As the governor's county payment advisory panel considers options, conservationists warn of new restrictions on private lands and logging.
A Douglas fir reaches for the sky (photo by Erik Fernandez).
Oregon Wild and a coalition of environmental litigators, including Earthjustice and the Northwest Environmental Defense Center, have sent a letter to over 40 private landowners and Oregon Governor John Kitzhaber warning of possible new restrictions on private lands logging.
The groups warn if environmental safeguards on the public "O&C" lands in Western Oregon are reduced to allow increased logging to generate funding for county budgets, federal law may require increased restrictions on state and private lands to mitigate damage to endangered species and clean water.
The coalition took the unusual step of mailing individual copies of the letter to every private timberland owner in Oregon, Washington, and California who operates under a federal Habitat Conservation Plan or Safe Harbor Agreement.
These documents, developed by the Clinton administration, allow for weaker environmental protection for state and private logging lands based upon the stronger standards for federal public lands under the Northwest Forest Plan.
If protections for federal public lands in Oregon are reduced, the difference for conservation needs under the science-based requirements of the Northwest Forest Plan will have to be made up by private timberlands and state forests.
The letter explains: "Typical logging practices on private lands, such as clear-cutting and herbicide spraying, can cause extremely significant direct and indirect harm to species such as northern spotted owls, marbled murrelets, and coho salmon, and result in polluted run-off into rivers and streams."
"The structure created by the Northwest Forest Plan—particularly the network of Late Successional and Riparian Reserves that connect conservation areas across the entire region—has focused endangered species recovery efforts on federal public lands. This has allowed private landowners to continue logging on their lands without significant new restrictions."
Governor Kitzhaber convened a panel this past autumn to find a solution to the county payments dilemma facing some cash-strapped Oregon counties. As the coalition letter notes, "We strongly support a solution to the funding crisis facing some Western Oregon counties. However, any increased logging on federal public lands in Western Oregon must be scientifically and legally sound. If federal conservation contributions are reduced, private and state landowners would be legally required to increase their efforts."
###
I find it interesting that these threats of legal action are being written and signed by lawyers who have made a good living the past 20+ years with these types of practices. I'm not sure about the ethics involved.
ReplyDeleteHere is the part everybody seems to be stepping over: "However, any increased logging on federal public lands in Western Oregon must be scientifically and legally sound."
So far, everything seems "scientifically sound," and has been for decades. It is the "legally sound" laws -- written by lawyers -- that are the actual threat.
For a look at the scientific credibility of these obstructionists, read: "Typical logging practices on private lands, such as clear-cutting and herbicide spraying, can cause extremely significant direct and indirect harm to species such as northern spotted owls, marbled murrelets, and coho salmon, and result in polluted run-off into rivers and streams."
"Can cause" is simple morbid conjecture and has nothing to do with science. "Significant"is a word often used by scientists, but not (one would hope) in wildly conjectural statements such as this. There may be some truth to the statement, but only because of the qualifying statements.
If there is, indeed, any scientific basis for such an outrageous declaration, then maybe it is time for some serious peer review rather than more expensive legal actions.
Our woods and rural communities have been (and continue to be)grossly damaged through legal actions such as these over the past several decades. Isn't it about time we got some input from actual scientists and experienced resource managers? These people are neither.