____________________________________________________
\ SOUTHWEST BIODIVERSITY ALERT
#146
/
\
8-12-98
/
\
/
\ SOUTHWEST CENTER FOR
BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY
/
\__________________________________________/
1. AZ DAILY STAR: DON YOUNG
SHOULD END ENVIRONMENTAL WITCH HUNT
2. UPDATE ON 2ND MEXICAN GREY WOLF
DEATH
3. PARENTS GROUPS TELLS SCHOOL DISTRICT TO LEAVE PYGMY OWL
ALONE,
TUCSON CITIZEN AGREES
4. COMMENTS NEEDED ON
N.A.F.T.A. REPORT TO SAVE THE SAN PEDRO RIVER-
PLEASE WRITE
TODAY!
*****
***** ***** ******
AZ DAILY
STAR: DON YOUNG SHOULD END ENVIRONMENTAL WITCH HUNT
The following editorial
appeared in the Arizona Daily Star on
8-8-98
Representative
Young's Witch Hunt
Environmentalists are right that Rep. Don
Young's demand to know what
Southwest region U.S. Forest Service
employees ``are members of'' or
``have any contact with'' Arizona
environmental groups smacks of Sen.
Joseph McCarthy's 1950s-era search
for Communists.
They are right that Young's tribunal intrudes on
the privacy of
federal employees and could chill legitimate personal
and
professional contacts.
And they are right, too, to
demand the Forest Service refuse to
cooperate with this rogue misuse
of Congress' legitimate oversight
stance.
And yet, none
of that is what is most offensive, and revealing,
about Young's
bizarre behavior. Instead, what is most disconcerting
about Young's
latest meddling with efforts to enforce the nation's
environmental
laws is its scary insinuation of the illegitimacy of
environmental
rules and environmental activists.
At its root, the Alaska
Republican's demand for names in a July 28
letter to Eleanor Towns,
the Southwest regional U.S. forest chief,
amounts to one more tactic
in another rancher-friendly attempt to
undermine a policy unpopular
among cattle growers. In this case, the
unpopular policy is the Forest
Service's April agreement to remove
cattle from sensitive stream-side
habitat in 11 Arizona and New Mexico
national forests.
That responsible agreement - made in consultation with
environmentalist-plaintiffs - was made to settle a lawsuit over poor
stewardship that had been brought against the service by the Tucson-
based Southwest Center for Biological Diversity and another group. By
settling the suit - the likes of which the Forest Service had lost
again and again -the agency merely decided to follow relevant
environmental laws and so avoid a much broader court-ordered
shutdown.
In view of that, Young's inquest - though his House
Resources Committee
does possess a supervisory role over the Forest
Service - represents
one more disturbing, but by now routine, incident
of congressional
disrespect for environmental laws and their
enforcers. In a word,
Young finds worthy of a hostile investigation
the fact that a federal
agency moved to follow the law.
That he insinuates illegality or ``conflicts of interest'' in agency
workers' contacts with the Southwest Center and the Forest Guardians,
moreover, only telegraphs the mischievousness of his position. In
every
legal settlement intensive, detailed discussions go on between
the
plaintiffs and the settling party. In every bureaucracy
bureaucrats
legally maintain personal associations and ties, whether
with the
National Rifle Association or The Nature
Conservancy.
But the law is the law - it will withstand the likes
of Don Young.
More sensitive, by contrast, are the region's touchy
social relations
between ``traditional'' rural folks and urban
environmentalists - and
it is here that Young's silly charade of
``oversight'' does real harm.
With its tone and locutions, Young's
letter panders to rural
suspicions of environmental activists. With
his sleuthing Young implies
that there is something legally improper
about environmental
organizations and those millions of people that
belong to them.
This is deplorable. Such insinuations bring
nothing constructive to
legitimate, complicated debates over how best
to manage the West's
public lands. Such posturing only divides the
region even more.
Rep. Young should lay off. And if he does not,
the Forest Service
should rebuff his
inquiries.
________________________
UPDATE ON
2ND MEXICAN GREY WOLF DEATH
The wolf found dead on Friday, 8-7-98, was
apparently killed by a
mountain lion. It may have been jumped while feeding
on a lion-killed
elk a few miles outside Alpine, AZ. It was the mother of the
only
wolf pup born in the wild in the Gila Headwaters Ecosystem in
50
years- not the father as reported earlier.
_________________________
PARENTS GROUPS TELLS SCHOOL DISTRICT TO LEAVE
PYGMY OWL ALONE,
TUCSON CITIZEN AGREES
A group of Amphitheater School
District parents, tired of seeing the
district's image tarnished by its
attempts to build a school upon
the habitat of the endangerd pygmy owl, have
asked the district to
move to a new site. In fact, they have offered a new
site away from
pygmy owl habitat, arguing that it will be cheaper and more
ethical
to give up the legal battle. Construction of the school has
been
barred by the 9th circuit court of appeal until it hears the
case
brought by Defenders of Wildlife and the Southwest Center.
In a
recent editiorial, the Tucson Citizen agreed with the parents,
calling
members of the school board mule-headed for continuing the
legal battle and
trying to drive off the pygmy owl.
____________________________
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) BACKGROUND: "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)
BACKGROUND
(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