Mr. KYL. You spoke of commonsense application. I know there are times when it is not difficult to make a choice where various uses are compatible. Sometimes in a large area you can segregate smaller areas for different purposes. But when you actually have to make a hard choice, you are going to permit something and exclude something else. Have you actually developed, first of all, any definite criteria, any studies, policies, procedures, or do you think it is possible to set any of these down on paper?

You mentioned some principles which you followed. Have we actually developed any stated principles in this area?

Mr. CARVER. I think so, although no amount of statements of principles will make your decision practically any easier as to some kinds of decisions that must be made.

There are two kinds of ways to get at this thing in terms of criteria, in the context of the question you put, which is: What do you do when you get the hard decision? The first is to provide a kind of procedural environment in which all of the affected interests will have their opportunity to get all of the facts before the agency.

Mr. KYL. Do you have a hearing process?

Mr. CARVER. Yes, we have that process, I think quite well developed. Sometimes it almost seems to be overdeveloped. That is one very important aspect of the decisionmaking process, to see that those who will be affected adversely, have their chance to bring all of the facts out on the table. When all the facts are out on the table, you have to choose; you are sometimes weighing forces which you just cannot reconcile, such as the need for cellulose against the need for a wilderness experience or the need for electric power as opposed to the need for wildlife habitat or stream fishing, the need for protein production from beef animals as against the need for continued recreational hunting opportunities.

These are not subject to formulary approach. You just have to make a decision, always with the view that the Congress can preempt it and take over the decisionmaking process.

Mr. KYL. I recognize you could not possibly make a scientific determination as to whether the economic benefit would outweigh some esthetic benefit of an area. Lacking these definite principles then, do you have a set pattern of periodic review of the decisions? Where we lack definite standard it seems we should have a periodic review. Mr. CARVER. I do not know about the periodic nature of it, but we do have a constant review in two ways. One is through the adjudicatory process, through the hearing process which you have already mentioned. The regulations provide that these matters shall get an independent secretarial review and the very process of reviewing the cases brings the policies, the judgment factor as exercised below, under review.

The second thing is, and this we have given additional emphasis to in the last 2 years, is the review of the regulations themselves, the idea being that if we have established the standards which are to govern a given land management decision, then they ought to be stated in a form such that the people affected by them can find them. Thus we want to move things out of the departmental manual and into the Federal Register so the citizen affected by it can see what kind of law or its interpretation he is up against and can thereby test

22-598-63-pt. 1-15

them rather than be subjected also to the delegated discretionary action of the decisionmaker to find out what the real basis for the decisions might have been.

Mr. KYL. One final question, then: In view of the fact that your decisionmaking will be brought to a matter of immediate import in a very difficult fashion when we consider sales of public lands, can this bill actually be considered separate from any legislation pertaining to the setting up of procedures for disposing of Federal lands by sale?

Mr. CARVER. I think so. I do not see any connection of the listing of the various specified uses to which the land could be put with the consideration of the terms and conditions under which land shall pass from public into private ownership.

I do not think it is subject to the devising by human wit of a formula which will tell you when to do and when not to do.

Mr. KYL. Let me put it this way, then, sir. Suppose you make a declaration as to multiple use of a particular area in the month of September 1963, and then we set up some legislation which presents the procedure for the sale of public lands to cities, for instance. Would there be a tendency to say we set this thing up last month and therefore we do not want to go into the sale process at this time. There would be no conflict there that you can visualize.

Mr. CARVER. Not that I can visualize.

Mr. BARING. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. KYL. Yes.

Mr. BARING. In the justification before the Appropriations Committee it was proposed to build recreation facilities on land proposed to be maintained in Federal ownership. Is it your position that H.R. 5159 will establish such policy as opposed to the policy of the Taylor Act providing for mandatory payment and ultimate disposition of the unreserved public laws lands?

Mr. CARVER. I can only answer that question, Mr. Chairman, by saying that where we build recreation facilities, if we have a sense of restraint, that the idea we are serving is the protection and management of that land, pending disposition or any other congressional objective and not for the purpose, bureaucratically of getting into the recreation business; that we have not modified the Taylor Act or have not changed our policies at all. We are a land managing agency and I think that construction of recreation facilities in situation after situation is not an aspect of recreation. It is an aspect of protection. Mr. KYL. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. BARING. Yes.

Mr. KYL. In other words, will you say unqualifiedly that the Bureau of Land Management's position in recreation is strictly to provide access facilities which tend to protect the land rather than to expand recreational facilities as such?

Mr. CARVER. Yes, sir. I believe that we can say that, although I do not want to mislead the committee in any way.

Mr. KYL. The gentleman is always honest. That is one reason I appreciate his testimony so much. That is why I asked the question at this time.

Mr. CARVER. We get all kinds of pressures to develop a given site for its recreational potential. This could be from a local community

or it could be from some private group who would, as a result of development enhance their private business.

It seems to me that nevertheless we have to satisfy in our own minds and be able to satisfy to the Congress the idea that we are not out trying to be a recreation managing agency. We are not trying to get to be the biggest purveyor of recreation in the United States. We are merely trying to do as much as Congress wants us to do to provide recreational opportunities under decent circumstances for the people who can take them anyway, to prevent the pollution of water, which is incident to uncontrolled use, or to prevent the fire that I mentioned here as happening in Idaho as a result of uncontrolled use.

Now, once in a while you will find that we have gone out and perhaps built a recreational facility that would not meet this standard but in the terms of the general philosophy of it I think that we are land managers, not recreation purveyors.

Mr. KYL. Can you tell me at this moment how many people you have in BLM who are involved specifically or most of the time in recreational activity?

Mr. CARVER. No, sir, but maybe Mr. Hochmuth can.

Mr. HOCHMUTH. One hundred percent of the time?

Mr. KYL. Those who are specifically designated for recreational direction or development, or those who spend more time on recreation than anything else.

Mr. HOCHMUTH. Let me divide it into two answers, Mr. Kyl. First let me eliminate the O. & C. area where there is direct recreational authority. The rest of the millions of acres that are administered I would say probably seven or eight people who are spending a majority of their time either on recreation planning or on inventory.

Mr. KYL. In setting up the Bureau of Outdoor Recreation we specifically state that this was not to be a land management agency. We were going to leave that to BLM. Do you see any necessity or any practicality in setting up a recreational agency within the BLM or would you prefer to turn that kind of activity over to the National Park Department?

Mr. CARVER. I do not think it is appropriate to turn it over to the National Park Service. I think that gets the wrong kind of bureaucracy into it. This is an incidental land management activity, and can be handled with our regular activities in most situations. I think that it is apropriate where we have to do this is an incident of land management that the BLM itself do it. As a matter of diffidence and self-restraint we ought to do it that way.

Mr. KYL. Can you see any necessity of expanding the administrative end of BLM as far as that is concerned?

Mr. CARVER. It seems to me I would strongly urge that BLM go in the other direction.

Mr. DUNCAN. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. BARING. The gentleman from Oregon.

Mr. DUNCAN. I was interested in the comment you made about special provisions for the O. & C. lands. My recollection is this is a specified use and my further recollection is the counties have contributed an amount of the moneys for which they are entitled to recreational uses. My understanding of this law is this would not affect the counties' role in these areas.

Mr. CARVER. That is correct.

Mr. DUNCAN. As I further understand your comments in response to Mr. Kyl's questions, where recreation is an appropriate additional facility to be provided or a function to be served in connection with your timber management programs or your grazing programs, that is, where in fact these activities can be carried on simultaneously, this then is an appropriate activity for the BLM?

Mr. CARVER. Yes.

Mr. DUNCAN. On the other hand, I suspect that within this concept of multiple use, which is a semantical expression, which means many different things to many different people, that where an exclusive utilization is to be provided under a withdrawal, for instance, that you would not conceive management of this particular area to be a specific function of BLM, but more appropriately be handled by the Park Service, for example.

Mr. CARVER. Here, again there are certain situations where some other agency ought to be the recreation operational agency. Mostly we would move toward cities or counties of something like that. I do not think it is consistent with the Park Service general philosophy to get down into the management of small areas.

Mr. DUNCAN. What we are really saying here is that almost every situation has to be handled on a kind of an individual basis as to which is the most appropriate agency to supervise and what are the most appropriate activities in which the Bureau should engage in this particular section; isn't that right?

Mr. CARVER. That is right. I do not think we should get too many. I think a general approach to this land is a lot healthier than to have too many specialized groups in there knocking elbows with each other. Mr. DUNCAN. Yes. And of course even when you look at the purposes for which lands have been withdrawn in one sense this is also an application of the multiple-use concept; is it not?

Mr. CARVER. Yes, sir.

Mr. DUNCAN. Realizing that multiple-use concept does not mean that every use has to be carried on simultaneously in each specific area and where lands are withdrawn for military reservations or monuments or national parks, all of this fits into the multiple-use concept, too, does it not?

Mr. CARVER. Yes, sir.

Mr. DUNCAN. But there would be no conception on the part of BLM that they would have to have management control over lands withdrawn for a military reservation or an airstrip.

Mr. CARVER. No, sir.

Mr. RIVERS. I tried to make the point the lands managed by this bill would not include military reservations, national forests, monuments, and that sort of thing. I might say I have in my hand the "1962 Public Lands Statistics" published by the U.S. Department of Interior, Mr. Udall, Secretary, and find that page 36 is devoted to a table entitled "Public Lands Under the Exclusive Jurisdiction of the Bureau of Land Management, 1962." I ask unanimous consent that this may be made a part of the record.

Mr. BARING. Without objection, it is so ordered. (The table follows:)

TABLE 11.-Public lands under exclusive jurisdiction of the Bureau of Land Management, 1962