Nor would the surface surveys anticipate new technology that can discover and process mineral structures not now available, such as occurred with the so-called invisible gold in Carlin, Nev. Surface mineral surveys are of limited value and therefore are unsatisfactory solutions. The only viable solution is a return to multiple uses of public lands, now and in the future. Many of the lands that have been administratively and legislatively withdrawn need to be reconsidered, and access provided. And we have to look ahead to what will happen with the land after the mining phase is completed. Where the use creates a scar, or pollution, we would require reclamation and pollution abatement. Because, once the reserve is extracted, we have the means to convert the land to other long-term uses. The alternative to a reversal of the withdrawal policy is staggering. Now I am far from a prophet of doom. But, unless we change our attitude and our ways, we will wind up exporting mining jobs to foreign countries. Those countries could be expected to supply an increasing proportion of minerals to us and to use their increasing market power, as occurred with oil and bauxite within the last 2 years. Price increases of 50 percent or more may be too modest when transportation costs are added to market power. Then cost-plus inflation could be several percentage points for American consumers during the next decade from this source alone. In addition, withdrawal policies condemn several communities to perpetual depression. For example, within the State of Utah, two-thirds of the land area is Federal lands and two-thirds of these Federal lands may be already withdrawn, with prospects for the proportions to increase. As withdrawals increase, the job opportunities decrease and change from generally better paying and steady mineral industry jobs to seasonal recreational jobs. Per capita income will fall even farther behind the national average. Parents will observe the departure of children to other areas in order to make a living. The same could occur in other public land States and elsewhere across the country. It is patently unfair to allow this to happen. If growth in mineral extraction is required to occur outside the United States, the United States will slowly change its industrial base toward light manufacturing and services and become increasingly vulnerable to supply interruptions of life-sustaining minerals from abroad. An independent foreign policy becomes less likely. We have all seen in the past 2 years the many ways in which the oil interruption and OPEC price actions have decimated our foreign policy. In contravention of the Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970, our security needs will not be satisfied. The Mining and Minerals Policy Act also requires the Federal Government to "foster and encourage private enterprise." We must review tax, expenditure and regulation policies to see if they support private enterprise. The President has emphasized this by calling attention to the growth of Government and the web of excessive regulations. Beginning last year we have attempted to review these policies. In cooperation with other agencies, we are reviewing the air quality amendments, proposed regulations for copper, lead and zinc smelters, MESA regulations, GS regulations, and others. This modest effort clearly indicates the need for review and the need to work for less regulations in all areas. Otherwise private enterprise will be strangled and Government will take over exploration, development and production of mineral resources. This will reduce not only producer's freedom but consumer and political freedoms. We must guard against that now and for our children. Lest the American people think that we are advocating reversal of the withdrawal policy at the expense of the environment, let me assure you that the Mining and Minerals Policy Act mandates me to be concerned about environmental needs. Clearly, through this act, other acts, opinion polls and elections, Americans have indicated that they want environmental quality. From 1966 to 1968, when I was responsible for coordinating executive branch consideration of environmental quality, there were many differences of opinion on how to achieve it and at what cost. One step is diligent reclamation of mined lands, such as was proposed in our draft strip mining regulation on Federal lands. It requires meeting generally acceptable environmental quality standards. We support the national primary and secondary air-quality standards, too. But the search for environmental quality was never intended by most adversaries to be a means of locking out our mineral resources. We have to consider the total effect of new legislation or administrative orders on all of America, and not just a particular area that may be under consideration. Mining requires only a small amount of land-mucht less than the interstate highway system. Unlike highways, which are permanent, mined land can be converted to parks, farms, game preserves and other long-term uses, after the reserves have been extracted. But in the interim, it will have contributed precious ores into the mainstream of American life and made our economy and many jobs more secure. Let us all work together to make this cycle more acceptable to all Americans-and not try to prohibit it from working at all. LOCATION OF DEPOSITS Mr. McKay. Where are those deposits which comprise a possible substitute? Are they located in the same area? Mr. MORGAN. Largely within the same area. Apparently, when this material was precipitated in ancient lakes some was pure calcium borate, some sodium borate, and some mixed. There are different veins of the material. Mr. MCKAY. Are there large deposits of it outside the monument? Mr. DARE. Our main production is coming from California. The supply can last for 20 to 30 years in Boron, Calif., the reserves are good for 20 to 30 years. Mr. McKAY. Without using those within the monument? Mr. DARE. Right. But colemanite is a specific borate material which lies in the monument. Mr. REED. The colemanite is really the question. It is the significant resource. Mr. YATES. Mr. Reed, thank you very much, we appreciate your testimony. It has been very informative. It is a very difficult and complex question and I anticipate there will be a lot of fireworks before the legislative committees. I wish you luck in projecting your viewpoint and I hope the administration agrees with you. Mr. McKay. What kind of pressures do you have on uranium deposits? Mr. REED. Grand Canyon was the one I testified to. If the price of uranium continues to escalate, there might be renewed interest in that one mine at Grand Canyon, the Orphan Mine. The Orphan Mine is within a patented mining claim; within the Grand Canyon National Park. The mine produced uranium ores between 1951 and 1969. Public Law 87-457, of May 26, 1962, restricted the surface use of the patented claim and gave the owner the right to mine, by underground methods only, up until 1987. Currently, the mine is not operating but changes in the uranium price structure could make the mine economically sound again. Mr. McKAY. That whole Four Corners area is a uranium area. Mr. EVERHARDT. There is some exploration going on in that territory. Mr. McKAY. Are there any other locations more ripe for uranium finds? Mr. MORGAN. There are a variety of uranium-bearing areas. As you know, a few years ago the price was down to $6, now it is up to about $25. At these prices there is much interest. Mr. McKAY. When you speak of those areas Mr. DARE. New Mexico, for instance. Mr. MORGAN. When the AEC phased out its program, the priced dropped. Now, the price is escalating. There is a great search under way. Mr. YATES. Thank you. TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 18, 1975. NATIONAL PARK SERVICE CONCESSIONS MANAGEMENT WITNESSES GARY E. EVERHARDT, DIRECTOR, NATIONAL PARK SERVICE W. C. QUICK, CHIEF, PROGRAMING AND BUDGET DIVISION FRANCIS M. WILES, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF BUDGET, OFFICE OF THE DON HUMMEL, CONFERENCE OF NATIONAL PARK CONCESSIONERS T. DESTRY JARVIS, ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT FOR PARKS AND CONSERVATION, NATIONAL PARKS AND CONSERVATION ASSO CIATION Mr. YATES. The committee will be in order. We are pleased this afternoon to welcome the Director of the National Park Service, Mr. Gary Everhardt, to testify in connection with concessions management. DIRECTOR EVERHARDT'S STATEMENT Mr. Everhardt, we read your statement and it may be inserted in the record at this point. [The statement follows:] STATEMENT OF GARY E. EVERHARDT, DIRECTOR, NATIONAL PARK SERVICE, . Mr. Chairman, I am Gary E. Everhardt, Director of the National Park Service. I appreciate the opportunity to discuss with you several facets of our concessions programs and policies. I have had an opportunity to work closely in the field with individual park concessioners. As a former Park Superintendent, I can appreciate your committee's concern on concessions policies. The basic legislative authority for the National Park Service concessions program stems from the act of August 25, 1916, which created the National Park Service. That act authorized the Secretary of the Interior to "grant privileges, leases, and permits for the use of land for the accommodation of visitors," for certain terms, without advertising and without securing competitive bids. The 1916 act also set forth the basic purpose of national parks, which is to preserve them unimpaired for the benefit and enjoyment of future generations. Thus, in carrying out the authorization to permit concessions operations, we must always be mindful that concession facilities should be consistent with the purpose of the parks. Currently, there is a total of 340 concessioners within 87 areas of the National Park System. Of this number, approximately 45 concessioners conduct a gross business of $500,000 per year or more. Upon assuming my position as Director, I brought with the job some concerns as to our concession operations in the parks. I personally an grateful, therefore, for this opportunity to share with you my concerns on concessions and administration. Let me briefly touch on what my concerns are and what I as Director of the Park Service propose to do about them. First. We need to upgrade the professional skills of National Park Service employees who deal with concessioners. To deal effectively with the complex operations that are typical of a modern business operation, we need specially trained people with the experience and understanding necessary to get the job done. Second. From my experience in the parks, I have concluded that we need more and better communication between the National Park Service and the concessioners. This must be done in order to establish a mutual understanding and result in increased effectiveness and improved public service, which is after all our primary goal. Third. I am concerned that our field managers have clear policy guidance from the Washington Office in not only concession practices but planning and involvement of the public in our planning process in general. Here is what I have done and what I propose to do about these concerns: 1. On March 12 of this year, I advised the Conference of National Park Concessioners that I have reaffirmed the responsibility in the Regional Directors and the Park Superintendents themselves for resolving concessions matters and day-to-day concession operations. I stated in my address to the concessioners that with improved communications more of the basic problems could be solved in the field with only major decisions left to the tip of the pyramid in this city. As an example where improved communications could begin, I have encouraged Park Superintendents to hold brief training sessions for concession employees so they understand the mission of the parks and thus can be more helpful to the many visitors they talk to each season. 2. On May 7, I directed a memorandum to all of our field managers on concessions matters. I advised them that most concessioner related problems can be resolved without involving the Washington Office. I further advised them that as I see it there are four areas which are critical to an efficient concessions program: planning, contracting, operations, and administration. It is my intention to strengthen all four phases by establishing a professional concessions management program beginning at the park level with defined staff positions -- the same as our interpretive program, maintenance, safety, and law enforcement activities. As a first step, I have asked the field managers to evaluate the work load and personnel required to do the job of developing professional expertise in all facets of concessions management at the field level. As a second step, I advised them that position qualifications and career ladders must be established for professional concession personnel. I requested our field managers to recommend to me an inventory of those parks which warrant consideration for a full-time concessions staff position and identify existing personnel who can meet qualifications. Where it is warranted as shown by this inventory, and based upon complete staff reviews, I intend to bolster the concessions program within existing budgetary and personnel ceilings. I have allocated five additional positions for the Washington Office, one in Yellowstone, two in National Capital Parks, and two in Yosemite. |