HOUSE BILL REPORT

HB 903

BYRepresentatives Sutherland, Hargrove, Rust, Basich, Unsoeld, Fuhrman, Haugen, Belcher, Lewis, Amondson, Ballard, Brough, Holland, May, Betrozoff, D. Sommers, Ferguson and Holm

Revising provisions on forest practices.

House Committe on Natural Resources

Majority Report:     The substitute bill be substituted therefor and the substitute bill do pass.  (16)

     Signed by Representatives Sutherland, Chair; K. Wilson, Vice Chair; Amondson, Basich, Beck, Belcher, Bumgarner, Cole, Hargrove, Haugen, R. King, Meyers, Schmidt, C. Smith, Spanel and S. Wilson.

House Staff:Bill Koss (786-7129)

Rereferred House Committee on Ways & Means/Appropriations

Majority Report:     The substitute bill by Committee on Natural Resources as further amended by Committee on Ways & Means/Appropriations be substituted therefor and the substitute bill do pass.  (21)

     Signed by Representatives Locke, Chair; Allen, Belcher, Brekke, Bristow, Ebersole, Fuhrman, Grant, Grimm, Hine, Holland, McLean, McMullen, Nealey, Niemi, Peery, Sayan, Silver, H. Sommers, Sprenkle and B. Williams.

House Staff:    Nancy Stevenson (786-7137)

AS REPORTED BY COMMITTEE ON WAYS & MEANS/APPROPRIATIONS

MARCH 7, 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:

SUBSTITUTE BILL AS AMENDED:  An application for a Class III forest practice must be either approved or denied by the Department of Natural Resources within 30, rather than 14, days of application.  (Class I and II forest practices respectively are defined as those with either "no direct potential" or "less than ordinary potential" for damage to public resources.  A Class IV forest practice has "potential for a substantial impact on public resources.")

On low productive lands, as identified by the department, up to ten years may be permitted for natural regeneration of trees after a timber harvest.  Existing law requires successful natural regeneration within five years, regardless of the land's productivity.

When a forest landowner leaves standing trees in a riparian area to benefit public resources, the landowner is not liable for damages caused by the accidental falling of trees in the riparian areas.

A statewide program is created to reduce the risks from mass earth movements and erosion on forest land.  The program applies to lands on which no forest practices occurred since December 31, 1986.  The program will (1) identify forest lands where earth movements or erosion pose a significant danger to public resources or public safety, (2) recommend appropriate, cost-effective hazard reduction measures, and (3) analyze the cost and benefits of alternative hazard abatement procedures.

The department will notify landowners if no action or specific actions are recommended on their lands to protect public safety or public resources.  If the landowner elects to implement the recommendations, the department will pay one-half the costs, unless the landowner requests application of the hazard reduction program, in which case the landowner pays all implementation costs.  If no action is required or the landowner complies with the department's recommendation, the landowner is not liable for personal injuries or property damage arising from mass earth movements or erosion.  However, landowners may be liable if they had actual knowledge of a known hidden and dangerous condition on the property that was not disclosed to the department.  The department may be liable if it was negligent in making the hazard reduction recommendations or in approving the implementation of its recommendations.

The Forest Practices Board may establish an advisory committee.  The committee will consist of not more than five experts who will report on each hazard reduction plan submitted to them.

Any hazard reduction plan may be appealed.  Any landowner, agency, tribe or other person may object to any portion of the hazard reduction plan within 30 days of its issuance and request to schedule a review conference with the department.  The department must respond to the objections or amend the plan within 10 days of the conference.  A subsequent appeal may be made to the Forest Practices Appeals Board.

No cost-sharing funds will be available for sites where the department determines the hazardous condition results from a violation of then-prevailing standards.

The Forest Practices Appeals Board, scheduled to be eliminated on June 30, 1987, is permanently retained.

SUBSTITUTE BILL COMPARED TO ORIGINAL:  The advisory committee is established as an option for the department to use.  An appeal process is specified.  The department may be held liable in preparing a negligent hazard reduction plan, not just a grossly negligent plan.

AMENDED BILL COMPARED TO SUBSTITUTE:  The appropriation section was removed from the bill.

CHANGES PROPOSED BY COMMITTEE ON WAYS & MEANS/APPROPRIATIONS:  The appropriation section was removed from the bill.

Fiscal Note:    Requested February 9, 1987.

Effective Date:The bill contains an emergency clause and takes effect immediately.

House Committee ‑ Testified For:     (Natural Resources) Brian Boyle, Commissioner of Public Lands; Stu Bledsoe, Washington Forest Practices Association; Judy Turpin, Washington Environmental Council; Pam Crocker-Davis, National Audubon Society; Carol Jolly, Department of Ecology; Rich Poelker, Department of Game; and Curt Smitch, Department of Fisheries.

(Ways & Means/Appropriations) Cleve Pinnix, Department of Natural Resources (DNR); Pam Crocker Davis, Audubon Society; Stu Bledsoe, Washington Forest Practices Association.

House Committee - Testified Against: (Natural Resources) None Presented.

(Ways & Means/Appropriations) None Presented.

House Committee - Testimony For:     (Natural Resources) The parties involved worked long and hard to prepare a framework that provides environmental protection and flexibility in implementation.  The bill does things the Forest Practices Board could not accomplish.  It allows for site specific management plans.  It also moves toward alleviating existing dangerous situations on forest land.

(Ways & Means/Appropriations) To implement the agreement requires adequate funding ($6.5 million requested).  Additional field staff will be needed by DNR, the Department of Ecology, Fisheries and Game.  In the future, the cost will be less since there are one time costs associated with data collection.

House Committee - Testimony Against: (Natural Resources) None Presented.

(Ways & Means/Appropriations) None Presented.