BILL ANALYSIS �
AB 380
Page 1
Date of Hearing: May 4, 2011
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Felipe Fuentes, Chair
AB 380 (Chesbro) - As Amended: April 11, 2011
Policy Committee: Natural
ResourcesVote:8-0
Water, Parks and Wildlife 11-0
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program:
No Reimbursable: No
SUMMARY
The bill requires the Department of Forestry and Fire Protection
(Calfire) and the Board of Forestry and Fire Protection, when
implementing a forestry pilot project, to develop guidelines for
conducting "cumulative effects analysis. Specifically, this
bill:
1)Requires Calfire and the board, when implementing a forestry
pilot project, to:
a) Provide opportunity for inclusive
participation-industry, public agencies, the public-in
development of the pilot project.
b) Develop guidelines for conducting cumulative effects
evaluation on a planning watershed scale.
c) Consult with appropriate scientific experts.
2)Require Calfire to post on its website all documents that form
the basis for the pilot projects developed pursuant to this
bill.
3)Requires the board to develop recommendations for providing
electronic public access to all relevant documents that assist
Calfire in administering timber harvest regulations for
actions that occur on a planning watershed scale.
FISCAL EFFECT
1)Department of Fish and Game (DFG) reports potential costs of
$850,000 for seven positions over five years and one-time
AB 380
Page 2
equipment costs of approximately $200,000 for cumulative
effects analysis activities: pilot project development and
coordination, data collection and analysis and rulemaking.
(GF.) While the cost estimate reported by DFG may be
exaggerated, and while the exact costs to DFG to participate
in cumulative effects analysis are unknown, it is reasonable
to expect those costs to be significant, in the hundreds of
thousands of dollars at least, should Calfire undertake the
pilot projects referenced in the bill.
2)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. Calfire indicates it could absorb these costs with
existing budget resources.
3)Minor, absorbable costs to the board to develop
recommendations for providing electronic public access to
certain documents.
COMMENTS
1)Rationale . According to Forests Forever (sponsor), this bill
is needed to ensure that forestry pilot projects currently
underway result in guidelines for cumulative impact analysis,
as opposed to site-specific analysis that is typical of
forestry projects and, the sponsor contends, fails to
adequately protect forest ecosystem health.
2)Background . In 1973, the Legislature enacted the Forestry
Practices Act in response to the severe harm of logging on
fish and game, forest ecosystems, and water quality. Under
the act, a logging operation must comply with a Timber Harvest
Plan (THP), which describes the proposed logging methods and
projected production from an area, and 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.
Using cumulative effects evaluation, those preparing and
evaluating a THP consider the effects of a harvest plan across
AB 380
Page 3
the entire ecosystem, rather than focusing analysis on
site-specific effects. Several reviewers, including the
Little Hoover Commission in a 1994 report, criticized the THP
process on numerous counts. Those criticisms include: (a) the
process focuses on site-specific effects of projects, (b)
requirements specifying information to be included in the
plans frequently change, and (c), those preparing and
reviewing plans place their efforts on processes rather than
outcomes. The Board of Forestry is undertaking two pilot
projects that will result in guidelines for using cumulative
effects analysis for THPs.
3)Related Legislation.
a) SB 744 (Kuehl, 2006) would have 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 Calf ire's pilot program to post
timber plans online. SB 744 passed the Assembly 71-0.
b) AB 1252 (Portantino, 2009) would have required Calfire
to post timber plans on the
Internet. The bill was held by this committee.
c) AB 2575 (Chesbro, 2010) , substantially identical to this
bill, passed the Assembly 51-26 and the Senate 23-10 but
was vetoed by the governor, who cited cost concerns.
4)Supporters include Forests Forever (sponsor) and the Sierra
Club, who 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)There is no registered opposition to this bill.
Analysis Prepared by : Jay Dickenson / APPR. / (916) 319-2081