PLACE OR PROPOSED WHICH COVER THESE CONCERNS ARE RCRA, CERCLA AND SARA. UNDER SECTION 202, INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT, ANY PERSON WHO SUFFICIENT. STAFFING UNDER "COMPLIANCE" IN SECTION 202 (PG 29), ENFORCEMENT, WHICH ALREADY EXISTS, WOULD OCCUR THROUGH THE OFFICE OF SURFACE MINING, BLM AND FOREST SERVICE. THE PRESCRIBED PENALTIES ARE DUPLICATED IN THE CLEAN WATER ACT, RCRA, CERCLA, AND CLEAN AIR ACT, AMONG OTHERS. NO TIMEFRAMES ARE PROVIDED FOR HEARINGS RELATED TO CIVIL PENALTIES. 6 CAUSATION FOR CITIZEN SUITS, SECTION 202 (PG 31) CAN BE IMPROVED BY ADDING SPECIFIC CRITERIA. WE ARE CONCERNED IT CONTAINS AN OPEN INVITATION TO FRIVOLOUS LITIGATION AND AN UNNECESSARY BURDEN UPON OUR ALREADY CROWDED FEDERAL COURTS. THE ENTIRE SECTION PROVIDES AN ARENA FOR NEGATIVELY IMPACTING SCHEDULES WHERE "DELAY IS A VICTORY" FOR PROJECT OPPONENTS. INJUNCTIONS TO DELAY PROJECT STARTUPS SHOULD BE PERMITTED IN ONLY THE MOST EXTREME CASES WHERE PERMANENT, SIGNIFICANT, IRRESPONSIBLE DAMAGE WILL RESULT. THE MINING WASTES, ALREADY HIGHLY REGULATED BY FEDERAL AND STATE HOLDS TRUE FOR ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF MINING ACTIVITIES. A BILL APPLICABLE TO LOCATABLE MINERALS ON PUBLIC LANDS SHOULD DEAL WITH MINING CLAIM PRINCIPLES; IT SHOULD NOT DIGRESS INTO ENVIRONMENTAL LAW. H.R. 918 ATTEMPTS TO INTERRELATE THE REGULATION OF LOCATABLE MINERALS WITH MINING WASTE MANAGEMENT. LEGISLATIVE ACTION ON SUBTITLE D OF THE RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND RECOVERY ACT IS ON THE IMMEDIATE HORIZON. IT PROMISES TO ACKNOWLEDGE THE SUBSTANTIAL DIFFERENCES BETWEEN MINING WASTES AND OTHER INDUSTRIAL WASTES. LEGISLATION SEPARATELY ADDRESSING EACH ISSUE IS APPROPRIATE. 7 IN SUMMARY, THE SECTION ON "STATE LAWS" (PG 38) REALLY SAYS ALL THAT NEEDS TO BE SAID. BETWEEN EXISTING FEDERAL, STATE, AND LOCAL LAWS, ALL THE ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS ADDRESSED IN THIS PROPOSED LEGISLATION HAVE ALREADY BEEN COVERED. WE WOULD LIKE TO SUGGEST THE FOLLOWING ELEMENTS BE CONTAINED WITHIN THE FINAL BILL: COOPERATIVE RULE-MAKING BETWEEN THE MINING INDUSTRY, SITE-SPECIFIC CONTROLS WHICH TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THOSE TYPES OF PHYSICAL CONSTRAINTS WHICH CHARACTERIZE A PROJECT LOCATION. * A RESPONSIBLE "PARTNERSHIP" BETWEEN THE DEVELOPER, THE THANK YOU MR. CHAIRMAN FOR THIS OPPORTUNITY TO SHARE MY THOUGHTS. Mr. RAHALL. Before we hear from our final panelist, Mr. Livermore, the subcommittee will recess for 10 minutes so we can answer this roll call vote on the Floor of the House. Thank you. AFTER RECESS Mr. RAHALL. The subcommittee will resume its sitting, and we are on the fourth panelist, Mr. Putnam Livermore from Public Re source Associates, San Francisco. Mr. Livermore, welcome once again to the subcommittee. My name is Putnam Livermore. I am an attorney practicing in the field of natural resource law, particularly hard rock mining, geothermal energy, and public lands issues, and I have also served as attorney for organizations involved with the protection of sensi tive natural areas, specifically the Nature Conservancy and the Trust for Public Land. Today, I am appearing as president of Public Resource Associ ates, a small group studying public land issues. This group includes my colleague, Elvis Starr, who is seated over there. We have been doing research and exchanging views with conservationists, mining officials, and others on acceptable consensus changes in the Mining Law of 1872. Mr. Chairman, the central controversy about changing that law is rooted in some environmentalists' determination, on the one hand, to protect sensitive areas and the industry's determination, on the other hand, to have access to all possible public lands for exploration. We wish to suggest provisions that will meet these demands in a way that will provide both sides with improvements over their cur rent situations. This would be a win/win situation. We have heard here today from this panel and others that, while they think that title I is acceptable and can be lived with, title II still has problems for the mining industry. So we think that H.R. 918 does not so far achieve this consensus. Despite some good features, it is still somewhat weighted against the mining industry, we believe in our group. But first we would like to point out some of the bill's positive features. They are as follows: No. 1, retention of the principle of self-initiation and rejection of a leasing system to govern exploration and claims staking for hard rock minerals on the public lands. No. 2, elimination of the surface patents so that the surface remains in public ownership after mining. This is of great impor tance to the environmental community. We recommend a provision for a patent based on a discovery limited to minerals only. No. 3, creation of a single type of claim of 40 acres tied to land surveys while, in fairness, preserving the original configuration and rights of existing claims. No. 4, having the new law supersede State laws, although we urge that State reclamation laws not be superseded. No. 5, elimination of the confusing concepts of "pedis possessio" and "discovery," it should be noted, relating to the pre-patent period-that is what our group is talking about-as requirements to hold a claim during the exploration period and the substitution of the secure type of tenure for claim holders. Another important provision, No. 6, we think a good provision of the law, is a notice approach for initial test drilling-this is section 201(b)(2)(b) rather than requiring an approved plan of operations at that stage. After all, Mr. Chairman, the essence of self-initiation is more than simply being allowed to put stakes in the ground. No. 7, inclusion of exploration, reclamation, and environmental studies in the expanded definition of assessment work. It will help reclaim and improve past mining areas and encourage direct environmental improvement by exploration and mining companies. We have listed in our proposed statement several areas in the bill that we believe could be improved, such as the provision for the definition of the actual right to mine, the provision for additional withdrawals contained in the bill, the civil suits provision, the changing of the undue degradation standard, but there is not enough time today in this oral statement to go into those, although they are contained in our written statement, Mr. Chairman. We would like to concentrate on the admittedly most difficult issue of land use planning. There are several land use planning principles that we think must be considered before any land use provision is included in this or any bill. First, trying to plan directly for or against mining on all multiple use lands is a futile exercise since the location of the hard rock mineral resource is, unlike forage, wildlife, water, and recreation resources, unknown while you are planning. Rather, the approach should be to identify surface resources that are important or sensitive enough so that the agency plans protect them from conflicting land uses, including mining. Areas of critical environmental concern-ACEC's-may be the appropriate planning designation or tool. No. 2, certainty: If the explorationist or developer knows the restrictions up front when going into a planned area, the risks of the agency's new "right to say no" are known and can be dealt with. No. 3, the land use planning "right to say no" cannot just be an expansion of the withdrawal system. If a mining use, whether exploration or even development, can be undertaken consistent with the mining restrictions applicable to the ACEC, for example, it must be allowed. Mining frequently is the highest and best use of that very small amount of land that contains a commercial ore body. Thus, authorization to say no to mining on sensitive lands must not be seen as allowing the ratcheting of whole new categories of land into designation of "sensitive areas.' Especially in light of other provisions of the bill, a review of administrative withdrawals should open lands that are now withdrawn for fear of surface patenting or for lack of the right to say no to mining on the sensitive portion of these lands. No. 4, and last, the transition to such a system must be fair. We suggest the bill provide that in any planning unit the new sensitive lands, or ACEC designations, not be effective to change locators' rights unless the administrative withdrawal review is completed and effective. |