BILL ANALYSIS Ó ----------------------------------------------------------------- | | | SENATE COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES AND WATER | | Senator Fran Pavley, Chair | | 2013-2014 Regular Session | | | ----------------------------------------------------------------- BILL NO: AB 1867 HEARING DATE: June 24, 2014 AUTHOR: Patterson URGENCY: No VERSION: April 22, 2014 CONSULTANT: Bill Craven DUAL REFERRAL: No FISCAL: Yes SUBJECT: Timber harvest plans: exemption: reducing flammable materials. BACKGROUND AND EXISTING LAW 1. California forestry laws prohibit any person from conducting timber operations unless a Timber Harvest Plan (THP) has been prepared by a registered professional forester and approved by the Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CDF). 2. For the purposes of making structures safer from wildfires and to provide space for firefighters to defend structures, a person who owns, leases, controls, operates, or maintains a building or structure in, upon, or adjoining a mountainous area, forest-covered lands, brush-covered lands, grass-covered lands, or land that is covered with flammable material, to at all times maintain a defensible space of 100 feet from each side of the structure, but not beyond the property line. 3. Creates a THP exemption for defensible space timber operations conducted not more than 150 feet on each side from an approved and legally permitted structure. This exemption requires all of the following: a) Timber operations shall be limited to cutting or removal of trees that will result in a reduction in the rate of fire spread, fire duration and intensity, fuel ignitability, or ignition of the tree crowns; b) Clearcutting shall not be used; and, c) Surface fuels (e.g., logging slash and debris, low bush, deadwood) that could promote wildfire shall be chipped, burned, or otherwise removed from all areas of the timber operations. 1 4. A landowner may be authorized to construct a firebreak, or implement appropriate vegetation management techniques, to ensure that defensible space is adequate for the protection of a hospital, adult residential care facility, school, aboveground storage tank, hazardous materials facility, or similar facility on the property. These firebreaks for institutional buildings may extend for a radius of up to 300 feet from the facility, or to the property line, whichever distance is shorter. PROPOSED LAW This bill would authorize the Board of Forestry and Fire Protection (Board) to exempt some or all requirements of the Forest Practices Act to allow the cutting or removal of trees to reduce flammable materials and create defensible space. Specifically, this bill, as a practical matter, would extend the exemption that allows vegetation clearing from a radius of 150 feet to 300 feet of habitable structures, although it is technically proposed as a separate exemption. ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT According to the author, existing laws in California essentially preclude homeowners from making a commercial use of forest products to offset project costs without triggering the need for a THP or an exemption from the THP process (which still requires notice to CDF). Forest Landowners of California believes that the bill will help residential structures within California's forested communities safer by allowing modest economic returns to help offset the costs of fuel reduction. The Personal Insurance Federation of California letter indicates that acreage in California that has been thinned amounts to less than 1000 acres a year. The Regional Council of Rural Counties, the California Licensed Foresters Association, and the California Association of Realtors made similar points. ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION None received COMMENTS 1. This bill is another in a long-running series that seeks to expand the exemption from timber harvest planning for the 2 purposes of defensible space from wildfires. It has never been the policy in California that an exemption should be used to facilitate the sale of commercial logs, yet that is the intent of this measure. In fact, the policy of California over the years has been to segregate completely the exemptions concerning defensible space from the laws governing the commercial harvest of timber. On the other hand, the Committee may want to consider a pilot project to test whether this measure will be used by landowners appropriately. The Forest Landowners of California pointed out that in the Santa Cruz area, over the last 15 years, of a total of 809 defensible space projects conducted by the Big Creek Timber Company, the net loss per project by landowners was about $22,000. While there is not complete data to indicate the size of the lots, the type or value of trees (although probably predominantly redwood), or other information, one can speculate that landowners in other parts of the state would face a loss in their defensible space efforts that are currently limited to 150 feet. 2. It is worth noting that a 300 foot clearing around a structure would cover approximately 7 acres. Given that there are nearly 1 million homes in the State Responsibility Areas of California (on various size parcels, not all of which are seven acres or larger), the bill would nevertheless effect potentially millions of acres. 3. The focus of this comment is on the standards that should apply in the zone that extends from 150 feet to 300 feet from the structure. In its current form, this zone has fewer standards than the zone from the structure out to 150 feet. Assuming the Committee moves the bill forward, language is proposed in Amendment 1 to address this concern. This amendment would require that the overall size of trees in this area show an increase after the treatment, that the debris (slash) be properly removed or disposed of, and that geographically appropriate stocking standards be applied. 4. Amendment 2 is designed to ensure that the activities occur only on land owned by the person pursuing the exemption. 5. In addition, assuming the bill moves forward, staff recommends a sunset and a report and analysis from CDF concerning the implementation of these provisions and an 3 analysis of the strengths and weaknesses of this approach along with any recommendations. SUGGESTED AMENDMENTS AMENDMENT 1 Page 5, line 36 (ii) For the areas between 150 and 300 feet from the habitable structure, operations shall meet all of the following provisions: A) The residual stocking standards are consistent with 14 CCR Sections 913.2, 933.2, and 953.2, as appropriate; B) Activities within this area shall increase the quadratic mean diameter of the stand; C) The residual stand shall consist primarily of healthy and vigorous dominant and codominant trees from the preharvest stand, well-distributed though the harvested area; D) Post-harvest slash treatment and stand conditions shall lead to more moderate fire behavior in the professional judgment of the registered professional forester who submits the notice of exemption; E) The Board shall establish additional guidance for slash treatment and post-harvest stand conditions and any other issues deemed necessary that is consistent with this section. AMENDMENT 2 Page 5, line 26, after "trees" add "on his or her property" AMENDMENT 3 Add a 3 year sunset from the effective date to provide an opportunity to evaluate this measure AMENDMENT 4 Add reporting language that requires CDF to evaluate the measure and make any recommended changes. 4 SUPPORT Forest Landowners of California Personal Insurance Federation of California California Association of Realtors Rural County Representatives of California California Licensed Foresters Association California Farm Bureau Federation OPPOSITION None Received 5