BILL ANALYSIS
AB 2163
Page 1
Date of Hearing: May 12, 2010
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Felipe Fuentes, Chair
AB 2163 (Mendoza) - As Amended: April 26, 2010
Policy Committee: Natural
ResourcesVote:9-0
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program:
No Reimbursable: No
SUMMARY
As proposed to be amended, this bill makes timber harvest plans
(THPs) extended in 2008 and 2009 eligible for a maximum of four
one-year extensions. Specifically, this bill:
1)Makes THPs extended in 2008 and 2009, on which work has
commenced but not completed, eligible for a maximum of four
one-year extensions if "good cause" is shown, and provided:
a) all timber operations comply with the THP and all
applicable rules and regulations;
b) no threatened or endangered listed species have been
discovered since approval of the THP;
c) no significant physical changes to the harvest area or
adjacent areas have occurred since the THP's cumulative
impacts were originally assessed.
2)As proposed to be amended, adds an urgency clause to the
measure.
FISCAL EFFECT
Minor GF costs of less than $25,0000 to the California
Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CDF) to manually
input THP extensions and final effective dates.
COMMENTS
1)Rationale . The author intends this bill to make technical
clarification of the eligibility of THPs that received
extensions in 2008 and 2009. The author describes these
AB 2163
Page 2
clarifications as consistent with the intent of a bill passed
in 2009 on the topic.
2) Background .
a) Forestry Practices Act. In 1973, the Legislature
enacted the Forestry Practices Act in response to the
apparent and severe effect of logging on fish and game,
forest ecosystems, and water quality. Under the act, a
logging operation must comply with a THP, which describes
the proposed logging methods and projected production from
an area, as well as any environmental mitigation measures
the timber harvesters will undertake to prevent or offset
damage to natural resources, such as fish or wildlife.
CalFire has statutory responsibility to review these plans,
approve or deny them, and to monitor compliance with the
plan during logging operations. In addition, the
Department of Conservation, the State Water Resources
Control Board and the Department of Fish and Game (DFG)
participate in review and enforcement. The costs of THP
review are paid from the General Fund.
b) Logging Continues to Contribute to Environmental
Degradation. Since passage of the act, many of the
conditions that prompted legislative action have not
improved. In fact, many have worsened. In the north
coast, an active logging area, 410 rivers or streams are
listed as sediment-impaired under the Clean Water Act; most
native salmon and steelhead species are listed as
threatened or endangered. U.S. EPA, the National Marine
Fisheries Service (NMFS), and SWRCB have all identified
logging operations and road construction, approved under
the act, as major factors driving such listings. Based on
these facts, an argument can be made for making THP
requirements more stringent and review even more frequent.
c) California's Struggling Logging Industry. According to
industry representatives, California's logging industry
faces serious challenges. The industry complains that
California's onerous environmental regulations and
reporting requirements make logging operations much more
costly that logging in nearby Oregon and Washington. In
addition, lumber prices have dropped dramatically in recent
years. In any case, it is clear that the industry is
suffering, as evidenced by the closing of four California
AB 2163
Page 3
sawmills in 2009.
3)CDF's Accurately Cautious Interpretation. Last year, the
Legislature passed AB 1066, Mendoza (Chapter 269, Statutes of
2009). That bill extended the effective period of a THP from
three years to five years. The author, who is also the author
of this bill, contends the intent of AB 1066 was to provide
eligibility for extension to both THPs that expired in 2008
and 2009 and those that were extended in those years.
However, CDF accurately read the bill as to apply only to a
plan that had "expired in 2008 or 2009." The author sees
CDF's interpretation as inconsistent with the intent of AB
1066, if not its text and intends this bill to align the two.
4)Support. This bill is supported by business groups, including
mills, foresters and associated industries.
5)Opposition. There is one group registered in opposition to
this bill-Forests Forever-which contends the limited
eligibility provided by AB 1066 is appropriate and as
intended.
Analysis Prepared by : Jay Dickenson / APPR. / (916) 319-2081