Laserfiche WebLink
<br />000817, <br /> <br />Second, and following similar reasoning, I believe an existing mining <br />use is limited geographically by the ooundary of the particular mining <br />claim embraced in an actual mining OPeration. 9/ A miner may not, in <br />other words, protect several mining clai~s under the umbrella of <br />-existing use" if they are not all ~braced in an actual mining opera- <br />tion as of the date of the passage of FL?-IA. Any claims not actually <br />being worked are subject to regulation in order to protect the area's <br />wilderness characteristics. <br /> <br />At the same time, applying this restriction cannot result in blanket <br />withdrawal of all study areas from appropriation under the mining laws <br />without violating the next sentence in section 603(c). 10/ Congress has <br />cetermined, in effect, that mining can occur in wilderness study areas <br />- as it determined in 1964 that mining can occur in statutory wilder- <br />ness areas - without jeopardizing the wilderness qualities of the area. <br />What is required is firm but sensitive regulation; to walk a tightro~ <br />between prohibiting mining on the one hana and allawing it to destroy <br />potential wilderness on the other. It will obviously take a wise exer- <br />cise of discretion to allow mining clams to continue to be filed and <br />worked without impairing the wilderness characteristics of areas under <br />review. In particular cases L~is may mean L~sing severe restrictions <br />on access or development; however, the consistency of regulation in <br />such cases with the language of the Act must await a case-by-case review. <br /> <br />MINERAL LE.~Th'3 <br /> <br />~ere is some ambiguity in Congress' reference to "mineral leasing" as <br />well as mining and grazing in section 603 ~ Simply stated, the question <br />is whether Congress meant (a) to allow the issuance of new mineral leases <br />in these areas, so long as the new leases are similar in "ll\3.'1I1er and <br />.cegree" to existing leases, or (b) merely to allow mining activities pur- <br />suant to existing mineral leases, but oL~erwise to regulate mining activi- <br />ties pursuant to new mineral leases to protect the wilderness suitability <br />of an area. To pose the question in terms of the language of the Act <br />itself, does the l<.'Ord "existing" modify the words "mineral leasing" as <br />well as the words "mining and grazing uses," (so that the section can be <br />parsed to read: . "subject, however, to the continuation of [mining pur- <br />suant to] existing. . . mineral leasing. . ."), or should "existing" be <br />read only to modify "mining and grazing uses" so that it should read: <br />.subject, however, to the continuation of . . . mineral leasing in the <br />manner and degree in which the sarne was being conducted on the date of <br />approval of this Act. . ." <br /> <br />I believe "existing" was intended by Congress to modify mineral leasing. <br />structurally, such an interpretation is more reasonable. The predicate <br />.was being conducted on the date of approval of this Act" refers not to <br />mineral leasing (or mining and grazing uses) ~ se, but, instead, to <br />ongoing (existing) mining, grazing uses and mineral leasing as of <br />October 21, 1976. Moreover, the reference to mineral leasing was added <br /> <br />9 <br />