Part 2 - Scientists fault state habitat plan
Inky water runs out of the showerhead, drenching the man in the camera’s eye. Filthy rivulets cascade over his forehead, gurgle over his eyelids, snake down his nose and onto his lips.
Then the scene switches to a babbling forest brook, pure and clear.
“Private forest landowners, like you, know the importance of water in our everyday lives. That’s why we’ve committed to forest practices that ensure cool, clean water on private forestlands for years to come.”
The TV spots have been airing for years now, paid for by big timber companies in Washington. Their quest? A 50-year federal guarantee against prosecution under the Endangered Species Act. It would apply across 9.1 million acres — one-fifth of the state, the bulk of private forestland in Washington.
By next Thursday, federal officials want the public to weigh in: Does the industry’s promise to keep waterways healthy justify granting nearly airtight legal refuge for logging that accidentally kills or harms salmon and 49 other kinds of fish, five kinds of salamanders and two types of frogs?
If approved by federal officials, the Forest Practices Habitat Conservation Plan would be the largest in the West — second nationally only to a Georgia deal that aims to protect red-cockaded woodpeckers.
However, internal documents from the National Marine Fisheries Service and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service reveal conflicted agencies with serious internal disagreements about the plan, known as Forests and Fish. One government scientist even worried about “voodoo science” behind the plan.
Those clashes between the agencies’ scientists and policy-makers broke out even before the Washington Legislature approved the deal in 1999 and it was turned into state logging rules in 2000.
Two independent scientific reviews — one by the state, another by two professional science societies — also panned it, with one calling the pact “ill-informed.”
Despite the doubts, state officials have proceeded with Forests and Fish and now are asking federal officials to approve it — even though problems have surfaced.
Continue reading this story from the Seattle P-I:
Scientists fault state habitat plan