WSR 25-13-101

PROPOSED RULES

FOREST PRACTICES BOARD

[Filed June 17, 2025, 3:32 p.m.]

Original Notice.

Preproposal statement of inquiry was filed as WSR 21-24-070.

Title of Rule and Other Identifying Information: WAC 222-30-021 Type Np water buffer for western Washington. Proposed rules amend the riparian management zone buffers associated with Np stream segments to ensure the buffers protect water quality and other aquatic resources from potential temperature increases.

Hearing Location(s): On July 23, at 4:00 p.m., at McClelland Center, 951 Delaware Street, Longview; on July 29, at 4:00 p.m., at Northwest Conference Center, 703 Pacific Street, Sedro Woolley; on August 4, at 4:00 p.m., at Vern Burton Gym, Parks and Recreation Department, 308 East 4th Street, Port Angeles; and on August 12, at 4:00 p.m., at Office Building 2, 1115 Washington Street S.E., Auditorium, Olympia.

Date of Intended Adoption: November 12, 2025.

Submit Written Comments to: Patricia Anderson, P.O. Box 47012, Olympia, WA 98504-7012, email forest.practicesboard@dnr.wa.gov, beginning June 18, 2025, by August 12, 2025, 5:00 p.m.

Assistance for Persons with Disabilities: Contact forest practices division, phone 360-902-1400, by July 15, 2025.

Purpose of the Proposal and Its Anticipated Effects, Including Any Changes in Existing Rules: The purpose of this rule making is to change the buffer requirements for nonfish streams in western Washington. The rule change will create additional protections for riparian areas associated with Np stream segments to ensure the buffers protect water quality and other aquatic resources from potential temperature increases.

Reasons Supporting Proposal: The new rule will offer additional water quality protections to Type Np streams in western Washington.

Statutory Authority for Adoption: RCW 76.09.040 and 76.09.370.

Statute Being Implemented: RCW 76.09.370 and 76.09.010.

Rule is not necessitated by federal law, federal or state court decision.

Name of Proponent: Forest practices board (board), governmental.

Name of Agency Personnel Responsible for Drafting: Maggie Franquemont, 1111 Washington Street, Olympia, WA, 564-233-8359; Implementation: John McEntyre, 1111 Washington Street, Olympia, WA, 360-280-2712; and Enforcement: Saboor Jawad, 1111 Washington Street, Olympia, WA, 360-742-7130.

A school district fiscal impact statement is not required under RCW 28A.305.135.

A cost-benefit analysis is required under RCW 34.05.328. A preliminary cost-benefit analysis may be obtained by contacting Patricia Anderson, P.O. Box 47012, Olympia, WA 98504-7012, phone 360-890-0277, email forest.practicesboard@dnr.wa.gov or patricia.anderson@dnr.wa.gov.

Scope of exemption for rule proposal from Regulatory Fairness Act requirements:

Is not exempt.

The proposed rule does impose more-than-minor costs on businesses.

Small Business Economic Impact Statement (SBEIS)

Washington State Type Np Water Buffer Proposed Rule

April 23, 2025

Summary: The analysis in this report addresses the requirements of chapter 19.85 RCW that relevant agencies prepare an SBEIS if the proposed rule "will impose more-than-minor costs on businesses in an industry" (RCW 19.85.030). The proposed rule directly regulates forest landowners, a subset of which are businesses. This analysis identifies that the proposed rule is likely to result in more-than-minor costs to businesses, stemming from limitations on timber harvest in riparian forests. This analysis also finds that all affected businesses are most likely to be small businesses; therefore, the rule disproportionately affects small businesses. The analysis also identifies that the rule is likely to result in lost jobs due to restrictions in timber harvest across industries reliant on timber harvest for employment. In accordance with RCW 19.85.040, this SBEIS identifies steps taken to reduce the costs of the rule and opportunities to mitigate costs to small businesses, along with the other required elements of an SBEIS per the Washington Regulatory Fairness Act (RFA).

Section 1. Introduction: WAC 222-30-021 regulates timber harvest within riparian management zones (RMZs) in western Washington. These regulations include requirements for "riparian buffers," which are areas within a specified distance of the outer edge of a stream in which timber harvest is precluded or restricted. Riparian buffer size varies depending on site characteristics, including whether a stream is known fish habitat (Type F) or not fish bearing (Type N). Riparian buffers on Type N waters are designed to protect water quality, stabilize stream banks, provide habitat for riparian and aquatic species, and maintain stream temperatures. Buffering requirements differ between Type N streams that are perennial (Type Np) and that flow only seasonally (Type Ns). Type Np streams are typically found in the upper watersheds and headwaters in western Washington because they begin at the uppermost point of perennial flow.

In 2018, the Cooperative Monitoring, Evaluation, and Research (CMER) Committee's Type N Experimental Buffer Treatment Project on Hard Rock Lithologies (Phase 1) ("Hard Rock Study," McIntyre et al. 2018) determined that the current buffer prescriptions for forest adjacent to Type Np waters were insufficient to ensure that streams consistently meet state water quality standards with regard to stream temperature. Specifically, the water quality standards mandate no temperature increase of 0.3°C or greater (measured by the seven-day maximum temperatures) above natural condition (WAC 173-201A-200, 173-201A-300 - 173-201A-320)1. As a result, in May 2019, the board accepted the timber, fish, and wildlife policy committee's (TFW policy) recommendation that action was warranted as a result of these findings and directed TFW policy to develop a Type Np buffer recommendation for the board to minimize or prevent temperature increases in streams protected by rule-required riparian buffers (board 2022).

The 2019 action plan recognized that five additional CMER Type Np studies needed to be completed to complement the Hard Rock Study and better inform a Type Np buffer rule-making proposal. TFW policy established a working group to develop buffer options that would: (1) Minimize the likelihood of exceeding temperature standards in Np streams after harvest; (2) reduce post-harvest withdrawals to maintain a future supply of large wood; and (3) mitigate economic impacts on landowners (Barnowe-Meyer et al. 2021). The working group developed and evaluated seven alternate prescriptions and concluded that three alternatives could best balance the trade-off between stream temperature protections and economic impact, as follows: (1) A 75-foot, two-sided, no-harvest buffer; (2) a site-specific buffer based on effective shade; and (3) an aspect-based buffer based on Np stream orientation.

Based on the findings of the CMER Hard Rock Study (McIntyre et al. 2021), a 2021 CMER Soft Rock Study (Ehinger et al. 2021), and the Technical Type Np Prescription Workgroup report (Barnowe-Meyer et al. 2021), the board proposes to update the Type Np water buffer rule. The RFA requires that the Washington state department of natural resources (DNR) prepare an SBEIS if the proposed rule "will impose more-than-minor costs on businesses in an industry." This report provides the required components of an SBEIS. Additionally, the preliminary cost-benefit analysis (CBA) of the proposed rule includes a more detailed description of the analysis of the costs of the proposed rule and informs this analysis of the costs incurred by small businesses.

1.1. Objective and Summary of the Proposed Rule: The board proposes to update the Type Np water buffer rule with a primary objective of improving temperature protections for Type Np streams in western Washington to achieve compliance with water pollution control laws (RCW 90.48.420, WAC 222-12-010) and meet the overall performance goals of the forest practices habitat conservation plan (HCP) and WAC 222-12-045 (2)(a)(ii)(C). The strategy to achieve the objective is a proposed rule that expands riparian buffers along Type Np streams relative to baseline conditions in order to prevent an increase in mean seven-day maximum water temperature of 0.3°C or greater from human activities above natural conditions per WAC 173-201A-320, or an increase above specified temperature thresholds on waters designated for aquatic life or else specified in WAC 173-201A-200 and 173-201A-602.

The proposed rule would amend the existing Type Np buffer requirements in WAC 222-30-021(2). Under the current rule, a 50-foot, no-harvest buffer must be established based on the length of the Type Np water from the confluence of Type S or F water (i.e., F/N or F/S breakpoint), with additional buffering around sensitive sites. In the proposed amended rule, sensitive sites must be identified and protected before establishing the Type Np RMZ and buffers. For topographic basins larger than 30 acres in which 85 percent or more of the basin is planned to be harvested within a five-year period, landowners must leave a two-sided, 75-foot, no-harvest buffer along the entire stream reach of each Type Np water.

In all other scenarios, landowners must first leave a two-sided, 75-foot, no-harvest buffer for the first 600 feet upstream from the confluence of Type S or F water, and then evaluate further buffer prescriptions based on bankfull width (BFW) and landowner management strategies. For each Type Np stream of three-foot BFW or greater, the landowner must identify either a partial management strategy or a no-cut strategy. The partial management strategy requires a 75-foot riparian zone, including a 50-foot no-harvest buffer and a 25-foot managed zone where up to 50 percent of trees may be harvested. The no-cut strategy requires a 65-foot no-harvest buffer along the stream reach. For all streams with BFW of less than three feet, landowners are required to leave a 50-foot, continuous no-harvest buffer along the remainder of the stream reach.

The changes in buffer requirements at any specific site are conditional on a range of factors including: Type Np stream length within the landowner-specific harvest unit, basin size, planned forest harvest extent, stream BFW, and other forest management strategies. In most cases, the proposed rule increases buffer width and length relative to the current rule. Table 1 summarizes requirements of the current rule, proposed rule, and changes under specific circumstances. The preliminary CBA of the proposed rule provides more information on the proposed rule requirements relative to the current rule.

1.2. Requirements for an SBEIS: Chapter 19.85 RCW requires that the relevant agency prepare an SBEIS if the proposed rule "will impose more-than-minor costs on businesses in an industry" (RCW 19.85.030). "Minor cost" is defined in RCW 19.85.020 as a cost per business that is less than 0.3 percent of annual revenue or income, or $100, whichever is greater, or one percent of annual payroll (RCW 19.85.020). Per the SBEIS frequently asked questions guidance, agencies are required to consider "costs imposed on businesses and costs associated with compliance with the proposed rules" (Washington attorney general office 2021). Agencies are not required under chapter 19.85 RCW to consider indirect costs not associated with compliance with the rule. The SBEIS also requires consideration of whether small businesses are disproportionately affected by the costs of the rule. This report addresses the requirements of chapter 19.85 RCW.

Small Businesses vs. Small Forestland Owners (SFLs)

In Washington, a small business is defined as a business with 50 or fewer employees. Separately, the state defines SFLs as those who harvest less than an average timber volume of two million board feet per year (RCW 76.13.010 and 76.09.450). The term also generally applies to nonindustrial, privately owned forestland of less than 5,000 acres. While there is likely considerable overlap between affected small businesses and affected SFLs, the focus of this analysis is on small businesses.

Section 2. Small Business Impacts: This section evaluates the potential economic impacts of the proposed rule on small businesses in Washington state. As outlined in the RFA and in accordance with other guidance and best practices, this SBEIS addresses the following questions (RCW 19.85.040):

1. What are the industries and universe of businesses that may incur costs as a result of this rule?

2. What are the likely costs of the rule to those businesses, including both compliance costs (e.g., for equipment, supplies, labor, professional services, or increased administrative costs) as well as potential lost sales or revenues?

3. Are those costs resulting from the rule anticipated to be more than minor?

4. Will the rule disproportionately affect small businesses?

5. What steps has the agency taken to reduce the costs of the rule on small businesses?

6. How has the agency involved small businesses in the development of the rule?

7. How many jobs may be created or lost as a result of compliance with the rule?

The subsections that follow address each of these questions.

2.1. Small Businesses in Relevant Industries: The proposed rule directly regulates owners of forestland immediately adjacent to Np streams in western Washington. In some cases, these forestland owners are businesses; in other cases, these landowners are private individuals and public entities, including state and local government. The preliminary CBA of the proposed rule finds that on the order of 23,000 SFLs, 11,000 other private landowners, and 440 government landowners may be affected by the proposed rule based on a comparison of the 2019 Washington State Forestland Database and DNR's map of streams in the state (WC Hydro). Analysis by the United States Endowment for Forestry and Communities reports that about 43 percent of all forestland in Washington is privately owned, and approximately half of that is owned by private corporations (Alvarez, n.d.). Among the landowners that we identify as likely affected by the proposed rule, we are unable to determine which portion are businesses. Even among the forestland owners that are incorporated as private businesses, they likely span a wide variety of industry classifications given the diversity of ways that forestland is used for business purposes. For example, due to recent interest in holding forestland as a financial asset, financial institutions (including timberland investment management organizations and real estate investment trusts) are among the industry types that could be subject to the proposed rule (Alvarez, n.d.).

As the proposed rule is relevant to all forest landowners (except federal and tribal entities) across western Washington, the scale of the analysis constrains our ability to accurately characterize the nature of all businesses that own forestland in affected riparian areas. To our knowledge, no publicly available data source exists that identifies the locations and uniform business identification information of small businesses that are landowners. Instead, we identify three North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) codes with businesses most likely to want to harvest timberland in riparian areas that are subject to the proposed rule:

113110 - Timber Tract Operations.

113210 - Forest Nurseries.

113310 - Logging.

While these three NAICS codes do not encompass all business types potentially affected by the proposed rule, they are the sectors most closely tied to the timberland management and harvest industries. We present information on these sectors to determine whether small businesses are disproportionately affected by the proposed rule and whether the costs of the proposed rule are more-than-minor.

Data provided by the Washington department of revenue (DOR) reveal that there was a total of 811 businesses identified using these NAICS codes in 2022 (and virtually the same number in 2021). Of these, approximately 99 percent meet Washington's definition of small business. RCW 19.85.020 defines a small business as, "… any business entity, including a sole proprietorship, corporation, partnership, or other legal entity, that is owned and operated independently from all other businesses, and that has fifty or fewer employees."

Based on data from DOR, all businesses in the "113110 - Timber Tract Operations" and "113210 - Forest Nurseries" industries qualify as small businesses. Table 2 presents these findings. Because the vast majority of businesses in the sample of affected industries are small businesses, this analysis concludes that small businesses are disproportionately affected by the effects of the proposed rule.

2.2. Costs of the Proposed Rule Relative to Minor Cost Thresholds: For these sampled industries, we calculate the "minor cost" threshold associated with each (see Table 2). For all three, we determine that the minor cost measure derived from revenue data is the greatest of the three options (i.e., based on revenue, payroll, or $100).

Complying with the proposed rule requires that a landowner follow the new requirements for the buffer configurations around Np streams. In most cases, the proposed rule results in both wider and longer Np buffers, increasing the total buffer area and reducing available forestland for timber harvest. Costs to landowners accrue through two mechanisms:

1. Increased harvest restrictions on forestland reduce revenue potential of the affected land: The proposed rule renders additional forested acres near Np streams unharvestable (or only partially harvestable), which reduces the potential future revenues associated with timber harvest for the landowners. Generally, the market value of a parcel of land reflects the discounted present value of expected future rents (i.e., income streams). For example, for forested land, market values include the discounted present value of income from future tree harvests and may include the discounted present values of income from alternative future uses of the parcel (e.g., for development). Accordingly, if a given use of a parcel of land is restricted, it will be worth less than its market value in the previously unrestricted state. Thus, the proposed rule restricting harvest (and associated revenues) results in a reduction in market value of the land, which is a cost to the landowner.

2. Increased cable harvest costs in some instances: In areas that would rely on cable harvest methods absent the rule, increased no-harvest and partial-harvest buffers under the proposed rule are likely to result in increased harvest costs under some circumstances. There are two mechanisms through which the proposed rule increases cable harvest costs:

Calculating the costs of the rule for specific businesses would require data on the amount of forestland that abuts Np streams, as well as whether and to what extent harvesting timber could be more costly through the cable harvest option, which is very likely to be a site-specific determination. Data are not available to estimate the incremental costs of the rule to specific affected businesses in western Washington. Absent this data, we compare the estimated cost of the rule per Np stream mile with the minor cost thresholds to assess whether the rule is likely to result in more-than-minor costs for a typical business.

As described above, the costs associated with more complex cable harvest operations are highly site-specific. As such, we focus this analysis on the impacts associated with harvest restrictions specifically. We demonstrate these costs to landowners through two approaches: (1) Reduced land values associated with restrictions on harvest; and (2) lost stumpages sales associated with reduced harvest potential of the land. Importantly, these are alternative metrics for evaluating effects of the rule on landowners and both reflect the lost opportunity from timber harvest; therefore, the reduced land values and foregone stumpage sales are not additive effects.

2.2.1.1. Acres of Affected Forestland Per Np Stream Mile: This analysis relies on modeled geospatial data from Four Peaks as the basis for understanding how buffer extents are likely to change on a selection of Np streams in western Washington. Four Peaks developed synthetic stream networks to model riparian buffers for the proposed rule scenarios across approximately 263 miles of Type Np streams across 150 sample sites in four of the five ecoregions in western Washington. Detailed methods are provided in the Four Peaks report (2024). Four Peaks used this sample of concurred F/N breakpoints to evaluate the differences between (1) applying buffers to Type Np waters using buffer widths and extents defined under the current rule; and (2) buffer widths and extents defined by the proposed Type Np buffer rule for the same stream segments.

To simplify the many possible permutations of the rule that could exist across sites, the Four Peaks analysis offers three "scenarios" that correspond with different possible outcomes of implementing the rule. We aggregate across these scenarios by applying information on the probability of each rule scenario, then also average across sites within the synthetic stream network.4 In doing so, we identify that the average Np mile is likely to require an additional 3.6 to 3.9 acres with no-harvest restrictions and an additional 0.16 to 0.19 acres with partial harvest restrictions. When treating each partial harvest acre as only "half" affected, we identify 3.7 to 4.0 acres affected per stream mile.5

2.2.1.2. Lost Land Values Per Stream Mile: We worked with Atterbury Consultants, timberland appraisers experienced in western Washington, to access data from 15 timberland transactions that occurred in western Washington from 2019 to 2023, accounting for 120,000 total acres.6 The data include a total sale price and total acres represented by the transaction, from which we derive a market value per acre sold. The data additionally identify the portion of the area that constitutes harvestable timber, from which we calculate a market value per harvestable acre.7 Based on practices employed by timberland appraisers, this analysis assigns a residual market value of $100 per acre for unharvestable land. That is, if timber harvest is precluded on an acre of forest land, the market value of that acre is reduced to $100.

After converting all nominal values to real 2023 dollars using the gross domestic product (GDP) deflator, we observe an increase in average market prices over the five-year period between 2019 and 2023.8 Given an increase in the real value of forestland over this time frame, we rely on the five most recent transactions (in 2022 and 2023) as the best estimate for forestland values when the rule goes into effect. Over this two-year period, we find that the average market value per acre sold was approximately $4,700 while the average market value per harvestable acre sold was approximately $6,000 (2023 dollars).

To estimate the change in land values per acre attributable to the proposed rule restrictions on harvest in Np buffer areas, we make the following assumptions:

Table 3 summarizes these inputs as well as the resulting change in market value when an acre of land goes from harvestable to unharvestable (i.e., $4,600 at the low end; $5,900 at the high end).

We multiply the changes in forestland values presented in Table 3 by the total number of acres with harvest restrictions per Np stream mile identified above. In doing so, we estimate that the lost land value per typical Np stream mile is on the order of $17,000 at the low end and $23,000 at the high end.

2.2.1.3. Number of Np Stream Miles Affected to Reach Minor Cost Threshold: Finally, we compare these estimated average land value losses per Np stream mile to the minor cost thresholds for the relevant industries presented in Table 2. Across the three affected industries, a typical small business would need to own forestland that intersects 0.3 to 0.4 Np stream miles for the rule to impose a minor cost. The preliminary CBA of the proposed rule identifies between 19,000 and 44,000 Np stream miles in western Washington likely to be subject to the proposed rule. Therefore, under this approach, it is highly likely that small businesses will experience more-than-minor costs stemming from the proposed rule.

2.2.2. Lost Stumpage Sales: Another approach to estimating the costs of the rule on affected landowners is through lost stumpage sales, a direct measure of lost revenue.

2.2.2.1. Reduction in Annual Timber Harvest: To estimate the impact of the proposed rule on stumpage sales, we require information on how the proposed rule is likely to affect timber harvest. The preliminary CBA of the proposed rule provides an in-depth analysis of data from Four Peaks as well as an understanding of the extent of Np streams in western Washington that results in the following estimates:

To translate these numbers of restricted harvest acres to reductions in timber harvest, we use 2017 data from two sources to estimate the average timber harvest per acre of available timberland across private, state, and other local land: Data from the Pacific Northwest Forest Inventory and Analysis (FIA) to identify the total timberland available and data from the Washington Timber Harvest Reports (DNR 2018). Across counties in western Washington, these data identify approximately 7.1 million total timberland acres and a harvest of 2.31 thousand board feet (Mbf) across those acres in the same year.9,10 This results in an average harvest rate per available acre of approximately 325 bf/acre/year across the counties in western Washington.

Restricting timber harvest in one area may result in more aggressive harvests in other areas, offsetting the overall reduction in timber harvest. Most of the publications that explore leakage describe effects across a global market for timber, not regional markets. Given uncertainty regarding this parameter, we apply two assumptions about leakage as a range:

This results in a reduction in an annual loss in timber harvest on the order of 13,000 Mbf at the low end and 57,000 Mbf at the high end.

2.2.2.2. Reduction in Stumpage Sales: The losses in stumpage sales to landowners are quantified using available information from the Mason, Bruce & Girard, Inc. (2022) report titled, Contribution of Working Forests to the Washington State Economy: 2021. The study relies on employment census data for calculating direct effects, primarily from the Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages from Washington and the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Revenue information comes from the DOR data. Indirect and induced effects rely on the Bureau of Economic Analysis RIMS II input-output model multipliers.

Mason, Bruce & Girard, Inc. (2022) report stumpage sales and harvest by Washington county for the year 2021.11 We first calculate stumpage sales per timber harvest volume (i.e., per million board feet) at the county level by dividing the sales by the total timber harvest by county. Then, we aggregate across counties in western Washington. This process yields an estimate of approximately $360,000 in stumpage sales per million board feet (MMbf) of timber harvest (2023 dollars). Applying this rate to the estimated annual decrease in timber harvest due to the proposed rule yields a range of $5.1 million to $23 million in lost stumpage sales to landowners in western Washington in a given year (based on 2021 stumpage sales and harvest levels).

Distributed across the approximately 34,000 landowners identified in section 2.1 as potentially affected by the proposed rule, this equates to roughly $150 to $680 in lost revenue per year per landowner on average. In reality, revenue losses will only be experienced in the years when harvest would occur absent the rule and will be distributed disproportionately across affected landowners.

Data in Mason, Bruce & Girard, Inc. (2022) identifies approximately $840 million in stumpage sales across western Washington in 2021. The lost annual stumpage sales attributable to the proposed rule are likely on the order of 0.6 percent to 2.7 percent of total stumpage sales across these counties in a given year, which is greater than the "0.3 percent of annual revenue or income" that defines the minor cost threshold described above (per RCW 19.85.020). While not a measure assigned to specific businesses, this alternate approach also demonstrates it is highly likely that small businesses will experience more-than-minor costs stemming from the proposed rule.

2.3. Disproportionate Economic Impact Analysis: When proposed rule changes impose more-than-minor costs to businesses, the RFA (RCW 19.85.040) requires an analysis that compares the cost of compliance for small business with the cost of compliance for the 10 percent of businesses that are the largest businesses required to comply with the proposed rules to determine whether the costs are considered disproportionate. The RFA (RCW 19.85.040(1)) describes the following formula for determining disproportionate impacts:

Where:

If the analysis finds that the inequality condition is met, the proposed rule is considered to have a disproportionate impact on small businesses. As described above, data limitations prevent precise identification of sectors, industries, or particular businesses that may be affected. Therefore, there is no way to empirically perform the analysis. However, given that the firms within the industries affected are effectively all small businesses, we find that the costs are likely disproportionately borne by small businesses. Accordingly, this SBEIS identifies and documents cost mitigation strategies.12

2.4. Steps Taken to Reduce Costs of the Rule: Before selecting a proposed rule, the board undertook extensive research into different possible options for the composition of Np buffers. In early 2019, TFW policy established a working group to develop buffer options that would: (1) Minimize the likelihood of exceeding temperature standards in Np streams after harvest; (2) reduce post-harvest withdrawals to maintain a future supply of large wood; and (3) mitigate economic impacts on landowners. The working group developed and evaluated seven alternate prescriptions and concluded that three alternatives could best balance the trade-off between stream temperature protections and economic impact. Therefore, consideration of economic impacts has been part of the rule development process from the onset.

DNR also provides significant technical and financial assistance to reduce the burden of compliance with existing forest practices rules. In 1999, the Washington state legislature determined that the regulatory requirements for forestland were "diminish[ing] the economic viability of small forest landowners" and established the small forest landowner office to serve as a resource and focal point for SFL concerns and policies (RCW 76.13.100). This office provides assistance to eligible SFLs to help them meet the requirements of legislation with significant cost implications. To date, the small forest landowner office has implemented several programs that reduce the compliance costs for businesses. The forestry riparian easement program, in particular, compensates SFLs for the loss of revenue associated with lost timber harvest in riparian buffer areas. Given the expected overlap between SFLs and small businesses in Washington state, these programs are expected to continue to mitigate the cost of compliance with forest practices rules for small businesses by transferring some portion of the compliance costs back to the state government.

Given the finding that the proposed rule generates disproportionate impacts on small businesses, the board and DNR should consider the following types of cost mitigation strategies according to RCW 19.85.030, as relevant and where legal and feasible, in meeting the stated objectives of the statutes upon which the rule is based:

(a) Reducing, modifying, or eliminating substantive regulatory requirements;

(b) Simplifying, reducing, or eliminating recordkeeping and reporting requirements;

(c) Reducing the frequency of inspections;

(d) Delaying compliance timetables;

(e) Reducing or modifying fine schedules for noncompliance; or

(f) Any other mitigation techniques including those suggested by small businesses or small business advocates.

2.5. Involvement of Small Businesses in the Rule-making Process: Throughout the rule development process, the board and DNR engaged with SFLs (which are likely small businesses). Small businesses were involved in the proposed rule development through the inclusion of the industrial forest landowner (some industrial landowners are small business) and SFL caucuses in:

2.6. Impact on Jobs: The proposed rule may impact jobs in western Washington through the reduction in harvestable timber. Mason, Bruce & Girard, Inc. (2022), described in more detail in section 2.2.2.2, also calculates the number of jobs across several industries that are directly reliant on timber harvest: Forestry and logging, wood products manufacturing, and transport. Importantly, this larger list of industries goes beyond the regulated landowner businesses that are the subject of this SBEIS.

Following the same approach described in more detail in section 2.2.2.2, we estimate 14 job-years per MMbf of timber harvest across the industries listed above.13,14 Applying this rate to the estimated annual decrease in timber harvest yields a range of 150 to 710 lost job-years. This is equivalent to approximately 0.5 percent to 2.2 percent of all jobs that fall into these categories.

Alvarez, M., n.d. "Who owns America's forests?" Story map produced for the U.S. Endowment for Forestry and Communities. Available at: https://www.arcgis.com/apps/Cascade/index.html?appid=d80a4ffed7e044219bbd973a77bea8e6.

Barnowe-Meyer, S., Bilby, R., Groom, J., Lunde, C., Richardson, J., and Stednick, J. 2021. "Review of current and proposed riparian management zone prescriptions in meeting westside Washington State anti-degradation temperature criterion" Timber, Fish, and Wildlife Policy Committee, Washington State Forest Practices Board Adaptive Management Program, Washington Department of Natural Resources, Olympia.

Ehinger, W.J., W.D. Bretherton, S.M. Estrella, G. Stewart, D.E. Schuett-Hames, and S.A. Nelson. 2021. Effectiveness of Forest Practices Buffer Prescriptions on Perennial Non-fishbearing Streams on Marine Sedimentary Lithologies in Western Washington. Cooperative Monitoring, Evaluation, and Research Report CMER 2021.08.24, Washington State Forest Practices Adaptive Management Program, Washington Department of Natural Resources, Olympia, WA.

Four Peaks Environmental. 2024. "Spatial Analysis of the Water Typing System Rule Synthetic Stream Development, Comparison of Alternatives, and Buffer Analysis." Prepared for Washington Department of Natural Resources. DNR Contract No. 93-1005525. Dated June 2024.

Mason, Bruce & Girard, Inc. 2022. "Contribution of Working Forest to the Washington State Economy: 2021."

McIntyre, A.P. Hayes, M.P., Ehinger, W.J., Estrella, S.M., Schuett-Hames, D. and Quinn, T. 2018. "Effectiveness of experimental riparian buffers on perennial non-fish-bearing streams on competent lithologies in western Washington." Cooperative Monitoring, Evaluation and Research Report CMER 18-100, Washington State Forest Practices Adaptive Management Program, Washington Department of Natural Resources, Olympia.

McIntyre, A.P. Hayes, M.P., Ehinger, W.J., Estrella, S.M., Schuett-Hames, D. and Quinn, T. 2021. "Effectiveness of experimental riparian buffers on perennial non-fish-bearing streams on component lithologies in western Washington - Phase 2 (nine years after harvest)." Cooperative Monitoring, Evaluation and Research Report CMER 2021.07.27, Washington State Forest Practices Adaptive Management Program, Washington Department of Natural Resources, Olympia.

Murray, B.C., McCarl, B.A. and Lee, H.C., 2004. Estimating leakage from forest carbon sequestration programs. Land Economics, 80(1), pp.109-124.

Washington Attorney General Office. 2021. "Small Business Economic Impact Statements - Frequently Asked Questions."

Washington Department of Natural Resources. 2018. "2017 Washington Timber Harvest Report" https://www.dnr.wa.gov/publications/em_obe_wa_timber_harvest_2017_final3.pdf.

Washington Forest Practices Board. 2022. "Forest Practices Board Stream-Related Rulemaking and Board Manual Development." Available at: bc_fpb_legrpt_stream_related_rulemaking_20220810.pdf.

Wear, David N., and Brian C. Murray. 2003. "Federal Timber Restrictions, Interregional Spillovers, and the Impact on U.S. Softwood Markets." Working paper, Environmental and Natural Resource Economics Program, RTI International.

A copy of the statement may be obtained by contacting Patricia Anderson, P.O. Box 47012, Olympia, WA 98504-7012, phone 360-890-0277, email forest.practicesboard@dnr.wa.gov or patricia.anderson@dnr.wa.gov.

June 17, 2025

Leonard S. Young

Chair

RDS-6299.4