____________________________________________________
\ SOUTHWEST BIODIVERSITY ALERT
#133
/
\
5-21-98
/
\
/
\ SOUTHWEST CENTER FOR
BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY
/
\__________________________________________/
1.
HISTORIC MOMENT FOR ENDANGERED SPECIES: TUCSON REJECTS
PROPOSAL
TO HARM ENDANGERED SPECIES, UNANIMOUSLY APPROVES
ENVIRO DESERT
PROTECTION PLAN
2. ANOTHER FOREST SERVICE BIOLOGISTS QUITS, RIPS GRAZING
AND
LOGGING PRACTICES IN SOUTHWEST
3. BEGINNING OF THE
END FOR PUBLIC LAND RANCHERS?
MEETING SCHEDULED TO DEVELOP
PROPOSAL TO BUYOUT SOUTHWEST'S
MOST IMPORTANT NATIONAL FOREST
GRAZING ALLOTMENTS
*****
***** *****
*****
HISTORIC MOMENT FOR ENDANGERED SPECIES: TUCSON REJECTS
PROPOSAL
TO HARM ENDANGERED SPECIES, UNANIMOUSLY APPROVES ENVIRO
DESERT
PROTECTION PLAN
The infamous Cactus ferruginous pygmy owl sent its
biggest
shock wave yet through a crowd of stunned developers at
the
4-19-98 Pima County Board of Supervisors meeting. The
supervisors
overwhelmingly rejected a U.S. Fish & Wildlife
Service backed proposal to
develop a plan (HCP) which would
allow developers to kill pygmy owls and
bulldoze their habitat
in exchange for nebulous "mitigation." Instead, the
supervisors
unanimously adopted the Sonoran Desert Protection Plan
which
was drafted by the Southwest Center on behalf of a coalition of
31
environmental groups. Unlike an HCP, the Sonoran Desert
Protection Plan
establishes a process which will conserve large
swaths of desert without
allowing endangered species and their
habitats to be destroyed.
HCPs
are the favored tool of the Clinton/Babbitt administration
for dealing with
endangered species on private land. They allow
endangered species and their
habitats to be destroyed in return
for "mitigation" which is rarely if ever
adequate. In the past
few years, Babbitt has locked up millions of acres in
HCPs,
effectively overriding or replacing recovery plans for dozens
of
endangered species, even though HCPs are not required to
advance
species recovery in any way. Combined with Babbitt's illegal
No
Surprises policy, HCPs essentially give up protection of
endangered
species on private land. The Sonoran Desert Protection Plan,
by
contrast, is expressly designed to help recover the
critically
endangered Cactus ferruginous pygmy owl, the Pima pineapple
cactus
and other species.
The Supervisor's unanimous vote
fundamentally rejects Babbitt's
message that the public must accept harm of
endangered species in
exchange for regional conservation planning. The Board
has instead
exhibited a willingness never before shown in the West to
examine
new methods of regional conservation planning and
cooperation.
_________________________
ANOTHER FOREST SERVICE BIOLOGISTS QUITS, RIPS
GRAZING AND LOGGING
PRACTICES IN SOUTHWEST
Renee Galeano-Popp, a 20 year
veteran Forest Service biologist
resigned her position on the Lincoln
National Forest in southern
New Mexico. On 4-13-98 she sent a letter to the
new regional
forester and the Chief of the U.S. Forest Service decrying
the
abuses of livestock grazing and logging in the Southwest.
Popp
states:
"I totally agree with the outgoing deputy Forest
Supervisor who
said range management is a corpse on life support and
no one will
pull the plug...Motivation to get the job done appears to
come
and go with litigation...The Integrated Resource Management
(or
NEPA/NFMA) process is not alive and well in this region
and
certainly is not even alive on the Lincoln NF...the situation
is
in total discord...nature of the accountability system, the
line
organization, the tolerances and the reward system we have are
not
working to get the American public and the earth's biodiversity
what
they deserve...It is within the realm of feasibility that a
serious
reform in Region 3 could stop some, if not all, of the
lawsuits...."
Excerpts for the letter are presented below, the full
letter is
available on the Southwest Center's whistle blower web page:
http://www.sw-center.org
_____
On April 27, 1998 I resigned from my position as a
wildlife
biologist on the Lincoln NF after 20 years of employment, all
in
Region 3. I resigned for personal reasons related to job
stress, resulting
from what I believe is gross mismanagement of
people and natural resources. I
have decided to share some of
them with you in hopes that you can affect
them.
My resignation from the Forest Service came on the heels of
6
months work to evaluate the effects of on-going livestock
authorizations
on threatened and endangered species. During this
process, it became vividly
clear that the FS has trouble doing
what it knows is right and best. For
example, implementation of
allowable use monitoring has been
exceedingly slow...Despite
on-going litigation pressure, not only haven't
these been
implemented, FS management is still finding ways to avoid
and
delay doing so...
During the range assessment, I expressed
concern about the adequacy
and consistency of proposed allowable use
monitoring for some range
allotments with federally listed species. On April
10, 1998 I was
told in no uncertain terms by the Forest Supervisor: (1) not
to
question any range conservationist's proposed actions (regardless
of
content or quality) and (2) to ignore information that management
does
not have the capacity to implement the proposed actions. I
believe
this was intimidation to do my job professionally. I should not
be
asked to sign a biological assessment with my professional
credibility
on the line, that is based on unclear, erroneous,
unprofessional or
inconsistent information. My resignation came less than 3
weeks later...
When working on range allotment management plans, I
requested
contemporary field data about the vegetative conditions
when
data were over 30 years old. This was received as heresy.
I
was told that I was out of bounds to tell another professional
when he
should collect data. I totally agree with the outgoing
deputy Forest
Supervisor who said range management is a
corpse on life support and no one
will pull the plug.
Motivation to get the job done appears to come
and go with
litigation. When the region was under litigation regarding
the
retroactive nature of LMP decisions, the proposed action for
the
biological assessment was to implement allowable use on
all allotments on the
Lincoln NF. When the region was upheld
in court that LMP standards are
mainly prospective, the proposed
action changed to implement allowable use
with new decisions
only. If it was feasible before, why change? If we
know this is
right and best for the ecosystem, why should I have to
"fight"
to get this proposed on allotments with endangered species as
a
minimum, which are only about half or less of the LNF
allotments?
Despite on-going regional litigation, the Forest seems to
maintain
a business as usual attitude. For example, allotments which
were
vacant and without permittees during the last year were stocked
by
new permittees this year, even though the Forest Service had
knowledge
that: a ) grazing would not be in compliance with the ESA
and b) that the
district did not have the resources to implement
allowable use
monitoring. This is outrageous. In my opinion,
allowable use
monitoring is the cost of responsible stewardship.
It is the cost of
authorizing cattle on public land in the first
place...
The Integrated
Resource Management (or NEPA/NFMA) process is not
alive and well in this
region and certainly is not even alive on
the Lincoln NF....Specialist input
is not used in developing
proposed actions and any input that detracts from
proposed
actions is either ignored or watered down. I came to the FS as
a
specialist believing we were all commissioned to work together
as
professionals,to prescribe what is best for the land while also
serving
people's needs. What I found was each functional area
devises their own
ideas and then pushes them up through a more-
or-less political
system....
Ellie, this situation results in total discord. How can
we defend
actions to the public if we are not united (or even
coordinated!)
as a group of professionals?...
The Sacramento Salvage
is an example of how the LNF manages priorities
and land. (1) Instead
of conceiving proposed actions based on
current conditions and short and long
term goals for an area, it was
conceived as an opportunity to cut trees
anywhere possible. (2) The
ID Team was told to find 2 million board
feet of salvage (dead or
dying trees), in response to insect and disease
outbreaks on one
district. Although not a very large or complicated
project, the team
floundered for lack of direction, guidance, and priority
setting...
I believed Jack Ward Thomas and others who said the Forest
Service is
the "premiere conservation agency in the world". Yet in 20 years,
I
have yet to see us put our best foot forward. Don't get me wrong,
Ellie,
I understand the complexities of our work. But what we are
desperately
lacking is a bottom line ( a "company line") that the FS
will stand for at
all times. Does the natural resource come first or
doesn't it?
Was Ecosystem Management (EM) really a passing
fad?
Customer service does not equate with good resource
management, but
at least it would provide a basis for decisions.
In
reality, we have the company line already and there is nothing
wrong with
it. We have a mission. We have laws, regulations
and
policies. What we lack is the implementation of that company
line.
I used to think the problem was people and I had alot of disdain
for
individuals. But I've come to believe that it is really the
system.
The de-centralized agency structure, nature of the
accountability
system, the line organization, the tolerances and the reward
system
we have are not working to get the American public and the
earth's
biodiversity what they deserve.
It is within the realm of
feasibility that a serious reform in Region 3
could stop some, if not all, of
the lawsuits. That would allow the FS
to get on with its
mission...
_________________________________
BEGINNING OF THE END FOR PUBLIC LAND
RANCHERS?
MEETING SCHEDULED TO DEVELOP PROPOSAL TO BUYOUT SOUTHWEST'S
MOST
IMPORTANT NATIONAL FOREST GRAZING ALLOTMENTS
Facing a huge flux of
endangered species listings, grazing litigation,
agency reform efforts, and
public outcry against overgrazing, some
ranchers in the Gila River Basin are
ready to sell out and move on.
On June 10th at 7:30pm, the Arizona
Grazing Clearing House will
host a meeting to develop a plan to buyout
National Forest grazing
allotments which are critical to endangered species,
biodiversity, and
streamside habitats. The meeting will take place at the
Sierra Club's
state headquarters at 516 E. Portland in downtown Phoenix,
AZ.
_____________________________________________________________________________
Kieran
Suckling
ksuckling@sw-center.org
Executive
Director
520.623.5252 phone
Southwest Center for Biological
Diversity 520.623.9797 fax
http://www.sw-center.org
pob 710, tucson, az 85702-710