Mining

Mining by the Ouachita National Recreation Trail

by

I found three things interesting about this situation.  Legally, I think there is a problem if the environmental analysis for a mine fails to say anything about the proximity to or the effects on a national trail and its users.

Bo Lea, president of FoOT, told The Sentinel-Record Jan. 15 that the Ouachita National Recreation Trail is a 223.5-mile premiere hiking and biking trail, and FoOT’s concern was that project’s environmental assessment made “no mention of the Ouachita Trail except for one map that shows a 150-foot buffer between the trail and the mining area. That’s only 50 yards.”

The Forest seems to be assuming that the buffer will fully mitigate any effects, but that has to be disclosed and supported by some analysis.

Politically, this area is in the Congressional district of Bruce Westerman, who has become renowned for proposing anti-environmental riders to Forest Service legislation.  At least he is consistent:

“I’ve long supported sustainable mining in the 4th District, provided it benefits local communities and stewards natural resources well,” Westerman said Tuesday in an email. “I look forward to the results of the Quartz Mine’s environmental review, and hope to see it progress in the upcoming year.”

Lastly, this is an area that is promoted for mountain bike use by the Forest Service and organizations that appear to support both hiking and biking.  It’s an “epic” biking trail, and it doesn’t go through any wilderness areas.

Energy dominance coming to national forests

by

The Forest Service plans to submit a rule that would make it easier to explore oil and gas drilling, as well as mineral mining, in National Forests.

“It is in the national interest to promote clean and safe development of our Nation’s vast energy resources, while at the same time avoiding regulatory burdens that unnecessarily encumber energy production, constrain economic growth, and prevent job creation,” the rule notice reads.

“The intent of these potential changes would be to decrease permitting times by removing regulatory burdens that unnecessarily encumber energy production. These potential changes would promote domestic oil and gas production by allowing industry to begin production more quickly,” the notice reads

I assume that any such burdens are in place because someone thought they were “necessary,” and I hope there is a good discussion of why they are no longer so.

For mining,

“Increasing the consistency of the agencies’ procedures and rules would benefit persons who conduct locatable mineral operations on the public lands managed by the [Bureau of Land Management] as well as on National Forest System lands managed by the Forest Service,” the notice reads.

Interesting how they are not even paying the lip service that usually sounds like this: “while protecting the environment and other national forest uses.”  I look forward to their analysis of effects on global warming.