Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Forest Practices Buffers topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
County officials, local foresters urge Forest Practices Board to drop proposed stream-buffer expansion
Summary
At a Cowlitz County workshop, foresters and residents urged the Forest Practices Board and Department of Ecology not to adopt a proposal to substantially expand buffers on small, non–fish-bearing streams, warning of long-term economic impacts and arguing the change would bypass the state's adaptive-management process.
County commissioners and local forestry stakeholders on Monday pressed state regulators to halt a proposal that would expand stream buffers on small, non–fish-bearing streams, saying the change would permanently remove timberland from productive use and reduce long-term tax revenue.
At a workshop, Wade Boyd, a longtime timber executive and county resident, urged the Board of County Commissioners to contact members of the Forest Practices Board and the Washington State Department of Ecology and oppose the rule. "There is no evidence that additional buffers are needed to protect small streams," Boyd said, urging officials to preserve the adaptive-management processes in the Forest and Fish agreement.
The concern is that Washington's Department of Ecology seeks to impose wider, permanent no-harvest strips on many small streams across the state without the site-specific studies the existing rules require. Speakers said a University of Washington analysis indicates roughly 28,000 acres could be placed under permanent restriction in Cowlitz County alone if the proposal is adopted, locking up an estimated $245 million in timber and putting roughly $10 million of excise-tax revenue at risk over time.
Why it matters: proponents of the change say wider buffers would reduce stream temperature rises and protect water quality and aquatic habitat. Opponents at the workshop argued the rule supplants the adaptive-management system built into the Forest and Fish agreement and applies a one-size-fits-all approach without scientific study of individual streams.
At the meeting, speakers described how the proposed expansion would work in practice. Boyd showed maps of representative parcels and said the proposed buffers would nearly double the amount of land permanently encumbered by stream setbacks on some properties. "The Department of Ecology's position is an intentional misapplication of a water-quality standard and the pollution-control process," Boyd said.
County staff and commissioners said they have been coordinating with local conservation districts and industry groups and that a county draft letter opposing the rule was prepared. A commissioner noted the Forest Practices Board hearing schedule was compressed and the final rulemaking hearing was scheduled in Olympia later the same day.
What was discussed but not decided: presenters and commissioners did not adopt formal county code changes or a binding directive during the workshop; instead they signaled intent to submit comments and encouraged citizens and local organizations to send written input to Forest Practices Board members and the Department of Ecology.
Context and next steps: public comment on the department's related process was due the day of the meeting, and several local stakeholders said they planned to travel to the Olympia hearing. County officials said they would deliver a letter opposing the change and urged residents to register their comments with the state.
Ending: County officials and local foresters characterized the proposal as both an economic and regulatory threat and urged rapid public engagement. The Forest Practices Board and Department of Ecology were listed among entities residents were encouraged to contact before the rulemaking closed.
