HOUSE BILL REPORT
2SSB 5845
BYSenate Committee on Ways & Means (originally sponsored by Senators Owen, Anderson, Kreidler, Smitherman and Warnke)
Revising provisions on forest practices.
House Committe on Natural Resources
Majority Report: Do pass. (14)
Signed by Representatives Sutherland, Chair; K. Wilson, Vice Chair; Amondson, Ballard, Basich, Beck, Bumgarner, Cole, Hargrove, Haugen, Meyers, C. Smith, Spanel and S. Wilson.
House Staff:Bill Koss (786-7129)
Rereferred House Committee on Ways & Means
Majority Report:
Signed by Representatives
House Staff: Nancy Stevenson (786-7137)
AS PASSED HOUSE APRIL 9, 1987
BACKGROUND:
The 1974 Legislature passed the Forest Practices Act following more than a year of discussion among large and small timber processors, environmentalists, state agencies, and counties. The act recognized the interrelationship among forest practices and other resources. It was designed to protect timber supply, soil, water, fish, wildlife, and amenity resources by regulating timber removals, road construction and maintenance, reforestation, and the use of forest chemicals.
The 1975 Legislature faced the choice of either amending or repealing the act, due to organized opposition from the timber industry. The legislature adopted the amendment route. An additional class of forest practices was created (Class IV), and the first three classes were excluded from the State Environmental Policy Act process. Class IV forest practices require completion of an environmental checklist since these actions have potential for a substantial impact on the environment.
Three court decisions between 1978 and 1981 sparked the legislature to reconsider sections of the act. In 1982, the current rules were established. Additional changes were made to the Class IV Special Forest Practices in areas of water supply interest.
Since 1982, discussions continued over the adequacy of environmental protection provided by the Forest Practices regulations. Particular concerns existed over protection of riparian areas -- the land adjacent to streams and lakes. In 1985, the Forest Practices Board directed the Department of Natural Resources, which administers the act, to prepare new, more protective, regulations regarding wildlife and riparian zones.
In 1986, representatives of tribes, the departments of Fisheries and Game, the timber industry, and environmental interests met to determine if they could collectively prepare alternative regulations to those prepared by the Forest Practices Board. The process they began became known as Timber, Fish and Wildlife or TFW. In December, 1986, the TFW participants reached an agreement on a proposed regulatory framework.
As part of the agreement, additional field compliance and enforcement staff is required by the departments of Natural Resources, Ecology, Fisheries, and Game to implement increased field reviews. Interdisciplinary teams are established to review and evaluate priority issues with a potential for environmental damage. Interdisciplinary teams are intended to include geologic, engineering, and biological professionals. If needed expertise is not available within the the Department of Natural Resources, it may be provided by Ecology, Game, Fisheries or other signators to the accord upon request by the Department of Natural Resources. The interdisciplinary team will recommend needed measures to mitigate potential problems. Basin planning will also allow coordinated harvest planning by multiple owners to meet the objectives of riparian and wildlife habitat protection. Landowners are also given the options of submitting pre-applications and multiple applications for early review which are not available under current rules.
The TFW group also proposes increased monitoring and evaluation to ensure the full and consistent implementation of the agreement throughout the state. An expanded use of information management systems among state agencies is also proposed to provide better coordination of data bases relating to priority issues such as riparian zones, roads, unstable slopes, etc.
The TFW agreement proposes specific pilot projects to begin the process of correcting problems associated with past forest practices including the identification and correction of potential mass failures along abandoned forest roads and railroads, and watershed-wide corrective action programs to restore riparian habitat.
The proposed budget increases also provide for a system of on-going monitoring, evaluation, and research.
SUMMARY:
The purposes of statewide forest practice regulation is expanded to: (a) include fostering cooperation among forest land managers, landowners, tribes, and citizens; and (b) encourage forest landowners to take corrective and remedial action to reduce damage from mass earth movement and fluvial processes.
The Department of Natural Resources (DNR) shall study and produce a hazard-reduction plan for each geographic region. The study shall include hazards which pose significant danger to public resources or safety; recommendations on the identified sites; and a cost-benefit analysis. Liability does not arise for failure to identify a site. The DNR shall utilize specialists such as hydrologists and geomorphologists. Priorities shall be those roads and railroads constructed prior to the Forest Practices Act of 1974.
At the request of DNR, an advisory board shall be established to review proposed hazard-reduction plans.
A process to request amendments in a conference are established. Time frames for conferences and adoption of final hazard-reduction plans are established.
Once final, hazard-reduction plans are appealed to the Forest Practices Appeals Board.
A landowner is not liable for personal injuries or property damage occurring on or off the identified site when implementing the recommendations or accessing the site to implement the recommendations. If the plan is implemented to the satisfaction of the DNR, the landowner is not liable for subsequent mass earth movement or fluvial process unless the owner has actual knowledge of a dangerous artificial latent condition not disclosed to the DNR.
If funds are available, the DNR shall pay 50 percent of the costs of implementing the hazard reduction program. If no or insufficient funds are available, the landowner may request application of the program at his or her expense. Cost-share funds are not available for sites where the hazard results from not following the then prevailing standards.
Landowners are not liable for damage resulting from trees falling in the riparian area if the DNR required such trees to be left to benefit public resources and if the trees fall naturally.
The Forest Practices Board's rulemaking authority is amended to include the ability to be more flexible in regulations by allowing landowner management plans as an alternative to the minimum forest practices standards.
The time frame for approving or disapproving Class III forest practices is expanded from 14 days to 30 days.
The reforestation requirements are revised allowing the DNR to identify low-productivity lands and allow up to 10 years (instead of up to five years) for natural regeneration.
Fiscal Note: Attached.
House Committee ‑ Testified For: (Natural Resources) None Presented.
(Ways & Means)
House Committee - Testified Against: (Natural Resources) None Presented.
(Ways & Means)
House Committee - Testimony For: (Natural Resources) None Presented.
(Ways & Means)
House Committee - Testimony Against: (Natural Resources) None Presented.
(Ways & Means)