And I think it has been improving even during the past administrations, which may not have shared the same views that I do about management in these areas, but I think that there really has to be some way to build upon their groundwork. I am especially pleased to note your discussion of collaborative efforts and how we can work together. I don't think you can hope to grow the BLM into double its size within the 4-year tenure you probably will have, but clearly your ideas about working with other state governments and other agencies to try and beef that up are good, and I think for instance something like the biological survey which the Secretary has called for would have a big impact on public lands, and so it becomes even more important to BLM than it might be to an agency like the Park Service. Mr. BACA. Congressman, I agree completely. We were over in Senate Appropriations this morning and we discussed this a lot. Even if BLM were to become the most efficient agency in government and were to get as many people on the ground and out of the administrative post as possible, we still couldn't hold a candle funding-wise, on a per-acre basis to what the Forest Service, National Park Service, everybody else gets. We are down at about $4 an acre. Most of them are up around $15 to $20 an acre in the amount of money they expend on management of their lands. If we do change in the BLM in the future though, and if we do get more into the NCAs, and if we do get into more recreation and visitor center types of things, we will have to have some increases to meet those demands that are going to be placed upon us. And so if BLM is going to change, there has to be some recognition that it is not going to change without some commensurate appropriation levels to help it change. But I don't think we need to get up to the levels of the Forest Service and the other groups. And in fact, I think the Secretary wouldn't want us to. I think what he wants to see all these agencies in Interior do, is work together and share the resources: Its own ecosystem, so to speak. Mr. VENTO. Well, beyond that, I think the question is not only how BLM interfaces in the Department of the Interior, but also interfaces with the Forest Service and Department of Agriculture with regard to so many issues. That is another important point. But I agree, within the context of how each of the agencies work in Interior, that is one of the great pieces of wisdom in terms of putting them under one roof and attempting to share the various information. It is terribly important. Well, I have to go vote. I have seen no other of my colleagues arrive. I am sorry, because we had hoped that this would be an opportunity for Members to get acquainted with you. It has been a good one for me. I don't know what your schedule is at this point, Mr. Baca. Mr. BACA. I am pretty free until about 4 o'clock. Mr. VENTO. Well, we can recess and then come back and, hopefully, I can bring some members with me from the Floor. So if you can stay around for about 15, 20 minutes, maybe someone will come back and ask a question. Some of them may have been distracted by the vote on the Floor. So we will recess and then I will [Recess.] Mr. VENTO. The subcommittee will resume its setting with the BLM director, Jim Baca. Pleased to welcome another Jim, Jim Hansen, the Ranking Member from Utah, and I'll be happy to yield to the gentleman. Mr. HANSEN. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I apologize for not being here sooner. May I ask the Chair, have we had his testimony? Mr. VENTO. Yes, I thought it was clear, he had presented his statement and went through a number of issues asking for a period of time to analyze the legislation further and make recommendations more broadly, and then pointed out a number of issues that are his objectives. And on page 3 of the testimony, which I would be happy to share with the gentleman here, he makes some points concerning the cost-effective partnership, collaborative research, monitoring, and assistance to western communities which I am certain would be of interest to the gentleman from Utah, and so the gentleman can see generally his outline, and supporting generally the programs of the Department of the Interior as articulated by the Secretary in previous instances. Mr. HANSEN. Well, thank you Mr. Chairman. Mr. Baca, congratulations on your appointment and we look forward to working with you. Those of us from the West have some very in-depth concerns about things, as you can well imagine, and I am sure you know from your own state. We have very strong feelings about the multi-use concept, we have very strong feelings on certain reasonable ways of timber, mining, grazing, all of those things. I and many of us definitely feel, contrary to popular belief, that many things can be done in an environmentally sound and judicious way. I guess the balance is where we are always concerned in the state. Prior to coming here, I was in the state legislature, speaker of the house, worked very closely with then Governor Matheson, he was an extremely fine individual on a project we called Project Bold. You may recall, Mo Udall spent some time on that, and very candidly, it was too bold at the time because we had to envision what would happen to ten other western states. I still recall Mr. Udall, Chairman Udall, putting his arm around you one time and saying: What do you do in the State of Utah that will affect all of us? But you definitely feel as you have in New Mexico or especially on school trust lands, you turned that into a win/win for your students. We are trying to do the same thing in some of the other western states. I think most of us want to do what we think is right for our constituency and for America. And I am not going to ask any specific questions because I am not in a position to, not hearing your testimony. But I will look forward to working with you on public land issues, BLM issues, and hope that we can have a good relationship and hope we can have the opportunity to call upon you when we have problems that concern our individual states or the committee or the Minority party. Mr. BACA. Congressman, thank you very much. And I am fully aware of Project Bold. I met with a delegation, Kevin Carter and a crew from the State land office, I guess, about two, three weeks ago. They came by for a courtesy call. And having been in their shoes before, I know exactly what they are getting at. Mr. VENTO. I would just point out that at the request of Congressman Hansen and Congresswoman Shepherd, the subcommittee had a hearing at about that same time on the matter. And it was my impression, Mr. Baca, that BLM and the State really were together. It seemed like the BLM had put in a lot of work. I think this is one instance where you can say the former administration and others had provided a good foundation for work on this matter, and I might say not least of which was my staff and other staff of the subcommittee here, who have done a lot of work on the matter. So it is, we hope, in suitable condition and posture that we can move on it within the near future. We are still looking at it, so if you have any additional comments or concerns about it that were not already expressed at the hearing on the part of the administration by Mr. Penfold, we hope you will let us know. Well, I have no further questions myself. I might say there were a lot of good intentions on the part of Members to be here, not least of which was the Chairman. But as the day wears on, our schedule tends to pick up more and more activities, and so it is a real strain to break away. And of course there was an expectation by some members, I think, that you would have been here early this morning, although we did announce that we were going to hear you later in the day. But in any case, some were waiting here for you or were at least here waiting for me and for you this morning. Of course, I appeared late. You appeared when you said you would. So in any case, that being said, I am sure you will understand the reason that they are not here and I'm sure that you will be seeing probably more of them than you might always want. In any case, with that said, the meeting stands adjourned. Thanks, Director Baca. Thank you, Jim. [Whereupon, at 2:33 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] APPENDIX TUESDAY, MAY 25, 1993 ADDITIONAL MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD STATEMENT OF KAREN SHEPHERD U.S. REPRESENTATIVE, SECOND DISTRICT, STATE OF UTAH BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS, OF THE COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES ON H.R. 1603 MAY 25, 1993 Mr. Chairman, today we are here to discuss modifications to the Federal Land Management and Policy Act. In a state such as Utah, where almost two-thirds of the land is owned by the federal government, any modification in the way the BLM does business is taken very seriously indeed. H.R. 1603 contains new provisions addressing National Conservation Areas and Areas of Critical Environmental Concern that will have a direct impact on the economy and lifestyle of many of Utah's citizens. I also draw attention to that part of the bill which begins to address the significant loss of salt from the Bonneville Salt Flats. Site of several world land speed records, salt has been leeching from this area for years as a result of human intervention and now this most unique desert area is threatened. I am pleased to see this concern addressed in the bill. Despite the broad impact of these amendments to FLPMA, however, the focus of opposition to this bill appears to be on the provisions addressing R.S. 2477 roads. With Utah claiming 3,815 out of 3,947 of these potential roads, almost 97% of the pending applications, Utah has a large stake in how the issue of historic highways across federal lands is resolved. While the headlines have shouted that this issue will either destroy Utah's economy or put an end to the possibility for wilderness designation, I don't believe that this latest battle is about access to federal lands. The Federal Land Management and Policy Act already provides ample opportunity to receive a permit for whatever right-of-way may be necessary across federal lands. Furthermore, it is well known that the BLM is not stingy about issuing such permits. In fact, if an application for an R.S. 2577 right-of-way is denied, it is the BLM's policy to immediately offer the opportunity for a FLPMA right-of-way permit. If these things are not true, then perhaps we need to revisit those provisions of FLPMA that address rights-of-way. I believe that this is an issue of federal land-use planning. If we are to move away from these seemingly constant battles of control over western public lands, then it is incumbent upon each one of us to collaborate on a comprehensive plan to manage our nation's lands. We must set |