HB 2165: Requirements for Written Plan Rulemaking Process Update

1. HB 2165:Requirements for Written Plan Rulemaking Process Update Board of Forestry Presentation November 7th , 2012 John Day, OR Presented by: Ashley Probst Rulemaking Developmental Oregon Department of Forestry

2. Overview of Presentation • Background of HB 2165 • What is HB 2165? • Goals of HB 2165 • Rulemaking Process • Phase 1: Discussion Overview • Recommendation • Future Steps

3. Background of HB 2165 • 2009-Reductions in Private Forests staff lead Salem staff to look for ways to reduce work load; remove occurrence of boiler plate written plans. • 2011- HB 2165 adopted by Oregon Legislative Assembly; no opposition was presented. • Jan. 2012- BOF approved to move forward with rulemaking process; statute must be put into rule before it can be implemented.

4. What is HB 2165?? • Administrative Rule Change—onthe ground standards enforced by the FPA will not change. • Amendment to current statute—ORS527.670 “Commencement of operations; rules; written plans…” • Edit Rule 629-605-0170-Statutory Written Plans- for fish and domestic use streams and significant wetlands non estuaries. • Notification processing time increased from 3 days to 6 days.

5. HB 2165-Amendment to ORS 527.670 • Statutory WPs for Type F/D streams • Operations within 100 feet may have requirement for written plan waived if one of the three following criteria are met: • Performed under a General Vegetation Retention Prescription; or • Operation “will not directly affect the RMA”; or • Stewardship Agreement is entered into. • Statutory WPs for Significant Wetlands (non-estuaries) • Written plan requirement has been changed to 100 feet from 300 feet • Operations within 100 feet may have requirement for written plan waived if one of the three following criteria are met: • General Vegetation Retention Prescription; or • Operation “will not directly affect the RMA”;or • Stewardship Agreement is entered into.

6. Goals of HB 2165 • Reduce non-value added routine written plans. • Better resources protection by allowing Stewardship Foresters and operators to be more productive by focusing on substantive Written Plan operations. • Increase field time for stewardship foresters to perform pre-operation inspections and inspections. • Increase efficiency of workflow for all parties involved. • Create certainty for customers, stewardship foresters and admin staff of when requirement forWritten Plans will be waived.

7. Four Phase Rulemaking Process • Phase 1: General Concept Discussion Initial meetings with internal and external representatives • Define scope, purpose of rulemaking • General concept input and information gathering • Begin to draft rule language • Phase 2: Draft Rule Language Review Second meetings with internal and external representatives • Review draft rule language • Incorporate input • Begin to finalize rule language

8. Four Phase Rulemaking Process (cont.) • Phase 3: Board of Forestry Presentations • Check-in to ensure process is inline with board goals • Gather board input and incorporate changes • Final presentation to ensure boards vision was met • Phase 4: File Rule and Begin Education Outreach • Hold Public Hearing; return to BOF if input is significant • Finalize Secretary of State paperwork/timeline • Create Internal and External education tools

9. Rulemaking Timeline

10. Phase 1 Meetings Internal ODF Meetings: • NWOA, SOA and EOA. External Meetings: • NW/SW RFPC and EO RPFC representatives. • DEQ, CFF, SFI and OFIC representatives. • Western Lane Subscriber stakeholder representatives with Beyond Toxics representatives.

11. Internal and external outreach: Similar view points; not much variance in comments. • Common themes: Communication, Education and Social perspective • General Vegetation Retention Prescription: Most groups hesitant to implement “by rule” authority given by board. • No-entry into RMA: Feel comfortable implementing rule for authority given by board. Phase 1 Discussion Overview

12. Phase 1: General Vegetation Retention Prescription Discussion • Higher Complex Operations • Entry into RMA = Resources at risk • Require advanced knowledge i.e. basal area count • More information that can be conveyed on NOAP • Value added written plans Need to clarify legislative intent of implementation.

13. Phase 1: RMA Discussion Type F/D Streams • No entry=No written plan required • Consider need to incorporate slope criteria • Written plans don’t add value to operation • Standards on the ground don’t change

14. Significant Wetland Discussion Mirroring the 100 foot RMA as a trigger for Written Plan requirement makes sense In favor; will save time

15. 1. Aerial and Pressurized Ground Spray Operations 2. Road Construction within an RMA 3. Landowner/Operator Criteria 4. Spooling Cable through an RMA Staff would like to work with stakeholders to identify a subset that potentially could be in scope. Out of Scope Topics:

16. Phase 1: Summary of Written Plans

17. Correct obvious errors or provide needed clarity, but do not alter the meaning or effect of any rule. • Public input will take place in the latter phases of the outreach to the Regional Forest Practices Committees. • Final changes for Board review and approval will be at the January 2013 meeting. Housekeeping Changes

18. Decision Points • The department recommends that the Board: • Direct the department to continue the described external and internal outreach process and direction of the HB 2165 rulemaking process; and • Approve the department moving forward with general administrative rule changes related to housekeeping items.

19. Upcoming Meeting Dates Phase 2 Meetings: • Meet with external stakeholder again. • Meet with all ODF areas again. Phase 3 Meetings: • January 9th, 2013-Board of Forestry Meeting

20. HB 2165: Requirements for Written Plans Contact Info: Ashley Probst-Oregon Department of Forestry Phone: 503-508-7040 Email: aprobst@odf.state.or.us