Senate Bill 6187 (S-3902.3) would repeal the changes the Forest Practices Board adopted on November 12, 2025, to WAC 222-30-021 and WAC 222-30-0211, and adds a new section to chapter 76.09 RCW that bars the board from adopting any rule that requires modifications to stream type buffers until an analysis of the “minority proposal” or other viable alternatives is completed and a consensus recommendation is developed that considers economic impacts and impacts to small forest landowners. The bill also prevents the board from adopting similar rules as described in section 3 of the act until those conditions are met. This is a procedural and substantive legal change: it repeals recently adopted administrative rule changes and creates a new statutory restriction on future rulemaking by the Forest Practices Board. The bill includes legislative findings claiming that the original “forests and fish” law resulted from a bipartisan stakeholder process, was federally approved in 2006 as part of a habitat conservation plan, has been used for over 20 years, and that the recent rulemaking on nonfish-bearing streams subverted that process and will cause severe economic impacts to the timber industry and small landowners, including a claim that over 200,000 acres will be removed from productive harvest. The Forest Practices Board is the primary agency affected; the bill also names the timber industry, small businesses, and small forest landowners as groups whose impacts must be considered. Important text is missing from the extracted facts: the actual November 12, 2025 changes to WAC 222-30-021 and WAC 222-30-0211 are not provided, the content of the “minority proposal” and any additional alternatives are not described, and the bill does not specify who must perform the required analysis, how the consensus recommendation must be developed, or any timelines or standards for those processes. The bill was read for the first time on 01/16/26 and was referred to the Senate Committee on Agriculture & Natural Resources.

If enacted, this bill would effectively roll back the specific November 12, 2025 changes to two stream-buffer rules and stop the Forest Practices Board from imposing similar buffer modifications until additional analyses and a consensus recommendation that account for economic effects and impacts on small forest owners are completed. In practical terms that likely delays or prevents near-term new buffer restrictions that sponsors say would have taken large acreages out of harvest and increased costs for the timber industry and small landowners, so those businesses would face less immediate regulatory change and potential short-term relief from the claimed economic impacts. However, important details are missing from the text provided: it does not show what the November 12, 2025 rule changes actually did, who must perform the required analyses, what timelines or standards will apply, or exactly what counts as a "similar" rule. Because of those gaps, the bill’s effect will be a pause in buffer rule changes and a stronger requirement to consider economic and small‑owner impacts before moving forward, but the ultimate scope, duration, and outcome of any new rules remain uncertain.