16 U.S.C. § 460dd–2 — Public lands
submitted 54 years ago by Pub. L. 92-593 to r/title-16-CONSERVATION · 255 words · no verdicts yet
This section closes Glen Canyon National Recreation Area land to new mining claims, but lets the Secretary allow mineral removal if it will not seriously harm the Glen Canyon project or the recreation area. Money collected from mineral leases and permits is handled the same way it would be under the underlying mining laws.
The lands within the recreation area, subject to valid existing rights, are withdrawn from location, entry, and patent under the United States mining laws. Under such regulations as he deems appropriate, the Secretary shall permit the removal of the nonleasable minerals from lands or interests in lands within the national recreation area in the manner prescribed by section 387 of title 43, and he shall permit the removal of leasable minerals from lands or interests in lands within the recreation area in accordance with the Mineral Leasing Act of February 25, 1920, as amended (30 U.S.C. 181 et seq.), or the Acquired Lands Mineral Leasing Act of August 7, 1947 (30 U.S.C. 351 et seq.), if he finds that such disposition would not have significant adverse effects on the Glen Canyon project or on the administration of the national recreation area pursuant to this subchapter.
All receipts derived from permits and leases issued on lands in the recreation area under the Mineral Leasing Act of February 25, 1920, as amended [30 U.S.C. 181 et seq.], or the Act of August 7, 1947 [30 U.S.C. 351 et seq.], shall be disposed of as provided in the applicable Act; and receipts from the disposition of nonleasable minerals within the recreation area shall be disposed of in the same manner as moneys received from the sale of public lands.
Source credit: (Pub. L. 92–593, § 3, Oct. 27, 1972, 86 Stat. 1312.)
- 1972Enacted · Pub. L. 92-593 · 86 Stat. 1312
A history note hasn’t been published yet. The record shows enactment by Pub. L. 92-593 on 1972-10-27.
all 0 arguments · sorted by: best
no arguments yet — make the first case