Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Environment Ecology topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Clallam County considers joining legal challenge to Ecology’s MP buffer reinterpretation, citing economic impacts
Summary
Commissioners heard a presentation from the Washington Forest Protection Association arguing Ecology’s reinterpretation of the MP buffer rule would remove about 9,700 acres from private timber production and cost the county roughly $3 million in excise tax revenue over a rotation; commissioners asked questions and signaled support for joining an amicus brief while staff will coordinate prosecutor input and budget provisions.
A presentation to the Clallam County Board of Commissioners on May 11 outlined why several counties and industry groups are contesting a Department of Ecology reinterpretation of the so‑called MP buffer rule that applies to perennial, non‑fish streams.
Cindy Mitchell, senior director of public affairs at the Washington Forest Protection Association, told the board the original 2001 forest practices regime and the subsequent 50‑year Habitat Conservation Plan produced monitoring showing temporary, small temperature increases post‑harvest that returned to baseline. Mitchell said Ecology later removed some alternatives from the rulemaking process and adopted a stricter anti‑degradation interpretation that, she argued, is impractical and would remove about 9,700 acres of private land from production — “and the relevant excise tax to the county on that is $3,000,000 over rotation,” she said.
Why it matters: commissioners said the rule change mixes scientific interpretation and economic consequences for rural counties dependent on working forestland. Several commissioners endorsed participating in a coordinated county amicus brief, but they requested a careful process: to check with the county prosecutor, to confirm the expected legal costs and funding source, and to avoid duplicating existing litigation work.
Board discussion and next steps: Commissioners asked whether Ecology provided a technical justification for the reinterpretation and how EPA review affected the standard. Mitchell said the state standard (16 degrees) remains in place but Ecology’s reinterpretation shifted how measurable change is applied, narrowing alternatives and prompting the legal challenge. Commissioners discussed pro rata cost‑sharing for outside counsel, with estimated per‑county amounts in the low thousands depending on how many counties join. The board asked staff to consult the prosecutor and to consider whether a small professional‑services budget amendment or an emergency appropriation could cover the initial legal expense.
A commissioner framed the issue as a balance between economic activity and environmental protection and said the county should be on the side of science; others noted the decision will be a record review in August, with an effective date of August 31 if not stayed. The board did not commit to a final funding decision in session; instead they directed staff to coordinate next steps, gather cost estimates, and report back.
What remains unresolved: the county has not yet filed or formally funded an amicus brief; the board wants prosecutor sign‑off before committing county dollars. A hearing reviewing the rule adoption record is scheduled for August 21, and the rule would take effect August 31 unless stayed.
