Conservationists want to stop the cutting of “legacy forests.” Logging concerns accuse them of moving the goal posts on “old trees”
All clear: Washington’s Sherwood Forest before and after logging. Photos: Joshua Wright (left), Mason County Climate Justice (right)
By Nick Engelfried. September 12, 2024. Sherwood State Forest in Washington’s Mason County escaped the industrial clear-cutting that transformed much of the Northwest last century.
It was selectively logged in the early 1900s, but while nearby areas were converted to farmland or tree plantations, Sherwood was left largely undisturbed, eventually regenerating into a forest with 100-year-old trees.
“Seeing cedar trees that were harvested here by my ancestors gave me great pride,” says Redwolf Krise, a Squaxin Island tribal member who advises the group Mason County Climate Justice. “But knowing this is one of the last remaining forests around the Squaxin territory where I can go and harvest from the same trees as my ancestors has been disheartening.”
Last year, those islands of protected forest shrank even further as Washington’s Department of Natural Resources auctioned off rights to log almost 160 acres of Sherwood Forest, located about 40 miles southwest of Seattle.
The area with its big trees was clear-cut soon after.
This story is hardly unique. Throughout Western Washington, pockets of state forestlands that were logged in the early 1900s have regrown into ecosystems that sequester tons of carbon and serve as valuable wildlife habitat.
Their trees haven’t yet attained the 160 years that qualifies as old-growth west of the Cascade Range, but they could reach that point well within the lifetimes of people alive today.
“These forests are the old-growth of the future,” says Joshua Wright, a Mason County Climate Justice board member who also works for the Legacy Forest Defense Coalition.
These regrown forests also represent a potential bonanza for timber companies, however, and they don’t benefit from protections given to most old-growth on state lands. DNR has proposed or completed timber sales in many of them, including several forests in Mason County.
The issue isn’t that DNR must log old trees to keep up with demand for wood. Most of the agency’s holdings consist of younger forests, many of which are already managed as industrial tree plantations.
However, old forests’ big, dense trees are highly valued for their lumber.
“DNR is deliberately targeting older forests to satisfy the logging industry,” says Wright. “As long as that’s their guiding star, there’s going to be mismanagement.”
“Legacy forests”
“Most climate mitigation work focuses on reducing emissions,” says Lynn Fitz-Hugh, a longtime climate activist from Olympia. “But what actually draws carbon from the atmosphere, subtracting from the problem instead of just lessening it, are trees, plants and the oceans. That’s why I started concentrating on forests.”
Fitz-Hugh directs Restoring Earth Connection, one of several Washington environmental organizations advocating protection of what they call “legacy forests.”
Some groups are concerned with big trees as endangered species habitat, while others worry about the role of forests in stream health. The ability of old trees to sequester vast amounts of carbon adds another dimension to the conversation.
“There’s a lot of out-of-date science about the forest carbon cycle,” says Fitz-Hugh. “We used to think young, fast-growing trees were best at absorbing carbon. But the new science shows something different.”
Old school: Squaxin Island tribal member Redwolf Krise in Sherwood Forest prior to logging. Photo: Mason County Climate Justice
A paper published last year by the independent research nonprofit Resources for the Future found mature forests sequester more carbon than younger trees. Environmental groups have coined the term “legacy forest” to describe ecosystems that are old enough to fulfill this and other vital functions, but which haven’t yet attained true old-growth status.
“These naturally regenerated, second-growth forests are often the closest thing to old-growth left in their watersheds,” says Stephen Kropp, founder of the Center for Responsible Forestry and the Legacy Forest Defense Coalition. “They were logged back when there were no chain saws, herbicides or gasoline-powered logging trucks. The harvesting was done by hand and left a lot behind.”
This type of logging allowed legacy forests to grow back with a rich diversity of tree and other plant species. Some are even sprinkled with surviving old-growth.
For example, the Stimson Hill in Snohomish County, called a legacy forest by groups such as the Legacy Forest Defense Coalition of Washington, contains 400-year-old Douglas-firs.
DNR generally protects forests in which 20% or more of trees qualify as old-growth, but Stimson Hill doesn’t meet this definition. Last spring, DNR put 152 acres of the forest up for auction, and modern logging methods are unlikely to leave many of the original trees.
“Current forestry means bulldozing almost everything, spraying the land with herbicides, then turning it into a tree plantation,” says Fitz-Hugh. “This eliminates the possibility of it returning to the state older forests are in today. It’s a devastating loss.”
According to the Legacy Forest Defense Coalition, just 13.2% of state forest lands in Washington are legacy or old-growth.
Evolving attitudes
Washington’s DNR oversees some 3 million acres of forestlands, managed to generate revenue for counties and the state.
State trust lands, which make up the majority of DNR holdings, are legally mandated to produce money for public institutions including K-12 schools, universities, and prisons. Historically, DNR has fulfilled this obligation mainly by holding timber sales.
Timber sale money “funds school construction and maintenance across the state, and … directly benefits individual counties and the local taxing districts,” Duane Emmons, assistant deputy supervisor for state uplands at DNR, told Columbia Insight in an email. “We generate an average of $200 million per year in non-tax revenue from our timber sales.”
The legal framework for managing DNR lands dates to 1889, when Washington attained statehood. Then, trees were widely seen as crops whose value lay in the boards they produced.
Not so fast: King County halted the Wishbone timber sale over improperly considered its climate impacts. Photo: Joshua Wright
Public attitudes have shifted since, with scientists recognizing the roles of older forests as havens for endangered species and bulwarks against climate change.
A 2022 Washington Supreme Court decision, Conservation Northwest v. Commissioner of Public Lands, affirmed that while DNR must manage state lands to generate revenue, it may do so through means other than logging.
“They don’t have to be cutting legacy forests,” says Wright. “They could make money from these lands by selling carbon credits, or even berry-picking for that matter. There’s no mandate to do it by logging.”
However, the conversation about logging in the Pacific Northwest is as much about a way of life tied to using the land as it is about money generated directly from timber sales.
“Our sawmill relies on mature timber from DNR state trust lands that are being politically labeled as ‘legacy forests’ by anti-forestry groups,” says Jake Hambidge of the Everett-based Canyon Lumber Company. “Our company and other specialty mills across Washington rely on this mature timber to produce renewable, climate friendly wood products.”
DNR has sweeping jurisdiction over state lands. Its commissioner doesn’t report directly to any other state office.
Counties that receive timber revenue have historically supported logging DNR lands.
Many still do, but others shifted positions as voters embraced environmental values.
Last year, a majority of King County Council members wrote to DNR opposing the Wishbone timber sale northeast of Seattle. The Thurston County Commission unanimously opposed the Carrot sale in the Capitol State Forest.
Court Stanley, a timber consultant for the Washington State Association of Counties, says the organization “supports each individual county’s right to say what they want done within their lines. At a higher level, though, our perspective is DNR practices state of the art, environmentally sustainable forestry.
“This whole controversy over older forests is only possible because DNR managed forests to a level of maturity most industrial timberlands never reach. But they’ve always done so with the intent of harvesting these lands eventually,” says Stanley.
Uncertain future
Since part of Sherwood State Forest was clear-cut last year, activists have already watched logging trucks haul large trees away from another Mason County timber project, the Plumb Bob sale northwest of Belfair.
Now, local climate groups and members of the Skokomish Tribe are fighting yet another: the 92-acre Next Contestant timber sale near Lake Cushman.
“The Next Contestant sale affects legacy forest that’s vitally important to both Skokomish tribal members and the general public,” says Julianne Gale, Mason County Climate Justice’s executive director. “Clear-cutting it would impact historic and cultural sites and habitat for plants, fish and other wildlife.”
Logged legacy forests in Mason County and elsewhere will be replanted. However, what grows back won’t closely resemble the ecosystem activists sought to protect.
Industrial timberlands are generally replanted with fast-growing Douglas-firs, sometimes mixed with another species like cedar, that give rise to plantations of even-aged trees designed to maximize wood production.
They support less biodiversity than the complex ecosystems in old-growth and legacy forests.
Some legacy forests have been saved from bulldozers by legal challenges, at least temporarily.
For example, the 102-acre Wishbone sale in King County was sent back to the drawing board in 2023 when a judge ruled DNR hadn’t properly considered its climate impacts.
However, it’s often unclear whether court setbacks for DNR will ultimately stop the forests in question from being cut.
DNR could approve new sales on the same blocks of land with only minor changes.
Dave Upthegrove. Photo: Upthegrove.orgLogging
This is possible partly because, as the agency that both manages timber sales and permits projects on state lands, DNR effectively acts as its own permitting body.
“DNR claims its timber plans are prepared and reviewed by separate divisions within the agency,” says Kropp. “But the people involved sit and work next to each other every day. You can draw your own conclusion about whether that creates a conflict of interest.”
DNR is an unusually independent agency with sweeping jurisdiction over state lands. Its top job, commissioner of public lands, is an elected position that doesn’t report directly to any other state office.
The current commissioner, Hilary Franz, has overseen an increase in logging of legacy forests. Franz, a Democrat, will step down in January and is running for Congress in Washington’s Sixth District.
One choice for Franz’s replacement is Jaime Herrera Beutler, a Republican former congresswoman supportive of the logging industry, who finished first out of seven candidates in August’s open primary for the lands commissioner seat.
Herrera Beutler will advance to November’s general election along with Democratic King County Commissioner Dave Upthegrove, who secured the second-place spot in the primary by just 49 votes.
Upthegrove has pledged to protect older forests.
Meanwhile, for remaining legacy forests and the activists who want them saved, the future is uncertain.
“These forests are our heritage and a vital part of our identity,” says Christopher James, a
Skokomish tribal member who opposes the Next Contestant timber sale. “DNR should safeguard them so they can flourish into old-growth forests for our grandchildren’s future.”
Thank you for this article on Washington forests and DNR. It helps us understand DNR’s role in generating revenue for the State budget and suggests changes DNR could consider besides logging – like carbon sequestration credits.
On the topic of carbon sequestration between younger and older trees, do older trees sequester more carbon cumulatively or do older trees store additional carbon at a faster rate than younger trees?
Would groups whose goal is to protect legacy forests accept that thinning cuts and controlled burns might be needed in today’s climate realities to avoid large wildfires that are an increasing reality in the West?
Forest conservation in this era of climate change is complex, and all sides – governments, logging interests, environmental defenders, tribes, and private property owners all have to work together to face the new realities of climate change.
Thanks for writing in, Sherry. The science on carbon sequestration by forests is complex, but the main thrust seems to be that larger trees absorb more carbon every year than smaller, younger trees, making old forests much more effective as carbon sinks.
Re the supposed value of thinning as a tool to prevent fire, this is a timber industry talking point that seems to me to have been vastly over-hyped. I’ve seen little concrete evidence that most thinning projects do anything to reduce fire risk–and, by removing large, relatively fire-resistant trees they may actually do more harm than good. Suffice to say that if there is real value to thinning as a management strategy for preventing fire, it would be most effective when applied to younger forests. Older “legacy” forests with their big trees are exactly the kinds of ecosystems where thinning is least likely to be helpful, and most likely to do harm.
Prescribed burns are a different matter from thinning, and there would appear to be ample evidence that this management strategy can be helpful, largely because it removes the smaller vegetation that’s more prone to burning while leaving large trees mostly intact. The reality, though, is that the timber industry is for the most part not interested in prescribed burns. They’re interested in taking out large trees, which are the most profitable to cut and sell but which are also the very trees that should be left in place if our goal is to prevent out-of-control fire. This is an inherent conflict of interest that to me casts doubt on the whole concept of thinning as an effective approach to preventing fire.
Thank you for this excellent, well-researched article, as well as your clear and data-backed response about the myths of thinning as a protective measure for wildfire. I have also thoroughly researched this aspect, and I totally agree with you. More and more evidence is emerging from actual wildfires in forests that have been thinned, and how quickly and intensely a fire moved through it. Thinning does more harm than good, on many levels. And regarding wildfire, there is more and more evidence showing that thinning is ineffective at mitigating wildfire. It makes sense, considering that larger trees hold more moisture and density, therefore are much more resilient and slow fires down, and thinning creates more space and dried conditions due to more sunlight coming through the canopy.
I hope that your article is seen by many to help educate and inform beyond much of the misinformation out there in relation to forest “management”. People must consider the source, and conflict of interests of all information and data that is being promoted. Money and logging have spurred an irresponsible and unsustainable practice that is very dangerous. I appreciate the integrity of this article and its inclusive scope of all the aspects when it comes to caring for our remaining mature forests. I am hoping that DNR will look to all the other options besides logging to meet their financial obligations. They have a significant responsibility for the health of the planet and people, and it is clear that our reliance on timber and these antiquated practices must be changed immediately.
Here is another great article that speaks to the ineffectiveness of thinning and sometimes even prescribed burns for wildfire mitigation. https://www.westernwatersheds.org/gw-poor-wildfire-strategy/
Thank you for this excellent, well-researched article, as well as your clear and data-backed response about the myths of thinning as a protective measure for wildfire. I have also thoroughly researched this aspect, and I totally agree with you. More and more evidence is emerging from actual wildfires in forests that have been thinned, and how quickly and intensely fire moved through it. Thinning does more harm than good, on many levels. There is more and more evidence showing that thinning is ineffective at mitigating wildfire. It makes sense, considering that larger trees hold more moisture and density, therefore are much more resilient and actually slow fires down, yet thinning creates more space and dried conditions due to more sunlight coming through the canopy.
I hope that your article is seen by many to help educate and inform beyond much of the misinformation out there in relation to forest “management”. People must consider the source and conflict of interests, since misinformation and data is being promoted that supports their agenda. Money and logging have spurred an irresponsible and unsustainable practice that is very dangerous. I appreciate the integrity of this article and its inclusive scope of all the aspects when it comes to caring for our remaining mature forests. I am hoping that DNR will look to all the other options besides logging to meet their financial obligations. They have a significant responsibility for the health of the planet, people and wildlife, and it is clear that our reliance on timber and these antiquated practices must be changed immediately.
Here is another great article that speaks to the ineffectiveness of thinning and sometimes even prescribed burns for wildfire mitigation. https://www.westernwatersheds.org/gw-poor-wildfire-strategy/
When I read this I felt relief because someone finally addressed this topic in a linear and approachable way for the public.I greatly appreciate the journalism done for this article and I hope many others in the state will find it. I will be sharing this with all of my friend groups at WWU.