Seeing the forest through the eyes of a hawk: An evaluation of recent efforts to protect Northern Goshawk populations in southwestern forests

Natural Resources Journal

Volumn 40, Issue 1, 2000, Pages 121-155

  Peck, James ^a,b  

^a ARIZONA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b NONE   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 23044520943     PISSN: 00280739     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Review

References (209)

1. See, e.g., Steven L. Yaffee, Lessons about Leadership from the History of the Spotted Owl Controversy, 35 NAT. RESOURCES J. 381 (1995) (Professor Yaffee outlines the scientific concerns regarding the Northern Spotted Owl, and the ensuing controversy that developed over forest management in the Pacific Northwest.).
2. See Robin D. Silver, Destruction of the West's Surviving Canopied Woodlands Continues...(While Easy Money Still Does Grow on Trees), GOSHAWK UPDATE, Nov. 20, 1991, at 1, 5-8 (stating that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service determination that Northern Goshawk listing was not warranted was politically motivated and that the Forest Service's development of goshawk management guidelines was motivated to maintain high levels of timber harvest). See also Letter from A. Milton Whiting, Chairman of the Board and CEO, Kaibab Industries, to Manuel Lujan, Jr., Secretary, U.S. Dep't of Interior (Aug. 6, 1991) (on file with the Dep't of Interior) (claiming that the petition to list the Northern Goshawk as endangered was politically motivated to stop all logging on national forests); Letter from Tom Lapinski, President, Duke City Lumber Co., Inc., to Manuel Lujan, Jr., Secretary, U.S. Dep't of Interior (Aug. 8, 1991) (on file with the Dep't of Interior) (claiming that the petition to list the Northern Goshawk as endangered was politically motivated to stop all logging on national forests).
3. See Yaffee, supra note 1, at 383, 392, 400 (regarding the legal disputes over Northern Spotted Owl protection).
4. See JOHN R. SQUIRES & RICHARD T. REYNOLDS, NORTHERN GOSHAWK 4 (American Ornithologists' Union, THE BIRDS OF NORTH AMERICA, No. 298, Alan Poole & Frank B. Gill eds., 1997).
5. See id. at 1-2.
6. See id. at 1.
7. See id. at 2.
8. See id. at 12.
9. See id. at 18.
10. See id. at 13.
11. See id. at 4 (describing a.g. atricapillus, a.g. laingi, and a.g. apache). The American Ornithologists' Union does not recognize the a.g. Apache Goshawk as a separate subspecies. See id.
12. See PAUL A. JOHNSGARD, HAWKS, EAGLES, AND FALCONS OF NORTH AMERICA 176-77, fig. 35 (1990). See also SQUIRES & REYNOLDS, supra note 4, at 2-4, 7.
13. See, e.g., RICHARD T. REYNOLDS ET AL., MANAGEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE NORTHERN GOSHAWK IN THE SOUTHWESTERN UNITED STATES 3 (U.S. Dep't of Agric., Forest Serv., Gen. Technical Report No. RM-217, 1992).
14. See id. at 3-4.
15. During this period, Richard Reynolds was conducting Ph.D. research on accipiter hawks with the Oregon Cooperative Wildlife Research Unit, Oregon State University. See Richard T. Reynolds, Food and Habitat Partitioning in Two Groups of Coexisting Accipiter (1979) (unpublished Ph.D thesis, Oregon State University (Corvallis)) (on file with the Oregon State Library),
16. cited in Richard T. Reynolds et al., Nesting Habitat of Coexisting Accipiter in Oregon, 46 J. WILDLIFE MGMT. 124, 124, 138 (1982).
17. See Richard T. Reynolds et al., Nesting Habitat of Coexisting Accipiter in Oregon, 46 J. WILDLIFE MGMT. 124, 124-25 (1982).
18. See id. at 134.
19. See id. at 128-35.
20. See id. at 135-36.
21. See generally RICHARD T. REYNOLDS, MANAGEMENT OF WESTERN CONIFEROUS FOREST HABITAT FOR NESTING ACCIPITER HAWKS (U.S. Dep't of Agric., Forest Serv., Gen. Technical Report No. RM-102, 1983).
22. See id. at 6 (the recommendations therefore called for protecting 16 nest sites per township - 8 active and 8 replacement).
23. See D. Coleman Crocker-Bedford, Goshawk Reproduction and Forest Management, 18 WILDLIFE SOC'Y BULL. 262 (1990).
24. See id. at 262.
25. See id. Under the Forest Service logging contracts, partial harvesting consisted of logging one-third of the timber volume from roughly 80 percent of a given sale area. See id.
26. See id.
27. See id.
28. See id. at 263.
29. See id.
30. See id.
31. See id. at 265.
32. See id. at 264.
33. See id. at 266.
34. See id.
35. See id. at 267.
36. See id.
37. See id.
38. See id.
39. See id.
40. See id.
41. See id. at 265, 268.
42. See, e.g., LAURIE J. ZINN & TIMOTHY J. TIBBITTS, FINAL REPORT, GOSHAWK NESTING SURVEY-1990: NORTH KAIBAB RANGER DISTRICT, KAIBAB NATIONAL FOREST (Ariz. Game & Fish Dep't 1990) (reporting results of a three-year survey of goshawk nests in the North Kaibab Ranger District, showing a declining goshawk population).
43. See Letter from Charles Babbitt, President, Maricopa Audubon Society et al., to David Jolly, Regional Forester, U.S. Dep't of Agric., Forest Serv., Region 3 (Feb. 8, 1990) (on file with the Forest Service, Region 3).
44. National Forest Management Act of 1976, 16 U.S.C. §§ 1600-14 (1994).
45. 16 U.S.C. § 1604(g)(3)(B).
46. See Forest Service Planning, Fish and Wildlife Resources, 36 C.F.R. § 219.19(a)(1), (6) (1998).
47. See CHARLES F. WILKINSON & H. MICHAEL ANDERSON, LAND AND RESOURCE PLANNING IN THE NATIONAL FORESTS 300 (1987) (explaining 36 C.F.R. § 219.19(a)(1)).
48. See 36 C.F.R. § 219.19(a)(1).
49. See U.S. DEP'T OF AGRIC, FOREST SERVICE MANUAL § 2670.5(19) (1995).
50. See id. at § 2671.1.
51. See id. at § 2672.12.
52. See Management Guidelines for the Northern Goshawk in the Southwestern Region, Adoption of Interim Policy, 56 Fed. Reg. 28,853, 28,854 (1991).
53. See generally REYNOLDS, supra note 20. As of October 1995, the Apache-Sitgreaves, Carson, Cibola, Coconino, Kaibab, and Prescott National Forests all prescribed protective buffers of 20 to 30 acres, or 8 chains, around occupied Northern Goshawk nests. See U.S. DEP'T OF AGRIC, FOREST SERV., SOUTHWESTERN REGION, FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR AMENDMENT OF FOREST PLANS 92 (1995).
54. See Management Guidelines for the Northern Goshawk in the Southwestern Region, Adoption of Interim Policy, 56 Fed. Reg. at 28, 854-55.
55. See REYNOLDS ET AL., supra note 13, at 1.
56. See Management Guidelines for the Northern Goshawk in the Southwestern Region, Adoption of Interim Policy, 56 Fed. Reg. at 28,854.
57. See Letter from Karen Yarnell & Dave Henderson, State Representatives, National Audubon Society, to David Jolly, Regional Forester, U.S. Dep't of Agric., Forest Serv. 1 (Feb. 27, 1991) (on file with the Forest Service).
58. See id. at 1-2.
59. See Inter-Office Memorandum from Timothy Tibbitts, Nongame Ornithologist, to Terry Johnson, Nongame Branch Supervisor, Arizona Game & Fish Dep't 1 (Apr. 9, 1991) (on file with Arizona Game & Fish Dep't).
60. See id.
61. See REYNOLDS ET AL., supra note 13, at app.6.
62. See Letter from D.C. Crocker-Bedford, author, to Leon Fisher, Chair, Goshawk Scientific Committee 1 (Mar. 24, 1991) (on file with the Forest Service, R-3, Wildlife Management).
63. See Goshawk Scientific Comm., Interim Management Guidelines for the Northern Goshawk (Mar. 7, 1991) (unpublished manuscript, on file with the Forest Service, R-3, Wildlife Management); REYNOLDS ET AL., supra note 13.
64. See Goshawk Scientific Comm., supra note 62, at 2-3.
65. See id. at 5-6.
66. See id. at 20.
67. See id. at 21-23.
68. See id. at 37, tbl.5 (Occurrence of Principle Prey Species of Northern Goshawk by Vegetative Structural Stage).
69. See id.
70. See id. at 40, app.2 (The Distribution of Percentages and Acreages of Desired Vegetative Structural Stages in the Landscape through Time).
71. See id. at 23-25, 37-38, 40.
72. See Inter-Office Memorandum from Timothy Tibbits to Terry Johnson, supra note 58, at 2.
73. See id. at 3.
74. See id. at 2-3.
75. See id. at 3-6.
76. See Management Guidelines for the Northern Goshawk in the Southwestern Region, Adoption of Interim Policy, 56 Fed. Reg. 28,853 (1991).
77. Id. at 28,853.
78. See id. at 28,855.
79. See id. at 28,857.
80. See id. at 28,856-57.
81. See id.
82. Administrative Appeal of the Northern Goshawk Interim Management Directive No. 2670-91-1 Southwestern Region, before the Chief of the Forest Service, United States Department of Agriculture (July 8, 1991). See also Management Guidelines for the Northern Goshawk in the Southwestern Region, Notice: Republication of the Interim Policy Based on Public Response to the June 25, 1991, Federal Register Publication, 56 Fed. Reg. 51,672, 51,673 (1991).
83. See Administrative Appeal of the Northern Goshawk Interim Management Directive No. 2670-91-1 Southwestern Region, before the Chief of the Forest Service, United States Department of Agriculture 3-4 (July 8, 1991).
84. See Management Guidelines for the Northern Goshawk in the Southwestern Region, Notice: Republication of the Interim Policy Based on Public Response to the June 25, 1991, Federal Register Publication, 56 Fed. Reg. at 51,673.
85. See id.
86. See id. at 51,676.
87. US. DEP'T OF AGRIC, FOREST SERV., ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT, INTERIM GUIDELINES FOR MANAGEMENT OF THE NORTHERN GOSHAWK, SOUTHWESTERN REGION (1991).
88. See ARIZONA GAME & FISH DEP'T, REVIEW OF U.S. FOREST SERVICE STRATEGY FOR MANAGING NORTHERN GOSHAWK HABITAT IN THE SOUTHWESTERN UNITED STATES 10 (1993).
89. Management Guidelines for the Northern Goshawk in the Southwestern Region, Significant Change to the Interim Policy Published October 15, 1981, 57 Fed. Reg. 27,424 (1992). Note that the final GSC report was not published until August 1992. See REYNOLDS ET AL., supra note 13.
90. See Management Guidelines for the Northern Goshawk in the Southwestern Region, Significant Change to the Interim Policy Published October 15, 1981, 57 Fed. Reg. at 27,434. The amount of mature or old-growth forest in the PFA had been reduced from 50 percent to 40 percent. See id. at 27,432. The final interim management guidelines prescription of 40 percent mature or old-growth forest in the PFA contrasts sharply from the original GSC recommendation of 60 to 70 percent. See Goshawk Scientific Comm., supra note 62, at 21.
91. See Goshawk Scientific Comm., supra note 62, at 23.
92. See Management Guidelines for the Northern Goshawk in the Southwestern Region, Significant Change to the Interim Policy Published October 15, 1981, 57 Fed. Reg. at 27,432.
93. See id. at 27,434. Compare with Management Guidelines for the Northern Goshawk in the Southwestern Region, Adoption of Interim Policy, 56 Fed. Reg. 28,853, 28,857 (1991).
94. See ARIZONA GAME & FISH DEP'T, supra note 87; U.S. FISH & WILDLIFE SERV., PRELIMINARY COMMENTS ON THE U.S. FOREST SERVICE'S GOSHAWK SCIENTIFIC COMMITTEE MANAGEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE NORTHERN GOSHAWK IN THE SOUTHWESTERN UNITED STATES (RECOMMENDATIONS), submitted by Letter from Michael J. Spear, Regional Director, U.S. Dep't of Interior, Fish & Wildlife Serv., to Larry Henson, Regional Forester, Southwestern Region, U.S. Dep't of Agric., Forest Serv. (Aug. 13,1992) (on file with the Forest Service).
95. See ARIZONA GAME & FISH DEP'T, supra note 87, at 12; U.S. FISH & WILDLIFE SERV., supra note 93, at 1.
96. See U.S. FISH & WILDLIFE SERV., supra note 93, at 3.
97. See ARIZONA GAME & FISH DEP'T, supra note 87, at app.1 at 6.
98. See Management Guidelines for the Northern Goshawk in the Southwestern Region, Significant Change to the Interim Policy Published October 15, 1981, 57 Fed. Reg. 27,424, 27,425 (1992).
99. See Exemption of Proposed Manual Directives from Normal Procedures, 36 C.F.R. § 216.7 (1998) (exempting interim management directives from public comment when an exigency exists and it is determined to be of substantial public interest).
100. See Management Guidelines for the Northern Goshawk in the Southwestern Region, Significant Change to the Interim Policy Published October 15, 1981, 57 Fed. Reg. at 27,425.
101. See Keith A. Menasco & Bruce J. Higgins, Implementation and Interpretation of Management Recommendations for the Northern Goshawk (1992) (unpublished report on file with the Forest Service, Kaibab National Forest) (commonly referred to as KNFH).
102. See id. at 3-4.
103. See id. at 7; app.A at 1.
104. See Letter from Duane L. Shroufe, Director, Arizona Game & Fish Dep't, to Charles W. Cartwright, Regional Forester, U.S. Forest Serv. app.1 at 2 (Apr. 27, 1992) (on file with Forest Service).
105. See Menasco & Higgins, supra note 100, at app.B.
106. Amendment of National Forest Management Plans in the Southwestern Region to Include Guidelines for Management of Habitat for the Mexican Spotted Owl and Northern Goshawks: Notice of Intent to Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement, 57 Fed. Reg. 28,171 (1992) (the Mexican Spotted Owl is a management indicator species with a separate set of interim management guidelines in place).
107. See id. at 28,172.
108. See U.S. DEP'T OF AGRIC, FOREST SERV., PROPOSED KAIBAB NATIONAL FOREST PLAN, AMENDED (1994);
109. U.S. DEP'T OF AGRIC, FOREST SERV., DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR THE PROPOSED KAIBAB NATIONAL FOREST PLAN, AMENDED (1994).
110. See Southwestern Region, Arizona, New Mexico, West Texas and Oklahoma; Amendment of National Forest Plans in the Southwestern Region to Include Guidelines for Management of Habitat for the Mexican Spotted Owl and Northern Goshawk: Revised Notice of Intent to Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement, 60 Fed. Reg. 14,719 (1995).
111. See Southwestern Region, Arizona, New Mexico, West Texas and Oklahoma; Amendment of National Forest Plans in the Southwestern Region to Include Guidelines for Management of Habitat for the Mexican Spotted Owl and Northern Goshawk: Revised Notice of Intent to Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement, 60 Fed. Reg. 14,719 (1995). id.
112. See Southwestern Region, Arizona, New Mexico, West Texas and Oklahoma; Amendment of National Forest Plans in the Southwestern Region to Include Guidelines for Management of Habitat for the Mexican Spotted Owl and Northern Goshawk Revised Notice of Intent to Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement, 60 Fed. Reg. 25,884 (1995) (revised Notice).
113. See U.S. DEP'T OF AGRIC, FOREST SERV., SOUTHWESTERN REGION, FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR AMENDMENT OF FOREST PLANS (1995).
114. See id. at 7-8.
115. See id. at 8-9 (alternatives C, F, and G).
116. See id. at 8 (alternative D).
117. See id. at 142.
118. See id. at 8 (alternative E).
119. See id. at 151-52.
120. See U.S. DEP'T OF AGRIC, FOREST SERVICE, RECORD OF DECISION AMENDING FOREST PLANS: ARIZONA AND NEW MEXICO (1996).
121. See Forest Service Planning, Fish and Wildlife Resources, 36 C.F.R. § 219.19(a)(1) (1998) ("on the basis of available scientific information, the interdisciplinary team shall estimate the effects of changes in vegetation type, timber age classes, community composition, rotation age, and year-long suitability of habitat related to mobility of management indicator species").
122. See Letter from Duane L. Shroufe, Director, Arizona Game & Fish Dep't, to Charles W. Cartwright, Regional Forester, U.S. Forest Serv. app.1 at 2 (Apr. 27, 1992) (on file with Forest Service) (stating that the Department believes that the goshawk guidelines would have adverse impacts on species such as turkey, tree squirrels, black bear, white-tailed deer, mule deer, and goshawk).
123. See Management Guidelines for the Northern Goshawk in the Southwestern Region, Adoption of Interim Policy, 56 Fed. Reg. 28,853, 28,854 (1991).
124. Both NEPA and NFMA include provisions for extensive public input regarding forest management decisions. National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, 42 U.S.C. § 4331 (a) (1994); National Forest Management Act of 1976, 16 U.S.C. §§ 1600, 1604, 1612 (1994). See also Environmental Impact Statement, 40 C.F.R. § 1502 (1998),
125. National Forest System Land & Resource Management Planning: Purposes and Principles, 36 C.F.R. § 219.1(9) (1998). NFMA implementing regulations require that public participation be provided early and often throughout the planning process. See 36 C.F.R § 219. Public comments should be evaluated to determine the variety and intensity of viewpoints regarding ongoing and proposed management activities and guidelines. See 36 C.F.R. § 219.6(c), (e). In addition to providing for public comment, forest-planning efforts must be coordinated with the planning efforts of state and local governments. See 36 C.F.R. § 219.7(a).
126. See Management Guidelines for the Northern Goshawk in the Southwestern Region, Adoption of Interim Policy, 56 Fed. Reg. at 28,854.
127. See generally Menasco & Higgins, supra note 100.
128. Endangered Species Act of 1973 as amended, 16 U.S.C. §§ 1531-43 (1994 & Supp. III 1997).
129. See Letter from Robin D. Silver, M.D., Conservation Committee, Maricopa Audubon et al., to Manuel Lujan, Secretary, U.S. Dep't of Interior (July 12, 1991) (on file with the Dep't of Interior, Fish & Wildlife Serv., Phoenix office) (petition for the emergency listing of the Northern Goshawk as an endangered species, and designation of critical habitat).
130. See id. at 2-3.
131. 16 U.S.C. § 1533(a), (b).
132. See 16 U.S.C. §1532(6).
133. 16 U.S.C. §1533(b)(3)(A).
134. See 16 U.S.C. §1533(b)(7).
135. See Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Initiation of Status Review and Request for Information on the Northern Goshawk, 57 Fed. Reg. 544 (1992) [hereinafter Notice of Initiation of Status Review on the Northern Goshawk].
136. 16 U.S.C. § 1532(16).
137. See Notice of Initiation of Status Review on the Northern Goshawk, 57 Fed. Reg. at 545.
138. See Notice of Initiation of Status Review on the Northern Goshawk, 57 Fed. Reg. at 545.
139. Candidate species are those species being considered for listing as an endangered or threatened species, but not yet subject to a listing proposal. See Listing Endangered and Threatened Species and Designating Critical Habitat: Definitions, 50 CF.R. §424.02(b) (1998). Category 2 candidate species are species with which the FWS does not have sufficient information to warrant a proposal, but the information available suggests a proposed listing may be appropriate. See Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Review of Plant and Animal Taxa that are Candidates for Listing as Endangered or Threatened Species, 61 Fed. Reg. 7596, 7597 (1996).
140. See Notice of Initiation of Status Review on the Northern Goshawk, 57 Fed. Reg. at 545.
141. See Letter from Charles Babbitt, President, Maricopa Audubon Soc'y, to Manuel Lujan, Secretary, U.S. Dep't of Interior (Sept. 26, 1991) (on file with the Dep't of Interior). The forested west was subsequently defined to mean the forested United States west of the 100th meridian. See Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Notice of 90-Day Finding on Petition to List the Northern Goshawk as Threatened or Endangered in the Western United States, 57 Fed. Reg. 28,474, 28,475 (1992).
142. See Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Notice of 90-Day Finding on Petition to List the Northern Goshawk as Threatened or Endangered in the Western United States, 57 Fed. Reg. at 28,476.
143. See id. at 28,475.
144. See id. at 28,476.
145. See id.
146. See Southwest Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. Babbitt, 926 F. Supp. 920, 921 (D. Ariz. 1996).
147. See id. at 924 (citing the examples of the American Alligator and sea turtles listing).
148. See id. at 925-26.
149. See id. at 924-25.
150. See id. at 927.
151. See id. at 926.
152. See id. at 927-28.
153. See Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 90-Day Finding for a Petition to List the Northern Goshawk in the Western United States, 61 Fed. Reg. 28,834 (1996).
154. See id. at 28,835-36; Policy Regarding the Recognition of Distinct Vertebrate Population Segments under the Endangered Species Act, 61 Fed. Reg. 4722 (1996).
155. See id. at 4725.
156. Id. at 4722.
157. See Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 90-Day Finding for a Petition to List the Northern Goshawk in the Western United States, 61 Fed. Reg. at 28,835.
158. See id. at 28,835.
159. See id.
160. See Southwest Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. Babbitt, 980 F. Supp. 1080 (D. Ariz. 1997).
161. See id. at 1085.
162. See id. at 1082.
163. See id. at 1084. As a separate matter, the court found the new, distinct population segment policy of one subspecies per listing decision to be arbitrary and capricious, as it was inconsistent with the congressional intent of the ESA to provide the FWS flexibility in protecting portions of species. See id. at 1085. This was subsequently clarified so that the new policy could be used without using the "one subspecies rule" relied on by the FWS. See Southwest Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. Babbitt, Case No. CIV 94-2036 PHX RMB (D. Ariz. Aug. 19, 1997) (clarifying order, D. Ariz., Aug. 19, 1997) (order clarifying previous court finding).
164. See Southwest Ctr. for Biodiversity, 980 F. Supp. at 1085.
165. See Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 90-Day Finding for a Petition to List the Northern Goshawk in the Contiguous United States West of the 100th Meridian, 62 Fed. Reg. 50,892, 50,894 (1997) (to be codified at 50 C.F.R. pt. 17).
166. See id. at 50,895.
167. Patricia L. Kennedy, The Northern Goshawk (Accipiter Gentilis Atricapillus): Is There Evidence of a Population Decline? 31 J. RAPTOR RESOURCES 95 (1997).
168. See id. at 96.
169. See id. at 97.
170. See id. at 98. (Kennedy appears to have relied on non-peer-reviewed distribution maps, as her sources for this information were popular birding publications and not peer-reviewed scientific publications).
171. See id. at 99-103.
172. See id. at 95.
173. See Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 12-Month Finding on a Petition to List the Northern Goshawk in the Contiguous United States West of the 100th Meridian, 63 Fed. Reg. 35,183, 35,183 (1998).
174. See id. at 35,184.
175. See id.
176. Endangered Species Act of 1973 as amended, 16 U.S.C. § 1533(b)(3)(A) (1994).
177. 16 U.S.C. § 1533(b)(7).
178. See Letter from Robin D. Silver et al. to Manuel Lujan, supra note 125, at 1-2.
179. City of Las Vegas v. Lujan, 891 F.2d 927, 932 (D.C. Cir. 1989).
180. As of the date of this writing, the petitioners have filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Oregon claiming that the FWS evaluation was arbitrary and capricious. Center for Biological Diversity v. Badgley, Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief, Civ # CV'99-287 (D. Or. filed Feb. 25, 1999).
181. See Letter from Robin D. Silver et al. to Manuel Lujan, supra, note 125, at 15-21.
182. See generally Letter from Charles Babbitt to David Jolly, supra note 42; Letter from Robin D. Silver et al. to Manuel Lujan, supra, note 125.
183. See Russell T. Graham et al., Sustaining Forest Habitat for the Northern Goshawk A Question of Scale, STUD. AVIAN BIOLOGY, Nov. 23, 1994, at 12.
184. See id. at 16 (recommending the development of management strategies over geographical areas of approximately 100,000 ha).
185. See U.S. DEP'T OF AGRIC, FOREST SERV., SOUTHWESTERN REGION, FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR AMENDMENT OF FOREST PLANS 3 (1995).
186. See generally Jack Ward Thomas & Susan Huke, The Forest Service Approach to Healthy Ecosystems, J. FORESTRY, Aug. 1996, at 14, 14 (providing the Forest Service's definition of ecosystem management as a concept of natural resources management wherein national forest activities are considered within the context of economic, ecological, and social interactions within a defined area or region over both short and long term).
187. See Jerry F. Franklin, Ecosystem Management: An Overview, in ECOSYSTEM MANAGEMENT: APPLICATIONS FOR SUSTAINABLE FOREST AND WILDLIFE RESOURCES 21, 30 (Mark S. Boyce & Alan Haney eds., 1997).
188. See Proposed Rules, National Forest System Land and Resource Management Planning, 60 Fed. Reg. 18,886 (1995) (to be codified at 36 C.F.R. pts. 215, 217, 219).
189. See id. at 18,919 (creating 36 C.F.R. § 219.1(b)(1)), wherein the first principle of forest management is to provide sustainable ecosystems which yield multiple benefits to present and future generations).
190. See id. at 18,925 (creating 36 C.F.R. § 219.7).
191. See id. at 18,904.
192. See id. at 18,925 (creating 36 C.F.R. § 219.7(b)).
193. See Julie A. Weis, Comment: Eliminating the National Forest Management Act's Diversity Requirement as a Substantive Standard, 27 ENVTL. L. 641, 661 (1997) (arguing that the proposed rule would leave only procedural challenges to Forest Service implementation of the biodiversity mandate).
194. See Proposed Rules, National Forest System Land and Resource Management Planning, 60 Fed. Reg at 18,919 (creating 36 C.F.R. §219.1(b)).
195. See id. at 18,893.
196. See id. at 18,922 (creating 36 C.F.R. §219.4(b)).
197. See AN ASSESSMENT OF FOREST ECOSYSTEM HEALTH IN THE SOUTHWEST (Cathy W. Dahms & Brian W. Geils eds., U.S. Dep't of Agric., Forest Serv., Gen. Technical Report No. RM-GTR-295, 1997).
198. Id. at 2.
199. See id. at 11 (defining evergreen oak and coniferous woodlands, ponderosa pine, mixed conifer, spruce-fir, aspen, and riparian areas as distinct ecosystems). See also id. at 12 fig.2.3 (illustrating the location of different forest ecosystems in the southwestern region).
200. See id. at 65.
201. See id. at 66.
202. See id. at 67.
203. See id. at 66.
204. See id. at 4-5.
205. See Franklin, supra note 182, at 47.
206. See id. at 48.
207. See id.
208. See Seattle Audubon Soc'y v. Lyons, 871 F. Supp. 1291 (W.D. Wash 1994).
209. AN ASSESSMENT OF FOREST ECOSYSTEM HEALTH IN THE SOUTHWEST, supra note 192.