Overview
Title
Notice of Application for Withdrawal and Opportunity for Public Meeting; John R. Fox Range, Fort Huachuca, Arizona
Agencies
ELI5 AI
The Army wants to make sure no one can dig for stuff like minerals on some land they use in Arizona, so they asked for it to be protected from those activities for a while. Meanwhile, people can share what they think about this idea by March next year or ask to talk about it in a meeting.
Summary AI
The United States Army has requested the Bureau of Land Management to withdraw 1,840 acres of federal land and 53.48 acres of non-federal land in Fort Huachuca, Arizona, from mining and leasing laws. This is meant to protect the John R. Fox Range from potential impact due to mining activities. The public can submit comments on this request until March 10, 2025, and ask for a public meeting. This notice temporarily keeps the lands from being used under these laws for up to two years while the application is being processed.
Abstract
The United States Army (Army) has filed an application with the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) requesting that the Secretary of the Interior (Secretary) withdraw 1,840 acres of Federal subsurface estate lands from location and entry under the United States mining laws, and from leasing under the mineral and geothermal leasing laws, but not from disposal under the Mineral Materials Act of 1947, subject to valid existing rights, for a 20-year period. Additionally, the Army requests that the Secretary withdraw 53.48 acres of non-Federal lands, upon Federal acquisition, from all forms of appropriation under the public land laws, including the United States mining laws and mineral leasing laws, and reserved for use by the Army for military purposes (except as indicated in Public Land Order No. 1471), subject to valid existing rights, for an indefinite period. The purpose of the withdrawal requested is to protect the John R. Fox Range, located on Fort Huachuca, Arizona, from potential adverse impacts from mining. Publication of this notice temporarily segregates the lands for up to two years, initiates a 90-day public comment period, and announces to the public an opportunity to request a public meeting on the Army's withdrawal application.
Keywords AI
Sources
AnalysisAI
The recent notice from the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) regarding a land withdrawal request by the United States Army is primarily focused on preserving the integrity of the John R. Fox Range at Fort Huachuca, Arizona. Specifically, the Army seeks to withdraw 1,840 acres of federal land from mining operations and 53.48 acres of non-federal land, upon its acquisition, for military use. This effort is designed to protect the area from potential adverse effects associated with mining activities.
General Summary
The document outlines a formal request by the Army to the BLM to safeguard certain lands in Arizona by limiting their availability for mining and leasing. The lands, spread over two tracts totaling approximately 1,893 acres, include both federal and potentially future federal holdings. While the current federal land is to be secured from disruptive mining laws for 20 years, the non-federal portion, upon government acquisition, is expected to be reserved indefinitely or as seen fit by the Secretary of the Interior.
Significant Issues and Concerns
Several issues arise from this withdrawal request. One notable concern is its economic impact on local industries, particularly mining. The potential loss of access to these lands may affect miners and related businesses reliant on the resources or the employment such operations provide. Furthermore, an indefinite withdrawal period for the non-federal land introduces uncertainty and a lack of clear legislative timelines, potentially complicating future land use planning.
Additionally, the documentation refers vaguely to "potential adverse impacts from mining" without specifying what these impacts entail. This ambiguity can lead to public speculation and might benefit from a more comprehensive explanation, particularly regarding environmental or economic repercussions.
Broader Public Impact
For the public, this withdrawal signifies a temporary halt in certain commercial land uses, which might impact economic growth, especially in regions reliant on mining for jobs and revenues. The process also underscores a period where public input is solicited, indicating that there is space for community voices to be heard.
This notice potentially fosters a more protected environment for the Army's operations at Fort Huachuca, ensuring the availability of lands for crucial military training and testing purposes without interference. However, such protection might come at a perceived cost to economic freedom and resource utilization.
Impact on Specific Stakeholders
While aiming to secure land for military necessity, which is vital for national security and defense readiness, the request may negatively impact those in the mining sector due to restricted access to land resources traditionally open to exploration and exploitation. Stakeholders, including local businesses, potentially affected communities, and environmental groups, might have differing views on this withdrawal.
Local miners may see the move as a hindrance, leading to economic disruptions without compensatory measures or alternate opportunities proposed in the document. This could invite concerns about job losses or economic downturns in local economies heavily reliant on mining operations.
The public and other stakeholders will have an opportunity to participate through comments and public meetings, potentially influencing the final decision or implementation details. Nevertheless, the intricate legal references and complex terminology throughout the document could prove challenging for a layperson to comprehend fully, possibly limiting meaningful engagement.
In summary, while the Army's withdrawal request aims to address military needs, it raises valid concerns regarding economic impacts, transparency, stakeholder communication, and clear definitions of potential adverse effects. Public involvement and further clarification from involved entities may help balance competing interests and foster informed decision-making.
Issues
• The document does not specify how the withdrawal of lands will impact local mining operations or industries, which could create economic concerns for those dependent on these activities.
• The indefinite period for the withdrawal of 53.48 acres of non-Federal lands lacks a clear timeline, which can lead to uncertainty about land use and future planning.
• The language regarding the withdrawal's impact — such as 'potential adverse impacts from mining' — is somewhat subjective and could benefit from more precise descriptions of what adverse impacts are specifically anticipated.
• There is no discussion of potential environmental or economic impact assessments related to the withdrawal of these lands, which may be important for public transparency and understanding.
• The document lacks information on any compensatory measures or support for stakeholders negatively affected by the withdrawal (e.g., miners or local communities).
• The complex legal references and terminology (e.g., citations of PLO No. 1471, Public Law 106-65, etc.) may be difficult for laypersons to understand without additional context or simplified explanations.