Hoh River Project: Is it really necessary?

By Tom Swanson

The Hoh River Project is being touted by supporters as a legitimate approach to protecting the biological integrity of the Hoh Valley downstream from Olympic National Park.

Under the proposal, the federal government would spend $3.7 million for 1,755 acres along the Hoh River to preserve critical habitat for threatened and endangered species.

This is an unnecessary land grab and an inappropriate use of public funds.

Current regulations that apply to all landowners along the Hoh River already adequately protect the corridor and the wildlife that use the riparian and upland habitat along the river.

The private landowners along the Hoh River are regulated at the state and county level by the Forest Practices Act and the Shoreline Management Act.

All activities within 200 feet of the river’s channel migration zone are restricted according to Jefferson County’s Shoreline Master Program.

In the case of timber harvest, only 30 percent of the merchandisable timber within 200 feet of the river can be removed in any 10 year period.

Since only a handful of building permits have been submitted in the past 10 to 15 years in this area, timber harvest is clearly the dominant management activity along the river.

Similarly, the uplands immediately adjacent to the river’s riparian zone are also dominated by timber management and are subject to the Washington state Forest Practice Rules and Regulations.

The landmark Fish and Forest Agreement of 2000 sets forth a complex set of rules governing timber harvest along all waters, assuring the long-term benefits of habitat protection for both fish and upland wildlife.

The public ownership outside the park is mostly state of Washington trust land, managed by the Department of Natural Resources for income generation, through the sale and harvest of timber, to the respective trusts.

Timber management is the dominant use, and in this case is governed by both the state Forest Practice Act and the DNR [Department of Natural Resources] Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP).

The HCP is more restrictive than the Forest Practice Rules and therefore provides an even greater level of habitat protection than the Fish and Forest Agreement.

With the foregoing as an overlay, My questions to the proponents of the Hoh River Project are:

Why is it needed? Why are we asking the public to pay for it?

The project proponents claim that additional habitat protection is needed. Where is the science that shows this need?

Fish populations in the Hoh are doing quite well. Spotted owns are in permanent decline as a result of competition from the barred owl, not habitat loss from timber harvests.

Marbled murrelets are thriving in British Columbia and southeast Alaska, and they fly quite well up and down the Olympic Peninsula’s West End river valleys.

Eagles, elk, deer, and black bear are all thriving in the Hoh Valley without the additional protection proposed by the Hoh River Project.

Let’s assume the habitat protection plan is valid.

Why are project proponents going after public money?

Is it under the guise of compensation for unfair “taking” of private property?

If so, then that logic applies to an enormous number of private forest acres rendered off limits by the Forest Practice Act!

The public cost-benefit ratio is extremely high in this case. We can measure the cost.

I challenge anyone to accurately quantify the benefits.

Tom Swanson is the Port Angeles area manager of Green Crow Corp. in Port Angeles , which manages 100,000 acres of timberland for the company and third-party owners.

Swanson lives in Port Angeles with his wife, Robin, and their two children.

From Have Your Say, in the Point of View column of the October 20, 2004 Peninsula Daily News.