A Call For An Environmental Impact Statement

I read with interest Larry Stevens' piece in the fall 2000 bqr on the merits and need for removal of certain Grand Canyon flora, yet I am still not convinced. Although Dr. Stevens implies that an attitude of acceptance of certain biota in the Grand Canyon belongs to deconstructionists, where “nothing much matters,” the attitude he endorses is quite absolute on the opposite extreme, and I believe that there is a middle path in dealing with our struggling ecosystems, especially in a unique place like Grand Canyon National Park.
Although it is true that the introduction of non-native species have had damaging consequences to ecosystems in regions around the globe, it is important to consider the human factors involved with the disruption of ecological communities on a case by case basis. In his article, Dr. Stevens lists ten reasons why non-native invasions are “ecologically bad.” Four have to do purely with human needs and comforts, four are general to naturally evolving environments, and the remaining two refer to specific cases, which may or may not pertain specifically to the tamarisk he intends to poison.
In our case, the Glen Canyon Dam and the continued misguided meddling with flow rates through the Colorado River corridor have changed the conditions so dramatically that no human being can predict or determine the natural evolutionary process that should be occurring. Instead of general arguments against non-native species, I would like to see more compelling data on the actual threat of tamarisk. Do they really deserve the feeling of panic that Dr. Stevens inspires in his article? Will they really alter natural regimes to intolerable levels and create new disease organisms that will devastate other populations? I don't claim to be a biologist, yet my own experience in the Grand Canyon has witnessed the tamarisk growing harmoniously side-by-side with other species and generally in regions previously uninhabited in pre-dam times, as well as offering habitat to species that survive in the strained post-dam ecosystem.

The more valid (especially since no herbicide use is planned) Lees Ferry restoration project, on the other hand, offers the opportunity to monitor the natural process that would evolve after a localized eradication. The results of a study of the environment around Lees Ferry would be beneficial in determining the proper long-term plan of managing the changing ecosystem in the river corridor.
It is especially important to consider that continued human meddling in the Colorado River corridor's post-dam transition stage could create a series of repercussions beyond our comprehension that could create even more damage. Our record as nature interventionists sadly does not support great success from mere good intent. Luckily, we have appropriate legislation requiring a more complete and scientific assessment in the form of one of our nation's strongest environmental protection law, the 1968 National Environmental Policy Act. Prior to the large-scale eradication of a living species in the river corridor, an Environmental Impact Statement (eis) (more detailed than a cursory Environmental Assessment) should be available for public comment. I would also like to see information on the possible impacts of the herbicide that will be brought into the ecosystem and accurate assessments of long term maintenance requirements of the planned eradication. The eis would ensure an objective and legal opinion, rather than the statement from a representative of a company that will be the recipient of hundreds of thousands of Arizona Water Protection Fund dollars.
Where does nature have the ability to take her own course? Dr. Stevens states that “sacrificing our natural heritage to a bunch of aliens is the wrong path.” Is there a clear concept of our natural heritage? His statement rings ominously familiar to historic cries of war and manifest destiny, similar to our country's earlier justification of the slaughter of millions of buffalo. My hope for future generations is that there will remain some regions in the world that are not significantly impacted by human activity. Lest we forget, eradication is also a human activity.
John Middendorf