by Shauna Millar
The Washington State Enabling Act set aside public forest land for logging, for the purpose of supporting and funding schools in Washington State. Those funds have decreased to the point that school levies are now assessed to make up the difference. What happened?
The Washington State Enabling Act states, in part: “Rentals on leased land, proceeds from the sale of timber and other crops, interest on deferred payments on land sold, interest on funds arising from these lands, and all other actual income, shall be available for the acquisition and construction of facilities, including the retirement of bonds authorized by law for such purposes, and for the maintenance and support of such schools and institutions.” [Public Law 90-41. 81 U.S. Statutes at Large p 106. Approved June 30, 1967.]
The Northwest Forest Plan, for the protection of the spotted owl reduced Timber Harvest of Federal Lands by 80% – of which was state trust land set aside by the federal government when Washington became a state in 1889 in order to provide a long-term revenue source for schools. Now, 98% of all timber harvest comes from non-federal forested land; mostly privately owned lands – which are not only being reduced by buffer zones to help save habitat, but also reduces the amount of timber that can be harvested. 90% of these lands meet all the rules and regulations required by not only the EPA but the Clean Water Act. Furthermore, these buffered areas are entitled to 50% of the value of this now, non-harvestable timber, of which the money is not available to help offset the losses. Further reducing the timber industries ability to do their job which also reduces the income at both local and state levels meant to support their local communities.
Further, those who are in the timber industry, plant 5 trees for each person per year. New growth is important as it helps to absorb C02 from the atmosphere. One tree can absorb up to 10lbs of CO2 per year. The timber industry helps reduce the carbon emissions, however, older trees don’t absorb as much. This is why harvesting, replanting and new growth is so important. Not only does it affect the communities but it also affects the environment. Environmental studies are important. These should be done BEFORE laws are passed.
As an example, the spotted owl has adapted to its environment and uses new growth for their habitat. The marbled murrelet, whom has now been given 168,000 acres of shoreline timber land, had already begun adaption by flying further inland to lay their egg. There are arguments that these birds face extinction from man, yet, they leave their fledglings to return to the sea alone. These fledglings face natural predators as well as man made ones. With harvesting laws that could be incorporated into their nesting habits it would help both species to survive better. We know that animals adapt.
From the spotted owl, to the salmon recovery act – where we closed down hatcheries too quickly, to the marbled murrelet, to the reduction of harvestable timber lands due to state and federal mandates and conservation buffer zones; there has to be more than just thought to the environmental impact as well as the economy. Taxes have been collected to support this legislature – so where has the funding been used?
Here are a few facts about the timber industry you may not have known
Private forest lands in Washington account for two-thirds of the state’s timber harvest. In 2003, more than $53 million in timber harvest and property taxes were distributed to counties, libraries, local schools, fire and taxing districts. Private forest landowners paid 83% of the total tax.
Timber is taxed at 5% – 4% goes to the county and 1% to the state general fund.
Legislative District 24 falls into the top 20 counties that harvest timber:
- #1 – Grays Harbor
- #6 – Clallam County
- #18 – Jefferson County
In 2019, as stated above: Timber the third largest industry in the state generating 28 billion dollars towards the economy of our state, 100,000 jobs both directly and indirectly. 5.5 billion in family wage jobs and works to support 1700 businesses and about 175 million in state and local taxes.
A Quick Guide to Understanding the Fish and Forest Act
In order to understand the implications of the Fish and Forest Law, we have to understand the history of it. Washington State has some of the most comprehensive rules and regulations in the United States. In 1974, Washington State created Fish and Forest Rules. (WAC 222.) The idea was to be able to protect the forest and waters by creating regulations to help maintain and sustain it. These rules included road construction and maintenance, watershed analysis, rivers and habitat, timber harvesting, reforestation, the use of natural chemicals, consultation and enforcement, and a few other additions. The intent was simple; improve environmental conditions by regulating forest practices.
Over the years, there have been 13 amendments added to this piece of legislature to improve upon the original intent, the most significant of which was the Forest and Fish Legislation passed in May of 1999. (ESHB 2091), which was incorporated into the Forest Practice Act. (RCW 76.09) (RCW 76). In 1998, the Salmon Recovery Act was introduced. It wasn’t until 1999, as a “title only bill” (otherwise known as “ghost bill”), the legislation went into a special session to fill it out. The significance of this bill is both that it was passed during a bipartisan legislature with a 49/49 vote and that the Upland Forestry Plan was completed four days before the cutoff date. It was designed to meet all requirements to include the federal Endangered Species Act (ESA) and the Clean Water Act. (effective in 2006.) This was a 50+ page bill that touched on many areas, not just forest practices.
Then State Representative Jim Buck (R) stated, “When Jack Ward Thomas closed the woods due to the spotted owl in 1992 due to the ESA, it had a huge impact on LD24 [Legislative District 24, covering Jefferson, Clallam and the north half of Grays Harbor counties]: bankruptcy, house foreclosures, suicide, domestic violence, rapid loss of population – all of which devastated the communities.”
So in 1996, when talk of salmon and ESA came about, legislatures felt they needed to address the issue by creating a piece of legislature that would include the ESA in forestry practices. This legislation also included the creation of a Forest Practice Board made up of representatives from state, tribal, county governments and private forest landowners. (Eight of these are appointed by the Governor.) It uses adaptive management (learning by doing) utilizing science and monitoring to verify that the Forest & Fish Law practice and standards are being met. Each group brings their area of interest and expertise to the table.
In theory the concept is good. It is meant to help keep and maintain our forest, river habitat for fish, clean rivers, maintain roads and give assistance to private landowners who were deprived of up to 50% of their revenue by not being able to cut down timber on their property due to buffer zoning, create an office for private landowners to get questions answered, and assistance, with a few additional benefits all created when these sides came together.
Fast forward, 20 years.
In January 2019, the House Rural Development, Agriculture & Natural Resources Committee met to review the past 20 years as to how this legislation has progressed. Original sponsor, Jim Buck, who was committee chair at the time, and Mark Dolmet, committee chair after Buck, were there to give the history. They were each asked how they thought the Salmon Recovery has gone and what grade would they give the legislation and implementation.
Jim Buck replied, that it “has not worked as well as hoped.” However, he didn’t feel that this was all a failing on the part of the legislation. He stated that the ocean conditions, the temperatures, and the availability of food have all affected the recovery rate. He suggested that the members now on the committee should read the RCW and understand the intent before moving forward as a guideline to making decisions. Buck said that things could be done better, then gave it a “C”.
Mark Dolmet responded that he would give it less than a that. “We built a hatchery system to mitigate the growth of populations in the cities and the hydro-systems. From when we started and today, that system has been cut in half. Until we get habitat opened up, until we get fish passage so fish can get through the gauntlet in the lower parts of the watershed up into the forest lands where we have opened it up, the fish can’t survive. I think we abandoned the hatchery system too soon.” He further believes there needs to be a re-commitment to more hatcheries and hatchery habitat in order for the fish to survive. He stated, “In the 90’s, 85% of the harvest was from hatcheries.”
Stephen Bernath, Deputy for Forest Practices at Department of Natural Resources, outlined what is being worked with currently. “There are 20 million acres of Forest land in the State.”
- 12 million are regulated by DNR under forest practices act
- 2 million+ are state lands
- 10 million are private land – 1/2 industrial, 1/2 private
The scope or the framework around the Forest and Fish law, and the Forest and Fish Report (FFR); wanted to protect fish, in all life stages. We were trying to anticipate any future listings, and of course we wanted to protect and restore water quality. The idea was to do this with the federal government, so we had a 50 year HCP (Habitat Conservation Plan) that was agreed to by all parties involved.” The federal funding went away after 7 years, which allowed tribes and others to participate in the program, and was replaced by a state surcharge on B&O. However, it wasn’t until 2006 that an account was created for the collected surcharge and decided how it could be used. When asked what grade would he give the legislature for funding the program? “Let’s just say we have 158, I think, backlog of Riparian Easements going back 6 or 7 years at least.” Bernath said, “We do have a budget request in to fund the backlog. If you include the easements that come within the next two years, it is about a 17 million dollar request.”
Kelly Susewind, Director of Fish and Wildlife. “On reflection, we think this law has been a great step forward to protecting and restoring fish and wildlife habitat and balancing the impact to the iconic industry that is forestry. This 20 years has been a success and should be celebrated as such.” He further stated, “The cornerstone of this success is the collaborative nature of this program.”
Maia Bellon, Director of Washington State Department of Ecology (at the time, she has since retired) As the Department of Ecology Water Manager, it is our job to implement state water quality standards, to run the delegated federally funded clean water program, and to be the co-manager and co-administrator of the forest protection rules that touch on water quality aspects. “We are trying to move into a different lens and how it is all connected; forested land down to the urban areas. Better work and make more effective our engagement toward storm water management – we already have tools implemented through the critical area ordinances and shoreline master programs. We are working to implement those laws and the regulations associated with those to make sure what is done upstream and high up in the watershed isn’t for naught.”
Hilary Franz, Commissioner of Public Lands “I understand the importance of working forest lands to Washington States environment and economy. It is important to remember how critical commercial forestry is to the state. It is the third largest industry in the state generating 28 billion dollars towards the economy of our state, 100,000 jobs both directly and indirectly. 5.5 billion in family wage jobs and works to support 1700 businesses. And as you all are working to figure out how you are going to fund all the challenges in front of you, remember it generates about 175 million in state and local taxes.
This is hard work, it has worked for 20 years, but there are areas for significant areas of improvement. It is critical work that is extremely complicated. We have leadership that has changed over the 20 years that is different, we have a rapidly changing climate and we have a forest health crisis. I think the focus will be to make sure that the legislature is meeting the funding components that is part of TFW.
It is the responsibility of the diverse stakeholders to make sure the next 30 years are even more successful, we need to make sure we are committed to building trust. We need to lead with hope rather than fear, and we need to hope and we need to start to own each others problems. We oversee the urban forestry, we are looking to build a watershed approach to knit the different lands and broadened out to partners like the federal government who has their own issues and challenges in salmon.”
Are We Balancing Conservation and Protecting Our Industries?
Representative Jim Walsh (R) posed the question about balancing the interests of habitat conservation and protecting the iconic industries of our state. He asked each of the group to give a grade to their agency for how it has balanced those interests.
Susewind said that they have been at a “C”. He said his agency recognizes they need to do better with balancing. That they are committed to doing a better job in the future. “I think its about collaboration. Let’s avoid the lawsuits, let’s avoid the fights. Let’s get together and figure out what works for everybody.”
Bellon agreed. “It’s about at an average grade, I would like to get that grade up. I believe in the model of the Forest and Fish Agreements.” She further stated, “We need to make sure that what we put on the table, the next time around, gets us above an average grade.”
Franz didn’t grade her agency instead she replied, “that the board is a very diverse group of individuals and she think they would give themselves a ‘B/C'”. She felt the bigger question would be if you were putting it in the perspective of other industries and sectors, are we treating each equally or fairly to finding a solution for the problem. She feels we “are absolutely failing our small forest owners in this state as to stepping up to our responsibilities we pledged under TFW. They have the most significant challenges. It is time for us to step up and put our money where we put our commitment. We are failing in the area of efficiencies and processes. Paralysis by process or punishment for process. How do we reinvigorate the agreement? If we can rebuild it then we can bring the grade up.”
Here Are a Couple of Statements by Non-State Participants of the Agreement
Heather Hansen, Washington Farm Forestry Association (WFAA) which represents approximately 1200 small family forestry land owners.
The small family landowners “lands tend to be lower in the water shed, so there are more buffers, larger buffers and the threat of conversion is very real because we are closer to town. We supported the agreement because we support the intent, despite the fact that we knew some of our members would suffer significant economic impacts. We believe that the agreement would support a fair, balanced and scientifically based approach for meeting the goals of salmon recovery, water quality and maintaining economic viability for small forest land owners.
“… Unfortunately, due to insufficient funding, none of them have fully accomplished their goals. The most significant, the riparian easement program, was created to pay affected small forest land owners 50% of the value of the timber they would never be able to harvest due to buffers. This program is currently 6 years behind in funding. Some of these have now become part of an estate as land owners have deceased and passed it on.
“… The establishment of the small forest landowner office has been helpful, however, due to lack of funding and staffing the wait can be many months. When a land owner wants to improve habitat, health of their trees or fireproof they need a place to go to get help with technical information and forms. The WFAA have proposed an alternate forest plan, which has been accepted for review, this would simplify the process for small business owners and reduce the states liability for the program. The future of the proposal remains to be seen. There are over 1000 projects waiting for funding. Funding which hasn’t been able to keep up with the need. “We have owners who have lost 30, 40 50% of their value.” Hansen stated.
Paula Sweden, Conservation Northwest
“There are increasing challenges it may be the protections in place aren’t enough. One of the indications of health is that we recognize we need to take a step back and reinvigorate the program. We recognize there is so much good in the program and so much work that needs to be done. I would ask you to stay engaged and the funding is crucial and the payoffs are high.”
Resources:
Forest Practices Board – adopts rules and guidance for DNR to implement.
Washington Forest Protection Association
The Timber/Fish/Wildlife (TFW) Policy Committee
Washington Contract Loggers Association – Timber Facts & Figures
Recent Comments