Radioactive-which measures the radioactivity of some minerals in the

rock.

Radioactive age dating-which gives us a yardstick to relative ages of the different rocks.

Isotope ratios-which provide clues to the origin of some elements in the rocks.

Alteration studies-which reveal the changes in the rock that result from the passage of solutions directly or indirectly related to the emplacement of mineral deposits.

AFMAG-which measures the distortions in the electromagnetic field caused by material with electrical conductivity. The electromagnetic fields are produced by natural earth electrical currents caused by lightning, sunspot activity, etc.

The continuing research and development programs promise still other new systems for the future. Very low frequency electromagnetic waves now used for submarine communication likely will have some application to mineral propecting. Rapid trace element sampling of the rock from low flying aircraft may become feasible using radioactive spectroscopic and infrared master techniques. Natural earth current and associated electromagnetic fields of the earth will become more understandable to us, and they may be significant to indicate conditions at depth in the earth's crust. The great sensitivity of the rubidium vapor magnetometer may expand our sphere of knowledge of the magnetic phenomena. Importantly, our ability to interpret the data provided by these systems will become more refined and assured.

The systems described herein and mentioned are the tools and techniques of prospecting today and tomorrow. Their use in the wilderness environment demands only efficient access, but their usefulness is greatly enhanced by mechanical sources of energy. A helicopter can deliver these systems to the site, and it requires not much more space than your backyard as a landing place. Mechanical sources of energy-motorized generators-for a short time disturb only the wilderness quiet, not the wilderness environment.

The men who apply these systems are visitors to the wilderness, and they do no more damage than other visitors. Their attention is directed toward a small area for a short period of time. Yet this work is part and parcel of modern prospecting.

S. 174 limits the means of access to the most primitive methods and denies the efficiency and mobility so vital to modern prospecting. At a time of great emphasis on exploration of outer space, we should not mitigate the prospecting of inner space where lies our fundamental source of strength.

S. 174 prohibits the use of an important segment of the tools and techniques of modern prospecting and reduces prospecting virtually to visual observation, a two-dimensional technique that is inadequate to keep the pace of discovery demanded by the rate of consumption of our industrial economy.

The use of these tools and techniques is an insignificant interference with the wilderness environment. The denial of their use will deny this Nation the opportunity of discovery of the important new sources of basic wealth provided by mineral deposits.

THE PROSPECTING CHALLENGE

The demands on prospecting for new sources of mineral raw materials is most challenging. If the industrial consumption of a few vital mineral raw materials is converted to terms of ore, the magnitude of that challenge is most aptly expressed.

Our industry in 1961 consumed copper equivalent to 180 million short tons of ore; the lead consumed is equivalent to 34 million short tons of ore; our farms add to the land each year as fertilizer the equivalent of about 14 million long tons of phosphate rock and 15 million short tons of potash.

Those volumes are part of the challenge of mineral prospecting. That much new ore must be found and developed each year if we are to maintain our capacity for mineral production. To meet that challenge successfully, we must retain every opportunity to do so; we must not deny ourselves the right to discover and produce these and other minerals from the 66 million acres subject to the prohibitions of S. 174 for mineral production.

These comments refer to the minerals used today. Who can say now which mineral raw materials will be needed in the next decade, the next century? Less than two decades ago the demand for uranium was nil, but today it is a large segment of the minerals industry. Beryllium, rare earths, and niobium

or columbium are other examples of materials that may be in much greater demand in the foreseeable future. Undoubtedly technical advances will call for mineral materials not considered in the past nor today. S. 174 would not permit the search for nor production of these minerals from nearly 66 million acres of our lands.

TABLE 2.-Industrial consumption of some mineral raw materials in terms of ore-1961 estimates

Discovery is the next step in the direction of mineral production. Discovery is the process of demonstrating mineralization in place in the rock. If the mineral deposit is exposed at the ground surface, a discovery may be established merely by digging a pit or trench. If the mineralization lies below the surface, we must dig deeper to establish a discovery. Digging deeper is accomplished by driving adits or tunnels, sinking shafts, or more commonly, by drilling. In either case the end point that must be accomplished is to intersect mineralization.

These methods of establishing a discovery require equipment to supplement human energy. This equipment must be moved to the site; it is motorized. The site to which this equipment is moved is small. Whereas prospecting is applied in reconnaissance to large regions, as much as several million acres, and applied intensely to small areas, as much as a few hundred acres, discovery takes place at a point, at a spot. The area involved is merely a few acres.

In this

More often than not, digging deeper fails to establish a discovery. event, the disturbance of the surface quickly is obliterated by the inexorable advance of natural growth and erosion.

The process of discovery is denied by S. 174.

The prudent man certainly will not undertake prospecting if there is no opportunity to make a discovery in places he may judge favorable for mineral deposits. Thus, the series of steps leading to mineral production is broken irrevocably. Mineral production is denied; the Nation is the loser; the people are the victims, our opponents are comforted.

PROOF OF FEASIBILITY OF EXTRACTION

The process of proving feasibility of extraction involves many things. The size and grade of the deposit must be measured; the shape and attitude of it must be determined; the amenability of the ore to processing must be learned; and it must be shown with reasonable certainty that the recoverable value will exceed the cost of extraction and processing.

Many intersections of the mineral deposit are needed to define its boundaries and provide representative samples to measure the grade of the ore. Drilling, pitting, trenching, and underground openings through the deposit are common methods of making these intersections. Such work is beyond the efficiency of human energy; motorized equipment is required, and access is needed to move it to the site.

These activities are carried on under temporary conditions, temporary roads, temporary camps, etc., in deference to the fact that more discoveries fail to measure up to the feasibility of extraction test than prove feasible to extract. The first significant encroachment on the wilderness environment occurs in this step. In the event of failure to measure up to the feasibility of extraction test,

this encroachment has been only momentary. The area disturbed reverts to nature in the span of a few short years.

S. 174 would not permit doing the things necessary to prove feasibility of extraction. Without this determination, we ask, how could the President judge the use of an area for prospecting and mining "*** will better serve the interests of the United States and the people thereof than will its denials"? In fact, how could anyone have a basis for requesting a decision from the President if it could not be proved that a mineral deposit existed and that it was feasible to extract it? The answer to these questions, of course, is the President would have no basis for judgment, no reason to alter the status quo. S. 174, by its own terms of limitations, precludes this Presidential prerogative.

MINERAL PRODUCTION NOT A SERIOUS INTERFERENCE WITH WILDERNESS
PRESERVATION

The conflict between wilderness and mineral production is negligible, but this fact is appreciated only when their relationship is placed in its true perspective. The four steps to mineral production reviewed previously established that wilderness is usurped by mineral production only when installations have been made to extract and process the mineral deposit. And then, the wilderness is voided for a finite time, the life span of the operation. After the deposit is mined out, the small area occupied reverts to nature and, in due course, the wilderness environment is reestablished.

Prospecting, the first of the four steps to mineral production, scarcely interferes with the wilderness environment at all. The next step, discovery, slightly interferes with wilderness for a brief time only and at a specific spot only. When attempts at discovery fail, any traces of those attempts are quickly obliterated by the inexorable advance of nautre. When a discovery is established, the third step is reached in the progress toward mineral production. The proof of feasibility of extraction requires activities similar to discovery activities, but instead of being applied to a spot, they are used in areas that may be as large as a few hundreds of acres. Should the proof of feasibility fail its tests, the evidences of these efforts quickly disappear.

Installation for extracting and processing the ore from mineral deposits does usurp wilderness. The important question, through, is how much?

In the State of Idaho, 89 active mines occupy an area of 68,500 acres, which is 0.129 percent of the 52 million acres within the State. Similarly, 149 active mines in Montana involve 119,200 acres or 0.127 percent of the area of the State. Too, 75 active mines in Washington occupy 60,000 acres or 0.141 percent of the area of the State.

These States are 3 of 11 Western States; they contain 3.2 of 11 parts of the lands subject to S. 174. The figures above are deemed valid as an order of magnitude for the amount of wilderness it is expected mineral production may ursurp. Indeed, wilderness and mineral production can exist side by side; the objectives of both can be achieved without serious damage to either. One-tenth of 1 percent is an insignificant amount of wilderness to give up for the rewards to the Nation of mineral production. This Nation can have both its mineral productivity and more than 99 percent of the proposed wilderness.

The photograph, figure 9, shows the White Pine Mine of the Copper Range Co. The surrounding lands are forests, although they are not proposed for wilderness preservation. They are largely privately owned lands. Here is a graphic portrayal of the wildernesslike area occupied by this large mining operation. The area is small indeed when compared to the vastness of the region showing in the background to the horizon. Note, too, this is the only mining operation within the scope of this picture. Truly mineral production is an insignificant interference with wilderness environment.

The photograph, figure 10, shows a mine, if you look closely, in a truly wilderness area. This mine is the Premier Mine near the Alaska-British Columbia border. Can the interference of this locale of mineral production be viewed as anything other than insignificant to the vast wilderness you can see, and which continues beyond the reach of this view?

The examples given here to illustrate the true perspective between wilderness and mineral production could be augmented by many more. But the facts would remain the same; mineral production is not a serious interference with wilderness. Rather, it is an insignificant interference with wilderness.

PROPOSED AMENDMENT FOR S. 174

The members of the Mining & Metallurgical Society of America are concerned about the adverse impact of S. 174 on the capacity of this Nation to maintain its mineral productivity at the maximum level possible. Accordingly, the society adopted the resolution of August 1, 1961, calling for amendment of S. 174. À copy of this resolution was transmitted to each member of the House Interior Committee prior to September 30, 1961.

The society believes it is not in the best interest of our national welfare, economic vitality and military prowess to deny the opportunity and right of mineral production from the lands that may be included in the National Wilderness Preservation System. Furthermore, the society believes that mineral production and wilderness preservation can stand side by side, that this Nation can retain its full capacity for mineral production and still preserve more than 99 percent of its wilderness.

It is to achieve this end that the membership of the society adopted the resolution quoted below:

"Now, therefore, be it resolved, That the following amendment to Senate bill 174 ("Wilderness Act") be added as subparagraph (8) to section C, subsection (c):

"(8) Anything in this Act to the contrary notwithstanding lands within the Wilderness System shall continue to be open to prospecting and subject to location and entry in the same manner and to the same extent as under existing mineral laws of the United States and the rules and regulations applying thereto.

We urge the members of this committee to consider favorably and recommend to the Congress the principle contained in the recommendation of this resolution for amendment of S. 174.

Senator ANDERSON. I agree with the Senator from North Dakota that this is a delicate subject that has bothered us a great deal and without objection that will be done.

Mr. BOYD. Shall I proceed, sir?

Senator ANDERSON. Yes, you may proceed.

Mr. BOYD. I should like to say at this juncture that we in the mining industry owe this committee and the Senate an apology for not having this information available for your deliberations in the last session of Congress. This was a grave oversight, but I must say in our defense that we did not recognize the gravity of the problem until it was too late to get all of these data together. Unfortunately, this information is not available in one place in Washington and had to be assembled by mail and through visits to the field agencies of the various departments. As you will see, we have not as yet been able to find all of the data needed to complete the maps, but enough is available to illustrate the problem.

As organizer and director, until 3 years ago, of one of the largest prospecting organizations in existence, I can vouch for the fact that the application of the tools of modern prospecting is extremely expensive. Our experience showed us that it takes approximately $80,000 per year to support a geologist in the field with his salary, his transportation, and the tools necessary to back up his judgment and test out his ideas as to where new deposits may be found. Ore deposits are extremely rare accidents of nature in that a coincidence of a number of geological events must have taken place in one geographical location to produce them. Therefore, geologists must range over vast areas to trace the results of these events and to find where these coincidences have occurred. During this period of prospecting, he does not disturb the surface of the land in any measurable way.

It is of vital importance to distinguish between prospecting, development, and actual mining. Prospecting requires free access to vast

areas of land and would have no noticeable effect upon them. Development covers very limited areas selected by the prospecting process, and any small modifications to the surface which might be required can be easily and quickly obliterated. It is only when a minable deposit has been found, which is a rare event, that damage to the surface of any lasting nature is required.

That ore deposits are confined to specific areas is illustrated by the first map.

I think they have been followed in general, as it shows what I am talking about.

This shows by a series of dots the location of each observed occurrence of the principal economic minerals, as reported to and by the U.S. Geological Survey. Only small percentages of these are now or likely to become mines. If these occurrences were drawn to scale, they would be so small as to be invisible on this map. In fact, the full extent of the area usurped by mining operations is in itself extremely small. In the State of Utah lies the operation of the largest mining enterprise in the United States-the Bingham Canyon Mine of Kennecott Copper Corp. It covers only 19.7 square miles and therefore covers less than two-thirds of one of those squares on the map representing the 36 square miles of a township. În Utah you can see the outline of the Great Salt Lake, which is about 1,500 square miles. Two-thirds of this, or 1,000 square miles, would be the total area of all the metalliferous mining operations if they were collected in one spot. This area is just three times the size of New York City and considerably smaller than Long Island. These mines are not in one spot, however; they are scattered from Maine to southern California and from Florida to Alaska. I can count on the fingers of my two hands the number of metal mines that cover as much as 1 square mile, or less than the size of the dots on this map. Most mining operations, including all of the buildings, waste disposal areas, and mine workings, are limited to areas of less than 100 acres. A deposit of the magnitude of Bingham is discovered in the United States only once in a generation. Because mines are widely scattered and of small size, each is swallowed up in the wilderness in which it occurs. Senator ANDERSON. Could I stop you there, since you are familiar with the Kennecott Copper Corp., how much does the property in New Mexico cover?

Mr. BOYD. I have that in the letter that I exchanged with you, sir. I cannot remember offhand.

Senator ANDERSON. It has been included in the amount that is covered, the amount of the area that has been mined out, and the location of the smelter.

Now, there are some roads down there that are used once in a while. Mr. BOYD. Well, we covered in that figure that I gave you, I think it was, about 11 square miles, was it not? Only the area covered by the mine working and the dumps. Now, we did not cover the roads, sir. No, we did not include that.

Senator ANDERSON. But you can count on the fingers of your two hands those that cover 1 square mile. So this would be one of them, would it not?

Mr. Boyd. It would be one of them, yes. Bingham would be another one.