defining a proposal in the forested environment problems and regulatory consequences
TRANSCRIPT
![Page 1: DEFINING A PROPOSAL IN THE FORESTED ENVIRONMENT PROBLEMS AND REGULATORY CONSEQUENCES](https://reader030.vdocuments.site/reader030/viewer/2022032705/56649dce5503460f94ac185d/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
DEFINING A PROPOSAL IN THE FORESTED ENVIRONMENT
PROBLEMS AND REGULATORY CONSEQUENCES
![Page 2: DEFINING A PROPOSAL IN THE FORESTED ENVIRONMENT PROBLEMS AND REGULATORY CONSEQUENCES](https://reader030.vdocuments.site/reader030/viewer/2022032705/56649dce5503460f94ac185d/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
CHOICES
• Forestry operation? (harvest trees, reforest, keep as forestland)
OR
• Conversion? (harvest trees, convert to, e.g., condos)
![Page 3: DEFINING A PROPOSAL IN THE FORESTED ENVIRONMENT PROBLEMS AND REGULATORY CONSEQUENCES](https://reader030.vdocuments.site/reader030/viewer/2022032705/56649dce5503460f94ac185d/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
Problems in Defining a Forest “Proposal”
• Logging can be a “proposal” in and of itself
• Logging can be a prelude to something larger, e.g., conversion to a housing development
![Page 4: DEFINING A PROPOSAL IN THE FORESTED ENVIRONMENT PROBLEMS AND REGULATORY CONSEQUENCES](https://reader030.vdocuments.site/reader030/viewer/2022032705/56649dce5503460f94ac185d/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
Regulatory Consequences
• Forestry Operation
• Conversion to a Non-
Forest Use
• No SEPA• The State Regulates
• SEPA applies• Local Governments
Are Supposed To Regulate
![Page 5: DEFINING A PROPOSAL IN THE FORESTED ENVIRONMENT PROBLEMS AND REGULATORY CONSEQUENCES](https://reader030.vdocuments.site/reader030/viewer/2022032705/56649dce5503460f94ac185d/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
Problems in Defining a Forest “Proposal”
• Who gets to say whether the proposal is regulated as a forestry operation or a conversion? Landowner? State?
• How do we give landowners the flexibility to change their minds yet at the same time encourage them to go through SEPA and be regulated by local governments when appropriate?
![Page 6: DEFINING A PROPOSAL IN THE FORESTED ENVIRONMENT PROBLEMS AND REGULATORY CONSEQUENCES](https://reader030.vdocuments.site/reader030/viewer/2022032705/56649dce5503460f94ac185d/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
Policies
• Encourage landowners to keep their land as forestland
• Protect the environment
• Protect a viable timber industry
![Page 7: DEFINING A PROPOSAL IN THE FORESTED ENVIRONMENT PROBLEMS AND REGULATORY CONSEQUENCES](https://reader030.vdocuments.site/reader030/viewer/2022032705/56649dce5503460f94ac185d/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
Regulatory Background
• Forest Practice =
• Activity
• On or directly pertaining to
• Forestland• Harvesting, growing, processing of timber
![Page 8: DEFINING A PROPOSAL IN THE FORESTED ENVIRONMENT PROBLEMS AND REGULATORY CONSEQUENCES](https://reader030.vdocuments.site/reader030/viewer/2022032705/56649dce5503460f94ac185d/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
Regulatory Background
• Forestland =
• land capable of producing a merchantable stand of timber AND
• not being used in a use incompatible with timber growing
• absence of trees not controlling
• zoning not controlling
• private covenants don’t control
![Page 9: DEFINING A PROPOSAL IN THE FORESTED ENVIRONMENT PROBLEMS AND REGULATORY CONSEQUENCES](https://reader030.vdocuments.site/reader030/viewer/2022032705/56649dce5503460f94ac185d/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
What’s a forest practice?
• Harvesting
• Reforestation
• Road building
• Brush control
![Page 10: DEFINING A PROPOSAL IN THE FORESTED ENVIRONMENT PROBLEMS AND REGULATORY CONSEQUENCES](https://reader030.vdocuments.site/reader030/viewer/2022032705/56649dce5503460f94ac185d/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
Regulatory Background
• Four Classes of Forest Practices
• Class I
• Class II - III
• Class I - IV
• No permit/least impact on the environment
• Permit required/ increasing impact on the environment
![Page 11: DEFINING A PROPOSAL IN THE FORESTED ENVIRONMENT PROBLEMS AND REGULATORY CONSEQUENCES](https://reader030.vdocuments.site/reader030/viewer/2022032705/56649dce5503460f94ac185d/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
Regulatory Background
• Class IV • Potential for substantial impact
• The only class of forest practices that undergoes SEPA review/All other classes are exempt from SEPA by statute
![Page 12: DEFINING A PROPOSAL IN THE FORESTED ENVIRONMENT PROBLEMS AND REGULATORY CONSEQUENCES](https://reader030.vdocuments.site/reader030/viewer/2022032705/56649dce5503460f94ac185d/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
Regulatory Background
• Class IV-Special =• “special
circumstances” present • potential for
substantial impact on the environment
• spotted owl habitat
• Class IV-General• conversion to a non-
forest use
![Page 13: DEFINING A PROPOSAL IN THE FORESTED ENVIRONMENT PROBLEMS AND REGULATORY CONSEQUENCES](https://reader030.vdocuments.site/reader030/viewer/2022032705/56649dce5503460f94ac185d/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
Regulatory Background
• Class IV
-Generals =
• conversion of forestland to a use incompatible with timber growing
• timber harvesting/road building within UGAs or ALTCs except where landowner provides documentation
• landowner declaration• platted land (RCW
58.17)
![Page 14: DEFINING A PROPOSAL IN THE FORESTED ENVIRONMENT PROBLEMS AND REGULATORY CONSEQUENCES](https://reader030.vdocuments.site/reader030/viewer/2022032705/56649dce5503460f94ac185d/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
Regulatory BackgroundWho defines the “proposal”?
• forest practices within UGAs or ALTCs
• conversion declared on application
• platted
• Landowner defines
• Landowner defines
• state defines as a matter of law
![Page 15: DEFINING A PROPOSAL IN THE FORESTED ENVIRONMENT PROBLEMS AND REGULATORY CONSEQUENCES](https://reader030.vdocuments.site/reader030/viewer/2022032705/56649dce5503460f94ac185d/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
Regulatory BackgroundWho Is Supposed to Regulate?
• The State• forestry operations• Class I, II, and III
forest practices
• Local governments• conversions• Class IV-Generals
![Page 16: DEFINING A PROPOSAL IN THE FORESTED ENVIRONMENT PROBLEMS AND REGULATORY CONSEQUENCES](https://reader030.vdocuments.site/reader030/viewer/2022032705/56649dce5503460f94ac185d/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
Regulatory BackgroundWho Actually Regulates?
• The State
• Forestry Operations• Conversions in most
jurisdictions
• Exceptions –IV-Gs• Spokane County• Thurston County• King County• Clark County• Port Townsend
![Page 17: DEFINING A PROPOSAL IN THE FORESTED ENVIRONMENT PROBLEMS AND REGULATORY CONSEQUENCES](https://reader030.vdocuments.site/reader030/viewer/2022032705/56649dce5503460f94ac185d/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
Regulatory Background
• Why are Class I, II, and III exempt from SEPA?
• Policy choice by Legislature
• Forest Practices Act and SEPA are environmental protection statutes–but with different approaches
![Page 18: DEFINING A PROPOSAL IN THE FORESTED ENVIRONMENT PROBLEMS AND REGULATORY CONSEQUENCES](https://reader030.vdocuments.site/reader030/viewer/2022032705/56649dce5503460f94ac185d/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
Regulatory Background
• Forest Practices Act
• Actual, substantive protection
• focus on four elements of the environment
• SEPA
• primarily procedural
• focuses on all elements of the environment
![Page 19: DEFINING A PROPOSAL IN THE FORESTED ENVIRONMENT PROBLEMS AND REGULATORY CONSEQUENCES](https://reader030.vdocuments.site/reader030/viewer/2022032705/56649dce5503460f94ac185d/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
Regulatory Background
• Forest Practices Act
• protection of the environment
• protection of viable timber industry
• retention of forestland
• SEPA
• protection of the environment
• use practicable means/social, economic—future
![Page 20: DEFINING A PROPOSAL IN THE FORESTED ENVIRONMENT PROBLEMS AND REGULATORY CONSEQUENCES](https://reader030.vdocuments.site/reader030/viewer/2022032705/56649dce5503460f94ac185d/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
Regulatory Bottom Line
• Forestry Operations
• Only one class goes
through SEPA
• State regulates
• Conversions
• Reviewed under SEPA
• Local governments supposed to regulate
![Page 21: DEFINING A PROPOSAL IN THE FORESTED ENVIRONMENT PROBLEMS AND REGULATORY CONSEQUENCES](https://reader030.vdocuments.site/reader030/viewer/2022032705/56649dce5503460f94ac185d/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
A Problem – Landowners won’t admit they’re converting
• Why?
• Don’t want to go through SEPA
• Don’t want to work with local governments
![Page 22: DEFINING A PROPOSAL IN THE FORESTED ENVIRONMENT PROBLEMS AND REGULATORY CONSEQUENCES](https://reader030.vdocuments.site/reader030/viewer/2022032705/56649dce5503460f94ac185d/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
The Fix ??– The FPA “Stick”
• Six year moratorium
• Reforestation Obligation
![Page 23: DEFINING A PROPOSAL IN THE FORESTED ENVIRONMENT PROBLEMS AND REGULATORY CONSEQUENCES](https://reader030.vdocuments.site/reader030/viewer/2022032705/56649dce5503460f94ac185d/html5/thumbnails/23.jpg)
The “Legal Loophole”?
• Local governments may lift moratorium
• Policy: Local government control
• Rationale: Landowners will eventually have to go through SEPA/GMA anyway
![Page 24: DEFINING A PROPOSAL IN THE FORESTED ENVIRONMENT PROBLEMS AND REGULATORY CONSEQUENCES](https://reader030.vdocuments.site/reader030/viewer/2022032705/56649dce5503460f94ac185d/html5/thumbnails/24.jpg)
The “Legal Loopholes”
• Law relies on landowners declarations as to whether “proposal” is to convert
• Policy: If you force landowners to declare “conversion” and/or go through SEPA for a conversion, they are more likely to convert
![Page 25: DEFINING A PROPOSAL IN THE FORESTED ENVIRONMENT PROBLEMS AND REGULATORY CONSEQUENCES](https://reader030.vdocuments.site/reader030/viewer/2022032705/56649dce5503460f94ac185d/html5/thumbnails/25.jpg)
Landowners Undecided at the Time of Application
• Policy - give them flexibility and encourage them to keep land as forestland
• Policy - Extra expense of SEPA will force some landowners to choose development
• Policy - Forest Practices Act–protection measures already developed by FPB v. ad hoc protection under SEPA
![Page 26: DEFINING A PROPOSAL IN THE FORESTED ENVIRONMENT PROBLEMS AND REGULATORY CONSEQUENCES](https://reader030.vdocuments.site/reader030/viewer/2022032705/56649dce5503460f94ac185d/html5/thumbnails/26.jpg)
How do we know if the land is being converted?
• Application: State generally goes by landowner’s declaration
• Extrinsic evidence: Evidence beyond landowner’s declaration of “no convert” on application
• (Subdivision applications, other permits)
![Page 27: DEFINING A PROPOSAL IN THE FORESTED ENVIRONMENT PROBLEMS AND REGULATORY CONSEQUENCES](https://reader030.vdocuments.site/reader030/viewer/2022032705/56649dce5503460f94ac185d/html5/thumbnails/27.jpg)
How do we know if the land has been converted?
• When is “forestland” no longer “forestland”?
--capable of supporting a merchantable stand of timber
--if declared “conversion but not actually converted within 3 years—must reforest
![Page 28: DEFINING A PROPOSAL IN THE FORESTED ENVIRONMENT PROBLEMS AND REGULATORY CONSEQUENCES](https://reader030.vdocuments.site/reader030/viewer/2022032705/56649dce5503460f94ac185d/html5/thumbnails/28.jpg)
KREGER LAKE (1995)
• FACTS• 726 acre holding/Pierce County
• LO’s First “proposal” – 700 houses/ golf course/726 acres – would have required subdivision (RCW 58.17) & infrastructure
• LO’s Second “proposal” – 20 acre tracts/Assessor’s Plat (RCW 58.18)–no infrastructure
![Page 29: DEFINING A PROPOSAL IN THE FORESTED ENVIRONMENT PROBLEMS AND REGULATORY CONSEQUENCES](https://reader030.vdocuments.site/reader030/viewer/2022032705/56649dce5503460f94ac185d/html5/thumbnails/29.jpg)
Kreger Lake
• 20 acre tracts marketed as home sites
• CCRs “residential community”
• LO Granted easements for roads, utilities
• five tracts sold/4 homes
• LO’s Third “Proposal”
• tracts not selling–timber only sold
![Page 30: DEFINING A PROPOSAL IN THE FORESTED ENVIRONMENT PROBLEMS AND REGULATORY CONSEQUENCES](https://reader030.vdocuments.site/reader030/viewer/2022032705/56649dce5503460f94ac185d/html5/thumbnails/30.jpg)
Kreger Lake
• 4th Proposal – Timber Owner (Logger)
• forestry operation/320 acres (unsold land)
• non-conversion
• state approved as a non-conversion III
• Homeowners Assoc. & two neighbors appealed
• stay denied/trees felled by hearing
![Page 31: DEFINING A PROPOSAL IN THE FORESTED ENVIRONMENT PROBLEMS AND REGULATORY CONSEQUENCES](https://reader030.vdocuments.site/reader030/viewer/2022032705/56649dce5503460f94ac185d/html5/thumbnails/31.jpg)
Kreger Lake – Was this actually a conversion?
• FPAB said “no”/upheld permit–forestry operation
![Page 32: DEFINING A PROPOSAL IN THE FORESTED ENVIRONMENT PROBLEMS AND REGULATORY CONSEQUENCES](https://reader030.vdocuments.site/reader030/viewer/2022032705/56649dce5503460f94ac185d/html5/thumbnails/32.jpg)
Kreger Lake – Was this actually a conversion?
• Landowner’s view - no conversion
• “I’ve changed my mind”/lots not selling
• Neighbors’ view
• “Still being advertised as home sites”
• Homeowners’ Assoc. View
• Landowner retained majority vote/covenants disputed
![Page 33: DEFINING A PROPOSAL IN THE FORESTED ENVIRONMENT PROBLEMS AND REGULATORY CONSEQUENCES](https://reader030.vdocuments.site/reader030/viewer/2022032705/56649dce5503460f94ac185d/html5/thumbnails/33.jpg)
Kreger Lake – Was this actually a conversion?
• FPAB reasoning• 20 acre tracts still “forestland”—home on
20 acres not necessarily a conversion—not incompatible with timber growing (policy—forestland retention)
• Uncertainty of future “proposals”—“future events…mired in speculation”
![Page 34: DEFINING A PROPOSAL IN THE FORESTED ENVIRONMENT PROBLEMS AND REGULATORY CONSEQUENCES](https://reader030.vdocuments.site/reader030/viewer/2022032705/56649dce5503460f94ac185d/html5/thumbnails/34.jpg)
Kreger Lake – Dissent
• Should have been a Class IV-General/subject to SEPA
• “Duck Rule” - “Platted” includes Assessor’s Plat – RCW 58.18
• (Legislature later endorsed state’s view to the contrary–only RCW 58.17)
![Page 35: DEFINING A PROPOSAL IN THE FORESTED ENVIRONMENT PROBLEMS AND REGULATORY CONSEQUENCES](https://reader030.vdocuments.site/reader030/viewer/2022032705/56649dce5503460f94ac185d/html5/thumbnails/35.jpg)
Is it a Conversion? Bottom Line
• Generally–state will go by landowner’s declaration
• Law contemplates that landowner’s mind can change/what happened before isn’t a predictor of what will happen in the future
• Unless actually converted within three years –never loses character as “forestland”
![Page 36: DEFINING A PROPOSAL IN THE FORESTED ENVIRONMENT PROBLEMS AND REGULATORY CONSEQUENCES](https://reader030.vdocuments.site/reader030/viewer/2022032705/56649dce5503460f94ac185d/html5/thumbnails/36.jpg)
CASE UPDATE
• Alpine Lakes Protection Society (ALPS) v. Department of Ecology – Court of Appeals, Div. II
• May affect more than forest practices• Issue #1: Are “proposals” that are exempt
from SEPA by statute really exempt?• Issue #2: How do you define a
“proposal”?
![Page 37: DEFINING A PROPOSAL IN THE FORESTED ENVIRONMENT PROBLEMS AND REGULATORY CONSEQUENCES](https://reader030.vdocuments.site/reader030/viewer/2022032705/56649dce5503460f94ac185d/html5/thumbnails/37.jpg)
CASE UPDATE – Challenge to “New” Ecology Rules
• Ecology’s Pre 2003 Rules
• statutorily exempt activities were potentially subject to SEPA
• statutorily exempt activities affected include……………………
![Page 38: DEFINING A PROPOSAL IN THE FORESTED ENVIRONMENT PROBLEMS AND REGULATORY CONSEQUENCES](https://reader030.vdocuments.site/reader030/viewer/2022032705/56649dce5503460f94ac185d/html5/thumbnails/38.jpg)
Case update
• Certain irrigation projects. RCW 43.21.035• Class I, II, and III forest practices. RCW
43.21C.037; RCW 76.09.050(1)• School closures. RCW 43.21C.038• Air operating permits. RCW 43.21C.0381• Watershed Restoration/Fish Enhancement
Projects. RCW 43.21C.0382• Waste discharge permits. RCW 43.21C.0383• Annexations. RCW 43.21C.222
![Page 39: DEFINING A PROPOSAL IN THE FORESTED ENVIRONMENT PROBLEMS AND REGULATORY CONSEQUENCES](https://reader030.vdocuments.site/reader030/viewer/2022032705/56649dce5503460f94ac185d/html5/thumbnails/39.jpg)
ALPS v. Ecology - update
• Exempt by Statute
• Legislature proclaims activities are exempt
• Regardless of environmental consequences
• Exempt by Ecology Rule
• Ecology proclaims activities are exempt
• limited to activities that are NOT potential major actions significantly affecting environment
• RCW 43.21C.110(1)(a)
![Page 40: DEFINING A PROPOSAL IN THE FORESTED ENVIRONMENT PROBLEMS AND REGULATORY CONSEQUENCES](https://reader030.vdocuments.site/reader030/viewer/2022032705/56649dce5503460f94ac185d/html5/thumbnails/40.jpg)
ALPS v. Ecology - Update
• Exception to activities made exempt by Ecology rule –
• WAC 197-11-305(1)
![Page 41: DEFINING A PROPOSAL IN THE FORESTED ENVIRONMENT PROBLEMS AND REGULATORY CONSEQUENCES](https://reader030.vdocuments.site/reader030/viewer/2022032705/56649dce5503460f94ac185d/html5/thumbnails/41.jpg)
ALPS v. Ecology - Update
• WAC 197-11-305(1)
• Even if proposal is exempt by Ecology rule (rule of categorical exemptions) proposal is NOT exempt if:
![Page 42: DEFINING A PROPOSAL IN THE FORESTED ENVIRONMENT PROBLEMS AND REGULATORY CONSEQUENCES](https://reader030.vdocuments.site/reader030/viewer/2022032705/56649dce5503460f94ac185d/html5/thumbnails/42.jpg)
Proposals exempt by Ecology rule NOT exempt if the following is true
• The proposal is a segment of a proposal that includes:
• ii) series of exempt actions, physically or functionally related, together have probable significant adverse impact
![Page 43: DEFINING A PROPOSAL IN THE FORESTED ENVIRONMENT PROBLEMS AND REGULATORY CONSEQUENCES](https://reader030.vdocuments.site/reader030/viewer/2022032705/56649dce5503460f94ac185d/html5/thumbnails/43.jpg)
Problem with former Ecology rules
• WAC 197-11-305 (exception to the rule-based exemptions) applied to statutorily exempt activities, not just activities exempt by Ecology rule
![Page 44: DEFINING A PROPOSAL IN THE FORESTED ENVIRONMENT PROBLEMS AND REGULATORY CONSEQUENCES](https://reader030.vdocuments.site/reader030/viewer/2022032705/56649dce5503460f94ac185d/html5/thumbnails/44.jpg)
Ecology changed its rules
• 2003 Amendments
• Deleted statutorily exempt activities from its list of categorically exempted activities
• RESULT: Activities exempt by statute are no longer subject to SEPA by Ecology rules
![Page 45: DEFINING A PROPOSAL IN THE FORESTED ENVIRONMENT PROBLEMS AND REGULATORY CONSEQUENCES](https://reader030.vdocuments.site/reader030/viewer/2022032705/56649dce5503460f94ac185d/html5/thumbnails/45.jpg)
Result = Rule Challenge
• ALPS filed rule challenge in Thurston County Superior Court
• ALPS lost in Thurston County/Ecology’s 2003 Rule amendments upheld
• Now on appeal to Div. II
![Page 46: DEFINING A PROPOSAL IN THE FORESTED ENVIRONMENT PROBLEMS AND REGULATORY CONSEQUENCES](https://reader030.vdocuments.site/reader030/viewer/2022032705/56649dce5503460f94ac185d/html5/thumbnails/46.jpg)
Consequence = Expansion of meaning of “proposal” under SEPA
• Rule 305 only applies where “proposal is a segment of a proposal”
• The more the term “proposal” is stretched, the more SEPA can potentially apply
![Page 47: DEFINING A PROPOSAL IN THE FORESTED ENVIRONMENT PROBLEMS AND REGULATORY CONSEQUENCES](https://reader030.vdocuments.site/reader030/viewer/2022032705/56649dce5503460f94ac185d/html5/thumbnails/47.jpg)
Case Law Confusion
• Snohomish County v. State (1993)
• Rule 305 = “cumulative effects” rule
• Plum Creek Timber v. FPAB CLARIFIED
• Rule 305 = “segmentation” rule
![Page 48: DEFINING A PROPOSAL IN THE FORESTED ENVIRONMENT PROBLEMS AND REGULATORY CONSEQUENCES](https://reader030.vdocuments.site/reader030/viewer/2022032705/56649dce5503460f94ac185d/html5/thumbnails/48.jpg)
Consequence = Expansion of meaning of “proposal” under SEPA
• Rule 305(1)(b)(ii) =• “proposal segment of a proposal”
• series of exempt actions
• physically functionally related
• together have probable significant adverse impacts on environment.
![Page 49: DEFINING A PROPOSAL IN THE FORESTED ENVIRONMENT PROBLEMS AND REGULATORY CONSEQUENCES](https://reader030.vdocuments.site/reader030/viewer/2022032705/56649dce5503460f94ac185d/html5/thumbnails/49.jpg)
ALPS’ arguments
• One proposal is a segment of another proposal if
• geographic proximity; • past and future planned operations; • hydrologic, silvicultural, geologic,
wildlife, cumulative effects, recreational or visual connections;
![Page 50: DEFINING A PROPOSAL IN THE FORESTED ENVIRONMENT PROBLEMS AND REGULATORY CONSEQUENCES](https://reader030.vdocuments.site/reader030/viewer/2022032705/56649dce5503460f94ac185d/html5/thumbnails/50.jpg)
Same Arguments/Different Statutorily Exempt Activities
• One School Closure is a segment of an overall construction and rehabilitation project for the District–subject to SEPA
• One appropriation of 50 cfs of water for certain irrigation projects is a segment of all such appropriations in an area – subject to SEPA
![Page 51: DEFINING A PROPOSAL IN THE FORESTED ENVIRONMENT PROBLEMS AND REGULATORY CONSEQUENCES](https://reader030.vdocuments.site/reader030/viewer/2022032705/56649dce5503460f94ac185d/html5/thumbnails/51.jpg)
Questions????
• Cheryl Nielson
• Office of the Attorney General
• Natural Resources Division
• 306/586-0700