which does not let agencies deny a Plan of Operations if the land use plan has been updated, and does not specifically in its terms prevent mining, even if the Plan would cause great damage. Our direct experience with all agency land use plans is that they are extremely vague, and one can search through almost any one of them in vain to find the detail necessary to accompany a site-specific investigation which can be the only basis upon which an agency can make a valid decision. We should not codify these intentionally vague plans into a restrictive statutory framework like this. Audubon is also very concerned about some of the reclamation portions of HR 918. For example, Sec. 201(b) does not require that a Reclamation Plan be an integral part of any Plan of Operations; since BLM generally does not do this, it must be required by law. Certainly those scars of open pits left by mining operations should be filled back in and otherwise reclaimed, but there is nothing in HR 918 which would ensure the achievement of this laudable goal. Mr. Chairman, perhaps the greatest damage to the public lands that has been accomplished by the 1872 law is the absolute primacy that it gives to mining, over all other public uses of the public lands. According to the mining industry, and the agencies which interpret the law, there is almost no way that an agency official responsible for good stewardship on the lands under his jurisdiction can ever deny a miner the right to mine a claim, once the claim is located and being brought to patent. Thus, the history of the west in recent years is a history of bitter struggles over particularly beautiful places that also may contain some ore, and where a miner has literally, made these places his private property, with full rights to exploit them, no matter what the environmental consequences. One of the worst examples of this sort of abuse in my direct experience is the case of the proposed open pit copper mine near Image Lake in the heart of the Glacier Peak Wilderness Area in the Mt. Baker National Forest in Washington state. Image Lake is a little gem of a water body set into the top of a long green-meadow ridge at 6,000 feet elevation, across the valley from the stunning white volcano of Glacier Peak, in the absolute center of this Wilderness Area, 15 miles from the nearest road. Some time ago, the Kennecott Copper Co. located 3,000 acres worth of patented claims on a low grade body of copper ore in the area. In the mid 1960s Kennecott advanced proposals to ram a road 15 miles in through the heart of this wild place, construct an open pit copper mine large enough to be seen from the moon, with all the towns and facilities at its base. It does not do justice to the immense damage that would have been done to say that the area would have been completely destroyed and forever. The Forest Service did not want this to happen, nor did environmentalists, nor did the governor, nor did the politicians from the state of Washington. But under the 1872 mining law, no one had any legal rights whatsoever to make any kind of balanced determination about whether the mine should be permitted or not. Only massive public pressure, accompanied even by demonstrations and media attention, forced the company to back down because it did not want the adverse public exposure. But the patents are still out of the public domain, and thus can still be mined at any time -once the price of copper goes up. It does not matter what the public thinks, or how many generations of people have loved and cherished the Image Lake country. Mr. Chairman, it is this type of situation that absolutely must be changed if any legislation affecting the mining law of 1872 is to be considered truly a reform statute; everything else is, literally, secondary in importance as far as we are concerned. All the reclamation in the world, all the bonding provisions, even royalty provisions and other environmental standards pale in comparison to the need for public land managers to have the same kind of control over mining operations on the public lands as they have control over logging operations, recreation developments, and hiking trails. Someone, somewhere, Mr. Chairman, must absolutely have the right to say "no" -- "just because you, Mr. Miner, have located a body of ore, does not give you the absolute right to make it your private property, and develop it whenever you chose. The obtaining of minerals, high grade or low grade, or any grade, is only one more value to be considered when we make management decisions. Perhaps this particular place is more valuable for timber harvest, or for wildlife, or for producing clean water, or, even for recreation. But you shall no longer have primacy, at the expense of all the other public values." Specifically, Mr. Chairman, we urge an explicit requirement in HR 918 that the administering agency balance all the values in the area of the proposed Plan of Operations, and an explicit statement that the Plan shall be denied if proceeding with the mining operation would adversely affect these other values. Mr. Chairman, the National Audubon Society strongly favors reclamation standards, adequate royalties to the public treasury for the giving away of its valuable minerals, full compliance with all environmental laws, and the strong kind of guidelines to the federal agencies which will be overseeing it. But above all, the agencies, who are after all the stewards and the representatives of the public, must in their behalf, have the strong power to say where and where not mining operations shall occur on the public lands. The time has come -- indeed it is long since past to treat those who would gouge minerals from our land just the same as those who would cut the trees, graze the grass, or hike the trails. Thank you. - Mr. PRITCHARD. Mr. Chairman, I am Paul Pritchard, and I am honored to represent the 280,000 members of the National Parks and Conservation Association. I am also a native of West Virginia, and I have family who are involved in mining, and I appreciate very much your leadership on this issue. Mr. Chairman, on behalf of our Association I think it is important to look at the testimony which I would briefly summarize for the sake of tie. But I think the National Parks present the classic example of the canary in the cage, the analogy which not only figuratively but literally applies to the issue of mining and its impact on national parks and on the public lands in general. Today, there are over 25 units of the National Park System in which there are over 2,000 active claims, patent and unpatented, which exist within those units of the National Park System. Those resources and the impact in those areas in terms of wildlife, clean air, clean waterall of those resources are affected and are dominantly affected by the impact of these claims in these units of the National Park System. More importantly, Mr. Chairman, over two-thirds of the 358 units of the National Park System have active claims, patented and unpatented, which will have an impact in or around the units of the National Park System. Over two-thirds of the National Park System can be affected by claims under the existing Act, and we think that is a significant issue. Let me be even more specific and tell you what some of those claims have done. In Death Valley on a claim we have a commercial resort constructed on a patented claim. In Lake Mead we have a housing subdivision and a gambling casino and a hotel. In the Kantishna area of the Denali National Park we have a new 24cabin lodge. All of these built on what were, at least to the public's image, activities that would be carried out in the interest of mining. Mr. Chairman, there are also impacts that we think are significantly identified by the Park Service, and there is a list attached at the end of my testimony, in 124 units of the National Park System in all 10 regions of the system itself, with over 10,195 abandoned hazards. The reclamation cost just for the National Park System to take care of these hazards is over $50 million, of which no one is paying the bill today. For this reason, we are very concerned and supportive of title III of H.R. 918, and again commend you for your leadership in establishing this bill, and establishing in particular the reclamation fund that is identified there. I should also mention that there have been fatalities in national parks-Lake Mead, Death Valley-which have been clearly identified as a result of hazards from mining operations, abandoned mining operations and mining operations themselves. Mr. Chairman, there are some suggestions on page 4 of my testimony which I will not go into, but suggest changes or additions to H.R. 918. We commend you again for this legislation. In particular, we do think, though, there is a need for some reasonable royalty fee which would help us reclaim these important areas that have been sacrificed, and we believe that effort should begin immediately. Again, I mentioned at the beginning the canary in the cage, and that is exactly what we are seeing. Because if these impacts and activities can happen in and around national park units, they can happen in our backyards and all across America, not just on the public lands. We appreciate the privilege of being able to testify before the committee, and I am ready to answer any questions. Thank you, sir. [Prepared statement of Mr. Pritchard, with attachments, follows STATEMENT OF PAUL C. PRITCHARD BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON MINING AND NATURAL RESOURCES ON H.R. 918 THE MINERAL EXPLORATION AND DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 1991 Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, my name is Paul C. Pritchard, President of the National Parks and Conservation Association (NPCA), a 283,000-member nonprofit citizens organization, founded in 1919, dedicated to enhancing the protection and public understanding of our national park system. NPCA appreciates the opportunity to appear before the subcommittee to present our views on H.R. 918. NPCA commends the Chairman for the introduction of H.R. 918, which is an important starting point for reform of a 119-year old law that is completely out of step with late-twentieth century land management practices. Your leadership and commitment to reforming the 1872 Mining Law via an open and constructive public process is deeply appreciated. We know that these efforts are consistent with your excellent record of supporting wise mineral policies that take the concerns of sensitive lands into account. NPCA would like also to recognize and salute the cosponsors of H.R. 918, including Interior Committee Chairman Miller and National Parks and Public Lands Subcommittee Chairman Vento, who have also put concerns for wise public policy above protecting entrenched interests who have long benefited at the expense of the federal estate, the environment and the American taxpayer. - In short, NPCA believes that the 1872 Mining Law is an anachronism and an embarrassment. We recognize that this law -- passed, ironically, in the same year that Yellowstone National Park was established was originally designed to help promote Western settlement and encourage the domestic mining industry, and was not written as an "environmental" law. However, it must now be rewritten as one. From the standpoint of the national parks, this antiquated law is now needlessly perpetuating a legacy that is endangering park resources and visitors. Since 1872, the interaction of the Mining Law with the growth of the national park system has resulted in thousands of mining claims, scattered like |