OCR Text |
Show by the Secretary and issued as regulations. In making his determinations, the Secretary was to give "due consideration to all pertinent factors including, but not limited to, ecology, priorities of use, and the relative values of the various resources in particular areas." The Secretary has published "criteria," and BLM has issued additional detailed instructions to its field personnel specifying the factors to be considered in making land use planning decisions. BLM's recent efforts appear to require consideration of the following general categories of factors in varying degrees: physical and locational suitability of the lands or resources for obvious purposes; supply of resources and demand for resource products; communities and users dependent on the public lands and resources; environmental factors; impact on state and local governments; efficiency of resource use and sustained yield of renewable resources; and regional economic growth. We have profited by this implementation of the Classification and Multiple Use Act and endorse the general planning approach embodied in that system. It is now time for Congress to rely on this experience by establishing legislatively those factors that should be considered in all Federal land use planning. The factors identified in the preceding paragraph provide an adequate starting point. While we recognize differences in the goals being pursued by some of the public land agencies, we believe that these factors can serve all of the agencies equally. To be meaningful, this process should be standardized with common units of measurement and a system for the comprehensive analysis of the factors considered, so that a more consistent effort among the agencies will result. We believe maximization of net public benefits to be a suitable overall objective for public land management and disposition. It is clear to us that this objective can be served in some cases by retention of public lands and in other cases by disposition of public lands into non-Federal ownership. We also note that the concept of net benefits implies a comparison of the benefits of a possible course of action with the costs of following this course. "Public benefits" includes all segments of the public and their interests as defined in Chapter Two. This standard would measure the overall primary and secondary benefits that are generated by a particular mix of uses against the primary and secondary costs. The Federal land administering agencies do not attempt this type of analysis in public land administration today. We recognize that the terms "benefits" and "costs" have a decidedly economic ring, but we do not intend by the use of these terms to place emphasis on economic uses in resource allocation planning to the exclusion of other uses and values. It is essential to give full consideration to noneconomic factors in this planning 46 process, and many of our recommendations elsewhere in this report, particularly in connection with environmental quality, fish and wildlife, and some forms of outdoor recreation, are directed to this important end. Decisions on the use of public lands that will maximize the "net public benefit" require considerable information, often of a sophisticated nature, and a framework for using the information. We have reviewed the efforts of the executive branch to institute its Planning, Programming, and Budgeting Systems approach (PPBS) to program decisions for public lands, and we recognize that problems have been encountered in developing a framework.17 We also note the problems we have had in obtaining some data relating to public land programs. While it is easy to get information in almost unlimited quantities, it is difficult to get information that is truly of value in making many kinds of decisions. We have found that it is especially difficult to get information for use in weighing choices between economic uses of the public lands, such as timber and forage production, and other uses, or protection of environmental values. As set forth in the Preface, the Commission was required by law to "compile data necessary to understand and determine" both current and future demands on the public lands. In meeting this statutory requirement, we examined in great detail both the present uses of the public lands and possible changes in these uses based on projected increases in the nation's consumption of commodities that are produced in part on the public lands. We approached this task with an open-minded, yet somewhat skeptical, attitude. It seemed possible that direct comparison of probable future national demands for various commodities might provide a basis for establishing priorities among uses of the public lands. However, our review of the work that had been done by others in projecting demands for natural resources indicated that the results were almost always disappointing if judged on this basis. We found that projections of national demands are useful primarily as they provide a framework for considering likely regional demands. At the regional level, good information on the current demands being placed on public lands and the probable changes that will take place are vitally important to making good land use decisions. We also reviewed an analysis prepared for us of the impacts of various uses of the public lands on regional economies.18 This is another area that has long been 17 Commission staff with consultants, Organization, Administration, and Budgetary Policy. PLLRC Study Report, 1970. 18 As part of the review program, the Commission staff designed a number of studies to provide information relevant |