| OCR Text |
Show protests, with provisions for a simplified administrative appeals procedure in a manner that will restore public confidence in the impartiality and fairness of administrative decisions. Judicial review should generally be available. In pursuing our work, we took cognizance of the fact that between 1965, when we started our work, and the year 2000, the population of the United States will have grown by over 100 million people. The public lands can, must, and will contribute to the well-being of our people by providing a combination of many uses. Some of these will help to take care of the increasing leisure time that Americans of the future will have, while others must help in furnishing the added amounts of food, fiber, and minerals that the larger numbers of people will require. Under existing statutes and regulations, there is no assurance that the public lands retained in Federal ownership will contribute in the manner that will be required. We find that the absence of statutory guidelines leaves a void which could result in land managers withholding from public use public lands or their resources that may be required for a particular time; that even if land managers plan to make specific goods and services available to the public, there are no long-range objectives or procedures that will assure fulfillment of a program; and that the absence of statutory guidelines for the establishment of priorities in allocating land uses causes unnecessary confusion and inconsistent administration. We, therefore, recommend that: Statutory goals and objectives should be established as guidelines for land-use planning under the general principle that within a specific unit, consideration should be given to all possible uses and the maximum number of compatible uses permitted. This should be subject to the qualification that where a unit, within an area managed for many uses, can contribute maximum benefit through one particular use, that use should be recognized as the dominant use, and the land should be managed to avoid interference with fulfillment of such dominant use. Throughout our work we were aware of the evergrowing concern by the American people about the deterioration of the environment. We share that concern and have looked in vain to find assurance in the public land laws that the United States, as a landowner, had made adequate provision to assure that the quality of life would not be endangered by reason of activities on federally owned lands. We find to the contrary that, despite recent legislative enactments, there is an absence of statutory guidelines by which land management agencies can provide uniform, equitable, and economically sound provision for environmental control over lands retained in Federal ownership. We, therefore, recommend that: Federal statutory guidelines should be established to assure that Federal public lands are managed in a manner that not only will not endanger the quality of the environment, but will, where feasible, enhance the quality of the environment, both on and off public lands, and that Federal control of the lands should never be used as a shield to permit lower standards than those required by the laws of the state in which the lands are located. The Federal licensing power should be used, under statutory guidelines, to assure these results. Every landowner is concerned with the return that he receives for the use of his land or for the revenue he receives from products produced on that land. United States citizens, collectively the owners of the public lands, are similarly concerned. We ascertained from the many witnesses that we heard that the concern of some is that the United States has not been receiving the maximum dollar return; the concern of others is that the United States has been trying to receive too much of a dollar return; while the concern of still others is that the United States is uneven in its efforts to obtain monetary return from its public lands. From our review, we find that there is a great diversity in public land policy on fees and charges for the various goods and services derived from the public lands; that the fee structures vary among commodities and among agencies administering the public lands; that objectives for the pricing of goods and services are unclear; and that the absence of comprehensive statutory guidelines has created a situation in which land managers are unable to provide uniform equitable treatment for all. We, therefore, recommend that: Statutory guidelines be established providing generally that the United States receive full value for the use of the public lands and their resources retained in Federal ownership, except that monetary payment need not represent full value, or so-called market value, in instances where there is no consumptive use of the land or its resources. |
