We’re probably going to see this a lot in dealing with Roadless; because they wanted to do a national rule, they couldn’t make specific exceptions, even when they seem totally rational to some of us. If they picked the most obvious cases, where to draw the line? So nationalizing forced some decisions that didn’t make sense if we look at a different scale. This is part of looking at what Idaho and Colorado found as a “need for change” with the 2001.
I went back to the 2001 final rule which specifically addressed phosphate mining on the Caribou-Targhee:
The FEIS identified potential impacts on future phosphate mining on the Caribou National Forest, the only area of active phosphate mining on NFS lands. The FEIS acknowledged that phosphate production from the Caribou accounts for about 12% of national production, and is used to supply regional producers of phosphate fertilizer products and elemental phosphorous. The analysis included an estimate of phosphate resources within inventoried roadless areas of 873.3 million tons, and a description that about 8,000 acres of the area of Known Phosphate Lease Areas are within inventoried roadless areas.
Here’s the Department’s decision rationale:
The Department has decided not to adopt the exception for future discretionary mineral leasing because of the potentially significant environmental impacts that road construction could cause to inventoried roadless areas, but instead determined a more limited exception is appropriate. Existing mineral leases are not subject to the prohibitions, nor is the continuation, extension, or renewal of an existing mineral lease on lands under lease by the Secretary of the Interior as of the date of publication of this rule in the Federal Register . Additionally, road construction or reconstruction may be authorized for new leases on these same lands in the event that application for a new lease is made prior to termination or expiration of the existing lease.
The Department recognizes that this decision may have major adverse economic impacts on a few communities dependent on mineral leasing from inventoried roadless areas. However, if road construction and reconstruction were allowed for future mineral leasing on lands not under mineral lease as of the date of publication of this rule in the Federal Register , an estimated 59 miles of new roads would be constructed in inventoried roadless areas over the next five years. Road construction or reconstruction in support of future mineral leasing on lands not presently under mineral lease could continue at this level or in greater amounts into the foreseeable future. Over an estimated 10 million acres of inventoried roadless areas could be roaded for exploration and development of leasable minerals, although the agency believes it is unlikely that more than a small percentage of these acres would contain minerals sufficient for economic development.
It looks like some folks asked for specific exemptions, but the Department had to make a decision for everywhere all at once. Going back through time, I also wonder if technology has changed a bit.. maybe (some) exploration could be done without roads. Even in 2001, they believed that only a small percentage would be worth developing. Today we know a great deal more about a) what minerals are important for national security and b) where they might be.
As it happens, the Idaho Rule specifically allowed road construction and surface disturbance for phosphate mining on roughly 5700-6000 (according to Google AI) acres within the Caribou-Targhee. For context, the Idaho Rule covers 9.3 million acres. Those roads may well be administrative and closed to the public.
It’s another kind of “pick a lane” question.. from the same people I’ve heard both “roads are bad because people light fires and disturb animals” AND “if there’s a road on federal lands we should all be able to drive on it.”
I asked AI about whether these Simplot roads are open to the public.
No, J.R. Simplot Company industrial haul and access roads located within Inventoried Roadless Areas (such as on the Caribou-Targhee National Forest in Idaho) are not open to the general public. These operational and corporate haul roads are authorized strictly under special-use permits for industrial mining, heavy equipment, and company maintenance. [1, 2, 3]
Of course, folks are concerned about environmental impacts of mining, but that is covered in the EIS or EA for whatever activity.
I agree that critical minerals like phosphate should have relaxed regulations to allow their extraction from public lands IF those minerals are being consumed within the US and NOT sold on the world market, essentially benefiting both the company that extracts them AND the American people.
On the other hand, I oppose easing of access restrictions for non critical minerals like gold, which although has industrial uses, is primarily used for vanity purposes.
I find this interesting that public isn’t allowed on these roads. I know of an example on the Caribou Targhee that is different. On Taylor Mountain, in the Centennial Range, is a phosphate mine that is now closed. The Continental Divide National Scenic Trail actually uses the haul road system. The road once closed is now a non motorized recreational resource.