OCR Text |
Show we see no reason why the best practices should not generally be adopted by all agencies. The Bureau of the Budget has made strenuous efforts over the past years to have the different agencies adopt similar practices in selling public land timber. We commend these efforts, and others of a similar nature with respect to the public lands. The results of different practices are most confusing to the users of the public lands. We do not think people should be subjected to confusing differences that have no overriding reason to be maintained. Regional Administration Recommendation 132: Greater emphasis should be placed on regional administration of public land programs. In the Chapter Three we recommend that comprehensive land use planning be encouraged through regional commissions along the lines of the river basin commissions created under the Water Resources Planning Act. This reflects our conclusion that greater consideration must be given to regional and local impacts in the formulation of public land programs than is done at present. Throughout its review, the Commission has noticed a tendency for each public land agency to manage its lands as though they were independent of other lands. Federal agencies conduct programs and make investments that sometimes duplicate those on other public lands nearby and, for that matter, some on state and local government or private lands. Coordination at the regional level among the public land agencies and between them and the non-Federal entities is necessary if the program duplication is to be minimized and programs run efficiently. The regional commissions will provide coordination, but will have no authority to direct the course of Federal program actions. Even after implementation of our recommendation to merge the Forest Service with the Department of the Interior, there will be a need for regional administration of public land programs. Until that merger takes place, however, there is an even greater need for such regional administration. We recognize that after the merger there may be consolidations of public land management agencies, but this is uncertain. We propose that, pending the merger recommended previously, there be increased joint action among all land management agencies. In addition, we recommend that the Secretary of the new Department consider organization changes that should be made to assure that public land programs reflect regional needs and relieve the individual citizen from having to work with several different land management 284 agencies and remember their program differences and distinctions in their lands. Pending the possibility of consolidation of agencies within the new Department, we recommend that consideration be given by the Secretary to transferring lands among public land agencies where-ever this can lead to a reduction in required facilities or would simplify the administration of public lands. Greater consistency could also be provided in regional boundaries of the different public land agencies. This would not only simplify the coordinated planning process we are recommending, but could lead to opportunities for consolidating field offices and service functions. For example, specialized staffs for such functions as recreation planning or timber sales preparation could be used to service all public land agencies in a region. Certainly there should be no reason why at the regional and local level there should not be interchangeability of personnel performing common functions, primarily those of a staff or service nature, among the Bureau of Land Management, the Forest Service, the National Park Service, or the Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife. Beyond these largely administrative changes, we propose that the Secretary give particular attention to the consolidation of public land functions at the regional level to achieve unification of program administration for all classes of public land within a region. This would also provide a single focal point for Federal representation in land use planning at the regional level. Such unification of public land programs would not lead to regional organizations that are wholly autonomous or independent of the national public land agencies. Nor would it eliminate the distinctions between classes of public lands. It would, however, provide for greater consistency among agencies in the regional application of public land policies. Congressional Committee Consolidation Recommendation 133: The recommended consolidation of public land programs should be accompanied by a consolidation of congressional committee jurisdiction over public land programs into a single committee in each House of Congress. The existing divisions in congressional committee jurisdiction over public lands and other natural resource programs have their basis in distinctions between programs that were made long ago. The Commission's recommendations will go far toward eliminating many of these distinctions in the future. Therefore, we believe it to be in the interest of good government to consolidate, to the extent possible, |