PUBLIC RESOURCE ASSOCIATES only way such a provision would be acceptable is if it clearly provided for compensation to the miner for the value of the property on which mining is now going to be denied for a reason not known up front in the land use plan. an allowed. Third, the land use planning "right to say no" cannot just be expansion of the withdrawal system. If a mining use (exploration, even development) can be undertaken consistent with the management restrictions applicable to the ACEC, it must be The "right to say no" that would exist on these designated "sensitive lands" should not be a compulsion to say no, if development could occur consistent with the land use plan and the constraints necessary to manage the ACEC lands. Further, if exploration could be undertaken consistent with ACEC management, the results of that exploration could be taken into account in a land use plan amendment. Both of these types of flexibility would be preferable to the current withdrawal system. Fourth, the Bill must recognize that maximum access is essential to the health of the industry. If the lands are not sensitive, 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 a restructuring of public land uses to "ratchet" whole new categories of land into designation as sensitive areas. Especially in light of other provisions of the Bill, an aggressive review of administrative withdrawals should open lands that are now withdrawn for fear of surface patenting or for lack of the right to PUBLIC RESOURCE ASSOCIATES say no to mining on "sensitive" lands. When these processes (planning restrictions and withdrawal review) are complete, it should be possible to have greater access for responsible mineral exploration and also broader protection of specific nonmineral resources--a win-win situation. Fifth, the transition to such a system must be fair. New restrictions should not be imposed without lifting old unnecessary restrictions. 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 at the same time. After all, under existing law all lands that Congress and the land managers believe should not be subject to the "right to mine" are either withdrawn or under a protective management standard (such as "nonimpairment" in wilderness study areas). In addition, resources of special value (endangered and threatened species) are protected under separate legislation of general applicability. Land use planning should be used to introduce flexibility into the hardrock situation--so all lands are not simply totally withdrawn or totally open. At the same time, planning must be fair and provide certainty, so that a plan of operations is not subject to denial, or attempts to reject it, for land management reasons that were not stated as an existing basis for rejection when the investment in discovering and developing the ore body was made. In closing, I should like to have entered in the printed record three documents commissioned by and for Public Resource PUBLIC RESOURCE ASSOCIATES Associates: (1) a memo on problems with pre-discovery tenure under the existing system, by Kenneth Lee; (2) a study of potential gross revenues from hardrock royalties, by John Wells; and (3) an analysis of a number of foreign countries' mining systems in comparison to that of the United States, by John Lacy. I also invite your renewed attention to an essay called SelfInitiation: The Hardrock Miner's Right, by Thomas S. Barrett, which was entered in the record of your 1987 oversight hearing. Finally, Mr. Chairman, we would be most happy to work with the Committee and your staff in clarifying or putting into appropriate legislative language our suggestions--and to be helpful in any other way we can. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. PUBLIC RESOURCE ASSOCIATES Attachment to Testimony of Putnam Livermore The Bill should incorporate, at the outset, "Findings" that recognize certain facts and principles, such as the following language: Whereas, hardrock mining makes substantial contributions to the Nation's tax and employment base, especially in rural counties and in the Western states where the United States is the principal landowner; and Whereas, the mining industry's contribution both to the standard of living and the international balance of payments of the Nation is substantial, and requirement that distinguishes it from other industrial activity, in that the mine must be sited where the ore is; and Whereas, maximum access and self-initiation, and reward for discovery of commercial minerals, are necessary incentives to maintaining a healthy hardrock mining industry; and Whereas, mining should be conducted in such a way as to avoid undue and unnecessary degradation and to minimize adverse environmental impacts; and Whereas, mining requires adverse environmental impact, and mine regulation should not prevent adverse impacts, except in areas which are sensitive environmentally, but should control and mitigate impacts; and Whereas, regulation of mining must be cost beneficial, both PUBLIC RESOURCE ASSOCIATES on the local and the national level; and whereas, on the local level mining is frequently the highest and best use of multiple use, public land; and whereas, on the national level, laws and regulations should not unnecessarily adversely affect the competitive position of the U.S. hardrock mining industry, or otherwise encourage that industry to move offshore; and Whereas, some of the principles underlying the Mining Law of 1872 are inconsistent with modern public land management; and Whereas, it is not in the public interest to transfer ownership of public lands to private interests after extraction of the underlying minerals; Now, therefore, be it enacted, etc.... End |