296 



So I started looking at BLM land, which is adjacent to the forest. 

 I applied to the BLM earlier this year. The same application that I 

 applied three years earlier. I got a one-page answer in two weeks 

 time, with the same requirements, the basic same reclamation re- 

 quirements, short of the inhibitation of bonding requirements. 



In two weeks time I got a full approval for the operation. If you 

 look at this, it is a real good paragraph. BLM has a good program 

 for reclamation. They do not have some of the requirements for 

 bonding that might prohibit an operation. But essentially, it is 

 there. 



These are in the record. Well, this document is in the record, and 

 I have a summary in the record, attachment 1, that summarizes 

 my problem with the Forest Service, and I will not bother to read 

 that at this point in time. 



I might mention that my problem is not an exception. There is 

 also a letter in here from Mr. Robert Warren, from the Nevada 

 Mining Association, that outlines some of these problems, and ad- 

 dresses some of the reasons why this existed. 



So we do have a problem. Now comes the bill from last year that 

 proposed to include the land that I was going to move to, the BLM 

 land, to be included in last year's bill. Fortunately it has been re- 

 moved from this year's bill, so that should solve my problem. 



But obviously a small miner can do with this, he can not do with 

 this or the inhibitions that go along with a multi-buck process to 

 even get into business there. So that is my problem. 



Actually, through correspondence with your office I have pro- 

 posed exclusion of certain areas, and I have outlined them into four 

 basic areas. I will not go into detail. Essentially, the 1,700 acres 

 that you included in the legislation as exclusions from the bill, and 

 another for an enlarged area of 2,900 acres for a total 4,600 acres 

 that I would really like to have addressed and looked at for full in- 

 clusion for a large-scale operation. 



There is a potential here for a 30 million ton operation, which 

 takes lots of room, lots of water, and lots of space. We are talking 

 about flat desert ground, sagebrush-covered ground, the same kind 

 of area that they are talking of in the other. 



It is very low-cost and it is not very expensive to reclaim. Not in 

 the degree that has been exposed to the Forest Service. So I have a 

 kind of backhanded approach here. 



I am really approving, or supporting the bill, but I would like to 

 have it supported with this exclusion. We all in Nevada, and I from 

 California, we support the effort to make Nevada a little greener 

 with the Forest Service, as long as the government is willing to pay 

 the additional cost and additional service. 



But we do not want to spend any money like this for prohibiting 

 business operations in areas that we can get into. That is why I ap- 

 preciate your support on the further exclusion of the 4,600 acres. 



[The prepared statement of Mr. Cavanaugh follows:] 



