Scientists: Owl Recovery Plan 'Deeply Flawed'
WASHINGTON - A group of independent scientists has concluded that a draft recovery plan for the northern spotted owl was "deeply flawed," fueling allegations that the proposal was manipulated by political appointees in Washington who were determined to boost logging in Northwest forests.
The peer review by outside scientists, requested and paid for by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, found that the recovery plan disregarded 20 years of research about the owl, which lives in the region's remaining stands of old-growth timber, and would result in reduced efforts to protect the bird and its habitat.
The review has attracted attention on Capitol Hill. Democratic lawmakers will ask Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne in a letter this week to withdraw the recovery plan and appoint a committee to write a new one.
"We are especially concerned the peer review has produced unanimous findings that the draft recovery plan is not based on the best available science and will not ensure recovery of the species," the letter says.
The letter suggests that the recovery plan may have been "tampered with by high-ranking officials within the administration," including Julie MacDonald, a former deputy assistant interior secretary. MacDonald resigned in May amid allegations that she'd interfered with and overruled scientists working on recovery plans for various endangered species.
MacDonald was a member of the Washington Oversight Committee, which apparently instructed the spotted owl recovery team to add an option to its draft that would allow more logging in the Northwest's forests, the congressional letter said. A related report from the administration called for reducing habitat that's considered critical to the owl's survival by almost one-fourth.
Other members of the Washington Oversight Committee included Mark Rey, a former timber industry lobbyist who as undersecretary at the Agriculture Department oversees the U.S. Forest Service, and Deputy Interior Secretary Lynn Scarlett.
"The politics trumped the science, and independent scientists have now blown the whistle," said Rep. Jay Inslee, D-Wash., who circulated the letter. "White House fingerprints are all over this (recovery plan). This administration will distort science to get more gas out of the Rockies, more oil out of the Bering Sea and more timber out of the forests of the Northwest."
Among the 20 lawmakers who had signed the letter was Rep. Nick Rahall, D-W.Va., chairman of the House Natural Resources Committee, and Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee.
Fish and Wildlife Service officials declined to comment on the peer review of the recovery plan, conducted by the Society of Conservation Biology and the American Ornithologists' Union.
"We aren't done yet," said Joan Jewett, a spokeswoman for the Fish and Wildlife Service's regional office in Portland, Ore. "We want the final plan to be based on the best science."
A final recovery plan is expected to be released next spring, Jewett said.
The spotted owl, protected under the Endangered Species Act in 1990, became a symbol for efforts to halt logging in the old-growth forests of the Northwest and touched off a confrontation between environmentalists and the timber industry that lingers today.
By some estimates, between 80 percent and 90 percent of the region's old-growth has already been cut.
In 1994, the Clinton administration released its Northwest Forest Plan, which restricted logging on roughly 7 million acres of federal lands. Though Clinton administration officials estimated that their plan would allow for the logging of about 1 billion board-feet of timber a year in Washington and Oregon, only about 300 million board-feet a year has been harvested.
Meanwhile, the population of the spotted owl, especially in its northern range, has continued to decline.
The draft recovery plan identified competition from the barred owl as the primary threat facing the spotted owl, not the loss of habitat as previously thought. The barred owl isn't native to the Northwest, but has moved west from the eastern United States as the forests have been logged. The barred owl is less selective in its habitat than the spotted owl and more aggressive than its cousin in competing for habitat and food.
But the unidentified scientists who conducted the peer review said basing the recovery plan on eliminating barred owls was unsupported by scientific studies.
"Habitat loss from timber harvest remains the sole threat for which there is extensive supporting scientific information," wrote one scientist. "In contrast, little scientific information on potential adverse effects of barred owl range expansion is currently available. Primary emphasis on the barred owl is misplaced at this time because of a lack of supporting evidence."
Another scientist said that while other factors could affect the spotted owls, they are "at risk of extinction" because of habitat loss.
Still another said that the draft recovery plan "significantly weakened" previous owl recovery efforts and that "it's not hard to conclude" that the latest proposal reflected "pressure to relax restrictions on logging."
Dominick DellaSala, executive director of the National Center for Conservation Science and Policy based in Ashland, Ore., and a member of the team that wrote the recovery plan, said the outside review confirmed what he already knew.
"The peer review slammed it," DellaSala said. "Every dart hit the target."
McClatchy Newspapers 2007
Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
Technorati
11 Comments so far
Show AllJust another example of a Clinton plan that never was any good, paving the way for an even worse plan.
Expect more if you elect Hillary.
Weyerhauser = Greedy and Ignorant Political Appointments in the Interior Department = Greedy and ignorant
Managed Forests = more ignorance Scientific recovery programs = corruption and ignorance.
abbybwood
Explain what you mean.
Yes. We would have had Joe Lieberman as Vice, Gore would have had to "step down" due to a "medical condition" and we'd be exactly in the same place we are in today.
But if it was not for that "Supreme" Court, we could have had Gore for a president. Can you imagine what may have occurred?
ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF SCIENTIFIC BETRAYAL
Never before have Americans experienced such dangerous manipulation of essential scientific data, as used by this administration to derail vital environmental reforms, conservation, family planning-- and the list goes on. The resulting long term environmental and social damage are beyond measure, and can only worsen if not curtailed.
Despite their clandestine cloak, or environmental friendly disguise, these sellouts have been evident since Bush first was handed the presidency. They have been exposed by defectors from the EPA, health & human services, etc; and have been documented and chronicled by numerous dedicated environmental organizations including The Union of Concerned Scientists.
The gravity of these unprecedented betrayals eclipses the Monica Lewinski scandal which led to an impeachment, and pose greater dangers than Watergate which terminated a presidency. Blame falls mainly on the populace and our legislators for tolerating this reckless and arrogant occupant of the White House.
Blame for these dreadful consequences falls mainly on the five supreme court justices who placed politics ahead of the law and put him in office against the voters choice; our legislators for allowing such reckless and dangerous behavior from this unlearned president guided by his financial and radical supporters; and especially the apathetic populace for tolerating this unprecedented outrage
Walk in a mile? Where I was living in Oregon, they cut right up to the road, literally. And these were 50 degree or better slopes. And of course every year the roads where they cut get washed out. The irony is that I actually saw two Northern Spotted Owls not ten miles from that place, and they are now logging where the owls were.
Washington is even more bizarre. Believe it or not, K-12 education is partly paid for by "selling" lands for logging. I use "selling" in quotes, because these are often really land swaps, where the state exchanges a denuded piece of land for a fully forested piece. This has been especially bad for the owls, because they require contiguous undisturbed old-growth habitat, and this practice encourages fragmentation of the forest rather than sustainable forestry practices.
This selling of the country's natural resources really took a wrong turn with Reagan's James Watt and Gayle Norton, and all the con (PR) people from the "wise-use" movement. These people are completely out of touch. I actually saw a comment the other day that "if we have to choose between the economy and the ecosystem, the ecosystem is going to have to go." So right from the start, these people are thinking of forests as board-feet, not owl habitat. They seem to me very dangerous, because they act first and then maybe, possibly, apologize later for their transgressions, but by then it is too late.
But I have to think that with the subprime meltdown, very little new home construction, and with unoccupied housing at an all-time high, there must be less demand for wood products nationwide, especially fir 2x4s, so why the big push to decimate the forest?
Kem,
It depends on the nature of the trees cut. If they're truly original trees (and thank goodness that's extremely rare now) they wouldn't be sent to China; it's more likely to be Japan for ceremonial uses. The mid-age large trees (second growth some of which is now getting to the age that murrelets and spotted owls can use it) gets put into US houses; your fir 2x4's mostly come from the northwest. The "slash" is made into paper.
I doubt much goes to China. Most furniture is made of hardwood -- and sometimes large bamboo. The wood for asian furniture mostly comes from the Indonesian archipelago, the Philippines, Indo-China, and some from South America.
Is the lumber then shipped to China for the Wal-Mart furniture?
You can see it on the ground if you walk in about a mile as well. I did support for tree sitters in Humboldt county in 2003/2004 and it was sickening to see the level of destruction of the ancient forests there.
Fly over the NW and you will see what you don't see by car.
They leave the trees by the road and clear cut what you can't see.
Loss of Habitat, it's a crime.