Transcript Highlights:

• What do you folks do as a business practice to guarantee the quality of the forests that are being asked
• What do you folks do as a business practice to guarantee the quality of the forests that are being asked
• What do you folks do as a business practice to guarantee the quality of the forests that are being asked
• What do you folks do as a business practice to guarantee the quality of the forests that are being asked
• What do you folks do as a business practice to guarantee the quality of the forests that are being asked

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Summary: The meeting began with introductions, approval of the March 6 minutes as amended to add an attendee list, and a brief overview of the day’s agenda. The committee heard two presentations from carbon project developers, with the first from Dylan Jenkins of Finite Carbon. He described Finite Carbon’s work in improved forest management projects, its role in developing carbon methodologies and protocols, and its experience with projects in New England, Appalachia, Alaska, and Canada. He also outlined the difference between compliance and voluntary carbon markets, the role of registries and intermediaries, and the types of buyers in the market, including large corporate buyers and long-term off-take partners. A major focus of the presentation was how forest carbon projects are structured and how credits are monetized. Jenkins distinguished between removals and reductions, explaining that removals come from new forest growth while reductions are tied more closely to baseline assumptions and standing stock. He said improved forest management projects can generate both types of credits, and that removals generally command higher prices because they are easier for buyers to understand and verify. He also emphasized that carbon project commercialization can occur before, during, or after credit issuance, and that landowners may be paid through a variety of structures, including leases, advance fees, per-unit payments, or off-take agreements. Jenkins then addressed the committee’s tax-related questions, saying House Bill 123 appeared intended to treat carbon credit sales similarly to timber sales for local tax purposes. He argued that carbon credits are a forest product and that taxing them can be reasonable in principle, but he stressed that lawmakers should distinguish between commoditization and commercialization when deciding what event to tax. He noted that credits may be created but never sold, and that in some programs landowners retain timber and carbon rights while in others the developer has deeper control over those rights. In response to questions, he said the industry uses protocols, verification, and third-party oversight to address baseline and quality concerns, but acknowledged that baseline setting remains a major point of debate in the market.

Transcript Highlights:

• And certainly my region is not new to discussions about what the proper forest management practices should
• be for our forests.
• And certainly my region is not new to discussions about what the proper forest management practices should
• It will update our forest practices to better reflect our climate resiliency goals and Governor Newsom's
• I'm a forest science researcher studying forest resiliency at three of our demonstration forests.

Summary: The committee heard a series of natural resources bills, with several measures accepted on committee amendments and moved forward on party-line or near-unanimous votes. AB 2461 on oil and gas bonding and well-closure financial assurance drew strong support from environmental groups and some legislators, while an industry representative was neutral and warned about unintended consequences and reduced transfers. Senators Laird and Cabaldon supported the bill as a clarification of AB 1167, and the committee voted do pass as amended to Appropriations, with the bill placed on call. The committee also approved a consent calendar of 10 bills, which was moved and held on call. AB 53 by Assemblymember Ramos, as amended, would expand tribal eligibility for conservation grants and loans and express legislative intent to create a process for returning ancestral lands to federally recognized tribes. Tribal and environmental supporters argued the bill recognizes tribal stewardship and helps remove barriers to conservation participation, while county, farm bureau, and habitat league witnesses raised concerns about long-term land management, public accountability, easements, and jurisdiction if lands are transferred. Committee members emphasized the importance of preserving conservation protections and continuing work on the land-return framework; the bill was moved do pass as amended to Appropriations and held on call. AB 2679 on Lake Tahoe corridor safety and access was supported by local officials and the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, who described dangerous parking, pedestrian conflicts, and a successful shuttle pilot, and the bill was moved do pass as amended to Appropriations. AB 1666, creating biomass innovation parks and other incentives for non-combustion uses of forest and agricultural biomass, received broad support from business, conservation, and local government witnesses, with senators framing it as a way to address wildfire debris and create rural jobs; it also advanced do pass as amended to Appropriations. AB 2494, which would modernize the demonstration state forest system and elevate biodiversity, recreation, carbon storage, and tribal stewardship over maximum sustained production, drew strong support from environmental and tribal advocates but significant opposition from forest industry, county, and research witnesses who warned it could undermine research, sustainable forestry, and local economies; the author said he would continue negotiations, and the bill was moved do pass to Appropriations. The committee also heard AB 2234, which updates the definition of geothermal exploratory projects, and AB 2521, which seeks to use the California Council on Science and Technology for watershed-wide water availability analyses to help identify excess water for groundwater recharge. Both bills had support from sponsors and some stakeholders, while AB 2521 drew concerns from agricultural water interests about agency reliance, public trust considerations, and funding. Both measures were moved do pass as amended to Appropriations. Finally, AB 2410 would extend a CEQA exemption for certain fuels-reduction projects in high fire-risk areas; local government groups supported it as a wildfire-prevention tool, while environmental and other opponents argued the remaining exemption still weakens habitat protections and public review, and one witness sought to remove conventional herbicides from the exemption.

Transcript Highlights:

• Current forest management practices, though updated, are still not the holistic solution we need, and
• These bills provide a practical avenue to update forest management practices informed by the latest integrated
• Outdated forest practices do not reflect the challenges posed by climate change and biodiversity loss
• We represent forest landowners, foresters, timber harvesters, and forest products companies in Massachusetts
• We represent forest landowners, foresters, timber harvesters, and forest products companies in Massachusetts

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The committee hearing covered a wide range of animal, wildlife, hunting, and environmental bills. Early testimony focused on deer management, with Rep. Markey urging creation of a deer commission to address crop damage, vehicle collisions, and Lyme disease, and Sen. Durant supporting bills to allow Sunday bow hunting, expand crossbow use, and reduce the 500-foot dwelling restriction for archery hunting. Supporters framed these measures as practical wildlife-management tools, while questions centered on how they would differ from existing Fish and Wildlife authority and whether they would allow hunting closer to residences. Later, Rep. Sena also spoke in support of a bill to increase protected wildlife management areas and another to require non-lead ammunition, arguing both would benefit biodiversity and reduce environmental harm. A substantial portion of the hearing addressed animal welfare and commerce. Multiple witnesses supported bills to ban or phase out the retail sale of dogs, cats, rabbits, and guinea pigs in pet shops, arguing that pet stores rely on puppy mills and obscure the source of animals, while opponents said the bills would hurt responsible breeders, small businesses, and consumer choice. The committee also heard strong testimony for bills to ban the sale of cats and dogs in pet shops, with supporters citing sick animals, consumer deception, and the need to cut off the puppy mill supply chain. In a separate animal-testing segment, witnesses backed bills requiring non-animal testing methods for cosmetics and household products, saying alternatives are more accurate and humane; biomedical research representatives opposed those bills and a related research-animal measure, warning of unintended restrictions on research institutions and arguing animal models remain necessary for many studies. The committee also heard testimony on horseshoe crab conservation, with supporters of H. 898 urging an end to taking horseshoe crabs for bait because of population declines, shorebird impacts, and the species’ importance to biomedical science. On wildlife trafficking, witnesses backed bills to ban intrastate sales of ivory and rhino horn, saying Massachusetts should close loopholes that aid poaching and align with federal law and other states; one antique dealer testified in support, saying he avoids such items and still sees them in the marketplace. Additional testimony supported bans on fur products from factory farms and on force-feeding birds for foie gras, with advocates emphasizing cruelty, public health, and environmental concerns. The hearing was lengthy and heavily attended, with the chairs repeatedly limiting testimony to three minutes and inviting written submissions; no committee votes or final actions were taken during the transcript excerpt.

Transcript Highlights:

• tribal land management practices.
• We also manage an active forest of 600-plus acres on the reservation to ensure we have healthy forests
• The tribes currently and rightly share information about forest practices and the best forest practices
• practices.
• This is not like the Forest Practices Board, where it is a regulatory body that has a regulatory interest

Summary: The House Agriculture and Natural Resources Committee heard several Senate bills and a joint memorial, with the chair moving items around to accommodate prime sponsors and public testimony. SB 5838 would add two tribal representatives to the Board of Natural Resources, one from each side of the Cascades, and broaden the nomination pool to include tribes with treaty-ceded lands in Washington. The sponsor and tribal and agency witnesses said the bill would add tribal knowledge and stewardship expertise without changing government-to-government consultation. County and industry witnesses raised concerns about fiduciary duties to trust beneficiaries, the lack of stakeholder consultation, and the effect of expanding the board from one to two tribal seats. Public testimony was mixed, and the committee recorded strong support and opposition on the bill. SB 5816 would add juice grapes to the state Agricultural Marketing and Fair Practices Act, allowing juice grape producers to use the same marketing and negotiation framework already available to pears, sweet corn, and potatoes. The sponsor said the bill would help juice grape growers facing unfair pricing pressure from processors. The committee took limited public testimony and recorded support and opposition before closing the hearing. SJM 8015 urged Congress to ensure federal wildfire response entities remain capable of protecting communities, infrastructure, watersheds, and firefighter health and safety during federal consolidation of wildfire programs. Testimony from environmental groups, forest industry, and union representatives broadly supported the memorial and emphasized rising wildfire risk, smoke impacts, and the need for strong interagency response capacity. The committee also heard HB 2737, which would cap certain shellfish regulatory fees, exempt the shellfish program from full fee recovery, and apply the caps retroactively. The sponsor and shellfish growers said the Department of Health’s fee increases would be unsustainable for small family farms and processors, while DOH explained it was following a full cost-recovery model unless the Legislature provides general fund support. Witnesses described large projected fee increases and potential business closures, and DOH said it had reopened rulemaking to consider smaller operators. Because the bill was heard after cutoff, the chair noted it could not advance, but the committee still took testimony and discussed possible amendments and follow-up information before adjourning.

Transcript Highlights:

• forests.
• by significantly constricting the application of sound forest management practices across the entire
• This is 2% of the state's total forest mass: the demonstration forests.
• This is 2% of the state's forest, total forest mass, is the demonstration forests.
• Each individual forest has a forest management plan associated with it, and that forest management plan

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Roman six, the impact of sound forest management practices, including minimization of forest fire risk
• Roman six, the impact of sound forest management practices, including minimization of forest fire risk
• management practices, including whether it's minimized forest fire risk?
• management practices, including whether it's minimized forest fire risk?
• </c><01:53:35.880><c> say</c><01:53:36.200><c> what</c> forest practices would be to say what forest

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Summary: The meeting opened with a quorum present and approval of the April 17 minutes. The commission then heard a presentation from attorney Jacob Rhodes of Cleveland, Waters and Bass on the history and legal basis of New Hampshire’s timber tax, explaining that timber was historically treated as part of real property, that a 1913 case confirmed that view, and that a 1949 constitutional amendment created a separate timber yield tax to discourage clear-cutting and support forest conservation. He described the tax as a tax on the yield when timber is severed, not an income tax, and noted that towns are reimbursed through a system based on Department of Revenue Administration market data and local reports of cut. Members and guests asked how “yield” is defined, how the timber tax interacts with current use, and whether carbon sequestration could be treated similarly. Testimony explained that current use generally is not affected by harvesting timber, that towns can tax standing timber under RSA 79:5 but rarely do because it is labor-intensive, and that carbon credits might be valued using a similar market-data approach. Several speakers discussed a prior bill drafted with DRA input that would have treated carbon more like timber, but noted it never fully advanced in the General Court and that the version ultimately discussed by the House differed from the earlier DRA-comfortable draft. The discussion also covered whether carbon sequestration agreements are effectively long-term leases or transfers of timber rights, with Rhodes suggesting that 99-year arrangements could be taxable transfers of real property under DRA rules, though he had not reviewed specific agreements. DRA staff said they do not currently have a timber-like survey mechanism for carbon and would likely need access to proprietary market data or a subscription service to build one. No formal vote was taken beyond approving the minutes; the commission appeared to agree to revisit the carbon/timber valuation issue and the draft bill at a future meeting.

Transcript Highlights:

• What DNR has said is best practices.
• What DNR has said is best practices.
• </c> We've trampled too much of our forest We've trampled too much of our forest and<00:07:38.800><c>
• , determining the number of forest roads and trails in those forests, which forest should be classified
• </c> with the Minnesota DNR, the US Forest with the Minnesota DNR, the US Forest Service,<00:21:03.840

Keywords: 919, house, all

Summary: The committee heard House File 1012, as amended by the A1 amendment, and the author moved the bill to be laid over for possible inclusion in a future bill. The amendment, adopted on a voice vote, changed the timing for public input in trail planning, removed language on decommissioning trails, and combined the measure with another ATV-fee bill. The author said the bill would unify ATV trail signage policy statewide, align statute with DNR best practices, and not affect the forest trail inventory, existing ATV-accessible miles, or hunting exemptions. Testimony was sharply divided. Supporters, including representatives of the Minnesota Public Lands Coalition, tribal officials from the Max Band and Leech Lake Band of Ojibwe, a retired DNR conservation officer, a retired wildlife manager, and the Minnesota Environmental Quality Board, argued the bill would better protect wetlands, wildlife habitat, and culturally significant areas, improve transparency and tribal consultation, and make trail planning and enforcement more workable. The EQB said the amended bill’s rulemaking timeline was more workable, and the DNR described its existing multi-step trail review and consultation process. Opponents, including ATV Minnesota, county commissioners from northern counties, and a representative of the Minnesota Trappers Association, argued the bill would burden or restrict existing trail systems, increase costs, and threaten tourism and local economies. They said current trail development already involves DNR and local review, and that the bill could reduce access for riders, trappers, and other users. In member questions, the author and a Minnesota Association of Townships representative said the bill was intended to codify DNR best practices and bring local governments into the process earlier, while confirming that hunting exemptions were not removed.

Transcript Highlights:

• Dwayne Emmons explained that, in Washington, under the forest practices rules, if you do not salvage
• The speaker added that forest management, including forest health management, is allowed in carbon sales
• The speaker said that forest management, including forest health management, is allowed in carbon sales
• I am not a forester, but I work for some really fantastic foresters who are experts, and they tell me
• in Capitol State Forest.

Summary: The committee held public hearings on House Bill 2170, which would authorize DNR to enter ecosystem service and carbon contracts on state trust lands, and House Bill 2578, which would add tribal members and alternates to the Fish and Wildlife Commission. For HB 2170, the Department of Natural Resources and supporters said the bill would diversify revenue, help meet climate goals, and allow DNR to participate in emerging carbon and ecosystem markets without necessarily eliminating timber harvest. Opponents, including counties, school districts, timber companies, loggers, and forest industry groups, argued the bill could reduce harvest levels, harm rural jobs and mill supply, and lower revenues for schools and other trust beneficiaries; several said any new authority should be limited to additive projects with stronger safeguards. Supporters included environmental groups and some local officials who said the bill would provide a more stable revenue stream and better align land management with climate and watershed benefits. The chair noted there are two related vehicles in committee, HB 1508 as the negotiated version and HB 2170 as the department version, and the public hearing on HB 2170 was closed after extensive testimony. For HB 2578, staff explained that the bill would add four tribal commissioner positions and four alternates to the Fish and Wildlife Commission, with representation from federally recognized tribes on both sides of the Cascades and staggered terms. Prime sponsor Rep. Deborah Lekanoff said the measure would strengthen co-management and the state’s government-to-government relationship with tribes, while acknowledging there are other related bills and ongoing legal issues involving WDFW. The chair asked whether the bill would affect existing tribal consultation obligations, and Lekanoff said it would not replace government-to-government consultation; she also said she would follow up on how the governor would make appointments. The hearing on HB 2578 was then suspended so the committee could return to HB 2170 testimony. The committee also heard staff briefing and sponsor testimony on House Bill 2544, which would create a pilot process for the Upper Columbia River water rights adjudication. Staff said the bill would require Ecology to run the adjudication in two phases, starting with tribal and federal claimants and allowing time for settlement before bringing in other claims, with a report due by June 2035. Rep. Larry Springer said the bill is intended to establish a baseline of water use more efficiently in a process that can otherwise take decades. After the briefing and sponsor remarks, the committee began public testimony on the bill, with tribal representatives and other stakeholders queued to testify.

Transcript Highlights:

• forests.
• by significantly constricting the application of sound forest management practices across the entire
• This is 2% of the state's forest, total forest mass, is the demonstration forests.
• This is 2% of the state's forest, total forest mass, is the demonstration forests.
• Each individual forest has a forest management plan associated with it, and that forest management plan

Summary: The committee heard several bills, beginning with AB 1938, which would create a voluntary process for local governments to designate California surf reserves through the Ocean Protection Council. The author and supporters, including Save the Waves Coalition, the League of California Cities, and the California State Association of Counties, argued the bill would recognize surf breaks as important natural and economic assets. The bill received a due pass recommendation to Appropriations and passed on a roll call vote, with the measure left on call. The committee also approved the consent calendar, which included AB 1699, AB 1780, AB 1891, AB 1893, and AB 2566. The committee then took up AB 2051, which would convene a coastal resilience permitting working group to develop a roadmap for streamlining permits for coastal resilience projects. The author and supporters from the Bay Area Council, Port of San Francisco, and others said the bill would reduce duplicative permitting delays while preserving environmental protections. One member raised concerns about giving too much authority to the Coastal Commission, but the bill still received a due pass recommendation to Water, Parks and Wildlife and passed on a roll call vote. AB 2494, dealing with the management of demonstration state forests, drew substantial debate. The author said the bill would update outdated 1947-era management goals to emphasize biodiversity, carbon sequestration, wildfire resilience, recreation, research, and tribal co-governance, with strong support from Mendocino County, tribal representatives, and environmental groups. Opponents from the Farm Bureau, California Forestry Association, and others argued it would shift the forests away from sustainable timber production, create funding instability, and invite litigation. After extensive questioning about forest science, old growth, funding, and tribal co-management, the bill received a due pass recommendation to Appropriations and passed on a roll call vote. The committee also approved AB 2483, which would create a permanent certification pathway for formerly incarcerated firefighters who served on Cal Fire hand crews. Supporters said the bill would recognize their training and improve job prospects after release, and it passed unanimously to Public Safety. Finally, AB 1777, the California Clean Skies Act, was heard; it would affirm CARB’s authority to adopt indirect source rules to address pollution from vehicle-heavy facilities such as warehouses and ports. Environmental, health, and labor supporters backed the bill as a tool to protect public health, while trucking, business, port, and industry groups opposed it as costly and overly broad. The bill remained under discussion at the end of the transcript, with members debating whether it clarified existing authority or created new regulatory power.

Transcript Highlights:

• improvements in the production practices improvements in the production practices<00:30:04.600><c> uh
• </c><00:31:40.880><c> and</c> fertilizer production practices and fertilizer production practices and
• Removing some of that from the system, from the forest, improves forest health.
• Most of our public and industrial forest land is enrolled in third-party certification practices.
• managing our forests.

Keywords: 1183, house

Summary: The committee heard testimony on sustainable aviation fuel (SAF) and Minnesota’s efforts to build a SAF industry. Andrea Veble of the Minnesota Department of Agriculture said the Walz administration strongly supports SAF because it could benefit agriculture, forestry, clean energy, and rural economies. She highlighted the 2023 state SAF tax credit and sales tax exemption for facility construction, describing the credit as a nation-leading incentive designed to stack with federal IRA credits and attract producers and blenders to Minnesota. Jeff Davidman of Delta Airlines said aviation is difficult to decarbonize and that SAF is the airline industry’s best available tool to reach net-zero goals by 2050. He explained that SAF is a certified drop-in fuel that can be blended with conventional jet fuel and used in existing aircraft and infrastructure, and he cited growing global demand and limited supply. He said Minnesota has many potential feedstocks, including used cooking oil, corn, soybeans, and camelina, and praised the state’s SAF tax credit and the Minnesota SAF Hub as important steps toward making Minnesota a leader in the sector. Peter Fros of Greater MSP described the Minnesota SAF Hub as a public-private partnership aimed at building an industrial-scale SAF value chain in Minnesota. He said the state has key advantages, including airport demand, corporate partners, research institutions, and agricultural inputs, and estimated that three SAF biorefineries could create tens of thousands of jobs and significant emissions reductions. He also said the Hub is working on blending infrastructure, private demand commitments, a winter camelina expansion study, and efforts to secure additional refineries before 2030. Members raised questions about how sustainability is measured, and Fros said the Hub relies on the federal GREET model but wants a clearer, transparent, and standardized national method that also accounts for issues like water quality and biodiversity. Amanda Bellik of the Minnesota Corn Growers Association said corn-based ethanol is a strong fit for SAF production through the alcohol-to-jet pathway because it is abundant, affordable, and supported by existing infrastructure. She said SAF development could create a new value-added market for corn without requiring new acres, but emphasized the need for significant capital investment, stable tax policy, and efficient permitting. She also said the group has worked with a consultant on third-party sustainability assessments of corn production practices to help fill data gaps and support the carbon-intensity requirements tied to SAF incentives.

Transcript Highlights:

• Rules made by the Forest Practices Board, do they apply to the lands of sovereign nations as well?
• We're talking Forest Practices Board versus the Board of Natural Resources. I get the two confused.
• I do too, even in this job, but the Forest Practices Board regulates private timber lands, and it would
• practices.
• like to ensure that forest practices are consistent throughout not only the tribes, but also in the state

Bills: SB5838, SB5960, SB6097

Keywords: tribal representation, natural resources, board of natural resources, environmental policy, community involvement, ungulate populations, wildlife management, habitat restoration, conservation, sustainability, Indian tribes, conservation futures program, federal recognition, environmental protection, 904, all

Transcript Highlights:

• tribal land management practices.
• Tribal land management practices.
• management practices.
• This pressure, along with recent decisions by the Forest Practices Board, pardon me, Department of Ecology
• lands, or what is called in this bill State Forest Board lands.

Summary: The House Agriculture and Natural Resources Committee held public hearings on several bills, with most of the discussion focused on tribal representation and natural resource management. On HB 2117, which would add a tribal representative to the Board of Natural Resources, the prime sponsor and DNR officials said the bill would strengthen government-to-government relationships without replacing existing consultation duties. Tribal leaders from the Swinomish Indian Tribal Community and the Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation testified in support, as did the Commissioner of Public Lands and DNR’s tribal relations director. County and timber interests said they were not opposed to tribal representation but raised concerns about trust responsibilities, beneficiary interests, and whether the representative should come from a tribe with commercial forest management experience. The committee later closed testimony on HB 2117 and read into the record 192 pro, 124 con, and zero other sign-ins. The committee also heard HB 2516, which would impose a two-year moratorium on the use of certain anticoagulant rodenticides and bromethalin after a Department of Agriculture report and while the Washington State Academy of Sciences studies alternatives and impacts. The prime sponsor argued the bill balances rodent control with concerns about wildlife, groundwater, and human exposure, while opponents from the pest management industry warned it would remove effective tools and worsen rodent problems, especially for low-income and manufactured-home communities. Supporters included the Washington Poison Center, wildlife rehabilitators, Birds Connect Seattle, the Stillaguamish Tribe, and other advocates who cited poisonings in wildlife and children and pointed to non-toxic alternatives and integrated pest management. The committee read into the record 754 pro, 176 con, and five other sign-ins. For HB 2554, which would repeal RCW 77.110 and related language tied to Initiative 456 and tribal fishing rights, the sponsor and the Attorney General’s Office said the statute is unconstitutional and inconsistent with federal treaty law and court rulings. The Department of Fish and Wildlife also supported repeal, describing the measure as removing an unenforceable anti-tribal statute. The committee then moved on to HB 2327, a bill directing JLARC to audit the county forest board lands trust and DNR’s management of those lands. The sponsor, former Rep. Jim Buck, county representatives, and forest industry witnesses supported an independent review of the trust structure and performance; some asked for amendments to address reconveyance options, broader legal and ecological considerations, and consultation with tribes and the Board of Natural Resources.

Transcript Highlights:

• Second, the bill directs DNR, Fish and Wildlife, Ecology, the Forest Practices Board, and L&I to consult
• Third, the bill requires DNR, Fish and Wildlife, Ecology, the Forest Practices Board, and the Department
• I'm the director of forest management for the Nature Conservancy and a certified forester that manages
• I'm the forest program director at Sustainable Northwest.
• management plans as best management practices.

Bills: SB6104, SB6241, SJM8015, SB6318

Keywords: agriculture, protection, state regulation, farmers, land use, sustainability, steelhead, conservation, wildlife, fishing, environmental protection, federal response, wildfire protection, community safety, infrastructure, natural resources, commercial shellfish, fees, fishing industry, regulations

Transcript Highlights:

• Second, the bill directs DNR, Fish and Wildlife, Ecology, the Forest Practices Board, and L&I to consult
• Third, the bill requires DNR, Fish and Wildlife, Ecology, the Forest Practices Board, and the Department
• I'm the director of forest management for The Nature Conservancy and a certified forester that manages
• To see how we improve our forests.
• management plans as best management practices.

Summary: The Senate Agriculture and Natural Resources Committee held public hearings on several bills and a joint memorial, with testimony largely focused on steelhead recovery, agricultural viability, wildfire funding, and shellfish fees. On SB 6241, which would create a wild broodstock conservation program for steelhead, staff described a statewide program with a fiscal note of about $14.6 million in FY 2027, while sponsor Sen. Braun argued the concept could boost wild populations and fishing opportunity at lower cost than the fiscal note suggests. Proponents, including anglers and conservation groups, said broodstock programs could improve fisheries, preserve genetics, and support local economies; opponents, including Trout Unlimited, argued the bill was too broad, not sufficiently science-driven, and should be left to agency and co-manager discretion. The public hearing closed with a strong pro/con sign-in count in favor of the bill. The committee then heard SB 6104, a broad agriculture-protection bill that would require agricultural impact statements for certain agency actions, annexations, and zoning changes, and would direct mitigation measures when actions harm agricultural or natural-resource-based commercial activities. Sponsor Sen. Muzzall said Washington agriculture is under severe pressure and losing farms, while supporters from farm groups said the bill would force agencies to consider ag viability and compensate for impacts. Opponents, including a small farmer and environmental advocates, said the bill was too procedural, could burden modernization or conservation efforts, and might create uncertainty around existing conservation funding accounts. The hearing ended with more testimony in opposition than support. The committee also heard SJM 8015, urging the federal government to ensure wildfire-response consolidation does not reduce capacity or firefighter safety. Sponsor Sen. Short and many testifiers, including private forest owners, tribes, students, conservation groups, and local officials, emphasized the importance of maintaining and fully funding Washington’s wildfire response and forest-restoration investments, especially the 1168 account. Testimony highlighted fuel breaks, early detection, community protection, and the economic costs of wildfire. The memorial drew overwhelmingly pro testimony. Finally, the committee suspended the five-day notice rule to hear SB 6318 on commercial shellfish fees; staff explained it would cap Department of Health fee increases after a recent fee review, and shellfish growers strongly supported the bill as necessary to keep small farms viable. The committee also took a work session on beaver relocation and habitat restoration, where presenters described beavers as a water-retention and wildfire-resilience tool and discussed coexistence, relocation, and possible future management changes.

Transcript Highlights:

• But we do think that practices improvements in the production practices for the feedstock is another
• </c> but we do think that practices but we do think that practices improvements<00:45:29.359><c> in</
• in the production practices improvements in the production practices uh<00:45:31.079><c> for</c><00:
• Spentech, identify yourself. production practice for raising the feed production practice for raising
• Removing some of that from the forest improves forest health. It increases climate resilience.

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• Rules made by the Forest Practices Board, do they apply to the lands of sovereign nations as well?
• We're talking Forest Practices Board versus the Board of Natural Resources. I get the two confused.
• I do too, even in this job, but the Forest Practices Board regulates private timber lands, and it would
• practices.
• to ensure that forest practices are consistent throughout not only the tribes, but also in the state

Summary: The committee heard testimony on Senate Bill 5838, which would add a federally recognized tribal representative to the State Board of Natural Resources. The Department of Natural Resources commissioner and tribal leaders said the change would bring Indigenous knowledge and a voting voice to decisions on trust lands, while preserving existing tribal consultation. Some county and economic interests said they were not opposed to tribal participation but stressed the board’s fiduciary duty to trust beneficiaries and asked for more review of the board’s purpose; one witness questioned whether the beneficiaries had been consulted. The prime sponsor, Senator Claudia Kaufman, said the bill is about inclusion and equity and indicated openness to an amendment adding both eastside and westside tribal representation. The hearing closed with 142 written comments reported: 33 pro, 107 con, and 2 other. The committee then heard Senate Bill 5960, which would require Fish and Wildlife to designate at-risk ungulate populations and take predator mitigation actions when populations fall below specified benchmarks. Senator Shelley Short said the bill responds to declining deer and elk numbers and a lack of management, especially in northeast Washington. Supporters argued the bill would codify existing agency plans and restore balance in wildlife management, while opponents—including conservation groups, the Sierra Club, and several scientists and advocates—said the state’s predator-prey study found wolves were not the main driver of ungulate declines, pointing instead to habitat, forage, weather, disease, and vehicle collisions. Ranching and farm groups supported the overall goal but objected to the bill’s in-state wolf translocation provisions. The Department of Fish and Wildlife said it recognized the bill’s intent but opposed it because some directives were impractical, costly, or would require legislative approval. The hearing closed with 1,197 written comments reported: 843 pro, 352 con, and 2 other. The committee then held a work session on Lake Washington salmon predation. Larry Phillips and Muckleshoot Fisheries Director Jason Schaffler described a coalition effort to reduce predation on juvenile salmon in the Lake Washington system, saying invasive and predatory fish such as walleye, rock bass, American shad, northern pike, yellow perch, and smallmouth bass are harming sockeye and Chinook recovery. They said sockeye returns have fallen from hundreds of thousands to about 18,000 in recent years, ending tribal and sport fisheries, and argued that targeted predator removal, supported by prior state and county funding, could help restore runs. Senators asked about the methods and funding, and the presenters said fishing and netting are being used to suppress larger predatory fish and that more sustained investment is needed. Finally, the committee began public hearing on Senate Bill 1697, which would make federally recognized tribes eligible recipients for county conservation futures funds. Testifiers from the Washington Farmland Trust and the Tulalip Tribe said the bill would expand voluntary conservation partnerships, help tribes steward farmland and habitat, and make it easier to leverage county funds with other grants. They described past projects where tribal participation improved conservation outcomes but said tribes could not directly access conservation futures dollars under current law.

Transcript Highlights:

• After a wildfire, a landowner isn't required to reforest, and if in Washington, with the forest practices
• And again, forest management, including forest health management, is allowed in carbon sales.
• He said he is not a forester, but he works with foresters who are experts and who say it takes a long
• The chair said it was her understanding that under the forest practices plan, Washington does not clear-cut
• in Capitol State Forest.

Bills: HB2170, HB2544, HB2578

Keywords: natural climate solutions, ecosystem services, revenue generation, economic opportunities, environmental policy, water rights, adjudication, Columbia River, environmental impact, natural resources, tribal members, fish and wildlife, commission, indigenous rights, state regulation, 904, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Private forests can use to improve the management of their forests.
• The forest landowners, forest industry, and forest practitioners in this state.
• Forest Service and our State Forest Service.
• It was the Forest Service.
• There to provide assistance, expertise, knowledge, and education on best practices in restoring forests

Transcript Highlights:

• Among the plan's top-line recommendations are conserving forest parcels, updating forest management practices
• , forested swamps, and seeps, which are a habitat protection around forests forested swamps and seeps
• Healthy wild forests generate 50%—that's half—of all on-land rainfall. It comes from forests.
• Cooling, carbon renewal, and water sources that forests provide for free in our forests.
• Since state forest land equals 17% of Massachusetts forests, making state forest land reserves in perpetuity

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The hearing focused on the Healey-Driscoll administration’s Mass Ready Act, a $3 billion environmental bond bill. Administration officials said the bill would fund climate resilience, clean water, land conservation, parks, PFAS remediation, food security infrastructure, and coastal and inland flood protection, while also streamlining permitting for housing, restoration, and other resilience projects. They emphasized that the bond authorizes spending but does not itself obligate it, and said the proposal includes deauthorizations as housekeeping. Committee members asked about the new Resilience Revolving Fund, flood and drought management, MVP funding, land acquisition, Chapter 61 right-of-first-refusal changes, salt marsh carbon sequestration, and how the bill would help smaller municipalities and offset expected federal funding losses. Officials said the revolving fund would be managed through EEA and the Clean Water Trust, with criteria aimed at directing aid to communities most in need, and noted that drought issues would continue to be handled through existing DEP and drought commission tools. Several committee members and witnesses discussed specific policy provisions, including flood disclosure requirements for homebuyers and renters, expanded authority for regional planning and small-town access to grants, and permitting reforms that would exempt or expedite certain environmental restoration and priority housing projects from more time-consuming review processes. Administration witnesses defended the reforms as a way to achieve the same environmental outcomes faster and with more certainty, while some advocates argued the bill should go further, especially on Chapter 91 and restoration permitting. The administration also described investments in DCR facilities, water and wastewater systems, open space, agricultural easements, and a new focus on blue carbon and salt marsh restoration. Public testimony largely supported the bill. Mass Audubon, the Trustees of Reservations, the Environmental League of Massachusetts, The Nature Conservancy, MAPC, the Massachusetts Municipal Association, municipal officials, and others praised the bill’s resilience, conservation, and water infrastructure investments. Some witnesses urged additional funding for land protection, coastal resilience, buyouts, and restoration, and several called for stronger or simpler permitting reforms. Municipal witnesses from Boston, Beckett, Beverly, Conway, and regional planning organizations stressed the need for flexible financing, especially for small and rural communities facing costly infrastructure and climate adaptation projects. No votes were taken during the portion of the hearing provided; the committee heard testimony and asked questions before moving on to additional panels.

Transcript Highlights:

• . practices. practices.
• </c> management practices. management practices.
• </c> forest products. forest products.
• products and special decorative forest products and special forest<01:52:44.960><c> products</c> forest
• or forest products.

Keywords: 1183, house