chamber of Commerce California Conference of Machinists California Farm Bureau Federation (CFBF) California Forestry Association California Licensed Foresters Association California Manufacturers & Technology Association (CMTA) California State Association of Counties California State Council of Carpenters Forest Landowners Association Forest Resources Council International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers Lumber Association of California Nevada (LACN) PACE International Union Regional Council of Rural Counties United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America Western Council of Industrial Workers Woodworkers District Lodge OPPOSITION Ebbetts Pass Forest Watch Sierra Club California Forests Forever 4