Private Forest Plan Could Doom or Save Scores of Species

Hearings here tomorrow [Tuesday, March 18] begin the public process surrounding a major federal decision to insulate state forestry officials and private forestland owners from federal prosecution under the Endangered Species Act for the next 50 years or more.

The State Department of Natural Resources is proposing to re-package its new forest practice rules as a "habitat conservation plan" that will cover over 8 million acres of private forestland and 55 stream-dependent species (49 fishes and 6 amphibians). Because of its geographic size and 50-year duration, the terms of this plan will decide whether many of these species survive or go extinct. A majority of the current as well as historical habitat where restoration is possible is on nonfederal (i.e. state and private) lands for many of these species. If two federal agencies find the state plan is adequate to meet legal standards, neither the state officials approving logging plans or private timber owners will be subject to suit for harm caused to wild salmon, trout and other imperiled species.

Federal standards for the approval of habitat conservation plans prohibit approval of plans that will impair survival and recovery of covered species. The process beginning today must therefore address major shortcomings in the state's current forest practice rules that have been identified by independent scientists and conservation professionals. Key problems identified with the current rules include:

• Too much logging still is allowed in riparian (streamside) areas to prevent harm to covered species. Many smaller streams have only partial riparian protection or none at all.
• Protected riparian areas still are too small; they cannot adequately control sediment and water temperature or supply adequate large wood to create habitat.
• Even the highest-risk landslide-prone slopes connected to streams still may be harvested, because current protections are primarily procedural;
• The rules do not establish limits or create any mechanism to establish limits on cumulative watershed effects, even though harm from increased sedimentation and changes in peak flows will not be mitigated by streamside harvest restrictions.
• The current rules do not recognize differences between watersheds, with the same requirements applicable everywhere. Some highly degraded watersheds and those known to be most important for species survival (refuge watersheds) should receive special treatment.
• There is no realistic, fully-funded, science-based system to ensure that if the proposed management does not adequately protect species that changes will be made in a timely manner.
• Roads remediation may not be occurring at adequate rates.
• Chemical use is not adequately controlled
• There is inadequate oversight of rule implementation

Because this is the largest aquatic habitat conservation plan ever proposed, it is likely to set precedent for other plans in the region and nationwide. But significant changes are needed to prevent this process from becoming part of a larger pattern during the Bush Administration to pull the rug out from under endangered species protections -- and to shift public money from species protection to subsidization of regulatory assurances for commodity-driven special interests.

For more information on PRC's work on Washington State Forest Practices, click here.