On October 8, Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke announced a 20-year ban on new hardrock mining exploration north of Yellowstone. His decision, which follows a similar recommendation from the Forest Service, puts 30,000 acres in the Paradise Valley and Gardiner Basin off-limits to new mining claims.
“There are places where it is appropriate to mine and places where it is not,” said Zinke in a statement to The Hill. “Paradise Valley is one of the areas it’s not.” The withdrawal was greeted with cheers from some conservation groups and tourism interests. Others, however, criticized what they see as Zinke’s penchant for favoring protections close to home.
The Yellowstone Gateway Business Coalition, which has the support of more than 400 area businesses, applauded Zinke’s decision. “My husband has worked in the mining industry for over 27 years and we support the mining industry, but the Paradise Valley which serves as the northern gateway to Yellowstone National Park is not the right location for any new mining activity,” said Tracy Raich, who co-founded the local business organization. “Thank you, Secretary Ryan Zinke, for listening to us and for understanding what’s at stake.”
Some national environmental groups also praised the Forest Service and Interior Department for moving to limit new mining in the area. “National Parks Conservation Association commends Agriculture Secretary Perdue and Interior Secretary Zinke for defending Yellowstone’s doorstep from industrial gold mining,” said a statement from NPCA’s President Theresa Pierno.
But some skeptics chalked the decision up to political ambitions and local favoritism. “While Zinke rushes to open up places like Bears Ears, Grand Staircase-Escalante, and the Boundary Waters to copper, uranium, and coal mining, only Montana’s natural treasures get the protection they deserve,” wrote Aaron Weiss, the media director for the conservation advocacy group Center for Western Priorities. “It’s now clear Ryan Zinke will only do the right thing when his political future is on the line.”
The Trump administration, supported by the Congressional Western Caucus, attempted to reverse a similar moratorium on uranium mining near the Grand Canyon. Zinke’s Interior Department also let a mineral withdrawal on Oregon’s Chetco River expire this summer.
The 20-year ban is the longest time period Zinke can sign off on without congressional approval. The Forest Service manages nearly all the land covered by Zinke’s decision; the Interior Department manages the below-ground minerals on public lands. Only Congress or the president can permanently protect the area.
This story was originally published at High Country News on Oct 10, 2018.
Top photo: Yellowstone NP
Full disclosure, I live in Montana. While I understand the current administration is falling so very short of protecting our natural resources from threats like mining, can we not celebrate a win and leave it at that? I agree that each of the other referenced areas are equally important to fight to protect. And I have voiced my opposition through emails and trips to D.C. to meet with our elected officials on these and other similar landscapes and programs. But if we don’t thank and celebrate these wins, our elected officials are going to be less likely to support our causes in the future. We can’t just fight them, we need to join and thank them when something awesome is done.
Agree. Don’t B!t(h because your ice cream is cold!
It seems like Zinke could order protection of every square inch of America, and some of you would say he hasn’t done enough. Is it because he’s a Republican?
Duh.
You want control of as much land as possible to be vested in the government, but won’t do a thing to fight stupid controls such as Oregon’s “the state owns the water once it falls from the clouds” law and similarly ridiculous laws elsewhere. And there’s nothing Ryan Zinke could do that would please you because he’s a Republican. Apparently, only you are qualified to decide what is a rightful use of public lands, forgetting that public lands belong to everyone, including those who would extract from them. They have the same right to use those lands as those of us who prefer conservation. It really is “all about you.”
It’s not that Zinke is a Republican, it’s that the general theme of the Republican party in terms of land protection is in my opinion short-sighted and self-serving. Resource extraction is a necessary part of the world we live in now, regardless of what the furthest left arm of the environmental movement will argue. I think the vast majority of the environmental left is more pragmatic and understands that to keep the level of development and civilization we’ve achieved is going to require a certain level of extraction. The question is where, when, and how much.
The fact is, the economy of the West is shifting and we’ve reached a point where people, both at the local and federal level, are willing to put a price on conservation. And in many parts of the West, that price on conservation is greater than the price on extraction. And the economic value of that conservation doesn’t have an expiration date, it just keeps on going. Whereas a mine or logging operation at some point, will run its course and need to close. So in keeping with the directive of the Forest Service and BLM, the pursuit of “multiple use, sustained yield” leads to the interest of conservation in places like the Paradise Valley.
Zinke is a puppet playing to his home audience. simple as that. It’s great that he sided for the environment for once, but I believe he only did it because this particular decision will affect him directly due to it’s proximity to home.
This is an example of whats wrong with politics today; only do the good or right thing if you personally stand to benefit.