Then we have Eugene Zumwalt, Assistant Director, Range and Forestry; Leon Nadeau, Chief, Division of Range Management; Edwin Zaidlicz, Chief, Division of Forest Management; Robert McCarthy, who is Chief of the Branch of Operations and Procedures.

Over here is Assistant Director Jerry O'Callaghan, who is in charge of our planning and legislation.

Mr. ASPINALL. Mr. Chairman, these are mostly those who will be in attendance upon the committee during the coming session and we are glad to welcome them this morning.

STATEMENT OF KARL S. LANDSTROM, DIRECTOR, BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT

Mr. LANDSTROM. Mr. Chairman, we have offered to the committee a packet of materials containing pamphlets and literature which is available. Included in that is a list of publications of the Bureau of Land Management.

I may say at this point, Mr. Chairman, that our public information services are operating at somewhat reduced speed this year because the Congress saw fit last year to place a specific limit upon our information services, which we hope, however, will not entirely prevent us from getting out essential information.

Mr. Chairman, nearly 2 years ago on February 21, 1961, I had the privilege of appearing before this committee to explain the situation and outlook at that time concerning the Bureau of Land Management. I had only just been appointed Director of the Bureau after having served 2 years as a committee consultant on public lands, mines and mining. But already in the short period from my appointment on February 1, 1961, and the day of those hearings, several major actions had been taken which I reported to the committee. Quite a few other developments have since occurred.

Among those events has been a quite active exchange of correspondence between this committee and the Interior Department. Incidentally, one of the events which was very pleasurable last fall was the visit of the chairman of the full committee to the fall meeting of the National Advisory Board Council which was held in Las Vegas. We had the pleasure of listening to Chairman Aspinall address our State directors, the full National Council and other guests.

Therefore, I would like to say there has been a close coordination. between this committee and the Bureau of Land Management during the past 2 years.

I will not say that everything in the past 2 years has transpired just as I thought it would transpire or as I would have liked to have seen it transpire. I will say, however, that conditions have been favorable for constructive actions. Under the conservation programs of the President and Secretary Udall and in cooperation with this committee and many others, many of the changes that my associates and I had proposed have either been accomplished or are in process.

Some of the main things discussed with the committee 2 years ago were: (1) multiple use management, (2) public land withdrawals and reservations, (3) reform of the public land laws, (4) the backlog of public land cases and appeals, and the moratorium of February 1961, (5) a long-range program for public lands, and (6) public informa

tion services and the problem of unethical promoters. These topics are all worthy of further review and there are a number of others.

Mr. Chairman, my presentation today touches on nine topics; (1) background on the land itself, (2) management of land resources, (3) withdrawals and reservations, (4) outdoor recreation, (5) grazing and multiple use, (6) grazing fees, (7) forest management, (8) management of mineral resources, and (9) legislative proposals.

At the close of my presentation I am sure that there will be other additional topics that committee members will wish to raise; or, if you prefer, I should be glad to entertain questions at any time.

The Bureau of Land Management is unique among the land management agencies of the Federal Government. It is authorized both to dispose and to manage the public lands committed to its jurisdiction. I know that in some quarters this is thought to be an inherent contradiction and, hence, an impossibility. We in the Bureau of Land Management do not consider it so. We believe that it is a challenge. Because of this double responsibility there are no simple solutions to any specific situation. To reinforce this point I have in my office and distributed throughout the Bureau, a poster, half of it black and half of it white with a notation "Public Land Management is not like this." We deal mostly with "gray" areas.

The amazing variety of conditions encountered on the land has led almost inescapably to their present multiple use administration. In the past 2 years certain gains have been made in this connection, as will be indicated further along.

I would like to stress at that point that the public lands are becoming much more important to the country as a whole. The Bureau of Land Management should not be viewed anymore as just a western bureau, or just a bureau that deals with stockmen, because many other user groups, the timber industry, oil and gas industry, many recreationists and others who are interested in outdoor recreation, sportsmen, those interested in wildlife, and many other groups, are interested in the administration of the public land.

Mr. Chairman, there has been some discussion, I think in the committee, about the term "national land reserve." The term "national land reserve" was taken, perhaps directly, from the message of President Kennedy in his natural resources message of February 23, 1961. President Kennedy referred to lands withdrawn by the Taylor Grazing Act or the Executive orders as "a vital national reserve that should be devoted to productive use now and maintained for future generations."

I know that there have been hesitations in some quarters in embracing this concept because to some the word "reserve" means a locking up. This is not the intention. The President's reference to "productive use now," together with the phrase "as well as maintained for future generations," means, we think, that neither present nor future use will arbitrarily be preferred above the other.

I think the term "national land reserve" could be better understood as being analogous to the term "reserve" as it is used in mining enterprises. An ore "reserve" in any successful mining venture is carefully studied with respect to its site, extent, quality, and surroundings along with other considerations. It is placed in productive use upon a plan devised from the study. It is maintained for future genera

tions by being worked according to a rational plan. In short, it is used wisely both currently and for the future.

Wise use means multiple use which is a shorthand way of saying that in the land system as a whole all worthy uses will be accorded a place without arbitrary distinction.

I am hopeful that the Department of the Interior will shortly be transmitting to the Congress a request that legislation be enacted which will spell out this concept and apply congressional policies and standards.

Management of land resources

When, Mr. Chairman, I appeared 2 years ago, the Secretary of the Interior had just declared a moratorium on the acceptance of certain types of applications for public lands and this was discussed.

As planned, the moratorium terminated by its own terms in September 1962, having been earlier canceled for a few States that reached a current condition earlier. Our planning anticipated a reduction in number of cases on hand from 41,500 to 15,000. On September 1, 1961, we actually had 16,500 cases. The land office in Southern California, for example, is now current for the first time in 15 years. It is handling cases within a few weeks, and this is true also in the land office in Reno, which was far behind, and in many other States. We feel that the operation was successful.

After termination, new cases averaged about 1,000 per month. We are determined to keep current in this work. So far, we have been successful, ending December 1962 with 16,300 cases, down from 44,000 as shown by the chart.

The majority of the backlogged applications were rejected. However, positive accomplishments included a step-up in patents issued:

Under the Small Tract Act, we have phased out for the most part leasing with option to purchase; sales of tracts have dropped drastically from 10,000 in 1960 to 3,000 in 1962. Average price per acre rose from $90 to $160.

In several land offices, we maintain an inventory of small tracts which are offered for sale weekly. In consultation with local officials and by analysis of developments, we try to keep ahead of demand and make provision for needs as they arise.

We are working with the States of Arizona, Utah, Washington, and Alaska to secure early and favorable satisfaction of their land grants. The backlog of appellate cases in the Bureau of Land Management has been greatly reduced, but there are more cases than 2 years ago awaiting action at the secretarial level.

There is, of course, a limit to what Executive actions such as moratoriums can accomplish. The Department is in the process of transmitting to the Congress various recommendations with respect to modernizing the public land laws as listed. The moratorium treated a symptom. Legislative attention should be given to the cause of the disease. To the extent that regulatory changes may also provide cures, the Department has made and is making changes in the regulations.

There is one emerging situation which may need committee attention, and which I am sure Congressman Rivers is familiar with. I have talked to the Congressman about it.

The State of Alaska is urging upon us an interpretation of the phrase "reasonably compact" as it relates to the selection of some 100 million acres of land granted to Alaska by its Statehood Act which we cannot immediately accept.

I have been advised by the staff that the cost of engineering surveys to accommodate the transaction over the next 20 years could run as high as $100 million if one type of approach is used.

On the other hand, if a more modest approach is used, perhaps it would not run in excess of $25 or $30 million. This is a considerable sum to contemplate. And the answer to this seems to hinge somewhat upon the interpretation of one phrase, the phrase "reasonably compact" as it appears in that act. We have been working on this administratively for several years and it is to be hoped that there can be a workable resolution without resort to litigation. We are presently negotiating with representatives of the State and, of course, it is hoped that a workable resolution can be made without resort to further difficulty.

Withdrawals and restorations

At the meeting of 2 years ago the question of withdrawals was an item of major comment. I am glad to report that our program to eliminate unnecessary withdrawals has intensified and expanded. In fiscal year 1962, withdrawals were revoked on 1,345,000 acres.

With respect to applications for new withdrawals I am insisting that no application remain in a land office for more than 15 days before public notice is given in the Federal Register. We have established a Division of Withdrawals and have staffed it so that withdrawal applications may be placed before the Secretariat within the shortest practicable time. More importantly, we seek, in cooperation with applicant agencies, to insure that public land orders making withdrawals expressly provide for multiple-use administration. Generally speaking, we are asking agencies to permit the Secretary of the Interior to administer the withdrawn area under statutory authority pertaining to public lands to the extent the contemplated use of the land or purpose for which it is withdrawn will permit. At times in the past the multiple use has been lost by default.

We noted that the President in his letter of January 17 to the chairman of this committee wrote approvingly of the informal arrangement by which the Secretary refers certain pending withdrawals which are not subjected to the Military Withdrawal Act of February 28, 1958 (43 U.S.C. 155). It is noteworthy that of 26 such referrals in the past 3 years "no objection" was expressed in 23 and 1 is still pending. In two instances the committee requested postponement of final action in order that it might consider the need for legislative action.

In some circumstances we believe that carefully drafted public land orders withdrawing areas can contribute significantly to the public use and enjoyment. In California, for example, 13 multiple-use areas are now being managed intensively, with the advice and assistance of the State of California, for paramount public values. We call these Caliente-type withdrawals after the name of the first locality so withdrawn.

In these areas agricultural possibilities are nil. The lands have been withdrawn from the operation of the agricultural land laws to bar indiscriminate filings but not from the mining laws or the mineral leasing laws. The livestock and wildlife resources are thus receiving special attention while the mineral potential remains open for public exploration. The 13 areas cover 810,570 acres.

Outdoor recreation

Mr. Chairman, also during the past year there has been a lot of discussion of the extension of outdoor recreation construction on public lands. There has been an exchange of correspondence concerning that with the committee.

One of the long-standing multiple uses of public lands, which has only recently been recognized by some, is that of outdoor recreation. We all know that the public lands for a long time have been widely used for extensive pursuits such as hunting and fishing. The Bureau has reconnoitered 50 million acres to identify 10,000 intensive recreation sites. This does not mean that we have identified 10,000 recreation sites which require the construction of recreation facilities. Under the Recreation and Public Purposes Act, the Secretary has authority to sell or to lease lands to State and local governments. Many of the identified sites should be administered by State or local governments or by private nonprofit associations.

The best example we have today of the fruits of this program are five regional parks in Maricopa County, Ariz. Their establishment has been made possible by leasing 70,000 acres under a rental schedule set by Secretary Udall in July of 1961. I have just learned that 1,600,000 visitors used these parks last year.

An allotment from the Area Redevelopment Administration under the Accelerated Public Works Act of 1962 gave funds to place facilities on 31 sites in California, Idaho, Oregon, Utah, and New Mexico. Additional allocations provide for 18 sites in Alaska, California, Idaho, Oregon, and Utah. The President's budget for 1964 includes $700.000 for construction of facilities on 22 sites under the regular appropriations in Arizona, California, Montana, Idaho, Nevada, Oregon, and Colorado.

The chart No. 2 which we have illustrates in the State of New Mexico the accelerated public works recreation construction. These are photographs taken this set of six were taken in the first days of this activity. The men were on the job the day after the State Director of New Mexico received word of the authorization to proceed. One of the areas which will be developed if the Congress acts favorably is in the Owens Valley of California. Hazardous health and safety conditions created by the public's recreation use of public lands have developed beyond the means of local government. A similar situation along the Salmon River in Idaho will be handled by projected construction.