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