To: nature-net@yahoogroups.com
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 21 Dec 2001 03:14:27.0753 (UTC)
FILETIME=[995F1190:01C189CD]
From: "Bruce RB"
X-Originating-IP: [63.211.247.114]
Mailing-List: list nature-net@yahoogroups.com; contact
nature-net-owner@yahoogroups.com
Delivered-To: mailing list nature-net@yahoogroups.com
List-Unsubscribe:
Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2001 20:14:27 -0700
Subject: [nature-net] Strip Mining the Rocky Flats Wildlife Refuge

STRIP MINING the ROCKY FLATS WILDLIFE REFUGE

The designation of the Rocky Flats buffer zone as a wildlife refuge is a crucial first step in the long term preservation of this area. The buffer area has been closed to the public and to human activities for many decades. As a result, nature has re-established a rich stronghold there. We should all be pleased by this wildlife refuge designation and the potential for preserving nature that it presents.

But we must not get complacent; there is much work left to be done. The Rocky Flats Plant core area is being cleaned up, but is not included in the wildlife refuge. It could eventually be sold for development. Developers would love to have a prime piece of real estate surrounded by a wildlife refuge. There is big profit potential here. And, as the work of Dr. Carl Bock and his graduate students at CU has shown, just 10% urbanization of an area has a very significant negative impact on surrounding natural lands. Loss of sensitive bird and mammal species appears to be inevitable. Although this conclusion is based on correlative evidence and the actual mechanism producing the loss of organisms is not yet known, the correlation is very strong and must be taken seriously as a major threat to wildlife in the buffer zone (and in any other areas which are undergoing development).

Equally as disturbing is the likelihood that a major part of the western and northern portions of the wildlife refuge itself will be STRIP MINED. In leaving open this possibility, Udall and Allard fall far short in their bill (probably caving in to special interests and/or political realities).

Mineral rights under most of the western and northern portions of the buffer are held by the Lafarge Company. This is the company that has the big plant, silos and crushers on the east side of Hwy 93 immediately south of the Jefferson County/Boulder County line near Rocky Flats. Its business is the (strip) mining of aggregate, a non-renewable resource used as a base for the building of roads, homes and buildings. With Colorado's growth, the demand for aggregate is strong, the supply is being consumed and the price and profits are steadily increasing. (Truly meaningful legislation that actually limits growth would help immensely with this and many other problems in Colorado.)

The wildlife refuge bill leaves a large loophole for owners of mineral, oil and water rights to pursue their interests unencumbered. The bill does direct the Secretary of the Interior to try to buy out these rights, but denies her the right of condemnation and thus takes away the major incentive to get these interests to the bargaining table. The bill also will not allow the Secretary to pay more than the "fair market value" for the rights and provides the money to do so only if our (anti-environmental) Congress authorizes it. The Secretary's hands are tied, the resource extractors have free reign, and nature, as usual, bats last.

On a well-attended field trip of Rocky Flats this past summer, Lafarge Company representatives discussed their reclamation plans. They will remove and sell all of the coarse materials (sand to boulder size) and resurface the ground with the fine materials (silt and clay-size particles which have no economic value). This will create a new soil which is drastically different from the very coarse-to-very fine, erosionally unsorted soil which supports a well-adapted, water-dependent plant community. This new soil will be drier and much less forgiving of wet and dry spells. It also will be depleted in organic materials.

As a result, one of the most unique plant communities that is there now will not endure. This community is co-dominated by an unusual assemblage of two plains species (big and little bluestem), two mountain species (Porter's aster and mountain muhly), and about 60 associated species. In the new soil, knapweed, chicory and other invasive non-native weeds will likely be favored. The alteration in the plant community will produce an alteration in the populations of plant-dependent herbivores and, consequently, herbivore-dependent carnivores. Some species, particularly the "junk" species, will increase. Other sensitive and more desirable species will decline and perhaps die out. Nature will be impoverished and will never again be the same. This is a high price for ALL future generations to pay for today's politically expedient, me-first loophole in the current law. Although the bill calls this a "wildlife refuge," it won't be unless we stay vigilant and fight to preserve ancient soils, plant communities and wildlife.

The surface upon which Rocky Flats is built was created by horrendous floods about two million years ago. This makes it the oldest existing surface in the state of Colorado. It should be protected as a natural landmark, preserved as part of America's heritage. Let's hope that Mark Udall and Wayne Allard are sincere in their desire to establish a viable natural wildlife refuge at Rocky Flats and will continue to fight for it. But, to date, neither of them has said that this is just a first step; they are allowing us to think of this as a done deal. The facts are clear, there's much left to do.

Bruce Bland

_________________________________________________________________
Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com

======================================================
Boulder County Nature Association's Nature Network http://www.bcna.org

To Post a message, send it to: nature-net@egroups.com
To Unsubscribe, send a message to: nature-net-unsubscribe@egroups.com
To Subscribe, send a message to: nature-net-subscribe@egroups.com
Message Archives: http://www.egroups.com/group/nature-net

Unless otherwise stated, opinions expressed do not necessarily represent BCNA's position.
======================================================


To: nature-net@yahoogroups.com
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 04 Jan 2002 20:49:00.0431 (UTC)
FILETIME=[3C9C09F0:01C19561]
From: "Bruce RB"
X-Originating-IP: [63.211.242.193]
Mailing-List: list nature-net@yahoogroups.com; contact
nature-net-owner@yahoogroups.com
Delivered-To: mailing list nature-net@yahoogroups.com
List-Unsubscribe:
Date: Fri, 04 Jan 2002 13:49:00 -0700
Subject: [nature-net] Strip Mining at Rock Flats. 2 Corrections: Good & Bad

STRIP MINING of ROCKY FLATS. 2 Corrections: Good News/Bad News

The previous article on Strip Mining of the Rocky Flats National Wildlife Refuge contained two items of erroneous information and needs to be corrected (before it is repeated).

The GOOD news is that the Udall/Allard bill (that was actually passed) DOES require the core area of the Rocky Flats Plant to stay in federal ownership (it can't be sold to private developers). Furthermore, portions that are sufficiently cleaned up will be transferred to the wildlife refuge unless congress chooses in subsequent legislation to change this provision. Areas that can't be cleaned up or are needed for monitoring purposes will remain under control of the Department of Energy. This provision was added due to the advocacy of the Rocky Flats Coalition of Local Governments. Thanks to two astute readers and Mark Udall's office for this correction.

The BAD news is that under the bill that passed, neither the Department of the Interior (DOI) nor the DOE has been directed to try to buy out the mineral rights. Worse yet, neither of these departments, under current leadership (Gayle Norton at DOI, and Spencer Abraham at DOE), even want to buy these rights. Instead they have agreed in the bill to "provide strategies for resolving or mitigating" impacts caused by the exercise of private resource extraction rights. Mitigation of strip mining on these lands is simply not possible. Mining must be stopped before it occurs.

Polls tell us that a hefty majority of the American population does not want oil and gas drilling to occur in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Citizens, wisely, don't want to risk damage to our precious north slope refuge. But here we are saddled with the high probability of strip mining in Colorado's own wildlife refuge. The Rocky Flats National Wildlife Refuge is no less valuable to the preservation of America's natural heritage than is ANWR. Strip mining WILL create permanent damage to this irreplaceable natural treasure regardless of the how sincere the intentions to mitigate are. Our wildlife refuges are America's nature museums. Should we "mine" the Smithsonian for gems and precious metals too? We can manufacture more clothes, more homes, more tools, more amenities of all sorts, but we can't recreate life, we can only preserve it - where it is.

The worst part of this bill is the dangerous precedent it sets for the preservation of nature in America. This, I am told, was done to appease the property rights advocates in Congress so the bill could make it through. The resource extraction provisions of this bill will be used as a model for future political deals when other federal lands are being considered for protection. There may never again be a wildlife refuge created where resource extraction doesn't take precedent over preservation of nature. Wildlife refuges will, in reality, become extraction reserves. Resource extractors can argue "We are allowed to do this at Rocky Flats, why not ANWR and the wilderness areas too? ... Let's be consistent and fair."

This bill has created an end run around the fifth amendment to the constitution and, in effect, transfers power from American citizens to those who are privileged enough to hold property rights. In our political climate, this will be very difficult to reverse. The fifth amendment simply states ".....nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." This clearly implies that private property CAN be taken for public use and that when this is done JUST COMPENSATION is required. So why should property holders be so bitterly contemptuous of condemnation when the constitution requires that they receive just compensation? If anyone who reads this has a legal background it would be interesting to hear your comments on this topic.

My suspicion is that this isn't about property rights, it's about the creation of "speculation rights." Owners of property rights often, sometimes incorrectly, anticipate becoming wealthy from those rights. By screaming "property rights" and "takings," they are actually trying to get the nation to compensate for their SPECULATED wealth potential. Yet, a properly done property right appraisal will reflect the future profit potential of that right because the profit potential is already built into the market value of the right (after all, profit potential is what buyers of rights are paying for). Of course, some people are simply angry at our government and don't want the nation to acquire their property rights regardless of how beneficial it is to the American people or how much they will be compensated.

Worse yet, by existing laws, neither the Secretary of the DOE nor the DOI can pay more than the "fair market value" for property rights (even if they can be persuaded to buy them). This doesn't make sense economically. A full cost-benefit analysis, which balances today's cost against the benefits to this and all future generations of Americans would undoubtedly reveal that the benefits FAR outweigh the costs. (Was Alaska worth 3 cents an acre?) This is particularly true when we remember that future generations will have much less nature to benefit from than we do today, and there will be many more of them to value it. The supply of nature is going down, the demand for nature is going up, so the value of nature is sure to increase. If the price paid was two or even ten times the market value, the nation would still be getting a great deal in the long run. How much will a biologically rich, intact, and UN-MINED Rocky Flats National Wildlife Refuge be worth tomorrow?

There is still much work left to be done before Rocky Flats is a wildlife refuge in more than name only.

Bruce Bland

_________________________________________________________________
Send and receive Hotmail on your mobil device: http://mobile.msn.com

======================================================
Boulder County Nature Association's Nature Network http://www.bcna.org

To Post a message, send it to: nature-net@egroups.com
To Unsubscribe, send a message to: nature-net-unsubscribe@egroups.com
To Subscribe, send a message to: nature-net-subscribe@egroups.com
Message Archives: http://www.egroups.com/group/nature-net

Unless otherwise stated, opinions expressed do not necessarily represent BCNA's position.
======================================================