Overview
Title
An Act To rescind Public Land Order 7917, to reinstate mineral leases and permits in the Superior National Forest, to ensure timely review of Mine Plans of Operations, and for other purposes.
ELI5 AI
H. R. 3195 wants to change a rule so people can dig for minerals like special rocks in a forest in Minnesota, even if some rules to protect the forest are canceled, and it makes sure the rules are checked on time without letting people complain to a judge about it.
Summary AI
H. R. 3195, titled the "Superior National Forest Restoration Act," is a bill to rescind a specific public land order, Public Land Order 7917, which withdrew federal lands in Minnesota's Cook, Lake, and Saint Louis counties. The bill aims to reinstate mineral leases and permits in the Superior National Forest that were canceled between January 31, 2021, and the date of the bill's enactment, on the same terms as before. It also mandates that the Secretary of the Interior conduct timely reviews of Mine Plans of Operations within 18 months, ensuring compliance with environmental review processes.
Published
Keywords AI
Sources
Bill Statistics
Size
Language
Complexity
AnalysisAI
The Superior National Forest Restoration Act, known as H.R. 3195, is legislation currently under consideration aimed at reversing previous protective measures on lands in Minnesota's Superior National Forest. This bill proposes to rescind Public Land Order No. 7917, which had withdrawn certain lands from mineral leasing, and reinstate mineral leases that were canceled in recent years. Additionally, it requires environmental and regulatory reviews for mining plans within specific timeframes and restricts judicial review of reissued leases.
Bill Summary
The bill's objectives focus on facilitating mining and mineral extraction in the Superior National Forest. By rescinding Public Land Order No. 7917, the bill would effectively remove federal protections from these lands, making them available for mineral and leasing activities. It mandates the Secretary of the Interior, or the Secretary of Agriculture, to carry out timely reviews of mining operations and ensures that previously canceled mineral leases are reinstated under their original terms without the possibility of judicial challenge.
Significant Issues
Several issues have been raised in connection with this bill. The rescission of protections might pose environmental threats, as less restriction could lead to increased mining activity, potentially affecting local ecosystems. Concerns are also raised over the stipulated 18-month timeframe for environmental and regulatory reviews, which may not provide adequate time for thorough and necessary assessments, risking the compromise of environmental standards.
Additionally, the provision that prohibits judicial review of reissued mineral leases limits legal recourse and public accountability. Allowing for leases to be reissued on their original terms without consideration of changes in conditions—such as environmental, economic, or social—presents a risk of inadequately addressing contemporary issues.
There is also ambiguity in the bill regarding the definition of "necessary" reviews, which could lead to inconsistent application of the law and varied interpretations by involved parties.
Impact on the Public
Broadly, this bill could have significant implications for both the local community and the environment. The potential increase in mining and extraction activities might stimulate economic growth and job creation in Minnesota, particularly for sectors directly linked to mining. However, this economic boost could come at the potential expense of environmental degradation and altered land use, which may impact tourism and local communities that depend on a healthy environment.
Impact on Stakeholders
For stakeholders such as mining companies and industry advocates, the bill could be seen as a positive development that provides clearer pathways for conducting operations, lessens regulatory hurdles, and eliminates legal challenges to reinstated leases. For environmental groups and local communities concerned with preserving natural landscapes, this bill might represent a threat to ecological integrity and public land conservation efforts.
The removal of judicial oversight and expedited review periods creates a challenging dynamic where economic interests stand in direct tension with environmental preservation and public concern. The broader public and stakeholders invested in both the short-term economic and long-term environmental health of these lands will need to carefully weigh these competing priorities as this legislation progresses.
Issues
The rescission of Public Land Order No. 7917, as stated in Section 2(a), raises environmental concerns. Removing protections on these lands could lead to ecological harm and could be seen as a move that conflicts with broader environmental preservation efforts.
The provision in Section 2(b) requiring the Secretary to complete environmental and regulatory reviews within 18 months might not allow sufficient time for thorough assessments, potentially undermining environmental standards and due diligence.
Section 2(c)(2) prohibits judicial review of reissued mineral leases. This could be seen as restricting legal recourse and transparency, raising concerns about accountability and fairness, particularly for stakeholders opposed to these leases.
Reissuing mineral leases on 'the same terms' as stated in Section 2(c)(1) does not take into account potential changes in environmental, economic, or social conditions since the original leases, which could lead to negative consequences not addressed by existing terms.
The bill does not specify clear criteria for what constitutes 'necessary' environmental and regulatory reviews as mentioned in Section 2(b), potentially leading to vague or inconsistent implementation.
The language related to Mine Plans of Operations and environmental reviews in Section 2(b) could be complex, particularly concerning the calculation of deadlines in relation to the enactment date, potentially leading to confusion among stakeholders.
Sections
Sections are presented as they are annotated in the original legislative text. Any missing headers, numbers, or non-consecutive order is due to the original text.
1. Short title Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The Superior National Forest Restoration Act is the short title given to this legislative Act.
2. Superior National Forest system lands in Minnesota Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section outlines changes related to the Superior National Forest lands in Minnesota by rescinding a prior order from the Bureau of Land Management and mandating a timely environmental review for mine operations. It also requires the reissuing of mineral leases canceled between January 31, 2021, and the enactment date, and specifies that these leases cannot be challenged in court. The term "Secretary" refers to either the Secretary of the Interior or the Secretary of Agriculture, depending on the context.