I saw this on another list, but thought ECOFEMers might find it
worthwhile, dismaying as it is. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
______________________________________________________________________
>From another list.
Apologies if you have seen this before.
Vivek
From: Peter Rauch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Old Nests Don't Count...
If this doesn't !boil! your blood, you're already dead.....
Apologies to those who see this as a crossposting. Peter
- - - - - - -
From: Ned Daly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Clinton and Republican letters on salvage implementation
X-Comment: Biodiversity and Ecosystems NEtwork (BENE) Email ListServer
Distributed to TAP-RESOURCES, a free Internet Distribution List
(subscription requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED])
TAXPAYER ASSETS PROJECT - NATURAL RESOURCES POLICY ADVISORY
(please distribute freely)
TAP-RESOURCES
August 3, 1995
The following two letters discuss implementation of the salvage
provisions of H.R. 1944, the Rescissions Bill, now Public Law 104-19. The
first letter is from six House and Senate Republicans who receive
significant campaign financing from timber and other extractive
industries. They are very clear in their message: start cutting and don't
stop until we say so. The second letter is from the President to
Secretaries and agency administrators who will be implementing the salvage
provisions.
President Clinton is not as clear in his message as the
Republicans are. It sounds as though he will implement the salvage provisions
while complying with existing environmental laws, but the administration
cannot since the salvage program is specifically exempted from
environmental laws, as the Republicans point out, due to the
"notwithstanding any other provision of the law" language in subection
(k)(1). So the President's statements that he "intend[s]...to the maximum
extent allowed, follow our current environmental laws and programs" and,
"complying with our existing legal responsibilities to protect the
environment" ring a little hollow since the existing legal
responsibilities to protect the environment are virtually nil. He could
not say "complying with existing environmental laws" because that would
go against the intent of the language.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
UNITED STATES SENATE
COMMITTEE ON
ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
WASHINGTON, DC 20510
July 27, 1995
The Honorable Dan Glickman
Secretary of Agriculture
U.S. Department of Agriculture
14th Street and Independence Ave., S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20250
The Honorable Bruce Babbitt
Secretary of the Interior
U.S. Department of the Interior
18th and C Streets, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20240
Dear Secretary Glickman and Secretary Babbitt,
As responsible committee chairmen and other interested
Members of Congress who will oversee the Administration's
compliance with the salvage timber program enacted by Congress in
section 2001 of H.R. 1944, we are delighted the President has
given his commitment to carry out this vital program with the
full resources of his Administration, and we want to assist your
departments in their efforts to fulfill the congressional
policies expressed in this program. To that end, you can expect
our active oversight of your implementation of the measure.
The salvage legislation will require prompt and effective
actions by the Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management,
in some cases within 45 days of enactment of the law. Because
time is so critical, and because the need to restore timber
supply to dependent communities is so urgent, we are writing this
letter to assure that your departments embark from the outset on
the path intended by Congress in enacting this legislation.
Other letters may follow as we review implementation of various
elements of the program.
We are concerned at preliminary reports that the Office of
Forestry and Economic Development in Portland, Oregon may be
operating under some vital misunderstandings about this
legislation, and we want to ensure that any such
misunderstandings are corrected before we are unnecessarily in
conflict with the administration. The interpretation of the
Office of Forestry and Economic Development is, in several
respects, at odds with the results of Administration-
Congressional agreements and the terms of the legislation.
1. We want to make it clear that subsection (k) of the
salvage legislation applies within the geographic area of
National Forest units and BLM districts that were subject to
Section 318 of the Department of Interior and Related Agencies
Appropriations Act, Fiscal Year 1990, Pub.L. 101-121, and within
that geographic area requires the release of all previously
offered or awarded timber sales, including Section 318 sales as
well as all sales offered or awarded in other years (such as
Fiscal Years 1991-95) that are not subject to Section 318. The
reference to Section 318 in subsection (k)(1) defines the
geographic area that is subject to subsection (k).
This interpretation is vital to the policies intended in
Sections 2001. The legislation directs all sales referenced in
subsection (k) to be released promptly to local mills to avoid
further economic dislocation in rural timber-dependent
communities.
2. We have been informed that the Office of Forestry and
Economic Development has suggested that subsection (k)(2) bars
the release of any timber sale unit that has previously been
determined to be "occupied" by a marbled murrelet. This
interpretation of the law (1) directly contradicts the agreement
reached between Congress and the Administration; (2) imposes
language which we explicitly rejected; and (3) is flatly illegal.
Subsection (k)(2) bars the release of a timber sale unit
only if a threatened or endangered bird species "is known to be
nesting" within the unit. This approach is much narrower than all
"occupied" units, for three reasons:
a) We are thoroughly informed and understand that the expert
marbled murrelet biologists define occupancy of an area as much
broader than nesting. We have been informed that the 1994 Pacific
Seabird group marbled murrelet protocol treats various subcanopy
behaviors as evidence of occupancy even though they do not
necessarily indicate nesting, and treats circling above the
canopy as evidence of possible occupancy although murrelets also
circle above non-nesting habitat. We discussed these matters
during our negotiations with the Administration. At the
conclusion of this discussion, we refused to agree that evidence
of occupancy would qualify a timber sale unit as "known to be
nesting" under subsection (k)(2). The legislative history is
explicit on this point.
b) To the contrary, we intended the requirement that a
threatened or endangered bird be "known" to be nesting to require
actual direct evidence of nesting, and does not allow an
inferential conclusion from possible occupancy. Actual direct
evidence would be observation of an active nest, fecal ring or
eggshell fragments.
c) We further intended the requirement that a threatened or
endangered bird "is" known to be nesting to require information
that nesting is currently occurring. Nesting in a prior year is
not sufficient. Unless there is direct evidence of current
nesting, the sale unit must be released.
3. In the event that subsection (k)(2) bars the release of
a timber sale unit, subsection (k)(3) requires provision of an
equal volume of timber, of like kind and value. The provision of
alternative timber under subsection (k)(3), when required, is
clearly a component of compliance with subsection (k)(1), and
therefore does not require compliance with environmental laws or
other federal statutes in light of the "notwithstanding any other
provision of the law" language in subsection (k)(1). If your
agencies were confused on this point, they should have raised it
in our deliberations. Alternative volume under subsection(k)(3)
must provided promptly so that all sales requiring alternative
volume can, like all the other released sales, be operated to
completion in fiscal years 1995 and 1996.
4. We understand that concern has been expressed about the
effect of the National Marine Fisheries Service's recent decision
to propose listing of the coho salmon in California and Oregon as
threatened under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). The
publication of such a proposal in the Federal Register may
require "conferencing" of certain proposed agency actions under
section (7)(a)(4) of the ESA.
We are aware of the pendency of this listing. Nevertheless,
we directed that the respective Secretaries shall act to award,
release and permit to be completed in fiscal years 1995 and 1996
the sales described in subsection (k)(1) "[n]otwithstanding any
other provision of law." Neither the conferencing requirements of
the ESA, nor any other administrative provision of the ESA is a
barrier to prompt and full compliance with subsection (k)
(including subsection(k)(3)).
Thus, while the agencies may conduct such conferences under
the ESA as they determine appropriate, the agencies may not in
any way delay the award, release or completion of the sales
described in subsection (k). The same would be true for
consultations under section 7(a) of ESA that may otherwise be
required for current or newly-listed species (for example, if the
coho is listed as threatened at some time in the future).
We hope that this letter provides thorough and complete
direction on the issues contemplated when we negotiated and
drafted the FY 1995 funding rescissions bill. We expect each of
your [sic] to provide us with written assurances that your
agencies intend to implement Section 2001 in accordance with the
direction provided in this letter. You, in turn, can expect
diligent and vigilant oversight from us beginning with hearings
in early August. Please provide us with this written assurance
within 10 days after enactment of the Law.
Very truly yours,
(Signed)
Frank Murkowski Don Young
Larry Craig Charles Taylor
Slade Gorton Pat Roberts
$$$$$$$$$$$$$ $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ $$$$$$$$$$$$$$
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
August 1, 1995
MEMORANDUM FOR THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR
THE SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE
THE SECRETARY OF COMMERCE
THE ADMINISTRATOR, ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
SUBJECT: Implementing Timber-Related Provisions to Public
Law 104-19
On July 27th, I signed the rescissions bill (Public Law 104-19),
which provides much-needed supplemental funds for disaster relief
and other programs. It also makes necessary cuts in spending,
important to the overall balanced budget plan, while protecting
key investments in education and training, the environment, and
other priorities.
While I am pleased that we were able to work with the Congress to
produce this piece of legislation, I do not support every
provision, most particularly the provision concerning timber
salvage. In fact, I am concerned that the timber salvage
provisions may even lead to litigation that could slow down our
forest management program. Nonetheless, changes made prior to
enactment of Public Law 104-19 preserve our ability to implement
the current forest plans' standards and guidelines, and provides
sufficient discretion for the Administration to protect other
resources such as clean water and fisheries.
With these changes, I intend to carry out the objectives of the
relevant timber-related activities authorized by Public Law 104-
19. I am also firmly committed to doing so in ways that, to the
maximum extent allowed, follow our current environmental laws and
programs. Public Law 104-19 gives us the discretion to apply
current environmental standards to the timber salvage program,
and we will do so. With this in mind, I am directing each of
you, and the heads of other appropriate agencies, to move forward
expeditiously to implement these timber-related provisions in an
environmentally sound manner, in accordance with my Pacific
Northwest Forest Plan, other existing forest and land management
policies and plans, and existing environmental laws, except those
procedural actions expressly prohibited by Public Law 104-19.
I am optimistic that our actions will be effective, in large
part, due to the progress the agencies have already made to
accelerate dramatically the process for complying with our
existing legal responsibilities to protect the environment. To
ensure this effective coordination, I am directing that you enter
into a Memorandum of Agreement by August 7, 1995, to make
explicit the new streamlining procedures, coordination, and
consultation actions that I have previously directed you to
develop and that you have implemented under existing
environmental laws. I expect that you will continue to adhere to
these procedures and actions as we fulfill the objectives of
Public Law 104-19.
William J. Clinton
--------------------------------------------------------------
TAP-RESOURCES is an Internet Distribution List provided by the
Taxpayer Assets Project (TAP). TAP was founded by Ralph Nader to
monitor the management of government property, including
information systems and data, government funded R&D, spectrum,
allocation, public lands and mineral resources, and other
government assets. TAP-RESOURCES reports on TAP activities
relating to natural resources policy. To obtain further
information about TAP send a note to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subscription requests to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the
message: subscribe tap-resources yourfirstname yourlastname
---------------------------------------------------------------
Taxpayer Assets Project; P.O. Box 19367, Washington, DC 20036
v. 202/387-8030; f. 202/234-5176; internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
