{ "id": "R46278", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORTS", "number": "R46278", "active": true, "source": "EveryCRSReport.com", "versions": [ { "source": "EveryCRSReport.com", "id": 621128, "date": "2020-03-19", "retrieved": "2020-03-28T22:04:05.873471", "title": "Policy Topics and Background Related to Mining on Federal Lands", "summary": "The 116th Congress is considering multiple proposed changes to U.S. mineral policy. Currently certain types of mineral production on federal lands provide the federal government and some states and industries with sources of revenue, while other production does not generate similar revenue. Proposed changes to federal mineral policy could impact these revenue streams, industries, and states in a variety of ways.\nThe processes and requirements to mine on federal lands vary by mineral category, surface/subsurface management agencies, and estate ownership. Three main statutes create the three categories of minerals applicable to mining on federal lands. The General Mining Law of 1872 covers locatable (or hardrock) minerals, which are now defined as those minerals not defined by other statutes; typical examples include gold, silver, copper, and gemstones, when not found on acquired lands. Leasable minerals are defined by the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, and include coal, phosphate, potassium, and sodium, among others (leasable minerals also include otherwise locatable minerals on acquired land, per the Mineral Leasing Act for Acquired Lands of 1947). Salable minerals are defined by the Materials Act of 1947, and include common minerals such as sand and gravel.\nAdditional processes and requirements apply when the surface rights above the federal mineral estate are privately owned (i.e., split estate), commonly resulting from the Stock Raising Homestead Act of 1916. Similarly, coordination is required between the surface management agency and the agency managing the mineral estate. Two statutes generally apply to mining on federal lands, including the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (only applicable to coal) and the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977, while others may apply, including the Federal Land Policy Management Act of 1976; the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969; the Clean Water Act of 1972; the Clean Air Act; the Endangered Species Act of 1973; and the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, among others.\nData regarding mineral production for locatable minerals on federal lands are not collected by the federal government. This lack of data can hinder the development and analysis of policies intending to affect mineral production on federal lands. The 116th Congress is considering H.R. 2579, the Hardrock Leasing and Reclamation Act of 2019, which would, among other provisions, require mining operations on federal lands to report production volumes and values, with these data made public.\nLocatable mineral production on federal lands is not subject to royalties. Some interested parties see not charging royalties as a means of encouraging mineral exploration and production, while others may argue the public is not recovering fair market value for the transfer of a public asset to a private entity. H.R. 2579 would also establish a federal royalty policy for all new hardrock mineral mining operations on federal lands, and use these and other fees for the reclamation of abandoned hardrock mines and other environmental conservation activities on lands and waters affected by past hardrock mining.\nFederal land withdrawals may close a given area to mining. Advocates for a specific land withdrawal generally see the proposed use (e.g., military base, national park, national monument, wilderness area) as superseding the potential use of the public land by other interests (e.g., for mining). Proponents of mining generally advocate for limited withdrawals from the mineral estate, as access to public lands for mining represents opportunities for ongoing and future operations. H.R. 1373 would permanently withdraw about one million acres surrounding the Grand Canyon National Park from new mineral entry; it passed the House, and a companion bill, S. 3127, has been introduced in the Senate. H.R. 5598 would withdraw 234,328 acres of federal lands in the Superior National Forest, including lands covered by previously disputed mineral leases.\nSeveral bills in the 116th Congress would address U.S. critical mineral supply (i.e., those minerals defined by the U.S. Geological Survey that meet certain net import dependence criteria and perceived necessity to the U.S. economy). For example, S. 1317 would instruct the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) to publish information regarding domestic critical mineral resources and would authorize an ongoing research and development program for critical minerals in the Department of Energy. The text of S. 1317 was incorporated into a substitute amendment to S. 2657. Another example is H.R. 4410, which would establish a federal cooperative and a federal corporation to process and sell certain critical minerals commonly found with thorium, which is radioactive.", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORTS", "active": true, "formats": [ { "format": "HTML", "encoding": "utf-8", "url": "https://www.crs.gov/Reports/R46278", "sha1": "a9e40c52ffe90204b281335d175e24c97a9556b1", "filename": "files/20200319_R46278_a9e40c52ffe90204b281335d175e24c97a9556b1.html", "images": {} }, { "format": "PDF", "encoding": null, "url": "https://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/R46278", "sha1": "260b66639d974c6f865fe13406b7809df49fa489", "filename": "files/20200319_R46278_260b66639d974c6f865fe13406b7809df49fa489.pdf", "images": {} } ], "topics": [ { "source": "IBCList", "id": 4780, "name": "Energy & Natural Resources Trade & Economics" }, { "source": "IBCList", "id": 4841, "name": "Federal Land Management" } ] } ], "topics": [ "Energy Policy", "Environmental Policy", "National Defense" ] }