OCR Text |
Show wilderness areas. On the one hand, some say that these cannot be multiple use areas because statutes designate them as being set aside for a particular use. On the other hand, a variety of values flow from these lands. "Multiple use" is not a precise concept. It is given different meanings by different people, as well as different meanings in different situations. We have listened to statements from diverse interests who all commended the idea of multiple use, but it was apparent that they were supporting different basic positions. This confusion permeates public land policy. The 1897 Act12 providing for the administration of the national forests provided the genesis of the term. This act provided that the Secretary "may make such rules and regulations and establish such service as will insure the objects of such reservations, namely, to regulate their occupancy and use and to preserve the forests thereon from destruction." This authority enabled the Forest Service to regulate a wide range of uses on the national forests and over a period of time the Forest Service came to describe its activities as multiple use management. The 1960 Multiple Use and Sustained Yield Act13 for the national forests provides that decisions be made ". . . with consideration being given to the relative values of the various resources, and not necessarily the combination of uses that will give the greatest dollar return or the greatest unit output." The act goes on to define sustained yield as ". . . the achievement and maintenance of a high-level annual or regular periodic output of the various renewable resources . . . without impairment of the productivity of the land." Thus, it is clear that some non-economic factors are to be considered, although they are not specified, and that the future is to be considered along with the present. Beyond this, there is no statutory guidance except that the range of choice is limited in some cases by the operation of the General Mining Law under which a mineral interest may be initiated without a prior administrative use decision. The Commission believes that the meaning of the term "multiple use" as a general expression of land use policy should be distinguished from the manner in which land use and management actually occur in a particular area.14 We recognize that nearly all public lands are capable of producing a variety of values, but we do not believe that this means that these lands are necessarily managed for multiple purposes. It is also our belief that multiple use has little practical meaning as a planning concept or principle. 12 16U.S.C. §551 (1964). 13 n. 3, supra. 14 See Commission staff with consultants, Federal Public Land Laws and Policies Relating to Multiple Use of Public Lands. PLLRC Study Report, 1970. We do, however, believe that the term can be used meaningfully in a descriptive sense to describe the operation of present public land policy under which (1) national forest and unreserved public domain lands are managed for a variety of goods and services, and (2) the administrative agencies determine which use shall be made of the lands in each situation, since no statutory preference is specified. We believe that our recommended goals for public land use planning, which summarize many of the specific recommendations of the Commission in this chapter and elsewhere in the report, will, when implemented, provide the public land management agencies with a sense of direction that is now lacking in their planning efforts. Further, these goals will communicate Federal intention and provide the public with a clearer idea of the basic policy framework under which each major class of lands is to be administered and the kinds of uses that can be made of each class of lands. Land Use Plans Recommendation 2: Public land agencies should be required to plan land uses to obtain the greatest net public benefit. Congress should specify the factors to be considered by the agencies in making these determinations, and an analytical system should be developed for their application. Congress has not provided the agencies with clear policy objectives, directives to engage in land use planning to accomplish those objectives, nor general guidance as to the kinds of factors to take into account in the land planning process. Nevertheless, the agencies have not carried out their planning and decisionmaking in a vacuum. They have recognized, generally in an uneven and less than comprehensive fashion, the necessity to consider various factors and viewpoints relevant to their land use decisions. The Forest Service has employed a rudimentary zoning system on the national forests for many years. However, the recently adopted Bureau of Land Management planning system appears to be more sophisticated, although it has not yet been fully implemented.15 In the Classification and Multiple Use Act of 196416 Congress directed the Secretary of the Interior to determine which of the public lands should be "classified" as suitable for either disposal or retention for multiple use management. This planning directive was to be implemented pursuant to "criteria" to be developed 15 Herman D. Ruth & Associates, Regional and Local Land Use Planning, Ch. IV. PLLRC Study Report, 1970. 16 n. 4, supra. 45 |