Similar legislation was passed last year but vetoed by the
governor.
===================================================+
Date: Monday, January 21, 2002
7:28 PM
Subject: Ambrose will aid Milltown cleanup
billingsgazette.com
Ambrose will aid Milltown cleanup
Associated Press
HELENA (AP) -- Historian and author Stephen E. Ambrose said
Tuesday he
will donate $250,000 toward efforts to remove the aging Milltown
Dam near
Missoula and cleanup the contaminated sediment behind it.
Ambrose said the cleanup option at the confluence of the Clark
Fork and
Blackfoot rivers is a "once in a lifetime opportunity"
to reclaim
environmental damage caused by decades of mining.
"There may not be another place in North America where
we have such a
great opportunity to turn this big of a problem into this big
of a
positive," Ambrose said in a written statement. "The
project would
restore polluted groundwater, clean up the river, improve fish
and
wildlife habitat and make the history of the area come alive."
The dam -- pushing nearly a century in age -- and its Milltown
Reservoir
behind it are the terminus of the nation,s largest Superfund
environmental cleanup site, the resting place for decades of
mine waste
that washed 120 miles down the Clark Fork River from Butte and
Anaconda.
What should become of the dam and the 6.6 million cubic yards
of
contaminated sediment is a debate that has been ongoing for a
long time.
Environmental groups and the Missoula County Commission support
removing
both and returning the confluence of two rivers to their natural
state.
That option is estimated to cost $120 million.
But Atlantic Richfield Co., which became responsible for the
cleanup when
it purchased the former mining giant, Anaconda Co., in 1977,
supports a
separate option, estimated at $20 million, which would strength
the dam
and leave the sediment behind it untouched.
The Environmental Protection Agency is expected to release
its preferred
option for cleaning up the reservoir in late spring.
Ambrose said he intends to donate $50,000 a year for five
years. The
initial contributions would go toward campaigns the Clark Fork
Coalition
and Trout Unlimited are sponsoring in support of the dam removal
and
cleanup project, Ambrose said.
Subsequent contributions would be put toward restoration work
not covered
by the money Arco would be required to spend under the federal
Superfund
law, Ambrose said.
"I prefer that the majority of my gift be used for on-the-ground
environmental restoration and historical preservation,"
he said. "The
sooner these agencies and companies agree to move ahead, the
more support
they can expect from me to make it happen."
Ambrose is the author of more than 25 books and is a professor
emeritus
at the University of New Orleans. He recently has faced allegations
that
he lifted material from other sources for his own books.
Ambrose's best-seller "Undaunted Courage," tells
the story of the Lewis
and Clark Corps of Discovery expedition. The expedition camped
at the
confluence of the Clark Fork and Blackfoot rivers on its return
from the
West Coast in 1806.
Copyright 2002 Associated Press.
===================================================+
Date: Monday, January 21, 2002
6:56 PM
Subject: AP: China Plans to Dam Mekong River
China Plans to Dam Mekong River
.c The Associated Press
BEIJING (AP) - China will press forward with plans to build six
more dams on
its stretch of the Mekong River despite concerns in nations downstream
about
economic and environmental damage.
The official Xinhua News Agency said Saturday that preparations
for the dams
are already well under way. Government officials and environmental
groups in
other Mekong nations hoped Beijing would delay construction while
their
concerns were addressed.
China says the dams will power economic development of its
impoverished
southwest. Xinhua said the new dams, combined with two existing
Chinese dams
on the Mekong, can generate 15.6 gigawatts of electricity per
year.
But many fear the dams could permanently alter a river that
60 million
people in Southeast Asia depend on for food and livelihood.
China has said the dams will ease flooding during annual rains
and add water
during dry seasons. But that's exactly what worries countries
like Cambodia
and Laos, where traditional farming and fishing practices depend
on natural
cycles.
Environmental groups are also worried the dams will filter
out important
nutrients and block the migratory paths of rare Mekong species
like the
giant freshwater catfish, which can weigh up to 650 pounds.
About half of the 3,025-mile waterway flows through China.
The rest is
shared by five Southeast Asian nations - Cambodia, Laos, Vietnam,
Myanmar
and Thailand.
AP-NY-01-19-02 0935EST
Copyright 2002 The Associated Press.
===================================================+
From: David Orr <david@livingrivers.net>
To: Bob Brower <browerpower@wildnesswithin.com>
Date: Monday, January 21, 2002 6:56 PM
Subject: AP: China Races to Save History
[guess they just forgot, they were so busy pouring concrete...]
China Races to Save History
By MARTIN FACKLER
.c The Associated Press
SHIBAOZHAI TEMPLE, China (AP) - For 500 years, Shibaozhai has
sat on a
hillside overlooking a crowded medieval village and the terraced
green
fields of the narrow Yangtze
River valley.
It has survived civil war and the relic-smashing fanatics
of the 1966-76
Cultural Revolution. But now the 12-story Taoist temple faces
a new threat
from the reservoir that will soon start to fill behind the massive
Three
Gorges Dam.
Chinese government engineers have a novel protection plan:
a 33-foot thick
concrete dike that will turn the temple into a tiny island within
the vast
manmade lake.
The plan is part of a $125 million push to save thousands
of relics
threatened by the world's largest hydroelectric project.
Plans call for moving hundreds of old stone bridges, pagodas
and temples
that sit along a river that was a major shipping route for more
than 2,000
years.
Ancient tombs and prehistoric campsites are also to be excavated
before the
floodwaters arrive June 2003. These could hold clues into the
origins of one
of the world's oldest civilizations - and human evolution itself.
Beijing is calling it the biggest historical salvage operation
ever. But
many experts still fret it is too little, too late.
The Chinese government didn't start paying for large-scale
preservation
until 1999, after pressure from home and abroad. Archaeologists
say that
hasn't given them enough time to excavate even a tenth of about
800 known
sites - not to mention those yet undiscovered.
``It would take 500 years to find all the archaeological treasures
in the
Three Gorges,'' said Sun Hua, a Peking University archaeologist
leading one
of the digs.
Beijing has rejected requests to delay the reservoir's start
date, partly
out of concern over the controversy that surrounds the $25 billion
project.
The government calls the dam necessary to prevent deadly floods
and generate
clean power for economic development. But it will displace 1.13
million
people by the time its 411-mile-long reservoir finishes filling
in 2009.
Critics also fault it for doing irreparable damage to the
environment, and
wiping out priceless clues into China's past.
For some of the objects that can't be moved, novel preservation
plans are
afoot. One proposal calls for building an underwater museum reached
by an
enclosed walkway to see ancient calligraphy carved into cliffs
by imperial
poets.
At Shibaozhai temple, the reservoir will reach the first-story.
Planners say
relocating the red-painted wooden structure is impossible because
of its
unique construction directly into the hill. The $10 million dike
will keep
the temple dry within a shallow concrete well, but curators have
misgivings
about its new island setting.
``It will never be the same,'' said Zheng Xiannong, deputy
director of the
government office that now runs the temple, near the city of
Zhongxian in
the central region of Chongqing.
At greater risk are the far more ancient objects on the Yangtze's
banks.
Critics say too few of the people digging there have professional
training,
leading to the damage or inadvertent discarding of valuable artifacts.
And with China viewing the Three Gorges Dam as a symbol of
national
prestige, few foreign experts have been allowed to help preservation
efforts.
Looting has also been a headache. Professional thieves armed
with cell
phones and metal detectors found a 2,000-year-old suit of armor
and a bronze
candelabra called the ``Spirit Tree'' that sold for $2.5 million
at a New
York auction in 1998.
Still, tens of thousands of relics have been saved, including
gold-plated
tables and chairs, jade swords and bronze spear points and daggers.
Many
artifacts date back to China's oldest dynasties, and to long-vanished
rival
kingdoms.
Of particular interest is evidence about the Ba people, vanquished
by
imperial Chinese armies more than 1,600 years ago. Archaeologists
hope to
solve the riddle of how the Ba built the boat-shaped coffins
that still hang
high in the gorges of Yangtze tributaries, and learn the truth
of ancient
legends that they sacrificed humans to tigers.
Even more intriguing are the fragments of jaws and teeth first
found in 1985
near Wushan, a city sitting in the reservoir's path.
Some Chinese scientists claim they belonged to human ancestors
who lived
along the Yangtze 2 million years ago. That has given rise to
theories -
rejected by non-Chinese scholars - that homo sapiens appeared
in Asia at the
same time or even before Africa.
``There are so many things we may never know now. It's a terrible,
terrible
loss,'' said Deirdre Chetham, a Harvard University scholar and
author of an
upcoming book about the area to be flooded by the dam.
AP-NY-01-20-02 1203EST
Copyright 2002 The Associated Press.
===================================================+
Date: Monday, January 21, 2002
6:56 PM
Subject: AP: China Speeds Up Resettlements
China Speeds Up Resettlements
By MARTIN FACKLER
.c The Associated Press
LONGBAO, China (AP) - Qin Feiyun dices greens with a cleaver
in her
restaurant, puts an oiled wok on the gas stove and waits for
customers who
never come.
Qin's family recently joined thousands of people forced to
evacuate homes in
central China that will be flooded by the reservoir of the giant
Three
Gorges Dam.
Dozens of high-rise housing projects were built to receive
them. But
attempts to restart normal life are failing on their broad, empty
boulevards.
``Nobody here has any money to buy things. The only thing
that sells is
burglar bars'' for apartment windows, Qin said.
It's a story repeated over and over as the largest resettlement
in the
history of dam-building speeds up.
Demolition has begun of centuries-old cities and villages
along the Yangtze
River that will be flooded by the world's largest hydroelectric
project.
They are being replaced by rows of white or yellow apartment
complexes
springing up on hilltops that will soon form the shore of a vast
new
reservoir.
More than 395,000 people have been moved, and China plans
to relocate
another 130,000 before closing off the Yangtze in June 2003.
All told, 1.13 million people must be resettled before the
reservoir reaches
its full length of 411 miles in 2009.
Most people will be moved to new cities and villages above
the reservoir's
crest. But 125,000 are to be transplanted to areas as distant
as Shanghai
and the far western region of Xinjiang.
The scale of the $5 billion relocation is vast even for a
country that has
long shifted large populations to build water projects.
Emperors carved canals across China's richest farmland. Since
the communists
took over in 1949, more than 10 million people have been moved
to make way
for 80,000 reservoirs.
``Moving millions of people is all in a day's work if it's
in the name of
advancing China's position in the world,'' said Vaclav Smil,
an expert on
China's water projects at the University of Manitoba in Canada.
But never has a Chinese water project generated as much public
controversy
as the $25 billion Three Gorges Dam. Critics complain of widespread
human
rights abuses such as villagers moved out by force, and with
inadequate
compensation.
Resettled people have complained in petitions to Beijing.
Violence erupted
last August, when as many as 1,000 villagers displaced to the
central
province of Hunan scuffled with police while protesting the size
of
compensation payments.
Dam officials admit there have been problems. But they say
the payments,
which are administered by local governments and vary widely,
are enough to
buy a new home as big as the one lost. They say close supervision
by the
central government has kept corruption to a minimum.
And they say relocation has an additional benefit: the chance
to raise
living standards in a region where average incomes per person
are about $250
a year. In one fell swoop, they can move people now living in
primitive
conditions into modern apartments with hot showers and indoor
toilets.
``The dam has brought inconveniences, but it has also brought
money to a
poor region that would never have been able to attract it otherwise,''
said
Wang Jiazhu, deputy general manager of the China Yangtze Three
Gorges
Project Development Corp., the state-owned company building the
dam.
Ask those who have already been moved into the new housing
projects, and
they agree their new apartments are more comfortable. But they
also tell of
dysfunctional communities that threaten to become slums under
the weight of
widespread unemployment and a painful sense of loss.
Qin, the 30-year-old restaurant owner, and her husband, Qin
Wanyun, have a
5-year-old son and received $1,375 in resettlement compensation.
They spent that - plus their entire $750 savings - to buy
a modern
two-bedroom apartment in Longbao, a housing project 40 minutes
outside their
former home of Wanzhou, a city in the central region of Chongqing.
Qin, who had been forced to abandon a thriving restaurant,
opened a new one.
She named it Wanyun after her husband. But she doesn't earn enough
even to
pay its monthly rent of $18.
Her family has run out of money, and her husband hasn't found
work since
getting laid off last year from a state-run plastics factory.
``There's no way to make a living here,'' her husband said.
The hardships of relocation fall even harder on older people,
especially in
rural areas where family histories stretch back generations.
Residents of Shibao, a five-hour boat ride up the Yangtze
from Wanzhou,
boast that the village of gray-brick homes and shops was founded
1,000 years
ago.
They complain bitterly that compensation of about $1,250 per
family isn't
enough to buy a good-sized home in the new housing projects.
They also worry about losing the close-knit community along
Shibao's
cobblestone streets that has supported them their entire lives.
``I don't want to leave these streets,'' said 48-year-old
shopkeeper Qin
Quehua. ``This is my world.''
AP-NY-01-20-02 1203EST
Copyright 2002 The Associated Press.
===================================================+
Date: Monday, January 21, 2002
6:56 PM
Subject: AP: Former Gov. Fannin remembered as 'a visionary'
[Fannin was governor during construction of Glen Canyon Dam...]
Monday, January 21, 2002
Former Gov. Fannin remembered as 'a visionary'
By FOSTER KLUG
Associated Press Writer
01/18/2002
PHOENIX -- Former Arizona Gov. and U.S. Sen. Paul Fannin was
remembered
Thursday as a visionary, a gentle statesman and a political mentor.
Fannin, who helped pass legislation vital for developing the
Central Arizona
Project, died Sunday in Phoenix. He was 94.
"He was a visionary," said Gov. Jane Hull. "When
I heard of his passing, I
thought, there goes a true gentleman, a true hero, and one of
our greatest,
gentlest ... statesmen."
Hull said that of all Fannin's political accomplishments,
he told her he was
most proud of creating the organization that eventually became
the
Arizona-Mexico Commission.
U.S. Sens. Jon Kyl and John McCain were among the 450 people
who attended
Fannin's funeral at All Saints Episcopal Church. The two Republicans
both
called Fannin a mentor, saying he backed them during their first
congressional campaigns.
"In the 20 years, since, I never stopped feeling grateful
and honored that
this great man saw fit to take a chance on me," said McCain.
"It was a
privilege to have known him."
Fannin was a political unknown when he defeated Democrat Robert
Morrison,
then Arizona's attorney general, in the 1958 gubernatorial race.
He served
until 1964 when he became a U.S. senator and stayed in that office
until
1977.
Some friends say Fannin often shied away from credit for his
many
accomplishments.
However, he co-sponsored a bill that helped develop the CAP
-- a 300-mile
canal that delivers Colorado River water to homes in Phoenix
and Tucson.
He also championed right-to-work legislation.
"His work was, in many respects, so very, very important,
and yet often
unheralded," Kyl said. "But that was Paul Fannin --
decent, modest, sincere,
humble and hardworking and totally honest -- a genuine public
servant."
"Dad was so humble that he would be amazed that all of
you were here today
to honor him," said Fannin's son, Robert, an attorney and
chairman of the
Arizona Republican Party.
Fannin's wife of 67 years, Elma, died last year. He is survived
by his four
children, nine grandchildren and nine great-grandchildren.
© 2000-2002 Arizona Daily Sun
===================================================+
Date: Monday, January 21, 2002
6:56 PM
Subject: Auburn Journal: Doolittle sees dam stances as
defining issue in District 4 race
January 15, 2002
Doolittle sees dam stances as defining issue in District 4
race
By Gus Thomson
Auburn Journal Staff Writer
Political experience, success in Washington on behalf of District
4 voters
and an unwavering conservative Republican philosophy are key
reasons U.S.
Rep. John Doolittle, R-Rocklin, said he should be returned to
office.
Facing a challenge in the March 5 Republican primary from
Auburn urologist
Bill Kirby, Doolittle said his opponent's opposition to the Auburn
dam could
be a defining issue n both in Placer County and in the north
state, where
actions by extreme environmentalists have crippled that region's
forest
economy.
"He's aligned himself with the extreme environmentalists
opposing the dam
and that will be politically fatal," Doolittle said.
Doolittle, who turned 51 on Oct. 30, served in the state Senate
from 1981 to
1990 before moving on to Washington. The 4th District he has
represented
since then cuts a wide swath through rural Northern California,
taking in El
Dorado and Placer counties. But it has shifted even farther northward
with
redistricting. Added to the district are Nevada, Sierra, Plumas,
Lassen,
Butte and Modoc counties.
Doolittle said that with the exception of 30,000 voters in
Butte County, he
has represented as state senator and congressman all of the areas
that have
come into his district. Many areas were marginally Republican
when
boundaries were shifted 10 years ago but have grown in GOP strength
because
of forest policies backed by extreme environmentalists that have
devastated
local economies, he said.
"I know the issues ? and things have only gotten worse
in the last 10
years," Doolittle said. "They need an advocate."
Kirby's assertion that he has never carried Nevada County
is incorrect,
Doolittle said.
"He likes to paint this picture that I'm so weak but
he's flat out wrong,"
he said.
Doolittle said he took Nevada County during the 1984 and 1988
state Senate
elections and lost by less than 150 votes running for Congress
in 1990 when
the county's Republican stronghold wasn't included.
Doolittle said he has never met Kirby but in the three months
since he
announced his candidacy, knows him as a challenger who has staked
out some
foolish political turf.
"This man is very quick to make outlandish assertions,
most of which are
without foundation," Doolittle said. "He proclaimed
that he was going to
raise $500,000 before the end of the year and apparently hasn't
raised
$5,000. It's one thing to make assertions and it's another to
follow
through."
Kirby's Auburn dam stance will hurt the challenger's chances,
he said.
Doolittle has been Congress' most active voice calling for a
multipurpose
dam at Auburn. Polling has consistently shown that people in
Sacramento as
well as El Dorado and Placer counties support construction of
the dam, he
said.
"The Auburn dam is critical to the future of this region,"
Doolittle said.
"That alone I hope would be a defining issue between by
opponent and me."
Close to two-thirds of the area's population support a dam
at Auburn and
Kirby has offered no constructive alternative, Doolittle said.
Doolittle said he'll oppose a new plan being touted by the
Sacramento Area
Flood Control Agency to seek $500 million in the Water Resources
Development
Act bill to raise Folsom Dam by seven feet. The improvements
wouldn't give
Sacramento protection against a 500-year flood event, he said.
The estimate
is protection against a 1-in-250-years flood. Raising Folsom
Dam wouldn't
address future water and hydroelectric energy issues, he added.Kirby
supports raising Folsom Dam levels.
"We'll still need the Auburn dam but they will have squandered
a vast amount
n hundreds of millions of dollars building an inadequate solution,"
Doolittle said.
Doolittle added that the reservoir a multipurpose dam would
create would
prove a recreational boon to the Auburn area.
"The opposition to the dam by that phony SBC (Sierra
Business Council) is
pathetic," he said. "Any rafting business would be
dwarfed by the business
that would be created from having a large reservoir."
Doolittle said claims by Kirby that the congressman's lengthy
political
career is akin to being on political welfare are ones liberal
democrats
usually use when they attempt to unseat a Republican.
"When Ronald Reagan served eight years as California
governor and eight
years as U.S. president, I never heard that claim but it's the
same
situation," Doolittle said. "The 12 years in Congress
have been very
valuable years. They've given me experience and ultimately prime
committee
assignments which have enabled me to do things for our district."
Doolittle has listed 30 separate projects totaling $41 million
he says he
has successfully secured funding for during the just-completed
107th
Congress's first session. They include $1 million for Placer
County public
safety communications upgrades, $850,000 for the Placer County
Wastewater
Facility, and $4 million for a Sacramento River water diversion
strategy
that could bring water to western Placer County.
Doolittle also is critical of Kirby's assertion that he's
is an absentee
congressman who doesn't spend enough time in his district to
get a feel for
issues. Kirby said he'll take the "red-eye" flight
back to California on
weekends.
"I think the people in the district know I've performed
for the district,"
he said. "It has vital needs and I'm meeting them."
With a staff that covers the district, Doolittle said that
he follows the
"Ronald Reagan approach" by delegating authority.
"The only thing that counts is what you can do in Washington,"
Doolittle
said. "As a U.S. representative, you go to Washington, you
vote on things
and you work in government. I'm not going to waste taxpayers'
money flying
back and forth every single weekend. What's that going to do
for anybody?"
===================================================+
Date: Monday, January 21, 2002
6:56 PM
Subject: Auburn Journal: Oller drops Auburn dam bond bill
January 14, 2002
Oller drops Auburn dam bond bill
By Gus Thomson
Auburn Journal Staff Writer
State Sen. Rico Oller, R-San Andreas, has abandoned a drive
for a bill to
put Auburn dam funding on a statewide ballot.
A spokesman for Oller said Monday that the votes necessary
to move it out of
the senate Agriculture and Water Resources Committee never surfaced.
Oller had dusted off the long-dormant funding proposal for
building the dam
last year, using the state's energy crisis as a potential opening
for
discussion with other legislators. Various legislators have proposed
putting
the question of general obligation funding for the dam to a statewide
vote.
When he announced the bond bill drive last February, Oller said
the dam's
construction promised energy generation gains as well as water
storage and
flood protection.
Unsuccessful in a bid this past summer to get the bill out
of committee,
Oller's decision surfaces a day before the Agriculture and Water
Resources
Committee was scheduled to take it up.
Patrick Bergin, Oller press secretary, said that when the
senator decided to
bottle up the bond bill in committee last June and make it a
two-year bill,
he did so with the understanding that chairman Jim Costa, D-Fresno,
and Mike
Machado, D-Sacramento, would work with him to improve the bill.
"They never
suggested anything," Bergin said. "They never gave
us any ideas on
improvements."
Auburn dam opponents, like Auburn's Protect American River
Canyons, contend
any energy or water storage benefits wouldn't be advantageous
enough to
renew construction on the long-delayed dam project on the American
River.
Tim Woodall, Protect American River Canyons president, said
Monday that
Oller's inability to win support for the dam bill shows the resolve
to build
the dam is low in Sacramento as well as Washington, D.C.
A multimillion dollar Auburn dam is expected to cost about
$2 billion.
"Sen. Oller's inability to generate support for his Auburn
dam bill
demonstrates that the state Legislature, like the U.S. Congress,
recognizes
a dam is not needed for flood control, and that any water supply
or power
benefits it would provide are outweighed by its huge price tag
and the
environmental destruction it would cause," Woodall said.
One of the main selling points for the bill last February
was the need for
more energy within the state, Bergin noted. At the time, rolling
blackouts
were causing major concerns and energy bills were skyrocketing.
Oller
estimated that 300,000 customers could have their power needs
served by the
dam. "He wanted to go forward but the votes weren't there,"
Bergin said.
Dropping the bond bill doesn't mean Oller is giving up on
eventual
construction of an Auburn dam, even with a proposal to increase
flood
protection to 250-year levels by raising Folsom Dam 7 feet in
height. The
multipurpose dam would protect the Sacramento area from a
once-every-500-years flood event.
"Sen. Oller has said the Auburn dam is the way to go
and he's going to keep
saying that until people keep listening," Bergin said.
===================================================+
Date: Monday, January 21, 2002
6:56 PM
Subject: AZ Daily Sun: Canyon recreation planning revived
Monday, January 21, 2002
Canyon recreation planning revived
By ANNE MINARD
Sun Staff Reporter
01/18/2002
Jake Bacon/Arizona Daily Sun File Photo Local river guide
Ken Baker guides
the tiller of a 40 horsepower outboard motor on a commercial
river trip in
1997. After years of legal pressure from boating and environmental
groups,
the National Park Service has agreed to return to its work of
revamping
recreation along the Colorado River corridor in Grand Canyon
National Park.
A settlement filed in U.S. District Court Thursday restarts
planning
processes for the Colorado River and surrounding land in the
Grand Canyon
National Park. It also clears the way for the public to help
decide on the
future of air tours over the Canyon and how river use will be
divided
between private, non-motorized boaters -- who must now wait at
least 10
years for a slot on the river -- and commercial motorized rafters.
The settlement directs park personnel to oversee a public
planning process
for the 277 miles of the Colorado River and 1.1 million surrounding
acres in
the park. That process had been on hold since 1999, when former
park
superintendent Rob Arnberger suspended work on a revised Colorado
River
management plan.
At the time, Arnberger said the park's hands were tied until
Congress
established wilderness areas in the park. Any wilderness decision
would
still be in the hands of Congress -- but the Park Service doesn't
need a
wilderness designation to manage recreation on the river, even
if it
involves restrictions on motorized travel.
Park Superintendent Joe Alston said Thursday that there were
also funding
issues when the park was trying to address the management plan
before -- but
those have been resolved through an additional revenue stream
from
commercial outfitters, who put money into an account in lieu
of franchise
fees. That money has been permanently transferred to government
accounts, so
it can be used to fund the public input process without bias
concerns,
Alston said.
"I think it's a real positive thing," he said of
the settlement. "I
understand the frustration of my predecessor, but I look forward
with some
trepidation to moving forward with the process."
Plaintiffs -- including the Flagstaff-based Grand Canyon Private
Boaters'
Association, the National Parks Conservation Association and
others -- said they sued because cutting off the negotiation
process
effectively cut off public input into changes in the management
of the river
and surrounding wilderness areas. The suit was filed in February
2000.
Shortly afterward, the Grand Canyon River Outfitters intervened
to protect
the interests of commercial outfitters, who want the corridor
to remain open
to motorized use.
People on all sides of the suit are calling Thursday's settlement
a
"win-win" situation.
"I think we certainly feel very good about the agreement,
not only for the
parties but for the public as well," said Mark Grisham,
executive director
of the Outfitters' Association.
Added Willie Odem, former president of the Private Boaters'
Association:
"The settlement is a victory for all people who care about
the Grand Canyon.
It allows the public to regain their voice concerning its future.
The settlement directs the park to reopen a 1989 management
plan for the
corridor within four months, to spell out how it will comply
with the
National Environmental Policy Act by 2004, and -- after it decides
how to
manage the corridor -- to restart revisions on a 1988 Backcountry
Management
Plan.
The process will include at least four public meetings --
one each in
Flagstaff, Phoenix, Salt Lake City and Denver.
For the plaintiff groups and the outfitters, tough decisions
about the
Colorado River still lie ahead -- specifically, whether motorized
boats will
be allowed to remain on the Colorado River and how time on the
river will be
divvied up between whitewater rafters and commercial boaters.
But both groups agreed even while settlement discussions were
under way that
it was time to let those issues come to light.
"One of the things that led to the agreement is the sense
that it's time to
tackle these issues," Grisham said. "Yes, there are
some difficult issues
and some controversial things to deal with, but everyone feels
we need to
get through that."
Outfitters say they need motors to ease congestion and to
give time-strapped
passengers a chance to see the entire stretch of river in a week,
half the
time required for making the trip in an oar boat.
But representatives of other user groups say they seek a quiet
experience in
the Grand Canyon, far from the din of motors. They've wasted
no time in
campaigning for a Colorado River corridor without motorized boats.
"The impact of commercial motorized trips through the
Canyon is a serious
concern that affects both the availability and quality of float
trips for
the public," David Jenkins, a program director with the
American Canoe
Association, said Thursday. "We expect the Park Service
to undertake an open
planning process that legitimately addresses this issue and takes
public
sentiment into account."
Jason Robertson, access director for American Whitewater,
said the
settlement will give citizens "a fair shot at a self-guided
wilderness-quality float trip through the Grand Canyon."
On the issue of users rights, whitewater enthusiasts have
long complained
that waiting lists to float or paddle the river are too long.
River permits
currently favor 16 commercial outfitters with 70 percent of the
permits.
"I got on a list in 1990 in graduate school," said
Odem. "I didn't launch my
trip until nine years later, in 2000."
He said the list is now more than twice as long as it was
in 1990, "which
tells me I have a 20-year wait." The growing list contains
more than 6,500
names.
Grisham has said he agrees the question of use allocation
is a difficult
one.
"As of now, we don't believe the justification exists
to re-allocate
commercial days to the non-commercial sector," he said.
For now, that question will remain in the balance while the
park takes its
very first steps in the planning process: to determine how many
users of any
kind the resources along the Colorado can support.
Reporter Anne Minard can be reached at aminard@azdailysun.com
or 556-2253.
© 2000-2002 Arizona Daily Sun
===================================================+
Date: Monday, January 21, 2002
6:56 PM
Subject: Boyden appointed new SITLA director (8/10/01)
"Before working for the Attorney General's Office, Boyden
was in private law
practice where he gained experience negotiating and litigating
the
establishment of water rights and tribal lands for the Ute, Zuni,
and Hopi
Tribes."
[Stephen Boyden is the son of John Boyden of Black
Mesa mine infamy!]
http://www.utahtrustlands.com/news/trustlands_news/press_details.asp?ID=33
For Immediate Release
Contact: Dave Hebertson (801) 538-5102
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NEW TRUST LANDS DIRECTOR APPOINTED
Friday, August 10, 2001
The state of Utah School and Institutional Trust Lands Administration
has a
new Director. The Board of Trustees named Stephen G. Boyden of
Salt Lake
City to lead the agency.
Boyden has extensive experience in Utah's Attorney General's
office as an
Assistant Attorney General. He will leave that position to join
the Trust
Lands Administration. Most recently as Assistant Attorney General,
he has
been managing litigation and settlement negotiations with the
federal
government on R.S. 2477 roads. He has also been involved in conceptualizing
and negotiating landmark legislation for the exchange of Utah
school trust
lands and federal lands.
"We are delighted to have a person of the quality and
integrity of Steve
Boyden come to the Trust Lands Administration," says Board
Vice-chair Lonnie
Bullard. "He has substantial experience in land matters
around the state of
Utah and will lead the agency to the next level."
Before working for the Attorney General's Office, Boyden was
in private law
practice where he gained experience negotiating and litigating
the
establishment of water rights and tribal lands for the Ute, Zuni,
and Hopi
Tribes.
Boyden will start as Director of the agency on September 4,
2001. The School
and Institutional Trust Lands Administration manages 3.5 million
acres for
the benefit of Utah's schools and other public institutions.
===================================================+
Date: Monday, January 21, 2002
7:28 PM
Subject: CortezJ: County turns thumbs down on public-lands
fees
County turns thumbs down on public-lands fees
January 15, 2002
By Gail Binkly
Journal Managing Editor
"To charge the casual user I think is absurd."
-Commissioner Gene Story
Saying they oppose the proliferation of fees on public lands,
the Montezuma
County commissioners voted 2-1 Monday to adopt a resolution opposing
the
Recreational Fee Demonstration Program adopted by Congress in
1996.
Montezuma County became the eighth county in Colorado to adopt
such a
resolution, according to representatives of the Western Slope
No-Fee
Coalition, who took their case to the board Monday.
The fee-demo program, which was recently extended until 2004,
made major
changes in fee policies on public lands, the representatives
explained. It
allowed four agencies - the U.S. Forest Service, BLM, U.S. Fish
and Wildlife
Service, and National Park Service - to choose 100 sites apiece
at which
they would implement the program.
The individual sites were then allowed to keep most or all
of the fees they
collected rather than throwing them back into the general fund.
That way,
the monies could be used directly to benefit each area by funding
such items
as road improvements, refurbished facilities and interpretive
sites.
As a result, fees were raised sharply at many areas that were
already
charging them, such as national parks. That has proven less controversial
than the implementation of new fees at other areas where entrance
had always
been free, such as BLM and national-forest sites.
"To charge the casual user I think is absurd," said
Commissioner Gene Story.
"When the Forest Service needs more money, the Congress
has the obligation
to provide it. The small amount of money they're going to collect
in fees is
not going to make a bit of difference."
But Commissioner Kelly Wilson, who cast the dissenting vote,
said such fees
are needed. "With the political situation and the lack of
funds, my
inclination is that users should pay. I'm not sure how the Anasazi
Heritage
Center would stay open if there weren't fees."
The Heritage Center is one of two fee-demo sites in Montezuma
County right
now, according to coalition representative Kitty Benzar of Durango.
The
center used to be free; now it charges $3 for admission except
during winter
months, when it is still free.
The other site is Mesa Verde, which joined the program so
it could retain
the fee monies. It has since raised its admission price and added
some new
fees for tours, Benzar said.
Hovenweep National Monument, just across the Utah border,
is also part of
the program and has gone from being free to charging $6 for entry.
Another formerly free site in the fee-demo program is Yankee
Boy Basin, a
high-elevation area near Ouray. The Forest Service has implemented
differing
admission fees for vehicles, mountain bikes, motorcycles and
ATVs, but has
met with considerable resistance, Benzar said. Estimates of compliance
with
the fees range from 25 to 60 percent, she said.
The national parks, and museums such as the Heritage Center,
aren't the
coalition's main concern, she said. Rather, the group is worried
that more
and more fees will be charged on BLM and Forest Service land
- particularly
since Congress has lifted the cap on the number of fee-demo sites.
"We're not storming the doors of the museum and demanding
free entry," she
said.
"Museums have traditionally charged fees. But what's
going to happen next is
the Forest Service is going to start charging to park at a trailhead
and
hike in the forest, or the BLM will charge you to hike into Sand
Canyon,
just to do any of these non-consumptive activities on land that
we the
people own."
Rudy Ortiz of Cortez, another member of the coalition, said
such fees would
hurt visitation. "This county can't afford to lose tourist
money by this
kind of an action."
Another coalition member, Jan Holt of Durango, said her concern
was that
"people who are low-income can't do the most basic things,
like go to a
trailhead and walk with their kid. To not be able to access their
public
lands at all is a shame."
Benzar said the San Juan National Forest has been loath to
adopt such fees
but will now face increasing pressure to do so. "It will
be helpful to them
if they know how the counties feel," she said.
She said state Rep. Mark Larson (R-Cortez) opposes the fee-demo
program. The
county commissions in Gunnison, Hinsdale, Mineral, Rio Grande,
Saguache, San
Juan and San Miguel counties in Colorado have adopted resolutions
opposing
it, as have the town councils of Creede, Ophir and Silverton.
Colorado has more counties and cities that have passed an
anti-fee
resolution than any other state, she said, but some other states'
legislatures have gone on record against the program while Colorado's
has
not.
Because it was begun as a demonstration project rather than
a permanent one,
Congress has never held hearings on the topic, Benzar said. "Now
it's been
extended to 2004 and there's still no real evaluation and no
real end in
sight."
She said, as the program grows, Congress' allocations to public-lands
agencies shrink accordingly. "For every dollar of fees they
collect, they
cut a dollar from the budget," she charged.
Don Foth of Cortez, a retired Forest Service employee in the
audience,
agreed, saying public lands "should be funded for the basics
through the
national system."
Wilson said he was concerned that, as remote areas are publicized
and see
increasing numbers of visitors, they will need more money. He
cited Sand
Canyon, part of the new Canyons of the Ancients National Monument,
as an
example. "What a total disaster since so many people started
using it," he
said. "There used to be one partial trail there - now it's
five or six."
But Story and Commissioner Kent Lindsay said they were tired
of public-lands
agencies improving sites and then complaining that they didn't
have money to
operate them.
"When you build monumental parking lots and entrances,
you're saying, 'Here
we are! Come visit!'" said Story. "Then they say, 'Wait
a minute, how are we
going to take care of this?'"
Lindsay agreed. "They go by the theory: 'If we build
it, they will come and
we can charge them for it'," he said.
Benzar said the commissioners, at a meeting in September,
had said the fee
program was no different than the county charging to use the
fairgrounds.
But there is a difference, she said.
"When someone pays a fee to use a campground, they're
getting exclusive use
of it," she said. "When someone pays to use the fairgrounds
for a special
event, they're getting exclusive use. That's not what fee demo
is about.
It's more like if you wanted to take your kid to the fairgrounds
one day and
play catch, you would have to pay a fee.
"Fee demo charges to use picnic tables, to drive on scenic
roads, to go and
hike. It's a very insidious program and it's becoming more and
more
entrenched."
Copyright © 2002 the Cortez Journal.
===================================================+
Date: Monday, January 21, 2002
6:56 PM
Subject: Desert Sun: Norton focuses on energy, Salton
Sea and tribal rights
Norton focuses on energy, Salton Sea and tribal rights
By Benjamin Spillman
The Desert Sun
January 19th, 2002
http://www.thedesertsun.com/news/stories/local/1011405041.shtml
The barren, wind-swept San Gorgonio Pass and the lush shade
of the Indian
Canyons provided contrasting backdrops for the first official
to the
Coachella Valley by Interior Secretary Gale A. Norton on Friday.
During her daylong tour of the Coachella Valley, Norton discussed
renewable
energy with a windmill developer, preservation of the Salton
Sea with the
valley's congressional representative and respect for tribal
rights with a
leader of the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians.
"Everybody is going to hear me talking about this place
for awhile," Norton
told Agua Caliente Chairman Richard Milanovich during a hike
through Andreas
Canyon.
At her first stop, Norton toured the wind farms near Interstate
10 with Mike
Azeka, president of Sea West, one of the firms that operates
the turbines.
Permits: There she announced a proposal to speed up the permitting
process
for alternative energy projects on government land.
"Our energy security is an important part of our national
defense," she
said. "We will be able to make more renewable energy available."
Later, Norton, Milanovich Rep. Mary Bono, R-Palm Springs,
toured the Indian
Canyons with an entourage of about 50 staffers, officials and
media as part
of a discussion about the Santa Rosa and San Jacinto Mountains
National
Monument.
Before the tour, Norton praised the Bureau of Land Management,
the U.S.
Forest Service, the tribe and local governments for working together
to
create the monument through congressional action instead of executive
order.
But by twilight as the group entered the mouth of Andreas Canyon
Norton was
clearly more captivated by the rushing water, palm oasis and
sheer canyon
walls than the political history of the monument designation.
Politics
Between Milanovich's stories on the cultural history of the
Agua Caliente
and lessons on the monument's unique ecosystem by monument advisory
board
member Buford Crites, there was still time for politics during
the hike.
At one point Milanovich spoke directly with Norton about efforts
to
restructure the Bureau of Indian Affairs. Many tribes are wary
of a Norton
proposal to split the agency and create a Bureau of Indian Trust
Assets
Management.
The proposal is in response to a judicial order to Interior
to eliminate the
mismanagement of more than 300,000 Indian trust fund accounts.
Tribal leaders want to ensure that the BIA remains strong
because the agency
represents the "government-to-government" relationship
between tribes and
the federal government.
"They have been going too fast," Milanovich said
of Interior, echoing the
complaints of many tribal leaders who attended a meeting Thursday
in San
Diego to propose alternatives. "Is this another step for
the termination
process to begin?"
However, the tribal chairman later stepped in as Norton was
speaking to
reporters and praised her for having, "taken positive steps"
in recognizing
a 24-member task force of tribal leaders who are drafting alternatives
to
the original plan.
Bono was pleased with the outcome of Norton?s visit. It was
the first
meeting of the two women and Bono's first opportunity to discuss
a proposal
by Imperial Irrigation District to transfer water to San Diego
and the
Coachella Valley that would dramatically shrink the Salton Sea.
If the plan
goes through, Bono fears fish kills and the dry sea bed could
bombard the
valley with unpleasant smells and air pollution.
"If we have to live with that stench more often than
we do what will that do
for our businesses and our real estate values," Bono said.
She described the
visit as an opportunity to make Norton personally aware of the
situation and
ask her to act as a mediator between the political groups and
regions
competing for the water necessary to preserve fragile sea.
"One of the biggest challenges of the Interior Department
is trying to make
scarce water serve more people around the West," Norton
said. "It is very
controversial."
Benjamin Spillman can be reached at 778-4643 or by e-mail
at
Benjamin.Spillman@thedesertsun.com
===================================================+
Date: Monday, January 21, 2002
7:28 PM
Subject: Durango Herald: Farmers' 'life support' subsidies
Farmers' 'life support' subsidies
Durango Herald
Related stories:
Farming no easy task
Farm subsidies began in the 1930s, have grown to $32.2 billion
in 2000
January 13, 2002
photo: Leonard Atencio surveys 60 acres of land he owns southwest
of Breen
on Thursday that he has set aside in the federal conservation
reserve
program. About 75 percent ofall federal agriculture subsidies
flowing into
the county are used for the program, which aims to lift commodity
prices and
promote soil conservation and wildlife habitat. "What CRP
has meant to me is
a steady cash flow," Atencio said.
By Bob Schober
Herald Staff Writer
La Plata County farmers lean heavily on Uncle Sam to survive,
and they're
doing it by taking some of their land out of production.
Facing depressed commodity prices, lean moisture years and
rising expenses,
farmers and ranchers here have turned to federally subsidized
conservation
programs to a greater degree than their counterparts in any other
Colorado
county, federal data show.
U.S. Department of Agriculture statistics show that of the
$4.2 million in
federal agricultural subsidies flowing into La Plata County from
1996
through 2000, $3.1 million, or 75 percent, was paid as rent to
county
farmers and ranchers on land they had set aside for 10 years
through the
conservation-reserve program.
Statewide, just 18 percent of federal farm subsidies went
to payments in the
conservation-reserve program. Among the 50 states, only Alaska's
overall
percentage approaches La Plata County's, at 74 percent.
"La Plata County is definitely unique in this way,"
said Susanne Fleek,
director of governmental relations for the Washington, D.C.-based
Environmental Working Group, which compiled the USDA statistics
and
published them on the Internet.
To be sure, these payments do not mean La Plata County farmers'
overall
reliance on the government exceeds that of most farmers. The
conservation-reserve program is just one of several federal subsidy
programs, and its purpose fits well with farming here. The major
subsidies
are paid for crops not widely planted in water-lean La Plata
County, such as
wheat, corn, rice, sorghum, cotton, oats, rice and some oilseeds.
Of the county's 781 farms in 1997, only 34 planted wheat and
six planted
corn, while 449 raised livestock and poultry, according to the
USDA. Five
hundred twenty farms grew hay.
The federal government pays $40 per acre per year to farmers
and ranchers
who set aside eligible land for 10 years.
The attraction is obvious that's about what a farmer
in the area could
expect to gross per acre on wheat before expenses, said Keith
Dossey, county
executive director for La Plata and Archuleta counties of the
USDA Farm
Service Agency. The agency administers federal subsidies.
Without CRP, Dossey said, "We'd have guys who wouldn't
last a year."
As local farm incomes have plunged into red ink, the 16-year-old
CRP program
has become a bulwark, guaranteeing owners a steady income.
One such farmer is Leonard Atencio, a professor emeritus of
economics at
Fort Lewis College who farms 320 acres about five miles southwest
of Breen.
He has kept 60 acres in CRP since the program started.
"What CRP has meant to me is a steady cash flow,"
Atencio said Thursday
while strolling his parcel. "In good years, I could probably
make more than
CRP. But in the past few years, when there hasn't been much rain,
I probably
wouldn't have even planted."
The farm economy in La Plata County has hemorrhaged red ink
every year since
1993, racking up $9.8 million in losses despite $4.6 million
in federal
subsidies for crops, disaster relief and conservation reserves,
according to
the U.S. Commerce Department's Bureau of Economic Analysis.
Many farm families rely on nonfarm employment to keep their
way of life,
both here and across the country. The average U.S. farm household
in 1999
earned $6,359 from crops and livestock, but earned $57,988 in
off-farm
income, according to the Economic Research Service of the USDA.
"It's probably true that without the subsidies, agriculture
here would be in
serious trouble," said Vernon Lynch Jr., an economics professor
at Fort
Lewis College.
Dossey knows that first-hand. He grew up on a farm near Breen,
and he and
his wife farm 240 acres in the area. But both he and his wife
hold full-time
jobs.
"As long as we can work and support the farm, we'll keep
the farm," Dossey
said.
Dossey estimated that a farmer planting wheat on 100 acres
in western La
Plata County, where only rainfall and runoff provide moisture,
could expect
to earn about $3,528, including subsidies on that crop. That
is before
deducting the costs of seed, diesel fuel, fertilizer, amortization
of
equipment, and hauling the crop to an elevator.
And that doesn't include getting paid for the 100 hours of
labor from
pre-planting through harvesting.
"I can't make a living doing it; no one can, not at that
rate," Dossey said
in an interview in his Durango office. "If you pulled all
the subsidies out,
there'd be a lot of land for sale over there."
CRP was established by Congress in 1985 to control commodity
prices by
taking environmentally sensitive land out of production.
In 2000, the last year for which statistics are available,
La Plata County
had 144 recipients of CRP funds covering about 13,000 acres,
compared with
131 recipients of crop subsidies.
The top 10 recipients of crop, disaster-relief and conservation
subsidies
for land farmed in La Plata County for the 1996-2000 period all
had Hesperus
addresses. They accounted for $1.289 million, 30 percent of the
county
total.
Among them is state Sen. Jim Isgar, D-Hesperus, whose family
raises crops on
about 1,000 acres. Isgar received $168,576 in federal payments,
including
$90,650 for CRP payments on 500 acres. He also received $41,246
for crop
subsidies and $36,680 in disaster payments for crop losses.
The program benefits both farmers and the public, Isgar said.
"This serves to reduce production and also helps preserve
the land and
provides wildlife habitat," he said. "So I don't think
this should be called
a subsidy. It's more a lease of the land to the government."The
Environmental Working Group likes the program for that reason,
too, said
Fleek, the spokeswoman.
"We don't really consider this a subsidy program, because
the taxpayers are
getting soil conservation and wildlife management in return,"
Fleek said.
"And we think that's a good thing."
But the Cato Institute, a free-market think tank, criticizes
the
conservation-reserve program for distorting the market.
"The CRP creates deadweight losses, or economic waste,
by keeping productive
land out of use," said Chris Edwards and Tad DeHaven, fiscal
policy experts
at the institute, in a critique of the subsidy programs published
Oct. 18.
"A much simpler way to reduce overproduction would be
to simply eliminate
all government subsidies," they wrote.
That's not likely, at least anytime soon, local congressional
representatives said.
In December, the House approved a 10-year, $170 billion farm
aid bill. The
Senate will take up its version in January, and despite significant
differences in some details, the final bill will include more
money for the
CRP program, area congressional representatives said.
That's because farm-state legislators in both houses worry
the subsidy
program unfairly benefits agribusiness at the expense of the
family farms it
is intended to help, said U.S. Rep. Scott McInnis, R-Colo., whose
district
includes La Plata County.
McInnis, who voted against the House bill because of water
rights provisions
he disagreed with, said adding more funding for farm conservation
programs
is a way of restoring the balance.
"There's incredible political support of that,"
he said.
U.S. Sen. Wayne Allard, who visited Durango last week to announce
his
campaign for re-election, said he supports expanding the CRP
program for the
same reason.
"There's a lot of concern about subsidies, so having
more conservation
programs would help rural farmers," Allard said. "I
will continue to push
for more money for those programs."
That's good news to farmers like Atencio, who knows well the
challenges
facing farmers in La Plata County, where moisture can be very
dear.
In 2007, when his contract with CRP expires, Atencio might
plant dryland
alfalfa and perhaps some dryland wheat to feed his cattle, which
he pastures
on a different 320-acre parcel.
"CRP and the subsidies are life support for all of us.
And I hope nobody
cuts of the life support."
Contents copyright © 2002, the Durango Herald.
ON THE NET
For more data on farm subsidies in La Plata County and elsewhere,
go to
www.ewg.org .
TOP 10 RECIPIENTS - The top 10 recipients of crop, disaster-relief
and
conservation subsidies for La Plata County farmland from 1996
to 2000:
Name Location Amount Amt/conservation funds Percent of total
* Long Hollow Co., Hesperus $269,032.99 $106,678 39.6
* James R. Isgar, Hesperus $168,576.35 $90,650 53.7
* R. Alan & D. Kay Neal Family Trust , Hesperus $155,640.53
$98,299 63.1
* Kenneth D. Dossey, Hesperus $134,085.00 $133,849 99.8
* Mark Langford, Hesperus $130,553.23 $114,793 87.9
* George S. Oldfield, Hesperus $111,720.70 $102,929 92.1
* Mary Dossey, Hesperus $98,513.06 $83,799 85.0
* Jerry Baird, Hesperus $86,850.00 $82,083 94.5
* Riveredge Dairy and Farms,* Hesperus $69,097.00 $0.00 0.00
* Alfred L. Wood, Hesperus $65,005.76 $63,969 98.4
*Also received $112,971 in subsidies for land in San Juan
County, N.M.
Source: USDA data compiled by the Environmental Working Group
===================================================+
Date: Monday, January 21, 2002
7:28 PM
Subject: Environment draws coalition; 15 organizations
join to urge state to boost protection
Environment draws coalition
15 organizations join to urge state to boost protection
By Judd Slivka
The Arizona Republic
Jan. 17, 2002
The state's air, land, water and animals all need protecting,
a report
released Wednesday by a coalition of 15 environmental groups
says.
The air quality in Phoenix and Tucson still needs improvement.
Urban growth
needs to be checked. The Colorado River flowing through Grand
Canyon
National Park is in trouble.
And neither the governor nor the Legislature nor the state
Game and Fish
Commission is protecting endangered species, according to the
report.
The 42-page "State of Environment - Arizona" report
is the first time in the
state's history that so many environmental, public health and
public
interest groups have come together to issue such a statement.
It is a list
of causes that various interests have been championing for years,
and is
more of a compilation than a priority list.
About all the various environmental groups can agree on is
that there should
be more money for the environment. But the money isn't there,
given the
state's fiscal crisis that state legislators are discussing.
"I think we need to shift our thinking to not look at
the budget for just
next year and the year after," said Sandy Bahr, executive
director of the
Sierra Club's Grand Canyon Chapter. "We need to look in
the longer term.
It's short-term thinking that got us where we are."
The environmental groups do have a legislative priority of
keeping
taxpayer-approved Heritage Fund money going to the state Parks
and Game and
Fish departments. But after that, each group has such disparate
priorities
that there is little they can focus on.
Some of the issues facing Arizona, according to the report:
· The air quality in Phoenix and Tucson, while
improving, isn't healthy yet.
· Meaningful reform of the state's mining laws
is required.
· The Colorado River from Glen Canyon to Hoover
dams needs to be restored.
· Mass transit needs to have more support.
· Water conservation measures need to be better
addressed by local and state
governments.
Reach the reporter at judd.slivka@arizonarepublic.com or (602)
444-8097.
===================================================+
Date: Monday, January 21, 2002
7:28 PM
Subject: Farm subsidies began in the 1930s, have grown
to $32.2 billion in 2000
Farm subsidies began in the 1930s, have grown to $32.2 billion
in 2000
Related stories:
Farmers' 'life support' subsidies
Farming no easy task
January 13, 2002
By Bob Schober
Herald Staff Writer
Federal farm-support programs are at the heart of U.S. farm
policy, which
aims to protect the nation's food supply and preserve family
farming.
Farm subsidies began in the 1930s. Federal outlays are expected
to average
more than $15 billion annually between 1996 and 2002, with 2000
outlays at a
historic record of $32.3 billion.
In 1996, Congress attempted to wean farmers off subsidies
through enactment
of the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act, also nicknamed
the
"Freedom to Farm Act."
That law aimed to decrease subsidies over seven years and
to move farming
toward greater reliance on market supply and demand. No longer
would
payments be tied to market prices, to the planting of a specific
crop or to
annual cropland diversion requirements.
Instead, most eligible producers those with acreage
enrolled in the old
grains and cotton annual programs would sign "production
flexibility
contracts," entitling them to fixed, but generally declining,
annual
payments for seven years.
When commodity prices started to slide in 1998, Congress passed
the first of
four emergency supplemental appropriation bills that kept the
subsidies
flowing in ever greater amounts.
The spending continues unabated. The House in December passed
a 10-year,
$170 billion farm bill that included $120 billion for farm income-support
programs the 1996 Act was designed to eliminate. The Senate will
take up its
own version this month.
The trend toward ever-increasing subsidies has drawn criticism
from
free-market analysts at think tanks like the Cato Institute and
the Heritage
Foundation. They argue that the farm community is best served
by ending
subsidies.
The Environmental Working Group, a Washington, D.C.-based
policy think tank,
criticizes the subsidy program as too generous to large farms
and
agribusiness at the expense of smaller, family farms.
Only one-third of all U.S. farms those that grow any
of eight subsidized
crops will receive any funds, and among those, the largest
10 percent of
the farming operations will receive 67 percent of all subsidies
over the
life of the bill, the Environmental Working Group says.
Farmers have another option. In 1985, in an effort to help
control
agricultural commodity prices, Congress approved the conservation
reserve
program, which pays farmers for every acre of productive land
they set aside
and covers half the cost of preparing the ground to lay dormant
for 10
years.
The program was renewed in 1997 and is due to expire in 2007.
But the
program has become a darling of farm state representatives, who
see it as a
way of channeling more subsidies to smaller farmers.
Among the supporters are U.S. Rep. Scott McInnis, R-Colo.,
whose district
includes La Plata County, and U.S. Sen. Wayne Allard, R-Colo.
"Subsidies have little regard for farm size and need,
which leaves less
money for smaller family farms, which we have a lot of in Colorado,"
McInnis
said.
===================================================+
Date: Monday, January 21, 2002
6:56 PM
Subject: ImpValPress: EIR report: Limit water transfer
to 130,000 acre-feet - and fallow farmland
EIR report: Limit water transfer to 130,000 acre-feet - and
fallow farmland
By RUDY YNIGUEZ
Imperial Valley Press
Staff Writer
1/20/02
The best thing for the environment is that no water transfer
take place.
That's what the transfer draft environmental impact report,
released Friday,
says. Short of no transfer, the next best thing for the environment
is the
transfer be limited to 130,000 acre-feet, and that the transfer
impacts to
the Salton Sea be mitigated through fallowing of farmland, system
savings or
on-farm conservation, with the resultant water going to the sea.
The draft EIR will take several days to fully reach the public.
The document addressed the transfer of water from the Imperial
Irrigation
District to the San Diego County Water Authority.
The IID's two transfer negotiators said Saturday they have
not seen the
document.
"I hope it takes everything into consideration,"
said IID Division 3
Director Lloyd Allen.
Division 1 Director Andy Horne said he thought the draft would
be available
later this week.
"As soon as I get a copy I'll sit down and read it,"
he said.
Janice Collins, director of public affairs for the San Diego
County Water
Authority, said there were people reviewing the document Saturday.
"We're glad it's been released," she said, adding
it will allow the public
review process to begin, and the document's release is a required
milestone
of the so-called quantification settlement agreement.
The document lists four alternatives to what it calls the
transfer project,
or movement of 300,000 acre-feet of water out of the Imperial
Valley. The
water could go to San Diego - the best thing economically for
the Valley, it
says - or 130,000 to 200,000 could go to San Diego, and 100,000
to the
Coachella Valley Water District and/or the Metropolitan Water
District of
Southern California. Of the latter 100,000, the draft states
it would be
better if the water all went to MWD.
Under the transfer agreement, San Diego will pay market prices
for the
water. Under the QSA, which covers the third 100,000 acre-feet,
MWD would
pay more than Coachella.
The four alternatives are:
· no project, that is, no transfer.
· a transfer of no more than 130,000 acre-feet, using
on-farm conservation
only. The QSA would not be completed or implement. Environmental
effects on
the Salton Sea would be mitigated through fallowing. The definition
of
fallowing is "the nonuse of farmland for crop production
in order to
conserve irrigation water, on a short-term or long-term basis,"
the draft
states. This alternative includes sending water to the sea for
mitigation of
water lost to the sea from the transfer.
· a transfer of up to 230,000 acre-feet. Of that, 130,000
would go to San
Diego. The other 100,000 would go to Coachella and/or MWD. Under
this
scenario, the water would be saved on-farm through system savings
or
fallowing. Effects to the Salton Sea would be mitigated in the
previous
alternative.
· a transfer of up to 300,000 acre-feet only through
fallowing. The draft
recognizes that to use fallowing as a conservation method, the
IID/San Diego
agreement must be changed, as fallowing is prohibited under the
agreement.
The draft states the IID/San Diego agreement only prohibits
fallowing on the
first 200,000 acre-feet of water that could be transferred. It
also states
the QSA does not prohibit fallowing. The IID/San Diego transfer
agreement
states a minimum of 130,000 acre-feet of conserved water must
be from
on-farm conservation, and "the IID covenants and agrees
that fallowing will
not be a permitted water- conservation effort under its contracts
with its
contracting landowners."
The draft also includes the expected socioeconomic impacts
from the
transfer, including fallowing.
It states the best economic case is the water be conserved
using on-farm
methods. The draft includes which methods are authorized.
The socioeconomic impacts are:
· alternative one, no project, a continuation of existing
conditions,
including the historic variation in agricultural employment levels.
· alternative two, the transfer of only 130,000 acre-feet
using on-farm
conservation and system improvements. A net addition of 430 jobs
and an
increase in business output of $32.9 million with on-farm conservation
and/or system improvements.
This alternative would result in a loss of 290 jobs and a
reduction of
business output of $20 million, however, if fallowing were used
exclusively
for an inadvertent overrun condition.
This alternative would result in a loss of 750 jobs and a
reduction in
business output of $52 million if only fallowing were used to
mitigate the
Salton Sea.
· alternative three, a transfer of 230,000 acre-feet.
There would be an
addition of 660 jobs and an increase in business output of $51.2
million if
on-farm conservation and system improvements were used.
If fallowing exclusively were used for this alternative, there
would be a
net loss of 1,090 jobs and a business output reduction of $75.8
million.
This alternative would result in a loss of 750 jobs and a
reduction in
business output of $52 million if only fallowing were used to
mitigate the
Salton Sea.
· alternative four, 300,000 acre-feet transferred using
only fallowing.
There would be a net loss of 1,400 jobs - 2.8 percent of the
total jobs in
the county, and 12 percent of farm employment - and a business
output
reduction of $97.5 million. This alternative would result in
a loss of 750
jobs and a reduction in business output of $52 million if only
fallowing
were used to mitigate the Salton Sea.
The draft document states fallowing would provide some economic
benefits,
but "the beneficial effects are not large enough to totally
outweigh the
adverse effects of fallowing."
The draft also addresses environmental justice. It says there
are potential
effects on minority and low-income populations from alternative
three and
four.
"No tribal lands would be disproportionately affected
within (the IID water
service area and All-American Canal) subregion. However, farm
laborers could
be affected as a group by fallowing activities and on-farm irrigation
system
conservation measures, which would reduce the demand for farm
labor in some
areas," the draft states. "Under the worst case, up
to 50,000 acres could be
fallowed to provide conserved water for the transfer. Another
25,000 acres
could be fallowed to provide water for mitigation."
The document states neither state nor federal laws require
mitigation for
purely social or economic impacts unless there are related environmental
impacts.
The public has 90 days to comment on the document.
The draft EIR is available online at www.is.ch2m.com/iidweb/current
>>Staff Writer Rudy Yniguez can be reached at 337-3440.
===================================================+
Date: Monday, January 21, 2002
6:56 PM
Subject: Mining Company CEO: "Mining is part of the
'life cycle of the land'"
"Mining is a temporary use of the land, and if done properly,
we can
complete the life cycle of the land."
http://www.denverpost.com/cda/article/detail/0,1040,33%257E345193%257E36%257E%257E,00.html
A major miner of Colorado gold
Lone firm carries state tradition
By Steve Raabe
Denver Post Business Writer
Sunday, January 20, 2002 - Colorado's colorful gold-mining
legacy lives on
in the 21st century despite meager prices that have run off all
but the
biggest producer.
PHOTO: The mine's ore-hauling trucks, which cost $2.3 million
each and have
a capacity of 310 tons of ore, stand 24 feet high, 47 feet with
the bed in
the upright position. Each tire is 12 1/2 feet in diameter. Last
year, a
single company drove Colorado gold production to a post-war record,
using
techniques that would have amazed industry pioneers.
Diesel-powered behemoths now roar where lone prospectors once
chipped with
pickaxes at rich veins of gold. They are the constantly churning
machines of
the Cripple Creek & Victor Gold Mining Co.
The once-rollicking boomtown of Victor has devolved to a sedate
mountain
hamlet of 445 residents.
Yet gold still flows from the Cripple Creek mining district,
111 years after
prospecting cowboy Robert Womack ignited a gold rush that made
the western
flank of Pikes Peak the talk of the nation.
The talk is quieter now, unless it's from environmentalists
or mining
executives preparing to square off in court.
There's nothing quiet, however, about the 24-hour-a-day, 365-day-a-year
organized commotion rumbling from Colorado's only remaining major
gold mine,
the Cresson.
Cripple Creek & Victor's majority owner is AngloGold North
America, a
Denver-based operating unit of AngloGold Ltd., the world's largest
gold
producer.
Through Cripple Creek & Victor, AngloGold is the king
of Colorado gold
producers. Denver-based Newmont Mining, by virtue of its local
corporate
headquarters, may be the largest gold company here, but it has
no gold
production in the state.
AngloGold was enmeshed in a $5 billion battle that it eventually
lost to
Newmont to acquire Australia's Normandy Mining Ltd. But Newmont's
victory
won't affect AngloGold's dominance in Colorado.
"The Cresson mine is a significant producer of gold,"
said Stuart Sanderson,
president of the Colorado Mining Association. "It has set
(post-World War
II) records because of its modern mining methods."
Single-handedly, the mine's $70 million annual production
has elevated gold
to the No. 3 position in Colorado mining, behind coal and construction
materials such as sand, gravel and cement.
The Cresson uses high-volume, low-cost mining techniques that
enable it to
extract gold ore from vast open pits, despite gold prices that
have plunged
70 percent since hitting an all-time high of $850 an ounce in
1980.
At last year's average gold price of $270 per ounce, Cripple
Creek & Victor
grossed an estimated $70 million by producing about 260,000 ounces
of gold.
Imagine that amount visually: enough to lay a line of 650
gold bars spanning
the length of a football field and still have 34 bars left over.
Those
remaining 34 would be sufficient to pay most of Broncos running
back Terrell
Davis' $4.7 million base salary next year.
But at the site of the Cresson mine, there's not a gold nugget
to be found.
Virtually all of the gold is in the form of microscopic particles
locked
within volcanic rock formations. To unlock the hidden treasure,
the ore must
first be dug out in large chunks, crushed and then sprinkled
with a cyanide
solution to separate gold from ore.
The sight of massive trucks, power shovels and mechanical
crushers would
have astounded early prospectors, who found the Cripple Creek
district's
gold by digging narrow vertical shafts to reach rich underground
veins.
It may have been lonely, backbreaking work, but solitary miners
around the
turn of the century often found an ounce or two of gold in every
ton of ore
they dug.
By contrast, the Cripple Creek & Victor Gold Mining Co.
must blast, shovel
and process as much as 100 tons of ore to obtain an ounce of
gold. Even at
the most potent concentrations, the mine's gold yields itself
grudgingly at
the rate of 1 ounce per 12 tons of ore.
The low-grade ore means that Cresson must make up in sheer
volume what it
lacks in high quality.
Size and continuity are the keywords.
Ore-hauling trucks are sufficiently large to make mine visitors
gawk when
they see people standing in antlike proportions beside the vehicles.
Cresson general manager Ron Largent stands barely as high
as the truck's
wheel hub. The $2.3 million truck stands 24 feet high, 47 feet
with the bed
in the upright position.
Its six tires are each 121/2 feet in diameter. A replacement
tire costs
$25,000.
Most important, the vehicles have a capacity of 310 tons of
ore, compared
with earlier versions that carried 100 tons.
The larger loading capacity and a new ore-crushing facility
will allow the
mine to double its production by 2006.
AngloGold officials said buying the new trucks is a good investment
because
they boost capacity without adding to labor costs.
Women have priority for driving the larger and costlier trucks.
"Women
drivers are safer and easier on the machinery," said mine
spokeswoman Amy
Knous.
That's an important consideration when the trucks are run
continuously on
two 12-hour shifts per day, every day of the year.
"The way you become economical is to keep running and
not miss a beat,"
Largent said.
The mine, Teller County's largest private employer, uses 300
workers whose
wages range from $12 to $20 per hour, with an average of $16.50.
The mining process starts with 9,000 pounds of explosives
each day to blast
large rock formations. Shovels and loaders then scoop the gray
ore into
trucks, which unload their cargo at nearby crushing plants. The
3-foot
boulders are ground down to 11/2-inch pieces of rock.
Another set of trucks carries the rock to a huge pile, or
leach pad, where
rubber hoses pour a cyanide solution - 100 parts cyanide per
1 million parts
water - at a rate of 10,000 gallons per minute over the rocks.
The cyanide trickles down through the rocks, reacting with
the minute gold
particles and carrying them to the bottom of the pad where the
"pregnant
solution" is pumped to a plant that filters out the gold.
The gold particles, along with smaller amounts of silver,
are partly refined
into conical, 80-pound "buttons" that resemble huge
7-inch-high Hershey's
Kisses. The buttons then are sent to smelters in Massachusetts
and
Switzerland for complete refining and eventual sale to jewelry
makers and
industrial users.
Cripple Creek & Victor officials say they pay very close
attention to
environmental matters, especially in the areas of land reclamation,
prevention of cyanide leaks and monitoring of water discharges.
Environmentalists say the mine is not careful enough.
The Sierra Club and another advocacy group, the Mineral Policy
Center, have
filed two lawsuits in federal court alleging that the mine has
sent water
laden with dangerous metals and toxic chemicals into surrounding
creeks. The
groups also contend that the mine has not obtained permits for
some of its
water discharges.
"It's sort of a witches' brew of heavy metals and high
acid levels," said
Roger Flynn, an attorney for the plaintiffs. "We're saying
that the
discharges should be permitted, monitored and maintained at safe
levels."
Mine officials say discharge violations have occurred on only
a handful of
occasions when heavy rains and fast snowmelt sent unusually high
volumes of
water off the mine property. They say some of the toxic discharge
stems from
mine operations conducted decades ago on properties not owned
by Cripple
Creek & Victor.
Talks to settle the suits have been called off for lack of
progress.
AngloGold officials said they are strong backers of the International
Cyanide Management Code for Gold Mining, which seeks to implement
voluntary
guidelines for the safe use of cyanide leaching.
Jim Komadina, president and chief executive of AngloGold North
America, said
the Cresson mines regulation is some of the tightest in history
because the
permitting process was done shortly after the Summitville mine
disaster in
southwestern Colorado.
"All you can say is that is an aberration," Komadina
said of Summitville.
"Mining is a temporary use of the land, and if done properly,
we can
complete the life cycle of the land."
The company also is backing a gold-sector plan to boost the
industry's
retail marketing budget from $55 million to $200 million a year
by levying
fees of 30 cents on every ounce of mined gold.
AngloGold said it has spent millions of dollars in Teller
County
rehabilitating historic buildings and abandoned mine structures
to preserve
the mining heritage of the area.
"We've worked hard to understand the history of the area,"
Komadina said.
"It's one of Colorado's treasures."
===================================================+
Date: Monday, January 21, 2002
6:56 PM
Subject: Reuters: China blasts buildings, readies for
dam flooding
China blasts buildings, readies for dam flooding
BEIJING, Jan 20 (Reuters) - Chinese engineers blew up buildings
in a Yangtze
River town on Sunday, beginning a new phase in the world's biggest
water
control project, the flooding of the controversial Three Gorges
dam
reservoir.
Nearby, archaeologists cut away 1,000-year-old stone inscriptions
from
mountainsides prior to moving them to higher ground to escape
the rising
waters.
With much of the massive dam already built, Sunday's demolition
and
excavation kicked off what the official Xinhua news agency called
the
"urgent task" of clearing the reservoir bed for flooding,
slated to begin in
2003.
The 204 billion yuan ($25 billion) Three Gorges project, which
began
construction in 1993 and is due for completion in 2009, has been
fiercely
criticised both at home and abroad as impractical and an environmental
disaster.
China says the dam is needed to contain the Yangtze's devastating
annual
floods and to meet future power demand.
Critics say the project, first planned decades ago, is not
a practical
solution to either problem and could cause severe pollution and
silting by
slowing the river's flow.
Ahead of the demolition, in densely populated Fengjie town
near the city of
Chongqing, local television ran week-long programmes explaining
how the
explosions would be carried out.
"Local people said their normal life has not been affected
by the
explosions," Xinhua said on Sunday.
A total of 1.13 million villagers along the Yangtze are to
be resettled to
make way for the 600-km (365-mile) lake.
National television showed the destruction of the buildings,
including a
thermal power plant, its 50-metre (164-ft) smokestack and local
government
offices.
These were the first in a series of scheduled demolitions
to clear the
waterway for safe passage of ships after the area is flooded.
Water levels
are set to rise up to 175 metres (575 feet).
"Their demolition means the start of the large-scale
relocation of the
county," Xinhua said.
Dam officials will begin to let the water level rise next
year, filling a
reservoir that will ultimately cover 29 million square metres
of land, the
news agency said.
By 2009, 115 towns, 1,300 enterprises, 4,000 hospitals and
clinics, 40,000
tombs, 100 bridges and 2.87 million tonnes of garbage will be
submerged, it
said.
In preparation for flooding, 1,087 ancient relics are to be
moved.
Archaeological teams used diamond rope saws to cut off four stone
inscriptions dating back to the Southern Song Dynasty (1127-1279)
for
relocation down river.
Eight other inscriptions would be sealed and submerged and
reproductions
would join the other four, Xinhua said.
"We cannot afford to lose the heritage that constitutes
an important part of
Chinese culture and history," it quoted Lu Huijie, head
of the conservation
project, as saying.
The tomb of Liu Bei, king of the state of Shu about 1,700
years ago and a
central figure in the Chinese classic novel "Three Kingdoms,"
was located
near Fengjie. Xinhua did not say if it would be relocated.
($1 - 8.28 yuan)
08:24 01-20-02
Copyright 2002 Reuters Limited.
===================================================+
Date: Monday, January 21, 2002
6:56 PM
Subject: Settlement Reached in Grand Canyon River Management
Litigation
[this is from the Grand Canyon River Outfitters Association,
an industry
group that represents the rafting companies who intervened in
the lawsuit by
the Grand Canyon Private Boaters Association against the Park
Service over
the issue of trip permit allocations for non-commercial boaters
in Grand
Canyon.]
----------
From: Grand Canyon River News Service <newsbulletins@gcroa.org>
Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2002 23:50:38 GMT
Subject: Settlement Reached in Grand Canyon River Management
Litigation
Settlement Reached in Grand Canyon River Management Litigation
Colorado River Management Planning to Resume
January 17, 2002
Dear Grand Canyon River News Subscriber:
The Grand Canyon River Outfitters Association is very pleased
to announce
that a voluntary, negotiated settlement has been reached between
the parties
in litigation concerning future National Park Service (NPS) planning
for the
management of the Colorado River within Grand Canyon National
Park.
Under the terms of the settlement agreement, the NPS will
immediately
restart work on the Colorado River Management Plan (CRMP) revision
process
first initiated in 1997, but suspended by the agency in February
of 2000.
There will be ample opportunity for public participation in this
process.
"The Grand Canyon's professional river outfitters feel
very good about this
agreement," said Mark Grisham, Executive Director of the
Grand Canyon River
Outfitters Association. "We're looking forward to tackling
longstanding
issues and finding solutions."
The CRMP is the official NPS planning document that governs
access to and
activities within the Colorado River corridor in Grand Canyon
National Park.
Under the terms of the settlement, a new Colorado River Management
Plan will
be implemented no later than December 31, 2004.
"It's time to move forward," said Grisham. "This
agreement is an example of
what can be accomplished through constructive discussion. We
hope the
pattern of respectful dialog and mutual consideration can continue
throughout the planning process."
The Grand Canyon river experience is one of the most renowned
and sought
after visitation opportunities available within the entire National
Park
system. Demand for the experience far outstrips the available
supply, which
is limited by the NPS to protect the resource and the quality
of the trip.
Each year, roughly 22,000 visitors enjoy a world class whitewater
river
adventure in this spectacular and unique area.
"While there are many difficult and potentially contentious
issues to
address, this agreement represents a solid beginning for a process
that will
require the continued good faith and constructive participation
of all the
concerned parties, and the public at large," said Grisham.
The central questions that the NPS and the public must answer
in the course
of the upcoming river management planning process include:
How can the resource best be protected and what is the appropriate
level of
visitor use for the Colorado River corridor within Grand Canyon
National
Park, given paramount resource protection requirements and very
high visitor
experience quality goals?
How should the recreational river use made available be apportioned
among
competing user groups, including those who seek the services
of a licensed
river outfitter and those who wish to self-outfit, or conduct
their own
private Grand Canyon river trip?
How should private river running permits be distributed? The
current
"waiting list" system has resulted in excessive and
highly unpopular wait
times for trip leaders seeking to obtain a permit for their private
party.
Should forced waits continue as the primary means used by the
NPS to ration
such permits, or is there a better way? The waiting list system
and its
attendant controversy are unique to the Grand Canyon. All other
permitted
rivers that support multi-day trips in the western United States
use a
lottery system to distribute private river running permits.
What is the appropriate spectrum and mix for the various river
trip types or
styles to be made available? To what extent should motorized
river trips
continue to be offered? Motorized trips have been publicly available
in the
canyon for over the past five decades. Three out of four of today's
professionally outfitted river trip participants choose the motorized
trip
option.
How should river trips be scheduled and otherwise directly
managed to
protect the resource and to produce the best possible on-river
experience
for the visiting public?
To view the text of the settlement agreement in its entirety,
please go here
<http://www.gcroa.org/Pages/settlementtext.htm> .
To view a fact sheet about the Grand Canyon River Outfitters
Association,
its members, and professionally outfitted Grand Canyon river
running, please
go here <http://www.gcroa.org/Pages/gcroa.htm> .
Broad citizen involvement is critical for the success of this
NPS public
planning process that will decide how the Colorado River within
Grand Canyon
National Park is managed for the next ten to fifteen years.
The Grand Canyon's professional river outfitters invite and
encourage you to
lend your voice to this important process. You can count on this
Grand
Canyon River News Service to bring you additional information
about your
opportunities to participate in the coming months.
Thank you.
This Grand Canyon river news update was brought to you by
the Grand Canyon
River Outfitters Association, a non-profit trade group whose
members include
the sixteen professional river outfitters who provide public
whitewater
rafting trips in Grand Canyon National Park. Formed in 1996,
GCROA works
with the public and the media to provide information and to answer
questions
about Grand Canyon river running and related issues. Please visit
www.gcroa.org for more information.
===================================================+
Date: Monday, January 21, 2002
7:28 PM
Subject: Silt threatens Lake Powell, lucrative rafting
industry
01.15.02
Silt threatens Lake Powell, lucrative rafting industry
By MICHAEL C. BENDER
The Daily Sentinel
Lake Powell is filling with sediment and soon will have to
be
decommissioned, according to a letter sent Monday from nine river
protection
and recreation groups to the National Park Service.
"This is the beginning of the end for Lake Powell,"
said John Weisheit,
Living Rivers conservation director. "People talk about
Lake Powell filling
with silt sometime in the future, but the future is now."
The river groups' letter was sent in response to a National
Park Service
redevelopment proposal for Hite Marina. The groups are asking
for the marina
project to be put on hold pending a study of sediment-caused
access
problems.
A spokeswoman for the Glen Canyon National Recreation Area
did not return
phone calls.
The river groups point to a "slimy muck that threatens
the environment and
the Colorado Plateau's multimillion-dollar recreation river-rafting
industry."
The letter says that access problems already exist at Clay
Hills Crossing
and that access to Hite Marina could begin to be curtailed by
sediment in
two years.
The letter also says that the park service is ignoring its
1979 General
Management Plan for Glen Canyon National Recreation Area.
That plan, the group says, "estimated that Hite Marina
would have to be
abandoned within 30 years because of sediment accumulation."
The silt, the groups say, has arrived ahead of schedule.
The groups say silt impacts are being felt downstream in the
Grand Canyon,
where in summer 2001 the Pearce's Ferry take-out was closed indefinitely
"due to thick layers of oozing sediment clogging the upper
reach of Lake
Mead Reservoir."
"Prudent management compels the park service to undertake
a comprehensive
study prior to investing more public funds on infrastructure
that sediment
deposition will ultimately render useless," Weisheit said.
The groups point out that they represent an industry that
predates the
reservoir and one that employs hundreds of people dependent on
maintaining
an open channel from the mouth of Cataract to the take-out at
Hite Marina
and from the lower San Juan to Clay Hills Crossing on the reservoir's
San
Juan arm.
"People have been using these rivers for recreation since
the 1920s," said
Bob Jones, owner of Tag-A-Long Expeditions, the oldest outfitting
company in
Moab.
"Something has to be done about this access problem at
Clay Hills and now I
am very worried that my business will be impacted by the problems
I see
coming for Hite Marina."
Sedimentation occurs in all reservoirs, but the problem at
Lake Powell is
particularly acute, the groups say.
"There's nothing much they can do but attempt to manage
this problem in the
near term," Weisheit said. "But in the long term, decommissioning
Glen
Canyon Dam is inevitable."
===================================================+
Date: Monday, January 21,
2002 6:56 PM
Subject: Utah's coal mines destroying dinosaur fossils
Jack Hatch, a safety engineer for a mine owned by Canyon Fuel
Co., said
seeing remains or footprints is so frequent it's usually not
even worth
noting.
"Honestly, from day to day we see so many of these things
we just continue
mining coal. It's so ordinary that people don't pay a lot of
attention to
it," he said.
____________________________________
Dinosaur Fans, Coal Mines in Harmony
By CATHERINE S. BLAKE
.c The Associated Press
PRICE, Utah (AP) - In this blue-collar mining town, the past
meets the
future in a 100 million-year-old layer of rock.
For the last century, central Utah has staked its fortune
on coal mining.
But buried within the coal are fossils - dinosaur tracks, fish,
bone
fragments - that could be the building blocks for a thriving
tourist
industry.
Without the mines these fossils would have gone undiscovered.
But the same
machines that uncover the fossils with one stroke can destroy
them with the
next.
That has led groups that want to protect the fossils to pursue
a delicate
truce with the coal companies and their miners.
"Think how powerful the energy industry is. There is
no way they are going
to stop a coal mine for a dinosaur bone," said Pam Miller,
assistant
director at Price's Prehistoric Museum. "I've never heard
anyone speak out
for preservation in coal mines. It's a can of worms no one wants
to get
involved in."
Mayor Joe Piccolo said he doesn't see any conflict between
paleontologists
chasing disappearing dinosaur remains and the lucrative and established
coal
industry, valued at $469 million.
Piccolo acknowledges coal's importance for Price's economy
but said attempts
at diversification could make tourism a significant piece of
the town's
future. Tourists spent $4.15 billion in Utah last year alone.
"The (coal) market is strong now, and there is quite
a resource still
underground here, but it's no longer the easy coal," Piccolo
said. "I see a
strong future for tourism in this area. The dinosaurs found here
are not
found anyplace else in the world."
Price, population 8,200, is nestled in the Wasatch Mountains
on windy U.S.
6, between Provo and Moab. Coal's influence can be seen everywhere,
from the
trains that rumble through town around the clock to miner motifs
that adorn
the College of Eastern Utah and the Carbon County courthouse.
Other old mining towns don't have to deal with any tension
between fossils
and coal. Throughout most of the rest of the world, the rock
that contains
coal is older or younger than dinosaurs, usually by millions
of years. But
in Utah and Colorado, dinosaurs lived and died directly on top
of marshy
bogs that nature hardened into coal about 100 million years ago.
"We have a problem in the West that doesn't exist anywhere
else - not the
East, not in England," said Don Burge, who for 40 years
has been director of
the museum.
Through patience and cooperation, Burge has built about 10
percent of the
museum around dinosaur tracks found in the roofs of coal mines.
The
footprints end up on top of coal seams because the dinosaurs
walked on land
that became the coal.
While dinosaur bones still are the museum's main draw, scientists
say tracks
are important because they show how prehistoric creatures moved.
Could they
run? Did their tails drag on the ground?
When Burge wants a rare dinosaur track, say a four- or five-toed
giant, he
puts an ad in the newspaper, appealing to coal miners who may
have dug them
out of the mine's roofs to display in the back yard as mementos.
Burge said he'd like to see more attention paid to the dinosaur's
history in
the area, but he's realistic about his chances.
"Yes, they should be protected, but it's a logistical
problem. How do you
inspect it? What agency wants to watch a coal mine?" Burge
said while
standing beside a skeleton of a Utahraptor, a dinosaur genus
he discovered
in 1991.
"My question is, what happens if a Tyrannosaurus rex
is found in one of
these coal mines?" he said. "I think even if it was
found on federal
property they still wouldn't stop."
So far the relationship between preservationists and the mines
has been
amicable. Burge said applying pressure wouldn't get him anywhere.
He's
worked hard to establish a positive rapport, and in turn the
mines'
employees call him if they find something baffling or potentially
important.
"You have to pay your dues," Burge said.
Jack Hatch, a safety engineer for a mine owned by Canyon Fuel
Co., said
seeing remains or footprints is so frequent it's usually not
even worth
noting.
"Honestly, from day to day we see so many of these things
we just continue
mining coal. It's so ordinary that people don't pay a lot of
attention to
it," he said.
That lack of attention hasn't been a problem so far, according
to Laurie
Bryant, the regional paleontologist for the federal government.
"We are aware of the tracks in coal mines, and there
are probably a large
number of them, but honestly we haven't gotten any requests to
study them in
place or to open up an old mine," she said. "Our understanding
is that so
far there hasn't been a lot of interest."
Bryant and others said the area is practically a graveyard
of prehistoric
creatures, so paleontologists never go wanting for fossils to
study.
However, many scientists don't know what they're missing in
coal mines
because they aren't down there, said Joanna Wright, assistant
professor
specializing in dinosaur tracks at the University of Colorado
in Denver.
"It would be hard to have paleontologists on site because
they couldn't be
everywhere at once," she said. "The coal miners will
make sure you never
know what's there. You have to work with them. If you don't,
they'll never
tell you anything."
On the Net:
City of Price: http://city1.price.lib.ut.us/
Prehistoric Museum: http://www.ceu.edu/museum/
AP-NY-01-20-02 1203EST
Copyright 2002 The Associated Press.
===================================================+
Date: Friday, January 18,
2002 5:25 AM
Subject: [UPDATE] "Save Grand Canyon!" rally
& news conference, Friday Jan. 18, 11:30
L I V I N G R I V E R S
M E D I A A D V I S O R Y
POB 1589--Scottsdale AZ 85252--480-990-7839(v)--480-990-2662(f)
http://www.livingrivers.net
_______________________________________________________________
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Groups Call for Action to Save Colorado River in Grand Canyon
National Park
News Conference and Rally Friday, January 18
11:30 AM - 12:30 PM
Two Arizona Center (APS office tower)
5th Street & Van Buren, downtown Phoenix
(parking garage adjacent, metered on-street parking available)
CONTACT: John Weisheit/David Orr 435-260-2590 (cell)
Lisa Force 480-990-7839
PHOENIX, Jan. 18 -- The environmental and social justice organization
LIVING
RIVERS will lead a rally and news conference in downtown Phoenix
at
11:30 AM, Friday, January 18, to demand immediate action
to save the
ecosystem in Grand Canyon, the nation's premier national park.
LIVING RIVERS will be joined by the Center for Biological
Diversity,
Sierra Club, Audubon Society and other groups in calling
on the Department
of the Interior to start following the laws that require mitigation
of the
Glen Canyon Dam's adverse impacts to the Colorado River ecosystem--the
heart
of the Grand Canyon National Park.
"Several native fish species have already been lost,
and one more numbers in
only the thousands," said David Orr of LIVING RIVERS. "Add
to this the
changes in the food web that form the foundation for the Canyon's
ecology
and the picture is clear, the Grand Canyon is becoming the Grand
Ditch."
Interior officials and other stakeholders interested in Glen
Canyon Dam and
the Grand Canyon are wrapping-up a two-day meeting today in Phoenix.
They are attempting to salvage a five-year old federal program
that was
supposed to reverse the dam's negative impact on Grand Canyon.
"The environment of Grand Canyon is being sacrificed,"
said Michelle
Harrington of the Center for Biological Diversity. "Americans
are outraged
to learn that, despite five years and forty million dollars this
program has
made so little progress."
In advance of the rally and news conference, the groups will
formally
present their demands in a ten-page letter to Mr. Michael Gabaldon,
chair of
the government program known as Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management.
The
groups seek remedies where the program stands in violation of
laws governing
the Grand Canyon Ecosystem, including the Grand Canyon Protection
Act and
National Park Organic Act. Specifically, the program fails to:
o develop a dam operating plan that would permit recovery
and long-term
sustainability of downstream resources.
o provide suitable aquatic habitat conditions and water temperatures
necessary for native fish reproduction generally, and the establishment
of
a new population of the federally endangered humpback.
o address the removal of alien fish, such as trout and catfish
that compete
with natives.
o to increase sediment deposition for habitat mitigation and
river
recreation.
o to produce mandated annual reports or to properly consult
with the public
and key federal agencies including the US Fish & Wildlife
Service.
"It's a travesty that those involved in this program
have been so negligent
in fulfilling their mandate to reverse the habitat decline of
this
international treasure," added Mr. Orr. "Although we
hope they will quickly
address our concerns, we trust litigation may ultimately be required
to
force this body into action."
The groups are demanding that a new environmental impact statement
on Glen
Canyon Dam operations be undertaken in light of new science data
that
demonstrate declines in key ecological indicators, including
native
fish, invertebrates, and sediment.
A copy of the letter is available on LIVING RIVERS' website
Friday
morning at:
http://www.livingrivers.net/media/article.cfm?NewsID=234
In addition to Mr. Orr and Ms. Harrington, the following speakers
are
expected to attend Friday's news conference: Dr. Robert Witzeman
(Maricopa
Audubon Society), Roxane George (Flagstaff Activist Network),
David Sherman
(Sierra Club), Andrea Jaussi (Glen Canyon Institute), Maggie
Silk (Arizona
Green Party) and John Weisheit (Colorado Plateau River Guides).
===================================================+
Date: Monday, January 14,
2002 7:35 AM
Subject: News: Sediment problems are the "beginning
of the end" for Lake Powell Reservoir
L I V I N G R I V E R S
-- N E W S R E L E A S E --
POB 466 - Moab, UT 84532 - 435-259-1063/fax 259-7612
POB 1589 - Scottsdale, AZ 85252 - 480-990-7839/fax 990-2662
www.livingrivers.net
___________________________________________________________
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE - MONDAY, JANUARY 14, 2002
CONTACT: John Weisheit, 435-260-2590 (cell)
Owen Lammers, 435-259-1063
"Beginning of the end for Lake Powell"
Park Service, BuRec fail to address Lake Powell's growing
sediment
problems; Rafting industry and environmentalists issue urgent
call for
action
World-famous Cataract Canyon and San Juan River trips threatened;
Hite
Marina will be rendered useless
MOAB, UTAH (Jan. 14) -- It's official: Lake Powell Reservoir
is filling
with sediment. And the government had better start dealing with
it.
So says a letter sent today by LIVING RIVERS and eight other
river
protection and recreation organizations, to the National Park
Service
(NPS), calling for federal action to address the growing problem
of river
mud that is interfering with boating activities in the upper
reaches of
the nation's second-largest artificial lake. The Utah Guides
& Outfitters
Association, a recreational industry trade group, made the same
points in
a concurring letter.
"This is the beginning of the end for Lake Powell,"
said John Weisheit,
LIVING RIVERS conservation director and a professional river
guide with
17 years experience. "People talk about Lake Powell filling
with silt
sometime in the future, but the future is now."
Of immediate concern is the slimy muck that threatens the
environment and
the Colorado Plateau's multimillion-dollar recreational river
rafting
industry. Similar impacts are being felt today in the Grand Canyon
far
downstream, where in summer 2001 the Pearce's Ferry take-out
was closed
indefinitely due to thick layers of oozing sediment clogging
the upper
reach of Lake Mead Reservoir.
The groups' letters were sent in response to a NPS redevelopment
proposal
for Hite Marina, a commercial concession within Glen Canyon National
Recreation Area (GCNRA), located in San Juan County, Utah. The
coalition
of groups and businesses is asking for the marina project to
be put on
hold pending a study of sediment-caused access problems, not
only for
boaters on the reservoir but also for rafters using the Colorado
River's
Cataract Canyon and the lower canyons of the San Juan River.
Whitewater
trips through both canyons terminate on Lake Powell Reservoir.
This is the first serious indication of problems that will
inevitably
worsen in the coming years. Prudent management compels the Park
Service
to undertake a comprehensive sediment study prior to investing
more
public funds on infrastructure that sediment deposition will
ultimately
render useless. The agency has a legal duty to prevent impairment
of park
resources and provide high-quality recreational opportunities,
yet the
Park Service emphasizes reservoir-based, flat water recreation
to the
detriment of maintaining a world-renowned rafting experience.
An industry
that not only predates the reservoir's existence but also employs
hundreds of people is dependent on maintaining an open channel
from the
mouth of Cataract to the take-out at Hite Marina, and from the
lower San
Juan to Clay Hills Crossing on the reservoir's San Juan arm.
"People have been using these rivers for recreation since
the 1920s,"
said Bob Jones, owner of Tag-A-Long Expeditions, the oldest river
outfitting company in Moab. Jones is a member of Utah Guides
& Outfitters
Association. "Something has to be done about this access
problem at Clay
Hills, and now I am very worried that my business will be impacted
by the
problems I see coming for Hite Marina. Our customers come from
all over
the world, and I sure would hate to disappoint them."
LIVING RIVERS' letter warns that access problems already exist
at Clay
Hills Crossing, and that access to Hite Marina could begin to
be
curtailed by sediment in as little as two years. Colorado River
sediments
are quickly filling the bay at Hite and may soon inhibit access
to the
marina, the terminus for all Cataract Canyon trips.
"We're losing two of the country's most spectacular whitewater
boating
experiences," stated Annie Payne, President of Colorado
Plateau River
Guides. "The Park Service and Bureau of Reclamation have
ignored the
situation in the past, but it won't go away; it just gets worse
each
passing year."
The Park Service, in its 1979 General Management Plan for
GCNRA,
estimated that Hite Marina would have to be abandoned "within
thirty
years" because of sediment accumulation. The silt arrived
ahead of
schedule. But despite this predicted event, the agency is moving
forward
with plans to redevelop the existing marina at its current site.
Sedimentation occurs in all reservoirs, but the problem at
Powell is
particularly acute, say the groups. The extraordinarily high
silt loads
carried by the San Juan and Colorado Rivers are the result of
the
region's unique geology. Geologists consider the soils to be
among the
fastest eroding in the world. Flash floods, common occurrences
during the
desert's hot summers, carry huge quantities of silt and debris
into
surging streams. When these sediment-laden waters reach the still
waters
of Lake Powell Reservoir, the particles settle out and form unsightly
mudflats that at lower water levels can make boat travel impossible.
Today's letter requests the Park Service to work with the
Bureau of
Reclamation to develop the requested plan and an environmental
impact
statement. Both agencies have responsibility for managing public
resources and facilities safely and economically, and for encouraging
public participation in addressing any problems. Yet they have
failed to
inform the public of the inevitable--and worsening--conflicts
and damage
that will occur.
According to a recent NPS-sponsored study, the sediment deposit
is
quickly advancing toward Hite, and will make the launch ramp
there
inaccessible within two years whenever the reservoir surface
level falls
to 3630 feet above sea level. In 1992, the reservoir dropped
to about
3610 feet above sea level. The current level is 3660 feet above
sea
level.
Sediment at Clay Hills Crossing is already impacting recreational
usage.
Boaters must often lift and carry their boats and equipment across
quicksand-like mud flats to the take-out, creating unsafe conditions
for
recreationists.
"There's nothing much they can do but attempt to manage
this problem in
the near term, but in the long term, decommissioning Glen Canyon
Dam is
inevitable," said Weisheit.
LIVING RIVERS' letter is available online at:
http://www.livingrivers.net/media/article.cfm?NewsID=220
# # #
On the Net:
LIVING RIVERS
http://www.livingrivers.net/
Colorado Outward Bound School
http://www.cobs.org/
Colorado Plateau River Guides
Four Corners School of Outdoor Education
http://www.fourcornersschool.org/
Glen Canyon Institute
http://www.glencanyon.org/
Grand Canyon Private Boaters Association
http://www.gcpba.org/
Sierra Club
http://utah.sierraclub.org/glencanyon/
Utah Guides and Outfitters Association
http://www.utahguidesandoutfitter.com/
Utah Rivers Council
http://www.utahrivers.org/
Utah Whitewater Club
http://www.utahwhitewaterclub.org/
===================================================+
Date: Friday, January 11,
2002 11:08 PM
Subject: Advisory: News Conf. & Rally to Save Grand
Canyon, Jan. 18, 11:30 AM, Phoenix
L I V I N G R I V E R S
M E D I A A D V I S O R Y
POB 1589 - Scottsdale, AZ 85252 - 480-990-7839/fax 990-2662
POB 466 - Moab, UT 84532 - 435-259-1063/fax 259-7612
www.livingrivers.net
___________________________________________________________
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE SATURDAY, JANUARY 12, 2002
CONTACT: Owen Lammers 435-259-1063
John Weisheit 435-260-2590 (cell)
Lisa Force 480-990-7839
___________________________________________
SAVE GRAND CANYON & THE COLORADO RIVER!
___________________________________________
News Conference and Rally
Friday, January 18, 2002
11:30 AM-12:30 PM
Two Arizona Center
Fifth Street and Van Buren, downtown Phoenix
(parking garage available; map link below)
Groups Call for Action to Save Colorado River in Grand Canyon
National
Park
PHOENIX -- The environmental and social justice organization
LIVING
RIVERS will lead a news conference and rally in downtown Phoenix
at noon
Friday, Januar 18, to call attention to the plight of the Colorado
River
in Grand Canyon National Park. Speakers from a variety of organizations
will be present and available for interviews. A list of speakers
will be
available on the LIVING RIVERS website by mid-week at
http://www.livingrivers.net/.
This event will coincide with the first meeting of the year
of the
quasi-governmental Adaptive Management Working Group (AMWG),
a
stakeholder group appointed by the Secretary of the Interior,
composed of
representatives from federal and state agencies, Indian tribes,
water and
power interests, and environmental and recreation groups. The
lead
federal agency is the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (USBR).
The news conference will feature publication of a letter from
environmental groups to the AMWG, calling for an overhaul of
the adaptive
management program overseen by the AMWG. The program has failed
to
protect and mitigate adverse impacts to the river ecosystem as
required
by the Grand Canyon Protection Act of 1992.
With an $8 million annual budget the AMWG has operated for
more than five
years, doing scientific research and monitoring to better understand
Grand Canyon ecosystem functions. However, the AMWG is charged
by the
Secretary of the Interior to recommend management actions based
on the
research, to protect endangered native fish and other species,
restore
beaches and sand bars throughout the canyon, and ensure protection
of
archeological and cultural resources and sacred sites.
BACKGROUND ON THE ISSUE
Grand Canyon National Park is an International Biosphere Reserve
and has
been called one of the natural wonders of the world. Arizonans
have long
identified with the canyon and accorded it status as a state
icon. Yet
the construction of Glen Canyon Dam in 1963 upstream of the canyon
has
had a severe negative impact on the Colorado River through Grand
Canyon,
and is today a primary factor in the endangerment of native fish
species,
loss of beaches and sand bars, and damage to cultural resources.
Interests of water and hydropower users are generally in conflict
with
efforts to protect and recover endangered native fish and restore
natural
flows through Grand Canyon. The Western Area Power Administration
markets
power generated by Glen Canyon Dam. Water deliveries from the
dam are
governed by a complex set of statutes, regulations, treaties
and court
decisions collectively known as the Law of the River.
Native fish species affected by dam operations include:
humpback chub (endangered)
razorback sucker(endangered)
Colorado pikeminnow (extirpated/endangered)
bonytail chub (extirpated/endangered)
# # #
For additional information:
LIVING RIVERS
http://www.livingrivers.net/
Arizona Game & Fish Department
http://www.gf.state.az.us/
Western Area Power Administration
Colorado River Storage Project Management Center
http://www.wapa.gov/crsp/l6300doc/gcdrod.htm
[NOTE: The following Department of the Interior websites are
temporarily
unavailable as a result of a court order. Service may be restored
at any
time.]
National Park Service
Grand Canyon National Park
http://www.nps.gov/grca/
===================================================+
Date: Thursday, January 10,
2002 11:36 PM
Subject: Reclamation is withdrawing the Marble Canyon
and Paria Reservoir Projects
[This one really made my day. The Bureau of Reclamation is
finally getting
around to taking the Marble Canyon Dam and Paria Reservoir Projects
off the
books... Better late than never. But while they're at it, why
don't they
also take care of that other mistake just a few miles farther
upstream on
the Colorado...?]
__________________________
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Bureau of Land Management
[UT-030-1430; UTU 52740 and AZA 18464]
Public Land Order No. 7503; Revocation of Public Land Order
Nos.
3469 and 4277, and the Bureau of Reclamation Order Dated March
14,
1957; Utah and Arizona
AGENCY: Bureau of land management, Interior.
ACTION: Public land order.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This order revokes two Public Land Orders, and one
Bureau of
Reclamation Order in their entirety as to the remaining 23,296
acres of
lands withdrawn for the Bureau of Reclamation's Marble Canyon
and Paria
River Reservoir Projects. The projects have not been developed
and the
Bureau of Reclamation has requested the withdrawals be revoked.
The
lands are located within either the Paria Canyon-Vermilion Cliffs
Wilderness or the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument
and will
be managed in accordance to the laws and regulations pertaining
to the
Wilderness and the Monument.
EFFECTIVE DATE: February 11, 2002.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rhonda Flynn, BLM Utah State
Office
(UT-942), 324 South State Street, Salt Lake City, Utah 84111-2303,
801-
539-4132. A copy of the orders being revoked is available from
this
location.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: By virtue of the authority vested
in the
Secretary of the Interior by section 204 of the Federal Land
Policy and
Management Act of 1976, 43 U.S.C. 1714 (1994), it is ordered
as
follows:
1. Public Land Order No. 3469, Public Land Order No. 4277, and
Bureau of Reclamation Order dated March 14, 1957, are hereby
revoked in
their entirety as to the remaining lands withdrawn for the Marble
Canyon and Paria River Reservoir Projects. The areas within the
three
orders aggregate approximately 23,296 acres in Kane and Coconino
Counties.
2. The lands will be managed in accordance with the laws and
regulations pertaining to the Paria Canyon-Vermilion Cliffs Wilderness
and the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument.
Dated: October 2, 2001.
J. Steven Griles,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 02-592 Filed 1-9-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-$$-P
===================================================+
Date: Tuesday, January 8, 2002
7:07 PM
Subject: Activist Advisory: Rally for the River in Phoenix,
1/18
L I V I N G R I V E R S
A C T I V I S T A D V I S O R Y
POB 1589 - Scottsdale, AZ 85252 - 480-990-7839/fax 990-2662
POB 466 - Moab, UT 84532 - 435-259-1063/fax 259-7612
www.livingrivers.net
___________________________________________________________
RALLY FOR THE RIVER & GRAND CANYON NATIONAL PARK
PHOENIX, JANUARY 18
Rally and news conference
Friday, January 18, 2002
11:30 AM-12:30 PM
Downtown Phoenix: Arizona Two Center
Fifth Street and Van Buren
(covered parking available, easy transit access)
CONTACT: John Weisheit, 435-259-1063
Rally for Action to Save Endangered Fish, Restore Colorado
River
VOLUNTEERS NEEDED! ORGANIZATIONAL ENDORSEMENTS NEEDED!
You are invited to join environmental groups including LIVING
RIVERS at a
gathering in downtown Phoenix, on the occasion of the first meeting
of
2002 of the "Adaptive Management Working Group" (AMWG),
a
quasi-governmental body affiliated with the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation
and charged with responsibility for modifying Glen Canyon Dam
operations
to reduce damage to the environment downstream of the dam in
Grand Canyon
National Park.
The purpose of this rally is to call attention to serious
environmental
problems under the jurisdiction of the AMWG, and to demand immediate,
corrective action. Issues include: recovery of endangered native
fish,
restoration of beaches and natural habitat conditions along the
river,
and removal of non-native fish that prey on the native species.
Please join us at Arizona Two Center in downtown Phoenix on
Friday,
January 18, for an 11:30 start time. The rally location will
be on the
sidewalk outside the skyscraper office tower that is home to
Arizona
Public Service (APS) and is the location of the AMWG meeting.
The rally
will last an hour, and representatives of endorsing groups will
speak on
the need for AMWG and the governmental agencies to take action
for the
river.
More information available at http://www.livingrivers.net/
PLEASE CONTACT LIVING RIVERS IF YOU CAN HELP WITH PREPARATIONS
AND IF YOUR GROUP WILL ENDORSE THIS EVENT
===================================================+
Date: Friday, December 28,
2001 9:00 PM
Subject: Klamath: River of a Thousand Promises
http://www.nrdc.org/onearth/02win/klamath1.asp
OnEarth magazine (formerly Amicus Journal)
River of a Thousand Promises
by Patty Wentz
Last spring, the feds turned off the irrigators in Klamath
Falls, Oregon, to
save some endangered fish. Farmers went wild. The media ate it
up. But
there's a bigger story -- about bald eagles, salmon fishers,
Indians, and
promises that could never be kept.
Gavin Rajnus had been talking for so long he was losing his
voice. The
thirty-three-year-old father of two is a potato grower in Klamath
Falls,
Oregon. Farming in the Klamath River basin is, to his mind, his
birthright.
His great-grandfather, one of the original Czech homesteaders,
settled here
in 1911. The Rajnus clan has farmed this area for generations,
trusting that
a government-run irrigation project would always keep their fields
green.
That all changed, however, last April 6.
On that day, known locally as "Black Friday," federal
law collided with
Mother Nature, and the farmers were the immediate and obvious
casualties.
The Department of Interior announced that the most serious drought
in
decades was forcing it to cut back on water use -- and that agriculture
was
no longer first in line. The water for some 1,200 farms was needed
for three
types of fish that are protected under the Endangered Species
Act.
For the first time, the federal irrigation taps were completely
turned off.
The farmers pitched a fit, blaming the shutoff on what they saw
as the
suspicious agenda of regional environmental groups who wanted
to take their
farms away. "The Endangered Species Act isn't really about
the fish," Rajnus
said, stopping to clear his throat. "It's about the land."
He was speaking last summer from "Camp Headgate,"
a spontaneous
round-the-clock protest on a dusty parking lot near the concrete
gate that
controls the flow for the main irrigation canal. At first glance,
the place
looked like a small-town Fourth of July picnic. People were gathered
on hay
bales, kids and dogs playing at their feet. These weren't picnickers,
however. Signs with slogans like "Government by the people,
of the people,
for the fish?" were held in upraised hands. A rubber George
W. Bush mask was
impaled on a chain-link fence. Federal agents stood guard over
the
government-controlled water on the other side of the fence. There
was also,
in defiance of the law, a 6-inch aluminum pipe diverting a symbolic
amount
of Upper Klamath Lake water into the main irrigation canal.
Rajnus had turned into one of the spokesmen of a movement,
and his voice was
getting as used up as the battery on his cell phone, but he kept
on talking.
"I'm staying here until spring if I have to," he rasped.
"I'm staying here
until I get my water."
The national media, particularly Fox News Channel, ate it
up. Stories came
out about endangered species taking precedence over struggling
families, and
big-city environmentalists going after small farmers. The Wall
Street
Journal even editorialized that national environmental groups
were
committing "rural cleansing" in Klamath Falls.
Politicians responded. Western Republican members of Congress
held a field
hearing at Klamath Falls in June, promising to rewrite the Endangered
Species Act to take economic impacts into consideration. In July,
Secretary
of the Interior Gale Norton released 75,000 acre-feet of water
to the
farmers when Upper Klamath Lake was found to contain a foot more
water than
expected. And last August she took the unprecedented step of
asking the
National Academy of Sciences to review the biology that led to
the shutoff.
The government was providing simple answers to what seemed
like a simple
problem. But in reality, the water war in Klamath Falls is infinitely
more
complicated than fish versus farmers. It is as difficult to see
a way to a
solution as it is to see through a glass of water from the depleted,
murky,
algae-choked lake that started it all. It is really the old story
of the
West, where the federal government has promised too much to too
many for far
too long.
To begin to understand what happened in Klamath Falls last summer,
you have
to understand the Klamath irrigation project and how it has formed,
and
destroyed, life in the Klamath basin. Until the turn of the last
century,
the basin comprised 10.5 million acres of highly diverse landscapes,
stretching from the Cascade Mountains hundreds of miles southwest
to the
coast of California. There were sagebrush hills, pine forests,
marshlands,
lakes, and high desert plateaus left over from the last ice age.
The region
was home to teeming populations of fish, birds, and wildlife,
as well as
several Indian tribes. But in the thinking of the time, the basin
was
nothing but "sunbaked prairie and worthless swamps."
In 1905, the Bureau of Reclamation was directed to "reclaim"
the desert
below Upper Klamath Lake. The bureau diked marshlands until they
were dry
enough to grow crops, and turned the water over to farmers for
irrigation.
The Klamath Project was a massive plumbing job. It cost $50 million
and
included seven dams and 1,400 miles of canals, drains, and ditches.
It
diverted rivers, drained lakes, and compacted wetlands. It is
one of the
most intricate manipulations of hydrology in the United States.
The heart of the Klamath Project is Upper Klamath Lake, at
22 miles long the
largest lake in the Northwest. Filled by tributaries that feed
off the
snowpack in the Cascade Mountains, the lake in turn feeds the
Klamath River,
which flows mostly southwestward through Oregon and northern
California for
some 260 miles. In its natural state the lake rose with the spring
runoff
from the mountains and sank lower in the summer, but the Klamath
Project
breached a reef at its southern end to drain it lower yet for
irrigation.
Construction of the Klamath Project took decades. Long before
it was
finished, the government began luring farmers with promises of
land and
water. From 1908 until after World War II, the feds granted parcels
to more
than 600 war veterans. It isn't an easy life, and the region
attracted
hardscrabble people: people who don't mind the plague of midges
that rises
out of the lake every fall and turns the sky dark. People who
can take high
elevation and short growing seasons. People who don't mind being
miles from
anywhere. Here they raise hearty but thirsty crops, such as alfalfa
and
potatoes, as well as sugar beets, mint, onions, and cattle.
As more people moved to the region, more marshland was converted
-- and not
just by the federal Klamath Project. Today, in the basin as a
whole, more
than 75 percent of the original natural wetland water storage
is gone, and
about 400,000 acres are devoted to agriculture. Last summer,
visitors who
had believed television accounts of a dust bowl were surprised
to see
numerous sprinklers running on green fields, fed by other irrigation
systems
or private wells. So many people have settled in the basin that
there are as
many farms drawing private water as there are Bureau of Reclamation
customers.
While agriculture flourished, wildlife species that had evolved
over
centuries were ill-equipped to deal with the new reality. The
Klamath River
is the spawning bed of coho and chinook salmon. By the time the
water works
its way through the dams and fields to the river, however, it
is too
polluted and warm to support some of the native fish. Upper Klamath
Lake is
also home to two endangered species of fish that share an unfortunate
name
-- the Lost River sucker and shortnose sucker, once food staples
for the
regional Indians. As the wetlands were drained and water quality
in the lake
began to suffer, so did the suckers. Finally, the project drains
into the
Lower Klamath Wildlife Refuge, the first waterfowl sanctuary
in the country
and the main wintering ground of one of the largest populations
of American
bald eagles in the lower forty-eight states.
Today, the Klamath is a system out of balance, where for decades
the needs
of the few have outweighed the needs of the many. Now that even
the farmers
have been hit by a water crisis, those who have been doing without
enough
for decades hope that next year, things will be different. But
it remains an
open question whether there can ever be enough water for everyone
who lays
claim.
Dave Bitts lives hundreds of miles away from Klamath Falls,
but the project
is as much a part of his life as the farmers'. He's an Arizona
Diamondbacks
fan and a straight talker. For about half of his fifty-three
years he has
been a California coast fisherman based near Eureka, and, he
jokes, he's
nearly made a living at it.
The Klamath was once the third-most-productive salmon river
on the West
Coast, producing up to 1.1 million fish per year. But today,
some salmon
runs in the Klamath are down to 20 percent or less of their historic
population. In 1997 coho spawning in the Klamath were declared
a threatened
species, and the National Marine Fisheries Service has put even
Klamath
hatchery coho swimming in the ocean off-limits to commercial
fishing, in
order to protect the wild Klamath runs from accidental catch.
Bitts is now forced to take his 45-foot troller far from home
to avoid
catching Klamath fish illegally -- sometimes 300 miles south
to Monterey
Bay. Fish processing plants in Eureka have shut down, and unemployment
has
risen. Unlike the farmers, who have so far received $20 million
in federal
aid to help them weather the water turnoff, the fishers have
been on their
own.
It isn't only the Klamath Project and other irrigation withdrawals
that have
hurt the Klamath River salmon. Downriver, Iron Gate Dam blocks
fish passage.
Spawning habitat has been depleted. Agricultural runoff fills
the rivers. "A
lot of nutrients are being added to the Klamath," Bitts
said. "The water
coming back to the river after irrigation is pretty ratty stuff."
In the 1990s, thanks to the levers of tribal treaty rights
and the
Endangered Species Act, the regional tribes and the fishers began
to fight
back. In 1996 an Interior Department solicitor published a legal
opinion
stating that water for Native American tribal trust obligations
and
endangered species should take precedence over the farmers. Then,
in 2000,
the Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's Associations was
the lead
plaintiff in a lawsuit that charged the federal government with
operating
the project to the detriment of the coho, and won. The National
Marine
Fisheries Service issued a biological opinion demanding sufficient
flows in
the Klamath River to ensure the coho's survival. And the U.S.
Fish and
Wildlife Service started enforcing minimal levels to keep Upper
Klamath Lake
from being drained.
For the farmers, the timing couldn't have been worse. The
new requirements
kicked in the same year the drought hit. Bitts knows the past
year has been
hard on the farmers. "It's pretty clear the government has
made promises to
those farmers that it can't keep," he said. "There
are a lot of rough
equivalencies between the farming business in the upper basin
and the
fishing business on the coast. They both are ways of life whose
practitioners consider themselves to be rugged individuals in
a threatened
subculture."
At the same time, Bitts believes the farmers have been in
denial for years.
"They say they are entitled to that much water," he
said. "So the need to
provide water for fish is a new and disturbing and incomprehensible
thing."
Joe Hobbs knows about life in a threatened subculture. A Modoc
Indian, Hobbs
is vice-chairman of the Klamath Confederated Tribes. His office
in the
tribal headquarters in Chiloquin is cramped, and he sits solemnly
behind his
desk answering questions from visitors. A large man with a round
face, Hobbs
has a voice that leaks sadness when he recounts the troubled
history of his
people.
Before the Klamath Project arrived, the Indians built their
culture around
the fish and the marshes of the upper Klamath basin. They had
a steady run
of spring chinook. More important, however, were several species
of sucker
fish, the tribes' major food source. Every spring the fish left
the lake to
spawn in the upper tributaries, and every spring the Indians
held a ceremony
celebrating their return. "The waterways here were teeming
with them," said
Hobbs. "We used to say that we could walk across the river
on their backs."
Thanks to an 1864 treaty, the Klamath Tribes (the Klamath,
the Modoc, and
the Yahooskin Band of Paiute) saw their lands shrink from 22
million acres
to 880,000 acres. Then, in 1954, the tribes were "terminated"
by federal
law. They ceased to exist as a recognized governmental entity.
Tribe members
were paid cash settlements, and their reservation lands were
condemned.
(Most of the land, covered in ponderosa pine, became national
forests open
to commercial logging.) "Termination was a terrible time,"
said Hobbs. "The
government thought only in cash and did not recognize the currency
and
importance of the land to my people."
The tribes were reinstated in 1986, but that recognition did
not bring with
it the return of the traditional lands. They have petitioned
the U.S.
government for the return of 690,000 acres of their original
reservation,
most of it in the Winema and Fremont national forests in the
Klamath Project
region. Today, though the tribes now have a casino, Chiloquin
is
consistently ranked as one of Oregon's poorest towns.
By the time the tribes were reinstated, the sucker fishery
had collapsed --
destroyed, the tribes are convinced, by water diversions and
habitat loss.
One of the first decisions of the newly formed tribal council
was to stop
fishing for the suckers. "It was very hard for our elders,
who had been
fishing for them their entire lives," said Hobbs, "but
we knew if we didn't
stop fishing they would all disappear." Today, the tribes
take only one fish
every spring, for ceremonial purposes.
The Klamath and the downriver tribes of the Yurok and Hupa,
for whom the
salmon is a sacred animal, support the Endangered Species Act.
In Hobbs's
view, however, the act is not enough. Framed on the wall of his
office is
the Adair Decision, a ruling the Klamath Tribes won in a lawsuit
in 1981.
But Hobbs doesn't need to check the document. He knows the words
by heart:
"The Klamath Tribes of Indians have a water right with a
priority date of
time immemorial to as much water on the reservation lands as
they need to
protect their hunting and fishing rights."
The tribes don't just want to keep the suckers from further
decline. They
want a sustainable harvest. To get that, Hobbs said, would require
reducing
demand on the Klamath Project by something like 50 percent, restoring
the
marshlands and the waterways, and removing some of the dams.
"We don't want
anyone to lose their jobs," he said. "We know what
it is like to lose
everything. We are not against the farmers. At the same time,
our
livelihoods were completely lost by 1986."
One other species affected by the Klamath Project is the bald
eagle. Below
the tribal land, south of the headgates, the Klamath basin opens
up into an
avian paradise. It is the Lower Klamath Wildlife Refuge, created
in 1908 by
President Theodore Roosevelt -- the same president who signed
the
Reclamation Act that launched the Klamath Project. Roosevelt
set aside
81,000 acres as the first federal waterfowl refuge in the United
States
(though reclamation later whittled the refuge down to 49,000
acres). Here,
away from the angry protesters and television cameras, is a glimpse
of life
before the project. Pelicans rise in synchronistic flight and
herons stalk
through the marshlands.
The refuge, like the farmers and the fish, counts on water
from the Klamath
basin for life. One of six refuges in the area, it sits under
the Pacific
Flyway, the main route for migratory birds on the West Coast.
Ducks, egrets,
herons, pelicans, and more use the mix of marshland, lakes, grassy
uplands,
and croplands for feeding, nesting, and rearing their broods.
This is also
the main home of the Klamath basin bald eagle population, one
of the two
largest in the country outside of Alaska. The eagles fly from
around the
Northwest Territories and the West to winter here, feeding on
ducks and
other waterfowl. There are usually around 600, but some years
the refuge has
counted almost a thousand bald eagles.
This year, however, most of the refuge's marshlands look dry.
Less water
means fewer ducks. Fewer ducks mean the eagles could starve.
So the water
that did make it to the refuge last summer was judiciously metered
out to
create duck habitat. "We're essentially focusing our strategy
on a single
species," said Dave Mauser, biologist at the refuge. "We're
flooding
seasonal marsh habitat that the ducks like and letting bulrushes,
for
example, which other birds prefer, go dry. That's not prioritizing
egrets
and herons and bitterns and rails and shorebirds. But there just
isn't
enough water for everything."
By summer's end, no solutions had been found. the farmers
dismantled Camp
Headgate after September 11, saying that the federal agents guarding
the
water should be freed up for national security. At the same time,
the
farmers pulled out of mediation talks spurred by their lawsuit
against the
Bureau of Reclamation. Too many interests were at the table,
they said. They
have also filed another suit against the government, arguing
that shutting
off the water was a federal "taking" and they are due
compensation.
Meanwhile, everyone in the basin is waiting for the science
and the politics
to come together -- and praying for snow.
The Bureau of Reclamation is working on a new biological assessment
of the
region. It is not known how the Bush administration will change
the water
requirements for the fish, if at all. The initial National Academy
of
Sciences review of the biology behind last year's turnoff, requested
by Gale
Norton, will be released in January 2002.
At this point, all parties except the farmers agree that in
addition to
restoring habitat and possibly taking out some dams, one simple
solution is
to reduce the demand for water. The American Lands Coalition
and the Oregon
Natural Resources Council have both put forward proposals for
the federal
government to buy farmland and take it out of production. Though
the feds
have not shown much eagerness yet, Oregon Senator Ron Wyden supports
the
idea. There are also basic water conservation techniques that
farmers could
use, such as drip irrigation and switching from alfalfa and potatoes
to
dryland grains that need little water.
But even these solutions are freighted with controversy.
Like Gavin Rajnus, Keith Buckingham is a Klamath basin farmer.
He works
1,000 acres of potatoes, onions, mint, wheat, barley, and alfalfa
near
Tulelake, California, under a looming Mount Shasta. His father
was also a
veteran homesteader who came to the basin in 1949. Until last
summer,
Buckingham was president of the Tulelake Growers Association.
But Buckingham thinks the Klamath water crisis will not be
solved by a group
of protesters at the headgate. He says that over the past decade
it has
become increasingly difficult to make a go of farming in the
basin. It isn't
just the water. Farmers have been fighting low-cost imports and
the
overproduction of domestic potatoes. Buckingham believes that
farmers should
help solve the water problem by adjusting to dryland agriculture.
Because he
expressed these sentiments in a local newspaper article that
supported
buying out farmers, however, he was forced to resign from the
Growers
Association. "Over those two statements, my head was handed
to me," he said.
"Their perspective was that this is a holy war, and we must
continue it as
such -- that we are right and we demand our water. And we will
fight until
we get it."
Patty Wentz spent four years covering state politics and the
environment as
a reporter for Willamette Week. She lives in Portland, Oregon.
===================================================+
Date: Monday, December 10, 2001
7:22 PM
Subject: News: Grand Canyon native fish at risk of extinction
L I V I N G R I V E R S
M E D I A A D V I S O R Y
POB 466 - Moab, UT 84532 - 435-259-1063/fax 259-7612
POB 1589 - Scottsdale, AZ 85252 - 480-990-7839/fax 990-2662
www.livingrivers.net
___________________________________________________________
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
MONDAY, DECEMBER 10, 2001
CONTACT: Lisa Force 480-990-7839
David Orr 435-259-1063/435-260-2590 (cell)
Grand Canyon native fish at risk of extinction
Federal recovery goals provide no help
MOAB, UTAH (Dec. 10) -- The environmental and social justice
advocacy
organization LIVING RIVERS sent a letter today to the U.S. Fish
&
Wildlife Service (USFWS), warning of plummeting humpback chub
populations
in the Grand Canyon, and called for major revisions in its draft
recovery
goals for the humpback and three other species of endangered
Colorado
River fish.
Data from the Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center
(GCMRC)
indicate a rapidly declining population trend for humpback chub
in the
Little Colorado River, the largest and only known
successfully-reproducing population of their species. GCMRC researcher
Lew Coggins recently announced that numbers of reproducing humpback
chub
are in a "steeply declining trend." Coggins' investigation
found only
about 500 individuals of reproducing age. He stressed that it
is too soon
to draw conclusions about whether the population may have dropped
below
the point where it can rebound.
Three other listed species, bonytail, Colorado pikeminnow
and razorback
sucker, have been extinct in the canyon for years.
"Despite spending millions of dollars over the years,
the government has
failed to protect and recover Grand Canyon's native fish,"
said David
Orr, director of field programs for LIVING RIVERS. "Will
the last of the
endangered species have to disappear before changes are made?"
LIVING RIVERS' letter criticized the agency's draft recovery
goals for
the four fish species, and called on USFWS to subject its recovery
goals
to independent, external scientific peer review. The goals were
released
for public comment on September 10 and ended today.
"Politics, not science, is driving the process,"
said Orr. "To ensure the
survival and recovery of wild native fish, the agency must produce
a
scientifically sound plan. The proposal currently on the table
doesn't
come close."
The Desert Fishes Council, a prestigious scientific organization
dedicated to preserving biological diversity in desert aquatic
ecosystems, passed a resolution at its annual meeting last month
in
Alpine, Texas, opposing the draft recovery goals as currently
written.
The organization also called for outside peer review.
LIVING RIVERS' additional concerns include:
* Failure to emphasize restoration of habitat, including removal
of dams
that block fish migration and spawning areas, and that release
water too
cold for fish to survive in.
* Reliance on hatcheries and other artificial reproduction
methods to
increase fish numbers and downlist or delist species, even though
fish
may not survive to reproducing age.
* Lack of attention to removing introduced, non-native fish
that compete
with and prey on endangered fish.
* Failure to require recovery of the species throughout their
ranges in
both the upper and lower Colorado River basins.
"We're concerned that the agency, in its eagerness to
please water and
power interests in the seven Colorado River basin states, is
rushing to
set criteria that will cost taxpayers millions more dollars while
not
helping recover the fish they're supposed to be saving,"
said Orr.
# # #
LIVING RIVERS works to build a broad-based constituency for
large-scale
restoration of the Colorado River and neighboring watersheds.
LIVING
RIVERS has assembled a coalition of 133 U.S. and Mexican environmental
and community groups, representing more than 12 million people,
in
support of Colorado River delta restoration.
On the Net:
LIVING RIVERS: http://www.livingrivers.net/
USFWS Draft Recovery Goals:
http://mountain-prairie.fws.gov/ea/infopackets/coloradoriver
USFWS Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program:
http://www.r6.fws.gov/crrip/
Grand Canyon Monitoring & Research Center:
http://www.gcmrc.gov/default.htm
Desert Fishes Council:
http://www.utexas.edu/depts/tnhc/.www/fish/dfc/dfc_top.html
[NOTE: Websites for the USFWS and GCMRC are currently down,
following a
court order last week. No date has been announced for their restoral.]
===================================================+
Date: Friday, December 7, 2001 7:09 PM
Subject: ADVISORY: Groups call for new course in Colorado
River stewardship
L I V I N G R I V E R S
M E D I A A D V I S O R Y
POB 466 - Moab, UT 84532 - 435-259-1063/fax 259-7612
POB 1589 - Scottsdale, AZ 85252 - 480-990-7839/fax 990-2662
www.livingrivers.net
___________________________________________________________
NEWS CONFERENCE: THURSDAY, DECEMBER 13, 2001
11:30 a.m. to 12:30 p.m.
SENATORS BOARDROOM, on the PROMENADE DECK
CAESARS PALACE HOTEL & CASINO
LAS VEGAS, NEVADA
CONTACT: Lisa Force, 480-990-7839
David Orr, 435-259-1063/435-260-2590 (cell)
WHILE COLORADO RIVER INDUSTRIAL WATER USERS MEET IN LAS VEGAS,
TRADITIONAL USERS CALL FOR REFORMING COLORADO RIVER MANAGEMENT
For many years, the major stakeholders in Colorado River water
use have
gathered annually for a conference in Las Vegas. The group, however,
has
represented the interests of dam operators, large water districts,
and
corporate agri-business.
At this year's conference, scheduled for December 12-14 at
Caesars Palace
Hotel, the members of the Colorado River Water Users Association
(CRWUA)
will be joined by a contingent of formerly unrecognized stakeholders:
representatives of Indian Nations, Mexican delta communities,
and
environmental and social justice groups concerned with Colorado
River
laws and practices.
These groups will hold a news conference Thursday, December
13, at 11:30
a.m. to introduce members of the news media to critical issues
of water
allocation and environmental protection that are not being addressed
by
the Water Users Association and the state and federal agencies
that
support them.
"Colorado River water users and agencies need to recognize
the pressing
water needs of indigenous people and communities in Mexico and
the US,"
stated Lisa Force of Living Rivers, who will be moderating the
press
conference. "Flows to the dried-up Colorado River delta
need to be
restored, and plans to construct additional reservoirs such as
the
Animas-La Plata project in Colorado should be abandoned."
Other speakers at the news conference will include advocates
for
protection of tribal water rights and cultural resources, preservation
of
delta communities, and restoration of endangered wildlife and
fish
populations.
"Ecosystem restoration is feasible in the Colorado River
delta," stated
Ms. Yamilett Carrillo-Guerro, of ProNatura Sonora, a Mexican
environmental protection group, and a native of the Colorado
River delta
region. "Local communities in the delta are open to alternative
uses in
their land, compatible with the restoration of the ecosystem.
Mexican
farmers realize the importance of instream flows and in their
modest
possibilities, they are ready to contribute with land and water
to help
restore the riparian forests and wetlands in the Colorado River
delta.
For them, a river with water means life and in no way do they
consider
water nurturing the Colorado River delta wetlands and the Upper
Gulf of
California as wasted water."
Joining Ms. Force and Ms. Carrillo-Gurerro will be Mr. Chad
Smith,
representing the Ahamakav Cultural Society and Inter-Tribal Waters
Organization, based in Mohave Valley, Arizona.
"The many water agreements, regulations, and projects
that the Federal
government and special interests have negotiated are actually
a part of
one phenomenon, the taking of water from the Colorado River ecosystems
and from smaller, more rural users," stated Mr. Smith. "For
example, the
Fort Mojave Tribe opposes the three interrelated agreements:
the Interim
Surplus Criteria, the Quantification Settlement Agreement and
the Cadiz
Groundwater Storage Project... These are all for just one constituency:
the large population along the coastal plain."
Also presenting will be Gilbert Sanchez, of Tribal Environmental
Watch
Alliance, an indigenous organization based in New Mexico. Mr.
Sanchez is
fighting to protect environmental and cultural resources and
sacred sites
from water development projects.
"The cultural heritage of Indian people is threatened
by new water
development projects like Animas-La Plata," stated Mr. Sanchez.
"We have
watched over the years as one dam after another has been built,
pipelines
and canals have been dug, while we see the graves of our ancestors
dug
up, artifacts taken, and sacred sites desecrated. All this damage,
and
for what? Much of this water is stored just to evaporate into
the sky,
and much of what is used is wasted. The resting places of the
ancestors
should not be sacrificed for more golf courses, backyard swimming
pools
and hayfields in the desert."
# # #
LIVING RIVERS works to build a broad-based constituency for
large-scale
restoration of the Colorado River and neighboring watersheds.
LIVING
RIVERS has assembled a coalition of 133 U.S. and Mexican environmental
and community groups, representing more than 12 million people,
in
support of Colorado River delta restoration.
On the Net:
LIVING RIVERS
http://www.livingrivers.net/
Colorado River Water Users Association
http://crwua.mwd.dst.ca.us/
NOTE: The draft agenda for the Colorado River Water Users
Association
(CRWUA) lists as keynote speakers Vice President of the United
States
Dick Cheney and Secretary of the Interior Gale Norton. The agenda
can be
found at CRWUA's website:
http://crwua.mwd.dst.ca.us/conference/crwua2001.htm. (Please
request an
updated agenda for possible speaker substitutes.)
===================================================+
Date: Tuesday, November 27,
2001 8:02 PM
Subject: Take Action: Help prevent unneeded resort development
at Lake Powell reservoir
LIVING RIVERS Action Alert... Pass it on!
___________________________________________________________
L I V I N G R I V E R S
POB 466 - Moab, UT 84532 - 435-259-1063/fax 259-7612
POB 1589 - Scottsdale, AZ 85252 - 480-990-7839/fax 990-2662
www.livingrivers.net
___________________________________________________________
A few minutes of your time can...
HELP PREVENT UNSUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT IN THE NATIONAL PARKS:
National Park Service promoting massive new "Lake"
Powell resort
Comment period open on Antelope Point Marina project
*** TAKE ACTION: SUBMIT COMMENTS TODAY (details below) ***
MOAB, Utah, Nov. 27 -- The National Park Service (NPS) is
currently
accepting public comments on the proposal to build Antelope Point
Marina,
a sprawling resort planned for the desert shores of Lake Powell
Reservoir
in Glen Canyon National Recreation Area (GCNRA) near Page, Arizona.
Citizen groups are protesting the project's social and environmental
impacts, and calling for a full study of alternatives to the
proposed
action.
The Antelope Point project is currently undergoing review
for an
Environmental Assessment (EA) to help the agency identify and
analyze
expected project impacts. LIVING RIVERS and other groups are
urging
citizens to write the Park Service to express concerns about
this
unneeded, polluting facility that would be built within a National
Park
recreation area.
Organizations that have already come out in opposition to
the project
include: Bluewater Network, Colorado Plateau River Guides, Diné
CARE
(Citizens Against Ruining the Environment), Diné Medicinemens
Association, Escalante Wilderness Project, Flagstaff Activist
Network,
Grand Canyon Private Boaters Association, Living Rivers, Sierra
Club,
Utah Environmental Congress and Wild Wilderness. [Other groups
wishing to
join this coalition, please contact Living Rivers at
<david@livingrivers.net>]
The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires project
proponents
to consider a range of reasonable alternatives to the proposed
project.
The Antelope Point project is based on an assumption embedded
in the
park's 1979 General Management Plan (GMP), that another large
marina is
needed near Page. The existing Wahweap Marina facilities could
be
expanded to accommodate additional demand, rather than construct
a new
resort nearby. Antelope Point will essentially duplicate existing
services at Wahweap.
The project, which would be built partly on national parkland
and on land
controlled by the Navajo Nation, includes the following features:
More than 250-300 commercial houseboat rental slips, space
for 60-100
rental houseboats and 60-70 small boats, 2 large tourboats, fuel
dock and
pumpout facilities, marina store, restrooms, launch ramp, parking
for 800
vehicles, sewage system, dry storage, repair/maintenance facilities,
150-space RV campground complex with showers and dump stations,
200-room
lodging complex, restaurant and cocktail lounge, and a cultural
center
complex.
The project is opposed by two Navajo grassroots organizations,
Diné
Medicinemens Association and Diné CARE. The marina is
controversial
within the Navajo Nation and elsewhere. Antelope Point is billed
partly
as economic development for the Navajo people, yet it would be
owned and
operated by a privately-held, white-owned concessionaire based
in
Phoenix. Alternative economic development strategies have not
been
considered as part of the environmental planning for the project.
Construction plans call for the first cocktail lounge on the
Navajo
reservation. A proposal for a nearby casino and shopping center
complex
is currently under study by the Navajo Nation. No casino has
ever
operated on the reservation.
___________________________
* * * * TAKE ACTION * * * *
___________________________
SUBMIT YOUR COMMENTS TODAY!!! (suggestions below)
- by EMAIL:
<GLCA_AntelopePoint@nps.gov>
- by US MAIL:
Superintendent
Glen Canyon NRA
P.O. Box 1507
Page, AZ 86040
For more information, consult the NPS official project website:
http://www.nps.gov/glca/antptpl.htm
_______________________________________
* * * TOP TEN ISSUES FOR ANALYSIS * * *
_______________________________________
Ask the Park Service to put you on their official mailing
list for the
Environmental Assessment (EA), and ask them to address as many
of these
"Top Ten" issues we've identified (below) as you choose.
Be sure to add
your own ideas if you wish! Your comments are most effective
if you put
your thoughts in your own words. But feel free to use the information
in
this message to frame the issues as you see them.
1) Antelope Point Marina is not needed. The analysis must
address the
purpose and need for the project, and alternatives to the proposal.
Expansion of existing development should occur, if needed, before
building on undeveloped national parklands. The EA must address
the need,
if any, for additional development and the many potential alternatives
for economic development for the Navajo Nation, while minimizing
environmental damage to the greatest extent possible.
2) Alternative economic development options must be considered.
Antelope
Point may not be the best alternative for bringing jobs to the
area and
improving quality of life for Navajo people. Detailed economic
alternatives analysis should examine anticipated revenues expected
to
accrue to the Navajo Nation and to individual employees over
time under
each alternative evaluated. Citizens, including Diné people,
have
suggested that the Navajo Nation take over operation of existing
resort
facilities around the reservoir, including Wahweap Marina, which
can be
expanded to accommodate additional boat slips. This would achieve
the
goal of promoting economic opportunity while avoiding the environmentally
damaging and economically risky option of building and operating
a major
new resort. The current concessionaire, ARAMARK, is reportedly
interested
in divesting its concessions at Lake Powell reservoir.
3) Alternative uses for the Antelope Point site must be considered.
Rather than operate a high-impact, motorized recreation-oriented
resort,
NPS should evaluate the possibility of constructing facilities
that
directly benefit the Navajo people. For example, a health clinic,
educational institution, scientific/ecological research laboratories,
or
traditional healing center (as the Diné Medicinemens Association
has
proposed) may be appropriate, compatible uses in this setting.
The Navajo
Nation currently lacks significant infrastructure for these uses
and
would clearly benefit from any of these.
4) A new parkwide General Management Plan (GMP) should be
prepared before
additional development occurs at GCNRA. Antelope Point must not
go
forward without re-evaluating many of the assumptions built into
the
park's outdated 1979 GMP, on which plans for the marina project
are
based. The need and purpose for the project, and many of the
assumptions
used to justify them, are no longer valid. Over the decades,
many
recreational activities--and impacts--have changed, e.g. proliferation
of
jetskis, or personal watercraft (PWC). At the same time, there
is growing
interest among recreational users for non-motorized recreational
opportunities such as sea kayaking or canoeing. No non-motorized
recreational zones currently exist on the reservoir. A new GMP
should
address the need for new recreational opportunities and management
practices around the reservoir. The old river channel around
Antelope
Point would make an ideal motor-free zone, since motorboat users
generally travel around the north side of Antelope Island.
5) Recreational safety concerns about the site must be addressed.
Antelope Point is located on a narrow bend in the old river channel,
a
site that is prone to potential user conflicts between powerboat,
houseboat and jetski users. On a typical holiday weekend, hundreds
of
boats would be moored, floating and in motion in and around the
new
marina, with waterskiers and jetskiers in abundance. The potential
for
serious visitor safety conflicts and accidents at Antelope Point
would be
quite high. Regional law enforcement is already stretched thin
covering
Wahweap, and a marina at Antelope Point would create additional
burdens
and responsibilities. The ready availability of alcoholic beverages
for
sale at the marina would only exacerbate the risk of serious
accidents.
In 2000, Lake Powell Reservoir was identified by the Wall Street
Journal
as the nation's second-most dangerous recreational area.
6) Economic risk concerns must be evaluated. No analysis has
been
published by NPS to demonstrate the long-term economic viability
of a
second major new marina in the immediate vicinity of Page. In
a period of
declining visitation to the reservoir, sufficient demand may
not exist to
justify the investment and commitment of resources to support
the
Antelope Point project. Since one of the primary goals of the
project is
to promote economic development for the Navajo Nation, it is
essential
that specific data be presented to assist the Navajo people in
evaluating
whether the project would operate in the black over the long
term, if it
were built.
7) The Antelope Point project should not go forward until the
Park
Service first resolves its policy on jetskis (PWC), and completes
an
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)--currently in preparation--for
PWC
management at GCNRA. The EIS will examine the possibility of
banning PWC
and also of limiting them to certain zones of the reservoir.
As stated
above, the old river channel at Antelope Point would be an ideal
motor-free zone, and should be evaluated in the EIS for such
use. NPS
should not bias its PWC planning process by assuming that Antelope
Point
Marina will be built.
8) Alternatives must be evaluated for mitigating archeological
and
cultural resource sites within the project boundary, including
ceremonial
sites that would be rendered unusable by construction of the
project.
Consultation with the Diné Medicinemens Association and
other traditional
native groups must be conducted.
9) Analysis of the cumulative effects and reasonably foreseeable
consequences of the Antelope Point project must be evaluated,
including
the potential impacts on area businesses, including Wahweap Marina.
Increased use of motors on the reservoir and loss of opportunities
for
non-motorized recreation in the Antelope Point area must be evaluated.
The impact of anticipated "companion" projects must
also be evaluated
(e.g. the Navajo Nation is currently considering a casino and
shopping
center to be located near the entrance to the resort).
10) Given the likelihood that significant environmental impacts
will
occur from this project, the law requires that NPS prepare a
full
Environmental Impact Statement.
PLEASE SEND A COPY OF YOUR COMMENTS TO LIVING RIVERS at:
<info@livingrivers.net>
[ABOUT LIVING RIVERS: For more information on the work we
do, please
visit our website at http://www.livingrivers.net/. If you prefer
not to
receive mailings from us in the future, please send a message
to
<david@livingrivers.net> requesting removal from our list.]
===================================================+
Date: Tuesday, October 30, 2001
1:00 AM
Subject: "De-Authorize A-LP" Campaign Update
#1
"DE-AUTHORIZE A-LP" CAMPAIGN UPDATE #1
___________________________________________________________
L I V I N G R I V E R S
POB 466 * Moab, UT 84532 * 435-259-1063/fax 259-7612
POB 1589 * Scottsdale, AZ 85252 * 480-990-7839/fax 990-2662
http://www.livingrivers.net
___________________________________________________________
"DE-AUTHORIZE A-LP!" RALLY AND MARCH
WHEN: Friday, November 9, 2001, Noon-?
WHERE: Downtown Durango, Colorado: start at Rotary Park (15th
St. and
Second Ave.), then march to Bureau of Reclamation office (835
Second
Ave.), then march to Schneider Park (9th St. at the Animas River)
for
rally with music and refreshments
WHAT: Call on Congress to "de-authorize" (disapprove)
the environmentally
damaging and socially unjust Animas-La Plata water project
WHO: American Whitewater, Diné CARE, Diné Medicinemens
Association,
Citizens Coal Council, Citizeens Progressive Alliance, Colorado
Environmental Coalition, Colorado Rivers Alliance, Colorado Whitewater,
Electors Concerned About Animas Water, Escalante Wilderness Project,
Flagstaff Activist Network, Four Corners Riversports, Friends
of Arizona
Rivers, Friends of the Earth, Great Old Broads for Wilderness,
Green
Party of Utah, Living Rivers, Remarkable Earth Photography, Ridgeline
&
Open Space Coalition, San Juan Audubon, San Juan Citizens Alliance,
Shared Blanket Gallery, Sierra Club, Southern Ute Grassroots
Organization, Taxpayers for the Animas River, Utah Environmental
Congress, Wilderness Society, and many more... [contact LIVING
RIVERS to
add your group's name!]
__________________________________________________________
Rally Flyer and Poster available in .pdf format on request
__________________________________________________________
Friends:
We are happy to report that the campaign to de-authorize the
Animas-La
Plata (A-LP) water project continues to grow, with new supporters
every
day (see list below)! We want to update you on the planning for
the
"launch" event that will take place in Durango on Friday,
November 9.
PLEASE COME--WE NEED EVERYONE TO SHOW UP AND DEMONSTRATE SUPPORT
FOR
ENVIRONMENTALLY SOUND AND SOCIALLY JUST WATER POLICIES!!!
[NOTE: Is your group or business already an endorser of this
event? If
not, please contact David at <david@livingrivers.net> to
sign on today!]
LACK OF ACCOUNTABILITY: We're calling attention to the A-LP
project's
lack of public input, exemplified by the authorizing legislation
last
year, with NO PUBLIC HEARINGS and no serious consideration of
non-development alternatives that would address needs of the
Ute and
Navajo people.
LETTER TO CONGRESS: A central feature of the Nov. 9 rally
events will be
the mailing of a letter to each of the members of the U.S. Congress,
calling for de-authorization of A-LP, a serious look at environmentally
beneficial alternatives, and an investigation of the project
by the
General Accounting Office (GAO).
END GOVERNMENT SECRECY: The Bureau of Reclamation has withheld
from the
public important documents about the project, raising suspicions
of
violations of the law by the supporters of A-LP. Citizens recently
went
to court, asking a judge to order the agency to release public
documents.
An audit by GAO would help resolve unanswered questions of possible
agency wrongdoing and cover-ups.
WATER FOR DEVELOPMENT, NOT FOR PEOPLE: A-LP was sold to the
Congress as a
water rights settlement for the Colorado Ute tribes, even though
there is
currently no demand for that water. Everyone agrees that Native
American
communities need assistance, but not at the expense of the environment,
and not for projects that don't help those who need help.
SUBSIDIES FOR DEVELOPMENT: A-LP was also promoted as a water
supply for
the Navajo community of Shiprock, New Mexico, but the water would
be used
to subsidize industrial development, not provide drinking water
for needy
Navajo families. Over time, A-LP would actually decrease the
amount of
water available to the Navajo people.
PROTECT QUALITY OF LIFE: The people of southwest Colorado,
northwest New
Mexico, and the Ute and Navajo nations want and need their environment
and quality of life protected, yet A-LP would provide infrastructure
to
support more damaging industrial development--including more
coal mining
and power plants. The region's air quality and water quality
are already
seriously compromised; why make it worse by building A-LP, which
will
require huge electricity inputs to pump water to the proposed
Ridges
Basin Reservoir, while partially draining the river?
THE CAMPAIGN to de-authorize A-LP asks Congress to stop project
construction activities, and direct the Bureau of Reclamation
to work
with the affected communities to come up with environmentally
sound and
socially just alternatives that benefit people, not real estate
developers, coal companies, and other corporate interests.
YOUR SUPPORT AND PARTICIPATION IS VITAL! We are building a
broad-based
coalition of groups and individuals, natives and non-natives
alike, to
promote rational alternatives to industrial water resources development
schemes.
REFORM THE BUREAU OF RECLAMATION: The November 9 event is
the launching
not only of the A-LP de-authorization campaign but also of a
larger
campaign to focus public attention and pressure on the federal
agency
that has kept the A-LP "monster" alive, the Bureau
of Reclamation. June
17, 2002, will mark the centennial of the federally subsidized
irrigation
and river development agency, and organizations across the West
are
gearing up to use the milestone to call for major reforms. See
LIVING
RIVERS' website for details.
WHAT YOU CAN DO:
1) Sign on as a supporter of the Nov. 9 rally if you haven't
already done
so.
2) Pass this message along to others you know who may be interested.
3) Participate in the rally (each endorsing organization is invited
to
speak).
4) Help us carry the campaign message to communities and constituencies
around the country, and help RECLAIM THE BUREAU IN 2002!
For more information, contact LIVING RIVERS at 435-259-1063.
===================================================+
Date: Thursday, October 11,
2001 3:38 PM
Subject: News Release: Dam Security Measures Flawed; Public
Kept in Dark Over Risk
NEWS from...
___________________________________________________________
L I V I N G R I V E R S
POB 466 * Moab, UT 84532 * 435-259-1063/fax 259-7612
POB 1589 * Scottsdale, AZ 85252 * 480-990-7839/fax 990-2662
www.livingrivers.net
___________________________________________________________
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE -- THURSDAY, OCTOBER 11, 2001
CONTACT: Owen Lammers, Executive Director, 435-259-1063
David Orr, Director of Field Programs, 435-259-1063
Dam Security Measures Flawed
Public Kept in Dark Over Risk
In the wake of the tragic airline hijacking attacks of September
11,
2001, emergency security measures have been put in place at major
dams in
the Colorado River system. But the newly evolving security plans
of the
federal government are flawed, and reflect a continuing unwillingness
to
seriously address dam safety issues, as before the attacks.
LIVING RIVERS has learned that the new measures instituted
by the Bureau
of Reclamation (BuRec) are weakest at two of the system's most
vulnerable
structures, Glen Canyon and Flaming Gorge Dams. The failure of
either
could set the stage for a series of catastrophic events with
massive
human and economic impacts from Utah to Mexico.
While federal resources are currently focused on protecting
726-foot
Hoover Dam near Las Vegas from possible terrorist attack, comparatively
little is being done at Glen Canyon Dam upstream on the Colorado
River,
and at Flaming Gorge Dam upstream on the Green River. These two
dams
represent the second and third largest dams, respectively, in
the
Colorado River basin, after Hoover.
Dam failure, whether caused by terrorist attack or by floodwaters,
would
cause not only catastrophic damage to the reservoir and immediate
downstream areas, but also a possible "domino effect"
that could result
in major impacts on the water supply systems of more than 25
million
people in the lower basin, and lead to economic disruptions in
Nevada,
Arizona, California, and northwestern Mexico.
- MORE -
Focus on Hoover Ignores Real Risks
While around-the-clock patrols at Hoover prevent boaters from
approaching
the dam within a mile upstream and a half-mile downstream, no
such
controls are in place at either Glen Canyon or Flaming Gorge.
Boats may
freely approach Glen Canyon Dam from the downstream side, and
only a
small-diameter cable 150 yards from the dam impedes boater access
from
the reservoir. Boats have free access to both the visitor center
and dam
area at Flaming Gorge.
Trucks and trailers are prohibited from crossing Hoover Dam,
and
passenger vehicles are subject to search by state highway patrol
officers
at checkpoints on either side of the dam. Yet truck traffic still
flows
freely over the crest of Flaming Gorge Dam and across the Glen
Canyon Dam
Bridge, as before September 11. No security checkpoints have
been erected
at either site.
Oddly, despite the extraordinary security attention Hoover
is receiving,
it is by far the best-constructed component of the Colorado River
plumbing system. Built into massive granite canyon walls and
designed
with enough mass for gravity to hold its reservoir--the nation's
largest--in check, a major attack is unlikely to cause structural
failure. The real problems are further upriver.
Near Page, Arizona stands 710-foot Glen Canyon Dam, tucked
into porous,
weak, Navajo sandstone that constantly leaks water around the
dam. Large
pieces of sandstone adjacent to the dam routinely break away.
BuRec must
install increasingly longer rock bolts in an ongoing attempt
to protect
the dam's powerplant from falling rock, and to ensure stability
of the
dam's abutment. This past summer workers could be seen patching
the dam's
face where massive slabs of concrete had fallen off.
[EDITORS: Contact LIVING RIVERS for recent photos of patching
operations.]
In 1983, high water flows caused the dam's sandstone spillway
tunnels to
crumble in places, posing a threat to the integrity of the abutment.
The
dam's greatest vulnerability is in a high-water event.
Any compromise of the crumbling sandstone abutments would
allow two
years' annual flow of the Colorado River to blast its way around
the dam,
scouring the Grand Canyon before surging across Lake Mead on
its way to
Hoover Dam. In the best-case scenario, this water would flow
over the top
of Hoover, creating a downstream flood similar to that were Hoover
to
fail by itself. At worst, failure of Glen Canyon would compromise
Hoover
Dam, multiplying the flow by a factor of two, and sending four
years'
annual flow of the Colorado River heading toward Mexico all at
once.
"Glen Canyon Dam is an accident waiting to happen,"
said Owen Lammers of
LIVING RIVERS. "Not only should security be stepped-up,
but serious plans
must be put in place for the dam's controlled decommissioning,
as the dam
very likely could fail on its own."
A failure at Flaming Gorge Dam, with a full pool of 3.7 million
acre-feet, would threaten Glen Canyon Dam downstream if Glen
Canyon's
reservoir were incapable of accommodating the inflow. This is
often the
case during peak flow periods in the spring and early summer.
As at Glen
Canyon, security at Flaming Gorge is comparatively weak.
Regardless of the scenario, the most significant damage would
occur below
Hoover Dam. Despite their smaller size, Davis, Parker and Imperial
Dams
constitute critically important elements of the Colorado River
plumbing
system. These dams are not constructed to absorb massive inflows,
and
would be severely damaged by a catastrophic flood event. The
Central
Arizona Project Canal, California Aqueduct, and All-American
Canal - the
region's major water delivery systems - would also be jeopardized.
Municipal water supplies for cities from Las Vegas to San Diego
could be
wiped out.
The riverside communities of Laughlin, Nevada, Needles and
Blythe,
California, and Bullhead City, Lake Havasu City, and Yuma, Arizona
are
all at risk in the event of a major lower basin flood. The reservations
of the Fort Mojave, Colorado River Indian Tribes, Chemehuevi,
Cocopah,
and Quechan nations lie along the lower river and are all at
great risk
of flooding, as are numerous Mexican farming communities in the
Colorado
River delta region. Three interstate highways and numerous oil
and gas
pipelines cross the river below Laughlin.
The federal government is supposed to make available dam failure
inundation maps to inform the public of these potential threats.
However,
BuRec recently told LIVING RIVERS that access to these maps is
restricted
under new security measures. LIVING RIVERS has filed a Freedom
of
Information Act request, which had not yet been honored at presstime.
"We certainly don't want to aid any terrorist in mapping
out potential
targets, but these safety concerns exist regardless of the threat
of
terrorism," said Lammers. "It's time for the Bureau
to get serious about
addressing dam safety, starting with ensuring the public is fully
aware
of the risks its projects pose."
# # #
Internet Info Resources:
Living Rivers: www.livingrivers.net
Bureau of Reclamation: www.usbr.gov
Hoover Dam: www.hooverdam.usbr.gov
Glen Canyon Dam Facts: www.uc.usbr.gov/information/gcdfacts.html
Flaming Gorge Dam Facts: www.uc.usbr.gov/information/fg_factsheet.html
USGS: Grand Canyon Floods: walrus.wr.usgs.gov/grandcan/floodflows.html
1997 Flaming Gorge Emergency: www.uc.usbr.gov/pao/gorge/fgorge.html
Davis Dam Facts: www.lc.usbr.gov/~pao/davis.html
Parker Dam Facts: www.lc.usbr.gov/~pao/parker.html
Central Arizona Project: www.cap-az.com
Las Vegas Valley Water District: www.lvvwd.com
Metropolitan Water District: www.mwd.dst.ca.us/mwdh2o/index02.html
===================================================+
Date: Tuesday, October 9, 2001
6:19 PM
Subject: Ford's Audubon donation irks ranchers
Ford's Audubon donation irks ranchers
$5 million contribution costs Ford sales among Western U.S.
land interests
By Mary Connelly
Automotive News / October 08, 2001
Ford Motor Co. ads show cowboys proudly using the company's
pickups. But
a growing number of cowboys out West are angry enough with Ford
to start
driving Chevrolets.
Ranchers, loggers, miners and agricultural business interests
are
protesting Ford's environmental attitudes, specifically, a $5
million
contribution to the National Audubon Society.
On Wednesday, Oct. 3, Ford dispatched two executives to Arizona
to meet
with three agricultural associations. One of the groups represents
4,000
elected or appointed agricultural and natural resource officials
in 16
states and Guam.
Ford is embroiled in a passionate and divisive debate in the
West over
land use and natural resources. Led by Chairman William Clay
Ford Jr., an
avowed environmentalist, the automaker has cast itself as an
environmentally friendly company. For example, Bill Ford led
the
automotive industry in acknowledging the existence of global
warming.
Now, Ford Division dealers say the company's attitude is contributing
to
lost sales among ranchers, miners, loggers and farmers in the
western
United States.
"Ford has donated money to environmental groups. One
of them is the
National Audubon Society. These environmental groups are spending
a lot
of money putting timber, livestock grazing and everything else
out of
business in the West,'' said Doc Lane, director of natural resources
for
the 2,000-member Arizona Cattle Ranchers Association and a meeting
participant. "Our concern is why would Ford be paying to
put their
customers out of business?''
Last week, the protesting groups asked Ford to underwrite
a
multi-million-dollar national educational campaign promoting
American
agricultural and forestry products.
Last week's meeting followed a similar session this month
in Montana with
protesting members of the logging industry.
Lost sales
"These are not just complaints. This is costing sales,''
said Udon
McSpadden, owner of McSpadden Ford-Lincoln-Mercury in Glove,
Ariz., and a
meeting participant. "There were three people in the cattle
ranching
industry in the meeting that drove Fords their whole life and
who now own
General Motors products for the first time.''
Bird-watching money
A $5 million Ford Motor Co. Fund contribution to the National
Audubon
Society triggered the protest. The money was earmarked for "bird
monitoring and environmental education programs,'' said Brook
Galbraith,
Ford fund spokeswoman.
The Ford fund is the philanthropic arm of Ford Motor Co.
No members of the Ford family are officers or on the board
of the Ford
fund, Galbraith said.
"The Ford Fund has assured Ford Division that they will
be more cognizant
of customer and dealer concerns when making future contribution
decisions," said John Jelinek, Ford Division spokesman.
The protesters fault Ford for contributing to an organization
whose goals
are at odds with their own.
"We just want Ford to work with American agriculture,''
said Olin Sims, a
Wyoming rancher and chairman of the Western Coalition of Conservation
Districts. Created by Congress in the early 1940s, conservation
districts
exist in every state and are units of local government charged
with
protecting natural resources. The Western Coalition represents
752
districts with more than 4,000 elected or appointed officials
in 16
states and Guam.
Promoting agriculture
"We have asked Ford to commit to investing back into
American agriculture
through promoting American agriculture and forestry products,''
said
Sims, a meeting participant. "We would like to hear back
from them in 45
days.''
The Ford fund did not attend last week's meeting, Galbraith
said. J.C.
Collins, Ford Division executive dealer relations manager, and
John
Oldfield, Ford's Phoenix-area regional manager, represented Ford
at the
two-hour meeting, dealer McSpadden said.
===================================================+
Date: Tuesday, October 9, 2001
6:46 PM
Subject: Cortez J: Mesa Verde access always a challenge
[Access! by any means necessary...]
Mesa Verde access always a challenge
Oct 6, 2001
SUMMER ROAD construction almost three miles into Mesa Verde
National Park
slows park tourists in June. The park repaired a "bulging
slope" on one
of the steepest parts of the park's entrance road, anchoring
the side of
the hill into place with concrete blocks and cables.
By Janelle Holden
Journal Staff Writer
Locals in Montezuma County often joke that it's a shame the
Anasazi built
their cliff palaces so far from U.S. Highway 160. The ruins of
a great
ancestral Puebloan society reside deep in Mesa Verde National
Park -
requiring a trip over a steep and twisty 20-mile highway to see
them.
Providing access to those ruins and keeping the highway passable
has been
a challenge for park officials ever since the park's inception
in 1906.
Before 1913, when the first entrance road was completed, it
took visitors
three days to make a round-trip visit to the park from the nearby
town of
Mancos on horses in a pack train. Automobiles made their first
foray into
the park on May 28, 1914, when a caravan of six cars made the
round trip
from Mancos into the park in one day.
The park has subsequently spent an estimated $50 million to
$60 million
building and repairing its present entrance road, Route 10, making
the
federal highway one of the most valuable pieces of real estate
in
Montezuma County. But the man responsible for maintaining the
route says
the money is well-spent.
"You know, any road needs maintenance, and any road's
maintenance is
really expensive," explains Frank Cope, chief of maintenance
at Mesa
Verde. "For a park its size, it's probably gotten its fair
share of
federal highway funds, but I don't think it's any more or less
than
others."
As long as cars and buses remain the main means of access
for the
hundreds of thousands of tourists who visit the park each year,
the road
will remain a funding priority.
"I don't think the average resident living near a national
park has any
idea the potential the park has to change the community,"
explained Cope.
"You lose your road, all the people in town go hungry.
It's like any
other physical asset in the valley, we're going to spare no expense
to
keep it right. When it comes down to it, $3 million here and
$4 million
there is nothing compared to what it might be if the park was
closed. You
could lose that much in revenue in three days."
That theory has been tested at several points in the park's
history, when
mudslides and road failures have forced the park to close for
several
weeks at a time.
In 1961, a year after the modern road was finished, the road
failed,
signaling a 20-year battle with slippery Mancos shale, steep
slopes,
floods, and fires.
In 1979, 2 1/2 miles into the park, 80,000 tons of material
fell on the
road, causing the park's closure for 30 days. Another slide in
the
mid-1980s closed the park for several weeks and cost $7 million
to repair.
The park just finished repairing a "bulging slope"
at one of the steepest
parts of the road, anchoring the side of the hill into place
with
concrete blocks and cables, and putting in an extensive drainage
system.
And starting in 2003, the park will be improving five places
on the main
entrance road that are in danger of failing or in need of realignment.
All of this construction and reconstruction raises the question
of
whether tourists would have been better served with a road built
from a
different direction.
"A lot of people say, 'You know, why was this road put
here, it shouldn't
have been put here," but one of the things that people really
don't
understand is that this is an archaeological park, but it is
also a park
that was set aside as a national park for its scenic vistas,
and the
highway furnishes the scenic vistas wherever they may be,"
explained Cope.
"There's always been talk that it could come up from
the south somehow,
and that has always been a discussion. But you never know, even
if that
was done, whether the road would be any more stable coming up
there. The
fact of it is that this is a high mesa, and somehow regardless
of where
you come, you have to take a highway up the slope of the mesa,"
said Cope.
Since the park's inception, the road has gone through three
major
realignments.
Early on, it traveled 2,500 feet from the entrance at the
valley floor to
the west side of the park's highest point and across the length
of the
Knife Edge, a precarious section of road that skirted the top
of Mesa
Verde, revealing views of the Montezuma Valley and nearby mountain
ranges
before dipping into Prater Canyon and the interior of the park.
In the early '20's, a survey was done that recommended the
road be moved
east, toward the town of Mancos, approaching the park from an
entirely
different angle. It switchbacked up the "Big Hill"
of the mesa and down
into Morefield Campground.
Mancos resident Herman Wagner remembers traveling this road
as a small
child, riding in his father's car.
"In those days it was mostly Model-T Fords, and cars
of that vintage, and
some of them even had to back up the road. If your fuel tank
was in the
back, you had to back up so that the gas would flow into your
carburetor," remembers Wagner.
The famous Knife Edge Road terrorized early park visitors,
with its steep
drop-offs and slippery Mancos shale. It was originally a one-lane,
dirt
road with a telephone at the top and another at the bottom that
drivers
used to find out whether any other cars were on the road.
Though eventually improved and surfaced, it was abandoned
in 1957 when
the park drilled a hole through Prater Ridge, realigned the road
around
the east side of Point Lookout and built a road through Nussbaum
Pass.
Historian Dwayne Smith of Durango is completing a history
of visitor
transportation to and into the park.
"Mesa Verde National Park is interesting because we see
all the phases of
transportation there. At one time they had stables, the Rio Grande
Southern Railroad took tourists there - now we have automobiles,
buses,
and Frontier Airlines," said Smith.
Locating the entrance to Mesa Verde National Park between
Cortez and
Mancos was a critical boost to both towns' economies.
"From the very first, it had a big impact on Cortez and
Mancos," said
Smith. "A lot of people came into the park, and a lot of
people made good
money up there when there weren't a lot of good jobs. It took
Cortez from
a farming town to one that depends greatly on tourism."
In fact, the push for a road into Mesa Verde began before
the turn of the
century by local citizens.
"Unless our cliff-dwelling guides do something toward
cutting a
respectable trail over Mesa Verde toward the ruins, the people
of this
village will take the matter in hand, and not only make a good
trail, but
will erect guideboards with painted data thereon, thus doing
away with
necessity of guides from whom tourists gather little or no information,"
warned Mancos Times editor W.H. Kelly in the Sept. 18, 1896,
edition.
Kelly worried about the comfort of traveling tourists, especially
women.
"Ladies do not like to dress like scarecrows, ride astride,
and endanger
sight and life from brush. With the use of a sharp hatchet on
one day it
would soon make that ride one of enjoyment."
Tourist satisfaction is still a point of concern, especially
since
growing numbers of tourists may hurt both the park's archaeological
resources and visitor experience.
The park asked 2,500 visitors to complete a survey this summer
that
included pictures of popular archaeological sites with a varied
number of
people in them.
Visitors were asked how "acceptable" the number
of people pictured at the
sites was.
The park has set capacities at several popular sites, but
not for the
whole park.
"If visitation continues to grow and grow, we're going
to be looking at
setting capacities park-wide," predicted Patty Trap, the
park's planner.
The park is developing a first-ever park transportation plan,
but Trap
says mass-transportation systems such as gondolas, fixed tramways,
and
buses will all be on the table for consideration.
"The park service does not have any gondolas or fixed
tramway systems in
the nation," Trap said. "I've talked to enough people
to know that it's
one of the issues that people tend to really support, or they
are
definitely against it. One of the major reasons they are against
it is
that they think it's a Disneyification of our national-park system.
And
so the question is, is that an appropriate mode of travel for
this or any
of the other parks in the national-park system?"
The idea of a gondola surfaced in the 1970s and was resurfaced
in almost
every decade since. Although the entrance road would have to
remain open,
a gondola would reduce expensive maintenance costs.
"If you don't have to maintain a highway to public health
standards and
are only using it for administrative functions, then your cost
would drop
dramatically," explained Cope.
The park is also working on plans to relocate its headquarters
and
artifacts from the park's interior to its entrance, a plan that
may
protect resources from future forest fires, but one that has
area
residents worried about its impact on the local economy.
Some theorize that tourists may not stay as long in the area
if they can
simply walk through the park's museum without making the lengthy
trip up
onto the mesa.
But for those who have seen the park change from one rarely
visited to a
popular tourist attraction, Mesa Verde will always remain a special
place, no matter how visitors are transported to its cliff palaces.
Clay Bader, an 80-year-old Mancos resident with lifelong ties
to Mesa
Verde, said he's in favor of a gondola. None of the changes the
park has
made, so far, he said, has dimmed his love of the site.
"I still enjoy going up to the park just like I did when
I was a kid," he
said.
Top Ten Construction Achievements of the 20th Century
1. Channel Tunnel (Chunnel)
2. Golden Gate Bridge
3. The Dwight D. Eisenhower System of Interstate & Defense
Highways
4. Empire State Building
5. Hoover Dam
6. Panama Canal
7. Sydney Opera House
8. Aswan High Dam
9. World Trade Center
10. Chek Lap Kok Airport
Who is responsible for creating this list?
A poll was commisioned by CONEXPO/CONAGG'99 to determine The
Top Ten
Construction Achievements of the 20th Century. CONEXPO/CONAGG'99
was a
construction, aggregates and ready mixed concrete industries
trade show.
The show is owned and organized by the Construction Industries
Manufacturers Association (CIMA), the National Aggregates Association
(NAA) and the National Ready Mixed Concrete Association (NRMCA).
Cosponsors include the National Stone Association (NSA) and the
Associated General Contractors (AGC) of America.
How did they choose who was in the Top Ten?
More than 120 projects, selected by an international panel
of industry
executives and editors from around the world were reviewed to
come up
with the top ten. These projects represent more than just concrete,
iron
and steel. Two of the projects were built during the Great Depression
when workers earned $4 a day. Other projects have united a nation
and
others have brought together different cultures. And others simply
provide a gift to the senses, mimic the surroundings or add to
the beauty
of a city's skyline.
Selection criteria on which the Top 10 were chosen included:
* A strong impact or benefit to humanity.
* A recognized quality of work.
* A substantial economic impact on the local economy.
* A recognized overall value for community or region.
* Professional recognition on local, regional, national or international
levels.
* Use of inovation and application of new technology.
* impact on/sensitivity to the environment.
* influence on future projects.
Categories of construction areas considered:
1. Buildings & Structures
2. Roads & Highways
3. Bridges
4. Tunnels
5. Dams & Waterways
6. Commercial Centers
7. Transportation Facilities
===================================================+
Date: Saturday, September
15, 2001 9:42 PM
Subject: Save the Alaska pipeline!
"Make sure the trans-Alaska oil pipeline is environmentally
safe!"
"We are not trying to shut the pipeline down. A safe,
reliable pipeline
is in everyone's interest, especially the environment. But this
is our
best chance to correct the environmental wrongs of the last 30
years."
-------------------Forwarded Message----------------------
From: American Rivers [mailto:action@action.amrivers.org]
Sent: Monday, September 10, 2001 4:19 PM
Subject: Don't Let an Oil Pipeline Harm Alaska's Wild Rivers
Don't gamble with the health of Alaska's pristine rivers--Make
sure the
trans-Alaska oil pipeline is environmentally safe!
Click here to send an email to protect 800 Alaskan rivers
and streams--
and the salmon, grizzly bears, and other wildlife that call them
home!
http://tapseis.anl.gov/involve/pubform.cfm
WHAT IS THE ISSUE?
The Trans-Alaska Pipeline System, the 800-mile transportation
conduit
from the North Slope oil fields to the terminal at Valdez, crosses
either
state or federal land for nearly its entire length. The permission
to
cross that land was granted in 1974 by both the State of Alaska
and the
United States government in right-of-way documents. These permits
have a
30-year life -- and must be renewed in 2004.
The Bureau of Land Management is conducting scoping hearings
around
Alaska in the next 2 weeks to determine what issues should be
studied in
the Environmental Impact Statement on pipeline reauthorization.
We are not trying to shut the pipeline down. A safe, reliable
pipeline
is in everyone's interest, especially the environment. But this
is our
best chance to correct the environmental wrongs of the last 30
years.
WHY SHOULD I BE CONCERNED?
Every day, the pipeline sends 1 million barrels of oil to
Valdez. It
crosses 800 rivers and streams, 3 incredible mountain ranges,
and some of
the most spectacular parts of Alaska.
Now, consider that the pipeline was originally expected to
last 25-30
years. If you bought a brand new car in 1977 and performed enough
maintenance to keep it on the road, wouldn't you still be worried
that at
any time it might break down on you?
WHAT ARE THE IMPORTANT POINTS?
* The renewal application submitted by the pipeline owners
(principally
the companies BP, Phillips, and Exxon) includes a 600-page environmental
report. But that report glosses over vital issues and contains
virtually
no information on how the pipeline owners intend to maintain
pipeline
integrity for the next 30 years.
The BLM, and their EIS contractor Argonne National Laboratory,
should not
accept the superficial studies of the pipeline owners, and should
initiate their own thorough review.
* The reauthorization of the pipeline should not automatically
be for
another 30 years. This is an aging pipeline that, like any piece
of
mechanical equipment, will face major maintenance challenges
as the years
go by. Why not reauthorize the pipeline for only 10 years, or
even 5
years, and make similar environmental reviews mandatory for each
future
reauthorization.
* We know that climate change has already affected permafrost
conditions
in Alaska. The EIS should examine how the pipeline has fared
during the
last 30 years of global warming -- and how the pipeline's integrity
can
be guaranteed for the next 30 years.
* Following the Exxon Valdez spill of 1989, local citizens
were given a
formal role in oversight of the marine transportation of oil.
These
"citizens advisory councils" have been hailed by industry
and government
alike as essential to protecting the environment. A citizens
advisory
council should be established for the pipeline -- where local
people and
interests are represented fairly and given formalized oversight
of the
pipeline.
* Finally, it should be clear that we are not trying to shut
the pipeline
down. A safe, reliable pipeline is in everyone's interest, especially
the
environment.
MAKE YOUR VOICE HEARD TODAY
You can submit comments online at the pipeline EIS website
(Make sure
your comments include the "Important Points" listed
above):
http://tapseis.anl.gov/involve/pubform.cfm
For questions or more information about this important issue,
please
contact:
Ross Coen at the Alaska Forum for Environmental Responsibility
phone: (907) 479-6946, email: aferfbx@alaskaforum.org
--Comments will only be accepted until September 29, so don't
wait!--
WHERE AND WHEN ARE THE PUBLIC HEARINGS?
If you live in Alaska, please consider attending one or more
of the
hearings:
Wednesday, September 12, 3-9pm
Barrow / North Slope Borough Assembly Chambers
Thursday, September 13, 3-5pm open house; 7-9pm public hearing
Fairbanks / BLM Northern Field Office, 1150 University Avenue
Monday, September 17, 3-9pm
Copper Center & Glennallen / Glennallen High School Commons
Tuesday, September 18, 7-9pm
Valdez / Valdez Convention and Civic Center
Wednesday, September 19, 3-9pm
Delta Junction / Delta High School Gymnasium
Thursday, September 20, 3-5pm open house, 7-9pm public hearing
Anchorage / Anchorage Hilton Hotel
*************************************
Thank you Jeannine.Hale@att.net for helping to protect and restore
America's rivers.
To contact American Rivers, send an email to Rebecca Sherman
at
outreach@amrivers.org or call 202-347-7550.
To update your information, please visit:
http://amriversaction.ctsg.com/profileEditor
Encourge friends to become an online river activist, by visiting
www.americanrivers.org/takeaction. To become a member of American
Rivers, visit www.americanrivers.org/joindonate
Join the nation's online river community at www.americanrivers.org
for
free online resources, toolkits, and ways to unite with other
activists
on your important issues. AOL Keyword: American Rivers
===================================================+
Date: Saturday, September
15, 2001 9:42 PM
Subject: Sandia Director worries over trend to "delegitimatize"
nuclear weapons
> The following long interview with Sandia Lab Director
Paul Robinson
> is worth reading for all the gory details and nuances of
his world view,
> which makes even less sense after yesterday's tragedy.
>
> NATIONAL LAB DIRECTOR MAKES THE CASE FOR NEW NUKES
> National Journal -- September 11, 2001
> by James Kitfield,
>
> To his critics, C. Paul Robinson is Dr. Strangelove incarnate,
a
> Cold Warrior who after nearly four decades working in the
U.S. nuclear
> weapons complex learned to love the bomb. While even hard-liners
in the
> Bush Administration are today trumpeting "deep cuts"
in the U.S. nuclear
> arsenal, Robinson, director of Sandia National Laboratories,
argues for
> new types of nuclear weapons to deter new kinds of threats.
Although
> most of the globe embraces the dream inherent in the Nuclear
> Nonproliferation Treaty of a future world without nukes,
Robinson--with
> unusual, to-the-point frankness--decries this "delegitimization"
of
> nuclear weapons.
> Not even his critics, however, question Robinson's credentials
as an
> articulate advocate for the continued value of the United
States'
> nuclear deterrent. A physicist by trade, Robinson spent
nearly 20 years
> at Los Alamos National Laboratory, eventually heading its
nuclear
> weapons programs. With the title of ambassador, he also
served as Ronald
> Reagan's chief negotiator and head of the U.S. delegation
to the Nuclear
> Testing Talks in Geneva in the 1980s. He is presently chairman
of the
> policy subcommittee of the Strategic Advisory Group, a panel
that
> advises the four-star commander of U.S. Strategic Command,
which is in
> charge of U.S. nuclear weapons. Many of Robinson's ideas
for reshaping
> America's nuclear arsenal--contained in his white paper
"Pursuing a New
> Nuclear Weapons Policy for the 21st Century"--have
been embraced by
> senior Bush Administration officials. National Journal correspondent
> James Kitfield recently
> interviewed Robinson in Washington.
>
> NJ: In a post-Cold War era when most policy makers are focusing
on
> reducing nuclear arsenals, you argue in your paper that
nuclear weapons
> not only "have an abiding place on the international
scene," but also
> that new ones should be tailored for new kinds of deterrence.
>
> Robinson: As I wrote this paper, it felt like putting my
head in a
> guillotine, because I knew that some people were going to
try and chop
> it off for making these arguments. A lot has been done in
recent years
> to delegitimize nuclear weapons to the point that I find
people are
> lulled into a belief that nuclear weapons are going to go
away soon, and
> thus we needn't worry about them anymore. But it's ridiculous
to think
> that we can "uninvent" nuclear weapons.
> I also happen to think that nuclear weapons have not only
been vital to
> U.S. national security, but also that history has turned
out better for
> our having nuclear weapons. U.S. nuclear weapons help maintain
peace,
> and a lot of other nations depend on our nuclear umbrella.
So, like it
> or not, for the foreseeable future we have no alternative
but to
> continue to depend upon nuclear weapons and the deterrence
they provide.
>
> NJ: Are there no compelling strategic and moral arguments
for, as you
> say, "delegitimizing" weapons of such horrific
destructive potential?
> For instance, the United States signed the Nuclear Nonproliferation
> Treaty, which calls for non-nuclear states to forgo nuclear
weapons, and
> for nuclear weapons states to work to reduce their arsenals
eventually
> to zero.
>
> Robinson: The NPT Treaty, the arguments surrounding the
Comprehensive
> Test Ban Treaty, and a lot of the rhetoric we heard from
the Clinton
> White House all suggested that sooner or later nuclear weapons
are going
> to go away. I simply don't believe that is true. I think
it's important
> that people wake up and realize that nuclear weapons have
meant a lot to
> our security, and we'd better make sure that our arsenal
doesn't erode
> if our future depends on it.
>
> NJ: And you've taken on the mission of sounding the alarm?
>
> Robinson: No one likes thinking the unthinkable, because
it's a tough
> business. But someone's got to do it. I guess after spending
my entire
> career in this field, I don't think anyone else knows more
about the
> subject than me.
>
> NJ: Arms control advocates would argue that the NPT is largely
> responsible for many nuclear have-nots doing without nuclear
weapons.
>
> Robinson: Yes and no. I believe the establishment of NATO
did more to
> prevent proliferation than the NPT, because it extended
our nuclear
> umbrella over the nations of Western Europe that could relatively
easily
> have developed their own nuclear weapons. I think there's
a lesson in
> that example which applies today to South Asia.
>
> NJ: The Bush Administration has proposed deep reductions
in our
> offensive nuclear arsenal as a sweetener in selling its
proposed
> national missile defense shield. At some point, might such
reductions
> erode the United States' ability to extend its nuclear umbrella?
>
> Robinson: I support deep reductions, but at some point [those
cuts]
> would call our umbrella into question. I worked on a report
on that
> subject for the commander in chief of U.S. Strategic Command
as a member
> of the Strategic Advisory Group. Essentially, our blueprint
concluded
> that at some point between 2,000 and 1,000 nuclear weapons,
we will run
> into speed bumps and probably a stop sign on reductions.
It's not an
> exact science, and that level would still represent a dramatic
reduction
> from today's massive U.S. and Russian nuclear arsenals.
>
> At some point in reducing our arsenal, we also have to switch
from
> bilateral to multilateral negotiations, because our nuclear
arsenal has
> to deter a potential threat from unforeseen alliances that
might develop
> in the future between other nuclear states. Stranger things
have
> happened throughout history. Somewhat counterintuitively,
a world in
> which there are just a few nuclear weapons would also be
very dangerous,
> because the possibility that one side would "break
out," and secretly
> construct a dominant nuclear force of a hundred or so weapons,
would be
> quite high.
>
> NJ: Do you think the Bush Administration's proposed missile
defense
> system will lessen the need for some offensive nuclear weapons
in the
> deterrence equation?
>
> Robinson: I believe both offensive and defensive systems
can coexist as
> part of an overall national security policy, though I have
yet to hear
> that policy articulated. You'll never have a defense, however,
that is
> dominant against offensive nuclear weapons. When I speak
publicly on the
> subject, I also ask audiences to consider that the United
States or one
> of its allies were attacked with nuclear weapons one day,
and our
> proposed missile defense system worked as advertised. Say
only 5 or 10
> percent, or whatever number you pick, of the attacking nuclear
missiles
> got through. Do you really think the war is then over?
>
> NJ: The process of reducing the nuclear arsenals of the
United States
> and Russia has been gridlocked for years by inertia over
the START II
> treaty, which would bring each side down to roughly 3,500
weapons. The
> U.S. Senate has ratified the treaty, but the Russian Duma
has not. Do
> you approve of the Bush Administration's suggestion to break
the
> gridlock by abandoning the START process altogether and
unilaterally
> reducing our arsenal?
>
> Robinson: Well, the process has definitely become knotted
up over the
> START II treaty. I considered START I a good piece of work
and a worthy
> agreement. The START II treaty, on the other hand, was not
the result of
> a formal negotiation in Geneva. It was more a ministerial
statement
> agreed upon by both sides that they then decided to enshrine
as a
> treaty. And quite frankly, from the Russian point of view,
I can see how
> they find a lot of things wrong with START II. For the Russians,
the
> whole process resembled a guy trying to negotiate with his
loan officer.
>
> NJ: Why is START II unfavorable for the Russians?
>
> Robinson: The treaty certainly didn't win any applause from
the Russian
> military or defense community. They felt it was an awful
deal. At a time
> when Russia's [ballistic missile] submarines are falling
apart and they
> can't keep them at sea, and they lack the money to build
the mobile
> missile systems that they had planned on buying, START II
would commit
> the Russians to going down to single warheads on all their
land-based
> missiles.
>
> NJ: Recently, Russia has threatened to rearm some of its
ballistic
> missiles with multiple warheads if the United States unilaterally
> abrogates the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty in order to
build a missile
> defense. Would that be a worrisome development?
>
> Robinson: When I heard [Russian President Vladimir] Putin
talking about
> doing that, I knew we needed some new talking points with
the Russians,
> because I can't think of anything more stupid. Presumably,
we would be
> the target, since MIRVs were built to attack missile fields.
As the
> United States has gotten rid of most of our land-based missiles
and
> decreased our reliance on that leg of the strategic triad,
however, we
> no longer present those kinds of targets. Today we have
roughly 800
> ICBMs, and we've telegraphed our intention of going down
to below 500
> land-based missiles, all with single warheads. So if MIRVs
didn't make
> much sense in the first place, they make even less sense
today.
>
> NJ: In your paper, you argue that the United States needs
to tailor its
> nuclear arsenal to deter new types of threats, especially
chemical and
> biological weapons. Do we really need to find new uses for
nuclear
> weapons?
>
> Robinson: Not necessarily new. We had a pretty good test
case with Iraq
> during the Persian Gulf War. If you look at the volumes
of chemical and
> biological weapons later reported by United Nations weapons
inspectors,
> it was astounding what Iraq possessed. Why weren't those
weapons of mass
> destruction used? Many military experts I've talked to are
absolutely
> convinced it was because of a secret letter sent by President
Bush
> threatening the gravest consequences if such weapons were
released.
> President Clinton made a similar threat against North Korea
during a
> crisis in 1994.
>
> NJ: If our implicit threat of nuclear retaliation deterred
rogue states
> such as Iraq and North Korea, why do we need new nuclear
weapons?
>
> Robinson: The problem is, the strategic nuclear policy we
developed
> during the Cold War has been stretched about as far as possible
to fit a
> changing post-Cold War era. Today, we are threatened not
only by nuclear
> weapons in the arsenal of peer nuclear competitors like
Russia, but
> increasingly by biological, chemical, and radiological weapons
that
> could kill huge numbers of people in a flash. Yet it's pretty
incredible
> to think that the United States would respond to such an
attack by
> vaporizing 11 million people in a rogue state just because
they were
> poorly led. Where the hell are we going to use missiles
with four to
> eight warheads, or half-megaton yields? Even the few "tactical"
nuclear
> weapons that we have left have high yields of above 100
kilotons. I
> would hope a U.S. President would think it was crazy to
use such weapons
> in response to a rogue-state attack.
>
> After a decade of trying to sort out what we learned from
the Cold War
> and how we might tailor our nuclear deterrence and deterrent
message to
> fit the future, I now argue that we need lower-yield nuclear
weapons
> that could hold at risk only a rogue state's leadership
and tools of
> aggression with some level of confidence.
>
> NJ: Isn't the United States' vaunted conventional military
> superiority-based in large part on our increasingly accurate
> precision-guided weapons-enough of a deterrent?
>
> Robinson: No. We've seen examples as recently as the [1999]
air war with
> Serbia, when we attacked underground targets with conventional
weapons
> with very little effect. It just takes far too many aircraft
sorties and
> conventional weapons to give you any confidence that you
can take out
> underground bunkers. By putting a nuclear warhead on one
of those
> weapons instead of high explosives, you would multiply the
explosive
> power by a factor of more than a million.
>
> NJ: Wouldn't fielding new, low-yield nuclear weapons capable
of
> penetrating underground bunkers require new designs and
a return to
> nuclear testing?
>
> Robinson: In my paper, I conclude that we would neither
have to conduct
> testing nor redesign for such a weapon, because we have
them already.
> Right now, all of our weapons have primary and secondary
stages. Through
> a process known as "boosting," you get a thermonuclear
reaction. The
> primary alone, however, has a yield of 10 kilotons or less,
or basically
> what you would want for a bunker-buster or a weapon that
would cause
> relatively low collateral damage. All we have to do is send
these
> weapons back to the factory and replace the secondary stage
with a
> dummy. The beauty of that approach is that we are already
very good at
> building dummy secondary stages. For safety and costs reasons,
most of
> the weapons we have flown and tested in the past have had
dummy
> secondary stages. So we could develop these lower-yield
weapons without
> forcing the nuclear testing issue back onto the table, with
a richer
> database of past tests, and at relatively low cost.
>
> NJ: On the issue of nuclear weapons tests, the Bush Administration
> caused a furor when it was reported that they instructed
the nuclear
> labs to develop a streamlined plan for a return to testing.
>
> Robinson: I read those stories that jumped to the conclusion
that the
> Bush Administration was planning a return to nuclear testing,
and that's
> wrong. There was a congressionally mandated commission,
however, that
> recently looked at why it would take the nuclear labs roughly
two years
> to return to testing. If we discovered a serious problem
with the
> nuclear stockpile, the commission members suggested to me
that a
> President would probably drop-kick me out of the Oval Office
if I said
> it would take us two years to figure out what was wrong.
You simply
> can't have people who stay up at night worrying about the
security of
> the nation kept in doubt for that long. So, the Bush Administration
has
> asked that we go back and study the issue to figure out
why it would
> take so long and how we might streamline a resumption of
testing. We
> haven't come up with the answers yet.
>
> NJ: During the 1999 debate over the Comprehensive Test Ban
Treaty, you
> expressed considerable skepticism over the ability of the
Department of
> Energy's Stockpile Stewardship program to ensure the long-term
> reliability and safety of the nuclear stockpile without
testing. Has
> anything happened in the interim to change your thinking?
>
> Robinson: You're the first person to ask me that. I would
say that since
> 1999, the Stockpile Stewardship program has, if anything,
surprised me
> by working a little bit better than I would have anticipated.
I still
> have my reservations, however, about whether the program
can substitute
> for testing over the long term. In my mind, the jury is
still out on
> that question. As long as our reliance on a nuclear deterrent
is
> crucial, we'll be taking a chance until we know for certain
that
> Stockpile Stewardship is a reliable, long-term substitute
for testing.
>
> NJ: Are you seriously worried that aging will cause a catastrophic
> defect in our nuclear stockpile?
>
> Robinson: The toughest single thing I've had to do in my
entire life was
> phone the commander in chief of Strategic Command and inform
him that we
> had identified a problem with a particular warhead that
affected a
> significant portion of the stockpile. We had to retarget
many of our
> weapons and work like hell to figure out a fix. Our system
of
> confidentiality proved itself in that instance, because
we kept it all
> very, very secret. But that is one phone call I hope no
one ever has to
> make again, because it was very, very tough.
>
> NJ: How do you respond to critics who believe that by tailoring
new
> nuclear weapons for new types of deterrence, you would make
their
> eventual use in a crisis more likely?
>
> Robinson: My response is that for God's sake, then, let's
think this
> through in advance rather than doing it on the fly. Say
Iraq had
> instigated the first use of biological or chemical weapons
during the
> Persian Gulf War, causing huge numbers of casualties. How
would we have
> retaliated to make good on President Bush's threat? By vaporizing
11
> million people? Because I can tell you, we haven't given
a lot of
> thought to this issue. We need to carefully think through
our posture of
> nuclear deterrence, because whatever decision is made during
the next
> crisis will leave a message to all of history.
>
> NJ: Why not send a message that the United States will not
be the first
> to use nuclear weapons?
>
> Robinson: The burden is on those who believe it is immoral
to threaten
> nuclear retaliation for the use of chemical or biological
weapons to
> propose an alternative. I subscribe to the advice of Winston
Churchill:
> "Be careful above all things not to let go of the atomic
weapon until
> you are sure, and more sure than sure, that other means
of preserving
> the peace are in your hands." Those words reflect my
thinking on the
> subject very well.
===================================================+
Date: Saturday, September
15, 2001 9:41 PM
Subject: Reuters: White House grapples with economic side
to attacks
White House grapples with economic side to attacks
By Randall Mikkelsen
WASHINGTON, Sept 12 (Reuters) - As the White House hunted for
the
perpetrators of Tuesday's terror attacks, it also struggled to
grasp the
economic scope of a tragedy that killed thousands in destroying
a symbol
and engine of U.S. wealth.
"A medium-sized city has disappeared from the face of
the U.S. ... that's
sort of my short hand way of putting this in context," a
senior White
House economist told Reuters on Wednesday.
The official said the White House was only beginning the daunting
task of
measuring the impact of the loss of the World Trade Center --
workplace
for tens of thousands of employees at the heart of New York's
financial
district -- and the economic disruptions of transportation paralysis
and
psychological scarring.
Hijackers crashed two commercial planes into the World Trade
Center on
Tuesday, destroying its twin towers. A third hijacked plane crashed
into
the Pentagon and a fourth crashed in Pennsylvania.
"The marching orders from this place are to make sure
that nothing stands
in the way of fixing this," said the economist, who spoke
on condition
that he not be identified. "You name it, we are working
on it."
But he said the work was overshadowed by the human toll.
"We're a wealthy enough nation to fix this, but this
was a human
tragedy," the official said.
It was too early to measure the psychological toll or whether
the attacks
would plunge the nation into recession, which many private analysts
expect. "It's going to throw the economy into a malaise,
or, it's going
to inspire Americans to put their nose to the grindstone. We
don't know,"
the economist said.
President George W. Bush on Tuesday made his first comments
on economic
consequences, saying he would ask Congress for emergency spending
to cope
with the destruction.
"We are prepared to spend whatever it takes to rescue
victims, to help
the citizens of New York City and Washington, D.C. respond to
this
tragedy and to protect our national security," Bush said.
Any spending would seem certain to blow a hole through the
already-pressured Social Security budget surplus, which Bush
has vowed to
protect in all but cases of recession, war or severe emergency.
"I think that this is the definition of a severe emergency,"
White House
spokesman Ari Fleischer said. "Money will be not a consideration."
Officials had no monetary estimates of the impact. The economist
said he
tried to make a stab at understanding the scale by converting
the number
of workers in the trade center -- some 50,000 -- into families
and
incomes.
"That's about 75,000 families potentially affected one
way or another. If
those families have four people in them, that's 300,000 people,
who one
way or another have lost part or all of their income," he
said.
As a building complex, the World Trade Center was worth billions
of
dollars. Parts of it were leased in July for 99 years for $3.2
billion.
Deputy Treasury Secretary Ken Dam told a briefing the U.S.
financial
system remained strong and financial markets -- still closed
-- were
resilient. "The American economy is open for business,"
he said.
The White House economist described Midway Airlines, the financially
struggling carrier which announced on Wednesday it was ceasing
operations, as an early economic "casualty" of the
attacks.
"They were weak to begin with, but could they have continued
past today?
Probably," he said. "The airlines are going to hemorrhage
money. They
expect to see some decline in traffic. They were in weak straits
to begin
with."
15:41 09-12-01
Copyright 2001 Reuters Limited.
===================================================+
Date: Saturday, September
15, 2001 9:41 PM
Subject: Reuters: US energy chief says no reason for high
fuel prices
US energy chief says no reason for high fuel prices
By Tom Doggett
WASHINGTON, Sept 12 (Reuters) - The Bush administration on Wednesday
said
U.S. gasoline supplies were unaffected by the terror attacks
in New York
and Washington and that motorists should report any big price
spikes to
the federal government.
Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham also said the White House,
if necessary,
was prepared to tap the nation's emergency stockpile of crude
oil to
replenish petroleum supplies.
Prices for gasoline jumped to $5 a gallon at one service station
in
Oklahoma City and increased by more than $1 a gallon in some
areas of
Illinois in reaction to the destruction of New York's World Trade
Center
and the attack on the Pentagon.
Wholesale prices at some bulk storage terminals in California
rose by 10
cents to 20 cents on Tuesday.
"We can report that there has been no supply disruption
to justify such
prices," Abraham said. "I would encourage consumers
who encounter such
unjustified prices to seek other stations and bring it to our
attention
via the Department of Energy hotline," he said. The hotline
number is
800-244-3301.
The chairman of the Senate Energy Committee, Jeff Bingaman
of New Mexico,
called on the Bush administration to prosecute any service station
owner
"who tries to use this national tragedy" to gouge motorists.
CRUDE, GASOLINE PRICES VOLATILE
The attacks added to nervousness about the U.S. oil market,
which is
already somewhat tight as the winter heating oil season rapidly
approaches.
The New York Mercantile Exchange, along with all other U.S.
financial and
commodity exchanges, was closed on Wednesday. Brent crude oil
futures
traded in London fell more than $1 a barrel on Wednesday after
rocketing
$1.56 a barrel higher on Tuesday on concerns about Middle East
supplies.
Abraham acknowledged that U.S. petroleum supplies were somewhat
tight,
but said the White House was ready to tap the nation's Strategic
Petroleum Reserve, which contains 544 million barrels of crude.
"We are in a position, certainly, if circumstances justified
it, to use
the reserve. At this point that's not the case," he said.
Last autumn, the Clinton administration used the reserve to
add supplies
of heating oil to the then drum-tight market.
As an immediate step to boost supplies, Abraham said the Environmental
Protection Agency would waive requirements for U.S. oil refiners
to
produce cleaner-burning gasoline for the summer driving season
that has
nearly ended.
The EPA will allow refiners to switch to making winter-blend
gasoline
immediately, a few days ahead of the traditional Sept. 15 switchover
date, he told reporters.
MIDDLE EAST CONNECTION?
Federal officials were investigating if the terror attacks
in New York
and Washington might be linked to an Islamic extremist group.
Senior U.S.
officials said initial evidence pointed to the organization of
Osama bin
Laden, the Saudi-born dissident now living in Afghanistan who
is blamed
for bombing two U.S. embassies in Africa and other anti-American
attacks.
The United States imports more than half its petroleum supply,
a large
amount from Middle East oil producers.
Key OPEC member Saudi Arabia said Wednesday it would work
closely with
other cartel members to maintain a steady supply of crude. Saudi
oil
minister Ali al-Naimi said his country gave "special importance"
to
stable prices.
Abraham refused to speculate if the administration would take
into
account the effect that any military action against those responsible
for
the terror attacks would have on U.S. oil supplies and energy
prices.
"The priority we have is to track down and bring to justice
those who
perpetrated these attacks," Abraham said.
U.S. energy firms also sought to reassure motorists.
"We are aware of reports of lines forming at gas pumps
in some sections
of the country and of isolated panic-related incidents caused
by fears,"
said the American Petroleum Institute, an industry trade group.
"Gasoline
and diesel fuel inventories are adequate to meet demand and refinery
production remains strong."
Two big U.S. oil companies, Exxon Mobil Corp. (XOM.N) and
Chevron Corp.
(CHV.N) froze wholesale fuel prices at the levels that prevailed
before
the attacks.
Instead of lining up to buy gasoline, motorists should line
up to donate
blood for those injured in the unprecedented attacks, the American
Automobile Association said.
"Because the nation just endured incredible trauma, it
is understandable
that some motorists or gasoline station owners may have briefly
overreacted to the situation," said Robert Darbelnet, president
of the
motorists' group.
16:54 09-12-01
Copyright 2001 Reuters Limited.
===================================================+
Date: Saturday, September
15, 2001 9:15 PM
Subject: Reuters: Knowles seeks federal help for Alaska
gas project
Knowles seeks federal help for Alaska gas project
By Yereth Rosen
ANCHORAGE, Alaska, Sept 10 (Reuters) - There were so many benefits
from a
pipeline to deliver natural gas from Alaska's North Slope to
the Lower 48
states that it should be encouraged by a special act of Congress,
the
state governor said on Monday.
Tony Knowles said his proposed "Alaska National Interest
Natural Gas
Development Act," complete with tax incentives, would ensure
the project
is built to maximise gains for state and nation.
"Alaska is perfectly positioned to supply our nation
with affordable,
environmentally clean energy," the Democratic governor said
in a speech
to the Anchorage Chamber of Commerce.
"And with the stock market slide and unemployment at
a four-year high,
this multi-year, multi-billion dollar project would be a shot
in the arm
to the sagging national economy.
Knowles said structural changes in demand for natural gas
will make the
project viable within seven years, but short-term price fluctuations
may
be scaring off potential investors.
He called for federal tax incentives to build the 3,500 mile
(5,633 km)
pipeline project, first envisioned in the late 1960s and now
estimated to
cost $15 billion to $20 billion.
The incentives sought included an accelerated depreciation
schedule, a 10
percent investment tax credit and a sliding scale system for
production
taxes, lowering rates if gas prices fall.
The pipeline would provide 100 trillion cubic feet of gas
over 45 years,
the equivalent of 18 billion barrels of oil, create thousands
of jobs and
and boost U.S. gross domestic product by $300 billion over the
project's
life, Knowles said.
"I'm confident those kinds of gee whiz numbers will get
the attention of
members of Congress from middle America's 'Rust Belt' and elsewhere
across our country," he said.
The governor has sent his proposal to Senators Jeff Bingaman
(D-New
Mexico) and Frank Murkowski (R-Alaska), the chairman and ranking
minority
member of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee.
WHICH ROUTE?
The three major Alaska oil producers -- BP, Phillips Petroleum
and Exxon
Mobil -- have created a work group and devoted $100 million to
detailed
engineering and environmental studies to select a route for the
gas
pipeline.
The North American Natural Gas Pipeline Group is considering
two general
routes. One route -- endorsed by Knowles and other Alaska officials
--
would run south from Prudhoe Bay, along the route of the trans-Alaska
oil
pipeline, then veer southeast along the Alaska Highway.
The other route would be shorter, running offshore along the
Beaufort Sea
coast to connect with Canada's Mackenzie River Delta gas fields,
but it
faces opposition from state and local governments in Alaska and
from
environmentalists.
Curtis Thayer, spokesman for the three-company group, said
the producers
do not want politicians to select a route for them.
"We have to keep all our options open," he said.
So far, the project is too costly to build, he said.
"The preliminary estimates say that neither route is
economically
viable," he said.
The group has submitted its own legislation to Congress that
would ensure
permitting for the project take no more than 18 months, Thayer
said.
23:40 09-10-01
Copyright 2001 Reuters Limited.
===================================================+
Date: Saturday, September
15, 2001 9:15 PM
Subject: Reuters: Aging Alaska pipeline still sparks controversy
Aging Alaska pipeline still sparks controversy
By Yereth Rosen
ANCHORAGE, Alaska, Sept 10 (Reuters) - Nearly three decades after
it
began pumping oil, age is catching up with the Trans Alaska Pipeline
System.
Workers regularly seek out and patch corroded spots. Thawing
permafrost,
possibly an effect of global warming, has shifted some of the
vertical
supports that suspend the pipeline above the earth. Operators
keep their
eyes out for stress fractures.
And, after 13 billion barrels have rolled through the pipeline,
oil flow
is down to half of the 1988 peak rate of 2 million barrels a
day. Some
pump stations that helped the system operate at full capacity,
needed
when the Prudhoe Bay field was new and fresh instead of mature
and
declining, have been mothballed.
The pipeline gets special scrutiny as the nation's most famous
and
visible oil pipeline, and its setting in one of America's last
great
wilderness tracts. Crossing three mountain ranges and more than
800
rivers and streams, it was one of the biggest construction projects
ever
completed. And one of the most controversial.
President Bush is promoting new oil drilling in the Arctic
National
Wildlife Refuge, while environmentalists are campaigning to keep
the
area's wilderness intact. The pipeline would be used to carry
the oil if
Congress approves development.
Even without that move, operators and regulators say, there
is plenty of
life left in the 800-mile pipeline, as long as it clears its
next major
hurdle -- a new comprehensive study of environmental impacts
preceding
renewal of the leases, first granted in 1974, that allow the
system to
operate.
"If it's well-maintained, it can go on for as long as
we have oil," said
Rhea DoBosh, spokeswoman for the Joint Pipe line Office, the
collection
of federal and state agencies that regulate the system. "It
was not
designed to last just 30 years. It was designed to last indefinitely."
STUDY ORDERED
Determining whether the pipeline system is properly maintained
is the
goal of the pending environmental impact study, ordered two years
ago by
the Clinton administration and the first of its kind mandated
for a
pipeline already operating and planning any alterations.
"The pipeline is currently viable for another 30 years,
just based on
stuff you could produce today, and not opening up any other areas,"
said
Steve Jones, director of right-of-way renewal for Alyeska Pipeline
Service Co., the consortium that operates the system.
Backers of expanded drilling would like to see quick renewal
of the
leases, and Bush, in his national energy strategy, supported
a speedy
conclusion. Environmentalists are skeptical of hasty moves.
"I think they do not want a thorough review because I
think they know
that it cannot pass muster," said Richard Fineberg, an economist
and
board member of the Alaska Forum for Environmental Responbility.
His
organization has accused Alyeska, its owners and regulators of
failing to
meet their responsibilities for ensuring pipeline safety.
Alyeska's owners -- then eight companies -- were granted their
original
30-year right-of-way lease from the U.S. government in 1974 to
build and
operate over the 376 miles of federal lands that the line crosses.
The state also granted a a 10-year right-of-way lease for
the 344 miles
of state lands crossed. The state leases have been renewed twice.
The pipeline's other 80 miles cross Native and private lands,
and are
subject to separate lease arrangements.
Mergers and acquisitions have narrowed Alyeska's owner group
to six
companies -- BP, Phillips Petroleum, Exxon Mobil, Unocal, Williams
and
Amerada Hess.
CONFIDENCE IN THE PIPELINE
Environmental officials didn't have a clear idea of what the
impact of
the pipeline would be when it started back in the 1970s, said
a
Denver-based manager for Argonne National Laboratory. Moore,
who worked
on the initial government studies, is working on the new review
as well.
"From what I've seen, there is a high level of confidence
and there's
some good reason for that," said Moore.
Indeed, some of the ill effects forecast then never occurred.
Contrary to
predictions of confused animals, for example, caribou and moose
move
without hesitation under specially-designed, suspended sections
of the
pipeline.
Concerns about earthquakes caused regulators to demand a zig-zag
design
and devices that allow the pipeline to be flexible, able to move
during
seismic events. Pipeline shifts so far have been largely from
heat
expansion, and have used only a small fraction of the available
space.
Expected spills of crude oil were also overestimated. The
Interior
Department's 1972 environmental impact statement predicted releases
of
140,000 barrels a year by tankers carrying oil from the pipeline's
Valdez
marine terminal.
"That translates to an Exxon Valdez every two years,"
said Ray Jakubczak,
a BP biologist working on the right-of-way renewal.
Instead, he said, a total of 327,000 barrels have spilled
over the
pipeline's entire lifetime, and about 80 percent of that came
from the
Exxon Valdez. "There have been oil spills, but they have
been far fewer
and much less than what was predicted," Jakubczak said.
But Alyeska's record does not impress Alaska Forum's Fineberg.
The pipeline may be a state-of-the-art facility, he said,
but that does
not ensure that it is safe and that the stipulations of the leases
are
adequate.
"The correct question is not, Is it better than anybody
else's?"' he
said. "The correct question is, Does it do what it is suppose
to do?"'
On some subects, Fineberg said, the original picture of pipeline
safety
was too rosy. He cited the leak-detection syttem as an example
of its .
And the 1989 Exxon Valdez disaster, the worst tanker spill
in U.S.
waters, caused greater environmental harm than ex pected, several
government scientists say. Several species in Prince William
Sound have
yet to recover from the 11 million-gallon spill, they say.
The environmental groups see the lease review as a chance
to take a
broader look at the Alaskan oil industry's practices.
"This has to look at the entire delivery system, from
the North Slope to
the marine delivery," Randall said. "This really is
an opportunity for
the agencies to take a hard look at this system and see what
is working
and what isn't."
15:06 09-10-01
Copyright 2001 Reuters Limited.
===================================================+
Date: Saturday, September
15, 2001 9:41 PM
Subject: Radar installation proposed for Death Valley
National Park
Feds Consider Radar in Death Valley
By John Heilprin
Associated Press Writer
Monday, Sept. 10, 2001; 7:52 p.m. EDT
WASHINGTON -- Military and government officials are exploring
the idea of
constructing permanent radar facilities in a remote region of
a national
park, officials and park experts said Monday.
Officials at Edwards Air Force Base in California and the
Federal
Aviation Administration are negotiating with the National Park
Service to
put radar in Death Valley National Park's distant Saline Valley,
Park
Service spokeswoman Cindy Wood confirmed Monday.
"We were approached by both the Air Force and the FAA
for the radar
facility in that valley," Wood said. "They're in the
very beginning
stages of talking with the park directly, looking at compliance
and
environmental issues."
The Air Force is conducting a preliminary environmental study
of six
sites to decide which would be the best to use and what the ecological
effects would be, said Gary Hatch, an Air Force environmental
public
affairs spokesman for Edwards.
The plan calls for a solar-powered radar facility with a backup
generator
to eliminate the need to dig a trench and install electric cables,
Hatch
said. Four sites are being studied for the radar and two sites
for a
separate repeater station to relay the signal, he said.
The Saline Valley marsh extends to relatively pristine wetlands
considered by the Bureau of Land Management to be critical for
the
region's plants and wildlife, fossil deposits and rare prehistoric
remains.
But the Air Force and FAA lack radar monitoring for private
flights,
low-altitude jet training and midair refueling in the area.
"There's an area with no radar coverage, so it's a safety
issue," Hatch
said.
Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, a watchdog
group of
former federal workers, says the proposed radar arrangement could
set a
precedent since the Park Service has historically resisted conversion
of
park lands to military uses, even during World War II.
Frank Buono, a PEER board director and former assistant superintendent
of
Joshua Tree National Park in California, said the plan is unsettling.
"In my 25-year experience, I've never heard of a situation
where the Air
Force wanted to put a strictly military facility on national
park lands,"
Buono said.
PEER spokeswoman Jessica V. Revere said the legal authority
for issuing a
right of way, lease or special use permit for radar stations
in Death
Valley is uncertain since the Park Service is charged with conserving
scenery and leaving the place unimpaired.
"It's very disturbing to me; there would have be to a
very compelling
justification," Buono said. "The night skies that don't
have a red light
blinking on them ñ they're scarce in our world. If we
can't protect them
in the parks, where can we protect them?"
On the Net:
Death Valley National Park: http://www.nps.gov/deva/index.htm
Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility: http://www.peer.org
© Copyright 2001 The Associated Press
===================================================+
Date: Saturday, September
15, 2001 9:15 PM
Subject: Q&A: Colorado River Endangered Fish Draft
Recovery Goals
Mountain-Prairie Region
9/4/01
Draft Recovery Goals
(Endangered Colorado River Fish -- Humpback chub,
Bonytail, Colorado pikeminnow and Razorback sucker)
Questions and Answers
What are recovery goals?
Recovery goals are supplements and amendments to existing
recovery plans
for each species. They detail the criteria that must be met before
the
species may be considered for removal (delisting) from Endangered
Species
Act (ESA) protection. Recovery is essentially the reverse of
listing.
Therefore, the goals must address the five listing factors detailed
in
Section 4(a)(1) of the ESA. The five listing factors are: 1)
the present
or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its
habitat or
range; 2) overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific,
or
educational purposes; 3) disease or predation; 4) inadequacy
of existing
regulatory mechanisms; and 5) other natural manmade factors affecting
its
continued existence.
Criteria contained in the goals include demographic and genetic
needs for
self-sustaining, viable populations, and management actions/tasks
that
address the five listing factors to minimize or remove threats.
What four Colorado River fish species do the draft goals address?
Humpback chub (Gila cypha) listed as endangered in 1967;
given full ESA
protection in 1973 (Recovery plan developed in 1990; critical
habitat
designated in 1994)
Bonytail (Gila elegans) listed as endangered and given
full ESA
protection in 1980 (Recovery plan developed in 1990; critical
habitat
designated in 1994)
Razorback sucker (Xyrauchen texanus) listed as endangered
and given
full ESA protection in 1991 (Recovery plan developed in 1998;
critical
habitat designated in 1994)
Colorado pikeminnow (Ptychocheilus lucius) listed as
endangered in
1967; given full ESA protection in 1973 (Recovery plan developed
in 1991;
critical habitat designated in 1994)
These fish are found in the Colorado River Basin and nowhere
else in the
world.
Who prepared the draft recovery goals?
The process of writing recovery goals began July 1, 1999.
At the request
and under the direction of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Director of
the Mountain-Prairie Region (who has the lead for recovery of
the four
endangered fishes), the Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish
Recovery
Program assumed the responsibility for developing the draft recovery
goals.
The Colorado River Fishes Recovery Team was convened to provide
input.
The team is comprised of representatives of state and federal
agencies in
seven states. Water and power interests, Indian Tribes, environmental
organizations, and other interested agencies or individuals also
contributed to the process.
Why weren't recovery goals developed at the time the four
species of fish
were listed under the Endangered Species Act (ESA)?
When the four fish species were listed under the ESA, very
little was
known about their behavior, their habitat needs and threats to
their
survival. Recovery plans were developed for each species using
the best
information available at that time on life history and population
status.
The plans included recommendations for numbers of populations
but did not
address the five listing factors and did not provide specific
demographic
and genetic needs for self-sustaining, viable populations.
Extensive research on the four fish species during the past
decade has
provided new information about what these fish require to survive
and
persist in the Colorado River system. The draft recovery goals
developed
today are comprehensive and contain measurable, objective criteria
for
downlisting and delisting that address the five listing factors
and
contain demographic and genetic criteria for self-sustaining,
viable
populations. It is not unusual for changes and/or additions to
be made to
original recovery plans as more scientific knowledge is gained
during the
process of recovering a species.
Are there recovery goals for other fish species?
To our knowledge, these are the most detailed goals in existence
for a
fish species. These goals may serve as a model for other recovery
efforts.
What is the definition of recovery?
As defined in the draft recovery goals, "Recovery is
achieved when
management actions and associated tasks (to minimize or remove
threats
associated with the five listing factors) have been implemented
and/or
completed to allow genetically and demographically viable,
self-sustaining populations to thrive under minimal ongoing management
and investment of resources."
This definition was developed using criteria dictated by the
Endangered
Species Act and Fish and Wildlife Service guidelines for recovering
an
endangered species.
What are the definitions of "endangered" and "threatened"
species?
Under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) an endangered species
is defined
as: "any species which is in danger of extinction throughout
all or a
significant portion of its range." This definition was expanded
to
include the following conditions:
* Genetics: numbers too low to maintain genetic viability
* Demographics: populations small; deaths exceed births/recruitment
* Population redundancy: populations are too few, scattered,
or
concentrated
* Threats: persistent threats are significant
The ESA defines a threatened species as: "any species
which is likely to
become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout
all
or a significant portion of its range." This definition
was expanded to
include the following conditions:
* Genetics: numbers sufficient to maintain genetic viability
* Demographics: self-sustaining populations small; lack sufficient
recruitment for long-term persistence
* Population redundancy: populations are too few, scattered,
or
concentrated
* Threats: exist over significant portion of the species' range
What is the downlisting and delisting process?
The process of removing an endangered species from Endangered
Species Act
(ESA) protection occurs in two steps downlisting and delisting.
Downlisting means that a species formerly considered endangered
has
progressed to a point that it may be reclassified to the threatened
status. When downlisting occurs, ESA protections remain in place,
the
species is carefully monitored for a minimum of five years and
the
threats continue to be minimized or removed to ensure the population
remains stable and does not decline over time and the threats
are
minimized or removed. If the species declines and the Service
believes
the protections of the ESA are needed to prevent it from becoming
endangered, it can be relisted.
If the species continues to thrive during the downlisting
period and its
future existence is no longer threatened, it may be considered
for
delisting or removal from federal protection under the
ESA. At that
point, legally mandated management actions at federal, state
and/or local
levels must be in place to ensure species do not experience the
conditions that led to them becoming listed in the first place.
Once a
species is delisted, state wildlife agencies usually continue
to monitor
and manage the species.
The downlisting and delisting criteria talk about "control
programs" for
nonnative fish such as channel and flathead catfish and northern
pike.
What do you mean by "control program?"
Control of the release and escapement of nonnative fishes
into the main
river, floodplain and tributaries is a necessary management action
to
stop the introduction of new fish species into habitats occupied
by
native endangered fishes. For example, agreements have been signed
between the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the states of
Colorado,
Utah and Wyoming to review and regulate all stockings of fish
within the
Upper Colorado River Basin.
The agreement prohibits release of nonnative fish within the
50-year
floodplain of the river. The agreement also allows the states
to regulate
and restrict stocking of privately-owned ponds. These procedures
will
also reduce the likelihood of new parasites and diseases being
introduced
through nonnative fish stockings. Similar procedures need to
be developed
and implemented in the lower basin.
Other possible methods of control include complete removal
of nonnative
fish, screening ponds to prevent nonnative fish from reaching
the river
and reshaping ponds so that they no longer support year-round
habitation
by nonnative fish.
Another aspect of nonnative fish control in the upper basin
is removal of
bag and possession limits on nonnative fish in habit designated
as
critical for the endangered fish. Colorado has agreed to close
river
reaches to angling where and when angling mortality is determined
to be
significant to native fish. In some cases, nonnative fish will
be
actively removed from the river to reduce their abundance and
minimize
negative interactions with the endangered fish.
Will nonnative fish control reduce sportfishing recreational
opportunities in the Colorado River Basin?
Every effort is being made to implement management actions
that will not
impact sportfishing opportunities. For example, in the Upper
Basin, a
fish screen was placed in a reservoir in the Grand Valley that
will
prevent nonnative fish stocked in the lake from escaping through
the
spillway into the river where they might interact with endangered
fish.
These types of innovative actions can ensure that high quality
sportfishing opportunities are maintained in communities along
the
Colorado River.
Why are the required numbers of fish different for each of
the four fish
species?
The required population numbers for each species are based
on demographic
and genetic criteria that, when met or exceeded, would ensure
populations
that are sufficiently abundant and well adapted to environmental
conditions for long-term persistence without significant artificial
manipulations. Numbers are different among the four species because
each
species has different requirements for population viability and
self-sustainability.
How often are population estimates taken? The process of obtaining
data
on the numbers of and types of fish in the Colorado River and
its
tributaries is both time consuming and expensive. Unlike counting
species
like bears, deer and wolves, biologists cannot simply fly over
terrain
and do manual counts. In the case of fish, biologists must use
sampling
techniques such as electrofishing, in which a small electric
current is
placed in the water that causes fish to rise to the surface where
they
can be netted, weighed, measured, tagged and then returned to
the water.
Because this process is so labor intensive and to minimize
stress to the
fish, it can only be done periodically in most river reaches.
Biologists
than use the data collected to establish their best estimate
of the
numbers and types of fish in the river.
According to the latest population estimates, it appears that
the
humpback chub currently meets the population numbers required
for
downlisting. Does this mean the FWS will begin the process of
downlisting
this species now?
Not immediately. The latest population estimates need to be
verified.
There is a requirement of a five-year monitoring period once
populations
reach the minimum number for viability and self-sustainability
and the
FWS determines that the first estimate for each population is
acceptable.
This has not yet occurred. In addition, identified management
actions and
tasks to minimize or remove threats must be implemented.
What are the major threats to the endangered fishes? Six major
threats to
the endangered fishes have been identified: 1) streamflow regulation;
2)
habitat modification; 3) competition with and predation by nonnative
fish; 4) increased levels of hybridization; 5) pesticides and
pollutants;
and 6) parasitism (e.g. Asian tapeworm on humpback chub in Little
Colorado River.)
What is being done to remove these threats? The major recovery
or
conservation programs in the Colorado River Basin are working
to
eliminate these threats through several means. For example: Dam
operations are being managed to provide flow regimes to benefit
the
endangered fishes. Fish passageways through diversion structures
are
being constructed to allow fish to reach historic habitats. Nonnative
fish management efforts are underway. In some instances, fish
screens are
being placed in reservoirs to keep nonnative fish from reaching
river
areas inhabited by endangered fish. In other cases, nonnative
fish are
being removed. The need for emergency shutoff valves on petroleum
product
pipelines that parallel or cross rivers is being assessed.
What is a distinct population segment?
Recovery of the humpback chub, bonytail and razorback sucker
is addressed
in the Colorado River Basin as a whole. The Colorado pikeminnow
is only
in the upper basin. The fishes were listed prior to the 1996
distinct
population segment (DPS) policy, but reevaluation by the Service
may
determine that DPSs should be designated. A DPS is a portion
of
populations that includes a part of the range of a species or
subspecies.
The guiding principles for designation of DPSs are: 1) discreetness
of
the population segment in relation to the remainder of the species
to
which it belongs; 2) the importance of the population segment
to the
persistence of the species; and 3) the population segment's conservation
status in relation to the ESA's standards for listing (i.e. is
the
population segment, when treated as if it were a species, endangered
or
threatened?)
Why is more than one population per species necessary for
recovery?
Population redundancy is extremely important to prevent extinction
of a
species. The purpose is to ensure that if something occurs to
eliminate
one population, at least one other population of the species
will still
exist and the species will not become extinct.
What is a redundant unit?
A redundant unit is one of several demographically viable
populations of
a species that are independently susceptible to catastrophic
events. This
provides the security that if one population is severely depleted
or
eliminated by a catastrophe, other populations will survive as
viable and
self-sustaining and provide a source of fish and genetic material
to
restart a nearly extinct population.
Do the draft recovery goals call for recovery actions that
are different
than those currently being done to recover the fish?
In most cases, no. The recovery goals better focus those actions
needed
for recovery and provide a means to better track progress toward
meeting
the measurable, objective endpoints for downlisting and delisting.
Who will determine when downlisting and delisting criteria
are met?
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has the responsibility
to develop
downlisting and delisting criteria and to determine when this
criteria is
met. Notice of a proposed downlisting or delisting would be posted
in the
Federal Register and public comment invited and reviewed.
Can the Service downlist and delist a species even though
all recovery
goals in the existing recovery plans have not been met or exceeded?
Recovery is the process by which the decline of an endangered
or
threatened species is arrested or reversed and threats to its
survival
are neutralized so that long-term survival in nature can be ensured.
One
of the main purposes of the recovery plan is to enumerate goals
(guidelines) that will help the Service to determine when recovery
for a
particular species has been achieved. The Act does not require
that all
of the specific recovery goals for a listed species be met or
exceeded
before it can be downlisted or delisted. The Service determines
whether
recovery has been achieved based on a species' performance relative
to
the goals set in its recovery plan, the best scientific information,
and
interviews with species experts. A species is recovered when
it is no
longer in danger of extinction, or likely to become endangered
within the
foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of
its range,
and the threats that led to the species' listing have been reduced
or
eliminated.
How will we know that the fish populations will not decline
without the
protections of the Endangered Species Act?
Each species will be monitored for a minimum of five years
after
delisting to evaluate populations after the protections of the
Act are
lifted. If the species declines and the Service believes the
protections
of the Act are needed to prevent it from becoming endangered,
it can be
relisted.
Do state governments have recovery goals for these fish species?
If so,
are they different?
The state of Colorado is the only state that has attempted
to develop
recovery goals for all four fish species in 2000. The goals differ
from
the federal recovery goals because they address only numbers
of fish. The
numbers in both plans are similar.
Will endangered fish habitat be protected once the protections
of the
Endangered Species Act have been lifted?
Yes, but not in the same manner that protection was provided
under the
Endangered Species Act. Other federal laws which protect habitat
will
still apply. These include the Clean Water Act, The Fish and
Wildlife
Coordination Act, the National Environmental Policy Act and others.
How will recovery of these fish affect present and future
water
development?
In the Upper Colorado River Basin, water development has continued
without detriment to the endangered fish. This has occurred because
water
and power users are working cooperatively with the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife
Service to implement management actions that are intended to
offset
depletions and to manage water use in a manner that benefits
the needs of
water for irrigation and household and commercial uses without
jeopardizing the fish. Any actions taken in the lower basin will
likely
be modeled after this management plan.
If the fish are ever removed from federal Endangered Species
Act
protection, will they still be protected by state endangered
species laws?
The states of Colorado, Utah, Arizona, New Mexico, Nevada
and California
list the four species of fish as either endangered or threatened.
State
endangered species laws vary from state to state on the amount
of
protection a listed species is afforded. Any federal action taken
toward
downlisting or delisting the four species of fish will not affect
the
status the species has in each state. However, should the fish
become
removed from the federal list, the states may choose to remove
the
species from their endangered species lists as well.
Before a species is removed from federal protection, management
actions
and legal mandates must be in place to assure the continued survival
of
the species. Many times the responsibility for future management
of the
species falls to the states.
What can a private citizen do to help the four species of
endangered fish?
Awareness of the importance of restoring river habitat to
its more
natural state is a big step toward helping recovery endangered
fish
species, as well as removing threats to other native plants and
animals.
Individuals can help with recovery efforts by educating their
elected
officials.
Where can I get more information on the four species of endangered
Colorado River fish?
Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
P.O. Box 25486, DFC
Lakewood, CO 80225
303-969-7322
http://mountain.prairie.fws.gov/coloradoriver
San Juan River Basin Recovery Implementation Program
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
2105 Osuna NE
Albuquerque, NM 87113
505-346-2525
http://southwest.fws.gov/sjrip
How can I comment on the draft recovery goals?
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service will accept comments for
45 days
following publication in the Federal Register. Comments should
be
directed in writing to: Dr. Robert Muth, Director, Upper Colorado
River
Endangered Fish Recovery Program, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
P.O. Box 25486, DFC, Lakewood, CO 80225. Comments may also
be submitted
by electronic mail to colorivgoals@fws.gov.
What will happen after the comment period closes?
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service will review comments and
make any
appropriate changes to the draft goals. A decision on the final
goals
will be made three to six months after the comment period closes.
The
final goals will become part of the recovery plan for each species.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FWS Mountain-Prairie Region Website
Colorado River Recovery Program Website
===================================================+
Date: Saturday, September
15, 2001 9:41 PM
Subject: Protesters Infiltrate Radical Protest Groups
To Stop Antiglobalization Demonstrations
September 11, 2001
Page One Feature
Police Infiltrate Radical Protest Groups To Stop Antiglobalization
Demonstrations
By MICHAEL M. PHILLIPS and YAROSLAV TROFIMOV
Staff Reporters of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
Perhaps protester Adam Eidinger should have guessed something
was amiss
when the four burly newcomers to the crusade against global capitalism
included him in their Sunday dinner. At McDonald's.
Instead, Mr. Eidinger went along, ordered a cheeseburger,
and waxed
eloquent about how he had snagged a security job at that month's
2000
Republican National Convention in Philadelphia and planned to
hang a
protest banner once he got inside.
It wasn't until a few days later at his arrest that Mr. Eidinger
learned
his fast-food dinner companions weren't antiglobalization radicals.
They
were undercover Pennsylvania state troopers who had already warned
the
Republicans about his banner caper and were preparing to arrest
him and
his colleagues.
1Antiglobalization Activists Spread Message Online With Videotapes
With protests against global capitalism growing ever larger
and more
violent, and tens of thousands of demonstrators expected this
month at
events in Washington, Naples and Liege, Belgium, police around
the world
are scrambling for information about who might do what and when.
And that
means police and protesters alike are sneaking into each other's
camps to
try to get an edge.
In Europe, where protests during the July summit of the Group
of Eight in
Genoa turned deadly, security forces see themselves as facing
an
urban-guerrilla movement, a view that justifies sterner means
than might
be acceptable in the U.S. European law-enforcement agencies routinely
seal borders before big meetings and swap names of suspected
troublemakers. And, after long denying it, they've owned up to
sending
infiltrators in mufti to demonstrations and to planting spies
within the
movement.
"Intelligence is the essential weapon" in preventing
bloodshed, says
Italy's deputy interior minister, Alfredo Mantovano, whose nation
faces a
renewed possibility of violence outside the high-level North
Atlantic
Treaty Organization meeting scheduled for the Naples area on
Sept. 26 and
27.
Police in Washington, who expect as many as 100,000 demonstrators
at the
World Bank and International Monetary Fund annual meetings a
few days
later, are a bit more restrained, by law and custom. They see
the violent
element as criminal, not guerrilla. But they, too, know they're
facing a
volatile new situation, in which the few sow mayhem during the
peaceful
protests of the many. "There has been a narrowing of the
gap between the
type of protest we've seen in Europe and the type seen here,"
says
Washington Police Chief Charles Ramsey, alluding to the more-violent
demonstrations abroad. "It's unfortunate -- it's migrating
this way."
Secret Service Operation
The U.S. Secret Service is running the security operation
for the World
Bank/IMF meetings, which, because of the threat of violence,
have been
shortened by several days and moved to the headquarters buildings
of the
international lending agencies from their usual venue, a hotel
in a
residential area. Just as Italian authorities did in Genoa, Washington
police plan to erect a nine-foot chain-link fence around a large
chunk of
downtown to keep protesters from disrupting the meetings themselves.
But
they'll allow demonstrators to congregate around the perimeter,
even if
they illegally block traffic in some cases. Their goal is to
allow the
meetings to take place, allow the protests to take place and
keep the
city more or less intact at the same time.
As many as 6,000 officers from a variety of police forces
-- less than
one-third the force deployed in Genoa -- will be on duty for
what the
chief predicts will be a nightmare weekend. "I do expect
there will be
property damage this time," says Chief Ramsey, who gives
his officers
military-style decorations for service during particularly combative
demonstrations. But he vows: "Whatever takes place, we're
going to keep
control of the streets, and Washington, D.C., is not going to
burn."
Maintaining order, police say, means finding out as much as
possible
about what's going on inside the protest movement, and particularly
inside aggressive groups such as the Black Bloc anarchists. Some
5,000 of
them, according to Italian government estimates, rioted in Genoa.
Dressed
in black battle gear and armed with cellphones, they often outsmarted
the
police, withdrawing in front of superior force only to reassemble
behind
police lines and set new bank branches on fire. Under Secret
Service
direction, the Washington police, U.S. Park Police, the Federal
Bureau of
Investigation and others teamed up eight months ago to collect
intelligence on the Black Bloc and other protesters.
"We're going to be their shadows," vows Jose Acosta,
commander of the
Special Operations Division of the Washington police.
That won't be easy. Unlike other protesters, the Black Bloc
militants are
obsessively secretive. In Genoa, a few journalists who tried
to talk to
the anarchist fringe ended up with smashed kneecaps and other
injuries.
Police around the world admit that some of their best information
about
protesters of all stripes comes from the Internet. Protest organizers
send out a running e-mail commentary on the state of the world
as well as
announcements of upcoming meetings. And they maintain Web sites
with
information about everything from what to do when arrested to
how to
apply rhinestones and glitter to turn gas masks into "splendid
and sassy
creations."
"I want to remind everyone that we are being watched,
etc. by the
police," wrote landscaper Angela Flynn of Washington, a
member of the
umbrella group
Mobilization for Global Justice, in an e-mail to fellow protesters
recently. "They have already stated that they are monitoring
activists'
Internet use. Please be careful how you phrase things so that
your words
cannot be misconstrued by the police."
The groups that criticize the World Bank and IMF, however,
have their own
infiltrators in place. Usually the infiltrators are staff members
of
those agencies who think they're too secretive and, if left to
their own
devices, inflict environmental, economic and social damage on
the poor
countries that borrow from them. Those hidden critics frequently
slip
official papers and other information to outsiders.
"They're people who go to work trying to reduce poverty
and sometimes
they think the best way to do that is to leak a document, especially
proposing something particularly ill-advised or harmful to the
poor,"
says Raymond C. Offenheiser, president of Oxfam America, an antipoverty
advocacy group frequently critical of the World Bank and IMF.
But most of the infiltration efforts appear to have been by
the police.
Washington police acknowledge they send plainclothes officers
to public
protest meetings. They also have formal sit-downs with the demonstrators
seeking permits for their marches. A key law-enforcement strategy,
both
in the U.S. and Europe, is to press peaceful demonstrators to
police
their own ranks, an approach that has had limited success. Some
nonviolent protesters, ever politically sensitive, are reluctant
to
condemn violent tactics of others, especially property destruction.
Some
recognize that the violence, though unwanted, draws media attention
to
the protests themselves. And others are simply unwilling to confront
battle-ready militants who are armed with crowbars or Molotov
cocktails.
But, after rioting by small groups of militants provoked a
broadbased
police attack on the demonstration in Genoa, some European protesters
are
considering self-policing. France's main antiglobalization umbrella
group, Attac, is creating its own security detail. And in Naples,
says
protest coordinator Francesco Caruso, locals will deal harshly
with
hooligans. "Here, if some exalted teenager starts breaking
windows, other
guys from the demonstration would just pick him by the collar
and smash
his head against the wall, as a lesson," Mr. Caruso says
at a mountain
training camp for activists. In Washington, the AFL-CIO is sending
its
own "marshals" to help keep the peace.
Molotov Tip
Many protesters abhor the violence and fear it distracts from
their
claims about the evils of corporations, the politicians who accept
their
money, and the system that grants them so much power and wealth.
Chief
Ramsey says that one protest group may call police to report
the
destructive plans of another. During the April 2000 demonstrations
around
the World Bank/IMF
headquarters, one protester tipped off police that another was
carrying
Molotov cocktails in his backpack. The second protester is now
in prison.
"There are people who go to the meetings and tell us
things -- they're
called informants," says Michael Radzilowski, who just retired
as head of
the Special Operations Division.
Mr. Radzilowski says the Washington police don't plant long-term
undercover officers. But police won't say whether they attempt
shorter-term infiltration operations.
"You're not going to get much intelligence if you're
in uniform," hints
Mr. Acosta. "You have to blend in with the masses."
Police face a variety of rules about infiltration of political
groups.
Federal officers such as Secret Service agents are prohibited
from doing
so. The same goes for the Philadelphia police. But no such restrictions
apply to the Pennsylvania state police.
State trooper Harry Keffer was one of the four assigned the
task of
burrowing into the protest groups gathered for the Republican
convention
last summer. He and his colleagues presented themselves as union
carpenters from out of town and spent days working diligently
on
"Corpzilla," a giant satirical float that mocked the
role of corporations
in the political
system and featured protesters portraying candidates Gore and
Bush
mud-wrestling on top. According to Mr. Keffer's testimony in
a
Philadelphia municipal court, the officers learned how to use
the plastic
tubes that demonstrators employ to link themselves together when
they
choke intersections. They learned that protesters wear diapers
because
once they're locked into their pipes, they can't get up to go
to a
restroom. They even went to one session where participants positioned
themselves on a grid on the floor in order to identify where
they stood
on issues such as the death penalty and eating meat.
Carnivorous Troopers
As it happens, the troopers were carnivorous. They ate one
vegan meal
with the group, then began regular forays to McDonald's, according
to Mr.
Eidinger, who says the other protesters cut them slack because
they were
supposed to be from the unions. Besides, Mr. Eidinger, a gregarious
sort,
was busy preparing his own infiltration. He had gotten a job
running a
metal detector at the GOP convention and had even put on nice
pair of
slacks and a button-down shirt for his own training session.
In exchange,
he got a shirt with an elephant on it and a pass to get inside
the
convention. He expected to be arrested, but only after he had
hung a
banner condemning U.S. military training for foreign officers.
Instead, he found when he turned up for work that his pass
had been
canceled. He then decided to join others -- including Trooper
Keffer --
in shutting down the intersection at the corner of 12th and Arch
streets.
As it happened, the trooper's arms were too large to fit in
the lock-down
tubes, and his mid-section too big for the diapers, so he was
assigned to
drive the van carrying the demonstrators and their equipment.
Once he
confirmed that the equipment was in the van, he signaled to unmarked
police cars by placing his cap on the dashboard. Police pulled
the van
over and arrested the protesters.
Mr. Eidinger was convicted of multiple charges, including
conspiracy and
possession of instruments of a crime. He was sentenced to time
served --
eight days -- a year of parole and a $125 fine. He is appealing.
If he is
arrested again, Mr. Eidinger could be jailed for a year on the
old
charges, yet he is still working on a 50-foot dragon puppet for
the
upcoming World Bank/IMF demonstrations. "It's very risky,"
he says.
In Washington, protesters are certain there are undercover
officers among
their ranks. They review videos of protests, looking for faces
of
possible infiltrators. At a meeting one evening in the basement
of St.
Stephen's Episcopal Church, veteran organizer Nadine Bloch suspects
there's one officer in the room. But she doesn't want to start
a witch
hunt unless she is sure. "They're globalizing repressive
tactics," she
says of the police.
In Europe, authorities have learned that such efforts can
backfire.
Mainstream protest leaders now point to evidence of police infiltration
and insist that this suggests police agents-provocateurs are
responsible
for most of the violence. "The goal of the state and of
the police is to
label the nonviolent protesters as criminals," says Bernard
Cassen,
chairman of France's Attac.
The biggest controversy over the use of infiltrators emerged
in Genoa,
where police estimate 200,000 people showed up to protest a meeting
of
leaders from the Group of Eight major world powers. There, a
photograph
circulated in Italian newspapers showed people dressed as Black
Bloc,
their faces covered, standing at the gates of a carabinieri police
barracks. These men clutch what appear to be metal rods as a
smiling
uniformed officer stands nearby.
Police commanders say officers disguised as Black Bloc members
were only
used to protect the barracks themselves from an assault, and
that they
broke no laws.
In other cases, police infiltration has proven to be more
clumsy than
helpful. At an antibiotech protest in San Diego in June, members
of the
Ruckus Society protest group grew suspicious when they noticed
several
large men dressed much like Black Bloc anarchists -- except they
were
wearing brand-new Nikes, not exactly the footwear of choice of
the
antisweatshop crowd. "Most revolutionary anarchists are
vegans -- they're
tiny, skinny, low-bodyfat people," says John Sellers, a
Ruckus Society
leader. "These were beefy, Joe Neckbone frat boys."
Han Shan, the Ruckus program director, took out a Magic Marker,
wrote
"cops" on a folder and began following the men around
holding up the
sign. The Nike-wearers quickly departed. "They hate getting
outed," Mr.
Sellers says.
Write to Michael M. Phillips at michael.phillips@wsj.com2
and Yaroslav
Trofimov at yaroslav.trofimov@wsj.com3
URL for this Article:
http://interactive.wsj.com/archive/retrieve.cgi?id=SB1000154442745453472.dj
m
Hyperlinks in this Article:
(1)
http://interactive.wsj.com/archive/retrieve.cgi?id=SB100016149288729676.djm
(2) mailto:michael.phillips@wsj.com
(3) mailto:yaroslav.trofimov@wsj.com
Copyright (c) 2001 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights
Reserved.
Printing, distribution, and use of this material is governed
by your
Subscription Agreement and copyright laws.
For information about subscribing, go to http://wsj.com
===================================================+
Date: Saturday, September
15, 2001 9:15 PM
Subject: Now Available: "Collaboration: A Guide for
Environmental Advocates"
---------------- Begin Forwarded Message ----------------
Date: 9/10/2001 10:21 AM
From: rbc6n@cms.mail.virginia.edu (Robin B. Cook)
To: cbc-research@virginia.edu
The University of Virginia's Institute for Environmental Negotiation
(IEN), in partnership with the National Audubon Society and The
Wilderness Society, has published a new handbook to assist environmental
advocates in determining whether and how to effectively participate
in
collaborative decision-making. The 80-page guide, "Collaboration:
A
Guide for Environmental Advocates," was written by IEN faculty
Frank
Dukes and Karen Firehock and was funded by a grant
from the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation.
The guide was conceived in response to the rapidly expanding
use of
collaborative processes to address environmental issues across
the
nation, such as brownfield redevelopment, grazing on federal
lands,
endangered species
management and dam relicensing, to name a few. The guide is intended
to
address the growing concerns expressed by many environmentalists
about
appropriate uses for collaboration.
Development of the guide involved consultation with environmental
groups
at all levels - national, regional and local. While the guide
was
originally intended for environmental organizations, it is a
useful tool
for any organization or agency considering participation in a
collaborative decision-making process about environmental issues.
A
bound copy can be obtained by sending $8 (includes shipping and
handling)
to Collaboration Guide, IEN, University of Virginia, P.O. Box
400179,
Charlottesville, VA 22904-4179. Bulk discounts are available.
The guide
can also be accessed on the department's web site as a PDF file
at
http://www.virginia.edu/~envneg/projects.html#guide.
If you have questions please call IEN at 434-924-1970.
===================================================+
Date: Saturday, September
15, 2001 9:15 PM
Subject: News release from Western States RECA Reform
Coalition
---------------- Begin Forwarded Message ----------------
Date: 9/10/2001 11:30 AM
From: Lori Goodman, kiyaani@frontier.net
- For Immediate Release -
September 07, 2001
THE WESTERN STATES RECA REFORM COALITION
Contacts: Lori Goodman (970) 259-0199
Ed Brickey (970) 523-7460/216-1175
Melton Martinez (505) 287-3848
BUSH Abandoning R.E.C.A.
- While setting aside $30M to start new uranium mining!
"Last year, Congress clearly mandated payments under
the Radiation
Exposure
Compensation Act to former uranium miners, workers and Downwinders,"
said
Melton Martinez, President of Eastern Navajo Uranium Workers.
"But now,
the
government is denying and delaying justice by changing the rules,
and have
even stated clearly their priority constituents." Martinez
was referring
to
a bill introduced by Rep Wilson (R-NM), House Energy Bill (HR4)
that would
give $30 million dollars to companies to start uranium mining,
in the same
area, where ill miners denied compensation live.
Those who ignore mistakes of the past are doomed to repeat
them. This
seems
to be what the Bush administration is doing in failing to recognize
the
injuries and injustices to the previous generation of uranium
miners, by
supporting new mining ventures without correcting old wrongs.
Where is the
compassion in even considering inflecting the same harm on the
next
generation without a thought for those presently suffering?
Hazel Merritt, President of Utah Navajo Downwinders said,
"Our
compassionate
conservative is delaying legislation to constituents least able
to fight
back, due to their illnesses and being elders. I guess this compassion
is
only reserved for the corporations. Merritt continued, "All
we ask is for
our elected leaders to obey the laws governing the RECA compensation
program
so that some of our people can still receive the benefits due
them."
JUSTICE, again being denied by changing the rules, by not
issuing required
regulations, and the continued manipulation of the RECA budget
is a sad
chapter documenting the ongoing legacy of uranium mining in the
Four
Corners
states. Justice delayed is Justice denied!
Edward L. Brickey, President Colorado Uranium Workers Council
and Western
States R.E.C.A. Reform Coalition Co-Chair said, "The law
said that the
D.O.J. had 180 days to produce the rules and regulations for
public law
106-245. That time was up January 10, 2001. It is 8 months overdue.
So,
does
that not make our government in contempt of the law?" "Why
do we allow
them
to make a mockery of our system of government? Is there any one
held
accountable for the job they should do for the citizens of this
nation?
Don't they understand the mental anguish and stress they are
putting on
our sick
and elders? I hope and pray, as many do, Bush will guarantee
that the law
will be upheld, and justice finally served for the sick and dying
radiation
victims of our nation."
The Western States RECA Reform Coalition consists of representatives
of
grassroots radiation victim,s organizations from the states of
NM, CO, AZ
&
UT working together in a force uniting people of different ethnic,
geographic, religious and political backgrounds. Organizations
includes:
Colorado Plateau Uranium Workers, Colorado Uranium Workers Council,
Navajo
RECA Reform Working Group, Utah Navajo Downwinders, Northern
Arizona
Navajo
Downwinders, Eastern Navajo Uranium Workers, Lukachukai Uranium
Workers,
Churchrock Uranium Workers and Dine' CARE.
Dine' CARE
10 A Town Plaza, PMB 138
Durango, CO 81301
(970) 259-0199 phone
(970) 259-3413 fax
web: dinecare.indigenousnative.org
----------------- End Forwarded Message -----------------
===================================================+
Date: Saturday, September
15, 2001 9:41 PM
Subject: N. County Times: Historic county water deal in
trouble
http://www.nctimes.com/news/2001/20010909/11111.html
Historic county water deal in trouble - 9/9/01
GIG CONAUGHTON
Staff Writer
North County Times
San Diego County's historic 1997 deal to buy water from farmers
in
Imperial Valley is in danger of collapsing under the weight of
environmental challenges, especially those tied to the Salton
Sea,
California's largest lake.
Negotiated by the San Diego County Water Authority and the
Imperial
Irrigation District, the deal is scheduled to start transferring
up to 65
million gallons of water a year from water-rich Imperial Valley
to
drought-prone San Diego County on Jan. 1, 2003.
The deal's importance is threefold:
For the Water Authority, it guarantees that San Diego County
residents
will always have a reliable source of water, even in emergencies.
For the Imperial Irrigation District and its financially suffering
farming community, it promises to boost the valley's economy
by giving
farmers the option of selling water.
And for California's water system, the deal is revolutionary
---- and
controversial ---- because it threatens to create an "open
water market"
by breaking up the monopolistic water supply system that the
Metropolitan
Water District of Southern California has enjoyed since it was
created by
the state Legislature in 1928.
Then, in January, the water-transfer deal suddenly became
important to
all of Southern California. That's when it was made a key part
of the
California 4.4 Plan.
The 4.4 Plan is California's promise to the six other states
that share
the Colorado River that California will reduce how much water
it takes
from the river each year within 15 years.
Now, with the deal in place, Southern Californians get 15
years to
gradually shrink the amount of water they take each year from
the
Colorado River, from 5.2 million acre-feet to 4.4 million acre-feet
----
the amount California legally "owns." For decades,
California has used
the "surplus" river water the other six, less-populated
states that share
the Colorado River have not needed.
One acre-foot of water is 325,900 gallons, roughly enough
to meet the
household needs of eight people for one year.
But if the water-transfer deal fails, Southern California
residents and
businesses could be forced to swallow a 30 percent reduction
---- enough
water to sustain 1.4 million homes ---- by Jan. 1, 2003, just
16 months
from now.
Add another year of drought conditions in Northern California
----
further shrinking Southern California's water supply ---- and
water
officials say "it could be ugly."
A deal in jeopardy
But with each passing day, a growing number of water officials
say the
water-transfer deal is being threatened by an increasing number
of
environmental challenges, their associated potential costs, and
fast-approaching deadlines to complete environmental studies.
Studies to date have taken longer than expected, officials
from both the
Water Authority and the Imperial district said.
Some say the environmental hurdles will be cleared, and the
water-transfer deal will be done, because the deal is too important
to
fail.
"It'll get done," said Jim Taylor, an environmental
attorney with the
Water Authority, "because it has to."
But others have become disheartened.
Bruce Kuhn, one of the Imperial Irrigation District's five
board members,
and one who signed the original water transfer agreement in 1997,
said
flatly he thinks the environmental issues will kill the deal.
"Don't get me wrong," Kuhn said. "I'm 110 percent
for this deal, but I
think it's in its death throes."
There have been signs that the deal is on slippery ground,
both in the
Imperial Valley and in Congress, even as Water Authority and
Imperial
district officials have worked "around the clock" with
federal and state
environmental agencies.
In June, the Imperial Irrigation District's board put the
Water Authority
"on notice," sending it a letter saying it now thinks
environmental
mitigation costs of the water transfer in the Valley might exceed
$15
million.
Kuhn said that was significant because the deal gives the
Imperial
district the right to back out if its environmental costs exceed
$15
million.
Meanwhile, in Congress, U.S. Rep. Duncan Hunter, R-El Cajon,
introduced a
bill in August that proposes to do several things related to
the water
transfer deal, including:
n Cut the time for environmental challenges to the deal under
federal law
from six years to 90 days;
n Set aside $60 million to help save the Salton Sea ---- one
of the main
environmental roadblocks challenging the water-transfer deal;
n Order Secretary of the Interior Gale Norton to automatically
approve
the habitat conservation plan that the Imperial district is drafting
for
the Salton Sea, a portion of Hunter's bill that has rankled some
environmental groups.
Jumping the hurdles
Taylor and Sue Giller, spokeswoman for the Imperial district,
said the
water transfer automatically faced having to do time-consuming
environmental reports and statements to satisfy state and federal
regulators, because it could materially change the environment
both in
Imperial Valley and the Colorado River.
Under terms of the deal, water that has flowed for decades
down the
Colorado River to Imperial Dam, and Imperial Valley farmers,
will now be
diverted 140 miles to the north in Arizona at Metropolitan's
Lake Havasu
reservoir. From there it will be shipped via Metropolitan aqueducts
to
San Diego County.
Among other things, subtracting 65 million gallons a year
from Imperial
Valley farms will reduce the yearly irrigation runoff that replenishes
California's largest lake, the Salton Sea, which is located in
the
northern portion of the Imperial district.
Taylor said an endangered species study for the water transfer's
effects
upon the Colorado River has already been completed.
And, Taylor said, the Water Authority and Imperial district
have made
"good progress" on reaching agreements with state and
federal fish and
game officials on what kind of projects might be accepted to
offset that
impact. Agencies often create new habitat on other land to "mitigate"
environmental impacts of projects.
But Taylor, Kuhn, Giller and others said progress on the required
environmental studies has been slowed by the questions surrounding
the
Salton Sea.
If the questions remain unanswered, they said, the final environmental
studies can't be completed. And those reports must be completed
----
along with allowing for a 120-day public comment period ----
before Jan.
1, 2003, the date the water transfer becomes reality.
Can Salton Sea be saved?
Taylor said the Salton Sea has become an unfair burden on
the water
transfer. Water Authority and Imperial district officials always
knew
that the water transfer would affect the lake.
The lake, which is saltier than the oceans, was "dying"
long before the
water transfer deal was ever signed, he said.
Taylor said Congress failed to create the detailed plan to
save the lake
that it promised it would do in 1998. Consequently, he said,
environmental and community groups such as "Save Our Sea
II," are pushing
the financial and environmental responsibilities to save the
lake onto
the water transfer.
Located in Imperial and Riverside counties about 80 miles
northeast of
San Diego, the 30-mile-long, 10-mile-wide Salton Sea is California's
largest lake.
Waterfront homes have been built around it. The lake is a
state
recreational area where fishing is a main attraction.
The Salton Sea, at one time a huge sink hole and salt flat,
was actually
created between 1905 and 1907 by floods that broke farming irrigation
levees in the Imperial Valley.
Far saltier than even the Pacific Ocean, the Salton Sea has
been
evaporating for years. Taylor said many experts predict that
within the
next 20 years, the sea will become so salty that it will kill
off the
fish that live in it, and drive away the endangered birds ----
such as
the brown pelican ---- that feed on the fish.
Taylor said the water transfer will undoubtedly cut into the
irrigation
runoff that now replenishes the lake, and make the lake become
hyper-saline faster.
But Taylor and Kuhn said it's unfair to put the burden of
fixing the
Salton Sea on the water-transfer deal because the lake was already
dying
---- especially if the cost meets or exceeds the $60 million
price tag
Hunter's bill suggested was a starting point.
Kuhn and Taylor said that would make the cost of the water
transfer so
expensive for Imperial Valley farmers and San Diego County residents
that
it would have to fold.
"Quite honestly," Taylor said, "we thought
that by now Congress would
have made a decision on the sea. (And) we thought that our water
transfer
would be incorporated into the comprehensive fix."
Kuhn, the Imperial district board member, said "this
deal started out as
a fuzzy, cuddly, cute little thing. And now it's turned into
a demon ----
with teeth."
Tied to the 4.4 Plan
In addition to the Salton Sea problems, the water-transfer
deal acquired
another whole list of environmental studies and deadlines when
it was
tied to the California 4.4 Plan.
A key portion of the 4.4 Plan was the "Quantification
Settlement
Agreement," which had two effects upon the water-transfer
deal.
First, it removed legal challenges to the water transfer deal
from
Metropolitan and the Coachella Valley Water District by untangling
California's previously snarled water rights.
But while the quantification agreement "validated"
the water transfer, it
also tied the deal to the promises in the quantification agreement
----
promises by California to show the six other states that share
the
Colorado River with California how California will reduce its
take of
river water.
Those promises amount to a multitude of plans for new water
transfers,
creating additional storage or finding alternative water sources
for
California, all of which require environmental impact studies.
Giller and Taylor said those studies need to be done by the
end of next
year to satisfy the terms of the quantification agreement and
the 4.4
Plan.
Again, the 4.4 Plan now not only protects the water-transfer
deal from
legal challenges, it also stands as the barrier protecting Southern
Californians from suddenly being asked to live with 16 percent
less water
by 2003.
The Water Authority and the Imperial district, said Taylor
and Giller,
have been working day and night to get their reports and studies
done.
"The whole process is complicated," Giller said,
"and we don't have much
time."
Imperial district board member Kuhn, meanwhile, said he is
beginning to
think the water transfer will indeed fall apart.
"It's like ticks on a dog," Kuhn said of the environmental
requirements.
"I don't know how many ticks this dog can carry, but I know
it's getting
pulled down."
Contact staff writer Gig Conaughton at (760) 739-6696 or
conaughton@nctimes.com
9/9/01
Cold
Orrreport
_________________________________
David Orr <david@drainit.org>
Director of Field Programs
Living Rivers
PO Box 466, Moab UT 84532
Tel 435.259.1063/Fax 435.259.7612
www.drainit.org -and- www.livingrivers.net
Rivers Need Water Rights Too
[Glen Canyon Action Network is changing its name to Living
Rivers]