|
Thomas M. Martin Acting Director Program Investigations Division Office of the Inspector General U.S. Dept. of Agriculture Washington, DC 20250 |
|
Dear Mr. Martin:
The following is a documentation of abuses and violations of laws and regulations by the U.S. Forest Service in the matter of the Environmental Assessment for the proposed Elk Mtn. Timber Sale in the Marlinton District of the Monongahela National Forest. Individuals responsible for these violations are Cynthia Schiffer, District Ranger and Floyd J. Marita, Regional Forester. Specifically the abuses and violations involve 1) failure to survey the proposed timber sale area for Endangered, Threatened and Sensitive Species, 2) failure to consult with the State Natural Heritage and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 3) basing decisions not on field surveys but on "likelihood of occurrence tables," 4) improperly designed and faulty research in other areas as justification for decisions made.
The Biological Evaluation for the Elk Mtn. Timber Sale mentions 9 Endangered, 2 Threatened and 56 Sensitive species. Unfortunately this listing is only lip service and virtually all are dismissed as 1) extirpated, 2) area being outside known range, 3) lack of suitable habitat and 4) "not known from project area." Only three species, a cave isopod, a cave snail and the Green Floater are mentioned as "likely to occur" in the project area. Most pertinent here is category 4) since species can not be "known from the project area" if no surveys for them are done!
Of the Endangered Species the Eastern Cougar is dismissed as "unlikely--extirpated from West Va." despite the fact that there have been numerous sightings and this wide-ranging cat is listed by the West Virginia Natural Heritage as being present in certain quadrangles. Also in the adjacent George Washington National Forest's Plan it is classified as "likely to occur in all ranger districts."
The Endangered Virginia Big-eared Bat and the Indiana Bat are also dismissed because, although "possible," they are "not known from the area." However in a May 12 answer to my FOIA request the Regional Forester stated that "No specific survey to determine possible locations of endangered bats in forest area of Elk Mtn. were performed." Thus endangered species are dismissed without knowing whether they are present or not. In the case of bats the BE concentrates entirely on caves -- as if bats do not use habitat in the forest. It is well known, for example, that Indiana Bats form nurse colonies under loose bark and forage in forests of riparian areas. Although none of this is in the BE, predictably, in their answer to my FOIA request in which these issues were raised, the Forest Service quotes the Recovery Plan, which states "The loss of one or several of these breeding colonies would not be detrimental to the species as a whole." But the Recovery Plan dates to 1975 and so is out of date! By law and regulation the Forest Service is bound to consider the latest scientific data. Thus in V. 11, #3, 1993 of the authoritative journal Bats we read on page 5 that "Despite federal listing and increasing protection of their wintering caves, Indiana Bats have continued decline throughout much of their range." Clearly the FS is bound to protect all habitat of this bat and at the very least cannot ignore it to the extent of not even doing surveys.
In the same way the evaluation of impacts on salamanders is a disaster. The thrust of the Forest Service argument that logging doesn't hurt salamanders, including the Threatened Cheat Mountain Salamander, is that they recover in less than 20 years from the effects of clearcutting. In support of this hypothesis they present an abstract of a paper by Pauley, Bailey and Kochenderfer in V40 #2 of the Bulletin of the Association of Southeastern Biologists, 1993. However, in answers to my FOIA requests I learned that the paper to which this abstract refers doesn't exist. Also, despite repeated requests, I could not obtain the field notes for this research, although two of the authors are Forest Service employees. According to a June 6, 1995 FOIA request answer from the Regional Forester these authors have no copies of the field notes and do not know if Dr. Thomas Pauley, the lead researcher and outside contractor, has any. In a preposterous statement the Regional Forester, Mr. Marita, states: "I cannot say whether such notes exist anywhere." What is clear is that this purported research result flies in the face of previous peer-reviewed papers by Raymond and Hardy (Journal of Herpetology 25, 509-512, 1991), Petranka et al (Conservation Biology 17 (2) 362-370, 1993) and others who conclude that there are profound and long-lasting effects of logging on salamanders.
Another paper provided by the Forest Service to support their hypothesis that logging doesn't hurt amphibians is an in-house Report titled "Study of Artificial Amphibian Ponds in Forest Clearcuts" by Pauley and Kochenderfer (1993). The object of this study was "to determine if clearcuts may be beneficial to other species of amphibians, particularly anurans." In the study occupation and/or reoccupation of 19 ponds in two clearcut units by amphibians were determined. However the study is hopelessly flawed in that no studies of existing populations before clearcutting were done. Thus there is no record of all the amphibians and their habitat destroyed in and around the clearcuts nor of the time factors involved. Such shoddy and self-serving work is an indictment not only of the value of research done at the Fernow Experimental Forest but of the consultant system in which consultants merely give the F.S. the results they want for continued employment. Here the results is loss of tax dollars as well as precious biodiversity.
The Green Salamander is a C2 species classed as sensitive. Although the habitat of this species is "moist cliff habitats" which are common in the area, the BE says "There are no known locations of this species in the project area." Could it be that none are known because nobody did a survey? According to my FOIA request answers this is indeed the case.
Dr. Pauley did do a rapid "walk through" survey for the Threatened Cheat Mountain Salamander, and as far as I could determine this was the only specific survey for a listed or sensitive species done for this project.
The Endangered Northern Flying Squirrel is listed as having "likelihood of occurrence" but is only mentioned twice more in all these documents. It is dismissed as "unlikely" because there is "little suitable habitat." The argument is that this area is not spruce-hardwood ecotone, which is the most likely habitat. However on page 6 of the 1990 Recovery Plan for this species it is stated "flying squirrels have also been taken in deciduous areas some distance from spruce-fir in the Central Appalachians and in New England." Indeed, many of the stands of this project area would be classed as northern hardwood, and Pocahontas County, and specifically the nearby Cranberry area, is classed as a "Geographic Recovery Area" (p. 16). Also in the Recovery Plan under "Survey potential habitat to locate additional populations" (p. 21) states that "northern hardwood stands" be considered. Yet there were no surveys done for this Endangered Species anywhere in the project area, and it was eliminated solely using "likelihood of occurrence tables." Given the above statements from the Recovery Plan this is gross abuse of the ESA.
Other species, all sensitive C2, mentioned in the BE are the Southern Rock Vole, Allegheny Woodrat, Appalachian/Southern Water Shrew, Appalachian Cottontail, Northern Goshawk and Cerulean Warbler. All are categorized as "Possible-suitable habitat available but not known from the project area." However, according to answers to my FOIA requests absolutely no surveys were done by anyone, let alone the regional biological specialists, for any of these secretive species.
Also two plants, the White Monkshood and the tree, the Butternut, both C2, are categorized as "possible, but not known from the project area." However I had been in the project area cutting units for less than an hour when I spotted a Butternut! It's clear from this--and answers to my FOIA requests -- that no surveys whatever were conducted for rare plants.
All of the rare, Endangered and Threatened species referred to above and which are admitted as possessing habitat in the area, require extensive and careful field surveys to detect their presence. Many of the mammals require trapping or long observation. The Goshawk reveals itself by stick nests, prey remains, vocalizations etc. There is no evidence of any surveys of these types by the U.S. Forest Service or outside specialist consultants.
In the case of herbaceous plants such as the White Monkshood, visits to the area must occur at least five times during the growing season since some species are dormant during part of this season and leave little evidence of their presence.
In view of these documented gross deficiencies in the Environmental Assessment and Biological Evaluation for the Elk Mountain Timber Sale Area, a hold should be placed on all contracts and land disturbing activities in the area.
Sincerely,
Robert F. Mueller, Ph.D.
Virginians For Wilderness
[Back to the Virginians For Wilderness Homepage]