____________________________________________________
\ SOUTHWEST BIODIVERSITY ALERT
#140
/
\
7-10-98
/
\
/
\ SOUTHWEST CENTER FOR
BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY
/
\__________________________________________/
1.
FOREST SERVICE WHISTLEBLOWER: BIOLOGISTS SACRAFICED TO CATTLE,
POLITICOS SHOULD NOT HINDER LONG-AWAITED REFORMS
2. "IT'S WHOLE DIFFERENT
MINDSET FROM WHAT CAPITALISM IS FOUNDED
ON": PHOENIX MAGAZINE
PROFILES SW CENTER
3. COMMENTS NEEDED ON N.A.F.T.A. REPORT TO SAVE THE
SAN PEDRO
RIVER- PLEASE WRITE
TODAY!
*****
***** *****
FOREST SERVICE WHISTLEBLOWER:
BIOLOGISTS SACRAFICED TO CATTLE,
POLITICOS SHOULD NOT HINDER LONG-AWAITED
REFORMS
Former Forest Service Biologist Leon Fager published the
following
editorial in the Albuquerque Journal on 7-10-98. It argues
that
the agency is finally listening to its own biologists about
the
devastating impacts of cattle grazing, and that New
Mexico's
congressional delegation should not interfere with agreements
to
remove cattle for streamsides on public lands.
"U.S. Rep.
Joe Skeen, R-NM, has called for congressional
hearings into what he
calls "secret agreements" between the
Southwest Center for Biological
Diversity and the U.S. Forest
Service to remove cattle from several
hundred miles of streams
on public lands in Arizona and New
Mexico.
The terrible impact of overgrazing on the Southwest's
fragile
river systems, however, is no secret. Forest Service
biologists
have been warning the agency to take action for nearly 90
years.
That top decision maker are finally taking notice, is reason
to
praise the agency, not attack it.
I worked for the
Forest Service as biologist for 31 years. From
1992-1998 I served as
the Sensitive, Threatened and Endangered
Species program manager for
all National Forests in Arizona and
New Mexico. I have seen first
hand, the tremendous loss of fish
and wildlife habitat, water quality,
and recreational
opportunities due to systematic overgrazing. I and
other biologists
called for change, but were ignored or told to keep
quiet. We were
not alone.
As early as 1901, in a report
entitled Range Improvement In
Arizona, land managers told that
"destruction of the range could
be so nearly complete [it] is somewhat
beyond the conception of
those not familiar with...composition of the
soils, and habits of
forage plants in the region." In the 1920's and
30's, Aldo
Leopold warned that Sapillo Creek in New Mexico, and the
Blue
River in Arizona were being "ruined" by cattle even
though
grazing pressure was not heavy by eastern standards. "The
lesson,"
he wrote, " is that, under our peculiar Southwestern
conditions,
any grazing at all, no matter how moderate, is liable
to
overgraze and ruin the watercourse." While many know Leopold
as
a pioneering ecologist, few know that he worked for the
Forest
Service right here in the Southwest.
In 1977,
another Forest Service biologist wrote that "Overgrazing
by domestic
livestock...is probably the major factor contributing
to the failure
of riparian areas [i.e. streamside forests] to
propagate themselves."
Still, little was done. In 1997, a team of
four Forest Service fish
biologists reported that "range
management is a chronic abuser of
riparian habitats (because)...
the Forest Service develops solutions
to meet the needs of the
rancher, the cattle the agency. Soil,
vegetation, water and
wildlife resources are secondary
considerations."
And now in 1998, because of environmental
lawsuits, the Forest
Service is finally taking stock of grazing
impacts. What are
they finding? That the Sapillo andBlue Rivers are
still
overgrazed, as are the Gila, San Francisco and Verde
rivers.
Endangered species are being pushed to the brink,
while valuable
recreational opportunities are being
lost.
The recent negotiations between environmentalists and the
Forest
Service to take cows off hundreds of miles of streams is a
good
sign that the agency is finally taking 90 years of warning
to
heart. An even better sign is a recent Forest Service
commitment
to assess the impact of cattle on a host of endangered
species
and rivers in both states. This assessment should also take
a
hard look at the questionable economics of cattle grazing
on
public lands. Can we, should we, continue to subsidize
the
destruction of rivers on public lands with federal tax
dollars?
Skeen and Sen. Domenici should not interfere with the
Forest
Service's attempt to right a century of wrongs. The West
is
changing rapidly, people expect more from the land than
beaten
down streambanks and government subsidized beef. They
expect
clean water, cool shady rivers, and healthy watersheds.
Surely
this is not too high an expectation from our public
lands?
_______________________________
"IT'S
WHOLE DIFFERENT MINDSET FROM WHAT CAPITALISM IS FOUNDED ON":
PHOENIX MAGAZINE
PROFILES SW CENTER
The May issue of Phoenix Magazine contains an in depth
article
on the Southwest Center by Peter Alshire, including a great
photo
spread of endangered species and forests. A few exerpts:
"Peter
Galvin, Robin Silver, and the equally frenetic Suckling
established
the Southwest Center for Biological Diversity -
to the deep, lasting,
and ever-renewed dismay of the ranchers,
loggers, U.S. Forest Service
administrators, the Arizona and
New Mexico congressional delegation
(most of them), and just
about anyone who believes that making money
off public lands
should take precedence over the needs of ecosystems,
wildlife
and endangered species...Sometimes it seems that the
Center
has made itself a keystone species in the politics of
every
major environmental battle in the Southwest."
"It's hard to argue with the results. The Southwest Center
files one
or two lawsuits every month, with a batting record
only Perry Mason
can match...[It] has turned environmental
lawsuits into an expertly
wielded strategic weapon in a multi-
front war of attrition against
federal agencies. The Center
combines relentless persistence with a
shrewd willingness to
take a shot at any target of
opportunity..."
______________________________
COMMENTS NEEDED ON N.A.F.T.A. REPORT TO
SAVE THE SAN PEDRO RIVER-
PLEASE WRITE TODAY!
1) NEWS BRIEF
2)
POINTS TO INCLUDE IN YOUR COMMENTS
3) BACKGROUNDER "The San Pedro River to be
NAFTA Test
Case"
*****
1) NEWS BRIEF
On 6-15-98, NAFTA's Commission for Environmental
Cooperation released
a public review draft of its long awaited scientific
assessment of
water depletion in the upper San Pedro River. Entitled
"Sustaining and
Enhancing Riparian Migratory Bird Habitat on the Upper San
Pedro
River," the report concludes that the river will dry up,
destroying
the nation's first Riparian National Conservation area if
serious
efforts are not taken to curtail urban sprawl,
superfluous
agriculture, and excessive water pumping.
This is the
first time the NAFTA panel has reviewed an environmental
problem in the
United States. It did so in response to a petition
under Article 13 by the
Southwest Center represented by EarthLaw.
Public comments on the draft are
being accepted until August 14, 1998.
YOUR COMMENTS ARE NEEDED! The CEC
is only soliciting comments from
within the river basin itself, which is
dominated by developers and
the military, thereby attempting to stack the
weight of comments
against major policy reforms. You can read the report and
submit
comments from the Southwest Center's web page
http://www.sw-center.org/swcbd/activist/sanpedro.html
*****
2)
POINTS TO INCLUDE IN YOUR COMMENTS:
After a sound scientific study of
water problem on the San Pedro the
draft report, "Sustaining and Enhancing
the Riparian Migratory Bird
Habitat on the Upper San Pedro River" goes on to
make some rather
unsound recommendations. While we encourage everyone to read
the draft
report and come up with their own comments we also have
identified
what we think are the most important points regarding the CEC
report.
Please include the following in your comments:
€ BALANCE
THE WATER BUDGET! Uncontrolled growth is sucking all the
water. Fort Huachuca
is a main source of uncontrolled growth in Sierra
Vista it must balance the
water budget. If the Fort can't operate
without a water deficit, it must be
closed.
€ CREATE AN "ACTIVE MANAGEMENT AREA" in the San Pedro basin.
Sierra
Vista is one of the only metro areas in Arizona that doesn't have
an
AMA. Most AMAs state that you can not drill a well or build
a
development unless you can demonstrate you have an 'assured
water
supply' that will not negatively effect the aquifer. Until an AMA
is
established there will be no way to keep developers from
pushing
unsustainable growth.
€ DON'T MOVE THE CONSERVATION AREA TO
ALLOW THE RIVER TO DIE. One
suggestion is to "shift" the riparian
conservation area southward,
away from the portion of river most immediately
threatened by over
pumping. This is supposed to allow the continued
destruction of the
river, while "saving" the conservation area. Such thinking
is
narrow-minded in the extreme. A better solution is to expand to
SPRNCA
to include more of the river, including the area that crosses
the
international boundary. This will provide an incentive to
control
water depletion in the entire upper river basin and provide
better,
more secure wildlife habitat and open space.
€ NO IMPORTED
WATER! Importing water from the Tombstone pipeline, the
Douglas Basin, or CAP
is a temporary "solution" that will only cause
water problems in other areas
and fuel unsustainable growth.
€ RETIRE AGRICULTURE WITHIN THE BASIN. The
Bureau of Land Management
and the Nature Conservancy have already retired
some agricultural
lands, it's time to retire the rest.
*****
3)
BACKGROUNDER
(feel free to reproduce this article - please notify us if you
do -
Thank you.)
The San Pedro River to be NAFTA Test Case
by Al
Anderson, Huachuca Audubon Society, and Naomi Mudge, Southwest
Center for
Biological Diversity
The San Pedro River is a 140-mile-long green "ribbon
of life" running
through a semi-arid desert. Host to mesquite bosque and
the
Southwest's largest remaining stand of
cottonwood/willow
riparian-forest, this river is a virtual highway for
animals. This
wildlife corridor supports more than 400 bird species, 100
butterfly
species, 83 mammal species and 47 amphibian and reptile
species,
including the second highest land-mammal diversity in the
world,
second only to the montane forests of Costa Rica. It is the
principal
recovery area for many endangered species including the
jaguar,
Southwestern willow flycatcher, as well as endangered native fish
and
plants. Riparian areas (where water is near or at the surface)
are
virtual oases of life in the desert and more than one-half of all
bird
species found in the United States frequent the San Pedro River.
With
headwaters in Cananea, Mexico, the San Pedro has
international
significance.
Because of the biological importance of
the San Pedro, in particular
its importance to migratory birds, the U.S.
Congress created the San
Pedro National Riparian Conservation Area in 1988.
Since then it has
been named as the first "Globally Important Bird Area" in
North
America (American Bird Conservancy).
The San Pedro River
receives much of its water from the Sierra Vista
sub-watershed regional
aquifer. Sierra Vista, a growing southwestern
city, also uses this aquifer as
does nearby Fort Huachuca. The area's
inhabitants ground pump water before it
reaches the river. Decreased
flows of the San Pedro have led to an increase
in dry sections of the
stream bed. Hydrologists predict dire consequences for
the river's
survival if the trend continues; the base-flows have decreased
75% in
the last 50 years. Growth from the U.S. Army's Fort Huachuca
remains
the greatest short-term threat to the river. Uncontrolled
growth
remains the greatest long-term threat.
Because both the San
Pedro and the wildlife that depend on it cross
the U.S./Mexico border,
threats to the river have international
implications. The Montreal-based
Commission for Environmental
Cooperation (CEC) has been established as part
of an environmental
side-accord to the North American Free Trade Act (NAFTA).
For the
first time the CEC has examined an environmental issue originating
in
the U.S., the threat to the San Pedro. Their draft report,
titled:
"Sustaining and Enhancing Riparian Migratory Bird Habitat on the
Upper
San Pedro River," was released June 15 and they are now in the
process
of collecting public comment on the report. Ultimately the report
is
intended to promote cooperative efforts to recognize and
protect
habitats of special continental importance; to catalyze and
call
attention to existing efforts to protect such resources and to
educate
a broader public of North Americans about the importance of
the
sustainable management of valued trans-boundary
resources.
Comments on the San Pedro report will be taken until August
15. Please
write in and tell them why the river is important. To read and
comment
on the report you can visit the Southwest Center for
Biological
Diversity page at:
http://www.sw-center.org/swcbd/activist/sanpedro.html
or
you can write to Udall Center for Studies in Public Policy,
University of
Arizona, 803/811 E. First Street, Tucson, AZ 85719,
(520)621-7189 fax: (520)
621-9234, email
moote@u.arizona.edu
_____________________________________________________________________________
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