Testimony of Paul C. Pritchard on H.R. 918 page 2 unexploded ordnance across some of our most revered and environmentally sensitive public lands. Amazingly, too, the 1872 Mining Law still allows the giveaway of public land (including national park land) for as little as $2.50 per acre. It returns no royalties to the government on millions of dollars worth of minerals extracted annually from federal lands even from within the national parks, which are themselves national treasures that should remain above exploitation. Indeed, the 1872 Mining Law is a pickaxe counterpart to our present national park concessions system, which has at times also fostered damaging development within the parks, while returning a franchise fee sometimes as low as 0.75 percent on millions of dollars in gross revenues "extracted" from the parks. NPCA believes that the prevailing winds on such issues are blowing quite strongly: the more the American public learns of these practices, the more they demand that they be stopped. Mr. Chairman, NPCA fully support comprehensive reform, and endorses the positions of our fellow conservation organizations. However, we feel that just based on the national park system alone (a small percentage of public lands affected by the 1872 Mining Law), the case for reform of the 1872 Mining Law is compelling. Though all units of the national park system are now closed to additional claim location, the problems caused by the 1872 Mining Law remain real, and in some cases, lethal. Attached to our testimony is an article from National Parks magazine, as well as other supplementary material, that details conditions in the national parks. I shall summarize some key points concerning environmental threats to the parks posed by mining and the existing patent system, as well as health and safety threats to park visitors. Environmental Threats Currently, 25 national park system units contain mining claims, either because the claims were located prior to the establishment of the unit, or the unit remained open to claim location until it was closed by the Mining in the Parks Act of 1976. According to National Park Service data (July, 1990), 752 patented claims and 1,346 unpatented claims exist in the parks. The bulk of these claims -- 73 percent of the unpatented claims and 74 percent of the patented claims are located in Alaska within some of the world's most aweinspiring and fragile wilderness parks. These claims are like a sword hanging over the head of the national parks. In addition, an estimated two-thirds of the parks face potential mineral development threats either within or around their borders. Even if only a fraction of these claims are mined, affects on the parks could be devastating. Impacts inflicted by mining, both inside and outside the parks, include erosion, sedimentation, air and water pollution, disturbance of wildlife habitat, and scarring of landscapes. In many cases, especially in the fragile alpine, desert, and arctic environments where most claims are located, these impacts are practically irreversible and beyond reclamation. But more importantly, the deficiencies of the present law are so extreme that land managers are often handicapped from even weighing relative resource values, and making intelligent decisions about the costs and benefits of mining in and around national parks and other sensitive lands. Testimony of Paul C. Pritchard on H.R. 918 page 3 NPCA feels particularly strongly that the practice of patenting of public lands must end, period. We support Section 108 of H.R. 918 which accomplishes this goal. We oppose proposals that would patent mining claims at fair market value or through a split estate system. Abuse of the patenting system has already led to several claims in national parks being put to nonmining uses. For example, at Death Valley National Monument, a commercial resort was constructed on a patented mining claim. At Lake Mead National Recreation Area, a housing subdivision, gambling casino and hotel have been erected on mining claims. Recently, a 24-cabin lodge was constructed on patented mining claims in the heart of Denali National Park and Preserve, and the development of a recreational vehicle park on other claims has created management chaos and threatened to displace public shuttle buses on the park road. Potential for future nonmining uses with adverse impacts is particularly high in Denali and Wrangell-St. Elias National Park and Preserve, where development interests have expressed interest in subdividing and building commercial destination resorts on claims, many surrounded by designated wilderness. The patenting of claims can lead to a situation in which park managers, in order to avert incompatible development, must then buy out claims at values astronomically inflated over the original net worth of the supposed minerals lying beneath the ground. This is absurd public policy that makes no sense and places national park resources at unnecessary risk. Health and Safety of Park Visitors Endangered In addition, some 124 units of the national park system over one-third of the units in the system located throughout all ten regions of the National Park Service, report concerns with past impacts of hard rock mining. The NPS reports a total of 10,195 abandoned mine hazards or openings found at 2,134 sites. One of the most egregious points of the 1872 law is that it requires no reclamation after mining. The 1976 Mining in the Parks Act gave managers the authority to demand reclamation for new mines, but it does nothing for cleaning up abandoned mines. This legacy of neglect represents a substantial health and safety risk to millions of visitors to these parks, and a serious management problem for the National Park Service. At Grand Canyon National Park, for example, the Orphan Mine, located just yards off popular visitor routes, releases deadly radioactivity. For years, an enormous toxic tailings pile at the McClaren mine site, just outside Yellowstone National Park, was poised for environmental catastrophe. At Joshua Tree National Monument, there are an estimated 2,000 dangerous openings. Accidents at abandoned openings have resulted in visitor fatalities within recent years at Death Valley National Monument and Lake Mead National Recreation Area. Reclamation needs throughout the national park system have been conservatively estimated to exceed $50 million, yet there is no consistent source for these funds. Thus, NPCA strongly supports Title III of H.R. 918, which would create an Abandoned Minerals Mine Reclamation Fund to clean up environmental damage from hardrock mines. Testimony of Paul C. Pritchard on H.R. 918 page 4 Comprehensive Reform Urgently Needed Comprehensive reform of the 1872 Mining Law to safeguard national parks and all other public lands must address several key areas: increased discretion for land managers (including the authority to better weigh costs and benefits, and to deny mining where other values are more important), reclamation, fair return to the taxpayer, and enforcement. H.R. 918 contains numerous excellent features in these areas. In particular, we support and commend provisions of the bill that: Establish a hardrock reclamation fund. Eliminate patenting. To supplement our comments above, NPCA would point out that clear precedent already exists for ending this practice. In the legislation establishing the Sawtooth National Recreation Area in Idaho, for example, Congress stated that no patents would be issued for existing claims (Section 406 of the Sawtooth Act). A U.S. Court of Appeals upheld this provision of the Act. Grant the Forest Service full authority over hardrock mining in national Permit citizen suits in certain instances. However, NPCA believes H.R. 918 also would benefit from several strengthening provisions, including: Replacement of the diligence requirement with an higher annual holding fee. This would help eliminate unnecessary surface disturbance. Establishment of a royalty. The government should earn a return on the disposal of public assets, similar to numerous other arrangements on the public lands, including on and offshore oil and gas, other minerals, and national park concessions. Numerous states, as well as private landowners, impose a royalty and there is a demonstrated need for significant reclamation funds. Improving surface management requirements, plans of operation (though already required within national parks), reclamation standards, and enforcement responsibilities. While the bill makes significant improvements in these areas, several additions are needed. Approval of plans of operations should not be automatic upon completion of an updated land use plans (Section 201(b)(4)], since decisions should be made based on the specific information and conditions described in the former. Bonding requirements should be tightened in Section 201(b)(3) to reduce Secretarial discretion, and reclamation plans should be a specific and mandatory component of approved plans of operations under Section 201(b). Finally, we are concerned that "negligible disturbance" exceptions under Section 201(b)(2)(A) be produce "loophole" effects similar to the problems experienced under the "prospecting" exceptions in the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act. Testimony of Paul C. Pritchard on H.R. 918 page 5 Eliminating marking or monument requirements. This may not be necessary (paper filings should be adequate), and could be inappropriate in some sensitive areas. In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, we would reemphasize that reform of the 1872 Mining Law is probably the most overdue item on the public lands agenda, and of no small importance to the national parks in particular. As a representative who serves a major mining state, you know firsthand that the mining industry can meet environmental standards and still prosper. The provisions of H.R. 918, and other strengthening suggestions, are not extreme; they are reasonable and consistent with our times and our commitment to some important cherished ideals, such protecting the national parks and other lands held in the public trust. We urge We commend you again for your work, for it has taken many years and numerous attempts by other concerned legislators to reach this point. the committee to deliberate carefully, and to report a bill this Congress that is as strong as possible. Thank you for the opportunity to testify and I shall be pleased to respond to any questions. |