Owls, Mules and Lizards: the makeup of federal land management

Today we have federal employees who are paid to stop productivity

by Marita Noon

Marita Noon

Farming, ranching, mining, and extraction are the foundation for everything else. They are what make food, energy and manufacturing possible by proving the raw materials for our personal and economic growth. Yet these bedrock American industries have, little-by-little, been chiseled away—so subtly that most of us did not notice until now; now, when the economy continues to teeter with a slight uptick one month, back down the next. The public, America’s citizens, people who’ve never paid attention to politics or the economy, want to know what happened; they want to know, “Why?”

The answer is really quite simple and reversing the trend—growing the economy—is equally simple. But America’s citizens must push for policy-induced prosperity.

Today we have federal employees who are paid to stop productivity. Their job is to enforce regulations, not encourage expansion. The federal government used to help people establish a farm or ranch, or stake a claim. Remember the whole idea of “homesteading?” People took a barren parcel of federal land, treated it as their own and made something from nothing. Their efforts were rewarded with the deed.

While homesteading is a thing of the history books, policy that stopped development didn’t begin until the seventies. Initial results of a new study indicate that major industries once prevalent in the west, such as logging, cattle ranching, and mining, have moved out—in fact, been chased out. Instead of exporting, we now import.

What happened in the seventies to change federal lands management? The birth of the environmental movement in the late 1960s.

This shift in policy is most evident through the story of the spotted owl—a declining species said to favor “old growth forest.” The effort to protect the owl began in 1968. It was ultimately listed as “endangered” in 1990. Observing history, we see the owls’ numbers have not increased with the protection and they’ve been found in locations they supposedly do not like. While the listing had little impact on the owl, it did have a killing effect on the logging industry. Logging on federal lands once accounted for more than half of Oregon’s harvest. By 2008, less than ten percent.

In New Mexico’s Gila Forest access to federal lands has been continually cut back. Today, based on numbers from the 1970’s, there are thirty percent fewer cattle. Because of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and wilderness designations, the Forest Service required Terrell Shelley, whose family has continuously raised cattle on the same land for 125 years, to use mules to make repairs to concrete dams on his allotment. 250 mule loads of concrete were hand mixed. Not many people today are willing to continue ranching under such restrictive conditions.

Mining faces similar obstacles. In Montana, exploration for tungsten was completed in the seventies by Union Carbide. To extract the resource from what is now an “inventoried roadless area,” the Forest Service requires that the drilling equipment be hauled by pack mules—who are feed “certified weed free hay,” and that the land be cleared and then reclaimed using hand tools. Once again, productive activity is discouraged.

Due to punitive federal policy, we now have less logging, less ranching, and less mining; less jobs, less productivity, and less wealth creation.

The oil and gas industry of West Texas and Southeastern New Mexico is next. The Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) has proposed that the Sand Dune Lizard (AKA Dunes Sagebrush Lizard) be listed as an endangered species under the ESA. This lizard frequents sites where oil and gas development provides good paying jobs and economic stability. If the FWS proceeds with the “endangered” listing, the entire region could well go the way of logging in the Pacific Northwest or Cattle Ranching in the Gila Forest.

Now, we see how industries have been shuttered and jobs lost. We watched while entire communities became ghost towns. “Protection” and “wilderness” sound like nice ideas until you see the economic destruction they have wrought. With the benefit of history, America’s citizens can take a stand and reverse the trend. Federal agencies hold hearings where we can comment. We can make phone calls and send e-mails.

The employees at the various federal agencies don’t make the policies. They are simply enforcing the regulations. But if we speak up, we can change the game.

The public comment period for the proposed lizard listing ends May 9. Make the effort, pick up the phone. Talk to the federal employees (Debra M. Hill: 505-761-4719, Tom Buckley: 505-248-6455).

Wouldn’t it be great if the federal government once again helped, instead of hindered?

Marita Noon is the Executive Director at Energy Makes America Great Inc. the advocacy arm of the Citizens’ Alliance for Responsible Energy. Find out more at http://www.energymakesamericagreat.org/.

Not so dead on arrival

The unlikely success of the Clinton Roadless Rule

by Rob Inglis
High Country News

The Roadless Area Conservation Rule, which Bill Clinton signed into law eight days before he left office, protected 58.5 million acres of national forest land from logging and energy development. It was one of the boldest conservation measures in the history of federal land management, but it seemed doomed to a very short lifespan. Because it was only an administrative rule, it could be overturned by the next administration, which strongly opposed it.

But nearly eight years later, the Clinton Roadless Rule remains in effect for 35.6 million acres of national forest in seven Western states. Idaho has adopted, and Colorado is about to adopt, state-specific roadless regulations that fall short of the Clinton rule but still provide protection for large swaths of land. (Roadless lands in Wyoming and Utah are currently unprotected.) The Clinton rule's survival still hangs on the outcome of two ongoing court cases, but even if it were to succumb, it is likely that Democrats in Washington would replace it with either a new administrative rule or legislative protection for roadless areas. Thanks to the incompetence of the Bush administration and the tenacity of some never-say-die environmental lawyers, the long-shot maneuver might have worked.

The Forest Service first inventoried its roadless areas in the 1970s, after the 1964 Wilderness Act directed it to determine which of its lands were eligible for wilderness protection. Some of this land was preserved in a piecemeal fashion, through state-specific bills. But much of it stayed unprotected. The goal of the Clinton Roadless Rule was to systematically protect these remaining road-free lands without going through the arduous wilderness-designation process. More than 1.5 million people commented on the proposed rule, and over 95 percent of them were in favor.

The Bush administration at first thought it could get rid of the rule quietly, simply by not defending it against lawsuits from timber companies. "They didn't go about it very directly, at least not at the outset," says Mike Anderson of The Wilderness Society. "It was more of a subterranean strategy of trying to get the courts to take down the rule." It wasn't until 2005 that the administration launched a frontal assault, issuing a weaker replacement rule that required governors to petition the Forest Service to protect their states' roadless land. But the administration had done only a cursory environmental assessment of the new rule, leaving it vulnerable to legal challenge. In 2006, 9th Circuit District Court Judge Elizabeth LaPorte ruled that the administration had violated the National Environmental Policy Act in establishing the new rule. She overturned it and reinstated the original Roadless Rule. Her reinstatement stood until August of this year, when 10th Circuit District Court Judge Clarence Brimmer issued an injunction against the 2001 rule, saying, as he had in a previous injunction, that it also violated NEPA.

This left the nation's roadless areas in a curious legal position, with one judge saying that the 2001 rule was the law of the land and another judge of equal rank, but in a different judicial circuit, saying that it wasn't. To ease this tension, LaPorte has reduced the scope of her 2006 decision, limiting it to the 9th Circuit plus New Mexico until a randomly selected panel of three appeals judges rules on the validity of the decision. The three judges are all Republican appointees -- two of them appointed by George W. Bush -- so they may well reverse LaPorte's decision and reinstate the Bush rule. Even if LaPorte's 2006 decision withstands the appeal, Judge Brimmer's latest decision -- which is currently being appealed to the 10th Circuit -- could still undo the Roadless Rule.

But even if the Clinton Roadless Rule ultimately goes down in the courts, it has effectively protected the nation's roadless areas -- in which only seven miles of new roads have been constructed -- for the past eight years. "The Bush administration has basically blown it," says Craig Allin, professor of political science at Cornell College. "They have spent eight years trying to abolish the rule, and they have been so incompetent in their efforts that it's going to be left for the next administration."

Obama, who has expressed support for roadless preservation, could craft another administrative rule protecting most or all of the nation's roadless areas. The more difficult -- but more permanent -- way to protect roadless lands is through legislation. Even with Democratic majorities in the House and Senate, however, any bill would have to deal with the threat of filibuster. "If there are 60 votes in the Senate, a statute like that might very well pass," says Allin. "Without sixty votes, its chances are poor."

If such a bill does pass, the Clinton Roadless Rule will be remembered not just for buying time but also for changing the terms of the roadless debate. "It's completely changed the context of how we talk about these undeveloped areas," says Franz Matzner of the Natural Resources Defense Council. "Ten years ago, these places were just the places we were going to log next. Now, if someone wants to log a roadless area, they've got a fight on their hands, and they know it. People are recognizing that their forests have more to offer than just board feet."

Idaho's 'roadless rule' clears another hurdle

Idaho Statesman

State and federal officials on Monday released the final environmental impact statement for the Forest Service's "roadless rule," which will protect 8.9 million acres of federal lands from most road building and development.

The proposal designates 250 roadless areas and establishes five management themes that essentially keep roadless areas intact but allow limited logging, mining and temporary roads to reduce fire danger.

The new roadless management plan, which evolved out of a series of lawsuits and collaborative agreements from federal, state and county agencies and interest groups, could become final in 30 days, depending on whether any lawsuits arise.

"The Idaho roadless rule represents the first time a state and its citizens had a direct voice in creating a plan for resolving an issue of national importance," Lt. Gov. Jim Risch said.

The roadless rule originated from a Clinton administration decision to curtail logging and road building on roadless lands.

Idaho was the first state to sue to block that rule and is now the first state to develop its own plan that has been approved by the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

There Ought to Be a Roadless Law

EDITORIAL

New York Times

Among President Bill Clinton’s signature environmental achievements was a regulation that prohibited new roads — and by extension, new commercial activity — in nearly 60 million largely undeveloped acres of the national forests. For seven years, the Bush administration, egged on by its friends in the timber and oil-and-gas industries, has worked tirelessly to kill the roadless rule. Conservationists have worked just as hard to preserve it.

Rules devised by the executive branch are often challenged on grounds that they violate an underlying federal statute or have been rushed through without proper vetting. Environmental regulations are especially contentious. The roadless rule, in particular, has been caught in an endless game of Ping-Pong, with some courts upholding it, others overturning it.

The good news is that little has changed on the ground: In seven years, only seven miles of new roads have been built in protected areas in the lower 48 states. Legally, though, things are a complete mess. That means that there is no guaranteed protection for the roadless forests.

The Clinton rule has been thrown out three times by district courts in response to lawsuits from states and industries. The most recent injunction was handed down last week by Clarence A. Brimmer, a conservative Federal District Court judge in Wyoming. He issued one of the earlier injunctions and has supported the administration on whether to limit snowmobiles in Yellowstone, which is another long-running environmental dispute.

The roadless rule has been reinstated twice — once at the appellate level by the Ninth Circuit, and later by a federal magistrate judge in San Francisco, Elizabeth LaPorte. Judge LaPorte also slapped down a sneaky effort by the Bush administration to take advantage of all the confusion by replacing the Clinton rule with a much weaker alternative of its own.

Environmental groups will surely appeal Judge Brimmer’s latest ruling, which, of course, they should. But that still leaves too much room for mischief. Congress will have to intervene. Last year, more than 140 House members and 19 senators introduced the National Forest Roadless Area Conservation Act. It is past time to provide permanent protection for the forests by turning the Clinton rule into firm law.

BLM urged to deny Kane County access to route

By Nancy Perkins
Deseret Morning News

A national coalition of environmentalists charged the Bureau of Land Management on Tuesday with conspiring to "surrender control" of a road that crosses federal land in Kane County.

The coalition, comprised of The Wilderness Society, Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, Wild Utah Project and Center for Biological Diversity, object to the BLM's preliminary non-binding determination that Bald Knoll Road is a valid R.S. 2477 public right-of-way.

"Kane County's application (to designate Bald Knoll Road as an R.S. 2477 route) contains illegible aerial photos, an undated map, and contradictory stories from a few residents," said Ted Zukoski of Earthjustice, another environmental group voicing opposition to the BLM's proposal. "Kane County admits that it has no official records concerning highway construction or maintenance during the years necessary to prove its claim. For this reason alone, the BLM must reject the county's application."

Kane County Commissioner Mark Habbeshaw said the county has "followed to the letter" what was required of it by the federal government's designation procedure.

"All that is required for a non-binding designation on Bald Knoll Road is for the county to submit a preponderance of evidence," he said. "We think we have far exceeded that burden."

Rep. Mike Noel, R-Kanab, said the coalition is spreading "bald-faced lies."

"There's no question that road has always been maintained by the county. There is a good, solid record of that," Noel said. "There is no question in my mind, or anyone who understands what R.S. 2477 is all about, that the BLM did an excellent job evaluating the data and coming to the conclusions that they did. This road belongs to the citizens of this county and sovereign state of Utah."

An attorney for the Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance said the BLM's decision in Kane County on Bald Knoll Road could set a national precedent.

"If the Interior Department approves Kane County's flawed application, it will set a national precedent that will open the door to thousands of claims through wildlife habitat, rivers, and near archeological treasures. This is just the proverbial camel's nose poking under the tent."

Mike DeKeyrel, realty specialist with the BLM's Salt Lake City office, said while he hasn't had an opportunity to review in detail the coalition's voluminous comments, he does not agree with the group's premise.

"The BLM does not consider it (the Bald Knoll Road decision) as precedent-setting and a portend that would lead to thousands of such determinations," DeKeyrel said. "The BLM intends to review each right-of-way claim separately through the administrative process. It is important to note that the BLM's review is an internal, administrative one for its own management purposes."

Bald Knoll Road is a dirt road about nine miles in length. It crosses public lands administered by the BLM in western Kane County, approximately 20 miles north-northeast of Kanab. A review period for public comment expired Tuesday, the same day that the coalition filed a lengthy objection to the proposal and asked the BLM to deny the designation.

Roadways designed as R.S. 2477 routes remain open as a right of way to various forms of public access. Roads that fail to meet the specifications for the designation, which includes proof that the road was used and maintained by a county prior to 1976, are closed to public use.

"The Bald Knoll Road is not located in any identified sensitive area, wilderness area, or potential wilderness area, and in fact was of apparently little concern to interest groups until it became the first non-binding determination," DeKeyrel said.

A separate national campaign that urges the Department of the Interior to protect Utah's archaeological artifacts and roadless areas from off-road vehicles is also gathering steam.

In a bipartisan letter signed by 93 members of the U.S. House and sent to Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne on Tuesday, the BLM is chastised for proposing off-road, public access to millions of Utah's back roads.

"The BLM currently recognizes 3.3 million acres of Utah BLM roadless areas as possessing important wilderness characteristics," the letter states. "These ORV plans will be devastating to some of the most magnificent public lands and prehistoric cultural resources in the country."

The congressional members urge Kempthorne to intervene and restrict off-road vehicle use on any Wilderness Character Areas in Utah.

Mining claims near wilderness areas seen as threat

Wilderness areas in the state could be affected by pollution, public land analyst says.

By Margot Roosevelt, Staff Writer
Los Angeles Times

A citizen stakes a mining claim. Credit: EARTHWORKS

More than 21,300 mining claims have been staked within 10 miles of California's national parks and monuments and federal wilderness and roadless areas, according to an analysis of U.S. Bureau of Land Management records released Monday.

The claims, which have risen by more than one-third in the last four years, include more than 2,170 staked outside Death Valley National Park, 525 near Joshua Tree National Park and 285 outside Yosemite National Park. There are also 41 near the Giant Sequoia National Monument.

"If just a handful of these thousands of claims already staked turn into major mines, it could have devastating impacts on California's national treasures," said Dusty Horwitt, public lands analyst at the Environmental Working Group, the Washington-based nonprofit that issued the report.

In California and across the West, mining claims have skyrocketed in the last five years, driven by a boom in the global price of gold, copper, uranium and other metals. The rising demand, particularly from China and other developing nations, has spurred interest in reopening abandoned mining sites.

With its open pits, acid drainage, and air and water pollution, mining is the dirtiest of all resource developments, accounting for more Superfund toxic cleanup sites than any other industry. It also requires vast amounts of water for the processing of metal ore at a time when shortages are plaguing California and other western states.

The revival of hard rock mining also comes at a time when Congress is grappling with how to revise the General Mining Law of 1872 -- a statute virtually unchanged since it was signed by President Grant. Unlike the oil, gas and coal industries, which must pay royalties to extract resources from public lands, hard rock miners can dig out ore virtually for free. And, under the law, which has been the subject of fierce debate for decades, mining has precedence over ranching, hunting, fishing, conservation and recreation on public lands.

On Thursday, the House Committee on Natural Resources is to take up a proposed revision of the statute that would impose royalties on mining companies and recognize the value of water quality, fish and wildlife habitat in the consideration of claims. Roadless areas would be off-limits to new mines. Environmentalists are seeking an amendment for buffers that would protect the Grand Canyon, Yosemite and other national parks.

In 2002, California became the first state to require that open pits be refilled after a mine closes. As a result, mining companies moved to friendlier states, such as Nevada and Idaho, according to Adam Harper, former manager of the California Mining Assn., which shut down its operations in December. However, Harper said that underground mines, as well as smaller open-pit operations that don't fall under the regulations, might still be economically feasible in California.

In the 10-mile perimeter around Death Valley National Park, 723 new claims have been staked in the last four years.

"We are very concerned," said park Supt. James T. Reynolds. "I hope the public understands the destruction that will occur. Development will have far-reaching impacts that our grandchildren will have to address."

Reynolds said that the biggest threat is the depletion of groundwater, which is affected not only by mining, but also by farming and rapid residential development in California and Nevada communities near the park. "If too much water is pumped from the aquifer, then the seeps in the springs in Death Valley will no longer flow," he said. "Plants will die, animals will die and they would even have to truck in water to the valley's private resort."

Reynolds is negotiating with two borite mining companies in hopes that they will donate their land to the park. And he has strenuously opposed the reopening of the Briggs mine, an open-pit cyanide operation in the Panamint Range on the park's western border. "Unfortunately, we don't have the authority to stop" any of the claims, he said.

The surge in claims also affects wilderness areas within national forests and other public lands. More than 14,400 claims have been staked within 10 miles of California wilderness areas, including Ansel Adams, John Muir, Trinity Alps and Desolation.

Federally designated roadless areas, including the watersheds that replenish the drinking water in many California cities, are also affected. Nearly 11,400 claims have been staked within 10 miles of roadless areas in the Tahoe, Stanislaus and Humboldt-Toiyabe national forests, with more than 4,600 in the last four years. Nearly 1,500 of the claims are located within the boundaries of roadless areas.

Most of the claims will never become mines, Horwitt acknowledged. "But with the price of gold rising so rapidly, deposits that might not have been economically mined could become much more attractive," he said. "Once a claim is staked, there is very little land managers can do to prevent mining. And it takes only a handful of claims to create a multimillion-dollar Superfund site."

While overall mining claims in California have jumped 19% since 2003, claims have risen in 12 western states by an average of 81%, including 239% in Colorado, 178% in Wyoming and 127% in South Dakota. Claims are even being sold on EBay.

National parks in several states are threatened, including Grand Canyon, which has 815 claims within five miles of its borders and more than 2000 claims within 10 miles, many of them for uranium. Arches National Park in Utah, a jewel of red rock country and a staple of automobile ads, has more than 1,200 claims within 10 miles.

Governor urges stricter rules to protect wilderness areas

Ramon Mena Owens / The Press-Enterprise
Ed Pollitt, of Murrieta, prepares to hang glide near Main Divide Road in the Cleveland National Forest


By PAIGE AUSTIN
The Press-Enterprise [Riverside, CA]

Gov. Schwarzenegger recently escalated a battle of words with federal officials over how to manage the remaining wilderness areas in Southern California's national forests.

In an August letter to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Schwarzenegger accused the federal government of not doing enough to make sure wilderness in the San Bernardino, Cleveland, Angeles and Los Padres national forests is protected from road construction.

The state and environmental groups want more restrictions on forest roads than are outlined in new forest management plans, 10- to 15-year master plans for land use in the forests. Schwarzenegger charged the federal government with not living up to promises made to the state over the past few years as the management plan was written.

This month, the U.S. Forest Service denied appeals by the state seeking to limit roads in wilderness areas to those needed for fighting fires or for accessing Indian tribal grounds or recreation areas.

The Forest Service has taken the stance that it needs the flexibility to create roads that help balance the threat of wildfires and demand for off-road vehicle activities with wilderness protection, said Matt Mathes, regional spokesman for the agency.

Similar disputes have simmered in other states when a legal challenge to federal wilderness law left states in limbo between conflicting regulations from the Bush and Clinton administrations.

California could also take this dispute to federal court, state officials said.

"Your recent denial is unacceptable and places the protection of valuable land in greater jeopardy," Schwarzenegger wrote in a letter to the secretary of agriculture. "Frankly, it is not too much to ask for the Forest Service to do the right thing and live up to its own assurances. Please take the necessary action to ensure that California's forests are safeguarded for generations to come and resolve this important issue before any more time and resources are expended. The people of California deserve nothing less."

The regional office of the U.S. Forest Service is deciding how to respond to the governor's letter, Mathes said.

The forest management plan allows officials the flexibility to build "environmentally acceptable" roads in lieu of the makeshift roads created by people using the forest for recreation and off-roading, he said. The user-created roads can damage the forest through erosion or by trampling sensitive habitat, Mathes added.

Throughout the planning process, environmental, recreational and industry groups competed for a say in how Southern California's last remaining roadless areas should be used. Groups such as the National Resources Defense Council, the Sierra Club and the Riverside Land Conservancy have advocated for increased wilderness protection. Groups such as the Warrior Society, the International Mountain Bicycling Association and Trails 4 All have sought to expand trail and road systems for recreational use.

In the meantime, a proposal for a hydroelectric power plant in Lake Elsinore is the first one on the horizon to test the state's tolerance of new road construction against the federal government's more flexible standards.

If approved, the plan would involve pumping water from the lake to a hilltop reservoir and then releasing it downhill to power turbines during peak electricity demand. The electricity would travel along power lines through 30 miles of the Cleveland National Forest.

The project would require access roads to be built through wilderness areas of the forest, said Sandy Cooney, spokesman for the California Resources Agency.

Attack on 1872 Mining Act Flawed, Unfair to Miners

OPINION

By Mark R. Welch
Retired Mining Engineer
Albuquerque Journal

With reference to the article written by Oscar Simpson purporting to represent the New Mexico Wildlife Federation in the July 12 Journal titled "Wilson Can Save N.M.'s Outdoors Again," he made some seriously misleading statements regarding the 1872 Mining Act and mining on Federal lands.

Mr. Simpson stated that the act needed updating, but in fact, it has been indirectly updated through numerous regulations and laws over the years, especially with regards to environment considerations. The Act has served this nation very well, allowing the country to develop its mineral resources that are the basis, along with agriculture, of all of the wealth of the nation.

Then Mr. Simpson stated that mining companies pay $5 per acre to stake a claim of ownership on "our public lands." In the first place, the law applies to any citizen, not just mining companies.

Secondly, there is a recording fee and annual maintenance payment of $100 per claim that is required to be paid, but the $5 per acre fee he erroneously mentions pertains to the fee to be paid at the time a patent is issued to the claimant. However, due to a Congressional moratorium, no patents have been issued since 1994.

Further, by the time a patent is issued— if ever— the miner or mining company will have spent enormous sums of money to prove up the claim to the satisfaction of the U.S. Bureau of Land Management. Mining companies routinely spend millions of dollars just to evaluate a mineral deposit, let alone develop it. When he states that public lands the size of Connecticut have been made private over the years, he fails to point out that most patents were issued in the 1800s and early 1900s at a time that the nation was growing.

Where he comes up with Congress granting a tax break of $823 million to mining companies is unknown, but it should be noted that companies or individuals who are successful in developing a mine— approximately one prospect out of 1,000 examined— pay all kinds of taxes, including income taxes, if the project is profitable, property taxes, sales taxes, employment taxes, fuel taxes, and so on.

Then Mr. Simpson makes his most disingenuous statement, where he said that "mining companies are not even responsible for subsequent cleanup of the site once the claim is exhausted" and "the taxpayer get stuck with the bill— billions of dollars."

Either Mr. Simpson did not do his homework or is intentionally misleading the reading public. Had he bothered to look at the laws and regulations pertaining to mining claims (see Title 43 CFR Parts 3700 and 3800 as well as information put out by the U.S. Bureau of Land Management), he would have noticed that there are numerous federal regulations and laws that require a miner to file a Plan of Operations with the U.S. Forest Service or USBLM, which must go into detailed information on environmental assessments or impact statements, detailed descriptions of mining operations, detailed information on protection of the environment, and, not least, detailed information on reclamation procedures.

In addition, the miner must comply with a host of laws such as the Endangered Species Act, the National Environmental Policy Act, and the Federal Land Policy and Management Act, among others. If the applicant cannot meet the permitting requirements of the Federal agencies in accordance with all of the applicable laws and regulations, an operations permit will not be issued. It is as simple as that.

It is true that we have suffered from environmental degradation from mining operations conducted in the 1800s and into the 1900s, but today's mining company is most cognizant of its responsibilities to be a good citizen and do more than its share to mitigate any environmental damage caused by mining and exploration operations.

A typical mine takes somewhere between 10 and 15 years to develop— if it is a viable prospect— from the time it is discovered and many mines routinely cost in excess of $100 million to develop. Oftentimes, a mineral property will sit idle for decades awaiting new technologies or favorable mineral prices before it becomes possible to develop. It is hard, costly and demanding work and not for the faint of heart. The citizenry should bear that in mind when we lock up millions of acres from access to mining— wilderness areas, wilderness study areas, roadless areas, national monuments etc. I enjoy wild areas as much as anyone, and some areas are truly deserving of preservation. But, from a practical standpoint, we simply cannot develop a mine overnight if we really need the minerals during a national emergency.

By the way, Connecticut has an area of 3 million acres. The USBLM administers in excess of 260 million acres subject to mining claims in 19 states, primarily in the western U.S., and the U.S. Forest Service manages another 193 million acres. Assuming Mr. Simpson is correct in his numbers, the total land historically transferred as patented claims amounts to 7/10ths of 1 percent of the USBLM/USFS-managed public lands. This is about the same as the floor of an average two-car garage being superimposed on a football field. This is not very much considering the tremendous national wealth that has been generated by mining on public lands.

Finally, the public is encouraged to visit mining operations today and see for themselves how operations are conducted, and then, if they so choose, go prospecting and stake their own claims if they find a locatable mineral deposit.

It is their right as a citizen of the United States.

Mark Welch is the former Chief Executive Officer of Nord Pacific Ltd., a New Mexico-based mining company. He retired after more than 35 years in the mining industry, both as a mining engineer and executive.

Environmentalists seek to join case over Death Valley roads

Associated Press in San Francisco
By GARANCE BURKE, Associated Press Writer

Fresno, Calif. (AP) -- Six environmental groups filed legal papers Thursday to join Death Valley National Park in fighting a federal court lawsuit that, if successful, could open miles of desert canyons and valleys to motorized vehicles.

Last October, Inyo County sued the federal government seeking to re-establish its access to four dirt roads near the Nevada border that park officials seized when the national park was established in 1994.

The environmentalists say the old mining roads were washed away years ago, and allowing vehicles into those areas now could endanger sensitive animal and plant species found in remote stretches of the desert.

"All of these are places where you can really enjoy the fantastic scenery and the stillness of the largest national park in the lower forty-eight (states)," said Ted Zukoski, an Earthjustice attorney representing the groups.

If Judge Anthony Ishii grants the motion to intervene, the Sierra Club, Friends of the Inyo, California Wilderness Coalition, Center for Biological Diversity, The Wilderness Society and the National Parks Conservation Association would become parties to the suit.

If the county prevails, the groups believe the park's fragile ecosystem could suffer, to the detriment of the federally protected desert tortoise, desert bighorn sheep, mountain lions and other rare wildlife that roam there.

"Even the designation of a national park is not enough to keep people who want to use motorized vehicles out of these areas to protect the resources," said Lisa Belenky, a staff attorney with the Center for Biological Diversity.

The environmentalists see the disputed area as desert canyons and valleys, which the Bureau of Land Management found to be "roadless" years ago.

But the county views the same area as approximately 20 miles of established roadways that can be widened to two lanes to accommodate increased traffic as needed, according to a suit filed on Oct. 24.

Inyo County's lawsuit cited a Civil War-era mining law that allowed local governments to build highways over some public lands. According to the 1866 mining law, the county has the right to preserve the public right-of-way on the old roads, Assistant County Counsel Randy Keller said.

"These roads have been there for 100 years," Keller said. "The way we look at it, they were taken."
The environmental groups seek to intervene to defend just three of those roads.

The same mining law is being invoked in another case in nearby Surprise Canyon, an area just outside Death Valley's boundaries. There, off-road drivers and environmentalists are squaring off over whether the canyon and its spring-fed waterfalls should be closed to vehicles.

Off-roaders have no role in the legal action brought by Inyo County, but drivers stand to benefit from the suit, Keller said.

"It's a public road, and the county's desire is to see that the public's right to traverse these roads continues," he said. "That's part of the idea. They're recreation routes that people use to drive through the desert."

The parties have asked for a hearing on March 12, said Zukoski. The court could rule anytime after that.

Parklands in Peril

A sneaky plan in Congress could spark a fire sale of public property

Riverside Press-Enterprise
OpEd

By JOHN LESHY

A proposal quietly working its way through Congress could spark a fire sale of public lands, turning back the clock on a law that's already stuck in 1872. If it passes, areas in our national parks, forests and other special places could be among the first to go.

Well over a century ago, to help the mining industry and Western settlement, Congress decided to sell federal lands to miners for no more than $5 per acre. Since then, the price of an ounce of gold has increased almost twenty-fold, but, thanks to the 1872 mining law, the price of gold-bearing public lands has not changed one cent.

As recently as 1994, the law gave a Canadian mining company title to public lands containing an estimated $10 billion worth of minerals for less than $10,000. In response to the massive publicity surrounding the sale, Congress enacted a bipartisan moratorium on the giveaway of federal lands. Today, companies can still mine on these lands, but they cannot buy them away from the public.

A new budget reconciliation proposal by Rep. Richard Pombo, R-Tracy, would end this ban and resume the privatization of our public lands. His bill requires the Interior Department to sell off lands for $1,000 an acre or the fair market value of the land surface, without regard for mineral value. Simply put, the "smash and grab" proposal would allow public lands worth their weight in precious metals to be sold to mining companies for a pittance.

The bill also eliminates the requirement in the law since 1872 that companies actually discover valuable mineral deposits on public lands before they gain rights to exploit them.

Invaluable Sites

Not satisfied with this liberalization of the discredited 1872 law, Pombo would also let private interests buy federal lands for purposes that have nothing to do with mining, such as building ski resorts, gaming casinos and strip malls on areas currently owned by the American public.

A unanimous Supreme Court ruled in 1979 that "the federal mining law surely was not intended to be a general real estate law." Pombo's bill would change all that, and the first open house could be held inside Death Valley National Park.

While a last-minute amendment ostensibly protected national parks and some other areas, this amendment exempted "valid existing rights." There are more than 900 mining claims in our national parks, including 286 in Death Valley alone. Claim owners will likely assert rights to purchase these lands, and they could succeed.

Moreover, other invaluable sites, such as wilderness study areas and national forest roadless areas, are plainly left vulnerable to eventual privatization under this provision. Hikers, hunters and livestock grazers could find locked gates blocking their passage through previously public lands -- with the U.S. government nearly powerless to do anything about it.

Pombo is now trying to sneak his bill through Congress, hiding it in a budget debate that has been dominated by higher profile controversies. He pushed the bill through committee under the pretense of raising federal revenue, without mentioning that the public, the owner of these lands, will be the big loser.

Hard-rock mining is the only extractive industry that pays no royalties on the resources it removes from public lands. Establishing a modest 8 percent royalty, which is at the lower end of what coal, oil and gas companies already pay for federal resources, would yield twice as much revenue as Pombo expects from his land grab.

Peerless Audacity

William Stewart -- the rabidly pro-mining Nevada senator who wrote the 1872 Mining Law, steered it through Congress and then made a nice living representing miners -- would not have dared to try this. But he did not know Rep. Richard Pombo. As public lands become private real estate and trail markers give way to "No Trespassing" signs, one can almost hear Stewart chuckling in admiration of Pombo's audacity.

John Leshy was solicitor general of the Interior Department under President Clinton, and is a distinguished professor of law at UC Hastings.