OCR Text |
Show It will also provide a guide for investment of Federal funds in management practices. For example, investments in timber management should be directed primarily to timber dominant areas, while investments in recreation should be directed primarily to recreation dominant areas, as we recommend elsewhere. Comprehensive Land Use Plans Recommendation 5: All public land agencies should be required to formulate long range, comprehensive land use plans for each state or region, relating such plans not only to internal agency programs but also to land use plans and attendant management programs of other agencies. Specific findings should be provided in their plans, indicating how various factors were taken into account. Legislative direction for land use planning by the Federal agencies is virtually absent. Nevertheless, as we have pointed out previously, the agencies do, in varying degrees, develop land use plans, and we commend them for their efforts. However, a statutory requirement to prepare such plans would give them greater credence and support and would assure that they are prepared in all cases as a matter of course. Further, formal plans will facilitate congressional oversight of the land use planning process and public scrutiny of the plans, as necessary ingredients of the planning coordination we recommend later in this chapter. The plans, as part of a dynamic process, should not be inflexible, but subject to modification as conditions change. The lessons of city planning, which have long been preoccupied with "comprehensive" land use plans, demonstrate that static, fixed-arrangement plans are virtually useless to rapidly developing communities and areas with changing economic and social composition and, especially, changing values. Schematic land use plans are useful for crystallizing opinions and influencing expectations, but should be understood to be impermanent. The procedures by which they may be changed should be well known public information. Agencies should provide specific findings in their plans which will clearly reveal how the general factors Congress has specified for consideration were treated. In this way other agencies and the public will not only be aware of the basis for the planning, but will also know what factors will influence changes in the original land use plan. Further, the information will be useful in determining whether the policy objectives and guidelines established by Congress have been properly and fully considered in the planning process. 52 Land Classification and Withdrawals in Land Use Planning The basic concept of classifying land for particular uses is an old one that is well recognized in zoning practices by local governments. It also has been used for years in public land management in the form of legislative and executive withdrawals and reservations of public domain lands for specific purposes. We have previously endorsed the principle of designating or classifying lands for primary or dominant uses in this fashion as an appropriate and orderly means of planning for public land use. However, there is an urgent need to make a new start in the overall planning process on the public lands under better Congressional guidelines and with new administrative tools. Review of Withdrawals and Classifications Recommendation 6: As an essential first step to the planning system we recommend, Congress should provide for a careful review of (1) all Executive withdrawals and reservations, and (2) BLM retention and disposal classifications under the Classification and Multiple Use Act of 1964.22 At present virtually all of the public domain in all 50 states has been withdrawn from entry under one or more of the public land laws. Approximately 264 million acres are withdrawn under specific orders for particular purposes. Some 163 million acres were withdrawn in 1934 and 1935 in the 11 contiguous western states to implement the Taylor Grazing Act. Early in 1969 entries and state selection of the public lands in Alaska were suspended for a period of two years to enable Congress to consider legislation to resolve the problem of native claims. We experienced great difficulty in trying to determine with any precision the extent of existing Executive withdrawals and the degree to which withdrawals overlap each other. We have found that the agencies do not have accurate records that show the purposes for which specific areas have been withdrawn and the uses that can be made of such areas under the public land laws. A complete review of all existing withdrawals should be undertaken immediately to provide a basis for eliminating those that no longer serve a useful purpose, and for modifying those that are unnecessarily large in scope and area. This is a necessary step to "free" the public lands of encumbrances to effective land use planning for the future. It should be carried out as the initial effort under the formal withdrawal review program we recommend later in 22 n. 5, supra. |