William A. Wise Law Library Colorado Law Scholarly Commons Resource Law Notes: The eN wsletter of the Natural Getches-Wilkinson Center Newsletters Resources Law Center (1984-2002)

Resource Law Notes Newsletter, no. 38, fall issue, Aug. 1996 University of Colorado Boulder. Natural Resources Law Center

RESOURCE LAW NOTES, no. 38, fall issue, Aug. 1996 (Natural Res. Law Ctr., Univ. of Colo. Sch. of Law).

Reproduced with permission of the Getches-Wilkinson Center for Natural Resources, Energy, and the Environment (formerly the Natural Resources Law Center) at the University of Colorado Law School.

Number 38 Fall Issue, August 1996

National Forest Management Act: 1976-1996 NFMA in a Changing Society: How Well Has It Worked in the Past 20 Years? W ill It W ork in the 21st Century? September 16-18, 1996

Jack Ward Thomas, Chief of the USDA Forest Service, will be a featured speaker at the Center’s annual public lands conference, commemorating the 20th anniversity of the National Forest Man­ agement Act. This year’s conference is ^sponsored by Colorado State University, Oregon State University, Pinchot Institute for Conservation, and the Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs at Syracuse University. When Congress passed NFMA in 1976, few would have imagined the enormity of the changes in the world — in technology, science and population — we have witnessed in the last 20 years. Has John R. McGuire, USFS C hief1972—1979 R. Max Peterson, USFS C hief1979—1987 NFMA provided the vision and guidance needed to meet the challenges of our Service, the timber industry, state, local dynamic society? and tribal governments, conservation Topics include: groups and academics, the Center has • NFMA: Our Expectations and the Law lowered the registration fee from that • NFMA in Context: Courts, Tribes, charged for last year’s fall public lands Agencies and Laws conference. In addition, some financial • NFMA in a Dynamic Society underwriting has allowed us to offer a • Reflections from the 7th American certain number of scholarships. Discounts Forest Congress are already built in for government, public • Looking to the 21st Century: Is NFMA interest and academics. However, for those Adequate? needing discounts greater than the Other featured speakers include published rates, we invite you to submit a Charles F. Wilkinson, Moses Lasky letter requesting a scholarship, no later Professor of Law at the University of than August 16. Colorado School of Law, who will provide Please see the full conference brochure the keynote address; R. Max Peterson, in the center of this issue, including full Jack Ward Thomas, Current USFS C hief who was USFS Chief from 1979 to 1987; agenda, all general information, and Photos courtesy Dave Steinke, US Forest Service |nd John McGuire, Chief during the registration form. If you have questions, passage of NFMA. you may contact the Conference Coordi­ In order to have a diverse audience nator — Phone: (303) 492-1288; Fax: including not only attorneys, but also (303) 492-1297; many representatives from the Forest e-mail: [email protected] June Biodiversity Protection Conference: Focus on Current Legislation, Policy (

“The combining of science, process, tribal philosophy, musings and law provided a wonderful medley of voices that spoke at all levels to the participants. It matched the holistic and pro-active manner in which we are learning to think about our nation’s wildlife and to compassion­ ately reconcile this concern with other concerns of the nation.” This was the opinion of Lindell Marsh, California attorney and conference speaker, on the Center’s annual June conference. This year the conference provoked particularly lively exchanges, in part because it addressed such a timely topic: pending congressional Executive Director changes to the Endangered Species Act. Attendees put in long Ted Strong o f the hours in an information-packed event with special sessions each Columbia River evening. Inter-Tribal Fish Sunday evening’s keynote address on “The Scientific Under­ Commission provided a pinnings of Biodiversity Protection” was delivered by Oregon tribal perspective on State University Professor Jane Lubchenco, President of the the proposals for ESA American Association for the Advancement of Science. The reform. following night featured an inspirational talk entitled “The Spider Who Dreamed the World: A Meditation on Hierarchy, Humility and Biodiversity” by Don Snow, the editor of Northern Lights M agazine. These and other presentations produced a fascinating conference. Robert Pelcyger, a Boulder attorney and conference speaker, said: “I didn’t plan to stay after I spoke, but I got hooked. Unlike many conferences I’ve attended, this one had a theme and structure. It was especially valuable in bringing participants up-to-date in current developments in D.C. on ESA revisions.” As a tool to update conference attendees, a draft of the most recently proposed legislation (the Saxton bill) was provided. Also, an address on current developments in Congress was delivered in a Denver Water Tuesday evening session by Sarah Bittleman, Legislative Assistant Manager Chips Barry on the Environment to Congressman Jim Saxton. Congressman explained a resource Saxton’s draft bill represents an attempt to incorporate the results user’s view o f ESA of some consensus discussions among major environmental and reform proposals. industrial interests on key ESA issues. The controversy over the draft itself surfaced in the conference. [Currently, no ESA bill is expected to move this year.] In sum, the conference provided a valuable opportunity for the exchange of ideas, opinions, and information. This theme was clearly articulated in the remarks of speaker Chips Barry, Water Manager for the City of Denver: “The Biodiversity Conference played an important role in formulating the future of the Endangered Species Act. By choosing speakers from the broad center of the wide spectrum of views on the reauthorization of the ESA, the conference showed that there are possibilities for reasonable compromise on the contentious issues. More importantly, I think the conference showed that the center can be safely occupied without incessant vitriolic attack from the right and left.”

CU Law Professor Charles Wilkinson and DOI Assistant Secretary George Frampton discuss ESA issues after dinner.

2 Professor Mary Wood, University o f Oregon School o f Law, compared the Columbia and Upper Colorado Rivers Fish Recovery Programs.

Conference participants enjoyed lively discussion in the informal setting o f the traditional Monday night picnic.

Kenney and Mutz Welcomed as New Members of Center Staff

Douglas Kenney and Kathryn Mutz tional Response to a Changing Water have recently been hired as Research Policy Environment.” Associates at the Center. Kenney is sure to Kenney comes to NRLC from his own bring a unique perspective to the Center consulting practice. He has been very because he is not a lawyer. He holds a active recently in the Alabama-Coosa- Ph.D. in Renewable Natural Resource Tallapoosa and Apalachicola- Studies from the University of Arizona, an Chattahoochee-Flint (ACT/ACF) River M.S. in Natural Resource Policy and Basins Comprehensive Study, a coopera­ Administration from the University of tive investigation overseen by the U.S. Michigan, and a B.A. in Environmental, Army Corps of Engineers and the states of Don Snow, editor o f Northern Lights Magazine, Population, and Organismic Biology from Alabama, Florida and Georgia. Kenney delivered an inspirational talk after Monday the University of Colorado. His graduate was retained to help these four “study night’s picnic supper. research included work on several interdis­ partners” assess the adequacy of existing ciplinary reports, including investigations institutional arrangements for the gover­ of “Severe, Sustained Drought in the nance and administration of the shared Southwestern United States” and “Institu­ river system. With Kenney’s oversight, new institutional arrangements are currently being sought to address concerns over long-term municipal water supplies, maintenance of navigation and hydro- power industries, economic development opportunities, and the sustainability of the Apalachicola Bay and other areas of high ecological and recreational value. He is the author of numerous publications address­ ing water resource management and administration. The Center is delighted to have someone of his expertise on board. Kathryn Mutz, a native of Colorado, comes to the Center with a background in continued on page 4 Doug Kenney, fa r lft, and Kathryn Mutz, left.

3 New Members, com. various capacities for EPA, NRLC, the communities to a book chapter on state- Department of Justice, and the National federal interactions in coal mining both law and natural resources manage­ Wildlife Federation. For the 12 years program administration and an article on ment. She received her J.D. from the preceding law school, Mutz worked home rule city regulation of oil and gas University of Colorado, concentrating in throughout the West for state and federal development. The Center is pleased to natural resources and environmental law, government and private industry on have enlisted more outstanding home­ and graduating with the Order of the scientific and public policy issues related grown talent. Coif. She also holds an M.S. in Biology/ to natural resource development. As a Both Kenney and Mutz should be Ecology from Utah State University, and a biologist she specialized in wetlands, congratulated for having distinguished B.A. in Geography with honors from the endangered species, and reclamation of themselves in an extremely competitive University of Chicago. Following law disturbed lands. Most recently, her applicant pool. The Center received over school Mutz clerked for Judge Janice research has focused on government 160 resumes for the two positions. We are Davidson on the Colorado Court of regulation of coal and placer mining, and sure Kenney and Mutz will be invaluable Appeals. She also clerked for Davis, oil and gas development. She has authored additions to the Center’s staff. Graham and Stubbs, L.L.C. and K N several publications ranging from govern­ Energy, Inc., and did legal research in ment reports on rare plants and riparian

Students Enrich Center Research Each year, the Center receives valuable United States, Alaska, Europe, and China. support from a number of research He is co-author of a book addressing water assistants, usually law students in their resource issues at the U.S.-Mexico border, second or third years. This summer we are and is primary author of a book on fortunate to have four assistants, and we instream flow protection issues and would like to introduce and thank them. policies that will be published by Island Sara Galley, who grew up in Okla­ Press in the spring of 1997. homa City, attended the University of Born and raised in New York, Scott Oklahoma as an undergraduate. During Miller attended Vanderbilt University in school, she worked as a computer pro­ Nashville, Tennessee. After spending his grammer and system administrator in a first school summer working at the law Unix environment, and she maintains a firm of White & Case in New York, he strong interest in computers and the spent the next two summers as a Marine Internet. She received her B.S. in Civil Mammal Observer on commercial fishing Engineering (Environmental Option) in boats in Prince William Sound, Alaska. 1992, and spent three years working as an After graduating in 1992 with a B.S. in environmental engineer for Limno-Tech, Biology, Scott researched desert island Inc. in Ann Arbor, Michigan, where she ecology in the Gulf of California. In 1992- specialized in Geographical Information NRLC Student Assistants M ichelle Squyres and System-based modeling applications. She continued on page 11 Julie Casida. has recently completed her first year of law school at the University of Colorado. She was elected Recycling Chair of the Environmental Law Society for the 1996- 97 academic year, and was recently appointed to the newly-formed Greening of the Law School Committee. David Gillilan, a native of Salt Lake City, received his B.A. from Swarthmore College in 1983. He then worked for the Army Corps of Engineers, Environmental Intern Program; Seafirst National Bank in Seattle; and for the City of Salt Lake in Utah. He worked on a variety of water resource issues while earning his M.S. from the Department of Hydrology at the University of Arizona in 1992. Before starting law school at CU in 1995, he worked as a Research Associate at the University of Arizona and Colorado State University. Between jobs he has spent months at a time traveling in the western NLRC Research Assistants Sara Galley, David Gillilan, Scott Miller, and Luke Mulligan.

4 Environmental Law 25 Years Later: ,Weaving & Untangling the Web

D avid Sive, Holme Roberts & Owen Natural Resources Law Distinguished Visitor / April 9, 1996

Introduction by Professor growth of the movement. One significant David Getches plaintiff trying to stop the road was a local Thanks to the law firm o f Holme Roberts NAACP group, and it demonstrated the & Owen and their sponsorship o f our relationship of civil rights law to the D istinguished Natural Resources Law Visitor standing doctrines which came out of the program, we had the pleasure to hear David Scenic Hudson case. Sive speak about environmental law in April I will talk more later about what I call o f this year. David Sive, o f New York’s Sive, the “elitist” issue—the contention that Paget and Riesel, grew up in Brooklyn, New environmental law was only for the white, York. After graduating from Columbia Law upper-middle class—which is one of the School he was drawn into environmental most difficult problems in the growth of litigation. Today, based on what he did over the environmental movement. the years during his long, distinguished and I think it was in 1969 that the Santa continuing career, he is known as the father Barbara oil spill occasioned a tremendous o f environmental law. reaction against the growth of energy and M any know D avid Sive as the lawyer the use of oil for power. It did not result who was a key to blocking the Consolidated in any significant law suit, but just a little Edison Project on Storm King Mountain David Sive bit later came the controversy over the along New York’s Hudson River. He also proposed building of a dye plant on the stopped the construction o f the Hudson River coast of South Carolina, Apposite Hilton the Scenic Hudson case. The Scenic Hudson Expressway. All o f this was before the passage Head Isle. All of these significant contro­ case was a struggle to prevent a pumped o f the great environmental laws that we are versies came together in the late 1960’s. storage power plant from going in at the so familiar with today. He also founded the utterly beautiful entrance to the Gorge of Natural Resources Defense Council. We are the Hudson River at Storm King Moun­ pleased to present the following edited tain. That controversy began in or about excerpts o f his speech. 1963, about the time of the publication of Every Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring. A few years later came other significant environmentalist To fulfill my mission tonight is controversies. These included the contro­ difficult, because it enables [and requires] versy over Rocky Flats, which produced a became a kind o f folk me to ramble over 30 years of history. law suit and a preliminary injunction, I I, and most others, date the beginning think in 1970. The case was not reported, heroy a would-be of environmental law to the Scenic Hudson but it was important in the history of the case. For 30 years I have been denying, early birth of the law. “David” fighting a and truthfully, that I was the main lawyer A little later came the controversy over in the Scenic Hudson case. Although I was 1-40, the Interstate which was to go “Goliath” who was very active as a Board member and took through Memphis and Nashville. The so- part in later litigation, the main attorney building the sinful called Nashville 1-40 Case, which was to in the Scenic Hudson case was Lloyd halt the building of the highway through Garrison, of the Paul Weiss firm in New project. the center of town, never reached a trial. York. However, I did become closely The case was dismissed on the merits, but identified with Scenic Hudson, and, out of it was significant in expanding the its Board members, we created the NRDC standing first achieved in the Scenic (National Resources Defense Council). Hudson case. [Editor’s note: the doctrine of standing requires the plaintiff to have The 19 7 0 ’s The 19 6 0 ’s suffered a direct or actual injury in order 1970 was a truly explosive year. So The history of environmental law is to bring a suit in federal court.] much happened, including many things in .necessarily coupled with the Environmen­ Nashville 1-40 was significant for which I participated, that I just wonder if I ta l Movement. I always start with a few another reason which has been particularly ever saw my children those days. They significant cause celibres, one of which was important to me and my views on the assure me that my time with them was

5 “quality time,” but I will never know companies were citing the cases expanding began an anti-environmentalist campaign because they are too polite to really be and deepening the judicial review that the with a couple of stories including one frank about it. environmental advocates had secured. The about Scenic Hudson, pointing out that Environmental law received its first tables were re-turned, and the environ­ the people who lived on Storm King push, its first important step, with the mentalists began to argue, “Oh no, we Mountain were rich plutocrats. H arper’s % National Environmental Policy Act, have to give more credence to the agency, claimed that they were selfish and that the effective January 1, 1970. NEPA led to an and review should be narrow,” and such. people on Storm King Mountain did not explosion of litigation. This was an utterly That began an almost equal division want the power to go to Harlem and fantastic, historical development because, between environmental advocates and the places where non-rich people were. But as I have confirmed many times in regulated community about how broad they forgot that Scenic Hudson was conversations with Lynton Caldwell, and deep judicial review should be, and it brought by a combination of proletarian supposedly the author of NEPA, litigation continues to this day. Each of the groups hikers and backpackers, which I belonged out of that act was never anticipated. more or less contradicts itself. In some to, along with the fairly wealthy NEPA came at a time of great activism, cases they want the review to be broad homeowners. the establishment of standing, and where they are challenging an action they The problem of “elitism,” later called environmentalism becoming a cult cause. do not like. But if they like it, as environ­ the environmental justice or environmen­ Every environmentalist became a kind of mentalists like enforcement proceedings, tal equity movement, has been one of the folk hero, a would-be “David” fighting a they want the action to proceed very most challenging problems that environ­ “Goliath” who was building the sinful quickly, without judicial review. mental advocates face. I believe, and I project. have said so for as many years as I have The Friends of the Earth was born out The 19 8 0 ’s been involved in it, that environmental­ of what I called the Civil War of ’69 in the The 1980’s continued to develop what ism is a separate, political, social and legal Sierra Club, and NRDC was also born. I referred to before—the very troubling movement. It incorporates people from The EPA was established by President problem of “elitism” and the beginnings of the furthest right—the wealthiest people Nixon. The Sierra Club vs. M orton case, what might be called an abuse of environ­ with perhaps the oldest money protecting the fight over the protection of Mineral mental laws to serve purposes which little enclaves like parts of the Adirondack King Canyon in the Sierra Nevada people really did not have in mind when Mountains, the Hood Canal, or Mineral Mountains, was in its early stages. the laws were enacted. Among those King Canyon—and every shade of The Environmental Law Reporter political interest ranging all the way to began publication, and, very significantly, Greenpeace and radicals like the Monkey a large number of law schools began Wrench Gang. They are all environmen­ teaching environmental law as a separate talists. subject. 1970 also witnessed the Clean Air The problem o f 1 think people sometimes disregard an I Act, with the first citizen suit provision in essential fact about the environmental Section 304. This citizen suit provision, of “elitism, ” later movement: environmentalism has a very course, went into virtually every subse­ broad base of support. This misconcep­ quent environmental statute. called the tion may have been partly because To a large extent, early environmental environmentalism was originally seen as a law was also a branch of administrative environmental young person’s movement. It caught on law. The Scenic Hudson case, the M ineral in the 1970’s at the end of the Vietnam King Canyon case, the Hudson River ju stice or War—a new Cause. However strongly Expressway case, and the Nashville 1-40 one may feel about issues of social justice cases, were all challenges to administrative environmental like equality and civil rights, it is wrong to actions brought by environmental couple the two. You must have the broad advocates. Those advocates, like myself, equity movement, coalition of environmentalists from left to were trying to broaden and deepen the right. This was proven just last year, when judicial review of administrative action. has been one o f the significant portions of the Republican’s And there was a fairly reserved reaction in most challenging “Contract with America” were rolled back the administrative law community. because of popular pressure. But sometime in the 1970’s, some problems that The 1980’s also saw what I call the end restraints began to appear—which I think of the “Messianic Phase” of the environ­ happens with almost any important environmental mental movement. The great messiah of political, social, or legal movement. One the movement, of course, was David of the first interesting evidences of this was advocates face. Brower. But there comes a time in any the International Harvester Case, where movement when issues call for the arts of automobile companies challenged an early lawyers and mediators, those who can EPA regulation. The EPA Administrator bring people together and deal with at the time, Ruckelshaus, was trying to purposes were exclusion of minorities and competing interests. I call this the “Trade- effect the forced development of technol­ the poor from better neighborhoods. This Off Phase,” which is a more mature ogy to increase the number of miles in came to a very interesting climax in the phase. You cannot solve today’s major each gallon of gas. Automobile companies Nucleus o f Chicago Homeowners case. environmental problems by picking out fought it, and lo and behold, the auto At the same time, H arper s Magazine continued on page 9

6 Natural Resources Law Center University of Colorado School of Law

September 16-18,1996

Fleming Law Building Boulder, Colorado

The National Forest Management Act in a Changing Society 1976-1996

How Well Has It Worked in the Past 20 Years? Will It Work in the 21st Century?

NFMA: Our Expectations and the Law NFMA in Context: Courts, Tribes, Agencies and the Laws NFMA in a Dynamic Society Reflections from the 7th American Forest Congress Looking to the 21st Century: Is NFMA Adequate?

Co-sponsors: Oregon State University Colorado State University Pinchot Institute for Conservation Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs, Syracuse University Monday, September 16,1996 Tuesday, September 17,1996 8:00 Registration and Coffee SESSION III NFMA in a Dynamic Society 8:30 W elcome 8:00 Challenges to Achieving Sustainable Forests: Is NFMA Up to Betsy Rieke, Director, Natural Resources Law Center, the Task? University of Colorado School of Law Jack Ward Thomas, Chief, U.S. Forest Service 8:40 Framework for Assessing NFMA— The Purpose o f this 9:00 Break C onference 9:15 What Should be the Goals for the National Forests? Margaret A. Shannon, Associate Professor, Maxwell An Overview School of Citizenship and Public Affairs, Syracuse University Margaret A. Shannon, Syracuse University K. Norman Johnson, Professor, College of Forest Re­ 9:30 Global Economics and Resource Trends sources, Oregon State University Nels Johnson, World Resources Institute 9:00 Keynote Address 10:00 What We Hold Dear Charles F. Wilkinson, Moses Lasky Professor of Law, Dan Budd,* Rancher University of Colorado Law School 10:30 Rural Communities in an Urban Society and Global 10:00 Break Economy Lynn Jungwirth,* Watershed Center, Hayfork, California SESSION I NFMA: Our Expectations and The Law 11:00 Wildness and Beauty in the National Forests 10:30 Making Forest Policy in an Imperfect World Andrea Lawrence, Mono Lake County Commissioner, James W. Giltmeier, Senior Associate, Pinchot Institute California for Conservation; former staff to Senator Hubert H. 11:30 Questions, Discussion and Summary Humphrey 12:00 Lunch 11:00 Stories from the Front Lines: How NFMA Developed — Key 12:30 Luncheon Address: Reflections from the 7th American Forest Players and Ideas Congress: A Future Vision o f America’s Public Lands Robert Wolf, former Director, Environment and Natural Bill Bentley, Consultant, Salmon Brook and Associates, Resources Division, Congressional Research Service Grandby, Connecticut 11:30 Writing the Regulations: Using Scientists to Link Law and 2:00 Can We Achieve these Goals? Introduction Policy Margaret A. Shannon, Syracuse University Art Cooper, Chair of the Committee of Scientists and 2:15 “But, What does a Forest Plan Look Like?” — Interpreting Professor, North Carolina State University the Regulations 12:00 Questions, Discussion and Summary Orville Daniels,* former Forest Supervisor, Lolo National 12:30 Lunch Forest Luncheon Address: “Can You Live With That, Chief?” — 2:40 Can Managers Adapt to New Relationships and New Roles Forging NFMA Through Congressional and Agency Give under NFMA? and Take Elizabeth Estill, Regional Forester, Rocky Mountain John McGuire, former Chief, U.S. Forest Service, 1972- Region 1979 (in person or by phone) Phil Janik, Regional Forester, Alaska SESSION II NFMA IN CONTEXT: Courts, Tribes, Susan Yonts Shepard, Staff Assistant to NFS Deputy Chief, Agencies and Laws U.S. Forest Service 3:15 Break 2:00 Framework for Understanding NFMA in a Legal Context 3:45 Does NFMA Reflect Current Scientific Thinking? David H. Getches, Raphael J. Moses Professor of Natural K. Norman Johnson, Professor, College of Forest Resources Law, University of Colorado School of Law Resources, Oregon State University 2:15 Tribal Interests and Concerns 4:00 NFMA and Ecosystem Management Robert Williams,* Professor of Law and American Indian Richard L. Knight, Associate Professor of Fishery and Studies, University of Arizona School of Law Wildlife Biology, Colorado State University 3:00 Understanding the Interplay Among Many Laws: 1970 4:20 Bringing the Aquatic Sciences into the NFMA Framework: to 2000 Will They Fit? Perry Hagenstein, President, Institute for Forest Analysis, James Sedell, Acting Program Manager, Pacific Northwest Planning and Policy Research Station 3:45 Break 4:40 - Forest Planning — Economics and Resource Uses 4:15 Participating in the D ialogue: 1976 to 1996 John Sessions, Professor, Oregon State University Maggie Fox,* Public Lands and Water Specialist, 5:00 Questions, Discussion and Summary Sierra Club 5:25 End of Afternoon Session Steven Quarles, Crowell and Moring, Washington, D.C. 7:30-9:00 Discussion groups will address key questions that have 5:10 Questions, Discussion and Summary emerged during presentations and discussions up to this 5:30 End o f Afternoon Session time.

'Unconfirmed Wednesday, September 18,1996 Conference Enrollment Form SESSION IV LOOKING TO THE 21 ST CENTURY: National Forest Management Act I Is NFMA Adequate? in a Changing Society 8:00 Roundtable Discussion Groups: Reflect on Ideas and Prepare September 16-18,1996 Summary Hanna Cortner, Director, Water Resources Research Center, University of Arizona Name Betsy Rieke, Director, Natural Resources Law Center 9:15 What We Can Learn From Past Reform Efforts Affiliation Max Peterson, former Chief, U.S. Forest Service 10:00 Break Address

Proposals for Reforming Public Land Law City State ZIP

10:30 Assessing the Need to Reform the Laws or Regulations Phone Fax Perry Hagenstein, Institute for Forest Analysis, Planning and Policy Fees: Regular Govt. Rate Acad. & Non-Profit 10:45 Proposals Under Consideration in Congress By Sept. 5 $425 $225 $225 Mark Rey, Staff Member, Committee on Energy and After Sept. 5 $475 $275 $275 Natural Resources, U.S. Senate 11:15 Principles from the Western Governors’ Association Parking Permit: $15. Paula Burgess,* Oregon Governor’s Natural Resources Limited scholarships are available. Policy Advisor 11:45 Proposed Changes in NFMA Regulation Payment: $______Total amount James R. Lyons, Under Secretary for Natural Resources and Environment, USDA ___Check payable to University of Colorado 12:15 Questions, Discussion and Summary ___VISA___ MasterCard # ______112:30 Lunch

I Exp. Date _____ Signature______WRAP UP: Taking a Hard Look at NFMA’s Past, Its Please return this form and payment to: Future, and Current Proposals for Change Natural Resources Law Center Date rec’d 1:45 Co-Moderators: K. Norman Johnson and Margaret A. University of Colorado School of Law Paid____ Shannon Campus Box 401 D ue_____ Frances Korten, Program Officer, Poverty and Resources Boulder, CO 80309-0401 Ackn ___ Program, Ford Foundation Charles F. Wilkinson, Moses Lasky Professor of Law, University of Colorado Law School Note: Registrants get notebook as part of their fee. Other panelists to be Tapes of the conference are available for an additional announced fee. If you wish to order the materials apart from the conference, please indicate below:

Notebook (for non-attendees) and Tape Order Form

Notebook of speakers’ outlines and materials x $75 =$

Audio tapes: three days x $150 = $

Sales tax (within Colorado) 7.26% = $

Postage/handling = $ 5.00

Total purchase = $

___Check payable to University of Colorado

VISA MasterCard #

Exp. Date _____ Signature National Forest Management Act: 1976-1996 NFMA in a Changing Society: How Well Has It Worked in the Past 20 Years? Will It Work in the 21st Century? September 16-18,1996 • University of Colorado School of Law • Boulder, Colorado

hen Congress passed the National Forest Management Act (NFMA) in 1976, few would have imagined the enormity of the changes in the world — in technology, science and population — Wwe have witnessed in the last 20 years. Has NFMA provided the vision and guidance needed to meet the challenges of our dynamic society? Will NFMA work in the 21st century? A broad range of speakers will address the role of NFMA in a changing society. Speakers will highlight the challenges that rapid change in technology, values, and other factors pose for federal land managers. A diverse audience will participate in assessing how NFMA is working and whether it can meet the challenges of the next century.

General Information

Cost O f registration is $425 if received by September 5, and $475 thereafter. Airporter (303-444-0808) and the Supercoach (1-800-499-1951), to bring you For registrants employed by any level of government — federal, state, tribal, or to Boulder. There is also RTD bus service to Boulder. local — the fee is $225 ($275 after Sept. 5). For academics or not-for-profit Accommodations: groups the fee is $225 ($275 after Sept. 5). Blocks of rooms have been reserved for registrants. Please register directly with these hotels, mentioning this conference. Rooms fill To register, return the attached form to the Natural Resources Law Center, quickly. A deposit or credit card number is required to hold a reservation at Campus Box 401, Boulder, CO 80309-0401. Or register by phone (303-492- the hotels. 1288) or Fax (303-492-1297), charging the fee to VISA or MasterCard. Holiday Inn Boulder Broker Inn Discounts and Scholarships: To ensure broad attendance of those concerned 800 28th St. 555 30th St. about issues affecting the National Forests, we hope to offer scholarships. We Boulder, CO 80303 Boulder, CO 80303 cannot guarantee additional discounts to the categories above, but if those fees (303) 443-3322 (303) 444-3330 or will prevent your attendance, we invite letters explaining your circumstances Single/Double $54 1-800-338-5407 and your reasons for wanting to attend. Scholarship requests need to be Must reserve by Sept. 2 Single $76/Double $86 Must reserve by August 16 received by August 16. University Club Refunds and Substitutions: Refunds, less $25, will be available through 972 Broadway Friday, September 6. Cancellations received Sept. 9-13 will receive a refund, Boulder, CO 80309-0120 less $50. There can be no refunds after the conference begins. (303) 492-6509 $47 and up Location: Sessions will be held in the Fleming Law Building, University of Colorado, Boulder. Parking permits cost $15. If you need parking, please let Continuing Legal Education: Colorado’s Board of Continuing Legal and us know when you register. Judicial Education has certified this conference for 23 CLE credits. Transportation: Firstworld Travel in Boulder has arranged discount travel for Notebook and Tapes: Conference materials will be for sale after the confer­ this conference. To obtain these discounts please call Irene at Firstworld Travel ence: $75 for notebook, $150 for audiotapes, plus handling and tax as at 1-800-359-1747. Boulder is served by Denver International Airport in applicable. ^ Denver, 45 miles from campus. There are two shuttle services, the Boulder Printed on recycled paper.

Natural Resources Law Center Nonprofit Org. University of Colorado School of Law U .S . Postage Campus Box 401 Paid Boulder, Colorado 80309-0401 Boulder, CO (303) 492-1288 Permit No. 257 Fax: (303) 492-1297 Public Lands Reform: A Reluctant Leap i into the Abyss

M ichael!. Jeffery, Q.C.

Introduction now in the public domain maintain that This article arises from my research disposition of public lands judged “mar­ into the current problems associated with ginal” and therefore worth little would the administration of public lands in both have a minimal impact on deficit reduc­ the United States and Canada, and focuses tion. In addition they reject the notion on some key issues which are the subject that land sales could be carried out in a of heated debate on both sides of the manner that is free of influence and border. These include the ongoing guaranteed to maximize the return to the “disposition/retention” debate; subsidy federal government. The crux of the and concession reform; and the need to retentionist argument is that the current involve the public in a more meaningful multiple-use operating style of federal land dialogue with respect to management and management agencies serves a variety of allocation decisions. non-economic purposes, such as ecosystem My research paper under the same title protection and the preservation of western endeavors to explore these issues and the culture, that outweigh any economic historical evolution of the federal public inefficiencies. Governments are in a better domain in both countries in some depth Michael Jeffery position to implement sustainable develop­ and to provide a rationale for moving ment or biodiversity policies than is the beyond the status quo in the years ahead. fueled in part by an intrinsic distrust of private corporate sector because of the As a Canadian with extensive experi­ government, is to defend the whole by fundamental necessity for the private ence in the field of international environ­ adamantly refusing to countenance sector to focus on maximizing profits. This mental law from the perspective of an disposition of any part of the public is all the more relevant in a global econ­ academic, adjudicator and practicing domain whatsoever. On the other hand, it omy where investment is largely controlled attorney, I was nevertheless surprised at is too simplistic to ignore the fact that all by institutional investors influenced by the the degree of commonality between the public lands do not have the same corporation’s “bottom line.” U.S. and Canada. Westerners of both economic, ecological, or spiritual value. Subsidies — The Public Lands Some lands may be capable of contribut­ countries share an intrinsic fear and Dilemma mistrust of federal administrative agency ing to our national heritage under a form of ownership and stewardship which does The issue of subsidies permeates the decision-makers based in Ottawa or public lands debate with respect to almost Washington who are often viewed as not require title to remain vested in government in trust for the public. all categories of land and a broad spectrum posing a significant threat to the culture of activities carried on by the private sector It should be emphasized at the outset and way of life of those who are dependent and the public at large. The ranchers using that most objective proponents of disposi­ upon the public lands. western rangelands and the timber tion are not advocating the disposal of At The Crossroads — Disposition companies operating on national forest those lands which are ecologically signifi­ lands are but two examples in a long list of or Retention? cant or comprise national parks, fish and users who have benefitted from outdated Disposition of the federal public lands wildlife preserves, national monuments or policies. is a subject which evokes the strongest the like. The most fundamental and Nowhere is the subsidy issue more emotions on both sides of the issue and on important step obviously relates to the both sides of the border. The mere decision on which lands, if any, should be important and more personal to the average citizen than in our national parks. mention of the sale of any portion of the sold and what mechanism or planning This example illustrates the difficulty of public lands invokes a call to arms of those process should be put in place. making any dramatic change in the of us who fear the worst: “My God! They Those in favor of disposal of at least existing economic infrastructure underly­ want to sell Yellowstone or Banff National some portion of the federal domain ing the subsidization of widely-used public Park and strip us all of our national support their position with arguments resources. heritage.” such as using land sales as a means of The national park systems of both The gut response to this unwanted reducing the federal deficit, private Canada and the U.S. have historically invasion of our deeply-held sensibilities, ownership as a means to increase efficient operated on a subsidized basis with a stated management, and retention of the policy objective of keeping user fees low perceived benefits of public ownership Michael Jeffery, Q.C., a Canadian attorney and and thus promoting or facilitating public through the use of appropriate restrictions Adjunct Professor of International Environmental access. The policy, however, becomes I Law, was the Natural Resources Law Center’s 1995- and conditions. much more difficult to justify where 96 Visiting Research Fellow. He formerly chaired Advocates for the retention of lands the Environmental Assessment Board of Ontario. necessary budgetary cutbacks materially

7 contribute to the deterioration of the criteria for this classification system would interest. However, one must be cognizant resource held under a public trust man­ be developed by an interdisciplinary of the initial rationale for introducing the date. Something has to give to place the national task force which includes not subsidy in the first place. If the rationale national park system on a more sound only acknowledged experts but also upon which the subsidy was predicated no economic footing. Proposals suggesting representation from each of the public longer exists, then this factor must also be 4 increases in user fees and revenues stakeholder groups. taken into account. generated by park concessions merit The top categories of the proposed clas­ Particular attention should be given to serious consideration. sification system would contain those the way in which concessions are presently lands which few would disagree have pub­ allocated and measures taken to signifi­ Where Do We Go From Here: lic value, such as national parks and cantly increase the revenue flowing back monuments and environmentally sensitive The Status Quo or Meaningful to the public resources because the areas, and which therefore would and underlying rationale for heavily subsidiz­ Reform? should remain intact in federal ownership ing tourist facilities many decades ago has As with most matters which consume in trust for the benefit of the public and all but disappeared. the human spirit, the issues at the heart of future generations. Further down the scale the public lands debate are invariably would be lands which have significant or Designated Allocation o f Revenue complex and the solutions equally some public value, which would also re­ difficult. Although public lands reform has main essentially intact in federal owner­ Closely aligned with subsidy reform is been at the forefront of the western states’ ship. In the bottom category would be the the need to ensure that revenue derived agenda for many years, little progress has marginal public lands which the task force from increased user fees is used for the been achieved. considers are of little or no public value. specific public resource and not diverted Like the peaks and vaileys of the lands Classification of the public lands does to other government purposes. Studies themselves the arguments for and against not in any way imply that those lands have shown that the public will support the status quo have raged back and forth designated as marginal are automatically modest increases in entrance fees to the with the proponents of a particular available for disposition. Rather, it will national parks if, and only if, the in- A position prepared to defend their beliefs afford the government and the public a creased revenue is used specifically for the with a passion reserved for those special more rational basis upon which to base the administration and maintenance of the concerns which underlie the very core of disposition or retention discussion. parks themselves. our being. To a non-westerner this Public support for increased recre­ intensity of feeling is something both new ational user fees is critically important and and exciting and yet, when confronted Federal Subsidy Reform it is becoming increasingly apparent that with the majesty of the land, its people It is relatively obvious to even the most the consumer of today is simply not and wildlife, it is entirely understandable. vociferous of those in favor of maintaining prepared to see the government’s “take” |k From time to time various groups of the status quo that the subsidies provided increased without benefit to a designated major stakeholders have taken center stage for a broad range of activities should be public resource. and pressed hard for policy and legislative critically examined and in appropriate changes favoring their particular interests. cases reduced or eliminated. Attention Increased Public Involvement in For decades, miners and ranchers had the should be paid to important social and Land Management Decisions ear of the policy-makers and both the laws cultural factors, in addition to economic and agency management decisions were considerations, in order to prevent results An appropriate balance must be sought reflective of this political reality. However, which are not in the long-term public in the context of multiple use and recent years have brought changes in lifestyle among the general population which have propelled environmentalists, conservationists and recreationists into the ascendancy. Support for multiple use of federal lands has never been stronger. The following is a modest list of suggestions to move us beyond the status quo in the years ahead. They represent this author’s view of what is urgently needed to improve the current situation and, more importantly, what may be politically achievable at the present time.

Comprehensive Inventory o f Public Lands The starting point, in my view, is to conduct a comprehensive inventory of all federal lands and place them in categories based on “public value.” Appropriate Arches National Park, Utah

8 the public lands should be managed is dependent upon the nature and quality of the dialogue surrounding the decision­ making process. Many of the techniques employed in the area of alternative dispute resolution would lend themselves well to some of these disputes. To leave the public out of the decision­ making loop is to invite confrontation, and those land managers who have chosen to do so have often found themselves tied up in endless litigation and/or susceptible to intense political lobbying. Good land management decisions must also be based on good scientific input, free of biases and pressures, and the scientific community must be an integral part of the dialogue.

Concluding Thoughts The time for meaningful reform is at hand. Development pressures will not decrease in the decades ahead. The task of protecting and preserving the remains of ecosystem management approaches. It is lands to support the ecosystems so delicate ecosystems and finite resources exceedingly difficult for the public to necessary for our continued survival and will become increasingly more difficult as accept land management policies which do which are at the very heart of any legacy to we put off to another day making the not permit a wide range of activities on the be passed on to future generations. It is hard political decisions. The acknowl­ public lands. As recreational pursuits absolutely essential that management edged benefits of biodiversity, cultural continue to play a major role in society, decisions take into account the require­ diversity, and the treasured legacy we owe the potential for conflict among stakehold­ ments of a particular ecosystem if the goals to ourselves and those who follow us will ers will increase. of sustainability are to have any realistic be significantly impaired or lost forever if At the same time, it is not only the hope of being achieved. we fail to act now! ... It is indeed time to users of the lands which must be taken However, the public’s ability to reach take a reluctant leap into the abyss. into account but also the capacity of those any kind of informed consensus on how

Sive, cont. began to turn the tables in Congress by behaves very well in meeting its air quality securing the objections of a number of obligations can receive special consider­ good guys and bad guys. I liken this to the Republicans, among others, to the ation under water quality control laws. I do civil rights movement: in its early stages sweeping away of the environmental laws. not have any real view about that, but I can when people were at the lunch counter in The turn-about of the tremendous radical not see how there can be a majority to get a Tuscaloosa, there was absolutely no Republican attack on environmental laws single statute that is so complex passed. question what was moral, what was right, has come in large part because some Nonetheless, there is a significant drive and what was just. Later, with the advent Republicans taught other Republicans that toward reform, including some drive for of affirmative action and other relatively environmentalism is something which the regulatory reform. Gazing further to the subtle efforts to address injustices, there vast majority of people want, and they do future, I do not see any significant abbre­ were a number of questions about if and not want to weaken environmental law. viation of standing in the courts. There is to what degree actions should be taken. So where does that leave us now? Here no political force for any major amend­ I can just go for three minutes into ment of NEPA or of any of the states’ The 19 9 0 ’s prophecy. And if my prophecies are “little NEPA’s.” Whatever reform there is, I think we have seen some very wrong, I will be back in New York and all there will not be a massive assault on the interesting developments in the environ­ of you will have forgotten me in any event, environmental laws, whoever wins the mental movement since the Republican so I can go on with prophecies. I suppose a election. sweep to power in 1994. The Contract good deal depends on who wins the That is as much as I want to do, I think, With America, at least several aspects of it, election in this year. What some people in political prophecy. I will perhaps come was anti-environmental, and the desire share is a desire to reform environmental to the end by just thanking you for and the hope was to substantially weaken regulations by making them less complex bringing me to Boulder where I taught in or repeal most of the environment laws and less burdensome. They all talk about a 1976 and where I put on an Environmen­ either by stealth or by direct measures. multi-media statute—a statute that will tal Litigation Course each June. That changed in the later part of 1995, govern the air, the water, and toxic wastes when the major environmental groups all at once so that a company who perhaps

9 Recent Publications

* Public Land Policy Discussion RR12 “Water Banking in the West,” Lawrence To order or for more information, please Papers Series MacDonnell, Charles Howe, Kathleen call, write, or fax the Center. Checks should Miller, Teresa Rice and Sarah Bates, be payable to the University of Colorado. PL01 “People as Part of Ecosystems: The Case of Rangeland Reform,” Prof. William 1994, $18. Postage and handling charges: E. Riebsame, 1996. $10. RR11 “Agricultural to Urban Water Transfers $2 for orders $20 and under PL02 “Sustainability and Beyond,” Prof. Dale in Colorado: An Assessment of the $3 for orders $21—$50 Jamieson, 1996. $10. Issues and Options,” Teresa Rice and $4 for orders $51-$ 100 PL03 “Conservation Biology and U.S. Forest Lawrence MacDonnell. 82 pgs. 1993. $5 for orders over $100 Service Views of Ecosystem Manage­ $ 12. International, rush, or especially large orders ment and What They Imply About RR10 “Instream Flow Protection in the may require additional handling costs. Policies Needed to Achieve Sustain­ West,” revised edition, Lawrence J. MacDonnell & Teresa Rice, editors. Sales tax (only within Colorado): ability of Biodiversity,” Prof. David W. Crumpacker, 1996. $10. 1993. $25. Tax, City of Boulder, 7.26% RR08 “Facilitating Voluntary Transfers of Tax, Boulder County (not City), 4.15% PL04 “Issues Raised by Economic Definitions of Sustainability,” Richard W. Wahl, Bureau of Reclamation-Supplied Tax, Denver metro area, 3.8% Water,” Lawrence J. MacDonnell and Tax within the rest of Colorado, 3% 1996. $10. PL05 “Public Land: How Much is Enough?” others, Vol. I, 132 pgs. ($12) & Vol. II, Contact the Center for a foil list of Prof. Dale Oesterle, 1996. $10. 346 pgs. ($18), or both volumes for publications. $25, 1991. Occasional Papers Series RR06 “The Water Transfer Process as a OP36 “New Options for the Lower Colorado Management Option for Meeting Books: River Basin,” Lawrence J. MacDonnell, Changing Water Demands,” Lawrence BK06 Controlling Water Use: The Unfinished 1996. $10. J. MacDonnell and others, Vol. I, 70 Business o f Water Quality Protection, OP35 “The Law of the Colorado River: pgs. ($12) & Vol. II, 391 pgs. ($18), or David H. Getches, Lawrence J. Coping with Severe Sustained both volumes for $25, 1990. MacDonnell, Teresa A. Rice, 1991, Drought,” Lawrence MacDonnell, $25. David Getches, William Hugenberg, Jr. Conference Materials BK04 Proceedings o f the Sino-American 1995. $10. These materials are certified for Home Study Conference on Environmental Law, OP34 “Deregulation of the Energy Industry,” CLE credit by the Colorado Board of Beijing, 1987, 1989, $12. Elizabeth Pendley, 1995. $10. Continuing Legal and Judicial Education. BK03 Water and the American West: Essays in OP33 “Comparison of Coalbed Methane CF20 “Biodiversity Protection: Implementa­ Honor o f Raphael J. Moses, David H. Statutes in the Federal, Virginia and tion and Reform of the Endangered Getches, ed. 1988, $15. West Virginia Jurisdictions,” Elizabeth Species Act,’’June 8-12, 1996, BK02 Tradition, Innovation & Conflict: McClanahan, 1994. $10. notebook $75, audiotapes, $150 Perspectives on Colorado Water Law, OP32 “Conserving Biodiversity on Private CF19“Challenging Federal Ownership and MacDonnell, ed. 1987, $12. Land,” Prof David Farrier, 1993, $10. Management: Public Lands and Public Western Water Policy Discussion OP31 “Towards Integrated Environmental Benefits,” Oct. 11-13, 1995, notebook Management: A Reconnaissance of $60, audiotapes, $125 Series Papers State Statutes,’’Prof. Stephen Born, CF18 “Sustainable Use of the West’s Water,” DP01 “Values and Western Water: A History 1993. $10. 3-day conf. June 12-14, 1995, of the Dominant Ideas,” Wilkinson, notebook $75, audiotapes $150. 1990, $10. Western Lands Reports DP02 “The Constitution, Property Rights and WL01 “The Western Public Lands: An CF17 “Who Governs the Public Lands?” 3- The Future of Water Law,” Sax, 1990, Introduction,” Bates, 1992. $10. day conf. Sept. 1994, notebook $50; $ 10. WL02 “Discussion Paper: The Changing audiotapes $120. DP03 “Water & the Cities of the Southwest,” Economics of the Public Lands,” CF16 “Regulatory Takings and Resources: Folk-Williams, 1990, $10. MacDonnell, 1993. $10. What are the Constitutional Limits?” 3- DP04 “Water Rights Decisions in Western WL03 “Discussion Paper: The Changing day conf. June 1994, notebook $75; States: Upgrading the System for the Management Philosophies of the Public audiotapes $150. 21st Century,” Shupe, 1990. $10. Lands,” Bates, 1993. $10. DP05 “From Basin to ‘Hydrocommons’: WL04 “Discussion Paper: Managing for Integrated Water Management Without Ecosystems on the Public Lands,” Bates, 1993. $10. Regional Governance,” Weatherford, Two Center books have been published $ . WL05 “Discussion Paper: Public Lands 10 by and are available from Island Press, DP06 “Water, The Community and Markets Communities,” Bates, 1993. $10. in the West,” Ingram & Oggins, $10. WL06 “Discussion Paper: State and Local Dept. RLN (1-800-828-1302). (Please DP07 “Water Law and Institutions in the Public Lands,” Rice, 1993. $10. do not order from the Center): Western United States: Early Develop­ Research Reports Searching Out the Headwaters: Change ments in California and Australia,” RR14 Restoring the West’s Waters: Opportu­ and Rediscovery in Western Water Policy, Maass, 1990, $10. nities for the Bureau of Reclamation DP08 “The Changing Scene in the American Sarah F. Bates, David H. Getches, (1996), Lawrence MacDonnell, $35. Lawrence J. MacDonnell, and Charles F. West: Water Policy Implications,” RR13 The Watershed Source Book: Water­ Schad, 1991, $10. shed-Based Solutions to Natural Wilkinson, 1993. DP09 “Using Water Naturally,” Roiston, Resource Problems (1996), Elizabeth Natural Resources Policy and Law: Trends 1991, $10. Ann Rieke, Teresa Rice, Wendy and Directions, ed. by Lawrence J. DP10 “Implementing Winters Doctrine Rudnik, $25. Indian Reserved Water Rights,” MacDonnell and Sarah F. Bates, 1993. Chambers & Echohawk, 1991, $10.

10 Students, continued, from page 4 93, he researched dolphins and whales in the Eastern Tropical Pacific. Working with Public Land Policy Discussion Series Papers the Environmental Defense Fund and the The Center has now published five Public Land Policy Discussion Sierra Club Legal Defense Fund, Scott has Series Papers, prepared by scholars from a number of disciplines at the University researched Western water and endangered of Colorado. These papers arise from the work of the Center’s interdisciplinary species issues. After completing his first Western Lands Sustainability Advisory Group. They are available to the public year of law school at the University of and may be ordered as indicated on the list of recent publications on the facing Colorado, Scott has spent much of his time page. The series includes the following: at NRLC this summer analyzing federal • “Conservation Biology and U.S. Forest Service Views of Ecosystem Manage­ and state environmental laws. ment and What They Imply About Policies Needed to Achieve Luke Mulligan was born in Brooklyn, Sustainability of Biodiversity,” by David W. Crumpacker, Professor of New York, and raised on Long Island. He Environmental, Population and Organismic Biology, University of Colo­ received his B.A. in psychology from rado Swarthmore College and is a 1997 candi­ • “Sustainability and Beyond,” by Dale Jamieson, Professor of Philosophy, date for Juris Doctor at C.U. He is an University of Colorado Associate Editor for the University of • “Public Land: How Much is Enough?” by Dale A. Oesterle, Professor of Colorado Law Review. Since coming to law Law, University of Colorado school, he has worked for former NRLC • “People as Part of Ecosystems: The Case of Rangeland Reform,” by William Director Larry MacDonnell at E. Riebsame, Associate Professor of Geography, University of Colorado Sustainability Initiatives and at Colorado • “Issues Raised by Economic Definitions of Sustainability,” by Richard W. Rivers Alliance. Before law school, he was Wahl, Research Associate, Environment and Behavior Program, Institute of an Intern at The Whale Conservation Behavioral Science, University of Colorado Institute, a legal assistant at a Philadelphia law firm, a professional cook at restaurants from Boston to Jackson Hole, a construc­ The research assistants have been valuable assistance from our undergradu­ tion worker, a waiter, and a bartender. occupied with a wide variety of Center ate student workers, Julie Casida and Luke’s work at the Center this summer has projects, involving watersheds, forestry, Michelle Squyres, who handle publica­ focused on National Forest planning, community-based groups, and several tions, reception, and general office work. collaborative decision making, and the other topics. Several of them were also Federal Advisory Committee Act. In his instrumental in producing this newsletter free time, Luke likes to mountain bike, and the enclosed brochure. backcountry ski, and play the guitar. The Center also receives considerable

We’d Like to Hear From You! □ Yes, keep me on the Center’s mail list!

Name

Affiliation

Address City State Zip (+4)

Telephone Fax 6-digit ID code from mail label To donate to the Center’s Associates Program: Enclosed is my tax-deductible donation payable to the University of Colorado Foundation of □ $1,000 □ $500 □ $250 □ $100 □ $50 □ $25 □ Other To order or to change mail list: Q I would like to order the following publications (please list by codes from publications page (page 10):

□ Enclosed please find $_ check payable to University of Colorado. Or use credit card number below to cover this purchase.

VISA/MasterCard Number Expiration date Signature

□ Please note new address marked on mailing label on reverse side Q Please delete the address marked on mailing label on reverse side

11 Natural Resources Law Center Advisory Board Senator Don Ament Prof. William Riebsame Calendar: Colorado State Senate Dept, of Geography • September 16-18: NFMA in a Denver, Colorado University of Colorado Changing Society: How Well Vicki Cowart Boulder, Colorado Geological Survey John Sayre Has It Worked in the Past 20 Colorado Dept, of Natural Resources Davis, Graham & Stubbs Years? W ill It Work in the 21st Denver, Colorado Denver, Colorado Century? Elizabeth Estill Ken Spann • Fall 1996: Hot Topics in Natural Regional Forester Y Bar Ranch Resources series, dates to be US Forest Service Almont, Colorado announced. Denver, Colorado Britton White. Jr. Dr. John W. Firor El Paso Natural Gas Co. Inside: National Center for Atmospheric Research El Paso, Texas Environmental Law 25 Years Later: Boulder, Colorado Charles B. White John Fredericks, III Brownstein, Hyatt, Farber & Strickland Weaving and Untangling the Web, Fredericks, Pelcyger, Hester & White Denver, Colorado David Sive, p. 5 Boulder, Colorado Timothy Wirth Public Lands Reform: A Reluctant Frances M. (Kelley) Green Under-Secretary of State Attorney Washington, DC Leap into the Abyss, Boulder, Colorado Marvin W olf Michael Jeffery, p. 9 David L. Harrison Wolf Energy Company Moses, Wittemyer, Harrison & Woodruff Denver, Colorado Boulder, Colorado Kit Kimball The Jefferson Group Faculty Committee The Natural Resources Law Denver, Colorado Harold H. Bruff Richard L. Knight Dean and Professor of Law Center Dept, of Fishery and Wildlife Biology Ann L. Estin This publication is a product of the Natural Colorado State University Associate Professor of Law Resources Law Center, a research and public Fort Collins, Colorado education program at the University of Daniel F. Luecke TedJ. Fiflis Environmental Defense Fund Professor of Law Colorado School of Law. The Center’s primary Boulder, Colorado David H. Getches goal is to promote a sustainable society Clyde O. Martz Professor of Law through improved public understanding of Davis, Graham & Stubbs William T. Pizzi environmental and natural resources issues. Denver, Colorado Professor of Law Interpretations, recommendations, or Rosalind McClellan Charles F. Wilkinson conclusions in this Natural Resources Law Southern Rockies Ecosystem Project Professor of Law Center publication are solely those of the Nederland, Colorado authors and should not be attributed to the Peggy E. Montano Center Staff Center, the University of Colorado, the State Parcel, Mauro, Hultin & Spaanstra Elizabeth Ann Rieke, Director of Colorado, or any of the organizations that Denver, Colorado Teresa A. Rice, Associate Director support Natural Resources Law Center Clayton J. Parr Doug Kenney, Research Associate research. Kimball, Parr, Waddoups, Brown & Gee Kathryn Mutz, Research Associate Resource Law Notes is the Center’s free Salt Lake City, Utah Katherine Taylor, Coordinator newsletter, published three times a year—fall, David P. Phillips Anne Drew, Word Processor winter, and spring. Rocky Mountain Mineral Law Foundation Denver, Colorado Glenn Porzak Porzak, Browning & Johnson Boulder, Colorado ^ + printed on recycled paper

Resource Law Notes Natural Resources Law Center Nonprofit Org. University of Colorado School of Law U.S. Postage Campus Box 401 PAID {,/ r Boulder, CO 80309-0401 \y j j i /, „ h .1. L:* R4 Boulder, CO Phone(303) 492-1286 1 D n if ! Permit No. 257 FAX (303) 492-1297 Resource 1 cHW )notes 3 t h 0 "t O W £ 1 0t t 0 )■' O T* th e Nat uira ADDRESS CORRECTION REQUESTED ?© S O U'r’ C e 5 Law fi? n L 0 y * ,, Jni versity o f Co .1 orad o■j