<text>Date: Fri, 4 Oct 1991 21:24:51 EDTReply-To: "Norman C. Saunders" <NYS@NIHCU.BITNET>Sender: List Owner <davep@acsu.buffalo.edu>From: "Norman C. Saunders" <NYS@NIHCU.BITNET>Subject: Fisheries Information System at F&WSFish and Wildlife ServiceFor release October 1, 1991 Michael L. Smith 202-208-5650 New Information System To Help National Fish Hatcheries A new data and computer system called the "Fisheries Information System" will, for the first time, provide the Nation's Federal fishery managers instant and comprehensive information about both the broodstock and output of the Service's 78 national fish hatcheries. With the new computer system, the National Fish Hatcheries, the oldest component of the Department of the Interior's U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, will be taking a bold leap toward the future, according to Service Director John Turner. "It is an advance that not only allows greatly improved access to information for resource managers, but will help ensure that decisions can be based on the very best and most up-to-date data available," said Turner. The national fish hatcheries annually produce more than 200 million fish and 300 million fish eggs representing 55 species. In recent years, the major focus of the hatchery system has been the restoration of depleted but nationally important species of fishes. "The importance of the fishery information system," said Service Assistant Director for Fisheries Gary Edwards, "is what it will mean biologically. Ultimately, it will help our fisheries managers produce more fish where they are needed most." The Fishery Information System is being developed in a modular fashion to permit later additions of new management and data modules. In its initial phase, the system will gather an array of data on fish being cultured for production and breeding stock; fish and fish egg distribution requests; information on production goals for each broodstock station; returned fish tag summaries; and hatchery location, history, operations, and physical facilities. Additional information on the new Fisheries Information System is available from the Assistant Director for Fisheries, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1849 C Street, N.W., Room 3245, Washington, DC 20240.</text>
</content>
<name></name>
<script></script>
</card>
card_18529.xml
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" ?>
<!DOCTYPE card PUBLIC "-//Apple, Inc.//DTD card V 2.0//EN" "" >
<text>Date: Mon, 7 Oct 1991 21:43:12 EDTReply-To: "Norman C. Saunders" <NYS@NIHCU.BITNET>Sender: List Owner <davep@acsu.buffalo.edu>From: "Norman C. Saunders" <NYS@NIHCU.BITNET>Subject: F&WS Press Release Fish and Wildlife ServiceFor release: October 3, 1991 William MacDougall 202-208-3013Patricia W. Fisher 202-208-5634 Waterfowl Win Big During Migratory Bird Commission Meeting Waterfowl scored the hat trick during the recent meeting of the Migratory Bird Conservation Commission, the advisory body responsible for administering the Migratory Bird Conservation Fund. In three separate actions, the Commission approve a record number of waterfowl habitat land acquisitions and okayed 46 new projects for funding under the North American Wetlands Conservation Act, and Dow Chemical Company presented a check to the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation for over a half-million dollars for wetlands restoration. Record Number of Projects Approved The Commission, chaired by Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks Mike Hayden, approved a record-setting 12 projects involving the acquisition of 23,143 acres of prime waterfowl habitat for inclusion in the National Wildlife Refuge System. This represents an allocation of nearly $21 million from the Migratory Bird Conservation Fund to purchase land. Those projects include Brazoria National Wildlife Refuge in Texas; Cape May and Edwin B. Forsythe refuges in New Jersey; Morgan Brake, Yazoo, and Panther Swamp refuges in Mississippi; Overflow, Holla Bend, and Cache River refuges in Arkansas; Back Bay refuge in Virginia; Grasslands refuge in California; and Hamden Slough refuge in Minnesota. The fund consists primarily of money received from the sale of the Federal Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation Stamp (the Federal "Duck Stamp") and must be used to secure waterfowl habitat. New Wetlands Projects The Commission then approved $17,497,180 in funding for 46 major projects to conserve and improve threatened wetlands in the United States, Canada, and Mexico under the North American Wetlands Conservation Act. These are the first projects selected for Fiscal Year 1992 funding in support of the North American Waterfowl Management Plan, a 15-year program to conserve wetlands and enhance waterfowl populations in the three countries. During Fiscal Year 1991, the Migratory Bird Conservation Commission, composed of Congressional lawmakers and Administration officials, approved a total of $32 million for 101 projects in the three countries under the 1989 law. The money is used to acquire and enhance wetland habitat for migratory birds and other fish and wildlife. The projects were recommended to the commission by the North American Wetlands Conservation Council, a public and private body established by the Act. The Interior Department's U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's North American Waterfowl and Wetlands office provides staff support for the council. The largest Federal sums proposed are $2.5 million to renovate the Cheyenne Bottoms Wildlife Area and permanently preserve and enhance habitat within the Cheyenne Bottoms basin in Barton County, Kansas (recently designated as a Wetland of International Importance); $2,275,972 to protect and enhance biological diversity on a portion of the 21,679-acre Chehaw-Combahee Reserve in Colleton County, South Carolina; and $1,755,400 to acquire land near the cities of Virginia Beach and Chesapeake, Virginia, to complete the core area of the North Landing River National Wildlife Refuge. A total of $33,106,193 in state and private funds will be added to the Federal grants. This amounts to 1.75 partner dollars for every Federal dollar. Two projects will receive large partnership donations in addition to Federal funding. In Cobscook Bay, Maine, $1,355,000 in partnership money will be added to $550,000 Federal funding to protect 1,941 acres of land and 10.8 miles of frontage on coastal wetlands in Washington County. Ten Mile Pond, Missouri, will receive $2,668,625 in partnership money along with its $338,750 to reestablish and restore wetlands, establish water distribution and control capability, and create a diversity of wetland types in Mississippi County. Funds for the projects come from interest on Federal excise taxes on hunting equipment sales, fines from violators of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, and private contributions. Approved projects also include: CALIFORNIA: Cosumnes River in Sacramento County--$340,000; Howard Slough, Butte Basin in Glen County--$118,500; and Llano Seco Unit, Butte Basin in Butte County--$118,500. FLORIDA: Thomas M. Goodwin Waterfowl Management Area, Brevard County-- $84,500. IDAHO: Thousand Springs/Chilly Slough area of central Idaho--$125,000. KANSAS: Kansas Playa lakes (acquisition in Meade County, enhancements and leases in 12 other counties)--$100,000. LOUISIANA: Sediment diversions in Plaquemines Parish, near the mouth of the Mississippi River on Pass-a-Loutre Wildlife Management Area--$292,000. MINNESOTA: Big Stone National Wildlife Refuge, Lacqui Parle County-- $317,000. NORTH DAKOTA: Kelly's Slough wetlands restoration and enhancement in Grand Forks County west of the City of Grand Forks--$214,497. OKLAHOMA: Fee-title acquisition of bottomland hardwood forest, Deep Fork River between Tulsa and Oklahoma City--$250,000; and Ok- lahoma Playa Lakes in Beaver, Cimarron, Harper, and Texas Counties--$50,000. VIRGINIA: Acquisition of 415-acre Whitehurst Marsh, 4 miles southeast of Back Bay, Virginia Beach--$325,000. WISCONSIN: Uihlein Waterfowl Production Area in Winnebago County-- $51,000. A total of $7.8 million was approved for 27 projects in Alberta, Manitoba, New Brunswick, Newfoundland, Nova Scotia, Ontario, Prince Edward Island, Quebec, and Saskatchewan in Canada. One project for $116,500 was approved in Sinaloa, Mexico. Partnership for Wetlands Protection and Restoration Following the Commission meeting, Dow Chemical Company's Director of Global Issue Management, Ben Woodhouse, presented a $550,000 check to the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation. The Foundation pledged to match the contribution on a one-to-one basis with Congressionally appropriated funds. This was the second installment on a $3 million Dow commitment, the largest corporate donation to date to benefit the North American Waterfowl Management Plan. Last year, Dow joined in a 4-year partnership with The Nature Conservancy, the Foundation, and the Fish and Wildlife Service to conserve and restore endangered wetlands throughout North America. In recognition of Dow's wetland restoration efforts, Hayden presented Woodhouse with a framed print of the Federal Duck Stamp. Hayden said, "Dow has set a high standard for the corporate world in its protection of wetlands for waterfowl and other important values. Its participation and financial support exemplifies the North American Plan's public/private partnership objectives." The Migratory Bird Conservation Commission is made up of Secretary of the Interior Manuel Lujan, Secretary of Agriculture Edward Madigan, Environmental Protection Agency Administrator William Reilly, Senators Thad Cochran and David Pryor, Representatives John Dingell and Richard Schulze, and an ex officio member representing the state in which a project under consideration falls.</text>
</content>
<name></name>
<script></script>
</card>
card_17554.xml
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" ?>
<!DOCTYPE card PUBLIC "-//Apple, Inc.//DTD card V 2.0//EN" "" >
<text>From: jym@mica.berkeley.edu (Jym Dyer)Newsgroups: talk.environmentSubject: NEWS: Fish & Wildlife Service Releases "Vision For The Future"Message-ID: <BIOSPH-L.24Sep1991.2138@naughty-peahen.org>Date: 25 Sep 91 05:38:37 GMTArticle-I.D.: naughty-.BIOSPH-L.24Sep1991.2138Sender: usenet@agate.berkeley.edu (USENET Administrator)Distribution: naOrganization: The Naughty Peahen Party LineLines: 99[Fish and Wildlife Service Press Release][From BIOSPH-L]> From: "Norman C. Saunders" <NYS@NIHCU.BITNET>> Subject: Four F&WS Press ReleasesFish and Wildlife ServiceFor Release: August 30, 1991Megan Durham 202-208-4131 "Vision For The Future" Charts Course For U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service The future of the Nation's fish and wildlife conservation programs is the topic of a new document released by the Interior Department's U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. "Vision for the Future" redefines the Federal wildlife agency's mission, goals, and strategies for solving the complex conservation challenges of the 21st Century. "The 'Vision' document is a navigation chart to help keep our ark afloat and on course," said Service Director John Turner. "Our country has the finest fish and wildlife conservation programs in the world, and of course the Fish and Wildlife Service will continue its traditional conservation programs. But we also must recognize that society is changing and putting new pressures on the natural world," Turner said. "The Service today faces the challenges of intensifying alteration of natural habitats, growing numbers of endangered species, and an increasingly urbanized population with little awareness of wildlife's needs. This is a worldwide trend and many other countries increasingly are looking to the Service for leadership on international conservation issues. The 'Vision' document will help us identify our Nation's highest wildlife priorities and focus our conservation resources where they can do the greatest good," Turner said. A major purpose of the "Vision" document is to give members of the public and agency employees greater input into how the Fish and Wildlife Service sets priorities. By more clearly identifying the Service's goals and funding priorities, the document will also help simplify the Federal budget process for the Administration and Congress. "Vision for the Future" represents the Fish and Wildlife Service's adoption of "Total Quality Management," a system being widely implemented by Federal agencies to set priorities, measure progress, and meet the needs of their "customers." The report cites major fish and wildlife conservation issues now confronting the Service, such as: o declining populations of striped bass, salmonids, and other native fishes throughout much of their range over the past 15 years; o continent-wide declines in populations of ducks and many nongame migratory bird species; o loss and degradation of many wildlife habitats during the past century; o increasing worldwide extinctions of plants and animals; and o a growing urban population and changes in recreational choices that have resulted in a detachment of young people from the natural world. To meet these and other challenges, Turner said the Fish and Wildlife Service will place greater emphasis on preserving ecosystems and the diverse natural abundance of fish and wildlife species; providing "watchable wildlife" programs and other opportunities for people to enjoy and learn about wildlife; encouraging environmentally sensitive economic growth to avoid or minimize conflicts between people and fish and wildlife needs; forming partnerships with private landowners, industries, and others to achieve conservation goals; and improving recruitment, training, and management of the agency's 7,500 employees. Established as the Bureau of Biological Survey in 1885 to investigate the effects of birds on agricultural crops, the Fish and Wildlife Service has evolved over the years into an agency with complex responsibilities under a wide array of environmental laws. In FY 1991, the agency's budget topped $1 billion for the first time. The Service's chief responsibilities include migratory birds, endangered species, freshwater and anadromous fish, and certain marine mammals. The agency manages more than 90 million acres of land encompassed in over 460 national wildlife refuges; conducts research on contaminants, disease, and other environmental impacts of various types of development; monitors bird populations and establishes hunting regulations for migratory game birds; carries out listing and recovery activities for endangered species; administers a multi-million-dollar Federal Aid program for fish and wildlife restoration funded by special taxes on hunting and fishing equipment and motorboat fuels; and oversees a nationwide network of law enforcement agents.</text>
</content>
<name></name>
<script></script>
</card>
card_17234.xml
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" ?>
<!DOCTYPE card PUBLIC "-//Apple, Inc.//DTD card V 2.0//EN" "" >
<text>From: jym@mica.berkeley.edu (Jym Dyer)Newsgroups: talk.environmentSubject: NEWS: "The Environmental President" to Push Duck StampsMessage-ID: <BIOSPH-L.24Sep1991.2139@naughty-peahen.org>Date: 25 Sep 91 05:40:16 GMTArticle-I.D.: naughty-.BIOSPH-L.24Sep1991.2139Sender: usenet@agate.berkeley.edu (USENET Administrator)Distribution: naOrganization: The Naughty Peahen Party LineLines: 81[Fish and Wildlife Service Press Release][From BIOSPH-L]> From: "Norman C. Saunders" <NYS@NIHCU.BITNET>> Subject: Four F&WS Press ReleasesFish and Wildlife ServiceFor Release: August 30, 1991Michael L. Smith 202-208-5650 President Bush Boosts Federal Duck Stamp Program President George Bush will appear in a series of broadcast public service announcements to boost public awareness of the Federal Duck Stamp, Interior Secretary Manuel Lujan announced today. "We are delighted with the President's support of the Federal Duck Stamp Program," Lujan said. "The Duck Stamp is one of our best and most reliable conservation tools for saving habitat for waterfowl and other migratory birds, but more people need to know about this program." The Federal Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation Stamp was created in 1934 as a means of raising funds to acquire habitat for water-fowl nesting, feeding, and wintering sites. Over the past 57 years, the Duck Stamp, as it is commonly known, has generated almost $400 million to acquire nearly 4 million acres protected within the National Wildlife Refuge System. The stamp is required of all waterfowl hunters 16 years of age and older as part of their valid license to hunt ducks, geese, or swans. Stamps are also popular with stamp collectors and non-hunters. Since duck populations declined during the 1980's because of drought in their northern nesting areas, there has been a downward turn in waterfowl hunting and stamp sales. As a result, Interior's U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has had less stamp revenue available to purchase and protect habitat. "I'm afraid we're seeing a bit of a vicious cycle," said Mike Hayden, Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks. "Because of the downturn in duck numbers, some waterfowl hunters have shifted to other types of hunting. But loss of stamp sales reduces funding to acquire and safeguard quality habitat for the birds--this during a period of extended drought when they've needed it most." The television and radio spots in which the President appears urge audiences to write for additional information about the Federal Duck Stamp Program. Respondents will receive a brochure entitled "The Duck Stamp Story," which includes an order form to buy 1989, 1990, and 1991 Duck Stamps, and a letter from Secretary Lujan. "I want people to know that when they buy a Duck Stamp, virtually all of the money they have paid actually buys land," Lujan said. "Ninety-eight percent, in fact, goes to habitat. The two-percent overhead is equally distributed between the Bureau of Engraving and Printing, which prints the 4 million stamps for us each year, and the Postal Service, which serves as the main point of distribution and sales. I think that makes the Duck Stamp one of the most effective conservation investments anyone can make." Fish and Wildlife Service Director John Turner emphasized that, while migratory waterfowl have been the primary beneficiaries of the program over the years, hundreds of other species of birds, animals, and plants have benefitted as well. "The contributions have been incredible," Turner said. "It's been one of the truly great but seldom heralded success stories in American conservation. I especially hope the President's TV appearance will inspire young people to learn more about this program. We get many letters from school children and their teachers asking what they can do to help conservation. By buying a Duck Stamp, they would not only have a very beautiful and collectible stamp, but they would also have the satisfaction of knowing they helped save some wildlife and its habitat. The 1991-92 Federal Duck Stamp, a depiction of king eiders by Vermont artist Nancy Howe, is currently available for $15 at most major post offices and national wildlife refuges, or by direct order from the Duck Stamp Office, Fish and Wildlife Service, Department of the Interior, 1849 C Street, N.W., Room 2058, Washington, DC 20240.</text>
</content>
<name></name>
<script></script>
</card>
card_16717.xml
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" ?>
<!DOCTYPE card PUBLIC "-//Apple, Inc.//DTD card V 2.0//EN" "" >
<text>Date: Sun, 8 Sep 1991 17:02:30 EDTReply-To: "Norman C. Saunders" <NYS@NIHCU.BITNET>Sender: List Owner <davep@acsu.buffalo.edu>From: "Norman C. Saunders" <NYS@NIHCU.BITNET>Subject: Four F&WS Press ReleasesFish and Wildlife ServiceFor Release: August 30, 1991 Megan Durham 202-208-4131 "Vision For The Future" Charts Course For U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service The future of the Nation's fish and wildlife conservation programs is the topic of a new document released by the Interior Department's U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. "Vision for the Future" redefines the Federal wildlife agency's mission, goals, and strategies for solving the complex conservation challenges of the 21st Century. "The 'Vision' document is a navigation chart to help keep our ark afloat and on course," said Service Director John Turner. "Our country has the finest fish and wildlife conservation programs in the world, and of course the Fish and Wildlife Service will continue its traditional conservation programs. But we also must recognize that society is changing and putting new pressures on the natural world," Turner said. "The Service today faces the challenges of intensifying alteration of natural habitats, growing numbers of endangered species, and an increasingly urbanized population with little awareness of wildlife's needs. This is a worldwide trend and many other countries increasingly are looking to the Service for leadership on international conservation issues. The 'Vision' document will help us identify our Nation's highest wildlife priorities and focus our conservation resources where they can do the greatest good," Turner said. A major purpose of the "Vision" document is to give members of the public and agency employees greater input into how the Fish and Wildlife Service sets priorities. By more clearly identifying the Service's goals and funding priorities, the document will also help simplify the Federal budget process for the Administration and Congress. "Vision for the Future" represents the Fish and Wildlife Service's adoption of "Total Quality Management," a system being widely implemented by Federal agencies to set priorities, measure progress, and meet the needs of their "customers." The report cites major fish and wildlife conservation issues now confronting the Service, such as: o declining populations of striped bass, salmonids, and other native fishes throughout much of their range over the past 15 years; o continent-wide declines in populations of ducks and many nongame migratory bird species; o loss and degradation of many wildlife habitats during the past century; o increasing worldwide extinctions of plants and animals; and o a growing urban population and changes in recreational choices that have resulted in a detachment of young people from the natural world. To meet these and other challenges, Turner said the Fish and Wildlife Service will place greater emphasis on preserving ecosystems and the diverse natural abundance of fish and wildlife species; providing "watchable wildlife" programs and other opportunities for people to enjoy and learn about wildlife; encouraging environmentally sensitive economic growth to avoid or minimize conflicts between people and fish and wildlife needs; forming partnerships with private landowners, industries, and others to achieve conservation goals; and improving recruitment, training, and management of the agency's 7,500 employees. Established as the Bureau of Biological Survey in 1885 to investigate the effects of birds on agricultural crops, the Fish and Wildlife Service has evolved over the years into an agency with complex responsibilities under a wide array of environmental laws. In FY 1991, the agency's budget topped $1 billion for the first time. The Service's chief responsibilities include migratory birds, endangered species, freshwater and anadromous fish, and certain marine mammals. The agency manages more than 90 million acres of land encompassed in over 460 national wildlife refuges; conducts research on contaminants, disease, and other environmental impacts of various types of development; monitors bird populations and establishes hunting regulations for migratory game birds; carries out listing and recovery activities for endangered species; administers a multi-million-dollar Federal Aid program for fish and wildlife restoration funded by special taxes on hunting and fishing equipment and motorboat fuels; and oversees a nationwide network of law enforcement agents. </text>
</content>
<name></name>
<script></script>
</card>
card_9238.xml
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" ?>
<!DOCTYPE card PUBLIC "-//Apple, Inc.//DTD card V 2.0//EN" "" >
<text>Fish and Wildlife ServiceFor Release: July 11, 1991 Megan Durham 202-208-4131 Attention Migratory Bird Hunters: National Harvest Surveys Expanding To Include All Migratory Game Birds The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and state wildlife agencies are launching the first phase of a new program to obtain better information about doves, woodcock, and other migratory game birds harvested each year by the Nation's 5 million migratory bird hunters. The program is scheduled to begin in 1992 in five states and will include all migratory game bird hunters in the country by 1998. "This program is essential to better manage our migratory game birds and preserve hunting opportunities for the future," said John Turner, director of the Interior Department's U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Information about the birds harvested by hunters is one of the key elements wildlife biologists use to judge the status of bird populations and develop appropriate management programs and hunting regulations. The new "Migratory Bird Harvest Information Program" is similar to the waterfowl harvest surveys that have been conducted for many years, but will expand the program to obtain more information about non-waterfowl species and to correct problems that have arisen in contacting hunters to participate in the surveys. Under the program, all migratory bird hunters will eventually be required to fill out a short name and address form. The Fish and Wildlife Service will use the names and addresses to contact a sample of hunters asking them to voluntarily provide information about their hunting success. The information reported will be anonymous and all names and addresses will be destroyed at the end of each annual survey. Details of how the program will work in each state are still being worked out. The Fish and Wildlife Service will distribute the harvest information forms free to states, who may charge a small fee to cover their administrative costs and repay vendors for the cost of distributing the forms. The Fish and Wildlife Service will receive no money from the distribution of the survey forms. Some states may combine the survey form with a state licensing or permit requirement. Hunters will be able to obtain the forms along with their state hunting license. Hunters will receive either a separate "harvest information card" or an indication on their state license to show that they have filled out the form. The harvest information cards will be reciprocal among the states, just as Duck Stamps are, so that hunters will not have to obtain them again if they hunt in more than one state. So far, five states--California, Minnesota, Missouri, Pennsylvania, and South Dakota--have volunteered to participate in the first phase of the program, scheduled to begin in 1992. It is anticipated that migratory bird hunters in all states will be participating by 1998. The Fish and Wildlife Service published a notice of its intent to implement the program in the June 24 Federal Register and is accepting public comments through August 1. This will be followed later in the summer with an official proposal and another public comment period. The changes in the national harvest survey were recommended in 1990 by the International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies (an association of state, territorial, provincial, and Federal wildlife agencies of the U.S., Canada, and other western hemisphere countries) to address increasing problems with current harvest surveys. The national harvest survey is now based on names gathered through the sale of Federal Duck Stamps to waterfowl hunters. A sample of hunters who purchase Duck Stamps also receive survey cards, which they are asked to return to the Fish and Wildlife Service. The Service later contacts these hunters with a questionnaire about their hunting success. These hunters also are asked about hunting of non-waterfowl species such as woodcock, doves, snipe, rails, gallinules, and band-tailed pigeons. In a study of the current survey program, the Service found that many hunters who were supposed to receive the survey cards with their Duck Stamp never did because the cards were not distributed by the post office or vendor. Many hunters who receive the voluntary questionnaires do not respond. About half of all migratory bird hunters do not hunt waterfowl and are not required to buy a Duck Stamp, so they cannot now be contacted to participate in the survey. The proposed survey program would solve these difficulties in obtaining essential harvest information. The possibility of using harvest surveys conducted by the individual states to obtain the information has been studied, but it is difficult to reconcile reports from various states because of differences in license requirements, survey procedures, and record-keeping. "We are going to use the early stages of this effort to refine the survey and make it as streamlined and user-friendly to hunters as we can," Turner said. "Hunters, more than most people, understand the need for sound biological information in wildlife management. They are our eyes and ears in the field and I know we can count on their support."</text>
</content>
<name></name>
<script></script>
</card>
card_6673.xml
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" ?>
<!DOCTYPE card PUBLIC "-//Apple, Inc.//DTD card V 2.0//EN" "" >
<text> Fish and Wildlife ServiceFor Release: May 16, 1991 Georgia Parham 202-208-5634Nell Baldacchino 301-498-0471 Cash Lake Opens To Anglers The Interior Department's U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is offering a new fishing opportunity for anglers in the Washington, DC, metropolitan area with the June 15 opening of a 54-acre lake on the grounds of the agency's Patuxent Wildlife Research Center near Laurel, Maryland. "Cash Lake is small, but its location in the Baltimore-Washington urban corridor gives the Fish and Wildlife Service an opportunity to help bring the fun of fishing to a great many people," said Service Director John Turner. "In particular, I am pleased this program will focus on special ways to enable the young, the elderly, and the physically challenged to enjoy the outdoors." Cash Lake has been closed to fishing since 1957 in order to conduct waterfowl and fisheries research. Because these studies have been phased out, the Service decided to open the lake to recreational fishing. Working with state biologists, the Service will evaluate the Cash Lake fishing program to ensure the lake is not overharvested. Fishing will open next month and continue through October 15. Day permits are required and applications are now being accepted. The free permits will allow the holder and another licensed angler, or up to two accompanying children under 16 years old, to fish for bass, pickerel, sunfish, and catfish. The lake will be open to anglers from 6 a.m. to sunset. Maryland fishing and boating rules will be in effect, along with additional restrictions on harvest and boating. Bass and pickerel fishing is catch-and-release only, except that one bass over 15 inches and one pickerel over 15 inches may be kept. The total daily sunfish and catfish harvest limit is 15. Legal fishing methods include hook-and-line and baits permitted by Maryland law, but no live minnows or other fish may be used. Anglers may use boats, but gasoline motors are not permitted. Boats other than canoes must be no longer than 14 feet, and sailboats and kayaks are prohibited. To apply for a permit, anglers must be at least 18 years of age and licensed to fish in Maryland. The application must be by letter only and include name, address, phone number (including area code), vehicle information (make, model, year, and license plate number), and dates for which permits are desired. Applications should be received at least one week prior to requested fishing days. Applications should be sent to Fishing Program, Patuxent Wildlife Research Center, Laurel-Bowie Road, Laurel, Maryland 20708. A total of 25 permits will be issued for each day. If necessary, a a random drawing will be held to allocate permits. Successful applicants will be notified of the date or dates for which they have been selected, and will receive their permit along with a location map and regulations.</text>
</content>
<name></name>
<script></script>
</card>
card_11460.xml
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" ?>
<!DOCTYPE card PUBLIC "-//Apple, Inc.//DTD card V 2.0//EN" "" >
<text>Fish and Wildlife ServiceFor Release: August 2, 1991 Megan Durham 202-208-4131 1991 Waterfowl Fall Flight Forecast: No Major Changes From Last Year The number of ducks migrating south this fall is expected to be similar to last year in all regions of the country, according to the 1991 "fall flight forecast" by the Interior Department's U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The outlook for geese is favorable, with most goose populations experiencing good nesting conditions. "After nearly a decade of drought, we've finally got some water in the ponds," said John Turner, director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. "Unfortunately, many of the ponds don't have much surrounding natural vegetation that ducks need to nest and hide from predators. We need to continue efforts under the North American Waterfowl Management Plan to make sure there is secure, quality nesting cover for waterfowl." Significant amounts of rain fell in late spring across much of the Canadian and U.S. prairies where most ducks nest. The number of ponds counted in July by survey crews was the highest on record. The rain fell too late in the season to benefit most nesting ducks, but mallards are expected to increase slightly. Numbers of most Canada goose populations this fall are expected to be similar to last year. An exception is the southern James Bay population (formerly called the Tennessee Valley population) that winters in Kentucky, Tennessee, northern Alabama, northwestern Pennsylvania, and western North Carolina and South Carolina. This population will experience another below-average fall flight. The fall flight of giant Canada geese is expected to exceed last year's. The fall flight of greater white-fronted geese in the Pacific Fly-way (wintering in California's Central Valley) will increase slightly over recent years but remains below desired levels. The populations wintering in Louisiana and Texas will be similar in size to last year. The fall flight of lesser snow geese in the mid-continent region of the Mississippi and Central Flyways is expected to reach a record high this year. less snow geese in the western Central Flyway (wintering in southeastern Colorado, New Mexico, and the Texas panhandle) and those wintering in central and southern California should equal or exceed last year's. The fall flight of Ross' geese (wintering in northern and central California, New Mexico, and along the Texas Gulf Coast) should increase over last year. Populations of Atlantic and Pacific brant and both eastern and western tundra swans are also expected to equal or exceed last year's. This year, the Fish and Wildlife Service improved the method of estimating duck numbers to take into account changes in prairie habitat conditions and improvements in waterfowl surveys. This year's duck fall flight index, using the new procedures, is projected at 60 million. This is not significantly different from last year's revised projection of 57 million. The fall flight index does not represent an actual count of birds, but is a projection based on surveys of duck breeding populations and estimates of brood production. Waterfowl biologists regard the duck breeding population estimate as a more accurate and reliable figure than the fall flight index. This year's duck breeding population estimate totalled 26.5 million, up 6 percent from last year but remaining 19 percent below the average from 1955-90.</text>
</content>
<name></name>
<script></script>
</card>
card_17887.xml
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" ?>
<!DOCTYPE card PUBLIC "-//Apple, Inc.//DTD card V 2.0//EN" "" >
<text>Fish and Wildlife ServiceFor Release March 4, 1991 Michael Smith 202-208-5650 Fish And Wildlife Service Studies Cormorants To Help Curb Recreational And Aquacultural Losses A bird once so imperiled by DDT it was almost listed as endangered, but now so abundant it's become a nuisance to many fish farmers and recreational anglers nationwide, is the focus of a three-part, multi-year research and management effort by the Interior Department's Fish and Wildlife Service, agency Director John Turner announced. "The double-crested cormorant represents one of the most ironic wildlife success stories in the past quarter century," Turner said. "In the late 1960's, many wildlife scientists thought the bird would be one of the first additions to the U.S. endangered species list." But since the early 1980's--more than a decade after DDT was banned and its effects in the environment began to fade--this species has been increasing its population by nearly 7 percent each year. "Unfortunately," Turner adds, "this phenomenal recovery appears to be fed, literally, by a commercial fish farming industry that also has experienced a rapid growth throughout the past decade. In some locations, cormorants have benefitted from the artificial stocking of fish for recreational purposes. In one case documented in Utah, the cormorants' take of stocked trout far exceeded the catch by anglers." The cormorant is a migratory water bird that feeds almost exclusively on fish. It nests in northern states and Canada and winters throughout the South and into the Caribbean. Its migration route down the Mississippi Valley takes it through the very heart of the burgeoning new fish farming, or aquaculture, region of the United States. In Mississippi, Arkansas, and Louisiana, there are several hundred commercial catfish farms; while from Arkansas northward to Minnesota, commercial production of bait minnows and rainbow trout have become strong growth industries in recent years. Concerns in the Northeast and Northwest focus on the potential impact of cormorant predation on out-migrating juvenile salmon. "The cormorant situation presents some very significant challenges," according to John Nickum, the Service's national aquaculture coordinator. "It's fully protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, so commercial producers and anglers simply cannot take bird control measures into their own hands. If fish producers can demonstrate predation problems, our Law Enforcement branch can issue permits to kill preying birds. But our hope is that these new studies and field applications will provide an information base from which management plans can be developed. The plans can show the way to effective, low-cost, non-lethal ways to keep the cormorants away from the aquaculturists' cash crop." The first of the three efforts will provide $200,000 for the Service's Northern Prairie Research Center in Jamestown, North Dakota, to look at the population dynamics and basic biology of the cormorants in the Central Flyway. The second study will be conducted by the Mississippi Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Unit, Mississippi State University, and will explore the effects of various control strategies. Lastly, the Maine Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Unit, University of Maine at Orono, will look at the effects of cormorant predation on Atlantic salmon, a species several New England states and the Service have been trying to restore as a recreational species since the 1970's. "Fish farmers we have worked with understand how complex this situation is and have shown great patience and support while we were designing these studies," Nickum said. "What we're hoping for is a 'win/win' solution by which a migratory bird is accorded protection, while a new industry is given the opportunity to develop and grow, and certain recreational fisheries can be effectively restored. Fish farming in the United States--especially for trout and catfish--has experienced rapid expansion since the 1970's. In 1990, the Service issued a revised and expanded National Aquaculture Policy outlining and emphasizing the agency's commitment to work with the industry to share fish culture technologies, including nutritional and disease control information. "Good aquacultural practices can eventually benefit conservation of some wild fish by alleviating harvest pressures on certain diminishing wild stocks," Nickum said. He added that the Service over the past century has helped provide a foundation for the inland freshwater fish farming industry through its fisheries research and hatchery development.F&WS To Study Control Of Cormorants. biosph-l@ubvm.BITNET. Sat, 9 Mar 91 17:14:02 EST.</text>
</content>
<name></name>
<script></script>
</card>
card_11962.xml
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" ?>
<!DOCTYPE card PUBLIC "-//Apple, Inc.//DTD card V 2.0//EN" "" >
<text>From: reed@cs.washington.edu (Renee Reed)Newsgroups: sci.bio,sci.chem,sci.environment,sci.researchSubject: Need Information: rotenone formulations & fisheriesMessage-ID: <1991Aug15.190358.23165@beaver.cs.washington.edu>Date: 15 Aug 91 19:03:58 GMTSender: news@beaver.cs.washington.edu (USENET News System)Organization: Computer Science & Engineering, U. of Washington, SeattleLines: 40Originator: reed@inanna.cs.washington.edu -->I could use some help from persons with knowledge in any of the areasconcerning fisheries, pesticides, toxicology, and/or riparian,watershed and/or wetland systems. I have been reading EIS's on "Lake and Stream Rehabilitation ", which is a 45 yo program of the Washington Department of Wildlife, in which they use rotenone(C23-H22-O6) to eliminate all fish and various invertebrates, amphibians and micro crustaceans (as a side effect) in selected ( ~450 ) lakes and streams, prior to re-stocking with sport fish (usually trout). The research data sited by WDW is extremely dated (1943-1961) concerning rotenone formulations and wild(human)life. I would appreciate pointers to recent data concerning rotenone formulations, known contaminants, and/or inert ingredients. (I am aware of the Noxifish contamination with hazardous waste in Knife Lake, Minn "lake rehabilitation").I am also interested in information on what the "original purpose" of Lake Rehabilitation was. I am not quit sure how to get this type of information. The impression that I get from WDW documentation is that it's only intent was to create/maintain "trout only" fisheries. I prefer not to make assumptions on this, so what other justifications are know for eliminating all "undersirable species" in a lake, pond or stream, then restocking with a single species? They make some rather weak claims of killing off illegally stocked fish.. but it is not clear if this "illegal" stocking came after the program began, or as a side-effect of citizen action against the "lake rehab" program, or simply private fisherman trying to create personal fisheries.Finally, where can I find out if a species of fish is native to a particular body of water(PNW)? Some of the species sited in various EIS's are: carp, tuio, chubs, pumpkinseed, sunfish, bluegill, crappie, yellow perch, largemouth bass, bullheads, rainbow trout, suckers, cottids, brown trout and brook trout.Thanks for the pointers and information and please relpy email, since I don't read most of these boards regularly. I'll post any relevant info if the interest exists.-renee (reed@cs.washington.edu)</text>
</content>
<name></name>
<script></script>
</card>
card_20999.xml
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" ?>
<!DOCTYPE card PUBLIC "-//Apple, Inc.//DTD card V 2.0//EN" "" >
<text>Subj:Wetlands for Wastewater Treatment The EPA has a couple of documents from 1983 that discuss in depth the use of wetlands in wastewater treatment. These should be available at a library that receives government documents. Here in Nebraska there are a couple of things going on in regards to this engineering technique. I just received the engineering plans and documentation for wetlands being developed near Montrose CO. The wetlands are being built for treatment of effluent from acare center. The second item is that a new project will be required to develop wetlands as part of a treatment facility in southwest NE. EPA will be requesting this measure and will be trying to ensure the new wetlands cleanse the water prior to it reaching an adjoining natural wetland. Since the EPA is providing most of the funding, the wetlands will have to be built. Wetlands for wastewater treatment are an exciting concept that may just be starting to become a viable option considered by engineers. Jim Ducey</text>
</content>
<name></name>
<script></script>
</card>
card_5676.xml
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" ?>
<!DOCTYPE card PUBLIC "-//Apple, Inc.//DTD card V 2.0//EN" "" >
<text>TULARE BASIN: CALIFORNIA'S FORGOTTEN WETLANDBAY ON TRIAL - FALL 1989by Gerald HaslamSquinting across the seared, supine surface of the Great Central Valley in 1863, William Henry Brewer and the other members of California's Geological Survey party found themselves traveling "a plain of absolute desolation." Hands cupped over their eyes, they could perceive no mountains, no trees, no relief, only heat so thick it swerved light. The San Joaquin River was well behind them and sweltering sameness loomed ahead.There had been scant rain that year and mirages shimmering ahead offered the only hope of relief as the young men rode south toward Kings River, "upward of thirty miles without any tree or bush - - except once a single small willow was visible for two hours. . . it was like the ocean but it depressed the spirits more."Then, in the midst of that arid plain, they noticed a dark band that appeared larger and larger as they closed in on it: an impenetrable wall of tules, which Brewer described as tall rushes, ten or twelve feet high. They hid "swamps . . . the green of which was cheering to the eye after the desolation through which we had passed. These swamps extended southeast to Tulare Lake." Without realizing it, the party had entered one of California's unique environments, Tulare Basin.Desert wetlandIt was a region of extensive marshes and swamps, sloughs and lakes in the midst of a landscape that enjoyed only 6 inches of rainfall annually. Millions of waterfowl flew over alkali sinks, even sand dunes, on their way to its ponds. Great condors soared above cranes and herons that might be feeding on abundant minnows or lizards.This anomalyΓÇöwetlands amidst desertΓÇö developed because five Sierran streams did not drain from the Central Valley but instead puddled their water in its southern end behind an alluvial fan formed by Kings River. Sierran snowfall thus contributed mightily to a watery complex in an otherwise arid zone that extended from well above the contemporary towns of Visalia and Hanford south to the wall of the Tehachapi Mountains. From 1860 until 1890 it was known as Tulare Valley, a version of its Spanish name, "el valle de los tulares"ΓÇöthe valley of the tules.Brewer's survey team entered the Basin's northern section where the Kings, Kaweah, White, and Tule Rivers emptied to form the largest body of freshwater west of the Mississippi, Tulare Lake. A second, similar wetland developed farther south in the Basin near the present locations of Taft and Bakersfield, where two good-sized lakesΓÇöKern and Buena VistaΓÇöcollected the flow of the Kern River, the Sierra's longest stream. Between and among those three lakes existed miles of sloughs and channels, marshes and swamps, plus another goodsized, tule-lined pool called Goose Lake.Explains geographer William Preston, a native son whose book Vanishing Landscapes (1981) defines this region, despite those two distinct subregionsΓÇöTulare Lake Basin and Buena Vista Basin ΓÇö"historically the word 'basin' was used to describe the entire southern end of the Valley as a unified landscape." During extremely wet years, a single sheet of waterΓÇöbroken only by occasional high ground that remained as islands and causewaysΓÇö might extend from the Tehachapis to well north of present-day Lemoore, as it did in 1862,1890, and 1938.The symbolic heart of the Basin was Tulare Lake, the largest body of freshwater west of the Great Lakes. It covered 486,400 acres to depths exceeding 40 feet in 1862. That wet year, the entire southern end of the Great ValleyΓÇö120 miles by 50 milesΓÇö resembled a primordial sea, its broadened periphery dotted with displaced rabbits and foraging cattle, its shimmering surface darkened by uncountable waterfowl.More commonly, that great lagoon spread over 200,000 acres and measured 75 by 25 milesΓÇö still a considerable puddle. But that was only during its high seasonΓÇöall the basin's lakes swelled and shrank like vernal pools. A series of dry years could virtually dry them up, according to historian Frank F. Latta; each spring they expanded, each fall they diminished. The annual pulsing of local wetlands was determined far less by scant rainfall than by snowmelt in the southem Sierra Nevada, which fed all the streams that emptied into this basin.Wetland to farmlandLocal pioneers played a kind of agricultural roulette by planting grain as water retreated on drying lakebeds, then harvesting before the next cycle's runoff once more filled the depression. They "plowed polliwogs in spring, and harvested frogs in winter," or so local folklore had it. It was usually a profitable strategy.The diversion of tributaries for irrigation had begun in the 1 870s. That same surface water could no longer flow directly into Tulare Lake, which suffered a steady decline in both quantity and quality, because irrigation runoff leached salts from soil. Streams continued to be diverted into this century and soon diminished runoff could no longer dilute intensified salinization. By the turn of the century the lake was already too saline to support significant aquatic life and its once-thriving commercial fishery was finished.Thirty years later, the Kings RiverΓÇöthe lake's most important source of waterΓÇöwas irrigating over a million acres, more land than auy other stream in the world except the Nile and Indus Rivers . Little wonder then that only a piddling flow ever reached the old lakebed most years. When dams such as Pine Flat and Isabella were finally built on major streams in the early 1950s, they served as a coup de grace in a process of diminution that had begun nearly a century earlier.</text>
</content>
<name></name>
<script></script>
</card>
card_20294.xml
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" ?>
<!DOCTYPE card PUBLIC "-//Apple, Inc.//DTD card V 2.0//EN" "" >
<text>Craig D. Rice UNIX Systems Specialist/Network Analystcdr@acc.stolaf.edu Academic Computing Center, St. Olaf College+1 507 663-3631 1520 St. Olaf Avenue+1 507 663-3549 FAX Northfield, MN 55057-1098 USA ----- CUT HERE ----- LEMNA - The New Alternative for Wastewater Treatment LEMNA Imagine... - A small floating plant, typically not bigger than the head of a thumbtack, that could thrive in practically all climates, from extremely got to sub-zero temperatures, in brackish industrial waste streams. In the process, it effectively treats and cleans up most wastewaters. - These plants are one of the fastest growing plants on earth. They can double their weight in less than 18 hours! This remarkable feat is achieved by continuous growth on a year round basis. Should water freeze, these plants simply stay dormant waiting for the next thaw to continue their extraordinary growth rate. - Their voracious appetite enables them to assimilate nutrients and pollutants from water in large quantities. For example, various forms of nitrogen, typical pollutants in wastewater, are considered a hazard to humans if present in drinking water. These plants simply bioaccumulate nitrogen in various forms from water and transform it into valuable protein. - In fact, these plants have higher protein and minteral contents than most existing cash crops. Typical protein contents are 35 to 50% of the plant's dry weight. Typical yield on a per acre basis is 15 times that of soybean. Based on an impressive and proven record of nutritional values, this plant could be harvested as a cash crop if desired. The Breakthrough... - Is this a specially designed "super plant" that works only in the laboratory? No, these plants belong to the Lemna family and are found in all parts of the world. They thrive in Lake Titicaca at 13,000 feet altitude in the Andes in South America; in lakes and sloughs throughout Canada; in swamps and ponds in Southeast Asia. In the US they are found virtually everywhere from the Everglades to California, from Minnesota to Mississippi. - Lemna plns have long been known to be excellent pollution eaters assimilating organic compounds to heavy metals. The problem was how to control and enhance this treatment capability on a practical basis. Since they are floating plants easily moved by the wind, they must be physically controlled and biochemically managed to maximize their treatment effectiveness. - These problems have been successfully solved by Lemna. The Lemna Corporation is the first commercial enterprise specializing in utilizing Lemna plants for wastewater treatment. After many years of research and development, we have obtained a US Patent for our unique biological treatment process. Wastewater --- A Nasty Problem... Wastewater treatment is a vital part of our daily life and business, but it is usually expensive, cumbersome and incomplete. - EXPENSIVE because it requires a complex arra of techniques with high energy and installation/operation costs to break down and reduce various pollutants. For example, based on US Environmental Protection Agency data, it has been shown that a typical community of 10,000 people generating 1 million gallons of wastewater a day would have to pay about 5 million dollars for a first stage treatment system. If the system requires more advance treatment due to certain pollutants, the cost goes up to over 7 million dollars. For industries, the waste streams are more potent and more condensed, requiring equally costly treatment facilities. - CUMBERSOME because there are no efficient and practical technologies to uniformly treat various pollutants to meet clean water discharge requirements. For example, aeration would significantly reduce Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD), but cannot control algae growth. This results in installing and operating a combination of numerous mechanical, biological and/or chemical treatment components. - INCOMPLETE because existing treatment techniques to not completely eliminate all problems. Sludge, order problems and sometimes hazardous by-products or residues are generated in the course of treatment. In many installations, discharged water still does not meet desired specifications. Lemna Technology --- An Effective Solution The Lemna Treatment Process utilized open-water impoundments. They can be of any size, depth and configuration. Lemna can therefore install its system in newly designed impoundments or retrofit most existing lagoon or pond systems. Our patented technology relies upon several components: 1. Floating Barriers --- Patented floating barriers are manufactured by Lemna and installed to divide the pond surface into a cell matrix for optimum control and management of Lemna plants. 2. Biological Control --- Environmental and biological control is provided by continuous monitoring and precise, automatic nutrient and micro-nutrient addition to optimize treatment. 3. Biomass Management --- Lemna plants are managed with Lemna-designed aquatic harvesters compatible with the floating barrier system and pond characteristics. Lemna systems are low in cost and require very little energy and maintenance. Lemna Treatment Results The Lemna Treatment Process is an effective and reliable remover of Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD), Total Suspended Solids (TSS), heavy metals, nitrogen, phosphorus, other pollutants, and, last but not least, odor problems. BOD: High-strength wastes with high BOD loadings can be treated. The Lemna process can be adapted to handle all ranges of BOD. TSS: The Lemna treatment process achieves impressive TSS removal through precipitation of influent solids, and more importantly through inhibition and suppression of algae growth. Lemna can beat any other treatment system for a cost effective control of algae. Sulfur: The Lemna process is very effective in removing up to 600 lbs/acre/year of sulfur. This plays an important role in odor control throughout the year. Nitrogen: The prolific biomass production of Lemna plants bioaccumulates up to 5500 lbs/acre/year of nitrogen. This direct uptake removes nitrogen off the site unlike other treatment technologies. The same thing is true of phosphorus uptake. Phosphorus: Phosphorus is directly bioaccumulated by Lemna plants at a rate of up to 700 lbs/acre/year. Chloride: Lemna plants thrive in brackish waters. This versatility results in a chloride removal rate of up to 1000 lbs/acre/year. Heavy Metals: Lemna plants are well known for heavy metal uptake. The Lemna process can bioaccumulate most trace metals found in certain types of wastewater. The use of Lemna plants has been researched, developed or implemented inmost of the world, including, but not limited to: Jamaica, Ghana, Egypt,Malaysia, Thailand, Argentina, USA, Ivory Coast, Taiwan, Australia,Turkey, Angola, Canada, Mozambique, Malawi, India, Yugoslavia, Zimbabwe,Ireland, Paraguay, Switzerland, South Africa, New Caledonia, Libya,Great Britain, Saudi Arabia, Brazil, Venezuela, Dominican Republic,Trinidad, Netherlands, Greece, Italy, Hong Kong, Uganda, Puerto Rico,Columbia, Lebanon, Poland, Israel, Namibia, Guyana, Tanzania,Austria, Mauritius, France, Mexico, USSR, Japan, Singapore, New Guinea,Chile, Korea, Kenya, Moricco, Finland, Zaire, Portugal, Nepal, New Zealand,Peru, Philippines, Madagascar, Iran, Rumania, Sudan, Cuba, Uruguay,Senegal, Surinam, and Germany. Lemna Corporation1408 Northland Drive, Suite 310Mendota Heights, Minnesota USA 55120 Telephone: (612) 688-0836Fax (612) 688-8813</text>
</content>
<name></name>
<script></script>
</card>
card_19590.xml
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" ?>
<!DOCTYPE card PUBLIC "-//Apple, Inc.//DTD card V 2.0//EN" "" >
<text>Office of the Secretary of InteriorFor Release April 25, 1991 Steve Goldstein 202-208-6416 (O) 202-887-5248 (H) Interior Secretary Lujan Announces New Wetland Projects Secretary of the Interior Manuel Lujan today announced approval of more than $8 million in funding for major projects to conserve and improve threatened wetlands in the United States, Canada and Mexico under the North American Wetlands Conservation Act. The Migratory Bird Conservation Commission, composed of Congressional lawmakers and Administration officials, approved Federal funds on February 26 for 28 projects and on March 12 for 12 projects in the three countries under the 1989 law. The money is for acquisition and enhancement of wetland habitat for migratory birds and other fish and wildlife, some with populations severely reduced by development and a decade of drought over much of the continent. The projects were recommended to the commission by the North American Wetlands Conservation Council, a public and private body set up by the Act. The Department's U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service provides staff support for the council. "These projects are crucial to conserving this continent's remaining wetlands," said Lujan. "They will protect and enhance thousands of acres of wetlands vital to the needs of wildlife and people." The largest sums proposed are $675,000 for acquisition of key land parcels around the 12,600-acre Swan Lake Area Wildlife Project in Minnesota; $664,000 for 2,425 acres of marshes, creeks, and islands in Dorchester County, Maryland; $627,450 for an 8,000-acre refuge for waterfowl, plants, and animals at North Landing River at Virginia Beach, Virginia; and $600,000 for 1,200 acres of wetlands and uplands to reverse the degradation of Heron Lake in southwestern Minnesota. A total of $12 million in state and private funds has been pledged to match the Federal grants. Funds for the projects come from interest on Federal excise taxes on hunting equipment sales, fines from violators of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, and private contributions. Approved projects also include: ARIZONA: San Carlos wetlands of the San Carlos Apache Tribe insoutheastern Arizona--$29,325. ARKANSAS: Franklin Point wetlands in Monroe County--$222,845; Lorance Creek on the Saline/Pulaski county line--$54,600. CALIFORNIA: Upper Butte Sink Wildlife Area in Butte County--$317,111; Traction Ranch, 30 miles west of Fresno--$285,370. FLORIDA: Thomas M. Goodwin Waterfowl Management Area, Brevard County--$100,000. IDAHO: Thousand Springs/Chilly Slough area of central Idaho--$125,000. IOWA: Meinking/Krummen properties in Dickinson County--$220,425; Iowa Prairie Pothole in north central Iowa--$75,000. LOUISIANA: Cameron-Creole Watershed Project in Cameron Parish-- $250,000. MICHIGAN: Wigwam Bay Wildlife Area in Arenac County--$50,000; Maple River wetlands in Gratiot County--$35,000. MINNESOTA: Thielke Lake in west central Minnesota--$275,000; Upper Lightning Lake in western Minnesota--$51,000; restoration of private lands in many areas--$62,000; upgrading wetlands in Jackson County--$75,000. NEW MEXICO: Jicarilla wetlands on the Jicarilla ApacheReservation--$35,000. NEW YORK: Northern Montezuma Wetlands Project in Seneca County--$300,000. NORTH CAROLINA: Roanoke River wetlands in Martin County--$238,750. NORTH DAKOTA: Williams and McKenzie counties wetlands enhancement--$180,000; McLean Bottom wetland in central North Dakota--$133,500; Chase Lake Islands in central North Dakota--$96,700. OREGON: Warner Valley wetlands in south central Oregon--$215,500. SOUTH DAKOTA: Columbia Marsh in north central South Dakota--$32,100; Lake Thompson in eastern South Dakota--$68,885. TENNESSEE: White Lake refuge in Dyer County--$128,500; Horns Bluff wetland in Crockett and Gibson Counties--$56,223. TEXAS: Mad Island Marsh in Matagorda County--$425,000. Five projects totalling $1.2 million were recommended in Alberta, Newfoundland, Nova Scotia, and Saskatchewan in Canada. Three projects for $137,193 were recommended in Chiapas, Sonora, and Tamaulipas in Mexico.</text>
</content>
<name></name>
<script></script>
</card>
card_2082.xml
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" ?>
<!DOCTYPE card PUBLIC "-//Apple, Inc.//DTD card V 2.0//EN" "" >
<text>From: jym@mica.berkeley.edu (Jym Dyer)Newsgroups: talk.environment,alt.activismSubject: INFO: Water Diversion Threatens E. CaliforniaMessage-ID: <28Aug91.1@naughty-peahen.org>Date: 29 Aug 91 00:36:34 GMTArticle-I.D.: naughty-.28Aug91.1Sender: usenet@agate.berkeley.edu (USENET Administrator)Followup-To: talk.environment,alt.activism.dOrganization: The Naughty Peahen Party LineLines: 29[Reposted from EcoNet]From: <econet>Subject: Water Diversion Threatens E. Calif.>From tgill@igc.org Mon Aug 26 23:38:35 1991Current substitute language, proposed by the Los Angeles Division of Water and Power [LADWP], to the U.S. Senate version of a bill passed by the House as HR 543, could result in justification of continued water diversions and accompanying environmental damage in eastern California. HR 543 provides for Manzanar, a Japanese-American internment camp during WWII, to be named a national historic site.But language proposed to the Senate version by LADWP would provide a Congressional finding [rejected by at least three State and Federal courts] that L.A. has a need and right to Eastern Sierra water resources, and would excuse LA from being found at fault for consequences of the water diversions including "fugitive dusts."These dusts result from the drying up of lakes and wetlands due to the water diversions, and these fugitive dusts- in reality severe dust storms- result in the highest particulate air pollution readings in North America, affect tens of thousands of people, and contain known carcinogens and toxic materials.For more information, look in the [EcoNet] conference en.water under the topic "LA Water End Run Via Manzanar?"</text>
</content>
<name></name>
<script></script>
</card>
card_14922.xml
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" ?>
<!DOCTYPE card PUBLIC "-//Apple, Inc.//DTD card V 2.0//EN" "" >
<text>A ditch brigade is a traditional spring sight: the vibrant young and animated old, leaning on their shovels, exchanging proyectos in the mid-morning, awaiting direction from the mayordomo. By evening the village ditch, previously shrouded in weeds, debris, and tangled slash, lies exposed, smooth-scraped to an adobe finish, expectant. And by the following morning, ella estaba llenaΓÇö embarazada y satisfecha (she was full, pregnant, and satisfied). Metropolitan Water Board member Roberto Mondragon comments, "There is a saying: 'Aqua que no haz de beber dejala correr.'" (If you don't use the water, let it run and somebody else will use it ). The expression strongly reflects the Spanish and Native American traditional, rural lifestyle of living with the land and water resources. Mondragon's parents, he said, "bought the paper.. . and lost the water." "Somebody came along and saw dollar signs in the land and water. It's a different judicial system. People were accustomed to utilizing the water for raising food and other natural purposes, and now it is looked at as something to be sold, as a commodity."Mounting water rates charged by the Sangre de Cristo Water Company indicate that, today, many people have developed a different kind of relationship with water, Mondragon says. "Paying for the delivery of water is one thing. But paying for water to the tune of 2.6 million dollars in profit to PNM stockholders and an additional 2.2 million dollars in taxes, almost 5 million of a 12 million dollar revenue....This should not be."Smiling, Mondragon leans forward, "There is another saying, 'unca hagas donde el agua tengas que comprar. '" ( "Never make your home where you have to pay for the water. " )But the people keep coming to our high-desert mecca. And few of them have asked the question: What are we going to do when the well runs dry?The Eternal Wellspring: Where is it and how do we get it?By the early l900s, technology had become an unwelcome guest at our table. With the know-how to drill deep wells and ΓÇö the ability to pump water from the aquifer and store it for later use, Santa Fe began mining fossil water from the Santa Fe River Basin Aquifer. "While the amount of water was fairly steady then, says Sangre de Cristo Director Phil Soice, "the demand for it had already begun to rise."Today, the relentless mining of the Santa Fe River Basin continues to drain the aquifer, says Elliot Streeper of the Santa Fe River Basin Water Users Association. Presently, Sangre de Cristo is delivering water to Santa Fe from a complex distribution system of varying water sources and water rights. Acre feet of water drawn from the Santa Fe Watershed, Santa Fe Canyon Reservoir water, Santa Fe well field groundwater, Buckman well field groundwater and the San Juan -Chama surface water vary by percentage (see chart). In 1990 it all totaled up to some odd 10,073 acre feet of water.Engineering data researched for the Metropolitan Water Board by W.M. Fleming indicate the groundwater table in the Santa Fe Aquifer Wells is dropping from about one-tenth to two feet of water each year, depending upon city well location. "The water company produces all the water out of the city well-field now that they'll ever be able to," says Tony Mayne, director of the Metropolitan Water Board. "At this rate the groundwater supply will extend about 80 to 120 more years if mined at a steady rate, and more like only 40 years if aquifer mining increases to accommodate the swelling demand development places on the area. "In vain efforts to check this depletion, the Metropolitan Water Board has contracted for various studies of the Santa Fe Basin recharge system to assess the dependency and the ability of snow melt, spring rains and run-off to replenish the aquifer. The results: minimal recharge capacities present Santa Fe and environs with a continually reduced net groundwatersupply.The Choice: More Water Rights or More Effective Technology?To accommodate longterm growth, Mayne says local water supplies have to be supplemented by the Buckman well-field and the Rio Grande. While the Water Board believes, according to Mayne, that drawing upon Rio Grande surface water is good because it is a renewable resource," Thomas Andrews of Andrews Engineering claims "there's no accountability for the use of those rights. We're overextended. We're grabbing everything we have."Criticizing present development approvals by the city, Andrews continues, "There are more people here than perhaps there should be." He'd like the city to tell the people who come scouting to the City Different, "Sorry, this town is full."More practically, Andrews would like to see some accountability for the use of existent water rights. He says it's legitimate to ask the water company and the Metropolitan Water Board, "How much of the water rights that you now own have been utilized in the last 12 months?" With 5605 acre feet of water rights off the San Juan-Chama and another 9000 in reserve, Andrews claims that there is no need to purchase any more water.Andrews suggests instead that the Water Board should fund the construction of a Ranney Gallery well rather than securing supplemental water rights to support Sangre de Cristo's operations and their newly proposed south county water system.The Ranney Gallery is a shallow-well system that permits surface and groundwater to percolate up out of the river through 30 to 50 feet of sand. The advantages, says Soice, are that that draw affects the Rio Grande immediately and has no effect on surrounding tributaries.The Buckman 1000-foot-deep well-field, on the other hand, uses the San Juan-Chama water along with groundwater and surrounding basin water. The pumping technology is technologically ineffective. For every gallon pumped, only 25 to 30 percent is actually San Juan-Chama water. Another 65 percent is fossil groundwater. Because of a phenomena known as a "cone of depression" that siphons off surface water, another 5 percent is incidentally siphoned from the Nambe-Tesuque Basin. In 1989, 3800 acre feet of water was pumped at Buckman, and only 1000 acre feet of this total was San Juan-Chama water.This over-pumping of the Buckman well is what is responsible for the loss of traditional Nambe-Tesuque water rights that are constantly having to he retired to offset the well's siphoning. Use of a Ranney Gallery well to collect San Juan-Chama waters would eliminate the cone of depression responsible for the siphoning and reduce removal of the fossil groundwater from the Santa Fe Aquifer.In addition, water drawn from a Ranney well could test as groundwater and not require treatment.But, says Soice, this latter advantage is mutable. To provide for adequate Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) standards of filtration and sedimentation, a 3-4 million dollar treatment plant might become necessary one day if the draw tests as surface water. According to Mayne, the EPA requires the submission of a "biodetermination sample" from a Ranney Gallery that could result in Federal orders to treat and filtrate the San Juan-Chama water if it were considered "surface quality." "It's too risky," says Mayne. ~It might test ok one year and not ok the next year. "However, the continued use of the Buckman well-field is justified by Sangre de Cristo and the Metro Water Board because of the savings in water treatment costs. The Buckman well field is considered groundwater, says Mayne, and no treatment is required due to natural ground filtration.Water Use vs Reuse. Consumable Water Rights.The increasing purchase and use of surface water rights, the technology of accessing that water, and the resultant water quality concerns create dynamics that precipitate compromise or change. Some community leaders believe that Santa Fe must set its priorities now in choosing between these options.For example, on behalf of Sangre De Cristo, the Water Board continues to purchase water rights for which there is no apparent accountability, says Gonzales, dual member of the Metro Water Board and the City Water Company Acquisition Task Force. "Over time, its (the Water Board's) objectivity as a planning and recomendatory body may be questioned or a conflict of interest perceived . "Elliot Streeper of the Santa Fe Basin Water Users Association claims, " PNM's objective is to get the cheapest water possible: reservoir water first, then city well fields second, and San Juan-Chama last, because of the infrastructure costs involved."Sangre de Cristo Water Company has offered 250 acre feet of bulk water sales as the first phase of a regional water system in the south county to meet the needs of developers and home owners along the Highway 14 corridor and I-25. "This water could most likely come from surface rights off the Rio Grande," says Tony Mayne.On behalf of the proposal, the Water Board is attempting to purchase from the Interstate Stream Commission, or the Jicarilla Apache (exact ownership is in adjudication), 1500 acre feet of supplemental water rights dated prior to 1907, and another 500 acre feet off the Rio Grande. Water Board research through 1986 (see chart) indicates that 9000 acre feet of San Juan County waters are already held in reserve by Sangre de Cristo in addition to their 5605 acre feet.Sangre de Cristo's bulk water sales proposal further drives the Buckman Well pumping, the mining of the Santa Fe Aquifer, and forestalls construction of a Ranney Gallery Well.While supplemental water rights are being secured by the Water Board, Santa Fe City is racking up more paper water rights through another 26,000 acre feet of Return Flow Credits, also held in reserve. With the return of water to the water treatment plant through the sewer lines, the city gets a 65 percent credit. This credit allows the city to pump an additional 65 gallons of water for every 100 gallons used."Return Flow Credits encourage water use instead of water reuse and conservation," criticizes Andrews. "It permits the city to pump almost twice the acre feet initially owned. " He claims the continual chalking up of paper water rights isn't dealing with reality, and says,"Reality is what's coming off a given water shed."The city isn't in favor of the south county plan to purchase bulk water from Sangre de Cristo and build a separate treatment plant that denies the city Return Flow Credits. "They (developers) are afraid the city will make them tie in to the central treatment plant because of this de facto policy of RFCs," says Andrews. Many Santa Feans feel this rational is responsible for developments and neighborhoods losing the option to develop on-site natural water treatment systems that are more efficient ecologically and serve multi-purpose ends.Toward a New View of Land UsePolicy and Technology: Using and Reusing Water We HaveWhen water service is expanded to meet the needs of a regional or multi-county area, concerns with rural distribution to areas lacking water and the interconnection of multiple community water systems focus issues of water rights acquisition and water supply. Without a regional plan, the interplay between these dynamics is divisive.With increasing development in the city and county of Santa Fe, glaring impacts on land use are surfacing. City staff person Marian "Buddy" Lucero, a member of the Growth Management Task Force chaired by Councilwoman Ouida MacGregor, is involved in developing a regional plan for Santa Fe. Lucero says "the city is increasingly disturbed by the unplanned-for complications of this increased land use: waste water, water supply distribution, and degradation, roads, traffic, and other infrastructure concerns.""With 1600 or so holes punched in the aquifer, it's increased the percentage of risk for sewage seeping into the aquifer," says Soice. And while more pollution seeps into wells each year, Metropolitan Water Board data indicate that Santa Fe's water quality is beginning to show signs of degradation. "Plans to acquire more water and build new centralized water systems without having adequate waste water collection and treatment provision in place first is absurd," says task force member, Olivia Annon Tsosie.Gonzales claims the issue is not who owns the water, but how the city and county perceive land use. He describes the county perspective as "expansionist with respect to land use concerns."Gonzales suggests the conflicting dynamics of city and county planning are perhaps a maturation process that any growing community, approaching a more metropolitan shape, must pass through. He claims the prospect of a joint city-county venture to purchase and or manage the Sangre de Cristo Water Company "assumes a lot more convergence of opinion about the management of the system than appears to exist now in terms of other land use issues." He explains that growing and developing municipalities like Santa Fe are primarily concerned with how a water system expands: how quickly it expands, its capacity to expand, and who pays for the expansion. "Of particular importance is the contrast or balance between those people who are the rate payers of the system versus those people who are outside the service and would potentially benefit from this expansion," he says.Commonalties in the various task force vision maps for Santa Fe reflect new attitudes toward land use, community, and resources. In some of the regional plans, water becomes a cohesive entity. Greenbelts, wetlands, and green spaces within neighborhoods and village clusters offer decentralized water systems and waste water recycling options that double as wildlife refuges, food-producing centers and recreation areas. In visualizing the future "City Different," Brian Skeele has drawn from Christopher Alexander's book, Pattern Language. Skeele plans for 16 or so mixed-use village centers, each sporting its own utilities, schools, and services. His vision for greenlands and greenbelts centers around water and its reuse and multi-uses. Skeele suggests alternatives to massive storm drain systems, sewer lines, and distant treatment plants."Water needs to be recycled on site. There have to be open spaces with ponds, with woodlands because that water needs to be reused. And so now we're having gardens, truck farms, all of the life that goes on with wildlife habitat right within walking distance," Skeele says.With the long awaited arrival of a Regional Plan for Santa Fe, one thing is indeed guaranteed: a rebirth of those traditional indigenous Hispanic and Native American values, coupled with some progressive and empowering alternatives for community relationships with WATER.Canyonrivers, Pamela. "What are we going to do when the well runs dry?" The Santa Fe Sun. May, 1991. Pp 7, 9.</text>
</content>
<name></name>
<script></script>
</card>
card_10930.xml
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" ?>
<!DOCTYPE card PUBLIC "-//Apple, Inc.//DTD card V 2.0//EN" "" >
<text>Date: Wed, 31 Jul 1991 01:19:34 PDTReply-To: mike gifford <USERN021@SFU.BITNET>Sender: List Owner <davep@acsu.buffalo.edu>From: mike gifford <USERN021@SFU.BITNET>Subject: NATIVES WANT ACTION AGAINST WATER EXPORT ---(Forwarded from: jalove%admn.SAIT.AB.CA@ucnet.ucalgary.ca, Dated: Tue, 30 Jul 91 15:31:24 PDT)--- Dear Mike, I can no longer send stuff to Listserves from my account due toa policy change at work. But, I can still send out personalmail. So if you could redirect the below message to Biosphere andany other networks you would like to, I would appreciate it. - Greenly yours,Jim love $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ FOR RE-DISTRIBUTION: Please redistribute to other $$ services and networks $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ NATIVES WANT ACTION AGAINST WATER EXPORT- by Rob Giblak- VERNON/BC CANADA Morning Star, Sunday July 21/91 Natives are banding together to fight the bulk export of B.C. {British Columbia, Canada} water. Okanogan Band Chief Albert Saddleman called for thorough impact studies on the latest proposal to dam and divert part of the North Thompson River through the Columbia system and by pipe to northern California. "With the {Canada/US} Free Trade Agreement, once you open the taps, you won't be able to close them," Saddleman said at the press conference, Friday. The proposal, by Vancouver-based Multinational Water and Power Inc, would see 1 Million Acre feet of water sold to the U.S. each year. The provincial government moratorium on bulk water export licenses is due to run out at the end of 1991. "It's one of the last resources not exploited," Saddleman said. "If you look at forestry, fishing and mining, the government's track record {SoCred (Right Wing), Government} isquestionable." Saddleman said the California drought is partly caused by the diverting of rivers there for agriculture. "You need fresh water to reach the ocean for rain because it evaporates more easily." The large storage of water will also cause climatic changes, he said. "This plan would upset the balance of nature. There's a lot at stake, the future of our children and our children's children. B.C. needs to look after its own present and future water needs first. "We would be subsidizing U.S. farmers to water a desert. This is shooting ourselves in the foot." A coalition of native water rights is meeting near Calgary on July 29 and Saddleman plans to bring up the North Thompson proposal. Multinational president Bill Clancy said a $4.5 million, two year feasibility study, including environmental impact assessment is to start soon. The company is also setting up a Project Round Table and inviting the input of all interested parties. "The amount of water involved is almost nothing compared to the flow of the river," said Clancy noting it amounts to one percent of the total Fraser River run-off. "Fresh water is our greatest resource. Income from renewable water exports can surplus income from all other resources," he predicted. About 85% of California's 34 million acre feet of water consumption is used in agricultural, a preliminary report by the company said, and half of the vegetables in Canada come from the Pacific Coast state. If the state doesn't receive new water supplies, agricultural production will have to be cut back and prices will increase, the report said. The water will generate an additional 18 mega watts of power annually on the Columbia River it said. The diversion would occur southwest of Jasper into the Kootenays {Mountain Region}, bypassing the Okanogan Valley, it said. The estimated cost of the project is $3.8 Billion. Part of the estimated revenue of $500 Million annually Clancey proposes would be used to establish a world-renowned environmental institute. "Fresh water is the most precious resource in the whole world." The federal New Democrat Party {Social Democrats} and native bands are circulating a petition opposing river diversions to the United States. Bertha Phelan, Executive director of the United Native Nations Friendship Centre, said urban natives support the Okanogan Band's efforts."We have to think of the seventh generation, not just the next\ generation. The concerns should be the same for non-native people as well." -Jim</text>
</content>
<name></name>
<script></script>
</card>
card_19094.xml
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" ?>
<!DOCTYPE card PUBLIC "-//Apple, Inc.//DTD card V 2.0//EN" "" >
<text>There has been talk in Canada that some right-wing politicians favor the sale of water resources through inter-basin water diversions to the USA. The idea of selling fresh water is considered obscene by most Canadians and it is clear that any government is sure to face political suicide if they attempted it. But there have been some events in Canada that have disturbed me greatly. The provincial government of British Columbia on Canada's west coast it seems has given a company the right to ship water to California. The water is to be shipped by tanker. I believe that water is collected just before it would enter the Pacific Ocean and this is likely how they have made the idea acceptable to some voters. Does anyone has information on what BC is doing in terms of water shipping ? In the province of Alberta, the Conservative government has almost completed work on the OLD MAN RIVER DAM project. The government has stated that the $350,000,000.00 ( $200 Million American) project is for irrigation purposes but from an economic perspective this is an undefendable position. The government has denied that the project is intended for future inter-basin transfer of water from north river systems that empty into the Arctic Ocean. I was discussing the James Bay II project (Alias: Amazon North) project with a friend who had some disturbing theories about the project. This is the second phase of a massive hydro-electric project in the province of Quebec (Our french speaking province soon to be North Americas newest country), which will again flood massive areas of wilderness and cause widespread mercury poisoning of the fish in these fresh water areas for about 20 years. This fish is a main food item of many people who live in the area. The mercury comes from natural sources. The electricity is to be sold to North Eastern United states. This has been an issue in Vermont I believe where a vote was taken as to whether they want their electricity at such a cost. I believe convenience won over the environmental and human devastation. Keep an eye on this project as there is likely to be a major crisis as natives and eco-minded people will surely attempt to stop this immoral project. My friend stated that James Bay III is intended for Inter-Basin transfer of water. In the future, water will be diverted into the great lakes via canal or pipeline. Water volume in the great lakes then will be enough such that water could be diverted from them using existing Lake Michigan diversion canals into the drought stricken mississippi river. My friend said that surplus electrical power during low electrical use periods would be used to divert water. I have talked to a few people who say this is crap and a few who say that this is technically possible. IS IT POSSIBLE THAT JAMES BAY II COULD BE USED TO DIVERT WATER TO THE USA? - Jim Love Calgary, Alberta CanadaCANADA TO USA WATER DIVERSION ? jalove@ADMN.SAIT.AB.CA (Internet). Fri, 15 Mar 91 16:27:27 MST.</text>
</content>
<name></name>
<script></script>
</card>
card_7766.xml
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" ?>
<!DOCTYPE card PUBLIC "-//Apple, Inc.//DTD card V 2.0//EN" "" >
<text> Lubicon Lake Indian Nation Little Buffalo Lake, AB 403-629-3945 FAX: 403-629-3939 Mailing address: 3536 - 106 Street Edmonton, AB T6J 1A4 403-436-5652 FAX: 403-437-0719 April 10, 1991 Enclosed for your information is a copy of a newspaper article regarding the evolving situation of aboriginal people in Canada. Canadian Solicitor General Pierre Cadieux -- Minister responsible for Canada's national police force -- obviously still believes that problems of oppression can be dealt with through suppression. Just as obviously Mr. Cadieux isn't a very good student of history. re-printed without permission from the Windspeaker, March 29, 1991 QUEBEC CREES WARN OF VIOLENCE OTTAWA -- A Native leader warned helicopters will be shot down and power poles blown up unless Cree land claims are settled in Quebec's James Bay region. Cree Chief Billy Diamond told a Commons committee March 21 "animal violence will erupt next month" unless there's immediate negotiation of aboriginal claims in the area, site of Quebec's massive James Bay 2 hydro project. "It's a bomb with a short fuse," Diamond told committee members. "We are peaceful people, but our animal instincts are about to come out." Diamond said Quebec's steamrolling of Native claims could lead to a standoff between armed Crees and police, similar to last year's Oka crisis. The Crees are furious work on the project is going ahead in the absence of environmental studies and despite aboriginal claims it violates their rights. Diamond and the Cree people spent years battling the first phase of the James Bay project in the 1970s and eventually won a major court victory. Diamond's was the most explicit warning of violence to the committee, which is probing the Oka crisis. But Solicitor General Pierre Cadieux, who followed Diamond in addressing the committee, had a warning for Natives who take the law in their own hands. While he stressed he takes their concerns seriously, he said they must respect the law. He said that applies particularly to "respected" leaders such as Diamond. Meanwhile, following Diamond's comments one of the unions representing Hydro-Quebec employees asked the utility March 22 to stop flying helicopters over the James Bay area. --- FD 1.99c * Origin: Lubicon News Station: Edmonton, Alberta Canada (89:682/32)-- Terri Kelly - via IMEx node 89:681/1 Terri.Kelly@f32.n682.z89.onebdos.UUCP----fyi.</text>
</content>
<name></name>
<script></script>
</card>
card_21797.xml
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" ?>
<!DOCTYPE card PUBLIC "-//Apple, Inc.//DTD card V 2.0//EN" "" >
<text> The following is posted at the request of the Algonquins of Barriere Lake. Algonquins of Barriere LakeRapid Lake Indian Reserve, QuebecJ0W 2C0Phone: (819)824-1734 PRESS STATEMENT BY CHIEF MATCHEWAN Ottawa, May 23, 1991 -- We have not run out of patience, but we are running out of time. The Surete du Quebec visited our community last week and informed us that C.P. Forest Products intends to begin clear-cutting operations within our traditional lands on May 27, 1991. The area that is scheduled to be cut includes that which is used by Lena Nottoway for hunting, fishing, trapping and gathering. Lena Nottoway is a most respected Algonquin elder. She is the mother of 15, grandmother of 50 and great-grandmother of 40. She has lived on the land for 78 years and depended upon it for her survival. To her credit, she still uses and respects the land. We are here today to announce that we are going to fully support Lena Nottoway. We are going to block any effort by C.P. Forest Products to destroy her territory. We are also here to announce that this does not have to come to a confrontation. We have negotiated in good faith with Quebec and the Federal Government for at least two years to try to come to an agreement on developing a conservation strategy for the area we use and occupy for our traditional activities. Never have we said that we want to exclude all logging. We just want to make sure that our way of life and land uses are also respected. We have been through three Quebec Ministers and three Federal Ministers of Native Affairs in our negotiation efforts. At times we have come very close to agreement. There are only several issues which remain outstanding. A major issue is the inflexibility of the 25-year forestry agreements (CAAFs) covering the area. Another major issue involves the lack of recognition for our land-use activities in the agreement and the current land-use area over which we practice these activities. The Quebec Minister of Native Affairs has refused to budge on these issues. However, Mr. Sirros did communicate with us in writing last week that he would like to resume discussions. We are fully prepared, as we have always been, to talk, however we think it may be useful to introduce an independent facilitator or mediator into the talks at this time. The Quebec Chiefs, in assembly last week, endorsed this proposal by resolution. We are communicating this proposal to Premier Bourrassa's office directly, asking him to intervene in order to avert a confrontation. We are also putting the Federal Minister of Indian Affairs, Tom Siddon, on notice. For more information contact: Veronique Thusky or Russell Diabo at 613-729-9491 BRIEFING NOTE ON THE SITUATION OF THE ALGONQUINS OF BARRIERE LAKE MAY 23, 1991 1. Since 1988 this Community of 450 people has been trying to negotiate with the governments of Quebec and Canada for the development and implementation of a Conservation/Sustainable Development Strategy in order to balance the uses of Natural Resources in the geographic area in Quebec now known as the La Verendrye Wildlife Reserve (13,610 sq. km.). Over 50% of the Wildlife Reserve has already been either clear-cut or partial-cut. It was also flooded in the 1920's with the construction of two huge storage reservoirs, the Cabonga and Dozois. Also over the past few decades non-native exploitation of fish and game has increased resulting in the depletion of fish and game in the area. 2. The cumulative effects of flooding, clear-cut logging and over-exploitation of fish and game by non-natives has caused a situation whereby the Algonquins of Barriere Lake feel that a threshold has been reached and that the current and on-going effects of these resource activities are now threatening their livelihood and way of life. 3. With 95% unemployment and only a 59 acre Indian Reserve at Rapid Lake, the Barriere Lake Community is virtually outside of the wage economy. They do not benefit from the forestry or tourism economic activities in the Outouais and Abitibi regions. Yet, as permanent residents and land-users they receive the direct social, economic and environmental impacts. 4. Faced with the disturbance and destruction of the natural resources that they have depended on for centuries, the Algonquins of Barriere Lake took action for the future of their community and their children. In 1988, they began in earnest, a peaceful non-violent protest on Parliament Hill in Ottawa. They set up tents which were removed almost immediately by the R.C.M.P., 18 charges are still outstanding under the Public Nuisance Regulations. In their defense the Algonquins assert that Parliament Hill is still unsurrendered Algonquin Territory. The result of this protest was an agreement-in-principle for their proposed conservation strategy, by the Government of Canada through Bernard Valcourt, then Minister of State for Indian Affairs. 5. Having received support for their conservation strategy from the federal government the Algonquins of Barriere Lake turned their attention to the Government of Quebec. It was not until, September 1989 that the community met with Quebec's Native Affairs Minister Raymond Savoie, after the community had peacefully blocked 6 new logging roads in their hunting territory. This began negotiations with the Quebec Government on the conservation strategy, at the same time Quebec was negotiating 25 year Forestry Agreements with forestry companies in Barriere Lake's land-use area. Canadian Pacific Forest Products withdrew a court injunction they had against the community. However, the community blockades remained in place. 6. In 1989, shortly after the Quebec election, Mr. Savoie was replaced by John Ciaccia as the Minister Responsible for Native Affairs. In December 1989, Mr. Ciaccia, along with Mr. Albert Cote, Quebec's Forests Minister, assured Chief Matchewan that a series of clauses taking into account Barriere Lake's concerns would be negotiated with Barriere Lake in the 25 year Forest Management Agreements (Contract d'Approvisionment d'management Forestier - CAAFs). But in February 1990 Chief Matchewan was informed by a letter from Albert Cote, Forests Minister, that they had inserted A SINGLE CLAUSE in the CAAFs located in Barriere Lake's area. The content of this single clause was not officially revealed to Barriere Lake until March 1991, 1 year after the CAAF's were signed with the Forestry companies. This clause is inadequate to accommodate Barriere Lake's proposed conservation strategy. 7. In March 1990, Barriere Lake initiated a legal action for an interim injunction to stop Albert Cote from issuing, signing or registering the CAAF's in Forestry Management Units 73 & 74 which apply to the community's land-use area. Judge Orville Fernette held that the action was "premature" and further that although Barriere Lake did not present an aboriginal rights argument, that if they did, they don't have any aboriginal rights in Quebec anyway. With no relief from the Quebec courts the community continued their peaceful protest by blocking logging until a formal written agreement was reached between themselves and the Governments of Quebec and Canada. 8. Following the events in Quebec during the summer of 1990, Mr. Ciaccia was replaced by Christos Sirros as the Quebec Minister of Native Affairs. Negotiations on Barriere Lake's conservation strategy were slow during the fall of 1990 as Mr. Sirros learned his files. In January 1991, Mr. Sirros visited the Barriere Lake reserve and "agreed-in-principle" that the results of the studies provided for in the draft Trilateral Agreement would apply to the Community's current land-use area. In exchange the community agreed to a smaller "study area" for the "study-recommendation process" intended by the draft Trilateral Agreement. 9. On February 19th, 1991 Barriere Lake sent a revised draft Trilateral Agreement (ABL Version 19/02/91) to Mr. Sirros for their consideration, there was no response. Instead, Mr. Sirros asked Chief Matchewan to meet him in Val d'Or on March 6, 1991, without any advisors. At this meeting Mr. Sirros attempted to get Chief Matchewan to drop his demand that the results of the studies should apply to Barriere Lake's current land-use area, the Chief responded that only his community could give an answer. While Chief Matchewan was meeting in Val D'Or with Mr. Sirros, Ms. Louise Deshenes, a federal Indian Affairs official, was meeting with Mr. Gilles Jolicoeur, Quebec's Deputy Minister of Native Affairs, to revise the Trilateral Agreement, the re-draft was received by Barriere Lake on March 7th, 1991. 10. Chief Matchewan's response to Mr. Sirros was that several of the federal changes were unacceptable. Mr. Sirros replied that the Chief should forget about the version of the Trilateral Agreement with the federal changes and that the S.A.A. Version 13/02/91 of the draft Trilateral Agreement was then to be the Government of Quebec's final offer. Mr. Sirros then indicated Chief Matchewan should sign the agreement "as is". 11. On April 3, 1991 Chief Matchewan held a press conference to announce that negotiations on the Trilateral Agreement with the Government of Quebec had "broken down" on 2 outstanding points: 1. It fails to recognize the importance of the traditional way of life of our community within our current land-use area, and; 2. There is no mechanism for modifying the 25 year Forestry Management Agreements, which thereby constrain our efforts to make any meaningful changes to land use practices in La Verendrye Wildlife Reserve. 12. Mr. Sirros held a press conference on April 16, 1991 to ask the Algonquins of Barriere Lake to sign the draft Trilateral Agreement (S.A.A. Version 13/02/91). Mr. Sirros stated that "There can be no further negotiations". 13. During a meeting of the Assembly of First Nations of Quebec and Labrador held in Val d'Or, May 14 - 16, 1991, Chief Matchewan and Mr. Sirros met briefly on May 14, 1991, Mr. Sirros indicated that he might be prepared to review the outstanding issues that Barriere Lake has raised as obstacles to their signing the draft Trilateral Agreement. 14. On May 15, 1991, while Chief Matchewan was attending the Quebec Chiefs' Meeting in Val d'Or, Mr. Andre Champagne of the Surete du Quebec met with Michel Thusky, the community administrator at Rapid Lake. Mr. Champagne informed Mr. Thusky that Canadian Pacific Forests Products was going to begin forestry operations near Barriere Lake on May 27th, 1991. This information was transmitted to Chief Matchewan in Val d'Or, who then informed the Chiefs in Assembly. 15. On May 16, 1991, the Assembly of First Nations of Quebec and Labrador passed a resolution of support for the Algonquins of Barriere Lake which stipulated that the Chiefs in Assembly: 1. Support the struggle of the Algonquins of Barriere Lake to protect their lands and way of life. 2. Condemn the plans by CP Forest Products and other logging companies to proceed to cutting operations within lands used by the Algonquins of Barriere Lake prior to the completion of a trilateral agreement between Canada, Quebec and the Algonquins of Barriere Lake. 3. Condemn any proposed police action by the S.Q. in support of C.P. Forest Products or any other logging companies seeking to operate within the lands used by the Algonquins of Barriere Lake. 4. Support the efforts of the Algonquins of Barriere Lake to develop and implement a conservation strategy and urge Quebec to return immediately to negotiations with the Algonquins of Barriere Lake in order to come to an early agreement. 5. Propose the appointment of an independent mediator agreeable to Quebec and the Algonquins of Barriere Lake to mediate outstanding issues in the negotiations between Quebec and the Algonquins of Barriere Lake in the event the said parties are unable to come to an early resolution. 16. On May 17, 1991, Christos Sirros sent a letter to Chief Matchewan which stated that he wants to meet with the Chief within the next two weeks. The Community wants this meeting to occur within their territory. 17. After two days of meetings, the Barriere Lake Community has confirmed that they will be barring forestry operations from their land-use area until the Trilateral Agreement is finalized between the Algonquins of Barriere Lake, the Government of Quebec and the Government of Canada. This must include an "interim arrangement" until all the necessary studies are complete to modify the 25 year Forestry Agreements (CAAFs). 18. This situation has the potential to become a national issue. Their intent is to maintain non-violent resistance to logging until an agreement is reached. There is support from Native and non-Natives from across Canada. There is still time to avoid confrontation. The Community awaits negotiations to begin again with the governments.</text>
</content>
<name></name>
<script></script>
</card>
card_22415.xml
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" ?>
<!DOCTYPE card PUBLIC "-//Apple, Inc.//DTD card V 2.0//EN" "" >
<text>WATER PROJECT JEOPARDIZES SQUAWFISHALBUQUERQUE JOURNAL - JANUARY 8, 1991BY BEN NEARYOF THE JOURNAL'S NORTHERN BUREAUSquawfish were common in the Colorado River Basin before the dams went up. Every year, thundering spring runoff carved the canyon, a little deeper and trigger in the big fish the urge to spawn.Colorado squawfish, predators that grow over four feet long and live for decades, are made for big water. But the fish also need a river with a natural heartbeat; they depend on the murky warmth of late summer s low water as much as the high spring flows.Dams, of course, interrupt the heartbeat of a wild river. They serve as pacemakers, catching spring flows and releasing cold water at the same steady rate year-round.Dams control flooding, produce electricity and provide water for irrigation. But those benefits carry a price that animals like the squawfish continue to pay: loss of habitat.Biologists say squawfish now inhabit less than one-third of their original territory. Once common throughout the Colorado River system, they are now found in the upper reaches of the reaches of such rivers as the Green of Utah and Wyoming and the Yampa of Colorado, and the San Juan River in northwestern New Mexico.Water projects, dams and other human interventions have reduced squawfish numbers to where federal and state agencies have declared them an endangered species, protecting them everywhere they're found.Right now, a handfulΓÇöno one knows exactly how many ΓÇö of squawfish in the San Juan River hang on the verge of extinction.The U.S. Bureau of Reclamation wants to proceed with a massive water project that would reduce flows in the river, a move that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service fears could kill the fish.The project would irrigate thousands of acres of farmland, settle a lengthy government water rights dispute with the Southern Ute and Ute Mountain Ute tribes and provide drinking water for Durango, Colo., residents."We feel the fish are just on the brink of hanging on in the San Juan River," said Jerry Burton, biologist with the Fish and Wildlife Service in Albuquerque. The federal Endangered Species Act of 1973 protects rare animals and plants by prohibiting federal agencies from destroying habitat critical to their survival. The Fish and Wildlife Service is charged with evaluating projects to see if they'll harm wildlife.But if enough political muscle can be brought to bear, exemptions under the federal law allow projects to proceed regardless of their effect on wildlife. Right now, for the squawfish in the San Juan River, the pressure is on and the clock is running.The Animas and La Plata rivers flow into the San Juan River near Farmington. Since the 1960s, the Bureau of Reclamation has pushed for a project to pump water from the head waters of the Animas and store it in a planned reservoir near Durango.Eventually, the plans call for a series of pipelines and canals to carry the water from the reservoir west to La Plata watershed. There, it would be used to irrigate thousands of acres of farmland.As planned now, the Animas-La Plata project is massive. The first phase, covering construction of the reservoir near Durango, would cost nearly $600 million. The federal government would pay most of the tab, but local landowners would also pick up an estimated $1.4 million.The second phase of the project, to be financed sometime in the future without federal help, would provide a 70,000-acre-foot Southern Ute Reservoir near La Plata River in southwest Colorado and would complete plans to bring water from the Animas watershed into La Plata watershed. An acre-foot of water ' covers an acre to a depth of one foot: just over 325,000 gallons. When the entire project is complete, it would irrigate 68,000 acres of farmland.The Bureau of Reclamation has designated 30,800 acre-feet of the project water for use in northwest New Mexico. Farmington is to get 10,000 acre-feet, Aztec and Bloomfield each 3,000 acre-feet and the San Juan Rural Domestic Water Users Association 4,800 acre-feet. An additional 10,000 acre-feet would be held in reserve, to be used as needed. Under federal law, Indian reservations are entitled to water. However, in the last century, the government failed to file on the tribes' behalf for water claims in Colorado.In the early 1970s, the Ute tribes in Southern Colorado sued for their water rights. Through an intense series of negotiations with the states of Colorado and New Mexico, the tribes dropped their suit in 1986 with the understanding they would be able to get water through the Animas-La Plata project.In 1979, the Fish and Wildlife Service found only one squawfish in the San Juan River. Accordingly, the agency reported Animas-La Plata project would have no effect on the species.With that go-ahead, the Bureau of Reclamation, water agencies from Colorado and New Mexico and representatives from affected Indian tribes worked on the project for years. In 1988, President Reagan signed an Indian water-rights settlement for Colorado's Ute tribes, clearing the way for construction of the water project.Everything was set; construction of the first phase of the Animas-La Plata project was to begin last year.But Fish and Wildlife issued a draft opinion in the spring of 1990 stating that a team of researchers from the New Mexico Department of Game and Fish had found six adult squawfish and two young on the San Juan River between 1987 and 1989. A few more fish were found in the river on the Utah side of the border.The Fish and Wildlife opinion stated the Animas-La Plata project would reduce flows in the San Juan by as much as 55 percent and kill the fish. The agency stated it didn't see any way the project could proceed.Under the Endangered Species Act, the Fish and Wildlife Service has the muscle to stop any project that would harm a listed animal. So unless the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation can convince the service that the project can proceed without harming the fish, it's dead.The only ways around the final Fish and Wildlife ruling that the project would harm the fish would be either special legislation in Congress to bypass the Endangered Species Act, or a ruling by the so-called "God Squad," a group that includes U.S. Secretary of the Interior Manuel Lujan Jr. and others, the project could proceed.Rick Gold, assistant regional director for the Bureau of Reclamation response to Fish and Wildlife Service's report that the project would jeopardize squawfish in the San Juan, the Bureau of Reclamation recommended an investigation into whether changing releases from existing Navajo Reservoir on the San Juan could give the big fish what they need to survive.The bureau's recommendation didn't satisfy the New Mexico or Colorado water offices or the Indian tribes. Together they suggested in November that any investigation of the squawfish in the San Juan first consider whether the small population of fish is worth saving at all."BuRec assumed there are endangered fish out-there, assumed they're recoverable and decided, 'yes, we're going to recover them.' The states don't feel the evidence justifies that," said William Miller, New Mexico's interstate stream engineer. Gold of the Bureau of Reclamation pointed out that Congress first approved Animas-La Plata in the late 1960s. He also said the project has the support of local people and would solve the Indian water-rights question. Congress appropriated more than $13 million for the project in the current fiscal year.There is concern among area residents in favor of the Animas-La Plata project, as well as among federal officials, that if the squawfish delay the project it could die for lack of funds. "The difficulty is, with the current federal deficit situation," Gold said. Once a project falters, it loses manpower, momentum and critical congressional support."I've heard the controversy," Gold said. "In my view, the project's still viable, it still delivers benefits in excess of costs."The squawfish, inadvertently, has provided useful ammunition, and breathing space, for area residents who oppose the Animas-La Plata project.Aztec resident Jack Scott, a member of the San Juan Action Coalition, said he and other members oppose Animas-La Plata largely because it threatens to affect irrigated farmland."One alternative that should be studied in this whole process is whether the Animas-La Plata should be saved or scrapped," Scott said. He said it threatens to take water away from the Navajo Indian Irrigation Project, a multimillion dollar project that brings water to 110,000 acres of arid reservation land in northwest New Mexico.To Scott and others, the squawfish situation seems a clear barrier to the Animas-La Plata project. "If there are viable fish there that are reproducing, the law seems clear that they must be saved," he said.Environmentalists are keeping a close eye on the Animas-La Plata project Lori Potter, a lawyer with the Sierra Club Legal Defense Fund in Denver, said her group represents a number of groups that may sue the federal government if they believe the government is ignoring the Endangered Species Act.The back pages of sporting magazines around the country carry advertisements for guided fishing trips below Navajo Reservoir. The dam there releases a constant flow of cold water that makes the area a perfect trout fisheryΓÇöone of the nation's best for those who want the thrill of fighting big fish on a fly rod.John Hubbard, endangered species specialist with the New Mexico Department of Game and Fish, said the cold water from Navajo has pushed the squawfish downstream at least as far as the confluence with the Animas River, about 40 miles, where warmer water flows in.Reducing flows in the Animas, Hubbard said, could push the squawfish farther down stream.Yet Hubbard and others with the department say they suspect that when studies of the river are complete, they will show that what's good for trout in the river is generally good for squawfish.Although squawfish generally like warmer water than trout, both fish would benefit from occasional high releases of water down the San Juan, Hubbard said. High water would scour the silted-up river bed below the dam and increase insect growth there for the trout. And as the higher flows went farther downstream, they would encourage the squawfish to spawn."If I were a trout fisherman, I would view the squawfish as an ally," Hubbard said. Water releases the Fish and Wildlife Service require from Navajo Dam for squawfish survival may be all that allow trout to live in the future, he said.Lief Ahlm, San Juan-Chama fisheries biologist for the New Mexico Department of Game and Fish in Farmington, said the San Juan River is badly silted up and that fishing there has been falling off recently as a result. Trout are forced to eat small midges, rather than the large mayflies and caddis flies that used to grow in abundance, he said.David Propst, an endangered species biologist with the New Mexico Department of Game and Fish, said there's much about the San Juan squawfish population that biologists don't know. And he said they aren't being given time to find out."The biologists are saying, at least the ones like me are saying, we need more information on the needs of the squawfish and the other native fishes in the San Juan," Propst said.For example, he said, it's unknown where the squawfish spawn, what kind of river flow sends a message to the fish to spawn whether diversion structures on the river are blocking spawning grounds, where the little fish grow up and what effect cutting water flows would have.Ahlm said the bulk of local opinion seems to be that people in the area "don't care a flip for the squawfish, they want the money for the project and they want the progress."Although the state water agencies of New Mexico and Colorado have recommended that biological studies focus on whether the San Juan's squawfish are worth saving, Propst takes exception to any suggestion they're not. "The way the Endangered Species Act is written, it does not make a distinction between one individual or a million of them."While there may be only a few squawfish in the San Juan, Propst said they may carry genetic information vital to the overall survival of the species. "My interest as a biologist is not to shoot down Animas-La Plata, or cause any human suffering up there," he said. "My intent is to make sure the squawfish and the entire native fish population up there get a fair shake.""You have to admire that fish for being able to survive in what naturally is a very harsh habitat." he said. "Before we came along it did very well. And in spite of what we have done to a lot of river systems, they're still hanging on.""Who wants to be the person responsible for seeing 15 million years of evolution go down the drain?"Neary, Ben. "Water Project Jeopardizes Squawfish. Albuquerque Journal. 8 January 1991. </text>
</content>
<name></name>
<script></script>
</card>
card_10264.xml
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" ?>
<!DOCTYPE card PUBLIC "-//Apple, Inc.//DTD card V 2.0//EN" "" >
<text>By Chuck McCutcheonJOURNAL STAFF WRITERWhen Mildred Cleghorn saw the canopy of canyons and cluster of 80-degree springs in Socorro County's quiet southwest corner, she realized the area wasn't just scenic or spectacularΓÇöit was sacred.Cleghorn, the chairwoman of Oklahoma's Fort Sill Apache Indian tribe, said she and others had long heard tales from relatives about how their people had fought through the 1800s for the right to live in the country around the springs, instead of on reservations under government control."To us, it was like we'd been there before," she recalled. "It really was an experience. We thought, 'Now we know why our people wanted to come back here.' It was beautiful."Now, more than a century after such famous Indians as Geronimo and Victorio inhabited the site 50 miles southwest of Socorro, the federal government is looking at whether the place deserves special attentionΓÇöan idea that has stirred mixed feelings among some Apaches.Park Service game planThe National Park Service has begun a yearlong study of the band of Indians who lived in the area, known as Warm Springs or Ojo Caliente Apaches. Authorized by Congress in 1988, the project will focus on the swath of mostly private land around Alamosa Creek between the San Mateo Mountains and the north end of the Black Range to see if a national park or monument should be put there.To tell the public about what they're doing, service officials have scheduled a series of informational meetings. The sessions will be 7:30 p.m. Tuesday at the Civic Activities Center in Truth or Consequences; 7:30 p.m. Wednesday at the fire station in Monticello and 7 p.m. Thursday at the Socorro County courthouse.Historians familiar with the Warm Springs Apaches' long and complex saga say the Park Service study is overdue. They say the Indians' deep devotion to Warm Springs, as well as their willingness to fight to keep it, deserves to be better known.Such recognition and protection, they say, also is badly needed for the sake of what remains at Warm Springs. Despite local landowners' efforts to keep up the area and discourage visitors, the l9th century Army post established there is a patchwork of eroding adobe walls and a continual target of pothunters at least one of whom responded to a recent request to leave by brandishing a rifle. Mixed emotions"I'm hoping that something happens," said Stephen Lekson, curator of archaeology at the Museum of Indian Arts and Culture in Santa Fe. "You've got a bunch of places where people can learn about the Indian wars, but it's all from the side of the military. This place, Ojo Caliente, was their home; it was the place they kept coming back to. It was a very special spot for a large group of them."Apaches themselves, however, are not yet quite as enthusiastic about the idea.Several of them at Fort Sill and the Mescalero Apache reservation in south-central New Mexico have agreed to help with the study, but say they are still uncertain about the eventual plans of the government that once was bent on uprooting their forebears from their homeland."We're reserving judgment," said Michael Darrow, historian for the Fort Sill tribe, which like the Mescalero reservation includes many descendants of Warm Springs Apaches."(The study) has been mentioned at several tribal meetings, and the reaction is basically that (tribal members) are wondering what's going on. They're wondering, 'Why is it they're doing this? What, if anything, should be done about it?'"If the site becomes a national park, said Darrow, whose grandfather was born at Warm Springs, "it's not really being returned to the tribe. It's being protected and opened to the public."Conflicting concernsOn the Mescalero reservation, meanwhile, Apache Berle Kanseah, who is assisting the Park Service, said he simply is "seeing how it's going to take place as it goes along."Even Cleghorn, who said a national park at Warm Springs could be "nice," said the Park Service needs to be sensitive to her people's past."We would hate to see it all commercialized and destroyedΓÇöthe naturalness of it is what makes it beautiful," she said. "To put up a trading post and a hamburger joint wouldn't be good. It's sacred land to us."In addition to the Apaches' concerns, the Park Service must walk a fine line when it comes to dealing with landowners.The study comes at a time when the agency is under attack from several community-based groups in New Mexico who contend officials have ignored the concerns of people who have owned historic lands for decades. Some of them are unwilling to sell land to the Park Service for the creation or expansion of monuments, and they say they resent the tactics used by the agency.At the request of the 1991 Legislature, the state Attorney General's Office is studying the land acquisition practices of the Park Service and their impact on New Mexico communities.Park Service officials, for their part, say they recognize the potentially ticklish position they are in and promise no decision will be made on the area's future until everyone with an opinion has been contacted.Much of the outcome of the study, they emphasize, will hinge on what the Apaches and landowners think should happen to the land.Considering alternatives"We've just been asked to look at the resources," said Tom Carroll, the Park Service official leading the project, "and find out what their significance is and their potential for public use. We'll be trying to address: Could visitors use it? What is the attitude of Apaches toward visiting the sites? Does the use need to be controlled? Does it bother landowners?"The "no action" alternative, in which the Warm Springs property would be left alone, is "a very significant part of all this," he said.According to historians, the Warm Springs people were part of a larger group of Indians who arrived in the Southwest sometime between 500 and 1,000 years ago. The Apaches most closely associated with Warm Springs called themselves the Tcihene, or "Red Paint People," after a rich red clay found near the springs.The Apaches typically remained in the mountains during the summer and fall and moved south into Mexico for the winter. But Lekson said Warm Springs was a sort of home base where many of them would stay year-round.And while Apaches often were thought of as hostile savages, several historians today contend the Indians' battles were understandable in light of the treatment they received from the U.S. government during the late l9th century's Indian wars.No clear policies were in place to deal with Indians, the historians say, and the various federal agencies often vacillated. As a result, the Apaches never knew quite what to expect.An uneasy historyCamp Ojo Caliente, an Army outpost of Fort Craig, was made headquarters for the Warm Springs Apache Indian reservation in 1873. Four years later, GeronimoΓÇöwho was not a member of the Warm Springs band ΓÇö was tricked and forced into surrendering on the camp's parade grounds. He was sent not to Warm Springs but to the San Carlos reservation in Arizona, from which he eventually escaped.The Warm Springs leader Victorio, recognized as one of the ablest guerrilla fighters in history, considered the area a favorite spot. Until his death, he insisted that if the United States would let his tribe live there, he and his warriors would abandon the warpath.The government, however, kept trying to send Victorio and his people to the hated San Carlos reservation to teach them to become farmers. Again and again, the group escaped and eluded their pursuers."The Warm Springs people probably would have been peaceful and willing to get along with Whites if the Whites didn't try to force them onto San Carlos," said Joseph Stout, a history professor at Oklahoma State University and author of a book on the Army's campaign against Victorio.Search for compromiseAt the time, many New Mexico residents were enraged at the government's inability to control the Warm Springs Apaches. A few, however, sympathized with the Indians.An 1879 editorial in the Santa Fe Weekly New Mexican said, "For years these Indians lived contentedly upon their reservations at Ojo Caliente, and but for the greed and intrigues of a few scheming and unprincipled men would be at peace with the whites now as then."Camp Ojo Caliente was abandoned as an Army site in 1882 and never permanently garrisoned again. In 1909, though, the area was considered for relocation of Apache prisoners of war at Fort Sill.Eventually, the Apaches were given the choice of either remaining at Fort Sill or going to the Mescalero reservationΓÇöbut not before they made one last impassioned plea to return to Warm Springs.As one tribal elder told an Army lieutenant: "Of all the places there be to put us, do not send us anywhere but to our old home. There is the only place we want to go. That is all I have to say."McCutcheon, Chuck. "Taking a Page From History." Albuquerque Journal. 23 June 1991. F1.</text>
</content>
<name></name>
<script></script>
</card>
card_20168.xml
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" ?>
<!DOCTYPE card PUBLIC "-//Apple, Inc.//DTD card V 2.0//EN" "" >
<text>By Joe BighamTHE ASSOCIATED PRESSFRESNO, Calif.ΓÇöThe flow of government subsidized irrigation water that has enabled some of the driest land in the nation to bloom with fluffy white cotton and juicy red tomatoes may soon be cut off to big growers.A move is afoot in Congress to tighten up a federal law under which big and small growers alike have received below-cost water.The law, the 1982 Reclamation Reform Act, had been designed to benefit small family farms. It limits to 960 acres the amount of land on which a person can receive the subsidized water.But big farms have also benefited from the law by setting up trusts under which the land is divided into parcels of up to 960 acres each and title is given to relatives and others. The land continues to be run as one big farm.Among those who have employed such trusts is J.G. Boswell Co, California's biggest farming enterprise.In 1989ΓÇöwhen subsidized water was S17 an acre-foot against a real cost of $42ΓÇö Boswell saved itself an estimated $1.5 million by buying discount water to irrigate a huge ranch, according to General Accounting Office figures.A bill to ban all such trusts and restrict subsidies to small holdings cleared the House last spring. A version sponsored by Sen. Bill Bradley, D-N.J., is scheduled to go before his Subcommittee on Water and Power on Thursday.In the Fresno area, irrigation water from the Shasta Reservoir, about 300 miles to the north, flows via an aqueduct that has operated almost 30 years.There are two non-family trusts among the SSO formed in reclamation areas throughout the West, the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation said.One is a 3,000 acre spread in Arizona called I-10 Farms. The other is a 23,238-acre farm Los Angeles-based Boswell owns in the San Joaquin Valley.Boswell's Boston Ranch was split 326 ways, with salaried employees named as beneficiaries. Then the property was put back together again as the Westhaven Trust, which Boswell manages.Because none of the 326 owners individually owns more than 960 acres, the entire Boston Ranch receives federally subsidized water.The Westlands Water District, where the ranch is located, had challenged the Westhaven trust for fear critics would seize on it to ban even family trusts.Board President Jack Stone wrote U.S. Interior Secretary Manuel Lujan Jr. that provisions of the Westhaven Trust "more closely resemble a profit-sharing plan and not an appropriate estate-planning tool." Lujan approved the trust but said new employees could not become beneficiaries to replace those who resign.Boswell Vice President Ed Giermann has contended the Westhaven Trust is legitimate because it was set up for real farmers, not relatives."Our trust meets more of the spirit and intent of the law than others because we don't have nephews and nieces and emancipated grandchildren," Giermann said. "We have 326 employees, all farmers, involved. The president of the company is a beneficiary down to a cook for one of our ranches."He also said those 326 employees have been "the sole recipients of the profits from the ranch" since the trust was formed.Some family trusts are as complicated as Boswell's Westhaven trust.For example, Panoche Farms involves 18 individuals and 13,832 acres of mostly cotton broken into 14 trusts, 12 corporations, two partnerships, four individual ownerships and one individual lease, according to Westlands records."It doesn't matter whether it is legal or not," said Jason Peltier, manager of the Central Valley Project Water Association, which represents irrigation districts serving farmers in California's Central Valley."It so violates the spirit and intent of the law and casts such a poor light on the entire program that we need to limit the opportunity for people to come up with those kinds of almost obscene corporate structures to qualify for inordinate subsidies."Panoche attorney Joseph A. Uremovic defended the complex deals as a way to retain control by two families who have farmed that land for decades.He likened the arrangements to people dividing their money among several bank accounts to stay within the $100,000 maximum per account that the government will insure.Bigham, Joe. "Questionable Trusts Tap Cheap Western Water." Associated Press Story in Albuquerque Journal. 15 September 1991. F5.</text>
</content>
<name></name>
<script></script>
</card>
card_8741.xml
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" ?>
<!DOCTYPE card PUBLIC "-//Apple, Inc.//DTD card V 2.0//EN" "" >
<text>RURAL WATER ASSOCIATION ASSISTS COMMUNITY WATER ASSOCIATIONS THROUGHOUT NEW MEXICOEAST MOUNTAIN TELEGRAPH - MARCH 7, 1991BY JOYCE MENDELPeople have been more willing to pay for every other utility, and every other anymore, Strathdee said. service, than they've been willing to pay for drinking water, says Gavin Strathdee, executive director of the New Mexico Rural Water Association. Strathdee knows about it firsthand. When a water system was first proposed for his community of Madrid, he opposed it because he had his own well.He recalled: "I said, 'As long as I can turn the faucet on and get water, why should I pay for all of this? But I was convinced. And Idid vote for a water system"After all, he said, private well owners have with every aspect of a rural owners have more to think about than replacement costs for their pumps and monthly electric bills. These days, unless they regularly test their water for a variety of possible contaminants, they have no idea what they are drinking.He ended up helping to organize the Madrid Water Cooperative and then operating the system for about six years. Now he assists both those wanting to start a community water system and those with existing systems."There is an absolute, real cost of producing water," Strathdee continued during a recent interview at his office. "Most communities have a tendency to undercharge what that is."Those who obtain water from small community systems tend to overlook the cost of correcting possible water quality problems and, particularly, the cost of eventually replacing the system, Strathdee said.The real cost of water is not that of getting it out of the ground, he said. "It's 'What does it cost to have a water tank to put it in for 20 or 30 years?'"In the past, when severance taxes from oil and gas were rolling in, the state helped when something went wrong with a water system. But it can't afford to anymore, Strathdee said.The smart thing to do, he said, is to charge a rate for water which is sufflciently high to enable money to be set aside foreventual replacement of the system. Otherwise, as facilities wear out, the community will be left with the options of either not owning a water system or seeking a low-interest loan.Long-term planning is but one area with which the Rural Water Association offers assistance. "Basically, we deal with every aspect of a rural water system," Strathdee said, including system operation and maintenance, regulations of the Safe Drinking Water Act, leak detection, board training effectiveness, and how to initially set up a water system.Assisting newly organizing community water associations "in many ways is probably where we can do our most effective work," Strathdee said. Rural Water's staff is experienced in setting up water associations and has done so "from the ground up," he said. "We know the pitfalls."The RWA uses Farmer's Home Administration models for organizing water system, he said. "They're tried and true, effective, and they hold up in a court of law." A community is much better off adapting the models to their needs than starting from scratch, he added.Nearly 300 of the state's more than 639 community water systems belong to the New Mexico Rural Water Association. The association's mandate is to provide training and technical assistance to nonproflt, rural entities which provide drinking water in New Mexico, Strathdee said. Through contracts with the National Rural Water Association, the state organization assists community water systems at no charge, whether or not they are dues paying members.In addition to assistance in the field and by telephone, each year from 10 to day-long, free, technical training sessions are conducted throughout the state. A technical training conference is held annually.Also, training guides and technical bulletins are available from the associations Albuquerque office, and a quarterly newsletter is published.Although the Rural Water Association provides free information and assistance, Strathdee said there are several good reasons for water systems to become dues-paying members. For one, through the National Association, "acts and omissions" liability insurance is available to the community systems and their directors and officers."When you serve on the board of a rural water organization (with the exception of municipalities), you are actually liable for your acts or omissions as a board member," Strathdee said. "You're also liable individually. You can be held personally liable, so that your own assets may be attached, if a lawsuit is found against you and in favor of someone else."Through the National Rural Water Association, group health insurance and group dental insurance also is available.Another advantage of membership, Strathdee said, is that the more paid up members the Rural Water Association has, the more attention legislators pay to it. The association represents the interests of rural water communities at both the state and national legislative levels.This year the New Mexico Rural Water Association is lobbying for creation of a statewide fund to pay for water monitoring and testing analyses to meet federal drinking water standards.In the late 1980's Strathdee said, the association was instrumental in persuading the state legislature to create a revolving loan fund from which rural water systems can obtain low-interest loans.For more information about the New Mexico Rural Water Association, call 255-2242.Mendel, Joyce. "Rural Water Association Assists Community Water Associations Throughout New Mexico." East Mountain Telegraph. 7 March 1991. Page 2.</text>
</content>
<name></name>
<script></script>
</card>
card_9785.xml
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" ?>
<!DOCTYPE card PUBLIC "-//Apple, Inc.//DTD card V 2.0//EN" "" >
<text>From:BITNET%"cws%ovro.caltech.edu@CITDEIMO.BITNET" "Cur Seeliger" 21-JUL-1991 03:06Received: by ASUACAD (Mailer R2.08) id 0473; Sun, 21 Jul 91 02:05:06 MSTDate: Sat, 20 Jul 1991 20:48:28 PDTSubject: More news from the west coast of Iowa: Desert Protection bill This also from clari.tw.environment WASHINGTON (UPI) -- Moving a small step closer to protection of the vast California desert, two congressmen offered compromise legislation Wednesday that seeks to address the concerns of both ranchers and environmentalists. At stake is an attempt to protect the largest single area of wilderness and parkland -- 7.3 million acres -- ever protected by the federal government outside of Alaska. Democratic Reps. Mel Levine, of Los Angeles, and Richard Lehman, representing California's Central Valley, acknowledged that more compromises may have to be made to meet the demands of the state's Republican lawmakers. But the two also expressed optimism that 1991 will be the year of the desert, noting that both of the state's senators want very badly to reach a compromise. Democratic Sen. Alan Cranston views the measure as an opportunity to gracefully end a lengthy career tarnished by his involvement in the savings and loan scandal, while Republican Sen. John Seymour sees it as just the kind of campaign issue a freshman senator running for reelection needs. Under the plan offered by Levine and Lehman, Death Valley and the Joshua Tree National Monument would be given higher levels of protection under national park status. Also, the East Mojave National Scenic Area would be upgraded to monument status. This means that the National Park Service would manage the Mojave, rather than the Bureau of Land Management, which critics contend favors livestock and mining interests. However, under the compromise, 250,000 acres in four areas would be removed from the 7.5 million acres both Levine and Cranston initially had sought to protect. These acres would be cut to appease utilities, miners, off-road vehicle racers and private owners, who had objected to the move. In addition, ranchers would be allowed to keep their grazing rights for a maximum of 25 years instead of 10 years. Levine, the more liberal of the two congressmen, insisted that the measure would still give significant protection to the serene beauty of the desert's canyons, sand dunes and wildlife. Cranston, in a separate statement, also applauded the compromise, saying it provides ``meaningful protection to the nationally significant resources of the California desert.'' But the lawmakers acknowledged that the plan is not supported by Republican Rep. Jerry Lewis, who represents parts of San Bernardino County, where much of the desert is located. And, a Seymour aide said the Republican senator would have no comment until he has read the compromise language. In the past, Lewis has supported the Bush administration plan, expected to be introduced by the Bureau of Land Management later this year, which would extend protection to 2 million acres. Lehman plans to take up the desert issue July 30 in the House Subcommittee on General Oversight and California Desert Lands, which he chairs. ``Unless we act quickly, the California desert is a hidden treasure that may be gone before we discover it in all its significance,'' Levine said.</text>
</content>
<name></name>
<script></script>
</card>
card_16025.xml
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" ?>
<!DOCTYPE card PUBLIC "-//Apple, Inc.//DTD card V 2.0//EN" "" >
<text>Posted on Biosph-l, an environmental discussion list on Bitnet. The originator is Curt Seeliger and his internet e-mail address is cws%OVRO.Caltech.Edu. Posted 18 February 1991.S.A. Green writes, regarding my posting of an editorial written by Donald M. Peters in the Arizona Republic (sorry my response took so long!): ... The reprint on Welfare Ranching looks suspicioiusly like the work of an Arizona man named Lynn Jacobs. I have talked with BLM officials in Arizona who know Mr. Jacobs, and I am told that he is a radical. They say he refuses to listen to objectivity. Mr. Jacobs writings have been largely discredited. I don't know how Lynn Jacobs figures into this--the editorial was clearly credited to Donald Peters. I've never heard of Jacobs prior to this, so I don't want to argue his credibility. I would, however, like to say a few words about the credibility of his accusers. A study conducted by the BLM itself showed that only 17 percent of it's land was in good or excellent condition, and 33 percent was in poor or bad condition. At the time of that study (1975) only 19 percent was said to be improving, and 16 percent actually getting worse. After the report was released, both the BLM and the General Accounting Office criticized the data as *understating* the degradation the land had undergone under their supervision. It seems quite clear that change is needed in the way public lands are managed. When a public resource becomes so thouroughly devastated by mismanagement as BLM lands have become, radical changes may be needed to correct past mistakes. For the BLM to tar Mr. Jacobs as a 'radical' merely indicates that he does not favour ecological catastrophe. Welfare Ranching suggested that cattle compete with deer and antelope for forage. This is generally false. This is 'kind of' true, in that cattle tend to graze (eat ground cover) whereas deer browse (eat tree and shrub leaves). However,where there is overgrazing (as in a large part of public lands), cattle will consume browse when there is no available grass, and eat willow when it is available. In this way they do indeed compete with deer and antelope. It was found in a study in Northern Utah that cattle grazing improved winter range for deer by removing the grass componet to allow shrubs perferred by deer to invade. Heavy use by deer also improved cattle grazing over time on the same site.It has been very well established in scientific literature that cattle do not compete with deer or antelope for forage because of very different food preferences. I don't mean to impune the veracity of the study mentioned in passing, but it would be usefull to know who performed and sponsored the research. Under ideal conditions, deer and cattle needn't compete much for food. However, as stated above, the prevailing conditions are definitly *not* ideal, and cattle *do* compete with wildlife for food and habitat. The notion that cattle do not compete is definitly not well accepted by scientists, but rather a lie promulgated by the livestock industry. I know that sounds harsh, but there's no other way to say it. In fact, food competition is only one of a variety of problems cattle cause other ungulates. Cattle also disturb fawning sites--areas surrounded by cover and often near water, typically willow or alder. This occurs not only by cattle eating the older plants, but also by trampling the shoots and compacting the soil (retarding future growth) and by chiseling stream sides, causing erosion and channel downcutting, which in turn results in a loss of riparian habitat. Public lands are closely regulated by government officials to promote maximum benefits for both grazing and wildlife interests, to name only two. The ranchers play no part instocking rate decisions, unless they choose a lower rate which they often do. Both the BLM and Forest Service claim to manage for multiple use, as mandated under the Classification and Multiple Use Act and the Federal Land Policy and Management Act. However, just as with our forests, these government bodies often merely rubber-stamp grazing permit requests, often ignoring the advice of their own specialists. The assertion that ranchers have no say in stocking decisions is false. Not only do they have a strong voice in these decisions, they also have a degree of control over the personnel staffing the FS and BLM offices. Many cases are known of specialists who have been transfered out of the region simply because they crossed a rancher by attempting to restrict his cattle from certain sensitive habitat, or just by attempting to enforce existing laws and regulations. I hope I have given some of you a look on the "other side of the fence", undistorted by radical views. This issue deserves alot more discussion (Grazing Fees, Riparian Zones, etc.) Indeed it does deserve more discussion; not only in terms of grazing fees and riparian *habitat*, but also grazing allotment management, predator control, wildlife other than deer, herbicidal sprayings, reseedings, public restriction from public lands, and of course, the economic and fiscal effects of public lands grazing, as it is heavily subsidized by taxpayers. Curt Seeliger <cur@caltech.bitnet>Curt Seeliger <cws%OVRO.Caltech.Edu@DEIMOS.CALTECH.EDU> Owens Valley Radio Observatory 7 Big White Dishes RoadBig Pine, CA 93513 "We have let cattle displace at least 90% off native ungulates in the West. If the loggers wanted to replace 90% of the trees in the West with even-aged European pines, would we let that happen too?" - George Werthner</text>
</content>
<name>Disc1</name>
<script></script>
</card>
card_6399.xml
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" ?>
<!DOCTYPE card PUBLIC "-//Apple, Inc.//DTD card V 2.0//EN" "" >
<text>FRIANT: THE DAM THAT WAS A MISTAKEBAY ON TRIAL - FALL 1989by Lloyd Carter"It is now eight years since the flow of the San Joaquin nver was controlled by closing the outlet gates at Friant dam and yet we find only disappointment, apprehension, ill-feeling and legal warfare among water users and their organizations. Something of crucial importance has gone wrong. There must have been a weak link in a supposedly strong chain."The late Dr. G.E.P. Smith, a consulting engineer for the University of Arizona, wrote those prophetic words 38 years ago, on January 15,1952, in an article entitled "The Failure of the Keystone of the Arch of the Central Valley Project." Smith's thesis was that Friant Dam, which stores only 520,000 acrefeet of water, was far too small to handle all the future competing needs for the liquid gold flowing out of the watershed of the San Joaquin River. How right he was.Forty more yearsDr. Smith's prescience is brought to mind by the recent announcement by Interior Secretary Manuel Lujan to renew San Joaquin River water delivery contracts to 28 irrigation districts of another 40 years without first completing an environmental impact statement. Lujan's decision was considered a precedent for the 300 irrigation districts and contractors that annually consume 9.1 million acrefeet of Central Valley Project water controlled by the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation. These contracts will be coming up for renewal over the next two decades.U.S. Senator Bill Bradley, D-N.J., chairman of the Senate subcommittee on water and power, called Lujan's ruling "short-sighted and incomprehensible." California Rep. George Miller, D- Martinez, called it a "case study in duplicity." But Lujan insists he was "morally and legally obligated" to renew the contracts.Since the late 1940s the irrigation districts have been diverting 98 percent of the San Joaquin River at Friant Dam, an average of 1.5 million acrefeet of water a year. Friant Dam is located at the river's debouchure at the edge of the Sierra foothills near Fresno. Only a trickle of water is let out below the dam and much of the riverbed for 50 miles downstream to Mendota is usually bone dry except in heavy rainfall years. The once impressive salmon run and the trout fishery are only a memory. Groundwater recharge is minimal. Things aren't much better from Mendota north to the Delta. There the San Joaquin River is little more than a drainage ditch for westside farming interests.Lujan, under pressure from the EPA and President Bush's Council on Environmental Quality to do an EIS on the contract renewals, reluctantly agreed to order one but said such a study would not be allowed to question the quantity of water now being diverted at Friant. Lujan insisted only matters like water pricing and water conservation could be studied. "What value is an environmental study of the impact of water diversions if the amount diverted is non-negotiable?" fumed Rep. Miller. "It's like studying the sirtking ol the Titanic without examining the significance of icebergs."The Natural Resources Defense Council, which filed a federal lawsuit in the Sacramento court of federal Judge Lawrence Karlton, could still block Lujan's action if Karlton rules in their favor. Karlton ruled last March that the contract renewals are subject to any decision he makes in the NRDC suit.Falling in lineLujan's decision was not unexpected. As a new member of the Hydraulic Brotherhood, he quickly fell into line with the argument that the farmers on the eastern flank of the San Joaquin Valley needed every drop of water they had been taking the last four decades. What is more interesting is the erosion in the positions of the Justice Department, the EPA, and the Council on Environmental Quality. Former Interior Solicitor Ralph Tarr wrote the legal opinion in 1988 that Lujan used to justify his decision on the contract renewals. Tarr concluded the contract renewals are not subject to review under the National Environmental Policy Act and that Lujan had no discretionary authority to alter the quantities of water in the contracts.Tarr used to be an advance man for President Reagan and a member of the Fresno waterlaw firm of Baker, Manock and Jensen. Kendall Baker has been a behind-the-scenes player in Central Valley Project water politics for years and recently crafted the trust arrangement for the giant J.G. to continue getting cheap, taxpayer-subsidized water for 23,000 acres of land in the Westlands Water District. This raid by Boswell on the U.S. Treasury, which offended even other big growers in the Westlands, was chronicled recently on CBS 's "60 Minutes".Tarr based his legal opinion on a narrow interpretation of a 1956 congressional amendment to the Reclamation Project Act of 1939. The amendment guaranteed Central Valley Project irrigation districts first shot at contract renewals. Tarr released his opinion two days after the election of George Bush as president. Tarr claimed this was a coincidence, even though the ruling had been completed for weeks prior to the November 1988 election.The Council on Environmental Quality got into the Friant fray in February 1989 when the EPA asked it to intervene. A June 29,1989, decision by CEQ chairman A. Alan Hill demolished most of Tarr's arguments and pointedly noted, "There is nothing in the 1956 (congressional) amendments which guarantees the right to renew for the same quantity of water." Tarr had argued that the 1956 congressional amendment guaranteeing the contract renewals meant "there is no discretion with respect to the quantity of water to be supplied under a renewed contract." Furthermore, Hill found that the 1956 amendments only used the term "long term contract" as any contract longer than 10 years. There isn't anything sacred about the 40-year length of these contracts. Lujan could easily have said he would renew the contracts fo five or 10 years to allow a thorough environmental analysis in the light of changing values regarding California's water resources and efforts to restore fisheries and wetlands. Hill's opinion was attacked by the only other CEQ member (the third CEQ post was vacant), Jacqueline E. Schafer, who sided with Tarr and later accepted a job in the Interior Department.Hill was replaced by current CEQ chairman Michael Deland, who initially supported Hill's position in a letter to the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee. But by the time Lujan issued his decision in late November, Deland had changed his tune, calling Lujan's ruling "a responsible balancing between environmental concerns and the need to provide water to growers while an (environmental study) is being done."Another key behind-the-scenes player in Lujan's decision was Richard B. Stewart, the U.S. Justice Department's chief environmental lawyer, former Harvard law professor and former chairman of the board of the Environmental Defense Fund. His department is defending Interior in the NRDC suit. Not surprisingly, Stewart endorsed Lujan's decision, backing Tarr's legal analysis and ignoring that of the CEQ and the EPA.Waste, yet want notAre the farmers in the 28 irrigation districts using water as efficiently as they can? Not everyone thinks so. There is a persistent nitrate problem in the groundwater along the east side of the valley, some of it caused by fertilizers' being leached down into the water table. Nitrates in drinking water can kill newborn babies by being converted into a deadly compound that causes methemoglobinemia, a condition that impairs the oxygen-carrying capacity of the bloodstream. Some municipal water districts in the eastern valley have nitrate levels exceeding safety standards for infants. Who is at fault? Fertilizer companies say the farmers are to blame for over-irrigating. Most growers continue to cling to the old and easy method of flood irngation, which results in considerable waste. Old timers will remember that the Friant water, 40 years ago, was called "supplemental water" because it was supposed to supplement judicious groundwater pumping. Rising electricity costs soon caused the farmers to shut off their groundwater pumps and simply use cheap, plentiful surface supplies from Friant. Even though prices for Friant water are likely to rise from $3.50 an acre-foot to $15-20 an acre-foot under Lujan's proposal, this will be little inducement for the farmers to change their water-wasting ways."Failure of the keystone of the arch"Which brings us back to the late Dr. Smith's thesis on Friant Dam. Hydraulic engineers will tell you that a good dam should hold the equivalent of the annual flow of a river. In the case of the San Joaquin River that amounts to about 1.7 million acre-feet a year. "Friant Dam should never have been built," insisted Smith. Only six miles upstream, at the Temperance Flat dam site first proposed in the 1920s, he noted a storage reservoir in excess of 1.8 million acre-feet could have been built. But such a facility would have flooded out Pacific Gas and Electric Co.'s Kerckhoff Powerhouse and the utility protested back in the days when the damsites on the San Joaquin River were being considered. The estimated cost of a buyout of the Kerckhoff power house back in the 1920s? A mere $5 million.The engineers planning Friant Dam also badly miscalculated the amount of water the farmers would need and felt a dam at Friant, which could be built much more cheaply than a dam at Temperance Flat, would be sufficient to meet future needs. This is the genesis of the current problem.The upper San Joaquin River has more than two dozen facilities on it, including dams, power plants, and diversions, and has been called the hardest working river in America. It would be interesting to see what kind of reaction would be generated if someone suggested a dam now be built at Temperance Flat. The river has long since been destroyed for white-water rafting or other activities supported by environmentalists and they might be convinced extra storage capacity could clearly improve the environment downstream. A deal could be worked out with PG&E to preserve its power generating capacity on a new dam. What is needed from Interior is some creative new thinking, not just business as usual.With another 1.3 million acre-feet of water a year stored behind a new dam upstream from Friant, the downstream fishery could be restored, chronic groundwater overdrafting problems in the southern San Joaquin Valley could be lessened, and the farmers could get enough water to carry them through drought years. Water could even be sent downstream to flush the selenium-tainted Grassland Water District wetlands in westem Merced County."Why not recognize that the little Friant Reservoir was a mistakeΓÇöan honest mistakeΓÇöand take steps as soon as possible to correct the mistake," Dr. Smith asked 38 years ago. His question deserves to be answered.</text>
</content>
<name></name>
<script></script>
</card>
card_16265.xml
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" ?>
<!DOCTYPE card PUBLIC "-//Apple, Inc.//DTD card V 2.0//EN" "" >
<text>From: tgray@IGC.ORG (Tom Gray)Newsgroups: sci.environmentSubject: NEWS: Drought Rept Summary [long]Message-ID: <9108310156.AA25987@cdp.igc.org>Date: 31 Aug 91 01:56:45 GMTSender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDULines: 282/* Written 5:20 pm Aug 30, 1991 by pacinst in cdp:en.climate *//* ---------- "Executive Summary of Report LONG" ---------- */On August 1st, the Pacific Institute release a report on the impacts of the California Drought. By popular request, here is an abbreviated version of the published Executive Summary. I have included only the more critical sections, but in the interests of keeping it short, I have deleted several sections. All sections HEADINGS were left in to let you know what it contains; those of you interested in more detail can either order the whole report, or contact me for more information. The full report is 66 pages long.Peter Gleick, Director, Global Environment Program----------------------------------------------------THE SOCIETAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL COSTS OF THE CONTINUING CALIFORNIA DROUGHT:A Report from the Pacific Institute for Studies in Development, Environment, and Security, 1681 Shattuck Avenue, Suite H, Berkeley, California. 415 843-9550.["pacinst" on EcoNet]EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Since 1987, the State of California has been in the grip of a severe drought. Water availability throughout the State has been far lower than normal for each of the last five years when measured in any of a variety of ways: total precipitation, runoff, ground-water overdraft, or reservoir storage. The current drought is comparable in severity to the drought of the late 1920s and early 1930s, considered to be the worst drought on record, and there is no guarantee that next year will be any wetter. The California Department of Water Resources has classified four of the last five years as "critically dry", while the fifth was classified as "dry". Based on the information collected for this report, we believe that the greatest impacts are currently falling on the environment, and that, moreover, many of the ecological effects may be irreversible. In addition, California will see substantial economic costs, totaling roughly $3 billion, as a result of decreased hydroelectric potential. Limited portions of the agricultural sector are also bearing heavy costs, although the effect on California's overall farm income will be relatively small. While urban areas have suffered shortages, they have been manageable in most cases and have not caused major economic dislocations. The additional rainfall that the State received in March of this year helped to avert much more serious impacts in the municipal and industrial sectors, but only modestly improved the condition of ecosystems and the water supply for agriculture. The drought is not over. Without doubt, another dry year would result in much more severe situation than California has experienced thus far. Reservoir reserves have been drawn down to extremely low levels, some fisheries populations have been brought to the verge of extinction, if indeed they have not already been pushed over the edge, and ground-water reserves have been severely depleted in many agricultural regions. Presented below is a summary of what we currently know about the impacts of the drought. Summary of ImpactsNatural Ecosystems Human activities have made natural ecosystems more vulnerable to droughts than they would otherwise be, and, consequently, the current drought has had severe impacts on a wide range of California's ecological resources. Given the poor condition of the most threatened species, the greatest concern is that some species may not be able to recover once the drought is over. Among the effects observed as of July 1991 are: The coho and chinook salmon catch off the coast of California has declined from a record 14.8 million pounds in 1988 (reflecting the success of the year class raised in the wet year of 1986) to only 4.4 million pounds in 1990. The current estimate for 1991 is 2.5 million pounds. The winter-run chinook salmon, already classified as a threatened species, has reached such low numbers that it is threatened with extinction. The population of striped bass in the San Francisco Bay/Delta has been declining since the beginning of the current drought in 1987. In 1990, the index of larval abundance was the lowest ever recorded. While the decline of the striped bass may have many causes, the striped bass index shows a strong correlation with Delta outflow. The herring fishery in Tomales Bay has been destroyed, at least temporarily, due to low freshwater inflows and consequent increases in salinity. It is possible that this herring population will not recover. Waterfowl populations in California have been declining dramatically over the last decade for many reasons. The drought is exacerbating these losses by reducing the quantity and quality of wetlands habitat in the Central Valley. Tree mortality has been extremely high in large areas of the Sierra Nevada. In some forest areas, 30 to 80 percent of the trees are dead or dying. A wide range of endangered and threatened plant and animal species are directly threatened by low water conditions, including: nesting and wintering bald eagles in the Santa Ynez basin; the ten listed species of native annual and short-lived herbs; the threatened giant garter snake, which depends on seasonal and permanent sloughs and creeks; and almost all of the nine species of endangered butterflies, which are experiencing severe population declines because of drought-induced losses of host plants. Agriculture Undoubtedly, the drought has reduced California's agricultural income over what it might have been in 1990 and 1991, although it is has not been the disaster that some expected. Certain agricultural sectors and individual farmers have been hard hit by cutbacks in water deliveries. But we also find that the California agricultural community as a whole has experienced manageable losses, in part because the agricultural sector was in a strong financial position before the drought began and because it has been buffered by ground-water availability and the ability of farmers to alter planting patterns. Until 1990, agricultural water deliveries were not affected by the drought, and no significant economic impacts were observed. In 1990, some water deliveries were reduced, but overall impacts were minimal. Strong demand for California farm products has kept both prices and revenue high. Gross cash receipts in 1990 reached an all-time high. Greater agricultural impacts will occur in 1991, but it is too early to quantify these effects. A preliminary estimate by the California Department of Water Resources puts direct losses at roughly $400 million in cash receipts out of an estimated $18 billion total. In addition to these direct losses, there could be substantial indirect costs throughout the State. The statewide averages hide local effects. Some agricultural communities have been hard hit, including the southern San Joaquin Valley, where ground-water supplies are scarce, and the Central Coast region, where there is extensive dryland agriculture and a high dependence on ground water and precipitation. Ground-water storage in the San Joaquin Valley has declined dramatically since the onset of the drought, and will decline even more in 1991. Between 1987 and early 1991, ground-water levels in Tulare County had dropped by over 30 feet and 3.3 million acre-feet. In Madera County ground-water levels has dropped by over 25 feet and 1.4 million acre-feet. Should the drought persist, the decreased availability of ground water will have major impacts on the agricultural sector. Livestock and Grazing [section not included here]Energy The drought in California has affected both the supply of and demand for energy. California is highly dependent on hydroelectricity production -- about one-third of all electricity produced in-state is hydro -- and the drought has greatly reduced hydroelectric generation. As a result, more fossil fuels have been purchased and burned by California utilities. Electricity used for ground-water pumping has also risen with the increased demand for ground water by the agricultural sector. Because the cost of generating electricity with natural gas is higher than the cost of producing hydroelectricity, the drought has led to a direct increase in electricity costs to California ratepayers. We estimate that the first four years of the drought (1987 to 1990) cost California ratepayers an extra $2.4 billion. Hydroelectricity production in 1991 will also be well below average, and the additional costs to ratepayers this year may exceed $500 million. The burning of extra fossil fuels has also increased air pollution. We estimate that the added fossil fuel combustion has increased California's utility emissions of carbon dioxide, the principal gas responsible for the greenhouse effect, by over 25 percent from levels emitted during a normal water year.Forestry and Fire The five years of the drought have had an enormous impact on the forests of California. Trees have become highly susceptible to both disease and pest infestation. There has already been a significant die-back of trees throughout the State, particularly in the Sierra Nevada, while many more trees are sick or infested. In addition, dead and downed trees have created substantial amounts of dry fuel that greatly increases the risk of intense and destructive forest fires. The California Department of Forestry estimates that 12 billion board feet of merchantable timber has been lost on State lands; over 5 billion of that in 1990 alone. The U.S. Forest Service estimates that 10 percent of the trees in 18 National Forests have been killed by the drought and related insect infestations. On the approximately 6.5 million acres managed by the U.S. Forest Service for commercial lumber, 2.6 billion board feet of timber was killed by the drought in 1990. Estimates for August 1989 and August 1988 were each approximately 1 billion board feet. Of the 2.6 billion board feet of dead trees in U.S. National Forests as of August 1990, the Forest Service estimates that only 1.6 billion will be salvaged -- about 800 million board feet each in 1990 and 1991. The drought has led to greater expenditures for fire protection, fire control staffing, and operational expenses. State and Federal emergency expenditures for fire suppression and fighting exceeded $100 million in 1990. These expenditures are over and above the regular costs of maintaining fire-fighting equipment and personnel.Recreation and Tourism [section not included here]Municipal and Industrial Users [section not included here] The Drought as an Analogue of Climate Change Given the current concern over global warming, the question of whether this drought is a manifestation of "global climatic change" invariably arises. While the drought could be associated with larger scale changes in the climate, we are unlikely to know for several more years. Nevertheless, if the drought is merely an extreme of the current climate rather than a manifestation of anthropogenically induced climate change, it may still serve as an analogue of a future climate that is more severe than that of the present. The drought does not provide any information on the effects of increases in global and regional temperature, changes in climatic variability, the hydrologic effects of sea level rise, or a host of other issues. But it does illustrate the impacts of decreased precipitation and runoff, one possible change that might accompany global warming. More importantly, however, the drought is indicative of our society's ability to adapt to climatic variations and the vulnerability of California to long-term shifts in hydrology and water availability. The impacts of the current drought suggest that the California economy can withstand five years of reduced water supply, but that we are running up against severe limits and facing difficult choices. Specifically, ground-water supplies and reservoir storage, which so far have buffered the impacts in the agricultural sector, have been heavily depleted and will be of limited value if the drought continues. Many threatened wildlife populations are so strained by five consecutive years of drought that their ability to recover is being questioned. If the drought were indicative of long-term changes in the State's water supply, it would imply fundamental changes in the State's economy and environment. Although an imperfect analogue to global warming, the drought highlights the vulnerability of the economy and the environment of California to variations in climate. The worry, however, is that climatic changes would be even more extreme than the drought we are currently experiencing. Moreover, our response to the drought suggests that we will tend to discount the future and adopt the easiest responses first. On the positive side, the drought has forced California to re-analyze its water policies and has spurred an important debate about vulnerability, tradeoffs, and priorities. In this sense, the drought may provide the impetus to plan for and to adapt to global warming.*******************************************************************Tom Gray Second Wind, Inc.EcoNet/PeaceNet: cdp:tgray {standard disclaimer applies}Internet: tgray@igc.org 7 Davis SquareBITNET: tgray%igc.org@stanford Somerville, MA 02144UUCP: uunet!pyramid!cdp!tgray (617) 776-8520</text>
</content>
<name></name>
<script></script>
</card>
card_13029.xml
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" ?>
<!DOCTYPE card PUBLIC "-//Apple, Inc.//DTD card V 2.0//EN" "" >
<text>From: tgray@igc.org (Tom Gray)Newsgroups: sci.environmentSubject: NEWS: RMI Studies H2O for MWDMessage-ID: <9108172304.AA05869@cdp.igc.org>Date: 17 Aug 91 23:04:34 GMTSender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDULines: 110/* Written 11:24 am Aug 17, 1991 by tgray in cdp:en.energy *//* ---------- "RMI Newsletter - Spring 1991" ---------- */RMI PARTICIPATES IN CA WATER STUDYMUCH OF THE water used in California first falls as snow on the 400-mile-long Sierra Nevada mountain range. This year, however, the Sierra snowpack remains below normal. As California enters its fifth consecutive year of drought, state officials are scrambling to devise equitable ways to divide what little water will be available. Governor Wilson is committed to strict water rationing, with each household limited to 300 gallons per day, a fraction of normal usage. Agricultural cutbacks will also be draconian; tens of thousands of workers are expected to lose their jobs, and crop losses will be in the billions. Against this backdrop, a roundtable group of water providers and environmental organizations is attempting to negotiate a long-term, equitable allocation of California's limited water resources. The goal of these discussions is to find a reliable longer-term way to provide cities, industry, farmers, and natural ecosystems with enough water without having to resort to the sorts of drastic curtailments that will be necessary this summer. Because there is no longer enough water in California to satisfy all demands even in a year of normal precipitation, greater water efficiency has become the centerpiece of these negotiations. In October, RMI's Water Program was invited to review a list of proposed efficiency measures, dubbed "Best Management Practices" (BMPs), to see how much water they can be expected to save. Interested utilities and environmental groups asked RMI to evaluate a report by Brown and Caldwell Engineering which estimated the impact of a number of BMPs, including indoor and outdoor water audits, installation of water-efficient plumbingfixtures, leak-detection programs, and landscape water conservation ordinances. Adjunct Senior Research Associate Bob Wilkinson, who organized RMI's Santa Barbara Water Efficiency Conference in 1989 (Publication #W90-10), was our principal investigator in answering some tough questions: What is the present use of water by various fixtures and operations? How much water will advanced water-efficient technologies and practices use? How many people will participate in these programs? And, in total, how much water can be reliably saved in urban areas? This question is pivotal, for its answer will greatly influence the fate of the famed San Francisco Bay-San Joaquin Delta ecosystem, already endangered by growing diversions to cities. The state is also considering adopting management practices for which estimates of savings are not yet available for example, public information programs and water-saving courses in public schools. And the state is examining other options, such as graywater use, car-wash retrofits, innovative rate structures, etc. A comprehensive program which embraces most or all of these opportunities seems likely. If such a program does emerge, it would be the largest, most exhaustive demonstration to date of modern water efficiency technologies. Before such a program can be adopted, however, all of the interested groups have to agree on a set of projections that can be used as the basis for water reallocation. Not surprisingly, the projections are controversial, with environmental groups generally favoring higher estimates of potential savings and municipal utilities suggesting lower ones. This is where RMI comes in. As an out-of-state, independent, nonpartisan organization, we've been asked to provide our best estimate of the potential savings. This work is being funded in part by the Metropolitan Water District (MWD) of Southern California, the world's largest wholesale water provider. MWD has already adopted some of the new implementation methods we've developed, such as buying back water saved by retail water utilities. RMI is pleased to participate in what is currently the most innovative and far-reaching water management program anywhere in the country. California's decisions will set a landmark precedent that will influence debates now underway in other water-strapped states and cities.=============================================================Reprinted from Rocky Mountain Institute Newsletter Spring 1991. The Newsletter is published Tri-Annually by Rocky Mountain Institute, an independent, nonpartisan, nonprofit Research and Publication center in Old Snowmass, Colorado, and is distributed from the Institute's headquarters to more than 27,000 readers throughout the world. Permission is granted to reproduce this material in electronic and Printed form, provided this notice is included. For more information on the Rocky Mountain Institute and a complete list of publications write or call:Rocky Mountain Institute1739 Snowmass Creek RoadSnowmass, CO 81654-9199Peacenet E Mail Box RMIPhone (303) 927-3851Fax (303) 927-4178[Additional electronic mail addresses:Internet: rmi@igc.orgBitnet: rmi%igc.org@stanfordUUCP: uunet!pyramid!cdp!rmi*******************************************************************Tom Gray Second Wind, Inc.EcoNet/PeaceNet: cdp:tgray {standard disclaimer applies}Internet: tgray@igc.org 7 Davis SquareBITNET: tgray%igc.org@stanford Somerville, MA 02144UUCP: uunet!pyramid!cdp!tgray (617) 776-8520</text>
</content>
<name></name>
<script></script>
</card>
card_12462.xml
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" ?>
<!DOCTYPE card PUBLIC "-//Apple, Inc.//DTD card V 2.0//EN" "" >
<text>From: jhurst@ese.ogi.edu (Jim Hurst)Newsgroups: sci.environmentSubject: Re: California Drought ReportMessage-ID: <25515@ogicse.ogi.edu>Date: 16 Aug 91 17:22:15 GMTReferences: <9108152337.AA28416@cdp.igc.org> <JMC.91Aug15180438@DEC-Lite.Stanford.EDU>Sender: news@ogicse.ogi.eduOrganization: No Moo in 92, Cattle Free By 93Lines: 115In article <JMC.91Aug15180438@DEC-Lite.Stanford.EDU> jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU writes:>I suppose it is to be expected that the effects of a drought on>natural ecosystems would the larger than those on advanced societies.Hmm, this seems rather patronizing thing for someone in southern California to be saying about water resource issues, but coming from John, I suppose it's to be expected...I have a few minor problems with the current "advanced society" approach to water issues in California. I'd be interested in hearing your defense of these situations:Your reservoirs are silting in at an embarassing rate. Dredging themwill probably never be feasible, economically or otherwise. Nyah Nyah Nyah 8^)Croplands are be destroyed by salination and rising groundwater dueto poorly planned irrigation systems.Irrigation subsidies encourage wasteful use of water, often on inappropriate lands, resulting in highly saline runoff thatmust be treated at the Mexican border (at great public expense) to meetinternational treaty standards.Let us not forget the rather embarassing flooding of the SaltonSea, nee Salton Sink, resulting in the inundation of severalthousand acres of prime farmland, due to poorly planned and poorlyexecuted irrigation schemes at public expense for private benefit.Well, that last is old news. Now the Salton Sea is hypersaline due to runoff, and so much runoff is draining into it that it's expanding,resulting in Imperial Irrigation District being stuck with an excessof 400,000 to 500,000 acre-feet per year, due to lawsuits by thoseowning Sinkfront property. (IID agreed to sell to MET, under duress)The impact of massive subsidized "water development" on the natural ecosystems has been horrendous, in many or most cases with marginal or negative public benefit.I maintain that natural ecosystems faired poorly in the drought due to the short sighted, ecodestructive practices the CA water industry. The state of California is thoroughly plumbed, with only a few wild streams left. Nearly all of this water is sucked up by the Corps of Engineers, (especially) the Bureau of Reclamation (BuWrec), or the State Water Project. These projects encourage wasteful use of water (publicly subsidized growing of surplus water intensive crops in an arid climate certainly appears wasteful to me), at the expense of natural ecosystems. These ecosystems have evolved to deal with drought and dry regimes in general. Yet when they are deprived of nearly all of their natural water supply to water cows, it's not surprising they suffer damage, invasion of exotic species, and loss of genetic diversity. A good case can be made that genetic diversity represents real, commonly held wealth.California does not suffer from a water shortage, but rather from a systemic pattern of water abuse and wastage. 83% of the state's goes to agriculture, with the four biggest crops (alfalfa, hay, irrigated pasture, and rice) using 14 million acre feet while contributing only $1.7 billion to the state's economy (1986). Federal and state water projects have had a devastating impact on wildlands and wildlife in your state, John, particularly riparian zones, and your smug approval of your "advanced society" seems based on an ignorance of water policy and impact. In fact, it smacks of the arrogance Babylon bragging of it's irrigation projects. They were rather proud of them as well, you know. Desert civilizations dependent on irrigation have a lousy track record...I quote from Constance Hunt, in her fine book, "Down By the River:"Riparian ecosystems are vital biological networks finely tuned to the rhythms of their rivers. They each support a distinctive complement of plants and animals, like so many rich, unique, and endangered ecosystems in the United States and throughout the world. Biological diversity is the key to ecological stability. It is the source of future foods and medicines, the seed of scientific knowledge and aesthetic beauty, and the birthright of our children. Through awareness, knowledge, and action, and through whole-hearted effort and thoughtful coordination of people in communities, government institutions, universities, and corporations, we can insure the continued existence of riparian and other endangered ecosystems. [endquote]Or how about this one from Aldo Leopold:A system of conservation based solely on economic interest is hopelessly lopsided. It tends to ignore, and thus eventually to eliminate, many elements in the land community that lack commercial value, but that are (as far as we know) essential to its healthy functioning. It assumes, falsely, I think, that the economic parts of the biotic clock will function without the uneconomic parts. [eq]California has a ways to go with its water policies before I will be willing to call it advanced. Sounds like you need to do some homework, John.JimPS: The arrival of market oriented approaches promises to revolutionize the way western water is managed, and to bring some sanity to water policy. It is a most encouraging trend, and the California Water Bank is one of its most promising children. Support instream flow!References:Cadillac DesertMarc Reisner [The first widespreadcritique of western water policy, andthe best place to start. Reads likea murder mystery, most entertaining]The Overtapped Oasis "" [followup, where dowe go from here? A modest proposal...]Western Water Made SimpleEd Marston [the Great Western Rivers asplumbing, how & why, future trends ]Down By the River Constance Hunt [dams & ecosystems]A Life of Its Own?? Gottlieb [politics and history]Rangeland HydrologyBranson, et al [technical on arid lands]</text>
</content>
<name></name>
<script></script>
</card>
card_7231.xml
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" ?>
<!DOCTYPE card PUBLIC "-//Apple, Inc.//DTD card V 2.0//EN" "" >
<text>A DOUBLE 2020 VISION SET FOR SAN FRANCISCO BAY?BAY ON TRIAL - FALL 1989Twenty-five years after the Bay Conservation and Development Commission began work, two new "baysaving" efforts are getting underway. Both are calling themselves, or their products-to-be, "Bay Vision 2020." Both are commendable. Only one has received the blessing of front-page notice and strong editorial support from the Examiner and the Chronicle. The press doesn't know about the other one yet.On December 14 the papers covered the impressive array of corporate, academic, political, and media figures who had met to launch a temporary commission to tackle some of the Bay Area's major problems, including transportation, housing, and air and water pollution. Its first task would be to define a vision for the Bay Area to achieve in the year 2020. The strategy would be to overcome the parochialism, and to overcome the threats of uncontrolled, unplanned, and uncoordinated growth on the Bay Area's natural amenities.Some of the leading players won their community-saving reputations with the creation of BCDC between 1965 and 1969. These are: Mel Lane and Joe Bodovitz, the first chairman-and-executive director team of both BCDC and the California Coastal Zone Conservation Commission created by Proposition 20 in 1972. Ira M. Heyman, the designated chairman of Bay Vision 2020 is chancellor of UC Berkeley and earlier, as a law professor specializing in land use, was an advisor to BCDC. Bodovitz is Bay Vision's chief staff officer.The 30-member commission includes other names familiar to Baysavers during the last 20 years. These are: Dwight Steele. an attorney long identified with saving San Francisco Bay; Marty Rosen, president of Trust for Public Land; Paul DeFalco Jr., formerly regional administrator of the EPA: Angelo Siracusa, the voice of the Bay Area Counsel, the premier business organization of the Bay Area: Martin Paley, who was executive director of the San Francisco Foundation when SFF took on Bay protection in 1984; and Pam Lloyd. member of the Regional Water Quality Control Board and longtime Marin County water activist. Lloyd has been designated northern counties vice-chair of the new commission. Vice-chair for central counties is A. W. Clausen, president and CEO of the Bank of America. Vice-chair for southern counties is R. J. Rios. president of San Jose Development Corporation. Mel Lane, and brother Bill are the public-service-minded publishers of Sunset Magazine and books.It is an impressive group. and the dozen or so corporate names show that Bay Area big business is behind what's going on. Joe Bodovitz did much of the groundwork through the Califomia Environmental Trust, with a lot of help from Siracusa, Larry Orman of the Greenbelt Alliance, and Rod Diridon, fommer chair of the Association of Bay Area Govemments (ABAG). Siracusa and Orman have organized discussions recently under the aegis of "Regional Issues Forum." Diridon, chair of the Metropolitan Transportation Commission, helped generate support among local govemment figures acting only as individuals, according to Bodovitz.The other effort at bay vision is more specialized. On December 2 about 40 Baysaving figures met at the San Francisco Bay National Wildlife Refuge in Newark without press or fanfare. This session was organized by Save San Francisco Bay Association, with the help of a professional "facilitator," Marilyn Snider of Oakland. The group spent the day refining its collective vision of what the Bay should be like in Year 2020. The Bay Vision players worked through what's going well with the Bay and what's not going well with the Bay, then brainstommed what needs to be accomplished for the Bay in the next five years. For this "Bay Vision 1995" exercise, a total of 50 five-year goals were developed, and six of those were selected for preferred attention: (1) guarantee adequate fresh water supply for the Bay-Delta estuary; (2) implement a broad-based Bay educational program; (3) stop dumping dredge spoils in the Bay waters; (4) maintain and expand fish and wildlife populations; (5) restore wetlands and creeks in the Bay and Delta; and (6) improve water quality by reducing toxics.With all of the above behind them, the 30 who stayed to the end of the day agreed on this final vision statement for Year 2020: The San Francisco Bay-Delta estuary, by the year 2020, will again be a healthy, ecologically diverse, productive natural resource, protected and valued as essential to the well-being of the region.With all of the above behind them, the 30 who stayed to the end of the day agreed on this final vision statement for Year 2020: The San Francisco Bay-Delta estuary, by the year 2020, will again be a healthy, ecologically diverse, productive natural resource, protected and valued as essential to the well-being of the region.What happens now? Players in the non-advertised Bay vision movement represent 27 different organizations or chapters of organizations. With Save San Francisco Bay Association's leadership, they will now help write planks to implement the major five-year goals. A draft document will appear in May, for completion in August and distribution in September. Space limits listing all the organizations here. But Save-the-Bay deserves the credit for generating this community creativity under its president Doris Sloan and lohn Krautkraemer (of Environmental Defense Fund fame) who chairs Save-the-Bay's Outreach Committee. Staff support is provided by Barry Nelson, Marc Holmes, and Nancy Goetzl.Double vision for the Bay in 2020? Not really. The special Bay-focus effort looks like a natural plug-in for the larger Bay Area growth-control/guidance program. There are enough good folks involved in both efforts to make this happen. These Bay Area practical conservationists can surely put a healthy and productive Bay high among the essential ingredients for a future healthy and productive Bay Area. After all, saving the bay is how they learned the business. WTD</text>
</content>
<name></name>
<script></script>
</card>
card_8347.xml
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" ?>
<!DOCTYPE card PUBLIC "-//Apple, Inc.//DTD card V 2.0//EN" "" >
<text>The following information is taken from product literature from theLemna Corporation of Mendota Heights, Minnesota. This information isintended to be informational --- to introduce a natural technology forwastewater treatment --- not necessarily as a commercial advertisementfor Lemna Corporation. For more information, contact either myselfor the Lemna Corporation directly. Craig--Craig D. RiceUNIX Systems Specialist/Network Analystcdr@acc.stolaf.eduAcademic Computing Center, St. Olaf College+1 507 663-36311520 St. Olaf Avenue+1 507 663-3549 FAXNorthfield, MN 55057-1098 USA ----- CUT HERE ----- LEMNA - The New Alternative for Wastewater Treatment LEMNA Imagine... - A small floating plant, typically not bigger than the head of a thumbtack, that could thrive in practically all climates, from extremely got to sub-zero temperatures, in brackish industrial waste streams. In the process, it effectively treats and cleans up most wastewaters. - These plants are one of the fastest growing plants on earth. They can double their weight in less than 18 hours! This remarkable feat is achieved by continuous growth on a year round basis. Should water freeze, these plants simply stay dormant waiting for the next thaw to continue their extraordinary growth rate. - Their voracious appetite enables them to assimilate nutrients and pollutants from water in large quantities. For example, various forms of nitrogen, typical pollutants in wastewater, are considered a hazard to humans if present in drinking water. These plants simply bioaccumulate nitrogen in various forms from water and transform it into valuable protein. - In fact, these plants have higher protein and minteral contents than most existing cash crops. Typical protein contents are 35 to 50% of the plant's dry weight. Typical yield on a per acre basis is 15 times that of soybean. Based on an impressive and proven record of nutritional values, this plant could be harvested as a cash crop if desired. The Breakthrough... - Is this a specially designed "super plant" that works only in the laboratory? No, these plants belong to the Lemna family and are found in all parts of the world. They thrive in Lake Titicaca at 13,000 feet altitude in the Andes in South America; in lakes and sloughs throughout Canada; in swamps and ponds in Southeast Asia. In the US they are found virtually everywhere from the Everglades to California, from Minnesota to Mississippi. - Lemna plns have long been known to be excellent pollution eaters assimilating organic compounds to heavy metals. The problem was how to control and enhance this treatment capability on a practical basis. Since they are floating plants easily moved by the wind, they must be physically controlled and biochemically managed to maximize their treatment effectiveness. - These problems have been successfully solved by Lemna. The Lemna Corporation is the first commercial enterprise specializing in utilizing Lemna plants for wastewater treatment. After many years of research and development, we have obtained a US Patent for our unique biological treatment process. Wastewater --- A Nasty Problem... Wastewater treatment is a vital part of our daily life andbusiness, but it is usually expensive, cumbersome and incomplete. - EXPENSIVE because it requires a complex arra of techniques with high energy and installation/operation costs to break down and reduce various pollutants. For example, based on US Environmental Protection Agency data, it has been shown that a typical community of 10,000 people generating 1 million gallons of wastewater a day would have to pay about 5 million dollars for a first stage treatment system. If the system requires more advance treatment due to certain pollutants, the cost goes up to over 7 million dollars. For industries, the waste streams are more potent and more condensed, requiring equally costly treatment facilities. - CUMBERSOME because there are no efficient and practical technologies to uniformly treat various pollutants to meet clean water discharge requirements. For example, aeration would significantly reduce Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD), but cannot control algae growth. This results in installing and operating a combination of numerous mechanical, biological and/or chemical treatment components. - INCOMPLETE because existing treatment techniques to not completely eliminate all problems. Sludge, order problems and sometimes hazardous by-products or residues are generated in the course of treatment. In many installations, discharged water still does not meet desired specifications. Lemna Technology --- An Effective Solution The Lemna Treatment Process utilized open-water impoundments.They can be of any size, depth and configuration. Lemna cantherefore install its system in newly designed impoundments orretrofit most existing lagoon or pond systems. Our patented technology relies upon several components: 1. Floating Barriers --- Patented floating barriers are manufacturedby Lemna and installed to divide the pond surface into acell matrix for optimum control and management of Lemnaplants. 2. Biological Control --- Environmental and biological control isprovided by continuous monitoring and precise, automaticnutrient and micro-nutrient addition to optimize treatment. 3. Biomass Management --- Lemna plants are managed with Lemna-designedaquatic harvesters compatible with the floating barriersystem and pond characteristics. Lemna systems are low in cost and require very little energyand maintenance. Lemna Treatment Results The Lemna Treatment Process is an effective and reliable removerof Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD), Total Suspended Solids (TSS),heavy metals, nitrogen, phosphorus, other pollutants, and, lastbut not least, odor problems. BOD:High-strength wastes with high BOD loadings can betreated. The Lemna process can be adapted to handleall ranges of BOD. TSS:The Lemna treatment process achieves impressive TSSremoval through precipitation of influent solids, and moreimportantly through inhibition and suppression of algaegrowth. Lemna can beat any other treatment system fora cost effective control of algae. Sulfur:The Lemna process is very effective in removing up to600 lbs/acre/year of sulfur. This plays an importantrole in odor control throughout the year. Nitrogen: The prolific biomass production of Lemna plantsbioaccumulates up to 5500 lbs/acre/year of nitrogen.This direct uptake removes nitrogen off the site unlikeother treatment technologies. The same thing is true ofphosphorus uptake. Phosphorus: Phosphorus is directly bioaccumulated by Lemna plantsat a rate of up to 700 lbs/acre/year. Chloride: Lemna plants thrive in brackish waters. This versatilityresults in a chloride removal rate of up to 1000 lbs/acre/year. Heavy Metals: Lemna plants are well known for heavy metal uptake.The Lemna process can bioaccumulate most trace metals foundin certain types of wastewater. The use of Lemna plants has been researched, developed or implemented in most of the world, including, but not limited to: Jamaica, Ghana, Egypt, Malaysia, Thailand, Argentina, USA, Ivory Coast, Taiwan, Australia, Turkey, Angola, Canada, Mozambique, Malawi, India, Yugoslavia, Zimbabwe, Ireland, Paraguay, Switzerland, South Africa, New Caledonia, Libya, Great Britain, Saudi Arabia, Brazil, Venezuela, Dominican Republic, Trinidad, Netherlands, Greece, Italy, Hong Kong, Uganda, Puerto Rico, Columbia, Lebanon, Poland, Israel, Namibia, Guyana, Tanzania, Austria, Mauritius, France, Mexico, USSR, Japan, Singapore, New Guinea, Chile, Korea, Kenya, Moricco, Finland, Zaire, Portugal, Nepal, New Zealand, Peru, Philippines, Madagascar, Iran, Rumania, Sudan, Cuba, Uruguay, Senegal, Surinam, and Germany. Lemna Corporation1408 Northland Drive, Suite 310Mendota Heights, Minnesota USA 55120 Telephone: (612) 688-0836Fax (612) 688-8813</text>
</content>
<name></name>
<script></script>
</card>
card_13553.xml
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" ?>
<!DOCTYPE card PUBLIC "-//Apple, Inc.//DTD card V 2.0//EN" "" >
<text>Date: Thu, 15 Aug 1991 16:38:04 PDTReply-To: A discussion of Ecological and Environmental Theories and Practices <ECONET@MIAMIU.BITNET>Sender: A discussion of Ecological and Environmental Theories and Practices <ECONET@MIAMIU.BITNET>From: Tom Gray <tgray@IGC.ORG>Subject: California Drought ReportX-To: biosph-l@ubvm.BITNET, econet@miamiu.BITNET /* Written 2:58 pm Aug 15, 1991 by larris in cdp:en.climate *//* ---------- "California Drought Report" ---------- */From: Lelani Arris <larris>Subject: California Drought Report Date: Mon, 5 Aug 91 17:06:38 PDTFrom: <pacinst>To: larrisSubject: Re: California Drought Report The drought report is now available. The title of the report is "The Societal and Environmental Costs of the Continuing California Drought". It can be purchased from the Pacific Institute, 1681 Shattuck Avenue, Suite H, Berkeley, CA 94709, for $15.00. The phone number of the Institute, a non-profit research group, is 415 843-9550. The major conclusion of the report is that the impacts on natural ecosystems have been severe -- more severe than we have anticipated and more severe than impacts on agriculture or other sectors. Other impacts discussed in the report are effects on agriculture, industry, recreation, tourism, development, forestry, wildfire frequency, livestock, and so on.</text>
</content>
<name></name>
<script></script>
</card>
card_13890.xml
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" ?>
<!DOCTYPE card PUBLIC "-//Apple, Inc.//DTD card V 2.0//EN" "" >
<text>Newsgroups: sci.environmentSubject: Re: California Drought ReportKeywords: Thorry for Loothing My Temper...Message-ID: <25598@ogicse.ogi.edu>Date: 20 Aug 91 01:50:22 GMTReferences: <9108152337.AA28416@cdp.igc.org> <JMC.91Aug15180438@DEC-Lite.Stanford.EDU> <25515@ogicse.ogi.edu> <1991Aug17.090319.23666@leland.Stanford.EDU>Sender: news@ogicse.ogi.eduOrganization: sadly lackingLines: 103In article <1991Aug17.090319.23666@leland.Stanford.EDU> jle@navier.UUCP (Jon Ebert) writes:>I, Jim Hurst wrote:>Stanford is approximately 5 degrees from L.A. Some people call this>Northern CA, but it's closer to the middle. I apologize to all the northern californians I offended, I am more than aware of the difference. I apologize to all the southern californians I offended as well.>Why don't more people care about natural grasslands in the plains states?.Probably due to the settlement patterns: "Rain follows the plow." This area settled by determined folks who intended to earn a living farming. Land was a commodity to be used for profit, and luxuries like environmental protection were far in the future. Today the patterns of land ownership make large reserves seem some distance away. Many of these areas are actually depopulating, and the basic infrastructure failing due to lack of recruitment.>>California does not suffer from a water shortage, but rather from a systemic>>pattern of water abuse and wastage. 83% of the state's goes to agriculture, >>with the four biggest crops .... >Actually, i think much of the drought is due to lack of precipitation.>Such is the nature of droughts. Um, I think we were addressing different questions. There is a body of evidence to suggest that most of the last century has been a wet period in California, and so the threshold for interpreting a "drought" is perhaps biased. The last 5 years of drought may indeed have been a return to normal after an extended dry spell.My point is that there is less a shortage of water in the state than problems with the allocation of the water that does exist. When farmers can pony up 900,000 acre feet of water after 5 years of drought for a modest $100 /af, I suggests to me that there is less shortage of water than problems in its distribution. Kudos to Pete Wilson for a realistic approach to water management.So what is a drought?>I agree that if CA used water more intelligently there would be less >*societal* impact, and city dwellers could go back to hosing their>driveways and sidewalks. However, large areas of CA are more-or-less >undeveloped lands. Would better water policies have a significant>effect on these areas? Good question. Now it's difficult to generalize at the level of a state, particularly one as diverse and complex as CA, BUT... California is an arid state. In arid ecosystems, the species intensity and diversity tend to be concentrated in the riparian zones. So the streams and rivers serve as corridors of life in a dry landscape. Better water policies will have minimal if not zero impact on the sugar pines and lodgepoles upslope, but they will have tremendous impact on the riparian zones. A flow that approaches the natural rhythm of the river would be ideal, but for many areas just having a guaranteed flow through the summer months would be sufficient. Many of the aquatic and benthic organisms simply cannot survive under the radically altered conditions imposed by the Corps and BuWreck. An alternative to this is instream flow, the ability to guarantee a minimum flow in a stream. While this sounds reasonable, it often cannot be done under western water law: that is, even if you buy the water rights, you cannot simply leave it in the river. Someone else can claim a "beneficial use" like growing rice in the desert under subsidy, and take your "wasted" water. While laws like this were probably appropriate in their day, and unquestionably helped settle the west, it looks as if the era of prior appropriation has had its day.>I don't see how, since most of these "natural" >areas are upstream from the developed cities, farms, and ranches.I reiterate: the important natural areas at risk are the streams and rivers.>I know there are a few isolated (and important) exceptions >(Mono lake, etc.), but what about other large areas. For example, >what about the national forests: Modoc, Shasta, Trinity,>Six Rivers, Mendicino, Plumas, Tahoe, Eldorado, Stanislaus, >Los Padres, and the Sierra? In general, the national forests are in pretty good shape, by my understanding. The Forest Service generally takes watershed management rather seriously, and generally does a good job except where it conflicts with timber harvest. Once the water leaves the forests, of course, it is generally diverted to one of the big three water projects, and there the problems begin.>I would have thought that problems these>places may have are less affected by water policy than by many other >things ( timber removal, air polution, spreading development, etc.). I would agree.>Maybe your "beef" is just with the term "advanced society" (and>of course, "beef"). Sigh... Guilty as charged on both counts. I objected to the smug approval of how smoothly advanced society sailed through the "drought." I felt the poster was unaware, along with the general public, of the tradeoffs that were made whereby the natural ecosystems suffered while welfare ranchers profited at public expense. I apologize to the group at large for not responding to John's post at a higher level. Jim</text>
</content>
<name></name>
<script></script>
</card>
card_23141.xml
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" ?>
<!DOCTYPE card PUBLIC "-//Apple, Inc.//DTD card V 2.0//EN" "" >
<text>I too belonged to ECONET for a long time without receiving much of anything. That's a broad issue that's been raised on water issues. Kind of like.... ..."when I say water, what's the first word that pops into your mind?" Well, in my case, the answer is PUD. In Austin, a PUD (Proposed Utility District) is being considered for a several-acre region on the side of Barton Creek. If approved, the PUD would become a MUD (Municipal Utility District), as I understand it. The yuppie environmentalists in Austin have opposed any development in the Barton Creek greenbelt area, or over the Edwards Aquifer recharge zone, for a number of years. They've been fairly successful in general, lobbying for the construction of specially-designed bridges over Barton Creek, to funnel road drainage into the sewer system instead of into the creek. They also stopped a development near Barton pool, a spring-filled and unchlorinated swimming spot. One noteable failure was the contruction of Barton mall, over the aquifer and near the creek, a number of years back. Faded bumper stickers, saying "Boycott Barton Creek Mall" can still be seen according to my wife. I haven't lived in Austin long enough to spot any. Recently, with all the heavy rains we've had in Austin, the pool has closed occasionally due to fecal coliform (sp?) pollution. Whether it's originated from cow dung, or leaking sewer lines, is being hotly debated. Anyway, its brought the environmentalists out in force once again. The pollution of Barton pool, combined with the proposed utility district, is bound to be newsworthy for the next several weeks. I consider myself an environmentalist, and am opposed to all development within the Barton Creek and Edwards Aquifer recharge areas, but am _not_ a yuppie. As a statistician, I'm not sure if the success of Austin's environmentalists is more related to their effectiveness as lobbyists, or to the ineptitude of our city council. After all, the councilpersons never decide to take action on any important issue--even when they've got a 95% majority. Well, the water issues are becoming important in the entire region between San Antonio and Austin. San Antonio is a great place (I grew up there), but isn't at all sufficiently concerned with the water shortages that are caused by their usage. All of San Antonio's water is drawn from the Edwards Aquifer as well. No surface reservoirs yet exist, although an Applewhite resevoir is planned. In the meantime, the water usage in San Antonio is causing springs in San Marcos and New Braunfels to nearly dry up in summer months. And, these 2 towns are largely dependent on the springs for tourist income. As you might imagine, water wars are becoming a big issue in this area. How's that for a start? Any questions? Joe MeyerInstitutional Researcher/Ecologist/Plant ScientistSan Marcos, Texas</text>
