|
October 2003
By Janean Creighton and David Baumgartner
| Recent harvest restrictions on federal forestlands
in the PNW, intended to protect endangered species, have resulted
in lower wood harvests on public lands. Since 1987 in Washington,
federal timber harvests have declined 95% and state harvests
are down 57% (WA-DNR 1999). Non-industrial private forests (NIPF)
have been picking up the slack (Baumgartner et al. 2003), supplying
29.3% of the timber harvest in the state on a volume basis (Larsen
2000). In addition to providing raw material for the state's
wood products sectors (Blatner et al. 1991; Thorud 2000), NIPFs
in WA State provide a variety of public resources that many
people enjoy, such as wildlife, timber, non-timber products,
recreational opportunities, and clean water (Fox 2000). This
paper explores the current knowledge of WA family-forest owners
regarding the following state environmental regulations: the
Forest Practices Rules, the Forests and Fish Law, and the Road
Management and Abandonment Plan; and how those regulations are
expected to impact the economic viability and long-term objectives
of forest owners in Washington State. |
|
| Washington has one of the most comprehensive sets of Forest
Practice Rules (FPR) in the United States (WAC 222). The
state's 1974 Forest Practice Act (RCW 76.09) was intended
to improve environmental conditions by regulating forest practices
such as road building, harvesting methods, and the use of chemicals.
Over 13 amendments have been made to the Washington Forest Practice
Rules; the most recent significant modifications occurred in
May 1999 with the passage of the Forest and Fish legislation
(ESHB 2091). In August 1999, ESHB 2091 was incorporated
into the Forest Practice Act with the development of
the Forest Practices Emergency Rules (RCW-75.09.055).
These rules target critical fish habitat along 60,000 miles
of streams on 10 million acres of non-federal forestlands in
Washington, and stipulate wider riparian buffers and restricted
timber harvest in outer zones of the riparian area. Regardless
of the many policy amendments made during the last 5 years,
environmental regulations continue to impact private forests
in Washington. In 2002, Washington State University Department
of Natural Resource Sciences and the Washington Department of
Natural Resources, Small Forest Landowner Office developed a
survey of NIPFs in Washington to identify existing landowner
knowledge of environmental regulations. |
Table 1. Characteristics
of respondents very to
somewhat familiar with and very to somewhat
unfamiliar with state regulations. |
| |
Familiar
|
Unfamiliar
|
| WA Forest Practice rules
|
|
|
| % Respondents |
30% (n=274)
|
70% (n=627)
|
| Median acres owned |
64 acres
|
40 acres
|
| Median length of ownership |
30 yrs
|
22 yrs
|
| State Forests and Fish
agreement |
|
|
| % Respondents |
30% (n=272)
|
70% (n=634)
|
| Median acres owned |
58.5 acres
|
40 acres
|
| Median length of ownership |
28 yrs
|
24 yrs
|
| Road Maintenance and Abandonment
Plan |
|
|
| % Respondents |
22% (n=199)
|
78% (n=685)
|
| Median acres owned |
93 acres
|
40 acres
|
| Median length of ownership |
30 yrs
|
23 yrs
|
|
In the survey, landowners were asked
to rank their level of familiarity with the regulations (Table
1). Those who were familiar with the regulations were then asked
to identify how they are impacted by the regulations and how
they perceive the regulations in terms of strictness (Table
2). Note the ownership size and tenure characteristics of the
respondents; in all cases larger landowners with longer periods
of ownership tended to be more familiar with the regulations
included in the survey.
The majority of respondents familiar with the rules expressed
concern over the potential for government regulations to restrict
their management practices. Increases in land-use regulations
driven by environmental statutes and litigation, and the potential
impacts on the constitutional rights of landowners, are reinforced
by state government regulations that require forest landowners
to absorb the costs required to protect endangered salmon. In
terms of potential economic limitations, these results suggest
that a majority of landowners who are familiar with state regulations
believe they are restricted in terms of their ability to meet
the management objectives of their forests and potential profitability. |
| The Road Management and Abandonment Plan (RMAP) statute
requires landowners to submit a plan describing how all forest
roads used for transportation of forest products will be maintained
under the standards of the FPR (Table 1). Of the 22% familiar
with the RMAP law, 36% had developed a road maintenance plan
for their forest roads. These participants were asked to estimate
the costs necessary to complete their RMAP improvements by 2015.
Forty-four percent estimated the costs of compliance up to $10,000.
Twenty-four percent of respondents estimated $10,000 to 25,000,
4% estimated costs of $25,000 to 50,000, 13% estimated $50,000
to 100,000, and 15% estimated the costs of implementing their
RMAP plan would cost more than $100,000. Approximately 50% of
the above respondents indicated that they were financially incapable
of meeting their RMAP requirements by the year 2015. It should
be noted that legislation was passed with the objective of reducing
the cost to the landowner through public assistance since this
survey was taken. |
|
Regardless of regulation familiarity, a substantial number
of respondents expressed concern over the limits placed on
their ability to manage their lands (Table 2). This does not
seem to arise purely from the potential for economic loss,
considering timber does not appear to be an important component
of respondent incomes. Rather, the loss of management control
and government restrictions placed on private property rights
may be more significant.
In Washington State, rural communities are growing; resulting
in an increase in new forest landowners with smaller-sized
forest parcels replacing the large rural, family-owned tree
farms (Creighton and Baumgartner 2002). This study suggests
that these new forest owners are different than traditional
family forest owners. They appear to be less interested in
harvesting timber; they have little or no understanding of
state forest regulations, have higher incomes, and are
|
Table 2. Respondent attitudes
concerning the
strictness
of the state regulations and
subsequent
limits to private land
management.
|
| Current regulations in
Washington are: |
| Too strict |
57%
|
| About right |
23%
|
| Not strict enough |
9%
|
| No opinion |
11%
|
| Do current regulations
restrict ability to manage land? |
| Greatly restricts |
26%
|
| Somewhat restricts |
36%
|
| No impact at all |
29%
|
| Unsure |
8%
|
| Do current regulations
limit ability to profit? |
| Limits greatly |
27%
|
| Limits somewhat |
32%
|
| Does not limit at all |
26%
|
| Unsure |
14%
|
|
| employed in a business outside of forestry, or retired unlike
the more traditional landowner who has a higher interest in
timber management, a better understanding of environmental regulations,
and longer ownership tenure. The respondents in this study who
are ignorant of the regulations may simply be a reflection of
a new, non-utilitarian approach to forest ownership. However,
smaller acreage forest owners that either live in urban population
centers, or are new to rural communities may not be aware of
educational opportunities; an effective approach to reach these
new forest owners might be through partnering with traditionally
urban associations (Creighton and Baumgartner 2002). Nonetheless,
all forest landowners in Washington State need to be made aware
of the state and federal environmental regulations that directly
affect them. The legislature must be cognizant that passing
laws does not necessarily translate into practice change, and
that no matter how well intentioned, land-use laws can have
unforeseen consequences for family forest owners. |
|
References:
- Baumgartner, D.M., J.H. Creighton, and K.A. Blatner. 2003.
Use and Effectiveness of Washington State's Extension Forest
Stewardship Program. Small Scale Forest Economics, Management
and Policy 1(2):49-61.
- Blatner, K.A., D.M. Baumgartner, and L.R. Quackenbush.
(1991). NIPF use of landowner assistance and education programs
in Washington State. W. J. App. For. 6(4): 90-94.
- Creighton, J.H. and D..M. Baumgartner (2002). The use
of forestry education programs by small-scale family forest
landowners in Washington State: Does ownership size make
a difference in their educational needs? RTI
Fact Sheet # 18. Rural Technology Initiative.
- Forest and Fish Report ESHP 2091.
- Forest Practices Act. RCW. 76.09.
- Forest Practices Emergency Rules RCW-75.09.055.
- Forest Practices Rules WAC. 222.
- Fox, S. (2000). A small landowner experience with formal
conservation plans. In Proceedings Summit 2000, Washington
Private Forests Forum. (ed. J. Agee) Olympia, Washington,
University of Washington.
- Larson, D. (2000). Draft Washington Timber Harvest -1998.
Olympia, WA, Washington Department of Natural Resources.
- Thorud, D.B. (2000). Introductory remarks. In Proceedings
Summit 2000, Washington Private Forests Forum. (ed.
J. Agee) Olympia, WA, University of Washington.
- WA-DNR 1999. Washington Timber Harvest Report 1999. Olympia,
WA, Washington Department of Natural Resources.
Contacts: For more information contact Janean Creighton
or David Baumgartner, Washington State University (509) 335-2877
or creighton wsu.edu
/ baumgartnerwsu.edu.
|
|
