|
Forests and Government Songbirds' Pleas Fall on Deaf Ears
The Chattahoochee National Forest in northern Georgia has become the battleground in a fight that may determine the fate of millions of migratory songbirds. Every spring and summer, millions of neotropical migratory songbirds return to the United States from their wintering habitats in Central and South America, and the Caribbean. More than 180 neotropical songbird species such as tanagers, warblers, vireos and thrushes depend on southern Appalachian forests for their nesting and breeding grounds. National Forest lands can act as important "source" areas for songbird populations which may then replenish outlying "sink" areas where habitats are in various stages of recovery and re-colonization. The Chattahoochee National Forest is one of the few places in the southern Appalachian region that offers the unfragmented and mature forest habitat many of these species need for foraging, breeding and nesting. Songbird populations, however, have shown an alarming decline in recent years. Twenty-eight species of forest interior songbirds have experienced a marked annual decline of as much as 9.4 percent per year (blackburnian warbler) in the southern Appalachians. Habitat loss on both ends of their migration and pesticides are believed to be primary causes. But conservationists in Georgia are trying to bring attention to an even more direct threat to songbird survival here in Americas National Forests: Hundreds of thousands of young songbirds are killed every year by commercial logging during the songbirds nesting season. Logging during the nesting season causes nests to be terminated, eggs and young birds are destroyed, and adult songbirds abandon nesting sites due to logging and use of heavy equipment. Neotropical songbirds, and other migratory bird species, are supposed to be protected under the federal statute known as the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA). This 1918 law implements international treaties with Mexico, Canada, Russia and Japan to protect migratory birds. The federal statute makes it unlawful "by any means or manner, ...to kill any migratory bird" (except as permitted by regulation). In April 1996, Sierra Club and a coalition of other conservation groups went to court and argued that the MBTA prohibits the Forest Service from allowing unrestricted logging that kills thousands of migratory songbirds. They contended that by simply postponing logging operations until after the nesting season, the Forest Service would be following the law and preventing the killing of thousands of songbirds in the Chattahoochee forest. The federal judge agreed. When conservationists brought the suit, logging operations had already begun on a series of timber sales in the Chattahoochee. The Forest Service had approved these sales even though they involved roadbuilding and clearcutting during the peak of the songbird nesting season. District Court Judge Frank Hull said the evidence showed that up to 9,000 young songbirds would be killed directly by these timber sales. Since the Forest Service maintains that songbird nesting season occurs between April and mid-September, Judge Hull ordered a halt to logging and roadbuilding in the Chattahoochee until September 15, 1996. The federal government has responded to the controversy over the Chattahoochee in surprising fashion. First, the Clinton administration chose to appeal Judge Hulls ruling. The appeals court unfortunately accepted the Justice Department argument that the MBTA does not apply to federal agencies, even the destructive clearcutting practices of the Forest Service. Then, in an unprecedented move, administration officials made a sweeping change in the application of the MBTA, exempting all federal agencies from the MTBA's regulations and prohibitions. This directive overturns a policy that has been the cornerstone of the governments management of migratory birds for more than 80 years. Since the enactment of the MBTA, the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) the agency charged with implementing and enforcing the MBTA has never taken the position that this law does not apply to federal agency activities. Instead, the FWS has regularly issued permits to federal agencies whose activities result in the take of migratory birds. For example, the Department of Defense annually receives permits for a wide variety of activities. The Department of Agriculture receives permits for avian pest control, and the Federal Aviation Administration receives permits for taking migratory birds at airports and airfields. The Guidance Document, prepared so that the FWS's permitting program would not be inconsistent with the governments position in the appeal of Judge Hulls ruling, was done without any public announcement or participation. In defending the Forest Service, the Justice Department argued that the MBTA does not apply to the Forest Service or any other federal agency. As is so often the case, the Forest Service set aside public concerns and rode roughshod over environmental protection laws. But in this case, the Clinton administration completely abandoned all pretense of public accountability and turned back 80 years of protective policy for the worlds songbirds. Areas of Concern: More on forests and government | Report Contents Up to Top HOME | Email Signup | About Us | Contact Us | Terms of Use | © 2008 Sierra Club |
