SENATE BILL REPORT

2SSB 5845

BYSenate Committee on Ways & Means (originally sponsored by Senators Owen, Anderson, Kreidler, Smitherman and Warnke)

Revising provisions on forest practices.

Senate Committee on Natural Resources

Senate Hearing Date(s):March 2, 1987; March 3, 1987

Majority Report:  That Substitute Senate Bill No. 5845 be substituted therefor, and the substitute bill do pass and refer to Committee on Ways & Means.

      Signed by Senators Owen, Chairman; DeJarnatt, Vice Chairman; Barr, Craswell, McDonald, Metcalf, Patterson, Stratton.

Senate Staff:Kaleen Cottingham (786-7415)

                  March 5 1987

Senate Committee on Ways & Means

Senate Hearing Date(s):March 6, 1987

Majority Report:  That Second Substitute Senate Bill No. 5845 be substituted therefor, and the second substitute bill do pass.

      Signed by Senators McDermott, Chairman; Gaspard, Vice Chairman; Bauer, Bluechel, Cantu, Kreidler, Lee, McDonald, Saling, Vognild, Warnke, Wojahn, Zimmerman.

Senate Staff:Charles Langen (786-7715)

                  March 13, 1987

AS PASSED SENATE, MARCH 13, 1987

BACKGROUND:

For the past year, the Forest Practices Board has been debating whether to adopt new rules regarding the interaction of forest practices with streamside management.  During this process a group of historically adversarial groups decided to "negotiate a settlement" on numerous forest practices issues.

On December 15, 1986, the proponents of this "Timber, Fish and Wildlife Project" presented their proposal to the Forest Practices Board for consideration and inclusion as part of the forthcoming environmental impact analysis on new forest practice regulations.

All of the changes proposed to the Forest Practices Board still need public review, environmental review and rule-making changes.

In addition to regulatory changes, there is need for some statutory changes if the proposals are to be implemented.

SUMMARY:

The purposes of statewide forest practice regulation is expanded to: (a) include fostering cooperation among forest land managers, landowners, tribes and citizens; (b) encourage forest landowners to take corrective and remedial action to reduce damage from mass earth movement and fluvial processes.

The 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 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:      available

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

Senate Committee - Testified: NATURAL RESOURCES: Bob Dick; Pam Crocker-Davis; Cleve Pinner; Marci Golde; Jeff Cederholm

Senate Committee - Testified: WAYS & MEANS: No one