Don't leave rural Washington behind.
The facts are why a broad coalition opposes the Forest Practice Board's unscientific, arbitrary and costly "Type Np" stream buffer rule.
- The high costs that would be shouldered by economically disadvantaged rural communities—estimated at $8 billion overall, but beginning with nearly $2 billion in direct losses to landowners1,
- The shock to the state’s already fragile mill infrastructure, and
- The failure of the Board to consider lower-cost alternatives or to request further study of the rule’s broad economic impacts.
The Forest Practices Board is obligated to respond to these critical questions before it implements a major rule.
New stream rule regulation brings economic harm for no discernible benefit, puts politics ahead of science
What is “Type Np?”
The “Np” in Type Np stands for non-perennial and the term is a water typing classification used to identify a section of stream that is often dry during the year and is proven to not contain fish.
The Type Np rule proposed by the Department of Ecology requires private forest landowners to keep large buffers of forest around this class of streams, purportedly for the purpose of protecting fish like salmon. However, the data fails to show that Ecology’s rule will result in any real benefits to fish, while there is ample evidence that the rule will do severe economic harm—estimates of at least $8 billion that would hit rural communities that are already struggling.
Opponents of the Type Np rule have asked the Forest Practices Board to restore balance, fairness and good governance—restart a science-based approach to protecting fish habitat that does not ignore lower-cost alternatives.
Analysis: Counties lose $72 million just from county timber excise tax revenue
The sudden removal of more than 200,000 acres of productive forestland from planned harvest rotations will result in counties experiencing large revenue losses.
In addition, the loss of millions board feet from timber harvests—equivalent to 1–2 sawmills, 2,000 jobs, and enough wood for 15,000 homes per year—will put new strains on a forest sector infrastructure that is already under strain.
1. University of Washington NRSIG, “Economic Impact Analysis of the Proposed Forest Practices Riparian Buffer Rule Change for Type Np Streams in Western Washington,” May 22, 2025.
Read published opposition from across Washington
“Reject process that failed to produce options for logging near WA streams,” The Seattle Times Editorial Board
“Stream setback plan violates ‘the Washington Way’,” The Chinook Observer
“WA’s stream buffer rule: Big economic impact, little environmental evidence,” The Cascadia Daily News
“WA should follow the science when it comes to waterway rules,” The Seattle Times
“Something is wrong with the Forest Practices Board rulemaking,” The Capital Press
“Trust lands under threat in Grays Harbor, Pacific, and Skamania counties,” The Aberdeen Daily World
“One reader’s view | Cowlitz County tree farm owner says proposed stream buffer will hurt business,” The Longview Daily News
Public comments overwhelming support a NO vote
- Over the summer, hundreds turned out at four in-person public hearings – testimony ran more than 5-to-1 against the proposed rule.
- And the Forest Practices Board received nearly 450 written comments against the proposed rule.