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