OCR Text |
Show lands and in deciding on uses of lands that remain in Federal ownership. Further, we found a lack of coordination among Federal public land management agencies at the regional and local levels, between the Federal agencies and other units of government, and between Federal agencies and the owners of adjacent private lands. We discovered problems caused by the lack of coordination between public land agencies in nearly every aspect of public land policy that we reviewed. Finally, we are concerned by the fact that the relative roles of Congress and the executive branch have not been clearly defined in determining land uses. The essence of land use planning is found in the classification or zoning of lands for particular uses. Congress has, in many cases, set aside large areas of public lands for parks or for other purposes. But the administering agencies also determine or limit land uses through withdrawals and land classifications. We believe that the roles of both Congress and the administrative agencies must be more clearly defined so that the limits of the discretionary powers are understood by the administrators and the public. Goals for Public Land Use Planning Recommendation 1: Goals should be established by statute for a continuing, dynamic program of land use planning. These should include: Use of all public lands in a manner that will result in the maximum net public benefit. Disposal of those lands identified in land use plans as being able to maximize net public benefit only if they are transferred to private or state or local government ownership, as specified in other Commission recommendations. Management of primary use lands for secondary uses where they are compatible with the primary purpose for which the lands were designated. Management of all lands not having a statutory primary use for such uses as they are capable of sustaining. Disposition or retention and management of public lands in a manner that complements uses and patterns of use on other ownership in the locality and the region. A congressional statement of policy goals and objectives for the management and use of public lands is needed to give focus and direction to the planning process. Although Congress has established goals in the statutes setting aside and providing for the administration of national parks, wilderness areas, and wildlife refuges, it has not provided ade- 42 quate goals for lands not having a clearly defined primary purpose. It is on these lands, primarily those managed by the Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management, that absence of statutory goals has led to major problems. In the absence of legislative statements of policy objectives and appropriate priority rankings, the land management agencies have formulated their own goals. This has occurred not only when policy objectives have not been provided by Congress, but also when the objectives have been stated in very general terms. The reasons for the lack of statutory guidance lie in the historic pattern of development of public land policies and goals. For many years our national policy was to make public lands generally available for disposal-for agricultural settlement, for mineral development, as grants to the states for various purposes, and to entrepreneurs willing to provide the public improvements to develop the West. The withdrawal or reservation of public lands was the only way in which land disposals could be controlled in a planned way.1 During the 19th century Congress enacted many statutes authorizing the withdrawal of specific lands from the operation of these disposal laws. Additionally, many other withdrawals and reservations were consummated by the Executive both with and without explicit statutory authorization. Around the turn of the century our disposal-oriented policy began to change. It was evidenced by the extensive forest withdrawals by Presidents Harrison, Cleveland, McKinley, Roosevelt, and Taft, by the emergence of a National Park System, and by sweeping mineral withdrawals as a prelude to revisions of the mineral laws that provided a leasing system for oil and gas and certain other minerals. As a result of the controversy generated by the extensive forest and other withdrawals, Congress in 1910 had enacted the Pickett Act2 authorizing the President to make temporary withdrawals of public land for certain purposes, but prohibiting the closing of such withdrawn land to metalliferous mining. 1 To "withdraw" public lands means to withhold them from settlement, sale, or entry under some or all of the general land laws for the purpose of maintaining the status quo because of some exigency or emergency, to prevent fraud, to correct surveys or boundaries, to dedicate the lands to an immediate or prospective public use, or to hold the land for certain future action by the executive or legislative branch of government. For example, a withdrawal "in aid of legislation" might suspend the operation of the public land laws with respect to specified lands until Congress could act on legislative proposals to include them in a national park or a reclamation project. A "reservation" is the immediate dedication of lands to a predetermined purpose and includes, in effect, a withdrawal. 2 43 U.S.C. §§ 141-143 (1964). |