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