By American Forest

Resource Council

Pacific County Superior Court Judge Donald J. Richter last week rejected a lawsuit by anti-forestry groups claiming the Washington Department of Natural Resources (DNR) violated state laws in approving a timber sale in mature forest stands, also politically labeled as “legacy forests,” on public working forests known as state trust lands.

This case on the Freedom Timber Sale is the first to reach the merits stage in a long line of nearly identical legal challenges by anti-forestry groups to other sales developed through DNR’s timber program, including the Last Crocker Sorts, Carrot, Bologna, and the Stilly Revisited timber sales.

The ruling affirms the agency’s forest practices in managing these lands. Under the state constitution and law, DNR state trust lands are required to be managed to provide revenues to defined beneficiaries, which include public schools, local public safety agencies, and various community services. These public working forests also provide clean water, wildlife habitat, climate change mitigation and recreational opportunities.

As the representative of DNR timber purchasers, AFRC intervened in the litigation on behalf of its member Stimson Lumber because of its potential impact to the forest products sector and state trust land beneficiaries.

“Judge Richter’s decision is a major win, not only for the DNR, but for state trust lands beneficiaries, our rural communities, and our forest sector that supports thousands of jobs and provide green, Washington-made wood products that store carbon and help combat climate change,” said AFRC President Travis Joseph. “The case sets an important precedent and confirms that the agency is correctly balancing old-growth protections with sustainable timber harvesting on these working forests.”

The case revolved around the classification of timber stands within the Freedom Timber Sale area. Anti-forestry groups argued the DNR misrepresented these stands as not being “structurally complex,” violating both the Public Lands Act and the State Environmental Policy Act.

However, Judge Richter determined there were no “structurally complex” stands in the Freedom Timber Sale, and the agency approved the sale in compliance of its Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and its own 2006 Policy for Sustainable Forests that guides the achievement of policy “targets” designed to sustain and develop old growth forests.

In their ongoing legal campaign, anti-forestry groups have been challenging sales on state trust lands that have been determined to be suitable for sustainable timber harvesting activities under the HCP. Currently, nearly 800,000 acres of state trust lands in western Washington are already off-limits to timber harvesting under this science-based, landscape-scale HCP developed by state and federal scientists. According to DNR data, older forests are projected to increase significantly over the life of the HCP.

The same groups are also pushing the Board of Natural Resources and candidates for Commissioner of Public Lands to close an additional 77,000 acres of public working forests. Under this proposal, beneficiaries of state trust lands would lose an estimated $1.35 billion in timber revenue over 15 years, while state, county and local governments would lose $400 million in tax revenues generated by forest sector businesses. DNR would lose $600 million in timber revenue to fund agency operations and another $100 million in road funding.

“Ultimately, this case is about two different visions for our communities and forests,” Joseph said. “We believe we can and should steward our forests to help prevent wildfires and smoke, create jobs and economic opportunities that support rural communities, and meet our needs for carbon friendly wood products under the strongest labor and environmental laws on the planet. Anti-forestry groups want to continue to control our public forests through litigation, stir up controversy and conflict in communities, and import wood from other countries that don’t share our environmental values, like Russia and Brazil, to meet our needs. That’s what’s at stake in these constant anti-forestry legal challenges.”

While anti-forestry groups claim these set asides will benefit our climate, a recent case study of a DNR timber harvest makes clear that proposals to set aside more DNR state trust lands will actually increase CO2 emissions as the supply of Washington-made wood products is reduced and carbon sequestration slows in these older forests.

Reducing harvests from DNR working forests means we either build with wood substitutes (“substitution”) or ship our wood in from elsewhere (“leakage”). Both are bad for our climate and environment. A summary of the case study, as well as key recommendations from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, is available at chrome-extension://oemmndcbldboiebfnladdacbdfmadadm/https://amforest.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/CORRIM-DNR-Carbon-Accounting-Summary.pdf