Thurston County is home to great outdoor recreation, much of it on our public lands in Capitol Forest.
In the 1950’s, I hiked, biked and rode horses there, and I clearly recall the vast clear-cut landscapes. Today, those open areas are filled with vibrant managed forests in various stages of growth that also provide habitat for a wide range of plants, critters, perpetual carbon factories, and our recreational needs.
Additionally, the long-term management of the forest is part of the state Department of Natural Resources’ (DNR) fiduciary mandate to utilize the land, which is in trust, to support rural county governments, schools, and fire depts. So far, the DNR has done a good job!
I recently returned to Capitol Forest on tours hosted by special interest groups that are rallying to stop the DNR harvest, using labels like “structurally complex stands” and “legacy forests.” They are well-intentioned, but I think they are not seeing the forest for the trees we all love.
My wife and I own 150 acres of forestland in Thurston and Grays Harbor counties, which we manage for multiple use, including harvesting and selling logs to area mills just as DNR does.
As a member of the Washington Farm Forestry Association, which represents small family forest owners, my peers and I depend on periodic sawmill capacity to keep our lands forested in the face of far greater economic opportunities, like development.
Half of our state DNR lands are already off limits to any forest management, reflecting our strong Forest Practices Laws, plus additional special forest habitat preserves.
All these processes create true habitat complexity, but there is a tipping point where setting aside ever more forests are no longer “special” — instead it creates a forest health problem, wildfire risks, and eventually leads to a decline in carbon sequestration (decaying wood).
In the process we will devastate our rural economies that are home to our iconic natural resources industries. Simultaneously, our state and nation will have to import timber from other areas where environmental protection may not be as great.
These newly proposed no-touch “legacy forests” are actually second growth stands ready for a regeneration harvest that replenishes the endless supply of environmental and economic benefits.
The carefully tended tree stands (see photo) are the real legacy of modern forestry practices that ensure long-term plant and critter habitat, environmental benefits, and economic vibrancy in our rural timber communities.
In a complex, science-based planning process, DNR experts manage these areas for native and diverse species with maximum benefits to all. Leaving even more mature trees to rot means DNR Trust lands may need to double harvests on younger stands — losing environmental benefits of long harvest rotations unique to Washington.
I am very proud that DNR forest management has created such a perpetual wealth of multiple use benefits that meet our environmental, habitat, economic and recreational needs spanning 70 years since I first visited Capitol Forest in the '50s.
I urge the state DNR and Board of Natural Resources to stay the course — manage for multiple use — and resist emotionally driven, single-use set-asides already far beyond being special.
Ken Miller is a past president of the Washington Farm Forestry Association, which works on behalf of statewide small family forest owners.
13 comments on this item Please log in to comment by clicking here
Precisely on target, well written.
Monday, March 24 Report this
2theroots
I am disappointed that the JOLT is allowing the timber industry to write propaganda as an "article".
First of all anyone who knows trees can look at that picture and know it is a picture of plantation trees - that is exactly how they grow - tall toothpicks. There is nothing 80 years old there. 80 year old Doug Firs are generally 24" diameter. If it was possible to post a picture here I would post a picture of the diversity of trees and deep understory that a legacy Forest has.
Furthermore it should be noted that the "special interest groups" he refers to here are vocally trying to protect the last 3% of DNR's Legacy holdings (2nd Growth). Yes let that sink it he is mad that we are trying to save 3% of the only bridge to old Growth forest of which there is virtually none left (but is legally protected). So if we take out the only forest that can grow into Old Growth than we are done with it.
Nor does he tell you that in Oct thru Jan - Hillary Franz sold 500 acres of Legacy Forest that was left in Capitol Forest - approximately 20% of what Legacy Thurston County has left. Nor does he tell you that the timing of his article is based upon the fact that the Legacy Forest Defense Coalition is suing the mills that bought cutting rights to try to stop this mass destruction.
Furthermore, the statement that 50% of the lands are in protection is a mass exaggeration. By Federal law (soon to be eliminated by Doge I imagine) wetlands and land slide prone areas cannot be cut, nor can riparian areas. That means a 2 to 3 foot strip has to be left along all creeks (of which there are many in Capitol Forest) A riparian strip however is not a forest - it by definition does not have large trees or a whole complex ecosystem. It needs to be saved and it is not a substitute for a forest. So DNR is famous for claiming that it is protecting huge percentage of forest when in fact it is simply following federal law and HAS ENOUGH plantation forest to log without harvesting this last 3% of Legacy Forest.
Tuesday, March 25 Report this
SpenceWeigand
The last commenter needs to back off and give the JOLT the benefit of the doubt. It was never presented as an article or reporting, and is clearly labeled as a column. Read Op- Ed.
2theroots would be better off converting their comment to its own Op-Ed. And the publication would be the better for it.
Tuesday, March 25 Report this
RondaLarsonKramer
I am a fellow member of the Washington Farm Forestry Association and I have great respect for Ken. He taught my husband and me a lot when I was first starting out as a forester in 2017. He is definitely not "the timber industry." He does some amazing stuff on his timberland. But I wanted to comment because I do agree with 2theroots that saving legacy forests is needed. Mature 40 to 50-year-old 3rd growth plantation Douglas fir forests make up 97 percent of DNR's state forestland. The legacy forests make up only 3 percent. It's not asking too much for those to be preserved. The 97 percent of plantation forest is far less important to us from an ecological and climate perspective. The 3 percent plays an outsized role in its benefits to society. Whereas the 97 percent is useful in its role of providing profit to fund schools and such, the 3 percent is useful in its role of providing ecological and recreational benefits. I also watched what happened at the end of then-Commissioner Franz's term. Thurston County Commissioners were doing their level best to protect the interests of Thurston County residents, but Franz misstated the facts regarding our county commissioners' actions and manipulated the process. It appeared to me that she was selling off as much legacy forest as quickly as possible before she left office. Perhaps it was to set herself up for a good job in the private sector after leaving that position. Whatever the case, it was not the normal course of business.
Tuesday, March 25 Report this
Southsoundguy
The hippies will die out, and unlike the trees, they won’t grow back.
Tuesday, March 25 Report this
Snevets
Thank you 2theroots & Ronda Kramer for the clarification.
Tuesday, March 25 Report this
SecondOtter
I notice that the OP did NOT mention that much of the Capitol Forest has been and is now being logged. And I don't mean harvested...I mean 'clear cut". Oh, the loggers are supposed to leave some trees...and they do. They leave six spindly ones, fifty feet tall and about as wide as your two hands put together. These leftovers were left for precisely the reason that they're worthless to the mills. They're also worthless to the future of any forest that manages to regenerate.
The rest is scalped lands, with slash piles everywhere and scotch broom taking advantage of the newly opened land.
The loggers leave little in the way of 'legacy trees." Meaning, they take the big ones and leave the ones that will never amount to anything. In addition, they have scalped RIGHT UP to the border line with McLain Creek Preserve and Margaret McKinney park. Here, kids, let's go to the forest..oh, darn. No forest left.
Note, also, that they are cutting on hillsides, leaving 'balds'. These clear cuts will erode and mudslide down hill.
The OP is well meaning, I hope, but is not, as he says, seeing the forest for the trees. Six trees does not make a forest.
Tuesday, March 25 Report this
nthays22
I also feel it is critical to the environment to protect the legacy forest land left (as several people have mentioned, only 3 percent of what was originally there is left). It saddens me greatly how much land was sold in the last few months of Hillary Franz's tenure and what a high percentage of it was in Thurston County, despite (or perhaps, because?) Thurston County County Commissioners were very vocal in expressing their concerns about the destruction of so much acreage in Capitol Forest.
Wednesday, March 26 Report this
kellykelly
As has been written before, this photo does not reflect a legacy forest. I own 3 acres of trees and lush undergrowth. This land was clear cut back in the early 1920s. The trees on my land are so wide that I can not fully wrap my arms around the trunk. There are a number of critters who live in this very small area of old trees. And not far from me is a park donated to the county. I do not know how large it is, at least 100 acres, and it is rich with old trees, lush undergrowth and animals, similar to the Olympic rain forest. It is this type of forests that need to be preserved. I am grateful to the family that donated this land to the county decades ago so that it could not be clear cut by the lumber industry.
I am not familiar with the author of this article, but if he considers the trees in this photo as "Legacy" trees, he needs to get out more and spend some time in true legacy forests.
Thursday, March 27 Report this
DaveTownsend
Ken writes a good article.
I find it interesting now that the "Old Growth Forests" are all protected, the new rallying cry is to save the "Legacy Forests". These forests, with 60 to 80 year old trees, are ready for harvest and replanting. According to the Seattle Times, Todd Welker, deputy supervisor for uplands at DNR, says the goalposts keep shifting in the debate over which forests are too old to be logged. “First it was pre-1850 [forests], then it was 1900. Then it was forests grown before 1945 and now it’s pre-1960 — the narrative keeps changing,” he said. “We set aside more than any timber company in the world. And it’s never enough.”
What is missing in this discussion is the science of sustainable forestry. Setting aside more timber, that is, logging less than the sustainable amount annually, simply means not managing manageable resources. Climate change and wildfires tells me we need more management, not less.
Also missing, is that the local sawmills and the home building industry needs stability and predictability. If harvests drop below sustainable levels, sawmills will close, and lumber gets more expensive. That serves no one.
Lastly, the trees left next to streams are far more than the 2 to 3 feet that 2theroots mentions.
Let's manage our state forests sustainably and per the science, not "feel good" naïveté.
Friday, March 28 Report this
OlyFans
I notice the comments here claim DNR is logging the “last 3% of unprotected legacy forests”, but what they fail to say is that 97% of these older forests are already protected. There will be over 400,000 acres of true old growth returning to the landscape due to DNRs management over the next few decades. They also don’t tell you that Thurston County Commissioners fighting these sales directly led to the layoffs in Tumwater SD, because DNR had over $2 million in revenue that would have gone directly to the school district in these planned timber sales. Too bad a few activists and Tye Menser who want to turn Capital Forest into Capital State Park derailed that funding.
Friday, March 28 Report this
RondaLarsonKramer
@OlyFans, nobody has commented that DNR is logging the last 3% of remaining legacy forests. Rather, what has been stated by commenters (myself included) is that legacy forests represent only 3% of Washington's trust lands. It is not too much to ask to preserve that remaining 3% in its entirety.
It is also not accurate to say that 97% of legacy forests are protected. The correct number is 80%. That is what percentage of legacy forests is protected on state lands. While 80% of mature forests on trust lands sounds like a big number, it's actually protecting 80% of a very small subset (the ~3% of trust lands that are legacy forests). The rest of the trust lands remain in active timber production.
I'd also like to correct a misleading statement that implies schools heavily rely on trust land timber revenue. School funding in Washington comes primarily from state and local taxes (sales tax, property tax, etc.), not timber revenue. In recent years, timber revenues have made up a very small percentage (often less than 1%) of total K-12 education funding. 1% is a tiny fraction. Why such controversy over such an unimportant source of funding? Because people have been misled by the timber industry, which very much wants to log the oldest trees, since those make the most money. Over the decades, revenue from state timberlands has declined due to conservation policies, reduced logging, and shifts in funding priorities. In contrast, Washington’s education budget has grown substantially, relying mostly on state income sources, not timber sales.
Junior taxing districts, by contrast, sometimes rely on timber revenue more significantly than school districts. However, the impact varies by location and district, and alternative funding mechanisms often exist. Many rural fire districts, hospitals, libraries, and other small taxing districts receive a share of timber revenue from state-managed forests. This is especially critical in counties with large amounts of state and federal forestland, where private property tax revenue is lower. As state forest harvest levels have decreased due to conservation efforts and legal challenges, some junior taxing districts have seen reduced revenue from timber sales. This has led to funding shortfalls for services like rural emergency response and public libraries in certain areas. However, most junior taxing districts still rely heavily on property taxes rather than timber sales. Also, some junior taxing districts have sought levy increases or state grants to offset declining timber revenue. In other words, we as a society can choose (and have chosen in many instances) to change how junior taxing districts are funded. We should not fund them at the expense of (1) significant carbon sequestration, (2) uniquely valuable plant and animal habitat, and (3) breathtaking recreational experiences for Thurston County residents, among other benefits.
Monday, March 31 Report this
S2345S23456
As per this sentence the author writes, "I depend on periodic sawmill capacity to keep our lands forested in the face of far greater economic opportunities, like development," I will comment on how hypocritical this is. While development is not happening where this guy is growing his tree farm, it's those trees he's growing and sending to the sawmill that are leading to development else where. It's also putting a lo of carbon in the atmosphere through the use of saws and logging trucks and powering a sawmill, then transporting the lumber for sales somewhere, and then elsewhere where the lumber is used for the building of structures which puts even more carbon in the atmosphere. Hence, logging is not putting a damper on development one bit, but rather enabling it much more, and he's definitely pocketing from it. Houses and commercial buildings are sprawling everywhere. This area is beginning to turn into one sprawling urban strip mall like L.A. I've also noticed out Delphi Rd. and other areas where clear-cutting is happening to build housing units. Just watch, more Californians are going to move here and drive up the housing costs. And the more housing and commercial areas are built, the more vehicles, traffic, and emissions become rampant. This area will be another L.A. before you can bat an eye.
Friday, April 11 Report this