Senator BIBLE. How about 5 years ago? Mr. BEIRNE. Five years ago, I would imagine that we had three or four hundred fewer. Senator BIBLE. Ten years ago? Mr. BEIRNE. About a thousand fewer. Mr. BEIRNE. Well, that is a little before my time. Senator BIBLE. Well, it can be supplied for the record, Jim. Mr. BEIRNE. I can furnish it, but again I would guess it is maybe 1,500 or 1,800 greater than it was 20 years ago. Senator BIBLE. That can be verified and supplied for the record. Mr. BEIRNE. We have actual figures which we shall be glad to furnish. Senator BIBLE. I realize you do, and if they could be supplied for the record, Mr. Chairman. (The information requested is as follows:) Senator CHURCH. Proceeding on those figures, Senator Bible, in 20 years the personnel in BLM has doubled. Mr. BEIRNE. This would be correct. Senator CHURCH. Yet I would suppose that the total land area under BLM jurisdiction during that period has diminished somewhat. Mr. BEIRNE. Right. Senator CHURCH. What accounts for the doubling of personnel to administer an area that is diminishing in size? Mr. BEIRNE. I would say, principally, that it was not properly administered in the past, and it is not adequately administered today. Senator BIBLE. Of course, in addition, you have gotten into a lot of new activities that you never dreamed of when the Taylor Grazing Act was created, or the act of 1946 was passed. I think that is additionally true. Mr. Chairman. I do not know if you are empire builders or not, but if you are not, you are the first agency I have dealt with that has not been. I hope you do not fall within the habits of your sister agency within the Interior Department-the Bureau of Indian Affairs-where we have almost but not quite as many Indian agents as we have Indians. I am exaggerating a little, but not too much." Senator CHURCH. You are just projecting a present trend. Senator BIBLE. Might I ask a few more questions, Mr. Chairman? Senator CHURCH. Yes. Senator BIBLE. I must go to an Appropriations Committee hearing. I think we are considering an Interior Department appropriation. I think it may be BLM this morning, but maybe it is not. If I can ask certain questions, Mr. Director, the Classification Act has been described as interim legislation pending the implementation of recommendations to be made by the Public Land Law Review Commission. In fact, section 8 sets the termination date as June 30, 1969. On page 15 of your statement, you say that some 25 million acres has been, or is in the process of being classified for retention. Obviously before June 30, 1969, many more millions of acres will be so classified. In reference to these lands classified for retention, does the classification cease as of the termination date of the act, or does the classification made prior to that date become permanent? Mr. RASMUSSEN. The act does not specify what will happen. It provides that the authorization requirements of the act shall expire June 30, 1969. It mentions-makes specific reference to the term "segregation," but not to the term "clasification." We would consider these interim classifications until there was some change by Congress on recommendations of the Land Law Review Commission. Senator BIBLE. In other words, then, you do not know exactly what does happen to them after June 30, 1969, insofar as classifications which have already been made? Mr. RASMUSSEN. That is right. Senator BIBLE. Section 7 of the Public Law 88-607 says, and I quote: Nothing herein contained shall be construed as: (a) restricting prospecting, locating, developing, mining, entering, leasing, or patenting the mineral resources of the lands to which this Act applies under law applicable thereto pending action inconsistent therewith under this Act. On November 10, 1966, I received a notice of proposed classification of lands in Clark County, Nev., No. N-257, in which 98,000 acres of land were segregated from appropriation under the mining laws. My question is, Is this segregation inconsistent with section 7(a) above; and if not, why not? Mr. SENZEL. Section 4 of the act provides for segregation in classifications and proposed classifications. Reading the act as a whole, I think it is consistent. Senator BIBLE. Does that not fly in the face of section 7(a), which says restricting prospecting, locating, developing, mining, entering, leasing, or patenting the mineral resources of the lands to which this act applied and the law applicable thereto pending action inconsistent therewith under this act. If you segregate him out of it, do you not prevent the man from locating lands? Mr. SENZEL. As I interpret it, that would be the action inconsistent with nonrestriction. A proposed classification under section 4 would meet the requirement of an action inconsistent with non restriction. Senator BIBLE. I do not know if I completely understand your answer. It would seem to me that that is restrictive of language permitting mining. Maybe I am wrong. You say it is not inconsistent. Why is it not? Mr. SENZEL. As I read section 7(a), what it is saying that the land shall be open to mining unless we do something under this act to prevent it, and section 4(a) provides a method for preventing mining. Senator BIBLE. Well, I would want to examine that at some little further length and then possibly query you on it again, because it does seem to me that it somewhat flies in the face of section 7(a). I shall query you on that later. You say in your opinion this is not inconsistent? Mr. SENZEL. That is right, sir. We believe the proposal, that proposed classification in Nevada, is consistent with Public Law 607. Senator BIBLE. Now, Mr. Director, under date of February 7, 1967, there appeared in the Federal Register a notice of proposed withdrawal and reservation of lands. The first paragraph states: The Bureau of Land Management has filed an application for withdrawal of the lands described below from all appropriations under the public land laws, including, without limitation, the mining laws and the mineral leasing laws. The lands involved in this application are all public lands which are valuable or prospectively valuable for geothermal steam. Would you kindly advise the authority for such a sweeping and allinclusive withdrawal of entry on the part of the Interior Department? Mr. SENZEL. The proposal invokes the inherent authority of the President. Is that what your question applied to, or the sweeping nature of it? Senator BIBLE. That is correct. I am wondering by what authority you can make such a sweeping withdrawal of lands. Mr. SENZEL. It invokes the authority of the President. Senator BIBLE. Then does this prevent any mining locations from the date of that particular entry or that particular order? Mr. SENZEL. Yes, sir; insofar as they are located upon lands that are valuable or prospectively valuable. Senator BIBLE. Who determines that? This is where I get lost. I am very much interested in geothermal steam, but I encountered some type of—I do not know whether it was from Interior or where it was— some type of problem that resulted in the veto of an act that I thought was a good act. I am not going to go into that now. I am going into that on the 21st and 22d of this month. But the thing that bothers me is how the man who wants to locate a mining claim knows whether he can locate a mining claim now? Mr. SENZEL. The Geological Survey has the authority for determining which of these lands fall within the scope of this order. Senator BIBLE. Has USGS advised you which lands fall within the scope and which do not fall within the scope? Mr. SENZEL. They are preparing maps now giving the first estimate of the areas. They are also giving us reports on each individual case that we send over to them. Senator BIBLE. What was that last statement? Mr. SENZEL. They give us reports on each individual case which we refer to them. Senator BIBLE. It seems to me that this order is so sweeping that you should examine it very, very carefully. I am sure you have received some protests. I know I have received many of them, one from the very fine executive secretary of the Nevada Mining Associa tion, Paul Gemmill, who is an expert miner in his own right, a very successful miner. He has written to the Director in detail, and I would ask consent, Mr. Chairman, that his letter, with enclosures, be incorporated in the record at this point. Senator CHURCH. That will be done. (The documents referred to follow :) NEVADA MINING ASSOCIATION, INC., Reno, Nev., February 21, 1967. Memorandum from: Paul Gemmill, Executive Secretary Nevada Mining Association, Inc. Subject: F. R. Doc. 67-1461, "All Public Land States" Federal Register, February 7, 1967, Volume 32, No. 25, Page 2588. A reproduction of the above-subject is enclosed together with copy of a letter from Nevada Mining Association to Mr. Boyd L. Rasmussen, Director of the Bureau of Land Management, protesting enactment of this rule. As noted in the Federal Register, "All persons who wish to submit comments, suggestions, or objections in connection with the proposed withdrawal may present their views in writing to the undersigned officer (Mr. Boyd L. Rasmussen) of the Bureau of Land Management, Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C. 20240." PAUL GEM MILL. NEVADA MINING ASSOCIATION, INC., Reno, Nev., February 21, 1967. Subject: F. R. Doc. 67-1461, "All Public Land States" Federal Register, February 7, 1967, Volume 32, No. 25, Page 2588. Mr. BOYD L. RASMUSSEN, Director, Bureau of Land Management, DEAR MR. RASMUSSEN: We note publication in the Federal Register (abovesubject) which pertains to the proposed withdrawal "from all appropriations under the public land laws, including, without limitation, the mining laws and mineral leasing laws" of "all public lands which are valuable or prospectively valuable for geothermal steam." Such an all-inclusive and ill-defined withdrawal and reservation of public lands would immediately hamper exploration for all metals and minerals. It would be restrictive on exploration for quicksilver and the precious metals for which another branch of the Interior Department has received Congressional appropriations to encourage. The history of success in production of precious metals before inflation robbed these metals of their incentive price; the history of uranium production after exclusive government efforts failed to produce adequate supplies; the recent history of domestic tungsten production under an incentive price, and the more recent development of domestic non-pegmatic beryllium resources, all illustrative conclusively that the right to own and develop a valuable discovery is a vital element for dynamic additions to reserves and production. Therefore, mining people continue to be alarmed over unjustifiable withdrawals of public lands from the right of location under the mining laws. The record readily demonstrates that such withdrawals would not be in the public interest. We wish to cite Nevada's most famous precious metal producer, the Comstock Lode, which the record of operation has shown would certainly fit the definition in your notice of "Lands which are valuable or prospectively valuable for geothermal steam." Nevada Mining Association represents some 34 mining companies in Nevada and we wish to vigorously protest enactment of the rule proposed in Doc. 67-1461, Federal Register, Volume 32, No. 25, Page 2588, February 7, 1967. Very truly yours, PAUL GEMMILL. DEAR MR. RASMUSSEN: According to the Federal Register for February 3, 1967, the Bureau of Land Management has applied for withdrawal of "all public lands which are valuable or prospectively valuable for geothermal steam." I feel this proposed withdrawal has been made without considering the geological factors involved or the possible consequences to the mining industry in Nevada. I am therefore vigorously opposed to the withdrawal. It is a wellknown fact that many hot springs occur throughout Nevada and each could be considered as "prospectively valuable for geothermal steam." It is also a geological fact that some metallic deposits, notably the famous Comstock, occur in close association with thermal waters. Withdrawal of thermally active areas in Nevada would serve only to retard the present activity in mining exploration without any attendant benefit to the geothermal power industry. It should also be pointed out that geothermal sources of power have not yet been proven to be economically feasible in the State. The proposed withdrawal presents a serious threat to the future of mining in the State and thus to the State's economy. Very truly yours, N. L. ARCHBOLD, President, Geological Society of Nevada. [From the Washington Post, Mar. 6, 1967] COULD EASE PAYMENTS BALANCE-U.S. RESEARCH INSPIRES A 'GOLD RUSH' IN WEST (By Paul G. Edwards) A fledging research effort by the U.S. Geological Survey has inspired a new "gold rush" in the Far West. The low-budget Government operation promises to greatly increase extraction of not only gold but other scarce heavy metals for which domestic demand exceeds supply by as much as three to 35 times. Ore masses already have been found in Nevada and Wyoming. The search also is on in the historically mineral-rich Appalachia and Great Lakes regions but so far nothing has been found. Partly underlying the belated effort to rejuvenate mining of heavy metals in this country is the hope of reducing imports of such metals and thereby easing the Nation's balance of payments deficit. |