Our Sponsors:

Read more »

Our Members

Many thanks to Emma Maas and Bruce Moorhead some of our many supporters.

ALL MEMBERS »

Chunky seabird in the crosshairs of state's timber-cutting machinery

Environmentalists say the marbled murrelet deserves much more protection than the state Department of Natural Resources is willing to give.
The state Department of Natural Resources wants to allow timber cutting on this Olympic Peninsula land where environmentalists believe marbled murrelets need protection.

The state Department of Natural Resources wants to allow timber cutting on this Olympic Peninsula land where environmentalists believe marbled murrelets need protection. Courtesy of Marcy Golde

Diminishing returns: A marbled murrelet fishes for dinner.

Diminishing returns: A marbled murrelet fishes for dinner. Gus Van Vliet, US Fish & Wildlife Service/Wikimedia Commons

There are students and forests in this story and a chunky Pacific seabird, the endangered marbled murrelet, who's become a flagship species in the forest preservation movement.

In a lawsuit filed March 31, the Seattle Audubon Society, the Olympic Forest Coalition and others are contesting two timber sales on the Olympic Peninsula that they say violate the state's federal habitat conservation plan. The land is managed by the Department of Natural Resources and includes forests that had been specifically identified for protection and recovery of the endangered bird, according to the lawsuit. Brian Windrope of Seattle Audubon says, “We regret having to appeal these two sales because we would far prefer investing our time and resources in working with DNR and other forest stakeholders to implement DNR's federal habitat conservation plan. But they gave us no choice.”

DNR would not comment directly about the lawsuit nor would their program manager for long-term conservation of the marbled murrelets speak directly with this reporter. In an email, officials said they will “vigorously contest” the lawsuit. “The sales are consistent with DNR policies, state regulations and our Habitat Conservation Plan," the email said. "We do not harvest old-growth forests, the habitat the marbled murrelet generally uses to nest. We do not harvest known occupied habitat.”

They also noted that 500,000 acres of DNR's forested land base is dedicated to long-term conservation and habitat for multiple threatened and endangered species.

Two particular sales are at the heart of the dispute. Called Goodmint and Rainbow Rock, clever names assigned by foresters often at whim or for area landmarks; the sales include 230 acres of sub-mature forests. A portion of the revenue they generate, approximately $700,000, will go to the University of Washington. Those filing the lawsuit say the money will fund a tiny fraction of the UW's construction and remodel costs. In a March letter, the environmental groups requested that the University ask DNR to stop the sale of “science-identified recovery habitat” until a long term conservation strategy is adopted. The absence of such a strategy is another bone of contention.

University of Washington administrators were reluctant to comment. A series of calls to media relations and other offices brought little comment except to point out that timber sales are managed by DNR and the “feedback loop” is in the hands of the Board of Natural Resources, whose members include Gov. Jay Inslee and Commissioner of Public Lands Peter Goldmark.

Tom DeLuca, the director of the University's School of Environmental and Forest Science, sits on the board where he is apparently the only board member troubled by the sales.  He was out of town when the Board approved the sales, but he submitted a recommendation to DNR to defer the timber harvests and “consider repackaging them as experimental harvests looking at different alternatives to the existing or status quo management approach.” However, he says it's not economically viable to thin trees on the types of stands under dispute. "Selective cutting" is the term environmental groups prefer. DeLuca, however, believes that the harvests are “well within the realm of what would be normal." Seventy years down the road, says DeLuca, timber harvests will be significantly different when technology has developed to allow thinning to co-exist with maintaining mature trees.

But marbled murrelets may not have that long to recover, says a murrelet expert unaffiliated with the lawsuit, John Marzluff, with the UW's College of the Environment. He points to a 2008 science report completed for DNR that specifically identified “Marbled Murrelet Management Areas” critical to the birds recovery. There are areas that absolutely need to be preserved, he says, because it's habitat now and offers opportunities for experimenting "with ways to increase the suitability as quickly as possible for murrelets.”

Kara Whitaker, staff scientist with the Washington Forest Law Center who is representing the conservation groups, says the biggest problem with the timber sales is that they will lead to habitat fragmentation. “When you clear cut in a contiguous forest you attract nest predators, mostly stellar's jays and that puts all of these nesting birds at risk.” Nesting success is the key factor in getting the population stable and ultimately growing.


Like what you just read? Support high quality local journalism. Become a member of Crosscut today!

Comments:

Posted Thu, Apr 24, 9:10 a.m. Inappropriate

From the poor grammar in the subhead to the obviously slanted "reporting" throughout, this story is yet another example of why Crosscut's "reinventing journalism" mantra is unfortunately more cause for condemnation than praise. A more accurate label would be "yet another 'progressive' (pejorative) liberal anti-business mouthpiece."

Posted Fri, Apr 25, 10:13 a.m. Inappropriate

At what cost to the public interest and public good should our state surrender itself to business interests? It always surprises me that "conservatives" fail to desire any kind of conservation of resources and always will lay down on the tracks for the richest among us. One only has to look at the current debate around the Sustainable Harvest Calculation to see that wealthy timber interest groups like AFRC are demanding that the volume that could not be cut over the last 10 years must be added on top of the "sustainable" harvest calculation for the next decade. It matters not that this would put the trusts in jeopardy, the timber industry will do whatever it can to maximize the number of trees it can clear-cut from public land. It is not surprising, as they have already ravaged their own lands.

Posted Thu, Apr 24, 1:59 p.m. Inappropriate

What a hatchet job. The story has some brief quotes from the timber industry but otherwise reads like a press release from environmental groups.

The lawsuits are a legit news story, but they should be written about in a balanced way.

22light

Posted Thu, Apr 24, 2:18 p.m. Inappropriate

Ummm. There are quotes in here where the authored asked for comments from the American Forests Resource Council and they gave their take on the issue, DNR was asked to comment but declined to do so because of the suit, and there is a discussion concerning the fiduciary responsibility of DNR to cut trees to make money for education.

Doesn't seem like a hatchet job to me. What's so slanted about the article?

Lily32

Posted Fri, Apr 25, 2:23 p.m. Inappropriate

It's one thing to report on the lawsuit. But the entire story (outside of two token paragraphs from the AFRC) is written under the assumption that all the claims in the lawsuit are accurate. That's not reporting - that's advocacy.

Just look at the headline: "Chunky seabird in the crosshairs of state's timber-cutting machinery." That could have been cut and paste from the extremist Washington Forest Law Center's website. It probably was.

22light

Posted Thu, Apr 24, 8:21 p.m. Inappropriate

Interesting article covering many aspects of the issue. I note that DNR has committed to the USFWS to complete the Long Term Strategy by 2007, but may actually submit a draft next year.
Wondering Whale

Posted Fri, Apr 25, 10 a.m. Inappropriate

It is sad that we continue to log our children's heritage to pay for a small fraction of school construction costs. The great outdoors are the original classroom. We must not sacrifice nature’s laboratory for a synthetic one. Unfortunately, recent news has highlighted that our country is full of self righteous moochers who will take as much as they can from public resources without any care for the climate, clean water, biodiversity, and the great value that contiguous forests provide.

Posted Sat, Apr 26, 11:22 p.m. Inappropriate

It's Steller's jay, after Georg Wilhelm Steller.

Posted Sun, Apr 27, 9:17 a.m. Inappropriate

The subject bird may well help prevent offshore wind developments too. Bird deaths due to both wind and certain solar power farms have begun to get some notice.

kieth

Posted Mon, Apr 28, 3:40 p.m. Inappropriate

What is the hurry? This little seabird doesn't have much habitat and further fragmentation could doom the bird. The university goliath ought to give this little guy the benefit of the doubt.

DArntz

Login or register to add your voice to the conversation.

Join Crosscut now!
Subscribe to our Newsletter

Follow Us »