HOUSE BILL REPORT

HB 2365

BYRepresentatives Spanel, Ferguson, R. Fisher, Brumsickle, Sayan, K. Wilson, Sprenkle and Braddock

Establishing guidelines for determinations of future urban use of forest land.

House Committe on Natural Resources & Parks

Majority Report:  The substitute bill be substituted therefor and the substitute bill do pass.  (8)

      Signed by Representatives Belcher, Chair; K. Wilson, Vice Chair; Beck, Ranking Republican Member; Brumsickle, Dellwo, Ferguson, Raiter and Sayan.

Minority Report:  Do not pass.  (2)

      Signed by Representatives Fuhrman and H. Myers.

House Staff:Bill Koss (786-7129)

AS REPORTED BY COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES & PARKS

FEBRUARY 2, 1990

BACKGROUND:

The Forest Practices Act delineates four classes of forest practices. The differences between the classes lie in the degree of risk they can place on public resources: water, fish, wildlife and capital improvements. Class one practices are those with no direct potential for damage; class two practices pose a less than ordinary risk for damage; class four are any practices with a potential for substantial damage to the environment, or on lands platted since January 1, 1960, or on lands which are not to be reforested because of the likelihood of future conversion to urban development.  Class three encompasses all actions between class two and class four.

Neither the law nor the rules provide guidance to the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) as to what constitutes the likelihood of future conversion to urban development.

The law requires DNR to inform the county of proposed forest practice applications.  A county may object to an application and DNR must not approve the application if: 1) the county believes the application is inconsistent with the law, the rules, or violates a local ordinance; and 2) the application is on lands platted since January 1, 1960, or being converted to another use.

Local governments may regulate forest practices in limited instances.  The Forest Practices Act specifically prohibits local government from regulating forest practices except in:  1) exercising land use planning or zoning or on lands platted since January 1, 1960; 2) taxing; 3) regulations affecting public health; and 4) implementing the Shoreline Management Act.

Local governments know of the landowners intent to retain the land in commercial timber production or intent to convert to another land use through information provided on the forest practices application.  The application must be approved prior to initiating all but the smallest forest practices.  If a landowner does not indicate an intent to change land uses on the parcel, the local government may deny any or all applications for later permits or approvals required to convert to another land use.  This authority exists for a period of up to six years after the application to harvest timber.

SUMMARY:

SUBSTITUTE BILL:  Criteria are specified to guide the Department of Natural Resources in determining the likelihood of commercial forest land conversion to urban development.  These include, but are not limited to tax classification of the land, inclusion in a local improvement district, designation in a comprehensive plan, proximity to urban services, previous application for development permits, and the presence of a forest management plan.  The intent of the landowner is to be given substantial weight in determining the class of the application.

Cities receive the same authorities as counties to comment on forest practice applications, appeal decisions, and receive notifications.

The ability of local jurisdictions to regulate forest practice is expanded to include situations where the action occurs on lands which the department determines not to be reforested due to the likelihood of future conversion to urban development.

The period during which local governments may deny a permit for failure to provide notification of an intent to convert from commercial timber production to another land use is extended to 10 years from six years and made mandatory.  A permit to convert forest land to another use may also be denied for a period of 10 years if the applicant failed to obtain a necessary forest practice application or if within 10 years of applying to convert forest land to agricultural land the owner applies to use the land for a non-agricultural use.  The Forest Practices Board may adopt rules waiving the 10 year moratorium.

SUBSTITUTE BILL COMPARED TO ORIGINAL:  More specific criterion are provided to guide the department in determining whether land is likely to convert to urban uses.  The 10 year penalty provision applies to lands converted from forestry to agriculture and then to a non-agricultural use or where a person does not apply prior to commencing forest practice.  Rather than an optional six year penalty, the penalty is made a mandatory, 10 year period.

In classifying forest practices the intent of the landowner is to be given substantial weight.

Fiscal Note:      Available.

House Committee ‑ Testified For:    Representative Harriet Spanel, Prime Sponsor; Greg Patillo, Washington Farm Forestry Association, (expressed concerns over parts of bill); Tiffany Yelton, Washington Environmental Council; Tim Douglas, Mayor of Bellingham; Mike Yeager, Washington Forest Protection Association, (expressed concerns over parts of bill); Laura Eckert, Department of Natural Resources; and Kathleen Collins, Washington Association of Cities.

House Committee - Testified Against:      No one.

House Committee - Testimony For:    The Forest Practices Act works best away from urban development, the department acknowledges that in urban settings, local governments want to condition forest practices.  Cities need to be able to condition practices to ensure road placement and water control won't leave the city with problems later.

The waiting period on conversions where the applicant does not provide notice at the time of application, should apply to all classes of forest practices and be mandatory.  Either six or 10 years is an acceptable waiting period.  The loophole provided by interim conversions to agricultural uses should be ended.  The Forest Practices Board is allowed to develop rules for situations which warrant exceptions to the waiting period.

House Committee - Testimony Against:      (Concerns expressed over parts of bill):  The criterion to determine if property is likely to convert to urban use, needs to consider more factors the landowner can control.  The criteria should guide the decision; but should not be the only factors considered.  The Forest Practices Board should prepare the rules, not the Legislature.