BILL ANALYSIS
------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | AB 2163|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|1020 N Street, Suite 524 | |
|(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
------------------------------------------------------------
THIRD READING
Bill No: AB 2163
Author: Mendoza (D)
Amended: 5/17/10 in Assembly
Vote: 27 - Urgency
SENATE NATURAL RES. & WATER COMMITTEE : 6-0, 6/29/10
AYES: Pavley, Cogdill, Hollingsworth, Huff, Kehoe, Padilla
NO VOTE RECORDED: Lowenthal, Simitian, Wolk
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE : Senate Rule 28.8
ASSEMBLY FLOOR : 57-7, 5/20/10 - See last page for vote
SUBJECT : Forest practices: timber harvesting plans
SOURCE : California Forestry Association
DIGEST : This bill makes timber harvesting plan extended
by the Department of Forestry and Fire Protection 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.
ANALYSIS : 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 timber harvesting plan (THP) has been prepared
by a registered professional forester (RPF) and approved
CONTINUED
AB 2163
Page
2
by the 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 an 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.
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, including any extensions
granted prior to January 1, 2010, 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 two-year extensions.
FISCAL EFFECT : Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes
Local: No
AB 2163
Page
3
SUPPORT : (Verified 6/29/10)
California Forestry Association (source)
American Forest & Paper Association
Associated California Loggers
Association of Western Pulp and Paper Workers
California Business Properties Association
California Cattlemen's Association
California Chamber of Commerce
California Conference of Machinists
California Farm Bureau Federation
California Licensed Foresters Association
California Manufacturers & Technology Association
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
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 : (Verified 6/29/10)
Ebbetts Pass Forest Watch
Forests Forever
Sierra Club California
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, contrary to the
intent of the author, the bill excluded certain THPs
extended in 2008 and 2009, pursuant to pre-AB 1066 statute.
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, 2001 (eligible for two two-year extensions). As
AB 2163
Page
4
strictly interpreted, AB 1066, in part, only includes THPs
that officially expired in 2008 and 2009. The bill's
sponsor, 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. According to CDF, about 50-80 THPs
would be eligible for further extension under this bill.
ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION : Three organizations who oppose
this bill - Ebbetts Pass Forest Watch, Sierra Club
California, and Forests Forever - make several assertions
including their belief that this bill does not fix the
problems that they believe are inherent in the current
regulatory approval process.
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.
AB 2163
Page
5
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.
ASSEMBLY FLOOR :
AYES: Adams, Anderson, Arambula, Bass, Beall, Bill
Berryhill, Tom Berryhill, Blakeslee, Block, Bradford,
Buchanan, Caballero, Charles Calderon, Carter, Chesbro,
Conway, Cook, Davis, De Leon, DeVore, Emmerson, Eng,
Fuentes, Fuller, Furutani, Gaines, Galgiani, Garrick,
Gilmore, Hagman, Hall, Hayashi, Hernandez, Hill, Huber,
Huffman, Jeffries, Knight, Lieu, Logue, Ma, Mendoza,
Miller, Nestande, Niello, Nielsen, V. Manuel Perez,
Portantino, Salas, Silva, Skinner, Smyth, Solorio,
Torlakson, Torres, Torrico, Tran
NOES: Ammiano, Blumenfield, Feuer, Jones, Ruskin, Swanson,
Yamada
NO VOTE RECORDED: Brownley, Coto, De La Torre, Evans,
Fletcher, Fong, Harkey, Bonnie Lowenthal, Monning, Nava,
Norby, Saldana, Audra Strickland, Villines, John A.
Perez, Vacancy
CTW:mw 8/2/10 Senate Floor Analyses
SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE
**** END ****