Selling off national forest and national parks? TU alert

This might be the most dangerous thing I have seen yet to hit fly
fishing in the U.S. This would have devestating effects on the nations
best trout streams, and we would lose access to many of those streams.

Seems that's what Pombo and Bush are up to. I never in all my days
thoguht I would have ever seen this. No joke, this plan would sell off
our national parks and forests, having a terrible ipact on our trout
streams.

www.tu.org

Please email your Member of the House of Representatives and ask them
to vote against the House Reconciliation Bill (HR 4241) because
sections 6201-6207 would allow the sale of public lands from public
ownership.



The U.S. House of Representatives is likely voting tomorrow, Thursday
November 10, on a bill that would allow for the sale of public lands to
mining companies and other development interests that are crucial for
fish, wildlife, and water resources.



These harmful provisions are buried within the so-called House
Reconciliation Bill. The measures were inserted into the bill without
any public hearings or debate by Congressman Richard Pombo of
California.



Congressman Pombo's provisions would amend the 1872 Mining Law to allow
public lands to be patented, or sold off, to mining companies that
expressed an interest in mining an area for a maximum of $1,000 per
acre. The provisions actually weaken standards set under the lax 1872
Mining Law by allowing miners and other development interests to
privatize public land without any review or federal oversight.



Public lands are managed in trust by the U.S. Forest Service and the
Bureau of Land Management for all of the people of the United States,
and contain more than half of the nation's blue-ribbon trout streams.
They are strongholds for all of the imperiled native trout in the
western United States, and contain the best remaining habitat for
migrating salmon and steelhead.



Congressman Pombo's fire-sale of public lands would reverse a 30-year
congressional mandate that public lands should remain in public
ownership. Please call your Member of Congress in the House of
Representatives and ask them to vote against the Reconciliation Bill
unless the harmful mining provisions are removed.


-------

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9991573/



Controversial mining plan nears House vote
Debate centers on what federal lands would be sold, and at what price
Environment slide shows ARCHIVE
Updated: 11:17 a.m. ET Nov. 10, 2005
WASHINGTON - Mining industry critics braced for a House vote on a
budget bill that includes a provision that could allow the sales of
millions of acres of public lands.

The provision would overturn a congressional ban on letting mineral
companies and individuals buy public lands at cheap prices if they hold
mineral deposits.

"If this provision became law, it could literally lead to the
privatization of millions of acres of public land, including national
park and national forestland," said Dave Alberswerth, public lands
director for The Wilderness Society.

A vote on the overall bill could come as early as Thursday.

Congress has decided each year since 1994 to prohibit mining companies
from exploiting an obscure part of the 1872 mining law that allows
businesses and individuals to "patent," or buy, some of the
nation's most scenic lands at 19th century prices - just $2.50 to
$5 per acre. It gives them absolute title, including mineral rights, to
the properties.

The Interior Department over the past decade has approved slightly more
than half of the 405 patent applications it received before 1994, and
is still processing the final 50.

Mineral value wouldn't count
House Resources Committee Chairman Richard Pombo, R-Calif., and other
committee members want to lift the ban preventing anyone from applying
for a new patent application. They propose raising the price to $1,000
per acre or "fair market value," whichever is more. That doesn't
take into account the value of the minerals the lands might contain.

Until now, companies have had to convince the Interior Department that
the land has a valuable mineral deposit and it can be mined at a
profit. Department officials say companies typically spend about
$10,000 to $15,000 per acre trying to document that it is economically
viable to mine there.

Once a patent is granted, the law does not let the government challenge
a company if it drops its plan to mine at a site and resell the
property as real estate.

Most of the available land that could be bought is managed by the
Interior Department's Bureau of Land Management. Officials there say
they received 320,000 mining claims this year, a huge amount driven by
high gold prices. The average size mining claim is on 20 acres.

That adds up to 6.4 million acres of BLM land - generally remote
acreage used for grazing, recreation and a multitude of other purposes
- that could be sold if it were "patented."

Some claims in protected areas
Though the bill exempts national parks, monuments and wilderness areas,
The Wilderness Society says lands with existing mining claims in
national parks could still be sold. There are 900 such mining claims,
including 700 in California; the rest are mostly in Alaska.

The Congressional Budget Office estimates the changes in law could
raise several hundred million dollars, including $100 million that
could be spent over the next 10 years for mining cleanups and schools
that offer training in petroleum, mining or mineral engineering.

The new language lowers the threshold for obtaining a permit and
generally mirrors what the National Mining Association advocated. Luke
Popovich, a spokesman for the trade group, said those changes would
help boost rural Western economies by drawing investment "in areas
where mining companies are clearly the high-wage employers."

Rep. Jim Gibbons, R-Nev., chairman of the House Resources energy and
mineral resources subcommittee, said the law needed to be changed
because "continuously suspending the patent process is not a
solution, it is merely a temporary fix."

"Patenting and purchase of lands is absolutely vital to the health of
Nevada's rural communities because it expands the tax base of the
local government, which in turn funds schools, emergency services and
other infrastructure," he said.

However, Rep. Nick Rahall of West Virginia, the senior Democrat on the
committee, said the mining provision "would result in a blazing fire
sale of federal lands" to U.S. and international companies.