Discussion - Impacts Of Land Use Planning On Mineral Resources - Technical Papers, Mining Engineering, Vol. 36, No. 4, April, 1984, pp. 362 -369 – Ramani, R. V., Sweigard, R. J.

The paper by R.V. Ramani and R.J. Sweigard is a wonderful description of the labyrinthine web that has been spun about the mining industry by energetic bureaucrats and politicians over the past 50 years. The remedy for the problem, however, is not more of the same, but less. That may be difficult for the industry to achieve, for it is not a technical solution but a political one. And the current fervor for more detailed planning at all levels of government and private enterprise has become deeply ingrained. The authors recommend the provision of more information about mining and mineral resources to "macro" (i.e., government) land use planners. They apparently overlook, however, the already strong tendency on the part of most government land use planners to consider themselves omniscient. Thus, giving them more information about the technical problems of mining will only make them want to get more and more involved in the "micro" (private, site specific) mine development and production plans of the individual mining firm. In fact, this has already happened at all levels of jurisdiction from municipal to federal government. Examples are legion. The most effective way to ameliorate the adverse impacts of government land use planning on existing and potential mining operations is to: (1) introduce greater flexibility in the definition of land use zones by local and state governments; (2) adopt realistic and relevant ambient environmental performance standards in governing relationships between mineral land uses and concurrent or subsequent nonmining land uses; (3) allow greater leeway for economic considerations in land use decisions in contrast to the explicit legalistic approach now in vogue; (4) recognize that all minerals are not the same and that sand and gravel mining should not be treated the same as underground metal mining, coal stripping, oil field production, or in situ leaching; and (5) eliminate the notion that mining operators should be responsible for determining in detail the use of land by subsequent owners of mined land. This last bit of conventional ethic really makes no more sense than requiring the builders of every shopping center or government office complex to provide detailed plans for the use of that land when its use for shopping or government is ended. Did the builder of Ebbetts Field plan for Brooklyn after the Dodgers went to Los Angeles? Should the developer of the Bingham Pit plan for suburban Salt Lake City after the copper mining goes to Chile? The nation's mining industry must address these questions before further bankrupting itself to provide more data to planners and spending thousands of dollars per acre to create land that when reclaimed is worth only a few hundred dollars per acre. ? Reply by R.V. Ramani and R.J. Sweigard We thank Mr. Learning for his valuable contribution. His views on the problems of land use planning and mineral resources are most welcome additions to our paper. As the title indicates, our paper was more concerned with the impacts of land use planning on mineral resource conservation than with the details of the planning process. On the whole, his five recommendations would be helpful for mineral resource conservation. However, we would suggest that the argument he presents for his final recommendation does not address the differences between mining as a land use and commercial or institutional uses. We believe that this difference is the crux of the issue. We share Mr. Learning's desire to ameliorate the adverse impacts of land use planning. Possibly the most detrimental impact is the loss of mineral resources. Any development, whether mineral or community, that does not give proper consideration to other resources can result in permanent loss or sterilization of resources. With proper planning, some of these losses can be avoided. As our paper indicated, one factor that limits the consideration of mineral resources, and ultimately leads to their sterilization, is the generally inadequate levels of resource characterization and understanding of the unique nature of mineral resources and mining operations. The last point raised by Mr. Learning is also important. In terms of reclamation and land use planning in mining districts, we certainly do not advocate spending more than what the results are worth. The main thrust of the paper was to explore the avenues for conserving the mineral resources so that, at some appropriate time, the issue of mining and reclamation can still be addressed. ?