PAGENO="0001"
PIJBLliC LAND POUCY AND MANAGE~~
ACT OF 1975
HEARINGS
BEFORE TUE
S[BCO:~nIITTEE ON PUBLIC LANDS
OF TUE
COMMITTEE ON
INTERIOR AND INSULAR AFFAIRS
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
XINETY-FOT~TllTJI COYGHESS
i'u~s'r si:~srx
ON
H0R. 5224 and H0R~ 5622
TO PROVIDE FOR TIlE MANAGEMENT, PROTECTION, AND
DEVELOPMENT OF TIlE NATIONAL RESOURCE LANDS, ANT)
FUR OThER PURPOSES
hEARINGS hELD IN WAShINGTON, D.C.
MARCh 21, 24, AND 25; APRIL 7 AND 11, 1975
Serial No~ 94~9
Pnnted for the use of the
Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs
0
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
51-005 WAShINGTON : 1975
PAGENO="0002"
!~ W~1 ~ :
~
PAGENO="0003"
CONTENTS
Hearings held: Page
March 21, 1975 1
March 24, 1975
March 25, 1975 87
April 7, 1975 253
April 11, 1975
Text of:
H.R. 5224 88
Subcommittee Print No. 1 (bill) 139
H.R. 5622 254
Statements:
Alderson, George, Director of Federal Affairs, the Wilderness Societ.y_ 62, 395
American Petroleum Institute 491
Berkiund, Hon. Curt, Director, Bureau of Land Management, Depart-
ment of the Interior 2
Clusen, Charles M., a Washington representative of the Sierra Club_ _77, 474
Edwards, Howard L., vicepresident and secretary, the Anaconda Co.,
on behalf of the American Mining~Congress 380
Evenden, Fred G., executive director, the Wildlife Society 473
Garrett, Tom, conservation directOr, Friends of the Earth (plus
affidavits, State of North Dakota) 412
Herbert, W. F., manager, Natural Resources, Southern Pacific Land
Co., to the Statewide Natural Resources Committee, California
Chamber of Commerce, April 24, 1973 495
Horton, Hon. Jack 0., Assistant Secretary, Land and Water Resources,
Department of the Interior 221
Kimball, Thomas L., executive vice president, National Wildlife
Federation 451
Landstrom, Karl S., Arlington, Va 79, 340
MacCleery, Douglas W., Forester for the National Forest Products
Ass6ciation (plus suggested amendments to Subcommittee Print
No.1, and H.R. 5224) 315
McGuire, Hon. John R., Chief, Forest Service, Department of
Agriculture 30, 246
Rustad, Kenneth, commissioner, Fallon County, Mont., on behalf of
the National Association of Counties, submitted by Jim Evans,
NACo legislative representative 354
Summary 353
Smith, Dr. Spencer M., Jr., Citizens Committee on Natural Resources 77
Weber, John, represeating the chairman of the Public Lands CounciL 46
Letters:
Crandell, Harry B., director of Wilderness Reviews, the Wilderness
Society, to Hon. John Melcher, dated May 16, 1975 482
Datt, John C., director congressional relations, American Farm
Bureau Federation, to Hon. John Meicher, dated March 26, 1975.. 485
Denton, William R., vice president,~ Southern Pacific Transportation
Co., to Hon. John Melcher, dated~ April 7, 1975 488
Edwards, Howard L., chairman, AMC Public Lands Committee, to
Hon. John Melcher, dated April 28, 1975 (plus amendments) 392
Garrett, Tom, conservation director, Friends of the Earth, to Hon.
Joe Skubitz, dated June 11, 1975 448
Hagenstein, W.D., executive vice president, Industrial Forestry
Association, Portland, Oreg., to Hon. John Melcher, dated April
16, 1975 489
Herbert, W.F., Southern Pacific Land Co., San Francisco, Calif., to
Regional Forester, San Francisco, dated Dec. 9, 1972 495
Jackson, Peter V., executive secretary, Montana Association of State
Grazing Districts, to Hon. John Meicher, dated March 31, 1975_ - - - 486
(III)
PAGENO="0004"
Iv
Letters-Continued
I\icGuire, John R., Chief, Forest Service, to Hon. John Meicher, dated Page
May 6, 1975 33
Mineta, Hon. Norman Y., Member of Congress, to Hon. John Meicher,
dated March 12, 1975~ 40
Nesbit, Henry, president, Montana Association of State Grazing
Districts, Malta, Mont., to Hon. John Meicher, dated May 8, 1975 491
Pettis, Shirley N., to Hon. John Melcher, dated March 21, 1975 - -- - 39
Symms, Hon. Steve, Member of Congress, to Hon. John Meleher,
dated May 5, 1975 484
Unruh, Russell S., president, North Fork Grazing District, Chinook,
Mont., to O.M. Ueland, Administrator, Conservation District
Division, Helena, dated March 10, 1975 486
Wilson, Cynthia E., Washington representative, National Audubon
Society, to Cong. John Melcher, dated March 25, 1975 484
Additional information:
Affidavits submitted by Tom Garrett:
Edwin Britton 418
Ezra E. Evans 422
Robert L. Evans 424
Roy Evans 424
Donald Goven 425
Earl L. Goven 426
Alvin Wall 429
Harold Sellon 431
Albert and Pearle Wall 432
Ben Schatz
K.E. Peck
Richard Nathan 436
Herbert Nathan 437
Albert Klain 440
Kenneth Grabinger 442
Alvin Grabinger
Financing National Forest roads, background information for county
government policy (prepared for discussion at National Association
of Counties' Western Region Conference, Albuquerque, N. Mex.,
March 19-21, 1975) 364
Major considerations for changes in the grazing regulations, submitted
by Curt Berklund, Director, Bureau of Land Management 26
National Forest Roads and Trails Systems Act of Oct. 13, 1964 327
Questions submitted by Karl S. Landstrom, Arlington, Va 347
A
PAGENO="0005"
PUBLIC LAND POLICY AND MANAGEMENT ACT
OF 1975
FRIDAY, MARCH 21, 1975
HOuSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
SUBCOMMITTEE ON PUBLIC LANDS OF TItE
COMMITTEE ON INTERIOR AND INSULAR AFFAIRS,
Wa$hington, D.C.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:10 a.rn., in room
1302, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. John Melcher
presiding.
Mr. MELCHER. The Subcommittee on Public Lands will come to
order. This morning we are opening in this Congress our public hear-
ing on the Land Management Act.
We have before us a subcommittee print, Public Land Policy and
Management Act, which is print No. 1, which is about-well, which IS
truly what the subcommittee and the full committee have agreed on
as far as we went last year when marking up of the bill was halted.
The subcommittee print contains the amendments that were offered
and accepted in the full committee, but as it is here before us today,
it also includes collective amendments that would have been offered
and would have been accepted had the full committee continued con-
sideration of the bill.
We don't look on it at all as the perfect document or what we will
finally recommend be accepted~ and approved by the Committee on
Interior and Insular Affairs, but we do recognize it as a starting
point for this Congress.
Now, the administration bill, :1 understand, will be introduced-has
been introduced. The administration bill has been introduced. It has
been assigned number H.R. 5224, has not reached us yet from the
Government Printing Office, but assuredly will be with us next Mon-
day when we continue our hearings.
I understand that Congressman Ruppe introduced the bill by re-
quest and that it is further my understanding that it is very similar
to the administration bill of the last Congress. Is that correct?
Mr. SHAFER. That is correct, yes.
Mr. MELCHER. Very similar?
Mr. SHAFER. And the Senate-passed bill of last year.
Mr. MELCHER. And very similar to the administration's recommen-
dations and what the Senate passed.
Well, this morning and Monday the subcommittee will want to hear
testimony principally on grazing. The administration bill doesn't
suggest that there be a grazing section actually but the subcommittee
last year, and as far as we went in the full committee here in the
House last year, was intent on having a rather detailed grazing sec-
tion and, furthermore, setting out the grazing fee by law, and I pre-
sume that the subcommittee will want to continue along that same
(1)
PAGENO="0006"
2
line in this Congress. So we will have to wait and see whether the
membership of this subcommittee, as it is this year, has that
intention.
So this 1flOrning our first witness will be. Deputy Assistant Secre-
tary for Land and Water Resources, Roland G. Robison, Jr.
I understand that Mr. Robison will not testify, but Curt Berkhmd,
Director of the Bureau of Land Management will testify.
Mr. R0BIS0N. Tha.t is correct, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. MELCHER. Will both of you he at. the witness table? If so, please
come up. And you are accompanied by George Turcott.
STATEMENT OF CURT BERKLUND, DIRECTOR, BUREAU OF LAND
MANAGEMENT, U.S. DEPARTMENT OP THE INTERIOR, ACCOM-
PANIED BY ROLAND G. ROBISON, JR., DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRE-
TARY FOR LAND AND WATER RESOURCES; GEORGE L. TURCOTT,
ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR; JAMES W. MONROE, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR,
LEGISLATION AND PLANS; GEORGE D. LEA, DEPUTY ASSISTANT
DIRECTOR-RESOURCES; KAY W. WILKES, CHIEF, DIVISION OF
RANGE; ELEANOR R. SCHWARTZ, CHIEF, DIVISION OP LEGISLA-
TION AND REGULATORY MANAGEMENT, BUREAU OP LAND
MANAGEMENT
Mr. BERKLTJND. Mr. Chairman, if I could take the liberty I would
like to introduce those with me today.
On my left is Roland Robison, Deputy Assistant Secretary for
Land and Water Resources. On my right, George Turcott, Associate
Director of the Bureau of Land Management. Jim Monroe is here
with me, better known as Tim, Assistant Director of Legislation and
Plans. Sitting along side of George Turcott is George Lea., Deputy
Assistant Director for Resources. To his right is Kay Wilkes, Chief,
Division of Range, Bureau of Land Management, and, of course, we
have our ever-needed Chief of the Division of Legislation and Regu-
latory Management, Eleanor Schwartz, with mis today.
Mr. MELCHER. Welcome to the committee. Curt, we will be glad to
hear from you
Mr. BERKLnND. Thank you. Mr. Chairman. It is always a pleasure
to come before your committee and have the opportunity to discuss,
frankly and openly. the problems that are common to our desires for
better management. Again, this is no exception. We do appreciate this
opportunity to discuss with you grazing permits, fees, and privileges
today, and we will be prepared to get into that section of the subcom-
mittee print No. 1 as the Department views this in relationship to
national resource lands administered by the Bureau of Land
Management.
As you know, the Department of the Interior strongly supports
enactment of legislation that would clearly define the mission of the
Bureau of Land Management, and recently sent to the Congress a
proposal for such legislation. As we found this morning, it is H.R.
5224. I will discuss the proposal in some detail next Tuesday.
We believe that broad mission legislation, such as a National Re-
source Lands Management Act, should not contain specific limiting
PAGENO="0007"
3
provisions relating to the management of one use of resources on
federally owned lands. This would appear to put a stamp of high pri-
ority on that use and resource. Concurrent with this presumption it
would be suggested that equally detailed provisions for administra-
tion of other resource values be included in an Organic Act for the
Bureau of Land Management. A general policy document with spe-
cific provisions for each resource use on the national resource lands
would turn it into an unwieldy piece of legislation that would be diffi-
cult to administer or enforce. We urge that the committee would avoid
this approach. Our philosophy runs to a broad document express-
ing the policy of Congress on~ resource preservation, use, and
management.
We believe the Taylor Grazing Act provides the broad policies
and authorities for our administration of lands for grazing purposes.
Modifications or changes in the administration of these lands under
the Taylor Grazing Act may be accomplished through amendment
of the grazing regulations, without the necessity for enactment of
new or additional legislation.
I would like to discuss briefly the revision of regulations that
BLM is considering to meet present-day conditions and requirements.
We plan to expose these changes to full public participation through
a program that will give all interested parties the highest opportu-
nity for comment on the regulations.
Since passage of the Taylor Grazing Act in 1934, there have been
few substantial changes in the regulations as originally issued. The
rules have accomplished the intended purpose of adjudicating live-
stock use allowances to qualified ranch operations and designating
grazing allotments. Having accOmplished all this, a numbei of im-
portant areas of change are now being considered. Emphasis on the
environment and considerations for wildlife and other resource uses
in the issuance of grazing permits need to be strengthened and in-
corporated into the regulations as a result of stringent requirements
resultipg from acts of Congress. Multiple use and environmental
considerations are basic and viable objectives of the grazing manage-
ment program, as are sustained yield of forage, and community and
operator stability. For these reasons, Changes in the regulations are
being proposed to meet the modern day needs for more intensive
management of our national resource lands.
I will describe briefly how the new suggested regulations are in-
tended to accomplish a needed update of management practices.
One: The, regulations emphasize intensive management by allow-
ing practices responsive to today's needs from a physical, livestock,
and environmental standpoint' They, will use the concept of live-
stock as a tool to change veget'~tion to reach multiple use objectives
for watershed, wildlife, and recreation. At the same time, they seek
to increase livestock production. This will be accomplished through
allotment management plans, frequently referred to as AMP's.
Two: They will strengthen environmental considerations by in-
corporating those statutory and regulatory requirements which clear-
ly require improvement and maintenance of environmental quality.
They will also tie range management activities to the Bureau's re-
soui ce planning system foi l'Lnd nse
PAGENO="0008"
4
Three: The format of the regulations will be updated to improve
the layout, readability, and understanding of the new provisions by
the reader.
Four: The regulations will also provide more clearly for other
uses by allowing accommodation of habitat needs for all wildlife;
where appropriate for wild free-roaming horses and burros; and
where required, for the allocation of range forage for wildlife and
higher priority uses not compatible with domestic livestock grazing.
Five: Existing preference conditions and base property control
requirements for livestock use on the public lands will be retained
to provide for orderly use and stabilization of the industry.
Six: Range livestock operations will be improved by expanding
the opportunities for economic betterment of the users. Specific for-
age crop production requirements will be eliminated, allowing for
livestock operation flexibility whenever the national resource lands
are under intensive management. Administrative details will be re-
duced and procedures streamlined for efficiency. This will provide
more BLM manpower on the ground to assist all users of the na-
tional resource lands.
Seven: We plan, to the extent possible. to manage section 1~ lands
in the same fashion as section 3 lands. This will help reduce man-
agement distinctions between these two types of land which are
similar in character and are subject to the same management objec-
tives and will apply the same environmental planning and intensive
management practices to all areas of national resource lands where
we permit domestic livestock grazing.
Eight: Range improvement construction policies will be clarified
and land use implications considered in the construction of livestock
control facilities on the public lands.
Nine: Finally, the regulations provide better control of unauthor-
ized use by requiring substantial penalty for trespass and the means
to deal effectively with this problem.
These proposed changes are significant in scope and anticipated
benefits to both the Bureau of Land Management and the user. The
proposed changes have been presented to various interested parties,
including the American National Cattlemen's Association, National
Woolgrowers Association, National Resource Council, the Forest
Service, conservation groups, and our field offices. We plan to con-
tinue such briefings and would be pleased to brief the committee
staff in more detail on the proposal.
As to grazing fees, the Taylor Grazing Act provides for periodic
setting of grazing fees by the Secretary of the Interior. The present
policy is generally considered fair and equitable. New or additional
legislation is not required and would not be desirable unless it would
result in improved management of the national resource lands.
Subcommittee print No. 1 proposes a formula to set an annual fee
for the grazing of livestock on lands administered by the Secretary.
It would establish a minimum fee of $~.OO per animal unit month of
grazing. We are aware of no study or evaluation supporting the
formula proposed in that bill. We are opposed to that or any statu-
tory formula. In contrast, the formula used by the Bureau of Land
Management to set fees was arrived at after extensive studies and
public review.
PAGENO="0009"
5
Subcommittee print No. 1 would require that permits and leases
for domestic livestock grazing on public lands be for a term of ten
years except under certain conditions. Further, it would require the
renewal of the permit if the permittee or lessee had complied with
its terms and conditions.
Thus, in effect, the permittee would be granted a 20-year permit
or lease upon compliance with the terms and conditions of the lease.
The privilege of using the land would in effect become a proprietary
right-a right not afforded other users of publicly-owned land, and
a right given without any consideration for the condition of the
land. This is in direct conflict with the Taylor Grazing Act and with
sound multiple use land management.
The Taylor Grazing Act authorizes the Secretary of the Interior
to issue permits not to exceed 10 years subject to renewal at the dis-
cretion of the Secretary. BLM issues 1-year to 3-year permits with
10-year permits issued when all environmental aspects have been con-
sidered and a cooperative allotment management plan is in effect.
These management permits provide greater stability t.o the user's
operation through more effective and improved management.
One of the serious issues since, 1950 has been the problem of grant-
ing tenure to grazing permittees. It still is an issue. We believe pro-
visions of the Taylor Grazing Act allowing permits up to 10 years
with renewal at the discretion of the Secretary are superior to the
provisions in subcommittee print No. 1.
Recently attention of Congress, conservation organizations, and the
general public has been focused on conditions of the national re-
source lands used for grazing~ and other purposes. The declining
condition of these lands was cited in the Public Land Statistics as
far back as 1955. The Department has been aware of this trend and
has prepared numerous papers and appeals to rectify this situation.
The Senate Appropriations Committee report on fiscal year 1975
appropriations directed the Department of the Interior to review its
programs and range conditions and report its findings together with
recommendations for correcting major deficiencies. The Department's
report in response to this directive presents the status of the range
management program, describes the conditions of the Federal range-
lands, identifies potential for improvement, and makes recommenda-
tions for correcting deficiencies. To further assist the committee in
its deliberations, the report includes the Department's recommenda-
tions for accomplishing the identified management objectives.
Present studies show only 28 million acres or 17 percent of the
public grazing lands are in satisfactory or better condition. Some 135
million acres, or 83 percent, are producing less than their potential.
Some 81 million acres, or 50 percent, are in fair condition, while 54
million acres, or 33 percent, are in poor or bad condition. Because of
these conditions, the BLM has assigned a high priority to correcting
identified deficiencies in problem areas related to grazing use in ex-
cess of the recognized grazing capacity and to insuring adequate
supervision of rangelands. Corrective action is being taken Bureau-
wide on administration defiCiencies to insure compliance with the
grazing regulations for national resource lands.
In summary, analysis of data shows that 16 percent of range con-
ditions are deteriorating while 19 percent are improving because of
PAGENO="0010"
6
intensive rangeland management practičes. Significant decline may
continue. BLM believes the best solution for significantly correcting
these deficiencies is acceleration of the intensive management and de-
velopment program to arrest deterioration and increase the produe-
tivity of the public lands for a multitude of uses.
We believe that. the Taylor Grazing Act provides adequate au-
thority and specific direction for grazing administration on the na-
tional resource lands. Consequently, we do not think specific new
legislation in this area is necessary at this time.
*We urge that our new program directions be given an opportunity
without the encumbrance of new legislation or legislatively required
programs either on grazing fees, tenure or duration of grazing
leases.
Subcommittee print No. 1 has a specific provision relating to graz-
ing district advisory boards. We believe that advisory boards should
be broad-based and multiple-use oriented, as the Federal Advisory
Committee Act requires. Multidisciplinary advisory input is essen-
tial to good land management.
This concludes my prepared statement. I will be pleased to answer
questions.
Mr. MELCHER. Thank you very much. Curt. Now, I am going to
follow your testimony. I have earmarked three or four places where
I would like to have you supplement your testimony with more de-
tailed answers.
Mr. BERKLTJND. Very well, sir.
Mr. MELCHER. A general policy document with specific provisions
for each resource used on the national resource lands would turn it
into an unwieldy piece of legislation. Now, what are the-that is
your critique, not getting too specific about grazing as a section in
a land management. act, but what are the principal uses that are com-
parable with grazing on the lands that BLM administers?
Mr. BERKLt-XD. Mr. Chairman, we fee.l that~ all the uses of the
public lands will have to be weighed. As far as the acreage and the
amount of use. grazing is still the largest use of the public lands. But
we have energy development that~ has to take place on the public lands
if we are to meet the goals of the President. We have extensive
recreation that~ is taking place on the public lands today with great
need for management~, and wildlife habitat~ is of critical concern to
all of us.
Mr. MELCI-IER. All right. Now, on energy development, you of
course, are involved. I am sure, with another Subcommittee on Mining
recommendations for amendments to the Mineral Leasing Act, isn't
that correct?
Mr. BERKLvXD. ~1es, sir.
Mr. MELCJTER. You started on that. I know the subcommittee has
started hearings on it. I am sure you are participating in that, is that
true?
Mr. BERKLUXD. Yes. We have testified already. now, sir.
Mr. MELCHER. All right. So in terms of energy development, then,
as one of the major uses of public lands. you would be addressing
yourself on that use through that~ act, would you not?
PAGENO="0011"
7
Mr. BERKLUND. Yes, sir, that is correct.
Mr. MELOHER. And certainly that does not go on here.
Mr. BERKLUND. That is true.
Mr. MELGHER. There could be, as far as-you mentioned energy
development on the public lands to meet our growing energy needs,
and of course, you could be referring to strip mining of coal, couldn't
you? That could be a part of it.
Mr. BERKLUND. That is one of our programs. Removal of the sm-
face coal.
Mr. MELCIIER. I want the record to show that the projection for
the development of coal in Montana on BLM lands by the State
director was 5,000 acres in the next 10 years. I want the record to
show that to get this in perspective, because I think this is just
thrown around like, you know, boy, are we ever going to develop this
federally owned coal. Montana, according to other people in the
Department, is supposed to have the greatest amount of coal of any
State in the country, supposed to have by far the greatest amount of
strippable reserves. Now, I do see some conflicting figures. I get this-
I think it is the USGS that supplied this figure of 42 billion tons
of strippable coal in Montana, and yet I read in the Congressional
Record and in numerous newspaper stories of the total strippable
reserves of coal in the United States as being 33 billion.
Now, this is a little bit out of your-33 billion tons. This is a little
bit out of your testimony, but do you have any answer for this? Does
anybody know why that discrepancy?
Mr. TURCOTT. Mr. Chairman, perhaps sometimes we in BLM are as
confused by some of the figures from different sources, not all of
them Federal, as you are. 1 dO know this, that some of the printed
figures have different points in time as to when they were developed.
We will furnish for the record the most curreiit figures we use in
BLM as derived from the combination of USGS and the Bureau of
Miiies. They are our principal sources.
Mr. MELCETER. All right. I appreciate that, George, and it would
also help at the same time in this particular area if you would supply
from Wyoming what that State director's estimate is of how much
land administered by BLM will be strip mined for coal within the
next 10 years.
Mr. BERKLTJND. Mr. Chairman, there are five of the western States
that have major deposits of strippable coal and we would like to
supply the figures on all five, of those States for you.
Mr. MELCHER. I would appreciate it because I want to point out
that 5~000 acres in Montana out of 8 million acres that are admin-
istered by the BLM in Montana is a very small percentage, and that
projection, if it is accurate, as the projection of 5,000 acres to be strip
mined by BLM over 10 years,is not a very high percentage.
Mr. BERKLTJND. Mr. Chairman, what we are working from, as you
well know, are estimates and our program that we have proposed,
that we are preparing the environmental statement on now, EMARS,
will try to define and bring into focus all of these projections and try
to give us numbers that we can work with in the development of this
program.
PAGENO="0012"
8
[The information requested follows:]
The estimate of 42 billion tons of strippable coal in Montana came from a
1972 Geological Survey report. A Bureau of Mines report as of January 1,
1974, had a formula by which the coal reserve base was calculated and resulted
in this estimate of demonstrated coal reserve base of measured and indicated
coal categories as defined by the Geological Survey (100% of coal in place)
surface only:
Wyoming-28 billion short tons.
Montana-fJ5 billion short tons.
Colorado-14 billion short tons.
New Mexico-2 billion short tons.
lJtah-4 billion short tons.
This reserve base is not a fixed quantity but will increase with discovery
and additional development and decrease with mining, and change if the
criteria for its calculation are modified.
Recoverable reserves of Federal coal leases forming logical mining units cur-
rently in production:
Million ions
Colorado 50.5
Montana 504. 1
New Mexico 99. 9
North Dakota 193. 7
Utah 0
520. 0
Total 1,368.0
Otherwise: 66~ percent of coal reserves are recoverable by strip mining. Cannot
furnish any estimates by State.
Mr. MELCHER. Thank you. Do I detect, Curt, that you are going
to strongly oppose the retention of these committees that have func-
tioned as advisory boards under the Taylor Grazing Act up until
January of this year?
Mr. BERKL-UND. Yes. We feel strongly, very strongly, that we need
broad-based multiple-use advisory boards. We have prepared draft
regulations to establish a series, three levels of advisory boards, and
we want to maintain those three levels. As you know, there has
been a suit brought against us now and we are waiting for a court
decision that will determine whether there will be grazing district
advisory boards. The regulations that we have proposed will give us
in administrative district multiple-use, broad-based advisory boards.
Mr. MELCHER. No, I am not aware of the suit. Tell me about the
suit.
Mr. BERKL~ND. Well, I think I will let Mr. Robison speak to that.
lie is working on it. Or Jim Coda is supposed to be here.
Mr. MELCHER. It kind of helps to have counsel with you.
Mr. BERKLUND. I will let George-he is my legal counsel today,
Mr. Chairman.
Mr. TURCOTT. I can't talk to it from an attorney's standpoint. Sev-
eral months ago some very good friends of mine in northeastern
Nevada joined together and filed suit in the Nevada district court to
test the legality of the Bureau of Land Management and the Depart-
ment of Interior's determination that the grazing district advisory
boards now covered under section 18 of the Taylor Grazing Act were
in effect canceled out or rescinded by the passage of the most recent
Advisory Board Committee Act. I have got the citation here some-
place, and I will furnish this for the record.
PAGENO="0013"
[The citation follows:]
John C. Carpenter, Jr., et al v. Rogers C. B. Morton et al. Civil No. R-75-1-
BRT, USD0 Nevada.
Mr. TuRcorr. They did not ask for an injunction. The Department
of Justice has requested and received a 30-day extension of time to file
rather voluminous and legally complex briefs in this matter. We do
not expect hearings before the Federal district court for Nevada until
probably sometime in early fall. September is when we anticipate it,
although the judge has not set any definite date yet.
Mr. BERKLUND. Mr. Chairman, what we have proposed is to have
a multiple-use advisory board at the district level, but it will be on
administrative districts instead of grazing districts and then a State
multiple-use advisory board and a national multiple-use advisory
board.
Mr. MELOHER. What is an administrative district?
Mr. BERKLUND. That is the area of BLM-adrninistered lands under
the jurisdiction of a district manager. That would be an administra-
tive district for BLM. Right nOw some of these districts have two
or three grazing districts or parts of grazing districts within one
administrative district and in some areas we have more than one ad-
ministrative district in a grazing district. So there is overlap. We
have certain groups advising more than one district manager at the
present time.
Mr. MELCHER. Would you have 1, 2, 3, or 10 advisory boards in
Montana? If you had your way?
Mr. BERKLUND. Five. We have five administrative districts. There
would be five district advisory boards. It wouldn't only be on sec-
tion 3 land this way. They would cover all of the BLM lands. Right
now the advisory boards represent grazing districts and only sec-
tion 3 lands. Ours will include section 15 lands as well.
Mr. MELOHER. Now, couldn't you-did the Taylor Grazing Act
prevent you from having your advisory boards relate also to title
15 lands?
Mr. Tm~corr. Yes.
Mr. MELCHER. Only dealt-
Mr. TURCOTT. Section 18, to paraphrase, applies only to the formal
grazing district, so that the section 15 lands do not have that type
of board. In some areas we have been able to augment a district
board, but it is not completely under section 18. For instance, in
Missoula we don't have any. Down in Casper, in a somewhat analog-
ous situation, where it is mostly all section 15, we do have a special
board approved by the Secretary.
Mr. MELOIrER. Approved by the Secretary.
Mr. TuRcoru. Yes.
Mr. MELCHER. Tinder existing law?
Mr. Tuacoru. Two districts in Alaska have none.
Mr. MELCHER. Well, if you did it down in Casper under existing
law I guess you could do it other places if you wanted to.
Mr. BERKLUND. You could, but they would not be section 18 ad-
visory boards, but there could be an advisory committee, yes, sir.
Mr. MELOHER. Yes. All right. Now, one other thing on this par-
ticular point. Tinder the Tayior Grazing Act and under the advisory
PAGENO="0014"
I0
boards stipulated by the Taylor Grazing Act, could the makeup-
the makeup of who was on the board didn't limit you to putting
wildlife people on or recreation people On, did it?
Mr. TURCOTT. Yes, with respect to nonwildlife recreation people.
Mr. BERKLUXD. Yes.
Mr. MELCHER. It did? You are statutorily prohibited from includ-
ing that on the board?
Mr. BERKLtJND. Yes, sir.
Mr. MELOIJER. Well, five advisory boards in as large a State as
Montana would mean that access to an advisory board might mean
like 200 or 300 miles away from the ranch headquarters. Would it
not?
Mr. BERKIIEND. That is true. Some of them have two advisory
boards in a district. By putting one in each administrative district it
would make a change. I will let George speak to that for you.
Mr. TURCOTT. There are five formal grazing districts in the State
of Montana. Two are out of the administrative headquarters, district
headquarters, at Montana~ City. Nos. 2 and 3. Malta is No. 1. The
Billings area is No. 4. Dillon is No. 5. Five formal grazing districts.
They each have a board. Missoula does not have a board. It is the
sixth administrative district in the State of Montana.
Mr. MELCI-IER. Are you telling me, George, that you are going to
cut clown on the number or remain-
Mr. Trncorr. No, sir.
Mr. MELCHER [continuing]. Remain about the same?
Mr. TUECOTT. The regulations that have been submitted to the
Secretary's Office as a final rule call for a balanced multiple-use ad-
* visory board for every district-area of administration-o~ce we
have. That would call for six in the State of Montana. The boards
would have a limitation of 10 each in total as to membership.
In terms of balance, we can talk about an area that we both know
well. Let's talk about eastern Montana. I couldn't conceive of a dis-
trict administration multiple-use advisory board that would have less
than 3 or 4 livestock representatives on it of the* 10. I most certainly
would think that it would include representatives of county govern-
ment, or at least the local planning commissions, whatever the States
have. There should certainly be people there representing one or two
kinds of recreation use, rock hunting, ORV use, whatever it is. The
wildlife interests would have to be represented. The mining interests,
or at least in eastern Montana the oil and gas interests should be
represented. So that there is a real broad-based grassroots local ad-
visory input to this district manager on all matters of importance
that would come before the district manager.
In addition, of course, to this are all of the now formalized and
institutionalized public meetings, public hearings, public participa-
tion processes that we have.
* Mr. MELOHER. Well, first of all, we are talking about-I have no
quarrel with your concept of broad-based advisory boards. I think it
would be very wise, very prudent, very forward looking, very much
needed. But we are talking about advisory boards that had to do with
the Taylor Grazing Act. Really, the `Taylor Grazing Act, as I under-
stand it, didn't get into mining or oil and gas leasing. So I am not-
PAGENO="0015"
11.
I agree. Have your advisory boards on these other aspects. But. my
line of questions isn't to the same point as you gentlemen are brmging
us. I am asking about dropping the advisory boards from the Taylor
Grazing Act which is, you know, just about grazing.
* Now, you might say, well, you don't want too many advisory
boards. Well, I understand that point, too, but advisory boards that
have existed-and I understand generally as far as the livestock
people were concerned they thought they were a good idea-did take
into consideration wildlife.
I think you mentioned, George, that 10 members be on each board.
One of them, of course, would be or should be somebody representing
wildlife management. Now, that may be a very small percentage, but
I can't really think that somebody that has a great interest in serving
on a board because he might be interested in oil and gas production
would necessarily share the interests of the nitty-gritty of what to do
about grazing, but I think in the overall concept you have to-if you
are going to follow multiple-use practices, I think such a board cover-
ing the whole broad spectrum of the uses of the public lands is indeed
very worthwhile and meritorious. But my point is those grazing
boards as were set up and have operated for so many years, if they
were of good service for one of the predominant uses of BLM lands,
namely, livestock grazing, let's find out whether they are worth
keeping, and not rule out broader boards that you are also
recommending. . . ` *
Mr. BERKLUND. Mr. Chairman, the advisory boards had a very, very
important function at the time of the passage of the Taylor Grazing
Act. We had, to adjudicate the grazing privileges on the public lands,
and hear the appeals of the ranchers, and the boards were elected out
of their own `numbers. There was one wildlife representative on the
Taylor Grazing Act advisory boards. At the present time, if there are
some privileges that remain to be adjudicated, I am not aware of
where they are. But the boards have served their purpose. They have
done a splendid job. They have been very useful, but now as the uses
of the public lands expand and the adjudication process is over,
shouldn't we look to the new advisory boards to help us and assist us
We can call in as consultants some people that we feel have the `com-
petence to `help us if there is `adjudication. If there is a protest on
grazing privileges, we can call these people in as consultants to advise
the district manager, but with the adjudication complete we feel we
have to now look at the broad base of all uses of the public lands.
Mr. MELOHER. I yield to the gentleman from Nevada.
Mr. SANTINI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I' happen to share the
Chairman's sentiments, that I ,~ don't find the two are mutually ex-
clusive. 1 think they could be cbmpatible and serve a joint objective,
if you will. `
It seems to me on the basis Of my communications in' an attempt to
understand both the 1?OSitiOn o'f the Department and the position of
cattlemen on this issue that the cattelernen perhaps represent an iso-
lated group of those who are trying to derive economic sustenance,' in
some instances survival, off the land. I think they represent a very
unique problem ai ea They `u e not `in aci oss the bo'ii d multiple use
PAGENO="0016"
12
problem area exclusively, but those who have over in many instances
a great number of years been using the land as a basis of livelihood.
I think it does represent a distinct and unique problem, and to my
mind, at least, it would suggest a board to meet that problem and
converse in that arena on a person-to-person basis, and the severance
of this communication to them at least by their interpretation is
another example of the efforts on the part of the Department to
further isolate itself from any communication with those using the
land.
I think at the very least it is ill advised, from a public relations
standpoint as we discussed informally a time or two, and I think
there may, No. 2. be a serious question of legality and that will be
reconciled in the courts; and No. 3, I would just urge as a matter of
your administrative prerogatives to please give serious consideration
to the retention of these boards and to the recognition of their
importance to the cattle industry.
I would appreciate your thoughts and responses to the contents of
my observations.
Mr. BERKL~XD. Congressman, we recognize your concern. It is a
concern of many people in your Sta.te. We find that there is a great
resistance to change. We have found that as we moved out to make
changes in the national advisory boards that we had the same resist-
ance. But we found many of the same people coming back wearing
another hat. Very few of the ranchers per se are ranchers. Many of
them represent local government, wildlife, and other interests, and
the same people are thei~e. hut because they don't have the title of
livestock representative tha.t it constitutes a change, and we find some
resistance to it.
Mr. SANTIXI. Change per se is not good or bad. I think change has
to sort of suggest itself or at least the advocate of change has to lay a
premise of evidence that warrants the transition or change, and I
think therefore the burden would be with the Department to suggest
there is no utility or purpose or service to be rendered by these boards
any longer. Perhaps our views differ on this, but I happen to feel
that there very definitely is a need for continued communication input
from the industry in this realm.
Mr. TURCOrI'. Well, sir, I don't want anybody to think that the
views and the values of the domestic livestock grazing industry and
the economics of it as practiced in the West is going to be forsaken
whatsoever by the Bureau of Land Management. The very definition
of multiple use in the committee print talks about balanced uses. It
doesn't get at priority uses unless they can very definitely be deter-
mined undei~ certain situations.
Mr. SANTINI. But, are they mutually exclusive, returning to my
original question?
Mr: Tuncorr. No, they are not. This is what I am leading to. As I
said, in any kind of a substantial administrative district a.rea of any
kind, where there is any substantial kind of domestic livestock indus-
try going on at all, there are going probably to be 3 or 4 of the 10
people on these boards who are going to be ranchers. But now at the
same time I will have to say that of all of the biological values on
these public lands, any grazing animal, whether it be a cow or sheep
PAGENO="0017"
13
or elk or antelope or deer or whatever it is, has the most significant
effect on the proper condition of that rangeland resource.
Now, here is the chance, if we believe in the principles of the com-
mittee print or the adrninistratioh~ bill, to get at balanced use, to get
at balanced advice. Here we have the chance to do it. The livestock
people are going to be very strongly represented on these multiple use
boards, but they are going to be there for the confrontation, the
sharing of views with people very knowledgeable in wildlife matters,
recreation, watershed, county planning, and so forth. Their preroga-
tives as to the most universal use are going to be fully considered by
these boards.
Now, the last point, if I may, sir-think of the incongruity we have
if we go to a two-board district system if the legislation goes through
as the committee print states. To review just grazing matters before a
newly augmented Taylor grazing system board, they will go through
such things as the cut and grazing allocation processes. They will get
involved with range improvements, things like that. Then we would
have the multiple use board at~~ the district level, another avenue of
advice, public participation with the district manager. I can't see how
it is going to work, taking one set of recommendations from a single
value standpoint, coming before a multiple use board and going
through it all again. It seems incongruous to me when I know that
the livestock man's values are going to be fully reviewed and con-
sidered by multiple use boards with his peers on that board, probably
in the predominant numbers.
Mr. SANTINI. There is a very logical distinction between the use of
the land for purposes of earning a livelihood and the use of land for
recreation. Now, they overlap in the sense that they may well pertain
and often times do pertain to the same land, but they don't pose and
present the same issues. And I don't-the recreationist, in whatever
form that interest is representhd~ and the person earning a livelihood
will present or pose two different issues to the board and to the
Bureau for its evaluation and consideration on how that land should
be used. But to my mind it is far more logical to have the two inter-
ests separated and presenting their position and their thoughts on the
use of the land than it is to overlap them and to a significant extent
obscure those who are trying to earn a living from the land or make
the land productive from an economic sense rather than productive in
a recreational sense.
Mr. TURCOTT. I can just say this. I can see what is going to come.
The wildlife interest will want their board especially in such areas as
the chairman's district. In eastern Montana 40,000 out-of-state ante-
lope permits are issued each, year. One of the highest cash income
sources for eastern Montana comes from this. The same in Wyoming.
In our mutual home State, sir, in the northeastern part of the State,
4,000 out-of-State deer permits are issued, one of the most lucrative
sources of cash revenue during an economically slow time of the year.
They will want one. You can go into Oregon. You will get the rock
hunters. They will want a board because it is a high-intensity activity,
and away we go ad infinitum. Still, most of these interests and values
would be covered on a district multiple-use board. Don't forget the
Director's statement, Sir, that on questions of grazing qualifications
54-OO~-75-2
PAGENO="0018"
14
through the use of consultants there will be .a special effort made to
enable ranchers' peers to say, yes, we think your qualifications are
this, or no, we don't. We can also use the livestock associations and
several other alternatives.
Mr. SAN~rINI. Do I then deduce that the Bureau's mind is made up
on this issue and that there is no realm left for discussion?
Mr. TURCOTT. Well, sir, we are working with the Solicitor's office
and the Department of Justice in opposing this suit filed in the State
of Nevada, so the answer has to be yes.
Mr. MELCHER. I would like to get into the question of the-we be-
lieve the provisions of the Taylor Grazing Act allowing permits up
to 10 years with the renewal action of the Secretary are covered in
Committee Print No. 1. Since this is something that is very im-
portant to the management of the public lands and grazing, I would
like a little more detail on what the differences are in Committee
Print No. 1 and the existing practices of the Secretary. For instance,
it is my impression that the Secretary almost automatically renews a
permit year after year, that his reason for not renewing would be to
utilize the land for a higher value, or for reasons that the permittee
had violated the regulations of the Secretary. And I am well aware
that that is exactly what is in Committee Print No. 1. So at what
point are we differing?
Mr. BERKLUND. First, our policy is to issue 1- to 3-year permits
pending completion of an AMP.
Mr. MELCHER. Well, that is a different point.
Mr. BERKLUXD. OK. You say~ you issue unless you meet these
criteria. We take a different approach. We want to encourage inten-
sive management through AMP's, so we have taken two separate
approaches there.
The first section of your committee print (a) and (b), therefore,
give us a great deal of concern. If we start your section with section
(c) and read through I think we are almost on track. From there on
through you are putting into legislation the practices of BLM almost-
except for minor word changes, but it is the first two sections that
give us a great deal of concern on permits. That is section 211 (a) and
(b). That is the major difference in our approach and your appi~oach,
Mr. Chairman.
Mr. MELCHER. What page is that on?
Mr. BERKLUND. Page 33.
Mr. MELCHER. Well, that is an annual fee. That is a statutory fee.
That has nothing-
Mr. Berkiund. No, section 211, sections (a) and (b).
Mr. MELCHER. I am in 210. Excuse me.
Mr. BERKLnND. Those two sections are the major difference be-
tween our administrative approach and your legislative approach. If
we were to sta.rt our discussion with (c) except for word changes I
think you have almost outlined our administrative approach in the
remaining part of that Section 211. It is just (a) and (b) that are
really troublesome to us because a grazing permit now is-unless there
is another higher use, it is practically in perpetuity and that is what
you say in concluding your statement on this section. So I don't see a
great deal of difference except in those first two sections.
PAGENO="0019"
15
Mr. MELCHER. You are using in your testimony the words "Taylor
Grazing Act" allowing permits up to 10 years with no more discre-
tion. It seems to me the Taylor Grazing Act directs the Secretary to
issues leases up to 10 years.
Mr. TURCOTT. Yes. There is a discretionary provision in the Taylor
Grazing Act allowing the issuanëe of permits for up to 10 years. In
addition to that there have been interpretations whi.ch we have long
used, for 35 years, that we can issue an annual license, renew it each
year. The license and permit are the authorizing pieces of paper that
are used now within a grazing district.
Now, this is the real problem. Commencing just before World War
II, and subsequently thereafter, there was a tremendous push put on
by the livestock industry to' utilize that section of the Taylor Grazing
Act .for the issuance of permits for up to 10 years. They were issued
by the thousands and probably two-thirds of the then 2'2,000 livestock
operators in BLM got them. What this set up was a system of man-
agement that we have, paid a penalty for ever since. A rancher got~ an
annual bill because he had a 10,-year permit. No management stand-
ards or no maintenance or reaction to range conditions year by year
were put into these permits at all. Sure, there were terms and condi-
tions to do it, but it wasn't done.
Now we are coming right back to it with the provisions in your
proposed statute, sir, ~where BLM will have to issue a 10-year permit
whether or not we have got the intensive management worked out,
the mutual planning with the operator, the livestock operator, and the
other multiple use values determined or not. That is our objection.
Mr. MELOHER. Is the intensive managment the same as allotment
management plan?
Mr. TURCOTT. Yes, sir.
Mr. MELOHER. And is it still the same as it was last year when we
discussed this that you are not going to have those plans completed
until the year 2000?
Mr~ TTJRCOTT. We hopefully `in our programmatic impact statement
on grazing can cut it 10 to 15 years under that.
Mr. MELCITER. From 10 to `15 years now or 10 to 15 years under
2000?
Mr. TURCOTT. No. We hope to get it somewhere around 1990, 1995.
Mr. MELCITER. 1990, 1995,,~ and in the meantime this Congress
shouldn't act on that point.
Mr. TnRCOTT. Yes. , ` ` ` `
Mr. MELOHER. We should wait 25 years to act, 20 years.
Mr. TURCOTT. No, sir. What I am saying is what we are doing at
the present time is we will issue a 10-year permit if we have an allot-
ment management plan worked out with the operator. We are more'
than glad to. But his planning effort, his skill are in there. The mul-
tiple-use values `are recognize,d and the rest of it. We'll permit up to 3
years in certain situations where we think the range conditions are
satisfactory and we have got enough environmental data.to it. Other-
wise we want to continue on the annual renewal license basis.
Mr. MEL'CHER. Well now,.' we are also talking about what we call
section 15 lands.' ` , ` ` " `, ` ` ` `
Mr. TURCOTT.,NO, I am not. I am talking within the districts.
PAGENO="0020"
16
Mr. MELCHER. In the proposed law we are talking about, as I
understand it, section 15 lands.
Mr. Tuncorr. Your proposed bill includes it, but we have about the
same kind of program going on with respect to the section 15 leases,
too, sir.
Mr. MELOHER. Well, of course, you Imow, sections 15-George,
when you were making your remarks about having a strong desire to
get away from this concept of 10 years, your strong desire to get
away from the 10-year deal with section 15 land hasn't transmitted
itself down to the lower levels, ha.s it? Surely all-has it?
Mr. TURCOTT. Yes, it has. It is in the regulations and instructions,
a.nd if it is any kind of substantial acreage in the section 15 lease at
all.
Mr. MELCHER. I Imow there are a lot of very small leases in-
Mr. TURC0Tr. In some of these 40-acre tracts, no, sir.
Mr. MELCHER. I am not going to belabor this, but at any rate, what
is in the bill is pretty much the program you have been following, and
I understand what your objection is. You want to make the allot-
ment management plan a port;ion, a condition of having some assur-
ance of tenure.
Mr. TuRcorr. No. No, sir.
Mr. MELCHER. You don't?
Mr. Tuucorr. I sure don't. That is real critical. The Taylor Grazing
Act gives these people tenure as long as they live up to the rules and
regulations and the facets of law that they must comply with.
Mr. MELOHER. Oh, well, that is all we are trying to say, I think, in
our language here, is that they would have some assurance.
Mr. TiJRCOTT. That is right. The term is insignificant as far as
tenure is concerned imder the Taylor Act now. What I am objecting
to, sir, is the way I read this, that ipso facto we will have to issue a
10-year permit whether we are ready to do it or not.
Mr. MELCHER. Well, I think maybe we ought to just say without
saying 10 years, that as long as the permittee meets the regulations of
the Secretary he will get first chance at that lease. Of course, subject
to the other provisions, putting it into a higher use, and then we
drop the 10 years. We probably are going to come into line with what
you are thinking.
Mr. BERKLTJND. That is right. If we drop sections (a) and (b),
start with (c) you have said that in the balance.
There was one major change that everyone should be aware of and
that is to compensate the operators for their authorized improve-
ments on prior termination.
Mr. MELOHER. Do you agree with that or disagree?
Mr. BERKLHND. We are on record as disagreeing with it, sir.
Mr. MELGHER. Yes. Well, of course, it makes good horsesense, just
put it that way, because you would have a mutual interest then in
the improvements.
The gentleman from Arizona.
Mr. STErnER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Director, I would like to give you about a 10-second lecture on
the Steiger philosophy of Government. It is very important, so you
feel free to take notes or whatever you want to do. The -fact is that.
PAGENO="0021"
17
when man determines a mission in~vitably he approaches it with zeal
and with some understanding. When he institutionalizes that deter-
inination and forms a structure, whether it is a Government structure
or private structure, automatically then the people involved in the
structure have to devote a certain amount of time to justification of
their existence and the longer the structure exists, the greater the
attention is paid to the justification and the less to the mission, and I
will tell you that BLM is my best laboratory example of that.
Now, Mr. Turcott is a sincere, decent, understanding guy. He knows
the processes and he knows the problems. He is wrong, dead wrong, in
his approach, not because he is anticowman, but because logic has
simply fled the window in this massive attempt to justify existence.
Now, the 10-year mandatory lease is a good example, a great ex-
ample. The logic in the 10-year, if you will, mandatory lease is a very
simple one. The permittee is going to be encouraged to maximize his
investment on a 10-year basis. As the situation-and that was obvi-
ously the intent in the original act.
Now, the idea-and George also believed, Mr. Turcott also believes
that the wisdom of the Bureau is infinitely superior to the wisdom of
the permittee because the permittee is motivated by a necessity to stay
alive and the Bureau is objecting in that it is able to view the thing
on a balanced basis.That is wrong, just dead wrong. The concept, and
it is best personified by the attitude about the advisory boards, the
attitude-the Bureau's attitude about advisory boards implicitly says
that the cowman can only be a nuisance because there is no way he can
be objective. He has to be greedy. He has to interfere with the
multiple use.
Now, the one place where it doesn't fly, absolutely collapses, is the
Forest Service experience with their advisory boards and your experi-
ences with your advisory boards, in the same country, in the same
area, side by side. Will you explain to me what the distinction is,
why the Forest Service apparently has got a happy relationship, their
multiple-use demands are far greater than yours, yet they do not see
the need to abandon the grazing advisory boards.
Now~ have you-I am sure you have been asked that question before
and I would be interested in the response.
Mr. BERKLUND. Congressman, very seldom do I disagree with you,
as you well know.
Mr. STErnER. I can understand that.
Mr. BERKLUND. But I think if you would take a look at the section
that we have agreed that pretty well lays out our philosophy. Go to
your section F, 211, and you have laid out all the assurance that the
operator needs except for the issuance of the 10-year permit that we
don't do until we have completed an AMP. You say in there that:
So long as the lands for which the permit or lease is issued remain available
for domestic livestock grazing, no permittee or lessee complying with the
rules and regulations promulgated by the respective Secretary and who has
complied with the terms and conditions of the permit or lease shall be denied
the renewal of such permit or lease.
That has been our philosophy and will continue to be, but it doesn't
say that you give a 10-year permit except for these conditions. We
say we will give you 1 to 3 ye~ars in certain situations, when we have
PAGENO="0022"
18
taken into consideration all the other values, all the other uses of the
land. When we have completed our AMP, then we can look out ahead
10 years. `We will give you a 10-year permit, but we have to recognize
that there are going to be changes until we reach that 10-year permit.
Mr. STEIGER. That is amazing, Mr. Director. You came to us from
the real world, a great success, unqualified, I will state that, a man
that confronted reality all his life and you have been downtown just
a few years and look at you. They have melted your brain. You are
approaching this from the back side.
What magic is there about the 1- to 3-year lease? What m~igic is
there that says the 1- to 3-year lease is going to automatically protect
the land better than the 10'year lease that as a practical matter, what-
ever is wrong with the land now or right with it, has been accom-
plished under the 1- to 3-year lease. I don't know what percentage of
the 10-year leases there are, but you know there are very few.
Now, I don't expect you to magically see the light and reverse your
position, but I am going to tell you on the basis of-you have got the
worst end of this thing because not only do you make our constituents
mad where it automatically, of course, involves us, but you are wrong.
Now, that is the happiest of all possible. positions for us and we are
going to just have to run over you on this one, and I just want you to
know that it is not because of any personal situation. It is just
because you are wrong. And the language in your statement on page
6 is one that really shocks me in light of your devotion to the 1- to
3-year lease, and I quote:
The privilege of using the land will in effect become a proprietary right-
a right not afforded other users of publicly owned land, and a right given with-
out any consideration for the condition of the land.
Now, you are telling this committee that you are incapable of
writing a lease~ that would demand that if the land is abused the guy
has got to stop it. I don't care if that Tease is for 100 years or for 6
months. If you are incapable of devising a lease which says that. if
you abuse this land, you are-your permit is just cancelled, then really
we don't need you at all.
I wish you would consider that. I wish you-welL I know you
won't, so I won't even ask you to respond, but that is the whole-that'
is the thing in a nutshell. You are defending a process that I am not
even condemning, but ou are defending a process just on the basis
that that is what you are doing now and you are defending a process
on the implication that the management plan is going to bring, going
to be all things to all men and the implication again or the posture
says without a management plan the land is being abused, and that
is just not true. Simply not true. In fact, many management plans
aren't going to be successful in application and you may not stipulate
to that, but I think von understand that. Only because man devises
them regardless of what the motive is. So there is nothing inherently
superior in either the permittee's outlook or the Bureau's outlook. I
am sure there is error on both sides. But to assume that the Bureau is
absolutely right and the permittee is wrong is just nonsense that runs
through your whole argument here. And I can't get away from the
fact that given a 10-year lease by law, the incentive to invest is
greater, the ease of acquiring the money to invest is greater, and the
PAGENO="0023"
investment and the improvement and the management plan can't
be done without the approval `of the Bureau anyway. So* I think you
are beating a dead horse and I honestly don't understand it, and I-
Mr. SANTINI. Or cow.
Mr. STErnER. Thank you. I appreciate that. Or cow.
OK. One other thing.
Mr. Chairman, I don't want to abuse this. I know we have a very
important witness to hear from yet. But the studies that the 16 percent
are improving, and whatever it is, 19 percent-16 percent deteriorat-
ing, 19 percent improving, you again give the implication, and it is
an implication, that these are static conditions, that these are abso-
lutes, that 50 percent are fair, 54 percent are poor or bad.
Now, again I know that you `are aware that in a given area this
spring when the-if there was a"lot of moisture, a given area can all
of a sudden change categories, and I don't think you are locked in it.
I suspect maybe the figures take that into account, but the fact-the
point I want to make is at the time of the analysis, whatever was done
was done with the existence of the 1- to 3-year permits and that
applied to the 16 percent deteriorating as well as the 19 percent that
are improving, so in the final analysis, it is going to be the skill and
cunning of both the permittee and the BLM man on the ground who
are going to devise the best way to maximize that resource without
defeating it, and all of the structure in the world-the only thing that
greater structure is going to do, management plan, that is a structure.
That is a whole new office in your office that is now going to review
management plans. You say by' the year 2000. You and I both know
it is going to be nearer 3000 than 1990 because the guys who are doing
it have to justify their existence and that is one of the problems, and
they have to be reviewed and they have to be reviewed to the point
of nausea and the final level of review, there are people who can't
even spell cow and that is the problem.
So I hope you. don't hang up on the prerogatives of the Bureau and
I don't think you have, in fairness. I think in the main with the
exception of the point the chairman has raised and the gentleman
from Nevada, we need your advice. But I think you embarrass your-
self and the Department when you come in here and try to sell a
posture that you are now more concerned about multiple use than
you have been before. I will tell you now you have always been con-
cerned about multiple use, and properly so. You haven't always been
able to implement that concern, but you are not going to implement
it by new structures. You are going to implement. it by a new ~aware-
ness and the existing. law gives you all the opportunity to implement
that you need and to assume that somehow the cowman's advice is
antiprogress and that the designation of the cowman as a member
of a multiple-use board .is going to change, it shows you have forgotten
the real world. That is all I am telling you. So-
Mr., BERKLTTND. Thank you, for the new awareness, Congressman.
Mr. STETGER. I knew you would understand right away.
Mr. Chairman, I won't belabor it, but I think in fairness you should
know that I don't think this." committee, at least it is my-I don't
know of any ~.dvocate of your position on this committee. I am sure
there are several urban advocates in the Congress, but I suspect. that
PAGENO="0024"
20
they aren't justifying any existing structure. I think they can prob-
ably be persuaded that the position is simply not supportable.
I would be happy for a 10-second response if you have any. If you
care to wipe me out in 10 seconds, you are welcome.
Mr. BERKLUND. Could I make a 10-second response, but George can
sunimarize it in 20 minutes.
Mr. TURCOTT. The good Congressman and I have had our philo-
sophical differences, but we both respect each other. I will say just
two things just to correct the record. The Taylor Grazing Act has
been tested clear up to the Supreme Court. The first Supreme Court
case, Brooks v. Dewar, 313 U.S. 354 (1941)-he was a regional grazer
then in northeastern Nevada-tested this and it was determined that
term permits for up to 10 years were not mandatory. They were
discretionary.
Second-
Mr. STErnER. Excuse me. I will stipulate that. That is the reason
we are putting them in. We want to make it mandatory.
Mr. TnRCoTT. And the same argument-
Mr. STEIGER. We are not saying you are doing wrong or anything
illegal.
Mr. TURCOTT. And as the corollary to that point, sir, your com-
k~iittee print 1, 94th Congress, under section 211 (a), in the first sen-
tence of that act, it says, "shall be issued for a term of 10 years subject
to grazing capacity except as provided in section 2," and so forth.
All I am saying, sir, the current condition of the Federal range-
lands managed by the Bureau of Land Management in my view in
general are not good and they don't reach near the productive
capacity they should for several purposes-basically because we were
forced to issue those 10-year permits prior to World War II and
shortly thereafter. We couldn't control it.
Mr. STEIGER. George, do you tune out when we are talking to you?
Mr. TURCOTT. No, sir.
Mr. STEIGER. There is nothing to prevent you in this law or in your
own process now in the course of a 10-year lease to say you can't run
this many cattle because this range is deteriorating. They are subject
to grazing, subject to the conditions of the lease, and the lease says
you can only run what the land will carry and if the lease doesn't
say that, you had better rewrite the lease.
Mr. TURCOTT. "There shall be issued," and, of course, the cancella-
tion originally is for this 2-year notification and all that, except in
case of emergency. I wouldn't be a bit surprised, sir, if the total effect
on any program that the Bureau will have, in terms of manpower
and resources, will be to force the Bureau to be so conservative in
issuing these term permits that we will be doing an injustice to the
man when we want to turn around and get at the use of his art and
managerial incentive, and do something to increase his use as the
forage production increases.
Mr. STEIGER. Do me a fa.vor. Read paragraph (d) on page 34. It is
applicable. I assure you it has a direct bearing on 211 (a) and it says,
"nothing contained herein." Nothing means nothing.
Mr. TURCOTT. All right.
Mr. STEIGER. I mean there is no ambiguity. "Nothing contained
herein shall be construed as restricting the authority of the Secretary
PAGENO="0025"
21
concerned to cancel, suspend, or modify a grazing permit or lease, in
whole or in part, pursuant to the terms or conditions thereof, or to
cancel or suspend."
Mr. TURCOTT. All right.
Mr. STEIGER. Now, if you can't understand that paragraph, then the
paragraph is designed to allow management within the 10-year
framework, and it does, and what you are saying is that we are doing
violence to what you have been used to and that is all. You are `ust-
you are not- either not understanding or not reading or anticipating
a strawman that just doesn't exist.
One other thing. I did ask a question which was not responded to
and maybe somebody can. I-low do you account for the happy experi-
ence of the Forest Service with their advisory boards and your desire
to eliminate the advisory boards,~ and I don't want to pit you at each
other, but I would be interested in how the Forest Service can be
successful in their relationship and BLM cannot. If you don't know,
maybe you ought to ask. I realize it is hearsay-does Macy's tell
Gimbel's.
Mr. TuRcorr. No. We have discussed this at length and I will just
have to defer, sir, to Forest Service to support and justify their posi-
tion. They have little different systems than we do, but that is as far
as I will go. My views on it are based on the fact that we want to
live with the context of this bill, the definitions of multiple use, and
* so forth, balanced use. We feel strongly that a good balanced multiple-
use board at the district level adyising that district manager is entirely
in keeping with the concepts of the various organic acts as submitted.
Mr. STEIGER. You are telling us there is a difference in the law
or the structure of the Forest Service advisory boards, and the BLM
advisory boards?
Mr. TtJRCOTT. Yes, sir, there is, but I am not expert at it.
Mr. STEIGER. Is that difference the reason that they have a happier
experience? Is that your-
Mr. TtJRCOTT. I don't know, sir.
Mr. S~n~IGilli. How come you haven't found out when you come in
with what in our area is a very devastating recommendation? Nobody
has ever checked with the Forest Service to see how everybody is
getting along?
Mr. TURCOTT. Yes, sir, we have.
Mr. STEIGER. Maybe you cOuld have recommended some changes
that would be comparable to the Forest Service changes.
Mr. TtTRCOTT. I can only say in general on several occasions we dis-
cussed this at length with the highest officials of the Forest Service.
They have a grazing advisory board under the Granger-Thye Act,
providing good coverage of the grazing areas within the total na-
tional forest system. In addition to that, they have a multiple-use
advisory board system that either covers regions, maybe to some
extent, down to forests. I understand that they are looking hard at
that and over the last some years have reduced the numbers of mem-
bers on some of these boards. Maybe in some cases even have elim-
inated the boards. They have a dual system now.
The only thing I can say, sir, is I don't think that the national
forests have the complexity of multiple uses that the BLM lands
PAGENO="0026"
22
have or the intensity of them. especially in certain situations. They
don't have the mining and the mineral leasing problems that BL~'I
has. They don't have the rights-of-wa-v problems that BLM has. Just
by the nature of forests they don't have the OR-V problems that
BLM has, and so forth. So perhaps that is one reason why they wish
to continue the single use Granger-Thye Act boards. We both have
a very high intensity public participation process. I know they use
that as justification for their approach.
Mr. STEIGER. I just want to point out, Mr. Chairman, that what we
are suggesting in Subcommittee Print No. 1 is that there be a two-
stage advisory board. exactly as the Forest Service has gotten into.
It just seemed-again. I fail to see the rationale.
Mr. MELGHER. The gentleman from Colorado.
Mr. JoHNsoN. No quest-ions.
Mr. MELCHER. The gentleman from Oregon.
~-ir. WEAVER. No questions.
Mr. MELCHEii. The gentleman from Nevada.
Mr. SANTIXI. I don't. know what the appropriate method is, Mr.
Chairman, for entry of this kind of data~ in the record, but the gentle-
man from Arizona poses a fair, logical question as to the comparison
of the two management entities within the Forest Service and sug-
gests that they have been workable, functioning. and that it is a very
realistic day-to-day administrative process within the Forest Service
and why couldn't the Bureau consider adaptation of the Forest
Service program or plan. There is some difference in the use of the
lands you suggest with perhaps heavier emphasis on economic use on
BLM land as opposed to Forest Service land, because typically they
may not be as readily adaptable to grazing and other activities
relating to economic use, but I do think it is a very, very fair question
and I do think it deserves something more than a casual, no, we
haven't checked and really don't know response. And whatever the
convenient mechanism for you to reply for the record, I would
strongly urge you to do so.
Mr. BERKLUXD. Congressman. could I relate a little experience I
had? Of course, not everything that my friend from Arizona says is
true about me. But. we had a~ problem wit-h the National Advisory
Board Coimcil because of its composition. It was heavily dominated
b one user group. That council or board took it on themselves to
reorganize and get. a better, broader balance. The credibility of that
board was so low we were being attacked in the press all over. Every-
one was skeptical of the advice. They restructured themselves and
now they have been accepted by the general public. Many of the
same people are there. There is some-they represent different inter-
ests.
Mr. MELCHER. Might I interrupt. Curt? I do so only because we
are running out of time and we do have another wit-ness, but I don't
think you are responding to either the gentleman from Nevada or
the gentleman from Arizona. They are saying why not review the
advisory board the Forest Service has for grazing and what the
Taylor Grazing Act called for and give a comparison. I think it is a
reasonable request. I think we would like to have the critique of why
you recommend doing away with the single piiipose. almost single-
PAGENO="0027"
23
purpose grazing advisory board, noting that one of the 10 members
was supposed to represent or is required to represent wildlife, and
just compare that with what the Forest Service has been using. I
think that is a very reasonable request, and I am sure you can do it
for us. It would help us better understand your rationale. We may
agree with you when you are all through, and I recognize the point
you are making, that when a board supposedly dealing with a broad
range of subjects becomes heavily weighted and oriented for only
one purpose, they cease to have credibility. I recognize that.
Mr. BERKLUND. Mr. Chairman, that is what I was heading for, but
I think I will submit it -for the record because of the time. Thank you.
[The information follows:]
The matter of having grazing district advisory boards as well as multiple
use advisory boards has been discussed with the Forest Service on at least
two occasions during the course of monthly Bureau of Land Management-
Forest Service coordination meetings.
The Forest Service grazing district advisory boards are established under the
Granger Thye Act. BLM's grazing district advisory boards are established
pursuant to the Taylor Grazing Act. It is my understanding that the Forest
Service has reexamined its advisory board program and has made some
changes in it; that grazing district bOards are established only when requested,
and the numbers of members on the boards have been reduced in some cases.
Forest Service is also continuing its multiple use boards. Although they claim
they have no difficulty with a dual board system, I do not know whether they
have ever had a situation where a grazing district board and a multiple use
board have disagreed on the advice given.
By the nature of the national forests, they do not have the broad spectrum
and extent of interests in lands that is reflected on BLM lands-for instance-
rights-of-way, mining, mineral leasing, etc. They do not have the same off-
road vehicle problems that BLM has.
It may be that the difference in the attitude of the two Boards lies in the
differences in the laws establishing the advisory boards for the Forest Service
and the Bureau of Land Management. The distinctions are subtle. It is the
feeling that the Taylor Grazing Act through historical functions gives, more
authority than the Granger Thye Act. Taylor Grazing Act boards in the early
days of the Grazing Service assumed many functions because of the vastness
and complexity of the program in relation to funds and personnel available to
administer it, and *some boards have continued through the years to try to
exercise the same prerogratives. However, with the resolution of many of the
matters that they handled, this aspect of their operation has. decreased sig-
nificantly. In recent years the strict advisory nature of their function has been
insisted upon by the Bureau. We find now, in light of BLM's multiple use mis-
sion, that a single use grazing board, even with wildlife representation, is
inconsistent with multiple use concepts.
Mr. MELOHER. Yes. I have a~ question that I think is important. If I
understand our dialogue toclay~ if we had language in this bill that
said that a permit or lease will remain in effect until the Secretary
withdraws or puts the land to a higher use or the permittee or lessee
has violated the regulations, that is about what our dialogue boils
down to. Something along that line is pretty much acceptable to you,
isn't it?
Mi. BERKLvTND. That is section (d) that you have, sir. We don't
find a great deal of concern there.
Mr. MELCIJETu. I mean that `is what we are attempting to arrive at,
to assure that if the land is available for grazing, you know, if you
have a permit or you get a permit or get a lease, as long as it is avail-
able for grazing, that person is going to have the first chance and
PAGENO="0028"
24
could comply with the lease. I think we are pretty close to agreeing
on the language.
I think people are hung up on what this ten-year thing means, and
personally it doesn't mean a heck of a lot to me because I-what I
would like to assure the permittee or the lessee of is if he continues,
if the land is available for grazing and he continues to treat it right,
he is going to get the first chance at it.
Mr. BERKLHND. Yes, sir.
Mr. MELOHER. That has been your policy. I know it has been your
policy. Pretty much of the policy of the Forest Service. I think that
is what the committee would like to have.
Now, can we have assurance from you, Curt, that while we ponder
this subject in developing this bill, you are not going to have these
new regulations that have been proposed implemented any further
than they are?
Mr. BERKLUXD. No, sir, Mr. Chairman. I cannot assure you of that.
We had agreed that we would hold up any action until we had an
opportunity to discuss this with you today. We would like to go to
proposed rulemaking. We would like the opportunity to get the public
comment which may be of assistance to this committee along with
ourselves, and if we go through the norina.1 process. we are not going
to be able to go to file rulemaking probably until September, and
implement the first of the year. I don't know what your schedule is
for passage of this act. If we agree to hold over until you act here
in the committee or in the Congress, I don't know. I couldn't commit
to that.
Mr. MELCHER. When do we have the Secretary of the Interior
before this committee?
Mr. SHAFER. He has been before the-
Mr. MELCHER. I mean this year, this Congress.
Mr. SHAFER. He has bee.n here on the briefing session of the-
Mr. MELCHER. I mean this subcommittee.
Mr. BERKLUND. I think Assistant Secretary Horton may appear
before you on Tuesday. I am not sure I will be here myself. One of
us will be here Tuesday.
Mr. MELCHER. What I am getting at, we are well aware that the
committee in the last Congress thought entirely differently on this
subject than BLM did, what your ideas were and what your premises
were. We are well aware of that, but-if the subcommittee feels the
same way and the full committee feels the same way and the House
agrees and the Senate agrees too, to a statutory provision on grazing
that gives some guidance to BLM and the Forest Service-it hardly
makes any sense to me for BLM's coming out with regulations that
I am sure would be in violation of what we were going to do last
year and did not accomplish, but which we may accomplish this
year. It hardly seems that this is productive, a productive exercise
of the prerogatives of the legislative branch versus the executive
branch, and I would-I want to be assured before we conclude our
hearings next week that we are not going to be running headlong into
a confrontation because I think there is advantage to working to-
gether. But when you split the blanket, as you want to, if these pro-
posed regulations are published in the Federal Register in April, we
PAGENO="0029"
25
are going to then have to be on the basis of confrontation, not on the
basis of cooperation.
Mr. BERKL1JND. Mr. Chairman, I think there would be very few
areas of concern in there, but we would be happy-we just received
your committee print-to now lay it out against regulations and meet
with staff in order to identify any areas of concern.
Mr. MELOHER. Well, I might not have made myself clear, Curt. I
don't think we can do that between now and April 1st, do you?
Mr. BERKLtrND. Possibly not that soon, but-
Mr. MELCIIER. Well, isn't that-when would you put these in the
Federal Register?
Mr. BERKLUND. We would like to go with proposed rulemaking.
That is just putting them out for public comment.
Mr. MELCHER. At what date?
Mr. BERKLtTND. As soon as we can get them cleared. They are in
the Secretary's office right now waiting a clearance for publication.
Mr. MELOHER. That is what I was wondering, when we are going
to talk to the Secretary.
Mr. BERKL1JND. We have made the recommendation to the Secre-
tary and they are in the Secretary's office.
Mr. MELCHER. We will hear more about it next week when we talk
to Assistant Secretary 1-lorton. We did get into range improvement
and I am not going to prolong this any longer, but surely we are
going to have to have a common-a common denominator when we
talk about range improvements: aild who recommends what, and as I
view it, these advisory boards would want-some advisory boards
dealing with range improvement would have to be in existence if we
are going to get a dialogue between the people who are utilizing the
leases and the permits and the people who are managing the public
lands, whether it is BLM or Forest Service. So this is an area where
we want as good guidance as you can provide us on how to establish
that dialog, and we would like to set that as part of the law rather
than just leave it to regulation.
Mr. BERKLTTJND. Hopefully our AMP's will be moving out and they
will be identifying a lot of range improvement needs through the
planning process, Mr. Chairman. And with public participation and
the advisory boards' opportunity to review these, we think we will
have full public participation, but when we get into the section of
fees and distribution of funds, here I think probably we have more
questions than we have answers at the present time because we are just
trying to analyze it now.
Mr. MELCETER. Yes. I appreciate that.
Now, I have one or two further questions for you, Curt. Tinder the
Taylor Grazing Act, either a Member of Congress or an employee of
the BLM were prohibited frŕm a lease or permit.
Mr. BERKLUND. Right.
Mr. MELOHER. Does that provision or other provisions of law apply
to a Member of Congress or an employee of the Bureau of Land
Management if his ownership or involvement with the lease or permit
is through a corporation?
Mr. RoBIsoN. As you are aware, Mr. Chairman, the Solicitor of the
Department has made a ruling with respect to ownership when a
corporation is not involved.
PAGENO="0030"
26
Mr. MELGHER. No. I am not aware-oh, if the corporation is not
involved. All right.
Mr. Romsox. If the corporation is not involved.
Mr. MELCHER. I had seen that opinion, but I would like to-
Mr. RoBIsox. I would think this would be a. matter, of course, that
would have to be referred to the. Solicitor, but just addressing it as
it would appear to me, it might well be that we would have to look
at the corporation, itself, whether it is a closely held corporation or
whether it is a corporation t.hat deals in the open market where there
are arm's-length t.ransactions, that type of t.hing. If it is a family
corporation, a closely held corporation, I don't think it would be any
different than if the individual were involved, but if you are a stock-
holder in General Motors, that might be something different.
I do not speak authoritatively for the Solicitor, though, and I think
the matter would have to be referred to him.
Mr. MELcI~R. It isn't a point that you are prepared to answer on
toda.y.
Mr. RoBIsox. No.
Mr. STEIGER. Mr. Chairman, I wonder if I could have unanimous
consent that Mr. Berklund provide us with, and I don't want an in-
depth operation, but a summary-provide us with a summary of the
new available enforcement and management techniques that would
be available to you ~mder your new proposed rules which are not now
available to you under either law or practice. Is that a big deal? If
it is a big deal-you should know that it is going to be used against
you.
Mr. BERKrUND. We have it prepared, but I don't know if it is in
the depth you want. Could we supply that to you and see if-
Mr. STEIGER. I don't think it ought to be indepth. In other words,
you are thinking-it would really be the justification of why you
think you need the new rules. If it is available, if we could have it
as soon as possible, it would be very helpful for us in examination of
Assistant Secretary Horton. I would ask unanimous consent-
Mr. MELCHER. Is it possible to-
Mr. BERKLUND. We will supply it. sure.
Mr. MELCHER. Thank you very much. We appreciate your candid
answers to our comments and questions. We know we will be con-
tinuing the dialog as we move along.
[The information follows:]
MAJOR CONSIDERATIONS FOR CHANGES IN THE GRAZING REGULATIONS
1. INTRODUCTION
In 1934 Congress passed the Taylor Grazing Act to regulate livestock grazing
on the national resource lands (public lands), ending a 50-year period of com-
petitive use of the range. Regulations were adopted to adjudicate livestock use
allowances to qualified ranch operations and to designate grazing allotments. The
objectives of these regulations were essentially accomplished by the mid-lOGO's.
With changing times and with intensified use of the national resource lands by a
variety of users, the old regulations have not only fulfilled their usefulness but
have also become outdated.
For sev'eial years the Bureau of Land Management has been working on a
draft of proposed regulations which would modernize livestock grazing admin-
istration under the Taylor Grazing Act. A number of important, areas of change
are being considered to meet the modern-day needs for more intensive manage-
PAGENO="0031"
27
ment of the national resource lands. Emphasis. on the environment and considera-
tions for other resource uses in the issuance of grazing permits need to be
strengthened and incorporated into the regulations. Multiple use and environ-
ment are basic and viable objectives of the grazing management program as are
sustained yield of forage and community and livestock operator stability.
The text of the proposed regulations is better organized and the language is
less formal making them easier to read and to understand.
The objective of the proposed regulations is to improve administration of the
NRL's to meet Departmental and BLM land management responsibilities. No
changes would have to be made in the Taylor Grazing Act
2. GRAZING ADMINISTRATION
The proposed regulations are intended to include grazing rules for all of the
national resource lands, exclusive of Alaska, under the jurisdiction of* BLM.
They combine into one set the regulatiOns applicable to Section 3 and Section 15
of the Taylor Grazing Act, the O&O western Oregon lands, and LU lands acquired
under the Bankhea.d-Jones Act. All of these lands are similar in character and
values and should receive equal management attention under standardized
policies and regulations.
The regulations for Section 15 and Section 3 have been similar since the Sec-
tion 15 regulations were changed in 1968. These proposed regulations bring the
two together into one set of rules.
The proposed regulations would provide the policy to strengthen multiple-use
management and provide a basis for intensive livestock management. These
regulations would help stabilize existing grazing users and reduce administrative
costs.
3 OBJECTIVES
The objectives of the present regulations have been to conserve and regulate
the public grazing lands and to stabilize the livestock industry dependent upon
them. The proposed regulations place emphasis on environmental considerations
and intensive management to protect and properly manage the NRL's. This does
not mean that the often predominant function of livestock grazing will be less
prominent, but that means will be sought to accommodate other nses.
4. QUALIFICATIONS
There is no change from the requirements in the present regulations. To quality
for a grazing permit an applicant must be a citizen of the U.S. engaged in the
livestock business. In addition, he must. own or control land or water base in
or near the NRL area which is used in support of his livestock operation.
5. PREFERENCE
Present regulations set forth the guidelines for adjudicating and allocating
grazing use on the NRL's to qualified applicants (Sections 3 and 15). The regula-
tions contain the guidelines for determining season of use, grazing capacity, class
of livestock, for adjusting present use because of changes in available forage, and
for issuing permits, licenses, and leases. .
The proposed regulations would protect the interest of preferenced grazing
users The allocation of preference and the issuance of grazing permits would be
based on the grazing use on the NRL s which is recognized when the proposed
regulations become effective The preference would be based on District records
of land dependent by use or prior water adjudication and the license, permit
and lease history
6 ACCOUNTABILITY
Under the present regulations. (Section 3); base property requirements are
established for a State or District. They require that the permittee produce
enough forage on his base land to support the livestock authorized on NRL's for
a specified period (2, 3, 4 months, etc.) .DPS records are maintained to. record
range and forage crop pioduction on the private land to assure that the base
property is commensuiate and to show that the permittee has a year round
operation
Under the propOsed regulations, there would be no base property requirement
and DPS records would not be necessary. A record of the permittee's preference
PAGENO="0032"
28
would be maintained through the use of applications, permits, billings, and
transfers.
7. GRAZING AREAS
Under the proposed regulations the authorized officer would establish grazing
areas to be allotted to a single permittee or a group of permittees. The grazing
areas would be designated as:
1. Management allotments-established to be intensively managed under
an AMP.
2. Custodial grazing area or allotment-established where the NRL acreage
contains limited resource values and/or where NRL acreage is small in
comparison to the total area.
3. Interim grazing areas or allotments-established pending designation
as a custodial grazing area or allotment or a management allotment.
Previously these areas had no formal designation.
8. PERMITS
Under the present regulations, licenses, permits, and leases are issued to
authorirze grazing on the NRL's.
Under the proposed regulations all grazing on NRL's will be authorized by a
grazing permit. The permit will identify the allotted grazing area (s) and the
amount of the NRL's forage to which the permittee is entitled.
Three kinds of grazing permits will be issued. Each, to varying degrees, sets out
the conditions and manner in which livestock grazing use is to be authorized.
Each is designed for a specific purpose and will reflect the intended category of
permit.
Management permits will be issued for grazing areas which are under inten-
sive management; they will be issued in conjunction with an AMP. They will be
issued for a period of up to 10 years with provisions for renewal. They allow
for the allocation to the operator of all additional livestock forage which becomes
available within his allotment.
Custodial permits will be issued in grazing areas in which planning has been
completed and where only limited resource values are involved. Generally, they
will be issued for grazing use on fragmented NRL areas. These permits will be
issued for up to 10 years with provision for renewal.
Regular permits will be issued in grazing areas in which resource planning
has not been completed. They will be issued for a period of up to 10 years with
provisions for renewal pending management considerations in the planning sys-
tem. After planning, the allotments covered by regular permits will generally
be scheduled for development of an AMP or designation as a custodial grazing
area or allotment. These permits are not subject to any permanent increase in
permitted use.
9 SPECIAL PERMITS
There is no substantial change in the regulations providing for special permits.
Free-use permits may be issued to an eligible individual for grazing on the
NRL's adjacent to the individual's residence. The permit will authorize grazing
use only for the domestic livestock owned and whose products or services are
used directly and exclusively by the individual and his family.
Crossing permits may be issued to persons showing the necessity for crossing
NRL's with livestock for proper and lawful purpose.
Exchange-of-use permits may be issued to any permittee or livestock operator
having ownership or control of non-Federal land within his grazing area. They
are issued for the grazing capacity of the non-Federal land at no charge.
Nonrenewable permits denote temporary use which carry no preference. Gen-
erafly, such permits are issued for grazing above the active use preference pro-
vided such use does not interfere with existing operations and is in conformance
with management objectives.
10. TRANSFERS
A preference is transferable. The present as well as the proposed regulations
require that a transferee be qualified. Procedures for transfering a preference
will be simplified. An operator may have as much base property to which the
preference is attached as he desires. At the present time every variation of base
PAGENO="0033"
29
property exists and no modification in these are proposed. The proposed regula-
tions will provide the latitude to make desired changes in land or water base.
The base property offered will be recognized as long as it meets the regulatory
requirements.
11. FEES AND CHARGES
No change in regular fees is proposed. The fees for each fee year will be pub-
lished in the Federal Register. Fees will be charged on all grazing, crossing, and
nonrenewable permits for the grazing of livestock on NRL's at a specified rate
per animal unit month. The charges fOr any fee year will consist of a use fee
and a range improvement fee and will not be less than $10/permit.
The only changes from present procedures are:
1. Where a management permit has been issued, a fee notice based on.
actual use reported will be issued after the grazing season.
2. Except for actions initiated by the authorized officer, a service charge
of $25 will be made for each transfer of preference and for each supple-
mental or revised billing. Presently there is no charge for these actions.
3. Whenever the annual grazing use authorized exceeds the recognized
preference, an added range imprOvement charge will be~ made. No such
charges are made under the existing regulations. V
* 12. TERMS AND CONDITIONS.
In addition to the existing terms and conditions, the violation V of which can
result in penalty action, the proposed regulations provide that permits will be
subject to modification or cancellation for:
V ~ LitterVing-(Land and Water Pollution)
2. Use of poisonous substances
3. Violation of Wildlife Laws (Bald Eagle Protection Act, Endangered
Species Act, etc.) V
Some of the existing terms and conditions are: V
1. that all livestock authorized to graze the Federal range be branded
or marked V
2. that all range improvements placed on NRL's he authorized
3. that *elnittee not interfere with other lawful uses or users of the
NRLs.
13. RANGE IMPROVEMENTS
V The proposed regulations ~rould provide for continuing the use of cooperative
agreements and Section 4 permits to authorize tile construction of range im-
provemeiits on the NRL's. The proposed regulations would simplify the pro-
cedure for assigning range improvements to the transferee when there is a trans-
fer of the preference. Unauthorized improvements would either have to he modified
to acceptable specifications or removed. EAR's, or if necessary EIS's, will be
prepared following multiple-use planning for all livestock management facilities
and land treatment projects. The proposed regulations would strengthen design
and construction standards. V V
Vi 4. UNAUTHORIZED LIVESTOCK USE
Under the proposed regulations it would no longer be necessary to determine
if a trespass was wilful or nonwilful. instead of using the $2/$4 V trespass fee in
connection with the wilful/nonwilful trespass, settlement due the U.S. as a
result of unauthorized livestock use will consist of (1) a base charge of $5
per head for cattle and horses and $1 per head for sheep and goats, (2) cash
rental value of forage consumed, and (3) costs arising from damage to tile
public land and property. The new regulations would provide for impoundment
and sale of trespass livestock. VI
15. V APPE~LS AND HEARINGS
Regulations governing appeals and hearings are in Part 4 of 43 CFR and
no change is proposed. V
16 ADVISORY BOARDS
Regulations governing advisory boards have been removed from the grazing
regulations and will be in Subpart 1784 of 43 OFR. Part of the* new regulations
54_OO5_.~75_..~~.3 I
PAGENO="0034"
30
bc ing implemented to meet the requirements of the Federal Advisory Committee
Act have been published as final rulemaking in the Federal Register on 1/21/7~.
The regulations providing guidelines for the establishment anti composition of
advisory boards were published as proposed rules in the Federal Register on
12/30/74.
17. LOCAL ASSOCIATIONS OF STOCKMEN
The draft regulations do not propose any change in these rules. They will.
however, be removed from the grazing regulations and will be in Subpart 1781
of 43 CFR as the Departmental regulations are recoded.
Mr. BERKLUND. Thank von, Mr. Chairman. aud we look forward t&
very close working relationships in the coming year.
* Mr. STEIGER. Thank y~u very much.
Mr. MELOHER. The next witness will be John R. McGuire, Chief~
Forest Service.
Chief McGuire, we are pleased to have you back with us again.
STATEMENT OF JOHN R. M'GUIRE. CHIEF, FOREST SERVICE,
ACCOMPANIED BY ROBERT M. HOUSLEY, ASSOCIATE DEPUTY
CHIEF FOR THE NATIONAL FOREST SYSTEM
Mr. MCGTJTRE. Thank yom Mr. Chairman. With your permission.
Ray Housley. our Associate Deputy Chief for the National Forest
System, will join me here at the table.
Mr. ~`iELCI-IEH. Of course.
Mr. MCGUIRE. In the interest of time I can summarize my state-
ment in just a few sentences if you wish.
Mr. MELcHER. That would be appreciated. chief. Without objection,
Mr. McGuire's prepared testimony will be macic a part of the record.
Hearing no objection, so ordered.
Please proceed.
Mr. MCGUIRE. Since the preparation of this statement. we received
a. copy of subcommittee print No. 1. We have compared it to the bill!
referred to in our p~epareci statement. We find that our comments in
the statement also apply to the subcommittee print.
The statement. lists about a half dozen specific items. Our position
on each of the items is generally stated in the last paragraph under
the item.
About 1 year ago we testified before this committee in support of
the legislation to provide organic authority for BLM. We again ex-
press our support of such legislation as proposed in the administra-
tion's bill. I think that is about all I need to say as an opening state-
ment, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. MELCHEII. WelT. chief. you have been very patient and I know
i-on have heard the dialog we have had with the BL~1 witnesses. and
I am not sure whether you are objecting as they did to our using the
term "`10 years:'
Mr. \[~GuIRE. Our concern is, I suppose, a bureaucratic one. We
would like a little more flexibility. Actually, as the statement points
out. approximately S5 p~rcellt of the permits that we issue now arc
10-i-ear Permits. About 90 Pel'c.el1t. in the \Vest. But there are occa-
sioris v-hen we would like to issue shorter permits, especially in the
East. There may he times when there is some forage piesent on the
land for brief periods and it couldi be used if we could issue a permit
for a short term. * *.*
PAGENO="0035"
C)
U
This might be, for example, ~yhen we have a new plantation of
trees. There may be a period in the life of that stand when the forage
would be utilized, but it wouldn't be 10 years long.
Mr. ~lELCIIEIi. What specifically are you saying in the committee
print that wouldn't permit the Secretary to do that?
Mr. McGuIRr. Well, as we understand it, we would have to issue a
10-yeai' permit except under the two conditions listed in the print.
Mi. MELcHER. Well, we felt those sections clearly indicated that
the discretionary authority of the Secretary for shorter permits is
there.
Mr. MCGUIRE. Perhaps we misinterpreted. We noticed the two
conditions~ Oniy one really applied to the national forests. The one
referring to land disposal we felt did not particularly concern us,
but tJ~e one talking about other uses would be the one I take it you
are referring to.
Mr. MELCUER. Yes. That is what we thought anyway. But at any
rate, I detected, after we got through talking with the Director and
Associate Director of BLM, that about the only thing they were
thinking differently than what the subcommittee had thought last
year was on the express use of the words "10 years," or the term "10
years." The subcommittee wa~ striving toward making the land
available to the permittee or lessee if it was going to be continued
in grazing and, of course, subject to following all the regulations. If
that is what you have in mind., I dlOn't see that we have much
dlifferende.
~\Ir. i~JcGmim. Well, I tl~ink that is what we have in mind, Mr.
Chairman.
Mr. STEIGER. Will the chairman yield?
Mr. MELCITER. Yes. I will be glad to.
Mr. STEIGER. I wOuldl like to call the chief's attention-if you have
the committee print there, Chief-page 34. Line 9 and line 10 in
(d), page 34. Really it was the committee's intention to address
exactly the point that you say in which we say very clearly, "in whole
or in i)a1t, pursuant to the terms or conditions thereof," referring to
the lease. In other words, there is nothing in here to prevent you from
writing a lease, an on-off lease that you can now lease or a lease that
it may he-it may be a 10-ye~ar lease that says, "can only be used
when forage is available at the discretion of the ranger." Obviousl-
I know that was the intent of the Chair and myself and it wasn't
to reduce the management capabilities of either agency. It was, again,
to encourage investment on the part of the pe~mittee, very simply,'
and I wonder in light of that if you still would object even to the
10-year specification.
Mr. McGuinn. If that is the cas~, then this language wouldl author-
ize us to do what we are already dloing, but in adlditio'n WOuldl dhrect
us to dlO what we are now domg, you might say, voluntarily.
Mr. STEuGER. And frankly, give it the security as law as far as the
financial institutions are concerned. That is-there is no subterfuge
intended. That is exactly what the purpose is.
Mi. MCGTJIRE. I think we have a better undlerstanding of it now.
Mr. MELCUER. Chief, if there are range improvements that are
`essential and are agreed upon by the-or offered by the ~ermittee and
PAGENO="0036"
32
:n.greed to by the Forest Service, such things as improvements by
ibuilding a dam or piping some water, underground piping of water,
~would it bother you if the bill stipulates that if the permit is can-
celed the person who has made an investment on a prorated basis
would get his investment back?
Mr. M0GUIRE. Yes, it would, Mr. Chairman. MTe are concerned
about this direction-on page 34 that the permittee or lessee shall
receive a reasonable compensation.
I think, in the first place, of course., this would somewhat limit our
a~biiitv to devote the lands to a higher use, if that appeared to be
desirable. because we would have to find the money to pay the com-
pensation. But we are even more concerned about the implication that
this prjvilege of the permittees could be interpreted as a property
right. You know. there has been long debate about the dCfifltt~Oll of
a grazin permit, whether it is a privilege or a property right, and I
believe that is our basic fear, if this conipensatios requirement became
law.
Mr. MELCUER. Well, if I am a prudent landlord and my renter says
to. me: "I would like to bury 2 miles of Plastic pipe to take water
where I can better utilize the range," if I have it there, I don't believe
I would. be very smart when that is over with, if II had to cancel his
lease for some ~reason, to say you are going to have to dig up that
pIpe. It you want it..
Mr. MCGUIRE. That is right. and that is why we do not require a
permittee to put the pipe in in the first niace because of that very fact.
iNow. if we enter into an a reement, however, both parties need to
be pretty clear that that investment can be amortized during the
period of the permit. and we would he very siow to cancel the permit
before the amortization period is over. But, on the other hand, we
are afraid that if this is made a matter of law rather than voluntary
arrangeme1it~ it will mature into some kind of property right, and
this raises all of the old issues that have been around for years as
to the rights of the users of the national forests.
Mr. MELCHER. WelL I fail to see much difference in whether the
range improvement is burying plastic pipe or other structure or
whether it is, as you point out in your testimony, a windmill, or some
other property that could be removed from the. land. I don't think
that leads to any inherent right or ProPertY right.
Mr. SANTINI. Wrill the chairman yield?
Mr. MELCHER. Yes.
Mr. SANTINI. Chief, if it were determined by your legal advisors
that this was merely a contractual right rather than an enhancement
of a proprietary right in the property, a position that precedent
would strongly endlorse, would that then eli~ninate your objection to
this particular clause or wouldl your first observation with regard to
limiting the ability to devote the land to higher use still Persuade
you to object to that clause?
Mr. MCGUIRE. I think we would still have objections. We have
other Occupancies that would be affected, you see~ by this precedentS
summer homes, for example, and other sorts of developments placed
on the land under permit. So I could see that we might get ourselves
into a less flexible position where we would always have to figure
where we would ge.t the money if we wanted to make a change.
PAGENO="0037"
33
Mr. SANTINI. I think that is a worthwhile inquiry and I, too, would
be somewhat concerned about the scope of the language and its appli-
cation to other users.
Mr. MCGmRE. This would be sort of a precedent and would give
other users rationale for seeking, similar rights, I believe.
Mr. SANTINI. Well, it would seem that as the gentleman from
Arizona suggested, the language on page 34 confines rather explicitly
the application of this provision to grazing.
Mr. MCGUIRE. That is true, but if enacted, it would, as I say, give
a rationale to other users to seek similar legislative assignment of
some kind of rights to compensation. I am not saying that you would
give it to them, but it at least gives them reason to seek some sort of
compensation here.
Mr. SANTINI. Would you be able to provide through your counsel
your position with regard to the legal rights at issue as it affects
proprietary versus contractual interests created by the reimbursement
provision?
Mr. McGuniE. We will be glad to do that.
Mr. SANTINI. Thank you.
[The information follows in letter dated May 6, 1975:]
U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE,
FOREST SERVICE.
May 6, 1975.
Hon. JOHN MELCHER,
Chairman, Subcommittee on Public Lands of the Committee on Interior and
Insular Affairs, Honse of Representatives.
DEAR Mn. CHAIRMAN: At the Subcommittee's March 21, 1975, hearing on
grazing provisions for the proposed "Public Land Policy and Management Act
of 1975," Congressman James Santini asked Chief John McGuire if he would
provide through counsel our position as to whether the compensation pro-
visions of section 211(e) of Subcommittee Print No. 1, dated Mardi 18, 1975,
creates a contractual right or some proprietary interest in the permitted
grazing use of National Forest System lands.
Section 211(e) provides that whenever a permit or lease for grazing domestic
livestock is cancelled in whole or in part in order to devote the lands covered
by that permit or lease to another public purpose, including disposal the
permittee or lessee will receive a reasonable compensation from the United
States for the loss of any interest in an authorized permanent improvement
placed or constructed on the lands covered by such permit or lease by the
permittee or lessee. The compensation for such improvements shall not exceed
the fair market value of the terminated portion of the permittee's or lessee's
interest in the improvements.
The Department of Agriculture's Office of General Counsel has reviewed
section 211(e) in response to Congressman Santini's request. In their view, the
compensation granted upon termination of the grazing permit, according to
the provisions of section 211(e) of the proposed bill, would be a statutory right
created independently of traditional property or contract law, although it is
more closely akin to the latter. They advise that the statutory provision would
create a specific compensatory right not unlike a reimbursement obligation
which could be created between parties to a contract. They do not construe the
language of section 211(e) to grant to the permittee or lessee any proprietary
interest in the public lands of the United States.
This information is provided for the Committee's file. We are also informing
Congressman Santini of the views of the Office of General Counsel by separate
letter.
Sincerely,
JOHN R. MCGUIRE.
Chief.
PAGENO="0038"
34
* Mr. i~IELCIIER. The gentleman from Colorado.
Mr. .Jonxsox. Thank von. ~tIr. Chairnum.
Mr. McGuire, I am so new to this I don't understand redly what
your concern is in this respect. When you issue a permit for some-
body to build a home out there. you, in effect, let them keep that
home. You are not going to take it away from them year in and year
out. At least you l~aven't in my district. They talk about increased tax
base. and that sort of thing. but. as a practical matter I don't care
whether you call it a property right or not. it is a quasi-property
right. You might say you are going to take it away from them, but
you have not been doing it.
* What is your concern about this? The last witness. Mr. Turcott.
threatened-I thought. it was a very explicit threat-that if we came
along with something like a 10-year program that, he said. well, we
are just. going to make the. conditions so tough that it is really going
to almost vitiate the effectiveness of the 10-year program. That. kind
of raises the hackles. von know. when you just walk in here the first
clay and hear that kind of thing. What is it that bothers on so much.
recognizing that when you give somebody the right of improvement
on the land that they don't. have an interest in it. because they do
have an interest in it. even now.
Mr. McGvnmE. Well. I am not an attorney. Mr. JohnSon. hut as I
say, our com ~rn is that we might give awa ~some of the pui:)lic prop-
erty in some fashion. in a. wa that. we will later regret. The Forest
Service has been around . since 1905 and there have been thousands
and thousands of demands for special rights of use and occu alley.
We have been defending against, them over the veers saving that use
and occupancy of public property is a privilege, not a property right.
~Ir. Jm-ixsox. ~ es. I understand.
Mr. McGvIRE. I grant all the things von say. that.. we. let a. person
build a summer home. or put up a. ski tow. or build a~ fence. or erect a
wjndmjlh or what have von. We almost C1WCVS have some good under-
standing with the peimittee as to his position, as to his risks, as to
how long he is likely to be there, as to what our future. intentions
might. be. But we still would like to reserve the authority to dl.iscon-
timie that use if the need. should arise.
Now. it arises very seldiom. I can't think of an instance offhand.
Mr. Jo~ixsox of Colorado. You have that authority as I under-
stand it. quite clearly.
Mr. McGtiimv. But not with compensation. you see. Not to com-
pensate them.
Mr. CLAL~SEX. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. .Jonxsox of Colorado. Yes.
Mr. CLAnSEX. i~sir. Mc.Guire. I would like to continue, the line of
questioning that. was started by Mr. Santini and followed along by
Mr. ,Tohnson. Let me ask ~ou what the difference is between an inter-
est in these. grazing rights in contrast. with what we. have in Cali-
fornia where there is a possessory interest, that is. where an individlual
has a. lease on Forest Service land and the county assessor has an
assessment on that nossessorv interest.
Now. isn't this. fo a degree, similar to this. what in effect. I will
describe for lack of a. better way of describing it as a possessory
PAGENO="0039"
35
interest in the grazing rights for contiguous lands? Is that what you
are referring to, Mr. Santini?
Mr. SANTINI. ~es. In fact-
Mr. CLAUSEN. I-Tow does it differ?
Mr. MCGUIRE. Well, I think it is quite similar. The difference
mainly is that the possession of a grazing permit tends to have a
value in ranch transactions. Now, when a ranch is sold, if there is a
permit associated with the private based property, the propert~T value
is likely to be higher than if there is no permit. So the value of the
Permit appears in the value of the base property, whereas in the
situation you mentioned, where the land is entirely in public owner-
ship and the improvements are entirely in private ownership, there
is no private based piopeity, so to speak, that an assessor is looking
at, except what sits on public land.
Mr. CLAUSEN. As I see the basic thrust of the language, it is to
recognize that by virtue of the fact that they do have a permit, there
is a degree of possessory interest involved here and I think the com-
mittee's language is attempting to address itself to that, i.s it not? I
will ask that of the Chair.
Mr. MELC1IEIm. rJlhat is true.
Mr. CLATJSEN. There is a variable and a significant variable between
ieil piopeit~ o u leased land es opposed io Pe111u1t on g1 azing lends
I think, if I could go one step fuither, I believe with the noclclmg
of heads of y colleagues who are from Western States, I rather
gather that this situation is indeed, a factor, and it is in place in our
respective areas. For that matter, is it not true that oftentimes lend-
~ institutions I ake this ml o consiclei atmon w hen they aie dealmg
* ~with a specific individual?
Mi MFLCTTER Well, I would say thet it is tiue, that lcndmg mnsti
tutions do ~ ien it that w
Mi. CLAUSEN.- So, I would imagine what we would have to do is to
address ourselves to what is fair and, equitable to the private indh-
`viclual Invoivedi, and then -obviously the public interest, at large.
Mr. MELCHER. Correct.
Mr. JoHNsoN of Colorado. Could I ask another question along
this line, Mr. Chairman?
Mi MT I ci~rr The gentlemen is i ecogmzed
Mr. JOhNSON of Colorado. Let's say the Aspen Ski Corp., whelm
has millions of dollars invested, you renew their lease every year or
-every 3 years, whatever the term is. -
Mr. MCGUTRE. No. The typical winter sports resort has two kinds
-of permits. By law, long-term permit-s cannot be issued on more than
80 acres of land. So if some of the base property, for example, the
base of the ski tow, is on Federal landi, we can issue a permit up to
.30 veers, but there is the 80-acre limitation. That is what makes it
different from these permits for grazing.
The permits for the rest of - the winter sports operation are termi-
nable- permits which are reviewed on an annual basis. This would be
~the ski runs themselves a-nd -`they go year to year and can be no
`longer, amid there is no acreage limitation prescribed by law for such
`pei~mits.
Mr. Jol-INsoN of Colorado. ,-` You wouldn't revoke the lease on the
:Ski area if it meant that the : long-term investment was going to be
PAGENO="0040"
36
vitiated. Nobody would go up there if they weren't going to be able
to ski anyway. So it seems to me the practicalities indicate that if
you have a big investment it is obviously not going to be revoked.
If you have a small one, then you might not get it back. Is that
equitable?
Mr. MCGUmE. Well, the big investments in winter sports develop-
ments are mostly on private land. They are usually in the valleys.
The Government owns the slopes. The investments that are more
costly usually are covered by permits with the 80-acre limitation and
run for 30 years. Both parties are in pretty good agreement that
these investments can be amortized during that period. Otherwise,
we are reluctant to let them put in heav investment that cannot be
amortized in the period of the permit. The rest of the investment is
mainly clearing of slopes for ski runs and this sort of thing, and
the annual permit seems to be sufficient for that.
Mr. JoHNsoN of Colorado. Thank you.
Mr. MELOHER. The gentleman from Nevada.
Mr. SANrINI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. McGuire, may I address two points that were the topic of some
inquiry with the prior witnesses.
No. 1, I gather from your. experience of 85 percent of the permits
being issued for 10 years and 90 percent in the West, that at least
within the Forest Service's experience these 10-year leases have been
a favorable experience?
Mr. MCGUIRE. Yes. sir. Ten-year permits have worked quite well.
Mr. SAXTINI. Would you care to elaborate?
Mr. MOGUIRE. `Well, we, of course, are committed to the idea that
livestock grazing is one of the important multiple uses of the national
forests. We are committed to the idea of cooperation between the
rancher and the Government in the development of the grazing re-
source. We recognize that the rancher needs more than just year-to-
year security in order to invest in improvements or to share in invest-
ment. Frequently it is a 50-SO sort of thing where, for example, in
fence building, we furnish the materials and the rancher puts up the
fence. So we think it has worked very well.
Mr. SANTINI. Aild. No. 2, I gather from your statement included
by specific reference, bottom of page 8, top of page 9, that similarly
your experience with the grazing advisory boards has been a favor-
able one, and one that you intend to continue?
Mr. MGGUIRE. Yes, sir. It has been. I listened to the testimony of
the Interior witnesses. `We take a somewhat different approach. We
think that the public must be involved in the management of the
public lands, and there are different ways of obtaining that involve-
ment. Advisory boards or committees are one way. Public meetings
are another. Circulation of plans and programs, third. Of course,.
we try to get the press and other media to help us disseminate pro-
posals. So there is no one perfect way in our view to get this advice,
this public involvement.. We think both BLM and Forest Service
need to continue experimenting with other ways to see if we can
improve the whole approach to interesting the public in what we are
doing.
Now, the grazing advisory boards have been working well for us.
We have not found a good substitute for them. `We do have multiple
PAGENO="0041"
37
use advisory committees and they ~epresent a different segment of the
public. Sometimes these advisory committees work better if they are
on a regional or national basis.
For example, in the Colorado forests, many issues are of great
interest to people who live in Denver who might not be easily at-
tracted to an advisory committee, but they might participate in
public meetings that we hold in the city to discuss some issue. But
grazing, on the other hand, is a case where we want to get together
all of the permittees in an area where they have mutual problems and
get them to talk to us about solutions to mutual problems strictly on
grazing.
Mr. SANTINI. I don't want to invite you into necessarily an issue
of controversy or to a delicate area of confrontation with other
departments, but I have been impressed almost from the inception of
my limited inquiry into this realm of the fact that the Forest Service
seems to have succeeded where BL~'I has failed in its coordination
with the multiple users of land, and specifically with the grazers, and
why is that ~
Mr. MGGUIRE. Well, the BLM lands are in quite a different situa-
tion than the national forests. The national forests have been set ~up
as units of land for a longer time. We have people in place in the
forest areas to a greater extent than BLM and we have an organic act.
Mr. CLAuSEN. Will the gentleman yield ~
Mr. SANTINI. Yes.
Mr. CLAuSEN. I think in all fairness it has to be stated that certainly
the Forest Service has had more time and more experience with the
land management philosophy included in-as Mr. McGuire says-
the original organic act. Up until recently, you know, the BLM has
been for all practical purposes a disposal agency until we moved in
the direction of revising that away from disposal towards that of
a management agency, which was more reflective of the name. I can't
imagine the Bureau of Land Management being anything other than
a management agency. I think as the Chair and the other members
of the committee will remember, one of the early breakthroughs on
this occurred when we established the King Range National Con-
servation Area out in our district where we for the first time per-
mitted the BLM to commit themselves to a philosophy in multiple-
use land management wherein they could classify a management area
consistent with its best use. I think that explains part of it. Would
you agree with that ~
Mr. MOGUIRE. That is certainly true~ and the public is more aware
of these designated areas such as the King Range, for example, than
they are of just grazing acreage as you find in parts of Nevada that
don't seem to have a unit designation.
Mr. SANTINI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. MELCHER. The gentleman from Oregon.
Mr. WEAVER. I will defer questioning, Mr. Chairman, due to the
time.
Mr. MELOHER. Mr. McG-uire, when you talk about the fee itself, are
you advocating that the fee be maintained at $1.11?
Mr. MOGUIRE. No, sir. We think the fee should go to fair market
value
PAGENO="0042"
38
Mr. MELCI-IER. Well, but when?
Mr. MCGn~E. We set up a 10-year schedule to reach the fair mar-
ket value, as you know.
Mr. MELCHER. You mean by 1985 we reach it?
Mr. McGvIRE. Our original target date was 1978 and is now 1980.
Mr. MELCIIER. Wall. then, do you want to reach fair market value
by 1980?
Mr. McGUIRE. Well, we have had two full moratoria and on~
partial moratorium on increases so far and I believe we will still hit
fair market value in 1980.
Mr. MELCHER. 1980. and v-hat would be the grazing fee then?
\Ir. McGc-IRE. The grazing fee in 1980 unde.r the present system'
would be $1.23 Plus an increment for inflation.
Mr. HELCI-IER. Well. I don't suppose you can project those incre-
ments, but can you give us an idea?
Mr. MCGvIRE. The private land index which is used to indicate'
inflationary prices has gone from $3.47 in 1966 to $5.82 in 1975. So'
that would be about a 50. 60 percent increase in 8 years. Another 5
years, I would estimate another 35, 40 percent.. if it continues at that
rate.
Mr. MELd-TEE. You mean then-von increase the calculated fair'
market value in 1975 from $1.96 under the current procedures to'
$2.03 under the proposed procedures.
Now, I am not sure from your testimony whether you think a fair
market value for 1975 is somewhere between $1.96 and $2.03' or
whether you think in 1975, the current year, the fair market value in
the appropriate place for Forest Service grazing fees per AUM'
would he $1.25 or $1.32 or whatever you had in mind. Your testimony
confuses me because I don't. know what you mean here on page 6.
~Ir. MCGUIRE. IVell, our preference is in the last paragraph on
page 6 and all we are saying there is that, sure. $2 is approximately
what fair market value is iiow. and if you continue to have a statu-
tory floor of $2. it might be all right.
Mr. MELCHER. Yes.
Mr. MCGUIRE. But there could be times when we would want to'
go below $2 and we would like to retain the. flexibilit.y to go that way.
Mr. MELCIITER. Well. I understand that, but you think $2 is about
fair market value now?
Mr. MCG-LTIRE. Yes, sir.
Mr. MELCHER. But you are not going to charge that for 1975 per-
inits.
Mr. MCGUTRE. That is correct.
Mr. MELCHER. So ma be. there is a reason for putting it into law'
rather tha.n leaving it to the discretion of the Secretary.
Mr. McGUIRE. But if you do. we would like to-
Mr. MELCIIER. Have it go down.
Mr. MCGUIRE. We may have to come back at some time and say $2~
is too much.
Mr. MELCI-IER. You would rather have a formula so it can go down.
Mr. MCGUIRE. That is correct.
Mr. I~'IELCjrEn. Something to do with the cost of doing business andi
price of cattle.
PAGENO="0043"
`39
Mr. McGtrInE. And the compariible cost of grazing on private lands~
Mr. STErnER. Mr. Chairman-
Mr. MELc.IIER. The gentleman from Arizona.
Mr. STEIGER. I would just like the record to reflect at this point that
given the present state of the cattle market it is entirely conceivable
that the ~1.11, if you used the cothbined index of the grasslands value
and the price of cattle, $1.11 čould well be too high because the
grasslands price as I am sure. you are aware is also declining now
under great pressure, and so all I can say to the Chair, I hope we
stay with the concept of what it is that we are going to do after we
set the base. price and, of cours~, I think the up or down has never
been bettei justiflec' than the present maiket conditions
I thank the Chair.
Mr. MELCI-IER. I t.hank the geittleman. Thank you very much, Chief
:~`IcGuiie.
Mi. CLAUSEX. Mr. Chairmai~, I would like to ask unanimous con-
sent that I be permitted to puce a statement in the record on this
pomt and also t.o include extraneous material. MThat I had in mind,
Mr. Chairman, is. as you knov~, I mentioned to you informally that
the late Jerry Pettis had a great int.erest in the California desert
conservation area, and was working very closely with y~u iii an
attempt to advance that sectioi~ into the Organic Act and incorporate
it into law. Recently his wife,, Mrs. Shirley Pettis, came hack here
to me asking for a.n indicatio~i of the progress of the legislation. I
stated that we were in the process of holding hearings and that the
chairman had scheduled hearings which are now being held here
today. She expressed her strong interest in this, and I am sure, Mr.
Chairman, she would like to ~ submit to you a letter indicating con-
tinuing interest, on her part as a follow-oil to the efforts of her lius-
bancb Jerry Pettis.
Mr. MELcIIER. Without obj ~ction~ the gentleman from California's
request will be accepted and it will become part of the record at tl~is
Point.
I would also like to place "in the record immediately following,, a
letter from Congressman Norman Y. Minet.a, California, dated March
12. 1975.
[Tue material referred to follows':]
MARCH 21, i975.
Hon. Joux MELCHER, .
Ch aiim a a, Pu blie Lands Subcommittee, Interior and Insular Affairs Committee,
Lon.~jworth house Office Building, Washington, D.C.
DEAR CHAIRMAIc MELCHER: As you know, during my most recent stay in
Washington, I discussed the progress of the California Desert Conservation
area legislation with Congressman Don Clausen of your Committee and with
other Members of Congress. You were most gracious and cooperative Mr.
Chairman, in your relationship with my late husband as he attempted to
establish and protect this invaluable area. You undoubtedly know that over 40
Members from throughout the `nation joined Jerry in this effort, and I am
delighted that your Committee is now considering the matter. as . part of your
hearings on the. Organic Act,. Title IV of which. will establish a California
Desert Conservation Area.
Although many people consider it only a barren wasteland, in the past 25
years the California Desert has become a recreation area for millions, a source
of livelihood for many and a home for others. Having held hearings in the
.37th Congressional District last year, you know the wide range of uses made
PAGENO="0044"
40
of the desert, the fragility of the ecology and the historic and archeological
relics it contains.
Time is running out for the California Desert. Last December about 3,000
people participated in a motorcycle race over a 168 mile course near near
Barstow. We cannot yet completely assess the damage this race caused, but
we are all aware of some of the disastrous results. The race clearly demon-
strated the need to establish a multiple-use plan to allow the most judicious
management and conservation of all desert resources.
* Lacking sufficient manpower, resources, and authority, the Bureau of Land
Management cannot do an effective job of protecting this irreplaceable area. I
think it is especially important that the B.L.M. have enough personnel to carry
out if s role of providing information to the thousands of visitors to the Desç'rt
each year. Last October 26th, the first of ten B.L.M. Way Stations in the
desert was opened. This Barstow Way Station has most impressive facilities.
It provides a means of communication between the managers and the users
of the national resource lands. It provides information on the various uses
of the desert: camping, off-road vehicles, rockhounding and sightseeing.
Mr. Chairman, the desert contains not just flora and fauna and conservation
and recreation areas, it has one of the largest and richest concentrations of
pre-historic art in the world, Indian rock carvings, known as petroglyphs. Some
of them are thought to be at least 5,000 years old. These carvings are being
carried away by souvenir hunters and obliterated by vandals using cans of
spray paint. As my late husband used to say, "The destruction of the petro-
glyphs is analogous to the plundering of the Egyptian pyramids by grave
robbers.
Again, Mr. Chairman, my sincere appreciation to you and the committee
for your invaluable efforts not only on behalf of the people of the 37th Dis-
trict, 1)ut for all Americans who will use and enjoy the California Desert Con-
servation Area in the years to come.
Sincerely yours,
* SHIRLEY N. PETTIS.
CONGRESS OF THE uNITED STATES,
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
Washington, D.C., March 12, 1975.
Hon. JOHN MELCHER,
Chairman, Subcommittee on Public Lands, Committee on Interior and Insular
Affairs, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, D.C.
DEAR Mn. CHAIRMAN: Thank you for providing me with the opportunity to
speak in behalf of H.R. 3038, the California Desert Protection Act which has
been referred to your Subcommittee.
I have joined our good friend and late Colleague, the Honorable Jerry L.
Pettis, in cosponsoring this bill since I believe, as did he, that the California
Desert is a part of this country's historical heritage and, as such, should
be preserved and protected from the disregard of vandals and profiteers.
Indian rock carvings known as petroglyphs, exist in the Desert in rich con-
centration, a wealth of prehistoric art, some of which are estimated to be
5,000 years old. Vandals and souvenir hunters presently are destroying this
treasure by enifacing them with spray paint and using them for target practice.
More significantly, the Bureau of Land Management predicts that 80% of
the carvings will be lost in fifteen years due to their removal and sale as
decorative pieces.
Presently the Bureau of Land Management is ill equipped to do an effec-
tive job in protecting the Desert. Circumstances as they now exist require
the BLM to control the 15.6 million-acre desert with only a $023,000 annual
hud~et. This bill, HR. 3038 would establish a multifaceted program which
would encourage the most judicious use and management of the Desert. The
requirement of public hearings in the formation and regulation of the con-
~ervation area represents an important step, by- involving the public in what
otherwise has been a wholly bureaucratic decision-making process.
Additionally, the bill will correct the present inadequacies of the Bureau
of Land Management's administration by providing Sufficient manpower, re-
sources and authority necessary to secure the protection of the petroglyphs
and the desert* environment generally.
PAGENO="0045"
41
Once again I am pleased to have had this opportunity to address your
Subcommittee, Mr. Chairman, on this important matter. I urge your. immediate
consideration.
Very truly yours,
NORMAN Y. MINETA,
Member of Congress.
Mr. MELCI-IER. I inight say for the record that title IV of the com-
mittee print is specifically the California designate.
Mr. CLAUSEN. I will relay that information to her.
Mr. MELCIIER. Thank you.
[The full printed statement of.'Mr. McGuire follows:]
STATEMENT OF JOHN R. MCGUIRE, CHIEF, FOREST SERVICE, DEPARTMENT
OF AGRICULTURE
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee: Thank you for this oppor-
tunity to discuss the grazing programs on National Forest System lands. We
understand that you would like to have us discuss present grazing authorities
and policies as they compare to grazing provisions as contained in the pro-
posed "Public Land Policy and Management Act of 1974" which the Com-
mittee was developing in the 93rd Congress. I will limit my remarks to the
effect of such provisions if applied to the National Forest System, deferring
to the Department of the Interior for any comparison of their authority and
policies..
Grazing of commercial livestock on National Forest System lands dates
back to before National Forests were established, grazing continues to be
a major use of these lands. Of the, 187 million acres in the National Forest
System approximately 105 million acres are subject to grazing. This grazing'
involves 10,000 permittees. In 1974 a total of 1.5 million cattle and 1.6 inil-
lion sheep grazed on National Forest System lands for a total of 7.2 million
animal unit months of grazing. Much of the grazing on National Forest
System land is seasonal with permittees grazing stock for part of the year
on public lands and the balance of. the year on adjacent private lands.
The basic authority for permitting grazing use on the National Forests
emanates from the Organic Administration Act of June 4, 1897, and basic
authority for permitting grazing i~se' on the National Grasslands emanates
froni the Bankhead-Jone~ Farm Tenant Act of July 22, 1937. The Granger-Thye
Act of April 24, 1950, supplements those authorities by providing that the Secre-
tary of Agriculture may, upon such terms and conditions as lie may deem
proper, issue permits for the grazing of livestock for periods not exceeding tea
years and renewals thereof. The Multiple Use-Sustained Yield Act of June 12,
1960. affirms that the National Forests are established and shall be administered
for multiple purposes, including range purposes.
DURATION OF GRAZING PERMITS
Pursuant to the Act of April 24, 1950, tile Forest Service issues grazing
permits on either an annual basis or for a term of 10 years. Nationally, ap-
proximately 85 percent of the grazing is now administered, under 10-year
term permits. In the West the amount is in excess of 90 percent. These per-
mits are normally renewed for subsequent 10-year terms. The term permit
applies to ranges where a long-term commitment to grazing is appropriata.
On other ranges, grazing is authorized under temporary permits on an annual
basis and these may be extended,' or reissued where appropriate. Temporary
permits are common on eastern National Forests and in other areas where
grazing occurs on transitory ranges. Also, in the East, we find that grazing
can often he effectively handled' through short-term permits, because per-
mittees in the East often have a greater management flexibility and a larger
number of feed sources than usuaily"occurs in the West.
The provisions on duration of grazing permits as contained Ill tile legisla-
tion permits be issued for periods of 10 years, except shorter permits could
be granted where land is pending disposal or will be devoted to a public
purpose prior to the end of the 10-year term.
PAGENO="0046"
42
To facilitate our efforts to balance grazing with the available range re-
source. and to coordinate grazing with other resource uses, we believe it is
important that we continue to have authority that provides flexibility in
determining the duration of grazing permits. This includes flexibility to issue
a term or temporary permit to fit a broader range of situations than pro-
vided for by the proposed legislation. Another concern is that the wording
of the proposed legislation implies that land disposal is an inherent policy
and that grazing lands are not considered as lands devoted to public purposes.
Both implications are inconsistent with the purpose for which National
Forests are established and maintained.
RENEWAL OF GRAZING PERMITS
As a matter of policy and regulation, permits are renewable based on
the continued availability of the forage resource. The season of use and num-
ber of livestock permitted on an allotment may be adjusted annually. Regula-
tions of the Secretary of Agriculture provide that term permits are renewable
at the end of each term period provided the provisions and requirements
under which they are issued continue to be met and as long as it is in
the publIc interest to renew them.
The provisions on renewal of grazing permits as contained in the legisla-
tion proposed in the 93d Congress, would guarantee the renew-al of a permit
if the following conditions were met: (1) the lands remain available for graz-
ing, and (2) the permittee has complied with the Secretarys regulations and
terms of the permit.
By guaranteeing renewal if certain conditions are met, the proposed legisla-
tion departs from all other authorities relating to the occupancy and use of
National Forest System lands. The proposed legislation also places limitations
on the discretion of the Secretary in determining whether it w-ould be in
the public interest to renew ~a permit.
CANCELLATION OF GRAZING PERMITS AND PERMITTER COMPENSATION
IN THE EVENT OF CANCELLATION
Although the Secretary has the authority to revoke or suspend a permit at
any time if a determination is made that this would 1)e in the public interest,
such actions are very rare.
Range improvements on National Forest and Grassland allotments are
normally constructed cooperatively with the permittee and Forest Service
sharing the cost. Permanent improvements such as earthdams or stock trails
are considered part of the land on which they are located and are considered
the property of the Government. However, the calculation of grazing fees
reflects that the permanent improvements are considered the property of
the government and cannot be removed after the term of the permit. Otder
improvements such as fences or windmills which could be moved may he
either Government owned or permittee owned depending on how they were
constructed. Title to improvements is vested in the Government where any
part of the construction cost is borne by the Government. In the event that
a permit is not renew-ed or is evoked or suspended within its term, the
permittee may remove temporary improvements in his ownership. Fnder the
terms of the permit he is not entitled to compensation for any improvements.
or to any other compensation.
Provisions contained in the legislation proposed in the 93rd Congress require
that a permittee receive compensation in the event a permit is cancelled to
devote the lands to al1other public purpose. Such compensation would be for
any authorized permanent improvement placed or constructed on Federal
lands by the permittee.
lYe believe that it iS important that the Federal Government not 1)0 placed
in the position of having to compensate permittees For range mprovements.
We are also greatly concerned that the legislation, w-here it rends "per-
mittees interest therein." could be interpreted to also compensate the permittee
for permit value." Such obligations would limit the administering Federal
agency in its ability to devote the lands to a higher public use or uses. The
provisions under consideration in the 93rd Congress concerning compensa-
tion and permit renewal could also convert a grazing permit into a pronerty
rigl1t. This would seriously alter the existing relationships between the United
PAGENO="0047"
43
States and the permittees. Historically, the use of land owned by the United
.States and administered by the Forest Service has been considered a privi-
lege and not a right. This position has been upheld by the courts.
GRAZING FEES
The present fee schedule for grazing use is developed in accordance with
regulations prescribed by the Secretary of Agriculture in common with regula-
tions prescribed by the Secretary of the Interior and in accord with Govern-
ment-wide principles of charges for use of public resources. The present fee
schedule was developed in the 1960's as a result of an extensive interdepart-
mental study and public participatiOn. The study was premised on congres-
sional direction that fees be uniform for all agencies and represent fair-
market value for western National Forests and public lands administered by
the Bureau of Land Management in the western States. An incremental
schedule was developed to bring existing grazing fees up to fair-market value.
The 1966 base rate of $1.23 is also subject to an annual adjustment based on
the index of private grazing land lease rates for the 11 western States. Grazing
fees will reach fair-market value in 1980 based on the incremental schedule.
In 1974 the National Forest average fee was $1.11. The increase in 1975 was
iostponed because of general economic conditions in the livestock industry.
The legislation proposed in the 93rd Congress would have created a statu-
tory requirement that fees be computed in accordance with the current formula
as modified by the addition of an .index of prices received for beef cattle. It
~vould also require that in no event would a fee be set at less than $2 per
animal unit month of grazing.
We prefer that the present grazing fee adjustments be allowed to continue,
bringing the grazing fees to fair market value by 1980. Shifting from the
present index of private grazing land lease rates to a proposed combined
index of prices received for beef cattle and the private grazing land lease
rate would increase the calculated fair market value for 1975 from $1.96
under the current formula to $2.03 under the proposed procedures. Imple-
inentation of the proposed procedures in 1975 would have increased the
average National Forest grazing fee from $1.11 to $2.03, an increase of 83%
in fees. We believe the adminstOring agencies should retain the authority to
establish the method for computing grazing fees. We believe this affords
greater opportunity to accommodate unforeseen developments that affect the
economic condition of the livestock industry.
SEPARATE ACCOUNTS FOR RANGE IMPROVEMENTS
The Act of April 24, 1950, provides that amounts equivalent to 2 cents per
animal-month for sheep and goats and 10 cents per animal-month for other
kinds of livestock under permit may be appropriated for certain range im-
proveinents from monies received from grazing on the National Forest. This
emphasis on range improvements is not tied to a special account or fund.
A provision of the legislation proposal in the 93rd Congress would have
credited 50 percent of all monies received as fees for domestic livestock
grazing into a special account as a range improvement fund.
If grazing fees were set at the proposed $2.00 per animal unit month,
.50 percent of the fees from NatiOnal Forest System lands would be approxi-
mately $7.2 million. Although th~ proposal states that monies appropriated
from the fund would be in addition to regular appropriations, this is not
likely to occur. Grazing receipts now go into the General Fund of the
Treasury. Establishment of the range improvement fund would not change
the total revenues available to the Federal Government, nor the demands that
:are made on these revenues. The improvement fund represents an "ear-
marking" approach to funding which limits overall Federal priority setting
and budget flexibility. Earmarking of funds decreases the amount initially
available for all national programs and can impede the careful and objective
~halancing of the many worthy public projects. We prefer that the pres~1~t
approach of seeking range management funds as part of our regular appro-
~piiations process be continued.
National Forest allotments contain more than 60,000 miles of range fences.
However, the condition and extent of both boundary and internal fences
-varies widely. There is also a wide variety in the nature and extent of other
PAGENO="0048"
44
range improvements such as water development and vegetative improvement.
The current Forest Service budget provides $17.9 million for range manage-
ment of which $8 to $10 million will be used for range improvements. Our
budget request for 1976 is $18.4 million. We recognize that there are oppor-
tunities to increase grazing capacities with more intensive range management
and that this intensified management would require the construction of
additional improvements.
GRAZING ADVISORY BOARDS
Another feature of the proposed legislation of the 93rd Congress pertained
to Grazing District Advisory Boards. This provision was applicable to Bureau
of Land Management administered lands and related boards; however, I
would like to briefly summarize the status of National Forest Advisory Boards.
National Forest Grazing Advisory Boards have been in existence for many
years and in 1950 were specifically authorized under the Granger-Thye Act.
Grazing boards must now be established by the Secretary of Agriculture under
the Federal Advisory Committee Act. Separate charters will be prepared
for each of the fifty-four Grazing Advisory Boards. The purpose of Grazing
Advisory Boards is to provide National Forest System grazing permittees
within a designated area a means for expressing their recommendations con-
cerning grazing management and administration. In order to obtain equitable
representation of all grazing permittees, the Board members will be elected
by the graziing permittees in the area for which the Board is established.
We believe the Grazing Advisory Boards created under the Federal Advisory
Committee Act can and will function as well as earlier Boards created under
the Act of April 24, 1950.
IN CONCLUSION
About one year ago, we testified before this Committee in support of legis-
lation to provide ogranic authority for the Bureau of Land Management. We
again express our support of such legislation. The Administration's proposal
for an organic act has been transmitted to the Congress. It does not, however,
include any revision of grazing authorities. We believe that present grazing
authorities are sound. We do not recommend that legislation affecting National
Forest System grazing authorities be included in the organic act.
This concludes my prepared statement. I will be happy to answer questions.
Mr. MELOHER. The subcommittee will stand adjourned until Monday
morning next, March 24, 10 a.m.
[Whereupon, at 12 :15 p.m., the subcommittee recessed to recon-
vene at 10 a.m. on Monday, March 24, 1975.]
PAGENO="0049"
PuBLIC LAND POLICY AND MANAGEMENT ACT OP 1975
MONDAY, MARCH 24, 1975
HousE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
SUBCOMMITTEE ON PUBLIC LANDS OF THE
COMMITTEE ON INTERIOR AND INSULAR AFFAIRS,
Washington, D.C.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 :05 a.m. in room
13O~, Longworth House Office Building~ Hon. John Melcher presiding..
Mr. MELCHER. The subcornrnjttee will come to order.
This is the second day in this Congress for holding public hear-
ings on the Public Land Policy and Management Act of 1975. We
are working from Subcommittee Print No. 1, which is dated March
18, 1975. 1 wonder if we have before the subcommittee-has the bill'
introduced by Congressman Ruppe at the request of the adminis-
tration been referred to this subcommittee yet?
Mr. SHAFER. It has not come back from the printing office yet,
Mr. Chairman.
Mr. MELd-lEn. I am getting. some letters on a bill that I do not
recognize. The writers believe that the bill has been referred to this~
subcommittee. Have we gotten~ anything that might have been intro-
duced by Congressman IJdall?
Mr. SHAFER. I understand he is working on a bill, but it has not'
been introduced as yet.
Mr. MELCHER. He mentioned it to me about 2 weeks ago, that he~
is thinking about introducing a bill on the subject, and I have not.
heard yet whether it has been. So, we are just working off our Sub-
committee Print No. 1 so far. Our first witness today will he Mr..
John Weher, Public Lands ,.~ Council; and he is accompanied by'
Mr. P. G-. Freed, American National Cattlemen's Association. Mr..
Weber and Mr. Freed, welcome to the committee.
How are we starting here? Am I to assume that this is a joint
presentation? It is, is it not ~
Mr. WEBER. That is right, `with the Public Land Council and the.
American National Cattlemen's and the American National Wool.
Grower's Associations.
Mr. MELCHER. Combined with the wool growers?
Mr. WEBER. Right.
Mr. MBLCHER. We have a,, three-in-one statement. Please proceed..
(45)
54-OO5----~75---4
PAGENO="0050"
46
STATEMENT OF JOHN WEBER, PUBLIC LANDS COUNCIL, ACCOM-
PANIED BY D. G. FREED, AMERICAN NATIONAL CATTLEMEN'S
ASSOCIATION; AND THOMAS CAVANAUGH, PUBLIC LANDS
COUNCIL
Mr. ThEBEm iI\ir. Chairman. Mr. Melcher, my name is John WJeber.
I am a livestock operator from California, and I presently rep~e-
sent the chairman of the Public Lands Council, which is public land
users from the Western States. Mr. Freed is with me from the.
National Cattlemen's Association, and Thomas Cava.naugh from tiie
Public Lands Cotincil in Washington.
Mr. Chairman. this statement is made on behalf of the Public
Lands Council, a voluntary organization of livestock operators who
hold permits and leases to graze livestock on the public lands, the
American National Cattlemen's Association, and the National Wool
Growers' Association.
are pleased to note that Subcommittee Print No. 1 of the
1)roposedl Nctura.l Resource Lands ~ianagement Act of 19Th is much
~nore. comprehensive then other measures pending before the sub-
committee which purport to establish new policy for the manage-
ment, of lands under the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Land Man-
a ement. It has always been our position that such legislation should
limit, rather than extend. the discretionary authority of the Secre-
tary of the Interior by providing more precise congressional guide-
lines for public land management.
This bill would. for example, Provide guidelines for public land
withdrawals and limit the Secretary's authority to make such with-
drawals. On a number of occasions in the past, we have suggested
]ust such limitations on that authority. The bill would also limit
the Secretary's authority to expend Federal moneys for Public land
management, unless the moneys were appropriated pursuant to a
specific authorization enacted after the passage of the proposed
act. This 1)rovision will, in effect, require greater congressional over-
sight of the activities of the land management agency, and we are.
pleased to endorse the. proposal.
~ proposals subniitted to the. last Congress, the administration
sought a. broach condemnation power. In the subcommittee print
No. 1, this Iower has been limited to the acquisition of necessary
access to. the public lands. While we are. pleased that earlier pro-
posa.ls for a broad condemnation power have beeii limited in such
a manner, we would like to bring to the committee's attention the
belief of some of our members that the power to condemn for any
purPose should only be granted through special legislation when
an actual need therefore can be demonstrated by the acquiring
agency.
Section 2.02 (f) (2) provides that the Secretary shall insert in
permits. licenses, leases and other authorizations to use public land
authorjzat.ion for the revocation or suspensions of such permits.
licenses, le.ases, or other authorizations upon a final administrative.
finding of a violation on such lands of any applicable state. or
Federal air or wa.t.e.r quality standard or implementation plan. We
question whether or not the Secretary, or his delegate, is qualified
PAGENO="0051"
47
to determine whether a statute or regulation not administered by
him, hut by some other State or~ Federal agency, has been violated.
~We believe that, as a precondition to the exercise of the authority
to revoke or suspend. an authorization to use the public lands, there
* ought first to be a finding by a court of competent jurisdiction, or
by the State or Federal agency~ having primary responsibility for
enforcement of the statute or regulation alleged to have been vio-
lated, of such a violation.
Sections 210, 211, and 212 relate directly to the administration
* of domestic livestock grazing on public lands. They relate not only
to the lands administered for grazing by the Secretary of the In-
terior, but also to those administered for this purpose by the Secre-
tary of Agriculture.
it has long been the desire of the livestock grazing industry to
have an equitable statutory fornmla for public land grazing fees.
a formula which would be fair to both the livestock operator and
to the Government. Presently, grazing fees are fixed by administ~a-
five action imcler rather broad and imprecise statutory directives.
Although there is no stautory directive that the grazing fees should
represent fair market value, a cooperative effort was made during
the years 1966-68 by the livestock industry and the Federal agen-
cies to determine the fair rnark~t value of public land giazing. it was
determined that the fair maiket should represent the. differences
between the cost of doing bu~iness on private lands, including the
lease rate, and the cost of cloij~g business on public lands, excluding
the fee. The industry and the agencies agreed on all cost items with
the exception of one. The industry believed that because a public
1 and permittee is required tO own or control private properties-
or water sources in arid area~-known as base property in order to
qualify for a public land grazing permit, the investment which mnst.
he made in such base property ought to be recognized in computing
the cost of doing business on public lands. The Federal agencies
disagreed with the industry position.
Between 1966 and 1968, a survey was made to determine the
average cost of doing business on the public lands and the average
cost of doing business on priyate lands in order to compute the fair
market value of public land forage, according to the formula
adopted by the Federal agencies. After making some statistical ad-
justments, the Federal agencies determined that the fair market
value of public land forage for the surveyed years was $1.23 per
animal unit month grazing. It was then determined that the fees
* will he fixed in subsequent years by using the sum of $1.23 per
* ATJM as the fair market value for the base period, 1966-68, arid
a cijusting this amount each ~`ear either upward or downward accord-
lug to an index of private lease rates. It was also decided that the
* feb market value fee would be achieved over a period of 10 years.
Although the, industry has never abandoned its position that the
investment the operator is required to make in base properties
* ought to be recognized as a cost of doing business on the public
lends it has accepted $1.23 per ATJM as fair market value for the
base years 1966-68~ for the purpose of computing grazing fees. It
* does not accept the index of private lease rates as an equitable method
PAGENO="0052"
48
of adjusting the base fee, primarily because the private lands used
in the computations and the public lands available for grazing are
not compatible. This is an important part, and I might expand on
that-private land leases versus public land leases; if you remember'
a year ago, livestock prices were at an all-time high as recent as this
fall. Early last fall, the prices took a dive, and a lot of cattlemen.
were faced with either financial ruin or holding their livestock
over, and they were looking for feed for these livestock. They
usually sell these cattle, these calves, in the fall. They come in off
the ranges and range 450 pounds at that time. But this fall's market
was so bad that they figured that they had to hold these cattle over'
or go bankrupt in their business, so they were looking for all kinds
of available feed possible.
This spring, private grazing lands in California are selling all
the way up from $10 ALThI. So you can see where this index, this'
range forage index in this permit, is a very dangerous thing, we
feel, and we are real concerned about this part of the formula in~
this pe.rmti.
Last year the industry proposed a change in the formula to the
Federa.l agencies. Our proposal was that an index of prices received
combined with an index of operating costs be substituted for the'
index of private lease rates in adjusting the base fair market value
of grazing each year. This formula would not only reflect the
rancher's ability to pay, but would more precisely reflect the eco-
nomic conditions which bear upon fair market value.. TJnder the
proposal, the government would have started charging the felT
$1.23 per ALThI, adjusted by the combined cost-price index, immedi-
ately.
It is our understanding that the management agencies accepted
the proposal, but that it was rejected by the Office of Management
and Budget. WTe believe that the fornmla we proposed is ~a fair
and workable fornmia, and apparently the agencies having tile
direct responsibility for grazing management on public lands ae~ree.
The subcommittee print number I of the Proposed Natural Re-
source Lands Management Act does have a formula for determininp"
public land grazing fee. Unfortunately, it is not a formula which
is acceptable to our industry, the principal reason being that the
formula contained in section 210 (a) provides for a minimum fee'
of $2 per AU~'I. To provide for either a. minini.um or a. maximum
fee would defeat the purpose of any formula. which seeks to achieve
fair market value as an equitable fee. Obviousiy~ fair market. value
of any commodity fluctuates. An arbitrary floor, or an arbitrary
ceiling, on grazing fees could work an undue hardship on the live-
stock operator in the one case, and could be unfair to the Govern-
ment in the other.
Under present economic conditions in the western range livestock
industry, few if any operators could afford the increase in fees'
which the enactment of this bill, as now written. would require.
The result would be that many operators might well have to aban-
don the Federal range and their ranching operatio'ns~ creating an
additiona.l depressing effect upon the economics of many local' com-
munities. We hope that the committee will either revise the formula
PAGENO="0053"
49.
~n the bill substantially, and particularly by removing the arbitrary
minimum from the fee formula, or delete the provision for the
time being, leaving the matter to be dealt with by more specal
legislation at a later time.
We appreciate the fact that the subcommittee print No. ~1 of
the proposed Natural Resources Lands Management Act is designed
to give permittees and lessees better tenure. Obviously, if the Gov-
ernme.iit has need of its lands for another public purpose, the lands
must he available. However, when the lands are available for live-
stock grazing, the permittee or lessee should have some assurance
that he will he able to renew his permit or lease, and that the
permit or lease will be for a sufficient length of time to enable him
to make economic use thereof in ëonnection with the ranching opera-
tion. In many areas, the extent of the public *lands is so great
:that an economc ranching operation could not be conducted without
the use of the public lands. The provisions of section 211 which
provide that permits shall be issued for a term of 10 years, under
normal circumstances, and that ,.~ they shall be renewed so long as
the lands for which the permit or lease is issued remain available
*for livestock grazing will help to achieve one of the principal objec~-
tives of the Taylor Act-the stabilization of the industry. In addi-
tion, such provisions will encourage greater private investment in
range improvements.
As we have* pointed out, under existing law and regulation, a
`permittee must own or control base properties in order to qualify
for a grazing permit. Qualifying base properties have a value over
`and above similar properties which do not qualify the owner -for
public land grazing privileges. The additional investment which
must be made in these properties can be partially, or even totally,
destroyed by the cancellation of all, or a part, of the public land
grazing privileges which attach to them. In many instances, base
properties to which public land grazing privileges attach simply
cannot be operated as an economic ranching unit without the public
`and privileges.
The requirement that a permittee own or control base properties
helped to assure that bona fide operators, interested in the long-
term productivity of the land, rather than short-term profits, would
be the persons to whom permits and leases would issue. The require-
`ment also protected the smaller operators who frequently found
themselves literally pushed off the public range by large operations,
many of which, in earlier times~ were controlled by foreign interests.
We are pleased that section 211 (e) provides for some compensation
for the lost of authorized improvements placed upon the public lands
by permittees and lessees when,~ a permit or lease is canceled in order
`to devote the public lands covered thereby to another public purpose.
We believe, however, that the provision ought to be extended to
recognize the economic loss which can be sustained by an operator
who loses his permit or lea se in such an event. We believe that the
permittee or lessee should be granted a reasonable compensation, to
be determined by the Secretary, for the loss of the grazing privilege,
`when the lands are devoted to another public purpose, iust as is
`already provided in those cases when the lands are devoted to a de-
`fense purpose.
PAGENO="0054"
50
We have some concern about the provision of section 211 (e), which
provides that permits and leases shall incorporate an allotment man-
agement plan. if available, which has been developed for the pubiic~
ands only, after consultation with perm~ttees. WTe believe that the -
allotment management plan should be created by cooperative agree-
ment, where it is demonstrated that such a plan has merit. WTe do
not agree that such a plan should be imposed unilaterally by a Fed-
eral en~loyee who may be unfamiliar with the total ranching opera-
tion. The unilateral imposition of a management plan by an un-
knowledgeable official could actually be counterproductive to good
conservation by clisriipting good ranch management Practices anct
procedures already instituted by the permittee.
This bill would correct a situation about which we have been most
concerned by providing that the provisions of section 14 of the Fed-
eral Advisory Committee Act of 1972 would not be applicable to-
grazing district advisory boards created under section 18 of the'
Taylor Grazing Act. Last year. the Department determined that the
grazing district advisory boards established under the Taylor Act
would terminate as of January 5. 1975. pursuant to the provisions
of the Federal Advisory Committee Act. The Secretary has appa.r-
ent.l.v decided not to recharter these boards.
The grazing district advisory boards Perform a specialized fimc--
tion. They advise the Secretary and the district managers on the aTlo-
cation of the forage resource. They advise the Secretary on reg~ila-
tions relating to the administration of the Taylor Act and assist the'
district managers in making initial decisions on protests filed in con-
nection with forage allocations. In addition, subsequent to the enact-
ment of the Taylor Act, several of the MTestern State legislatures'
enacted statutes which provide for the return of a portion of the'
State's share of grazing fee receipts to the district boards for use'
for range improvements. These State statutes relate specifically to
the advisory boards established under section 18 of the Taylor Act..
1'\Te do not oppose the creation of multiple-use advisory boards'
to advise the Secretary generally on the management of the pubhc'
lands. However, we believe that the allocation of forage is a snecici-
ized function and that the advice of the Secretary and the district-
managers receive in respect to that function ought to come from'
those who possess the expertise necessary to properl3r advise those"
officials on forage allocation.
WTe have consistently opposed the. grant of broad ne.w discretionary'
authority to the Secretary of the Interior in the management of the-
public lands. And, while we cannot agree with all of the provisioiis'
of the Subcommittee Print No. 1 of the proposed Natural Resource.'
Lands Management Act. of 1975, we are pieased that the bill pieces'
some needed limitations upon the Secretary's discretionary authority.
Mr. Chairman. that concludles my statement.. `We would be pleased
to answer any questions.
Mr. . MELCIIER. -Mr.. TWef~-~~.. w1- `~ve I- 1ive. whi~~ .us~cI to he the-
Northern Pacific, and which had a great deal of land holding since
the were land grant.. the l.mardl of directors sat down in St. Paul and
said they were going to get. some sort. of fair market. value out of the
landis they rent. out, audi they are. And it does not have anything to'-
PAGENO="0055"
51
do with talking about 10 years and providing land rise. They just
whooped it up. Everything that you have been criticizing public
lands for as being unstable in ranching operations you could say s~x
times for land that the Burlington Northern owns and rents because
all of the disadvantages you have mentioned that the rancher has~
using public lands is extended doubled and trebled if you are a
rancher that leases the Burlington Northern. They do not argue with.
you. If you do not like it, they feel they can find somebody else that
does like it. And Congress really sits, I guess, as a board of directors
over public lands and we are not getting much return on grazing.
I happen to think it is one of the real important parts of the
multiple-use practice, and if we are to downgrade it or start to phasa
it out, this country is going to lose a lot.
So I am really concerned about people within the livestock industry
continuing to talk about maintaining some tremendously low fees~
whether it is forest or BLM or whatever, on public lands. I see your
joint testimony with the woolgrowers arid cattlemen association is to
belabor that point about keeping these fees way down.
I do not kid myself or my consistituency on this. I know that
ranchers in Montana, in my district in Montana at least, have per-
mits or leases on public lands and are hopeful they will not see much
rise in the price of it. But the bulk of my constiuency, of course, is
not fortunate enough to have any public lands, and if they have any,.
it is a very small amount, so they know all about paying interest on
purchasing the land or leasing it from people like the Burlington
Northern or somebody else. Of if they bought it and paid for it, they
do have to pay the taxes on it.
So I think we might as well put this in the proper perspective for
the record. You talk about some operator going broke. While you.
were talking the thought occurred to me tha.t most operators, I guess,
are going to have to pay 10 percent on their bank loans or PCA loans,
and probably they have those cows valued at $250. They should not
have, but they do, and that is $25 a year just for the interest. Audi
that would compare if you had a permit for $1.25~ somewhere in
there, like getting the grass for, a cow-calf for $7.50 for 6 months.
So the interest just in a few years has gone up from $15 to $16 per
head. If they are valued at $2.50, if they had been the same valuation,.
given the money at 7 percent, would be about $16-~17. Now it is $25.
So we have had, really, a jump in interest rates and machinery.
You know I have a rule of thumb. I think a guy with a 300-cow
outfit, even if he operates pretty conservatively, lie probably has
$60,000 worth of machinery, trucks, pick-ups, hay baler, hay stacker,
something, and the interest on that at 10 percent is $6,000. And that;
sure has gone up, not only the value on the machinery. I dlO not need
to tell you this, Mr. Weber, but I want to get it in the record because
I want to counterbalance some other things that your statement said.
Not Only has the machinery gone up hut the interest to pay for that
machinery has gone up `treińendousi.y and we are talking about
stabilizing only one thing or holding it dlown, and that is the grazing
tees.
Now if we hadi gone in 1966 as we should have, and as you people
startedl out to do with tire Secretary of Interior andl the Secretary of
PAGENO="0056"
52
Agriculture, and had these fees up there, let them climb in a 10-year
period rather than stalling them off, we would not be talking about
establishing them by statute to a much higher rate than they are now.
Well, I agree. You seem to advocate statutory fees. Frankly, I ant
not too upset about it going up or down. I do not know if we do have
to have a minimum or maximum. I am sure we are not even thinking
of a maximum. But I think we better get them up and I think we
better get a. formula that gets them up or we are going to find an
awful lot of people on this board of directors in Congress that are
going to be like the Burlington Northern board of directors were a
few years ago when they said, "Get some value out of those lands or
do something else with them," and we are going to find that right
here in Congress. Those of us who know how important the livestock
industry is for the Nation and really believe that it is of tremendous
significance in the multiple-use concept are going to find it very hard
to preserve that, but we better be talking realistically to our people
here in Congress about grazing fees, or we are going to start to have
a lot of trouble.
I want to point out, in your testimony you talk about unilateral de-
cisions of the Secretaries. particularly Interior, on the so-called allot-
ment management plan. We do not envision that. If you will turn to
page 34. line 6, you will see that we have carefully designated that it
ivill not he a unilateral decision. It will be in consultation with the
permittees before they adopt allotment management.
What about this idea of one-half of the fee for range improve-
ments Mr. Weber2
Mr. WTEBER. Do you mean our position?
Mr. MELCHER. Yes.
Mr. WEBER. Certainly we have always felt that any range fees or
part of it should come back into the range management program.
Mr. MELCHER. One-half or what amount?
Mr. WEBER. Yes.
Mr. MELCHER. At least one-half?
Mr. WEBER. At least.
Mr. MELGHER. Mr. Freed.
Mr. FREED. I would like to speak to that, if I may. I think the
Tange improvements have been sorely neglected for the last, I do not
know how many years. This is something that is a going on improve-
ment that helps every single year. Some people say to me, "This
improvement may cost S1.000. You will only get $100 a year back
out of it." Maybe it is S100 a year for 30 years and it is a continuin,g
thing in our area. Seventy-two percent of the State of Utah is fed-
erally owned.
So we feel in using these lands to get these improvements on the
land, and so many of them are so far behind in keeping up with the
times that we feel that this is a very sad thing. So this 50-percent
thing we think is badly overdue and we want to endorse it very,
very strongly. We think these range improvements, as I said, are
~oreiy neglected and need bringing up to date in a hurry.
Mr. MELCHER. I do not get tiu~t in your testimony, though. We
talk about in this bill that we feel that fencing and water develon-
ment the types of range improvements we need. They are sadly lack-
PAGENO="0057"
53
ing, and I am glad we are bringing it out in questions because I find
that your testimony touched on it only very briefly.
You did mention-I should not just say Mr. Weber because it is
a joint testimony-the testimony did say that you are in favor of the
policy as is suggested or as is provided in the committee print. If the
lease is terminated or the permit is terminated, that the permittee or
lessee would be compensated on a pro rata basis for his share of the
permit improvement.
Now we have had a lot of criticism in this subcommittee, a lot of
criticism from the administration, from the environmental groups,
on specifying that the usual lease period would be 10 years.
Now I do not see any magic in 10 years. I think what the sub-
committee is trying to enunciate in this language is if there is land
available for grazing, that the permittee or lessee that has it will
continue to get a chance to have it, as long as it remains available for
grazing and as long as he abides by the regulations of the Secretary
of Interior or Secretary of Agriculture.
Is that acceptable?
Mr. WEBER. Do you mean in lieu of the 10-year tenure?
Mr. MELGHER. Yes.
Mr. WEBER. We have always been for tenure on public lands and I
think it makes a better partnership with public land management. If
you are going to put improvement on your land and work coopera-
tively with the plan and you see 10 years down the road where you are
going to be assured that you are going to have the use of this land,
I think it makes a better cooperative agreement with the committees
and the people who are supervising the land management.
Mr. MELCHER. I am not talking about 10 years. I am talking about
an indefinite arrangement under these circumstances, that the per-
mittee or the lessee abide by the regulations of the Secretary and that
the land is not retracted or the land is not designated for a higher
use by either Secretary.
Mr. WEBER. Of course this has been what we have been operating
under for many years.
Mr. MELCHER. You have been operating under annual renewal.
Am I wrong?
Mr. WEBER. That is right. You are right.
Mr. MELOHER. We are talking about an annual renewal. I just some-
how have the feeling that the subcommittee and both the director of
the BLM who testified on Friday and the chief of the Forest Service,
Mr. McGuire, who testified, and they have all been striving to do the
same thing, put it into law, what has been the practice of both the
Forest Service and the BLM-that is that once you have the permit
or lease, as long as you follow the regulations, as long as that permit
or lease was not withdrawn for some other higher use, that you have
to continue.
Now we do not see any magical-I do not see any magic in saying
10 years. In fact, I do not see any particular desirability because what
we have said here in the bill very carefully and very definitely that
the Secretary still retains discretion to determine, first of all, condi-
tions of the lease. He can cut~ down the AIIM's if he thinks it is neces-
sary, and being taken away~ from the permittee or the lessee if he
finds that it is needed for a higher use.
PAGENO="0058"
54
I guess what I am asking you. do you find under those circum-
stances, do you find any disadvantage if we structure the language.
~to sa that as long as it. remains available for public grazing the
Fermittee or lessee will continue to get. it?
Mr. WEBEn. That is all right.
Mr. MELCIIER. That is all right. Thank you.
The gentleman from Arizona.
Mr. STEIGEII. Thank you. Mr. Chairman.
* I just find myself in mild disagreement with the chairman on two
points. One. he is absolutely right. All of the costs have gone up. But
of course this bill does not. address all of the costs. This is the onh
chance that the. industry has to attack this particular cost of grazing.
So I think it is entirely appropriate for the industry to attack the
question of grazing fees at this time. Obviously this bill does not
address itself to interest. rates, the cost of maehinerv. the cost. of
feeding. So the chairman and I have never agreed that it is necessary
to take a figure to appease the complainants. I think it has to be
honest. it has to l~e realistic, it. also has to he flexible..
I hope that you retain your insistence that there either be a. mini-
mum or a maximum, that, indeed, whatever equitable formula is
mle.visecl be allowed to fluctuate in the marketplace.
I just offer that for the record.
As far as the 10-year limit. I feel very strongly about this and I
am entneli in ~ upathi with wi `it the c1wnnvn w is ti~ in~ to do
He wants to cooperate with the administration, the people that
administer this program. Believe me. that. is a very important. situa-
tion. But we had a good expression here that you fellows were not
privileged to hear from Mr. Tureott of the BLM the other dcv on
this matter. and I think it best Personifies the human attitude of the
people who administer the permits. That is. that. they really know best
and have got to have some. ldndl of a lever and a 1-year permit or
2- or 3-year permit is a. good lever.
If you get the indefinite term von are. going to suffer in the
long fun. I think the 10-year term. my reason of describing this bill
is not only important but very important. I hofle that von will
consider carefully your support. of the indefinite term. Maybe we
can devise. some. language that will make it acceptable. At this point
I have not seen the language.
Mr. ~\EBETi. Of course under the Forest Service permit system
they dlO have 10-year permits.
Mr. STEIGER. The way they have used it. they have experienced
no problems with it. They use it. rather selectively, but I know of
instance, in which they have regretted the issuance of it. Again, it ~s
a very tight permit.
In this 1-on have to do what we tell von to do or ~-ou are in
vjolat.ion. There is a grandifather clause in all of them. It does not
refer to anthing. If~i-ou do not. stand up and salute the i.anger
when he. comes for coffee, we can cancel the permit..
So I fail to see where we place the Government in jeopardy. I
do see where. we give, the kind of security that is necessary for the
kind of investments that are necessary, the range lmprovements. the
long-term investment, that there has to be some stability andi I
think the 10 years gives us stability.
PAGENO="0059"
55
~fr. C~v~x~~uGi-i. Mr. Steiger, I listened to the testimony of the
~Governinent the other clay. I think maybe if their testimony was~
the way I understood it, the situation might be satisfactory, the
section might be made satisfactory to them. The very first sentence
of ~ection 211, if this were added, some language to this effect-
as long as the lands to which tl~e permit or lease is issued remain
available for domestic livestock grazing.
I think what frightened them was that there was no qualification
in that section 211 as it is written in the committee print..
Mr. .STEIGER. Woiild you miiid repeating that language?
Mr. CAVANA'LTGH. That you would, at the very beginning of the
first sentence in section 211 (a) ,.~ so long as the lands for which a
permit or lease is issued remain available for domestic livestock
grazing, permits and leases and~ so forth shall be issued for a term
of 10 years.
Mr. STEIGER. I would have no objection to that, but that would
not mollify them, I will tell you. What concerns them is the "shall
be issued for 10 years." It is a prerogative they have had up to
now. It is a lever that they have had. I think it is an unnecessary
level. I do not think it really probably deserves the moment that
was made of it even. I suppose it is my natural instinct that if
~they are fighting that hard against it, it must be good.
Mr. MELCUER. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. STEIGER. Yes., H
Mr. MELcITER. I want to point out that it is very important that
we do lia~ve range improvement and the best range improvement we
can have is a cooperative one between the Government and the in-
dividual permittee or lessee. We all agree with. that. There is no
quarrel with any of us or anybody in industry, nor with. .1 think.
anybody in BL~I or the Forest Service.
But if it is on a 10-year basis, we really should not be planning
`for the 10 years either because. in practice the permits and the leases
continue on year after year, generation after generation, and there
is nothing wrong with that. it has not hurt us.
What has hurt us is we have not devised any means of having
ongoing range improvements on public lands. So if you just have
it set up for 10 years, by the time you get to the end of the Inst
:3 years out of 10, the guy in making the permanent investment for
rallge. improvements would say, "~Te.fl, we only have 3 more years
on those 10 years. lYe better wait until we get the. new 10 year
rates." And during that period there are 3 years, 3 or 4 years of the
inst 10 years, where. there would be the tendency on the part of
the permittee or lessee to do .~ that, where there should not be.
If lie is going to continue `to use it as long as it is available foi
grazing, if any of us are smart enough to know which land will
be. removed from grazing by either the Secretary of Interior or the
Secretary of Agriculture, we would have crystal balls. We do rot
know. We assume, frankly we assume that most of this land, the
bulk of it, way over 90 percent of it, as long as we continue to
`improve it, is going to be available for grazing because it is going to
enhance the other values.
PAGENO="0060"
I am convinced if we improve gTazmg we enhance wildlife values,
we enhance recreational values. As long as we see down the road
we are going to continue this sort of policy.
Mr. STEIGER. I am going to destroy my friends' argument with
one deft and telling bit of logic.
One of the reasons that the Forest Service 10-year permit system
has been so successful, my friend is absolutely right when he says
that there is only a few years remaining. There is a reluctance in
this.
What the Forest Service has done, as I read this language. is
they come in and say, "All right, if you will make these investments,.
then a.t this point in the 7th year of your tenure issue you a new
10-year permit"-that is done on a regular basis. It is done as an
incentive to range improvement. It is a very positive incentive. In.
fact, it really strengthens the absolute, essential cooperation that
the chairman discussed. which is absolutely essential. It strength-
ens that relationship. Again, the 10-year permit I really believe
is very useful to achieve exactly the ends that the chariman would
like to achieve.
I yield back the balance of my time. I yield to you.
Mr. MELCHER. I thank the gentleman for making that observation..
it does make some sense.
The gentleman from Oregon.
Mr. WEAVER. Mr. Weber, you say there is a difference between'
public and private permits. Would you explain briefly what you see
as the major difference between these two?
Mr. WEBER. Mr. Weaver, you are talking about in a formula?
Mr. WEAVER. You lease land from private owners to graze your
cattle or do you lease lands from the Government?
Mr. WEBER. In our proposed formula of grazing fees of our own
that I talked about., there is a provision. I will go back and say the
formula that we are using now: private land leases and computed
by a formula., what private land leases are going for versus public
lands. And this is a dangerous thing that we see in this kind of
formula. Of course, the Government-sure, they could put this out
for bids, if there is that much competition. But I think we have to
go further down the line about why instead of-and study the his-
tory a little bit of why these permits were set up.
Mr. WEAVER. Mr. Weber. I appreciate that. What I am interested
in is the economic differences between leasing public grazing lanct
and private grazing lands. One has established a much higher rate
than the other, and you say this is the way it should be. You even
go back as far as to sa.y that they should not even be. compared. Wh~
should they not he compared in economic terms? What is the dif-
ference between an AIIM on public land and ATTh1 on private land?
Mr. WEBER. There is totally a. lot of difference. Usually, a private
land permit is managed by the owner of that private land, and usu-
ally it is irrigated land that we are talking about.. And we figure
there is no comparability within the two permits, private land or
public land permits.
Mr. WEAVER You mean the lease fee you pay the private landholder'
includes his management services?
PAGENO="0061"
57
Mr. WEBER. Right; fencing, fen~e upkeep, and the loss, too.
Mr. WEAVER. You are less likely to lose animals on private lands,
as opposed to public lands?
Mr. FREED. rfhere was a study made by Utah State University that
there were 11 other costs accrued to the person using the public do-
main, as compared with private land. That is what we are talking
about?
* Mr. WEAVER. Can you cite a couple?
Mr. FREED. Yes. This loss of animals, salting, herding, fencing-
ypli. have much better control, whereas we have to turn them loose
o~ the public doniam and tiust to the problems we get into with
i~tnda.1s, that sort of thing. They, have them under fence, they have
them under control. There are all these .thin9:s that come into it.
Mr. WEAVER. Is this typical of private lands?
Mr. FREED. Yes.
* Mr. WEAVER. That they have all these services?
* Mr. FREED. Yes. In my own cash, I have leased private lands rather
th~.n where I could have gotten :50me public domain.
Mr. \\EAVER. riThank you very much.
Mr. MELOHER. The gentleman from Nevada.
Mr. SANTIKI. If I could follow up, because it is a fair economic
question, the comparative evaluation of those kinds of lands, as sub-
ject themselves to ready fees in the commercial market, are usually
prime A bargain. In comparison, quality grazing areas, they are
plush meadowlands, irrigated, n~aintained with fence control, and go
down in gradation to the public domain lands that are typically made
available for grazing. That may he prime XYZ land by characteri-
zation. It is of m~~eii inferior quality, and it would be, I think, a
very deceptive sort of formula to try and incorporate the two.
Mr. WEAVER. if the aentleman would yield.
Mr. SANTINI. Certainly.
Mr. WEAVER. An ATJM is an AIJM. Where there is XYZ land, it
may take 100 acres per animal unit. Your prime land would only.
take 3 acres, or 1 acre. Is that. not compensated in the size of the
land?
Mr. SANTINI. The size factor may he compensated for, but not the
managerial and additional facilities. I would like the gentlemen to
respond to whether or not you do or do not approve of the content
in general of this particular proposed legislation.
Mr. WEBER. I think we say in our statement here that generally we
do, except the one item that is the grazing fee formula, which is our
main objection to the proposal.
Mr. SANTINI. Overall, then, in summary, you would generally sup-
port Subcommittee Print No. 1?
Mr. CAVANALTGH. I think the answer is, if there is going to be a
BLM bill, so-called Organic Act, certainly this one is preferable to
anything that has been before the committee in the previous Con-
gress. We question to some degree whether the bill is really that
necessary, or that much of an emergency measure, certainly because
they now have authorities under which they have been operating for
many years-the Taylor Grazing Act, the Mineral Leasing Act, and
others. Certainly, the public lands need some revision, and I think
PAGENO="0062"
~58
this 1)111 comes closer to the suggestions that were macic, perhaps. by
the Public Land Law Review Commission in its report in 1970. 1
think that we have testified.
We did not cover everything in this bill, Mr. Santini, because we
felt that at this point the committee was particularly interested in.
our comments on the grazing section. We did testify last year on a
bill that was very similar in nature-16800. I think-and we did
make. some comments. We have also testified previously that perhaps
the Bureau does need greater enforcement authority in some areas..
We were not quite convinced that they ought to be running around.,
the employees running around carrying guns. ~We had some objection.
to that, but certainly in some areas clown in southern California. in.
some areas they have particular problems of enforcement. They do
not have sufficient authority at this time.
I think, generally speaking, that we supported most of the pio-
visions in those previous bills. and I think our prior testimony will
show that we support. most of the provisions in this bill.
Mr. SAXTIXI. Then. to capsulate again, do you find this a prefer-
able form of legislation, but you will not give an unqualified endorse-
ment of this?
Mr. CAvAXxUGIr. Well, again I think we are probably in a position.
to do that., but I think we certainly find it preferable to the pro-~
posa]s that have been made. and I have not seen the administration
proposal. It is not printed vet, but I suspect it is very similar to the
bill. that was passed by the Senate last year, and certainly this is
preferable to that.
Mr. SAXTIXI. Do you suggest that there is one other area that the
association has any objection-that is, to the law enforcement Powers?
that were conferred in the proposed legislation last year to the BLM ?
Mr. CAvAXAUGII. What we objected to primaril , we questioned the
need. The lihl permitted the Secretary to authorize, and I think this
one does, too, to authorize employees to carry firearms in enforce-
ment.. and we are a. little concerned al)out that. I think this bill does
provide that. the have to be specially trained, which of course is.
better. We do feel that they need more enforcement power, but we
felt, when it came to a situation where an employee had to use arms
to enforce it. that he would be l)etter off if he went. to the U.S. Ma~-
shal or the Federal Bureau of Investigation on it. But that. perhaps
may be a nitpick. I do not think it is a fliti)icking objection, it is a
minor objection. They do need, in some areas. some enforcement au-
thority they have not got. or they need the authority in lieu thereof
to cooperate with local officials. Perhaps this bill provides that by
perhaps making a. cooperative agreement, imcier which local enforce-
ment officials Wouldi receive inone to supplement their own budgets.
because the l)1Oblem is in a lot of the areas where you have these vast
public lands, the local enforcement officials that also have concur-
rent jurisdiction perhaps just do not have the fundls to police the
pu1~lic landIs, too.
Mr. SAxTIxr. Would you prefer a legislative proposition that
would require, as a matter of a. first. instance. that BLM would go to~
local law enforcement. State~ or county law enforcement. and seek
their assistance, rather than attempting to implement or enforce the
laws as an independent law enforcement body?
PAGENO="0063"
59
Mr. WEBER. This very thing that you are talking about is done.
The Forest Service does this now, in a lot of counties. They go t&
the local law enforcement agencies, and they police Federal lands..
It works very well.
Mr. SAXTINI. There is a provision in section 303 that suggests co-
operation with local and State law enforcement officials. But I am
at least considering something stronger in that direction that would
mandate, in the matter of first instance, and say look and consider..
the capacity of local law enforcement, rather than having a mem-
ber of the Bureau having to assume the dubious distinction of be-
coming Matt Dillon in these areas, as well as attempting to be Smoky
the Bear's assistant. And I think, although the Bureau has, I be-
lieve. in some instances practiced this in the l)ast, they felt a sort of
frustration and never-never-land about exactly what authority they
did have, and could they move it at all. There had been some un-
fortunate incidents where apparently they were not able to do any-
thing, hut I have great apprehensions about either a biology or law
graduate running around the force with a firearm. I think it could
create fai' more unfortunate instances than it would rectify.
Mr. STEIGER. Would the gentleman yield?
Mr. SANTINI. Yes.
Mr. STEIGER. Of course, we could prohibit lawyers from carrying
firearms. I would tell the gentleman there have been cooperative ar-
rangements in violation of nothing between the Forest Service and
local county enforcement, and sheriff's departments, where the Forest
Service actually absorbed the costs of whatever extra deputies were
required to police a given area. It is a problem; the gentleman is ab-
solutely right in addressing the problem. I happen to feel very
strongl.y with the gentleman that that is the proper approach, but
you are against the desires of the bureaucracy again, that they en-
vision a small enforcement army. So, if the gentleman intends to
pIopose mandatory funding and mandatory cooperative enforce-
inent with local law enforcement, you are right on target, and I
wouldi be happy to support that. I would hope the industry would
understand the efficacy of that, because that is the way to answer
the problem.
Mr. SAXTINI. Thank you.
Mi. SI-JAFER. May I make a point of clarification on this enforce-
ment provision that we have in here? It is almost identical to the
present authority that the Forest Service has. There may have been
one or two wordls that are changed~ but it is almost identical to the
present authority that the Forest Service already has. I would also
point out the Park Service has similar authority. The fish and wild-
life agencies have similar authority. It certainly was not the corn-
mittee's intention that every clerk in I3L~i would go around posing
as Matt Dillon or anything like that, Mr. Santini. But there are
certain circumstances where, if a Bureau employee comes upon a
violation of the law, by the time he goes back andl rounds up the
county sherriff, that individlual is long gone, andl there is no way of
apprehending him.
So, this is. a proposal to give very carefully selected BL~'I em-
ployees a very lirnitedl authority, and then only after adequate train-
ing.
PAGENO="0064"
60
Mr. SANTIXI. I would disagree, to this extent. Please correct me
if my instruc.tioii is incorrect.. Any Private citizen has the right to
affect an arrest for a misdemeanor committed in his presence. With
the sort of infractions that we are talking about, they are of the
misdemeanor order. I can understand the natural resistance of some-
one without a clearly delineated source of authority for jumping in
there and asserting the right of arrest. Most private citizens would
be rather reluctant to pull over a speeder and place him under arrest,
and take him to jail, but I think that authority exists now, and I
just do not know.
Mr. SI-rARER. I would agree with you entirely that that exists. But
I think it would be a very bold Federal employee that would exert
that type of general authority. Mr. Santini. I think it is more than
you could really logically ask of them, that they would place some-
one under a citizen's arrest without any more protection than they
have under that general authority. But I certainly recognize and un-
derstanci your concern, and this was expressed to us very, ver forci-
bly in hearings that we held in both Las Vegas and Reno in the last
session of Congress.
Mr. SAXTINI. It is a very sensitive arena, and I think it has been
explored by the chairman and the gentleman from Arizona previ-
ously. But I think it does-needs. at least. clarification for this rec-
ord. TI~ere is a. great apprehension, for example, in Utah, where you
Irave 77 parce~rt public lands, I believe.
Mr. FREED. Seventy-two percent.
Mr. SAXTIXI. In Nevada, we have 86 percent public land. Perhaps
the fears and apprenensions are unrounded. ~ evertheless, they are
very real, and they do exist. We are superimposing a Federal police
force that is nonexistent in almost every other State in the Union,
with the exception of Alaska. For example, the State of Utah, part
of Idaho, I believe, Colorado, Arizona, Nevada-the western Rocky
Mountain States, essentially-to create a Federal gendarme in the
backyards of the smaller Rocky Mountain States of this country,
where no other State in the Union is required to, and to accept this
Fede.ra.l police force.
Now, there is a problem; that is, some enforcement authority. The
solution, I believe, lies in tire implementation of tire local law en-
forcement agencies wherever possible. Tire gray area- that is what
we are going to do, when a BLM officer comes upon someone conr-
mitting an infraction. But I would urge tIre committee, and say for
the record now, that I think there is rio need to throw out tire baby
with the bath water, and essentially creating an overext.ending law
enforcement arm that could be misconstrued or misinterpreted, or
perhaps represent a potential abuse of power 20 years fronr now,
after these committee hearings have been burned.
Mr. MELOHER. Would the gentleman yield?
Mr. SANTINI. Yes.
Mr. MELCHER. The subconrmittee really dwelt long on this very
point during the last year, and it was only after receiving the testi-
mony from officials in California and in Utah that the committee
sought, in this language, to pattern for the BLM the opportunity
for helping tire sparsely settled areas in law enforcement, patterned
after what the Forest Service has done. The Forest Service has de-
PAGENO="0065"
6l
veloped a plan for having law enforcement complementing law en-
forcement in a sparsely settled areas, and what we have sought to
do in this committee print is pattern for BLM that opportunity; be-
cause as the gentleman from Ne~racla knows better than anybody,
the counties which are almost entirely public lands do have a very
difficult time in providing law enforcement officers to cover all of
the area. So we are oidy attemptiiig to do no more or less than that,
and I say to the gentleman from Nevada, before we are done with
this committee print, before we report it out, the proposed bill in
the full committee, I am sure that we will all satisfy the gentleman
that we are not going to set up any type of forceful, overbearing staff
to enforce laws that would be offensive to people. \7\Te only want a
cooperative effort with them.
We found in last year's testimony, and in last year's review, that
the Forest Service did this in certain areas, and we thought about
something like that for the BLT~I in other areas, but only where it is
acceptable to peoPle in that area, where it will complement the regu-
lar haw enforcement officials.
Mr. SAXTIXI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Are there any other specific sections to which the cattle industry
lies objections, as contained in the bill, so we might. clarify these at
the outset?
Mr. CAvANXUGII. Well, of course, we mentioned in our statement
some.
Mr. S~x'rixi. Outside your statement.
Mr. CAVANAUGIT. Well, no. But if we could, we would like au op-
portunity, because this print juist came into our hands, aithoughi it
is similar to 16800, we lust got it last Friday. If we might, we would
like to go over it, and submit for the record if we do have any more
specific objections. We have not had that much time to study it and
disseminate it, certainly, to our membership . for comment, So, if we
may, we would like to reserve any outright endorsement of anything
we have not talked about.
Mr. SANTINI. Can you say, in summary, any other specific objec-
tions or comments that you wish. All of it will be inchidledi as a mat-
ter of recordi in this proceedlmg~ with the leave of the chairman. You
will incorporate those observations?
Mr. CAVANAUGIT. With permission of the committee, we will sub-
mit. any additional comments.
I might say one thing. Mr. Chairman. what Mr. WTeber perhaps
overlooked~ that is, we ought to make it a matter of record that urn-
dci the industry-proposed fee formula, which was rejected by 0MB
after having been accepted by thue Forest Service and BLM, the
grazing fees would have one up substantially this year; more than
~i0 percenh as a matter of fact-and I would like to make that just
a matter of record.
Mr. MELCUER. I am glad you brought it up. What were you advo-
cating?
Mr. CAVANAUGIT. We are simply advocating accepting the $1.23 as
fair market value for the base period 1966-1968, and varying that
by a conibined cost index, rather than the range forage index that
is now being used. And we also propose-~
Mr. MELCIIER. When you say you want a 50 percent-----
54-005-75---5
PAGENO="0066"
62
Mr. CAvAxx~GI-I. It would have.
Mr. MELCHER. It would have gone up 50 percent. Are we to assume,
then, that you are recommending $1.85?
Mr. CAVAXAUGH. I do not recall the exact figure. I believe it was
$1.51.
Mr. MELCHER. I do not know what 50 percent is-SO percent of
what?
Mr. CAvAXAnGH. It was more than 50 percent, if we went up 51
cents.
Mr. STEIGER. It was a lousy formula, let us face it.
Mr. MELOHER. At any rate, you are testifying that you did recoin-
mend a formula that would have established it for 1975 at $1.51
Mr. CAVANA~GH. I believe that was the figure, yes, which would be
51 cents more.
Mr. WTEBER. This is what we say in our formula; that the price of
cattle is up, we can no more afford to pay that higher grazing fee.
It is escalating up and down, fair to the government and fair to the
livestock growers.
Mr. MELCHER. I think you gentlemen are all aware that we have
been struggling for a year or so on this subcommittee to arrive at
some sort of a formula that would. through these factors, thoroughly
reflect an ability to pay, as well as find the fair market values we have
always considered having as one of the factors in the price of live-
stock.
The gentleman from Colorado?
Mr. Jonxsox of Colorado. I have no questions.
Mr. MELd-TEn. The gentleman from Massachusetts?
Mr. TsoxGAs. I have no questions.
Mr. MELCHEII. I want to thank you all very much for being with
us~ Mr. Weber, Mr. Freed, and Mr. Cavanaugh.
Now, our next witness this morning is Mr. George Aiderson, direc-
tor of Federal affairs, The Wilderness Society. George, welcome to
the committee.
[The prepared statement of George Alderson follows:]
STATEMENT OF GEORGE ALDERSON, DIRECTOR OF FEDERAL AFFAIRS,
THE WILDERNESS SOCIETY
I am George Alderson, Director of Federal Affairs of The Wilderness Society,
an organization devoted to the conservation of our nation's remaining wilder-
ness resources and to proper use of the public lands. Our offices are at 1901
Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., in Washington, D.C. We appreciate the oppor-
tunity to testify today on the livestock grazing provisions of organic
legislation for the national resource lands.
The Wilderness Society strongly supports the use of appropriate public
lands for livestock grazing, so long as it is done as part of a well balanced
multiple-use program, under principles of conservation and sustained yield.
Grazing on these lands is important to the stability of many small towns
throughout the West. Therefore it is vital to improve the management of
grazing on the public lands. The continued lack of good management threatens
to undermine the contribution of livestock grazing to these communities by
depleting the long-term productivity of the land, which also means a decline
in other public values of the land, such as wildlife, watershed, recreational
and wilderness values. In the long run, all these uses depend on the health
of the land. If one is threatened, all are threatened.
Current figures provided by the Bureau of Land Management indicate that,
as of December 1, 1974, the grazing lands of the public domain were in the
following condition categories:
PAGENO="0067"
63
RANGE CONDITION
Percent
Million acres
Excellent
2
3. 2
Good
15
24.4
Fair
50
81.5
Poor
28
45. 6
Bad
5
8.2
Range trend figures as of the same date were as follows:
RANGE TREND
Percent
Million acres
Improving
Static
Declining
19
65
16
31.0
105. 9
25. 7
The present inadequate management also is severely harming wildlife,
watershed and recreational values. This has long been the observation of
citizen conservationists, and it was confirmed by BLM's 1974 Nevada graz-
ing report. When he released the Nevada report in September, Director Curt
Berklund stated that similar problems existed in other states as well.
We therefore commend members of the Public Lands Subcommittee for
seeking to develop legislative provisions to improve the management of live-
stock grazing on the public lands. Better management will benefit grazing
permittees, and it will benefit the public at large.
However, in the comments that follow, We will caution the subcommittee
against several concepts that were proposed in the 93rd Congress which would
have granted to grazing permittees unprecedented new rights *or privileges
and would have abrogated the multiple-use concept. In our view, livestock
grazing must never be allowed to assume a status above all other land uses.
It is only one of the multiple uses, and it must be kept on an equal footing
with the others.
GRAZING FEES
The Wilderness Society has no objection to the enactment of a statutory
grazing fee formula, so long as the formula results in fees comparable to
or greater than the fees paid for the grazing of equivalent private rangeland.
The objective here must be to avoid a subsidy to those who happen to have
federal grazing privileges.
We do not object to the inclusion of national forest grazing under these
provisions, but we recommend that the grazing provisions be placed in a
separate title of the bill. We do not favor inclusion of national forests in
any other parts of this bilL
RANGE IMPROVEMENT5
A proposal was made in last year's bill to allocate 50 percent of grazing
fee receipts to range improvements. Our objection to that provision as
originally proposed was that it lacked sufficient flexibility to respond to the
diverse needs of different rangelands. In some areas, structures such as water
developments or fences may be needed and proper. But in many cases, what
is needed is non-structural management techniques aimed at improving
livestock distribution on the range. Some of the techniques now in use, but
not nearly as much as they should be, are the proper placement of salt or
the daily visit of a mounted employee to drift the stock away from water,
where they intend to congregate, and into areas of unused forage.
The BLM's Final Environmental Impact Statement on the grazing program,
dated December 31, 1974, estimates that a 27 percent increase in available
grazing could be achieved just by completing and implementing allotment
management plans (AMPs) for the 82 percent of BLM grazing land that is
PAGENO="0068"
64
not yet covered by AMPs. Completion of the AMPs, which are not normally
considered range improvements, clearly should be a high-priority objective
under this legislation, and funding should be assured for the necessary work.
GRAZING PERMITS
The Wilderness Society favors a variable term for grazing permits and
leases. with up to ten years as the maximum. We do not favor a mandatory
ten-year terms as proposed in last years HR. 16676.
We recommend that no provision be included which grants or implies the
automatic. indefinite renewal of grazing permits. Such language as appeaied
in 1-JR. 16676 comes close to establishing a vested right, and it gives a
specially privileged status to grazing permittees that is enjoyed by no other
users of the public lands. We recognize that the present practice is to renew-
tIre permits at each expiration, and we do not object to this in general. i-low--
ever, we are strongly opposed to establishing the renewal as a statutory right.
We recommend against any language that would allow compensation for
the value of cancelled grazing permits, or any similar compensation. Language
qf this kind resurrects a long-standing controversy. Grazing on the public
lands has always been regarded. in law and in principle, as a privilege rather
than a right. This is appropriate because the permittee is using publicly
owned resources for private gain. This concept of grazing as a privilege
was specifically confirmed in the Taylor Grazing Act in the following words.
which appear at the end of Section 3: "The creation of a grazing district or
the issuance of a permit pursuant to the provisions of this Act shall not
create any right, title, interest, or estate in or to the lands." It w-ould be
extremely unwise to reopen this age-old issue by attempting to allow com-
pensation in this legislation.
GENERAL COMMENTS
When The Wilderness Society testified before this subcommittee last year.
we generally endorsed organic legislation for the national resource lands, with
certain reservations. Today, however, we bring to you a message of concern
for what such legislation u-ill do to the public domain lands. We raise serious
questions as to whether the land itself will be properly administered under
legislation of this kind. And we will recommend a basic change in the thrust
of this legislation.
The Wilderness Society strongly favors more effective management of the
public domain lands, under conservation and multiple-use principles. That is
our objective in the context of the Public Land Policy Act.
The crucial question at this juncture is: If new mandates are enacted, u-ill
they be properly carried out? Do we have an agency that will conscientiously
implement this multiple-use conservation mandate?
The Wilderness Society has been hopeful that the Bureau of Land Man-
agement would respond well to this organic act. It has long been common
belief that BLM has been handicapped by the conflicting statutory policies
governing the public domain and by lack of funds and personnel. We believed
that BLM had the commitment and the will to correct these long-standing
problems. if given the means to do so.
How-ever, the events of the past year have led The Wilderness Society to
reconsider these long-held beliefs, and we have come to a different conclu-
sion: As presently organized. the Bureau of Land Management is fundamen-
tally incapable of managing the public lands under conservation principles.
Recent events, some of which we will enumerate, show that BLM is domi-
nated by an overwhelming bias toward exploitation of energy resources at
the expense of other land values. This bias would not be changed by the
bill. Even if it required BLM to follow multiple-use and sustained-yield
principles, the agency would still have its present major responsibilities
for energy exploitation, including offshore oil leasing, coal leasing and geo-
thermal leasing. These alone establish a fundamental conflict between the
mandate of this organic act and the mandates of the energy exploitation laws.
Some of the recent actions of BLM which have led us to this conclusion
are:
1. On October 1. 1974. BLM released a proposed "Primary Corridor System"
for Alaska, consisting of 10.046 miles of highway and pipeline routes which
PAGENO="0069"
65
BLM asked Secretary Morton to set aside, without any prior study of their
environmental or social impact. Several of these routes would breach Secretary
Morton's proposed National Interest Lands units, while other would cross
Alaska Natives' land selections in an attempt to renege on the Alaska Native
Claims Settlement Act of 1971. The routes were justified in BLM's memorandum
as being "keyed essentially to tapping a variety of identified energy resources
of high prospective value."
2. On February 15, 1975, BLM announced that Secretary Morton had decided
to turn over to BLM three great national wildlife ranges, comprising more
than 2 million acres of prime wildlife habitat. This was the culmination of a
long-standing effort by BLM to oust the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service from
these ranges-the Charles M. Russell National Wildlife Range (Montana),
Charles Sheldon Antelope Range (Nevada) and Kof a Game Range (Arizona)-
in violation of the intent of Congress in the National Wildlife Refuge System
Administration Act of 196G. The long-range implications of this action may
involve future BLM attempts to take over other units of the National Wildlife
Refuge System and subject them to intensified exploitation for energy and
other commodities. Twenty-five national conservation organizations have united
in opposition to this transfer of the wildlife ranges, in a telegram to President
Ford, which we are submitting for the record.
3. BLM has also succeeded in its attempt to gain control over millions of
acres of the National Interest Lands in Alaska. Although the Alaska Native
Claims Settlement Act did not call for any proposals involving BLM. the
agency talked Secretary Morton into giving it primary control over two of
the greatest scenic and wildlife area-1he p1OI)Osed S-million-acre Noatak
National Arctic Range and the proposed 3-million-acre Illiamna National Re-
source Range.
Like the case of the three wildlife ranges, this points up an extremely ill-
advised trait of BLM to assert itself as an all-purpose land management
agency. If it is a wildlife area, they say they can manage it as well as the
Fish and Wildlife Service. If it is scenic, they say they can manage it as
well as the National Park Service. This must stop. BLM should realize that
it has its own role among the Interior Department agencies-to manage lands
that are best suited to multiple-use management.
4. In its administration of outer continental shelf oil leasing. BLM has
show-n the same exploitation bias. Even if we acknowledge that Secretary
Morton made the decision to expand the leasing program, it is BLM that is
to blame for the incompetent environmental impact statement on the pro-
gram and for completely inadequate baseline studies of the areas to he
open for nomination. As a result, next to nothing is known about other re-
sources in the areas to be leased. These are the criticisms made not only by
conservationists, but by state and local governments affected by the program.
BLM did not even hire a marine science staff in connection with the OCS
leasing, but put its major efforts :into influencing public opinion.
5. BLM has also been involved in a headlong drive to lease federal coal,
and was only stopped by the moratorium imposed by the Interior Department
in 1972-73. Prior to the moratorium, BLM bad enthusiastically approved
almost every application that was filed for coal leasing or prospecting. with
to be strip-mined. Even now, BLM takes the position that another 300.000
the result that 780,000 acres of federal coal are now under lease. most of it
acres will have to be leased, claiming that their issuance of prospecting per-
mits binds them to lease these.
6. With phosphate leasing, the story is similar. BLM claims that, because
they issued prospecting permits for about 25 percent of the Osceola National
Forest, in Florida, they must grant leases for this. It will be open-pit mined,
destroying all other land values of that portion of the National Forest.
7. BLM also handles the leasing of geothermal energy under the Geothermal
Steam Act of 1970. The regulations issued by BLM under this law in January.
1974, incredibly allow geothermal, leasing in wilderness areas of the National
Forests.
8. ELM has failed to carry out the intent of Sec. 17 (d) (1) of the Alaska
Native Claims Settlement Act, which was to classify the remaining public
domain lands in Alaska for multiple-use management. Instead. ELM has
focused its energies on interfering with the National Interest Lands, which
u-crc never intended to involve BLM.
PAGENO="0070"
66
Mr. Chairman, these are some of the actions that have opened our eyes
to deep-seated problems in the Bureau of Land Management. They reveal a
bias toward unmitigated exploitation that is absolutely unacceptable on the
part of a public land management agency.
There is no easy solution to this dilemma. We believe that an organic act
is not the answer, although we are steadfast in our support for its concepts.
But to give BLM such a mandate now will not solve the problems of misman-
agement that result from the conflicts with BLM's energy exploitation func-
tions. We believe a basic reorganization is needed.
We would favor establishment of an agency devoted solely to management
of the renewable resources of the public domain lands under the provisions
of an organic act for the national resource laads. The energy and minerals
functions should be assigned elsewhere in the executive branch.
We appreciate the opportunity to testify here today.
STATEMENT OF GEORGE ALDERSON, DIRECTOR OF FEDERAL
AFFAIRS, THE WILDERNESS SOCIETY
Mr. ALDERSOX. I am George Alderson, director of Federal Affairs
of The Wilderness Society. I would like to say we appreciate the
opportunity to testify this morning on the grazing provisions of this
bill.
Before presenting my statement. Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask
for a clariflcation of my understanding of the wa these hearings are
organized on this bill. Mv understanding is that this particular
hearing today is devoted only to the grazmg provisions of the bill,
and that there would be an opportunity at. a later date for our organi-
zation to present our comments on the other aspects of the bill. Is
that correct?
Mr. MELCTIEII. That is correct.
Mr. ALDERSOX. Thank you.
If my statement could be included in full, I will merely present
some of the highlights.
The ~Vilderi~ess~Society strongly supports the use of appropriate
public lands for livestock grazlng. so long as it is done as part of a
well-balanced multiple-use program, under pr~ncip1es of conserva-
tion and sustained yield.
In the longrun, as the chairman stated, all of the. values of the
public lands-~-grazing. wildlife, watershed: recreation. and the rest-
depend on the. health of tile land; if one is threatened, all are
thre.atene ci.
Current figures provided by the Bureau of Land Managemeut indi-
cate that, as of December 1. 1914. 83 percent of the grazing lands
administered by the Bureau is in fair. poor, or bad condition. The
details are in mv statement and in the BL~sI pi'eseiitation to the
Senate Appropriations Committee this January. The range trendl
figures show that only lo percent of this land is improving in
condition.
The present. inadequate management affects the livestock value of
tile land and affects wildlife, watershed and recreational values. This
has long been the observation of citizen conservationists, and it was
confirmed by BLM's 1974 Nevada. grazing report. We also iiote that
when Director Berkluncl releasedi the draft. of that. report. in Sentem-
ber, lie stated that. similar problems existed in other States as well.
PAGENO="0071"
67
We commend the members of this subcommittee in seeking to
develop legish~tive provisions that would improve livestock grazing
and other vahies on the public lai~ds. Better management will benefit
grazing permittees, and it will beiiefit the public at large.
1-lowever, in the comments in our written statement we caution the
subcommittee against several concepts that were proposed in the 93d
Congress which would have granted to grazing permittees unprece-
dented new rights or privileges ai~d would have abrogated the multi-
ple-use concept. In our view, livestock grazing must never be allowed
to assiuue a status above all other land uses. It is only one of the
multiple uses, and it must be kept on an equal footing with the others.
Mr. Chairman, I do not desire to read the specific comments that
are enumerated in my statement on the grazing provisions. I would
like, to stress in the case of the range improvement provisiolis that we
basically believe it is unwise to set up an earmarked fund of this kind
which ties the range improvements and range rehabilitation to re-
ceipts from the grazing program itself. This could create a strong
bias towards heavier grazing on the part of the agency administering
the program, to the detriment of time land. This situation, namely that
we are going to get more money ior range improveflieflts, if we allow
more grazing this year, creates ~n incentive that could seriously bias
the judgment of the personnel in the agency who are making these
decisions. So we would like to soimcl that cautionary note.
~ to a more basic question, Mr. Chairman, when The Wilder-
ness Society testified before this committee last year, we generally
endorsed organic legislation of the national resource lands with cer-
tain reservations. Today, however, we bring to you a message of
concern for what such legislatio~i will do to the l?Tthlic domain lands.
We raise serious questions whether the land itself would be properly
administered under legislation of this kind. We will recommend a
basic change in the thrust of this legislation. \\Te believe it is prefer-
able to defer this bill until a reorganization of the Bureau of Land
Management can be carliedi out to eliminate the basic conflict of
interest that is now biasing many of BLM's decisions.
Our oblective in time context of the. Public Landi Policy Act is to
foster more effective management of the public dlOmain lands under
conservation audi multiple-use principles.
The. question at this luncture is if these new mandates are enacted,
will they be 1roperl~T carried out? Do we have an agency in the
Bureau of Landi Management that will conscientiously implement this
multiple-use conservation mandlate?
We had hoped for many years since this legislation was developed
that the' Bureau of Land Management would respond well to this act..
It has long been common belief that the BLM has been handicapped
by conflicting statutory policies governing the l?ubhc domain, by lack
of fundls, and by lack of personnel. We still think this is true. We
behevedi that BLM hadi the commitment audi the will to correct these
longstandhng problems, if given the means to dlO 50.
1-lowever, the events of the past year have ledl The WTilderness
Society to reconsider these long-held belief s. aimd we have come to a
different conclusion. As it is preSentl~T organized, we believe that the
PAGENO="0072"
68
Bureau of Land Management is fundamentaflv incapable of manag-
ing the Public lands nuclei conservation principles.
These recent events, which are enumerated ~fl my written statement,
show that the Bureau of Land Management has come to be dominated
by an overwhelming bias toward ex~1oitation of energy resources at
the expense of othei land values. Tli~is bias would not be changed by
the bilL Even if the bill required BLM to follow multiple-use and
sustained-vjeld principles, the. agency would still have its present
maj or respons~bihties for energy exl)loitatlor. including offsh ore Oil
leasing. coal leasing and geothermal leasing. These alone establish a
fundamental conflict, between the mandate of this organic act and the
mandates of the energy exploItation laws.
I do not want. to read all the S~)e.C1fiCS that. we cite. but. we bei~eve
that the eight points are indicative of a bias that has resulted pri-
marily from the energy responsibilities being united ~n a shotgun
marriage with land mananement. responsibilities. There is no easy
solution to this dilemma. \Ve believe that an organic act is not the
answer. although we are steadfast in our support. for the concept of
the Organic Act.
To give BLM such a. mandate now will not solve the problems of
mismanagement that result from the conflicts with J3LM's energy
exploitations. We believe a basic reorganization is needed to separate
the management of the renewable resources of the public domain
lands from the energy and mineral functions that we believe Should be
assigned elsewhere in the executive branch.
We have not come up with a specific reorganization PrOi)osai, but
we believe that deferral of this bill would allow time for the subcom-
mittee and all concerned citizen groups to explore this and see if there
is not a better way to organize this agency so that the energy func-
tions are. not going to continue to dominate the land management
functions.
Thank you.
Mr. MELCIIEII. Thank you.
Part of your testimony was to the effect of how much land was in
poor range condition, and you testified, repeating from the BLM
source, which would mean that you agree with, that 45.6 million acres
are in poor condition; 8.2 million acres are in bad condition; range
trend was 65 percent stat.ic and 16 percent declining.
So I do n-at see why we should view our responsibility here in
Congress to defer action. We better get with it, do you not think, on
some of these things?
Mr. ALDERs0N. We certainly should on the land management func-
tions. It is not going to help the range condition any if BLM is out
there leasing tl~e land for coal, either, and that kind of problem de-
serves consideration. Here we have an agency that is gung ho for all
the coal leasing, and they finally had to be restrained by the diepart-
ment leadership. And they still feel they have 300.000 acres that have
to be leased. Our conservation lawyers disagree with them. But that is
a. bias of BLM that is going to cause great damage too.
We certainly agree that~ve have to move on the land management
fnnc.tioiis.
PAGENO="0073"
69
Mr. MELCTIER. I do not know. You know~ 300.000 acres to be leased
is a two-way street. Where would this land be added? I mean, soi~ie-
body wants to lease it for coal; who wants to lease it.?
Mi. ALDETiSON. I do not know e~actiy where. that 15, but this is land
on which BLM issued prospecting permits earlier under the Mineral
Le.asino Act.
Mr. MELCIILR. Of course, you understand the Mineral Leasing Act
is not under the jurisdiction of this subcommittee. and Cnairperson
Patsy Mink lies already opened heariiigs for revision of tire Mineral
Leasing Act. Those remarks would be more. appropriate m that sub-
committee, and I am sure The Wilderness Society is testifying there,
too. on these pol1itS. are you not?
Mr. ALDERSOX. Yes. we are.
T he same agency isin charge of administering both programs.
Mr. MELCIIEII. That is right..
You are talking about 300,000 acres of coal leases, right?
Mr. AI~nERsox. Yes.
Mr. MELCIIER. I refer you to the northern Great Plains resources
study, a study which has come up with three projections of possible
coal mining in the Fort Union coal deposit, which would include
BLM lands and some Indian reservation lands and, of course, l?1ivate
lands and State lands. There are t.i.iree different sets of figures, but
usin the. greater set of figures, the greatest amount of land that
might be mined is 396,000, virt.uall.y 397.000 acres. They are talking
about the year 2000. Now this would provide 9T7 million tons of coal
per year. The reason I am pointing this out is we are only using 600
million tons of coal per year now in this country. and the projection is
that we will use more coal; bu~ no one really has projected that we
will take almost 1 billion tons of coal per year out of the Fort Union
coal deposit.
So this profile, taking their third profile, which is probably high,
by the year 2000 they are talking about disturbing 390,000 acres of
land. Now, this is all types of land. a portion of which would be BL~I
land. If there is somebody who is interested in coal leases in that
area, it hardly seems to me to be likely under any set of circumstances
that all of t.hose leases will lead .to coal prodhiction.
Now, I am not so sure that we should blame the BL~'I for somebody
wanting to lease coal. The moratorium is in effect., and I think before
the mora.torimn ends we should have a revision of the Mineral Leas-
ing Act. Congress is striving to do that.
I think we will have to make stire Congress gives the guidlelines as
to how we. are going t.o have this natural resource developed rather
than leaving it up t.o the judgment of the administrators, whether it
is the Secretary of the Interior, or the Director of the BLM, or some
other Federal agency that you might recommend to Congress to take
charge of this.
I really believe that the time lies come. for Congress itself to make
more decisions on what we are doing with our natural resources. That
is w ne~e the i sponsibihty lies anyway Cftdl i e s~uoi'ld e~+ DilS1i by
statute, just what we went done in developing the public lands.
I am increasingly disturbed by the fact that I hear too much of
what I view as rather loose statements coining out about coal develop-
PAGENO="0074"
70
ment in my part. of the West.. because. almost all of these statements
are being macic in the press by organizations. When they talk about
Western coal developments they are talking about coal development
in Wyoming. Montana. and North Dakota. and we have a great con-
cern with what has been said there. We want it properly understood
by the people who are there what might happen.
On the other hand. we do not. want. them misled. our constituencies
misled. by some. statements that are not very accurate. I am not say-
ing you are making inaccurate statements. I am saying that there
have been inaccurate statements in the press by some of the national
organizations. I am not placing any of the blame for those statements.
Mr. ALDERSOX. Mr. Chairman. the coal leasing is only one of the
I hings that we think is wrong. where the energy functions are over-
wiue1~uing the lawl management functions of~the agency. X'ou can
tell froni~ the personnel figures in the BLM during tile last 2 years.
While other natural resource agencies have only beeii able to hold
even on their personnel ceilings at 0MB. BLM has been given 800
new positions. and I lust saw that they were adding dozens in Mon-
tana during this year. I forgot whether is was 20 or 40. covering
Montana and the Dakotas. and that is for this energy function.
So when you get an agency with a. large staff devoted to energy at
the same time that von are trying to carry out the multiple-use and
sustained-yield mandate. von have two basically opposed concepts of
resource management ~n tile same agency~ and v-c do not think they
will fit together.
Mr. MELCIIEE. ion mentioned Montana. Of course. I have a great
concern about what we are doing with ELM-administered lands in
Montana. I do not really find that the projection from the State
director's offices is for a great deal of mining on public lands-their
estimate is 5~000 acres will be mined during tile next 10 years on
ELM-administered lands. When von are. striving to determine nuclei'
some sort of system what. will be the best. areas to mine that will lend
themselves to reclamation without any danger of disturbing the land
b stripmining and then not being able to reclaim it. or what. areas of
ELM-administered lands will be stripmined; it is true that. even
~h000 acres will have at least social impact. upon the area.
I think von need some stndv. and I think this is all new to the
ELM. and'I think that they shouldl proceed with it. I do not. think~
at least. in their minds, at the State level, that they are looking for
much acreage of BLM coal leases. to be executed to the extent that.
ti~ere would be an improved mining policy.
rnhe gentleman from Nevada.
Mr. S~.XTIXr. Thank you. Mr. Chairman.
Mr. AJclerson, this is our initial acquaintance, and I am endeavor-
ing to get a. clear understanding of your position. if I may be pci-
mit.ted. by way of summary. and then you could comment to amend,
alter. or ~dd1 to. as von see fit.
It seems to mc i~t is a bit frustrating, from my posture here as a.
new member. that you are coming before the committee, you are sng'-
gesting you support general objectives contained in the so-called
Organic Act, but you are opposed to the BL~I as an adminst.rat.ing
agency, and you recognize that a need exists for the legislation but,
PAGENO="0075"
71
in the final analysis, propose that we do nothing. From my meager
analytical resources, that is a useless sort of advocacy to assume. W e
have a problem, what is the solution, and it seems that your position
is untenable. I do not mean to offer that by way of argumentation.
What are your thoughts on that?
Mr. ALDERSON. We would be delighted to see the comimttee move
as fast as possible and see if we can come up with a way that will
separate the energy functions out. I do not think that would neces-
sarily take very long~ a matter of a few weeks~ to try to come up with
some concept that would (10 that. But it is frustrating for us, too.
Last year we testified strongly in support of organic legislation for
the natural resource lands, and we spent many, many hours discussing
this with the committee staff and others last year. So a lot of our
thought has gone into the legislation that is before you here. We
finally went back and looked at all the things that were happenmg
and came to the realization that there has to be a new concept. We
advocate a new concept in this bill that will lead to a separation of
the two functional areas.
Mr. SANTINI. What is that new concept ~
Mr. ALDERSON. To set up a new agency for renewable resources
on the public lands and have energy functions placed elsewhere. The
question I cannot answer is, should those be placed in some other
agency that is now in the entire~ Department, such as the Bureau of
Mines, or should there be a~ new agency, or should it be a part of
FEA?
Those are questions that we have not come to a conclusion on yet,
but I hope that we may be able to propose something more concrete
by the time that the hearings are called on the other aspects of the
bill.
Mr. SANTINI. Being an advocate of an interest, you should have the
burden of proof or burden of persuasiomi. Amid I think you fall short
at this point in carrying that burden. I would urge you strongly,
whatever the concepts are in a negative form, that a.t this time they
be translated into concrete action. Otherwise tl~e testimony is of ab-
solutely no use to this committee.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. MELCI-IER. The 2entl.eman from Arizona.
Mr. STErnER. TlianI~you Mr. Chairman.
I would like to purstie the point raised by the gentleman a little
further. You give some lip service to multiple use concepts ].fl at least
three points in your statement~ and yet, your advocacy of a separate
energy department, of course, is in complete violation of the nmltiple
use concept. I know that ou understand the multiple use concept
means that the land is used to accommodate as many uses as is com-
patible with the ability to support them, sustained yield, and ap-
propriat.e conservation practices.
I would like you to explain at least-since your association has not
come to any conclusion-but at least in your own mmdl, what pos-
sible benefit it could be to develop, in your own words, another ad-
vocacy division outside of the bordlers of the purview of the Land
Management Agency itself. You have come up with a hit of io~'ic
that escaped me audi the gentleman from Nevadla. I would he in-
terested to hear it.
PAGENO="0076"
72
Mr. ALDERSOX. I would be glad to respond to that.
i want to go back though to the question of energy as being a
part of multiple use. This concept. of multiple use management in-
eluded minerals and energy as well as nonrenewable resources. My
recollection is it originated with last year's bill. It is not in the
Multiple T,Tse Sustained Yield Act. which governs the Forest Service
opera~ions. and the Forest Service does not have energy as art of
its charge.
Mv recollection is those pievious laws were based upon multiple
use of renewable resources.
Mr. STEIGEIS I am golng to interrupt you there. since you are ap-
parently con-fused. and the record should not be. The reason the
Forest Service, under its multiple use program as originally devised,
did not address the minerals question-again it was because of an
arbjtrar administrative decision to place all mineral development
under the Deuartment of the Interior. So it would have been ~n ViO-
lation of the. law. as well as the structure, to include mineral respon-
sibility in the Forest Service.
Mineral responsibility is inherent in the bill mandate because of
the compat.ibil~tv with the Interior mandate. So really, I understand
your desires-it is a very worthwhile desire von want to protect the
land. I really think you ought to go home and do your homework,
and recognize~ tl~at if the suggestion is just to change titles or to
change pi~iye1s or fraction advocacies. historically that only coin-
poTI1~dls the problems. It does not minimize-
Mr. SAXrIxI. Would the gentleman yield?
Mr. STEIGER. I would be happy to.
Mr. SANTIXI. If 1 understand the concept that is in tile formula-
tjon stage here, what you are proposing is fractionalizing the inter-
est or commitment of the adlmlmstrative agency confronting the
problem of energy use of the land; set off the Department and keep
it isolated or removed from what von consider to be inherently a
contradictory ambition. But the danger implicit to that is-what you
aie proposing is tile total breakdown of what has taken so many
years to formulate and obtam acceptance for-that is, the multiple
use concept.
Why then, COllldl not those who look at the land for livelihood
come in and say, I think our interests are unique and there is an in-
herent conflict in the Department we want a separate Department,
and so 011 down the Tine. A fisherman could come in and say, our in-
terests are umque and different and there is inherent conflict in tile
Department and we want a separate Department.
Can von see the sort of disintegration of any possible, realistic
adm~n~stration of the muit~pie use concept if at leas~ one extension of
our reasoning is taken to its logical conclusion?
Mr. ALDERSOX. I see what von mean.
To answer both your point and Mr. Steigers. we see the energy
extraction functions as being basically different iii nature. and the
management of energy uesoiirces as being basically different from
the management of the renewable resources. because in the case of
gaazmg and in the case of timber and the ease of watershed. wild-
life values and recreation. we are talking about managing a resource
PAGENO="0077"
73
for a sustained yield over a long period of time. You are managing
it so that in any use that you allow, it will be restored over the com-
ing years or over tile coming season. You are a'so dealing with a
natural biological ecosystem. On the other hand, when you take
energy out once, then it is gone. The best you can do is put the land
back into shape after that has been clone.
rfhe reason for our advocating a division of these basic functions
is so that you are able to retain an advocacy for the health of tile
ecosystem-tue grazing ecosystem and all of the other values that
come from that ecosystem. We would like to see an agency that is
basically charged with these renewable resources so that when the
proposal is made that the land out there be leased for coal, this
agency has a director who does not have energy responsibilities. His
responsibility is for the renewable resources, so he says, `EWe recoin-
mend that you do not lease from these part~euiar areas, and we ice-
ommend that these are more a~ceptable." i-Ic is coming from the
expertise of his agency and the responsibility of his agency to ad-
vise the Government on the renewable resources fimctioiis.
Of course, the energy people carry a great deal of weight. But
that way, they are carrying out their program under their man-
dates, and you also have a renewable resource agency that is going
to carry out its mandate to retain the health of the land and tile
long-term productivity of that hind. That is the basic division. What
15 tile alternative?
rihe Wfl~ the Bureau of Land Management is now~-
Mr. STEIGEn. I am going to have to interrupt you. Mr. Alderson.
J am 5orry. We do have other w~tnesses; we are out of time. I would
like to take note of the compethreness about your effort. I am oing
to point out-or attempt to clriye tile final nail in the coffin of your
statement. You described the benefits to be derived from, if you will,
difierentiat~ng advocacies. And yet, on page 7 of your statement, item
2. one of tile evidences that you offer to the new rapaciolls bent of
the Bureau of Land Management when Secretary Morton transferred
three areas to tile sole aciministiatlve responsibility of BLi~I. What
von failed to mention was that prior to this transfer, there was a
joint administration of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife, not only of these
three mentioned, but a fourth in Arizona.
The decision was made to transfer that area entirely to the Fish
and Wildlife, and these others to BLM. Now that offends you, yet
it is entirely in keeping with the broad overview of what you say
ought to he the approach vis-a-vis energy. The Secretary made a
judgment that approximating dual management was not in the best
interests of efficiency or the operation itself. You object to it; I
presume that you object to it because you need a cause-even as ob-
scure as this cause is; this will do something to rally the troops
around.
I only hope in the pursuit of a most excellent goal that you do no~
continue to delude the membership and prod them into whatever
action you feel is appropriate. But rather, stay with the rather l)asic
principle of the Wilderness Society as they originally intended. As
I understand it, that was in the passage of the Wilderness Act to
sustain-to be sure the act itself is properly administered. And now
PAGENO="0078"
74
those opportunities that exist for lands that ought to be in it~ call
those to the attention of the appropriate folks. That is probably a
very worthy and positive effort. but it is obvious, when you stray
from your own range, you are lost. And I think you do the Wilder-
ness Society a great disservice when you do that because you miti-
gate the valuable suggestions that they frequently have.
I will yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. ALDERSOX. Mr. Chairman, may I respond to the question?
Mr. STEIGER. There was no question.
Mr. MELCHER. The gentleman from Massachusetts.
Mr. TSONGAS. Thank you Mr. Chairman. I am just going to ask an
informational question if I can.
Although I consider myself a strong conservationist, I have never
set foot on grazing land-probably would not know it if I did. On
page 2 you refer to range condition and range trend. My question-
being not familiar with the area-what point in the breakdown be-
tween excellent, good. fair. poor. and bad-what is one future point
of deterioration-which of the five categories is the point of de-
terioration?
Mr. ALDERSOX. The deterioration would be a change over time. So
if you were asking what land is deteriorating, you would look at
tiie range trend data. you would see 16 percent of the land is what
they call declining in trend. So that is land that is currently cle-
teriorating according to the samplings done by the BLM personnel.
The range condition is a static measurement. It tells you what
relative condition class the land is in at the time. I do not have with
me the descriptions of the criteria they use to distinguish between
those categories, but I believe they would he in BLM's report to the
Senate Appropriations Committee. which should be available to
members of the subcommittee.
Mr. TsoxGAs. One experience that I had in regards to Walden Pond
in Massachusetts-a statement that was made at the time was that
the land had deteriorated to such a point, that unless something was
done. in essence it would become useless. I think that was a reason-
able kind of classification. So the statement, for example, that land
is poor has absolutely no meaning to me whatsoever. Or it is bad-
does not mean that no matter what von do to the land, it will always
be bad?
That particular land, if properly managed, can probably become
fair 10 ears from now. and so forth. So the categorization, I think,
perhaps there is a purpose. but. with someone who is not familiar
with the area. it has no purpose whatsoever.
A final question. if I may. You say that. 19 percent of the land
is imProving; 16 percent of the land is declining. What factors cause
land to improve, and to decline, beyond that which is obvious? Is
this improvement because of something the Federal Government is
doing. aomething the Federal Government is not dlomg, or what?
Mr. ALDERSOX. It can be a variety of factors. The things that the
range management profession aims to do is improve the land. For
one thing. you could adjust. the grazing of the landi to the capacity
it can stand year after year. Of course, the number of cattle or sheep
PAGENO="0079"
75
you allow on it, the time of year you allow them on it, how long you
allow it, the range improvements that have been talked about earlier
can result in improvement. You can do things with rest rotation
grazing systems that distribute cattle use and give the land a time to
rest at seed time or other appropriate time; the placement of water
in places to get the cattle distributed better around the range in un-
used areas; the distribution of salt; the drifting of the cattle-to
have an employee go out there and drift them away from the water
where they always congregate.
There are many, many techniques that can be used to improve it.
Mr. TSONGAS. Who is imposing the techniques? Private enterprise?
The government? At which level,, government?
Mr. ALDERSON. Since it is public land, it is the responsibility of
Bureau of Land Management to make sure that these things are done
But some of them, such as the salt placement and the drifting of the
cattle out, would be done by the permitee.
In other cases, such as range improvements, they can be done by
the government. But many are done under a cooperative program
where the costs are shared between the Federal Government and the
permittee.
Mr. TSONGAS. Thank you.
Mr. STEIGER. I just cannot let :the record stand. I think the gentle-
man asked some excellent questions. rfhe witness's response of dc-
terioration is the result of many factors is a fair reS]?Onse. The
gentleman's specific question about who is responsible, the Federal
Government or private enterprise, is really at the heart of our effort
here. Everybody, with the apparent exception of the Wilderness
Society, agrees that the improvements are the result of absolute co-
operation between the two segnients that you mentioned. And even
with that cooperation, some areas-as you anticipate-the range will
continue to be bad, or poor, or whatever.
But what is absolutely essential is the combination of the steward-
ship of the Government and the practical on-site management by
private enterprise. That is why it is a delicate relationship, and I do
not think anybody can say absent one that one or the other is dc-
ficient. That is one rea.son why the particular area is deficient.
Clearly without the equal input of both-
Mr. ALDERSON. We do not disagree with that. My statement was
that the Bureau of Land Management is the agency charged with the
basic responsibility to make sure it is done.
Mr. Chairman, I really request an opportunity-
Mr. MELCI:TER. Does the centlernan from Massachusetts have any
more questions?
Mr. TSONGAS. No.
Mr. MELCHER. I have some questions.
rFhe point that you speak of on page 7, item 2-would you consider
the Secretary's decision to change the land with C. M. Busseil Game
Range and others from the jurisdiction of the Fish and Wildlife
Service to the BLM-woulcl you consider that to be a withdrawal?
Mr. ALDERSON. I do not consider it a withdrawal by itself, no.
Mr. Chairman, Mr. Steiger misrepresented the views-
PAGENO="0080"
I0
Mr. MELCI-TER. Do von see any relevancy between that decision on
the part of the Secretary. and what the subcoimnittee was trying to
address itself to in section 204 of the committee print when we said
that withdrawals or changes in the attern of land management over
o.000 acres would be sublect. to congressional review ? You do not see
aiiv relevancy between the. two actions and what we. are trying to
address ourselves to in section 204?
Mr. ALDERSOX. I do not believe, that the Secretary's acfion on the
game ranges qualifles under that 1OviSlO1i as a withdravval. It is
certainly relevtmt.
Mr. Mri~ci-iun. I thjnk we are go~ng to have some piol.)lems then in
communication, because that is specifically what we were talking
about. and that is specifically what. I described to you and many others
representmg the. environmental groups when we met on at. least two
occasions last summer. And I was assured by your organization and
other environmental groups that. you had no fear of this and had no
iohiein with it.
Now we would be interested, when we get into subsequent hearings,
what our orgaiiization which had protested about this decision made
by the Secretary-what your organization will reconunend in the bill.
But I can assure. von that. that is exactly what the subcommittee was
addressing itself to in this section-the very point, that you are now
obiecting to.
When the Secretary makes a. decisionS we say it should be the
responsibility of Congress. The. Committee is at leas.t going to agree
that that is the. responsibifity of the Congress. We are oing to have
changes of the land management policy on publi.c lands. We think
they should be directed by Congress cud reviewed by Congress, awl
the decision not made by the executive branch alone.
I know you wanted to say something in response to the gentleman
on my rieht.
~ ALDERSOX. Thank you.
I wanted to clarify our position on that. We also do not. favor the
dual administration of those wildlife ranges. but our solution is
different than Mr. Steiger's. Our proposal is to assign those to the
Fish and Wildlife Service instead of BLM.
Mr. MELCI~ER. I think our solution in the subcommittees was that
we think we ought to ha.ve congressional direction on broad, sweeping
land mana ~e.ment decisions.
\T\Teli thaiik you very much. We will be looking forward to further
testimony fromn you when we take up the hearings on all aspects later
on. Hopefully, early in April.
Mr. ALDERSOX. Thank you.
Mr. MEECHER. Our next audi last witness this niorning~ since Mr.
Garrett ca.mrnot be here, is Karl La.ndstrom. Without objection, the
statements of Mr. Spencer Smnith. representing the Citizens Commit-
tee on Natural Resources, and Mr. Charles Clusen, representing the
Sierra Club, will be made a part of the recordi at this point..
Hearing no objection, so orde.red.
[The prepared statements of Mr. Spencer Smith and Mr. Charles
Clusen follow:]
PAGENO="0081"
77
STATEMENT BY DR. SPENCER M. SMITH, JR., CITIZENS COMMITTEE ON
NATURAL RESOURCES, WASHINGTON, D.C.
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee: I am Spencer M. Smith, Jr.,
Secretary, Citizens Committee on Natural Resources, a national conservation
organization with offices in Washington, D.C.
The present grazing fee system was established by the 1966 Western
Wide Livestock Grazing Survey to be effective in 1969. This survey used a
ten increment schedule to adjust the actual 1966 fee to the 1966 fair market
value. The specific fee adjustments resulted in a fee of $1.23 per AUM, a
raise of 72 cents (.072 per increment), for all National Forest Lands and
90 cents (.09 per increment) for all BLM lands.
Each year an adjustment will be made based on the index of Private
Grazing Land Lease rates for 11 Western States. By 1980 a fee for sheep
and cattle will be the same for both National Forest Lands and BLM lands.
The system was implemented as scheduled in each year, starting in 1969 and
concluding in 1974 with the exception of 1970, which found a moratorium
placed on any increases and in 1972, which found an increase of 30% above
the 1971 schedule.
Both the consideration of the Public Lands Act and the recommendation
by Secretaries Morton and Butz to reduce the grazing fees for the next season
has focused attention again upon the means and equity of such fees.
Our own attitude is that no reduction of such fees is in order. The difficulty
of grazers is real and in all probability should be seriously considered but in
another context. A subsidy to the grazers by reducing fees creates more
inequities than it corrects. It benefits only a few and then by reason of
location not on the basis of need. Additionally the benefits can be extended
to only a small percentage of grazers. Some have contended that the reduced
fees in reality would constitute a regressive tax.
Actually the parameters are more extensive than just the above. Any fee
must be fair to the public not only because a fair return to the property
owner (the public) is in order, but to maintain the public lands to a standard
required for long term use. Additionally, the permittee should not be placed
in a competitive advantage with non permittees.
A summation of equity in this matter perhaps was most succinctly put by a
Forest Service release: "Fair market value is a measure of equity between
permittees and the public and between permittees and those ranchers who
use private grazing land."
STATEMENT OF CHARLES M. CLIJSEN, A WASHINGTON REPRESENTATIVE
OF THE SIERRA CLUB
The Sierra Club and other conservation groups have pointed to the critical
condition of the public lands due to improper use and overgrazing for many
years as one of the most crucial public land management problems. At times
some people have not believed the problem to exist. However, the Bureau of
Senate Committee on Appropriations and the report entitled "Effects of Live-
stock Grazing on Wildlife, Watershed, Recreation and Other Resource Values
Land Management has in the past few months prepared and released two
reports which document this problem. While the declining condition of these
lands was cited in the Public Land Statistics as far back as 1955, the "Range
Condition Report" prepared by the Bureau of Land Management for the
in Nevada have both documented the problem and brought great public atten-
tion to it. The "Range Condition Report" indicates that only 28 million
acres or 17 per cent of the public grazing lands are in satisfactory or better
condition. Some 135 million acres, or 83 per cent, are in some unsatisfactory
category. In fact, 54 million acres, or 33 per cent, are in poor or bad condition-
an area roughly the size of the entire state of Utah. Further analysis shows
that 16 per cent of range conditions are declining with only 19 per cent im-
proving. While the general rangeland condition reached its most critical level
at about the time of the passage of the Taylor Grazing Act in the 1930's,
subsequent management has only slowed the rate of decline and has only
reversed it on the 16 per cent, or 25 million acres. According to the "Range
Condition Report," the rangeland will continue to deteriorate-"projections
54-005 0 - 75 -
PAGENO="0082"
78
indicate that in 25 years productive capability could decrease by as much
as 25 per cent . . . losses will be suffered in terms of erosion, water quality
deterioration, downstream flooding, loss of wildlife and recreation values, and
decline in basic productive capability."
Of tremendous concern to some people in the western states is "the possible
loss of livestock grazing privileges resulting in local economic disruption" as
a result of this land deterioration.
The report further states, "Stabilization of the basic soil mantle from
which all renewable resources are permeated is of primary importance in man-
agement of surface use of the public lands. At present only slightly more
than half of the public lands is in satisfactory erosion condition." The report
goes on to say that the remainder, over 60 million acres, is in an "unacceptable
condition because of depleted vegetation and excessive runoff." It is estimated
that another 11 or 12 million acres will deteriorate to an unacceptable con-
dition within 25 years.
One of the findings of the Nevada report states, "Full consideration was
not given to wildlife in the subsequent development of range management
plans and facilities." Another finding found that of 883 miles of streambank
riparian habitat identified "livestock grazing is having an adverse effect."
Furthermore, another finding states, "Protection and enhancement of wildlife,
aesthetic, recreation and cultural values have not had sufficient emphasis in
the past during range improvement construction." The discussion of this
finding starts by saying, "Range improvement projects, such as fencing, water
development, vegetative manipulation projects and roads, have had an adverse
effect on wildlife, aesthetic, recreation and cultural values." When Director
Berklund issued the first printing of the report, he stated that similar problems
existed in other states as well.
Between 1968 and 1973 increases in the amount of unsatisfactory habitat
occurred as follows:
Percentage of
unsatisfactory
habitat
1968
1973
Big game
Small game
38
21
47
38
Waterfowl
14
37
Streams
30
41
Clearly poor grazing management has been especially severe on wildlife as
these statistics show. There has been a very rapid decline in wildlife habitat.
These statistics come from a paper entitled "The BLM's Wildlife Program
Missions, Challenges, and Funding Levels."
This very poor situation exists in spite of the fact that BLM lands have,
potentially, extremely significant wildlife values. Thirty-three endangered
species are found on BLM lands. But less than one cent per acre is spent
by BLM on all wildlife-the average area each BLM professional biologist
must cover in seven million acres.
Because of these deplorable conditions we commend the Public Lands
Subcommittee for examining this area. While the Sierra Club strongly sup-
ports the use of appropriate public lands for livestock grazing, it must be
done as part of a well-balanced multiple use program under the principles of
sustained yield and conservation. It is absolutely vital to improve the man-
agement of these lands-environmental quality and local economies are at
stake. All uses of these lands in the long run are dependent on the health
of the land.
I now would like to address the provisions of the grazing section of Sub-
committee Print #1. The Sierra Club has no objection to the enactment of
a stautory grazing fee formula, if resulting fees are comparable or greater
than fees paid for the grazing of equivalent private rangeland. We do not
believe that the federal government should be subsidizing those who happen
to have federal grazing privileges. The fee formula in Subcommittee Print
#1 likely will fluctuate widely with the rather varying price of beef. We
oppose the inclusion of the beef price index in the fee formula.
PAGENO="0083"
79
We very strongly object to the mandatory issuance of 10-year permits and
their automatic renewal. The program the BLM is embarked with of granting
longer permits where the Allotment Management Plan is instituted we believe
to be a good system. To do it before lands are changed over to the AMP
program in any case will likely result in great confusion. Furthermore, the
granting of a longer permit is an additional special privilege that now serves
a critical role of being an incentive to livestock operators to cooperate with
proper land management programs.
The automatic renewal of permits is in effect granting a 20-year permit
and is untenable. This is granting a "right" to livestock operators which
no other user of the public lands has. These are public lands, and no
proprietary right should be granted to any private interest. We vigorously
oppose this provision.
We also oppose the section on Grazing District Advisory Boards, Section
212, which exempts the district advisory boards from Section 14 of the
Federal Advisory Committee Act. This provision would insure that these
boards continue to be pressure lobbies for solely the livestock industry's
concerns. We feel BLM has recently made significant progress in reforming
these boards by better balancing the various public interests. If district
boards are to continue to exist, they must reflect a balance of all the interests
in the public lands from the local, regional, and national level.
We appreciate this opportunity to present our views.
Mr. MELOHER. We are glad tO have you before the subcommittee
again.
Mr. LANDSTROM. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
If you have no objection, I would appreciate that the whole state-
ment would be put in the record and I will cite several points.
Mr. MELCHER. Without objection, Mr. Landstrom's entire state-
ment will be part of the record at this point.
Without objection, so ordered.
Please proceed.
[The prepared statement of Karl S. Landstrom follows:]
STATEMENT OF KARL S. LANDSTROM OF ARLINGTON, VA.
In accordance with the Subcommittee's announcement, my statement at
this time will be confined mainly to the grazing resources aspects of the
pending legislation. At a later time 1 shall ask permission to testify on other
aspects, including the matter of the proposed "recordable disclaimers of
interest in land". This subject is vital to the interests of a group of my clients
whom I represented as legislative counsel before this Subcommittee last year
when this legislation was being considered.
The fact that the legislation would leave much of the "Taylor Grazing Act"
intact undoubtedly should be attributed to the wisdom of the author of that
Act and his colleagues who were instrumental in enacting it into law. This
phenomenon arises largely from the~ fact that the Act is not merely a "Grazing
Act" but also a conservation Act. The Act included provisions which have
operated reasonably well for certain non-grazing matters such as (1) protec-
tion of the basic land resources from deterioration; (2) withdrawal of district
lands from the operation of the land disposal laws; (3) inventory and classi-
fication of the lands; (4) land sales and exchanges; and (5) continuation
of public hunting and fishing.
The new legislation would declare new policies and principles for the BLM-
administered lands. (Incidentally it is not clear whether the "O&C" and Coos
Bay Wagon Road lands in Oregon would be included). However its repeal
sections fail, I believe, to repeal all of the existing policy declarations that
would be superseded. Among those existing statements is the "preamble" to
the Taylor Act (the first few words of Sec. 1 of the Act). These words ("in
order to promote the highest use of the public lands pending its final dis-
posal") have caused untold controversy. My recommendation is that they
be expressly repealed in the pending bill.
PAGENO="0084"
80
The pending legislation, wisely in my judgment, relies upon the standard
concept of "multiple use management" as the keystone in its structure for
public land administration. Grazing use is recognized, as it should be, as
one of many purposes for which the system as a whole, or any planning unit
therein, may be managed.
(I note in passing that in Committee Print No. 1, the definition of "multiple
use"-which should read "multiple use management"-makes reference to "min-
eral resources of the National Forest System". This seems to be in error,
inasmuch as the Print's definition of public lands to which the legislation will
generally apply omits any coverage of any national forest lands).
May I now turn to the specific sections of the legislation which would apply
to grazing.
The grazing fees section would arbitrarily set the so-called "fair market
value" of grazing use on the far-flung and extremely varied BLM range lands
at a price, not less than $2 per animal unit month, to be fixed according to a
price-index adjustment upon a base consisting of the 1966 valuation estab-
lished in the Interior-Agriculture grazing fee study. I say that any such legis-
lation would amount to a prostitution of the term "fair market value." I say
this for two main reasons.
The first reason is that "fair market value"-at least in the professional
sense in the appraisal profession-means a value fixed professionally, based
on consideration of the most recent actual market transactions which are
representative of the value being appraised. The 1966 survey is too far out-
of-date to satisfy this criterion and its obsolete character cannot be compen-
sated for by the proposed system of adjustment.
The second reason is that "fair market value" does or should refer to valua-
tions which take regional, district, local or individual differences of value into
account. No single grazing fee, established in Washington, D.C. for nationwide
application can possibly meet this very essential criterion.
My advice is to amend the grazing fees sections so as to require that the
charges to be collected shall be set professionally by qualified appraisers at
periodic intervals, based on market evidence of value under grazing situa-
tions which are similar to those for which the appraisals are being made.
I have long believed that, at least for some situations, BLM should be author-
ized and directed to enter into long-term grazing contracts and that the
level of the grazing fees should be subject to negotiation, after appraisal,
along with the other elements in the negotiation of the grazing contract. Only
in this way can the grazing management system be adapted to fit the vastly
differing circumstances which are found upon the lands, rather than attempting
to adapt the actual situations on the land to some preconceived and arbitrary
formula enunciated in Washington.
The grazing fee section also would earmark 50 pct. of the grazing receipts
to be spent for range rehabilitation, protection and improvement. I believe
that the exsiting arrangement under which a portion of the grazing receipts
is treated as a "use fee" and another portion is treated as a "range improve-
ment fee" is derived from a faulty concept of governmental finance. The basic
idea seems to have been that by earmarking some of the receipts, such receipts
can be guaranteed to be used for the designated purposes as an extension or
enlargement of the base rate at which such purpose theretofore had been or
otherwise would be financed. My. experience and observation is, that all too
often the earmarked funds have amounted to a ceiling on the over-all rate of
spending for the particular purpose. All to often the purpose supposedly favored
wi,th the earmarked funds ends up with less over-all funds than would other-
wise be the case. At least the existence of earmarked funds complicates the
accounting for funds, and, much more importantly, the management and budget-
ing processes.
I would rather see all grazing receipts go into the general Treasury funds
and rely upon the modernized budgeting processes in which the Congress will
now play a larger and perhaps predominant part.
One of the grazing sections of the Print provides limits on the duration of
grazing permits and leases. These proposed limits, as in the case of the fees,
would apply to national forest lands as well as BLM lands. The language
wisely requires that any permit or lease incorporate an allotment management
plan if one is available. It is also wise that the agencies are to be authorized
to cancel, suspend or modify a grazing permit or lease for cause.
PAGENO="0085"
81
In respect to the course of events that will be followed in case the grazing
use must be terminated in order to accommodate some other use, including
title disposal, the language of the Print seems to be unclear. Specifically, it
is not clear-at least not to me-whether the compensation to be paid to the
permittee is to be limited to the market value of his loss of interest in author-
ized permanent improvements which he has constructed, or whether it shall
also include the market value of the lOss of the grazing use. If it is to include
only the former-loss of improvements-then I heartily endorse the proposal,
as I have similar proposals going back at least to 1961. (As the Subcommittee
knows, a provision requiring a new permittee to reimburse the former per-
mittee for improvements, in case of a sale of base property, has been in the
Taylor Act right along; and the Department, by regulation, has extended
this same principle to cases where usable grazing improvements pass to the
title of homesteaders or others who acquire title to public lands).
If it is the intention of the Print to allow payments for loss of grazing
use, I oppose such intention. The main reason for my opposition is that under
the law and the regulations the grazing use has been subject to termination
"for a higher use" at all times-and this fact has been acknowledged repeatedly
by leaders of the grazing industry. Any expectation that the contrary was
the case, or that the Government would or should reimburse the user in
case of such termination, was and is, in my judgment, mainly wishful think-
ing which is not justified in the circumstances. Consequently I believe that
the use of Federal funds for this purpose is not warranted.
The better solution to this problem of termination, as well as to the grazing
fee question, is as I have indicated above-that is, to authorize and direct
the Departments, wherever feasible, tO enter into long-term negotiated grazing
contracts which are binding upon the Government as well as upon the grazing
user. Under such a contract, the terms would provide for payment of dam-
ages by the Government in case of premature termination, without cause. To
be sure, such a system of contracts might not fit all of the highly varied
grazing situations. But I believe it would fit at least some of them, and I
believe the time is long since come to give it a trial.
Turning finally to the advisory board question, I have a great deal of
respect for the Taylor Act style of district board. It has been successful and
it has historical importance. However it was based on the limited concept of
the grazing use of the public lands-not on the more modern or current
concept of multiple use management. I am convinced that the basic advisory
organizational unit at each level-district, State, regional or national-must
be representative of all important land uses. There can be no objection of
which I am aware to setting up subgroups within the basic boards, such as
for grazing; and I offer this idea as a way to proceed in the Committee Print.
Before closing, I have a few remarks regarding the current controversy as
to the proper bureau-level administration of several of the game ranges-the
Kofa Game Range, the Charles Sheldon Antelope Range, and the Charles M.
Russell National Wildlife Range. I have visited the Russell area, and I have
some background of personal experience concerning its management.
I recall that a campaign was under way about 1962 to transfer the grazing
management of the Russell Range from BLM to the Bureau of Sport Fisheries
and Wildlife. Some vicious and unfounded charges were made against some
of the BLM offices and personnel in Montana. I was personally attacked by
some of the Wildlife Service personnel and their supporters when I pointed
out the falsity of some of the charges.
Secretary Morton and his staff have made a good case for consolidation and
simplification of administration without essential change in legal status or
policy of management. About the only substantive argument that has been
made on the other side is that BLM might not protect the wildlife resources
because its people have not been "particularly noted for zealously conserving
and protecting wildlife." I would say this ad-hominen type of argument is
inapplicable now as it was in 1962. The BLM management people by and
large come from educational backgrounds similar to those of the FWS people.
Many of them belong to the same professional organizations. I know of no
valid reason they cannot carry out the laws, regulations and policies effec-
tively and faithfully.
PAGENO="0086"
82
Demand has been made that the reorganization be withheld pending the
issuance of an environmental impact statement. This seem far-fetched inasmuch
as the impact on the environment should be nil. But we know that the
environmental impact requirement of NEPA is being generally perverted.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for considering my statement.
STATEMENT OP KARL S. LA~~DSTROM
Mr. LANDSTROM. I have seven points here, and I will list them and
say a few words. The statement speaks for itself on it.
The first really is that I would like to see several words in the
Taylor Grazing Act repealed. That is the so-called preamble to the
act. I do not think your bill does that. As I say, those 15 words have
caused untoward controversy. They would be totally superceded by
the policy declarations you are making. I think that you ought to,
therefore, do that.. There should be a search of other like obsolete
policy statement in other statutes. So to make sure that we do not
have a conflict in a statutory statement of policy.
I made a study along those lines on the subject of mineral resources
a couple of years ago for the Mineral Policy Commission and found
repeatedly that there had been new declarations piled on the top of
old ones without the efforts to repeal the old ones, and I draw that to
your attention.
The second is I think it is very wise to rely upon the standard con-
cept of multiple-use management. I have to differ with my friend,
George Alderson. I think that concept should and does include all
resources, both mineral and nonmineraL and it is proper that they be
integrated.
The third point on grazing fees, I think that it would be wrong to
use the term "fair market value" as the committee print in last year's
bill does, and perverted, or. shall I say. abused it in making it into an
arbitrary finding by the Congress. as I say, or by the administrator
on a uniform basis across the country. I just do not think that that
can be so. I think a fair market value must be individually appraised
by a professional appraiser to take into account all the differences. I
realize that is a pret.ty large order.
I just feel that. you cannot have a single rule for all the conditions
in West and have it be fair and reputable.
The third point is on the allocation of the grazing receipts. On
page 3 in my statement about halfway clown. I think that it would
be better not to earmark any of these receipts for any particular pur-
pose. I think this is something sort of fundamental with me, that the
Government, generally, should not form a~ practice of earmarking any
of its receipts. I think that it would be much better, from a budgetary
and financial management viewpoint, to have the receipts come into
the Treasury. I see that the Congress is now making more control of
the budgeting and financial side. and one of the benefits-
Mr. STEIGER. Excuse inc. I do not. mean to interrupt.
What was the first evidence of that?
Mr. LAXD5TR0M. It is in the future. It is in process. It is supposed
to work that way. and if it does work that way, one of the benefits
should be that we can do away with the notion of earmarking receipts
for certain purposes which prevents the operation of Congress in
managing the financial affairs of the Government.
PAGENO="0087"
83
My experience is, when you eai~mark funds for something, you do
not really help it get above its preexisting base, or the base that would
otherwise be established. What yOu would do is put a ceiling on the
amount that is available, and yOu prevent the allocation of other
funds that should be made available because they will point to this
ceiling that you have already established. This was certainly true of
the grazing improvement fund.
The fourth point has to do with tenure. The bill is not too clear to
me; I do not know whether the compensation would be only for the
loss of the rancher's contribution to range improvements at its fair
value, or whether it would go ahead and give compensation for the
loss of the use privilege. As far as compensation for improvements, I
am all for that and have been for years.
When I was director of BLM in 1961-1963, we sponsored a pro-
posal to do exactly that, which was not passed by the Congress. Now,
it comes to compensation for loss of use; I am opposed to that be-
cause I do not think there is any~ basis of that, inasmuch as the laws,
alone, have provided that there can be a termination of the privilege
at any time for so-called high use and the leaders in the grazing
industry have always recognized this.
It would be kind of wishful thinking to expect expectations of a
war emergency or some drastic change of that type, totally unfore-
seen, to give such compensation.
So the solution I suggest perhaps goes even beyond Congressman
Steiger's idea of the 10-year permit. I have preferred for many
years-and I have said so when 1 used to be Bureau Director-a firm
grazing contract. I am saying along the lines, much like a mineral
lease, or any other kind of cdmmercial use you can think of, of
Federal property where we have a firm contract, which has a
definite period of use. I think 20 or 30 years, not 10; because I think
you caimot properly manage a ranch on even a 10-year schedule. It
must be longer than that to provide adequate management responsi-
bility, and if there is a premature cancellation of a contract, of
course, you should be compensated for the amount that is owed, and
the fee, I suggest, should be negotiated as part of the long-term
contract.
Turning now to the advisory:: board's question, I offer kind of a
compromise here, which is that you have basically a multiple-use
advisory board at each level, but that you allow subgroups or sub-
committees, so to speak, one of those may specialize on grazing. That
might be a way to get around the dilemma that is facing you.
Now, the last page of my statement does deal with this change of
administration of these various game rangers that has been alluded
to already this morning. Again, I differ with my good friend, George
Alderson, completely. I had some personal experience with this sort
of thing, because I was victimized when I was Director of the Bureau
in 1962, and I was personally attacked along with BLM personnel
and some of subordinates in Montana who were managing grazing
lands at that time on what I style an ad-hominen basis, and I suspect
that there is a renewal of that same kind of argument, based upon
some notion that people in one bureau, although they come from the
same backgrounds, have had the same college training, belong to the
PAGENO="0088"
84
same professional societies. you could not tell them apart, really, like
peas in a pod, but somehow, because they are in BLM, they are in-
competent. I just reject that.
Furthermore, both bureaus are under the same Secretary, the same
Secretariat, and I think are capable, either one of them, of perform-
ing the functions. So, I, therefore, support the proposal by Secretary
Morton to consolidate and simplify the administration.
Thank you very much.
Mr. MELCIIER. I respect your long years of experience in matters of
government, particularly with the BLM. I am a little bit amazed to
hear you say that as far as getting money for a specific purpose, you
would rather rely on the ordinary budgeting process to provide that
for you. My experience is very much contrary to that if it is for a
purpose that is to benefit a geographic area without very many votes,
and if it is for a purpose that is not readily understood by very many
people, and, frankly, only a handful, a couple of handsful of people
from the House of Representatives.
I wonder why you would think, under the restraints that we have
on finding appropriations, why you would feel confident that there
would be appropriations for range improvements outside of the
earmarking process?
Mr. LANDSTROM. I suppose it comes from my own experience te~ti-
fying before the Appropriations Committees. There were times where
it was pointed out to me that if we had the range improvement fund,
that is all we were going to get., and we needed several more thou-
sands, and it took representatives from Western States from both
Houses to break that ice jam in 1968 and supersede it. Now, that you
are going to have 50 percent or some such percentage of a much
larger fund, you may raise it.. I do not lmow the financial numbers.
If you do, then, perhaps, you have it made. But perhaps my makeup
is niore fundamental t.han that. But I just do not believe in earmark-
ing funds, generally.
Mr. MELCHER. Having lived in a sparsely populated county. and in
a large State a.nd serving in the legislature. I long ago learned
through my experience, that unless you put something down for your
area, you did not get it in the House. That is still true in the Con-
gress; if you want anything in this Nation, I do not think you will
find it in the appropriations process, at least to the extent that we
need it.
I do want to point out tha.t it is the int.ention, that the bill is
drafted that all the range improvements funds will be used for
actual range improvements not for salaries, not for overhead, ex-
penses, et cetera.
The gentleman from Oregon.
Mr. WEAVER. Yes, Mr. Landstrom, I would just like to point out,
regarding your testimony. that the lands of Oregon are extricated
from these provisions.
No further questions.
Mr. MELCHER. The gentlema.n from Arizona.
Mr. STEIGER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just one question.
I agree that the compensation for the unused portion of the lease is
new ground, and I will stipulate to that. I note, on the other hand,
PAGENO="0089"
85
personally, that you are not opposed to new ground, per Se. The
rationale is not belief; it has somç very real, I think, rationale for it;
that is, in order to encourage the greatest financial involvement in
range improvement and to make the stewardship fiscally feasible
that this particular provision is a valuable one. As a practical matter,
as you realize, it will only be invoked when the cancellation is for
some unforeseen event. It will not be invoked if the cancellation is in
violation of the permit.
So, as a practical matter, it is not going to be invoked very often,
but it will give, of course, a whole spectrum of permits. It will en-
courage investment that might not be encouraged otherwise. So, in
effect, it will do no harm and could do a great deal of good. At least,
that is the thinking of the committee.
Mr. LANDSTROM. As I say, I will go along with it fully with the
compensation for investment in range improvement.
Mr. STEIGER. I understand.
Mr. LANDSTROM. Because of certain reasons.
Mr. STEIGER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. MELCHER. The gentleman from Nevada.
Mr. SANTINI. No questions.
I would like to commend the gentleman for his keen interest and
involvement in this subject of vital concern to all of us on the com-
mittee, and many pass from the administration into oblivion. You
obviously are using your considerable talents in this area, and I
appreciate it.
Mr. MELOHER. Anything but Oblivion. You are very much in evi-
dence, and we very much appreciate your testifying before us this
morning. We look forward to hearing again from you when we take
up other aspects.
Mr. LANDSTROM. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. MELGHER. The subcommittee will adjourn until 10 a.m.
tomorrow.
[Whereupon, at 12:15 p.m., the subcommittee recessed to reconvene
at 10 a.m., March 25, 1975.]
PAGENO="0090"
PAGENO="0091"
PUBLIC LAND POLICY AND MANAGEMENT ACT OF 1975
TUESDAY, MARCH 25, 1975
Ho1JsE~ OF REPRESENTATIVES,
SUBCOMMITTEE ON PUBLIC LANDS OF THE
COMMITTEE ON INTERIOR AND INSULAR AFFAIRS,
Washington, D.C.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice at 10 a.m. in room 340,
Cannon House Office Building, Hon. John Melcher presiding.
Present: Representative Meicher (presiding), Johnson, Santini,
Udall, and Young.
Also present: James Rock and Irving Senzel.
Mr. MELCHER. The subcommittee will come to order. We are going
to continue our public hearings on the Land Management Act.
We now have before us H.R. 5224 introduced by our colleague on
the full committee, Mr. Ruppe, which I understand is the adminis-
tration bill Mr. Ruppe introduce by request. Of course, we are also
working off of subcommittee print No. 1.
Might I ask, are there more copies of subcommittee print No. 1 ~
Mr. JOHNSON. I think there are about 50. We ordered some more
but they are not back yet.
Mr. MELCHER. There are 50 available and there will be more com-
ing?
Mr. JOHNSON. That is right.
[H.R. 5224 and subcommittee print No. 1, follow:]
(87)
PAGENO="0092"
88
94TH CONGRESS
1ST SEssioN :i-i. R. 5224
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
MARCH 19, 1975
Mr. RUPPE (by request) introduced the following bill; which was referred
to the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs
A BILL
To provide for the management, protection, and development
of the national resource lands, and for other purposes.
1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa-
2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled.
3 That this Act may be cited a's the "National Resource Lands
~ Management Act".
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Sec. 2. Definitions.
Sec. 3. Declaration of policy.
Sec. 4. Rules and regulations.
Sec. 5. Public participation.
Sec. 6. Advisory boards nnd committees.
Sec. 7. Annual report.
Sec. 8. Director.
Sec. 9. Appropriations.
I-0
PAGENO="0093"
89
2
TITLE I-GENERAL MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY
Sec. 101. Management.
Sec. 102. Inventory.
Sec. 103. Land use plans.
TITLE IT-CONVEYANCE AND ACQUISITION
AUTHORITIES
Sec. 201. Authority to sell.
Sec. 202. Disposal criteria.
Sec. 203. Sales at fair market value.
Sec. 204. Size of tracts.
Sec. 205. Competitive bidding procedures.
Sec. 200. Right to refuse or reject offer of purchase.
Sec. 207. Reservation of mineral interests.
Sec. 208. Conveyance of reserved mineral interests.
Sec. 209. Terms of patent.
Sec. 210. Notification to States.:
Sec. 211. Authority to issue and ~ documents of conveyance.
Sec. 212. Recordable disclaimers of interest in land.
Sec. 213. Acquisition of land.
TITLE ITT-MANAGEMENT IMPLEMENTING AUTHORITY.
Sec. 301. Studies, cooperative agreements, and contributions.
Sec. 302. Service charges, reimbursement payments, and excess payments.
Sec. 303. Working capital fund.
Sec. 304. Deposits and forfeitures.
Sec. 305. Contracts and cadastral survey operations and resource pro-
tection.
Sec. 300. Unauthorized use.
Sec. 307. Enforcement authority.
Sec. 308. Cooperation with State and local law enforcement agencies.
Sec. 309. Recordation.
TITLE TV-AUTHORITY TO GRANT RTGHTS~OF-WAY
Sec. 401. Authorization to grant, rights-of-way.
Sec. 402. Right-of-way corridors.
Sec. 403. General provisions.
Sec. 404. Terms and conditions.
Sec. 405. Suspension or termination of right-of-way.
Sec. 406. Rights-of-way for Federal agencies.
Sec. 407. Conveyance of lands.
Sec. 408. Existing rights-of-way.
Sec. 409. State standards.
Sec. 410. Effect on other laws.
Sec. 411. Applicant before other Federal agencies.
TITLE V-CONSTRUCTION OF LAW, PRESERVATION OF
VALID EXISTING RIGHTS, AND REPEAL OF LAWS
Sec. 501. Construction of law.
Sec. 502. Valid existing rights.
Sec. 503. Repeal of laws relating to disposal of national resource lands.
Sec. 504. Repeal of laws relating to administration of national resource
lands.
Sec. 505. Repeal of laws relating to rights-of-way.
PAGENO="0094"
90
3
1 DEFINITIONS
2 SEc. 2. As used in this Act:
3 (a) "The Secretary" means the Secretary of the In-
4 tenor.
5 (b) "Na.tiona.l resource lands" means all lands and in-
6 terest's in lands (including the renewable and nonrenew-
7 able resources thereof) now or hereafter administered by
8 the Secretary through the Bureau of Land Management, cx-
9 cept the Outer Continental Shelf.
10 (c) "Multiple use" means the management of the
11 national resource lands and their various resource values
12 ~ that they are utilized iii the combination that will best
13 meet `the present and future needs of the American people;
14 making the most judicious use of `the land for some or all
15 of these resources or related services over areas large enough
16 to provide `sufficient latitude for periodic adjustments in use
17 to conform to changing needs and conditions; the use of
18 some land for less `than all of the resources; a combination
19 of balanced and diverse resource uses th'at takes into ac-
20 count the long-term needs of future generations for renew-
21 able and nonrenewable resources, and harmonious and co-
22 ordinated management *of the various resource without un-
23 due impairment. of the productivity of the land and the
24 quality of the environment, with consideration being given
2~ to `the relative values of the resources and mnot necessarily
PAGENO="0095"
91
4
1 to the combination of uses that will give the greatest dollar
2 return or the greatest unit output.
3 (d) "Sustained yield" means the achievement and main-
4 tenance in perpetuity of a high-level annual or regular pe-
5 riodic output of the variousrenewable resources of land with-
6 out permanent impairment of the quality and productivity of
7 the land or its environmental values.
8 (e) "Areas of critical environmental concern" means
9 areas within the national resource lands where special man-
10 agement attention is required when such areas are developed
U or used to protect, or where no development is required to
12 prevent irreparable damage to, important historic, cultural,
13 or scenic values, or natural systems or processes, or life and
14 safety as a result of natural hazards.
15 (f) "Right-of-way" means an easement, lease, permit,
16 or license to occupy, use~ or traverse national resource lands
17 granted for the purposes listed in title IV of this Act.
18 (g) "Holder" means any State or local governmental
19 entity or agency, individual, partnership, corporation, asso-
20 ciation, or other business entity receiving or using a right-of-
21 way under title IV of this Act.
22 DECLALRATION OF POLICY
23 SEC. 3. (a) Congress hereby declares that-
24 (1) the national resource lands are a vital national
25 asset containing a wide variety of natural resource
26 values;
PAGENO="0096"
92
5
1 (2) sound, long-term management of the national
2 resource lands is vital to the maintenance of a livable
3 environment and essential to the well-being of the Amer-
4 ican people;
5 (3) the national interest will be best realized if the
6 national resource lands `and their resources are periodi-
7 cally and systematically inventoried and their present
8 and future use is projected through a land use planning
9 process coordinated with other Federal, `State, and local
10 planning efforts; and
11 (4) except where disposal of particular tracts is
12 made in accorda.nce with title II, and other applicable
13 laws, the national interest will he best served by retain-
14. ing the national resource lands in Federal ownership.
15 (b) Congress hereby directs that the Secretary shall
16 manage the national resource lands under principles of mul-
17 tiple use and sustained yield in a manner which will, using
18 all practicable means and measures, assure consideration of:
19 (i) the environrnenta.l quality of such lands to assure their
20 continued value for present and future generations; (ii) such
21 uses as provision of food and habitat for wildlife, fish, and
22 domestic animals, minerals, materials, and energy produc-
23 tion, supplying the products of trees and plants, human
24 occupancy and use, and various forms of outdoor recreation,
25 or other uses; (iii) scientific, scenic, historical, archeologi-
PAGENO="0097"
93
6
1 cal, natural ecological, air and atmospheric, water resource,
2 and other public values; (iv) continuation of certain areas
3 in their natural condition, and to assure; (v) evaluating of
4 various demands on such lands in light of national goals;
5 (vi) payment of fair market value by users of such lands
6 except as otherwise frovided by law; (vii) opportunity for
7 the public to participate in decisionmakirig concerning such
8 lands; and (viii) consultation, cooperation, and, to the maxi-
9 mum extent practicable, coordination of his activities with
10 other interested Federal agencies.
11 RULES AND REGULATIONS
12 SEC. 4. The Secretary is authorized to promulgate such
13 rules and regulations as he deems necessary to carry out the
14 purposes of this Act. The promulgation of such rules and
15 regulations shall be governed by the Administrative Pro-
16 cedure Act (5 11.5.0. 553). Prior to the promulgation of
17 such rules and regulations, the national resource lands shall be
18 administered under existing rules and regulations concern-
19 ing such lands.
20 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
21 SEC. 5. In exercising his authorities under this Act, the
22 Secretary, by regulation, shall establish procedures, includ-
23 ing public hearings where appropriate, to give the Federal,
24 State, and local governn~ents and the public adequate notice
25 and an opportunity to comment upon the formulation of
54-005 0 - 75 - 7
PAGENO="0098"
94
1 standards and criteria for the preparation and execution of
2 plans and programs concerning, and in the management of,
3 the national resource lands.
4 ADVISORY BOARDS AND COMMITTEES
5 SEC. 6. In providing for public participation in planning
6 and programing for the national resource lands, the Secre-
7 ta.ry, pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act (86
8 Stat. 770) and other applicable law, may establish and
9 consult such advisory boards and committees as he deems
10 necessary to secure full information and advice on the execu-
11 tion of his responsibilities. The membership of such boards
12 and committees shall be representative of a cross section of
13 groups interested in the management of the national resource
14 lands and the various types of use and enjoyment of such
15 lands.
16 ANNIJAL REPORT
17 SEC. 7. The Secretary shall prepare an annual report
18 which he shall make available to the public and sul)mit to
19 Congress no later than one hundred and twenty days after
20 the close of each fiscal year. The report shall describe, in
21 appropriate detail, activities relating or pursuant to this Act
22 for the fiscal year just ended, any problems which may have
23 arisen concerning such activities, and other pertinent infor-
24 mation which will assist the accomplishment of the provisions
25 and purposes of this Act. The report shall contain a detailed
PAGENO="0099"
95
1 list and description of all t~ransfers of national resource lands
2 out of Federal ownership for the fiscal year just ended. It
3 shall include such tables, graphs, and illustrations as will
4 adequately reflect the fiscal year's activities, historical trends,
5 and future projections relating to the national resource lands.
6 DIRECTOR
7 SEc. 8. Appointments made on or after the date of the
8 enactment of this Act to the position of the Director of the
9 Bureau of Land Management, within the Department of the
10 Interior, shall be made by the President, by and with the
11 advice and consent of the Senate.
12 APPROPRIATIONS
13 SEC. 9. There is hereby authorized to be appropriated
14 such sums as are necessary to carry out the purposes and
15 provisions of this Act.
16 TITLE I-~GE~IERAL MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY
17 MANAGEMENT
18 SEC. 101. The Secretary shall manage the national re-
19 source lands in accordance with the policies and procedures
20 of this Act and with any land use plans which he has pre-
21 pared, pursuant to section 103 of this Act, except to the
22 extent that other applicable law provides otherwise. Such
23 management shall include-
24 (1) regulating, through permits, licenses, leases, or
25 such other instruments as the Secretary deems appro-
PAGENO="0100"
96
9
1 priate, the use, occupancy, or development of the na-
2 tional resource lands not provided for by other laws:
Provided, however, That no provision of this Act shall
be construed as authorizing the Secretary to require any
Federal permit to hunt or fish on the national resource
6 lands;
(2) requiring appropriate land reclamation as a
8 condition of use, and requiring performance bonds or
other security guaranteeing such reclamation in a timely
10 manner from any person permitted to engage in an
extractive or other activity likely to entail significant
12 disturbance to or alteration of the national resource
13 lands;
14 (3) the prompt development of regulations for the
15 protection of areas of critical environment concern.
16 INVENTORY
17 SEC. 102. (a) The Secretary shall prepare and main-
18 ta.in on a continuing basis an inventoiy of all national re-
19 source lands, and their resource and other values (including
20 outdoor recreation and scenic values) giving priority to
21 areas of critical environmental concern. Areas containing
22 wilderness characteristics as described in section 2 (c) (1),
23 (2), and (4) of the Act of September 3, 19~34 (78 Stat.
24 890) shall be identified: Provided, That such areas be com-
25 prised of fifty thousand contiguous, roadless acres or more.
H.R. 5224-2
PAGENO="0101"
~97
10
1 The inventory shall be kept current so as to reflect changes
2 in conditions and in identifications of resource and other
3 values. The preparation and maintenance of such inventory
4 or the identification of such areas shall not, of itself, change
5 or prevent change in the management or use of national
6 resource lands.
7 (b) The Secretary, where he determines it to be ap-
8 propriate, may provide (i) means of public identification
9 of national resource lands, including signs and maps, and
10 (ii) State and local governments with data from the in-
11 ventory for the purpose of planning and regulating the
12 uses of non-Federal lands in the proximity of national
13 resource lands.
14 LAND USE PLANS
15 SEC. 103. (a) The Secretary shall, with public par-
16 ticipation, develop, maintain, and, when appropriate, re-
17 vise land use plans for the national resource lands consist-
18 ent with the terms and conditions of this Act and coor-
19 dinated so far as he finds feasible and proper, or as may
20 be required by law.
21 (b) In the deveiopment and maintenance of land use
22 plans, the Secretary shall:
23 (1) use a systematic interdisciplinary approach to
24 achieve integrated consideration of physical, biological,
25 economic, and social sciences;
PAGENO="0102"
98
11
1 (2) give high priority to the designation and protec-
2 tion of areas of critical environmental concern;
3 (3) rely, to the extent it is available, on the inven-
4 tory of the national resource lands, their resources, and
5 other values;
6 (4) consider present and potential uses of the lands;
7 (5) consider the relative values involved and the
8 availability of alternative means (including recycling)
9 and sites for realization of those values.;
10 (6) weigh long-term public benefits; and
11 (7) consider the requirements of applicable pollu-
12 tion control laws including State or Federal air or water
13 quality standards, noise standards, and implementation
14 plans.
15 (c) Any classification of national resource lands in effect
16 on the date of enactment of this Act is subject to review in
17 the land use planning process and such lands are subject to
18 inclusion in land use pla.ns pursuant to this section.
19 (d) Wherever any proposed change in the classification
20 of, or permitted uses on, any na.tional resource lands would
21 affect authorization for use of such lands, persons holding
22 leases, licenses, or permits concerning the use to be affected
23 shall be given written notice by the Secretary of such pro-
24 posed change at least sixty days before it is put into effect.
PAGENO="0103"
~99
12
1 (e) Areas identified pursuant to section 102 as having
2 wilderness characteristics shall be reviewed pursuant to the
3 procedures set forth in subsections 3 (c) and (d) of the Act
4 of September 3, 1964 (78 Stat. 892-893). The review pro-
5 cedures shall include mineral resource surveys by the United
6 States Geological Survey and the Bureau of Mines: Provided,
7 however, That such review shall not, of itself either change
8 or prevent change in the management or use of the national
9 resource lands.
10 TITLE TI-CONVEYANCE AND :~cQUIsITIoN
11 AUTHORITIES
12 AUTHORITY TO SELL
13 Sno. 201. Except as otherwise provided by law, and
14 subject to the requirements of section 3 of this Act, the See-
15 retary is authorized to sell national resource lands. The
16 national resource lands may be sold if the Secretary, in
17 accordance with the guidelines he has established for sale
18 of national resource lands and a.fter preparation, pursuant
19 to section 103 of this Act, of a land use plan which includes
20 aiiy tract of such lands identified for sale, determines that the
21 sale of such tract will not cause needless degradation of the
22 environment and meets the disposal criteria of section 202
23 .
of this Act.
24
DISPOSAL CRITERIA
25 SEC. 202. (a) A tract of national resource lands may be
26 transferred out of Federal ownership under this Act only
PAGENO="0104"
100
13
1 where, as a result. of land use planning required under see-
2 tion 103, the Secretary determines that,-
3 (1) such tract of national resource lands, because of
4 its location and other characteristics, is difficult to man-
5 age as part of the national resource lands and is not
6 suitable for management by another Federal agency; or
7 (2) such tract of national resource lands was ac-
8 quired for a specific purpose and the tract is no longer
9 required for that or any other Federal purpose; or
10 (3) disposal of such tract of national resource lands
11 will serve objectives which cannot be achieved pm-
12 dently or feasibly on land other than such tract and
13 which outweigh public objectives and values which
14 would be served by maintaining such tract in Federal
15 ownership.
16 SALES AT FAIR. MARKET VALUE
17 SEC. 203. Sales of national resource lands under this
18 Act shall be at n&t less than the appra.ised fair market value
19 as determined by the Secretary.
20 SIZE OF TRACTS
21 SEc. 204. The Secretary shall determine and establish
22 the size of tracts of national resource lands to be sold on the
23 basis of the land use capabilities and development require-
ments of the lands.
PAGENO="0105"
101
14
1 COMPETITIVE BIDDING PROCEDURES
2 SEc. 205. Except as to sales under section 208 hereof,
3 sales of national resource lands under this Act shall be con-
4 ducted under competitive bidding procedures to he estab-
5 lished by the Secretary. However, where the Secretary deter-
6 mines it necessary and pr:oper (i) to assure equitable dis-
7 tribution among purchasers of national resource lands, or
8 (ii) to recognize equitable considerations or public policies,
9 including but not limited to a. preference to users, he is an-
10 thorized to sell national resource lands with modified corn-
11 petitive bidding or without competitive bidding.
12 RIGHT TO REFUSE OR R&TECT OFFER OF PURCHASE
13 SEC. 206. Until the Secretary has a.ccepted an offer to
14 purchase, he may refuse to accept any offer or may with-
15 draw any land or intere~t in land from sale under this Act
16 when he determines that consummation of the sale would
17 not be consistent with this Act or other applicable law. The
18 Secretary shall accept or reject, in writing, any offer to pur-
19 chase, made through competitive bid at his invitation, no
20 later than thirty days after the submission of such offer.
21 RESERVATION OF MINERAL INTERESTS
22 SEc 207. Where the United States owns a mineral
23 estate, all conveyances ~f title issued by the Secretary under
24 this Act, except conveyances under the exchange authority
25 provided in section 213, shall reserve to the United States all
PAGENO="0106"
102
15
1 minerals in the lands, together with the right to prospect for,
2 mine, and remove the minerals under applicable law and
3 such regulations as the Secretary may prescribe: Provided,
4 That, where reservation of the mineral interest to the United
5 States would interfere with or preclude the appropriate use
6 or development of such land, the Secretary may convey the
7 minerals in the conveyance of title in accordance with the
8 provisions of section 208 of this Act.
9 CONVEYANCE OF RESERVED MINERAL INTEREST
10 SEC. 208. (a) The Secretary may convey mineral
11 interests owned by the United States where the surface is in
12 non-~Federal ownership, regardless of which Federal agency
13 may have administered the surface, if he finds (1) that there
14 are no mineral values in the land, or (2) that the reservation
15 of the mineral rights in the United States is interfering with
16 or precluding appropriate nonmineral development of the
17 land and that such development is a. more beneficial use of
18 the land than mineral development.
19 (b) Conveyance of mineral interests pursuant to this
20 section shall be made only to the record owner of the surface
21 upon payment of administrative costs and the fair market
22 value of the interests being conveyed.
23 (c) Before considering an application for conveyance of
24 mineral interests pursuant to this section, the Secretary shall
25 require the deposit of a sum of money which he deems suffi-
PAGENO="0107"
1O3
16
1 cient to cover administrative costs including, but not limited
2 to, costs of conducting an exploratory program to determine
3 the character of the mineral deposits in the land, evaluating
4 the date obtained under the exploratory program to deter-
5 mine the fair market value of the mineral interests to be con-
6 veyed, and preparing and issuing the documents of con-
7 veyance. If the administrative costs exceed the deposit, the
8 applicant shall pay the outstanding amount; and if the de-
9 posit exceeds the administrative costs, the applicant shall be
10 given a credit for or refuiid of the excess.
11 (d) Moneys paid to the Secretary for administrative
12 costs pursuant to subsection (d) of this section shall be paid
13 to the agency which rendered the service `and deposited to the
14 appropriation then current.
15 TERMS OF PATENT
16 SEC. 209. The Secretary shall insert in any patent or
17 other document of conveyance he issues under this Act such
18 terms, covenants, conditions, and reservations as he deems
19 necessary to insure proper land use and protection of the
20 public interest.
21 NOTIFICATION TO STATES
22 SEc. 210. At least ninety days prior to offering for sale
23 or otherwise conveying national resource lands under this
24 Act, the Secretary shall notify the Governor of the State
25 within which such lands are located and the head of the gov-
PAGENO="0108"
104
17
1 erning body of any political subdivision of the State having
2 zoning or other land use regulatory jurisdiction in the geo-
3 graphical area within which such lands are located, in order
4 to afford the appropriate body the opportunity to zone or
5 otherwise regulate, or change or amend existing zoning or
6 other regulations concerning, the use of such lands prior to
7 such conveyance.
8 AUTHORITY TO ISSUE AND CORRECT DOCUMENTS OF
9 CONVEYANCE
10 SEC. 211. Consistent with his authority to dispose of
- 11 national resource lands, the Secretary is authorized to is-
12 sue deeds, patents, and other indicia. of title, and to cor-
13 rect such documents where necessary. In addition, the
14 Secretary is authorized to make corrections on any docu-
~ ments of conveyance which have heretofore been issued
16 on lands which would, at the time of their conveyance, have
17 met the description of national resource lands.
18 RECORDABLE DISCLAIMERS OF INTEREST IN LAND
19 SEC. 212. (a) After consulting with any affected Fed-
20 eral agency, the Secretary is authorized to issue a docu-
21 ment of disclaimer of interest or interests in any lands in any
22 form suitable for recordation, where the disclaimer will
23 help remove a cloud *on the title of such lands and where
24 he determines (1) a record interest of the United Sta.tes
25 in lands has terminated by operation of law; *or (2) the
HR. 5224-3
PAGENO="0109"
105
18
1 lands lying between the m~ander line shown on `a. plat of
2 survey approved by the Bureau of Land Management or its
~ predecessors and the actual shoreline of a body of water
~ are not lands of the United States; or (3) accreted, relicted,
or `avulsed lands are not lands of the United State's.
6 (b) No document. of disclaimer `shall be issued pursuant
7 to this title unless `the applicant therefor ha's filed with the
8 Secretary an application in writing and notice *of such apph-
9 cation `setting forth the grounds `supporting such application
10 has been published in th~ Federal Register at least ninety
U days preceding the issuance of `such `disclaimer and until
12 the applicant therefor has paid to the Secretary the `admin-.
13 istrative cost of issuing the disclaimer as determined by the
14 Secretary. All receipts shall be credited to the appropriation
15 from which expended.,
16 (c) Issuance of a document of disclaimer 1)y the Sec-
17 retary pursuant to the provisions of this section and regula-
18 tions promulgated hereunder shall have the same effect as a
19 quitclaim deed from the United States.
20 ACQUISITION OF LAND
21 SEc. 213. (a) The Secretary is authorized to acquire, by
22 purchase, exchange, donation, or otherwise, lands or inter-
23 ests therein where necessary for proper management of the
24 national resource lands.
PAGENO="0110"
106
19
1 (h) Acquisitions pursuant to this Act shall he con-
2 sistent with applicable land use plans prepared by the See-
3 retary under section 103 of this Act.
4 (c) In exercising the exchange authority granted by
5 subsection (a) of this section, the Secretary may accept title
6 to any non-Federal land or interests therein a.nd in exchange
7 therefore he may convey to the grantor of such land or in-
8 terests any national resource lands or interests therein which,
9 under section 202 of this Act, he finds proper for transfer out
10 of Federal ownership and which are located in the same
11 State as the non-Federal land to he acquired. The values of
12 the lands so exchanged either shall 1)e equal, or if they are
13 not equal, shall be equalized by tl1e payment of money to the
14 grantor or to the Secretary as the circumstances require,
15 provided that payment does not exceed 20 per centum of the
16 total value of the lands transferred out of Federal ownership.
17 (d) Lands acquired by exchange under this section or
18 section 301 (c) which are within the boundaries of units of
19 the National Forest System may he transferred to the Secre-
20 tarv of Agriculture for administration as part of, and in ac-
21 cordance with laws, rules. and regulations applicable to, the
22 National Forest System. Lands acquired by exchange under
23 this section or section 301 (c) which are within the boun-
24 daries of national park, wildlife refuge, wild and scenic
25 rivers, trails, or any other system established by Act of Con-
PAGENO="0111"
107
20
1 gress may be transferred to the appropi~ate agency head for
2 administration as pait of, and. in accordance with the laws,
~ rules, and regulations applicable to, such system.
4 (e) Lands and intere~ts in lands acquired pursuant to
~ this section or section 301 (c) shall, upon acceptance of title,
6 become national resource lands, and, for the administration
7 of public land law's not repealed by this Act, shall become
8 public lands. If such acquired lands or interests in lands are
9 located within the exteriOr boundaries of a grazing district
10 established pursuant to section 1 of the Taylor Grazing Act
11 (48 Stat. 1269) , as amended, they `shall become `a part of
12 that district.
13 TITLE Ill-MANAGEMENT IMPLEMENTING
14 AUTHORITY
15 STUDIES, COOPERATIVE AGREEMENTS, AND CONTBIBTJTIONS
16 SEC. 301. (a) The, Secretary may conduct investiga-
17 tions, studies, and experiments, on his own initiative or in
18 cooperation with others, involving the management, protec-
19 tion, development, acquisition, and conveying of the national
20 resource lands.
21 (b) The Secretary ~nay enter into contracts or coopera-
22 tive agreements involving the management, protection, devel-
23 opment, acquisition, and conveying of the national resource
24 lands.
PAGENO="0112"
108
21
1 (c) The Secretary may accept contributions or dona-
2 tions of money, services, and pi'operty, real, personal, or
3 mixed, for the management, protection, development, acquisi-
4 tion, and conveying of the national resource lands, including
5 the acquisition of rights-of-way for such purposes. He may
6 accept contributions for cadastral surveying performed on
7 federally controlled or interming'led lands. Moneys received
8 hereunder shall be credited to a separate account in the
9 Treasury and are hereby appropriated and made available
10 until expended. as the Secretary may direct, for Payment
11 of expenses incident to the function, toward the administra-
12 tion of which the contributions were made, and for refunds to
13 depositors of amounts contributed by them in specific in-
14 stances where contributions arc in excess of their share of the
15 cost.
16 SERVICE CHARGES, R.EIMBTJRSEMENT PAYMENTS, AND
17 EXCESS PAYMENTS
18 SEC. 302. (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of
19 law, the Secretary may establish filing fees, service fees, and
20 charges, and commissions with respect to applications and
21 other documents relating to nationa.l resource lands and may
22 cha.nge and abolish such fees, charges, and commissions.
23 (b) The Secretary is authorized to require a. deposit of
24 any payments intended to reimburse the United States for
25 extraordinary costs with respect to applications and other
PAGENO="0113"
109
22
1 documents relating to national resource lands. The moneys
2 received for extraordinary costs under this subsection shall
3 be deposited with the Treasury in a special account and are
4 hereby appropriated and made available until expended as
5 the Secretary directs. As used in this subsection, "extraor-
6 dinary costs" include but are not limited to the costs of spe-
7 cial studies; environmental impact statements; monitoring
8 construction, operation, maintenance, and termination of any
9 authorized facility; or other special activities.
10 (c) In any case where it shall appear to the satisfaction
11 of the Secretary that any person has made a payment under
12 any statute relating to the sale, lease, use, or other disposi-
13 tion of the national resource lands which is not required or is
14 in excess of the amount required by applicable law and the
15 regulations issued by the Secretary, the Secretary, upon
16 application or otherwise, may cause a refund to be made
17 from applicable funds.
18 WORKING CAPITAL FUND
19 SEC. 303. (a) There is hereby established a working
20 capital fund for the management of national resource lands.
21 This fund shall be available without fiscal year limitation for
22 expenses necessary for furnishing, in accordance with the
23 Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949
24 (63 Stat. 377), as amended, and regulations promulgated
25 thereunder, supplies and equipment services in support of
54-005 0 - 75 -
PAGENO="0114"
110
23
1 Bureau of Land Management programs, including but not
2 limited to, the purchase or construction of storage facilities,
3 equipment yards, and related improvements and the pur-
4 chase, lease, or rent of motor vehicles, aircraft, heavy equip-
5 ment, and fire control and other resource management
6 equipment within the limitations set forth in appropriations
7 made to the Bureau of Land Management.
8 (b) The initial capital of the fund shall consist of appro-
9 priations made for that purpose together with the fair and
10 reasonable value at the fund's inception of the inventories,
11 equipment, receivables, and other assets, less the liabilities,
12 transferred to the fund. The Secretary is authorized to make
13 such subsequent transfers to the fund as he deems appropriate
14 in connection with the functions to be carried on through the
15 fund.
16 (c) The fund shall be credited with payments from
17 appropriations and funds of the Bureau of Land Manage-~
18 ment, other agencies of the Department of the Interior, other
19 Federal agencies, and other sources, as authorized by law, at
20 rates approximately equal to the cost of furnishing the facili-
21 ties, supplies, equipment, and services (including deprecia-
22 tion and accrued annual leave). Such payments may be made
23 in advance in connection with firm orders, or by way of
24 reimbursement.
PAGENO="0115"
111
24
1 (d) There is hereby authorized to be appropriated not to
2 exceed $3,000,000 as initial capital of the working capital
3 fund.
4 DEPOSITS AND FORFEITURES
5 SEC. 304. (a) Any moneys received by the United
6 States a.s a result of the forfeiture of a bond or other `security
7 by a resource developer or purchaser or permittee who does
8 not fulfill the requirements of his. contract or permit or does
9 not comply with the regulations of the Secretary, or as a
10 result of a compromise or,' settlement of any claim whether
11 sounding in tort or in contract involving present or potential
12 damage to national resource lands shall be credited to a sepa-
13 rate account in the Treasury and are hereby appropriated
14 and made available, until expended as the Secretary may
15 direct, to cover the cost to the United States of any im-
16 provement, protection, or rehabilitation work on the na-
17 tional resource lands which has been rendered necessary by
18 the action which has led to the forfeiture, compromise, or
19 settlement.
20 (b) The Secretary thay require a user or users of roads,
21 trails, lands, or facilities under the jurisdiction of the Bureau
22 of Land Management to~ maintain such roads, trails, lands,
23 or facilities in a satisfactory condition commensurate with
24 the particular use requirements a.nd the use made by each,
25 the extent of such maintenance to be shared by the users in
PAGENO="0116"
112
25
1 proportion to such use or, if such maintena.nce cannot be so
2 provided, to deposit sufficient money to enable the Secretary
3 to provide such maintenance. Such deposits shall be credited
4 to a separate account in the Treasury and are hereby appro-
5 priated and made available until expended, as the Secretary
6 may direct, to cover the cost to the United States of the
7 maintenance of any road, trail, lands, or facility under the
8 jurisdiction of the Bureau of Land Management: Provided,
9 That nothing in this subsection shall be construed to require
10 the user or uses to provide maintenance or deposits to repair
11 any damages attributable to general public use rather than
12 the specific use or users of such user or users.
13 (c) Any moneys collected under this Act in connection
14 with lands administered under the Act of August 28, 1937
15 (50 Stat. 874), as amended, shall be expended for the
16 benefit of such land only.
17 (d) If any portion of a deposit. or amount forfeited
18 under this Act is found by the Secretary to be in excess of
19 the cost of doing the work authorized under this Act, the
20 amount in excess shall be transferred to miscellaneous
21 receipts.
22 CONTRACTS FOR CADASTRAL SURVEY OPERATIONS AND
23 RESOURCE PROTECTION
24 SEC. 305. (a) The Secretary is authorized to enter into
25 contracts for the use of aircraft, and for supplies and service,
H.R.. 5224-4
PAGENO="0117"
113
2G
prior to the passage of an appropriation therefor, for airborne
cadastral survey and resource protection operations of the Bu-
reau of Land Management. He may renew such contracts
annually, not more than twice, without additional competi-
tion. Such contracts shall obligate funds for the fiscal years
in which the costs are incurred.
(b) Each such contract shall provide that the obligation
of the United States for the ensuing fiscal years is contingent
upon the passage of an applicable appropriation, and that no
payment shall be made under the contract for the ensuing
fiscal years until such appropriation becomes available for
expenditure.
TJNAUTHORIZED USE
SEC. 306. The use, occupancy, or development of any
portion of the national resource lands contrary to any regula-
tion of the Secretary or other responsible authority, or con-
trary to a.ny order issued pursuant to any such regulation, is
unlawful and prohibited.
ENFORCEMENT AUTHORITY
SEC. 307. (a) Any violation regulations which the
Secretary issues with respect to the management, protection,
development, acquisition, and conveying of the national re-
source lands and property located thereon and which the
Secretary identifies as being subject to this section shall be
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
PAGENO="0118"
114
27
1 punishable by a. fine of not, more tha.n $1,000 or imprison-
2 ment for not more than twelve months, or both.
3 (b) For the specific purpose of enforcing any law or
4 regulation relating to lands or resources managed by the See-
5 retary, the Secretary may designate any employee, while
6 within the national resource lands, to: (i) carry firearms;
7 (ii) execute and serve any warrant or other process issued by
8 a court or officer of competent jurisdiction; (iii) make ar-
9 rests without warrant or process for a misdemeanor he has
10 reasonable g'rounds to believe is 1)erng committed in his pres-
11 ence or view, or for a~ felony if he has reasonable grounds to
12 believe that the person to he alTested has committed or is
13 committing such felony.
14 (c) At the request of the Secretary, the Attorney Gen-
15 eral may institute a civil action in any United States dis-
16 trict court for an injunction or other appropriate order to
17 prevent any person from using the national resource lands in
18 violation of laws or regulations relating to lands or resources
19 managed by the Secretary.
20 COOPERATION WITH SPATE AND LOCAL LAW
21 ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES
22 SEC. 308. In connection with administration and regu-
23 lation of the use and occupancy of the national resource
24 lands, the Secretary is authorized to cooperate with the reg-
25 ulatory and law enforcement officials of any State or political
PAGENO="0119"
115
subdivision thereof. Such cooperation may include reim-
2 bursement to a State or its subdivision for expenditures in-
~ curred by it in connection with activities which assist in the
~ administration and regulation of use and occupancy of na-
~ tional resource lands.
6 RECORDATION
7 SEC. 309. (a.) All mining claims under the Mining Law
8 of 1872, as amended and supplemented (30 U.S.C. chapters
~ 2, 12A, and 16 and sectiOns 161 and 162) shall be recorded
10 with the Secretary of the Interior (hereinafter referred to as
~ the Secretary) within onO year after the effective date of this
12 Act or within thirty days of location of a claim, whichever is
13 later. Any mining claim not so recorded shall be conclusively
14 presumed to be abandoned and shall be void. Such recordation
15 will not render valid any claim which was not valid on the
16 effective date of this Act,~ or which becomes invalid thereafter.
17 (b) Any claim recorded pursuant to subsection (a) of
18 this section, for which the claimant has not made applica-
19 tion for a patent within three years from the date of recorda-
20 tion, shall be presumed to be invalid and shall be void.
21 (c) The Secretary~ is authorized to issue such rules and
22 regulations as are necessary to carry out the purpose of this
23 section. They shall include, but need not be limited to, regu-
24 lations prescribing the form and substance of the informa-
PAGENO="0120"
116
29
1 tion submitted by claimants pursuant to subsection (a) of
2 this section.
3 (d) Notwithstanding any provision of the Mining Law
4 of 1872, as amended and supplemented (30 U.S.C. chapters
5 2, 12A, and 16 and sections 161 and 162), the Secretary is
6 authorized to issue such rules and regulations pertaining to
7 prospecting and mining as he deems necessary to protect the
8 environmental quality of lands administered by him. Such
9 regulations shall include, but need not be limited to, re-
10 quirernents for either notification to the Secretary or regis-
11 tration by prospectors or miners prior to commencement of
12 any activity undertaken IJ111'Suant to the Mining Law of
13 1872, and reclamation of affected lands.
14 TITLE TV-AUTHORITY TO GRANT
15 RIGHTS-OF-WAY
16 ATJTIIOBIZATIOX TO GEANT RIGHTS-OF-WAY
17 SEC. 401. (a) The Secretary is authorized to grant,
18 issue, 01' renew rights-of-way over, upon, or through the
19 national resource lands for-
20 (1) reservoirs, canals, ditches, flumes, laterals,
21 pipes, pipelines, tunnels, and other facilities and systems
22 for the impoundment, storage, transportation, or distri-
23 bution of water;
24 (2) pipelines and other systems for the transporta-
25 tion or distribution of liquids and gases, other than oil,
PAGENO="0121"
117
30
1 natural gas, synthetic liquid or gaseous fuels, or any
2 refined product produced therefrom, or water and for
3 storage and terminal facilities in connection therewith;
4 (3) pipelines, slurry, and emulsion systems, and
5 conveyor 1)elts for transportation and distribution of solid
6 materials, and facilities for the storage of such materials
7 in connection therewith;
8 (4) systems for, generation, transmission, and dis-
9 tril)ution of electric energy, except that the applicant
10 shall also comply with all applicable requirements of the
11 Federal Power Commission under the Act of June 10,
12 1920, as amended (16 U.S.C. 796, 797)
13 (5) systems for transmission or reception of radio,
14 television, telegraph, and other electronic signals, and
15 other means of comnmnication;
16 (6) roads, trails, highways, railroads, canals, tram-
17 ways, airways, livestock driveways, or other means of
18 transportation; and
19 (7) such other necessary transportation or other
20 systems or facilities which are in the public interest and
21 which require rights-of-way over, upon, or through the
22 national resource lands.
23 (b) (1) The Secretary shall require, prior to granting,
24 issuing, or renewing a right-of-way, that the applicant submit
25 and disclose any or all plans, contracts, agreements, or other
PAGENO="0122"
118
31
1 information or material reasonably related to the use, or
2 intended use, of the right-of-way which he deems necessary
3 to a determination, in accordance with the provisions of this
4 title, as to whether a. right-of-way shall be granted, issued, or
5 renewed and the terms and conditions which should be in-
6 eluded in such right-of-way.
7 (2) If the applicant is a. pa.rtnership, corporation, associ-
8 ation, or other business entity, the Secretary, prior to grant-
9 ing a. right-of-way pursuant to this title, may require the
10 applicant to disclose the identity of the participants, in the
11 entity. Such disclosure shall include, where applicable: (1)
12 the name and address of each partner; (2) the name and
13 address .of each shareholder owning 3 per centurn or more of
14 the shares, together with the numl)er and percentage of any
15 class of voting sha.res of the entity which such shareholder
16 is authorized to vote; a.nd (3) the name and address of each
17 affiliate of the entity together with, in the case of an affiliate
18 controlled by the entity, the number of shares and the per-
19 centage of any class of voting stock of that affiliate owned,
20 directly or indirectly, by that entity, and, in the case of an
21 affiliate which controls that entity, the number of shares and
22 the percentage of any class of voting stock of that entity
23 owned, directly or indirectly, by the affiliate. Failure to make
24 the disclosures required by this section shall result in rejec-
25 tion .of the application.
PAGENO="0123"
119
32
1 RIGHT-OF-WAY
2 SEc. 402. (a) After, the Secretary has submitted the
3 report required by section 28 (s) of the Mineral Leasing Act
4 of 1920, as amended by the Act of November 16, 1973 (87
~ Stat. 576), he shall, consistent with applicable land use
6 plans, designate transportation and utility corridors on na-
7 tional resource lands and, require that rights-of-way be con-
8 fined to them where practical and appropriate. In determin-
9 ing whether to require that rights-of-way be confined to
10 them, the Secretary shall take into consideration National
11 and State ~a.nd use policies, environmental quality, economic.
12 efficiency, national security, safety, and good engineering and
13 technological practices. The Secretary shall issue regulations
14 containing the criteria and procedures he will use in desig-
15 nating such corridors. Any existing transportation and utility
16 corridors may be designated as transportation and utility cor-
17 ridors pursuant to this subsection without further review.
18 (b) In order to minimize adverse environmental im-
19 pacts and the proliferation of separate rights-of-way across
20 national resource lands~ the use of rights-of-way in common
21 shall be required to the extent practical, and each right-of-
22 way or permit shall reserve to the Secretary the right to
23 grant additional rights-of-way or permits for compatible uses
24 on or adjacent to rights-of-way granted pursuant to this title.
PAGENO="0124"
120
33
1 GENERAL PROVISIONS
2 SEc. 403. (a) The Secretary shall specify the hound-
~ aries of each right-of-way as precisely as is practicable. Each
4 right-of-way shall be limited to the ground which the See-
~ retary determines: (1) will be occupied by facilities which
6 constitute the project for which the right-of-way is given,
~ (2) to be necessary for the operation or maintenance of the
8 project, and (3) to be necessary to protect the environment
9 or public safety. The Secretary may authorize the temporary
10 use of such additional lands as he determines to be reason-
i~ ably necessary for the construction, operation, maintenance,
12 or termination of the project or a portion thereof, or for access
13 thereto.
14 (1)) The Secretary shall determine the duration of each
15 right-of-way or other authorization to be granted, issued,
16 or renewed pursuant to this title. In determining the dura-
17 tion the Secretary shall, among other things, take into con-
18 sideration the cost of the facility and its useful life.
19 (c) Rights_of-way granted, issued, or renewed pursuant
20 to this title shall be given under such regulations or stipula-
21 tions, in accord with the provision of this title or a.ny other
22 law, and subject to such terms and conditions as the Secre-
23 tary may prescribe regarding extent, duration, survey, loca-
24 tion, construction, maintenance, and termination.
PAGENO="0125"
121
.34
1 (d) The Secretary, prior to granting a right-of-way
2 pursuant to this title for a new project which may have a
3 significant impact on the environment, shall require the
4 applicant to submit a plan of construction, operation, and re-
5 habilitation for such right-of-way which shall comply with
6 stipulations or with regul~itions issued by the Secretary. The
7 Secretary shall issue regulations or impose stipulations which
8 shall include, but shall not be limited to: (1) requirements
9 to insure that activities on the right-of-way will not violate
10 applical)le air and water quality standards or applicable trans-
11 mission, powerplant, and related facility siting standards es-
12 tablished by or purs~iant to law; (2) requirements designed
13 to control or prevent (A) damage to the environment (in-
14 chiding damage to fish and wildlife ha.bitat), (B) damage
15 to public oi' private propei~ty, and (C) hazards to public
16 health and safety; and (3) requirements to protect the in-
17 terests of individuals living in the general area traversed by
18 the right-of-way who rely on the fish, wildlife, and biotic
19 resources of the area. for subsistence purposes. Such regula-
20 tions shall be regularly revised. Such regulations shall be
21 applical)le to every right-of-way granted P111'5~la1it to this title,
22 and may be applicable to rights-of-way to be renewed par-
23 suant to this title.
24 (e) Mineral and vegetative materials, including timber,
25 within or without a right-of-way may be used or disposed of
PAGENO="0126"
122
35
1 in connection with construction or other purposes only if
2 authorization to remove or use such materials has been oh-
3 tamed pursuant to applicable laws.
4 (f) No right-of-way shall be issued for less than the fair
5 market value therefor as determined by the Secretary. The
6 Secretary may, by regulation or pi~or to promulgation of such
7 regulations. as a condition for consideration of a right-of-way,
8 require reinThursement to the United States for all reasonable
9 administrative and other costs incurred in processing the
10 right-of-way including processing the application, and in in-
11 spection and monitoring of construction, operation, and termi-
12 nation of the facilit pursuant to such rights-of-way. How-
13 ever, rights-of-way may be granted, issued, or renewed to
14 State or local governments or agencies or instrumentalities
15 thereof, or to nonprofit associations or nonprofit corpora-
16 tions which are not themselves controlled or owned by profit-
17 making corporations or business enterprises, for such lesser
18 right-of-way charge or cost reimbursement charges as the
19 Secretary finds equitable and in the public interest.
20 (g) The Secretary shall promulgate regulations sped-
21 fying the extent to which holders of rights-of-way under this
22 title shall be liable to the United States for damage or injury
23 incurred by the United States in connection with the rights-
24 of-way. The regulations shall also specify the extent to
2~ which such holders shall idemnify or hold harmless the
PAGENO="0127"
123
36
1 United States for liabilities, damages, or claims arising in
2 connection with the rights-of-way
3 (h) Where he deems it appropriate, the Secretary may
4 require as a condition foi' consideration of a right-of-way
5 that there be furnished a bond, or other security, satisfactory
6 to the Secretary to secure all or any of the obligations
7 imposed by the terms and conditions of the right-of-way or
8 by any rule or regulation of the Secretary.
9 (i) The Secretary shall grant, issue, or renew a right-of-
10 way under this title only \vhen he is satisfied that the appli-
11 cant has the technical and financial capability to construct
12 the project for which the right-of-way is requested, and in
13 accord with the requirements of this title.
14 TEEMSAND CONDITIONS
15 SEC. 404. Each right-of-way shall contain such terms
16 and conditions as the Secretary deems necessary to (1)
17 carry out the purposes of this Act and rules and regulations
18 hereunder; (2) protect the environment; (3) protect Fed-
19 eral property and monetary interests; (4) manage efficiently
20 national resource lands which are subject to the right-of-way
21 or adjacent thereto and protect the other lawful users of the
22 national resource lands adjacent to or traversed by said right-
23 of-way; (5) protect lives and property; (6) protect the
24 interests of individuals living in the general area traversed
25 by the right-of-way who rely on the fish, wildlife, and biotic
PAGENO="0128"
124
37
1 resources of the area for subsistence purposes; and (7) pro-
2 tect the public interest in the national resource lands.
3 SUSPENSION OR TERMINATION OF RIGHT-OF-WAY
4 SEC. 405. Abandonment of the right-of-way or noncom-
5 pliance with any provision of this title, condition of the
6 right-of-way, or applicable rule or regulation of the Secre-
7 tary may be grounds for suspension or termination of the
8 right-of-way if, after due notice to the holder of the right-of-
9 way and an appropriate administrative proceeding pursuant
10 to title 5, United States Code, section 554, the Secretary
11 determines that any such ground exists and that suspension
12 or termination is justified. No administrative proceeding
13 shall be required where the right-of-way by its terms pro-
14 vides that it terminates on the occurrence of a fixed or agreed-
15 upon condition, event, or time. If the Secretary determines
16 that an immediate temporary suspension of activities within
17 a right-of-way for violation of its terms and conditions is
18 necessary to protect public health or sa.fety or the environ-
19 ment, he may abate such activities prior to an administrative
20 proceeding. Prior to commencing any proceeding to suspend
21 or terminate a right-of-way the Secretary shall give written
22 notice to the holder of the ground or grounds for such action
23 and shall give the holder a reasonable time to resume use of
the right-of-way or to comply with this title, condition, rule,
25 or regulation as the case may be. Failure of th'e holder of
PAGENO="0129"
125
38
1 the right-of-way to use the right-of-way for the purpose for
2 which it was granted, issueçl, or renewed for any continuous
3 five-year period shall constitute a rebuttable presumption of
4 abandonment of the right-of-way: Provided, however, That
5 where the failure of the holder to use right-of-way for the
6 purpose for which it was granted, issued, or renewed for any
7 continuous five-year period is due to circumstances not within
8 the holder's control, the Secretary is not required to corn-
9 mence proceedings to suspend or terminate the right-of-way.
10 This section does not apply to rights-of-way which are per-
~ mits or licenses.
12 RIGHTS-OF-WAY FOR FEDERAL AGENCIES
13 *SEC. 406. (a) The Secretary may reserve for the use of
14 any department or agency of the United States a right-of-way
15 over, upon, or through national resource lands, subject to such
16 terms and conditions as he may impose. The provisions of this
17 title shall be applicable to any such right-of-way.
18 (b) Where a right-of-way has been reserved for the use
19 of any department or agency of the United States, the Secre-
20 tary shall take no action, to terminate, or otherwise limit, that
21 use without the consent of the head of that other department
22
or agency.
23 CONVEYANCE OF LANDS
24 SEC. 407. If under~ applicable law the Secretary decides
25 to transfer out of Federal ownership, by patent, deed, or
54-005 0 - 75 - 9
PAGENO="0130"
126
39
1 otherwise, any national resource lands covered in whole or
2 in part by a right-of-way, including a right-of-way granted
3 under the Act of November 16, 1973 (87 Stat. 576),
4 the lands may be conveyed subject to the right-of-way; how-
5 ever, if the Secretary determines that retention of Federal
6 control over the right-of-way is necessary to assure that the
7 purposes of this title will he carried out, the terms and condi-
8 tions of the right-of-way complied with, or the national re-
9 source lands protected, he shall (1) reserve to the United
10 States that portion of the lands which lies within the bound-
11 aries of the right-of-way, or (2) convey the lands, including
12 that portion within the boundaries of the right-of-way, sub-
13 ject to the right-of-way `and reserving to the United States
14 the right to enforce all or any of the terms and conditions of
15 the right-of-way, including the right to renew it or extend it
16 upon its termination and to collect rents.
17 EXISTING RIGHTS-OF-WAY
18 SEc. 408. Nothing in this title shall have the effect of
19 terminating any rights-of-way or rights-of-use heretofore
20 issued, granted, or permitted by the Secretary. However,
21 with the consent of the holder thereof, the Secretary may
22 cancel such a right-of-way and in its stead issue a right-of-
23 way pursuant to the provisions of this title.
24 STATE STANDARDS
25 SEc. 409. The Secretary shall take into consideration
PAGENO="0131"
127
40
~ and, to the extent practical, comply with State standards
2 for right-of-way construction, operation, and maintenance if
~ those standards are more stringent than Federal standards
4 and if the national resource lands are adjacent to lands to
~ which such State standards apply.
6 EFFECT ON OTHER LAWS
7 SEC. 410. (a) After the date of enactment of this Act,
8 no right-of-way for the purposes listed in this title shall be
9 granted, issued, or renewed over, upon, or through national
10 resource lands except under and subject to the provisions,
11 limitations, and conditions of this title: Provided, That any
12 application for a right-of-way filed under any other law prior
13 to the date of enactment of this Act may, at the applicant's
14 option, be considered as an application under this title or the
15 Act under which the application was filed. The Secretary
16 may require the applicant to submit any additional inforrna-
17 tion he deems necessary to comply with the requirements of
18 this title.
19 (b) Nothing in this title shall be construed to preclude
20 the use of national resource lands for highway purposes par-
21 suant to sections 107 and 317 of title 23, United States Code.
22 SEc. 411. Applicants before Federal agencies other than
23 the Department of the Interior seeking a license, certificate
or other authority for, a project which will involve national
PAGENO="0132"
128
41
1 resouce lands must simultaneously apply to the Secretary of
2 the Interior for the appropriate authority to use national re-
3 source lands and submit to the Secretary all informa.tion
4 furnished to the other Federal agency.
5 TITLE V-CONSTRUCTION OF LAW, PRESERVA-
6 TION OF VALID EXISTING RIGHTS, AND
7 REPEAL OF LAWS
8 CONSTRUCTION OF LAW
9 SEC. 501. (a) Except as provided in section 410, the
10 authority conferred upon the Secretary by this Act is in
11 addition to all other authority vested in him by law, and
12 nothing in this Act shall be deemed to repeal any such other
13 authority by implication.
14 (b) Nothing in this Act shall be construed as limiting or
15 restricting the power and authority of the United States, or-
16 (1) as affecting in any way any law governing
17 appropriations or use of, or Federal right to, water on
18 national resource lands;
19 (2) as expanding or diminishing Federal or State
20 jurisdiction, responsibility, interests, or rights in water
21 resources development or control;
22 (3) as displacing, superseding, limiting, or modi-
23 fying any interstate compact or the jurisdiction or re-
24 sponsibility of any legally established joint or common
PAGENO="0133"
129
42
1 agency of two or more States or of two or more States
2 and the Federal Government;
3 (4) as superseding, modifying, or repealing, except
4 as specifically set forth in this Act, existing laws appli-
5 cable to the various Federal agencies which are author-
6 ized to develop or participate in the development of
7 water resources or tO exercise licensing or regulatory
8 functions in relation thereto;
9 (5) as modifying the terms of any interstate
10 compact;
11 (6) as a limitation upon any State criminal statute
12 or upon the police power of the respective States, or as
13 derogating the authority of a local police officer in the
14 performance of his duties, or as depriving any State or
15 political subdivision thereof of any right it may have to
16 exercise civil and criminal jurisdiction on the national
17 resource lands;
18 (7) as affecting the jurisdiction or responsibilities
19 of the several States with respect to wildlife and fish in
20 the national resource lands; or
21 (8) as amending, limiting, or infringing the exist-
22 ing laws providing grants of land to the States.
23 VALID EXISTING BIGHTS
24 SE0. 502. All actions by the `Secretary under this Act
25 shall be subject to valid existing rights.
PAGENO="0134"
(~L ~ ~ ~ ~
~
:
4 E
~ ~ ~ ~
~
~ ~
~
~:
~
:
~ ~
~
~
~
E1~ g~
~
~
~
~
~i ~
~
c~
,,,,,,
~
~.
~
~
~
C
cJ~ C
CD
W
C
CIJ
C
C
CD
C
CD
C
z
I.
PAGENO="0135"
~l 0
o
~
~ Qq~
- ~
~
0
Co
0
Co
0
0
Co
PAGENO="0136"
0
z
0
z
0
E~EEf~~
2:
0
z
0
ci
z
0
H HH~ H
ji~
~tnri~ ~
~E: ~:
~: ~:
z
0
0
H
2
0
z
0
z
2
2
P.
PAGENO="0137"
133
46
6. ABANDONED MILITARY RESERVATION
Act of- Chapter Section Statute at large 43 U.S.C.
July5, 1884 214 5 23: 104 1074.
Aug. 21, 1918 301 38: 518 1075.
Mar. 3,1883 208 27: 503 1076.
The following words only: `Provided, That the President is hereby authorized by proclamation to with-
holdfrom sale and grant for public use to the municipal esrpseatisn in which the same is situated allor any
portion of any abandoned military reservatisn nst exceeding tsventy acres in one place."
Aug. 23, 1884 314 28: 401 1077,1078.
Feb. 11, 1903 543 32: 822 1079.
Feb. 15, 1885 02 28:684 1080, 1077.
Apr. 23, 1004 1406 33: 306 1081.
7. PUBLIC LANDS: OKLAhOMA
May 2, 1800 182 Last paragraph of 26: 00 1091-1094, 1096,
sec. 18 and sccs. 1097.
20, 21, 22, 24, 27.
Mar.3,1891 543 16 26: 1020 1098.
Aug.7, 1946 772 1,2 60: 872 1100-1101.
Aug. 3, 1955 408 1-8 60: 445 1102-1102g.
May 14, 1880 207 26: 100 allI-1117.
Sept. 1, 1883 J. Res. 4 28: 11 1118.
May 11, 1896 168 1, 2 20: 116 1119.
Jan. 18, 1887 62 1-3, 5, 7 20: 400 1131-1134.
Juno 23, 1897 8 30: 105
Mar. 1, 1898 328 30: 066
8. SALES OF ISOLATED TRACTS
Revised Statute 2455 1171.
Feb. 26, 1895 133 28: 687
Juno 27, 1988 3554 34: 517
Mar. 28, 1912 67 37:77
Mar. 9, 1928 164 45: 253
June 28, 1934 865 14 48: 1274
July 30, 1947 383 61: 630
Apr. 24, 1928 428 45: 457 ll7la.
May 23, 1830 313 46: 377 1171b.
Feb.4. 1919 13 40: 1055 1172.
May 10, 1920 178 41: 595 1173.~
Aug. 11, 1921 62 42: 150 1175.
May 19, 1926 337 44:566 1176.
Feb. 14, 1031 170 46 :1105 1177.
ALASKA SPECIAL LAWS
Mar3, 1891 561 11 26: 1650 732.
May2S,1926 378 44:628 733-736.
May 28,1083 Public Law 88-34 77: 52.
July34, 1947 305 61:414 738.
May 14, 1808 209 1 30:400 270.
Mar. 3, 1903 1002 32: 1028
Apr.29,l950 137 1 64:04
Aug.3,1955 406 60:444 270,687a-2.
Apr. 29, 1950 137 2-5 64: 05 270,270-5.
July 11, 1056 571 2 70: 520 270-6,270-7,687a.
July8, 1916 228 30: 352. 270-8,270-9,
Juno 28, 1918 110 40:832 270-10,270-13,270.
July 11, 1956 571 1 70: 528
Mar. 8, 1922 06 1 42: 415 270-11.
Aug.23, 1058 PublicLaw85-725. 1,4 72: 730
Aug. 17, 1961 PublicLaw87-147 75: 381 270-13.
Oct. 3,1062 Public Law 87-742 76: 740
Apr.l3,l026 121 44:243 270-15,
Apr. 28, 1050 134 3 61:03 270-16,270-1.
May 14, 1808 288 10 30: 413 270-4.
Mar.3, 1927 323 44:1304 687ato687a-5.
May 26, 1034 357 48:800
Aug. 23, 1958 Public Law8S-725. 3 72: 730
Mar.3,l801 561 13 26: 1100 687a-6.
Aug.30, 1948 521 63: 670 687bto687b-4.
July 19, 1963 Public Laxv 88-66 77: 80 687b-5.
-- --- --
10. PITTMAN UNDERGROUND WATER ACT
Sept.23, 1922 400 42: 1012 356.
(b) Section 7 of the Taylor Grazing Act, 48 Stat.
2 1272, oh. 865, as amended by section 2 of the Act of
3 June 26, 1936, (49 Stat. 1976, ch. 842, title I, 43 U.S.C.
4 315f), is further amended to read as follows:
PAGENO="0138"
134
47
1 "The Secretary of the Interior is authorized, in his dis-
2 cretion, to examine and classify any lands withdrawn or re-
3 served by Executive order of November 26, 1934 (num-
4 bered 6910), and amendments thereto, and Executive order
5 of February 5, 1935 (numbered 6964), or within a grazing
6 district, which are more valuable or suitable for any other
7 use than for the use provided for under this Act, or proper
8 for acquisition in satisfaction of any outstanding lien, cx-
9 change, or land grant, and to open such lands to disposal in
10 accordance with such classification under applicable public
11 land laws. Such lands shall not be subject to disposition until
12 after the same have been classified and opened to disposal."
13 (c) (1) The Act of March 3, 1877, as amended (19
14 Stat. 377; 43 U.S.C. 321, 322, 323, 325, 327-329), is re-
15 pealed, except that portion of section 321 of title 42, United
16 States Code, reading as follows: "The water of all lakes,
17 rivers, and other sources of water supply upon the public
18 lands and not navigable, shall remain and be held free for
19 the appropriation and use of the public for irrigation, mining,
20 and manufacturing purposes subject to existing rights.".
21 (2) Section 321 of title 43, United States Code, is
22 amended as follows: "Provided, however, That nothing
23 contained in this Act shall be deemed to abrogate or extin-
24 guish any claim to or ownership of rights under, or adja-
25 cent to lands withdrawn from the public domain.".
PAGENO="0139"
135
48
1 (d) Section 2 of the Act of March 8, 1922 (42 Stat.
2 416, ch. 96, as amended by section 2 of the Act of August 23,
3 1958, 72 Stat. 730, Public Law 85-725, 43 U.S.C. 270-
4 12), is further amended to read:
5 "The coal, oil, or gas deposits reserved to the United
6 States in accordance with the Act of March 8, 1922 (42 Stat.
7 415, ch. 96, as added to by the Act of August 17, 1961, 75
8 Stat. 384, Public Law 87-147, and amended by the Act of
9 October 3, 1962, 76 Stat. 740, Public Law 87-742), shall be
10 subject to disposal by the United States in accordance with
11 the provisions of the laws applicable to coal, oil, or gas de-
12 posits or coal, oil, or gas lands in Alaska in force at the time
13 of such disposal. Any person qualified to acquire coal, oil, or
14 gas deposits, or the right to mine or remove the coal or to
15 drill for `and remove the oil or gas under the laws of the
16 United States shall have the right at all times to enter upon
17 the lands patented under the Act of March 8, 1922, as
18 amended, and in accordance with the provisions hereof, for
19 the purpose of prospecting for coal, oil, or gas therein, upon
20 the approval by the Secretary of the Interior of a bond or
21 undertaking to be filed with him as security for the payment
22 of all damages to the crops and improvements on such lands
23 by reason of such prospecting. Any person who has acquired
24 from the United States the coal, oil, or gas deposits in any
25 such land, or the right to mine, drill for, or remove the same,
PAGENO="0140"
136
49
1 may reenter and occupy so much of the surface thereof mci-
2 dent to the mining and removal of the coal, oil, or gas there-
3 from, and mine and remove the coal or drill for and remove
4 oil and gas upon payment of the damages caused thereby to
5 the owner thereof, or upon giving a good and sufficient bond
6 or undertaking in an action instituted in any competent court
7 to ascertain and fix said damages: Provided, That the owner
8 under such limited patent shall have the right to mine the
9 coal for use on the land for domestic purposes at any time
10 prior to the disposal by the United States of the coal depos-
11 its: Provided further, Tha.t nothing in this Act shall be
12 construed as authorizing the exploration upon or entry of any
13 coal deposits withdrawn from such exploration and
14 purchase.".
15 Section 3 of the Act of August 30, 1949 (63 Stat. 679,
16 ch. 521, 43 U.S.C. 678b-2), is amended to read:
17 "Notwithstanding the provisions of any Act of Congress
18 to the contrary, any person who prospects for, mines, or re-
19 moves any minerals from any land disposed of under the
20 Act of August 30, 1949 (63 Stat. 679, ch. 521), shall be
21 liable for any damage that may be caused to the value of the
22 land and tangible improvements thereon by such prospecting
23 for, mining, or removal of minerals. Nothing in this section
24 shall be construed to impair any vested right in existence on
25 August 30, 1949.".
PAGENO="0141"
137
50
1 REPEAL OF LAWS RELATING TO ADMINISTRAPION OF
2 NATIONAL RESOTJROE LANDS
3 SEC. 504. The following statutes or parts of statutes are
4 repealed:
Act of- Chapter Section Statute at Large 43 U.S.C.
1. Mar. 2, 1895 174 28: 744 170.
2. June 28, 1934 885 8 48: 1272 315g.
Juno 20, 1930 842 3 49: 1970, Title I....
June 19, a948 548 1 62:533
July 9, 1902 Public Law 76: 140 315g-l.
87-524.
3. Aug.24, 1937 744 50:748 3l5p.
4. Mar. 3, 1909 271 2d proviso only.... 35: 845 772.
June 25, 1910 J. Res. 40 30:884
5. June 21, 1934 689 48: 1185 87ia.
6. Revised Statute 2447 1151.
Revised Statute 2448 1152.
7. June 6, 1874 223 18: 62 1153, 1154.
8. January 28, 1879 30 20: 274 1155.
9. May 30, 1894 87 28: 84 1150.
10. Revised Statute 2450 1161.
Feb. 27, 1877 69 1 19:244
The following words only: "Section twenty-four hundred and fifty is amended by striking out, in the
fourth line, the words `Secretary of the Treasury' and imerting the words `Secretary of the Interior' ".
Revised Statuto 2451 1162.
Feb. 27, 1877 69 1 10: 244
The following words only: "Section twenty-four hundred and fifty.one is amended by striking out, in
the first and second lines, the words `Secretary of the Treasury' and imerting the words `Secretary of the
Interior' ". -
Revised Statute 2456 1185.
Sept.20,1922 350 48:857
The words: ". . - and sections 2450, 2451, and 2456 be amended to read as follows:" and all words fol.
lowing in the Act.
Revised Statute 2457 1164.
11. Star. 3, 1891 161 7 26:1098 1165.
12. Revised Statute 2471 1181.
Revised Statute 2472 1192.
Revised Statute 2473 1193.
13. July 14, 1960 Public Lass 86-649 101-202(a), 203- 74:506 1361, 1362, 1363-
294(a), 301-303 1383.
14. Sept. 26, 1970 Public Law 01-429 84: 885: l362a.
15. July 31, 1939 401 1,2 53:1144
5 REPEAL OF LAWS RELATING TO RIGHTS-OF-WAY
6 SEc. 505. (a) The following statutes or parts of stat-
7 utes are repealed insofar as they apply to National Resource
8 Lands:
Act of- Chapter Section Statute at large 43 U.S.C.
Revised Statutes 2339 661.
The following words only: "and the right of way for the construction of ditches and canals for the pur.
poses herein specified is acknowledged and confirmed: but whenever any person, in the eomtruetion of
any ditch or canal, injures or damages the possession of any settler on the public domain, the party com-
mitting such injury or damage shall be liable to the party injured for such injury or damage."
Revised Statutes 2340 661.
The following words only: ", or rights to ditchm and reservoirs used in connection with such water
rights,".
Feb. 26, 1897 335 29:599 664.
Mar. 3, 1899 427 1 30: 1233 665, 958 (16 U.S.C.
125).
PAGENO="0142"
138
51
The following words only: "that in the form provided by existing law the Secretary of the Interior may
file and approve ourveys and plats of any righl.of-way for a wagon road, railroad, or other highway over
and across any foreat reservation or reservoir site as-hen in his judgment the public intereats will not be
injuriously affected thereby."
Act of- Chapter Section Statute at large 43 USC.
Mar.3, 1815 152.. 18:462 034-039.
May 14, 1808 290 2-9 30:400 942-1to942-9,
Feb.27, 1901 614 31:815 943.
1~ 3a48 34:481
Mar.3, 1891 561 18-21 26: 1101 946-949,
Mar.4, 1817 184 1 39:1197
May28,1926 40° 04:~
Mar.l,1921 41:1194 950
Jan. 13, 1897 11 29:484 052-055.
Mar.3, 1923 219 42:1437
Jan, 21, 1895 37. 28:635 951,956957.
Mayl4,1896 179 29:120
Mayll,1898 292 30:404
Mar.4,1917 184 2 39:1197
Feb. 15, 1901 372 31: 790 959 (16 U.S.C. 79,
522).
Mar.4, 1811 239 36:1253 961 (16 U.S.C.5,
420, 523.)
Only the last to-s paragraphs under the subheading "Improvement of the National Forests" under
the heading "Forest Service".
May27,1952 338 ~
May2l,1896 212. 29:137 962-963,
Apr, 12, 1910 155 36:296 966-070.
(b) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (a) of
2 this section, the following statutes are repealed in their
3 entirety:
Act of- Chapter Section Statute at large U.S. C.
Revised Statute 2477 43 U.S.C. 932,
PAGENO="0143"
139
[SUBCOMMITTEE PRINT]
MARCh 27,1975
PUBLIC LAND POLICY AND MANAGEMENT ACT
PRINT NO. 1
[Prepared for the use of the Subcommittee on Public Lands, Committee
on Interior and Insular Affairs, House of Representatives, Ninety.
Fourth Congress, First Session.]~
A BILL
To establish public land policy; to establish guidelines for its
administration; to provide for the management, protection,
development, and enhancement of the public lands; and
for other purposes.
Be it enacted by the Senate and house of Representa-
2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TITLE I-SHORT TITLE, DECLARATION OF
POLICY, AND DEFINITIONS
Sec. 101. Short title.
Sec. 102. Declaration of policy.
Sec. 103. Definitions.
PAGENO="0144"
140
2
TABLE OF CONTENTS-Continued
TITLE Il-PLANNING FUTURE PUBLIC LAND USE
Sec. 201. Inventory and identification.
Sec. .202. Land use planning.
Sec. 203. Sales.
Sec. 204. Withdrawals.
Sec. 203. Acquisition of land.
Sec. 206. Exchanges.
Sec. 207. Recordation of milling claims and abandonment.
Sec. 208. Recordable disclaimers of interest in land.
Sec. 209. Conveyance of reserved mineral interests.
Sec. 210. Grazing fees.
Sec. 211. Duration of grazing leases.
Sec. 212. Grazing' district advisory boards.
TITLE 111-BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT
Sec. 301. Establishment of Bureau.
Sec. 302. Enforcement authority.
Sec. 303. Cooperation with State and local law enforcement agencies.
Sec. 304. Service charges, reimbursement payments, and excess payments.
Sec. 305. Deposits and forfeitures.
Sec. 306.. Working capital fund.
Sec. 307. Studies, cooperative, agreements, and contributions,
Sec. 308. Contracts for surveys and resource protection.
Sec. 309. Local advisory councils.
Sec. 310. Rules and regulations.
Sec. 311. Annual report.
Sec. 312. Bureau of Land Management wilderness study.
TITLE TV-DESERT LANDS
Sec. 401. California desert conservation area.
Sec. 402. Conveyances for recreation purposes.
Sec. 403. `Desert areas study.
TITLE V-RIGHTS-OF-WAY
Sec. 501. Authorization to grant rights-of-way.
Sec. 502. Cost-share road program authorization.
Sec. 503. Right-of-way corridors.
Sec. 504. General provisions.
Sec. 505. Terms and cbnditions.
Sec. 506. Suspension or termination of rights-of-way.
Sec. 507. Rights-of-way for Federal agencies.
Sec. 508. Conveyance of lands.
Sec. 309. Existing rights-of-way.
Sec. 510. State standards.
Sec. 511. Effect on other laws.
PAGENO="0145"
141
3~
TABLE OF CONTENTS-Continued
TITLE VT-EFFECT ON EXISTING RIGHTS; REPEAL OF
PRIOR LAWS; APPROPRIATION AUTHORIZATION, ANT)
EFFECTIVE DATE
Sec. 601. Effect on existing rights.
Sec. 602. Repeal of laws relating to homesteading, desert entry, and small
tracts.
Sec. 603. Repeal of laws relating to disposal.
Sec. 604. Repeal of laws relating tO administration of public lands.
Sec. 605. Repeal of laws relating to rights-of-way.
Sec. 606. Authorization.
Sec. 607. Severability.
1 TITLE I-SHORT TITLE, DECLARATION OF
2 POLICY, AND DEFINITIONS
3 SHORT TITLE
4 SEC. 101. This Act may be cited as the "Public Land
~ Policy and Management Act of 1975".
6 DECLARATION OF POLICY
7 SEC. 102. (a) The Congress declares that it is the policy
8 of the United States that-
* (1) the public lands be retained in Federal owner-
10 ship unless as a result of the land use planning procedure
provided for in this Act it is determined that disposal of
12 a particular parcel will best serve the national interest;
(2) the nationa1,~ interest will be best realized if the
14 public lands and their resources are periodically and sys-
15 tematically inventoried and their present and future
16 use is projected through a. land use planning process
54-005 0 - 75 - 10
PAGENO="0146"
142
:~
I coordinated with other Federal and State planning
2 efforts;'
3 (3) all public lands not previously designed for any
4 specific use and all existing classifications of public
5 lands that were effected by executive action or statute
6 before the date of enactment of this Act be reviewed in
7 accordance with the overall land use planning goals set
8 ` forth' in this Act;
9 (4) the Congress exercise its constitutional author-
10 ity to withdraw or otherwise designate or dedicate Fed-
11 Cral lands for specified purposes and that Congress
12 delineate the extent to which the Executive may with-
13 draw lands without legislative action;
it (5) in administering public land statutes and exer-
15 cising discretionary authority, granted by them, the
16' Secretary be required to establish comprehensive rules
17 and regulations after considering the views of the general
18 public; and to structure adjudication procedures to assure
19 adequate third party participation, objective adininistra-
20 tive review of initial decisions, and expeditious decision-
21 making;
22 `(s) judicial review of public land adjudication
23 decisions;
24 (7) goals and objectives be established by law as
25 guidelines for public land use planning, and that ma~~
PAGENO="0147"
143
5
.1 agement be on the basis of multiple use and sustained
2 yield unless otherwise specified by law;
3' (8) the public lands be managed in a manner that
4 will protect the quality' of scientific, scenic, historical,
5 ecological, and archeological values; that where appro-
6 priate will preserve `and protect certain' public lands in
7 their natural condition; that will provide hal)itat for fish
8 arid wildlife; and that'will provide for outdoor recreation;
9 (9) the United States receive fair market value
10 of the use of the public lands and their rCsources unless
ii otherwise provided for by statute';
12 (10) uniform procedures for any disposal of public
13 land, acquisition of non-Federal land for public purposes,
14 `and `the exchange of suc'h lands be established by statute;
15 ` requiring each disposal, acquisition, and exchange to be
16 consistent with the prescribed mission of the public laud
17 management agency involved, and reserving t~o ~ongress
18 disposals, acquisitions, and `exchanges in exces~ o'f a spec-
19 ifled acreage;
20 (11) regulatiOns or p'lans for t1~e protection of areas
21 of critical environmental concern be promptly `d~vel-
22 oped; ` and any permit, license, or other authorization to
23 ` use, occupy, or develop the public' land~ contain provi-
24 sions authorizing revocation or suspension of `such per-
25 ` mit,-license, or other authorization upon violation of any
PAGENO="0148"
144
6
i regulation issued with respect to the enforcement of this
2 Act or of any applicable State or Federal air, water, O~"
other environmental quality standard; and
4 (12) recognize the Nation's need for domestic
5 sources of minerals, food, and fiber from the public lands
6 including implementation of the Mining and Minerals
7 Policy Act of 1970 as it pertains to the public lands.
S (b) The policies of this Act are supplemental to and not
9 in derogation of the purposes for which public lands are ad-
10 ministered by agencies and departments of the United States
11 in the fulfilment of their statutory obligations.
DEFINITIONS
SEC. 103. As used in this Act-
14 (a) The term "areas of critical environmental con-
13 cern" means areas within the public lands where, when such
16 areas are developed or used special management attention is
17 required in order to protect, or where development is
I .S excluded to prevent irreparable damage to, important his-
19 tone, cultural, or scenic values or natural systems or proc-
20 esses, or life and safety which might result from natural
21 hazards.
22 (b) The term "holder" means any State or local
23 governmental entity or agency or any person receiving a
24 - rigim~of-way under title V of this Act.
2~. (c-) Th~ f~m "multiple use" means the manage-
PAGENO="0149"
145
1. ment of the public lands and their various resource values
2 so that they are utilized in the. combination that will best
3 meet the present and future needs of the~ American people;
4 making the most judicious use of the land for some or all of
5 these resources or related services over areas large enough to
6 provide sufficient latitude for periodic adjustments in use to
7 conform to changing needs and conditions; .the use of some
S land for less than all of the resources; a combination of bal-
9 anced and diverse resource uses tha.t takes into acc.ount the
10 long-term needs of future generations for renewable and non~
11 reneWal)le resources, including recreation, .range, timber,
12 minerals, watershed, wildlife and fish, and natural scenic,
13 scientific. and historical values; and harmonious and c~ordi-
14 nated mai~iagement of the various resources without impair-
15 ment of the productivity of the land, with consideration being
16 given to the relative values of the resources and not neces-
17 sarily to the combination of uses that will give the greatest
18 economic return or the greatest unit output: Provided, That
19 nothing in this definition shall be construed as affecting the
20 responsibilities of the Secretary of the Interior for disposition
21 of mineral resources of the National Forest System.
22 (d) The term "pi~tblic involvement" means the op-
23 portunity for participation by citizens, including those at the
24 local level, in rulemaking, decisionmaking, and plannin~ with.
25 . respect to the~ publio iand~, including public bearings, ad~
PAGENO="0150"
146
8
I v.isory mechanisms, and such other procedures as may be
2 necessary to provide public input in.a particular instance.
3 (e) The term "public lands" means any lands: owned.
4 by the United States within the several States and adminis~*
tered by the Secretary of the Interior through the Bureau
6 of Land Management, without . regard to how the. United
7 States acquired ownership, except-
8 (1) lands located on* the Outer Continental Shelf;
9~ and
10 (2) lands held in trust for the benefit of Indians,
11. Aleuts, and Eskimos.
12 . (f) The term "right-of-way" means an easement, lease,
~ 3 pennit, or. license to occupy, use, or traverse public lands
14 granted for the purposes listed in title V of this Act.
15 (g) The term "Secretary", unless specifically de~ig-
16 nated otherwise, means the `Secretary of the Interior.
17 (h) The term "sustained yield" means the achieve-
18 ment and `maintenance in perpetuity of a high-level ~annual
19 or regular periodic output of the various renewable resources'
20 of the public lands without impairment of. the productivity
21 of the land.
22: (i.) The term "wilderness" as used in section 312
23 shall have~ th~.same meaning as it does in section 2 (c) .of the
24~ ` Wilderness Act.
25 . . .(j): The term "withdrawal" means the exclusion of an
PAGENO="0151"
147
9~
1 area of public lands, or of lands within the National Forest
2 System, from management under principles of multiple use
3 in order to protect or favor particular public values in the
4 land, or a. withholding of an area of such land from settle-
~ ment, sale, or entry under some or all of the general land
6 laws.
TITLE IT-PLANNING FUTURE PUBLIC
8 LAND USE
9 INVENTORY AND IDENTIFICATION
10 SEc. 201. (a) The Secretary shall prepare and main-
~ tam on a continuing basis, to reflect changes in conditions
12 and identifications of resource values, an inventory of all
13 public lands and their resources, giving priority to areas
14 of critical environmental cončern. The preparation and main-
15 tenance of such inventory of the identification of such areas
16 shall not, of itself, change pr prevent change of the man-
17 agement or use of public lands.
18 (b) As funds are madeavailable, the Secretary shall as-
19 certain the boundaries of the public lands, provide means of
20 public identification thereof including, where appropriate,
21 signs and maps, and provide State and local governments
22 with data from the inventory for the purpose of planning
23 and regulating the uses of non-Federal lands in proximity
24 to such public lands.
PAGENO="0152"
148
10
1 LAND USE PLANNING
2 SEC. 202. (a) The Secretary shall develop, maintain,
~ and, when appropriate, revise land use plans which provide
4 by tracts or areas for the use of all public lands. Land use
5 plans shall be developed for all public lands regardless of
6 whether such lands pre\~10uSly have been classified, with-
7 drawn, set aside, or otherwise designated for one or more
8 USeS.
9 (b) In the development, of land use plans, the Secretary
10 shall-
~j. (1) use and observe the principles of multiple use
12 and sustained yield set forth in subsections (c) and :(h)
13 of section 103;
14 (2) use a systematic interdisciplinary approach to
15 achieve integrated consideration of physical, biological,
16 economic, and social sciences;
17 (3) give priority to the designation and protection
18 of areas of critical environmental concern;
19 (4) consider present and potential uses of the
20 public lands;
21 (5) consider the relative scarcity of the values in-
22 volved and the availability of alternative means (inchid-
23 ing recycling) and sites for realization of those values;
24 (6) weigh long-term benefits to the public against
25 short-term benefits;
PAGENO="0153"
149~
11
1 (7) provide for compliance with applicable pollu-
2 tion control laws, including State and Federal air, water,
3 noise, or other pollution standards or implementation
4 plans; and
5 (8) when not inconsistent with the purposes for
6 which the public lands are dedicated and administered,
7 coordinate the land use inventory, planning, and maii-
8 agement activities of or for public lands with the land
9 use planning processes of the States and local govern-
10 ments within which the public lands are located.
11 (c) Any classification of public lands or any land use
12 plan in effect on the date of enactment of this Act IS sub-
13 ject to review in the land use planning process conducted
14 under this section, and all public lands, regardless of classifi-
15 cation, are subject to inclusion in any land use plan developed
16 pursuarlbt to this section.
17 (d) With respect to public lands designated for reteii-
18 tion in Federal ownership, the Secretary, shall manage such
19 public lands under principles of multiple use and sustained
20 yield, in accordance with the land use plan developed by
21 him under this section when it is available, except that where
22 a tract of such public land has been dedicated to specific
23 u~es according to any other provision of law, it shall be
24 managed in accordance with such law.
25 (e) If as a result of land use planning a management
PAGENO="0154"
150
12
1 decision is made to exclude one or more principal or major
2 uses for two years or more, action implementing that decision
3 on tracts of land in excess of fifty thousand acres shall be
4 reported to the House of Representatives and the Senate;
5 however, action implementing that çlecision on tracts of land
6 of one hundred thousand acres or more shall terminate and
7 become ineffective if before the end of ninety days (not
8 counting days on which the House of Representatives or the
9 Senate has adjourned for more than three consecutive days)
10 beginning on the date the Secretary has submitted notice of
11 such implementing action to the Senate and House of Rep-
12 resentatives either House has adopted a resolution stating
13 that that House does not approve of such action.
14 (f) (1) In managing the public lands under a land
15 use plan the Secretary shall regulate, through permits, ii-
16 `censes, leases, or other instruments as the Secretary deems
17 appropriate, the use, occupancy, and development of the
18 public lands. The Secretary shall permit hunting and fishing
19 on lands and waters under his jurisdiction within the bound-
20 aries of the public lands in accordance with applicable laws
21 of the United States and the States wherein the lands and
22 waters are located, except the Secretary may designate zones
23 where, and establish periods when, no hunting and fishing
24 shall he permitted for reasons for public safety, administra- -
PAGENO="0155"
151
13
1 tion, or public use and enjoyment. Except in emergencies,
2 anyregulations of the Secretary pursuant to this section. shaH
~ be put into effect only after consultation with the appropriate
4 State fish and game department. Nothing in this Act shall
~ modify or change any Federal law. relating to migratory
6 birds. No. provision of this section or any other section of
~ this Act shall in any way amend the Mining Law of .1872
~ or impair the rights of any locators or claims under that Act,
9 except as provided in section 207 of this Act.
(2) The Secretary shall insert in any permit, license,
~ lease, or other instrument providing for t.he use, occupancy,
12 or development of the public lands a provision authorizing
13 revocation or suspension, after notice and hearing, of s~eh
14 permit, license, lease, or other document upon a final admin-
15 istrative finding of a violation of any regulation issued by
16 the Secretary under any Act applicable to the public lands
17 or upon final administrative finding of a. viOlation on such
1.8 lands of any applicable State or Federal air or water quality
1.9 standard or implementation plan. The Secretary may order
20 an immediate temporary suspension prior ~o a hearing or
21 final administrative finding if he determines that such a
2~2 suspension is necessary to protect public health or safety or
23 t.he environment. When other applicable law contains spe~
24 cific provisions for suspension, revOcation, or cancellation of
PAGENO="0156"
152
14
I a permit, license, or other document authorizing use, occu-
2 panCy, or development of the public lands the specific provi-
3 sions of such law shall prevail.
4 (g) The Secretary shall allow an opportunity for pub-
5 lic involvement and participation and by regulation shall
6 establish procedures, including public hearings where ap-
7 propriate, to give Federal, State, and local governments and
8 the public, adequate notice and opportunity to comment upon
9 the formulation of standards and criteria in the preparation
10 and execution of plans and programs and in the management
11 of the public lands,
12 SALES
13 SEO. 203. (a) A tract of the public lands (except land
14 designated as wilderness) may be sold where, as a result of
15 land use planning required under section 202, the Secretary
16 determines that-
17 (1) such tract of the public lands is isolated, is
18 difficult and uneconomic to manage as part of the public
19 lands, and is not suitable for management by another
20 Federal agency;
21 (2) such tract of the public lands was acquired for
22 a specific purpose and the tract is no longer required for
23 that or any other Federal purpose; or
24 (3) disposal of such tract of the public lands will
25 serve important public objectives which cannot be
PAGENO="0157"
153
15,'
1 achieved prudently or feasibly on land other than public
2 land and which outweigh other public objectives and
3 values, including recreation and scenic valties, kvhich
4 would be served by maintaining such tract in Federal
5 ownership.
(b) Where a tract of the public lands in excess. of two
7 thousand five hundred acres has been designated for sale,
S such sale may be made only after the end of the ninety days
9 (nOt counting days on which the House of Re~iresentatives
10 or the Senate has adjourned for more than three consec~itive
11 days) beginning on the day the Secretary has submitted
12 notice of such designation to the Senate and the House of
13 Representatives, and then bńly if neither Hou~e has adopted
14' a. resolution stating that that, House does not approve of such
15 designation. . .
16 (c) Sales of public lands shall be made at t price not
17 less than the fair market value as determined by the
18 Secretary. .~
19 (d) Sales of public lands under this section shall be
20 conducted under competith~e bidding procedures to be estab-
21 lished by the Secretary. ,`~ However, where the Secretar~
22 determines it necessary and proper in order (1) to assui~e
23 equitable distribution among purchasers of lands, or' (2) to
24' recognize equitable considerations or public policies, including
25 but not limited to a preference to users, he may sell those
PAGENO="0158"
154
16
1. lands with modified competitive bidding or without competi-
2 five bidding. In recognizing public policies, the Secretary
:3 shall first offer the tract of land being sold to the State in
4 which the land is located, and then, if riot sold, to a local
5 government entity in such State and in the vicinity of the
6 land to he disposed. After a. tract of land has been offered
7 for sale according to the preceding sentence, and is not sold,
8 it may be offered for sale to the general public, with the
9 Secretary giving consideration to the following potential
10 purchasers:
11 (1) adjoining landowners;
12 (2) individuals; and
(3) any otherperson. -
14 (e) The Secretary shall accept or reject, in writing,
15 any offer to purchase made through competitive bidding at
16 his invitation no later than thirty days after the receipt
17 of such offer or, in the case of a tract in excess of two thou-
18 sand five hundred acres, at the end of thirty da.ys after
19 the end of the ninety-day period provided in subsection (b)
20 of this section, whichever is later unless the offeror waives
21 his right to a decision within such thirty-day period. Prior to
22 the expiration of such periods the Secretary may refuse
23 to accept any offer or may withdraw any land or interest
24 in land from sale under this section. when he determines that
25 consummation of the sale would not be consistent with. this
PAGENO="0159"
155
17
1 Act or other applicable law. If the Secretary does not accept
2 or reject an offer as required by this section the offer shall
3 l)e deemed accepted.
(1) The Secretary of the Interior shall issue all patents
or other documents of conveyance after any disposal author-
6 ized by this Act. The Secretary shall insert in any such patent
or other document of conveyance he issues, except in the case
8 of land exchanges, for which the provisions of subsection 206
~ (b) of this Act shall apply, such terms, covenants, condi-
10 tions, and reservations as he deems necessary to ensure proper
~ land use and protection of the public interest. The Secretary
12 may correct such patents or documents where necessary. In
13 addition, the Secretary may make corrections on any docu-
14 ments of conveyance whicli have heretofore l)een issued by
15 the Federal Government on public lands.
16 (g) All conveyances of title issued by the Secretary of
17 the Interior, except those involving land exchanges provided
18 for in section 206, shaH reserve to time United States all
19 minerals in the lands, together with the right to prospect for,
20 mine, and remove the minerals under applicable law and
21 such regulations as the Secretary may prescribe, except as
22 provided in section 206, and except further that if time
23 Secretary makes the findings specified in section 209 (a)
24 the minerals may then be conveyed to the surface owner
PAGENO="0160"
156
IS
1 or prospective surface owner, as the case may be, as pro-
2 vided in section 209.
3 (h) The Secretary shall not make conveyances of public
4 lands which would be in conflict with State and local land
5 use plans, programs. zoning, and regulations. At least sixty
6 days prior to offering for sale or otherwise conveying public
7 lands under this Act, each Secretary shall notify the Governor
8 of the State within which such lands are located and the
9 head of the governing body of any political subdivision of the
10 State having zoning or other land use regulatory jurisdiction
~ in the geographical area within which such lands are located,
12 in order to afford the appropriate body the opportunity to
13 zone or otherwise regulate, or change or amend existing
14 zoning or other regulations concerning the use of such lands
15 prior to such conveyance.
16 (i) No tract of land may be disposed of under this Act,
17 whether by sale, exchange, or donation, to any person who
18 is not a citizen of the IJuited States, or in the case of a cor-
19 poiation, is not subject to the laws of any State or of the
20 Tnited States.
21 (j) The Act of July 31, 1958 (72 Stat. 438. 7 U.S.C.
22 1012a, 16 U.S.C. 478a), is amended to read as follows:
23 ~WThen the Secretary of Agriculture determines that a tract
24 of Nationa.l Forest System land is located adjacent to or con-
25 tiguous to an established community, and that transfer of
PAGENO="0161"
157
19
1 such land would serve community objectives that outweigh
2 the public objectives and values which would be served by
3 maintaining such tract in Federal ownership, he may, upon
4 application, set aside and designate as a to\vnsite an area
~ of not to exceed six hundred and forty acres of National
6 Forest System land for any one application. After public
7 notice, and satisfactory showing of need therefor by any
8 county, city, or other local governmental subdivision, the
~ Secretary may offer such area for sale to a governmental sub-
10 division at a price not less than the fair market value thereof.
~ The Secretary shall condition conveyances of townsites upon
12 the enactment, maintenance, and enforcement of a valid
13 ordinance which assures any land so conveyed will be con-
14 trolled by the governmental subdivision so that use of the
15 area will not interfere with the protection, management, and
16 development of adjacent or contiguous National Forest Sys-
17 tem lands."
18 WITHDRAWALS
19 SEC. 204. (a) On and after the date of enactment of
20 this Act-
21 (1) a tract of public lands, or of lands within the
22 National Forest System, of five thousand acres or more
23 ma.y be withdrawn only for a period of not more than
24 five years (or such a withdrawal may be extended) by
25 the Secretary on his own motion or upon request by an
54-005 0 - 75 - 11
PAGENO="0162"
158
20
1 agency head, except where the provisions of subsection
2 (Ii) (1) of this section apply; however, such withdrawal
*~ shall terminate and become ineffective if before the end
of ninety days (not counting days on which the Senate
or the House of Representatives has adjourned for more
6 than three consecutive days) beginning on the day notice
of such withdrawal has been submitted to the Senate and
s the House of Representatives, and either house has
adopted a resolution stating that that House does not
10 approve of the withdrawal; and
ii . (2) a tract of public land, or of lands within the
12 National Forest System, of less than five thousand acres
113 may he withdrawn by the Secretary on his own motion
14 or upon request by an agency head-
(A) for a period of not more than ten years
16 for a nonresource use; or
17 (B) for a. period of not more than five years
118 to preserve such tract for a specific use then under
consideration by . the CongTess.
20 All withdrawals and extensions thereof made under iara-
21 graphs (1) and (2) of this subsection shall be reviewed by
22 the Secretary toward the end of the withdrawal period (with
23 a copy of the report on such review being at that time sent
24 to the Committees on Interior and Insular Affairs of the
25 House of Representatives and the Senate) , and may be
PAGENO="0163"
159
21
1 extended only if the Secretary determines `that. the' purpose
2 for which the withdrawal was first made requires the exten-
3 sion, and then oniy for a period no longer than the length of
4 the original withdrawal period.
5 (b) (1) When the Secretary determines, or when the
6 Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs of either the
7 House of Representatives or the Senate notifies the Sec-
8 retary, that an emergency situation exists and that extraor-
9 dinary measures must be taken, to preserve values th~t
10 would otherwise l)e lost pending administrative or legisla-
11 tive action, the Secretary shall immediately make an emer~
12 gency withdrawal and file notice of such emergency with-
13 drawal with the Committees on Interior and Insular Affairs
14 of the Senate and of the House of Representatives. Such
15 emergency withdrawal shall be effective when made b~it
16 shall last only for a period not to exceed two years, and
17 may not be extended if either house has adopted a resolu-
18 tion stating that that House~ does not approve the extension.
19 (2) Within three months after filing the notice undei
20 paragraph (1), the Secretary shall furnish tQ the Corn-
21 inittees- .
22 (A) a clear explanation of the proposed use of
23 the land involved which created the emergency situ-
24 ation leading to the emergency withdiawal;
25 (B) an inventory and evaluation of the current
PAGENO="0164"
160
22
1 natural resource uses and values of the site and adjacent
2 public and nonpublic land and how it appears they will
3 be affected by the proposed use, including particularly
4 aspects of use that might cause degradation of the envi-
5 ronment;
6 (0) an identification of present users of the land
7 involved, and how they will be affected by the proposed
8 use;
9 (D) an analysis of the manner in which existing
10 and potential resource uses and users ame incompatible
11 with or in conflict with the proposed use, together with
12 a statement of the provisions to be made for continuation
13 or termination of existing uses;
14 (E) an analysis of the nTanner in which such
15 lands will `be used in relation to the specific require-
16 ments for the proposed use;
17 (F) a. statement as to whether any suitable al-
18 ternate sites are available (including cost estimates)
19 for the proposed use or for uses such a withdraw~al would
20 displace;
21 (G) a. statement of the consultation which has
22 been or will be had with other Federal agencies, with
23 regional, State, and local government bodies, and with
24 other appropriate individuals and groups;
25 (H) a statement indicating the effect of the pro-
PAGENO="0165"
161
23
i posed uses, if any, on `State and local government iii-
2 terests and the regional economy;
3 (I) a statement of the expected length of time
4 needed for the withdrawal;
5 (J) the time and place of hearings and of other
6 public involvemeiit concerning such withdrawal; and
7 (K) the place where the records on the withdrawal
8 can be examined by interested parties.
9 (c) Notwithstanding séctioii 553 (a.) (2) of title 5 of
10 the United States Code (relating to administrative proee-
11 dures) all new withdrawals made by the Secretary under
12 this section (except an emergency withdrawal made under
13 subsection (b) (1) of this~ section) shall be promulgated
14 on the record after an opportunity for an agency hearing.
15 (d) In the case of lands within the National Forest
16 System, the Secretary shall " make withdrawals at the request
17 of and only with the consent of the Secretary of Agriculture,
18 except when the provisions of subsection (b) (1) of this'
19 section apply.
20 ACQUISITION OF LAND
21 ` Suc. 205. (a.) Notwithstanding any other provision
22 of law, the Secretary, with respect to the public lands
23 and the Secretary of Agriculture, with respect to units of
24 the National Forest System, are authorized to acquire, by
25 purchase, exchange, donation, or by eminent domain lands or
PAGENO="0166"
162
24
1 interests therein: Provided, That with respect to the public
2 lands, the Secretary may exercise the power of eminent
3 domain only if necessary to secure access to public lands, and
4 then only if the lands so acquired are confined to as narrow
5 a corridor as is necessary to serve such purpose. Nothing in
6 this subsection shall he construed as limiting the authority
7 of the Secretary of Agriculture to acquire land by eminent
8 domain.
9 (b) Acquisitions pursuant to this section shall be con-
10 sistent with the mission of the department involved and with
11. applicable land-use plans.
12 (c) Lands and interests in lands acquired by the Secre-
13 tary pursuant to this section or section 206 shall, upon
14 acceptance of title, become public lands, and, for the admin-
~ istration of public land laws not repealed by this Act, shall
16 remain public lands. If such acquired lands or interests in
17 lands are located within the exterior boundaries of a. grazing
18 district established pursuant to the first section of the Act of
19 June 28, 1934 (43 U.S.C. 315) (commonly known as the
20 "Taylor Grazing Act"), they shall become a pait of that
21 district. Lands and interests in lands acquired pursuant to
22 this section which are within boundaries of the National
23 : Forest Syst~m may be transferred to the Secretary of Agri-
24 culture for administration as part of, and in accordance with
PAGENO="0167"
163
25
1 laws, rules, and regulations applicable to the National Forest
2 System.
3' EXCHANGES
4 Snc. 200. Anything set forth in section 203 (a) through
5 (g) to the contrary notwithstanding and without.compliance
6 with the provisions of section 203 (a) through (g)
7 (a) A tract of public land or interests therein may be
8 disposed of by exchange by the Secretary and a tract of land
9 or interests therein within the National Forest System may
10 be disposed of by exchange by the Secretary of Agriculture
11 where the Secretary concerned determines that the national
12 interest will be best served and better land management
13 will result by making that exchange: Provided, That lands
14 which are part of the National Forest System may be ex-
15 changed under the authority of this section only for lands
16 within units of the National Forest System.
17 (b) In exercising the exchange authority granted by
18 subsection (a) or by section 205 (a), the Secretary con-
19 cerned may accept title to any non-Federal land or interests
20 therein and in exchange~ therefor he may convey to the
21 grantor of such* land, or interests, any lands or interests
22 therein which he finds proper for transfer out of Federal
23 ownership and which are located in tile same State as the
24 non-Federal land to be acquired. The vali~es of the lands
PAGENO="0168"
164
26
1 so exchanged either shall be equal, or if they are not equal,
2 the values shall be equalized by the payment `of money to
3 the grantor or to the Secretary concerned as the circum-
4 stances require so long as payment does not exceed 20 per
5 centum of the total value of the lands transferred out of
6 Federal ownership. The Secret~mry concerned shall make
7 every effort to reduce the amount of the payment of money
8 to as small an amount as possible.
9 (c) Lands acquired by exchange under this section by
10 the Secretary which are w-ithin the boundaries of the
II National Forest System may be transferred to the Secre-
12 tary of Agriculture for administration as part of, and in
13 accordance with laws, rules, and regulations applicable to
14 the National Forest System. Lands acquired by exchange by
15 the Secretary under this section which are within the
16 boundaries of national park, wildlife refuge, wild and
17 scenic rivers, trails, or any other system established by
18 Act of Congress may be transferred to the appropriate agency
19 head for administration as part of, and in accordance with
20 the laws, rules, and regulations applicable to such system.
~1 RECOBDATION OF MINING CLAIMS AND ABANDONMENT
22 SEc. 207. (a) The owner of an unpatented lode or
2~ placer mining claim located prior to the date of this Act
24 shall, within the three-year period following the date of the
25 enactment of this Act and prior to December 31 of each year
PAGENO="0169"
165
27
1 thereafter, file the instruments required by paragraphs (1)
2 and (2) of this subsection. Theowiier of an unpatented lode
3 or placer mining claim located after the date of this Act
4 shall, prior to December 31 of each year following the calen-
5 dar year in which the said claim was located, file the in-
6 struments required by paragraphs (1) and (2) of this sub-
7 section.
8 (1) File for record in the ~fi3ce where the location notice
9 or certificate is recorded either a notice of intention to hold
10 the mining claim (including but not limited to such notices as
11 are provided by law to be filed when there has been a suspen-
12 sion or deferment of annual assessment work), an affidavit of
13 assessment work performed thereon, or a detailed report
14 provided by the Act of Septethber 2, 1958 (72 Stat. 1701),
15 relating thereto.
16 (2) File in the office of the Bureau of Land Manage-
17 ment designated by the Secretary a copy of the official record
18 of the instrument filed or recorded pursuant to paragraph (1)
19 of this subsection.
20 (b) The owner of an unpatented lode or placer mining
21 claim located prior to the date of enactment of this Act shall,
22 within the three-year period following the date of enactment
23 of this Act, file in the office of the Bureau of Land Manage-
24 ment designated by the Secretary a copy of the official roe-
25 ord of the notice of location or certificate of location. The
PAGENO="0170"
166
28
1 owner of an unpatented lode or placer mining claim located
2 after the date of enactment of this Act shall, within ninety
3 days after the date of location of such claim, file in the office
4 of the Bureau of Land Management designated by the Secre-
tary a copy of the official record of the notice of location or
6 certificate of location.
7 (c) The failure to file such instruments as required by
8 subsections (a) and (b) shall be deemed conclusively to
9 constitute an abandonment of the mining claim by the owner;
10 but there shall, however, be no abandonment if the instru-
11 ment is defective or not timely filed for record under
12 other Federal laws permitting filing or recording thereof,
13 or if the instrument is filed for record by or on behalf of
14 some hut not all of the owners of the mining claim.
15 RECORDABLE DISCLAIMERS OF INTEREST IN LAND
* 16 SEC. 208. (a) After consulting with any affected
17 Federal agency, the Secretary is authorized to issue a docu-
18 ment of disclaimer of interest or interests in any lands in any
19 form suitable for recordation, where the disclaimer will help
* 20: reiiiove .a cloud on the title of such lands or where he deter-
21 mines (1) a record interest of the United States in lands
22 has terminated by operation of law; or (2) the lands lying
23 be~ween the meander line shown on a plat of survey
24 appi'oved by the Bureau of Land Management or its pred-
* ~5 ecessors and the actual shoreline of a body of water are not
PAGENO="0171"
167
29
1 lands of the United States; or (3) accreted, ,~relictc~d, or
2 avulsed lands are not lands of the United States.
3 (b) No document of disclaimer shall he issued pursuant
4 to this section unless the applicant therefor has filed with
~ the Secretary an application in writing and notice of such
6 application setting forth the grounds supporting such appli-
7 cation has 1)een pulilislied in the Federal Register at least
8 ninety days preceding the issuance of such disclaimer and
9 until the applicant therefor has paid to the Secretary the
10 administrative costs of issuing the disclaimer as determined
~i by the Secretary. All receipts shall be deposited to the then-
12 current appropriation from which expended.
13 (c) Issuance of a document of disclaimer by the Secre-
14 tary pursuant to the provisions of this section and regulations
15 promulgated hereunder shall h~ave the same effect as a quit-
16 claim deed from the United States.
17 CONVEYANCE OF RESERVED MINERAL INTERESTS
18 SEC. 209. (a) The Secretary, after consultation
19 with the appropriate agency, head, may convey mineral
20 interests owned by the United States where the surface is
21 111 non-Federal ownership, iegardless of which Federal
22 agency may have administere,d the surface, if he finds (1)
23 that there are no known mineral values in the land, or (2)
24 that the reservation of the mineral rights in the United States
25 is interfering with or precluding appropriate. *npnmineraJ
PAGENO="0172"
168
30
1 development of the land and that such development is a more
2 beneficial use of the land than mineral development.
3 (b) Conveyance of mineral interests pursuant to this
4 section shall be made only to the record owner of the surface,
5 upon payment of administrative costs and the fair market
6 value of the interests being conveyed, giving consideration to
7 the reverter Provided for in subsection (c) of this section.
8 (c) The document of conveyance for any mineral in-
9 terests transferred pursuant to this section shall provide that,
10 in the event that mineral development activities are initiated,
ii the mineral interests of the owner or owners of the parcel
12 of land on which such activities are initiated, together with
13 the right to prospect for, mine, and remove the minerals
14 under applicable law and such regulations as the Secretary
15 may prescribe, shall revert to the United States.
16 (d) Before considering an application for conveyance
17 of mineral interests pursuant to this section the Secretary
18 shall require the deposit of a sum of nioney which lie deems
19 sufficient to cover administrative costs including, but not
20 limited to, costs of conducting an exploratory program to
21 determine the character of the mineral deposits in the land,
22 evaluating the data obtained under the exploratory program
23 to determine the fair market value of the mineral interests to
24 be oonveyed, and preparing and issuing the documents of
2~ conveyance. If the administrative costs exceed the deposit,
PAGENO="0173"
169
31
1 the applicant shall pay the outstanding amount; and if the
2 deposit exceeds the administrative costs, the applicant shall
~ be given a credit for or refund of the excess.
4 (e) Moneys paid to the Secretary for administrative
~ costs pursuant to subsection (d) shall be paid to the agency
6 which rendered the service and deposited to the appropriation
~ then current.
8 GRAZING FEES
9 SEC. 210. (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of
10 law, the Secretary with respect to the grazing of domestic
~ livestock on the public lands and the Secretary of Agricul-
12 ture with respect to the grazing of domestic livestock on lands
13 administered by him under the Act of April 24, 1950
14 (16 U.S.C. 580), shall charge an annual fee for such grazing
15 which shall be computed as follows; except that in no event
16 shall such fee be set at less than $2 per animal~unit month
17 of grazing:
18 (1) The fair market value of grazing domestic live-
19 stock on such lamids for the period 1964-1968, which shall
20 be the base period, shall be the amount that was determined
21 to be fair market value for the year 1966 by the Depart-
22 meiit of the Interior and the Department of Agriculture in
23 the Westernwide Livestock Grazing Survey.
24 (2) The fair market value for such base period shall,
25 after the date of ena~ctrnent of this Act, be adjusted each
PAGENO="0174"
170
32
1 year according to a combined index of prices received for
2 beef cattle during the preceding year and the average monthly
3 rate per head for pasturing cattle on privately owned land
4 for the prcceding year as collected for the eleven WTestern
5 States by the Statistical Reporting Service of the Department
6 of Agriculture.
7 (b) The term "animal unit month of grazing" as used
8 in this section means the forage re~uired by the grazing
9 of one cow and calf or its equivalent for a period of one
10 month. One cow shall, for the purpose of this definition,
11 be considered the equivalent of one h~rse or five sheep or
12 goats.
13 (c) (1) Fifty per centum of all moneys received by the
14' United States as fees for grazing domestic livestock on such
15 lands under the provisions of this section shall be credited
16 to `a separate account in the Treasury, one-half of which is
17 authorized to he appropriated and made available for use
18 in the district, region, or national forest from which such
19 moneys were derived, as the respective Secretary may direct
20 after consultation with district, regional, or national forest
21 user representatives, for the purpose of actual range rehahili-
22 tation, protection, and improvements on such lands, and the
23 remaining one-half shall l)e used for range rehabilitation,
24 protection, and improvements as the Secretary concerned
25 directs, Any funds so appropriated shall he in addition to any
PAGENO="0175"
171
~ other appropriations made to the respective Secretary for
2 range management. Such improvements shall include all
~ forms of range laud management including but not limited to,
4 seeding and reseeding, fence construction, weed control,
~ water development, and fish and wildlife habitat enhance-
6 nient as the respective Secretary may direct after corisulta-
7 tion with district, regional, Or national forest user repre-
s sentatives.
(2) The first clause of section 10 (ii) of the Taylor
10 Grazing Act (48 Stat. 12G9) ,as amended (43 U.S.C. 315),
~ is hereby repealed. All distributions of moneys made under
12 section 2 (c) (1) of this Act shall be in addition to distribu-
13 tions made under section 10 of the Taylor Grazing Act and
14 shall not apply to distribution of moneys made under section
15 11 of that Act. The remaining moneys received by the
16 United States as fees for grazing domestic livestock shall
17 lie deposited in the Treasury as miscellaneous receipts.
18 DIJEATION OF (iHAZING LEASES
19 SEc. 211. (a) Permits and leases for domestic live-
20 stock grazing on lands described in subsection 210 (a) of this
21 Act shall he issued fur a terni of teui years sul)~eet to grazing
22 capacity except as provided in subsection (b).
23 (h) Shorter permit or lease terms may be granted
24 where-
25 (1) the land is pending disposal; or
PAGENO="0176"
172
34
1 (2) the land will be devoted to a public purpose
2 prior to the end of the ten-year term.
3 (c) All permits and leases shall incorporate an allot-
4 ment management plan, if available, which has been devel-
5 oped for such lands only, after consultation with permittees.
6 (d) Nothing containe.d herein shall be construed as re-
7 stricting the authority of the Secretary concerned to cancel,
8 suspend or modify a grazing permit or lease, in whole or in
9 part, pursuant to the terms or conditions thereof, or to cancel
10 or suspend a grazing permit or lease, or for any violation of a
11 grazing regulation or of any term or condition of such
12 grazing permit or lease.
13 (e) Whenever a permit or lease for grazing domestic
14 livestock is canceled in whole or in part, in order to devote
15 the lands covered by the permit or lease to another public
16 purpose, including disposal, the permittee or lessee shall re-
17 ceive a reasonable compensation from the United States, to be
18 determined by the respective Secretary, hut not to exceed the
19 fair market value of the terminated portion of the permittee's
20 or lessee's interest therein, for the loss of any interest in an
21 authorized permanent improvement placed or constructed on
22 the lands covered by such perimt or lease by the permittee or
23 lessee. Except. in cases of emergency, no permit or lease shall
24 he canceled under this subsection without two years' prior
25 notification.
PAGENO="0177"
173
35~
1 (f) So long as the lands for which the peimit or lease
2 is issued remain available for domestic livestock grazing,
9 110 permiltee 01 lessee complying with the rules and regula-
4 tions proiiiulgated by tile respective Secretary and who has
5 complied with the terms and conditions of the permit or
6 lease shall be denied the renewal of such permit or lease.
7 GRAZING DISTRICT ADVISORY BOARI)S
8 SEC. 212. The provisions of section 14 of the Federal
9 Advisory Committee Act (5 TJ.S.C. App. 1) shaH not be
10 construed as having applied or to apply in the case of those
ii grazing district advisory boards established pursuant to the
12 provisions of section 18 of the Act of June 28, 1934 (48
13 Stat. 1269).
14 TITLE III-BU1lEAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT
15 ESTABLISHMENT OF BUREAU
16 SEC. 301. (a) There is cstal)lished within the Depart-
17 ment of the Interior a Bureau of Land Management (here-
18 molter in this Act referred to as the "Bureau") which
19 shall have as its head a Director who shall be appointed by
20 the President, by and ~ritii the advice and consent of the
21 Senate. Tire Director of the Bureau shall have a broad back-
22 ground and substantial experience in public land and natural
23 resource management. He shall carry out such functions and
24 shall perform such duties as the Secretary may prescribe with
25 respect to the management of lands and resources under his
54-005 0 - 75 - 12
PAGENO="0178"
174
36
1 jurisdiction according to the applicable provisions of this Act
2 and any other applicable law.
(b) Subject to the discretion granted to him by Reorga-
4 mzation Plan Numbered 3 of 1950 (5 F.S.C. 481 Note),
~ the Secretary shall carry out through the Bureau all
6 functions, powers, and duties vested in him and relating
7 to the management of public lands which, on the date
8 of enactment of this section, were carried out by him through
~ the Bureau of Land Management established by section 403
io of Reorganization Plan Numbered 3 of 1946. Any reference
~ in any law, document, regulation, or other paper of the
12 [nited States to the Bureau of Land Management shall he
13 deemed to be a reference to the Bureau established by this
14 section.
15 (c) In addition to the Director, there shall be an Asso-
16 ciate Director of the Bureau and so many Assistant Direc-
17 tors, and other employees, as may lie necessary, who shall
18 be appointed by the Secretary subject to the provisions of
19 title 5, United States Code, governing appointments in the
20 competitive service, and shall be paid in accordance with
21 the prOvisions of chapter 51 and subchapter 3 of chapter 53
22 of such title relating to classification and General Schedulř
23 pay rates.
24 (d) No suit, action, or other judicial proceeding, and
25 no administrative action or proceeding, lawfully commenced
PAGENO="0179"
175
37
1 on or before the date of enactment of this section, and in-*
2 volving or relating to the Bureau of Land Management
3 established under section 403 of Reorganization Plan Niun-
4 bered 3 of 1946 shall abate by reason of the eiiactment of
5 this section. Nothing in this section shall affect any regula-
6 tion of the Secretary with respect to the administration of
7 the public lands administered by him through the Bureau of
8 Land Management on the date of enactment of this section.
9 ENFORCEMENT ATJTIIORITY
10 SEc. 302. (a) Any person who violates-
ii (1) any regulation issued by the Secretary with
12 respect to the managenient, use, protection, develop-
13 ment, acquisition, or conveyancing of the public lands,
14 including the property located thereon;
15 (2) any provision of a permit, lease, license, or
16 other document issued by the Secreta~y with respect to
17 the use, occupancy, or development of such public lands;
18 or
19 (3) any provision of this Act;
20 shall be fined not more than $1,000 or imprisoned for not
21 longer than twelve months, or both. Any person charged
22 with a violation of such regulation may be tried and sen-
23 tenced by any United States magistrate designated for that
24 purpose by the court by which he was appointed, in the
25 same manner and subject to the same conditions and limi-
PAGENO="0180"
176
38
1 tations as provided for in section 3401 of title 18 of the
2 LTnited States Code.
3 (b) At the request of the Secretary, the Attorney Gen-
4 oral may institute a civil action in any Uiiitt~d States dis-
5 ~rict court for an injunction or other appropriate order to
6 prevent, any person from utilizing those public lands in
7 violation of regulations issued by the Secretary under this
8 Act.
9 (c) For the specific purpose of enforcing any Federal
10 law or regulation relating to those pullic lands or re-
11 sources managed by him, the Secretary may designate an
12 employee who has had specialized law enforcement train-
13 ing to (1) execute and serve any warrant or other process
14 issued by a. court or officer of competent jurisdiction; (2)
15 make arrests without. warrant or process for a misdemeanor
16 he has reasonable grounds to believe is being committed in
17 his presence or view, or for a felony if he has reasonable
18 grounds to believe that the person to be arrested has com-
19 mitted or is committing such felony; (3) carry firearms
20 (so long as the employee has been specifically trained to
21 handle firearms, and then only to the extent necessary to
22 carry out his responsibilities while actually on duty) ; (4)
23 search without warrant or process any person, place, or con-
24 veyance according to any law or rule of law; and (5)
PAGENO="0181"
177
39
1 seize without warrant or process any evidentiary item as
2 provided by law.
3 COOPERATION WITH STATE AND LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT
4 AGENCIES
5 SEC. 303. In connection with administration and regula-
6 tion of the use and occupancy of the public lands, the Secre-
7 tary may cooperate with the regulatory and law enforcement
8 officials of any State or political subdivision thereof. Such
9 cooperation may include reimbursement to a State or its sub-
10 division for expenditures incurred by it in connection with
11 activities which assist in the administration and regulation
12 of use and occupancy of those public lands.
13 SERVICE CHARGES, REIMBURSEMENT PAYMENTS, AND
14 EXCESS PAYMENTS
15 SEC. 304. (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of
16 law, the Secretary may establish filing fees, service fees and
17 charges, and commissions with respect to applications and
18 other documents relating to the public lands and may change
19 and abolish such fees, charges, and commissions.
20 (b) The Secretary is authorized to require a deposit of
21 any poyinents intended to reimburse the United States for
22 extraordinary costs with respect to applications and other
23 documents relating to such lands. The moneys received for
24 extraordinary costs under this subsection shall be deposited
PAGENO="0182"
178
40
1 with the Treasury in a special account and are hereby author-
2 ized to be appropriated and made available until expended.
3 As used in this subsection, "extraordinary costs" include but
4 are not limited to the costs of special studies; enviromriental
5 impact statements; momtormg construction, operation, main-
6 tenance, and termination of any authorized facility; or other
7 special activities.
8 (c) In any case where it shall appear to the satisfaction
9 of the Secretary that any person has made a payment under
10 any statute relating to the sale, lease, use, or other disposi-
~ tion of public lands which is not required or is in excess of the
12 amount required by applicable law and the regulati~ns issued
13 by the Secretary, the Secretary, upon application or other-
14 wise, may cause a refund to be made from applicable funds.
15 DEPOSITS AND FORFEITURES
16 SEC. 305. (a) Any moneys received by the fnited
17 States as a result of the forfeiture of a bond or other security
18 by a resource developer or purchaser or permittee who does
19 not fulfil the requirements of his contract or permit or does
20 not comply with the regulations of the Secretary; or as a
21 result of a compromise or settlement of any claim whether
22 sounding in tort or in contract involving present or potential
23 damage to the public lands shall be credited to a separate*
24 account in the Treasury and are hereby authorized to be
25 appropriated and made available, until expended as the Seere-
PAGENO="0183"
179
41'
1 tary may direct, to cover the cost to the United States of ahy
2 improvement, protection, or rehabilitation work oii those
~ public lands which has been' rendered necessary by'the action
4 which has led to the forfeiture, compromise, or settlement.
(b) Any moneys collected under this Act in connection
6 with lands administered under the Act of August 28, 1937
7 (43 U.S.C. 1 181a-1 181j), shall be expended for tlie:benefit
8 of such land only.
(d) If any portion of' a deposit .or amount forfeited under
10 this Act is found by the Secretary to be in excess of the
11 cost of doing the work authorized under this Act, the
12 Secretary, upon application' or otherwise, may cause a ~e-
13 *fund of the amount in excess to be `made from applicable
14 funds. ` `
15 WORKING CAPITAL FUND
16 Sno. 306. (a) There `is hereby established' a working
17 capital fund for the management of the public lands. Thi~ fund
18 shall be available without fiscal year limitation for expenses
19 necessary for furnishing, `in accordance with the `Fedenil
20 Properly and Administrative Services Act of 1949 (63 Stat.
21 377), and regulations promulgated thereunder, supplies and
22 equipment services in support of Bureau programs, including
23 but not limited to, the purchase or construction of' storage
24 facilities, equipment yards, and related improvements and the
25 purchase, lease, or rent Of motor vehicles, aircraft, `heavy
PAGENO="0184"
180
42
1 equipment, and fire control and other resource management
2 equipment within the limitations set forth in appropriations
0 made to the Secretary for the Bureau.
4 (b) The initial capital of the fund shall consist of ap-
5 propriations made for that purpose together with the fair and
6 reasonable value at the fund's inception of the inventories,
7 equipment, receivables, and other assets, less the liabilities,
8 transferred to the fund. The Secretary is authorized to make
9 such subsequent transfers to the fund as he deems appropriate
i~ in connection with the functions to be carried on through
11 the fund.
12 (c) The fund shall he credited with payments from
13 appropriations, and funds of the Bureau, other agencies of
14 the Department of the Interior, other Federal agencies, and
15 other sources, as authorized by law, at rates approximately
16 equal to the cost of furnishing the facilities, supplies, equip-
17 ment, and services (including depreciation and accrued an-
18 nual leave). Such payments may be made in advance in
19 connection with firm orders, or by way of reimbursement.
20 (d) There is hereby authorized to be appropriated not
21 to exceed 83,000,000 as initial capital of the working
22 capital fund.
23 STUDIES, COOPERATIVE AGREEMENTS, AND CONTRIBUTIONS
24 SEC. 307. (a) The Secretary may conduct investiga-
25 tions, studies, and experiments, on his own initiative or in
PAGENO="0185"
igi
43
~ cooperation with others, involving the management, protec-
2 tion, development, acquisitiOn, and conveying of the public
~ lands.
(b) The Secretary may enter into contracts. or coop-
~ erative agreements involving the management, protection,
6 development, and sale of public lands.
(c) The Secretary may accept contributions or dona-
~ tions of money, services, and property, real, personal, or
~ mixed, for the management, protection, development, acqui-
lo sition, and conveying of the public lands, including the
~ acquisition of rights-of-way for such purposes. He may
12 accept contributions for cadastral surveying performed on
13 federally controlled or intermingled lands. Moneys received
14 hereunder shall be credited to a separate account in the
15 Treasury and are hereby authorized to be appropriated and
16 made available until expended, as the Secretary may direct,
17 for payment of expenses incident to the function toward the
18 administration of which the contributions were made and
19 for refunds to depositors of amounts contributed by them
20 in specific instances where contributions are in excess of
21 their share of the cost. 0
22 CONTRACTS FOR SURVEYS AND RESOURCEPROTECTION 0.
23 SEC. 308. (a) The Secretary is authorized to enter into
24 contracts for the use of aircraft, and for supplies and serv-
25 ices, prior to the passage of an appropriation therefor, for
PAGENO="0186"
182
.44
*~ airborne cadastral suryey and resource protection operations
- of the . Bureau. Ho may renew such contracts animally, not
more than twice, without additional competition. Such con-
4 tracts . shall oblignte funds for the fiscal years in which the
5 COStS are incurred.
6 (b) Each such contract shall provide that the obligation
of the United States for the ensuing fiscal years is contingent
8 upon the passage of an applicable appropriation, and that no
payment shall be made under the contract for the ensuing
~ fiscal . years until such appropriation becomes available for
ii . expenditure.
12 I4OCAL ADVISO1~Y COIJXCILS
13 SEc. 309. (a) The Secretary is authorized and encour-
14 aged to establish for regions3 States, districts, or local units
15 of the Bureau advisory councils of not less thaii ten and not
more than fifteen members appointed by him from among
1-7- persons who are representative of the various major citizens'
is interests concerning the problems relating to land use plan-
19 lung or the management of the public lands located within
~-j -the region, State, district, or local unit for which an advisory
21 council is established. To the extent practicable there shall be
22 i-no overlap or- duplication of such councils. Appoin~nents
- shall be made in accordance with rules prescribed by the
24 Secretary. The establishment and operation of an advisory
25 council established under this section shall conform to the
PAGENO="0187"
183
45
1 requirements of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5
2 U.S.C. App. 1).
(h) Notwithstanding th~ provisions of subsection (a)
4 of this section, each advisory council established by the
~ Secretary under this section shall meet at least twice a year
6 with such meetings being called by the Secretary, except
7 that if no meeting has been held for a period of six months
s the chairman of an advisory, council may call a meeting. In
9 addition each such advisory council may hold additional
10 meetings as determined by the chairman or a majority
ii thereof.
12 (e) Members of advisory councils shall serve without
13 pay, except per diem will b~ paid each member for ineetiiigs
14 called by the Secretary.
15 (d) An advisory council shall furnish advice to the
16 Secretary with respect to the land use planning, classifica-
17 tion, retention, management, and disposal of the public lands
18 and located within such region, State district, or locality and
19 such other matters as may be referred to it by the Secretary.
20 RULES AND REGULATIONS
21 SEc. 310. The Secretary, with respect to the public
22 lands, shall promulgate. rules and regulations to carry out
23 ~he purposes of this Act, and of other laws applicable to
24 the public lands. The promulgation of such rules and regula-
25 tions shall be governed by the provisions of chapter 5 of title
PAGENO="0188"
184
46
1 5 of the United States Code, without regard to section 553
2 (a) (2) . Prior to the promulgation of such rules and leg-
3 ulations, such lands shall be administered under existing rules
4 and regulations concerning such lands to the extent
5 practicable.
6 ANNUAL REPORT
7 SEC. 311. The Secretary shall prepare, after appro-
8 priate consultation with other agency heads, an annual re-
9 port which he shall make available to the public and submit
10 to Congress no later than 120 days after the close of each
11 fiscal year. The report shall describe, in appropriate detail,
12 activities relating or pursuant to this A ct for the fiscal year
13 just ended, any prollems which may have arisen con-
14 cerning such activities, and other pertinent information
15 which will assist the accomplishment of the provisions and
16 purposes of this Act. The report shall contain a detailed
17 list and description of all transfers of lands out of Federal
18 ownership for the fiscal year just ended. It shall include
19 such tables, graphs, and illustrations as will adequately
20 reflect the fiscal year's activities, historical trends, and
21 future projections relating to such lands.
22 BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT WILDERNESS STUDY
23 SEC. 312. The Secretary shall review those roadless
24 areas of 5,000 contiguous acres or more and roadless islands
PAGENO="0189"
185
47
1 of the public lands~, and shall Feport to the President his rec~
2 ommeiidation ~S to the suit ability ~r nonsuitability of each
~ such area or island for preserv~tion as wilderness. The review
~ ~ by the Secretary shall he made according to the
~ procedure specified in sections 3 (e) and 3 (d) and section
6 4 (d) (2) (with respect to mineral surveys) of the Wilder-
~ ness Act. The recommendations of the Secretary based on the
8 review conducted by him under this section shaH be submitted
9 to the President from time to time. The President shall advise
10 the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of
11 Ilepresentatives of his recoińmendations with respect to the
12 designation as wilderness of each such area on which review
13 has been complete, together with .a map thereof and a defi-
14 nitiori of its boundaries. Such advice by the President shall
13 be given with respect to ilot less than one-half of all the
16 areas within five years after the date of enactment of this
17 Act, and the remaining are~is within ten years after the date
~ of enactment of this Act. A recommendation of the President
19 for designation as wilderne$s shall become effective only if
20 so provided by an Act of Congress. During the period of re~
21 view of such areas, the Sedretary shall continue to adminis-
22 ter such lands according to his existing authority in a manner
23 so as to preserve the wilderness character of cacTi such area,
24 subject only to the continuation of existing mining and graz~
PAGENO="0190"
186
48
1 ing uses in the manner and degree in which the same was
2 being conducted. Once an area has been designated for pres-
3 ervation as wilderness, the provisions of the Wilderness Act
4 shall apply with respect to the administration and use of such
S designated area, including mineral development, in the same
6 manner as they apply to national forest wilderness areas.
7 MANAGEMENT OF WILD HORSES AND BURROS
8 SEC. 313. (a) Subsection (a) of section 3 of Public
9 Law 92-195, the Act of December 15, 1971 (16 U.S.C.
10 1333), is amended by adding "Notwithstanding any other
11 ~ of law, the Secretary is authorized to use aircraft
12 and motorized vehicles to provide for the protection, manage-
13 ment, and control of wild free-roaming horses and burros,
14 such use to be in accordance with humane procedures pre-
15 scribed by the Secretary.".
16 (b) Section 3 is ftu'ther amended by adding a new
17 subsection (e), as follows: "The Secretary is authorized to
18 sell or donate, without restriction, excess horses or burros
19 to individuals or organizations.".
20 TITLE TV-DESERT LANDS
21 CALIFORNIA DESERT CONSERVATION AREA
22 SEc. 401. (a) The Congress finds that-
23 (1) the California desert contains historical, scenic,
24 archeological, environmental, biological, cultural, scien-
PAGENO="0191"
187
49~
1 tific, educational, recreational and economic resources
2 that are uiiiquely located adjacent to an area of large
3 population;
4 (2) the desert environment is a total ecosystem that
is extremely fragile, easily scarred, and slowly healed;
6 (3) the desert environment and its resources, in-
eluding certain rare and endangered species of wildlife,
8 plants, and fishes, and numerous archeological and his-
9 tone sites, are seriously threatened by air pollution, in-
adequate Federal management authority, and pressures
of increased use, particularly recreational use, which are
12 certain to intensify because of the rapidly growing popu-
13 la.tion of southern California;
14 (4) the use of all desert resources can and should
15 be provided for in a : multiple use and sustained yield
16 management plan to conserve these resources for future
17 generations, and to provide present and future use and
18 enjoyment, particularly outdoor recreation uses, includ-
19 ing the use, where appropriate, of off-road recreational
20 vehicles;
21 (5) the Secretary has initiated a comprehensive
22 planning process and established an interim management
23 program for the California desert; and
24 (6) to insure further study of the relationship of
PAGENO="0192"
188
50
1 man and the desert environment, P~'ese1ve the unique
2 and irreplaceable resources, including archeological
3 values, and conserve the use of the economic resources of
4 the California desert, the public must be piovided more
5 opportumty to IJaltielpate iii such pialllling and manage-
6 ment, and additional management authority mijst be
7 provided by the Secretary to enable effective implemen-
8 tation of such planmng and management.
9 (ii) It is the p~upose of ibis section to provide for the
10 immediate and future protection and administration of the
11 California desert within the framework of a program of
12 multiple use and sustained yield, and the maintenance of
13 environmental quality.
14 (c) (1) For the puipose of this section, the term "Call-
15 fornia desert conservation area" means the area generally
16 depicted on a map entitled "California Desert Conservation
17 Area-Proposed" dated April 1974.
18 (2) As soon as practicable after the date of enactment
19 of this Act, the Secretary shall file a map and a legal descrip-
20 tion of the California desert area with the Committees on
21 Interior and Insular Affairs of the LTnited States Senate and
22 the House of Representatives, arid such descripth~ii shall have
23 the same force and effect as if included in this Act. Correction
24 of clerical and typographical errors in such legal description
PAGENO="0193"
189
51
~ and a map may be made by the Secretary. To the extent
2 practicable, the Secretary shall make such legal description
3 and map available to the public promptly upon request.
4 (d) The Secretary, in accordance with section 202 of
5 this Act, shall prepare and implement a comprehensive,
6 long-range plan for the management, use, development, and
7 protection of the public lands within the California desert
8 area. Such plan shall take into account the principles of multi-
9 plc use and sustained yield in providing for resource use and
10 development, including rights-of-way and mineral develop-
11 ment and the maintenance of environmental quality. Such
12 plan shall be completed and: implementation thereof initiated
13 on or before June 30, 1979.
14 (e) During the period~ beginning on the date of enact-
15 mont of this Act and ending on the effective date of imple-
16 mentation of the comprehensive, long-range plan, the See-
17 retary shall execute an interim program to manage, use, and
18 protect the public lands, and their resources now in danger of
19 destruction, in the California desert are~, to provide for the
20 puhilic use of such lands in an orderly arid reasonable manner
21 such as through the development of campgrounds and visitor
22 centers, and to provide for a uniformed desert ranger force.
23 (f) Subject to valid existing rights, nothing in tins
24 Act shall affect the applicability of the United States mining
54-005 0 - 75 - 1
PAGENO="0194"
190
52
~ laws on the public lands within the. California desert area,
2 eXcept that all mining claims located 011 public lands \vilIliii
~ the desert area after the date of enactment of this Act
~ shall be subject to such reasonable regulations as the See-
~ retary may prescribe to effectuate the purposes of this Act.
6 Any patent issued on any such mining claim shall recite
~ this limitation and contiiiue to he subject to such regulations.
s Such regulations shall provide for such measures as may
~ be reasonable to protect the scenic, scientific, and environ-
10 mental values of the California desert area against undue
ii impairment, and to assure against pollution of the streams
12 and waters within the desert area.
13 (g) (1) The Secretary, witl~in sixty days after the date
14 of enactment of this Act, shall establish a California Desert
15 Conservation Area Advisory Committee (hereinafter referred
16 to as "advisory committee") in accordance with the provi-
17 sions of section 309 of this Act.
18 (2) It shall be the function of the advisory committee
19 to advise the Secretary with respect to the preparation and
20 iml)lelnentatioll of the eonipreliensive, lollg-range plan ic-
21 quircd imdei `subsection (d) of this section.
22 (Ii) The Secretary of Agriculture and the Secretary of
23 Defense shall manage lands within their respective jurisdic-
24 tions located in or adjacent to the California desert area, in
PAGENO="0195"
191
53
1 accordance with the laws relating to such lands and wherever
2 practicable, in a manner consOnant with the purpose of this
3 section. The Secretary, the Secretary of Agriculture, and
~ the Secretary of Defense are authorized and directed to
~ consult among themselves and take cooperative actions to
6 carry out the provisions of this sui)Sectiofl, including a
~ 7 program of law enforcemeiit to protect the archeological
8 and other values of fhe area.
9 (i) The Secretary shall report to the Congress no later
10 than two years after the date of enactment of this Act, and
ii annually thereafter, on the progress in, and any problems
12 concerning, the implementation of this section, together with
13 any recommendations, which he may deem necessary, to
14 remedy such problems.
15 (j) There are authorized to be appropriated not to
16 exceed $40,000,000 for the purpose of this section, such
17 amount to remain available until expended.
18 CONVEYANCES FOR RECREATiON J?TJRPOSES
19 SEC. 402. (a) The Recreation and Public Purposes
20 Act of 1926 (42 U.S.C. 869-4), is amended as follows:
21 (1) The secoiid sentence of subsection (a) of the first
22 section of that Act (43 U.S.C. 869 (a) ) is amended to read
23 as follows: "Before the land may be disposed of under this
24 Act it must he shown `to the satisfaction of the Secretary that
PAGENO="0196"
192
54
~ the land is to be used for an established or definitely proposed
2 project, that the land involved is not of national significance
3 nor more than is reasonably necessary for the proposed use,
4 and that for proposals of over 640 acres comprehensive land
5 use plans and zoning regulations applicable to the area in
6 which the pul)11c lands to be disposed of are located have
7 been adopted by the appropriate State or local authority. The
8 Secretary shall allow for public involvement in all disposals,
9 including Pul)1i~ hearings on any proposed disposal of more
10 than 640 acres under this Act."
(2) Subsection (b) (i) of the first section of that Act
12 (43 U.S.C. 869 (b) ) is amended to read as follows:
13 "(b) Conveyances made in any one calendar year shall
14 be limited as follows:
15 "(i) For recreational purposes:
16 "(A) To aimy State or the State park agency
17 or any other agency having jurisdiction over the
18 State park system of such State designated by the
19 Governor of that State as its sole representative for
20 acceptance of lands under this provision, or to any
21 political subdivision of such State, six thousand four
22 hundred acres.
23 "(B) To any nonprofit corporation or nonprofit
24 association, six hundred forty acres,
PAGENO="0197"
193
55;~
1 "(C) No more than twenty-five thousand six
*2 hundred acres may be conveyed for recreational piir-
3 poses under this Act in any one State per calendar
4 year. Should any State or political subdivision, how-
5 ever, fail to secure in any one year, six thousand
6 four hundred acres, not counting lands for small road-
7 side parks and rest sites, conveyances may be made
8 thereafter if pursuant: to an application on file with
9 the Secretary of the Interior on or before the last
io day of said year and to the extent that the convey-
11 ance would not have exceeded the limitations of
12 said year."
13 (3) Section 2(a) of th~tt Act (43 U.S.C. 869-1) is
14 amended by inserting "or recreational purposes" immediately
15 after "historic-monument purposes".
16 (4) Section 2 (b) of that Act (43 U.S.C. 869-1) is
17 amended by adding ", except that leases of such lands for
18 recreational purposes shall be made without nionetary con-
19 sideration" after the phrase~ "reasonable annual rental".
20 ~ESERT AREAS STUDY
21 SEc. 403. (a) The Secretary shall identify and thor-
22 oughly study desert areas of the public lands, other than the
23 California Desert Conservation Area specified in section 401
24 of this Act, recognizing that-~
PAGENO="0198"
194
56
1 (1) the desert environment is a total ecosystem
2 that is extremely fragile, easily scarred, and slowly
3 healed;
4 (2) the desert environment and its resources may
5 be seriously threatened by air pollution, inadequate
6 Federal management, and pressures of increased use,
7 particularly recreational use; and
8 (3) in order to preserve the unique and irre-
9 placeable resources and conserve the use of economic
10 resources of desert areas further study of the relation-
11 ship of man and the desert environment (providing
12 greater public involvement) must be conducted.
13 (b) The Secretary shall submit a report to the Con-
14 gress, within five years after the date of enactment of this
15 Act, which shall include-
16 (1) a description (including maps) of each desert
17 area on the public lands;
18 (2) an analysis of the present condition of the total
19 ecosystem of each such desert area;
20 (3) a. ~Jrojection of the suitable uses which each
21 desert area. could accept without damaging the total
22 ecosystem;
23 (4) an estiniate of the natural resources contained
24 in the desert areas;
PAGENO="0199"
195
(5) a projection of the kinds of use demands which
2 are likely to be placed upon each desert area; and
3 ((3) r~commendations as to needed `administrative
4 or legislative action which is necessary to insure that
Federal management of the desert areas is adequate to
6 fully protect and develop each such desert area.
(c) There is authorized to be appropriated not to exceed
8 $1,500,000 for the purpose of this section.
9 TITLE V-RIGHTS-OF-WAY
10 AUTHORIZATION TO GRANT RIGHTS-OF-WAY
SEc. 501. (a) The Secretary, with respect to the public
12 lands `and, the Secretary of Agriculture, with respect to
13 lands within the National Forest System (except in each
14 case land designated as wilderness), are authorized to grant,
15 issue, or renew rights-of-way~ over, upon, or through such
16 lands for-
17 (1) reservoirs, canals,, ditches, flumes, laterals,
18 pipes, pipelines, tunnels, and other facilities and systems
19 for the impoundment, storage, transportation, or distri-
20 bution of water;
21 (2) pipelines and other systems for the transporta-
22 tion or distribution of liquids and gases, other than water
23 and other than oil, natural gas, synth~tic liquid or
24. gaseous fuels, or any refined product produced there-
PAGENO="0200"
196
1. from, and for storage and terminal facilities in connection
2 therewith;
3 (3) pipelines, slurry and emulsion systems, and
4 conveyor belts for transportation and distribution of
5 solid materials, and facilities for the storage of such
6 materials in connection therewith;
7 (4) systems for generation, transmission, and dis-
8 tribution of electric energy, except that the applicant
9 shall also comply with all applicable requirements of the
10 Federal Power Commission under the Act of June 10,
11 1920 (16 U.S.C. 796, 797);
12 (5) systems for transmission or reception of i~adio,
13 television, telephone, telegraph, and other electronic
14 signals, and other means of communication;
15 (6) roads, trails, highways, railroads, canals, tram-
16 ways, airways, livestock driveways, or other means of
17 transportation; or
18 (7) such other necessary transportation or other
19 systems or facilities which are in the public interest and
20 which require rights-of-way over, upon, or through
21 such lands.
22 (b) (1) The Secretary concerned shall require, prior
23 to granting, issuing, or renewing a right-of-way, that the
24 applicant submit and disclose any or all plans, contracts,
PAGENO="0201"
197
59
i agreements, or other informatioi~ or material reasonably re-
2 lated to the use, or intended use, of the right-of-way which
3 lie deems necessary to a determination, in accordance with
4 the provisions of this title,, as to whether a right-of-way
5 shall be gTanted, issued, or renewed and the terms and con-
6 ditions which should be included in the right-of-way.
7 (2) If the applicant is a partnership, corporation,
8 association, or other business entity, the Secretary concerned,
9 prior to granting a right-of-way pursuant to this title, shall
10 require the applicant to disclose the identity of the partic-
ii. ipants in the entity. Such disclosures shall include, where
12 applicable (A) the name and address of each partner; (B)
13 the name and address of each shareholder owning 3 per
14 centum or more of the shares, together with the nurn-
15 her and percentage of any class of voting shares of the
16 entity which such shareholder is authorized to vote; and
17 (0) the name and address of each affiliate of the entity
18 together with, in the case of an affiliate controlled by the
19 entity, the number of shares and the percentage of any class
20 of voting stock of that affiliate owned, directly or indirectly,
21 by that entity, and, in the case of an affiliate which controls
22 `that entity, the number of shares and the percentage of any
23. class of voting stock of that entity owned, directly or mdi-
24 rectly, by the affiliate.
PAGENO="0202"
198
60
1 (c) Nothing in this title shall bedeemed to limit in any
2 way the authority of the Secretary concerned to make grants,
3 issue leases, licenses, or permits, or enter into contracts
4 under other provisions of law, for purposes ancillary or
5 complementary to the construction, operation, maintenance,
6 or termination of any facility authorized under this title, but
7 such action shall not be in substitution for or inconsistent
8 with the provisions of this title.
9 (d) This title shall be administered in a manner to
10 promote competition.
11 COST-SHARE ROAD ATJTIIORIZATIOX
12 SEc. 502. (a) The Secretary with respect to the public
13 lands, is authorized to provide for the acquisition, construe-
14 tion, and maintenance of roads within and near the public
15 lands in locations and according to specifications which will
16 permit maximum economy in harvesting timber from such
17 lands tributary to such roads and at the same time meet
18 the requirements for protection, development, and manage-
19 ment of such lands and for utilization of the other resources
20 thereof. Financing of such roads may be accomplished (1)
21 by the Secretary utilizing appropriated funds, (2) by require-
22 ments on purchasers of timber and other products from the
23 public lands, including provisions for amortization of road
24 costs in contracts, (3) by cooperative financing with other
PAGENO="0203"
199
61
1 public agencies and with private agencies or persons, or (4)
2 by a combination of these methods: Prorided, That where
roads of a higher standard than that needed in the harvest-
4 ing and removal of the timber and other products covered by
the particular sale are to be constructed, the purchaser of
6 timber and other products from public lands shall not be
~ required to bear that part of the costs necessary to meet such
8 higher standard, arid the Secretary is authorized to make
~ such arrangements to this end as may be appropriate.
(b) Copies of all instruments affecting permanent inter-
~ ests in land executed pursuant to this Act shall he recorded
12 in each county where the lands are located.
13 (c) The Secretary may require the user or users of
14 a road, trail, land, or other facility administered by hii~
15 through the Bureau, inclńding purchasers of Government
16 timber and other products, to maintain such facilities in ~a
17 satisfactory condition commensurate with the particular u~č~
18 requirements of each. Such maintenance to be borne l~F
19 each user shall be proportionate to total use. The SecretatV
20 may also require the user or users of such a facility to reco11-~
21 struct the same when such reconstruction is determined to
22 be necessary to accommodate such use. If such mnaintenance~
23 or reconstruction cannot iJe so provided or if the Secretary
24 determines that maintenance or reconstruction by a user
PAGENO="0204"
200
62
1 would not be practical, then the Secretary may require
2 that. sufficient funds be deposited by the user to provide
his portion of such total maintenance or reconstruction.
~ Deposits made to cover the maintenance or reconstruction
of roads are hereby made available until expended to cover
6 the cost. to the United States of accomplishing the. p~~"poses
~ for which deposited: Prorided, That deposits received for
8 work on adjacent and overlapping areas may be conThined
~ when it is the most practicable and efficient manner of
~o performing the work, and cost thereof may be determined
~ by estimates: And proricled further, That unexpended bal-
12 ances upon accomplishment of the pi~irpose for which de-
13 posited shall be transferred to miscellaneous receipts or
14 refunded.
15 (d) Whenever the agreement under which the United
16 States has obtained for the use of, or in connection with, the
~ public lands a right-of-way or easement for a road or an
18 existing road or the right to use an existing road provides
19 for delayed payments to the Government's grantor, any
20 fees or other collections received by the Secretary for the use
21 of the road may be placed in a fund to be available for
22 makh~g payments to the grantor.
23 RIGHT-OF-WAY CORRIDORS
24 SEc. 503. In order to minimize adverse environmental
25 impacts and the Pi~oliferation of separate rights-of-way, the
PAGENO="0205"
201
63
1 utilization of rights-of-way in common shall be required to
2 the extent practical, and each~ right-of-way or permit shall
3 reserve to the Secretary concerned the right to giant addi-
4 tional rights-of-way or l)e1imts for compatible uses on or
5 adjiiceiit to rights-of-way granted puis~iaiit to this Act.
6 GENERAL PROVISIONS
7 S~c. 504. (a) The Secretary concerned shall specify
8 the boundaries of each right-of-way as precisely as is prac-
9 ticable. Each right-of-way shall be limited to the ground
10 which the Secretary concerned determines Cl) will be
ii occupied by facilities which constitute the project for which
12 the right-of-way is given, (2) to be necessary for the Opera-
13 tion or maintenance of the project, (3) to be necessary to
14 protect the public safety, and (4) will do no unnecessary
15 damage to the environment. The Secretary concerned may
16 authorize the temporary use of such additional lands as lie
17 determines to be reasonably necessary for the construction,
18 operation, maintenance, or termination of the project or a
19 portion thereof, or for access thereto.
20 (b) Each right-of-way or permit granted or renewed
21 pursuant to this section shall be limited to a reasonable
22 term in light of all circumstances concerning the project. In
23 determining the duration of a right-of-way the Secretary con-
24 cerned shall, among other things, take into consideration the
25 cost of the facility, its useful life, and any public purpose it
PAGENO="0206"
202
64
serves. The Secretary concerned shall renew any right-of-
2 way, in accordance with the provisions of this section, so
~ long as. the use for which the right-of-way is required is con-
~ tinuing and is maintained in accordance with all of the provi-
sions of this section.
6 (c) Rights-of-way granted, issued, or renewed pursualit
to this title shall be given under such regulations or stipula-
8 tions, in accord with the provision of this title or any other
~ applicable law, and subject to such terms and conditions as
10 the Secretary concerned may prescribe regarding extent,
~ duration, survey, location, construction, maintenance, and
12 termination.
13 (b) The Secretary concerned, prior to granting a right-
14 of-way pursuant to this title for a new project which may
15 have a significant impact on the environment, shall require
16 the applicant to submit a plan of construction, operation, and
17 rehabilitation for such right-of-way which shall comply with
18 stipulations or with regulations issued by that Secretary,
19 including the terms and conditions required under section
20 504 of this Act.
21 (e) Mineral and vegetative materials, including timber,
22 within or without a right-of-way, may be used or disposed
23 of in connection with construction or other purposes only if
24 authorization to remove or use such materials has been
25 obtained pursuant to applicable laws.
PAGENO="0207"
PAGENO="0208"
PAGENO="0209"
PAGENO="0210"
PAGENO="0211"
PAGENO="0212"
PAGENO="0213"
PAGENO="0214"
PAGENO="0215"
2 ~
-~ ~ C
~ t-~g_~o ~g-~ -;~ C
-
C-
- ~-- --~ -- CC C C CD
DDE
DDC_
~ ~ -~a=~j ~: :- -:
C CD -a: - C C C:- CD C
- - ;~I~-~ ~: :;
PAGENO="0216"
212
74
Statute at
Act of Chapter Section Large 43 U.S. Code
June 3, 1878 152 20: 91 253.
Revised Statute 2294 254.
May 26, 1890 395 26: 121
Mar. 11, 1902 182 32: 63
Mar. 4, 1904 3~4 33: 59
Feb. 23, 1923 ~fl5 42: 1281
Revised Statute 2293 255.
Oct. 6, 19 86 40: 391
Mar. 4, 1913 149 Only last 37: 925 256.
paragraph
of section
headed
"Public
Land
May 13. 1932 178 47 153 256a.
June 16, 1933 99 48: 274
July 20, 193a 419 49: 554...
Juice 16, 1937... 361 50: 303
Aug. 27, 1935 770 49: 909 256b.
Sept. 39, 1890 2. Res. ~ 26: 684 261.
June 16, 1890 244 21: 287 263.
Apr. 18, 1904 23 33: 589
Revised Statute 2304 271.
Mar. 1, 1901 674 31: 847 271, 272
Revised Statute 2300 272.
Feb. 25, 1919 37. 40: 1161 272a.
Dec. 28, 1922 19 42: 1007
Revised Statute 2396 274.
Mar. 3, 1893 203 27: 553 275.
The following words only: "And provided further: That where soldier's additional homestead entries
leave been made or initiated upon certifis-ate at the Conennissioner of the General Laced 0119cc of the eight
to make etc-lu entry, and there is no adverse claimant, i-nd such certificate is found erronecus cr invalid
for any cause, the purcleaocr thereunder, on making prool of such purchase, may perfect his title by pay-
mcccl cf the Gavenarnent price for the loud; l:ut run person shall be pemeilted to acquire more titan one
hundred and sinty acres of public land through the locaticut of any such certificate,"
Aug. 18, 1804 301 Only least 28: 397 276.
paragraph
headed
* "Surveying
the Puublic
- Laueds."
Revised Sintute 2304 277.
Revised Statute 2307. 278.
Sept. 21, 1922 357. 42: 900
Sept. 27, 1944 421 58: 7 ... 279-293,
June 20, 1940 474 60: 300 270.
May 31, 19 83 61: 123 270, 280, 282.
June 18, 1951 394 63: 253 279, 282.
Jctne3, 1948 399 62:355 283,294,
l)ec. 29, 1916 0 i-S 39: 862 291-299.
Feb. 28, 1931 ...... 3~a 46: 1454 201,
June 9, 1633 53 48: 119 291.
June 6. 1924 274 46: 409 292.
Oct. 25, 1918 195 40: 1016 293.
Sept. 28,1919... 63 41: 287 294,285.
Star. 4.1923 245 2 42: 1415 342.
Aug. 21, 1010 301 59: 518 1875.
Aug. 24, 1937 876 3 50: 875 liSle,
2. Desert Laced Entries:
Star. 28, 1909 2 32: 52, ch. 112 324.
Star. 28, 1908 1 35: 52, ch. 112 326.
Feb. 27, 1917 39: 946, cli. 134 330,
10cc. 15, 1921 42: 349, ch. 3 331,
Aug. 7, 1917 46: 250 332.
Mar. 28, 1993 3.5: 52, ch. 112 333,
Apr. 30, 1912 37: 106, cii. tot
Star. 4, 1015 5 38: 1161, cIt. 147 335
Feb.25,l925 43:992,ch,329 330,
July 30, 1056 70: 716, ch. 778 33Oa-d.
Mar. 4, 1915 5 38: 116, eb. 147. 337, 338.
etar. 4, 1029 45: 1518, ch. ~ 339,
3. Snsall Tracis:
June 1, 1933 317 52: 895 682a-e.
(b) Subject to the provisions of the Act of August 31,
2 19(34 (78 Stat. 751), but notwithstanding any other pro-
3 vision of law, applications for entry under the Acts specified
4 in subsection (a) may l)e made only during the five-year
5 period beginning on the date of enactment of this Act which
6 applications the Secretary shall allow or reject within two
7 years of receipt, and patents may be issued for such applica-
PAGENO="0217"
PAGENO="0218"
PAGENO="0219"
PAGENO="0220"
PAGENO="0221"
PAGENO="0222"
PAGENO="0223"
219
8].
1 following statutes or parts of statutes are repealed inso-
2 far as they apply to the public lands:
Statute at
Act of Chapter Section Large 43 U.S. Code
Revised Statutes 2309 691.
The following words only: `and the right-of-way for the construction of ditches and canals for ttie purpose
herein specified is acknowledged and confirmed; but whenever any person, in the construction of any ditch or
canal, Injures or damages the possession of any settler on the public domain, the party committing such injury
or damage shall be liat)te to the party injured for such injury or damage."
Revised Statutes 23-10 661.
The following words only: ", or rights to ditches and reservoirs used in corinecliorr with such water rights,"
Feb. 26, 1897 335 29: 599 66-i.
Mar. 3, 1899 427 1 30: 1233 699. 948 (16 U.S.C.
525).
The following wards amity: "that in tire form provided by existing low tire Secretary of tire Interior snray file
arid approve surveys arid plots of airy right-el-way tar a wagon road, railroad, or ottrer trigtisvay over- arid
across any forest reservation or reservoir site ashen in trio judgnrent tire public interests wilt riot be injuriously
affected thereby."
Mar. 3, 1875 152 18: 462 031-939.
May 14, 1898 299 2-9 30: 400 942-1 Ia 942-9.
Feb. 27, 1991 614 31: 815 913.
Jimmie 26, 1906 3546 34: 481 944.
Mar. 3, 1891 561 18-20 26: tOOt 046-949.
Mar. 4, 1917 to-i I 30: 1097
Slay 28, 1026 409 44: 668
Mar. 1, 1921 93 41: 1194 950.
Jan. 13, 1897 ii 20: 484 952-955.
Mar. 3, 1923 219 42: 0437.
Jan. 21, 1895 37 28: 635 951,956,957.
May 14, 1856 179 29: 120
Slay It, 1898 202 30: 4(81
Mar. 4, 1917 184 2 39: 1197.
Feb. 15, 1901 372 31: 790 959 (16 U.S.C. 79,
522).
Mar. 4, 1011 238 36: 1253.. 961 (16 U_S_c,. 5,
-120, 523).
Only the last two paragraphs under the subheading "Improvement of tire National Foresrs" under tire
heading "Forest Service."
Slay 27, 1952 338 60: 94
Slay 21, 1896 212 29; 127 962-965
Apr. 12, 1910 155 36: 296 . 960-970.
3 (b) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (a) of
4 this section, effective on and after twenty-four complete
5 calendar months after the date of enactment of this Act, the
6 following statute is repealed in its entirety:
Statute at
Act of Chapter Section Large U.S. Uncle
Revised Statute 2477 43 U.S.C. 932.
7 ATJTI-IOR-IZATION
8 SEc. 606. (a) Effective October 1, 1977, unless other-
9 wise specified in this Act, all express or implied appro-
10 priation authorizations for administration of the public lands
PAGENO="0224"
220
82
1 that contain no dollar limitations are repealed, and appro-
2 priations to administer the public lands shall not exceed the
~ amounts specified in appropriation authorization Acts here-
4 after enacted or in presently existing Acts that authorize the
5 appropriation of specified amounts. No money shall be
6 appropriated for the administration of the public lands except
7 as may be suhsequeirtlv authorized by Acts enacted after the
s date of enactment of this Act.
9 (b) The Secretary shall submit to the congress recom-
io mendations for lcgislation that will provide by statute the
11 pohcies~ scope, limitations, and guidelines for such adminis-
12 tration in order that policies heretofore adopted by adminis-
13 trative action may have a proper legislative base.
14 SEVERABILITY
SEC. 607. If any provision of this Act or the application
16 thereof is held invalid, the remainder of the Act and the
17 application thereof shall not be affected thereby.
0
PAGENO="0225"
221
Mr. MELCHER. That is probably a more comprehensive view of the
subcommittee bill from last year, but it may not reflect in many sec-
tions of the bill the subcommittee's present view. So, until we have
established just what the subcommittee is interested in, I will work
from it and from the administration bill. Subsequently, I am sure,
the subcommittee will consider introducing a clean bill more ac-
curately reflecting the views as of this Congress.
This morning, our first witness is Jack Horton, the Assistant Sec-
retary of Land and Water ResoUrces. We will receive from the In-
terior Department and from the Forest Service today, their general
views on the legislation. We heard from both last Friday concern-
ing their views on grazing. Now, we will get their general views.
Jack, we are pleased to have you back with us. I see you are ac-
companied by George Turcott.
Mr. HORTON. I have a full range of professionals from the Depart-
ment who are going to be responsive and supportive of the actions
of the subcommittee.
Mr. MELCUER. That is very helpful for you to bring up people
from the Department.
Mr. HORTON. I might identify some of these for the record in case
some members of the committee or staff would care to contact them.
We have Ray Taylor of the Legislative Counsel's Office who is close-
ly concerned with legislation; Jack McHale is Assistant Solicitor
for Lands; Eleanor Schwartz, of course, has an extensive background
in this legislation and she is Chief of the Division of Legislation
and Regulations in the Bureau of Land Management; George Lee is
a Deputy Assistant at the Bureau of Land Management and Merle
Storm is Chief of the Division of Forests. These, of course, are in
addition to George Turcott, Associate Pirector.
STATEMENT OP ~FACIC 0. IWRTON, ASSISTANT SECRETARY, LAND
AND WATER RESOURCES, DEPARTMENT OP THE INTERIOR
Mr. HORTON. I am privileged to appear before you today to discuss
the provisions of the Policy and Management Act, Subcommittee
Print No. 1 in relation to the provisions of the administration's
proposed National Resource Lands Management Act introduced as
H.R. 5224. We share with you the desire for enactment of compre-
hensive management authority and tools so urgently needed for ad-
ministration of the national resource lands. The national resource
lands and their resource values are among the Nation's greatest as-
sets. They encompass mountaiUs~ rangelands, forests, and lakes and
provide some of the most spectacular scenery on Earth. They are a
source of food, timber, minerals, and water and offer almost unlim-
ited recreational values.
The national resource lands were for many years used as a means
of stimulating the growth and development of the West. Consequent-
ly, little attention was given to preserving the irreplaceable values
of those lands. Many of the laws pertaining to the lands were de-
signed primarily to facilitate disposal. Although there has been a
growing awareness that these lands are an invaluable national asset
and that their values must be protected, preserved, and maintained
54-005 0-75-15
PAGENO="0226"
222
in Federal ownership. these lands have inherited an archaic and
often conflicting conglomeration of laws governing their use. The
national resource lands comprise over 60 percent of all Federal lands.
Yet Congress has never given the Bureau of Land Management, the
administering agency, a clear and comprehensive grant of authority
to manage the lands as it has done for the National Forest Service,
the National Park Service, and other land managing agencies.
Both subcommittee print No. 1 and the administration's bill address
the need for a 1nission statement and comprehensive management
authority. However, Subcommittee Print No. 1 contains a num-
ber of provisions which we view as unnecessarily inflexible with re-
spect to the details of the Secretary's administration of the lands
and which could result, in our opinion, in needless delay. We believe
that these provisions, which I will discuss in more detail shortly,
would also impose an unmanageable paperwork burden on both the
Congress and the Bureau of Land Management. For these and other
reasons I will point out, we do not favor enactment of the provisions
of Subcommittee Print No. 1 and strongly recommend that H.R.
5224, the administration proposal, be enacted in lieu thereof.
Title I of the administration bill declares a national policy that
these lands be managed under the principles of multiple use and
sustained yield in a manner which will protect the quality of en-
vironment, including requiring appropriate land reclamation as a
condition for use. In addition, title I directs the Secretary of the In-
terior to inventory the national resource lands and to develop com-
prehensive land use plans giving priority to areas of critical environ-
mental concern. "Areas of critical environmental concern" include,
among others, important natural systems and scenic or historic areas.
The bill also directs the Secretary to identify land suitable for wild-
erness study, and to review and make recommendations to the Presi-
dent so that he may ask Congress for inclusion of eligible land within
the wilderness system.
The wilderness review provisions in our bill would be applicable
to tracts of 50.000 roadless acres rather than tracts of 5,000 acres.
~\re will also consider for wilderness protection lesser acres, but the
use of 50~000 acres will make the job of reviewing 450 million acres
of BLM lands more manageable and in addition, less costly. While
the provisions of Subcommittee Print No. 1 would in some respects
provide similar management authorities and objectives, it contains
some provisions which are applicable to lands administered by the
Forest Service. We urge that a bill be enacted that avoids the con-
fusion of trying to relate the national resource lands to the National
Forest System that is designed specifically to establish a central law
for the management of lands administered by the Bureau of Land
Management. Of equal importance. we urge that a bill be enacted
which will provide the Secretary of the Interior with the flexibility
and tools needed for administering the lands for a number of dif~
ferent, perhaps potentially conflicting uses. Apart from the burden
which it would create for the Congress and the Bureau, we are seri-
ously concerned that provisions of Subcommittee Print No. 1 re-
quiring notice to the Congress of any management decision which
would exclude one or more major uses from a tract of land of more
PAGENO="0227"
223
than 50,000 acres for 2 years or more, would unnecessarily curtail
that flexibility. The same arguments can be made with respect to
the provisions of Subcommittee Print No. 1 on withdrawals. Min-
ing claims on public lands can be established easily, quickly and with
no advance notice to the United States. They often have a very last-
ing effect. Under the provisions of the Subcommittee Print No. 1 the
method for assuring the most appropriate use of fragile areas would
be cumbersome at a time when efficiency is crucial. We believe that
the withdrawal procedures in Subcommittee Print No. 1 are unnec-
essary as well as administratively difficult to implement. In addi-
tion, there is no specific authority to withdraw areas of less than
5,000 acres for resource uses. Under its provisions, the public would
be given notice and there would be an opportunity for participation
prior to withdrawaL The administration bill would provide ample
opportunity for public participation but would not affect the au-
thorities under which withdrawals are made.
Title II of our bill would provide authority for the Secretary to
sell by competitive bidding national resource lands at not less than
fair market value, when management of those lands would be signi-
ficantly improved thereby or when disposal would serve important
public objectives which cannot be achieved prudently on land other
than the national resource lands. It would authorize conveyance of
mineral interests in land to the surface owner if certain criteria are
met. Acquisition of lands needed for proper management of national
resource lands would also be authorized. The comparable sections of
Subcommittee Print No. 1 also contain specific provisions on dis-
posal for the benefit of State and local governments and adjoining
landowners.
It is the Department's position that State and local governments
and adjacent landowners should not be given a preference to land and
that, as a general rule, competitive bidding should be required ex-
cept in the unusual situation where a direct sale is necessary to recog-
nize equitable considerations or public policies. Our bill would recog-
nize instances when it is appropriate to give a preference to adjacent
landowners or users of the land based on facts of a particular case.
Similarly, the exception would authorize the Secretary to make a
first offer to State and local governments when appropriate. In any
event State and local governments already have an opportunity to
acquire land under the Recreation and Public Purposes Act.
With respect to conveyance of mineral interests, the provisions of
Subcommittee Print No. 1 impose a reverter if the surface owner
initiates mineral development. Our bill contains no reverter pro-
visions. To date most conveyances of mineral interests have been
made because Federal ownership of the mineral estates has prevented
surface owners from obtaining financing for surface development. If
the United States imposes a rčverter, the surface owner may still
not have clear title and financing may be difficult to obtain.
Futhermore, should the minerals conveyed become scarce and valu-
able at a later date it would be in the national interest to allow the
question of whether the minerals should be developed to be con-
trolled by market demands, local zoning, and land use plans. This is
the present policy reflected in private legislation to convey minerals
reserved to the United States.
PAGENO="0228"
224
Title III of the administration's bill would provide modern land
management tools and procedures designed to facilitate achievement
of the goals and objectives established for the national resource lands.
Among other things, it would establish a working capital ftmd that
would afford a more efficient method of accounting for various pro-
grams and service operations of the Bureau of Land Management.
It would significantly facilitate management of the national re-
source lands by making violation of laws and regulations pertaining
to them a crime and vesting enforcement authority in certain desig-
nated departmental employees. In addition, the Secretary would be
authorized to cooperate with the State and local law enforcement
agencies on national resource lands and to reimburse them for ex-
traordinary services on these lands.
In addition, the administration's proposal would require recorda-
tion of mining claims with the Secretary and application for a patent,
both within specified time periods. Failure to comply would render
the claim invalid. Specific authority to issue environmental regula-
tions pertaining to prospecting and mining is also included in title
III. We believe procedures outlined in our bill for recordation of a
claim direcfly with the Secretary, along with authority of the Secre-
tary to specify procedures for recordation will provide flexibility
needed to develop a simpler streamlined records system. We prefei~
this to the detailed approach of the recordation provisions in subcom-
mittee print No. 1.
Title TV of the administration's bill is similar to title V of the sub-
committee print. It provides uniform and comprehensive authority
for the Secretary to grant right-of-way for purposes ranging from
roads, trails, and canals to powerlines and pipelines other than oil and
gas pipelines.
Presently this authority is derived from numerous, often overlap-
ping laws. These laws would be repealed by title V of our bill inso-
far as national resource lands are concerned. Enactment of uniform,
up-to-date provisions would greatly facilitate the processing of
applications as well as the administration of rights-of-way.
The provisions of the subcommittee print concerning right-of-way
would be generally applicable t.o the National Forest System as well
as to the national resource lands. With respect to Forests, administra-
tion would be the responsibility of the Secretary of Agriculture.
We defer to the Department of Agriculture as to the need for new
right-of-way authority for the national forest system. In any event, it
would be preferable that that question be taken up in separate legis-
lation rather than in BLM organic legislation.
Additionally, the subcommittee print contains a special right-of-
way provision relating to construction and maintenance of roads
needed for harvesting timber. It authorizes the Secretary to finance
such roads ~n a variety of ways. Although we understand that the
Forest Service already has similar authority, we see no need to in-
clude special provisions for timber roads or for roads in general.
Under our present practices we require a road of multiple-use serv-
iceability. Section 502 of the committee print would require roads
suitable for a particular sale and might result in a proliferation of
PAGENO="0229"
225
roads of little true value in an overall multiple-use management
concept.
Title V of our bill would clarify the relationship between our bil'
and other laws and would repeal ,a number of obsolete, duplicative or
superseded laws. These include a hodgepodge of land disposal laws
and a number of other laws relating to fees, charges, and other
administrative matters.
Title VI of the provisions of Subcommittee Print No. I would also
repeal a number of outmoded laws. However it would postpone the
effective date of the repealers for varying time periods.
We recommend immediate repeal of all the laws listed. Immediate
repeal would not affect present disposals of lands nor would it dis-
rupt other management programs since section 4 of our bill and a
comparable section of the subcommittee print, section 310, provide
that prior to promulgation of new rules and regulations, the lands
shall continue to be administered under present rules and regulations
for a short time.
Moreover, legislation announcing that the homestead laws or desert
land laws will be repealed at some time in the future would almost
certainly prompt a flood of applications just before the laws expired.
The inadequacy of the present disposal laws is one of the principal
reasons for our submission of a proposal. We see no reason to post-
pone the effective date for an arbitrary time period.
Additionally, we do not believe it wise to repeal all withdrawal
authority as section 604(b) of Subcommittee Print No. 1 would
attempt to do. Withdrawal authority is one of the Secretary's most
important management tools. In our judgement, congressional over-
sight can prevent its abuse.
Subcommittee Print No. 1 contains provisions on several matters
which H.R. 5224 does not specifically include:
First with respect to desert lands the subcommittee print would
create a California Desert Conservation Area; it would amend the
Recreation and Public Purposes Act; and it would order a study of
desert areas.
As we have explained in previous appearances before this com-
mittee, establishment of a California Desert Conservation Area is
unnecessary since the Department has already completed studies of
the area, and has embarked On a special management program for
the area. Enactment of an Qrganic Act for the Bureau of Land
Management would authorize the intensification of that program.
Similarly, we have previously explained that we favor amend-
ment of the Recreation and Public Purposes Act to delete from the
act certain acreage limitations and other provisions that have com-
plicated and sometimes prevented the development of land for
State parks and other public purposes. However, these changes
should be accomplished separately rather than as a part of BLM
organic legislation. Finally, we do not understand why a study of
desert areas is singled out when forests, grasslands, watersheds and
other areas often have equally fragile environmental values and de-
serve the same attention. Our proposal would give priority to any
type of fragile lands and resources.
PAGENO="0230"
226
Subcommittee Print No. 1 would authorize and encourage the
establishment of local advisory councils for regions, States, and dis-
tricts. In many instances these councils would duplicate the functions
of advisory boards established under other laws. The more flexible
authority in our proposal would authorize the Secretary to estab-
lish advisory boards and committees as he "deems necessary to secure
full information and advice on the execution of his responsibilities."
Since many management decisions affect large areas, and sometimes
all the public lands, it may be necessary to obtain advice from a
board with a broad vision and an understanding of problems
throughout the public land States as well as from a board focusing
on local issues.
Subcommittee Print No. 1 repeals all authorizations for appropria-
tions which do not contain dollar limitations, and requires public
land management agency heads to submit recommendations for legis-
lation that will provide policies, limitations and guidelines for man-
agement of the public lands. These provisions would also impose
dollar limitations on appropriation authorizations for the Bureau
of Land Management.
The Department strongly opposes such provisions. Appropriation
authorizations without dollar limitations are important for effective
long-range planning and for meeting emergencies that arise on a
year-to-year basis. For example, it is crucial that funds be made
available so that the Bureau of Land Management can implement or
intensify programs immediately when there are fires, floods, or
droughts. If annual dollar limitations were imposed on these pro-
grams, it would be necessary to authorize excessive funds for them in
the event that the demands for the programs were unusually great in
any one year. Furthermore, the Bureau of Land Management pro-
grams are already subject to review through oversight proceedings
and through the appropriations process. Although the meaning of
the provisions calling for legislative recommendations is not clear, it
appears that it would require the Congress to pass on the adminis-
trative details of programs which have already been authorized.
The subcommittee print has .a provision which would amend the
Wild Free-Roaming Horse and Burro Act to permit use of aircraft
and motorized vehicles in management of wild horses and burros and
to permit the Secretary to sell or donate excess horses or burros with-
out restriction. These proposed amendments reflect the recommenda-
tions in the June 1974 Report to Congress by the Secretary of the
Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture on Administration of the
Wild Free-Roaming Horse and Burro Act and we support the pur-
pose of that amendment. But, due to the recent court decision declar-
ing that law unconstitutional, we do not think it beneficial to con-
sider the amendments at this time. We urge that this controversial
matter be removed from BLM's organic legislation.
I emphasize again, Mr. Chairman, our support for early passage of
an Organic Act for the Bureau of Land Management. We believe that
the administration bill containing substantive policy guidelines and
management criteria would provide an outstanding framework for
improved administration of our national resource lands. We urge
that it be enacted.
PAGENO="0231"
227
Subcommittee Print No. 1 has some provisions which we have not
had an opportunity to comment on in more detail. Later we would
appreciate an opportunity to discuss them in greater depth.
Mr. Chairman, if I may briefly make a personal insertion into the
statement. The BLM has the responsibility of enforcing numerous
controls on 20 percent of the lands in the United States, 60 percent of
all lands under Federal control, 450 million acres, in addition to 370
million acres over which it has limited control. The BLM also con-
trols 100 billion acres on the Outer Continental Shelf.
In 1897 the Congress saw fit to enact the original act to establish
the Forest Service. If you look historically through the years you will
find the Bureau of Land Management recognizes the year 1812 as the
year the General Land Office was created; 1934 when the Grazing
Service was originated; and the year 1946 when the two agencies
were combined into the Bureau of Land Management.
We are hopeful that the efforts of the administration, along with
the efforts of your subcommittee can make the year 1975 a landmark
year in which an Organic Act is passed, that this country and the
Bureau of Land Management sO desperately need.
These complete our prepared statements. Mr. Turcott and I and
other members of the Department are prepared to answer whatever
questions you might have.
Mr. MELCHER. You seem to feel that you would want pretty broad
authority for withdrawals or decisions on land management changes,
and therefore would like to see us drop from our consideration any-
thing specific on that, and I gather that point of view is reflected in
the administration's bili; is that correct?
Mr. HORTON. That, as a general principle, is accurate. In the ad-
ministration's bill we have no provision concerning withdrawals.
Mr. MELCHER. Nor any provision for congressional review in case
of a change of management.
Mr. TURCOTT. Well, sir, we have long worked under an exchange
of correspondence and a gentleman's agreement with former Chair-
man Aspinall and his then counterpart in the Senate that any with-
drawal of 5,000 acres or more would come before the committee for
consideration 30 days prior to submitting a proposed public land
order to the Secretary of the Interior for signature. We have held
rigidly to that and so has the Congress.
Mr. MELCHER. Has it worked?
Mr. HORTON. Yes, sir.
Mr. MELCHER. Then, is there, any reason not to put it into law?
Mr. HORTON. Well, there are other provisions in there like acreage
limitations, the constraints of receiving a formal review by Congress,
and so forth, that we feel hamper a very workable process. The fine
line we are trying to draw is whether executive authority should
properly be contained within this, and which legislative authority
should be contained therein. That is an area in the middle.
Indeed, I would have to say that we have been prepared in many
instances to go over that line,~ but in general, I believe it is fair to
say that all administrations in the past have supported the consensus
that the authority for withdrawal should properly be passed on by
the Congress but the specific implementation of that authority should
PAGENO="0232"
228
be a matter for executive determination. Where the line is drawn
between those two, perhaps is a matter of judgment.
We have worked very successfully with Mr. Aspinall, as Mr. Tur-
cott pointed out. in sending proposed withdrawals as a matter of
information up to the committee.
Mr. MELCHER. Jack. I really don't see that point coming up as a
matter of executive or legislative authority, as working against each
other. I think we would all agree that if Congress has a concern
about a particular withdrawal. surely Congress ought to express that
concern.
When we put in the proposed bill that Congress would have the
right to express that concern and object to a withdrawal before it
was implemented that would mean. in our conception of the language,
that perhaps 90 percent of the withdrawals decided upon by the
Secretary of Agriculture and the Secretary of the Interior would go
forward just as the had planned.
But, there is the possibility that Congress might want to review
10 percent of those and say. no, or after review say, well, it is all
right. I think we are talking about a lot of problems here that prob-
ably will never exist. If there is something wrong with our language
as we have prepared it in print No. 1. if it is too cumbersome, we
would like to have recommendation on that.
But, I don't think eithei Secretary wants to say in any way, shape
or form that if Congress has some concern about the withdrawal, that
they would not like to have that expressed before the withdrawal is
consummated.
Mr. HORTON. I think that is an understandable concern. We have
simply said what type of administrative burden this would place
upon the managing agencies.
Mr. MELCHER. Well, the only burden is the frame, is it not?
Mr. HORTON. That is one view, but certainly the paperwork to get
the information to the Congress is tremendous. A withdrawal should
be placed within a time frame which looks toward not only the emer-
gency type of situation but any withdrawal should be made within
workable framework.
Mr. MELCHER. My understanding of what we propose in print
No. 1 is that in the case of an emergency a withdrawal could be done,
bang. Then, if Congress still wanted to review that and reverse that
withdrawal, they could.
If that isn't the language you want, you people have a lot more
counsel than we have, you have your whole solicitors group and you
have people out in the field; you give us the language. If that isn't
what ours say. give us one that won't encumber you in case of an
- emergency, if either Secretary sees it could go like that. You could
go ahead with the withdrawal but still let Congress review it, if
needed.
I don't think we are going to buy the paperwork argument. We
know about paperwork, too. and we know it will inundate our staff
having to review your paperwork, but we have to put up with that.
As far as the point of the time frame interferring and you losing
some value on the public land by not having the withdrawal, I think
that is entirely what we were striving for in our language. I repeat,
PAGENO="0233"
229
you people have a lot of counsel and you ought to use them. If our
language isn't what you want, get yours up here.
Mr. HORTON. I think your idea~ is appropriate and we are pleased
to work with the staff of this committee and the members on sug-
gested changes, or pointing out various observations on the whole
issue.
But, since I am the one in the Department of the Interior that has
the responsibility of either recommending or denying a withdrawal,
I know the paperwork is substantial. It comes in weekly in volumi-
nous amounts. This is not the single determining consideration but
one we would just like to bring tO the committee's attention.
When we put together the reports and analyses either for or against
a withdrawal, each package comes to 6 or 8 inches and has to be re-
viewed thoroughly by the. staff and the Bureau of Land Management
before it is forwarded.
Mr. MELCHER. Of course, we are talking about withdrawals of over
5,000 acres and that eliminates a large number of withdrawals. So,
we are only addressing ourselves to over 5,000 acres.
Mr. TURCOTT. Of course, in the early days of this legislation, we
reviewed that matter quite thoroughly with your staff, and there have
been modifications made in terms of some of the previous subcom-
mittee prints. Your challenge to me is for some kind of legislation-
the current process is by an exchange of correspondence and a gentle-
man's agreement. I can't; speak for the Department on this but I
would personally suggest that, the criteria and the format for re-
porting under certain kinds of submissions in your current committee
print, starting under section 204, starting with line 20, be changed.
We, in the Bureau of Land Management, would be more than glad,
I feel, to submit a report of that kind on any acreages of 5,000 or
over subsequent to the proposed withdrawal process to get public
review comments, any hearings; and the like. I think that would be
fine, and would give you an opportunity to review it.
Mr. MELCHER. I hope what we tried to do in here was to make sure,
if there was an emergency and an immediate withdrawal was neces-
sary, we wouldn't have prohibited that but still permit, if the acreage
was over 5,000, a review by Congress. If they did not agree they could
make a reversal, reverse the patternor make some other suggestions.
Mr. HORTON. If I may interject here, Mr. McHale on my left indi-
cates that there is a very substantial possibility of a complete compro-
mise since the last go-round, that we didn't have then. Perhaps we
didn't go into discussions early enough. We came very close the last
time around.
Mr. MELCHER. Jack, your testimony goes into making a case for
leaving the Forest Service out of this, and yet what we have strived
to do in this print is to leave the Forest Service in, when manage-
ment principles and circumstances are identcal between the Bureau
of Land Management and the Forest Service. We really haven't much
of the Forest Service in here, but we do on grazing.
We established a grazing fee and some provisions for range im-
provements. I think almost everybody is going to agree, if it is good
for one, it is good for the other. We have in here on withdrawals, I
think, a sensible policy enacted by the Congress that affects the Bu-
PAGENO="0234"
230
reau of Land Management and affects the Forest Service, too; also,
we have something on the rights of way.
Now. Jack, I fail to understand why you recognize that it is really
essential that the Bureau of Land Management have all this brought
together, all the statutes that affect rights-of-way under the Bureau
of Land Management, lands administered by them, and yet not in-
clude the Forest Service. You have correctly recognized this as it ap-
plies to you and the committee recognizes it. Let's get this down into
one title of aid bill and make some sense out of it.
While you defer to the Department of Agriculture the judgment
on that, I think everybody must agree that if we can modernize the
concepts of the Department of Agriculture's rights-of-way across
public lands for the Bureau of Land Management, we surely better
modernize the same thing for the Forest Service's rights of way, too.
As~ a matter of fact, didn't the Bureau of Land Management ad-
minister a lot of rights of way across those lands?
Mr. HoRToN. I don't know. They attempted, I think, to administer
something, but I don't think rights-of-way come within that; only
oil and gas.
Mr. MELCHER. Pipelines do, don't they?
Mr. HORTON. As the result of enacted legislation, not as a matter
of traditional operations between the two bureaus.
Mr. MELCHER. I think there was some question when we were hold-
ing hearings on the trans-Alaska pipeline where the Forest Service
had no statutes to grant rights-of-way over Forest Service lands for
oil and gas. I dare say that could be litigated in the courts.
We might find that out to the embarassment of the Secretary of
Agriculture, just like the Secretary of the Interior was stopped by the
courts when he was attempting to go well beyond his statutory limb
itations in granting permits for the trans-Alaska pipeline.
I want to say that we reviewed the question of rights-of-way as
something that needs to be brought up to date, something that needs
to better reflect the times, a common corridor if you please, and the
environmental impact that rights-of-way cause on public lands. Those
problems surely exist within the Forest Service.
I hope when we get to the point of ironing out this bill either here
or in committee, and in the House and in conference, I hope we don't
have to continually belabor the need for having sensible rights-of-
way provisions applicable to both the Forest Service and the Bureau
of Land Management alike.
I am afraid that the Senate may be considering the passage of a
bill similar to what the administration has proposed here which lacks
that application; the rights-of-way section applying to the Forest
Service. I don't want us to falter on that. I think it is critical at this
time to enact sensible rights-of-way legislation for both management
areas.
Mr. HORTON. If I might provide a perspective on this, I personally
agree with you on what the overall objective should be. If indeed, the
rights-of-way proposals or authorities in either agency need to be
brought up to date, then I am sure that everyone agrees that it should
be done.
PAGENO="0235"
231
The question is one of horseback politics and the chairman ap-
preciates that better than I. Politics is the art of the possible. Can we
really get the act this year with the conflicting jurisdictional issues?
What about the attention that the Bureau of Land Management
ought to give to this, and can we really say it is not an important
enough issue?
I certainly agree with the principle that it should be undertaken
but delays would be necessary to include the Forest Service. We
would have a cleaner shot without it. Then, look at reforms to the
various Forest Service authorities separately.
Mr. MELCHER. As I understand the House rules, the jurisdiction on
afl lands administered outside public domain are with the Com-
mittee on the Interior in the House. If that isn't right, I would like
the parliamentarian to correct me. But, specifically, when it comes
to provisions of grazing and rights-ofway, this committee has been
designated as having jurisdiction for both the Forest Service and the
Bureau of Land Management, lands created out of public domain,
and all of the rest of our public lands.
I would like this reviewed by our staff and the House parliamen-
tarian. If there are any questions, this committee ought to try to seek
the advice and consent of the Committee on Agriculture. At least
three of us on this subcommittee are also members of the House Agri-
cultural Committee. So, we have no desire to infringe on their juris-
diction; certainly no desire to be hampered by jurisdictional argu-
ments. We have researched that very point and talked to the Forest
Service about where they think jurisdiction lies.
I recognize the gentleman from Nevado, Mr. Santini.
Mr. SANTINI. The first question, Jack, that I would address myself
to is that of the wild horse and burros.
As I understand your testimOny before this committee this morn-
ing, it is your recommendation that we do nothing at this juncture?
Mr. HORTON. I think that is the only apprepriate advice that the
administration and the Department can present to the committee
today, since the issue is under litigation. The committee does ap-
preciate, I am sure, that both Mr. Turcott and I testified in favor of
the additional authorities for the management of the Wild Horses
and Burros Act, but we are advised, since the matter is under liti-
gation and the Secretary himself is a defendant, that it simply is
improper for us to proffer advice formally. So, that is our position
until that is cleared up.
That doesn't say we do not support these types of management
authorities for better management of the Wild Horses and Burros
Act, but while the issue is in the courts, it is improper for us to make
comment.
Mr. SANTINI. At least one judicial district and perhaps more-I
know in New Mexico, I believe in the Ninth Circuit Court-it is not
my understanding of that law that it precludes a legislative action
in that realm. Now, it may render a nulity if an adverse decision is
rendered, but it doesn't say you can't proceed forward in the event
an affirmative of the law is on the books, conceptually.
I think you might agree that we could find ourselves 2 or 3 years
down the road before judicial review is exhausted and that is a very
PAGENO="0236"
232
optimistic estimate. Meanwhile, our wild horses and burro problem
proliferates and there is no solution. All parties agree it is a problem,
but what do we do?
If we get a favorable judgment in terms of users and landowners
on the Wild Horses and Burros Act. we would find ourself then hav-
ing to initiate legis1ation in order to implement that favorable de-
cision. I find it more desirable to take the initiative at this point than
the positon that it might be rendered adverse, but take that initiative
now and have the law in existence and hopefully it can be reinforced
hr a favorable judicial review.
Mr. HORTON. Mr. Santini. I am not suggesting in any sense it would
be improper to enact legislation that would address the problem in
question. I think the best position. since I am a representative of the
Secretary, who is. in fact, a defendant, is to point out to you and the
staff what~ our position is. that~ it is well recorded in the testimony
we presented to the last session of the Congress. We will provide that
for your use. Our position has not changed.
I was suggesting it would be improper for me as a representative of
the defendant to be making a formal recommeiidation. Our position
is well established; it has not changed and it is certainly available
to you if s-ou would like it.
Mr. SANTINI. I ani familiar with the position. I was only concerned
by the 1)rolection of 2 or 3 more years of inaction on this particular
issue.
Mr. HORTON. We concur wholeheartedly and we are hopeful it can
be resolved so that positive management caii be applied to the wild
horses and burros by somebody.
Mr. SANTINT. Related to the issue is a reverter clause on mineral
leases, which I believe is contained on page 5, second paragraph. The
subcommittee's print No. 1 proposed a reverter clause. The recom-
mendation of the Department is to omit that reverter clause. MTould
you elaborate on the basis for that?
Mr. HORTON. If I might. I will provide the general principle and
then Mr. Turcott or Mr. McHale will elaborate on that. This is the
position we have also taken in our testimony before the Senate com-
mittee. Subcommittee print No. 1 and 5. 507 provide that even if
minerals are not known at the time a l)iece of land changes hands,
and if the subsurface mineral resources are developed [within the
past 20 years in 5. 507]. they would revert back to the United States.
We believe that a reverter clause places an unnecessary burden upon
the person to whom the lands are patented. It is very clear that al-
most all of the lands deeded with a reverter provision would be trans-
ferred and held in a position of uncertainty. If the person seeks to
construct or develop those lands, and lie has to use his title for that,
and the title were clouded by the uncertainty as to what might
happen with respect to the mineral resources, this may hamper him
from doing this. . .
Mr. SANTIXI. It would impair the marketability of the title?
Mr. HORTON. Essentially, lie would have an uncertainty and a cloud
on the title.
Mr. TURCOTT. There are many more areas coming to the fore. In the
last session of the Congress, we had 23 private relief bills up here on
this same issue, wherein there is a cloud.
PAGENO="0237"
~»=33
We feel that we should help these people `to eliminate a potential
problem in obtaining financial arrangements, securing loans and so
on, providing collateral, where there is a cloud on their title, as pro-
vided here. What we feel is that we should really have professionalism
from the Geological Survey which means they should make these
classifications. They should be abh~ to determine if there is something
really of principal value there which the United States might want
to retain or would want to sell. I don't think we are too professional
if we don't have faith in the classification process to determine that.
Once the conveyance is made it should be permanent and not re-
versed. People can't get loans without this. We are being flooded with
the private relief bills.
Mr. SANTINI. Twenty-three, you say?
Mr. HORTON. Quite a number of them were passed; 23 were re-
viewed, I believe. I would have t,o check that figure.
Mr. SANTINI. With regard to the proposal for recordation of min-
ing claims, what, Mr. Horton, is the present status of the BLM with
regard to the processing of mineral patents?
Mr. HORTON. Essentiafly the recordation would require a person
to record his claim with the BLM so there would be a starting place
and a standard system for recording these claims so that the public
would know where they were, their location, and size.
Mr. SANTINI. I understand the motivation, but I am wondering
about the status on processing the mining patents.
Mr. TTJRCOTT. Not all of them come to me and I will have to furnish
them for you; they are in our appropriation requests this year. In
the President's budget there is a slight increase for this process. But
I know we are 400 manyears bačklogged at the Bureau.
The total process of evaluation, examination, and adjudication of an
unpatented mining claim on through the request for the mineral sur-
vey, then finally leading to the patent, this is a very tedious process
and very expensive.
Mr. HORTON. Nevada has the biggest backlog of any of the States
where we are involved.
Mr. SANTINI. The gentleman from Alaska.
Mr. YOuNG. Why did you put the 3-year provision in the bill if
this is that backlogged? What are you going to do with the backlog?
Mr. T1JRCOTT. The way the administration bill reads in keeping
with an interpretation under the Alaska Native Claims Settlement
Act, where there is a similar provision, the filing of a request for
mineral survey will serve as the request for the patent. That is the
key; not that we can get everything done in 1 year or 3 years.
The way this bill reads I would interpret that it is the request for
the survey that is the key.
Mr. YOuNG. But, it is a case of inactivity and inability to convey
patents on claims. There have been applications, and I can site you
cases where the filing has already been done. Then the BLM says,
"You can't continue the process of taking minerals until the patent
is granted." That has happened in my State. But, if you have a back-
log and an inability to act, then this proposal here would compound
the problem.
Mr. Tmicorr. I am going to have to refer to the instant cases to re-
spond. All I can say is it is tied up with the Alaska Native Claiijis
Settlement Act and it is most complex, I agree, sir.
PAGENO="0238"
234
Mr. YOUNG. It worries me about the time frame. I can understand
the desire to have it recorded in the BLM office, but unless there is
some specific wording which grants the applicant with the filing of
the application, all the rights and privileges of the survey claims,
well, otherwise. you don't have a claim.
Mr. TURCOTT. I want to go on the record as saying in Alaska the
filing of a request for a mineral survey is the key point, and any
rights that he has would be then preserved pending adjudication,
un~fl the end of the process.
Mr. SANTTNT. tinder the proposed recordation program, would the
person filing for a record claim have the same rights and entitlements
and title interest, or at least use interest, as someone filing for a
patent under the existing law?
Mr. Tuncorr. No. sir: the mere fact of filing a recordation of a
mining claim is not enough. It. is the fact that lie has done enough
work that lie wants to proceed with it. He makes the effort to file,
to have the mineral survey done, not just the mere recording of the
fact that he ha.s established an unpatented mining claim.
Mr. SANTINI. Then m questioii is, recordation in and of itself
confers nothing more than a noticed interest in the person recording;
it. doesn't establish any quasi or legal entitlement to the minerals
contained there. such as is conferred by a patent. once granted?
Mr. HORTON. You simply have to record that claim which you are
not required to do now.
Mr. SAxTrxI. Aren't we looking then at a. dual procedure and per-
haps compounding your problem considerably? lYe are looking at
the recordation problem. and I appreciate the record and location
clause in that. But, you are looking at the recordation problem in ad-
dition to a patent one.
You are 400 manvears of work behind now in patents. It seems
to me the recordation objective would perhaps compound the man-
working hours problem you already have.
Mr. HORTON. I agree with the thrust of your question and certainly
that of Mr. Young. and it will be my aim to initiate ways, if the
Organic Act is passed. to substantially increase our efforts with the
0MB for more adequate funding for this. We seek authority support
with appropriate resources from the administration.
But., you must understand that these mining claims are deterrents
to intelligent land use management of the public lands. We don't
know where the claims are; we have no time frame in which claim-
ants have to seek a patent. When we worked with them under the
Alaska Native Settlement Act, we didn't know what the priorities
were or the status. This is an effort., of course, to reform that.
Mr. TURCOTT. This is Mr. Hoese of the Solicitor's Office, who can
discuss in general terms any rights that go with the filing of an un-
patented mining claim.
Mr. H0E5E. The recordat.ion by itself will not necessarily grant the
person any property rights in regard to exclusiveness or anything
like that. All it does, is it gives him first crack at discovering minerals
in the area he has filed as his location. .
He still has to make a valuable discovery. He is allowed exclusive
rights to search for that just for a reasonable period of time and if
PAGENO="0239"
235
he doesn't make that, of course, someone may relocate his mining
claim.
Mr. SANTINI. What is that reasonable time?
Mr. HORSE. I don't know. It has not been quantified. It is just a
reasonable time for you to pursue the claim. It carries no definite
period of time.
Mr. YOtTNG. We are getting involved in the mining laws anyway,
in the repealing section. When you give a vague answer such as a
reasonable length of time, who determines that, you?
Mr. H0E5E. No, that would be judicially determined if it went too
long. But as far as a reasonable time goes, we would not press that
point unless we wanted to use the land. That is, if the claim was lo-
cated on land necessary for a Federal program. At that time, we
would probably contest the mining claim.
The reasonable time doesn't serve any purpose to the Federa' Gov-
ernment, but only to prevent somebody from relocating the mining
c~Iaim before the person making the claim has time to make his dis-
covery.
Mr. HORTON. To emphasize that point, this provision in the pro-
posed Organic Acts provides protection to the applicant either for a
claim or for a patent, which is to say, if he had complied with the
recordation or had complied with the application for a patent, then
the rights that he might otherwise have had would not be continued.
This would not be the case if he failed to do so.
Mr. YOIJNG. But we are reading from our bill, not theirs. They
are proposing the changes, we are not.
Along these lines, Mr. Secretary, the view in your proposal, as far
as the mining law of 1872 is concerned, the only real change other
than recordation is: "The Secretary is authorized to issue such rules
and regulations pertaining to prospecting and mining as he deems
necessary to protect the environmental quality of lands administered
by him."
That is a pretty well loaded pistol as to that law. Under this a
prospector might have to put up a bond. I think that violates the
concept of the mineral searching laws. I do believe, if you are going
to do any prospecting, you have to file an environmental impact
statement today; you can't have blast mining, for instance.
But, this would actually take~ the mining law of 1872 and give a
complete interpretation of that law to the Secretary. With all due
respect, I think that is a violatiOn unless you want to repeal that law,
which I don't.
Mr. HORTON. We are only looking now at the area in which the
new authorities under the Organic Act touch upon the 1872 mining
law and we are being very careful not to propose it be amended sub-
stantively. That should be a separate piece of legislation.
We feel our proposal for recordation is an int~1ligent step to pro-
pose. But, I would agree with you that, essentially, we don't want
to go too far into the Mining Act. I don't believe we have gotten into
bonding at all.
It is my understanding that: neither the Forest Service nor the
Bureau of Land Management requires an environmental impact
statement on mining ci aims. Now, depending upon the magnitude of
PAGENO="0240"
236
the operation it could involve an environmental impact statement,
but it need not.
Mr. YonxG. Doesn't a part of the act say there can be no blasting
at all without the approval of the committee?
Mr. HoRTox. If you have hardrock mining, if you need to blast, yes.
But I am just saving that I don't want us to get into this-I will
differ with you; I do not feel we should deviate from the mining
laws as the are on the books today unless it is justified.
One of the problems in the Interior Department is the consolida-
tion aiid the attempts have not allowed persons like this gentleman
and myself, any two peo Ic. to do some of these things and yet these
rights are going to the bigger conglomerations. This was proposed
last year and the idea that mining now has to be regulated for just
a few individuals, disturbs me.
We are talking objective bidding this bill. If we have a minimal
concept. it is a disservice to the American people. It would be a
great service to the Department but a disservice to the American
people.
Mr. MELCHER. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. YOUNG. Yes.
Mr. MELCHER. Would you not agree that the Forest Service and
the Bureau of Land Management under existing law must prevent
degradation of the environment?
Mr. YOUNG. Absohiteh-. I say the~- have that capacity already, but
I don't want to preclude anyone from filing a claim.
Mr. MELGHER. We agree on that. I think we also agree you are not
to use the protection of the land in some way to change the interpre-
tion of the act to specify who can locate on it.
Mr. YOUNG. Yes. They already-
Mr. TUIiCOTT. Well, sir. I recall several months ago an exchange
of correspondence with the chairman concerning mining claim regu-
lations and the chairman was somewhat disgruntled that he didn't
know the Bureau of Land Management was working on drafting
mining claim regulations under the 1872 mining law, but not con-
current with the then Forest Service effort. WTe assured him we would
proceed and the committee would be involved.
I feel that the proposal you are talking about in the administration
bill does just that; it makes it clear once and for all. Under certain
circumstances the Bureau of Land Management should have regula-
tions that involve planning for the mining claim, reclamation, cer-
tain environmental factors. location of the roads, and so on. This is
the present era.
There should be some aspects of this contemporary conservation
with respect to mining claims on public lands.
Mr. YOUNG. If we put this into the law and I am a member of that
group which wishes to deprive this Nation of the minerals we are
going to need, under that law, could I file an environmental lawsuit
against you if you were to disturb the surface of the land hold up
the process, regardless if the statement was filed?
Mr. HOESE. That is our prerogative.
Mr. YOUNG. They don't have that under the 1872 law; that is what
I am trying to preclude. If we put that wording in there, it is an
PAGENO="0241"
237
area that can cause us tremendous problems, legally. We have enough
now in court, defending the administration in the courts.
\~\Te went through the Alaska pipeline concept. I want to be sure
we don't go through it again.
Mr. HORTON. Well, that certainly is an understandable worry and
certainly is a concern shared within the Department. Let's say there
are several issues, one of which is not to prejudice the successful
enactment of the Bureau of Land Management Organic Act which
are issues that relate more directly to other pieces of legislation. We
are totally prepared to work with the committee on these issues, but
I would offer to the committee that we have not gone very far into
the 1872 mining law. It is the int~ntion of the administration to pre-
sent to the Congress proposals, particularly with respect to the Min-
eral Leasing Act of 1950. We have already testified to these.
Mr. YOtTNG. Mr. Secretary, one of the provisions in the subcom-
mittee bill we wrote up last year related to extension of the Home-
stead Act, primarily in Alaska, and I know you were opposed to this.
I think your justification was that there was a big flood of applica-
tions for homestead last year?
Mr. YOUNG. From Alaska there was a big flood.
Mr. TTJRCOTT. Currently, Alaska, since last year's hearings, was
behind in spite of all of the land actions that are permitted. We have
been withholding approval where necessary to resolve conflicts tha.t
are usually clue to provislons of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement
Act.
Mr. YOUNG. That is the problem. To my knowledge, any applica-
tion for homestead filed after 5 years ago has been discounted because
of the land freeze.
Mr. HORTON. That is not completely true. I would say that my view
is that one of the gravest problems facing the State of Alaska is the
inability of private people to actilally own land.
The reason we are in this situation is understandable with the
Alaska ~ative Claims Settlement Act. I believe if Alaska is ever to
have long-term econOmic viability, that either from Federal or State
legislation, much more land must be offered; less than 1 percent of
the land is owned privately.
The question appropriate to address is whether the homestead laws
are the best facility for making private land available or whether
there should be other disposal authorities that we should subsequently
look at.
As I recall, when the Department first withdrew land in Alaska
for study for the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act, as an effort
to emphasize our concern for private ownership, we left all the land
we could not withdraw. That subsequently has been withdrawn for
protective purposes.
We have not reached a solution to the problem which is a major
one facing Alaska. My concern, having been there for a year, is
whether the extension of the homestead laws with respect to Alaska
is the best route. We inusn't lose sight of the main principle here.
Mr. YOUNG. I am glad to hear you say that because the lack of
ownership, private ownership, is a very damaging state of affairs in
Alaska and damaging to the social aspects~ of the State, too. I am
not wedded to the Homestead Act if we can develop another act.
54-OO~-75----1G
PAGENO="0242"
23S
Mr. SANTINI. I would like to stress mv resistance to the proposed
language contained in the Department's bill. On page 26, paragraph
D, it states:
The Secretary is authorized to issue such rules and regulations pertaining
to prospecting and mining as lie deems necessary to protect the environmental
quality of lands administered by him.
All entry of that kind of language incorporated in the bill if just
fraught with problems. I think it ought to be addressed and examined
in the context of the mining law revisions. I hope you will consider
at least deleting language which is all encompassing in many in-
stances, because I don't think it contributes to the implementation of
this kind of bill.
I, at least, have a personal apprehension about the administration's
application of that kind of language without guidelines or directions
or an indication of the congressional intent.
\Vith regards to the rights-of-way provision, I am concerned about
the administrative implication of the rights-of-way. I envision, and
I think pragmatically so~ if you think you have got problems in
patents, wait for the rights-of-w-av to hit. You could conceivably be
1~OOO man-years away from being able to cope and should address
that horrendous potentially kind of a Problem. What are your
thoughts on that?
Mr. TURCOTT. Are you talking to the committee or the administra-
tion bill?
Mr. SANTINI. Committee or administration, somne modification in
the committee print.
Mr. TUIiCOTT. Well, with relation to the burgeoning initiatives and
energy development on the public lands and the current rights-of-
way law and the aspect of contemporary land use plaiming, and,
most particularly, the application of the court precedents in respect
to the National Environmental Policy Act, we have a major program
in the Bureau.
The administration proposes to consolidate into one place what
the administration felt was the best principles of many rights-of-way
authorities and application of the principles, and the court cases.
I assume that the committee, in its subcommittee print, is very con-
cernedi with some of the details of this processing, also. It is quite
detailed in subcommittee print NO. 1.
So, to address your question about the paperwork and the burden,
it is here, whatever we do, but I think we need some consolidlation
and clarification. We are hoping to streamline it as much as possible.
We are involved in rights-of-way that go from the California coast
into Utah. We are involved in many such proposed rights-of-way.
If we go from California to Chicago, we are going to cover thousands
of miles of public lands. We have gotten very involved in environ-
mental planning. It is just going to be a tough problem to work out
and I don't see the. end of it.
Mr. SAXTIXI. Really, it is almost an administrative impossibility to
talk about potential language without going to the extreme of hiker
permits andl driver permits and it might be there will be all kinds of
indlividual landi users, hunter permits, andi the like. The opposition
has been expressed that `this would represent simply an impossible
PAGENO="0243"
2~3~
administrative burden to meet or dope with. Right now, I am trying
to meet the major rights-of-way on the public lands and we are over-
whelmed.
Mr. TTJRCOTT. The only thing is, there are provisions in both bills
that try to give access, subject to the existing law, to allow free access
to the public. There is nothing to ~revei.ft hunting and fishing and the
like. This is provided in the Taylor Act.
Where the burden comes-and I must tell you this-is through the
efforts of the 93d Congress and perhaps some was in the 92d. There
is a combined approach through the amendments to what we call the
Sykes Act and the Rare and Endangered Species Act. Congress has
mandated a rigid system of controls in certain specified areas under
those acts. In areas extremely valuable for wildlife purposes, there
is provision for enforcement authority and the requirement for per-
mits at certain times for hunting, and fishing, and the like.
So, yes, we have a significant problem. All the land management
agencies do. They are gradually working up to applying the pro-
visions of these two amendments 1 mentioned.
Mr. HORTON. The principles, with respect to the Forest Service and
the Bureau of Land Management, the authority for the adrninistr~t-
tion and the granting of rights-of-way has been unclear and the goal
is to provide a consolidation of that. Nothing here, I think, would
go to hiking or driving permits.
But, whether or not we address the rights-of-way authority issue,
that is not going to diminish the pressure on the Bureau of Land
Management for the granting of rights-of-way for different pur-
poses. As to the hodgepodge of laws the Bureau of Land Management
administers itself, clean that up and provide that authority.
The public isn't going to be turned off. It will still come to the
Bureau and others and they will say: "We need a right of way from
here to there for this purpose." So, there is a point of judgment here
at which the Federal Government, of course, must stop exerting its
authority for every small purpose.
Mr. SANTINI. To follow your line of thought, because of the issue
of potential constitutionality that could be asserted within the realm
of the endangered species, do we not have the same constitutional
issues; shouldn't we not then take the posture at least the Department
should take the posture, of not advocating any particular legislative
enactment on our part because it might well be the subject of an
unconstitutional cleterrmination by the court?
Mr. HORTON. I don't think I could agree with that in any sense be-
cause the two issues are not that similar.
Mr. MCHALE. There might be a little confusion here. Our use of
the word "permit" in the right-of-way provision was not in terms of
a permit to go on the land to traverse it. What we are talking about
here are permits ancilliary to rights of way for a person to use a
tract of land temporarily in connection with a more permanent right
of way; construction camps, storage areas, things of that kind.
We are not talking about a ticket to get across the land.
Mr. SANTINI. I only suggested that the apprehension has been
expressed.
Mr. MCHALE. We share that.
PAGENO="0244"
240
Mr. SAXTINI. One final issue pertains to the conferring of law
enforcement authority upon the Bureau of Land Management. I
would like to invite your comments because I shared, yesterday. the
apprehensions of many people in the State of Nevada and all those
affected by the public lands environmental impact problem. that this
would propose an encroachment of a large, Federal armed force coin-
ing on the land to deprive people of-as the attorney general of the
State of Nevada characterized it in your committee hearing held in
Reno on August 22, 1973-"a Federal army upon our State."
You can appreciate my constituents' sensitivity. I can't quite bu
a biologist being turned into a law enforcement officer, much to his
chagrin. I have seen the experience of the Park Service trying to
cope at Lake Meade with the third largest incidence of misdemeanors
in the United States. I really don't want to see the Park Service
turned into traffic cops.
I have spent many days trying to introduce them to the significance
and the subtleties of the Alircinda decision and the search-and-seizure
laws.
Mr. I-1ORTOX. It was evei envisioned that the Bureau of Land Man-
agement was a law enforcement agency. There has to be enforcement
authority conferred in order to implement the laws. I would strongly
urge, and I believe it is practicably feasible, that a provision amend-
ing even the Subcommittee Print No. 1 could provide that kind o-f
enforcement authority by contracting it in the first instance to local
l aw enforcement authorities, which is being clone partially by the
Park Service now. The Bureau not having that authority, has not
done it.
Incidentally, we are, in section 308 of the administration's pro-
posal, seeking to cooperate with the appropriate State and local
reffulatory enforcement agencies.
Mr. SA~TINI. The enforcement should either be through the county
or the State enforcement authorities. What you perhaps should con-
sider and would be of interest for the record, is an evaluation of sec-
tion 303 of the Subcommitte Print 1, which reads as follows:
in connection with administration and regulation of the use and occupancy of
the public lands, the Secretary should cooperate with the regulatory and law
enforcement officials of any State or political subdivision there of with the view
of achieving maximum feasibility reliance on such regulatory and law enforce-
ment officials in such administration and regulation.
To reach this objective, the Secretary shall negotiate ani~ually with such offi-
cials and offer them a mutually satisfactory contract under which such officials
will assist in the administration and regulation of laws and occupancy of the
public lands, and the Secretary will reimburse them for the expenditures in-
curred by them in rendering such assistance.
Where such coiltracts are in force, the Secretary shall use his own personnel
to exercise the authority granted to him by subsection C of section 302 of this
i~ecessary to achieve an adequate level of enforcement of laws and regulations
Act only to supplement the activities of State and local officials to the extent
governing the use and occupancy of the public lands.
You can appreciate the difference in thoughts that are suggested
by the language just read into the record; the language in the print
and the language in the administration's proposed bill. This places
the first responsibility of law enforcement at the State and local level,
with the addition when necessary, if it should exist, of any supple-
menting law enforcement assistance.
PAGENO="0245"
241
Mr. 1-loRTox. If it is agreeable to the chairman, we would like to
comment on that in writing. I would point out that the first part of
what you read is identical to 308 of the administration's proposal.
[The information follows:]
Mr. Santini has proposed that the Secretary of the interior would be required
to cooperate with the regulatory and law enforcement officials of any State or
political sul)division thereof with the view of achieving maximum feasible re-
liance on such regulatory and law enforcement officials in the administration
satisfactory contract under which such officials would assist in tl~e administra-
and regulation of the use and occupancy of the public lands. The Secretary
would be required to negotiate with such officials and offer them a mutually
tioii and regulation of use and occupancy of public lands and be reimbursed by
the Secretary for their expenditures in rendering such assistance. The Secre-
tary would be able to use his own personnel only to supplement the activities
of State and local officials to the extent necessary to achieve an adequate level
of eiiforcement of laws and regulations governing the use and occupancy of the
public lands.
We do not favor this proposal for several reasons:
if major responsibility for law enforcement is in State or local enforcement
officers, under contract, BLM will not be in a position to arrange priorities or
to emphasize what aspects of administration are to be enforced most assidu-
ously.
In some circumstances a failure of the contracted local law enforcement
authority to pursue a matter may be in the nature of a veto on Federal deci-
sionmaking.
It has been the experience of other agencies that without strict management
supervision contract enforcement services often result in poor performance.
Thus it is essential that there be a Federal enforcement authority that super-
vises State and local operations under a contractual agreement.
Federal enforcement officers must qualify under the appropriate Civil Service
Category which has specific requirements for training. In addition the Depart-
ment of the Interior's Manual has additional strict standards that must be met.
Not all State or local enforcement officers have the required training. Thus, it
is possible that either or ability to enter into contracts for services might be
severely limited or our firm position as to personnel requirements compromised.
There would have to be extensive training of the contracted enforcement offic-
ers in the laws and regulations under which the Bureau operates.
If State and local law enforcement personnel were contracted for on an an-
nual basis it would create difficult budget problems of compensation whether
they should be paid a fixed salary, or on the basis of hours actually worked, etc.
It is our intention to establish a small law enforcement staff for the BLM
with highly qualified people who meet all the Civil Service requirements. In
addition to the managemont and planning unit that will be established in the
Washington office, it is anticipated that initially a special agent will be as-
signed to each State and some of the high activity district. These people would
need arise.
In addition we will enter into cooperative arrangements with other Federal
have great mobility and could be transferred to other areas as problems or the
agencies having law enforcement officers (e.g. National Park Service or Fish
and Wildlife Service) in order to maximize their availability and service to
the Department and its component bureaus. Agreements will also be entered
into with State and, local law- enforcement officers for assistance.
The enforcement provisions and thOse relating to cooperative agreements
which are in HR. 5224 would give BLM the kind of authority available to other
land managing agencies-an authority that is workable and effective without
circumscribing the operation by delineating requirements which may hamper
or delay enforcement activity or reduce its effectiveness.
Mr. HoRToN. One of the major problems of enforcement is the
magnitude of the land that would need enforcement. In relation to
Alaska, the Bureau of Land Management and the State Director
there, implemented a regulation that track vehicles would not be al-
PAGENO="0246"
242
lowed on the tundra at the time of the permafrost because of the
sc.arrin2 of the ecosystem.
The ~ureau of Iand Management itself doesn't have the authority
to enforce that. If they found a whole army of those vehicles they
could do nothing. if the authority was first with the State and local
law enforcement agencies, the difficulty would be that they are down
in Fairbanks and wouldn't have the resources, financial or otherwise,
to patrol this whole area.
Mr. SANiINI. The Bureau of Land Management does not have an
organizational infrastructure that, I think, at leas tis an complement
to your success. We believe the people who know the land should
have limited authority for managiiig the land.
You can understand the sensitivity to massive Bureau of Land
Management armies out there trying to enforce everything.
Mr. HORTON. That is not the intent of our provision. Section 308
indicates the Secretary has the authority to cooperate with the State
and local officials.
Mr. SANTINI. But there is a problem of conferring upon an in-
cliviclual who is not either inclined or disposed to cope with the con-
frontation of a gun-to-gun situation that might arise, for example,
the situation of a violator on public lands.
Mr. HORTON. I agree. Mr. Turcott* will share his thinking on this.
Mr. TT.TRCOTT. Well, even with the limited law enforcement au-
thorit.v we have now, the only authority we have comes under the
Wild Horses and Burros Act. and from the Sykes Act amendment.
We have gone into a very initial law enforcement program.
Our policy position is that the personal qualifications for arrest
authority granted to any of our people will be the same qualifica-
tions as of an FBI agent. In addition to that, as your committee
print No. 1 so carefully points out, there is even a sentence which
says there shall be training accomplished by these people before they
take on this responsibility.
In addition to that, it came up in both congressional bodies last
time the question came up. I know what the attorney general said
in Nevada. I read it word for word: it is a good scare tactic, He
may have honestly felt this way. We didn't confer with him, but
the enforcement group is going to be a small force. I am sure that
the functions of this group will be carefully scrutiniecl by this com-
mittee in terms of numbers, activities. and functions; and by the Ap-
pronriations Committee.
We have a recent. report. on this matter. WTe are not talking about
1,000 or 500 men. There will be probably no more than 100 to 150
men concentrated. in part, in such areas as tile Southern California
Desert where we have people })roblems and all that goes with it.
In the State of Nevada there may be no more than one or two.
If things don't uo well and we need more than that with arrest au-
thorih-. we will have to bring them in. In addition to that we see
no w~u- thet we can really deal with the problem without a reimburse-
mental authority with the State and local law enforcement bodies;
both nropo~als are requesting that.
But, v-c have found not only the example Secretary Horton men-
tioned in Alaska. but some closer to von and me. The Easter holiday.
There is no way the State of Arizona or California or Nevada can
PAGENO="0247"
243
cope with the situations they have. The State and local law enforce-
ment officers can't give enough help, contract or otherwise.
The Bureau of Land Management would not attempt to put enough
people on board for the seasonal events that occur on the Easter
weekend on the desert. We must have authority to secure help from
others,
Mr. HoRToN. The Bureau of Land Management has jurisdiction
over something in the area of 14 million acres in the California
desert. Our figures for last year showed about 14 million visitor-
user days or approximately one person per Federal acre. Even
though we doubled the management force, it would still be more crit-
ical on the Federal lands.
We now have only a total force for planning and administration
and management of 29; that is, one Bureau of Land Management
ranger per 400,000 acres. That figure would be compounded if you
divided up the number serving out there to manage the lands.
There is a very, very severe problem in management with the
number of people we have employed in the past to manage the lands.
Rather than have a massive army of the Bureau of Land Manage-
ment, I would suggest that we look in another direction to the in-
adequacies of the 1?ersonnel resources we have put out in the past.
Mr. SAN1~IxI. I agree, it exists. However, I cannot agree that the
conversion of the Bureau of Land Management to parttime police-
men in whatever context it is conferred, is the solution to the problem.
I do feel you have existing law enforcement agencies from the
State police down through the county sheriff in every county, in every
Bureau of Land Management use area; at least in my State and we
represent the second largest area.
I walked over much of that land in the last campaign and con-
ferred, talked and visited the local law enforcement agencies. They
are receptive and they are conCerned. They share a common con-
cern in terms of trespasser abuse of public lands. To them in the
county that land is far more important to them than to the Bureau
of Laud Management officials in Reno or Las Vegas. They are seeing
some of the violations committed.
You are going to have a special cadre of police within the Bureau
of your own men. I don't know how you can augment that except
by going to the State and local authorities. On Easter weekend one
man is not enough; you are going to have to go local.
Mr. 1-I0RT0N. We agree that that is going to have to be part of the
total program, but here is the problem. Say a present Bureau of
Land Management patrolman comes onto a pickup destroying petro-
glvph samples in the mountains. That is a clear violation of the
Antiquities Act.
Mr. SANTIxI. Not true. He has the same authority vested in him
as a private citizen seeing someone in the commission of a misde-
meanor. He has immediate arrest authority. It has been enunciated
in this bill. I could if I wanted to affect an arrest myself under such
a circumstance. The real question is, who is to implement that au-
tbovitv that exists.
Mr. HORTON. lYe wouldn't have the uroblern we do on the land if
we SimI)~y viewed the citizen's ~rrest authority as a way of mitigat-
PAGENO="0248"
244
ing the problem. It hasn't worked. If there was any way of putting
a patrolman on the public lands we would be in favor of it.
We are not in a cte novo issue; we cannot act on what is a massive
problem. That Problem is that the largest land owner in the IJnitecl
States is unable to enforce its laws.
Mr. SANTINI. We agree with the problem but not the solution.
I can see the Park Service confronting a youth on the beach, the
youth being obnoxious. This happens on a density weekend aiid the
youth is obnoxious verbally, obscene in a conversatIonal form and
the officer draws a gun and shoots the boy. Then you have a situa-
tion of the Park Service being tried for criminal homicide. I think
it is a very big problem on both sides and I feel it would be ill-
advised to go this route.
Mr. HORTON. Giving authority to the State and local law enforce-
ment agencies certainly wouldn't alleviate that. It. could happen to
any Jaw enforcement officer who wasn't equipped with the proper
training.
Mr. SANTINI. But, State or local law enforcement officers work on
a daily basis, there you have someone with a little more l~iowledge
and a better capability of coping with arrest problems than you do
someone without that ability.
Mr. HORTON. I think it says. so long as the employee is trained in
fire arms.
Mr. SANTINI. That is a. rather nebulous sort of a condition for as-
suming the total responsibility of a law officer confrontation in the
desert or in any other place. You are not going to turn a biologist
into an effective law enforcement officer.
Mr. TvRCOTT. As I said. I can provide you with the personnel an-
nouncements, the bids for these iobs. Anyone. we delegate must have
the same qualifications as an FBI agent and that includes a lot of
things: academic training, work experience. et cetera.
Mr. SANTINI. You feel a. professional FBI agent will be. interested
in patrolling the wastelands?
Mr. TURCOTT. We have had FBI officers apply for our positions,
yes.
Mr. MELc.HER. Under the present circumstances it could he very
attractive to quite a few in the FBI.
Mr. SANTINT. It doesn't say a number of those requirements are
enunciated in this.
Mr. Tr~RCOTT. I agree. If you want the qualifications. I will be glad
to ret. them for you.
Mr. SANTTXI. This is a difficult area. the manpower. I know.
Mr. T~URCOTT. There is the pert-time deputy problem that von get
into, also, I have the same concerns von do. As a. person in the
Bureau I have been criticized by my own people for not delegating
the arrest authority. I insist that these men have the necessary
qualifications and I check into their training and education and e~-
ierienc~. I want to see for myself what kind of a person they are.
\ir. SANTINI. I think you are building another sort of nightmare
administrative problem that von don't need at. all. You ccii reason-
shiv contract this out: you don't. need the problem in your yard. You
don't have to convert Part of the agency into policemen.
PAGENO="0249"
245
Mr. TURCOTT. I think this is one of the key provisions of the
Orgamc Act in its limited way.
Mr. HORTON. We have the proposed alternative to section 303
which the Committee staff has just been given. ~ATe will commit our-
self to a thorough review and do it in the light of this discussion
with particular focus on your own sensitivity to this, a lot of which
is shared in the department.
We have a problem now which is growing in geometric magnitude
on the public lands and we have a responsibility to both the ad-
mimstration and to the Congress to do something about it. I think if
the proposal here could resolve that problem we will support it, and
if not, we will comment with as much directness as we can.
Mr. SANTINI. No further questions.
Mr. MELCIJER. Jack, in the discussion we have had in the last hour
concerning the provision on page 26 of the administration's bill re-
ferring to protection of the environmental quality of the lands ad-
ministered by the Secretary and his authority to issue rules and reg-
ulations pertaining to prospecting and mining as he deems necessary
to protect that, I think the thrust of the administration's bill is
from a different direction than the thrust of the subcommittee's.
But I think the results you want to obtain in that subsection D and
what the subcommittee hopes to obtain somewhere in the final version
of the bill, are one in the same.
But~ I think we are starting at the other end. I think we are at-
tempting to say that the Secretary indeed is authorized and directed
to prevent degradation to the surface of the land; and I mean that
in its broadest extent. I mean also to water sheds and anything that
lessens the value of the land or causes it any damage.
We are striving to say that, and I think you are trying to say it,
specifically as to mining. We both have our problems. Let's start
from the same direction, let's put our thoughts into the final version
of the bill, a section that indeed dŕes say that the Secretary must pre-
vent that degradation. Then, I don't think we will have any problem.
I don't see any necessity of restricting ourselves on that provision
to the mining laws because we are also looking at anybody else
that might do it. We get away from the question of what an ordinary
guy does who wants to prospech who is somewhat a little more ad-
vanced than a~ rock hound. and tJ~e guy that goes out mining with a
bulldozer. The uv with the bulldozer may do a lot more damage
then t.he other man.
Let's work that out then between our people and get a common
lanfrua~re so it is not necessarily too broad. Let's put into words what
we leeaily are talkin~ about and forget about the mining law part of
it. \~Te know eventually another subcommittee is going to review this
~& et of 1S72 end perhans come out with a bill, but in the meantime,
we feel that both the Buresu of Land Manaeement and the Forest
Service has that implicit authority to make sure that the watersheds,
aiiil the land itself is not da.maeed. Let's clarify that.
Mr. HORTON. We will, certainly work with you on the language.
Mr. MELCITER. Mr. McT-Iale~ last Friday I asked for a solicitor's
opinion on the question of whether or not a Member of Congress or
an employee of the Bureau of Land Management. through a corpora-
PAGENO="0250"
246
tion, can participate in leases, sales or what have you, of public lands.
Have you gotten that?
Mr. McI-IALE. We are not ready. We expect to have it for you very
soon. We will expedite it..
Mr. HORTON. My understanding of the Department with respect to
the Solicitor's Office is that oral opinion are numerous so written
opinions are moce expensive and more time consuming.
Mr. MELCHER. The axiom may still hold that a lawyer's curbstone
advice is worth just. what you pay for it.
I thank all of von.
I next welconie John R. McG-uire, Chief of the Forest Service, De-
partment of Agriculture.
Mr. MCGUIRE. With me is Russell Mdiorey, Associate Deputy
Chief of the Forest Service. I am prepared to read my statement, if
you like.
Mr. MELCHER. Without objection. your full statement will be in-
cluded in the record in full and you may proceed in whatever manner
von wish.
[The document referred to follows:]
STATEMENT OF JOHN R. MCGTJIRE. CHIEF. FOREST SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF AGRI-
CULTURE
Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee: We are glad to join with you
in your consideration of organic management authority for the Bureau of Land
Management. The Administration's proposal for a "National Resource Lands
Management Act" was recently transmitted to the Congress by the Secretary of
the Interior. We support that proposal as a vital step in providing status and
a basic management framework for the public lands administered by the Bu-
reau of Land Management of the Department of the Interior.
The Administration's proposal would not affect the authorities of the Secre-
tary of Agriculture as they pertain to National Forest System lands. Existing
authority for management of the National Forest System is basically sound. It
has been fashioned over a period of more than three-quarters of a century in a
wax that has proved generally flexible, workable, and adaptable to modern
needs and conditions. We believe that the priority concern at this time is to
I)rovide a statutory foundation for management of public domain lands by the
Bureau of Land Management. We strongly prefer that the scope of the proposed
legislation be limited to lands administered by the Bureau of Land Manage-
ment.
In the 93rd Congress, the Committee in their consideration of the "Public
Land Policy and Management Act of 1974" considered revising and combining
some of the existing authorities applicable to National Forest System lands
with the proposed authorities for tl1e lands administered by the Bureau of
Land Management. In late Committee action, the National Forest System lands
were taken out of the general application of the legislation. We favored this
action.
We understand that the Committee would like to have us address today those
portions of the Subcommittee Print which are applicable to the National Forest
System lands. The major sections or titles applicable to the National Forest
System are rights-of-way, exchange, sales, withdrawals, acquisition of land,
and grazing authorities. We testified on March 21 regarding grazing authorities
and will limit our comments to the other provisions today.
RIGHTS-OF-WAY
The Rights-of-way Title In the Administration's proposal and in the Sub-
committee Print are generally similar. The authority for granting rights-of-way
that would be provided in these titles for the Bureau of Land Management
lands is now provided for National Forest System lands under a number of
statutes administered hI- the Secretary of Agriculture, the Secretaries of the
Interior and of Transportation, or the Chairman of Federal Power Commission.
For the convenience of the Committee we have prepared a listing of these vari-
ous authorities, We have generally found this present statutory base sufficient,
PAGENO="0251"
247
One problem area pertaining to oil and gas rights-of-way was removed by the
enactment of the so called Alaska pipeline bill, Public Law 93-153.
The Rights-of-way Title in the Administration's proposed "National Resource
Lands Management Act" could with a number of ainendrne'lts provide the basis
for a bill applicable to National Forest System lands. I will briefly outline sev-
eral significant changes we believe woi~id be necessary to adapt this authority
to apply to National Forest System lands. One such change would be in the
authority to require reimbursements to the United States for administrative
and other costs. (Administration's Section 403 (f) ; Subcommittee Print Section
504 (fl). The basic authority for the Secretary of the Interior to require reim-
I)ursemelltS for extraordinary costs is contained in Title III pertaining to gen-
eral Bureau authorities (Administration's Section 302; Subcommittee Print
Section 304) and then restated in the Rights-of-way Title. A combination of the
basic authority with the specific authority to require reimbursements would be
needed in any rights-of-way authority applicable to National Forest System
lands.
Another change we would recommend in any new authority applicable to the
National Forest System is in the section "Effect on other laws" where we rec-
ominend the retention of the National Forest Roads and Trials System Act
(Act of October 13, 1984). This Act prbvides authority to grant easements, pro-
vides for the acquisition, construction, and maintenance of forest development
roads, provides authority for financing road construction and maintenance of
forest development roads, provides authority for financing road construction
and maintenance, and provides authority to require users to maintain roads.
This is the basic authority for National Forest roads and trails. The retention
of this Act is provided for in the Subcommittee Print. Finally since the author-
ity to issue rights-of-way on National Forest System lands is now provided in
a number of separate Acts, any revision of this rights-of-way authority would
need to identify appropriate Acts to be repealed.
SALES AUTHORITY
The principal authorities governing establishment and management of Na-
tional Forest System lands contemplate and provide that these lands are to be
held on a permanent basis, to provide a continuous flow of goods and services
to the people of the United States. Needs for adjustment and updating Na-
tional Forest boundaries are accommodated through our exchange authorities.
These have generally served us well as a means to dispose of tracts where pri-
vate or public developments on adjacent lands have made management for Na-
tional Forest System purposes Inefficient, or where other factors make exchange
clearly in the public interest. Because any broad sale authority could lead to
pressure for disposal of National Forest System lands, we have not sought any
such authority. The only authority now available to the Secretary of Agricul-
ture for sale of National Forest System lands is the Townsite Act (Act of July
31, 1958). This Act provides for areas up to 640 acres to be set aside and resig-
nated as a townsite upon application and demonstration of need by a local gov-
ernment. The Act provides for an area to he divided into town lots and offered
for sale by the Secretary of Agriculture. This Act has not been used. We have
not encouraged use of this Act because it would put the Secretary in the sub-
division business. The Subcommittee Print in Section 203(j) would amend this
Act to provide for disposal of a townsite area directly to a governmental entity
at its appraised value and would allow the governmental entity to dispose of
the land to private parties for development in accordance with local ordinances.
This amendment would make the Townsite Act more useable.
With regard to sale authority, one of the expressed concerns of Committee
members is the situation where communities are surrounded by public lands
and where such ownership could have a limiting effect on community expan-
sion. As a matter of actual practice we have generally been able to resolve this
problem throii«=~h um of our general exchange authority. A similar concern re-
lating to meeting the needs of puhlic~ school districts led to a special exchange
authority applicable to public school districts which is contained in the Act of
1)ecember 4, 1967. This Act allows for exchange of land or, if the school author-
ity has insufficient land to offer, the deposit with the Secretary of Agriculture
of a portion or all of the value of the selected land. An alternative to amend-
ment of the Towusite Act would he to broaden the public school district cx-
clia age authority to include communities.
PAGENO="0252"
248
ENCHANGE vUTHORITY
The basic exchange authorities applicable to National Forest System lands
are contained in the General Exchanre Act of March 20, 1922. the `Weeks Act
of March 1. 1911. and Act of October 23. 1962. Additional limited authority is
contained in the Act of August 3. 1956, with regard to public school districts in
tile Act of December 4, 1961, and in certain special legislation such as that es-
to~hliohing the Sawtooth National Recreation Area. We have found these an-
tilorities sufficient and have not sought new authority. The major new general
authority which is part of the proposed authority for the Bureau of Land Man-
agement is tile provision for cash equalization in exchanges un to 20 percent of
tile total value of lands transferred out of Federal ownership. This authority
is not included in our general exchange authority. Cash equalization is pro-
vided in certain special legislation such as that applicable to public school clis-
frict exchanges. `We w'ould no~ obiect to a provision providing for cash equaliza-
tion provided such authority was limited to 20 percent of the value of the lands
exciiange~~. We believe such authority could most appropriately he provided
to the Secretary of Agriculture as an amendment to our basic authorities and
need not be included in a bill providing organic authority for tile Bureau of
Land Management.
WITHDRAWALS
Tile Administration's proposed "National Resource Lands Management Act"
does not include major provisions pertaining to withdrawals. The statutory
direction contained in the declaration of policy and requirements pertaining to
land use plans and public participation were deemed to provide adequate di-
rection for tile development of rules and regulations regarding withdrawals. We
support the Secretary of the Interior in not including statutory procedures for
review of withdrawals In addition, we have concerns regarding the definition
of withdrawal as it would apply to National Forest System lands. Withdrawals
of National Forest System lands are based solely on authorities of other Fed-
eral departments or agencies such as the Department of Defense, Federal
Power Commission, or Department of the Interior. The only type withdrawals
we regularly initiate involve relatively small areas on which we are seeking
withdrawal from mineral entry under authority of tile Secretary of the Interior.
Tile Secretary of Agriculture under his authority does designate special areas
on National Forest System lands such as research natural areas or scenic areas,
however, we do not view these designations as withdrawals from the general
laws applicable to the National Forest System. We do not believe these desig-
nations should be treated as witlldrawals.
ACQLTI5ITIOX OF LANDS
In the Subcommittee Print, the Secretary of Agriculture would he authorized
to acquire lands or interests in lands within units of tile National Forest Sys-
tem. Present acquisition authority, provided under other Acts, would be ic-
tamed. The Secretary of Agriculture now has authority to acquire lands under
a number of separate Acts. Each of those Acts was tailored to meet a specific
land management situation. and we agree that they should be retained. Tile
authority which would be provided in the Subcommittee Print would broaden
existing authority primarily by Providing acquisition authority within National
Grasslandc~, We would not Ol)ject to a broadening of our acquisition authority,
however, this could be proridecT as an amendment to our hdsic authority rather
than as part of an Act providing the Bureau of Land Management organic
authority.
This concludes my prepared statement. I will i)e happy to answer any ques-
tions you may have.
RIGHTS-OF-WAY ATTTHORITy-Apprj~~pr~ TO LANDS AD~[INISTERED BY THE SECRE-
TARY OF AGRTCITLTFRE, MARCH 1915
I. ~tatvto~'~1 Ac[J~oi'jtv,_Ti~e following is a list of the statutes authorizing
rights-of-way across lands administered by the Secretary of Agriculture.
A. Statutes administered by the Department of Agriculture:
the regulate occupancy and use of the National Forests,
1. Act of June 4, 1897 (30 Stat. 35), as amended; (16 IJ.S.C. 551)-authority
Exhibit 1.
PAGENO="0253"
249
2. Act ~f February 15, 1901 (31 Stat. 790; 16 U.S.C. 522)-authority for
rights-of-way for canals and ditches, dams, and reservoirs, electrical and water
conduits, transmission, telephone, and telegraph lines.
3. Act of March 4, 1911 (36 Stat. 1253), as amended; (16 U.S.C. 523)-au-
thority to grant easements for power and communications facilities.
4. Act of July 22, 1937 (50 Stat. 525), as amended; (7 U.S.C. 1010-1012)-
authority to grant licenses and easements across Title III, Bankhead-Jones
Farm Tenant Act lands.
5. Act of September 3, 1954 (68 Stat. 1146; 43 U.S.C. 931c)-authority to
grant permits, leases, or easements upon payment of fair market value.
6. Act of July 7, 1960 (74 Stat. 363; 40 U.S.C. 345c)__authority to grant in-
terests in real property to States for highway purposes.
7. Act of October 23, 1962 (76 Stat. 1129; 40 U.S.C. 319)-authority to grant
easements over lands under Agriculture jurisdiction other than National Forest
or Title III, Bankhead-Jones lands.
8. Act of October 13, 1964 (78 Stat. 1089; 16 U.S.C. 532-538)-authority to
grant easements for road rights-of-way.
B. Statutes used to grant rights-of-way over lands administered by the De-
partment of Agriculture:
1. Act of July 26, 1865 (14 Stat. 253; 43 U.S.C. 932)-grant of highway
rights-of-way over public lands not reserved for public uses (administered by
Department of the Interior).
2. Act of March 3, 1875 (18 Stat. ~82; 43 U.S.C. 934)-grant of railroad
rights-of-way through public lands (administered by Department of the In-
terior).
3. Act of March 3, 1891 (26 Stat. 1101), as amended; (43 U.S.C. 946-949)-
grant of rights-of-way to canal and ditch companies for irrigation and drainage
purposes (administered by Department of the Interior).
4. Act of January 21, 1895 (28 Stat. 635; 43 U.S.C. 956)-authority for
rights-of-way for tramroads for mniiming, quarrying, cutting and manufacturing
timber (administered l)y Department of the Interior).
5. Act of i~1ay 11, 1898 (30 Stat. 404), as amended; (43 U.S.C. 951)-author-
ity for rights-of-way for water transportation, domestic purposes, or develop-
ment of power (administered by Department of the Interior).
6. Act of March 3, 1899 (30 Stat. 1233; 16 U.S.C. 525)-authority for rights-
of-way for railroads and highways (administered by Department of the In-
terior) ; this Act made the Acts of March 3, 1875, and January 21, 1895, supra,
applicable to the National Forests.
7. Act of February 1, 1905 (33 Stat. 628; 16 U.S.C. 524)-grant of rights-
of-way for dams, reservoirs or water plants, etc., for municipal and mining
purposes (administered by Department of the Interior).
S. Act of February 25, 1920 (41 Stat. 449), as amended; (30 U.S.C. 185)-
authority for rights-of-way for oil and natural gas pipelines. Further amended
in the 03rd Congress by the Act of November 16, 1973 (Joint administration by
the Department of the Interior or appropriate agency head).
9. Act of June 10, 1920 (41 Stat. 1063), as amended; (16 U.S.C. 796, et
seq. ) -authority for rights-of-way fOr primary hydroelectric transmission lines
10. Act of August 27, 1958 (72 Stat. 885), as amended; (23 U.S.C. 107d,
(administered by Federal Power Commission).
317)-~authority for highway rights-of-way (administered by Department of
Transportation).
The statutes identified in A. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, and 5, and B. 9 and 10 apply to
acquired National Forest lands as well as public domain National Forest lands.
STATEMENT OP JOHN R. McGUIRE, CHIEF, FOREST SERVICE,
DEPARTMENT OP AGRICULTURE
Mr. MCGUIFE. We support the administration's proposal for a
Natio~al Resource Lands Management Act. That proposal will not
affect the authorities pertaining to the National Forest Service Sys-
tem lands.
We believe that existing authorities which have been built up over
a period of many years generally have proved workable and flexible.
Other than grazing, the major parts of the subcommittee's print
PAGENO="0254"
250
that apply to the National Forest System are rights-of-way, ex-
changes, sales, withdarwals, and acquisition of land.
I can either comment on each of those points or answer questions.
Mr. MELCUER. Well, I think answering questions may be the
quickest way because, first of all, you have referred in your testi-
mony to the statutes governing rights-of-way onto the entire forest
system, am I right?
Mr. MCGmRE. That is correct.
Mr. ~IELCHER. I glanced through your testimony and I know you
feel that with some adjustments. the title dealing with the rights-of-
way in Subcommittee Print 1 could apply to the Forest System. If
that was done, would you find it advantageous?
Mr. MCGLIRE. I think it would probably make very little difference.
There are some points to watch if you do that. One pertains to
the authority to require reimbursements for administrative and
other costs. Another point to watch is the retention of the National
Forest Roads and Trails Systems Act.
If you repeal that then I think you would have to make other
provisions.
Mr. MELcIHER. You would want reimbursement?
Mr. MCGrIIRE. Yes. We think both the administration's bill and
the subcommittee print deal with that.
Mr. MELCHER. WelL doesn't it make sense rather than having 10
different acts-maybe it is 18.
Mr. MCGrnnE. It is 18. I think.
Mr. MELCHER. And they date back as far as 1897. Doesn't it make
sense to put it all into one part of the law?
Mr. MCGUIRE. Well, you will notice from the list that eight of
these are administered by the Department of Agriculture and 10 by
other departments or agencies. The problem arises because part
of the national forest system consists of acquired lands, part of it
consists of lands originating from the public domain and part con-
sists of Bankhead-,Jones lands, each of which is treated somewhat dif-
ferently. A lot depends on how you handle the consolidation.
Mr. MELCHER. I think there is. in general, as I look at the second
set of statutes, we find almost all of them are administered by the
Department of Interior.
Mr. McG~TmE. That is right.
Mr. MELCHER. If we are going to instruct the Department of In-
terior what to do about rights of way on Bureau of Land Manage-
ment matters. I think it falls in the pattern I thought was justified
by this committee to apply the same rules to the Forest Service.
Mr. MCGumE. I think if you do that it would be well to watch care-
fully the acts to be repealed so we don't get into trouble. One other
noint is the reference to the Wilderness Act. There are private
holdino'~ within the areas designated by the Wilderness Act.
Mr. METclirli. That is a very valid point. I hope counsel is taking
note of this. If I understand right, Chief, that in granting that.
the Wilderness Act. carries with it the rights of way to any holdings?
Mr. McGrrrnE. The act specifically provides that private land
owners and others have a right to access.
MI'. MI'i-.C1JER. The access is there?
Mr. MOGUTRE. Yes.
PAGENO="0255"
251
Mr. MELCHER. If we are going to write one title of rights of way
we better note that we can't destroy that access or we have, in effect,
amended the act of 1964, the Wilderness Act.
Mr. MCGUIRE. Within the provision of 501 (a); you might want
to delete the reference to wilderness.
Mr. MELOHEn. Can I assume there is general agreement that in
these communities landlocked by a national forest there are occasions
when sales of land should be permitted?
Mr. McGimiE. That is correct, Mr. Chairman. We have discussed
th1s with you before. We have called your attention to the Townsite
Act. I think it might also be worthwhile to examine the act per-
taining to school districts which takes somewhat of a different tack.
The problem with the Townsite Act as it stands now is that it
puts the Secretary of Agriculture in the subdivision business. In other
words, he does the subdividing and sells the lots. It would be better
in our view if you go this way, to~ take the approach used under the
School District Act, and at the same time, provide for deposit of
monies from sales or receipts, in a special account for acquisition
of substitute land in the same forest or State. You could then accom-
plish the objective of necessary land transfers we now can achieve
through the existing authorities but with more flexibility.
Mr. MELOJIER. Page 18 attempted to solve this problem. Your pro-
posal, now you are telling me, would improve this? We would be
pleased to review this.
As you know, this has been one ~f the points that we have gone one
way and another on with the subcommittee. We would be delighted
to review this improvement of that language.
Mr. McGuniE. We would be glad to supply whatever you like.
Mr. MELCITER. I see from your testimony that the National Forest
Service System lands, when they experience a withdrawal, you es-
sentially deal with departments or agencies other than the Secretary
of Agriculture?
Mr. MCGmRE. That is correct.
Mr. MELCHER. So, assuming they have a statutory authority for
a withdrawal by the U.S. Forest Service, is that all satisfactory;
have you found that their withdrawals have hurt the National
Forest Service System?
Mr. MCGUIRE. In generaL the system has worked pretty well.
Our concern here is with the definition of withdrawal. In the subcom-
mittee print on page 9 there is a rather broad definition, if you
will notice.
The term withdrawal means the exclusion of an area of public lands or of
lands within the National Forest System, from management under principles
of multiple use in order to protect or favor particular public values in the land,
or a withholding of an area of such land from settlement, sale or entry under
some or all of the general land laws.
We can see that a strict interpretation of this definition could in-
volve many administrative actions by the Forest Service such as a
fine closure and I am sure you didn't mean that, but that is one ex-
treme. The only kinds of withdrawals that we request are those
involving withdrawal from mineral entry. The present definition
seems too broad.
Mr. MELCHER. Yes, very broad. We welcome your recommenda-
tions for language for that section. We labored with this quite a
while last year, too, and we are not particularly satisfied that we
have the proper definitions of that.
PAGENO="0256"
252
Mr. MCGIJ1RE. You see, the Secretary of Agriculture sets up special
interest areas such as historical, archeological, geological, botanical
areas, and scenic areas. We would hope that that authority wouldn't
be disturbed by the language in the subcommittee print if it were
enacted.
Mr. MELCHER. Well, again, if the final version of the committee's
bill is such, and the House accepts it, it will be a prerogative of the
Congress to review decisions by the Secretary, meaning both the
Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture, in chang-
ing the use of public lands including the National Forests-that is,
of some acreage in excess of 5,000 acres, or some other amount of
acreage set by the House. If Congress uses its prerogative to review
some of these changes in management as requested by the Depart-
ment. I feel we might run into a confrontation that is unnecessary.
I don't believe you or the Secretary of Agriculture really object
to the Congress reviewing these, I think you just object to the
methods we set up to do the review.
Mr. MoGtiin~. I think that is correct. Looking at the mineral with-
drawals in calendar year 1974, we had only 19, and all but one were
less than 5,000 acres.
Mr. MELCHER. Again, as I urged Secretary Horton on behalf of
the interior, I urge you, Chief McG-uire, on behalf of Agriculture,
to put your draftsmen and counsel to work on this particular ques-
tion so we can come up with a language that does preserve the prerog-
ative of the Congress to make the review but doesn't in turn create
such a burden on Agriculture to property administer the lands.
Above all, we seek not to prevent you from exercising prudent
judgment quickly to avoid damage to the land in case of an emer-
gene-v that might occur. even though subsequent to the use of the
emergency power, the Congress still might want to review that par-
ticular withdrawal or a particular change in management.
Mr. McGui~r. We will be glad to work with you and we will con-
suit with the Department of theInterior.
Mr. SAXTIXI. I have no questions.
Mr. MELCHER. Well, I am encouraged, Chief McGuire. by your
statement today and your answers to our questions. I think we are
a great deal closer on the thrust of this bill as it affects the National
System than we were a year ago when we met in this same room
~nd you had to make rather extensive objections to several points the
Committee was considering in the will be had before us then.
However, as von well know. I believe the committee has retreated
a long way in subcommittee print No. 1 from the position we were
pronosine a year ago at this time in regards to the Forest Service.
If we can came ui~ with some langua~e ns to sales. withdrawals,
rights-of-way, and grazing. I think we will have covered the main
points the s~ibcomrriittee is interested in combining into this bill.
Mr. McGuniE. I am sure a lot of progress has been made since
last ear. It has been a very useful exercise for us in forcing us to
look at our basic authorities.
Thank you.
Mr. MELCriER. Thank you. lYe will now adjourn, subject to the
call of the Chair.
[Whereupon. at 12 :10 p.m.. the subcommittee recessed, subject to
the call of the Chair.]
PAGENO="0257"
PUBLIC LAND POLICY AND MANAGEMENT ACT OF 1975
MONDAY, APRIL 7, 1975
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
SUBCOMMITrEE o~ PUBLIC LANDS OF THE
COMMITrEE ON INTERIOR AND INS1JIAR AFFAIRS,
Washington, D.C.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:45 a.m. in room
1324, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. John Meicher (chair-
man of the subcommittee) presiding.
Mr. MELCHER. The Subcommittee on Public Lands will come to
order. We will continue our public hearings on H.R. 5224, which
is the administration bill to provide for the management, protection,
and development of national resource lands. We are also considering
Subcommittee Print No. 1 of March 18 of this year, which is the
Public Land Policy and Management Act of 19'TS, and which is a
continuation of the consideration we gave the last Congress and
H.R. 5622 introduced by Mr. Seiberling. In this Congress we want to
put out a bill.
H.R. 5224 and Subcommittee Print No. 1, have `already been in-
serted into the record and at this time I would like to place H.R. 5622
into the record.
[H.R. 5622 follows:]
(253)
54-005 0 - 75 - 17
PAGENO="0258"
254
94Th CONGRESS
1ST SEsslox 5622
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
MARCh 26, 19Th
Mr. SEIBEIILING introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Com-
mittee on Interior and Insular Affairs
A BILL
To provide for the management, protection, and development
of the national resource lands, and for other purposes.
1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa-
2 tires of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
3 That this Act may be cited as the "National Resource
4 Lands Organic Act".
5 SEC. 2. FINDINGs AND DECLARATION OF POLICY.-
6 (a.) The Congress finds that-
7 (1) the national resource lands are a vital national
8 asset, encompassing more than one-fifth of the Nation's
9 land area and containing a diversity of natural resource
10 values, including soil, water, air, plants, animals, and
I
PAGENO="0259"
255
2
1 intangible values; these lands ale important to the Nation
2 as a source of economic and environmental benefits, raw
3 materials, recreation, watershed and wildlife values;
4 consequently the national resource lands deserve the
5 highest quality of management, under conservation prin-
G ciples, to assure these benefits and values to the people
7 of the United States of present and future generations;
8 (2) the present condition of t.he national resource
9 lands is such that the p~h1ic benefits and values are dete-
10 riorating because of inadequate management of the
11 land; indicative of the degree of deterioration is the cur-
12 rent report from the Department of tile Interior that 83
13 percent of the rangeland is in fair, poor, or bad condition,
~1 that th~ (~Qflcji~4ofl is in~roving on only 19 ~erc~t
of the
16 (3) the present in~dequ~cy of manageu~eut ~
17 result of prior statutory policies which are variously
18 unclear, outdated, and at cross purposes, and a result
19 of insufficient personnel and funding levels;
20 (4) clear and consistent policy directions are needed
21 to govern the managerhent of the national resource lands
22 in the long-term publič interest, so as to arrest the pres-
23 ent deterioration, and to provide for protection of natural
24 values, management under conservation principles, and
25 restoration of the renewable resources and values; and
PAGENO="0260"
256
3
1 (5) to facilitate proper and effective management,
2 a system of identified and designated units of the na-
3 tional resource lands is needed.
4 (1)) Therefore, tile Congress declares that-
5 (1) the national resource lands shall be administered
6 as the National Resource Lands System;
7 (2) the national resource lands shall be retained
8 in Federal ownership, except in limited cases where
9 there is an overriding public need for disposal of a
10 particular tract, or where disposal is necessary for
11 proper management of Federal lands;
(3) the national resource lands shall be adminis~
13 tered, used, restored, improved, and protected: (A) to
m~1ntahi the integrity of ecosystems and envirenmc~~4
quality, including the protection of natural, scientific,
scenic, b.isto~ic, and arcl~eological values, to protect
watersheds, to provide habitat for fish and wildlife, to
18 preserve wilderness and wild and scenic rivers, and to
19 afford opportunity for outdoor recreation, including
20 necessary access; and (B) to permit appropriate coo-
21 nomic uses under the principles of multiple use and
22 sustained yield, including the production of forage, mm-
23 erals, and timber, and to allow desirable forms of
occupancy;
25 (4) the national resource lands and their resources
PAGENO="0261"
257
4
1 shall be periodically an~d systematically inventoried, and
2 a long-range plaii for their present and future manage-
3 ment and use shall be prepared through a land-use plaii-
4 fling process coordinated with other Federal and State
5 planning efforts; and
6 (5) the Secretary shall manage the national
7 resource lands under principles of multiple use and sus-
8 tamed yield in a manner which will, using all practicable
9 means and measures: (A) protect and enhance the
10 environmental quality of such lands to assure their con-
11 tinued value for present and future generations; (B)
12 include, but not necessarily be limited to, such uses as
13 provision of food and habitat for wildlife, fish and
14 domestic animals, minerals and materials production,
15 ~. supplying the products of trees and plants, human
16 occupancy and use, and various forms. of outdoor recrea-
17 tion; (C) preserve scientific, scenic, historical, archeo~
18 logical, natural ecological, air and atmospheric, wa~er
19 resource, and other public values; (D) include certain
20 areas in their natural condition; (E) balance various
21 demands on such lands consistent with national goals;
22. (F) assure payment of fair market value by users of
23 such lands; and (G) provide maximum opportunity for
24 the public to participate in decisionmaking concerning
25 ? such lands.
PAGENO="0262"
258
5
1 SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.-A5 used in this Act:
2 (a) "The Secretary" means the Secretary of the In-
3 tenor.
4 (b) "National resource lands" means all lands and in-
5 terests in lands (including the renewable and nonrenewable
6 resources thereof) now or hereafter administered by the
7 Secretary through the Bureau of Land Management, except
S the Outer Continental Shelf.
9 (c) "Multiple use" means the management of the na-
10 tional resource lands and their various resource values so
11 that they are utilized in the combination that will best meet
12 the present and future needs of the American people; making
13 the most judicious use of the land for some or all of these
resources OF related services over areas large enough to pro-
~ vide sufficient latitude for periodic adjustments in use to
1 6 conform to changing needs and conditions; the use of some
17 land for less than all of the resources; a combination of bal-
118 aneed apd diverse resource uses that takes into account the
19 long-term needs of future generations for renewable and non-
20 renewable resources, including recreation and scenic values;
21 and harmonious arid coordinated management of the various
22 resources without unpairment of the p1o(1Ut\'ty of the land
23 and the quality of the enviionmeiit, with consideration heiiig.
24 given to the relative ahiies of the resources and not nece~-
PAGENO="0263"
259
1 sarily to the combination of ~ises that will give the greatest
2 economic return or the greatest unit output.
3 (d) "Sustained yield"~ means the achievement and
4 maintenance in perpetuity of a high-level annual or regular
5 periodic output of the various renewable resources of land
6 without impairment of the quality and productivity of the
7 land or its environmental values.
8 (e) "Areas of critical environmental concern" means
9 areas within the national resource lands where special man-
10 agement attention is required when such areas are developed
11 or used to protect, or where no development is required to
12 prevent irreparable damage to, important historic, cultural,
13 or scenic values, or natural ~ystems or processes, or life and
14 safety as a result of natural hazards.
15 (f) "Right-of-way" means an easement, lease, permit,
16 or license to occupy, use, or traverse national resource lands
17 granted for the purposes listed in title IV of this Act.
18 (g) "Holder" means any State or local governmental
19 entity or agency, individual, partnership, corporation, asso-
20 ciation, or other business entity receiving or using a right-
21 of-way under title IV of this Act.
22 SEC. 4. RuLES AND REGULATI0N5.-The Secretary
23 15 authorized to promulgate such rules and regulations as he
24 deems necessary to carry out the purposes of this Act. The
25 promulgation of such rules and regulations shall be governed
PAGENO="0264"
260
7
1 by the Administrative Procedure Act (0 Stat. 237), as
2 amended. Prior to the promulgation of such rules and regula~
3 tions, the national resources lands shall be administered under
4 existing rules and regulations concerning such lands.
5 SEC. 5. PUBLIC PxnTTCIPATI0N.-Ifl exercising ii~
6 authorities under this Act, the Secretary, by regulation, ~lia11
7 establish procedures. including public hearings where appro-
8 priate, to give the Federal, State, and local governments and
9 the public adequate notice and an opportunity to comment
10 upon the formulation of standards and criteria for the pi.epa-
11 ration and execution of pl~ins and piogi~ins concerning, and
12 to comment on the planning and management of, the na-
13 tional resource lands, and to participate in formulation of
14 plans and management programs.
15 SEC. 6. ADVIsoRY BOARDS AND Co~nrIT~n~Es.-Iii pro-
16 viding for public participation ~ ~1anning and progiaming
17 for the national resource lands, the Secretary, pursuant to
18 the Federal Advisory Committee Act (86 Stat. 770) and
19 other applicable law, may establish and consult such advisory
20 boards and committees as he deems necessary to secure full
21 information and advice on the execution of his responsibihi-
22 ties. Each member of such boards and comillittees shall have
23 expertise in some natural resource management or environ-
24 mental field, and the membership of such boards and com-
25 mittees as a. whole shall he representative of local, i~egional,
PAGENO="0265"
261
8
1 and national interests in the protection, management, use,
2 and enjoyment of the national resource lands.
3 S~c. 7. ANNuAL REPORT.-The Secretary shall pie-
4 pare an annual report which he shaH make available to the
5 public and subnnt to Congress no biter than 1 20 dos after
6 the close of each fiscal year. The report shall describe, in
7 appropriate detail, activities relating or pursuant to this Act
8 for the fiscal year just ~ded, any problems which may have
9 arisen concerning such activities, and oilier pertinent infor-
10 mation which will assist the accomplishment of the provisions
ii and purposes of this Act. The report shall contain a detailed
12 list and description of any and all transfers of national ic-
13 source lands out of Federal ownersiup for the fiscal year just
14 ended. It shall include such tables, graphs, and illustrations
15 as will adequately reflect tl~e fiscal year's activities, historical
16 trends, and future projections relating to the iiational re-
17 source lands.
18 SEC. 8. Dn~EeToR.-Appointmcnts made on or after the
19 date of the enactment of this Act to the position of the Three-
20 tor of the Bureau of Land Management, within the Depart-
21 ment of the Interior, shoW he made by the President, by and
22 with the advice and consent of the Senate. The Director
23 shall have a broad background and experience in pUl)hic land
24 au d no fitral resource management.
2~ ~ 9, APP~op~IATIo~S,-~There is hereby authorized
PAGENO="0266"
262
9
1 to be appropriated such sums as are necessary to carry out
2 the purposes and provisions of this Act.
3 TITLE I-GENERAL MANAGEMENT
4 ATJTHORITy
5 SEC. 101. MAXAGEMENT.-The Secretary shall manage
6 the national resource lands in accordance with the policies
~ and procedures of this Act and with any land use plans
8 which lie has prepared, pursuant to section 104 of this Act,
9 except to the extent that other applicable law provides other-
10 wise. Such management shall include-
ii (1) regulating, through permits, licenses, leases, or
12 such other instruments as the Secretary deems appropri-
13 ate, the use, occupancy, or development of the national
14 resource lands not provided for by other laws: Provided,
15 however, That no provision of.this Act shall be construed
16 as authorizing the Secretary to require any Federal per-
17 mit to hunt or fish on the national resource lands;
18 (2) requiring appropriate land reclamation as a
19 condition of use, and requiring performance bonds or
20 other security guaranteeing such reclamation iii a timely
21 manner from any person permitted to engage in an cx-
22 tractive or other activity likely to entail significant dis-
23 turbance to or alteration of the national resource lands;
24 (3) inserting in permits, licenses, leases, or other
PAGENO="0267"
263
10
1 a~ithorizations to. use, occupy, or develop the national
2 resource lands, provisions authorizing revocation or sus-
3 pension, ~ifter notice and hearing, of such permits, ii-
4 censes, leases, or other authorizat.ions, upon final ad-
5 mimstrative finding of a violation of any regulations
6. issued by the Secretary under any Act applicable to the
7 national resource lands or upon fin~l administrative find-
8 . .ing of a violation on~ such lands of any applicable State
9 or Federal air or water quality standard or implemen-
10 tation plan: Provided, That the Secretary may order an
11 immediate temporary. suspension prior to a hearing or
12 . final administrative finding if he determines that such
a. suspension is necessary to protect public health or safety*
14 . or the environment:. Provided further, That, where
15 other applicable law contains specific provisions for
16~ suspension, revocation, or cancellation of a permit, II-
17 cense, or other authorization to use, occupy, or develop
18 . the national resource lands, the specific provisions of.
19 .. such law shall prevail ;~ and
20. . . (4) the prompt development of regulations for the
21 . .. protection of areas of critical environmental concern.
22 Si~t~. .102.. INVENTORY..- (a) The Secretary shall pre-
23 p~e and maintain on a c~ntinuing basis an inventory of all
24 . natiQnal resřnrce lands, and, their resource and other values
25 (including esthetic, recreational and ecological values)
PAGENO="0268"
264
11
1 giving priority to areas of critical environmental concern.
2 The inventory shall be kept current so as to reflect changes
3 in conditions and in identifications of resOui~ee arid othei
4 values.
5 (b) The Secretary shall identify local units of flue na-
6 tional resource lands for easy reference by the publiC, and
7 provide maps and where he deems appropriate signs; and
8 he shall designate approximate boundaries for each such unrt
9 and name the unit appropriately. The Secretary, where lib
10 determines it to be appropriate, shall provide State and locid
11 governments with data from the inventory for the purpo~e
12 of planning and regulating the uses of non-Federal lands hr
13 the proximity of national resource lands.
14. SEC. 103. W~LDEnNESS STUDY.-The Secretary shall
15 review those roadless areas of five thousand contiguous acres
16 or more and roadless islands of the public lands administered1
17 by him through the Bureau, and shall report to :the Presi-
18 dent his recommendation on the suitability or nonsuitability
19 of each such area or island for preservation as wildernes~
20 The review conducted by the Secretary shall l)e . made aC~
21 cording to the procedure specified in section 3 (c) and 3 (d)
22 and section 4 (ci) (2) (with respect to mineral surveys) of
23 . the Wilderness Act. The recommendations of the Secretary
24 liased on the review conducted by him under this sectioi~
25 shall be sul)mitted to the President from time to time.: The
PAGENO="0269"
265
12
1 President shall advise the President of the Senate and the
2 Speaker of the Rouse of Representatives of his recommenda-
3 tions with respect to the designation as wilderness of each
4 such area on which review has been completed, together with
5 a map thereof and a definition of its boundaries. Such advice
6 by the President shall be~ given with respect to not less
7 than one-half of all the areas \vit.llin five years after the date
8 of enactment of this Act, and the remaining areas within ten
.9 years after the date of enactment of this Act. A recommenda-
10 tion of the President for designation as wilderness shall
11 become effective only if so~ provided by an Act of Congress.
12 During the period of review of such areas, the Secretary shall
13 continue to administer such lands according to his existing
14 authority in a manner so as to preserve the wilderness char-
15 acter of each such area. The conduct of the review under this
16 section shall not, of itself, prohibit existing uses to continue
17 in suëh areas during the period of review so long as such uses
18 do riot substantially impair the suitability of such area for
19 preservation as wilderness. Once an area has been designated
20 for preservation as wilderness, the provisions of the Wilder-
21 ness Act shall apply with, respect to the administration and
22 use of such designated area.
23 SEc. 104. LAND USE PLANS.- (a) The Secretary shall,
24 with public participation, develop, maintain, and, when.
25 appropriate, revise land use plans for the national resource
PAGENO="0270"
266
13
1 lands consistent with terms and conditions of this Act and
2 coordinated so far as he finds feasible and proper, or as may
3 be required by the enactment of a national land use policy or
4 other law, with the land use plans, including the statewide
5 outdoor recreation plans developed under the Act of Sep-
6 tember 3, 1964 (78 Stat. 897), and the comprehensive plan-
7 ning assistance of section 701 of the lousing Act of 1954 as
8 amended (68 Stat. 640; 40 U.S.C. 461), of State and local
9 governments and other Federal agencies.
10 (b) In the development and maintenance of land use
11 plans, the Secretary shall:
12 (1) use a systematic interdisciplinary approach to
13 achieve integrated consideration of physical, biological,
14 economic., and social sciences;
15 (2) give priority to the designation and protec-
16 tion of areas of critical environmental concern;
17 (3) rely, to the extent it is available, on the inven-
18 tory of the national resource lands, their resources, and
19 other values;
20 (4) consider present and potential uses of the
21 lands;
22 (5) consider the relative scarcity of the values in-
23 volved and the availability of alternative means (in-
24 cluding recycling) and sites for realization of tho~e
25 values;
PAGENO="0271"
267
14
1 (6) weigh long-te~'m public benefits; and
2 (7) consider the requirements of applicable pollu-
3 tion control laws including State or Federal air or water
4. quality standards, noise standards, and implementation
5.. . plans.
6 (c) Any classification of national resource lands in effect
7 on the date of enactment of this Act is subject to review in
8. the land use planning process and such lands are subject to
9 inclusion in land use plans pursuant to this section.
10 (d) Wherever ally pi~oposed change in the classification
11 of, or permitted uses on, any national resource lands would
.12 affect authorization of such lands, persons holding leases,
13 licenses, or permits concerning the use to be affected shall be
14 given written notice by~ the Secretary of such proposed
15. change at least sixty days 1)efol'e it. is put into effect. In
16 addition, t.lie Secretary shall give public notice, including
17 1)ublicat.ioll in the Federal Register, of any proposed change
18 in classification for any tract over one thousand two himdred
19 and eighty acrcs and hold a public hearing with at least
20 forty-five days' notice on the proposed change, which shall
21 iiot take effect until at least thirty days after such hearing.
22 . SEC. 15. BECORDATION OF MIMXG CLAIMs.- (a)
23 : Each. mhńng claim under the Mining Law of 1872, ~s
24,..~amonded. (Revised Statutes 2318-2352), shallb~ recorded
25 by the claimant with the Secretary within two years after
PAGENO="0272"
268
15
i the date of enactment of this Act or within thirty days of
2 location of the claim, whichever is later. Any claim not
3 so recorded shall be conclusively presumed to be abandoned
4 and shall be void.
5 (b) Any claim recorded pursuant to subsection (a) for
6 which the claimant has not made application for a patent
7 within five years after the date of enactment of* this Act or
8 the date of location of a claim, whichever is later, shall be
9 conclusively presumed to be abandoned and shall be viid.
10 (c) Such recordation or application shall not render
11 valid any claim which was not valid on the date of enact-
12 ment of this Act, or which becomes invalid thereafter.
13 TITLE IT-CONVEYANCE AND ACQUISITION
14 AUTHORITIES
15 SEO. 201. AUTHORITY To SELL.-Except as otherwise
16 provided by law, and subject to the requirements of section
17 2 (1)) of this Act, the Secretary is authorized to sell national
18 resource lands. The national resource lands may be sold
19 if the Secretary, in accordance with the guidelines lie has
20 established for sale of national resource lands and after
21 preparation pursuant to section 104 `ofthis Act of a land use
22 plan which includes any tract of such lands identified for
23 sale, determines that the sale of such tract will not cau~e
24 needless degradation of the environment and meets :th~ sale
25' ~ritéria of section 202 of this Act.
PAGENO="0273"
269
16
1 Si~o. 202. SALE CRITERIA.- (a) A tract of national
2 resource lands may be sold under this Act only where, as a
3 result of land use planning required under section 104, the
4 Secretary determines that-
5 (1) such tract of national resource lands, because
6 of its location and other characteristics, is difficult to
7 manage as part of the national resource lands, and there-
8 fore not suitable to be managed as part of the national
9 resource lands, and is not suitable for management by
10 another Federal agency; or
11 (2) such tract of national resource lands was ac-
12 quired for a specific purpose and the tract is no longer
13 required for that or any other Federal purpose; or
14 (3) sale, of such tract of national resource lands is
15 required for the orderly growth and development of
16 existing communities and if the purpose cannot be
17 achieved prudently or feasibly on land vther than `such
18 tract and which outweigh all public objectives `and values
19 which would `lie served by maintaining such tract iii Fed-
20 eral ownership.
21 SEC. 203. SALES AT FAIR MARKET VALIJE.-Sales of
22 national resource land's under this Act shall be at not less
23 than. appraised fair market value as determined by the
24 Secretary. :. .. . .11 ....
25 SEc~ 204. z~ o'~' T'~4cTs~-Tbe Secretary shall deter-
54-005 0 - 75 - 18
PAGENO="0274"
270
17
1 mine and establish the size of tracts of national resource lands
2 to be sold on the basis of the land use capabilities and devel-
3 Opment reqwrements of the lands.
4 SEC. 205. Co~IpETITIv~ BIDDING PROCEDURES.-EX
5 cept as to sales under section 208 hereof, sales of national
6 resource lands under this Act shall be conducted under corn-
7 Pet1tivc l)iddmg procedures to be established by the Secretary.
8 however, where the Secretary determines it necessary to as-
9 sure proper land management for protection of environ-
iO mental values, he is authorized to sell national resource lands
11 with modified competitive bidding or without competitive
12 bidding.
13 SEC. 206. RIGHT To REFUSE OR REJECT OFFER OF
14 PURCIIASE.-Until the Secretary has accepted an offer to
15 purchase, he may refuse to accept any offer or may withdraw
16 any land or interest in land from sale under this Act when he
17 determines that consummaf7ion of the sale would not be con-
18 sistent with this Act or other applicable law. The Secretary
19 shall accept or reject, in writing, any offer to purchase made
20 through competitive bid at his invita;tion no later than thirty
21 days after the submission of such offer.
22 SEC. 207. RESERVAT~OX OF MINERAL INTERESTS.-
23 All conveyances of title issued by the Secretary under this
24 Act, except conveyances under the exchange authority pro-
PAGENO="0275"
271
18
1 vided In section 213, shall reserve to the United States all
2 nniieials in the laiids, together Wi di the right to prospect for,
.3 mine, and remove the minerals under applicable law and
~ such regulations as the Seeret~ry may preScribe: Provided,
~ That, where reservation of the mineral interests to the United
6 States would interfere with or preclude the appropriate use
or development of such land for the purposes for which it
8 was conveyed, the Secretary may convey the minerals in
~ the conveyance of title in accordance with the provisions of
~ section 208 (a) (1) and (2) and (c) of this Act.
SEC. 208. CoNvEYA~CE OF RESERVED MINERAL IN-
12 TERE.STS.- (a) The Secretary may convey mineral interests
13 owned by the United States where the surface is in non-
14 Federal ownership, regardless of which Federal agency may
15 have admimiistered the surface, if he finds (1) that there are
16 no mineral values in the land, or (2) that the reservation of
17 the mineral rights in the United States is interfering with or
18 precluding appropriate n~nminera1 development of the land
19 and that such development is a itiore beneficial use of the
20 land than mineral development.
21 (b) Conveyance of mineral interests pursuant to this
22 section shall be made only to the record owner of the surface
23 upon payment of administrative costs and the fair market
24 value of the interests being conveyed.
25 (c) The patent for dny mineral interests conveyed pur-
PAGENO="0276"
272
19
1 snant to this section shall provide that, in the event that
2 miiicral development activities are initiated within fifty
3 years of the issuance of such patent, the mineral interests
4 of the owner or owners of the parcel of land on which such
S activities are initiated, together with the right to prospect
6 for, mine, and remove the minerals under applicable law
7 and such regulations as the Secretary may prescribe, shall
8 revert to the United States.
9 (d) Before considering an application for conveyance
10 of mineral interests pursuant to this section-
11 (1) the Secretary shall require the deposit of a
12 sum of money which he deems su~cient to cover ad-
13 ministrative costs including, but not limited to, costs of
14 conducting an exploratory program to determine the
15 character of the mineral deposits in the land, evaluating
16 the data obtained under the exploratory program to
17 determine the fair market value of the mineral interests
18 to be conveyed, and preparing and issuing the docu-
19 ments of conveyance: Proriclecl, That, if the admini~4-
20 trative costs exceed the deposit, the applicant shall pay
21 the outstanding amount; and, if the deposit exceeds the
22 administrative costs, the applicant shall be given .a~
23 credit for or refund of the excess; or
24 (2) the applicant shall have conducted, and sub~.
25 mitted to the Secretary the results of, such an explora-
PAGENO="0277"
273
Z1)
1 tory program, in accordance with standards promulgated
2 by the Secretary.
3 (e) Moneys paid to the Secretary for administrative
4 costs pursuant to subsectioh (d) of this section shall be paid
5 to the agency which rendered the service and deposited to
6 the appropriation then current.
7 SEc. 209. TERMs OF PATENT.-The Secretary shall in-
8 sert in any patent or other document of conveyance lie issues
9 under this Act such terms, covenants, conditions, and reser-
10 vations as lie deems necessary to insure proper land use and
U protection of the public interest.
12 SEC. 210. CONFORMING CONVEYANCES TO STATE AND
13 LOCAL FLANNING.The~ Secretary shall not make convey-
14 ances of national resource lands under this Act which would
15 be in conflict with State and local land use plans, programs,
16 zoning, and regulations. At least ninety days prior to offering
17 for sale or otherwise conveying national resource lands under
18 this Act, the Secretary shall notify the Governor of the State
19 within which such lands are located and the head of the gov-
20 erning body of any political subdivision of the State having
21 zoning or other land use regulatory jurisdiction in the geo-
22 graphical area within which such lands are located, in order
23 to afford the appropriate body the opportunity to zone or
24 otherwise regulate, or change or amend existing zoning or
PAGENO="0278"
274
21
1. other regulations concerning, the use of such lands prior to
2 such conveyance.
3 SEC. 211. ATJTIIORITY To ISSUE AND CORRECT Docu-
4 MENTS OF CONVEYANCE.-Consistent with his authority to
5 dispose of national resource lands, the Secretary is authorized
6 to issue deeds, patents, and other indicia of title, and to cor-
7 rect such documents where necessary. In addition, the See-
8 retary is authorized to make corrections on any documents of
9 conveyance which have heretofore been issued on lands
10 which would, at. the time of their conveyance, have met the
11 description of national resource lands.
12 SEC. 212. RECORDABLE DISCLAI~IERS OF INTEREST IN
13 LAND.- (a) After consulting with any affected Federal
14 agency, the Secretary is authorized to issue a document of
~ disclaimer of interest or interests in any lands in any form
16 suitable for recordation, where the disclaimer will help re-
17 move a cloud on the title of such lands and where he deter-
18 mines (1) a record interest of the United States in lands has
19 terminated by operation of law; or (2) the lands lying be-
20 tween the meander line shown on a plat of survey approved
21 by the Bureau of Land Management or its predecessors and
22 the actual shoreline of a body of water are not lands of the
23 United States; or (3) accreted, relicted, or avulsed lands
24 are not lands of the United States.
PAGENO="0279"
275
99
1 (b) No document of disclaimer shall be issued pursuant
2 to this title unless the applicant therefor has filed with the
3 Secretary an application in writing and notice of such appli-
4 cation setting forth the grounds supporting such application
5 has been published in the Federal Register at least ninety
6 days preceding the issuance, of such disclaimer and until the
7 applicant therefor has paid to the Secretary the administra-
8 tive costs of issuing the di~cbumer as determined by the
9 Secretary. All receipts shall, be credited to the appropriation
10 from which expended.
11 (c) Issuance of a dociiment~ of disclaimer by the Secre-
12 tary pursuant to the provisions of this section and regulations
13 promulgated hereunder shall have the same effect as quit-
14
claim (iced from the United States.
15 SEC. 213. ACQUISITION OF LAND.- (a) The Secretary
16 is authorized to acquire, by~purchase, exchange, or donation,
17 lands or interests therein where necessary for proper man-
18 agement of the national resource lands: Provided, That land
19 or interests in land may be acquired pursuant to this title by
20 eminent domain only within the boundaries of national re-
21 source lands units established pursuant to section 102 (b) or
22 if necessary in order to secure access to national resource
93
lands.
(1)) Acquisitions j)ursuant to this Act shall be consist-
2u ent with applicable land use plans prepared by the Secre-
26 t;ary uit~Ie~ section 104 o~ this Act.
PAGENO="0280"
276
23
1 (c) In exercishig the exchange authority granted by
2 subsection (a) of this section, the Secretary may accept title
3 to any non-Federal land or interests therein and in exchange
4 therefor he may convey to the grantor of such land or inter-
5 ests any national resource lands or interests therein which,
6 under section 202 of this Act, he finds proper for transfer out
7 of Federal ownei~hiip and which are located in the same State
S a~S the non-Federal 1011(1 to be acquired. The values of the land
9 so exehiaiiged either shall be equal, or if they are not equal,
10 shall be equalized by the payment of money to the grantor or
11 to the Secretary as the circumstances require.
12 (d) Lands acquired by exchange under this section or
13 section 301 (e) which are within the boundaries of the
14 national forest system may 1)e transferred to the Secretary
15 of Agriculture for administration as part of, and in accord-
16 ance with laws, rules, and regulations applicable to, the
17 national forest system. Such transfer shall not result in the
18 reduction in the percentage of in-lieu payments receivable by
19 State and local governments. Lands acquired by exchange
20 under this section or section 301 (e) which are within tile
21 boundaries of national park, wildlife refuge, wild and scenic
22 rivers, trails, or an~ other system established by Act of
23 Congress may be transferred to the appropriate agency head
24 f~. adiiiiiiisiiation OS part of, and in accordance with the
25 laws, rules, and regulations apphie~hle to, such system.
PAGENO="0281"
277
24
1 (e) Lands and interests in lands acquired pm's~iaiit to
2 this section or section 301 (c) shall, upon acceptance of title,
3 become national resource lands, and, for the administration
4 of public land laws not repealed by this Act, shall become
5 public lands. If such acq~iired lands or interests in lands
6 are located within the ext~rior boundaries of a gTazing dis-
7 trict established pursuant to section 1 of the Taylor Grazing
8 Act (48 Stat. 1269), as i~inended, they shall become a part
9 of that district.
10 TITLE ITT-MANAGEMENT 1M1~LEME~ TING
11 XUTIIORITY
12 SEc. 301. STUDIES, CooPERATiv1~ AUBEE ME~~ TS, AND
13 CONTRu3UTI0Ns.- (a) The Secretary may conduct investi-
14 gations, studies, and experiments, oii his own initiative or in
15 cooperation with others, involving the management, pro-
16 tection, development, acquisition, and conveying of the
17 national resource lands.
18 (b) The Secretary may enter into contracts or coopera-
19 tive agreements involving the management, protection, de-
20 velopment, acquisition, `and conveying of the national re-
21 source lands.
22 (c) The Secretary may accept contributions or dona-
23 tio~s of money, services, and property, real, personal, or
24 mixed, for the management, protection, development, acqui-
25 sition, and conveying of the national resource lands, including
PAGENO="0282"
278
25
1 the acquisition of rights-of-way for such purposes. He may
2 accept contributions for eadast nil surveying performed
3 on federally controlled or intermingled lands. Moneys
4 received hereunder shall be credited to a separate account in
fj~ rJ1~.(~111. aiid are lieiehv al)propria ted arid made available
6 mit ii expended, as the Secretary may direct, for payment of
7 e~peiises wcideiit to the fund oil toward the administration
8 oh \vliidh the contributions were made and for refunds to de-
9 positors of aiiioiints eontril)uted by them in specific instances
10 where contrihiutions are in excess of their share of the cost.
ii Si~. 302. SEBVICE CIIAIIOES, ~ PAY-S
12 MEXTS, ANI) EXcESS PAYMEN'rs.- (a) Notwithstanding
13 any other provision of law, the Secietarv may establish ill-
14 big fees, service fees all(l charges, and commissions with
~ respect to applications and othev documents relating to na-
16 tional resource lands and may change and abolish such fees,
17 charges. and eomunlissioils.
(h) The Secretary is authorized to require a deposit of
19 any payments intended to reimburse the I ~nited States for
20 extraordinary costs with respect to al)phications and other
21 doCuments rela Ii hg to un tioi ml resource hinds. The moneys
22 received for extra ordi nary costs under this subsection
23 shall l)e deposited with the r1lI.easuhI\~ in a special account and
24 a i.e hereby ~ PPm01)ria te 1 aiid made available until expended.
PAGENO="0283"
279
2(3
1 As used in this subsection, "extraordinary costs" include but
2 are not limited to the costs of special studies; environmental
3 impact st atements; monitoriiig construction, operation, main-
4 tenance, and termination of any authorized facility; or other
5 s~e~ activities.
6 (c) In any case where it shall appear to the satisfaction
7 of the Secretary that an jersoii has made a payment under
8 any statute relating to the sale, lease, use, or other disposi-
9 tion of the national resource lands which is not required or is
10 in excess of the amount required by applicable law and the
11 regulations issued by the Secretary, the Secretary, upon ap-
12 plication or otherwise, may cause a refund to be made from
13 applicable funds.
14 SEc. 303. WORKTNG CAPiTAL FUND.- (a) There is
15 hereby established a working capital fund for the manage-
16 ment of national resource lands. This fund shall be available
17 without fiscal year limita~ion for expenses necessary for fur-
18 nishing, in accordance w~ith the Federal Property and Ad-
19 ministrative Services Act of 1949 (63 Stat. 377), as
20 amended, and regulations promulgated thereunder, supplies
21 and equipment services in support of Bureau of Land Man-
22 agement programs, including but not limited to, the purchase
23 or construction of storage facilities, equipment yards, and
24 related nnprovements and the purchase, lease, or rent of
25 motor vehicles, aircraft, heavy equipment, and fire control
PAGENO="0284"
280
27
1 and other resource management equipment within the limi-
2 tations set forth in aJJprolJriatiorls made to the Bureau of
~ Land Management.
4 (b) The initial capital of the fimd shall consist of up-
5 propriations made for that purpose together with the fair
6 and reasonable value at the fund's inception of the inven-
~ tories, equipment, receivables, and other assets,. less the ihi-
8 bilities, transferred to the fund. The Secretary is authorized
to make such subsequent transfers to the fund. as he deems
10 appropriate in connection with the functions to he carried on
~ through the fund. .
12 (c) The fund `shall be credited with..payments from
13 appropriations and funds of the Bureau of, Laud Manage~-
14 ment, . other agencies of the Department of the Interior~
15 other Federal agencies, and othei~ sources,, as authorized by
16 law, at rates approximately equal' .to the cost of. furnishing
17 the facilities, supplies, equipment, aiid services, (including
18 depreciation and accrued annual leave) . Suchpayments.may
19 he made in advance in connection with firm orders,, or by
20 way of reimbursement.
21 (d) There is hereby authorized to be appropriated not
22 to exceed $3,000,000 as initial capital of the working capital
23 fund.
24 SEc. 304. DEPosITs AND FORFEITURES.- (a)', Aily
25 moneys received by the United ~States as a result of the for-
PAGENO="0285"
281
2S
1 feiture of a bond or ott~r security by a resource developer or
2 purchaser or permittee who does not fulfill the requirements
3 of his contract or permit or does not comp'y with the regula-
4 tions of the Secretary, or as a result of a compromise or
5 settlement of any claim whether sounding in tort or in coii-
6 tract involving present or potential damage to national re-
7 source lands shall be credited to a separate account in the
8 Treasury and are herel)y appropriated and made available,
9 until expended as time Secretary may direct, to cover the cost
10 to the united States of any improvement, p1'ote(~tio11, 01' re-
11 habilitation work on the national resoiti'ce lands which has
12 been rendered necessary by the action which has led to the
13 forfeiture, compromise, or set tlemen t.
14 (b) The Secretary may require a user or users of roads,
15 trails, lands, or facilities under the jurisdiction of the Bureau
16 of Land Management to maintain such roads, trails, lands,
17 or facilities in a satisfactory condition commensurate with
18 the particular use requirements and the use made by each,
19 the extent of such maintenance to be shared by the users in
20 proportion to such use or, if such maintenance cannot he so
21 provided, to deposit sufficient money to enable time Secretary
22 to provide such maintenance. Such deposits shall be credited
23 to a separate account in the, Treasury and are hereby appro-
24 priated and made available until expended, as the Se~retary
25 may direct, to cover the cost to the United States of the main-
PAGENO="0286"
282
2~)
1 tenance of any road, trail, lands, or facility under the juris-
2 diction of the Bureau of Land Management: Provided, That
3 nothing in this subsection shall be construed to require the
4 user or users to provide maintenance or deposits to repair
5 any damages attributable to general public use rather than
6 the specific use or uses of such user or users.
7 (c) Any moneys collected under this Act in connection
8 with lands administered under the Act of August 28, 1937
9 (50 Stat. 874), as amended, shall be expended for the
10 benefit of such land only.
11 (d) If any portion of a deposit or amount forfeited
12 under this Act. is found by the Secretary to be in excess of the
13 cost of doing the work authorized under this Act, the amount
14 in excess shall be transferred to miscellaneous receipts.
15 Si~c. :305. COXTRACTS FOR CADASTRAL SURVEY OPER-
16 ATIO AND RESOURCE PRoTEcTIoN.- (a) The Secretary
17 is authorized to enter into contracts for the use of aircraft,
18 and for suj)plies and services, prior to the passage of an
19 appropriation therefor, for airborne cadastral survey and
20 resource protection operations of the Bureau of Land Man-
21 agement. ile may renew such contracts annually, not more
22 thou twice, without additional competition. Such contracts
23 shall obligate funds for the fiscal years in which the costs
24 are incurred.
25 (h) Each such contract shall provide that the obligation
PAGENO="0287"
283
30
1' of the United States for the ensuing fiscal years is contingent
2' `upon the passage of an applicable appropriation, and that no
3' payment shall be made under the contract for the ensuing
4 fiscal years until such appropriation becomes available for
expenditure.
6 Si~c. 306. UNAuT1I0mZED USE.-Tlle use, occupancy,
7. or devel'oiniieiit of any portion of the iia.tion'al resource lands
8 contrary to any iegulatioii of the Secretary or other respon-
* sible authority, or c.ontraiy `to aiiy order issued pursuant to
10 any such regulation, is unlawful and prohibited.
ji. *.~ SEC~ :307. ENFORcEMENT ATJTIIORITY.- (a) Any
12' person who violates-
13 :` (1) any regulation issued by t.he Secretary with
14 respect to the management, use, protection, develop-
15 . inent, acquisition, or, conveyance of the national resource
16 * . lands, including the i~esources and property located there-
17. * on;
18 (.2) any provision of a perniit, lease, license, or
19 * other document issued by the Secretary with respect to
20 * the use, occu~anc.y, or development of such public lands;
21." or
22 .. :. (3) any provision of this Act;
23 * shall `be fined not more than $1,000 or imprisoned for
24 not longer than twelve months, or both. Any person
25" :" `charged with',a; `yiol~tio~ of such r~gulatioi~ may be tried.
PAGENO="0288"
284
31
1 and sentenced by any United States magistrate . desig-
2 nated for that purpose by tile court by which he was
3 appointed, in the same nianner and subject to the. same
4 conditions and limitations as provided for in section 3401
of title 18 of the United States Code.
6 (b) For the specific purpose of eiiforci~ig any Federal
~ law or regulation relating to those national resource lands
8 or resources managed by him, the Secretary may designate
9 an employee who has had specialized law enforcement train-
10 ilig to (1) execute and serve any warrant or other process
ii issued by a court or officer of competent jurisdiction.; (2)
12 make arrests without. wararnt or process for a misdemeanor
13 lie has reasonable grounds to believe is being committed in
14 his presence or view, or for a felony if he has reasonable
15 grounds to believe that tile pelS011 to lie arrested has. corn-
16 mitted or is comnntting such felony; (3) carry firearms (so
17 long as the employee has been specifically trained to handle
18 firearms, and then only to time extent necessary to carry out
19 his responsibilities while actually on duty) ; (4) search with-
20 out warrant or inocess any ~ place, or conveyance ac-
21 cording to any law or rule of law; nnd (5) seize without
22 warrant or pmoeess any evidentiary item as provided by law.
23 (e) At the request of the Secretary, the Attorney Gen-
24 eral may institute a civil action in any United States district
25 court for an injunctiOll or other appropriate order to prevent
PAGENO="0289"
285
32
1 any person from using the national resource lands in viola-
2 tirni of laws or regiilatioiis relating to lands or resources
3 inaitaged by the Seci'etary.
4 SEC. 308. CooPE1~ATTo~ WIT.I[ STATE ~~ND LOCAL
5 LAW ENFO1~CEMENT A(~EN(1ES.-11l coniiectioii with ad-
6 niiiiistratioii all(T regtihition of tue use ai~d occtipaiicy of the
7 national resource laiids, the Secretary is authorized to co-
8 operate with the regulatory aiid ln~v eIifoRellldllt officials of
9 any State or political StIl)diViSiOII thieieof. Such cooperation
10 may include rcinhl)I11Selllellt to a State 01 its sIll)divisioll for
11 expeiithtures incurred by it in coniiection with activities
12 which assist in the admiiiisti'ation and regulatioii of use and
13 occupancy of iiatioiial l'esOIIlCC lands.
14 SEC. 309. CAT;!FOI~NIA CONSERVATION DESERT
15 AIEA.- (a) The Congress finds that-
16 (1) the California desert contains historical, scenic,
17 a icheological, eiivironineutal, l)iologicfll, cultIii~il, scien-
18 title, and educational resources that arc uhli(lIle and
19 ii'replaceable;
21) (2) the desert environment is a total ecosystem that
21 is extreiriely fragile, easily scarred, and slowly healed;
22 (3) the desert envii-oiiinent 011(1 its resources, in-
23 cluding certain rare and endangered species of wildlife,
24 plants, and fishes, and numerous archeological and his-
9~ . . .
- tone sites, are seriously threatened l)y air pollution, in-
54-005 0 - 75 - 19
PAGENO="0290"
286
!J~)
1. adequate Federal management authority, and pressures
2 of increased USC, Particularly recreational use;
3 (4) because of the pi'oxiiiiity of the California desert
4 to the rapidly growing population centers of southern
5 California, these threats are certain to intensify;
6 (5) the Secretary has initiated a comprehensive
7 plamiing process and established `an interim managenient
8 program for the California desert; `and
9 (6) to insure further study of the relationship of
II~ man and the desert environnient and preserve the unique
11 and irreplaceable resource.s of the California desert, the
1 2 public must be provided more opportunity to participate
13 in such planning' and nianagenient, and `additional man-
14 agement authority must be provided to the Secretary
15 to enable effective implementation of such plaiiniiig and
16 management.
17 (b) It is the purpose of this section to provide for the
18 immediate and future protection and management of the
19 California desert within the framework of a program of
20 lriultil)Je use and `the niaiiiteiiamice of envirommnmental quality.
21 (c) (1) For the Iml'pose of this section, the "California
22 J)esert Conservation Area" is the area generally depicted
on a map entitled "California 1)esert Conservation Area-
24 Proposed", dated April 1974, and on file in the Office of
PAGENO="0291"
287
34
1 the Il)irector of the Bureau of Laud Mariagemeiit, exclusive
2 of lands administered by tue National Park Se.rvice~
3 (2) As soon as pra~ticable after this Act takes effeel,
4 the Secretary shall file a map and a legal, description of the
5 California `desert conservation aiea with the Connnittces on
6 Interior and Insular Affairs of the ljnited States Senate and
7 the I-louse of Representatives, and such description shall have
8 the same force and effect a's if included in this Act: Provided,
9 however, That correction of clerical and typographical errors
10 in such legal description aiid map may be made by the See-
11 vetar. To the extent piacticuulle, the Secretary shall uuiake
12 such legal description ` and niap available to the 1)Ilbhic
13.. promptly upon request.
14 (d) (1) The Secretary, in accordance with section 104,
~ shall j)repare and implement a coinprelieiisive long-range
1.6 plan for time imianagement, use, and protection of the national
1 1 resource lands within the California desert conservation area
18 in accordance with puinciples of multiple use and mainte-
19 nance of enviromnental quality. Such plan shall be com-
20 pleted and implementation thereof initiated on or before
21 June 30, 1979. .
22 (2) In the development and maintenance of the plan,
23 the Secretary shall-
(i) use a systematic interdisciplinary approach
PAGENO="0292"
288
35
1 to achieve integrated consideration of physical, bio-
2 logical, economic, and social sciences;
3 (ii) consider all present and potential uses of the
4 lands;
5 (iii) consider the relative scarcity of the values
6 involved and the availability of alternative means (in-
7 eluding recycling) and sites for realization of those
8 values;
9 (iv) consider long-term public benefits, including
10 thoseof outdoor recreation and scenic values;
11 (v) consider the requirements of applicable pollu-
12 tion control laws including State and Federal air or
13 water quality standards, noise standards, and imple-
14 mentation plans; and
15 (vi) take into consideration the proposals of the
16 advisory committee, established pursuant to subsection
17 (f) of this section and proposals of other Federal
18 agencies and the State of California (or any political
19 subdivision thereof) including recommendations from
20 studies that have, already been completed or are cur-
21 rently being prepared.
22 (e) During the period beginning on the date of enact-
23 ment of this ~ct and ending on the effective date of imple-
24 mentation of the comprehensive, long-range plan, the
PAGENO="0293"
289 -
0
1 Secretary shall execute 8fl interim program to manage and
2 protect the national resource lands, and their resources now
3 in danger of destruction, in the California 1)esert Conser-
4 V~itiOil Area, to P10\'ide for the 1niblic use of such lands iii an
5 orderly aiid reasonable nianner such as through the develop-
6 inent of campgrounds and vistor centers, and to provide for a
7 uniformed desert i'anger force.
8 (f) (1) The Secretary, within sixty days of enactment
9 of this Act, shall establish a California Desert Conservation
10 Area Advisor~' Coniinissioii (hereinafter referred to as
Ii "advisory comlilissioli ) The Coniniission shall consist of a
12 represeiitative froni each Federal agency haviiig jurisdictioll
13 or control over lands within the California desert, representa-
14 tives of State and local governnieiital units (including law
~5 enforcement ageiicies) , representatives of the academic corn-
16 mumty having expertise iii this field, representatives of
17 residents of the California desert (including American
18 Indians) , environmentalists, and representatives of groups
19 which iiiake use of the California desert and its resources for
~20 ptiiposes of recreation, study, 01. business.
21 (2) Appointments to the Conimission shall be made by
22 the Secretary. Such appointirients shall be made in accord-
23 ance with the provisions, of subsection (a) of this section
24 aiid shall be made within the sixty-day period following the
25 date of the enactment of this Act. In making such appoint-
PAGENO="0294"
290
1 ments, the Secretary shall assure that the members of the
2 Conmiission will reflect the points of view of the different
3 races, ethnic groups, sexes, and ages of pe1'5oi~S.
4 (3) The Secretary, within ninety days following the
5 date of the enactment of this Act, shall call the first
6 meeting of the Advisory Commission. The Chairmaii of the
7 Commission ~hafl he elected l)V the ineflhl)ers thereof. The
8 Chairman is authorized to employ and fix the compensation
9 of such employees as lie determines necessary to enable the
10 Commission to carry Out its functions under this Act, and
11 to reimburse the members for expenses incurred by them in
12 carrying out their duties under this Act.
13 (4) It shall be the function of the Advisory Commission
14 to advise the Secretary with respect to the preparation of
15 the long-range program and plan for the management, use,
16 and Protection of the California desert.
17 (3) The Commission shall terminate upon the expira-
18 tion of sixty days following the date of the submission to
19 the Congress of the plan required under section 3 of this Act.
20 (g) The Secretaries of Agriculture and Defense shall
21 manage lands within their respective jurisdictions located in
22 or adjacent to the California Desert Conservation Area, in
23 accordance with the laws relating to such lands and wherever
24 practical)le in a manner consonant with the piupose of this
25 section. The Secretaries of the Interior, Agriculture, and Dc-
PAGENO="0295"
291
38
1 fense are authorized and encouraged to consult among them-
2 selves and take cooperative actions to carry out this sub-
3 section. .
4 (h) The Secretary shall report to the Congress no later
S than two years after time enactment of this Act, and annually
6 thereafter in the report required in section 7 of this Act, on
7 the progress in, and any problems concerning, the implemen-
8 tation of this section, together with any recommendations,
9 which he may deem necessary, to remedy such problems.
10 (i) There is. authorized to be appropriated for fiscal
11 years 1976 through 1980 not to exceed $40,000,000 to effect
12 tIme purpose of this section, such amount to remain available
13 until expended.
14 . SEC. 310. DESEHT AREAs STUDY.- (a) The Secretary
15 shall identify and tIioroug~hly study desert areas of the public
16 lands, other `than the California Desert Conservation Area
17 specified in section 309, recognizing that-
18 (1) the desert environment is a total ecosystem that
19 is extremely fragile, . easily scarred, and slowly healed;
20 (2) the desert environment and its resources may be
21 seriously threatened by air pollution, inadequate Fed-
22 eral management, and pressures of increased use, partic-
23 milarly recreational use; and
24 (3) in order to preserve the unique and irreplaceable
25 resources and conserve the use of economic resources
PAGENO="0296"
292
1 of desert areas further study of tile relationship of man
2 and the desert environment (providing greater public
3 involvement) must be conducted.
4 (b) The Secretary shall submit a report to the Con-
5 gress, within five years after the date of enactment of this
6 Act, which shall include-
7 (1) a description (including maps) of each desert
8 area on the public lands;
9 (2) an analysis of the presei~t condition of the total
10 ecosystem of each such desert area;
11 (3) a projection of the suitable uses which eacll
12 desert area could accept without damaging the total
13 ecosystem;
14 (4) an estimate of the natural resources contained
15 in the desert areas;
16 (5) a projection of the kinds of use demands which
17 are likely to be placed upon each desert area; and
18 (6) recommendations. as to needed administrative
19 or legislative action which is necessary to insure that
20 Federal management of the desert areas is adequate to
21 fully protect and develop each such desert area.
22 (c) There is authorized to be appropriated not to exceed
23 $1,500,000 for the purpose of this ~section.
24 SEc. 311. NATIONAl1 PARK, FOREST, WILDLTFE
25 REFUGE, AND WILD AND Sci~xic Rivi~i~ STUDY.- (a)
PAGENO="0297"
293
40
i Before the close of the five-year period following the effective
2 date of this Act, the Secretary shall review all lands and
3 waters under his jurisdiction on the effective date of this Act
4 (including lands previ011S~ classified or withdrawn, but
5 excluding lands in the National Park System, National Wild-
6 life Refuge System, and lands recommended for inclusion in
7 those systems and in the ~ational Forest System pursuant. to
S seetion 17 (d) (2) of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement
9 Act) and withdraw from all forms of appropriation under the
10 public land laws, including the mining and mineral leasing
11 laws, those lands and waters winch he deems sultal)le for
12 addition to, or (laSsifleatiOn as, units of the National Park
13 System, National Forest System, National Wildlife Refuge
14 System, and Wild and Scenic River System.
(h) The Secretary, shall submit recommendations to
16 the President with respect to those lands withdrawn by
11 the Secretary pursuant to subsection (a) . The President
18 shall promptly advise the President of the Senate and the
19 Speakei' of the House of Representatives of his recommenda-
20 tions with respect to the additions proposed by the Secre-
21 tary. The Secretary shall, in conducting the review required
22 1~ this subsection, hold 1)ul)lic hearings in accordance with
23 the procedures set forth in section .~ (d) of the Wilderness
24 Act (78 Stat. 890).
PAGENO="0298"
294
41
1 TITLE IV-ATJTHORITY TO GRANT
2 RIGHTS-OF-WAY
3 SEC. 401. AUTHORIZATION To GRANT RIGHTs-oF-
4 Wa~.- (a) The Secretary is authorized to grant, issue, or
S renew rights-of-way over, upon, or through the national
6 resource lands for-
7 (1) Reservoirs, canals, ditches, flumes, laterals,
8 pipes, pipelines, tunnels, and other facilities and systems
9 for the impoundment, storage, transportation, or distri-
10 bution of water;
11 (2) Pipcliiies and other systems for the transporta-
12 lion or distribution of liquids and gases, other than oil,
13 natural gas, synthetic liquid or gaseous fuels, or any
14 refined product produced therefrom, or water and for
15 storage and terminal facilities in connection therewith;
16 (3) Pipelines, slurry and emulsion systems, and
17 conveyor belts for traiisportation and distribution of solid
materials, and facilities for the storage of such materials
19 in connection therewith;
20 (4) Systems for generation, transmission, and dis-
21 tribution of electric energy, except that the applicant
22 shall also comply with all applicable requirements of the
23 Federal Power Commission under the Act of June 10,
24 1920, as amended (16 U.S.C. 796, 797);
PAGENO="0299"
295
42
(5) Systems for transmission or reception of radio,
2 television, telegraph, and other electronic signals, and
other means of communication;
4 (6) Roads, trails, highways, railroads, canals,
`tramways, airways,. livestock driveways, or other means
6 of transportation; and
7 (7) Such. other necessary transportation or other
8 systelus or facilii es which are lfl he pui)Iie mi crest and
9 which requ~re rights-of-way over, upon, or through the
10 national resource lands.
ii (b) (1) The Secretary shall require, prior to granting,
12 issuing, or renewing a right-of-way, that the applicant sub-
13 mit and disclose any or~ all 1)la~~, contracts, agreements, or
14 other information or milterial reasonably related to the use,
15 or intended use, of the right-of-way which he deems neces-
16 sary to a determination, in accordance with the piovisiOns of
17 this title, as to whether a. right-of-way shall l)e granted,
1$ issued, or renewed and the terms and conditions which should
19 be included in such right-of-way.
20 (2) If the applicant is a parinership, corporation,
21 association, or other business entity, the Secretary, prior to
22 granting a right-of-way pursuant to this title, shall require
23 the apphcant to disclose the identity of the participants
24 in ihie entity. Such disclosure shall . include, where up-
25 phiealde: (1) ihe nan~c and address of each partner;
PAGENO="0300"
296
43
1 (2) the name and address of ea~cli sharel~oldcr owning ~
2 per centum or more of the shares, tog~tlier with the number
3 and percentage of any class of voting shares of the entity
4 which such shareholder is authorized to vote; and (3) the
5 name and address of each affiliate of the entity together with,
6 in the case of an affiliate controlled by tl~e ent itv, the
7 number of shares aiid the percentage of any ci:u~s of voting
S stock of that aihhiale owned, tlii'ecfly or indirectly, by that
9 entity, and, in the case of an affiliate which controls that en-
10 tity, the number of shares and the percentage of any class of
1,1 voting stock of that entity owned, directly or indirectly, by
12 the affiliate.
13 (c) Nothing in this title shall be deemed to limit in any
14 way the authority of the Secretary to make grants, issue
15 leases, licenses, or permits, or enter into contracts under other
16 provisions of law, for purposes ancillary or complementary
17 to the construction, operation, maintenance, or termniat~on
18 of any facility authorized under this title, hut such action
19 shall not be in substitution for or inconsistent with the pro-
20 visions of this title.
21 (d) This title shall be administered in a manner to
22 promote competition.
23 SEC. 402. RIGIITOFWAY CORRIDORS.-In order to
24 minimiZe the proliferation of separate rights-of-way across
25 national resource lands, the Use of rights-of-way ii~ common
PAGENO="0301"
297
44
1 shall be required to the extent practical, and each right-of-
2 way or permit s1~al1 reserve to the Secretary the right to
3 grant additiontil rights-of-way or permits for compatible uses
4 on or adjacent to rights-of-way granted pursuant to this
5 title.
6 SEC. 403. GENERAL PRovIsIONS.- (a) The Secretary
7 shall specify the boundaries of each right-of-way as precisely
8 as is practicable. Each right-of-way shall be limited to the
9 ground which the Secretary determines: (1) will be occu-
10 pied by facilities which constitute the project for which the
11 right-of-way is given, (2) to be necessary for the operation
12 or maintenance of the project, (3) to be necessary to pro-
13 tect the environment or public safety, and (4) where the
14 least environmental damage will, occur. The Secretary may
15 authorize the temporary use of such additional lands as he
16 determines to be reasonably necessary for the construction,
17 operation, maintenance, or termination of the project or a
18 portion thereof, or for access thereto.
19 (b) The Secretary shall determine the duration of each
20 right-of-way or other authorization to be granted, issued, or
21 renewed pursuant to this title. In determining the duration
22 the Secretary shall, among other things, take into considera-
23 tion the cost of the facility and its useful life and potential
24 alternative future uses of the land.
25 (c) Rights-of-way granted, issued, or renewed pursuant
PAGENO="0302"
298
45
1 to this title shall be given under such regulations or stipula-
2 tions, in accord with the provision of this title or any other
3 law, and subject to such terms and conditions as the Secre-
4 tary may prescribe regarding exitent, duration, survey,
5 location, construction, maintenance, and termination.
6 (d) The Secretary, prior to granting a right-of-way
7 pursuant to this title for a new project which may have a
8 significant impact on the environment, shall require the
9 applicant to submit a plan of construction, operation, and
10 rehabilitatioi~ for such right-of-way which shall comply with
11 stipulations or with regulations issued by the Secretary.
12 The Secretary shall issue regulations and impose stipulations
13 on each right-of-way containing such terms and conditions
14 as he deems appropriate to (1) carry out the purposes of
15 this Act and rules and regulations hereunder; (2) protect
16 the environment; (3) assure compliance with applicable
17 air and water quality standards and siting requirements
18 estalilished by or pursuant to law; (4) piotect public and
19 private property and economic interests; (5) manage
20 efficiently the public lands which are subject to the right-of-
21 way or adjacent thereto and protect the other lawful users of
22 the pi~blic lands adjacent to or traversed by such right-of-
23 way; (6) protect lives and public health and safety; (7)
24 protect the interests of individuals living in the general area
25 traversed by the nght-of-way who rely on the fish, wildlife,
PAGENO="0303"
299
46
1 and biotic resources of the area for subsistence purposes; (8)
2 protect the public iiiteiest in the public lands; and (9)
3 minimize damage to esthetic, ecological and archeological
4 values including the selection of the right-of-way which
5 causes the least ddmcge to the environment. Such regula-
6 tions shall be regularly revised. Such regulations shall be
7 applicable to every righ~-ol-way granted pursuant to this
8 title, and may be applicable to iights-of-way to be renewed
9 pursuant to this title.
10 (e) Mineral and vegetative materials, including timber,
11 within or without a right-of-way may be used or disposed
12 of in connection with construction or other purposes only if
13 authorization to remove or use such materials has been ob-
14 tamed pursuant to applicable laws.
15 (f) The holder of a right-of-way shall pay annually in
16 advance no less than the fair market value thereof as deter-
17. mined by the Secretary. The Secretary may, by regulation
18 or prior to promulgation of such regulations, as a condition
19 of a right-of-way, require an applicant for or holder of a
20 right-of-way to reimburse the United States for all reasonable
21 administrative and other costs incurred in processing an appli-
22 cation for such right-of-way and iii inspection and monitoring
23 of construction, operation, and termination of the facility
24 pursuant to such right-of-way: Provided, however, That
25 rights-of-way may be granted, issued, or renewed to a Fed-
PAGENO="0304"
300
47
1 eral, State or local government or agencies or instrumen-
2 talities thereof, or to nonprofit assoeiati~ons or noiiprofit cor-
3 Porations which are not themselves controlled or owned by
4 profitmaking corporations or business enterprises, for such
5 lesser charge as the Se~retary finds equitable and in the public
6 interest. Such rights-of-way issued at less than fair market
7 value are not assgnable except with the approval of the
8 Secretary.
9 (g) The `Secretary shall promulgate regulations specify-
10 ing the extent. to which holders of rights-of-way under this
11 title shall he liable to the United States for damage or injnry
12 incurred by the Uiiited States in connection with the rights-
13 of-way.
14 (h) Where he deems it appropriate, `the Secretary may
15 require a holder of a right-of-way to furnish a. bond, or other
16 security, satisfactory to the Secretary to secure all or any
17 of the obligations imposed by the terms and conditions of the
18 right-of-way or by any rule or regulation of the Secretary.
19 (i) The Secretary shall grant, issue, or renew `a right-
20 of-way under this title only when he is satisfied that the
21 applicant has ~the technical and financial capability to con-
22 struct the project for which the right-of-way is requested, and
23 in accord with the requirements of this title.
24 SEC. 404. STJSPENSION OR TEH.~iINATIoy OF RIGHT-
25 OF-WAY.-Abandonment of the right-of-way or noncompli-
PAGENO="0305"
301
48
1 ance with any provision of this title, condition of the right-
2 of-way, or applicable rule or regulation of the Secretary may
3 be grounds for suspension or termination of the right-of-way
4 if, after due notice to the holder of the right-of-way and an
5 appropriate administrative proceeding pursuant to title 5,
6 United States Code, section 554, the Secretary determines
7 that any such ground exists and that suspension or termi-
8 nation is justified. No administrative proceedh~g shall be re-
9 quired where the right-of-way by its terms provides that it
10 terminates on the occurrence of a fixed or agreed-upon con-
11 dition, event, or time. If the Secretary determines that an
12 immediate temporary suspension of activities within a right-
13 of-way for violation of its terms and conditions is necessary
14 to protect public health or safety or the environment, he may
15 abate such activities prior to an administrative proceeding.
16 Prior to commencing any proceeding to suspend or terminate
17 a right-of-way the Secretary shall give written notice to the
18 holder of the ground or grounds for such action and shall
19 give the holder a reasonable time to resume use of the right-
20 of-way or to comply with this title, condition, rule, or regu-
21 lation as the case may be. Deliberate failure of the holder of
22 the right-of-way to use the right-of-way for the purpose for
23 which it was granted, issued, or renewed for any continuous
24 five-year period shall constitute a rebuttable presumption of
25 abandonment of the right-of-way: Provided, however, That
54-005 0 - 75 - 20
PAGENO="0306"
302
49
1 where the failure of the holder to use the right-of-way for the
2 purpose for which it was granted, issued, or renewed for any
3 continuous five-year period is due to circumstances not withill
4 the holder's control the Secretary is not required to corn-
5 mence pioceedings to suspend or terminate the right-of-way.
6 SEC. 405. RIGHTS-OF WAY FOR FEDERAL AGEN-
7 CIES.-The Secretary may reserve for the use of any
8 department or agency of the United States a right-of-way
9 over, upon, or through national resource lands, subject to
10 such terms and conditions as he may impose. The provisions
11 of this title shall be applicable to any such right-of-way.
12 SEc. 406. CONVEYANCE OF LAND5.-If under appli-
13 cable law the Secretary decides to transfer out of Federal
14 ownership, by patent, deed, or otherwise, any national re-
15 source lands covered in whole or in part by a right-of-way,
16 including a right-of-way granted under the Act of Novern-
17 ber 16, 1973 (87 Stat. 576), the lands may be conveyed
18 subject to the right-of-way; however, if the Secretary de-
19 termines that retention of Federal control over the right-of-
20 way is necessary to assure that the pin'poses of this title will
21 be carried out, the terms and conditions of the right-of-way
22 complied with, or the national resource lands protected, he
23 shall (1) reserve to the United States that portion of the
24 lands which lies within the boundaries of the right-of-way,
25 or (2) convey the lands, including that portion within the
PAGENO="0307"
303
50.
1 boundaries of the right-of-way, subject to the right-of-way
2 and reserving to the United States the right to enforce all
3 or any of the terms and conditions of the right-of-way, in-
4 eluding the right to renew it or extend it upon its termina-
5 tion and to collect rents.
6 Sno. 407. ExIsTING BjGwrs-oF-WAY.-Nothing in this
7 title shall have the effect of terminating any rights-of-way or
8 rights-of-use heretofore issued, granted, or permitted by the
9 Secretary. However, with the consent of the holder thereof,
10 the Secretary may cancel such a right-of-way and in its stead
11 issue a right-of-way pursuant to the provisions of this title.
12 SEc. 408. STATE STANDARDS.-~The Secretary shall
13 take into consideration and, to the extent practical, comply
14 with State standards for right-of-way construction, operation,
15 and maintenance if those standards are more stringent than
16 Federal standards and if the national resource lands are ad-
17 jacent to lands to which such State standards apply.
18 SEc. 409. EFFECT ON OThER LAWS.- (a) After the
19 date of enactment of this Act, no right-of-way for the pur-
20 poses listed in this title shall be granted, issued, or renewed
21 over, upon, or through national resource lands except under
22 and subject to the provisions,, limitations, and conditions of
23 this title: Provided, That any application for a right-of-way
24 filed under any other law priOr to the date of enactment of
25' this Act may, at the ap~licant~s Opti6n, be dOnsider~d as an
PAGENO="0308"
304
51
1 application under this title or the Act under which the appli-
2 cation was filed. The Secretary may require the applicant
3 to submit any additional information he deems necessary to
4 comply with the requirements of this title.
5 (b)~ Nothing in this title shall be construed to prec1ud~
* 6 the use of national resource lands for highw~iy purposes P~'~-
7 scant to sections 107 ~tnd 317 of title 23, United States Code.
8 (c) (1) Nothing in this title shall be construed as
9 exempting any holder of a right-of_way issued nuder this
10 title from any provision of the antitrust laws of the United
11 States.
12 (2) For the purposes of this subsection, the term "anti-
13 trust laws" includes the Act of July 2, 1890; the Act of
14 October 15, 1914; the Federal Trade Commission Act (15
15 U.S.C. 41 et seq.) ; and sections 73 and 74 of the Act of
16 August 27, 1894.
17 TITLE V-CONSTRUCTION OF LAW, PRESERVA-
18 TIOX OF VALID EXISTING RIGHTS, AND
19 REPEAL OF LAWS
20 SEC. 501. CoNsTRUcTIoN OF LAw.- (a) Except as
21 provided in section 409, the authority conferred upon the
22 Secretary by this Act is in addition to all other authority
23 vested in him by law, and nothing in this Act shall be deemed
24 to repčâl any such other authority by implication.
25 (1)) Nothingin this Act shall be const*rued as limiting
PAGENO="0309"
305
52
1 or restricting the power and authority of the United States,
2 or-
3 (1) as affecting in any way any law governing
4 appropriations or use of, or Federal right to, water on
p national resource lands;
6 (2) as expanding or diminishing Federal or State
7 jurisdiction, responsibility, interests, or rights in water
8 resources development or control;
9 (3) as displacing, superseding, limiting, or modify-
10 ing any interstate compact or the jurisdiction or respon-
11 sibility of any legally established joint or common agency
12 of two or more States or of two or more States and the
13 Federal Government;
14 (4) as superseding, modifying, or repealing, except
15 as specifically set forth in this Act, existing laws ap-
16 plicable to the various Federal agencies which are au-
17 thorized to develop or participate in the development of
18 water resources or to exercise licensing or regulatory
19 functions in relation thereto;
20 (5) as modifying the terms of any interstate corn-
21 pact;
22 (6) as a limitation upon aily State criminal statute
23 or upon the police power of the respective States, or as
24 derogating the authority of a local police officer in the
25 performance of his duties, or as depriving any State or
PAGENO="0310"
306
53
1 political subdivision thereof of any right it may have to
2 exercise civil and criminal jurisdiction on the national
3 resource lands;
4 (7) as affecting the jurisdiction or responsibilities of
5 the several States with respect to wildlife and fish in the
6 national resource lands; or
7 (8) as amending, limiting, or infringing the exist-
8 ing laws providing grants of land to the States.
9 SEC. 502. VALID EXISTING RIGHTS.-A11 actions by
10 the Secretary under this Act shall he subject to valid exist-
11 ing rights.
12 SEQ. 503. REPEAL OF LAWS RELATING TO DISPOSAL
13 OF NATIONAL RESOURCE LANDS.- (a) The following
14 statutes or parts of statutes are repealed:
Statute at
Act of Chapter Sectton Large 43 U.S. Code
1. Homesteads:
Revtsed Statute 2289 161, 171.
Mar. 3, 1891 561 S 26: 1007 161, t62.
Revised Statute 2290 162.
Revtsed Statute 2295 163.
Revtsed Statute 2291 164.
Juno 6, 1912 153 37: 123 lOt, 109, 2t8.
May 14, 1880 89 2t: 141 106, 185, 202, 223.
Juno 6, 1961) 821 3t: 083 160, 223.
Aug. 8, 1912 280 37:287
Apr. 6, 1914 51 38: 312 167.
Mar. 1. 1821 9(3 41: 1193
Oct. 17, 1914 325 38: 740 168.
Revised Statute 2297 168.
Mar. 3, 1881 153 21: 511
Oct. 22, 1914 335 38:760 170.
Revised Statute 2292 171.
June 8, 1880 138 21: 160 172.
Revised Statute 2301 173.
Mar. 3, 1891 501 6 20: 1098
June3,1896 3 2 20:107
Revised Statute 2298 174.
Mar. 3, 1891 501 3 28: 1097
Mar. 3, 1905 1424 33.801
Revised Statute 2250 175.
Apr.28,1922 155 4259(2
May 17, 1900 .9 31: 178 179.
Jan. 26, 1901 180 31: 740 ISO.
Sept. 5, 1014.. 294 38: 712 182.
Revised Statute 2300 183.
Aug. 31, 3018 106 8 40: 857
Sept. 13, 1918 173 40:080
Revised Statute 2302 t84, 201.
July 26, 1882 251 27:270 185.
Feb. 14, 1920 76 41: 434 186.
Jan. 21, 1922 32. 42:358
Dec. 28. 1922 19 42: 1067
June 12, 1930 471 46:090
Feb. 24. 1825 3~6 43. 881 187.
June 21, 1934 680 48: 1185 187a.
May 22, 1902 821 2 32: 203 187b.
June 5, 1800 716 31: 270 108, 217.
PAGENO="0311"
~HHH~1I!~
~
-
i ~
PAGENO="0312"
~j~j
.~ ~ U ~ ~
~
* : ~ ~:
-U
~
U ~U U U
ci
ci
PAGENO="0313"
*!* *ir.~ P
C)
PAGENO="0314"
310
57
1 (b) Section 7 of the Taylor Grazing Act, 48 Stat. 1272,
2 ch. 865, as amended by section 2 of the Act of June 26,
3 1936, 49 Stat. 1976, ch. 842, title I, 43 U.S.C. 315f, is
4 further amended to read as follows:
5 "The Secretary of the Interior is authorized, in his dis-
6 cretion to examine and classify any lands withdrawn or
7 reserved by Executive order of November 26, 1934 (num-
8 bered 6910), and amendments thereto, and Executive order
9 of February 5, 1935 (nunThered 6964), or within a. grazing
10 district, which are more valuable or suitable for any other
~ use than for the use provided for under this Act, or proper
12 for acquisition in satisfaction of any outstanding lien, cx-
13 change or land grant, and to open such lands to disposal in
14 accordance with such classification under applicable public
13. lai~d laws. Such lands shall not be subject todisposition until
116 after the same have been classified and opened to disposal.".
17 (c) Section 1 of the Act of March 3, 1877 (19 Stat.
18 377, chapter 107), as amended by section 2 of the Act of
19 March 3, 1891 (26. Stat. 1096, chapter 561, 53 U.S.C.
20 321), is repealed except the following language: "All sur-
21 plus water over and above such actual appropriation and
22 use, together with the water of all lakes, rivers, and other
sources of water supply upon the public lands and not navj-
PAGENO="0315"
311
58
1 gable, shall remain and be held free for the appropriation
2 and use of the public for irrigation, mining, and mamifactur-
3 irig purposes subject to existing rights.".
4 (d) Section 2 of the Act of March 8, 1922 (42 Stat. -
5 416, ch. 96), as amendedby section 2 of the Act of August
6 23, 1958, 72 Stat. 730, Public Law 85-725, 43 U.S.C.
7 270-12), is further amended to read:
8 "The coal, oil, or gas deposits reserved to the United
9 States in accordance with the Act of March 8, 1922 (42
10 Stat. 415, ch. 96, as added to by the Act of August 17,
11 1961, 75 Stat. 384, Pabliŕ Law 87-147, and amended by
12 the Act of October 3, 1962, 76 Stat. 740, Public Law 87-
13 742), shall be subject to disposal by the United States in
14 accordance with the provisions of the laws applicable to coal,
15 oil, or gas deposits or coal, oil, or gas lands in Alaska iii
16 force at the time of such disposal. Any person qualified to
17 acquire coal, oil, or gas dOpositd, or the right to mine or
18 remove the coal or to drill for and remove the oil or gas
19 under the laws of the United States shall have the right at
20 all times to enter upon the lands patented under the Act
21 of March 8, 1922, as amended, and in accordance with the
22 provisions hereof, for the purpose of prospecting for coal, oil,
23 or gas therein, upon the approval by the Secretary of the
24 Interior of a bond or undertaking to be filed with him as
PAGENO="0316"
312
59
1 security for the payment of all damages to the crops and
2 improvements on such lands by reason of such prospecting.
3 Any person who has acquired from the United States the
4 coal, oil, or gas deposits in any such land, or the right to
5 mine, drill for, or remove the same, may reenter and occupy
6 so much of the surface thereof incident to the mining and
7 removal of the coal, oil, or gas therefrom, and mine and
8 remove the coal or drifi for and remove oil and gas upon
9 payment of the damages caused thereby to the owner thereof,
10 or upon giving a good and sufficient bond or undertaking in
11 an action instituted in any competent court to ascertain and
12 fix said damages: Provided, That the owner under such
13 limited patent shall have the right to mine the coal for use
14 on the land for domestic purposes at any time prior to the
15 disposal by the United States of the coal deposits: Provided
16 further, That. nothing in this Act shall be construed as au-
17 thorizing the exploration upon or entry of any coal deposits
18 withdrawn from such exploration and purchase.".
19 (e) Section 3 of the Act of August 30, 1949 (63 Stat.
20 679, ch. 521, 43 U.S.C. 6782-2), is amended to read:
21 "Notwithstanding the provisions of any Act of Congress
22 to the contrary, any person who prospects for, mines, or
23 removes any minerals from any land disposed of under the
24 Act of August 30, 1949 (63 Stat. 679, ch. 521), shall be
PAGENO="0317"
313
GO
~ liable for any damage that may be caused to the value of the
2 land and tangible improvements thereon by such prospecting
3 for, mining, or removal of minerals. Nothing in this section
4 shall be construed to impair any vested right in existence on
~ August 30, 1949.".
(3 SEC. 504. REPEAL OF LAWS RELATING TO ADMINTS-
7 Tl?.ATION OF NATIONAL RESOURCE LANDS.-The following
S statutes or parts of statutes are repealed:
Statute at
Act of Chapter Seetion Large 43 U.S. Code
1. Mar. 2, 1805 174 28:744 176.
2. June 28, 1034 865 8 48: 1272 312g.
June 26, 1036 842 3 49: 1976, title 1.
June 19, 1048 718 1.. 62: 533
July 5, 1062 1'.L8795l 76: 1-01 315g.).
3. Aug. 21, 1037..... 714 50: 748 3tSp.
4. Mar. 3, 1901) 271 21 l;oviso 35: 915 772.
Ji on' 25, 1511) .5. 1t~. to __ 3~: 851
5. Jnio- 71, 1031 ISO 48: 1189 871a.
6. Revised 182:ilul,' 2-tIC ff21,
Revised Slalilt 7115 1152.
7. Jiiiio 6, 157-1 223 15:62 ul,3, 1171.
S.Jao.26,t&7)) 71 11771 1179,
Slav 30, 183-I h7~ - 2,: 9-1 1176.
ill. Revived Stalule 74.,y) 161
leb27,18,7 CL 1 19:211
Tin fsttosvii:e w-or( Iv only : ``Action t,e'-uly-luie hundred aw't lilly isaio'irl"l tiy striking out in the
foui-Iti lion the ovet d:; `It-CS' tory of I he `treasury' siid iuo:'r ling 11w norrIs `Secretary of the Inferior'
J5-vis~t Stoluh'. 21,1 - 1162.
1-'ebtu:try27, 16,7 161._~2 I 15:2-IL...
TO, following words otilt-: ``Section to:' Ills- -Isir lolosls:l an,) flIts -woe is oiieii'lc'f 103' striking out, in
lii' lest end second lines, Ilie words `Scr:-laiy of tlii' Tre_isury lit inserting toe trords `Serrelaey of
the lnlerioe'
Revised Slolole . 2156 0163.
SIll 29, 1522 320 43: 457
`ISo- overdo: ``. . . and seelions 2-16)1, 3 tOt, ut 2126 4' violet to re:i,l as follows:' atot all words follow-
ing ~lI tile Ai-l,
Revised SI:iliit" 2-157 1161,
11. Slav. 3, SOt 5)1 7 26: 11828 1161,
12. Il,si-iset Sl:uliul,' 2171 1101,
ltevise,t Slatnte 2172 1182.
Ilevised Slalule 2473 - 1193.
13. July 14, 1060 1'.L. 86-610.... 101-202(a), 74: 100 1361, 1362, 1363-
203-204(o), 1343.
301-203,
14. Sept. 26, 1970 P.L. 01-420 84: 881 - 1362a.
15. July 31, 1938 401 1,2 53: 1144
9 SEC. 505. RIImEAI5 OF LAWS RELATING TO RIGhTS-
10 OF-WAY.- (a) The following statutes or parts of statutes
11 1 are repealed insofar as they appiy to national resource
12 lands:
PAGENO="0318"
314
gi
Statute at
Act of Chapter Section Large 43 U.S. Codo
Revised Statutes :330 641.
The follosving swords only: "aod tire right-ot-ss-ay for tire construction of ditches aiod canals for tire PI1CPOSC
herein specilied is acknosviedged arid co nnlirnnred; but whenever airy person, in the construction of any ditch or
canal, injures or damages the possession starry settler on tise public domain, the party comnaittirsg such injury
nr damage shall be liable to the party injured for ouch injury or damage."
Revised Statutes 2340 661.
Tire foilossing swords only: ", orrights to ditches and reservoirs used in connection ss-itir such water rights,".
Feb. 26, 1097 335 29: 599 461.
Slur. 3, 1890 427 1 30: i233 465, CS (16 U.S.C.
525).
The foUowing words only: "that in the form provided by existing lasv the Secretary of tire Interior may file
arid approve ourveys and plato stony right-el-way for a wagonroad, railroad, or other highsvay over and acress
any forest reservation orreoervtirsile whenin his judgment the publicinlerests wilt not be injuriously affected
thereby."
Mar. 3, 1075 152 iS: 482 934-539.
May 14, 1095 299 2-9 30: 409 942-i to 042-9.
Feb.27, 1001 614 31: 815 043.
June 26, 1906 3548 34: 481 944.
Mar. 3, 1891 561 18-21 26: 1101 910-949.
Mar. 4, 19 154 1 39: 1197
May 28, 1926 400 44: 668
Mar. 1, 1921 93 41: 1194 450.
Jan. 13, 1897 11 20:484 852-055.
Mar. 3, 1923 219 42: 1437
Jon. 21, 1895_ 37. 20: 635 051, 956, 057.
May 14, 1896 197 29: 120
May 11, 1899 292 30:484
Mar. 4, 1917 184 2 38: 1197.
Feb. 15, 1901 372 31: 790 959 (16 U.S.C. 79,
522).
Mar. 4, 1911 239 36: 1253 961 (16 U.S.C. 5,
420, 523).
Ornly tire lust two paragraphs under tire aubireadireg "Improvement oh lire National Foreslo" under lire
heading "Forest Service".
Slay 27, 1952 335 66:05
May21, 1896 2i2 29:127 962-965.
Apr. 12, 1910 36:296 566-970.
(b) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (a)
2 of this section, the following statute is repealed in its entirety:
Statute at
Act of
Chapier
Section
Large
U.S. Code
Revised Slatule 2477
43 USC 932
PAGENO="0319"
315
Mr. MELCHER. Let us proceed again with your testimony, from the
National Forest Products Association.
We heard from you a little less than a year. ago, is that correct, on
the same general proposition. Mr. MacCleery, please proceed. With-
out objection, Mr. MacCleery's entire statement, and the attachments
which are the suggested amendments to the Subcommittee Print No.
1, will be made part of the record~, at this point. Hearing no objection
it is so ordered. Mr. MacCleery, you may proceed as you see fit.
[The prepared statement of Douglas W. MacCleery follows:]
STATEMENT OF DOTJGLAS W. MACCLEERY, FORESTER FOR THE NATIONAL FOBEST
PRODIJCTS ASSOCIATION
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee:
I am Douglas W. MacCleery, forester for the National Forest Products Asso-
ciation, headquartered in Washington, D.C. I appreciate the opportunity to ap-
pear before you to give testimony on the "Public Land Policy and Management
Act of 1975." (Subcommfttee Print No. 1) and the "National Resource Lands
Management Act of 1975" (H.R. 5224). NFPA is a federation of 26 regional
and wood products associations representing the growers, manufacturers and
wholesalers of wood products throughout the country.
Our industry is vitally concerned with timber management on all of our na-
tion's commercial forest lands. We are equally concerned about achieving con-
structive public policies and programs affecting timber growth and harvest on
Federal lands, on lands owned by the forest industry, and on non-industrial
private lands. The forest Products industry supports legislation which would
provide the means for productive management of Federally owned commercial
forest lands.
The bills before the Subcommittee could, with appropriate amendment, pro-
vide appropriate Congressional direction for the management of lands currently
administered by BLM.
However, there are several major areas of concern with the -bills as presently
drafted. For each of these areas of concern we offer suggested amendments
which are included at the end of my written testimony:
COMMENTS ON THE "PUBLIC LAND POLICY AND MANAGEMENT ACT OF 1975"
(SUBCOMMITTEE PRINT NO. 1)
1. Definitions
a. Areas of Critical Environme-atal Concern.-The concept underlying the
phrase "areas of critical environmental concern" in Section 103 (a) is not con-
structive. The implication is a negative one since the focus is directed toward
restricting or limiting management practices to "prevent irreparable damage"
rather than positive and encouraging those practices which will achieve desir-
able objectives, while at the same time, protecting all resource values. This sec-
tion should be deleted.
Every area of land is unique in some respects-with its own combination of
soils, geology, vegetation, climate and other characteristics. Management tech-
niques must routinely be modified to take into consideration these unique char-
acteristics on each unit of land. Rather than being given special legislative
status, ecologically sensitive areas requiring special management considerations
are best identified in the comprehensive land use planning required by Section
202 of the bill.
It is understood that the concept of "areas of critical environmental con-
cern" was inserted in earlier versions of the bill to insure conformance with
potential Federal land use legislation. Federal land use legislation has not been
adopted, and even if it were in this Congress, it may not include this concept.
Present bills before Congress dealing with land use contain the term "areas
of critical State concern" rather and "areas~~ of critical environmental concern."
Because of this, `we believe that this definition, and all references to it through-
out the bill, are unnecessary and should be deleted.
b. Multiple Use-The deth~ition of "multiple use" in Section 103(c) is some-
what different than the definition currently applied by law to National Forest
lands under the Multiple Use Sustained Yield Act of 1960. It is unnecessary
PAGENO="0320"
316
and confusing to distinguish between "multiple use" on National Forest lands
and "multiple use" on BLM lands. There are sufficiently varied interpretations
of what this term means as it is now, without compounding the problem with
definitions for each of the two major land managing agencies charged with
multiple use management.
2. Treatment of Permits, Licenses, Leases, etc.
Section 202(f) (2) would authorize revocation or suspension of any permit,
license, lease or other instrument for a violation of any agency regulation or of
any state or Federal air or water quality standard or implementation plan.
This provision would inject extreme uncertainty into the continuance of Feder-
ally granted permits. The revision of air and water quality standards after the
permit had been granted would subject the instrument to revocation upon find-
ing of a violation of the new standard.
Permits and similar instruments granted by the government are normally
long-term obligation and often involve a substantial investment by the permit-
tee or lessee. This individual has a right to expect that the conditions under
which the permit was granted will remain in effect until it is renewed, or at a
minimum, if Federal standards are changed, that he will receive adequate com-
pensation for the burden imposed by the new standard.
Section 202(f) (2) was written due to the legitimate concern that permits
issued by the Federal Government comply with appropriate environmental
standards. However, existing laws already provide penalties for lion-compliance
with applicable air and water quality laws and should be adequate to insure
that environmental standards are met.
As now written, this section would authorize revocation of permits and
similar instruments upon finding of even a minor violation of air and water
quality standards. For instance, a power line right-of-way granted to a utility
might be put in jeopardy upon finding that some of the emission control devises
on motor vehicles owned by the utility and operating elsewhere were not oper-
ating properly. This is clearly undesirable.
3. Rights-of-Way
The authorities granted by Title V-Rights of Way are extended to the For-
est Service, as well as the Bureau of Land Management. We question the de-
sirability of including the Forest Service under this title. The primary objective
of this bill is to consolidate basic authority for the Bureau of Land Manage-
ment and to provide legislation clearly defining its mission. The Forest Service
is already empowered to carry out all of the general authorities granted by
Title V. To include the Forest Service under this section of the bill would serve
no purpose and would only complicate those authorities under which the agency
is presently operating.
We recommend that Title V of the bill be amended to remove the Forest
Service from coverage under this title.
a. Right-of-Way Gran.ts.-Section 501 (a) gives the Secretaries of Agriculture
and Interior the authority to grant rights-of-way over land administered by
them, with the exception of lands designated as Wilderness. This is contrary
to the provisions of the Wilderness Act of 1964, which provides that reasonable
access to non-Federal lands within those areas cannot be denied. The primary
reason for such language in the 1964 Act is to protect the non-Federal land-
owners' property rights and to prevent de facto public acquisition in Wilder-
ness areas through denial of access over Federal lands. There is no question
that when the public sector withdraws lands for Wilderness purposes it should
either compensate the private owners or should allow for access to, and normal
management of, that property.
The present wording would, in effect, constitute a situation in which private
property as being "taken" by the Federal Government without just compen-
sation, since the landowner is being denied access which is necessary for the
development, use, and enjoyment of that land. This denial of access will result
in a significantly lower market value for land. The exception of Wilderness
areas should be deleted entirely.
b. Disclosure of Plans and Other Information with Respect to Rights-of-
Way.-Section 501(b) (1) requires that a right-of-way applicant disclose any
or all plans, contracts, agreements, or other information related to the use, or
intended use, of the right-of-way and also requires the disclosure of various
PAGENO="0321"
317
ii~foiiii'iti ~ le] ttii g to `dl oi: the particip'uits in the entity which applies for
the n~1 of w ~ Ihis section ~hould allou `idmlmstmtl\e fie~ibility iegarding
information required prior to granting a permit. While such rigid requirements
may be appropriate with respect to grants for major utility rights-of-way, such
as pipelines and power lines, it will be extremely cumbersome for the hundreds
of forest road rights-of-way the BLM and Forest Service deal with each year.
Where there is intermingled Federal and private ownership, it would require
that forest landowners disclose all timber harvest and road construction plans
on their own lands. This would be extremely impractical since these plans
must remain flexible to meet changing conditions such as harvesting insect
or fire-killed timber. At the very least, a disclosure provision should not apply
to rights-of-way granted over National Forest lands or public lands to allow
access to adjacent non-Federal lands for the purpose of forest management.
c. Time Liie its on Rights-of-Way-Section 504(b) deals with the time limits
to be applied to rights-of-way. No specific reference is made to perpetual rights-
of-way here, and it is implied that all rights-of-way under this bill will have
some time limitation. The proposed amendment would permit agencies to enter
into perpetual rights-of-way. Placing a time limitation on rights-of-way it re-
ceives is as unacceptable to forest landowners as it is to the Federal Govern-
ment, in that the very long-term nature of capital investments in forest man-
agement (for tree planting, thinning, etc.) requires that the landowner gain
permanent access to his land.
(Attached to my statement are additional specific suggested amendments
to Title V concerning rights-of-way.)
4. Cost-Share Road Program
We are pleased to see that Section 502(a) provides BLM with a cost-share
road program similar to that in effect on the National Forests. The objective
of such a program is to foster and encourage the planning and development of
a single road systeni, jointly owned, operated and maintained to serve the land
management objectives of both public and private landowners involved. This
way the costs of road construction and maintenance are shared, and these costs,
as well as the resulting environmental impact, are much reduced over what
they would have been had separate road systems been built.
The Forest Service was provided the authority for a cost-share road pro-
gram by Public Law 88-657 (The National Forest Roads and Trails Systems
Act). This authority has been instrumental in resolving many problems of road
access to and across intermingled forest and private lands. Excellent cooper-
ation has been achieved between the public and private landowners. The sys-
tem is now- valued in excess of $100 million and is being expanded at the rate
of $10 million annually.
Some objections to the provision of a cost-share road program for BLM have
been voiced on the basis that such road systems would not serve multiple use
objectives. This is definitely not the case. The location and design of road sys-
tems under Section 502 (a) must be mutually agreed to by BLM and the coop-
erating parties. These road systems are required to "meet the requirements for
protection, development, and management of such lands and for utilization of
the other resources thereof." This authority will be extremely useful to BLM
which administers a considerable acreage of land involved in intermingled own-
ership patterns in. several western states, principally Washington, Oregon,
California, Idaho and Montana. The language in this section will be extremely
valuable to insure that road systems are designed and built which achieve both
public objectives and those of adjacent non-Federal landowners.
COMMENTS ON "NATIONAL RESOURCE LANDS MANAGEMENT ACT" (HR. 5224)
Several of our concerns with 1-JR. 5224 are slinilar to those previously dis-
cussed with regard to Subcommittee Print No. 1. These general areas include:
(1) the need to make the definition of "multiple use" contained in the bill con-
sistent with that in the Multiple Use Sustained Yield Act of 1960; (2) the
need to delete reference to "areas of critical environmental concern ;" and (3)
the need to provide flexibility in requirements that right-of-way applicants
disclose or any or all plans, etc., related to the use of rights-of-way and in re-
quiring the disclosure of various information relating to the participants in
the entity applying for the right-of-way.
54-OO5-75-----21
PAGENO="0322"
318
However, there are also significant differences between Subcommittee Print
No. 1 and HR. 5224 which we feel must be addressed. We have offered sug-
gested amendments which we feel would improve H.R. 5224 which are included
at the end of my written testimony. These comments will be directed to areas
of concern not previously brought out in my testimony on the Subcommittee
Print:
1. Reclamation
Section 101(2) authorizes the Secretary to require land reclamation as a
condition of use for those engaged in "extractive or other" activities likely to
cause significant disturbance of alteration of land. The language is not clear
that this is intended to apply to land disturbing activities, such as strip mm-
lag. Timber harvest activities are not extractive because they are followed
promptly by reforestation and forest renewal. This reforestation has historic-
ally been the responsibility of the forest landowner.
It is our understanding that the intention here is primarily to exercise au-
thority over major extractions of non-renewable resources. That being the case,
Section 101(b) should be amended so that it applies solely to extraction activi-
ties, not to timber harvest.
2. Modification, of Pennits Due to Changes in Land Classification
Section 103(d) would subject permits, leases, and licenses to modification
due to changes in land classification. As explained previously, permits and
similar instruments granted by the Federal Government are normally long-
terni obligations and often involve a substantial investment by the permittee
or lessee. This individual has a right to expect that the conditions under which
his permit was granted will remain in effect until the establishment renewal
date, or at the very least, that he should be adequately compensated for eco-
nomic loss resulting from any modification of the permit arising from a unilat-
eral revision of the existing land classification by the Secretary. This entire
subsection should be deleted.
3. Land Eeclzanges
While giving cursory recognition to land exchanges in Section 207 and 213,
Title II does not give the attention to the land exchange program which we be-
lieve is needed. Land exchanges are treated only as method of adding lands
to the public domain, but not as an appropriate method of developing more
efficient management of existing public ownership. Full authority should be
explicitly provided which would allow the exchange of lands or interest free
from onerous conditions, such as strict land disposal criteria established under
Section 202. BLM administrators should be allowed flexibility needed to ex-
change lands for purposes advantageous to tl1e public, such as a consolidation
of ownership and simplification of land management.
4. Conveyance of Mm em-al Interests
Section 208 (a) allows the Secretary to convey mineral interests owned by
the TJiiited States where the surface is in non-Federal ownership if he finds
that there are no mineral values in the land, or that the reservation of the
mineral rights in the United States is interfering with appropriate non-mineral
development of the land and .that such development is a more beneficial use of
the land than mineral development. A new subsection should be added to this
subsection which allows the Secretary to convey mineral interests owned hr
the TJnited States where the surface is in non-Federal ownership if be finds
that the surface ownership has been conveyed through exchange and that the
other party of record will reciprocate with respect to mineral rights on lands
he conveyed to the Federal Government.
5. Covenants on Documents of Conveyance
Section 209 requires the Secretary to attach covenants to any patent or other
document of conveyance issued under the bill. This could conceivably encumber
the lands, conveyed to the point where they are, in fact, "public lands" with a
private owner.
In effect, this section gives the Secretary the latitude of encumbering any
lands' or interest conveyed under the bill to whatever extent he so desires re-
gardless `of other provisions of the bill. If not' deleted, this language could
PAGENO="0323"
319
destroy the effectiveness of any sales or exchange programs the Secretary may
enter into under the bill. At one extreme, if he offers property for sale or ex-
change with highly restrictive environmental covenants and land use require-
ments, it will be difficult to find purchasers. It will also serve to greatly reduce
the value of lands conveyed by the government. On the other band, if the Sec-
retary offers land with few or no covenants, all such conveyances will be sub-
ject to endless lawsuits claiming that he has violated the direction given him
by Congress.
If the lands in question are determined to be suitable for disposal under the
limited criteria of Section 202, the Federal Government should relinquish all
of its rights, title, and interest to said lands. Further, in the case of land ex-
changes, it should be presumed that the total national resource land base will
not change significantly and, thus, there is no need to subject such transactions
to the provisions of this section. We urge that Section 209 be eliminated. The
objective of this section is to insure that lands conveyed by the Federal Gov-
ernment are subject to proper land use and the public interests are protected.
Land use plans developed by states and applicable state air and water quality
and other environmental standards will normally insure that environmental
protection objectives are met without, unnecessarily encumbering lands con-
veyed by the Federal Government.
6. Reimbursement for Federal Administration Costs
Section 302(b) allows the Secretary to require that applicants for any agree-
ment pertaining to the national resource lands reimburse the Federal Govern-
ment for "extraordinary costs," including the costs of preparation of environ-
mental impact statements and monitoring construction, operation, and main-
teriance. The broad languege in this seétion is entirely inappropriate. It could
could result in the establishment of "user fees" to pay for administration of
public programs which have been specifically implemented at the direction of
Congress. The requiremeiits that applicants be charged the administrative costs
iTnvolved in the preparation of environmental impact statements under the Na-
tional Environmental Policy Act is unprecedented. Those programs which pro-
vide public benefit should continue to be paid for by the public.
This subsection should be amended to allow BLM discretion when dealing
with the administrative costs of land exchanges, easements exchanges, and
cooperative cost-share road agreements. Applicants should not be required to
pay BLM's share of administrative costs when such costs are for programs
which are mutually beneficial.
7. Enforcement Authority
The enforcement authority provided by\ Section 307 fails to provide for any
resolution of violations on an administrative basis. Every violation, whether
intentional or unintentional, is delegated to the Courts. There should be some
provision which allows the Secretary flexibility in gaining restitution for dam-
ages resulting from accidental or unintentional trespass during forest manage
ment operations, or other activities, on ownerships adjacent to national r
source lands. Administrative flexibility should be provided to resolve the nr-
merous innocent trespass incidents which occur frequently.
In addition, Subsection 307 (a) should be changed to require conviction of a
violation before subjection to penalty.
8. Cost-Share Road Program
HR. 5224 has no provision for a cost-share road program as is provided by
Section 502(a) of Subcommittee Print No. 1. As explained in our previous
testimony, provision of such a cost-share road authority would I)e highly de-
sirable.
A copy of Public Law 88-657, which forms the basis for the cost-share road
program on the National Forests, is appended to my statenient.
Thank you Mr. Chairman for this opportunity to comment on H.R. 5224 and
the Subcommittee Print No. 1.
DOUGLAS W. MACCLEERY,
FOrester,
National Forest Products Assn.
PAGENO="0324"
320
SUGGESTED AMENDMENTS TO SUBCOMMITTEE PRINT No. l-"THE PUBLIC LAND
POLICY AND MANAGEMENT ACT or 1975-APRIL 7, 1975
1. SECTION 103(a)-DEFINITION OF `AREAS OF CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERN"
On page 6, line 14 through line 21, delete the definition of "Areas of Critical
Environmental Concern."
Delete reference to "areas of critical environmental concern" in all other sec-
tions of the bill.
E~rpiana tion
The concept underlying the phrase "areas of critical environmental concern"
in Section 103 (a) is not constructive. The implication is a negative one since
the focus is directed toward limiting or prohibiting management practices to
`prevent irreparable damage" rather than being positive and encouraging those
practices which will achieve desirable objectives, while at tl~e same time pro-
tecting all resource values. This section should be deleted.
Every area of land is unique in some respects-with its own combination of
soils, geology, vegetation, climate and other characteristics. Management tech-
niques must be modified to take into consideration these unique characteristics
on each unit of land. Rather than being given special legislative statutes, eco-
logically sensitive areas requiring special management consideration are best
identified in tile comprehensive land use planning process required by Section
202 of the bill. It is during this planning process that such sensitive areas are
properly identified and appropriate management practices developed to protect
resource values. As presently worded, this definition could conceivably apply to
the vast majority of national resource lands.
It is understood that the concept of "areas of critical environmental col1cern"
n-as inserted in earlier versions of the bill to insure conformance with potential
Federal land use legislation. Federal land use legislation has not yet been en-
acted. and, even if it were in this Congress, it may not contain this concept. In
any case, bills presently before the Congress dealing with land use contain the
term "areas of critical State concern". We believe that this definition, and all
references to it throughout the bill, are unnecessary.
2. SECTION 103(C)-DEFINITION OF "MULTIPLE USE"
On page 7, line 7, delete everything following tile semi-colon and beginning
with the words "the use of some land . . ." through line 18 on page 7, substitute
therefore the following:
that some land will be used for less than all of the resources; and har-
monious and coordinated management of the various resources, each with the
other, without impairment of the productivity of the land, w-ith consideration
being given to the relative values of the various resources, and not necessarily
the combination of uses that will give the greatest dollar return or tile greatest
unit output."
Ewpianation
Tile definition of "multiple use" in Section 103(c) differs in language but not
in intent or scope from the definition in the 1980 "Multiple Use-Sustained Yield
Act" applicable to National Forest lands. Language more nearly approximating
the definition in the 1960 Act should be used in place of the current definition
lfl tile bill so as to reduce uncertainty and foster uniformity in tile interpreta-
tion of policy for Federally owned lands. Tile suggested language will help to
achieve tills result.
3. SECTION 202 (f) (2)-REvOCATIoN OF PERMITS FOR VIOLATION OF AIR OR WATER
QUALITY STANDARDS
On pages 13 and 14, delete entire Section 202 (f) (2).
Ewplanat'ion
Section 202 (f) (2) would authorize revocation or suspension of any permit,
license, lease or other instrument for a violation of any agency regulation pro-
mulgated under the Act, or of any state or Federal air or water quality stand-
ard or implementation plan. This provision would inject extreme uncertainty
into the continuance of Federally granted permits. Presumably, the revision of
air and water quality standards after the permit had been granted, would sub-
ject tile instrument to revocation upon finding of a Violation of the new
standard.
PAGENO="0325"
321
Permits and similar instruments granted by time government are usually
long-term obligations, and often involve a substantial investment by time per-
mittee orlessee. This individual has a right to expect that the conditions under
which the permit was granted will remain in effect until it is renewed, or at a
minimum, if Federal standards are changed, that he will receive adequate
compensation for the burden imposed by the new standard.
In addition, Section 202 (f) (2) as presently written, would authorize revoca-
tion of permits and similar instrumelits upon the finding of even a minor vio-
lation of air and water quality standards. For instance, a power line right-of-
way granted to a utility might be put in jeopardy upon finding that some of the
emission control devices on motor vehicles owned by the utility were not oper-
ating properly. This is clearly undesirable.
Section 202(f) (2) u-as written due to the legitimate concern that permits is-
sued by the Federal Government comply with appropriate environmental stand-
ards. However, penalties provided by existing state and Federal air and water
quality control regulations should be adequate to insure that these environmen-
tal standards are met.
4. TITLE v-RIGhTS-OF-WAY
The authorities granted by Title V~_~~ftiqhts-o~-TVaV are extended to the For-
est Service, as w-ell as the Bureau of Land Management. We question the desir-
ability of including the Forest Service under this title. The primary objective of
this bill is to consolidate basic authority for the Bureau of Land Management
and to provide legislation clearly defining its mission. The Forest Service is
already empowered to carry out all of the general authorities granted by Title
~T To include the Forest Service under~ this section of the bill would serve no
purpose and would only complicate those authorities under which the agency is
presently operating.
We recommend that Title V of the bill~ be amended to remove the Forest Serv-
ice from coverage under this title.
5. SECTION 501 (a)-GIiANTING RIGHTS-oF-wAY
On page 57, lines 7 and 8, delete the words "(except in each case land desig-
nated as wilderness) ".
Ewplanation
Section 501 (a) gives the Secretaries of Agriculture and Interior the author-
ity to grant rights-of-way over land administered by them, with the specific ex-
ception of land designated as Wilderness. This is contrary to the provisions
of the Wilderness Act of 1974, which provides that reasonable access to non-
Federal lands within Wilderness areas cannot be denied. The primary reason
for such language in the 1964 Act is to protect the non-Federal land-owner's
property rights and to prevent de facto public acquisition in Wilderness areas
through denial of acces over Federal lands.
There is no question that when the public sector withdraws lands for Wilder-
ness purposes it should either compensate the private property owners affected
or should allow for access to, and normal management of, that property. The
language here would eliminate tile protectiOn afforded in these situations by the
\Vilderness Act, however tenous that protection may have turned out to he as a
practical matter.
The present wording would, in effect, constitute a situation in w-hich Private
property is being "taken" by the Federal Government without just conlpensa-
lion, since the landowner is being denied access which is necessary for the de-
~ elopmnent use `md enjoyment of th'mt l'mnd This dem'ml of `iccess 11 111 esult iii
a significantly lower market value for that land. The exception of Wilderness
oreas here should be deleted.
0. SECTION 501(h) (1)-DIsCLOSURE OF PLANS (WITH RESPECT TO RIGHTS-OF-WAY)
On page 58. lines 15 through 19, delete tile words dashed through and insert
tile words underlined:
(b) (1) Time Secretaiv concerned shall tequne prioi to granting `smn~ or
renewing a right-of-way, that the applicant submit and disclose any or all those
plans, contracts, agreements, or other information or material reasonably related
to the ~
E~rp1anation
Section 501(b) (1) requires that applicants for any right-of-way disclose all
plans related to the use of the right-of-way. While such a requirement may be
PAGENO="0326"
322
appropriate with respect to some grants for utility rights-of-way, such as pipe-
hues and power lines, it will be extremely cumbersome for the hundreds of for-
est road rights-of-way the departments deal with each year. It would require
that forest landowners divulge all timber harvest and road construction plans
on their own lands. Not only is this impractical since these plans must remain
flexible to meet changing conditions, such as harvesting insect or fire-killed
timber. but it is an infringement on the need for confidentiality that any com-
pany competing in a free market must maintain regarding plans for future
operations.
The proposed amendment would limit information to disclosure of "those
plans, contracts, agreements, or other information reasonably related to the
use . . . of the right-of-w-ay."
7. SECTION 301(b) (2)-I)ISCLOSTJRE OF PARTNERS, SHAREHOLDERS, AND AFFILIATES
(WITH RESPECT TO RIGHTS-OF-WAY APPLICANTS)
On page 59, line 1, delete the w-ord "shall" and replace with "may".
Explanation.
Section 501(b) (2) involves a mandatory requirement for detailed disclosure
by partnerships, corporations, associations or other businesses applying for
rights-of-way over public lands. Again, this very cumbersome requirement may
not always be appropriate or necessary, particularly with respect to the hun-
dreds of forest road rights-of-way which are handled by tile Forest Service an~
tile Bureau of Land Management every year. Tile Secretaries should be given
some flexibility here, inasmuch as it is our understanding that this clause is
primarily alloldover from the Alaska Pipeline Bill, and was originally intended
to discover conflicts of interest among tile major oil companies. Agencies should
be given administrative discretion in this area.
8. SECTION 504 (a)-5ETTING BOUNDARIES OF RIGHTS-OF-WAY
On page 62, lines 23 and 24, delete the words "practicable" and insert "may
be indicated by the proportionate values involved".
Explana ion
Section .504 (a) directs the Secretaries to specify the boundaries of all rightS-
of-w-ay over public lands as precisely as "practicable." The term "practicable"
has b~een interpreted by the courts to mean "possible" or "to the extent tile
existing technology permits." As written, tills language leaves the Secretaries
with no flexibility to weight the merits of each situation. The connotation of the
word `practicable" is that the Secretary concerned must require extremely high
standards for the engineering of all rights-of-way, whether they involve major
public highways or secondary logging spur roads. Tile language should be
amended to avoid unnecessary engineering, administrative, and compliance costs
with respect to the many miles of forest roads constructed under right-of-way
agreements on National Forest and BLM lands each year.
9. SECTION 504 (b)-TIME LIMITS ON RIGHTS-OF-WAY
On page 63, beginning on line 10, delete the words dashed through and insert
those underlined:
"(b) Each Any right-of-way or permit granted or renewed pursuant to this
Section shall may be permanent if appropriate or may be limited . . . Tile Secre-
tary concerned shall renew any non-permanent right-of-way or permit, in accord-
ance with tile provisions of this section, so long as the use for which the right-
of-w-ay same is required is continuing..
Explanation
Section 504(b) deals with the time limits to be applied to rights-of-way. No
specific reference is made to perpetual rights-of-way here, and it is implied that
all rights-of-way under this bill w-ill have some time limitation. The proposed
amendment w-ould permit agencies to enter into perpetual rights-of-way. Placing
a time limitation on a right-of-w-ay is unacceptable to forest landowners, in that
tile very long-term nature of capital investments in forest management (tree
planting, thinning. etc.) requires that tile landowner gain permanent access to
his land. Tile Forest Service preSelltly has authority to grant permanent rIghts-
of-w-ay easements over National Forest lands under P.L. 88-657, and receives
PAGENO="0327"
32~3
permanent road easements from adjacent non-Fedral landowners. This includes
the extensive road cost-share program on the National Forests between the For-
est Service and intermingled forest landowners.
This is an extremely critical issue and should be considered a mandatory pre-
requisite to forest landowner support of this legislation.
10. SECTION 504 (11)-REQUIREMENT FOR. RONDS (WITH RESPECT TO RIGHTS-OF-WAY)
On page 66, line 2, insert the wording underlined:
"Where he deems it appropriate ,...rule or regulation of the Secretary con-
cerned. Provided, however, that such bond, or other security, shall not be con-
sidered appropriate when there is in existence a cooperative cost-share right-of-
way program between the United States and the holder of a right-of-way.
B~planoticn
Section 504 (h) directs the Secretary concerned to require a bond or other se-
curity for rights-of-way as he deems appropriate. Because of the unique nature
of road cost-share agreements, they should be specifically excepted from this
requirement.
11. SECTION 510-RIGHT-OF-WAY CONSTRUCTION To STATE STANDARDS
On page 70, line 4, delete the words dashed through and insert the words
underlined
"Sec. 510. The Secretary concerned shall take into consideration and, to the
extent practicable practical, comply with State standards for similar purposes
for right-of-way construction, operation.
Explanation
Tile use of the word "practicable" in Section 510-" State Standards" could
potentially result in the requirement that forest road rights-of-way over the
public lands he constructed to state highway standards, which would be totally
uneconomical, environmentally destructive in many cases, and entirely inap-
propriate. The courts have interpreted tile term "practicable" to mean "possible"
or "to the extent the existing technology permits." To allow the necessary flexi-
bility in judging the merits of each situation under tills provision, tile above
amendments are offered.
SUGGESTED AMENDMENTS TO FIR. 5224-"THE NATIONAL RESOURCE LANDS MAN-
AGEMENT ACT"-APRIL 7, 1975
1. SECTION 2 (C)-DEFINITION OF "MULTIPLE USE"
On page 3, line 17, delete everything following the semi-colon and l)eginning
with the words, "the use of some land. . ." through line 2 on page 4, substitute
therefore the following:
that some land will be used for less than all of the resources; and har-
monious and coordinated management of the various resources, each with the
other, without impairment of the productivity of the ]and, with consideration
being given to the relative values of the various resources, and not necessarily
the combination of uses that w-ill give the greatest dollar return or the greatest
unit output."
E'xplanation
The definition of "multiple use" in Section 2(c) differs in language but not in
intent or scope from the definition in the 1960 "Multiple Use-Sustained Yield
Act" applicable to National Forest lands. Language more nearly approximating
tile definition in the 1960 Act should be used in place of tile current definition
in the bill so as to reduce uncertainty and foster uniformity in tile interpreta-
tion of policy for Federally owned lands. Tile suggested language will help to
achieve this result.
2. SECTION 2(e)-DEFINITIoN OF "AREAS OF CRITICAL ENvIRONMENTAL CONCERN"
On page 4, line 8 through line 14, delete the definition of "Areas of Critical
Environmental Concern."
Delete reference to "areas of critical environmental concern" ill other portions
of the bill.
PAGENO="0328"
324
Eap ion atio a
The concept underlying the phrase `areas of critical environmental concern"
in Section 2~e) is not constructive. The implication is a negative one, since the
focus is directed toward restricting or limiting management practices to `lire-
vent irreparable danmge." rather than being positive and encouraging those
practices which will achieve desirable objectives, while at the same time pro-
tectiag all resource values. This section should be deleted.
Every area of land is unique in some respects-with its own combination of
soils, geology, vegetation, climate and other characteristics. Management tech-
niques must be modified to take into consideration these unique characteristics
on each unit of land. Rather than being given special legislative status, ecologi-
cally sensitive areas requiring special management consideration are best iden-
tified in the comprehensive land use planning process required in Section 103 of
the bill. It is during this planning process that such sensitive areas are properly
identified and appropriate management practices developed to protect resource
values. As presently worded. this definition could conceivably apply to the vast
majority of national resource lands.
It is understood that the concept of "areas of critical environmental concern"
u-as inserted in earlier versions of the bill to insure conformance w-ithi potential
Federal land use legislation. Federal land use legislation has not yet been en-
acted, and, even if it were in this Congress, it may not contain this concept. In
any case, bills presently before the Congress dealing with land use contain the
term "areas of critical State concern". We believe that this definition, and all
references to it throughout the bill, are unnecessary.
3. SECTION 101 (21-LAND RECLAMATION
On page 9, line 11, strike the words "extractive or other" and substitute the
words "a mineral extraction or development."
Explanation
Timber harvest activities do not fall within the class of "an extractive or other
activity likely to entail significant disturbance or alteration" of the land. Tim-
ber harvest activities are not extractive because they are followed promptly by
reforestation and forest renewal. The definition of an activity requiring land
reclamation should be limited to the extraction of minerals and like activities
so that there is no confusion in this regard.
Further, reforestation of harvested areas has always been the responsibility
of the landowner. This activity is quite different from reclaiming disturbed or
altered land and should remain the responsibility of the administering agency.
If it l5 the Committee's intent to alter tills long established relationship be-
tween tile landow-ner and tile timber purchaser, tile Committee should undertake
a sJ)ecial review of reforestation practices on Federal lands to assure the best
method or combination of methods is adopted for national resource lands.
4. SECTION 103 (d)-CHANGE5 IN LAND CLA55IFICATION
On page 11, line 19, delete entire Subsection 103(d).
Explanation
SectiOn 103(d) would subject permits, leases, and licenses to modification
due to changes ill land classification. Permits and similar instruments granted
by tile government are usually long-term obligations and often involve a sub-
stantial investment by tile permittee or lessee. This individual has a right to ex-
pect that the conditions under which his permit was granted will remain in
effect until the established renewal date, or at tile very least, that he will be
adequately compensated for any economic loss resulting from modification or
cancellation of tile permit arising from a unilateral revision of the existing land
classification by the Secretary.
5. 5ECTIOX 202-DISPOSAL CRITERIA
On page 12, line 25, after the word "lands" insert "or interest therein." On
page 13, line 10. insert a new Subsection 202(a) (4) as follows:
"(4) Disposal of such tract of national resource lands, or interests therein,
under the exchange authority provided in section 213 will serve the public
interest."
PAGENO="0329"
325
Explanation
While giving cursory recognition to land exchanges in Section 207 and 213,
Title II does not give the attention, to the land exchange program which we
believe is needed. Land exchanges are treated only as a method of adding lands
to the public domain, but not as an appropriate metl1od of developing more
efficient management of existing public ownership. Full authority should be ex-
plicitly provided which would allow the exchange of lands or interests free
from onerous conditions such as the strict land disposal criteria established
under Section 202. BLM administrators should be allowed flexibility needed to
exchange lands for purposes advantageous to the public, such as the consolida-
tion of ownership and simplification of land management.
6. SECTION 208 (a)-C0NvEYANCE or MINERAL INTEREsTS
Section 208(a) allows the Secretary to convey mineral interests owned by
the United States where the surface is in non-Federal ownership if he finds
that there are no mineral values in the land, or that the reservation of the
mineral rights in the United States is interfernig with appropriate non-mineral
development of the land, and that such development is more a beneficial use
of the land than mineral development. A new subsection should be added to this
subsection which allows the Secretary to convey mineral interests owned by the
United States where the surface is in non-Federal ownership, if he finds that
the surface ownership has been conveyed through exchange and that the other
party of record will reciprocate with rOspect to mineral rights on lands he con-
veyed to the Federal Government,
Under Section 208 (c) the Secretary, must require applicants for conveyance
of mineral interests in Federal lands to pay for the cost of exploratory pro-
grams to that end. While this may be appropriate in cases of sales, it is not
with respect to land exchanges. This subsection should be amended to allow the
Secretary some flexibility with respect to exchanges, or exempt them entirely
from this requirement.
* 7. SECTION 209-CovENANTS OF DOCUMENTS OF CONVEYANCE
On p'ige 10 delete the entire Section 2b9
Explanation
Section 109 requires the Secretary to attach covenants to any patent or other
document of conveyance issued under the bill. This could conceivably encumber
the lands conveyed to the point where they are, in fact, "public lands" with a
private owner.
In effect, this section gives the Secretary the latitude of encumbering any
lands or interests conveyed under the bill to whatever extent he so desires, re-
gardless of other provisions of the bill. If not deleted, this language could de-
stroy the effectiveness of sales or exchange programs the Secretary may enter
into under the bill. At one extreme, if lie offers propd1~ty for sale or exchange
with highly restrictive environmental covenants and land use requirements, it
will be difficult to find purchasers. It will also serve to greatly reduce the value
of the lands conveyed by the government. On the other hand, if the Secretary
offers land with few or no covenants, all such conveyances will be subject to
endless lawsuits claiming that he has violated the direction given him by Con-
gress under this section.
If the lands in question are determined to be suitable for disposal under the
limited criteria of Section 202, then the Federal Government should relinquish
all rights, title and interest to said lands. Further, in the case of land exchanges,
it should be presumed that the total natiOnal resource land base will no change
significantly. and, thus, there is virtually no need to subject such transactions
to the provisions of the section.
We urge that Section 209 he eliminated. The objective of this section is to
insure that lands conveyed by the Federal Government are subject to proper
land use and that public interests are protected. Land use plans developed by
the states and applicable state air and water quality and other environmental
standards will normally insure these objectives are met without necessarily en-
cumbering lands conveyed by the Federal Government.
8. SECTION 213-ACQUISITION OF LAND
On page 18, line 20, revise the title of this section to read "Acquisition and
Exchange of Land."
PAGENO="0330"
326
E~rplana tion
The above title would more appropriately reflect the scope of this section.
0, 5ECTIo~ 30 2~-I1EI:~IBTJRSE~IENT FOR FEDERAL ADMINISTRATION COSTS
Section 302(b) on page 21 allows the Secretary to require that applicants for
any agreement pertaining to the national resource lands reimburse the Federal
Government for "extraordinary costs," including the costs of l)reparation of
environmental impact statements and monitoring construction, operation, and
maintenance, etc. The broad language in this section is entirely inappropriate.
It could result in the establishment of "user fees" to pay for the administration
of public programs which have been specifically implemented at the direction
of Congress, Tl1e requirement tl1at applicants be charged the administrative
costs involved in the preparation of environmental impact statements under the
National Environmental Policy Act is unprecedented. Those programs which
provide public benefits should continue to be paid for by the public.
This subsection should he amended to allow BLM discretion when dealing with
the administrative costs of land exchanges, easement exchanges, and cooperative
cost-share road agreements. Applicants should not be required to pay ELM's
share of administrative costs when such costs are for programs which are
mutually beneficial.
10. SECTION CO7-ENFORCE~JENT AIJTHORITY
The enforcement authority provided by Section 307(a) on page 20 fails to pro-
vide for any resolution of violations on an administrative basis. Every violation,
whether intentional or unintentional, is delegated to the courts. There should be
some provision which allows the Secretary flexibility in gaining restitution for
damages resulting from accidental or unintentional timber trespass during
forest management operations. The Secretary should be given the authority to
settle this type of trespass either by requiring the trespasser to pay fair market
vslue for trees cut on national resource lands or by accepting in exchange trees
or logs of like value. Because of intermingled private and Federal lands, coupled
with poor boundary markings, unintentional trespass can easily occur. Adjacent
private landowners may trespass on government lands while timber sale con-
tractors operating on national resource lands may trespass on private lands.
Authority for administrative treatment of such situations should be provided
for.
In addition, Section 307(a) should be changed to require conviction of a vio-
lation before subjection to penalty.
11. SECTION 401(b) (1)-DISCLOSTJRE OF PLANS
On page 30, beginning on line 23, delete the words dashed through and insert
the words underlined:
"(b) (1) The Secretary shall require, prior to granting, issuing, or renewing
a right-of-way, that the applicant submit and disclose any or all those plans,
contracts, agreements or other information or material reasonably related to
the use, . . ."
EFplanation
Section 401(b) (1) requires that applicants *for any right-of-way disclose all
plans related to the use of that right-of-way. While such a requirement may be
appropriate with respect to some grants for utility rights-of-way, such as pipe-
lines and power lines, it will be extremely cumbersome for the numerous forest
road rights-of-way the ELM deals with each year. It would require that forest
landowners divulge all timber harvest and road construction plans on their ow-n
lands. This would be extremely impractical since these plans must reiuaia flex-
ible to meet changing conditions, such as harvesting insect or fire-killed timber.
The proposed amendments would limit information to disclosure of "those
plans, contracts, agreements, or other information, reasonably related to the use
of the right-of-way. , ."
12. SECTION 403 (a)-BOTJNDARIES OF RIGHTS-OF-WAY
On page 33, Line 3, delete the word "practicable" and insert "may be indi-
cated by the proportionate values involved",
PAGENO="0331"
327
Explanation
Section 403(a) directs the Secretary to specify the boundaries of all rights-
of-way over public lands as precisely as "practicable". The term "practicable"
has been interpreted by the courts to mean "possible" or "to the extent the exist-
ing technology permits." As written, this language leaves the Secretary with no
flexibility to weight the merits of each situation. The connotation of the word
"practicable" is that the Secretary concerned must require extremely high
standards for the engineering of all rights-of-way, whether they involve major
public highways or secondary logging spur roads. The language should be
amended to avoid unnecessary engineering, administrative, and compliance costs
with respect to time many miles of forest roads constructed under right-of-way
agreements on the public lands each year.
13. SECTION 403 (f)_REIMBIJRSEMENT FOR ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS
On page 35, line 12, after the word " ghts-o f-way" insert the following: "PlO-
vided, however, That such costs need riot be reimbursed in any situation where
there is in existence a cooperative cost-share right-of-way program between
the United States and the holder of a right-of-way. And provided further, That
rights-of-way may be granted, issued
Explanation
Under Section 403(f), holders of rights-of-way must reimburse the United
States for "all reasonable administrative and other costs" the agency has in-
curred in processing the application and in monitoring construction. Under a
cost-share road program, the Federal agency arid the private owner share the
tasks of road design and construction. These are divided approximately equally
between them. Thus, it would be inequitable for holders of rights-of-way under
the cost-share program to be required to pay the government for its adminis-
trative costs since they are also paying for those costs on their own lands. The
best solution is to allow the present arrangement to prevail, i.e., each party will
be responsible for the costs individually incurred as long as the total workload
performed by each remains approximately equal.
14. SECTION 409-COMPLIANCE wITH STATE STANDARDS
On page 40, line 1, after the word "standards," insert the words: "for simi-
lar purposes. . ."
Explanation
Section 409-"State Standards" could potentially result in the requirement
that forest road rights-of-way over the public lands be constructed to state
highway standards, which would be totally uneconomical, environmentally de-
structive in many cases, and entirely inappropriate.
To allow the necessary flexibility in judging the merits of each situation
under this provision, the above amendmeiit is offered.
~iATIO~ ii T~OREST F O&DS A1~D TRiJLS S~ STEMS ~CT
ACTOF OCTOBER 13,1904 (78 STAT. 1089; 10 U.S.C. 532-538)
Sec. 1. The Congress hereby flnds and declares that the construction and
maintenance of an adequate system of roads and trails within and near the
national forests and other lands administeréd by the Forest Service is essential
if increasing demands for timber, recreation, and other uses of such lands are
to be met; that the existence of such a system would have the effect, among
other things, of increasing the value of timber and other resources tributary to
such roads; and that such a system is essential to enable the Secretary of Agri-
culture (hereinafter called the Secretary) to provide for intensive use, pro-
tection, development, and management of these lands under principles of multi-
ple use and sustained yield of products and services. (16 U.S.C. 532)
Sec. 2. The Secretary is authorized, under such regulations as lie may pre-
scribe, subject to the provisions of this Act, to grant permanent or temporary
PAGENO="0332"
328
easements for specified periods or otherwise for road rights-of-way (1) over na-
tional forest lands and other lands administered by the Forest Service, and (2)
over any other related lands with respect to which the Department of Agricul-
ture has rights under the terms of the grant to it. (16 U.S.C. 533)
Sec. 3. An easement granted under this Act may be terminated by consent of
the ow-ncr of the easement, by condemnation, or after a five year period of non-
use the Secretary may. if he finds the owner has abandoned the easement, make
a determination to cancel it. Before the Secretary may cancel an easement for
nonuse the ow-ncr of such easement must be notified of the determiaaAon to can-
cel and be given, upon his request made within sixty days after receipt of the
notice, a hearing in accordance w-ith such rules and regulations as may be issued
by the Secretary. (16 U.S.C. 534)
Sec. ~. The Secretary is authorized to provide for the acquisition, construction,
and mainrenance of forest development roads w-ithin and near the national forests
and other lands administered by the Forest Service in locations and according
to specifications w-hich will permit maximum economy in harvesting timber
from such lands tributary to such roads and at the same time meet tIme require-
ments for protection, development, and management thereof, and for utilization
of the other resources thereof. Financing of such roads may be accomplished
(1) by the Secretary utilizing appropriated funds. (2) by requirements on
purchasers of national forest timber and other products, including provisions for
amortization of road costs in contracts, (3) by cooperative financing with other
public agencies and with private agencies or persons, or (4) by a combination of
these methods: Provided, That w-here roads of a higher standard than that
needed in time harvesting and removal of the timber and other products covered
by the particular sale are to be consfiructed the purchaser of the national forest
timber and other.products shall not be required to l)ear that part of the costs
l1ecessary to meet such higher standard, and the Secretary is authorized to make
such arrangements to this end as may be appropriate. (16 U.S.C. 535)
Sec. 5. Copies of all instruments affecting permanent interests in land cxc-
cmited pursuant to this Act shall be recorded in each county where the lands are
located. Copies of all instruments affecting interests in lands reserved from the
public domain shall be furnished to the Secretary of the Interior. (16 U.S.C.
536)
Sec. 6. The Secretary may require the user or users of a road under the con-
trol of the Forest Service, including purchasers of Government timber and
other products, to maintain such roads in a satisfactory condition conimensurate
with the particular use requirements of each. Such maintenance to be borne by
each user shall. be proportionate to total use. The Secretary may also require
the user or users of such a road to reconstruct the same when such reconstruc-
tion is determined to be necessary to accommodate such use. If such mainte-
nance or reconstruction cannot be so provided or if the Secretary determines
that maintenance or reconstruction by a user would not be practical, then the
Secretary may require that sufficient funds be deposited by the user to provide
his portion of such total maintenance or reconstruction. Deposits made to Cover
the maintenance or reconstruction of roads are hereby made available until ox-
permdecl to cover the cost to the United States of accomplishing the purposes for
w-hich deposited: Provided. That deposits received for work on adjacent and
overlapping areas may he combined when it is the most practicable and efficient
manner of nerforming the work, and cost thereof may be determined i)y esti-
mates: And provided fnrther, That unexpended balances upon accomplishment
of the purpose for which deposited shall be transferred to miscellaneous re-
ceipts or refunded. (16 U.S.C. 537)
Sec. 7. Whenever the agreement under which the United States has obtained
for the use of. or in connection w-ith. time national forests and other lands ad-
m~ni~ferecl hr the Forest Service a ri~ht-of-w-~y or easement for a road or an
existinr road or the right to use an existimir road provides for delavemi Payments
to the Government's grantor, any fees or other cohle~tjops received hr the Score-
tory for the use of the road mar he placed in a fund to he available for making
payments to the grantor. (16 U.S.C. 535)
PAGENO="0333"
329
STATEMENT OF DOUGLAS W. MacCLEERY, NATIONAL FOREST
PRODUCTS ASSOCIATION, ACCOMPANIED BY 30HN F. HALL, VICE
PRESIDENT, FORESTRY AFFAIRS, NATIONAL FOREST PRODUCTS
ASSOCIATION; AND WALTER JAENICKE, ASSISTANT VICE PRESI-
DENT, GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS, NATIONAL FOREST PRODUCTS
ASSOCIATION
Mr. MACCLEERY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to sum-
marize my comments, if I may.
I am Doug MacCleery, forester for the National Forest Products
Association. Appearing with me today is John Hall, vice president
for forestry affairs of the NFPA. We appreciate the opportunity
to appear before you to give testimony on the Public Land Enforce-
ment and Management Act.
NFPA is a federation of 26 regional and wood products asso-
ciations representing the growers; manufacturers, and* wholesalers
of wood products throughout the country. Our industry is vitally con-
cerned with timber management on all of our ownerships, and is
equally concerned with achieving constructive public policies and
programs affecting timber growth and harvest on Federal lands,
on lands owned by the forest industry, and nonindustrial private
lands.
The bills before the subcommittee could, with appropriate amend-
ment, provide a needed congressional direction for the management
of lands currently administered by BLM. However, there are several
major areas of concern with the bills as presently drafted. For
each of these areas, we offer suggested amendments which are in-
cluded at the end of my written testimony.
I will first coment on Subcommittee Print NO. 1, the Public Land
Policy and Management Act. The concept underlying the phrase,
areas of critical environmental' concern, in section 103 (a) is not
constructive, because the implication here is a negative one. The
focus is directed toward restricting or limiting management practices
to prevent irreparable damage, rather than positive and encouraging
those practices which will achieve desirable objectives, while at the
same time protecting all resource values. We feel this section should
be deleted. It is, as presently worded, this denfinition could apply
to the vast majority of BLM lands. It is understood that this defini-
tion was inserted in earlier versions of the bill to assure conformance
with potential Federal land use legislation.
Present bills before the Congress `dealing with land use contain,
in turn, areas of critical state concern rather than areas of critical
environmental concern. Because of this, we believe that this defini-
tion, and all references to it throughout the bill, are unnecessary,
and should be deleted.
On the definition of multiple use, in section 103 (c), this definition
is somewhat different than the definition currently applied by law
to National Forest lands under the Multiple Use Sustained Yield
Act of 1960. It would seem unnecessary and confusing ,to distin-
guish between rnu1tip~e use on National Forest lands and multiple
use on BLM lands. There are sufficiently varied interpretations of
PAGENO="0334"
330
ivhat ti~is term means as it is now without compounding the problem
with definitions for each of the two major land managing agencies
chaiged with multiple use managemeiit.
On the treatment of permits, licenses, and leases, section 202(f) (2)
would authorize revocation or suspension of any permit, license,
lease. for a violation of any agency regulation or of any State or
Federal air or water quality standard. This provision would inject
extreme uncertainty into the continuance of federally granted per-
mits. Presumably, the revsion of air and water quality standards
a fter the permit had been granted would subject the instrument to
revocation upon finding a violation of the new standard. In addition,
even a very minor violation of it would subject the permit to revo-
cation.
The permits and similar instruments granted by the Government
are normally long-term obligations, and often involve a substantial
investment by the permittee. This individual has a right to expect
that the conditions under which the permit was granted will remain
in effect until it is renewed, or at a minimum, if Federal standards
are changed, that he will receive adequate compensation for the bur-
den imposed by the new standard. This section was written due to the
legitimate concern that permits issued by the Federal Government
comply with appropriate environmental standards. However, exist-
ing laws already provide penalties for noncompliance with air and
water quality laws, and should be adequate to insure that environ-
mental standards are 1net.
The subject of rights of way-the authorities granted by title V
are extended to the Forest Service, as well as to the Bureau of Land
Management. We question the desirability of including the Forest
Service under this title. The Forest Service is already empowered to
carr out all the general authorities granted by title V. To include
the Forest Service under this section would serve no purposeS and
would only complicate those authorities under which the agency is
presently operating.
Section 501(b) (1) requires that the right-of-way applicant dis-
close any or all plans related to the use of the right-of-way, and also
requires the disclosure of various information relating to all of the
participants in the entity which applies for the right-of-way. Ad-
mimstrative flexibility should be permitted here regarding informa-
tion required prior to granting a permit. The rigid requirements of
this section would be extremely cumbersome for the hundreds of
forest road rights-of-way the BLM and Forest Service deal with
each year. Where there is intermingled Federal and private owner-
ship. it would require that forest landowners disclose all timber har-
vest and road construction plans on their own lands. This would be
extremely impracticaL since these plans must remain flexible to meet
changing conditions such as harvesting insect or fire-killed timber.
Onthe subject of time limits on right-of-way, no specific reference
is made to section 504(b), to perpetual rights-of-way, and it is im-
plied that all rights-of-way under this bill will have some time Em-
itation. The Federal Government customarily demands perietual
rights-of-way when the. public obtain seasements of a pr~vate land.
Placing a time limitation on rights-of-way a private landowner re-
PAGENO="0335"
331
ceives is just as unacceptable to him as it is to the Federal Govern-
ment. The very long-term nature of capital investment in forest
management for such things as tree planting and thinning requires
that the landowner gain permanent access to his land. It is very
important that the Federal Government be given the authority to
grant permittees.
On the subject of cost-share road program, we are pleased to see
that section 502(a) provides BLM with a cost-share road program
similar to that in effect on the national forests. Such a program will
foster and encourage the planning and development of a single road
system, jointly owned, operated, and maintained to serve the land
management objectives of both BLM and the private landowners
involved. This way, the costs of road construction and inainteuiance
are shared, and these costs, as well as the resulting environmental
impact, are much reduced over what they would have been had
separate road systems been built.
Some objections to the provision of a cost-share road program have
been voiced, on the ba~'is that such road systems would not serve
multiple-use objectives. This is definitely not the case. The location
and design of road systems under section 502 (a) must be mutually
agreed to by BLM and the cooperating parties. The language in this
section will be extremely valuable to insure that the road systems are
built which achieve both public objectives and those of adjacent,
non-Federal landowners.
I would now like to make a few comments on H.R. 5224, the Na-
tional Recourse Lands Management Act. Several of our concerns
with this bill are similar to those previously discussed with regard to
Subcommittee Print No~ 1. However, there are also significant dif-
ferences between the two bills which we feel must be addressed. Por-
tions of H.R. 5224 are similar to H.R. 5441, which was considered by
the subcommittee last year, and on which NFPA testified. The fol-
lowing comments will be directed to areas not previously brought out
in my testimony on Subcommittee Print No. 1, or our testimony on
H.R. 5441 on April 26, 1974.
Section 103(d) would subject permits, leases and licenses~ and
similar instruments, to modification due to changes in land classifica-
tion. As previously explained, the individual who holds a permit or
similar instrument, often involving a substantial investment, has a
right to expect that, the conditions under which ths permit was
granted will remain in effect until the established renewal date; or
~t the very least, that he will be adequately compensated for economic
loss resulting from any modificatiOn of the permit arising from a
unilateral revision of th exsting land classification by the Secretary.
We feel this entire subsection should be deleted.
On the subject of land exchanges, while giving cursory recognition
to land exchanges in section 207 and 213, title II does not give the
attention to the land exchange program which we believe is needed,
Land exchanges are treated only as a method of adding lands to the
public domain, but not as an appropriate method of developing more
efficient management of existing public ownership. BLM administra-
tors should be allowed the flexibility needed to exchange lands for
purposes advantageous to the public, such as couisolidatioii of owner-
ship and simplification of land management.
PAGENO="0336"
332
Section 209 requires that the Secretary attach covenants to any
patent or other document of conveyance issued under the bill. This
is undesirable, and if not deleted, this language would destroy the
effectiveness of any sales or land exchange programs the Secretary
may enter into under the bill. At one extreme, if he offers property
for sale or exchange with highly restrictive environmental covenants
and land use requirements, it will be difficult to find purchasers. It
will also serve to greatly reduce the value of lands conveyed by the
Government. On the other hand. if the Secretary offers land with few
or no covenants, such conveyances will be subject to endless lawsuits
claiming tha.t he has violated the direction given him by Congress.
The objective of this section is to insure that lands conveyed by
the Federal Government are subject to proper land use, and that
public interest are protected. Land use plans developed by States and
applicable air and water quality and other environmental standards
will normall insure that environmental protection objectives are
met, without unnecessarily encumbering lands conveyed by the Fed-
eral Government.
HR. 5224 has no provision for a cost-share. road program. as is
provided by section 502(a) of Subcommittee Print No. 1. As ex-
plamed in our previous testimony~ provision of suCh a cost-share road
authority would be highly desirable. A copy of Public Law 88-657,
which provides the basis for the cost-share road program on the
national forests. is appended to my statement.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. for this opportunity to comment on
subcommittee print No. 1 and H.R. 5224.
Mr. MELcI-IER. Thank you. Mr. MacCleery. Where do you reside,
here in ~
Mr. MACCLEERY. Yes.
[Pause.]
Mr. MELCI{ER. When you speak in your testimony about section
202, which would revoke, suspend, or prevent a lease for violation of
regulations regarding Federal air or water quality standards, is this
a pretty firm position of your organization? You know, it seems ob-
vious to me that if you write legislation-if you are going to be prac-
tical about it, you are going to certainly make the Federal agencies
adhere. to the water and air quality standards. I cannot see any
quarrel with that. Why would your group have you testify against
that?
Mr. MACCLEERT. Well, there is compliance with normal environ-
mental quality standards by Federal agencies. It is normal procedure~
as it is now. -
Mr. MELd-TEE. Well, it is an area that you have extreme problems
with, is it not, in meeting this; members of your federation, of your
association, are struggling and have extreme problems with those
standards. do they not?
Mr. HALL. If I may, Mr. Chairman, the concern primarily here-
Mr. MELcHER. No. I want an answer to the question. Are not mem-
bers of your association having extreme problems with some areas
in meeting those standards?
Mr. HALL. Not with respect to activities on the public hands. And
my point I would like to make here------
PAGENO="0337"
333
Mr. MELCHER. Let us just ans~ver the question. Let us not refer to
public lands. Are not some of the members of the association having
an extreme problem meeting the air and water quality standards
established by the Federal Government?
Mr. HALL. No, sir, we are not.
Mr. MELcIIER. I am glad to hear that.
Now, are the plants out in Missoula members of your association?
Mr. HALL. The members of our organization are the manufacturers
of solid wood products, and we represent the folks who grow, harvest,
and process timber into lumber, plywood, and other solid wood prod-
ucts. But on the solid wood side of the industry, there is not as yet
a great deal of problem meeting current applicable Federal-State
water quality/air quality regulations.
Mr. MELCIIER. You do not have any membership in Missoula?
Mr. HALL. Yes, sir, there. is membership in Missoula. The members
that we represent in Missoula are those who are the producers of
lumber, plywood, and other solid~ wood product.s. My understanding
is that the Missoula problems concern primarily the pulp and paper
segment of the industry.
Mr. MELCHER. Well, there. is a lot of-all right.
I hope that your members are not having a.ny problems. But if they
are not having any problems, then why would you want us to ignore
what is the Federal air and water quality standards, and not tie it
into this bill?
Mr. HALL. You should not ignOre the problem of tying into this
bill is that action by a company several thousand miles away, under
this reading here, could endanger, or involve revocation of an access
right to private property or to national resource lands, totally un-
related to the law which is allegedly being violated, or which a final
judgment of violation has been obtained in another jurisdictioii in
another area of the country.
Mr. MELd-lEn. Well, you would be able to go to court if you were
mistreated.
Mr. HALL. Certainly. What we would suggest. here is that the revo-
cation bear some-that is, the reason for revocation-bear some re-
l.ationship to t.he actual permit right-of-way lease, or other interest
that is conveyed by the Federal GOvernment.
Mr. HALL. It would be inappropriate to condition a right-of-way,
let us say, for a mile across BLM lands in Oregon to reach private
operating areas. Or we use the extreme example here. of a failure
from the emission control device on the delivery truck in New. York
City. That is an extreme example.
Mr. MELCHER. I think, Mr. Hall, it is not only extreme, I think it is
a little ridiculous.
Mr. I-TALL. I do, too. But the language here, when it says, any
violation of ai~y regulation-
Mr. MELCHER. Now, Mr. Hall, you and Mr. MacCleery are the only
witnesses we have today. But we do not happen to have enough time
for that sort of posturing.
Mr. HALL. No. The point being, if the violation were something re-
lated to the terms, the conditions, the uses for which the permit itself
is be.ing used, the objection could be far less. In fact, we would prob-
ably support that type of condition.
54-005-75----22
PAGENO="0338"
334
Mr. MELCI~ER. Well. I just think the reference-i-our entire ref-
erence is ill-advised in the overall impact of your statement. But I
will pass on to other things dealing with right-of-way land grants
issued by the Secretary of Agriculture and the Secretary of Interior.
Now. you would recommend that we just forget about Agriculture,
just forget about the Forest Service and rights-of-way, and you seem
to indicate that that hodgepodge of laws that they lean on to grab all
the varlous l)ieventions that they do, is adequate. Well, we found in
previous testimony that it is inadequate; previous examinations very
much need to be updated. In fact, the Forest Service, and the Forest
Products Association, both recommend that we do not touch rights-
of-way on national forests. It causes me to really wonder about the
complacency of the administration of our national forests, and the-
one of the heavy users of our national forests.
Now, this subcommittee and the full committee have always been
convinced that-or wedded to the idea-that multiple use on public
lands was certainly in the best interests of the country. But we are
not finding, frankly, a heavy criticism last year of this year. from
other users of the national forests. with including the right-of-way
section. We seem to have convinced them that that is not necessary.
Mr. HArr~. The other users are in an entirely different position
than the segment of the industry we speak for on this segment of the
bill. Here. we are representing the owners of intermingled and ad-
jacent lands. lands with similar characteristics and. for a large part.
similar management obpectives. And in this stage. we are lookin~
for a single-road system whch will serve the needs and objectives of
the national forest system and of the adjacent private landowners.
Mr. MELCHER. Well, of course, when we talk about rights-of-way,
ire are talking about electric power, we are talking about pipelines
of various kinds, we are talking about all sorts of things. If you had
a positive suggestion to make on rights-of-way, I think that this com-
mittee would be very receptive. I seem to recall that we took a posi-
tive recommendation from you in particular last year, Mr. Hall, and
incorporated it in the bill. However, now you are telling me that von
have more interest-that your people have more interest in rights-of-
ira than every other user but I think you are referring only to most,
are' you not? You are not just referring to powerlines, or telephone
lines, or pIpelines, are you?
Mr. HALL. We confine our recommendations to the road system that
ivill best serve these interests, and we do commend the subcommittee
for including in its print a language which will extend this tYpe of
operation to the Bureau of Land Management.
i'Jr. ~frLCHER. BLM, yes. Now, we included that section, and I
think you helped us very significantly last year in drawing that to
our attention. But when you come to the point of recommending that
von just delete the entire section dealing with rights-of-way-----
Mr. HALL. No, sir. We recommend that the Forest Service be de-
leted from that section, not that the BLM-
Mr. MErciim. That is what I am referring to. You recommend to
delate the entire section of rights-of-way, as it refers to Forest Serv-
ice, ignoring the fact that there are all sorts of other permits for
rights-of-way that are disclosed. Now, if you had some positive sug-
PAGENO="0339"
~35
gestions on how to improve rights-of-way on National Forest and
BLM lands by updating the rights-of-way dealing with roads and
access to private property-because that seems to be the main point-
I think you would do this committee a great dealt of good.
Mr. HALL. Perhaps I have been a bit too parochial or conventional
in the approach. We were focusing on the road statement, and we
will come back to the committee with some recommendations that
would-
Mr. MELd-JEll. I am sure our staff would also appreciate your brief-
ing, or justifying, the statement that Mr. MacCleery has made that
somehow, by this act on rights-of-way, we are going to nullify a
porticn of the 1964 Wilderness Act. I do not think we do that, hut
if you have a brief to convince our staff that we are doing that, and
that we aie changing what is granted in the Wilderness Act in hold-
ing to private property in this area, we would be most grateful to
you. You are still going to be able to get there and have access. You
are still going to have the opportunity to utilize their land as other
citizens are. We want to make that correction if-
Mr. HALL. We welcome the opportunity to work with the staff on
that.
Mr. MELOHER. Thank you very much. The gentleman from New
Mexico?
Mr. RUNNELS. I have no questions.
Mr. MELCETER. The gentleman from Oregon? I guess I am the only
one that wants to be recognized.
Mr. HALL. Thank you for your consideration.
Mr. MELCIIER. We appreciate your advice on this. We will be very
much indebted to you if you could help us on the rights-of-way as it
refers to roads, because that is all I think you are dealing with. But
we would rather have a more positive side. The Forest Service is
going to be in here on rights-of-way. I do not think it should be, but
we have covered a much broader scope than what you testified first.
And the point on wilderness-if you are correct, if Mr. MacCleery's
testimony is correct-our section is somehow nullifying the property
owner's rights to the wilderness area. We certainly would not know
that.
Does the staff have any questions?
Mr. SHAFER. I do not think so.
Mr. MELd-JEll. Thank you very much.
Now, this concludes our hearings this morning. I would like to
continue just briefly, for a few minutes, with staff. It is open to the
public. You are welcome to stay.
I would like just to discuss briefly where we are at with this bill.
We are going to have another 2 or 3 days of hearings. Friday of this
week, we have a whole long list of witnesses, most of which could not
testify today. Is that correct, Sharon?
Ms. COCKAYNE. Yes, sir.
Mr. MELCHER. I think we are g9ing to have 11 or 12 different en-
vironmental groups listed.
Ms. COCKAYNE. Yes.
Mr. MELCHER. Well, seven or eight of them are panels, but several
of them are separate. Is that correct?
PAGENO="0340"
336
Ms. CocKArxE. Yes.
Mr. MELCTTIER. \\ell. it w~li be impossible on Friday to conclude
that testimony in 2 hours, will it not?
Ms. COCKAYXE. I would say so, yes.
Mr. MELCHEP. There would be no way of doing it. So we will an-
ticipate. if possible. extending over into Friday afternoon, or re-
seheduljnp them fov i~Fonday or Tuesday of next week. Have we re-
quests other than that?
Ms. C0CKAYXE. No. This is all that I have. The people that called
in have been scheduled.
Mr. ~~iIELCHER. Weil. at the conclusion of this, are we calling back
either the Forest. Service or the BLM?
Mr. SHAFER. Not. to my knowledge.
Mr. SEXZEL. They did express the desire to make a specific sug-
gestion.
Mr. MELCHER. Yes, we understand that. Would it be staff's sug-
gestion that we try to start a markup next week, or-
Mr. SHAFER. Mr. Chairman, I think it would be better for our
purposes if we had at least a week in between to get these things
in order. I think it will be more productive for the members if we
have that time to revise and possibly prepare some papers ~.nd
some briefings, for you. Then when we met, it. would be more pro-
ductive.
Mr. MELd-lEn. Now. we have gone over-we noted Mr. Santini's
strong regard for modifying the proposals we have in law enforce-
ment for BLM. We have, I suspect by now, some definite proposals
for BLM on grazing fees, or have they not come up yet?
Mr. SENZEL. Yes. I have some material, not formal but informal.
Mr. MELCHER. And this is a formula that has twO factors, the
cost of doing business and the price of cattle. Is the cost of doing
business for many of us, including the gentleman from New Mexico
and the gentleman from Arizona., Mr. Steiger, who is not here, a-nd
others on the subcommittee-is the cost of doing business a figure
that the Department of Agriculture publishes monthly? This is
extremely important that we iron out, and have a firm and strong
section on grazing fees, or our constituency will have a lot of criti-
cism of us now.
Mr. SENZEL. I understand it is monthly.
Mr. MELCHER. And does it have any bearing on the 11 Western
States?
Mr. SEXZEL. The figures of the United States on the whole.
Mr. MELCHER. It is for the United States as a whole? Now, I do not
know that that causes us any problem.
Mr. RocK. I think they regionalize.
Mr. MELOHER. Well, that would be more helpful, because grazing
is pretty much in the 11 Western States.
I notice that my alma matter, Ohio State University, has pre-
pared a paper, and I am not sure who they prepared it for-maybe
the Senate Committee-on the livestock industry, 11 Western States;
and I am going to ask that that pa-per be provided. It may be of
some interest.
PAGENO="0341"
337
Mr. RocK. Are you talking about the report of the Appropriations
Committee?
Mr. MELCHER. No, it is a different report. Well, wait a minute;
was it for-
Mr. RocK. Senate Appropriations Committee. There is one on
the-
Mr. MELCHER. That is from Interior. This is from Ohio State
University. I will secure a copy of it. I think it was within the
last year. It may be of help to us.
Now, if we could-go ahead, Mr. Runnels.
Mr. RUNNELS. I was just going to say, if you include it, make
sure the staff gets a copy of it.
Mr. MELCHER. Go ahead.
Mr. WEAVER. I would like hearings as soon as the subcommittee
can hold them on the log export bill I have introduced.
Mr. SHAFER. I do not believe at this time that we have requested
reports. That would be the first thing to do. I have talked informally
to Agriculture and to Interior, and they have advised me on an in-
formal basis that they could probably get the reports out. But I do
not thmk they are going to get them up, unless we push them on it,
unless we set a hearing.
Mr. WEAVER. That is what I would like to know.
Mr. SHAFER. In other words, I think we are going to have to force
a report out of them by setting a hearing.
Mr. M/ EAVER. They have copies of the bill?
Mr. SHAFER. Yes. I have talked to them on that.
Mr.. WEAVER. And 1 would like\ to have it as soon as p~ossible. Next
w eek would be fine with me
Mr. SHAFER. I think that wouldbe pushing them quite abit.
Mr. WEAVER. All right.
Mr. MELCHER. It is not a bill that could be incorporated in this
hearing?
Mr. SI-IAFER. No, this is entirely separate.
It is a joint referral, I think, to this committee, and to In-
ternational Relations.
Mr. WEAVER. One of the cosponsors is on that Committee on Inter-
national Affairs, and they could conceivably hold a hearing rapidly
on that. Could they not dovetail? It is a concurrence, too.
Mr. SHAFER. Yes. It will be entirely up to the Chairman. WTe can
have separate hearings, or we can have joint hearings.
Mr. WEAVER. Well, that would be fine. But I understand that, as
it is a concurrent disposal among committees, International Relations
Committee, whose subcommittee would that be under?
Mr. SHAFER. I do not know. It isin public lands here.
Mr. WEAVER. Well, do you not think the bill is germane to this act?
Mr. SHAFER. Yes, I think it is germane in part. But I do not
think, because it goes far beyond BLM lands. or Forest Service
lands. in some aspects; I do not think it would be proper to incor-
Porate it into this bill.
Mr. WEAVER. In what way does it go far beyond? This bill includes
public lands.
Mr. MELCITER. WelL if it has anything to do with export controL
which is on imports and export, it is not even a subject that this
PAGENO="0342"
338
committee can properly assume. The problem will not be in the full
committee or the subcommitte, the problem will be in the other com-
mittee, unless you have some assurance that they are going to accept
the bill, and hold hearings on it, and have some interest in moving
on the bill. There is no point in us concerning ourselves, because we
will not have the judgment on it.
* Mr. WEAVER. Representative Bonker felt that he wanted hearings
in this comm?ttce first, and then he would put in an appearance.
Mr. MELCHER. Repr~sentative Bonker? Well, I would suggest that
you introduce it in that committee, and see how they accept it. The
management of public lands is clearly our responsibility.
Mr. WEAVER. This is essentially the public lands bill. What it does
is deal with timber on public lahds and how it sets certain require-
ments for the bidding on public lands.
Mr. MELCHEII. I think that the point the House is going to consider,
~f it is an export control bill. is export control provisions other than
the management of it. Because simply, management of it we will
incorporate in this bill. However, I think you had better be well
aware that Mr. Dellenback was extremely careful in removing the
Oregon lands from this bill. He did not want it in there.
Mr. SHAFER. That is not in there. The 0. & C. lands are generally
exempt from this bill.
Mr. MELCHER. Well, would not the export control features be ap-
plied to 0. & C.?
Mr. SHAFER. Yes, sir.
Mr. MELCHER. Well, therefore, it would not be anything we wanted
in this bill. Well, we cannot have it in this bill. The export control
feature is clearly going to be solved in the other committee. I would
suggest that you find out from that committee if they are really
interested in doing something. If they are, we will talk to them.
Mr. SHAFER. Well, the first thing to do. Mr. Chairman, is to get
the reports from the administration as quickly as we can, see what
their position is. I suspect that they may have a negative position
on it.
Mr. WEAVER. But we could do that best by setting the hearing date,
as you say.
Mr. SHAFER. That is one way. certainly, to get it.
Mr. WTEAVER. Mr. Chairman, there is now a main body of my bill
that is law-at least, a part of the appropriations bilL It expires
on the. 30th of June. and that is mv urgency. We have to have some-
thing to reulace that.
Mr. MELCHER. Now again, this committee-if what expires is what,
the export control?
Mr.~WEAVER. Yes.
Mr. MELCHER. We are not going to make that decision in prepara-
tion for submitting it to the House. That decision will be made by
the other committee. unless they are willing to do something about
it. Frankly. we have no power.
Mr. IVEAVER. This committee. has the same jurisdiction that Inter-
national Affairs has.
Mr. MELCHER. No.
Mr. SHAFER. It is a loint referral.
Mr. MELCHER. I understand that. But the reason we have some
jurisdiction over it is, I think it refers to management of public
PAGENO="0343"
3~3!9
lands. But we do not have any jurisdiction over the key issue, export
control, if I understand the bill.
Mr. WEAVER. It is a split jurisdiction. Both committees have to
act, and I am saying, let us have this committee act.
Mr. MELd-TEE. We have a lot of things to do. We cannot continue
involved. I do not want to dampen your spirit on the bill, but-
Mr. WEAVER. This is an urgent matter, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. MELCHER. I am sure that by June 30, if that is the deadline,
that is very urgent, because it is already April. But I do not think
that the decision on whether that feature can be resolved is in this
committee, in this subcommittee or in the full committee.
Mr. WEAVER. Mr. Chairman, it has got to be passed out by both
committees. So therefore, this committee must act.
Mr. MELOHER. I suspect that the key feature of it-that if we
1?assed out, or were able to hold. on the House floor, something that
was referred to management on, public lands-that that would not
serve any purpose at all. What the real purpose is, that we can
deadline on June 30, on the export-
Mr. WEAVER. What I am going to work for is to have the bill
passed out of this subcommittee, the Interior Committee, and passed
out of the International Affairs Committee also. It requires both.
Mr. MELCHER. I will be glad to accommodate you if there is any
rndication that that committee is, going to consider the bill and take
it up with the idea of reporting the bill to the full committee.
Mr. WEAVER. If I can get that commitment, may I anticipate hold-
ing hearings this month?
Mr. MELd-TEE. I do not know where we are at. -
Mr. WEAVER. Within the next 3 weeks?
Mr. MELCHER. I think I can assure you right now that there would
not be any possibility within the next 2 weeks. I do not know about
the third week. Where are we on the third week.?
Mr. WEAVER. Three weeks. Would that be possible to hold hearings
in3 weeks?
Mr. SHAFER. As far as the staff is concerned, if that is agreeable
with the chairman, we can shoot for something in that neighborhood.
Mr. WEAVER. That is what I would like very much.
Mr. MELOHER. Well, wait a minute. I am not-gentlemen, with
all due respect, I am not going to seem to say that there will be
hearings within 3 weeks, because I am going to move the BLM Land
Management Act as quickly as possible. I think it is best, amid clearly
understood~ that this subcommittee will, not delay beyond the time
frame for .June 30. Keeping in mind that the subcommittee has to
act prior to-in time for the full committee to have plenty of time
to. act and schedule, for the floor. That would not include any neces-
sity for a hearim~ in April, the entire month of April.
Mr. WEAVER. I am concerned about the other body, Mr. Chairman;
in getting the bill out in time, so `~, that the other body can get it.
Mr. MELCHER. What are they doing about it? Who is introduc-
ing it? .
Mr~ WEAVER. That is what I am discussing.
Mr. MELOHER. At any rate, if there is a possibility of action by
other committees in the other body, which we have no control over,
we will, not he a stumbling block here. But I would not want to
PAGENO="0344"
340
seem to be implying that if we get a letter from the other committee
in the House stating that we are going to have a meeting before the
end of April or the first week of May. Now. I do not want to imply
that at this time we. are already scheduled for the next couple of
weeks. and then the pr~or~ty will be given if we are in markup
on this bill. What I can assure you is if we get assurance from other
committees of the other body-really, something ought to be done.
We do have time before the June 30 deadline to do something in this
subcommittee. We will allow plenty of time before the June 30
deadline.
Mr. WTEAVEn. Part, of my problem is here. That is what I am trying
to resolve today. I thank you. I will accept your kind words.
Mr. MELCI-IER. lou are so kind.
I would like you to note that Mr. Landstrom is with us today. He
was unable to submit testimony prior to the Easter recess, so we will
hear his testimony at this time.
STATEMENT OF KARL S. LANBSTROM, ATTORNEY AT LAW,
ARLINGTON, VA.
Mr. LAXDSTROM. Thank von, Mr. Chairman. I am really here in
two roles this morning. One of those is simply as a citizen interested
in future public land management. In that respect I have just a
brief two-page list of provisions that I would merely suggest the
subcommittee consider.
I have not given the justifications for them, because I presented
most, if not all, of that last year. at the hearings held by. the sub-
committee.
The. other role that I appear in is as an attorney representing
the Sportsmans Paradise Homeowners Association out in Imperial
County~ Calif. That is my longer. 11-page statement. I would like
to snend a few minutes to highlight that statement, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. MELCHER. Without objection. Mr. Landstrom. your entire state-
ment will be put in the record at this time.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Landstrom follows:]
STATEMENT OF KARL S. LANDSTROM, ATTORNEY AT LAW, ARLINGTON, VA.
This statement is siib~nitted on behalf of the Sportsmans Paradise Home-
owners Association, which is a nonprofit organization of the private holders of
title to certain real properties situated within a subdivision known as "Har-
vey's Fishing Hole" in Imperial County. California.
Testimony concerning the title dispute involving the members of the Associa-
tion and the Fnited States Government was presented to this Subcommittee
previously on several occasions.
On January ii. 1974. during the Subcommittee's field hearing at Riverside.
California. on HR. 5441 of the 93d Congress, testimony seeking legislative re-
lief for the private title holders was presented to the Subcommittee by former
Congressman Victor V. Veysey and by Mr. Ralph W. Brookins of Whittier. Cal-
ifornia. who is Legislative Chairman of the Association. (Pages 518-532, Serial
No. 93-30, 1974).
Mr. Versey referred to Sec. 308 of the bill which was under the Suhcommit-
tee's consideration (HR. 5441). describing it as "an effective, and flexible, ad-
mninistrative channel for the adjudication of controversies such as the one
which currently involves the members of the Sportsmans Paradise Homeown-
~m's Association and othot~z on the Colorado River." However he urged the
Subcommittee to act favorably on his bill. HR. 11098. which would have re-
solved directly the title controversy referred to above.
PAGENO="0345"
341
Language ideiitical to Sec. 308 of I-Ill. 5441 is i~ow included in the Subcom-
nilttee's Prii~t No. 1 as Sec. 208, "Recordable Disclaimers of Interest in Land".
Mr. Brookins submitted a statement detailing the origins and nature of the
title controversy, accompanied by copies of documents and reports which were
ofiered for the Subcommittee's information. In his statement, Mr. Brookins
urged the Subcommittee to act favorably on H.R. 11098, the bill which had been
introduced jointly Congressman Veysey and by Congressman Charles 1-I. Wilson
of California; also to consider favorably Sec. 203 and Sec. 308 of HR. 5441,
the "BLM Organic Act". (As above, indicated, Sec. 308 was concerned with
recordable disclaimers. Sec. 203 dealt with sales of national resource lands
without competitive bidding where, among other things, recognition of equita-
ble considerations would be found to be desirable. Sec. 203 of HR. 5441 con-
tained provisions which are similar to certain provisions now included in Sec.
203 of Subcommittee Print No. 1.)
Mr. Chairman, I ask that the Subcommittee take due notice of these two
statements of January 11, 1974, and that their contents be considered as may
he appropriate as the Subcommittee now proceeds with its consideration of the
Public Land Policy bill.
I also ask that similar notice he given to my own statement which was pre-
sented to the Subcommittee during its Washington. D.C. hearing on HR. 5441
on April 5, 1974 (Pages 986-998, Serial No. 93-30, Part II, 1974). At that time
I summarized the factual situation involving the Associations' membership as
follows
"1. A cadastral survey made by the Bureal of Land Management in 1901
which included the lands in question presumed, without investigation, that the
lands w-ere public lands. No opportunity was provided for public participation
in the survey's determinations.
"2. The accretion by which the Govei~nment alleges that the lands were added
to uplands belonging to the United States has been admitted by the United
States as having occurred not later than the year 1942. So a period of at least
18 years had elapsed after the alleged cause of action bad arisen on the part
of the Government and before the date cited by the Government as the first
date on which any of the private title holders of record was notified of the
claim.
"3. The private title holders relate their title back to a homestead patent
issued by the United States in 1914, and to various conveyances of record oc-
curring since that date.
"4. Historical records available to the private title holders indicate that the*
lands in question were not eroded from the south (Arizona) bank of the River
and redeposited on the north (California) bank as hypothesized on behalf of
the Governement; rather that the lands are elevation lands which were by-
passed by the channel and bed of the River as it moved southward over the
period from about 1924 to about 1942 as claimed on behalf of time Government.
"5. In any event, under principles and provisions of Public Law 92-562 (Act
of October 25, 1972 to permit suits to adjudicate certain real property quiet
title actions), the Government's claim of title should not be allowed to prevail
because of the Government's delay of at least 18 years in acting upon its cause
of action."
My statement w-ent on to describe the Bec7~tel case in which the United
States Court of Clain~s, under a factual situation very similar to that of the
Assocjation's memhershjp, recommended, to time TJnited States Senate that any
claim of title held by the United States he quitclaimed to the private claimants.
(As the Subcommittee undoubtedly knows, action along lines recommended by
the Court of Claims was taken by the Congress late in 1974 in the form of
Public Law~ 93-578, 93d Congress, S. 3574, December 31. 1974. after having
been favorably renorted by the 1-louse Committee on Interior and Insular
Affairs in H. Rpt. No. 93-1595. However the benefits of Public Law 93-578 were
limited by its terms to certain described real properties situated in Yuma
County, Arizona.)
In my statement I urged the Subcommittee to consider H.R. 11098, the
~\TiIson\Teysey bill, at the appropriate time; and in connection with the "BLM
Organic Act', I recommended the enactment of Sec. 308 of HR. 5441 (which I
have already referred to) but only if i1~ should be amended so as to provide
adequate statutory standards for its administration.
PAGENO="0346"
342
Specifically, I recommended the following revisions in Sec. 308, which, in the
present Subcommittee Print No. 1, appears as Sec. 208:
`1. [At page 29, lines 10-11 of Subcommittee Print No. 1], strike out of issu-
ings the disclaimer as deternth~ed by the Secretary and insert as determined by
the Secretary of issuing the disclaimer after decision has been made that it
shall be issued.
2. [At page 29. line 16 of Subco~nmittee Print No. 1], insert a new subsection
as follows: (U) In invesiigating and acting upon matters arising under this
section, the Secretary shall give full consideration to and apply in each case
the doctrine of adverse possession and the defenses of equitable estoppel and
inches when raised on behalf of a party or parties thereto, utilizing for such
purpose the standards applicable thereto as established therefor within the
statutes or laws of the State or Territory within which the lands at issue
are located."
By way of justification for these recommended revisions in the bill, I offered
certain information which I shall repeat at this time:
`[The section concerned] would authorize the Secretary of the Interior to
issue a document of disclaimer of interest or interests". Such document could
then be recorded in the county real property records. The purpose of the docu-
meut would be to remove the cloud arising from a present or potential claim
arising from the Government. including, specifically, an instance in which there
are acereted. relicted or avulsed lands which the Secretary finds are not lands
of the United States. In return from such a document, the beneficiaries would
pay to the Secretary what the bill says are the costs of issuance. However I
think they ought not to pay more then the nominal conveyance costs, especially
where the cloud Tins resulted from allegations made by the Government's
agency which later turii out to be ill-founded or false. As a matter of fact,
there would be good reason to amend the Section to provide some kind of com-
pensation to he paid by the Government to the beneficiaries when they will have
been put to substantial hardship and expense in defending their title against
allegations by Government employees which, in the end, are shown to he
false.
"The final report of the Public Land Law Review Commission had this to say
about land title disputes involving the Government:
The doctrine of adverse possession should be made applicable against the
United States with respect to the public lands w-here the land has been occu-
pied in good faith. Citizens should be permitted to bring quiet title actions in
which the Government could be named as defendant. The defenses of equitable
estoppel and laches should be made available in a suit brought by the Gov-
eminent for the purpose of trying title to real property or for ejectment. . ."
"Mr. Chairman, Section 308 of H.R. 5441 offers an opportunity for justice to
be provided through administrative channels without the necessity of judicial
review except as a means of last resort.
"May I emphasize, however, that appropriate statutory standards must be
provided so that administration of the Section may be carried out in conform-
ance w-ith the policies of the Congress. Otherwise the Secretary or those work-
ing under his supervision might continue to exhibit the same kind of insensi-
tivity to principles of equity and justice as, in my judgement, has been exhibited
thus far in the Bechtel case as well as in the case of the members of the Sports-
man's Paradise Homeowners Associations...
Mr. Chairman, the Subcommittee k-now-s. of course, that H.R. 11098, the
Wilson-Veysey bill, was not reached for the Subcommittee's consideration last
year. However the Subcommittee, in lieu thereof, saw fit to insert in its "BLM
Organic Act" legislation a section which would have had similar effect by di-
recting the Court to apply all of the defenses against the Government which are
usually available as between private parties in land title disputes within the
States affected. That section. as well as the bill as a whole. was immediately
pending the Full Committee's consideration as of the close of the 93c1 Congress.
I regret that action was not completed last year, inasmuch as enactment of
the section referred to (hwich had been favorably reported by this Subcom-
mittee) would have allowed the pending litigation to have proceeded without
further doubt as to the legislative standards that were to be applied. Further
appearances before this Subcommittee this year. at last as respects the partic-
ular geographic areas which were specified ~fl the section. would not have become
necessary.
PAGENO="0347"
343
I would point out also, Mr. Chairman, that Sc. 308 of HR. 5441 (identical
to Sec. 208 of the present Print) was not amended by the Subcommittee along
lines that I had urged. The present Sec. 208 of the Committee Print No. 1 con-
tinues, in my judgment, to be deficient in that it provides no legislative stand-
atds to guide the Secretary.
Meanwhile, several new developments have occurred which merit the Sub-
committee's attention. One of these concerns the legislative reports which this
Committee requested of the Departments of Justice and the Interior on bills
regarding River lands that had been introduced by Congressman Wilson. The
Congressman was assured at the time that the requested reports from time two
departments would be submitted promptly. The fact was, however, that the re-
ports were not submitted until the mid-summer of 1974, over a year later. Dur-
ing the interim, the departments continued to press the Government's litigation
against time Association's members and the other defendants involved in the
case of United States v. Harvey et ci., which remains as pending in the United
Stales District Court for the Southern District of California.
Among the allegations offered to this Committee by the Department of the In-
terior in its 1974 letter was that the only issue to be decided in the litigation
referred to was "whether the changes in the river which caused the shifts of
land were accretive, i.e., gradual, or avulsive, i.e., sudden". The fact of the
matter, however, is that other very important issues are involved and have
been recognized by the Court, including the issues of adverse possession and of
inches or equitable estoppel, which are equitable defenses against the Govern-
ment.
The following extracts from an Order of the Court dated October 11, 1974, are
submitted for the Subcommittee's information:
"Defendants' motion foi~ summary judgment on the basis of estoppel. The de-
fendants assert this theory as a defense to the government's suit to eject and
as an affirmative ground in their counterclaim to quiet title."
The defendants argue that, regardless of whether the land was formed by
accretion or avulsion, the government is estopped to deny their ownership of
the land because they have occupied arid improved it in reliance on statements
by various government representatives in the Bureau of Land Management, the
Army Corp~ of Engineers, and the United States Attorney's Office
"Generally equitable estoppel is not available against the United States. Utah
Light and Power Co. v. United States, 243 U.S. 389 (1917). But in recent years
an exception has developed w-here (1) the government is acting in its proprie-
tary rather than sovereign capacity, and (2) if its representative has been
acting within the scope of its authority. United States v. Georgia-Pacific, 421
F.2d 92 (9th Cir. 1970) ; Brandt v. Hickel, 427 F.2d 53 (9th Cir. 1970) ; United
States v. Lazy PC Ranch, 481 F.2d 985 (9th Cir. 1973) ; Oil-Shale Corporation
v. Morton, 370 F.Supp. 108 (D.C. Cob. 1973). There is no showing that either of
these threshold requirements are fulfilled."
However the court finds that it is unnecessary to meet these threshold re-
quirements in this case because of the enactment of 28 U.S.C. 2409a (Real
Property Quiet Title Actions), which provides, in pertinent part:
"(a) The United States may be named as a party in a civil action under this
section to adjudicate a disputed title to real property in which the United States
claims an interest
`(f) Any civil action under this section shall be barred unless it is com-
menced within twelve years of the date upon which it accrued. Such action shall
be deemed to have accrued on time date the plaintiff or his predecessor in interest
knew or should have known of the claim of the United States .. ."
"(g) Nothing in this section shall be construed to permit suits against the
United States based on adverse possession.. ."
[T]he general rule that equitable estoppel does not apply against the United
States does not attain where the United States has consented to be sued in
quiet title actions by virtue of §2409a.
The government contends that the defendants cannot assert ~2409a because,
by expressly excluding adverse possession, Congress also excluded equitable
estoppeL Time legislative history on this point is inconclusive. However, the court
notes that the two theories, though similar, are distinct; time court concludes
that the express exclusion of adverse possession indicates an intent to include
all other theories of action, including equitable estoppel to the extent it is ad-
visable in any suit to quiet title. Bnpressio unius est exclvsio alterius.
Time defendants may properly assert estoppel in their answer and counter-
claim . .
PAGENO="0348"
344
So the conteiiition submitted to this Committee by the Depart~neiě~ of the In-
tenor that equitable relief is not at issue in the matter has been showii con-
clusively to be ill-founded. I~nportant1v. the Court has contrued the Congrennonal
intention in 28 F.S.C. 2409a as einbraclin~ the applicability of all of the defenses
ordinarily availab'e to private claimants, excepting only ` `adverse possession".
Mr. Chairman. under these circumstances I submit that it w-ould he only just
and proper, and would amount merely to an extension of an already established
Congressional policy having general applicability (28 U.S.C. 2409a). if this
Subcommittee were to insert in Sec. 208 of the Subcommittee Print the lan-
guage which I have recommended so as to provide specific legislative standards
under which the Secretary would be required to recognize the ordinary private
defenses against the Government's title claims, at least to the extent of nil such
defenses except for `adverse possession".
And, in view of the PLLRC recommendation No. 113, which includes "adverse
possession" along w-ith laches and estoppel. and Particularly in view of this Coin-
mittee's action of last December in the Bechtel (~iuma County) cases, I believe
it is incumbent on the Subcommittee also to include "adverse possession" among
the defenses that the Secretary shall consider, on their merits: and I have in-
cluded it in my suggested amendment.
Please note that enactment of such a legislative standard would not, of itself
decide the outcome of the title dispute. To qualify for the benefits of such
enactment, a showing w-ouid have to he made before the Department of the
Interior that the facts in the case justify the application of the claimed private
defense.
As I have said. I believe the Department of the Interior has misadviseti this
Committee in regard to these equitable considerations which are involved in
the Sportsmans Paradise cases. I believe there w-ere several other items of
misadvice, as well. If the Subcommittee should require information on the
other items, I shall be glad to supply it.
Another important recent development is the fact that legislation along lines
developed by this Committee last year has been offered as HR. 2071 w-hich is
pending in the Committee on the .Iudiciary. Reports on the bill have been re-
quested of the two departments by the Subcommittee on Administrative Law-.
Submission of the reports at the earliest possible time has been promised by the
two departments.
I note that Subcommittee Print No. 1 has omitted any Colorado River lands
section similar to the one which the Subcommittee did include in its recoin-
mended bill of last year. To be sure, the matter of the Yuma County lands Ens
been accommodated by virtue of enactment of S. 3~74 which became P.L. 93-~i7S.
It is understandable that the Committee elected to proceed w-ith the Yuma
County lands, and omit the Imperial County lands having like circumstances,
inasmuch as the Yuma County lands had been made the subject of the exhaustive
report by the Court of Claims. At the same time. action on the Ynma County
lands w-ithout some kind of legislative action on the Imperial County lands
(Snortsmans Paradise and others similarly situated) woud appear to be unfair.
The House Committee on the Judiciary may or may not act upon HR. 2071
in a timely manner so ac to assist in the disposition of the title dispute w-hich
is the subject of the Hqrce;~ case now- pending in the Court. From time present
apnearance of the Hcm've71 litigation, recognition by the Court of the defendants'
defenses of inches and estoppel seems to he assured, contin~ermf upon factual
determInations. How-ever it appears ot he beyond the authority of the Cou~'t to
countenance any defense of adverse P°ssession by reason of the specIfic exclu-
sion of that defense in 2$ U.S.C. 2409a. Enactment of HR. 2071, w-ithiin the
lin~ted geographie zones sPecified in the bill, would resolve any quc'~tinn mis
to the applicability of all of the usual defenses, including adverse possession.
This Subcommittee, in the "ELM Orranic Act". lmas an opportunity in two
ways *to move promptly toward a resolution that is lust and prr\per in the
Sportsmans Paradise cases: (1~ by amendiur Sec. 20$ of the Suhcominjttee
Print in the manner which I have recommended, so as to in&ucie "adverse pc~-
session" as well as the other equitable d~fens~s which are customarily nm-~ihmmhl~
to p~'ivate defendents in real properh- title diciputos: anti (2~ 1w rpipsertiu.cr in
time bill a new section similar to H.R. 2071. along lines the Subcommittee
adopted in 1q74.
Adoption of 110th of these pronosals nt one and the mnie time is comnnHh1j~,
inasmuch as the first deals w-ith the disposition of ndrnipisti'mmtivc acficvms be-
fore the Department of tile Interim': tile second deals w-itim time disposition of
PAGENO="0349"
345
civil actions. before a United States district court, but only in respect to a very
limited geographic distribution.
If the first proposal, but not the se,cond, should be enacted into lä~v, I believe
the defendants in the Harvey case who consider that they could qualify under
its provisiOns would apply to the Department of the Interior for administrative
consideration of their cases and would at the same time apply for continuance
of their cases before the Court pending the completion of such action. The
second proposal, of course, applies directly to the Harvey cases insofar as they
might qualify on a factual basis as the trial would proceed. So my judgment
is that enactment of either of the proposals would assist the membership of
the Sportsmans Paradise 1-lomeowners Association in obtaining a fair and just
consideration of their cases. Other private claimants who might be able to
qualify under either of the proposals, or under both of them, would also benefit
from such enactment.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and the Members of the Subcommittee, for your
attention to this difficult and pressing problem.
Mr. LANDSTROM. Mr. Chairman, I appeared last year before this
subcommittee. Also appearing before this subcommittee on this same
matter was former Congressman. Victor V. Veysey and Mr. Ralph
W. Brookins of Whittier, Calif., who is legislative chairman of the
Association.
At one time, during the markup of last year's bill on Organic
Legislation, Congressman Charles I-I. Wilson of California appeared
before you in respect to this matter.
I am sure that the Chairman and Mr. Runnels will remember some
of the details of this matter. Congressman Weaver, perhaps, is not
acquainted with it.
Mr. MELCHER. You are referring., to the so-called "Harvey's Fishing
Hole" in Imperial County, Calif.?
Mr. LANDSTROM. That is right?
Mr. MELCI-IER. Which was given consideration in a proposed bill
last year, but was-this bill was redrafteci and introduced in this
Congrcss~ as you well know. It is in Judiciary, not before this sub-
committee.
Mr. LANDSTROM. That is true, Mr. Chairman. You are referring,
now, to H.R. 2071, by Congressman Charles H. Wilson. However,
there is a section in the Organic legislation, and in subcommittee
print no. 1, which we believe can be of assistance in resolving this
problem administratively.
And I refer, there, to section 208,. which deals with the issuance of
disclaimers of interest in land, by the Secretary of Interior. On
pages 3 and 4 of my statement, I have a suggestion for the revision
of section 208, so as to provide eongressional standards for the
instruction of the Secretary, in carrying out that authority. I made
the. same recommendation a year ago. I do still, believe that the
committee, should give the Secretary standards by which he shall
carry out his responsibility. And those standards should follow the
recommendations of the Public Land Law Review Commission, No.
113.
The second way, of course, in which this present legislation could
be of assistance in solving the problem, would be to reinsert the
Colorado River Land section~ which the subcomnmittee reported on
favorably last year, which you just referred to, Mr. Chairman.
Either of these two ways would be of assistance to the membership
PAGENO="0350"
346
of the Association, and the other two are in like circumstances in
California., and on the Arizona side of the Colorado River.
Now, Mr. Chairman, since we appeared last year, there have been
several developments having a direct bearing on the merits of this
bill. One of those, of course, was the enactment by Congress and
signature of the President on December 31st last year, of legislation
that recognized the principles of laches and equitable estoppel and
the 1?rinciple of adverse possession in the case of lands on the Arizona
side, known as the Bechtel case. This committee reported favorably
on that legislation.
It is our view that the facts and circumstances are almost identical
on the California~ side of the river, and that the benefits of the legis-
lation of last year, should now be extended to the land on the Cali-
fornia side.
As I have indicated, that could be done by either of these two
methods in this present bill. Either by amending section 208, or by
reinserting the Colorado River Land section.
Another important development which the statement points out
is that the court in San Diego, a Federal Court, the Southern Dis-
trict of Columbia, has flow determined in an order dated October
11th, which I set out in part on pages 7 and 8, that section 2409a of
title 28 of the United States Code, provides that in title disputes for
the Government. the private claimants are already entitled to assert
their equitable defenses of laches and equitable estoppel and any other
defenses that they may have, or that would ordinarily be available
between private properties and real estate disputes, with the excep-
tion of adverse possessions.
So that in view of that order, we believe that the membership
of the Association already-it is an equitable estoppel and laches,
what it means is a question of adverse possession and, as you will
recall, ~`Ir. Chairman, the Public Land Law Review Commission
and recommendation No. 113, urged upon the Congress that they
also accord to private claimants against the Government, the right to
assert adverse protection. which is the same rights as would be avail-
able as between private parties in real title controversy.
The third development was the introduction by Congressman
Wilson, initiator of H.R. 2071, which as the Chairman has just in-
dicated was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and is now
pending before its Subcommittee on Administrative Law.
Despite that. fact, we believe that it would be appropriate for this
Committee to insert the language of H.R. 2071, within the confines
of the Present BLM Organic Act, or along the lines that this Sub-
committee elected to do last. veer.
This is. of course. as we know. a rather difficult and complicated
matter, and upPreclate this opportunity. again, to bring it before
this Subcommittee. And. if any further information is needed that
I can supply, I will be very happy to do so.
Mr. MELCTIER. Thank you very much, Karl. Without. objection,
the. .18 points that Mr. Landstrorn has brought to the attention of
the conimittee, referring to committee print No. 1, will he made part
of the. record at this point.
If there are no objections, it is so ordered.
PAGENO="0351"
347
[The prepared questions of Mr. Karl Landstrom follow:]
QUESTIONS OF KARL S~ LANDSTROM, ARLINGTON, VA.
Mr. Chairman, to conserve time I shall merely list some of the items in Com-
mittee Print No. 1 which I believe should be changed:
1. Limit the judicial review provision so as to except from judicial review
any matter which is committed by law to agency discretion, as is now provided
in the Administrative Procedure Act.
2. Redefine "public lands" as those lands eaciusively administered through
the Bureau of Land Management; and make sure that the "0 & C" and Coos
Bay Wagon Road lands in Oregon are excluded, if the latter is the intention
of the Committee.
3. Page 9, lines 23-24, revise to read: "and regulating the private uses of
Federal lands and the uses of non-Federal lands in the vicinity of the Federal
lands." (The States and the local governments have constitutional power to
regulate private uses of Federal lands under leases, claims, permits, etc.)
4. Omit the requirement, page 11, lines 1-4, that the Department of the In-
terior enforce anti-pollution laws or regulations which are already being en-
forced by other governmental agencies.
5. Delete the apparently unconstitutional provision by which either of the
two Houses of Congress could veto an action of the Secretary of the Interior
without concurrence of the other body.
6. Add in Sec. 203 concerning sales Of public land a fourth criterion allowing
sale, namely, when the land in questiOn is determnied to be surplus or excess
to any requirement for ownership on the part of the Federal government.
7. Delete any kind of preference to any class of persons in the sale of public
lands. Let the market decide who should be the purchasers.
8. Certainly, even if a preference to purchase public lands is to be accorded
to particular classes of persons, do not require the Department to complete
the transactions by any set period of time, such as 30 days. The reason for this
is that conflicting preference rights will likely arise among the preferred classes
of persons, requiring extensive time for adjudication thereof, with appeal rights
and rights of judicial review.
9. At page 18, lines 3-5, revise to read as though "future uses", not "convey-
ances, might be in conflict with State and local land use plans, programs, zon-
ing, and regulations.
10. Raise the proposed 5,000-acre limit under "withdrawals" to a much larger
figure; or substitute some kind of value criterion.
11. Any Congressional actions under the legislation (such as disapproval or
approval of a proposed withdrawal of public lands) should be by joint action
of both of the Houses of the Congress, not by the unilateral action or inaction
of one House alone. The latter would violate basic constitutional principles.
12. Most certainly eliminate the obviOusly unconstitutional provision which
would grant to the House or Senate Interior Committee the power, without rati-
fication by either House or by joint House and Senate action, to direct the
Secretary of the Interior to take certain actions (Sec. 204(h) (1)..
13. Delete the requirement that mining claimants must file a copy of their
relocation notices in BLM offices. Filing, in the local government record offices
should be adequate-the U.S.~ Government should be able and willing to go
there for such data as it requires. Any dual filing requirements-local records
and BLM records-would probably result in record title conflicts and conse-
quent litigation.
14. Continue, as in Print No. 1, to resist the Administration's proposal to
require holders of unpatented mining claims to file for mineral patents within
set periods of time. Such proposal, in my judgment, is unconstitutional.
15. Include in the bill a revision of the U.S. mining laws setting up a leasing
system in place of the present location and patenting system.
16. Include in the bill a revision of the U.S. mineral leasing laws to provide
for competitive bidding' wherever competitive interest is shown on the records-
as by the receipt of two or more noncompOtitive lease offers for "wildcat" lands.
17. Delete the requirement that the Director of BLM must receive Senate
confirmation to be appointed. The position of Director, as well as all subordinate
positions h~ the Bureau, shOuld be in the ~ompetitive civil service, with perma-
nent tenure after the usual initial probationary period. So-called "political"
clearance of executives in the Department of the Interior should be limited to
personnel in the top echelons of the Office of the Secretary.
PAGENO="0352"
348
18. Provide in the legislation for some kind of interim continuation of the
various public land laws that are to be repealed, pending the full implementa-
tion, by Departmental regulation or otherwise, of the new legislative provisions,
If something like this is not done, some aspects of public laud administration
would face the possibility of a complete standstill, inasmuch as lengthy delays
in implementing the new provisions will likely be encountered because of the
environmental impact statement requirements of NEPA.
Mr. Chairman, my reasons for advancing these suggestions have been stated
at earlier times. Thank you for considering my views.
Mr. MELCEIEII. When you redrafted your Harvey's Fishing Hole bill
so that it was referred to the House Judiciary Committee, were you
given some-did you have some feeling that the matter would be
resolved by that committee?
Mr. LAXDSTROM. No. sir. I tried to draft it so that it would be
referred to this Committee, although I would be the first to admit
that the subject matter more properly belongs in the Judiciary
Committee.
We followed almost precisely the wording that this subcommittee
developed. I think it. was probably Congressman Steiger's language
that was developed in this subcommittee last year. WTe followed that
almost precisely.
The result was it was referred by the House to the Judiciary in
May. but it was not my intention at all that that result occur.
Mr. MELCI-IER. Well, since it. has been referred to that committee
by the. Speaker. it would seem that since you agree that it is a proper
committee to corsicler the matter. it hardly seems appropriate that
we shoi~lcl be considering it in here.
Mr. LAxDsTiio~r. I think it would be appropriate, just as it was
last year, and if you recall. ~`1r. Chairman, Congressman Steiger
and Congressman T..Tdafl were instrumental in amending the BLM
Organic Act so that it is included.
I think it is germane. Mr. Chairman, to the subject matter of the
BLM Organic Act, and that could be raised in either of the com-
mittees.
Certainly. Mr. Chairman, the amendment we suggest to section
208 of the' tict. would be germane to the subject matter of this sec-
tion and this pending legislation, and I believe that if that went on
it would greatly help to resolve the questions. because then the
people under these circumstances could apply to the Department of
Interior fo ran administrative determination of the matter.
This wouJcl . shortcut the litigation before the court. The court
might be constrained to postpone its further consideration and trial
until the Secretary had had an opportunity to make an administra-
tive determination. And this would. I think, aid tl1e entire matter.
And the Secretary, as well as the court, would have the benefit of
congressional standards by which to proceed, which they do not now
have. And I may add. Mr. Chairman, that after section 208 is en-
acted. either with or without our amendment, it wouTd apply to
general law in any locality. in an public land area, and not just
in the case of the Colorado River land.
That would be beneficial. I think it would be helpful in imple-
mentm.g this recommendation of the Public Land Review Com-
mission.
PAGENO="0353"
349
Mr. MELCHER. In item 12, Karl, you say that section 204(b) (1)
is an unconstitutional procedure.
Mr. LANDSTROM. That is my own belief. I have accepted and re-
spected the advice that has been given by the Department of Jus-
tice, consistently, on this matter, to the executive branch. I think
you will find, Mr. Chairman-I am sure you are aware-that on
this point the executive branch has consistently opposed unilateral
action by any one House of Congress, without the concurrence of
the other in making law.
The same thing would apply to legislation that would attempt to
authorize a committee of either House to make law without action
of the Congress. I feel that this bill does trespass over that line
unduly.
Mr. MELOHER. Well, who gives that advice? The Justice Depart-
ment?
Mr. LANDSTROM. This has been the consistent position of the De-
partment of Justice over many years.
Mr. MELCHER. Well, the Justice Department has not had a very
consistent position in objecting to withdrawals on the basis of only
the executive determining the withdrawal.
Mr. LANDSTROM. Mr. Chairman, the executive has been operating
under statutory powers. Or, if not statutory powers, constitutional
powers, in making withdrawals.
Mr. MELOHER. Well, you seem tO draw some distinction on the
separation of powers, as outlined by the Constitution?
Mr. LANDSTROM. Of course what I am referring to-
Mr. MELCHER. Required by the Constitution, when it refers to
one or the other bodies of Congress, recommending the withdrawal,
by leaning, I guess, on the proposition that one or the other bodies
recommend the withdrawal, it would probably be a joint venture
by the two parties? Is that your point?
Mr. LANDSTROM. I think, Mr. Chairman, I do not have references
to recommendations. I have references to the making of law that
would be, for example, an action by one of the Houses, either to
veto an Executive act, or to create a withdrawal by approving an
Executive action, without the concurrence of the other House.
It seems to me that the Constitution requires that if Congress
acts~ it be a joint action of two Houses, as far as the making of law
is concerned, by affecting the citizen.
Mr. MELCHER. I do not think it would inhibit us from doing what
is practical in asserting practical consideration of withdrawal by
the Secretary. which has almost always been unilateral action by
the executive branch, quite often, to the confusion and consternation
of the legislative branch. Perhaps you can find someone in the
`egislative branch-
Mr. LANDSTROM. The executive branch is unitary, just as the
President acts or deleaates, whereas in the case of the Congress,
you have two Houses. That is the only point I make.
Mr. MELCHER. Well, I suspect for the next 20 or 30 years, we are
going to see a lot of such legislation enacted, and there wil be one
or the other body of Congress taking some definite position.
And, if that happens to be uncon~titutional, I suspect we will
find out. We addressed ourselves on the Alaskan Pipeline Act, to
54-005 0 - 75 - 23
PAGENO="0354"
350
a review by either body of Congress on oil or gas pipelines across
public lands. And that point was raised at that time, and I think
it will be in other acts, too. So if Congress can only act in cohe-
sion of both bodies, and if that is found to be the constitutional
experience, I expect that we will abide by it.
But, until that theory is handed down by the courts, I do not
think we will take it very seriously.
The gentleman from Oregon?
Mr. WEAVER. Mr. Landstrom, point No. 2, you say to "make sure
that the `0 & C' and Coos Bay Wagon Road lands in Oregon are
excluded * * *~~? Excluded from what?
Mr. LANDSTROM. You may recall, Congressman Weaver, that I
made the same point when I appeared-
Mr. WEAVER. Are you talking about exclusion from any participa-
tion in this act?
Mr. LANDSTROM. I would think that it is the intention of the com-
mittee. to exclude from the general pages of this act. They ought
to make sure that they are, and I do not think they are now.
The present definition of public lands, which applies generally
throughout the bill, is broad enough to include the 0. & C. lands and
the Coos Bay Wagon Road lands.
Mr. WEAVER. Page 72 of the subcommittee print No. 1, section
601 (b), have you read that section?
Mr. LANDSTROM. Section 601(b) says:
Notwithstanding any provision of this Act, in the event of conflict with or
inconsistency between this Act and the Act of August 28, 1937 (43 U.S.C. 1181a-
1181j), insofar as it relates to management of timber resources, and disposition
of revenues from lands and resources, the latter shall prevail.
That would seem to say that most of the 0. & C. Act, but not
everything-not everything. There are more than these items, I
think, that pertain to those lands than would be covered by the parts
of the bill.
Mr. WEAVER. Is it your point that you want to exclude 0. & C.
lands completely from any provision of this bill? Is that what you
are saying?
Mr. LANDSTROM. The fact of the matter is, I would like to seem
them totally included in all parts of the bill. I merely called the
committee's attention to the fact that-
Mr. WEAVER. Thank you, Mr. Landstrom. No more questions.
Mr. LANDSTROM. Yes, sir.
Mr. MELCHER. The gentleman from Colorado?
Mr. PJOHNSON. I have no questions.
Mr. MELCHER. Thank you, very much, Karl.
Mr. LANDSTROM. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. MELCHER. The committee will stand adjourned until tomor-
row morning. Tomorrow morning, again, we have to interrupt what
was previously scheduled, the continuation and consideration of
these bills. I have to interrupt that to hear from the Justice Depart-
ment on H.R.. 49 and from Mr. Moss, if he so chooses, to advise us
of the suggestions on H.R. 49.
The reason for going back to H.R. 49 is-well, we had invited the
administration to send up whoever they wanted to testify on H.R.
49. Nobody from the Justice Department came up. And, apparently,
PAGENO="0355"
351
hearing from Navy representing the Defense Department, and hear-
ing from the Interior Committee representing the administration
in general, we have to assume that their statements were cleared by
the Office of Management and Budget.
So, prior to their testimony before us, there was no reference by
either Navy or Interior to any, matters pertaining to Justice, or
investigation of California's situation regarding controlling the
market in practices of restraint of trade. And now we are reviewing
testimony submitted by Mr. Clearwaters, the Justice Department
representative for the Antitrust Division. At least he partially has
some concern on E[.R. 49 and their antitrust investigations.
Now Mr. Clearwaters, or anybody in Justice, who has some advice
to offer on H.R. 49, the appropriate place is this subcommittee and
we want our record to show this. So, at last we have justice, if they
would care to perhaps come up and we will ask them to be specific
in their testimony.
Justice testified before the Armed Services Committee. They
lacked very much the specificity and they also seemed to lack a
knowledge of what is in ELR. 49. So, if they have something to offer,
we will give them the opportunity tomorrow, and that is the reason
for that.
The subcommittee will be adjourned until 10 o'clock tomorrow
morning.
[Whereupon, at 11 :10 a.m., the subcommittee adjourned, to re-
convene at 10 a.m., Tuesday, April, 8, 1975.]
PAGENO="0356"
PAGENO="0357"
496
county in order to not upset the tax base. We accepted this program, and until
this year, have refrained from using our lands in the Primitive Area. We have
not derived income from them, even though we have continued to pay the county
taxes in anticipation of the Forest Service's acquiring them.
The Forest Service and Southern Pacific Land Company did `attempt to work
out various exchange proposals for the total Southern Pacific Land Company
property lying within the Primitive Area from 1950 to September 3, 1964 when
Congress passed the Wilderness, Act 88-577. This `act `allows Congress ten years
to reclassify certain primitive areas into Wilderness. We were `advised that the
act restricted the previous `authority the Forest Service had to conclude the total
primitive area exchange on which we had been working, and it now is only able
to conclude small exchanges.
Our program since being `advised of this in 1964 has been to encourage the
Forest Service to `acquire the Southern Pacific Land Company property lying
within the Primitive Area in units within the Forest's authority in exchange for
Forest Service land of an equal value. The Forest Service land we desire to ac-
quire should preferably be in t~he same county in nonsensitive areas suitable for
timber harvest or located in the path where urban type uses or other develop-
menLs should logically take place.
Our position is that unique pristine areas which should be preserved should
be owned by the Government as they are for the public's enjoyment. The com-
mercial and developable lands should be in private ownership as private industry
is more qualified and in its area of responsibility, supplying venture capital and
taking the risk of success.
The present Wilderness Area prOposal does not directly meet the problem or
solve it by placing the Forest `Service lands in a roadless category and expecting
the private land owners `to give up, their rights on the adjacent properties. The
Forest Service proposal brings out that access to private inholdings must be
~assured and the Forest `Service has no control over developments on private
lands.
The issue is: Does this land have the uniqueness to justify the wilderness or
primitive type classification for the public's benefit? If `so, the property in this
classification should be owned by the public because of the highly restrictive
uses that are made on the property. It is unreasonable to expect private land
owners to continue to pay the taxes and not receive an adequate return on the
value of their land.
The continual studies, moratoriums and hearings are unnecessarily delaying
posi'tive action, and I can not understand why progress has to be so slow. The
Forest Service proposal mentions that Sou'thern Pacific Land `Company officials
have indicated a willingness to dispose of their land's `to the United States by
exchange or purchase. We still have the same position, but it is necessary we
see action on this program. If `the Forest Service desires to acquire the Southern
Pacific Land Company property in the Primitive Area and will say which of its
lands `are available for exchange, we can conclude this matter very quickly.
As we have mentioned before, we have counted on this timber volume we have
withheld from using for our timber `program. We are being faced with very
high county taxes on the land we are not using, and we can not indefinitely
wait for an action program by the Forest Service. The time is rapidly approach-
ing when we must consider alternative uses of this property and the present
possibility of its remaining pristine hi public `ownership may be lost forever.
Very truly yours,
W. F. HEnBEnT.
0
PAGENO="0358"
495
not taking the initiative to rapidly acquire them while the properties are so
readily available
What should be done and where does this organization have a role'?
I feel the major problem is at the highest level of the various governmental
organizations. `What is needed is a clear program for the regions and districts to
follow. The Chief of the Forest Service should give his approval to the exchange
program originally and sufficient approval of funds so the Region will have better
assurance the exchange wifi be accepted if the properties to be exchanged and
acquired are of equal value
A disposal' criteria should be established, setting the proper priorities defining
the lands the government should acquire and those which can be released to pri-
vate owners. This criteria should work toward the direction of and be based on
government, ownership of the scenic and wilderness lands and private ownership
of the commercial lands.
Many of the exchange proposals are so clearly beneficial that it is unneces-
sarily time-consuming and costly to perpetually study them in such detail. This
nonproductive red tape should be eliminated, and the Chief should direct those
in the decision-making position to only call for the data necessary to make his
professional recommendation.
For example, the 3,000 acres of Southern Pacific Land Company property in
Blackwood Creek Canyon within the Lake Tahoe Basin has been studied many
times over the years by the Forest Service. Placer County has passed a resolution
calling for the Forest Service's acquiring the property by exchange; the Tahoe
Regional Planning Agency recommends Forest Service ownership of this prop-
erty; all the Forest Service studies recommend its acquiring this property; the
conservation groups support the Forest Service ownership; and our company is
willing to exchange the property to the Forest Service. The point is that every-
one is in favor of the exchange, yet it is not being made.
Much of the appraisal data, such as timber volumes, can be contracted to a
third party and the cost shared by the private owner and the government, which
has the benefit of speeding up the process and is half `as costly for each, instead
of the present situation calling for duplicate appraisals.
The total State of California has much to be gained t~irough an exchange pro-
gram between private landowners `and the government. This program is not mak-
ing meaningful progress. The Chamber should use its influence to encourage the
private and governmental persons involved to get on with it.
I suggest that the Chamber be the catalyst and pursue for the establishing of
realistic priorities and timetables by those involved to actively conclude exchanges
that are in the public's interest.
SOUTHERN PACIFIC LAND Co.,
San Francisco, Calif., December 9, 1972.
REGIONAL FORESTER,
U.S. Forest Service, 630 Sansorne Street,
San Francisco, Calif.
DEAR Sm: This is in refereilce to the Forest Service proposal for the Trinity
Alps Wilderness in which you have invited my views.
My remarks will be confined to the segment of the Forest Service proposal for
the Trinity Alps Wilderness that directly affects the Southern Pacific Land Com-
pany property lying within the study area.
Southern Pacific Land Company owns 53,644 acres in the most easterly por-
tion of the study area. This portion is not now included for wilderness and is
identified as Exclusion 2 in the Forest Service proposal. The intent stated by the
Forest Service is to keep its property roadless with a dispersed,. trail access
recreation area. The public, especially the private landowners within the area,
would be invited to assist in completing this Forest Service management direction.
Before presenting the Southern Pacific Land Company's position on this most
recent proposal, I think it worthwhile to briefly review what has taken place in
the past.
The Southern Pacific Land Company property in this Exclusion 2 area was in-
cluded in the original Salmon-Trinity Primitive Area established by the Chief of
the Forest Service April 18, 1932.
The exchange of property between the Forest Service and Southern Pacific
Land Company formally started in 1950 at a Planning Commission hearing held
in Weaverville. The subject was, "Protection of the Salmon-Trinity Primitive
Area", with the county favoring an exchange of equal value of land within the
PAGENO="0359"
494
We favor the Forest Service's acquiring property through exchange. There are
many locations where it would be to the mutual benefit of private owners and the
government to consohdate its holdings into logical management units or for
private firms to acquire government land lying in urban areas that logically is
suitable for development and other commercial use.
It is important to define the government s responsibility and the private sector a
responsibility The government should own the unique scenic lands that have a
special value and are to be preserved for the public's enjoyment. The private
sector should own the commercial and developable lands at it is in its proper role
and area of responsibility, supplying the venture capital and taking the risk of
success.
There are other benefits to the program, such as greatly needed winter and
summer vacation resorts, with adequate lodging, eating and recreation facilities,
which would be built on private land in the proper areas. This is In contrast to the
typical automobile.congested weekend oriented resort on government land here in
California. Unfortunately, adequate financing of buildings and utilities is difficult
on government property,, and other government restrictions prevent the flexibility
needed to assure a successful operation on its lands.
There is much timber land that is withheld from use that properly should be
logged on a continuous forest production basis. This timber is locked in areas
that obviously are suitable for logging while endless studies are made restricting
its use.
I have deemphasized the Forest Service's acquiring more land through pur-
chase as it should concentrate on the quality of its land management operation
and remain in its role of responsibility. I p.rsonally feel that a better contribu-
tion to society can be made through private ownership of property whenever
possible. There are thousands of acres of government land in locations where it
should not have ownership and which should be used for exchange. Exchange
has the benefit of not upsetting the county's tax base as an equal value of prop-
erty can be exchanged within the county with the private owner's continuing
to pay the same taxes.
Even though after many years of effort, we recently concluded a 1,600-acre ex-
change with the Forest Service, and conditions are improving with other ex-
changes in various stages of progress, the program, for all practical purposes,
is moving too slow to be of any real significance. At the present rate, it will be
100 years before we complete our program with the Forest Service, and this
doesn't include other private land which should also be exchanged.
Now, if this program to exchange private-government lands is so logical, and
there are benefits to each party, why isn't the program moving faster and being
more actively pursued?
We have been given reasons, such as: there are not enough funds available for
appraisals; the conservation groups may object to the Forest Service's giving up
any of its land; the off-road vehicle groups may object to the Forest Service's
giving up any of. its land; the timber industry may object; others may object;
the Forest Service may he accused of favoritism; the Chief at Washington has
not set the policy; even though the past supervisor recommended an exchange
after taking three years to study, he was,promoted to another location and the
new man needs to make another study ; small area exchanges can't progress as
the total picture has to be studied first ;. however, it has not been determined if
the total picture is by drainage area, by, county, by district, by region, by state,
etc.; the Forest Service requires plans nnd reports for its approval on uses the
private party intends to make of the Forest Service property to be exchanged;
the Forest Service doesn't want to exchange away commercial timber land, release
recreation land, release developable land, and so on; there has to be a trade off,
and it has not been determined what will `the government allow the private party
to acquire in exchange for the wilderness and scenic lands; the local District
Forest appears to be waiting for direction from the Region; the Region appears~
to be waiting for a policy decision from the Forest Chief at Washington, D.C
and the Chief appears to. be waiting for `recommendations back from the local
District. `
These are just a few of the reasons why the exchange program is moving so
slowly. I believe `the benefits to all are so important,. `and too much can be lost by
further delays, so th'at we should not accept this status quo-custodial situation.
Its unexplainable .why the governmental agencies `are not responding actively
to the public's desire to protect the truly unique properties `and why they are
PAGENO="0360"
493
Tha national: energy shortage may require, in the overall national interest,
the development of such lands for the production of oil, gas and other minerals
even though groups with loëal orientations may oppose such developments of rč-
fining and electric generating sites.
Accordingly, the Institute urges that Section.203(h) be amended to read as
follows:
"(h) The Secretary shall not make conveyances of public lands which would
be in conflict with State and local land use plans, programs, zoning, and regu-
lations unless such sales arc required by the overall national interest."
This amendment would provide a mechanism to. insure that the national
Interest is protected in all conveyances of Federal lands.
PRESENTATION TO THE STATEWIDE NATURAL RESOURCES COMMITTEE, CALIFORNIA
CHAMBER OF COMMERCE, SACRAMENTO, CALw., nx W. F. HERBERT, MANAGER
NATURAL REsoURCEs, SOUTHERN PAcIFIC LAND Co.
I want to tell you about the magnitude of the problems of "Private-Public
Land Exchanges"; explain why it is of concern to California Business and the
general public; give some reasons why the program is moving so slowly; and say
what should be done and where you in the Chamber can be an important link in
the program.
The magnitude of the exchange problem can be better visualized with a few
facts. The acres and money mentioned will only be Southern Pacific Land Com-
pany properties, but other landowners face the same type situation. Because the
agenda today is generally concerned with Forest lands, I will concentrate on ex-
changes with the United States Forest Service in northern California; however,
the same problem exists on hundreds of thousands of acres with the Bureau of
Land Management in southern California and with other governmental agencies
throughout the state.
In northern California, Southern Pacific Land Company has 213,000 acres of
its property withheld from use currently in wilderness, primitive, scenic, special
study and roadless designations. Studies are being made by the Forest Service,
and some have been in progress over twenty years. Our company long ago deter-
mined which of its land is most suitable for continuous timber production,
recreational use, to remain unused and pristine, commercially developable or
better suited for others to own. Some of the exchange property should be consoli-
dated for better management. Much of it is more suitable for government owner-
ship and is truly unique, located in areas that should remain pristine. We have had
numerous meetings and correspondence with local and regional Forest Service
personnel, and they have indicated the desire for its acquisition. This property
is costing us a great deal of money while the studies are being made, and this year
the property taxes alone cost us over $~06,000 on the 213,000 acres of exchange
property. This does not include our overhead expense or the return that should be
coming in from the value of the property.
For example, Southern Pacific Land Company property is located in the
following areas where we have refrained from putting the land to its highest
income-producing potential in anticipation of the Forest Service is going to
acquire it: Approximately 3,800 acres are located within the Lake Tahoe basin;
10,100 acres are within the Granite Chief special study and roadless area; 53,000
acres are within the Salmon-Trinity Alps primitive area; 7,000 acres are within
the Shasta Lake recreation area; 8,900 acres are within the Clair Engle Lake
recreation area; 11,500 acres are within the Grouse Ridge Lakes basin area;
and so on. These are the move obvious exchange potentials, and do not include the
thousands of acres where ownership should be adjusted to facilitate survey
management and other problems.
Why is this of concern to California Business and the general public?
This unique property is available now for the government's acquisition to be
kept pristine for the public's enjoyment, but this opportunity may soon be lost
forever. Private owners cannot continue to bold property in a nonproductive con-
dition aond continue to pay the heavily increasing tax burden while waiting for
the Forest Service to complete its studies and decide on exchanges. The property
is going to be sold to others with differing land management policies or put to
another use that produces income.
Imagine the adverse impact on the present open space and environment if you
have many hundreds of property owners of the timber and scenic lands instead of
a few.
PAGENO="0361"
49~
The American Petroleum Institute believes that the unnumbered subcommittee
print of March 18, 1975, the "Public Land Policy and Management Act," makes
some positive contributions toward these ends. However, certain sections of
the bill require further amendment if the legislation is to be truly responsive
to the energy needs of the American people.
Those sections of the bill which deserve wide-spread support are the Declara-
tion of Policy and those sections which provide for an inventory of public land
resources, public land management on the basis of multiple use, better control
over executive withdrawals of land from multiple usage, and implementation
of the Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970 as it pertains to the pubic ands.
Spokesmen for the petroleum industry have urged for many years that public
lands be administered according to the principle of multiple use. Section 202
of this bill, in requiring public land use plans and public land management
to observe the principles of multiple use and sustained yield and providing
Congressional control over exclusions of one or more uses, is in line with these
recommendations. Furthermore, the definition of multiple use in Section 303 (c)
specifically recognizes minerals as an important resource to be considered in
managing the public lands to "meet the present and future needs of the
American people."
Section 204 provides the Congressional control over executive withdrawals
of lands from multiple use that was recommended by the Public Land Law
Review Commission and endorsed by the American Petroleum Institute, the
Mid-Continent Oil and Gas Association, the Rocky Mountain Oil and Gas As-
sociation, the Western Oil and Gas Association, and other industry organiza-
tions. We would recommend, however, that this section be amended to require
assessment of current and prospective natural resource uses for a~l lands with-
drawn from multiple use. (As presently written, Section 204(b) (2) (B) re-
quires an "inventory and evaluation of the current natural resource uses" only
in the case of emergency withdrawals.) Furthermore, Section 311 should be
amended to require the Secretary to list all lands withdrawn during the year
in his annual report to Congress, explicitly setting out all mineral reserves,
including energy resources, which have been withdrawn. These amendments
would help assure that withdrawals are made on the basis of an intelligent
evaluation of all the information that can be obtained with respect to the
land and values involved.
Other amendments which the Institute feels are necessary to accomplish the
purposes intended by this legislation include the following~:
1. Sections 102(a) (11) and 202(f) (2), authorize revocation or suspension of
permits, licenses and `leases upon final administrative finding of a violation
of regulations issued by the Secretary or of applicable State or Federal air
or water quality standard or implementation plans. This might be an appro-
priate penalty in cases of frequent and deliberate violation of laws and regula-
tions. However, in view of the penalties provided for violations of State and
Federal air and water quality regulations, for example, such a harsh penalty
as these sections would provide for even a single unintentional incident would
serve as' a substantial disincentive to develop the resources of the properties
under lease. Considering our current energy supply problems, this is not an
appropriate time to inhibit e~iergy industry investment.
2. The Institute recommends that a new item be included in Section 202(b),
regarding the development of land use plans which would call upon the
Secretary to: "consider the nation's requirements for a continuous and reliable
supply of energy resources for national security and economic well-being."
This addition would reinforce Congress's concern for the nation's security,
including its economic well-being.
3. Section 203(b) prohibits the Secretary from making conveyance of public
land "which would be in conflict with State and Local land use plans, pro-
grams, zoning and regulations." It further requires the Secretary to notify the
Governor and heads of political subdivisions within which the land is located
sixty days prior to offering the land for sale or other conveyance in order
to afford them an opportunity for the adoption of zoning or other regulations
concerning the `use of such land prior to its sale.
Although we believe the Secretary should be required to give careful con-
sideratioi~ to the consistency of the use contemplated by a proposed disposition
of Federal lands with State and local land use plans, we do not feel it is
desirable to provide for what is tantamount to a veto power by local government
units over the future use Of such lands.
PAGENO="0362"
491
What is being sought here, apparently, is to do no more surveying than in-
dicated by the circumstances.
Sec. 505 directs the Secretary, in connection with the grant of a specific
right-of-way, to condition it in accordance with applicable air and water
quality standards and to prevent damage to the environment, property and
public health and safety. Any such requirement would be applicable to every
right-of-way granted irrespective Of when it was granted. Because of unknown
and possible future changes in requirements, this could mean substantially in-
creased costs to the grantee. So, the only way to assure equitable treatment
would be to recognize and provide for a compensable interest.
In this cOnnection we would also raise the question as to whether the Na-
tional Environmental Policy Act doesn't take' care of the substance of Sec.
505 because, if any activities are considered "significant," they should be
studied, but, if not, then the activity should be allowed to proceed expenditiously.
This concludes the suggestions that we have to make, Mr. Chairman, and
we would appreciate it greatly if you would make this letter a part of your
Hearing Record on the subject. Thanking you for your consideration, I am,
Very truly yours,
W. D. HAGENSTEIN,
Executive Vice President.
MONTANA ASSOCIATION or STATE GRAZING DIsTRICTS,
Malta, Mont., May 8, 1975.
Hon. JOHN `MELCHER,
Representative of Montana, U.S. House of Representatives,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR SIR: Being public land users we are very much interested in anything
effecting the future of these public lands. We would like to offer some of our
thoughts concerning S-507.
1. We think the district advisory' boards should be retained with all user
segments providing their `own. representatives, and with all the multiple uses
in each individual district being equitably and fairly represented.
2. With the increased use of public land for hunting and fishing it may become.
necessary in the future to regulate this segment the same as any other multiple
use.
3. Concerning sales or trades of national resource lands, we think all parties
involved be allowed their own appraisers and compromise arrived at from these
appraisals. Because of the difference in what, constitutes a family sized farm,
we think this term should not be used in size of tract criteria.
4. We think the use of eminent domain to secure access to public lands
should be used only when every other method has been tried.
5. For purposes of enforcing laws or regulatings pertaining to national
resource lands, we feel that there are numerous law enforcement agencies, with
personnel trained for no other purpose, that should be used for this.
6. Fees for grazing on national resource lands should be regulated by the
price of livestock and the monies from these. fees be retained and used for
range improvements on national resource lands in the district where collected.
Sincerely yOurs,
* ` HENRY NE5BIT.'
President.
`~T ~TEM1T\ T OF TUE AMEPICA~ PETROLEUM I~N STITUTE
* Improved management of our public lands and their resources is necessary
to help alleviate this nation's energy supply problems. Land is the principal
source of energy and many of our remaining energy resources lie beneath the
public lands. It must be recognized that it is in the best interests of the Ameri-
can consumer that access be permitted to these' important reserves, both now and
in the futurq. To accomplish this end, the government should continue to
prOvide the legal stability, which industry requires in order to make prudent
investment decisions, and the administrative procedures that will permit oil,
gas and other mineral exploration and `development activities to be carried
on along with other uses' of the land and its resources under the sound and
long-standing principle of multiple use.
PAGENO="0363"
490
We would like to address ourselves to a few items other than Title V and pro-
pose some suggestions for language modification and then confine the rest of
our Statement to Title V
We wonder about the term areas of critical environmental concern in
Sec 103(a) lines 14 and 15 page 6 We believe that if forest and related lands
were left unprotected and unmanaged because of designation by the Secretary
as areas of critical environmental concern just setting them aside by designa
tion in our opinion is not enough They should be protected and managed
To make certain that the rest of the Bill relates to it as appropriate we
suggest insertion in Sec 202(f) (1) `ifter the word leases on line 16 page 12
the phrase grants of easements
In Sec 202(f) (2) we suggest insertion of the phrase grants of easements
following the word lease on line 10 page 13
The foregoing recommendations for insertion of the phrase grants of ease
ments will be consistent with the definition in Sec 103 (f) which sets forth
e'isement as the firsf definition of right of way (line 12 page 8)
With reference to Title V, we wonder why it includes the national forests
when the Secretary of Agriculture is already authorized, under Public Law
88-657 (16 TJ.S.O. 533 and 534) to. exchange easements and to enter into share-
cost road agreements with intermingled non-Federal landowners.
We also believe that it would be appropriate in Title V to add a new Section,
probably between present Sees. 501 and 502, which would authorize and direct
the Secretary of the Interior to enter into agreements which would grant ease-
ments for forest protection and management of intermingled, or adjacent non-
Federal lands. We would suggest~ language similar to that contained in Public
Law 88-657 referred to above, which reads as follows:
"The Secretary (of Agriculture) is authorized, under such regulations as he
may prescribe, subject to the provisions of this Act, to grant permanent or
temporary easements for specified periods or otherwise for road rights-of-way
(1) over national forest lands and other lands administered by the Forest
Service and (2) over any other related lands with respect to which the De
partment of Agriculture has iights under the terms of the grant to it
"An easement granted under this Act may be terminated by consent of tile
owner of the eisement by condemnation or after a five year period of nonuse
the Secretary may, if he finds the owner `has abandoned the easement, make
a determination to cancel it. Before the Secretary may cancel an easement for
nonuse the owner of such easement must be notified of the determination to
cincel and be given upon his request made within sixty days after receipt of
the notice a hearing in accordance ii ith such rules and regulations as may be
issued by the Secretary
Substitute Interior for A~ricu1tnre BLM for Forest Service and
"national resource" for "national forest" for applicability to the Department of
the Interior
Thus the authority for the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of
Agriculture with respect to exchanges of rights of way and road use would be
consistent even though in separate legislation for eich Department
We don t understand the reason for including the burdensome disclosure pro
visions contained in Sec 501(b), (1) and (2). It `doesn't seem to us that such
should he applicable to right-of-way granted over national resource lands for
forest protection and management of intermingled or adjacent non-Federal
lands.
We were delighted to see the provision in Sec. 502 of an authorization for
the Secretary of the Interior to enter into cost-share road agreements with
intermingled non-Federal landowners. This will facilitate the exchange of
rights-of-way and road use in the intermingled forest land ownership pattern
`here in the West. The necessity of cooperation between the Government and
intermingled owners is obvious when it is reahred that without it there could
be thousands of miles of duplicating' roads, difficulties in' obtaining access on
both the part of the Government and intermingled owners and undtie complica-
tion in the pi otection and manigement of the total land irea on which our
economy heavily depends; Precluding unnecessary duplicating roads also o~ers
the bonuses of less environmental impact and improved access at less cost to
everyone
T~ ~1ee ~O4(a) the word practicable in line 23 and 24 page &~ needs clear
definition We would suggest that following the word as in line 2'~ the sentence
he concluded by adding "may he indicated by the proportionate values involved.?'
PAGENO="0364"
489
across national resource lands by the Secretary for fair market value (Sec-
tion 504(f)). While we can understand the logic of that position, it is important
that the Secretary have sufficient flexibility to grant railroads equivalent
rights to those they have today in connection with changes in alignment of
existing railroads. Line changes most frequently occur either to improve
the efficiency of railroad operations or to accommodate - a third party such as
in construction of highways. Line changes of this nature, in effect, amount to
an exchange of property whereby some existing right-of-way is relinquished
and the railroad facilities are relocated upon the new right-of-way. This is a
recurring situation which should be encouraged rather than obstructed by
the provisions of any new legislation. To permit this type of exchange, we sug-
gest that the following language be added to Section 509 on page 69 of the
Subcommittee Print No. 1:
Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in this title, the Secretary is
authorized to grant a right-of-way, without charge, for a railroad and appur-
tenant communication facilities through and upon national resource lands for
the purpose of a change of alignment of an existing railroad. The interest in,
the width of,. and the conditions affecting the right-of-way shall be the same
as in the case of the original grant by Congress of the right-of-way for the
portion of the railroad to be realigned; provided , the portion of the right-of-way
occupying national resource lands no longer required for maintenance and
operation of the railroad shall be relinquished to the United States; provided
further,. .a map shall* be filed with and for approval by the Secretary by the
railroad proposing to make the change of alignment, showing thereon the
location and width of the right-of-way through national resource lands required
for the change of alignment .and the portion of the existing right-of-way occupy-
ing national resource land to be . relinquished in connection with the change of
alignment.
We would be pleased to discuss the suggested amendment with you or your
staff at any time, and we request this letter be made a part of the record
of the hearings in this matter.
Sincerely,
WILLIAM R. DENTON,
Vice President.
INDUSTRIAL FORESTRY AssocIATION,
Portia-nd, Oreg., April 16, 1975.
Hon. JOHN MELCHER,
Chairman, Subcommittee on Public Lands, House Committee on Interior and
Insular Affairs, Ho'use Office Building, Washington, D.C.
DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: Inasmuch as we were unable to be present and appear
before your Subcommittee last week when you were holding Hearings on Sub-
committee Print No. 1, entitled "Public Land Policy and Management Act,"
dated March 18, 1975, we would like to make a. few comments thereon by these
means.
You may remember that I appeared before you at Medford, Oregon on H.R.
5441 on March 29, 1974 and made a number of suggestions for the modification
of the then pending Bill.
To establish our .interest in the subject of Subcommittee Print No. 1 and the
land administered by the Bureau of Land Management, please let me tell you
that Industry Forestry Association consists of 116 companies and individuals
in the business of - growing and harvesting timber and manufacturing lumber,
pulp and paper, plywood.and veneer, shingles and shakes, hard and soft boards,
poles and piling, doors, furniture and other forest products. Our members
operate more than 400 wood processing plants and conduct more than 200 dif-
ferent logging operations in our Region. They employ 90,000 people. The annual
payroll of their employees is nearly $1 billion. Our Membership owns more than
two million acres of forestlands intermingled with the 0 & C and Coos Bay
Wagon Road Grant Lands in Western Oregon and purchases varying amounts,
between 25 and 40 per cent, of the total timber offered for public sale from
these lands .every year. . . . .
Generally, the proposal for a "BLM Organic Act," which is intended by
Subcommittee Print No. 1, meets wide public acceptance because it is obviously
an attempt to consolidate, in one basic statute, various authorities and re-
sponsibilities of the Secretary of the Interior .which are now widely separated in
the United States Code.
PAGENO="0365"
488
Grazing Districts, etc. If the primary purpose for an area of public lands was
determined to be grazing, the other interests would become secondary. The
most effort in this case should be directed toward the enhancement of the
grazing capability, and as a result, wildlife and other values would also increase.
I am strongly in favor of advisory boards to the Federal agency adminis-
trating the public lands. In the forgoing example, the advisory board for this
area should be chosen by local peOple for this reason: Range conditions vary
from ranch to ranch, area to area, and from region to region. When a set of
policies are set up at a regional level, many times they do not fit an area or local
level.
There has to be flexibility involved. With input from a local level, these
policies can be molded to fit the area.
Members of this area's advisory board should be picked from local organiza-
tions and agencies such as the Soil Conservation Service, State Grazing Dis-
tricts, Local County Agents, range technicians, local ranchers, etc. and should
be chosen by the members of the organizations themselves.
These advisory boards should have real purpose in policy shaping for the
area involved. They should be proportionally chosen with respect to their
ability regarding the primary purpose of the public lands involved. I also
think that in the case of a public land area where the primary purpose is
grazing, a certain per cent of the grazing fee should be set aside for rangeland
development and made available to the permit holder.
There should also be some way to promote rangeland development on public
lands within an operators unit in conjunction with A.S.C. cost sharing pro-
grams, whereby technical assistance could be obtained from the local Soil
Conservation Service and other local agencies.
To summarize:
(1) Ranchers as a whole are maintaining the Federal lands within their
units and in many cases are improving their condition.
(2) The need is to increase the grazing capacity of Federally owned lands
not to decrease it or stop it completely.
(3) Advisory boards should be retained in much the same capacity as they
were under the Taylor Grazing Act, but should be given real purpose as to
shaping Federal lands policy.
(4) The members of the area advisory boards should be chosen from local
organizations and agencies and in proportion to the primary use established
for the public lands in the area. They should be chosen by the members of
these organizations themselves.
(5) A certain per cent of the grazing fees should be returned to the permit
holder for use in rangeland development on the public lands he uses.
(6) Rangeland development should be promoted on public lands within an
operators Unit in conjunction with. A.S.C. cost sharing payments whereby
technical assistance can be obtained from the local Soil Conservation Service
and other local agencies.
(7) If grazing is decreased or stopped altogether on public lands, the
result would be chaos to many ranchers involved and the public lands would
become a burden on the American taxpayer.
I think what I'm trying to say is that the Federally owned lands should be
administrated much like they are under the Taylor Grazing Act, but with an
all out program to enhance the primary uses established from local input in
the areas involved. I think that if this approach is used, the revenue from these
lands, as well as other benefits to the American public, would be greatly
increased.
Sincerely,
RUSSELL S. UNRUH,
President.
SOUTHERN PACIFIC TRANSPORTATION Co
Washington, D.C., April 7, 1975.
HOfl. JOHN MELCHER,
Chairman, ~S'ubcommittee on Public Lands (Interior and Insular Affairs), U.s.
House of Representatives, WashIngton, D. C.
DEAR Mn. MELCHER: Title V (Rights-of-Way) of Public Land Policy and
Management Act, Print No. 1, March 18, 1975, is of some concern to Southern
Pacific Transportation Company in that it calls for rights-of-way to be granted
PAGENO="0366"
487
Some of their proposals and accusations make about as much sense to me as
sitting down under. a bull with a milk pail.
For instance the l~atural Resouice Defense Council has accused the Amen
can Cattlemen ~f abusing the public lands by over-grazing therecy cruelly
starving the wildlife. Other environmental groups have accused the rancher
of abusing public lands to the extent of wrecking wildlife habitats, increasing
eiosion causing sedimentation in our streams and-believe it or not-even
killing the fish. Some of these groups have proposed that all grazing of public
lands be decreased or terminated. When you stop to consider that almost half
of the land area in all eleven western states is federally owned, and livestock
graze on approximately 73 per cent of this land, these kind of proposals scare a
rancher a little.
Being a rancher who has paid for grazing privileges on some of these public
lands for the last. 20 years these accusations and proposals disturb me greatly
for the following reasons:
(1) The Livestock industry is in serious trouble. In fact we are in more
trouble financially than back in the 30's. If grazing on public lands is decreased
or lost completely, many ranchers wOuld be forced out of business.
(2) Due to the fact that feed costs are too high to warrant long-term
finishing of livestock in feed lots, grasslands are becoming more and more
important. If grazing privileges on public lands are decreased or lost, it would
have a detrimental effect on the economy because there would be less red meat
and eventually higher consumer costs.
Let's reflect for a moment on the past history of some of our public lands.
In our area most of the public lands were acquired by the Federal govern-
ment when many homesteaders went broke and just up and left.
There was a time when these lands had no management. Back in the mid
30's the Taylor Grazing Act made possible the formation of State Grazing
Districts which served as a vehicle to manage these lands in conjunction
with the Forest Service, and later the Bureau of Land Management.
These cooperative State Grazing Districts were formed at local levels and
run by local ranchers. Ranchers within the Grazing Districts were allotted
AUMs of grazing on Federal Lands according to their ability of taking care of
their A.U.'s during the winter when there was no grazing. This arrangement
worked quite well, and in most cases the condition of these public lands have
been maintained or improved. In our area, the ranchers' lands are intermingled
with public lands, consequently what happens to public lands affects the
ranchers' livelihood.
Over the years, with assistance of the Soil Conservation Service, county
agents and just plain common sense, the rancher has increased the grazing
condition of his lands. The Bureau of Land Management has also been engaged
in range improvement programs.
Some of these improvements have been pasture renovation and reseeding,
stock water development, cross fencing, rest rotation, etc. In many instances
the grazing capacity has been* doubled and even trippled and when the forage
is increased, the wildlife naturally increase, erosion is decreased, etc.
Instead of proposing that the grazing of public lands be decreased or
stopped altogether, I think the American public would be best served by a
good program to increase the grazing capacity of these public lands.
The American public would benefit greatly from this type of policy. They
would gain by decreased consumer costs of feed, meat, and wool, increased
wildlife habitats and more revenue from ranchers paying for additional AUMs.
I feel that the next year or so is a very critical time with respect to the
future uses of Federally owned lands. The reason is the fact that a law is
being written to replace the Taylor Grazing Act, and as I understand it, it
will replace a lot of other laws influencing Federally owned lands. It is called
the Organic Act. Just how this Act is written and amended will greatly affect
the livelihood of the stockman or any other public land user.
I would like to offer a few suggestions that I think would add to a more
harmonious relationship between the Federal government and the public
land users. .
Although this might be a hazardous approach, I think these public lands
should be catagorized as to their uses and a primary use for areas of these
lands should be established In the process of determining the pnimar~ pur
pose for these public lands every effort should be made to utilize input from
lOcal groups, such as the Conservation Districts, the COunty Agents, the Local
PAGENO="0367"
486
The development of maximum productivity on the National Resource lands is
clearly in the national interest with regard to food and fiber production and
is especially vital to. the local economies ,where the public lands are located.
We believe increased productivity for all multiple uses can best be attained
through long term contracts with grazing users so that needed investments
and improvements can be made
We believe contractual agreements. should provide, among other conditions:
(a) An adequate and reasonable term of years. .
(b) Opportunity for personal capital investment in range improvements and
operation facilities. . , `
(c) Conditions relative to multiple use including hunting, `fishing, and
recreation. : ` ` , , ,` ` ` , , ` ,
(d) An appeal procedure~ ` . .. , .`
(e) An equitable fee, structure including the capital investment in a permit
as a factor in annual operating costs.
(f) Severance damages.
(g) Trespass regulations. ` . `
(h) That the permittee shall be `granted an equitable share of the increased
grazing capability which accrues from improved range management.
(i) That the price of marketable `livestock and costs of doing business should
be included in the grazing fee formula.
We are opposed to the mandatory minimum fee of $2.00 per `animal unit
month. We favor the continuation of grazing advisory boards to the `Bureau
of Land Management. These boards should be authorized specifically by this
legislation and should be used even if multiple use committees are established.
We believe that Congress has the responsibility to establish guidelines for
the management of the National Resource lands as long as they are in federal
ownership, and we believe that these guidelines should provide a clear, direc-
tion toward full multiple use utilizatiOn.
We respectfully request that this letter be made a part of the record of the
hearing held by your subcommittee onMarch 25, 1975.
Sincerely,
JOHN C. DATT,
Director, Congressional Relations.
MONTANA AssoCIATIoN OF STATE GRAZING DIsTRIcTs,
Helena, Mont., March 31, 1975.
Congressman JOHN MELCHER,
Lonq'worth House Office Building,
Washington, D.C. , ` "
DEAR JOHN: In response to your request during our visit in Washington, D.C.,
I am enclosing a letter written by Russel TJnruh of the North Fork Grazing `Dis-
trict. I believe Russel reflects some' of the thinking of the Grazing `District
Directors. ` ` " ` `
I would certainly like to thank you on behalf of the Montana Association of
Conservation Districts for the courtesies extended to us during our trip. We
always find it such a pleasure to' work with your staff and `especially with you.,
Thank you again. ` `
Yours very truly, , `
PETER V. JACKSON,
Evecutive secretary
NORTH FORK GRA7ING DISTRTCT
Chinook Mont March 10 1975
O M IJELAND
A dm n7strator Conservation Thstrict Dvaiswn
Helena Mont
DEAR OLE: These are some of my views on the uses of Federally owned lands'
and the Advisory Boards to the administration of them. ` *. ` ``
Through the years the American public has been made increasingly aware
of the fict that they are part owners of the public lands and in this atmos
phere a new breed has been born They are called environmentalists I don t
think anyone can dispute their philosophy but in my opinion their methods
sometimes leave a lot to be desired.
PAGENO="0368"
485
Percent of unsatisfactor
y habitat
1973
1968
Big game
Small game
Waterfowl
Streams
38
21
14
30
41
38
3~
41
We do not believe that a statutory grazing fee, such as proposed in the
committee print, will solve this and other problems on the BLM lands. Cer-
tainly more funds and personnel are needed, and present grazing fees are no-
where near fair market value of grazing on private land. However, improved
management practices based on true multiple use-which has not been the
case in the past-are just as important as the actual fee. It is impossible to
predict how the statutory fee and new formula will actually work, although it
appears that fees could vary widely depending upon the fluctuating price of
beef.
We strongly object to the mandatory issuance of 10-year permits and their
automatic renewal. The length of the permit should be discretionary, and the
Taylor Grazing Act already gives the Secretary discretion to issue permits
for 10 years. The language of subsection (f) gives a vested right to the per-
mittee which we adamantly oppose, because the land belongs to the public.
We also oppose Section 212 which would exempt grazing district advisory
boards from section 14 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act. Clearly this
exemption will only perpetuate the narrow focus of district boards which is
in part responsible for some of the problems on the public lands. If district
boards are to be continued at all, and we seriously question whether they
should, their membership should reflect a balance of all the interests in the
public lands instead of the token public representation which is now the case.
Sincerely,
CYNTHIA E. WILSON,
Washington, D.C., March 26, 1975.
AMERICAN FARM BUREAU FEDERATION,
Washi~cgton, D.C. March 26, 1975.
Hon. JOHN MELCHER,
Chaiuinan, Subcwninittee on Public Lct'nds, House Committee on Interior a'nd
Insular Affairs, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C.
DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: On behalf of the more than two million Farm Bureau
member families in fortynine states and Puerto Rico, we take this opportunity
to express our views on the Public Land Policy and Management Act of 1975,
Subcommittee Print No. 1, dated March 18, 1975.
The status of public lands and their management has long been an item of
special concern to Farm Bureau members, especially in the western states. It
is, therefore, not unusual that the organization's policy statement, developed
at the county, state, and national levels, covers this issue thoroughly.
As a matter of general policy, we believe that private ownership and opera-
tion of the major portion of a state's land surface is in the state's interest.
Therefore, we feel that the federal government should grant the public land
states equality of statehood by transferring ownership of all lands under
the control of the Bureau of Land Management to the states in which such
lands are located.
Pending such a transfer, we favor the mulitple use of federal lands and
feel that the proposal now before the Committee is a step in the right direc-
tion with regard to management of the National Resource lands.
We commend the Committee for the efforts that have been made to seek user
input into this bill and hope that this process will continue. Therefore, we
believe it is vital that certain guidelines be written into the law and that
periodic oversight be provided through the authorization process for agency
funds.
S\Te believe that acquisition of land or withdrawals for restricted uses should
be made only with Congressional authorization. Any procedure short of Con-
gressional review leaves the decision to administrative whim with very little
or no public opportunity for input.
PAGENO="0369"
484
CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES,
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
Washington, D.C. May 5, 1975.
Hon. JOHN MELCHER,
Chairman, Subcommittee on Public Lands, House Committee on Interior an4
Insular Affairs, U.S. Congress, Washington, D.C.
DEAR JOHN: I understand your mark-up on the Organic Act is approaching
sections in which I'm deeply interested.
We have covered the ground before on the desert entry program, both in my
testimony before your Subcommittee last year and in private conversations.
This letter is simply to remind you that my interest and concern has not
diminished. Continuation of the desert entry program is essential to Idaho and
many of the western States. At a time when we are struggling to feed our own
population and make a meaningful contribution to less productive nations in
the world, development of additional farm acreage is vital.
You will remember that my preference was to perpetuate the program. I
recognize your Subcommittee is not in full agreement with my position and
was pleased that the compromise which now serves as language for Title VI,
Section 602, was adopted. I am tol~, though, that language has been prepared
for amendment this year which would grandfather in existing applications and
discontinue further applications. I strongly oppose such a move.
The desert entry program is active in few States. Where it does continue to
benefit our national economy by expanding the agricultural base, federal
ownership of lands within those State boundaries is consistently high-better
than two-thirds the land base in Idaho's case. It makes sense to me to move
these lands off the public rolls and into production.
I would also like to offer a word of support to language to be offered by
Jim Santini as amendments to the police powers section of your bill. I recog-
nize your effort to address a legitimate problem on the public lands, but furth~r
extension of federal police powers will never be accepted in a State like Idaho;
nor would I guess such a move to gain much popularity in your own State.
These people cherish the concept of local police powers, and I believe nlatter$
such as this should be handled at the local level to whatever extent possible.
The Santini language is an excellent approach.
Thank you for your time and attention.
Your for a free society,
STEVE SYMMS,
Member of Congress.
NATIONAL AUDUBON SOCIETY,
Washington, D.C., March 25, 1975.
Congressman JOHN MELCHEB,
Chairman, Subcommittee on Public Lands, House Interior Committee, Wash~
ington, D.C.
DEAR CONGRESSMAN MELCHER: For many years, Conservationists have decried
the condition of the public lands and pointed to improper grazing as one of a
number of activities contributing to the deterioration of the public domain.
Recent reports by the Bureau of Land Management (Range Condition Report
prepared by the Bureau at the request of the Senate Appropriations Com-
mittee, and "Effects of Livestock Grazing on Wildlife, Watershed, Recreation
and Other Resource Values in Nevada") have documented these charges and
revealed that 83% of the range is in fair, poor, or bad condition.
The effect of poor grazing management has been especially severe on wildlife,
and the quality of wildlife habitat is continuing to decline. The wildlife re-
sources of the public lands are enormous, but are given short shrift compared
to other uses. Thirty-three endangered species are found on BLM land, but
less than one cent per acre is spent by BLM on all wildlife. The average area
of responsibility for each professional biologist is seven million acres. Be-
tween 1968-1973, the following increases in amount of unsatisfactory habitat
occurred:
PAGENO="0370"
483
regarding the position of The Wilderness Society on classification and with-
drawal procedures in bills under consideration by the Subcommittee on Public
Lands. 1 appreciate your request to provide the Committee with further in-
formation and apologize for the slowness in responding to that request.
The Wilderness Society has long supported the authorities of the Secretary
of the Interior' to withdraw lands from the public domain for certain purposes
and for retention, in the public interest, of specific values. We have also sup-
ported the classification program of the Bureau of Land Management. However,
that policy has changed because of our support for H.R. 5622 which, in part,
establishes a National Resource Land System and identifies local units by
name. In our view, this approach would give the lands more identity in the
public mind and thereby create. long-term public involvement in multiple-use
management programs. It also wou~ld provide the agency with means to re-
quest and defend budgets and personnel on a more planned and systematic
basis. In other words, we are suggesting, in H.R. 5022, that the national re-
sources lands, or the public domain, be established much like the national
forests have been established by Executive Order and law over the years.
Some units of the National Park and National Wildlife Refuge Systems have
been established similarly. Inclusion of this kind of direction in the Public
Lands Policy Act would, in our view, largely eliminate the need for broad
classification and withdrawal authorities. Of course, for areas of less than
5,000 acres the authorities would continue.
We feel that, in order to provide long-term and lasting benefits to the public,
once the boundaries of an area have been identified and selected and a proposal
developed by the Bureau of Land Management, after full public participation,
the proposed classification should be sent to Congress for approval much the
same as national forests and national parks are established now. We believe
that this is the only way in which the areas so identified can be properly man-
aged in the future. The process involved in this approach would go something
like this:
1. The agency would identify an area; develop a planning system and inven-
tory the unit; determine its management programs and establish needs and
priorities for accomplishment; identify wilderness areas (if they should be
present in accordance with the standards set by the Wilderness Act) ; and sub-
mit the whole package to the Congress for approval.
2. The entire unit would receive statutory designation, including the wilder-
ness. Uses could similarly be treated depending on the national benefits to be
derived therefrom.
As part of the process, the Secretary could withdraw the area until such time
as the Congress acted upon it. Once the Congress acted upon the unit, the
Secretary's withdrawal authorities would no longer be needed and thus, could
be rescinded on unit by unit basis.
It is not clear at this point whether the Committee has seriously considered
another option. We have proposed the creation of a separate agency to handle
the energy functions of the federal government including those on the public
lands. We think this is badly needed and should be an important part of this
bill. We propose a basic reorganization of the existing Bureau of Land Ma~n-
agement to achieve tills end. Included in this option should be a study
to determine whether afl of the national resource lands could be incorporated
into existing land management systems. That is, an area containing high
archaeological, recreational or natural value would be included in the National
Park System; an area having high wildlife values could be included in the
National Wildlife Refuge System; and grasslands and timber lands would be
incorporated in the National Forest System. In this way, the expertise of
existing land management systems could be brought into the overall picture
and unnecessary duplication of budget and manpower would be avoided. In
summary, only energy functions would remain under the purview of the present
agency, and all other activities would be transferred elsewhere.
Again. thank you for requesting our views on this important subject.
Sincerely yours,
HARRY B. CRANDELL,
Director of Wilderness Reviews.
PAGENO="0371"
482
or attempted to recruit him-to come on to the subcommittee; and
it w~s about his third preference, I think, in subcommittees And with
his duties on the subcommittee of this committee, which were his
first two preferences and his duty on the Judiciary Committee, he
did not feel that he could devote the proper amount of time to this
particular subcommittee But we will very definitely consider the
points that are in 1-11.11. 5622, and `also have to justify our actions of
another' subcommittee to Mr. Seiberling when we reach the full
Committee.. So we are not going to ignore your views.
It will, however, of course be up to the decision of the subcommittee
what language we accept in our final recommendation to the full
committee.
I have no further questions. I do want to make one comment on
your reference to Alaska. I would say this; that we will look again
this year in mark-up as to how this act will affect Alaskan lands. If
it does not seem to be appropriate to include specific points that are
needed to protect public interests and the vast public lands in Alaska,
we will certainly make sure that the committee in other legislation
addresses itself specifically to' Alaska. I believe that we are scheduled
this year to consider legislation on b (2) lands. We should do that in
this Congress. Is that correct?
Mr. SHAFER. Yes, sir. We have legislation before us now, Mr.
Chairman. `
Mr. CrusEN. I think the one'~ area of this bill that is particularly
important now, however, to include Alaska in is the disposal re-
pealers. We~ believe very strongly that these laws should be dealt
with now.
Mr. MELQHER. Rather than holding off?
Mr. CLUSEN. Right. I do not think the legislation for Alaska in
an way really conflicts with that situation. If there is a need-and
I am not aware of it, really, if there is-for disposal for the lands
in Alaska, besides what has already been enacted through the State-
hood Act, it would seem to me that that would be addressed in a
separate bill at an appropriate time.
Mr. MELCHER. We will take note of the concerns on that. Does
the staff have any questions?
Thank you very much. We appreciate your testimony.
Mr. CLUSEN. Thank you.
Mr. MELOHER. The committee is adjourned, subject to the call of
the Chair.
[Whereupon, at 1:30 p.m., the', subcommittee adjourned, subject
to the call of the Chair.]
[Additional information supplied for the record follows:]
THE WILDERNESS SOCIETY,
Washington, D.C., May 16, 1975.
Jouu MELCHER,
Cha?rman, Subcommittee on PubZic Lands, House Committee on Interior and
Insular Affairs, U.S. Congress, Washington, D.C.
DEAR Mn. MELCHEB: This letter is in response to your request at the April 11
hearing on the Public Lands Policy Act and related bills for further information
PAGENO="0372"
481
on the land, and that there is not a basic shift of ownership from
individuals or families or partnerships to large corporate interests.
Mr. MELCHER. Well, I think that an alliance has been building over
the past 10 or 15 years, simply an alliance of compatible understanding
and common goals. I think it is great. I think there has been a better
understanding of late. When we decide on issues, we understand how
necessary it is to work together. The strip mining bill is an example
of that. What was for people in the West a fundamental aspect of the
bill, affected other areas also. We found that working together, we
were able to have sufficient votes to lock into the bill, now in final form
in conference, some of the very needed protections which are very vital
to us in the Western States.
Mr. CLUSEN. We have been very appreciative of your strong
leadership in this area.
Mr. MELOHER. You have the same problem as the panel had and
other environmental groups have had with this question of whether
or not Congress should retain in the bill this veto power over land
use planning and withdrawals.
Mr. CLUSEN. Mr. Chairman, I might )ust address that briefly.
Mr. MELCHER. I wish you would.
Mr. CLUSEN. First of all, we have no problem with review. I think
the kinds or the types of language which you have in the committee
print requiring that these things be reported to you here in the
Congress before the fact are all very much called for. We also are
strong proponents of congressional oversight. I might also add that
I have no authority to change any policy of my organization, but I
do believe that we would take a look at the whole withdarwal issue,
if you can call it that. If the definition of withdrawal, as we worked
along the lines that I think Mr. Shafer was indicating earlier, so
that it was not just saying that when you are excluding a certain
use, but also including transfers and so forth; and that second,
that it would also include the rescinding of existing withdrawals.
We do have a significant amount of land in parts of the west that
have been withdrawn from money which is our particular concern,
so it was a two-way street. And three, that we work out something
along the lines we did last year regarding the Antiquities Act, which
is sort of a special thing for us. That is sort of the area we started
from in National Parks.
I think if we could discuss those areas, there is a possibility of
coming up with some common language that maybe we could all
agree upon.
Mr. MELCHER. Well, it is true that we are working on that. Possibly
we could come up with something with much stronger support than
we now have.
I think I have made clear that we are directing the staff to go
over H.R. 5622 in comparison with the Subcommittee Print, because
much of your testimony points out what Sierra Club believes are the
superior points of H.R. 5622. We are very much interested to have
the subcommittee review those. I assure you that when we are in
markup, we certainly will. However, we are greatly aided in this
committee by Mr. Seiberling's presence, and in fact I recruited him-
~54-OO5-75---32
PAGENO="0373"
480
STATEMENT OP CHARLES N. CLUSEN, SIERRA CL1J~
Mr. CLUSEN. Because of the very lateness of the hour, I would
be happy ~just to be available for any questions that you have.
Mr. MELOHER. All right.
You have heard our discussion here on the whole grazing section
as to discretionary powers of the Secretary in canceling the lease,
to use the land the purposes other than grazing, and the permittee
or the lessee would have the opportunity for first choice for the
permit or the lease if the land remains available for leasing. My ques-
tion is, does the Sierra Club agree in principle, as the panel members
agreed in principle, to that, and see whether we cannot work out
the language to accomplish those prinicples?
Mr. CLUSEN. I think we have some common ground. The only
thing that comes to mind to be possibly a problem is that for environ-
mental reasons, the adjacent private landowner may not be the
most desirable to have it in a given circumstance. Now, this is
probably a rare instance. But if we could work out some language
which left some bit of discretion, or probably some better criteria-
Mr. MELOHER. Now, this is in regard to sales, is it not?
Mr. CLtTSEN. Yes. I thought~ that was what you were addressing.
Mr. MELOHER. No. We did discuss sales were the adjacent land-
owner would have a preference in the sale. But my question goes
to the permittee or lessee of the public lands for grazing only. It
does not have to be the case, because they are not all adjacent. But
in general-does the Sierra Club agree on the principle that if, first
of all, it is discretionary with the Secretary on whether or not that
land is available for grazing, or should be used for some other public
purpose; or the lease should be canceled for any reasons, because of
changes in the rules or for any reason dealing with management deci-
sions. Under those conditions, it is the principle of allowing the
present permittee or leasee to continue to get that permit or lease, as
long as it is available, as long as he follows regulations.
Mr. CLUSEN. Yes, we have no problem with that, except in those
cases where there might be a desirable reason for changing its use.
Mr. MELGHER. Oh, sure.
Mr. CLUSEN. And of course, also assuming that the proper num-
ber of cattle or sheep may be run; and so forth.
Mr. MELOHER. Well, I think we come close to general agreement
on that particular section. This is one of the sections of the bill that
has caused us some concern, and ha~ caused a great deal of opposition
from various environmental groups. I think maybe we are just dealing
with how the language is constructed, and how it is purchased.
It needs to be rewritten to reflect clearly what we mean.
Mr. CLUSEN. I might add that we have no desire at all to be con-
tributing to the demise of the family farmer or the small operator.
As you weel know, we have in recent years found common ground
with these people in the strip mining issue, and we have every de-
sire to keep them on the land. We do have some differences when
it comes to, maybe, grazing fees or predator control, or things of
that sort. However, we do have eveiy desire that the people remain
PAGENO="0374"
479
Seventh, we recommend that a provision requiring the identification and
designation of local units of the national resource lands be included in this
legislation. Such designation would greatly facilitate proper and effective man-
agément by stimulating a greater sense of geographic specific identity and pub-
lic interest.
Eighth, we prefer the sales criteria of HR. 5022 (Section 202), to that of
Subcommittee Print `#1 (Section 303) because it is somewhat more restrictive
in that it limits other "public objectives" in criteria #3 solely orderly growth
of' existing communities. Furthermore, we do not feel it is necessary to give
preference to potential purchasers so long as fair market value is received and
competitive bidding provisions of H.R. 5022, which are more restrictive and
therefore preferable, to the provisions in Section 203(d) of Subcommittee Print
#1. Only in cases to insure proper land management for environmental pro-
tection should competitive bidding procedures be waived (Section 205 of H.R.
5022).
Ninth, we believe the BLM should have land acquisition authority with the
power of eminent domain comparable to that of the Forest Service which allows
condemnation within the boundaries of the National Forests and for access
purposes. This authority is important to protect critical environmental areas
which may have mixed ownerships and to attain uniform management in spe-
cific areas for the production of forage or fiber.
Tenth, we strongly urge the inclusion in the bill of a National Park, Forest,
Wildlife Refuge and Wild and Scenic River Study provision (Section 311 of
ILR. 5022). There may be a number of significant areas where it would be de-
sirable and appropriate to expand these systems into specific areas of the re-
maining public domain. Only by conducting such a survey may the necessary
identification of significant areas be made and brought to the attention of
Congress. Opportunities for such new designations are disappearing with time.
So such a study should be done now.
Mr. Chairman, I have not discussed grazing or range management in this
statement since I have already submitted a statement to the Subcommittee on
that subject.
CALIFORNIA DESERT
The Sierra Club has long been concerned with the preservation of the natural
values and the environmental quality of the California Desert. During the past
few years our Desert Committee has made extensive investigations of both the
resources and problems of the California Desert. We have actively sought the
implementation of an interim plan by the Bureau of Land Management to con-
trol present indiscriminate use of off-road vehicles and to protect the resources
of the California Desert. As I have already indicated, the BLM by and large
has not been responsive to our recommendations. Consequently, we support the
various California Desert hills pending before this Committee and we commend
similar provisions of Subcommittee Print #1 and HR. 5022.
The urgency is apparent to all those who are familiar with the California
Desert. As I described earlier in my statement, the problems have become even
more critical because of poor management by the BLM. The existence of this
new situation, plus the fact that the Administration is not requesting any new
money, makes the passage of these legislative provisions mandatory in order
to save the Desert.
It is clear that unregulated, irresponsible use of motorized vehicles has caused
a substantial adverse impact on desert lands. A large population of desert
tortoises, a totally protected reptile in California, has almost been wiped out by
off-road vehicle use in Stoddard Valley. In areas such as Dove Springs and
Johnson Valley most plant life and the animal community dependent upon this
plant life has been destroyed. Irreplaceable historical sites such as Ivanpah and
Woods Wash and archeological sites such as Calico have been vandalized and
disturbed until they are no longer historically valid or worthy of scientific
investigation. Vehicular noise disturbs desert wildlife as well as human resi-
dents and visitors. The few permanent flowing sources of water in the desert
such as Afton Canyon and the Amargosa Rover have been churned up by recre-
ational vehicle users who think of these stream beds as obstacle courses.
We also support Section 403 of Subcommittee Print #1 and Section 310 of
H.R. 5622 which provide for the study of other desert' areas in the arid West.
We thank you for this opportunity to express our views.
PAGENO="0375"
478
tion for Alaska. The: new organic act, furthermore, must not open new avenues
for thspos'il with discretionaly administrati~ e ~uthorities Congress must retain
its b"~,ie constitutional an houty o~ er public land disposition We commend the
Subc mmittee br including the comprehensive list of repeaieis in Print #1
We do feel strongly, however, that these repealers must be effective immediately
upon enactment. We strongly oppose the provisions in Section 602(a), Section
603(a), Section 604(a), and Section 605(a) of. Subcommittee Print #1 delaying
the repeal of the homestead, desert entry and small tract acts for ten years, the
repeal of. certain other disposal laws, certain public land administration laws
and certain rights-of-way laws for two years. If not repealed immediately, ad-
ministrative confusion and public misunderstanding may. likely result. Also, in
regard to certain disposal, laws such as the homestead and desert entry laws,
a flood of new applications and tremendous pressure for the approval of such
requests may be generated in various areas of the public domain.
Third, the new act must require the Secretary to review all roadless areas
of 5,000 acres or more for their suitability for Wilderness designation and re-
quire the President to make his Wilderness recommendations to the Congress.
While we generally support the Wilderness study provision, Section 312, and
commend the Subcommittee for including it in Subcommittee Print #1, we do
feel that it does not provide adequate interim protection. We recommend that
the language in Section 103 of H.R. 5622 be used instead. The bill drafted by
the Administration, H.R. 5224 is woefully weak in this area and totally un-
satisfactory. It provides only for the study of areas 50,000 acres or* larger-a
provision which may just about exempt, for example, most areas in the State
of Arizona from being considered if such strict criteria are used. It also does
not require that the Congress be advised by the President of his recommen-
dations for such areas, and furthermore, provides no interim protection.
Fourth, the new act must require the filing of all new mining claims with the
Federal land management agency. The present system of filing such claims with
only the local county courthouse makes it extremely difficult for the managing
agency to know of-much less control-the use of the land under its juris-
diction. Subcommittee Print #1 gives this authority to the BLM in Section 207,
Recordation of Mining Claims and Abandonment. We strongly endorse this
provision.
Fifth, we conirnend the Subcommittee for excluding the word "permanent"
from the definitions of "multiple use" and "sustained yield" in Subcommittee
Print #1, as found in earlier bills. These definitions are critical to avoid the
problems of overcutting of timber and unnecessary site destruction during
timber harvesting operations. ER. 5224, unfortunately, includes the word
"undue" in the "multiple use" definition and the word "permanent" in the "sus-
tained yield" definition. We oppose those definitions as found in H.R. 5224.
Sixth, we object to the Congressional veto power over land-use-planning de-
cisions affecting 100,000 acres or more when one or more uses are excluded
(Section 202(e)) and to a somewhat similar Congressional veto power over
withdrawals for other purposes involving 5,000 acres or more. (Section 204(a))
of Suhco:nmittee Print #1. We have no objection to Congressional review of
withdrawals, but we do feel the veto power provision could restrict BLM's
land management effectiveness. This process may stimulate conflicts between
advocates or beneficiaries of incompatible uses, delaying and perhaps curtailing
important public land decisions from being implemented. We believe Congress
should maintain an active role in land management through its oversight
powers, but not get involved in speciflë land management decisions unless they
are of true significance and then by the consideration of legislation. The Sierra
Club is particularly concerned with the repeal of the Secretary's withdrawal
powers vis-a-vis the 1872 Mining Act. This archaic law must be refromed to
provide for mining through a mineral leasing system with appropriate planning
and environmental controls. Yet, until the mining law is reformed mining with-
drawals frequently are an important protection from the desecration of sensi-
tive ecosystems and recreation lands from indiscriminate mining practices.
Instead of a Congressional veto process, we recommend instead that the BLM be
required to give public notec and hold a public hearing at least 30 days before
such decision would become effective for all land classification decisions of
1,280 or more acres. This provision is included in Section 104(d) of H.R. 5622.
We endorse It. *.~ . . . . . .. . .
PAGENO="0376"
477
been done to other multiple use values, even beyond the normal recreational!
aesthetics which are of general concern. Outside foresters who have examined
the situation felt that serious over-cutting is now taking place, with the results
that, if something is not done, the productivity of the land will be depleted,
many people will be out of work, and all other values lost as well.
A few years ago in response to the growing public outcry about such prac-
tices, the Administration announced a review of the situation. The Sierra Club,
through its experts and foresters, submitted extensive testimony and documen-
tation of the problems in these lands, which we can furnish for the record here
if desired. Finally, after much investigation, then-Secretary Hickel announced
a reduction in the cut, but it was only a slight reduction-about 100 million
board feet a year (out of a total of about 1.3 billion). Much documentation bad
been submitted to the effect that the cut could properly only be sustained at a
level of around 7-900 million, and no more.
We submit that it is imperative that other multiple use values be protected
here and on the other commercially forested parts of the national resource
lands. It is imperative that over-cutting not be permitted by the Secretary, and
that resource depletion like this be halted.
GENERAL DISCUSSION OF ORGANIC ACT PROVISIONS
The national resource lands are vital to our nation, not only because of their
vastness, approximately 450 million acres, one-fifth of our nation's total land
area, but also because of the diversity and richness of natural resource values
found on them. Our nation is dependent on these lands for many environmental
and economic benefits-Wildlife, watershed, recreation, agricultural, and raw
materials. To sustain the flow of benefits from these lands, the highest quality
of management-based on conservation principles-is an absolute necessity.
These national resource lands must be managed, in such a manner that the
integrity of ecosystems and environmental quality is protected, restored and
enhanced. This includes the dedication of Wilderness, Wild and Scenic Rivers
and natural areas, provision of fish and wildlife habitat, the protection of Scien-
tific and archeological values and opportunity and access for outdoor recre-
ation. The principles of multiple use and sustained yield and the tenets of the
National Environmental Policy Act should be practiced and firmly adhered to.
Good sound environmental management can afford economic uses such as the
production of fotage, timber, minerals, and allow certain forms of occupancy.
But the location of such uses, the manner in which they are done, the degree
to which they are done, and the rate at which they are done can make all the
difference in the world. The adherence to multiple use, sustained yield, and
environmental protection principles will lead to good management decisions-
not only for our generation, but for our children and generations to come. To
maximize public benefits, the national resource lands must be retained in Fed-
eral ownership and management. Only in the most limited of situations where
disposal is necessary for proper management of the Federal lands or to allow
for growth of existing communities land locked by Federal land ownership
patterns, should public lands be disposed of. We feel the Recreation and Public
Purposes Act as presently constituted is sufficient to handle most public pur-
poses.
In addition to the problems already addressed regarding the administration
of the BLM, the present crisis over our public lands is caused by a number of
additional factors which this legislation must address adequately. First, the
Bureau of Land Management since the expiration of the Classfication and
Multiple Use Act in 1970 has been without basic guidance from Congress on
long-range objectives for the national resource lands. The time has long since
passed for administering our national resource lands under a patchwork of
archaic disposal laws and piecemeal reform acts. The Forest Service, on the
other hand, has adequate authority to manage the National Forests. In addition
to its organic act and the Multiple Use and Sustained Yield Act, it is currently
implementing legislation enacted just last year regarding National Forest man-
agement policy. Consequently, we firmly believe the Forest Service should be
exempt from this legislation unless the national resource lands are transferred
to them.
Second, the obsolete disposal laws, including but not limited to Homestead
and Desert Entry laws must be repealed. There must not be any special exemp-
PAGENO="0377"
476
shore impacts of OCS oil development. The environmental studies and analysis
that should be done could hardly be done for a million acres of OCS lands-
much less 10 million acres.
4. BLM's leasing and management policies for Federal coal lands in the west
for the last five years should be an embarrassment to the ELM and this Ad-
ministration and serve as a striking example of how not to operate a natural
resources management program~ It has failed to encourage resource develop-
ment, failed to provide fair market value to the public and Indian resources
and has now left us in a situation where millions of acres have been leased but
not mined, leaving us in a very confused state for energy resource planning.
Oil shale development is being pushed despite the fact that it probably is
uneconomic at this time and will create tremendous water problems.
5. Specific protective actions taken by the BLM have frequently been lacking.
In the Escalante area of southern Utah rather than designating a primitive
area which should have been done, the BLM designated it as an "outstanding
natural area" which provided little protection outside of the mineral with-
drawal. The same exists with the El Malpais outstanding natural area in New
Mexico.
In Aravipa Canyon in Arizona, one of BLM's first Primitive Areas designated
over six years ago, the upper portion of this unusually beautiful canyon is still
badly overgrazed.
Last year Director Berklund supposedly told his state directors to establish
one new Primitive Area in each state during that year. None were established.
6. The Bureau of Land Management has been authorizing organized off-the-
road vehicle events to take place on the desert with disturbing frequency. These
events often involve from 400 to 1,000 vehicles (in some cases, four-wheel
vehicles) which traverse courses across fragile desert lands, often near archae-
logical sites or affecting the habitat of rare desert animals. Moreover, such
special use permits have recently been issued which allow races to take place
in areas of the desert where there have previously been no organized events.
These races are intensely destructive of the desert's natural beauty and its
resources. Often the vehicles traverse the same course thre or four times, cre-
ating deep scars in the fragile soil of the desert. Equally destructive are the
large number of uncontrolled spectators who are attracted to such organized
events.
Although, with regard to the largest of such events, the BLM has occasionally
prepared a so-called environmental assessment statement, the Bureau ordinarily
does not prepare an environmental inipact statement in connection with such
events and has not acknowledged that it has a legal obligation to do so under
the law. Moreover, the Bureau often does not require sufficient surety or bond
to indemnify the public against the damage which takes place to the deseit,
The Bureau will accept the signatures of individuals on such bonds without
appropriate inquiry concerning their financial responsibility. Moreover, to our
knowledge, there has been only one instance where the Bureau has attempted
to recover damages against a race sponsor for damage to public lands.
There is a crying need for Congressional legislation relating to the issuance
of special use permits for such organized events. ELM should be required spe-
cifically to prepare EIS's for such events prior to the issuance of a permit,
Bonds should be furnished only by financially responsible bonding companies,
not by individuals. By law, ample time should be furnished to the public to
comment on such EIS's before a permit~ is issued for ORV use only after public
hearing regarding the propriety of such designation has been held. Only land
winch heretofore has been used for such organized events and which does not
contain critical desert resources, such as animals, archaelogical sites, and so
forth, would be appropriate for such designation.
7. One -over-looked but extremely important part of the national resource
lands are their forested -parts~ particularly those portioiis which have com-
mercial forest land, The most important commercial forests on the national
resource lands are those under' ELM management in western Oregon, in what
are known as the "0 and C lands," which form a checkerboard pattern of sev-
eral million acres, from an old revested railroad land grant. These are some of
the richest timberlands in the entire nation, and they also have prize scenic,
wilderness, recreation, and wildlife characteristics.
Unfortunately, these lands have been managed by the BLM with dominant
attention to timber and very little attention to other values severe damage has
PAGENO="0378"
475
some two flilliOll acres-to tilE? BLM from the Fish and Wildlife Service. The
areas are the KOfa Game Range in Arizona, comprising 660,000 acres ; the
Charles Shelton Antelope Range in northern Nevada, comprising~ 578,000 acres;
and the Charles M. Russell National Wildlife Range in Montana, comprising
970;000 acres. While these ranges have been under joint Fish and Wildlife
Service/BLM' `management since their establishment by President Franklin
D. Roosevelt in the 1030's, it has been Fish and Wildlife that looked after wild-
lief habitat while the BLM handled grazing and mining. Threatened by the
shift are such endangered species as the peregrine and prairie falcons and some
of our nation's fihest populations of desert bighorn sheep. Studies have repeat-
edly shown that `BLM has allowed extensive overgrazing and other practices
detrImental to wildlife habitat protection. In 1965 a jointly-sponsored BLM
and Fish `and Wildlife study conducted by Harper and Wiseman concluded,
the delicateiy balanced veget'ttl\ e complex on Vie deseit areas invo1ved
cannot suppoi~t livestock and maintain its inherent potential to serve wild-
life." The Harper-Wisemun report recommended that grazing be phased out
within seven years, but the ELM has allowed it to continue.
In the Kofa Game Range, the BLM people turned their backs on unauthorized
activities of one particular grazing permittee. The Phoenix District of BLM
authorized the permittee to maintain a virtually abandoned road for the pur-
pose of moving cattle. A fairly major road construction project resulted. In a
letter .to a Sierra Club representative, the Arizona State ELM Director stated,
"The grader operator skimmed the surface of the road to an extent not author-
ized." But the perniittee was only `cautioned" against further such activities.
Certainly the grazing problem can't be solved by giving BLM sole jurisdiction.
These transfers must he viewed in the context of other proposed transfers
of units of the National Wildlife Refuge System to the States. The administra-
tion may be on its way to denying any Federal role in wildlife manage-
ment, saying the Slates should do it all, reserving only land management to the
Federal Government agencies. Who will make sure then that wildlife habitat
is properly managed? In spite of BLM's apparent disregard for wildlife, they
say they can manage wildlife as well as the Fish and Wildlife Service. Next
they will say they can manage parks as well or better than the National Park
Service. Rumors are already surfacing that the BML wants to manage National
Parks in Alaska. We. deplore this empire-buiding ambotion of the ELM. How
can they possibly in any form or manner do a job comparable to the National
Park Service and the Fish and Wildlife Service, which are preservation-oriented
agencies. when the BLM cannot hold up against the exploitative interests on
the national resource lands?
2. A matter in Alaska which has outraged coneervationists is the BLM's
Primary Corridor System for Alaska as outlined in the October 1974 document,
titled "Multimodal Transportation and Utility Corridor Systems hi Alaska: A
Preliminary, Conceptual Analysis." This hastily-drawn "study" proposing 39
primary utility and transpOrtation corridors crisscrossing Alaska, if imple-
mented, would bring pipelines, roads and railroads across many of. the areas
the Administration has recommended for National Parks, Wildlife Refuges, and
Wild and Scenic Rivers-unalterably damaging critical wildlife and scenic
values.' The study appeared to `assume tOtal development of all known mineral
and energy resources by the year' 2000. I submit, the BLM does not know except
in a few cases which resources will be developed or even which ones are eco-
nomically feasible for development.
Yet' they don't hesitate to jeopardize well-documented and studied land areas
which BLM's Sister bureaus-the National' Park Service, Fish and ~Wildlife
Service and the Bureau of Outdoor Recreation-have identified as `areas neces-
sary for preservation in' the national interest.
3. A very' gene~al complaint about the BLM is its refusal to comply with the
National Environmental' Policy Act of 1969-a landmark piece of legislation-
whether it be for their l'ind use planni~'g ectivitiec grazing man'sgement oil
and gas leasing,' or land exchanges. In Utah the BLM has yet to concede that
air environmental impact statement is required for the propOsed Castle Valley
land exchange, located near Moab, which involves some highly scenic land. It
required a law suit by the Natural Resources Defense Council to forceS the
BLM to do something more than the overall programmatic impact statement
concerning the BLM s grazing activities
In the Outer Continental Shelf oil leacing program the BLM has hurriedly
put out a totally inadequate EIS which virtually' ignores `the a~sociated on-
PAGENO="0379"
.474
Clusen of the Siei i a Club Chuck, we are pleased to have you with
us again
Mr CLUSEN Thank you, Mr Chairman
Mr MELOHER Chuck, I believe it is practical, and if it meets
with your approval, to have your entire statement printed in the
record at this point, as if read. .
Mr. CLUSEN. That would be very good, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Charles M Clusen follows ]
STATEMENT or CHARLES M CLTJSEN A WASHINGTON REPRESENTATIVE OF THE
SIERRA CLUB
Mr. Chairman, and members of the Committee, I am Charles M. . Clusen, a
Washington Representative of the Sierra Club, on whose behalf I am appearing
here. The Sierra Club is an international environmental organization of over
148,000 members founded in 1892 which has had a long, historic concern with
the protection of this nation's public lands. We feel the public domain lands
left under the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Land Management, the national
resource lands, have been for too long neglected and abused~ They have been
considered the left-overs----available for exploitation for private and corporate
profit. For this reason we welcome these hearings and the opportunity to testify.
We support the passage of a good BLM Organic Act which can put our nation
on the road of solving what has become a crisis for our national resource lands.
Specifically, we fully endorse HR-5622, the National Resource Lands Organic
Act. We strongly urge the Subcommittee to use HR-5022 as the Mark-Up ve-
hicle. We feel there are serious problems with Subcommittee Print #1 which
I will address, later in my statement. .
Yet, we must report to you that we have concluded that this legislation alone
will unfortunately not correct a fundamental problem without amendment.
Where the BLM has many problems not of their making-such as a lack of
proper enforcement authority, manpower and funds-problems this legislation
would correct or at least set improvement in motion-there is no assurance
that the practices of maladministration by the BLM will be corrected. Because
of the long record of past and current abuses of lands under BLM management,
we have been forced to seriously question BLM's commitment and ability to
manage the land properly. Because of BLM's apparent dedication to land ex-
ploitation and their insensitivity to environmental values, we urge the Com-
mittee to consider whether it is still a good idea to give the BLM an Organic
Act with far-reaching powers and a commitment of greatly increased resources.
The Sierra (huh has been a strong supporter of a BLM Organic Act for many
years. Mr. Choirnian, I submit that ", our dedication toward seeking Proper
management of the national resource lands has nOt waned in the least, It is the
need of proper land protection and management wihch should be the focus of
attention here today, not an agency with an undistinguished or even negative
track record. The lands need an organic act-not BLM. Consequently, we urge
the Committee to ennsid~r creating fliroug~ this legislation an entirely new
a~encv-perhnps called the National Resource Lands Service which would he
the managing agency of the.renewable resources of our remaining nublic domain
lands with a multiple use-sustained yield-envjronrnenf~~ protection mandate.
The administration of the mm ng l~w s tl a Outer Continental Shelf lands ~nd
other energy development prorrams would remain with the existing BLM since
these programs and the nhilosophies behind them. have received' the main
emphasis and attention from the agency in recent years An alternative ap
proach would be to transfer the National. Resource Lands to the Forest Service
in the Department of Agriculture I might point out that if this approach were
~eleeted the legislation necessary wonld he very short ind simple since fh~
Forest ~lervice already nn~m Congrecmsion~1i~ ~w~cted authority We must make
sure we have au administering agency who will do the 3ob properly
AN ANNOTATION OF GRIEVANCES
i Recently a p01mev cihift of the Nixon Administration to reduce the federal
involvement in wildlife management took another- leap in the wrong `direction
under the Ford Administration. Secretary of the Interior. Morton has decided to
transfer three, of th'e largest units of the "National Wildlife Refuge System~-
PAGENO="0380"
473
Mr. MELCHER. I want to warn you, though, that in my judgment
what we will come out with, even though it will be higher than
existing grazing fees will not, in my judgment, approach fair market
value. I think that we can allow them to go up gradually and I
think that is what you advocate as long as we keep track of it and
see that the formula that is used does work up to the fair market
value.
I think it would be doing our job. We can get there this year,
or next year, or in 2 or 3 years. We at least know that it is approach-
ing that.
I think we could do it.
Mr. KIMBALL. As long as you are making progress toward that
goal, I think we can do it.
Mr. Pooui. Just one final observation. It is kind of fun to drop-
kick people around a bit, particularly agencies. But it has not been
my experience, with respect to the grazing fees, that the agencies
were holding them down. The decision is as to whether or not to
impose the increment and that sort of thing, where it would be made
on a much higher level, and the agencies, in effect, were told what
to do. I think that if we can reduce that, if we can minimize that at an
extremely high level, political interference and direction, I think
that anything that we can do in that area to get rid of it, to minimize
it, would be extremely helpful; to lock it in to that degree.
Mr. MELCHER. That is a fair statement, Dan. I am glad you made
it, because it is true that the Forest Service and BLM would be
called from upstairs. Then, of course, that is an argument for con-
gressional review. [General laughter.]
Thank you all very much. Without objection, the statement by
the Wildlife Soceity will be made a part of the record at this
point.
[Te prepared statement of Fred G. Evenden follows:]
STATEMENT OF THE WILDLIFE SOCIETY, PRESENTED BY FRED G. EVENDEN,
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
The Wildlife Society, which it is my privilege to represent here today, rep-
resents professional workers in the field of wildlife science and management. Its
membership is worldwide, but mainly here in the United States, with most
of its members employed by a variety of federal, state and provincial agencies,
and universities and colleges.
The Wildlife Society supports the formal statement just presented to you.
In addition, it seems worthwhile to point out that the trend toward rapid
deterioration of land and related environmental qualities, including wildlife, on
public lands must be turned around.
Public benefits for the long-haul, must prevail over short-term private
benefits on public lands. Further Bureau of Land Management wildlife staff
must be created adequate to the unbelievable task that lies ahead.
The demands that human societies make upon the earth and its biota in-
evitably result in environmental change. Many ecosystems have been exploited
for immediate monetary profit rather than managed for sustained biotic yields.
Such careless or excessive exploitation often leads to the unnecessary degrada-
tion of the environment. The common aim of mankind should be the perfecting
of processes for deriving support from the environment without destroying its
stability, diversity, productivity, or aesthetic values.
We believe a properly planned and executed organic act for the Bureau of
Land Management will help achieve these objectives.
Mr MELCUER We ha~ e one more witness that has been most
patient today. We are anxious to hear from him. That is Charles
PAGENO="0381"
472
Mr. MELCHER. Well, we w~ould like to have this on the basis of fair
market value. It takes you forever to get up to the fair market value.
In my judgment, under the schedule th~~t the Foiest Seu ice `uid
the BLM,hayeno~v, they ~Vould nevei~ reach fair fr~ark~t ~ahIe.
Mr KIMBALL But if the Congress, in essence, can make a mandate
that. they were to apply that original fOrmula that ~kTas undertaken
back in, when was it, 1966 within that 10 year period, it would get
up to that level The problem is then the administration
Mr. MELCIIER. I cannot accept that. I do not know. I do not think
their formula e~ er would get up to fair market value even if they had
not had the del'~ys I do not think it was designed to get to fair market
value.
Mr. KIMBALL. That may be, but they spent an awful lot of Federal
money, they spent ~n `twful lot of Federal money to achieve that
particular purpose and it was supposedly an objective study by
independent people, economists outside, and 1 thought at the time
that there was a general acceptance of that by both the livestock
industry and conservation groups that that was a good point.
Mr. Pooi~. The simpler way out, then might be, rather than by
putting in specific prices and whatnot, even in an act of Congress,
to simply state that they will be at fair market value by x year.
Mr. MELCHER. Well, my problem with that, frankly, is this-the
agencies' view of fair market value does not jive with that I would
call fair market value. You know, getting up to I think they are
about $1.20 right now.
Forest Service is at what?
Mr. MARK REIMER. I think it is $1.23 now.
Mr. SHAFER. $1.11.
Mr. MELOHER. $1.11.
Mr. MARK REIMER. It is still in that low bracket.
Mr. MELCHER. If they had been al]owed to continue without the
interruptions in those steps, I think it would have been, and this is
practically the end of the 10-year period, it would have been-
Mr. SHAFER. $1.50 if there had been no moratoriums.
Mr. MELCHER. And we are almOst at the end of the 10-year period.
The figure quoted by staff is $1.50. Well, that is not anywhere near
fair market value.
Mr. WILSON. Mr. Melcher, following up on Dan Poole's suggestion,
I know the Department of Agriculture every year prepares statistics
on the average grazing fees on private lands and they break it
down by States and then there is a national average, and maybe the
thing to do would be to use that figure.
Mr. MELCHER. They offset some. T~hat is where the gap is.
We allow it tot be discretionary so they establish a fair market
value in their discretion.
Mr. KIMBALL. The best test, Mr~ Chairman, would be to, when-
ever you could not sell one of those grazing permits for $50 a head
or $500 a head, you would have arrived at that point at the fair
market value.
Mr. MELCHER. We agree. That is what will actually happen when
grazing-
Mr~ KIMBALL. Well, then I will object as though they are the
same.
PAGENO="0382"
471
I am glad we have had this colloquy because I think in prii~cip1e we
agree. It is now a question of how we can spell it out in the bill.
Mr. Poou~. I hope we do not leave any doubt about our feeling of
the acute desirability for a sound BLM organic act hopefully cleared
through Congress this year.
Mr. MELOHER. I think it will. I do have one more question dealing
with the national forests. That is on rights-of-way.
We feel that, for all sorts of reasOns, rights-of-way legislation
needs to be modernized and we can do a sensible job for BLM. Why
should we not do this same job for the Forest Service?
Would you spare telling us. how many statutes are. on the books
dealing with the Forest Service and rights-of-way? We know there
are scads of them.
Mr. TOWELL. I understand, Mr. Chairman, that the Forest Service
has agreed to this and that there is a need for clarification.
Mr. MELOIIER. Does that remove your-
We will, of course, pay attention to what your. suggestions are
regarding new grazing fees, but we are not satisfied with the grazing
fee level of BLM or Forest Service. We think they are completely
out of line. We think they are imfair to the public. We think they
are so low as to be unfair competition to the rest of the livestock in-
dust.ry who has to go out on the marketplace and lease their lands of
vital interest or who own their land.
I hope you will not think badly of us if we establish.somewhat high-
erfees.
Ms. Wn~soN. I think all of us, Mr. Chairman, would like to see
them higher. Again, it is the: question of what is the, best way of
getting more equitable fee, and that is where. the difference is;
but we do share your concern that these are now much too low, and
they are not fair to other people.
Mr. MELOHER. I would say that we have got enthusiastic. support
from most segments of the livestock industry. To put it on a basis
of cattle, when cattle are worth more, . you pay more' for the grass.
It has worked in States.
Mr. KIMBALL. Can . I make this comment, however ~
I think my concern over the years has been to take out the subsidy
which has been paid to people who own grazing permits on either
the national forests or the Bureau of Land Management public
land and who do that in such a way and extend it over such a period
of time so that it does not really hurt a livestock operator too much
to give him time to amortize what value he has paid for that grazing
permit. But it has always been difficult for me to accept the trading
of these grazing permits on public lands and the values attached
to them and to have even Federal banking agencies loan money
on the values of those permits.
And I would like to again register my deep concern for continu-
atiOn of this concept and that whatever the committee finally decides
in relation to the grazing fee schedule, to try and be as' fair as you
can to the current grazmg permitholdeis but to have that ob)ective
down the line of e~ entually tiking that subsidy out to the point
where that grazer has to pay as much for his grass on public land
as somebody else does that has to go out and buy it on. private, and
thereby eliminate that right or assessment. . .
PAGENO="0383"
470
*a public purpose," if the land, as you said, "the land will, be devoted
to a public purpose prior to the end of the 10 year term"
I mean unless there is some sort of definitional concept of what
public purpose is,' and J; do not see how that yOu ca~ii ever restrain
this man from redoing his lease-
Mr KIMBALL I think maybe in order to resolve this, Mr Chair-
man-
Mr MELOHER [continuing] Well then, is it the question of identi-
fication of what public purpose is ~
Mr. SMITH. Well, that would be highly strange in `the matter. I
think you could hardly simplify this by making it reasonably cbs-
cretionary. I do not think that in the Forest Service or in the'Bureau
of Land Management that we have had a real serious long-term
problem of having grazers or permittees not having their permits
renewed. ` ` "` `
`Mr. MELOHER. What "(f) `~ says, as far as we are concerned, is the
that has it, if it is still a-~ ailable and it is going to be leased for
grazing purposes, is going to get the first chance at it.
I do not know where the objection comes from. We have taken a
lot of heat here over a section of the bill, as we understand it, which is
written to comply with what you approve of. Apparently it is a ques-
tion of interpretation.
Now we have got staff, we have got counsel; and I think your people
hAve counsel. And if you find that this language does not do what
we say it should do, well, let's get the right language because we
seem to he agreeing on principles.
Mr. KIMBALL. Can we conclude this then by saying that we are
making the same offer as the gentleman from the Mining Congress
did? We have-
Mr MELCHER Absolutely
Mr. KIMBALL. We have our staff, we have `all ours. We would be
happy to sit down with your staff and see if we cannot work this out.
Mr. MELOHER. Well, we should bring' you up to date, though on
one point. We have been persuaded that, I think by both Forest
Service and BLM, that there is no point in saying 10 years. We have
no-at least I have no definite argument for saying 10 years because
what we are attempting to say is if you have a lease, Mr. Rancher,
if `you have, a, lease now, you can continuC, to have that lease so Tong
as the land continues to be available for grazing and you do not abuse
it and you follow thrOii~h with requirements.
Mr. MELOHER. There may be `objections by some members of the
subcoińmittee. Mr. Steiger seemed to want to retain the mention of
10 years because of the advantage it gives' to the rancher when he
goes to talk to his banker and the banker says, "Well, you have a
I 0-year permittor lease to, do business with." .1 fail to see that is sig-
nifc~nt But I mention this bec~use `s one member of the suheom
mittee I h'ive no ie'~l `~r~- imeut for st'~t n~ 10 years What I ~m really
interested in ~`vs m~ is wint I h~t~ e inst s'ucl `incl upon wh'Lt I think we
`lrrree in nuncrnle
Mr SMITH Mr Chairman, if it goes to the bank as a 10-year lease,
if he is caught in violation of one of the regulations he is out any-
way
Mr Mrr CHER And when you go to the bank on your 10 year lease
`~ncJ you h'is e only 2 ye'us to go, it seems to me t~tt you are in worse
shape. ,,
PAGENO="0384"
469
Now if. we want to start talking about, in essence, protectiug spe-
cific values si4ch as grazing, and I think we owe it to ourselves to con-
sider the values of wildlife and other public values and give them
some specific protection.
Mr. MELOHER. I live in a country where there is a lot of antelope
and deer and the better the grazing, the more antelope and deer. So we
watch this opportunity for more wildlife in the developments for
better grazing.
Mr. KIMBALL. We are ta.lldng here about grazing leases, which is,
in essence, a privilege, and I think our concern about the fees about
automatic extensions of permits tended to translate that into more
of a right rather than a privilege that is given the same thing for
wildlife purposes.
*Mr~ MELOHER. Well, at any rate, as I read your testimony, I cannot
see where you modified it in your colloquy here.
As I read your testimony, we have done what you recommend. We
have that in the bill.
Mr. KIMBALL. In item F on page 35 of the bill-this is again in.
section .211-it says:
As long as lands for which the permits or lease is issued remain avaiIabl~
for domestic livestock grazing no permittee or lessee combined with the rules
and regulations promulgated by the respective Secretary and who shall have
complied with the terms and conditions of the permit or lease shall be denied
the renewal of such permit for lease.
Mr. MELCIIER. What is wrong?
Mr. KIMBALL. Suppose the land is supposed to be used for wild-
life. Let us say, for example, that they could still-
Mr. MELCHER. No,. it will only be leased if made available for
domestic livestock grazing.
Mr. KIMBALL. What is to prevent it? There is nothing in any legal
act to give, say, a permit for wildlife gra.zing?
Mr.' MELCHEIm. Let us get your lawyers on this. I am not entirely
satisfied with this section myself. But I cannot read this whole section
to do anything different from what von have, recommended. It says
that there will be leases up to 10 years. But. a shorter term will be
granted where the land is pending disposal or the land will be de-
voted to a public purpose. It must. include an allotment management
plan under the conditions you outline. And then we get down to (ci)
That nothing contained herein shall be construed as restricting the authority
of the Secretary concerned to cancel, suspend, or modify a grazing permit or
lease in whole or in part pursuant to the terms or conditions thereof, or to
cancel or suspend a grazing permit or lease for any violation of a grazing regu-,
lation or of any term or condition of such grazing permit or lease.
It seems to me we are putting into the st.atute exactly what the
Forest Service does, for instance. No more and no less.
Mr. S~nTH. I am not a.rguing, Mr. Chairman, that the bill does
not give the authority to give the eScretary to cancel or modify
when there is a violation. What we are saying is that as we read it,'
and we may be reading it incorrectly, but as I read it, and reread it
again this morning, that it occurs to me that if a permittee is com-
plying with the regulations that at the end of 10 years he has an-
other automatic 10 years to go, if he is not complying with the regu-
lations, that is a different story.
Now there is one thing that you mentioned here and that is the
second part in the exclusion which says "The land will be devoted to,
PAGENO="0385"
468
Mr. KIMBALL. I think the distinction, Mr. Chairman, is between
the automatic renewal of a; 10-year lease. I know the Forest Service
leasing authority now, that renewal. is discretionary with the Secre-
tary of Agriculture.
Mr. MELOIIEII. It is with this bill, too.
Mr. KIMBALL. No. In this bill it is to be made automatic, as I un-
derstand it. . .
Mr. MELOHER. Are you not advocating renewal as long as there is
proper management of the land by the permittee? There is a require-
ment for an allotment management plan?
Mr. KIMBALL. That would be discretionary beyond that with the
Secretary.
Mr. MELOHER. Well, how discretionary?
Mr. KIMBALL. Well, if for example, there is other uses that are
more than in the public interest, then he can turn in into a lease.
Mr. MELOHER. That is in the bill. That is very definitely in the bill.
If he wants to use the lands for another purpose, he does not have to
wait for 10 years.
The bill very specifically says that land will not be leased if it is
not available for grazing, or if the Secretary determines that it is
needed for a higher use, it will not be leased for grazing. The lease
is to he canceled.
Mr. KIMBALL. If you have the bill before you, Mr. Chairman, on
page 33, section 211, it says:
Permits and leases for domestic livestock grazing on lands described in
Subsection 210(a) of this Act shall be issued for a term of ten years in a graz-
ing capacity except as provided in Subsection.
Now to me that is not discretionary.
Mr. MELOHER. Well, what about the exceptions?
On page 34, line 2: "(2) the land will be devoted to a public
purpose prior to the end of the 10-year term." You know, we
take an awful lot of heat from conservation groups on this particu-
lar issue but I do not know that the heat is justified.
Mr. KIMBALL. I guess, Mr. Chairman, speaking as one who has an
interest in the wildlife resource, which is a public resource and in my
view at least as just as much a legitimate claim on the values of
public land.
Let's take forage, for example, as one. It shares with domestic live-
stock, and you know, we do not have those specific mentions to pro-
tect the values for wildlife in this section. Grazing is an economic
use and wildlife is also an economic use. It is you take a look at it
from the standpoint of the money that is expended for the taking of
the surplus crops there. And our concern there is a definition of other
public values-should they be spelled out so that we are sure that
the other uses, legitimate uses of the public land are given equal
consideration.
For example, even under the Taylor Grazing Act, I guess it is not
in the law hut in the Interior Department regulation it says that a
reasonable amount of forage shall be reserved for wildlife.
Well, I have been 38 years in this business trying to find out what
a reasonable amount of forage is, what a forage reserve for wildlife
should be, and I am still waiting Neither the BLM nor the Forest
Service has ever defined that
PAGENO="0386"
467
Mr. KIMBALL. But, Mr. Chairman, is not this really the proper
function of Congress to give this type of direction to an executive
agency, if you prefer them to deal with theirurban problems or their
community problems on the need for expansion by exchange first as a
means of accomplishing the purpose, that that is really a prerogative
of* the Congress and they should extend that direction without just
saying, well, we can leave it to you to either sell it or exchange it.
Mr. MELOHER. Well, that is the very purpose of this bill. It says that
except in rare instances, public lands ought to be held in public
ownership. We are not encouraging sales except in two instances.
I do not think there is any question but the thrust of the bill, as far
as Forest Service land is concerned, is by all means exchange if that
is possible. It has to be restated more clearly. I do not seo that we would
have a problem in doing so.
Mr. KIMBALL. While we are on this business of land, there is con-
siderable difficulty in the acquisition of land, particularly in holdings
m both BLM and forest lands. There are many incompatible uses~
as I have seen myself, personally, that, at least in my view, would
be in the overall public interest to eliminate, a conflicting use, let us
say, in the middle of a wilderness area, and the problem has been
providing, maybe, not the the authority, but the funds~ so far, to
acquire those lands, so it is in a direction really from Congress. I
would like to see the bill strengthened from this viewpoint that we
use wherever possible the exchanges, the additional moneys to make
sure that there `is acquisition of inholding or those particularly. con-
flicting uses, those that conflict with the particular use of a forest
and to strengthen that aspect of the land exchange around a sale
land purchase position.
It is not limited to the east;. it is very extensive to the West.
Mr. MELOHER. The gentleman from Kansas.
Mr. SKumTz. Tinder the 1ai~guage we have here, does this limit any
townsite to one application of only 640 acres, or does the townsite
come in and get more than the 640 a.cres?
Mr. MELOHER. 640 acres. What is the town limit?
Mr. Sn~n~R. There is no limitation on the number of `applications
that they can make, Mr. Chairman. It is just a limitation on the
acreage within the one application.
Mr. KIMBALL. I think hereto that cities and communities have a
preference for this `type of land acquisition ~nd take advantage of
the appreciation advantages, if you want, given that that is one
thing. But that was another one of the-we suggested competitive
bidding on some of these things so the true values of those types of
property and the value would come to the Federal Treasury, unless
you spe~cifically want to get that particular appreciation of value if
you are going to give them more land than they really need currently
at one time, like 640 acres and have them apply for several of those
in the process of a year. .
Mr. MELOHER. I have to ask a couple of more questions on national
forests because we want to have a clear understanding of what is in
the bill and what your specific objections are with respect to provi-
sions for national forest lands. One is on the duration of leases.
If I read .this testimony correctly you seem to say that the methods
followed by the Forest Service are okay and the `methods followed
by the BLM currently are okay.
PAGENO="0387"
466
lands `located adjacent, et cetera, et cetera, that presumably this. pro-
posal `implies certainly that there is not to exceed 640 acres of Na-
tional Forest System lands.
Now, does not the Forest Service at~ the present time operate under
the Townsite Act, and I understood-as far as Mr. Manguire's testi-
mony was concerned-that he indicated that they had not occasion
to use it to any extent at all, which essentially is saying that they do
not have a major problem in this area.
~I do not know the details of the Townsite Act, but I think it is
lughly appropriate because I gather that this section here-if that
amendment does not amend the rfowflsjte Act-does it not Bill?
Mr. MAmi REIMER. This section amends the Townsite Act. The
present Townsite Act has not been used. It would provide for the
Secretary of Agriculture to make the actual subdivision and sale, put
the Secretary of Agriculture on this subdivision sale business. We
have used existing excange authority to accomplish objectives
around communities. This amendment would amend the Townsite
Act, and it would allow the conveyance of lands to the community.
The community would be in the business of subdivision or sale.
This is an improvement over the present Townsite Act. The Forest
Service has not sought a sale authority. We have used the exchange
authority.
Mr. KIMBALL. Have you been able to satisfactorily perform under
the exchange generally?
Mr. MARK REIMER. It is our view that the committee's discussion
has indicated whether or not we move fast enough or are flexible
enough, but we have handled" exchanges adjacent to communities
and have not had a problem.
* Mr. KIMBALL. That is the way I would prefer to see it.
Mr. MELOHER. I want to draw to the attention of the panel that
this is the only section dealing with sales that applies to the forest.
If you find some problem with that interpretation, I would be glad
to correct it, but that is the only section presented to us by the Forest
Service. That is an improvement to solve the problem, and thta is the
only thing that is in the bill that deals with sales.
Now, if you have objectives to that-
Mr. SMITH. That is the only thing for sales.
Mr. MELCHER. Now, do you have objections to that section?
Mr. KIMBALL. I would if they could accomplish the purpose by
exchange, because there you are "~ putting an equal amount of leased
value land back in the public ownership.
Mr. MELCIIER. The problem is that many communities cannot re-
solve their problems by exchange. If that were the case there would
be no urging on this committee to amend the law regarding Forest
Service lands and these communities.
Mr. KIMBALL. Maybe the solution to that particular problem
would be to suggest, or maybe write as a stipulation in the law to
attempt to achieve that purpose through exchange. In the event that
is not successful.. i,t may be sold. But I like the exchan~e provision.
Mr. MELCnrE. Well, we do not have any problem with the Forest
Service. That is an improvement to solve the problem, and that is the
resolve the purpose. They have that authority now and they utilize
it, but simply fall short of resolving the problem. ` `
PAGENO="0388"
465
Mr. SHAFER. The Forest Service has been brought in to some ex-
tent under this bills but to answer the chairman's questions specifical-
ly, we do nothing with the Forest Service grazing advisory boards
under this bill. We do say that there should be a continuation of
those district advisory boards set up under section 18 of the Taylor
Grazing Act.
Mr. POOLE. If I might point out, that was a diversion from the
first question, the advisory board-the first question was what is the
overlap of the implications with the Forest Service, and Mr. Towell
said grazing, land sales, duration of leases, rights-of-way and with-
drawals.
These are the major ones.
Mr. MELOHER. Well, we have to take them up one at a time. Sales
is a problem, which you have admitted, for the communities that
are entirely surrounded by public domain.
Mr. KIMBALL. But, you see, in the case of the Forest Service that
is usually in the higher elevation, very few urban or even suburban
communities-
Mr. MELOHER. That has not been our experience.
Mr. KIMBALL. Let me put it in this way, not merely as many as in
BLM lands.
Mr. MELGHER. I do not know. but there is a problem with forest
lands. We have had testimony on that all throughout the hearing
stage. I am sorry the gentleman from California is missing. California
is big on the committee, and they have land in many communities
surrounded by national forest lands. They are one of the advocates of
some provisions for allowing some sales. And Arizona is similar.
Mr. KIMBALL. My understanding is that they currently have au-
thority for exchange and disposal, and I am not sure just how that
law applies specifically
Mr. MELCHER. If I remember the testimony correctly, in March
here, they wanted this extra adjustment, 20 percent in cash or some
provision for cash. They view that as an advantage, is that right?
Mr. KIMBALL. That is on the exchange parts. I will repeat again,
my concern, and I speak specifically for myself, about the disposal
of public lands generally. I think what is missing in this bill is a
firm declaration about maintaining the current ratio under those
circumstances, on exchange, and particularly on sales, so that if we
apply this to forest lands to deal in lands around urban, suburban
communities and then we sell isolated tracts, and both of those, I
think, that that collectively eventually will materially change that
percentage unless there is some sort of a declaration by Congress
that the objective, to maintain that ratio.
Mr. MELOHER. I feel that we have drawn the line very carefully
here.
Mr. KIMBALL. But, there is no declaration of that, Mr. Chairman,
anywhere in that bill unless I missed it somewhere. And that was one
of the first bills I remember of the Public Land Law Review Com-
mission study made under Chairman Aspinail. That was one of the
first major conclusions of that study.
Mr. S~rrni. Mr. Chairman, I am a little bit confused. On page
18 of the bill, line 21. the matter specifically directs the Secretary
of Agriculture that when be determines a proolamation of forest
54-OO~-75----3i
PAGENO="0389"
464
fine, but if the Federal agency has already run over and trampled
you, we do not find much relief or much satisfaction in the oversight
hearing. We may not change their mind, and they could usually cor-
rectly point out that they have followed the wishes of Congress the
same provided for in the existing statutes. They claim they have
hardly ever abused statutes or used their discretionary powers ille-
gally. The results that we just question their judgment.
I think it is a matter of philosophy. Yes.
Mr. TOWELL. Mr. Chairman, another subject, if I may, I would
like to confirm the support of the American Forestry Association for
this testimony, and we emphasize one portion of it. I would like to
see the U.S. Forest Service left out of this legislation.
As Chief McGuire has already testified, the Forest Service exer-
cises these authorities, sales authority, withdrawal, exchange, and
rights-of-way, and I see no need to complicate a good working au-
thority which that agency already has.
As one recommendation, the multiple-use definition in this legisla-
tion differs from that of the multiple-use definition already in oper-
ation for the Forest Service, and I would recommend for the point
of making it compatible and workable that the same definition be
used, and I would prefer that of the Forest Service which has been
in operation for a good number of years and equivalent.
Mr. MELOHER. Well, is that not a point though that this multiple-
use definition in this bill would have to differ because we are dealing
with minerals.
Mr. TOWELL. No, I do not think so. I think we need to single out
resources in defining a principle.
Mr. MELOHER. I think a more important point is that your analysis
may not be accurate. It is incorrect,. Mr. Kimball, to imply, if that
is what your testimony does, that the national forest lands are covered
by the general provisions of this bill. That general coverage was
deleted very meticuously and very carefully by a series of amendments
proposed by Mr. Dellenback, former member of this subcommittee,
who went over the bill very carefully. We now want to get down to
the very specific points where the Forest Service should be in this bill.
Well, for instance, would you like us to delete Forest Service from
the oversight review. I know you dO not, but-
Mr. KIMBALL. No, but the advisory board's concepts should be on
a multiple-use basis on all of these things. The Forest Service has
their own multiple-use boards. There are many complications there.
Mr. MELOHER. Has staff paid attention to this testimony? Would
you repeat that, because it is strange to me, Mr. Kimball. I do not
know that we are dealing with the Forest Service Advisory Board.
Mr. KIMBALL. Well, I am not sure either of that designation.
Mr. MELOHER. Mr. Kimball is saying that we object to including
the Forest Service Advisory Boards in this legislation. We are now
aware that they are in there.
Mr. SHAFER. Well, the only boards we deal with are those author-
ized under the Taylor Grazing Act.
Mr. MELCHER. Yes.
Mr. KIMBALL. It involves withdrawals, grazing right-of-way, ex-
change.
Mr. TOWELL. Sales authorities, grazing, withdrawals, exchange au-
thority, duration of leases, and rights-of-way.
PAGENO="0390"
463
exploring how you would include that kind of circumstance so that
things do not fall through the cracks. At least, our organization is
unhappy about that. I think it would be worth looking into just
what kind of mechanism there is for dealing with that problem, if
that is the problem; as you already Imow, that is one of the great
controversies.
Mr. KIMBALL. I was going to say, just looking back a number of
years that I have been associated in management affairs that cuts
both ways: that there have been some withdrawals which, in our
view, were exceptional. They reserve the values that our organiza-
tion holds dear, and that was done by the Executive act, and we
were pretty sure that had we had to go the legislative route it would
have been a long and tedious, and, perhaps~ many of the values that
were protected would have been gone by that time. And there may
have been others on the other side, so I say it works both ways.
I think to be honest about it is one of the reasons why we have
some reservations about it, because at many of the areas that we look
back on were the values that we hold dear. Our concern were done
by the withdrawal route.
Mr. MELOHER. I think for that very reason the committee adopted
the veto feature last year. because we do not want to interfere. It does
not take an affirmative action of the committee to approve an action.
This leaves the agency free to act promptly, quickly and in the public
interest. We were using the veto portion to say if we do not agree
we have got a right to say why we do not think it is in the public
interest. We now have about a year and a half experience with the
veto provision to put in the Alaskan pipeline bill, with respect to oil
and gas pipelines across public lands.
W~ find ourselves quite often representing considerable interests
that are limited to a geographic area. By that, I mean I represent a
lot of acres, a huge, massive portion of Montana, and my colleague
in North Dakota represents the whole State, but there are only two
of us. To begin with. about the Arctic gas PiPeline, which may bring
natural gas ~*cross Alaska, down the MacKenzie Valley through Can-
ada, and across our States and several other States and to bring gas
to the Midwest.
As far as I am concerned, the application for the act would seem
to preclude any opportunity for people in Montana, consumers
in Montana and North Dakota, to have any access to the natural
gas. It would cross our States for many hundred of miles. We felt
that the FCC should review that. They would be joined by others
now who are here in Congress and our respective States as inter-
venors. But we will not just be talking to the FCC which, after all,
is one avenue by which to establish our concerns. We are also going to
have the opportunity to discuss it in the subcommittee if and when the
Department of Interior gives serious consideration to granting a per-
mit across public lands in Alaska, or for that matter over the public
lands that might be crossed in Montana or North Dakota.
In that review, we a.re going to find that we have an opportunity
to express our concerns again for what is important to our States'
health. These are the type of things that we have to look at here in
Congress when we get our chance to express our concern of our peo-
ple and to find a. way of doing what is right. Oversight hearings are
PAGENO="0391"
462
thing very specific giving him a directive, because it was not in the
feeling of Members of Congress that he would interpret the legis-
lation of this fact.
Mr. KIMBALL. Or to rescind the action.
Mr. SMITH. Or to rescind the action. We have seen the reaction,
rescinded, in some instances.
Mr. PooLE. Perhaps there have been some mistakes made on both
sides.
Mr. SMITH. Possibly.
Mr. MELOHER. It is certainly after the fact. Actually, I dare say
that there are not 16 votes in the House of Representatives that are
currently aware of the action taken by the Secretary of the C. M.
Russel Game Range. It would be out of the question, passing a spe-
cial piece of legislation rescinding the action of the Secretary in that
instance.
Mr. SMITI-I. Mr. Chairman, again let me say-
Mr. MELOHER. I am not saying that his judgment was right or
wrong. But if it were to be taken to the House floor, well, it would
probably be considered as a sop to two or three people in this com-
mittee, if even brought out of the committee and taken to the House
floor.
Mr. S~r1Tn. You say 16 people under the bill came before this
committee not too long ago; that the ranking minority member-
we had five votes when we started out, and after the individual serv-
ice was brought up here, what it amounted to was an oversight hear-
ing, and there was an extention. After an extension on this with
congressional interest, that bill passed, by seven votes on the floor of
the House, and that was Piscataway Park. And I would say that if
we had it right now, if we had a serious, indepth oversight by that
committee on this particular action, by the time the committee got
through. and the press and the media and the organizations involved
had their say, then when you go to the floor of the House, I think
you would have more than 16 votes.
Mr. SKUBITZ. If the gentleman will yield-
Mr. MELOHER. Yes.
Mr. SIc~TmTz. That is the only way to do it; that is the reason we
got it through.
Mr. SMITH. I agree. But that is, I think, what we are supposed
to do.
Mr. MELOTIER. I think part of the answer, though, is how many
years did it take?
Mr. SKUBTTZ. A dozen years.
Mr. MELCITER. We think we have to act more expeditiously, and
this procedure provides that opportunity to nullify a decision made
by the executive agencies in these instances. Now, we are kind of
wedded to that idea, but if there is a better way of doing it, I would
be delighted to have it.
Ms. WILSON. One suggestion I would make on behalf of Audubon,
that interests me from some of the earlier conversations. Mr. Shafer
mentioned his view, although I am not a lawyer, I share it; that in
the specific case of the game ranges, this withdrawal arid review
authority would not have done us aiiy good, anyway, the way it is
worded. That is the way I read the bill, too, and it might be worth
PAGENO="0392"
461
thought the Reorganization Act of Congress was going to put more
emphasis on oversight, and I also thought they were going to be
given more staff in order to accomplish more oversight. I am really
concerned that, in this particular instance here~ which can simply
serve as a kind of a toxin to any other area-if we start writing
legislation here, even though we are upset, and we are especially up-
set right now that here we have had these three big transfers right
out of the Fish and Wildlife Services to the BLM, if we had this lan-
guage, ~t would have prevented it, or we could have vetoed it. We
are aware that this thing cuts both ways, but I really feel that it is
not good legislative practice. I would much rather have the Congress
drag these people up here in oversight fashion, and go into it in
some detail; and whatever comes out of that oversight hearing could
then serve as the basis for legislation. And also, a lot of other or-
gamza.tions could get involved into the act, and be helpful too.
There is a feeling, by some of course, that we should do not do
anything with the BLM now. We should wait until it becomes a per-
fect agency, and then we would write an organic bill for it. I do
not agree with that. I think it is going to take a long time to give an
agency a new mandate, get started, try and reorganize it, get suffi-
cient funds and personnel for it so that we can come up to the level
of resource management that we want it to be. And I do not think
that, sometimes, you can do that if you put too many restraints and
constraints on as a consequence.
Mr. MELC~R. I think we have a major difference here. It is true
that Congress has not exercised its oversight responsibility in the
past as much as it should, and the new rules mandate oversight
responsibility of each committee. But oversight is an after-the-fact
type of operation. After they have done something, you can ask them
why. But it is clear that unless you legislate some restrictions, the
agencies are operating just as Congress has authorized them to oper-
ate. You object to what the Secretary decided to do, in regard to the
C. M. Russell Game Range, for instance. But in that case, the Secre-
tary has not acted contrary to any mandate of Congress, and has not
abused his power. All we can do is question his judgment.
I frankly believe that our oversight responsibility is going to have
to be aided by legislative actions, providing for correction by com-
mittees of Congress before an executive action is committed if the
committee decides it is contrary to the public interest. I think that
is the basic flaw of Congress. During the past 30 to 40 years. we
adopted legislation giving the executive all this discretioi~ary author-
ity. They use that discretionary authority. Congress gave it to them,
mandated it, they used it or implied that they used it.
Mr. S~irrH. Mr. Chairman, I am not trying to be contentious. But
it seems to me that this is what the oversight provision is for. You
said, maybe after the fact; but it is a reason to review, for an ex-
ample, when you say it is not just a matter of abuse of power-it is
a question of judgment. I would think that neither of these are ruled
out in a serious oversight hearing. I have attended many of them
in 25 years on the Hill, and I can say that some of them would go
right to the judgment of the Secretary, and that this is very much a
part of the analysis. And it is at that point that the Congress may
decide that they wish to introduce legislation, and then write some-
54-005-75--------30
PAGENO="0393"
460
think you can take that many instances of problems that arise, and
it is pretty difficult to be fair in a statute of that context. In my
view, that is really why we have an executive agency of Government.
Congress sets Federal guidelines and allows an agency to apply
that in the overall public interest under those guidelines, with some
leeway. It is difficult to write a law that is going to be fair to that
many people, and that specific.
Mr. MELCHER. Well, we are not striking out on new ground. The
regulations of BLM are longstanding, and apparently have worked
well. And if that is true, I do not think it is contrary to the public
interest to keep it statutory.
Now on your recommending the deletion of the veto power. It is in
the Subcommittee Print No. 1. We are not so proud of that particular
feature that it is not to be opened to other suggestions. `We have had
a problem in making sure that there is congressional review of with-
drawals or chailge in management plans. Utilizing the veto powers
is just one way of doing it. It is a better way of doing it than just
saying the Congress can do it. Congress cannot do it unless there is
some set procedure. I, as one individual, or Joe Skubitz as one indi-
vidual of Congress, or even two or three of us, have a very difficult
time making sure that there is congressional review over the decisions
made by the executive branch of the Government. But if you have
anything to offer in lieu of the veto power that really puts Congress in
the business of having some review-
Mr. KIMBALL. I personally think that the overview or the over-
sight powers a congressional committee has, if it is not adequate,
maybe that part of it could be strengthened materially. But it seems
to me that day-to-day actions of the executive branch of Govern-
ment, that the congressional committee would find it very difficult
and cumbersome to be second-guessing that part of the activity of
executive agencies. But if you give them general guidelines, and then
they abuse those guidelines, then the oversight procedure and the
corrector of committees by law, or even by the oversight hearing it-
self, tend to correct decisions that have been rendered by the execu-
tive branch that are not in the overall public interest.
So, the more intensive use of ~, the overview, oversight powers of
the committee seems to be one of the ways that you could get at that.
Mr. POOLE. I would like to join with Mr. Kimball in that. I have
been in Washington a fair number of years now, and I think that
in almost every instance we can see where a situation would be con-
siderably less exacerbated if Congress had, in fact, taken the time
to assemble its committee members on these various subjects, and how
these agencies actually are exercising the policies and the authorities
that Congress has given to them. And I really, just as a personal ob-
servation, think that we probably~ would benefit by the introduction
of a lot fewer laws, and the conduct of many more oversight hear-
ings, in a number of these subjects, particularly in the area that I
am familiar with in the natural resdurces area.
Mr. SMITH. Mr. Chairman, I would like to mention one or more
comments from the arguments. I think sometimes, when we go
through a period, at least in the area of our concern where there
appears to be some abuse of executive power, or some failure to act
in the area-there is a tendency tO circumvent legislation. Now, I
PAGENO="0394"
450
Mr. MELOHER. Well, we do want to include in the bill, of course, the
use of money to equalize exchanges, which you recommended for BLM
and the Forest Service if I recall your testmony last year. But, now, let
us just talk about sales of isolated tracts, and assume that, in most
instances, the isolated tracts we are talking about are currently used
for grazing, and that is what they will continue to be used for.
Now, in that relationship, do you not see value in the continuance
of a principle, as BLM has applied in the past, that adjacent land-
owners have a preference?
Mr. KIMBALL. Certainly.
Mr. MELCHER. You do not recommend that we have competitive
bidding per se, then?
Mr. KIMBALL. I will go ahead and let Dan answer this.
Mr. Pooi~. I think we should veto all of this in the context of
the last sentence that discusses that part. We said we prefer the
provisions of H.R. 5622, where competitive bidding would be re-
quired, except in specially defined circumstances. We would want
these to be better defined than they currently are.
Mr. WILSON. If I may, Congressman Melcher, section 2050 (-5622)
sets up a standard that we believe is flexible enough to take care of
the kind of problem you are speaking about when it says,
Where the Secretary determines, if necessary, to assure proper land man-
agement for protection of environmental values, he is authorized to sell national
resource lands with modified competitive bidding, or without competitive bidding.
As we read that language, if it makes sense if you have a little
tract here that is isolated, and it makes sense in terms of land manage-
ment to sell that to the adjacent landowner, I think under that
language you would be free to do it. And yet, it would not force
him to do it if there were good reasons not to; for instance, if the
adjacent landowner is not a good manager of the land, and you felt
it would be a good idea.
Mr. MELCHER. Just before the panel came on, you heard Tom
Garrett make a rather passionate statement to protect family oper-
ators. And this committee last year was apprehensive that this pro-
tection would be lost unless we salted this preference down in the
bill itself, making sure by statute that that preference right did exist
for these adjacent landowners to bid and to follow that procedure
where the BLM establishes appraised values and adjacent landowners
are allowed to bid up to three times that appraised value and not
have to go any higher. The committee felt that we would thus pre-
serve the opportunity for those people to stay in business. We know
what happens to land values. Somebody from a thousand miles away
may think it would be great fun to own 80 acres or 160 acres of grazing
land in Montana, and bid everybody out of sight, doing extreme
damage to the person that really needs the land.
So that is why we have chosen-or, at least last year, we chose-
to make it statutory; it would be discretionary in each instance. May-
be we have not drawn that clearly enough, but I detect what we are
trying to do is not contrary to what you feel would be in the public
interest in this regard.
Mr. KIMBALL. Just speaking for myself, I personally like the
discretionary authority much better than the absolute, because I
PAGENO="0395"
458
Section 604(b) seemingly would extinguish the Secretary's with-
drawal authority except as provided in the Organic Act. It is our
opinion that such restrictions are unnecessary and would curtail
the Secretary's flexibility to properly manage public lands. We recom-
mend that the provision be dropped.
Committee print No. 1 contains many good points. Of necessity
we have focused mainly on those with which we do not agree.
H.R. 5622 is more in line with our views on what the BLM Or-
ganic Act should be; therefore, we recommend that it be used as the
markup vehicle.
We thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to express
our views on and support for this important legislation.
Mr. MELOHER. Thank you very much, Mr. Kimball.
We are having staff develop a comparison of HI.R. 5622 with Sub-
committee Print No. 1 so that as we approach mark-up sessions, the
subcommittee will be knowledgeable and familiar with provisions that
differ in H.R. 5622. This will clearly lay them out before the sub-
committee members so that they can determine their preference in
relationship to the two bills.
I find a number of points I want to question. Mr. Kimball, the
first one concerns the question of competitive bidding sales. I think
it is fair to say that the subcommittee feels that there are possibly two
instances where sales should be recommended.
One concerns the communities that are surrounded by public lands
and simply need more living space. I do not think we have any quarrel
there with the concept of allowing sales. Then, I think, it is fair to
say that the committee last year viewed sales of isolated tracts that
are difficult to manage as probably being a wise course to take. As I
view that, I think of what is known as section 15 lands, administered
by the BLM, in vast open country where the use is almost entirely for
grazing. Obviously, there are wildlife values and potential recrea-
tional values related to wildlife or just getting out into the country.
If we were not to make exceptions to competitive bidding, would we
destroy the opportunity to solve the problems that we areattempting
to solve? For instance, for the communities, how does competitive
bidding fit in if you want to allow the community to expand? Are
you just going to offer the land to the people who have the best idea on
how to make the most amount of money?
Mr. KIMBALL. I think that preference rights for some of these
uses can certainly be given consideration. I think it does in some of
the current laws. I think that what we are concerned about, if I
might make this a suggestion, is strengthening the exchange pro-
vision for isolated tracts. I think one of the problems is consolidating
for management purposes blocks of land, both in private ownership
and that in public ownership. Oftentimes the exchange could not
be made because the agency lacks authority to add a little money if
there is differences in value and the tracts could be traded, or to
make some other adjustments in the trading values. Our concern
is that if you keep the sales of lands continually going, you then begin
to disrupt this one-third, two-thirds, private-public ownership pat-
tern that we would like to see Congress come out strong for. We
would like to see that ratio maintained.
PAGENO="0396"
457
the lands remain available and the permittee complies with all regu-
lations and permit terms. It would confer a right which is not given
to any other user of the public lands. We oppose the granting of
any private right, title, interest, or estate in the public lands as
being contrary to the public interest.
The Forest Service issues 10-year permits and seems to be doing
well. However, it is discetionary with the Secretary as to extensions.
We have no objections to discretionary 10-year permits as author-
ized by the Taylor Grazing Act if: (1) There is proper manage-
ment of the land by the permittee; and (2) there is an allotment
management plan. The BLM report to the Senate on range condi-
tions points up the need to provide BLM needed flexibility to manage
grazing use as well as other resource uses. The provision for manda-
tory 10-yeai~ permits with automatic renewal is unacceptable to
the conservation community herein represented.
We believe that BLM Advisory Boards should be broad-based and
multiple resource oriented as directed by the Federal Advisory
Committee Act. Such input is essential to proper land management.
Continuance of grazing district advisory boards dominated by the
livestock industry and establishment of local advisory councils is
a duplication of effort which could lead to conflicts between the
boards and councils. The livestock industry will be adequately repre-
sented on any mutliple use advisory board, and we see no reason to
continue the grazing district advisory board.
We recommend that section 212 be deleted.
We recommend the wilderness concept for suitable areas of public
domain land. We prefer the language of H.R.. 5622 as it pertains
to wilderness designation because it would provide better interim
protection for study areas. We recommend that the wilderness lan-
guage in H.R. 5622 be used.
Section 402 of the Committee Print No. 1 would increase to
25,000 acres annually the acreage that may be given to a State. As
a general principle, we believe the public lands should be retained
in Federal ownership and that disposals should be for specific
reasons only. We oppose this provision as written.
Section 502 apparently provides that where multiple use roads of
a higher quality than needed for one-time timber removal are re-
quired, the timber buyers would not have to pay costs of meeting
the higher standard. The buyers, in fact, do not pay for the roads
at all because stumpage prices are reduced by BLM to take care
of the costs. We want buyers to be required to build roads that meet
multiple use purposes and safety requirements. Limiting road con-
struction to that needed for one particular sale could result in a
series of unrelated substandard roads which would not support fu-
ture timber harvests or other uses. We oppose this provision.
Title VI of Subcommittee Print No. 1 repeals a number of out-
dated laws. It would postpone the effective date of the repealers
for varying time periods. We recommend the laws be repealed
immediately to prevent a flood of applications that likely would
occur before the law expires. There is no reason, in our view, to
prolong the life of those obsolete statutes and to further compound
the problems they have already created.
PAGENO="0397"
456
our view, that language wOuld make competitive bidding unlikely
when so many entities receive preferential treatment.
The State, county, city, Or municipality would have first rights.
After that, adjoining land owners, individuals, and others would
be considered. The State and local governments already have author-
ity under the Recreation and Public Purposes Act to purchase land
at reduced prices. Their preference rights should be eliminated. We
prefer the provisions in H.R. 5622 where competitive bidding
would be required except in specially defined circumstances.
There might be one other addition we might suggest, Mr. Chair-
man, and that is rejected by the public lands study that was done a
few years ago at considerable public expense, which stated that the
ratio between private and public lands should remain about the
same; and that at any sale or disposal programs the will of Con-
gress to this degree should be expressed positively that that particular
ratio should be maintained.
We believe that BLM should be given acquisition authority com-
parable to that of the U.S. Forest Service. As written in section
205 of Committee Print No. 1, BLM would have power of eminent
domain "only if necessary to secure access" and "only if lands so
acquired are confined to as narrow a corridor as is necessary."
We recommend that BLM also be permitted such power within
the boundaries of the public domain as well as for access. These are
for incompatible uses, and so forth. In that regard, we prefer the
language in H.R. 5622, which was recently introduced by Congress-
man Seiberling. Such authority is important in piecing together
the patchwork of ownership in many areas of the West.
We strongly support provisions of section 207 in Committee
Print No. 1 for recordations. The need for such records is obvious.
We hope the committee retains that important language.
We are opposed to sections 210,~ 211, and 212 of Committee Print
No. 1 which pertain to grazing. They should be dropped entirely.
The existing grazing fee structure and schedule should be main-
tained. And we have no objection to a legislative mandate to that
effect in view of successive administrations' refusals to implement
the program.
The present fee formula was developed in the sixties with inter-
departmental study and public participation. It is a fair and economi-
cally sound approach, in our opinion. The public, which owns the
public land forage, has not had an opportunity to review the formula
proposed in Committee Print No. 1. It is based on a combined index
of prices received for beef cattle and for privately owned forage.
The price of private forage is determined by ma.ny other factors
as well as the price of cattle. Such things as property taxes and the
competition for land and labor or involved. Furthermore, the formu-
la is questionable because it would base forage costs for sheep on
the basis of cattle prices. And the $2 per AUM floor called for
could in time be unfair to the permittee should economic conditions
worsen sufficiently.
We object to the 10-year mandatory grazing permits which ap-
parently call for automatic renewal. That provision seems to give
a permanent right in perpetuity to existing grazing permittees if
PAGENO="0398"
455
tant deterioration of those lands and resources for decades. These
concerns have gone unheaded for the most part.
Now, two rcent publications by BLM document the declining
state of those public resources. I noted, Mr. Chairman, you do not
think much of those reports. Perhaps we do not either, but at least
they are the best we have. We do not know of any others that docu-
ment the conditions of our range resources. They are inumerable-
what I consider at least, we consider, to be obvious to any trained
observer, that much of the public domain is in poor condition and
evidently getting worse.
The reports state that public range lands will continue to deteri-
orate-I think this concerns me more than anything else-by as
much as 25 percent in 25 years if the trend is not reversed. Such
conditions not only reduce the land's capacity to support livestock;
the degrade other equally important resources such as fish and wild-
life, recreation, and watershed values. BLM's reports point out that
undeniable fact.
Congress and the administration share responsibility for the de-
plorable condition of the public domain. Adequate authority, funds,
and manpower have not been provided to BLM for its important
task. This committee can give the leadership and direction needed
to enhance the many public resources under BLM's care. We urge
your earnest efforts and swift action in that regard.
While we are in firm agreement with the committee's overall
objectives, we do have serious reservations and some strong objections
to parts of subcommittee print No. 1.
We firmly believe that the national Forest System should be
exempt from the general application of this bill. Previously this
committee has stressed the need for consistency between the Forest
Service and BLM. While there will be some differences if the Forest
Service is left out of this legislation, they will not be major.
I might add, Mr. Chairman, here that there are two ways we can
deal with those inconsistencies. One is through this legislation. The
other is through amendment to some of the Forest Service legislation.
Since they are not combining these agencies, in our view the letter
would be perhaps better.
Section 202(e) would provide Congress veto power over land
use planning decisions affecting 100,000 acres or more when on or
more uses are excluded. Section 204 would give Congress veto power
over withdarwals for other purposes involving 5,000 or more acres.
We certainly have no objections to providing for congressional
review of all withdrawals. We do believe, however, that the veto
power is an unnecessary requirement that would restrict BLM's
flexibility to properly manage public domain lands. It could pro-
vide a forum for continual argument and counter argument among
various resource users that could stifle implementation of important
public land decision. Congress can always act its will through leg-
islation. It should. however, maintain its policy making and over-
sight position, and not be involved in the day-to-day management
of public domain lands. We recommend deletion of the veto power.
Section 203 (d) contains complex disposal provisions that would
benefit State and local governments and adjacent land owners. In
PAGENO="0399"
454
BLM to take care of the costs. We want buyers to be required to build roads
that meet multiple use purposes and safety requirements. Limiting road con-
struction to that needed for one particular sale could result in a series of un-
related substandard roads which would not support future timber harvests or
other uses. We oppose this provision.
Title VI of Subcommittee Print No. 1 repeals a number of outdated land
laws. It woujd postpone the effective date of the repealers for varying time
periods. We recommend the laws be repealed immediately to prevent a flood of
applications that likely would occur before the law expires. There is no rea-
son, in our view, to prolong the life of those obsolete statutes and to further
compound the problems they have created.
Section 604(b) seemingly would extinguish the Secretary's withdrawal au-
thority except as provided in the Organic Act. It is our opinion that such re-
strictions are unnecessary and would curtail the Secretary's flexibility to
properly manage public land. We recommend that the provision be dropped.
Committee Print No. 1 contains many good points. Of necessity we have
focused mainly on those with whichwe do not agree.
HR. 5622 is more in line with our views on what the BLM Organic Act
should be, therefore we recommend that it be used as the mark up vehicle.
We thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to express our views on
and support for this important legislation.
STATEMENTS OF THOMAS L. KIMBALL, EXECUTIVE VICE PRESI-
DENT, NATIONAL WILDLIFE FEDERATION, ON BEHALF OF
NATIONAL CONSERVATION ORGANIZATIONS, ACCOMPANIED BY
WILLIAM E. TOWELL, EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT, AMERICAN
FORESTRY ASSOCIATION; DANIEL A. POOLE, PRESIDENT, WILD-
LIFE MANAGEMENT INSTITUTE; JOHN S. GOTTSCHALK, EXECU-
TIVE VICE PRESIDENT, INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF GAME,
FISH AND CONSERVATION COMMISSIONERS; FRED G. EVENTDEN,
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, THE WILDLIFE SOCIETY; CARL K. SULLI-
VAN, EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, SPORT FISHING INSTITUTE; C. R.
GUTERMUTH, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION OF
AMERICA; WE5TLEY M. DIXON, JR., PRESIDENT, BOONE AND
CROCKETT CLUB; SPENCER M. SMITH, JR., SECRETARY, CITIZENS
COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES; CYNTHIA E. WILSON,
WASHINGTON, D.C., REPRESENTATIVE, NATIONAL AUDUBON
SOCIETY; MAITLAND S. SHARPE, ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
DIRECTOR, IZAAK WALTON LEAGUE OF AMERICA
Mr. KIMBALL. I am Thomas L. Kimball, executive vice president
of the National Wildlife Federation. I am presenting this statement
in behalf of my organization that you have just read. Many of those
who represent those organizations are here at. the table and will
respond if you have any specific questions for them.
We have attempted to limit this testimony to the comments that
we can unitably support. There may be aditional specific detailed
comments from the individual organizations on matters other than
these; but for the purpose of the record these are the comments
which all of the organizations support.
We will restrict comments to the more basic provisions of the bill
on which there is a broad agreement. Those of us familiar with the
public domain have pointed out the inadequate attention and resul-
PAGENO="0400"
453
preference rights should be eliminated. We prefer the provisions in H.R. 5622
where competitive bidding would be required except in defined circumstances.
We believe that BLM should be given acquisition authority comparable to
that of the U.S. Forest Service. As written in Section 205 of Committee Print
No. 1, BL1\I would have power of eminent domain `only if necessary to secure
access" and "only if lands so acquired are confined to as narrow a corridor
as is necessary . . ." We recommend that BLM also be permitted such power
within the boundaries of the public domain as well as for access. In that re-
gard, we prefer the language in H.R. 5622, which was recently introduced by
Congressman Seiberling. Such authority is important in piecing together the
patchwork of ownership in many areas of the West.
We strongly support provisions of Section 207 in Committee Print No. 1 for
recordations. The need for such records is obvious. We hope the Committee
retains that important language.
We are opposed to Section 210, 211, and 212 of Committee Print No. 1 which
pertain to grazing. They should be dropped entirely. The existing grazing fee
structure and schedule should be maintained. And we have no objection to a
legislative mandate to that effect in view- of successive Administrations' refusal
to implement the program.
The present fee formula was developed in the 1960's with interdepartmental
study and public participation. It is a fair and economically sound approach,
in our opinion. The public, which owns the public land forage, has not had an
opportunity to review the formula proposed in Committee Print No. 1. It is based
on a combined index of prices received for beef cattle and for privately owned
forage. The price of private forage is determined by many other factors as
well as the price of cattle. Such things as property taxes and the competition for
land and labor are involved. Furthermore, the formula is questionable because it
would base forage costs for sheep on the basis fo cattle prices. And the $2.00
per AUM floor called for could in time be unfair to the permittee should eco-
nomic conditions worsen sufficiently.
We object to the 10-year mandatory grazing permits which apparently call
for automatic renew-al. That provision seems to give a permanent right in
perpetuity to existing grazing permittees if the lands remain available and
the permitee complies with all regulations and permit terms. It would confer
a right which is not given to any other user of the public lands. We oppose
the granting of any private right, title, interest, or estate in the public lands as
being contrary to the public interest.
The Forest Service issues 10 year permits and seems to be doing well. How-
ever, it is discretionary with the Secretary as to extensions. We have no ob-
jections to discretionary 10-year permits as authorized by the Taylor Grazing
Act if (1) there is proper management of the land by the permittee and (2)
there is an allotment management plan. The BL1\I report to the Senate on range
conditions points up the need to provide BLM needed flexibility to manage
grazing use as well as other resource uses. The provision for mandatory 10-year
permits with automatic renewal is unacceptable to the conservation community.
We believe that BLM Advisory Boards should be broad-based and multi-
resource oriented as directed by the Federal Advisory Committee Act. Such in-
put is essential to proper land management. Continuance of grazing district
advisory boards dominated by the livestock industry and establishment of
local advisory councils is a duplication of effort which could lead to conflicts
between the boards and councils. The livestock industry will be adequately
represented on any multiple use advisory board, and we see no reason to
continue the grazing district advisory board. We recommend that Section 212
be deleted.
We support the wilderness concept for suitable areas of public domain
land. We prefer the language of H.R. 5622 as it pertains to wilderness designa-
tion because it would provide better interim protection for study areas. We
recommend that the wilderness language in HR. 5622 be used.
Section 402 of Committee Print No. 1 would increase to 25,000 acres annually
the acreage that may be given to a state. As a general principle we believe the
public lands should be retained in federal ownership and that disposals should
be for specific reasons only. We oppose this provision as written.
Section 502 apparently provides that there multiple-use roads of a higher
quality than needed for one-time timber removal are required, the timber
buyers would not have to pay costs of meeting the higher standard. The buyers
in fact do not pay for the roads at all because stumpage prices are reduced by
PAGENO="0401"
452
demonstrate the solid support within the national conservation and environ-
mental community for legislation to improve public domain resource manage-
ment. We appreciate the opportunity to be here today.
We will restrict our comments to the more basic provisions of the bills on
which there is broad agreement. The individual organizations represented may
have additional refinements to offer the Committee in writing before the
record is closed. But we all agree on these fundamentals.
Those of us familiar with the public domain have pointed out the inadequate
attention and resultant deterioration of those lands and resources for decades.
Those concerns have gone unheeded for the most part. Now, two recent publica-
tions by BLM document the declining state of those public resources. Those
reports, entitled "Effects of Livestock Grazing on Wildlife, Watershed, Recrea-
tion and Other Resource Values In Nevada," and "Range Condition Report Pre-
pared for the Senate Committee on Appropriations," mirror what is obvious to
any trained observer. .. that much of the public domain is in poor condition and
evidently getting worse.
The reports state that only 17 percent of the public grazing land is in satis-
factory or better condition as defined by BLM. Eighty-three percent is pro-
ducing less than its potential. The reports also state that public rangelands
will continue to deteriorate by as much as 25 percent in 25 years if the trend
is not reversed. Such conditions not only reduce the land's capacity to support
livestock, they degrade other equally important resources such as fish and wild-
life, recreation, and watershed values. BLM's reports point out that undeniable
fact.
Congress and the Administration share responsibility for the deplorable con-
dition of the public domain. Adequate authority, funds, and manpower have
not been provided to BLM for its important task. This Committee can give the
leadership and direction needed to enhance the many public resources under
BLM's care. We urge your earnest efforts and swift action in that regard.
While we are in firm agreement with the Committee's overall objective, we
do have serious reservations and some strong objections to parts of Subcom-
mittee Print No. 1.
We firmly believe that the National Forest System should be exempt from
the general application of this bill. Previously this Committee has stressed
the need for consistency between the Forest Service and BLM. While there
will be some differences if the Forest Service is left out of this legislation, they
will not be major.
The U.S. Forest Service has adequate authority to manage national forests.
It currently is involved in implementing important legislation enacted last
year to define program needs and opportunities. BLM's authorities and direc-
tives and the Forest Service's program should not be complicated by inter-
agency provisions in the BLM Organic Act. Chief John R. McGuire of the
U.S. Forest Service detailed reasons why national forests should not be in-
cluded during recent appearances before this Committee. We believe his posi-
tion is correct. We recommend removal of the Forest Service from this bill.
The Committee should consider amending Forest Service authorities under
separate legislation as needed.
Section 202 (e) would provide Congress veto power over land use planning
decisions affecting 100,000 acres or more when one or more uses are excluded.
Section 204 would give Congress veto pOwer over withdrawals for other pur-
poses involving 5,000 or more acres. We have no objection to providing for Con-
gressional review of all withdrawals. We do believe, however, that the veto
power is an unnecessary requirement that could restrict BLM's flexibility to
properly manage public domain lands. It~ could provide a forum for continual
argument and counter argument among various resource users that could
stifle implementation of important public land decisions. Congress can always
act its will through legislation. It should, however, maintain its policy making
and oversight position and not be involved in the day to day management of
public domain lands. We recommend deletion of the veto power.
Section 203(d) contains complex disposal provisions that would benefit state
and local governments and adjacent landowners. In our view, that language
would make competitive bidding unlikely when so many entities receive pref-
erential treatment. The state, county, city or municipality would have first
rights. After that, adjoining landowners, individuals, and others would be
considered. The state and local governments already have authority under the
Recreation and Public Purposes Act to purchase land at reduced prices. Their
PAGENO="0402"
451
Mr. GARRErr. The reason I did not cite some of the proposed
amendments this morning, we were dealing with the committee print
and I only saw the committee print yesterday. My amendments were
on the proposed bill the conservation group has gotten together sec-
tion-by-section also based on their reworking the Senate bill.
So all I have to do is get some of this language changed in section
3 of your committee bill and I will be glad to do that.
Mr. SKUBITZ. Thank you.
Mr. MELCHER. The gentleman removes his objection, without unan-
imous consent it will be accepted.
Thank you very much, Tom. We appreciate your coming before
us this morning.
Mr. MELCHER. Now we come to the panel of national conservation
organizations. Our spokesman will be Thomas L. Kimball, executive
vice president, National Wildlife Federation. He will be accom-
panied by William E. Towell, executive vice president, American
Forestry Association; Daniel A. Poole, president, Wildlife manage-
ment Institute; John S. Gott.schalk, executive vice president, Inter-
national Association of Game Fish and Conservation Commission-
ers; Fred G. Evenden, The Wildlife Society; Carl K. Sullivan,
Sport Fishing Institute; C. R.. Gutermuth, president, National Rifle
Association; Westly M. Dixon, president., Boone and Crockett Club;
Spencer M. Smith, Citizens Committee on Natural Resources; Cyn-
thia E. Wilson. National Audubon Society; Maitland S. Sharpe, en-
vironmental affairs directorS Izaak Walton League of America.
This is a very fine panel. We are pleased to have you.
Mr. KIMBALL. Mr. Chairman, I am not sure what the committee's
time frame is.
Mr. MELCHER. We are going to take all the time we need to hear
from you.
Mr. KIMBALL. I thought, maybe, in order to save time and to give
you plenty of time to question us about our presentation, that we
might insert our presentation into the record as if read, and devote
what time we have left to any questions you may have about our
points.
I would be happy to summarize the PrinciPal ones if we have time
for that.
Mr. MELCHER. Without objection~ the entire statement of Mr. Kim-
ball will be made a nart of the record at this point..
You may proceed, sir.
iThe prepared statement of Thomas L. Kimball follows:]
STATEMENT OF THOMAS L. KIMBALL EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT, NATIONAL
WILDLIFE FEDERATION
Mr. Chairman: I am Thomas L. Kimball, executive vice president of the
National Wildlife Federation. I am presentiBg this statement in behalf of my
organization and the American Forestry Association, Citizens Committee on
Natural Resources, Boone and Crockett Club, International Association of
Game, Fish and Conservation Commissioners, National Rifle Association, Na-
tional Audubon Society, Sport Fishing Institute, The Wildlife Society, Wildlife
Management Institute, and Izaak Walton League of America.
Representatives of some of those organizations are here with me today.
Starting on my left (introductions).
A good Organic Act for the Bureau of Land Management is long overdue.
We are offering joint testimony today to conserve time, but most importantly, to
PAGENO="0403"
450
Constitution. I believe it is far less liable to be in such violation than the
landowner consent section of the stripmining bill, and that adequate legal base
exists in the stustrata provided by earlier land use and disposal laws.
I hope that the Committee will not become excessively carried away with the
term "fair market value" applied to permits and leases. It is an incontrovertible
fact that long before the passage of the Taylor Grazing Act, and the with-
drawal of lands in the West from homesteading, all but the least valuable land
has passed into private ownership. As John Wesley Powell predicted over 100
years ago, practically all the land in the West containing or adjoining water
has passed from the public domain. I consider the argument that landowners
with animals grazing on public domain are being subsidized, and are thus com-
peting unfairly with livestock raisers who operate on private land, to be rather
hollow. Most operations adjoining public land are by definition rather marginal,
and always were and still are predicated on the availability of public grazing
at limited cost.
In any case, one of the consistent elements in overgrazing is financial in-
stability. In the West today those ranching families which are well established
and reasonably secure financially are the least to meet the next loan payment
who overstocks. Raising grazing permits and Section 15 leases is liable to have
about the same result as rising taxes have had on farming operations through-
out the nation-intensification of use leading eventually to disposal. I have
no doubt that passage of an Organic Act, written and slanted as this proposed
legislation is written and slanted, would have the effect of accelerating the
takeover of the West by speculators and big corporations, and hasten the de-
mise of independent ranching operations.
I would urge the Committee to exempt at least the first two hundred animal
units per owner from any future raise, and to make a corresponding exemption
for Section 15 leases.
We are opposed to any granting of powers of eminent domain to the Bureau
of Land Management, not only for condemnation of tracts of land but for con-
demnation of rights-of-way. The massive misuse and abuse of eminent domain
power by the Bureau of Reclamation, and by numerous other federal agencies,
have convinced us that such powers must be retrenched rather than increased.
As far as road corridors are concerned, there are already far, far too many
roads in the West, without providing, the BLM a pretext to construct more.
The prospect of the BLM using such powers to force roads through Indian lands
in Alaska, claiming such routes represented the only feasible access to lands
which they administer, cannot be discounted. -
The Committee must not plunge into this legislation until it is quite sure
that it thoroughly understands all of the implications. There is occuring now a
period of re-assessment among groups and interests particularly affected by this
issue. The conservation movement, which thought it understood all it needed
to understand, is beginning to perceive that it had become entrapped by its
own earlier rhetoric. While we may become impatient over a protracted ges-
tation period, I believe that it is better to spend additional time in analysis
than to let the internal impetus attaching to this legislation carry us blindly
on to a new disaster in public land policy.
The key question again is: Should agencies charged with management of liv-
ing resources on public lands be entirely separated from those engaging in
energy development, mineral leasing, and other functions related to exploitation
of non-living resources? I am increasingly convinced that they should.
Respectfuly,
TOM GARRETT,
Conservation Director.
Mr. CLAUSEN. Reserving the right to object.
Mr. MELCHER. The gentleman reserves his right.
Mr. CLAUSEN. Would this be-your though being the suggested
amendments or an all-encompassing bill?
Mr. SKUBITZ. It makes no difference. If they can come forth with
a bill, I would like to see their views, I would like to have that. But
if they can live with any one of thse bills with certain specific
amendments then submit the amendment in writing.
PAGENO="0404"
440
served, received its first really significant expression only during the Adminis-
tration of Theodore Roosevelt, and bas_unfortUnateiY-~"~ a rather limited
overall effect on public policy.
The Jeffersonian ideal, distorted by pre-Civil War Politics, exploited by dema-
gogues and by the corrupt, dcminated land policies for a century or more. And
though the homestead laws left ill their wake enormous ecological damage and
human suffering, they also left-as Senator Thomas Benton said they would
in 1825-" . . . a race of virtuous and independent farmers, the true supporters
of their country, and the stock from which its best defenders must be drawn."
I believe that the Taylor Grazing Act was really, despite claims to the con-
trary in three decades of debate preceeding it, an only modestly impure imple-
mentation of Jeffersonian ideas. It had as one of its primary goals and effects
the protection of incumbent settlers and landowners against absentee livestock
owners, such as Senator Stanfield of Oregon who ran 15,000 sheep on free
range in the State of Colorado without owning a squar foot of land in the
state. It aimed to preserve the public lands in order, in part, to achieve rural
stability through stabilizing the production of livestock.
The fact that overgraizng and degradation of many public lands has con-
tinued is not, in my view, because the Taylor Grazing Act was inherently de-
fective, or because the concept of grazing districts was defective, or even that
the decentralized structure first developed by Farrington Carpenter was faulty.
It resulted instead, through constant meddling by Congress, often in individual
cases and on behalf of individual petitioners. Secretary McKay re-organized
the BLM in 1953, into state offices to make such meddling more convenient.
I am convinced that many of the problems attending local control of grazing
districts occurred because control was not local enough, but was distorted by the
influence of prominent stockmen with their Congressional buddies.
We propose that in writing any new legislation which may supplant, over-
ride or re-direct the Taylor Grazing Act, the Committee refocuses the major
social purposes of that bill. We believe that any new bill should explicitly state
as one of its purposes to promote rural stability and well being, and discourage
rural emigration and social dislocation, through stabilizing the production of
livestock and through using their means available to ameliorate the effects of
highly adverse climatic or market conditions.
We believe that a major stated purpose of any such legislation should be
"To discourage the use of public resource lands for agricultural purposes by
corporations, other than family corporations formed for the sole purpose of con-
ducting agriculture."
We believe that the acquisition of ranch lands and farm lands by industrial
and agribusiness corporations, usually as speculative investments or as tax
shelters, is profoundly against the public interest. We believe that grazing
leases should not be automatically re-assigned when ranches change bands, but
withheld from such corporations and either re-distributed for the use of in-
cumbent independent landowners, or placed in reserve, perhaps in a kind of
"grass bank."
We believe that any person or corporation either bidding for lands up for
disposal, or applying for any lease, license or permit should provide a sworn
affidavit listing all real and corporate holdings, and that such affidavits listing
all real and corporate holdings, and that such affidavits should be made public
record. -
We believe that public hearings should be conducted on any application for
any lease or permit by any corporation other than a family corporation formed
for the sole purpose of conducting agriculture, and that the administrator
should, on reasonable request, hold public hearings on any application to de-
termine if granting such application would be consistent with the purpose of
the Act.
We believe that the Secretary should not accept bids under bidding pro-
cedures established from any corporation except a family corporation formed
for the sole purpose of conducting agriculture, except after a public hearing
to determine if such sale would be consistent with the purpose of the Act. The
Secretary should in all cases, publish results of bidding under competitive
procedures prior -to the acceptance of any bid, and should hold a public hearing
upon reasonable request.
Mr. Sam Steiger has informed me that such language discriminating against
corporations is probably in violation of the "equal protection" provision of the
PAGENO="0405"
448
[The information referred to follows:]
FRIENDS OF THE EARTH,
WasMngton, D.C., June 11, 1975.
Hon. JOE SKtTBITZ,
U.S. House of Representatives,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR MR. SKUBITZ. As you know, the Bureau of Land Management is the re-
sult of a shotgun marriage in 1946, between the General Land Office, formed
in 1812 and transferred from the Treasury of the newly formed Interior Depart-
ment in 1849, and the Grazing Service which was formed following passage of
the Taylor Grazing Act of 1934.
This union, decreed by Congress, with Senator McCarran of Nevada fingering
the trigger of the shotgun, was an unhappy one from the onset. It occurred be-
cause the Grazing Service, having become used to deploying seasonal arimes
drawn from CCC, had become "uppity." It began with a 79% reduction in Graz-
ing Service personnel, the closure of four regional offices, and has had as a per-
sisting result three decades of stultification of active management of living
resources on public lands.
Today we are in a period of historic change, with the BLM's efforts to liberate
itself from the paternal repression of Congress evidently nearing fruition. But
as this time approaches, many of those who found the BLM noble in adversity,
and urged that it be unchained, are taking a second look at the creature that
is about to be initiated into bureaucratic adulthood. There is a growing feeling
that the BLM has developed an intractably ugly personality, that it is in the
process of exchanging domination by western Senators and Congressmen for
internal domination by the international o~l and mining companies, that those
people within the Bureau concerned with preservation and management of
living resources will remain subordinate, and that many of the constraints
placed upon it earlier may not have been such a bad idea.
We share the unease of our friends in the Wilderness Society and the groups
representing stockmen and agricultural interests over what is being now pro-
posed in these Committees. At the core of our apprehension is the question of
whether Congress should provide a dowry in the form of an Organic Act, to
a union which should probably never have been forced to begin with, namely
that of an agency concerned with management of living resources, to one con-
cerned with mineral leasing and other non-living resources. In the current
climate there is little doubt which set of concerns will be given priority.
We are convinced that the agencies charged with management of living re-
sources on public lands should be entirely separated from those engaging in
energy development, mineral leasing, and other functions related to exploitation
of non-living resources.
Our key suggestion, upon which our support of this Organic Act hinges, is
that the Act apply only to management of living resources, and exempt all
offices and units concerned with energy development and mineral leasing. These
latter functions should be assigned to a separate agency. The anlage of such
an agency is present in HR. 49, now under consideration by the Public Lands
Subcommittee. Perhaps the National Petroleum Reserve Office established in
that bill should be expanded to provide for leasing, exploitation and conserva-
tion of all energy sources and all minerals.
We suggest that Section 3(b) of HR. 5622 be amended to read "`National
Resource Lands' means all lands and interests in lands (including the renew-
able and living resources thereof) now administered by the Secretary through
the Division of Lands, Division of Range, Division of Wildlife, Division of
Recreation, and Division of Watershed, hereafter collectively referred to as the
Public Resource Lands Service."
We suggest that all reference to activities of components of the BLM con-
cerned with non-renewaable resources be stricken from the bill, and that the
Secretary be instructed to organize the Public Resource Lands Service under
an Assistant Secretary.
Disposal and management of public lands has historically been dominated by
two conflicting themes, one attuned to Hamilton's view of an industrial state
and the other subserving to Jefferson's vision of an agrarian democracy. A
third view, first espoused by John Muir, that some public lands should be pre-
PAGENO="0406"
447
Now you think it would be fair if I asked that you take all three
bills and that you come forth and tell us what is right and wrong
and make some recommendations as to what you think the Friends
of the Earth think ought to be done in this case.
Mr. GARRETT. To be quite honest, Mr. Skubitz, I have been fooling
around with writing a bill myself. That is, writing in certain sec-
tions. But unfortunately, I am not done with it yet but I certainly
intend to bring these suggestions before this subcommittee.
Mr. SKnBITZ. What I am saying is that we have three different
versions. Nobody is satisfied with what we have offered. Three
groups have gotten together now and they have made the study
and they have come to work with the legislation and the Friends of
the Earth say, "`We don't care for any of them."
Now do you expect us to sit here and wait and keep presenting
views?
Mr. GARRETT. No, I am sure that Congress is not going to wait
on our organization indefinitely.
Mr. SKUBITZ. I am sure they are not either, but my only criticism
is that I think that if you come forth with the criticism you should
also come forth with constructive suggestions.
Mr. GARRETT. I do have some suggested language on this. I was
going to submit it.
Do you want me to submit it?
Mr. SKnBITz. I would very much. I would like you very much to
do that because I am no authority in this field at all. I would like
to have the position of your organization and the sections that you
oppose, and how you would change them to make them accepta'ble.
Then your organization would be doing something constructive.
But simply to sit up here and say, "Go back and do your home-
work and then we will decide another time-"
Mr. GARRETT. Mr. Skubitz, would you like me to go through some
suggestions at this time?
Mr. SKUBITz. I would like you to take these bills, the committee
bill No. 1, and come forth with some specific recommendations on
the things that you are vitally opposed to and give us language so
that we would have that under consideration.
Now the administration has given their views. We have come
forth with something and the conservation groups have come forth
something~ but none of them are satisfied.
Now I think that you ought to come forth with some specific leg-
islation, recommendations, amendments to this legislation so that we
can consider them; not. simply state that you do not like anything
we are doing.
Mr. GARRETT. I do have some language here. I did not read it be-
cause-iust a moment.
Mr. SKt~rnTz. We have a lot of other people here. I am asking you
to present it in writing specifically to the committee so that we can
have it before us relating to this bill rather than simply stating it
here.
Mr. GARRETT. I am fully prepared to do so. As I say, I have some
of it right here.
Mr. SKUrnTz. I ask unanimous consent, Mr. Chairman, that Mr.
Garrett have several days to prepare his amendments, submit them
to the committee for study in writing.
Mr. MELCHER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
PAGENO="0407"
446
that it was absolutely necessary that I get the government to act on my claim
before I could proceed into civil court to prove my right to damages. From
every indication that I have, the government was going to try to avoid making a
final determination on this and I would have been left waiting for the govern-
ment to take an action for an indefinite period of time without having any basis
for pursuing my claim further.
ALvIN GRABINGER.
On this 22nd day of September, 1972, before me personally appeared Alvin
Grabinger, known to me to be the person described in and who executed the
within instrument and acknowledged to me that he executed the same.
JAMES R. BRITTON,
Notary Public,
Towner County, N.D.
My Commission Expires: January 6, 1975.
Mr. CLAtTSEN. I would like to have you, if you would, work with
our counsel to make sure that we have a clear and balanced input
in the record itself. I wonder if counsel could work with him on
that?
Mr. SHAFER. I would be glad to, Mr. Clausen.
Mr. MELCHER. The gentleman from Kansas.
Mr. S~~i~ri'z. Good to have you here today. I appreciated very
much the latter part of your statement, the material you presented
after breakfast. I would like to have a copy of that. It is more agree-
able than what you presented today.
May I ask this question, Torn? You are not satisfied with the
past practices and policies followed protecting our natural resources.
Is that correct or not?
Would you suggest that the practices followed in the past are
right?
Mr. GARRETr. No. I would not.
Mr. SKUBITz. Now in turn you say this: We applaud the efforts
of the subcommittee to develop legislation to assure the proper man-
agement and then you turn around and say "But I do not like any-
thing you have done."
Is this correct or not?
Mr. GARRETT. Certainly the subcommittee has done a lot of work.
Mr. SKUBITZ. As far as you are concerned, it has been sort of a
useless effort.
Mr. GARRETT. Not at all. I think~ that this subcommittee is to be
praised for the emphasis it has put on grazing, in particular, and
the time and the effort it has put in trying to develop formulas for
leasing and that sort of thing.
Mr. SKUBITZ. Are you saying this: At the same time there will be
no version of this legislation, meaning that there is no version of
this legislation being considered that you can support.
Now here we have before us this committee's version and then we
have the administration's version, and then we have a bunch of
conservationists working with Mr. Seiberling present a third version.
And nothing satisfies you.
Now I must say that your organization accused me of being a
negative-minded person.
I must admit that I am no expert in this field but I have learned
a good deal about it. But I have not learned anything from your
organization with respect to this legislation.
PAGENO="0408"
445
The Bureau of Reclamation negotiated with the owner of the land that I rent
immediatedly to the south of my farmstead and entered into a purchase agree-
ment for the same. At no time during these negotiations did they make arrange-
ments with myself to settle for rights that I had pursuant to my rental agree-
ment with the owner on these premises that were being purchased by the
government. This is property that I have farmed for approximately 5 or 6 years,
however, I have rented portions of the premises owned by these land owners
for approximately 30 or 35 years. My tenancy on this property has been open
and notorious and has been readily visible to all persons who have been through
this area. My equipment is used to farm the property and it is a well known
fact throughout the area that this is property that I farm. In addition to that,
the negotiator who dealt with me was aware of the fact that I farmed this
section of land. In addition, the negotiator that dealt with these land owners
was informed by the owner of the land that I farmed it. Every one who is
at all familiar with farm tenancy procedures should be aware of the fact that
the tenant on land has certain interests in the land that he rents which must
be settled any time he is losing his right to farm that property.
In the spiing of 1972, I proceeded to farm this property as I had done in other
years, with the landowners consent. He had told me that the government was
negotiating to purchase this property, but had not paid him for the property,
so be still considered it to be his own land at the time of normal spring
planting if by area. Thereafter, during the month of June, when the crops were
growing on the property, the contractor came into the area and wanted
to have access to this property. I saw that they were about to enter the
premises, so I immediately approached the contractor and told him that he
could not enter onto the premises until there had been some assurances that my
interests in the growing crops on the property would be satisfied. At that time,
a Mr. Basten for the Bureau of Reclamation approached me to try to settle
the differences between myself and the contractor. I then told him that I
would have no objection to the contractor entering upon the land if I could have
assurances that claim for damages would be paid. He then made inquiry and
came back to me and assured me that my claim for damages would be settled.
Shortly thereafter, a representative of the Bureau of Reclamation viewed the
premises and determined that the total amount of damages done by the con-
tractor to the crops that I had planted on the premises was $384.00. This was
about June 18th. On that date, I filed a claim for this amount of damages
with the Bureau of Reclamation. Then, on or about the 10th of July, I was
approached again by a Bureau official and they indicated that the first claim
had been filed on the wrong form and asked that I file a new claim. That was the
last that I had heard about my claim for damages. After my claim was sub-
mitted on the 10th of July, I was contacted several times to determine if I
would allow the contractor to have access to the property to begin the actual
construction of the canal. At all times, I told the Bureau officials that I would
allow the contractor on the land as soon as I could get a definite answer as
to whether or not my claim for damages would be allowed. I continued to
tell them that I would allow access to the contractor for the premises that I
rented if they would only make a determination on this claim. I made it clear
to them at all times that I would even accept a "no" answer if that was going
to be their final position, and would then be satisfied and would no longer
interfere with their access to the property. However, instead of actually
ruling upon my claim, I was instead cited into the U.S. District Court to show
cause why a restraining order should not be issued against me prohibiting me
from interfering with the government's access to this property.
I interpreted this as being a "no" to the claim that I have filed, however, I
felt that this action was totally unnecessary as the only thing I wanted was an
answer on the claim.
After having gone through all the problems with the Bureau of Reclamation
and its inability to answer the questions that all effected landowners should
legitably have as to how the project is going to effect them, I can only say that
I am sorry that I settled with the Bureau and wish that instead I would
have been as unreasonable with them as I possibly could. At the time I nego-
tiated a settlement with my land, I felt that I would try and be reasonable
with them and that hopefully they would deal with me in a fair and reasonable
manner. This certainly did not materialize. At first impression, it may appear
that my insistence upon a "yes" or "no" answer was an unreasonable request
on my part, however, from the information that I could find, it would appear
54-005 Q_75-29
PAGENO="0409"
444
AFFIDAVIT
STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA,
County of McLean, s8:
I, Alvin Grabinger, being first duly sworn, depose and say as follows: That I
am the owner and operator of a combination grain and livestock farm, the head-
quarters of which is located in Section eleven (11), Township 147 North, Range
81 West. I rent a total of 800 acres in one parcel located immediately around
my farmstead, and also rent an additional three hundred twenty acres of
pastureland immediately adjacent to my home premises as well as rent another
section of land immediately south of my farmstead which I rent. The McClusky
Canal intersects my property in two separate areas and also divides the section
of land that I rent. The canal takes approximately 86 acres of the land that I
own and I will be losing a total of 60 acres of the pastureland that I rent. In
addition, a total of 72 acres of the section of land that I rent has been taken
for the canal right-of-way purposes.
I entered into a negotiated settlement with the Bureau of Reclamation for the
purchase of the land that I owned. The negotiator that dealt with me was an
individual by the name of Atwood who I feel made an honest effort to get an-
swers for the many questions that I raised regarding the proposed project and
the impact that it would have upon me. He was however, very unsuccessful in
getting these answers for me and in the end about the only thing that I had to
go on to induce me to make a settlement with the government was to consider
the price that they were offering me for my land and to also consider the in-
convenience and my own desire to avoid going to court to have the government
condemn my property. At no time was I able to determine the amount that the
government was going to pay for the property that they were taking, and then
find the amount that they were going to offer for severence damages. In my
own situation, my severence damages are very substantial because of the fact
that the property which I owned that was previously accessable within one
quarter mile of my farm buildings will now be located some six miles distance
from my farm. The reason for this is that a bridge is not located near my
farmstead and it will be necessary for me to travel a total of six miles to reach
a portion of my land that previously I could reach by traveling one quarter of
a mile. One of the things that the government could have done which I re-
peatedly pointed out was to simply take additional right-of-way along the north
side of the canal so that I could have easier access to the road that has a bridge
across the canal upon it.
The canal itself will run within 12 rods of my farmstead. This very much
concerns me in view of the fact that the canal is going to carry a large volume
of water through it and from all of the plans and from my observation of the
construction of the canal, it appears that the banks of the canal are going to
be very steep and if any wildlife or livestock or humans should get into the
canal, it would be impossible for them to get out of ti. This would appear to
create a very bad hazard so close to my farmstead in that even though it is
going to be fenced, it seems inevitable that there is going to be occasions
arising where wildlife will drawn in the canal and very well create offensive
problems around the farmstead, not to mention the even greater chance that
children around the farm may at some time get through the fenced enclosure
and meet with some tragic accident. In some of the readings I have done
regarding similar projects of this nature, I undertand that canals very similar
to this canal have been constructed using different techniques such as enclosed
culverts or other engineering techniques as to make them much safer for
humans and wildlife. However, from my observations and from what I have
been told, it does appear that any of these new techniques are being used on
this project.
One additional observation that I have is that there does not appear to me
to be any sound engineering reason for the canal to follow the route that it
does in the area of my farmstead. For reasons unknown, they have decided to
take a route which substantially runs to the north of the established route of
the canal, both to the east and to the west of my farmstead, and in questioning
the Bureau and other engineering officials about this, they have not been able
to give me any substantial reasons as to why this route was necessary. In fact,
when I have raised the issue with them, they have not even been able to defend
the route that they have chosen. From my own observations from elevation
maps and so on in this area, it does not appear that this is the reason for it.
PAGENO="0410"
443
also because of the fact that I could not get any of my questions answered as
to the amount that they were offering for the land they were actually taking
from me and he amount that they were offering for severence damages, I de-
cided I had no alternative but to have my property be condemned by the gov-
ernment. I now find that the government has in some occasions negotiated with
individual land owners who had a similar situation to mine, so that they did
buy the canal right-of-way now and will negotiate with these land owners at a
later date for the purchase of wildlife area. In fact, I am familiar with two
examples of this, one of which was a situation where the landowner concerned
was able to convince the Bureau of Reclamation to allow him to keep his land
for wildlife purposes eventually and another situation where the landowner had
to enter into negotiations with the government to get them to purchase the
land they would eventually take from him for wildlife purposes at the same
time they were purchasing his land needed for canal right-of-way purposes. I
feel the government should be under a very strict obligation to not only enter
into honest, meaningful negotiations with all landowners concerned, but to also
have these policies for negotiations be uniformly applied. I feel as though I am
at a very great disadvantage in having to give up my wildlife land at the pres-
ent time as those who have been allowed to retain the same are being allowed
to enjoy the appreciation that is bound to accrue to this land during the adjli-
tional period of time that will elapse until it is eventually taken by the
government.
In addition, when I lose this property and because of the fact that I was not
able to get any assurances as to how long I would be able to continue to use the
pasture, that is substantially what I use the approximately 140 acres in Section
19 for, it would put my livestock enterprise in a very unstable position and
possibly even make it difficult for me to continue to maintain the financing
which is necessary for a young farmer like myself to have in order to continue
operations. None of these things, however, seemed to have any effect on the Bu-
reau officials as my negotiator would attempt to get answers for me on them, but
would come back and say he could not get any for me.
One final objection that I have is that I would think at least myself as a
young farmer in the area of the McClusky Canal could be given the opportunity
to use some water from the canal for irrigation or other purposes so that .1
could partially compensate myself for the loss of my farm premises. However, at
the present time, I have absolutely no right to obtain any water from the canal
and all indications that I have heard so far indicate that there is very little
chance of obtaining any water rights from the canal in this area in the future.
It also appears that there are going to be very limited number of bridges placed
across the canal so that the established patterns of transportation in my area
are going to be severely disrupted. An individual such as myself who desires
to continue farming in this area will be forced to try to purchase new land to
replace the amount that I am losing. This disruption in the local transportation
is simply going to make it even more inconvenient for me to find additional land
which will fit into my existing farming operations, because it will cut up the
established roads to such an extent that land that may not be located too f~r
from me may end up being several miles traveling distance from my farmstead.
On more than one occasion, I asked my negotiator if the government was
making any efforts to assist individuals such as myself who are losing a sub-
stantial amount of property and obtaining additional replacement property. He
indicated that the government had no such programs action for this particular
project. This is another area which I feel would be a very reasonable request
on the landowners concerned to ask that the government either furnish some
assistance in securing some replacement land or make an additional allowance
so that I can be compensated for the additional real estate agent fees that will
be necessary for me to incur in order to locate additional property.
KENNETH GRABINGER.
On this 22nd day of September, 1972, before me personally appeared Kenneth
Grabinger, known to me to be the person described in and who executed the with-
in instrument and acknowledged to me that he executed the same.
JAMES R. BRITTON,
Notary Public,
Towner County, N. Dak.
My Commission Expires: January 6, 1975.
PAGENO="0411"
442
area of my land who were concerned with it of this fact they proceeded to
unload a great deal of fencing material and actually begin construction of the
fence against my explicit orders to them and without any authority to proceed.
All of this has led me to the observation that whatever the outcome of my per-
sonal situation is, if anyone asks me for advice as to what they should do when
the Bureau of Reclamation begins planning a project which will affect a land-
owner I would simply say to refuse to cooperate with them at all in the early
planning stages because in the end it is not going to do you a bit of good in
that they will still end up treating you in an arbitrary inconsiderate manner
and will not take the individual land owner's problems into concern at all when
they begin the actual construction of the project.
ALBERT KLAIN.
On this 22nd day of September, 1972, before me personally appeared Albert
Klain, known to me to be the person described in and who executed the within
instrument and acknowledged to me that he executed the same.
JAMES R. BRITTON,
Notary Public,
Towner County, N. Dak.
My Commission Expires: January 6, 1975.
AFFIDAVIT
STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA,
County of McLean, ss:
I, Kenneth Grabinger, being first duly sworn, depose and say as follows: That
I am the owner and operator of a cOmbination grain and livestock farm, located
in Section nineteen (19), Township 146 North, Range 80 West in McLean County,
North Dakota. I carry on my farming operations in cooperation with my father,
who farms northwest of my farm. The McClusky Canal passes through my prop-
erty in the northeast quarter (NE'!4) of Section 20, Township 146 North, Range
80 West. The Canal right-of-way and wildlife land that will be taken on that
quarter amounts to approximately 52 acres. In addition thereto, the government
is taking a total of approximately 138 acres of my property located along the
east side of the South half (S'/2) of Section 19, in Township 146 North, Range
80 West. When representatives of the Bureau of Reclamation contacted me to
acquire this property, I immediately attempted to negotiate with them to sell
the amount of land that is needed for the canal right-of-way at the present time,
and to maintain the ownership of my property that will eventually be needed
according to present plans for wildlife purposes until the wildlife aspects of
this project are actually going to be developed. While I have not been told how
long a period of time it will be before this wildlife property will actually be
developed for wildlife purposes, all indications are that they may be several
years in the future. The negotiator who dealt with me was named Don Richards.
On several occasions, he attempted to determine if he could negotiate with me
on the basis of separating the canal right-of-way and the wildife right-of-way,
but always came back to me with the answer that he could not negotiate on
the basis of my retaining ownership in the areas needed for wildlife purposes
in the future, but would rather have to negotiate on the basis of obtaining the
entire amount of property that the government plans to think they will even-
tually need for both wildlife and canal purposes at the present time.
Prior to being contacted by the negotiator, I was contacted by an appraisor.
At that time, I found that the government was proposing to leave a 20 rod strip
along the west side of the south half (S'/2) of Section 19 and would then have
the east property line of their wildlife land run very near the edge of my
farmstead. Both the appraisor and myself agreed that there was no real need
to leave that 20 acres and to run the line for the east edge of the wildlife right-
of-way so near my farmstead, and instead it was agreed that the wildlife could
just as well take that 20 acres located on the west side of my land and leave
an additional 20 rod strip on the east side of the original proposed wildlife
right-of-way. Upon thinking it over, this adjustment by the government shows
that they really aren't as concerned about getting land that is best suited for
wildlife purposes but rather are concerned about getting a total number of
acres related to the McClusky Canal project devoted to wildlife purposes so that
their records will be complete and appear to be balanced in this respect.
In view of the fact that I could not get any satisfaction from the government
in negotiating on the canal right-of-way and wildlife property separately, and
PAGENO="0412"
441
age increase in value of land that is experienced nationally. It would appear
that the appraisal that was used as a basis for the valuation of my real estate
is a 1968 value. It further appears that the appraiser comes in and bases his
appraisal strictly upon the observations that he makes of the physical location
and appearance of your farming operations. I know that he made no efforts to
determine for his own information the manner in which I operate my total farm-
ing operations in the way that the land that the Bureau was going to be ac-
quiring from me fit into my total farming operations. As far as I know he made
no effort to determine that the land that the Bureau is acquiring from me is
some of my best farm land and in fact adds a great deal to the value of some
of the other land that I own which is lighter and not as productive.
In addition it was totally impossible to determine the amount that the Bureau
was actually offering for my farm land when they were negotiating with me
as they continually refused to indicate the amount that they were allocating
to severence damages and the amount that they were allocating for the actual
value of my land. The amount that they offered me was actually inadequate to
replace the land that I was actually losing at the prevailing market prices let
alone even beginning to compensate me for the loss in value to my entire farm-
ing operations by the loss of this property.
Finally the last straw was when I went to look at my property which is the
subject of the condemnation proceedings last spring. I found that the Bureau
had puts takes all over it, both steel and wooden stakes, and that they had also
unloaded several loads of fencing material on the property and it was in such
a condition that it was unable for me to farm it without risking the loss of all
the tires on my equipment and tractors. This was done prior to any actual
actions to condemn my property. At that time I tried to determine what the
Bureau's intentions were regarding my land and was told that they intended
to use it for canal right-of-way. I told the Bureau officials and construction
personnel in the area of my farmland that it had not been condemned and that
they had no business to be doing any of these things on my property until they
did condemn it. I contacted Mr. Bastein and also discussed this with Mr. Cleaver
who is a negotiator dealing with some of the other landowners in this area and
also an attorney from Billings, Montana, who was with the Bureau of Recla-
mation. They all urged me to not farm this property or destroy all of the sur-
veying work that had been done on it and assured me that I would be com-
pensated for loss of crops for this crop year due to the fact that they actually
had not condemned the property. Again I accepted the word of these govern-
ment officials only to find upon inquiry at the Bismarck office of the Depart-
ment of Interior that they were not aware of any means available for me to
claim reimbursement for my losses and they made no efforts to try and find
some way for me to be paid for this loss of the use of my property. In addition
I had been assured by my negotiator that I would be compensated for the sum-
merfallow that was left on the property that would be acquired from me at the
time it was acquired but now I find that I am not going to be compensated for
this either.
Because of all these actions on the part of the Bureau of Reclamation I have
now decided that I will refuse them access to my property even though they
claim that they now own it because of the initiation of the condemnation pro-
ceedings. I feel that there are certain property interest that I still have in this
that they have not made provisions to adequately compensate me for and until
I am informed as to how these interests are going to be paid for and these
damages settled I am simply going to refuse them entry upon my land with
whatever lawful means I have available.
One of the things that I saw the construction personnel who were working on
this project do that just made me sick as a lifelong farmer is that fact that they
are taking the black dirt that is one of our most important natural resources
in the world and covering this up with the subsoil, totally destroying it for any
future use hereafter. I feel that such action is totally indefensible as I am sure
the day is going to come when we are going to find that when nothing else is
left that remaining black dirt and topsoil that we have is going to become a
priceless comodity.
A final example of the way that the Bureau treats land owners is the fact
that I notified the construction personnel and the Bureau personnel that they
had no business entering upon my land with any fencing material or beginning
to construct any fences because of the fact that it bad not actually been con-
demned. Very soon after I had informed all the personnel that were in the
PAGENO="0413"
440
In conclusion all I can say is that if I had known it was going to be so much
trouble to deal with the Bureau I would advise them to not even try to com-
pensate as they do not give any cooperation to the landowners who do but rather
fight them in every way possible.
HERBERT NATHAN.
On this 22nd day of September, 1972, before me personally appeared Herbert
Nathan, known to me to be the person described in and who executed the within
instrument and acknowledged to me that he executed the same.
JAMEs R. BRITTON,
Notary Public,
Towner County, N. Dak.
My Commission Expires: January 6, 1975.
AFFIDAvIT
STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA,
County of McLean, 88:
I, Albert Klain, being first duly, sworn, depose and say as follows: That I am
the operator of a combination grain and livestock farm, the headquarters of
which is located in Section Four (4), Township 147 North, Range 81 West, in
McLean County, North Dakota. The land which I farm is located both to the
north and to the south of my farrnstead. I own two quarters of land described
as the South Half (S1/2) of Section Sixteen (16), Township 147 ~North, Range 81
West, and it is through this property that the McClusky Canal will run. My land
has now been condemned by the Bureau of Reclamation as I was served with
papers condemning the property on August 15, 1972.
My experiences with the Bureau have been one set of frustrations after
another. It's been several years ago that I became aware that there was a
possibility that my proprty would be used for the McClusky Canal right-of-way
purposes. During these early years I attempted to cooperate with the Bureau by
allowing them to do what surveying they wanted to on my premises which they
freely did. In one instance they drove across newly seeded land and certainly
did not do the crop that I had seeded on this land any good. On another occa-
sion they drove across grain which I had swathed and had not combined yet.
Some time during 1968 I do recall an appraiser stopping by the farmstead and
asking if he could look at some of the buildings aroundt the farm. I recall his
taking pictures of an old barn located on the farm as well as a manure pile
that I had not disposed of and he also measured the farm house located on our
farm. I then asked him if he wished to have me accompany him to the land
that was going to be used for the McClusky Canal but he told me he had already
seen it and that he did not intend to go back there. At that time I tried to
determine if he would be willing to go over my farming operation so he could
understand how the land that was going to be eventually used for the McClusky
Canal fit into my total farming operations but he seemed to express no interest
in this.
It was not until I received a letter from the United States Department of
Interior dated December 13, 1971, that I learned that the Bureau of Reclama-
tion was actually intending to proceed with the McClusky Canal project and
that my property was definitely going to be used for right-of-way purposes for
that project. This letter that I received indicated that I had been contacted by
negotiators and that the Bureau was unable to reach an agreement with me for
the acquisition of my property. I had not been contacted by any negotiators
prior to the receipt of that letter and 1 did not understand the basis for that
statement. It was shortly thereafter that a man by the name of Mr. Richards
briefly stopped by my farm and said he was passing by and that he was the
negotiator who would be dealing with me on the acquisition of my land for the
canal right-of-way purposes. He only stopped for five minutes and said that he
was doing so to get acquainted but that he would be back to go over this in
more detail with me.
He did return a second time and offered me approximately six hundred dol-
lars ($600.00) more than what was offered in the letter of December 13.
I have the following objections to the Bureau's appraisal and negotiating
procedures: My own observations are that the Bureau is using very outdated
appraisals which possibly have been merely updated as to the normal percent-
PAGENO="0414"
439
them at that time and told them I did not feel that it should be my responsibil-
ity to continually run after them in order to get this matter closed. I then made
arrangements to get this old mortgage satisfied which upon consulting with my
attorney I found that in his opinion it was a matter that actually could have
been waived by the Bureau in view of the fact that it was a very old mortgage
and under North Dakota law would no longer be binding upon the property
anyhow. After this was done I still did not receive my money so finally bad
to make another trip to Bismarck at which time I was informed that they had
rechecked my records and brought them up-to-date and that they now found
that there was a judgment against me which would have to be satisfied. At that
time I again objected to the w-ay the Bureau was handling this matter as it
seemed to me that this was a matter which they could have found out shortly
after entering into the agreement with me on December 8 so that I could have
made arrangements to have that cleared right away too. I then proceeded to have
this matter taken care of, which as I recall was completed towards the end of
April, 1972. I then still did not receive my money so again contacted the Bureau
and was then informed that in addition to the other flaws, they had found an
easement for the removal of rocks from my property which they considered to
be another flaw in my title and would require some curative action to allow
them to release the money that I was entitled to. Again it seemed to me that
this was a matter that they should have been able to have informed me of at
the time the agreement was made to purchase my land but instead they did
not inform me of it until so much time had elapsed and then only because I was
continually pushing them to get the matter closed. The flaw created by this
easement was then cleared on or about June 15, 1972. I again did not receive
my money until on or about July 10, 1972. During this period of time when I
was trying to get my money it became apparent to me that the only way that
you can get any kind of a response out of the Bureau of Reclamation is by
fighting them and pushing them just as much as I possibly could. I had pre-
viously tried cooperating with the Bureau and the results I received were ap-
parent. They were going to sit around and do nothing if I was willing to co-
operate and be quiet. I therefore decided that the only alternative that I had
was to refuse access to the contractor unto the property that th~ Bureau wanted
from me until I had actually been paid for it. The Bureau officials indicated
that I had no legal right to do this however I in turn informed them that I did
not feel they had any legal claim to my property in view of the fact that they
had not paid me one penny for it. I did not feel that any of the agreements
that I had signed were actually binding until I bad received the money that
they said I was entitled to. It was because of this fact that I also went ahead
and seeded crop unto the land that the Bureau was going to acquire from me
in the spring of 1972.
The agreement that I entered into with the Bureau for the purchase of my
property provided that the Bureau would pay all closing expenses and legal
expenses necessary to clear title. Because of the matters that came up, the legal
expenses involved in clearing my title became quite substantial. A bill for this
was then submitted by my attorney to the Bureau and they in turn refused to
pay this bill. I then had to go to the trouble of working this matter out with
the Bureau as well as the other problems that I had been having and finally
got them to admit that the bill was their responsibility and that they would pay
it. This was not accomplished however until after I had had more than a two
hour discussion with Bureau officials from Billings, Montana, as well as Bis-
marck.
I am now having a great deal of trouble trying to find out what status the
claim that I have filed for the loss of the crop that I planted in 1972 that was
destroyed by the construction personnel when they entered upon my property.
Based upon my past experiences I know that if I do not again force the issue
~vith the Bureau it will be a matter which they will simply ignore and even-
tually I will simply have to abandon my claim against the government. This is
just another example of the way private landowners are forced to take extreme
positions with the Bureau in order to get what they are rightfully entitled to.
Some general objections that I have to the manner in which the Bureau is
operating in this area is the fact that they have allowed weeds to grow up
along the right-of-way and other property that they have acquired for canal
construction purposes without making any attempt to control them. These
weeds have now gone to seed and will be a menace to myself and other ad-
joining landowners for the 1973 crop season.
PAGENO="0415"
438
Canal intersects my property at a point immediately south of my farmstead and
altogether takes 100 acres of my real estate for canal right-of-way purposes,
road purposes and wildlife purposes.
In August of 1970 I was contacted by an appraiser from the Bureau of Recla-
mation. He indicated to me that he wanted to appraise the property that the
Bureau was going to acquire for the McClusky Canal and related activities to
it. At that time I questioned whether or not he was a qualified appraiser to ap-
praise my land in view of the fact that he appeared to be very young and he
indicated that he was originally from Mandan and that his only farming ex-
periences were trips to his grandparents farm while he was growing up. He fur-
ther indicated that he was a liberal arts graduate from Bismarck Junior Col-
lege and that he had been hired by the Bureau shortly before this as an ap-
praiser. He further said that this was his first job.
Thereafter I was contacted by~ a negotiator named Mr. Harold Atwood on or
about May 24, 1971. My experiences with him indicated that he had very limited
authority and he did not actually seem to be aware of the authority that he did
actually have. Every time that I would raise a o~uestion as to how the acqui-
sition of my property would affect me and what arrangements could be made
to minimize the effect of the project upon me he would have to go to Bismarck
and find out what authority he actually did have.
In the end I did make an agreement with the Bureau through Mr. Atwood
regarding the sale of the land that they desired for right-of-way purposes. At
that time I was a little skeptical however because there were many things which
I had raised questions about whiCh they indicated that they either could not
inform me of what the status was, such as the amount of severance damages and
there were other things which they said they would take care of but that they
could not be put in writing such as when I would receive my money and the
manner in which I could maintain access to my pasture which is located north
of my farmstead. This became a problem because of the fact that the existing
section line is destroyed by the canal and the Bureau constructed a new road
which runs north of my barn and farmstead and between the pasture located
immediately north of the road. At the time that an agreement was made for
the sale of my land I was assured that cattle guards would be installed on this
road so that I could have access to the pasture to the north. It then developed
that the township supervisors objected to this arrangement and said that the
cattle would pose a traffic hazard to this road so it was therefore impossible
for the Bureau to carry out this agreement. This determination was made in
March of 1972 and since then I have been unable to determine what arrange-
ments the Bureau will make that are agreeable with the township supervisors
so that I may maintain access to my pasture north of the road. I suggested that
they construct an underpass through the road so that my livestock could freely
move from the barnyard area up to the pasture however they then indicated
that this was not a feasible alternative. They then suggested that they construct
a well for me in the north pasture which would not be nearly as handy for me
as things presently exist but which would be adequate to at least take care O~
the watering needs of my livestock during the summer months when they use
this pasture. However at that time I informed them that there was much more
to the construction of a well than merely drilling a hole and asked them
what arrangement they would make tO actually make the well suitable to pro-
duce water and be used for the watering of livestock. They then indicated that
they hadn't thought about this part of the problem and said that they would
have to think about it some more. To date I do not know what is going to be
done and my situation is that I will need water in this pasture within a week
or two with no arrangements to furnish this need.
I entered into an agreement to sell my land to the Bureau of Reclamation on
or about December 8, 1971. At that time the negotiator and the other Bureau
officials who I had contacted indicated that I would receive my money within
90 days. As the 90 days period began to pass I became concerned when I had not
heard anything further from the Bureau indicating when I would receive the
money. I then contacted Bureau officials in Bismarck and at that time was told
that I had not received my money because of the fact that there was an un-
satisfied mortgage on part of the property being acquired from me. In my con-
versation with them it became apparent that this was a flaw that they actually
knew about two or three years prior to this time but no one had taken the re-
sponsibiliy to inform me of the fact that this was something that they would
require to be satisfied before I would get, the money. I pointed this fact out to
PAGENO="0416"
437
Thereafter when the money did not come my brother and I made inquiry as to
what was holding up our being paid. At that time we were informed that there
were certain title problems involving some of Herbert's other property that was
also involved in the canal right-of-way which bad to be cleared up and these
matters were set out. I then inquired as to whether or not there were any title
problems involving the property that I had an interest in and was informed
that there were no problems at all. I then asked why I couldn't receive my
money and was informed by Mr. Burgum of the Bureau of Reclamation office
in Bismarck that I would not be able to receive my money until my brother's
title problems were cleared up. At that time I indicated that I could not see
what relationship his problems would have to my being entitled to my money as
soon as it was available.
On about the 20th of May of 1972 Herbert and myself decided that we would
have to take stronger actions in order to try and get the money that we were
entitled to. At that time we informed he Bureau that it could not enter upon
our land and proceed with construction on it until we had received our money.
We were shortly thereafter contacted by Mr. Burgum from the Bureau office
in Bismarck as well as Mr. Anthony from the U.S. attorney's office in Fargo and
a Mr. Fischer from the Bureau of Reclamation office in Billings, Montana, in an
attempt to settle our differences. When they contacted me they again stated
that there was no problems involving my title to the property and assured me
that I would be receiving my money within about two weeks. In fact I did not
receive my money until on or about July 18th or 19th which was about one week
after Herbert had received his money.
Now that the matter has been closed I would have the following observations
and objections regarding the Bureau's Land Acquisition policies: The negotia-
tor that they send out does not seem to be fully aware of what authority he does
have and he would have to go to Bismarck every time we would attempt to ne-
gotiate some items that would be related to the acquisition of their property from
us. It also seems that when you attempt to get some of these questions answered
you are referred from one person to another and in the end you end up never
getting these questions resolved because there does not seem to be anyone who
really knows what the answer is or who is willing to take on the responsibility
to find out what the answer is and give it to you.
While a settlement was reached with me for the land that will be involved in
the canal right-of-way I feel that it is not fair that I was not entitled to receive
any compensation for the great deal of inconvenience and trouble that the con-
struction of this canal is going to cause to my entire farming operations. Where-
as in the past the property that my brother and I farm south of the Canal has
been readily accessable from our farmsteads with a minimum of delay and in-
convenience, we now find that it will be necessary for us to travel in excess of
five miles to reach some of it unless we go to the personal expense of construct-
ing new roads to get to these areas. Also, I do not feel that it is right that the
landowners in this area have to put up with all of the inconvenience and ex-
pense that this project is going to cause to them and will not have the right to
take any water from the project.
RICHARD NATHAN.
STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA,
County of Towner, ss:
On this 22nd day of September, 1972, before me personally appeared Richard
Nathan, known to me to be the person described in and who executed the within
instrument and acknowledged to me that he executed the same.
JAMEs R. BRITTON,
Notary Pub'ic,
Towner County, N. Dak.
My Commission Expires: January 6, 1975.
AFFIDAVIT
STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA,
County of McLeam ss:
I, Herbert Nathan, being first duly sworn, depose and say as follows: That my
address is Cole Harbor, North Dakota; that I am the owner and operator of a
combination grain and livestock farm located in Section Eighteen (18), Town-
ship 147 North, Range 81 West, in McLean County, North Dakota. The McClusky
PAGENO="0417"
436
they were ready to pay for the farm and would also let me know if there were
any particular problems that they discovered regarding the purchase of my
property. I did not hear anything further from the government until February
of 1972, at which time they informed me that there was a claim against my
land that would have to be settled before they would pay me for it. At thai:
time, I inquired as to why it took so terribly long for them to inform me about
the fact that this claim would have to be settled. At that time, no one denied
that this was not a matter that, they had known about for a substantial period
of time. I then proceeded to have an attorney in this area settle the matters
that they had pointed out. This matter was then settled shortly after the middle
of June and it was not until the 7th of July of 1972 that I actually received my
money.
Even though I had not received any of the money that I was entitled to during
the spring of 1972, the government denied to me the use of approximately 80
acres of land that they indicated would be needed for canal construction pur-
poses this summer. In fact, the bulk of that land has not been used at all for
canal construction purposes and could have been used by my tenants for crop
purposes. I feel that in view of the fact that I had not been paid for the prop-
erty, that I am now entitled to some additional compensation in the form of
interest on the purchase price or rent on the land as I should have been allowed
to either get my money or draw interest on it or to continue cropping my farm
until I was paid for it. Also, I feel the Bureau has been extremely negligent
in their land management practices. They allowed 40 acres of my property that
is going to be used for these clay pits to grow up into large weeds and have
allowed those weeds to go to seed. This has now created a hazard for the re-
maining portions of my land that they will allow to be continued to be cropped
until wildlife wants to take them over as well as creating a real weed hazard
for my neighbors surrounding these weed-infested areas. It seems to me the
least the Bureau could have done if they were not going to allow my tenants
to crop this property, was to manage the land in such a way that they would
at least have controlled the weeds during the summer growing period.
Finally, I had been assured that the government would pay all my additional
legal expenses in order to clear up title to convey premises to the government.
I have not been informed as to this date whether or not the governmnt will ac-
tually pay these expenses, however, I am very worried in view of the fact that
my neighbor had a similar situation in which he had to incur additional legal
expenses and he had to go through some problems before he could get the gov-
ernment to live up to their obligation to pay these additional legal expenses.
K. E. PECK.
On this 22nd day of September, 1972, before me personally appeared K. 1~.
Peck, known to me to be the person described in and who executed the within
instrument and acknowledged to me that he executed the same.
JAMES R BRITTON,
Notary Public,
Towner County, N. Dak.
My Commission Expires: January 6, 1975.
AFFIDAVIT
STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA,
County of McLean, 88:
I, Richard Nathan, being first duly sworn, depose and say as follows: That I
am the owner and operator of a combination grain and livestock farm, the head-
quarters of which is located in the Northeast Quarter (NE'4) of Section Seven
(7), Township 147 North, Range 81 West, in McLean County, North Dakota. I
carry on my farming operations in partnership with my brother, Herbert Nathan.
Herbert Nathan and myself own one quarter of land, a portion of which has
been used for McClusky Canal right-of-way purposes.
Through negotiations a settlement was reached for the sale price of my inter-
est in this property to the Bureau of Reclamation for canal right-of-way pur-
poses. The contract for this was signed on December 8, 1971. At that time I was
concerned as to how long I would have to wait to receive the money that I was
entitled to out of this agreement. The negotiator who was dealing with me, Mr.
Richards, indicated that it would be about 90 days however he refused to put
this into writing at that ime.
PAGENO="0418"
435
the north pasture. The Bureau takes the position that I still have use of this
livestock underpass however the fact is that they have fenced off this area so
that it is not accessible to my barnyard at the present time. I am able to make
limited use of this by using the ditch of the roadway as access to the underpass
for a period of about one hundred (100) yards but this is a situation that the
County Highway officials may make me stop in the near future. The reason for
this is that I have to construct a fence along the shoulder of the road to keep
my cattle in the ditch and this fence may interfere with traffic traveling on
the highway.
My final objection to this entire situation is the fact that after all the con-
struction is done and the water is running through my former farm, I will not
receive any benefits at all from the water that comes through the area but will
have only had to suffer the loss that is imposed upon me by the loss of part of
my farming unit.
BEN SOHATZ.
On this 22nd day of September, 1972, before me personally appeared Ben
Schatz, known to me to be the person described in and who executed the within
instrument and acknowledged to me that he executed the same.
JAMES R. BRITTON,
Notary Public,
Towner County, N. Dak.
My Commission Expires: January 6, 1975.
SHERIDCN COUNTY
BURLEIGN co~uVfV7
C-,
/~j~z ~-~-- -
L -~C _________ -
AFFIDAVIT
STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA,
County of McLean, ss:
I, K. E. Peck, being first duly sworn, depose and say as follows: That I was
the owner of a grain farm located in Township 147 North, Range 82 West, con-
sisting of a total of 292 acres. My farmstead is located in the Northeast Quar-
ter (NE~4) of Section 24 Of said township. The McClusky Canal passes through
my property immediately north of my farmstead and in addition to the canal
right-of-way, the remainder of my property has been purchased by the govern-
ment for wildlife purposes and also for the purposes of excavating clay from
the premises which will be used to line the canal so that it will not lose so much
water in other areas along the canal route where land that it passes through
consists of gravel and more porous types of material that would lose water if
not lined with clay. The original agreement for the purchase of my land was
entered into the government by myself on July 7, 1971. At that time, I expected
that the matter would be reviewed by the government and I would thereafter
receive my money on or about th 9th of July. After I had signed all the nec-
essary documents and entered into the agreement with the government to pur-
chase all of my farm, I assumed the government would let me know as soon as
PAGENO="0419"
434
AFFIDAVIT
STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA,
County of McLean, ~s:
Comes now Mr. Ben Schatz, being first duly sworn, deposes and says as fol-
lows: That I am the owner and operator of a combination grain and livestock
farm located in Burleigh County, North Dakota, in the Northwest Quarter
(NW1%) of Section Eight (8), Township 144 North, Range 78 West, consisting
of a total of Seven hundred twenty (720) acres. Attached hereto and made a
part of this affidavit is a map of my farm and also a map showing the areas that
have been condemned by the United States Department of Interior for right-
of-way purposes for the McClusky Canal and also showing the area running
through my property that was condemned for public road use.
The appraiser who originally set the governments valuation for my land did
not contact me nor give me an opportunity to familiarize him with my farm.
There was an individual who stopped and asked if he could measure some of the
buildings on my farm and I gave him permission to do so but he did not indi-
cate what his purpose was nor did he enter into any kind of a discussion with
me to try and determine any information about my farm which might have been
useful to the government in arriving at a fair appraisal of my total farm and
also a fair appraisal of the land that the government wished to condemn. I was
notified that the government wanted to purchase and was going to condemn a
total of approximately eight-one (81) acres of my land and they made a first
and only offer of a total of ten thoUsands one hundred fifty ($10,150.00) for the
two parcels of land that were going to be condemned. I considered this to be
totally inadequate in view of the fact that they were separating my farmstead
from a good share of my pasture and were also leaving me with 56.36 acres of
land that was isolated between the canal right-of-way and the road right-of-way.
In an effort to try and make this fifty-six acres usable I requested that a live-
stock underpass be constructed under the road so that the land north of the
road would be connected with the land south of the road. I was informed by a
Bureau official that this would be too costly and they refused to put in such a
structure on the road.
While the canal was being constructed it became apparent that I was going to
have a problem on my farmstead with the drainage of my barnyard runoff and
also with the existing drainage system for my sewer system. The Bureau solved
these problems by merely constructiUg drains which would allow my sewage as
well as the runoff from my barnyard to run into the canal. At the time this was
done I expressed concern that there may later be objections to this and that I
might be forced to an additional expense of handling these problems in some
other manner so that they did not flow into the canal, but they assured me that
this was alright. I find this to be a little bit difficult to understand when Bureau
officials continually assert that they are concerned about the ecological effect of
this project and are not going to destroy anything which is not replaced in some
other manner.
I also objected to the placement of the road away from the canal right-of-way
in the manner in which they have done. I rather requested that they continue
to follow the canal right-of-way with the public road so that it would not be
as much of a problem to ipy remaining farming operations. They indicated how-
ever that because of the topography of the land immediately south of the canal
right-of-way it would be impossible for them to construct the road. My visual
observation does not show why this shOuld have been such a great problem and
it remains a situation which I simply cannot understand.
I further object to the arrogant attitude that the Bureau officials had when
they approached me. My understanding was that the law required them to enter
into good faith negotiations with me. Their approach was that they made the
initial offer which I have mentioned above and said I could either take that
offer or they would condemn my property. I then informed them that if that was
my choice they could condemn because I did not feel that they were any way
near what my property was worth. At that point and thereafter they did not
make any effort to enter into good faith negotiations with me to try and settle
all of my problems which were involved in the governments acquisition of my
land.
Another thing that I find very objectiOnable is the fact that the Bureau will
not acknowledge that they have cut off my use of the pasture to the north of my
farmstead as well. Prior to the Bureau's condemnation of this property and the
construction of the canal I had access to and use of a livestock underpass to
PAGENO="0420"
433
divide our property. This land has been the subject of condemnation proceed-
ings and the matter is presently pending in Federal District Court.
We were never contacted by an appraiser from the Federal Government so we
had no opportunity to discuss with him the situation tbat our farm is in and we
did not go over the effect that the canal would have upon our farming opera-
tions. An opportunity was never given to us to meet with this appraiser. In
February of 1972 a negotiator whose first name was Jerry stopped by the farm
on a Wednesday afternoon when Mr. Albert Wall and the rest of the family
were gone. He did speak with Mrs. Wall who informed him that she did not
wish to look at the papers that he had and would prefer that he return at a
time when the rest of the family was home. He then left the farmstead and
returned the next Friday which was two days later. On that day all of the men
were again gone and he only found Mrs. Wall home. At that time she again in-
dicated that she did not wish to discuss his material with him and he then in-
dicated that he would not be back anymore to bother them. At no time during
any of these visits did he actually indicate the purposes of his visit nor did he
do anything more than identify himself as a negotiator.
It was then during the first part of March that we were served with the con-
demnation papers. At that time we still had not been shown maps nor did we
have any actual information to indicate the location that the canal right-of-way
was going to take through our farmland. We then drove to Bismarck to meet
with Bureau officials to try and determine the exact location that the canal was
going to take through our farm.iand.
We were then furnished the maps. copies of which I have attached hereto
and made a part hereof, whicli show the route that the canal will follow through
our property. At that time we asked the Bureau officials that we were talking to
if there w-ere any alternative routes considered and also why they bad deter-
mined to follow the route through our farm. He then advised me that there
were several other routes considered but that this route which was selected was
chosen because it could use a natural flow for the water instead of having to use
pumping or other types of methods to get over some ~f the hilly areas that exist
to the north of our area.
One of our objections to following this route through our farm is that in the
process of doing so they destroy six excellent slough or marsh areas that existed
in our pastures and which served as excellent areas for ducks and other forms
of wildlife. In addition, a lake known as Heckers Lake lies on a portion of our
property and this lake also will be destroyed by the canal.
A total of forty-three thousand one hundred dollars ($43,100.00) has been de-
posited in court as part of the condemnation proceedings. We do not feel that
the government is acting correctly in initiating condemnation proceedings with-
out having made a real effort to negotiate this matter w-ith us. At no time did
any government official call before coming to the farm and indicate that they
wished to meet with us to discuss this matter and the effect that it w-ould have
upon our farm. The farm that we are left w-ith is substantially destroyed as
far as having any continuing value as a farm to us. The farmstead is completely
severed from the bulk of our land and we w-ill now have to travel approximately
nine and a half or ten miles to reach our pasture land. This is the same pasture
land that previously was connected directly w-ith our farmstead and the barns
and hay storage area. It is therefore our position that we should be considered
as having been dislocated by this project. The Bureau how-ever has made a de-
termination that they do not think w-e are dislocated and have not made any
efforts to give whatever rights we would he entitled to and considerations we
would be entitled to as a dislocated family.
ALBERT WALL,
PEARLE WALL.
On this 22nd day of September, 1972. before me personally appeared Albert
Wall and Pearle Wall, known to me to be the persons w-ho are described in and
who executed the within instrument and acknowledged to me that they executed
the same.
JAMES R. BRITTON,
Notary Public,
Towner County, N. Dak.
My Commission Expires: January 6, 1975.
PAGENO="0421"
432
transferred and the seller does not have to wait an additional period of time to
get his money.
One additional observation I have is that myself, and I believe most other
people who are affected by the McClusky Canal either through the loss of prop-
erty or through disruption of their farming activities, did not fully appreciate
the full impact that this canal was going to have upon their farm until after
the construction has begun and ~ we are able to actually begin to see the manner
in which it will disrupt our normal farming activities. After seeing all of these
things, I feel that compensation that I received for the value of my land and
for the severence damages is very inadequate for the actual damages and dis-
ruption that my farm has received and for the great inconvenience that myself
and subsequent owners and operators of my farm will have to put up with as a
result of this McClusky Canal. In addition, it seems to me to be very wrong that
besides having to put up with all this disruption and inconvenience, I cannot
receive a little bit of water from the canal. An example of where I could use
some water from the canal is in part of my pasture which is now separated
by the construction of the canal. If I could receive a little bit of water from
the canal, this would still remain a productive pasture area for me and could
support a small number of livestock. The way it is, this is an approximately 20
or 25 acre tract of land which without water is of very limited value to anyone.
In addition, while the canal was being constructed, there were certain ap-
proaches and other items that I was promised would be constructed so that I
would have access to some of my areas of land that are left isolated. I have
made several attempts to find the Bureau official whose name is Mr. Bastine, who
was in charge of construction in this area to make sure that these matters are
going to be taken care of during the construction phase of the project. However,
it seems that this person is very difficult to locate, and almost at times, seems
to intentionally keep himself so far away from the public that we cannot con-
tact. I do not feel it is right that I should be forced to run to Bismarck to make
sure that these items are taken care of.
One other item that I feel has nOt been fully studied by the Bureau of Recla-
mation is the impact that the construction of this project is going to have upon
our local taxes. As a result of the construction of the canal, there are several
roads which, prior to this time, have adequately served the needs of this area
which will now become valueless because of the fact that there is no longer a
bridge over the canal so that the road cannot be used. In addition ot that, the
canal has constructed some new roads along the canal right-of-way for public
purposes, but it appears to me to hO quite apparent that by the construction of
some of these roads, they are going to create new traffic patterns which will
create needs for additional roads which are going to have to be paid for by the
local taxpayers. In addition, I am concerned about the great deal of land that
is being taken off the tax rolls by the acquisition of right-of-way and wildlife
land and feel that the present amount of money that is returned to the local
taxing authorities in lieu of taxes by the federal government is totally inade-
quate to compensate for this tax loss to the local government.
HAROLD SELLON.
On this 22nd day of September, 1972, before me personally appeared Harold
Sellon, known to me to be the person described in and who executed the within
instrument and acknowledged to me that he executed the same.
My Commission Expires: January 6, 1975.
JAMES R. BRITT0N,
Notary Public,
Towner County, N. Daic.
AFFIDAVIT
STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA,
County of McLean, ss:
Come now Albert Wall and Pearle Wall, who being first duly sworn, depose
and say as follows: That we reside on a farmstead located in Section Twenty-
five (25), Township 145 North, Range 79 West, and operate a combination grain
and livestock farm. We own a total of one thousand one hundred twenty (1,120)
acres and rent an additional three hundred twenty (320) acres in our farming
unit. The basic farming unit that we own consists of eight hundred eighty-one
(881) contiguous acres and it is through this area that the McClusky Canal will
PAGENO="0422"
41
stock portion of my operation adds a great deal of stability during these
drought years.
The only opportunity I ever had to actually discuss my farming operation was
early in the spring of 1971 when a man came to the farm and asked to take
pictures of my farming operatioll which would be used by the appraisers. I
accompanied him while he took the pictures. He did not indicate any interest
in how this particular land fit in with the rest of my farming operations and did
not ask any questions about my general farming operations at all.
I feel that I would have been in a much better position to negotiate with the
government if they had contacted me earlier regarding the acquisition of my
land and given me some idea of what their initial offer would be. If this had
been done I would have then been in a position te buy and locate replacement
land prior to the time that the price of land has appreciated so much because
of the government's activity in the area. As it is now, I not only have to bear
the loss that the remaining portion of my land will suffer because of its de-
creased value but will be forced to put a great deal of expense to try and locate
replacement land which will have to be located a great distance from my pres-
ent farming operations.
ALVIN WALL.
On this 3 day of Oct., 1972, before me personally appeared Alvin Wall, known
to me to be the person who is described in and who executed the within instru-
ment and acknowledged to me that he executed the same.
DOUGLAS R. HANSON,
Notary Public,
Turtle Lake, McLean County, N. Dak.
My Commission Expires: May 21, 1977.
AFFIDAVIT
STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA,
County of McLean, ss:
I, Harold Sellon, being first duly sworn, depose and say as follows: That I am
the owner and operator of a combination grain and livestock farm, the head-
quarters of which is located in the Southwest Quarter (SW%.) of Section 8,
Township 147 North, Range 81 West in McLean County, North Dakota.
The McClsuky Canal intersects property that I own in Section 18 of Township
147 North, Range 87 West, in two separate areas. The total amount of property
needed for canal right-of-way that I own was approximately 47 acres. I was first
contacted by the Bureau of Reclamation people requesting authority to survey
on my land some 7 or 8 years ago, at which time I refused to give them permis-
sion to survey on my land. They went ahead without my permission and con-
ducted surveys and seemed to ignore my wishes for them to stay off my prop-
erty. Thereafter, I did decide that I might as well give them permission as they
were going ahead anyway and did sign the necessary papers to give them the
authority to survey upon my property.
I was subsequently contacted by negotiators who attempted to make a settle-
ment with me for the purchase of my land that was needed for the canal right-
of-way. Throughout these negotiations, and after we had made our agreement,
I was impressed by the fact that the Bureau of Reclamation negotiators and
the other individuals who had responsibility for settling land transactions
seemed to conduct these affairs in a very unbusinesslike manner. An example of
this was the fact that they would continually say that I would have to trust
them in all affairs but that they did not seem to trust myself in any of these
transactions. An example of their unbusinesslike way of conducting business
was when I was told that they would have the money available and we would
have the closing on a certain date. When I appeared and all the papers had
been signed transferring my property to the Bureau of Reclamation, I was in-
formed that they did not bring the checks with them, but that they would have
to take the deeds, record them, and then make one final review of the records
to make sure I was entitled to my money. In all other transactions that I have
been involved in, the purchaser of the property has made all of his review of
the records that he feels is necessary up to and immediately at the time of the
closing and at the time of the closing, the deeds are signed and the money is
PAGENO="0423"
430
Township 145 North, Range 79 West. I first became aware that part of my land
was going to be needed for the iVicCiusky Canal project in the mid 1960's.
In 1966 I purchased a quarter of farmland which shortly thereafter the Bu-
reau began doing some surveying and staking on it. That year while I was
working some of the farmland, the stakes that were left on the land by the gov-
ernment officials were run over by my pickup, destroying two of the pickup tires
at a total cost of approximately $75.00. At that time I attempted to get com-
perisation for my loss but was informed by the Bureau of Reclamation that I
would have to know which governmental agency it was that was on the land,
as the Fish and Wildlife Service was also doing survey work in this area, I,
at that time, told them I had no, idea who it was other than the fact that it was
U.S. Government pickups on my land. At that time and thereafter, none of the
government employees who would be doing surveying and other work in my area
would ask permission before going on the land, they would merely go on the
land. It was because of this practice that it was impossible for me to know who
it was that did the work that caused my damages. Because of this technicality
I was never reimbursed for the loss of my pickup tires.
Thereafter, I adopted a policy of chasing off all government vehicles and em-
ployees as soon as I would find them on my land. This became a constant strug-
gle as they would never ask for permission to enter my premises and it would
be up to me to try and keep track of all my property and determine when they
were entering upon it. On several occasions when I chased them off they threat-
ened.me with condemnation action if I would not change my position and give
them permission to enter the land. I felt that if the government wanted to con-
demn my property to do whatever they wanted to do on it, that's what they
should do; but that the government had not treated me fairly when they first
initiated the primary steps in surveying my property and I was under no obli-
gation to cooperate with them at this time.
In the spring of 1971 I was contacted by a negotiator. He indicated that the
government wanted to buy the Southeast Quarter (SE'/4) of Section Twenty-
four (24), Township 145 North, Range 80 West, as well as the South Half of
the Southwest quarter (S1/2SW~) and the West Half of the Southeast Quarter
(W~ SE',4) of Section Six (6), Township 145 North, Range 79 West and also
the north 60 acres of the Northeast Quarter (NE'%) of Section Seven (7), Town-
ship 145 North, Range 79 West, all of which belonged to me. The total acreage
that he wished to purchase amounted to 380 acres. At this time he offered a
total purchase price for this amount of land of $40,000.00. At that time, I at-
tempted to show the negotiator my records showing that I had made investments
in this land over and above the purchase price of the same which totaled sub-
stantially more than the amount that they were offering me for it. The improve-
ments and investments that I made in the land over and above the initial pur-
chase price included breaking the grass growing on it and converting it to
cropland, draining sloughs located upon it, picking rocks located on it, putting
fences on it, and digging stock watering ponds on it. I also attempted to show
him my general farm layout and to go over the investment that I have in farm
equipment and to show how this particular piece of property fits in well with
my overall grain operation and was the only portion of my property that al-
lowed me to round out my operation with the livestock operation as well. At
that time the negotiator told me that he could not go over any of these things
with me because it wouldn't make any difference with what he could offer me.
He also indicated at that time that I was not going to receive any severance
damages for the quarter located in Township 145 North, Range 80 West; and,
he further indicated that lie would not disclose to me the amount of severance
damages that I would be entitled to receive as a result of his offer for the
remainder of my land.
In the fall of 1971, this same negotiator returned and made a new offer to
me of $42,500.00 for this amount of my land. I again refused this offer.
I have taken the position that I cannot make a settlement with the govern-
ment because of the fact that they have not shown any willingness to sit down
and actually try and determine the speëial situation that my farm is in. Instead,
they simply came upon my property and made an offer to me which appears to
make no provisions for the fact that I have a total of $100,000.00 based upon the
new replacement cost of farm equipment which I will not be fully utilizing after
the land that the government wants has been taken over and they also seem to
totally ignore the fact that I am farming in an area where crop failures are
not a thing that never happen but rather do occasionally happen and the live-
PAGENO="0424"
429
age from the canal which will adversely affect them, other Bureau officials
have assured these individuals that through construction techniques they have
made the canal virtually seepage-proof and that there will not be any signifi-
cant seepage from the canal. This, I think, is just another indication of the
arrogance that I originally mentioned that the Bureau of Reclamation shows
in the construction of this canal, and the fact that they will take any position
and make any statement without any regard to whether or not they are actu-
ally basing this statement upon facts which have been established by jude-
pendant analysis.
I also feel that whenever the federal government is contemplating under-
taking a project of the magnitude of the Garison Diversion project, they should
for the protection of the general public, rely upon studies and analysis con-
ducted by some group other that the Bureau of Reclamation, whibch has a
vested interest in seeing that the project is approved to determine if the project
is feasible and if it is something that can actually be constructed for the bene-
fit of the public. After I learned that the project was going to affect me, I
have done what studying there is available to me from information available
to the general public, and I have a great many questions about whether or
not cost benefits studies, which were conducted for this project, are actually
based upon current data and information relative to agricultural needs in
this country and farming practices in this area. In addition, I would question
whether or not if the true cost of this project were accurately projected and
known at the time it was approved if Congress would have decided that in
view of the other priority needs that our country has, that this project should
have deserved funding in the amounts that would be necessary to actually see
it through to completion. The very point that I am trying to make by this is
that the group that is responsible in protecting the public's interest in deter-
mining if a project is feasible should not be the same group that has respon-
sibilities for carrying on the construction phase of the project after it is once
approved by Congress. In this situation, it is obvious that the group that is re-
sponsible for protecting the public inter~sts in these projects has a vested right
in seeing that they are approved so that the same group may continue to exist
and work to do and jobs to be taken on.
My final observation is that the general impression that has been given by
most of the newspapers in the North Dakota area and by most of the politicians
in this area is that the Garrison Diversion project is a sacred cow that we
have waited many years to get and that now no one should raise any questions
regarding the project for fear w-e may lose it and that if we lose it, we will
be losing something that the state badly needs. I would think that if the proj-
ect is that terribly beneficial to the state, it should be able to sustain whatever
questions that are being raised and that if there are some things that are be-
ing done at the present time that are wrong, that corrections can be made
and that the project can still be carried on to completion. On the other hand,
if the questions are valid and if in fact the project will not deliver the benefits
to this state originally foreseen or if its adverse impact upon the ecology of
this area is not compensated for by the benefits or if the environment will be
destroyed then the project should be stopped before it is too late.
EARL L. G0vEN.
On this 22nd day of September, 1972, before me personally appeared Earl L.
Goven, known to me to be the person described in and who executed the within
instrument and acknowledged to me that he executed the same.
JAMES R. BRITTON,
Notary Public,
Towner County, N. Dak.
My Commission Expires: January 6, 1975.
AFFIDAVIT
STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA,
County of McLean, ss:
I, Alvin Wall, being first duly sworn, depose and say as follows:
I am the owner of a farm located south of Mercer, North Dakota in Township
145 North, Range 79 West and Township 145 North, Range 80 West, consisting
of a total of 1,360 acres of land. My farmstead is located in Section Nine (9) of
54-005 O-75----28
PAGENO="0425"
428
ect' not oiily approved `but. constructed and that they have minimized the ad-
verse consequences of this pioject If any of the private citizens would have
raised objections at that point they would have not been valid knowledgeable
öbjections based upon any. facts that would have been founded upon any sci-
entific or knowledgeable observations of how the project would `iffect this
community Inste'~d they wculd have been objections of individual persons
concerned with the project whO would have been simply afraid that they might
lose some of their hnd At the present time this is the light in which some of
the proponents of the project are attempting to paint the objectors, however
the fact `is that now even those of us who have no particular expertise in the
field of environmental impact are aware of the impact that earlier phases of
this project has had upon the surrounding environment, particularly in the
area around McClusky, and we are now raising questions about what has been
done to a~me that these same adverse effects will not be had in our area An
observer who is being affected can only raise two questions regarding the early
testimony that was given .Congress regarding this project, and that is #1-
that the full impact that this project will have upon the environment was not
studied and appreciated or #2-if the impact upon the environ~nt was in
fact studied, the results of these studies were covered up and not made avail-
able to the public or to Congress.
One area regarding the impact that the construction of this canal will have
upon a local area ecology is that fact that in the process of constructing the
canal, the water table in this area is being drained, the exact extent of wbich
has not been made public. Last spring, I was approached by a Bureau of nec-
lamation official who requested permission to drill a test well near my wells
located on my farmstead so that they could observe the effect that they would
have regarding the lowering of the water table in the area of my farmstead.
I signed the necessary documents so that this test well could be dug. however,
to date, the test well has never been dug. However, they did go ahead with
construction of the canal, and the draining of the water table in this area
has already begun. In fact, it has been going on for approximately two months.
I ~nticip~te th'lt they will be bringing the drilling rigs sometime later this
fall so that they cami drill the test well after the damage has been done, and
then take the position that actually my water problems are not caused by the
canal construction hut rather by, some other natural phenomenon which they
had rio control over.
In addition the the effect that the lowering of the water table will have
upon the wells on my farm I am also very concerned upon the effect that this
will have upon the single row of shelter belts that I have growing in the area
of the canal on my property. I have a total of two and a half (21,4) miles of
single row shelter belt growing in this area, and I have been informed by
people who are knowledgeable in the field that one mile of single row shelter
belt will add a total of $2,000.00 in value to my property. This then would in-
dicate that the single row shelter belt that I have growing in the area of the
canal upon my property would add approximately $5,000.00 to the value of this
property.
These trees have been growing ,for approximately 15 years and their roots
are* now deep enough so that they are into the established water table in this
area. I am `very concerned, however, that with the lowering of the water table
due to the construction of the canal, the trees will have to become clependaut
upon the supply of moisture from the annual rainfall in this area in order to
sustain themselves. In this area, we' do have prolonged periods of drought. If
a period of drought should follow shortly after the construction of the canal.
I am afraid that these trees and the trees that other landowners along the
canal have planted will suffer as a result of it. Because of the high water table
that had been established prior to the construction of the canal, these. trees
could have weathered a prolonged drought without any damage, but if this
water from `the water table is not, available to sustain them, they could be
killed in a very short time due to drought conditions.
I have raised this problem of the lowering of the water table with some of
the Bureau officials and they have indicated to me that I should not be con-
cerned about this as once the canal is finished and water is place in it that
there will be' enough seepage from the canal to replenish the water table in a
very short period of time. This may `,well be true, however, `I think it should be
"noted that in other areas where people are concerned `that there will be seep-
PAGENO="0426"
427
the answer that they are tentatively scheduled to be located in a certain place,
but that a definite decision had not been made. Actually, with this type of an
answer being given to me, it was impossible for me to actually determine the
impact that the construction of the canal would have upon my farming oper-
ations which I feel was a very important factor in my determining the amount
of money I should receive for the purchase of my property.
Another problem that I noted regarding the Bureau's policies as they affect
the purchase of my property, was the fact that they did not allow any sever-
ence damages for the property that I own with my wife in joint tenancy. The
reason that was given to me for this fact was that the property that they were
purchasing from me was owned in my own name and the property that I
owned in joint tenancy with my wife cannot be considered as part of this same
unit, in spite of the fact it is in fact operated by myself as part of my farming
unit and is actually an integral part of the same and is being purchased and
paid for by the money that I earn from my farming operations. In fact, I have
checked into this particular aspect in~ some detail and have found that the In-
ternal Revenue Service considers property that is owned in joint tenancy by a
husband and wife, such as in my situation, to be actually owned completely by
myself if I should pass away first for Estate Tax purposes and my wife would
be under an obligation to show that she actually contributed a portion of the
funds for the purchase o~ this property in order to avoid it to be taxed in my
estate.
I also object to the fact that the Bureau of Reclamation either would not
or could not give any advance notice as to a time table that they would be
following in the acquisition and subsequent steps leading up to the actual
beginning construction of the McClusky Canal in this area. It did not seem to
recognize that farming is an operation that requires a great deal of planning
and if they would have made their intentions known regarding the utilization
and acquisition of canal right-of-way, they could have avoided a great deal of
trouble and inconvenience for most of the farmers concerned. However, instead
they seemed to come into the area on very short notice actually began negotia-
tions in the fall of 1971 after the crop had been removed and had acquired
property either by condemnation or negotiations prior to the beginning of
spring's work in 1972. Such fast action of this sort is bound to create many
untenable situations for the persons affected by the acquisition and certainly
could have been avoided by a more definite time table and more advanced plan-
ning.
One of my constant objections to this project is the fact that the landowners
along the canal right-of-Way are not being granted any water rights for the
use of the water in the canal. I have now read recent releases from the Bureau
of Reclamation or from the Garrison Conservancy District indicating that
water from the canal may be made available to the landowners in this area
on a year to year basis. It would appear to me that making water available to
us at all as the practical effect of such an arrangement would be that the water
would be available to us in those years when we needed the least, and in those
years when we would need the water the most, most likely the water would
riot be available. Actually, without Garrison Diversion, we have water availa-
ble to us on a year to year basis and I do not feel such an arrangement with
the Bureau of Reclamation would be any practical benefit to us in this area
at all. I do however, feel that there should be enough water available from
this canal so that the landowners in this area and particularly those who are
being affected by the acquisition by canal right-of-way should be able to have
water rights to the water in the canal and be able to use the same in their
farming operations.
1 have also noted that some of the politicians in this area have raised the
point that at the time this project was originally being considered, there were
no objections raised to it and that all the testimony presented to Congress was
testimony in favor of the project. Tills point is then carried on to say that
flOW it is too late to raise objections and that we should merely sit back and
take our lumps and go into court and try to get whatever we are legally en-
titled to but that the project should proceed on schedule. I do not feel that
this is a valid point to raise because of the fact that the only persons or group
that actually knew about the project and the impact that it would have upon
this area was the Bureau of Reclamation. From their present conduct, it is ap-
parent that they have been constantly following a policy of getting this proj-
PAGENO="0427"
426
STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA
County of McLean, ss:
On this 22nd day of September, 1972, before me personally appeared Donald
Goven, known to me to be the person described in and who executed the within
instrument and acknowledged to me that he executed the same.
JAMES R. BRITT0N,
Notary Public,
Towner County, N. Dak.
My Commission Expires: January 6, 1975.
AFFIDAVIT
STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA,
County Of McLean, ss:
I, Earl L. Goven, being first duly sworn, depose and say as follows: That
I am the owner of a combination grain and livestock farm, headquarters of
which is located in Section 18, Township 147 North, Range 80 West, in McLean
County. North Dakota. The McClusky Canal passes through land which I own
and right-of-way for the same requires a total of approximately 135 to 140
acres of my property.
From the time I was first contacted by Bureau of Reclamation personnel
regarding the acquisition of my property, I noted that they continually showed
an arrogant attitude towards me regarding the purchase of my property. When-
ever they would enter into negotiations with me, they would always seem to
preface whatever statement they would make by saying, "You know we can
always enter into condemnation with you if we cannot agree on a negotiated
settlement for your property." On one occasion, I complained to some other
Bureau officials regarding the general attitude of the appraisor who was deal-
ing with me and was informed that "that individual is no longer with us." This
statement was given to me within the general conotation that that would give
me a certain amount of satisfaction, however, it really didn't change the gen-
eral attitude that the Bureau officials had regarding their negotiations with me.
I had several questions that I wanted to have answered regarding the im-
pact that the construction of the canal would have upon myself and my farm-
ing operations and the general manner, that they would carry out the construc-
tion of the canal, however, I did not reŕeive satisfactory answers to any of these
questions. In addition, when I would attempt to negotiate with Bureau per-
sonnel on specific items, I was always told or given the impression that the
negotiations would have to be conducted in the manner that the Bureau officials
dictated or there would be no negotiations at all.
I finally entered into an agreement to sell my property with the Bureau of
Reclamation, not because oi~ the fact that I felt the Bureau had necessarily
given me a satisfactory offer as a result of mutual negotiations, but rather be-
cause of the fact that I had made independant arrangements on my own to
purchase replacement property and felt that I should now enter into an agree-
ment with the Bureau to sell my property so that I could facilitate the financ-
ing of this replacement property. At that time, I was assured that I would
receive my money for the sale of my land within a 90 day period. The agree-
ment to sell my land was signed with the Bureau during December of 1971.
However, instead of receiving the money within 90 days as I had been assured,
it took approximately six months to receive my money. There was no reason
for this delay as my title to all my property that was being purchased by
the Bureal was up-to-date and there were no flaws upon my title which had
to be cured. The only delay involved was caused solely by the Bureau's failure
to process my sale in an expeditious manner.
One of the areas that was particularly troublesome to me in which I found
it impossible to get any answers was the placement of the bridges at various
points across the canal and the manner in which they would affect my farming
operations. I farm a total of approximately 2800 acres and this land is spread
out over a 20 mile radius from my farmstead. I own or am purchasing all of
this property so the problems that will he creatdd regarding the transportation
to this land are going to be problems that I will be living with as long as I
own this farm and were extremely important to me. However, when I tried to
determine the areas that the bridges would be located, I was always met with
PAGENO="0428"
.425
(33) straight north to Turtle Lake in Township 146 North, Range SO .West.
This is a matter that is of very great importance to me and to the other farm
owners and operators in my area as we all use this. road as our principle route
to get to Turtle Lake and all of us rely upon Turtle Lake for the same items
and services that I have previusly mentioned
The Bureau has at times made the statement that they will provide alternate
bridges* which wifi still satisfy our need for access to Turtle Lake. What is
not taken `lnto. consideration is the fact that any alternate bridges that are put
in will stibsthntially increase our transportation expenses and these are items
that most of us have no way of recovering these additional expenses from the
government. I would think that the government is under an obligation to leave
the entire Turtle Lake area in as nearly the same condition as they found it
before they started this project. Bridges and established transportation routes
are one of the very important items that the Bureau should respect and should
not interrupt any more than is absolutely necessary.
LEROY EVANS.
On this 22nd day of Septčmber~ 1972, before me personally appeared Roy
Evans known to me to be the person described in and executed the within in-
strument and acknowledged to me that he executed the same.
JAMES R. BRITTON,
Notary Pablic,
Towner County, N. Dak.
My Commission Expires: January, 6, 1975.
AFFIDAVIT
STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA,
Cour&ty `of McLean, 8$:
I, T~onaId Goven, being first duly sworn, depose and say as follows: That I
am the owner and operator of a combination grain and livestock farm, the head-
quarters of which is located in Section Twenty-nine (29), Township 146 North,
Range 80 West, in McLean County, North Dakota. The McClusky Canal which
present time' a total of three hundred fifty (350) acres of my real estate are
is being constructed in this area runs through portions of my land and at the
being condemned by the Bureau of Reclamation for canal right-of-way and
wildlife purposes. An appraiser came to my farm in March of 1971 who repre-
sented the Bureau of Reclamation. At that time he reviewed my farm layout,
however he did not ask for any information and to my knowledge did not re-
ceive any information regarding the yields or anything else which would indi-
cate the productivity of my land that was being condemned for the McClusky
Canal Project. Thereafter I was contacted by negotiators and after meeting
with the negotiator several times but at no time during these negotiations was
I able to determine from the negotiator the value that the government was wil-
ling to pay for my farmland and the value that it was willing to pay for the
pasture land and also the amount of severence damages that they were includ-
ing in their offer to me. I have subsequently learned from the 15.5. ,Attorney's
Office and from the individual who is handling my condemnation action that
the government was offering one hundred twenty-five dollars ($125.00) per acre
for my farm land and sixty dollars ($60.00) per acre for my pasture land that
is being condemned.
These offers are entirely inadequate because of the fact that I have been
negotiating and have purchased some replacement property already. The prices
that I have had to pay for the replacement property, which is very much more
inconvenient and not as valuable to my entire farming operation, substantially
exceeds the offered prices of the government by about thirty-five (35) to fifty
(50) percent.,
I would think that the Bureau of Reclamation would have access to infor-
mation which would indicate the going market price of land at the time that
they initiate their condemnation proceedings and should be in a position to
make `settlement offers which are nearly in line with the prevailing market
prices at the time that they take the land.
DoNALD GOVERN.
PAGENO="0429"
424
"ArnDAvIT
STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA,
Gown ~j of l[cLean ss
I Robe~t L Evans being fist duly sworn depose and say as follows That I
`mi the owner of a farm located in Section Twenty nine (29) Township 146
Nrnth Range 80 West located in McLean County North Dakota south of Tur
tie Lake, In my farming operations I share work and equipment with my father,
Roy Evans and `iiso my uncle, Ezra Evans The general nature of our relation
ship is such that it has been of a great advantage to a young peison such as
myself n getting started ir farming I do not have any land that is directly
involved in the McClusky Canal Project. The project does substantially affect
myc:elf and the relationslup that I have had with my father and my uncle in
that it is now going to be much more inconvenient to cooperate in the activities
that we have previously been able to cooperate on. The biggest single item
which I feel has to be cOrrected is the installation of adequate bridges across
the \JcClu~l v Canal so that established transportation routes in the area south
of Turtle Lake will not be disrupted by the construction of the canal. Turtle
Lake, North Dakota, remains my principle shopping center and the area where
I in~trket my farm produce If a bridge is not installed to preserve the road
that runs south of Tuitle Lii c in Township 145 North Range 80 West and be
tween Sections Thutl' two (32) and Thirty thiee (33) this road will be dis
iuptej by Lhe construction of the canal and the installation of a bridge to pre
seii e this transportation route will be used by several of the farmers in my
area and from my observations will also be used by several other people who
wish to use this route as a shortcut to get to Dismarck.
One other problem which perhaps does not indicate a situation that can be
corrected in any way but does show the social and economic disruption that a
project such as this causes to our area is the fact that I will now be somewhat
limited in my future expansion of my faiming operations in that it will be
much more inconvenient for me to rent or purchase land located across the
canal then what is presently is without having to deal `with the canal.
In `idthtion to limiting my future expansion I have also been informed that
I will have no chance of obt iining any water to use for irrigation livestock or
any other puiposes that I may have arising in my future farming operations
which .1 feel would be a minimum right that I have considering the great deal
of inconveniences this project gives to me.
ROBERT EVANS.
On this 22nd day of September 1972 before me personally appeared Robert
L. Evans, known to me to be the person described in and who executed the
within instrument and acknowledged to `me that he executed the same.
JAMES R. BRITTON,
Notary PubZic,
Towner County, N Da1~.
My Commission Expires: January 6, 1975.
AFFIDAVIT
STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA,
Coviny of I/cLean 88
1, Roy `Evans, being first duly sworn, depose and say. as follows: That I am
the owner and operator of a combination grain and livestock farm located in
Township 145 North, Range 80, West, in McLean County, North Dakota. A very
small amount of my property is involved in the canal right-of-way for the
McClusky Canal. The biggest problem that this. project poses to me and my
farming operations is the location of the bridges across the canal. Turtle Lake,
North Dakota is my principle shopping area and is also the town where all
school, .medical and other needs of a farm family are supplied for me. In ad-
dition it is also, the center where I market all of my farm produce. At the pres-
ent time theme is a gre'tt deal of question as to whether om not there will he a
North Range 80 West which is an absolute necessity for me as this bridge
bridge situated aCross the canal in Section Thirty-three (33), Township 146
would replace the road that presently serves as my principle means of getting
to Tuitle Lsl e which runs between Sections Thirty two(32) and Thirty three
PAGENO="0430"
423
Of the total of four hundred forty five (445) acres that the Bureau of Recla-
mation is condenming of the property that belongs to me, approximately two
hundred (200) acres of this property will not be used for the canal itself but
rather will be used for wildlife purposes to restore that wildlife habitat that
is destroyed by the construction of the canal. I feel that this portion of the
Garrison Diversion Program is a program that unnecessarily places an addi-
tional strain and burden upon the landowners who are affected by it and also
upon the entire community of Turtle Lake. This land is my choice farm land
and in the years that I have farmed it has always been the area that I could
look for my top yields for crops. This then not only drastically reduces the
value of my remaining farm land but denies to the town of Turtle Lake the
productive capacity of this farmland. In addition this land is removed from
the tax rolls and while I realize there are certain government programs to par-
tially replace the tax dollars lost, the value of the land is lost to the govern-
ment subdivisions concerned for the purpose of incurring bonded indebtedness
and also paying off this bonded indebtedness. I would feel that some program
could be arranged where that. portion of this land that the Bureau wants to ac-
quire from me for wildlife purposes which is best suited for farming could
remain in farm production. I would not object to entering into an arrangement
with the Bureau of Reclamation or the Department of the Interior whereby
that portion of my land which they desire to acquire which is best suited for
wildlife purposes and furnishes good wildlife cover and habitat to turn such
property over to them or to make other suitable arrangements so that it's wild-
life value will be preserved so that if they wish, provisions could be made so
that the public could have access to it for hunting and recreational purposes.
I also feel that the law pertaining to the income tax treatment for the pro-
ceeds of the land that I own that is being condemned should be changed so
that it would not adversely affect individuals such as myself who are approach-
ing retirement age and find that they are about to lose their land under terms
that they cannot control at a time when they also cannot control the sale of it.
If my property were not being condemned and if I were allowed to arrange my
retirement affairs I would have had an opportunity to have considered and
negotiated a possible installment sale of my farm real estate so that I could
have spread the income tax consequences of the sale over several years and
could have minimized the tax consequences. As a result of these condemnation
proceedings. the only alternative that I will have to avoid paying income tax in
one lump sum on the proceeds of my land is to reinvest in additional land. This
is not a feasible alternative for an individual of my age. However this is an
item that is not considered in determining the amount that I should receive
for my loss as a result of this project. As I understand it the only way that
this could be rectified is by a change in the law and I feel that the law should
be changed so that I could have a greater choice in determining the reinvest-
ment of the proceeds of the sale of my land in condemnation so that it may
better suit my future retirement plans. My final point of criticism is that the
price that the Bureau offered me was totally inadequate when you consider
the amount that the loss of the land that they want to acquire will decrease
the value of my land and add that los~ to the value of the land they are ac-
quiring. It would appear that they were using figures that must be several
years old in determining the prevailing market value of land in this area as
there are no sales that I am aware of in the last couple of years with the pos-
sible exception of some family transactions that I don't know about which in-
volve sale prices as low as that which they are offering to me. In addition it
was impossible to determine the amount that the Bureau was actually offering
for my land as they continually refused to disclose the amount they were allow-
ing for severence damages and the amount that they were actually offering for
the value of my land. This is an item I felt was absolutely essential for me to
know in order to determine if they were making a realistic offer to me for my
farmland.
EzRA B. EvANS.
On this 22nd clay of September, 1912. before me personally appeared Ezra B.
Evans, known to me to be the person described in and who executed the within
instrument and acknowledged to inc that he executed the same.
JAMES R. BRITTON,
~Totary Pvb7ic,
Towner County, iv. Dak.
My Commission Expires January 6, 1975.
PAGENO="0431"
422
ily is not actually dislocated. However, I cannot find where the Bureau of Rec-
lamation is actually undertaking any steps as provided in this act to minimize
the affects that their acquisition will have upon the farmers who are left in the
area or otherwise compensating them for this loss.
EDwIN BRITTON.
On this 22nd day of September, 1972, before me personally appeared Edwin
Britton, known to me to be the person described iii and who executed the within
instrument and acknowledged to me that he executed the same.
JAMES H. BRITTON,
Notary Pul~lic,
Towner County, N. Dak.
My Commission Expires January 6, 1975.
AFFIDAVIT
STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA,
County of McLean $8:
I, Ezra E. Evans, being first duly sworn, depose and say as follows: That I
am the owner and operator of a combination grain and livestock farm located
in Section Thirty-three (33), Towship 146 North, Range 80 West, and I also
have farm land that I own located in Township 145 North, Range 80 West. My
address is Turtle Lake, North Dakota. The Bureau of Reclamation is presently
condemning four hundred forty-five (445) acres of my farmland for canal
right-of-way and wildlife purposes. I own a total of one thousand two hundred
eighty (1,280) acres. This acquisition of my land will split my farm into three
separate pieces.
The first objection that I have to the Bureau of Reclamation Land Acquisi-
tion policies is that they attempted to negotiate a settlement price for the land
they wanted to acquire from me prior to their making a final decision on the
location of bridges that would affect me and my access to my remaining land.
I pointed this out to the negotiators at the time they approached me but they
contimied to press me to enter intO negotiations with them. At that point I re-
fused to negotiate with them until this point was definitely determined and
subsequently my land was condemned by the government. I feel that in a proj-
ect of this nature the government should have all of its decisions made and
they should make their plans known to the landowners who will he affected
thereby so that all negotiations that subsequently follow regarding the acquisi-
tion of the land that is needed for, the project can be carried on with a true
understandthg by the landowner cOncerned as to how the project will affect
him. Without knowing this I feel it was impossible for me to negotiate and I
do not feel that I have actually had an opportunity to enter into meaningful
negotiations with the Bureau for the acquisitioR of my laud.
The bridge that I am referring to would be located in Section Thirty-three
(33) Township 146 North, Range 80 West. This is a bridge that I not only need
for access to my remaining farm land hut I will need it in order to continue to
cooperate in my farming activities with my brother, Leroy Evans and nephew,
Robert Evans. This is an arrangement that has existed for several years be-
tween us and has been mutually advantageous to all parties concerned.
Another problem that I have noted is that when the Bureau was attempting
to enter into negotiations and now after condemnation action has been initiated
I find that it is very difficult to carry on negotiations with the Bureau personnel
and in particular with Mr. John Burgum. My experience with Mr. Burgum is
that I will get the impression that we have reached an understanding on a
point when I meet with him only to find that upon meeting with him at a sub-
sequent time this subject is something that he doesn't seem to recall at all and
is not a matter that has been agreed upon between us. An example of this is
my negotiations with Mr. Burgum to attempt to get the government to purchase
two separate tracts which under the condemnation action would be entirely
separated from my remaining farming operations, one consisting of fifteen (15
acres and the other consisting of forty (40) acres. On two or three separate
occasions I have been led to believe by Mr. Burgum that this property could
be acquired by the government hut then I find upon my next visit with him or
with the U.S. Attorney's Offic~ that noting has been done to determine if this
property can also he acquired by the government. This is quite an important
negotiation item to me in that those remaining parcels would have very little if
any value to me separated as they will be from my remaining farming activities.
PAGENO="0432"
421
out* of production shuld actually be left in prduction as that is the manner in
which it continue to offer the niost benefits to our country as a whole. It would
seem that arrangement could be made with myself and other landowners~ s~m-
ilarly affected so that if such was wanted, the public could be given easement
rights so that they could enjoy whatever bunting and other sporting activities
were developed upon the property and that the land could continue to remain
in production and that portion of the land which is best suited foragricultural
use could remain in production. I would think that some annual payment could
he set to compensate myself and the other landowners similarly affected for
whatever loss we would have because of the limitations placed upon our use
of this land. However, it would then continue to be on the tax rolls and would
be included in the whole value of property for taxation purposes within a
school district which is the basis upon which the amount of bonded indebted-
ness that a school district and other local government unit can undertake to
finance new construction. Under the present law, the payment in lieu of taxes
that the federal government makes for land that it takes off the tax rolls does
not do anything to compensate the local government's concern for the loss of
taxable evaluation and subsequent loss of the ability to finance bonded indebt-
edness for construction.
One of the problems that has arisen which makes the Bureau's original ap-
praisais:totally inadequate is the fact that land prices in this area have risen
a very great amount in the last two year period and therefore the appraisals
which may have been somewhat reasonable when they were originally made in
1969 and 19T0 by the Bureau of Reclamation are totally unreasonable when you
consider the real estate market in this area at the time we began negotiations
and actually condemned the property. In addition, it appears that the apprais-
ers that were placing values on farm real estate in this area did not fully ap-
preciate the great varience in value that there actually is for agricultural pur-
poses in farm land ft this area. As a result, there does not appear to be too
much difference in the valuations placed upon the very productive farm land
that they have acquired for canal and wildlife purposes in the area, and the
valuations that they placed upon the lighter, less productive land that they have
also acquired for the canal right-of-way and wildlife purposes. In addition,
the fact that they continually refuse to state the amount of severence that they
were offering at the negotiation stage, made it almost impossible for a land-
owner to determine what they were actually offering for his land. I believe
that this actually tended to confuse and further frustrate the land values in
this area as the net result of this was that those individuals who* settled on the
price of their farm real estate tended to treat the full amount that they re-
ceived as value of their land and to discount the fact that a portion of that
wa~ actually severence damages which represented loss that they were suffer-~
ing on the value of their remaining land. .
I have been informed by my local ASOS office that the wheat and other crop
histories which are attributable to my* land being acquired by wildlife will re-
main with this land and will not remain with the remainder of my farm unit.
This was contrary to the information that was originally made available to
me from the ASOS office. I have been led to believe that these crop histories
could he retained and transferred to other land which I might be able to ac-
quire which did not have comparable cropping histories. This can amount to a
very substantial loss to me because of the fact that there is land available in
this area which would make good cropland but which has not been placed in
production and therefore has less value for cropping purposes because of the
present ASOS farm programs.
Finally, on several occassions, I asked if the government was going to co-
operate or undertake any programs to try and assist myself and other similarly
affected landowners whose farming Operations were being seriously affected by
the government's acquisition of a substantial portion of the farm in obtaining
additional replacement land or in compensating us for the additional expenses
such as real estate agents fees and so on that we would have to incur in order
to locate additional replacement property. At the meetings in McClusky, Bureau
personnel indicated that they were following the recently macted Uniform Real
Estate Acquisition Act and that it was applicable to this project. In looking
at this act, it appears that the government agency that is acquiring land that is
subject to this act has an affirmative responsibility to initiate steps to minimize
the affect that this acquisition will have upon them. One section of the act
particularly points out farming and seems to be adaptable even if a farm fam-
PAGENO="0433"
420
tion for the Bmeau of Reclamation in Billings Montana This was done shortly
before the 1st of Tanuaiy of 1972 As a result of these calls the Bureau did
begin negotiating with me in a mannei that they said would allow me to retain
ownership of my property needed for w ildlife However upon inquiring into
the matter furthei it appeared that what the Bureau of Reclamation wanted
to do was to negotiate an option for the purchase of my remaining property at
a set price This is one of the very things that I felt was objectionable about
the piioi airangements where the Bureau was going to acquire my land in that
in doing so they would deny rights that I would otherwise have in that my
adjoining neighbor landowners would also have to enjoy the appreciate on the
value of their land during the remaining period of time that would elapse until
the government would actually acquire theirs I therefore decided that this
option `igreement was not the type of a transaction that I would desire to enter
into
The biggest problem that I had duiing these negotiations duimg late Decem
her and early' January of 1972 was that I had to do all of the work in carrying
on these negotiations and it appeared that the Bureau of Reclamation did not
attempt to cooperate with me or to follow up and to make these negotiations
as convenient and easy `is possible foi me It was also during this period of
time that I was forced to be hospitalized for an operation and during this pe
nod of time the Buieau made no further efforts to cairv on any negotiations or
to dissolve any differences during the acquisition of this land, particularly as
to the objectionable features of their getting an option on the property Shortly
after I was released from the hospital, my land was condemned, and negotia-
tions with the Bureau of Reclamation were substantially cut off Tust before
the land was condemned, they did call and say they wanted to talk with me
once more. This was a time when I was not feeling too well, so an appointment
was mode for the following day, however, they did not keep this appointment.
It, as then at the meeting in McClusky where the Bureau's land acquisition
policies were being reviewed in 3u1y of 1972 that I learned that the Bureau in
fact negotiated with other land owners and not condemned or taken the land
that would be needed for wildlife purposes, but rather only purchased the canal
right of way This was the exact situation that I was in and was the basis
upon which I was attempting to negotiate with the Bureau prior to being hos
pitalized At that time when I inquired as to why they refused to negotiate
with me on this basis they indicated that they had attempted to negotiate with
me on what I wanted and that they had offered this option agreement which
I had requested. At this time, I pointed out to them that I had never requested
this option agreement, and. that this was a suggestion that was made by some-
one in the Bismarci office arid apparently by the time it got to Billings it was
interpreted as something that I wanted. At that time, Mr. McDougal from the
Billings office of the Department of Interior indicated that he would determine
if it was still possible to negotiate a settlement on the condemnation action
which would allow title to the land, which would be needed for wildlife pur-
poses eventually, to he revested in myself. The last woi'd that I have received
from the Bureau of Reclamation is that there is a possibility that this can be
clone, hut that there are some substantial problems in doing so, and they would
prefer not to. I am still hopeful. that this can be negotiated as I feel I am en-
titled to this consideration. , One of the objections that the Bureau raised re-
cently was the fact that they would have to go hack and offer the same settle-
ment, to the other landowners similarly affected by wildlife and canal right-
of-way aconisition. It would seem to me that this would be the least the Bu-
reau should be obligated to do for all landowners affected as it should `be their
responsibility to acquire the land needed for this project in such a manner as
to least disrupt the farming operations for the landowners concerned
One fiuial obiection that I have has to do with the planning that went into
this yrniect Much of the land that they me "camrmg from myself is land that
is as productive f9rm land th'it von will find in this area Other portions of
the land arc' marshy. slough areas which can be developed as good wildlife
production areas. It would seem to me that good stewardship of this land would
require that those nortions of it best suited for wildlife development should be
allowed to. be developed for this purpose, but on the other hand, those portions
of,tlie land that are best suited for crop production purposes should remain in
crop production Tt au~ears that very little consideration was given through
out this entire project to the fact that they will he dealing with several differ-
ent types of land and that some of the land that they are proposing to take
PAGENO="0434"
419
to be acquired for development of the McClusky Canal. At that time, I noted
he had no records showing a quater of land that I bad recently purchased on a
that he did not have up-to-date information regarding my entire farm unit as
Contract for Deed. When I pointed this out to him, he indicated that this land
would not be considered by him in determining the amout of compensation that
I sl1ould be entitled to. At that time I felt that this was quite unusual as this
was part of my total farm unit and it was quite clear the Bureau of Reclama-
tion was going to acquire a suffifficient amount of property so that there were
going to be substantial severence damages upon my remaing farm real estate.
At this time, the appraiser did not ask any questions regarding past produc-
tion history of my farmland.
I did not hear anything further regarding the acquisition of my land until
sometime in the middle or late fall of 1971. At that time, I was contacted by
Mr. Kliever, who was a negotiator whil the Bureau of Reclamation who was
to deal with me on the acquisition of my property. When he stopped in, I im-
mediately asked him about the amount of my property that was going to be
needed for canal construction purposes and the amount that was needed fo~
wildlife purposes. Upon discussing this situation with him, I found that part
of the property located in the vicinity of my real estate which was being ac-
quired by the government was not being acquired at this time. This was prop-
erty that is going to be used for wildlife development purposes and the owners
of this land did not have land that the McClusky Canal itself intersected. When
I inquired of him why this land was not being acquired at the present time, he
indicated that the wildlife land was not going to be needed for a period of time
and that therefore they were not negotiating with these individuals at this
time. I then asked him if the wildlife land was not needed at this time, why
they were attempting to acquire that portion of my property that was going
to he used for wildlife purposes. He then indicated that it was their policy to
acquire all the land that they were going to need from one landowner at one
time and that because of the fact that I had some property that was for right-
of-way purposes, they were going to acquire by negotiation or condemnation
all of the property that they would need from me.
I felt that this policy on the part of the Bureau of Reclamation was an un-
fair policy as it applied to me as it allowed the other landowners to continue
to enjoy the rights of ownership of their land which was going to end up being
used by the government for the same purpose as my land. It just seemed to me
that the government should not have any right to acquire my property or force
me to sell it to them until they were actually ready to use it.
I a sked the negotiator I was dealing with if there was not some way we
could negotiate a settlement which would allow me to retain ownership of the
w-ildlife portions of my land until it was actually needed. I pointed out at that
time how it was of such great importance to my farming operations to maintain
my ownership of this property for as long a period of time in view of the fact
that I would be forced because of the farm economic situation as it applied to
my ow-n farm as well as the income tax laws to reinvest in farm real estate in
a market at the present time which is completely destroyed by the fact that the
Bureau was acquiring property in the area and would continue to do so for a
substantial period of time. Mr. Kliever indicated that he could not negotiate
with me on any other basis than on the entire amount of land that they would
w-ant and said he could not do anything further regarding my wishes.
I then contacted Mr. John Burgum, and other Bureau officials in their Bis-
niarck office. They indicated that they didn't know if the wildlife land could be
held out. One of them indicated that they would check on it, however, they
never really came back and gave me a definite answer as to whether or not this
could be done. At this point, I felt I should attempt to make some outside in-
quiry as to whether or not the Bureau of Reclamation actually had the author-
ity to acquire my land before they were going to need it for the government
project. so I directed this question to Senator Burdick's office. I shortly re-
ceived a reply from Senator Burdick's office indicating that they bad found that
the Bureau of Reclamation actually did have the legal authority to acquire my
land for wildlife purposes in this manner.
Being as how I never did get a direct answer from the Bureau of Reclama-
tiomi as to whether or not they could negotiate with me on some basis where I
w-ould maintain ownership of my land needed for wildlife purposes, I had calls
made to the U.S. Attorney's Office in Fargo and to the Chief of Land Acquisi-
PAGENO="0435"
418
Having pointed out this version was authorized by Congres~, a
canal would be established consistent with the agreement in the
terms of the country's goads. Certainly they are going to move. They
are going to move some earth and mOve some people.. The question
is how it is actually implemented and what your concerns are. Could
they have done something? What have they done differently? Is it
just a matter of their individuals taking it upon themselves to lit
erally be discourteous to people?
Mr. GARRETT. I think it is far more than discourtesy. When you
come on to a persons land and drive them off it, it strikes me as
being more than merely discourteous, but we can certainly get case-
by-case documentation. This is something that certainly needs air-
ing and I think it will be aired.
Mr. CLAUSEN. Was there a court order involved? Was there a
declaration of taking from the lands that are involved?
Mr. GARRETT. .1 do not know how that goes on a case-by-case basis,
but certainly I will endeavor to find out.
Mr. CLAUSEN. I think that should be documented as well so that
the full case can be presented, and I would be interested in it.
Do you feel you want to make that a part of the record, Mr.
Chairman?
Mr. MELCHER. Yes, I think it should be made a part of our record
because of the continuing abuse of the right of eminent domain. How
we might deal with that problem in this particular legislation is being
considered by this subcommittee.
Mr. CLAtJSEN. Then I would ask that he be permitted to submit
this information.
Mr. MELCHER. Without objection, the gentleman's request will be
granted.
Without objection, so ordered.
[The information referred to follows:]
AITIDAvIT
STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA,
Count?j of McLean, ss:
1. Edwin Britton, being first duly sworn, depose and say as follows: That I
am the owner and operator of a combination grain and livestock farm, the head-
quarters of which is located in Section Three (e), Township 147 North, Range
81 West, in McLean County, North Dakota. The McClusky Canal intersects
property that I own, located in the, Southeast Quarter (SE14) of Section Seven-
teen (17), Township 147 North, Range 81 West and the Bureau of Reclamation
also is acquiring through condemnation all of my farm real estate that I own
south of the Canal right of way for wildlife development purposes. The Bureau
of Reclamation is acquiring a total of approximately 34 acres for canal right
of way purposes and is then acquiring a total of 321 acres of my farm real
estate for wildlife purposes. My property is presently being condemned by the
federal government because of the fact that I felt the price that they offered for
this property was totally inadequate to allow me to purchase replacement prop-
erty of equivalent value at the going prices of farm real estate in this area. I
am operating my farm in partnership with one of my sons and it is essential
in today's agricultural situation that I continue to maintain a unit that is of
sufficient size to allow my son to earn a reasonable living on the farm. It is
for this purpose that I am forced to. attempt to get as much as I possibily can
from this land as it is :itpparent frOm study in the real estate market in this
area that I will have to have as much as I possibly can to have any chance of
securing replacement real estate.
I was approached by an appraiser in ,TuIy of 1970 who indicated that he was
representing the Bureau of Reclamation and desired to view the land that was
PAGENO="0436"
417
out there last yes~r. and I: noticed an extraordinarily good article in
a ~Inagazrne on the Garrison version. The North Dakota Farmers
Union complained' about abuse of eminent domain. In one case a
man was run out of. his yard by bulldozers after having had a pic-
nic, the house, everything there. They did not even have time to
get their things out of the house, I understand.
Mr. CLAUSEN. Was ~this an act: of an individual involved in that
area, or was this the policy of the agency?
Mr. GARRETT. The Bureau of Reclanatioii, I understan& has kind
of leased out its condemnation work to the .Army Corps of Engi-
neei s receptli, I think That has been `~bout a year ago since they
did that. I think they did .a pretty good job of running people out
themselves but the corps will do better.
I was in Delaware Valley awhile back. There was a proposed Tocks
Island project. The Tocks Island project has been pending for 10
years. It looks like a free bombing zone with houses bulldozed and,
bitter citizens living in trailer houses waitmg it out.
But the Garrison situation is just as bad. Literally hundreds of
farmers have been affected already by the McClosky Canal. Now
most of those people worked all of their lives on those farms. In
many cases the farms have been completely truncated and effectively
ruined, and in many cases they have to go 5 to 10 miles just to get
around to their fields on the other side of the canal, cave-ins and so
on which were not anticipated, drainage of aquifers, loss of wild-
life through this all because of this strange ~alluvian canal, which
mar never be completed because of its violation of the Boundary
Waters Treaty in Canada. Assuming that it is. completed, it will
most certainly pollute the Souris River with potassium and destroy
most of the fresh water mollusks that existed in that part of Canada.
But in any case I think that at least I am sure we can document it.
I would be glad to bring it to the record, at least a hundred com-
plaints on the part of the landowners who live along the route of
the McCloskey Canal, and of course numerous other canals.
I do not. think that that is anamolous. I think that is more and
more par for the course. These developing agencies are getting more
heavy-handed all the time.
Mr. CLAUSEN. I would be personally interested in having some
documented situations.
Mr. GARRETT. I would be more than pleased to try to get that
for you, sir.
Mr. CLALTSEX. I think it is important enough to put in the record.
I will leave that to the dis~retion Of the chairman. But I would per-
sona.lly be interested in this and having an opportunity. to debate and
direct some questions to the agencies involved and see if this is an
established policy.
Mr. GARRETr. Mr. Moorhead is going to hold oversight hearings,
I uncle stand shortly on G'~rrison so I imagine that a lot of the
information that. you are desirous of can be detailed, but we can
certainly get you quite a bit on short notice.
Mr. CLAUSEN. WellS I would like to have it for my own purposes
because of my committee assignments dealing with the Bureau of
Reclamation hearings in this committee and also in the Committee
on Public Works.. I would be very much interested in. specific doc-
umented evidence of this.
PAGENO="0437"
416
Of course, we are confronted in this v~ry čommitteë'lwith' `a ,bil1~-~well,
it is not specifically contained in the bill-but if~thecoal slurry line is
approved as is proposed in Wyoming, we would have questions with
respect to saline water
Frankly, we do not know what would happen by taking large
quantitiesof water from' the arid regions.
Your comments on soil~ were very interesting to me. I think' they
point out that we do heed to know a~ great deal more about water in
.i'elationship to theland in these arid regions.
As to the specific point Of overgrazing, we hope that we will enact
by statute the very safeguards for preventing overgrazing that are
needed. I am not pleased by BLM's current studies that 78 percent of
the l'~nd is ovei gi azed In view of that, it just turns me off corn
pletely to have the adirnnrstration recommend that they h'ive the au-
thority to make their own decisions on how to correct overgrazing.
Congress should havO taken the responsibility years ago and put `in
the law the steps that"ar~ necessary to prevent overgrazing.
* Mr. MELCHER.' That is not `meant to `be criticism of every BLM
`Director, of every BLM office. That is not the case at all. My experi-
ence in our country is that BLM's management of land in general
is pretty good. I have been advised by BLM that the `condition of
ianges `tdministered by the BLM in Montana is much be~teL than
that of other St'ttes But I tend to feel that `~ e can correct tne prob
1cm by facing it in the legislation and by following through on o~ ci
sight to make sure that range improvements are actually
accomplished. "
Mr. GARRETT. I have Often noticed that overgrazing shows up most
of `all in dry years. The northern plains bounce back `remarkably
fast. It looks like a jack rabbit would have to pack a lunch to get
across the pasture one year. The next year he is waving in the wind.
Some of other lands are much more fragile. But this all suggests
that what we ought to be at' least thinking of is some kind of reserve
for dry years range and perhaps, in fact, some kind of range bank.
It may have been abused but I always thought that the soil was `a
good idea and I am' not `at all sure that the public interest would not
oe served by a r'uige bank which included puvate as well as public
laiids. ` ` ` ` ` `
Mr. MELCHER. Your observation that the better established fam-
ilies seem to do a better job in protecting the range is certainly borne
out by my own observations. I know of many families that it is
almost a religion with them. "~ They usually use 30 to 40 percent of
the grass every year and reserve some areas that are not grazed at all.
And it does pay off. It does tide them over during the dry years be-
cause it is during the dry years, `of course, that overgrazing results.
Mr. MELCHER. The gentleman from California.
Mr. CLAUSEN. You make reference in your testimony to the Bureau
of Reclamation activities `and `1 gather that you have had some ex-
perience or have some particular instance in mind. I would like to
have you elaborate on that wherein' you state that the guarantee
that this agency will never be able to engage in abuses of citizens
which hive ch'tracterized the activities of the Bureau of Reclamation
* M~r. GARRETT. `I do not think `one `has `to go farther than the Gar-
rison diversion project. I imagine you are familiar with that. I was
PAGENO="0438"
415
livestock prices falling, he is liable to abuse the land as an alternative
to immediate financial collapse.
Now, the fact is that in the States of Wyoming and Montana
particularly, the public interest lands are arranged in a. checker-
board pattern with private land. It is rarely feasible to fence off
such lands and manage them separateiy~ This means that the man-
agement of privately owned range lands inevitably spills over onto
public land. It also means that if assuming the relationship which
I have suggested between financial stability and grazing practices is
valid, any person interested in public lands . has some stake in the
financial sa.bilitty of western ranching and farming operations.
I believe in fact that that stake is far greater than this. The suc-
cess which the conservation movement has had in the past few years
in brunting the invasion of the West by multinational mining and
oil corporations has been dependent on the stubborn resistance of
western landowners and on the development of a close alliance be-
twee~n these landowners and the national conservatiOn movement.
If it is not possible for livestock raisers to make a living because
of depressed prices, it does precious little good to protect them from
condemnation *at the hands of strip miners, as was painfully ac-
complished in the strip mining bill.
Now, this is one reason why we support your attempt to attach
the grazing fees to the market conditions. I think that is a vei'y
laudable section of your bill, one that we can wholeheartedly support.
I might as well attempt now to answer questions, Mr. Melcher, if
there are any.
Mr. MELCHER. Thank you very much, Torn. You. bring before this
subcommittee a comprehensive understanding of. what grazing on
public lands means~ at least to the par.t of the West that I am familiar
with. It is a question of the family. individual families' livelihood.
I think that. sometimes people get the idea that the public lands are
somehow controlled by grazing interests that are va.st and powerful.
My experience is that the lands ere used by small operators that have
small portions of public lands available for grazing~ for a liortion of
the year. They own a private holding or lease private holdings
so they have the opportunity to use some public land. It work together.
Your point about making sure that these family-size operators
are not crowded out is one t.hat is of great concern to .us because they
are being crowded out by large corporate holdings. The community
then dies quite soon or becomes very stagnant because the large corpo-
rate holdings do not really lend themselves to becoming parts of the
community as do the 20 or 30 families that they have bought out or
crowded out one way or another to gain vast chuncks of private and
public. lands. So I appreciate. your testimoiiy very much and it is ex-
tremely important that we maintain in this bill the opportunity
for the. small operators to~ continue in the business. WTithout that,
I think we will he doing~ a great disservice to this pa.rticular area
and a. disservice to the country.
The portion of your comments dealing with overgrazing are
extremely important. We do not know enough about water. We do
not know enough about the Powder River Basin as a matter of fact,
to determine how much water e'~n b~ extracted from that basin
PAGENO="0439"
414
Overgrazing, iather than climatic changes, was the real cause of
the disaster in the Sahel as evidenced by the presence of various
fenced enclaves which have remained productive in the midst of
almost lunar desolation One fenced 250,000 acre ranch in western
Niger had, as of May 1974, retained an evidently sustainable capacity
of about one cow per 25 acres, which is lust as good as eastern Mon-
tana, thuogh the surrounding regions had been abandoned by the
nomads and appeared totally devastated.
However, before becoming too enthused about evidence of the
success of modem range management, I think it is best to point out
that modern technology in fact caused the disaster.
The period of intense overgrazing which destroyed the carrying
capacity of the region was a function of a sudden explosion of live
stock numbers. In Mali, for example, the number of cattle increased
from 6 million to 11 million in 5 years.
Now, this population explosion of domestic hebivores was made
possible by the drilling of hundreds of deep wells throughout the
Sahel, permitting the nomads to intensely utilize areas which wei e
unavailable to them for grazing during dry periods as long as they
were dependent on natural sources of water.
If this major natural check on overgrazing had not been elim
mated, the initial expansion of herds could not have occurred With
the advent of drought and the disappearance of surface water, large
areas of the Sahel would simply have had to be vacated by the
nomads with their flocks for the duration of the dry period, and
the calamity would not have ensued.
The United Nations agencies, UNESCO and the others, by the
way, who drilled the wells were searching for a technological solu-
tion to mitigate social problems which they had previously helped
create.. themselves by promoting commercial oversubsistence agri-
culture The nomads were becoming restive over the usurpation of
their best range in the southern Sahel for peanut and cotton farm-
ing This of course was undert'Lken in laige part by agribusiness
interests, tenderly encouraged by the Food and Agriculture Organi-
* zation.
I guess the point I am striving here to illustrate is that we must
be chary of technological panaceas to social and economic problems.
It is always comforting to swallow a technological nostrum. I now
move to numemous range improvement techniques, including engi
neering methods `ire clearly valuable in mitig'tting the effects of
overgrazing This is a part of the solution that is going to be found
The only long term solution of overgrazing is a limitation of ln e
stock
There are several things about overgrazing which I think a lot
of people overlook. One thing is that overgrazing in our country
is an overfunction of financial instability I have noticed that the
long established incumbent families have had time to adapt to the
land, who maintained stable financial operations for a long time are
not likely to overgraze To some of the best preserved land I have
seen `tnywhere, including parks, is on privately owned land held by
the old families
On the other h'ind, with the b'mnks breathing down the rancher's
neck for the interest on his loan and taxes and expenses rising and
PAGENO="0440"
413
In order to support a BLM Act, Friends of the Earth must be
satisfied that such an `wt contains a mechanism to minimize over-
grazing and misuse of public lands without producing hardship for
the tens of thousands of families in the West directly and indirectly
dependent on giazmg privileges, and to discourage the use of public
resoulce lands for agricultural purposes by corporations, other than
family corporations formed for the sole purpose of engaging in
agriëulture.
We must also be convi iced that safeguards exist against politiciza-
tion and corruption and which guarantee that this agency will never
be able to engage in abuses of citizens which have characterized the
activities of the Bureau of Reclamation other agencies of the
Department of the Interior.
We are particularly opposed to the granting of powers of eminent
domain to the BLM, to the BLM management.
The performance of the BLM in administering Outer Continental
Shelf leasing, its recent geothermal leasing, and its development of
a primary corridor system for Alaska indicate an increasing bias
toward energy development and land credence to the more sinister
interpretations of BLM's evidently successful seizure of the three
national game refuges and various interest lands in Alaska.
No act is better than its administration. Until we are convinced
that the BLM's recent menacing antics are not. symptomatic of a
takeover by energy interests, we are chary of any consolidation of
BLM powers.
I made a few notes this morning before breakfast on grazing, and
if you are interested and not in a hurry, I would not mind, discuss-
ing..th~t. .
Mr. MELCHER. Yes, we are very much interested in. your comments
on grazilig.'
Mr. GArn~ETT. There is no doubt that overgrazing is occurring. on
public lands in this country, and that this has led to vegetational
changes favoring brunch over grasses and . forbes and hastening the
invasion of undesirable exotics like cheat grass and halogeten.,
There is no doubt, however, that overgrazing can produce ir-
revocable damage. Francois Boulier,' the French mammalogist, once
aptly remarked that the Near East nomad, with his flocks, was far
less a son of the desert than his father. `.
The island of Iceland, which I visited last summer, on the island
the introduction `of sheep in the 15th century has resulted in the
almost total deforestation of the. island, which was once 80 percent
clothed in `scrub birch. According to Dr. Bjarnson, the island's chief
forester, Iceland has lost half its topsoil through wind `and water
erosion `caused by improper grazing. I have observed erosion con-
tinuing on steep slopes, and dust blowing against the backdrop~ of
the central glaciers. . . .
In New Mexico, the Rio Puerco `River basin, has changed from a
thriving agricultural area `a century ago to a virtual~ desert because
of riparian erosion brought about by overgrazing. The deepening
of the' stream channel, which in some places now reaches 40 feet,
has drained aquifers and critically lowered the water table of the
valley floor. The same' thing has happened, and is. happening, else-
where in the Southwest, and to a lesser extent further . north~....
54-005-75-2T
PAGENO="0441"
412
They were essentially desc~ibed as, I think, a disposal agency and
now there is a policy exchange where the effort is to permit those
who do have the responsiiblity for managing lands to actually man-
age them in the best public interests. Yet sometimes the best public
interests may very well be tO actually dispose of some areas, and
I think you acknowledge that some of these areas are criitcal and,
therefore, it would be necessary to settle for an expansion of all
existing community.
The same thing may very well be true to firm up an agricultural
production unit. I think that we can narrow down the specific cri-
teria and add specific guidelines to the law which would lend itself
to a lesser amount of ambiguity and confusion.
*With that background, what do you see is wrong with establish-
ing a specific criteria in the bill as it relates to the sales criteria?
Mr. ALDERSON. We do not object to having specific criteria. In
fact, we like the first two criteria that are in the sales provision of
this bill. The first concerns isolated tracts which are not practicable
for management as part of the national resource lands.
The second concerns lands that were acquired by the Government
for a specific purpose and are nO longer needed for that or any other
purpose. But we feel that the third provision in Print No. 4, is too
broad. It grants a broad discretion to sell these lands, so we feel that
it is better to narrow that to a specific criterion covering the primary
objective which has been brought up in hearings on this subject.
The primary objective that I have heard discussed in all of the
hearings last year concerned expansion of existing communities, so
our suggestion is to use that as a specific criterion. Then if there are
other purposes that need to be considered, which are quite rare, they
can come to Congress with a specific bill to effect that transfer.
We have the same objective that the chairman and subcommittee
members have been getting at in other provisions of this bill, to
resftict the discretion of the executive branch, especially in a case
like this were sales are basically an exception, a minor exception
from the main objective being established by the bill.
Mr. MELCUER. Thank you both very much. We appreciate your
advice on the other bill.
Is Torn Garrett with us? Torn Garrett. representing Friends of the
Earth. Tom, glad to have you with us this morning.
Mr. GARRETT. Thank you.
Mr. MELCI-IER. I am glad to note that you have a very brief and
concise testimony. Please proceed.
STATEMENT OF TOM GARRETT, CONSERVATION DIRECTOR,
FRIENDS OF THE EARTH
Mr. GARRETT. Mr. Chairman, I am Torn Garrett, Friends of the
Earth.
We applaud the effort of this subcommittee to develop legislation
to insure the proper management of public domain lands. They have
put in a lot of work on it. At the same time, we have seen, thus far,
no single version of the legislation being considered, including one
developed by a group of conservation organizations, that we can pres-
ently support.
PAGENO="0442"
411
their grazing rights on public lands through lack of mention in this
And, also, I am wondering whether the $2 per animal-unit-month
fee might be a little bit restrictive. That has come up recently and
I thought we would bring it to your attention.
Mr. MELCHER. Thank you for bringing it to our attention here this
morning. We are certainly going to have to take note of that in
relationship to this bill.
As long as you brought up Alaska, the bill }LR. 49 reported out
of this subcommittee and out of the full committee and reported
to the Floor, deals with 22 million acres in Alaska, Naval Petro-
leum Reserve No. 4. 1 am not aware that we received any testi-
mony or any statement from your organization, but I do think
you ought to bear in mind that under our bill there would only be
exploration and no development on that 22 million acres, as far as
oil and gas is concerned. Under the administration's bill, they seem
to be saying, if I interpret their bill correctly, that they will explore
it and lease and develop it.
That seems entirely irresponsible. Certainly when you start leasing
on 22 million acres for oil and gas, you set in motion a chain of events
that will follow. I do not think that that area of Alaska is ready for
development, in the public interest; first of all, because I do not believe
that, in the interest of transportation of oil and gas out there for
some time maybe 10 years in the future, it makes sense to allow leas-
ing now. Leasing now. I would judge, would only be for the very, very
rich major oil companies who would have to sit on their holdings pre-
sumably after investing great amounts of capital.
The need to get the lease and then hold it until transportation is
available would effectively eliminate independent oil companies.
But, beyond that, we will be considering all the values of the 22
million acres of the reserve. I think that we should, by all means, find
out what oil and gas is there and then have Congress evaluate those
other values of that 22 million acres before making a decision on what
is to happen.
So we are really interested in a. big chunk of Alaska and will be
following whichever bill is considered and adopted on the House
floor. Or if both bills are considered-the administration bill and
H.R. 49-we can be careful to maintain that feature in protect-
ing the 22 million acres of the North Slope of Alaska. And, until
we have some better judgment on how we manage the whole area,
I am asking for support for our bill.
~`ir. MELCHER. The gentleman from California.
Mr. CLAUSEN. Yes. Mr. Chairman.
I would like to address some comments to the witnesses with re-
gard to the sales criteria wherein you intend to criticize that which
is attained in the bill in setting up specific criteria, just by way of
background. I generally agree-and the Members can disagree with
me-if they do not approve of this overall assessment in attempting
to draft. a BLM Organic Act. I think it is generally accepted that
for the directors, those of the Department of Interior who had re-
sponsibility for managing the policies handed down under the BLM
Organic Act in the past were very limited.
PAGENO="0443"
410
to be quite a forward step in granting rights-of-way over national
forest lands.
Mr. MELOHEII. Does anyone have any questions? Mr. Rock?
Mr. ROOK. On page 8, George, you make a strong plea for public
involvement in decisiommaking for public lands. Would you recon-
cile this your recommendation oii page 4 to immediately designate
all 75 BLM areas as wilderness?
I do not understand. I think many, or most, of these have never
had a public hearing on them.~
Mr. ALDERSON. The seven primitive areas have had public in-
volvement. I submitted a list of the involvement in those last year.
It is in last year's hearing record. The others have not. We certainly
concede that point.
Mr. MELOHER. We are right back to where we were last year on
that. As a matter of fact, there were public hearings in Montana, I do
not want to knock that-there were some public hearings but they
were not as extensive as we have held in other areas.
Mr. CRANDELL. Mr. Chairman, I have just a couple of points I
would like to have the committee consider, in relation to Alaska. Our
organization is deeply concerned and involved in Alaskan matters,
and have been for the last several years.
The aftermath of the disposition of lands in Alaska is going to
be around 100 million acres to which this law would apply which
would be natural resource lands.
Section 17(d) (1) of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act
directed the Secretary to classify these lands "in the public interest"
or, in other words, the way we interpret it, for multiple use, re-
source development, extraction, and so forth.
There are a couple of problems that have come up recently in rela-
tion to the so-called 80~miTlion~acre provision of the Alaska Native
Claims Settlement Act or Section 17(d) (2) and these have to do
with subsistent uses by people, both Natives and others, in Alaska-
not only fish and wildlife resources but products of the land.
It is not clear, in the present bill, how subsistent uses will be
handled in Alaska on these 100 million acres. And also the Interior
Department, at the present time, is pretty deeply involved in iden-
tifying and withdrawing easements transferring title to Natives and
to the State on a large chunk of this property and other properties
in Alaska.
I am not certain, but as I read the rights-of-way provisions, I do
not think they cover that. I do not know whether it should, but it is
a very current active program in the Department.
Now I hope ou do not think I am being facetious now in my next
point. In the Seward Peninsula country in Alaska, there is a big
ehur!k of national resource lands that is going to remain under
Bureau of Land Management there, after all the dispositions have
been made. This is an area where at the present time I believe the
Natives have a lease or a permit either from the Bureau of Land
Management or from the Bureau of Indian Affairs, or someone, to
graze reindeer.
Now, these reindeer are domesticated. They consider them to be
livestock. I do not know whether you would want to get into this
or not, but I would suggest that, these people not be shut out of
PAGENO="0444"
409
\\Te suggest that you let the present multiple use advisory board
structure, that was implemented at the beginning of this year, stay
in effect and see how it works, because if the grazing permittees
want to get together with the local BLM personnel, they can always
do so.
We think it is advisable and helpful to BLM to have advice on
these points from a broad spectrum of the citizens' concerns.
Mr. MELCIIEii. The Forest Service, of course, uses both multiple use
advisory boards and local grazing advisory board. If it would be
patterned after that, do you see any objections?
Mr. ALDERSON. I do not have any comment on that, off hand.
Mr. MELOHER. I am just drawing it to your attention. It is very
pertinent. In fact, if we are truly going to have significant funds for
range improvements, I think the closer we tie the decisionmaking
on range improvements to the local area, the better off we are. Because
it makes a lot of difference-what, we might do in city areas corn-
pared to what you might do ~n some portion of New Mexico-as to
range improvements. I think we can arrive at a vast improvement of
the condition of the piibl~c lands.
One other poiiit, rights-of-way. Now you recommend that we do
not do anything with respect to the Forest Service, but we are per-
suaded otherwise as we were last year. You have not changed my view
that the Forest Service needs some improvement., too, on rights-of-
way. One of the things we have to consider is transportation corridors
in the Alaskan Pipeline Act. Interior was directed to come up with
a study within a year's time of the need for transportation corridors
so that we could see. what would make sense in granting rights-of-way
across public, lands.
We already have got Interior in the business of approving and writ-
ing out the permits for rights-of-way for oil and gas pipelines across
national forest lands. I think we might as well recognize that there
are common problems among the various agencies that administer
public lands. And if we can come up with decent guidance for rights-
of-way, modern concepts. I do not see any reason why that should not
be applied to national forest lands.
* I read in your statement here that your board is meeting tomorrow.
I strongly urge you to bring that point up and see whether your board
would take w-hat I would consider a more enlightened view on rights-
of-way than is given in this testimony today.
What have I missed? If we write good legislation on BLM rights-
of-way, why should we not modernize rights-of-way in the national
forests?
Mr. ALDERSON. Well, if the legislation would strengthen the cri-
teria. on the Forest Service rights-of-way, it might be valuable. We
will be open to consider that concept.
Mr. MELUHER. I think it would very definitely strengthen the en-
teiia. The Forest Service told us this year that they did not object
to the sections on rights-of-way.
We have asked them for a list of their statutes that deal with the
rights-of-way and they have.' supplied them. We are reviewing them
and they are reviewing them, too. WTe think our legislation is going
PAGENO="0445"
408
National Wildlife Refuge System. I am no lawyer, but I think
what he is using is the present withdrawal authority to merely
change the administrative agencies.
Mr. SHAFER. I guess I had looked at it differently than you,
Harry. I look at it as two completely separate actions. One is a
withdrawal that may have already segregated this land by noting it
on the tract books. In this case it is a withdrawal from mineral
entry. That is one act.
Then, his transfer of jurisdiction of the refuges from Fish and
Wildlife to BLM looks like to me a completely separate action and
is not related. Now, whether or not he is using withdrawal authority
as a subterfuge, I do not know. I might disagree with you on that,
but the Secretary is making a transfer under the Reorganization
Plan No. 3 of 1950 and the withdrawal authority has nothing to do
with that.
Perhaps we should discuss this afterwards.
Mr. CRANDELL. OK, I would like to do that.
Mr. MELCHER. Now I have two questons. The grazing advisory
boards are, very significant things in the Mrest. And we are well aware
of people that are involved in commimities where there are sizable
acreages of public lands available for grazing, who very much want
to retain local advisory boards. And we see no reason not to retain
them.
I note that you recommend we delete them. But do you not see the
need for a local advisory board dealing with glazing problems par-
ticulaily in relation to using half of the grazing fees for the purpose
of range improvements and rehabilitation?
Mr. ALDERSON. Our recommendation was that that would be han-
dled by the local advisory board on a multiple use. basis, as opposed
to the single use, grazing-only boards.
Mr. MELCHER. WelL we will go on with that. I think that that is
something we will go on with, but even with the grazing advisory
boards called for by statute, which I understand is no longer in effect,
was not one member at least, designated for wildlife?
Mr. STrAFER. Yes.
Mr. MELOT-JER. All right, at least one was designated and had rep-
resented wildlife interests and then the others were elected? Is that
right?
Mr. SHAFER. Yes.
Mr. MELCTIETi. Now, even with those boards, it was not entirely
~Tazing. We have, through the course of the last 2 years, run into
this point: often. And we can consider restructuring the board to
represent more than just grazing and wildlife interests-for instance,
local government is involved in there, too.
Do you not really believe that it is absolutely essential to have
such a board at the local level,- tO deal with range improvements?
And, that is primarily grazing and wildlife but recreation comes in
there too.
Mr. ALDERSON. We think that, because the range improvements
are going to have a substantial effect on the other uses, it is good
to have a balanced spectrum of representation of the different cit-
izen concerns on the board. as opliosed to having only one wildlife
representative.
PAGENO="0446"
407
the people are not really having an opportunity to state their views
on whether they are for or against the thing, in this instance.
Mr. CLAUSEX. I am taking a page from the book of the Chairman.
You brought that point of view to our attention now, and that is
probably the strongest position in support of the congressional over-
view I have heard, because none of us would have known the prob-
lems of the hearing procedures.
Unless von were up here before a congressional committee, I would
not have heard-I just make that observation and put this whole
thing in PerSPecti~~e.
Mr. CRANDELL. I do not want to einbarass George at all. George is
merely presenting a longstanding policy of The Wilderness Society.
Our executive committee is meeting tomorrow and I feel that we will
have a good discussion on it. I think you are going to see a change,
mainly as a result of this wildlife range controversy.
Mr. ALDERSON. Mr. Chairman, I think I should point out that I
researched the question you asked at the last hearing on this sub-
ject. According to the definition of withdrawal that is in print No. 1,
or in any of these other bills. I cannot see how the review mech-
anism would apply to the decision involving the Charles NI. Russell
Wildlife Range.
So. if that is the kind of decision you are t.rying to cover~ some-
thing is going to have to be modified to make sure that it covers it.
Mr. CLAUSEN. Mr. Chairman. I might pursue that because it is
along the line of questioning.
As a. matter of application, ou state in the final sentence of para-
graph two, relating to classification: "We believe that the review
requirements of Subcommittee Print No. 1 would vastly slow the
progress of effective land managemnemit."
Can you clarify that? How would it slow the progress?
Mr. ALDERSON. That is the position that has been changed, but the
explanation of that is that. we felt t.hat the process of going through
this additional review would result in additional consumption of
time on many of these decisions that could have been handled by
the agency. However~ that is the explaantion of our former policy.
Mr. CLAtISEN. If this was a. change in your policy then we will
not pursue the question.
Mr. SHAFER. I did want. to clarify something in my own mind to
sea that I am tracking with George and Harry here on this. We are
talking about. two things. essentially~ on the Charles, NI. Russell
and also on the Shelton. We do have a withdrawal plan in our bill,
the Subcommittee Print No. 1. which would place certain restric-
tions on future withdrawals.
But. as far as tra.nsfers from the Bureau of Land Management
to the Fish and Wildlife, or from Fish and Wildlife to Bureau of
Land Manae'ement. the bill as it is presently written would not
in any way restrict that.
re von in agreement with that statement.?
Mr. CRANDELL. No. for t.his reason. The Secretary pulled a little
sneaky maneuver over here. He merely has changed the administer-
in~ a~'ency under the withdrawal authorities under which lie with-
cir~w the Charles NI. Russell R.amre to he~in with, and the Bureau
of T~wl Mann~r~'m~nt will continue to administer it as a imit of the
PAGENO="0447"
406
administration with the Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife, to
sole administration by BLM. They decided to do that. You objected
to that?
Mr. CRANDELL. Very strongly.
Mr. MELOHER. And now we are going to have a new series of public
hearings for people who are going to testify. I think they agreed to
hold one of those hearings in Miles City. BLM was negligent, too,
in not holding the hearings close to where the people that were in-
volved lived.
But, nevertheless, they are going to hold another set of hearings,
and they are going to assemble, all of that public testimony. I am sure
you will have some input, or members of your organization will, which
is fine.
But, just how does this public hearing procedure relate to what
you want done with public land management?
Mr. CRANDELL. Do you mean the process, Mr. Chairman?
Mr. MELCHER. You recognize they have public hearings and they
take public testimony, but the, Administrator can do as he pleases,
anyway. Do you have all that confidence in the administrator of pub-
lie lands, even after lie holds his public hearings, making the decision
that you advised?
Mr. CRANDELL. Well, since YOU used a éurrent example which we
are very interested in, we have a new position of The Wilderness
Society to present. I can categorically state that we will support
the subcommittee in its efforts to withdraw this kind of unilateral
authority of the Secretary of the Interior and to have congressional
overview of actions such as this.
Mr MFr CHER YOU w ill support that in the bill ~
Mr. CRANDELL. You bet.
Mr. MELCHER. I am glad to hear that. That does clear up some
points and put us, I think, more in line with what the realities are
here in Congress in wanting that overview.
Mr. MELCI-IER. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. CLAUSEN. On that point, Mr. Chairman, I am not sure if I
understand in specific terms what your objections were to the public
hearings and procedures? I did not hear a response.
Mr. CRANDELL. Mr. Clausen. the hearings that Mr. Melcher men-
tioned, last year, were required by the Wilderness Act. The field
hearings were required by the WTilderness Act on the wilderness pro-
posal of the Fish and Wildlife Service.
The subject was whether or not certain areas of the Charles M.
Russell National Wildlife Range should be recommended by the
Secretary as wilderness.
The President of the Ijnited States recommended a wilderness
proposal, based on those hearings, subject, to certain mineral surveys.
Later, the Secretary, through his nresent authority, decided to trans-
fer the administration of the Wildlife Range to the Bureau of Land
Management.
Now, at the present time, they are holding public meetings on that
decision. What has us upset is that the first series of hearings did
not discuss the transfer of administration. The second set of meet-
ings is being held to discuss the transfer decision, but they are not
permitting discussion of the merits of the decision, so we feel that
PAGENO="0448"
405
Mr. ALDERSON. We do not feel that that should be a requirement in
the bill. We feel that it would be best to omit that required proce-
dure.
Mr. MELCHER. You do object to Congressional review?
Mr. ALIERSON. We recognize that the Congress is involved in
these wherever a controversy comes up, and the local Congressman
is always invOlved in those cases.
Mr. MELCHER. What we have done is set a framework for Congress
to do its job, overview of the Federal agency or a couple of Federal
agencies. And I think that we ought to have a great deal more of that.
That is one of the failures of Congress, not to really look at these
agencies and what they do.
Mr. ALDERSON. I guess we just disagree on the need for a formal,
required procedure.
Mr. MELcI~IER. Well. I am going to state that I think this par-
ticular review section has a great deal of appeal in this committee,
in the full committee, in the House `and in. the Senate.
Senator Metcalf called me up one day last year and said, "I do
not think your bill on BLM will be any good." I said, "tell me why?"
and he said, one thing, why should we have restrictions on with-
drawals and so forth?
I said. "well, that is a question of congressional review~" and I went
through it a little bit and he said. "Oh. I think that." So this is the type
of thing for which Members of Congress who have been here much
longer than I. see the need. I think that that will become one of the
provisions in the bill.
Now, public participation, I read your statement to mean that as
long as there is public involvement before the hearing procedure,
before these decisions are made, that somehow they are going to
come out all right.
Now I went through the escapade last year of the. Bureau of Sport
Fisheries and Wildlife, setting up a. bunch of hearings on what to do
about the C. M. Russell Game R.ange. They picked cities in which to
hold the hearings: Billings. Denver, Maita~ and maybe one other
place. Two of them were in Montana, and how Denver got in there I
do not know.
But we suggested they might hold some hearings closer to where
the people . are that live nearby. or have something to do with
the Range. We went all through that. I think it took hours of public
testimony.
The Secretary decided that he. did not want those people managing
the Range. so now it is under the management of the Bureau of Land
Management.
At this period, right now, they are holding another series of pub-
lic meetings. Now were you satisfied with the outcome of the public
meetings? The public meeting process in the. first instance?
Mr. CRANDELL. We were, after ~ou got involved.
Mr. MELOHER. Pardon me?
Mr. CRANDELL. We were, after you got involved.
Mr. MELcITER. You were satisfied with the outcome of the hearing?
Mr. CRANDELL. After you suggested that. they hold them in Jordan
and Lewiston.
Mr. MELCHER. Yes. That was a set of hearings which were held for
input of the public. Then the decision was made to transfer from jomt
PAGENO="0449"
.404
The administration bill also suggests a completely new acreage
criterion for the wilderness study areas, abandoning the criterion
that appears in the Wilderness Act and which was adopted by this
subcommittee last year.
Instead of "roadless areas of 5~000 contiguous acres or more," H.R.
5224 would cover only those areas of "50,000 contiguous, roadless
acres or more."
By making a 10-fold inci~ease in the minimum acreage of the areas
to be studied, this would eliminate about three-fourths of the road-
less areas currently identified by the Bureau of Land Management.
Only 16 out of the 75 areas listed on the Bureau of Land Manage-
ment's roadless' area.s list would qualify for study under the adminis-
tration. bill. So we strongly support the acreage criterion adopted
by the subcommittee and hope .~ that that could be included in this
legislation. . ~. .
We also have a suggestion concerning the special areas inventory.
Actually, that is just a short way of referring to the study. to iden-
tify public domain lands that would be best suited to management as
units of the national park system. national wildlife refuge system,
national forest system, or national wild and scenic river system.
We favor the language on this point which was included in H.R.
5622. While we recognize, and it is a basic point of the legislation,
that the Bureau of Land Management is the agency to manage land
predominantly best suited to multiple-use, sustained-yield m'aflage-
ment, there are probably lands in the public domain now that would
be best suited to management under one of the other systems.
This study would get at that, as part of the inventory process, at
the same time the BLM is completing its initial inventory. So a
timely decision could be made b' Congress on allocation of these
lands to other systems, if that appears to be desirable.
~\Te also urge that the bill establish a national resource lands sys-
tem with identified, named local units which would be analogous to
national forest.s. We feel that this would give the lands more iden-
tity in the public mind, and thereby create long-term public sup-
port for good management programs.
It would also provide the agency with the means to request and
defend budgets and personnel ou a more planned and systematic
basis. The language to accomplish., this appears in H.H. 5622.
Mr. Chairman. I do not see any need to cover orally the further
comments on Print No. 1. These cover points that were much dis-
cussed during the 93d Congress and we' reaffirm them here in our
statement. with specific reference to the three bills before you.
But that will complete our comments at this point. We will always
he glad t.o assist the subcommittee in any way we can as you proceed
to consider this legislation. . ~.
Mr. MELCHER. Thank you. `
`Now I have a few questions. First. I am glad you listed `these. one,
two, three, `four, being specific about what is in Subcommittee Print
No.1. .
Now when we talk about classification, you do nOt really object
to the Congress getting' into the act, by reviewing classifications, do
you? You seem to say that it is good for the public to review them but
would not want. to go so far as to sa~ that Congress should not review
classifications. " `
PAGENO="0450"
403
Mr. ALDERSON. The Subcommittee on Public Lands will soon be
taking up legislation to establish new national wildlife refuges and
national forests in Alaska. This will certainly involve questions of
BLM as well as other agencies, and it will involve conflicts between
energy exploitation and conservation objectives for these national
interest lands.
We believe it would contribute to your perspective on this Organic
Act to take up the Alaska proposals first. Just as the Alaska issues
opened our eyes to BLM's built-in conflicts, you would gain in-
sights that would contribute toward the reconsideration of this leg-
islation.
A bill can certainly be devised that will accomplish the objectives
we all share, without putting the public domain lands squarely in
the pocket of the energy industries.
Of the three bills before the subcommittee, the Wilderness Society
favors H.R. 5622~ although it alone will not ameliorate many of
BLM's present abuses nor overcome present biases. However, it is
clearly the preferable bill.
Since the subcommittee has begun its hearings on the basis of
Subcommittee Print No. 1, we will address Our detailed comments
to that print, referring, as necessary, to the other two bills.
Concerning the wilderness review provision, we commend the sub-
committee for its careful consideration of a BLM wilderness review
provision in the 93d Congress.
The Wilderness Society recommends that the language of section
312 of Print No. 1 be strengthened to provide more adequate interim
protection for the wilderness study areas during the studies man-
dated by the bill.
We all understood, and do not challenge, that the language in
Print No. 1 was intended to allow mineral entry to continue the same
as it continues on national forest wilderness primitive areas in the
West, under the Wilderness Act. So that is not at issue-I wanted
to bring that up because of the testimony of the previous witness.
We favor the language in H.R. 5622. which provides protection
against new intrusions in the wilderness study areas, without inter-
fering with present uses, so long as these uses do not impair the
suitability of the area for designation as wilderness.
For example, mineral entry would continue under this language.
Grazing would~ of course, continue. The objective here is to give
the study areas protection comparable to that provided b the
Wilderness Act of 1964 for the primitive areas of the national
forests.
The administration bill, H.R.. 5224, contains a grossly deficient
wilderness review provision, which represents a major regression
from the language adopted by this subcommittee last year.
First. it lacks any deadline for completion of the wilderness re-
views. This could leave land management decisions up in the air for
i~ears. because of failure to get the areas reviewed and bring those
recommendations to Congress on a timely basis.
We prefer the 10-year deadline in Print No. 1 and in H~R. 5622.
Tn fact. our recollection is that the 10-year deadline was inserted by
this subcommittee last rear at the suggestion of the Bureau of Land
Manae~ement because they felt that. the 15-year deadline in the Sen-
ate-passed bill was too long.
PAGENO="0451"
402
ROADLESS AREAS ON THE PUBLIC DOMAIN 5,000 ACRES IN SIZE OR LARGER-Continued
Stata Name Acres
Utah GrantGulch 29,480
Paria Canyon 8, 726
Joshua Tree 1,040
Devils Garden 640
The Gulch 430
Canaan Mountain 35, 000
Subtotal 78, 316
Wyoming Ferris Mountain 20, 000
Subtotal 20,000
Grand total 2, 600, 587
I Unknown
Source: Bureau of Land Management.
WILDERNESS ACT OF 1964-SECTIONS 3(c) AND 3(d)
Report to Presiclejit. (c) Within ten years after the effective date of this Act
the Secretary of the Interior shall review every roadless area of five thousand
contiguous acres or more in the national parks, monuments and other units of
the national park system and, every such area of, and every roadless island
within, the national wildlife refuges and game ranges, under his jurisdiction on
the effective date of this Act and shall report to the President his recommenda-
tion as to the suitability or non-suitability of each such area or island for pres-
ervation as wilderness.
Presidential reconjiflendation to Congress. The President shall advise the
President of the Senate and the Speaker of tl1e House of Representatives of his
recommendation with respect to the designation as wilderness of each such area
or island on which review has been completed, together with a map thereof and
a definition of its boundaries. Such advise shall be given with respect to not
less than one-third of the areas and islands to be reviewed under this subsec-
tion within three years after enactment of this Act, not less than two-thirds
within seven years of enactment of this Act, and the remainder within ten years
of enactment of this Act.
Congressjona~ approval. A recommendation of the President for designation
as wilderness shall become effective only if so provided by an Act of Congress.
Nothing contained herein shall, by implication or otherwise, be construed to
lessen the present statutory authority of the Secretary of the Interior with re-
spect to the maintenance of roadless areas within units of the national park
system.
* suitability. (d) (1) The Secretary of Agriculture and the Secretary of the
Interior shall, prior to submitting any' recommendations to the President with
respect to the suitability of any area for preservation as wilderness-
* Pubiicatioaj in Federal Register. (A), give such public notice of the proposed
action as they deem appropriate, including publication in the Federal Register
and in a newspaper having general circulation in the area or areas in the vicin-
ity of the affected land:
Hearings. (B) hold a public hearing or hearings at a location or locations
convenient to the area affected. The hearings shall be announced throuah such
means as the respective Secretaries involved deem appropriate, including no-
tices in the Federal Register and in newspapers of general circulation in the
area: Provided. That, if the lands involved are located in more than one State,
at least one hearing shall be held in each State in which a portion of the land
lies:
(C) at least thirty days before the date of a hearing advise the Governor of
each State and the governing board of each county, or in Alaska the borough,
in which the lands are located, and Federal departments and aeencies con-
cerned, and invite such officials and Federal agencies to submit their views `n
the proposed action at the hearing or by no later than thirty days following
the date of the hearing. **, *
(2) Any views submitted to the appropriate Secretary under the provisions
of (1) of this subsection with respect to any area shall be included with any
recommendations to the President and to'* Congress with respect to such area.
PAGENO="0452"
401
ROADLESS AREAS ON THE PUBLIC DOMAIN 5,000 ACRES IN SIZE OR LARGER
State Name Acres
Arizona Black Mountains 75, 000
Bill Williams Mountain 24, 000
Rawhide 15, 000
Arrastra Mountain 70,000
Burro Creek 7,000
Eagle Tail Mountains 33,000
Table Top Mountains 32,000
Gila Mountains 65,000
Gila Box 15,000
Pelorscillo Mountains 50,000
Des Cahezas Mountains 20,000
Gila River and Mescal Mountains 10, 000
Sullivan Canyon Area.. 38, 000
Kanab Creek 33, 000
Subtotal 487, 000
Califzraia Algadones 20, 000
New York Mountains 25, 000
Providence Mountains 17, 000
Granite Mountaina 36, 000
Kingston Range 40, 000
Cima Dome 32, 000
Whipple Mountains 60,000
Turtle Mountains 60,000
Chucksialla Mountains 70,000
Yuha Deaert 13, 000
Picacho Area 38. 000
Whitewater River Area 42, 000
Ea31é Lake Points 3,280
Skedaddle Mountain 22, 080
Gooch-Rock Springs 64,180
Twin Peaks 40,600
Five Springs 11,000
Indian Mountain 1,360
Tunnisan Mountain 6,760
Elder Creek ~, ~
Cache Creek 36, 180
Timber Craters 15, 000
Beegum Gorge 2,400
Keynot Peak 85, 000
Amargesa Deaert 339, 000
OwensPeak Area 30, 000
Saline Wild Area 50, 000
Dwlshead Mountains 50, 000
Big Baldy 2,000
Inyo Mountains 20,000
Lost Chance Range 25, 000
Subtotal 1,260,535
Colorado Powderhorn. 40, 000
North Sand Hills 670
Red Cloud Peak 30,000
Beaver Creek 15,500
Browns Canyons 12, 500
Black Ridge 65, 000
North Thompson ~, 386
Lookout Mountain Breaks 6,000
Weber-Menofee 23, 000
Delores River 30,000
Sewemup t~esa 16,000
Cold Springs Mountain Breeks 22, 500
Red Bluffs 1,500
Grape Creek 22, 500
Palisade 25, 600
Diamond Mountain Breaks 12, 600
Subtotal 327, 736
Idaho Craters of the Muon (1)
Lava Field 230, 000
WapiLavaField
Subtotal 320, 000
Montana Hsmbu~ Spiras 7, 000
Bear Tr~ap Canyon 3,200
Subtotal 10,200
Nevada Blue Lake 8,800
Subtotal 8,800
New Mexico Grants Malpais - -
Subtotal 88, 000
See footnote at end of table, p. 402.
PAGENO="0453"
400
System and Secretary of Agriculture be deleted from Title V, which concerns
rights-of-way. There is adequate authority available in present laws for na-
tional forest rights-of-way. 0 0
We generally favor the rights-of-way provisions in Title IV of H.R. 5622,
which provide more effective control of environmental impacts than the 0 1an~
guage in Print No. 1. However, we `commend the Subcommittee for its diligence
in perfecting Print No. 1 in `this respect. It is much superior to the bill passed
by the Senate `last year. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
We recommend that the opening paragraph of Sec. 501 be amended to exempt
areas subject to study under the wilderness review provision, and lands within
areas of critical environmental concern.
15. Repealers.-We strongly favor repeal of the many obsolete land' laws,' as
proposed in Title VI. But we recommend deletion of all language which post-
pones the effective date of the repealers. If it's time to repeal these laws; as we
firmly believe, then let's do it now and not leave the barn door open.
We also' recommend that provisions be added amending the Taylor `Grazing
Act (1) to eliminate the piefemence given to giazing (2) to eliminate `my ief
eience to pending its final disposal and (3) to requiie th~tt peimittees `illow
public access easements through'their lands. 0 0 0 `
16 Repeal of Withdrawal 4uthority -We recommend that piesent w ith
drawal authority be retained, as explained under item 5 above.
We therefore urge deletion of See.' 604(b), which would repeal all withdraw-al
`mutlioi ity
17. Authorization-Putting BLM through the exercise prescribed in Sec. 606
would have the most likely result of cutting back on the funds for land manage-
ment, because this procedure exposes BLM's iuithorization repeatedly to the
often hostile Office of Management and Budget. We believe it is to the advantage
of BLM programs to avoid another pass through 0MB.
Mi Chairman if w e can assist the Subcommittee in `my w av as you consider
this legislation, we will be glad to do so. We appreciate, as always, the op~iOr-
tunitl to present our views and we lool foinard to coopemating with youi ef
forts in the w eeks ahe'id
LIsT 01 DESIGNATED PRI'\IITIVE AREAS
1. Aravaipa Canyon-Arizoha-5580 `acres. Designated May `6, 1971.
Description-Relatively inaccessible canyon area of diverse topographic and
climatic features. Stream that flows through the canyon sustains two endangered
species of fish and supports a significant density of riparian vegetation. Terrain
is mountainous with canyon wall-drops over 1000' in some places.
2. Paria Canyon-South Utah and North Arizona-27,515 acres. De~ignated
M'iy 6 1971
Description.-Canyon of immense geological and archeological value. Gouges
2800' deep into the Paria Plateau. Six miles of the 15 mile canyon is extremely
narrow-Some places 10' in width. ` 0
3. Dark Camiyon-Utah 74,317 acres. Designated September 18. 1970.
Description-Series of colorful canyons and high mesas on the eastern side
of the Colorado River from Gypsum Canyon south to Dark Canyon.
4. Grand Gulch-Utah-29,480. Designated September 27, 1970.
Dcscription.-Colorful canyons and high mesas characteristic of this area.
Relatively inaccessible, abounding in, significant geological and archeological
formations. 0 0
5. Humbug Spires-Montana-7,041 acres. Designated September 13, 1972.
Description-Hard rock spires jutting out of timbered ridges. Nine spires are
from 300' to 600' in height. Over 50 others `of varied heights in the immediate
vicinity. ` ` 0 ` 0 0 ` 0
6. Peartrap Canyon-Momitana-2,7(1~ acres. Designated `September 1~, 1972.
Descr'iption.-A rough terraifled area `enclosing `the' fast flowing Madison
River. Excellent fishing in coniferous vegetated environment.
Of the 180,000,000 acres of the national resource lahds outside of AlCska, ap-
proximately 2,600,000 acres have been identified as "roadless."
7. Powderhorn-Colorado_40,400 acres. Designated Sepetmber 29, 1973.
Description -Fle~ ations range from 12 600 to about 8 (100 feet Five bmoehimqtic
zones from sagebrush to alpine. Wildlife, tundra, few market trails. Three major
lakes. 0 0 0 ` 0 0
PAGENO="0454"
399
quiring Congressional review in advance of each withdrawal. The Congress al-
ways has the last word, because a withdrawal can be rescinded by Congress,
and Congressional pressure can also force the Secretary to modify or rescind a
withdrawal. At present, the Secretary is very attentive to the desires of the
Congressional delegation from a state in which he is considering a withdrawal.
In our view, the Secretary must have withdrawal authority in order to carry
out multiple-use mandate in this bill. Withdrawal is often the only way to pre-
vent one of the uses from destroying all the other values of the land. It is there-
fore an important and essential tool in implementing the multiple-use concept.
The emergency withdrawal authority in Sec. 204(b) (1) is of almost no value
because the list of conditions (A through K) imposes a factual burden on the
Secretary that would be all but insurmountable in an emergency situation.
We recommend the deletion of the entire Sec. 204.
6. Land Acquisition.-We recommend deletion of the limitation on BLM's use
of eminent domain, in Sec. 205. Although BLM is only beginning to take the
broad interest in protection of public values that we see in the other agencies,
we anticipate that acquisition of missing tracts will be needed to complete im-
portant public-use areas. Condemnation authority will be needed in this regard.
Although it would be seldom exercised, eminent domain authority should be
available, without the limitation to cases of access, as is provided in the draft.
We also recommend deletion of references to the Forest Service and Secretary
of Agriculture from Sec. 205.
7. Eaclianges.-We recommend deletion of the Forest Service from Sec. 206
(a). The Forest Service already has adequate exchange authority.
S. RecQrdation.-We strongly favor a recordation requirement. However, we
urge adoption of the language in Sec. 105 of H.R. 5622 in lieu of that in Print
No. 1.
9. Grazing Advisory Boarcls.-We recommend deletion of Sec. 212, which
would reverse the recent constructive change by time Interior Department to
provide balanced representation of diverse citizens' concerns on grazing district
advisory boards. The conversion of these boards to reflect a multiple-use spec-
trum is an excellent change, which is consonant with overall federal policy
under the Federal Advisory Committee Act.
10. Law En.forcement.-We generally favor the approach of Print No. 1 and
HR. 5622 on law enforcement instead of the broader authority of the Adminis-
tration bill. The Subcommittee did a commendable job of perfecting these pro-
visions last year.
However, we suggest the addition of language to Sec. 303, to insure that BLM
will not reimburse the states for enforcement of fish and game laws. which are
already a state responsibility. The language might be as follows: "Provided,
however, that expenditures in connection with enforcement of state laws relat-
ing to the taking of fish and wildlife shall not be reimbursed under this section."
11. Local Advisory Councils.-This provision in Sec. 309, is misnamed. It goes
far beyond the local advisory councils under the Taylor Grazing Act. Instead,
it authorizes a hierarchy of advisory councils at four levels in BLM-regional,
state, district, and locality unit. This provision, which drew much opposition
when it was part of H.R. 7211 in the 92nd Congress, is one of the most objec-
tionable in the whole bill. We recommend that it be changed to the general
authority provided under Sec. 6 of H.R. 5622.
12. California Desert.--We favor establishment of the California Desert Con-
servation Area, and recommend adoption of the stronger language found in Sec.
309 of H.R. 5622, which is based on the Pettis bill.
13. Recreation Conveyances.-We recommend that the restrictions in Sec. 402
be tightened, to restrict local governments to 640 acres per year in free grants of
public land for recreational purposes. However, we commend the Subcommittee
for its labors last year to prevent the carte-blanche giveaways that were con-
templated in earlier drafts. The restriction on year-to-year carryovers is an
excellent provision, and we urge that it be further restricted to prohibit any
carryover at the end of a given year. The principal purpose of carryovers is to
allow a state to amass a large tract. Few states are prepared to give proper
management to tracts larger than 6.400 acres. If a state seeks a larger area,
we suggest than an Act of Congress be required. After all, these are lands that
belong to all the people, not just those of the state in which they are located.
14. Rights-of-Way-We recommend that all references to the National Forest
PAGENO="0455"
398
NATIONAL RESOURCE LANDS SYSTEM
We urge that the bill establish a National Resource Lands System, with iden-
tified and named local units, analogous to national forests. This would give the
lands more identity in the public mind, and thereby create long-term public
support for good management programs. It would also provide the agency with
the means to request and defend budgets and personnel on a more planned and
Systematic basis. Language to accomplish this appears in HR. 5622.
FURTHEB COMMENTS ON PRINT NO. 1
1. Deflnitions.-The definition of "withdrawal" wrongly states that a with-
drawal involves an exclusion of land from multiple-use management. In fact,
most withdrawals only exclude one type of use, allowing the other multiple uses
as on other adjacent lands. We suggest deletion of all references to multiple
use from the definition.
While the definition of "multiple use" includes non-renewable resources, and
we do not object to this, we caution tile Subcommittee that this does not nec-
essarily make mineral or fossil-fuel exploitation an integral part of tile multiple
use concept. Under true multiple use, each of the uses has an equal priority,
and management decisions are made so as to foster compatibility among the
uses, This is obviously not the case with minerals, because tile 1812 Mining Law
gives mining top priority over any other use of public lands.
2. C!ass'ification,-We recommend that tile review procedure for classification
of lands pursuant to land use plans, under Sec. 202 (e) be limited to public in-
volvement, without the necessity of Congressional review or Acts of Congress
on large tracts. It is always the prerogative of the Congress to dictate how the
land will be managed through specific Acts of Congress. But most land classifi-
cation decisions can be made by BLM in accordance with the general authori-
ties elsewhere in Print No. 1, just as the Forest Service has done for decades
under the 1891 Organic Act and the 1960 Multiple Use Act. In most cases, ti1ere
is little controversy. If there is objection, the aggrieved parties are likely to
seek help from their Congressman, who llas both tile power to influence the
agency decision through direct intervention and to propose legislative remedies,
if necessary. We believe that the review requirements of Print No. 1 would vastly
slow the progress of effective land management.
We recommend the deletion of Sec. 202(e). Instead, adequate public involve-
ment can be insured by adoption of language in Sec. 104 of HR. 5622, which
provides for notice in the Federal Register and public hearings on changes of
ciassification for any tract over 1,280 acres.
3. Public Participatjon,-We believe, that provision should be made for thor-
ough public involvement in tile decision-making for the public lands. This is
another way of reducing conflicts in the land-use pattern. Section 203 addresses
this subject, but it appears to limit the required public role to "the formulation
of standards and criteria." The real need for involvement is not 111 tile often hazy
realnl of standards and criteria, but in tile specifics of a proposed land-use plan.
It is at the actual planning stage that local public expertise is most effective,
in our experience. The people know these lands, they use them in various ways,
and they can bring on-the-ground knowledge to bear on BLM's land-use plans.
We suggest adding language along the lines of that in Sec. 5 of HR. 5622.
4. ~S'ales Uriteria.-Land sale is an area in which tight controls should be
placed on the Secretary's authority, because this bill establishes a basië policy
of not disposing of public lands. We suggest that item 3 under Sec. 203(a), on
page 14, be narrowed to remove the broad discretion given the Secretary. We
propose the adoption of language in Sec. 202 (a) (3) of H.R. 5622, confining this
criterion to sales for expansion of existing communities,
Instead of the Congressional review procedure in Sec. 203(b), we recommend
that a Federal Register notice and a public hearing be required for any sale of
public lands.
Another defect in Sec. 203 is that only land already designated as wilderness
is exempt from sale. We suggest that the exemption be extended to cover "areas
subject to review pursuant to Sec. 312 of this Act, and land within areas of
critical environmental concern."
5. Withdrawals,-Sec. 204 of Print No. 1 establishes conditions and procedures
that would delay and cripple good land management. We believe that time basic
multiple-use instructions contained in this legislation are sufficient, without re-
PAGENO="0456"
397
We suggest the following language to place the BLM primitive and roadless
areas in the Wildreness System:
Sec. -. Wilderness Areas
(a) In furtherance of the purposes of the Wilderness Act (78 Stat. 890), all
areas of the national resource lands classified on the effective date of this Act
by the Secretary of the Interior as "primitive areas" or identified as "roadless
areas" are hereby designated as wilderness and, therefore, as components of the
National Wilderness Preservation System.
(b) As soon as practicable after this Act takes effect, a map and a legal de-
scription of each wilderness area shall be filed with the Interior and Insular
Affairs Committees of the LTnited States Senate and the House of Representa-
tives, and suchdescription shall have the same force and effect as if included in
this Act: Pro Gided, however, that correction of clerical and typographical errors
in such legal description and map may be made.
(c) Wilderness areas designated by this Act shall be administered in accord-
ance with the provisions of the Wilderness Act governing areas designated by
that Act as wilderness areas, except that any reference in such provisions to
the effective date of the Wilderness Act shall be deemed to be a reference to the
effective date of this Act, and any reference to the Secretary of Agriculture shall
be deemed to be a reference to the Secretary of the Interior.
Addition of this provision would be an excellent step toward permanent pro-
tection of some of the wilderness resources on the public domain.
The Administration bill, H.R. 5224, contains a grossly deficient wilderness
review provision, which represents a major regression from the language adopted
by this Subcommittee last year. First, it lacks any deadline for completion of
the wilderness reviews. This could leave land-management decisions up in the
air for years. We prefer the 10-year deadline in Print No. 1 and in H.R. 5622.
In fact, our recollection is that the 10-year deadline was inserted by this Sub-
committee last year at the suggestion of BLM, in preference to the 15-year
deadline enacted by the Senate.
The Administration bill also suggests a completely new acreage criterion for
the wilderness study areas, abandoning that appearing in the Wilderness Act
and adopted by this Subcommittee last year. Instead of "roadless areas of 5,000
contiguous acres or more," HR. 5224 would cover only those areas of "50.000
contiguous. roadless acres or more." This would eliminate three-fourths of the
roadless areas currently identified by BLM. Only 16 of the 75 areas listed would
qualify for study under the Administration bill. We favor the acreage criterion
adopted previously by the Subcommittee.
SPECIAL AREAS ixv~x~ony
We recommend the m~doption of a section to provide for identification of
public-domain areas that would be best suited to management as units of the
National Park System, National Wildlife Refuge System, National Forest Sys-
tem, or National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. We favor the following lan-
guage, as in H.R. 5622:
Sec. -(a) Before the close of the 5-year period following the effective date
of this Act, the Secretary shall review all lands and waters under his jurisdic-
tion on the effective date of the Act (including lands previously classified or
withdrawn, but excluding lands in the National Park System, National Wild-
life Refuge System, and lands recommended for inclusion in those Systems and
in the National Forest System pursuant to section 17(d) (2) of the Alaska Na-
tive Claims Settlement Act) and withdraw from all forms of appropriation
under the public land laws, including the mining and mineral leasing laws, those
lands and waters which he deems suitable for addition to, or classification as,
units of the National Park System, National Forest System, National Wildlife
Refuge System, and Wild and Scenic Rivers System.
(b) The Secretary shall submit recommendations to the President with re-
spect to those lands withdrawn by the Secretary pursuant to subsection (a).
The President shall promtply advise the President of the Senate and the Speaker
of the House of Representatives of his recommendations with respect to the ad-
ditions proposed by the Secretary. The Secretary shall, in conducting the review
required by this subsection, hold public hearings in accordance with time proce-
dures set forth in section 3(d) of the Wilderness Act (78 Stat. 890)..
54-005--75-----26
PAGENO="0457"
396
7. To require an inventory of all renewable and non-renewable resources, in-
cluding wilderness, on the public domain.
8. To require an inventory of potential new units of the National Park System,
National Wildlife Refuge System, National Forest System and National Wild
and Scenic Rivers System.
As our testimony on March 24 indicated, The Wilderness Society is steadfast
in its support for these concepts. We reaffirm our support for organic legisla-
tion for the national resource lands. However, we strongly urge that the legisla-
tion be deferred~ until BLM ceases its aggression against the responsibilities of
other federal land management agencies, and until BLM is reorganized to sepa-
rate into different agencies the energy exploitation functions `md the land
management functions.
The Subcommittee on Public Lands will soon be taking up legislation to es-
tablish new national wildlife refuges and national forests in Alaska. This will
certainly involve questions of BLM as well as other agencies, and it will involve
conflicts between energy exploitation and conservation objectives for these
National Interest Lands. We beliOve it would contribute to your perspective on
this Organic Act to take up the Alaska proposals first. Just as the Alaska issues
opened our eyes to BLM's built-in conflicts, you would gain insights that would
contribute toward the reconsideration of this legislation. A bill can certainly be
devised that will accomplish the objectives we all share, without putting the
public domain lands squarely in the pocket of the energy industries. We too will
continue our consideration of this matter and seek an equitable solution.
ALTERNATIVE ~ILLS
Of the three bills before the Subcommittee, The Wilderness Society favors
H.R. 5622, although it alone will not ameliorate many of BLM's present abuses
nor overcome present biases. However, it is clearly the preferable bill.
Since the Subcommittee has begun its hearings on the basis of Subcommittee
Print No. 1, we will address our detailed comments to Print No. 1.
WILDERNESS REVIEW
We commend the Subcommittee for its careful consideration `of a BLM wil-
derness review provision in the 93rd Congress.
The Wilderness Society recommends that the language of Sec. 312 of Print No.
1 be strengthened to provide more adequate interim protection for the. wilder-
ness study areas during the studies mandated by the bill. We favor the language
in H.R. 5622, which, provides protection against new intrusions, without inter-
fering with present uses so long as these uses do not impair the suitability of
the area for designation as wilderness. For example, mineral entry would con-
tinue under this language. Grazing would, of course, contInue. The objective
here is to give the study areas protection comparable to that provided by the
Wilderness Act of 1904 for the `primitive areas of the national forests, which
were, in effect, wilderness study areas. The key language is as follows:
"During the period of review of such areas, the Secretary shall ~continue to
administer such lands according to his existing authority in a manner as to pre-
serve the wilderness character of each such area. The conduct of the review un-
der this section shall not, .of itself, ~prohibit existing uses to continue in such
areas during the period of review so', long as such uses do not substantially im-
pair the suitability of such area for preservation as wilderness. Once an area
has been designated for preservation as wilderness, the provisions of the Wilder-
ness Act shall apply with respect to ~, the administration and use of such desig-
nated area." ,
We also recommend provisions to immediately designate as wilderness the 75
areas already identified by BLM in, an inventory of "Roadless Areas on the
Public Domain 5,000 Acres in Size or Larger." These areas, located in nine
states, total 2,600,587 acres. ,
Of these 75 areas, only seven have yet been designated by BLM as "primitive
areas," an administrative category which lacks the statutory direction that is
conveyed in a wilderness designation. These seven areas, located in Arizona,
Colorado, Montana and Utah, total 187.094 acres. They are strictly analogous
to the 54 areas that were placed in thO National Wilderness Preservation System
by the Wilderness Act in 1964. These 54 were all in the national forests and had
neon administratively designated as wilderness wild or canoe `neas
prior to enactment of the Wilderness Act.
PAGENO="0458"
395
Finally, a new provision has been added requiring the Secretary to submit
recommendations for authorization of appropriate funds for the "Wilderness
Study" along with his recommendations as to appropriate areas for study. This
will insure that the Secretary will have sufficient funds to conduct the study.
Mr. MELOHER. Now we have George Alderson and Harry CrandelL
representing the Wilderness Society.
STATEMENT OP GEORGE ALDERSON, DIRECTOR OP FEDERAL
AFFAIRS, THE WILDERNESS SOCIETY, WASHINGTON, D.C., ACCOM-
PANIED BY HARRY CRANDELL, DIRECTOR OP WILDERNESS
REVIEWS
Mr. ALDERSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am George Alderson
and this is Harry Crandell. We appreciate the chaiice to testify on
the aspects of the bill that we did not cover at the previous hearing
on the grazing provisions of these bills.
In support of the basic goal of improving the management of the
public domain lands, The Wilderness Society favors eight basic
objectives in connection with these bills. Six of these are in ~dl
three bills in some manner. The other two are in H.R. 5622, namely
a. provision to establish a National Resource Lands System, with
local units identified by name; and the provision to require an in-
ventory of potential new units of the National Park System, Na-
tional Wildlife Refuge System, National Forest System and Na-
tional Wild and Scenic Rivers System.
Incidentally, Mr. Chairman, I will only brief my statement, if it
can be included in full.
Mr. MELCHER. Without objection, the entire statement will be
made a part of the record at this point. Hearing no objection, it is
so ordered. Please proceed.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Alderson follows:]
STATEMENT o~ GEORGE ALDERSON, DIRECTOR OF FEDERAL AFFAIRS, THE WILDERNESS
SOCIETY
I am George Alderson, Director of Federal Affairs, The Wilderness Society,
an organization devoted to the conservation of our Nation's remaining wilder-
ness resources and to proper use of the public lands. Our offices are at 1901
Pennsylvania Avenue. N.W., in Washington, D.C. We testified on March 24 con-
cerning grazing provisions of organic legislation for the national resource lands,
and we appreciate the opportunity to testify today on other provisions of these
bills.
Three bills are before the subcommittee this morning. One is Subcommittee
Print No. 1, derived from the subcommittee's deliberations in the 93rd Congress.
The second is the Administration bill, H.R. 5224. The third is the Seiberling
bill, H.R. 5622.
In support of the basic goal of improving the management of the public do-
main lands, The Wilderness Society favors eight basic objectives in connection
with these bills:
1. To provide a statutory mandate for retention of the public domain lands
and for their management under principles of multiple-use and sustained-yield.
2. To establish a National Resource Lands System, with local units identified
by name.
3. To provide authority, including enforcement powers, to carry out these
stated objectives.
4. To authorize acquisition and exchange of lands.
5. To repeal obsolete land disposal laws.
6. To establish a single policy and procedure for sale of certain lands.
PAGENO="0459"
394
lands adniinistcrecj by him through the Bureau, and shall report to the President
his recommendation as to the suitability or nonsuitability of each such area or
`island of the public lands for inclusion in the Wilderness Study required by this
section, together with his recommendations for the authorization of appropriate
funds to conduct the Study. The President shall advise the President of the
Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives of his recommendations
with respect to the inclusion of each area in the Wilderness Study. A recom-
mendation of the President for inclusion in the Study shall become effective only
if so provided by an Act of Congress. At the expiration of three years from the
submission to Congress of the recOmmendation of the President, any area not
included in the Wilderness Studit by an Act of Congress shall then be adminis-
tered in accordance with the other applicable provisions of this Act.
SEc. 312(b). The Secretary shall ~e'~4ew then conduct a detailed Wilderness Stud~~
of those roadless areas of 5,000 contiguous acres or more and roadless islands of the
public lands administered by him through the Bureau, which have been included in
a Wilderness Study by an Act of C'ongress and shall report to the President his
recommendation as to the suitability or nonsuitability of each such area or island
for preservation as wilderness. The m~e~4ew TVilderness Study conducted by the
Secretary shall be made according to the procedure specified in sections 3(c) and
3(d) and section 4(d) (2) (with respect to mineral surveYs) of the Wilderness Act.
The recommendations of the Secretary based on the fe~4ew Wilderness Study
conducted by him under this section ~hall he submitted to the President from time
to time. The Study of each such area or island of the public lands by the Secretary
shall be completed no later than five years from the date of the Act of Congress including
such area in the Study. The President shall advise the President of the Senate and
the Speaker of the House of Representatives of his recommendations with respect
to the designation as wilderness of each such area on which ~e~ie-w Study has been
complete, together with a map thereof and a definition of its boundaries. Such
advice by the President shall be given with respect to all of the areas included in
the Wilderness Study with fespeet te set. less thtte eae-hftlf ef eli the esees wi~thie
44-'~e yess's efte~ the deteef e etsseet ef this 4etT ead the eeie~e~g esees within
ten years after the date of enactment of this Act. A recommendation of the Presi-
dent for designation as wilderness shall become effective only if so provided by an
Act of Congress. At the expiration of three years from the submission to Congress of
the recommendation of the President, any area not designated by Congress for preserva-
tion as wilderness shall be deemed unsuitable for preservation as wilderness. During
the period of ee'e-iew Study of such areas, the Secretary shall continue to administer
such lands according to his existing authority in a manner so as to preserve the
wilderness character of each such area, subject only to the continuation of land uses
presently authorized by the Wilderness, Act. Once an area has been designated for
preservation as wilderness, the provisiOns of the Wilderness Act shall apply with
respect to the administration and use of such designated area, including mineral
development, in the same manner as they apply to national forest wilderness
areas.
Section 312 requires the Secretary to review all roadless areas of 5,000 con-
tiguous acres or more to determine whether they should be preserved as wil-
derness. During the entire period of review, the Secretary must administer them
so as to preserve their wilderness character. This latter provision will effectively
transform vast areas of land into wilderness for a long period of time-before
even a preliminary determination has been made that they might be suitable for
preservation as wilderness.
This amendment is designed to improve the procedures established for the
"Wilderness Study". Under a new provision, the Secretary will be required to
conduct a preliminary review of all `areas subject to this section to determine
whether or not they should be included ma "Wilderness Study". Congress would
then determine whether the areas recommended by the Secretary should prop-
erly be studied in more detail. This preliminary review procedure will insure
that exploration and development will be restricted only in areas under serious
consideration for preservation as wilderness in the "Wilderness Study". Once an
area subject to this section has been approved for study by Congress, however,
the Secretary will then be required to preserve its wilderness character.
This amendment also imposes time limits on the Secretary's "Wilderness Study"
and on Congressional action on the recommendations of the President. This is
to insure that areas being studied will become available for development if
either the Secretary or Congress has not taken action within a reasonable pe-
riod of time.
PAGENO="0460"
393
Amendment No. 2-Offered by Mr.
CONVEYANCE OF RESERVED MINERAL INTERESTS
Section 209(c) is amended as follows:
SEC. 209 (c). The document of conveyance for any mineral interests trans-
ferred pursuant to this section shall provide that, in the event that mineral
development activities are initiated within ten years of the effective date of the
conveyance, the mineral interests of the owner or owners of the parcel of land on
which such activities are initiated, together with the right to prospect for, mine,
and remove the minerals under applicable law and such regulations as the
Secretary may prescribe, shall revert to the United States.
Under Section 209, reserved mineral rights may be conveyed to the surface
owner where there are no known mineral rights or where reservation of these
rights by the United States will interfere with non-mineral uses. Section 209(c),
how-ever, requires that the mineral rights revert to the United States if any de-
velopment of the mineral interest is ever undertaken. As a practical matter, this
will prevent any development of subsequently discovered minerals, because no
surface owner would permit exploration or development if title to any deposits
that w-ere discovered would immediately revert to the government.
This amendment is designed to balance the government's interest in main-
taming ownership rights in federally owned minerals, the surface owner's in-
terest in the development of the surface, and the public's interest in the develop-
ment of mineral reserves which may be discovered in the future. If the surface
owner initiates mineral development within ten years of the conveyance of the
reserved interests, the mineral estate will revert to the government. After ten
years, however, the government's right of reverter is extinguished and the de-
veloliment of subsequently discovered mineral deposits will be possible.
Amendment No. 3-offered by Mr. -
LAND USE PLANNING
Section 202 (f) is amended as follows:
SEC. 202(f) (1). In managing the public lands under a land use plan the Sec-
retary shall regulate, through permits, licenses, leases, or other instruments as
the Secretary deems appropriate, the use, occupany, and development of the pub-
lic lands. The Secretary shall permit hunting and fishing on lands and waters
under his jurisdiction within the boundaries of the public lands in accordance
with applicable laws of the United States and the States wherein the lands
and waters are located, except the Secretary may designate zones where, and
established periods when, no hunting and fishing shall be permitted for reasons
for public safety, administration, or public use and enjoyment. Except in emer-
gencies, any regulations of the Secretary pursuant to this* section shall be put
into effect only after consultation with the appropriate State fish and game
department. Nothing in this Act shall modify or change any Federal law relating
t~ migratory birds. No provision of this section or any other section of this Act
shall in any way amend the Mining Law of 1872 or impair the rights (incinding
iights of ingress and egress) of any locators or claims under that Act, except
as provided in section 207 of this Act.
This amendment, is designed to clarify the impact of Title V, relating to the
regulation of rights of way, on existing law-. At the present time, all public lands
covered by the proposed Act are accessible to all citizens for exploration and
development. If Title V were construed as giving the Secretary a discretionary
authority over the right to enter public lands, exploratory activity in the United
States will be seriously disrupted. This amendment makes clear that existing
rights of entry under the mining laws will be preserved.
Amendment No. 4-Offered by Mr.
BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT WILDERNESS `STUDY
Section 312'is amended as follows:
SEc. 312(a). The Secretary shall conduct a preliminary review of those road-
less areas of 5,000 contiguous acres or more and rocidless islands of the public
PAGENO="0461"
392
Ioi ces that permitted the deposition of mmei `ds ~tnd so a great
number of our metal mines we find in the mountains So the two
go hand-in-hand.
The asthetic appeal of land for wilderness also happens to be in
the most geologically favorable areas for mineral deposition, and
this cieates kind of a double pioblern
Mr~ CLATJSEN. Could not ERDA submit the portioii of a study-
could not some of this information be brought into the course of the
study prior to the date of the designation of the wilderness area?
Mr. EDWARDS. All of this information is helpful.. You can some-
times draw infei ences that the conditions are 1 iglit, th~it thei e could
be minei al deposition, but thei e is 1 e'illy only one Way to know,
and that is von have to look. Eventually you have to drill a hole.
And, until you drill a hole, you do not really know.
Mr. MELCHER [presiding].. Thank you very much, Mr. Edwards.
We appreciate your testimony.
I am going to make sure that we do not have somebody that is
from out of town. If so, we will make sure we hear from them today.
[Letter dated April 28, 1975,. from Mr. Edwards to Chairman
Melcher follows:] .
AMERICAN MINING CONGRESS,
April 28, 1975.
Hon. JOHN MELCHER,
Chairman, Subcommittee on Public Lands, Committee on Interior and In sular
Affairs, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, D.C.
DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: Pursuant to your request of April 11 when I testified
before the. Subcommittee in regard to Subcommittee Print No. 1 of the BLM
Organic Act, enclosed are four suggested amendments. These amendments would,
if adopted by the Subcommittee, rectify the problems that I brought to your
attention during my testimony.
Sincerely,
I-TOWARD L. EDWARDS,
Chairman,
AMC Public Lands Committee.
Enclosures.
Amendment No. 1-Offered by Mr.-
SALES
Section 203(f) is amended as follows:
SEC. 203(f). The Secretary of the Interior shall issue all patents or other
documents of conveyance after any disposal authorized by this Act. The Secre-
tary shall insert in any such patent or other document of Conveyance he issues,
except in the ease of land exchanges, for which time provisions of subsection
200(b) of this Act shall apply, such terms, covenants, conditions, and reserva-
tions as he deems necessary to ensure proper land use and protection of the
public interest. The Secretary may correct typographical and clerical errors
(including errors in land description~) in such patents or documents where
necessary. In addition, the Secretary may make such corrections on any docu-
inents of conveyance which have heretofore been issued by the Federal Govern-
ment on public lands.
Section 203 (f) provides that following the issuance of a patent or other doc-
ument of conveyance, the Secretary may correct such patents or documents
where necessary. Although the Secretary should clearly have the authority to
correct clerical errors, he should not have the authority to make substantive
changes in the purchaser's ownership rights after the sale has been completed.
This amendment, therefore, clarifies the extent of the Secretary's power to make
changes in the patent by specifying that it extends only to clerical and typo-
graphical errors (including errors in the land description).
PAGENO="0462"
391
Open Pit Copper Mine south of Tucson which is on lands that were
conveyed to the State of Arizona in the 1920's and declared of non-
mineral character by the U.S. Geological Survey. It is a very im-
portant mine today.
In other areas, the uranium lands in the Powder River Basin in
Wyoming. YOU know, 25 years ago nobody knew there was any ura-
nium there. It just appeared to~ be flat or rolling range land. Now
there are uranium mines there.
Mr. SI~uBITz. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. MELCHER. Yes.
Mr. SKUBITZ. It had no value'at all 50 years ago.
Mr. EDWARDS. That is right. A lot of land, at the end of World
War II, you could buy for 621/2 cents an acre and they have operat-
ing mines on them, and we could put together some information on
these types of areas.
Mr. MELCHER. I wish you would. It is pertinent, because that
statement is made frequently - by people who are connected with the
mining industry. But we are simply not aware, through the hearing
piocess, that there have been enough instances to make the general
flat statement~ would be relevant. We do not have any questions about
the need of the country for a critical mineral, and that such a mineral
does exist somewhere. But we cannot be constrained in designating
wilderness areas to retain wilderness characteristics, by the possibili-
ties that sometime in the future there might be minerals there.
We recognize that if there would be such a critical need for min-
erals, probably a portion of the wilderness area. would be looked at
again, if that is in the national interest. We do not think that we
ought to be constrained on designation of the wilderness, on some
faint possibilities-
Mr. CLA~SEN. Would the gentleman yield?
Mr. MEL0uER. Yes. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. CLAUSEN. I wonder if the witness could clarify for me whether
or not his concerns are of national scope? Or, does this center
around the fact that as we increase our ability to inventory the re-
sources in advance technology and new kinds of equipment-infra-
red equipment and so forth-is there some reason to believe that
we are going to eb able to more adequately inventory our resources?
I am just trying to lead you to the point.
Mr. EDWARDS. Inventorying our resources is important manage-
ment to inventorying surface resources and is, of course, much easier
to perform than inventorying mineral resources. And. really, this is
the kind of limitation we have. The only way we can inventory min-
eral resources is in those areas where there are existing mines, or
known mineral occurrences.
Of course everything else is under the ground. and at this pohit
even with our space technology we- are unable to inventory, or even
project, where the minerals may be. We are extremely limited and
this creates a problem.
There is another problem associated with this. I guess my interest
is primaril the area of metals. This is the area that my company
is involved in. and many of the mining compames who are members
of our association.
The same geolo~ical factors that created mountains, which is usu-
ally the prime area for designation of the wilderness, are the same
PAGENO="0463"
390
Mr. EDWARDS. Yes, I made that offer.
Mr. CLAUSEN. Does counsel have any questions?
Mr. SHAFER. I would just like to be a little more specific, Mr.
Clausen, and have Mr. Edwards draw on this reservoir of talent
that 15 in the mining industry to give us some specific recoimnended
language on at least these three points-one on the wilderness study,
the one on conveyance of reserved mineral interests, and the cor-
rection of patents.
Could you, rather than giving us a philosophical discussion, could
you give us hard languages on that?
Mr. EDWARDS. W will be pleased to do that. I think that would be
very good.
Mr. SHAFER. We are going to be pushed for time. Could we get it,
say, within the next week, or less than that?
Mr. EDWARDS. Yes, we can.
Mr. CLAUSEN. This is precisely what I had in mind. I am glad you
made is more specific; Mr. Shafer.
Mr. Rock, do you have any more questions?
Mr. ROCK. No.
Mr. MELCI-IER. I have one, for clarification of Mr. Edwards position.
You express some concern over which areas might be designated as
a. wilderness or might be set aside for wilderness, such as the C. M.
Russell Game Range.
What evidence of minerals is there? You know that land has been
available for exploration, examination. Is it hard to get at? What
indication is there that there are minerals present?
Mr. EDWARDS. The problem is, we do not know whether there is
any mineral there and the Geological Survey, all of their work over
the years in examining these proposed wilderness areas, are the first
to admit that their examinations are insufficient. They do not have
the money, or the time, or the resources to really do this.
And, just because their is no mineral activity at the present
time, or no present interest in exploration, does not mean in 5 or 10
years that conditions would nat completely change and we can cite
many examples of this all over the West.
We can cite examples where large areas of land would be declared
nonmineral in character, maybe 25 years ago, and there is an operat-
ing mine there today. Or, interests have developed in some new types
of minerals, new minerals where there is high aluminum content
where you may be able to produce aluminum from sources other
than bauxite which may just look like clay today and can be a source
of very valuable metals in a few, years.
Mr. MELCHER. Mr. Edwards, I think you might do this committee
and the whole country a big fa~vor by documenting these "many in-
stances," because we are not, frankly, discovering in our hearing
process the many instances you refer to where an area has been
overlooked and then presto you have a valuable mineral that needs
to be developed.
Now. if you can document thOse, it would be of great interest and
it would be of great service to the country. It would be better than this
discussion, or alleged set of facts that we are not aware exist..
Mr. EDWARDS. Well, I can mention two types of examples and we
will be glad to do more work on this, but one is the Great Mission
PAGENO="0464"
0
pJ
this. For example, I know of an action pending right now by the
United States against some oil shale patent teams where they are
seeking to set aside a patent that was issued more than 20 years ago,
and so, while everybody thought they had good title, you know-
Mr. SKUBITZ. Well, setting aside is one thing, but making cor-
rections is another.
Mr. EDWARDS. The only problem that we have in this is the lan-
guage of the bill itself that gives authority to correct, but does not
limit it merely to clerical and typographical erros. Maybe, it is
clear enough.
Mr. Cr~usEN. It may be that we could have further clarification
from you on how you define substantive changes. It is clear to me
that you do recognize that there is a need to give them broad author-
ity in basically small areas, typographical and other, but how you
define substantive changes-
Mr. EDWARDS. I would say changes in reservations in the patent,
reservations on mineral rights, maybe changing it to remove a res-
ervation or to add a reservation at a later date-that would be a
substantive change. This should not be permitted at a later date,
after a patent is issued.
Mr. SKUBITZ. I think it is implied when we write legislation giv-
ing them the right to make technical changes, but that does not
give them the right to change the whole law. I hate to think that
the Congress, without something having happened in the past,
should write into this bill, that we mean this and we mean this,
you cannot do this. that. and the other.
Mr. EDWARDS. Perhaps, your statement and your hearing to that
effect is all we will need.
Mr. CLKUSEN. Counsel has just brought to my attention a point
that I would present tO you and ask for a~ response. In the Eastern
wilderness bill last year. we provided that low study areas in the
East would be designated by Congress.
Would this type of provision for BLM lands satisfy your objec-
tions to the wilderness stucli~ section?
Mr. EDWARDS. Well, I am not sure that this would completely sat-
isfy it. We are concerned with withdrawal of the segregation of
lands. There are a couple of cases pending right now where lands
are being set aside for study of the wilderness characteristics, to
the effect. that they would be withdrawn for mineral injury.
There is the Shelton Antelope Range and the Charlie Russell
proposed wilderness area, where just the designation of these areas
for study has the effect of segregating them from mineral entry.
We do not think it is in the national interest to do this. Now they
should be set. aside. or segregated from mineral entry, after they are
designated as a wilderness area. but not before.
I do not believe it would satisfy the national interest requirement.
Mr. CLKUISEX. Does the gentleman from Kansas have any more
questions? I think that most of the questions have been asked, and
there was a suggestion that you would be pleased to lend your ex-
pertise of your associates to offer their suggestions for provisions
~onsistent with your testimony so that not only the staff, but mem-
bership. could review a1ld analyze those recommendations that you
think would be appropriate for change. Is that correct?
PAGENO="0465"
388
ished or not, and, perha~s, section 13 would take care of it. Now,
one way this could be clarified-
Mr. SK-UBITZ. Could you tell me what we should do in the sub-
committee print to make sure of it?
Mr. EDWARDS. I would say that there are two types of things that
could be done. One would be a statement in the hearing record by
the members of the subcommittee that it is their intent that nothing
in this act will interfere with this right of ingress and egress min-
ing claims, and another possibility would be a specific statement
somewhere in the act to the same effect that not only does nothing
in the act interfere with the operation of mining law, but also the
specific concept of ingress and egress to mining claims.
The mining law, I might say, does not specifically cover ingress
and egress to mining claims. It is a common law right which has
been recognized by the Interior Department by deciisons fostered by
the Inteiioi Dep'-Lrtment and court decisions, but it is not specifically
spelled out in the law, so we would like either an amendment to
the law, or something in the record on the legislative history of the
law.
Mr. SKUBITZ. You mean a statement in the section dealing with
right-of-way?
Mr. EDWARDS. It could be in the section that is on page 13 of the
bill, somewhere in the bill, I am sure. It could be enacted.
Mr. SIcUBITz. On page 8 of your testimony dealing with section
203, you make the statement,. "There is no question but that the
Secretary should have authority to take remedial action to correct
clerical, typographical, or other errors," but then you go on to say
that, the section could be strengthened, however, by providing that
the authority to correct does not grant the authority to change any
terms or conditions. Well, I agree with that, but has that happened
in he past?. Can you give me some examples that have caused this
concern in your mind?
Mr. EDWARDS. No; the thing that has caused the concern in our
mind is the language in this bill which gives the Secretary the
authority to make corrections, and we just believe that the record
should be clear that those corrections do not extend to substantive
matters in any patent
Mr. SKUBITZ. What is the reason for your concern? Has some-
thing like that been done in the past, or are you starting to reach
into clauses and pull things out ?~
Mr. EDWARDS. On that question of correcting the patent itself,
I do not know any for. instanŕes. The only thing that raises my
concern here is the language in~ section 203 that gives authority to
correct patents. but it does not. really limit it to clerical or typo-
graphical matters. It gives blanket authority~ for correction of
patents.
Mr. SKUBITz. Well, is it reasonable to assume that in the correc-
tion that t.hey are going to change the meaning or the real intent
that Congress expressed? What,:, .in the past. gives you the feeling.
that they would do this in the future?
Mr. EDWARDS. I. do. not know . of any case for it, and we have had
a problem with actual correction of patent, but I do see some things
taking place in the Interior Department today that could lead to
PAGENO="0466"
387
* Finally, Mr. Chairman. I would like to refer to section 312 relat-
ing to wilderness study. This section requires a wilderness study
on all roadless areas of 5,000 contiguous acres or more. There is a
savings clause in this section permitting the continuation of mining
and grazing uses during this period when the wilderness study has
taken place. But, if we consider the effect of such provision in a
State, for example, like Nevada, a very large proportion of this
State would be administered during the study period as required by
the act in a manner so as to preserve the wilderness character of each
area.
It is reasonable to conclude that no new exploration would be
permitted or any other activity that might, by some court, be con-
strued as inconsistent with wilderness. Essentially, all the public
lands in Alaska would become instant wilderness, as well as large
areas in Montana, Utah, Arizona, and other public lands States.
~\Te doubt that this result is intended. We object to section 312 as it
is presently written.
Mr. Chairman, that is all that I have. I would like to state that
~ on behalf of the American Mining Congress, that we would offer
to the subcommittee the assistance of members of our public lands
committee and sta.ff members of our organization in developing
language changes to effect the suggestions that we have made today.
~\Te have a number of preeminent experts on public lands. We be-
lieve we could ma.ke a contribution.
Thank you.
Mr. CLAUSEN [presiding]. Thank you, sir, for your very precise
statement. It certainly spells out your position.
Mr. SKUBITZ. I have two questions that I would like to ask the
witness.
On page 6-no, it is on page 7-you speak of the matter of with-
drawals and estimating some 238 million of the 750 million acres
of public lands would be withdrawn. Section 204 would restore to
Congress its constitutional role in the ultimate management of the
public lands.
It comes to mindS as I look around this committee today, whether
we are in a position to really act in this area. There is nobody here
except Mr. Clausen and myself at this particular moment. I wonder
whether or not we should regain our constitutional authority to carry
on in this particular field.
Mr. EDWARDS. My judgment-
Mr. SKUBITz. You do not have to answer it.
Mr. EDWARDS. I would like to comment on that.
Mr. SKUI3ITz. No, I think we would be striking that from the
record.
Mr. EDWARDS. OK.
Mr. SKuBITZ. Seriously, on page 10 of your testimony, you express
concern about the right of ingress and egress in mining claims, and
I am wondering is this not covered by the land use on page 13 of
Subcommittee Print No. 1, which provides that nothing in this act
shall amend or impair the rights granted under the 1872 mining law.
Mr. EDWARDS. It may be, and~ in fairness, we would have to say
that what I mention in my section of my statement is that we feel
it is ambiguous. We do not know whether this right would be abol-
PAGENO="0467"
386
and private ownership in the minerals are retained by the Federal
Government.
This bill sets up a mechanism under which these several mineral
interests can be conveyed to the surface owner. There is a major
conceptual problem with the procedure of this bill. The section that
requires that in the event that; mineral interests are conveyed and
subsequently if mineral development activities are initiated, the
mineral interests will then revert to the United States.
In our industry I guess we are not a.s concerned with whether the
minerals are owned by the Federal Governrnent~ or private land-
owners, as we are in the certainty of the ownership and the avail-
ability of such lands for exploration and, where warranted, mineral
development.
Now here is what would happen, the way this section is written.
It is contemplated that lands where there are no known mineral val-
ues will be the lands generally subject to the conveyance of reserved
mineral interests, but this does not preclude the development of
subsequently discovered mineral values at a later date. If a land-
owner, however, has title to minerals, but subject to a reverter to
the Government. as a practical matter there is no way that lie is
going to authorize exploration or development on his lands. And,
since the Government does not own the minerals, there is no way
that the Government can permit exploration or development. So,
the effect of this section is that conveyed previously reserved min-
eral interests will, for all practical purposes, be unavailable for
mineral development from the date of the conveyance forward.
We recommend that the reverter requirement be eliminated from
the legislation.
The next subject I would like to refer to is rights-of-way, title V.
Title V relating to ri&its-of-way could have a profound impact on
the mining industry. Public lands, at the present time, are accessible
to all citizens for exploration and development. Also, the Depart-
ment of the Interior recognizes the common law doctrine of the
implied right of a mining claimant to have access to his claim. If
access to the public lands becomes discretionary instead of a right,
there will be serious interference to the exploration activity in the
United States.
Individuals and small mining companies especially who do not
have the resources to cope with the complicated right-of-way ap-
ph cation procedures will be discouraged.
Now. as we have looked at titTe V our discussions are not conclu-
sive. We think that there are some ambiguities. We are uncertain
whether this section would completely replace the existing right of
entry under the mining laws. We read the section and we can find
no express language that such right of entry would not be affected,
so we recommend that title V be amended to clarify that the right
of inaress and egress onto the public lands under the mining laws
is ureserved.
In this connection. I should mention that recent Forest Service
regulations relating to mining acknowledge a right of access over
Forest Service lands for mineral development,, but they do contain
provision for reasonable regulation of the route and means of in-
"`~s and egress.
PAGENO="0468"
385
legislation. This type of provision would have the effect of deter-
mining, as a matter of law, that stale claims not recorded with the
Interior T)epartment are abandoned. The effect would be to elim-
mate the impediment. on titles of literally millions of abandoned
mining claims.
Over the years, perhaps the most persistent criticism of the gen-
eral mining law has been directed to the buildup of the mining
ci aims of record in which there is nO present interest and on which
there is no simple mechanism for terminating the claims. The pro-
vismn contained in this bill would remove this principal criticism of
the. mining law.
I would like to mention-and I have covered it in some detail in
my statement-that the Natural Resource Land Management Act
pending in the Senate contains a somewhat similar recording re-
quirement, but., unfortunately, the Senate bill has coupled with it
a requirement that an application for patent for mining claims be
filed within 5 years. We rega.rd this, for reasons I set forth in some
detail in this statement, as a.n impossible requirement. I raise t.he
issue because of the possibility that that issue should arise in a
conference between the House and the Senate.
Our support of this recordation requirement for mining claims
is really predicted on retention of the language in section 207 of
print No. 1, as it is now written, without amendment.
Next, I would like to mention t.he section relating to withdrawals.
We commend the subcommittee for the proposal contained in sec-
tion 204 relating to withdrawals of 1?ublic lands. No segment of the
private sector of our economy has been more adversely affected by
the indiscriminate and wholesale, large-scale withdrawal of lands
than the mining industry.
It has been estimated that some 238 million of the 750 million
aci~es of public lands have been withdrawn or carry some restrictions
against mineral activity. Section 204 would restore to the Congress
its constitutional role in the ultimate management of the public
lands. The size of withdrawals by the executive branch would be
limited without congressional approval, a1icl the length of time for
which lands may be withdrawn is also governed.
WT0 do not believe this to be an unreasonable burden on the land
management agencies and should insure against unwarranted seg-
regations of public, lands in the future, at the same time permitting
the use by the Bureau of Land Management of this mechanism for
the protection of lands with unusual values.
Mr. Chairman, section 203 provides for the correction of patents.
It is kind of a minor matter, but. we do believe that the Secretary
should have authority to take remedial action to correct clerical,
typographical, or other errors in patents, but we think that this
section could be strengthened by providing that the authority to cor-
rect does not grant the authority to change any terms~ conditions,
covenants, or reservations in the atent. The title to the land is
grounded on the patent and the authority to make substantive
changes should not be authorized.
I would also like to refer to the sectiOn provided for the convey-
ance of reserve mineral interest. I know that this is a subject that
has a great. deal of interest in areas of the West where the surfaces
PAGENO="0469"
384
expressed our opinion that the bill then pending, H.R. 5441, would
tend strongly to do just that.
We indicated that the American Mining Congress had passed a
resolution favoring the concept of Bureau of Land Management
organic act, but we did not think 11.11. 5441 met our needs, but we
looked forward with optimism to your statements, Mr. Chairman,
that you would write your own bill.
Since that time a great deal of progress has been made. We be-
lieve that Subcommittee Print No. 1 would, with certain construc-
tive `amendments, form the basis for an acceptable charter for the
management of public lands by the Bureau of Land Management
In commenting on the bill', first I would like to say that we are
pleased with the declaration of policy which sets forth that it is
the policy of the United States that the Mining and Minerals
Policy Act of 1970, as it pertains to the public lands, be implemented.
There has never been a clearer or less ambiguous statement of con-
gressional intent than the 1970 Mining and Minerals Policy Act.
Notwithstanding that act, the policy has been essentially ignored.
Since its passage, the actions~ of the Federal Government including
those of the Bureau of Land Management, have tended to discourage,
instead of encourage, the exploration for, and the development of,
domestic mineral resources.
We believe that the legislative history on the Public Land Policy
and Management Act should be perfectly clear that implementation
of the Mining and Minerals' Policy Act, as it pertains to public
lands, is an importa.nt objective of'the legislation.
Next, Mr. Chairman, we are also pleased that the print No. 1
contains a statement that "No provision of this section, or any
other section of this act, shall ~, in any way amend the mining law of
1872 or impair the rights of `any locators or claims under that act,
except as provided in section ~07" which relates to the recording of
mining claims.
Mr. Chairman, the Mining Congress for years has `been support-
ing proposals for modernization and changes in general mining law.
The description of these recommendations has been set fOrth a num-
ber of times in our annual declaration of policy and legislation has
been introduced in the last twO Congresses to implement these mod-
ernization changes, but until the appropriate amendments are made
to change the general mining laws, it is important that any legis-
lation relating to the management of public lands, such as com-
mittee print No. 1, provide that nothing in the bill would have the
effect of amending the mining laws or impairing the rights of people
claiming under the laws.
I wou1d like to comment on some of the specific provisions of t.he
bill, a number of which have the approval of the American Mining
Congress and some, others where, in our, judgment, amendments
should be made. .
First, I would like to turn to section 207 which relates' to the
recordation of mining claims. Section 207, which requires the recorda-
tion of mining claims. Section ", 207, which requires the recordation
of mining claims,. Mr. Chairman, does have the approval of the
American Mining Congress. We have previously supported some
mining claim recordation requirements. We' call it stale claims
PAGENO="0470"
383
tion of the Common Law doctrine of the implied right of a mining claimant
to access to his claim. If access to the public lands for these purposes becomes
discretionary, instead of a right, there will serious interference to the explo-
ration activity in the United States. Individuals and small mining companies,
especially, who do not have the resources or the time to cope with the compli-
cated right of way application procedures, will be discouraged.
Mr. Chairman, in fairness, our discussions of proposed Title V have not been
conclusive. We are uncertain whether the Section would completely replace
the existing right of entry under the mining laws. However, on reading this
Section, we can find no express language that such right of entry would not
be affected. We recommend that Title V be amended to clarify that the right
of ingress and egress onto the public lands under the mining laws is preserved.
In this connection, I should mention that the recently-promulgated regulations
of the United States Forest Service relating to mining acknowledge a right of
access to Forest Service lands for mineral development, but do contain provi-
sion for reasonable regulation of the route and means of ingress and egress.
WILDERNESS STUDY
Mr. Chairman, Section 312 requires a wilderness study on roadless areas of
5,000 contiguous acres or more. The savings clause permitting the continuation
of e~risting mining and grazing uses will not prevent the Act from creating
vast areas of instant wilderi~ess. Consider, Mr. Chairman, the effect of the pro-
vision in, say, Nevada. A large proportion of the state w-ould be administered
during the study period in a manner so as to preserve the wilderness character
of each area. It is reasonable to conclude that no new exploration would be
permitted or any other activity that might by some court be construed as in-
consistent with wilderness. Essentially all the public lands in Alaska would
become instant w-ilderness, as well as large areas in Montana, Utah, Arizona
and the other public land states. We doubt that this result is intended. We
object to the Section 312 as presently written.
Mr. Chairman, on behalf of my colleagues in the mining industry, I thank
you for the opportunity to comment on this important legislation.
In closing, I would like to offer to your Subcommittee the assistance of the
members of our public lands committee and staff members of the American
Mining Congress in developing language changes to effect the suggestions w-e
have made today. The membership of our Public Lands Committee includes
several of the pre-eminent authorities on public land and natural resources
matters, and I believe they can make an important contribution.
STATEMENT OP HOWARD L. EDWARDS, VICE PRESIDENT AND
SECRETARY, THE ANACONDA CO., ON BEHALF OP THE AMERICAN
MINING CONGRESS
i~ir. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, the mining industry welcomes the
recognition accorded by the proposed legislation of the need for
improved and more efficient use of the 475 million acres of publicly
owned lands managed by the Bureau of Land Management and the
additional 300 million acres of federally owned land, on most of
which the mineral ownership is also managed by the Bureau of
Land Management.
We follow with interest the development of this proposed bill. We
participated in field hearings held in many of the public land states
during the last Congress. We have testified here in WTashington.
We commend the committee for their dedication and fairness in
affording so many of our fellow citizens of so many different shades
of opiniOn an opportunity to be heard.
Mr. Chairman. a year ago when we appeared before this Com-
mittee, we expressed our opnn~n that it was not in the public in-
terest to enact legislation that would make it difficult, if not im-
poss~ble~ to find and develop minerals on the public lands. We also
PAGENO="0471"
382
requirements as interpreted by the Interior Department, and many active mill-
ing operations continue on patented lands because of the judgments formed
about patenting would be impossible.
Our support for the recordation requirement for mining claims is predicated
on the retention of the language of Section 207, as contained in Print No. 1,
without amendment.
WITHDRAWALS
Mr. Chairman, we commend the Subcommittee for the proposal contained in
Section 204 relating to withdrawals of public lands. No segment of the private
sector of our economy has been more adversely affected by the indiscriminate
and wholesale, large-scale withdrawal of lands than the mining industry. It has
been estimated that some 238 million of the 750 million acres of public lands
have been withdrawn or carry some restrictions against mineral activity. Sec-
tion 204 would restore to the Congress its constitutional role in the ultimate
management of public lands. The size of withdrawals by the Executive branch
would be limited without Congressional approval, and the length of time for
which lands may be withdrawn is also governed. We do not believe this to be
an unreasonable burden on the land management agencies and should insure
against unwarranted segregations of public lands in the future, at the same
time permitting the use of this mechanism for the protection of lands with
unusual values.
CORRECTION OF PATENTS
Section 203 (f) provides that following the issuance of a patent, the Secre-
tary may correct such patents or documents where necessary. There is no
question but that the Secretary should have authority to take remedial action
to correct clerical, typographical or other errors, including errors in land de-
scriptions. The Section could he strengthened, however, by providing that the
authority to correct does not grant the authority to change any terms, condi-
tions, covenants or reservations in the patent. The title to the land is grounded
on the patent and the authority to make substantive changes after the fact
should not be authorized.
CONVEYANCE OF RESERVED MINERAL INTERESTS
Mr. Chairman, Section 209 sets up a mechanism under which the title to
severed mineral interests owned by the federal government may be conveyed
to the surface owner on a finding that there are no known mineral values in
the land, or that the reservation of mineral rights by the United States is in-
terfering with appropriate non-mineral development, and that such develop-
ment is a more beneficial use of the land than mineral development. There is,
however, Mr. Chairman, a major~ conceptual problem with the procedure that
is established. The Section requires that in the event that mineral interests
are conveyed and that subsequently if mineral development activitis are ini-
tiated, that the mineral interests will then revert to the United States.
The mineral industry is not as concerned with whether the mineral estates
are owned by the federal government or by private land owners, as in the
certainty of the ownership and the availability of such lands for exploration
and, where warranted, mineral development.
Under Section 209, it is contemplated that lands where there are no known
mineral values will be the lands generally subject to the conveyance of reserved
mineral interests. This does not preclude the development of subsequently dis-
covered mineral values at a later date. If a land owner has title to the minerals.
but subject to a reverter to the government, there is no way that he will author-
ize exploration or development OR: his lands. Since the government will not own
the mineral estate, there is no way that the government can permit exploration
and development. The effect of Section 209 is that conveyed previously-reserved
mineral interests will, for all practical purposes, be unavailable for mineral
development from the date of the conveyance forward. We doubt that this is
the result intended by the authors of the legislation. We recommend that the
reverter requirement be eliminated from the legislation.
RIGHTS-OF-WAy
Mr. Chairman, Title V, relating to rights of way, could have a most profound
impact on the mining industry. At the present time, public lands covered by
the proposed Act are accessible to: all citizens for exploration and development.
Also, at the present time, there is, in the Department of the Interior, recogni-
PAGENO="0472"
381
Policy Act, as it pertains to public lands, is an important objective of the 1eg~
islation.
Next, Mr. Chairman, we are pleased the Print No. 1 contains, in Section
201(f) (1), a statement that "no provision of this Section, or any other Section
of this Act shall in any way amend the Mining Law of 1872 or impair the rights
of any locators or claims under that Act, except as provided in Section 207 of
this Act."
Mr. Chairman, the mining industry, speaking through the American Mining
Congress, for several years has been on record in favor of modernization and
changes of the General Mining Law. A description of our recommendations has
been set forth several times in the annual declaration of policy of the American
Mining Congress and amendatory legislation to implement those changes has
been introduced in the last two Congresses. Until, however, such amendments
are made, it is important that any legislation relating to the management of
the public lands specifically provide, as does Print No. 1, that it will not have
the effect of amending the mining laws or impairing the rights of people claim-
ing under the laws.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to comment on specific provisions and sections
of the proposed bill, a number of which have the approval of the American
Mining Congress and others, where, in our judgment, amendments should be
made.
BECORDATION OF MINING CLAIMS AND ABANDONMENT
First, Section 207, requiring the recordation of mining claims, has the ap-
proval of the American Mining Congress. That Section requires the owner of
an unpatented mining claim to file in the local recording office, usually the
county recorder's office, documentation with respect to annual assessment work
and also file a copy with the Bureau of Land Management. The owner of a
claim would also be required to file a copy of the Notice or Certificate of Loca-
tion with the Bureau of Land Management. For claims located prior to the
date of the Act. these filings would have to be completed within three years,
and for claims located after the date of the Act, the filings would have to be
completed within ninety days. On the failure to file such instruments, the claims
would be deemed abandoned.
We have previously supported such mining claim recorciation requirements
calling it "stale claims" legislation. Such a provision would have the effect of
determining, as a matter of law, that stale claims, not recorded with the In-
terior Department. are abandoned. The effect of this type of provision would
be to eliminate the impediment on titles caused by literally millions of aban-
doned mining claims. Over the years, the most persistent criticism of the gen-
eral mining law has been directed to the build-up of the mining claims of rec-
ord in which there is no present interest on the part of the claimants and no
simple mechanism for terminating these claims. Such a provision would remove
the principal criticism of the mining laws.
Mr. Chairman, I should mention that the proposed Natural Resource Lands
Management Act pending in the Senate, S.507 contains a somewhat similar re-
cording requirement for mining claims. Unfortunately, the Senate bill has
coupled with the recording provision a requirement that an application for
patent for mining claims be filed within five years. I mention this matter in
the event that the subject should subsequently rise in a conference between
the Senate and the House. The recording provision cannot be coupled with
such a patenting requirement. First. it would be impossible for applications
for a patent to be filed within five years for all of the active mining claims in
the United States. Before an application can be filed, each claim must be sur-
veyed by registered mineral surveyors and plats of mineral survey must be
prepared by the cadastral engineers of the Bureau of Land Management. To-
day, with limited activity, there are normal survey delays of two to five years.
There simply are not enough mineral surveyors or cadastral engineers, nor
could there be within that time frame. I would hazard a guess that, even if
forces were doubled, the work could not be completed on as many as five per-
cent of active mining claims. The second reason why the patent requirement is
unreasonable is because of the policies of the Interior Department that dis-
courage the patenting of claims. In 1971, 18 patents for 1,066 acres: and in
1972, 19 patents for 2.012. acres; and in 1973, 15 patents for 936 acres were all
that were issued under the mining laws. In those years, the mineral patents
covered a fraction of one percent of the lands patented by the Bureau of Land
Management during that period. It is extremely difficult to meet the patenting
54-OO5-T~-----2~
PAGENO="0473"
380
Mr. MELOHER. Tom Garrett is here. Not present? Chuck Clusen.
Is Chuck Clusen here?
We will proceed now with Mr. Edwards. Mr. Edwards.
Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman. We would like to submit our state-
ment for the record.
Mr. MELCHER. Without objection, Mr. Edwards' entire statement
will be made a part of the record at this point. Hearing no objec-
tion, it is so ordered.
[The prepared statement of Howard L. Edwards follows:]
STATEMENT OF HOWARD L. EDWARDS, VICE PRESIDENT AND SECRETARY,
THE ANACONDA Co. ON BEHALF OF THE AMERICAN MINING CONGRESS
Mr. Chairman, and Members of the Committee: I am Howard L. Edwards,
vice president and secretary of The Anaconda Company in New York City. My
appearance before you today on the proposed Public Land Policy and Manage-
ment Act, the proposed organic act, for the Bureau of Land Management, is
as chairman of the Public Lands Committee of the American Mining Congress.
The American Mining Congress is a national association of United States
companies, large and small, that produce the greater part of our nation's
metals, coal, and industrial and agricultural minerals. The member companies
operate on public and privately owned lands in all of the fifty states. The
American Mining Congress is thus directly concerned with the effects on the
minerals industry by this proposed legislation.
The mining industry welcomes the recognition accorded by the proposed leg-
islation of the need for improved and more efficient use of the 475 million acres
of publicly owned lands managed by the Bureau of Land Management and the
additional 300 million acres of federally owned land, on most of which the
mineral ownership is also managed by the Bureau of Land Management. Mr.
Chairman, our industry has followed with interest the development of the
proposed legislation. Industry representatives have participated in the com-
prehensive field hearings held in many of the public lands states during the
93rd Congress. We have testified at hearings held here in Washington. We
commend the members of this Committee for their dedication and fairness in
affording so many of our fellow citizens of so many different shades of opinion
an opportunity to be heard.
A year ago, in our appearance before this Committee, we expressed our
opinion that it was not in the public interest to enact legislation that would
make it difficult, if not impossible, to find and develop minerals on the public
lands. We also expressed our opinion~ that the bill then pending, H.R. 5441,
would tend strongly to do just that. We stated that the American Mining
Congress had adopted a formal resolution recognizing the need for a basic
Bureau of Land Management organic act, one that contributes to the manage-
ment and better, more efficient uses of all the primary values and resources
of the public lands, and observed that H.R. 5441 was not such a bill, but looked
with optimism on the public statements that you, Mr. Chairman, would write
your own bill.
Mr. Chairman, a great deal of progress has been made. Your bill, H.R. 16676,
introduced late in the Second Session of the last Congress, corrected many of
the deficiencies contained in H.R. 5441. Subcommittee Print No. 1, which is
a refinement of HR. 16676, would, in our judgment, with certain constructive
amendments, form the basis for an acceptable charter for the management of
the public lands by the Bureau of Land Management.
Mr. Chairman, we are pleased that the declaration of polley in Section 102
of Print No. 1 sets forth that it is the policy of the United States that the
Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970. as it pertains to the public lands, be
implemented. There has never been a clearer or less ambiguous statement of
Congressional intent than the 1970 Mining and Minerals Policy Act. Notwith-
standing the mandate of that act, the policy has been essentially ignored. Since
its passage, the actions of the federal government, including those of the Bur-
eau of Land Management, have tended to discourage, instead of encourage the
exploration for, and development of domestic mineral resources. We believe
that the legislative history on the Public Land Policy and Management Act
should be perfectly clear that implementation of the Mining and Minerals
PAGENO="0474"
379
~pendix A
Excerpt from1
"Timber Sales Policies and Procedures on National Forests
in Relation to Shortrun Timber Supply"
by Carl Newport
ROADS
"Roads are needed on national forests for expediting sales, increasing tim-
ber sale and harvest flexibility, and for improving utilization.
"Much of the time spent in selecting, planning, preparing, and operating
timber sales is spent on roads. If the Forest Service were fully funded
by appropriation for its road program and permitted to carry it out, the
timber sale program would be expedited. Road construction by timber pur-
chasers has limited road development to areas of high value timber and
to periods of high prices.
"If a more complete road system were now in place on the national forests,
it would be much easier for the Forest Service and the industry to
promptly respond to fluctuations in demand for wood products. Submargin-
al timber could be sold, more partial cuts and more salvage and commer-
cial thinnings could be made. In addition, more areas of timber needing
treatment to increase growth would become accessible for such programs.
"Studies of advanced roading on national forests and on other public lands
have concluded that it is not economic.6 However, these were tested
against earning rate guides now being used on other Forest Service invest-
ments such as holding excess growing stock, K-V expenditures, and to some
of the currently financed road program. Furthermore, these studies did
not include the benefits of moderating lumber and plywood price fluctua-
tions. In view of these factors the low earning rates of 2 to 6 percent
for advanced roading appear to be more than sufficient justification for
a significant program.
"It is recommended that the Forest Service more specifically document the
cost of and resulting extra yield from more rapid roading on a forest-by-
forest basis. This would provide the basis for grassroots pressure on
Congress and 0MB to get the necessary financing and would relate perform-
ance directly to extra timber supply, including the advantages of flexi-
bility. . .
~yne~ Brain B. "Accelerate& Boaibuiliing mi the North Unipqua--in Economic fimalysis." USDA
Forest Service res~rch caper. flBl- 137, 32 pp., illustrates Pacific Northeest Forest erA
Range Experiracob Station, Portlani, Oreg., 1972.
1. Appendix C of Report of the President's Advisory Panel on Timber and
the Environment, Washington, U.S. Government Printing Office, 1973,
p. 222.
PAGENO="0475"
378
also to the Forest Service, the timber industry and the general public.
NACO's Western Regional District could develop a proposed policy state-
ment at its March 1975 meeting in Albuquerque, for submission and adop-
tion by the National Association at its annual convention in June 1975.
Without attempting to suggest the details of such a proposed statement,
a few possible alternatives come readily to mind. One approach would
be to try to develop a workable, functional classification of forest
roads and to identify the types of roads most appropriate for each type
of financing. For example, therewould be little argument that pur-
chaser credit financing is appropriate for temporary spur roads located
within the immediate sale area. On the other hand, permanent, two-lane
hard surface arterials that carry not only logs but also high volumes of
recreation traffic should be financed with appropriated funds. In be-
tween these extremes lie a number of types of roads and a variety of
circumstances which, considering 1~oth short and long range factors, might
tilt the judgment one way or another. Some effort to define these con-
siderations might be made jointly by the parties involved which could
produce some guidance to those who must select the financing method.
Another approach, perhaps easier to implement, would be to reach some
general "rule of thumb" guidelines on the approximate ratio of direct
government to purchaser credit financing that would be most suitable to
different ç~p~ of National Forests. Obviously, forests which contain
little commercial timber are inappropriate for purchaser credit financ-
ing. It is possible that a scale from minimum to maximum purchaser credit
financing ratios could be worked out and applied on a forest-by-forest
basis.
Various other approaches are possible, and should be considered. Another
type of approach, which considers only the problem of the counties' reve-
nue losses, would be to adjust the formula for National Forest revenue
sharing to recognize that the 25 per cent provided by law no longer means
the same thing it did when it was enacted in the early 1900's. For
example, the law might be amended tŕ increase the percentage figure or
to require an additional payment from the Treasury equal to 25 per cent
of the amounts programmed annually for purchaser road construction.
Prepared by:
Kenneth C. Tollenaar, Director
Bureau of Governmental Research & Service
University of Oregon
For:
Association of Oregon Counties and
National Association of Counties
PAGENO="0476"
377
Accountabii4~y~
There is, finally, an apparent public interest in having funding decisions
applicable to government programs made by responsible organs of the Con-
gress. The present method of programming National Forest road construc-
tion and maintenance with purchaser credits avoids congressional scrutiny
and constitutes what some have called "back door financing." The new
Resources Planning Act will greatly reduce this problem beginning with
fiscal year 1976. However, some related problems will remain. For
example, 23 usc 205 requires the Forest Service to contract road work
estimated at more than $15,000 per mile, but this does not apply to roads
built by timber purchasers. Many purchasers are now having road contrac-
tors do their road work (especially as the complexity of construction in-
creases in rugged terrain and with pressure for higher standards from the
Forest Service), but these contracts are not necessarily let under the
competitive bid procedures required by public contracting laws.
Finally, there may be something of a problem of accountability in
assuring that purchasers required to build roads do not make windfall
profits on the road work in addition to their normal profits on the timber
operation itself. At the present time, the purchaser credits are allowed
on the basis of estimates made at the time the project is engineered, and
there appears to be no way for the Forest Service to audit actual costs
experienced by the operator with an eye toward adjusting the allowances
made on the basis of the estimate.
Toward a NACO Policy on Forest Road Finan~p~
The National Association of Counties has been aware for a good many years
that counties are losing substantial amounts of revenue as a result of
purchaser credit financing of National Forest Development Roads. During the
mid-l960's, NACO concentrated on trying to persuade the Congress tO in-
crease the Roads and Trails authorization in the Federal Aid Highway Act,
assuming that such increases would be followed by a shift from purchaser
credit financing to direct government financing of access roads. While
the data presented above indicate that some such shift did take place
for a few years, it seems clear that increasing the authorization alone
does not insure that the drains on county funds will cease, as is amply
illustrated by events of the early 1970's.
Enactment of the Resources Planning Act of 1974 does appear to set the
stage, however, for a reconsideration of this issue, and now the mem-
bers and staffs of the relevant Congressional committees will be directly
involved in the choice of financing methods. It would appear to be a
good time for NACO to review its policies on National Forest Develop-
ment Road financing and perhaps to take the leadership in suggesting an
approach that would be beneficial not only to county government, but
PAGENO="0477"
376
savings in maintenance and hauling costs alone would amount to $329.5
million, as compared with construction costs of $282 million.'
Effect on Competition
As commercial timber available for sale is found to a greater and greater
extent in the more remote areas of the National Forests and in more
rugged terrains, the relative cost of road building increases, and larger
and larger sales must be put up to insure that there will be sufficient
revenue to offset the cost of the roads. While this is probably only one
of several factors which has produced the observed decline in the number
of small mills and logging firms, it may be a significant one. Small
operators experience great difficulty in obtaining even the short range
capital necessary to finance large road construction expenditures prior
to the time when they begin to realize a return on the sale of their logs
or lumber products. This not only forecloses opportunities for small
businessmen, but it may in the long run have an adverse effect on the
price the government can command for its timber.2
Effect of Improved Access on Management
So long as road construction must be financed primarily through purchaser
credits, it seems axiomatic that roads will be located in areas where the
most promising opportunities exist for commercial timber harvesting. This
virtually precludes the possibility of advance roading -- a policy gen-
erally favored by professional foresters which calls for development of
a permanent road network throughout a forest, designed and built without
the constraints of "prudent operator" standards but with an eye toward
full utilization of forest potentials and maximum long range economy.
Several advantages are claimed for an advance roading approach, including
the possibility of salvaging mortality from fire, wind and insect or dis-
eases (estimated at about two billion board feet annually for the National
Forests); the increased fiber production that can be obtained through in-
tensive management practices such as pre-commercial thinning; and the
dispersal of recreation usage to avoid overcrowding of established recrea-
tion areas. Direct government funding of road construction will be re-
quired if these objectives are to be achieved.3
1. "Need for Development of Main Line Access Reads - Region Six," n.d.
2. .~q, Walter J. MeaLi~ "Memorandum on Competitive Bidding for National Forest Timber in the
Douglas-Fir Subregion," (prepared for the U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of lend Manage..
sent), September 17, 1965, p. 8. ~ ~ the extended qpestionirig and discussion of the
effect of road requirements on small operators in House Appropriations Cosisittee, Hearings,
Department of Interior end Belated Agencies Appropriations for 1975, Part 3, pp. 103- 109,
93rd Congress, second session).
3. Appendix A of this report excerpts a brief discussion of advance roeding from a paper prepared
by Carl Newport, a forest economLst with the Portland firm of Mason, Bruce end Girard, for the
President's Advisory Panel on Timber and the Bnvironment.
PAGENO="0478"
375
the roads, even though, as noted below, direct government financing might
create conditions under which competition for federal timber would in-
crease and raise the price enough to offset the loss of this involuntary
local government contribution.
Another type of consideration favoring maintenance of some level of
purchaser credit financing is that some type of spur road construction
and maintenance is operationally inseparable from the purchaser's
harvest operations themselves. Many purchasers build and maintain these
roads with the same personnel and equipment they already have in the sale
area for their harvest operations, and they also need to control the tim-
ing and to some extent the location of such road work to coordinate their
total operations.
While considerations of the federal fiscal position and the operational
requirements of timber purchasers suggest that some level of purchaser
credit financing will have to be maintained indefinitely, there are
several reasons to believe that the ratio of direct government financ-
ing to purchaser credit financing should be considerably higher than it
is now. Among these are reasons relating to road standards, competition
for timber, road locations, and the public interest in effective Con-
gressional oversight of agency operations.
Road Standards
As indicated above, federal law provides that purchasers are not re-
quired to bear that part of the road costs necessary to meet a higher
standard than that needed in harvesting the particular sale timber
harvest, roads are generally single-laned with temporary drainage facili-
ties, surfacing and structures. Roads of this type would be inadequate
to serve the multiple uses to which our National Forests are put today,
including general public recreation use, as well as uses for forest pro-
tection and management. Since under law the extra cost of multiple use
roads cannot be borne by the purchaser,1- some direct government funding
is required to assure that timber sale roads (which will inevitably be
used for multiple purposes regardless of their actual standard or condi-
tion) are built to adequate standards.
Another aspect of the temporary v. permanent multiple use road issue is
that long range transportation economies often favor construction of
high standard roads, the added cost of which is offset over a long
period of time by reduced per-mile user costs. A 1962 study by engineer-
ing personnel of the Forest Service's Region 6 concluded that if access
roads in Region 6 could be built to planned standards from 1962 to 1983,
1. Lhny Firdlasers allege, honever, ~ they are in fact requirci to build rcads to hi~ier
stactards than the cininum necessary for the particular sale. Althou~i the Forest Service
does not require the purcinser to bear the cost of double lacing or paving, differences ~y
arise over base requireizents, environrental protectimi facilities, etc.
PAGENO="0479"
374
County and Public Interests
~pact of Purchaser Credits on County Revenues
Federal law1 provides that 25 per cent of the money received from each
National Forest is to be paid to the states within which the Forests are
located, to be used for the benefit of public schools and public roads
of the counties in which the Forests are located, in a manner to be pre-
scribed by each state legislature. The states have provided a variety
of distributioji plans. In some states the payments are used mainly for
schools, while in others they are used mainly for roads.
Whether earmarked for schools or roads, the base against which the 25 per
cent is computed is the amount of money received by the federal government.
When this amount is reduced by allowing timber purchasers credit for
the cost of roads built and maintained in connection with timber sales,
the counties' 25 per cent receipts are reduced commensurately. At present
program levels, counties and school districts throughout the country are
losing approximately $50 million annually by virtue of purchaser credits.
Public Interest Considerations
While it is indisputable that financing through purchaser credits in-
volves substantial revenue losses for counties and school districts,
it may be that from a general publicinterest standpoint there are some
offsetting advantages in continuing to use the purchaser credit method
of financing.
One consideration in this respect is that there may be circumstances
under which the choice is between purchaser credit roads or no roads at
all. This can occur when short range concerns about the level of direct
federal expenditures supersede long range concerns about the quality of
the National Forest transportation system, maximizing economy in the use
of roads, and other public interest considerations. One great virtue of
purchaser credit financing, from the standpoint of the Office of Manage-
ment and Budget and others concerned primarily with the federal govern-
ment's fiscal position, Is that it reduces direct federal outlays, even
though it also reduces the revenues the Treasury would otherwise receive
for the timber. Purchaser credit financing is also attractive in the
short run because the effect Is immediate; the government avoids a cash
outlay for road construction which must be substantially completed
prior to harvest, while the revenue reductions it suffers occur over a
longer time frame, during the period of harvest. Finally, federal
budgeteers cannot be unaware of the fact that under purchaser credit
financing, local governments are financing 25 per cent of the costs of
1. i6 USC 5OO~
PAGENO="0480"
millions
of dollars
Purchaser
credits
Purchaser
road engineering
and suppleme nts
Forest Service
construction
Figure 3
TRENDS IN NATIONAL FOREST
ROAD AND TRAIL FUNDING
1967 to 1976
10 Per Cent and Other Funds
Highway Act Authorizations
1974 1975 1976
Total direct government
~ financing available for
I~ J obligation
PAGENO="0481"
372
Table 2
ANNUAL OBLIGATIONS BY PROGRAM AND TOTAL AMOUNT OF PURCHASER
CREDITS, NATIONAL FOREST ROADS AND TRAILS
1967 to 1976
(rnillioss)
~ -~ ~2Z~ ~L 1~ ~2Z1 ~2Z~ ~22~ ~
Direct G0v, Financing
Rosa C~t~cti~ $ 49,4 $ 63.2 $ 56.3 $ 87.2 $108.4 $iio.5 $ 59.8 $ 8.3 $ 15.7 $ 6.4
Bridge C~t~~tien ~ _.y~ ~ ~ -- -- -- __~0 ~
Subtotal, Forest
Service Const, 52.5 70.3 60,4 94,4 108.4 110.5 59.8 13.3 21.8 11.9
Purchaser Road
Engineering 20,4 20.0 22,0 22.2 23.0 23,4 39.6 70,5 85,2 93,4
Purchaser Road Sup.
plenente 4.5 8.0 4.'i 6.6 ~6 7.8~ 9.9 3.3 ,Q~ ~Q
Subtotal, Appropriated
Funde epesit cm Con.
struction by Purch.a~.
ers 24,9 28,0 26,7 28,8 30,6 31.2 49,5 73,8 94.1 100.2
Maintenance, Trail
Construction aid
Miscellaneous 41,1 24,4 33,3 40,6 36.1 29.1 51.0 53.1 55.2 46.2
TOTAL 0~IGATI0~ $118.4 $122.7 $120.4 ~i63,8 $175.1 $170.8 $160.3 $140.2 $171.1 $i38.3'~
Purchaser Credits 59,4 83,1 78,7 82.6 102,2 116.8 1146.9 137,4 187,4 210.0***
TOTAL lOAD PICCRPM
LEV]11 $177.8 $205.8 $199.1 $246.4 $277.3 $287.6 $307.2 $297.6 $358.5 $368.3
lhthibit: Purchaser Credits
aid Appropriated Fuels
spent on Purchaser Road
Const, as per cent of
Total Program 47,14% 54.0% 52.9% 45,2% 47.9% 51.5% 63.9% 77.7% 78,5% 84.2%
* Included~$~i3,6 ndllicm in flood and earthquake darage repair and reconstruction.
~ Requested,
~ Estin~ted,
PAGENO="0482"
371
Trends in Road and Trail Financiflg
Table 2 and Figure 3 reveal some significant trends and shifts in Forest
Development Road and Trail financing over the past decade. During the
nid-l960's, the National Association of Counties, in cooperation with
several other groups, successfully urged the Public Works Committees of
the House and Senate to increase substantially the authorization levels
for National Forest Development Roads and Trails. Congress increased
this authorization fron an annual level of $30 million in 1961 to $85
million in 1965, and again to $170 million in 1968 and for several years
thereafter. Although the full amount authorized was never obligated,
the obligation level did rise substantially during the late 1960's
and early 1970's.
For a period of two or three years, there was some shifting in the empha-
sis of the program from purchaser credits to direct government financing,
a shift made possible by the increased authorization and obligation level.
This shift is reflected in the amounts obligated specifically for Forest
Service road and bridge construction which increased considerably in 1970
and 1971, reaching a peak of $110.5 million in fiscal 1972. Purchaser
credits increased at about the same rate as Forest Service construction
during these same years, but not as rapidly as they would have to reach
the same total program level had the Forest Service not programmed this
large increase in direct government financed road construction.
However, the policy of increasing emphasis on direct government financing
changed suddenly in 1973 and 1974 as the Administration tried to respond
to new demands not only to increase timber production on government lands,
but also to minimize cash drains on the federal treasury. Substantial
increases in purchaser credits were allowed by administrative action dur-
ing those years, and this required a drastic shift in the programming of
government funds from Forest Service road construction to pre-sale engi-
neering (location, surveys, plans and supervision) of purchaser road con-
struction. The Forest Service's justification of its fiscal year 1974
budget request stated:
The $44,697,955 program decrease has been made possible
by shifting priorities to timber access and by assign-
ing a greater degree of responsibility for this access
to the timber purchaser.... The shift in the proposed
fiscal year 1974 forest road and trail program from
direct construction to support activities for timber
purchaser road construction is a result of increased
timber needs, and the need to reduce Federal outlays.1
The relative emphasis on purchaser credits and de-emphasis on direct gov-
ernment financing has continued to the present time.
1. House Appropriatious Subcoiittee rearin~s, Derartment of Interior ath Beletea Agmacies
Avpropriatious for i97L~, Part 1, p. 591 (93ra Can~ess, first session).
PAGENO="0483"
370
dollars needed to operate a level of contract authority previously
determined by the Department of Agriculture and the Office of Management
and Budget, and thus actual appropriations made by the Congress for
Forest Development Roads and Trails serve only the function of providing
cash to pay off contracts made pursuant to obligational authority. The
purpose of using obligations as cOntract authority rather than appropria-
tions is to provide for the lead time which must be available for
engineering prior to construction, as well as construction time frames
which do not conform to fiscal years.
To date, the authorization-obligation-appropriation process has applied
only to the government financed pOrtion of the total Forest Develop-
ment Road and Trail program. Amounts of road construction to
be financed through purchaser credits have been determined by the Forest
Service and Department of Agriculture with the approval of the Office of
Management and Budget, and without involvement of either functional or
appropriations committees of the Congress. However, the Forest and
Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act of 19741 will require a change
in this procedure, beginning with the 1976 budget request. Section 9 of
this new law provides as follows:
Sec. 9. Transportation System. --The Congress declares
that the installation of a proper system of transporta-
tion to service the National Forest System, as i~s pro-
vided for in Public Law 88-657, the Act of October 13,
1964 (16 USC 532-538), slthll be carried forward in time
to meet anticipated needs on an economical and environ-
mentally sound basis, and the method chosen for financ-
ing the construction and maintenance of the transporta-
tion system should be such as to enhance local, regional,
and national benefits, except that for the financing
of forest development roads as authorized by clause (2)
çf section 4 of the Act of October 13~, 1964,2 shall be
deemed "budget authority" and "budget outlays" as those
terms are defined in section 3(a) of the Congressional
Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 and shall
be effective for any fiscal year only in the manner
~q~ired for new spending authority as specified by
section 401(a) of that Act. (Emphasis added.)
The underlined language does not prohibit financing of National Forest
roads through purchaser credits. However, it will force a review of
purchaser road program levels by the Appropriations Committees along with
their approval of the direct government financed program level. It will
also require the department to justify any failure to use the full amount
authorized by the Highway Act while proposing the use of purchaser credits
for Forest Roads construction and maintenance.
1. Public i~w 93-378; 88 Stal. L~76.
2. Clause (2) of section 4 of the Act of October 13, 1964 refers to roads financed throu~i put-
chase credits.
PAGENO="0484"
369
Figure 2
SELECTED COMPONENTS OF APPRAISED VALUE
OF NATIONAL FOREST TIMBER
Source: U. S. Forest Service.
PAGENO="0485"
368
Financing Purchaser Construction
A second method of financing Forest Development Roads and Trails, uti-
lized increasingly in recent years, is to require purchasers of National
Forest timber to build roads which provide access to sale areas. When
purchasers are required to build roads, the Forest Service credits the
purchaser's account with the estimated cost of the road construction.
When this method of financing is used, the Forest Service ordinarily
does the pre-sale engineering and supervises the work, while the pur-
chaser does the work with his own crews and equipment or hires a road
contractor to do it. The Forest Service may supplement purchaser credit
financing with direct government funds under certain circumstances.
Under federal law,1 purchasers can be required to participate only to
the extent that would be necessary to provide access to harvest and remove
the timber from the particular sale. Any additional road width, base,
safety features, etc., which are required to provide for uses other
than logging must be financed from sources other than purchaser credits.
Figure 2 shows the division of the appraised value of stumpage among
various payments and allowances, including the "timber purchaser credit"
which is allowed when purchasers are required to build access roads. As
indicated by this pie chart, allowances are made in the appraisal not
only for the estimated per-thousand board feet cost of the actual road
construction, but also the cost of right of way clearing and portions of
the overhead and profit and risk allowance which are related to the base
cost of the road construction itself. Dollars actually paid to the gov-
ernment for the timber may therefore reflect only a minor proportion of
the total stumpage value--a fact of considerable concern to counties
which receive 25 per cent of the actual Treasury receipts, not 25 per
cent of the total stumpage value.
~4g~ting Procedures
At the present time, development of the total National Forest Develop-
ment Road and Trail program for each year involves both (1) biennial
approval of an authorization level under the Federal Aid Highway Act by
the Senate and House Public Works Committees; and (2) approval of annual
program levels (obligations) by the House and Senate Appropriations Com-
mittees. Under federal law2, National Forest Development Road and Trail
authorizations are available for contract during the fiscal year preceed-
ing and for two fiscal years succeeding the year of authorization as well
as during the year of authorization. Unobligated authorizations lapse
at the end of the second fiscal year after the year of authorization,
and they may be rescinded before that time upon recommendation by the
President and approval by Congress. The sums appropriated are the
1. i6 USC 535.
2. 23 USC 203,
PAGENO="0486"
367
The other major source of direct government funding is the "ten per cent
fund" established by 16 U.S. Code 501, which requires that 10 per cent
of the receipts from the National Forests be spent for roads and trails
within forests located in the states from which such proceeds are derived.
In addition to funds authorized under the Highway Act and ten per cent
funds, a relatively small amount of additional direct government financ-
ing is derived from miscellaneous sources, including funds contributed
by users under maintenance agreements, a special allocation of receipts
from timber sales from certain Oregon and California land grant lands
within National Forest boundaries, and emergency funds for the repair
of storm damage.
It should be noted that Forest Service road and trail obligations--the
amount the Forest Service is actually allowed to spend from government
funds~---has, at least in recent years, been considerably less than the
sum of the authorization, plus 10 per cent and "other" funds. Amounts
authorized for the past ten years, along with the approved obligation
level, are shown in Table 1.
Table 1
GOVERNNENT FINANCING AVAILABLE AND APPROVED OBLIGATION
LEVELS, NATIONAL FOREST DEVELOPMENT ROADS AND TRAILS
1967 to 1976
(thllions)
~ i2~ ~ .~Q.. ~2ZL .~ .~ 122~ ~2Z~ ~2Z~
Author1zatj~p~:
Hi~~ay Act $ 85.0 $170.0 $170.0 $170.0 $170.0 $170.0 $170.0 $140.0 $140.0 $140.0
Ten Per Cent 16.8 17.5 20.9 31.2 28.8 22.7 33.9 45.5 47.0 48.9
Other ~ ~ ~ ~ .fl~ _~ ..~:_ _~_ _~-. _~-
T12AIS $103.2 $189.3 $194.7 $228.1 $210.1 $201.1 $203.9 $185.5 $187.0 $188.9
krrproved Obli
~ $118.4 $122.7 $120.4 $163.8 $175.1 $170.8 $160.3 $140.2 $171.1 $158.3
* Inforirntion not available.
` Estisate.
~ Requested.
1. Purbher discussion of obligations is presented below, pp. 5-7.
PAGENO="0487"
To
366
FIgure 1
FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION OF
NATIONAL FOJtEST ROADS
To Town "C"
To Town "D"
/ `I
I' ~
Trail
To Town "B"
Public Highway
(County, State, Federal)
Forest Development Roads
Arterial
Collector - -
Service
Terminal or
Source: U.S. Forest Service
PAGENO="0488"
365
long term land and resource management purposes and con-
stant service.
2. Collector Roads. These serve small land areas and are
usually connected to an arterial or public highway and
collect traffic from service roads or terminal facili-
ties. The location and standard are influenced by both
long term multi-resource service needs as well as travel
efficiency. Collector roads may be operated for either
constant or intermittent service, depending on land use
and resource management objectives for the area served
by the facility.
3. Service Roads. These roads connect terminal facilities
with collector or arterial roads or public highways.
The location and standard are usually determined by that
required to serve a specific resource activity rather
than travel efficiency. Service roads may be developed
and operated for either long or short term service.1
Figure 1 illustrates each classification of Forest Development Road.
Methods of Financing
Forest Development Roads and Trails
In the long run, the burden of financing the construction and inainten-
ance of forest roads and trails is borne by the timber, consumers of
forest products, and the general taxpayer. In the short run, however,
financing comes from two main sources: (1) direct government financ-
ing, and (2) indirect financing from the purchasers of National Forest
timber who are allowed credits against the price of the timber in re-
turn for financing the costs of the roads. The choice of financing
methods has numerous consequences which are discussed in the final sec-
tions of this paper.
Direct Government Financi~p~
Most of the direct government financing for Forest Development Roads
and Trails is authorized under the biennial Federal Aid Highway Act.
Unlike most of the appropriations authorized under the Highway Act, the
Forest Roads and Trails appropriation comes from the general treasury
rather than the highway trust fund.
1. U.S. Forest Service, iv~siczi of Engineering Managecent, mititlea paper, n.f.
54-005 0 - 75 - 24
PAGENO="0489"
364
FINANCING NATIONAL FOREST ROADS:
BACKGROUND INFORMATION FOR COUNTY GOVERNMENT POLICY
(Prepared for discussic~n at the National Associa-
tion of Counties' Western Region Conference, at
Albuquerque, New Mexico, March 19-21, 1975.)
Road Systems Serving the National Forests
Road systems serving the National Forests are of two broad types. First,
the forests are served by systems which are primarily intended to carry
traffic through the forests between points outside the forest boundaries.
These systems include the federal aid interstate, primary and secondary
system, the federal aid Forest Highway System, and miscellaneous state
and county roads not on any federal aid system. Except for the state
and county roads, these systems are financed from the federal highway
trust fund, plus state matching, and thus are primarily funded by user
taxes and fees.
The second type consists of Forest Development Roads and Trails, which
federal law defines as:
those forest roads or trails of primary importance
for the protection, administration, and utilization
of the national forests, or where necessary, for the
use and development of the resources upon which communi-
ties within or adjacent to the national forests are
dependent. (23 USC 101)
Forest Development Roads and Trails provide access to National Forest re-
sources, including timber and recreation areas, and otherwise provide for
protection, utilization and management of forest resources. Draft mater-
ial being proposed for inclusion in the Forest Service Manual would
classify Forest Development Roads as follows:
1. Arterial Roads. These prOvide service to large land
areas and usually connect with public highways or other
arterial roads to form an integrated network of primary
crave], routes. The location and standard are often de-
termined by a demand for maximum mobility and travel
efficiency rather than specific resource management
service. They are usually developed and operated for
PAGENO="0490"
363
land protection. However authority to establish such broad powers is not war-
ranted and these sections should be deleted.
NACO RECOMMENDATION FOR DELETION OF THE PROVISION IN THE WILDERNESS SECTION
REQUIRING TREATMENT DURING THE STUDY PERIOD OF ALL ROADLESS AREAS AS
WILDERNESS RATHER THAN ON A BASIS DETERMINED BY THE LAND USE MANAGEMENT
PROCESS
Section 312 of the Committee Print would seem to freeze all roadless public
lands into wilderness status even during the study period the section author-
izes. NACo believes this would be inconsistent with the multiple use concept
embodied in the proposed Act. This would also cause additional pressures for
maximum resource development on those lands where roads already exist.
NACo believes the land use process proposed by the Act would be a better
vehicle for consideration of Wilderness designation.
PAGENO="0491"
362
The Bureau of the Budget regulations also call for use of the state, regional,
and metropolitan planning and development clearinghouses that have been es-
tablished as part of the recent efforts to improve intergovernmental coordina-
tion in planning particularly for Federal grant-in-aid programs.
We fully endorse the intent of these efforts as they apply to intergovernmental
coordination in public land use planning. However, there are several steps
that can be taken to further the 1968 Act with regard to public lands that
would assure early fruition of its intent with regard to bringing state and local
government into the planning process.
To encourage state and local government involvement in the planning process
in a meaningful way, as well as to avoid conflict and assure the cooperation
necessary to effective regional and: local planning, hte Commission believes that
consideration of state and local impacts should be mandatory. To accomplish
this, Federal agencies should be required to submit their plans to state or local
government agencies.
State and local zoning usually specifies uses permitted in designated areas.
However, such zoning does not require any land owner to put his land into one
of these uses against his interest or personal desire. Similarly, federal land
agencies should not be required to permit a given use merely because the area
has been so zoned by state or local authority.
On the other hand, federal agencies, as a general rule, should not allow uses
on public land which are classified as undesirable under state or local zoning.
There may be exceptions, however, and the federal agency should be authorized
to allow such a use, but only when the agency makes a finding that overriding
national interest requires the use.
The coordination which will be required if the Commission's recommendations
are adopted is so basic and essential to effective public land use planning that
it should be mandatory. Procedural requirements which are of sufficient im-
portance to be dignified by statutory enactment should not be a matter of
choice with the administering agency. If the adoption of such procedures is
discretionary, and an agency chooses to ignore them, even the ability of the
courts to intervene will be severely limited. The Commission recommends,
therefore, that Congress provide by statute that Federal action programs may
be invalidated by court orders upon adequate proof that procedural require-
ments for planning coordination have not been observed.
FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE TO STATES
Recommendation 14: Congress should provide additional financial assistance
to public land states tq facilitate :better and more comprehensive land use
planning.
If the public land states and local governments are to play a significant role
with respect to Federal land use planning, their planning will have to be far
better than it is today. The Commission study found an uneven performance
by state and local governments in conducting their own planning programs.
The nonexistence or low calibre of some state and local planning may be
attributed among other things to budgetary problems. While some funds are
made available to encourage planning activities by state and local government
under the Housing Act of 1954,~ the: availability of these funds is limited, and
the Commission believes that, to the extent required, additional funds should
be made available for planning encouragement in areas where Federal lands
constitute a large part of the state and local land base. Federal funds should
be available on a matching basis, with a major part contributed by the Federal
Government.
NACO RECOMMENDATION FOR DELETION OE THE SECTION AUTHORIZING BLM EMPLOYEES
TO CARRY FIREARMS, SERVE WARRANTS, MAKE ARRESTS, ETC., AND INSTEAD SUPPORT
FOR THE SECTION ENCOURAGING COOPERATION WITH EXISTING STATE AND LOCAL
LAW ENFORCEMENT ON PUBLIC LANDS
Section 302 of the Committee print and Section 307 of HR 5224 would author-
ize broad powers for BLM to establish its own police functions. NACo believes
that the law enforcement authority for BLM should be improved for better
~ 68 Stat. 590, codified in scattered section in Titles 12, 18, 20, 31, 38, 40, and 42
11.5.0. (1964).
PAGENO="0492"
361
available to a proposed mill will have a significant economic impact, but it can
also have a serious external effect on the surrounding community in the form
of air and water pollution.
The Commission recognizes that there is a wide variation in the quality of
the planning process as it exists at the level of state and local governments.
In many public land areas, there is neither comprehensive planning nor zoning
at the state or local level. Where either does exist, no attempt has been made
to extend state or local zoning to cover Federal lands. One of the historical
reasons for this disinterest has been that the local authorities had little reason
to believe that they would influence the land planning of Federal agencies,
although in more recent years some progressive local authorities have affirma-
tively zoned Federal lands with the cooperation of Federal agencies.
Involving state and local planning groups in joint land use planning efforts
with Federal agencies could have a significant effect in promoting a more ac-
tive interest in land use planning by state and local governments. To us, broad
gauged land use planning at all levels is vital if our nation is to meet the
challenge of the next three decades to meet our increasing resource and en-
vironmental needs from a fixed land base.
Awareness of the necessity for more aggressive land use planning and zoning
in the states has changed significantly within a very few years. Some states
have enacted statewide zoning and land planning laws, embracing rural and
urban areas alike, and are committing funds and political action to undertake
the complex task called for by these laws. We foresee a rapid change in their
interest and capability to bring all the area within their borders under a com-
prehensive planning effort.
It is imperative that the use, development, disposal, and acquisition planning
for Federal lands be an integral part of this effort, and that the institutions
and procedures that control planning for Federal lands be adopted to facilitate
the effort.
Until enactment of the Intergovernmental Cooperation Act of 1968,~~ statu-
tory requirements to coordinate the planning and design of direct Federal pro-
grams that have a significant state, local, or regional influence were unevenly
developed. Federal water resources project proposals formulated by the Corps
of Engineers, Bureau of Reclamation, and the Soil Conservation Service were
sent to the states for comments and views but, before enactment of the Water
Resources Planning Act in 1965.~ project coordination was little more than
after-the-fact action. The states seldom had an opportunity to participate in
project formulation. The 1965 Act provided the legal basis and organizational
arrangements-the joint river basin planning commission-for states to partic-
ipate with Federal agencies in water resources planning each step of the way
from assessment of needs to multiproject design and analysis,
Statutory requirements for coordinating Federal public land activity with
states and local government have been confined primarily to notification and
soliciting of state views on proposed Federal land acquisition, with state ap-
proval required for some kinds of purchases. Beyond this, there has been little
exposure of the Federal comprehensive land use planning process or the plans
themselves to state and local government. -
Title IV of the Intergovernmental Cooperation Act of 1968 ~ provides, in
part, that the President ". . . establish rules and regulations governing the
formulation, evaluation, and review of Federal programs and projects having
a significant impact on area and community development." The implementing
regulations issued by the Bureau of the Budget call for the establishment
of procedures by Federal agencies administering programs for construction of
Federal buildings and installations or other Federal public works, or for the
acquisition, use, and disposal of Federal land and real property to assure:
- 1. Consultation with Governors, regional and metropolitan comprehensive
planning agencies, and local elected officials at the earliest practicable stage
in project planning in the relationship of any project to the development plans
and programs of the state. region, or locality.
2. Consistency and compatibility of any such Federal project with state, re-
gional, and local development plans and programs.
40 U.S.C.. ii 5a1-535; 42 U.S.C. ~ 4201, 4211-4214, 4221-4225, 4231-4233 4241-
4244 (Supu. IV. 1969).
~42 U.S.C. ii 1962-1962d-3 (Supp. IV. 1969).
3642 U.S.C. ii 4231-33 (Supp. IV. 1969).
~ Bureau of the Budget Circ. No. A-95. Ju'y 24, 1969.
PAGENO="0493"
360
as in the case of post offices, to furnish services to all the people throughout
the country.
Believing, as the Commission does, that the tax level represents the actual
need for revenue, Federal payments related to the level of state and local taxes
levied on private owners should be in proportion to the services received and
burdens imposed by Federal ownership. At the same time, to repeat, they should
be fair and equitable to all concerned.
NACO RECOMMENDATION FOR DELETION OF THE SECTION TITLED "COSTS-SHARE ROAD
AUTHORIZATION" WHICH WOULD ALLOW PURCHASE CREDIT ROAD CONSTRUCTION OF
A SINGLE-PURPOSE NATURE IN VIOLATION OF THE MULTIPLE USE CONCEPT FOR
PUBLIC LANDS
The Committee print contains a provision, Section 502, that would authorize
BLM to finance road construction "purchaser credits". NACo opposes this pro-
vision.
This provision is similar to the authority for the National Forest Service
to finance road construction with purchaser credits, an authority that NACo
believes has been abused and has resulted in poor management of National
Forest Service lands. It would be a mistake to establish the same practice for
BLM lands.
We have attached as an appendix to this statement a report prepared for
NACo on this road construction problem. The report was prepared by Kenneth
C. Tollenaar, Director, Bureau of Governmental Research and Service, lljniver-
sity of Oregon.
NACO RECOMMENDATION FOR MODIFICATION OF THE PROVISION ESTABLISHING
AUTHORIZING LOCAL ADVISORY COUNCILS TO MAKE THESE COUNCILS MANDATORY
Section 309 of the Committee print "encourages" the establishment of local
advisory councils for land management consultation on a regional, state, dis-
trict or local basis. NACo believes this section should be amended to make
these advisory councils mandatory.
NACO RECOMMENDATION FOR ADDITION OF A PROVISION AS RECOMMENDED IN THE
PUBLIC LAND LAW REVIEW COMMISSION REPORT PROHIBITING THE AUTHORIZATION
OF USES ON PUBLIC LANDS THAT ARE INCONSISTANT WITH STATE OR LOCAL ZONING
REGULATIONS UNLESS BLM MAKES A FINDING THAT OVERRIDING NATIONAL INTEREST
REQUIRES THE USE
Neither the Committee print nor HR 5224 contains a provision to insure con-
sistency of Federal actions with state and local land use regulations. Since the
state and local governments represent the citizens affected by the Federal
actions on public lands it is essential that, except where overriding national
interest prevails, state and local government land use regulations must be con-
sidered.
Following is an excerpt from the Public Land Law Review Commission re-
port supporting this recommendation.
STATE AND LOCAL ROLES
Recommendation 13: State and local governments should be given an effective
role in Federal agency land use planning. Federal land use plans should be
developed in consultation With these governments, circulated to them for com-
ments, and should conform to state or local zoning to the maximum extent
feasible. As a general rule, no use of public land should be permitted which is
prohibited by state or local zoning.
There are two basic reasons for involving state and local governments in
Federal land use planning. First, these governments represent the people and
institutions that will be most directly affected by Federal programs growing
out of land use planning. For example, disposal of land to private ownership
may involve substantial Service burdens to state and local government, such
as education and highway costs, which are not matched by a corresponding
increase in taxes.
Secondly, the objectives of land use planning can be frustrated unless all
land Within the planning area is included, regardless of ownership. Land use
decisions often have important economic and environmental impacts at the
regional, state, or local level. A decision by the Forest Service to facilitate
the construction of a pulp and paper plant by making national forest timber
PAGENO="0494"
359
United States and is not borne only by those states and governments in whose
area the lands are located.
Therefore, the Federal Government should make payments to compensate
state and local governments for the tax immunity of Federal lands.
The study made for this Commission confirms the contention of state and
county government officials that shared revenues amount to much less than the
revenues they would collect if the lands were in private ownership and subject
to taxation.9 While the bulk of the states analyzed were in the West, detailed
studies of counties in other parts of the country demonstrated that the situa-
tion is similar everywhere.10
The fact that the lands on the tax rolls would have brought in a greater
revenue should not by itself be considered persuasive. It is, however, a com-
pelling indicator of both the magnitude of an existing problem and the impact
of the present system.
This Commission is convinced that the United States must make some pay-
ments to compensate state and local governments which have burdens imposed
on them because of Federal ownership of public lands within their borders.
Even though it is recognized that Federal expenditures must be held to the
minimum necessary to provide essential Federal programs, the Federal Govern-
ment, as a landowner, must pay its way. Whatever the costs, fairness and
equity demand that such payments be made.
.4. system of payments in lieu of tames provides a better standard for deter-
mining the level of payments than does a system of sharing revenue. Just as
in their relationship to private property, state and local governments are, in
general, constitutionally responsible for providing the ordinary fundions of
government to the public land areas within their borders. Federal ownership,
in other words, does not mean that the Federal Government has assumed fiscal
responsibility for the administrtion of all aspects of those lands. But, the sys-
tem of revenue sharing bears no relationship to the direct or indirect burdens
placed on state and local governments by the Federal lands within their bound-
aries.
In practice, there has been no attempt made to correlate the service rendered,
or the burdens assumed, by the local governments to the payments they receive
under the present revenue-sharing systems. As a result, the portion of Federal
revenues which they currently receive varies from 5 to 90 percent, depending
on the program and Federal agency involved.
Although they were originally designed to offset the tax immunity of Federal
lands, the existing revenue-sharing programs do not meet a standard of equity
and fair treatment either to state and local governments or to the Federal tax-
payers. Such a standard should be established and applied.
In addition, the Commission's review has revealed several defects in the
revenue-sharing system. In some cases, payments made by Federal programs
undercompensate, while in others they overcompensate. The revenue-sharing
programs, moreover, do not apply to many federally owned lands, and where
they do apply, management decisions often reduce or eliminate the revenue
base upon which the payments to state and local governments depend. At the
same time, pressures can be generated to institute programs that will produce
revenue, though such programs might be in conflict with good conservation-
management practices.
The Commission has thus concluded that the existing system of revenue
sharing is not equitable, and that the Federal taxpayer is financing a program
that has little relation to the purpose it was originally designed to accomplish.
It is axiomatic that expenditure requirements determine the tax levels needed
to produce the revenue to meet the costs of government. Since the ad valorem
tax system has been the foundation for the financing of programs providing
municipal services, the Commission believes that all landowners must share in
payment for these services. This should not exclude the Federal Government as
a landowner, except where the federally owned land is being used for facilities,
~EBS Management Consultants. Inc.. Rerenue Sharing and Payments in Lieu of Taxes,
Pt. 4 PLLRC Study Report. 1970. for a detailed analysis of revenue sharing and pay-
ments in lieu of taxes related to public lands in five states and 50 counties.
10 For example. in Carroll County, New Hampshire. where 24 percent of the land is in
national forest, total benefits to the county from both Federal revenue sharing payments
and indirect benefits in 1966 amounted to $21291. The estimated potential tax revenue
to the county from the Federal lands, if assessed and taxed on the same basis as pri-
vately owned lands of similar character, was estimated at $151,420. In Gogebic County.
Michigan, the potential tax revenue was estimated, likewise, at $251,840 from national
forest lands, as compared to direct and indirect benefits of $149,581 in 1966.
PAGENO="0495"
358
erals, including oil and gas deposits, and thus assured that lands chiefly valu-
able for those minerals would remain in Federal ownership. As part of the
Mineral Leasing Act, Congress authorized sharing with the states the receipts
generated by the oil and gas leases, giving the state of origin 371/2 percent of
the revenue, the Reclamation Fund 521/2 percent, and permitting the United
States to keep only 10 percent for its cost of administration. The only exception
is that Alaska receives 90 percent of oil and gas lease revenues in accordance
with the provisions of the Mineral Leasing Act.5 Several other, but relatively
minor revenue-sharing programs were also developed, both before and after
the two mentioned above, but payments made by the Federal Government to
the states for such programs have been comparatively small.°
The legislative history of the acts providing for the sharing of receipts from
forest products and oil and gas, as well as other leasable minerals, clearly re-
flects that the payments to the states and local governments were intended as
compensation for the fact that the lands in question would no longer be avail-
able for private ownership and property taxation.
Today, however, the pressure of new circumstances requires new thinking.
Until comparatively recently, the cost of providing state and municipal serv-
ices, especially in the western public land states whose vast spaces had a sparse
population and received relatively few outside visitors, was not very great.
But in recent years, a dramatic change has resulted from the greatly increased
mobility of the American people. Visitors who now come in increasing numbers
to public land areas from all over the country require, as a minimum, the same
services that are furnished to local citizens-and sometimes they require more.
At the same time, state and local government expenditure levels and revenue
requirements have vastly increased. In 1940, prior to World War II, the com-
bined spending of state and local governments was approximately $9.3 billion.
Ten years later, in 1950, it had risen to approximately $22.8 billion. In 1969,
the figure exceeded $100 billion.
In the meantime, while state and local revenue needs have been growing, the
recent years have seen a greatly expanded increase in the acreage of lands
permanently set aside by the United States for various purposes. From rela-
tively modest beginning, for example, there are now 18,564,079 acres of public
domain under the jurisdiction of the National Park Service, with an additional
4,735,818 acres acquired for the National Park System, or a total of 23,299.897
acres spread among 44 states and over 26 million acres set aside for the Wild-
life Refuge System in all 50 states.
The largest portion of the public domain, more than 465 million acres, includ-
ing 295 million acres in Alaska, is under the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Land
Management of the Department of the Interior. Except for those lands that
may be transferred to the states to satisfy land grants, this large acreage
comprises, for the most part, what is known as the vacant unappropriated
public domain, and was previously assumed to be destined for private owner-
ship. But since the passage of the Taylor Act in 1934,8 the transfer of these
public domain lands to private ownership has slowed considerably. In the last
decade, it has dwindled to a trickle while awaiting the enactment of legislation
suited to the needs of today and tomorrow.
If the recommendations of this Commission are followed, additional millions
of acres of public domain land will be retained by the Federal Government
instead of being transferred, as contemplated until relatively recent times, to
private ownership. With the millions of acres of land already reserved, plus
the additional acres that probably will be set aside, the United States must re-
examine its relationship to the state and local governments within whose bor-
ders those lands are located.
PAYMENTS TO COMPENSATE FOR TAX IMMUNITY
Recommendation 101: If the national interest dictates that lands should he
retained in Federal ownership, it is the obligation of the United States to make
certain that the burden of that policy is spread among all the people of the
~30 U.S.C. § 191 (1964).
A breakdown of all programs and payments is contained in EBS Management Con-
sultant. Inc., Revenue ~8haring and Payments in Lieu of Taxes, Pt. 2. PLLRC Study Re-
port. 1968.
7 hrenkdown by states, see Commission staff, Inventory Information on Public
Lands. PLLRC Study Report. 1970.
843 U.S.C. § 315 et seq. (1964).
PAGENO="0496"
~57
The Public Land Law Review Commission in its deliberations recognized the
importance of this issue. County governments normally rely on property taxes
for at least 1/3 of our revenue sources. When the Federal government estab-
lishes a policy that large holdings of land will remain in federal ownership
and thus exempt from property tax this places an unfair burden on other tax-
payers within the county where the lands are located.
Current lease receipts sharing formulas enacted by Congress in a partial
recognition of this problem do not provide sufficient reimbursement to make
up for the tax immunity.
For the Subcommittee's consideration NACo has attached an excerpt from
Public Land Law Review Commission that describes the problems and the rea-
sons for the Commission recommendation that a system of payments-in-lieu of
taxes be established because of this tax immunity.
It is very difficult for county officials to understand how this policy can be
ignored in an Act which is establishing as its number one policy statement that
the public lands shall remain in federal ownership.
Following is a copy of the section of the Public Land Law Review Commis-
sion report that deals with the tax immunity issue.
CHAPTER FOURTEEN.-TAX IMMuNITY
Because of the sovereignty of the United States, federally owned lands can-
not be taxed by state or local governments. This has created large and increas-
ing problems for the states within whose borders such lands lie. The problems
are particularly felt in the West where most public lands 1 are concentrated
and where, as previously shown in this report, federally owned lands often con-
stitute a large proportion of a state's total area. But the situation, concerning
which the Commission is required to make recommendations, is not confined
to the West. Eleven nonwestern states each contain more than 1 million acres
of Federal land, ranging from approximately 8 percent of the total area of
Arkansas to 3.2 percent of Georgia. In addition, West Virginia contains 920,212
acres of public lands (5.9 percent of the stat&s total acreage) ; South Carolina
680,265 acres (3.5 percent) ; New Hampshire 678,801 acres (11.8 percent) ; and
Vermont 240,238 acres (4.0 percent) (in each state there are also other Feder-
ally owned lands).
Originally, the Federal ownership of land was considered, in general, to be
temporary. Under Federal policy and laws the public domain passed into pri-
vate ownership and thereupon became subject to state and local taxation. The
retention by the Federal Government of comparatively small amounts of land
for military or other Federal purposes seemed to pose no serious problem for
the future, and even in 1872, when a large tract in Wyoming was set aside to
establish Yellowstone National Park, it was still generally assumed that almost
all of the rest of the Nation's public domain would eventually be transferred
to private ownership.
In 1891, however, with passage of the act that authorized the President to
set aside forest reservations, a major break with the past occurred. As large
tracts of forest land were set aside as reserves, it became obvious that millions
of acres of the public domain would be retained and managed permanently
by the United States and would never pass into private ownership.2
The impact on the taxability of state and local governments by the Federal
Government's retention of the forest lands caused concern at an early date,
and in 1907 Congress authorized the return of 25 percent of stumpage sale
receipts to the counties in which the timber was cut to be used for public edu-
cation and roads.3
In 1920, the Federal Government acted similarly when the Mineral Leasing
Act4 of that year removed from the operation of the Mining Law certain mm-
1 As used here the term "public lands" refers only to those lands coming within the
definition of that term in section 10 of the Commission's Organic Act, as quoted in the
Introduction and printed in full in Appendix A.
2The 1891 Act, as amended. is 16 U.S.C. i 471 (1964). Today the total of lands ad-
ministered by the Forest Service has grown to over 1S6.9 million acres in 44 states. Of
the total. 160.S million acres came from public domain lands, and the rest was acquired
from non-Federal sources. For a breakdown of acreage by states, see Appendix F.
~16 U.S.C. § 500 (1964).
30 U.S.C. § 181 et seq. (1964).
PAGENO="0497"
356
NACO SUPPORT FOR THE CONGRESSION~ REVIEW OF LARGE SCALE PUBLIC LAND
WITHDRAWALS FROM MULTIPLE USE TO SINGLE PURPOSE USE TO REFLECT THE
IMPORTANCE OF LARGE SCALE WITHDRAWALS
NACo Supports the provision in Section 204 of the Committee print requiring
Congressional approval of large scale withdrawals.
This is a key difference from HR 5224 which contains no Congressional ap-
proval provisions.
The pertinent recommendation of the Public Land Law Review Commission
is as follows:
"Large scale limited or single use withdrawals of a permanent or indefinite
term should be accomplished only by act of Congress. All other withdrawal
authority should be expressly delegated with statutory guidelines to insure
proper justification for proposed withdrawals, provide for public participation
in their consideration, and establish criteria for Executive Action."
Section 204 of the Committee print also provides for proper consultation with
state and local governments and for adequate public participation in the with-
drawal process.
NACO SUPPORT FOR THE SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS FOR PARTICIPATION BY THE PUBLIC
AND LOCAL ELECTED OFFICIALS IN THE LAND USE PLANNING PROCESS
Section 202(g) of the Committee print provides that BLM will establish
procedures for public involvement and participation in the land use planning
process. This is a fundamental requirement for successful land use planning
whether it be at the national, regional or local level. It is important that section
202(g) remain in the Act. No similar provision is included in HR 5224.
However, HR 5224 does contain a section providing for written notice to
users of public lands in the planning process (sec. 103-d). NACo supports this
provision as an addition to the Committee print.
SUPPORT FOR THE REQUIREMENT THAT DISPOSALS OF PUBLIC LAND BE CONSISTENT
WITH STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT PLANS
NACo Supports Section 203 of the Committee print that requires notification
of state and local governments by BLM prior to sales or disposals of public
land.
Many local communities in areas of large federal land holdings have restricted
opportunities to acquire land for local public purposes. First, their property
tax base has been restricted due to the tax immunity of public lands. This
limits their ability to acquire lands for local public purposes. Second, the
availability of land is restricted due to the large federal holdings.
Therefore the federal government should give preferential treatment to state
and local governments, both in the notification for sale of public lands, and
for the price charged in its disposition.
SUPPORT FOR THE SECTION TO ALLOW CONVEYANCE OF PUBLIC LANDS TO STATE
AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS FOR RECREATION PURPOSES "WITHOUT MONETARY
CONSIDERATION"
NACo supports Section 402 of the Committee print authorizing conveyance
of public lands to state and local governments at no monetary charge for recre-
ation purposes. No similar provision is included in HR 5224.
NACO RECOMMENDATION FOR ADDITION OF THE POLICY STATEMENT RECOMMENDED IN
THE PUBLIC LAND LAW REVIEW COMMISSION REPORT THAT
"If the national interest dictates that lands should be retained in Federal
ownership, it is the obligation of the United States to make certain that the
burden of that policy is spread among all the people of the United States and
is not borne only by those states and governments in whose area the lands are
located.
"Therefore, the Federal government should make payments to compensate
state and local governments for the tax immunity of Federal lands".
NACo believes the addition of this policy statement is an absolute require-
ment to the Public Land Policy and Management Act. As indicated earlier one
of the basic goals of the legislation is to provide equity to the citizens. If the
taxpaying citizens are to receive equity the Federal government must recognize
the impact on state and local government for the tax immunity of the public
lands. Without this provision in the Act we believe it will fall far Short of
producing any meaningful equity.
PAGENO="0498"
~355
states this ownership ranges from approximately 29% to 95% of the total land
in the state. The policies and guidelines established by Congress for the man-
agement and use of these lands will have an impact on the vast majority, if
not all, of our citizens.
State and local governments who provide services adjacent to and on the
public lands are extremely concerned with the actions authorized on these
lands.
In the analysis of the legislative proposals NACo considered the recommen-
dations contained in the 1970 report of the Public Land Law Review Commis-
sion made a thorough study of virtually every important issue confronting the
use of public lands during the period of 1905 to 1970. The Commission's report
contains 137 specific recommendations for executive and legislative actions to
improve management of the public lands.
The basic aim of the Public Land Law Review Commission was to provide
recommendations to "assure equitable treatment of our citizens and make the
public land laws of the U.S. and their administration simpler, more effective
and, ". . . for the maximum benefit for the general public".
NACo therefore has made reference in this testimony to specific recommen-
dations of the Public Land Law Review Commission for your Subcommittee's
consideration.
NACO SUPPORT FOR THE BASIC THRUST OF THE LEGISLATION TO ESTABLISH GOALS
AND POLIC~S FOR LAND USE PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT OF THE PUBLIC LANDS
ADMINISTERED BY BLM
NACo believes the thrust of the proposed legislation has the same basic aim
as the Public Land Law Review Commission. We wholeheartedly endor~e this
aim. With sound policies and guidelines established by Congress more equitable
treatment and benefit for the general public can be achieved.
The establishment of policies and procedures for inventory of public land
resources, a land use planning process; policies and guidelines for sales, with-
drawals, exchanges and acquisitions of public lands; and an overall legislative
framework to guide the administration of public lands is essential for sound
management and equity.
The number one recommendation of the Public Land Law Review Commis-
sion was that "goals should be established by statute for a continuing dynamic
program of land use planning". This recommendation was based on the following
reasons indicated in the Commission report:
"The Commission is not satisfied with the manner in which land use planning
is being carried out for the public lands. We find that many of the individual
problems that led to the creation of this Commission and which emerged from
our study program have their roots in an inadequate planning process.
"We are concerned, first of all, that the Congress has not established a clear
set of goals for the management and use of public lands. Thisis particularly
true for the national forests and lands administered by the Bureau of Land
Management.
"Congress has also failed, in many cases, to provide a positive mandate to
the agencies to engage in land use planning or to provide guidance concerning
the matters which they should consider in determining whether or not to dis-
pose of, or retain, Federal lands and in deciding on uses of lands that remain
in Federal ownership.
"Further, we found a lack of coordination among Federal public land man-
agement agencies at the regional and local levels, between the Federal agencies
and other units of government, and between Federal agencies and the owners
of adjacent private lands. We discovered problems caused by the lack of co-
ordination between public land agencies in nearly every aspect of public land
policy that we reviewed."
NACO SUPPORT FOR THE MULTIPLE USE CONCEPT OF THE PUBLIC LANDS
NACo supports the multiple use provisions in the Committee print, Section
102 (a) (7) and 103(c). Similar sections are also included in HR 5224.
We believe this concept will allow the Bureau of Land Management sufficient
flexibility in its administration of the public lands through the land use plan-
ning process.
This concept allows for designation of primary uses for specific lands while
permitting other compatible uses.
PAGENO="0499"
354
Support for the Multiple Use Concept for management of the public lands.
Support for Congressional review of large scale public land withdrawals from
multiple use to single purpose use (to reflect the importance of large scale
withdrawals, not to reflect as criticism of BLM administration).
Support for the specific requirements for participation by the public and
local elected officials in the land use planning process.
Support for the requirement that disposals of public land be consistent with
state and local government plans.
Support for the section to allow conveyance of public lands to state and local
government for recreation purposes "witout monetary consideration".
Further, Commissioner Rustad's testimony includes the following NACo en-
dorsed recommendations for changes in the proposed legislation:
Addition of the policy statement recommended in the Public Land Law Re-
view Commission Report that:
"If the national interest dictates that lands should be retained in Federal
ownership, it is the obligation of the United States to make certain that the
burden of that policy is spread among all the people of the United States and
is not borne only by those states and governments in whose area the lands
are located.
"Therefore, the Federal government should make payments to compensate
state and local governments for the tax immunity of Federal lands."
Deletion of the section titled "cost-share road authorization" which would
allow purchase credit road construction of a single-purpose nature in violation
of the multiple use concept for public lands.
Modification of the provision establishing authorizing local advisory councils
to make these councils mandatory.
Addition of a provision as recommended in the Public Land Law Review
Commission Report prohibiting the authorization of uses on public lands that
are inconsistent with state or local zoning regulations unless BLM makes a
finding that overriding national interest requires the use.
Deletion of the section authorizing BLM employees to carry firearms, serve
warrants, make arrests, etc., and instead support for the section encouraging
cooperation with existing state and local law enforcement on public lands.
Deletion of the provision in the wilderness study section requiring treatment
during the study period of all roadless areas as wilderness rather than on a
basis determined by the land use management process.
As an appendix to the testimony a report is submitted to the Committee that
was prepared for NACo by Mr. Ken Tollenaar, Director, Bureau of Govern-
ment Research and Service, University of Oregon.
The report points out the problems related to "purchaser road credits" on
National Forest Roads which result in single purpose road construction and
poor land management. The same problems would result if such a practice
were to be authorized for BLM lands.
STATEMENT OF KENNETH RUSTAD, COMMISSIONER, FALLON COUNTY, MONT., ON
BEHALF OF THE NATIONAL AssocIATION OF COUNTIES (NACo), SUBMITTED BY
JIM EVANS, NACo LEGISLATIVE REPRESENTATIVE
Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee: This statement is made
on behalf of the National Association of Counties (NACo), the only organization
at the national level representing county governments on a nationwide basis.
The purpose of the testimony is to provide support, and recommend several
amendments, to be proposed Public Land Policy and Management Act of 1975.
This Act would establish policy and guidelines for the management, protection.
development and enhancement of the public lands now administered by the
Bureau of Land Management (BLM), U.S. Department of Interior.
For this statement an analysis has been made of the Subcommittee print
number 1, dated March 18, 1975, titled: PUBLIC LAND POLICY AND MAN-
AGEMENT ACT OF 1975. NACo has also analyzed the bill before your sub-
committee, HR 5224, titled: NATURAL RESOURCE LANDS MANAGEMENT
ACT. However, the emphasis of this testimony is on the Subcommittee print
unless otherwise specifically referenced.
NACo believes the legislation under consideration by your Subcommittee is
one of the most important Act before the 94th Congress. The federal govern-
ment owns more than 1 million acres of land in 31 of the states and in 12
PAGENO="0500"
PUBLIC LAND POLICY AND MANAGEMENT ACT OF 1975
FRIDAY, APRIL 11, 1975
HOuSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
SuBco~rMrrrEE ON PUBLIC LANDS OF THE
COMMIr2EE ON INTERIOR AND INSULAR AFFAIRS,
Washington, D.C.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:45 a.m. in room
1324, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. John Melcher (chair-
man of the subcommittee) presiding.
Mr. MELOHER. The Subcommittee on Public Lands will come to
order. WTe will continue our hearings this morning on H.R. 5524
and H.R. 5622 and the subcommittee print No. 1. First of all I want
to run through the witness list to see who is here.
Mr. Edwards.
Mr. EDWARDS. Yes, I am here.
Mr. MELCHER. George Alderson and Harry are here, `and my good
friend, Kenneth Rustad, is not here. As I understand it, he is sub-
mitting his statement for the record.
Without objection, the statement of Kenneth Rustad, commis-
sioner, Fallon County, Mont., director, National Association of
Counties Western Region District Board, and chairman, Natural Re-
sources Committee for the Montana Association of Counties-his
statement will be made part of the record at this point.
Without objection, so ordered.
[The prepared statement of Kenneth Rustad follows:]
SUMMARY OF THE STATEMENT SUBMITTED BY KENNETH RUSTAD, CoMMISsIoNER,
FALLON COUNTY, MONT., DIRECTOR, NACo WESTERN REGION DISTRICT BOARD;
CHAIRMAN, NATURAL RESOURCES COMMITTEE FOR THE MONTANA ASSOCIATION OF
COUNTIES
The Statement Submitted by Commissioner Kenneth Rustad, is made on be-
half of the National Association of Counties (NACo), the only organization
representing county government at the national level.
The purpose of the testimony is to provide support, and recommend several
amendments, to the proposed Public Land Policy and Management Act of 1975.
This Act would establish policy and guidelines for the management, protection,
development and enhancement of the public lands now administered by the
Bureau of Land Management (BLM), U.S. Department of Interior.
In the testimony it is pointed out that NACo believes the proposed Public
Land Policy Management Act is one of the most important pieces of legislation
being considered by this Congress. NACo also encourages the Committee to
consider the recommendations of the Public Land Law Review Commission in
its deliberations.
The testimony by Commissioner Rustad highlights the following points:
Support for the basic thrust of the legislation to establish goals and policies
for land use planning and management of the, public lands administered by
BLM.
(353)