Statement of Howard L. Edwards General Attorney Anaconda Copper Company Denver, Colorado and. Hearing on Non-Fuel Minerals Policy

Transcription

1 Statement of Howard L. Edwards General Attorney Anaconda Copper Company Denver, Colorado and Hearing on Non-Fuel Minerals Policy Subcommittee on Energy and Materials Committee on Energy United States Senate Washington, D.C. April 7, 1981

2 My name is Howard Edwards. I am General Attorney of Anaconda Copper Company. I also serve as chairman of the Pujplic LamJs^Cgmmifrt 1* 0 nf the American Mining Congress and appear today in that capacity. The purpose of my statement is to discuss the role of the Federally-owned public lands in the implementation of a national minerals policy. Mineral Potential of Federal Lands; Mr. Chairman, it is accepted that of all the lands in the United States, thegreatest overall mineral rpgnnrng potentlal exists on the Federal lands. There is reason for this. The Federal lands are generally the harsh, unhospitable mountainous areas left over after the choice agricultural lands were appropriated in the settlement of the West during the last century. The more mountainous areas were not of interest for agriculture and thus were more likely to be retained in federal ownership. In our century there has been continued interest in retaining the mountainous areas in Federal ownership because of scenic and recreational values. The same geologic forces that created the mountains and their scervic_ beauty -- the volcanic action, faulting, uplifts, the. movements of tectonic plates, and other forces are also thevforces that amnnnt; fnr the

3 jnigratlon q"h Hppn^tMnn pf minerals in the concentrations adequate to permit extractigji. For these reasons the retained Federal lands constitute our national treasure house of minerals. We have only scratched the surface in mineral exploration of the Federal lands. There are vast unexplored areas. Alluvium, volcanic flows, layers of barren sedimentary rock and other materials likely conceal vast mineralized zones. JUaska, the area with the greatest potential of all, has been subject to a land freeze since 1966, and only the most minute part has^v^r^ been examined. Therefore, if Federal lands are declared off limits for mineral exploration there is a significant impact on the ability of our nation to find and develop mineral resources Mr. Chairman, mineralization is widely dispersed throughout the Federal lands and it is safe to conclude that the withdrawal or segregation of_jing half of the Federal lands from exploration «=r and development reduces the potential of mineral development from Federal lands in the same proportion. Land Withdrawals; Secretary of the Interior Watt has established as a high priority of his administration an inventory of land withdrawals, segregations and restrictions on mineral

4 development on the Federal lands. In the meantime, until the inventory is completed, we cannot accurately state the extent of such segregations. But we can comment generally on the magnitude and effect of the land segregation policy of the last several years. In 1974, prior to when the RARE II and BLM Wilderness studies began, a well publicized report by employees of the Interior Department concluded that approximately 70 percent of the Federal lands were either withdrawn from mineral entry or that significant restrictions existed against mineral development. That number was confirmed by a 1976 report from a Department of the Interior task force. Since then the Alaska land bill has been enacted and additional lands have been segregated by wilderness studies and designations. 11^ is JLik.eJ.y that morjg^-than 70 percent of the Fodftrnl Lands are withdrawn or segregated today. Mr. Chairman, we regard^^thedenial of access_>p the Federal ^ ^ gg _ -^z^^s lands as the paramount public land mineral issue facing us today. The world of exploration has shrunk. The places where we can search for minerals is declining. The notion that opening lands for the search for minerals will despoil and waste the lands is not accurate with the nature of todays exploration techniques and with existing environmental controls. In our opinion, the trend of withdrawal of large acreages is inimical to our national interests.

5 There are, Mr. Chairman, several areas where the Congress has a role im providing for access to the Federal lands First, there is the oversjloht fugrtinn to examine acts of the executive branch. The role of the Department of the Interior in administratively segregating lands and in the inventorying of land withdrawals should be reviewed by this committee. Next, as land management legislation is proposed the effect nf lan^ y/n-hhrgyy^l <*_ should be given the most serious review and consideration. Also, legislative initiative should be given towards nannglllnj hy Act of Congress land tir* " ' ~~ - "' segregations that do not serve any public or national And, finally, we suggest careful consideration of legislation that would permit mineral entry and exploration on lands presently withdrawn so long as the mineral activities do not interfere with the purposes for which the lands have been withdrawn.

6 MX Missile Basing Modes; A specific land withdrawal issue is the proposed basing of MX missiles^n Eastern Nevada and Western Utah, the Air Force has given ambiguous assurances that the quantity of Federal lands segregated r^om mineral development will be minimal. However, the gross arev-gf land impacted is prodigious. We have not been convinced that should a valuable mineral deposit be discovered in the vicinity of an MX race track type of installation that the Air Force will willingly permit active mining activities, with attendant use of explosives, close to the installation. Moreover, tlie_designated area is highly mineralized and not wejllexplored. The basin and range province is characterized by north-- south trending mountain ranges divided by deep valleys covered with alluvium. The mountains are known to be mineralized and there is a great deal of mineral activity in those areas. Geologists agree that if the mountains are mineralized it follows that the valleys have the same mineral potential. The potential is obscured by the alluvial material filling the valleys but the potential is still there. If domestic mineral self-sufficiency is important to this nation our mineral policy must be considered in any decision in the siting of the MX missile system. The siting of the system

7 offshore or in areas not so highly mineralized should surely be considered. Mining Law Amendments; Mr. Chairman, in recent years there have been numerous proposals for the amendment of the General Mining Laws. The present system of mineral entry, location of mining claims, and, upon discovery of mineral, the perfection of title to the lands has been in existence for over a century. There have, however, been many substantive changes to the mining code. The two major criticisms of the Mining Law we have heard over the years no longer exist. The frequently heard complaint that the Federal lands were cluttered with abandoned and stale claims is no longer an issue. Stale claims were removed from the Federal lands by the requirement of the Federal Land Planning and Management Act that claims not included in filings with the Federal Government are null and void and deemed abandoned. The other common criticism was that the Mining Law contained no provision for environmental regulation of mining activities. Now, however, surface management regulations govern mineral development activities on all Federal lands. The regulations require some refining and we are petitioning the agencies with our concerns, but the fact remains, that the meaningful criticisms of the Mining Law have been answered.

8 As an asscociajlon we oppose any proposals to change the system nfg^ijjijpj_nj_j)wnpr<;hi p rights tn minprals frnm the mineral en try^ system fr, n a ipqcp' n g gygj^pm- We know that the Federal system for leasing of fuel and industrial minerals has not worked in recent years. ^Leases simply have not been Such a system would be counter-productive to any attempt to implement the National Materials and Minerals Policy, Research and Development Act of We have in mind a number of proposed changes to the existing Mining Law that would contribute to the more orderly administration of the law but doubt that the benefits to be derived, either for the land managers or the mining industry, would justify a major legislative effort at this time. On balance, we believe that there are more important public land issues than Mining Law «-»^ _, -. ' revision to be addressed in this Congress. We believe that the <~ access and withdrawal issues are more important than opening up a debate on the volatile issue of Mining Law Revision. Wilderness: The Wilderness Act of 1964 provides for the location of mining claims and exploration in wilderness areas until the end of Deposits discovered by that date may be developed after However, all that activity has been subject to regulation. The nature of the regulation has been so

9 ^-fehat thbtg-has been nu meaningful exploration of - gjevelopment in the wiihpmpgg grp^q. There are not, to my knowledge, any proposed mineral developments within designated wilderness areas. It was clear that the Congressional Intent was to permit the orderly ripx/g>1 op^gnt of valuable mineral deposits in S4j^h_a^as_jmd^to be certain that valuable mineral deposits were not forever locked up. This intent, however, has been frustrated by agency regulation. The area of wilderness has multiplied exponentially and there is no way of knowing what mineral potential will be forever locked up after We recommend that the Congress seriously consider th^extension Of the 1983 cut-off date indefinitely and a jjso_rev_ie w the..nature of the rqflhindians thgt how* impphpri the orderly_ examination^ wilderness areas. Regulation Changes Necessary: Land managers are equippmed with most of the tools they need for mineral lands management. However, in recent years the public land laws have been administered in a way so as to inhibit and thwart mineral land development. The national Materials and Minerals Policy, Research and Development Act of 1980 is a Congressional mandate to reorder the process which has, in the past, frustrated the consideration of minerals issues in the establishment of national priorities. There is

10 now a Federal responsibility to review and return balance to regulations. One example of recent regulatory action is the actions of the Department of the Interior as regards mineral leasing. The mining of coal and industrial minerals on Federal lands is done under the authority of various leasing acts. Issuance of leases and permits have been delayed or denied. Coal leasing has been in abeyance since 1971, notwithstanding the designation of coal development as a cornerstone of our energy policy. Prospecting permits for other minerals such as phosphate, carry a preference right for the issuance of a lease after discovery of the mineral. However, the preference right has been denied and permit holders have been required to resort to litigation to enforce their rights. Operations under mineral leasing laws have been subject to interference and delay under a myriad of administrative proceedings. We see a new direction and thrust in the administration but recommend that this committee maintain a vigilant oversight role over Executive Branch regulatory schemes to assure that the 1980 U.S. Minerals Policy is implemented. Mr. Chairman, we do not petition the Government to protect our industry at the expense of other interests. We are only

11 interested in a public lands program that will serve the overall public interest. There is a very real public interest involved in the protection and preservation of a strong minerals sector. We are encouraged that the 1980 Act has reaffirmed that a national minerals policy does exist. We respectfully thank you for the opportunity to call to your attention the necessity for a strong balanced public lands policy as a cornerstone of a national minerals policy. Thank you.