 illustration by Doug Potter |
A dozen dead salamanders were found in the Eliza Springs outlet at Barton Springs last Friday —
the largest kill of Barton Springs salamanders ever recorded. The dead animals
were found during a routine survey of the pool and adjacent spring outlets by
city biologist Robert Hansen and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service biologist Lisa
O’Donnell.
Eliza Springs, also known as the polio pit, lies a few dozen yards east of the
entrance to Barton Springs Pool. The earliest recorded observations of the
salamander occurred nearly 50 years ago at Eliza Springs. University of Texas
zoology professor David Hillis, who has studied the salamander for the past
nine years, says the spot is one of the most important locations for the rare
animal because it has few predators. “Now that this has happened, there’s no
conceivable way that anyone could say this is not an endangered species,” said
Hillis.
Protection for the salamander has been hotly debated for several years. And
state officials, including Gov. George W. Bush, have vigorously opposed federal
protection for the salamander. In February 1995, Bush wrote to U.S. Interior
Secretary Bruce Babbitt, saying that the decision to protect the Barton Springs
Salamander should be “based upon science, not some hysterical read by a
well-meaning citizen.” Bush may still believe that, but there is growing
evidence that politics, not science, is preventing state and federal
authorities from taking the actions necessary to save the salamander from
extinction.
Court records and documents obtained by the Chronicle under the Freedom
of Information Act (FOIA) show that on Aug. 7, the local office of the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) said, “After thorough review and consideration
of all information available, the Service has determined that the Barton
Springs salamander should be classified as an endangered species.” The
scientists said the “best scientific data indicate that listing the Barton
Springs salamander as endangered is warranted.”
Their decision to list the animal was based on numerous factors, including
deteriorating water quality in Barton Springs and declining numbers in the
salamander population. The federal scientists were so concerned about the
shrinking salamander population that they were planning to waive the 30-day
period that usually precedes final addition to the Endangered Species List
(ESL). And in the 93-page document detailing the listing decision, the FWS
specifically mentioned Bush’s 1995 letter, saying the agency is “unaware of any
efforts to develop a management plan to alleviate threats to the Barton Springs
watershed and the Barton Springs salamander.”
However, the local office was overruled by Interior Department officials in
Washington. Perhaps the most telling evidence that political, not scientific
forces, resulted in the decision not to add the salamander to the ESL comes
from an
e-mail message written by Mollie Beattie, the late director of the
FWS. In a Jan. 18, 1995, message to a subordinate, Beattie wrote that “the
upcoming listing decision on this one [the salamander] is of great concern to
the secretary [Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt] since it has the capability of
complicating the Austin (golden cheeked) conservation plan.”
Throughout the final development stages of the Balcones Canyonlands
Conservation Plan, Babbitt and other Interior Department officials consistently
avoided mention of the salamander. They knew that including the animal in the
preserve system would have been divisive and could have derailed final
implementation of the project, a project that Babbitt desperately wanted to see
completed.
In August, FWS announced that it would allow three state agencies — the Texas
Natural Resources Conservation Commission (TNRCC), Texas Parks and Wildlife
Department (TPWD), and Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT)– to create a
system of protections for the salamander, which is found only at Barton
Springs. However, the rules designed by the three agencies, which were passed
by the TNRCC last week, may be too weak to offer any protection to the
salamander.
In an Oct. 16 letter to Steve Helfert, the Field Supervisor for the FWS’
Austin office, scientists at the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) pointed to a
series of flaws in the new rules governing the Edwards Aquifer. The letter,
obtained under the FOIA, did an analysis of the rules at the request of the FWS
and determined that “non-point source pollution is not addressed in the
contributing area.” The USGS points out that the water at Barton Springs comes
from a 354-square-mile area. Of that total, 264 square miles are outside of the
aquifer’s recharge zone. “Therefore,” says the USGS, “75 percent of the area
contributing flow to Barton Springs and associated aquifer is not protected
from non-point source pollution.”
In addition, the USGS pointed out that the new rules include no limits on
impervious cover, even though two previous USGS studies on urbanization have
shown that as impervious cover increases, water quality declines. (While the
TNRCC doesn’t believe impervious cover limits are needed, the FWS scientists
had recommended stricter limits than the ones passed by Austin citizens in the
Save Our Springs Ordinance. S.O.S. called for a maximum of 25% impervious
cover. In their listing package, federal scientists said efforts should be made
to increase existing native vegetation in the Barton Springs watershed.)
And the USGS says that although the TNRCC’s new rules rely on water pollution
abatement technologies rather than impervious cover limits, the TNRCC has
appropriated no money for water quality monitoring which would allow the state
to see whether or not the water-quality facilities actually work.
In a July 17 memo that apparently accompanied a draft of the final listing
package, FWS biologist Lisa O’Donnell told Helfert that “Based on the
evaluation presented… and actions (or inactions) made by State agencies
(TNRCC, TxDOT, TPWD) during the last couple of years, I just can’t bring myself
to acknowledge beneficial measures taken to protect the Barton Springs
watershed that don’t exist.”
Mark Jordan, the director of water policy and regulations division at the
TNRCC, defended the new rules. “We’ve met the letter and the intent of the
conservation agreement,” he said. “And we have had no indication from the Fish
and Wildlife Service that what we have done is insufficient.”
But the several federal officials are expressing dismay over what they say is
a lack of teeth in the new rules. “The whole thing is a joke,” said one
official, who asked not to be named. And Hillis, the UT professor, believes
that the recent salamander kill puts more pressure on the federal government.
“If the Fish and Wildlife Service doesn’t list it as endangered now, it makes a
mockery of the entire Endangered Species Act,” he said.
Nevertheless, Gov. Bush has not changed his stance on the salamander, said
spokesman Ray Sullivan. The governor, he said, “is concerned that the federal
government may be, in the wake of the election, thinking of reneging on that
deal and he certainly hopes that they do not.”
To read the USGS assessment of the new Edwards Aquifer rules and the Nov. 18
letter from acting FWS director John Rogers to the TNRCC, go to the
Chronicle‘s website at: /.
Lippo-Freeport Connection
The Lippo Group, the Indonesian conglomerate that has contributed huge amountsof soft money to the Democratic Party in the last few months, has come under
scrutiny for its close ties to the Clinton Administration. But Lippo is not the
only company with Indonesian operations that is trying to influence U.S. policy
on Indonesia. According to a Nov. 26 story in the Journal of Commerce,
James Riady, the son of the Lippo Group’s chairman, has close ties to Jim Bob
Moffett, the CEO of New Orleans-based Freeport-McMoRan Copper & Gold.
Riady and Moffett both sit on the board of directors of the United States
Indonesia Society, a group that was organized in 1994 when Republicans and
Democrats in Congress began trying to end U.S. military aid to Indonesia
because of the ongoing human rights abuses committed by the Suharto regime
against the people of East Timor.
The Journal of Commerce quotes Russell King, Freeport’s chief lobbyist
in Washington, as saying the society is a “cross-cultural organization” that
“plays no advocacy role in anything.” King said, “Anything that can disrupt
U.S.-Indonesia relations we watch with intense interest.”
While King has been lobbying to protect Freeport’s $3 billion investment in
the vast Grasberg mine — which contains the world’s largest gold deposit —
Freeport officials, like their counterparts at the Lippo Group, have been
funneling money to the Democratic National Committee. According to Federal
Election Commission records, on Aug. 26, Freeport-McMoRan contributed $40,000
to the Democratic National Committee, followed with a $10,000 contribution on
Sept. 6 by Nancy L. Adkerson, the wife of Freeport’s chief financial officer,
Richard Adkerson.
Freeport spokesmen in Austin and New Orleans did not return Chronicle phone calls.
This article appears in December 13 • 1996 and December 13 • 1996 (Cover).