Laserfiche WebLink
<br />OOll813 <br /> <br />while we ~~y be aided by th~ Wilderness Act in our se3rch for the proper <br />interpretation of scction 603, it is the lan9ua9c. and le~islative <br />history of section 603 itself, enacted 12 years after the \~i1derness Act, <br />which should control. <br /> <br />The Wilderness Act continues the miriing an~ mineral leasing la~s in <br />statutorily designated ~1i1d~rn~ss areas throuJh D2ce:nber 31, 1983. <br />Such mining activities are, hon>ever, subject to "such reason,,::>le regu- <br />lations governing ingress and egress . . . consistent with the use of <br />the land for mineral location and develo?"cnt and ex?loration . . . <br />and restoration as near as practica::,le of the surface of the lands <br />. . . as soon as they hnve s~rved their purpose," and the mineral leases, <br />permits and licenses m'-lst contain "such reasonable stip'.Ilations . . . <br />. for the protection of the wilderness character of the land consistent <br />with the use of the land for the p:Jq:ose for which they were leased, <br />permi tted or licensed." Starting Ja::uary 1, 1984, all such lands are <br />withdrah'Tl fro.11 the !-lining and ~lineral Leasing la'ls, subject to valid <br />existing rights. . <br /> <br />Because mining claims an~ mineral leasing may continue for a limited <br />period after land has been designated as wilderness, can we reaso;)ably <br />infer that Congress in sectio;) 603(c) intended. to draw a tight:er system <br />of regulations during the review period p:ior to Congressional action? <br />The answer to this question is not a sL~le one. l~ere Congress in 1976 <br />has clearly established more stringent controls during the inter111 perio:J, <br />its will rr.ust be carried out even if subsequent Congressional designation <br />of an area as wilderness may actually loosen restrictions. 6/ But where <br />there is alOiguity in Con::rrcss' a;;tio;) in .B7G, lie I~ay fi:-.a-,,:::::-.e assist- <br />ance from reading section 603 against ~~e backdrop of the Wilderness Act. <br /> <br />mNING 1\.".1) G:P.ZTI\G USSS <br /> <br />~e first question you have asked is how the phrase "maMer and degree" <br />should be interpreted. We believe this should be read in conjunction <br />,,'ith the ,,'Ord "existing" as qualifying the Secretary's authority to <br />msnage the public lands under review in order to 9reserve their wilder- <br />ness characteristics. The ,,'Ords "existir.g" and "!:Ianner and degree" <br />when read in conjunction with t:-:e '..:ores "mi,Iing and grazing uses" place <br />a specific limitation on the Secretary's autb.ority. TIley estaolish as <br />a benchmark the physical iIT?<:ct a mining or grazing activity e:dstip,g <br />on October 21, 1976 was having on the area in question on that date. <br />llny chanC'e in that use or those uses \/hicl1 ...ould al ter the physical <br />impact on the area is subject to rC9ulatio;) in order to preserve wilder- <br />ness charncteristics. Of course, it is the ohvsical and "e~thetic imoact. <br />caused by the use und not the use itself I,hich is s~ject to r..e.3SUre11~nt, <br />for it is the impZlct fro:n the use of the lanJ which cOllld imp.:Iir the <br />suitability of an area for wilderness. <br /> <br />5. <br />