BILL ANALYSIS                                                                                                                                                                                                    Ó





           ----------------------------------------------------------------- 
          |                                                                 |
          |         SENATE COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES AND WATER         |
          |                   Senator Fran Pavley, Chair                    |
          |                    2011-2012 Regular Session                    |
          |                                                                 |
           ----------------------------------------------------------------- 

          BILL NO: SB 1541                   HEARING DATE: April 24, 2012  

          AUTHOR: La Malfa                   URGENCY: No  
          VERSION: April 9, 2012             CONSULTANT: Bill Craven  
          DUAL REFERRAL: No                  FISCAL: Yes  
          SUBJECT: Timber harvesting plans.  
          
          BACKGROUND AND EXISTING LAW
          In 2004, the Legislature passed and the governor signed AB 2420 
          (La Malfa) that established a partial exemption under the Forest 
          Practices Act for fuel reduction activities that meet a number 
          of specified criteria. That bill had a sunset provision that was 
          extended in AB 1515 (La Malfa) in 2007. 

          Timber harvesting activities are regulated by the Forest 
          Practices Act, other state laws, and regulations of the Board of 
          Forestry and Fire Protection. The statutes and regulations are 
          generally administered by the Department of Forestry and Fire 
          Protection (CDF). 

          Generally, timber harvest plans are required when commercial 
          species of trees are harvested for the purpose of sale. Section 
          4584 of the Public Resources Code contains numerous timber 
          harvest plan exemptions, including those for tree removal for 
          public utility lines, the removal of dead and dying trees, and a 
          three-acre exemption for all timberland landowners. 

          Another existing exemption specifies the conditions under which 
          trees can be removed within 150 feet of most structures for 
          purposes of fire protection. 

          The purpose of this particular exemption is "to reduce the rate 
          of fire spread, duration and intensity." To initiate activities 
          using this exemption, a registered professional forester would 
          prepare the notice of exemption. 

          The exemption is limited to areas of less than 300 acres and 
                                                                      1







          there is a provision that requires the harvesting activity to 
          increase the overall size of trees that remain in the area. 
          Additionally, existing law requires those who propose to use 
          this exemption to do all of the following: submit a map of the 
          area that meets certain criteria, provide both a pre-harvest and 
          post-harvest description of the stocking levels (types and sizes 
          of trees) that are present, mark the trees to be harvested, and 
          the regulations that protect archaeological sites must be 
          followed. 

          Generally, only trees with a stump diameter of less than 18 
          inches may be removed. Trees, flammable materials on the ground, 
          and undergrowth that would allow a fire to climb into the crowns 
          of trees must be removed to achieve a minimum clearance distance 
          of 8 feet. In addition, other specified provisions of the Forest 
          Practice Rules apply to this partial exemption. Finally, CDF is 
          required to conduct an onsite inspection after timber operations 
          pursuant to this exemption are complete. 

          PROPOSED LAW
          This bill would remove the sunset provision of January 1, 2013, 
          thus allowing this partial exemption to remain in effect without 
          a new sunset provision. 

          ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT
          The author believes that this partial exemption, carefully 
          negotiated in 2004, has proven effective and that the sunset 
          provision should be removed. 

          In data provided by CDF to the author, this partial exemption 
          has been used on 8400 acres across the state. Several northern 
          California counties were the site of these projects but it turns 
          out that San Bernardino County has had more acreage (2100 acres) 
          treated than any other county. The partial exemption was used 
          most in 2008-10, and has experienced a sharp drop in use in 
          2012. 

          Another way of looking at this exemption is in terms of the 
          number of plans that were submitted. Since its adoption, 309 
          plans have been submitted, again with those in San Bernardino 
          County far surpassing those in other parts of the state. 
          Landowners in San Bernardino County submitted 180 plans, far in 
          excess of the next highest number of plans submitted from 
          landowners in Placer and Plumas counties. 

          AMENDMENTS
          
                                                                      2







          ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION
          None received

          SUPPORT
          California Licensed Foresters Association

          OPPOSITION
          None Received







































                                                                      3