Editor's note: This article has been updated. The original version incorrectly cited a stakeholder study using Department of Revenue data claiming $350 million in lost timber revenue in Lewis County as originating from the Washington state Department of Commerce. The story has been updated to reflect the projected timber value lost in Western Washington as predicted by a cost benefit analysis study commissioned by the Washington State Department of Natural Resources. Additionally, the rulemaking public comment period concludes the day before the Aug. 13 meeting on August 12.
After a June 6 vote by the Washington state Forest Practices Board, a new rule could lead to 200,000 acres of private forestland across the state going out of production and being left to grow.
A cost benefit analysis from the Department of Natural Resources estimates Western Washington would lose between $320 and $1 billion in timber value.
The proposed rule calls for an expansion of buffer zones around non-fish-bearing streams to improve river water quality. Called riparian buffer zones, they are places where trees must be left to shade streams and keep them cool.
The process for changing the rule began in 2021. The proposal faced harsh criticism during a meeting last week as the board forges ahead with the rule-making process.
The board is made up of 13 members with one representative each for the Washington state departments of agriculture, commerce, ecology, fish and wildlife and natural resources and other board members representing tribal governments, small landowners, the logging industry and more. The seat for a representative of Washington state counties currently sits vacant.
The vote on the new rule ultimately passed by just one vote. With 11 board members present, five, including the representatives for the departments of ecology, fish and wildlife and natural resources, voted in favor of the motion to continue with the rule-making process, while four voted against it, and two, representatives for the departments of Commerce and Agriculture, abstained.
Current buffer zone rules were adopted in 2001 as part of the Forest and Fish Report and require a 50-foot buffer on both sides of a stream for at least half the stream's length. Also included is a minimum buffer zone for the first 300 to 500 feet of a non-fish stream from where it connects to one with fish.
The new rule, if implemented as is, calls for the expansion of buffer zones around non-fish-bearing streams to 50 to 75 feet on both sides of a stream for its entire length, with the exact width being determined by how much and when the timber on the property is harvested.
The divisiveness of the new rule was apparent in the boardroom not just during the vote but for hours of public comment and discussion between board members beforehand. To add to the drama, the board initially believed the motion to continue with the rule had failed, thinking the motion needed six votes to pass — a majority of the 11 present members — before realizing abstaining votes were not considered present, making the five votes a winning majority.
During public comments and board member discussions, those in favor of the new rule cited a broad consensus throughout the creation of the study and a unanimous belief that action should be taken after receiving the first hardrock study in 2018. Those opposed questioned the integrity of the process to develop a solution to the problem at hand — rising water temperatures — and raised concerns with many of the studies used by the board, such as those measuring habitat impacts and others measuring economic and small business impacts.
Lewis County landowner and President of the Washington Farm Forestry Association Ann Stinson shared her concerns that the rule would make small forests less viable and lead to more landowners selling their property to developers.
“My father likes to say, ‘any tree farm is better than a parking lot,’” Stinson said. “It's a bit simplistic but it's true. And of course our family forest owners don’t just steward any old tree farm. We work to make our land the best it can be for timber for wildlife, clean air, clean water, recreation and meditative walks. We think we have the best forests in Washington.”
Many who testified against the new rule were small forestland owners, who decried buffer zones that might claim a larger percentage of their timberland.
“In 1999, the forest and fish agreement began,” said small forest landowner and Washington Farm and Forest Association representative Dave Roberts. “I was inspired by the thought of good science that would produce and dictate 50 years of regulatory stability. Personally, I was so inspired I have rectified 342 artificial fish barriers. After reviewing the hardrock studies, I see glaring deficiency and lack of sites that were sampled to represent all of Western Washington. I’m not really convinced this is good science.”
Others, like Peter Goldberg with the conservation caucus, testified to the credibility of the process and argued that the rule to expand the buffer zones was long overdue and that the change was to be expected as part of the original forest and fish agreement from 25 years ago.
“This is not a departure from TFW forest and fish, nor is it a taking of landowner property,” Goldberg said. “When a statewide plan from 25 years ago underprotects a resource, we should not be surprised or express outrage when an underprotective rule is adjusted … This is what was envisioned when the state agreed to a 50-year conservation plan over an entire landscape such as this one, 8.8 million acres. This is the way the program is supposed to work.”
Before abstaining from the vote, Ben Serr, representing the Department of Commerce, spoke of the need to make a change to protect water quality, but also highlighted the economic impact on small landowners and local governments, such as counties and school districts that rely on timber tax revenue.
“Commerce believes the board has no viable alternative but to advance the rule-making if we want to maintain federal regulatory assurances and avoid potential litigation,” Serr said. “Commerce is concerned about the financial burden this rule-making places on landowners and the broader economic impact on the forest products industry and local economies.”
With the motion passed, the rule-making process continues and the Forest Practices Board will enter a formal public review process, which will set a period for accepting public comment on the rule between now and the board's next meeting scheduled for Aug. 13. The public comment period will close the day before the August 13 meeting.
For more information on the Forest Practices Board and to see updates on meeting agendas, visit the board’s web page on the Department of Natural Resources website or visit https://tinyurl.com/mtrf5uh8.
