Tuesday, March 1 – What Can Be Done about the Loss of Forests
If current trends continue, more than one third of the forests that support timber and other forest related jobs in Washington State will be converted to development or other uses by 2030. What market mechanisms or opportunities could help prevent the loss of more of these working forests?
D. Mitchem 8:16 am on March 2, 2011 Permalink
We need to use all the tools in the toolbox effectively and efficiently: conservation easements, land planning (zoning), exchanges, property tax incentives for timber and tax penalties for conversion. We need to value not just the most pristine, park-like areas, but also working forests and farms: the worst clearcut is still better than the best subdivision. Land trusts need to expand into areas of less “beauty” and more working timberlands. Most federal and state grants for easements etc. a tied to endangered species, not recreation or working timberlands. The cost of maintaining open space, working forests and riparian zones should not just fall on rural residents. Urban areas, including waterfront industry and homeowners, that have already developed their critical areas should pay into funds to buy Easements or Riparian areas from rural timberland owners. Why should the state punish the very people who have kept their land in timber by making them bare all the costs of preserving the remaining Riparian areas?? Shouldn’t the industries that have profited over the years by converting those same important habitat areas kick in some funding to save what’s left? Port districts are a good example. Look at the shores of Puget Sound or Lake Washington where mansions with lawns and docks pushed into the prime habitat. These same folks are working to stop logging in rural areas. Why couldn’t a “shoreline use” fund be established to purchase shoreline elsewhere. Another opportunity is the tax break that is in place on designated timberland. This significant reduction in property taxes is to compensate for the public benefits of timberland. These individual benefits–wildlife habitat, clean water and air, economics, recreation–are outlined in state law. We should quantify each benefit and assign a portion of the tax break to each one. Then, if a timber company reduces one benefit, for example the eliminate public recreation from their land, then that portion of the property tax break can be reduced. The resulting increase in taxes would go to support “recreation” on public lands. If they converted the land to housing or industry, the back taxes penalty should be high enough to cause them to reconsider conversion. And the back taxes should go to protect critical timberlands or riparian zones from folks who keep their land in timber.
Additionally, Washington has some of the most restrictive forestry rules in the country. We need automatic Green certification for all timber harvested in Wa under Wash. state rules. All this other certification is just flushing $ away and wasting paper. SFI, SFC, etc. its just an elaborate paper trail. Use the money industry and Gov. is funneling into that mess to compensate for real protections on the ground, like conservation easements and purchasing shorelines or floodplains. And perhaps most importantly, make sure family farms and forests are not chopped up to pay for inheritance taxes. Give families tools to keep timber in timber through the generations.
Barbara 11:21 am on March 1, 2011 Permalink
I think Comm. Goldmark’s new bill for a Community Forest Trust is a great idea! We should not let development leases be an option on state land. It’s such a mistake to tie our educational structure to land. Maximizing profit on state trust lands often means development is the “better” option, but it is forever. A logged forest grows back.