PUBLIC RESOURCE ASSOCIATES for all concerned. We urge that you only change what you have to, and only make changes that will work in context. In our dialogue, we have identified and examined what we think are the nine salient issues: (1) self-initiation (2) claim location (3) security of tenure (4) diligence (5) scope of patent (6) fees and charges (7) surface management/environmental protection (8) land use planning (9) grandfathered rights Through our discussion of these issues we have come to agree on a set of key principles around which we believe consensus might be developed. They are: (1) retain the self-initiated claim location system; (2) establish secure tenure by eliminating the discovery requirement for unpatented claims and make the requirements for patent reflect actual industry concepts of economic feasibility; (3) replace the present surface and mineral patent with a patent to the minerals only; (4) impose a true diligence requirement as the price of tenure; PUBLIC RESOURCE ASSOCIATES (5) assure environmental protection, including reclamation, bonding and improved land planning; and land. (6) provide for fair payment for the use of the Principles are not enough, of course, and the details raise hard questions. Russ Babcock and Lynn Greenwalt will have a good deal to say about this. For now let me just say that we are working away at the details and continue to be optimistic about our prospects for reaching agreement. I would like to comment now, briefly and selectively, on the bill you have before you. At the outset, I have to tell you, it would not be possible for us to use this bill, in its present form, as a basis for the consensus we have been seeking. The mining community, looking at the bill, is likely to think its intent is to punish rather than improve. The small miner, who plays an important if not well understood role in the exploration for and development of mineral resources, would be particularly hurt by the cumulative impact of the fees and diligence levels it would impose. To illustrate, a modest holding of, say, ten claims, which is about the minimum for a feasible operation these days and thus the relevant unit for comparison with the single claim of 1872, would cost $12,000 in the first year in fees and annual labor or in lieu payments as compared to $1,150 under current rules. This level of expenditures would likely prove prohibitive for the small miner in most cases. Large operators, for their part, will tell you that an 8% royalty, on top of PUBLIC RESOURCE ASSOCIATES existing severance taxes and payments to claim holders, would stifle the incentive to mine in this high-cost business. And by withdrawing more lands from location, the bill goes in exactly the opposite direction from what one would expect of a modernized mining law, one that is more fully integrated with contemporary standards for multiple use management and environmental protection. In addition, the rights that adhere to a mining claim under the bill are hazy. If a plan of operations can be denied and a claim voided without clear, upfront standards to guide a land manager's determination, the right to explore and mine on the open public lands becomes illusory. Miners, increasingly, have come to anticipate the costs of environmental mitigation as costs of doing business. They understand that conditions in some areas will be more restrictive than others and accept the responsibility for compliance. But if they are to proceed with any measure of confidence, they should have the right to expect that there will be no outright prohibition of exploration or mining, except under very special circumstances, other than through the existing withdrawal procedures. As for the treatment of existing claims, the bill strikes us as unnecessarily punitive. Its terms may make sense for the unique circumstances of oil shale, but a less disruptive transition is called for with respect to hardrock. The bill is not without its positive features, however, for which I wish to commend you. It is built upon the basic PUBLIC RESOURCE ASSOCIATES It makes diligence the basis of framework of a self-initiated claim location system, which, from the viewpoint of the Public Resource Associates, is essential for any proposal to be workable. tenure and substitutes a mineral patent for the existing surface and mineral patent, changes which would be substantial improvements to the existing law. It adopts the concept of a uniform claim, located, where possible, by legal subdivision, a most useful change. In addition, it provides sensibly for the use of ancillary lands for activities in support of development and production. We view this bill as one step in a long process, which we hope will lead to a mining law that will work well for miners, land managers and the nation far into the next century. Those of us involved in the dialogue that I have described will do all we can to help. Thank you. Senator BUMPERS. Thank you very much, Mr. Livermore. STATEMENT OF LYNN A. GREENWALT, VICE PRESIDENT, NATIONAL WILDLIFE FEDERATION Mr. GREENWALT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My name is Lynn Greenwalt. I am Vice President of the National Wildlife Federation, the Nation's largest nongovernmental conservation education organization with 5.8 million members and supporters and affiliate organizations in 51 states and territories. I am very pleased to have this opportunity to discuss the legislation here and the continuing efforts that have been described by Mr. Livermore involving my organization and other conservation groups to work with elements of the mining community to bring more modern concepts to the Nation's basic mining law. My written testimony recapitulates for the record the reasons conservationists are concerned about the 1872 law and its execution. As you have heard earlier, the mining industry has concerns as well, though they are not necessarily the same as ours, nor are their concerns viewed from the same perspective. I would like to emphasize that my organization's fundamental concern is with the law and in the way the 1872 Act and subsequent land management legislation have been applied over time. We are not here to criticize the mining industry even though there are those miners and opportunists who take advantage of circumstances now and then. I suspect that can be said of conservationists, too. The bill we are considering offers a way to address the concerns we all have. Clearly, it does not represent a consensus of the feelings of everyone potentially affected by it. For some, its mere presence in the legislative system is frightening. To others, it does not go far enough to satisfy perceived needs. It does touch all the bases in some way, and that is indeed welcome. We now have an instrument with which we can work to develop legislation representing the present day needs of miners and conservationists. As has been mentioned earlier, representatives of a part of the mining industry have been meeting with conservationists to discuss ways to develop a better understanding of each other's concerns. I want to emphasize that because the illumination that has come through this group and the meetings we have had about each other's concerns has been extraordinarily important to me. It has driven home to me personally and to the people of whom I have been asked to be a representative the importance of clearly understanding what really happens as opposed to what people think happens and the ways the statutes, the 1872 Act and subsequent ones, can be used effectively to create a situation in which we can all get to where we ought to be, which is vitally important. I find it, Mr. Chairman, increasingly important as I get older. I have less time left to make the mark, and I would kind of like to do that one of these days. In any event, this dialogue group has been extraordinarily important to all of us, and I am indeed pleased to have been a part of it. |