Now, I was going to say later on in my statement that we see some problems in the administration of Public Law 167 which were not anticipated, I think, at the time the legislation was passed, but these are not problems that relate to the fact that two agencies have responsibilities, because I think that we accept the authority and responsibility of the Department of Interior to make the definitive decisions and we function within the framework of the decisions that their people make.

Senator GRUENING. Well, you accept it because the law is so written, but what we would like to find out is a completely frank exposition of how you feel about it. I mean, there is nothing final and binding about a law; it can be modified, it can be repealed.

I would say that offhand I would assume that the Forest Service would like to be master in its own domain. Now, if the actions of the BLM are entirely satisfactory and you are willing and you are content with the transfer of that authority, we would like to know that.

If you are not, if there are places where you differ, we would like to know that, too. We have no preconception about this, we would like to arrive at the best possible result.

If modification of the law is indicated or an expression of opinion by the committee is indicated, I would hope that either may be done knowledgeably. So I hope all participants will be completely frank about this and not feel bound by what now is, because what now is will be followed as long as it is, but it could be modified and, of course, interpretations can be modified. So I hope you will be frank about this and tell us exactly what you feel and not have the usual bureaucratic inhibitions that you cannot talk out and say what you really think.

We would like to get at the basic facts. This is a complex situation. It has involved a good deal of unhappiness on the part of the miners out there and we would like to straighten it out. At the same time we want to protect the public interest.

The definition of the public interest is a very wide one. Please proceed.

Mr. GREELEY. Mr. Chairman, I would like to comment specifically on your question about whether the Forest Service is happy or unhappy with the present arrangement. By and large, I think there is no question but what Public Law 167 has been effectively administered.

We think that there are some problems, very specific problems, and the Butte hearings are an excellent portrayal of what those problems are.

I have read the record of the Butte hearings with a great deal of interest, and I think a great deal of concern. The portion of section 3 of Public Law 167 dealing with common varieties is, of course, just one section of several in Public Law 167. The Bureau of Land Management and the Forest Service have worked together very effectively in the administration and execution of some of the other sections of Public Law 167. I think probably, on the whole, our mineral examination organization has given more time to the administration of some of the other sections of Public Law 167 than it has happened to give to the section 3 provisions in the course of about the last 5 years. I would not like to have the record give any indication of a cleavage or a question on our part about the working relationships between

the Department of the Interior and the Department of Agriculture in this matter, because I think they have been excellent.

Now, we might have some different points of view about what to do in the future.. I would not want to say we would not, I do think there are some problems in connection with administration of the common varieties provision; that some changes would be desirable.

I am not prepared to talk about specific legislative proposals, I am just prepared to talk about some problems and some of the alternatives we see that might be considered.

With that response made, perhaps I should continue giving my prepared statement, sir.

Senator GRUENING. Please go ahead.

Mr. GREELEY. We believe that Public Law 167 had three purposes. These purposes were (1) to amend the act of July 31, 1947, the Material Disposal Act, so as to give disposal authority to the Secretary of Agriculture for lands administered by him, (2) to amend the mining laws to remove from location and entry common varieties of sand, stone, gravel, pumice, pumicite or cinders, except block pumice with dimension of 2 inches or more, and (3) to amend the mining laws to provide for the multiple use of the surface of mining claims by allowing the Government to manage the surface resources, and to manage and dispose of the vegetative resources.

The objective of the Forest Service is and I think we have been reasonably consistent about this to integrate the development and use of mineral resources with the use and conservation of all other forest resources to the fullest extent possible under the laws governing mineral disposal.

We cooperate with the Bureau of Land Management-and this is, of course, what we have just been talking about-in the administration of the mining and mineral leasing laws on lands administered by the Forest Service. On national forest lands we take appropriate action to prevent unauthorized uses on mining claims.

The Forest Service examines a mining claim when (1) the claimant applies for a patent, (2) there is evidence of unauthorized use being made of a claim, (3) a claim is included in a verified statement which has been filed pursuant to the procedure for a determination of surface rights under Public Law 167, or (4) we believe the claim to be invalid and the area covered by the claim is needed for particular purposes in the management of the national forests.

Examinations are made by professional mineral examiners who are graduate mining engineers or geologists. Since 1955, we have increased the number of professional mineral examiners from 5 to 34. We believe we now have a sufficient number of competent graduate mining engineers and geologists to adequately handle the mineral load on the national forests.

In the examination of a claim, the Forest Service tries to get the claimant to accompany the mineral examiner during the investigation. The procedure used in examining a claim is in accordance with recognized professional standards of doing such examination work. We sample points made available by the claimant. We do not, however, attempt to make a discovery for the claimant.

After a claim is field examined, it is then the responsibility of the mineral examiner to evaluate the results of his examination. He must determine whether or not, in his opinion, a valid discovery has

been made on the claim. Further, he must determine whether the material is locatable under the mining laws. In reaching his conclusions he is assisted by the regional attorney in the region in which he is located, and guided by the applicable decisions of the Department of the Interior that pertain to the case.

The mineral examiner's report sets forth his conclusions as to validity and his recommendation for action. The report is submitted to the forest supervisor of the forest on which the claim is located for his review and concurrence, or objection, to the recommendations made by the mineral examiner.

The case is then sent to the regional forester with the recommendations of the forest supervisor. When the mineral examiner has concluded that there is not a valid discovery, and has recommended that the claim be contested, it is referred to the regional attorney for his review and comments regarding the elements of contest..

Submission of the case for initiating contest action is made by the regional forester to the appropriate State director of the Bureau of Land Management. The Bureau of Land Management files the complaint and holds the hearing. The hearing is held by a Bureau of Land Management hearing examiner. Both sides, the claimant and the Forest Service, present their evidence.

The claimant and the Forest Service are on equal terms. We feel that neither side has any favored position at the hearing. The hearing examiner makes his decision. It may be appealed by either party to the Director of the Bureau of Land Management. The Director's decisions, in like manner, may be appealed to the Secretary of the Interior.

At the Butte hearing there were two specific cases mentioned that involve Forest Service actions: The Montana Travertine claims on the Gallatin National Forest, Mont., and the Kaiser Co. claims on the San Bernardino National Forest, Calif.

One of these was the Montana Travertine case.

On this case, the district forest ranger at Gardiner, Mont., was contacted in November of 1961, by Mr. Jack Ahern, of Montana Travertine Quarries, for a determination of whether or not his three mining locations could be considered valid claims and subject to patent on the basis of travertine stone.

Mr. Ahern had been referred to the Forest Service by the State office of the Bureau of Land Management in Billings where he had made inquiry on the procedure to bring a claim to patent. The forest supervisor wrote a request on December 1, 1961, to the regional forester for a mineral examination of these three claims by a Forest Service mineral expert.

Mr. Davis Hintzman, a valuation engineer who holds a master's degree in geology and who has had considerable mining and minerals experience, both in private industry and in the Forest Service, was assigned to investigate the claims and to submit a report of his findings and recommendations.

Mr. Ahern was notified on January 21, 1962, by the ranger at Gardiner that the examination could be made on February 6, 1962. This date was agreed upon and the examination was made on that date. The mineral examiner was accompanied by Mr. Ahern and by District Ranger C. R. Joy.

On the way to the claims and to facilitate the mineral examiner in recording accurately the factual background data of the case while

they were driving, Mr. Hintzman asked Mr. Ahern whether he objected to the use of a tape recorder. Mr. Ahern indicated he had no objection.

Mr. Hintzman was familiar with the literature of this travertine deposit previous to the examination and was aware, in general, of its chemical composition. During the drive to the claims Mr. Hintzman did discuss current Department of the Interior decisions and that use of the stone is a criterion in determining the validity.

In fact, the mineral examiner must consider two kinds of classification: geologic classification and use classification. While a rock may be geologically uncommon, the use being made of it, as ruled by the Interior Department, may cause it to be classified as common, and this was part of the subject they discussed as they drove out to the claims.

Senator METCALF. And this was recorded on tape?

Mr. GREELEY. I assume so. I did not know about the tape recorder until I read the record, Senator Metcalf. I frankly did not find out anything more specific than I have been able to give here as to the reason for it being used.

Senator METCALF. As you said, he consented that it could be used. Mr. GREELEY. As I understand it, our people told us that Mr. Ahern agreed it was all right to use it, and, of course, a man making an examination like this does have to make a lot of notes and it simplifies the note-taking procedure if he can talk them into a tape recorder or have the tape recorder record, rather than jotting down notes while he is driving. This may be an oversimplification, but this is my understanding of why the tape recorder was used.

Senator METCALF. I do not think, as I heard the testimony, that there was any objection at the time that the tape recorder was used. Mr. GREELEY. Thank you; that was my understanding. Senator ALLOTT. Mr. Chairman, may I ask a question? Senator GRUENING. Yes, sir.

Senator ALLOTT. In this sort of a situation, you do have, or might have, statements which could later be considered as statements against interest. Did you furnish a copy of that tape to the claimant? Mr. GREELEY. I would be very surprised if we did; I doubt it. I do not think it would have occurred to any of our people to think to do it.

Senator ALLOTT. You have two people here who are acting in an across-the-table situation. The interest of these two people are entirely different-yours, of course, is that of administering and enforcing the law, and the man is attempting to establish a right under our laws for a claim.

Now, since even the most inadvertent statement might be used damagingly against him at a subsequent time, it would seem to me. logical that if you are going to use a tape recorder, it ought to be done under one of two circumstances: Either that you give him a copy of the tape or that you forewarn him of his rights so that he may have a counsel there to advise him of any statements against interest into which he might be trapped.

Mr. GREELEY. Well, Senator Allott, rather than see this become something for which formal procedures would be required, I would much rather have our people not use a tape.

I do not think there is any particular reason for it. The intent, as I have previously stated, was to simplify the process of note

taking, but there is no particular reason why a tape recorder would have to be used. I know people traveling out of our office here occasionally use a tape recorder just to help them keep their notes up at night. I do not know too often of circumstances like this where an interview is tape recorded.

Senator ALLOTT. I use a tape recorder myself, but it does seem to me if you use a tape recorder, the man thereafter is always at a disadvantage unless you supply him with a copy of the tape.

Mr. GREELEY. I would rather see our people not use a tape recorder.
Senator ALLOTT. I just wanted to make that comment.
Senator GRUENING. Thank you.

Proceed, Mr. Greeley.

Mr. GREELEY. Mr. Hintzman did take samples of the travertine for laboratory study and for further chemical analysis, if necessary. After his study of the travertine, he was not in disagreement as to the chemical composition which was claimed. Mr. Hintzman's information about the uses made to date, and plans about future use, came from conversations with Mr. Ahern. I do not know whether this was entirely on the basis of conversations on the trip. I think it was then and otherwise, too.

Mr. Hintzman submitted his report of findings and recommendations on June 1, 1962. In his opinion, the travertine rock, as it was being used, was a common variety and not subject to mineral location. The three mining claims of Montana Travertine were located March 29, 1961, and, hence, would be subject to section 3 of Public Law 167. In reaching this conclusion, Mr. Hintzman was guided by current decisions of the Department of the Interior.

In June 1963 arrangements were made by the forest supervisor at Bozeman, Mont., for a meeting with the Montana Travertine people to discuss the findings of the mineral examiner and to determine if the case might be settled without resorting to contest action.

The meeting at Gardiner, Mont., on June 26, was attended by Mr. Ahern, his attorney, a mining consultant, and representatives of the Northern Pacific Railway, the Montana State Planning Board, the Forest Service, and the field office of the General Counsel of the Department of Agriculture.

The Forest Service personnel discussed the mineral examiner's findings. They explained that these were based upon the present use being made of this stone as a rubble building stone. It was stated as the opinion of the Forest Service that this material is not locatable since July 23, 1955, and, so, would not be subject to patent.

The Forest Service was willing that the material be made available for lease under the disposal laws. The amount of material which Montana Travertine Quarries would be removing would preclude a negotiated sale without advertising under the material disposal law. At the meeting in Gardiner, the permit form used by our people for material disposal was reviewed, but no permit was prepared or presented for Mr. Ahern's signature. Appraisal figures were discussed to present our ideas of what would be an equitable royalty. On such sales the Forest Service requires restoration of the surface where this action is feasible.

Other stone sales on adjacent private lands would have a direct bearing on the Government's appraisal value, but we would need to take into account the fact that we would need to require restoration.