As someone employed by a regional forest products business, I’m deeply involved in the intricacies of forest policy. For many, the technical aspects of forestry, environmental science, and economic modeling can appear complex and sometimes inconsistent. n nGiven the time required to understand these systems, forest management is often reduced to simplistic narratives by advocacy groups aiming for visible environmental progress. However, decision-makers in state agencies must avoid being swayed by such oversimplifications. n nRecently, the Washington Department of Ecology has put forward a rule change affecting non-fish perennial streams—those that flow year-round but do not support fish populations. The proposal would expand tree buffer zones along these waterways, removing approximately 200,000 additional acres of privately owned forestland from timber harvesting. This adds to the 764,000 acres already withdrawn for stream protection on private property. If adopted, the regulation could reduce timber harvests on private land by 4–8%, equivalent to the annual output of one to two sawmills—enough lumber to construct around 15,000 homes each year. n nThe justification cited by the agency is a recorded temperature shift of over 0.3 degrees Celsius in forested stream waters, not any proven harm to aquatic species. Considering the scale of economic disruption, this rationale is difficult to support. Rural economies, particularly those reliant on forestry, would face significant setbacks, with projected losses amounting to billions of dollars. n nSmall woodland owners who rely on timber sales for income, along with local businesses and mill workers, would bear the brunt of this policy. Some landowners may opt to convert their forests into residential or commercial developments rather than maintain them as working woodlands—an outcome detrimental to both the forest industry and long-term environmental stewardship. n nWashington operates under the “Forests & Fish Law,” widely recognized as a benchmark for sustainable forestry practices. When this framework was established, landowners committed substantial productive acreage to stream buffers, in exchange for a promise that future regulatory changes would follow an “adaptive management” approach—requiring thorough scientific evaluation of both ecological needs and economic consequences. The current proposal bypasses this agreed-upon process. n nRather than assuming that minor thermal fluctuations are inherently damaging, state agencies should assess whether such changes have measurable ecological effects and whether the proposed response delivers benefits that outweigh its costs. n nPrivate forests in Washington already contribute significantly to salmon habitat preservation and water quality. There is currently no evidence that existing stream temperatures are harming fish populations, nor that expanding buffers will enhance species recovery. The Forest Practices Board should reject the current proposal and reinstate the adaptive management protocol to ensure balanced, science-based decision-making. n
— news from Cascadia Daily News
— News Original —
WA’s stream buffer rule: Big economic impact, little environmental evidence
I work for a local forest products company and in this line of work, it can feel like we live and breathe forest policy. I imagine that for many others, the science and regulations associated with forest management can seem convoluted and at times, contradictory. n nMost people don’t have the time to delve into the complexities of forestry, environmental science, and forest economics, and as a result, our work is too often oversimplified and politicized by groups seeking the appearance of quick environmental wins. Our state agencies and land managers cannot fall into this trap. n nUnfortunately, major changes to forest policy have recently been proposed without adequate analysis or justification. The state Forest Practices Board is currently grappling with an ongoing debate surrounding the regulation of non-fish perennial streams, essentially streams without fish that flow year-round. n nThe Washington Department of Ecology is proposing a new rule that would create additional tree buffers on these streams, taking another 200,000 acres of private forestland out of timber production (in addition to the 764,000 acres that have already been set aside for stream protections on private lands). If passed, this rule would reduce harvests on private lands by 4–8% — equal to production of one to two sawmills making enough lumber to build roughly 15,000 new homes per year. n nThis proposed rule is due to the agency observing a change of more than 0.3 degrees Celsius in forest stream temperature, not a demonstrated impact on fish. That is hard to accept given the ramifications. The economic impact of this rule will hit rural communities like mine hardest, with billions of dollars in economic damage. n nFamilies who depend on small woodlands for income, our local stores and services, and our logging and sawmill workers will be harmed. Some landowners will inevitably find it’s more advantageous to develop their property rather than keep it as a working forest, which would be a major loss for the forest products industry and the environment. n nIn Washington, we operate under the “Forests & Fish Law,” and we are widely acknowledged to be a global leader in sustainable forestry. When this law was established, landowners set aside large amounts of productive timberland to buffer streams with a commitment from the state that future changes to forest management rules would be made through “adaptive management”— a process that requires careful scientific review of needs and impacts before changes are made. The observed change in stream temperature should have prompted a public policy review that analyzed the potential trade-offs of such a rule change. That never happened. n nInstead of operating under the assumption that any change in water temperature is necessarily harmful, the imperative and the ultimate responsibility of state agencies like Ecology should be to determine if a change is impactful and if so, whether the benefits of a proposed policy reaction justify the costs. n nWashington’s private forestlands are already sustaining salmon habitat and clean water, and there’s no evidence current temperatures are harming fish or that the new rule will improve fish recovery. The Forest Practices Board should push back on the proposed rule and restart the adaptive management process to determine the best path forward. n nJacob Vail, of Burlington, grew up in Skagit County and holds a degree in forestry from the University of Idaho.