>Date: Sat, 11 Apr 1998 14:40:05 -0800
>To: "Headwaters Forest Coordinating Committee" <HFCC@lists.sanmateo.org>
>From: jesse noell <email@example.com>
>Subject: Times Standard: Opposition to HF deal builds
>Reply-To: "Headwaters Forest Coordinating Committee"
>List-Software: LetterRip Pro 3.0.2b1 by Fog City Software, Inc.
>OPPOSITION TO HEADWATERS FOREST DEAL BUILDS
>WILDLIFE BIOLOGISTS, RIVER SPECIALISTS CONCERNED WITH STREAM BUFFER ZONES
>by David Anderson
>Washington- A letter signed by 43 wildlife biologists urges President
>Clinton not to let politics override science in pushing to conclude the
>sale of Headwaters Forest.
> The signers, form universities across the nation, express concern
>that a havitat conservation plan proposed by Pacific Lumber Co. and
>tentatively accepted by the U. S. fish and Wildlife Service will not
>adequately protect endangered species, especially salmon.
> The letter follows similar criticism by two U.S. Forest Service
>stream and river specialists from the Redwood Sciences Laboratory in
>Arcata. All suggest that the no-cut buffer zones to be left along stream
>under the habitat conservation plan may be inadequate to prevent siltation
>of salmon spawning gravels.
> The writers say the Endangered Species Act is being undermined by
>political considerations, which federal agencies have allowed to prevail
>over the recommendations of their own biologists. Many of these decisions,
>they note, have been reversed by courts. "We are concerned becuase the plan
>will not be subject to independent peer review," the scientists wrote.
> Final approval of the habitat conservation plan is a precondition
>for purchase of the 7,500 acre Headwater Forest preserve by state and
>federal governments. The plan would provide interim protection for six
>other old growth tracts on PL land.
> In a letter to state legislators last week, Deputy Secretary of the
>Interior John Garimendi defended the plan as bsed on sound science, saying
>it will provide adequate protection both to spawning salmon and nesting
>marbled murrelets. He saaid the width of stream protection buffers need
>not be fixed, but can vary with local conditions such as slpe and erosion
> Under a 1982 ammendment to the Endangered Species Act, federal
>agencies can allow destruction of some habitat for endangered species if
>other areas are set aside as mitigation.
> "These conservtion plans are worrisone because they have resulted
>consistenly in the net loss of critical habitat" the letter states. "This
>is because (they) are largely guided by prvate interests and political
>pressures instead of a scientific review process."
>` The writers ask President Clinton to "instruct all federal agencies
>involbed in negotiating the habitat conservation plan for Headwaters to
>abide strictly by science when making their determinations."
David M. Walsh
P.O. Box 903
Redway, CA 95560
Office and Fax(707) 923-3015
Home (707) 986-1644
Return to Home