69–006 

110TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 1st Session 110–412 

HARDROCK MINING AND RECLAMATION ACT OF 2007 

OCTOBER 29, 2007.—Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State 

of the Union and ordered to be printed 

Mr. RAHALL, from the Committee on Natural Resources, 

submitted the following 

R E P O R T 

together with 

DISSENTING VIEWS 

[To accompany H.R. 2262] 

[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office] 

The Committee on Natural Resources, to whom was referred the 

bill (H.R. 2262) to modify the requirements applicable to locatable 

minerals on public domain lands, consistent with the principles of 

self-initiation of mining claims, and for other purposes, having considered the same, report favorably thereon with an amendment and 

recommend that the bill as amended do pass. 

The amendment is as follows: 

Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the following: 

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS. 

(a) SHORT TITLE.—This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Hardrock Mining and Reclamation Act of 2007’’. 

(b) TABLE OF CONTENTS.—The table of contents for this Act is as follows: 

Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents. 

Sec. 2. Definitions and references. 

Sec. 3. Application rules. 

TITLE I—MINERAL EXPLORATION AND DEVELOPMENT 

Sec. 101. Limitation on patents. 

Sec. 102. Royalty. 

Sec. 103. Hardrock mining claim maintenance fee. 

Sec. 104. Effect of payments for use and occupancy of claims. 

TITLE II—PROTECTION OF SPECIAL PLACES 

Sec. 201. Lands open to location. 

Sec. 202. Withdrawal petitions by States, political subdivisions, and Indian tribes. 

TITLE III—ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS OF MINERAL EXPLORATION AND DEVELOPMENT 

Sec. 301. General standard for hardrock mining on Federal land. 


cnoel on PRODPC60 with HEARING
2 

Sec. 302. Permits. 

Sec. 303. Exploration permit. 

Sec. 304. Operations permit. 

Sec. 305. Persons ineligible for permits. 

Sec. 306. Financial assurance. 

Sec. 307. Operation and reclamation. 

Sec. 308. State law and regulation. 

Sec. 309. Limitation on the issuance of permits. 

TITLE IV—MINING MITIGATION 

Subtitle A—Locatable Minerals Fund 

Sec. 401. Establishment of Fund. 

Sec. 402. Contents of Fund. 

Sec. 403. Subaccounts. 

Subtitle B—Use of Hardrock Reclamation Account 

Sec. 411. Use and objectives of the Account. 

Sec. 412. Eligible lands and waters. 

Sec. 413. Expenditures. 

Sec. 414. Authorization of appropriations. 

Subtitle C—Use of Hardrock Community Impact Assistance Account 

Sec. 421. Use and objectives of the Account. 

Sec. 422. Allocation of funds. 

TITLE V—ADMINISTRATIVE AND MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS 

Subtitle A—Administrative Provisions 

Sec. 501. Policy functions. 

Sec. 502. User fees. 

Sec. 503. Inspection and monitoring. 

Sec. 504. Citizens suits. 

Sec. 505. Administrative and judicial review. 

Sec. 506. Enforcement. 

Sec. 507. Regulations. 

Sec. 508. Effective date. 

Subtitle B—Miscellaneous Provisions 

Sec. 511. Oil shale claims subject to special rules. 

Sec. 512. Purchasing power adjustment. 

Sec. 513. Savings clause. 

Sec. 514. Availability of public records. 

Sec. 515. Miscellaneous powers. 

Sec. 516. Multiple mineral development and surface resources. 

Sec. 517. Mineral materials. 

SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS AND REFERENCES. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—As used in this Act: 

(1) The term ‘‘affiliate’’ means with respect to any person, any of the following: 

(A) Any person who controls, is controlled by, or is under common control 

with such person. 

(B) Any partner of such person. 

(C) Any person owning at least 10 percent of the voting shares of such 

person. 

(2) The term ‘‘applicant’’ means any person applying for a permit under this 

Act or a modification to or a renewal of a permit under this Act. 

(3) The term ‘‘beneficiation’’ means the crushing and grinding of locatable 

mineral ore and such processes as are employed to free the mineral from other 

constituents, including but not necessarily limited to, physical and chemical 

separation techniques. 

(4) The term ‘‘casual use’’—

(A) subject to subparagraphs (B) and (C), means mineral activities that 

do not ordinarily result in any disturbance of public lands and resources; 

(B) includes collection of geochemical, rock, soil, or mineral specimens 

using handtools, hand panning, or nonmotorized sluicing; and 

(C) does not include—

(i) the use of mechanized earth-moving equipment, suction dredging, 

or explosives; 

(ii) the use of motor vehicles in areas closed to off-road vehicles; 

(iii) the construction of roads or drill pads; and 

(iv) the use of toxic or hazardous materials. 

(5) The term ‘‘claim holder’’ means a person holding a mining claim, millsite 

claim, or tunnel site claim located under the general mining laws and maintained in compliance with such laws and this Act. Such term may include an 

agent of a claim holder. 

(6) The term ‘‘control’’ means having the ability, directly or indirectly, to determine (without regard to whether exercised through one or more corporate 


cnoel on PRODPC60 with HEARING
3 

structures) the manner in which an entity conducts mineral activities, through 

any means, including without limitation, ownership interest, authority to commit the entity’s real or financial assets, position as a director, officer, or partner 

of the entity, or contractual arrangement. 

(7) The term ‘‘exploration’’—

(A) subject to subparagraphs (B) and (C), means creating surface disturbance other than casual use, to evaluate the type, extent, quantity, or quality of minerals present; 

(B) includes mineral activities associated with sampling, drilling, and 

analyzing locatable mineral values; and 

(C) does not include extraction of mineral material for commercial use or 

sale. 

(8) The term ‘‘Federal land’’ means any land, and any interest in land, that 

is owned by the United States and open to location of mining claims under the 

general mining laws and title II of this Act. 

(9) The term ‘‘Indian lands’’ means lands held in trust for the benefit of an 

Indian tribe or individual or held by an Indian tribe or individual subject to a 

restriction by the United States against alienation. 

(10) The term ‘‘Indian tribe’’ means any Indian tribe, band, nation, pueblo, 

or other organized group or community, including any Alaska Native village or 

regional corporation as defined in or established pursuant to the Alaska Native 

Claims Settlement Act (43 U.S.C. 1601 and following), that is recognized as eligible for the special programs and services provided by the United States to Indians because of their status as Indians. 

(11) The term ‘‘locatable mineral’’—

(A) subject to subparagraph (B), means any mineral, the legal and beneficial title to which remains in the United States and that is not subject 

to disposition under any of—

(i) the Mineral Leasing Act (30 U.S.C. 181 and following); 

(ii) the Geothermal Steam Act of 1970 (30 U.S.C. 1001 and following); 

(iii) the Act of July 31, 1947, commonly known as the Materials Act 

of 1947 (30 U.S.C. 601 and following); or 

(iv) the Mineral Leasing for Acquired Lands Act (30 U.S.C. 351 and 

following); and 

(B) does not include any mineral that is subject to a restriction against 

alienation imposed by the United States and is—

(i) held in trust by the United States for any Indian or Indian tribe, 

as defined in section 2 of the Indian Mineral Development Act of 1982 

(25 U.S.C. 2101); or 

(ii) owned by any Indian or Indian tribe, as defined in that section. 

(12) The term ‘‘mineral activities’’ means any activity on a mining claim, millsite claim, or tunnel site claim for, related to, or incidental to, mineral exploration, mining, beneficiation, processing, or reclamation activities for any 

locatable mineral. 

(13) The term ‘‘National Conservation System unit’’ means any unit of the 

National Park System, National Wildlife Refuge System, National Wild and 

Scenic Rivers System, or National Trails System, or a National Conservation 

Area, a National Recreation Area, a National Monument, or any unit of the National Wilderness Preservation System. 

(14) The term ‘‘operator’’ means any person proposing or authorized by a permit issued under this Act to conduct mineral activities and any agent of such 

person. 

(15) The term ‘‘person’’ means an individual, Indian tribe, partnership, association, society, joint venture, joint stock company, firm, company, corporation, 

cooperative, or other organization and any instrumentality of State or local government including any publicly owned utility or publicly owned corporation of 

State or local government. 

(16) The term ‘‘processing’’ means processes downstream of beneficiation employed to prepare locatable mineral ore into the final marketable product, including but not limited to smelting and electrolytic refining. 

(17) The term ‘‘Secretary’’ means the Secretary of the Interior, unless otherwise specified. 

(18) The term ‘‘temporary cessation’’ means a halt in mine-related production 

activities for a continuous period of no longer than 5 years. 

(19) The term ‘‘undue degradation’’ means irreparable harm to significant scientific, cultural, or environmental resources on public lands that cannot be effectively mitigated. 

(b) TITLE II.—


cnoel on PRODPC60 with HEARING
4 

(1) VALID EXISTING RIGHTS.—As used in title II, the term ‘‘valid existing 

rights’’ means a mining claim or millsite claim located on lands described in section 201(b), that—

(A) was properly located and maintained under this Act prior to and on 

the applicable date; or 

(B)(i) was properly located and maintained under the general mining 

laws prior to the applicable date; 

(ii) was supported by a discovery of a valuable mineral deposit within the 

meaning of the general mining laws on the applicable date, or satisfied the 

limitations under existing law for millsite claims; and 

(iii) continues to be valid under this Act. 

(2) APPLICABLE DATE.—As used in paragraph (1), the term ‘‘applicable date’’

means one of the following: 

(A) For lands described in paragraph (1) of section 201(b), the date of the 

recommendation referred to in paragraph (1) of that section if such recommendation is made on or after the date of the enactment of this Act. 

(B) For lands described in paragraph (1) of section 201(b), if the recommendation referred to in paragraph (1) of that section is made before the 

date of the enactment of this Act, the earlier of—

(i) the date of the enactment of this Act; or 

(ii) the date of any withdrawal of such lands from mineral activities. 

(C) For lands described in paragraph (3)(B) of section 201(b), the date of 

the enactment of this Act. 

(D) For lands described in paragraph (3)(A) or (3)(C) of section 201(b), the 

date of the enactment of the amendment to the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act 

(16 U.S.C. 1271 and following) listing the river segment for study. 

(E) For lands described in paragraph (3)(B) of section 201(b), the date of 

the determination of eligibility of such lands for inclusion in the Wild and 

Scenic River System. 

(F) For lands described in paragraph (4) of section 201(b), the date of the 

withdrawal under other law. 

(c) REFERENCES TO OTHER LAWS.—(1) Any reference in this Act to the term general mining laws is a reference to those Acts that generally comprise chapters 2, 

12A, and 16, and sections 161 and 162, of title 30, United States Code. 

(2) Any reference in this Act to the Act of July 23, 1955, is a reference to the Act 

entitled ‘‘An Act to amend the Act of July 31, 1947 (61 Stat. 681) and the mining 

laws to provide for multiple use of the surface of the same tracts of the public lands, 

and for other purposes’’ (30 U.S.C. 601 and following). 

SEC. 3. APPLICATION RULES. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—This Act applies to any mining claim, millsite claim, or tunnel 

site claim located under the general mining laws, before, on, or after the date of 

enactment of this Act, except as provided in subsection (b). 

(b) PREEXISTING CLAIMS.—(1) Any unpatented mining claim or millsite claim located under the general mining laws before the date of enactment of this Act for 

which a plan of operation has not been approved or a notice filed prior to the date 

of enactment shall, upon the effective date of this Act, be subject to the requirements of this Act, except as provided in paragraphs (2) and (3). 

(2)(A) If a plan of operations is approved for mineral activities on any claim or 

site referred to in paragraph (1) prior to the date of enactment of this Act but such 

operations have not commenced prior to the date of enactment of this Act—

(i) during the 10-year period beginning on the date of enactment of this Act, 

mineral activities at such claim or site shall be subject to such plan of operations; 

(ii) during such 10-year period, modifications of any such plan may be made 

in accordance with the provisions of law applicable prior to the enactment of 

this Act if such modifications are deemed minor by the Secretary concerned; and 

(iii) the operator shall bring such mineral activities into compliance with this 

Act by the end of such 10-year period. 

(B) Where an application for modification of a plan of operations referred to in 

subparagraph (A)(ii) has been timely submitted and an approved plan expires prior 

to Secretarial action on the application, mineral activities and reclamation may continue in accordance with the terms of the expired plan until the Secretary makes 

an administrative decision on the application. 

(c) FEDERAL LANDS SUBJECT TO EXISTING PERMIT.—(1) Any Federal land shall not 

be subject to the requirements of section 102 if the land is—

(A) subject to an operations permit; and 

(B) producing valuable locatable minerals in commercial quantities prior to 

the date of enactment of this Act. 


cnoel on PRODPC60 with HEARING
5 

(2) Any Federal land added through a plan modification to an operations permit 

on Federal land that is submitted after the date of enactment of this Act shall be 

subject to the terms of section 102. 

(d) APPLICATION OF ACT TO BENEFICIATION AND PROCESSING OF NON-FEDERAL

MINERALS ON FEDERAL LANDS.—The provisions of this Act (including the environmental protection requirements of title III) shall apply in the same manner and to 

the same extent to mining claims, millsite claims, and tunnel site claims used for 

beneficiation or processing activities for any mineral without regard to whether or 

not the legal and beneficial title to the mineral is held by the United States. This 

subsection applies only to minerals that are locatable minerals or minerals that 

would be locatable minerals if the legal and beneficial title to such minerals were 

held by the United States. 

TITLE I—MINERAL EXPLORATION AND 

DEVELOPMENT 

SEC. 101. LIMITATION ON PATENTS. 

(a) MINING CLAIMS.—

(1) DETERMINATIONS REQUIRED.—After the date of enactment of this Act, no 

patent shall be issued by the United States for any mining claim located under 

the general mining laws unless the Secretary determines that, for the claim 

concerned—

(A) a patent application was filed with the Secretary on or before September 30, 1994; and 

(B) all requirements established under sections 2325 and 2326 of the Revised Statutes (30 U.S.C. 29 and 30) for vein or lode claims and sections 

2329, 2330, 2331, and 2333 of the Revised Statutes (30 U.S.C. 35, 36, and 

37) for placer claims were fully complied with by that date. 

(2) RIGHT TO PATENT.—If the Secretary makes the determinations referred to 

in subparagraphs (A) and (B) of paragraph (1) for any mining claim, the holder 

of the claim shall be entitled to the issuance of a patent in the same manner 

and degree to which such claim holder would have been entitled to prior to the 

enactment of this Act, unless and until such determinations are withdrawn or 

invalidated by the Secretary or by a court of the United States. 

(b) MILLSITE CLAIMS.—

(1) DETERMINATIONS REQUIRED.—After the date of enactment of this Act, no 

patent shall be issued by the United States for any millsite claim located under 

the general mining laws unless the Secretary determines that for the millsite 

concerned—

(A) a patent application for such land was filed with the Secretary on or 

before September 30, 1994; and 

(B) all requirements applicable to such patent application were fully complied with by that date. 

(2) RIGHT TO PATENT.—If the Secretary makes the determinations referred to 

in subparagraphs (A) and (B) of paragraph (1) for any millsite claim, the holder 

of the claim shall be entitled to the issuance of a patent in the same manner 

and degree to which such claim holder would have been entitled to prior to the 

enactment of this Act, unless and until such determinations are withdrawn or 

invalidated by the Secretary or by a court of the United States. 

SEC. 102. ROYALTY. 

(a) RESERVATION OF ROYALTY.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided in paragraph (2) and subject to paragraph (3), production of all locatable minerals from any mining claim located 

under the general mining laws and maintained in compliance with this Act, or 

mineral concentrates or products derived from locatable minerals from any such 

mining claim, as the case may be, shall be subject to a royalty of 8 percent of 

the gross income from mining. The claim holder or any operator to whom the 

claim holder has assigned the obligation to make royalty payments under the 

claim and any person who controls such claim holder or operator shall be liable 

for payment of such royalties. 

(2) ROYALTY FOR FEDERAL LANDS SUBJECT TO EXISTING PERMIT.—The royalty 

under paragraph (1) shall be 4 percent in the case of any Federal land that—

(A) is subject to an operations permit on the date of the enactment of this 

Act; and 

(B) produces valuable locatable minerals in commercial quantities on the 

date of enactment of this Act. 


cnoel on PRODPC60 with HEARING
6 

(3) FEDERAL LAND ADDED TO EXISTING OPERATIONS PERMIT.—Any Federal land 

added through a plan modification to an operations permit on Federal land that 

is submitted after the date of enactment of this Act shall be subject to the royalty that applies to other Federal land that is subject to the operations permit 

before that submission under paragraph (1) or (2), as applicable. 

(4) OTHER APPLICATION PROVISION NOT EFFECTIVE.—Section 3(c) of this Act 

shall have no force or effect. 

(5) DEPOSIT.—Amounts received by the United States as royalties under this 

subsection shall be deposited into the account established under section 401. 

(b) DUTIES OF CLAIM HOLDERS, OPERATORS, AND TRANSPORTERS.—(1) A person— (A) who is required to make any royalty payment under this section shall 

make such payments to the United States at such times and in such manner 

as the Secretary may by rule prescribe; and 

(B) shall notify the Secretary, in the time and manner as may be specified 

by the Secretary, of any assignment that such person may have made of the 

obligation to make any royalty or other payment under a mining claim. 

(2) Any person paying royalties under this section shall file a written instrument, 

together with the first royalty payment, affirming that such person is responsible 

for making proper payments for all amounts due for all time periods for which such 

person has a payment responsibility. Such responsibility for the periods referred to 

in the preceding sentence shall include any and all additional amounts billed by the 

Secretary and determined to be due by final agency or judicial action. Any person 

liable for royalty payments under this section who assigns any payment obligation 

shall remain jointly and severally liable for all royalty payments due for the claim 

for the period. 

(3) A person conducting mineral activities shall—

(A) develop and comply with the site security provisions in the operations permit designed to protect from theft the locatable minerals, concentrates or products derived therefrom which are produced or stored on a mining claim, and 

such provisions shall conform with such minimum standards as the Secretary 

may prescribe by rule, taking into account the variety of circumstances on mining claims; and 

(B) not later than the 5th business day after production begins anywhere on 

a mining claim, or production resumes after more than 90 days after production 

was suspended, notify the Secretary, in the manner prescribed by the Secretary, 

of the date on which such production has begun or resumed. 

(4) The Secretary may by rule require any person engaged in transporting a 

locatable mineral, concentrate, or product derived therefrom to carry on his or her 

person, in his or her vehicle, or in his or her immediate control, documentation 

showing, at a minimum, the amount, origin, and intended destination of the 

locatable mineral, concentrate, or product derived therefrom in such circumstances 

as the Secretary determines is appropriate. 

(c) RECORDKEEPING AND REPORTING REQUIREMENTS.—(1) A claim holder, operator, 

or other person directly involved in developing, producing, processing, transporting, 

purchasing, or selling locatable minerals, concentrates, or products derived therefrom, subject to this Act, through the point of royalty computation shall establish 

and maintain any records, make any reports, and provide any information that the 

Secretary may reasonably require for the purposes of implementing this section or 

determining compliance with rules or orders under this section. Such records shall 

include, but not be limited to, periodic reports, records, documents, and other data. 

Such reports may also include, but not be limited to, pertinent technical and financial data relating to the quantity, quality, composition volume, weight, and assay 

of all minerals extracted from the mining claim. Upon the request of any officer or 

employee duly designated by the Secretary conducting an audit or investigation pursuant to this section, the appropriate records, reports, or information that may be 

required by this section shall be made available for inspection and duplication by 

such officer or employee. Failure by a claim holder, operator, or other person referred to in the first sentence to cooperate with such an audit, provide data required 

by the Secretary, or grant access to information may, at the discretion of the Secretary, result in involuntary forfeiture of the claim. 

(2) Records required by the Secretary under this section shall be maintained for 

7 years after release of financial assurance under section 306 unless the Secretary 

notifies the operator that the Secretary has initiated an audit or investigation involving such records and that such records must be maintained for a longer period. 

In any case when an audit or investigation is underway, records shall be maintained 

until the Secretary releases the operator of the obligation to maintain such records. 

(d) AUDITS.—The Secretary is authorized to conduct such audits of all claim holders, operators, transporters, purchasers, processors, or other persons directly or indirectly involved in the production or sales of minerals covered by this Act, as the SecVerDate Aug 31 2005 05:25 Oct 30, 2007 Jkt 069010 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6621 E:\HR\OC\HR412.XXX HR412

cnoel on PRODPC60 with HEARING
7 

retary deems necessary for the purposes of ensuring compliance with the requirements of this section. For purposes of performing such audits, the Secretary shall, 

at reasonable times and upon request, have access to, and may copy, all books, papers and other documents that relate to compliance with any provision of this section by any person. 

(e) COOPERATIVE AGREEMENTS.—(1) The Secretary is authorized to enter into cooperative agreements with the Secretary of Agriculture to share information concerning the royalty management of locatable minerals, concentrates, or products derived therefrom, to carry out inspection, auditing, investigation, or enforcement (not 

including the collection of royalties, civil or criminal penalties, or other payments) 

activities under this section in cooperation with the Secretary, and to carry out any 

other activity described in this section. 

(2) Except as provided in paragraph (3)(A) of this subsection (relating to trade secrets), and pursuant to a cooperative agreement, the Secretary of Agriculture shall, 

upon request, have access to all royalty accounting information in the possession of 

the Secretary respecting the production, removal, or sale of locatable minerals, concentrates, or products derived therefrom from claims on lands open to location under 

this Act. 

(3) Trade secrets, proprietary, and other confidential information protected from 

disclosure under section 552 of title 5, United States Code, popularly known as the 

Freedom of Information Act, shall be made available by the Secretary to other Federal agencies as necessary to assure compliance with this Act and other Federal 

laws. The Secretary, the Secretary of Agriculture, the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, and other Federal officials shall ensure that such information is provided protection in accordance with the requirements of that section. 

(f) INTEREST AND SUBSTANTIAL UNDERREPORTING ASSESSMENTS.—(1) In the case 

of mining claims where royalty payments are not received by the Secretary on the 

date that such payments are due, the Secretary shall charge interest on such underpayments at the same interest rate as the rate applicable under section 6621(a)(2) 

of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986. In the case of an underpayment, interest 

shall be computed and charged only on the amount of the deficiency and not on the 

total amount. 

(2) If there is any underreporting of royalty owed on production from a claim for 

any production month by any person liable for royalty payments under this section, 

the Secretary shall assess a penalty of not greater than 25 percent of the amount 

of that underreporting. 

(3) For the purposes of this subsection, the term ‘‘underreporting’’ means the difference between the royalty on the value of the production that should have been 

reported and the royalty on the value of the production which was reported, if the 

value that should have been reported is greater than the value that was reported. 

(4) The Secretary may waive or reduce the assessment provided in paragraph (2) 

of this subsection if the person liable for royalty payments under this section corrects the underreporting before the date such person receives notice from the Secretary that an underreporting may have occurred, or before 90 days after the date 

of the enactment of this section, whichever is later. 

(5) The Secretary shall waive any portion of an assessment under paragraph (2) 

of this subsection attributable to that portion of the underreporting for which the 

person responsible for paying the royalty demonstrates that—

(A) such person had written authorization from the Secretary to report royalty on the value of the production on basis on which it was reported, 

(B) such person had substantial authority for reporting royalty on the value 

of the production on the basis on which it was reported, 

(C) such person previously had notified the Secretary, in such manner as the 

Secretary may by rule prescribe, of relevant reasons or facts affecting the royalty treatment of specific production which led to the underreporting, or 

(D) such person meets any other exception which the Secretary may, by rule, 

establish. 

(6) All penalties collected under this subsection shall be deposited in the Locatable 

Minerals Fund established under title IV. 

(g) DELEGATION.—For the purposes of this section, the term ‘‘Secretary’’ means 

the Secretary of the Interior acting through the Director of the Minerals Management Service. 

(h) EXPANDED ROYALTY OBLIGATIONS.—Each person liable for royalty payments 

under this section shall be jointly and severally liable for royalty on all locatable 

minerals, concentrates, or products derived therefrom lost or wasted from a mining 

claim located under the general mining laws and maintained in compliance with 

this Act when such loss or waste is due to negligence on the part of any person or 

due to the failure to comply with any rule, regulation, or order issued under this 

section. 


cnoel on PRODPC60 with HEARING
8 

(i) GROSS INCOME FROM MINING DEFINED.—For the purposes of this section, for 

any locatable mineral, the term ‘‘gross income from mining’’ has the same meaning 

as the term ‘‘gross income’’ in section 613(c) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986. 

(j) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The royalty under this section shall take effect with respect 

to the production of locatable minerals after the enactment of this Act, but any royalty payments attributable to production during the first 12 calendar months after 

the enactment of this Act shall be payable at the expiration of such 12-month period. 

(k) FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH ROYALTY REQUIREMENTS.—Any person who fails to 

comply with the requirements of this section or any regulation or order issued to 

implement this section shall be liable for a civil penalty under section 109 of the 

Federal Oil and Gas Royalty Management Act (30 U.S.C. 1719) to the same extent 

as if the claim located under the general mining laws and maintained in compliance 

with this Act were a lease under that Act. 

SEC. 103. HARDROCK MINING CLAIM MAINTENANCE FEE. 

(a) FEE.—

(1) Except as provided in section 2511(e)(2) of the Energy Policy Act of 1992 

(relating to oil shale claims), for each unpatented mining claim, mill or tunnel 

site on federally owned lands, whether located before, on, or after enactment of 

this Act, each claimant shall pay to the Secretary, on or before August 31 of 

each year, a claim maintenance fee of $150 per claim to hold such unpatented 

mining claim, mill or tunnel site for the assessment year beginning at noon on 

the next day, September 1. Such claim maintenance fee shall be in lieu of the 

assessment work requirement contained in the Mining Law of 1872 (30 U.S.C. 

28 et seq.) and the related filing requirements contained in section 314(a) and 

(c) of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1744(a) 

and (c)). 

(2)(A) The claim maintenance fee required under this subsection shall be 

waived for a claimant who certifies in writing to the Secretary that on the date 

the payment was due, the claimant and all related parties—

(i) held not more than 10 mining claims, mill sites, or tunnel sites, 

or any combination thereof, on public lands; and 

(ii) have performed assessment work required under the Mining Law 

of 1872 (30 U.S.C. 28 et seq.) to maintain the mining claims held by 

the claimant and such related parties for the assessment year ending 

on noon of September 1 of the calendar year in which payment of the 

claim maintenance fee was due. 

(B) For purposes of subparagraph (A), with respect to any claimant, the 

term ‘‘all related parties’’ means—

(i) the spouse and dependent children (as defined in section 152 of 

the Internal Revenue Code of 1986), of the claimant; or 

(ii) a person affiliated with the claimant, including—

(I) a person controlled by, controlling, or under common control 

with the claimant; or 

(II) a subsidiary or parent company or corporation of the claimant. 

(3)(A) The Secretary shall adjust the fees required by this subsection to reflect 

changes in the Consumer Price Index published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics of the Department of Labor every 5 years after the date of enactment of 

this Act, or more frequently if the Secretary determines an adjustment to be 

reasonable. 

(B) The Secretary shall provide claimants notice of any adjustment made 

under this paragraph not later than July 1 of any year in which the adjustment 

is made. 

(C) A fee adjustment under this paragraph shall begin to apply the calendar 

year following the calendar year in which it is made. 

(4) Monies received under this subsection shall be deposited in the Locatable 

Minerals Fund established by this Act. 

(b) LOCATION.—

(1) Notwithstanding any provision of law, for every unpatented mining claim, 

mill or tunnel site located after the date of enactment of this Act and before 

September 30, 1998, the locator shall, at the time the location notice is recorded 

with the Bureau of Land Management, pay to the Secretary a location fee, in 

addition to the fee required by subsection (a) of $50 per claim. 

(2) Moneys received under this subsection that are not otherwise allocated for 

the administration of the mining laws by the Department of the Interior shall 

be deposited in the Locatable Minerals Fund established by this Act. 


cnoel on PRODPC60 with HEARING
9 

(c) CO-OWNERSHIP.—The co-ownership provisions of the Mining Law of 1872 (30 

U.S.C. 28 et seq.) will remain in effect except that the annual claim maintenance 

fee, where applicable, shall replace applicable assessment requirements and expenditures. 

(d) FAILURE TO PAY.—Failure to pay the claim maintenance fee as required by 

subsection (a) shall conclusively constitute a forfeiture of the unpatented mining 

claim, mill or tunnel site by the claimant and the claim shall be deemed null and 

void by operation of law. 

(e) OTHER REQUIREMENTS.—

(1) Nothing in this section shall change or modify the requirements of section 

314(b) of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 

1744(b)), or the requirements of section 314(c) of the Federal Land Policy and 

Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1744(c)) related to filings required by section 314(b), which remain in effect. 

(2) Section 2324 of the Revised Statutes of the United States (30 U.S.C. 28) 

is amended by inserting ‘‘or section 103(a) of the Hardrock Mining and Reclamation Act of 2007’’ after ‘‘Act of 1993,’’. 

SEC. 104. EFFECT OF PAYMENTS FOR USE AND OCCUPANCY OF CLAIMS. 

Timely payment of the claim maintenance fee required by section 103 of this Act 

or any related law relating to the use of Federal land, asserts the claimant’s authority to use and occupy the Federal land concerned for prospecting and exploration, 

consistent with the requirements of this Act and other applicable law. 

TITLE II—PROTECTION OF SPECIAL PLACES 

SEC. 201. LANDS OPEN TO LOCATION. 

(a) LANDS OPEN TO LOCATION.—Except as provided in subsection (b), mining 

claims may be located under the general mining laws only on such lands and interests as were open to the location of mining claims under the general mining laws 

immediately before the enactment of this Act. 

(b) LANDS NOT OPEN TO LOCATION.—Notwithstanding any other provision of law 

and subject to valid existing rights, each of the following shall not be open to the 

location of mining claims under the general mining laws on or after the date of enactment of this Act: 

(1) Wilderness study areas. 

(2) Areas of critical environmental concern. 

(3) Areas designated for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System pursuant to the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (16 U.S.C. 1271 et seq.), areas 

designated for potential addition to such system pursuant to section 5(a) of that 

Act (16 U.S.C. 1276(a)), and areas determined to be eligible for inclusion in such 

system pursuant to section 5(d) of such Act (16 U.S.C. 1276(d)). 

(4) Any area identified in the set of inventoried roadless areas maps contained 

in the Forest Service Roadless Area Conservation Final Environmental Impact 

Statement, Volume 2, dated November 2000. 

(c) EXISTING AUTHORITY NOT AFFECTED.—Nothing in this Act limits the authority 

granted the Secretary in section 204 of the Federal Land Policy and Management 

Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1714) to withdraw public lands. 

SEC. 202. WITHDRAWAL PETITIONS BY STATES, POLITICAL SUBDIVISIONS, AND INDIAN 

TRIBES. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—Any State or political subdivision of a State or an Indian tribe 

may submit a petition to the Secretary for the withdrawal of a specific tract of Federal land from the operation of the general mining laws, in order to protect specific 

values identified in the petition that are important to the State or political subdivision or Indian tribe. Such values may include the value of a watershed to supply 

drinking water, wildlife habitat value, cultural or historic resources, or value for scenic vistas important to the local economy, and other similar values. In the case of 

an Indian tribe, the petition may also identify religious or cultural values that are 

important to the Indian tribe. The petition shall contain the information required 

by section 204 of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 

1714). 

(b) CONSIDERATION OF PETITION.—The Secretary—

(1) shall solicit public comment on the petition; 

(2) shall make a final decision on the petition within 180 days after receiving 

it; and 


cnoel on PRODPC60 with HEARING
10 

(3) shall grant the petition unless the Secretary makes and publishes in the 

Federal Register specific findings why a decision to grant the petition would be 

against the national interest. 

TITLE III—ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS OF MINERAL EXPLORATION AND DEVELOPMENT 

SEC. 301. GENERAL STANDARD FOR HARDROCK MINING ON FEDERAL LAND. 

Notwithstanding section 302(b) of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act 

of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1732(b)), the first section of the Act of June 4, 1897 (chapter 2; 

30 Stat. 36 16 U.S.C. 478), and the National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 

U.S.C. 1600 et seq.), and in accordance with this title and applicable law, unless 

expressly stated otherwise in this Act, the Secretary—

(1) shall ensure that mineral activities on any Federal land that is subject to 

a mining claim, millsite claim, or tunnel site claim is carefully controlled to prevent undue degradation of public lands and resources; and 

(2) shall not grant permission to engage in mineral activities if the Secretary, 

after considering the evidence, makes and publishes in the Federal Register a 

determination that undue degradation would result from such activities. 

SEC. 302. PERMITS. 

(a) PERMITS REQUIRED.—No person may engage in mineral activities on Federal 

land that may cause a disturbance of surface resources, including but not limited 

to land, air, ground water and surface water, and fish and wildlife, unless—

(1) the claim was properly located under the general mining laws and maintained in compliance with such laws and this Act; and 

(2) a permit was issued to such person under this title authorizing such activities. 

(b) NEGLIGIBLE DISTURBANCE.—Notwithstanding subsection (a)(2), a permit under 

this title shall not be required for mineral activities that are a casual use of the 

Federal land. 

(c) COORDINATION WITH NEPA PROCESS.—To the extent practicable, the Secretary 

and the Secretary of Agriculture shall conduct the permit processes under this Act 

in coordination with the timing and other requirements under section 102 of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4332). 

SEC. 303. EXPLORATION PERMIT. 

(a) AUTHORIZED EXPLORATION ACTIVITY.—Any claim holder may apply for an exploration permit for any mining claim authorizing the claim holder to remove a reasonable amount of the locatable minerals from the claim for analysis, study and 

testing. Such permit shall not authorize the claim holder to remove any mineral for 

sale nor to conduct any activities other than those required for exploration for 

locatable minerals and reclamation. 

(b) PERMIT APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS.—An application for an exploration permit under this section shall be submitted in a manner satisfactory to the Secretary 

or, for National Forest System lands, the Secretary of Agriculture, and shall contain 

an exploration plan, a reclamation plan for the proposed exploration, and such documentation as necessary to ensure compliance with applicable Federal and State environmental laws and regulations. 

(c) RECLAMATION PLAN REQUIREMENTS.—The reclamation plan required to be included in a permit application under subsection (b) shall include such provisions as 

may be jointly prescribed by the Secretary and the Secretary of Agriculture. 

(d) PERMIT ISSUANCE OR DENIAL.—The Secretary, or for National Forest System 

lands, the Secretary of Agriculture, shall issue an exploration permit pursuant to 

an application under this section unless such Secretary makes any of the following 

determinations: 

(1) The permit application, the exploration plan and reclamation plan are not 

complete and accurate. 

(2) The applicant has not demonstrated that proposed reclamation can be accomplished. 

(3) The proposed exploration activities and condition of the land after the 

completion of exploration activities and final reclamation would not conform 

with the land use plan applicable to the area subject to mineral activities. 

(4) The area subject to the proposed permit is included within an area not 

open to location under section 201. 


cnoel on PRODPC60 with HEARING
11 

(5) The applicant has not demonstrated that the exploration plan and reclamation plan will be in compliance with the requirements of this Act and all 

other applicable Federal requirements, and any State requirements agreed to 

by the Secretary of the Interior (or Secretary of Agriculture, as appropriate). 

(6) The applicant has not demonstrated that the requirements of section 306 

(relating to financial assurance) will be met. 

(7) The applicant is eligible to receive a permit under section 305. 

(e) TERM OF PERMIT.—An exploration permit shall be for a stated term. The term 

shall be no greater than that necessary to accomplish the proposed exploration, and 

in no case for more than 10 years. 

(f) PERMIT MODIFICATION.—During the term of an exploration permit the permit 

holder may submit an application to modify the permit. To approve a proposed 

modification to the permit, the Secretary concerned shall make the same determinations as are required in the case of an original permit, except that the Secretary 

and the Secretary of Agriculture may specify by joint rule the extent to which requirements for initial exploration permits under this section shall apply to applications to modify an exploration permit based on whether such modifications are 

deemed significant or minor. 

(g) TRANSFER, ASSIGNMENT, OR SALE OF RIGHTS.—(1) No transfer, assignment, or 

sale of rights granted by a permit issued under this section shall be made without 

the prior written approval of the Secretary or for National Forest System lands, the 

Secretary of Agriculture. 

(2) Such Secretary shall allow a person holding a permit to transfer, assign, or 

sell rights under the permit to a successor, if the Secretary finds, in writing, that 

the successor—

(A) is eligible to receive a permit in accordance with section 304(d); 

(B) has submitted evidence of financial assurance satisfactory under section 

306; and 

(C) meets any other requirements specified by the Secretary. 

(3) The successor in interest shall assume the liability and reclamation responsibilities established by the existing permit and shall conduct the mineral activities 

in full compliance with this Act, and the terms and conditions of the permit as in 

effect at the time of transfer, assignment, or sale. 

(4) Each application for approval of a permit transfer, assignment, or sale pursuant to this subsection shall be accompanied by a fee payable to the Secretary of the 

Interior in such amount as may be established by such Secretary. Such amount 

shall be equal to the actual or anticipated cost to the Secretary or the Secretary of 

Agriculture, as appropriate, of reviewing and approving or disapproving such transfer, assignment, or sale, as determined by the Secretary of the Interior. All moneys 

received under this subsection shall be deposited in the Locatable Minerals Fund 

established under title IV of this Act. 

SEC. 304. OPERATIONS PERMIT. 

(a) OPERATIONS PERMIT.—(1) Any claim holder that is in compliance with the general mining laws and section 103 of this Act may apply to the Secretary, or for National Forest System lands, the Secretary of Agriculture, for an operations permit 

authorizing the claim holder to carry out mineral activities, other than casual use, 

on—

(A) any valid mining claim, valid millsite claim, or valid tunnel site claim; 

and 

(B) such additional Federal land as the Secretary may determine is necessary 

to conduct the proposed mineral activities, if the operator obtains a right-of-way 

permit for use of such additional lands under title V of the Federal Land Policy 

and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1761 et seq.) and agrees to pay all fees 

required under that title for the permit under that title. 

(2) If the Secretary decides to issue such permit, the permit shall include such 

terms and conditions as prescribed by such Secretary to carry out this title. 

(b) PERMIT APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS.—An application for an operations permit 

under this section shall be submitted in a manner satisfactory to the Secretary concerned and shall contain site characterization data, an operations plan, a reclamation plan, monitoring plans, long-term maintenance plans, to the extent necessary, 

and such documentation as necessary to ensure compliance with applicable Federal 

and State environmental laws and regulations. If the proposed mineral activities 

will be carried out in conjunction with mineral activities on adjacent non-Federal 

lands, information on the location and nature of such operations may be required 

by the Secretary. 

(c) PERMIT ISSUANCE OR DENIAL.—(1) After providing for public participation pursuant to subsection (i), the Secretary, or for National Forest System lands the Secretary of Agriculture, shall issue an operations permit if such Secretary makes each 


cnoel on PRODPC60 with HEARING
12 

of the following determinations in writing, and shall deny a permit if such Secretary 

finds that the application and applicant do not fully meet the following requirements: 

(A) The permit application, including the site characterization data, operations plan, and reclamation plan, are complete and accurate and sufficient for 

developing a good understanding of the anticipated impacts of the mineral activities and the effectiveness of proposed mitigation and control. 

(B) The applicant has demonstrated that the proposed reclamation in the operation and reclamation plan can be and is likely to be accomplished by the applicant and will not cause undue degradation. 

(C) The condition of the land, including the fish and wildlife resources and 

habitat contained thereon, after the completion of mineral activities and final 

reclamation, will conform to the land use plan applicable to the area subject to 

mineral activities and are returned to a productive use. 

(D) The area subject to the proposed plan is open to location for the types 

of mineral activities proposed. 

(E) The proposed operation has been designed to prevent material damage to 

the hydrologic balance outside the permit area. 

(F) The applicant will fully comply with the requirements of section 306 (relating to financial assurance) prior to the initiation of operations. 

(G) Neither the applicant nor operator, nor any subsidiary, affiliate, or person 

controlled by or under common control with the applicant or operator, is ineligible to receive a permit under section 305. 

(H) The reclamation plan demonstrates that 10 years following mine closure, 

no treatment of surface or ground water for carcinogens or toxins will be required to meet water quality standards at the point of discharge. 

(2) With respect to any activities specified in the reclamation plan referred to in 

subsection (b) that constitutes a removal or remedial action under section 101 of the 

Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 

(42 U.S.C. 9601 and following), the Secretary shall consult with the Administrator 

of the Environmental Protection Agency prior to the issuance of an operations permit. The Administrator shall ensure that the reclamation plan does not require activities that would increase the costs or likelihood of removal or remedial actions 

under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability 

Act of 1980 (42 U.S.C. 9601 and following) or corrective actions under the Solid 

Waste Disposal Act (42 U.S.C. 6901 and following). 

(d) TERM OF PERMIT; RENEWAL.—

(1) An operations permit—

(A) shall be for a term that is no longer than the shorter of—

(i) the period necessary to accomplish the proposed mineral activities 

subject to the permit; and 

(ii) 20 years; and 

(B) shall be renewed for an additional 20-year period if the operation is 

in compliance with the requirements of this Act and other applicable law. 

(2) Failure by the operator to commence mineral activities within 2 years of 

the date scheduled in an operations permit shall require a modification of the 

permit if the Secretary concerned determines that modifications are necessary 

to comply with section 201. 

(e) PERMIT MODIFICATION.—

(1) During the term of an operations permit the operator may submit an application to modify the permit (including the operations plan or reclamation 

plan, or both). 

(2) The Secretary, or for National Forest System lands the Secretary of Agriculture, may, at any time, require reasonable modification to any operations 

plan or reclamation plan upon a determination that the requirements of this 

Act cannot be met if the plan is followed as approved. Such determination shall 

be based on a written finding and subject to public notice and hearing requirements established by the Secretary concerned. 

(3) A permit modification is required before changes are made to the approved 

plan of operations, or if unanticipated events or conditions exist on the mine 

site, including in the case of—

(A) development of acid or toxic drainage; 

(B) loss of springs or water supplies; 

(C) water quantity, water quality, or other resulting water impacts that 

are significantly different than those predicted in the application; 

(D) the need for long-term water treatment; 

(E) significant reclamation difficulties or reclamation failure; 

(F) the discovery of significant scientific, cultural, or biological resources 

that were not addressed in the original plan; or 


cnoel on PRODPC60 with HEARING
13 

(G) the discovery of hazards to public safety. 

(f) TEMPORARY CESSATION OF OPERATIONS.—(1) An operator conducting mineral 

activities under an operations permit in effect under this title may not temporarily 

cease mineral activities for a period greater than 180 days unless the Secretary concerned has approved such temporary cessation or unless the temporary cessation is 

permitted under the original permit. Any operator temporarily ceasing mineral activities for a period greater than 90 days under an operations permit issued before 

the date of the enactment of this Act shall submit, before the expiration of such 90- 

day period, a complete application for temporary cessation of operations to the Secretary concerned for approval unless the temporary cessation is permitted under the 

original permit. 

(2) An application for approval of temporary cessation of operations shall include 

such information required under subsection (b) and any other provisions prescribed 

by the Secretary concerned to minimize impacts on the environment. After receipt 

of a complete application for temporary cessation of operations such Secretary shall 

conduct an inspection of the area for which temporary cessation of operations has 

been requested. 

(3) To approve an application for temporary cessation of operations, the Secretary 

concerned shall make each of the following determinations: 

(A) A determination that the methods for securing surface facilities and restricting access to the permit area, or relevant portions thereof, will effectively 

ensure against hazards to the health and safety of the public and fish and wildlife. 

(B) A determination that reclamation is in compliance with the approved reclamation plan, except in those areas specifically designated in the application 

for temporary cessation of operations for which a delay in meeting such standards is necessary to facilitate the resumption of operations. 

(C) A determination that the amount of financial assurance filed with the permit application is sufficient to assure completion of the reclamation activities 

identified in the approved reclamation plan in the event of forfeiture. 

(D) A determination that any outstanding notices of violation and cessation 

orders incurred in connection with the plan for which temporary cessation is 

being requested are either stayed pursuant to an administrative or judicial appeal proceeding or are in the process of being abated to the satisfaction of the 

Secretary concerned. 

(g) PERMIT REVIEWS.—The Secretary, or for National Forest System lands the Secretary of Agriculture, shall review each permit issued under this section every 10 

years during the term of such permit, shall provide public notice of the permit review, and, based upon a written finding, such Secretary shall require the operator 

to take such actions as the Secretary deems necessary to assure that mineral activities conform to the permit, including adjustment of financial assurance requirements. 

(h) TRANSFER, ASSIGNMENT, OR SALE OF RIGHTS.—(1) No transfer, assignment, or 

sale of rights granted by a permit under this section shall be made without the prior 

written approval of the Secretary, or for National Forest System lands the Secretary 

of Agriculture. 

(2) The Secretary, or for National Forest System lands, the Secretary of Agriculture, may allow a person holding a permit to transfer, assign, or sell rights under 

the permit to a successor, if such Secretary finds, in writing, that the successor—

(A) has submitted information required and is eligible to receive a permit in 

accordance with section 305; 

(B) has submitted evidence of financial assurance satisfactory under section 

306; and 

(C) meets any other requirements specified by such Secretary. 

(3) The successor in interest shall assume the liability and reclamation responsibilities established by the existing permit and shall conduct the mineral activities 

in full compliance with this Act, and the terms and conditions of the permit as in 

effect at the time of transfer, assignment, or sale. 

(4) Each application for approval of a permit transfer, assignment, or sale pursuant to this subsection shall be accompanied by a fee payable to the Secretary of the 

Interior, or for National Forest System lands, the Secretary of Agriculture, in such 

amount as may be established by such Secretary, or for National Forest System 

lands, by the Secretary of Agriculture. Such amount shall be equal to the actual or 

anticipated cost to the Secretary or, for National Forest System lands, to the Secretary of Agriculture, of reviewing and approving or disapproving such transfer, assignment, or sale, as determined by such Secretary. All moneys received under this 

subsection shall be deposited in the Locatable Minerals Fund established under title 

IV. 


cnoel on PRODPC60 with HEARING
14 

(i) PUBLIC PARTICIPATION.—The Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture shall jointly promulgate regulations to ensure transparency and public 

participation in permit decisions required under this Act, consistent with any requirements that apply to such decisions under section 102 of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4332). 

SEC. 305. PERSONS INELIGIBLE FOR PERMITS. 

(a) CURRENT VIOLATIONS.—Unless corrective action has been taken in accordance 

with subsection (c), no permit under this title shall be issued or transferred to an 

applicant if the applicant or any agent of the applicant, the operator (if different 

than the applicant) of the claim concerned, any claim holder (if different than the 

applicant) of the claim concerned, or any affiliate or officer or director of the applicant is currently in violation of any of the following: 

(1) A provision of this Act or any regulation under this Act. 

(2) An applicable State or Federal toxic substance, solid waste, air, water 

quality, or fish and wildlife conservation law or regulation at any site where 

mining, beneficiation, or processing activities are occurring or have occurred. 

(3) The Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (30 U.S.C. 1201 

and following) or any regulation implementing that Act at any site where surface coal mining operations have occurred or are occurring. 

(b) SUSPENSION.—The Secretary, or for National Forest System lands the Secretary of Agriculture, shall suspend an operations permit, in whole or in part, if 

such Secretary determines that any of the entities described in subsection (a) were 

in violation of any requirement listed in subsection (a) at the time the permit was 

issued. 

(c) CORRECTION.—(1) The Secretary, or for National Forest System lands the Secretary of Agriculture, may issue or reinstate a permit under this title if the applicant submits proof that the violation referred to in subsection (a) or (b) has been 

corrected or is in the process of being corrected to the satisfaction of such Secretary 

and the regulatory authority involved or if the applicant submits proof that the violator has filed and is presently pursuing, a direct administrative or judicial appeal 

to contest the existence of the violation. For purposes of this section, an appeal of 

any applicant’s relationship to an affiliate shall not constitute a direct administrative or judicial appeal to contest the existence of the violation. 

(2) Any permit which is issued or reinstated based upon proof submitted under 

this subsection shall be conditionally approved or conditionally reinstated, as the 

case may be. If the violation is not successfully abated or the violation is upheld 

on appeal, the permit shall be suspended or revoked. 

(d) PATTERN OF WILLFUL VIOLATIONS.—No permit under this Act may be issued 

to any applicant if there is a demonstrated pattern of willful violations of the environmental protection requirements of this Act by the applicant, any affiliate of the 

applicant, or the operator or claim holder if different than the applicant. 

SEC. 306. FINANCIAL ASSURANCE. 

(a) FINANCIAL ASSURANCE REQUIRED.—(1) After a permit is issued under this title 

and before any exploration or operations begin under the permit, the operator shall 

file with the Secretary, or for National Forest System lands the Secretary of Agriculture, evidence of financial assurance payable to the United States. The financial 

assurance shall be provided in the form of a surety bond, a trust fund, letters of 

credits, government securities, certificates of deposit, cash, or an equivalent form 

approved by such Secretary. 

(2) The financial assurance shall cover all lands within the initial permit area and 

all affected waters that may require restoration, treatment, or other management 

as a result of mineral activities, and shall be extended to cover all lands and waters 

added pursuant to any permit modification made under section 303(f) (relating to 

exploration permits) or section 304(e) (relating to operations permits), or affected by 

mineral activities. 

(b) AMOUNT.—The amount of the financial assurance required under this section 

shall be sufficient to assure the completion of reclamation and restoration satisfying 

the requirements of this Act if the work were to be performed by the Secretary concerned in the event of forfeiture, including the construction and maintenance costs 

for any treatment facilities necessary to meet Federal and State environmental requirements. The calculation of such amount shall take into account the maximum 

level of financial exposure which shall arise during the mineral activity and administrative costs associated with a government agency reclaiming the site. 

(c) DURATION.—The financial assurance required under this section shall be held 

for the duration of the mineral activities and for an additional period to cover the 

operator’s responsibility for reclamation, restoration, and long-term maintenance, 

and effluent treatment as specified in subsection (g). 


cnoel on PRODPC60 with HEARING
15 

(d) ADJUSTMENTS.—The amount of the financial assurance and the terms of the 

acceptance of the assurance may be adjusted by the Secretary concerned from time 

to time as the area requiring coverage is increased or decreased, or where the costs 

of reclamation or treatment change, or pursuant to section 304(f) (relating to temporary cessation of operations), but the financial assurance shall otherwise be in 

compliance with this section. The Secretary concerned shall review the financial 

guarantee every 3 years and as part of the permit application review under section 

304(c). 

(e) RELEASE.—Upon request, and after notice and opportunity for public comment, 

and after inspection by the Secretary, or for National Forest System lands, the Secretary of Agriculture, such Secretary may, after consultation with the Administrator 

of the Environmental Protection Agency, release in whole or in part the financial 

assurance required under this section if the Secretary makes both of the following 

determinations: 

(1) A determination that reclamation or restoration covered by the financial 

assurance has been accomplished as required by this Act. 

(2) A determination that the terms and conditions of any other applicable 

Federal requirements, and State requirements applicable pursuant to cooperative agreements under section 308, have been fulfilled. 

(f) RELEASE SCHEDULE.—The release referred to in subsection (e) shall be according to the following schedule: 

(1) After the operator has completed any required backfilling, regrading, and 

drainage control of an area subject to mineral activities and covered by the financial assurance, and has commenced revegetation on the regraded areas subject to mineral activities in accordance with the approved plan, that portion of 

the total financial assurance secured for the area subject to mineral activities 

attributable to the completed activities may be released except that sufficient 

assurance must be retained to address other required reclamation and restoration needs and to assure the long-term success of the revegetation. 

(2) After the operator has completed successfully all remaining mineral activities and reclamation activities and all requirements of the operations plan and 

the reclamation plan, and all other requirements of this Act have been fully 

met, the remaining portion of the financial assurance may be released. 

During the period following release of the financial assurance as specified in paragraph (1), until the remaining portion of the financial assurance is released as provided in paragraph (2), the operator shall be required to comply with the permit 

issued under this title. 

(g) EFFLUENT.—Notwithstanding section 307(b)(4), where any discharge or other 

water-related condition resulting from the mineral activities requires treatment in 

order to meet the applicable effluent limitations and water quality standards, the 

financial assurance shall include the estimated cost of maintaining such treatment 

for the projected period that will be needed after the cessation of mineral activities. 

The portion of the financial assurance attributable to such estimated cost of treatment shall not be released until the discharge has ceased for a period of 5 years, 

as determined by ongoing monitoring and testing, or, if the discharge continues, 

until the operator has met all applicable effluent limitations and water quality 

standards for 5 full years without treatment. 

(h) ENVIRONMENTAL HAZARDS.—If the Secretary, or for National Forest System 

lands, the Secretary of Agriculture, determines, after final release of financial assurance, that an environmental hazard resulting from the mineral activities exists, or 

the terms and conditions of the explorations or operations permit of this Act were 

not fulfilled in fact at the time of release, such Secretary shall issue an order under 

section 506 requiring the claim holder or operator (or any person who controls the 

claim holder or operator) to correct the condition such that applicable laws and regulations and any conditions from the plan of operations are met. 

SEC. 307. OPERATION AND RECLAMATION. 

(a) GENERAL RULE.—(1) The operator shall restore lands subject to mineral activities carried out under a permit issued under this title to a condition capable of supporting—

(A) the uses which such lands were capable of supporting prior to surface disturbance by the operator, or 

(B) other beneficial uses which conform to applicable land use plans as determined by the Secretary, or for National Forest System lands, the Secretary of 

Agriculture. 

(2) Reclamation shall proceed as contemporaneously as practicable with the conduct of mineral activities. In the case of a cessation of mineral activities beyond that 

provided for as a temporary cessation under this Act, reclamation activities shall 

begin immediately. 


cnoel on PRODPC60 with HEARING
16 

(b) OPERATION AND RECLAMATION STANDARDS.—The Secretary of the Interior and 

the Secretary of Agriculture shall jointly promulgate regulations that establish operation and reclamation standards for mineral activities permitted under this Act. The 

Secretaries may determine whether outcome-based performance standards or technology-based design standards are most appropriate. The regulations shall address 

the following: 

(1) Segregation, protection, and replacement of topsoil or other suitable 

growth medium, and the prevention, where possible, of soil contamination. 

(2) Maintenance of the stability of all surface areas. 

(3) Control of sediments to prevent erosion and manage drainage. 

(4) Minimization of the formation and migration of acidic, alkaline, metalbearing, or other deleterious leachate. 

(5) Reduction of the visual impact of mineral activities to the surrounding topography, including as necessary pit backfill. 

(6) Establishment of a diverse, effective, and permanent vegetative cover of 

the same seasonal variety native to the area affected by mineral activities, and 

equal in extent of cover to the natural vegetation of the area. 

(7) Design and maintenance of leach operations, impoundments, and excess 

waste according to standard engineering standards to achieve and maintain stability and reclamation of the site. 

(8) Removal of structures and roads and sealing of drill holes. 

(9) Restoration of, or mitigation for, fish and wildlife habitat disturbed by 

mineral activities. 

(10) Preservation of cultural, paleontological, and cave resources. 

(11) Prevention and suppression of fire in the area of mineral activities. 

(c) SURFACE OR GROUNDWATER WITHDRAWALS.—The Secretary shall work with 

State and local governments with authority over the allocation and use of surface 

and groundwater in the area around the mine site as necessary to ensure that any 

surface or groundwater withdrawals made as a result of mining activities approved 

under this section do not cause undue degradation. 

(d) SPECIAL RULE.—Reclamation activities for a mining claim that has been forfeited, relinquished, or lapsed, or a plan that has expired or been revoked or suspended, shall continue subject to review and approval by the Secretary, or for National Forest System lands the Secretary of Agriculture. 

SEC. 308. STATE LAW AND REGULATION. 

(a) STATE LAW.—(1) Any reclamation, land use, environmental, or public health 

protection standard or requirement in State law or regulation that meets or exceeds 

the requirements of this Act shall not be construed to be inconsistent with any such 

standard. 

(2) Any bonding standard or requirement in State law or regulation that meets 

or exceeds the requirements of this Act shall not be construed to be inconsistent 

with such requirements. 

(3) Any inspection standard or requirement in State law or regulation that meets 

or exceeds the requirements of this Act shall not be construed to be inconsistent 

with such requirements. 

(b) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER STATE REQUIREMENTS.—(1) Nothing in this Act shall 

be construed as affecting any toxic substance, solid waste, or air or water quality, 

standard or requirement of any State, county, local, or tribal law or regulation, 

which may be applicable to mineral activities on lands subject to this Act. 

(2) Nothing in this Act shall be construed as affecting in any way the right of any 

person to enforce or protect, under applicable law, such person’s interest in water 

resources affected by mineral activities on lands subject to this Act. 

(c) COOPERATIVE AGREEMENTS.—(1) Any State may enter into a cooperative agreement with the Secretary, or for National Forest System lands the Secretary of Agriculture, for the purposes of such Secretary applying such standards and requirements referred to in subsection (a) and subsection (b) to mineral activities or reclamation on lands subject to this Act. 

(2) In such instances where the proposed mineral activities would affect lands not 

subject to this Act in addition to lands subject to this Act, in order to approve a 

plan of operations the Secretary concerned shall enter into a cooperative agreement 

with the State that sets forth a common regulatory framework consistent with the 

requirements of this Act for the purposes of such plan of operations. Any such common regulatory framework shall not negate the authority of the Federal Government to independently inspect mines and operations and bring enforcement actions 

for violations. 

(3) The Secretary concerned shall not enter into a cooperative agreement with any 

State under this section until after notice in the Federal Register and opportunity 

for public comment and hearing. 


cnoel on PRODPC60 with HEARING
17 

(d) PRIOR AGREEMENTS.—Any cooperative agreement or such other understanding 

between the Secretary concerned and any State, or political subdivision thereof, relating to the management of mineral activities on lands subject to this Act that was 

in existence on the date of enactment of this Act may only continue in force until 

1 year after the date of enactment of this Act. During such 1-year period, the State 

and the Secretary shall review the terms of the agreement and make changes that 

are necessary to be consistent with this Act. 

SEC. 309. LIMITATION ON THE ISSUANCE OF PERMITS. 

No permit shall be issued under this title that authorizes mineral activities that 

would impair the land or resources of the National Park System or a National 

Monument. For purposes of this section, the term ‘‘impair’’ shall include any diminution of the affected land including its scenic assets, its water resources, its air quality, and its acoustic qualities, or other changes that would impair a citizen’s experience at the National Park or National Monument. 

TITLE IV—MINING MITIGATION 

Subtitle A—Locatable Minerals Fund 

SEC. 401. ESTABLISHMENT OF FUND. 

(a) ESTABLISHMENT.—There is established on the books of the Treasury of the 

United States a separate account to be known as the Locatable Minerals Fund 

(hereinafter in this subtitle referred to as the ‘‘Fund’’). 

(b) INVESTMENT.—The Secretary shall notify the Secretary of the Treasury as to 

what portion of the Fund is not, in the Secretary’s judgment, required to meet current withdrawals. The Secretary of the Treasury shall invest such portion of the 

Fund in public debt securities with maturities suitable for the needs of such Fund 

and bearing interest at rates determined by the Secretary of the Treasury, taking 

into consideration current market yields on outstanding marketplace obligations of 

the United States of comparable maturities. 

SEC. 402. CONTENTS OF FUND. 

The following amounts shall be credited to the Fund: 

(1) All moneys collected pursuant to section 506 (relating to enforcement) and 

section 504 (relating to citizens suits). 

(2) All permit fees and transfer fees received under section 304. 

(3) All donations by persons, corporations, associations, and foundations for 

the purposes of this subtitle. 

(4) All amounts deposited in the Fund under section 102 (relating to royalties 

and penalties for underreporting). 

(5) All amounts received by the United States pursuant to section 101 from 

issuance of patents. 

(6) All amounts received by the United States pursuant to section 103 as 

claim maintenance and location fees. 

(7) All income on investments under section 401(b). 

SEC. 403. SUBACCOUNTS. 

There shall be in the Fund 2 subaccounts, as follows: 

(1) The Hardrock Reclamation Account, which shall consist of 2⁄3 of the 

amounts credited to the Fund under section 402 and which shall be administered by the Secretary acting through the Director of the Office of Surface Mining and Enforcement. 

(2) The Hardrock Community Impact Assistance Account, which shall consist 

of 1⁄3 of the amounts credited to the Fund under section 402 and which shall 

be administered by the Secretary acting through the Director of the Bureau of 

Land Management. 

Subtitle B—Use of Hardrock Reclamation Account 

SEC. 411. USE AND OBJECTIVES OF THE ACCOUNT. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary is authorized, subject to appropriations, to use 

moneys in the Hardrock Reclamation Account for the reclamation and restoration 

of land and water resources adversely affected by past mineral activities on lands 

the legal and beneficial title to which resides in the United States, land within the 


cnoel on PRODPC60 with HEARING
18 

exterior boundary of any national forest system unit, or other lands described in 

subsection (d) or section 412, including any of the following: 

(1) Protecting public health and safety. 

(2) Preventing, abating, treating, and controlling water pollution created by 

abandoned mine drainage. 

(3) Reclaiming and restoring abandoned surface and underground mined 

areas. 

(4) Reclaiming and restoring abandoned milling and processing areas. 

(5) Backfilling, sealing, or otherwise controlling, abandoned underground 

mine entries. 

(6) Revegetating land adversely affected by past mineral activities in order to 

prevent erosion and sedimentation, to enhance wildlife habitat, and for any 

other reclamation purpose. 

(7) Controlling of surface subsidence due to abandoned underground mines. 

(b) PRIORITIES.—Expenditures of moneys from the Hardrock Reclamation Account 

shall reflect the following priorities in the order stated: 

(1) The protection of public health and safety, from extreme danger from the 

adverse effects of past mineral activities, especially as relates to surface water 

and groundwater contaminants. 

(2) The protection of public health and safety, from the adverse effects of past 

mineral activities. 

(3) The restoration of land, water, and fish and wildlife resources previously 

degraded by the adverse effects of past mineral activities. 

(c) HABITAT.—Reclamation and restoration activities under this subtitle, particularly those identified under subsection (a)(4), shall include appropriate mitigation 

measures to provide for the continuation of any established habitat for wildlife in 

existence prior to the commencement of such activities. 

(d) OTHER AFFECTED LANDS.—Where mineral exploration, mining, beneficiation, 

processing, or reclamation activities have been carried out with respect to any mineral which would be a locatable mineral if the legal and beneficial title to the mineral were in the United States, if such activities directly affect lands managed by 

the Bureau of Land Management as well as other lands and if the legal and beneficial title to more than 50 percent of the affected lands resides in the United States, 

the Secretary is authorized, subject to appropriations, to use moneys in the 

Hardrock Reclamation Account for reclamation and restoration under subsection (a) 

for all directly affected lands. 

(e) RESPONSE OR REMOVAL ACTIONS.—Reclamation and restoration activities 

under this subtitle which constitute a removal or remedial action under section 101 

of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 

1980 (42 U.S.C. 9601), shall be conducted with the concurrence of the Administrator 

of the Environmental Protection Agency. The Secretary and the Administrator shall 

enter into a Memorandum of Understanding to establish procedures for consultation, concurrence, training, exchange of technical expertise and joint activities under 

the appropriate circumstances, that provide assurances that reclamation or restoration activities under this subtitle shall not be conducted in a manner that increases 

the costs or likelihood of removal or remedial actions under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (42 U.S.C. 9601 and 

following), and that avoid oversight by multiple agencies to the maximum extent 

practicable. 

SEC. 412. ELIGIBLE LANDS AND WATERS. 

(a) ELIGIBILITY.—Reclamation expenditures under this subtitle may only be made 

with respect to Federal lands or Indian lands or water resources that traverse or 

are contiguous to Federal lands or Indian lands where such lands or water resources 

have been affected by past mineral activities, including any of the following: 

(1) Lands and water resources which were used for, or affected by, mineral 

activities and abandoned or left in an inadequate reclamation status before the 

effective date of this Act. 

(2) Lands for which the Secretary makes a determination that there is no continuing reclamation responsibility of a claim holder, operator, or other person 

who abandoned the site prior to completion of required reclamation under State 

or other Federal laws. 

(3) Lands for which it can be established that such lands do not contain 

locatable minerals which could economically be extracted through the reprocessing or remining of such lands, unless such considerations are in conflict with 

the priorities set forth under paragraphs (1) and (2) of section 302(b). 

(b) SPECIFIC SITES AND AREAS NOT ELIGIBLE.—The provisions of section 411(d) of 

the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (30 U.S.C. 1240a(d)) shall 

apply to expenditures made from the Hardrock Reclamation Account. 


cnoel on PRODPC60 with HEARING
19 

(c) INVENTORY.—The Secretary shall prepare and maintain a publicly available inventory of abandoned locatable minerals mines on public lands and any abandoned 

mine on Indian lands that may be eligible for expenditures under this subtitle, and 

shall deliver a yearly report to the Congress on the progress in cleanup of such 

sites. 

SEC. 413. EXPENDITURES. 

Moneys available from the Hardrock Reclamation Account may be expended for 

the purposes specified in section 411 directly by the Director of the Office of Surface 

Mining Reclamation and Enforcement. The Director may also make such money 

available for such purposes to the Director of the Bureau of Land Management, the 

Chief of the United States Forest Service, the Director of the National Park Service, 

or Director of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, to any other agency of 

the United States, to an Indian tribe, or to any public entity that volunteers to develop and implement, and that has the ability to carry out, all or a significant portion of a reclamation program under this subtitle. 

SEC. 414. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS. 

Amounts credited to the Hardrock Reclamation Account are authorized to be appropriated for the purpose of this subtitle without fiscal year limitation. 

Subtitle C—Use of Hardrock Community Impact 

Assistance Account 

SEC. 421. USE AND OBJECTIVES OF THE ACCOUNT. 

Amounts in the Hardrock Community Impact Assistance Account shall be available to the Secretary, subject to appropriations, to provide assistance for the planning, construction, and maintenance of public facilities and the provision of public 

services to States, political subdivisions and Indian tribes that are socially or economically impacted by mineral activities conducted under the general mining laws. 

SEC. 422. ALLOCATION OF FUNDS. 

Moneys deposited into the Hardrock Community Impact Assistance Account shall 

be allocated by the Secretary for purposes of section 421 among the States within 

the boundaries of which occurs production of locatable minerals from mining claims 

located under the general mining laws and maintained in compliance with this Act, 

or mineral concentrates or products derived from locatable minerals from mining 

claims located under the general mining laws and maintained in compliance with 

this Act, as the case may be, in proportion to the amount of such production in each 

such State. 

TITLE V—ADMINISTRATIVE AND 

MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS 

Subtitle A—Administrative Provisions 

SEC. 501. POLICY FUNCTIONS. 

(a) MINERALS POLICY.—Section 101 of the Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970 

(30 U.S.C. 21a) is amended—

(1) in the first sentence by inserting before the period at the end the following: ‘‘and to ensure that mineral extraction and processing not cause undue 

degradation of the natural and cultural resources of the public lands’’; and 

(2) by adding at the end thereof the following: ‘‘It shall also be the responsibility of the Secretary of Agriculture to carry out the policy provisions of paragraphs (1) and (2) of this section.’’. 

(b) MINERAL DATA.—Section 5(e)(3) of the National Materials and Minerals Policy, 

Research and Development Act of 1980 (30 U.S.C. 1604(e)(3)) is amended by inserting before the period the following: ‘‘, except that for National Forest System lands 

the Secretary of Agriculture shall promptly initiate actions to improve the availability and analysis of mineral data in public land use decisionmaking’’. 

SEC. 502. USER FEES. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary and the Secretary of Agriculture may each establish and collect from persons subject to the requirements of this Act such user fees 

as may be necessary to reimburse the United States for the expenses incurred in 

administering such requirements. Fees may be assessed and collected under this 


cnoel on PRODPC60 with HEARING
20 

section only in such manner as may reasonably be expected to result in an aggregate amount of the fees collected during any fiscal year which does not exceed the 

aggregate amount of administrative expenses referred to in this section. 

(b) ADJUSTMENT.—(1) The Secretary shall adjust the fees required by this section 

to reflect changes in the Consumer Price Index published by the Bureau of Labor 

Statistics of the Department of Labor every 5 years after the date of enactment of 

this Act, or more frequently if the Secretary determines an adjustment to be reasonable. 

(2) The Secretary shall provide claimants notice of any adjustment made under 

this subsection not later than July 1 of any year in which the adjustment is made. 

(3) A fee adjustment under this subsection shall begin to apply the calendar year 

following the calendar year in which it is made. 

SEC. 503. INSPECTION AND MONITORING. 

(a) INSPECTIONS.—(1) The Secretary, or for National Forest System lands the Secretary of Agriculture, shall make inspections of mineral activities so as to ensure 

compliance with the requirements of this Act. 

(2) The Secretary concerned shall establish a frequency of inspections for mineral 

activities conducted under a permit issued under title III, but in no event shall such 

inspection frequency be less than one complete inspection per calendar quarter or, 

two per calendar quarter in the case of a permit for which the Secretary concerned 

approves an application under section 304(f) (relating to temporary cessation of operations). After revegetation has been established in accordance with a reclamation 

plan, such Secretary shall conduct annually 2 complete inspections. Such Secretary 

shall have the discretion to modify the inspection frequency for mineral activities 

that are conducted on a seasonal basis. Inspections shall continue under this subsection until final release of financial assurance. 

(3)(A) Any person who has reason to believe he or she is or may be adversely affected by mineral activities due to any violation of the requirements of a permit approved under this Act may request an inspection. The Secretary, or for National 

Forest System lands the Secretary of Agriculture, shall determine within 10 working days of receipt of the request whether the request states a reason to believe that 

a violation exists. If the person alleges and provides reason to believe that an imminent threat to the environment or danger to the health or safety of the public exists, 

the 10-day period shall be waived and the inspection shall be conducted immediately. When an inspection is conducted under this paragraph, the Secretary concerned shall notify the person requesting the inspection, and such person shall be 

allowed to accompany the Secretary concerned or the Secretary’s authorized representative during the inspection. The Secretary shall not incur any liability for allowing such person to accompany an authorized representative. The identity of the 

person supplying information to the Secretary relating to a possible violation or imminent danger or harm shall remain confidential with the Secretary if so requested 

by that person, unless that person elects to accompany an authorized representative 

on the inspection. 

(B) The Secretaries shall, by joint rule, establish procedures for the review of (i) 

any decision by an authorized representative not to inspect; or (ii) any refusal by 

such representative to ensure that remedial actions are taken with respect to any 

alleged violation. The Secretary concerned shall furnish such persons requesting the 

review a written statement of the reasons for the Secretary’s final disposition of the 

case. 

(b) MONITORING.—(1) The Secretary, or for National Forest System lands the Secretary of Agriculture, shall require all operators to develop and maintain a monitoring and evaluation system that shall identify compliance with all requirements 

of a permit approved under this Act. The Secretary concerned may require additional monitoring to be conducted as necessary to assure compliance with the reclamation and other environmental standards of this Act. Such plan must be reviewed and approved by the Secretary and shall become a part of the explorations 

or operations permit. 

(2) The operator shall file reports with the Secretary, or for National Forest System lands the Secretary of Agriculture, on a frequency determined by the Secretary 

concerned, on the results of the monitoring and evaluation process, except that if 

the monitoring and evaluation show a violation of the requirements of a permit approved under this Act, it shall be reported immediately to the Secretary concerned. 

The Secretary shall evaluate the reports submitted pursuant to this paragraph, and 

based on those reports and any necessary inspection shall take enforcement action 

pursuant to this section. Such reports shall be maintained by the operator and by 

the Secretary and shall be made available to the public. 

(3) The Secretary, or for National Forest System lands the Secretary of Agriculture, shall determine what information shall be reported by the operator pursuVerDate Aug 31 2005 05:25 Oct 30, 2007 Jkt 069010 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6621 E:\HR\OC\HR412.XXX HR412

cnoel on PRODPC60 with HEARING
21 

ant to paragraph (3). A failure to report as required by the Secretary concerned 

shall constitute a violation of this Act and subject the operator to enforcement action 

pursuant to section 506. 

SEC. 504. CITIZENS SUITS. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided in subsection (b), any person may commence 

a civil action on his or her own behalf to compel compliance—

(1) against any person (including the Secretary or the Secretary of Agriculture) who is allged to be in violation of any of the provisions of this Act or 

any regulation promulgated pursuant to this Act or any term or condition of any 

permit issued under this Act; or 

(2) against the Secretary or the Secretary of Agriculture where there is alleged a failure of such Secretary to perform any act or duty under this Act, or 

to promulgate any regulation under this Act, which is not within the discretion 

of the Secretary concerned. 

The United States district courts shall have jurisdiction over actions brought under 

this section, without regard to the amount in controversy or the citizenship of the 

parties, including actions brought to apply any civil penalty under this Act. The district courts of the United States shall have jurisdiction to compel agency action unreasonably delayed, except that an action to compel agency action reviewable under 

section 505 may only be filed in a United States district court within the circuit in 

which such action would be reviewable under section 505. 

(b) EXCEPTIONS.—(1) No action may be commenced under subsection (a) before the 

end of the 60-day period beginning on the date the plaintiff has given notice in writing of such alleged violation to the the alleged violator and the Secretary, or for National Forest System lands the Secretary of Agriculture, except that any such action 

may be brought immediately after such notification if the violation complained of 

constitutes an imminent threat to the environment or to the health or safety of the 

public. 

(2) No action may be brought against any person other than the Secretary or the 

Secretary of Agriculture under subsection (a)(1) if such Secretary has commenced 

and is diligently prosecuting a civil or criminal action in a court of the United States 

to require compliance. 

(3) No action may be commenced under paragraph (2) of subsection (a) against 

either Secretary to review any rule promulgated by, or to any permit issued or denied by such Secretary if such rule or permit issuance or denial is judicially reviewable under section 505 or under any other provision of law at any time after such 

promulgation, issuance, or denial is final. 

(c) VENUE.—Venue of all actions brought under this section shall be determined 

in accordance with section 1391 of title 28, United States Code. 

(d) COSTS.—The court, in issuing any final order in any action brought pursuant 

to this section may award costs of litigation (including attorney and expert witness 

fees) to any party whenever the court determines such award is appropriate. The 

court may, if a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction is sought, require the filing of a bond or equivalent security in accordance with the Federal 

Rules of Civil Procedure. 

(e) SAVINGS CLAUSE.—Nothing in this section shall restrict any right which any 

person (or class of persons) may have under chapter 7 of title 5, United States Code, 

under this section, or under any other statute or common law to bring an action 

to seek any relief against the Secretary or the Secretary of Agriculture or against 

any other person, including any action for any violation of this Act or of any regulation or permit issued under this Act or for any failure to act as required by law. 

Nothing in this section shall affect the jurisdiction of any court under any provision 

of title 28, United States Code, including any action for any violation of this Act 

or of any regulation or permit issued under this Act or for any failure to act as required by law. 

SEC. 505. ADMINISTRATIVE AND JUDICIAL REVIEW. 

(a) REVIEW BY SECRETARY.—(1)(A) Any person issued a notice of violation or cessation order under section 506, or any person having an interest which is or may 

be adversely affected by such notice or order, may apply to the Secretary, or for National Forest System lands the Secretary of Agriculture, for review of the notice or 

order within 30 days after receipt thereof, or as the case may be, within 30 days 

after such notice or order is modified, vacated, or terminated. 

(B) Any person who is subject to a penalty assessed under section 506 may apply 

to the Secretary concerned for review of the assessment within 45 days of notification of such penalty. 

(C) Any person may apply to such Secretary for review of the decision within 30 

days after it is made. 


cnoel on PRODPC60 with HEARING
22 

(D) Pending a review by the Secretary or resolution of an administrative appeal, 

final decisions (except enforcement actions under section 506) shall be stayed. 

(2) The Secretary concerned shall provide an opportunity for a public hearing at 

the request of any party to the proceeding as specified in paragraph (1). The filing 

of an application for review under this subsection shall not operate as a stay of any 

order or notice issued under section 506. 

(3) For any review proceeding under this subsection, the Secretary concerned shall 

make findings of fact and shall issue a written decision incorporating therein an 

order vacating, affirming, modifying, or terminating the notice, order, or decision, 

or with respect to an assessment, the amount of penalty that is warranted. Where 

the application for review concerns a cessation order issued under section 506 the 

Secretary concerned shall issue the written decision within 30 days of the receipt 

of the application for review or within 30 days after the conclusion of any hearing 

referred to in paragraph (2), whichever is later, unless temporary relief has been 

granted by the Secretary concerned under paragraph (4). 

(4) Pending completion of any review proceedings under this subsection, the applicant may file with the Secretary, or for National Forest System lands the Secretary 

of Agriculture, a written request that the Secretary grant temporary relief from any 

order issued under section 506 together with a detailed statement giving reasons 

for such relief. The Secretary concerned shall expeditiously issue an order or decision granting or denying such relief. The Secretary concerned may grant such relief 

under such conditions as he or she may prescribe only if such relief shall not adversely affect the health or safety of the public or cause imminent environmental 

harm to land, air, or water resources. 

(5) The availability of review under this subsection shall not be construed to limit 

the operation of rights under section 504 (relating to citizen suits). 

(b) JUDICIAL REVIEW.—(1) Any final action by the Secretaries of the Interior and 

Agriculture in promulgating regulations to implement this Act, or any other final 

actions constituting rulemaking to implement this Act, shall be subject to judicial 

review only in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. Any 

action subject to judicial review under this subsection shall be affirmed unless the 

court concludes that such action is arbitrary, capricious, or otherwise inconsistent 

with law. A petition for review of any action subject to judicial review under this 

subsection shall be filed within 60 days from the date of such action, or after such 

date if the petition is based solely on grounds arising after the 60th day. Any such 

petition may be made by any person who commented or otherwise participated in 

the rulemaking or any person who may be adversely affected by the action of the 

Secretaries. 

(2) Final agency action under this subsection, including such final action on those 

matters described under subsection (a), shall be subject to judicial review in accordance with paragraph (4) and pursuant to section 1391 of title 28, United States 

Code, on or before 60 days from the date of such final action. Any action subject 

to judicial review under this subsection shall be affirmed unless the court concludes 

that such action is arbitrary, capricious, or otherwise inconsistent with law. 

(3) The availability of judicial review established in this subsection shall not be 

construed to limit the operations of rights under section 504 (relating to citizens 

suits). 

(4) The court shall hear any petition or complaint filed under this subsection solely on the record made before the Secretary or Secretaries concerned. The court may 

affirm or vacate any order or decision or may remand the proceedings to the Secretary or Secretaries for such further action as it may direct. 

(5) The commencement of a proceeding under this section shall not, unless specifically ordered by the court, operate as a stay of the action, order, or decision of the 

Secretary or Secretaries concerned. 

(c) COSTS.—Whenever a proceeding occurs under subsection (a) or (b), at the request of any person, a sum equal to the aggregate amount of all costs and expenses 

(including attorney fees) as determined by the Secretary or Secretaries concerned 

or the court to have been reasonably incurred by such person for or in connection 

with participation in such proceedings, including any judicial review of the proceeding, may be assessed against either party as the court, in the case of judicial 

review, or the Secretary or Secretaries concerned in the case of administrative proceedings, deems proper if it is determined that such party prevailed in whole or in 

part, achieving some success on the merits, and that such party made a substantial 

contribution to a full and fair determination of the issues. 

SEC. 506. ENFORCEMENT. 

(a) ORDERS.—(1) If the Secretary, or for National Forest System lands the Secretary of Agriculture, or an authorized representative of such Secretary, determines 

that any person is in violation of any environmental protection requirement under 


cnoel on PRODPC60 with HEARING
23 

title III or any regulation issued by the Secretaries to implement this Act, such Secretary or authorized representative shall issue to such person a notice of violation 

describing the violation and the corrective measures to be taken. The Secretary concerned, or the authorized representative of such Secretary, shall provide such person 

with a period of time not to exceed 30 days to abate the violation. Such period of 

time may be extended by the Secretary concerned upon a showing of good cause by 

such person. If, upon the expiration of time provided for such abatement, the Secretary concerned, or the authorized representative of such Secretary, finds that the 

violation has not been abated he or she shall immediately order a cessation of all 

mineral activities or the portion thereof relevant to the violation. 

(2) If the Secretary concerned, or the authorized representative of the Secretary 

concerned, determines that any condition or practice exists, or that any person is 

in violation of any requirement under a permit approved under this Act, and such 

condition, practice or violation is causing, or can reasonably be expected to cause—

(A) an imminent danger to the health or safety of the public; or 

(B) significant, imminent environmental harm to land, air, water, or fish or 

wildlife resources; 

such Secretary or authorized representative shall immediately order a cessation of 

mineral activities or the portion thereof relevant to the condition, practice, or violation. 

(3)(A) A cessation order pursuant to paragraphs (1) or (2) shall remain in effect 

until such Secretary, or authorized representative, determines that the condition, 

practice, or violation has been abated, or until modified, vacated or terminated by 

the Secretary or authorized representative. In any such order, the Secretary or authorized representative shall determine the steps necessary to abate the violation 

in the most expeditious manner possible and shall include the necessary measures 

in the order. The Secretary concerned shall require appropriate financial assurances 

to ensure that the abatement obligations are met. 

(B) Any notice or order issued pursuant to paragraphs (1) or (2) may be modified, 

vacated, or terminated by the Secretary concerned or an authorized representative 

of such Secretary. Any person to whom any such notice or order is issued shall be 

entitled to a hearing on the record. 

(4) If, after 30 days of the date of the order referred to in paragraph (3)(A) the 

required abatement has not occurred, the Secretary concerned shall take such alternative enforcement action against the claim holder or operator (or any person who 

controls the claim holder or operator) as will most likely bring about abatement in 

the most expeditious manner possible. Such alternative enforcement action may include, but is not necessarily limited to, seeking appropriate injunctive relief to bring 

about abatement. Nothing in this paragraph shall preclude the Secretary, or for National Forest System lands the Secretary of Agriculture, from taking alternative enforcement action prior to the expiration of 30 days. 

(5) If a claim holder or operator (or any person who controls the claim holder or 

operator) fails to abate a violation or defaults on the terms of the permit, the Secretary, or for National Forest System lands the Secretary of Agriculture, shall forfeit 

the financial assurance for the plan as necessary to ensure abatement and reclamation under this Act. The Secretary concerned may prescribe conditions under which 

a surety may perform reclamation in accordance with the approved plan in lieu of 

forfeiture. 

(6) The Secretary, or for National Forest System lands the Secretary of Agriculture, shall not cause forfeiture of the financial assurance while administrative or 

judicial review is pending. 

(7) In the event of forfeiture, the claim holder, operator, or any affiliate thereof, 

as appropriate as determined by the Secretary by rule, shall be jointly and severally 

liable for any remaining reclamation obligations under this Act. 

(b) COMPLIANCE.—The Secretary, or for National Forest System lands the Secretary of Agriculture, may request the Attorney General to institute a civil action 

for relief, including a permanent or temporary injunction or restraining order, or 

any other appropriate enforcement order, including the imposition of civil penalties, 

in the district court of the United States for the district in which the mineral activities are located whenever a person—

(1) violates, fails, or refuses to comply with any order issued by the Secretary 

concerned under subsection (a); or 

(2) interferes with, hinders, or delays the Secretary concerned in carrying out 

an inspection under section 503. 

Such court shall have jurisdiction to provide such relief as may be appropriate. Any 

relief granted by the court to enforce an order under paragraph (1) shall continue 

in effect until the completion or final termination of all proceedings for review of 

such order unless the district court granting such relief sets it aside. 


cnoel on PRODPC60 with HEARING
24 

(c) DELEGATION.—Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Secretary may 

utilize personnel of the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement to 

ensure compliance with the requirements of this Act. 

(d) PENALTIES.—(1) Any person who fails to comply with any requirement of a permit approved under this Act or any regulation issued by the Secretaries to implement this Act shall be liable for a penalty of not more than $25,000 per violation. 

Each day of violation may be deemed a separate violation for purposes of penalty 

assessments. 

(2) A person who fails to correct a violation for which a cessation order has been 

issued under subsection (a) within the period permitted for its correction shall be 

assessed a civil penalty of not less than $1,000 per violation for each day during 

which such failure continues. 

(3) Whenever a corporation is in violation of a requirement of a permit approved 

under this Act or any regulation issued by the Secretaries to implement this Act 

or fails or refuses to comply with an order issued under subsection (a), any director, 

officer, or agent of such corporation who knowingly authorized, ordered, or carried 

out such violation, failure, or refusal shall be subject to the same penalties as may 

be imposed upon the person referred to in paragraph (1). 

(e) SUSPENSIONS OR REVOCATIONS.—The Secretary, or for National Forest System 

lands the Secretary of Agriculture, shall suspend or revoke a permit issued under 

title III, in whole or in part, if the operator—

(1) knowingly made or knowingly makes any false, inaccurate, or misleading 

material statement in any mining claim, notice of location, application, record, 

report, plan, or other document filed or required to be maintained under this 

Act; 

(2) fails to abate a violation covered by a cessation order issued under subsection (a); 

(3) fails to comply with an order of the Secretary concerned; 

(4) refuses to permit an audit pursuant to this Act; 

(5) fails to maintain an adequate financial assurance under section 306; 

(6) fails to pay claim maintenance fees or other moneys due and owing under 

this Act; or 

(7) with regard to plans conditionally approved under section 305(c)(2), fails 

to abate a violation to the satisfaction of the Secretary concerned, or if the validity of the violation is upheld on the appeal which formed the basis for the 

conditional approval. 

(f) FALSE STATEMENTS; TAMPERING.—Any person who knowingly—

(1) makes any false material statement, representation, or certification in, or 

omits or conceals material information from, or unlawfully alters, any mining 

claim, notice of location, application, record, report, plan, or other documents 

filed or required to be maintained under this Act; or 

(2) falsifies, tampers with, renders inaccurate, or fails to install any monitoring device or method required to be maintained under this Act, 

shall upon conviction, be punished by a fine of not more than $10,000, or by imprisonment for not more than 2 years, or by both. If a conviction of a person is for a 

violation committed after a first conviction of such person under this subsection, 

punishment shall be by a fine of not more than $20,000 per day of violation, or by 

imprisonment of not more than 4 years, or both. Each day of continuing violation 

may be deemed a separate violation for purposes of penalty assessments. 

(g) KNOWING VIOLATIONS.—Any person who knowingly—

(1) engages in mineral activities without a permit required under title III, or 

(2) violates any other requirement of a permit issued under this Act, or any 

condition or limitation thereof, 

shall upon conviction be punished by a fine of not less than $5,000 nor more than 

$50,000 per day of violation, or by imprisonment for not more than 3 years, or both. 

If a conviction of a person is for a violation committed after the first conviction of 

such person under this subsection, punishment shall be a fine of not less than 

$10,000 per day of violation, or by imprisonment of not more than 6 years, or both. 

(h) KNOWING AND WILLFUL VIOLATIONS.—Any person who knowingly and willfully 

commits an act for which a civil penalty is provided in paragraph (1) of subsection 

(g) shall, upon conviction, be punished by a fine of not more than $50,000, or by 

imprisonment for not more than 2 years, or both. 

(i) DEFINITION.—For purposes of this section, the term ‘‘person’’ includes any officer, agent, or employee of a person. 

SEC. 507. REGULATIONS. 

The Secretary and the Secretary of Agriculture shall issue such regulations as are 

necessary to implement this Act. The regulations implementing title II, title III, title 

IV, and title V that affect the Forest Service shall be joint regulations issued by 


cnoel on PRODPC60 with HEARING
25 

both Secretaries, and shall be issued no later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act. 

SEC. 508. EFFECTIVE DATE. 

This Act shall take effect on the date of enactment of this Act, except as otherwise 

provided in this Act. 

Subtitle B—Miscellaneous Provisions 

SEC. 511. OIL SHALE CLAIMS SUBJECT TO SPECIAL RULES. 

(a) APPLICATION OF SECTION 511.—Section 511 shall apply to oil shale claims referred to in section 2511(e)(2) of the Energy Policy Act of 1992 (Public Law 102– 486). 

(b) AMENDMENT.—Section 2511(f) of the Energy Policy Act of 1992 (Public Law 

102–486) is amended as follows: 

(1) By striking ‘‘as prescribed by the Secretary’’. (2) By inserting before the period the following: ‘‘in the same manner as if 

such claim was subject to title II and title III of the Hardrock Mining and Reclamation Act of 2007’’. 

SEC. 512. PURCHASING POWER ADJUSTMENT. 

The Secretary shall adjust all location fees, claim maintenance rates, penalty 

amounts, and other dollar amounts established in this Act for changes in the purchasing power of the dollar no less frequently than every 5 years following the date 

of enactment of this Act, employing the Consumer Price Index for All-Urban Consumers published by the Department of Labor as the basis for adjustment, and 

rounding according to the adjustment process of conditions of the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act of 1990 (104 Stat. 890). 

SEC. 513. SAVINGS CLAUSE. 

(a) SPECIAL APPLICATION OF MINING LAWS.—Nothing in this Act shall be construed as repealing or modifying any Federal law, regulation, order, or land use 

plan, in effect prior to the date of enactment of this Act that prohibits or restricts 

the application of the general mining laws, including laws that provide for special 

management criteria for operations under the general mining laws as in effect prior 

to the date of enactment of this Act, to the extent such laws provide for protection 

of natural and cultural resources and the environment greater than required under 

this Act, and any such prior law shall remain in force and effect with respect to 

claims located (or proposed to be located) or converted under this Act. Nothing in 

this Act shall be construed as applying to or limiting mineral investigations, studies, 

or other mineral activities conducted by any Federal or State agency acting in its 

governmental capacity pursuant to other authority. Nothing in this Act shall affect 

or limit any assessment, investigation, evaluation, or listing pursuant to the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (42 

U.S.C. 9601 and following), or the Solid Waste Disposal Act (42 U.S.C. 3251 and 

following). 

(b) EFFECT ON OTHER FEDERAL LAWS.—The provisions of this Act shall supersede 

the general mining laws, except for those parts of the general mining laws respecting location of mining claims that are not expressly modified by this Act. Except 

for the general mining laws, nothing in this Act shall be construed as superseding, 

modifying, amending, or repealing any provision of Federal law not expressly superseded, modified, amended, or repealed by this Act. Nothing in this Act shall be construed as altering, affecting, amending, modifying, or changing, directly or indirectly, any law which refers to and provides authorities or responsibilities for, or is 

administered by, the Environmental Protection Agency or the Administrator of the 

Environmental Protection Agency, including the Federal Water Pollution Control 

Act, title XIV of the Public Health Service Act (the Safe Drinking Water Act), the 

Clean Air Act, the Pollution Prevention Act of 1990, the Toxic Substances Control 

Act, the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, the Federal Food, 

Drug, and Cosmetic Act, the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act, the 

Federal Hazardous Substances Act, the Endangered Species Act of 1973, the Atomic 

Energy Act, the Noise Control Act of 1972, the Solid Waste Disposal Act, the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980, the 

Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986, the Ocean Dumping Act, 

the Environmental Research, Development, and Demonstration Authorization Act, 

the Pollution Prosecution Act of 1990, and the Federal Facilities Compliance Act of 

1992, or any statute containing an amendment to any of such Acts. Nothing in this 

Act shall be construed as modifying or affecting any provision of the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (Public Law 101–601) or any provision 


cnoel on PRODPC60 with HEARING
26 

of the American Indian Religious Freedom Act (42 U.S.C. 1996), the National Historic Preservation Act (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (42 U.S.C. 2000bb et seq.). 

(c) PROTECTION OF CONSERVATION AREAS.—In order to protect the resources and 

values of National Conservation System units, the Secretary, as appropriate, shall 

utilize authority under this Act and other applicable law to the fullest extent necessary to prevent mineral activities that could have an adverse impact on the resources or values for which such units were established. 

SEC. 514. AVAILABILITY OF PUBLIC RECORDS. 

Copies of records, reports, inspection materials, or information obtained by the 

Secretary or the Secretary of Agriculture under this Act shall be made immediately 

available to the public, consistent with section 552 of title 5, United States Code, 

in central and sufficient locations in the county, multicounty, and State area of mineral activity or reclamation so that such items are conveniently available to residents in the area proposed or approved for mineral activities and on the Internet. 

SEC. 515. MISCELLANEOUS POWERS. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—In carrying out his or her duties under this Act, the Secretary, 

or for National Forest System lands the Secretary of Agriculture, may conduct any 

investigation, inspection, or other inquiry necessary and appropriate and may conduct, after notice, any hearing or audit, necessary and appropriate to carrying out 

his or her duties. 

(b) ANCILLARY POWERS.—In connection with any hearing, inquiry, investigation, 

or audit under this Act, the Secretary, or for National Forest System lands the Secretary of Agriculture, is authorized to take any of the following actions: 

(1) Require, by special or general order, any person to submit in writing such 

affidavits and answers to questions as the Secretary concerned may reasonably 

prescribe, which submission shall be made within such reasonable period and 

under oath or otherwise, as may be necessary. 

(2) Administer oaths. 

(3) Require by subpoena the attendance and testimony of witnesses and the 

production of all books, papers, records, documents, matter, and materials, as 

such Secretary may request. 

(4) Order testimony to be taken by deposition before any person who is designated by such Secretary and who has the power to administer oaths, and to 

compel testimony and the production of evidence in the same manner as authorized under paragraph (3) of this subsection. 

(5) Pay witnesses the same fees and mileage as are paid in like circumstances 

in the courts of the United States. 

(c) ENFORCEMENT.—In cases of refusal to obey a subpoena served upon any person 

under this section, the district court of the United States for any district in which 

such person is found, resides, or transacts business, upon application by the Attorney General at the request of the Secretary concerned and after notice to such person, shall have jurisdiction to issue an order requiring such person to appear and 

produce documents before the Secretary concerned. Any failure to obey such order 

of the court may be punished by such court as contempt thereof and subject to a 

penalty of up to $10,000 a day. 

(d) ENTRY AND ACCESS.—Without advance notice and upon presentation of appropriate credentials, the Secretary, or for National Forest System lands the Secretary 

of Agriculture, or any authorized representative thereof—

(1) shall have the right of entry to, upon, or through the site of any claim, 

mineral activities, or any premises in which any records required to be maintained under this Act are located; 

(2) may at reasonable times, and without delay, have access to records, inspect any monitoring equipment, or review any method of operation required 

under this Act; 

(3) may engage in any work and do all things necessary or expedient to implement and administer the provisions of this Act; 

(4) may, on any mining claim located under the general mining laws and 

maintained in compliance with this Act, and without advance notice, stop and 

inspect any motorized form of transportation that such Secretary has probable 

cause to believe is carrying locatable minerals, concentrates, or products derived 

therefrom from a claim site for the purpose of determining whether the operator 

of such vehicle has documentation related to such locatable minerals, concentrates, or products derived therefrom as required by law, if such documentation is required under this Act; and 

(5) may, if accompanied by any appropriate law enforcement officer, or an appropriate law enforcement officer alone, stop and inspect any motorized form of 

transportation which is not on a claim site if he or she has probable cause to 


cnoel on PRODPC60 with HEARING
27 

believe such vehicle is carrying locatable minerals, concentrates, or products derived therefrom from a claim site on Federal lands or allocated to such claim 

site. Such inspection shall be for the purpose of determining whether the operator of such vehicle has the documentation required by law, if such documentation is required under this Act. 

SEC. 516. MULTIPLE MINERAL DEVELOPMENT AND SURFACE RESOURCES. 

The provisions of sections 4 and 6 of the Act of August 13, 1954 (30 U.S.C. 524 

and 526), commonly known as the Multiple Minerals Development Act, and the provisions of section 4 of the Act of July 23, 1955 (30 U.S.C. 612), shall apply to all 

mining claims located under the general mining laws and maintained in compliance 

with such laws and this Act. 

SEC. 517. MINERAL MATERIALS. 

(a) DETERMINATIONS.—Section 3 of the Act of July 23, 1955 (30 U.S.C. 611), is 

amended as follows: 

(1) By inserting ‘‘(a)’’ before the first sentence. 

(2) By inserting ‘‘mineral materials, including but not limited to’’ after ‘‘varieties of’’ in the first sentence. 

(3) By striking ‘‘or cinders’’ and inserting in lieu thereof ‘‘cinders, and clay’’. (4) By adding the following new subsection at the end thereof: ‘‘(b)(1) Subject to valid existing rights, after the date of enactment of the Hardrock 

Mining and Reclamation Act of 2007, notwithstanding the reference to common varieties in subsection (a) and to the exception to such term relating to a deposit of materials with some property giving it distinct and special value, all deposits of mineral materials referred to in such subsection, including the block pumice referred 

to in such subsection, shall be subject to disposal only under the terms and conditions of the Materials Act of 1947. ‘‘(2) For purposes of paragraph (1), the term ‘valid existing rights’ means that a 

mining claim located for any such mineral material— ‘‘(A) had and still has some property giving it the distinct and special value 

referred to in subsection (a), or as the case may be, met the definition of block 

pumice referred to in such subsection; ‘‘(B) was properly located and maintained under the general mining laws 

prior to the date of enactment of the Hardrock Mining and Reclamation Act of 

2007; ‘‘(C) was supported by a discovery of a valuable mineral deposit within the 

meaning of the general mining laws as in effect immediately prior to the date 

of enactment of the Hardrock Mining and Reclamation Act of 2007; and ‘‘(D) that such claim continues to be valid under this Act.’’. (b) MINERAL MATERIALS DISPOSAL CLARIFICATION.—Section 4 of the Act of July 

23, 1955 (30 U.S.C. 612), is amended as follows: 

(1) In subsection (b) by inserting ‘‘and mineral material’’ after ‘‘vegetative’’. 

(2) In subsection (c) by inserting ‘‘and mineral material’’ after ‘‘vegetative’’. 

(c) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—Section 1 of the Act of July 31, 1947, entitled ‘‘An 

Act to provide for the disposal of materials on the public lands of the United States’’

(30 U.S.C. 601 and following) is amended by striking ‘‘common varieties of’’ in the 

first sentence. 

(d) SHORT TITLES.—

(1) SURFACE RESOURCES.—The Act of July 23, 1955, is amended by inserting 

after section 7 the following new section: 

‘‘SEC. 8. This Act may be cited as the ‘Surface Resources Act of 1955’.’’. 

(2) MINERAL MATERIALS.—The Act of July 31, 1947, entitled ‘‘An Act to provide for the disposal of materials on the public lands of the United States’’ (30 

U.S.C. 601 and following) is amended by inserting after section 4 the following 

new section: 

‘‘SEC. 5. This Act may be cited as the ‘Materials Act of 1947’.’’. 

(e) REPEALS.—(1) Subject to valid existing rights, the Act of August 4, 1892 (27 

Stat. 348, 30 U.S.C. 161), commonly known as the Building Stone Act, is hereby repealed. 

(2) Subject to valid existing rights, the Act of January 31, 1901 (30 U.S.C. 162), 

commonly known as the Saline Placer Act, is hereby repealed. 

PURPOSE OF THE BILL

The purpose of H.R. 2262, the Hardrock Mining and Reclamation 

Act of 2007, is to modify the requirements applicable to locatable 

minerals on public domain lands, consistent with the principles of 

self-initiation of mining claims, and for other purposes. 


cnoel on PRODPC60 with HEARING
28 

1 EPA 2004. ‘‘Cleaning Up the Nation’s Waste Sites: Markets and Technology Trends,’’ p. 11– 7. 2 Bureau of Land Management (BLM). 2007. Environmental Working Group analysis of Bureau of Land Management’s LR2000 Database, July 2007 download. 3D. Lyons, BLM, Personal Communication (email); October 4, 2007. 

4DOI/USGS 2007. Mineral Commodity Summaries 2007, p.7 

BACKGROUND

For 135 years, the mining of hardrock minerals on public lands 

in the United States has been carried out under the Mining Law 

of 1872. 

The Mining Law was written to promote mineral development in 

the age of the pick and shovel prospector. The Law permits citizens 

and businesses to freely prospect for hardrock minerals on those 

federal lands not withdrawn from mining. A prospector can file a 

claim (covering 20 acres) which gives him the right to explore, develop, mine, and sell minerals from the claim without paying the 

federal government royalties. A claim holder can obtain a patent 

(title) for the land and mineral rights after proving that an economically mineable ‘‘discovery’’ exists. The holder can also claim 

and patent non-mineral, non-contiguous lands to mill and process 

ore. Under the 1872 Mining Law, a claim can be acquired for $2.50 

or $5.00 an acre depending on whether it is a lode or placer claim. 

After the patent has been granted, the claim becomes private property. Patenting is not required for operations on a mining claim or 

millsite. 

While the 1872 Law originally applied to all minerals, over time 

many have been removed from its purview. Production of energy 

minerals such as oil, gas, and coal on federal lands is now managed 

under the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, while ‘‘common variety’’

materials such as sand and gravel are sold under the authority of 

the Mineral Materials Act of 1955. Today, the 1872 Mining Law 

applies to a limited set of ‘‘locatable’’ or ‘‘hardrock’’ minerals such 

as gold, silver, copper, and uranium. 

The Mining Law is administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) within the Department of the Interior. Although reliable, current estimates of total acreage open and closed to mining 

claim location are not available, a 2004 Environmental Protection 

Agency report estimated that approximately 90% of the BLM’s 264 

million acres are open to mining as well as 80% of the 163 million 

acres managed by the Forest Service in the West.1 (Legislation has 

closed or withdrawn some types of federal lands from new mining 

claims, including wilderness areas totaling approximately 108 million acres, as well as National Parks.) The number of claims on 

public lands typically fluctuates with mineral prices; in light of recent record highs for gold, uranium, and other minerals, in 2007 

claims on public lands jumped 80% from 2003. As of July, there 

were 376,493 claims on public lands, according to the BLM. Nine 

of the top ten claimholders are companies, and the top ten 

claimholders own more than one-sixth of all claims.2 ‘‘Small miners’’—those holding 10 claims or fewer, total 27,600.3

The estimated value of U.S. metal mine production (excluding 

uranium) in 2006 was more than $23.5 billion, about 51% more 

than in 2005.4 No data is available to determine how much of that 

mineral production occurs on private vs. public lands, though the 

majority likely occurs on private. Most mines are on a combination 


cnoel on PRODPC60 with HEARING
29 

5 USGS staff communication, 10/29/07. 

6DOI/USGS 2007. Mineral Commodity Summaries 2007. 

7 National Research Council of the National Academies, 2007. Minerals, Critical Minerals, and 

the U.S. Economy. October. 8McMahon, F. and Melhem, A. 2007. ‘‘Fraser Institute Annual Survey of Mining Companies 

2006/2007.’’ 9 National Mining Association 2006. See: http://www.nma.org/pdf/eltrends.pdf. Also, ‘‘The 

Economic Contributions of the Mining Industry in 2005,’’ Analysis by Moore Economics/NMA, 

January 2007. 10The need for comprehensive Mining Law Reform twice led the House of Representatives to 

consider bills (introduced by Representative Rahall) in the 1990s; H.R. 322 passed the House 

316–108 in November 1993. 

of public and private lands, and are large in scale: according to 

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), more than 99% of U.S. gold production comes from ‘‘major’’ operations mines that disturb more than 

100 acres.5

Total production puts the United States among the world’s largest producers of many important metals and minerals, including 

10% of the world’s gold, 8% of its copper, and 12.5% of its lead.6

Nonetheless, the United States is net importer of some minerals 

mined under the 1872 Mining Law. For example, in 2006, 40% of 

copper consumed was imported, though the United States is a net 

exporter of gold. A 2007 National Research Council study on critical minerals emphasized that dependence on foreign sources of 

certain minerals is not in itself a cause for concern. The study further notes that specific minerals such as copper are essential to the 

economy in certain applications but should not be considered ‘‘critical’’ because there are ready substitutes and the risk of supply restrictions is low.7

After a lull in new mining and exploration in the 1990s (due to 

market conditions, more favorable operating possibilities, and discovery of higher grade ore prospects overseas), hardrock mining in 

the U.S. is on the upswing in response to some of the highest metal 

prices in the past 25 years—more than $700 an ounce for gold in 

2007. Demand for newly mined minerals and uranium is fast-growing worldwide. The U.S. is a favorite place to mine on a global 

scale thanks to its policy and geological climate, according to the 

annual Frasier Institute survey of metals mining companies.8 However, because of automation and other efficiency improvements, the 

U.S. produces more minerals with fewer people than it used to—

about 35,000–40,000 are directly employed in metals mining, and 

perhaps another 131,000 indirectly employed.9

NEED FOR LEGISLATION

H.R. 2262 would substantially reform the governance of hardrock 

mining on public lands. Mounting concerns about giveaways of public lands and minerals, environmental protection, competing resource uses (such as recreation and wildlife habitat), and a legacy 

of 100,000 or more abandoned mines make a compelling case for 

comprehensive reform of the Mining Law of 1872.10 The Mining 

Law has not changed to reflect modern mining technologies and 

processes or newer social values that question whether mineral extraction is the best use of the land. Six key economic and environmental issues require attention through reform: 


cnoel on PRODPC60 with HEARING
30 

11GAO. ‘‘Federal Land Management: The Mining Law of 1872 Needs Revision,’’ March, 1989. 12 BLM responses to Questions for the Record, Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources hearing on October 2, 2007 entitled: ‘‘Royalties and Abandoned Mine Reclamation.’’ Also, 

status report on patenting from the Department of the Interior, June 27, 2007. 

PATENTS

The 1872 Mining Law allows claim holders on public land to obtain all the rights and interests to both the land and minerals by 

patenting the claims for $2.50 to $5.00 per acre, regardless of the 

location, the property’s market value or other public uses. The federal government has patented more than 3.2 million acres of mining claims under the Hardrock Mining Act of 1872. The Act’s patenting provision became an attractive means of acquiring title to 

land for a pittance for purposes other than mining—and reaping 

huge profits through private commercial development. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) recommended elimination of the 

patenting requirement in a 1989 analysis, in keeping with the Federal Land Management Policy Act’s directives that public lands remain in federal ownership unless disposal is in the national interest, and that the government obtain a fair return for its resources.11

In response to concern about this multi-billion dollar ‘‘giveaway’’

of public land, beginning in 1994 and carried forward every year, 

Congress in annual appropriations bills has prohibited the Department from expending funds to accept new patent applications. Four 

hundred and five patents at a defined point in the application process were ‘‘grandfathered’’ in 1994. Since then, 198 patents covering 

27,000 acres have been issued, with a total return to the government of approximately $112,000. There are still 32 grandfathered 

applications for patents remaining to be processed (the balance 

were withdrawn or contested).12

H.R. 2262 as amended permanently ends patenting, except for 

those valid claims pre-dating the 1994 moratorium. Proponents of 

the current ‘‘location patent’’ system argue that the security of tenure gained through patenting is a necessary incentive in light of 

the significant financial risks, substantial capital, and long timeframe involved in mineral development. However, there are other 

means of providing secure property rights to claimants, including 

assurance that those who pay required fees have the ability to use 

the claimed lands for mining and related purposes (see Section 104 

of H.R. 2262 as amended). 

FAIR RETURN FOR MINERAL RESOURCES ON PUBLIC LANDS

Under current law, the mining industry pays no royalty for public minerals. By comparison, virtually all other users of the public 

lands pay the government something for the resources they use or 

remove, and almost every other nation which allows mining on 

public lands imposes some form of royalty. 

A well-designed royalty provides a reasonable return to the 

Treasury for minerals extracted from public lands and, in the case 

of H.R. 2262, will also fund abandoned mine reclamation. At the 

same time, a royalty must also allow a country’s mining sector to 

be globally competitive. ‘‘Government take’’ is one of the most important criteria (along with geological potential and security of tenure) in the decision to mine in a country or region. Unlike many 


cnoel on PRODPC60 with HEARING
31 

13Testimony of Salvatore Lazzari before the Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources, 

October 2, 2007. Also, Otto, J. et al 2006. Mining Royalties, World Bank. 14Otto, J et al. 2006. Mining Royalties, World Bank. 

other forms of investment, mines represent captive capital; they 

are long-lived and not portable, making them highly vulnerable to 

changes in national economic policy. 

H.R. 2262 as amended would establish an 8% gross income royalty on new mining on public lands, and a 4% gross income royalty 

on mining from current operations. A gross income royalty is commonly called a ‘‘value based’’ royalty because it is based on a percentage of the value of the mineral commodity being extracted or 

sold. (A similar value-based royalty is the ‘‘net smelter return’’ royalty, which is levied on the amount of money which the smelter or 

refinery pays the mining operator for the mineral product, usually 

based on a spot or current price of the mineral, with deductions for 

costs associated with further processing, but no deductions for operating costs.) Another form of royalty considered for hardrock minerals is a ‘‘profit based’’ royalty, in which a measure of sales revenue is reduced by the deduction of certain production and costs to 

determine a ‘‘net profit’’ or ‘‘net income’’ subject to the royalty rate. 

Under H.R. 2262, the royalty would be calculated based Section 

613(c) of the Internal Revenue Code, which defines gross income as 

‘‘the actual price for which the ore or mineral is sold where the taxpayer sells the ore or mineral as it emerges from the mine before 

application of any processes other than a mining process or any 

transportation, or after application of only mining processes, including mining transportation.’’ Used for decades to calculate the 

depletion allowance (see below), this definition of gross income allows deductions for any costs of non-mining processes but does not 

allow for deductions for the costs of mining processes, to arrive at 

a price or value of the mineral as close to the mine mouth as possible. 

Value based royalties such as a gross income royalty are used by 

the majority of states, private parties, and nations. Onshore oil and 

gas operations pay gross income royalties of 12.5%; coal produced 

from public lands is charged a royalty of 8% for underground operations and 12.5% for surface mining. Most states impose gross income or net smelter royalties on hardrock mining on state lands 

ranging from 2–10%. For hardrock minerals on acquired lands, 

Congress has established an ad-valorem royalty rate of 5%. In private arrangements between parties, rates range from 2–8% with an 

average of 5% based on value. Most countries impose a rate of 2–

5% of gross income on hardrock minerals, though some are as high 

as 12%.13 Those countries that do employ a profit based royalty 

usually set a rate higher than they would for a net smelter or gross 

value royalty; jurisdictions with a profit based system typically will 

assess at a rate in excess of 5%.14

Gross income royalties are relatively simple to calculate and easy 

to administer. They also are appropriate to the economic concept of 

a royalty as a factor payment, which implies that the payment 

should be based on the market value of the producer’s output, rather than on market value minus the costs of maintaining it. A disadvantage of the gross income royalty is that the cost it imposes 

will be incurred regardless of profitability, and minerals prices are 

notoriously cyclical. 


cnoel on PRODPC60 with HEARING
32 

15See Nevada Revised Statutes Chapter 362.120 and Nevada Administrative Code 362.030–

362.070. 16Dobra, J. 2007. ‘‘Economic Overview of the Nevada Mining Industry,’’ p. 1 and p. 21. 17Otto, J. et al 2006, p. 70. 

By comparison, however, a royalty based on profit or net income 

would allow a range of deductions, and, accordingly, more opportunities to ‘‘game the system.’’ Nevada, for example, utilizes a ‘‘Net 

Proceeds of Mine Tax’’ (NPOMT), a form of net income royalty 

which is levied on all hardrock mining in the state. The NPOMT 

is based on the value of the mineral extracted minus the cost of extracting, processing, transporting and marketing the minerals, 

maintenance and repairs of all equipment and mining facilities, depreciation of capital costs, some insurance, ‘‘developmental work,’’ and so forth.15 Mines are then taxed on a sliding scale of 2–5% depending on the ratio of net proceeds to gross proceeds. In 2006, Nevada gold and silver mines paid a net proceeds tax of about $61 

million on total mineral production worth about $5.1 billion.16

Profit based forms of royalties require a taxing authority with 

strong administrative capability. For such relatively complicated 

royalties, government regulatory departments must carry out 

labor-intensive audits of royalty returns, resulting in a significant 

number of often intractable disputes. ‘‘In general . . . governments 

tend to give too few resources to their royalty administration and 

collection functions,’’ warned the World Bank’s report on royalties 

in 2006. Legal costs from royalty audit disputes can be significant, 

and ‘‘this represents a further incentive for governments to select 

the less ambiguous unit-based and ad valorem [value based] royalty systems in preference to the more litigation-prone profit-based 

systems.’’ 17

Another drawback of such a net royalty includes potentially low 

return to the Treasury after ‘‘creative accounting’’ and multiple deductions. Past Congresses have faced this ‘deductions’ problem: in 

1996, Republican legislators introduced a bill which would have implemented a 5% royalty on mineral ‘‘net proceeds,’’ but the royalty 

provision was essentially nullified by a catalog of exemptions and 

deductions for both existing and prospective mines. The bill passed 

both the House and Senate, but the Congressional Budget Office 

concluded that the royalty provision would generate only diminutive returns to the public, and President Clinton ultimately vetoed 

an omnibus bill which included the reform legislation. An added 

problem with a net income or net profit royalty is that the revenue 

stream can vary widely from year to year, making it harder to 

guarantee a predictable revenue stream for reclamation. 

Arguments that the gross income royalty of 8% proposed in H.R. 

2262, as amended, would be among the highest royalty rates in the 

world ignore the offsetting special tax preferences which benefit the 

hardrock mining industry in the United States. Key among those 

preferences is the depletion allowance for mineral production. The 

depletion allowance allows a mining company to remove a set percentage of income from the amount that is taxed. Gold, silver, copper and iron ore, for example, qualify for a 15% depletion allowance, and sulfur, uranium, and lead for a 22% depletion allowance. 

Accordingly, the depletion allowance works like a ‘‘negative royalty’’ and will offset in part the royalty imposed by H.R. 2262. Very 

few nations have a depletion allowance for mineral production; in 


cnoel on PRODPC60 with HEARING
33 

18 James Otto, responses to Questions for the Record from the Subcommittee on Energy and 

Mineral Resources hearing on October 2, 2007 (provided October 9, 2007). 19 James Otto, Testimony before the Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources, October 

2, 2007 hearing, and Questions for the Record (provided October 9, 2007). 20 43 U.S.C Sec. 1701(a)(8). 21 National Wildlife Federation, Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership, and Trout Unlimited letter to Members of Congress, October 15, 2007; data from ‘‘Gas and Oil Development 

on Public Lands by Trout Unlimited (2004), and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (http:// 

www.fs.fed.us/biology/wildlife/elk.html) 

a survey of about 30, including most major mining nations, the 

U.S. was one of only four countries to offer some type of depletion 

allowance.18 (Most countries have rejected the idea of compensating 

industry for depleting the nation’s ore resource, and realize that 

the allowance may ultimately subsidize exploration in a competing 

nation.) 19 The mining industry also is permitted to deduct rather 

than capitalize certain exploration and development costs, and can 

deduct the costs of mine closing and land reclamation in advance 

of actual closing and reclamation. 

BALANCING MINERAL AND NON-MINERAL VALUES

The provisions of 1872 Mining Law which give preferential treatment (a ‘‘right to mine’’) over other uses, has made it very difficult 

to balance mineral and nonmineral values on public lands as required by the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) 

(43 USC 1701 et seq.). Section 1701(a)(8) of that law, for example, 

states that: ‘‘the public lands [shall] be managed in a manner that 

will protect the quality of scientific, scenic, historical, ecological, environmental, air and atmospheric, water resource, and archaeological values; that where appropriate, will preserve and protect 

certain lands in their natural condition; that will provide food and 

habitat for fish and wildlife and domestic animals; and that will 

provide for outdoor recreation and human occupancy and use.’’ 20

Despite these directives, agency managers have limited authorities to disapprove of mining operations in sensitive areas or place 

strong conditions on such operations. Historically, mining has been 

considered a dominant use of the public domain lands which under 

all but the most extraordinary of circumstances was to be favored 

over competing uses, such as water supplies, in the event of a conflict. Due to the ‘‘right to mine’’ feature of the 1872 Mining Law, 

federal land managers have steadfastly maintained that unless an 

area is ‘‘withdrawn’’ from (closed to) mining under FLPMA, they 

cannot deny a claim holder’s desire to develop a mine regardless 

of its potential impacts on other resources and values. 

The impacts of 21st century mining on other resources and values can be substantial. Sportsmen have raised concerns that 

hardrock mining on public lands threatens fish and wildlife habitat; public lands contain more than 50% of the nation’s blue-ribbon 

trout streams and 80% of the most critical habitat for elk, antelope, 

sage grouse, mule deer, salmon, steelhead, and countless other fish 

and wildlife species.21 Like mining, hunting and angling is economically important in western states—generating $280 million in 

2006 in Nevada alone, for example. Similarly, outdoor equipment 

manufacturers and recreation enthusiasts, from mountain bikers to 

skiers to hikers, have called for better balancing of mining and 

other public lands values. They note that Moab, Utah and the Alpine Loop area of Colorado typify places which are epicenters of 


cnoel on PRODPC60 with HEARING
34 

22Outdoor Alliance letter to Representative Rahall and Representative Costa, October 12, 

2007. 23Personal communication, American Rivers, October 2007. 24 ‘‘Deposits of Minerals Subject to 1872 Mining Law and Inventoried Roadless Areas on National Forest System Lands.’’ Map and analysis: Ginny Mason, Congressional Cartography, Library of Congress, 2007, based on data from Mineral Resources Data System, USGS and USDA, 

Forest Service. 

human-powered recreation and generate millions in recreation and 

tourism dollars, but are also experiencing explosions in new mining 

claims.22 Water is yet another area of growing conflict with mining: 

hardrock mining uses substantial quantities of water, lowers water 

tables, and creates effluent that can require treatment for a decade 

or more—threatening ground and surface water supplies for agriculture, wildlife, and communities in the West. 

Sometimes the federal government has taken the costly step of 

protecting land and water by buying out claims; another avenue is 

to withdraw areas from mining. In light of the impact of mining on 

sensitive resources and the growing competition among resource 

values, there is evident need to protect additional critical areas 

from mining. Wilderness Study Areas, several categories of Wild 

and Scenic Rivers, areas designated under the Roadless Area Conservation Rule of 2001, and Areas of Critical Environmental Concern are among those areas with well-established non-mineral values which are still open to mining claims under current law. Withdrawing these additional areas to new mining claims is unlikely to 

have significant impact on the mining industry. Closing all categories of Wild and Scenic Rivers to mining will likely withdraw 

less than 2,000 additional acres.23 Inventoried Roadless Areas 

cover 54 million acres, but in practice 37% are already de facto 

closed to, or managed as areas where mining is discouraged under 

land use plans. Nor does exploration and mining to date suggest 

that inventoried roadless areas are among the western lands still 

likely to harbor future mineral discoveries. A Library of Congress 

Congressional Cartography mapping project for Subcommittee on 

Energy and Mineral Resources staff overlaid major deposits of gold, 

silver, copper, molybdenum, and uranium with inventoried roadless 

areas and found that of the 55,140 deposits they mapped, only 5.6% 

overlapped with inventoried roadless areas.24

The Committee also identified the need to give government entities the ability to proactively request that federal lands near their 

communities be withdrawn from new mining claims. Under current 

law, state, local, and tribal governments have few avenues outside 

the land use planning process under the Federal Land Policy and 

Management Act of 1976 to protect lands and waters of high local 

value, such as those critical to drinking water supplies or tourismbased economies. For example, in Pima County, Arizona, the Board 

of Supervisors voted unanimously to oppose a copper mine in the 

Santa Rita Mountains, and the Board passed a resolution for all 

public land in the county to be withdrawn from mineral exploration. Concerns include the values of the mountains as a world 

biodiversity hotspot, scenic viewshed, important recreation area, 

and water source for the Cienega watershed, including high quality 

water for the fast-growing Tucson basin. Yet county opposition, 

under the current 1872 Mining Law, is not adequate to challenge 

a mine or limit new claim exploration. The advantage of a stronger 

local government role in putting areas off-limits to new claims, 


cnoel on PRODPC60 with HEARING
35 

even for mining claimants who hold valid existing rights, would be 

early awareness of likely state or local community opposition to a 

mine, and the ability to make (or avoid) investments accordingly— to minimize confrontation, avoid litigation or a protracted permitting process, or consider appropriate mitigation measures from 

early stages of development. 

Perhaps the most fundamental reform needed to the Mining Law 

is clarification of the federal government’s ‘‘right to say no’’ to proposed hardrock mines that threaten ‘‘irreparable damage’’ to the 

natural and cultural resources of the public lands. For all other 

uses of public lands—hunting, oil development, forest product proposals—the government has a responsibility to say no to reject 

such use if it would have devastating impacts, but the government 

lacks authority to exercise this responsibility for proposed mining 

operations. 

The Clinton Administration issued regulations including such a 

provision (65 Fed. Reg. 69,998 (2000)) which were contested and 

upheld in court, but removed from mining regulations written by 

the Bush Administration (2001). H.R. 2262, as amended, includes 

that standard, using the well-established definition of ‘‘undue degradation’’ (see Sec. 3 and Sec. 301, below) to create a clear, nondiscretionary means of saying no to mining in extraordinary situations. 

ENVIRONMENTAL AND RECLAMATION STANDARDS

The 1872 Mining Law contains no environmental or public 

health and safety provisions. Pursuant to the Federal Land Management Policy Act (FLPMA), the BLM has developed regulations 

and policies to address degradation of BLM land from hardrock operations (43 CFR 3809); the Forest Service has its own regulations 

(largely considered to be weaker) governing mining operations (36 

CFR Part 228). Miners also are required to comply with a variety 

of other federal laws such as the Clean Water Act, the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act 

(Superfund), and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). 

However, there is no comprehensive federal law as is the case with 

coal, oil and gas development. Even with a slate of federal laws and 

state hardrock mining laws, there are major regulatory gaps. For 

example, these laws do not address adequacy of mine location, 

evaluate mining plans, set comprehensive environmental standards 

for mining and reclamation requirements, or protect groundwater 

from mining operations. 

In the current vacuum of coherent environmental standards for 

permitting and oversight of mining, seemingly arbitrary regulatory 

decisions—and court cases—ensue. Different executive administrations have chosen to enforce regulations differently, making it difficult for companies to invest in exploration of an area with certainty that mining will be permitted. Statute-based environmental 

and reclamation standards should make the process of getting a 

mining permit more straightforward, with clarity and specificity in 

the process of reviewing the scope of the planned mine, contingencies which might be encountered, and, importantly, criteria that 

a land manager must review in order to grant a permit. 

Yet Committee staff research also confirmed the progress that 

has been made in recent years in regard to federal and state reguVerDate Aug 31 2005 05:25 Oct 30, 2007 Jkt 069010 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR412.XXX HR412

cnoel on PRODPC60 with HEARING
36 

25OMB 1996. More Benefits, Fewer Burdens. (December). 26 US EPA 1991. Permitting and Compliance Policy: Barriers to U.S. Environmental Technology Innovation, p. 39. 

lation of mining. Consequently, the task is to set an overall federal 

standard for hardrock mining on federal lands and a framework 

from which federal regulations would flow, without being redundant or overly prescriptive. 

A key issue is whether national mining standards should be technology-based ‘‘design standards’’ or outcome-based ‘‘performance 

standards.’’ To resolve the question, the Committee initially looked 

to the BLM’s hardrock manual, which includes the following definitions: 

• A ‘‘design standard’’ is a standard that ‘‘prescribes a specific 

technology of precise procedure to be followed for compliance.’’

• A ‘‘performance standard’’ is one that ‘‘prescribes the final results that must be achieved to obtain regulatory compliance.’’

Further research showed that the Clinton Administration initially proposed ‘‘3809’’ regulations which included a technology 

standard that would have applied to all the performance standards 

(e.g., the operator will achieve these performance standards using 

‘‘most appropriate technology and practices’’) but Secretary 

Babbitt’s final 2000 rule did not include the technology standard. 

Most of the existing federal standards are performance standards 

and not technology-based. Therefore, the rules do not specify what 

equipment or practices an operator must use to move earth or 

plant seeds to achieve revegetation of the area, as long as it is accomplished and reaches the performance standard (including such 

details as seed mix, coverage, slope, etc.). As another example, in 

order to meet a dust control standard, BLM does not specify whether an operation should use large water trucks or small water 

trucks. 

Additionally, several federal directives discourage the use of technology standards. According to a Executive Order 12866 on drafting effective regulations, ‘‘performance standards are generally preferred to a command-and-control design standard because they give 

regulated entities the flexibility to achieve the desired regulatory 

outcome in a most cost-effective way.’’ 25 Another Clinton era review concluded: ‘‘Policymakers should reconsider the way ‘best 

available technology’-based regulations are now developed and applied. Such regulations use agency established technology-based 

limits and use a technology to demonstrate that the limits are 

achievable. Even though these are performance-based requirements, they have a strong tendency to lock in the technology that 

is used to demonstrate achievability. To some extent, reliance on 

‘‘best available technology’’-based regulations impedes the development and introduction of innovative technologies.’’ 26

In some instances, technology standards are already required by 

Clean Water Act or Clean Air Act provisions. These standards have 

been further developed through a rulemaking process and are then 

applied by EPA or states with delegated programs under these 

laws. BLM should not be asked to second-guess the technology determinations in those permits and potentially come to a different 

conclusion about the appropriate technology for a particular site or 

facility. 


cnoel on PRODPC60 with HEARING
37 

27See Federal Register Volume 66, 2001 (3809.420(b)(11) and (12)). 28GAO 2005. ‘‘Hardrock Mining: BLM Needs to Better Manage Financial Assurances to Guarantee Coverage of Reclamation Costs.’’ (GAO–05–377) 

For those aspects of operations that do require specific technologies (i.e. acid rock drainage or cyanide management), BLM has 

promulgated regulations that are a combination of design and performance standards.27 There are also guidance documents that provide additional details for implementing those design standards. 

Finally, in hardrock mining, each mine differs greatly from one 

operation to the next so that reclamation plans must be done on 

a case-by-case basis; for example, the best technology that works 

for the large open pit at Nevada will not necessarily apply to a series of small beryllium mines in Utah, or to the big copper mines 

in Arizona. Therefore, the federal statute should provide a framework from which federal regulations and decisions will flow without micromanaging future site-specific land-based decisions. 

Accordingly, to address the concerns and debate regarding the 

prescriptive operations and reclamation standards in H.R. 2262 as 

introduced, the bill, as amended, instead sets out a minimum list 

of environmental concerns which the Secretary must address with 

standards. These can be technology-based ‘‘design standards’’ or 

outcome-based ‘‘performance standards’’ depending on which may 

be appropriate to the environmental concern and goal. This revision conforms to the goal as stated above to provide a framework 

without micromanaging the agency’s future site-specific decisions. 

BONDING

Modern mines disturb thousands of acres and typically require 

water treatment for years, due to acid drainage and the use of toxic 

processing chemicals such as cyanide. In the past, companies might 

complete some limited reclamation, then walk away from the site, 

leaving the state or federal government to cope with long-term 

management challenges, particularly water contamination. 

In response, many states and the federal government have enacted regulations that in some form require reclamation and closure plans to address problems associated with modern mining. For 

example, regulations established pursuant to FLPMA direct agencies to require financial assurances for reclaiming land disturbed 

by mining, if operators fail to do so. Under current hardrock mining regulations (Part 3809, January 20, 2001), all operations exceeding casual use conducted under a Notice or Plan of Operations 

are required to provide an acceptable financial guarantee to BLM 

prior to commencing operations. 

However, a 2005 GAO report found that the BLM did not have 

a process for ensuring that adequate assurances are in place. In 

Arizona and California, for example, the GAO found that 15–74% 

of hardrock operations lacked adequate financial assurances. The 

results of a shortfall in assurances, cost estimates, and weak reclamation plans are significant: GAO found that since the BLM 

began requiring financial assurances, 48 operations had ceased and 

not been reclaimed, leaving a $136 million bill for the taxpayer.28

Similarly, a 2003 report found that American taxpayers are today 


cnoel on PRODPC60 with HEARING
38 

29Kuipers, J. 2003. Putting a Price on Pollution. Mineral Policy Center and Center for Science 

in Public Participation. March. 30DOI/Forest Service. Abandoned Mine Lands: A Decade of Progress Reclaiming Hardrock 

Mines, September 2007 and EPA 2004: ‘‘Cleaning Up the Nation’s Waste Sites: Markets and 

Technology Trends.’’ 31 CA Department of Conservation/Office of Mine Reclamation 2007. Letter to Senator Feinstein. March. 

potentially liable for $1–12 billion in cleanup costs for hardrock 

mining sites.29

The Subcommittee on Energy and Minerals heard testimony on 

October 2, 2007 that the Bureau of Land Management has improved its financial assurances management in response to the 

GAO’s report. However, there remains a need to guarantee that at 

the federal level, there is clear guidance for financial assurances, 

particularly those for long-term water treatment, and impetus for 

agencies to make oversight of assurances (including regular updates to address changing conditions) a priority. 

An associated problem requiring policy attention relates to mine 

owners who have defaulted on environmental cleanup responsibilities multiple times, but are still eligible to carry out mine operations on public land under current law. Further, companies sometimes structure their assets through corporate subsidiaries, thwarting recovery of corporate guarantees after bankruptcy. Accordingly, 

H.R. 2262 does not include corporate guarantees as acceptable assurances, and the bill requires disclosure of operator’s prior bond 

forfeitures and environmental compliance history. In keeping with 

the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act, H.R. 2262 as 

amended makes those operators with outstanding violations ineligible for permits. 

ABANDONED MINE LANDS

The 1872 Mining Law includes no reclamation requirements. Despite regulations issued pursuant to the Federal Land Management 

Policy Act of 1976, which require operators to reclaim BLM land 

disturbed by their hardrock operations, some operators—often due 

to bankruptcy and inadequate bonding (see above)—have abandoned mines without reclamation. 

The extent of the nation’s hardrock abandoned mine land (AML) 

problem is clearly significant, though estimates vary by state and 

agency. As of 2007, the Bureau of Land Management and the U.S. 

Forest Service have identified (largely via field surveys) 47,000 

abandoned mine sites on lands they manage. However, the total 

number of sites on federal land could be much higher, especially 

depending on how mine sites and features are defined and counted. 

Based on mineral records and partial inventories, estimates in 

2004 ranged from 100,000–500,000 BLM sites and 25,000–35,000 

Forest Service sites.30

Some AML sites are serious public safety hazards. At least eleven people have died and six people have been injured in abandoned 

mines in California in the past decade.31 Nevada has more than 

50,000 sites likely to pose physical safety hazards including shafts 

and adits at AML sites within a mile of population centers, campgrounds, backcountry byways, other recreation areas, historic sites, 

and off road vehicle use areas. Many western states are finding 

that rapid population growth and recreational use of public lands 


cnoel on PRODPC60 with HEARING
39 

32 US EPA 2004 (Chapter 11) and BLM/FS report, Abandoned Mine Lands: A Decade of 

Progress Reclaiming Hardrock Mines. September 2007, p. 2. 33 U.S. EPA. ‘‘Cleaning Up the Nation’s Waste Sites: Markets and Technology Trends,’’ 2004 

edition, p. 11–12. 

juxtapose increasing numbers of people in areas with high densities 

of AML sites, elevating safety risks. 

Other abandoned sites pose environmental hazards. The government estimates that old mines have contaminated 40% of all western river headwaters. Colorado, for example, has approximately 

2,751 abandoned mine sites that have possible impacts on water 

quality in twenty watersheds. Common problems are acidic, metalladen drainage from mine openings and dumps, mine wastes and 

mill tailings in stream channels, and erosion of mine wastes and 

mill tailings into waterways. 

The EPA’s Superfund list currently includes more than 80 

hardrock abandoned mines or mine-related sites. Estimates in the 

late 1990s suggested that about 5% of the 25,000–35,000 abandoned mines on Forest Service lands will require cleanup under 

Superfund authorities. The BLM and Forest Service estimated that 

another 10% of the identified sites on federal lands will require 

water related cleanup under authorities other than Superfund.32

Some solutions are relatively simple, others complex, expensive, 

and impermanent. In some instances, the highest priority problems 

may be open shafts and adits that pose physical hazards to people 

and wildlife. These must be plugged, filled, secured or closed off. 

For environmental hazards, remediation can range from removing 

small piles of waste rock or tailings from a floodplain or reseeding 

a disturbed area, to removing transformers, machinery and buildings, stabilizing large waste piles, rerouting water flows, building 

new retention ponds, reinforcing old dams, managing toxic lagoons, 

removing or covering contaminated soils. 

Reclamation is a problem with no cheap fix; hardrock abandoned 

mine cleanup could range from $20–54 billion, estimated the EPA’s 

Superfund office in 2004, with about $3.5 billion related to Superfund designated sites. Nearly 60% of the mining sites listed on the 

Superfund National Priorities List are expected to require from 40 

years to ‘‘perpetuity’’ for cleanup operations. 

Expenditures fall far short of the need. Unlike coal mining, there 

is no single source of funding for the reclamation of abandoned 

hardrock mining lands. To remedy a particular site, the BLM and 

Forest Service may work with Federal, State, and private partners 

to apply for funding from programs including AML grants through 

SMCRA, CERCLA, and the Clean Water Act Grant Program. Nevada funds some of its program from industry fees of $1.50 per 

mining claim filing, and $20 per acre of permitted disturbance on 

public lands, generating about $315,000 a year. According to EPA, 

the total federal, state and private party outlays for mining site remediation have been averaging about $100–$150 million per year. 

At this rate, only 8–20% of all the cleanup work will be completed 

over the next 30 years.33 Similarly, the Forest Service, with an annual budget of $15 million, projects it would take 370 years to complete an estimated $5.5 billion dollars of cleanup and safety mitigaVerDate Aug 31 2005 05:25 Oct 30, 2007 Jkt 069010 PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR412.XXX HR412

cnoel on PRODPC60 with HEARING
40 

34 U.S. Forest Service responses to Questions for the Record from the Subcommittee on Energy 

and Mineral Resources hearing on ‘‘Royalties and Abandoned Mine Reclamation,’’ October 2, 

2007. 35 BLM 2006. ‘‘The Cooperative Conservation Based Strategic Plan for Abandoned Mine Lands 

Program,’’ March, and ‘‘Cleaning Up Abandoned Mines: A Western Partnership,’’ Western Gov- ernors’ Association and National Mining Association. 36 California Department of Conservation, Office of Mine Reclamation 2007. Letter to Senator 

Feinstein. March 30. 

tion work.34 Some state reclamation cost estimates include just remediation, not restoration. 

National and state inventories of sites require continued effort. 

The DOI Inspector General’s Office has identified the need for the 

BLM to undertake some additional inventory work in high-population and high-use areas; the Forest Service, too, acknowledges 

the merits of continuing inventory. Some states have more thorough abandoned site inventories than others. Arizona, for example, 

has an inventory described as a ‘‘patchwork’’ of data of varying accuracy, and Alaska’s and Washington’s inventories are not complete.35 California’s Department of Conservation acknowledges that ‘‘the prioritization of AML sites for remediation will ultimately require a statewide inventory . . . at this time, state and federal 

agency staff have inventoried only about 2,500 of California’s estimated 47,000 AML sites (5%).’’ 36

One obstacle to clean up progress at some abandoned mine sites 

is the perception that, under the Clean Water Act or Superfund, if 

one acts to remediate a site, that person or entity will become financially liable for cleanup of all pollution associated with the site. 

Several bills introduced in the 109th Congress proposed different 

‘‘Good Samaritan’’ exemptions from liability—some broad, others 

allowing various (and controversial) provisions for reprocessing of 

tailings and waste piles—but none have yet been introduced in the 

110th Congress. ‘‘Good Samaritan’’ provisions are outside the jurisdiction of the Committee on Natural Resources; accordingly, they 

are not included in H.R. 2262 as amended. 

COMMITTEE ACTION

H.R. 2262 was introduced by Natural Resources Committee 

Chairman Nick J. Rahall, II (D–WV) and Energy and Mineral Resources Subcommittee Chairman Jim Costa (D–CA) on May 10, 

2007. The bill was referred to the Committee on Natural Resources, and within the Committee to the Subcommittee on Energy 

and Mineral Resources. Three Subcommittee hearings were held on 

H.R. 2262 on July 26, 2007, August 21, 2007, and October 2, 2007. 

Preceding introduction of H.R. 2262, the Subcommittee on Energy 

and Mineral Resources and Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests, and Public Lands held a joint oversight hearing on the 1872 

Mining Law and its impacts on national forests in Tucson, Arizona. 

Details of the hearings are as follows: 

• February 24, 2007, Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources and Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Public 

Lands field hearing: ‘‘Our National Forests at Risk: The 1872 Mining Law and its Impact on the Santa Rita Mountains of Arizona.’’

This hearing highlighted the inability of the 1872 Mining Law to 

respond to a modern-day problem: metals mineral values compete 

with community concerns for other increasingly important values 

that Western public lands provide, including tourism and recreVerDate Aug 31 2005 05:25 Oct 30, 2007 Jkt 069010 PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR412.XXX HR412

cnoel on PRODPC60 with HEARING
41 

ation. Witnesses focused on the case of Augusta Resource Corporation, which is seeking a permit for an 800 acre open pit copper 

mine on private lands on the Rosemont Ranch with disposal of the 

mining waste on 3000 acres of the Coronado National Forest adjacent to the ranch, on claims issued pursuant to the 1872 Mining 

Law. 

• July 26, 2007, Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources 

legislative hearing on ‘‘H.R. 2262: The Hardrock Mining and Reclamation Act of 2007.’’ This hearing provided an overview on the 

ways in which the 1872 Mining Law is overdue for reform. Witnesses from the tribal, environmental, taxpayer advocate, and 

sportsmen communities outlined the Law’s economic and environmental shortcomings. 

• August 21, 2007, Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources legislative field hearing on ‘‘Nevada and H.R. 2262: Opportunities and Challenges in Reform of the 1872 Mining Law.’’ Held 

in Elko, NV, this hearing focused on the importance of hardrock 

mining to communities and economies. Witnesses emphasized the 

need for a fair royalty, drew distinctions between the impact and 

processes entailed in mining exploration versus operations, and underscored the need for a strong national standard for mining that 

recognizes (rather than duplicates) existing law and regulations. 

• October 2, 2007, Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources legislative hearing on ‘‘H.R. 2262 Royalties and Abandoned 

Mine Reclamation.’’ One panel, consisting of experts with extensive 

knowledge of royalties in the United States and internationally, focused on how to determine a fair and appropriate royalty, including: the advantages and disadvantages of gross income, net smelter, and net proceeds or profit types of royalties; royalty rates in 

other nations; and special tax preferences in the United States, including the depletion allowance. A second panel focused on the 

need for a royalty to address the hardrock abandoned mine problem in the Western United States. Witnesses from the EPA and 

Forest Service provided a sense of scope, status of agency inventory 

efforts, and reclamation costs. 

On Thursday, October 18, 2007 and Tuesday, October 23, 2007, 

the Committee on Natural Resources met in open session to consider the bill. The Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources 

was discharged from further consideration of H.R. 2262. 

Natural Resources Committee Chairman Nick J. Rahall II (D–

WV) offered an amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 

2262. The following amendments were then offered to the amendment in the nature of a substitute: 

Mr. DeFazio offered an amendment to amend Section 3(c) and 

Section 102, exempting from the royalty those who receive less 

than $250,000 in gross income from mining and imposing an 8% 

royalty on existing mining operations, which failed by voice vote. 

Mr. Pearce offered an amendment to create a Minerals Reclamation Foundation, which was withdrawn. 

Mr. Inslee offered an amendment to Section 104, clarifying the 

ability of mining claimants to use lands for mining and related purposes on the basis of the payment of the required maintenance fee, 

which was agreed to by voice vote. 


cnoel on PRODPC60 with HEARING
42 

Mr. Heller offered an amendment to Section 102, replacing the 

8% gross income royalty with a 5% net proceeds royalty, which 

failed by a roll call vote of 10 yeas and 16 nays, as follows: 


cnoel on PRODPC60 with HEARING
43 


cnoel on PRODPC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 43 here HR412.001
44 

Mr. Sali offered an amendment to Section 102 to sunset the royalty after two years based on several economic indicators, which 

failed by a roll call vote of 9 yeas and 20 nays, as follows: 


cnoel on PRODPC60 with HEARING
45 


cnoel on PRODPC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 45 here HR412.002
46 

Mr. Hinchey offered an amendment to Section 102 to impose a 

4% gross income royalty on Federal lands producing minerals as of 

the Act’s enactment, which was agreed to by voice vote. 

Mr. Gohmert offered an amendment to Section 304 to change the 

term of an operations permit, which failed by a roll call vote of 14 

yeas and 16 nays, as follows: 


cnoel on PRODPC60 with HEARING
47 


cnoel on PRODPC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 47 here HR412.003
48 

Mr. Sali offered an amendment to Section 102 to exempt from 

the royalty any minerals used for alternative energy production, 

which failed by a roll call vote of 14 yeas and 20 nays, as follows: 


cnoel on PRODPC60 with HEARING
49 


cnoel on PRODPC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 49 here HR412.004
50 

Mr. Grijalva offered an amendment to Section 202 to include Indian tribes, which was agreed to by a roll call vote of 37 yeas and 

0 nays, as follows: 


cnoel on PRODPC60 with HEARING
51 


cnoel on PRODPC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 51 here HR412.005
52 

Mr. Pearce offered an amendment to requiring the Secretary of 

the Interior to make certain certifications before the Act can take 

effect, which failed by a roll call vote of 17 yeas and 21 nays, as 

follows: 


cnoel on PRODPC60 with HEARING
53 


cnoel on PRODPC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 53 here HR412.006
54 

Mr. Heller offered an amendment to Section 411 to allocate 50% 

of the funds in the Hardrock Reclamation Account to states in proportion to production in each state, which failed by voice vote. 

Mr. Sali offered an amendment to Section 102 exempting from 

the royalty any mineral used to prevent global warming, which 

failed by roll call vote of 17 yeas and 22 nays, as follows: 


cnoel on PRODPC60 with HEARING
55 


cnoel on PRODPC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 55 here HR412.007
56 

Mrs. McMorris-Rodgers offered an amendment to strike Section 

301 and other provisions in Title III, which failed by a roll call vote 

of 16 yeas and 23 nays, as follows: 


cnoel on PRODPC60 with HEARING
57 


cnoel on PRODPC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 57 here HR412.008
58 

Mr. Lamborn offered an amendment to sections on permit and 

user fees, which failed by voice vote. 

Mr. Holt and Mr. Inslee offered an amendment to Title III to 

deny permits which would impair the lands or resources of National Parks, which was agreed to by a roll call vote of 21 yeas and 

18 nays, as follows: 


cnoel on PRODPC60 with HEARING
59 


cnoel on PRODPC60 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 59 HR412.009
60 

Mr. Pearce offered an amendment to create a Mineral Commodity Information Administration, which failed by a roll call vote 

of 16 yeas and 23 nays, as follows: 


cnoel on PRODPC60 with HEARING
61 


cnoel on PRODPC60 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 61 HR412.010
62 

Mr. Heller offered an amendment to facilitate sustainable development projects on former mining sites, which was withdrawn. 

Mr. Sali offered an amendment to Title V to impose a 2% royalty 

on non-metallic minerals, which failed by a roll call vote of 17 yeas 

and 22 nays, as follows: 


cnoel on PRODPC60 with HEARING
63 


cnoel on PRODPC60 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 63 HR412.011
64 

Mr. Pearce offered an amendment tying the continuation in effect 

of the Act to U.S. gross domestic product, which failed by a voice 

vote. 

Mr. Pearce offered an amendment to strike Section 505(b)(6) 

which was agreed to by voice vote. 

Mr. Pearce offered an amendment to strike Title III which failed 

by a roll call vote of 12 yeas and 23 nays, as follows: 


cnoel on PRODPC60 with HEARING
65 


cnoel on PRODPC60 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 65 HR412.012
66 

Mr. Sali offered an amendment to Section 201 to give states the 

ability to opt in or out of making certain categories of Federal 

lands off limits to mining, which failed by a roll call vote of 13 yeas 

and 24 nays, as follows: 


cnoel on PRODPC60 with HEARING
67 


cnoel on PRODPC60 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 67 HR412.013
68 

Mr. Pearce offered an amendment to encourage cleanup of inactive and abandoned mines through protections for ‘‘Good Samaritans’’ which was ruled out of order. 

Mr. Cannon offered an amendment en bloc to Sections 304, 504, 

and 517 which failed by voice vote. 

The Rahall amendment in the nature of a substitute, as amended, was adopted by a voice vote. 

H.R. 2262, as amended, was then ordered favorably reported to 

the House of Representatives by a roll call vote of 23 yeas and 15 

nays, as follows: 


cnoel on PRODPC60 with HEARING
69 


cnoel on PRODPC60 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 69 HR412.014
70 

SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS OF THE LEGISLATION

Section 1. Short title 

This section provides the short title of the legislation, the 

‘‘Hardrock Mining and Reclamation Act of 2007.’’

Section 2. Definitions and references 

This section defines affiliate, applicant, beneficiation, casual use, 

claim holder, control, exploration, Federal land, Indian lands, Indian tribe, locatable mineral, mineral activities, National Conservation System unit, operator, person, processing, Secretary, temporary cessation, undue degradation, valid existing rights, applicable date. 

The Committee has included in the bill as amended, a definition 

of ‘‘undue degradation:’’ ‘‘undue degradation means irreparable 

harm to significant scientific, cultural or environmental resources 

on public lands that cannot be effectively mitigated.’’ This definition is critical to the general standard for mineral activities established in Section 301, and uses the definition of ‘‘undue degradation’’ established in the 43 CFR Part 3809 (2000). 

Section 3. Application rules 

This section details when and how the Act applies to mining 

claims, millsite and tunnel site claims and operations. Section 3 declares that the Act’s requirements apply immediately to unpatented 

mining, millsite and tunnel site claims for which no plan of operations has been approved or notice filed. Where plans of operations 

have been approved but mining has not commenced, operations 

have ten years to come into compliance with the Act (unlike the bill 

as introduced, which allowed five years). Where claims are used for 

beneficiation and processing of any locatable mineral—regardless of 

whether mined from public or private lands—the provisions of the 

Act apply. 

TITLE I—MINERAL EXPLORATION AND DEVELOPMENT 

Sec. 101. Limitation on patents 

This section prohibits issuance of patents for vein, lode, placer, 

and millsite and tunnel site claims unless the application for a patent was filed with the Secretary on or before September 30, 1994 

and other administrative requirements are met. 

Sec. 102. Royalty 

This section imposes a 8% gross income royalty on the production 

of hardrock minerals from mining claims on federal lands and dedicates the royalties to abandoned mine reclamation and community 

assistance. The Committee amended this section from the bill as 

introduced, to refer to the royalty as a ‘‘gross income’’ royalty rather than a ‘‘net smelter return’’ royalty. However, the royalty is still 

calculated on the value-based definition of ‘‘mining income’’ found 

in the Internal Revenue Code 613(c). This form of royalty keeps administration relatively simple. By comparison, the Committee rejected a ‘‘net profit’’ royalty because it would result in negligible returns to the taxpayer and would likely reduce royalty payments 

and would be susceptible to ‘‘creative accounting.’’ The Committee 


cnoel on PRODPC60 with HEARING
71 

accepted an amendment on a voice vote to impose a 4% gross income royalty on all operations producing locatable minerals on Federal lands prior to and on the date of enactment of this Act. This 

section also sets forth administrative provisions for the payment of 

royalties, including record keeping and reporting. It gives the Secretary of the Interior the authority to conduct audits and investigations, and share information with other agencies. Penalties are imposed for underreporting. 

Sec. 103. Claim maintenance fee and location fee 

Currently the BLM collects a one-time $30 location fee and an 

annual $125 maintenance fee per claim through annual appropriations authority. The Committee amended the bill as introduced to 

provide a permanent authorization for collection of these fees in 

this section. In addition, the Committee increased the fees to $50 

and $150 respectively. Exempted from the maintenance fee are 

those claimants who hold ten or fewer claims and meet specific 

mineral production, exploration, and surface disturbance requirements (a ‘‘small miner’’ fee exemption is current practice under 43 

CFR Part 3835). 

Section 104. Effect of payment or use and occupancy of claims 

The Committee amended the bill as introduced to provide security of tenure to those who invest in mining exploration on public 

lands and discover valuable minerals. Specifically, H.R. 2262 would 

authorize claimants who pay annual maintenance fees to use and 

occupy claimed lands for prospecting and mineral exploration activities, subject to compliance with the requirements of the Act and 

applicable provisions of law. The Committee intends that timely 

payment of the annual claim maintenance fee will not convey property rights nor secure a right to mine. To the contrary, the provision requires such use and occupancy to comply with the requirements of the Act and applicable provisions of law. The Committee 

amended this section to clarify that the filing of the claim maintenance fee and compliance with the other claiming and filing requirements do not in any way mean that the subject claims are 

valid or that the claimant has a right to conduct mineral activities 

on the claims. Any authority to conduct mineral activities accrues 

only upon the claimant’s receipt of an approved permit under Title 

III and compliance with all other applicable law. Therefore, while 

granting the claimants some security, the Committee intends that 

claimants will be required to meet the provisions of the Act, specifically the environmental and permitting requirements of Title III. 

TITLE II—PROTECTION OF SPECIAL PLACES 

Section 201. Lands open to location 

This section identifies categories of Federal lands that will be 

closed to hardrock mining as of the enactment of the Act, including: 

lands recommended for wilderness designation or being managed 

as roadless areas; BLM Wilderness Study Areas and National 

Monuments; lands designated, eligible, or under study for inclusion 

in the Wild and Scenic River System; lands previously withdrawn 

under other law; Areas of Critical Environmental Concern; and 

areas identified in the Roadless Area Conservation Rule of 2001. 


cnoel on PRODPC60 with HEARING
72 

The Committee amended the bill to delete inclusion of sacred sites 

among lands closed to mineral entry, reflecting the concerns that 

the lack of a publicly-available list of sacred sites would make such 

a provision impossible to administer. 

Section 202. State and county government withdrawal petitions 

The Committee added this section in order to enable state, tribal 

and county governments the ability to petition for withdrawal from 

the general mining laws specific tracts of public lands which have 

high value to the state or county for reasons such as water supply, 

scenic vistas, fish and wildlife habitat or cultural resources. It provides a tool for balancing resource values and mineral development 

before industry makes a major investment in mine development. 

The Secretary is required to act on the petition within 180 days 

and must approve the petition unless it would not be in the national interest to do so. 

TITLE III—ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS OF MINERAL EXPLORATION AND DEVELOPMENT 

Sec. 301. General standard for hardrock mining on public lands 

This Section establishes a general standard for hardrock mining 

on public lands that requires mineral activities on Federal lands to 

be carefully controlled to prevent undue degradation of public lands 

and resources. It enables the Secretary to deny permission to mine 

if the activities will result in undue degradation that cannot be effectively mitigated. Compared to the bill as introduced, this is a 

simpler, though similar and equally strong, standard. The Committee intends that this section be read and applied within the context of the Clinton Administration’s 43 CFR Part 3809 regulations, 

published in the Federal Register on November 21, 2000, which 

clearly defined ‘‘undue’’ degradation and asserted the Department 

of Interior’s authority to say ‘‘no’’ to a proposed hardrock mine that 

would cause undue degradation that could not be effectively mitigated. 

Section 301 overrides Section 302(b) of the Federal Land Policy 

and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1732(b)) and the first section of the Act of June 4, 1897 (chapter 2; 30 Stat. 36 16 U.S.C. 

478) and the National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 

1600 et seq.) and replaces the standards contained therein with the 

new standard that mineral activities must prevent undue degradation of public lands and resources. 

The Committee intends that the new standard replace former 

policies that relied on interpretations of terms such as ‘‘unnecessary or undue degradation’’ that resulted in confusion and ambiguity. For example, the 2000 43 CFR 3809 final rule stated: ‘‘it is 

clear from the use of the conjunction ‘or’ that the Secretary has the 

authority to prevent ‘degradation’ that is necessary to mining, but 

undue or excessive. This policy was revoked by the Bush Administration on October 30, 2001 (Federal Register, Vol. 66, No. 210) on 

the argument that the word ‘or’ in this case should be read as ‘and.’ The Committee adoption of the phrase ‘undue degradation’ in this 

section eliminates any ambiguity.’’ The selection of the term ‘‘undue degradation’’ is not random. 

The Committee intends that mineral activities under the Act will 


cnoel on PRODPC60 with HEARING
73 

conform to the description of ‘‘undue degradation’’ set forth in the 

2000 rules, which require that operations not result in substantial 

irreparable harm to significant resource values that cannot be effectively mitigated. The Committee anticipates the Secretary will 

deny a permit that cannot meet the ‘‘undue degradation’’ standard. 

The Committee intends that this provision be applied on a site-specific basis and that it would not necessarily preclude development 

of a large open pit mine. As such, a permit to mine could be denied 

only when: 

• The public land resource values are significant at a particular 

location. 

• Mining would cause substantial irreparable harm to the specific public land resource values that are significant at a particular 

location; i.e., a small amount of irreparable harm to a portion of 

the resource will not trigger the protection. The harm must be substantial. 

• The harm cannot be effectively mitigated. If the harm can be 

mitigated, the permit would be approved. 

The Committee intends that the Secretaries shall rely on the 

Council on Environmental Quality’s government-wide definition of 

‘‘mitigation’’ as it appears in 40 CFR 1508.20. An operator who 

must ‘‘mitigate’’ damage to wetlands or riparian areas, or who must 

take appropriate mitigation measures for a pit or other disturbance, would have to take mitigation measures, which includes the 

measures listed in the definition found in the above-referenced subpart. 

Sec. 302. Permits 

This section requires a permit for any mineral activity that will 

disturb surface resources. Mineral activities that cause only negligible disturbance or are a casual use of public lands (as defined 

in Sec. 1) are exempted from permit requirements. The Committee 

added language to this section to clarify that the Secretary should 

conduct the permitting process in coordination with the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). 

Sec. 303. Exploration permits 

The Committee added this section in order to set forth a separate 

permitting process and requirements for exploration, recognizing 

that exploration does not disturb resources on the scale of a full 

mining operation and therefore should not require the same permitting process—a burden to agencies and industry and counterproductive to ensuring a strong domestic minerals program. Exploration permits may be approved if all the requirements of this Act 

and applicable law are met, including the duty to prevent undue 

degradation in Section 301. 

Specifically, H.R. 2262, as amended, authorizes the Secretary to 

approve permits for exploration as long as specific application, reclamation, and financial assurance criteria are met. Permits are to 

be issued for terms no longer than 10 years. Proposed modifications 

of exploration permits require another review process. This section 

also sets forth requirements for transfer and sale of exploration 

permits. 


cnoel on PRODPC60 with HEARING
74 

Section 304. Operations permit 

This section establishes that claimholders with valid claims can 

apply for operations permits for mining on mining, millsite, and 

tunnel site claims. This section also proscribes required elements 

of an application for an operations permit including plans for operations, reclamation, monitoring, and long-term maintenance. H.R. 

2262, as amended, does not include a detailed list of information 

to be included in the permit application, because the Committee 

found that such information is required and will be provided during the NEPA process which will be conducted in concert with the 

consideration of the permit application. 

Importantly, the Committee has given the Secretary the right to 

deny a permit if requirements of the Act cannot be met. Requirements include: demonstration that reclamation will meet the Act’s ‘‘no undue degradation’’ standard (see Section 301) and the land, 

including fish and wildlife resources, can be returned to productive 

use; an assessment that the operations impacts (including cumulative impacts of mining on hydrology) will not cause undue degradation; compliance with financial assurance requirements; and a 

reclamation plan that demonstrates that 10 years after mine closure, discharge or effluent will not need treatment to meet water 

quality standards. The Committee extended the length of the operations permits from one 10-year term, with possible renewal, to a 

firm 20-year limit with opportunity for an automatic additional 20- 

year renewal assuming the operation is in compliance with the permit. The Secretaries are granted the authority to establish requirements for permit modification applications, and permit modification 

is required if changes are made to approved plans, or if unanticipated events occur, particularly those which jeopardize water quality and quantity. This section establishes a process for applications 

for temporary cessation of operations. 

The Committee included a requirement in the bill as amended 

that the federal land manager conduct a general review of each operations permit every 10 years, as opposed to every 3 years in the 

bill as introduced. The purpose of this review is to ensure that the 

overall conduct of operations has not diverted in any significant 

way from the original plan of operations as approved by the Secretary. This review should ensure that as operations proceed, the 

operator’s predictions regarding the nature of the ore and other 

minerals or impurities encountered, type of processing that works 

with ore, groundwater flow rates, directions and quality, and methods for heap leaching, design of drainage and impoundments have 

not changed significantly. This section also sets forth requirements 

for transfer and sale of permits. Secretaries are required to fully 

comply with public participation requirements under NEPA. 

Unlike the bill as introduced, H.R. 2262, as amended, authorizes 

the Secretary to make additional Federal land available as necessary to permit mineral activities on mining claims. This new authority is necessary because the archaic terminology of the 1872 

law requires that millsites, or lands used for processing or milling 

locatable minerals, shall be on non-mineral land and noncontiguous 

to the lode or placer on which a regular mining claim is located. 

The law, therefore, by implication requires that mining claims only 

be used for extracting ore, not processing; otherwise, they are vulnerable to a challenge on the lack of discovery of a valuable minVerDate Aug 31 2005 05:25 Oct 30, 2007 Jkt 069010 PO 00000 Frm 00074 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR412.XXX HR412

cnoel on PRODPC60 with HEARING
75 

37GAO, 2005. ‘‘Hardrock Mining: BLM Needs to Better Manage Financial Assurances to Guarantee Coverage of Reclamation Costs.’’ (GAO–05–377) 

eral. In practice these restrictions are routinely ignored. In fact, 

the BLM regulations expressly allow a mine permit to cover a specified area whether or not it is on or includes valid mining claims. 

Section 304 rectifies this situation by requiring that an operations 

permit may only be approved on federal land containing a valid 

mining claim, millsite claim, tunnel site claim, and such additional 

Federal lands that the Secretary grants a right-of-way permit 

under title V of FLPMA. In this way, the mining operator will be 

able to secure the additional space needed to conduct mineral activities while also ensuring that Federal lands are used in accordance with Federal law. 

Sec. 305. Persons ineligible for permits 

This section declares persons in violation of this Act, state or 

Federal conservation laws or regulations, or the Surface Mining 

Control and Reclamation Act and associated regulations to be ineligible for permits. This section mirrors comparable provisions of the 

Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act (30 U.S.C. 1231). 

Sec. 306. Financial assurances 

This section seeks to prevent the already substantial problem of 

abandoned hardrock mines from growing when companies go bankrupt. A 2005 report by the General Accounting Office 37 (GAO) 

found that the BLM did not have a process for ensuring that adequate assurances, like bonds, are in place to cover reclamation 

costs for mines on public lands. This section requires operators to 

provide evidence of financial assurances sufficient to cover mine 

reclamation and restoration. The Secretary is authorized to adjust 

the amounts of the bonds or other assurances as size of area mined 

changes, or based on new information on reclamation or treatment 

costs. Financial assurances must be sufficient to assure reclamation by the Secretary in the event of forfeiture. A two-part release 

schedule for financial assurances is established: first, part of the 

assurances can be released after determination that operators have 

successfully regraded and revegetated the mine area. The second 

part can be released after confirmation that mine discharge has 

ceased for at least five years, or met water quality standards for 

five years without treatment. 

The administration and several witnesses testified that BLM has 

substantially improved its financial assurance requirements and 

oversight since the GAO report was released. However, others—including a former BLM State Director—testified to the value of this 

section to ensure that financial assurance oversight remains an 

agency priority, and improvements continue, especially with regard 

to assurances that take into account the costs of long-term water 

treatment. 

Sec. 307. Operation and reclamation 

This section mandates that lands used for mining must be restored to a condition capable of supporting their prior uses, or to 

other beneficial uses which conform to applicable land use plans, 

such as fish and wildlife habitat, hunting, fishing and other forms 


cnoel on PRODPC60 with HEARING
76 

38 National Research Council, ‘‘Hardrock Mining on Federal Lands’’, National Academy Press, 

1999. 

of recreation. The Committee amended the bill as introduced to delete the more prescriptive operations and reclamation standards included in the bill as introduced and instead directs Secretaries to 

jointly issue performance or technology-based standards to address 

eleven environmental concerns, such as (but not limited to) erosion 

control, vegetation cover, acid mine drainage, and restoration of 

fish and wildlife habitat. The Committee also added a provision to 

require the Secretary to work with state and local governments to 

minimize impacts on surface and ground water from mineral activities. Ongoing review of reclamation activities on forfeited claims 

and suspended operations permits is required. 

The Committee adopted this less prescriptive approach in response to the 1999 National Research Council’s report on hardrock 

mining which endorsed performance standards over technology 

standards.38 Specifically, the National Research Council found that 

‘‘Federal land management agencies’’ regulatory standards for mining should continue to focus on a clear statement of management 

goals rather than on defining inflexible, technically prescriptive 

‘standards.’’ Simple ‘one-size-fits-all’ solutions are impractical because mining confronts too great an assortment of site specific technical, environmental, and social conditions. The requirements in 

H.R. 2262, as amended will provide the necessary and strong 

framework for regulating hardrock mining while also providing 

enough flexibility to ensure the appropriate outcomes. 

Sec. 308. State law and regulation 

This section declares that state standards for reclamation, bonding, inspection, and water or air quality which either meet or exceed federal standards are not inconsistent with this Act. The 

states and the Secretary can use cooperative agreements to govern 

surface management activities, but the federal government reserves the authority to inspect and enforce those mines which include private as well as public lands. 

Sec. 309. Limitation on the issuance of permits 

H.R. 2262, as amended, requires that no exploration or operations permit shall be issued under this Act if the mineral activities would impair the lands or resources of a National Park or National Monument. The bill, as amended, defines the term ‘‘impair’’

as including any diminution of the affected lands or resources including but not limited to scenic assets, water resources, air quality, acoustic qualities or other changes that would damage the 

lands or resources of a National Park or a National Monument. 

TITLE IV—MINING MITIGATION 

The substance of this title is unchanged in H.R. 2262, as amended; however, it has been reformatted for purposes of clarity. 

SUBTITLE A—LOCATABLE MINERALS FUND

Sec. 401. Establishment of fund 

This section establishes a ‘‘Locatable Minerals Fund.’’


cnoel on PRODPC60 with HEARING
77 

Sec. 402. Contents of fund 

This section directs to the Locatable Minerals Fund the following: royalties collected under Section 102, monies resulting from 

enforcement and citizen suits, donations, penalties, funds from 

issuance of remaining grandfathered permits, and any balance in 

the annual claim maintenance fees not otherwise applied to administration of the mining law program in the Department of the Interior. 

Sec. 403. Subaccounts 

This section directs 2/3 of the funding to the ‘‘Hardrock Reclamation Account’’ and 1/3 to the ‘‘Hardrock Community Impact Assistance Account.’’

SUBTITLE B—USE OF HARDROCK RECLAMATION ACCOUNT

Sec. 411—Use and objectives of the account 

This section establishes that funds can be spent for reclamation 

on public lands used for mining, and on areas with mixed federalnonfederal ownership, as long as half the lands are federal. The 

Secretary is directed to prioritize reclamation projects which protect public health and safety, particularly from water pollution, and 

for projects which restore wildlife habitat. Reclamation that is a removal or remedial action under Superfund must be conducted with 

the concurrence of the EPA. 

Section 412. Eligible lands and waters 

This Section mandates use of funds for reclamation of federal 

lands, Indian lands, or water resources that cross those lands, 

which have been affected by mining activities prior to this Act, for 

which there is no responsible party, and on which minerals cannot 

further be extracted economically by mining or reprocessing beyond 

negligible disturbance. The Secretary is directed to maintain an inventory of abandoned mines on Federal and Indian Lands and provide an annual report to Congress on status of cleanup. 

Sec. 413. Expenditures 

This section authorizes the Director of the Office of Surface Mining and Reclamation to make funds available to agency directors, 

tribes, or other public entities that are capable of undertaking reclamation programs. 

Sec. 414. Authorization of appropriations 

This section authorizes appropriation of funds without fiscal year 

limitation. 

SUBTITLE C—USE OF HARDROCK COMMUNITY IMPACT ASSISTANCE

ACCOUNT

Sec. 412. Use and objectives of the account 

This Section directs fund to be used for planning, construction, 

and maintenance of public facilities and public services in states, 

political subdivisions, and tribes negative impacted by hardrock 

mining on public lands. 


cnoel on PRODPC60 with HEARING
78 

Sec. 422. Allocation of funds 

This section allocates funds in proportion to the amount of mineral production under the general mining act in each state. 

TITLE V—ADMINISTRATIVE AND MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS 

SUBTITLE A—ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS

Sec. 501. Policy functions 

This section adds to the purposes of Mining and Minerals Policy 

Act of 1970 ‘‘to ensure that mineral extraction and processing not 

cause undue degradation of the natural and cultural resources of 

the Federal lands.’’ It also adds language to the National Materials 

and Minerals Policy, Research and Development Act of 1980 to ‘‘improve the availability of mineral data in Federal land use decisions.’’

Sec. 502. User fees 

This section authorizes the Secretaries to establish and collect 

user fees to cover administrative costs of the requirements of the 

Act. 

Sec. 503. Inspection and monitoring 

This section establishes a minimum number of inspections of 

mineral activities per year, based on phase of operation. It gives 

citizens adversely affected by mineral activity violations the right 

to confidentially request inspections of sites. Operators are required to monitor compliance with their permit requirements, file 

reports with the Secretary, and make monitoring and evaluation 

reports available to the public. 

Sec. 504. Citizen suits 

This section authorizes citizen suits against any person, including the Secretaries, to enforce compliance. Plaintiffs must give operators notice in writing of the alleged violation and 60 days before 

civil actions can begin. The bill, as amended, mirrors comparable 

provisions of the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act (30 

U.S.C. 1231). 

Sec. 505. Administrative and judicial review 

This section proscribes procedural guidelines for administrative 

review of agency actions. It provides for review of notice of violation 

within 30 days, review of penalties assessed within 45 days, and 

review of a decision within 30 days. It further provides for public 

hearings on violations, requires written decisions by the Secretary 

on findings within 30 days of review, and allows the Secretary to 

grant temporary relief from penalties or corrective measures. 

Sec. 506. Enforcement 

This section sets forth enforcement guidelines. 30 days are allowed for abatement of violations, unless there is an imminent 

threat to public heath or safety of the environment, in which case 

the operation is shut down and financial assurances forfeited pending judicial or administrative review. Civil and criminal penalties 


cnoel on PRODPC60 with HEARING
79 

are set for non-compliance, with caps for penalties at $25,000 per 

violation per day for failure to comply with environmental protection requirements. This section sets the minimum penalty for failing to cease operations when ordered at $1,000. Any agent of a corporation who knowingly facilitates a violation or refusal to cease 

operations is made culpable. The Secretary is empowered to suspend permits if mine operators [or owners] lie or violate terms of 

the Act or their permit. Fines are imposed for violations of monitoring agreements or falsifying monitoring information, for mining 

without a permit, or violating environmental protection requirements. 

Sec. 507. Enforcement 

This section requires Secretaries of Interior and Agriculture to 

promulgate regulations to implement the Act within 180 days of 

enactment of the Act. 

Sec. 508. Effective date 

This section establishes that the Act is effective on the date of 

enactment unless otherwise provided. 

SUBTITLE B—MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS

Sec. 511. Oil shale claims subject to special rules 

This section amends the reclamation requirement for certain oil 

shale claims and limited patents in the Energy Policy Act of 1992 

to be consistent with the provisions in this Act. 

Sec. 512. Purchasing power adjustment 

This section requires Secretary to adjust all fees, penalties, and 

other charges at least every five years based on the Consumer 

Price Index. 

Sec. 513. Savings clause 

This section declares that laws, regulations, and land use plans 

with stronger requirements to protect natural and cultural resources than those in this Act remain in effect. This section also 

declares that no other Federal law is affected by this Act, except 

the general mining laws. 

Sec. 514. Availability of public records 

This section declares that all records, materials, and information 

must be made available to the public physically and via the Internet. 

Sec. 515. Miscellaneous powers 

This section authorizes the Secretaries of Interior and Agriculture to conduct investigations, inspections, and other inquiries. 

Secretaries have authority to issue subpoenas and order written 

testimony and depositions. District courts are authorized to require 

witness appearance and production of documents. Entry and access 

to facilities and records is authorized. 


cnoel on PRODPC60 with HEARING
80 

Sec. 516. Multiple mineral development and surface resources 

This section applies the provisions of the Multiple Minerals Development Act (30 U.S.C. 524 and 526). 

Sec. 517. Mineral materials 

This section clarifies that all common minerals, such as clay, 

stone, pumice, and rock, are covered under the leasing and sale 

laws and are not to be treated as locatable minerals. This section 

removes the ability to claim mineral deposits of such minerals as 

locatable minerals under the mining laws if the mineral deposit 

had some property giving it a ‘‘distinct and special value’’ that had 

existed under the Surface Resources Act of 1955 (30 U.S.C. 611). 

COMMITTEE OVERSIGHT FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Regarding clause 2(b)(1) of rule X and clause 3(c)(1) of rule XIII 

of the Rules of the House of Representatives, the Committee on 

Natural Resources’ oversight findings and recommendations are reflected in the body of this report. 

FEDERAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE STATEMENT

The functions of the proposed advisory committee authorized in 

the bill are not currently being nor could they be performed by one 

or more agencies, an advisory committee already in existence or by 

enlarging the mandate of an existing advisory committee. 

CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY STATEMENT

Article I, section 8 of the Constitution of the United States 

grants Congress the authority to enact this bill. 

COMPLIANCE WITH HOUSE RULE XIII 

1. Cost of Legislation. Clause 3(d)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of 

the House of Representatives requires an estimate and a comparison by the Committee of the costs which would be incurred in carrying out this bill. However, clause 3(d)(3)(B) of that Rule provides 

that this requirement does not apply when the Committee has included in its report a timely submitted cost estimate of the bill prepared by the Director of the Congressional Budget Office under section 402 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974. 

2. Congressional Budget Act. As required by clause 3(c)(2) of rule 

XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives and section 

308(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, this bill does not 

contain any new budget authority, spending authority, credit authority, or an increase or decrease in revenues or tax expenditures. 

3. General Performance Goals and Objectives. As required by 

clause 3(c)(4) of Rule XIII, the general performance goal or objective of this bill is to modify the requirements applicable to locatable 

minerals on public domain land, consistent with the principles of 

self-initiation of mining claims, and for other purposes. 

4. Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate. Under clause 

3(c)(3) of Rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives 

and section 403 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the Committee has received the following cost estimate for this bill from the 

Director of the Congressional Budget Office: 


cnoel on PRODPC60 with HEARING
81 

H.R. 2262—Hardrock Mining and Reclamation Act of 2007 

Summary: H.R. 2262 would reform programs related to mining 

hardrock minerals, such as gold, copper, and uranium, on federal 

land. CBO estimates that implementing the bill would increase discretionary spending by $16 million in 2008 and $267 million over 

the 2008–2012 period, assuming appropriation of the necessary 

amounts. We also estimate that enacting H.R. 2262 would reduce 

direct spending by $10 million in 2008, $206 million over the 2008– 2012 period, and $382 million over the 2008–2017 period. Finally, 

we estimate that the bill would have no impact on revenues in 

2008, but would increase them by $160 million over the 2009–2012 

period, and $310 million over the 2009–2017 period. 

H.R. 2262 contains no intergovernmental mandates as defined in 

the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) and would impose no 

costs on state, local, or tribal governments. 

H.R. 2262 contains private-sector mandates, as defined in 

UMRA, that would affect certain holders or operators of mining 

claims on public land. The bill would impose a royalty on the production of hardrock minerals from those claims. The bill also would 

require persons paying royalties to comply with certain administrative procedures. CBO estimates that the cost of those mandates 

would fall below the annual threshold established in UMRA for private-sector mandates ($131 million in 2007, adjusted annually for 

inflation). 

Estimated cost to the Federal Government: For this estimate, 

CBO assumes that H.R. 2262 will be enacted early in 2008. The estimated budgetary impact of H.R. 2262 is shown in the following 

table. The costs of this legislation fall within budget function 300 

(natural resources and environment). 

TABLE 1.—ESTIMATED BUDGETARY EFFECTS OF H.R. 2262 

By fiscal year, in millions of dollars— 

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2008– 

2012 

2008– 

2017 

CHANGES IN SPENDING SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATION 

Estimated Authorization Level ....................... 25 151 94 88 83 441 n.a. 

Estimated Outlays ......................................... 16 46 52 69 84 267 n.a. 

CHANGES IN DIRECT SPENDING 

Estimated Budget Authority .......................... ¥10 ¥55 ¥51 ¥47 ¥43 ¥206 ¥382 

Estimated Outlays ......................................... ¥10 ¥55 ¥51 ¥47 ¥43 ¥206 ¥382 

CHANGES IN REVENUES 

Estimated Revenues ...................................... 0 70 30 30 30 160 310 

Note.—n.a. = not available. 

Basis of estimate: H.R. 2262 would reform programs related to 

mining hardrock minerals on federal land. The bill would establish 

a new regulatory framework for administering permits to develop 

hardrock minerals. Key features of that framework would require 

miners to seek additional permits to explore for and develop mineral resources and meet certain standards related to reclamation of 

mined lands. The bill also would reauthorize and increase certain 

mining-related fees and impose a royalty on gross income from 

hardrock mining on federal land. Under current law, hardrock miners pay no royalties to the federal government. Under the bill, income from hardrock mining fees and royalties would be available, 


cnoel on PRODPC60 with HEARING
82 

subject to appropriation, to support reclamation programs and to 

provide assistance to certain state, local, and tribal governments. 

Finally, H.R. 2262 would modify procedures related to administrative and judicial review of mining activities, withdraw certain federal land from such activities, and establish procedures to allow 

local governments to petition for further withdrawals of federal 

land within their jurisdiction. 

CBO estimates that implementing the bill would increase spending subject to appropriation, offsetting receipts (a credit against direct spending), and revenues. Effects of provisions estimated to 

have significant budgetary effects are described in the following 

sections. 

Spending subject to appropriation 

H.R. 2262 would authorize the appropriation of federal proceeds 

(including fees and royalties) from hardrock mining to restore public land where mining has occurred and to provide assistance to 

certain state, local, and tribal governments. (Estimates of such proceeds, which would affect direct spending and revenues, are described later in this estimate.) The bill also would make several 

changes to mining permits and the review of those permits that 

CBO expects would significantly increase federal costs to administer programs related to hardrock mining on federal land. In total, 

CBO estimates that implementing the legislation would increase 

discretionary spending by $16 million in 2008 and $267 million 

over the 2008–2012 period, assuming appropriation of the necessary amounts. 

Spending of Proceeds from Hardrock Mining. As discussed 

in more detail in the following sections, H.R. 2262 would increase 

federal proceeds from hardrock mining. The bill also would establish the Locatable Minerals Fund, into which such proceeds would 

be deposited along with certain other mining-related fees and 

charges. Subject to appropriation, the bill would authorize the Secretary of the Interior to spend two-thirds of amounts in the proposed fund, including interest, to restore public land where mining 

has occurred. The bill would authorize appropriations of the remaining one-third of such funds for financial assistance to state, 

local, and tribal governments with federal mining lands within 

their jurisdictions. 

Based on information from the Department of the Interior (DOI) 

and industry experts, CBO estimates that deposits to the proposed 

fund, including intragovernmental transfers of interest credited to 

unspent balances in the fund, would total $25 million in 2008 and 

$441 million over the 2008–2012 period. Assuming appropriation of 

the necessary amounts, we estimate that resulting spending would 

total $3 million in 2008 and $252 million over the 2008–2012 period. That estimate is based on historical spending patterns for 

similar activities. 

Administrative Costs. Based on information from DOI regarding the department’s costs to administer hardrock mining activities 

under current law, CBO estimates that implementing H.R. 2262 

would increase the department’s costs by about $15 million annually starting in 2008, particularly for costs related to new permitting requirements established under the bill. 


cnoel on PRODPC60 with HEARING
83 

H.R. 2262 would authorize the Secretary of the Interior to charge 

fees to offset those increased administrative costs. CBO expects, 

however, that it would take about one year for DOI to begin to collect such fees; therefore, we estimate that increased costs incurred 

during 2008 would not be offset, and we estimate that the agency 

would require additional net appropriations of $15 million to administer hardrock mining programs in that year. Starting in 2009, 

however, we estimate that DOI would collect fees sufficient to fully 

offset additional administrative costs incurred under H.R. 2262, requiring no further net appropriations beyond 2008. As a result, we 

estimate that administering proposed changes to hardrock mining 

programs under H.R. 2262 would increase net discretionary spending by $13 million in 2008 and $15 million over the 2008–2012 period, assuming appropriation of the necessary amounts. 

Direct spending and revenues 

CBO estimates that enacting H.R. 2262 would increase offsetting 

receipts from certain fees, thereby reducing direct spending. We 

also estimate that the bill would increase revenues by imposing a 

royalty on income generated from mining for hardrock minerals on 

federal land. Direct spending and revenue effects are presented in 

Table 2 and described in the following sections. 


cnoel on PRODPC60 with HEARING
TABLE 2.

—ESTIMATED DIRECT SPENDING AND REVENUE EFFECTS UNDER H.R. 2262 

By fiscal year, in millions of dollars

—

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2008– 2012 

CHANGES IN DIRECT SPENDING 

Estimated Budget Authority ....................................................................................................................... ¥10 ¥55 ¥51 ¥47 ¥43 ¥40 ¥37 ¥35 ¥33 ¥31 ¥20

Estimated Outlays ...................................................................................................................................... ¥10 ¥55 ¥51 ¥47 ¥43 ¥40 ¥37 ¥35 ¥33 ¥31 ¥20

CHANGES IN REVENUES 

Estimated Revenues ................................................................................................................................... 0 70 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 16


cnoel on PRODPC60 with HEARING
85 

Offsetting Receipts from Location and Maintenance Fees. 

Under current law, hardrock miners pay certain fees to the Bureau 

of Land Management (BLM): a one-time location fee of $30 when 

recording a hardrock claim and annual maintenance fees of $125 

per claim. According to BLM, location and maintenance fees—

which are scheduled to expire after 2008—totaled roughly $50 million in 2007. Those fees are currently recorded in the budget as offsets to federal spending. 

H.R. 2262 would permanently reauthorize location and maintenance fees. The bill also would increase those fees, respectively, to 

$50 and $150 per claim. Based on information from BLM about anticipated trends in the number of hardrock claims located and 

maintained each year, CBO estimates that the proposed higher fees 

would generate additional offsetting receipts totaling $10 million in 

2008, $206 million over the 2009–2012 period, and $382 million 

over the 2009–2017 period. (As discussed previously, under H.R. 

2262, those amounts would be deposited in the Locatable Minerals 

Fund, and any spending would be subject to appropriation.) 

Revenues from Royalties: Under current law, hardrock miners 

do not pay royalties to the federal government. H.R. 2262 would establish a royalty on future production of hardrock minerals. In general, the royalty rate on production from existing claims would be 

4 percent of gross income; the rate for new claims established pursuant to H.R. 2262 would be 8 percent. 

Budgetary Treatment of Royalties. CBO believes that imposing 

royalties on miners with existing claims is an exercise of the government’s sovereign power to levy compulsory fees. Governmental 

receipts from such fees are recorded in the budget as revenues. 

Royalties generated from new claims, however, would be considered 

voluntary, resulting from business-like transactions, and would be 

recorded in the budget as offsetting receipts. 

Royalties from Existing Claims. CBO expects that, under H.R. 

2262, royalties from existing claims would generate new revenues. 

Although general data on the value of hardrock minerals produced 

throughout the United States are available, estimates of the portion attributable to federal land—and gross income to firms with 

federal mining claims—are uncertain, particularly because companies are not currently required to report data related to production 

from federal land. However, based on information from BLM, the 

U.S. Geological Survey, and industry experts, CBO estimates that 

total income subject to the proposed royalty would average roughly 

$1 billion a year, with most of that income earned by gold producers, We further estimate that increased revenues under H.R. 

2262, net of reductions to income and payroll taxes, would total 

$160 million over the 2009–2012 period and $310 million over the 

2009–2017 period. Under H.R. 2262, royalties due on minerals produced during the first 12 months following enactment of the bill 

could be deferred until after that 12-month period; therefore, we 

anticipate that no royalties would be paid in 2008. 

Royalties from New Claims. According to BLM and industry experts, after locating a mining claim, it typically takes at least 10 

years to explore, develop, and produce commercial quantities of 

minerals that would generate federal royalties. Therefore, CBO expects that any new claims established over the 2008–2017 period 


cnoel on PRODPC60 with HEARING
86 

are unlikely to generate any significant federal royalties until after 

2017. 

Estimated impact on state, local, and tribal governments: H.R. 

2262 contains no intergovernmental mandates as defined in 

UMRA. The bill would authorize assistance for planning, construction, and maintenance of public facilities and public services to 

state, local, and tribal governments in areas that have been affected by mineral activities. 

It also would allow those governments to file petitions that would 

lead to limiting or ending mining activities on specific tracts of federal land. Petitions would have to outline specific resources and 

values that the jurisdiction intends to protect by limiting mining 

activities, including watersheds and drinking water supplies, wildlife habitats, cultural or historic resources, scenic areas, and, in the 

case of Indian tribes, religious and cultural values. Such petitions 

would have to be approved by the Secretary unless, within 180 

days, the Secretary publishes findings that identify why complying 

with the petition would be contrary to the national interest. 

Finally, the bill would authorize cooperative agreements between 

the federal government and states for implementing and enforcing 

mining regulations, particularly in cases where mineral activities 

would affect lands where federal and state jurisdiction overlap. 

Estimated impact on the private sector: H.R. 2262 contains private-sector mandates, as defined in UMRA, that would affect certain holders or operators of mining claims on public land. The bill 

would impose a royalty on the production of hardrock minerals 

from mining claims that are on the date of enactment (1) subject 

to an operations permit and (2) producing hardrock minerals in 

commercial quantities. The royalty would be set at 4 percent of 

gross income from mining. Based on information from BLM, USGS, 

and industry experts, CBO estimates that the cost of that mandate 

would total about $200 million over the 2008–2012 period. In addition, the bill would require persons paying royalties to comply with 

certain administrative procedures. The cost of complying with the 

procedures would be minimal. Consequently, the aggregate cost to 

the private sector of the mandates in the bill would fall below the 

annual threshold established in UMRA ($131 million in 2007, adjusted annually for inflation). 

Estimate prepared by: Federal Costs: Megan Carroll and Tyler 

Kruzich; Impact on State, Local, and Tribal Governments: Leo Lex; 

Impact on the Private Sector: Amy Petz. 

Estimate approved by: Theresa Gullo, Deputy Assistant Director 

for Budget Analysis. 

COMPLIANCE WITH PUBLIC LAW 104–4 

This bill contains no unfunded mandates. 

EARMARK STATEMENT

H.R. 2262 does not contain any congressional earmarks, limited 

tax benefits, or limited tariff benefits as defined in clause 9(d), 9(e) 

or 9(f) of rule XXI. 

PREEMPTION OF STATE, LOCAL OR TRIBAL LAW

This bill is not intended to preempt any State, local or tribal law. 


cnoel on PRODPC60 with HEARING
87 

CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW MADE BY THE BILL, AS REPORTED

In compliance with clause 3(e) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 

House of Representatives, changes in existing law made by the bill, 

as reported, are shown as follows (existing law proposed to be omitted is enclosed in black brackets, new matter is printed in italic, 

existing law in which no change is proposed is shown in roman): 

SECTION 2324 OF THE REVISED STATUTES OF THE 

UNITED STATES 

SEC. 2324. MINING DISTRICT REGULATIONS BY MINERS: LOCATION, 

RECORDATION, AND AMOUNT OF WORK; MARKING OF LOCATION ON GROUND; RECORDS; ANNUAL LABOR OR IMPROVEMENTS ON CLAIMS PENDING ISSUE OF PATENT; 

CO-OWNER’S SUCCESSION IN INTEREST UPON DELINQUENCY IN CONTRIBUTING PROPORTION OF EXPENDITURES; TUNNEL AS LODE EXPENDITURE. 

The miners of each mining district may make regulations not in 

conflict with the laws of the United States, or with the laws of the 

State or Territory in which the district is situated, governing the 

location, manner of recording, amount of work necessary to hold 

possession of a mining claim, subject to the following requirements: 

The location must be distinctly marked on the ground so that its 

boundaries can be readily traced. All records of mining claims 

made after May 10, 1872, shall contain the name or names of the 

locators, the date of the location, and such a description of the 

claim or claims located by reference to some natural object or permanent monument as will identify the claim. On each claim located 

after the 10th day of May 1872, that is granted a waiver under section 10101 of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993, or 

section 103(a) of the Hardrock Mining and Reclamation Act of 2007 

and until a patent has been issued therefor, not less than $100 

worth of labor shall be performed or improvements made during 

each year. On all claims located prior to the 10th day of May 1872, 

$10 worth of labor shall be performed or improvements made each 

year, for each one hundred feet in length along the vein until a patent has been issued therefor; but where such claims are held in 

common, such expenditure may be made upon any one claim; and 

upon a failure to comply with these conditions, the claim or mine 

upon which such failure occurred shall be open to relocation in the 

same manner as if no location of the same had ever been made, 

provided that the original locators, their heirs, assigns, or legal 

representatives, have not resumed work upon the claim after failure and before such location. Upon the failure of any one of several 

coowners to contribute his proportion of the expenditures required 

hereby, the coowners who have performed the labor or made the 

improvements may, at the expiration of the year, give such delinquent co-owner personal notice in writing or notice by publication 

in the newspaper published nearest the claim, for at least once a 

week for ninety days, and if at the expiration of ninety days after 

such notice in writing or by publication such delinquent should fail 

or refuse to contribute his proportion of the expenditure required 

by this section, his interest in the claim shall become the property 

of his co-owners who have made the required expenditures. The period within which the work required to be done annually on all 

unpatented mineral claims located since May 10, 1872, including 


cnoel on PRODPC60 with HEARING
88 

such claims in the Territory of Alaska, shall commence at 12 

o’clock meridian on the 1st day of September succeeding the date 

of location of such claim. 

* * * * * * * 

MINING AND MINERALS POLICY ACT OF 1970 

* * * * * * * 

TITLE I—MINING POLICY 

SEC. 101. The Congress declares that it is the continuing policy 

of the Federal Government in the national interest to foster and 

encourage private enterprise in (1) the development of economically 

sound and stable domestic mining, minerals, metal and mineral 

reclamation industries, (2) the orderly and economic development 

of domestic mineral resources, reserves, and reclamation of metals 

and minerals to help assure satisfaction of industrial, security and 

environmental needs, (3) mining, mineral, and metallurgical research, including the use and recycling of scrap to promote the wise 

and efficient use of our natural and reclaimable mineral resources, 

and (4) the study and development of methods for the disposal, control, and reclamation of mineral waste products, and the reclamation of mined land, so as to lessen any adverse impact of mineral 

extraction and processing upon the physical environment that may 

result from mining or mineral activities and to ensure that mineral 

extraction and processing not cause undue degradation of the natural and cultural resources of the public lands. 

For the purpose of this Act ‘‘minerals’’ shall include all minerals 

and mineral fuels including oil, gas, coal, oil shale and uranium. 

It shall be the responsibility of the Secretary of the Interior to 

carry out this policy when exercising his authority under such programs as may be authorized by law other than this Act. It shall 

also be the responsibility of the Secretary of Agriculture to carry out 

the policy provisions of paragraphs (1) and (2) of this section. 

* * * * * * * 

SECTION 5 OF THE NATIONAL MATERIALS AND MINERALS POLICY, RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT ACT 

OF 1980 

PROGRAM PLAN AND REPORT TO CONGRESS

SEC. 5. (a) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

(e) The Secretary of the Interior shall promptly initiate actions 

to—

(1) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

(3) improve the availability and analysis of mineral data in 

Federal land use decisionmaking, except that for National Forest System lands the Secretary of Agriculture shall promptly 


cnoel on PRODPC60 with HEARING
89 

initiate actions to improve the availability and analysis of mineral data in public land use decisionmaking. 

* * * * * * * 

SECTION 2511 OF THE ENERGY POLICY ACT OF 1992 

SEC. 2511. OIL SHALE CLAIMS. 

(a) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

(f) RECLAMATION.—In addition to other applicable requirements, 

any person who holds a limited patent or maintains a claim pursuant to this section shall be required to carry out reclamation øas 

prescribed by the Secretary¿ and to furnish a bond or other appropriate financial guarantee in an amount sufficient to ensure adequate reclamation of the lands to be disturbed by any aspect of the 

proposed mining activities in the same manner as if such claim was 

subject to title II and title III of the Hardrock Mining and Reclamation Act of 2007. 

* * * * * * * 

ACT OF JULY 23, 1955 

AN ACT To amend the Act of July 31, 1947 (61 Stat. 681) and the mining laws to 

provide for multiple use of the surface of the same tracts of the public lands, and 

for other purposes. 

* * * * * * * 

SEC. 3. (a) No deposit of common varieties of mineral materials, 

including but not limited to sand, stone, gravel, pumice, pumicite, 

øor cinders¿ cinders, and clay and no deposit of petrified wood 

shall be deemed a valuable mineral deposit within the meaning of 

the mining laws of the United States so as to give effective validity 

to any mining claim hereafter located under such mining laws: Provided, however, That nothing herein shall affect the validity of any 

mining location based upon discovery of some other mineral occurring in or in association with such a deposit. ‘‘Common varieties’’

as used in this Act does not include deposits of such materials 

which are valuable because the deposit has some property giving 

it distinct and special value and does not include so-called ‘‘block 

pumice’’ which occurs in nature in pieces having one dimension of 

two inches or more. ‘‘Petrified wood’’ as used in this Act means 

agatized, opalized, petrified, or silicified wood, or any material 

formed by the replacement of wood by silica or other matter. 

(b)(1) Subject to valid existing rights, after the date of enactment 

of the Hardrock Mining and Reclamation Act of 2007, notwithstanding the reference to common varieties in subsection (a) and to 

the exception to such term relating to a deposit of materials with 

some property giving it distinct and special value, all deposits of 

mineral materials referred to in such subsection, including the block 

pumice referred to in such subsection, shall be subject to disposal 

only under the terms and conditions of the Materials Act of 1947. 

(2) For purposes of paragraph (1), the term ‘‘valid existing rights’’

means that a mining claim located for any such mineral material—


cnoel on PRODPC60 with HEARING
90 

(A) had and still has some property giving it the distinct and 

special value referred to in subsection (a), or as the case may 

be, met the definition of block pumice referred to in such subsection; 

(B) was properly located and maintained under the general 

mining laws prior to the date of enactment of the Hardrock 

Mining and Reclamation Act of 2007; 

(C) was supported by a discovery of a valuable mineral deposit within the meaning of the general mining laws as in effect 

immediately prior to the date of enactment of the Hardrock 

Mining and Reclamation Act of 2007; and 

(D) that such claim continues to be valid under this Act. 

SEC. 4. (a) * * * 

(b) Rights under any mining claim hereafter located under the 

mining laws of the United States shall be subject, prior to issuance 

of patent therefore, to the right of the United States to manage and 

dispose of the vegetative and mineral material surface resources 

thereof and to manage other surface resources thereof (except mineral deposits subject to location under the mining laws of the 

United States). Any such mining claim shall also be subject, prior 

to issuance of patent therefor, to the right of the United States, its 

permittees, and licensees, to use so much of the surface thereof as 

may be necessary for such purposes or for access to adjacent land: 

Provided, however, That any use of the surface of any such mining 

claim by the United States, its permittees or licensees, shall be 

such as not to endanger or materially interfere with prospecting, 

mining or processing operations or uses reasonably incident thereto: Provided further, That if at any time the locator requires more 

timber for his mining operations than is available to him from the 

claim after disposition of timber therefrom by the United States, 

subsequent to the location of the claim, he shall be entitled, free 

of charge, to be supplied with timber for such requirements from 

the nearest timber administered by the disposing agency which is 

ready for harvesting under the rules and regulations of that agency 

and which is substantially equivalent in kind and quantity to the 

timber estimated by the disposing agency to have been disposed of 

from the claim: Provided further, That nothing in this Act shall be 

construed as affecting or intended to affect or in any way interfere 

with or modify the laws of the States which lie wholly or in part 

westward of the ninety-eight meridian relating to the ownership, 

control, appropriation, use, and distribution of ground or surface 

waters within any unpatented mining claim. 

(c) Except to the extent required for the mining claimant’s 

prospecting, mining or processing operations and uses reasonably 

incident thereto, or for the construction of buildings or structures 

in connection therewith, or to provide clearance for such operations 

or uses, or to the extent authorized by the United States, no claimant of any mining claim hereafter located under the mining laws 

of the United States shall, prior to issuance of patent therefore, 

sever, remove, or use any vegetative and mineral material or other 

surface resources thereof which are subject to management or disposition by the United States under the preceding subsection (b). 

Any severance or removal of timber which is permitted under the 

exceptions of the preceding sentence, other than severance or reVerDate Aug 31 2005 05:25 Oct 30, 2007 Jkt 069010 PO 00000 Frm 00090 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR412.XXX HR412

cnoel on PRODPC60 with HEARING
91 

moval to provide clearance, shall be in accordance with sound principles of forest management. 

* * * * * * * 

SEC. 8. This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Surface Resources Act of 

1955’’. 

ACT OF JULY 31, 1947 

(Public Law 80-291) 

AN ACT To provide for the disposal of materials on the public lands of the United 

States. 

SECTION 1. The Secretary, under such rules and regulations as 

he may prescribe, may dispose of mineral materials (including but 

not limited to øcommon varieties of¿ the following: sand, stone, 

gravel, pumice, pumicite, cinders, and clay) and vegetative materials (including but not limited to yucca, manzanita, mesquite, cactus, and timber or other forest products) on public lands of the 

United States, including, for the purposes of this Act, land described in the Acts of August 28, 1937 (50 Stat. 874), and of June 

24, 1954 (68 Stat. 270), if the disposal of such mineral or vegetative 

materials (1) is not otherwise expressly authorized by law, including, but not limited to, the Act of June 28, 1934 (48 Stat. 1269), 

as amended, and the United States mining laws, and (2) is not expressly prohibited by laws of the United States, and (3) would not 

be detrimental to the public interest. Such materials may be disposed of only in accordance with the provisions of this Act and 

upon the payment of adequate compensation therefore, to be determined by the Secretary: Provided, however, That, to the extent not 

otherwise authorized by law, the Secretary is authorized in his discretion to permit any Federal, State, or Territorial agency, unit or 

subdivision, including municipalities, or any association or corporation not organized for profit, to take and remove, without charge, 

materials and resources subject to this Act, for use other than for 

commercial or industrial purposes or resale. Where the lands have 

been withdrawn in aid of a function of a Federal department or 

agency other than the department headed by the Secretary or of a 

State, Territory, county, municipality, water district or other local 

governmental subdivision or agency, the Secretary may make disposals under this Act only with the consent of such other Federal 

department or agency or of such State, Territory, or local governmental unit. Nothing in this Act shall be construed to apply to 

lands in any national park, or national monument or to any Indian 

lands, or lands set aside or held for the use or benefit of Indians, 

including lands over which jurisdiction has been transferred to the 

Department of the Interior by Executive order for the use of Indians. As used in this Act, the word ‘‘Secretary’’ means the Secretary 

of the Interior except that it means the Secretary of Agriculture 

where the lands involved are administered by him for national forest purposes or for the purposes of title III of the Bankhead-Jones 

Farm Tenant Act or where withdrawn for the purpose of any other 

function of the Department of Agriculture. 

* * * * * * * 


cnoel on PRODPC60 with HEARING
92 

SEC. 5. This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Materials Act of 1947’’. 

ACT OF AUGUST 4, 1892 

AN ACT To authorize the entry of lands chiefly valuable for building stone under 

the placer mining laws. 

ƒBe it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 

United States of America in Congress assembled, That any person 

authorized to enter lands under the mining laws of the United 

States may enter lands that are chiefly valuable for building stone 

under the provisions of the law in relation to placer mineral claims: 

Provided, That lands reserved for the benefit of the public schools 

or donated to any State shall not be subject to entry under this act. 

øSEC. 2. That an act entitled ‘‘An act for the sale of timber lands 

in the State of California, Oregon, Nevada, and Washington Territory,’’ approved June third, eighteen hundred and seventy-eight, 

be, and the same is hereby, amended by striking out the words 

‘‘States of California, Oregon, Nevada, and Washington Territory’’

where the same occur in the second and third lines of said act, and 

insert in lieu thereof the words, ‘‘public-land States,’’ the purpose 

of this act being to make said act of June third, eighteen hundred 

and seventy-eight, applicable to all the public-land States. 

øSEC. 3. That nothing in this act shall be construed to repeal section twenty-four of the act entitled ‘‘An act to repeal timber-culture 

laws, and for other purposes,’’ approved March third, eighteen hundred and ninety-one.¿ 

ACT OF JANUARY 31, 1901 

AN ACT Extending the mining laws to saline lands. 

ƒBe it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 

United States of America in Congress assembled, That all unoccupied public lands of the United States containing salt springs, or 

deposits of salt in any form, and chiefly valuable therefor, are hereby declared to be subject to location and purchase under the provisions of the law relating to placer-mining claims: Provided, That 

the same person shall not locate or enter more than one claim 

hereunder.¿ 


cnoel on PRODPC60 with HEARING
(93) 

1See Attachment 1. 

2 Response of Chairman Rahall, Full Committee Markup of H.R. 2262, Tuesday, October 23, 

2007 to an amendment offered by Congressman Pearce stating that H.R. 2262 would expire if 

and when the United States does not have the number one gross domestic product in the world. 

DISSENTING VIEWS 

We strongly oppose H.R. 2262, the ‘‘Hardrock Mining and Reclamation Act of 2007’’ because we believe it will decimate the remnants of an already sadly diminished domestic mining industry. It 

will export American jobs, good American jobs, to other nations, 

and make us more dependent on others for the materials necessary 

for our high tech future. H.R. 2262 leaves a grave legacy that 

threatens our long term economic and national security. 

While the Committee Majority may be content to allow our mineral import deficit to grow 1, we believe that a domestic mining industry is one of the foundations of our economy and our military 

security. Indeed, China and India agree with us, as they are consuming huge amounts of energy and minerals which they are willing to secure from parts around the globe and with which they are 

fueling unprecedented economic growth. At current rates of relative 

economic growth, one or both of them will surpass the United 

States in economic output within two decades. Data from the World 

Trade Organization shows that China vaulted past America at the 

beginning of this year as an exporter and has since moved at lightning speed to eclipse Germany’s once indomitable export machine. 

However, according to the Majority there is ‘‘no reason, no reason 

whatsoever, why ‘good public land law’ should be linked to the 

gross national product.’’ 2

The Majority’s irreverence to establishing a balanced minerals 

policy that will help our country compete with these booming rivals 

became quite apparent during the legislative process. The legislative process was perfunctory at best. H.R. 2262 was drafted without any input from the Minority side of the aisle. Numerous requests from Members for additional hearings were denied. Regular 

order with a Subcommittee level markup was bypassed. The only 

opportunity for Minority input was at the Full Committee markup 

where almost all amendments from the Minority were rejected and 

deemed ‘‘dilatory’’ by the Committee Chairman. Those amendments 

may seem ‘‘dilatory’’ to the Committee Majority because they do not 

have hardrock mining in their Districts; however, many of us do. 

Those amendments were the only voice we had to protect the jobs 

and tax base in our Districts. If this is the ‘‘new direction’’ that was 

promised to America last November, America was misled. 

We are unaware of any witness in the three legislative hearings 

held by the Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources who 

testified that H.R. 2262 will increase domestic mining activity. 

Rather, several witnesses testified that H.R. 2262 will be devVerDate Aug 31 2005 05:25 Oct 30, 2007 Jkt 069010 PO 00000 Frm 00093 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6604 E:\HR\OC\HR412.XXX HR412

cnoel on PRODPC60 with HEARING
94 

astating to our domestic production of minerals, will be crippling 

to our economy and will send more jobs overseas. We agree. 

The problems with H.R. 2262 are extensive and pervasive; however, we wish to highlight in these Dissenting Views three of the 

most significant concerns raised during the hearings: • Title I, 8% Gross Royalty; • Title II, Land Withdrawal; and • Title III, Mine Veto. 

I. TITLE I, 8% GROSS ROYALTY

Under H.R. 2262, as reported, existing hardrock mines will be 

subject to a new 4% gross royalty. We are extremely concerned that 

this 4% royalty on existing mines constitutes a ‘‘taking’’ of private 

property rights under the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution 

and a breach of contract. The lands affected by this provision are 

in many cases, private. In many cases in the Western Government 

Land States, private mining lands adjoin government lands, but 

under this provision, the government would be extracting a royalty 

if government lands adjacent to the mine were necessary for any 

use by the mine. For those who understand agriculture, the analogy would be a proposal of a 4% gross royalty on all crops raised 

on lands that had been conveyed under the Homestead Act, under 

the false premise that the government was due such royalty because a farmer used public roads to get the crops to market. A 

‘‘royalty’’ by definition is a payment made to an owner for the use 

of land or property belonging to the owner, assessed on the value 

of the produce derived. It has never been associated with ancillary 

uses. Under this bill, the Majority demands that an owner pay a 

royalty to the government for something the government does not 

own. While the Majority may feel that the government owns, or 

should own, everything, we do not. We believe our Founding Fathers did not intend for the government to own, or claim ownership 

of everything. 

In addition, all new hardrock mines will be subject to an 8 percent gross royalty. The hearing record seems irrelevant to the Majority, as the objection to this extremely high tax was overwhelming. The following were statements made during the Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources hearings, that appear 

to have fallen on deaf ears: • ‘‘8% is excessive.’’—James Otto, Author of World Bank Mining 

Royalties publication (Washington, DC hearing 10/02/07). • ‘‘I am only aware of a single royalty that is as high as the royalty proposed in the bill, just one in my 20 years of practice. An 

8% royalty would really be ruinous....’’—James Cress, Attorney, 

Holme Roberts & Owen LLP (Washington, DC hearing 10/02/07). • ‘‘I am particularly concerned about the potential impacts of the 

eight percent net smelter return royalty called for in the last legislation. . . . All the royalty costs will be absorbed by the mining 

companies, and this will be a direct adverse impact on the amount 

of mining tax revenues that flows to the State and to the Counties.’’—Elaine Burkdull Spencer, Elko County Economic Diversification Authority (Elko, Nevada field hearing 8/21/07). • ‘‘We do not believe that this type of royalty fairly addresses the 

needs of the public or of the mining industry. To a large extent, as 


cnoel on PRODPC60 with HEARING
95 

you’ve heard, we have no control over price; therefore, it is impossible to pass on any additional cost. I bring to you for your consideration Nevada’s model of the Nevada net proceeds of mine tax. 

This is a tax that has served the State and the industry very well 

since statehood, and we would be delighted to work with the Committee on how this Nevada model might be used to become, in a 

sense, essentially a production royalty or a production payment 

fee.’’—Russ Fields, Nevada Mining Association (Elko, Nevada field 

hearing 8/21/07). 

• ‘‘What I would suggest is that if you are going to implement 

a royalty that actually you look to the states who are going to be 

impacted by the loss of their revenues. They’re the one’s that are 

going to come back to you and ask you to help them replace their 

industries that they’ve lost.’’—Walter Martin (Elko, Nevada field 

hearing 8/21/07). 

H.R. 2262 was moved through the Committee with such haste 

that an economic analysis on the impact of an 8 percent gross royalty by any stakeholder, the Administration or Congress was not 

performed. Perhaps it was for good reason, as the three economic 

analyses performed on similar mining legislation in 1993 are instructive. Those economic analyses showed that there would be a 

huge loss of revenue to the government and a dramatic loss of jobs 

in the mining sector. 

One hearing witness described a real world example that occurred in British Columbia in the 1970’s when the province imposed a 2.5 percent gross royalty that increased to 5 percent in the 

second year. The witness stated that revenues collected from royalties on metal mines declined from $28.4 million in 1974 to $15 million in 1975. Exploration expenditures also decreased from $38 million in 1972 to $15.3 million in 1975. Ultimately, the royalty had 

a devastating impact on the mining industry, and British Columbia 

repealed the royalty in 1976. 

Moreover, it has been intimated by proponents of this bill that 

they acknowledge the proposed royalty is so high that it would stop 

mining in the US, but that it will be ‘‘subject to negotiation’’ with 

the Senate. In other words, the proponents cynically admit that the 

legislation they are asking Members of Congress to vote for would 

kill a vitally important industry for our nation’s future, but they 

are ‘‘gambling’’ with the Senate. Not only does this show a markedly callous and cynical disregard for the well-being of Americans 

dependent on mining for their livelihoods, it also represents an affront to the House of Representatives by asking elected Members 

to vote for a bill that they acknowledge will destroy an entire industry in order to improve their ‘‘bargaining power’’ with the Senate. The proponents are in sum, arguing that Members go on 

record to destroy an industry so that they can bargain for some 

changes. We strongly believe this Inside-the-Beltway cynicism and 

gamesmanship contributes to the current congressional approval 

ratings which have sunk to their lowest level. A bill should be able 

to pass the ‘‘red face test.’’ The proponents admit theirs does not, 

yet ask other Members to trust them that they do not mean to destroy mining in America, even though the Committee record clearly 

shows that their bill will do just that. 


cnoel on PRODPC60 with HEARING
96 

The Majority is wrong when they say that the industry does not 

contribute to state and federal treasuries. The current taxation system on hardrock mining in the U.S. is similar to Canada’s where 

special taxes or royalties are levied by the State and shared with 

the Counties where the mines are located. The Federal government 

receives revenues from the claim maintenance fees ($55 million in 

FY 2006), document processing fees, cost recovery rules and corporate and personal income taxes. These revenues from the claim 

maintenance fees, claim location fees and other monies collected 

through the cost recovery rule are not shared with the States or 

Counties where the mine is located. Compare this to the zero revenue received by the federal government from lands that produce 

nothing. 

If a royalty were imposed, a more reasonable approach would be 

that advocated for by Congressman Heller, whose district encompasses roughly 99% of Nevada. Representative Heller offered an 

amendment outlining a royalty paradigm modeled after Nevada’s 

successful state model. Nevada serves as a premiere laboratory for 

what royalty would work and what royalty would not. The Majority 

summarily dismissed Rep. Heller’s tested-and-proven approach for 

their own 8 percent unprecedented and untested gross royalty. 

II. TITLE II, LAND WITHDRAWAL

H.R. 2262 withdraws vast new categories of federal lands from 

mineral entry and development including roadless areas. Prohibiting economic activity on federal lands is detrimental to Western 

States. Federally held public lands account for as much as 86 percent of the land in certain Western states. These same states account for 75 percent of our nation’s metals production. As such, access to federal lands for mineral exploration and development is 

critical to maintain a strong domestic mining industry. 

In addition, H.R. 2262 places a presumption in favor of withdrawing land unless the Secretary of the Interior can prove that it 

is in the ‘‘national interest’’ not to. While an individual mine may 

or may not rise to the level of a ‘‘national interest,’’ domestic mining does. The minerals are where Mother Nature has placed them, 

and to have a presumption against developing them is bad mineral 

policy. 

H.R. 2262’s withdrawal language does not require a mineral survey to determine if any areas are prospective for mineral discovery. 

Even the Wilderness Act requires a mineral assessment prior to 

Congressional Wilderness Designation. As a result of these surveys, 

some areas were not included in Wilderness because of their mineral potential. 

More than 400 million acres of federal land have already been 

withdrawn from mineral entry and set aside for either military or 

conservation purposes. To put this in perspective, only 6 million 

acres nationwide have been or are being mined. Approximately half 

of those 6 million acres have been reclaimed. This includes 

locatable minerals (the subject of H.R. 2262) coal, sand and gravel, 

and industrial minerals such as potash and trona. 

Following are statements from the hearing that appear to have 

fallen on deaf ears. 


cnoel on PRODPC60 with HEARING
97 

• ‘‘Title II of the bill, protection of special places, renders millions of acres off limits to exploration and mining on which exploration and development are not currently prohibited. At the very 

least, no withdrawal should be made until an appropriate and careful study of the mineral resource potential has been completed. But 

really, better yet, these lands should remain open to exploration 

and mining. Please keep in mind that substantial land withdrawals 

have already occurred over the past decades, putting many millions 

of acres off limits to exploration and mining, including here in Nevada.’’—Ronald Parraat President, AuEx Ventures, Inc (Elko, Nevada field hearing 8/21/07). 

• ‘‘The provision’s closing enormous tracts of land to mining. 

Mining towns are traditionally against wholesale withdrawal from 

mineral entry. And traditionally, Congress has looked at those 

lands with high esthetic or environmental values on a case-by-case 

basis. I think that’s a good policy, and I think that this Committee 

should take a good hard look at what may happen by withdrawing 

some 58 million acres of land from mineral entry.’’—John 

Hutchings, Eureka County Department of Natural Resources (Elko, 

Nevada field hearing 8/21/07). 

III. TITLE III, MINE VETO

Several provisions in H.R. 2262 grant the Secretary the power to 

deny or ‘‘veto’’ proposed mining operations that will be in full compliance with all applicable environmental and reclamation standards. The veto can be done at anytime in the process even after significant investment has been made in construction of mine infrastructure. Such a veto is unprecedented for projects on federal 

lands. 

A mine veto provision singles out the mining industry by preventing owners of mining claims the ability to exercise their rights 

secured by law. Other users of the public lands (i.e., timber industry, coal, oil and gas or other lessees) are not subject to such arbitrary denials. For these other industry lessees, once their right to 

be on the land has been acquired and all environmental requirements are met, projects move forward and are not subject to a veto. 

An example of this mine veto authority is seen in the definition 

of ‘‘irreparable harm.’’ H.R. 2262’s new ‘‘irreparable harm’’ standard authorizes a mine veto nearly identical to the one rejected in 

2001 due to the Bureau of Land Management’s (BLM) projections 

of thousands of job losses and substantial adverse economic impacts. After a thorough public process, the BLM found ‘‘the requirement to avoid . . . irreparable harm to significant resource values 

which cannot be effectively mitigated has the greatest potential for 

affecting mining activities (both large and small). In some cases, 

this provision could preclude operations altogether.’’ This new 

standard is a lawyer’s dream of ambiguity leading to fighting about 

whether we mine instead of how we mine. Not one witness over the 

course of the three hearings held asked for this definition change 

and so it is not backed by any record. 

Uncertainty created by the mine veto provisions will deter investment in domestic mining projects. Investors need to know that 

a mining project in the United States can obtain approval and proVerDate Aug 31 2005 05:25 Oct 30, 2007 Jkt 069010 PO 00000 Frm 00097 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR412.XXX HR412

cnoel on PRODPC60 with HEARING
98 

ceed unimpeded as long as the operator complies with all relevant 

laws and regulations. 

Ronald Parrat, President, AuEx Ventures, Inc., testifying at the 

Elko Field hearing summarized it best: 

H.R. 2262 eliminates the right under the current mining 

law to use and occupy public lands for mineral exploration 

and development. Instead, the bill empowers federal land 

managers with discretionary veto power to reject current 

applications for exploration and mining where mineral development is already allowed under current multiple use 

guidelines. The discretionary permitting process proposed 

in H.R. 2262 ignores the fundamental geological fact that 

commercial mineral deposits are rare occurrences. Mineral 

deposits cannot be moved. They need to be developed 

where they’re found. And laws and regulations covering 

exploration and mining really must recognize and acknowledge this unique aspect. 

Beyond the mine veto, the list of onerous provisions in Title III 

goes on. It should also be noted that Title III creates a whole new 

environmental permitting system for hardrock mines even though 

a comprehensive framework of state and federal laws and regulations governing this type of mining is already in place. Title III 

even puts in new ‘‘acoustic quality’’ buffers to prohibit mining near 

the National Park System or National Monuments. Under the definition of impair they include ‘‘scenic assets’’ and ‘‘acoustic qualities.’’ There are existing operations within and close to National 

Parks and National Monuments that may be adversely affected by 

this provision. 

IV. CONCLUSIONS

We firmly believe more hearings were necessary before H.R. 2262 

was marked-up at the Natural Resources Committee, our request 

for additional hearings and citizens guidance was denied by the 

Majority. Our efforts to further evaluate H.R. 2262, its impact on 

our constituents and the security of our nation was expressed in a 

letter to the Committee Chairman on October 16, 2007. Western 

residents, local industry and the Republican Members who largely 

represent the mining region of our country, were left out of the 

drafting process of the bill and were relegated to bystander status 

as this bill was pushed through Committee. 

We very strongly believe that H.R. 2262 will harm domestic mining investment and will cause mines to close prematurely. We do 

not believe it will generate the expected revenues. Rather, it will 

force taxpayers to bare the burden of the increased federal bureaucracies needed to implement and administer the Act without 

an industry to monitor. 

We believe that this Act will increase the United States’ dependency on foreign sources of mined materials impacting our economy, 

balance of trade and national security. It will certainly adversely 

impact the rural mining communities in the West whose citizens 

working in the mines earn the best non-supervisory wages in the 

country. We believe that maintaining an industrial base in America—from raw materials to finished product is vitally important to 


cnoel on PRODPC60 with HEARING
99 

our economic survival and our national security. This bill fails to 

secure our national supply of minerals and leaves us vulnerable 

and dependent on unstable nations with little or no regard for their 

own environmental concerns and certainly no regard for the importance of protecting America’s economy. 


cnoel on PRODPC60 with HEARING
100 


cnoel on PRODPC60 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 103 HR412.015
101 

DON YOUNG. MARY FALLIN. STEVAN PEARCE. CATHY MCMORRIS RODGERS. DEAN HELLER. JEFF FLAKE. JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr. 

ELTON GALLEGLY. CHRIS CANNON. ROB BISHOP. BILL SHUSTER. BILL SALI. 

LOUIE GOHMERT. 

TOM TANCREDO. 

HENRY E. BROWN, Jr. 

DOUG LAMBORN. 

Æ 


cnoel on PRODPC60 with HEARING