By Washington Forest Protection Association
In Washington, the headlines are simple: climate change, clean water, salmon recovery. These are goals we all share — protecting our environment, safeguarding our water, and restoring our fish runs. But what’s missing from the news — and from too many policy debates — is the real cost of these decisions for the people and communities who make Washington work.
The Department of Ecology’s proposed Type Np buffer rulemaking is the latest example. It would more than double streamside “no-harvest” zones on small, non-fish-bearing streams across western Washington. The stated goal is to cool water temperatures for salmon. But the science doesn’t support this expansion, and the costs are enormous.
If adopted, the rule would remove up to 7% of private forestland from production, on top of the 15% already taken out under the landmark 1999 Forests & Fish Law. Those acres represent lost jobs, lost tax revenue for schools and emergency services, and lost opportunities for rural families to keep working their land. This isn’t just about trees. It’s about people. And that’s the part missing from the story.
The Human Cost of One-Sided Rules
Rural counties across western Washington depend on working forests to fund local services, maintain infrastructure, and sustain family-wage jobs. When state agencies strip more land from production, small landowners are hit hardest. Mills lose log supply.
Counties lose tax revenue. Schools, fire districts, and hospitals lose funding. As Jason Spadaro, Executive Director of the Washington Forest Protection Association, explained recently on the Washington State Association of Counties podcast:
“Forests provide multiple benefits — clean water, wildlife habitat, carbon storage, recreation, and family-wage jobs. Sustainable forestry is about balance, not extremes. But when regulations go too far, rural communities pay the price.”
These aren’t abstract policy debates — they are life-changing choices for thousands of families. Every acre removed from production means fewer family-wage jobs, fewer mills able to operate, and fewer opportunities for young people to stay in the communities where they grew up.
A Broken Promise
When Washington passed the Forests & Fish Law in 1999, it was a rare model of collaboration: tribes, environmental advocates, landowners, counties, and agencies all came together to balance environmental protections with economic viability.
For 25 years, landowners have complied in good faith. They’ve invested hundreds of millions of dollars removing fish barriers, restoring habitat, and protecting water quality.
And the data shows it’s working:
CMER’s studies confirm that non-fish-bearing streams remain cold and clean under current rules.
Post-harvest stream temperatures average 12°C, well below Washington’s 16°C water quality standard.
The adaptive management framework, created under Forests & Fish, was designed to ensure protections evolve based on real science.
Yet Ecology is sidestepping that framework — treating a 0.3°C temperature “trigger” as a hard cap, rejecting stakeholder alternatives, and pushing forward rules that science doesn’t justify.
Why This Matters for Everyone
It’s easy for urban policymakers and editors to support broad headlines about “protecting salmon” or “fighting climate change.” But when the practical impacts are ignored, policies can undermine the very outcomes they claim to support.
Washington’s working forests produce renewable, carbon-storing wood products under some of the strictest environmental protections in the world. If we can’t grow timber here, we’ll import it from elsewhere — often from regions with weaker environmental safeguards. Worse yet, we’ll replace renewable wood with carbon-intensive materials like
steel, concrete, and plastics.
Spadaro put it simply:
“If we don’t grow and harvest trees here, we’ll get those materials somewhere else — and almost certainly from places doing it with less regard for water quality, wildlife, and carbon. That’s not better for salmon, for climate, or for society.”
At a time when Washington is prioritizing climate goals through the Climate Commitment Act, reducing the local supply of sustainable building materials undermines our own objectives.
