BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 1005
Page 1
Date of Hearing: January 19, 2012
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Felipe Fuentes, Chair
AB 1005 (Dickinson) - As Amended: January 13, 2012
Policy Committee: Natural
ResourcesVote:6-3
Water, Parks and Wildlife 8-2
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program:
No Reimbursable: No
SUMMARY
This bill requires the Secretary of Natural Resources to convene
a stakeholder group-comprised of representatives of public
agencies, private industry and policy advocates, and supported
by the Legislative Analyst's Office-to develop and produce a
report to the Legislature on recommended changes to the state's
timber harvest plan (THP) regulatory program.
FISCAL EFFECT
Minor one-time costs of less than $50,000 to agency staff and
the LAO to participate in and staff the working group and to
produce the report. (Special funds and General Fund.)
COMMENTS
1)Rationale . The author's office has indicated this bill is
intended to serve as a vehicle for yet-to-be-determined
legislative changes to the THP program.
2)Background. The Forest Practices Act of 1973 requires logging
operations to comply with an approved THP-a document that
describes the proposed logging operation and measures the
logger will undertake to prevent environmental damage or
mitigation measures to compensate for such damage. A THP must
be approved by the Department of Forestry and Fire Protection
(Calfire) and reviewed by several other state agencies-the
Department of Conservation, the State Water Resources Control
Board and the Department of Fish and Game (DFG). An approved
THP is considered "functionally equivalent" under the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), meaning timber
harvesting consistent with an approved THP is not subject to
AB 1005
Page 2
an environmental impact report under CEQA.
The THP program is one of the only state regulatory programs
not funded mainly or entirely by fees on the regulated
parties. For over a decade, the LAO has recommended the
Legislature implement a THP fee on the timber industry to
cover regulatory costs, which recently have ranged from
approximately $17 million to $22 million annually, almost all
of which is paid from the General Fund.
Industry generally opposes the LAO's fee proposal, contending
the THP program is more costly than necessary and increased
fees will reduce in-state logging. Environmentalists
generally claim the THP program is insufficiently stringent to
warrant functional equivalence under CEQA.
In late 2007, the Assembly Committee on Accountability and
Administrative Review, of which the author serves as chair,
heard testimony related to the THP program, including the LAO
fee recommendation. Subsequent to that hearing, the author
and the chair of the Assembly Committee on Natural Resources
convened an ongoing THP working group similar to the working
group described by this bill.
Analysis Prepared by : Jay Dickenson / APPR. / (916) 319-2081