also to the Forest Service, the timber industry and the general public. NACO's Western Regional District could develop a proposed policy statement at its March 1975 meeting in Albuquerque, for submission and adoption 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, there would be little argument that purchaser 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 between these extremes lie a number of types of roads and a variety of circumstances which, considering both short and long range factors, might tilt the judgment one way or another. Some effort to define these considerations 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 types of National Forests. Obviously, forests which contain little commercial timber are inappropriate for purchaser credit financing. 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' revenue 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 to 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 Appendix A Excerpt from1 "Timber Sales Policies and Procedures on National Forests in Relation to Short run Timber Supply" by Carl Newport ROADS "Roads are needed on national forests for expediting sales, increasing timber 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 purchasers 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. Submarginal timber could be sold, more partial cuts and more salvage and commercial 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 investments 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 fluctuations. 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-byforest basis. This would provide the basis for grassroots pressure on Congress and OMB to get the necessary financing and would relate performance directly to extra timber supply, including the advantages of flexibility...." 1. Payne, Brain R. "Accelerated Road building on the North Umpqua--An Economic Analysis." USDA Appendix G of Report of the President's Advisory Panel on Timber and the Environment, Washington, U.S. Government Printing Office, 1973, P. 222. Mr. MELCHER. 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 statement for the record. Mr. MELCHER. Without objection, Mr. Edwards' entire statement will be made a part of the record at this point. Hearing no objection, it is so ordered. [The prepared statement of Howard L. Edwards follows:] STATEMENT OF HOWARD L. EDWARDS, VICE PRESIDENT AND SECRETARY, 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 Management 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 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. Mr. Chairman, our industry has followed with interest the development of the proposed legislation. Industry representatives have participated in the comprehensive 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 management 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 H.R. 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 poliey 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. Notwithstanding the mandate of 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 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 important objective of the legislation. 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 claiming 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. RECORDATION OF MINING CLAIMS AND ABANDONMENT First, Section 207, requiring the recordation of mining claims, has the approval 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 Location 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 recordation 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 Interior Department, are abandoned. The effect of this type of provision would be to eliminate the impediment on titles caused by literally millions of abandoned mining claims. Over the years, the most persistent criticism of the general mining law has been directed to the build-up of the mining claims of record 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 recording 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 surveyed by registered mineral surveyors, and plats of mineral survey must be prepared by the cadastral engineers of the Bureau of Land Management. Today, 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 percent of active mining claims. The second reason why the patent requirement is unreasonable is because of the policies of the Interior Department that discourage the patenting of claims. In 1971, 18 patents for 1,666 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 54-005-75- -25 requirements as interpreted by the Interior Department, and many active mining 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. Section 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 Secretary 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 descriptions. The Section could be strengthened, however, by providing that the authority to correct does not grant the authority to change any terms, conditions, 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 interfering with appropriate non-mineral development, and that such development 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 initiated, 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 discovered 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 authorize exploration or development on 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 |