BILL ANALYSIS
AB 2163
Page 1
Date of Hearing: April 19, 2010
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
Wesley Chesbro, Chair
AB 2163 (Mendoza) - As Amended: April 12, 2010
SUBJECT : Forest practices: timber harvest plans (THPs).
SUMMARY : Makes THPs extended in 2008 and 2009, on which work
has commenced but not been completed, eligible for a maximum of
four one-year extensions in specified circumstances.
EXISTING LAW , pursuant to the Z'berg-Nejedly Forest Practice Act
(Act) of 1973 (commencing with Section 4511 of the Public
Resources Code):
1)Prohibits any person from conducting timber operations unless
a THP has been prepared by a registered professional forester
(RPF) and approved by the California Department of Forestry
and Fire Protection (CDF).
2)Generally limits the effective period of a THP to three years,
with certain exceptions. A THP under which work has commenced
but not completed is eligible for two, one-year extensions if
"good cause" is shown and all timber operations comply with
the THP and all applicable rules and regulations.
3)Authorizes a THP under which work has commenced but not
completed and that expired in 2008 or 2009 to be eligible for
four one-year extensions if it meets the requirements in #2
and if a RPF certifies that no listed species have been
discovered since approval of the THP and that no significant
physical changes to the harvest area or adjacent areas have
occurred since the THP's cumulative impacts were assessed.
4)Authorizes a THP that is approved on or after January 1, 2010
to December 31, 2011 to be eligible by amendment for two
two-year extensions if it meets the requirements in #3.
FISCAL EFFECT : Unknown
THIS BILL :
1)Makes THPs extended in 2008 and 2009, on which work has
commenced but not completed, eligible for a maximum of four
AB 2163
Page 2
one-year extensions if "good cause" is shown, all timber
operations comply with the THP and all applicable rules and
regulations, a RPF certifies that no listed species have been
discovered since approval of the THP, and that no significant
physical changes to the harvest area or adjacent areas have
occurred since the THP's cumulative impacts were assessed.
2)Clarifies the sunsetting provision of existing law which makes
eligible a THP approved on or after January 1, 2010 to
December 31, 2011 for two 2-year extensions.
AB 2163
Page 3
COMMENTS : According to the author's office:
Last year AB 1066 passed to give short term relief to
landowners during the economic crisis. However, the
current interpretation of the bill has excluded certain
landowners from receiving the benefit of AB 1066. For
example, a THP approved in January 2005 would have its
initial three year period end in January of 2008. This THP
could have been amended twice with the final amendment
ending in January of 2010. Under the current
interpretation, this THP is not eligible for the 2
additional one-year extensions [provided by AB 1066]?This
bill seeks to give landowners who have previously received
2 one-year extensions two additional extensions. The
author always believed that this would be the case under AB
1066, but it has not been interpreted that way.
1)A question of interpretation : Last year, AB 1066 (Mendoza),
Chapter 269, Statutes of 2009 extended the life 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, 2001 (eligible for two 2-year extensions) in
recognition of the impact the recession has had on the timber
industry. However, CDF interpreted AB 1066, in part, to only
include THPs that have 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.
2)Preferential treatment is not intended : This bill grants THPs
extended in 2008 and 2009 (thus, expiring this year and next)
four one-year extensions under specified circumstances.
According to CDF, about 50-80 THPs would be eligible for
further extension under this bill. By granting a maximum of
four 1-year extensions, some of these THPs, by including
previous extensions, would be theoretically eligible for a
total of six 1-year extensions, two more than that allowed
under AB 1066. The author has already indicated that this is
not his intent, so the committee may wish to consider whether
the bill should be clarified, as suggested below, consistent
with this intent.
On page 3, lines 21-33 should be amended to read:
(d) Notwithstanding subdivision (a) and the submission of a
AB 2163
Page 4
completion report pursuant to Section 4585, a timber
harvesting plan, on which timber operations have commenced but
not been completed, may be reopened and extended by amendment
for up to a maximum of four one-year extensions including any
other previous extension if the following conditions have been
met:
(1) The plan expired or was extended in 2008 or 2009.
(2) The plan complies with subparagraphs (A) and (B) of
paragraph (2) of subdivision (a).
(3) The notice of extension, pursuant to subdivision (b),
includes written certification by a registered professional
forester that neither of the conditions in subdivision (f)
have occurred.
AB 2163
Page 5
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
Associated California Loggers
California Chamber of Commerce
California Farm Bureau
California Licensed Foresters Association
California Manufacturers & Technology Association
Forest Landowners Association
Sierra Pacific Industries
Opposition
Forests Forever
Analysis Prepared by : Dan Chia / NAT. RES. / (916) 319-2092