on a cumulative basis act to block or delay the attainment of programs nationally.

We view the procedural requirements of section 601 (b) and section 603 of the amendment as unduly cumbersome and duplicative of existing policies and practices.

The Executive Office of the President through the Office of Management and Budget in furtherance of title IV of the Intergovernmental Cooperation Act of 1968, section 204 of the Demonstration Cities and Metropolitan Development Act of 1966 and the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 issued Circulars A-85 and 95 which provide a comprehensive intergovernmental review and coordination procedure applicable to Federal agency rulemaking and Federal assistance programs and projects.

Part II of OMB Circular A-95 requires that agencies having responsibilities for direct Federal development, including the acquisition, use, and disposal of Federal land and real property will consult with Governors and local elected officials, as well as with A-95 clearinghouses, usually comprehensive planning agencies, to assure consistency of Federal plans and projects with State, area wide, and local plans and programs.

Senator HASKELL. Are you talking about a statute or regulations? Chief MCGUIRE. They contain direction but they elaborate on such laws as the Intergovernmental Cooperation Act and the National Environmental Policy Act.

A-95 procedures are also applicable to the development and review of environmental statements prepared pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act.

We view these procedures as more appropriate than establishing a new system of ad hoc Federal and State joint committees to review jurisdictional conflicts and inconsistencies between Federal plans and State and local plans.

Present procedures are aimed at providing Federal and State coordination over a wide range of Federal and State interests rather than a separate procedure applicable to only one aspect of Federal, State coordination.

We are also concerned that the proposed ad hoc committee procedures contained in the amendments do not appropriately recognize the role and responsibility of Federal officials, other than the Secretary of the Interior, in cooperating and consulting with State Governors and other State officials.

The Secretary of Agriculture through the Forest Service, for example, has broad responsibilities, carried out through the State foresters or other State officials, to coordinate insect, disease and fire control activities on both Federal and adjacent non-Federal lands. We also provide a broad range of technical assistance regarding agricultural and forest land resources to State planning groups for use in their water and related land resource planning.

We are also concerned with the provisions of section 601 (b). This section appears to expand on the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 by requiring statements to be prepared on the consistency of Federal policies and programs with State and local land-use planning.

This would be a time-consuming process, duplicating existing coordinating procedures and present NEPA requirements.

The National Environmental Policy Act now requires the preparation of environmental statements on major Federal actions significantly affecting the environment.

Our guidelines for the preparation of environmental statements require that the relationship of a proposed action to land use plans, policies, and controls for the affected area be described.

The Council on Environmental Quality and agency guidelines provide for the comment and review of environmental statements by affected State and local agencies in accordance with the procedures set forth in OMB Circular A-95.

We believe that environmental statement and the associated review procedures established under the National Environmental Policy Act provide an appropriate level of review of Federal actions as they relate to State and local concerns.

This concludes my formal statement. I will be happy to answer questions.

Senator HASKELL. Thank you, Chief. I suppose you and I could agree on this. If we are going to have a land resource planning assistance bill and ask the States to do some planning, particularly in western States, where there is so much Federal land, we have to be sure the Federal Government is in gear.

I guess we could start with that premise and then I guess the question is how best to get the job done. Your suggestion is, present procedures get the job done principally through these OMB Circulars.

Chief MCGUIRE. That is correct, Mr. Chairman. That is the principal guideline, but we do agree the job needs to be done.

The States vary quite a bit. The Federal Government also varies. In a State, such as yours, where land planning must be closely coordinated other States, such as Kansas, Nebraska, Oklahoma, the situation is quite a bit different, as far as we are concerned.

I think we need to work out the best procedures for each State, rather than make them all conform to a single pattern.

Senator HASKELL. I would agree with that. Counsel has just informed me that most of the Western States have criticized this amendment as being too heavily balanced toward the Federal Government. I gather that your view is quite the opposite.

Chief MCGUIRE. It depends on what sections of the amendment you read, Mr. Chairman.

Senator HASKELL. I see. I wonder, Chief, if it would be possible— maybe you have done all that you can in your statement for you to indicate how we could best achieve this coordination.

But, if you have any further thoughts on the subject, we would appreciate it if you would send those our way. I hate to depend on OMB regulations-I do ont think that is a good basis to work from. Chief MCGUIRE. We certainly will, Mr. Chairman.

Senator HASKELL. Thank you very much, Chief McGuire. Our next witness is John Goodier, appearing on behalf of the Governor of Wyoming.

Mr. Goodier, it is good to welcome you here.

STATEMENT OF JOHN GOODIER, CHIEF, MINERAL DEVELOPMENT DIVISION, WYOMING DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT, APPEARING ON BEHALF OF HON. ED HERSCHLER, GOVERNOR OF THE STATE OF WYOMING

Mr. GOODIER. In view of the long list of people who will testify later on, I think most of the committee has a copy of our prepared statement and I will summarize it as I go through.

Senator HASKELL. That is fine. Submit it for the record and then just summarize it.

Mr. GOODIER. My name is John T. Goodier and I am chief of the Mineral Development Division of the Wyoming Department of Economic Planning and Development and I am here on behalf of the Governor of the State of Wyoming.

We find S. 507, the National Resource Land Management Act, is a very important bill to Wyoming, since out of Wyoming some 62 million acres, approximately 48 percent, is controlled by various Federal agencies.

The Bureau of Land Management administers about 30 percent of that total Federal land. One of the predominant uses, of course, is grazing.

We have some 1,100 operators who graze on section 3 lands and some 1,700 operators who graze on section 15 lands.

In addition to agriculture, we have some 90 coal leases on Federal lands in Wyoming today. Our projections have indicated in excess of 100 million tons of coal per year will be produced from these leases by 1985.

Many other minerals such as oil, gas, uranium and bentonite are produced from these lands administered by the BLM.

The act is a far-reaching land management act for the National Resources Lands, but we are pleased to see it will be managed for multiple use and sustained yield, since western agriculture and mineral producers must be able to use these lands if they are to continue to contribute their share to the food, fiber, and mineral needs of the Nation and the world.

In section 6, table of contents, concerning advisory boards and committees, we think that they should be made up of local people similar to the Taylor Grazing Act Advisory Board with permittees and other users as members.

Section 101, paragraph 3, on revocations or suspensions, we are not sure as we read the bill, but we think people should at least have a warning before they are hit with a suspension or revocation.

Senator HASKELL. I would concur with that. Is there an opportunity for this? Counsel says that we do have it. I think that is very important.

Mr. GOODIER. In section 103, we believe section 103 and section 601 in the amendments should be combined. There appears to be some duplication.

These sections fairly well state that the Federal Government will be the authority over all Federal land and it appears they will be authority for adjacent, private, and non-Federal lands.

We feel Federal and State land use plans must be developed and coordinated in accordance with common goals and objectives.

Senator HASKELL. I think that this is very important.

Chief McGuire addressed the other side of the coin. Is it your opinion the bill as written gives the Government authority to adjacent, State or private lands? We do not want the Federal lands infringing on the Federal.

Mr. GOODIER. It is a two-edge sword. You do not want either party dictating to the other party. How you coordinate it remains to be seen.

Wyoming passed a Land Use Planning law in the last session and hopefully, this could be coordinated with Federal action along those lines, but it is a fear that we have.

Senator HASKELL. I understand.

Mr. GOODIER. In section 104(b), we may not understand it completely, but it appears to us any holder of a recorded mining claim has to apply for a patent within 5 years after the date of the enactment of this act or the date of location of a claim.

This appears to force the holders of mining claims to apply for a patent even if they do not have a mineral survey. This may create a logjam on patent applications and in many years, it will take years to take the patent and we wonder if some of the operators might have a questionable right on those mining claims.

Senator HASKELL. In other words, it is your theory that 5 years is too short a time to ask the owner of the mining claim to take a patent.

Mr. GOODIER. If I understand it correctly, sir, before you can go to patent, the geological survey or some Federal agency that has expertise in minerals is supposed to do the mineral survey of the claim or a piece of land that has been taken to patent.

I wonder if they will have time to do all of these in a 5-year period. To survey and nd out if it is truly a producible mineral deposit.

Senator HASKELL. Certainly, if delay was due to the Federal Government a person should not be foreclosed. The administration bill has a 3-year time limit.

But, that is neither here nor there. I think the idea is to get these claims to patent or dropped. Certainly, if there is a delay caused by action of the Federal Government, this should not affect the private individual.

Mr. GOODIER. Either get them to patent or off the books, but I do not know what the time frame should be. If it is a mineral property and a man is operating without a patent, he may be in jeopardy. We do not quite understand his legal position. Now, section 202, concerning disposal criteria states land can be disposed of, either under the sale of authority or in accordance with existing law. We are especially concerned, the repeal of the Desert Land Entry law, as it concerns agriculture, however, the ease of obtaining a Desert Land Entry must be simplified.

We are also concerned with the sale criteria. We would hope that those areas adjacent to towns suffering impact that lands could be conveyed to these towns, rather than sold on a competitive bid procedure.

If they are sold, we would hope it would be a price the towns can afford to pay. Section 204 concerns size of tracts and says, where any such tract is sold for agricultural use, it shall be no larger than necessary to support a family sized farm.

Our concern here is what criteria will be used in determining family sized farms. You will understand, it is the criteria of the area and the climate and we have some questions on that.

Section 208 specifies the Secretary may convey mineral interests of the United States where the surface is in non-Federal ownership. It further states that if any mineral development takes place within 20 years, the mineral interest revert back to the Federal Government.

This seems, to us, to be restrictive and if these minerals may be of great value to the nation and in all probability they will not be developed prior to the expiration of that 20-year period.

Section 213 specifies methods the Secretary may use to acquire land. One of the methods provided is for eminent domain.

No acquisition should be made without adequate public participation in the area of planned acquisition. Section 304 discusses deposits and forfeitures, and in (A) discusses who should maintain

roads.

In some cases, the users of these roads will be the general public. It does not seem quite fair for the private user to pay for the maintenance of a road that has general public use.

On Section 309, the California Desert Area-we are not qualified to discuss it per se, but we wonder if there may not be other geographic areas under BLM that are also unique and should be considered as separate entities.

Senator HASKELL. This area in California is within a few hours drive of massive population centers.

Mr. GOODIER. So, it has a large impact.

Senator HASKELL. Yes.

Mr. GOODIER. Section 310, oil shale revenues. This section is excellent as far as States with pending oil shale development are concerned.

At this time, it would affect only Colorado or Utah with the possibility of Wyoming having oil shale development in the future. We suggest that this section be amended to include the revenues from all mineral sources. Wyoming and other public land States are facing serious impact problems from coal developments and their legislature should have as much latitude with all mineral revenues as is being granted under this section to the use of oil shale revenues. Senator HASKELL. I think that there is something pending along those lines. Senator Metcalf is here and he is chairman of the Minerals, Materials, and Fuels Subcommittee.

He may want to talk about it.

Senator METCALF. Mr. Chairman, as you know, my subcommittee has been involved in strip mining. Hopefully, that whole problem will be resolved by next week.

I have assured you that the next hearings will be on oil shale. Senator HASKELL. We are very much aware, Mr. Goodier, as both Senator Metcalf and I will agree, of the desirability of expanding