Concerned citizens, groups and public agencies across the
state of
And yet, regulations adopted over the past few decades have made it much more difficult for family forest landowners to remain working on the land. Family forest landowners often feel under siege, inundated with regulations and bureaucracy that seem designed to hinder rather than help them maintain their working forests. How is it that the small businesses with the greatest contributions to public values face what seem to be the highest regulatory hurdles when compared to other land uses?
Family forest landowners are working hard to preserve this quality of life by managing their forests through responsible forest practices that do no harm to public resources. Family forest landowner representatives are working closely with tribes, and state and federal agencies to achieve this goal.
Society tends to overlook the fact that if we want to keep the forests, we need to keep the owners. We need to find better ways of keeping working forest ownership an attractive option that engenders public support and respect.
The public demand for tougher laws and regulations to preserve the environment has had the unintended consequence of faster rates of conversion of family forestland to other, non-forested uses. Recent University of Washington studies indicate we are currently losing close to 100,000 acres a year of working private forestland to conversion to non-forested uses. This trend will lead to the loss of one million acres of working forest land in the next decade to the detriment of all who depend on forestland.
If the public better understood the public benefits of active forest management, especially the benefits of family forestland owners who manage for widely diverse goals, their greater appreciation would lead to better policy decisions and more accommodating regulations. Greater public awareness and appreciation would enhance our pride of ownership, which in turn would also help lead to slower conversions; legacies of family stewardship for more generations; and increased conservation of forestland in perpetuity.
Just imagine the power of a paradigm shift if public opinion considered the practice of forest management an honorable profession (or even a calling), attracting more families to “do their part” by becoming stewards of their own parcel of forestland as a way to give something back to society!
State Agency Recognition and Promotion of the Ecological
Benefits of Working Forests
These steps include the creation of the Small Forest Landowner Office in the Department of Natural Resources, a Forest Riparian Easement Program, revised road maintenance and abandonment plan statute and regulations with the creation of the Family Forest Fish Passage Program, and an Overstocked Stand Template.
Despite generally good agency intentions,
We believe many of today’s forest practice regulation issues will be minimized when family forest landowners are rightly seen as a major part of the solution to environmental issues, rather than part of the problem. Regardless of management intensity, forestland inherently provides more habitat/resource protections than any other land use! State agencies owe it to their constituencies and their mandates to advocate for and facilitate public understanding of the importance and public benefit of retaining working forests.
Most landowners believe that we should be able to rotate our crops nearer to the edge of most streams and believe we can do so without impacting public resources. Many of us believe that science will eventually support some level of streamside harvests. We believe agency folks should be more helpful keeping us on the landscape with creative options to harvest more, while protecting significant resources. Rather than being encouraged to do more good, we tend to be forced to prove the negative, or face ever-increasing and complicated rules designed to cover every contingency.
We believe the state has a fiduciary and environmental responsibility to be the lead in educational outreach efforts intended to promote economic viability on private and public forestlands. Economic viability is key to long-term sustainability of all private forestland. Economic viability is also key to the intergenerational ownership most family forestland owners strive for.
We further believe the state has a fiduciary and
environmental responsibility to be the lead in advertising to the public and
wood product buyers that our strict forest practice regulations should make all
forest products from
In addition to greater public and agency support, our vision
for the future of Family Forests in the State of
We envision a
Family forest owners have more simplified rules that also provide appropriate credit for our “low impact” harvest techniques and smaller harvest unit sizes (RCW’s 76.13.100, 76.13.110, & 75.77.85.180; WAC’s 222-12-040, & 222-12-043; and the 2001 Forest Practice Board action confirming their belief that “Viable Family Forests are integral to the health of forest ecosystems, the well being of rural communities, and the sustainable production of timber and other forest products.”).
We believe the following general regulatory guidelines meet the intent of the references above and are appropriate options for family forest owners, for the general public, and for the overall environmental good:
§
Single-tier buffers based only on stream type that can be
either: a fixed width; or a variable width buffer (Type S and F waters only)
with an average that is equal to or greater than the fixed width option.
§
Low Impact Management options within the buffers
with thinning
comparable to the current Overstocked Stand template and with opportunities for
small group selection/patch-cut/partial-cut regeneration harvests. Small regeneration cuts would not exceed 50%
of the stream reach, nor be greater than 500’ of stream reach without
equivalent sized areas of 50+ year old timber in the Riparian Management Zone
between these partial cuts.
§
Narrower Riparian Management Zone widths that
are no larger than what is generally available to professional foresters who can & do reduce
their effective buffer-width by utilizing the various technical rule options that are cost/expertise
prohibitive for most “small’ forest owners.
Additionally:
o
Riparian Management Zones for Seasonal Stream Type F (Fish) waters do not
need full shade to block summer heat to protect nonexistent water and
nonexistent fish - therefore seasonal fish stream buffers should not exceed the
RMZ width of Stream Type Np (Non-Fish Perennial) waters.
o
Riparian Management Zones for Stream Type Np waters should only apply in
areas that actually have surface water during the summer.
§
Increased
credit/incentives should be available for higher quality/diversity/placement of
Large Woody Debris &/or Retention trees.
§
Summary: “Small” forestland owners should have
Single-Tier buffers that are: 1) Manageable; 2) offer some parity with what’s
available to those with greater technical expertise (or have this expertise
provided); and 3) buffers that are of a size & flexibility that is
commensurate with the smaller harvests, lower risks, & lower potential
impacts we can/do provide as envisioned in our current RCW’s and WAC’s.
A user-friendly Eastside Imminent Mortality and
Restoration Template is approved, providing long-term benefits to the
landowners and all those depending on healthy riparian stream buffers in
eastern
§ Eastside forested stream buffers are often destroyed by fire, insects, and pathogens, causing loss of riparian functions associated with healthy buffers.
§ If risk is identified soon enough, there is a short window of opportunity for the landowner to salvage enough dead and dying trees to pay for appropriate restoration efforts.
§ Dead and dying trees are more highly susceptible to fire and associated negative impacts to the stream functions.
§ This template has to be simple to use, with strong guidance for evidence of pathogens, and a consensus of state and private qualified forest practitioners to ensure treatments are both needed and appropriate for the long term health of the stream buffer.
A usable Hardwood Conversion Template is approved that helps move us towards desired future condition (DFC).
§ This is the most frequently used Alternate Plan and therefore most appropriate for a less cumbersome (for all) template.
“Low Impact” harvests are encouraged with a 20-mbf commercial harvest exemption.
§ Micro harvests of a few truckloads like this are presently discouraged by our regulatory process to the point that folks sometimes avoid good forest practices (thinning, salvage, forest health).
§ Limited by the current 5-mbf personal use exemption (Class I), many folks simply disregard the permits, rules, and taxes – or worse yet they avoid appropriate best management practices. Making very small harvests possible with minimal paperwork will bring folks back into compliance, make them more apt to follow the rules and pay the harvest taxes.
§ 20 mbf is enough for many routine low/no impact salvage operations while making it more affordable to more actively care for their forest.
§ This regulatory change would particularly suit the small-scale family forestland owner, especially those with forest health issues &/or those that prefer really light-touch harvest schedules over a longer period of time. We are trying to get folks to incorporate “Firewise” planning on their forested parcels, but tend to lose them when they see a mountain of paperwork, permits, fees, and Moratoriums.
§ Incorporating a maximum of 20mbf of commercial harvest in a Class I Permit would encourage low-impact harvests.
§ This is a win-win that encourages & enables more folks to do the right thing!
Family forest owners’ management diversity and conversion options (& environmental consequences) are appropriately considered in the CMER process.
§ Our science organization should recognize/foster research that enables, as well as limits, forest management.
§ Appropriate risk analysis/management principles should be a key part of the CMER process.
§ In addition to science, adaptive management should be more concerned with the relative environmental differences between forested land and developed land because those are the environmental choices we are faced with each day. CMER should be analyzing these differences to sharpen the choices for policy folks that must look at the landscape, not just one parcel that is theoretically going to stay in forestland.
§ Adaptive Management and CMER seem directed toward one size fits all which can add risk to the answers and seem to disregard the options and benefits of variability and natural diversity that is the history of smaller ownerships, a diversity best represented by the diverse management styles of thousands of individual family forestland owners with a multitude of objectives – far beyond just growing timber for harvest.
Family forestland owners would like to continue to develop better relationships with all our neighbors, especially our tribal neighbors.
§ We share a common bond with the land now in our care and value the past and future legacy of the land.
§ We struggle to understand different forest practice rules for different people.
§ We are confused and frustrated at times by seemingly endless negotiations over who can do what on the land now in our care.
§ We are eager to work together toward common goals.
The Legislature supports programs that encourage folks to voluntarily keep their forestland forested longer, or even in perpetuity.
§
Such long-term
programs include lease or purchase of development rights; a more vigorous
transfer of development rights program; bonus programs for cluster developments
that establish permanent resource parcels, all of which slow or stop the land conversion
out of forestry.
§
Economic reality will necessarily force much of
our forestland to convert over the coming decades unless these rights are
preemptively leased or purchased.
§
Many family forestland owners would prefer their
land stay forested, but the ever-increasing value of the land eventually
precludes continuation in forestry (and all its public benefits). Recognition and rewards to landowners
voluntarily forfeiting rights to develop their property is key to keeping
forestland perpetually in forestry.
Growth Management rules should promote these voluntary incentives,
rather than continuing the current top down onerous regulations imposed on
rural folks.
§
Family forest owners’ land is generally closer
to the populated areas and therefore the most at risk of conversion.
§
Legislative action that allows County options
for more conservation taxes would help fund these programs and leverage
state/federal matching funds.
§
Legislative action that facilitates increased
density in the urban areas by using rural development rights could make the
most impact over the long term, without cost to the taxpayers, without “taking”
private property rights, – and by fulfilling the promise of Growth Management
long term!
The Legislature enhances funding for Stewardship style programs (historically provided/coordinated by DNR Stewardship Service Foresters) to reinvigorate and centralize the well-intentioned but declining services of the DOE, WDFW, US Fish & Wildlife, USDA, WSU, & the U of W.
§
While we have gained the support of, and greatly
appreciate the Small Forest Landowner Office efforts to help us cope with the
higher regulatory burden and complexity of
§ The most onerous and complicated forest regulations relate to forest and stream critters and the water we all use. WDFW & DOE stewardship incentives, both regulatory and financial, for various habitat stewardship projects would yield dividends for the critters and the agency/landowner relationships.
§ Family forestland owners have difficulty distinguishing between the various agencies and programs. Agency service can be more effective and more easily accessed by providing landowners improved “one stop shopping” by enhancing rather than further reducing staffing.
The Legislature directs, funds, and empowers WDFW to
provide help to family forestland owners experiencing excessive wildlife
damage.
§
Mountain beavers, deer, elk, and especially
black bears can wipe out years of work and investment that precludes
maintaining economically viable forestland.
§
These problems are manageable by most family
forestland owners; but due to our relatively small parcel sizes, when the
damage becomes significant, it’s catastrophic because we aren’t able to average
it out over larger acreages.
§
These issues seem to be greater near state or
federal forestland where excessive damage is less likely to be controlled. State &/or Federal owners would normally
be considered good neighbors but not when bear damage, for example, is
uncontrolled &/or uncontrollable.
§ Recommended improvements include: Agency help resolving significant problems, rather than merely providing regulatory or enforcement services; a more liberalized, trusting, & less costly depredation process; help with feeding programs; help with snaring; special micro hunts; agency removal of state owned problem animals; and payment for excessive damage (as is the case with Ag folks). Family forestland owners need a fuller menu of options for those scattered landowners most impacted with excessive localized populations of the State’s wildlife. For example, offer forestland owners attention that’s similar and equivalent to that provided to Ag. and urban folks having wildlife issues.
The Legislature directs funds and empowers DNR to provide help to
family forest landowners regarding forest health and fuels reduction efforts.
·
· These unhealthy/high risk situations occur not only on some private forestlands but also more significantly on intermingled public lands (US Forest Service and DNR managed lands). These situations cause undue and disproportionate risks to family forest landowners. Family forestland owners wish to be proactive rather than wait for nature’s response to unhealthy forest conditions.
· Urban interface encroachment causes diversion of forest fire suppression resources to protect homes and other improvements. We are concerned that we will be forced to pay a disproportionate share of the ever-increasing fire protection costs while we wait for the political will needed to seriously address our forest health issues.
·
Portions
of the unhealthy conditions are related to environmental constraints including
the inability to economically manage various buffers. Long-term forest health issues should trump
all others, especially in eastern
· Recommended improvements include: The State Legislature adequately fund efforts to coordinate the Department of Natural Resources Strategic Plan for Healthy Forests with all landowners/land managers and that higher priority be placed on the technical assistance and cost share programs being offered to family forest landowners to reduce forest health and fire risks on their own properties.
Forestland is eligible to benefit from all State and State-supported programs designed to reward good stewardship of wetlands and stream buffers.
§ Many programs designed to enhance habitat on one type of private property disappear as soon as streams or wetlands are in another property classification, such as forestland. Why? Is that fair?
§ Not only do the incentives typically disappear on “forestland”, they are replaced with onerous regulations far more controlling than what applies on the adjacent land uses that are clearly less environmentally beneficial to public interests. The Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program (CREP) is an example of a great state and federally funded program for Ag farmers that specifically excludes tree farmers.
§ If the goal is to make all other landowners provide more habitats like forestland owners provide, why punish us with tougher regulations and exclusion from voluntary incentive programs attempting to model our behavior?
§ Family forestland owners would like to have more equity and parity in land use laws that allow all other farm harvests, cattle, houses, and septic tanks to be closer to streams than we are allowed to conduct regeneration harvests once every 50-60 years.
The Legislature fosters development of programs that
support the creation of statewide markets for ecological services provided by
family forestlands such as markets or incentives for carbon sequestration,
biomass fuels, clean water (filtration and conservation), clean air, wildlife
habitat, and other environmental benefits.
§
The State recognizes the significant financial
and environmental benefits to the public from sustainable forest management and
conservation. The development of markets
for ecological services would help the “economic viability” needed to retain
existing private forestlands.
§
Special attention needs to be directed at the
smaller parcels, typical of most family forestland owners because they are most
vulnerable to conversion.
§
Participation in statewide/nationwide markets
will not be possible, especially for small family forestland owners without
support from the state. First, public
investments are needed in research and development on how to measure the many
conservation values provided by private forests; and, second, research and
demonstration projects are needed on how regulatory and market approaches might
be used to best incentivize landowners towards sustainable production of public
environmental benefits.
The Legislature supports recognition of our high forest
practice standards by seeking group environmental “certification” of all
legally harvested wood without further regulations or fees, potentially enhancing the state’s forest product
markets and perhaps even having a positive effect on tourism.
§
Forest Practice regulations more protective of
the environment than nearly every other place in the world should receive
appropriate recognition.
§
Group “certification” of family forestland is
not practical without state agency support.
§
Higher levels of “certification” would still be
possible for those who desire it.
The Legislature enacts legislation that reduces landowner liability/risk of adverse impacts when the public accesses private land (with or without permission) and when neighbors object to appropriate and legal best management practices.
§
Over time, significant abuses of public access
privileges have closed most private land, largely due to illegal dumping and
inappropriate road and trail use by a variety of vehicles, w/o effective
enforcement of existing laws even if the perpetrator is caught.
§
The very real fear and cost of being sued by
visitors, including trespassers, is another huge deterrent to allowing public
access.
§
Greater access to private lands will occur with
better enforcement/protections against illegal dumping, and greater liability
protection whether access is free, enhanced by public agency incentives, or by
nominal fees from the individual visitors themselves.
§
The Right to Farm Act needs to specifically
include “passively growing trees” in its list of “Forest Practices” that are
included in this act (State Supreme Court recently ruled against a timberland
owner due to this apparent omission/vagueness).
§
Frivolous and unjustified interference occurs
with our forest management by neighbors wishing to retain “their” back yard or
viewscapes who are unwilling to wait the same decades we must wait for our crop
to mature again. Our low frequency / low
duration of activity should earn us some latitude as good neighbors, but more
often simply raises the irrational expectation that we will never manage our
land, no matter how infrequently.
The Legislature reviews the
§
While far less onerous than in the past, this
harvest tax has outlived its appropriateness.
It originated as a real estate tax when the value of the standing old
growth timber far exceeded the land values.
This asset value relationship no longer exists for most family
timberland, leaving family timberland owners with a harvest tax that’s
discriminatory when compared to all other land based farm production in similar
“current use” tax classifications.
§
Residential properties taxed at “highest and
best use rates” are still required to file this forest excise tax form if they
sell even a single tree. Compliance
monitoring on small harvests from residential parcels isn’t fruitful and
compliance is likely very low. Those of us living on our tree farms typically
have 5-acre minimum parcel sizes even though most of the 5 acres is in forest –
we get to pay the highest and best use residential rates and still have
to pay Forest Excise taxes on timber from that same parcel.
§
“Small Harvesters” provide approximately 10% of
these harvest excise tax revenues, yet many of the tax forms cost more to
process/collect than funds received.
Just as important, these tax returns for marginal tax receipts create an
unnecessary paperwork burden on the landowners, especially family forestland
owners who may have only one or two harvests in a lifetime.
§
Exempting the tax liability/reporting
requirements on at least the first 50 mbf annually would help most family
forestland owners and make a significant reduction in the paperwork required to
administer.
§
At the very least, the “Small Harvester” portion
of these harvest taxes should go back into support encouraging family forestry,
i.e. via the Small Forest Landowner office, support for DNR Stewardship
Forestry, WSU Forestry Extension, &/or other agencies proactively working
toward supporting family forestry.
§
We recognize these taxes support the counties
where many of us live, but forest excise taxes, replacements, or their
predecessors are no longer appropriate or fair.
The Legislature enacts laws that preclude imposition of
property taxes on forestland taken out of production by environmental laws.
§
Not only would this be the fair thing to do, it
could become an incentive to landowners to provide even more environmental
benefits – a shift in the paradigm!
§
Based on the public values provided, additional
property taxes should be waived in exchange for a portion of the public values
provided by keeping our land forested.
The Legislature supports a statewide fish passage barrier
program.
§
The Family Forest Fish Passage Program is a fine
example of win-win with a common sense approach to priority.
§
Including others to the same standards
downstream of our forest areas would increase the rate of stream recovery.
Conclusion:
Family forest owners believe all these issues are legitimate
concerns that if acted upon would all benefit
This updated version was unanimously approved by the
Executive Board of the Washington Farm Forestry Association on 8/15/2008.