Subject: FW: SW BIODIVERSITY ALERT #93


Subject: SW BIODIVERSITY ALERT #93

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
              SOUTHWEST BIODIVERSITY ALERT #93
                           9/18/97          

          SOUTHWEST CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY
           silver city, tucson, phoenix, san diego
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

1. TIMBER/GRAZING INJUNCTION SURVIVES SUPREME COURT CHALLENGE-
   SOUTHWEST CENTER REQUESTS PERJURY CHARGES AGAINST TIMBER EXEC

2. FOREST SERVICE PROVIDES LIST OF 715 ILLEGAL GRAZING ALLOTMENTS-
   REFUSES TO REMOVE CATTLE DESPITE INJUNCTION

3.  FOREST SERVICE BIOLOGISTS BLAST GRAZING PROGRAM-
    CALL FOR REMOVAL OF CATTLE FROM STREAM SIDES

4.  JUDGE RETAINS JURISDICTION OVER QUEEN CHARLOTTE GOSHAWK E.S.A. CASE

     *****     *****     *****     *****

TIMBER/GRAZING INJUNCTION SURVIVES SUPREME COURT CHALLENGE-
SOUTHWEST CENTER REQUESTS PERJURY CHARGES AGAINST TIMBER EXEC

On September 12, 1997, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia rejected a bid
by Precision Pine and Timber Inc., to invalidate the Ninth Circuit Court of
Appeals
July 25, 1997 injunction barring timber sales and grazing permits which violate
Forest Plans in Arizona and New Mexico.

Precision Pine requested that the Supreme Court either strike down the
injunction,
or release three timber sales owned by the Arizona-based logging company. Lewis
Tenney, principal owner of Precision Pine submitted a declaration saying
that the
company would have to close its one remaining sawmill (two others are currently
closed) and go out of business, unless it is permitted to log three old growth
timber sales. The Southwest Center submitted a counter-declaration, showing
that
Precision Pine owns numerous timber sales with many millions of board feet of
timber  which are not enjoined by the Ninth Circuit Decision. Justice Scalia
agreed
that Precision Pine does not have standing to challenge the injunction.

The Southwest Center and Forest Guardians are represented by EarthLaw
(Denver) and
Steve Sugarman (Santa Fe).

On September 17, 1997, the Southwest Center formally requested the U.S.
Attorney
Janet Napolitano file perjury charges against Tenney for submitting a
fallacious
declaration with the Supreme Court. Though Tenney claimed that he was forced to
close his Eager sawmill because of  the injunction and would soon be forced to
close his Winslow mill, Precision Pine has 12.4 million board feet of timber
under
contract that can be logged anytime. This is enough timber to run the
Winslow mill
for a year. Much of the timber has been available since 1993, but has not been
logged because of market conditions. Tenney told the Arizona Republic that the
trees in these sales were "unprofitable" because they are under 9" in diameter.
The sales, however, have more than 75,000 trees over 10" in diameter, including
many trees over 30".

A perjury charge may result in a prison term of up to five years.
     ______     ______     ______     _____

FOREST SERVICE PROVIDES LIST OF 715 ILLEGAL GRAZING ALLOTMENTS-
REFUSES TO REMOVE CATTLE DESPITE INJUNCTION

On September 12, 1997, the Forest Service submitted a list of 715 grazing
allotments
to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals which violate Forest Plans in Arizona
and New
Mexico. They represent about two-thirds of all allotments in the region, and
up to
80% of allotments on Forests in the Gila River basin including the Gila,
Apache-Sitgreaves,
and Coronado National Forests.

Despite this admission of widespread grazing abuse, the Forest Service told
the court
it plans to continue violating its July 25, 1997 injunction barring
implementation of
grazing permits which violate Forest Plan standards and guidelines. Instead,
the Forest
Service proposed to slowly update the permits through its normal NEPA
process over several
years.
     _____     _____     _____     _____

FOREST SERVICE BIOLOGISTS BLAST GRAZING PROGRAM-
CALL FOR REMOVAL OF CATTLE FROM STREAM SIDES

Four Forest Service fisheries biologists charged with evaluating the impacts of
grazing, road building, and recreation on four endangered fish, issued a
blistering
briefing report to the Regional Forester on April 1, 1997, lambasting Forest
Service
leadership, the grazing program, and the agency's commitment to riparian
areas and
endangered species.

On October 6, 1994, the Southwest Center for Biological Diversity filed a
formal
60-day notice of intent to sue the Southwest Region of the U.S. Forest
Service for
not consulting under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act over the impact
of the
Region's eleven National Forest Plans on 61 threatened and endangered
species. The
Forest Service initiated consultation, resulting in a "preliminary draft
jeopardy
opinion" on seven species including the Loach minnow, Spikedace, Little
Colorado
River spinedace, and Sonora chub. To avoid a final jeopardy opinion, and the
mandatory
restrictions which would ensue, the Forest Service appointed a fisheries
team to come
up with short- term mitigation plan. The team's briefing report is devastating:

"The fish team evaluated 199 projects on Apache-Sitgreaves, Coconino,
Coronado, Gila,
and Prescott national forests. We visited four of those forests and
interviewed 32
individuals, including a Forest Supervisor, a District Ranger, and 4
permitees...."

"No projects were found to have an effect severe enough to cause immediate
extinction
of any species. All of the species and populations will likely survive this
year and
perhaps for decades. Or perhaps not. The cumulative and synergistic effects
of Forest
Service management is causing long-term degradation of the habitats of these
species,
and contributing to their endangerment and downward trend in range and
abundance. Many
of these effects are due to irreversible activities that occurred in the
distant past.
But some are due to current and deliberate action."

"During our interviews we heard time and again that the needs of the species
were not
fully considered during NEPA analysis. We heard that terms and conditions of
the
programmatic BAE for grazing weren't being followed. We heard that
biologists were
pressured into changing effects determinations so that targets could be met
without
having to undergo consultation. We heard that mitigation measures weren't
applied.
But we were always assured that there actually was no problem."

"...what is needed is leadership, and a commitment from line that recovery
and protection
of riparian habitats for these species is the priority for management of
their watersheds.
But the commitment is not just for the four fish. There are several hundred
other riparian
dependent species in the region, wildlife that will become the subject of
listings and
lawsuits if we don't effect a change. We need incentives for line officers
to commit to
riparian area and endangered species management. We need to commit to
management for
forest health. Above all, we need a change in management attitude."

"For example, we found that range management is a chronic abuser of riparian
habitats.
Now range managers truly believe in their hearts that degraded riparian
areas can be
restored with cattle. And they have come up with an amazing variety of
grazing systems
to accomplish that. Light, moderate, and heavy grazing, early, late,
year-round, season-
long, cool-season, warm-season, winter grazing, deferred, rotation,
rest-rotation, double
rest- rotation, short duration-high intensity, time control, stuttered,
herding, riparian
pasture, seasonal riparian preference, set-back, corridor, Savory holistic,
Merrill
pasture method, and so on. Based on these, prescriptions have been
developed, sometimes
applied, and credit taken. But evaluations of riparian area condition 5 or
10 years
later seldom show an upward trend. Why is that? It's because cattle grazing
is a core
value of the agency, and riparian area health and endangered species
management is not.
Prescriptions are developed and applied to meet the needs of the rancher,
the cattle,
or the agency. Soil, vegetation, water, and wildlife resources are secondary
considerations."

"Recovery of riparian areas with cattle hasn't worked in the past, is not
working now,
and won't work in the future. And this is where a change in management
attitude is
necessary. The only practical way to restore riparian areas supporting
endangered
species is through removal of cattle impact. And based on experience, we
advocate
that prescriptions that call for complete rest or nonuse be the first step.
A change
in attitude to recognize that other multiple uses in riparian areas are more
beneficial
to the greatest number than a few AUM's is necessary."

"...But, management in this region has traded off its love and passion for
the land
in order to indulge in economically questionable targets. Gifford Pinchot's
philosophy
of "...providing the greatest good for the greatest number..." has been
distorted to
a doctrine of providing the most economic use for the few. And this has
resulted in
the current situation: the FWS threatening a
jeopardy call on our management, outside groups taking us to court (and
winning) on
the same issue, and we being the subject of widespread ridicule and derision.

This report sounds negative, and I am sorry for that. It's embarrassing to
stand
here and tell you these things. I don't like it. I hope that you'll accept
these
remarks as coming from a group who are trying to be, in the words of Jack Ward
Thomas, "loving critic" of the agency..."

"That's the report of the fish team."
     _____     ______     ______     _____

JUDGE RETAINS JURISDICTION OVER QUEEN CHARLOTTE GOSHAWK E.S.A. CASE

Upon being told that environmentalists would challenge a decision by the
U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service not to list the Queen Charlotte goshawk as an
endangered species,
U.S. Federal Judge Stanley Sporkin agreed to retain jurisdiction over the
case, which
means the challenge will go before his court. In 1996, Sporkin overturned a
previous
denial of listing, ordering the Service to issue a new decision based only
on scientific
information. His latest ruling was issued during oral hearings on September
9, 1997.

In 1994, the Southwest Center and others petitioned to list the Queen
Charlotte goshawk
as an endangered species throughout its range in Southeast Alaska, coastal
British
Columbia and the Olympic Peninsula. The goshawk is an old growth rainforest
obligate
with a very large home range that threatens industrial logging on the
Tongass National
Forest and British Columbia.


_____________________________________________________________________________

Kieran Suckling                               ksuckling@sw-center.org
Executive Director                            520.623.5252 phone
Southwest Center for Biological Diversity     520.623.9797 fax
http://www.sw-center.org                      pob 710, tucson, az 85702-710