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 the public lands each year. 15. Section 403(f) - Reimbursement for Administrative Costs On page 40, line 21, after the word "however" insert the following: 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 incurred in processing the application and in monitoring construction. Under the cost-share road program, the Forest Service and 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 administrative 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. 16. Section 409 - Compliance with State Standards On page 45, line 6, after the word "standards," insert the words: "for similar purposes..." Explanation Section 509 - "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 destructive in many cases, and entirely inappropriate. To allow the the necessary flexibility in judging the merits of each situation under this provision, the above amendment is offered. National Forest Products Association National Forest Roads and Trails • Act of October 13, 1964 (78 Stat. 1089; 16 U.S.C. 532-538) Sec. 1. The Congress hereby finds and declares that the construction and maintenance of an adequate system of roads and trails within and near the national forests and other lands administered 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 Agriculture (hereinafter called the Secretary) to provide for intensive use, protection, development, and management of these lands under principles of multiple use and sustained yield of products and services. (16 U.S.C. 532) Sec. 2. The Secretary 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 Department of Agriculture 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 owner of the easement, 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 cancel and be given, upon his request made within sixty days after receipt of the notice, a hearing in accordance with such rules and regulations as may be issued by the Secretary. (16 U.S.C. 534) Sec. 4. The Secretary is authorized to provide for the acquisition, construction, and maintenance of forest development roads within and near the national forests and other lands administered by the Forest Service in locations and according to specifications which will permit maximum economy in harvesting timber from such lands tributary to such roads and at the same time meet the requirements 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 agen cies or persons, or (4) by a combination of these methods: Provided, That where roads of, a higher standard 1 that needed in the harvesting and removal of the timber and other products covered by the particular sale are to be constructed the purchaser of the national forest timber and other products shall not be required to bear that part of the costs necessary 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 executed 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 control of the Forest Service, including purchasers of Government timber and other products, to maintain such roads in a satisfactory condition commensurate 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 reconstruction is determined to be necessary to accommodate such use. If such maintenance 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 expended to cover the cost to the United States of accomplishing the purposes for which deposited: Provided, That deposits received for work on adjacent and overlapping areas may be combined when it is the most practicable and efficient manner of performing the work, and cost thereof may be determined by estimates: And provided further, That unexpended balances upon accomplishment of the purpose for which deposited shall be transferred to miscellaneous receipts 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 with, the national forests and other lands administered by the Forest Service a right-of-way or easement for a road or an existing road or the right to use an existing road provides for delayed payments to the Government's grantor, any fees or other collections received by the Secretary for the use of the road may be placed in a fund to be available for making payments to the grantor. (16 U.S.C. 538) Senator HASKELL. If we have any further questions on the amendments, we will be in touch with you. Thank you. The next witness is Mr. Robert Riley of the American Institute of Architects. Mr. Riley, I might make the same suggestion to you that I did with others, if you could summarize your statement it would be particularly helpful. STATEMENT OF ROBERT B. RILEY, MEMBER, REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES COMMITTEE OF THE AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF ARCHITECTS; ACCOMPANIED BY JOHN GAILLARD, DIRECTOR OF HOUSING AND URBAN PROGRAMS Mr. RILEY. My name is Robert Riley, a member of the Regional Development and Natural Resources Committee of the American Institute of Architects. Accompanying me today is John Gaillard, the institute's director of housing and urban programs. Today, the American Institute of Architects, the national society for the architectural profession, wishes to express its views on the need for sound management and planning of the natural resource lands, with special emphasis on S. 507 and S. 1292, proposals for a National Resource Lands Management Act. The AIA has developed a policy statement on the National Resource Lands. I request that this be entered in the hearing record as part of our full statement. I will not take your time by reading it now, but would like to summarize, briefly, some of the points we consider most important. We believe that Congress should clearly affirm Federal intent to keep the bulk of these lands in public ownership, affirming thereby what has in fact been the policy of the last several decades, but not the letter of the existing but ancient legislation. We also feel that such a policy must be supplemented by a process of acquisition, trade, interagency transfer, and disposal aimed at getting land under the management most appropriate to its use. Once such long-term Federal control has been affirmed, there is immediate need for three steps: (1) clear definition of the goals and policy of BLM land management, including careful distinction between such goals and policies and those more appropriate to other Federal agencies and to the private sector; (2) a comprehensive inventory of the capability and suitability of all Federal and certain relevant private lands in relation to those goals; and (3) a comprehensive land use plan for the public lands to achieve those goals. When, but not until, those steps have been achieved, the necessary acquisition, transfer, and disposal process should begin. In general, we feel that where there is any doubt as to land use or suitability, land must remain in public ownership; in general, we feel that exchange is preferable to sale. Acquisition, transfer, or disposal must aim at assembling workable and identifiable packages of land and at ending the decades-long "picking over" process which has left the Federal Government with the lands no one wanted, and a crazy quilted, unmanageable intermingling of holdings. Mineral rights should be retained by the public and, since lands would be disposed of only in relation to a long-range land use plan, controls should insure that land released for a specific purpose be developed only for that purpose. In any case, public land should be disposed of only upon clear demonstration that the larger public interest is better served by private ownership of a particular piece of land. Policy and plans should clearly establish the priority of public use over private use; the priority of long run, truly sustained yield over short run uses responding to quickened cycles of market changes; and the priority, in general, of multiple-use over single- or dominantuse concepts. Single- or dominant-use management should be used to protect critical or unique values or resources, but not to minimize economic return nor to simplify decision making or management. The BLM should be given the power to classify lands for specific uses rather than having to rely upon withdrawal, the power of policing all lands under its authority, and the power to institute and enforce controls over lands released to private ownership. BLM lands should be included under the Wilderness Act. Wilderness establishment and maintenance should be consistent across all Federal lands and subject to the will and scrutiny of Congress, not dependent upon the changing policies and personnel of administrative agencies. Legislation and management programs should clearly spell out the goal of protecting and promoting overall environmental quality on the public lands. This includes not only the maintenance of physical productivity but the preservation and enhancement of visual, social, historical, and cultural values as well. Control programs should protect and enhance the entire range of socially desirable assets and resources, and not concentrate only on "uniqueness" or "irreplaceable resources." On the question of mining and mineral extractions, we believe strongly that the Mining Act of 1872 must be repealed and replaced by legislation which recognizes the needs and life of this country in the 20th century. Senator HASKELL. I believe the administration sent up a bill to change the 1872 law and I think Senator Metcalf has some amendments to that. That is the place to address that question. Mr. RILEY. We realize that such legislation might best be treated separately from a BLM Organic Act, but we wish to emphasize its importance. We believe that any legislation in this area, however, must aim at three goals. First is clear recognition that mining or energy development is only one land use to be balanced against others on the merits of each proposal and each land unit: automatic priority of mineral or energy development over any other use, whether explicit in law or implied in policy, is unwise and unacceptable. Second, all mineral leasing legislation should provide for strict and specific environmental quality standards, including air quality, water quality, and land use. Lastly, legislation and enforcement should insure that land patented for mining is not used for other purposes, and that where public mineral rights are relinquished, because of conflict with other uses, such rights are not subsequently used for private profit. Some of these proposals will be opposed on the grounds that they will restrict the production or raise the cost of energy and food, or that they will bankrupt small ranching as a business and a way of life, claims which might seem understandable and persuasive. We believe that there are two compelling answers to most such arguments |