BILL ANALYSIS �
-----------------------------------------------------------------
| |
| 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