Subject: SW BIODIVERSITY ALERT #81
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
SOUTHWEST BIODIVERSITY ALERT
#81
6/16/97
SOUTHWEST CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL
DIVERSITY
silver
city, tucson, phoenix, san diego
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
COURT
OVERTURNS DECISION NOT TO LIST GOSHAWK AS ENDANGERED IN WEST-
THROWS OUT
CLINTON ESA POLICY
For the second time in 16 months, a federal judge has
thrown
out a U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service decision denying
Endangered
Species Act protection for the western U.S. population of
the
northern goshawk. On June 6, 1997, Tucson Federal Judge Richard
Bilby
also threw out the Clinton used to justify the illegal
decision.
Three
goshawk subspecies occur in the 11 western states (Queen
Charlotte (AK, WA),
Apache (AZ, NM), and northern (all western
states)). Goshawks in the lower 48
have declined because of
logging of old growth forests, especially ponderosa
pine. The
Queen Charlotte goshawk has declined because of logging of
old
growth coastal rainforests and also the subject of a separate
petition
and lawsuit. Since the goshawk lives in essentially
every old growth forest
not covered by the three spotted owl
subspecies, its listing under the ESA
will have dramatic effects
on old growth protection in the West.
A
petition to list the goshawk as endangered in the western
states was filed by
the Southwest Center for Biological Diversity
in 1991. The suit was brought
by the Southwest Center and
environmental groups from every western state
including ONRC,
Alliance for the Wild Rockies, the Ecology Center, Idaho
Sporting
Congress, and EPIC.
On February 22, 1996, Judge Richard Bilby
rejected U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service arguments that the goshawk in the
"west"
does not constitute a "distinct population" because
western
goshawks are not "genetically isolated" from goshawks in
the
eastern U.S. The agency returned with another negative finding,
this
time claiming that goshawks in the West do not constitute
a distinct
population, because they are so genetically isolated,
they form three
distinct subspecies. A population, the Service
argued, can not contain birds
from more than one subspecies.
Bilby threw out this denial on June 6, 1997,
simultaneously
throwing out the nationwide policy arbitrarily limiting
population
status to imperiled species.
In his decision, Bilby called
the agency arbitrary and capricious
for using contradictory arguments in its
two denials:
"In other words, Southwest Center's petition was first
rejected
because the goshawks are too homogeneous throughout
North
America, and then rejected [a second time] because there are
too
many variations of goshawks to justify a DPS (distinct
population segment) in
the west."
Bilby also noted that Fish and Wildlife Service biologists at
the
Field Office proposed in both cases to accept the petition, but
were
overruled by the Regional Office. He scolded the agency
for taking "an action
which was sure to guarantee future
litigation." Bilby cited studies by the
USFWS and others,
showing that the goshawk is declining in the western
states,
scolding the agency for delaying the listing process for so
long.
The goshawk was represented in this case by Dan Rolf
(Lewis
& Clark College, Portland) and Matt Kenna (Kenna
&
Associates, Durango).
________________________ !!! NEW
ADDRESS !!! ______________________________
Kieran
Suckling
ksuckling@sw-center.org
Executive
Director
520.623.5252 phone
Southwest Center for Biological
Diversity 520.623.9797 fax
http://www.envirolink.org/orgs/sw-center
pob 710, tucson, az 85702-710