OCR Text |
Show THE ZEPHYR 'APRiL 1990 PAGE 10 public lands watchdog Tamarisk and Trust And The NPS Chaining Amasas Back 1 think that I shall navar aaa a poam lovely aa a tree." - Joyce Kilmer In the Spring of 1987, Arches National Park planned to burn and poison a half mile of wash bottom near an Isolated spring as part of Its tamarisk control program. Although the bum had the potential to cause significant damage to wildlife habitat, no environmental "Sea one tree, youve seen em all. - Ronald Reagan assessment was written to determine posable Impacts. When several local citizens learned of the NPSs plan, criticism of the project reached the local and regional press, and the Park Service announced It would Its position and write an environmental assessment When the draft EA was released for public review, the park received a number of totters that were highly critical of the bum. On July 5, 1989, Resource Management Specialist Kate Kltchell addressed those concerns to Superintendent Harvey Wlckware. Here are excerpts: re-eval- Last year the BLM, In cooperation with the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources and George White, a local rancher and the livestock permittee, proposed to chain and bum and seed approximately 390 acres of plnyon-Junlp- er vegetation "In order to Improve forage quality and quantity for livestock and mule deer on Amasas Back In the Blue Hill grazing allotment An environmental assessment was prepared by the BLM and on September 15, 1989, Brad Palmer, area manager, approved the project saying, "based on the analysis of potential environmental Impacts contained In the environmental assessment I have determined that Impacts are not expected to be significant The document received very little scrutiny because the public for the most part was unaware of the chaining proposal. Public notices are often burled In a sea of print and are missed by even the most observant reactor. But In the March 22 Issue of the Moab a news release by the BLM Invited the public to review the EA at a same that nlghL meeting Over twenty citizens attended to express concern and state objections to the project Mr. and Mrs. Steve Kosanke of San Juan County requested Information on the costbeneflts of the project the wisdom of chaining In a thought period, and expressed concern about permanent soil loss as a result Andrew Riley sought data on success and Impacts to adjacent areas. Other participants raised other questions and concerns: what Is the reaj benefit to wildlife? What Is the actual cost? What grazing controls will be Implemented to keep livestock out of the area? What Is the historical record of success for chaining? Does the Dept of Wildlife Resources exhibit a bias for chaining because It wants to drastically Increase the deer and elk herds? Who Initiated the project? What about the Intrinsic value thought when the EA for tills project was released that we had thought tills proposed action through completely, the criticism received from the public reveals otherwise. While we received from the Although we While we received several supportive public reveals otherwise. comments on the proposed action and EA, there was also some strong negative, but very constructive criticism that has led me to conclude that the proposed action should be postponed until we have better defined project objectives, answered several questions about posable environmental Impacts, and further evaluated associated costs and benefits. Tlmes-lndcpend- ent Prior to moving forward, we must properly assess the Impacts, actions necessary to mitigate Impacts, and completely understand the manpower requirements for conducting the eradication and associated monitoring. I also think that we should be committed to publishing the results of this activity to move forward the state of the knowledge of tamarisk control lng of I trees? Answers to the questions were few and far between. There was no consensus on the actual cost of the project, although It was believed that the first chaining alone would cost $7000, to be paid In thirds by the BLM, DWR and George White. Gregg Dawson, range conservationist, stated that George White Initiated the project Although 67,000 acres of plnyon-Junlp- er and sage are targeted for possible chaining, It Is, according to Dawson, "the squeaky wheel that gets priority, and George White was the squeaky wheel. In all, over 30 questions were raised at the meeting; Brad Palmer felt they were valid concerns that deserved to be answered and promised responses to them all. He conceded that In the future It was Important to get this kind of Input before the EA Is completed, not after. "Obviously we did not make a good decision In this particular project, said Palmer, "In that we erred In the approach we made on this thing. The chaining was to begin on March 26, but the BLM delayed the start until at least March 28 whert Palmer meets with distinct manager Gene Nodlne to review the questions raised at the March 22 meeting. As of this time (328 3 p.m.) the fate of the climax plnyon-Junlp- er forest on Amasas Back Is still unknown. (If I can Inject a personal note here, many citizens who want to have Input In these kinds of projects have become cynical and Jaded about the effectiveness of their efforts the accompanying NPSTamarisk story Is a case In point Too often, land management agencies request public Input as a required formality, with no Intention to consider the Input unless It supports their plan. Although the request for public comment may have come too late, Brad Palmer's efforts In that direction were a refreshing surprise. I hope the BLM can expand that openness and genuinely Involve the public In Its decision-makiprocess. J.S.) pre-concel- ved ng In the southwest Consequently, the entire project was placed on Indefinite hold. After the Yellowstone fires of 1988, the Park Service Invoked a ban on prescribed bums In parks which eliminated burning as an alternative In the Environmental Assessment for this particular project This toft the park with two options: the "no action alternative or cutting the tamarisk by hand and poisoning the stumps. Whatever the decision, It was assumed that the public would be Informed before any action was taken at all. Instead the Park Service abandoned the Environmental Assessment process altogether and started cutting and poisoning the tamarisk In the spring of 1989, keeping the public, at the same time, completely In the dark. The Park maintains that Its actions are covered by the Resource Management Plan, and that further Involvement from the public Is unnecessary. When I discovered the ongoing project by accident, I called Arches Superintendent Paul Guraedy who conceded the NPS had "goofed." Two days later the Park Service sent letters to those who had sent comments to the Park about the project In art It said: that you were not Informed about the fate of the Environmental Assessment at an earlier date. Hopefully, this will not discourage your participation In future projects. "We regret Unfortunately, the Parks failure to be open with the public only deepens the distrust and suspicion that already exists. Many people believe that public participation Is a farce; this project seems to confirm that fear. -- J.S. |