Ecology’s Claim: “In 2018, the Timber, Fish and Wildlife (TFW) Policy Committee agreed that the science showed warming impacts and that the forest practices rules needed to be updated.”

✅ REALITY:

The TFW Policy Committee agreed to form a technical work group to develop alternative proposals to minimize warming, but TFW Policy was divided on alternatives to recommend to the Forest Practices Board (FPB) for consideration in rule making. Therefore, Majority and Minority proposals were developed and sent to the FPB. Several stakeholders objected to Ecology’s interpretation of NO CHANGE in water temperature after timber harvest. Ecology pressured the Forest Practices Board into choosing only the Majority proposal, falsely stating that proposals must ensure NO CHANGE in water temperature at any time during forestry operations. This is not what the water quality law requires.

Ecology’s Claim: “To protect cool water and prevent temperature pollution, the proposed rule would reduce harvest of trees around these streams.”

✅ REALITY:

Tier II review isn’t a ban—it’s a balancing process. The 0.3°C temperature change is a trigger, not a limit. Agencies must take input from the public, then weigh alternatives and determine if some warming is necessary and in the public interest. Ecology turned a process into a prohibition.

Ecology’s Claim: “Science… shows that current Type Np rules are not preventing streams from warming.”

✅ REALITY:

Science showed minor and temporary warming, not widespread failure. Many streams met or exceeded stream temperature resource objectives, meaning they are well below water quality temperature standards, and these are non-fish streams. Ecology is overstating harm, ignoring ecological relevance and agrees that there is no benefit to fish.

Ecology’s Claim: “We used the best available current scientific data for this analysis.”

✅ REALITY:

Ecology’s technical analysis draws conclusions not supported by the science it cites, omits relevant data, fails to demonstrate ecological relevance, and relies on weak prediction methods. Further, Ecology excluded a viable, less costly alternative—known as the TFW Minority Proposal—and replaced it with a more expensive option that didn’t come from a consensus of stakeholders. That’s not sound science; it’s policy manipulation.

Ecology’s Claim: “Ecology has the responsibility to determine whether the Board’s proposed rule will protect water quality.”

✅ REALITY:

The Forest Practices Board, not Ecology, holds rulemaking authority under law. Ecology’s role is to provide input and agree to rules affecting water quality at adoption—not to control the process and dictate outcomes.

Ecology’s Graphic Caption: “Harvesting trees up to the edge of a stream… makes it tougher habitat for aquatic life.”

✅ REALITY:

These are non-fish-bearing streams. There’s no demonstrated ecological harm in the science. More than 90% of stream temperature observations in the cited studies met or exceeded the numeric temperature criteria for salmon, meaning the streams were colder than the criteria. Ecology omits this fact. Further, some of the stream images, which are from Olympic National Park, falsely implies damage to fish that don’t exist in these streams.

What’s Missing: Ecology doesn’t mention the Clean Water Act Assurances granted to Washington in 1999.

✅ REALITY:

The existing forest practices were already approved by EPA as meeting Clean Water Act standards through the Forests & Fish Agreement. EPA warned Ecology it’s not just about warming, the goal is to protect the numeric criteria for stream temperatures which current buffer rules protect. Ecology is now trying to redefine water temperatures without EPA’s approval.

What’s Missing: Ecology dictated no measurable temperature change as the performance standard, inconsistent with its own rules, and deemphasized the numeric temperature criteria (like 16°C for salmonid use) with no public notice. The FPB’s resource objective for stream temperature is meeting or exceeding the numeric temperature criteria, which occurred more than 90% of the time.

✅ REALITY:

Ecology replaced long-standing water temperature standards with a vague “measurable change” standard—and is treating it like a hard cap. This quiet policy shift is being used to justify sweeping regulatory changes, not supported by the law.

Ecology’s Claim: “The probable benefits of the proposed rule are likely to outweigh the probable costs.”

✅ REALITY:

Economic analysis lacks impartiality and is procedurally and technically deficient. The law (RCW 34.05.328) requires a cost-benefit analysis of all rule alternatives and mandates adoption of the least burdensome option. The economic analysis only compares the proposed rule to doing nothing—ignoring all other alternatives. Costs and benefits were not treated the same way, costs were time discounted, yet benefits were not and there was no comparative analysis between the two, and regional economic impacts were not given any serious consideration. The conclusion of benefits exceeding costs is therefore not supported with appropriate evidence. The proposed rule would remove 4–8% of Washington’s private timber harvest—enough to close 1–2 sawmills and eliminate 2,000 jobs annually. The benefits of improved stream temperature are speculative. The costs are real, and all landowners will bear them.

This rule could remove enough lumber to build 15,000 homes each year—just to protect streams with no fish and no proven harm.

The state’s own analysis shows the economic impact could be billions of dollars over time. Forest landowners—large and small—are being asked to pay the full price.

This rule isn’t based on sound science or fair process. It will hurt our forests, our communities, and our economy. Tell Ecology and the Forest Practices Board: Follow the science. Fix the process. Stop the overreach. https://workingforestscoalition.com/action/