RESOLUTION NO. 89-10 A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS WHEREAS, Rio Blanco County is one of the Counties in Colorado which will be most directly affected by the patenting of oil shale mining claims; and, WHEREAS, Rio Blanco County has actively participated in the efforts of the Associated Government of Northwest WHEREAS, because of the location of the C-a and C-b Federal Oil Shale lease tracts, Rio Blanco County already has in place Impact Mitigation Regulations and Land Use Controls to which patented mining claims are subject; and, WHEREAS, the Board feels that the rights of the owners of unpatented mining claims and the public should both be addressed in a fair and proper manner; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of County Commissioners of Rio Blanco County that the Board supports a compromise for the patenting of unpatented oil mining claims which would contain the following shale elements: 1. A definitive period of time (one year) would be provided for an owner of an oil shale mining claim to apply for a mineral patent if the owner has not already done so. Claims not filed during this period would be considered abandoned; 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. The mineral patent shall convey the oil shale and associated minerals only; rights to oil, gas, coal and other minerals shall remain with the U.S. government; The oil shale patentee shall have the right to use so much of the surface as is necessary for oil shale mining operations; other surface rights shall remain with the U.S. government; The oil shale mining operator shall comply with all applicable local, state and federal laws and regulations relating to mining, surfaces and environmental uses, reclamation, rehabitation, and restoration of mined land; All valid oil shale patent applications filed pursuant to these amendments shall be processed promptly by the Department of Interior, and final action shall occur no later than two years after the application is filed; and, An oil shale patent application for which final certificates or partial final certificates of entry have already been issued shall be exempted from these amendments. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Congress of the United States is urged to enact legislation permitting the patenting of unpatented oil shale mining claims based upon the above proposal. Ms. RECTOR. I am a county commissioner from Rio Blanco County, CO, and I serve as chairman of the Ad Hoc Oil Shale Lands Claim Committee. This committee, under the aegis of Associated Governments of Northwest Colorado, has been formed of volunteers in an attempt to develop a compromise legislative proposal that would resolve oil shale claims issues. In July of last year, at my request, the Associated Governments of Northwest Colorado convened a public workshop in Rifle, CO, to discuss proposed oil shale lands claims legislation. Bills then pending before Congress plus a draft Department of the Interior proposal were discussed. Participants at the meeting included representatives of cities and counties in northwest Colorado, BLM, the Colorado Department of Natural Resources, the Colorado Wildlife Federation, oil shale claimants, agriculture, and grazing lessees, the general public, and representatives from the offices of Representative Ben Nighthorse Campbell, Senator Bill Armstrong, and Senator Tim Wirth. A decision was reached at that meeting to form a volunteer committee to try and draft a compromise legislative proposal. It appeared that Congress would adjourn with the issue unresolved. Basically, we wanted to bring to the table all interested and affected parties to see if a solution could be negotiated. After an organizational period, the committee has met four times since last August. A variety of legislative proposals have been circulated for review between meetings. It has been a hard working group. Committee membership represents the following: the city of Rifle, CO; Rio Blanco County, CO; Associated Governments of Northwest Colorado; Utah State Energy Office; Colorado Department of Natural Resources; Colorado Wildlife Federation; the Sierra Club; small claimants for Utah and Colorado; large claimants for Utah and Colorado; grazing and agricultural lessees; and the property taxpayers. The committee meetings have been informal in nature, with other interested or affected parties welcome to participate. Other participants have included representatives from the National Wildlife Federation, the Western Organization of Resource Councils, the Tel Ertl Foundation, and Club 20, a western Colorado organization of communities and industry. Representatives of the Bureau of Land Management-in particular, Kurt Smith and Richard Tate-have attended all meetings to serve as technical resource advisors and to answer questions concerning the claims patent process. On a personal note, I want your congressional committee_to know that oil shale development is a very important issue in Rio Blanco County, where some of the richest Piceance Basin oil shale deposits are located. To deal with development issues, Rio Blanco County has enacted a special Impact Regulation Ordinance which governs any large-scale oil shale development proposals. The ordinance requires mitigation of any adverse socio-economic or environmental impact. This ordinance would apply regardless whether the development would occur on a Federal lease or on a patented or privately owned land. In addition to reviewing the 1987 and 1988 bills introduced by Representative Campbell and Senator Wirth, our committee has re viewed the Department of the Interior draft proposal and the bills introduced this year by Representative Rahall, H.R. 643, and Senator Wirth, S. 30. A series of potential compromise proposals have been suggested by committee participants. I want to make it clear that these proposals are offered as part of a negotiating process. They are not binding upon their organizations. These positions are interrelated with other key differences that have been identified. Representatives of these organizations have been invited to make their own presentations before your congressional committee. Attached is a summary of the proposals now under discussion by our committee. These proposals address 10 issue areas dealing with the oil shale lands claims: (1), window of opportunity for patent applications; (2), requirements to maintain unpatented claims; (3), validity test for claim applications; (4), surface rights; (5), rights to oil shale and associated minerals; (6), leasing option; (7), NEPA applicability; (8), reclamation bond requirements; (9), rights to other minerals; and, (10), investigation of the claims process previously used by the Department of the Interior. Also attached, as I spoke to before, are copies of resolutions from two western Colorado organizations, Club 20 and the Western District of Colorado Counties, Incorporated. We ask that their views be transmitted to Congress. Without repeating the proposal summarized in the attached matrix, it is apparent from our committee deliberations that significant consensus exists for development of compromise on the following issues: Surface right. The claimants appear willing to relinquish surface rights usually associated with patent title other than the right to develop the oil shale resource. This would be accomplished either through legislative provision or a surface right agreement. Oil shale and associated minerals. All proposals indicate patent or lease rights should be limited to oil shale and associated minerals to achieve a compromise. Other minerals. As part of any compromise all proposals indicate other minerals, such as coal, oil, and natural gas, should remain with the U.S. Government. NEPA requirements. All parties agree that NEPA and other environmental laws should apply to any oil shale development. There is a question whether the congressional approval portion of FLPMA would be required prior to development. Reclamation bond_requirements. All parties basically agree that adequate State and Federal reclamation bonds are necessary. Claimants desire that the State and Federal requirements should be coordinated to avoid double bonding. The areas of substantial disagreement include the following: window of opportunity for additional patents. Whether or not claimholders with unpatented claims should have the opportunity to apply for patents remains one of the key areas of contention. Validity tests. Views on validity tests are interrelated with whether claimants should be allowed to apply for patents. All parties agree that validity tests should be conducted rigorously. However, claimants would resist any new standards other than those now required by the 1872 mining law. Leasing option. All parties would either require or agree to a leasing option. Claimants would agree to such an option if a patent application-window of opportunity-also exists. However, the required 12.5 percent royalty rate is not agreed to since variable royalty rates now exist for mining of other minerals under the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920. Requirements to maintain unpatented claims. Disagreement exists on any new requirements for maintaining or perfecting an unpatented claim if there is no alternative-window of opportunity-for claim applications. Claimants are willing to have unpatented claims ruled invalid, or subject to new requirements, after a 1year period is established and to submit claim applications. The interrelated issues of the window of opportunity and validity tests are the areas our committee will be concentrating on in future meetings. All members of the committee have indicated a desire to stay at the table for future committee meetings. I believe this is a more attractive alternative than forcing more litigation. As chairman of the committee, I would assure you that any progress we might make would be shared with you or any other congressional committee considering oil shale lands legislation. We want to keep a dialogue open with you and with our own congressional delegation. Along those lines, I would like to invite representatives of your committee to visit Rio Blanco County during your deliberations for a first-hand look at the lands and resources involved. I hope this information submitted to you today will be of assistance in your committee review of pending legislation. At the appropriate time, I would be happy to answer any questions you may have. Thank you. [Prepared statement of Ms. Rector, with attachment, follows:] |