For the next half-century, Washington's timber industry will be shielded from Endangered Species Act prosecutions for harming salmon and four dozen other types of water creatures, the federal government declared Monday.In exchange, the industry pledged to take steps to help salmon, such as leaving forests alongside streams on 9.3 million acres. That's one-fifth of the state, making it the largest such deal in the West.
But as speaker after speaker at a signing ceremony cited that figure -- 9.3 million acres protected -- none bothered to bring up the asterisk: Officials don't really know yet how many of those acres actually will get the promised preservation measures.
That's because of breaks granted in the deal to small-time timberland owners. There is no firm figure on how much land is involved.
Indian tribes, citing their on-the-ground look at it in portions of the state, objected last week and warned that up to 35 percent of the land supposedly protected might not be.
"We don't have a solid answer" about how much acreage won't be subject to the improved conservation measures, acknowledged Bob Turner, the National Marine Fisheries Service executive who shepherded the deal to approval. "That's where the uncertainty lies. ... We want to watch it, and we will."
As a parade of government and timber-industry representatives took the podium at a signing ceremony on the shores of Scott Lake, south of Olympia, all praised the deal, which was worked out in principle in 1999 and approved soon after by the Legislature. It took until Monday for the federal government to sign off.
Proponents promised that a series of uncertainties known at the time of the original deal -- uncertainties still not settled -- will be dealt with through a series of studies. If the protections need to be increased to better protect salmon, they will be, said the pact's proponents.
"Washington leads the way with a farsighted, science-based approach to the protection of salmon ... and protection of our forestry industry," Gov. Christine Gregoire told about 150 government and timber-industry representatives. She said the deal shows "Washington state will be globally competitive when it comes to timber."
Said Bill Wilkerson, director of the lobby representing big timber companies, the Washington Forest Protection Association: "We're doing something pretty special here for the resources of the state of Washington."
The deal is allowed under a provision of the Endangered Species Act enacted by Congress in 1982. The brainchild of a developer's lawyer, the provision allows the government to promise not to prosecute violations of the act to landowners who take steps to help the imperiled species.
Environmentalists have criticized the 1999 pact -- known as the "Forests and Fish Report." They sought unsuccessfully to block it in court before deciding to work through the so-called "adaptive management" process that is supposed to be able to fix anything judged too hard on salmon or on timberland owners.
Native American tribes have had mixed reactions. But late last week Billy Frank Jr., chairman of the Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission, fired off a letter expressing concern because of the uncertainty over small-forest-landowner exemptions. He also complained that the agreement fails to take into account the effects global warming will have on salmon over the next half-century.
Terry Williams, a Tulalip tribal official and member of the Indian Fisheries Commission, described tribes as "apprehensive" about the approval Monday by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the federal fisheries service
"It's pretty scary," Williams said. "What we're trying to do is remind people that this is our property right -- the fish are our property right. The Supreme Court has upheld our right to the fish. It's an ownership thing we share with the U.S."
He compared the deal to the federal government giving the timber industry "a 50-year get-out-of-jail-free card, without taking all the impacts into consideration."
Two reviews by panels of scientists -- one by the state, the other by two professional science societies -- also faulted the plan, with one calling the pact "ill-informed." Twenty-eight independent scientists also wrote to then-Gov. Gary Locke that as far as saving salmon go, the plan had "a low probability of achieving its goals."
And Phil Millam, an Environmental Protection official involved in the original talks who has since retired, has acknowledged, "Clearly, this is not a scientific judgment, but a political and economic one."
The pact requires timber companies to fix forest roads that disgorge sand and muck in the rain, clouding streams. They also must leave larger buffers of trees alongside some streams important to salmon. And they must fix places where roads cross over streams so that long-blocked-off salmon spawning habitat is reopened.
In exchange, the federal government promised not to prosecute timber companies that are in compliance with the rules the state Forest Practices Board adopted to put the deal into effect. This approval doesn't prevent environmentalists from going to court to enforce the Endangered Species Act, but it makes proving a violation much more difficult.
The whole deal is known as a habitat conservation plan.
In essence, federal wildlife officials are hoping that the good that timber companies do will outweigh any harm from cutting down forests.
The rationale behind going easy on smaller timberland owners is this: If holding land in timber becomes too onerous, they are likely to sell to developers. And development is far worse for salmon -- at least the way it's widely practiced now -- than even heavily logged forest lands.
The small-timberland owners get special treatment in two basic ways. First, their requirements for fixing roads are not as rigorous as for larger property owners. And the buffers they have to leave beside streams and lakes are smaller than those required of larger landowners.
In addition, there are programs to reimburse some or all of the cost of the stream-crossing fixes for small landowners, and for some of the value of waterside timber they are required to leave standing.
Not all the people who consider themselves among the so-called "smalls" qualify for all the breaks.
For instance, take the hosts of the signing ceremony Monday, Ken and Bonnie Miller, who have a 40-acre tree farm beside Millersylvania State Park. They don't qualify for the small-landowner breaks. To do so, a landowner can have no single timber property larger than 20 acres.
Miller, president of the Washington Farm Forestry Association, said he remains committed to the deal but "we must find ways to encourage people to keep their tree farms."
"No one wants to protect salmon and clean water more than family forest landowners," he told the crowd.
"This podium stands at ground zero for some of the unintended consequences of Forests and Fish. While we celebrate, we must remember those unintended consequences."
State Sen. Debbie Regala, D-Tacoma, a legislator who helped pass the deal, said there could be more surprises in store if the industry and government stick honestly to the provisions requiring tighter rules if studies show salmon need them.
"The truth is, sometimes science takes us in a direction we'd rather not go," she said.