I can't remember where I read it now, but just recently I was reading an article about this very fact...that the ecosystems of the West are much different than other places in the country, and how this relates to species management. With more moisture, topsoil, green growth, etc., there is a bit more latitude both for absorbing crises, and also for recovery after an issue is discovered, in other areas. Many places in Western states have a low species density per acre, as well as a lower comparative population number of each species, against other areas. As a result, Western states can potentially be more fragile.
If a commercial mining operation clears several acres in the West, the potential consequences of this are on a par much higher than, say, a timber company clearing the same number of acres in the East. Afterwards, it can take much longer for the area to return to "how it was." Folks who earn their money from the land in Western states feel "beat upon" more than other areas of the country, and feel like they're being singled out and treated more harshly than others. But it's really due to the unique geography and weather patterns that make these lands more delicate in terms of species management...not any conspiracy theories.
Managing all these factors requires a comprehensive plan to balance the needs of the people who wish to exploit the land, as well as protect the lands -- and species that inhabit them -- for future generations. Unfortunately, we as small-scale miners get caught in the middle sometimes, and have to pay for the sins of others...
