Thursday, October 1, 2026
The Washington State Department of Ecology and Department of Natural Resources are considering a rule that would arbitrarily expand forested buffers along all small, non-fish bearing (Np) streams.
On its surface, this may sound like a win for water quality. In reality, it risks doing more harm than good — not only to landowners, but to the public trust in government itself. The Forest Practices Board will vote on the proposed new rules on Wednesday Nov. 12.
Environmental justice includes everyone. Rural forested communities and small forest landowners, who maintain thriving forested ecosystems for all of us, are disproportionately negatively impacted by these additional set-asides.
As a research scientist specializing in forest ecology, I am confident that the existing rule supports the four pillars of the Forest and Fish Agreement of 1999. The overwhelming body of scientific literature indicates that the riparian forests of Western Washington are dynamic and resilient to disturbance (anthropogenic or naturogenic); current Np rules are working.
As a sustainability certification lead auditor, I trust natural resource managers of public and private timberland who I witness going above and beyond to protect riparian features with site specific prescriptions. New Np buffer requirements solve a problem that does not exist.
As a homeowner and taxpayer, I see my tax burden increasing year on year while the public resources sit, unavailable and locked up. For Thurston County, as much as $4.4 million in nontax revenue is held up by the pauses and restrictions imposed on trustland timber sales. Ecology’s proposed change to the Np rules would create an additional estimated $1.8 million loss in timber excise tax.
Regulations must serve the public good. That good includes clean water, but it also includes social stability, fairness, and trust in government institutions. Don’t risk alienating rural communities. A rule that sparks widespread hostility undermines, rather than advances, long-term conservation goals.
There is a better way. Agencies should require site-specific evidence of measurable, meaningful stream benefit before imposing additional buffers, compensating owners for value taken if buffers are needed. Such an approach protects water quality while respecting landowners, preserving trust, and maintaining the legitimacy of environmental law.
Email the DNR today, express your opposition to the arbitrary adoption of expanded stream buffers. Commissioner of Public lands cpl@dnr.wa.gov. Forest Practices Board forest.practicesboard@dnr.wa.gov.
Jenny Knoth, Ph.D. and SAF certified forester.
3 comments on this item Please log in to comment by clicking here
Southsoundguy
Doing harm is the point.
Wednesday, November 12, 2025 Report this
RondaLarsonKramer
The proposed update to stream-buffer rules is not arbitrary. It’s based on years of peer-reviewed science and agency work. The Forest Practices Board is acting precisely because the Department of Ecology found that current rules for small, non-fish-bearing (Np) streams are not meeting state water-quality and temperature standards.
These small headwater streams may not have fish, but they set the temperature and sediment conditions for the waters that do. Shaded buffers keep downstream water cool, filter runoff, and stabilize banks. That’s why the science shows continuous, two-sided buffers of about 50–75 feet per side are the most effective protection.
Commissioner of Public Lands Dave Upthegrove spoke about this just yesterday and I was in the audience. It's all about temperature downstream. This proposal is grounded in Ecology’s data and the CMER studies under the Forests & Fish framework. The rule went through a full public process with a Cost-Benefit Analysis, a Small Business Economic Impact Statement, and an Ecology antidegradation review. That’s the opposite of arbitrary.
Of course, we need to consider rural impacts, and the Board is doing that. But protecting headwaters is fundamental to keeping salmon streams viable and meeting legal water-quality standards. The better way to preserve trust is to base decisions on science, not to deny what the data clearly show.
Wednesday, November 12, 2025 Report this
Jamama
There is literally NOTHING "arbitrary" about protecting our fresh water resources. Critical streams need strong buffers, whether fish-bearing or not. Currently, with water resources vanishing and industrialization threatening the ones we have, it is crucial we strengthen these rules...we have generations of people following us, to consider.
This editorial seems written by a property rights crusader who believes folks should get to "do what they want" with their stewarded lands when creeks and streams go through them. And that's all we really are, folks: those fortunate enough to live on these lands are stewards, not 'owners' of lands which affect all our people.
The author would have us believe that science and caution and rules which apply to all, should not be the rule of the day. The fact is, the rules already lack appropriate protections, and they need strengthened. We should be supporting the state in doing so.
We are in a time of vanishing water resources, right here in Thurston county...and certainly in our state.
There is quite full and compelling data on decreased water flows and resources...
I recommend this video from WWU, a presentation from Oliver Grah, a water resources expert. He has met with Comm. Upthegrove at DNR and is no doubt impressing upon the state the need for more protections.
https://cenv.wwu.edu/speaker-series/grah
If you want to make comment, please consider the need to support critical waterway protections for ALL.
Thank you!
Wednesday, November 12, 2025 Report this