Lapas attēli
PDF
ePub

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, FOREST SERVICE, REGION 3, ALBUQUERQUE, N. MEX.

MEMORANDUM

To: Richard L. Fowler, Attorney in Charge.

From: Zane C. Smith, Assistant Regional Forester.

Subject: Mining claims, Coconino, Arizona Gypsum Corp., Arizona Contest No. 10568.

Reference is made to your letter of December 8, 1965, with enclosures concerning the subject mineral application and contest wherein you request certain additional information.

In our opinion, the claims are chiefly valuable for the gypsum which occurs for the most part as salenite crystals in siltstone and claystone. Therefore, we cannot say that the material claimed is not a gypsum or that the claims are not primarily valuable for the gypsum contained therein.

As you know, gypsum is used both uncalcined and calcined. Uncalcined, its chief uses are as a retarder in portland cement, as a pigment base for cold water paints, and as a filler for paper and cloth. Calcined gypsum is called "plaster of Paris." Its chief uses are in wall plasters, wall and plaster boards, gypsum blocks and tile, and surgical casts.

The principal use of the gypsum on the subject claims is as a retarder in cement. The impurities contained therein make it unfit for calcining and other uncalcined

uses.

Gypsum for all purposes except as a retarder in portland cement should have a high purity and all gypsum deposits with which we are familiar are massive or crystalline deposits with very minor amounts of impurities.

The gypsum occurring on the subject claims must be concentrated. This concentrate is now being used for only one purpose, viz, as a retarder in portland cement. This use does not require a high purity gypsum and the product contains impurities of claystone and siltstone. Accordingly, the product produced is not gypsum in the true sense of the word, but it is chiefly valuable for the gypsum contained therein.

If you desire further information, please advise.

D. W. CUTTER.

Senator GRUENING. I have a letter from the National Wildlife Federation for inclusion at this point. I will also include my answer to the letter.

Hon. ERNEST GRUENING,

NATIONAL WILDLIFE FEDERATION,
Washington, D.C., June 28, 1966.

Chairman, Subcommittee on Minerals, Materials, and Fuels,
Senate Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs,
New Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.

DEAR SENATOR: The National Wildlife Federation is interested and concerned about S. 2281 and S. 3485, which would amend legislation known as the Common Varieties Act, the Materials Act, and the Multiple Purpose Act. We would appreciate having this letter made a part of the current hearings on these proposals.

By way of identification, the National Wildlife Federation is composed of independent affiliates in 49 states. These affiliates, in turn, are composed of local groups and individuals who, when combined with associate members and other supporters of the National Wildlife Federation, number an estimated 2,000,000 persons. We seek to attain conservation goals through educational

means.

Attached is a copy of Resolution No. 7, adopted by the National Wildlife Federation in annual convention earlier this year. This resolution was addressed to the Public Law Review Commission to express our organization's conviction that the Commission should make decisions which stress overall public interests, including those recreational values of an aesthetic and social nature, as well as direct economic benefits for private commercial interests. Principle No. 12, of this resolution relates directly to S. 2281 and S. 3485 and reads as follows:

"Any mining law which allows land in Federal ownership to go to patent should be repealed, with the extraction of minerals being accomplished under

provisions of the Mineral Leasing Act. Leasing arrangements, however, should provide for security of tenure and exclusive use of the amounts of surface land necessary to justify investments. When mining ceases, surfaces must be restored, when practicable, to original conditions with surface rights retained in public ownership."

We fear that S. 2281 and S. 3485 would not be in accord with this principle of mineral leasing, and of the repeal of statutes allowing mineral lands to be patented. In fact, we fear that the effect of these proposals would be the opposite. Under the bills, low-grade, generally low-value materials once again would be locatable under the mining laws. The bill thus would nullify the advances in sound public lands administration brought about by enactment of the Multiple Use Mining Act. Much of the low-grade materials which the bills would resubject to mining laws are found extensively throughout the public land areas. As we view it, vast acreages of Federal reservations and public domain lands could be reopened to entry. At the same time, Federal land agencies would lose effective control over the valuable surface resources within the areas they administer.

In short, we fear that these proposals would set an undesirable precedent in the establishment of public land policy. It is probable that pressures will build for opening up more public land areas for exploitation of mineral resources as demands for other mineral substances grow or as new uses are discovered for the presently low-grade materials.

We urge that the Subcommittee, as well as the Public Land Law Review Commission, consider our proposed principle of expanding coverage of the mineral leasing concept, applying it to all extraction of minerals. In our opinion, this is the best way to realize the benefits of private development of important subsurface resources while, at the same time, permitting wise control of the surface resources by the Federal Government. We believe the public would be

best served in this manner.

Thank you for the invitation and opportunity of making these remarks.
Sincerely,

LOUIS S. CLAPPER,
Chief, Division of Conservation Education.

RESOLUTION No. 7-PUBLIC LAND LAWS

Whereas, the Public Land Law Review Commission has begun its work of reviewing laws and regulations relating to public lands; and

Whereas, the Commission is expected to recommend modernization of many laws and administrative regulations and policies; and

Whereas, the entire nation has a tremendous stake in final recommendations contained in work of this body: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved, That the National Wildlife Federation, in annual convention assembled March 12, 1966, at Pittsburgh, Pa., hereby expresses its conviction that the Public Land Law Review Commission should make decisions which stress overall public interests, including those recreational values of an aesthetic and social nature, as well as direct economic benefits for private commercial interests; and be it further

Resolved, That adoption of the following principles relating to public domain and Oregon and California revested lands would be in the best interest:

1. All lands should be classified for future use, with only those actually needed for residential, commercial, or industrial purposes being sold or transferred to State or local governmental agencies. It is viewed as essential that detailed and specific criteria be established to prevent land speculators and State and local government entities from acquiring large or key tracts of Federal land. Land transfer agreements should contain strong reverter provisions if lands transferred for public purposes are used for private gain.

2. The bulk of public domain and Oregon and California revested lands should be retained in Federal ownership under direction of a single agency. Boundaries of these properties should be established and identified in a manner readily recognized by the public. The Federal ownership should be consolidated, with in-holding eliminated by exchange or purchase.

3. Lands to be retained in permanent Federal ownership should be managed under sound principles of multiple use duly authorized by law.

4. The Taylor Grazing Act either must be repealed or amended to provide for the permanent possession and multiple use management of public lands, in

cluding activities for recreational purposes. Grazing advisory boards should be eliminated and the executive agency administering the land authorized to appoint multiple use advisory boards.

5. Grazing fees on public lands should be based on the prevailing rate for rental of private lands in the same areas concerned and the funds derived therefrom used for proper resource management and payment for capital improvements placed upon the land.

6. The Homestead Act is obsolete and meaningless, and should be repealed. 7. The Desert Entry Act is obsolete and meaningless, and should be repealed.

8. Suitable authority and funds must be provided for the development of wildlife habitat in cooperation with State wildlife agencies.

9. Specific authority and funds must allow for the development of all phases of outdoor recreational potentials on public lands and the proper access to them.

10. A national policy on oil shale should direct that the Federal Government continue in oil shale technology and research, with all exploitation of minerals located on public lands being accomplished under leasing arrangements allowing control of the surface resources to remain with the Federal Government.

11. The allowable cut of timber must be based on a conservative estimate of sustained yield.

12. Any mining law which allows land in Federal ownership to go to patent should be repealed, with the extraction of minerals being accomplished under provisions of the Minerals Leasing Act. Leasing arrangements, however, should provide for security of tenure and exclusive use of the amounts of surface land necessary to justify investments. When mining ceases surface must be restored, where practicable, to original condition with surface rights retained in public ownership.

13. Public land exchange and purchase laws should be updated and modernized to permit consolidation of land into manageable blocks and to use cash to equalize differences of value in land exchanges.

14. Re-allocate 50 per cent of the revenues now going into the Reclamation Fund for watershed management, soil conservation, recreation and wildlife habitat development on public lands.

15. Substantial increases in management and development funds for the Bureau of Land Management is recommended. Manpower needs to the level of one land manager for every 25,000 acres of land should be met as a minimum for effective land management in the public interest.

U.S. SENATE, Washington, D.C., July 5, 1966.

Mr. LOUIS S. CLAPPER,

Chief, Division of Conservation Education,

National Wildlife Federation,

Washington, D.C.

DEAR MR. CLAPPER: On behalf of the Subcommittee on Minerals, Materials, and fuels, I wish to acknowledge your letter of June 28 expressing the National Wildlife Federation's opposition to S. 2281 and S. 3485, bills to amend the Common Varieties Act. Also, notice is taken of the Federation's Principle No. 12 which would substitute a Federal leasing act for the historic mining laws which have had such an important role in the formation of our Nation as it is today.

As a conservationist of unassailable standing, as I believe my long record in public life shows, I wish to express sharp disagreement with the Federation's position on this proposed legislation and on the mining laws in general. Neither S. 2281 nor S. 3485 would result in misuse of publicly-owned lands of the United States, nor would either interfere with the freedom, propagation and development of wildlife. Rather, the basic purpose of these bills is to cause Public Law 167, 84th Congress, the Common Varieties Act, to be interpreted and administered in accordance with the clear intent of Congress.

I cannot but regard with dismay the growing tendency on the part of certain extremist groups among conservationists to disregard human and social values in their rigid adherence to a doctrinaire line. For specific examples of inequity and hardship in the administration of the Common Varieties Act, I urge you to read the record of our hearings held last year in Butte, as well as those in

Washington this year. For convenient reference, I enclose a copy of the Butte record, and will see to it that you receive this year's hearing as soon as it is available.

As to the Federation's position urging repeal of the mining laws in favor of a general Federal mineral leasing program, the result of such action would be that the vast mineral resources of the public domain would be under the control, in fact, of a favored, rich few. The independent prospector and miner, whose initiative, fortitude, and industry have made such great contributions to the development of Alaska and the other States of the West would be squeezed out by the large companies with their resources enabling them to outbid and outwait the independent.

Again, I cite our hearings and urge the Federation to study them and give consideration to the human and social results of its position.

However, as you reqeust, your letter will be made a part of the record of our hearing, together with a copy of this reply.

Sincerely yours,

ERNEST GRUENING, Chairman, Minerals Subcommittee.

Senator GRUENING. I have a letter from Mr. E. D. Smith, which was sent to Senator Cannon, which will be included in the record at this point.

(The letter referred to follows:)

Hon. HOWARD W. CANNON,

Las Vegas, Nev.

U.S. BORAX, December 21, 1965.

DEAR SENATOR CANNON: The November 5, 1965 American Mining Congress Legislative Bulletin contained a summary of Senate Bill 2281 which I read with some concern. We have enclosed a copy of the bulletin so that you may see the text of the summary and understand our interpretation of it.

Our concern is over that part of the summary which states:

"The owner of any unpatented claim located after the effective date of the Act would be required to file with the Secretary of the Interior an application for patent within three years from date of location.

"Would provide that 'title to lands patented after this action, based upon mining claims hereafter located, shall revert to the United States if: (1) within five years of the date of patent the owner has not, by substantial mining operations, demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Secretary a devotion of the land to the production of mineral materials, or (2) within 25 years from the date of patent and prior to the removal of all of the mineral material which may be economically extracted, the lands are devoted, without the prior consent of the Secretary, to any use other than mining or processing operations and uses reasonably incident thereto.'

"Would provide that patent for any affected mining claim located after the effective date of the Act shall be issued only after payment to the secretary by the claimant of the fair market value of the surface estate."

We interpret the first three paragraphs of the summary to apply to specific types of deposits and the remaining three paragraphs, given above, refer to any mining claim located after the effective date of the Act. If our interpretation is correct, we beg your consideration of the following points:

1. It does not seem fair that a claimant of a mining claim be required to pay the fair market value of the surface estate unless he acquires fee title to the surface estate. The Bill proposes to charge the patentee for the surface estate at fair market value while giving him something less than fee title. If the patentee defaults in his demonstration of a devotion to the land to mineral production or devotes the land to a use other than mining, processing, and/or uses reasonably incident thereto, the title to the lands reverts to the United States. In our opinion a sale of the surface estate at fair market value subject to the conditions set forth in the Bill is not equitable unless the determination of the fair market value of the lands being patented takes into consideration said conditions of conveyance.

2. We feel that leaving the determination of a patentee's demonstrated devotion of a patented mining claim to the production of mineral materials to the sole discretion of Secretary is unfair.

The patentee has no guarantee that his efforts will be considered satisfactory. There appear to be no specific conditions which when accomplished assure title. The patentee's efforts and investments could be lost because they did not satisfy the Secretary. We feel that such a condition could easily eliminate the exploration and exploitation of many properties and we doubt that much financial support could be had for the exploitation of a claim that could be arbitrarily determined to be an unsatisfactory effort and title thereby lost.

We would very much appreciate a clarification of the intent of Bill 2281 and your feelings on the items we are concerned about.

We appreciate the desire of many to tighten up the mining laws to prevent lands from being acquired for other purposes under the guise of a mining claim and we have no arguments with these desires. It is our interest in the protection of the interests of all citizens that prompts us to write.

Yours very truly,

E. D. SMITH, Assistant Manager, Land Department.

Senator GRUENING. This completes the list of announced witnesses. Is there anyone else here who wants to add a postscript or say anything on any of the testimony? If so, we want to give them the opportunity. If not, we will stand in recess.

(Whereupon, at 1:40 p.m., the hearing was recessed.)

« iepriekšējāTurpināt »