Archives 2001

Where do you want to go?

Back to Contents List of All Archives

Archives of Articles/Alerts 2001 - 2002

Year 2002:

12/02

Rock Days at the Tres Alamos

Donn Rawlings

Please keep in mind these volunteer work days to build rock sediment-trap dams at the Tres Alamos Ranch:

January 11, 2003
February 22, 2003
March (to be announced), 2003
April 12, 2003

These work days contribute to an effort on the part of the ranch owner, Duncan Blair, in partnership with the Arizona Water Protection Fund, Arizona Game & Fish Department, State Lands, and the Prescott Audubon Society, to convert five small reservoir ponds (cattle tanks) to improve wildlife habitat. The rock dams being built by volunteers are on washes leading into the ponds, and will slow the movement of sediment into the ponds, and possibly increase the vegetation along those washes. The ponds have been fenced off, and will no longer be used as a water source by cattle. Even in their current condition they are significant attractants for wildlife . A group of Prescott Auduboners are monitoring birds and other wildlife during this project.

The Tres Alamos is desert (about an hour-and-a-half drive from Prescott). Volunteers should wear sturdy clothes (with a few layers for varying weather), sturdy boots/shoes, and durable gloves. We’ll be loading rocks on pickup trucks. Volunteers should also bring a lunch and water. Other snacks and liquids will be provided. Volunteers who want to drive their own vehicles should indicate how many riders they can take when they sign up for the trip (see below). High clearance vehicles will be helpful to reach the work areas–a few miles from Highway 93 north of Wickenburg–but regular cars can be parked near the highway and their riders ferried in. Maps will be provided for drivers. Volunteers needing a ride should indicate that when signing up, and if necessary a van will be provided (leaving from in front of Building 1, Yavapai College). Unless otherwise announced, volunteers will leave Prescott at 7:15 a.m. and return by 6 p.m. Auduboners from other areas are invited to join us–call to sign up and get directions.

Please call Donn or Carol Rawlings (445-8423) or Karen O’Neil (778-3018) to sign up.

Join the fun ...

Work ...

... breaking for lunch

Back to Contents List of All Archives

11/02

OPEN SPACE AND BONDING
Option #1

Suzanna McDougal, Secretary. Open Space Alliance

In 2000 Prescott voters approved a 15 year, 1% sales tax extension to be equally divided between road work and Open Space purchases. A dozen parcels were chosen as high potential areas. The city council and mayor determined most of the sales tax money must go for road improvements until the year 2007. The Open Space Alliance of Yavapai County, working with Eric Smith, Open Space Coordinator and Trails employee for Prescott, developed a way we can have our roads AND Open Space. Issuing bonds through Prescott’s Municipal Property Corporation, at a possible 4% rate would allow timely action needed to offset rising valuations of land, estimated to be as much as 9% annually.

OSA’s current project is the purchase of state land, Badger P Mountain and Glassford Hill, with the very high possibility of receiving $18 million of available state funds as a match for these preserves. That money is available now and we are at the top of the list to qualify for this money. But, first we must act to purchase these lands NOW, to qualify for this match.

Unless the city council agrees to use the bonding route, most of the sales tax income will go to the assured road program, too late to purchase the state land, which by 2007 could be covered with subdivisions.

On November 19 th at 3pm the city council is meeting to make their decision on whether to approve the purchase of bonds. Would you attend this meeting and tell your friends? Would you be willing to email, phone, fax or write your councilmen and mayor to tell them you support the issuance of bonds, option # 1, NOW to purchase Open Space? Phone Lynn Reuter or Pati Crouse 777-1292 (secretaries who will pass on messages to mayor and council), FAX 777-1255, email: citystaff@cityofprescott.net (attention mayor and council).

Twenty-five million dollars that we want to be approved would be a 12 year bond at approximately 4% interest and would be repaid from sales tax income at $2 million annually (2004-2007, Principal and Interest.) and not impact the continuance of all road projects currently listed. From 2010 to 2015 the repayment would be approximately $3 to 3.5 million. The sales tax income projections made by Prescott’s award winning fiscal staff is very conservative.

PLEASE ACT NOW! This is a WIN/WIN/WIN for Prescott. Win for Open Space/ win for roads/ win by investing locally in something you believe in???..HABITAT!

Back to Contents List of All Archives

10/23/02

***PUBLIC NOTICE REGARDING ARIZONA’S STREAMBEDS***

The Arizona Navigable Stream Adjudication Commission (“ANSAC”) is beginning to hold hearings to determine which watercourses in Arizona were navigable on February 14, 1912 when Arizona joined the Union. The hearings are important because:
      * If a watercourse is deemed navigable, the land beneath the water (the bedlands) must be held in a special trust for the public to use and enjoy those lands. If the watercourse is deemed non-navigable, the land beneath the waters can be exploited by private interests such as sand & gravel mining.
      * These hearings could drastically change the management of thousands of acres of waters and bedlands throughout the State.
      * These hearings are open to the public. Please participate if:
           Ø You care about protecting Arizona’s waters and the land beneath Arizona’s waters;
           Ø You have personally boated, fished, or recreated on any of Arizona’s waters or bedlands;
           Ø You know of people who have boated, fished, or recreated on any of Arizona’s waters or bedlands;
           Ø You have or know of historical information regarding uses of Arizona’s watercourses or bedlands.

Upcoming hearing schedule (time and location to be announced):
December 9th – hearings regarding the small and minor watercourses in Mohave County, Kingman, Ariz.

December 10th – hearings regarding the small and minor watercourses in La Paz County, Parker, Ariz.

For more information, to receive hearing notices, or to participate in an upcoming hearing contact:

George Mehnert, Director, ANSAC, 602-542-9214
Vera Kornylak, Arizona Center for Law in the Public Interest, 520-529-1798; vkornylak@aclpi.org
Sandy Bahr, Sierra Club, 602-253-8633; grand.canyon.chapter@sierraclub.org

Our waters and bedlands cannot afford for you to sit these hearings out. If you have information regarding uses of waters or bedlands, please contact the ANSAC, the Arizona Center for Law in the Public Interest or the Sierra Club.

Back to Contents List of All Archives

9/02

Cactus Ferruginous Pygmy-Owl in Trouble

Letters are needed to stop the destruction of habitat and the recovery of the Cactus ferruginous pygmy-owl. A sample letter follows:

Mr. Dale Hall, Regional Director
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Southwest Region 2
P.O. Box 1306
Albuquerque NM 87103_1306

Re: Support for strong pygmy-owl recovery plan

Dear Mr. Hall, This letter is intended to express our support for immediate release of the strongest possible recovery plan for the Cactus ferruginous pygmy-owl.

A strong, unambiguous pygmy-owl recovery plan is urgently needed to shape the pending, revised critical habitat designation, inform and guide regional habitat conservation plans like the Sonoran Desert Conservation Plan, and improve federal agency coordination and oversight of development permitting.

Five years ago, the Fish and Wildlife Service found that the Arizona pygmy-owl population faced “imminent extinction” when it listed the species as endangered. Since then, numerous developments have been approved in the heart of essential owl populations and habitat without benefit of clear conservation guidance.

The Service should follow the expert recommendations of the majority of the pygmy-owl recovery team and recognize the critical need for protection of the Northwest Tucson subpopulation for recovery, include the 20% development guideline, include the northern recovery units, and recognize the value of both upland and riparian habitat.

Protection of the Northwest Tucson subpopulation is absolutely necessary as a minimum of 1/3 of all known pygmy-owls are located in this area, along with the largest number of reproductive nest sites and the largest number of young. Pending further research, the Service should proceed cautiously and exercise a conservative conservation approach as recommended by the recovery team. To do otherwise would reflect a rash and radical approach to recovery planning not supported by the recovery team.

Five years is long enough. Please release a strong pygmy-owl recovery plan immediately.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely, (Your name)

Back to Contents List of All Archives

“Conservation Needs”

Karen O’Neil

It seems like our environment which sustains us as well as birds and other wildlife and their habitats is under attack from all directions. Most of you are undoubtedly aware of the Monument Ranch threat to Yavapai County which is addressed elsewhere in this newsletter. There are more threats in the United States Congress.

The White House has recently released a plan to waive environmental laws under the guise of protecting our forests from fires. The White House Plan is expected to be introduced into the U.S. Senate by Senators Larry Craig from Idaho and Pete Domenici from New Mexico. You should be suspicious when you learn that the plan is strongly supported by the timber industry. This legislation will remove our most basic environmental protections while giving the logging industry unprecedented access to the oldest and largest and most fire resistant trees. It will significantly restrict citizens’ rights to appeal and bring lawsuits challenging forest restoration programs. (The rhetoric about environmentalist lawsuits preventing the USFS from thinning forests is inaccurate. Only one percent of USFS projects to reduce fuel loads in our National Forests were appealed. None were litigated according to the GAO). And it will focus fire-prevention in backcountry forests rather than on neighborhoods and communities where people would be the most affected by forest fires. (By the way, our September program is about old-growth forests. How timely!).

Another threat to the environment is in the Defense Authorization Bill. It presently contains a provision which gives the Department of Defense (DoD) blanket exemptions from portions of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, the Endangered Species Act, and undermines protections for a wilderness area in Utah. The President already has the power to grant any government agency relief from national laws and regulations when national security is at risk. There is NO reason to grant any government agency special, blanket exemptions. When national security is not at stake (and there is no evidence that the above laws are a threat to national security), no government agency should be above the law. When that happens the basic underpinnings of a democracy are threatened. PLEASE write by letter, fax or email or telephone Senators John McCain and Jon Kyl. It is believed that Senator Kyl is a “lost cause” when it comes to the environment, but it’s worth a try. Contacting Senator McCain is crucial. No fax number is available for Senator Kyl. Senator McCain’s fax number is 202-228-2862. Their addresses, email addresses and phone numbers are on the back of every Wingtips.

Thank you for your help.

Below are some sample letters, to guide you (or just copy them). They come to us from Maricopa Audubon Conservation Chair, Bob Witzeman. A separate letter/fax/email should go to each Senator. If you want more information, please contact Karen O’Neil.

Dear Senator McCain/Kyl,

We (I) urge that you do NOT support the Craig-Domenici forest fire legislation for the following reasons.
1. The legislation does not focus on protecting property and homes from fire at the urban-wildland interface, but instead commercially logs in the deep forest away from the very communities which need protection. Homes and property should be protected first.
2. We (I) are not opposed to reducing fuel loads in our forests. Controlled burns and other measures for thinning out small diameter conifers are important options. What is unacceptable about this legislation is that it is about unregulated, commercial logging, not reducing fuel loads. The legislation intentionally removes our nation’s environmental laws that protect the most beautiful, the most ecologically significant, and the most fire-resistant old-growth trees.

Thank you for your serious consideration of our (my) concerns.

Sincerely,

Dear Senator McCain/Kyl

We (I) urge you NOT to support the House-passed “Readiness and Range Preservation Initiative”. It gives the Department of Defense blanket exemptions from portions of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, the Endangered Species Act, and it also undermines protections for a wilderness area in Utah. As you are undoubtedly aware, the President of the United States already has the power to grant any government agency, including, of course, the Department of Defense, relief from our nations’s laws and regulations when national security is at risk. However, there is no evidence that any of the above laws pose a risk to national security. Furthermore, because of the President’s powers, there is simply no reason to grant any governmental agency special, blanket exemptions. When national security is not at stake, no government agency should be above the law—including those laws that sustain America’s birds and other wildlife. Such exemptions without overwhelmingly sound reasons are a threat to the very underpinnings of a democracy.

Thank you for your serious consideration of our (my) concerns.

Sincerely,

Back to Contents List of All Archives

9/02

Monument Ranch

Penny Govedich

Until last weekend when we drove through Anthem, I scoffed at the idea of “Monument Ranch” as just being someone’s pipe dream. The idea of building a city in an area already begging for water and concerned about loosing open space was completely ludicrous. Upon driving through Anthem, near where we used to enjoy camping, and hearing my husband comment, “Hard to imagine people are capable of doing such damage to the desert in just a few years!” I realized it could happen here. This proposed “development” to house at least 65,000 people, located in the Big Chino Valley, over the Big Chino aquifer, in a remote area of Yavapai County, is a very real threat to us and to our environment.

The cost of such a development to the county and state taxpayers alone, should cause one to pause. The developer has no specific plan for schools, fire departments, police departments, emergency clinics, hospitals, or even a local government structure other than “homeowner associations” for the future residents of this proposed 25,000 home “development”. If this is truly a “planned community”, as the developer labels it, why is its own infrastructure and its impact on surrounding areas left to the county and state to deal with? The Kimley Horn Preliminary Traffic Plan for Monument Ranch estimates that at “build out” the Big Chino Road at SR89 would need to carry 60,000 vehicles per day. And that number of vehicles is probably low because it is based on the assumption that 50% of the population will be seasonal (I wonder which season?) and that 40% of the residents will be retirees (will the developers only sell to buyers who meet that criterion?). The Arizona Department of Transportation roughly estimates a new highway from Prescott to Seligman (through Chino Valley or Williamson Valley?) to help alleviate that traffic jam would cost at least four hundred million dollars. Who would pay for this? We would, of course. The “new tax base” wouldn’t be here yet when the infrastructure needs to be built to accommodate them. Also, studies have consistently shown that even though residential development brings more people to create a larger tax base, the cost of infrastructure for those people far outstrips that larger tax base creating a financial loss to the community.

Then there is the water issue. Isn’t this already a huge problem that we must deal with? I can’t believe that adding more straws to the cup is even being contemplated. But, as incredible as it seems, it is. The state has already approved Prescott’s pumping of 14,000 acre feet of water per year from the Big Chino Aquifer, and with a city larger than Prescott and Prescott Valley combined pumping all they would need, we would soon see drops in the aquifer, endangering the Verde River (and existing wells, including Prescott’s). A USGS report states that if the level in the Big Chino aquifer were to drop 20 feet, the Big Chino Springs and the springs at Stillman Lake would stop flowing. Not only would that destroy unique habitats along the river, but I’m sure the people down river who are dependent on the water wouldn’t be too happy either. Who would pay for the legal suits? Impact fees? And we’re talking about real water here, not something on a balance sheet of “outflow” and “recharge” which may or may not reflect reality.

Last, but certainly not least for those of us who value the natural world and open space, the destruction of the last contiguous grasslands habitat in central Yavapai county, with its flora and fauna, is an unacceptable cost.

This development should be stopped. For those who would oppose it for financial and practical reasons and for those who oppose it for ethical reasons. We have a right to preserve the things that we value (and need) in our environment. That right supersedes those of a few land developers, out for some big bucks, and hypothetical people who might want to move here in the future.

What you can do:

° Let our County Board of Supervisors know what you think: (all of them - there’s only 3!)           *Gheral Brownlow, Board of Supervisors, District 1
          dawn.wasowicz@co.yavapai.az.us
          Yavapai County Administrative Services
          1015 Fair Street
          Prescott, AZ 86305
          Phone: (928) 771-3200 FAX: (928) 771-3257

*Chip Davis, Board of Supervisors, District 3
web.bos.district3@co.yavapai.az.us

*Lorna Street, Board of Supervisors, District 2
Lorna.Street@co.yavapai.az.us

          District 2 & 3 Offices:
          Cottonwood Annex Building
          10 South 6th Street
          Cottonwood, AZ 86326
          Phone: (928) 639-8110 FAX: (928) 639-8146

° Talk to your friends

° Support the change of countywide zoning to 36-acre minimum development sites in undeveloped areas (presently is 2-acre minimum)

° Insist on some kind of serious and publicly reviewed Environmental Impact Statement.

° Support Purchase of Development Rights (see www.westgov.org)

° Attend public meetings of the Citizens for Responsible Development (to be on their alert list, RSVP to brigidhurley@cybertrails.com)

Back to Contents List of All Archives

Sept., 2002

Citizens for Responsible Development

PROPOSED MONUMENT RANCH DEVELOPMENT

POINT PAPER

WHO WE ARE

Citizens for Responsible Development (CRD) is a group of concerned citizens working toward responsible planning, development and growth within Yavapai County. CRD supports having informed voters and the public debate of proposed developments using scientifically based research and accurate appraisals of resources. CRD will focus on proposals that could result in a significant impact on the aesthetic, ecological, hydrological, economic and political values of the residents of Yavapai County.

CONCERN

We believe that the 50,000-acre proposed mega-development known as "Monument Ranch" in the remote area between Paulden and Seligman, AZ, poses an immediate threat to specific and overall living conditions within Yavapai County. We maintain that the developers known as Ranch Communities of America (RCA Ranches) and the proponents of said development ignore the stated concerns regarding negative impacts to our rural way of life and the increased tax expense to existing landowners.

ISSUES

Cost of Development: As a leapfrog development this proposal, if approved, would add a significant tax burden to the citizens of Yavapai County. While developing a subdivision for 25,000 homes, the developer has no specific plan for schools, fire departments, police departments, emergency clinics, hospitals, etc. for future residents. In addition, ADOT roughly estimates the highway from Prescott to Seligman would cost $400 million. This expense would be born by Arizona residents, not the developer.

Several studies undertaken since 1995 show that, although residential development may increase the value of property and enlarge the tax base, the requirements for municipal services for these developments actually resulted in a net financial loss to the community.

Population: RCA plans to build 25,000 homes. The average family size in Yavapai County is about 2.5 individuals/residence, so the population can be expected to be in excess of 60,000 at build-out. This would make Monument Ranch the largest single city in Yavapai County. The significant traffic impact on surrounding small communities will be severe.

Water: Aside from these sheer numbers related to population and hard costs, we must examine the impact on our fragile desert environment. Water is perhaps our most precious commodity in the Southwest, and the one most endangered by irresponsible development.

Arizona statutes require that the Arizona Department of Water Resources (ADWR) certifies a statement (certificate of availability) if a pump test demonstrates that the proposed development will not depress the ground water level by more than 1200 feet in 100 years. However, recent scientific data suggests that the ground water level cannot be lowered by more than 20 feet in the Big Chino aquifer without doing harm to the Verde River. The impact on existing wells, springs and the Verde River itself could be devastating, with major financial and environmental losses to numerous other communities downstream.

Open Spaces: The Monument Ranch development would irretrievably fragment habitat with roads and housing, even though the plans call for "clusters" of homes with surrounding proposed green space (such as a golf course).

The detriment to the pronghorn antelope herds in Prescott Valley that used to roam that entire area has already been substantiated. In January 2002, the Nature Conservancy brought together a group of experts to examine the status and future of the pronghorn antelope. These experts determined that "...The last contiguous grasslands habitat (in central Yavapai County) that is unfragmented by human-created barriers to pronghorn movement is in the Big Chino Valley."

Antelope are the keystone. If they are able to live well, other species such as the burrowing owl, blackfooted ferret, and prairie dog will thrive.

ACTIONS YOU CAN TAKE:

1. Let the County Board of Supervisors know of your concern by forwarding this e-mail attachment or calling their offices.
Gheral Brownlow, Board of Supervisors, District 1 dawn.wasowicz@co.yavapai.az.us
Chip Davis, Board of Supervisors, District 2 web.bos.district3@co.yavapai.az.us
Lorna Street, Board of Supervisors, District 2 Lorna.Street@co.yavapai.az.us

2. Forward this point paper to other concerned citizens and include these recommended actions.

3. Support the change of countywide zoning to 36-acre minimum development sites in undeveloped areas.

4. Support Purchase of Development Rights. For more information, see <http://www.westgov.org >(scroll to last report on home page).

5. Attend upcoming public meetings regarding the proposed Monument Ranch development. If you want to be on our public meeting alert list, RSVP to: brigidhurley@cybertrails.com.

6. Donate funds to support the CRD. Send donations to:

Citizens for Responsible Development
c/o Chris Hulse
1924 Wranglers Way
Cottonwood, AZ 86326

Back to Contents List of All Archives

6/02

Update on the West Nile Virus

Andrea James

Although West Nile Virus is making its way to Arizona, residents may be proactive in helping to detect the presence of disease and avoid infection. As of December, 2002, the disease has been reported in all but 4 states: Arizona, Nevada, Oregon and Utah. The Arizona Department of Health Services has stated concern that the disease will likely make its first appearance in the state this summer. Dead bird surveillance is important to detecting the disease early.

West Nile Virus is carried by mosquitoes (mosquito-borne) that feed on infected birds. Once a mosquito is infected with the virus, it may then bite and infect humans, animals, and birds. Although the risk of contracting the virus is very low, serious illness may occur if a person is infected, especially in people ages 50 and over. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), approximately 4156 people were infected with West Nile Virus in 2002, causing 284 deaths.

In order to detect and respond to the presence of West Nile Virus in the state, the Arizona Department of Health Services and county health departments have established a surveillance system. Mosquitoes, horses, humans and birds are carefully monitored for any sign of disease.

“Single bird deaths are an important surveillance tool for the Health Department,” says Chris Sexton, Environmental Health manager for the Yavapai County Health Department. “Experience with West Nile Virus in other states indicates that the virus does not kill the whole flock of birds, but only one or two from the flock.”

People are encouraged to report dead birds to the Yavapai County Health Department for further testing of West Nile Virus. Report bird deaths to the environmental health office at (928) 771-3149 if the following applies:
     · bird is freshly dead (less than 24 hours)
     · not scavenged, no odor, no maggots
     · body not soft and mushy
     · not a baby or young bird
     · not a pigeon

If possible, and without directly touching the bird with bare hands, keep the bird cool by placing it in plastic bags (to protect it from water) in a cooler with ice until the health department can retrieve it.

People should also protect themselves from mosquito bites, and possible infection, by eliminating breeding sources and wearing repellent. Below are tips from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for preventing mosquito bites and breeding:
     · Use insect repellent containing DEET (N, N-diethyl-meta-toluamide), with concentrations of 30-35% DEET for adults and 15% for children. Do not use repellent on infants. Repellents containing concentrations of more than 35% DEET do not provide additional protection. Note: whenever insecticide or insect repellent is used, be sure to read and follow the manufacturer’s DIRECTIONS FOR USE, as printed on the product.
     · Avoid being outdoors for long periods of time at dawn, dusk, and in the early evening when mosquitoes are most active and likely to bite.
     · Wear loose-fitting, long-sleeved shirts and long pants when outdoors.
     · Spray clothing with insect repellent containing DEET. Mosquitoes may bite through thin clothing.
     · Install or repair window and door screens so that mosquitoes cannot get indoors. Avoid leaving doors and windows without screens open.
     · Vitamin B and “ultrasonic” devices are NOT effective in preventing mosquito bites.
     · Horse owners may want to talk to their veterinarian about an experimental WNV horse vaccine.
     · Eliminate standing water sources from around your home such as blocked or clogged gutters, leaky pipes and air conditioners, bottles, buckets, old tires, toys, and any other objects that may hold water. Standing water is a breeding area for mosquitoes. Swimming pools and fountains do not pose a threat as long as water is kept circulating. Swimming pools that are not maintained need to be covered at all times (covers should be drained of pooled water frequently).
     · Control irrigation. Fill low spots and level yards and/or pastures. Water should never stand more than three days.
     · Change water in birdbaths, planters, and animal watering dishes at least twice weekly.
     · Mow the lawn regularly. Overgrown yards, especially if they contain tree holes or stumps, can also be attractive breeding sites for mosquitoes.
     · Share mosquito control measures among neighbors. Knowledge helps to prevent potential problems.

The Arizona Department of Health Services has announced a West Nile Virus hotline available for Arizona residents. The hotline provides recorded information and updates on West Nile Virus, mosquito control, and precautions to avoid mosquito exposure. The hotline provides information in Spanish as well. Call 1-800-314-9243 from anywhere in Arizona and (602) 364-4500 for the Phoenix metro area.

The Yavapai County Health Department provides information on West Nile Virus at their website: www.co.yavapai.az.us/departments/health/EnvHealth/WestNile.aspx. More information may also be found at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention website, http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/dvbid/westnile/, and the Arizona Department of Health Services website, http://www.hs.state.az.us/phs/oids/vector/wnv_surv.htm .

Back to Contents List of All Archives

3/15/02

Senate and the fate of ANWR

AUDUBON ADVISORY Audubon’s Twice-Monthly Update From Washington, D.C. March 8, 2002(Vol. 2002, Issue5)

On Tuesday, March 5, the U.S. Senate began its debate on the energy bill -sweeping legislation that will likely include a vote on whether to open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil drilling. Exactly when they will take up the drilling issue is still up in the air. It had been widely reported that the Senate would vote on drilling in the Arctic Refuge as soon as the energy bill hit the Senate floor, but that has not been the case. Now it’s likely they will not take it up until the end of the energy debate - which could be a week or two away. As you know, the House has already passed a measure opening the Refuge to oil drilling, and the President fully supports drilling as well. It’s up to the Senate to protect the Refuge. The Arctic Refuge, including its coastal plain - where they look to drill -has extraordinary value as an intact ecosystem, with all its native birdlife. Millions of birds nest, migrate through, or spend the winter in the Refuge. Their migrations take them to each of the 50 states, and they cross great oceans and follow distant coastlines to reach the lands and waters of six continents. Keeping this Refuge intact is critical for the survival of these birds. For over a year, we have been writing on this issue, and encouraging our readers to take action and help protect the Arctic Refuge from oil drilling. And now the debate is heating up to unprecedented levels in the media, from special interests in Washington, D.C. and across the country. As we have reported previously, pro-drilling special interests are using their political influence and power to pressure Senators into supporting opening the Refuge to drilling. They erroneously claim that opening the Refuge to oil drilling will help reduce our reliance on oil from the Middle East. This is simply not the case! Once again, here are the facts:
      1.) Experts agree that drilling for oil in the Arctic Refuge will do little or nothing to reduce U.S. dependence on foreign oil, nor will it address America’s long-term energy needs. There is only a 6 month supply of oil, and even oil industry officials admit that oil wouldn’t be available for 10 years. Even with the most optimistic estimates of Arctic Refuge oil added to the oil fields off our coasts and everywhere else in the U.S., we still have only 3 to 4% of the world’s oil reserves.
      2.) We consume at least 25% of the world’s production of oil. At our current rate of consumption, we will go from importing 56% to well over 60% of our oil in coming decades - even including Arctic Refuge oil!
      3.) One out of every eight barrels of oil our nation imports comes form the Middle East. We get the bulk of our oil from Canada, Mexico, Venezuela and here in the United States. And we can get more oil from our existing oil fields. Utilizing new technologies, we can recover 6 billion barrels from fields in New Mexico, and another 60 billion barrels from fields in Texas and Oklahoma.
      4.) There is another place where we can “drill” for oil and find far more than we will ever get in the Arctic Refuge - Detroit. By increasing fuel efficiency in cars and light trucks by just a few miles per gallon, we can replace all the oil we import from the Middle East. That will create jobs, and help free our nation from the influence of foreign oil. Keep in mind the U.S. House voted against this proposal when it passed its energy bill in August.

The only way to declare independence from foreign oil powers is to dramatically reduce our dependence on oil. We can reduce our reliance on foreign oil and secure our energy future by using American’s technological know-how to develop newer, cleaner sources of energy. We hope the U.S. Senate will spend a good portion of their debate focused on those issue. In the meantime, we need to keep the pressure on! Please continue contacting your U.S. Senators and urge them to oppose any and all efforts to open the Arctic Refuge to oil and gas drilling.

To get more information, hear our latest Arctic radio ads and view a list of key Senators who will cast the deciding votes on this issue,please visit our Protect the Arctic website at http://www.protectthearctic.com.

Back to Contents List of All Archives

3/15/02

More Letters are Needed to save Red-winged Blackbirds!

There is still time to weigh in with the U.S. Department of Agriculture and help prevent the agency from initiating a program to kill by poison 2 million blackbirds per year! The poisoning threatens to kill numerous other birds including the steeply declining populations of grassland songbirds. The Department is conducting the blackbird poisoning in an effort to reduce sunflower crop damage in the Northern plains.

To learn more and to take action today, goto: http://www.capitolconnect.com/audubon/contact/default.asp?Subject=41

Back to Contents List of All Archives

1/02

Senator McCain undecided about drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge!

ANWR is Back ... In case you thought that ANWR was safe from oil drilling - it’s not. The House voted to support drilling and the Senate put it on hold until this month, after stopping attempts to attach it to other, non-related bills. We reported to you in November that our Senator McCain had decided not to support it and we asked that you send letters to thank him. Apparently our thank you letters didn’t counter the pressure he was getting from the administration and “big oil”. He now is “on the fence” again.

So ... we need to start writing and calling again. Letters might not be the medium of choice right now so call him at 202-224-2235. Calling is probably the more effective way to make your point now, but you can e-mail him at Senator_McCain@McCain.senate.gov or fax him (202-228-2862) to let him know how you feel. Also remind him that you belong to an organization that includes about 600 of his constituents. Remind him that ANWR is America’s last truly pristine wilderness, a natural treasure that we must protect in order to preserve our nation’s wildlife heritage. Drilling in the Refuge will not bring us closer to energy independence - a possible 6 month supply, ten years from now. We must look to other ways to address our energy needs.

Back to Contents List of All Archives

Year 2001:

12/01

To Arizona Audubon Members: South Fork needs your help!!

Many of you may be familiar with the birding hotspot near Springerville known as “South Fork,” or the South Fork of the Little Colorado River (LCR). One of the best birding spots in the White Mountains, South Fork contains many habitats, the most important being the perennial streams and riparian deciduous forest of both the South Fork and the Little Colorado River. At the end of this letter, you can find a list of special-status or unique species found at South Fork. Some South Fork bird records are unique to the entire state of Arizona. It is an internationally-known birding spot.

South Fork is under threat. Recently, a developer named George Johnson purchased a 38-acre private parcel which includes the last ¼-mile of South Fork, its junction with the LCR, and a portion of the LCR. He has told South Fork landowners that his plans include increasing development in South Fork by developing on State Trust land surrounding South Fork, including westward toward Greer and north on the grasslands along Hwy. 260. This development includes immediate plans for a 200-space trailer park on the grassland and bluffs north of South Fork, and long-term plans for a golf course and home development in the LCR/South Fork drainage. Currently, he has an application pending with the Arizona State Land Department to construct a road from Hwy. 260 south to the canyon of the LCR. He then plans on applying for a commercial lease this week (week of December 3-7) over three sections (1,920 acres) of State Trust land adjacent to this new road for the above developments. Should his commercial plans be approved, this road and his first development, the trailer park, would lie directly across Hwy. 260 from the White Mountains Grasslands Wildlife Area, the new Heritage-funded property acquired by the Arizona Game and Fish Department. It has become apparent that Apache County is not opposed to these land-use changes due to Mr. Johnson’s political tactics.

These actions may spell death to the wildlife values of South Fork. According to adjacent landowners, Mr. Johnson has already cleared a willow stand and drained wetlands along both South Fork and the LCR on his own property, clear violations of both the Clean Water Act and the Endangered Species Act (the area is critical habitat for the Little Colorado spinedace, a native fish. It is potential critical habitat for the southwestern willow flycatcher, to be re-designated by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service over the next couple years). Many of the adjacent landowners are already coordinating with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality over violations of these federal laws on his private property.

Audubon members need to place pressure on the Arizona State Land Department and Apache County to deny permission for this development. You can help by writing letters to both agencies below. Points of discussion for each agency are included. Please be aware that economic benefits of birdwatching should be relayed to Apache County; it appears that they have no interest in acknowledging this unique natural resource, and we must speak in terms of economic values.

Arizona State Land Department:
Mike Anable, Director ASLD
1616 W. Adams
Phoenix, AZ 85012
**********
Joel Quisenberry, ASLD
P.O. Box 2670
St. Johns, AZ 85936

Request that the ASLD deny lease requests for both the road easement and any future commercial uses of land adjacent to the South Fork of the Little Colorado River. The road is not needed for property access. The commercial lease would affect an area holding significant wildlife and cultural resources. The requests are not the highest and best use of that land for several reasons:
· Wildlife values, other than the critical South Fork area, include important grassland habitat for pronghorn antelope and winter range for elk and other wild ungulates;
· Rare, listed, and unique bird species; some of which have only been reported in South Fork and nowhere else in the state (see list below);
· Impacts on cultural resources, including pre-historic petroglyphs, ruins, stone formations, and pit houses located on the bluffs adjacent to the LCR;
· Economic benefits associated with outdoor recreationists are significant, including visits to South Fork from birdwatchers across the country and internationally;
· That this sort of “leapfrog” development is exactly the scenario that a large coalition of organizations, including developers, environmental interests, and educators are trying to avoid in their efforts to reform the management of State Trust lands.

Apache County:
Dave Brown, Apache County Board of Supervisors
P.O. Box 428
St. Johns, AZ 85936
**********
Apache County Development and Community Services (Planning and Zoning)
P.O. Box 238
St. Johns, AZ 85936

Apache County needs to realize the economic values associated with healthy natural resources in the Springerville/Eagar area. Stress the above points, and also add the following:
· That Round Valley (Springerville and Eagar) are becoming well-known as the “Gateway to the White Mountains” primarily due to its natural resource amenities. Areas such as South Fork, Sipe White Mountain and Wenima wildlife areas, Casa Malpais and Raven Site archeological ruins, and now the White Mountains Grasslands Wildlife Area are just a few of the natural areas surrounding Springerville and Eagar that attract visitors from all around the country, and the world, pumping dollars into the community. For example, one Audubon member from St. Johns has led at least three separate birding groups from England to South Fork.
· The project is similar to River Run Estates in Eagar, which stripped rural agricultural fields along the Little Colorado River to create a golf course and a series of homesites. This project has not been economically viable, and there is no reason to believe that Mr. Johnson’s plans will be any more successful, particularly with the current economic recession. This is an especially drastic impact to a valuable natural and cultural resource that people from all over the country visit.

In all letters, remind the agencies of impacts and the need to comply with federal laws such as the Clean Water Act and the Endangered Species Act. If you have visited South Fork, please review any expenditures you may have made in Springerville and Eagar, and add those figures to your letter. Some folks only respond to monetary figures!

The following list of uncommon/rare birds have been sighted at South Fork:

Yellow-Throated Vireo
Orchard Oriole
Veery
Gray Catbird (rare in the state, but regularly seen or heard at South Fork)
Swainson's Warbler (only record W. of Continental Divide)
Magnolia Warbler
Kentucky Warbler
Blackburnian Warbler
Yellow Throated Warbler
Blackpoll Warbler
Worm-Eating Warbler
Nesting American goldfinch (only record that we know of above the Rim)

Other sightings of interest:
Bald Eagle
Golden Eagle
Montezuma Quail
Spotted Sandpiper
Northern Pygmy Owl
Downy Woodpecker
American Dipper
Swainson's Thrush
Olive Warbler
Hermit Warbler
Red Faced Warbler
Hepatic Tanager
Blue Grosbeak
Indigo Bunting

Thank you, and please don’t delay in writing your letters. Time is of the essence! If you have any other questions, please e-mail Sue Sitko at sbsitko@whitemtns.com.

Back to Contents List of All Archives

12/01

AUDUBON ADVISORY Audubon's Twice-Monthly Update From Washington, D.C. Friday, December 7, 2001 (Vol. 2001, Issue 25)

PRO-DRILLERS FAIL AGAIN, BUT STILL NOT GIVING UP! This week, pro-drilling Senators failed to attach provisions to open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil and gas drilling to an unrelated bill being debated on the Senate floor. Despite these setbacks, they're still not giving up! They are committed to keep on trying until the Senate adjourns for the year. So what's left?

Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle (D-South Dakota) hopes the Senate will adjourn for the year late next week - as soon as the Senate takes action on final measures including the Farm Bill, Defense Appropriations legislation, an economic stimulus package, and a terrorism insurance bill. In an effort to keep the Senate focused on these critical measures, Senator Daschle again publicly promised the pro-drilling crowd that the Senate would take up, debate and vote on an overall energy package in early 2002. The reason for doing so is obvious: the contentious debate could take weeks in order to adequately address the proposals' various provisions including drilling in the Arctic Refuge, renewable energy and fuel efficiency standards. As you know, Senator Daschle opposes opening the Arctic Refuge to oil drilling, and we're opposed to efforts by the pro-drilling Senate contingent to continually disrupt Senate action on other proposals in order to push through their special-interest agenda. As the overall subject of energy is so vital and important to the environment, we fully support Senator Daschle's plan to debate this issue in 2002, when ample and sufficient time can be given to all aspects of the bill. Together with our partner organizations in conservation, we're working hard to see that the pro-drilling Senate contingent continue to fail to attach their Arctic drilling provisions to other bills this year, and of course, we need your help to do so!

In anticipation of another attempt by the pro-drillers to attach the House-passed energy bill - which includes provisions to open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil and gas drilling - to every and any bill that comes before the Senate floor this year, please continue to contact your two U.S. Senators and urge them to OPPOSE ANY AND ALL EFFORTS TO ATTACH THE HOUSE-PASSED ENERGY PACKAGE WITH ITS ARCTIC DRILLING PROVISIONS TO ANY MEASURE THAT COMES BEFORE THE SENATE FLOOR FOR THE REST OF THE YEAR! Remember, your Senators are under tremendous pressure from pro- drilling lobbyists and special interests - and the only way they can effectively combat their political power is by heeding the will of their constituents. That's why they must hear from you!

YOU CAN REACH YOUR TWO U.S. SENATORS DIRECTLY BY CALLING (202) 224-3121 AND ASK FOR THEM BY NAME. As many Senate offices are not accepting mail, and are likely swamped with e-mails, in order for ensure your voice to be heard, your 10-second phone call is the best way to communicate with your Senators. Listed here are those Senators who will cast deciding votes on this measure. If you live in one of these states, please make a point to contact your Senators!

ARIZONA - Senator John McCain
ARKANSAS - Senator Blanche Lincoln
DELAWARE - Senator Tom Carper
GEORGIA - Senator Zell Miller
ILLINOIS - Senator Peter Fitzgerald
INDIANA - Senators Evan Bayh and Richard Lugar
MAINE - Senators Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe
MONTANA - Senator Max Baucus
NEBRASKA - Senator Ben Nelson
NEW HAMPSHIRE - Senator Bob Smith
OHIO - Senator Mike DeWine
OREGON - Senator Gordon Smith
PENNSYLVANIA - Senator Arlen Specter

AND IF WE CAN ASK YOU TO DO ONE MORE THING - after you make your call, please call or e-mail us to let us (Audubon Action) know what your lawmaker's office told you. (We want to make sure they are telling you - their constituents - the same thing they are telling us!) You can reach us at 1-800-659-2622, or e-mail us at mailto:audubonaction@audubon.org.

Back to Contents List of All Archives

9/01

ANWR Drilling Could Pass Through Tack-on Amendment Action!

(Sept. 19, 2001 Alert from http://www.moveon.org/index.html) PLEASE READ UPDATE!

In this time of tragic urgency, our leaders in Washington have pulled together and put all things controversial and partisan aside for the sake of national unity. Our friends on Capitol Hill are making sacrifices, holding off on key issues that can be won only through struggle, such as energy and campaign finance reform. Our opponents have respected the national need for unity too, until now. But today we learned that Sen. Frank Murkowski (R-AK) is breaking with this patriotic spirit by trying to tack one of the most controversial issues in America onto the Defense Authorization bill: He wants to drill for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, the heart of the last great wilderness ecosystem in North America.

This is a mistake, because:
- Any oil found there wouldn't come on line for 10 years;
- The refuge contains just 6 months supply of oil;
- Existing fuel-efficient technologies could save more than that;
- Once it's gone, it's gone forever.

The Defense bill will be debated this Wednesday through Friday. Please call your senators now:
Senator John McCain
Phone: 202-224-2235
Fax: 202-228-2862

Senator Jon Kyl
Phone: 202-224-4521
Fax: 202-224-2207

Be sure they know you're a constituent, and urge them to: "Please block the vote on the Murkowski drilling amendment to the Defense Authorization bill." Please call even if you think your Senators are solid supporters of protecting the refuge (or even if they aren't - express your opposition to moving this through channels without debate)! Many Senators simply don't yet believe that Murkowski will do it, but our (Moveon Organization's) sources are reliable. America's entire environmental movement must rally now.

UPDATE - September 20:

Apparently the Moveon Organization has recorded a flood of calls to constituents' Senators and to Senator Murkowski. Sen. Murkowski is now denying that he would ever have done such a "reprehensible" thing. The danger remains that drilling in the Refuge could still be proposed soon as part of an expedited bill focusing on energy rather than defense. Murkowski is now calling for that.

Back to Contents List of All Archives

9/01

Audubon Public Policy Division Protect the Arctic Campaign

Sample Letter to Senators

Your Name
Address
City, State, Zip

Date

The Honorable NAME OF SENATOR HERE
United States Senate
Washington, D.C. 20510

Dear Senator LAST NAME:

As a constituent concerned with conservation, I urge you to oppose measures that would open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil and gas drilling.

The Arctic Refuge is America’s last truly pristine wilderness, a natural treasure that we must protect in order to preserve our nation’s wildlife heritage.

Drilling in the Arctic Refuge will not lower gas prices or respond to the electricity problems in California. Drilling in the Arctic Refuge will not bring us closer to energy independence. Drilling will not serve as along-term solution for our supposed energy crisis. Ruining the wilderness character of the Arctic Refuge forever would equate to less than a 180-day supply of oil, and it would take a full 10 years before any oil began to flow. The U.S. House of Representatives voted to jeopardize a Native culture, risk harm to wildlife populations and destroy a natural treasure for a possible six-month oil supply ten years down the road – please see that the Senate does not follow in this direction.

There are cleaner, faster, and healthier ways to address our nation’s energy needs that you and your colleagues can explore that would not harm birds, wildlife and the environment, such as investing in energy efficiency and conservation. Ruining a national treasure like the Arctic Refuge and other special places should be the absolute last resort the Senate takes.

Please support efforts to protect the Arctic Refuge from oil and gas drilling. I would appreciate learning of your position on this critical issue. Thank you for your time and attention.

Sincerely,

YOUR NAME

Key Targets = Lawmakers on the fence. Will cast deciding votes!
“Watch” List = Lawmakers are leaning one way, but may change!

Key Target Senators

Arkansas - Blanche Lincoln (D) 359 Senate Dirksen Office Building Washington, D.C. 20510 (202) 224-4843 fax (202) 228-1371

Georgia - Miller (D), Cleland (D) United States Senate Washington, D.C. 20510 (202) 224-3121 (Ask for Senator) Miller fax (202) 228-2090 Cleland fax (202) 224-0072

Illinois - Peter Fitzgergald (R) 555 Senate Dirksen Office Building Washington, D.C. 20510 (202) 224-2854 fax (202) 228-1372

Maine - Collins (R), Snowe (R) United States Senate Washington, D.C. 20510 (202) 224-3121 (Ask for Senator) Collins fax (202) 224-2693 Snowe fax (202) 224-1946

Montana - Max Baucus (D) 511 Senate Hart Office Building Washington, D.C. 20510 (202) 224-2651 fax (202) 228-3687 Nebraska - Ben Nelson (D) 720 Senate Hart Office Bldg. Washington, D.C. 20510 (202) 224-6551 fax (202) 228-0012 Oregon - Smith (R) 404 Senate Russell Office Bldg. Washington, D.C. 20510 (202) 224-3753 fax (202) 228-3997

Pennsylvania - Arlen Specter (R) 711 Senate Hart Office Bldg. Washington, D.C. 20510 (202) 224-4254 fax (202) 228-1229

“Watch” List

Arizona - John McCain (R) 241 Senate Russell Office Bldg. Washington, D.C. 20510 (202) 224-2235 fax (202) 228-2862 (Leaning Pro-Drilling)

Delaware - Tom Carper (D) 513 Senate Hart Office Bldg. Washington, D.C. 20510 (202) 224-2441 fax (202) 228-2190 (Leaning Against Drilling)

Indiana - Bayh (D), Lugar (R) United States Senate Washington, D.C. 20510 (202) 224-3121 (Ask for Senator) Bayh fax (202) 228-1377 Lugar fax (202) 228-0360 (Bayh - Leaning Against Drilling) (Lugar - Leaning Pro-Drilling)

Missouri - J. Carnahan (D) 517 Senate Hart Office Building Washington, D.C. 20510 (202) 224-6154 fax (202) 228-0043 (Leaning Against Drilling)

N. Dakota - Conrad (D), Dorgan (D) United States Senate Washington, D.C. 20510 (202) 224-3121 (Ask for Senator) Conrad fax (202) 224-7776 Dorgan fax (202) 224-1193 (Both Leaning Against Drilling)

New Mexico - Bingaman (D) 703 Senate Hart Office Bldg. Washington, D.C. 20510 (202) 224-5521 fax (202) 224-2852 (Leaning Against Drilling)

Nevada - Harry Reid (D) 528 Senate Hart Office Bldg. Washington, D.C. 20510 (202) 224-3542 fax (202) 224-7327 (Leaning Against Drilling)

New Hampshire - Smith (R) 307 Senate Dirksen Office Bldg. Washington, D.C. 20510 (202) 224-2841 fax (202) 224-1353 (Leaning Against Drilling)

S. Carolina - E. Hollings (D) 125 Senate Russell Office Bldg. Washington, D.C. 20510 (202) 224-6121 fax (202) 224-4293 (Leaning Against Drilling)

Tennessee - F. Thompson (R) 511 Senate Dirksen Office Bldg. Washington, D.C. 20510 (202) 224-4944 fax (202) 228-3679 (Leaning Pro-Drilling)

W. Virginia - Rockefeller (D) 531 Senate Hart Office Bldg. Washington, D.C. 20510 (202) 224-6472 fax (202) 224-7665 (Leaning Against Drilling)

Back to Contents List of All Archives

9/01

Please Respond to: The Boundary Proposal Scoping Request

Donn Rawlings

If you live in or near Prescott, you will be affected by the Boundary Vegetation Management Area Project. If you live near Prescott National Forest lands the impact may be shocking. The Bradshaw Ranger District proposal is “to conduct vegetation and fuel reduction treatments” in “approximately 29,500 acres...adjacent to Prescott.” The “beneficial effects...include reducing the risk of catastrophic wildfires, improving forest health, vegetation structural diversity and wildlife habitat.” To say the least, there are positive and negative sides of this proposal.

One would like, as much as possible, to support the PNF’s efforts in this regard. Their let-burn and prescribed burn approaches, where feasible, are an enlightened turn-around from the over-emphasis on fire suppression in the past, which left heavy loads of fuel on most forests. PNF personnel also know that management efforts cannot prevent wildfires from occurring, but may make it easier control them. And one can certainly understand the immense pressure on national forest administration, given recent fire seasons and the incendiary collision between uncontrolled urban sprawl and fuel-laden forests, simply to do something. But, while supporting the PNF in trying to address a real need, one may hope that more sophisticated alternative designs for the project will be explored during the scoping period (which will be followed by an Environmental Assessment of alternatives, and eventually a Decision Notice from the district ranger specifying the approach to be taken).

Take an example: the proposed treatment of the area in and around Granite Basin, next to the wilderness area. From near the boundary of the Ho-Kay-Gon neighborhood (off Williamson Valley Road) west across the Basin to the wilderness boundary, management would mechanically “crush chaparral in a mosaic pattern with 70% of the brush cover being crushed and 30% being untreated on side slopes under 35%” or, in areas of heavier Ponderosa pine, simply “crush under story chaparral followed by burning in selected areas.”

The two “prescription” areas involved in this part of Granite Basin are described as “dense mature stands of pure chaparral consisting of oak species, Ceanothus, mountain mahogany, and manzanita” with “small inclusions of ponderosa pine” or “open stands of ponderosa pine with a moderate to light chaparral under story.” Granting that this description is simplified for a short document, it is nevertheless wildly misleading as a basis for public comment. As with all but one prescription area description in the overall proposal for the 29,500 acres, it does not mention the nearly omnipresent woodland component in our nearby forests (medium-sized trees including, in the Granite Basin area, not only pinyon and juniper--some massive in girth--but also Emory and Gambel oak and Arizona walnut all often well over twenty-five feet tall). Nor does it mention the immense diversity (structural and numbers of species) currently within the “under story”--within chaparral communities but also including stringers of small cottonwood, willow, box elder, and other species along mostly dry washes, and the diversity afforded by riparian and grassland components. One may hope that the understandable concern about “fuel laddering” (ground fire moving up through taller growth into the crowns of large Ponderosas) has not conveniently consigned woodland components to the oblivion implied in the scoping request. An effective project design needs to get beyond the over-simple impression of the forest as a vast area of “brush” to be knocked back and Ponderosa to be thinned. Obviously, the PNF knows that there is more to the forest than that.

Surely they know also the strong arguments that the limited funds available for preventing wildfire spread onto private lands should be focused (1) on treating the immediate perimeter of those lands (to slow a burning front of fire) and (2)on assisting private landowners in reducing the “ignitability” of their property (to limit spot fires caused by wind-blown firebrands). For example, Jack D. Cohen says that “modeling, crown fire experiments, and W-UI [Wildland-Urban Interface] fire case studies show that effective fuel modification for reducing potential W-UI fire losses need only occur within a few tens of meters from a home, not hundreds of meters or more” and “wildland fuel reduction for reducing home losses may be inefficient and ineffective: inefficient because wildland fuel reduction for several 100 meters or more around homes is greater than necessary for reducing ignitions from flames; ineffective because it does not sufficiently reduce firebrand ignitions” (“Reducing the Wildland Fire Threat to Homes: Where and How Much?” in the USDA’s Symposium on Fire Economics, Planning, and Policy: Bottom Lines (1999).)

There are many other issues and perspectives here, but the most immediate need is that Prescott-area folks see what is proposed and give their own responses. The Scoping Request solicits comments from the public. Please call or stop by to obtain the short and quickly read Scoping Request from the Bradshaw Ranger District Office (344 S. Cortez Street, telephone 771-4700). Please send in comments (deadline September 28, 2001) (Sept 19, 2002 - this apparently is still being debated) and request the Environmental Assessment–otherwise, your ability to participate in further decision making will be limited. Comments now–if only a strong recommendation to explore alternative designs for the project that fine-tune management activities–will emphasize your concern for careful development of a project that will inevitably change the landscape around us. At best, with full and continual involvement of the public in a process that protects the integrity and beauty of that landscape, an understaffed and underfunded Prescott National Forest might mobilize local awareness and expertise to come up with an exemplary Boundary Project.

(Read the Scoping Request here)

Back to Contents List of All Archives

8/01

Following is the final version of the grazing resolution adopted by the Audubon Board of Directors at the meeting in Leavenworth, WA on Saturday June 9. This policy is an important outline of principles for us to use in formulating positions at the state and local levels in the west.

Adopted by the Board of Directors, June 10, 2001
National Audubon Society

POLICY ON LIVESTOCK GRAZING ON STATE AND FEDERAL PUBLIC LANDS POLICY OVERVIEW

The guiding principle governing the administration of public lands where grazing is permitted should be the conservation, restoration and maintenance of their natural biological diversity. Any policy relating to livestock grazing on public lands must be consistent with this objective. Audubon recognizes that there may be alternative strategies for addressing the impact of grazing on public lands. We support effective strategies consistent with the principles and guidelines outlined in this document.

PRINCIPLES

The public lands are our nation's greatest remaining repository of natural wildlife and wild places.

All users of public lands have the potential to cause significant disturbance to natural ecosystems and habitats. Land managers have a particular responsibility for this stewardship. All users of these public lands have a responsibility to act as stewards of these lands. Most uses of these public lands are privileges, not legal rights, and must be recognized as such.

No users should enjoy a special privileged access to public lands and public resources.

Some uses of public lands for commodity resources are granted at below-market economic costs. This practice discourages environmental sustainability and should be reformed.

A sustainable ecosystem approach to public land management affords the best prospect of assuring the economic viability and stability of these lands.

The National Audubon Society ("Audubon") believes that the restoration and conservation of natural biological diversity on public land ecosystems must become a fundamental principle guiding all multiple uses of public lands. All public land management must be designed to restore and maintain healthy, functioning ecosystems in balance with human uses. Any policy relating to grazing on public lands must embrace this perspective.

Specifically, public agencies should seek to recover and maintain:

(a) Natural richness and abundance of native plant and animal species;

(b) Natural structure, dynamics and resilience of communities of native plant and animal species;

(d) Natural conditions of soil stability, depth, composition and chemistry;

(e) Natural conditions of water flow and stream channel structure in rivers and riparian ecosystems;

(f) Uncontaminated surface and subsurface waters;

(g) Undisturbed historic and archeological sites; and,

(h) Natural aesthetic and scenic conditions.

IMPLEMENTING GUIDELINES

1. Livestock grazing on public lands is a privilege to be integrated with other uses and to assure protection of all values, the foremost of which is the conservation of biodiversity and ecological integrity.

2. Inappropriate livestock grazing can be a damaging commercial extractive use of public lands. As such, grazing may not be an appropriate use for all areas defined by many land management agencies as "suitable." Livestock grazing must be re-evaluated by the public land management agency at the strategic planning level, and defined according to what is both suitable and appropriate.

3. Public lands livestock grazing should be permitted at stocking rates, which are balanced with vegetation production, rangeland restoration, watershed and soils protection, wild ungulate forage needs, and other wildlife habitat values, including those where birds nest. Capacity determinations should include domestic and wild ungulates in a distribution scheme that accounts for populations of wild ungulates and their associated forage needs. Forage utilization standards that reflect this balance should be monitored regularly, including annual mid-point and end-of-season monitoring and trend monitoring over the life of an allotment management plan. Term grazing permits should be modified immediately upon the determination, through aggressive monitoring, that permitted numbers exceed capacity and utilization standards.

4. Economic subsidies to the livestock industry should be reformed to eliminate inappropriate use of public lands and resources.

5. Livestock grazing fees on public lands should be determined by market mechanisms and should cover the cost of administering and monitoring the livestock grazing program, taking into consideration the protection, management and restoration of the lands previously used by livestock.

6. Public land agencies must actively seek the widest possible citizen participation in all decisions regarding livestock grazing on public lands. To that end management agencies must make monitoring, analysis, planning and decision documents, including drafts, freely available by Internet access to the maximum extent feasible.

7. Livestock grazing on public lands must be administered under comprehensive plans that are designed at the ecosystem scale with primary consideration given to ecosystem integrity.

8. The National Wildlife Refuge System, the National Park System and certain National Monuments are not multiple use lands, but were established to protect specific historic and natural resources and values. Livestock grazing should be prohibited on such public lands unless there is solid scientific documentation that livestock grazing is beneficial or at least not detrimental to the legislated purpose of the Refuge, Park or Monument.

9. Predator control on public lands that attempts to reduce livestock depredation should utilize scientific based techniques and livestock management methods that reduce livestock vulnerability to predation. Predator control on public lands must integrate long-term predator population viability and management goals.

Back to Contents List of All Archives

8/01

Rocky Mountain Election Region Elects Nominee for NAS Board of Directors

The regular election by Audubon chapters in the Rocky Mountain Election Region to select a nominee for the position on the National Audubon Board of Directors is complete. The ballots were counted Tuesday, July 10 and the nominee has been contacted.

Candidate John Bellmon received 34 votes and is the nominee:

19 chapters voted out of 52 chapters in the region (37%).
34 ballots were cast out of a possible 78 (44%).

Two additional ballots from two chapters were also received but disqualified because the chapters had neglected to include a Chapter Election Certification Form with their ballots.

John Bellmon's name will be placed on the slate of nominees to the Board that is voted upon at the Annual Meeting of Members in December. He will be able to participate in that Board meeting.

Back to Contents List of All Archives

5/01

Tres Alamos Work Days

Donn Rawlings

On April 7 & 8, volunteers contributed to the project (in which Prescott Audubon is a partner) to rehabilitate five cattle ponds on the Tres Alamos desert ranch. The Tres Alamos work days (April 7-8) were so successful that the project team (including rancher Duncan Blair) was abashed at how much work we got done! How did we talk all of these people (30) into picking up rock on rugged hillsides, piling it, loading it into trucks, dumping it in the washes and building dams—major multi-ton constructions on major washes! Young women intimidating old guys like Donn Rawlings by hefting huge boulders into pickups! Barb Houser barring stones out of the ground faster than a team of lifters could keep up with her! The group effort will produce significant impact on two drainages, and now we have a chance to monitor the effectiveness of this kind of approach. We had good volunteer contingents from the ranch, from Game and Fish and State Lands, from Yavapai College, and from Audubon (Karen O’Neil, Barb & Roy Houser, Helen and Frank Parsons, David Corsini (Connecticut Audubon!), Larry & Ann Bickford, Fiona Reid). Thanks much—and apologies if a name has been missed. Some of us camped overnight at Aso Tank—where Duncan Blair had already met some Audubon concerns by relocating one section of the enclosure fence.

The tanks, during this relatively moist spring, are showing good potential. Recent trips have picked up promising counts of birds (a sampling, not a full list: cinnamon teal, canvasback, golden eagle, black-crowned night-heron, least sandpiper, vermilion flycatcher, gilded flicker, Lucy’s warbler, Scott’s and hooded orioles, cardinal, Crissal & sage & curve-billed thrashers, and many more—thanks to Eve & Rob Gill, Jim Morgan, Karen O’Neil, and Carol Rawlings for their birding, and Jim for recording calls). Eve has a good start on a butterfly list. Deer were at one pond on April 8, along with lots of other mammal tracks. And the warmer weather that day surfaced one pretty little rattler and many scorpions as rocks were turned. It’s going to be a fun project.

Back to Contents List of All Archives

5/01

ARIZONA TO DECIDE WHETHER TO CONTINUE SUPPORT OF MEXICAN WOLF RECOVERY PROGRAM: LETTERS NEEDED TODAY

The Arizona Game and Fish Commission will meet on Saturday, May 12 in Safford to decide whether to continue its support of the Mexican wolf recovery program. Withdrawal of Arizona, which contributes the most biologists among the multi-agency program, would leave the four remaining packs in Arizona vulnerable to poachers just as they are expected to be nursing new-born pups.

We need to keep Arizona's biologists in the field to ensure the safety of the wolves, and to prevent the Bush Administration from using the state withdrawal as an excuse to terminate the recovery program and recapture all the wolves.

Please attend the Commission meeting at 1:30 pm Saturday at the Manor House Conference Center, 415 E. Hwy 70, Safford, Arizona. Carpools are available from Prescott, Phoenix, Tucson and points in between:
Tucson (520) 623-5252 ext. 314.
Phoenix (602) 253-8633
Prescott (520) 777-1095.

If you can't attend, please send a letter to:
Dennis Manning, Chair, Arizona Game & Fish Commission
2221 W. Greenway Rd.
Phoenix, AZ 85023-4399
fax (602) 789-3299
email mketterer@gf.state.az.us

MEXICAN WOLF CAMPOUT, CARPOOL TO WOLF HEARINGS

Join the Center for Biological Diversity and the Sierra Club in a campout on Friday, May 11 in an area used by the Cienega, Saddle and Hawk’s Nest wolf packs. Then carpool down to Safford the next morning to testify at the Game and Fish Commission hearing.

Cienega Campground is in the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forest off Hwy. 191 north of Clifton and south of Hannagan Meadow. To carpool to the campground or directly to the hearings: Tucson (520) 623-5252 ext. 314.
Phoenix (602) 253-8633
Prescott (520) 777-1095.

Back to Contents List of All Archives

4/01

BOULDER, COLORADO TO HOST NATIONAL PESTICIDE CONFERENCE
MOUNTAIN RESOURCE CENTER, CO-SPONSOR

"Healthy Ecosystems, Healthy Children" The 19th National Pesticide Forum and 20th Anniversary Celebration

University of Colorado, Boulder
May 18-20, 2001

Convened by: Beyond Pesticides/National Coalition Against the Misuse of Pesticides (NCAMP) Co-sponsored by: Audubon - Colorado, Center for Resource Management, Colorado Legal Services Migrant Worker Division, Colorado Pesticide Network, Missoulians for a Clean Environment, Mountain Resource Center, New Mexico Environmental Law Center, Northwest Coalition for Alternatives to Pesticides, Sierra Club - Indian Peaks Chapter, Sierra Club - Rocky Mountain Chapter, Southwest Environmental Center, University of Colorado Environmental Center, Women's Voices for the Environment

Speakers include:

     Helen Caldicott, MD - Writer, pediatrician and activist, Dr. Caldicott has devoted 25 years of her life to educating citizens about the medical hazards of the nuclear age and the changes needed to halt environmental destruction. She is the founder of Physicians for Social Responsibility, an organization of 23,000 doctors with a strong record of working to prevent environmental illness. Her international umbrella group, International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War, won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1985. In 1980, Dr. Caldicott also founded Women's Action for New DIrections (WAND) - formerly called Women's Action for Nuclear Disarmament - in the United States. Dr. Caldicott has received numerous prizes and 17 honorary degrees for her work, and was nominated by Nobel Laureate, Dr. Linus Pauling, for the Nobel Peace Prize. She has been the subject of several films, including, If You Love This Planet, which won the Academy Award for best documentary in 1983.
      Theo Colborn, PhD - A zoologist, senior scientist, and Director of the Wildlife and Contaminants Project at the World Wildlife Fund (WWF), Dr. Colborn's extensive research on endocrine disruptors (EDs) as noted in the book she co-authored, "Our Stolen Future," has sent shockwaves throughout the world. "Our Stolen Future" picks up where Rachel Carson's, "Silent Spring" left off, bringing together compelling evidence from wildlife studies, laboratory experiments, and human data which correlates exposure to synthetic chemicals that mimic hormones, like pesticides, to reproductive and developmental damage in wildlife and humans.
      David Pimentel, PhD - Dr. Pimentel is a Professor in the Departments of Entomology and Limnology, and one of the nation's foremost experts on the ecological and economical aspects of pest control, soil and water conservation, and natural resource management. Dr. Pimentel served as a consulting ecologist in the White House and as Chairman of the National Academy of Sciences Environmental Studies Board.
      Timothy Seastedt, PhD - Professor at the Department of Environmental, Population and Organismic Biology at the University of Colorado, Boulder; Fellow of the Institute of Arctic and Alpine Research. Professor Seastedt is currently conducting research on the use of biocontrol agents for diffuse knapweed.
      Micki Davi - Developed and manages the Highway 285 Living Roadsides Project through the Mountain Resource Center in Conifer, Colorado. The Project, funded by a $40,700 Community-Based Environmental Protection (CBEP) grant from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA/Region 8) seeks to implement nonchemical Integrated Vegetation Management (IVM) for invasive, nonindigenous plants, or noxious weeds, along selected roadside sites, with the goal of achieving sustainable, cost-effective management through the use of revegetation with native plants. The model Project is a collaborative effort between federal, state and local agencies; area businesses; schools; community organizations, and private landowners, who act as "Partners" in assisting MRC by hosting Community Education Forums (CEFs), distributing information about the Project, and/or by adopting public or private sites which abut the highway corridor to extend the area of management. Ms. Davi is in the process of founding the Colorado Coalition for Environmental Health (CCEH) and has been involved in educating Colorado citizens about environmental health, pesticides and alternatives, and noxious weed management for more than ten years.

Keynote Panels and Workshops:
     * Alternatives to Chemically-Based Noxious Weed Control
     * Pesticides and Children
     * Removing Pesticides from Schools
     * Is EPA Effective?
     * National Organic Standards
     * Genetic Engineering
     * Wildlife Deformities
     * Farmworker Justice
     * Economic and Ecological Costs of Noxious Weed Control
     * Wood Preservatives Risk Assessment ...and more!

*The Healthy Ecosystems, Healthy Children Conference will include a demonstration tour of Integrated Pest Management (IPM) techniques used on CU's campus. The tour takes place Friday, May 18, from 1:00-5:00pm.

From NCAMP: "At the start of the new millenium, the 19th National Pesticide Forum weaves two themes - ecosystems management and protection of children's health. As we think holistically about ecosystem management and its impact on health and the environment, the conference provides an important and timely opportunity to evaluate pesticide use and design alternative strategies. As herbicide use - now the largest pesticide use - for weed management escalates in fields, forests and sensitive habitat all across the country, this is a crucial time to assess "noxious weed" policies and practices. The "war on weeds" is being waged. The serious economic and environmental implications of invasive weed species cannot be ignored; neither can the dangers of pesticide-dependant controls. As always, we must consider the conditions that give rise to pest problems, whether it is a public health concern associated with insect-borne diseases, like mosquitos carrying West Nile Virus, or invasive species, like knapweed, overunning the landscape. Increasingly the public is being misled by decision-makers who insist that 'harmless' pesticides are required. The application of management strategies that do not require pesticides is urgently needed. To address invasive weed management, contributing factors will be discussed, including problems of poor land management, over-grazing, soil compaction and other stressors. Preventing the conditions that give rise to invasives is central to a viable and sustainable strategy. In addition, creative uses of biological tools such as parasitic insects, can result in sustainable, long-term, ecologically-friendly, cost-effective solutions, as will be demonstrated at the forum. With children in mind, the forum will focus on pest management as it pertains to the place where children spend the majority of their day - school. In this context, conference participants will have the opportunity to evaluate existing practices, local and state laws, scientific and medical findings, proposed legislation, and discuss strategies for action in communities, states and nationally. Concern for children's health services as a baseline for resolving ecological and pest managment problems. The conference themes draw our attention to real problems that need sustainable solutions to protect health and the environment rather than cause serious secondary problems as a result of solving primary ones. In protecting the environment for children, we protect the environment for all."

From the Mountain Resource Center: "The Mountain Resource Center (MRC) is very excited to be a co-sponsor of this important, and long-awaited, event. The issue of pesticides as they pertain to public health and noxious weed management continues to be a serious concern for MRC consumers, and citizens throughout Colorado. We have seen a disturbing increase in pesticide use since the state "weed law" passed more than ten years ago, in combination with an increase in insecticide spraying for tree pests in our forested areas. Citizens continue to be given inadequate, even false, information about pesticide risks, and related pest management issues, including those relating to noxious weed management. NCAMP's Healthy Ecosystems, Healthy Children conference will provide public and private citizens with the expert knowledge they need to make wiser, more informed decisions about pesticide use. MRC shares with NCAMP, a commitment to protect our children and future generations from unnecessary pesticide risks by promoting pest management systems that extend beyond pesticides to seek maximum use of truly safe, sustainable, pest management strategies and tools." Healthy Ecosystems, Healthy Children The 19th National Pesticide Forum and 20th Anniversary Celebration University of Colorado, Boulder May 18-20, 2001 Mark your calendars and join us in Boulder, Colorado, May 18-20th. Don't miss this wonderful opportunity to learn more about these issues and to make a difference in your community!

Back to Contents List of All Archives

4/01

The Arizona Audubon Council has drafted a policy statement to be presented to all of the western states and chapters for comments. It will then be presented for passage at the June NAS board meeting.

DRAFT

National Audubon Society

POLICY ON LIVESTOCK GRAZING ON PUBLIC LANDS OF THE WESTERN UNITED STATES

POLICY OVERVIEW

The guiding principle governing the administration of public lands should be the conservation, restoration and maintenance of their natural biological diversity. Any policy relating to livestock grazing on public lands must be consistent with this objective.

PRINCIPLES

The public lands are our nation's greatest remaining repository of natural wildlife and wild places.

All users of public lands have the potential to cause significant disturbance to natural ecosystems and habitats. All users of these public lands have a responsibility to act as stewards of these lands. Most uses of these public lands are privileges, not legal rights, and must be recognized as such.

No users should enjoy a special privileged access to public lands and public resources.

Some uses of public lands for commodity resources are granted at below-market economic costs. This practice discourages environmental sustainability and should be reformed.

A sustainable ecosystem approach to public land management affords the best prospect of assuring the economic viability and stability of these lands.

The National Audubon Society (“Audubon”) believes that the conservation of natural biological diversity on public land ecosystems must become a fundamental principle guiding all other multiple uses of public lands. All public land management must be designed to maintain healthy, functioning ecosystems in balance with human uses. Any policy relating to grazing on public lands must embrace this perspective.

Specifically, public agencies should seek to recover and maintain:

    (a) Natural richness and abundance of native plant and animal species;
    (b) Natural structure, dynamics and resilience of communities of native plant and animal species;
    (c) Natural retention of rainfall in soils, riparian and wetlands ecosystems and aquifers;
    (d) Natural conditions of soil stability, depth, composition and chemistry;
    (e) Natural conditions of water flow and stream channel structure in rivers and riparian ecosystems;
    (f) Uncontaminated surface and subsurface waters;
    (g) Undisturbed historic and archeological sites; and,
    (h) Natural aesthetic and scenic conditions.

IMPLEMENTING GUIDELINES

   1. Livestock grazing on public lands is a privilege to be integrated with other uses and values, the foremost of which is the conservation of biodiversity and ecological integrity.
   2. Inappropriate livestock grazing can be a damaging commercial extractive use of public lands. As such, grazing may not be an appropriate use for all areas defined by many land management agencies as “suitable.” Livestock grazing must be re-evaluated at the public land management agency strategic planning level, and defined according to what is both suitable and appropriate.
   3. Public lands livestock grazing should be permitted at stocking rates, which are balanced with vegetation production, rangeland restoration, watershed and soils protection, wild ungulate forage needs, and other wildlife habitat values. Capacity determinations should include domestic and wild ungulates in a distribution scheme that accounts for populations of wild ungulates and their associated forage needs. Forage utilization standards that reflect this balance should be monitored regularly, including annual mid-point and end-of-season monitoring and trend monitoring over the life of an allotment management plan. Term grazing permits should be modified immediately upon the determination, through aggressive monitoring, that permitted numbers exceed capacity and utilization standards.
   4. Economic subsidies to the livestock industry should be reformed to eliminate inappropriate use of public lands and resources.
   5. Livestock grazing fees on public lands should be determined by market mechanisms and should cover the cost of administering and monitoring the livestock grazing program, including the protection, management and restoration of the lands used by livestock.
   6. Public land agencies must actively seek the widest possible citizen participation in all decisions regarding livestock grazing on public lands. To that end management agencies must make monitoring, analysis, planning and decision documents fr