It sounds simple: Save money by streamlining the state’s natural resources agencies. Combine overlapping functions. Or, as Gov. Chris Gregoire pledged in December, put an end to bureaucratic rules that have employees from three different state agencies standing in the same stream.
But it turns out it’s not so easy to streamline those functions without sacrificing the checks and balances that are in place to protect the environment. And state officials say it might not save much money, either.
Consider House Bill 3090, introduced by state Rep. Ed Orcutt, R-Kalama. The bill, which is unlikely to advance this short session, proposes to “streamline” the review of logging permits by cutting the Department of Ecology and the Department of Fish and Wildlife out of the permit review process.
Under the bill, the Department of Natural Resources, which enforces state forest practices rules and also administers timber sales on state trust land, would review the permits on its own. There would be no independent review by the agencies charged with protecting water quality and fish and wildlife habitat.
Orcutt, a professional forester, says that review isn’t really needed.
“In many cases, you end up having multiple people from multiple agencies looking over the same permit required under a single existing law,” he said in introducing the bill. “That does little more than add to the cost and time of approving the permit and can lead to unnecessary and unauthorized conditions being added.”
Speeding the process would also expedite the process of putting people to work in the woods, Orcutt said — though the recession has put a big crimp in demand for forest products.
Stephen Bernath, a senior policy analyst for the Department of Ecology, says Orcutt’s bill wouldn’t save much money and could disrupt interagency cooperation at a time when reviewers in the field are stretched thin.
“We have fewer than six people who review forest practices statewide,” Bernath said.
The DNR receives about 6,000 forest practice applications a year. “We have to be very selective about which ones we look at. We focus on the ones where DNR actually asks us for our water-quality expertise. We also work closely with WDFW because they don’t have much more staff than we do.”
Ecology focuses on reviewing logging projects that could affect unstable slopes or disturb wetlands, as well as permits to convert forest land to other uses, Bernath said. “If someone is converting from a forest practices to development, they may need a stormwater permit from us.”
The Department of Fish and Wildlife, meanwhile, focuses on reviewing logging projects that could damage fish habitat, for example by removing streamside vegetation that provides shade and keeps the water cold.
“We try to be very well-coordinated among the three agencies,” Bernath said. “We try not to duplicate but to add value. Considering the resources we have, it works pretty well.”
Orcutt said his bill was carefully written to maintain each agency’s participation in the rulemaking process of the other agencies.
However, Paul Kampmeier, a lawyer with the Washington Forest Law Center, said the bill ignores the fact that the three natural resources agencies have different missions.
“I think this bill would be bad for clean water and salmon,” he said. “Currently Ecology is charged with protecting clean water in Washington because it has the requisite pollution-control expertise. This bill would essentially push Ecology out of the forests altogether. While DNR is a fine agency, it is an agency for foresters. DNR is charged with implementing the forest practices act. At its root, it is an agency charged with cutting trees.”
Kampmeier said Ecology has recently been pushing DNR to do more water-quality monitoring to determine whether the federal permit under which the agency manages its trust land is adequately protecting clean water.
“This bill would essentially undermine that whole process,” he said.
House Bill 3090 was co-sponsored by Brian Blake, D-Aberdeen, the Democratic chairman of the House Agriculture and Natural Resources Committee. The committee ran out time this week to schedule a hearing on the complex measure, Orcutt’s office said. That means it’s unlikely to advance in the 2010 session.
State budget office spokesman Glenn Kuper said a panel of administrators who studied natural resource agency reform at Gregoire’s request “confined its work to improving service and efficiency, not raising or lowering environmental enforcement standards,” and did not consider adopting Orcutt’s approach.
Kathie Durbin: 360-735-4523 or kathie.durbin@columbian.com.
