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