House Concurs with Changes to RMAP Bill

House Concurs with Changes to RMAP Bill

WA State Farm Bureau

Olympia, WA - 4/21/03 -Today, April 21, the state House of Representatives concurred with the Senate amendment to HB 1095, the RMAP bill. The final vote in the House was 96-0, with 2 members absent. The bill has progressed through various stages this session. It was heard and changed by two House committees before it passed the House floor on March 18 by a vote of 78-20. In the Senate the bill was further amended in committee and on the floor. The final vote to pass the amended version from the Senate was 49-0. With today’s concurrence by the House, the bill will go to Governor Locke’s office for his review.

The RMAP bill that has now passed the Legislature will:

Eliminate the unfair and discriminatory financial and regulatory burdens that RMAP placed on small forest landowners.
Redefine “forest road” and “forest land” in a manner that limits the application of RMAPs.
Allow those who harvest less than an average of two million board feet over three years to submit a checklist only when they harvest for where they harvest.
Provide cost-sharing for many culverts that may need to be replaced.
Provide a cap on the cost that a landowner may be required to pay for the replacement of culverts.
Provide 100 percent of the cost of culvert replacement if the culvert was installed with a Forest Practice permit and hydraulics approval and if that culvert becomes a high priority for fish passage in a watershed.
Not provide any additional right of entry for any government agency or others.

Washington State Farm Bureau spokesperson Scott Dilley says, "With unanimous Senate passage earlier and today’s unanimous House concurrence, we now await the governor’s signature. Thanks to all of you who testified, wrote letters, and made calls. Your voices were heard!"

In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, any copyrighted work in this message is distributed under fair use without profit or payment for non-profit research and educational purposes only. [Ref. http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml]