BODIE BOWL AND CAVE CREEK PROTECTION 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES 

OF THE 

COMMITTEE ON 

NATURAL RESOURCES 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED THIRD CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

ON 

H.R. 843 

TO WITHDRAW CERTAIN LANDS LOCATED IN THE CORONADO NATIONAL FOREST FROM THE MINING AND MINERAL LEASING LAWS OF 

THE UNITED STATES, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES 

H.R. 240 

TO PROVIDE FOR THE PROTECTION OF THE BODIE BOWL AREA OF 

THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES 

72-559 

HEARING HELD IN WASHINGTON, DC 

MARCH 30, 1993 

Serial No. 103-16 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Natural Resources 

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 

WASHINGTON : 1993 

For sale by the U.S. Government Printing Office 

Superintendent of Documents, Congressional Sales Office, Washington, DC 20402 

ISBN 0-16-041583-7 
COMMI'ITEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES 

GEORGE MILLER, California, Chairman 

PHILIP R. SHARP, Indiana 

EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts 

AUSTIN J. MURPHY, Pennsylvania 

NICK JOE RAHALL II, West Virginia 

BRUCE F. VENTO, Minnesota 

PAT WILLIAMS, Montana 

RON DE LUGO, Virgin Islands 

SAM GEJDENSON, Connecticut 

RICHARD H. LEHMAN, California 

BILL RICHARDSON, New Mexico 

PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oregon 

ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American 

Samoa 

TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota 

LARRY LAROCCO, Idaho 

NEIL ABERCROMBIE, Hawaii 

CALVIN M. DOOLEY, Californil\ 

CARLOS A. ROMERO-BARCELO, Puerto 

Rico 

KARAN ENGLISH, Arizona 

KAREN SHEPHERD, Utah 

NATHAN DEAL, Georgia 

MAURICE D. HINCHEY, New York 

ROBERT A UNDERWOOD, Guam 

HOWARD L. BERMAN, California 

LANE EV ANS, Illinois 

PATSY T. MINK, Hawaii 

THOMAS J. BARLOW III, Kentucky 

THOMAS M. BARRETT, Wisconsin 

DON YOUNG, Alaska, 

Ranking Republican Member 

JAMES V. HANSEN, Utah 

BARBARA F. VUCANOVICH, Nevada 

ELTON GALLEGLY, California 

ROBERT F. SMITH, Oregon 

CRAIG THOMAS, Wyoming 

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee 

JOEL HEFLEY, Colorado 

JOHN T. DOOLITTLE, California 

WAYNE ALLARD, Colorado 

RICHARD H. BAKER, Louisiana 

KEN CALVERT, California 

SCOTT McINNIS, Colorado 

RICHARD W. POMBO, California 

JAY DICKEY, Arkansas 

JOHN LAWRENCE, Staff Director 

RICHARD MELTZER, General Counsel 

DANIEL VAL KISH, Republican Staff Director 

SUBCOMMITIEE ON ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES 

RICHARD H. LEHMAN, California, Chairman 

PHILIP R. SHARP, Indiana BARBARA F. VUCANOVICH, Nevada, 

AUSTIN J. MURPHY, Pennsylvania Ranking Republican Member 

EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts CRAIG THOMAS, Wyoming 

NICK JOE RAHALL II, West Virginia JOHN T. DOOLITTLE, California 

LARRY LAROCCO, Idaho WAYNE ALLARD, Colorado 

NATHAN DEAL, Georgia SCOTT McINNIS, Colorado 

PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oregon RICHARD POMBO, California 

THOMAS J . BARLOW III, Kentucky 

MELANIE BELLER, Staff Director 

DEBORAH VON HOFFMANN LANZONE, Professional Staff Member 

LAUREN ScHARFMAN, Clerk 

WILLIAM CoNDIT, Republican Consultant on Energy and Mineral Resources 

(II) 
CONTENTS 

Hearing held: March 30, 1993 ............................................................................... . Texts of the bills: H.R. 843 ............................................................................................................ . H.R. 240 ............................................................................................................ . 

Member statements: Hon. Richard H. Lehman ................................................................................ . Hon. John T. Doolittle ..................................................................................... . Hon. Barbara F. Vucanovich .......................................................................... . 

Witness statements: Hon. Jim Kolbe, a Representative in Congress from the State of Arizona .. Panel consisting of: Henry M. Montrey, III, Associate Deputy Chief for the National 

Forest System, Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture ....... Wade C. Sherbrooke, Ph.D., director, southwestern research station, 

the American Museum of Natural History, Portal, AZ ..................... . 

Karen Hayes, Portal Mining Action Coalition, Portal, AZ .................... . 

Panel consisting of: Carson (Pete) Culp, Acting Director, Bureau of Land Management, 

Department of the Interior .......................... '. ....................................... . Donna Pozzi, chair, Save Bodie Committee, California State Park 

Rangers Association, Sacramento, CA ................................................ . Joan Reiss, regional director, California/Nevada regional office, The 

Wilderness Society, San Francisco, CA ............................................... . Additional material submitted for the record by Chairman Lehman: 1. Letter to Hon. Bruce Babbitt, Secretary of the Interior, from Hon. Pete 

Wilson, Governor of California, dated February 25, 1993 ....................... .. 2. Letter to Chairman Lehman from Hon. Dan McCorquodale, chair, Senate Committee on Natural Resources and Wildlife, California Legis- lature, dated January 12, 1993 ......... .......................................................... . 3. Resolution of board of supervisors, county of Mono, California, in 

support of H.R. 240, dated March 18, 1993 ....................................... ........ . 

APPENDIX 

MARCH 30, 1993 

Additional material submitted for the hearing record from: Andrea Lawrence, member, Mono County Board of Supervisors, and 

Page 

1 

2 

4 

1 

14 

39 

15 

20 

26 

32 

43 

51 

56 

62 

64 

66 

county supervisor, district No. 5: Prepared statement .............................. 69 

(Ill) 

H.R. 843, CAVE CREEK PROTECTION ACT 

OF 1993, AND 

H.R. 240, THE BODIE PROTECTION ACT 

OF 1993 

TUESDAY, MARCH 30, 1993 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES, 

COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES, 

Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10 a.m., in room 340, 

Cannon House Office Building, Hon. Richard H. Lehman (chairman 

of the subcommittee) presiding. 

STATEMENT OF HON. RICHARD H. LEHMAN 

Mr. LEHMAN. The subcommittee will come to order. 

The subcommittee today is meeting to conduct a hearing on H.R. 

240, the Bodie Protection Act of 1993, which I, along with Chairman Miller, introduced; and H.R. 843, the Cave Canyon Protection 

Act of 1993, introduced by Representative Jim Kolbe of Arizona. I 

have invited Mr. Kolbe to join us on the dais here today, and we 

are happy to have him. 

Following opening statements, the subcommittee will hear testimony first on the Cave Creek Canyon bill, and then we are going 

to proceed to the Bodie bill. H.R. 240 and H.R. 843 would withdraw 

or close public lands to mining in order to protect these areas from 

the adverse effects normally associated with mining. 

[Texts of the bills, H.R. 843 and H.R. 240, follow:] 

(1) 
103D CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION 

2 

H.R.843 

To withdraw certain lands located in the Coronado National Forest from 

the mining and mineral leasing laws of the United States, and for 

other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 4, 1993 

Mr. KOLBE introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on Natural Resources 

A BILL 

To withdraw certain lands located in the Coronado National 

Forest from the mining and mineral leasing laws of 

the United States, and for other purposes. 

l Be it enacted 1>-y th£ Senate and House of Representa2 tives of tlw United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the "Cave Creek Canyon 

5 Protection Act of 1993". 

6 SEC. 2. WITHDRAWAL OF LANDS WITHIN CAVE CREEK CAN7 YON DRAINAGE. 

8 (a) WITHDRA.WAL.-Subject to valid existing rights, 

9 after the date of enactment of this Act lands within the 
3 

2 

1 Cave Creek Canyon Drainage are withdrawn from location 

2 under the general mining laws, the operation of the min3 eral and geothermal leasing laws and the mineral material 

4 disposal laws. 

5 (b) DEFINITION.-For the purposes of this Act, the 

6 term "Cave Creek Canyon Drainage" means lands and in7 terest in lands owned by the United States within the area 

8 depicted on the map of record entitled "Cave Creek Min9 eral Withdrawal", dated November 1, 1991. The map 

10 shall be on file and available for public inspection in the 

11 offices of the Forest Service, Department of Agriculture. 

0 

•HRMS m 
103D CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION 

4 

H. R. 240 

To provide for the protection of the Bodie Bowl area of the State of 

California, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JAJ\'UARY 5, 1993 

Mr. LEHMAN' (for himself and Mr. MILLER of California) introduced the 

following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Natural Resources 

A BILL 

To provide for the protection of the Bodie Bowl area of 

the State of California, and for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 fives of the United States of America in Congress assembwd, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the "Bodie Protection Act 

5 of 1992". 

6 SEC. 2. FINDINGS. 

7 The Congress finds that8 ( 1) the historic Bodie gold mining district in 

9 the State of California is the site of the largest and 
5 

2 

1 best preserved authentic ghost town in the western 

2 United States; 

3 (2) the Bodie Bowl area contains important 

4 natural, historical, and aesthetic resources; 

5 (3) Bodie was designated a National Historical 

6 Landmark in 1961 and a California State Historic 

7 Park in 1962, is listed on the National Register of 

8 Historic Places, and is included in the Federal His9 toric American Buildings Survey; 

10 (4) nearly 200,000 persons visit Bodie each 

11 year, providing the local economy with important an12 nual tourism revenues; 

13 ( 5) the town of Bodie is threatened by propos14 als to explore and extract minerals: mining in the 

15 Bodie Bowl area may have adverse physical and aes16 thetic impacts on Bodie's historical integrity, cul17 tural values, and ghosttown character as well as on 

18 its recreational values and the area's flora and 

19 fauna; 

20 (6) the California State Legislature, on Septem21 ber 4, 1990, requested the President and the Con22 gress to direct the Secretary of the Interior to pro23 tect the ghosttown character, ambience, historic 

24 buildings, and scenic attributes of the town of Bodie 

25 and nearby areas; 

•HR 240 m 
6 

3 

1 (7) the California State Legislature also re2 quested the Secretary, if necessary to protect the 

3 Bodie Bowl area, to withdraw the Federal lands 

4 within the area from all forms of mineral entry and 

5 patent; 

6 (8) the National Park Service listed Bodie as a 

7 priority one endangered National Historic Landmark 

8 in its fiscal year 1990 and 1991 report to Congress 

9 entitled "Threatened and Damaged National His10 toric Landmarks" and recommended protection of 

11 the Bodie area; and 

12 (9) it is necessary and appropriate to provide 

13 that all Federal lands within the Bodie Bowl area 

14 are not subject to location, entry, and patent under 

15 the mining laws of the United States, subject to 

16 valid existing rights, and to direct the Secretary to 

17 consult with the Governor of the State of California 

18 before approving any mining activity plan within the 

19 Bodie Bowl. 

20 SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS .. 

21 For purposes of this Act: 

22 (1) The term "Bodie Bowl" means the Federal 

23 lands and interests in lands within the area gen24 erally depicted on the map referred to in section 

25 4(a). 

•BB 240 m 
7 

4 

1 (2) The term "mining" means any activity in2 volving mineral prospecting, exploration, extraction, 

3 milling, beneficiation, processing, and reclamation. 

4 (3) The term "Secretary" means the Secretary 

5 of the Interior. 

6 SEC. 4. APPLICABILITY OF MINERAL MINING, LEASING AND 

7 DISPOSAL LAWS. 

8 (a) RESTRICTION.-Subject to valid existing rights, 

9 after the date of enactment of this Act Federal lands and 

·10 friterests~infands ~w1thm the area generally depicted on 

11 the map entitled "Bodie Bowl" and dated June 12, 1992, 

12 shall not be13 (1) open to the location of mining and mill site 

14 claims under the general mining laws of the United 

15 States; 

16 (2) subject to any lease under the Mineral 

17 Leasing Act (30 U.S.C. 181 and following) or the 

18 Geothermal Steam Act of 1970 (30 U.S.C. 100 and 

19 following), for lands within the Bodie Bowl; and 

20 (3) available for disposal _of mineral materials 

21 under the Act of July 31, 1947, commonly known as 

22 the Materials Act of 1947 (30 U.S.C. 601 and fol23 lowing). 

24 Such map shall be on file and available for public inspec25 tion in the Office of the Secretary, and appropriate offices 

•HR 240 m 
8 

5 

1 of the Bureau of Land Management and the National 

2 Park Service. As soon as practicable after the date of en3 actment of this Act, the Secretary shall publish a legal 

4 description of the Bodie Bowl area in the Federal Reg5 ister. 

6 (b) VALID EXISTING RIGHTS.-As used in this sub7 section, the term "valid existing rights" in reference to 

8 the general mining laws means that a mining claim located 

9 on lands within the Bodie Bowl was properly located and 

10 maintained under the general mining laws prior to the 

11 date of enactment of this Act, was supported by a discov12 ery of a valuable mineral deposit within the meaning of 

13 the general mining laws on the date of enactment of this 

14 Act, and that such claim continues to be valid. 

15 (c) VALIDITY REVIEW.-The Secretary shall under16 take an expedited program to determine the validity of all 

17 unpatented mining claims located within the Bodie Bowl. 

18 The expedited program shall include an examination of all 

19 unpatented mining claims, including those for which a pat20 ent application has not been filed. If a claim is determined 

21 to be invalid, the Secretary shall promptly declare the 

22 claim to be null and void, except that the Secretary shall 

23 not challenge the validity of any claim located within the 

24 Bodie Bowl for the failure to do assessment work for any 

25 period after the date of enactment of this Act. The Sec-

•BR MO m 
9 

6 

1 retary shall make a determination with respect to the va2 lidity of each claim referred to under this subsection with3 in 2 years after the date of enactment of this Act. 

4 (d) LIMITATION ON PATENT lSSUANCE.-

5 (1) MINING CLAIMS.-(A) After January 11, 

6 1993, no patent shall be issued by the United States 

7 for any mining claim located under the general min8 ing laws within the Bodie Bowl unless the Secretary 

9 determines that, for the claim concerned10 (i) a patent application was filed with the 

11 Secretary on or before such date; and 

12 (ii) all requirements established under sec13 tions 2325 and 2326 of the Revised Statutes 

14 (30 U.S.C. 29 and 30) for vein or lode claims 

15 and sections 2329, 2330, 2331, and 2333 of 

16 the Revised Statues (30 U.S.C. 35, 36, 37) for 

17 placer claims were fully complied with by that 

18 date. 

19 (B) If the Secretary makes the determinations 

20 referred to in subparagraph (A) for any mining 

21 claim, the holder of the claim shall be entitled ·to the 

22 issuance of a patent in the same manner and degree 

23 to which such claim holder would have been entitled 

24 to prior to the enactment of this Act, unless and 

25 until such determinations are withdrawn or invali-

•HR.MO 1H 
10 

7 

1 dated by the Secretary or by a court of the United 

2 States. 

3 (2) MILL SITE CLAIMS.-(A) After January 11, 

4 1993, no patent shall be issued by the United States 

5 for any mill site claim located under the general 

6 mining laws within the Bodie Bowl unless the Sec7 retary determines that, for the claim concerned8 (i) a patent application was filed with the 

9 Secretary on or before January 11, 1993; and 

10 (ii) all requirements applicable to such pat11 ent application were fully complied with by that 

12 date. 

13 (B) If the Secretary makes the determinations 

14 referred to in subparagraph (A) for any mill site 

15 claim, the holder of the claim shall be entitled to the 

16 issuance of a patent in the same manner and degree 

17 to which such claim holder would have been entitled 

18 to prior to the enactment of this Act, unless and 

19 until such determinations are withdrawn or invali20 dated by the Secretary or by a court of the United 

21 States. 

22 SEC. 5. MINERAL ACTIVITIES. 

23 (a) IN GENERAL.-Mineral exploration, mining, 

24 beneficiation, and processing activities on unpatented min25 ing claims within the Bodie Bowl shall be subject to such 

•HR 240 IH 
11 

8 

I regulations prescribed by the Secretary, in consultation 

2 with the Governor of the State of California, as the Sec3 retary deems necessary to ensure that such mineral activi4 ties are conducted5 (1) in accordance with the rules and regulations 

6 promulgated under Public Law 94-429 (16 U.S.C. 

7 1901 et seq.) as they relate to plan of operations, 

8 reclamation requirements, and bonding; and 

9 (2) in a manner that does not cause any adIO verse effect on the historic, cultural, recreational and 

11 natural resource values of the Bodie Bowl area. 

12 (b) RESTORATION OF EFFECTS OF MINING EXPL0-

13 RATION.-As soon as possible after the date of enactment 

14 of this Act, visible evidence or other effects of mining ex15 ploration activity within the Bodie Bowl conducted on or 

16 after September 1, 1988, shall be reclaimed by the opera17 tor in accordance with regulations prescribed pursuant to 

18 subsection (a). 

19 (c) ANNUAL EXPENDITURES; FILING.-The require20 ments for annual expenditures on unpatented mining 

21 claims imposed by Revised Statute 2324 (30 U.S.C. 28) 

22 shall not apply to any such claim located within the Bodie 

23 Bowl. In lieu of filing the affidavit of assessment work 

24 referred to under section 314(a)(l) of the Federal Land 

25 Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 

•HR 240 1H 
12 

9 

1 1744(a)(l)), the holder of any unpatented mining or mill 

2 site claim located within the Bodie Bowl shall only be re3 quired to file the notice of intention to hold the mining 

4 claim referred to in such section 314(a)(l). 

5 (d) REGULATIONS.-The Secretary shall promulgate 

6 the regulations referred to in this section within 90 days 

7 after the date of enactment of this Act. For the purposes 

8 of this Act, the Bureau of Land Management shall pro9 mulgate and administer the rules and regulations referred 

10 to in section 5(a). 

11 SEC. 6. STUDY. 

12 Beginning as soon as possible after the date of enact13 ment of this Act, the Secretary of the Interior, through 

14 the Director of the National Park Service, shall review 

15 possible actions to preserve the scenic character, historical 

16 integrity, cultural and recreational values, flora and fauna, 

17 and ghost town characteristics of lands and structures 

18 ,,'ithin the Bodie Bowl. No later than 3 years after the 

19 date of such enactment, the Secretary shall submit to the 

20 Committee on Natural Resources of the United States 

21 House of Representatives and the Committee on Energy 

22 and Natural Resources of the United States Senate a re23 port that discusses the results of such review and makes 

24 recommendations as to which steps (including but not lim-

•HR 240 IH 
13 

10 

1 ited to acquisition of lands or valid mining claims) should 

2 be undertaken in order to achieve these objectives. 

0 

•HR lMO 1H 

72-559 0 - 93 - 2 
14 

Mr. LEHMAN. Both bills were introduced and passed by the 

House last year, but only the Cave Creek bill passed the Senate 

prior to adjournment. H.R. 843 would, subject to valid existing 

rights, withdraw approximately 13,000 acres of public lands from 

Cave Creek Canyon from general mining laws, mineral leasing, 

and material sales statutes. 

Cave Creek Canyon, located in southeastern Arizona's Coronado 

National Forest, is a sanctuary to many endangered and threatened plants, birds, and mammals. It is one of the Nation's most 

popular and cherished birdwatching spots. It is also a favorite research area for national and international scientists. 

While the biodiversity of Cave Creek Canyon is appreciated by 

many Americans, it has also been the subject of some controversy 

which led Representative Kolbe to develop this bill. This controversy stems from plans by the Newmont Mining Corporation to 

explore for gold in the area. Newmont has since voluntarily withdrawn its plan, but there is no permanent mechanism, short of legislation, to stop Newmont, or any other mining company for that 

matter, from locating new claims in order to mine in the canyon. 

The West's oldest mining town, Bodie, is a National Historic 

Landmark and a State Historic Park located in Mono County, California. Today, over 200,000 tourists visit Bodie every year to see 

the 100-plus buildings, such as the Miners Union Hall, the Methodist Church, and the General Store, and other structures dating 

back to the early 1800s, which still stand there. H.R. 240 would 

withdraw approximately 6,000 acres of BLM lands surrounding the 

State Park from location under the Mining Law of 1872 and from 

operation under the Mining Leasing Laws and Mineral Materials 

Act. This legislation allows for mining to proceed on valid claims 

in the area under rules that seek to protect the State Park's historic resources. Finally, the bill would prohibit the issuance of patents unless the right to a patent had vested as of January 5, 1993. 

Not unlike the situation at Cave Creek Canyon, the Bodie Bowl 

was threatened by the plans of a Canadian mining company which 

began exploring for gold in a 547-acre area adjacent to the Park. 

People were concerned that the landscape would be so severely 

modified by mining that it would lose its historic integrity. 

It should be noted that the mining company in question has filed 

for Chapter 7 bankruptcy protection after causing a costly environmental disaster in Colorado. H.R. 240 remains necessary since 

under the 1872 Mining Law the claims in question could be sold 

and remain valid. 

Today's hearing will allow us to examine the implications of 

these two bills while taking into consideration the significance of 

mining near the Bodie Historic Park in California and Cave Creek 

Canyon in Arizona as well. 

I certainly look forward to today's witnesses, and with that, I will 

recognize a member of the subcommittee, Mr. Doolittle. 

STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN T. DOOLI'ITLE 

Mr. DOOLITILE. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

I presently represent Bodie, and of course you did prior to this 

new session of Congress. You and I have differing views as to the 

desirability of this legislation. I think Bodie is a very interesting 
15 

place, and I would encourage people, when they have the oppor- tunity, to go and take a look at it. 

I don't think Bodie is threatened by minin~. In fact, Bodie is significant because it is the site of mining activity. I think the only place most people have ever seen any mining is probably at Knott's 

Berry Farm, regrettably. Bodie would provide an opportunity for 

people to see how mining used to be and compare it with what it 

is today. 

So I am opposed to the legislation. The viewshed is not impaired, 

from what I could see, by the mining activity, and as you pointed 

out, this particular company has filed under the bankruptcy provisions. But I have a problem with further and further restrictions 

on the use of the public lands. In my opinion, this is an unjustified 

restriction based on the facts. 

I suppose this bill will pass and the restrictions will go into effect, and that will make Bodie an interesting example of a ghost 

town, but we will be denying the people the opportunity to see mining as it exists today, in the 1990s. So I am going to oppose the 

bill. I appreciate the chance to make this statement, and I'm sure 

the testimony to be presented will be of use to the committee. 

Mr. LEHMAN. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Kolbe. 

STATEMENT OF HON. JIM KOLBE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ARIZONA 

Mr. KOLBE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I'm sitting between you and Mr. Doolittle, but I think I won't get 

into the controversy about Bodie here this morning. The other bill 

which you are hearing, the first one, is one that I hope will be noncontroversial, and I appreciate very much your willingness to hold 

this early hearing on it. 

I want to thank my colleague and the ranking Republican on this 

subcommittee, Mrs. Vucanovich, for the support that she gave to 

the bill last year. 

Mr. Chairman, I have a full statement. With your indulgence, I 

will submit that for the record. 

Mr. LEHMAN. Without objection. 

Mr. KOLBE. Just let me say very quickly, in a few moments, after 

you hear from the Forest Service, you will hear from two people 

who live in the area of Cave Creek, and they can tell you in a far 

more articulate fashion than I can the value of Cave Creek to our 

State, to our Nation. You will hear from Wade Sherbrooke, who is 

the director of the Southwestern Research Station, which comes 

under the umbrella of the American Museum of Natural History, 

and from Karen Hayes, who is with the Portal Mining Action Coalition. 

Cave Creek is a very special area; there is no question about it. 

It is really an extraordinary place; its natural beauty is apparent 

and the research station there suggests that it has some extraordinary scientific value. There are species of birds in that area that 

are found nowhere else and more species of birds than found just 

about anyplace else in the United States. It has remarkable diversity of plant life and animal species and is remarkably good in 

terms of a recreation area. 
16 

The legislation which we have introduced came about as a result 

of a claim that was filed, as you suggested, by Newmont Mining 

Company. While all this area is subject to claims, there had not 

been any active mineral exploration. The sudden filing of this claim 

alerted people to the fact of their intention to go ahead with operations, that there might indeed be some real mining activity in the 

area. As a result of this and discussions with the Forest Service it 

was my view that we should withdraw this area permanently from 

mining activity, and hence the legislation which we have introduced. 

As you noted, Newmont has, temporarily at least, withdrawn its 

plan for operations. That could be resubmitted at any time or by 

some other company that might decide to get those claims. The 

Forest Service has also withdrawn it administratively, but I think 

it is important to note that that administrative segregation expires 

in September of this year, and while they could reimpose this for 

another length of time-I don't think we should just simply wait 

for this to keep being done. From an administrative standpoint, we 

ought to resolve this issue. 

There seems to be no opposition to this bill that we have heard 

of. I am very delighted to have this chance to present this statement and the testimony to you today about this legislation. Thank 

you, Mr. Chairman, for your indulgence and for permitting me to 

be up here on the dais with you. 

[Prepared statement of Mr. Kolbe follows:] 
17 

STATEMENT OF CONGRESSMAN JIM KOLBE 

BEFORE THE NATURAL RESOURCES SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES 

ON THE CAVE CREEK CANYON PROTECTION ACT OF 1993 

MARCH 30, 1993 

Good morning, Hr. Chairman, and thank you for holding this hearing on the Cave Creek Canyon Protection Act. Last Congress, a similar bill was favorably reported out of the former Mining and Natural Resources 

subco11111ittee. That same bill, traveled a long way through the process, 

eventually running out of time in the waning hours of the Congress.· Both the Senate and the House passed the bill, but, unfortunately, the 

Senate didn't pass the bill until the final hours of the 102nd Congress, 

at which time the House had already concluded its business. That was a particularly regrettable outcome because the bill had no known 

opposition. It was supported at all stages of the legislative process and it is easy to understand why. . t 

To understand the importance of this withdrawal, I only wish members of 

this subcommittee could visit this magical part of southeastern Arizona. 

I grew up near this area. For years I have enjoyed the spectacular beauty of the Chiricahua Mountains. Cave Creek and Portal, on the north 

side of the mountains, have been, until now, one of the best kept 

secrets among the many natural wonders in this country. This place really is magnificent! But you don't have to take my word for it. Just 

ask the two guests who have joined us today from Cave creek, Wade 

Sherbrooke, the Director of the Southwestern Research Station for the 

American Museum of Natural History, and Karen Hayes, of the Portal 

Mining Action Coalition. I appreciate their being here. 

What makes this area special? Simply put, Cave Creek Canyon is 

unparalleled in its diversity of species and plant life, its value to 

scientific researchers and recreational users, and its breathtaking beauty . 

There is bio-diversity unlike any other area of comparable size in the 

U.S. Cave Creek is home to endangered species such as the peregrine falcon, the desert tortoise and the sanborn Long-nosed bat. Javelina, jaguar, and jaguarundi are known to frequent the area. Birds of all 

stripes and color also call Cave Creek home. 

There are 13 species of hummingbirds and 12 species of owls, alone. 

That's more variety of humingbirds than found anyplace else in the 

United States. The 50 trogons that use the canyon for breeding comprise half the U.S. population of this colorful tropic species. Thick-billed 

parrots, not found any place else in the U.S., are flourishing in the 

friendly confines of the canyon. Over 330 species of birds have been 

recorded in the area. This area is considered by many to be the single best birding spot in the country. 

But we don't have to look to the sky over Cave Creek to find unusual, 

astonishing animal species. There's the exotic chiricahua leopard 

frogs, the green rat snakes, the yaacqui black-headed snakes and the 
18 

blue-throated hummingbirds that occupy the canyon . . .. and on and on. Studying the area's plant and animal life is like looking in a Who's Who 

of rare and exotic species. 

There is more to the canyon than rare and exotic plants and animals. 

The scientific value of the region is immeasurable, resulting in almost 

1000 disparate scientific publications, many outlining new discoveries 

in ecology, toxicology, and evolutionary biology. For example, research on scorpion venom is being conducted at Cave Creek to determine its 

possible use in treating human neurological diseases. The presence of 

the Southwestern Research Station of the American Museum of Natural, 

History has played a significant role in much of this research. It is 

not a stretch to say that this region has produced more scientific 

discovery and achievement than any other area in the world of comparable size. 

The scenic values are also spectacular. Perhaps A. B. Gray, a railrpad 

surveyor, summed up the beauty of the canyon in 1854 when he wrote 1 fl 

his journal: "The view of this canon[sic] in the morning, with the 

sunlight reflected from its deep recesses, and upright wall rising majestically on all sides to a height of several thousand feet, tapering like spires amid the clouds, presented a scene of grandeur and beauty.• 

Mr. Chairman, as those words, written 140 years ago, suggest these lands 

truly are magnificent. But a lot of other public lands could fit this 

description as well. That doesn't mean beautiful scenery should 

automatically preclude other, productive uses of land. That's why I 

support multiple use of public lands. I believe that mining, grazing, recreation, among others, are valuable and legitimate uses for public 

lands. However, we should recognize there are some lands so un ique and so special that mining activity, with its physical scarring and 

ecological disruption, would be inappropriate. Cave Creek is such an area. 

The Cave Creek Canyon Protection Act of 1993 is a simple bill. Like its 

predecessor, it protects lands in Cave Creek from mineral activity. This bill is virtually identical to the one I introduced last Congress and is identical to the one that passed the Senate in the final hours of 

last Congress. I hope and expect this bill to enjoy the same overwhelming support that the original did . 

This is especially true in light of new developments that add urgency to 

the need to protect the Canyon . The impetus for the original bill 

stemmed from Forest Service approval of a plan of operations for 

exploratory drilling in the Cave Creek area. The plan was approved 

November 23, 1990, and subsequently appealed on January 7, 1991, by the 

Portal Mining Action Coalition. On December 21, 1990, before the 

appeal, Newmont decided to defer mineral activity for one year in order 

to allow interested parties to seek a withdrawal from mining activities 

of the area. 

At the request of local residents and others in southeastern Arizona, as well as hundreds of people from around the country, I introduced the 

original bill in June of 1991 to accomplish a legislative withdrawal of 
19 

the Cave Creek area. The original bill and this bill are the product of 

extensive discussions with the various interested parties and would 

prevent only mining activity in the area. Other uses would be 

unaffected. 

Following the introduction of the original bill, the Forest Service 

announced its own administrative withdrawal of Cave Creek for two years 

to allow consideration of its proposal to establish a National 

Recreation Area in the Coronado National Forest. Its proposal had 

included the area proposed for withdrawal in the original bill. 

Subsequent to that announcement, Newmont withdrew its request for 

exploratory drilling operations in the area. 

The Forest Service, however, has shelved its National Recreation 

proposal for the time being. Moreover, the two year withdrawal period is quickly expiring. On September 27, 1993, Forest Service protection will be lost, leaving the land open to development. Whether the Forrst 

Service wi 11 attempt to protect this area with future segregation)'$ an open question. But the possibility of Forest Service action is no guarantee of adequate long--or even short term--protection. Only quick Congressional action can assure protection of this irreplaceable gem called Cave Creek Canyon. 

If you believe in protecting unique and spectacular areas, this bill 

deserves your support. I urge your favorable consideration so that this 

national treasure can be preserved for future generations. 
20 

PANEL CONSISTING OF HENRY M. MONTREY, III, ASSOCIATE 

DEPUTY CHIEF FOR THE NATIONAL FOREST SYSTEM, FOREST SERVICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE; WADE C. 

SHERBROOKE, PH.D., DIRECTOR, SOUTHWESTERN RESEARCH STATION, THE AMERICAN MUSEUM OF NATURAL 

HISTORY, PORTAL, AZ; AND KAREN HAYES, PORTAL MINING 

ACTION COALITION, PORTAL, AZ 

Mr. LEHMAN. Thank you very much, and with that, we will go 

to the first panel. Let me suggest that we take Mr. Montrey and 

put him on the panel with Wade Sherbrooke and Karen Hayes. That will expedite things, when you are all three together. So if 

those three people would come forward, without objection, we will 

put your entire statements in the record and ask you to summarize, and we will start with our deputy chief for forest systems, Mr. 

Montrey. 

STATEMENT OF HENRY M. MONTREY, III 

Mr. MONTREY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the opportunity to express the views of the Department of Agriculture relat- ed to H.R. 843. The views of the Department of Agriculture are 

straightforward and a pleasure for me to state: We support its enactment. As indicated by Congressman Kolbe, the Cave Creek Canyon 

area is an unusual and, we agree, special area. Living within it are 

plant and animal species that are representative of the Sierra 

Madres and the Rocky Mountains, and probably the most unique 

and special attribute of it is the broad range of biological diversity 

that exists within a relatively small area. It contains elevations 

that range between 4,000 and 10,000 feet and spectacular scenery 

and, by any measure to us in the Forest Service, a very special 

area. 

Because of the unique values associated with this area, we suggest and agree that it is appropriate to withdraw the area from 

mineral entry, leasing, and disposal, and in fact, as was articulated 

earlier, we are working together with the Bureau of Land Management and have already, albeit temporarily, withdrawn or segregated the area from mineral entry under administrative procedures, and I believe we have submitted to the subcommittee a supplemental statement which provides background information on 

that, on that existing segregation and the timing for its extension 

and the procedure for renewing it. 

There are a couple of things that we would like to point out, we 

the Forest Service would like to point out to the subcommittee, in 

the way of suggestions, and there are just two. One relates to section 2(a) in the bill, and the second relates to section 2(b). In section 2(a), we would like to point out that that section, as 

currently worded, would only withdraw the area refarred to in the 

bill from location under the general mining laws but would not 

withdraw the area from entry in patent. In the way it is currently 

worded, the bill would permit the patent of claims, we believe, for 

which valid existing rights have been established. Furthermore, 

since those lands would remain open to entry, the bill might allow 

the continued prospecting on invalid claims, and if the prospecting 

led to discovery, arguably then any such claim could be patented. 
21 

What we would like to propose for your consideration is, you may 

wish to consider revising section 2(a) such that it would withdraw 

the area from the operation of the general mineral laws subject to 

valid existing rights, and we have suggested in the written testimony specific wording for that. 

The motivation for suggesting this to you is that that revision 

would not only prevent the future location of claims but would also 

prohibit two other things: one, the patent of claims for which valid 

existing rights had not been established prior to the withdrawal 

date; and, two, any prospecting after the withdrawal date which 

might lead to discovery. 

The second suggestion we have for you I would classify under the 

heading of ''wordsmithing." We suggest in section 2(b) that the 

lands that are currently described as "lands and interest in lands 

owned by the United States" would more correctly be identified as 

"National Forest System lands." 

In summary, we in the Forest Service, working with the Bureau 

of Land Management, as stated earlier, have taken administrative 

actions to segregate the Cave Creek area. H.R. 843 is consistent 

with that and would make permanent those segregations, and we 

support the enactment of H.R. 843. 

That concludes my testimony. 

[Prepared statement of Mr. Montrey follows:] 
22 

STATEMENT OF 

HENRY M. MONTREY, III 

ASSOCIATE DEPUTY CHIEF FOR THE NATIONAL FOREST SYSTEM 

FOREST SERVICE 

UNITED STATES DbPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Before the 

Subcommitte e on Energy and Mineral Resources 

Committee on Natural Resources 

United States House of Representati ves 

Conc erning H.R. 84 3 . Cave Creek Canyon Protection Act of 1993 

March 30 , 1993 

MR. CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE : 

Thank you f or the opportunity :::o p resent the views o f ': he 

Depart ment of Agri cul cure regarding H. R. 843, a b ill '"To 

withd r aw certain lands located in the Coronado National Forest 

from the min i n g a nd mine r a l lea s ing laws o f t he Un ited Stat es, 

and fo r other purposes. " 

The Department of Ag ri cul t u re suppo r Ls e n 2 strnent o f 

cl.R. 8 43. 

E.R . 843 would wi thdr aw c ertain lan ds r eferred to as t ~e Cave 

:=reek Canyon dra .. i :iage f r om locati c n unde r the general r:1.ining 

l aws , the op e ration o f the miner a l and geothermal leasing laws. 

a n d the mineral material disp osal :aws . 

We s houl d point ou t t hat Section 2(a) would only withdraw the 

a r ea re f erred to in the bill f r om loc ati o n under the general 

mining l a ws, but woul d not withdr a w t he a r ea from entry and 

patent . As cur rently d raf ted, ~he b i ll would p errni t the patent 

of c laims f or whi ch v alid existing r i g hts have been 
23 

established. Furthermore , since the lands would remain open to 

entry, the bill might allow the continued prospecting on invalid 

claims, and if the prospecting led to discovery, arguably the 

claim could be patented. The Subcommittee may wish to consider 

revising Section 2(a) to withdraw the area from the "operation 

of the general mining laws ... " subject to valid existing 

rights. This revision would not only prevent the future 

location of claims, but would also prohibit (1) the patent of 

c laims for which valid existing rights had not been established 

prior t o the withdrawal date and (2) any prospecting after the 

withdrawal date which might lead to discovery. 

The Cave creek drainage i s an unusual riparian area with plant 

and animal species represented from the Sierra Madres as well as 

the Rocky Mountains. The broad range of biological diversity in 

a relatively small area is perhaps the most unique aspect of the 

Cave Creek Canyon area. Elevations range from about 4,000 to 

10,000 feet, with spectacular scenery, especially in the lower 

c anyon area . A , .-· .. -ber of vegetative communities are represented 

from the upper ~~noran grassland to the Spruce-fir forest. 

Large Sycamore trees, Fremont cottonwood, Arizona cypress, 

Apache pine , Douglas fir, and o ther water-dependent plants can 

be found in this canyon . Additionally , unusual and uncommon 

animal species, such as the Lucifer, blue-throated, and 

magnificent hummingbirds, elegant trogon, spotted owl, Apache 

fox squirrel, and coatimundi c an be found in this area. 

Because of the unique values, the Department of Agriculture 

a grees that it is appropriate to withdraw the Cave Creek Canyon 
24 

Area from mineral entry, leasing, and disposal. ~he a rea ~s 

currently temporarily withdrawn (segregated) from mineral entry 

under administrative procedures. The area depicted on the map 

referred to in H.R. 843 includes areas outside the Cave Creek 

Canyon drainage. A map depicting the drainage area has been 

provided to the Subcommittee. The map depicts the private lands 

within the drainage. Our Supplemental Statement provides 

background information on that existing segregation. 

Regarding H.R. 843, we note that the lands referenced in 

Section 2(b) are more correctly identified as "National Forest 

System Lands, " rather than " lands and i nterest in lands owned by 

the United States." 

In summary, the Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management 

have tak.en administrative actions to segregate the Cave Creek 

Canyon area from location and entry under the mining laws. 

Since H.R. 843 is consistent with these actions, we support the 

bill. 

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement. I would be happy to 

answer any questions you or members of the Subcommittee may 

have. 
25 

3UPPLEMENTAL STATEMENT 

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

~oncerning H. R. $43 

Sackground o n the Cave Creek Area 

On November 23, 1990, the Forest Service approved a plan of cperac.1ons for gold 

exploration submitted by the Newmont Mining Corporation (NMCJ ~he drilling of 

four exploration holes and reconstruction of 3,000 feet of ::-oad were authorized 

to take place near the mouth of Cave Creek Canyon on the Co ronado Natio nal 

Forest, Douglas Ranger Distric:. The District Ranger subsequently received a 

letter dated December :1, 1990, from the NMC that stated: (ll exploration 

activities would be deferred for 12 months so that :ncerested parties who would 

like to see t he Cave Creek Area withdrawn would h ave time t o c ontact ~h eir 

respective Members of Congress about t" o rma l ·,1ithdrawal o f ::!"le area, ; ~) a 

formal withdrawal would not .te opposed, a nd ( 3 ) NMC ·,;ou l d abandon :.~5 mining 

c laims if the area were wichdra\ol!l. 

The Portal Mining Acticn Ccal i ~~on , ~ ~o cal o rgan1.zac1. c n , ~ppealed =h e 

November 1990 Forest Se r v ice ~ecis i o n approv ing c ~e p l an c f ~p erac1ons :~r ~:MC 

o n January 7 , 1991. 

On August 21, 1991, the Forest Service filed the appropriate application for 

segregacion (temporary wichdrawal ) with the Bureau of Land Management tBLMl. 

The segregation request included the area on whic~ Newmont's mining c l aims were 

located. 

On August 27, 1991, the Forest Service issued a news release stating that NMC 

had withdrawn its approved plan of operations. As a result of NMC actions, the 

Portal Mining Action Coalition appeal ·,1as dismissed. NMC st.aced that ::.heir 

action was in response to the segregation request (about ~ 1 ,000 acres) by che 

Forest Service to the BLM as pare of the consideracion of the area fer the 

establishment of a National Recreation Area (NRA) The BLM published a notice 

i n the September 27, 1991, ?ederal Regis;cer which administrac.i•, ely ·N1chdrew 

{segregaced) approximate l y 91, 0 00 acres (including all o f the l ands i dentified 

i n H.R. 843) from l o cation and entry under che mining l aws for: years pendin g 

final consideration of the area as a NRA. About half (44,810 acresi c f the 

segregation request was for lands in the v icinity of Cave Creek. 
26 

Mr. LEHMAN. Thank you very much. 

Who would like to go next? 

Dr. Sherbrooke. 

STATEMENT OF WADE C. SHERBROOKE, PH.D. 

Dr. SHERBROOKE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I have a copy of some photographic materials we have prepared 

and submitted to the committee previously as well as bibliographic 

and news items, and I thought that you might want to flip through 

this during some of the testimony to get an image of the area. 

I wish today, this morning, I had you on a tour bus and we were 

coming across the San Simon Valley from the eastern side of the 

Chiricahua Mountains and you would see the grand entryway into 

the Chiricahuas that is Cave Creek Canyon and the mouth of Cave 

Creek Canyon. Indeed, this is the proposed site for the Newmont 

mining interests which they have subsequently dropped but the 

site that has given rise to this bill. 

If we proceeded up that mountain range, we would pass through 

Cave Creek Canyon; and I wouldn't have to tell you how spectacular it is in terms of its scenery; that is apparent to anyone. But 

what I would like to tell you a little bit about this morning is what 

would be apparent if you stayed there and studied the area as a 

scientist. 

Indeed, the scientists who began coming there in the 1950s from 

the American Museum of Natural History began to see its unique 

qualities in terms of biodiversity, the numbers of species that 

occur, in Cave Creek Canyon and in the surrounding area. Cave 

Creek Canyon is clearly, if you look at the mountains and canyons in the Chiricahua Mountains, the outstanding canyon. It is on the 

east side of the mountains, it receives a higher amount of rainfall, 

and it has a higher amount of biodiversity. 

But the area in which Cave Creek Canyon and the Chiricahuas 

exist is what I have been recently calling the biological Grand Canyon of North America. We are in an archipelago of islands, if you 

will, in a desert sea. This archipelago of islands stretches between 

the Sierre Madre Occidental of western Mexico and the Rocky 

Mountains of the western United States, and it is a rich area of 

mixing of tropical species elements, things like the elegant trogon, 

which people come from not only all over the United States but we 

have tour groups coming in there from Scandinavia to see the birds 

of Cave Creek Canyon. They come to see these tropical elements 

coming into the United States here. We also have a mixing of 

things from the Rocky Mountains, and this is what gives us our 

species diversity, this mixing of elements in biogeographic terms 

between north and south biota. 

If we look down at the lower elevations, we are at a place that 

is a juncture, that has been identified as a corridor by 

biogeographers, of mixing of species between two of the four great 

North American deserts: the Chihuahuan Desert to our east and 

the Sonoran Desert to our west. It is this diversity coming out of 

the mixing of these biogeographical areas that makes southeastern 

Arizona the outstanding area in North America in terms of 

biodiversity. The Coronado National Forest is claiming-and I am 
27 

in full accord with that-that they have, of all of our National Forests, the highest biodiversity of any place in our system. 

The other thing that we find of interest, as scientists in Cave 

Creek Canyon, is, as you go from Portal itself to the top of the 

Chiricahua Mountains you go through five of the ecological life 

zones of North America, providing us, working at the research station at 5,400 feet, a diversity of ecological situations for investigation. 

For these reasons, scientists have been coming to the Southwestern Research Station and also just coming to the area on their own 

for many years since the founding now of the station in 1955 by 

the American Museum. A community of people congregates here 

every year, coming from across the country, from universities in 

California, New York, Michigan, and coming from countries overseas; we have German scientists, French scientists, Italians, South 

Americans, coming to work at the station every year. We have 

about 170 scientists working out of the station annually. 

This community comes to Cave Creek Canyon up in the canyon 

about five miles above Portal annually to study this unique and 

very diverse biota. The results of those investigations over these 

years have been published in the scientific literature of the world. 

We have just down at the station about 800 publications. There are 

at least an additional 200 publications of scientists not working out 

of the station. We have university classes come; we have a volunteer program of young scientists who are being trained at the station each year. 

The development of a mine on mineralized lands at the mouth 

of Cave Creek Canyon and in Cave Creek Canyon would have a 

very significant impact on the activities of these people and on the 

data base that they have built. This is an area now that a scientist 

can come to and know an incredible amount because of the people 

who have come before them and studied various aspects of the ecology and biota in this area. 

What we are using here is this area as a laboratory to go in and 

study how the natural world is put together and how it functions 

so that we as a civilization can better understand how we can 

interact with that component of the planet that we live on, and I'm 

glad to hear that the Forest Service is now in favor of Mr. Kolbe's 

bill. We certainly believe that in terms of the long haul on protect- ing this area congressional action is the only way to achieve this. 

Thank you very much. 

[Prepared statement of Dr. Sherbrooke follows:] 
28 

Statement 

Karch 30, 1993, Hearing of the 

Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources 

U. S. House of Representatives 

From: Wade c. Sher-brooke, Ph. D. 

Director 

Southwestern Research Station 

The American Museum of Natural History 

Portal, Arizona 85632 

( 602) 558-2396 

Cave Creek Canyon Protection Act of 1993 

Re: H. R. 843 

Since 1869 the American Museum of Natural History has been 

supporting the exploration and study of biological and cultural 

diversity on this planet. The contributions of this nonprofit 

institution to the scientific enterprise in the United States 

have been enormous. Its leading worldwide role in natural 

history research and education continues to result in significant 

advances in our understanding of biodiversity everywhere. 

In 1955 the Museum established the Southwestern Research 

Station in one of the areas of highest biodiversity in North 

America, Cave Creek Canyon of the Chiricahua Mountains in 

southeastern Arizona. The research station was made possible 

through the generosity and foresight of Hr. David Rockefeller. 

Subsequent investments-- financial, scientific. and intellectual 

-- have been extraordinarily productive . 

The Research Station is located in the Chiricahua Mountains, 

which rise from broad valleys to heights of nearly 9,800 feet. 

Within a short drive, five Life-2ones of the western United 

States can be found: Lower Sonoran. Upper Sonoran. Transition, 

Canadian, and Hudsonian. These LiCe-3ones reClect an ecological 

variety that contributes to the biodiversity or the area. But 

another factor, unique to the Chiricahua Mountains, makes them 

unusually rich. This is their biogeographic location on the 

North American continent. 

The biota or the higher elevations in the Chiricahua 

Mountains have strong biogeographic connections to the Rocky 

Mountains of the western United States to the north, and to the 

Sierra Madre Occidental of northwestern Mexico to the south. 

The mixture of northern and southern plants and animals produces 

a uniquely diverse biota. In a similar fashion, the valleys 

surrounding the Chiricahuas are located in a biogeographical 

corridor between two great deserts of North America--the 

Chihuahuan Desert to the east and the warmer Sonoran Desert to 

the west. Thus the species richness of Cave Creek Canyon results 

from elevational factors combining with biogeographical factors. 

Scientists from around the country are drawn to this superb 

natural laboratory of life. 
2 

The Southwestern Research Station has attained national and 

international preeminence for its outstanding scientific and 

educational achievements. Yearly the facilities are utili2ed by 

over 170 scientists from institutions across the country and 

around the world. Since its f~unding, researchers have produced 

over 800 scientific publications based on their studies at and 

near the Station. The biota of Cave Creek Canyon and nearby 

areas is one of the best studied and best documented in North 

America. One of our significant studies, on the evolution of 

"altruistic" social behavior in birds, has spanned the last 

quarter century; many studies have continued for over a decade. 

The high quality of the research conducted is attested to by 

National Science Foundation <NSF>, National Geographic Society 

and other grants received annually by scientists working at the 

Station. The Station itself has been awarded NSF facilities and 

equipment improvement grants in 1989 and 1991, signifying NSF's 

evaluation of the importance of the Southwestern Research Station 

to the national scientific enterprise. 

The Research Station has also served an important educational role. Numerous young scientists have out their field 

research teeth doing studies in Cave Creek Canyon, as have 

undergraduate volunteers (future graduate students and professionals> , thirty of whom participate in our program each year. 

The Station also serves a public educational role by 

accommodating naturalist visitors as overnight guests. In 1992, 

1,519 people spent 8 , 280 person days at the Station. These 

people have come to learn about and enjoy the biotic diversity or 

Cave Creek Canyon. Many come specifically to seek unusual birds 

found nowhere else in North America. Cave Creek Canyon is 

clearly a national treasure in this sense alone . 

Three years ago, Newmont Mining Corporation proposed mineral 

exploration on U. S. Forest Service lands at the mouth of Cave 

Creek Canyon, directly threatening the future of our scientific 

and educational goals. The concern felt by the American Museum 

of Natural History for the future of Cave Creek Canyon was shared 

by others nationally and internationally. People in the 

community organi2ed the Portal Mining Action Coalition to bring the iaaue to the attention oC concerned citi2ena. A national 

outcry was heard urging that this piece of U. S. Forest Service 

land be withdrawn from mineral entry. That outcry echoed 

through the pages of Science, the New York Times, numerous other 

newspapers, and the newsletters of virtually ever environmental 

end birdwatching group acroaa the country. 

In response, Newmont Mining Corporation withdrew its 

proposed exploration plan for one year •to allow interested 

parties to approach their respective Congressmen and Senators to 

request that the area be withdrawn from mineral entry .. . . • The 

bill before you today, H. R. 843--introduced to the House or 

Representatives by Congressman Jim Rolbe, 5th Diatrict, Ari2ona--

ia a direct reault or efforts by the American Muaeum or Natural 

History, the Portal Mining Action Coalition, concerned scientists, birdwatchers, and other• who have worked in Cave Creek 

72-559 0 - 93 - 3 
30 

3 

Canyon and have a stake in the future or its biotic integrity. 

All these parties agree that the scientific, scenic, and recreational values or the Cave Creek Canyon area to the American 

people far outweigh any potential economic returns that might 

result from discovery or economically recoverable minerals. 

For more than three years now, great efforts have been made 

to seek other means of securing Cave Creek Canyon from the 

biological disintegration that mining activities would bring to 

this unique focal point of biodiversity. At the request of the 

U.S. Forest Service, the Portal Mining Action Coalition documented the significance of Cave Creek Canyon and asked that it be 

considered for administrative withdrawal from mineral entry. 

The Forest Service chose to deal with the issue in the 

context of a proposed National Recreation Area CNRA>--Desert 

Islands NRA--in Coronado National Forest, and under that umbrella segregated the area, including Cave Creek Canyon and its 

entryway (portions of Silver Creek and the Newmont claims areal 

for two years. In so doing, the U.S. Forest Service indicated 

its evaluation that the Cave Creek Canyon Area has greater 

national significance for its scientific and recreational values 

than for any potential mineral wealth. Newmont Mining 

Corporation this time responded by completely withdrawing their 

operating plan. Earlier approval of Newmont' s plan, by the 

Forest Service, had been appealed by the Portal Mining Action 

Coalition. 

The concept of "Des.ert Islands National Recreation Area" 

was poorly conceived by _the Coronado National Forest, and 

following overwhelming public criticism, has been dropped by the 

U.S. Forest Service . Current segregation expires on September 

27, 1993 . The future of Cave Creek Canyon's mineral exploration 

status should not be left in such a precarious situation. It 

need not be when the bill before this Subcommittee can clearly 

resolve this single aspect of future management of the Cave Cree~ 

Canyon area. 

H. R. 843 is a straightforward bill whos e single purpose i s 

to protect the biological integrity or the 13,000-acre Cave 

Creek Canyon Area, with its scientific, educational, 

recreational, and cultural values, from any detrimental effects 

of mineral exploration and extraction. The Forest Service seems 

to have seen the wisdom in this designation by segregating the 

area in question from mineral entry in their ill-fated NRA 

p r oposal. Newmont Mining Corporation has withdrawn, twice now, 

their exploration plans. To our knowledge , no other minera l 

concern has voiced opposition to withdrawal . The Portal Minin g 

Action Coalition, individual scientists, naturalists, 

birdwatchers, outdoor recreation enthusiasts, residents, and 

others have expressed their support of mineral withdrawal or the 

Cave Creek Canyon irea . 

H. R. 843 would provide long-term, congressional protection 

for- the area. Forest Service administrative efforts. if 

forthcoming, will be subject to administrative reversal , are of 

limited duration, and are unlikely to include minerali2ed areas 
31 

' or aigniticant reaearch and acenic value•, the Newmont claiarea and Silver Creek areaa, or Cave Creek Canyon and ita 

entryway into the Chiricahua Mountain• . 

The American Muaeum or Natural Hiatory atrongly aupporta 

Congreaaman lolba'a bill, H. R. 843. Having bean inatrumantal in 

the investment or dacadaa or aciantific accomplishment• in an 

area that has itself become an international biotic databaaa, wa 

can clearly••• ita • igniticanca to the nation aa an area naading 

unusual management care. If a mining operation were to be placed 

on Poraat Sarvica landa in Cava Creek Canyon, or naar its entry, 

the existence of the Southwaatern Research Station and ita work 

would be jeopardised. 

The intricacies or natural relationships between organism• 

cannot be atudied in an environment where man•• industrial 

activitiea are intrusive and diaruptive. Not only are mining 

activitiea a threat to thia uniquely diver•• biota but they alao 

threaten the continuity or scientific inveatigations that have 

baen rocused on thia biota and remain dependent on its ecological 

integrity. We risk deatroying, beyond repair, an outdoor 

laboratory that ha• been axtramely productive and will serve aa a 

foundation tor ruture generations of studies if properly 

protected. 
32 

Mr. LEHMAN. Thank you very much. 

Ms. Hayes. 

STATEMENT OF KAREN HAYES 

Ms. HAYES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this hearinR 

on the Cave Creek Canyon Protection Act. 

My name is Karen Hayes, and I am a resident of Portal, Arizona, 

at the entrance to Cave Creek Canyon in the Chiricahua Mountains of southeast Arizona. Also, I am a member of the Portal Mining Action Coalition, which is a small, local organization formed 

two years ago for the sole purpose of protecting Cave Creek Canyon 

from the mining activity. 

A description of Portal is appropriate to this issue. About 120 

people draw mail at the Portal post office, which is one of only 

three nonresidential buildings in our tiny town. The other two are 

a small but active branch of the county library and the Portal 

Store/Bed and Breakfast. Coming into Portal, however, you would 

not imagine there were even that many people living in the area. 

The houses are situated here and there along the creek bottom or 

amid the mesquite that cover much of the canyon entrance just 

outside the National Forest boundary. We are remote; the nearest 

town is 65 miles away. 

It is primarily due to this remoteness that the combination of unspoiled beauty and unparalleled biological and botanical diversity 

makes this an area that is acknowledged nationally and internationally as unique, and I use the word in its most literal sense. 

As an example, Cave Creek Canyon has the greatest diversity of 

breeding land birds of any comparable area in the country. 

"Unique" is also the terms used by the Forest Service in describing 

this part of the Coronado National Forest as the "jewel in the 

grown of the National Forest System." 

It has long been established that Cave Creek Canyon is of great 

value not just to the local and regional residents but to the naturalists, hikers, photographers, and birding enthusiasts from across the 

United States and beyond, and it has been demonstrated that this 

immediate area is literally of unequalled value in the realm of biological research. All of these qualities continue to exist because the 

area is undeveloped, uncrowded, and unspoiled. 

When word caine of the possibility that an open pit gold mine 

could be established at the entrance to the canyon, we in the Portal 

region reacted at first with disbelief. Our inquiries to the Forest 

Service about what could be done to protect the area were met with 

resolute statements that there was absolutely nothing we could do. 

We realized that, by ourselves and given our few numbers, our 

ability to influence the situation was limited. We formed the Portal 

Mining Action Coalition based on the conviction that if the many 

thousands of people State-wide, nationally, and even internationally who know of the area could be made aware of the situation, 

surely the nonmineral values of Cave Creek Canyon could be put 

first. 

So the Coalition began a publicity and direct mail effort to inform the public. From the very beginning of our efforts, we explained that our interest is in protecting the unique qualities of 

this area, that we are not opposed to all mining everywhere, and 
33 

that we support the concept of multiple use of public lands. We 

take the reasonable position, however, that some areas are not appropriate to mining activity, and Cave Creek Canyon is one of 

those areas. 

The response to our efforts was overwhelming. Regional newspaper stories about the issue brought interest from other news publications across the country, including the New York Times. In addition, Science magazine, National Geographic, Defenders-which is 

the publication of Defenders of Wildlife-the publication Wildlife 

Conservation of the New York Zoological Society, and many others, 

including a large number of birding publications, all helped to 

spread the word. 

People responded by contacting us and offering to help. Businesses in Tucson and other regional towns donated materials, copying, and photo reproductions. We heard from many organizations, 

including the Federation of Western Outdoor Clubs, which represents a quarter-million members primarily in the western States. 

We received copies of many personal protest letters written to the 

Forest Service and Newmont Mining Corporation from people 

across the U.S. and from foreign countries, even from as far away 

as South Africa. 

One letter to the chief of the Forest Service was from an employee of Texas Instruments Corporation, who said, "As one of the 

largest industrial purchasers of refined gold and silver, I am aware 

of mining operations . . . There is currently more than enough gold 

available in the world for commercial, medical, and investment requirements. I submit that the area in its present undisturbed state 

is more valuable to the public and future public than the potential 

discovery of a valuable precious metal deposit." 

By far, most of the letters are from ordinary citizens, but others 

are from people like Edward 0. Wilson of Harvard University; Karl 

Krombein of the Smithsonian Institute; Bert Holldobler at the Zoological Institute in Wursburg, Germany; Paul Erlich of Stanford; 

Tom Eisner and Oliver Hewitt of Cornell. All are renowned scientists who are aware of the area's unique values for research. 

In addition, the city of Douglas, Arizona, our nearest town, 

passed a resolution urging passage of this bill. Our county supervisors support this legislation, as does the Arizona Sonora Desert 

Museum, which is a fine and respected natural history and education institution in Tucson. In a House Concurrent Memorial passed last year and conveyed 

to Congress, our Arizona State Legislature has also urged passage 

of the Cave Creek Canyon Protection Act, and, significantly, 

Newmont Mining Corporation has invited this legislative means of 

protecting the area, and we commend the company for its sensitivity on this issue of appropriate use of public land. 

As I appear here today, I speak not just for residents of the Portal area or for a small local organization, I speak for the thousands 

of people who would share with you these same views about the 

importance of protecting Cave Creek Canyon. This is evidenced in 

part by the fact that newspapers continue to publish articles and 

editorials on the status of this legislation. 

An important point in considering congressional withdrawal of 

the area is the fact that Forest Service administrative withdrawal 
34 

may not include the mineralized areas of Newn1cn.t's current claims 

which flank the canyon entrance on the east and within a half mile 

of Portal, or the mineralized Silver Creek drainage area which immediately flanks the canyon's entrance and Portal on the west. 

These areas are included in this legislative proposal because they 

are part of the Cave Creek drainage and anyone seeing the area 

in question knows they are an integral part of the Cave Creek Canyon. Withdrawal of these segments of forestland does not affect 

their management under the existing Forest Plan, but mining in 

those two areas, however, would have a devastating effect on wildlife and biological research, scenic and dispersed recreation values, 

and an enormous detrimental impact on the Portal community. 

Another consideration is that administrative withdrawal can be 

reversed by the Forest Service, the same agency which initially is- sued the permit in spite of statements by them that the land was 

"critical wildlife habitat, particularly for the avian species" and also 

that the district ranger had never seen this level of controversy. 

It is clear that permanent protection can come only in the form 

of congressional withdrawal, and we greatly appreciate Congress- man Kolbe's efforts in this regard and the support of our other Arizona congressional delegation. Permanent protection from mining 

ought to be afforded not just to Portal's backyard but to a small 

comer of the world that is treasured by a great many people un- willing to see it unnecessarily altered forever. 

I thank you for this opportunity to speak on behalf of Cave Creek 

Canyon. 

[Prepared statement of Ms. Hayes follows:] 
35 

STATEMENT OF KAREN HAYES 

IN SUPPORT OF H.R. 843 

THE CAVE CREEK CANYON PROTECTION ACT OF 1993 

BEFORE THE HOUSE SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES 

MARCH 30, 1993 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this hearing on H.R. 843, 

The Cave Creek Canyon Protection Act. My name is Karen Hayes 

and I am a resident of Portal, Arizona at the entrance to Cave 

creek Canyon in the Chiricahua Mountains of southeast Arizona. 

Also, I am a member of the Portal Mining Action Coalition, a 

small local organization formed two years ago for the sole 

purpose of protecting Cave Creek Canyon from mining activity. 

A description of Portal is appropriate to this issue. About 

120 people draw mail at the Portal post office, which is one 

of only three non-residential buildings in our tiny town. The 

other two are a small but active branch of the county library 

and the Portal Store/Bed & Breakfast. Coming into Portal, 

however, you would not imagine there were even that many people 

living in the area. The houses are situated here and there along 

the creek bottom or amid the mesquite that cover much of the 

canyon entrance just outside the National Forest boundary. 

We are indeed remote ••• the nearest town is 65 miles away. 

It is primarily due to this remoteness that the combination 

of unspoiled beauty and unparalleled biological and botanical 

diversity makes this an area that is acknowledged nationally 

and internationally as unique (I use the word in its most literal 

sense). As an example, Cave Creek Canyon has the greatest 

diversity of breeding land birds of any comparable area in the 

country. "Unique" is also the term used by the U.S. Forest 

Service in describing this part of the Coronado National Forest 

as the "jewel in the crown of the National Forest system." 

It has long been established that Cave Creek Canyon is of great 

value, not just to local and regional residents, but to 

naturalists, hikers, photographers, and birding enthusiasts 

from across the United States and beyond. And it has been 

demonstrated that this immediate area is literally of unequalled 

value in the realm of biological research. All of these qualities 

continue to exist because the area is undeveloped, uncrowded, 

and unspoiled. 

When word came of the possibility that an open pit gold mine 

could be established at the entrance to Cave Creek Canyon, we in the Portal region reacted at first with disbelief. Our 

inquiries to the Forest Service about what could be done to 

protect the area were met with resolute statements that there 

was absolutely nothing we could do. 

We realized that by ourselves, and given our few numbers, our 
36 

ability to influence the situation was limited. We formed the 

Portal Mining Action Coalition based on the conviction that 

if the many thousands of people statewide, nationally, and even 

internationally who know of the area could be made aware of 

the situation, surely the non-mineral values of Cave Creek Canyon 

could be put first. 

So the Coalition began a publicity and direct mail effort to 

inform the public. From the very beginning of our efforts we 

have explained that our interest is in protecting the unique 

qualities of this area, that we are not opposed to all mining 

everywhere, and that we support the concept of multiple use 

of public lands. We take the reasonable position, however, that 

some areas are not appropriate to mining activity, and Cave 

Creek Canyon is such an area. 

The response to our efforts was ov\,rwhelming. Regional newspape;~ 

stories about the issue brought interest from other news 

publications across the country, including the New York Times. 

In addition, Science Magazine, National Geographic, Defenders 

(the publication of Defenders of Wildlife), Wildlife Conservatio~ 

(the publication of the New York Zoological Society), and many -

others, including a large number of birding publications, all 

helped to spread the word about what was at stake here. 

People responded by contacting us and offering to help. 

Businesses in Tucson and other regional towns donated materials, 

copying, and photo reproductions. We heard from many 

organizations, including The Federation of Western Outdoor Clubs, 

which represents 1/4 million members primarily in the western 

states. Also, major environmental organizations support these 

efforts to protect Cave Creek Canyon. 

We received copies of many personal protest letters written 

to the Forest Service and Newmont Mining Corporation from people across the U.S. and from foreign countries, even from as far 

away as South Africa. One letter to the Chief of the Forest 

Service was from an employee of Texas Instruments, who said, 

"As one of the largest industrial purchasers of refined gold 

and silver, I am aware of mining operations •••• There is 

currently more than enough gold available in the world for 

commercial, medical and investment requirements. I submit that 

the area in its present undisturbed state is more valuable to 

the public and future public than the potential discovery of 

a 'valuable precious metal deposit.'" 

Most letters are from ordinary citizens, but others are from 

people like Edwardo. Wilson of Harvard University, Karl Krombein 

of the Smith~onian Institute, Bert Holldobler at the Zoological 

Institute in Wursburg, Germany, Paul Ehrlich of Stanford, Tom 

Eisner and Oliver Hewitt of Cornell; all are renowned scientists 

who are aware of the area's unique values for research. 

In addition, the city of Douglas, Arizona, o·ur nearest town, 
37 

passed a resolution urging passage of this bill. Our county 

supervisors support this legislation, as does the Arizona Sonora 

Desert Museum, which is a fine and respected natural history 

and education institution in Tucson. 

In a House Concurrent Memorial passed last year and conve yed 

to Congress our Arizona state legislature has also urged passage 

of the Cave Creek Canyon Protection Act. And, significantly, 

Newmont Mining Corporation has invited this legislative means 

of protecting the area, and we commend the company for its 

sensitivity on this issue of appropriate use of public land. 

As I appear here today, I speak not just for residents of the 

Portal area or for a small local organization, I speak for the 

thousands of people who would share with you these same v iews 

about the importance of protecting Cave Creek Canyon. This is 

evidenced in part by the fact that newspapers continue to publish 

articles and editorials on the s tatus of th is legislation. 

An important point in considering Congressional withdrawal of 

the area is the fact that Forest Service administrative 

withdrawal of Cave Creek Canyon may not include the mineralized 

areas of Newrnont's current claims which flank the canyon entrance 

on the east and are within 1/2 mile of Portal, or the mineralized 

Silver Creek drainage area which immediately flanks the canyon's 

entrance , and Portal, on the west. These areas are included 

in this legislative proposal because they are part of the Cave 

Creek drainage, and anyone seeing the area in question knows 

they are an integral part of Cave Creek Canyon. Withdrawa l of 

these segments of Forest land does not affect their management 

under the existing Forest Plan. Mining in those two areas, 

however, would have a devastating affect on wildlife and 

biological research, scenic and dispersed recreation values, 

and an enormous detrimental impact on the Portal community. 

Another consideration is that administrative withdrawal can 

be reversed by the Forest Service, the same agency which 

initially issued the permit in spite of statements by them that 

the land was "critical wildlife habitat, particularly for the 

avian species," and that the District Ranger had never seen this level of controversy. 

It is clear that permanent protection can come only in the 

form of Congressional withdrawal, and we greatly appreciate 

Congressman Kolbe's efforts in this regard and the support of 

our other Arizona Congressional delegation. Permanent protection 

from mining ought to be afforded not just to "Portal's backyard," 

but to a small corner of the world that is treasured by a great 

many people unwilling to see it unnecessarily altered forever. 

I thank you for this opportunity to speak on behalf of cave Creek Canyon. 

Siocer~~ 
38 

Mr. LEHMAN. Thank you very much. 

I will be brief. I want to ask you, Mr. Montrey, to clarify here 

the statement you make concerning the narrowness of the language. Have you compared the language here which withdraws the 

land from location under the mining laws in this bill with what we 

have in the other bill we are hearing today, the Bodie bill? 

Mr. MoNTREY. No, Mr. Chairman, I have not. 

Mr. LEHMAN. What is the practical effect then of withdrawing it 

only from location and not including the land use under the oper- ation of the general mining laws? 

Mr. MONTREY. Well, what I attempted to articulate before, and 

I will go back through it again for you, is that, as worded-and let 

me look to section 2{a)-"withdrawn from location under the general mining laws" -that that, at least in our opinion, would not 

withdraw the area from entry or patent, and so I attempted to lay 

out for you a couple of.--

Mr. LEHMAN. So somebody might go in and attempt to perfect 

the patent there even though they couldn't locate it? 

Mr. MONTREY. Let me just read through a couple of scenarios for 

you again that I said could possibly be a consequence of our interpretation. It would prevent two things from happening. It would 

prevent future location of claims, but also it would prevent patenting claims for which valid existing rights had not been established 

prior to withdrawal date, and it would also prohibit prospecting 

after the withdrawal date which might lead to discovery. That is 

our interpretation, and it is blessed to some degree by advice from 

our legal counsel as well. 

We are not advocating to you changing that wording, Mr. Chairman. We are just suggesting this to you as something you ought 

to consider, and we would be pleased to work with the subcommittee to get into more detail and flesh on that and to make sure we 

are helping you capture all of what we believe the intent of the bill 

is, which is protection across the board. 

Mr. LEHMAN. Okay. Also, do you have any indication whether 

Newmont intends to pay its $200 claiming fee later this year? 

Mr. MONTREY. No, I cannot speak authoritatively on that; no, 

Mr. Chairman, I can't. If I could ask one or more of my colleagues-no, we wouldn't want to speak for them; no, sir. 

Mr. LEHMAN. Dr. Sherbrooke, Ms. Hayes, is the potential for 

mining here the only threat to this area? 

Dr. SHERBROOKE. I think there are other potential threats, but 

that is all that this bill addresses. Mr. LEHMAN. I understand that. 

Dr. SHERBROOKE. One actually was a Forest Service proposal to 

develop a National Recreation Area in three mountain ranges in 

Coronado National Forest, which included the Chiricahuas. We opposed that idea, and the Forest Service has dropped it. Pursuing 

that idea is what led to the current segregation of portions of Cave 

Creek Canyon and other portions of the Chiricahuas that will end 

on September 27, and I think that is one thing that puts some immediacy to this bill, that that segregation will be terminated at 

that time. 

We felt that the location of large recreational facilities in Cave 

Creek Canyon, if that were part of the National Recreation Area 
39 

development, which was not spelled out in detail by any means by 

the Forest Service, would be very detrimental to Cave Creek Can- yon. It is a very small canyon and could not take many additional 

recreational impacts than what they have at the present time. 

Mr. LEHMAN. Mr. Montrey, is the Forest Service managing this 

particular area any differently than the other parts of the Coronado Forest? 

Mr. MONTREY. I think we are probably more highly sensitive to 

these concerns in this area than we are in other areas of the Coro- nado National Forest. 

Could I interject on your original question about the other bill 

that is being discussed today? 

Mr. LEHMAN. Yes. 

Mr. MONTREY. I have just taken a look at the language, and I 

believe, as it is articulated in that bill, it would be consistent with 

what I have suggested to you for your consideration on this bill. 

Mr. LEHMAN. Ms. Hayes. 

Ms. HAYES. I just would like to add that the National Recreation 

Area proposal has been dropped as an idea for that designation for 

recreation development, but apparently there are other ~oncept 

plans still being considered for significant recreation development 

in the area, and we are still concerned about that as well because 

the same values that need protection from, say, mining activity 

would need some protection also from overdevelopment in the area 

as well. Mr. LEHMAN. Mr. Kolbe. 

Mr. KOLBE. The only comment I would make on the language, as 

Mr. Montrey suggested, I think it is worth looking at, and we certainly would want to do that with your subcommittee and staff. 

Mr. LEHMAN. Thank you very much. Mrs. Vucanovich. 

STATEMENT OF HON. BARBARA F. VUCANOVICH 

Mrs. VucANOVICH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I would ask unanimous consent to include my opening statement 

as part of the record. 

Mr. LEHMAN. Without objection. Mrs. VUCANOVICH. Thank you. 

[Prepared statement of Mrs. Vucanovich follows:] 
40 

Opening Statement 

of 

Congressman Barbara Vucanovich 

on 

H.R. 843 - The Cave Creek Canyon Protection Act of 1993 

& 

H.R. 240 - The Bodie Protection Act of 1992 (sic) 

Committee on Natural Resources 

Subcommittee on Energy & Mineral Resources 

March 30, 1992 

Mr. Chairman, I will be brief. I have a sense of deja 

vu about the subject of today's hearing. I supported Mr. 

Kolbe's Cave Creek bill last year, albeit I had some 

concerns about an amendment of Mr. Rahall's making 

which I felt, on principle, infringed upon valid existing 

rights. Perhaps that is why the other body backed away 

from the House-passed bill. 

Mr. Kolbe's bill this year is again a simple bill which I 

intend to support. I am satisfied the unique bio-diversity of 

the canyon, as measured by a field station to a "world-class" 

museum there, warrants a withdrawal of the area. It is my 
41 

-2-

understanding the mining company which proposed drilling 

to the Forest Service has dropped its claims, but others 

could follow if the land is restored to entry, so I support 

Mr. Kolbe's effort to protect this limited area. 

On the other hand, the Bodie bill of yours Mr. 

Chairman, gives me some pause. I am not quite convinced 

that possible mining efforts east of the Bodie ghost town 

would destroy the visitor's experience to a state park 

founded because of mining. However, I intend to look to 

Mr. Doolittle, who now represents the area, for some 

guidance on my position on H.R. 240. I must reiterate, 

however, that on principle I am concerned about using 

Mining-in-the-Parks Act regulations on BLM lands. My 

understanding is the BLM's recent land use planning 

document can and will do the job of protecting Bodie ghost 

town. 
42 

-3-

Lastly, Mr. Chairman, I commend you for holding this 

hearing for the reason that it is my strong belief these bills 

are the proper way to go about setting aside parts of the 

public domain. I want this Committee to retain the 

jurisdiction to "Say No" to mining and other activities in the 

future. I don't wish to hand over this authority to the local 

land manager to exercise at his or her discretion, especially 

as may be prompted by citizen suits. The Bodie situation 

illustrates the tools already available to the BLM to put 

restrictions on mining activities under current law. If such 

tools don't do the job, then we can withdraw the area 

legislatively. 

I, too, welcome today's witnesses. For the nongovernment folks, I appreciate your traveling back to 

Washington for ''Take 2" on these bills. Thank you, Mr. 

Chairman. 
43 

Mrs. VucANOVICH. I just wanted to comment that Newmont has 

reported to my staff that they did not do reassessment work for the 

year ending September 1, 1992, and they didn't pay the FLPMA filing fee due last December 30. So I think there is no question that 

Newmont's claims are dead and gone. · Mr. Montrey, does the Forest Service have authorities parallel to 

those of the BLM under FLPMA to require greater restrictions on 

mineral activities in certain areas? 

Mr. MONTREY. Could I request assistance on that question? 

Mrs. VUCANOVICH. Certainly. 

Mr. MONTREY. No, we don't have any extra authority. 

Mrs. VUCANOVICH. I think we talked about this bill last year, and 

I certainly support it on principle. I think we felt that it did infringe upon valid existing rights. In any event, I think this has 

changed, and I think the bill is good, and we are certainly supportive. 

I have no further questions and thank the panel very much. 

Mr. LEHMAN. Mr. Kolbe. 

Mr. KOLBE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, very much, for letting me 

join you. Mr. LEHMAN. Thank you, and I thank the panel, and we look forward to marking this bill up soon. . I will call the second panel forward. That will be Mr. Culp from the 

BLM, Donna Pozzi of the Save Bodie Committee, and Joan Reiss of 

the Wilderness Society, and we will begin with Mr. Culp. . 

Again, we will put your full statements in the record and ask you 

to summarize. Mr. Culp, you may proceed. 

PANEL CONSISTING OF CARSON (PETE) CULP, ACTING DIREC· 

TOR, BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT; DONNA POZZI, 

CHAIR, SAVE BODIE COMMITTEE, CALIFORNIA STATE PARK 

RANGERS ASSOCIATION, SACRAMENTO, CA; AND JOA...'!\i 

REISS, REGIONAL DIRECTOR, CALIFORNIA/NEV ADA RE .. 

GIONAL OFFICE, THE WILDERNESS SOCIETY, SAN FRANCISCO, CA 

STATEMENT OF CARSON (PETE) CULP 

Mr. CULP. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the oppor- tunity to appear before the subcommittee today to present the ad- ministration's position on H.R. 240, the Bodie bill. AB you c;aid, you 

have my prepared statement, and I will just briefly summarize 

some of the most important points. First, the general intent of the bill to preserve Bodie as an historic ghost town has recently been furthered by our completion of 

the Bishop Resource Area Management Plan. Under the plan, the 

area designated under H.R. 240 is now designated an area of critical environmental concern, or as we say, an ACEC. One result of 

this designation is that an approved plan of operation for any min- ing activity on existing claims will now be required and a visual 

resource management standard-VRMS-is now applicable, which 

is another protection for the area. Second, in accordance with the resource management plan and 

the ACEC designation, we are initiating the process to petition the 
44 

Secretary to withdraw the area from new mineral entries. Again, 

we are talking about all of the Federal lands in the Bodie Bowl, 

an area that is synonymous with the area the bill seeks to protect. 

We support the intent of H.R. 240 and would like to work with 

the committee towards its enactment with some technical changes. 

Our technical concerns include the requirement in the bill that the 

area be managed in a manner that is in accord with the Mining 

in the Parks Act. Primarily because of administrative differences 

and mission differences between the National Park Service and 

BLM, we believe it would be more appropriate for the bill to specify 

a specific standard for review of potential mining activity. Another change we would recommend concerns the requirement 

for BLM to promulgate regulations for Bodie within 90 days of enactment. We believe this period should be extended if possible to 

coincide with our ongoing development of a management plan specifically for the designated ACEC and to provide more time for pub- lic involvement. 

Finally, the three-year study that the bill proposes be conducted 

by the National Park Service we believe should be assigned at the 

discretion of the Secretary, and we believe the content could be 

clarified in the bill. In conclusion, I will just say that we stand ready to work with 

you and your staff toward enactment of H.R. 240 and addressing 

some of these technical concerns that I have mentioned. That concludes my statement. 

[Prepared statement of Mr. Culp follows:] 
45 

MAR 3 0 1993 

STATEMENT OF CARSON (PETE) CULP, ACTING DIRECTOR, BUREAU OF LAND 

MANAGEMENT, BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY ANO MINERAL 

RESOURCES, COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES, UNITED STATES HOUSE OF 

REPRESENTATIVES, ON H.R. 240, A BILL "TO PROVIDE FOR THE PROTECTION 

OF THE BODIE BOWL AREA OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AND FOR OTHER 

PURPOSES." 

I appreciate the opportunity to appear here today to present the 

Administration's position on H.R. 240. 

The bill would declare that, subject to valid existing rights, 

Federal lands and interests in lands within the Bodie Bowl (Bowl) 

would not be open to mineral activity. The Secretary of the 

Interior (Secretary) would be required to undertake an expedited 

2-year program to determine the validity of all unpatented mining 

claims located within the Bowl. Mining and millsite claims in the 

area could not be patented after January 11, 1993, if a patent 

application had not been filed and the claim holder had not met the 

patenting requirements of law at that time. 

Mineral activities on unpatented mining claims within the Bowl 

would be subject to regulations prescribed by the Secretary, in 

consultation with the Governor of the State of California. 

Reclamation would be required for mining exploration activity 

within the Bowl conducted on and after September 1, 1988. The 

holder of any unpatented mining claim or millsite within the Bowl 

would only be required to file a notice of intention to hold a 

mining claim in lieu of filing an affidavit of assessment work. 
46 

2 

we support the concept of H.R. 240 and encourage congress to go 

forward with legislation to protect this important resource. 

Bodie was a historic gold mining town in the eastern Sierra Nevada 

Mountains of California that was designated as a National Historic 

Landmark by the National Park Service (NFS) in 1961. The NFS has 

proposed formal boundaries for the landmark that include the ghost 

town, the elements in the surrounding visual landscape essential to 

maintaining its historic character, and the remaining ruins, 

structures, and artifacts that define its mining history. The NFS 

has circulated a draft boundary study for comments by interested 

parties; comments will be incorporated into a final boundary 

recommendation for the district. 

The landmark designation triggers a comment and reporting 

requirement under the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 

and the Mining in the Parks Act of 1976. Under the terms of the 

1966 Act, as amended, the Advisory council on Historic Preservation 

must be given an opportunity to comment on the effect of federally 

funded, assisted or licensed undertakings on all historic 

properties, including landmarks. Under Section 9 of the 1976 Act, 

the Secretary of the Interior must report to the Advisory Council 

on any surface mining activity that might irreparably damage a 
47 

3 

National Historic Landmark and to request the Council's advice on 

measures to mitigate or abate that damage. 

Since our last appearance before the Congress in May 1992 to 

discuss H.R. 4370, we have revisited the issues involving Bodie. 

On March 25, 1993, the BLM California State Director signed the 

Record of Decision for the Final Resource Management Plan (RMP) for 

the Bishop Resource Area, California, which includes the Bodie 

Bowl. The RMP included a recommendation for a 6,000-acre 

withdrawal, which is the same acreage proposed for the withdrawal 

in H.R. 240. This recommendation was made after considering public 

comments on the 1,500-acre withdrawal recommended in the draft RMP, 

and the strong support for the larger withdrawal. 

With the signing of the Record of Decision, the Bodie Bowl area is 

now an Area of Critical Environmental concern (ACEC), and we have 

started the process to petition the Secretary to withdraw the area 

from mineral entry. H.R. 240 is consistent with our RMP's 

withdrawal recommendations but goes beyond it in sev~ral 

particulars. we support this broader focus but do have a few 

technical suggestions for amendment and would welcome the 

opportunity to work with you to resolve them. 

Let me briefly mention a few specific provisions in H.R. 240 that 

may cause problems in implementation. 
48 

4 

First, section 5 of H.R. 240 does not set a clear standard for the 

Secretary to use in formulating regulations under this Act. The 

bill provides for mineral activities on Federal lands to be 

regulated by BLM in a manner which is in accordance with 

regulations promulgated by the National Park Service (NPS) under 

the Mining in the Parks Act. The missions of both agencies are 

fundamentally different, and they have different operating 

procedures. For instance, BLM is a multiple-use manager whose 

decisions are appealable to the Interior Board of Land Appeals. The 

NPS is a single-use manager whose decisions are final agency 

actions that are appealable in the courts. 

To eliminate confusion, we believe the bill should not reference 

the Mining in the Parks Act regulations but should specify in the 

bill a distinct standard for review of mining activities on Federal 

lands. We would be happy to discuss possible language for 

standards. This would enable the BLM to manage the area under its 

current organizational framework. We also suggest that the bill 

give the Secretary the flexibility to adopt existing California 

State mining and reclamation laws as standards for review of mining 

activities subject to regulation under the bill in lieu of the 

bill's standards, where those State laws are more stringent than 

the standards articulated in H.R. 240. 
49 

5 

Section 5(d) of this bill requires the BLM to promulgate 

regulations for the Bodie Bowl within 90 days after the date of 

enactment. The BLM, with input and assistance from Mono County and 

the public, is in the process of completing an activity plan for 

the Bodie Bowl area and an attendant environmental report. This 

activity plan will clearly specify the values and sites that 

warrant protection and will outline the necessary protective 

measures to be taken. We suggest that it would be better to 

wait until completion of the activity plan and the companion 

environmental report so that regulations specific to the area and 

to the resources could be developed. we, therefore, suggest an 

extension of the period for rulemaking allowed under the bill. 

Moreover, to meet the 90-day deadline, emergency regulations 

without full opportunity for public notice and comment, in all 

likelihood, would have to be issued. 

Finally, H.R. 240 requires the NPS to conduct a 3-year study 

on possible actions to be undertaken to preserve the historic, 

recreational and ghost town characteristics of lands and structures 

within the Bowl. We suggest that the bill not specify the Interior 

agency but leave that decision up to the Secretary. That 

determination would be easier if the purpose and content ot the 

study is clarified in the bill. 
6 

We recognize that this proposal has been around for several years, 

and we want to be helpful in your efforts to get it enacted . We 

stand ready to work with you and your staffs as soon as possible on 

these technical amendments that will make implementation of the 

bill easier and more efficient. 

This concludes my prepared statement. I will be pleased to answer 

questions. 
51 

Mr. LEHMAN. Thank you very much. 

Ms. Pozzi. 

STATEMENT OF DONNA POZZI 

Ms. POZZI. Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, my 

name is Donna Pozzi. I am very pleased to be here today to support 

the Bodie Protection Act of 1993 on behalf of the California State 

Park Rangers Association and the people who have joined us from 

across the country as part of the Save Bodie Committee. 

The State Park Rangers Association represents the front-line 

stewards of the cultural and natural resources of California's State 

Park System. We feel professionally capable of speaking on issues 

that threaten the integrity of the State Park System. 

It is important to note that Bodie is preserved today as a ghost 

town, not a living mining town. Bodie is an outdoor museum, and 

visitors to Bodie have an opportunity to experience an eerie sense 

of quiet, remoteness, and solitude, qualities that are an integral 

part of a true ghost town. The setting of Bodie, the ghost town, is 

integral to the experience that the visitor enjoys. The setting is isolated in the area called the Bodie Bowl, and we feel that preservation of this scenic and natural landscape setting is essential to 

preservation of the cultural landscape. We now believe that the historic integrity of Bodie would be greatly diminished if incompatible 

modem activities were allowed to intrude in the Bodie Bowl. 

Now I know it has been argued that the juxtaposition of a modem gold mine and the historic one would allow side-by-side comparison and that that would lead to enhanced enjoyment and understanding of Bodie and of mining, but as Park professionals we 

very strongly disagree with this. We feel that visitors have many 

other opportunities. On their way over to Bodie, they can come 

through Tuolumne County, go to Jamestown, and see a modem 

mine in operation. Should they be coming from Nevada, just over 

the board, there are several mines very nearby. So a mine doesn't 

need to be developed at Bodie for the Park visitor to have an opportunity to learn modem mining and then visit the historic mine. 

There is only one Bodie. The ghost town experience there is 

unique, and it should not be jeopardized in order to try to have this 

historic and modem-day juxtaposition that was suggested by Congressman Doolittle. 

Another point to raise is that nobody foresaw back in the 1960's 

when the Bodie State Historic Park and National Historic Landmark District were created that the silence and setting of Bodie 

could become so vulnerable, and we now know that additional 

lands need to be set aside, and we are hoping to rectify that deficiency. There is support for this from the National Park Service. 

They have been promoting an expanded National Historic Landmark boundary. Additionally, as we heard, the Bureau of Land 

Management is now supporting a mineral withdrawal for the full 

nearly 6,000 acres of the Bodie Bowl. So the Bodie Protection Act 

would further these goals while respecting the rights of any existing valid claims. 

If mining were to proceed on these claims, it would be done in 

accordance with special regulations designed to ensure that Bodie's 

resources and values would suffer no adverse effects, and we do 
52 

feel very comfortable with the model of the Minin~ and National 

Parks Act for those regulations that would be especially developed. 

It is important to note that private properties would not be regulated by H.R. 240. 

I want to mention that the reason the Rangers Association has 

become so concerned about the need to protect Bodie is the activities of a Canadian mining company, Galactic Resources, Limited, 

which began its exploratory work at Bodie in 1989, and our concerns then and now about the possibility of a modem mine include 

traffic, fire, vandalism, noise, blasting, dust, toxic chemicals, permanent landscape changes, removal of historic features, wildlife 

habitat loss, water quality and quantity problems, visual intrusions, as well as decreased revenue from the tourism which contributes so much to the Mono County economy. 

There is also the potential for total disaster, and we can look 

right to Galactic's other project in Summitville, Colorado, for an example of everything that could go wrong at a large scale, open-pit, 

heap-leach gold mine, particularly one located in a very remote, 

high elevation area. As you probably heard, they are now estimating that it will cost upwards of $60 million to clean up 

Summitville, and that is money that Galactic doesn't have, since 

they have declared bankruptcy. We feel that the risks of damage 

to Bodie's fragile resources are far too serious to allow something 

like that to happen there. 

I want to also mention that last year we testified in favor of H.R. 

4370, which was the Bodie Protection Act of 1992, and we were in 

the minority, but we have now been joined by the Mono County 

Board of Supervisors who voted to support H.R. 240. The Governor 

of the State of California, Pete Wilson, has recently demonstrated 

his concern for Bodie's protection by writing a letter to Secretary of the Interior Bruce Babbitt on February 25 in which he stated, 

''The Federal Government should execute a proclamation directing 

the public land located around the Bodie State Historic Park be 

withdrawn from future mineral entry." So we are very encouraged 

by all of the support for our position and feel that the Federal Government would be exercising its rights and obligations as a responsible manager for our public land if this withdrawal in H.R. 240 

were to go forward. 

It is also important that the validity study would be expedited 

and provide the Bureau of Land Management and the State of 

California with the tools that they need to protect Bodie. 

Thank you. 

[Prepared statement of Ms. Pozzi follows:] 
53 

california state park rangers association 

p. o. box 292010, sacramento, ca 95829-2010 (916) 383-2530 

Testimony of 

Donna Pozzi 

Chair. Save Bodie Committee 

California State Park Rangers Association 

before the 

Committee on Natural Resources 

Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources 

United States House of Representatives 

on the 

Bodle Protection Act of 1993 

March 30, 1993 

Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee. my name is Donna Pozzi. I am 

pleased to be here in support of the Bodle Protection Act of 1993. as a representative of 

the nearly 800 members of the California State Park Rangers Association and 3,000 

people from all over the country who have Joined our Save Bodie Committee. The 

Rangers Association Is a 29-year old organization of professional employees of the 

California Department of Parks and Recreation who are the frontline stewards of the 

State Park System's natural and cultural resources. We also work to protect the park 

visitors and help them enjoy and learn about their heritage. We are concerned about 

the future of Bodie State Historic Park. due to the threat posed by the possible development of a modern gold mining operation adjacent to the ghost town. 

Today I will be discussing: I) Why Bodle Is special; 2) What the threat Is; and 3) Why 

this bill is needed. 

Bodle Is a unique, irreplaceable piece of our national heritage. It is without a doubt the 

most authentic, best preserved ghost town in the Amertcan West. From Bodle, we can 

gain an understanding of our frontier history and the qualities of Amertcan national 

character that shaped our great country. Bodie teaches us about the sptrtt of adventure, about Amertcan ingenuity. and about cultural diversity. 

Bodle Is preserved today as a ghost town. not a living mining town. In Bodie, the visitor 

can step back to an earlier time. examining the more than 100 hlstortc buildings In their 

original setting. with their furnishings as they were left by the last residents. Visitors to 

this outdoor museum expertence an eerte sense of quiet, remoteness. and solitude - the 

Promoting Professionalism in California State Parks 

Recycled & Recyclable 
54 

qualities that are an Integral part of a true ghost town. The setting of the town and old 

mining district Is Isolated In an area called the Bodle Bowl. Preservation of this scenic 

and natural landscape setting Is essential to the preservation of the cultural landscape. 

We believe the hlstortc lntegrtty of Bodle would be greatly diminished Jf lncompaUble 

modern activities were allowed to Intrude In the Bodie Bowl. 

It has been argued that the Juxtaposition of a modem gold mine and the historic one 

would allow for side-by-side compartson, leading to enhanced enjoyment and understanding of Bodle. As park professionals. we strongly disagree. The visitor has many 

other opportunities across the West to see modem gold mines. The carefully preserved 

ghost town expertence at Bodie cannot be found elsewhere and must not be Jeopardized. 

HR 240 ensures that extraordinary care would be taken to protect the historic, cultural, 

recreational, and natural values of the Bodie Bowl area. 

Unfortunately nobody foresaw back In the early 1960s, when Bodie State Historic Park 

and the Bodle National Hlstortc Landmark District were created. that the silence and 

setting of Bodie would someday become so vulnerable. Additional lands should have 

been set aside and we are hoping to rectify this deficiency. There Is support for this 

need In the recognition by the National Park Service that an expanded National Hlstortc 

Landmark boundary Is warranted. Additionally, we understand that the Bureau of Land 

Management now recommends a mineral withdraw! for 6,000 acres of the Bodle Bowl. 

The Bodle Protection Act would further these goals while respecting the lights of any 

existing. valid claims. If mining were·to proceed on these claims, It would be done In 

accordance with special regulations designed to ensure that Bodle's resources and 

values would suffer no adverse effects. Private properties would not be regulated by HR 

240. . 

The Rangers Association Is looking for a guarantee that we can continue to offer the 

same ghost town expertence to future generations of park visitors that people have 

enjoyed for 30 years. Bodle's trademark is that It's been frozen In time, preserved In a 

state of arrested decay. People expect to find Bodie the same each time they visit. This 

is a very Important function of parks Jn today's rapidly changing society. 

In 1989, the exploratory mining activities of Galactic Resources, Ltd .. a Canadian company, sharply disturbed the ambience of the old ghost town . While the noise and commotion adjacent to the park were an irrttating disrupUon. we began to study modem 

gold mining technology and learned that a mine Itself would be far more destructive. 

Our concerns Included: traffic, fire. vandalism. noise, blasting, dust, toxic chemicals, 

permanent landscape changes, removal of historic features, wildlife habitat loss, water 

quality and quantity problems, visual intrusions. decreased revenue from tourtsm. 

And, potential for total disaster. We need look no further than Galactic's mine at 

SummJMlle. Colorado for an example of everything that can go wrong at a large-scale. 

open-pit heap-leach gold mine in a remote. high elevaUon area. It Is now estimated that 

this catastrophe will cost $60 million to clean up. money the bankrupt company doesn't 

have. The rtsks of damage to Bodle's fragile resources are far too serious to dismiss. 

Protecting Bodie from the elements Is a daunting task. We must not let human acUons 

accelerate this natural process. 
55 

The Bodle Protection Act Is critically needed now because the laws and systems that are 

In place are Insufficient to protect Bodle. Without this legislation. the Bureau of Land 

Management and the State of California will not have the tools they need to provide for 

the long-term preservation of Bodle. Although no specific mining plan of operations has 

been submitted, HR 240 Is not premature. A permit application for additional exploratory work by Galactic's subsidiary at Bodle Is still pending. We are alarmed that a company with such a bad performance record might be allowed to move forward with the 

ambitious exploration program outlined In the recently released Draft Environmental 

Impact Report. If bankruptcy prevents them from implementing their plans for Bodle 

and their claims are allowed to lapse. we do not want to see another mining company file 

new claims. Speedy passage of HR 240 will prevent that. 

When we testified In favor of HR 4370, the Bodle Protection Act of 1992, we were In the 

minority. We have now been Joined by the Mono County Board of Supervisors who have 

voted to support HR 240. The Governor of the State of California. Pete Wilson. has 

recently demonstrated his concern for Bodle's protection by requesting. In a February 

25th letter to Secretary of the Interior Bruce Babbitt, "that th':! federal government execute a proclamation directing the public land located around the Bodle State Historic 

Park be withdrawn from future mineral entry.· With all of this support, there Is no 

reason not to act swiftly to pass HR 240. 

The federal government would be exercising Its rights and obligation as a responsible 

manager of our publicly-owned lands. by withdrawing property It owns In the Bodle 

Bowl from future mining claims. Determining the validity of existing claims would 

resolve whether or not there ls potential for mining to proceed. We ask that you take 

action to protect Bodle now. Please support the Bodle Protection Act of 1993 because It 

affirms our country's commitment to preserving this unique aspect of America's 

heritage. 
56 

Mr. LEHMAN. Thank you. 

Ms. Reiss. 

STATEMENT OF JOAN REISS 

Ms. REISS. Chairman Lehman and members of the subcommittee, I am Joan Reiss of the Wilderness Society, appearing today on 

behalf of H.R. 240. 

Actually, Bodie has a very special place in my heart. Almost 17 

years ago, my family went to visit Bodie State Historical Park, and 

from that day on I was literally haunted by the images of this town 

where people seemed to have left yesterday. Peering inside the 

windows, I could see place settings at the table, books on school 

desks with writing on the blackboard, antiquated gas pumps, kerosene lamps, and dry goods in the store. We had traveled 13 miles 

of dirt road to reach this relic of a bygone era. The dusty trip was 

worth every moment of discomfort as we viewed this town maintained in an incredible state of arrested decay. 

The setting for the historic town is deep within an untrammeled 

wild area that is referred to today as the Bodie Bowl. I have returned more recently, and although most of the road is paved, the 

emotional impact of the place remains. Surely this is the most unusual ghost town in the entire West. It is a small wonder that 

today more than 200,000 people each year visit Bodie, which makes 

this a unique tourist attraction, bringing major economic benefits 

to the regional economy. 

Of course, in 1976 I was quite unaware of the conflicted land jurisdictions that existed in Bodie. Here was the Bodie State Historical Park adjacent to private land and surrounded by Federal public 

land managed by the BLM. Although there is only 500 acres of private land, it is here that the major threats had occurred in the 

open pit mine by Galactic Resources. Although Bodie was a nineteenth century mining mecca, the technology of that era would be 

a far cry from a mine in 1993, and, as we have heard, considering 

their financial difficulties, Galactic Resources of Canada will offer 

to sell their Bodie properties, and it is our hope that a 1994 California Bond Act will be able to fund the purchase of those properties. 

In 1961 when Bodie was declared a National Historic Landmark 

by the National Park Service, there were years when boundaries 

were not declared simultaneously with the designation of Historic 

Landmark. So in 1991-and it took that long-the National Park 

Service created official boundaries for the Bodie Bowl which are almost coincidental with the BLM area of critical environmental concern. 

The support this time is finally fairly solid for what we have 

been all wanting for a number of years: Governor Wilson's letter 

to Secretary Babbitt; the vote of the Mono County Board of Supervisors-which, by the way, was 4 to 1, showing incredible support in the local area. In 1991, going back a little further, the California 

legislature sent a resolution to Congress urging then-Secretary 

Lujan to withdraw the critical lands around the Bodie Bowl. 

Testimony has also been submitted in writing from the Mono 

County Board of Supervisors as well as the National Trust for Historic Preservation, and, in addition, the bill is also supported by 
57 

the Natural Resources Defense Council, Sierra Club, Eastern Sierra Citizens for Protection of Bodie, and the California Association 

of Museums. 

Recently, both California Senators Boxer and Feinstein, who support H.R. 240, also introduced a Senate version, Senate Bill 492. 

And, Mr. Chairman, a very special thanks to you because I know 

of your deep concern for this area; this is not just something that 

is in the district, but it is something that you care about very deeply, and we have appreciated your continuing efforts. 

Thank you. [Prepared statement of Ms. Reiss follows:] 
58 

THE WILDERNESS SOCIETY 

CALIFORNIA/ NEVADA REGIONAL OFFICE 

STATEMENT BEFORE THE ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES 

SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE HOUSE NATURAL RESOURCES COMMITTEE 

REGARDING H.R. 240, THE BODIE PROTECTION ACT. 

MARCH 30, 1993 

Chairman Lehman and members of the subcommittee, I am Joan Reiss, Regional 

Director for the Wilderness Society in California/Nevada speaking on behalf of the 

300,000 members of The Wilderness Society in support of H.R. 240, the Bodie Protection 

Act. 

Almost 17 years ago, my family went to visit Bodie State Historical Park. 

From that day on I was haunted by the images of the town where people seemed to have 

left yesterday. Peering inside the windows I could see place settings at the table, books 

on school desks with writing on the blackboard, antiquated gas pumps, kerosene lanterns 

and dry goods in the stores. We had traveled 13 miles of dirt road to reach this relic of a bygone era. The dusty trip was worth every moment of discomfort as we viewed this 

town maintained in a state of arrested decay. The setting for the historic town is deep 

within an untrammeled wild area that is often referred to as the Bodie Bowl. I have 

returned more recently and although most of the road is paved, the emotional impact of 

the place remains. Surely this is the most unusual ghost town in the entire west. It is 

small wonder that today more than 200,000 people each year visit Bodie which makes 

this a unique tourist attraction that brings major economic benefit to the regional 

economy. 

Of course in 1976 I was unaware of the conflicted land jurisdictions that existed in 

Bodie. Here was the Bodie State Historical Park adjacent to private land and 

surrounded by federal public land managed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). 

Although there is only 500 acres of private land, it is here that there are major threats of 

an open pit gold mine by a Canadian company, Galactic Resources Ltd. Although Bodie 

was a 19th century mining mecca, the technology of that era is a far cry from an open pit 

mine in 1993. Faced with financial difficulties, Galactic Resources of Canada will offer 

I 16 NEW MONTGOMERY, SCITE 526, SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94 105 

{-i !S) 54 1-9 144 
59 

to sell their Bodie properties. It is our hope that a 1994 California Bond Act will be 

able to fund the purchase of the Galactic properties. 

In 1961, Bodie was declared a National Historic Landmark by the National Park 

Service. However, in those years, boundaries were not declared simultaneously with the 

designation. In 1991, NPS created official boundaries for the Bodie Bowl which are 

almost coincidental with the BLM Area of Critical Environmental Concern. 

The support for H.R. 240 is solid: 

• The BLM recommends in the final Bishop Resource Management Plan 

withdrawal of 6,000 acres from mineral entry. 

• Governor Wilson has written to Secretary Babbitt requesting that the BLM be 

directed to withdraw the public land around the Bodie Bowl (ACEC) from future 

mineral entry. 

• On March 18th the Mono County Board of Supervisors voted 4-1 in favor of the 

Bodie Protection Act. A letter from Supervisor Andrea Lawrence has been submitted. 

• In 1991 the California Legislature sent a resolution to Congress urging then 

Secretary Lujan to withdraw the critical lands around the Bodie Bowl. 

• Testimony has been submitted from the Mono County Board of Supervisors as 

well as the National Trust for Historic Preservation. In addition this bill is also supported 

bv the Natural Resources Defense Council, Sierra Club. Eastern Sierra Citizens for 

P·rotection of Bodie and the California Association of Museums. 

• For the first time both California Senators Boxer and Feinstein support H.R. 

240 as indicated by their joint authorship of the Senate version, S. 492. 

We urge the members of the committee to join this distinguished list of 

supporters and approve H.R. 240 which will protect this unique resource in the eastern 

side of California's Sierra Nevada. 

bodiecj .r 10 
60 

Mr. LEHMAN. Thank you very much, and I want to thank the 

panel for excellent testimony. 

Let me ask Mr. Culp of the BLM a couple of questions. 

The BLM has designated this an Area of Critical Environmental 

Concern and has recommended that 6,000 acres there be withdrawn from mining. Some have argued that that is sufficient protection. Could you res:pond to that? 

Mr. CULP. Mr. Chrurman, that is, as I understand it, the entire 

Bodie Bowl, and as designated in our management plan we feel 

that that is an adequate area of protection. 

Mr. LEHMAN. Ms. Reiss, in your statement, you said that you 

hoped that the 1994 Bond Act would help us fund acquisition there 

at Bodie, and I think there was an article recently in the Sacramento Bee that the Nature Conservancy might step in. Is that realistic? Are there ongoing discussions? 

Ms. REISS. The discussions are ongoing. In California, asJou 

well know, we are all hoping that there might be some revers in 

some of our recessionary times so that a Bond Act would really be 

something that we could put on the ballot with some assurance 

that the public is open to consideration as opposed to in a negative 

mode. 

We are also looking at other sources for potential purchase, and 

nothing is firm yet, but we would be certainly looking at something 

like potentially the Land and Water Conservation Fund as another 

source. We would have to wait another year on that, but we would 

be considering that, especially if the Bond Act didn't go through. Mr. LEHMAN. Mr. Culp, do you have any indication whether or 

not Galactic intends to pay its $200 fee on August 30 and keep 

their valid claim there? 

Mr. CULP. No, we don't, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. LEHMAN. Could you specify as to why you object to using the 

mining and parks regulation as a guide to setting out the management scheme there? You mentioned it, but you didn't really get into 

it. 

Mr. CULP. There are a couple of differences. One difference is in 

the purposes of the Mining in the Parks Act and our regulations. 

In the case of the Mining in the Parks Act, the purpose of any mining activity would be to be consistent with the purposes for which 

the Park unit was established; whereas the requirement under the 

BLM regulations is more general, to prevent unnecessary and 

undue degradation. There are also administrative differences, such 

as appeals. In the case of our procedures, there are administrative 

appeals to administrative law judges; in the case of appeals of Park 

Service actions, they have to go to a Federal Court. So there are 

those kinds of differences. 

In a practical sense, as it will impact Bodie, we don't believe that 

there will be any on-the-ground difference between management 

under our regulations. Now that that Area of Critical Environmental Concern has been established, the Visual Resource Management Standards apply, and it would be simpler administratively if 

the BLM regulations applied rather than the Park Service regulations. 

Mr. LEHMAN. For the record, I have the letter from Governor 

Wilson endorsing withdrawal, and I will place that in the record, 
61 

without objection. Also, I have a letter from Senator McCorquodale, 

the chairman of the State Senate Natural Resources Committee, 

supporting the legislation, and a resolution from the Mono County 

Board of Supervisors endorsing the legislation. Without objection, 

we will place them in the record as well. 

[The documents follow:] 
62 

GOVER;-iOH.'S 01"1"1Cl!~ 

FebrUdry 25, 1993 

The Honorable Bn1ce Babbitt 

Secretary 

United States Depdrtment of the IntHrior 

1849 C Street, N.W. 

Washington, o.c. 20240 

Dear Mr. secretary: 

As a former Governor of Arizona, you are aware of 

indu!=;t.ry'!'i- importance to western States.. Anticipation 

prosperous mining operations drove many settlers west. of tho hiGtorical thomoG intorprctc~ by our State Park 

the role of mining in California's clevclopmeut. 

the mining 

of 

Today, one 

:;y:,tem i~ 

California's Bodie State Historic Park, one of our most frequently vit'litod estate: parko, cvokca thi~ hi~toricu.l lh~ute. 

Bodie reflects the essence of the 19th century mining town, 

complete with dirt road:,, creaking wooden ::5,toi.:er1·c.inLa, uuU i:.I 

howling wind blowing across a desolate portion of the Sierra 

llevodo. 

Recent events, uiscu~~iuns und proposed exploratory worK nave 

raised concerns about the impact modern mining would have on this 

hls.t.uri'-' setting. While the state or California supports the 

responsible extraction of mineral resources, we also recognize 

that conte~porary mining techniques can be intrusive. We must balance these historic and mineral resource manageme nt needs. 

Many alternatives have been considered in recent years to protect the public lands which surround Bodie State Historic Park. 

In order to protect tho unique values at Bodie, I ro,; poctfully 

request ·that the federal government execute a p1·ocla111ation 

directing the public land located around the Bodie State Historic 

Park be '1itbdrawn fro"' future mineral entry. The withdrawn area should encompass the Bodle Bowl Arca or Critical Environmental 

Concarn, as outlined by the Buro11u of Land Hanagomont. . 'l'ldc 

mil')aral withdrawal will provide for loug-term protection for 

Bodie•s resources and "ill ease the bu,den placed on fedet·al and 

state land managers to monitor new claims around the Pai:k. 
The 11onora1>l" Bcu<0., 1:1.,1,1.,1 t.t. 

February 25, 1993 

Page 'l'WO 

63 

I want to make clear that this request is not meant to 

eKtinguish existing proporty rights in the area. Before a specific modern mining proposal on private lands 1s founddetrimental to the Bodie experience, it must be evaluated. If 

Bodie's values cannot be protected, mining must not occur. However, past eKperionco has proven that California's strict 

environmental and surface mining laws can in some instances allow 

tor extraction while protecting environmental quality. 

Withdrawal of tho §odie eowl tcom future mineral eotcy l~ 

war~antad. and ~:!.y~. This action would protect public values and 

provide lon9-ter111 stability for Bodie State Historic ?ark. Thank 

you very much for your time and consideration in this request. 

sincerely, 

PETE WILSON 
MA.RIAN BERGESON 

EOOAVIS 

PATRIO(JOHNSTO N 

January 12, 1993 

64 

QJalifomia i.rgislaturt 

j;enatt Q1ummitttt 

on 

Natural iResources an~ lllllil~lift 

DAN MCCOROUODALE 

C HAIR 

The Honorable Richard Lehman 

Member of Congress, 19th District 

1319 Longworth House Office Building 

Washington, o.c. 20515 

Dear congressmember Lehman: 

CONSUl.l...,.,.TS 

PCTER SZEGO 

MA.FIYSt-1AU...E.NBf.:~ER 

MA.Rl<>lJTE 

The over one hundred remaining structures within Bodie State Historic 

Park represent ·part of the largest and most perfectly preserved 

authentic western ghost town in the United States. The 220,000 

people who visited this year and the visitors of future generations 

expect to experience unaltered the town that was characterized during 

its heyday as "a sea of sin, lashed by the tempests of lust and 

passion." 

In 1988 a Canadian gold mining company began exploration of this 

historic district. The resulting public concern, both in California 

and across our nation, inspired me to introduce the accompanying 

Joint Resolution to the California Legislature. Passed in August 

1990, SJR 60 describes the ghost town qualities and national 

importance of Bodie and called for the withdrawal of federal public 

land surrounding the Park if it were threatened . I felt then as I do 

now that the activities associated with modern day mining threaten 

the unique environment of Bodie. 

Recently, the National Park Service in its annual report to Congress 

on damaged and threatened National Historic Landmarks listed Bodie as 

a Priority One threatened landmark citing "the cumulative damage from explora.:ion activities" and predicting that "renewed mining ... would 

also destroy a number of historic mining-related resources on and 

around Bodie Bluff and damage the integrity of the district's 

historic landscape qualities.'' 

The Bodie Protection Act of 1992, introduced by Congressmember Lehman 

last March, was designed to carry out the intent of my resolution but 

stalled in the Senate during the closing days of Congress. It has 

now been reintroduced as HR 240. As the 103rd Congress has convened, 

I again bring the renewed efforts to protect Bodie and its environs 

by swift passage of HR 240. 

--
65 

-2-

e is the last true ghost town in the west. If ever there was an 

re lace ble part of California's and our nation's heritage i our interest and protection, Bodie is it. 

DM/Mll:ss 

Enclosure 

ALE 

cc: Douglas Wheeler, Resources Agency Secretary Donald Murphy, Director, Dept. of Parks and Recreation 
66 

.. ,,./ 

• 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

COUNTY OF MONO 

P'.O. 11011710 • llridg•parl, Clllhlrnla 13111'r 

March 18, 1993 

The Honorable JClhn ~- Doolittle 

United Stat-• Hou•• of a,prH•nt•l::l.v•• 1s2,. Lon;inrorth Building Wa1hin;ton, DC 20511 

Daar Mr. Doolittle, 

M 

Ori March U, 1993, th• Mono County loud ol 8\lpervili ••- voted to •upport M.a, 2,0, tha lodi• Protection Act f 199 

Tha la;ialation to prot•ot 1odi• ha1 b••n under aeri •co• lidentJ.on by tM., :load for th• ,IJINt fr,, year,. %t ha• 

b•an a Vll'lr' oontrovar• ial 11.\bjeot, We hav. reoaivad 

cation• from all ovar th• oountry and fr- many part world anoour&9in9 tha loard to prot•o\ lodia, The I 

to thli oonolu.aion tha\ th• only way to aaaura the pr of lodia wa• to withdraw th• landa lr0111 mineral antr 

by th• lodi• Prot•otion Aot of 1993, 

A• our r•pr•••ntativ•, we would appr•oiat1 your oon1 arati n and • upport of B, a, 240, 

'l'hank you, 

111nc• r11y, 

- • 

AIIDRJlA LAWUllCI! 

Chair, •oard of luperviaora 

county of Mono 

co, S•nator Patriclc John• ton 

All~lyman David ~nowl•• 

Con;r•••~•n aichard H, ~•hm•n 

sanator Tim Leeli8 

con9r .. 111uui Geor9e Miller------·-----
67 

Mr. LEHMAN. Mrs. Vucanovich. 

Mrs. VUCANOVICH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Culp, you did talk about the BLM signing off on a land use 

plan recommending withdrawal of 6,000 acres as an Area of Critical Environmental Concern. Wouldn't such a large withdrawal require affirmative congressional action under Section 204 of FLPMA 

because it exceeds 5,000 acres? 

Mr. CULP. Yes. 

Mrs. VucANOVICH. In other words, can Secretary Babbitt do this 

administratively? 

Mr. CULP. No. You are correct; he has a requirement to notify 

Congress for over 5,000 acres. 

Mrs. VUCANOVICH. I am happy to see in your testimony that 

BLM supports referencing existing State laws as a standard for 

permitting and reclamation requirements. This echoes what I have 

been saying in the debates on mining law reform efforts. But isn't 

it true that the California Surface Mining and Reclamation Act already applies to miners operating in the Bodie area, and doesn't 

this law give the Mono County Board of Supervisors the lead role 

in reviewing proposed mining plans? 

Mr. CULP. Yes, it does under agreements that we have with both 

the State and the county, and as I recall, the standard is any mining activity that would disturb more than one acre; there has to be 

a plan submitted to the county. 

Mrs. VUCANOVICH. And so what role would BLM play under the 

SMRAAct? 

Mr. CULP. We would endorse the proposition that the current 

agreement with the State and the county continue to be implemented. 

Mrs. VUCANOVICH. Well, I have no further questions. I have some 

concerns about this bill, but I think we can work those things out. 

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. LEHMAN. Thank you very much. I want to thank each member of the panel, and thank you very much for your concern for 

Bodie. 

The hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 10:57 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

APPENDIX 

MARCH 30, 1993 

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD 

ANDREA LAWRENCE 

Disma No. 5 

RESIDENCE 

P.O. Box 43 

Mammoth Lakes. CA 93546 

16 I 91 934-2877 

Office of the . . . BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

COUNTY 0 F ~ 0 N 0 

COURTHOUSE • BRIDGEPORT· CALIFORNIA • 9Ul7 

STATEMENT OF ANDREA LAWRENCE 

MEMBER . MONO COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS on behalf of her constituents and herself to the 

COMMITI'EE ON NATURAL RESOURCES 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY and MINERAL RESOURCES 

UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES r egarding 

Congressman Richard H. Lehman's HR 240 

THE 

BODIE PROTECTION ACT 

(69) 
70 

March 30. 1993 

Congressman Richard H. Lehman 

Chair, Subconmittee on Energy and Mineral Resources.Ii __ H-Clno,o.'o\e Chu1V'l'Y\Q(\, ~c.vn'o~ o~ ++,e. S'-'btOMl--\1<-.:;,::;, 

As Mr. Lehman and Mr. Doolittle know frc;,m their current and 

recent capacities as representatives of a congressional district 

which includes the County of Mono, I have been a County 

Supervisor for over eleven years. The testimony which I submit 

to you today, is on behalf of my constituents, the people of Mono 

County as well as from the depths of myself. 

Last May I had the honor to appear before the Subcomnittee on 

Mining and Natural Resources and to speak in support of HR 4370, 

the Bodie Protection Act of 1992. A legislative proposal nearly 

identical to the one which you will be discussing today . At that 

time, I presented copies of the over 700 letters from visitors to 

Bodie expressing their appreciation of the area and showing 

unanimous concern that the historic value of this special place 

be preserved. These letters came from historians, biologists, 

relatives of Bodie-born families, and from travelers from around 

the world who return again and again to visit Bodie. They 

recognize that Bodie played an important role in the West's 

history. It had a notorious reputation for lawlessness and one 

visitor described it at its peak "as a sea of sin, lashed by the 

tempests of lust and passion." But Bodie history had its 

positive side too. Improvements in mining technology such as the 

early transmission of electricity , and in chemical ore recovery 

were pioneered here. Bodie also played an important role in the 

development of the labor movement in California, by focusing 

State's attention on labor friction. The Bodie Miner's Union was 

established in 1877 , and served the miners well, not only in 

seeking a living wage , but in protecting their widows and 

orphans . 

In the year since I spoke t o that s ubcommittee, the support, 

interest . and concern of the public to protect the unique 

American heritage that Bodie represents has only grown. Each 

agenda of the Mono County Board of Supervisors contains a list of 

such letters and communications . A ceaseless litany of voices 

asking that a place very special in these people's experience be 

preserved unaltered not only for themselves but for future 

generations. They recognize that the pursuit of a conditional 

use permit from Mono County for a much expanded exploration 

program on public and private lands includes historic sites and 

cultural remains integral to the historic landscape surrounding 

the State Historic Park . Exploration and subsequent mining 
Statement of Andrea Lawrence 

Page 2 

71 

could have serious impacts on the resources of Bodie . A dramatic 

example of the depth of this concern was the publication in June 

of last year of a full page advertisement in both Mono County 

newspapers. In banner text across the top were the words "WE THE 

PEOPLE OF MONO COUNTY SUPPORT THE BODIE PROTECTION ACT OF 1992. 

HR 4370." Below were nearly 400 names of Mono County citizens. 

which had been gathered in just two days and which represented 

nearly 18% of the registered voters of the County. The sponsors 

of this statement. The Eastern Sierra Citizens for the Protection 

of Bodie. report that they received numerous complaints from 

other county residents because they were not given an opportunity 

to have their names added to the published list. 

Bodie and the Historic District which surrounds it is of critical concern to citizens of my county. For instance, last June our State Senator. Patrick Johnston. and his aide, Ross Sargent. who as a child lived at Bodie, convened a workshop at the Mono Lake 

Visitor Center to discuss how best to protect Bodie and to shape 

its future. Participants included representatives of Mono 

County, property owners, California State Department of Parks and 

Recreation, the Bureau of Land Management. the local Chamber of 

Commerce as well as numerous local and concerned citizens. This 

group, meeting throughout the day. while representing a wide 

range of goals and interests, clearly and quickly found a 

comnonality in their desire to protect Bowie. 

Since that meeting. representatives of the Marmnoth Lakes Visitors 

Bureau have come to believe that their recent campaign to 

interest more people in visiting the Eastern Sierra, has in large measure been successful because of the important place that Bodie 

has had in their campaign. Their surveys show nearly 28% of the 

visitors rank Bodie high on their list of reasons to visit this 

region . 

Another example of the importance which Bodie plays in the local 

community is illustrated by the results of a three month survey 

conducted by the California Department of Parks and Recreation in 

1988, of the State Historic Park's visitors to determine their 

interests and perceptions of the ghost town. After wending their 

way thirteen miles back from the main highway into the Bodie 

Bowl, these visitors overwhelmingly commented that the sense of 

isolation and remoteness was integral in the trip's value to them 

and that the preservation of the town's character rated high in 

their estimation. Visitation topped the 230,000 mark last year, 

many more than visited the nearby National Mono Lake Scenic Area, 
Statement of Andrea Lawrence 

Page 3 

72 

directly adjacent to Highway 395. Clearly Bodie is not simply an 

incidental stop along the tourist's way. The public's interest 

in Bodie is illustrated by the fact that visitation has increased 

at the Historic Park, according to the California Department of 

Parks and Recreation which administers it, by 350% over the past 

decade. compared to a little over 8% for the 275 unit State Park 

System as a whole for the same period. Converted into raw 

dollars this is a fiscal benefit to the county of between $6.1 to 

$9.75 million dollars in 1988. Based upon the increase in 

visitors I would extrapolate this figure to $13.11 million 

dollars last year. Bodie represents to the recreation industry 

of Mono County a positive and dependable support of the local 

economy. 

HR 240 will not wrest local control form County Government. On 

the contrary, it is consistent with the goals of long-term 

protection as requested in California State Senate Joint 

Resolution 60 which passed with overwhelming bipartisan support, 

and which. according to Mr. Lehman's public statements of last 

year. served as the catalyst to his introduction of this 

legislation. It is certainly within the intent of the National 

Historic Landmark as well. As previously noted it is also within 

the scope of the wishes of the citizenry of the people of the 

County of Mono. As early as June 18. 1991 the Eastern Sierra 

Citizens for the Protection of Bodie requested of Congressman 

Lehman a "total mineral withdrawal for all Federal lands in the 

7325 acre Bodie Bowl." The provisions of HR 240 will satisfy 

this request and will include all of the area within the 

boundaries of the proposed National Historic Landmark as drafted 

by the National Park Service as well as it's view shed. 

Mono County maintains a critical role in its land 

jurisdiction over the more than 500 acres of patented 

immediately adJacent to Bodie State Historic Park, which 

subject to the provisions of this Bill. Thus the passage 

240 should be viewed as a partnership between the Federal. 

and Local governments in attempting to achieve the stated 

of long-term protection of the intrinsic values of Bodie. 

use 

land 

is not 

of HR 

State 

goals 

The preservation of Bodie goes well beyond the 150 or so 

buildings in the State Park town site. It includes the historic 

landscape which surrounds it and the character of the geographic area which in part defines it. This is an area which symbolizes 

the very spirit of a young. vital and boisterous nation. That 

vitality comes alive and is rekindled in the imaginations of 
Stotement of Andreo Lawrence 

Poge 4 

73 

everyone who makes their woy to Bodie. It is o place suspended in time and seemingly. 1n spoce. The lond the troveler passes 

through on their opprooch to Bodie ond beyond, is essentiol to 

the full "Bodie Experience." As one letter .writer put it. "Bodie 

is full of noturol history. set in o most unique wilderness. 

g1v1ng visitors o sense of owe .. . " In preparing the droft 

landmark district boundary. this area was found by the National 

Park Service to contain historic resources of national 

significonce with the finding thot nowhere else is there o historic londscope contoining such extensive and intoct remains 

from vorious historicol periods os exists in Bodie. 

The speciol places in this land we have tried so hard to save have not alwoys been sufficiently protected. We must not make 

this mistoke with Bodie. for there is not onother ploce to rivol 

her. It has been written that "A lond without ruins is a land 

without memory, A lond without memory is a land without history." 

Surely we connot offord to lose either one. 

I hope thot you will join with me ond the majority of the Board 

of Supervisors of Mono County who voted on the 16th of this month 

to support HR 240 . 

Andrea Lawrence c~-- ---- r . .. , . 

Mono County Supervisor. District 5 
Nancy Wells 

74 

OFFICE fX- THE BOARD fX- SUPERVISORS 

COUNTY' CF MONO 

P.O. BOX 715, BRIDGEPORT, CA 93517 

(619) 932-5215 

Clerk of the Board 

TO: Cleric of the Board 

MINUTE ORDER 

93-120 

FROM: Board of Supervisors 

SUBJECT: H.R. 240 - Bodie Protection Act of 1992 

Nancy Gordon 

.Deputy 

At the regular meeting of the Mono County Board of Supervisors of 

march 16, 1993, it.was: 

Moved by Supervisor Jar~'is. seconded by Supervisor Alpers and 

carried to support HR 240, Bodie Protection Act af 1992 and that the 

Soard send letter to various representatives at the State and Federal 

level notifying them of the Board's position on this bill. 

Ayes: 

Noes: 

Supervisors Alpers, Jarvis, 1.awrence and Paranick. 

Supervisor Reid. 

Absent: None. 

Abstain: None. 

ATTEST: Y hn",t~ock?:< £1,ae- Lr),-= Nancy el s 

Clerk of the Board 

Cc: Caunfy::<:ounse-1-' 

County Administrative Officer 

Scott Burns, Planning Director 

Directed to: Clerk of the Board 

Response date: n/a 

l3a) 

0 

ISBN 0-16-041583- 7 

90000 

9 780160 415838