only way to assure equitable treatment would be to recognize and provide for a compensable interest. A few general remarks on the granting of easements are pertinent. If S. 507 is modified by use of our suggestions, it would facilitate the exchange of rights-of-way and road use in the intermingled forest lands so common in western Oregon. The reason for cooperation is obvious when one recognizes that without it there could be thousands of miles of unnecessary duplicating roads, difficulties in obtaining access to property on the part of both the Government and the intermingled private owners and unduly complicating the protection and management of the total land area on which our economy heavily depends, preventing the construction of unnecessary duplicating roads, also has the bonus of less environmental impact, and better access with less cost to every one. I would like to comment briefly on some of the specific language in other parts of S. 507 which I believe need smoothing out to prevent unnecessary disruption in the management of the lands protected and managed by the Bureau of Land Management. In section 3, line 4, page 5, the phrase "maintenance of a livable environment" should be broadly defined to include recognition of the need for commodities, jobs, and the renewability of those resources such as trees, forage, and water, through management and use. Under the definition in section 2, we would recommend that following the word "resources" on line 24, page 3, the following be inserted: "and the part they play in supplying food, fiber and other necessities." In section 101 (2), lines 4 through 9, page 9, it is obvious to us that this section is intended to cover surface mining of nonrenewable resources, but a broad construction of it might imply that timber harvesting is also covered. Because the Government itself, as the landowner, undertakes the reforestation of harvested and burned-over forest lands, it should be made abundantly clear that this section does not construe timber harvesting as "extraction." I might note, parenthetically, that I am co-author of the textbook used in Northern American Schools, and nowhere in that book, Senator, to the best of my recollection, is the word "extraction" used in connection with the harvesting of timber. We appreciate greatly having the opportunity to discuss S. 507 with your committee, Mr. Chairman, and hope that our suggestions will be helpful in completing your efforts with the bill. [The prepared statement of Mr. Hagenstein follows:] INDUSTRIAL FORESTRY ASSOCIATION SERVING FOREST OWNERS, LOGGERS, WOOD USERS 1220 S.W. COLUMBIA STREET PORTLAND, OREGON 97201 Telephone: (503) 222-9505 Statement of W. D. Hagenstein, Executive Vice President on S. 507 before the Subcommittee on Public Lands Senate Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs Washington, D. C. Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee: My name is W. D. Hagenstein and I reside in Portland, Oregon. I am a professional forester. I am a registered professional engineer in the States of Washington and Oregon and a registered professional forester in the State of California. am Executive Vice President of the Industrial Forestry Association which has been working for a permanent timber supply for the forest industry of the Douglas Fir Region in Western Washington, Western Oregon and Northwestern California for 41 years. Timber supply is our Association's only function and everything we do is directed to that end. Industrial 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 different logging operations in our Region. They employ 90,000 people. The annual payroll of their employees is nearly $1 billion. Because of the importance of the revested Oregon and California Railroad and Reconveyed Coos Bay Wagon Road Grant Lands to the economy of Western Oregon, the Informed Fore-try Action - 2 Members of our Association have a vital interest in any legislation which may affect them. Our Membership owns more than two million acres of forestlands intermingled with the O & 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. Therefore, we must carefully consider anything which proposes to modify the policies under which these lands are administered and managed and to support any improvement thereof. Generally, the proposal for a "BLM Organic Act," which is proposed in S. 507, meets wide public acceptance because it is obviously an attempt to consolidate, in one basic statute, various authorities and responsibilities now widely separated in the United States Code. We would like to address ourselves primarily to Title IV, which relates to the exchange of rights-of-way and road use and then discuss some of the philosophical considerations in other sections and propose some suggestions for language modifi cation. Preliminary to discussing Title IV in detail so as to make certain that the rest of the Bill relates to it as appropriate, we would suggest insertion in Sec. 101 (1), after the word "leases" on line 22, page 8, the phrase "grant of easements." In Sec. 101 (3) we would also recommend, following the word "leases" on line 10, page 9, the insertion of the phrase "grant of easements.' Sec. 304 (d) should be amended to require that if any deposit or forfeiture not needed for performing maintenance occurs, such amount be returned to the party making such deposit or forfeiture. In other words, if more monies are estimated than are needed for the performance of maintenance, why should they be covered into the Treasury as a miscellaneous receipt? It is common for people to overestimate costs and in many business relationships between private parties excess estimates are refunded to the depositor once the work has been performed. A business relationship between the Government and a private citizen should be no different. - 3 In Sec. 211 we recommend that after the word "patents" in line 16, page 19, the phrase "grant of easements" be inserted. The foregoing recommendations for insertion of the phrase "grant of easements" will be consistent with the definition contained in Sec. 2 (f) which sets forth "easement" as the first definition of "right-of-way" (line 15, page 4). We don't understand the reason for including the burdensome disclosure provisions contained in Sec. 401 (b), (1) and (2). It doesn't seem to us that such should be applicable to rights-of-way granted over national resource lands for forest protection and management of intermingled or adjacent non-Federal lands. We also believe that it is appropriate in Title IV to add a new Section, probably between present Secs. 401 and 402, which would authorize and direct the Secretary of the Interior to enter into agreements which would grant easements 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 (16 U.S.C. 533 and 534), which reads as follows: "The Secretary (of Agriculture) is authorized, under such regulations as Substitute "Interior" for "Agriculture," "BLM" for "Forest Service" and "national resource" for "national forest" for applicability to the Department of the Interior. In Sec. 403 (a) the word "practicable" in line 13 needs clearer definition. We would suggest that following the word "as" in line 13 the sentence be concluded by adding ''may be indicated by the proportionate values involved." What is being sought here apparently is to do no more surveying than indicated by the circumstances. Sec. 403 (d) directs the Secretary to revise regulations regularly for the apparent purpose of requiring that activities in connection with a specific rightof-way will be in accordance with applicable air and water quality standards and to prevent damage to the environment, property and public health and safety. Any such revision 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 increased 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 National Environmental Policy Act doesn't already take care of the substance of Sec. 403 (d) because if any activities are considered "significant," they should be studied, but, if not, then the activity should be allowed to proceed expeditiously. ge A few general remarks on the granting of easements pertinent. If S. 507 is modified by use of our suggestions, it would facilitate the exchange of rights-of-way and road use in the intermingled forest lands so common in Western Oregon. The reason for cooperation is obvious when one recognizes that without it there could be thousands of miles of unnecessary duplicating roads, difficulties in obtaining access to property on the part of both the Government and the intermingled private owners and unduly complicating the protection and management of the total land area on which our economy heavily depends. Preventing the construction of unnecessary duplicating roads also has the bonus of less environmental impact and better access with less cost to everyone. I would like to comment briefly on some of the specific language in other parts of S. 507 which I believe need smoothing out to prevent unnecessary disruption in the management of the lands protected and managed by the Bureau of Land Management. In Sec. 3, line 4, page 5, the phrase "maintenance of a livable environment" |