Policy and Management Act. Mining in the California Desert now produces over $1.5 billion in diverse mineral commodities annually. More than 65 mineral commodities are produced in the desert, including many of strategic importance. These commodities are essential for building materials, industrial uses, aerospace applications, batteries, electronics, and exciting future prospects such as the superconductor. The desert area is among the country's richest, most diversely mineralized regions. Even after years of mining activity in the region, the location and extent of recoverable mineral deposits is still only sketchily known. It has taken years to conduct the limited mineral surveys on the two million acres proposed as wilderness in the BLM Desert Plan. While the desert area has proven, major mineral potential, there is no consensus on site-specific geological information on that vast area--as indeed, there is no undisputed geological agreement on any large region. We have recently been informed that the Bureau of Mines has just embarked on a year-long assessment and data search of the desert area. That information should be considered in documenting the impacts of this legislation. However, only a mining company has the ability to invest the millions of dollars necessary for the physical exploration necessary to prove a specific deposit's location and economic viability. It has been argued that S. 11 excludes areas of historic mineral significance. This is not the case, but it also misses a critical point. In the heavily mineralized desert, the exclusion of areas of mineral significance could be done only on the basis of careful geologic survey, not by merely drawing lines on a map. A case study has been conducted by Mr. Leedy, who has extensive experience working as a geologist in the area. This case study of the greater Panamint Valley area shows that the S. 11 acreage would result in substantial conflicts with current uses, claims activity, and, most importantly, potential mineral development. example, more than 2 million ounces of gold could be produced from the case study area, if it remains open for exploration and development, while adjoining sensitive areas are protected by the BLM proposal as wilderness. As an The case study is contained in "Mining in the California Desert", a Briefing Book prepared by the Desert California mining industry, which I would like to submit for inclusion in the hearing record. Mr. Leedy is available to answer questions about the case study or more generally about the geology of the desert area and the potential for mineral development. As I mentioned, more than half of the 25 million acre California Desert is already withdrawn from mineral entry. If it were possible to pinpoint valuable mineral deposits in the remaining area, the Congress could logically set aside those areas and create wilderness or otherwise restrict mineral entry on the rest. We are far from being in that position. Data is scattered, incomplete and inconsistent, and future commodity demands and as yet undiscovered applications simply are not known. Historically, companies such as Homestake rely in the first instance on access by small miners and prospectors to discover potential properties. These prospectors rely on their knowledge of promising geologic structure and access to a large area in order to find deposits. They invest much shoe leather and sweat equity identifying prospects that are strong enough to interest a large company in proving or developing the deposit. We cannot afford to limit so sharply the territory in which this prospecting can take place. S. 11 would withdraw much of this area without any systematic investigation of historic or existing mineral activity, let alone an evaluation of the potential for future activity. Mining has been an important contributor to our workers and their communities in the desert, as well as to the economy of Southern California and the nation. the mainstay of many communities in the area. Mining jobs are According to an analysis done for the mining industry (and included in the Briefing Book), S. 11 could result in the long-term loss of about 17,000 jobs in the desert area, and over 20,000 throughout Southern California. Not only would personal incomes fall, and many families face economic devastation, but their communities would suffer as well, with losses in tax revenue and the ability to provide needed services. Existing desert mines are projected to be depleted over time, probably in less than 50 years, if there is no possibility of further exploration. Resulting shortages would be crippling to the economy of Southern California and the nation. Drastic price increases would translate into pressures on low-income housing and infrastructure replacement so critically needed in the region. Increased dependence on foreign sources of basic materials such as cement, the relocation of industry closer to the source of needed mineral materials, and the resulting decline of the industrial base of Southern California, would have a devastating impact on the regional economy. One of my personal concerns is the reduction in economic security and employment opportunities that may result for minorities and the residents of these smaller towns in the desert. I grew up in a small mining community in Arizona. opportunity provided by the mines was the key to my family's welfare. Already I am disturbed by the lack of opportunities The available to young Hispanics in Southern California. If the mining industry can no longer offer jobs, because exploration and development in the desert are curtailed; if the price of construction materials escalates because mineral production is restricted and housing becomes even more scarce and expensive--where will those opportunities be? The proponents of S. 11 often argue that mineral production in the desert will be protected by the language, "subject to valid existing rights". Again, there is a very helpful analysis of this language in the Briefing Book I have submitted for the record, but you should be aware of the historic precedent in using similar language in the Mining in the Parks Act. This Act was adopted in 1976, ostensibly to protect mineral operators in Death Valley National Monument. At that time, there were four large mining operations in the Monument and several smaller ones, as well as numerous individual claims in remote areas. Only one was near a visitor point of interest. Today, not a single mine is actively producing industrial minerals within Death Valley. All unpatented mining claims have been contested. The process of determining valid rights has been complex, costly, and uncertain. Even where valid existing rights can be established, the legislation does not provide for access for machinery or supplies, for the location of mill sites or other needed facilities, or for a means to remove the product--thus |