coastrange.org/October_Update.htm The most important project to defend the Northwest Forest Plan, wild salmon, and native forest that you don’t know about. On September 3, an email arrived from a specialist within a federal agency. The message read in part : The Coast Range Association’s report is circulating within the agency and it has caused quite a conversation. …. staff is taking Frissell’s report and associated concepts very seriously. A week earlier the Coast Range Association (CRA) released its much anticipated science report by Dr. Chris Frissell. The report provides agencies and political leaders with notice that there are serious questions to answer about their proposals to lower riparian protections in the Northwest Forest Plan (NWFP). The report can be downloaded at the CRA website coastrange.org Tten years ago, beginning with the BLM’s planning effort called WOPR, agencies and political leaders began devising ways to change the NWFP. Each proposal offers reduced Riparian Reserves and increased logging near streams and on unstable lands. This update will explain the CRA’s science report and ask for your help to complete the Northwest’s most important project to ensure federal lands are managed right - a science review panel to evaluate the impact of current proposals to change the NWFP. With your help, a powerful statement will be delivered to agencies and political leaders that serious harm may result from lower Riparian Reserve standards and increase logging. You, like us, know that wild salmon and many other creatures depend on the NWFP for their survival. Oregon is reaching an end-game in the federal forest debate. All proposals to date, by agencies or political leaders, have failed to adequately assess the impacts of their plans. Only Senator Wyden remains to offer his proposal. During August, the Senator spoke across the state saying he was committed to higher federal timber cutting. Along with each proposal, we hear that “new science” allows less stream protections and more timber cutting. Does it? Although the debate over the NWFP is driven by politics and raw economic interests, specific issues, such as stream protections, are influenced by arguments of scientific merit. Our science report `is timely and important because the science being argued is not an academic exercise. The ability to sell legislation changing the NWFP hinges, at least within the Senate, on the legislation not having a fatal flaw in scientific understanding. The CRA science report does not provide answers. Rather, it sets the stage for a science review of political proposals in light of the latest research. Without such a science review, important information is being denied the public and false statements will continue to be offered about the scientific literature. The CRA science report: What it does and how we will use it. That is why we write at this crucial moment. The science report takes us half way to a full, independent science assessment. The report, Aquatic Resource Protections in the Northwest Forest Plan: Evaluating Potential Consequences of Proposed Riparian Reserve Reductions for Clean Water and Fish, is the required background paper for convening an independent science review panel. A science panel will take the science debate out of individual opinion and strongly signal where scientific consensus truly lies. The review needs to happen now. The report took months to prepare. First, Dr. Frissell carefully read each proposal, such as the DeFazio-Schrader-Walden O&C forest scheme, and identified its specifics regarding streams and fish. Drawing on over two decades of work with the federal forest plans Aquatic Conservation Strategy (ACS), Dr. Frissell identified scores of issues that have been overlooked or ignored by political leaders. Lastly, he used his intimate knowledge of a vast scientific literature to list the most relevant scientific studies meeting the legal standard of best available science. The report goes to the core assumptions behind each proposal and states the questions needing answers. Dr. Frissell writes, Taken as a whole, the scientific literature indicates that proposed curtailment of ACS Riparian Reserve protections is certain to cause harmpotentially vital harm–to water quality, stream habitat, and stream organisms like salmon and other fish and wildlife. The nature and extent of these risks and harms should be carefully evaluated and fully disclosed before public policy decisions are made that will change the course of management in Pacific Northwest forests. Proponents of reduced Riparian Reserve protection, including the US Forest Service, the BLM, and certain Congressional and state officeholders, have so far failed their duty to ensure such disclosure. Please consider a donation to ensure the science review occurs. Yes, Ill donate! How a science panel works A science panel consists of 7-9 senior level scientists selected to represent a broad range of disciplines. The panel is presented with a set of specific policy questions, and then asked to identify and assess the relevant scientific knowledge and what it tells us about the likely environmental effects of different choices. Areas of agreement, disagreement, and critical uncertainty are noted. In cases where a high degree of uncertainty or disagreement prevail, the panel may still identify and agree on sound policy options for proceeding in a way that does not pose undue risk to resource integrity. Together the recommendations form the basis of a consensus statement and findings. Why a science statement carries weight. Unlike the issue of climate change, federal land management and endangered species protection are required by law to be based on the best available science. Along with that requirement is the provision that any citizen of the US can go into federal court and require that the BLM or the Forest Service use proper science to justify their decisions. Thats a powerful combination. Every time you hear a politician say federal forest management is hamstrung by lawsuits here is what is really going on: People like you have gone into court and asked a federal judge to look at what an agency is doing, what the science says and what the law says. The judge must decide if they all connect. When they clearly dont connect, the judge may issue an opinion that tells federal land managers to stop what they are doing and get their project on a proper footing in the known science. The only political proposal with a hope of passing is Senator Wydens unreleased bill. The senator has said hes committed to current federal law in shaping his bill. But we know that the senators staff is shying away from a broad science consultation. Perhaps they are afraid of what they will hear. You donation today will make sure Senator Wyden and his staff hears the science! Yes, Ill donate! The situation and why we need help This year, the Coast Range Association has already invested evevry dollar we have raised in our federal lands program. The strategy we are following is simply to allow the best science to speak. We are too small of an organization to buy billboard or television time, hold rallies, or get our name in the news. Most conservation supporters in Oregon have never heard of us. But for 23 years we have made an impact on federal and state forest management because we advanced the best science and the right economics in ways other groups often miss. Every dollar we spent this year came from people like you–grassroots donors. Now we need to finish the job and pay for a science panel of leading scientists. Their task is to examine key questions and offer an expert assessment of plans seeking to change he NWFP. The science review panel will assess: · The Forest Service’s ACRS proposal to change Riparian Reserve standards for the worse. · The BLM’s new post-WOPR planning process for O&C lands that will lower stream protections. · The DeFazio-Schrader-Walden political O&C scheme that just passed in the House. · Senator Wyden’s soon to be released federal forest legislation. You know the politics trying to influence above initiatives. It is not pretty. We are trying to counter train-wreck politics driven by two centers of power: · The lumber milling industry with their automated, high volume mills hungry for big, low-cost, federal logs. · Select, powerful county governments in need of revenue because they wont levy taxes like all other counties in Oregon. They refuse to go from the lowest of taxes to just low taxes. As you can see, we are dealing with a political mess pushed by powerful interests. We must clear the air of misrepresented science that advantages short-term economic interests. The will of the people and the best available science can prevail in this struggle. But we need your help right now. Ill Donate Please go to the Coast Range Association website and download the science report. Read the report and consider a donation. Help make the science panel happen. coastrange.org How much will a science panel cost and how much do we have? Considering its potential impact, the cost of a science panel is remarkably small. A minimum of $15,000 is required to convene the panel and report the results. The money will pay for travel, lodging and the work to write the results. All of this work will be done by scientists, not the Coast Range Association. All the scientists donate their time. Our budget to communicate the panel’s results, including a peer reviewed journal article, will cost more money but right now we need to make sure the science panel happens. We currently have $11,250 dollars pledged toward the science panel. We scraped and begged for every dollar pledged. Now we are counting on you to get us over the top. Whats at stake? We all know. . . . irreplaceable forests, rivers, streams and wild salmon - the heritage we must leave to todays children. Please make a donation. No contribution is too small. $10 will matter. If 375 people reading this update went to the CRAs donation pageand contributed $10 we reach our minimum goal. You might be financially fortunate. Now is the time to consider a larger donation. The Coast Range Association also needs funds to keep the lights on and continue speaking on behalf of the best available science. Every dollar donated will be spent effectively and efficiently. The Nehalem, Nestucca, Salmon, Siletz, Alsea, Yachats, Siuslaw, Umpqua, Coos, Rogue, Willamette and many other coastal and inland rivers will be harmed by reduced riparian protections. Much of the work by watershed councils could be undone by lower federal forest riparian protections. If you step forward, the best available science will be heard in communities across Oregon, by key staff in Congress, and by senator Wyden. Help make the science panel happen today. Ill donate now! With appreciation, The team at the Coast Range Association. PS. The panel’s findings will not only inform the federal forest debate–state and private forest management will benefit from a clear, updated summary of the scientific literature related to streams and forest management. Yes, the debate over state forest management in the northern Coast Range needs the science panels findings. But there wont be a science review if you dont donate now.
Posted on: Wed, 23 Oct 2013 00:20:14 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015