OCR Text |
Show i'A.st & i:n k iknt Job Printing at The Times Independent. I 1 j Have you seen Carrie? j 1 To The President . . . RESOLUTION THE BLM ORGANIC ACT BY THE MINERALS RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL MOAB, UTAH Mr' President, on October 21, 1976, the Federal Land Policy and Management Act ff 1976 was passed by the 94th Congress and signed Into law by the President. Pursuant to th, passage of the Act, often referred to as the BLM's Organic Act, the BLM, under the Ai presumed authority, issued two sets of regulations that will have a direct adverse Impact the future of the U. S. Mining Industry and, consequently, the nation's general econorrr, The proposed regulations deal with "recordation of unpatented mining claims" and "surface management of public lands under U. S. mining laws." The BLM Organic Act not, of Itself, intended to be a threat to mining or other related Industries. However, regulations that have been formulated by the BLM in support of It go far beyond the Intent j the Act, by any reasonable Interpretation, and in fact pose a very serious threat to America', future supplies of minerals and energy fuels. It Is strongly felt, as exemplified later In thi, Resolution, that the BLM, as a bureaucracy of the Federal Government, has far exceeded authority to promulgate regulations mandated it by Congress; whereas the Intent of the Bit is clearly aimed at unjustifiably limiting access to the public domain without legislative approval, or public recourse and, therefore, is in clear violation of the constitutional) required separation of power. It is because of this clear intent by the BLM to unreasonatii, and unlawfully restrict access to the public domain that The Mineral Resource Developmer Council would like to submit this Resolution, to bring the proposed regulations under tt, scrutiny of Senate or Congressional hearings, in order that the mining industry can be mo I adequately represented in the formulation of responsible controls and to return to tt individual States the authority to administer and regulate the public lands enclosed withir I their State boundaries. I Mr. President, in support of this Resolution against the recordation and surf, management regulations, we would like to make the following comments and suggestion I Althouth the proposed recordation regulations have gone into effect, it is felt, because I their potential impact on the future of the small mining operator and independent I prospector, our objections should be reviewed. As to the proposed surface management 1 regulation, the comment period, due to the presence of far-reaching public comment, a extended to February 4 and again to April 5. 1. The proposed recordation regulations have gone Into effect despite adverse public comment, the BLM arguing that the Organic Act itself required immediate effectiveness i I the recordation regulations. It seems highly illogical that this type of duplication of I recordation of unpatented mining claims Is necessary, of course, the intent of the BLM is te I gather enough information to facilitate challenges to the validity of existing mining clairrj" The present recordation procedure through the county courthouse system is an efficient arc simple means of advising the BLM of valid existing mining claims so that the agency, a mandated it by the Act, can systematically and periodically inventory the public lands ix I their resources. Inasmuch as the Federal Government has for over 100 years gone without! I mining claim recordation procedure, we see no purpose in "bulldozing" one through when it j was clear that public comment had not been fully satisfied. We feel the duplication of the I recordation of unpatented mining claims by the BLM can only further the elimination of tf I small prospector and miner on the public domain, and at the same time increasing the cost ' developing our natural resources which is ultimately paid for by the already overburden j taxpayer. I 2. The proposed surface management regulations are in direct violation of the Multiple Use Concept, by putting a higher priority on the "surface" with respect to individual I developing the public domain. Tangible and intangible surface resources are arbitrari1) I given priority over legitimate mining uses. For instance, the discovery of a "cultui ' resource" (a very broad classification) will delay or prevent production of a needed minca J resource without ever objectively balancing these competitive values. 3. A "Mining Operation," as defined in the proposed surface management regulations is a fallacious fraudulent definition which has been extended far beyond its standard usa; The definition, in light of the steps the mining industry goes through in developing minen I resources, makes no distinction between "exploration and development operations" wttc I generally have minimal surface impact, and "mining operation" which by virtue of its res I definition, "an excavation for minerals," could have substantial surface impact. T ' acceptance and usage of this definition, in the proposed surface management regulation ! would almost Immediately preclude the Independent prospector, private citizen, or s-i , miner from gaining access to public resource lands. 4. "Significant disturbance," as defined In the surface management regulations, a again too broadly defined, unless it is the Intent of the authors of the regulations t j drastically restrict all mining activities on public lands. Again, it would be in the interest of I all parties, from both the administrative and land use aspects, that a distinction be rraa I between long term or permanent disturbances and temporary disturbances that natn J would, by itself, erase in a few years' time even without the assistance of man. ' 5. The bonding requirement in the proposed surface management regulations .: ! require an operator, before commencement of any operation, to file a minimum state j bond of $100,000.00, or a nationwide bond of $300,000.00. This would be the mat j devastating requirement of the regulation in respect to the medium and small minn; I operations and the most Instrumental in regard to the BLM's apparent intent to funV I restrict development of the public domain. The BLM Is certainly aware that the small mir i; I operators could never expect or assume a corporate surety company to guarantee r' solvency and ability to comply with reclamation agreements for the 5, 10, or 15 yean P . might be Involved. Without any cancellation provision or limitations on the time period tV I bond would have to be in effect, only the largest of mining companies would be e.f considered for bonding. j 6. The Organic Act directed the Secretary of the Interior to "take any action necessa-) S I prevent unnecessary or undue degradation of the lands." The Act, however, did not give '" I BLM authority to require reclamation of the land, as the agency apparently wishes to do I outlined In the proposed surface management regulations. When conferees from the Hos( and Senate met to write the final version of the bill, they were very explicit In striking fn reclamation language. This would Indicate Congress did not want to give BLM the author?) . to order reclamation. 7. The surface management regulations give full discretionary power to any design I BLM employee to administer and enforce the Organic Act. There is no procedure proi: I for In these regulations for the review or appeal by an Independent group or agency tt I decisions or Judgments made by the BLM personnel. This is in violation of the norri ' separation of power of enforcement and review. I 8. The proposed surface management regulations are too one-sided on ft I environmental Issue and, In most cases, discriminate against the mineral developer S I virtue of the regulations' own definition of "environment," the term Is strongly bs5: toward a limited set of values. Most notably, It Ignores the value to geologists, prospectm rock-hounds, tourists, or any citizens of being able to visit old or abandoned mining arcs I and having the opportunity to evaluate at first hand the geological processes that M I Involved In ore genesis. The present regulations Infer a negative value to geology exposures, which are clearly a viable resource to the mining industry and knowledge ( citizens In much the same manner as Indian artifacts and petroglyphs are to archeoic-j'ss Mr. President, the above comments are just a few of the gross objections to the BLV'i I surface management and recordation regulations. This, however, Is not to say that the regulations, as a whole, are totally unacceptaM ( Is strongly felt that the BLM has far exceeded Its Inherent authority In formulating tfw , regulations under any reasonable Interpretation of the Organic Act and In so doing, t I brought Immediate distrust, conflict, and confrontation, by not recognizing the propnew Interest of the eleven western States. If the regulation and administration of the fvi domain Is felt to be necessary, then let the States In which these Federal lands fall be g I the authority to handle this task. j Mr. President, In view of the potential legal and economic Impacts that the two tM , mining regulations will have, we are soliciting your support In a Resolution to: 1. Bring the recordation regulation and the proposed .urfece m.n.g.ment rguWW under Senate or Congressional hearing.. In order that the mining Industry end concerned cUlzen. can be more .dequately represented In the formulation ol respond controls; and to I 2' ,SuPporl ,h8 '"dlvudu-l Stat.', .over.lgnty In the dmlnl.t,.tlon of It. own .nek public land.. I Mr. President, it Is the hope of the Minerals Resources and Development Council othor concerned cltlzons that the spirit of this Resolution Is fully recognized. J Sincerely, Nm Add.... .KMMHMM v MM H . I Friends: If you would iilte to add your name to tho'growing numb" j of Soofieo$fern Utah residents who support this resolution to ft i Resident of the United States, please sign the above messagt, j cip fiie entire resolution from the newspaper and mail it to: j The Minerals Resource Development Cowl l P. 0. Box 293 J Moab, Utah 84532 I |