BILL ANALYSIS
AB 2575
Page 1
Date of Hearing: May 19, 2010
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Felipe Fuentes, Chair
AB 2575 (Chesbro) - As Amended: April 27, 2010
Policy Committee: Natural
ResourcesVote:6-0
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program:
No Reimbursable: No
SUMMARY
This bill requires the Department of Forestry and Fire
Protection (Calfire), when it undertakes forestry pilot
projects, to comply with specified actions. The bill also
requires Calfire to post on its Web site existing electronic
data for timber harvest plans (THPs). Specifically, this bill:
1)Requires Calfire, when it undertakes a forestry pilot project,
to comply with specified actions and outcomes, including:
a) Provide opportunity for inclusive
participation-industry, public agencies, the public-in
development of pilot project.
b) Consult with appropriate scientific experts.
c) Result in guidelines for conducting "cumulative effects
evaluation" on a planning watershed scale.
2)Requires Calfire, by July 1, 2011, to post on its Web site
existing electronic data for THPs in a format that is
organized by planning watershed and easily accessible to the
public.
FISCAL EFFECT
1)To the extent Calfire undertakes the pilot projects referenced
in the bill, the bill could result in additional GF costs of
an unknown amount, possibly in the tens of thousands of
dollars, to the pilot project process.
2)One-time GF costs of $500,000 to $1 million to CalFire to
develop and establish an online database with the
AB 2575
Page 2
functionality described in the bill. (CalFire estimated costs
of $1 million to $5 million.)
3)Ongoing GF annual costs in the range of a few hundred
thousands of dollars to CalFire to maintain the online
database.
COMMENTS
1)Rationale . The author contends there are potential
improvements to the comprehensive cumulative effects review
process, which this bill would require. The author further
contends online posting of timber plans is necessary, given
short THP notice requirements, remote and limited locations to
review THP documents, and costly reproduction costs.
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. 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 participate in review and enforcement.
The costs of THP review are paid from the GF.
b) Using Cumulative Effects Evaluation , those preparing and
evaluating a THP consider the effects of a harvest plan
across the entire ecosystem, rather than focusing analysis
on the plan's site-specific effects. Several reviewers,
including the Little Hoover Commission in a 1994 report,
criticized the THP process on numerous counts. Those
criticisms include the observations that (1) the process
focuses on site-specific effects of projects, (2)
requirements specifying information to be included in the
plans frequently change, and (3), those preparing and
reviewing plans place their efforts on processes rather
AB 2575
Page 3
than outcomes. The Board of Forestry intends to undertake
two pilot projects that result in guidelines for using
cumulative effects analysis for THPs.
c) CalFire Posts THPs Online. In 2005, CalFire initiated
an online THP pilot program, posting timber plans from the
north coast region. CDF also posts online summaries of
various notices related to timber plans. As of January
2009, CalFire has posted THPs and related documents for all
its regions. This information dates back to 2005 for the
north coast region and to 2008 for the state's other
regions.
However, the Web site uses a file-transfer protocol
technology (instead of a graphic interface) with document
naming conventions that are unintelligible to lay users.
Arguably, CalFire's Web interface is not easily accessible
to the public.
3)Related Legislation. SB 744 (Kuehl, 2006) required the Board
of Forestry to adopt regulations requiring THPs to be made
available on the Internet. The governor vetoed the bill
citing the development of CalFire's pilot program to post
timber plans online. SB 744 passed the Assembly 71-0. AB
1252 (Portantino, 2009) would have required CalFire to post
timber plans on the Internet. The bill was held by this
committee.
4)Supporters , including the Sierra Club and other conservation
groups, contend the cumulative effects of forestry management
need to be better understood to restore and recover fish and
wildlife populations, to improve the quality and quantity of
timber, to take actions to reduce fire hazards, to sequester
carbon, to produce energy, and to create jobs.
5)Opposition , including California Forestry Association and
California Licensed Foresters Association, contend now is a
particularly bad time to increase the number and complexity of
regulatory prescriptions on forestry managers.
Analysis Prepared by : Jay Dickenson / APPR. / (916) 319-2081