Facts about Ecology’s Type Np Rule

Facts about Ecology's Type Np Rule

A broad coalition opposes Ecology's arbitrary and costly rule

During the first phases of public comment on Ecology's proposed rule, the Forest Practices Board heard from groups and leaders representing the rural backbone of Washington-large and small forest landowners, lumber mills, wood manufacturers and woodworkers, family tree farms, 12 county commissions, conservation districts, fire districts, economic development councils and port commissioners, farmers and ranchers, current and former elected officials, along with hundreds of concerned Washingtonians, all voiced strong opposition to the high costs of Ecology's proposed rule.

Thousands of emails and letters were sent to the Forest Practices Board and are part of an official public record. The most common themes of opposition were:

• The high costs that would be shouldered by economically disadvantaged rural communities-estimated at $8 billion,
• 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.

In addition to the public hearing comments, newspapers across Western Washington are publishing news and informed opinion against the rule:

• "WA's stream buffer rule: Big economic impact, little environmental evidence," by professional forester Jacob Vail in The Cascadia Daily News
• "WA should follow the science when it comes to waterway rules," by former state lawmakers Jim Buck (R) and Debbie Regala (D) in The Seattle Times
• "Trust lands under threat in Grays Harbor, Pacific, and Skamania counties," by Wade Boyd, Phd, Ret. and Forester in The Aberdeen Daily World
• "One reader's view | Cowlitz County tree farm owner says proposed stream buffer will hurt business," by small tree farm owner Taryn Christison in The Longview Daily News

New Ecology 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.