COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES 

DON YOUNG, Alaska, Chairman 

W.J. (BILLY) TAUZIN, Louisiana GEORGE MILLER, California 

JAMES V. HANSEN, Utah EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts 

JIM SAXTON, New Jersey NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia 

ELTON GALLEGLY, California BRUCE F. VENTO, Minnesota 

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee DALE E. KILDEE, Michigan 

JOEL HEFLEY, Colorado PAT WILLIAMS, Montana 

JOHN T. DOOLITTLE, California SAM GEJDENSON, Connecticut 

WAYNE ALLARD, Colorado BILL RICHARDSON, New Mexico 

WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oregon 

KEN CALVERT, California EN! F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American 

RICHARD W. POMBO, California Samoa 

PETER G. TORKILDSEN, Massachusetts TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota 

J.D. HAYWORTH, Arizona NEIL ABERCROMBIE, Hawaii 

FRANK A. CREMEANS, Ohio GERRY E. STUDDS, Massachusetts 

BARBARA CUBIN, Wyoming SOLOMON P. ORTIZ, Texas 

WES COOLEY, Oregon OWEN B. PICKETT, Virginia 

HELEN CHENOWETH, Idaho FRANK PALLONE, JR., New Jersey 

LINDA SMITH, Washington CALVIN M. DOOLEY, Californi!l 

GEORGE P. RADANOVICH, California CARLOS A. ROMERO-BARCELO, Puerto 

WALTER B. JONES, JR., North Carolina Rico 

WILLIAM M. (MAC) THORNBERRY, Texas MAURICE D. HINCHEY, New York 

RICHARD (DOC) HASTINGS, Washington ROBERT A. UNDERWOOD, Guam 

JACK METCALF, Washington SAM FARR, California 

JAMES B. LONGLEY, JR., Maine PATRICK J. KENNEDY, Rhode Island 

JOHN B. SHADEGG, Arizona 

JOHN E. ENSIGN, Nevada 

DANIEL VAL K!SH, Chief of Staff 

ELIZABETH MEGGINSON, Chief Counsel 

CHRISTINE KENNEDY, Chief Clerk/Administrator JOHN LAWRENCE, Democratic Staff Director 

(II) 
CONTENTS 

Hearing held June 18, 1996 .......................................................... .................. ....... . 

Statement of Members: Hansen, Hon. James V., a U.S. Representative from Utah ........................ .. Young, Hon. Don, a U.S. Representative from Alaska; and Chairman, Committee on Resources ............................................................................. . 

Statement of Witnesses: Brown, Melvin R., Speaker, Utah House of Representatives ...................... . Collins, Clark L., Executive Director, Blue Ribbon Coalition ..................... .. Prepared statement ...................... ............................................................ . Fife, Don, American Land Rights Association ............................................. .. Prepared statement .................................................................................. . Guernsey, David, Maine Conservation Rights Institute ................ .............. . Prepared statement ....... .......................................... ....... .......................... . King, Frederick W., Sr., a State Senator in New Hampshire ..................... .. Prepared statement ................... ........... ................... .................... ............ . . Pendley, Perry, President, Mountain States Legal Foundation .......... ........ . Phelps, Jack, Alaska Forest Association ............................. ................. ........ .. Pryor, Samuel F., III, President, Appalachian Mountain Club {prepared 

statement) ...... ............................ ............. ...................................................... . Sanregret, Robert, Executive Director, National Association of Mining 

Districts ......... ............................................................................................... . Prepared statement .......................................................... ........................ . Vincent, Bruce A., Communities for a Great Northwest ............................. .. Prepared statement ................................ .... .............................................. . 

Additional material supplied: Fife, Donald L., and John A. Minch: Geology and Mineral Wealth of 

California Transverse Ranges .... ................................................................ .. 

Communications submitted: Knobloch, Kevin T. {Appalachin Mountain Club): Letter of July 1, 1996, 

to Hon. Don Young ............................................................. ....... ...... .... ........ .. 

(III) 

Page 

1 

2 

1 

2 

9 

49 

34 

81 

13 

65 

11 

56 

6 

40 

116 

37 

101 

30 

70 

110 

115 

CITIZENS' PERSPECTIVES ON FEDERAL LAND 

USE POLICIES 

TUESDAY, JUNE 18, 1996 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES, 

Washington, DC. 

The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 2:04p.m., in room 1324, 

Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Don Young (Chairman of 

the Committee) presiding. 

STATEMENT OF HON. DON YOUNG, A U.S. REPRESENTATIVE 

FROM ALASKA; AND CHAIRMAN, COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES 

The CHAIRMAN. The Committee will come to order. Today the 

Committee will listen to people from outside the Washington Beltway who daily deal with Federal land management agencies. These 

people will tell us their personal experiences dealing with Federal ag~ncies, most of which can do a better job working with private 

landowners, resource dependent communities, and local governments. All too often Federal officials in Washington, DC, mandate 

a one-size-fits-all solution for all parts of this diverse nation. 

I particularly want to thank Jack Phelps of the Alaska Forest 

Association, who along with many other Alaskans are in Washington this week to educate Congress about the Tongass National Forest. Certain people in Congress, the Administration, and the national environmental community, all who live thousands of miles 

away from Alaska, and in some cases have never set foot there, 

have worked night and day to stop timber harvesting in this 17-

million-acre forest. 

I note that Speaker Mel Brown of the Utah House of Representatives will testify today, as well as State Senator Fred King from 

rural northern New Hampshire. Now there is a good combination. 

This shows that we have a cross-section of this nation. Their presence before this Committee proves that the principles of private 

property and multiple-use management of natural resources are 

important to all parts of America. 

I also look forward to hearing from all our diverse witnesses 

today and welcome you to Washington this sultry June day. 

Because I may be forced to leave the hearing room because of an 

important negotiation involving an Interior appropriations bill, I 

will ask Ms. Chenoweth of Idaho or Mr. Hansen to chair the hearing at some point. 

Mr. Hansen, you would like to have the honor of introducing, I 

believe, our first witness, is that correct? 

(1) 
2 

STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES V. HANSEN, A U.S. 

REPRESENTATIVE FROM UTAH 

Mr. HANSEN. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I consider it an 

honor. We have with us today Mel Brown. Melvin Brown is Speaker of the Utah House of Representatives. I guess I have a soft spot 

in my heart for that because I was the Speaker of the House 120 

years ago, it seems like, and enjoyed that position very much. Mel 

has had kind of an enviable record as the Speaker, and his brother 

Glen also was the Speaker of the House, and Glen was a freshman 

when I was the Speaker. 

Mel comes from the State that is known by Money Magazine to 

be the best managed State in America and one of the fastest growing states. And what I have great respect for Mel Brown is those 

fellows live within their income. They have a surplus and they use 

it well. And I think we could all-we ought to turn this thing 

around and have some of the State legislative bodies who do such 

a great job explain to us how they do it. We should emulate them 

rather than the other way around. 

But it is a great pleasure to have you with us, Mel, and we appreciate you being here. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for allowing me 

to say a word about my good friend from Utah. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank the good gentleman from Utah. May I 

suggest also that if we have our way, eventually the states will get their rights back and we will quit trying to socialize the form of 

government which has been perpetuated upon the states in the 

past years. - At this time I would like to call Panel One, of course the Honorable Melvin R. Brown; Mr. Perry Pendley, the President of the 

Mountain States Legal Foundation, Denver Colorado; Clark Collins, Executive Director, Blue Ribbon Coalition, Incorporated; Senator Frederick W. King, Sr., State of New Hampshire; and David 

Guernsey, Maine Conservation Rights Institute. Would you please 

take your seats at the table. 

I see we have been joined also by the gentleman from California, 

Mr. Pombo. Mr. Pombo and I have the distinguished honor of being 

classified as villainous by the Atlantic Journal. I don't know what 

Atlanta had to do with California or Alaska, but we have now on 

the scorecard been rated some of the sinister souls of America. Mr. 

Pombo, would you like to respond? 

Mr. PoMBO. If the Chairman would yield for just a minute, I believe we also made New Jersey and Connecticut and the New York 

Times in the process, so--

The CHAIRMAN. We are laying the groundwork for a nationwide 

campaign. I can see it happening right now. 

And we also have been joined by Mrs. Chenoweth from the great 

State of Idaho. Glad to have you aboard. 

Now we will start out with the Honorable Melvin R. Brown, the 

Speaker of the Utah House of Representatives. Mr. Brown, you are 

up, Mr. Speaker. 

STATEMENT OF HON. MELVIN R. BROWN, SPEAKER, UTAH 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

Mr. BROWN. Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, it is 

a pleasure and indeed an honor as the Speaker of the Utah House 
3 

of Representatives and as a citizen of Utah to appear at this hearing and share with you our real world experience of living and laboring under Federal land use policies as articulated by the current 

administration. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for this opportunity. During the 1970's a term was coined describing what we in the 

West felt was a heavy-handed approach used by the Federal Government in its relationship to western states, especially in land-use 

policy. It was the "War on the West". It was a catchy phrase which 

caught the media's attention for a time; and then like other stories, 

it faded away as a media event. Yet for many years the war has 

silently continued. I would like to introduce to you a different metaphor describing 

our experience with Federal policies and agencies. Like the bull 

rider in the western rodeo, citizens and local government entities 

have been strapped to the back of a strident and arrogant Brahma 

bull with both hands tethered to the inconsistent and at times incoherent government policies and regulations. Twisting and turning 

violently, the bull exhibits seemingly limitless energy in trying to 

dislodge its rider. The whistle never blows and the rider can never 

dismount successfully. The contest has no end. Should the bull ever 

show signs of weakness or exhaustion, pseudo preservationists 

stand on the sidelines ready with their prods of tunnel vision and 

self-interest to electrify the bull into another level of convulsive erratic frenzy. 

Time will only permit two brief examples to illustrate challenges 

we face daily. A Garfield County official relates the following: An 

egregious example of Federal agency mishandling of a management 

issue traditionally handled by local governments can be seen in the 

case of the Boulder to Bullfrog Road. Utah's pioneers began building this road, commonly referred to as the Burr Trail, across Federal public lands before the turn of the century. Garfield County has maintained the road for decades, and today it is the county 

highway and one of the only five major collective roads in Garfield 

County. It provides the only east-west access across Garfield County. The road provides the only direct access to the southern portion 

of Capital Reef National Park. It has be~n and continues to be used 

for transportation by county residents to go about their day-to-day 

business, transportation by county officials and others, providing 

necessary law enforcement, search and rescue, and resource management services to the area of the county made accessible by this 

route, driving livestock, oil, water and mineral development and access for tourists to this area, including the Bullfrog Marina on 

Lake Powell. 

Garfield County has conducted the business of maintaining and 

improving this road to meet the needs of the traveling public in accordance with the accepted practices of public road management. 

However, beginning in the 1980's, environmental groups targeted 

the road, testing their ability to use Federal statutes to begin to 

control and limit access to the rural West, which is dominated by 

lands held in Federal ownership. The Sierra Club and other groups 

sued to stop the county from improving the road to maintain safety 

standards. They lost on all issues, except the technical application 

of the National Environmental Policy Act. 
4 

The courts found that the county has a legal right to maintain 

and improve the road across Federal lands to meet current safety 

standards in accordance with State law. However, because the application of NEPA provides an opportunity for open-ended bureaucratic wrangling and nitpicking, Federal agencies can use the 

NEPA process to stop or slow down activities which they oppose. 

Once the Clinton Administration took office and Bruce Babbitt 

was appointed Secretary of Interior, the very position which the Sierra Club had promoted, but which the Federal courts had rejected, 

became a policy of the Department of Interior. Thus began a pattern of Federal harassment which continues to this day. 

On numerous occasions when Garfield County has undertaken 

road activity well within the normal course of its prior practice, 

Federal agents have accosted the county, demanding that the county cease work and threatening administrative or legal action 

against the county. Now, Garfield County has a private land use 

base of about two percent of the lands within its boundaries. Can 

you imagine living in a county where two percent of the land is 

taxable to provide services for local government. Over 90 percent 

of the county is owned by the Federal Government. Needless to 

say, the county does not have a large budget to pursue or defend 

administrative or legal action. Furthermore, the county has historically sought to work cooperatively with Federal agencies rather 

than in an adversarial position, therefore the Federal agents demand compliance. The county often gives in. 

It has been our experience that the Department of Interior acting 

through the National Park Service is unwilling to recognize any 

meaningful local authority. To that end, it has asserted that Garfield County cannot perform any work, even routine maintenance, 

without first obtaining permission from the Federal Government. 

However, the Federal agencies claim that they cannot authorize 

any action on the county's right of way without undergoing expensive and wasteful administrative procedures under NEPA. 

In the past, the Park Service has taken three years to complete 

NEPA review while promising a six-month process. Now the Park 

Service asserts that it will take one year to review just a portion 

of the same work. Given the prior expansion from promised completion date to actual completion date, the NEPA review could take 

six years to complete. Meanwhile, Garfield County has a road to maintain, a road that 

is used by average Americans who rely on the responsible authorities to carry out their duties in a responsible manner. When dealing with public roads, the responsible thing to do is keep them safe. 

But when Garfield County steepened an existing cut-slope to reduce a blind turn at the boundary of Capitol Reef National Park, 

the United States filed suit demanding that the county be prevented from managing its right of way except by permission. Keep in mind that if the work on the road performed is deemed 

not acceptable to the Department of Interior, then safety must be 

deemed unacceptable to the Department. Keep in mind that the 

impact on park resources from this road cut is similar in nature 

to the innumerable road cuts within national parks in southern 

Utah. 
5 

The courts will decide whether local government like Garfield 

County will be allowed to exercise their rights in a responsible 

manner or whether they will be hampered by extensive bureaucratic interference. If the Department of Interior has its way, safety 

will be cast aside and Federal tax dollars will be spent paying the 

Federal bureaucrats to micro manage public road systems to meet 

the goals of special interest groups who have not been elected or 

charged to carry out the public interest. 

I see that light. 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Speaker, I am going to let you go ahead. You 

traveled a long way, as well as the rest of you. I would like to have 

you try to keep within five minutes, but would you finish your testimony, please. 

Mr. BROWN. Thank you very much. The other incident is much 

shorter. 

The Dixie National Forest officials announced in August 1995 a 

reduction of as much as 46 percent on grazing permits on 125,000 

acres of Boulder Mountain, citing a 1990 study which concluded 

that a grazing capacity error had been made for the area in Wayne 

and Garfield counties and that such a reduction was necessary to 

correct what was thought to be an overgrazing problem. Ranchers 

and local government officials immediately cried foul. They pulled 

from their files copies of the 1990 analysis, which clearly indicated 

that Boulder Mountain allotments were not grazed to capacity. 

When confronted with the obvious inconsistency in the report, 

government officials lapsed into a defensive posture and responded 

in their boiler plate bureaucratese by saying they, the ranchers and 

local government officials, may have misunderstood the technical 

methodology of the rangeland data. Ranchers and local officials 

pressed for an independent investigation of the controversial report. To the credit of the local Forest Service personnel, and I emphasize the word local, an independent investigation was launched 

with their support and promise that the grazing policy would be 

nullified if the allegation were proven true. 

The three-member investigating panel concluded in February of 

this year that the credibility of the data had been undermined. A 

few days following the publication of these findings, the Associated 

Press reported that the U.S. Forest Service was investigating how 

Dixie National Forest rangeland data was tainted. Insofar as I am 

aware, the investigation has not been completed. 

Other examples could be cited that would illustrate the dysfunctional, unproductive relationship between our citizens and local officials in the Federal Government. One local official asked, however, that some perceived problems not be brought to light in this 

environment because of the delicate relationship with local Federal 

officials that are being forged in an effort to find resolution. Imagine how open, frank debate being stifled because of the fear of bureaucratic reprisal in a country called America. 

As you undoubtedly know, Mr. Chairman, Utah is celebrating 

100 years of statehood this year. For more than 100 years we have 

nurtured the land. We have been sensitive to the delicate environmental balance, knowing that abuse would mean economic catastrophe. We love our State and recognize its unique beauty. We are 

committed to its preservation. We feel, however, embattled, locked 
6 

out and held hostage: embattled because our heritage and lifestyle 

are under assault; locked out because we are factored out of the 

public policy decisionmaking equation; and held hostage by dehumanizing public policy developed in a political environment driven 

by special interests and where conclusions are reached before questions are formulated. 

Mr. Chairman, I remind the Committee that government close to 

the people governs best. I would urge this Committee to support 

that core policy stance and do all within its legislative power to 

rein in abusive and unwarranted Federal bureaucratic intrusion 

into what should logically be local policy-making responsibilities. 

Thank you very much for this opportunity. The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. When all the witnesses 

have given their testimony, there will be some questions, but I 

want to thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Pendley, welcome to the Committee and the Committee room 

again. Mr. Pendley, for you who do not know, used to work many 

hours in this room. 

STATEMENT OF PERRY PENDLEY, PRESIDENT, MOUNTAIN 

STATES LEGAL FOUNDATION 

Mr. PENDLEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good to be here. I am 

President of Mountain States Legal Foundation. I am also the author of the book War on the West: Government Tyranny on America's Great Frontier. And with all deference to the speaker, I liked 

his title better. 

War on the West, with hundreds of footnotes, lays out in graphic 

detail the stories that you will hear today. You will hear a small 

part of them today-but they are all laid out in the book, and I 

think conclusively demonstrate what all of us in the west know, 

that there is a war on the west in an effort to achieve what Vice 

President AI Gore calls a "wrenching transformation of society." 

But it is not just a war on the American West. It is a war on western civilization throughout the country, especially in the rural 

areas. And you will hear from many of these men and women from 

rural America today, and particularly from areas where there are 

Federal lands. 

Let me give you a couple of examples of what is going on. John 

Shuler of Dubois, Montana, killed a grizzly bear in his yard late 

one night when he went outside. He feared for his life and reasonably concluded he was about to die. He killed the bear. The Fish 

and Wildlife Service fined him $4000 for illegally killing an endangered species. We claimed self defense on his behalf. An Administrative Law Judge ruled he could not claim self-defense because he 

had "introduced himself into the zone of imminent danger," his own 

yard. The case is on appeal. 

Larry Squires of Hobbs, New Mexico, used his land to dispose of 

waters produced in oil and gas operations. The EPA concluded that 

his dry desert lands were "waters of the United States" because 

every 200 years water would collect there, rainfall, and until it 

evaporated it formed ponds in which birds might land. He was 

given a cease and desist order, which as you know carries with it 

a $25,000-a-day fine for a violation. He observed. the order and 
7 

then sued the government, contending that the designation of his 

land was improper. A district court held he could not sue the government to challenge the order until he had violated the cease and desist order. The lOth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled as follows: ''While [Mountain States Legal Foundation] brings up a good point, that it 

doesn't seem to make much sense to be required to violate in order 

to sue on it; nevertheless we do not wish to undercut the enforcement authority of the EPA." 

You are familiar with, I am sure, the recent efforts by the United 

States Government to close Federal lands throughout the West in 

deference to Indian religious rights. One is at Devil's Tower. Another is in the Santa Fe ski area near Santa Fe, New Mexico. 

There is also the decision to bring the wolf into Montana, Idaho 

and Wyoming; the decision to bring the condor into the four-State 

region in the Southwest; and the decision by this administration to 

bring the United Nations to Wyoming, Montana and Idaho to determine our future, not just with regard to mining, but timber, 

tourism and wildlife policies. 

All of these, I think, demonstrate conclusively that there is a war 

on the West, but it is not about protecting the environment. We all 

at this table, and all the people -I have ever represented, are committed to environmental protection. We want clean air, clean water 

and safe lands. It is a battle over aesthetics, the point of view, for 

example, that takes the position that it is better to have wildfires 

burn in the western forest than to have loggers cut them when 

they are ready for harvest. It is a battle not about safety, survivability and sustainability, but about power and control, the ability 

of a handful of Americans to run the lives of the rest of us. 

What is most distressing to Americans is the fact that this is a 

battle, a war being waged by their own government. In fact, one 

of the greatest battles that I face is getting people to understand 

that they can and should sue their own government. This is a generation of "your country right or wrong," and they have found their 

country very wrong with its attitude to them. Also very distressing is the position taken by Federal lawyers, 

government lawyers, in Federal courts. I want to explore that a little bit, because I think an excellent oversight hearing by this Committee might be to bring up some attorneys from the Justice Department and inquire as to the position the government is taking regarding laws this body passes. 

I come here today from Cincinnati, Ohio, where I appeared before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit regarding a case 

in the upper peninsula of Michigan regarding a piece of property 

called Crooked Lake. Crooked Lake is owned by private citizens. 

One of the owners happens to be the U.S. Forest Service, and the 

U.S. Forest Service land that is owned in that situation is designated as wilderness. Michigan law says all landowners around 

the lake have equal access to the entire lake. Yet the Forest Service has taken the position that it can restrict the access to the entire lake by the landowners around the lake. The Forest Service 

has taken this position notwithstanding, that Congress said only 

Federal land will be designated as wilderness, only lands we designate will be wilderness, no private property will become wilder-
8 

ness unless the property owner agrees, no buffer zones will be created and finally valid existing rights will be protected. 

The Forest Service has ignored every single one of those provisions. And in fact, before the U.S. Court of Appeals last week, the 

Department of Justice attorney actually said the term "valid existing rights" had no meaning when it was adopted by Congress. Congress didn't know what it meant, and so our interpretation is as 

good as any." Now what is the government's interpretation of "valid 

existing rights"? The right to drink the water from the lake, that 

is it. 

We have challenged the Brady Act in Wyoming. That will soon 

be before the U.S. Supreme Court. Remarkably enough, the government took the position in Federal court that the Brady Act would 

not permit action to be taken against local sheriffs. You will remember when that law was before this Congress, Congressman 

Schiff actually introduced legislation to exempt sheriffs from legal 

action. That was not adopted. The government now, in an attempt-a vain attempt, I think, to save the law's constitutionality-took the reverse position. 

In Lincoln County, Montana-you will hear from Bruce Vincent 

today, who comes from Lincqln County-we are representing Lincoln County, Montana, in a lawsuit against the U.S. Forest Service 

for decreasing timber harvesting by 43 percent to achieve a one 

percent increase in grizzly bear habitat. 

The Forest Service takes the position that counties have no legal 

standing to come to court to challenge decisions of the Forest Service. This is a remarkable position because 25 percent of the revenues from timber harvesting come back to the counties. To take the 

position that everybody else in the world has standing to come to 

court except local counties is absurd. 

Finally, let me give one example of what I call the Goldilocks approach to constitutional standing. You remember Goldilocks saying 

too hot, too cold and just right. We are representing a man by the 

name of Andy Petefish, who has filed an action because he has 

been prevented from climbing Devils Tower in the month of June 

out of deference to Indian religious rights. Remarkably enough, the 

United States Government took the position that Andy Petefish did 

not have constitutional standing because he had chosen a lifestyle 

that required him to earn most of his living in the month of June 

by climbing on Devils Tower. In another case where we challenged the constitutionality of Federal action, a case involving affirmative action, the government 

takes the position that our client is making plenty of money even 

though he has been discriminated against on the basis of race. 

Therefore he doesn't have legal standing. So we have a "too much" 

and "too little" approach. The CHAIRMAN. Perry, I don't want to do this to you, but go 

ahead if you have one more, and that is it. 

Mr. PENDLEY. Let me close by just simply saying that what I see 

and what the people at this table see in case after case, instance 

after instance, is an approach by Federal lawyers that ignores the 

meaning of statute and ignores the express provision of statute. I 

know how difficult it is when wilderness statutes are passed or 

Federal land statutes are passed, the compromises that are made, 
9 

the agreements that are made, and yet Federal lawyers go into 

court and pretend that those agreements never happened. 

If there is one thing I would urge upon the Committee in addition to the hearings, it would be that the losers in these battles be 

as tough on Justice Department lawyers who are attempting to 

give them victory as the winners are. And if there is that sort of 

comity here on the Hill, to demand that the Executive Branch implement the law as it was adopted, a lot of us out in the hinterlands would feel a lot better about the things that are happening. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much. I am confident we will be 

able to have some questions for you, too. Clark Collins, you are up next. 

STATEMENT OF CLARK COLLINS, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, 

BLUE RffiBON COALITION 

Mr. COLLINS. Chairman Young, members of the Committee on 

Resources, thank you for the opportunity to testify on the issue of 

Federal land use policies. The Blue Ribbon Coalition represents off 

highway recreationists. 

And I brought a poster today that I would like to ask unanimous 

consent that I be allowed to distribute to members of the Committee, even those members of the Committee that aren't here if they 

would like one. And I can assure you that there will be no question 

of ethics, because these cost about 65 cents a piece, so I don't think 

they will get you in any trouble. But this illustrates who we are. 

We represent not only motorized recreationists, but non-motorized 

trail users as well, because even some non-motorized recreation 

groups are starting to suffer under the heavy hand of overregulation by Federal bureaucrats. So if that could be distributed to the 

Committee. 

The CHAIRMAN. Without objection the staff will take one of these 

and distribute each one to a member. I have little concern. There 

is a Jeep there instead of a Suburban, but that is all right. 

Mr. COLLINS. OK Now I would like to show you another picture, and this is a picture of the Park Service. This is the picture of the 

Park Service ranger that appeared in our local papers in the spring 

of 1994. And this is a park ranger welcoming recreationists to our 

public lands. And as you might not be able to see from there, he 

is heavily armed. There is a barricade behind him and this ranger 

was out there preventing recreationists from accessing a recreation 

area that had been used for over 30 years near our home base of 

Pocatello, Idaho. 

Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt had ordered 14 armed National 

Park Service rangers from all over the country to American Falls, Idaho, to kick us out of that area. That is right, 14 armed rangers. 

Can you imagine what that cost American taxpayers? This is just 

one more example of Secretary Babbitt's attitude that the American public has unlimited resources to pay for his gestapo-like 

methods of dealing with land users he and his Green Advocacy 

Group (GAG) friends don't approve of. Now we support enforcement of reasonable regulations. We have 

never objected to enforcement of OHV regulations, but we have 

been opposing this closure, because it is in an area that we had 
10 

used for years. We had helped maintain the area. In fact, we told 

the BOR, the Bureau of Reclamation, who has management responsibility, in 1993 that if they insisted on closing the area, they 

should actively enforce that closure right away. We feared they 

were deliberately setting up a situation where they could cite evidence of violators to justify their plans for a permanent total closure. The irony is that they didn't have any violators, but went 

ahead with their strategy anyway, because the rangers that came 

to the area discovered that there weren't any violators. 

This harassment by Interior Secretary Babbitt may have been in 

retaliation for our involvement, with other wise use groups, in attempts to have him replaced. We felt it was important to show our 

concern for the environment by asking President Clinton to replace 

Bruce Bab~itt with someone who will work with public land users 

instead of wasting taxpayers' money on a personal vendetta. 

We have always shown respect for this area's natural resources 

and scenic beauty. We have conducted litter cleanups and informed 

our members of the need to respect local wildlife and other users. 

In fact, we have even built and installed cattle guards to eliminate 

any possibility of conflict with grazers who also use the area. Unfortunately, they have been kicked out of the area, too. 

It is interesting that when this incident occurred, we had 

planned to put this cover on the May 1994 issue of Blue Ribbon 

Magazine. And this is a picture of one of our members in California, might even be in Congressman Pombo's district for all I know, 

that was involved in a tree planting project, an off-highway motorcyclist and his son, their faces all black. They had spent all day 

planting trees, real environmental work. 

Several important facts are relevant to this issue. 

Fact number one: Most users assumed it was Bureau of Land 

Management, BLM, open land. It was only through meetings with 

the BLM initiated by me several years ago that we were told that 

the land was in fact BOR land. · Fact number two: We offered to work with the BOR on a plan 

to manage recreation access. We indicated our willingness to assist 

in the enforcement of reasonable regulations to manage the recreational use of the area. The BOR said at that time, which was 

much prior to this incident, that they would defer management of 

the area to the BLM, who managed the BOR grazing allotments 

and much of the surrounding area. Now this should have been a 

local issue and easily resolved, but it seemed that the BOR's attitude changed dramatically following the 1992 election. Babbitt's extreme environmental fingerprints are all over this incident. Contrast this with a letter that my local off-highway motorcycle 

group received from President Reagan in 1987. The letter says, 

"My good friend, Senator Jim McClure, tells me that you're a cando outfit. He says that you not only travel the trails but clear them, 

too, keeping them fit for yourselves and others to enjoy. And you 

look for no other recompense than the joy of a job well done. Volunteer efforts like yours are the American way, and I'm sure your 

good example will move others to make the great outdoors a great 

place for everyone. God bless you all, Ronald Reagan." 

In conclusion, the hate mongering and contrived user conflicts of 

the GAGs shouldn't be rewarded. Secretary Babbitt, the Sierra 
11 

Club and Earth First do not represent the environmental conscience of this country. We shouldn't call the GAGs environmentalists and passively allow them to refer to us wise users as anti-environmentalists. Neither should the League of Conservation Voters 

Index be the litmus test for Congressional environmental responsibility. In fact, in · my view the Private Property Congressional 

Vote Index should be the litmus test for environmental responsibility, because these are the folks, the heroes that are recognized. And 

those are the ones that are the real environmentalists in my view. 

Just who are the real environmentalists? Pushing to eliminate 

everyone's impact on the environment but your own doesn't make 

you an environmentalist. The GAGs and their friends in Congress 

and land management agencies are no longer for the environment. 

They are just against every else's use of it. 

Chairman Young and members of the Committee, recreationists 

shouldn't be discriminated against by our land management agencies and treated like criminals. The cooperation and volunteerism 

of our members should be recognized and rewarded. On issues of 

environmental rrotection we should be innocent unless proven 

guilty instead o the other way around. We can use our natural resources wisely and preserve our natural resources for the public instead of from the public. 

Thank you. 

[Statement of Clark L. Collins may be found at end of hearing.] 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Clark. I believe Senator King, you 

are next. I don't know how that got switched around, but Senator 

King, you are next. Involved on the board you have got three westerners there and two easterners and you all have mutual problems, 

and I certainly like to hear from this side of the aisle, too. Senator, 

you are up. 

STATEMENT OF HON. FREDERICK W. KING, SR., A STATE 

SENATOR IN NEW HAMPSHIRE 

Mr. KING. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee, for allowing me to testify before your Committee. I am the 

State Senator from New Hampshire's Senate District One, which 

consists of 19 towns, the city of Berlin and 23 unincorporated 

places in Coos County, the State's northernmost county. I also represent the citizens of five towns in Grafton County. My district consists of small rmal communities and is bordered by Canada on the 

north, Maine on the east and Vermont on the west. Our economy 

is closely tied to the timber and paper making industries along 

with tourist related businesses. 

Before I was elected Senator, I was employed as Coos County administrator. Coos County has a land mass of 1800 square miles and 

a population of 36,000. I continue to work for the county part time 

as administrator for the 23 unincorporated places. I have also 

served 12 years as a selectman in my town and I know I have a 

good sense of what is important to my constituents. 

I appear before your Committee to express the concerns that my 

county has relative to Federal land use policies and the potential 

impact of proposed legislation on the citizens of Coos County. I 

refer in particular to Senate Bill 1163 and H.R. 2421, The Northern Forest Stewardship Act. If these bills become law, the economy 
12 

of .my county is in jeopardy and the historical multiple use of our 

timber resources will be seriously threatened. These bills have the 

support of 28 of the most powerful, taxpayer-supported environmental organizations in the country. They have joined together in 

a formal organization known as the Northern Forest Alliance. 

Their plan targets ten specific areas in northern Vermont and New 

Hampshire and areas in adjacent Maine. They propose that these 

lands would remain in the "natural state" and the funding process 

for these purchases will be available through S. 1163 and H.R. 

2421. 

Today three out of every ten acres of land in Coos County is publicly owned. A substantial part of the 750,000 acre White Mountain 

National Forest lies within my Senate District. Currently the 

White Mountain National Forest is severely cutting back on timber 

harvesting activities within its boundaries. In fact, beginning in 

1994 a reduction in available harvest took place. The White Mountain National Forest grows 30 million board feet per year on a sustainable basis on the 60 percent of the land where harvesting can 

legally take place. In 1994 the government proposed to reduce the 

cut to 9.6 million board feet. At that time one local sawmill operator was quoted as saying we saw into lumber 5 million board feet 

a year. If they cut back 20 million board feet, four mills like ours 

won't have any wood. 

Recently, it was reported that one of the most respected national 

environmental organizations in the country, the Sierra Club, adopted a policy that will fight to ban all timber harvesting on national 

forests coast to coast. In 1996 Congress authorized the purchase of 

an additional 480 acres, which will be added to the White Mountain National Forest, for a staggering price of 1.9 million, or $3950 

per acre for woodland. 

Attached to my statement is a map which contains the details of 

the Northern Forest Alliance master plan for the northern forests, 

including the lands in Coos County, New Hampshire. These lands, 

that are labeled 5, 6 and 7 on the map, surround the town that I 

live in. They contain property on the headwaters of the 

Androscoggin River, the county fish and wildlife refuge which was 

adopted in 1991, and an area in Vermont. 

Any change from the historical pattern of use will devastate the 

lives of my neighbors. With known patterns of timber harvesting 

on Federal lands in the White Mountain National Forest, the proposed ban on all future harvesting on Federal lands and the proposed land grab of the organizations that form the Northern Forest 

Alliance, I truly believe that those of us who inhabit northern New 

Hampshire, the northeast end of Vermont, and western Maine have 

justification to fear for the future of our children and grandchildren. Our heritage, earned over generations, is at stake. 

A few years ago when the James River Corporation paper mills 

were threatened with closing, it was projected that overnight the 

unemployment in Coos County would reach 35 to 40 percent. That 

crisis was averted and today the mills are viable operations. They 

need timber fiber to operate and we must protect the source of that 

timber supply. 

It makes no sense to spend dollars which the Federal Government does not have to purchase more land which it cannot manage 
13 

and on which no trees will be cut. Your Committee knows better 

than I do about the great need for more funding to rebuild the infrastructure in the Federal parks and forests. A 1991 GAO document called Federal Land Improvements Needed in Managing Concessionaires stated that the Park Service had a deferred maintenance funding shortfall in 1988 of $1.9 billion and the recreational 

resources for the Forest Service was short $650 million. 

I can't speak for the rest of the property owners throughout the 

State and the landowners, but I will tell you that in Coos County, 

New Hampshire private landowners have left their lands open to 

the public for generations. We don't need the Federal Government 

to come in and buy more land. 

Senate Bill 1163 and H.R. 2421 are similar bills. A clause in both 

of the bills provided for 80 future land purchases by the Federal 

Government would require local approval. In our case, that would 

mean a local town meeting would have to approve the purchase of 

that land. That language has been changed in the Senate version. 

It remains in the House version that I have. The issue of whether 

land should be bought and paid for with Federal dollars only from 

willing buyers to willing sellers is not appropriate in this case because we all know that Federal lands-the prices that the government pays for Federal lands takes any inclination for people not to 

sell. It makes no sense for the government to buy land at nearly $4000 an acre in my State when the going price is about $300 to 

$350 an acre. 

So I ask that this language cannot be retained in these bills to 

allow any future acquisition to require the local citizens-and I am 

not talking about the State. I am talking about the local governments. If they can't have a veto power on that like they have in 

the White Mountain National Forest outside the proclamation 

boundary, then I would ask these bills be killed. 

Thank you. [Statement of Hon. Frederick King, Sr. may be found at end of 

hearing.] 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator. Last but not least, David 

Guernsey. · Mr. GUERNSEY. Yes, sir. 

The CHAIRMAN. From Maine. 

Mr. GUERNSEY. Yes, sir. The CHAIRMAN. All right. 

STATEMENT OF DAVID GUERNSEY, MAINE CONSERVATION 

RIGHTS INSTITUTE 

Mr. GUERNSEY. I am here today representing the Maine Conservation Rights Institute, which is an organization dedicated to 

conservation through private landownership. Last year I testified 

before your property rights subcommittee as to how the Appalachian Mountain Club and its relationship with the U.S. Forest Service allowed the AMC to lobby, and this is a direct quote, "for funding for forest needs as identified by the Forest Service staff, for 

whom lobbying is prohibited." 

In return the Forest Service has allowed the AMC to expand a 

small string of nonprofit huts into a $3-1/2 million operation in direct violation of its permit, which charged no fee for use of public 
14 

lands. This funding allowed the Appalachian Mountain Club to 

form some very powerful relationships with other groups and with 

other Federal agencies, which seriously threatened many of the 

rural communities across northern New England. 

One particular example, in the city of Millinocket a great northern dam relicensing project led the city of Millinocket to complain, 

again a quote, "we are appalled that an agency of our government 

repeatedly ignores our year-round environmental and economic interests to push an agenda that will radically change our lives for 

the worst. We watch Interior representatives actively conspire with 

relicensing opponents to defeat relicensing. This is not how government is supposed to work." Now these are not my words. These are 

the words of the city of Millinocket. It is a paper making town. It 

is a labor town. It is a largely Democratic town. This is not a partisan issue. 

The Maine Governor's Office said much the same thing. And 

again, we have an independent governor in the State of Maine. He 

used to be general counsel for the Natural Resources Council of 

Maine. This is again not a partisan issue. 

A similar situation happened in Saddleback Mountain Ski Area 

across which the Appalachian Trail runs. They have been fighting 

with the Department of Interior for 11 years. At issue is the Department of Interior's desire to take 3000 acres for a viewshed, although law only requires a 1000 foot corridor along the trail. 

Saddleback has offered to give the corridor to the government at 

no cost. The government will not take it. Finally this last session 

the Maine legislature passed a resolution which I have attached 

urging the Forest Service to accept free land. They still have not 

resolved that issue. 

The AMC uses its hut system on free National Forest land for 

much of its advocacy and it justifies these by calling them public 

education. In one particular instance this public education involved 

inviting school children to produce skits on "what the world would 

be like if people keep abusing the planet." Now I can just imagine 

what would happen if we used Forest Service land and had kids 

producing skits on what our communities would be like if our environmental regulations kept abusing our economies. There is no 

oversight of these so-called educational programs, and they really 

are nothing short of propaganda for their extreme environmental 

agenda. And we don't believe it is appropriate that this be done on 

public lands. 

The AMC's position is, again a quote, "every goal and objective 

toward which we work is for the public benefit and every dollar of 

our revenues is circulated back for the public good." This is like 

what is good for the AMC is good for the country. Their permit to 

operate their hut system on National Forest land expired last October, and we had hoped that things would change with the 

repermitting. Unfortunately, they have not-the Appalachian 

l\1ou_9.taffi-Club submitted a master plan which was little more ~.a promotional document. It contained no financial data. It 

made no reference to the restrictive terms of the previous lease. 

They basically were asking that our proposal recommends that the 

Forest Service include all of our current operations and programs 
15 

in the new pennit. What they were doing they wanted made legal 

with no questions. 

Rather than rejecting it, the Forest Service joined the Appalachian Mountain Club in sponsoring a joint series of promotional open 

houses and listening sessions. And after these are over, they simply 

are going to detennine whether they accept the master development as submitted or they ask the AMC to revise it. There is no 

attempt to see what this hut system is really worth and whether 

the public's getting its money's worth. 

All we are asking in this is a fair process. We are asking that 

the AMC be treated the same as other pennittees on public land. 

This land is our land. We don't believe it should be given to special 

interest and then used against our own communities. 

The final issue in this, though, is symptomatically a much larger 

problem. These are very wealthy, elitist, environmental organiza- tions. They have an enonnous amount of power over Federal Government, it appears. The AMC boasted 74 percent of its 68,000 

members earn $40,000 or more per year. This is hardly a representative slice of our country. They have huge tax exempt privileges. We believe these privileges are unwarranted and we believe 

that groups like the Appalachian Mountain Club and their supporters should be made to pay their fair share of maintaining this 

country. 

Thank you. 

[Statement of David Guernsey may be found at end of hearing.] 

The CHAIRMAN. I want to thank the panel. I think every musician ought to be able to listen to his own music once in awhile, and 

my one question, I guess, I have for all of you here. This Committee, as it is made up now, especially this side of the aisle--I want 

to stress this, because I am going to be partisan-{)ther than two 

members, agree with everyone on this panel. And we have been 

villainized by the media as being anti-environmental, as against 

the environment, as rapers of the planet, as that which is trying 

to destroy good sound law. It gets very, very discouraging for many 

of the members, not myself because my head is too hard, to have 

that constant bombardment of mistruths, untruths, outright lies 

about where we are headed. 

Now my question to the panel, if we do nothing and the government continues its activities, what is going to happen to the communities and what relationship do you think your communities will 

have on the Federal Government? Anybody can answer that. What 

is the feeling about the Federal Government, is what I am trying 

to say, in your districts now by the average person in the community? Anybody want to tackle that? Perry will, because he wrote a 

book, but, I mean, the Senator is there. I have got a Senator. I 

have got a Speaker of the House. Do you have anybody happy with 

the Federal Government right now? 

Mr. PENDLEY. No, I think the answer is no. The answer is no because there is an adversarial process. I was wondering as I was 

standing out in the hall, Mr. Chainnan, when it switched over, 

when all of a sudden the government began to take sides and vilify 

real Americans as bad people. And that is what we see in case 

after case after case, that the government is taking this position. 
16 

In the canon of ethics that we lawyers observe there is a canon 

called--

The CHAIRMAN. Be careful when you say ethics within the legal 

field. 

Mr. PENDLEY. I know. I didn't want to open a can of worms. You 

are going to jump me here. But there is Canon 7, which says an 

attorney will represent his client zealously within the bounds of the 

law, which means basically for lawyers an all-systems-go attempt 

to protect your client, except for government lawyers. And there is 

a specific ethical consideration with regard to government lawyers 

that. tells government lawyers you are supposed to "seek justice." 

You are not supposed to win. You are supposed to seek justice. And 

I want to tell you in the situations in which I go into court on behalf of clients, I don't see that. I see my clients, even though they 

are citizens, even though they are county commissioners, even 

though they, in many cases, represent the State or the will of the 

State, they are evil people and they are vilified by government lawyers. 

The CHAIRMAN. They are not seeking justice. They are seeking 

to win. 

Mr. ~DLEY. They are seeking--

The CHAIRMAN. And they are taxpayer paid lawyers. Mr. PENDLEY. Exactly, they are seeking to win and they are-let 

me give you a good example.· The CHAIRMAN. Don't take too long, Perry, because I have got a 

couple more questions. 

Mr. PENDLEY. Give me one minute here. In the Devils Tower 

case, as to our client Andy Petefish who climbs for a living, who 

guides people on Devils Tower, the government took the position 

that he did not suffer irreparable harm because he could always 

get money back from the government if was kept off the mountain 

improperly. He was kept off the mountain for seven days in the 

month of June. I will tell you what will happen. We will file a claim 

for those seven days and I will bet you dollars to donuts the government will take the position that he isn't entitled to the money. I mean, this is what we see consistently, the government taking 

both sides of an issue regardless of the law and regardless of what 

you adopt. / 

The CHAIRMAN. Senator King, your w~ about the two pieces of legislation, have you communicated · is with the Senator and 

with the Congressman, that this would h rt your districts? 

Mr. KING. They know very well how I,feel about that, yes. 

The CHAIRMAN. Good, because I am ;not terribly impressed with 

either piece of legislation, I can tell yrju that right now. And I can 

assure you that the local people are going to be terribly involved 

if those bills were to move. You know, I have introduced a bill to 

turn land back to the states. See, I am the radical in many cases, 

but I don't believe the Federal Government should own land. I 

think it should be owned by the st~tes and the private individuals 

primarily. That gives us our strength. This idea of socialized landownership is just absolutely against anything we ever set up our 

country for, so we will be looking at that legislation. 

Mr. KING. I believe at a very minimum that the Federal Government should adopt a policy that as they buy an acre of land they 
17 

should sell an acre of land. There may be some land that was 

bought years ago that they don't need and there may be some attractive parcels that they might need now. But there is no reason 

for them to continue to buy land and not sell some of the land. 

The CHAIRMAN. You are absolutely right. And my biggest concern 

in my 23 years on this Committee, and Mr. Hansen has been here 

just about as long as I have, is that we have acquired land, massive acreages of land, about 15 million acres we have acquiredtaken off the tax roll. We own 637 million acres of land, more land 

than any free country today that owns under the leadership. Now 

a few years ago it was a partnership relationship between the 

State, the private sector, and the agencies. That has changed, and 

Perry is absolutely correct and the Senator is absolutely correct. It 

has changed now to where the agency with the park uniform with 

the pistol on his hip now is enforcing his interpretation of the law. 

And, Clark, before I run out of time I would suggest one thing. 

You represent a huge, huge voting block, and they have not become 

really active. Their rights are taken away and they have got to be 

able to respond to the Sierra Club, but I don't think they are a nationally recognized great environmental group. I know exactly what 

they are. 

Mr. COLLINS. Yes. 

The CHAIRMAN. But you have a very large group of people that 

they have to understand that these groups are trying to put Federal lands off limits. There is where the power comes in. The same 

thing with the Senator and the Speaker. 

We are doing the best we can in this Committee. We have just 

been in charge less than two years. You give us two more years so 

we can start investigating and reviewing what has occurred in the 

past by these agencies without even jurisdiction being given to 

them. This is a justice system being given to them by this Congress. They have done it on their own. We start bringing them in 

and reviewing them, which this Committee is starting to do now, 

but we won't be able to finish it. We are going to get to the root 

of this. They are not elected officials. They are in fact supposed to 

be servants of the people. They are not right now. They believe 

with their little M16 rifles and their little airplanes in my State 

landing and harassing my legitimate landowners. They believe they 

are right. They are the government. Don't you ever question them. 

And there is where the breakdown comes. That is why I asked 

that first question. I can't find anybody today-and I will challenge 

anybody in this room to walk down the street. I will pay you a dollar for everybody that says they are happy with the Federal Government if you give me ten cents for everyone who says they are 

unhappy with it, and I will be a rich man and you would be dead 

broke. And I am not Italian, Mr. Hansen. 

And by the way, I have to--I hate to do this, but Madam 

Chenoweth, would you take the chair for a while while I go attend 

one more meeting? You heard my lecture, so go ahead. 

Mr. HANSEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me comment on 

some of the things that this Committee said-that this panel said, 

if I may. I think what people don't realize is when Mr. Babbitt took 

the position as Secretary of Interior, h~ came in as Chairman of the 

League of Conservation Voters, and much of the agenda that was 
18 

in that particular organization has been put into the Department 

of Interior. Anybody that doesn't believe that just has to see what 

all these people are saying and doing. For example, we passed 

many pieces of legislation which did not really change much, it just 

built upon what has been done. We have tried not to go out and 

change things around. We have just tried to make it better. I agree with the statement that Perry brought out that there was 

nobody on the panel, nobody in this room that wants to hurt the 

environment. We want to do it right. We want to do it with science. 

We want to do it with understanding. We don't want to do it just 

because someone has a burning in the bosom and they happen to 

feel that is the way it is but they don't understand it. 

Somebody brought out-1 think Mr. Guernsey brought up the 

idea of the tax exempt privileges that some of these organizations 

have. It is interesting for me to see the propaganda that they put 

out and actually put out brochures bragging about being able to 

come up here and lobby Congress. Somebody doesn't understand. 

They don't get the right to lobby Congress if they are tax exempt. 

Yet they seem to do this on a regular basis, and it is of great concern to many of us. 

On our moderate position on things I think that private property 

rights are something. You see it destroyed in the Endangered Species Act in the wetlands. You see it destroyed in many of the bills 

that have been drawn up for this particular area, which is of basic 

concern as the co~s_titution, I think, gives it to our people in those 

areas. I appreciate my friend Mel Brown bringing up the idea of Burr 

Trail. When I was a kid I used to drive a Jeep down there. My dad 

had mines in that particular area. It is a road. I took Bill Mott 

down there years ago, ten, eleven years ago, and he wanted to see 

it. We flew in in the governor's airplane to Escalante, Utah. We put 

down in that area. We went down to the area and he said I want 

to walk. We got out and started walking down the road. For those 

of you who don't realize who Bill Mott was, he was Director of 

Parks. Bill made the statement, he said, "Hell, Jim, this is just a 

road." I said what did you expect, Bill. He said I thought it was 

like the Bright Angel Trail and the Kaibab Trail across the Grand 

Canyon. I said no, it is just a road, that is all it has ever been. And 

for the people in Garfield County, that is 90-some percent owned 

by the Federal Government, these people are constantly harassed 

over something that should have been paved a long time ago, and 

I think the environmental community has picked the wrong fight 

to get involved in in the Burr Trail. 

Also in that particular area we have lost most of our timber companies. The little town of Escalante, Utah, had 268 people working 

at Escalante Sawmill. One challenge after another after the extreme group eventually drove them out of business. Now we are 

losing Kaibab Industries that was in Fredonia and Panguitch. 

Those are going under at the same time. At the same time we are 

seeing our forests destroyed by the pine beetle. And the best people 

on management of the forest come in and say we should do this 

cutting to stop this. But the extremists come in who have no background, no science, no understanding of it, but they have-they 

hold their little meetings and they get all jazzed up and they say 
19 

oh, however, we want to keep these forests just the way they are. 

I can't understand if these people really want to help America why 

they don't get into the science part of it. Why don't they really understand it rather than just stand up and have hell and hallelujah 

meetings, which we see all over the place in that area? 

I appreciate the Congressman brought up-1 personally have 

never seen in my 36 years as an elected official, I have never seen 

an organization like the current administration-! don't care if you 

are an R or a D-who is doing so much to try to stop America and 

the practice of America. I think we can have things environmentally sound and at the same time not ruin the economy of the 

west, which I see some people dedicated to do. 

In my State today Steve Peterson had a debate at the University 

of Utah with a fellow by the name of Ken Rake of the Southern 

Utah Wilderness Association, who made the statement that the 

West had better draw on the idea that we can no longer have the 

economy we have had, the grazing, the agriculture, the timber, the 

mining are a thing of the past. Pray tell where are we going to get 

the things when we fly in airplanes and we fight wars, when we 

put on our shoes, when we eat at the table? Where is all this going 

to come from? It just amazes me that attitude that I constantly see 

from this group. Why don't they just wake up and join the rest of 

us and let us work toward improving the environment but doing 

it in a way we don't completely obliterate the people from our ar~as, which they are trying to do. 

Incidentally, most of you from the Southern Utah Wilderness Association come from New York. 

Thank you, Madam Chairman. Thank you for letting me get that 

off my chest. 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. [presiding] Thank you, Chairman Hansen. I 

would like to call on Mr. Pickett next for the minority side. 

Mr. PICKETT. Thank you, Madam Chairman. I came in a little bit 

late. I didn't hear all the witnesses' testimony, so I am going to 

pass at this time. If I have any questions after the other members 

speak, then I will ask them then. Thank you. 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Thank you, Mr. Pickett. I would like to call 

next Mr. Calvert. 

Mr. CALVERT. Thank you, Madam Chairman. All I would like to 

say is that I think at least on this side that we are very encouraged 

by your attendance today and that we are certainly in favor of the 

responsible use of resources in this country and the utilization of 

public lands for more than the elite purposes of some organizations 

and that we should utilize and conserve those resources to help our 

economy, there is nothing wrong with that, and provide jobs and 

opportunities for all Americans. And I think we are working toward 

that goal and with your help we can continue. Thank you very 

much, Madam Chairman. 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Thank you, Mr. Calvert. Mr. Pombo. 

Mr. POMBO. Thank you. Mr. Collins, in your statement you 

talked about the fact that you felt that our recreational opportunities were being impeded upon in some way. And I find that interesting because in my brief time that I have been in Congress we 

have locked up millions of acres of land, and one of the arguments 

for locking up the land has always been that increased recreation 
20 

in these areas will replace the loss of timber jobs, farming jobs, mining jobs. Are you not seeing all the benefits from all this increased recreation? 

Mr. COLLINS. Exactly the opposite as a matter of fact. And in 

fact, that is a false argument totally. These so-called environmental 

groups certainly don't represent the recreation interests that we 

are involved with. And in fact increasingly their ideology is at odds 

with any kind of recreational activity. That is why I wanted you 

folks to have that poster to see that we represent a broad recreation constituency that is willing to share and work together. The 

environmental extremist groups may have started out as recreational representatives. In fact, that is where they recruit a lot 

of their new members; they say that they have these recreational 

outings and come with us. Then they convince them that in order 

to enjoy this recreation activity they have got to kick out the cattle 

ranchers that have been involved in keeping the cow trails open all 

these years. It is a false argument that annoys the very daylights 

out of me, because we represent recreationists that they are trying 

to kick out, too. So I would urge members of this Committee whenever that argument is used, challenge it, because those folks do not represent 

recreation. We represent recreation interests that work coopera- tively with the natural resource industries and with one another. And so we would like to have you at every turn point to the Blue 

Ribbon Coalition as a recreation organization that doesn't share 

their viewpoint. 

Mr. PENDLEY. Mr. Pombo, could I be heard--

Mr. POMBO. Yes, go ahead. 

Mr. PENDLEY. [continuing)-on that? In your own State of Cali- fornia, as an example, it doesn't work. The creation of the Redwood 

National Park and the expansion of the Redwood National Park 

were held out as a wonderful opportunity to dramatically increase 

tourism and replace the timber jobs. It just hasn't happened. The 

unemployment is very high there. The dependent children number 

there is very high. 

Another excellent example just across the border from Congressman Helen Chenoweth's district is in Lincoln County, Montana. 

Timber cutbacks have lost the timber jobs. Environmentalist efforts 

to prevent a mine from going into business has prevented the mining jobs. And they are told, the community is told yeah, but tourism will be your future up here. Bruce Vincent on the next panel 

talks about tourism being our future. They have a lake up there 

called Koocanusa. Lake Koocanusa was supposed to be where everybody would come to recreate. It is now being drained to "save 

the salmon" and the locals now call it Lake Who Can Use It. This 

is the evidence of the absence of tourism as the future. 

Mr. POMBO. The two specific examples, one was the Redwood National Park, and we have had testimony on two previous occasions 

in this Committee, one from a social worker from the area and one 

time from a local elected official about the devastating impact that 

has had on their community and that they were promised that 

tourism would be the-would replace all the jobs that were lost. Another one is the California Desert Protection Act. It was well 

known at the time that that went through Congress that it would 
21 

cost thousands of jobs, but the argument was that tourism would 

make up for the loss of those jobs, that the increased numbers of 

people coming into the area, because we changed the name of the 

desert, would make up for the difference. But in the same bill they 

also closed down all of the access points and all of the roads in the 

desert. And so I don't understand how one thing leads to the other. When they lock it up, they lock it up. 

Mr. COLLINS. They are selling snake oil, Congressman, plain and 

simple, because their agenda does not promote recreation access. 

And there is example after example of that. Voyagers National 

Park they are trying to kick the snowmobilers out. Yellowstone Na- tional Park the same thing. Boundary Waters Canoe Area, they 

have restricted access in that area. They don't want youth groups, 

Boy Scout groups, because they are too large. They don't want to 

allow them in the Boundary Waters Canoe area. It is a false argument and should be challenged at every turn. 

Mr. POMBO. Mr. King, just before my time runs out, I have introduced since I got here a bill that would require if the Federal Government wants to buy something they have to sell something. And 

I believe very strongly that the Federal Government owns too much 

property, and if we can at least stop this expansion of property 

where the Federal Government continues to go out and buy up 

more and more land. In fact, this year there has been at least two 

occasions where we have been able to get written into bill language 

and passed by the -House and Senate and signed by the President 

language which required a land swap where if they wanted to buy 

something they had to sell something and use the money to buy environmentally sensitive lands in those two cases. In your part of 

the country do you find that there would be widespread support for 

that type of initiative? 

M::-. KING. I think that the-there is no need for the Federal Gov- ernment to own more land where I live. The reason they want to 

save our land is because the landowners have done such a good job 

of maintaining it for the last umpteen years. There is no benefit 

to be gained other than to satisfy somebody's desire for the government to own more and more land. So it just simply makes no sense. 

We all know that when the government owns land the taxes for the 

local communities disappear, the property taxes are reduced. The 

payment due tax law did not limit what they agreed to do when 

they raised it. My county, instead of getting an increase in their 

check, when the payment went from 75 cents an acre to 93 cents 

an acre was because the government only funded it· 77 percent. Now when I sent out a tax bill in my town, it gets paid 100 per- cent. We don't allow people to pay 77 percent of the tax bill. So we 

lose our tax dollars, we lose our jobs. And the fact is the government can't maintain their land. They simply cannot maintain what 

they already own, and so it seems to me it is a very simple thing 

for Congress to do, don't give them any money. That is what we 

do in my State. If we don't give them money, then they can't buy 

it. So I would suggest that is all you have to do. 

Mr. POMBO. Well, we thought that was real simple. Mr. KING. When you have extra money, let them fix those buildings in the parks and let-those facilities that are run down and 
22 

falling apart, spend it on that. That is what we have to do back 

home. 

Mr. POMBO. I am sure all of us thought it was simple just not 

to give them money, and we found out that it wasn't that simple. 

But I do understand what you are saying. Thank you. 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Thank you, Mr. Pombo. Mr. Duncan. 

Mr. DUNCAN. Madam Chairman, I am sorry that I was not here 

to hear the testimony of the witnesses, but I will just simply say 

that I would like to add a strong second to everything that Chairman Young said and also that Mr. Pombo mentioned about the fact 

that we feel very strongly that the Federal Government owns far 

too much land in this country today. I understand the Federal Government owns approximately 30 percent of the land and the State 

and local government own another ten percent and then quasi governmental units own or control almost another ten percent. And 

when you think of all the restrictions we are putting on private 

property in this country, we are really slowly doing away with private property. And when we do that, in every country where that 

has been done, prosperity has been done away with, too, and people 

have ended up living starvation type existences. You can look at 

the Soviet Union and many other places, Cuba and many other 

places. 

Senator King has raised, I think, some good points just in the 

short time I have been here. And number one, I think that, as he 

said, private property owners almost always take better care of 

property than do public owners. But Mr. Pombo talked about locking up the land. I can tell you that almost always these organizations that want to lock up the land are almost-almost their entire 

membership seems to be real wealthy people who live in big cities 

and have high enough incomes to be insulated from the harm that 

they do. And if they don't live in big cities, they are people who 

have come from urban areas and move to-newly moved into these 

areas and they really don't understand the feelings and the concerns and the needs particularly of the lower income people in 

these areas for jobs and security and even money simply to put 

food on their tables. 

And so I am pleased that these witnesses have been here today 

and !-Senator King mentioned that we should have the Federal 

Government give up an acre of land for every acre that they purchase. That is a good idea, but I can tell you getting the Federal 

Government to give up even one acre of land is almost a small miracle. It just doesn't happen. I will yield back to counsel. 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Thank you, Mr. Duncan. Mr. Longley from 

Maine. Mr. LONGLEY. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. Mr. Guernsey, I 

am sorry I missed your testimony. My flight was a little bit delayed 

getting back from Maine, of all places. I would like to ask a question. Could you elaborate on the two examples that you gave, first 

the Saddleback situation and secondly the problem with the dam 

relicensing in Millinocket. Could you tell me specifically what thein the case of Saddleback, what is the National Park Service looking for versus what Saddleback is prepared to give up? 

Mr. GUERNSEY. Well, it is-I guess I would have to say it is not 

only what the Park Service is looking for, it is what their environ-
23 

mentalist constituencies are looking for. The Appalachian Trail 

Conference has sat in on every meeting, and as I understand itI have not gone to . these-but have virtually talked in one ear of 

the Interior Department and told them what they want. And this 

has been the Park Service's position. As I understand it, the law 

requires a thousand-foot buffer area along the Appalachian Trail. 

Saddleback is prepared to donate this to the Federal Government 

at no cost. The Interior Department--

Mr. LoNGLEY. Now you are saying fee simple or as conservation 

easement? 

Mr. GUERNSEY. I believe in an easement in that, but I think they 

would probably donate it in fee, but I couldn't speak for them. Mr. LoNGLEY. OK. 

Mr. GUERNSEY. But I know they have offered to donate everything that the law requires. At issue is that the Forest Service 

wants to condemn about 3000 acres for viewsheds and what not 

and has threatened the ski area with condemnation. Under this 

threat, the ski area is unable to go forward with any development 

plans. They have been held hostage for 11 years by this, so the 

local community, who is looking forward to this development, again 

a recreation development which environmentalists say they want, 

has been stopped for 11 years. So they can't do anything. 

Mr. LoNGLEY. Now you said they were looking for a fuel shed? 

Mr. GUERNSEY. Viewshed. Viewshed. 

¥r. POMBO. Would the gentleman yield for just a minute--

Mr. LoNGLEY. Yes. Mr. POMBO. [continuing]--on that point right there? And I think 

you n~ed to explain to everybody what a viewshed is, because I 

have got these out in my area, too, and I think people need to understand what that is. 

Mr. GUERNSEY. Well, I think it is-if you consider a watershed, 

that is everywhere water flows down. Viewshed basically is everything you can see. From the top of Saddleback they want this view 

preserved. They do not want to see any sign of human habitation. Mr. POMBO. So if the gentleman would continue to yield, what 

you are saying is that from their property they want to be able to 

control everything they see from their property, even if they don't 

own it, if they have no interest in it. If they can see it from their 

property, they want to be able to control it. 

Mr. GUERNSEY. If they can see it from the Appalachian Trail, 

they are saying forget what the law requires just a thousand foot 

buffer area, we want-that is of no significance, we want to control 

everything we can see. 

Mr. LONGLEY. OK, a little difference. Mr. GUERNSEY. I think they would prefer a fuel shed. 

Mr. LONGLEY. Well, I think the gentleman's questions-! appreciate him intervening, because this is a big part of the problem. 

You were using a term that frankly a lot of people in this room 

may not even have understood. And I am trying to understand exactly what it is that they are looking for and what the implications 

of that are. But go on, if you could elaborate some more. 

Mr. GUERNSEY. Well, I think that probably pretty much covers 

the Saddleback situation. · 
24 

The issue on the dam relicensing, as I understand it, is that the 

applicants-and this is an existing project. They are not talking 

about building anything new. They have already spent over a million dollars on just relicensing an existing dam that has been operated for-dam system that has been operated for, I believe, 50 or 

60 years. 

And the main issue here is that I understand the FERC process 

requires only State environmental approval. All the State environmental agencies, which are, you know, very competent in Maine as 

I am sure they are in most states, have given a green light on this. 

It is-the project is entirely within the confines of one State and 

yet now the-at the urging of environmental groups, the Department of Interior has intervened in the process and is putting forth 

all kinds of additional requirements. So the process continually gets delayed. And this is what sparked 

the town of Millinocket's complaint and the complaint from the 

governor's office, a direct complaint that the Federal agencies were 

doing the bidding of environmental groups rather than the bidding 

of the public interest. And I find those, you know, extremely strong 

words from a governmental agency. Again, this isn't a private 

group making these charges. This is one government, the State and 

the local governments charging the Federal Government with this 

type of-I consider it nothing short of malfeasance. 

Mr. LoNGLEY. Thank you, Mr. Guernsey. I yield the balance of 

my time. 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Thank you, Mr. Longley. I would like to ask 

some questions. Speaker Brown--

Mr. BROWN. Yes. Mrs. CHENOWETH. I found your testimony fascinating, especially 

about the trail, the road, the Burr Trail, right? 

Mr. BROWN. That is correct. 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Is that a road that could be classified as a 

2477 roadway? 

Mr. BROWN. Yes, it is. 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. You know, I would love it if somebody could 

just sue those lawyers for bringing some frivolous lawsuits. They 

keep coming back at you. It just wears local units of governments 

and State government, especially county governments, down, this 

kind of harassment. And they have so much money to do that type 

of thing. 

Mr. BROWN. The safety issue that was addressed in the testimony, I had the privilege of visiting here about two months ago. It is quite a ways south of the capitol city, but it is a very much 

improved road. The county has maintained it for nearly 100 years 

now, and there is an area where there is a blind curve. And around 

that blind curve, with as much traffic that is now developing, it is 

very dangerous, especially if the roads are slick after a rainstorm 

or in the winter. They just sought to remove one of the cut slope 

banks to widen the curve, to take away the blind spot, just a mere 

few feet. And immediately it was challenged by the Park Service. 

In fact, the last I heard on it, the Park Service had served notice 

on the county of their intent to sue over this issue. And so the bottom line is in the view of public safety they are trying to stop the 

process. It is too bad. 
25 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Mr. Pendley, do you have a comment on that? 

Mr. PENDLEY. Yes, Madam Chairman, thank you very much. You 

commented on the ability of these organizations to file lawsuits. 

And of course it is all statutory. All of these environmental laws 

provide citizens the right to sue. I think a long-term objective 

ought to be to remove the power to sue, the right to sue by private 

citizens. I mean, for a long time we have left that up to prosecutorial discretion. You confirm with the advice and consent of the 

Senate the appointees to Federal agencies. This body is perfectly 

capable of conducting oversight and bringing before it Federal officials who fail to enforce the law. I think that that is where the 

power to _sue ought to lie, and not with private bodies. The problem 

becomes worse when you look at what may come on down the road 

in the interpretation of who . a "citizen" is, under these environmental statutes that says a "person" may sue. 

The Ninth Circuit Court of Apr:als has ruled under the Endangered Species Act that a "person' only means someone who agrees 

with the purposes of the statute and that someone who disagrees 

with the purposes of the Endangered Species Act is not really a 

"person" under the statute. In the words of the Ninth Circuit Court 

of Appeals, the case involved a suckerfish, "the plaintiff in this case 

has demonstrated no commonality of interest with the sucker." 

When you see the future of this provision, that it can only be used 

by those who support these environmental laws in their most extreme application, I really think Congress ought to think seriously 

about removing these provisions and going aggressively with Federal agencies doing their job. 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Thank you, Mr. Pendley. Having worked in 

this body, is that the number one statutory change that you would 

recommend to this Congress in order to improve management and 

statutory authority or management on the Federal lands? 

Mr. PENDLEY. That is certainly at the top of the list, Madam 

Chairman, simply because there is no finality. When I give talks 

throughout the country, I have people who are unfamiliar with 

these issues come up to me and say can't we work this out, isn't 

there some middle ground. And I will tell you that on behalf of all 

the communities that I work for and work with, Bruce Vincent, 

who will speak later, and others, I mean, that is what they want. 

They want to work it out. They want to compromise. But every 

time throughout the country that people have tried to compromise, 

whether it is in Colorado with the Colorado Round Table over graz- . ing or California with the Quincy Library Group or Montana up in 

Libby, every time they have tried to reach a local compromise, they 

have been advised by the national environmental organizations, 

"you had better not try to go forward with this, we will file a lawsuit." 

And in fact there is a memo I was recently provided by the head 

of the Sierra Club indicating that this idea of local control should 

be opposed at all costs because that is not a reasonable objective. 

So the power the citizen lawsuit provision gives the people outside 

the local communities to prevent compromise, to prevent reasonable solutions is an awesome power. 

I would also add the ability of the Federal Government to buy 

land. Congressman Pombo was talking about the Redwood Forest, 
26 

the hundreds and hundreds of million dollars that have been spent 

purchasing private property to bring it into Federal land. I mean, 

we are talking about how Yellowstone National Park needs money 

today to stay open. There is a great source for money: the money 

spent unwisely to buy private property. And it is not just with the 

authority given by this Congress. 

I will give you another good example out of Lincoln County, right 

across the border from your district. They want to open a mine up 

there, employ 250 people making $35,000 a year. The Fish and 

Wildlife Service has told the mining company, "if you try to put 

that mine in, you must engage in $8 million worth of mitigation 

to protect the grizzly bear." What does that mean? ''You need to 

buy $8 million worth of private property and turn it over to the 

Federal Government." This, Madam Chairman, in a county where 

78 percent of the land is already federally owned. 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. In most other cases you would call that extortion, wouldn't you? 

Mr. PENDLEY. Or worse. 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. I am going to take advantage of being in the 

chair and extend my time just a little bit because I want to ask 

Mr. Collins a question. I have just learned that the Park Service, 

in spite of the fact that this Congress increased their funding by 

one percent, is closing down certain parks. One of those parks is 

in my district. It is no surprise to me that one of those parks is 

in my district, because we have been pretty specific about some of 

the questions that we have asked the Park Service. But it is my 

understanding that your organization and other trail machines organizations have the capability to voluntarily maintain trails, 

which the Park Service won't do in the Clearwater Park this year. They are shutting it down. What kind of capability and desire do 

organizations like yours have in maintaining trails? 

Mr. COLLINS. Well, our member organizations have a longstanding record of volunteer work on our public lands. And as an example, June-well, the first Saturday in June, whatever day that was, June 3, I believe, our members nationwide were involved in National Trails Day activities where, as an example, I happened to be 

home this time, which I have to travel a lot and sometimes I am 

not. But this weekend I was home and I have got a carrier on the 

front of my motorcycle that I can strap a chain saw on the front 

of my bike. We went out and cleared downfall off of the trails. We 

have got a group in my hometown called CORE, the Coalition of 

Outdoor Recreation Enthusiasts, that involves not only the motorized constituency like I said we primarily represent, but it involves 

hikers and cross country skiers and everybody working together. And on National Trails Day, we all went out together and worked 

on the trails together. And these are trails that we share. And an 

organization like that, I think, is so important because it builds camaraderie between the different trail interest groups. But,lou know, talking about trail funding, and I was itching to 

respon to Chairman Young's comment about the relationship between the local residents and the Federal agencies. You know, this 

particular incident that I reported in my testimony, the Bureau of 

Reclamation went to the county commissioners when they determined that they were going to close this area and asked the county 
27 

commissiOners if they would authorize the local sheriff to patrol 

that area to make sure that nobody violated that closure. And the 

county commissioner said yeah, we would be willing to do that if 

you will give us the money to do it. Now the county was not very 

supportive of that closure, because in this area the off highway vehicle recreationists buy gas in the service stations and food in the 

stores and eat in the restaurants and it is a little tourism industry 

for this small community. So they weren't anxious to enforce this 

closure, but they said sure, you know, if you will pay for our deputy 

to go out there and enforce that closure, we will do it. We don't like 

it, but, you know, we are darn sure not going to do it for nothing. 

But the Bureau of Reclamation would not pay to have a deputy, a 

single deputy, go out to do that from the community, which is all 

that would have been required, and instead called 14 armed Park 

Service rangers from all over the blinking country and spent hundreds of thousands of dollars, wasted hundreds of thousands of dollars of money that they say is sorely needed for repair in our parks. 

It is absurd and created a real tense atmosphere in all of southeastern Idaho over this issue. 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Mr. Collins, I seriously doubt that there is jurisdictional or statutory authority for the Park Service to engage in 

this kind of heavy handed law enforcement activity in the first 

place. -

Mr. COLLINS. I think it should be investigated by this Committee, Congressman, and I would sure like to see it done. 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Thank you. And, Mr. Collins, I would like to 

ask if you and your compatriots in other states would like to work 

with us in making sure that our parks stay open. It makes absolutely no sense when an agency has an increase in funding that 

they shut parks down in the West in order to try to justify a false 

argument against Mr. Hansen. You know, Bruce Babbitt has been 

trying to say that parks have been closed because of Mr. Hansen's 

bill. Mr. Hansen's bill does not require that parks be closed. Not 

one park was recommended for closure in his bill, and yet somehow 

this administration doesn't understand the difference between 

truth and fantasy. And yet they are going ahead on their own without this Committee's oversight and closing parks. So if they don't 

want to keep them open, I think we do. And I would like to ask 

for your cooperation. 

Mr. COLLINS. We would be glad to help. And in fact, it is interesting that we are more anxious to-our members are more anxious to help maintain trails that they have access to, but there 

have been a lot of instances where our members have volunteered 

to help maintain trails that they don't have access to. In Rhode Island one of our member organizations, the Roady Rovers, got involved in a Symms grant application to do work on a hiking trail 

in Rhode Island. And the Symms Fund is, you know, the National 

Recreational Trail Fund that we were involved in helping to pass. 

And here is an example of a motorized recreation group that frankly don't have many opportunities in Rhode Island, but they were 

more than happy to help another trail recreation group on a project 

that would benefit them. And that is what we need more of. 
28 

And to answer your question, yes, Congresswoman, we would 

be-Congressman, I understand that you prefer that term but I forgot for a minute. We would be happy to help. 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Thank you, Mr. Collins. And, Mr. Pendley, I 

would like for us to be able to work with you on specific language 

according to your recommendation. Before we excuse this panel, I 

would again like to ask Mr. Pickett if he has any questions. 

Mr. PICKETT. I just have a general question for Mr. Pendley after 

listening to some of the comments here. Do you feel like the citizens and private property owners have an adequate opportunity for 

redress in the courts the way that the rules are applied today? 

Mr. PENDLEY. Congressman, they don't. They are dealing with 

the biggest law firm in the world. They are dealing with the Federal Government. And the United States government will bring up 

every possible claim, even claims that they improperly bring up, to 

challenge the property owner. And it is a long, long fight. I tell people who come to me and say I want to file a lawsuit, I tell them 

to forget it. It is a tough darn battle and it is very, very, very difficult. 

A good example is the Hobbs, New Mexico, case that I brought 

to your attention in my testimony where a property owner was told 

he couldn't use the property because it was "waters of the United 

States." He gave up the use of his property, then we sued to have 

a Federal judge rule about whether or not that was a proper deci- ~ion . The government opposed the landowner's very ability to ask 

that question of a judge: "Judge, is this a right decision, can a bureaucrat say these lands are waters of the United States?" The government fought successfully the landowner's ability to do that and 

now we are before the U.S. Federal Court of Claims saying that his 

property has been taken in violation of the 5th Amendment's statement that "private property" will not be taken for "public use" 

without ''just compensation." And I know the government will fight 

on down the line saying that he has not been denied all use of his 

property; he still can use it to graze or to look at or whatever. I 

mean, this is a ten-year battle and most people don't have the ability to engage in that kind of battle. 

And look at what happens to the provision Congress adopts for 

landowners protections. Those protections are ignored, I gave the 

example of Crooked Lake, where five specific provisions this Congress put into Federal law to keep private property from being 

taken into the wilderness were ignored. The Forest Service ignored 

all five provisions and simply said Congress didn't know what it 

was doing; we can do what we want. That is very scary for the 

American people, sir. 

Mr. PICKETT. I would agree with you that it is. Do you have a 

suggested remedy for this? 

Mr. PENDLEY. Well, one remedy, number one, is Congressional 

oversight. I suggest a very interesting set of hearings. Bring up the 

Attorney General and her aides and explore in some detail the 

really contrary, ridiculous positions the government takes in litigation. For example, just the Crooked Lake example. In the Wilderness Act of 1964 and the Michigan Wilderness Act, very specific 

provisions were adopted to protect private property, very specific 

provisions to protect "valid existing rights." As sure as I am sitting 
29 

here, the attorney for the United States government stood before 

the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeal, all 14 judges, and said when 

Congress passed the language "valid existing rights" it really didn't 

know what it meant and therefore the interpretation the Forest 

Service is applying is a reasonable interpretation. I think this Congress knew what "valid existing rights" meant. I think Congress 

knew very well what it meant when it said protect "valid existing 

rights." I think it wanted "valid existing rights" protected. The Forest Service says, "it meant nothing, so when we interpret it as only 

protecting drinking water, the right to drink out of the lake, that 

is OK." 

So I think oversight to start with and I mean from both sides of 

the aisle. One of the frustrating things is when the Executive 

Branch comes up and gives someone who lost on a legislative item 

victory with the regulation. And I think the loser in that situation 

ought to say to the Federal regulator, "I am not going to let you 

give me that victory. That is an improper interpretation of what 

this body did." And demonstrate that sort of comity with your colleagues. 

Mr. PICKETI. It seems implicit, at least partially, to what you are 

saying in your remarks here today that perhaps the Federal judicial system is not even handed in the way it applies the law and 

the Federal Government is one of the parties to the action. Mr. PENDLEY. Well, we are talking about attorneys after all, who 

are zealous advocates who want more than anything else to win. 

And they go in and they operate with that objective. But I suggest 

that that is not the proper approach for a government attorney. 

The proper approach for the government attorney is to say this is 

a citizen, this is a United States citizen who is entitled to some respect and some deference here. This is not the enemy. And what 

I hear frequently from Federal lawyers when they speak candidly with me is well, look, I know this is the wrong way to go, but 

frankly the clients demand it. Who are the clients? The Forest 

Service, the BLM. I think that is a ridiculous position. The client 

demands it? What about what the law provides? What about what 

Congress has provided? I think that should be the proper approach 

and I am not seeing it. 

Mr. PICKETI. Thank you very much. 

Mr. PENDLEY. Thank you, sir. 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Thank you, Mr. Pickett. Mr. Pendley, I just 

want to say that we are going to be dropping a bill entitled the 

Citizens' Fair Hearing Act of 1996, because as you alluded to and 

I want to be more specific, the Endangered Species Act grants 

broad regulatory authority to various agencies to take action to 

protect, preserve and recover species of plants and animals which 

are determined to be threatened or endangered, yet the, you know, 

private property owners and groups of individuals or associations 

which have been adversely impacted by Federal agency actions 

under the Endangered Species Act have brought citizen suits under 

this statutory provision. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth 

Circuit has consistently rejected cases brought by the citizens to 

the provision, which involves property rights, economic impacts and 

other issues stemming from regulations issued under the Endan26-142 - 96 - 2 
30 

gered Species Act. The Federal courts declared these concerns did 

not fall under, as you said, the zone of interest within the law. 

So we are working, Mr. Pendley, to bring standing to human 

beings. 

Mr. PENDLEY. Thank you. 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. So I just wanted to encourage you there. I 

want to call again on Mr. Calvert from California. Mr. CALVERT. Thank you, Madam Chairman. I apologize. I need 

to go back to my office for an appointment, but before I left I wanted to bring up a point. It was brought up who is a better manager 

of the land. And in the California instance, as Mr. Pombo brought 

up earlier, we had the Desert Protection Act in the last Congress, and the advocates of that act claimed that the National Park Service would be better managers of the land than the Bureau of Land 

Management working with various landowners and inholdings that 

have been there for many years. One of the incidents that occurred 

just last summer, hopefully not repeated this summer, is the water 

guzzlers in the desert area were not maintained by the Park Service. The people, volunteers, people who had off road vehicles who 

went into the desert to fix those water guzzlers were unable to do 

so and we had a tragic lqss of large numbers of bighorn sheep in 

this last year. And interestingly enough, this species is being 

brought forward by some as a potential candidate to be put on the 

endangered species list. And I see that as an interesting situation 

where the National Park Service is probably guilty of killing more 

of the bighorn sheep in this last year than any other group I can 

think of. So it is a tragedy and I think that makes a case that the 

government is not necessarily the best managers of the land. Thank you. 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Thank you, Mr. Calvert. And with that I 

would like to excuse this panel with my thanks and the thanks of 

the Committee for your testimony, which was 100 percent instructive to us. 

I would like to call for the second panel the following individuals: 

Bruce Vincent from the Communities for a Great Northwest from 

Libby, Montana; Don Fife of the American Land Rights Association 

from Lucerne Valley, California; Robert Sanregret, Executive Director, National Association of Mining Districts in Tustin, California; 

and Jack Phelps, Alaska Forest Association from Ketchikan, Alaska. 

Mr. Vincent, welcome to the panel. We would like to start with 

your testimony. 

STATEMENT OF BRUCE VINCENT, COMMUNITIES FOR A 

GREAT NORTHWEST 

Mr. VINCENT. Thank you, Representative Chenoweth and the 

rest of the members. My name is Bruce Vincent. I am a fourth generation logger from Libby, Montana, and the Director of Communities for a Great Northwest, a non-profit grass roots group. As you 

heard from the previous panel, my community is a study of failed 

Federal land use policy. It is a microcosm of what is happening everywhere, but I am going to stick with one issue. It is the issue 

that first got me started in discussing the future of our community 

as it sits in the middle of Federal land. 
31 

In early 1988 the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service announced to 

our small town that the grizzly bear was going to be recovered 

through augmentation in the Cabinet/Y aak ecosystem. At a series 

of public meetings, the local people expressed their concern over 

the proposed augmentation. The concern centered on several portions of the plan, including the proposed cross fostering of cubs. 

Grizzly cubs had been purchased from a zoo in Michigan. The cubs 

were going to be transported to our area, placed in a den with a 

black bear mother and they would wait till spring and see who 

came out. The proposed embryo implanting process where grizzly 

embryos would be implanted in black bear mothers, they would 

wait till spring and see what came out. 

We were concerned about the lack of data on past and current 

grizzly populations. We were told that the existing population 

would have to be increased to at least 90 bears, but the agency admitted it had no idea how many bears had historically used the 

area nor did they know how many were actually currently inhabiting the area or how many bears would be required to reach a viable population. 

We were concerned about the potential socio-economic impact of 

the single species, human exclusive language in the grizzly bear recovery guidelines when they indicated that all future forest management decisions and grizzly habitat would be made with the primary goal of recovering grizzly bears at all other resource values 

expense. 

Our community and several others in the area mounted a campaign to have the human voice in the area represented in the debate. And after a great deal of heated debate, a local involvement 

team of habitat managers, biologists and local elected and opinion 

leaders from a broad cross section of our public was formed. We 

wanted to maintain the grizzly population because we aren't opposed to having grizzly bears but we didn't like their augmentation plan. The community involvement team has now been meeting regularly for the last eight years. We have had some spirited discussion over our future with the grizzly bear. We believe that we can 

protect our economic values and our cultural values and raise grizzly bears. The detractors of the plan, for awhile, turned down their 

heat while we waited to see if the Federal agencies were going to 

play in good faith. In fact, our local county commissioner, Chamber 

of Commerce, grass roots groups and others wrote to Congress for 

several years begging for money to continue our studies of the population of the bears in our area. We didn't want the job to be half 

done. We wanted solutions. 

I would love to tell you that right now that is a success story in 

Libby, Montana, but it is not. We had a few early successes. Cross 

fostering was dropped. The scientists were laughing at them. Embryo implants was dropped. The scientists were laughing at that. 

Instead we are catching and transporting bears from British Columbia, putting monitors on them, dropping them in our back yard 

and watching. We have done that with four bears now. One is 

dead. The monitors have dropped off the other ones, but we believe 

that that might be a process that would work. 

The list of gross failures that this recovery attempt has yielded 

is daunting. One of the first undertakings of our involvement 
32 

group, and I am on that group, was an education campaign. That 

education campaign included answering the tough questions society 

was asking about the future they had with the grizzly bear. We put 

out a pamphlet to every boxholder in two counties telling them that 

the grizzly bear was not going to significantly impact their future 

in our area. Page 18 of the manual, in fact, answered the most 

often asked question, are we going to be able to log and do our 

other recreation activities in grizzly area like we had been doing. 

And the answer was flatly yes, we are going to be, there is going 

to be no impact on grizzly habitat because our existing forest plan 

already managed as if we had a recovered population. We simply 

didn't have the bears yet. So when we did get the bears, there 

would be no impact. 

A few months after the pamphlet was mailed, however, the 

Kootenai Forest released its monitoring report for the year 1990. 

On the third page of the report-and there is an attachment to my 

testimony. On the third page of the report, the Forest Service stat- ed that increases in the habitat area and changes in standards for 

the recovery of the grizzly bear since the forest plan was written 

in 1988, two years prior, have restricted timber sales in many 

areas. That year there was a 30 percent drop in timber sales, not 

due solely to the grizzly bear, but the grizzly bear was listed as one 

of the two major factors. 

In February of '92 the forest gave another monitoring report and 

indicated that in grizzly habitat they were achieving 42 percent of 

their target for timber sales and in other areas they were reaching 

80 percent. They also said that they had increased the grizzly habitat by nearly a quarter million acres without any public involvement. 

Fifteen percent of the roads have been gated in our forest. 1800 

gates have been placed on forest access roads, locking people out 

of their berry picking areas or firewood gathering areas or hunting 

areas or pleasure driving areas. Some of the roads gated were in 

grizzly habitat outlined in the forest plan. Some were in the new 

areas that the Fish and Wildlife said had merely been clarified as 

grizzly habitat during their consultation process. 

The Forest Service announced the settlement of a court suit on 

the Upper Yaak drainage based on the grizzly bear that significantly decreased the harvest of dead and dying loggable pine in 

that area. And you can imagine that the community response to 

this information when they had already been given a pamphlet was 

outrage. 

A community meeting was scheduled with the Forest Service and 

the Fish and Wildlife Service. We wanted to ask the two agencies 

what was going on. At that meeting, the Fish and Wildlife Service 

said there had been no impact on grizzly bears. The Forest Service 

continued to claim that there was significant impact. At the conclusion of the meeting, we had gotten no answers, but we had gotten 

an education in bureaucratic doublespeak. At the public meeting 

our mayor, by the way, Fred Brown, asked Dr. Servheen what 

proof they had that we needed the gate roads to protect grizzly 

bears. Dr. Servheen admitted they never studied the situation. They had studied the elk in the Blue Mountains of eastern Oregon 
33 

in the mid 70's and were using that information to gate the roads 

on grizzly bears in Montana. 

After many citizens meetings and letter writing campaigns to 

elected officials, we are now many years into the process and our 

answers are still yet to come. We have gotten nothing back from 

the bureaucracies except more doublespeak. It is now 1996. The 

grizzly population studies that we begged for have slowed and then 

stopped. And in fact the only admission we have gotten from the 

Fish and Wildlife Service is a public statement to the media after 

years of study by their biologists in our area that they had learned 

one thing about grizzly bears, they couldn't count them. 

Our roads are continuing to be gated. Our timber sale program 

continues to drop. Mining proposals have been met without outlandish grizzly bear habitat mitigations requirements. Our sawmills have seen a 70 -percent reduction in employment. Our town 

is trying to keep our hospital open, our schools funded and our unemployed fed. 

By the way, the question on tourism earlier, we need $100 million of additional tourism this summer in Libby, Montana, to make 

up for the basic industries job losses of the last year. That is a million people coming to Libby, each one spending 100 bucks. We don't 

think it is going to happen. We aren't laying there, though. We are 

fighting back. As Perry indicated, we filed suit, suit for failure to 

manage for a healthy ecosystem because we are managing for a 

single species instead of a variety of values from the forest. 

I am almost done. The people of the Cabinet/Yaak are now asking why the agency is pursuing with vigor the recovery of grizzly 

bear in two other areas, ecosystems if they don't have enough 

money to complete the job in the Cabinet/Y aak. People of the Cabinet/Yaak wonder why the agency can't study the impact of their recovery plan before moving to new areas and proclaiming to the citizens of these new areas that there will be no impact from recovery. The people of the Cabinet/Y aak read with frustration the Fish and 

Wildlife reports that the Cabinet/Y aak ecosystem recovery has gone 

well. People of the Cabinet/Y aak read in disgust the agency claims 

that the citizen involvement group format has worked in the 

Kootenai Forest, not to be repeated elsewhere. The people of the 

Cabinet/Yaak act in good faith in the recovery plan, but instead we 

got information that was either withheld or flat lies. 

The Grizzly Bear Compendium and the old and new Grizzly Bear 

Guidelines indicate that the single most important factor in bringing grizzly bears back is the human element. We have to accept the 

plan for it to work. This agency has done a dismal job of dealing 

with the single most important element in grizzly bear recovery. 

There is room on the Kootenai for grizzly bears and people. As a 

matter of fact, since grizzly bears are adaptive and don't eat trees, 

there is a lot of room for people, logging, mining, recreating. 

The Forest Service, the State of Montana and large private industrial landowners of the local area have proven to be good neighbors. They are straight shooting in their efforts to work with the 

local population to achieve the goal of grizzly recovery. What a 

tragedy for the bear and the people that such a solution seems to 

be beyond the abilities of the command and control, switch and bait 
34 

tacticians currently in charge of this species for the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service. I urge you to allow our success story to be revisited or visited 

upon any other areas of grizzly recovery of our friends. Thank you. 

[Statement of Bruce Vincent may be found at end of hearing.] 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Mr. Vincent, thank you for that very fine testimony. I would like now to call on Don Fife from the American 

Land Rights Association. 

STATEMENT OF DON FIFE, AMERICAN LAND RIGHTS 

ASSOCIATION 

Mr. FIFE. Thank you, Madam Chairman, members. Today I am 

representing American Land Rights, and I have been asked to talk 

about my own situation in the Bighorn Mountain wilderness where 

I and my neighbors have suffered the slings and arrows of outrageous Federal land use planning. The title of my presentation is 

basically the Bighorn Mountain Wilderness, California, a Case 

Study in Federal Land Use Planning, Abuse of Authority, Fraud, Waste, Violation of the Public Trust to "Manufacture" Wilderness 

and Deceive Congress as to the Wilderness Suitability of the Area. 

As I sat in this room, I wondered, if the Committee members and 

people in the audience and the press were in my situation what 

they would do, because the things that have happened to make the 

Bighorn Mountain Wilderness are literally unbelievable. When I 

talked to the press in the past, people feel like well, this fellow just 

saw a spaceship, you know, we are not going to talk to him. But 

I have been keeping name, rank and serial number. . It started back in the 70's when the Bighorn Mountain Wilder- ~ss was authorized under FLPMA in 1976. Wilderness planners iri~ntionally used 15-minute quadrangles that were 30 years out 

of date, didn't have newer roads, cabins, mines on them, when in 

fact in the same building there were brand new 7-1/2-minute quadrangles, one inch to 2000 feet. So various cultural features were 

left off of the wilderness map, including several mines, including 

one large mine. And as a result, that mine is not operating today. One of the other things was they declared back in the 70's that 

"a road was not a road." This Committee in 1976-I have a letter 

that was circulated by James Santini and sent to the Interior Department. Every member of this Committee on both sides of the 

aisle signed this letter. It was not the intent of the Congress to 

make a road not a road. Basically the U.S. Geological Survey has 

five classifications of road. They eliminated the fourth and fifth 

classification of unmaintained roads, therefore declaring millions of 

acres of the western United States as roadless so it could be declared wilderness, and the Bighorn Mountain Wilderness was one 

of those. This area that I know happens to be in the national forest, but 

in the California Wilderness Act or Desert Closure Act, S. 21/H.R. 

580; that is that we call it, Desert Protection Congress calls it, included 100,000 acres or more of national forest, all of which had 

been declared unsuitable for wilderness in the 1983/84 California 

Wilderness Act. The area that I am in was called the Granite Peak 

RARE II Area. It was declared unsuitable. I worked with Senator 

Cranston and Senator Wilson and their staffs because the area was 
35 

full of mines or cabins, high mineral potential, roads. It is and was 

unsuitable, yet it is now wilderness. 

The Forest Service, working with environmental groups, were 

bound and determined to make this wilderness. They came in and 

they used the Marines-in fact I contend they lied to the Marines 

that they were interdicting drug traffickers. What they were really 

up to was they blew up the oldest historic cabin in the area, which 

is now in wilderness. They packed it with ammonium nitrate and 

C4 explosives and detonated it. They went to the root cellar at the 

old mine, which goes back 100 years or more, at a spring, packed 

it full of explosives and blew up the root cellar. Then they came 

up onto my family's property where we had permits to operate and 

do exploration and they blew up the road in four places, ten to 40 

tons were blown out of the road. In my testimony that is the smallest blast I show there in . a photograph of the road. That is the 

smaller one. The last blast sprayed shrapnel out into the National 

Forest and the Marines and the forest rangers went home and 

went to bed, the marines back to Camp Pendleton. 

All night that molten hot shrapnel started little fires in the forest over an area of five or six acres. Now mind you, there had been 

a drought for six years. It was at the height of the fire season in 

September. In southern California we have the Santa Ana winds, 

which blow off the desert. Down wind was the community of Bear 

Valley with 15,000 residents, with huge Ponderosa trees tinder dry 

around their houses. They in fact were in jeopardy. 

But there are so many things that have happened in addition to 

that. The Forest Service forged a backdated document to revoke my 

family's operating plan and our operation. They planted endangered species on the roads that they blocked and they brought in 

volunteers from the Sierra Club to do this. I found this unbelievable until a Federal employee called me and told me he would be 

a witness, that he was one of them and he is willing to testify. The 

Forest Service took money from our operator to do a mine plan. 

They had to do it. We couldn't submit this computerized generated 

plan. They took the money and then six months later they said the 

plan wasn't any good. When I asked for freedom of information documents, they sent a few pages from my file and a bill for $1400. 

The State of California had a duplicate file on that project. There 

were something like 1600 pages in there. 

So what we have here is a bureaucracy out of control. And we 

have a number of felonies that have been committed. When the 

document was backdated, I filed a criminal complaint with the U.S. 

attorney. The forest ranger eventually was promoted and sent to 

the Custer National Forest. That is the only thing that apparently 

happened. 

The takings assessment by the U.S. Attorney's Office through the 

Secretary's office said that we had an approved plan of operations 

but the local forest said we did not. And we have been held up for 

seven years. This has cost my family and the operating contractor 

and I have over a million dollars, and still we don't have a permit. 

We have endless meetings, one after another. 

I think what we have here is a group of employees that are working for the Federal Government-! am not going to say it is the 

Forest Service per se. They are not being supervised. These folks 
36 

appear to have their own philosophical beliefs. They invent policy 

and then they enforce it under the color of authority. And my case 

is not unique. This is going on all over the west. I have talked to 

many people who have similar problems. I think the Bighorn 

Mountain Wilderness, however, has probably more than any given 

area that I have seen. 

What we are looking for is a technical amendment to get our 

properties out of these wilderness that were put in there basically 

under violation of NEPA, the Administrative Procedures Act and 

Congress was deceived into believing these areas were wilderness. 

The Forest Service lost our files when Congressional staff were negotiating with us to move the boundaries. The Forest Service and 

the U.S. Geological Survey produced a map that was to be used by 

staff. It left ten square miles of the geology and mineral deposits 

and mines off of the Bighorn Mountain Wilderness. As far as you 

were concerned in Congress, we didn't exist. And I have documented this and others have documented this, and we really believe there should be Congressional oversight. 

We believe there should be an investigation, because as Congress 

allows this to happen, it will continue to happen. People who commit felonies in the bureaucracy need to be prosecuted just like anyone else. And that is the way we are going to bring this sort of 

abuse to an end. 

I was a government employee's union president in State government. We used to get these people out of government because we 

considered them bad apples that gave all employees and civil service a bad name, but today these people are protected by their supervisors and it is just an unbelievable situation. We have talked 

about why people are hostile to government. I think anybody who 

went through this, and there are thousands of people in the west, 

hundreds of thousands who are suffering from the abuse of the bureaucracy-there is no control of these people. So my request is that Congress do an investigation. I think the 

Bighorn Mountain Wilderness is an excellent example of case history that will show abuse that is prevalent everywhere across the 

West and where there is Federal lands. 

The endangered species we have is locoweed, one of them. 

Locoweed, it is now endangered. It is against State law to grow 

locoweed knowingly because it is a poisonous weed that kills browsing animals. When you clear an area, these are weeds, they come 

in. The forest has been so protected from fire there are few openings. These plants are fire dependent. And where the Forest Service blew up the road, started the wild land fire, lo and behold, there 

is an increase of 30 to one in the allegedly endangered species 

there, which means the listing is really superfluous, because these 

are dependent on fire and open spaces and disturbance. In fact, 

mining, which was used as the excuse to list these plants-they 

supposedly only grow in high grade limestone deposits. Mining actually, if you properly reclaim the area, would increase the habitat 

of these plants. So U.S. Fish and Wildlife and the Forest Service, 

they have it backwards. Mining is not a threat to these plants. It 

can be well demonstrated. All the information we gave to U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife when they were having hearings on this was simply 
37 

ignored. They had their mind up to list these five so-called limestone endemic plants. 

So we have an industry in this area that is a $200 million a year 

industry that is threatened by endangered weeds. And they are 

really not endangered. Many of them grow all over the western cordillera, particularly the buckwheat that they have listed, the so- called Cushenbury buckwheat. It grows in Idaho. It grows in Montana. It grows in Oregon, the Cascade Range, the Sierra Nevadas, Arizona, New Mexico, if you look in the literature. 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Mr. Fife, your testimony is so good, but we are 

going to have to confine the testimony to around five minutes. 

Mr. FIFE. Thank you. [Statement of Don Fife may be found at end of hearing.] 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Thank you very much. I would like to call on 

Robert Sanregret. 

STATEMENT OF ROBERT SANREGRET, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, 

NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MINING DISTRICTS 

Mr. SANREGRET. Thank you, Madam Chairman. I am Robert 

Sanregret-which is French for "without regret." I am the Executive Director of the non-profit National Association of Mining Districts, and I am also an attorney practicing mining law. The examples I am going to run through are mining examples, and I think 

they are more than the sarcastic comment we hear that it is good 

to have citizens complain, because then the citizen feels good, it 

doesn't do any good, but it makes the citizens feel good to have a 

citizen expression. And I don't believe that is true. I think the people particularly in this room are on our side and hopefully will be 

able to help us. We desperately need help, because as Perry Pendley, the wellknown lawyer who testified a moment ago, pointed out, it is frustrating as a lawyer. I have folks coming into my office with a re- cent Supreme Court case and saying gee, look, that is just like my 

case-but I don't have a couple of hundred thousand dollars. We 

have terrific examples of abuses that have happened, but the peo- ple can't get out here to Washington to complain because it costs 

too much, and these people are losing their mining properties. 

I am going to direct my discussion here to mining properties and 

I am going to run through several examples of situations where 

these people just have no help. They are frustrated, and they have 

walked away from good mining projects. 

In preparation for my testimony today over the last several 

weeks I was startled to learn that in the last three years the United States has dropped from number one in 1993 to number five 

today in mineral exploration and development-and this is out- rageous. The result will be our increased dependence upon foreign 

mineral sources. It will result in rising mineral prices, and will increase our trade deficit. How can one argue with this? The answer-! have come to learn-is that the aggressive radical environmental community does argue with what I just said. They want to 

decrease the productivity of the United States to less than half 

what it is today. The Sierra Magazine, Sierra Club magazine, has 

a full page presentation on the Negative Population Growth, where 

they want to decrease the population and the productivity of this 
38 

country by more than half. Incredible. Plus the "War on the West" 

is in not only the western United States, but also in the entire 

western civilization. 

Since the Civil War the Federal Government has chosen to keep 

the land when a State was admitted to the union. I am not going 

into that in much detail, but that is not authorized under Article 

1, Section 8. We don't hear enough about Article 1, Section 8. We 

hear a lot about it in the west, but you don't hear enough about 

it here in Washington. I am not going to go into detail, but it 

should be gotten into, because there is severely restricted authority 

for the Federal Government to own real property. And here we are 

today-discussing today how the Federal Government should own 

and manage land. I would suggest to not you folks, because I am 

sure you have, but we should all read Article 1, Section 8. 

And also, Madam Chairman, R.S. 24 77 is an extremely valuable 

part of 1866 mining law, which opened up the West and was effective for 110 years. R.S. 2477 simply said that any trail, road or 

right-of-way at any time from 1866 to 1976, when R.S. 2477 was 

repealed by FLPMA, is today an open public road. R.S. 2477 scares 

the heck out of Secretary Bruce Babbitt and the other aggressive 

close-it-down radical environmentalists. 

Let me run through a few examples rather quickly, some of 

which are discussed in my written testimony of what is happening 

out West. In August 1993, which incidentally is the year the exploration budget started down, there was foisted upon the mineral exploration community a $200 rental fee per mining claim. Now at 

the time it was proposed, it was proposed as a last minute deal in 

the 1992 Congress. This $200 rental fee destroyed the mineral exploration base out west. 75 to 80 percent of the mining claims were 

abandoned in the following year, and about another 10-20 percent 

had been abandoned the prior year because the rental fee passed 

in October 1992, and during that ten months about another ten to 

20 percent were abandoned. It was a $200 hit in August and then 

$100 per mining claim for every subsequent year. That greatly reduced the incentive for anyone to go out and explore for minerals. 

I have some personal examples. Besides being the Executive Director of the NAMD and a mining attorney, I myself do substantial 

mineral exploration and development. My partner and I had a 

property that we had leased to a very large international South Mrican company, very responsible, very respectful multi-billion dollar 

company. We had a $60,000 exploration budget for initial exploration. I told them to be careful when they applied for the permit, 

because they are going to run into the enviros. They said no, we 

are big, we have got lots of money. They ran into the enviros. Out 

oftheir $60,000 budget they had to pay $50 an hour for 10 hours 

a day to an environmentalist to literally sit in a beach chair in the 

100 degree heat with an umbrella over him and watch the drillers, 

$9 and $10 an hour laborers, doing the drilling on what started out 

to be a 15-hole drill program, reduced to a ten-hole drill program 

because of the extra expense. And then after that, program two 

was set up. I said hey, guys, now you know. 

We were the claim owners and we were leasing to this group, 

which we hoped would open a large mine, et cetera. The second 

program had more restrictions, fences, little fences for the desert 
39 

tortoise. The punchline is that the company sat through the second 

drill program, then they said, " . .. to heck with it, the rules in 

California are crazy." They now have invested millions of dollars in 

Australia where they chose to go, and those claims subsequently 

were abandoned. I personally abandoned 98 percent of that group 

of mining claims. There are useful minerals of all sorts on these 

claims that will never be mined. And, they will never even be explored in the future unless somebody changes the procedures. 

The next example is a mining company that was successfully operating. They had 75 employees. 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Excuse me, Mr. Sanregret. I would like to just 

ask the clerk if we could give you another minute. I am trying to 

keep the testimony fairly close to five minutes. You have come from 

such a long way and it is so interesting that I have been very lenient on that, but I will hear from the chairman if I don't keep 

some sort of order. So we will grant you another minute and then 

Mr. Pombo and I both will be asking questions. 

Mr. SANREGRET. Thank you, Madam Chairman. I call this example the contingent fee prosecution. A renegade employee of the 

BLM recruited 15 different agencies, State and Federal, to pounce 

on a mining company that was successfully operating. They ended 

up with an array of environmental criminal complaints. No agency 

would take it as an official agency complaint, but one of the individual employees walked into the prosecutor, and as a private citizen made the complaint. The prosecutor was happy to get it because he was on a contingent fee, believe this or not. The crimesagainst-the-land division of the county prosecutor got a percentage 

of the fees they collected. And that was the motivation. Now, as 

Perry Pendley would say: "This is super outrageous." As a result, 

this company was prosecuted. They, too, said to heck with it. They 

are closing and phasing out that mine, and are now in a very successful operation in Mexico. 

One final very quick simple example. The Grantham Talc Mine 

owned by Pfizer Chemical was a very successful talc mine. The 

enviros made a deal with them. Pfizer received a $50 million tax 

deduction for donating the successful talc mine to the Nature Conservancy. That is $15 million that the taxpayers did not get, since 

the company was in the 30 percent bracket. Pfizer packed the 

equipment into containers, shipped it to communist China; and you 

are now buying communist Chinese talc at higher prices. The trade 

deficit has increased, and the t:ilc is mined with arguably or allegedly slave labor in communist China with no environmental controls. The environment is worse off. So who benefited from that? 

Answer, the "War on the West" benefitted. 

Al Gore is quoted as saying that he wants to convert the West 

from extraction to attraction. Well, Al Gore has another "wilderness area" to attract tourists, if that is what will attract tourists. 

Thank you very much for your additional time. 

[Statement of Robert Sanregret may be found at end of hearing.] 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Thank you, sir. I would like to now call on 

Jack Phelps from the Alaska Forest Association. Mr. Phelps. 
40 

STATEMENT OF JACK PHELPS, ALASKA FOREST ASSOCIATION 

Mr. PHELPS. Thank you, Madam Chairman. I am the Executive 

Director of the Alaska Forest Association. The association was established in 1957. It represents the industry statewide. Thank you 

for the opportunity to address you today. Federal land management is a highly visible and important issue 

to Alaskans. Fully two-thirds of our vast State is under Federal 

ownership and Federal control. Since this includes two huge na- tional forests, one of which, the Tongass National Forest, covers a 

territory the size of the State of Maine, which I know would be of 

particular interest to one of your Committee members, on industry 

in Alaska is more affected by Federal management decisions than 

the forest products industry. Unfortunately, the Forest Service 

seems determined to manage Federal timberlands according to the 

dictates of the national preservation movement rather than acting 

on the basis of sound silvacultural science and proven forest man- agement strategies. 

We have two large national forests, and I would like to speak 

briefly about both of them. On the Chugach National Forest we 

have a severe forest health crisis. On the Kenai Peninsula, some 

of which is Forest Service land and the rest mostly is State land, 

we are looking at about 80 percent mortality rate on our white 

spruce forest. And it very well may reach 100 percent by the time 

the crisis is over. This is due to the spruce bark beetle infestation. Now the beetle damage has moved heavily into the Lutz spruce in 

the transition zones and is beginning to take a toll on the Sitka 

spruce along the peninsula's eastern coast. 

The emergency salvage law which Congress enacted last year has 

helped. Timber sales are planned at Moose Pass, Sixmile Creek 

and other places. But due to intense pressure by the anti-development crowd, the Forest Service has now pared those sales back to 

a size much, much smaller than is needed to aggressively attack 

the problem faced by the forest. Orie key reason given for this smaller than necessary harvest 

was the alleged impact on tourism and the effect of logging on 

viewsheds. I know you had a little discussion earlier about 

viewsheds. Apparently, these folks believe the tourists would rath- er see dead standing trees for the next dozen years, wind-thrown 

dead trees on the ground for a decade or two beyond that, if we 

don't have a massive destructive fire like the one suffered in the 

Umatilla Forest where I used to work and log and provide for my 

family before I saw the handwriting on the wall there and took my 

family to Alaska in the mid-80's. And then beyond that they apparently think the tourists want to look at grasslands for much of the 

rest of the next century on the Kenai Peninsula. 

We in the forest products industry and those of us who have an 

interest in the health of the forest believe that active management 

could restore those to forest lands instead of allowing them to go 

into grasslands, which is what is likely under the current non-management ideas and concepts. 

What the Forest Service should do both in the Chugach and in 

the Tongass National Forest is manage the forest as a forest, not 

as if it were a park. That means having timber sales where they 

are appropriate. We should acknowledge, I agree, that particularly 

42 

[Attachment to statement of Jack Phelps may be found at end of 

hearing.] 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Thank you, Mr. Phelps. I would like to open 

it up for questioning with Mr. Pombo. 

Mr. POMBO. Thank you. Mr. Fife, in reading your prepared testimony, I take from this that you are a scientist that has had work 

published in scientific journals in the past and know a little bit 

about the scientific community and how things work? 

Mr. FIFE. That is correct. I am an earth scientist. I have been 

doing research for government academia most of my life. I normally 

publish several scientific papers a year, although recently I have 

been wrestling with paperwork for the bureaucracy, so I haven't 

been able to crank out so much. But, yes, I have a background in 

paleontology, a degree in paleontology. I have worked in fire 

science and studying the return to fire intervals and also in engineering geology designing dams for debris flows and other things 

related to fire. So I have a very wide background in that sense. 

Also I worked for the State EIR/EIS clearinghouse as reviewer. 

That is the group that reviews all environmental impact statements that are submitted to the State of California for southern 

California for hydrology, geology, seismicity. I have done nuclear 

generating plants, mines, polyuria things. I have worked for the 

State department of real estate as a reviewer for all new subdivisions and their impact on the local environment. So I have a widespread background in environmental science and environmental review work and regulations. 

Mr. POMBO. So needless to say, you have a little bit of experience 

in this field. In your testimony you make the allegation that the 

U.S. Forest Service listed in their listing package on endangered 

species, which would have been under the Endangered Species Act, 

that they used junk science, that their peer review consisted of reviewing each other's work, that their references were to their own 

work in listing this. I am sure you are aware that Fish and Wildlife 

Service-Secretary Babbitt claimed that they peer review their 

work. And in a number of other cases I have been involved with 

I have noticed that it involved reviewing each other's work and 

that that was their definition of peer review. In your experience in 

the scientific community, have you ever run across that type of 

peer review in the past? Or would you even call it peer review? 

Mr. FIFE. I wouldn't really call it peer review, because the reports that I have seen tend to have so-called secret data. If you ask 

for various reports, through the Freedom of Information Act, on 

these allegedly endangered weeds, you will get reports back that 

look like they went through the censor in World War II. There are 

big black felt pen marks where the locations are listed. 

Mr. POMBO. Secret reports. Do you mean that they are that con- fident in their botanical data and their biological data that they 

have to edit it before they allow it to be viewed by the public? 

Mr. FIFE. Well, I don't know if that is editing. I call it censoring 

so that the public doesn't know the data. And as somebody who has 

been a reviewer for scientific papers and journals, every time in my 

experience that a person claiming to be a scientist has secret data, 

the data doesn't support the conclusion. I mean every time. It just 

doesn't make sense. If a scientist is a scientist, they are proud of 
43 

the facts and the research they have done. They want everybody 

else to see it so they can agree with their conclusions. 

Mr. PoMBO. So are you telling me that the data that was used 

to list these plants as endangered could not have been printed in, 

say, Nature magazine or Scientific American or any noted scientific 

journal? 

Mr. FIFE. Not in my opinion. The Forest Service listing package, 

the key there is to look at the first page of references. There are 

14 references. Ten of them are in-house letter type reports on the 

letterhead of the Forest Service or an environmental group that 

they hired. And basically we couldn't even get all the data in there. 

The other four references were just general textbook references 

that didn't support their conclusions. I mean--

Mr. POMBO. So what you are saying is that the information that 

was used to list endangered species to list plants as endangered 

species could not have been printed in a science magazine? 

Mr. FIFE. It would never have gone through peer review in a professional science magazine or journal. 

Mr. POMBO. And yet it was OK to use it to put it on the endangered species list? 

Mr. FIFE. Definitely. And not only that, our permits were obviously held up, the mining company party I mentioned and myself 

and perhaps a couple of others, so they could get these officially 

listed. They treated-they just didn't want to approve our permits 

because the plants weren't listed. They couldn't wait to get us in 

consultation with U.S. Fish and Wildlife for us to buy them property or give them money to buy property was the feeling we all 

had. 

Mr. POMBO. Another part of your prepared testimony you talk 

about planting endangered species on the property. And you say in 

here that they used a local recreation group to restore off road vehicle damage, which was a · road, I take it, that led into your property. And you have someone who has come forward to you who is 

willing to testify that they planted an endangered species on your property? 

Mr. FIFE. That is correct. I found this kind of unbelievable. First 

they got a restoration grant from the California green sticker fund, 

what I would consider under false pretenses. When they proposed 

it, I happened to be at the State commission and opposed it verbally and in writing. And I believe that is in testimony I gave in 

Helen Chenoweth's task force last spring on abuse. They used this 

$45,000 grant to block our roads with boulders, barbed wire, then 

take heavy equipment, bulldozers, scarify the roads, scarify our 

quarries and then bring volunteers in to plant the--well, othernot all endangered species. They planted some large plants. 

Well, I heard from one of the recreational clubs locally that they 

had had this group which was advertised in the local paper. I have 

the ad where they were asking for volunteers for what they called 

the cactus restoration. That was my property. These are mining 

claims, but we have a discovery. We have a State report that took 

a year to validate our find there. It was declared so important that 

the State of California issued a zoning classification to protect it 

from incompatible land use such as urbanization or wilderness 

even. And I think that report actually wound up being used against 
44 

us to expand the wilderness boundary so they would make damn 

sure that we were included in the Bighorn Mountain Wilderness. Because boundaries earlier that had been used for the RARE II 

area didn't include so much of the property, but when this report 

came out it now included all of our high-grade reserves, all our active mining operations. Everything was in there. 

Mr. POMBO. Just in conclusion, then, if the road leading into your 

mine is now populated with a plant that is listed as endangered, 

would you be allowed to access over that road? 

Mr. FIFE. Not likely. 

Mr. POMBO. Under the current implementation of the act, I believe it would be impossible. 

Mr. FIFE. Not only that, the plant supposedly only occurs in the 

San Bernardino National Forest, but now the Bureau of Land Management is claiming-they are blocking or using it as an excuse to 

close roads throughout the California desert conservation area. One 

of the plants, the buckwheat, Professor Brooks at the University of 

British Columbia published a book called Biological Methods in 

Geochemical Prospecting several years ago, and this very species 

was listed as a geochemical prospecting tool when the flower turns 

purple or violet or wine colored if there are so many parts per million of base metals, silver, copper, things like that. And this is a 

plant that is used all over northern Canada for finding deposits 

using geochemistry. And, you know, this is the very description of 

this thing as being a unique endangered subspecies this buckwheat, Eriogonium ovalifolium var. vineum, as being so unique 

that it only grows in the San Bernardino National Forest, only 

grows on limestone or carbonate rock that we are mining and we 

are one of the largest districts for calcium carbonate in the United 

States. 

Now, mind you, calcium carbonate--this is the other end of the 

spotted owl spectrum in timber, because timber, of course, is important in building and construction, but limestone is used in cement. It is 80 percent of cement. It is about 50 to 60 percent of most plastic. It is 50 percent of your tires, 20 percent of glass. It is used in 

toothpaste as an abrasive, as an antacid, toothpaste and chewing 

gum. It is Turns essentially. It is the cement of modern civilization. So if you can find a plant or an animal that only lives on this commercial limestone, you can shut America down if you can't mine it. 

Mr. POMBO. Well, I thank you very much for your testimony and 

that of all the panel. I think that these are the kind of issues that 

we need to educate America on. You know a lot about them because they have happened to you, but the problem is that the average guy who is driving to work to a nine to five job has never even 

heard of this before. So we have a long way to go before people understand what this battle is all about. Thank you. 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Thank you, Mr. Pombo. Mr. Vincent, when 

you were negotiating with the Fish and Wildlife Service in the community committee, was there any mention about how dangerous 

these bears were to human beings? 

Mr. VINCENT. There was a lot of discussion about the unnecessary fear that they felt the public had for the grizzly bear, that the 

bear would not pose a problem, they indicated, and that we needed 

to begin to educate the public that if we stayed away from the bear 
45 

that the bear would stay away from us. Well, we were looking into 

that, however. We did find in the internal documents of the Inte- rior Department that they identified our ecosystem as having the 

highest potential for human grizzly conflict of any ecosystem being 

considered in the United States. And the reason for it was that 

there are a lot of people who live where they are transplanting 

these bears and they know that human grizzly conflicts do happen 

and the grizzly bears normally win. So they told us to not be fearful and then start blocking us away from the bears so that we 

wouldn't have the interactions where the bears could win. We have watched during the last eight years as the population 

of bears has grown in the northern Rockies ecosystem, the crown 

of the continent just 60 miles from us. We have watched as the 

bear maulings have increased over the years. We. have talked with 

biologists who have said that we have created an unnatural population and we will have some unnatural occurrences with bears, 

more violence. Bears are at the top of the food chain. So we wonder 

what our future is going to look like and we wonder with some 

fear, particularly after what has happened to Mr. Schuller in his 

effort to protect himself from a grizzly bear. He was 30 miles outside of a grizzly zone and shot in self defense and has been found 

criminally negligent in taking a species, an endangered species. 

What will happen to me-l live-and my kids if we try to protect 

ourselves in the zone? 

We believe what the Fish and Wildlife Service told us about our 

safety about as much as we have been-as we have learned to believe about everything else they have told us. We believe approached properly the grizzly bear and us probably can coexist, but 

we might need a gun. 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. What about the children, did they give any 

idea about how you protect the children? 

Mr. VINCENT. Well, I shared-yeah, they did. I share a true story 

that is so absurd that lots of people don't believe that it is true, 

but at the first public meeting my wife and I attended we asked 

about our children's safety because we live at the mouth of the biggest stream in the Cabinet Wilderness Area. And a quarter mile 

each way from our home is a public campground, and bears like 

campgrounds. So we were fearful of our four young children. We 

asked if we could send them out to play without worrying about 

their safety. The indication from Dr. Servheen was yes, but we 

might have to modify some of our behaviors. And he actually told 

my wife to do as hikers are told to do in the park system where 

the bears exist. If you go hiking in Glacier Park, they will give you 

a trifold that heavily suggests you tie bells on your shoes and your 

walking stick so that you will go tinkle, tinkle, tinkle through the 

forest and the bears are supposed to hear the bells and run the 

other way. 

So Dr. Servheen told my wife and I that we would probably be 

well advised to tie bells on our children when we send them out 

to play. And then he also indicated that if there was a problem 

bear, if there was a bad bear, that he would have someone deal 

with it. Mrs. CHENOWETH. How do they know who the bad bears are? 

There are black bears up there. 
46 

Mr. VINCENT. Well, bad bears have bells in their poop. There are 

other ways to tell. It really does concern us, and particularly as our 

population grows. We know it is going to be a growing concern and 

especially in our ecosystem, because there are many places where 

the ecosystem-if you look at our Cabinet/Y aak ecosystem on a 

map, it is shaped kind of like an octopus. Grizzly bear habitat regions kind of fan out from a center core area, the wilderness area, 

and some places those bands of habitat are two miles wide. And 

grizzly bears have a 50-square mile eating radius. And there are 

people in between these arms, so the potential for human grizzly 

conflict is incredibly real. Our question, as well, we would like to 

ask who is going to be responsible if a planted, collared bear attacks a civilian outside the grizzly habitat zone as they are practicing tourism in our area. Who is going to be responsible? This is a 

carnivore. 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. You know, although you did inject some 

humor in this almost tragic testimony, the fact is the United States 

Government is introducing serious danger that cannot just render 

bodily harm but death. And it is beyond reason. Why haven't you 

sued the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service over their grizzly bear 

guidelines? 

Mr. VINCENT. The grizzly bear guidelines are in a recovery plan 

that is not, according to the Fish and Wildlife, a decision document. 

It is merely guidelines for the managing agencies. So if we disagree 

with what we are being told we have to do with the grizzly bear 

habitat, there is nothing to sue. They merely use it as a guideline. 

It is not a decision document. There is no record of decision. There 

is no public-official public input period. They have received no 

input from the public. They had to have no peer reviewed science. 

They had to have nothing except a guideline. It is not used as a 

management tool against the U.S. Forest Service, so there is nothing to sue against. 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Well, Bruce, this is-Mr. Vincent, this is incredible and I can sense your frustration. And you all have come 

a very long way, and even though there is Mr. Pombo and I, you 

have created an invaluable record. And we won't let this drop. 

With regard to the effect of guidelines on implementing management decisions, I think that is something this Committee must deal 

with, and I would like to work with you on that. 

I would like to comment on Mr. Sanregret's comments. You are 

so right on, and we are very careless in referring to land management agencies as people who actually own the land. And I am one 

who agrees with you. This has been a very interesting study that 

I have involved myself in for a number of years, and it is interesting that in the equal footing doctrines the courts have addressed 

the fact that yes, we own water on an equal footing with the original 13 states and even in the case involving California V BOR they 

mention that, that we own the water by virtue of the equal footing 

doctrine. But the fact is we also owned the land by virtue of the 

equal footing doctrine also, and we have not asked the question 

properly before the right court in order to get that question solidified, who owns the land. If we own the water, then we · also must 

own the land. So I thank you for your comments. 
47 

And every time I hear lawmakers refer to federally owned land, 

I quietly cringe, because if we speak it too often thoughtlessly, then 

it becomes a reality. And we need people like you reminding us of 

that. And I thank you very much. 

Mr. SANREGRET. Madam Chairman, if I might. We westerners 

are in a tough spot because the only place this Federal land is is 

in the west. And the stronghold of the easterners politically, strictly politically, Democrats and liberal Republicans, we are far outnumbered. And if Al Gore really meant what he said-then it will 

be a disaster for America. 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Isn't that something? 

Mr. SANREGRET. It is. Right before the Civil War in 1850 the feds 

chose to keep California's land on admission, because California's 

status, prior to the Civil War, was a tricky situation. For some reason they gave Minnesota their land on admission in 1858. But in 

every State admitted after 1858,the feds kept the land. That is 

kind of an interesting perspective on states' rights. There is a 

movement, as you know, afoot to give "Federal" land back to the 

states. A lot of states don't want it. They say hey, let the feds keep 

it, it is too expensive to manage, and we don't want it. Some states 

do want the land. It varies a lot, and is an interesting question. 

Perhaps a little beyond why we are here; but I think it is related 

because of the politics. We are outnumbered, and particularly if Al 

Gore succeeds in reducing our western population and productivity, 

we haven't got a chance. We need your help, Madam Chairman. Mr. POMBO. If the Chairman would yield for just a minute. It has 

exactly to do with what we are talking about. The Federal ownership of lands, you know, we can make arguments for national 

parks. We can make arguments for a lot of different things, but the 

simple fact that the Federal Government owns half of the State I 

come from, they dictate to a large degree what happens in my 

State. And they want to maintain that control and they don't want 

to give that up. And that is what this debate really boils down to, 

is who controls it and where those decisions are made. Mr. SANREGRET. Absolutely right, Congressman. I agree. It is 

over 600 million acres we are talking about. 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Thank you, Mr. Pombo. Mr. Phelps, it is good 

to see you again. Thank you so much for your very excellent testimony. The fires that occurred in Alaska just last week and the 

week before were tragic evidence of the results of mismanagement. Mr. PHELPS. That is correct, and as you are probably well aware, 

in the west fire we lost 344 structures and the larger percentage 

of those were homes. And we must take a more active role in management of the forest, especially in areas near where people are living and working. But aside even from the human element, if people 

are an important part of the land, then those decisions as we just 

talked about have to be made with strong consideration to the view 

of those people that live nearby. And that is the big frustration we 

have with Federal management. And in the current round of discussions over the Tongass Land Management Plan we have been 

told very clearly by the Forest Service that the opinion of someone 

living in Florida who has never seen, never set foot, never had to 

live and work in southeast Alaska has equal standing with those 
48 

of us who do live and work there in providing input to the decision. 

And we find that appalling. Mrs. CHENOWETH. Well, it is so apparent that we must right that 

wrong. And I do know that we can't do it quickly, but we are well 

on our way to first educating the people and then instituting corrective measures in this body. And with that, I would like to mention to you that those of you who testified, if you would like to revise or extend your remarks, the record will remain open for ten 

days. And aside from that I want to thank you for being here. And 

this hearing is closed. 

[Whereupon, at 4:45p.m., the Committee was adjourned; and the 

following was submitted for the record:] 
49 

"Preserving our natural resources FOR the publ ic :nstead ol FROM the publ:c'' 

p 0 . BOX 5449 o POCATELLO, IDAHO 63202 o (208) 237-1557 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES 

hearing on 

"CITIZEN'S PERSPECTIVES ON FEDERAL LAND USE POLICIES 

1324 Longworth HOB 

Washington, D.C. 20515 

June 18, 1996 

Testimony of Clark L. Collins, Executive Director 

BLUERIBBON COALITION INC. 

P.O. Box 5449 

Pocatello, Idaho 83202 

ph. (208)237-1557 fax 237-1566 
50 

~., 

: ·· <; ;: to I , ___ ," ,. 

J "'"="'"\"'' ,) 

s

May 1994 · P.O . Box t427. Idaho Falls, 10 83403-!427 

. 

OFFICIAL PUBLICATION OF THE BLUE RIBBON COALITION 

:::· '"llabbittraullies Blueliibbon . P. , z -13 . -~~ ,, ... ~__.t.;...-~~---- ~~--.-...t.-......:.;__ ___ 4 ___ ~..;.L.-~ .. ..---.Jo1-
51 

THE WHITE HOUSE 

WASHINGTON 

March 30, 1987 

I am pleased to send greetings to everyone gathered 

for the annual meeting of the Idaho Trail Machine 

Association. 

My good friend, Senator Jim McClure, tells me that 

you're a "can do" outfit. He says you not only 

travel the trails but clear them, too, keeping them 

fit for yourselves and others to enjoy. And you 

look for no other recompense than the joy of a job 

well done. Volunteer efforts Hke yours are the 

American way, and I'm sure your good example will 

move others to make the great outdoors a great 

place for everyone. 

God bless you all. 
52 

Chairman Young, members of the Committee on Resources, thank you for the 

opportunity to testify on the issue of "Federal Land Use Policies.• 

The BlueRibbon Coalition is a national organization representing over 500 member 

organizations and businesses. Through these organizations and our individual membership 

we represent the interests of over 750,000 'Off Highway Recreationists' (OHR). We,ve just 

gotten you used to the term 'Off Highway Vehicles' (OHV) to describe the motorized trail 

user community and here we go introducing another acronym 'OHR. • 

While our primary constituency is still motorized, we have many non-motorized 

recreation members who realize the value of working together on 'shared-use' trail 

management. As an example the Back Country Horsemen of America are one of our 

member organizations. 

In the name of resource protection, many recreation user groups are being 

systematically excluded from traditional use areas. Green Advocacy Groups (GAGs) and 

preservationist oriented land managers are discriminating against first one user group, and 

then the next. One by one, each interest group is considered guilty unless proven Innocent 

and then locked out of one area after another. Through administrative regulations and 

biased interpretation of environmental protection laws responsible recreational users are 

being denied access to historically used areas. 

The GAGs and some Federal land managers are touting 'Recreation and Tourism' 

as replacements for our natural resource industries. In reality, they don't want recreation 

allowed eitherll! 

Today I would like to highlight a particularly ridiculous incident where hundreds of 

thousands of dollars of taxpayers money was wasted. 

In the spring of 1993 the Bureau of Reclamation (BOA) began enforcing a vehicular 

closure of a popular recreation area near American Falls Idaho (a small town near 

Pocatello, our home base). The BOA has a blanket 'closed unless designated open' policy 

on land under their jurisdiction, but had not previously informed the public that this popular 

recreation area was their land. 

We advised the recreation public, when the order was given, to respect the closure. 

We hoped for approval of a management plan for the area that would restore our 

recreation access. Our members were honoring that request. 

I visited the area with BOA personnel and had been in contact with them since 

the closure. We hadn't been informed that there was a problem with violations, when 

suddenly in the spring of 1994 all hell broke lose. The local media was ablaze with stories 

of armed Park Service rangers patrolling the area to stop violators. BOA news releases 

were deliberately composed to make us look like criminals. 

Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt had ordered fourteen armed National Park Service 

(NPS) rangers, from all over the country, to American Falls to patrol the area. That's right 

14 ARMED RANGERSIII Can you imagine what that cost American tax payers? This is 

just one more example of Secretary Babbitt's attitude that the American public has 

unlimited resources to pay for his gestapo like methods of dealing with land users he and 

his GAG friends don't approve of. 
53 

I asked the head ranger if he could show me what evidence of violations he found 

that justified 14 ARMED RANGERS. The only evidence he could show, was where a 

couple of ATV riders had inadvertently entered the closed area on an unmarl<ed trail. Their 

tracks indicated that when they encountered one of the barricades that had been 

constructed to block access to the area, they tumea around and went back the way they 

had come. The ranger even said, "If we had caught those ATVers in the act we would 

have only been able to advise them of the closure because It was obvious they hadn't 

deliberately entered the closed area.' 

We've never objected to enforcement of reasonable OHV regulations, but had been 

opposing the closure. In fact, we told the BOA in 1 993 that if they insisted on closing the 

area they should actively enforce it right away. We feared they were deliberately setting 

up a situation where they could cite evidence of violators to justify their plans for a 

pennanent total closure. The irony is that they didn't have any violators, but went ahead 

with their strategy anyway. 

This harassment by Interior Secretary Babbitt may have been in retaliation for our 

involvement, with other Wise Use groups, in attempts to have him replaced. We felt it was 

important to show our concem for the environment by asking President Clinton to replace 

Bruce Babbitt with someone who will work with public land users instead of wasting tax 

payers money on a personal vendetta. 

My family and friends had been using this area for decades. It had been one of 

the most popular OHV areas in South East Idaho for over thirty years and is still 

considered 'pristine.' We have taken a handicapped outdoor group from the local 

university on outings there. We have invited non-motorized recreationists to share the 

area with us and it has become popular with equestrians and rock climbers. Now we are 

kicked out, and they are invited to stay. 

We have always shown respect for this area's natural resources and scenic beauty. 

We've conducted litter clean ups and infonned our members of the need to respect local 

wildlife and other users. We have even built and installed cattle guards to eliminate any 

possibility of conflict with grazers, who have also been kicked out now. 

SEVERAL IMPORTANT FACTS ARE RELEVANT TO THIS ISSUE. 

Fact number one: Recreational users of this area were only recently notified by the BOA 

that they have management responsibility for this area. Most users assumed it was Bureau 

of land Management (BLM) 'open' land. It was only through meetings with the BLM, 

initiated by me several years ago, that we were told the area was BOA land. 

Fact number two: When it was detennined that the area In question was BOA land, we 

offered to worl< with the BOA on a plan to manage recreation access. We indicated then 

and now, our willingness to assist in the enforcement of reasonable regulations to manage 

the recreational use of the area. The BOA said they would defer management of the area 

to the BLM, who managed the BOA grazing allotments and much of the surrounding area. 

Fact number three: A BOA archeologist indicated at a 'Citizens Advisory Group' meeting 

in 1992 that arrow head hunters were removing historical artifacts and OHV use wasn't 

the main problem. It has sinca been indicated that the majority of the artifacts are located 

away from the roads and trails. In our view, continued use of the existing roads and trails 

would have minimal impact on the historical artifacts. 

2 
54 

Fact number four: Archeological resources have been removed from the south side of 

the Snake River in this same area to construct the Massacre Rocks State Park, boat dock 

& parking area and pave over a hiking trail. Interstate Highway #84 and a rest area are 

also on the other side of the river. It's likely there were artifacts there as well, but there 

was never a fuss about them. 

Discrimination is wrong whether it's because of race, religion or recreational 

preference. Babbitt may have the strength of 'his' federal agency, and some folks would 

say it's foolish for a small group like ours to be so bold, but he's nothing but a bully. The 

only way to deal with 

a bully is to stand up to him! 

This should have been a local issue, and easily resolved, but it seemed that the 

BOA's attitude changed dramatically following the 1992 election. Babbitt's extreme 

environmental fingerprints are all over it. 

This is just one example of many. The National Park Service is trying to kick 

snowmobiles out of Yellowstone and Voyageurs National Parks and youth groups aren't 

welcome In the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness. Forest Service and BLM 

management plans all over the country seem to have a built in ratchet, restricting 

recreation access further with each revision. Compare this with the 'letter of 

commendation' to the Idaho Trail Machine Association from President Reagan (read copy 

of letter enclosed). 

We must not allow our federal land management agencies to discriminate against 

responsible recreatlonists in this way. The Interior Department's handling of this incident 

should be investigated by Congress. 

CONCLUSION 

The hate mongering and contrived user conflicts of the GAGs shouldn't be 

rewarded. Secretary Babbitt, the Sierra Club and Earth First? do not represent the 

environmental conscience of this country. We shouldn't call the GAGs 'environmentalists' 

and passively allow them to refer to Wise Users as 'anti-environmentalists.' Neither should 

the 'league of Conservation Voters Index' be the litmus test for Congressional 

environmental responsibility. 

Just who are the real environmentalists? Pushing to eliminate everyone's impact 

on the environment but your own doesn't make you an environmentalist. The GAGs, and 

their friends in the Congress and land management agencies are no longer 'for' the 

environment. They are just 'against' everyone else's use of it. 

Chairman Young and members of the Committee, recreationists shouldn't be 

discriminated against by our land management agencies and treated like criminals. 

Cooperation and volunteerism of our members should be recognized and rewarded. On 

issues of environmental protection we should be Innocent unless proven guilty, instead of 

the other way around. We can use our natural resources wisely and 'Preserve our natural 

resources FOR the public instead of FROM the public.' 

Clark L. Collins 

3 
55 
56 

TESTIMONY BEFORE HOUSE COMMITTEE 

ON RESOURCES 

June 18, 1996 

by 

NH State Senator Frederick W. King, Sr. 

representing 

Board of County Commissioners of Coos 

County, New Hampshire 
57 

The Senate of the State of New Hampshire 

107 N. Main Street, Room 302, Concord, N.H. 03301-4951 

FREDERICK W. KING Olstrict 1 

June 18, 1996 

Honorable Don Young, Chairman 

Committee on Resource 

U.S. House of Representatives 

Room 1324, Longworth Office Building 

Washington, D.C. 20515 

Dear Representative Young: 

Thank you for inviting me to testify before your Committee on the subject of 

"Citizen's Perspectives on Federal Land Use Policies•. 

I am the State Senator from NH Senate District One which consists of nineteen 

towns, the City of Berlin and twenty-three unincorporated places in Coos County, 

the State's northernmost county. I also represent the citizens of five towns in 

Grafton County. My District consist of small rural communities and is bordered 

by Canada on the North, Maine on the East and Vermont on the West. Our 

economy is closely tied to the timber and paper-making industries along with 

tourist related businesses. Before I was elected Senator, I was employed as 

Coos County Administrator. Coos County has a land mass of eighteen hundred 

(1800) square miles and a population of 36,000. I continue to work for the 

County part-time as administrator of the 23 unincorporated places. I have also 

served twelve years as a Selectman in my town and I know I have a good sense 

of what is important to my constituents. 

I appear before your Committee to express the concerns that my county has 

relative to federal land use policies and the potential impact of proposed 

legislation on the citizens of Coos County. I refer in particular to S. 1163 and 

H.R. 2421, The Northern Forest Stewardship Act. If these bills become law, the 

economy of my County is In jeopardy and the historiCal multiple use of our timber 

resource will be seriously threatened. These bills have the support of twentyeight of the most powerful, -taxpayer su'pported environmental organizations in 

the country. They have joined together in a formal organization known as The 

Northam Forest Alliance and they have targeted twenty-six million acres 

(26,000,000) for public ownership, land which would be designated as wildland 

areas. The plan targets ten specific areas in northern Vermont and New 

Hampshire and areas in adjacent Maine. They propose that these lands would 
58 

Honorable Don Young Page -2-

~ In their "natural alate" and fundng for these purchases will be available 

through S. 1163and H.R. 2421. 

Today, three out of every ten acres of land in CoOs County are publicly owned. 

A substantial part of the 750,000 acre White Mountain National Forest (WMNF) 

lies within my Senate District. Currently, the WMNF is severely cutting back on 

timber harvesting activities within its boundaries. In fact, beginning in 1994, a 

reduction in available harvest took place. The WMNF grows 30 million board 

feet per year on a sustainable basis on the 6()0/o of the land where harvesting 

can legally take place. In 1994, the federal government proposed to reduce the 

cut to 9.6 million board feet. At that time, one local sawmill operator was quoted 

as saying, 'We saw into lumber fwe million board feet a year. If they cut back 

20 million board feet. four mills like ours won't have the wood". 

Recently, it was reported that one of the most respected national environmental 

organizations in the country, The Sierra Club, adopled a policy that it will fight to 

ban all timber harvesting on national forests, coast to coast. In 1996, Congress 

authorized the purchase of an additional 480 acres which will be added to the 

WMNF for a staggering price of $1.9 million or $3,950 per acre for woodland. 

On its 1997 'Wish Ust" the Northam Forest Alliance is proposing the addition of 

another 5,000 acres to the WMNF ala public acquisition cost of $3.75 million 

taxpayer dollars. The Alliance's 1997 federal funding request for the targeted 

50,000 acres of Northam Forestlands (New Yor1<, Vennont, New Hampshire and 

Maine) including the 5,000 acres to be added to the WMNF is $8.5 milfion from 

the Land and Water Conservation Fund and $6 million from the Forest Legacy 

Program. 

EXHIBIT A attached contains the details of the Northam Forest Alliance's master 

plan for the northern forests including the lands in Coos County, New 

Hampshire. The map on the sheet labeled page 5 indicates the total acreage 

targeted for public ownership along with the 1997 priorities. Numbers 5. 6 and 7 

indicate lands that surround my hometown of Colebrook, New Hampshire. 

Number 5 is the headwaters of the Androscoggin River. This region straddles 

the New Hampshire and Maine borders and stretches to the Canadian border. 

On August 23, 1991, the federal government established the. Lake Umbagog 

National Fish and Wild6fe Refuge at the headwaters of the Aildroscoggln River. 

With this action, the federal government established an additional presence in 

my Senate District. This river, one of the most industrially developed rivers in 

New England, is the eastern boundary of CoOs County and the eastern boundary 

of my District. Number 6 on the map is the Connecticut River headwaters. 

The Connecticut River forms the western boundary of Coos County and my 

Senate District. On December 11, 1991, the federal government created the 

Silvio Conte National Fish and Wildlife Refuge which encompasses an area of 

over 11 ,000 square miles, or 7.2 milfion acres along both sides of the 
59 

Honorable Don Young Page -3-

Connecticut River In the states of New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts and 

Connecticut. The refuge begins at the origin of the Connecllcut River In 

Pittsburg, New Hampshire and ends in Long Island Sound. Number 7 is the 

Nulhegan River watershed in Vermont with its eastern boundary on the 

Conn~cut River. These lands in items 5, 6 and 7 are mainly the property of 

large limber companies and contain the major source of timber fiber which is the 

backbone of the local economy. 

Any changes from the historical pattern of use will devasfate the lives of my 

neighbors. With known patterns of timber harvesting on federal lands in the 

WMNF, with the proposed ban on all future harvesting on federal lands and with 

the proposed land grab of the organizations that form the Northern Forest 

Alliance, I truly believe that those of us who inhabit northern New Hampshire, the 

northeast kingdom of Vermont and western Maine have justification to fear for 

the future of our children and grandchildren. Our heritage earned over 

generations Is at stake. A few years ago when the James River Corporation 

paper mills were threatened with closing, it was projected that overnight the 

unemployment in CoOs County could reach 35% to 40%. That crisis was 

averted and today the mills are viable operations. They need timber fiber to 

operate and we must protect the source of that timber supply. 

It makes no sense to spend dollars which the federal government does not have 

to purchase more land which it cannot manage and on which no trees will be cut. 

Your Committee knows better than I do about the great need for more funding to 

rebuild the infrastructure in the federal parks and forests. A 1991 GAO 

document, Federal Lands Improvements Needed In Managing 

Concessionaires, stated that the Park Service had a deferred maintenance 

funding shortfall in 1988 of $1.9 billion and the Forest Service's maintenance and 

reconstruction backlog for its recreational resources totaled $650 million in 1991. 

We shculd adopt a public policy that focuses on today's needs and put on hold 

all future acquisition plans unless as a nation we are prepared to sell an acre of 

land every lime we buy an acre. I cannot speak for the rest of the nation but I 

can teH you that in CoOs County, New Hampshire the private landowners have 

made their lands available for the use of the public at no cost. New Hampshire 

property tax po&clea have made It advantag~ for the lan~~ tO bold <X~to their property for private use and we do riOt need federal gdirEirnment ownership 

in order to protect these lands from environmental abuse. We have adequate 

state and local land use controls and federal intrusion is not needed. We would 

prefer to see scarce federal dollars spent on Medicare; Medicaid and programs 

for the elderly and disadvantaged, not on the purchase of our privately held 

property. When the government purchases our woodlands good paying jobs 

are lost, local tax revenues are reduced and the cost of local services goes up 

without compensation. 
60 

Honorable Don Young Page -4-

S. 1163 and H.R. 2421 are similar bills. Both are designed to implement 

someone's perception of the recommendations of the Northern Forest lands 

Council. The original version of S. 1163 contained a key phrase (Page 8, Une 3) 

which stated, Willing seller with community spprovsr. This phrase clearly states 

that if there is to be a federally funded land acquisition, the localtown(s) must 

approve, presumably by a vote at town meeting. In a revised version of the bill, 

this language was deleted and replaced with •acquisition of lands and interests 

in land only from willing sellers•. This change is not acceptable because one 

only needs to look at the price the federal government pays for land to see only 

a fool would refuse to sell woodland to the government in New Hampshire. 

Prices such as $3,950 per acre are beyond belief. 

On June 13, 1996, I received from Congressman Bass a copy of H.R. 2421 and 

it still contains language that community approval is necessary (P. 8, Une 3). It 

would appear that the House has not agreed to the changes made in the Senate 

or the copy supplied to me was not the latest version of the House bill. I would 

respectfully request that in the absence of language that requires community 

approval for federal land acquisition, that these bills be killed and the 

appropriations be used to improve the existing facilities on federal lands. 

Thank you for the opportunity to express the beliefs of myself and the County 

Commissioners of Coos County on behalf of our citizens. 

Sincerely yours, 

~~~~. New Hampshire Senate District One 
61 

EXHIBIT "A" 

The Northern Forest: 

FY t997 

Acquisition Priorities 

Norlbem 

forest 

Alliance 

March 1996 
Norlhem 

J:'oresl 

Alhance 1be Northeni Forett .UIWI<e II a coaliUon or rec!onal, aoate and aatloul orpnlzaUooa united iD tllolr commltmerlt to 

pn>te<t the North.., ,_ or Maine, N.,. llampahl,.., 

v.mtoot and N<W Tort. 

Vision: 

62 

To est~blbb a auii&IDablc Ill mi.DioD. 1cre Northem FOI"eA 

ec:oa)'llall, iDclucllnc preaened wild """' arua cottJteded bJ 

corrtdors,muaaed rorut lancb, and healthy, vl•ble human 

commWlltlea. 

H1SS1on: 

To wort< tosother to pt'Oiecl and mltanoe tile ecolocical and 

econom~ wiiiAlnabllity or natural and buman commualdea 

theNorth.....Fo-. 

Goals: 

1be Alllaace,. prlorldea are tbreefolil: 

• To plD perm""""t proted!OD orwtldlanda, 1M tbelr oco- Joclcal q~.,.. and IDhereat beauty; 

• To """"" well tDIIIOpl ro .... ta tbotaupplywood pn>6- DCII, IUpporl wildliiO. and pvrlde joba and ....... IIDJI; ODd . 

.. •To _.-oommllllltlawltbllltbo- buDd ......... cllw:ne, locaiiJ--- ... ,..-. 

For more IDrormatloD about tile No~ ,_ .uu.uce, pleue-- 'lhe--AIIIoDce 1111-a.. 

MOIIIpdler, 'l'elmoltt05e011 

'Nopho.,., 80!1.-41151. 

l 

The Northern Forest: 

FY 1997 Acquisition Priorities 

Table of Contents 

lntrodudiot Page I 

LWCF fedtr11 Prajecu Pagel 

•!.* ..... 

• llb 1ortotott 

Forest Lepy Proje<ts Page4 

• lil CrW, tp. his 

Wildlands Hap and 

Acquisition lo<ator map PageS 

LWCF State Prajeds Page 6 

•IJochl"-

·1*-...w.....ctM 

.... - ' c..y ,. Ad'notlock ,.,. 

S.llllllarJ " fY 1997 

Funding lequests 

llordlen hrat AlliaMe 

Memben ladt Cvver 
63 

Northern Forest Alliance proposed Wildland 

... ·eas (1-IO) and FYI997 Acquisition 

Priorities (A-F) 

A 8 ( D E 

New York Vermont New Hampshire Maine 

10 Wildland Areas fY 1997 Acquisition Priorities 

'lilt 1rin ftnst MiMa ......... dlt It ww...J Arbs U... 'lilt 1111f *" i ioltJo4od otly 1t p dlt cnenlloalilo rl dlt 

................... _..tllortiodltlrin Abu\lttl ...... priorilits. ......... ,...., ... 

r-. n. - dalioe 1ft Ast4 • dlt best mJUit .. M&uct\ - CDIIpMwiw. illlanltll Wiluds CIIIUftliol .._..lllllici .... IHIKII_........._ ........ 

I. 

1. 

), 

4. 

-1)5. 

Dtn East Labs 

6nallr Iaiit Stall hit Alta 

Upper St. jolllliftr faleJ 

a..ary "-tailS 

IIpper Andmcogia Wcy. lab Utnbacoc 

' laJictley Labs . 

... 6. CoMtcticul linr Headwatm 

~ 1. 11u11Mpt ltiver WaetnMd • .. llordltni 6ntl IIMtaiBs 

A. Fish Cmk. Tuc HI Plalua, llew Tort 

....... linrltany his llalnoir, 

AdinMacl M llew Torte 

C. lab Geor&t. Wnncladt hrt, llew York 

D. Tile Lona Tni, llordlerl Gmt &tiAtains, ~ 

.. l lab Witton, lew Ha~~~p~hirt 

... F. lab Umbacor NatiOnal Wildlil't llefup. 

. llew Hampshire I llaiM 

9. Gnat Omptdlit l'tml I lloreal Heritace Resent 

II. l~CIIill'latul 
Northern 

roresl 

Alliance 

Adirondack CouncU 

Appalacbfan !\fountain Club 

· Appalacbfan TraU Conference 

AAodatlon for the Protection or the _\dirondaclu 

Comervatlon Law Foundation 

Defenden of WUdlU'e 

Garden Club of America 

Green Mountain Club 

Green Mountain Forat Watch 

John McKelth Location Photocraphy 

Maine Audubon Society 

National Audubon Soclety 

National Wlldllf'e Federation 

Natural RetOUl'CN Council of Maine 

Natural RetOUl'CN Detenae Council 

New Eqland Foreatl'f Foundation 

New Hampehlre IUven Council 

New Hampehlre WllcWfe Fedenation 

New YortL Riven United 

Reafdenta' Committee to Protect the Adlrondack.s 

Sferra Club 

Sferra Student Coalition 

Student Enviromnental Action Coalltion 

Trull for Public Land 

v-ont .Audubon Council 

v-ont Land Trult 

V-ont Natural Re10~ Council 

The Wild- SodeiJ 

AJIIaace _ ..... u ai'*-JIIN 

IIWOW'O~-IIY~Anll~,_,­

'noo Nor-...-... AlllaDoo 1MIIoteiDeet,MCIIIIplllor 

Yenaoat,OMOI 

TelepboM: IOMI5--
65 

P. 0 . Box552 

Kingfield, ME 04947 

207-265-2049 

Testimony before House Committee on Resources 

June 18, 1996 

I am David Guernsey, testi!Ying today for the Maine Conservation Rights Institute, an 

organization dedicated to conservation through private land ownership. Last year I testified before 

your Property Rights Subcommittee regarding the threat to property owners represented by the many 

consortia of environmental groups and federal agencies. Central to these was the Appalachian 

Mountain Club and its relationship to the Forest Service and other federal environmental agencies. 

This relationship is so incestuous that the AMC admits in writing to lobbying 

"for fundjJ!i for Forest needs as identified by USFS staff for wbom lobbyins js prohibited " 

The Forest Service in return has looked the other way while the AMC expanded a nonprofit string 

of small back country hikers huts in the White Mountain National Forest into a $3.5 million operation 

which attracts many more millions in membership fees. All this has been in direct violation of the 

AMC's permit, which waived any fee for use of the public's land, but allowed only mi~ operation 

of the huts plus a minor commissary. 

The strength given the AMC by their White Mountain operation allowed it to form very powerful 

liaisons with other groups to promote an extreme environmentalist agenda, threatening the welfare of 

rural communities across the Northern Forest Region of New England and New York. Their influence 

over the Department of Interior in a Maine dam relicensing case led the City of Millinocket to 

complain 

"We are IRJll!ied that an agcpcy of 0\ll aovmunmrt repeatedly jpores 0\ll year round 

myjmnmmte! and CC!liiO!!Ijc jptmsta to pmh an aaenda that wj!l radicallv cbange Ol!llives for the 

worse We watch lpterior Tll!!T!l!!mtatjes actiye!y conspire with re!icensins opponents to defeat 

re!iwsing This js not bow goycmmmt js IIIJ!l!Osed to work • 

The Maine Governor's Office, though more subdued, was no less condemning when it warned the 

. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission against serving 

"the jptcmt ofparigpal !!dyocaey groups whoae agendas !!JAY be less sepsjtjve to State and local 

jptcmts than to wiqnjpg support frpm their rgcmhmhjp whole cong:ma may be more philosopbjcal 

than m'ifdic • 

The FERC process grinds on with no resolution in sight. 
House Committee on Resources 

June 18, 1996 

Page2 

66 

Saddleback Mountain Ski Area in Rangeley, Maine, is another example of the undue influence of 

the Appalachian Mountain Club on the public policy deliberations ofFederal agencies. For the past II 

years the National Park Service has held Saddleback hostage, demanding all manner ofland use 

concessions which would prohibit further deve-lopment of Saddleback's property. 

Saddleback, on the other hand, has offered to GD::E the Park Service the entire corridor which 

the law requires be protected. The Park Service has refused to accept this gift. The impasse has gone 

on so long that Maine's Legislature passed the attached RESOLUTION urging the Park Service to 

accept the gift and to "reach a speedy reasonable and fair settlement with the ski area". 

Environmental groups reportedly lobbied hard against this resolution, particularly the part urging the 

Department of Interiur to accept the gift. The impasse has still not been resolved. 

The AMC uses its hut system on free National Forest lands as a headquarters for much of its 

advocacy, characterizing such efforts as "public education". One particularly egregious instance had 

the AMC giving visiting school children the task of producing skits on 

"what tbe world would be like if pe9ll!e keep abusin& the planet • 

There is NO public oversight of such activities, yet I can just imagine what would happen if WE 

tried to use public land to have kids produce skits on 

"what our communities would be li!ce if environmental rqulatjnns keep abusin& our economies • 

A memo of a joint meeting of the AMC and the Forest Service sums up the AMC position 

regarding its use of the public's land: 

"Every goal and objective toward wbicb we work js for the public's benefit and eyery dollar of our 

reyenues js circulated back for the public !lOOd • 

This contention is in the league with the legendary statement of the late Charles Wilson, President 

of General Motors, claiming that 

"What js !lOOd for Genera) Motors is good for the counlrv" 

At least General Motors contributed to local economies, and Mr. Wtlson pref8ced his statement 

by agreeing that "What is good for the country is good for General Motors". It is a safe bet that the 

AMC does not think in these terms. 
House Resources Committee 

June 18, 1996 

Page3 

67 

The AMC's permit to operate its hut system on National Forest land expired last October. We 

had every hope that the advenc publicity would result in a fair process for renewal and that our and 

the gcncral public's interests would receive appropriate consideration. We must now concede that 

these hopes have been in vain. 

In spite of the public: conc:em with the millions of dollars in dircc:t and promotional benefit 

rcc:eived by the AMC through its violation of the previous lease, the AMC submitted a Master 

Development Plan whic:h was little more than a promotional doc:ument. It contained l'!2 financial 

data. It made liQ reference to the restrictive terms of the previous lease or its violations thereof. 

Rather a subsequent "Clarification" blatantly admitted that 

"Our prooosal reconvpg!!ls that the USFS jndudc an of our current ooerations and orograms in 

the new pmnit. • 

A reasonable public: land lllllllgCIDent agency would have rejected this "Master Plan" out of hand 

as inadequate. The White Mountain National Forest offic:c did not. Instead it joined with the 

Appalac:hian Mountain Club to sponsor jaiadx a series of promotional "open houses• and "listening 

sessions". Speakers were cautioned to stick to the topic: of the • AMC Master Development Plan for 

the buts or closely related topics. • The Forest Service waited until May 28, 1996, to send copies of 

the Master Plan (dated September 21, 1995) to those unable to attend, asking that written comments 

be rcc:eived by June I. After rcc:eiving public: comment, the Forest Service plans simply to determine 

"whetbcr we will accept the MDP as submjttcd or ask AMC to revise it • 

No mention has been !lllde of adopting a proc:ess to determine whether the past record of the 

AMC warranted suc:h most fAvored uaer status. No mention has been made of determining the value 

of the lease or how the public: might best rcc:eive fair c:ompcosatioo for its lands. The White Mountain 

National Forest is the public's asset, not a Forest Savic:e resourc:e. 

All we ask is a fair process: one whic:h treats the AMC the IIIIIIC as other permittees on public: 

land. The AMC has every right to speak its own miDd on public: i1111es. It is .ut however, entitled to 

free public: land from whic:h to promote ita paroc:hial interests. Tbe Forest Service should begin the 

process anew, sta11iJ18 with an independent lpJniaal of the dircc:t financ:ial potential plus indircc:t 

promotioaal value of the but system, the ~own jewels of the White Mountain National Forest. 
House Committee on Resources 

June 18, 1996 

Page4 

68 

The AMC pennit renewal is symptomatic of a much larger problem: the improper and unfair 

influence of wealthy, elitist nonprofit environmental organizations over agencies of the Federal 

Government. The AMC boasts that fully 74% ofits68,000 members earn $40,000 or more per yearhardly a representative slice of our citizenry. They unabashedly promote the interests of their societal 

upper crust with tax exempt money as well as with the cash flow from free public land and who knows 

how many government and tax-exempt foundation grants. To rural communities trying to stay alive, 

they are the current embodiment ofTheodore Roosevelt's "malefactors of great wealth". chamPions of 

mociem dav rich man's socialism- These privileges are unwarranted. Groups like the AMC and their 

supporters should be made to pay their fair share. 

Thank you for your consideration. 

Attachment: Resolution of State ofMaine Legislature dated March, 1996, memorializing Department 

oflnterior to settle dispute with Saddleback Mountain Ski Area. 
69 

JOINT RESOLtrrlON MEMORIAUZING 1l!E DEPARTMENT OFTfiE 

INTERIOR TO SETTLE AN II-YEAR DISPUTE BETWEEN THE NATIONAL 

PARK SERVICE AND 1l!E SKI AREA LOCATED ON SADOLEDACK MOUNTAIN 

~e, yuw Mcmot"ial~s. the Members of tbl: One llunilicd and S..:vc11h:cntb l.egililiiiUh: uf Ilk: Sl;,tc uf Maine now uscn,.,k:d in tbc Sc.:oruJ 

Reaular Session, 1n0$1 respectfully prc.scnt and petition the Dcpanmcnt of the Interior as follows: 

~fJrrua.e, there bas bun an ll-ycar dispute between the ski aru loatcd on Saddkback Mou.nll.in aod the: National Pall: Service of the 

OcpirtmcM of the Interior rcgardioa the acquisition of a corridor to pro&<:Cithc poctKln of ~Appthtchian Trailltw cr~' Sttc.klkb;lck Muu ntain in WC$1crn 

Maine; and 

~~erma, the ~necJilinty of this dispute h1s prevented the ski au.a located on Saddlcback Mountain born implementing an expansion plan that 

bas been apptovcd by Slate rcaulatOI'I; and 

-~erma, this dlspute and the resullin& impwe tbteatcn lht caislcncc of &he: more than JOO jobs provided by the ski area·~ prevent the 

acation of ocw jobs attbe aki area; and 

~~er~.e, tbcsc jobs arc critical to the economy of western Maine; now, tberdore, be it 

~eBol.&eb: 1ba1 We., your Memorial WI, recommend and urac I be Department of I he lnlerior lo reach a speedy, reasonable and fair "'tk:ment 

with lbc &ki uca ioA&ed on Slddltb.ck Mou.nta.io; aDd be it furthu 

~eoJ&eb: Th11 We fllr1bu wae tbc DcpartmCDI of lhc: IDic:rior 10 acccpllhc offer of I he 'ki arc;& loa ted on Saddkbilck Mountain of a Jift of 

land lo a.crve u a c:ontdor 10 forever protca the Appalachian Tnil; and be it f1ntbcr 

~soJ&el:t: That st.titablc c:opic.s of this memorial, dt.tly authenticated by the S~:c:n:tary of Stutc:, bl.: tr~~onsmillcd to h~: Secretary of th!.: Interior, 

Bruce Babbiu. &ad lo ac:h member of Uu: Maine Ccm&JC.slional Dekption. 

;Jn ,$11aalt QIIJli.W.r 

Rwl and Adopted 

~·nit 7, 1996 

Senl down for Concurrence 

S.P. 711 

-~~ of Frdlia eo-a,. 

Coopoucoe4 By: 

x ... I. Jo.:l Abfocuoo 

of Cumbcrlaml Cuuaty 

SeA. Ja.c A. Amero 

ot Cv.mbcd•M eou.ay 

Sea. Cccqeuc B. Bu* of AodrOioCUqin Co.tnay 

Pfc~i..kat Jeffrey fl. IAAiu.J 

ur C.umhcrland CoW~ty 

Sc:n. navAILC;up:nk!l 

.M'fu.k C'uanay 

s-:n. Nufmllll f'cf,lt~lfl lr. 

of o.r,w.t Cuunty 

S..:a. IJaft;l('. llanky 

,~rndur.JC,...,tlty 

l'tlilir ll~ni nw" 

.)(('umho:ri.,...C'.-ry 

Sen. W • .w.a lhtlhiiWII)' 

ufY01k Cou4y 

Sea. R. Leo Kieffer ut ArOO&&uok Col&ncy 

Su. Willis A. Lorll 

ofYurlc Coumy 

Sc11. s. Pet.,;r Milb 

or Somchil:t Cuunty 

Sen. Joan M. Pcndu.tu 

ofO.unbcri*Cut.lnty 

Sen. Mary E. m~ll 

or Saj;.U.Itoc Cwoly 

Sl:H. AJb.:,rtG.Stcvcna.:, Jr. 

uf AadrOICOI&iA CUIHIIy 

Rep. AI¥in L. B.anb, Jt. 

.. cOcct.d 

Rep. Edward L. Dc:o~~tcr 

ofKi•Jfteld 

Rep. Wahcr R. C>01Mty ur rmMI~knt 
70 

Testimony 

offered to the 

House Resources Committee 

on 

June 18, 1996 

by 

Bruce A Vincent 

Executive Director, Communities for a Great Northwest 

and 

President, Alliance for America 

5957 Champion Road 

Libby, Montana 59923 
71 

My name is Bruce Vincent. I am a fourth generation logger from Libby, Montana. I am 

also the executive director of Coaununities for a Great Northwest - a non-profit 

grassroots group and President of The Alliance for America, a national grassroots 

umbrella with over 680 member groups from all fifty states. 

In early 1988 the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USF&W) announced to our 

small town that the grizzly bear population was going to be augmented in the Cabinet 

Naak Ecosystem. At a series of public meetingJ in the Cabinet/Yaak area the local people 

expressed their concern over the proposed augmentation. The concern centered several 

portions of the plan including: 

I. The proposed 'cross fostering' of cubs. Grizzly cubs had already been 

purchased from a zoo in Michigan and the cubs were to be transported to 

our area where they would be placed in a den with a black bear mother. 

2. The proposed 'embryo implanting' process where grizzly embryo's would be 

implanted in a black bear mother. 

3. The lack of data on past and current grizzly populations. We were told that the 

existing population would have to be increased to at least 90 bears - but the 

agency admitted that it had no idea how many bears had historically used 

the area nor did they know bow many were currently inhabiting the area or 

how many bears would be ~ed to reach a 'viable population'. 

4. The potential socio-economic impact of the single species, human exclusive 

language in the grizzly bear recovery guidelines indicated that all future 

forest management decisions in grizzly habitat would be made with the 

primary goal of recovering grizzly bears at all other resource values 

expense. 

Our community and several others in the area mounted a campaign to have a human voice 

in local grizzly bear management decisions. After a great deal of heated debate a local 

involvement team of habitat managers, wildlife managers, and local elected and opinion 

leaders from a broad cross section of the public was formed. 

This 'community involvement team' has been meeting regularly for the past eight years. 

We have had some spirited discussion as our diverse interest groups have grappled in 

good faith with the question of bow to recover the grizzly bear while protecting the 

economic and cuitural values of the local population of humans. The detractors of the 

plan turned down their heat as they waited to see if in fact the federal agency was dealing 

with our people in a fair and forthright manner. In fact, our local area county 

commissions, chambers of commerce, grassroots groups and others wrote to congress for 

several years begging for the monies necessary to continue the population studies that 

were being conducted under the plan. We did not want the job to be done halfway- we 

wanted some answers and some solutions. 

I truly wish that I could tell you that we have been successful in adding a local voice to the 

management decisions of the grizzly- but I can not save for a few early examples. For 

instance, cross fostering was dropped as was the silly embryo implant idea and instead the 
72 

agency began a 'catch, transport and release' project with British Columbia bears. Using 

this method of augmentation four bears were trapped and. with monitors, released into the 

Cabinet/Y aak during the last eight years. Of the four released one is dead of natural 

causes and the others have lost their monitors. 

The list of gross failures that tbis recovery attempt has yielded is dauntiog. 

One of the first undertakings of the involvement group was an education campaign. 

Tough questions about grizzly bears and their recovery needs were asked by the public 

and the group printed a pamphlet that. we thought, gave truthful answers to those tough 

questions. The educational pampblet was then mailed to every box holder in the counties 

impacted by the grizzly recovery. We soon 1eamed that we had been misled and the 

education we received ended up being in bureaucratic doublespeak. 

Page eighteen of the manual (copy attached) answered the often asked question about 

logging and other actiyities in grizzly habitat by stating flatly that there would be no 

change in forest management with a recovering population of grizzly bears because the 

existing forest plan included all management requiranents for a recovered population of 

bears - we just didn't have the bears yet. The pamphlet also stated that there would be no 

increases in grizzly habitat areas without full public involvement. 

A few months after the pamphlet was mailed, however, the Kootenai Forest released it's 

'FISCAL YEAR 1990 MONITORING REPORT AND 1991 PREVIEW and revealed 

shocking news. One the third page of the report (attached) the sharp drop in timber sales 

offered was explained: 

"increases in the habitat area and chaoges in standards (for recovery of the grizzly 

bear) since the forest plan was written in 1988 have r:estriaed timber sales in many 

areas." 

The 30"/o drop in timber sales was not due solely to grizzly bear management but grizzly 

bear management was listed as on of the two leading reasons for the drop in sales- and we 

had been told there would be NONE. 

In February of 1992 the Kootenai Forest Monitoring Report further explained that on 

timber land within the grizzly habitat only 42% of the forest plan timber target had been 

reached while the rest of the forest had seen an 80"/o compliance rate. That same report 

(attached) stated that grizzly habitat had increased by some 248,000 acres on the forest 

since the forest plan had been adopted. These changes were made because of 

'clarifications' by the USF&W on what constituted habitat and were made with absolutely 

no public involvement. 

56% oftbe roads in the forest were gated or in the process ofbeiog gated to disallow 

human motorized access. Some of these roads had been in use for decades and the gating 

curtailed the berry picking, firewood gathering, huntiog and pleasure driving of tl\ousands 
73 

of forest visitors. Some of the roads gated were in the grizzly habitat outlined in the forest 

plan, others were in the areas that had been 'clarified' into grizzly habitat. 

The Forest Service announced the settlement of a court suit on management of timber in 

the Upper Y aak drainage that included a drastic reduction in the planned timber harvest in 

order to satisfy the demands set forth by the litigants and the court concerning grizzly 

habitat. 

The community response to this information was predictable outrage. Clearly the 

'pamphlet' that all of the participants had been signatory to had not be forthright in 

discussing the impact of our grizzly plan. 

A commUnity meeting was scheduled with the USFS and the USF&W and the public 

asked the two agencies what was going on. The USF&W maintained, even in the face of 

the evidence presented, that there had been and would be no economic or social impact 

from grizzly bear management. (Dr. Chris Servheen, Grizzly Recovery Coordinator, sent 

a biting letter to Kootenai Supervisor Shrenk indicating that he was wrong to name the 

grizzly bear as a problem and questioning his ability to manage forest land. Copy upon 

request.) The Forest Service maintained that there had indeed been drastic changes in 

management requirements that had adversely impacted their ability to manage timber and 

other values. The USFS also maintained that the entire forest's grizzly habitat had grown 

and that it was, as of 1991, being managed under the most restrictive guideline language 

possible even though the forest plan called for a three tiered approach. 

At that public meeting Mayor Fred Brown asked for scientific data to support the need to 

close forest roads. Dr. Servheen admitted that the studies used to dictate road 

management for the grizzlies in the Kootenai were studies completed in the mid 1970's on 

elk populations in the Blue Mountains of Eastern Oregon. 

The meeting concluded with no information being given to the public to clear up the 

nagging question of 'who was telling the truth? ' One thing was certain, however- the 

sales on the Kootenai continued to drop, lawsuits by extreme environmental organizations 

continued to be filed or threatened regarding the grizzly bear, roads continued to be closed 

to protect the grizzly bear and the people of the area began to understand that they were 

being lied to ... by someone. 

After many more citizens meetings, letters and phone calls from our group and our local 

leaders to agency personnel and elected officials in Helena, Denver, and Washington, the 

answers to our questions remained unsolved. Further damaging the public support of the 

grizzly program was an admission made to the media by a local grizzly biologist that after 

four years of studying the grizzly bear (with money our community helped to secure) the 

only definitive information they could share was that they 'couldn't count bears' because 

they were so elusive. 
74 

In late 1992 and several times in the years since the community involvement team has 

asktid that the USF&W or the USFS complete a socio-economic impact study on the 

grizzly recovery plan to ascertain the truth to the claims by the USF&W that there are no 

impacts from the recovery or the truth to the USFS (and public) claims of substantial 

impact. The request has been denied because, they claim, they are not required by law to 

do it and there is no money to complete such a study. 

It is now 1996. The grizzly population studies we begged for have been slowed and then 

stopped at the 'we can't count bears' level. The augmentation program of transporting 

bears has stopped. Our roads continue to be gated. Our timber sales program continues 

to drop. Mining proposals have met with outlandish grizzly bear habitat mitigation 

requirements. Our saw mills have seen a 700/o reduction in employment. 

The counties of Boundary, Idaho, Lincoln, Montana and the communities of Libby, Troy 

and Eureka, Montana, and Bonners Ferry and Moyie, Idaho, have joined our grassroots 

group in filing suit against the Forest Service for failure to manage for a healthy 

ecosystem. The basis for our Mountain States Legal Foundation represented suit is that 

the USFS has been required to manage our forest for the grizzly bear and in doing so has 

ignored the forest health problems that need to be addressed in the Kootenai in order to 

avoid the cataclysmic, stand destroying fires that are certain to visit in the coming years. ' 

The people of the Cabinet/Yaak are now asking why the agency is pursuing with vigor the 

recovery of the grizzly in two other new ecosystems (North Cascades and Bitterroot 

Selway) if they don't have enough money to complete the job in the Cabinet/Yaak. 

The people of the Cabinet/Y aak wonder why the agency can't study the impact of their 

recovery program before moving to new areas and proclaiming to the citizens of these 

new areas that 'there will be no impact from recovery'. 

The people of the Cabinet/Yaak read with frustration the USF&W reports that the 

'Cabinet/Y aak Ecosystem Recovery Plan is proceeding exceedingly well'. 

The people of the Cabinet/Yaak read in disgust the agency claims that the 'citizen 

involvement group' format has worked in the Kootenai National Forest and should be 

repeated elsewhere. 

The people of the Cabinet!Yaak acted in good faith to make the grizzly recovery plan 

work in their area and have found instead that the information they have requested has 

been withheld and the information they have been given has been wrong. 

The Grizzly Bear Compendium and both the old and the revised Grizzly Bear Recovery 

Guidelines have indicated that in recovering the grizzly bear the single most important 

factor is human acceptance of the recovery process. Most who are asked to coexist with 

this species would concur. The agency and the recovery plans it is implementing are 

tragically mistreating and misrepresenting their treatment of this single most important 
75 

element. I believe that if something is not changed soon, the existing recovery plan for the 

grizzly bear will have done tnore damage to the hope of growing grizzly bears in the 

Cabinet /Y aak in ten short years than lack of a recovery plan could have done in decades. 

There is room in the Kootenai National Forest for grizzly bears and people. As a matter 

of fact, since grizzly bears are adaptive animals that do not eat trees and what they do eat 

can be produced using fire or logging there is room for grizzly bears, people, mining, 

recreation and logging. The USFS, the State of Mootana and the large private industrial 

land owners of the area have proven to be good, straight shooting neighbors in their 

efforts to work with the local population in achieving this noble goal. What a tragedy for 

the bear and the people that such a solution seems to be beyond the abilities of the 

conunand and contro~ switch and bait tacticians currently in charge of this species for the 

US Fish and Wtldlife Service. 

Sincerely Yours, 

Bruce A Vmcent 

5951 Champion Road 

Libby, Montana 59923 

77 

f::IJF kOt-J ITt> 1Wt-l4 

/l..Ef'O~T" 

~H. '*'%- --oiiOCIS. The estlmated lotal land ilwavad Is CNfK 358,000 aaas. AboUI I 80,000 acres of 

National F~ land ate decled, which includes abOUI 100,000 """'" ol suitable limber. During 

deYelclpnwc olllla FO<aSt Plan no allowance - made for such reducllclns in limber harvest on 

NBIIonal F~ land In inlerminglad awnarsnip. 

'I1IRber H""'oet Delwrole: When limber saJas are being planned, a lll•specific analyois is dOne 10 

determine r-1o beat,_ F0f881 Plan objeclives. On occasion, no1 81 objectives can be met. and 

as a resufl ~can resullln a deftl<fll o1 fQrJT181fy planned harvest acres 10 some hJturelimo 

beyond lila Forest Plan 10-yurperiod. lnadclllklnlo h8MISI acnos dafwrecl beyond lila......, Plan 

porioc:IIO provide for --rec:avery, a number ol deferrals hAYe been made for unexpected condlllons auch as 8pp8llls and !ligation. Olt>MS h8Y8 been made because ol poor COSI.oenef• 

du8IIOns. To dale, CNer 17,000 acres hAYe been deferred from limber harveSI for lhose and '"""' r....,., 

S-Timber M~ Area C""-: During lll•specific llmber sale project analyois. 

mapping orron ate oc:caaonally found canceming lila axactlocalion and OrH~ lilualion ol 

rnanagettWll 

~ --. - o1 lhese """"' concam "*"" bOundary cnanges, - ate made and promptly IO CCimiCIIIIa condlllons inaccUnlloly ponrayed on lll41 Forest Plan map. Examples 

ol """"' noNICSed """'- -. ~ fonoot land found wilhin produciJve forasl areas: locallono - wtlh _..., prcbleml: and .-ty found Slonds ol old.growlh hlbiiOI. Tho 

resull d II lhase boundary IIICI riiiOI.I'C8 - d1angos made CNer lila las1 four years is a net 

dlcreose ol12,817..,.... in monagementarou suitable for limber harvOSI. 

Olher Informal MonHortng ReouHo 

Tho F<>n111 condUCIS infonnlf functiOnal monilc..1ng In oddlllon 10 lhe formal prOCMS lho ForOSI Plan pro· 

sctibed. This has aloo ,_ condlllons Jr-.g raduc8d OUipuiS horn managomer~~ arou au~at>le for limber-. Tho pr1mary....,..... IW88S nc>IOCI ara: Or1ZZiy Bear-· Elk Socur11y, Wlldlllo Snag 

u--. - W1ldllle Hiding c-. In oddlllon 10 lheSe funcllonaJ monlloring koma, rvctr4 experi· 

once in a forgo portion olllle Forest (lhe Upper Yuk) has hefpod lo illustrliiO some ollhese cumulative 

....,...,.lllleca. 

Clllzzly Boor - : The F0f881 Plan provides for 1,035.000 acnos of grizzly bear hlbll81. During 

lll4l anolylio lorllle IJA*Y-EIS, ~lor griZZly bear habllat .-agomone b<ougt11248.000 

acnos vrilhlnllle - arid guidOI for griZZly bear rnanagomen1. Of INs. 143,000 acras we<e in 

"'*-,.,_.,... w111c11 hod been programmed for limber- at- higher than 

--for griZZly bear rn8llllgOI1lOf1 

Ell1 Soeutlty: The Forest Plan prCNid8S for elk management on about 1,300,000 acres olsummer 

range. AbooC half o1 thll aaNgO (645,000 acnos) Is localed wilhin lila sultable llmbor manag""""" 

.,..., The Foreot Plan - lhal adequate opporturily for elk sacurily COUld be provided in all 

summer range .,.. This aunp11on Is proving """ In ,_ caseo. bul some .,... ate being 

-when! 

~ 

elk seeurlly appearo1o be below alovelwhlchwoutd mHI F0f881 Plan goals for all<. 

lndlcale lhal about 84,000""""' ol suitable limber in elk summ"' range mlghl be inYoivod. 

Wlldllfo Snog Mono-om. Because of prwvious limber harvesl pJ'BCIJces In many .,... (primarily 

c:tHn:ullfng In lodgepole pine limber or seodlreo CUlling and prompt ovemory removal In mixed 

corller 

~ 

limber), lncr8ased numbers ollive, green ltOVe"""" 818 now required 10 mee1 Slandards for 

.._torcavtly .-nand SINIII mammals. The inae-,.._olitOVeU'118Swas 

noc orwtcipatedln 111e yield calcUilllOnl used 10 project 111e ForOSI harvest schedule. Aflhougl1 k has 

soma ollect on ITUD<imlzlng-,_ on sui!-....,_,. ateas, 111a exaa lmp!'ICalions have 

nolyolboen-. 
78 

Will LOGGIIG. "!.JIG OR OTN(R ttiWN ACTIVITIES 8£ IIICROOIIGLY RESTRJCTEO If lfAR NIIIIIEIIS IIICR~ASE? 

No. Current rMN.ge.nt under the ~tP.n4i fore!.t Plan w\11 not ch .:ttiJe as a result of the p lrx;eMP.nt. rhcre should be no change in current •n•9eflt'nt if bt'.Jr nulliJt!'l ~ •Jr.wtuollly ncr~4sc or dt.~r~ase . rirt.Jer sales d.nd c~. cc !.:o l (J oublic lands should AC.Jl b~ aff.cted by oe.tr prP.SC'fle:C. Activilles ""'publlc l"nd!!> in the 

CabifW!t/Yaak ecosyst~S~~ are currently designed tCl •1n1rt1ze negative illl)a.Cts to bears thi"''OJ9h the envirntlltt'ntal iiSSe\snent process. 

II ILL ll£SIGNATlU !WilT AT fOR GRJZZL Y 8(ARS BE EXPNIOEO 011 THE BASIS Of -III£JITS Of P~E.O 8£ARS1 

No. Recovery areas are delineated in the Grizzly Bear RecOYery Plan. The recovery area wH I oot be increased or changed c11e 

to ..,v-nts of rt~>laced bears. There- eventually be 11•1Ud chan9H to the recovery zone boundAries .s rore infome.tion bec0110s ava11allle on the grizzly. but tl>ls -ld be done wttll public fn'tOh.....,t . 

What Have the Problems Been? 

The results of Forest Plan monitoring over 

the last three years show that for several rea· 

sons tirilber outpuls have declined. In some 

areas •. a particular Umber sale would not cause 

problems by Itself. But. the cumulative eHects 

otlhat aaleplus past activhies (including activi· 

lies on non.Forest Service land) put tl>o area 

CN&r the llm"s set In the Forest Plan. 

Monitoring has shown that two factors are 

slgnlflcanlly atlectlng timber sales on . the 

Kootenai: One factor is the standards for re· 

c:oveiy of the grizzly bear. Increases In the 

hlllilla&. •ea and changes In standards since 

thii .F~ Plan was written In 1988 have re· 

· Stricced timber sales In many areas. The specif· 

·lc c:l'la!lQ8S - Included in the revised Recov· 

el)' Plan lor the Cabinet-Vaal< Ecosystem. from 

thel U;S. FISh and Wildfle Service. Another lac· 

tor IS the number of watersheds that are at 

hydrolOgic llm~s . This has resulted mainly trom 

accelerated harvest of dead lodgepole. l>olll 

on National Forest and private land. The heavi· 

ost lmpact Is in areas of intermingled owner· 

ship. 

What Is the Efrect on Timber 

Available for Sale? The combln81ion of an the ~miting factors 

. ident~ied In monitoring shows that timber sale 

levels will be reduced about 30% from those 

projected In 'the Forest Plan. This effect on tim· 

bar outputs is sign~icant, and the trends will 

continue to be monitored so that adequaw 

Information Is available to assess the situation 

at the !'·year review of tho Forest Plan. due to 

begin In October of 1992. A more detaile" 

cusslon otthe monitoring results may be , 

In the FY 90 Forest Plan Monitoring rcpt.•·. 

wE' 4 M<.lf_ 

A pRb8L£O·\ 
79 

Dlllor· 

- , .... .. _ _ .. .. ,_ 

TloE 

- - .. ,_ - - ,_ 

....- - fY fY fY fY - - - - - ·- ·- ·- '"' _,.. - ........ - fY - ....... - - ·- ............. .,._ ........ 

.,.....,_ - 77 "" C7 22 • •• 22 u 

-.. ,,., 

_......, - 110 ... 1M 1M ,. .... 121 ... 100 .... , 

-.... _ 22T 17J 18'1 1 .. 11' .... 110 • -- -.... I I I 

.. ~. •• _L.jj 1- 1--~.~ ~ 

. 1-1- r'll• II II •1 II 1..:: 

•· 

·~- .. 111, -T ... 

TT 

_,_ 

'· ~' ,, . · r• ,..~ .... , IE.E ~~ · 

.. 

I·· k..f:·l-· 1·· 1-'fo 

r-- ~ '·'' I ·· . 

.. ~ii i-~ 

~, .. L.: · ... . · 

~· p li... 

-1--- r:- . . li~tl I· 1- ~ 

~II • 1:0. 

,., c::Jof- )1a1 :e ;:~ ~ . -~-~ ... ' R:H ~-

one 1-IL T 

;."'leo .~ 1- • 'I"'=F" 

.do. 

l ( . , r·" r:-· IK 

i 

I 

IOfliill. IE lf 

:r.J - ~ Zl 
80 

WHO PAYS FOR THE MISTAKES? 
81 

AMERICAN LAND RIGHTS ASSOCIATION 

30218 N E 82nd Avenue 

Poet Oft'ice Box 400 

Battleground, Washington 98604 

The Bighorn Mtn. Wilderness, California: A Case Study 

in Federal Land Use Planning: Abuse of 

Authority, Fraud, Waste, and Violation of the Public 

Trust To "Manufacture" Wilderness 

and Deceive Congress AB To Wilderness Suitability 

Recommended Congressional Inquiry & Corrective Action 

Testimony before 

The Committee on Resources 

Honorable Don Young, Chairman 

THE UNITED STATES HOUSE OF 

REPRESENTATIVES 

1324 Longworth Bouse Oflice Building 

Washington, D.C. 20616 

Jane 18, 1996 

2:ooP.M. 

by 

Doaalcl L Fife 

Geol.,.ut. NoD-RelaewUie ...,_ Ccmaaliaat 

Aaerleua Laad IUPC. "'-clatfoa 

Poet Ofllce Boll 1181 

Laeenle Valle)', CA 92316 

'114 5U-8408 

IN'I'BBNBT: alra 0 paclller.com 

1 
82 

Co-ittee Oil Relloarcee, U, S. HoWle ofllepreMatativee 

Chairmu Yo11Jlg ud Memben of the Comlllittee: 

June 18, 1998 

I am a prvf-ioaai pol~at with more than 215 yean elE)Mlrience Ia goverameat and 

private practice. Ia 1962 I received a B.Sc. in Paleontology from San Diego State 

Uaivenit;y, and in 1988 a M. Sc. ia Geology and additioaal studies were completed at the 

Uaivenity of Caliloraia at Loa Aagelea ud Rivenide, Uaivenity or Daytoa, Ohio ud 

Uaivenity of the Philippiaea, Muila, Republic of the PhiUppiaea. My profesaio:Dal 

work hu iavolved paleoecology, eavil'oameatalgeology, geologic-aoila-ftre mapping, 

petroleum and miaeral esploratioa, developmeat, peratittiag, pateatia(, mine 

pluaiar, ud preparatioa or plaaa of operation, rec:lamatioa plaa• ud eavirvnmeatal 

impact statements, federal ud •tate laad aae pluaiag. Prom 1981 to 1989 I served u the Secretary or Interior'• appoiatee for GeoiOC)', Eaergy aad Miaerala to the Calilorn.la 

Desert Multiple U•e Advisory Council for the 215 millioa acre Caliroraia Desert 

Coaservation AreL During the 1980'• I waa Senior Editor (and contributor) of two 

ludmark volumes: Geology and Mineral WeaUh of tM CaU(omia Deurl (151515 p) and 

Geology and Mineral WeaUh of tM CaU(ornia 'l'rouoene RD111e• (899p) coveriag 40 

million acres or southera CaUfomiL Presently I serve oa the San Beraardiao County, 

CaUforaia Indastrial Advisory Boarcl and aiso u Chairman of the Americaa Land Rights 

AatiOCiatlon Non-Renewable Rellource Comlllittee. 

THE BIGHORN MOUNTAIN "WILDERNESS" 

( aka GRANITE PEAK RARE D AREA) 

The Bighora Mtu. "Wilderaeu" comprises portioae three hlatoric roaded mining 

districts, Lone Valley (est. 1884), the Blackhawk (eat. 1880), aad Ruby (eat. 1890) 

coveria( about 39,000 acres ia the northeutera San Beraardino Mountain• of 

eouthera Callforaia dealfD8ted by the "California Desert "Protection• Act in 1994. thia 

act included more than 100,000 acres of National Forest Iande •urroundlng the 

Califorala Desert Conservation Area that were all fouad unsuitable in the 1984 

Cailroraia National Forest WUderaeas Act. In 1983-4 I worked with Senaton Cranston 

and Wilson atatra l'el(llrdlnlf the 12,1500 acre Granite Peak RARE D Area. It wa11 declared 

unsuitable for wilderness because it contained numerous Impacts of man, made, cabins, 

mines, and high lllineral potential. 

With the paiiSage of FLPMA in 1978 boundariM of the Bighol'ft Mto. Wilderneu were drawn hy government atatl'ers using 30 year-old I Inch • 1 mile scale and out-date 115 

minute USGS quadrangle• when aew 1970's 7.5 minute USGS quadrangles were available. This ...,.. in direct violation of NEPA requirements to use the beat available 

and current datL Myself and others brou!Jht thl• to the attention of federal wilderness 

speciallata and when they Ignored our complaints, we met personally with Frank Greg, 

the current BLM Director who instructed them to use the newer maps, but only In a few cases did that happen. Aaother dirty trick ...,.. the redefinition of the ftve(5) cl- or USGS roacla to exclude clan 4 and li dirt roads and create vast areu "rvadien" federal 

Ianda ror inclusion In wilderaea. Millions acres of the -tern United States suddenly 

became •rvadless• thrvarh the simple dirty trick or changing • detiaitlon. The u.s. 

Geologica! Survey's authority u the omcial map mald.ng goverameat agency extencla 

back to the last century. Aad the omcial USGS definitions of what is a road are coatained ia their instructions to toporraphic mappln(. All the members of this 

committee in 1978 •igaed a bipartisan letter by Rep. James Santilli to the laterior 

Department prvteatlaglt ...,.. not the lnteat or CoDfl'eM to rnalte a road raot o road/ 

2 
83 

The ue or the old 1947 USGS Luceme Valley 15 minute quadrangle resulted in patting 

a portion or the active Partin Mine in the Bighom Wildemeea 88 the mine was pat into 

production in the early 1980's and did not Rist in 194'71 Other active mines and mineral 

deposits such as my family's Smart RaDch Mine -"' included in the "wilderness 

study area." This WBll the becfnaing or the nightmare of federal abue. I testified 

several times in the Jut few years before ConiJ'8ftional Interior nbcommittees 

alerting them that the Partin mine was doomed. A field viat by Forest Service 

Washington D.C. staff W88 made to no avail. Now - have allegedly endaapred -"• 

that •only pow on co-ercial grade limestone•, the commodity - were Jlliniilg. 

Be'-en the endangered -ed• and the Bighorn · Mta. Wilderness the bureaucracy 

stalled Partin Mine permits for 5 years - apparently to have the weeds oftlclally 

listed and the area Congressionally declared wildern-. Partin finally threw Ia the 

to-1 and abandoned the mine last year. MiUions or dollars in mineral reserves -re lost. now the area hu become a defeeto "weed preserve." 

ALLEGEDLY "ENDANGERED LIMESTONE ENDEMIC WEEDS" 

INCLUDING NOXIOUS TOXIC LOCOWEED, 'niREATBN MINING AND JOBS 

Calcite(calclum carbonate) is the miaeral that makes up limestone, and ls the cement ot lllOdem civiUution. There are only about a ball dozen bigbgrade limestone districts 

in the entire United States. Oar society and standard or living could not be nstalaed 

without it. llighgrade limestone or calcite i• a nb.tantial part of almost everything in our daily lives. cement or conatmction, flax for refining •teel and npr, a maJor 

component or glau, paper, plutica, rubber, paintll, lighting, crayon., exploaves and 

anti-acid tor chewing gum, tums, toothpaste, motor oU, and air and -ter purification. 

What if one could ftnd or invent an •end&DJJered" plant or animal that only grows on co-erclal grade calcite limestone? This could shut down our con1traction and 

manufacturing lndutries to an even greater degree than the spotted owl has the timber 

indutey. 

The ESA is being used as another "tool" to shut down and curtail mining in the 

northeast San Bernardino Mountain.. With virtually no real acientiftc peer review via 

aclentiflc journal articles and with •secret data" the USFS and the USFWS botanists 

have li•ted ftve WEEDS that eappoaedly only pow on limestone or carbonate rock. 

They have listed them becaue the -"s are allegedly beiq threatened by minlq. A 

careful review of the USFS listing package reveals tltat self serviq "junk aclence" was ued to U.t 'these -"s (i.e. ten or the fourteen reference Oil tile ftret page or the Uatiq 

package are· unpabliehed, In-house, self serving reports and the relllllinlng roar are general background). They are printed on the letter lead of the San Bernardino 

National Forest or some environmental groups woridng for or witlt the San Bernardino 

National Forest. Their concluioiiB are baaed on Information and localities that the 

USFS etafl' maintain• muet be kept eecret. As a •clentist who has published in 

acleatiftc joamal• and at meetinp and as a reviewer of h-dred• of environmeatal 

docameats tor government qencies, I can aBBare you that that real acleatista are proud 

of their data, and it mast be available for peer review before It can be accepted to prove any COllcluaon .. 

The USFS and USFWS have ignored credible evidence •abmitted to them that the 

plants (all "'nvader •pecieaw that thrive in cleared open epacea._weeds to the averajJe 

penon) in question have been found growing on non carbonate mbetrates. Also RaDcho 

Santa Ana Botanical Garden'• research botaaiets have beea growing most them in non carbonate granular soil tor several yean. The Forest Service botaai•ts maintain mOBt of 

these -ed• are being threatened by limestone mlaiq and that the weeds won't 

revegetate in mined out areaa. A careful review or old mined oat areas reveal• other 

wise. In fact. one of the beet examples of natural revegetation is in the VSFS's own road 

material quarey in Lone Valley where one of the species oval leaf buckwheat 

3 
(Eriofolaia1r1 OfiOlifoli•• var. 17WIIIft) makee up about ~ of the bl.vadiD(r weecb. Even 

tJuoourh there i• aD ESA li.tlnf on thi• buckwh-t, work by Profe880r Broob at the 

Univenity of Briti•h Colombia lndlcatH thi• weed i• not re•trlcted to the San 

Bernardino National Fore.t, lt i8 u.ed iall over.-terD north America u a feoc:hemical 

pl"'ttpectillf tool... when there are a few part. per million bue metalll or •liver in the 

nbftrate the flower tDrD8 •vtneDJD" or wine colored ill latin. The criteria the USPS A 

USFWS maintain make• thi• weed unique aDd endaD(ered in the 8aD Bernardino 

National Fore.t. Lead-eilver aDd bue metalll are ro-d at namerou locatiou in the 

northeut San Bernardino Mo-tain8. M08t if not all theM _d., like nail darter., 

wW be ro-d in other are ... Counltiq botaDt.u confide that they don't dare tnlllfMt 

that the weed• may not be endaarered, becaun they will be black·li•ted by the rovemment arenciM and will become -employed. 

•MANUFAcnJRING WILDERNESS" BAS SIDE EFFI!Cf 

OF PROVING WEEDS ARE FIRE AND DISTVRBANCE 

DEPENDANT TO EXPAND HABITAT 

The USPS and USFWS botani•U have maintained that the -a are not dependant on wildland fire for habitat aor will they pow in areas blfbl7 diriarbed by minlq. Alain, 

the Foreri Service'• own actlvltiM prove them wmDf on both count.. On September 14, 

1991 the Bil Bear Ranpr Di•trict broqht the U.S. MariaM to blow up the hl•toric 

BorBe Thief Piau CabiD, Root Cellar, and the R8 24'7'1 USGS eta. 4 road to BorH Thief 

Flat. (3NOSA) in an apparent attempt to manufacture wUd- by removinf baman 

etructnre. and road• hm the prop08ed Bifborn Mtn. Wildern-. 

A8 mentioned earlier Senaton CraDBtoa aad Wi18oa had deemed the area _..ltable for 

wildem- Ia 1988-4 becaun of humaa impact. nch u th-. Foar (4) of bluta to dMtroy the bi.toric Horn Thief Flat. road were oa the Fife'• Smart Ranch Calcite 

de,08iL 'ftae Jan blut blew about 40 tou of material iato the air aad aeat b-drecl or hot molten pieceB or mnpael lato the tlader dry foreri which had been in a droqht 

coaditlon for 8 yean and had aever bW"Dt in ht.toric time. 'ftae la8t blari wu late in 

the eveniD(r and wu beard 115 miiM away by thouaand8 of people liviar Ia Bil Bear 

Lake. The Foreri Ranren weat home and Marines -nt back to Camp .J011epb 

Peadieton in 8aD Diero County. The molten metal 8tarted doseu of 8malJ ftree durtar 

the DifbL They . hW"Dt for 18 boun -attenclecl -ua a citizea reported a colamn of 

•moke the · followinr aftemooa.. Fortunately the Santa Aua wiad• that bad beea 

blowiar earlier h~ etopped or the coalesciar ftree woald have ewept doWD wind iato 

the co-unitin of Bear Valley where 115,000 people raide. 

I and maay othen proteeted the blarilng aad cl08iar of the road to the Fore•t 

Supervl.or Geae Zimmerman aad to aevenal memben or Co...-. ftanlfer Rebecca 

Au eent eeveral citlzeae and myeelf aa apoiOI)' aad rebuilt the road aad buried the 

evldeace (remains) or the hietoric rock cabla in a ellt treacb • Fire IIUpp~lon and road 

recoaetruction reportedly C08t at lean aoo,ooo. Tbe San Beruardiao National Forest 

arcbeologiet, Marilyn Mlazoveld, wh088 job it ie to evalaate the hletorical siplftcance 

of hietoric eiteB before they are deetroyecl, wu totally aaaware of the blutlDif of the 

hletoric cabin aatll I told her. AIDODif local archeololfiete aad maay hl•torlcal 

reeearcben the Foreri Service hu a repatatioa for deetro7iDif hi8torical site& 

Today the •lte ..mere the 40 tou wu blo- oat of the road lt08U a healthy population of 

two of the alleredly endaarered weede pari•h'• dal•y CBri~teron ponlaii) aad the locoweed~ ol6e1U)! 'Dale eboald aot be of aay poeat •arpriae, ae huiDaDII 

inveated arrfcnlture about 10.000 yean &lfO by dt.tarbiDif the .oil .., eeeds could pvw eater aad without coapetiDf vcetatioa. However, the ao.t lllplftcaat tact ie theM 

two weede have iavaded the area where the Foreri Service 8tarted the wildlaad 

4 
85 

ftre...Dow there is about a SO to I iDcreue in the allepdly endaqered parish's daisy 

and locoweed I Sim.ilarl)', the oval leaf baclnrheat ( Erillerora omlifblUura var.lliltolft) 

invaded ftre breaks in the 1978 Coyote Flat ftre several miles to the -'- It is event these weeds will proUferate after fires or when areas of the forest are cleared of brush or even the domiaaat pinyon-juniper woodland cover, or by mininl', ftre breaks, or other activities. Ir miaed oat areas are seeded with the allel'edly endaapred weeds, 

they may produce more than 100% habitat conservation! The USPS and USFWS may 

have It just backwards-IIIIDiq coal~ be ased to taereue habitat. However, evideace 

is moaatiq that these -u should not have been Usted Ia the tint place. 

The destructioa of the historic Horses Thief Flats cabla, which .... Ia near-perfect 

condition .... a sad eveat for those or ns who revere oar local history. The naiaiq camp 

dates from 1839 whea Sidney Waite initiated mininl' there aloq Arrastra Creek. The 

Flat is called Horse Thief Plat because maradiq Indians hid horses, mules, and cattle 

stolen from the coastal ranchos of the early 1800's ill this hidden valley. A 1941 story Ia a local newspaper describes •Historic Hone Thief Plat" and iUastrates the historic 

rock cabia from aa earlier sketch. If the eite was historic ia 1945, It earely .... historic in 1991 when the USPS aad USMC packed It tan of ammonium nitrate, C-4 

expiOiives, aad blew it to kinl'dom come. The ubestos Uaed chimney aad asbestos 

reinforced hydraulic hoee left in the cabin -s bloWD aU over Horse Thief Plats. 

Appareati)' eevera1 eerioas violations or NEPA. aad perhaps the 1908 Aatiqultiee Act 

aad the 1979 Archeolotrical Resource Act were violated. A newspaper report In· the 

local BIIJ Bear Griuly quotes the BIIJ Bear Baqer District saylniJ they destroyed the 

hiltoric cabia aad root ceUar(calllqlt a WWII AIDIIlo banker!) and the road to iDtereept 

clng tramcldq. My oblervation is that most clng tramcldq ie happeDiq oa North 

Shore Drive cloee to the BIIJ Bear Diltrict Raqer Statioal This may be a eerioas milliSe to the military for •rewildlniJ" an aree. The ftre .... never reporled by the local 

newspapers oaly the drq cover story. Review or the ftre dlepatcher lOIJI from the USPS 

aad the California Division of Forestry nueet that the documents covered ap jut who 

ltarl the fires- perhaps another violation of law. 

PERMI'n'ING THE FIPEIRIGRT STAR QUARRY 

SMART RANCH CALCITE UMESTONE DEPOSIT 

NOW ON GOING SEVEN ('I)YEARS 

After more than twenty years or ezploratioa, development work the Fife family had 

fouad and ~ven an economic calcite deposit. Under the 1978 CaUfomia State Mine 

Recllllllation Act (SMARA) deposits or esceptional importance to society are to be 

ciusifted and .uned for minerals estraction to protect them from inCOIIlpatible land - each as arhanlzation or wilderaese that llli1Jht preclude society access the the deposit. 

In 1988 the Fife depOiit - nonainated to the State Board of Mines aad GeoiOIJ)' for 

clusiftcation. After a fteld esamlnation or the depOiit and a year or public hearinp the 

Fife family's Smart Ranch Limestone deposit was Classifted and an Opea File Report 

(OFR 89-lll) - tranlllllitted to all l(ovemment lll(ellcies iDclading the San Bernardino 

National Forest. The depOiit included a network of a-road11, drill sitee and teet quarries aU constructed legally over the years the deposit - beiq esplored; and 

small scale production had been occarria« as earlier as 1949. The deposit is in the 

Lone Valley MIDinl' Diltrict with a 140 year history or mintq. The 1J8P8 - the lulreet 

miner in recent ;years with a lartre 8I'IP'Cflate and asphalt hot mis plant and 

decomposed tranite quarry and cold mis asphalt misial' bowl operation which 

supplied Bear Valley and the couaty and state hf8'hwap with peviq -terials,. 

The Forest Service permittiq nillhtmare started on or about AprillO, 1990 when Larfe 

Rlchanlsoa, IIIIUI&I'er of Rfcht Star, Inc.( aka North Star Millerals) oar lllinlD8' operator 

and m,_, met with Raqers Rebecca Aas and Georp Kealiae at the Fife IIUIJht Star 
86 

QaU'1'7 iD Lou ValleJ Ia order to nplaiD how- plaaaed to amead the aUtial 198'7 

8IIUiri Raacll u-tone Depoelt -Notice oflateat to Operate (-tblib' a penait to - of ov USGS Cl- 8, 4, aad I Roact. bailt Ia tile 1910'e aad 1880'e to do ellallow cobra 

driUial, aad balk -pUna. Aa two m~or IOYW~~~Deat proJect. acUolJdaa the elte, the 

Doble Dluap aad tile Lou Valley ORV etar~D~area aacl traU .,..._ llad beeD approved 

with aD Eavil"oaJDental.u-JDeDt (EA), - were told it -w Ulire aboat 8-4 moatlle to 

ret aa ameaded permit. title - -atially reopealq tile ut.t~ar P:lfeiJUpt Star 

QaU'I'7 which had operated periodically elace UNB. All _.,. bulc illfrutractare 

already - Ia place. We plaaaed to be Ia prodactloa by Allpet 1990. · 

· FALSIFICATION OF OFFICIAL DOCt1JIENT(8) BY BIG DAR RANGERS 

TO REVOKE RECLAMATION AND OPERA'nNG PLAN 

A W17 coaplete "()peratiarand ReclaJDAti- Plaa"for aa eetiaated aad•- of 40,000 

tou per year _. nbmitted oa or about .Jul7 tiD, 1990. Title - prepued by Larie 

JUcbarcleoa aad Doaald Fife, worldar with U.S. F-' Service epedallete iD poloo, 

bioloo, archeolor;,, plaaaia«. hydroloo, IIDCI ._clKape architeeture, etc. We uked 

each epedaliet what they aeecled iD the plaa -d - tlleB pueed the ~ ........... of 

the plaa oa to th- for co-eau before - iDcladed Ia tile ftaal nbaittal. We didD't 

-pect aD7 probleae u the F-' Service llad uked u to _,..d 0111' orillaal 11 ._ 

to cover S7 acree eo - would aot have to - back Ia the ftltare for aa -.-.cled 

reclamatioa plaa. Aa- -re told by U8F8 etafr tllie - - of tile ..t -plete aacl 

prol..toaal piau that laad ever beea •ulnaltted to the BiiBear Jtaater Dletrict.. Tbie 

m-t a lot to ... .. title •• the tarreet llilfalrade u--.. DliDiDI pi'OViace Ja the 

-ten U.S.A. Uader NEPA rerulatioa• the plaa ie autoaatJcall;, approved Ia 

thi.V(30) day.. The Foreet Service had a f-IDiaor quwtl- aad - therefore lftlllted aa additiODal elxty(80) dB¥., -d•r NEPA replatioa., if the U8F8 dow DOt reepoad Ia 

writiDI by certified maU with objectiou, tile plaa Je auto-ticall;, appi"'Yed. DariDC 

the ftret thi.V (SO)clay period the Operatioa aad Recla-tioa Plaa - revieecl to 

reepoad to Foreet Service etetr queetionL Tbie revieioa - -t by Certified MaU to 

the Bla Bear Raager Di•trict, aad - received oa or aboat AafBt 21, 1990, trifteriDI a NEPA elxty (80) review period, which would nplre OD October 11, 1990. 

October 21, 1990 caae aad _.t wttltoat aay aotice or o'-feetioa IN• tile U8F8, aad 

accordiar to NEPA rerulatloa., our revieed plaD- thu aatoJDAticall;, approved. 

Upoa cbecldna with Larie Richard- to aake eve then - ao lepJ aotlce received 

by Ida or lUcht Star, IDe by the deadilae, I called Mr. But.er Laa-, ov penaittiDI co-l~t iD MoataDL Prior to Ide reti,.._t Bueter- Cldel of Lalld aad MiDwale 

for the t18F8 ia WulliDitoa D.C. aad he ie aa eapert oa federal penalttiDireruJatioMr. Lalaoare requeeted I arrear• a field •eet.lar at the P:lfel IUPt Star Qaarr7 with 

Foreet Sapervieor Chari" Jrb)' aad Dietrict Raa1er Rebecca Aue, the pereoae 

reepoaelble for reclamatioa plaD approval. 

After Mftral daye atte•ptiar to reach Raapr A•• or her _..etaat Raqer Georp 

KealiDe iD tile Bil Bear Raa1er Dietrict aad Sapervi- lrby Ia the 8aa Benaardlao 

Natioaal Foreet Readqau1ere aoae of ..,. calle -re retarDed. Flaall;,, Eraie Die~ Laad ud Miaerale Ofllcer for the 8BNF retaraecl ..,. call8. Jlr. DterldDI eet 

up the fteld ....uar Mr. Laaoare llad reqaeeted lor Novealber 1, 1BBOat the f111111'17· 

OD tile DIOI'IIIq of No-ber 1, 1990, M.-e. EraJe Dterldq aad Georp K.aliDe, etatr 

of the SBNF, -t with •-Larie Ri~ aad .Jolaa KliDI' of Ript Star IDe, aad 

Doaald Fife aad Richard Bro- repreeeatiDI tile Fife r...il;, o-en. To oar peat 

IDrpriee RaDler Keuliae and-delivered to Mr. Larie JUclaaraoa ud .. a letter 

<Certified MaU JULR. #P 104 7H 1184) dated October 10, 1810 .........., ov operatiar 

aad reclamatioa plaa received by the Bil Bear Rlultw Dletrict ADpet a, 1990. 'naJa 

letter dated October 10. 1990 which - •ever received by Rllht Star or Fife, .. w tile 

8 
87 

fteld m.eetiag of November 1, 1990 more thaD a week after our plan was automatieal)y 

approved under NEPA regulationa on October 21, 1990. Thus the SBNF denied our operatiag plan for 40,000 tona per year. Their contention was that we now needed an Enviromentallmpact Statement(EIS) because despite the fact that the Ji'ifeiRight Star 

q'IIBlTY already eJdsted and 11 acres had already been disturbed by past mining and 

exploration activities since 1949, 3'7 acres would require publisbiq a notice in the 

Federal Register. Under d1U'e88 Right Star was forced to accept a 10,000 ton bulk 

-plilllJ permit at the eldsting qUBI'I'Y while the SBNF proceaecl the EIS which we we told would take 1818 thaD a year. As months turned into years the SBNF even elltortecl 

cub &om Right Star to work on •an overtime basis" on the EIS and for their computer 

e:Epert to do a computer simulation of the ftnal reclaimed q'IIBlTY. Months passed into 

yearil with continued promiHs that it would just be a few more months until the EIS 

would be proceued. After six month of inquiries on the whereabouts of the computer 

generated graphics of the reclaimed mine, we were told their computer e:Eperts work 

-'t aceeptabl-bowever, the 8BNF kept the cub! 

The SBNF appears to have done eveeytbing possible to misinform the public about our mine and to make it controversiaL such u: (1) Suppre•slng the fact that tbi• is an eldsting q'IIBlTY periodleal)y operated since 1948; (2) misinforming the preN that the 

pl"'pCC8eci operation was for liOO,OOO toufyear rather thaD 40,000 tonal year; (S) illegally 

bl.uting historic structures and a public acceu RS 24'7'7 Road (SNOSA) on our deposit out of existence In the proposed Bighorn Mtn. Wildernes• in order to qualify large 

portiona of our Smart Ranch Limestone Deposit u a roadless wildei'DI!SS; (4) d-plng 

junk cars in our quarry staarilllJ area to give 1lll bad public l.nuqfe during the time the 

8BNF and San Bei'DIU'dino County were havilllJ a public campaign to cleaa up Junk and 

abandon cars in the forest: and (5) delaying permits and t&qretiJIC Right Star and other 

Umestone producers with flawed ••tudles" allegiq that several weeds only grow on Umestone(carbonate endemic) when they were -tlaiJy only looking at areu in and 

around Umestone quarries. AboRt 5'JI> of the SBNF is underlain by carbonate/limestone 

rock, In one field seuon an independant botanist working in the fteld found most of 

the ftve allegedly endangered Umestone endemic weeds growiag on other soWrock 

types ncb u -, schist, quartzite, and granite that make up about 80'11> of the SBNF 

bedrock. The Partin IUld Ji'ifelllight Star permits were apparently beiq held up until 

the weeds were oMcially listed by the USFWS or the 18'72 llliniq Law was repealed. At 

every chance Forest Service employees bad, they blamed their mining proble ... on the 

horrible 18'72111ining Law! 

The October 10, 1990 letter denyiag our permit appears to be falsifted(backdated) with 

the specific latent of denying u our Conatitutional , Civil, and Property Rights to ue our property aad our principal source of iDeo-. The content of the October 10, 1990 

letter Itself is ineri.Jainatlng...the Jut paragraph states; -The next meeting with you is 

scbedaled for Nov-her 1, 1990 at the mine site. • 77ais Nooerrafwr I, 1190 -unt1 _. raot eoen conceWed antil o(ts- the October~~. 1990 tkadlw; orad It._. at the .peci/fc 

reqtUJ.t of Brutu Lorraoure to Donald Fife thot he GIT'CIIWt the ~em Nooerraber 1, 

1990 at tire lfliM locotion wlaicla ._. accomplulred ,. ~·If 11io 1l.ongu E~ m-lllill#l on or about October ~6, 19901 ne delo,. resulting,._ tire tJCtiola or inGct~ o(tlreu 

lfOIIeniiMIIt e1ft1Jio.1ees hlu cost Ri61at StGr orad the Fife (olllily raot kn than o rraiUion 

dollors/ 

TAKINGS ASSESSliiENT UNDER EXECUTIVE ORDER U880 FILED 

AND CRDIINAL COIIPLAINT TO U. 8. DEPARTliiENT OF JUS'l1CE 

After the backdatllllJ.of the October 1990 letter by the Big Bear Ranger District, I as a former govel'lllllent employee union president felt that a seriou crime had been 

'7 
88 

coiUlitt.ed and I drafted a criminal complaint for the U.S. Attorney'• Offtce in Loll 

Aqelee District. Mr. Larie Richardson of RiJrht Star Inc:, in whose name the permit 

wu to be to be i•aed, wu reluctant to ftle claartree u he believed the SBNF ataft' 

would have eveeythiq permitted Ia a few moathe. Fraetratecl, I llled a taldap 

-lllellt for a lith Amendment talda1 for the July 1990 plaa for 40,000 toDI per year 

imder Esec:atlve Order 11830 with the U.S. Attorney aad the 8ec:retary of Apic:altare in 

Wuhinlton D.C. oa Jaaaary ll2, 1991(Certllled Letter P 8118 1133 1'711). On or about 

March Ill, 1990 I received a reepoaee dated March 20, 1990 from Deparillleat or Acric:altare etatlal that •• "'t i• oar undentaadiag that your plan of operation• W.. 

approved Febraary 8, 19tH. We encourage yoa to coatlaae worldq with the district 

Raqer and her lltall'."". Sincerely, Jamee R. M011eley, A.i1taat Secretary, Natural 

:a-arc. and Environment. 

When when eoafroated with thie docwneat c:oallrmiag -.y reqUMt about the Jaly 1990 

plan for 40,000 tone per year the Fornt Service told Mr. Ric:hardaoa, Right Star 

maJl81er, the approval only applied to the balk aampliq permit. Did Forest Service 

•tall' lie to the U.S. ·Attorney and the Secretary of AcricaltareT Or to Ript StarT We 

contlaaed to pt promiee• that the EIS and Operating Plan would - be approved in 

jalt a few more 111oathl and aoath• grew to three yean aad I ftaally coaviac:ed Mr. 

Ric:hardaon to •liD and ftle a criminal c:o~~plaiat with llr. David C. Sc:laeper, Chief, 

Criaiaal Colaplaiatl Dlviaion, U. S. Deparblent of .Jutic:e, Loll Aaplee, CaUforaia oa .January 9, 1993. The .Ju1tice Departlllent tamed oar coaplalnt over to Inapec:tor 

General Leon Snead'• Offtce of the Departaent of Acric:ultare. On Febraary 3, 1993 

Ript Star received a rnpoaae from Brian L Bauer, Director , PrograJII lnveatiptiODI 

Division. The letter dated .January ae, 1993 state.... "We bave forwarded yoar complaint to the Forelt Service national oftlc:e and have requeeted that they lll8ke an inquiry into 

your aU .. atiODI and tamJah their ftndlnp to thi• ofllc:e for review. Upon receipt of the 

Fornt Service llndinp, - will determine if an iaveetigatioa by thi• ofllc:e i1 

appropriate-.". Several month• later Fornt Service Special Agent Gordon Greg 

working out of the Tahoe National Fornt omce in Aabara, California interviewed 

Mee-. Walter Farrell and Larie Richard•on and ayaelf in Right Star'• El Toro, 

California Offtc:e. Special Alfent Greg wu given copiee of the llliiMtoaM in the SBNF 

Pel'lllittlq Proc:eH. 

Shortly there after our criminal complaint wu forwarded Ia .Janaal')' 1993 to the 

Iaspec:tor Generall Offtce, the SBNF iaaued a p~ releaee that Dietric:t Raqer Rebec:c:a 

Aa•-..... promoted and Hnt to the Ca.ter National P-t in South Dakota. 

JD8APPROPRIA'I10N OF STATE OHV "GREJI!N8TICDR" FUNDS TO REWILD 

FIFEIRIGBT STAR QUARRY, SMART RANCH LIMESTONE DEPOSIT AND PRIVATE 

RANCH BUILDING AT HISTORIC SMART RANCH 

Despite the fact tlaat the SBNF had received the State Open Report OFR 89-lll 

idelltll'yjq c:Ja.lr,tag and aoniq the Saart Ranch u.e.toae Depoait for lllineral 

eJ:trac:tloa. or _,be becou~e. of tlth rwport, the SBNF supported by .Jo-rc:e Bark 

reportedly Chair of the local Sierra Club, appHed for the ao called Cac:tDI Reltoratloa 

Grant to rewlld or destroy 'the eslating roadl, drill altel aad tell quarrl• on the Saart 

Raac:h Lbaeltoae Depoait and the private ranch buildiap on the private propei'Q' at the hlatoric Smart Ranch! Tile project bouadarie~ approved by tlae 8BNF atatr almolt 

euc:tl:y correapoad to the ontline of the Smart Ranch Lbaeltone ore body, escept for 

where the boaadary •wlap out to inc:lade the balldiap at Smart Ranc:hl Robert 

Pblppe, the resident owoer doe~ not intead to let the Fornt Service "rewlld" hie ~and h told •e the •tory ltow he had to na the 8BNF atatr aad thetr ball.._ 

off of hU spring a while back before they d.troyed tlae poada he and the SBNF lire 

npprwaloa stall' created to have local water available for helicopter -ter drope in 

-of wtldlaad lire. 

8 
89 

In the 11pring of 1990 I attended the Califomia State ORV COIDIDi88loa meetiap where 

about 18 mlUioa doUan - being gnated BLM aad USFS projeeta for Off mgbway Vehicle (0HV)recreatioa. To my peat earprln I foaad a H called Baldy/Cact1111 

"Reetoratioa" propcllllli OR-2-SB-2'1,CGraat AppHcatioa n 91J9J) for $90,000 to •ae.tore" or Mrewild" Baldy Meu on the wet1t end of the SBNF and the Fife fiUDily'e Smart Ranch 

Quarrie. and dePMit Ia Loae Valley. I tMtlfled agal..t the Jl'&llt before the OBV 

CoDIDli88loa and foUo'Midap with my protMt ill wrltiJIC to the eoDUDiaioa ill a Ma.Y 11, 

1990 letter (Certified Mall# P 38'7 907 2'14) with copie. to 8BNF S.pe!'VUor Chuck Irby 

and Paciftc 8W RetJioaal F~ Paul Barker. Tbe State ORV Co..u..ioll told me they 

would not approve a JI'&Dt that -rolnf to have aeptiw impact on my fa•il7'• aiDiDI 

baeia-. The following )'ear the SBNF re.ablllitted the JI'&Dt applicaUoa for 

Baldy/Caetu •ae.toratioa" and it - approved widloat aotir,iaa' the o-en of the 

SIDU't Ranch LiiDMtoae Quarrle. and DepoRt or the private -en at h!.toric S..art 

Raacbl 

DarlDf the -er and fall of 1993 the 8BNF proeeeded to denro)' oar tMt qaarrie., 

drill eitM, and acceu roau by -rlfying the road• with balldoaen and heavy 

equipment. Boulden broagbt from Mitnbiehi CeJDeDt. Cuheab1117 qDal'l')' nveral 

lllile. away to block .ome road• aad other road. -re fenced off with .teel PM'- aad 

barbed wire. latere.tillCIY Bil Bear Dhtrict Raager Daa Crall aNd tbe U.S. Mall to 

nad oat a ecoplllf letter required aader NEPA to -k pubHe eom111eat. oa the 

proPMed cl- after tbe -rk bad apparently been already eo111pleted! Tbie I• 

doeameated Ia a Califoraia Off Road Vehicle A.ociatioa (CORVA) letter dated 

November 15, 1993 to SBNF Sapervi.or Gene Zimaei'IIUUI hm Ken Carpenter, Laau "-CoDUDittee Jte....-atative to the SBNF. 

An article Ia the -ldy Laeerae Valle,. !Aader tell• of a Sierra Club project 011 .Jane 

19, 1993 where volaateen are needed to a88l.t the SBNF ill their Cactu ae.toratioa 

project to -re.tore" ORV da•are. The damare happeu to iachlde oar DliDIDI 

buia- aad the hi.toric s-rt Ranch appareatf7. I didn't hear of the re.toratioa 

actiw aatil after .Jane 19, 1993. And what I eaw OD tbe rroaad where oar blocked roau and •-erou ••all plant. or nedling Ia the former road.. Member of a local 

recreatiOB clab told me that -• oftbeir •-ben bad attended the Mre.toratioa" -rk 

party and that SBNF .tatr botaai.U were uint volaateen to collect and plant the Mede 

of the ESA liMed -IIme.tone endemic weede" oa tbe accen roau aad tbe hi,....._..e Porii- of the Smart Ranch LIIDMtone Depoelt to preclude lllialal. I foaad tbU hard to 

believe aatll eeveral 111oathe later a wita- eoatacted me aad deeeribed -'~)' the -e .tor)'. '1111• wita- actually claim• to have done .ome of the plantinl aad 

apolOifaed for liD)' harm that may have been done. Tbie wita- will teetlfy to th!• 

plaattar, bat -'-to keep a 1-profile aatilneeded a the wita- feele threatened b)' 

otben who- ~t. The -•ee ofwita-(e) are available to the chal~a of tbi• 

committee oa reqaeet. 

Recently I req..ted a I'OIA &-o. the 8BNF on the Bald)'/Cactae ORV • Reetoratlon" 

Grant to rev1-jaet what - ia the file and who may have been plalltiar •eadlllll(ered 

lime.tone eademic" weed• on the s-rt Ranch Uae.tone · depoeit. The SBNF took 

eeveral -a to reepoad with 190 paree ttom the ftle aad a biD for tt. .COO.OOI I 

rejected the bill aad eeat a check for t39.80 for the pbotocoplee! Ae I have epeat -.y 

yean dealiDI with rraat. M reclpleat or diepeaeer of traat ftmde a -11 

coordlaatlon of federal , etate and local JI'&DW, I know ali involved areaclee have 

dapDcate flle.. Tbu, I made the eaae FOIA reqae.t to the California State OBV 

Greeaeticker Fund. They nat me a letter esplalalal it - a tarre file aad it woald 

reqalre $189.00 to photocopy. To my earpriee it coatalaed more tbaa 1,000 parMI YN, 

thie file probably contain• eome of the roverament emplo)'eM who planted the 

allepdly eaclu(fered weecb 011 the Smart Ranch Limeetoae DepoRt! 

9 
90 

TBN SQUARE MILES OF MINERALS AND GEOLOGY MJ8SING FROM mGBORN MTN 

WILDERNESS AREA AS DESERT PROTECI'JON Ar::f MOVES THROUGH CONGRESS 

IN THE SPRING SUMMER AND FALL OF 1994 

SMART RANCH LDIES'roNE FILES DISAPPEAR WREN CONGRESSIONAL STAFF ARE 

CONSIDERING BOUNDARIES OF BIGHORN MTNWILDERNESS 

All or the above are doeameDted iD our ftlee. ID the epriq, eummer, and ran or 1994 

the SBNF loet all or our tllee: pia- or operati011e, aoticee or iDteat, reclamation bona., 

and eveD teD equare milee or geology and economic miDeral• or Ia the propoeed BfPorn 

Mta. Wildern- they had receaUy eommi•ioaed l'l'om the U.S. Geololieal Survey aad 

u.s. s-a or Mi-. dieappeared --loet juet .. eoll(CI'ealonal etell' - eoaeideriq 

the ftaal boundarietl Of the wildernML By the time the bill - on the floor of the U.S. 

Roue aad Senate Cou.greH had been deceived aad fooled into thinldnl the Partia 

Miae aad the Smart Raach Limeetoae qaarriee aad road• didn't e:det. The reet is 

hietory - became iaetant prieUne "maauraetared" wilderneu by someoae's deeip, 

when the Caltroruia Detleri "Protection" Aet wu paMed in 1994. 

Mr. Chairman and memben of the Committee, -would like a Congreeeional inquiry 

to clarify the deeeptioa or Coagress aad we eould uee a teehuieal ameadment to 

ellclude the wilderneu boundary runnlq through the middle or our active mine and 

mineral depoelt. We also request more Coagressloaal oversight or the USFS 

adm.iuietrative and field etatr, eevea(7) years is too loq to wait for a Bimple mluiq aad 

reelamatioa permit to reactive and· ellistiq miae. Ae a former govei'IIJDental employee 

proeeeeiq permits aad EIRIEIS documents, I doa't believe thie agency or their 

employeee ehoald have aay ric'ht to review or approve anything. They are either 

iacapable or following federal regulatioae or law, or the stall' follow their own penonalageadaL 

The Bighorn Mtn. WUderu- would make aa ellceUeDt ease hietory representing maay 

problema and abUBeB typical of the breakdown iD federal laad aee maaagement Ia the 

public laad etatellaad federally managed laade "throughout the Ullited SteteL 

Your eoaeideration ofthi• teetimony is gre.Uy appreciated. 

Donald L. Fife 

Amerieaa Land Rights Aesociation 

Note: Photograph• or the Hletoric Hone Thief Flab Cabin before and after It wu blown 

a-)' are available from the ALRA on requeet, Alao Photograph• or the lli•toric RS 

lil477 Road (S'NOSA)blo- away IUid photoe or the wildland tire damage. 

On .Jal)' 28, 1!19~ CBN Newe broadeaet the story or the Bighorn Mta. Wildern- aad 

the laietoric Hone Thier Flab Cabin and road• u pari or their lint •eame•t or the "War on the Weet". 

10 
91 

Historic Horse Thief Flat 

IIF iF (or~ mul'""' 

Uldh~ 

ws~i-:O,ea.tLJ4!:. · 

A 
GENERAL S ITE PLAN BALDY/CACTUS R:STDRATICN 

(CACTUS FLAT) 
93 

c 

~~~-- "" ~- ):\ ' A<Nwilhhlglu--polonllal 

~, --~--- --"::::4/ ~~~ NON-NETALLlCMINERALs 

,...: ~'L.. "'f"'· ~0 I ,...-,...,.rod&a 

' . ... .:: ... ··.· ........... ·· . . ·: . . , 

J "-' ~ ' ,_-........... -wllh ~~-. --~- ,,,_ •. -;:_- , , -~ --- c:::J . . -· ' . 

' ---

'~- ~~-(£- ~-~-~~~.~-- ~=-.... _._- __ -__ -_._ ... ___ =--_ 

\ ,..--.-- SMART RANCH LIMESTONE DEPOSI1 

/ TO MINERAL MTN. IS NOT SHOWN 

10 MILES OF CONTINUOUS OCTCRO 

OF CARBONATE ROCK •s MISSING 

USG-S /USFS 1qq3 MAP DMtT5> /0 

5~ MILES FRoM PRoPoSEp GtGHo~N ,-

MTN. WI LI?OtNES5 I NCL\JOJI\1 G- FlfE/T<IGHTSTJrf< 

IYUA-RR'I ..f- <.MM.T t2A-1\tr..4 rA-1 ,-,.,.t::" ,....~,.,.. ..... 

26-142 - 96 - 4 
DONALD L FIFE&. ASSOCIATES 

Geologic and MJnerallesource Consultants 

'olt OfRca aox t054 Tuattn, California 92681 

.January 22, 1.991 

u .s. Attorney Ge neral Dapactt~~aftt of J\IU:1ca 

cz:at'IPI!D 1'\kiL 

ll&'T'Oa UCIIPT 

Constitution AwatHla latw .. n 9th • lOth &treat, II .. W. 

Mutlintton, OC l:OOOO 

Chyton II. Ya~o~ttel' 

Sacraury of Atrieultura U.J. Da,,nt•ant of Atricultura, llloo- 200A 

14th i Indapendanca, I . W. 

Na1hin9ton, DC 202SO 

~a.,acca ""', Diatrlct lllanv•r U.S , r, S , San larnacdlno ••tional PQraat 

1119 lear- ••near O.htdct San &eu•ardino llational roraat P. o. lo• ltO, ravns\in, CA 92lll 

a&t ~nd for a.a .. .-nt of '!'aUata t.pUeatio.u, Pifa Calcite Quany, but l.anct. a.i-at:.on. Det:toait, Lone Valley llini .. Diatrict, Saft larurdino CcNaty, caUfol'nia (Plan of Operations 

Suta.itted J'"l.Y• lttO• for : 

fAI Daallt~ Partha : Ritht &tal', Inc. tlauor} 

aftd rUe ri&llr (lau"J till Prof!rtt t.eillenJ Use and knefit of "lning 

Property IDOVn •• •-n a.Ach Ill tC.utC 4761!1 and s .. rt bnch IU ICNIC 41160) in Section 

H, T . l W., a.2 1 . , 8116" 

(C) Ti•e Period of TaUnt July, 1no to pre ... at 

( 01 Vederal Avency Unl~ecl Stet•• of Merica 

De~rtael'lt of Atric~o~ltwce; Poreat serwh:e 

Jtelative t o the a"JJva, I hereO,y r aq11est and respactt11lly detund a n 

,\ssessllle llt o f The T&'linqs 1111phcatiOnl Under EXJ!CUTIVE OADIR 12610 

lr: eissueC !990 O,y President Ceo rqe Blush }, t he ~th A•end111ent o! The 

U.S . Constitution and rel a ted laws whic-h a re or wlll es~o~l t trol1'o 

the !.lllow1~q qo Yern ~nent t'IC"t ; ons, inac-t;ons or pr oPo sed DCt~ons: 

U.S. 1\ttotn(ty C•n•

Ra.,ucca AOJI 

Cla.,.ron K, Yeuttec 

.January 21 , 19'1 

P.1qe 1 

{!} F'a i lura 

Plan of 

121 Tho Aqan

Cf:,A. ) ; 

f)) Tho uqv

(l::.t.S.) 

( 4) Failure 

accordan

Your o~~ttotnU n to 

of c..,cr•nt inacti

ddl y. 

&;?~~#-

for RJ.qt'lt Star, In

o~nd 1-'i ft F•~n i l y l

OLF / jq 

S•n•tor .John 

S~nlltor St 

So:-nlotOC l4CI''f

ueon.·s ntatiY

n~ or•s~nt .,tl.

1\cith kno>)lo

o., r t S.onr.:-

I·H U l<lM t>.:. rr 

J:omC's Ourli n

L:.r1.:.- t:iclo.lrd

:.Jlilt~rn P!Jnin

''.lti.:on.o! ,•,,;s<:

•.'l; .o r I~·,; : .. :. lo l
OEPAJitTM& .. T 0' ACJNICUL TU"f. 

Of'l>oC:& CM" t .. l SIC"l'r'A•v 

WA ....... TON, D.C. --

U IWII991 

lfr. Donald L . Fife 

Donald L. rtre ~ Aa~h t .. 

P.O . loa 105 .. 

Tuattn, CaUfomh 916&1 

O.ar llllr . rtra: 

,.,.,~k you tor your JaAuary 22. 1991. l~t.t.~r In wl\tc::h )'01.1 "'lU&Itad 

a Tallinl• bpUc::at. ton Aaaeu-nt {TI A) be prepared purauant. to 

t.ac~o~t.l e Order 12630 t'el&rcHn& ceruln Forest S.rvica action or 

1nactl0t1a related to the S.art Ranch Ill Wid 116 •inlnl clatu on 

t~ S.,. Bemardlno National Forelt , The S.craUry ~u rontardH 

rour latt-er to VIla orrt.ca for r9aponu . 

Ellacutive Order lZ6)0, entitled ~eov.rnsental Actiona &tid 

lntarfennce with Coutitutiondly Protected P~rtr fl i &tl t a, • 

providu • proceu for ... ncr dachiona&kera to cona161r tM 

potential taldnra tapUcaUon• or propotad actions. That proeeaa 

aar Include the preparation or • TJA . A TlA provides ..-ncy 

dacl.a iOlWakera wi t.h inforaation tha t a lerta the• to the potential 

talltnca liabUttr o r a propoud acdon an;S allow. th .. an 

opportunity to aodtty th6t action when approprtata to aintaha 

t.ha rUk of a tllktnr. Sec tion 6 of tha ExecuUva Order atataa 

that •This order h Intended only to taprova the intemal 

a&rlaleMnt or the bac~o~tive lr.,.ch and 11 not intended to Cf'llate 

any rlttlt or benefit, aubat&l't lve or procedural. enforceable at 

hw by a party acal nlt the Vntted Sta tel , tu aaenct u , :l.u 

orrtcert . or .,,. penon . " Therefore, we do not believe the re h 

an obll1at1on to prepare a TIA b .. t4 upcn yn~o~r raq~o~alt . 

J t ta our unckt'11t&ndlnl t.hlt you r plll'l of op.-rattona "'' apprvvad 

on fabn.~ary 6, l')')l . W. an c:o~o~r qe you to c ont inua lf'Of'kl:"ll wtth 

the DJatric:t Jl.ncar &nd har a ta rr. end recret 111'1)' dtrrtculty that 

a Fonet S.rviea delay I n proceealnl your pl., of operatlone aey 

tlava caueod. Nevarthaltea , we e re tenetttve to t.he PG1nU )'0\l 

rataH about talo.lncs and the taacuUve Order. &nd - hava 

reqiMatad our Office or the Cenerel Counael to ,...view thla aat.tar 

tn llpt or the Executive Order .,.d to advtae ua of' their 

rtrtdlnp . 

Findly, you ukad u

OnMr or the ro ... at 

utau-nt (EAI or a

Order hu no .rrect 

Poltcr Act (trfD'A) an

F'ore1 t Service'• ,....

Syu .. landa. To t.h

atu41a• an .... pt r

·-·~r.

Jt. MOSELEY ant S.Cratar")' 

a a1 Reaourt•• 
DONALD L. FIFE & ASSOCIATES Oeolook and Mineral Retour<• Consultants Post Office Bo;x 1054 

Tustin, CaiHomla 92611 

(714)544·1406 

('!:'11'fTED MAIL IIIETURN RECIEPT JIEQUP.STED 

Junt 6, 1994 

. BIG 8!U U.NGIIt DISTIUCT 

POST OrPICI BOX 290 

PAtiHSUN, CA 92)33 

RE 1 RIGHT STAR PLAN OF OPtliATtONS 

& SMART RANCH LIHESTON£ tJtPt:SIT, S!!NF 

RAJ O,t.Nttt.~ 

GEOLOGIST 

cc-w.---.-:-_-.. =.......,=· :---------·---·- CONFIRMATION OF OUR f[L[PHOI'H CONVERSATION Of !1-25-94 

UOAftDI NG THI LOSS Of OUR SHUT RANCK fl LES • 

~~~S I S TO COHFtRH YOUR STATEHI·:NT ON THE .t.DOVE DATE, ,H,'r ALL OU!t FIL!S RELATING TO THE SMART R,I,NCH OPERATIOHS, ! NCLUD INC 

THE U:ISTlNG OPUATlON ARE LOST. 

AS YOU HAY BE AWARE C0NCRESS10t1Al. STAH :.f;[ INT[A:£ST£t: IN OBntN~ 

JNC: THESE FILES SO .AS TO IXCLUO£ THE SMART RANCH DEPOSIT FROM 

p[~OU'IG LEGISLATION AND THE BIGHORN WILDERNESS. YOUR RLOSlNG 

TIIF: 5 f. FJL£SR COUt." flf n:TREHEL.Y 0'-M,I,GlNG TO OUR op -:, PU'!"Y RIG ~:"~ 

ANo· ,i£ EXSPEC'I" TO HOLD yOU OR THE PERSONS RESNNS18l.t FO fl >.tH 

.t.CTIONS TH.t.T IHP-'R£ OUfl ll'ICHT TO HJN£ THE SM,.P.T RANCH DEPOSIT. 

OUR FILE SHOULD COMTUN DOCUMENTS RELATING TO OUR NOTICES I 

PUNS Of OP!RA'I'ION FROM ATLUST THE PHD 1980's. CERTAINLY 

DOClJI'ItNTS ULA'I'ING TO YOUR OVUDUE t. I. S. STARTING MOU TH.t.N 

POUR( 4) Y!US .t.GO MUST !XIST . 

SHOULD YOU PIMD OUR FILE, ME HEREBY I"'AKt AN OFFICl"L f .0. I 

UQUEST POl THE ENTIRE FILE. 

St&ff, lnergy & N&tur;,.l Resources Co111111ittee . Bclh Houses 

u.s. Congress 

Riq~ht Star, tnc. 

T

Transm/Nai/Memo 

August 18, 1995 

.. USDA FOREST SERVICE 

1824 S . Ccmmarcenter Cir

s .. n nernardlno. CA 9240

"· or .,.,~ .a.~ 

~~~~;~~~~J ~F BILL F OR $ 

AS _. GOV ERt-;HENT EMPLOYE

CIT I ZEN, I HAVE NEVER 

TIIE CIT! ZEN. I tiEVER A

A RE,.SONABLE COST FOR R

COPYING 198 PACE::i AT $0

THIS SHOULD NOT COST .\N

ST.\TE DtPARTH!NT OF PAR

WILDERNESS BY DESTROYIN

SITES, TEST OU.IRRIES, A

40 YEARS WERt: OESTROUD 

USfS IMPLANTATION OF 'tH

HAD AN ·OFFICIAL NOTI CE 

"lt$J?"IJ-f DON,.t.D l., fJ FE 

CO I)W~IER SHART RANCH l . I

CO!>IG RESSI ONAL COHHI

t1EDIA 

(7 14) 544-8406 
Ken C.rpenter 

Land Acc:eu Cornmtttee RepreHtltatiw 

to The San BerMrdlno NtUonel Forest 

· P .0. Box 2532 

Big Beor City, CA 92314 

909-5114-3019 

November ts. 1993 

Mr. Gene Zimmerman, Fotest Supe:rvlsot 

San Bernardino National Fote:sf 

1824 S. Commercanter Circle 

San Bematdino, CA. 92408·3430 

Re: 1g2011950 

Dear Mr. Zimmerman. 

Thank you for this opportunity to comment on these proposed changes lo tf'le 

LRMP. We will reference each area or our conC6rn using your page number and 

your sub-heading. 

Pege blta, Granite Peek unroadtd erea: 

II seems that the only thing "proposed" regarding this area ts the tctual changing 

of the WOfdlng In the LRMP; IS it tppears the physical work. on the ground. has 

_,. tlreldy been dOne, Of nearty done. Public vehiCUlar access in the 1rea io 

t~uestlo~ has already been closed off, with fencing. large rock barrters and by 

destructiOn of road entrances, between the Intersection of FS roed 2N02/3N03 

and the int~rseetlon of the entraf'ICe to Smart's Ranehi3N03, on FS road 3N03 

Tl'lis includes all vehi<:ular access to Champion Joshua Tree and a locked gate 

at the entrance to FS road 3N030. 

How willlhis aftect the road spurs curren!ly in use by recreational shooters, 

between the entrance to Smarl's Ranch and Highway 18. originating on, or 

north·east or ~S road 3N03? 

P•g• three. OQp Creek unroeded area: 

Regarding the revi!;~n on page 4-1J. of the LRMf>, dealing wJ!h predrsposition of 

Wilderness designatron: lhrs _is a moot porn! . As evidenced by recently passed 

a'ld currently considered legrslation, Congress ca,., and wrll IT1ake Wilderness out 

-

N~ 02460 

H1GH QUALITY LIMESTONE 

MOUNTAINS AND PROPOSE

DETAILED OVERLAY MAPS 

BROWN, Howard , P

Valley CA , 9235

Previous limestone rCSOi.lrce eva

have had very littJe value for lan

been due to inadequate knowl

requ irements. existinz: mining la

A consortium of several 

Bernardino Mountains have com

maps. 10 provide a rulisti.: an

CCIOiogic mapping and intimate k

data hase, along with overlays s

used to resOlve numerous potent

The overlays demonstrat

will disturb ltls lhan "'-of thr:: 

land surface o( the San Ber nard 

401o o ( the known "lim(.Sto ne en

uf the total "limestone endemic" 

The dat01 overlays demnn

land usc plannin& utilizina this 

and wilt allow land manacement 

not requirinJ federallistincof pl

lime.stone mineral resources u

hr::avily 

The Geological Society o

wrth 

Sodety of Vl!rtebrate Paft'On101

Paleontologlco:JI Society NatioN! Association of Geolog

and 

Callfomla Earth ~r Ac-adem

Cordilleran 
98 

USFS(V5MC BLASTED HISTD/?IC C.I\-1.3/N q-1'+-9 / 
99 
"T\ 

.., 

rn 

......_ 

;:;<J 

G> 

:r 

-l 

\/) 

~ ~ 

..t> 

c:::. 

~ )'I) 

...::: I 

~ 

~ g 

(/> 

rn 

VI 

::z> 

r 

v> 

_, 

11 

'=' 

r 

~ 

I") 

0 

E. 

rn 

{:; 
101 

~afiomrl J\ssor:iation of c:#)l{ining Jflistrids 

TaatiJiony ot: 

Robert A. Sanreqrat, A.B., M.B.A., J.D. 

Executive Director ot The NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OP MINING DISTRICTS (MAJID) 

on 

The Decline ot Mineral Exploration and oevalopaent in the United Stataa 

Heard Before: 

TIIB UNITED STATES HOUSE 01' REPUSIDITATIVI!S 

ca.aittaa on Raaourcaa 

The Honorable Don Younq, Chairaan 

at 

1324 Lonqworth Houaa Office Buildinq Waahinqton, D.c. 20515 

June 18, 1996 

2:00 P.M. 

llr. Chairaan and "-bera ot the Ca.aitt-: 

Thank you tor allovinq - aa an active aininq developer, and aa the 

Executive Director ot the National Aaaociation ot Mininq Diatricta 

(•NAMD•) , to praaent taatiaony on the decline of ainaral exploration and 

davalo~nt in the United Stataa, with aoaa apacitic axaaplaa. 
102 

I. INTRQDUCTION. 

The National Aaaociation of Kininq Diatricta (•NAKD•) ia an 

asaociation of Kinin9 Diatricta aa authorized under tha anablin9 clauaa of 

tha u.s. Kinin9 Law (30 u.s.c., Sactiona 21 at aaq.), aa· followa: 

•lining Diatrict BlqUlatign ~ liDaxa: . . • Tha ainara of each 

diatrict aay aaka r.;ulationa not in conflict with tha lava of 

tha u.s., or with tha lava of tba atata or territory in which 

tha diatrict ia aituated, IJOVaminq the location, tha unnar of 

racordift'J, aaount of work necaaaary to hold poaaeaaion of a ainin9 claia. • • [aarkift'J• on the IJrOUftd, recorda, inforution 

needed on location noticea], etc.• 30 u.s.c., aection 21. 

OVerratJUlation and re~JU!atory abuse ia killift'J the aineral exploration 

and develop .. nt induatry in the United Stataa -- aa witneaa the recant 

reported facta of the precipitoua decline of u.s. aineral exploration and 

developaent. It ia ai'Jftificant that .oat aajor ainea aftd aoat aajor 

aineral depoaita in the united Statea !lave been diacovered by independent 

individual aineral proepec:ton under the u.s. Kinin9 Law. 

II • OVAYID -- '1'111 D'S m or '1'111 QIIUIII S'l'A'l'll PBgM PIRU II TB1 !IOlUp 

TO FIFTR. II "TJD'' 'JP!Q''TJ9'· AID .QIYIIAPIIIft. 

In juat the la.t flu yeera the united State& bae dropped fr- ~ 

in the wo1"ld to _um, in ai..ral exploration and developaent (in both 

actual dollars apent and perceataqea). Tbia atartlift'J fact haa been 

recently diacua8ed in- detail in the foll-ift'J: (a) the u.s. 

GeolOOJical Survey 1995 Annual a.Yiev; (b) the Gold Inatituta •Exploration 

survey•; and (c) the S.K.&. Kinift'J &ft'J~rift'J, Kay 1996 •Kinift9 and 

Exploration overvi ... • Tba effacta of and reaaona tor thia precipitoua 

decline of u.s. exploration and ~elopaent aust be revi.wed and exaained. 

·ror over 100 yeera, ·the u.s. Kinift'J Law bad operated to efficiently 

locate, identify and 4avelop aiilerala on public landS, and waa aptly 

referred to u •the world'• p~ere ,.._inift'J eJCUIPle of· an incentive~ 

baaed tree anterpri- ay•- at work.• Tba united Statu naeda aineral 

exploration and developaent under the Kinift'J Law today _,... than ever 

be tore. Tha to~ s-iet Ullion loat the . •eold War• la1"981Y becau .. va 

ware ~ pro4uct;iu, particularly includift'J our efficient aineral 

z 
103 

exploration and developaent under our Mininq Law. 

The u.s. reaaina atronq today, deapita the tact that Ruaaia , Mexico 

and .china have many tiaea the ainaral reaarvea and ainaral potential of the 

United states. However, these toreiqn powers are alowly but surely 

fiqurinq out the tree enterprise eystea and our incentive-baaed Mininq Law; 

and when they do, they will be in a poaition to "bury ua• economically, as 

they have bean unable to do militarily. Ibia ~ h&RRin, unlaaa we keep 

ou~ own mineral exploration and developaent induatry alive and wall under 

the present Mininq Law. The efficient devalopaent of ainerals under the 

u.s. Mininq Law ie the primary reaaon that the United Statea baa remained 

econoaically and ailitarily strong froa the daya before the Civil War, 

throuqh both World ware, to the preaent. The United Statea would be a 

third-rate power today if it ware not for the affective ainaral exploration 

and developaent under our incentive-baaed u.s. Mining Lev. 

Today the United Statea, and aoat of the world, are aubaerviant to 

auaaia, China, South Africa and other unetable countriea for virtually all 

of our cbroaiua, maiWJaneae, qraphite, rhodiua, platinua and other eaaential 

ainerala. It ia a diatinct poaaibility, if not a probability, that the 

united stataa will be subject to political and financial extortion by 

unfriendly foreiqn aineral cartela, which would be auoh aore daaaqinq to 

our productivity and to our national security than. vere the envisioned oil 

crisea of the 1970'a and of 1991. 

III. SPICiliC !XtpLU or ompJ!jUUTIQK AID llJCiPUTORX AIQSJ. 

Since 1990 the nuaber of aini!WJ olaiaa in the Weatern United Statea 

haa dropped fro• acre than l.Z-aillion to leaa than 300,000 today. The 

primary reaaona for thia loaa of over 75' of our u .s. aininq clai .. are the 

incraaaed federal raatrictione and ovarrequlation (particularly including 

the aqqreaaive uae of tbe Endangered Speciea Act and· •Potential Habitat"), 

increased taxea and feea, and the hoatility and anti•aininq policiea of 

moat ot the federal qovernaent eqenoiea. rollovinq ere aoae specific 

exaaplaa of tbeae •anti-mining• federal policiaa: 

(a) ~ l1ll "Rental/Jiainttnance bAll·" on Auquat 31, 1993, 

the •auddan• iapoaition of a •rental faa• of $200 per aininq claia, plua an 

3 
104 

annual "aaintenance fee• of $100 par a1n1nq claia, waa affected by conqraea 

throuqh the Interior Appropriation Billa. Thaaa burdanaoaa feea ware a 

major reason tor the abando~ant of 75 to sot of u.s. aininq claiaa 

(approximately 900,000 claiaa) in 1993. 

(b) ~ li1l ·~ kbAit Tortoiae Obaaryar." In 1991-92 a 

mineral exploration coapany, on behalf of a aajor aininq coapany, co .. ancad 

an exploration proqraa on a particular 1,000-acre potential mininq project 

in the Maaquita Mininq Diatrict in Iaparial County, California (aaat of the 

Mesquite Mine) , with the tirat atep beinq a planned drillinq proqraa of 15 

test holes. 

The environaantaliata, alerted by the B.L.M., objected to the drilli nq 

proqraa; and the BUI then attached a condition to the approval of the 

propoaed drillinq proqrea vhere the exploration company waa required to pay 

an anviro~antaliat •obeerver• $50-per-hour, 10 houra-per-day to •obaarva• 

and •watch out tor d ... rt tortoi .. a.• Thia "Beach Chair Tortoiaa Obaarver• 

durinq the z-vaek teat drillinq period literally eat in a beach chair for 

10 houra daily, at $50/hour, and watched the $10/hour driller• vorkinq in 

the 100-deqree da .. rt aun. I personally have been vorkinq in aineral 

lxploration and development in thia area tor over 20 yeare, and on only one 

oecaeion durinq thie 20 years did I •- a deaert tortoi... Thie 

unanticipated budqet expenae redqced the teat drillinq proqraa to only 10 

drill holea • . on the eoapany•a next round of teat drillinqa, additional 

•tortoiae eatequarda• vera added -- and the exploration coapany "qave up,• 

abandoned the project, and ia nov at vork in Auatralia. 

(c) Prpaecution on a •Cpntinqlnt t.~.• Durinq 1990-1991 the 

Morninq Star Mine in the &aat MOjave oa-rt in california waa operetinq 

succeaatully, with over 75 vorkera employed at the aine and by 

sUbcontractora, and peyinq eubatantial taxea to San Bernardino County and 

to the state of california. In 1991 aoae teaporary buaineaa probl ... at 

the aina were ea.pounded by a protracted thunderatora, vinda and tlaahfloodinq -- all of which teaporarily abut down the aine. I .. ediately 

followinq the larqe atora, a eontinqent ot about 25 aqenta troa 15 etata 

and federal aqenciea deaeended on the aine and proceeded to write up an 

array ot "violationa• of varioua lava, requlations and policies. The uaual 

policy waa to all- the aine operator a chance to cure the alleqed 

•iolationa, particularly since the aine vas located in a reaote harah 

deaert location vhich had juat auttered a biq thunderetora. 

4 
105 

The California State •riah and GaAe Departaent• choee not to aake a 

criainal coaplaint on the alleqed violationa, which would be the noraal 

route for a criainal proaacution. ~. a group of aavaral individual 

aqenta chose to viait tha County Proaacutor "Aa in4iyi¢uala,• and to lay 

out the array of alleqed violation• of lava and requlationa -- and to 

requeat proaecution by the County Diatrict Attorney. 

The Proaecutor handlinq thaae individuala' coaplainta waa the head of 

the Diatrict Attorney'• •criaea-Aqainat-the-Land• Diviaion of tha county 

Proaacutor'a Office, which vaa partially funded by a parcantaqa 2( tAA 

~ rscaived froa conviction• tor •criaea aqainat the land• --

effectively placing thia Diviaion of the County Proaacutor on a contingent 

tal baaia, since they received a parcenteqe of the tinea collected fro• 

their own proaacutiona. The trial raaulted in conviction• and finea; and 

the aininq coapany haa ainca aovad ita priaary oparationa and eaployeea out 

of California to Mexico. 

(d) Deatruction !l.f ta bolA M9untain lJ.:sm IIJ.nA Ansi tha ~ 

~ llill· One of the firat ouatan froa the U.S. of a aajor aininq and 

procaaainq operation took place in 1913 in California. When the Eaqle 

Mountain Iron Kina and the Fontana Staal Mill (in Rivaraida County, 

California) cloaad in 1983 due to anvironaantal praaauraa and Xaiaar•a 

aconoaic probl ... , the Japanaaa atoppad duapinq ataal in the u.s. and 

raiaed their ataal pricaa aubatantially. Moat Waat Coaat ateal today waa 

purchaaed froa Japan, and Japan purchuad auch of ita iron ora froa Brazil. 

The traqedy of the Eagle Mountain Iron Kina cloaure ia that hundrada of 

ail.liona of tona of usable iron ora an today lying fallow and readily 

available in the u.s., while va buy Japana .. ataal at biqber pricaa. 

Brazil haa cheap labor and ainiaal anvironaantal controlal ailliona of tona 

are ahipped froa Braail to Japan, and troa Japan to the u.s., in dieaelpowarad fraigbtara1 and the world environaant ia aore polluted. Kaiaer 

created an eatiaatad $1-b~1lion annually in total iron, ataal and related 

aconoaic activity before laqla Mountain and Fontana vera forcad to cloaa 

down. The 1983 Xaiaer cloaura d11trgyt4 and •axportld• an eatiaated 20, ooo 

joba and $1-bi1lion of genuinely prgdystiye econoaic activity. lfforta to 

reopen the Iagle Mountain Iron Kina have bean unaucceaatul bacauaa of the 

unrelenting praaaura froa the radical anvironaantaliata who continua to 

agqreaaively fiqbt any davalopaant or aininq anywhere in the United 

States. 
106 

(E) ~. The price of rhodium is extre-ly volatile, 

ranqinq fro• $500 to about $5,000/ounce, ~roppinq back today ~ue to the 

currant protracts~ recession, with industry predictions of much hiqher 

rhodium prices in the future. Rhodium is a platinum-qroup metal used in 

catalytic converters, and is iaported primarily froa South Africa. Rhodium 

is known to exist in saall quantities on u.s. public lands; but exploration 

for rhodium in the United States has effectively stopped. 

(F) ~. We are nov overpayinq tor Chinese talc. In 1987 a 

larqe u.S . ta.lc aine vas closed because of environ.ental pressures, the 

equipment vas loaded into containers and shipped to Mainland China; and 

today ve are no lonqer exportinq talc, but are nov iaportinq talc which was 

mined and processed in China with cheap or reportedly virtual slave labor, 

and with no environaental controls--all to the detriaent of our trade 

balance, local jobs and our standard of livinq. 

(G) fiblrqlaaa. currently va are overpayinq tor Turkish 

coleaanite, a aajor coaponent . ot tibarqlass. Coleaanite vas mined in the 

u.s. until several years aqo when the aine closed; and our major supplier 

is nov Turkey. Hopes of reopaninq and developinq the u.s. colemanite 

aines, or of discoverinq new sources in the u.s. has virtually disappeared. 

(H) ~· We are overpayinq for aercury. By means of a 

false environaantal scare, the aajor u.s. mercury aine at Mev Idria, 

California, vas cloaed, di ... ntled, and the ho .. a and jobs of several 

hundred workers vera literally destroyed. ~ the d .. olition of the 

houses and closinq of the operation, it vas learned that there vas no 

•environmental hazard• at all, because the qravel and tailinqs upon which 

the town had bean built vera coeplataly sate and free fro• mercury and 

other hazards, and the readinqs on mercury vera less than evan the 

strinqant •sate• and •noraal" backqround standards. 

(I) Wollastonite. Wollastonite is a non-.. tallic mineral which 

plays a critical role in enerqy conservation by utilization in hiqhtemperature caraaics, paints and plastics. Wollastonite is increasinqly 

important in the development of enerqy-savinq automobiles and other 

products. The aajor producer of wollastonite is Finland. Today, the 

world's larqest known wollastonite deposit lies undeveloped on our public 

land, which has recently bean added to the Death Valley National Park. The 

'evelopaent of this prospective world-class u.s. wollastonite mine would be 

curtailed or stopped under currant u.s. mininq restrictions. 

6 
107 

It more u.s. minee are reatricte4 or cloae4, the preeent u.s. mineral 

production woul4 have to come from elsewhere -- colemanite an4 boron from 

Turkey, talc and rare earths !rom China, and steel !rom Japan made !rom 

iron ore shipped from Brazil. our strict u.s. environmental controls do 

not exist in Brazil, Turkey or China. by "exportinq• u.s. mininq overseas, 

the result would be a decreaat4 u.s. qroas national product, a decreased 

u.s. standard of livinq, an increast4 u .s. trade deficit, and increaat4 

world pollution. The •revenue• raised by 5.257 would be minimal, compared 

to its tremendous costa. The u.s. public is •loainq,• the u.s. mineral 

exploration an4 development industry is being devastated: the world 

environment is suffering: and the u.s. will pay more, poaaibly ~ more, 

tor the very saae ainerals which would lie untouched on public lands in the 

United States. 

The danger flag is up: and DQK is the tiae for Conqreas and this 

committee to fully inveatigate an4 determine the short and lonq tara 

detrimental effects of the deatruction of the incentive-baaed Mining Law 

and the de taqto nationalization of the u.s. mineral exploration and 

development industry. 

VII. CQST TQ TH1 y.s. ECONQMX AND TRI U.S 

PUJWC or JW!Y BILLIQNS or oow.ps. 

Please consider the following treaendoua costa to the u.s., and to the 

u.s. citizena, which is reaultinq fro• the current federal anti-mining 

policies: 

(l) Increaald fricea of Kinerala. The coat of aany essential minerals 

and rare eartha would rise because of the disappearance of the supplies and 

identified future sources or these minerals from United States public 

lands. The u.s. would be subject to the uncertainties ot unreliable 

foreign sources and cartels tor many essential, critical and strategic 

minerals, ju•t as we were in the oil •shortage• ot the 1970's, and in other 

envisioned oil •crises.• We are already paying excessive prices tor 

foreign steel, chromite, mercury and talcum powder. 

(4) Fifth Amendm9nt ·~.· Billions of dollars of eminent domain 

awards would be due to the present owners of mining claims and businesses 

destroyed or impaired because of hostile policies an4 requlations. The 

o.s. government would be liable tor these inverse condeanation takinqs 

7 
108 

under the Fifth Aaen~nt, a• reaftiraed in recent u.s. Supreme Court 

decisions. sucb takinqs, and specifically includinq •requlatory takings," 

are compensable, as set out in Executive Order 12630 of March 15, 1988. 

For example, in 1980 a federal lease which had been restricted by 

wilderness requlations vas held to be a mere "shell" lease, and a 

compensable takinq. Existinq eininq claims and businesses which are 

subjected to new iapairinq restrictions and •policies• would also be 

"takings• of property requirinq coepensation under the Fifth Amendment. 

(.;!.) Non-Co~~pt~nsable Losses anc1 Roaelessness. Thous.ands of u.s. jobs 

have already been lost and persons aada homeless by unwise and unthinking 

legislation and requlations, and aany eore would result from hostile 

requlations, "policies• and laws vhicb would follow. Particularly hard hit 

would be indepsnd~t faeily eininq businesses, private exploration and 

mining developeent coepanies, related service and support businesses, 

equipment sales and service -- and, of course, the thousands of ~ 

prospective eineral exploration and developeent businesses and individuals. 

Most of these private future losses of businesses, incoee and property 

would be non-coepensable under the Fifth Aeendeent. 

(.i) De!?!Uld9Dca Upon !lnnli&ble Foreign Sourcss for Minerals. The most 

serious •cost• of the curr~t federal anti-aininq policies, and the most 

serious effect of the devastation of the u.s. eineral exploration and 

development indu.try, would be the increased dependence of the United 

States upon foreiqn sources for ess~tial einerals and rare earths which 

are indispensable to eaintaininq our doeinant position in the critical 

arsas of military hardware, space technology, nuclsar fusion and superconductivity. We will be unable to keep our "edqe• if a foreiqn nation or 

cartel chose to not set u. their particular essential minerals. No dollar 

value can be placed upon the u.s. retaining its position as the world 

leader in hiqh tecbnoloqy research, security and national defense. The 

list of affected einerals is lonq and varied, includinq: Iron ora, rare 

earths, rhodiue, palladiue, other platinue qroup eetals, prscious metals, 

talc, titaniua, chroeiue etc. 

VIII. COJICL!!SION 

The pres~t u.s. inc~tive-based eineral exploration and development 

·ystae works effici~tly under the pres~t u.s. Hininq Law (includinq the 

"1872 General Hininq Act,• and the hundreds of aeende~ts, requlations and 

8 
109 

court decisions). This afficiently-operatinq ainaral exploration systea 

locates, identifies and •inventories• u.s. •ineral deposits and reserves 

for future usa, at no cost to the public. Thousands of individuals and 

mineral exploration coapanias have bean devastated by the excessive and 

abusive regulations, restrictions and fees under the currant federal 

qovernment anti-aininq policies and vill have a detriaental _affect on the 

u.s. trade balance and the qroas da.astic product by the continuinq 

"exportinq• of thousands of jobs and businesses, and by neceaaitatinq 

increased iaportinq of essential ainerals. 

Today, when the citizens of aany nations are libaratinq themselves 

from years of excessive and inefficient nationalization and qovernment 

regulations, the u.s. Conqress should encourage and ~ the efficiently 

operatinq incentive systea of aineral exploration, identification and 

development vhieh has vorked vall. The u.s. aininq industry is already one 

of the most environaentelly-requlatad in the vorld. Federal overregulation 

and anti-aininq policiaa have already seriously burt the u.s. mineral 

exploration and devel~t induatry, vith no substantial •revenue• or 

co-ensurate benefit to the united States. 

This Coaaittee, and eonqresa, should fully exaaine whether or not the 

incentive-basad u.s. Kininq Lev sbould be expandld, DQt destroyed. 

We will be happy to provide this cc.aittee, or individual lleabars, 

with substantial additional inforaation and date on the facts and 

stateaents set out in this teetiaony, aaat of vbieh ars readily available 

in industry and public recorda. 

Thank you for allowinq -· and the lfational Association of Mininq 

Districts (HARD), to pre.ent this teettaony. 

ROBERT A. SAIIRIIGIIB'l', Executive Director IIAfiOUL .lo88DC%HIO. CW IIIJiur: DiftlliCN ("'WWD") 

17621 Irvine Blvd.., SUite 100 

TUstin, california 92680 

(714) 731-13351 PAX (714) 731-3745 

' 
110 

GEOLOGY AND MINERAL WEALTH OF THE CALIFORNIA TRANSVERSE RANGE$ EditH by 

Donald L File and John A. Minch 

Observations on the status and state-of-the-art of economic 

geology in the California Transverse Ranges. 

The purpost of this volume is to document and disseminate 

some of then~ information on aeolosy and mineral resources of 

the Transverse Ranaes. These Ranaes are one of the principal 

aeomorphic provinces of California . They extend from Point 

Arguello and San Miauel Island along the PacifiC Coast eastward 

some 300 miles to the Eagle and Chuckawalla Mountains just west 

of the Colorado River. They range up to SO or more miles wide 

and cover an area rouahly equivalent in siu to Massachusetts and 

New Jersey combined. The Transverse Ranaes Province consist of 

a series of long, nan ow cuHrendina mountain ranses and valleys 

that are transverse to the nonhwcst·trendina Coast Ranacs on the 

north and Peninsular Ranges on the south. Tectonic features are 

&cncrally related to easHrendina fault zones. however. the 

northwcst·trendin& San Andreas fault makes "a creat bc:nd' ' as it 

passes throu&h the province. The re&icn is tectonically active and 

has probab)y been distin&uisbablc: as a separate province since the 

late Mesozoic or early Cenozoic. altbou&b not in its present confiauration . Rock units from nearly all major eras and periods are 

reprCKnted, bqinnin& "itb Precambrian rocks over two billion 

yean old. 

The last comprehensive work on JCOioly of the rqion was in 

the Otology of Soutlwm 01/ifomillllulktin 170 of the California 

Division of Mines and Geology edited by Richard Jallns in 1~. 

The last documentation of individual mineral resources or commodit)es in the rq,ion are usually found in The California Journal 

of Mines and G<olo&Y clatina from the 19oiO's or 1930's. The last 

comprehensive state-wide summary of mined resources was in 

Min~rul Commodities of Ozlifornilt Bulletin 176 of tbe California 

Division or Mines and Geology edited by Lauren Wriaht in 19$7, 

Since 1960, very liule in-depth rcaional rnearc:h has been undertalcen by goven!ment or academia with economic JCOIOIY as a 

major objective. One possible exception has been the recent 

reaion.al scudin and classification of aurqate resources by the 

California Division or Mines and GeolotY brou&ht on by a 

resource crisis created when planners and aovcmmcnt leaders did 

not have ractual up-to-date information available on wbich to 

base sound l&nd use decUions. 

Durin& the past 30 yean, there has been a revolution in explora~ 

tion acoloay and mineral ec:onomics; while evtr)' tot book on the 

subject has be<n thorou&h!Y revised several times. Ho-er, 

aeoloJY and mineral resouKes of the Transverse RanJCS have 

been laraely nqlected in the literature. 

Durin& thls same period. the population or Califom&a has 

doubled and now represents the sin&)e taraest industrial and 

aaricultural market in North America. Ir the aross res,ionaJ prod· 

uct or California were ranked with the aross national products or 

nations, it woukS rank with the top ten nations in the world. 

Mineral exploration is the R & D or mineral indwtr)'. Regional 

economic: ~;~lozy and mineral commodity studies are the founda· 

tion or mineral exploration. The lead time to open a new mine 

now in Calit::~rnia commonly exce«<s 20 years-or more. lbsic 

ta e-of the art region.alaeoloaic and specific mineral commodity 

studies are necessary to keep California and the United States 

competitive with the: rest of the workl and to maintain our standard of livina. Composina only Sift of the world's population, 

Americans consume about 20'11 of the world's produe~ion of nonfuel minerals. Each Califor.tian requires on the order of 40.000 

pounds of new mineral commodities each year just to maintain 

his or her standard of livina. 

Calirornia is now one or the most important mineral and 

hydrocarbon producin& states. However, we also import mineral 

•:ommodities 10 supplement our arowina economy from all over 

Nonh America and the rest or the worid. Many of these imponed 

commodities ue known to exist here And many if not most couki 

be found and cievdoped under pr_. potitical and economic in· 

centives. Of particular importance arc the bulky 'I\Onmetallic: low 

unit price commodities for which the freiaht cost to California 

may <>ceed the purchase price elsewhere. Elwnples are mineral 

filler atenden and phosphate rock. As the laraes< aJricultural state in the Uniled States, we are the Jaraest consumer of 

phosphate and impon lOO'It o( our supply, yet we have done 

almost nothina to promote exploration and developiiiCDI of 

known local phosphate occurrences and deposits that c:ould 

potentially save millions of bancls of petroleum (a stratc&ic com· 

modity) wbich is used to process and import phosphate from 

other reJion.s. Mineral filler extenders, such as limestone. mica, 

silica and tak:. used as filler to replace petroleum in expensive 

petroleum-based plasti.:s. paints, and rubber arc commonly purchased cast of the Mississippi River for less than the cost of the 

rail transportation to California. 

The Transverse Ranacs are host to several siant petroleum 

rtdds and major deposits of diatomite, iron, kaolin, hiah-calcium 

limestone. titanium, and tunasten. Sianifacant known deposits or 

occUJ"Tences of alumina. barite, bor&lc, cerium, chromium c:obalt. 

columbium. feldspar, coki, mica, molybdium, phosphate, silica, 

silver, tin, uranium, vanadium, yttrium. ytterbium and many 

other elements or minerals stron&}y suucst society necdJ to consider the Transverse Ranacs as an imponrant repository and 

future source or these and other mineral commodities. 

The Transverse Ranscs are found in Santa Barbara, Ventura, 

Kern, Los An&e1cs. San Bernardino. and Riv.ttSide Counties. Approximately 90I1t or the nonurban areas of remote continental 

shelf and/or mountain terrane is federal or state lands, and under 

the manaaemcnt or the Forest Service, Bureau or Land Manage. 

viii 
111 

ment, Port Scma:, ~ or Ocr ...... aad Slalc: Lands 

c-missioa. Neuty SOOllt or Califoraia is fedenlly -· aad contruy to_... belief, federal OWIICISbip of die swc bas been 

incRu<d by...,.. tboD 2 IDillioo a:n:s dariai die- few yean. 

Because oflhrir fcdcral....-.lliptbae luMisare-_.., 

thrcatmed by..- or otba" ......._. ute- of the~ 

mainiDa- pubtieluMis, -is·----ed 

by 1D ia- but - - ........,. lbol all pubtic lands mUSI be ''pn:Rnod" or ''lawd" ,_ _.,.. usc by 

~dlemfortbe~laadasc(--)t-. 

as ''wilcknlas''; a S&atus wllicll ac:erds die scritcalllatUS of a 

Natiooal Park or Na&ioaal -. aad, of ._.., IOUI 

remonl ,_die____..- of die Uailod 

States. SiDce 1964, the-._ nodaad its.........._. minetal - tllrwlb achlal or cldaao-.....-

(resounz frcaa) of aa area ..t, twia: die .m of die SUle of 

Califomia. ADd, this at au-- die Sori£t Uoiaa is apaadiOI their induslrial --.,....-- iaao die- - of the Asian Coot--Tbe Sori£t UaioD bas- a 310 ladvantaaeinmeqy-minetallaad--tbeUailodSUles. Eadl.,.. 

wildemess or - r.- ....... df«t of iaaasina the 

Soviet ad'fOIIIaF ia explonJioa ......... aporliaa - ..... futtm jobs ....,_._ Many of tbae jobs are cratod ia Soviet 

block couatries. 

This - CXIIIlaias a ......-.. of lbiaesal 

resouree •udies for .,._J-..... ~(Wilder-. Saudy 

Ar-.WSA's) takca rna _.file or ._-files of tbe 

u.s. GooloP:al Surwy, u.s. -or Miaa. -s u.s. 11urau 

of LIDd ....._,.,_ Moot of tbae add 10 our laoowlodF of 

these areas, but tbe JIIO(essiauls wa-e liwm tbe illlposlillle task 

to "ia .... ory" tbe WSA's wiob oaiJ _,. _.......,.., 

IJ<OIIbysical, ..... .........,.. • --c.-JJ. few if any---, lkill bales,- or deuilal JOOIIIIysical 

or aooo:t-icol....,. wa-e .........._ Tbe ,..._.-

lllinenlclata-fD<Iaq<--~ ........... for ri&orous ....,.. -; .. .,_ ..._,. _.. .. ran, _ .. ......_ ___ "ill•--

oftbe WSA's. 

Tbe authors ...,.rally are ""'JCJCS ill tbeir spociolilics aad lbeir 

professionalism is widely respa:Ud. n-. die task of "illVODtoryiq"themiacnl_.ofsucb ..... ~.,.,..,aa 

ueas for possibly uniqoe miacnl-is impoaible. NormaUy only previously idalliflod ---ia sucb repons. This is ._:ially so - "only deposits that are 

economic at the time of tbe aamia:llioa., will be coasideral iD 

the mineral pocential or .... - - Tbe - of .... poteatially 

«onomic:- coulclbe as smaD ... few teas of r ... iD lewath or diamaer. For Ollalllpk ill Ill< OrieDtal MiD< ill AIJcPaDY, Califomia, ooe--- D ' xl4' x6' produced an astoundiaa 3~,600 .,.._ of IOid -u. more - Sl4,000,000 at today's prices! II is CllftiDoly _,... that a 

r<eonnaissancc lllineral ~ iaao ....... ta1ilory coulcl identify 

suehan~sh-. Yet,JOOretboD I,OOO,OOO.....,...(S400millioo 

1912 dollan wonh) of IOid ._ been miDod from ourow, ir· 

re&Uiar and hi&h!Y erratic - ill .... immodiak viciaity 

alooa pan of a JWTAS>ic plale--....., oow toowo as the 

Melones fault zoae. 

Ruff and Unruh in the South Coast GooloP:al Soeiety's 11110 

GooiOCY and Mineral Wallh of the Califomia Dam ool11111< 

deseribe S600,000 wonb of speeimeas miDod aad sbippod co 

Europe from the Copper World MiDe, iD S. Bcnlardiao County. 

11lis mille lay abandon for sixty years and it is doubtful that this 

resource would have been iderlliraed in a typical mineral inven. 

lory. 

Aaolha virtually impossible--to-.''inventory'' mineral resource 

- fouad by a non-mctallk minenl procluc<r who diseovered a 

dalomilic marl from a COIIIIDOft-lookina lacustrine- deposit in· 

aaood fud effldeacy io the tiiJl feed by~"' With a fuel biD of 

$2,000,000 per IIIOIIIh that adds up to a $1,200,000 saYinas the 

finayear. 

A COIIIIIIOI> conclusion of many of these roconnaissance 

- minetal repons is that I) becaux the area has been 

•"prospecced for more thaD 100 yan'' and ao mines exist. and/or 

2) tbe old miDes are abaDdoaed and .. worked our" that no 

llliDenl poteatial .,.....dy exists. Obviously, these are not scientifically valid rasoos for UAIIIIiDa low or no mineral potential exisis. AD of the .-have been said of the San Gabriel anorlbooite c»mplex aad Mt. SID Antonio areas of the central 

. Twmax ltaqa, yet this volume doeumenu ~me of the mos1 

sipif~a~~t miDeral occuiTCDCa or deposiu in the state are found 

.-. For aample, the Curtis Tunpten Mine in Caule Canyon 

-waited.,_ aad worked for plocer1old by hundreds of prosp«lon aad minas for more tboD a hundred yean. Several yeats 

.., a smaD miDer OatOod ll.lldnw Curtis discovered in an old 

auriferous c:hanad what is aow reported to be a world class 

scheetite deposit with poteatiaiiO supply a sipifieant ponion of 

tbe Uailod Slates clenwul for tunpten. It should be pointed out 

that this deposit is curreotly beiDa recommended to Congress for 

iodusion in the Sheep Mountain Wilderness Area! 

Another o:ase is tbc Rare Earth deposit at Mountain Pass, 

Califonlia. where 60I9a oftbe Western World's rare-eanh reserves 

wa-e discovaod bY three uranium prospectors, Herb Woodward, 

Jim Watkias, aad "Pop" Simoll, in 1949 ia a hell severalthouslllld feet wide aad sevaal miles lo111, and perhaps 3,000 feet 

deep. Tbe Sulfode Que<n Gold Mine operated for years almost on 

top of tbe rare earth ore-body. Hundreds of prospectors and . 

.._ of 1J001o1isU had walked over it, while millions of 

JDOtorisU dro¥e over it oa their way to California. There was suddealy to aada rare cartll: materials, as well as no known way co 

process il, that the depooit would not be considered eeonomic, 

aad. therefore, DOt a valid discovery uDder today's miainalaws 

IDd ~ stria rules of m.arketabilily. As in praccically 

every miacral discovery, it took considerable capital to make the 

deposit ecoaomic. In 1980, Warun Wuhol in the South Coast 

GeoJoPc:al Society's GeoloiY and mineral Wealth of lhe CaliforDia Desert notes •• .. . 111111 m~~ny of tltt fiRS of til~ rart torlhs 

wrt dftleltJpftl 011ly 11/ter tlteir commercial availability WAS 

tklrtonsii'Ot«< .• • on 11 SCGit wltich was only madt pos:siblt by 

tlw MOilltUiin Pll;;s$ ~y. '1'1w ~h and d~lopme-nt #/· 

/MtS tlttlt /oiiGwd CI'Nt«i •. . 1M «anomie UD!ut of tit~ 

OI'Wiody. It is .sy to owrlook tM sjznifu:tmee of this ord~r of 

ftiiMls; 111111 is. tlw dixotlny Vlllw tntd its contributions lo tht 

~ 

t«<uto/oria of c/Wmi.stry, IMIIIIIurv, 11ass. ~l«tronics. tmd 

rofurinr. '1111,_, to 1M,_,_ /sp/Gin: lfrhis-

,_, ._. clttt«tt to lftilwlwl Miry In tM ptlSt, not only would th~ 

~,._lids.......,_- ___ bmr ponponod, bur;, r»lu• ,.,., __ .. 

& be vast majority of deposits cannot normally be identified by 

simply waltinc over them and samplina the sur race. Detailed 

eeoloP: mappiDJ on sc:ales at least two orders lower than 

I :24.000 are ameraliY needed to identify and delineate potential 

economic WJets. Expensive core...clriUina. subsurface excavations 

ix 
112 

and economk studies are frequently needed to prove a discovery. 

Producing mines or economic mineral deposits are rarely just 

" found'' or "discoYered''. 

ReJionalgeophysical studies can be impOiunt. but their Jimita· 

tions are frequently not recognized in identifying mineral p01en· 

tial in wilderness study area. For egmple, Robert L. Wilson, 

Chief Geoloa:ist for Kaiser Steel, was surprised to find that the 

spacina on aovemrm:nt areomaanetic maps of the Eaak Moun· 

tains were so widely spaced that the contour of maanetic data 

failed to show a maaMtic anomaly over their Eaak Mountain 

Iron Mine With reserves exc:eedina 300 million tons of predominantly maanetite! This mine is 6 miles Jona and a mile wick, and is 

reponed to be the fo\lrth largest open pit mine in the United 

States, and the laraes1 iron mine west of the Mississippi Ri\ltr! 

New mining operations usually come into being from a necessity to meet or fiU a need of society to maintain or advance the 

standard of living. In other words, an exisling or potential market 

must normally~ identified. A prominent exception, above, was 

the discovery of the Mountain Pass rare-earth bearing carbonatite 

which contains most of the western world's rarc-anh reserv~ . 

The. discovery suddenly produced a quantum leap in available 

rare-eanh elemcnu which jus&ifled the risk of millions of dollars 

for research. This single discovery has made the United Statts the 

predominate world producer of rare-earths. such as europium, 

which acti\lllts crystals of yttrium to produce red color in television picture tubes;. and samarium. which when alloyed with 

cobalt, produces a maanet so powerful that used in the con\'en· 

tional electric: motor it incmases efficiency by mort than 2S'1t. 

With the cominaliatu-wei&ht plastic battery, samarium may be a 

sianiftcant faCtor in development or the pollution-free electric 

automobile! 

It can be inferred from the Andrew Curtis Tunpten and Mountain Pass deposits, as well as from hundreds of other deposits, the 

small-mincr/ prospector/aeoloaist/explorationist is not obsolete 

in the exploration process. In view of the lack of federal. state, 

and academic mineral resource studies and suppon durin& the last 

few decades, many of lhe recent discoveries would not have been 

made without the small miner or independent v.plorationist. 

However. this should not be too suprisina since the history of the 

west is in larae part a history of discoverKs by the small 

miner/prospector. Larae resource companies identify the major- ity of their exploration taraets either direcdy from the small explorationist or from evidentt of the;r previous tffons. Most successful major and many small minina operations wert' reviewed by 

lilerally dozens of companies over a period of years before some· 

one made the commitment in dollars and cents to risk makina 

the .. mi,.,rol discowry .. an operatina mine. 

The exploration capital needed &o evah,1ate even lhe small 

mineral deposits as economic: commonly exceeds a million doltars, 

and for laraer. sinale deposits, may exceed tens of millions of 

dollars. Most small oploraaionists mus& brina their prospect to a 

large minina ~ompany and convioce them their "'discowry .. 

merits capital outlay for more exploration and dtvelopmenl. 

The minin& engineers and aeolQiists who have been asUantd the 

task of makina mineral ' 'invenlories" or "assessment" of vast 

areas proposed for wilderness in the Transvrrse Ranaes and other 

reaions of public lands, have aaually been the victims of a m)'lh we 

aeoloaists have perpetuated. Mason Hill in his responx upon 

re«ivina the a98t American Association of Peuoleum Geotosists' 

Sidney Powers Award, amectly ickntiraed a major intellectual Oaw 

in the concept of the minnal "invmtory .. : 

ActuallY. grologi.sts an p<~rtly to b/Qm~ btcau# wtt hQ~ b«n 

.Mrsuad«i to ~/1 tht d«ision-mokers ho~· mu(h oil is left to M 

found. T~y haw jlQiter«Jus by stlying. 'Only you geologists can 

know.' ConHqu~ntly, many of us lulue tried, rflthtr than 10 lldmit 

tJw1 quantifying estimDtes of undiscowmJ oil i.r impossible. 

Ptrlulps tht outstonding txDmple of this tffort to pleose our 

bossa comafromf,.,~a f1'0Vid«J by the U.S. GtOiogicol Surwy 

in 197.$. I cloim tlult11H such enimtlta are mftllinglas. tmd only accid~nlally could tMy INti to pod «<nomic and politiall d«isions. 

I do not ftnllttlreir metltodolov. including exprmint tM 11mounts 

of oil ot J ond 9J'Vt COI!I"Kitna '*'>tis. Wlult 1 do foul/ is tht 

underlying IISSUmption tluu undis«Jutrwl oil trm be quontifl«<. Wf' 

know. and tlw public nteds to lcnow, tMt taeh occurnnce of oil is 

uniqut. Only by drii/U., mJSOIUibk prospects, USI/olly based on optimistic ~logic nl~tations. c11n oil bt found and btlrnls 

counttd. EslifMting 11mounts of wndiscovtred oil in any pottntilllly 

favorable arra ~jon drilling is JNIItntly impossible. Adding up 

ntimQlts of undiscowrwJ 011 in 11U such orecu only Compounds tht 

/11/IQ()' of tM basic QSSIImption-that geologists can know about 

how much oil ntf'Ulins to bt di.scownd. 

Although eslii1Ultts of undiscowml oil '1114nuf«turtd' by othf'r 

agtncif't, institutions, tllld tW'n by tlw oil industry ~lf now 

gtntrtllly agr« wilh 1M .SU,.Wy *sjipra (or viet Wf$11) , Dny quan· 

titativt tstimate:s of tM unknowt~blf' am only :wrw to misltad thl 

d«ison maktrs. Wlult the industry (Dnd socitty) rnlly nNds is 

more grologic and gtophysicol work, mort explorotory Wf'lls. morr 

financial copacity, 11nd mort 1011ern1Mntal and public support- not 

obst111etiw l«tics-ro find MW oil. I/ tht currrnt pasimism (or 

optimi3m for solar trwtzY) Pf'nitts. wr 111r lilct/y to /Nw gmzt 

quantities of 11 nlatiwly ch«zp. cktln, Qnt/ e/fteimr soura of 

tn<rV in th< gi'OJind. Tlois .,. am/101 offonl." 

If this is lruc foi "Petroleum, then the complexity of identifyins 

- ' 'inventoryin,' '-unique one-of·a-kind metallic or oonmetallil: 

deposits is infmitely more difrtaah. Mineral assessment does nOt 

only deal wilh rvaluatina aeololi<: and mineralo&i< factor• in the 

field, but to be valid must assess a1J futwe raw material demands 

for manufacturina, military, and apicultural needs. Thus. the task 

of identifyina or inventoryina mineral reserves or even poleruial 

resourcts ovrr a larae area is so complex, divax. and dynamic:, 

rf!aSOn didates that as much land as pcmibl< •houlcl be perpetually 

left open in I he Uniled. States ro mineral exploration. Exploratlon is 

not incompatible with other multiple uses. including wilderness. 

because vast rqions ate needed to search for ~c anomalies 

thai are the potmtiaJ ec:onomiC" mineral deposits. Once a deposil is 

identified. only a tiny fraction of the exploration area is n~ed to 

extract the. rnouree. At Mounl&in Pass, most of the western 

world's rare earths come from an area of less lhan 50 acres, yet this 

is the only known deposit of its kind in all of continental Nonh 

America. Radonal exploration would suuest that as much land as 

J>05$iblc be left open as many mineral tkposiu have been found by 

accident, not by any systanatic: search; or while look.ina for some 

other resource. 

For example. the worlds laraest borate (borax) deposir near 

Boron. California, clocumentecl by Siefl<e in the South Cout 

Geol<>&i<al Society's 1980 Geology and Min<ral Wealth of the 

California Oacn, was found ac:ddently by a physician, John 

Suckow, while driJiina for water. This deposil has for the pasl fifty 

years made lhe Unilcd States the predominate producer of borates 

in the world. 

CoruervaJion is defined as the wise use of a resource. Preserva· 

tion is only one asped of conservation. We should not attempt lo 

make all of the public lands a wildemns park. 1his concept is 
113 

.,..Suolly~dle--of--ofhdJ ...... areas tik< v-.. die GnDd c..,... v-. _.- uuo notional -· Thae ....S ...........,. llo _....s, -.dleCOSI ofloclr:iaiup7,'111ofdle_p.lllc __ con iUaffonl. -IOIIIUCbof ___ il_bdola 

locked up in -!*b.--ay-.,...,....,.ioltpocl and ......... - ... _ ... ---

die Many notions Wlinf- millcnl-iD -·-___ ----_,idea • ._ .. 

of die c:ost 10 "-icoD -a,. Ia 1m, Alldon, a.-_. Mauricelldle--of~._.. • ..., 

Uni>enity orColircinio. Loo""'*")llllllilllld*_"'_ llud)' entitled "Does-~,.,.. Ia ........ 

.,.,. very sobaina _.. 10 * .... "' .._.., - raouro:s" in IM public:-.---.,..._ 

problan. Consorvalion- "If-of•-•.....,..,. -a----- llle,UofllleWIIIY .U. d.,., ille period qf ~. llle 

ilrll<fled. -Ta-ldb<--M>Id-·-,..,.~­ If'"' 11M of--iJ-,....- qf rrtlllfl.-·-··"......_, .. .,...,_...,.. rlotr-ritth-.-.t--.--c-. iltt)o/flfiMN/ _______ ..._ 

lion" for bolh die-- wllidl _.. lllo cleciliaa ..S *-

lwshlstoricoUy whidllalerllled _____ die-=. .. }wltlblitM/tlr"'l/tln»d-

~-··-

lion, tillotr by #odrpi/illf "' lq .....,.. * ,._.,.,. • llle 

'""'""·" The above authors-_ aft<r .-,-.die llilloricaJ prices 

of 14 d<pklabl< - illdtodiac-. ~ - preciowmaals lbat'*'<_llo_,_tr~roday than lhar value prodooad-,_.-lllo pmfit .-......sa the provailifla rates. To_.,. __ of_,__., 

IJ(JI) _,ld ,_, ,...._ • 1m,..... -t Sl1 •• ,_-• 

--

- #O<Irpiled · Tltt-.. ,,. 

--

- """',.,. ... 1m-14 ~ ,.a., 919,11011-! 

The unrnislakabl<-_p....lllo-of-ofaaa now withdrawn or..-.~ far-__ _. 

minora! nploration io die ~ - - - as wild<mess, wiD c:ost "-icoD -ay--oo-..,""' 

trllliotu of dollan in lost «<DDOIIic ~ Olla' die IIQl few 

amtrattons. This economic Joss will effect DUl oaly our,..._ sa.. dard of livin1 and quality of tife, but will fal hanl<sl oa.-• tM 

lower end or IM economic_.,_. ,..,... *-.g... 

wiiiiJ<Ofttlot-*yofU...-a.q, 

In a 1940 specct, llllatdey, Califomio, Olof P • .1aWrts,-

Chid Geol<>aUt or the Colifonoio DivilioD of Miocs, .._-• 

critical- Wllich -1001110 betaled bylllo.......-.--

ond World War: NoNIIiontNr..rh_ .. ____ . lrt 

timt of pttt«, ro ...--rhiJ ~.1M _,.do/ititrft 

milttrols- imported. /ft -qt-.-· -of;,. 

portation moy MsoSII!rioiiS N ~ ~of•...., •ID 

~ 111111 -ion borA f,_ • ..-,. ............. -Jr-• stolldpoint -..,_.,_ of ilot..,......._,. 

_____ _ _,tilt/ ___ .... , • .....,.. ___ _ 

po#lbllily ttM....X-J-.-tlw-of (wltidr _,. .... -,.--___ *--_ -t ,_,<ediorto __ ,. _____ Jllis_ 

xi 

______ .. tlot--

-.... ,. .......... It,.....,_ JGIIII, t/wdflft, wfoo - ilr this worli of studYiltt -. t-...;,;.. ....,_,,, lllfd r/ttir ~niflt:fi~~U ro tlot 

IRJrllllt .-1 ~ 0/ fl _,ioft. 10 look IOWtl/'ds tM SIIVI~ 

~of-d(f-• ilr ltrTrt _, tlot probhms oftlot 

- itlrbl#ry. Thae _,..-just as tn10 today os they-in 1940, IIICI 

IIIey will cataiDiy be 1n1< for die f-f11ttu<. H.......,,lhe 

-~---of .... world'• surflllt .... and die 

.....,. - ..s - ,_ bue or 1111y notion, il __,'*-to ............ of die ..nou. minerals needed 

to_........,...of-aa&iou . 

As lllo Soriol Uaioe wirb ill~ tbne-fold odYID .... in IIDd 

10 

of liDd Asia. -~~~~~~- ~ willlitdy rad1 ........... - atlr-tUtrocicncy c:xpaack iolo in the--llratqic -

---· Ot>ctdoilhu ...... od>ieved, it wiD""'- 10 - taritory, but will """' - ro pol/llt:llily -..-u --~---•• Warto/rf/lkt-- ....,., Fted Wonbo(Ky updates JeDkim 1940 ...._t in bis 

1!111 ._-,....,anide~M- Tlttln- War: "Wllrllr_A __ _.,..,,,,Iot-ruailis.llll -----r:oulrlbriltltlotU.S. tcoNNflyto iu._. OftlwJ6--frltlm....,.-n.lto tlotU.U<d-

• .,-~. --aw:itJIIy.,....,., _,,.. -ftx:Uota-./ft/llllll, --~toimport9/'l"tof 

-m.-.-ot-~---9J'III0/11W 

-·-""'"' _____ By cont-.""' - """' 42'111 .,.,., tNI itrtporfed oil. 

C1llmoiorM, ,, .-pit, iJ witkly - ilr oil ~"""· ,.,,.. 

..-,--INidoar po- p/llttts. tonktr rrvct.s. ,.. ,..,..., .... ,. ,_,...,_ ilr ttlllfoittlessstttl.l•-

.............. ~lrith-thlllfd/rith.f-·,."""'" 

.llioftl8isMR«. t~ is 110 !lllbrtituu /M dlromftlm. Yl't our lfftljor 

-of..,ty,.. Swth A/rit:# rmdtlot Sotli<t Uftion. 

C«MMt, _,irll to ~ mtiftes. nlldtttr·,_lslon SJ'#ttrU. 

/rip-sp«d Cllltilrf tools, sytttlottic-/utl prod~tion - hifh·tnlllr 

...... 

~ 

.-Jr-Zttirrlllfd z.mbior; --· tslttlliol tOstttl· iJilrlponedpnm.ily ,,_ Swth A/rit:#, Bnz:j/ """ ,_; 

-.-_, ilr ~-tl«t-~-... _,,_ TMilttlrd, c.....t., Mtlltlyfio olld Blrlzj/; olld plotilr.,.. _,,its _.;ts liS tt <lotmicol 0111olyst. COIMS klrtt/Y f,_ 

South A/--tltt Sotli<t Uftion." 

E- Fld has- a stralqic commodity. Each conunercial 

or miliwy jel rcquim a silnifiCIJit fractioo. The chrome sttel jet 

.....,.. are wddedt-h<r with.,., aold· U'I"t nickel alloy which 

ilhilhfy resiunt to vi- and .-al latiaue. A thin layer o( 

sold is saadwidtcd in tht airc:nlfl windfhield 10 that &ow voh• 

c:unmt caa be uiclded lluoulll to de-ico the windlltidd. An Ofdiaary 747 requir<J """"' UO ou- of Fld for iU contlructioa. 

Gold il-iD .-- for eloctrcnic _..of_,. 

.,.-aadllldila. A.....,.U.S. BwauofMiocsmonthlycom· -Y _, listed -. 44,,000 ounca of Fld buliott ion· 

ported iDio die Uaited Sllla. The Soviet Union wpptied -. and 

die Sotah Africa 3l'l"t or our imporu lor the - reported! 

A> -ed by Clark, Ely, and Ruff and othen in Ibis 

-.thi:T~RanaahavesiplifocantO<almnc<sofpJid 

ODd a....,... CPWoamtnl favorable for various kinds of dtposits. 

iadoocliai lara< ..,...,.... disseminated ocxumnoes tike HoowSIU<s ~County in -mtrn Colifomia 0< Gold F"ICicb Maquire 

drposR • the southeastern end of the Transvene llanees &n lm· 

paiaJ Coanly. 
114 

California as a kadina et1~1Y and mineral producing state has 

an exceedingly out-dated resource information base on which to 

make multibillion dollar resoun:c dccison.s. How can we remedy the 

vacuum left by the netlect of mineral resources of the last aeneration? 

Farst we must realize that true consaw.lion means wise use not 

necessarily prestrYation. And also that mineral exploration is not 

.-ssarily incompalible with wilderness. We must make rational 

decisions wdh up to dale and fattal information. This must be 

weiahed with ecooomic and national security resource needs. We 

must undcnland the d~ or a<Oiolic: exploration and mineral 

economics. A--O<Y..,._tbolllyiiGIId-lt _ _,_,_.,_-.of~, -tocr,, __ *f_lt tltOIIId b<wrd-ood 1hill 

,,..,. b OSIIbst-prlu uti for-,-, UIISf wUd,_ pttrlu. 

A closer workins relationship between federal and state sovnn-

.ment, academic institutions, the mineral industries, and other affected sqm<niS of society must be re..,...blished. A first step in this 

direction would be for &OYernmmt and industry to promote «ntm 

of academic exceDe:nc:e in bolh nonhero and southern California 

for mineral ccchno}oay, mineral economics. and mineral and 

<naiY aplor.otion. A a•nenllion qo we had several suth scbools, 

or d<putmeniS and these should be revitalized. 

In the 1950's, California bod 1 toclmical and research presence of 

the u. s. Burau or Mines within the Sllte. This should be re· 

estlblisbed in both nortllcm and southern California, in conjunc· 

tion with appropriate SIOie resoun:o qencies and the local academic 

communities. The U.S. GeoloP:ol Survey should have a suonaer 

field pmence in. aou1hem California to compliment the Menlo 

Park omce in northern California. 

Urban as weD as non-urban "loss of energy and miDetal 

resources" should be addresaed Sl<ltewide as the Urbon Master 

Plan, Bulletin 198 of the California DiYision of Mines and Geoloty 

recendy (1973) did for qpqate and other resources threalened by 

urbaniution. 

The excdlentt-llic and orthopho101f8Phic mappina pro-

.,am or the u .s. C3eolosical Survey Jboulcl be continued and ex· 

puded to Jive 1::14,000 scale c:overqe SIOiewide, especially mnole 

potentially mineralized areas. The dqree or basic poloaic knowJ. 

edae is usually rdlled to the adequacy or the topoarapllic map 

available for aeoJoaic mappina. 

Studies of minin& districu should be updated with new economic 

and a<Oiolic: models or .... accumulation. These districU should be 

desi&nated Known Minenl Resource Areas (KMRA's) much like 

KORA's wore clesipated for JOOihermal resources durin& the 

1970's. 

Publications such as Mineral Commodities of Californi.a and the 

Lepl Guide for Prospecton and other important publications 

should be updated and published. It is stronaJy recommended that 

the State Division of Mines and Geology or CKher institutions rcac· 

tivate the California Journal of Mines and O.Oiaty or similar vdti· 

c:le for timely dissemination of economic acoloaic: information. 

This volume has bcm prepored by volunteer efforts somewhat 

Ilona the editorialiiUidelines of the discontinued California Jour· nal of Mines and Gcolol)'. It is our intent, to stimulate economic 

and JOOIOiic interest by ocodemic institutions, federal and state 

resource aaencies, miners. explorarion manaaers. mineral commodity specialisiS, planners and lqislaton in the Transvme Rana<s. 

Donald L. Fife and John A. Minch-Editors 

PROLOGUE 

Mineral inventory or assessment or larae areas must consider not only the aeolo&Y and ntincral economics or the rqion, but 10 be 

meaninaful to society, must consider all present and future minual commodity demands for qrieukwe. manufacturina and natioaal 

defense. Until such insiaht is poasible, no fmal mineral inventory or assessment can be made. Lons term economic stabiliiy and militay 

JUrvival favor.s the society with 1he most diYene, KeeUible, productive, and secure enu&Y and miMra1 resource bue. Therefore, u 

much area as possible should remain open perpetually to mercY and mineral exploration. 

EPILOGUE 

Donold L. Fife and John A. M~ 

Editors 1912 

"Appraioina IDinonl """""""ban -.ID~JCicnce. A rmal, once and ror all "invmtory" of my ntiJtefal resoun:e is,..,..,.,... Mi-.1 

raerws and -.a are cl}nlntic: quantities and must cOustandY be oppnised. AJ kMwn deposits are exhausted, unknowlt cleposiu .. 

clioco¥ered, DOW -iw tec1mo1cJies and DOW uses .,. developed and - ~ knowiedF indicates new aras and new enWoameats .,. f._...,.. ror minenl aploration." 

xii 

From MiMrvl Pro6p«tiws /97J, 

U.S. Oeolosi-..ol Survey Professioaal 

Paper 940, by Viucatt McK<Ivoy, 1976 

Director, U.$. Geo1oP:o1 Survey (1972-1971) 
115 

~ Appalachian Mountain Club 

The Honorable Don Youug cbamm&n . Committee on~ 

U.S. House ofQcpn:scntativcs 

Wasbingt!m, D.C. 20SlS 

·Attn· Kurt «(hristmzo 

Dear Cbainllali Yo1111g: 

July l, 1996 

Thank you foe inviting lbe ·AppalacliiaD Moun!ain Club to testify before the 

Committee on Resources on liDIC II in response to the testimony of DaVid-W; Guernsey 

ofK.ingfield,•ME. Our testimony, fiom ciur Board President; Samuel F. Pryor IU 'ofNew 

York, is encloSed for inclusioit in lbe bearing reaird. 

While we apprcciale lbe inVitation. to testify; we regret that it was tendered less . 

than 24 hoUrs before the llearin& leaWig us with little ability to .ttend ui persOn: We are 

especially disturb!ed that ~ is lbe sec:oad conseCutive year that the committee has · 

· inVited Mr. <Juermey to testify, and in both appearances he has d!osen to attack our 

organization with inacl:unde and grossly liliskading statements, withOut ·our organization 

being proVided a COIIIplliable OppOitUnity tO proVide our perspective. ·· · · · 

We~ lbe.collllllittee iS intaesled in hearing all sides of the issues Involved, 

and hope you will find our teslimony-helpful in achievmg that go8J. ShOuld a critic of . our organiZation again be inVited to rCstify before the .COiiunittee in the futUre; we 

respectfully 8sk that the AMC be affiJrdcd the Saine~ . 

. Thank you. Piease do not~ to-call me at 617-S23-06SS; ext. 365, if I may 

be of assistance. · · 

Enc .......... 

oc: s.Duel F, Pry<w ttl 

AiKftwS.Falmder 

SiDcerely, 

~T{QJ~ Kevin T. KnoblQCh 

DirectOr ofConscrvimon Programs 

.... Office • FiwJof~~ MAOll08 611~ FAX617-523-0722 . 

. ~ NGedt VW..C..... • lklllf..M. ~ S6.ecn.. NH'a!il_l ~2121/~· taftYillions flU~ 466-V?D/ programs office FAX ~2822 

ML CNfleck vw..rc...er·• ~......,.. • b.IIIJO. l.MelbonJ. WA01237 41J.-443-00II or413-7U.1591 / FAX 4.13-442-9010 
116 

16\ 

. W Appalachian Mountain Club 

Testimony Before the House Committee on Resources 

Tas~ Foree on Private Property Rights 

July 1,1996 

Samuel F. Pryor III 

President 

Appalachian Mountain Club 

On behalf of the Appalachian Mountain Club, I would like to thank the Cbainnan 

for the opportunity to resp<ind to the JUlie 18 testimony of David VI. Guernsey of 

Kingfield, Maine. 

I must confess that we are astonished that the COlllJ11ittee would invite Mr. 

Ouemsey back for a second consecutive year. to single out and attack .our organization, 

frequently with inaccurate and grossly misleading statements, wit!tout according otir . 

organization with a compaiJ~ble opportUnity to speak to the committee. We .learned of 

Mr. Guernsey's invitation to criticize .our organization only the day before .the hearing, 

june 17, and only after our staff contacted the majority staff to express out sense of unfair 

play did we receive an invitation late ·that day to testilY befol'll the committee ~ far too 

late, of course, to prepare testimony and fly to Washington, D.C. for the next day's 

hearing. 

However my purpoSe here isn't to belabor points of protocol but rather to counter 

Mr. Guernsey's reckless testimony and hopefully to set the record straight. We hope the 

Committee will be curious about the fact that in his extensive testimony Mr. Guernsey 

failed to find a single redeeming quality about our organization. 

Tite Appalachian Mountain Club is a 120-year-old, non-profit recreation and 

conservation organization with 70,000 members throughout the Northeast United States. 

Iri the context of this oversight hearing it is critical to state that AMC is a non-partisan 

organization; we luive Republicans, Democrats and Independents alike in our 12-state 

membership. In fact; l ·am a longtitne leader in the Republican Party; mJ immediate 

predecessor as AMC President was alsa ail active RepubliCan. 

We were founded in 1876,and our earliest·activities were in the White Mountains 

of New Hampshil'll, where our members built trails and shelters, placed registers on 

moUntaintops, drew·panoramas and maps of the region's ranges, and recorded scientific 

M&inOffl« • FiVeJovSIJ'I.'d,8oslon, ·MA02108 617-5'23-<lft36/FAX6l7·S23-0122 

Pi~kh.am N~ch Visitor Center • Box 298, Route 16, Corium, NH 03581 603-466-Zi'il/ businl'5S &: fe:Wrvations FAX 603- 466-Ztitll program~ o(f~ FAX #IOJ-466--282i 

MLGreylockVlli.torCutH41laacota Lodp :tt fk•" tfiOO,l.a1k.':'boro,MAOI137 4JJ..44J..()IUI or 41~ 4J..IS91 1 FAX413442-CJOIO 
Samuel F. Pryor m Appalachian Mountain Club 

July I, 1996. 

117 

observations. · Today the AMC provides a. wide range of public services to hundreds of 

thousands of forest visitors ;mnually at no cost to the taxpayers and is. responsible for 

bringing millions of dollars into the local economy. · · 

AMC's Partlienhip With_ the White Mountain National Forest 

The Appalachian Mountain Club· has worked in par)nership" with the USFS since 

1911 (with formal pennits since 1939) to provide backcountry management, 

environmental education, public information and conservation in ihe White Mountain 

National Forest(WMNF). The result is that this public-private partnership brings 

services and programs to the public that taxpayer-funded government programs alone 

would be rumble to provide. 

Under permits with the USFS, AMC operates seven full-service backcountry huts 

(an eighth hut, Lonesome Lake, is in Franconia Notch State Park), Pinkham Notch 

Visitor Center, Joe Dodge Lodge, the Camp.Dodge Volunteer Center and a series of 

backcotintry shelters in the White Moimtains. The AMC's huts are open to t1J.e public 

and are staffed with professionals trained to. conduct search and rescue operations-and 

provide information on everything from hiking routes, weather and safety to the local 

ecology and ·geology. Together with the U.S. Forest Service, we·have introduced 

generations of Americans to the joys of backcountry recreation and· discovery of the 

natural world: · 

In 1995, for example, AMC's public service contributions in.the White Mountains 

included: 

• More than I ,500 middle-school. children attended AMC's Mountain Classroom and 

spent two to four days at Pinkhani NotCh.and the huts studying field sciences and 

natural history. 

• More than 2,000 children became Junior Naturalists through our ·fun and educational 

program for children 6 to 12. 

• Approximately 500,000 .National Forest visitors received trail, safety. and other 

information and services (incl11ding hiker shuttle vans, rest rooms, showers and 

·parking) from .the AMC's facilities~ at no cost to the taXpayers .. 

• Some 6;000 visitors attended evening lectures through the year while more than. 2,200 

participated· in workshops ranging in le~ith from half a day to two weeks. 

• Volunteers and staff, trail\ed in search and rescue tec!rique, coordinated or assisted in 

68 search aitd rescue missions in the White Mountains. 

• Vol!JntCers and staff spent about 27,0oo hours building and maintaining 350 miles of 

trails in the WMNF; including 110 miles of the AppalachianTrail. 

• ResearCh on the forest has enha!)Ced 5cientific understanding of acid rai~ and 

visibility-impairing smog, the impact of mountain air pc)Uution on lung function in 

hikers, helped bring back from the brink rare species of alpine plants, and working 

with private landowners on suslliinable timber harvesting. . 

2 
Samuel F. Pryor Ill 

Appalachian Mountain Club 

July I, 1996 

118 

Mr. Guernsey alluded to AMC's lobbying for funding for f9rest needs. Because 

we work to encourage responsible stewardship of the WMNF, we do advocate, fully 

within the limits placed upon us as a 50l(c)3 tax-exempt organization, for funding ·and 

other resources to adequately manage and maintain the forest. We believe the 

information we bring to Congress helps our representatives understand the interests ofour 

the public and the forest users with whom we come in contact. Had the AMC and other 

organizations and individuals not been strong advocates· for the creation of the White 

Mountain National Forest nearly a century ago, neither the forest nor the multipl.e benefits. 

the public derives from it might exist today. · 

AMC Invests-in the Forest 

Mr: Guernsey, as he did a year ago, makes inaccurate statements about the 

financi·al performance of these operations. Unlike for-profit permitees on national forests, 

such as ski areas and timber harvesters which often take profits earned on the forest out of 

the region and the state, the AMC, as a non-profit, re-invests all revenues earned Within 

the WMNF back into our operations and programs on the forest. In fact, ;\MC invests far 

more into the WMNF than it earns. · · 

Over the past 30 years, the term of the current permit, AMC has invested more 

than $10 million in its WMNF facilities. The remote location of the huts and the AMC's 

commitment to minimiZing the environmental impact·oftheir use, makes their operation 

both complex and expensive. Though the AMC generated $3,680,000 in revenue from its 

WMNF operations in the form oflodging, food, and merchandise sales last year, our · 

operations on the forest cost $4,620,000. The shortfall of $942,000 Was made up through 

AMC membership dues, donations, grants and other sources of income from throughout 

the NortheaSt region. In other words, AMC consistently subsidizes its public programs · 

and services on the WMNF with revenues generated elsewhere. 

If we were to include in this accounting a conservative estimate of the value of 

efforts by AMC volunieers in the.WMNF (60,000 hours in 1994 at the minimum wage of 

$5.18/hour), who, among othet contributions, help blJ,ild and maintain trails for the public 

to use, then at least another $310,000 would be added to this overall AMC inve~tinent. 

This brin&s the total to well oyer $1 mimon of"subsidy" tp the WMNE and its visitors in 

.1.22i. 

We Q.elieve that this financial information demonstrates AMC's long-term 

commitment to public service and stewardship, a commitment which reflects our role as a 

non-profit permitee' on public land. AMC is audited annually by the independent-public .· 

accounting firm of Coopers & Lybrand and we have made our certified financial 

statement as well as detailed internill records available to the public. 

AMC Contributes to the Local Economy 
Samuel F. Pryor Ill . 

A~ Mountain Club 

July I, 1996 

119 

Mr. Guernsey says, "At least General Motors contributed to local economies," 

implying that our orgiiDization·does not In fact, AMC contributes significantly to the 

northern New HampShire economy. We employ 50 people full time and 200 seasoJlll) 

staff in and around the Wru~ Mountain National Form With an annual payroll of$2 

million, and we purchase approximately· $1 .2 niillion worth of goods· and se(Vices in the 

region every year. A recent analysis by Northerrt Economic Planners of Concord, N.H:, a 

leading economic consulting finn with extensive experience analyzing tlie state's tourism· 

and recreation industries, detennined that AMC's operations help create an additional 900 

North Country jobs and is responSible for $63 million" In annwil economic activity in New 

Hampshire. · 

Permit Renewal: An Opportunity to Improve a Strong Partnership 

The 30-year permit under Which Atv[C operates our facilities on the WMNF 

expired last October, and, with a one-year eXtension in place, a public penni! renewal 

process is underway. 

Mr. Guernsey SUggests we have been operating in violation of our pennit because 

we have developed volunteer trail"tnaintenance programs, ·educational programs and other 

services not explicitly spelled out when the permit was written 30 years ago. A more 

responsible telling of the story would have cited a fqnnal Memorandum of Understanding 

betweep. the White ~ountain National Forest and the Appalachian Mountain Club, signed 

by both parties on January I 0, 1992, which stipulates that the AMC will provide services · 

in the areas of backcountry management, environmental education, public infonnation, . 

land use\conservation, research and trails. 

He also questions·the fairness of the process of a series of"listening sessions" on 

the permit renewal appliCation which the U.S. Forest Service convened in Gorham, N.H., 

Concord, N.H. and Watertown, MA, on three separate evenings this past May. Again, 

only a ftaction of the story is told. The listening sessions were widely publicized; the 

Forest Service hired independent. facilitators to conduct the meetings. About 1,000 

people attended the sessions ahogether. A total of 196 people spoke, and no one who 

wished to speak was denied the opportunity. Of those individuals, 170 spoke in strong, 

unequivocal favor of renewing AMC's pennit, 21 gave. conditional support and five 

spoke against renewal. The deep good will which the vast majority of these speakers feel · 

toward AMC's role in the White Mountains went unmentioned by Mr. Guernsey. 

These public sessions are only the beginning of what promises to be a rigorous 

renewal process, and which will include the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) 

requirements which any penni tee on public land must undergo. 

We see the public c;omments during the pennit renewal process as a chance to 

learn about what we can do better. As an organization which has the privilege of 
Samuel F. Pryor Ill 

Appalachian Mountaiil Club 

July I, 1996 . 

120 

operating facilities within the borders of the White Mountain National Forest, we take 

very seriously the.responsibilities which· come with being a permitee on public land. · 

We are working very hard to better reach out to and communicate with our 

neighbors· in the White Mountains and our employees contribute their energies to these 

communities in which they live. Given past misunderstandings, hoi.vever,· we realize that 

. to build trust and effect positive change it will take time and consistent evidence of our 

responsiveness to local concerns . 

. · . . . . 

I;;ven as we make these. essential efforts, AMC's organizational. mission is to 

promote the protection, enjoyment and wise use of the mountains, rivers and trails of the 

Northeast. The White Mountain National Forest is a much loved and used public 

resource under considerable stress from development, pollution, and overuse, stresses 

which do not respi:ct the forest's boundaries. For example, tlie air quality monitoring site. 

near the summit of Mount Washington, operating by the AMC in piutnership with the 

WMNF, tracks air quality !lata for ground-level ozone, nitrogen oxides and acidity which 

is showing that air pollution from urban centers outside of New Hampshire are harmful to 

the forest. · 

Treating All Permitees Fairly 

·The US Forest Service has the challenging responsibility of j11dging )be relevant 

issues and responses in. this permit renewal· process. Without question, AMC shouid be 

held to the highest standards-of accountability and perforinance. In the interest of 

fairness, credibility and best management of the Forest, however, it is critical that any 

special conditions deemed appropriate to an AMC permit also be applied evenly to all 

other permitees on this imd other national forests, inCluding ski areas; timber. concerns . 

and concessionaires. This inay well not be what Mr. Guernsey has in mind when he says, 

"All we ask is a fai.r process: one which treats the AMC _the same as other permiteeS on 

public land." 

We are excited by the futUre of the long-standing partnership among the AMC, 

the public and the Forest, and look forward to incorporating many of the positive and 

thoughtful ideas which we've heard at these listening sessions, and the suggestions which 

yet lay ahead in this process, into the way in which we do our work. 

Again, I want to thank the Committee for providing AMC with an opportunity to 

respond. I hope any member of the Committee who has any questions, concerns or 

comnients wili contact me directly, and that next year, should a critic of our organization 

be invited to testify before this Coirunittee that the AMC be accorded the same courtesy. 

We'd be delighted to testify even in the absence of a critic. Thank you. . 

# # # 

0 

26-142 - 96 (12 



ISBN 0-16-053459-3 

9 801