Actually our toughest disposal dilemmas are in areas of scattered holdings. Here intense interest develops over both whether to dis pose of specific tracts as well as how to do it. In some cases competition for the tracts rises between private parties and public agenciesState, Federal, and local. In other cases the public reacts against a tract's disposal. So long as the land was public we heard nothing. The very thought it may become private stirs public interest in its retention. By dis tributing maps, we are better able to get a factual discussion and reach conclusions expeditiously. Handling these case by case, as we have been doing, takes time. By inviting full public participation in the land classification proc ess we and the public exchange ideas on program direction and rate of progress. We pay close attention to local views in the selection of the lands to be considered. We use great care in setting the rate at which classifications will be completed. To get too far ahead of the public is to invite trouble. To fall too far behind means public dissatisfaction and discouragement. We want to meet expressed needs and desires. We, therefore, have cautioned our field officials to respect fully the views and position of the county commissioners, other community leaders, the users of the lands, and other interested people. Within this basic public relationship framework, we have set these goals: 1. Classification of the bulk of the lands in the larger blocks by June 30, 1969. We believe that this will give the Public Land Law Review Commission, and the Congress which considers its recommendations, a substantial body of facts concerning the public lands. 2. Classification of sufficient public lands for disposal for urban and industrial development to meet needs as they emerge. 3. Classification of sufficient public lands for disposal under the variety of public land laws to maintain a balanced program. This will permit us to meet reasonable requirements for lands for agricul ture, exchange, purchase of isolated tracts, and other current public land law objectives. We doubt that we can classify all the public lands in the next 5 years. The increasing public concern for retention of lands for public use in Federal, State, or local ownership means disposal classifieations will be a deliberate process. In Nevada, where the 47 million acres of Bureau of Land Management-administered land equals twothirds of the State's area, we had trouble working up sufficient lands for the scrip-disposal pool. Projected local government needs eliminated many of the tracts we had suggested for possible classification for scrip in the Las Vegas area. Other lands were too low in value. Once we dispose of a tract it is gone, so far as use by the general public is concerned. We want to be sure this decision serves well the interest of the person or entity who will have the tract, as well as the local, regional, and national interest. A decision to retain has the same implications. However, here we retain the responsibility to the public and the obligations that imposes. Retention land classification calls for multiple-use and sustainedyield management. The Classification and Multiple Use Act defines these terms. However, the act also provides a means to restrict certain uses or types of disposal. The term used is "segregation." Classification and segregation to me are an intention, since neither the act not its regulations contemplates that they are permanent. They are subject to change as conditions change. The policy is to keep segregations to the absolute minimum. Our instructions reinforce this directive. They contemplate that there will be segregation or restrictions only when their absence produces real program interference. Two main situations occur. One is where the lands have no real value for one of the uses listed in the act and leaving them open to application is a waste of the taxpayers' and the public's time, money, and energies. Homesteading is a prime example of this; few areas in the public lands are suitable for a farm. In many disposal areas, we would not consider disposition via homestead, but leave the land open to sale. The other main situation is where there is enough value for a minor use to invite program interference with other more important values. One example is a low-grade mineral deposit in a public fishing area. The opposite is a limited fishing opportunity with a high-value mineral deposit. A mineral lease on an area with a low value for fishing might limit fishing use as a public safety measure. Actual operations under the Classification and Multiple Use Act did not begin to show results until June 1966. And most of our statistics are kept by fiscal years. The following, however, will give a good idea of the types of operations that are going on. As of January 1967 we had classified about 2,500,000 acres for multiple-use management. In addition, we had published in the Federal Register proposals to classify another 12,500,000 acres. Proposals for final review, but not approved for publication, are approaching another 10 million acres. During fiscal years 1965 and 1966, we classified about 900,000 acres for disposal under various laws. Classification activities had the following results in actual disposals in these 2 years: Use of the Public Land Sales Act is only now starting. During the first half of 1966, 13 petition-applications were filed. Of these, three were withdrawn. In the second half, we received 26 more. We have sold one 40-acre tract to the city of Boardman, Oreg., and are selling a 530-acre tract to the port of Umatilla, Oreg., both qlified government agencies. We have held one public sale so far, selling 142 acres out of 271 acres offered in Clark County, Nev. We classified 276 acres for sale but, due to a last minute local government. request, 5 acres were taken off the market. Gentlemen, now I shall sum up the situation, using the maps we have developed. I shall ask Mr. Senzel to illustrate these maps. Mr. SENZEL. All of these maps are of the western portion of the United States. The first map shows the general pattern of land administration in the West. The dark green acres are the lands administered by the U.S. Forest Service. The gray areas are other Federal reservations. The dark brown areas are the BLM-administered lands, where the public lands constitute 50 percent or more of the land ownership in the area. The The average is about 80 percent in these dark brown areas. light brown areas are where the BLM-administered lands constitute from 30 to 50 percent of the area. Can you see those light brown areas? Senator CHURCH. Yes; now that you have pointed them out, I do. Mr. SENZEL. The white lands are mostly State, local, and private ownership. The public and holdings there are very scattered. Now, the total of the BLM-administered lands in the dark brown areas is about 150 million acres. The lighter brown is 17.5 million acres, and, scattered throughout the West, about 13.5 million acres more. Are there any questions about that particular map? Senator CHURCH. Yes; I would like to ask a question at this point: Could you give me the total acreage of land administered by the Bureau of Land Management as of the present time, as compared to the total acreage 10 years ago? Do you have that figure available? Mr. SENZEL. Not at the present time. It would not be greatly different, however. We can get it for the record. Senator CHURCH. Well, can you indicate whether the present total acreage under the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Land Management, as of 1967, would be a larger or lesser figure than 10 years ago? Mr. SENZEL. It would be somewhat less. Senator CHURCH. Can you give me any approximation of how much less? Mr. SENZEL. I cannot be sure of the figure, sir. Mr. RASMUSSEN. Could we supply this for the record, sir? Senator CHURCH. Yes. You do not have them accurately enough to give me any indication at the present time? Mr. SENZEL. The general magnitude would be 5 million acres. (The information requested appears on p. 31.) Mr. SENZEL. Yes. Senator CHURCH. Let us assume 5 million acres out of a total of how many acres? Mr. SENZEL. The total present holdings in the Western States are about 177 million acres; in Alaska, about 280 million acres. There are 177 million acres in the Western States, excepting Alaska. Senator CHURCH. When we include Alaska-approximately what is the holding in Alaska? Mr. SENZEL. I think the total would be about 280 million acres. Senator CHURCH. 280? Mr. SENZEL. That is correct. Senator CHURCH. That was held under the Bureau of Land Management prior to statehood? Mr. SENZEL. That is correct. Senator CHURCH. So if we were looking back 10 years ago you would have a total acreage under BLM jurisdiction of approximately 475 million acres, and you say that in 10 years' time perhaps 5 million acres have been transferred out. Some of that transfer would be to other public agencies, would it not? Mr. SENZEL. That is correct, sir. It is not easy to derive a figure without making various calculations. We lose some lands to other Federal reservations; we gain some from other Federal reservations as those are canceled; we gain some by exchanges and we lose some by exchanges. I would say now, thinking it over a little more, including Alaska, probably the total change would be more than 5 million acres. Senator CHURCH. Yes. Of course, the Alaska situation is a very specific one, because the statehood law required a rather substantial transfer of federally owned property to the State, did it not? Mr. SENZEL. That is right. Senator CHURCH. I think we would need to have for this hearing some accurate and complete figures on what the transfers have been I would say not only over a 10-year period, but in order to give us a better perspective upon the way this whole matter has been moving we need complete data for the last 20 years. And I think we would need to know how much of this land has gone out of public ownership into private ownership, and how much of it has gone out of Federal ownership into State ownership, and how much of it has been simply transferred from one Federal agency to another but has actually been retained in Federal ownership, so that we have the whole Federal picture before us. Mr. SENZEL. Yes. Senator CHURCH. Could we get those figures, please? Mr. ANDERSON. Mr. Chairman, I note from Mr. Rasmussen's report for 1965-66, which is the last fiscal year, total disposal is 4,167,000. Of that, 2,945,000 was in Alaska. If we deduct that figure this would end up with 1,220,000, approximately, disposed of in the other 48 States. Senator CHURCH. The difficulty with that is unless we know to whom these disposals went, we have no clear idea as to whether this has been simply a juggling of lands within the Federal Government or primarily a movement into private lands, or from the Federal Government into State ownership. I think we need to have this kind of information. Mr. ANDERSON. We would be glad to supply that information. The figures I just read off would be disposal to other than Federal agencies. It would be, for example, homesteads, desert land entries, State selections, color of title. Senator CHURCH. Your State selections and in lieu lands and so forth would simply be moving from federally owned into State owned and would remain publicly owned. We need to have that broken down so we can see how much is moving into private lands and how much is simply moving from one Government agency to another. (The information requested appears on p. 38.) 78-093-67- -3 Senator CHURCH. Senator Bible has a question. Senator BIBLE. I have a question at this point, Mr. Chairman, that I think appropriate to ask now. When was the Bureau of Land Management created? Mr. SENZEL. In 1946. It succeeded two agencies which were considerably older. Senator BIBLE. What were the agencies which it succeeded, Mr. Senzel? Mr. SENZEL. The Grazing Service, which was formed about 1934; the General Land Office, which was created in 1812. Senator BIBLE. Let us go back to 1934. How many employees were there engaged in the Grazing Service in 1934? Mr. SENZEL. I do not have that information with me. Mr. RASMUSSEN. I think we would have to supply that for the record. Senator BIBLE. Do you have that approximation? You can supply it for the record. (The information requested is as follows:) The Grazing Service began as a unit of the Secretary's Office. No identifiable figures on Grazing Service employees are available preceding 1938. In that year Grazing Service employees numbered 762. Senator BIBLE. How many employees were there 10 years ago? How many were there in 1946, and how many were there in 1956, and how many do you have aboard now? How many employees do you have in the Department? Mr. RASMUSSEN. Mr. Beirne, will you answer that question? Mr. BEIRNE. The Bureau has a little over 3,400 on hand right now. I think the last figure was 3,408. Senator BIBLE. How many in Washington, D.C. Mr. BEIRNE. Just a little over 300, less than 10 percent. Senator BIBLE. 300 in Washington, the balance in the field. Where would that be? In the Western States? Why don't you come up and sit down here, Jim, if the chairman doesn't mind. Senator CHURCH. No, please do, and anyone else who would like to take these witness chairs up here with the staff people. Mr. BEIRNE. We have two service centers, one at Denver with 312 employees, one at Portland with 137. These are the positions which have been allocated. They may not be filled at the moment. In the States, Alaska has 205, Arizona, 132; California, 286; Colorado, 181; Idaho, 205; Montana, 193; Nevada, 200; New Mexico, 185; Oregon, 818; Utah, 225; Wyoming, 193, and we have a field office in Silver Spring with 59 assigned to it. Senator BIBLE. Silver Spring, Md.? Mr. BEIRNE. Silver Spring, Md. This is the Eastern States Office. That handles all of the land roughly east of the Mississippi. Senator BIBLE. And that gives you a total of Mr. BEIRNE. 3,635 budgeted positions and 3,408 or 3,410 people onboard. Senator BIBLE. How does that compare with last year? |