Illustrated Daily; 3073; The Wilderness Controversy

You I really think that environmentalism is a patriotic pursuit. I think that trying to defend the land and the environment is as much a measure of patriotism as fighting for the land in the war. The illustrated daily, managing editor Hal Rhodes. Good evening. The battle is intense,

often noisy and acrimonious and there seems to be no end in sight. For many it is even difficult to define the issue, so murky has the controversy become. But the focus is clear some 80 million acres of the nation's wilderness areas. In his annual report last year, Interior Secretary James Wat, propounded as one of his goals, a 20-year extension of mineral exploration in America's wilderness areas. Three weeks ago, however, Wat said in a television interview that he is determined to preserve and protect those areas. Tonight, with some 180,000 acres of potential New Mexico wilderness up for grabs a look at the wilderness controversy

and we begin with this background report. The great wilderness experience is something that's difficult to put into words because it is an emotional experience and only by going to the wilderness and experiencing the fullness and the awesome beauty of this land, can people really appreciate what they're losing? I think Secretary Wat's release of this 180,000 acres of wilderness remains to be seen. Besides the gnashing of teeth and hue and outcry that we've gotten from our environmental groups, I think it's going to be hard to tell exactly what's going to happen in the future. I think we have to be very careful about protecting what we have naturally, but I think that there's going to be a lot more bureaucratic jumbling about courtroom drama before we really know what any effect is.

The areas that are affected by the December wilderness decision are 23 areas in New Mexico scattered throughout the state. 12 of these areas are completely affected and will be dropped from the wilderness inventory and study process. 11 areas are only partially affected by some degree. The number of acres proposed for wilderness is in New Mexico for instance, less than 2% of the total land area of the state and all the rest is available for development. I don't think that's a bad compromise on the side of the developers. Not all of the wilderness areas that have been proposed may be worth saving. It might be better in the long run for people to use the resources in those areas, but there are some that have been proposed that we must save that Secretary Watt has taken off the list. I think we have to work very diligently with everybody involved to make sure that those areas are preserved as a natural asset for kids.

Do you ask about the long term impacts of this wilderness decision of December 27th? I think they're very small. It's just a matter of an opinion of how much acreage should be in a wilderness or how many acres in every state should be wilderness. The general feeling of environmentalist toward Secretary Watt is first outrage at the things that he's doing so out of character to one who's specifically designated as the steward of the public land and the steward of the public trust. But after the outrage has passed, there's just an enormous disappointment that people who are so biased and so arrogant of the will of the people and the will of the Congress could rise to a position of power within the administration as he has. Well, I've been with the Department of Interior for 25 years, and I guess I've been through

seven or eight secretaries of the interior. They all have their different philosophies, but again, they all must obey the laws that are passed by Congress, and I don't see that Secretary Watt has done anything contrary to the laws that Congress has passed. I think that's enough said. Has been said and probably will be said as his wilderness controversy continues. Somewhere near the center of it all is the Bureau of Land Management of the United States Department of Interior. Monty Jordan is the Associate State Director of the BLM here in New Mexico, and he is with us this evening in the studios of the State Library in Santa Fe. Good evening, Mr. Jordan. Good evening, how? Mr. Jordan, just so everyone is working with the same understanding. The a wilderness study area is not the same as a wilderness area, right? That is correct.

Could you explain the difference? So our viewers and everybody else on this program is working with the same understandings. Yes, I'll be happy to. I think we should all remember that there are basically three steps in the wilderness process. First and inventory to determine which areas possess wilderness characteristics. We finished that in November 1980 in New Mexico. The second step is to study those areas that have been identified. That is when you designate areas as wilderness study areas. We're in that process now. The third step is once you have completed your studies, you enter a process of recommendation for designation or non-designation of the wilderness. I think it's important to say that here in New Mexico, the State Director Bill Lusher with BLM will eventually make recommendations to the Department of Interior. The Secretary will again recommend to the President of the United States, which areas should be designated, and the President in turn will make recommendations to the Congress. All right.

That's very helpful. Thank you so much. Now, a Secretary wants decision to remove over what is it, 800,000 acres of western lands from the category of wilderness study areas. What is the rationale for that as you understand it? It is a decision based upon interpretation of law. During the inventory and study process is being carried forward by the BLM, several individuals and companies appealed against the process as being followed by the BLM. The Department of Interior's Board of Land Appeals ruled in three cases that we were incorrect in our procedures. The Secretary had those decisions reviewed by the solicitor of the Department, and the solicitor did advise the Secretary that changes should be made. All right. In what way were those original recommendations in contravention of the law? It's my understanding that there are three areas. The first is that under Section 603 of Flippma, you can only include in a wilderness study area, areas which include 5,000 contiguous acres or more.

The second area is that if you have public lands, BLM administered lands which are contiguous to lands administered by other agencies such as the United States Forest Service, we cannot include those areas in wilderness study areas unless they can stand alone. We cannot combine them, in other words. The third area is that we are not supposed to include areas which are known as split-state lands within wilderness study areas. Split-state lands are lands on which the federal government owns the surface and non-federal entities own the subsurface mineral rights. All right. About the first matter, the 5,000-acre requirement, here in New Mexico, initially the Bistai Wilderness Study Area was on Secretary Watt's list of properties to be removed from that category, presumably because it encompassed Watt, I mean less than about 4,000 acres. Yet, after strong congressional reaction to this action on the part of Secretary Watt

and following protests of environmental groups, the Bistai was reinstated as a wilderness study area. There's still only 5,000 acres of the Bistai. What is the rationale for putting it back on the list of study areas? I'm glad you asked the question because it's been an area of continuing controversy and misunderstanding. Section 603 of the Federal and Policy and Management Act says that we can only consider areas of 5,000 acres or more. In that same act, Section 202, the Secretary has discretionary authority to consider an area of any size for wilderness if it warrants such treatment. In this case, the Secretary is convinced that Bistai does possess the qualities necessary to continue the study process to see if it warrants a wilderness designation. So the 5,000-acre rule is not an iron law, in other words. That is true.

All right, so thank you very much. Now for the view of many environmentalists throughout the West, Judy Bishop, state coordinator of the New Mexico Bureau of Land Management, Wilderness Coalition, an umbrella organization embracing such established environmental groups as the Sierra Club, the Friends of the Earth, and the Wilderness Society among others. Good evening, Miss Bishop. Good evening. Miss Bishop, State Land Commissioner at the beginning of the program indicated that while he is not sympathetic to all of the complaints being lodged by environmentalist over Secretary Watts actions, he agrees that some of the areas removed from the list should remain under wilderness protection or at least stay in the process of wilderness study. Is it the contention of your organization that all of the 180,000 acres of wilderness lands in New Mexico, which have been removed from the list, must be reinstated, or are there specific areas which were you most especially?

Okay, on the lands related to the Federal Register notice that Mr. Watts released the last week of December. These are not wilderness lands yet. These are lands under wilderness study. And we feel that these lands should be included in their entirety and put back into the study. In fact, there was a suit filed in California to cover all the Western states. About ten states affected by this notice to do exactly that thing, to put back the lands that were taken out. Not just in California. Not just in California. But in all the ten Western states. All the states affected. The two states most affected by this ruling, the Federal Register notice are in New Mexico and Arizona on the split of state issue. We have a great deal to lose. You pointed out a number of acres in the Federal Register notice that is not the total acreage we are going to lose. BLM is in a process now of re-inventoring their lands. And as they redraw the boundaries to drop these areas, we will no longer have the 5,000

contiguous acres. We will have some checkerboard patterns. And therefore additional acreage will be dropped lost from the study. I'm sorry, you're going to have to explain that because I'm sure a lot of people don't quite understand your point. Okay. Let me take for example, El Malpai, which is near grants. It's an instant wilderness study area. The way the land is set up in El Malpai, it's affected by the split of states. And in the Federal Register notice, it indicates about half of the acres will be dropped because of the split of state issues. There are people that own the subsurface mineral rights other than the federal government. But when the land pattern is drawn out, it will be like a checkerboard. The reds would belong to the Federal ones. The black squares would belong to the private ownership and because the red squares do not are not altogether, we will also lose all the rest of that land. So indeed, the total area will probably be recommended as non-suitable for wilderness. Well, I wanted to ask you about the split of states, these situations.

We know Mr. Jordan has explained to us that there is no such thing as an iron law of 5,000 acres as a base requirement to be a wilderness area based upon the Secretary's actions and the authority he has to take those actions in the instance of the best eye. But in the split of state situations where the Federal government has rights to the surface land or either has already leased and already has leased subsurface mineral rights or could lease those subsurface mineral rights, isn't there a legitimate problem here? There is. That's part of the problem of the whole land management policy. There is an act called Flipma, the Federal Land Policy and Management Act that addresses a good many of these issues. The split of state issue has been considered in the past and we've had different rulings on it. It was brought up again, Santa Fe Railroad is the one that happened to appeal the areas here in New Mexico and also in Arizona.

It is a real problem. In fact, we did see an example of that earlier on down near Roswell in New Mexico when Yates Oil Company went in and did put up a rig in a wilderness area because they indeed had the subsurface mineral rights. That's not well understood at the time. Many people assumed that some private developer was going in there without legitimate authority and engaging in mineral exploration when in fact those leases had already been let. Right. The lease was his but he did not have permission to disturb the surface and I'm not sure what all is involved in that legal entailment. But that is an example of what happens with the split estates because it's more than just the lease or just the surface. Both of them have to be concerned. Are these split estates the real Achilles heel as you see it of the wilderness study area controversy? It's one of them. It's one of many. We've had many procedural problems as the whole study has progressed in New Mexico. New Mexico, the study is a little different than it is in most states. We are one of the three states on an accelerated study. We are doing a state-wide

study. It started a year ago in December and should finish up at the end of this year with Mr. Lesher submitting his recommendations to the secretary about a year from now if the study can go on course as it's supposed to go. All right. Let me ask you this. What do you say to those who argue the proposition that we need access to those minerals in many of these wilderness areas just as a condition of our economic well-being and that wilderness areas anyway are kind of elitist luxuries? I'm not inventing, of course. I know. I've heard that many times and it depends on how you're going to define some of the words. As far as the minerals, this great wealth of minerals that are supposedly buried underneath all these lands, we don't know that they're there. In fact, in many instances, there's good reason to believe that they are not there.

The necessary geological studies has not been done to either prove or disprove whether the minerals are located, whether it's supposed to be or whether they're not there. People have just applied for leases or bought leases hoping that they're going to be there. I think wilderness is a very necessary part of our heritage. I mean, there's a certain mystique about going into the wild. We have the mountain in tradition and somebody said it on the earlier part when you were running the tape at the beginning that we need to preserve and protect these lands for future generations. And wilderness is such a small percentage of what we have left. It really would be a shame to destroy all of it just to get a few pennies. Alright, thank you very much. Although the lands in question, this wilderness controversy, are under federal jurisdiction, state officials in New Mexico are not entirely uninterested or disinterested by standards. In the nature of things, state and federal lands in New Mexico braid together in such a fashion as to preserve one is to preserve the other to develop one

is to develop the other. Brant Culkin knows all about that. Former Southwest representative of the Sierra Club. He is now Deputy Secretary of the New Mexico Department of Natural Resources. And he is also with us this evening in Santa Fe. Good evening, Mr. Culkin. Good evening, how? Mr. Culkin, state and federal lands in New Mexico laced together in such an intricate fashion. I was looking at some maps recently and it was just overwhelming. I don't where one leaves off and the other begins as often a matter of I suspect legal judgment more than anything else. Does the state of New Mexico notably the Anaya administration have an official position in this wilderness controversy between environmentalists and secretary Watt? Now, we've got a position on the wilderness controversy, which is basically that we should know what the wilderness characteristics are of any of the lands which may ultimately be recommended. And we should know what the other resources are there. As far as we're concerned, the Watt decision to drop many of these areas guarantees that whatever decisions are going

to be made are going to be made in ignorance. And it's our position that the areas explain that for us. The Bureau of Land Management was involved in a study to determine what the wilderness characteristics were of these areas in detail. And to also determine what the mineral values were, what the wildlife values were, what the watershed values were, what the values might be for transmission corridors and so on. And that study would be the basis for the recommendation to the president and to the Congress as to whether they should be wilderness. It's the collection of information which greatly assists the state and the administration in determining whether or not it wants to support those recommendations, oppose them, modify them, whatever. And basically, the Watt decision says that we're not going to study anymore. So basically what you're saying is Watt's decision would prevent the gathering of the kind of information necessary to decide whether or not we are dealing here with bonafide wilderness areas or dealing with in some possibly areas plainly adapted to mineral

exploration. That's clearly the problem. All right, let me ask you about this. State Land Commissioner Jim Bock at the beginning of the program indicated that some of these lands he suspected were not plainly adapted to development, but that others might well be. And that if they're not, they don't belong in the wilderness area. Is that your position as well? That seems immediately valid way to look at things. Nobody can be sure as Mr. Bocka wasn't. Which ones would be which? But without the studies, we're never going to know. Or we'll have to guess when the time comes before Congress. Well, what is the role? Or is there a role for your department, natural resources in not negotiating at least plain some kind of a part in this ongoing controversy? These lands are, after all, within the political jurisdiction of the state of New Mexico, even though they belong to the federal government. The recommendations that go to Congress will be put before the House Interior Committee,

for example, and the state will be requested to provide an opinion. So in that elaborate process, Mr. Jordan explained to us at the beginning of the program from the study to the recommendation to the secretary to the recommendation to the president to the recommendation of Congress. Your office, your department will play no role until it reaches the congressional decision-making stage. No, that's not quite right. We will comment on every stage of the decision of the recommendation process, and prior administrations did that, and we will also do that. And the most important recommendation that we will make about the disposition of these areas will be the one that we make to Congress. But the work that will lead to that recommendation being there, and which will provide the documentation for much of the resource allocation that will take place there, will be made under the Bureau's study process, which has now been aborted. All right. At the beginning of the program in the introductory tape segment, Mr. Gumbord of the BLM indicated that in his opinion, Mr. Watts, Secretary Watts has in all of his

actions taken in this connection done nothing that is in contravention of the law. Would you agree with that? Hell, I don't know if you can hear me, but we've had an audio problem at the moment, so I can't hear you. All right, we'll see. We'll have to repeat that question or move on to another part of the program. Well, can you hear me now? You cannot hear me now that I'm going to ask Ms. Bishop if we can explore that same question with you. Mr. Gumbord of the BLM at the beginning of the program said that while he's watched what I think he said, seven or eight different secretaries of the interior come and go, and they all have their different philosophies. Mr. Watts has done nothing that's been in contravention of the law. Is that your feeling as well? No, that's not my feeling. I feel many of the things Mr. Watts has done has been in direct violation of the federal regulations that he has bound by. Example, publishing the register notice the way he did. And things like that, I think we've had some real procedural problems

dealing with him. And because of his direction to his people, again, dealing with people within the state, it's been very hard to do things. Part of the... Well, what are the issues in the legal case out in California that embrace the lands here in New Mexico? In other words, what laws are in controversy? There are several sites from Flippma, the Federal Land Policy and Management Act, where he did not follow the proper procedure there. There are several sites from the interim management policy, which our lands are being administered under at this point. And several sites where that was not followed. Back going back to the wilderness inventory, there are references back to that. So that as you take the whole study, as it has progressed, they've gone back and looked at the laws and the policies, the way it's supposed to be governed, and they are citing in the court case where Mr. Watts has not followed the proper procedures.

All right, I wanted... Brand, what I was asking you when we lost contact. Can you hear me now? Now I can't hear Mr. Culkin, isn't this fun? Now I hear you. All right, all right. What I was asking you, the moment ago, is Mr. Gummord at the beginning of the program indicated that while Mr. Watts philosophy differs perhaps from other secretaries who have set in that office, they've all differed to some extent. He can find no instance in which Mr. Watts has been in contravention of the law. I just asked Mrs. Bishop about that, and I'd like to ask you that. Not uses the law in two different ways. He says the law compels me to drop these areas or it's illegal to study them, and he said other instances where he's been taken to court and found to be an error in his interpretation of law. The fact remains that he has the discretion to study those. He's taken them all the way through the process to this point. They have been determined already by his own agency to have some wilderness characteristics. And he has now said that the law doesn't require him to study them. All right, Mr. Jordan, let me follow up on that. The moment ago, Frank Calkin raised an

interesting point. There's nothing lost in studying these areas to determine whether or not they are plainly adapted to the wilderness category or whether they're better suited to develop what is rational under those circumstances for suspending that investigation. I'm glad you asked the question. I've heard several comments here which I think need to be clarified. The secretary has made his decisions because he must follow the letter of the law, but he has directed our office. And the other offices in the BLM where there is any impact from his decision to go back to the areas that were either dropped or impacted and reassess them to determine whether or not other forms of protection are needed for the values on those tracks, including whether or not they will warrant wilderness reconsideration. I'm sorry to interrupt you, bother you. I'm sorry to interrupt you, but I'm not sure I understand just what you've told us. In other words, what is 800,000 acres of potential wilderness area? He dropped down. He has asked you to reinvestigate whether

or not he should perhaps add those back on. The areas which involve split estate are clearly inappropriate for inclusion in wilderness study areas. However, wherever we have areas which clearly as Mr. Calkin discussed have some characteristics which need protection. For instance, West of Albuquerque in the Remrock area, we have a large arch that area probably deserves protection. We have various laws and alternatives which we can take, which we can employ to protect those resources and values. Let me ask you this, this split estate business where the federal government has the surface and you can lease the mineral rights to others. A couple of questions. First of all, are these split estates that you are using that term also used to refer places where mineral rights have not been extended, leased some groups? Split estate is where the federal government owns the surface and someone else other than the federal government owns the subsurface. I see where the leases have already been led where the ownership is already in the hands of somebody else.

No, in this case we do not own the minerals, therefore we can't lease them. That's what I'm saying. Where the mineral rights are already established and somebody else's hands. We're not talking about areas where potentially mineral rights could be leased to somebody. That's correct. All right, the last question we're almost out of time. This split estate situation that would seem to me, the checker board arrangement that Ms. Bishop was talking about the moment ago, it seemed to me to be a can of worms. Isn't there a better way to build a mouse trap? Perhaps you can look into your crystal ball and help me out. But I wear my crystal ball. I would. Can I come in on the all-mile pie quickly? You've got exactly 15 seconds. The all-mile pie will go forward because it was an instant study area despite the fact that it has a split estate problem. What do you mean it will go forward? It has to go forward to the Congress by the law to be looked at. So it will be recommended to Congress as your understanding for inclusion as a wilderness area. Not saying what the recommendation will be, but it will be sent forward and Congress can then decide.

All right, folks, obviously we're out of time. Thanks an awful lot. Sorry about our technical problems, but I've enjoyed this enormously. That's it for tonight. Please join us tomorrow when the illustrate daily goes on location for a magical visit with New Mexico's Michael McCormick. One of the talented designers of those wonderful creatures in the dark crystal of the movie. Thanks for joining us. I'm Hal Rhodes. Good night.