Saturday, April 28, 2012

Re-Developing North Side St. Louis

A close friend sent me an intemperate e-mail several days ago about the move to revitalize what he called St. Louis’s “burned out” neighborhoods. His message was inspired by the report that McEagle Properties was trying to purchase 1,233 parcels of city-owned land as part of an $8 billion, two-square-mile redevelopment project. His e-mail raged against what he thought of as the insanity of improving those neighborhoods without enacting programs that would positively affect the school district, protect existing residents, disrupt drug use, reverse the horrific employment situation, and address the always vexing challenges race plays in St. Louis. Many of us, no matter where we live or what our backgrounds may be, could sympathize with his helplessness and frustration.

After spending a few hours during the next several days mulling over his concerns, I’ve concluded that St. Louisans cannot expect a developer to address society-wide problems that for more than 60 years defied government-sponsored solutions. Everyone who has visited the North Side in the past decade has seen the devastation, abandonment, the heart-breaking landscape of vanished dreams and aspirations. What few of us seem to know is how to reverse the massive devastation brought by decades of disinvestment and abandonment. Since President Reagan, the federal government has washed its hands of anything remotely resembling urban renewal. The State, with its rural-dominated legislature, has no interest in helping the City find a way out of its difficulties.

If federal and state governments are indifferent to the problems demonstrated so powerfully by the North Side, where can citizens look for solutions? Forget the City. It has neither the resources nor the ambition to tackle those persistent economic and social challenges. Local developers have tried for decades to turn individual neighborhoods around and have achieved some success with infill housing and store-front offices. But they are working at a small-scale and have no hope of addressing the larger issues of disinvestment and abandonment that characterize much of North St. Louis. So, what then?

Then you have to examine what people like Paul McKee and McEagle Properties have proposed. It’s easy to find reasons not to like their proposed development. You may object to their high-handed treatment of people living in the North Side. Perhaps you dislike the inevitable gentrification their project will bring. Perhaps it’s the vagueness of the plan that upsets you. Perhaps, like my friend, you think McEagle’s scheme will not result in “regeneration” but rather displacement.

In any case, the McEagle plan is the only one that attempts large-scale revitalization of the North Side. My advice with regard to that plan is to consider a number of options. You can turn your back, walk away, and let the chips fall where they may. You can jump on the opposition bandwagon and work to defeat it. Or you can form groups of like-minded citizens and work to guide the plan in directions you think appropriate.

If the famous organizer Saul Alinsky were alive he would tell residents of the North Side to organize and engage in appropriate actions that would get them a place at the decision-making table. But Alinsky is long gone and McKee is here, brandishing his plan like a preacher thumps his Bible.

The option I advocate is to become part of the process to ensure citizen concerns are not only heard but are incorporated into the plan. That requires hard work and dedication, both of which McKee has demonstrated. The challenge for average citizens is to follow that example, whether you agree with his plan or not.

Please note that this essay was published on April 25 in the St. Louis Suburban Journal West County edition as an Opinion Shaper column.

Monday, April 23, 2012

Who Can You Trust?

Trusting people in leadership positions today is difficult. After all, everyone knows about the horrific pederasty scandal that has infected hundreds of ministers and especially Catholic priests, the widespread failure of national politicians to be committed to anyone except their deep pocketed financial supporters or the “Base,” the endless greed of Wall Street and the Big Banks, and the abject failure of the U.S. Justice Department to be able to understand what the word “justice” means. And hey, don’t forget George W. lied shamelessly to the nation about Saddam Hussein supporting Al Qaida and Obama lied equally shamelessly about being a liberal Democrat who wanted to “change” Washington.

Now we are treated to the prospect of the Catholic hierarchy going after American nuns, intent on whipping them into submission for failing to march lockstep with the bishops, those paragons of virtue who purposefully hid priestly pederasts for decades. What an abject travesty that is.

So, who can YOU trust? What about your spouse? That suggestion makes me think of John Edwards or Eliot Spitzer or the young mother who killed herself after murdering her three children. What about your minister? Oh-oh, don't go there. What about the military academies? Not if you have daughters and don’t want to see them get raped by upperclassmen and then abused by the Academy administrators who lie about trying to stop the sexual attacks.

Can you trust your boss? Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha. Sorry, I nearly choked to death on that one. What about your colleagues, can you trust them? Now that one's complicated. The answer is: it depends on a lot of things, like circumstances, meaning what's at stake and if there were witnesses.

Do you trust Republicans more than you do Democrats? As far as I'm concerned they're all unconscionable liars and charlatans so it's six of one and a half dozen of the other. How about corporations? Anyone out there trust Goldman Sucks? Oops, I meant Goldman Sachs; don't know how I could have made that silly blunder. Or what about General Motors or maybe JP Morgan and Jaime Dimon?

Can you trust stuff your friends say via Facebook, Twitter, or email? If you do you are certifiably mad since people post or send ridiculous, incorrect, off-the-wall shit every day. Which is why Snopes.com exists.

As for me, I trust my wife and my kids. I also trust my doctors, three of whom I've been seeing for more than 20 years. I trust my close friends and certain relatives. I have to be careful here because some of the ones I don’t trust follow this blog; just kidding. That doesn't mean I've haven’t been disappointed by their choices and actions. But that’s life.

Finally, as a group I trust nuns as much as I distrust bishops, which is a whole lot since many of those guys are worse than the worst politicians, who after all are only looking to fill their pockets and reward their supporters whereas many bishops are pederast protectors, like Cardinal Bevilacqua of Philadelphia, who had the great luck to die before he was arrested, or Cardinal Law, who was whisked off to Rome and promoted to a plum job by the Pope after documents revealed he had covered up decades of sexual abuse committed by priests in the Boston archdiocese.

Oh yeah, I'll take the good nuns any day.

Wednesday, April 18, 2012

Justice American Style


Most Americans like to think that our system of justice is the best and fairest in the world. If you are in that group, prepare yourself for a rude awakening.

In 1995, Frederic Whitehurst (chemistry PhD from Duke University and attorney), a Supervisory Special Agent in the FBI crime lab from 1986-1998, testified in the Department of Justice’s high-profile terrorism trial in New York City against Omar Abdel Rahman, the “blind sheik” accused of plotting the first attack on the World Trade Center. Whitehurst at that time was officially rated by the FBI as the leading national and international expert in the science of explosives and explosives residue. The problem was that Whitehurst testified in court that he had been told by his FBI superiors to ignore scientific findings that did not support the prosecution’s theory of the bombing.

In his own words on the witness stand, Whitehurst told the presiding U.S. District Court judge: “There was a great deal of pressure put upon me to bias my interpretation.” That means the FBI wanted him to lie on the stand by misrepresenting forensic evidence to ensure that Omar Abdel Rahman would be convicted. Period.

It was soon revealed that over the years Whitehurst had written or passed to his supervisors scores of memos warning of a lack of impartiality and scientific standards at the FBI lab that did the forensic work after the World Trade Center attack and in hundreds and even thousands of other cases.

Shocking, but since those incidents happened more than 17 years ago, why should we care? Because they tie directly into a second disturbing and directly related issue.

In the last few days, an investigative team at the Washington Post reported in several articles (April 16 and 18) that after Whitehurst’s ever so public and embarrassing whistleblowing Attorney General Janet Reno and FBI Director Louis J. Freeh launched a DoJ task force to review thousands of cases involving discredited FBI forensic reports to ensure that “no defendant’s right to a fair trial was jeopardized.” The problem is that the task force never publicly released its findings and did purposely not contact defendants or their attorneys to inform them that their convictions had been gained, at least in part, through reliance on faulty or flat out incompetent and incorrect lab work. Many of those convicted based on that improper forensic evidence continued serving long sentences after the DoJ discovered significant errors had been made at the FBI crime lab in their cases.

Recently, DoJ officials stated that they had met their legal and constitutional obligations when they learned of specific scientific errors by alerting prosecutors and were not required to share that information with defendants or their attorneys. No follow-up whatsoever was performed by the DoJ to determine whether prosecutors had notified defendants or their attorneys of the faulty or incorrect evidence and testimony and the strong possibility that those defendants may have been wrongly convicted.

I’m not sure what specific expectations people have in terms of this country’s leading Justice Department officials. But intentionally doing nothing after learning that the faulty and incorrect analysis of evidence by scientists at the FBI’s national crime lab may have led to false convictions of innocent defendants is in my eyes morally repulsive and an abomination and stands as a condemnation of a twisted and incredibly flawed justice system. That such a damning dereliction of duty can today be defended by the DoJ as meeting its legal and constitutional obligations is absolutely disgusting.

I highly recommend that everyone who was associated with this cover-up should be investigated by a special federal prosecutor to determine if federal laws were violated, starting with Janet Reno, Louis Freeh, and their directly involved associates. If you feel strongly about this miscarriage of justice, I hope you write your congressional representatives and demand an investigation.

Monday, April 16, 2012

Ocean Acidification--Another Nail in the Sustainability Coffin


This weekend I read an article by Craig Welsh in the Seattle Times, (published April 11, 2012) about a scientific experiment conducted by chemical oceanographers at Oregon State University and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration that determined ocean acidity in upwelling coastal currents was responsible killing oysters in the Pacific Northwest in 2009. After reading the article I checked out the published research (Alan Barton et al. 2012. The Pacific oyster, Crassostrea gigas, shows negative correlation to naturally elevated carbon dioxide levels: Implications for near-term ocean acidification effects. Limnology and Oceanography, 57(3), 698-710) and read the abstract since I had no access to the entire article. I returned to the Seattle Times, re-read Welsh’s article, and then looked over most of the comments from readers.

I have to say that reading those comments was an exercise in self-flagellation and depressing discouragement. When confronted by the wall of opposition to scientific research into natural events on the part of people who are absolutely convinced that all science they don’t agree with is agenda-driven and is not objective or even basically honest, it is impossible to believe that anything that smacks of sustainability, smart growth, green lifestyles, or global warming/climate change will produce any effective national policies or actions whose purpose is to affect our future positively. And that is a very real problem for us, our children, and grandchildren.

Let me count a few of the reasons for being discouraged. World population will likely grow from 7 billion today to over 9 billion by 2050, increasing pressures on natural resources that supply energy, shelter, clothing, and food. World GDP is projected to almost quadruple by 2050, despite the recent recession in the U.S. and Europe, using more and more resources, renewable and non-renewable. Cities are likely to absorb the total global population growth between 2010 and 2050, when about 70 percent of world population is projected to live in urban centers. Lastly, the latest projections of sea level rise for 2100 is somewhere around two meters; even more discouraging is the conclusion that even if the entire world stopped injecting CO2 into the atmosphere tomorrow, that sea level rise would occur due to the time it takes for greenhouse gases to work their way through the atmosphere. And who out there thinks we could stop injecting CO2 into the atmosphere within the next forty years, much less tomorrow? Hello.

That’s not all. According to David Orr (Paul Sears Distinguished Professor of Environmental Studies and Politics at Oberlin College), the following fascinating bits of information should be considered when discussing the environment: “If today is a typical day on planet Earth, humans will add fifteen million tons of carbon to the atmosphere, destroy 115 square miles of tropical rainforest, create seventy-two square miles of desert, eliminate between forty to one hundred species, erode seventy-one million tons of topsoil, add twenty-seven hundred tons of CFCs to the atmosphere, and increase their population by 263,000.” And that’s not considering what changes time will bring in our relentless march to 2050.

Political conservatives will be happy to tell you the market will respond to those pressures and we will all live better, more technologically fulfilled lives. Well, probably not hundreds of millions of poor bastards living marginal lives in what are euphemistically known as developing or Third-World nations.

But biologists suggest we should concentrate on what is actually happening today to our planet as a direct result of human actions and the widespread adoption of techno-culture. Here’s but one very small example. Current extinction rates for amphibians are most likely 136 to 2707 times greater than the expected background (natural or non-human induced) extinction rate. Those staggering rates of extinction are impossible to explain by natural processes. No previous extinction event in geological history approaches the amphibian extinction rate in effect since 1980. Despite the catastrophic rates at which amphibians are currently going extinct, those rates are dwarfed by expectations for the next 50 years. If information provided by many leading biologists is accurate, one-third of all living amphibians are in danger of extinction, which would be an extinction rate 25,000 to 45,000 times the expected background rate. And that is not good news either for amphibians or humans.

When it comes to the large-scale loss of habitats and consequent decline in biodiversity, we are not dealing with events technology can substitute for. After all, what can technology do after we have wiped out most the species that pollinate crops? Stop eating? Perhaps we should eat the conservative propaganda tracts that trumpet the glories of free market economics and technological breakthroughs. Or the conservation tracts that shout out the wonders of wilderness areas that use regulations to prevent as many people as possible from accessing them. That should get us through a week or two at the very least.

The object lesson of all the above is to forget sustainability or green anything. Driving a fuel-efficient car, or using LED bulbs, or conserving water, or recycling ain’t gonna make any real-world difference. It might make you feel better or even morally superior, thinking you’re doing the right thing. But individual efforts, no matter how well conceived or implemented, are futile and fundamentally ineffectual in the face of global indifference to anything but the mindless consumerism we know too well. After all, how many American their right minds would voluntarily and drastically reduce their energy consumption or comforting lifestyles so our little brown or yellow sisters and brothers in developing countries might live a little higher on the hog, so to speak? Pleeease. That ain’t gonna happen.

As far as I am concerned, it is far too late to do anything but determine as to how best mitigate the adverse effects of modern human culture on the environment. If that what is meant by sustainability then so be it, though even in that limited meaning the word is sense-less. But if we so chose to use it that way, let’s be honest about what is possible and what is not and what is sustainable and what is not.

Let me end this brief essay with a question: So, who’s to blame for this wicked predicament? As the great cartoonist, Walt Kelly, said on Earth Day, February 26, 1971, through his marvelously droll creation, Pogo:

                                            “We have met the enemy and he is us.”

Monday, April 2, 2012

Gold Mining and American Law

Gold has been mined by cultures throughout the world for many thousands of years. Closer to modern times, that extraordinarily attractive precious metal was the primary motive for the discovery, exploration, and subjugation of the New World by European nations desperate for economic and political power. But to bring us up to modern times, much of the gold remaining in the Earth today is in microscopic quantities and is being torn from rock at enormous environmental and social costs, often in some of the most isolated and least developed parts of the world.

Naturally, all types of mining are fraught with many kinds of hazards and risks, including economic, social, environmental, and safety. In the past century, a great deal of those challenges have been recognized and dealt with responsibly both by governments and mining companies. However, one of the notable exceptions to that generalization is modern day gold mining, both in the U.S. and in many other parts of the globe. Here in the U.S. the mining of precious metals (including gold) has been critically affected by one particular federal law that was adopted in the age of America’s expanding frontier, the General Mining Law of 1872 (hereinafter referred to as GML). That law has basically been unchanged since it was passed and is in force today as one of the major statutes that direct the use and management of over 270 million acres of federal lands. Those lands constitute almost one-fourth of all the land in the United States and two thirds of the lands the federal government holds in trust for all Americans.

Almost across the board, mining companies regard the GML with near universal glee and a state approaching euphoria. To coin a phrase, they absolutely love it. And why wouldn’t they? The Law encourages mining by permitting free access to individuals and corporations to prospect for minerals in public domain lands and to extract them without paying one cent in royalties. That specific GML provision is totally unlike other federal mining laws that regulate the extraction of coal, oil, or natural gas on public lands.

The GML not only gives away public minerals but as part of that process also sells public land for mining purposes for between $2.50 to $5 an acre, land costs that were current in 1872. Not surprisingly, owing to the express absence of environmental regulations in the GML, when mining companies go belly up, they frequently leave unsuspecting taxpayers to pay the tab for the millions of dollars that are required to clean up horrific environmental messes left behind.

Real World Example: The Zortman-Landusky Gold Mine, which was owned and operated by Pegasus Gold Corp., is located in the Little Rocky Mountains of north-central Montana at the edge of the Fort Belknap Indian Reservation. In the past decade that mine has become a glaring example of the GML’s regulatory inadequacies, demonstrating how both state and federal mining laws failed to protect the environment and local communities from the actions of careless and indifferent mining companies. By 1982, irresponsible management of cyanide solutions at the Zortman-Landusky Mine resulted in between six and twelve separate spills and leaks of cyanide contaminated groundwater and poisoned local drinking water sources. In 1996, a legal settlement was reached through a lawsuit filed against Pegasus Gold for $37 million to upgrade and expand the water-treatment facilities following one of the worst water quality violations in the State of Montana, including $2 million in civil penalties from the State and federal governments for illegal discharge of mine wastewaters. An additional $1.8 million was set aside to evaluate and monitor the potential human health effects. But in 1998, after granting key executives bonuses of $5 million each and selling off other financial assets, Pegasus Gold filed for bankruptcy, leaving Montana taxpayers with approximately $56 million in long-term land reclamation costs (of which $30 million will be paid by Pegasus). But that figure does not cover the long-term costs of water treatment that will be required for many, many decades since water pollution generated by sulfuric acid leachates produced by the mining operations are so extensive that water treatment systems will have to be operated far into the future to assure the safety of local drinking water, at a cost of hundreds of millions of dollars.

In 1872 the reasons for the passage of the GML were to promote mineral exploration and development on federal lands in the western United States, offer opportunities to obtain clear title to mines then being worked, and help settle the West. Well, guess what. The West has been settled for many decades, clear titles were obtained long ago, and mineral exploration and development on federal lands in the western United States have been going gang-busters ever since. So, why is the GML still in force? Despite the environmental focus of the author of this blog, the answers are not as easy as many environmentalists would have people believe. Of course, politics are involved but so are the inherent difficulties of extracting low concentrates of metallic ores from very large quantities of source rock.

Mining companies and their executives pour millions of dollars of legal campaign contributions into the pockets of eager federal Senators and Representatives, who then become blind, deaf, and totally dumb to serious environmental or social mining issues that are raised by the public. And what about the welfare of the American people or the health of the environment? Those vague considerations get kicked out the window when money and power are at stake, especially in Washington, DC, that haven for corrupt and venal politicians. Mark Twain hit the nail on the head when he said, “America is a nation without a distinct criminal class . . . with the possible exception of Congress.” That situation has not changed appreciably since Samuel Clemens went to his reward.

The question arises as to why Congress would continue to release national wealth to individuals and corporations by supposedly under-pricing minerals on federal lands (actually giving them away by charging truly minimal costs). One answer is that the people who make the decisions on selling federal land (Congressmen) do not themselves own the property rights in the land or in minerals under the surface. Therefore, the wealth that is given up through under-pricing would not have accrued to them in the first place. But Congress can and does give the right to mine under-priced minerals to their friends and associates, meaning to those who have powerful interests in donating millions of dollars to political campaigns, and here you better be thinking mining companies and their executives.

Consequently, the flow of political donations from mining companies into the coffers of political re-election campaigns continues unabated and is perfectly legal if not possessed with the stink of legitimized corruption. And those amenable politicians bend over backwards to protect their friends and associates by fending off proposals from environmentalists to modify the GML by screaming at the tops of their lungs about all the jobs and taxes they are producing in their respective states. Somehow the subject of persistent, horrifically expensive adverse consequences and taxpayer-borne costs of that mining never comes up. There's a shock.

However, rhetoric and emotion aside, another reason for the GML may reflect the inherent uncertainties that have always characterized hard rock mining. Prospecting for gold, silver, copper, or a variety of other metallic ores is not the fairly precise science that characterizes oil well drilling or even coal mining. Predicting the yield of a metallic mineral deposit disseminated throughout a large volume of economically worthless host rock is fraught with difficulties since the ore concentration may not be as rich as was first estimated and the extensive initial investment in mining operations may never be recouped. And even if it is, the resultant profit stream is typically low when compared with the profits earned by oil, natural gas, or coal companies. Actually, about half of all hard rock mines are unproductive and unprofitable. As a result, many mining firms have less capital reserves with which to pay for complex environmental clean-up after the ore has been extracted.

The question that should be asked is whether it is better for mining companies to despoil the American environment in order to extract whatever precious metal they are seeking and then in many, if not most instances, leave the horrifically expensive clean-up bills for the taxpayers rather than go to other countries and do their dirty work there? What has happened in the U.S. is that natural resource companies have spent their money where they know it will do the most good: by investing in political election campaign donations and huge lobbyist fees so that most meaningful clean-up provisions are removed from environmental legislation well before they are passed into law. Don’t forget, weak environmental regulations directly translate into profits and more campaign contributions flowing to the politicians. But that issue is one for the American public to decide. Does the average Joe and Jane Six-Pack care if mountains in West Virginia are being blasted into pieces that are then dumped into adjacent streams until those valleys are buried under as much as two hundred feet of waste? Or that the precious fossil water resources in Arizona and Nevada are being used to process gold ore can never be returned to aquifers for more productive human uses? Serious questions, but just don’t ask employees of natural resource firms in those states for answers or you may wind up with a black eye and a fat lip or in a hospital bed. And that's no joke.

Author’s Note: Interpretations of mining laws and regulations are naturally colored by a person’s overall political philosophy, especially in terms of how government is defined, the roles government should play, the nature of property rights, whether environmental ethics actually exist, whether government has a stewardship responsibility for land-environment, whether sustainability is possible or should be attempted, etc. Those political foundations are far reaching with respect to informing individual understanding of such things as land management and development, conservation, pollution, etc., and are too complex to be addressed in this blog post.

Readers interested in mining sources that are relatively objective and dispassionate should consult the following:
  • Congressional Research Service, Report IB89130: “Mining on Federal Lands,” May 3, 2001, online source: http://ncseonline.org/NLE/CRSreports/Mining/mine-1.cfm?&CFID=8492224&CFTOKEN=29386060
  • National Research Council (Committee on Hardrock Mining on Federal Lands, Committee on Earth Resources, Board on Geosciences and Resources, Commission on Geosciences, Environment, and Resources), Hardrock Mining on Federal Lands, National Academy Press, Washington, D.C., 1999, online source: http://books.nap.edu/html/hardrock_fed_lands/;
  • John Dragonetti, “The General Mining Law of 1872 Perpetually Revisited — But Still Intact,” The Professional Geologist; March 2000; online source: http://www.agiweb.org/gap/legis106/tpg_mining.html
Readers with conservative points of view should see the following materials:
  • Richard Gordon and Peter VanDoren, “Two Cheers For The 1872 Mining Law,” Cato Policy Analysis No. 300; April 9, 1998; online source: http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-300.html
  • Testimony of Richard L. Gordon, Adjunct Scholar, Cato Institute, Emeritus Professor of Mineral Economics, The Pennsylvania State University, before the Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources, Committee on Resources, U.S. House of Representatives: Reforming the 1872 Mining Law; August 3, 1999, online source: http://www.cato.org/testimony/ct-rg080399.html
  • Andrew P. Morriss, Roger E. Meiners, and Andrew Dorchak, “Homesteading Rock: A Defense of Free Access under the General Mining Law of 1872.” Case Research Paper Series in Legal Studies, Working Paper 04-2; April, 2004. Available online at: Social Science Research Network http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=530124
Readers with liberal-environmental points of view may want to consult the following materials:
  • Sierra Club, http://www.sierraclub.org/wildlands/monuments/threats.asp
  • Westerners for Responsible Mining, http://www.bettermines.org/cmc_1872.cfm
  • National Resources Defense Council http://www.nrdc.org/legislation/record/chap3.asp
  • http://www.earthworksaction.org/1872.cfm also https://www.earthworksaction.org/pubs/MPCfs_1872onePager.pdf

Readers of all political stripes interested in finding out the straight scoop on the country’s leading toxic polluters—based on pollution levels reported by the industry itself—should consult the Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) Program that was established in 1986 by the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA) and administered by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). TRI requires industrial facilities to disclose to the public annually the amount of pollutants they have discharged into the air, water, and land or transferred to other sites for incineration, recycling, and disposal. All interested readers have to do to find out the real situation is to go to EPA’s Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) Program web site (http://www.epa.gov/tri/) and check the data for themselves. It should come as no surprise to find that hardrock mining companies are way out in front of the pack, a dubious distinction at best.

During its last days in office, the Clinton administration and Secretary of the Interior Bruce Babbitt changed mining regulations contained in 43 CFR 3809 Surface Management Rules for Hardrock Mines on BLM-Administered Lands. After George W. Bush was sworn in as President, those rules were immediately challenged in court by two industry plaintiffs, the State of Nevada, and several environmental public interest organizations. In early 2001, then Secretary of the Interior Gale Norton suspended the 3809 regulations and reopened the rulemaking process. The Bush administration published final 3809 rules on Oct. 30, 2001, which can be found at 66 Fed. Reg. 54834 (hereinafter called “the Norton 3809 regulations”).

The Norton 3809 regulations retain many of the elements of the Babbitt 3809 regulations and reinstate a few elements of the original 3809 rules enacted in 1980. The Norton regulations also retain the acid rock drainage and cyanide leaching performance standards set in the Babbitt 3809 rules. Nearly everyone involved in the 3809 rulemaking dialogue agreed that BLM should require a reclamation bond for all mining activities that disturb the surface, especially since the need to expand reclamation bonding requirements was a key finding in the NRC Report cited above. The final Norton 3809 regulations require a reclamation bond that covers one hundred percent of the anticipated costs of reclamation for all surface-disturbing activities that are greater than casual use. The new 3809 rules also eliminate the possible use of corporate guarantees as an acceptable form of financial assurance.

Proponents claim that the final 3809 rules strengthen environmental regulations for hardrock mining, thereby addressing many of the environmental issues raised in past legislative debates about amending the GML. Naturally, the view of opponents is that significant progress to ensuring that mining companies meet environmental standards is yet to be achieved. However, no matter what your viewpoint, significant progress has been made towards achieving President Clinton’s goal of amending the GML through the 3809 rulemaking process. That said, three critical GML policy issues remain to be resolved: 1) whether patenting should be abolished, modified, or preserved; 2) whether payment of federal royalties based on the value of minerals extracted should be required; and 3) whether a fund to clean up abandoned mines should be established.

Substantive changes to the General Mining Law of 1872 were proposed in two separate but similar bills, the Hardrock Mining and Reclamation Bills of 2007 and 2009. In both cases, those bills suffered slow, painful deaths in Congress. In the poisoned political atmosphere of 2012 (when this post was written) the chances of getting similar legislation passed seem as likely as Sarah Palin having a sex change operation and then turning into a flaming liberal who supports LGBT rights. In other words, don’t hold your breath.

Friday, March 30, 2012

Fossils Part 2


Fossilization (Taphonomy)
Critical part of the process known as taphonomy, or the study of remains of organisms after they die (the word was derived from the Greek taphos, meaning grave-burial, and nomos, meaning law). The concept was introduced to paleontology in 1940 by the prominent Russian paleontologist and science fiction author Ivan Efremov (also spelled Yefremov) to describe the study of the transition of organic remains, including entire intact bodies, dissembled parts or products, from the biosphere to the lithosphere, meaning the eventual conversion of living organisms to fossil assemblages.

The motivation behind the study of taphonomy is to better understand biases present in the fossil record. Although fossils may seem to some to be ubiquitous in sedimentary rocks, they are actually somewhat rare. Paleontologists cannot draw the most accurate conclusions about the lives and ecology of the fossilized organisms without identifying and understanding the processes involved in their fossilization. Therefore, taphonomy includes the organism’s life-history, type-location of death, decomposition, post-mortem transport (if any), burial, compaction, and other chemical, biologic, or physical activities that affect the remains of an organism. Recognition of taphonomic processes that have taken place leads to a more complete understanding of paleoecology and even the life-history of a once-living organism.

Since most of those who study geoscience know that the world is very old and that many billions of animals have lived and died between the time when plants and animals first appeared, why is the environment not simply awash in fossils? Here’s the answer in a nutshell: because for organisms death is guaranteed while preservation is not.

To understand that answer we have to focus on the underlying problem: how does anything become fossilized? And that’s where taphonomy comes in, by elucidating critical elements in the taphonomic process: life—death—preservation—survival—discovery. The fossilization process starts with life (as many young student observers of tenured university faculty and administrators approaching retirement will readily attest) because the way an organism lives provides a bias with respect to its potential for preservation.

Organisms living in or in close proximity to lacustrine or tidal marsh environments have much greater chances of having their remains rapidly covered with sediments and fossilized than do condors or mountain goats living in a desert far from most sources of rapid burial and sedimentation. As an example of a life having high fossilization potential, imagine a shore bird falling dead in a near-shore environment where its feathers are weighed down with clay-rich water and that night and the next many nights it is covered with an inch or more of sand, silt or mud until it is buried under several yards of moist, heavy materials. Moreover, an animal’s position in the food web also affects its fossilization potential since organisms at the bottom of the web are far more numerous than the top predators.

Real World Examples of animals whose lives and deaths and preservation contributed to very high fossilization potentials are those so remarkably preserved in the Burgess Shale and the recently discovered nearly complete fossil skeleton of an ancient aquatic bird in the Gansu area of China, Gansus yumenensis.[1] How and where an organism dies also affects its fossilization potential. For example, a zebra dying on the South African veldt stands next to no chance of being preserved since either predators or scavengers (including those that crush and eat the bones) would clean up its remains like hungry teenagers disappearing a fast-food meal. But the chances of fossilization of a clam or a crab dying at the beach are considerably greater.

Preservation encompasses ways an organism’s remains survive after death and its transition into a fossil. Rapid burial is the best method to ensure transition into the preservation stage and is a common process at the Earth’s surface that occurs on a regular basis (again, the Burgess Shale is a wonderful example). Floods, mass wasting episodes, storms, and volcanic eruptions can deposit sediments over periods of time ranging from minutes to days. A well-known historical example is the sudden volcanic ash fall that buried Pompeii and Herculaneum.

Fun Stuff: Actual examples of what might humorously be called “fossil” graffiti preserved on the walls of the two Roman cities include:

“Atimetus got me pregnant.”
“I fucked a lot of girls here.”
“Phileros is a eunuch.”
“Once you are dead, you are nothing.”
“May I always and everywhere be as potent with women as I was here.”

Back to more serious stuff. Not all types of landscapes are preserved equally in the geological record, leading to a heavy bias towards shallow, near-shore marine and lacustrine environments. In addition, not all periods of geological history are preserved equally, witness the paucity of fossils from periods earlier than the Cambrian. Recent Earth history is far better preserved if only because not as much time has elapsed during which erosion or destruction via heat and pressure can occur. Burial also protects the dead organism from being consumed by higher or lower food chain organisms and from mechanical (abrasion and break-up) and chemical (decay and disintegration) processes. Although in the vast majority of cases decay is an inevitable part of death, organisms with hard parts (shell, bone, claws, teeth) have a much higher preservation potential than organisms that are entirely soft-bodied or that possess fragile hard parts.

Preservation comes in various types. An unaltered state is the rarest form of preservation in the far greater majority of the geologic record in which fossils are found but is more frequent in recently formed sedimentary environments. Types of unaltered preservation where even the soft body parts are preserved include: mummification, encasement in tar or other hydrocarbons (as can be seen at the Rancho La Brea Pits in Los Angeles), encasement in amber (such as frogs, insects, or leaves), encasement in sediment, and freezing, as in the case of an 18,000-year-old frozen Siberian woolly mammoth that was on display at the 2005 World Exposition in Aichi, Japan. However, most commonly only the hard skeletal materials are preserved after decomposition of soft body parts.

Preservation by means of molds and casts entails creation of a type of replica of the organism’s hard parts. In general, a mold is an impression of a bone or shell in lithified sediment, forming a mirror image of the original part. Molds can be internal, an impression of the inside surface of skeletal hard parts, or external, an impression of the outside surface. A cast is formed when a mold is filled with fine sediment and is therefore a true replica not a mirror image of the original hard part.

A common form of preservation involves dissolution and replacement or recrystallization (alteration) of original hard materials by chemical or physical means. Replacement, sometimes on a molecule by molecule basis, most often occurs when various minerals, typically contained in percolating groundwater, fill in voids after dissolution of original skeletal material. Common secondary replacement minerals include silica (SiO2) and pyrite (FeS2). The process of the physical re-arrangement of crystalline structure of skeletal material is known as recrystallization, which is a common phenomenon in shells that were originally aragonite or calcite (both forms of calcium carbonate—CaCO3).

Carbonization or the formation of carbon films is another type of fossilization and is typical for such organisms as plants and insects. After an organism (most typically a plant) dies, internal volatile organic compounds disperse and leave behind residues that form a coal-like black carbon film that preserves the outline and sometimes considerable organic details. Those thin films of carbon are often found on planes of sandstone or shale.

Permineralization or petrifaction is a type of preservation in which the soft tissue of the organism has decomposed and the remaining hard parts are flooded with groundwater saturated with secondary minerals, especially calcium carbonate (calcite) or silicate that precipitates out and fills the gaps/pores/interstitial spaces of the dead organism but does not replace existing material. Minute details are often well preserved, even down to the cellular level. Cementation occurs with time and pressure as secondary minerals lithify to form a rock (fossil) in the place of the original bone, teeth, shell, or wood, preserving an amazing amount of detail. Real World Example: A great and very popular illustration of this form of fossilization is petrified wood, as can be seen in the Petrified Forest National Park in northern Arizona. Vietnam produces the largest commercial quantities of black and brown petrified wood sold globally as well as some of the largest individual pieces. For example, in 2002 a 6.7 meter long rock with a diameter of 40-50 cm, was found in Hon Khoi, Vietnam, which is located about 50 miles north of Cam Ranh Bay.

Author’s Note: The celebrated mystery author Patricia Cornwell brought worldwide attention to human taphonomy in her best-selling 1994 novel, The Body Farm, in which she discussed the very real Anthropological Research Facility at the University of Tennessee—Knoxville, which is engaged in an effort to apply principles of physical anthropology to the study of human decomposition, or what is called forensic taphonomy. Check out the book, it contains a fictional but well-written account of the work of William Bass, founder of the decay research facility.



[1] Hai-lu You, et al. 2006. Nearly Modern Amphibious Bird from the Early Cretaceous of Northwestern China, Science 312(5780): 1640-1643.

Wednesday, March 28, 2012

Fossils Part 1

Fossil
Organic remains or traces of once living organisms preserved in rocks and minerals over time through a variety of methods, including casts, tracks, impressions, and lithified body parts. Real World Examples: Many paleontologists believe that a particularly inhospitable stretch of the Gobi Desert, near the Mongolian provincial capital of Ukhaa Tolgod, is home to the world’s richest and most diverse deposits of dinosaur and early mammal remains from 80 mya, a critical time for life in the Cretaceous.

In the last decade or so, paleontologists estimate that they have found 1,000 mammal skulls, which amounts to 90 percent of all the recovered mammalian specimens from the Cretaceous, and bones from 1,000 lizards, not to mention the fossilized remains of many different kinds of dinosaur and their nests and eggs. For most of us moderately educated common folk, the most famous fossils are those of the larger dinosaurs, especially such those scare-your-wits-out carnivores like Tyrannosaurus rex.

However, many budding geoscientists have been excited by the discovery of a giant snake, named Titanoboa cerrejonensis, by its discoverers. The size of the snake's vertebrae suggests it weighed about 2,500 pounds and measured 42.7 feet from nose to tail tip. Geoscientists from the University of London discovered the fossil in the Cerrejon Coal Mine in northern Colombia, South America, in 2008. The geoscientists used the snake's size to estimate the Earth's temperature during the time it lived in tropical South America (somewhere between 58 to 60 million years ago). Paleontologists have long known an age's average temperature roughly correlates with the size of its cold-blooded animals. By their estimate, a snake of Titanoboa's size would have required an average annual temperature of 86° to 93° F to survive. By comparison, today's average yearly temperature of Cartagena, Colombia, is 82.4° F.

Another fairly recent fossil that has excited students was the 2001 discovery of the bones of a 110 million years-old, 40-foot crocodile by researchers at Yale University and at the University of Chicago in the Cretaceous rocks in central Niger, Africa, in what is part of the Tenere Desert. It was estimated that the crocodile, named Sarcosuchus imperator by the researchers, weighed about 16,000 pounds. Measurements from three adult skulls resulted in an estimate of total adult body length to be between 39 and 42 feet long.

Fossil Assembly (Lagerstätte)
Lagerstätte is a German word meaning “resting place” or “storage place” that recently has been borrowed by paleontologists and applied to fossil locations of extraordinary richness or completeness (plural: lagerstätten). A lagerstätte is a spectacular rarity and a few dozen are scattered through the Earth and are more valuable to science than the rarest and most precious gems. Paleontologists define Konservat-Lagerstätten (conservation Lagerstätten) as locations known for the exceptional preservation of fossilized organisms, including soft parts preserved as impressions, casts, or “shadows.” Those locations are examples of incomplete biological recycling where anoxic conditions (oxygen-free mud) sufficiently suppressed bacterial decomposition for the initial casts of soft body parts to be recorded.

Konzentrat-Lagerstätten (concentration Lagerstätten) are defined as fossil deposits with concentrations of disarticulated organic hard parts, such as a bone bed. They are less spectacular in scale and scope than the more famous Konservat-Lagerstätten. Deposits with a high concentration of fossils that represent an in-situ community, such as reefs or oyster beds, are not considered Lagerstätten. However good they may be, lagerstätten still have preservational biases, in that certain fossils are not preserved in the sedimentary beds due to a variety of adverse environmental conditions, especially but not only geochemical in nature.

Real World Examples: Perhaps the best known lagerstätten for most Americans is the Rancho La Brea Pits in Los Angeles, which has the best studied assemblages of Pleistocene vertebrates, including over 135 species of birds and 60 species of mammal, including woolly mammoths and mastodons, grey and dire wolves, long-horned bison, ground sloths, saber-toothed cats, and many other recently extinct creatures that were fossilized by the hundreds in tar.

Another incredible location is the Burgess Shale in the Canadian Rockies in Yoho National Park, British Columbia, where the Cambrian Explosion is so beautifully documented. Even more important with regard to its significant assemblage of Cambrian Exploxion fossils is the Chengjiang Biota in the Maotianshan Shales of Yunnan Province, China, near the city of Kunming. The Chengjiang Biota is extraordinarily diverse, including many excellently-preserved soft-bodied fossilized organisms and has been designated by paleontologists as arguably the most significant exceptional preservation above the Precambrian-Cambrian boundary.

The justly famous Solnhofen Limestone beds in Bavaria, Germany, are located halfway between Nuremberg and Munich, where the famous dinosaur-bird, Archaeopteryx, was first found in feathered and toothful splendor. The assemblage includes sea jellies, the wings of dragonflies, the imprints of stray feathers, and many terrestrial plants. The range of fossils, some of which are truly spectacular, preserved in sticky carbonate muds that trapped insects and even a few small dinosaurs, provides a comprehensive picture of a local Jurassic ecosystem with over 600 identified species, including 29 kinds of pterosaur ranging from the size of a sparrow to four feet in length.

Perhaps the most famous fossil in the world is the Solnhofen Limestone's Berlin specimen of Archaeopteryx. With its reptilian-like teeth and tail with the feathers of a bird, it was the ideal “missing link” Darwin’s supporters took pride in pointing to as irrefutable proof of his theory of evolution. The Messel Pit near Darmstadt, Germany, is one of the richest Konservat-Lagerstätten in the world, with more than 10,000 finds to date from the Middle Eocene Period (Geiseltalian), about 50 mya. The Pit provides the best preserved evidence of Geiseltalian flora and fauna ever discovered. Many of the fossils not only feature extensive preservation of structural integrity but also such soft body parts as feathers, fur, and "skin shadows." In May 2009, scientists from Norway, Germany, and the U.S. published research on what is certainly one of the most famous fossils from the Messel Pit, a 95 percent preserved primitive primate fossil (named Darwinius masillae and nicknamed Ida, pronounced Ee-da) that may either be an evolutionary link connecting prosimians (lemurs) and anthropoids (apes, monkeys, and humans) or an evolutionary dead end. Since the dust has yet to settle on that particular argument, interested students should watch developments in the literature.

Since the 1990s, what is perhaps the world's largest deposit of dinosaur bones has been identified inside a 1,500-foot long, 80-foot deep ravine in the City of Zhucheng in Shandong province on China’s eastern coast. The site contains certainly one of the world’s greatest deposits of dinosaur fossils, at least in terms of sheer volume, with more than 8,000 individual fossils identified as of 2012, with many more sure to be found. Among the more significant fossils found there are Gigantoraptor, Guanlong, Incisivosaurus, Limusaurus, Meilong, and Microraptor, Zhuchengtyrannus magnus.

Kinds of Fossil
The remains of plants and animals may be preserved through a variety of natural processes including mummification, freezing, molds and casts, impression, petrifaction, mineral replacement, carbonization, and direct preservation of teeth, bones, and shells in animals of relatively recent origin. Other less common kinds of fossil include coprolites (fossilized excrement), burrows (tubes made in silt or mud by animals such as worms), and gastroliths (stomach stones used in the stomachs of extinct reptiles to grind food). A trace fossil, such as a mold or cast or other evidence of life, is also known as an ichnofossil.

Real World Examples: Fossils of different Tyrannosaurus species have been found in the Lance Formation of Eastern Wyoming; the Hell Creek Formation of Eastern Montana, Southwestern North Dakota, and Northwestern South Dakota; the Livingston Formation of Montana; the Javelina Formation of Big Bend Texas; the Laramie Formation of Colorado; the McRae Formation of New Mexico; the Scollard and Willow Creek formations of Alberta, Canada; and the Frenchman Formation of Saskatchewan, Canada. And while you're in Canada, you should visit Dinosaur Provincial Park, which occupies an area of 73 square kilometers along the Red Deer River near the center of southern Alberta. One of the largest concentrations of dinosaur footprints known in North America can be found in the Connecticut Valley. Many different types of fossil track impressions have been found in the Valley's sandstone of the early Jurassic period (200 mya). Two thousand Eubrontes tracks (a large three toed dinosaur that was closely related to the western genus, Dilophosarus) were discovered on a single layer of rock. Some of the best examples are preserved at Dinosaur State Park in Rocky Hill, a few miles south of Hartford, Connecticut. Another type of footprint was discovered at Laetoli, Tanzania, in 1978 by a team led by Mary Leakey that may have been made about 3.6 millions years ago by hominids who were members of the species, Australopithecus afarensis. The track is among the longest made by early hominids and is still among the most controversial, owing to scientific disagreement as to which group of hominids made the footprints in what was then loose volcanic ash. But in terms of shear numbers, probably more Americans have visited Petrified Forest National Park in northern Arizona than any other fossil location in the U.S., with its fascinating fragments and even large logs of fossilized wood, which is actually a molecule by molecule replacement of organic matter with silica.

Fossiliferous
Rock in which fossils are profuse, for example, crinoids, brachiopods, and other marine invertebrates.