Center for Sustainable Economy v. Washington State Department of Natural Resources

The Washington Court of Appeals reversed a Washington Superior Court order requiring the Washington State Department of Natural Resources (DNR) to assess the site-specific climate impacts of the proposed harvesting of 100 acres of forest land held in trust by the State. The Court of Appeals found that the petitioners did not meet their burden to show that DNR’s reliance on a “landscape level” analysis of climate change impacts and carbon emissions of the timber harvest was clearly erroneous. In addition, the Court of Appeals found that the petitioners did not meet their burden to show that DNR erred by relying on a 2019 final environmental impact statement rather than on a 2020 carbon inventory or a 2019 letter that developed a modified and expanded life-cycle assessment of forest sector emissions and sequestration from plots in Washington, Oregon, and California. The court indicated that DNR considered those studies but found them to be distinguishable. The Court of Appeals also rejected the petitioner’s contentions that DNR failed to take a hard look at greenhouse gas emissions, the loss of carbon sequestration capacity, or increased vulnerability to climate change. The Court of Appeals concluded, however, that DNR was required to conduct an alternatives analysis under the State Environmental Policy Act because the timber sale “presents a situation involving a choice between uses,” e.g., cutting down trees versus setting aside mature forest components as carbon reserves.

The Washington Superior Court found that the Washington State Department of Natural Resources (DNR) failed to conduct an adequate review of the climate change impacts of a timber sale and therefore clearly erred when it issued a Determination of Nonsignificance under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA). The court found that DNR’s rationale that the timber sale would result in only minor carbon dioxide emissions because carbon was sequestered “to a certain (unknown) degree on all DNR-managed lands” was unjustified. The court also found that conclusions and data in the Washington Forest Ecosystem Carbon Inventory did not support DNR’s claim that its managed lands capture “far more” carbon than they release. The court concluded that SEPA required DNR to assess specific climate change impacts of the individual sale. In addition, the court found that DNR did not conduct the required alternatives analysis. The court said that alternatives that could be studied included employing variable density thinning techniques, potentially earning revenues from carbon payments under Washington’s carbon market, or earning revenue by creating opportunities for scientific research or sustainable foraging.