method of removing fine grained gold. Today new thinking is making inroads into the ingrained traditions of the Nevada mining industry. Deep mines are not only costly, they are becoming increasingly difficult to staff. Years of training must go into the development of an effective underground miner. The old timers are leaving the mines and younger men are no longer attracted to the hardships of this kind of life. If the complications of modern mining have forced the individual miner out of the western picture, it has not solved all the problems faced by the corporate miner. Open pit mining is both cheaper and less gruelling for the man who works in the mine, but it also has the greatest impact on the environment.

In the west most of the mineral resources are on land owned by the Federal government and administered by the BLM or by the Department of Agriculture's Forest Service. Both agencies are trying to find a proper balance between the nation's need for minerals and environmental considerations.

The mining industry points out that of the total land area of the

United States only 0.16% has been disturbed by mining activity. Of this disturbed area 40% has been reclaimed. On the whole, they say, mining has made much less impact on the environment than our nation's highway system.

Still the environmental considerations are not lightly dismissed. BLM's land managers give careful study, including hearing the public's input, into every application for a mineral lease.

This kind of control, however, does not apply to those minerals classified as locatable under the General Mining Law of 1872. Gold, silver and other precious metals fall into this category. According to the law a person finding a deposit of such a mineral can stake a mining claim. There is no provision that the Bureau or any other Federal agency even be notified that the claim exists, and the Bureau has no monitoring role in the mining operation.

Until better legislation is passed, the Bureau's environmental control of these mines rests on gentlemen's agreements with industry. However, industry is deeply concerned with its environmental posture and progress is being made.

Many of today's miners well understand the role they play in maintaining the Nation's economic health. As Tom Youngblood expresses it, "Every ounce of gold I put on the market represents new money. The gold from our mines is there to back up our Nation's currency."

Gold and other precious metals can still be found on National Resource lands throughout the West. But the would-be prospector should remember that his chances of finding and extracting it are directly in proportion to his knowledge and financial resources. Finding a valuable deposit is still an individual challenge. There are no maps and no literature that will tell you where to look. The U.S. Geological Survey has prepared a pamphlet "Suggestions for Prospecting" that is available from the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington D.C. 20402. The pamphlet has a bibliography and other information that will lead the serious student to other sources of information. Regulations pertaining to staking of mining claims can best be obtained from Title 43 of the Code of Federal Regulations. This is also available from the Superintendent of Documents.

terior Department reports dating from that period detail the extent of the damage already done and offered the prediction that the range might never be wholly repaired.

Many of those early reports sought to arouse public concern, but most fell on deaf ears and the Grazing Service personnel continued to operate in a vacuum of public apathy.

Even in the Department, there was little understanding of the magnitude of corrective action needed. In his testimony before the Senate Committee for Public Lands and Survey in support of the passage of the Taylor Grazing Act, Interior Secretary Harold Ickes assured the Senators that he could administer the new Act for $150,000 per annum.

On the other hand, some livestockmen were telling Congressmen that they could do the job themselves.

Despite many handicaps, the Grazing Service made a definite start toward bringing public land grazing under effective management. Ranchers were allotted specific portions of the range, and they were told how many animals they could graze; what seasons they could use the range and other details of range use were decided. If the deterioration of the range was not reversed, at least it was checked.

World War II brought the first definite setback. During that emergency, the production of food and fiber was given the highest priority. To encourage livestock production, western livestockmen were issued emergency license to increase the number of animals grazing on the public range.

Even the Lord knows that it is easier to give than to take away, and ranchers having war-time emergency license for increased range use found many arguments to use in persuading Grazing Service personnel to let the increase stand for one more year, and then another, long after the War and the emergency was over.

In the meantime, the Congress combined the functions of the Grazing Service and the General Land Office into a new Bureau of

Land Management. In the early 1950's, the Bureau set a 10-year goal to bring actual grazing use into balance with the carrying capacity of the range.

In their efforts to meet the 10year goal, many of the Bureau's district managers made some concessions to individual ranchers that were inconsistent with the hard realities of the land's ability to produce forage. In some cases, they failed to provide adequate forage for wildlife, and in almost every case they overlooked the forage consumed by wild or unlicensed horses.

In those days, Bureau personnel believed that the ranchers would still do the job themselves as soon as each man had his own particular allotment of range and could manage it as he saw fit.

The process was completed by the mid 1960's and now the Bureau started to think in terms of more intensive management of the individual allotments. A 10year goal was set for completion of all allotment management plans. The allotment management plan was a system of grazing management worked out between the Bureau and the rancher, and it was a further refinement of the Bureau's efforts to bring forage consumption into line with what the land was able to produce.

But now other factors were starting to make themselves felt. For one thing, public apathy was giving way to public concern.

At the same time, other user groups were discovering the public lands. In addition to the traditional hunter and fisherman, recreationists of every stripe were coming to the public lands to find their own particular outdoor experience. Some, like the off-road vehicle users, were having a significant impact on forage production.

In all cases, the range manager and the rancher were dealing with a finite resource. Much of the public range could be classified as fragile lands. Once the vegetative covering of such land is damaged or destroyed, it may take generations for the land to recover. When the thin soil layer is washed away, it may take centuries for nature to rebuild it.

In a balanced relationship, cow, horse, or another animal does not harm vegetative covering by grazing. In fact, many desirable range plants thrive under moderate grazing, just as yard grasses are improved by mowing. Overgrazing is another matter. Too many cows or other livestock pastured in a given area will crop the individual plant faster than it can grow new foliage, and the plant eventually dies.

Effective grazing management is basically simple. Find out how much forage a specific tract of range land will produce, then make sure that the number of animals allowed to graze there is not more than the range can feed without endangering the vegetative covering. Here, we should remember it makes absolutely no difference whether domestic livestock, wildlife, or unlicensed horses or burros eat the forage; it's the total consumption that

counts.

What is basically simple often becomes complex in operation, and so it is with range management. Public land grazing has economic, social, and political impacts. It affects the well-being of ranchers and ranching communities. It is often in conflict with other public land uses, and the cost of management and supervision enters into the realm of Federal financing.

Any or all of these considerations may dictate compromise, yet every compromise erodes away the resource base. Eventually the chickens will come home to roost.

BLM range people knew that they had problems, and warnings came both from official reports and from articles in the popular press written from outside the Bureau. These warnings were generally ignored by both the policy makers and by the livestock industry. Policy makers were concerned with keeping down expen. ditures, and the livestock industry feared increased Federal control over their grazing operations.

But, by 1970, the chickens were really coming home to roost as the National Environmental Policy Act with all of its many ramifications began to take shape.

Renewed public interest in the condition of the public range was aroused by such articles as "Nibbling Away at the West" which appeared in the December 1972 Readers Digest, and Jim Morgan's article about the plight of the Bighorn Sheep in the Challis area that appeared in the September 1973 National Geographic.

At the same time, other problems were demanding their own share of the Bureau's attention. The Wild Horse and Burro Act added a new dimension to the range program. Under the protection it affords, wild horses and burros have increased their population to the point where they have become a significant consumer of public land forage. In some areas, they pose a serious threat to achieving or maintaining a balanced ecosystem. Public interest may be more concerned over the plight of the wild horse than in any other area of the Bureau's responsibility. It certainly has generated the largest volume of correspondence in the history of the Department of the Interior. Along with this, the Nation came face to face with an energy crisis that demanded the time of a large segment of the Bureau's

personnel, and inflation ate into the Bureau's budget at a rate that has not been compensated by budgetary increases.

In short, despite dollar increases, the Bureau's 1975 budget will buy $8 million less in goods and services than its 1966 budget.

In the meanwhile, conservation groups and other citizen's organizations became impatient with the lack of progress being made in arresting declining range conditions. In October 1973, the practice of issuing grazing license and permits was singled out as a significant Federal action impacting the human environment, and suit was brought under the National Environmental Policy Act. The decision of the court reached this year was in favor of the plaintiffs, and both plaintiffs and the Bureau were ordered to reach an agreement on a schedule for the preparation of environmental statements in support of the grazing program.

That agreement calling for the preparation of 212 statements to be prepared over the next 13 years has been reached. It has required the Director and his staff to make some far-reaching policy decisions.

While BLM had disagreed with

the plaintiffs over the method of approach to range management, there was no disagreement concerning the desirability of improving the condition of the public range and none concerning the need.

BLM's own reports and publications have supported the need for more intensive management of public land grazing through the years.

At the same time, the Bureau recognized that the preparation of an environmental statement of itself accomplishes nothing. What the Statement does do is to identify and document the problem, point out alternative actions that may be applied, and what measures are needed to improve range conditions.

L

BLM range people felt that the environmental statement could be more effective if it were dealing with a proposed plan of management. In view of this conviction, they decided to incorporate the preparation of environmental statements into the Bureau's total planning system.

Along with the environmental statement, the Bureau will prepare allotment management plans (AMP's) in cooperation with individual ranchers. The AMP is a