Industry groups tell advisory panel they're suing over Ecology’s continuous buffer rule, warn of job and tax losses

Cindy Mitchell, representing the Washington Forest Protection Association, told the advisory committee that the Forest Practices Board’s recently adopted continuous buffer rule for non‑fish streams will impose broad new constraints on private timberland and is the subject of pending litigation. “It’s 200,000 acres of private land will be encumbered,” Mitchell said, adding that the rule would affect “48% of the private harvest” and could eliminate “1 to 2 sawmills.”

Mitchell summarized 15 years of adaptive‑management temperature monitoring and argued that the Department of Ecology has reinterpreted the “no measurable change” standard in ways that she and her attorneys say are not grounded in the scientific record. She said the industries and small‑landowner groups have filed a suit challenging the rule and that the case is scheduled for court on August 21; the rule’s effective date is August 31.

Why it matters: Mitchell framed the change as both an ecological‑policy dispute and a local fiscal one. She said the rule could remove timber taxable value and excise‑tax revenue counties rely on, citing an estimate that Clallam County would lose about 9,700 acres from production and around $3,000,000 in county excise tax “per rotation.” Those possible revenue losses, she said, could affect local services and levy messaging.

Committee members pressed Mitchell on local ecological details and on whether specific culvert replacements had failed to improve fish passage in nearby creeks. A resident described culvert work on Taylor Creek and Highway 112 that, in his view, did not restore fish access; another member said such local examples argue for targeted fixes rather than broad buffer changes.

Mitchell urged counties, ports and other taxing districts to consider joining an amicus brief in the litigation. She described low‑cost options for participation — including simply signing a brief to register support — and provided contact information for counsel coordinating interested governments. Port and county representatives said they would explore joint participation through their attorneys.

What the committee will do next: Members asked DNR and legal staff whether the county should prepare a letter or resolution to join as a signatory; presenters suggested coordinating through the port’s attorney and indicated the administrative cost could be minimal if boards authorize a sign‑on. The committee did not take a formal vote on joining an amicus at the meeting.

Sources: Remarks and data summaries presented by Cindy Mitchell to the advisory committee (presentation and Q&A).