HB 1861
In CommitteeHouse
Smoke impacts/DNR burns
Requiring notification of smoke impacts from department of natural resources-initiated or silvicultural burns.
This status may be delayed. See Action History below for the latest updates.
How does a bill become law?
- Introduced: The bill is filed and assigned a number.
- Committee: A subject-matter committee holds hearings, takes public testimony, and decides whether to advance the bill.
- Floor Vote: The full chamber (House or Senate) debates and votes on the bill.
- Opposite Chamber: The bill repeats the committee and floor vote process in the other chamber.
- Governor: The Governor reviews the bill and decides whether to sign or veto it.
- Signed: The bill has been signed into law.
AI Analysis
This bill strengthens public transparency and health protections around smoke from state-approved burns by requiring the Department of Natural Resources to publicly post timely, detailed updates about smoke impacts—especially in high-poverty or disadvantaged areas—before, during, and after burns. It also tightens rules on when burning can occur and encourages alternatives to burning.
- Requires the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) to post real-time smoke impact information on its website for all permitted burns, including start time, expected impacts on nearby communities, and updates at least every 12 hours or when conditions change.
- Mandates special attention to high-poverty or federally designated disadvantaged census tracts—highlighting when smoke is expected to affect those areas.
- Prohibits DNR from issuing or allows revocation of burning permits during declared air quality impairment stages (e.g., ‘Stage 1’ or ‘Stage 2’ air alerts).
- Requires DNR to prioritize non-burning disposal methods (e.g., chipping, hauling, kilns) over silvicultural burning, and to evaluate alternatives based on health, environmental, and cost impacts.
- Clarifies that all DNR burns must comply with air quality standards set by the Department of Ecology and must not exceed standards up to 2,000 feet above ground level over designated critical areas.
Who is affected
- Residents of low-income census tracts — Children, families, and individuals in low-income census tracts face higher exposure to harmful PM2.5 (fine particulate matter) due to proximity to burn sites and fewer resources to reduce exposure—e.g., air filtration or relocation.
- People with health conditions sensitive to air pollution — People with respiratory conditions (e.g., asthma, COPD), older adults, and those with heart disease may face increased health risks from smoke exposure, especially when outdoor activity information is delayed or incomplete.
- Organizers of outdoor activities and educational programs — Schools, childcare centers, and outdoor activity organizers (e.g., sports leagues, camp operators) need timely, accurate smoke data to adjust schedules and protect vulnerable populations.
- Local and state air quality and environmental agencies — Local air quality agencies and the Department of Ecology rely on updated data to enforce air standards and coordinate emergency responses during high-smoke events.
- Timber industry and landowners using silvicultural burns — Timber industry workers and landowners may face changes in burn scheduling, permitting, or required alternative disposal methods, potentially affecting costs and logistics.
Pro/Con Analysis
Stronger case for benefits
Potential Benefits (5)
Targeted real-time smoke notifications for high-poverty and federally designated disadvantaged census tracts directly support vulnerable populations who are disproportionately exposed to PM2.5 and have fewer resources to mitigate exposure (e.g., air filtration, relocation). Timely alerts enable families to limit outdoor activity during high-risk periods—reducing acute health events like asthma attacks.
Public SafetyPeopleRef: Sec. 2(4)(c)Banning or revoking burning permits during declared air quality impairment stages prevents additional pollution during already hazardous conditions—protecting public health, especially for high-risk groups like children, older adults, and people with respiratory or cardiovascular conditions.
Public SafetyPeopleRef: Sec. 2(3)Prioritizing non-burning disposal methods and requiring health/environmental cost-benefit evaluations for alternatives reduces reliance on open burning—lowering PM2.5, VOCs, and carbon emissions, and improving regional air and water quality over time.
EnvironmentPeopleRef: Sec. 2(2)(a) & (b)Mandating 12-hour smoke impact updates and explicit identification of impacts on disadvantaged areas improves transparency and enables schools, childcare centers, and outdoor program operators to adjust schedules—protecting children and vulnerable populations from unnecessary exposure.
Public SafetyPeopleRef: Sec. 2(4)(b)-(d)Requiring DNR burns to comply with air quality standards up to 2,000 feet above ground over critical areas strengthens enforcement of existing clean air laws and helps prevent elevated pollution plumes that can travel into populated valleys or sensitive ecosystems.
EnvironmentPeopleRef: Sec. 2(1)
Potential Concerns (4)
Prohibiting or revoking burning permits during air quality impairment stages may disrupt timber harvest schedules, increase costs, and delay revenue for landowners and contractors—especially for time-sensitive operations like post-harvest slash management. This could strain small timber operations with narrow profit margins and limited flexibility to shift to alternative disposal methods.
Business & EmploymentPeopleRef: Sec. 2(3)Mandating evaluation and prioritization of non-burning disposal methods (e.g., chipping, hauling, kilns) increases administrative and operational costs for landowners and contractors. While some alternatives may be cost-neutral or beneficial long-term, many are more expensive in the short term and may not be feasible in rugged terrain or for large-scale operations—potentially reducing harvest efficiency and increasing labor/transport costs.
Business & EmploymentPeopleRef: Sec. 2(2)(a) & (b)Local air quality agencies and emergency management offices may face increased demand to interpret and act on real-time DNR smoke data, especially during high-fire-season periods. While this improves coordination, it adds burden to already-stretched local resources without specified state funding support.
Local GovernmentLean peopleRef: Sec. 2(4)(a)-(d)The bill attributes modest additional costs to DNR for website maintenance and staffing but does not allocate new funding—potentially diverting existing resources from other forest management priorities like fire prevention or habitat restoration.
Local GovernmentRef: Fiscal Impact section
Who Is Most Affected
Low-income residents in smoke-affected areas—especially children, elders, and those with respiratory illness—gain meaningful exposure reduction through timely alerts and stricter burn restrictions. This reduces emergency room visits and long-term health costs, directly improving quality of life.
People with health conditions sensitive to air pollution benefit from stronger protections during high-risk periods and more reliable information to make daily activity decisions—reducing exacerbations of asthma, COPD, and cardiovascular disease.
Schools and childcare centers gain actionable, location-specific data to protect children during outdoor activities—though they may face increased administrative burden in interpreting and acting on real-time alerts.
Local air quality agencies and Ecology Department gain a more reliable data stream from DNR, improving coordination during smoke events—but may face added workload interpreting and responding to new DNR disclosures.
Timber industry and landowners face increased operational constraints—especially during fire season—when burning windows shrink and alternative disposal methods (e.g., chipping, hauling) may be costlier or logistically unfeasible, particularly in remote or steep terrain.