Mr. LOESCH. Yes, sir.

Mr. DINGELL. Are you doing that?

Mr. LOESCH. Yes, sir.

Mr. DINGELL. So that, where you are going to issue a large block of leases, you would come forward with a block lease on the whole mass and if you had one with particular perils because of strong current or storm conditions or soil conditions or the structure of the rock underneath, you could come forward with a specific statement for that one or that area where you had the most peril? This is a commonsense approach. Is this what your agency contemplates?

Mr. LOESCH. Yes, sir.

Mr. DINGELL. Are you embodying something of this kind in your regulations or guidelines?

Mr. LOESCH. No. At this point we have not done so. As a matter of fact, I doubt very much if my Bureau of Land Management needs that direction because it knows what it is going to do and, although it is not a simple job on these broad programs, it is preparing itself to develop and file 102 statements on all of its major ongoing program areas and this will be done as speedily, as expeditiously as we can

manage.

Then, as you suggest, Mr. Chairman, within those program areas, just for example, I don't know whether we will split out a coal leasing program 102 statements in contradistinction to a 102 statement for all of our mineral leasing activity, but in the event that we do not do so at the same time we will be prepared to and will file 102 statements on proposed large significant coal leasing activity in a particular area.

In other words, I think it is fair to say that there will be substantially greater development of coal mining on the low sulfur coal in the West in the next several years as our power picture gets worse. Mr. DINGELL. I think in fairness to you I should not ask you to answer at this time, but the subcommittee would like to have you submit to us for purposes of the record a statement of how your agency interprets actions of significant environmental impact as would require an impact statement under section 102.

Mr. LOESCH. We do have that in the guidelines that have been submitted to you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. DINGELL. Your guidelines I must tell you in many particulars. in the view of the Chair, are outstanding, particularly with regard to on-going projects.

The Chair would note to you particularly your comment under, "3. Scope. B. Actions initiated before January 1, 1970.-The provisions of this chapter should be applied to continuing major Federal actions having a significant effect on the environment even though they arise from projects or programs initiated prior to enactment of the act. While it may not be practicable to reassess the basic course of action, continuing major actions should be shaped to minimize. adverse environmental consequences. It is also important in continuing actions that account be taken of environmental consequences not fully evaluated at the outset of the project or program. Ongoing or uncompleted programs and projects which were authorized prior to January 1, 1970, are to be reconsidered to determine whether they constitute major Federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment."

In the process of reconsideration, how do you propose to have it go forward in an orderly fashion fairly equally across the board in all the different agencies under the administration of the Interior Department?

Mr. LOESCH. If you please, Mr. Chairman, I would like to have Mr. Blanchard respond to that question.

Mr. DINGELL. You certainly may.

Mr. BLANCHARD. Mr. Chairman, we are meeting with each Bureau in this regard. Some of them are well underway. Bureaus are preparing internal instructions within their bureaus. Some are very formal, others are instructions to the field but in this process we are making a positive review of all on-going activities.

This also refers to your previous comment as to the preparing of program statements and then specific projects within programs. We have met with several bureaus and have more scheduled to discuss this on them on their on-going programs so that a broad program statement shall be prepared to identify what they are doing now and ways that it can be improved and then also even within that program if a specific extraordinary or controversial or large-scale impact might occur, then a separate statement will be prepared.

I might say, sir, also that our guidelines do provide for this. We want to expand upon them and we have indicated in our letter to Chairman Train of yesterday that we intend to expand further upon it.

But in clarification, our existing guidelines do have procedures for preparing the broader statements for programs and then specific statements for projects within the programs.

Mr. DINGELL. The Chair had brought to its attention by one of the agencies appearing before this body a comment that the question of a public nature would be a factor which would be considered in determining whether or not environmental impact statements would be filed either under new or under on-going projetcs.

Will this be a consideration inside your agency?

Mr. LOESCH. Yes, sir: that is part of our guidelines right now. Mr. DINGELL. It appears to be desirable that that should be. Would I be correct in inferring that both in existing or on-going projects if a Member of Congress were to bring to your attention the need for an impact statement that that would motivate your agency to consider whether an environmental impact statement should be forthcoming and might bring forth a statement that might otherwise have been overlooked or disregarded.

Mr. LOESCH. Yes, sir. I don't think I would want to sit here and promise you that we would want to respond affirmatively to every such request but we would certainly give it every consideration.

Mr. DINGELL. The Chair notes that the council's guidelines to all of the Departments generally encourage application of 102(2) (C) procedures to existing Federal actions having significant effect on the environment and direct the agencies:

Where it is not practicable to reassess the basic course of action, it is still important that further incremental major action be shaped so as to minimize adverse environmental consequences.

I would assume that this is embodied in your guidelines, some parts of which I have read?

Mr. LOESCH. You are right.

Mr. DINGELL. In this guideline, the Council directs the Interior Department to encourage environmental impact statements where there appears to be some environmental impact of the action in both on-going and new projects, am I correct?

Mr. LOESCH. You are correct, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. DINGELL. The Chair is concerned about the question of land classifications.

Do you propose to apply the requirements of 102 (2) to land classifications actions by your agency?

Mr. LOESCH. Mr. Chairman, I don't know in full the answer to your question. As you are aware, the Land Classification Act expires with the expiration of this calendar year, and my Bureau of Land Management is in some doubt as to where we go from here. It seems quite clear that the act is not going to be extended in the next 2 weeks or whatever it is of this Congress, and in consequence we just don't really know what the rules of the ball game are or are going to be.

In the past we have, of course, in the calendar year 1970 not filed 102 statements when we classified blocks of land. I think our theory was that partially this was because we are inexperienced and feeling our way under the act yet and partially because we perhaps were not imaginative enough to see that the bare classification of a large block of land would, of itself, affect the environment.

Mr. DINGELL. Wouldn't it be more fair to say that the classification of land under the Classification Act would not inconceivably result in the change of use? Am I not correct in that, that classification of land could result in a striking change in the use of that particular land?

Mr. LOESCH. Yes; it could. Quite honestly, up to now it generally hasn't significantly changed the use of classified land.

Mr. DINGELL. It could result in additional pollution, siltation, change in runoff of water from the land, or, in the West, the change in salinity of water or alkalinity of the land or water.

Mr. LOESCH. It certainly could.

Mr. DINGELL. Wouldn't it necessarily follow that change in land classification could be a change affecting the environment?

Mr. LOESCH. Yes, sir; a change. This will be in our program statements and work is underway, as I said a minute ago, in BLM on these approaches. Let me point out, Mr. Chairman, that the effort of the Bureau of Land Management to date under the Classification and Multiple Use Act has been to classify land in comparatively large blocks by usual standards anyway for retention and multiple use, retention in Government ownership and multiple use, and in much smaller blocks and in some cases quite isolated blocks for disposition under any of the disposition programs.

Now, the classification of land for retention and multiple use is not likely to result in any particular changes or impacts on the environment because basically, normally, the land will have been so managed in the past and under such classification presumably would continue to be so managed. However, on the disposition end of this it certainly is true that if a block of land is classified for disposition under, for instance, the Desert Land Entry Act and is disposed of, the change in use resulting from its development and use as an agricul

tural, irrigated agricultural area, certainly has a very definite impact on that environment.

So, perhaps what I am really saying in a rather discursory manner is that I am open to argument, but I don't really look upon classification for retention and multiple use as being the sort of thing that was contemplated by this act, while I would certainly agree that classification for disposition is.

Mr. DINGELL. I would have to be perfectly fair with you because. frankly, this is a matter which has just come to my attention and I am sure that it also has just come to your attention. Have you not been in some correspondence with my good friend and colleague Henry Reuss, of Wisconsin, regarding this very question?

Mr. LOESCH. Yes, sir; I have.

Mr. DINGELL. In fairness to you, I must tell you that he brought some of his correspondence with you to my attention, most recently. his letter of December 9, 1970, which was yesterday. I think in fairness you probably have not vet received it.

Mr. LOESCH. I haven't received it.

Mr. DINGELL. Then I can't be unfair to you and start querying you for responses on this matter that would be beyond fairness to reply. However, I would like to have you submit to this subcommittee a copy of your response to Congressman Reuss and we will put both of them in the record.

Mr. LOESCH. Certainly. Does this letter, Mr. Chairman, refer to the Soapholes area in Wyoming?

Mr. DINGELL. Yes, Soapholes Basin in Wyoming.

Mr. LOESCH. Yes, indeed.

Mr. DINGELL. You will, I am sure, if the rail strike hasn't held it up, have the letter.

Mr. LOESCH. Yes, sir.

Mr. DINGELL. I am troubled about the bottom of the first paragraph. Let me read it to you and you may make such comment as you deem appropriate. The BLM-State wildlife report in your comments to Mr. Reuss apparently indicated, and I am quoting, that:

The record does not define the extent of the impact on the deer herd that would result from allowance of these applications. While there may be a detrimental effect, there is no substantial evidence indicating that the loss is significant, yet the joint BLM-State wildlife report states as follows: "These lands constitute important deer winter range, and removal of the shrub vegetation would (a) lower the number of deer this range could sustain and, (b) very likely increase deer depredations on adjacent private lands. Approximately 150 deer can winter on this range, a hunting value of about $3.48 per acre each year. 2. Fencing of the entries would likely hinder movements in severe winters and might cause mortalities when deer are suffering from malnutrition.

3. These lands are classified as high quality sage grouse habitat and constitute important wintering grounds. Grouse hunting values are about $0.41 per acre each year.

4. These lands are currently accessible to the public for hunting and can provide big game, sage grouse, mourning dove, and rabbit hunting. Removal of these lands from public ownership would not only prevent public hunting on these lands but would make public access to adjacent public domain more difficult. The present county road network within the area runs primarily through the lands under application, and patenting of the lands would put privately-owned lands on each side of the county road.

Mr. Reuss inquired as to whether environmental impact statements had been filed under 102. The question I ask you now is, Have such

impact statements been filed under the Soapholes matter that we are now discussing?

Mr. LOESCH. No, sir. I am quite sure they have not.

Mr. DINGELL. Can you tell me why not?

Mr. LOESCH. Probably because the action first taken by the Department was taken before the act went into effect.

Mr. DINGELL. Your guidelines and the guidelines of the Council require that to the fullest degree possible impact statements be filed under matters of this kind?

Mr. LOESCH. Mr. Chairman, I have absolutely no objetcion and in fact will now commit that such 102 statements on this matter will be filed. This matter has been pretty much in abeyance since I believe August of 1969, which was the point at which Mr. Reuss requested that I take no further action until after his committee had exercised its oversight function. And to date no further action has been taken and, quite honestly. I think so far as the 102 statement is concerned it just never occurred to me that I should file one. But I will be glad to do so.

Mr. DINGELL. I note this is for 750,000 acres.

Mr. LOESCH. Oh, no, sir.

Mr. DINGELL. The BLM classification of May 28, 1970, would make nearly 750,000 acres almost 1,172 square miles of land-subject to multiple use management, including use for industrial development, mineral production, occupancy and other uses which would certainly affect the environment. In addition, that classification made 28,293 acres of the 750,000 acres available for irrigation and agricultural development under the desert land law. It can hardly be doubted that that classification of such acreage would constitute a major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment, and that the failure to make a detailed statement violates section 102 (C) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969.

Mr. LOESCH. Now, Mr. Chairman, I am of course kind of talking off the cuff without ready reference to Mr. Reuss' letter, but let me say that I think this goes to our discussion of a month ago and unless I am mistaken the 750,000 acre reference is to what we propose to classify for retention and multiple use, which in my view will not affect the human environment. Because the land will go on being managed as it has been. The 28,000 acres referred to, I am not acquainted with, but it evidently is something that we propose to classify for disposition and certainly to the extent it would be wholly appropriate to file a 102 statement.

I would think, without wanting to make an absolute commitment on this, that I certainly would give full consideration to the idea that every time we intend to dispose of a substantial acreage of public land we ought probably to file a 102 statement. I don't believe that we should be required to, and I would oppose the filing of a 102 statement for any little 160 acres or even up to 1,320 acres which we would be disposing of under the Isolated Tracts Act just in the routine course of business.

Mr. DINGELL. Unless, and I think we would have to have the caveat here that the land that you would be referring to at this time would have been of some unique character or actually would have a significant impact.