Arkansas Canoe Club Forums

Prophet you are absolutely right -- unfortunately due to grandfather clauses written into the Wilderness Act by Congress such intrusions are legal once all the EISs and other red tape has been completed. I understand the rationale for you never know when a strategic metal may be found within a declared wilderness area. Moreover this "compromise" was necessary to secure wilderness designation for many our national forests -- otherwise local resistance would have been significant. Moreover outside of eminent domain and adverse possession our government still supports the rights of individual land owners and to purchase these lands and claims outright would likely be an expense our federal government really can't afford right now.

We can certainly see the "stupidity" of such intrusions into our wilderness areas -- but I am certain there are others who view absolute exclusion of all such intrusions to be equally stupid -- especially if sufficient mineral deposits or natural resources are available to support local economies. If our jobs and the welfare of our families was dependent on these resources we'd likely be more willing to compromise our "moral responsibility".

In response to the original thread, if there are indeed endangered or threatened species downstream of the creek crossings, I would think that the USFS would either move them or reject the POO. However it is my understanding that as part of NEPA after the EIS has been completed it has to be reviewed by the US Fish and Wildlife Service. The US Fish and Wildlife Service are the people that are responsible for listing threatened and endangered species as well as monitoring their populations. Just my two cents.

The mining case Prophet referred to is the Coeur Alaska case. A good summary can be found on this blog:

http://www.scotuswiki.com/index.php?tit ... l%2C_et_al" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;.

The mine is claiming their plan to fill a lake with mine waste should be permitted by a Corps 404 permit (normally used for bridges, dams, and dikes), not an EPA issued 402 pemit (used for all other types of discharges). The mine also claims that since they received a 404 permit from the Corps, their discharge should not be subject to effluent limitations--despite the fact EPA has established guidelines for process wastewater from a mine. The parties argued the case in front of the Supreme Court on Monday, a decision is pending.

As for the Endangered Species Act--the Administration recently gutted it to allow agencies to make their own decisions regarding the consequences of their actions--drastically reducing The Marine Fisheries Services and the US Fish and Wildlife Services input and authority under the Act. This has resulted in a rash of suits over the last 45 days, including one by California's AG.

thanks for the info on that mine situation. that will be interesting to watch

Grant (prophet during the day Gordon)