Two proposals have emerged for the next legislative session to address Washington’s forest health crisis and the impact of recent wildfire. The Outdoor Recreation and Climate Adaption (ORCA) proposal from Rep. Mary Dye, the ranking Republican on the House Environment Committee, would allocate funding from the recently passed climate tax to treat unhealthy forests. The entire ORCA package includes other elements related to recreation, cleanup of Puget Sound, and reducing the risk from flooding, but the forest health funding delivers on a promise legislators made in 2021 to reduce the risk of catastrophic wildfire in state forests.

Additionally, Lands Commissioner Hilary Franz introduced the “Keep Washington Evergreen” plan to reforest burned areas and purchase land at risk of being converted to development. Her proposed legislation requests funding from the Capital Budget to purchase at-risk forestland.

These bills demonstrate that forest health and conservation have again become a major environmental focus in the state. Unlike the timber wars of the 1990s, both proposals are premised on the recognition that forests that are actively managed with thinning and sustainable harvests, are environmentally beneficial.

ORCA – Funding forest health restoration

There is bipartisan agreement that Washington faces a forest health crisis, with 2.7 million acres of unhealthy forest in Central and Eastern Washington. Earlier this year, the legislature unanimously adopted HB 1168 which creates a budget account to “monitor, track, and implement certain wildfire preparedness, prevention, and protection purposes.” The legislature allocated $131 million for the 2021-23 biennium, and HB 1168 notes that “The legislature intends to provide $125,000,000 per biennium over the next four biennia for a total of $500,000,000,” but does not provide a predictable source of funding for those biennia.

Additionally, up to 60 percent of the funding promised in HB 1168 can be used for firefighting preparedness, rather than projects that reduce the risk of catastrophic fire. Ultimately, even if the legislature allocates the funding, as little as $15.6 million a year could be used for “Fire prevention activities to restore and improve forest 28 health and reduce vulnerability to drought, insect infestation, disease, and other threats to healthy forests.”

Meaningful progress in treating fire-prone and unhealthy forests has been difficult because harvesting and thinning often costs more than it yields, even when some timber revenue is generated. Without a source of funding, there will be very little progress toward reducing the risk of recurring catastrophic wildfire we’ve witnessed in recent years. The cost of meeting the goals of the Washington State Department of Natural Resources’ 20-year Forest Health Plan is likely to be hundreds of millions, or billions, of dollars over the course of the plan.

The ORCA proposal seeks to fill the gap between what has already been allocated and the funding needed to make forests healthier and more fire-resistant in the future. ORCA would allocate $125 million per biennium from revenue created by the state’s new CO2 cap-and-trade tax for forest health projects. That would amount to about 14 percent of the total anticipated revenue from the CO2 tax. Although the cap-and-trade legislation allows funding for forest health projects, none of the funding is dedicated to those types of projects.

Some of the money directed by ORCA would be allocated by a Community Economic Revitalization Board that would fund infrastructure in timber and farming communities. A lack of timber infrastructure, including mill capacity, makes it expensive to harvest in some parts of the state. Timber from unhealthy forests is already low-value, and a lack of infrastructure increases cost by making it more difficult to get logs to market.

ORCA funding would also reimburse small forest landowners for a portion of the timber they are required to leave along streams to provide shade. The Forest Riparian Easement Program (FREP) faces a huge backlog of applications because funding has been inadequate. Created as part of the Forests and Fish regulations, the goal is to recognize that society benefits from cool streams and salmon habitat, so the cost of those regulations should be paid by taxpayers rather than imposing the entire cost on families. Currently, there are more than 100 forest projects waiting for funding from the FREP, amounting to $10.4 million.

The combination of these projects would help reduce the environmental impacts of rising temperatures, while keeping forest steams cool, building the state’s logging capacity, and funding projects that restore the health of Washington’s forests.

Land Commissioner’s plan to restore burned lands and prevent conversion

Commissioner of Public Lands Hilary Franz also introduced a plan to reforest lands burned by wildfire and to prevent loss of forestland to development. Franz is asking for $1 million to fund planning with the goal of improving the health of one million acres of forestland and replanting an additional one million acres by 2040.

The proposal also calls for $25 million in the Capital Budget to create a “rapid response fund to acquire critical forested lands at risk of permanent conversion.” The briefing from Department of Natural Resources staff notes that between 2007 and 2019, about 400,000 acres of forestland were converted to some form of development. Not surprisingly, the vast majority of lands at risk of conversion are in or near urban-growth boundaries.

Although the plan says it will “harness the potential of carbon markets, other voluntary tools and incentives,” the creation of the fund recognizes that landowners can earn more by developing the land than they can by keeping it in forestry. The taxpayer support is designed to make up the gap between the current value and the potential value once developed.

Although this funding will help prevent some land from being developed, it is a band-aid that doesn’t address the underlying challenges that make forestry economically risky. The simple problem facing forestland under pressure from growth is that the value of housing and development is growing as demand continues to outstrip supply.

That is compounded by a lack of timber infrastructure – including loggers and truck drivers – which makes it difficult for those who want to keep their land in forestry by earning income. The proposal by some environmental groups to shut down all timber harvesting on state trust lands in Western Washington would exacerbate that problem by reducing the market for companies and workers who provide services to working forests.

Family foresters are caught between growing incentives to convert and increasing challenges bringing timber to market. No single piece of legislation will be able to address that problem.

Transfer of development rights, where landowners are paid for rights which are moved and facilitate construction elsewhere, is one good tool that preserves the value of land for families while maintaining the ability to build homes to meet growing demand.

The Commissioner’s proposal does recognize the value of working forests, and that is very positive. The targets of one million acres preserved and restored, and the long timeframe of two decades, are more political than realistic. The balance of housing costs, working forests, and forest restoration is an important discussion even if the scope of the proposal is unrealistic.

Conclusion

The threats to Washington’s forests from fire and economic pressure have become more apparent in recent years. By attaching to a predictable source of revenue, the ORCA plan guarantees future funding to address Washington’s forest health crisis. A long-term source of revenue is required if the state is going to address the massive backlog of work that needs to be done in state forests.

The Keep Washington Evergreen proposal sets aggressive goals, but the funding is unlikely to make significant progress in meeting those targets, in part because the legislation doesn’t address the underlying causes of forest conversion. The intent of the legislation is positive, however, and it would help address reforestation of burned areas.

It is positive that both proposals recognize the need to take action to improve the health and sustainability of Washington’s forests and that working forests are good for both our economy and the environment.