Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Timber Sales Public Comment topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Speakers urge Board of Natural Resources to protect legacy forests as winter storms highlight landslide risk
Summary
Dozens of public commenters, from timber-industry representatives to conservation groups, drew sharply different conclusions about proposed timber sales. Industry speakers urged approval to preserve jobs and local revenue; conservationists urged removing structurally complex units from sale lists and cited recent atmospheric‑river flooding and landslides.
Dozens of residents, industry representatives and conservation advocates used the board’s public comment period to press sharply different views about the Department of Natural Resources’ timber program and proposed sales.
Industry speakers framed timber sales as essential to local jobs and services. “Sierra Pacific has four locations in Washington. We have over 1,000 employees that depend on wood products from DNR timber sale program,” said Bill Turner of Sierra Pacific Industries, urging the board to approve sales that have been paused (Bill Turner, public comment).
Conservation groups and local residents urged restraint and highlighted recent storm damage. Lynn Fitzhugh, executive director of Restoring Earth Connection, said December’s atmospheric rivers and a landslide in the Elwha watershed showed the risks of cutting structurally complex and legacy stands: “They led to flooding and rivers that overflowed their banks,” she said, and argued the board should consider non‑harvest ways to manage value from public lands (Lynn Fitzhugh, public comment).
Speakers from legacy‑forest advocacy groups called for removing specific sale units from the packet. Joshua Wright, programs director for the Legacy Forest Defense Coalition, urged the board to drop units that would log mature remnants, saying the commissioner’s conservation order to set aside 77,000 acres gives the department an opportunity to protect old growth and mature patches rather than harvest them.
Multiple commenters named Unit 3 of a Capitol/Capitol State Forest sale (referred to in testimony as “Chai”/“Chai Unit 3”) as an example of a stand they said should be removed because it contains very old trees and has been opposed by local beneficiaries and county officials.
Several speakers linked logging decisions to public‑safety and infrastructure costs. Nicole Martel and Ileana Paul framed intact forests as “natural infrastructure” that reduces flood and landslide risk, arguing that short‑term revenue from harvests can be outweighed by long‑term taxpayer costs for emergency response and road repair.
Other commenters emphasized trust duties and rural budgets. Representatives of school districts, county taxing districts and logging contractors described the role timber revenue plays in financing schools, libraries, fire districts and mills and urged the board to adhere to sustainable harvest calculations used to set annual targets.
The board listened to the hour‑long public comment block before moving on to staff presentations and action items. The public comments were not votes or directives; they represent constituent input the board and staff said they consider alongside technical analyses and statutory obligations.
Next steps: the board proceeded to the State Uplands presentation and later took up the timber sales packet and formal votes during the same meeting.
