sources for the Future Study on Alaska National Interest Lands) by first expressing grave doubts that any mineralized areas having only base metals could promise returns so they could be extracted privately, and then concluding there "appears to be no areas where present tradeoffs between restrictive and nonrestrictive uses must be faced that involve conventional extractive resource activities on the one hand and the amenity services depending on (d) (2) lands on the other".

This kind of thinking troubles us, Mr. Chairman. The fact is that we have barely scratched the surface as far as inventorying Alaska's mineral potential. We do not know either how extensive Alaska's minerals are or where they are. Without such knowledge there is no way land use in Alaska can be adequately planned to maximize the return to society from its public lands. The job of mineral exploration is a time consuming and, at best, an inexact business. The history of mining is replete with cases where today's mines and mining companies expend substantial effort on exploration in areas mined for over a century and important mineral discoveries continue to be made. For example, my company is spending $200 million in developing a new major underground copper mine at Carr Fork, Utah on lands where lead-zinc-silver mining was pursued at shallower depth for decades. The point is that as exploration technology improves and advances are made in metallurgical processing, we are certain that new discoveries will be made and new mines will become economically viable. It is crucial that areas of recognized or suspected mineral potential be in management systems which allow exploration, discovery and transport of minerals. Such a multiple use approach as that mandated in Forest Service management and under the 1976 "BLM Organic Act" are essential to sound planning and management of the bulk of Alaska's remaining public domain. It is true there are 375 million acres in Alaska, but it is also true that almost 70 million acres are already locked away in existing Military, Park, Refuge and other forms of permanent reserves.

Sound land use planning requires an evaluation of facts. So far as knowledge of mineral resources in Alaska is concerned, few of the facts are in. It is unlikely they will be for decades. To the extent Congress closes the door to mineral activity in Alaska, Congress is locking away an uninventoried resource. Such a policy would, at best, be poor land use planning and would be contrary to the intent and spirit of the numerous Congressional directions on public land management, including (d) (2), already enacted into law.

The American Mining Congress recognizes that there are many uses to which lands in Alaska can and should be put. We feel it is quite proper to create new national parks, refuges and wild and scenic river areas. We also feel, however, that it is proper to keep Alaska open for mineral entry.

To accommodate what might appear to be contradictory land use objectives, we ask the Congress to consider multiple use administration of these lands. The mining industry and the U.S. Forest Service have made the multiple use concept work to the benefit of the American people on Forest Service lands. We think the model is worth emulating in Alaska because such similar management authority is now also available to the Bureau of Land Management.

We hold out no such hope for a "prime" use arrangement where only those uses compatible with the prime use are permitted.

First, today no one is capable of determining the highest and best use, in perpetuity, of any given piece of ground. Second, if history is any guide on this matter, it is unlikely that any land designated for a prime use today will be redesignated for a different prime use at some future time.

Only a true multiple use administrative system would permit such flexibility, and the American Mining Congress strongly endorses such a system.

Certainly the decisions on ANCSA matters that this Committee and the Congress will be called upon to make in the next two years are extremely complex, and their effects will be felt by the citizens of Alaska and the Nation as a whole. We in the American mining industry are concerned about the long-term mineral needs of this Nation. We hope that many of those needs can be filled domestically in such places as the vast, virtually unexplored areas of Alaska. With the possible exception of the (d) (2) position of the Congressman Young, Senator Stevens and Governor Hammond, none of the other proposals would keep open the Alaska lands to permit the kind of exploration necessary to develop the knowledge needed for sound land-use planning. While we reserve final judgment on their proposal, it currently provides the only apparent multiple use management for the bulk of the Alaskan land, while establishing key core areas in the single use systems. We believe that only by making these lands in Alaska open to mineral entry can the

Congress comply with policy set forth in its 1970 Minerals Policy Act and achieve the goals of the statutes I outlined earlier.

On behalf of the American Mining Congress, I would like to thank the Committee for giving us this opportunity to present our views.

STATEMENT OF CARL L. RANDOLPH, PRESIDENT, U.S. BORAX AND CHEMICAL CORP.

I am Carl Randolph, President of United States Borax & Chemical Corporation, and have asked for time to appear today because my Company is directly involved in the matters being considered. Your courtesy in granting this audience is appreciated.

U.S. Borax and our predecessor companies have mined and processed minerals for 105 years. We were the first and we are still the major domestic producer of borates, which are essential raw materials for the production of many products, an example being the production of fiber glass insulation. We were also first in the New Mexico potash development that relieved American agriculture from dependence on the European potash cartel. An aggressive exploration program has been responsible for our success in locating and then developing both of these very necessary minerals and, because of their contributions to American industry and agriculture, we feel that the United States and its citizens have greatly benefited from these activities, as has U.S. Borax. This background is provided to assure you that we understand, from firsthand experience, the values of mineral exploration and that we know from our experience that vigorous mineral exploration and development can be of great benefit to our country. H.R. 39 will seriously affect the future of our Company and the mining industry in at least three areas. They are:

First, my Company has discovered a valuable Molybdenum deposit in Southeast Alaska. We call the site “Quartz Hill." If this area is designated as wilderness as proposed by H.R. 39, we will be forced to stop our development work, which will be to the economic detriment of the local area, the State of Alaska, and the Nation, as well as to U.S. BORAX.

Second, if one-third of the Tongass National Forest is designated as wilderness as proposed by H.R. 39, the probability of mineral discovery in this very favorably mineralized area will be reduced by a corresponding amount. This will mean the end of exploration efforts in that area by several companies, including U.S. BORAX.

Third, if 146 million acres of Alaska are designated "instant wilderness" as proposed by H.R. 39, the United States will be denied access, not only to areas of great mineral potential, but also to energy reserves that could, by themselves. relieve the nation's energy crisis. Removing this vast area from mineral appropriation is directly contrary to the intent of the Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970, as well as the intent of the Wilderness Act of 1964.

Returning to my first concern, our discovery at Quartz Hill was made in 1974. Subsequent work indicates a good probability for an economically viable mine. Our activities to date have been carried out in accordance with the law and precepts of good citizenship. They will be continued with ecological awareness and it will be our policy to mitigate adverse environmental effects to the fullest extent possible. We understand the potential impact of a full scale mine and we are particularly sensitive to the problems of fisheries and have already begun programs to study this problem.

The probable area of our full mine development will be less than 1000 acres of the 17,000,000 acre Tongass Forest. Quartz Hill is remote and there will be very little visual impact from this development.

Economic benefits to the Ketchikan area in employment and demands for goods and services will be very significant. So will the enlarged tax base be significant for the State of Alaska. Development of Quartz Hill will help meet world demand for molybdenum, will add to the nation's mineral reserves, and improve our balance of trade position.

In view of the comparatively minor environmental impacts and the signficant benefits to the local area, to the State, and to the Nation, we believe that the highest and best use for this land is to allow the continued development of Quartz Hill.

Others will make the point that valid and existing mineral rights and mining would be allowed both by the Wilderness Act of 1964 and under H.R. 39. However, if the area surrounding Quartz Hill is given wilderness designation, we will discontinue our work. Experience leads us to believe that uncertainty of

tenure due to legislative action and restrictive administrative regulations would make mining uneconomical and further expenditures for development unjustified. The experience I mention is in Death Valley where properties we have owned since 1890, and for which assurances of tenure and access were given in 1933 when the Monument was created, were wiped out with one stroke of the legislative pen with passage of the Mining in National Parks Act last year. Chairman Seiberling has put it well with his statement at the April 28th Hearing in Washington, D.C. when he said "Congress giveth and Congress taken away." Passage of H.R. 39 would set the stage for a repetition of the Death Valley experience at our Quartz Hill discovery, an event my Company could not afford.

Our second point, that passage of H.R. 39 would seriously inhibit mineral exploration in Southeast Alaska, is of great concern. Eliminating of the area from mineral appropriation cuts the probability of successful exploration by a proportionate amount. This will have a direct effect on the nation's future mineral reserves. It will also affect corporate decisions on expenditures for exploration. We, and other companies, are currently expending in excess of $10 million annually on these programs. If we are forced to stop these programs, the loss of revenue would have an adverse effect on the economy of Ketchikan. We believe the present wild areas of Southeast Alaska are so protected by nature that they will remain de facto wilderness. Exploration activity in itself does not have significant adverse environmental impact, but we know that curtailment of exploration programs would have a negative economic impact.

Our third concern over the withdrawal of 146 million acres of Alaska land from mineral exploration arises from the fact that Alaska has the potential to supply many of the minerals, including coal, oil, gas, and uranium, that will be needed to overcome impending energy and material shortages. In the face of an energy emergency, declared by President Carter to be comparable to a State of War, the passage of H.R. 39 would be contrary to the national interest. H.R. 39 not only makes much of Alaska's energy inventory unavailable by placing it in restricted areas, but it also blocks access to minerally significant areas that are not placed in the restricted category. In addition, it will ban hydroelectric development on over 60 percent of Alaska's rivers where hydroelectric potential exists. Under the circumstances, we are gravely concerned and ask for moderation in the demands for creating wilderness and restricted access areas in Alaska without adequate study or determination of the adverse effects on the nation's well-being. It is a fact that 67 percent of the public lands in the United States are currently restricted or withdrawn from mineral entry and/or leasing. H.R. 39 will make this situation significantly worse.

The economic strength and the security of our nation depends on adequate supplies of minerals and energy. The mining industry of America has accepted the obligation of providing these resources in adequate amounts. To meet our obligation industry needs the help and wisdom of legislators and regulators. We will not be able to meet the demands of our population in the face of legislation such as H.R. 39 and other proposed legislation which would deny us access to mineralized lands and change the rules under which we operate.

We believe H.R. 39 is bad legislation. It is an extreme bill which will create "instant wilderness" in a vast portion of the State of Alaska without reasonable and appropriate regard for the best use of the land. Our positive recommendation is for alternate legislation that incorporates properly selected wilderness areas, and recognizes multiple use of the remaining federal lands, including mineral entry, use of renewable resources and recreational activities properly balanced for the benefit of industry, the peoples of Alaska and the national interest in its broadest sense.

Thank you for granting me the time to express my views.

STATEMENT OF ROBERT E. KENDALL, EXECUTIVE VICE-PRESIDENT, OPERATIONS, U.S. BORAX & CHEMICAL CORPS

I am Robert Kendail, Executive Vice-President, Operations, of United States Borax and Chemical Corporation. I am appearing here today because my Company has exploration programs and important mineral discoveries which will be directly and adversely affected by the passage of H.R. 39.

At the outset I cannot over-emphasize the importance of the following points: U.S. Borax's molybdenum discovery at Quartz Hill is a potential major deposit on a worldwide scale. If brought into production, the operation would provide

a very significant and long lasting economic benefit for Southeast Alaska and especially for the Ketchikan Area.

H.R. 39 as currently drafted includes the Quartz Hill area in the proposed 2.4 million acre Misty Fjords Wilderness. The mineral importance of Quartz Hill warants its exclusion from wilderness classification. No portion of that area of the mainland south of the Walker Cove-Rudyerd Bay Scenic Area should be placed in wilderness.

Subject to appropriate exceptions for unusually high wilderness potential, no area of Southeast Alaska should be withdrawn from mineral entry until adequate information concerning its mineral potential is developed.

U.S. Borax has conducted and will continue to conduct its activities at Quartz Hill in an environmentally sound manner, with due regard for the special requirements of that particular location.

The Quartz Hill deposit represents a major discovery in this day and age. The deposit was discovered in 1974 after seven years of exploration (a short time by industry standards) of which 3 years were concentrated in areas of known mine realization in the vicinity of Ketchikan.

We have located the deposit in accordance with State of Alaska and Federal statutes. We have conducted geological and geophysical surveys and we are now engaged in our third year of diamond drilling.

Currently we are drilling holes 1,000 to 2,000 feet in depth, to give us a concept of the tonnage and grade of ore present. The kind of deposit we expect to see evolve from this work would be one of several hundred millions of tons of ore: a deposit capable of producing more than $100 million worth of molybdenum concentrate per year for a period of many years.

There are only a handful of molybdenum mines of this type in the world and we currently place Quartz Hill high on the list of potential producers with tonnages that may rival those of the largest existing operations. The development of Quartz Hill will be dependent upon the results of a completed drilling program, a bulk sampling program and an engineering and economic feasibility study. This will require about 4 more years and will cost from $20 to $25 million. Construction of a mine and all related facilities will require a minimum of 3 additional years and an estimated $300 to $500 million. Construction will utilize 700 to 1,000 workers, and operations will provide jobs for about 500 permanent employees at the operating site plus those required elsewhere to provide the necessary goods and services to the operations. There is no question but that the development of Quartz Hill will be of major economic importance to Southeast Alaska. The city of Ketchikan, as the natural supply base for the operation and as the recreational and shopping center for its employees, will especially benefit from this development.

Quartz Hill represents the fruits of ongoing continuing exploration programs fostered by the belief that those mines found can be developed; an activity that will diminish or cease in much of Alaska with the passage of H.R. 39.

The inclusion of Quartz Hill in the Misty Fjords Wilderness Area as proposed in H.R. 39 will effectively prohibit U.S. BORAX from further exploration and development of this property. Despite the fact that we have valid and existing rights, we will not-and we believe that no other prudent company wouldinvest money on the exploration or development of a mineral property in an area designated as wilderness. We know of no significant mining operations that have or are operating within a wilderness area. Our personal experience in Death Valley National Monument convinces us that the assurances of those who state we will be allowed to develop and mine our properties within a wilderness area are uttering hollow promises. Experience teaches us that the uncertainties of tenure due to legislative action, outside pressures to prevent industrial development, and restrictive administrative regulations would, in spite of all promises to the contrary, make mining uneconomical if not impossible in a wilderness area. U.S. BORAX initiated its minerals exploration program in Southeast Alaska in 1971 because we felt that there was good potential there for major mines. Not only do several highly favorable geologic trends intersect the area, but important mineral deposits have been found on the Canadian side of the border where there has been active exploration. The discovery of Quartz Hill has substantiated our belief and supports the probability that other such deposits may be found in the general area.

Based on our confidence in the overall mineral potential of Southeast Alaska, and subject to appropriate exceptions for areas of unusually high and unquestioned wilderness potential, we recommend that no area of Southeast Alaska be

withdrawn from mineral entry adequate information concerning its mineral potential is developed.

Such action will not prohibit the ultimate establishment of a reasonable amount of wilderness. Furthermore, properly conducted exploration activity in itself does not destroy the wilderness character of land. The only thing such mineral evaluation would do is delay the wilderness classification of the areas. In the meantime the land remains de facto wilderness.

Some of the supporters of H.R. 39 have argued that the lockup of minerals in wilderness areas is not damaging to the Nation as we have adequate reserves and these locked-up minerals could be opened any time Congress determines that the need is critical. These are self-serving arguments that ignore the facts. In regard to the mineral reserves of the Nation, I refer you to Congressman Santini's report to President Carter on the critical shortage of some minerals in the U.S. and our dependency on imports. Locked-up mineral reserves are not readily available and to substantiate that statement I refer you to industry's experience which teaches that the time requirement for the developmen of a typical mine is 10 to 20 years after the initial discovery. By any reasonable standard, those mineral resources that are locked-up by restrictive legislation can hardly be called "available on demand".

H.R. 39 as presently drafted includes as wilderness much of the area of Alaska that has high mineral and energy potential. The passage of this bill will virtually guarantee that no significant mineral industry will be developed in Alaska. We firmly believe that there is room in this large, productive, beautiful state for the rational development of its mineral potential and for the preservation of an adequate acreage of wilderness to be enjoyed by future generations.

H.R. 39, however, is not the answer to any kind of balanced development for Alaska. It is one-sided in the extreme. It locks up too much land too fast and without reasonable and appropriate regard for the best use of the land. In short we believe H.R. 39 is bad legislation and our positive recommendation is that it be redrafted to recognize multiple use of the land including mineral entry, use of renewable resources and recreational activities properly balanced for the benefit of industry, the people of Alaska and the National interest in its broadest

sense.

DAVIS, CALIF., June 6, 1977.

Congressman ROBERT LEGGETT,
House Office Building,
Washington, D.C.

DEAR CONGRESSMAN LEGGETT: This summer I will visit Alaska for the first time. I sincerely hope it will not be the last chance for me to experience the beauty and unique wildlife of that magnificent state. As a student of alpine botany and an ardent birdwatcher, I am especially concerned about Alaska's future. I strongly feel that HR 39 is the one proposal which provides a realistic balance of land use plans. It will ensure that our critical resource needs will be met without haphazard destruction of entire ecosystems in the process. I have voted for and supported you in the past, and listened with interest to your responses to the local citizens in Winters, CA last fall. Your answers to my questions concerning plans for Lake Berryessa seemed well reasoned. I urge you now to use your sound judgment and give your full support to Morris K. Udall's bill, HR 39.

The basic text of this letter will be included in my written testimony to be presented at the Alaska Hearings in San Francisco on June 18, 1977. I wish I could present it in person, but I will be studying alpine plants in Colorado at that time.

Please let me know your feelings on HR 39; I would be pleased to discuss it with you when you are near Davis again.

Sincerely,

Enclosure.

STATEMENT OF ANNE SANDS

ANNE SANDS.

I am Anne Sands, a resident of Davis, California and a native Californian. I am an ecologist who is very concerned about the future of Alaska's wildlife. This summer I will travel to Alaska for the first time; I sincerely hope it will not be my last chance to see the fragile and magnificent habitats of that unique state before they are carelessly destroyed. All of us have an awesome responsi