| OCR Text |
Show acquisitions ought not generally be available for all classes of land acquisition. Acquisition Limitations Recommendation 122: Congress should specify the general program needs for which lands may be acquired by each public land agency. There may well be reason to restrict further acquisition of lands for certain classes of Federal purposes. The addition of totally new units to the National Park System and the Migratory Bird Refuge System may be reasonably justified in furtherance of the national policies of preserving unique environments and antiquities and sustaining the North American migratory bird population. But a major enlargement of national forests or grazing districts under Bureau of Land Management administration through the acquisition of private land would not, in our view, further any contemporary national purpose. Although the national forests and the Taylor ActX1 grazing districts continue to serve a variety of local and national purposes, the original reasons for creating them have disappeared. Nor do we perceive any national purpose to be served by bringing vast new acreage under Federal ownership solely for "multiple use management." Consequently, authorizing acquisition for the general purpose of "multiple use" is undesirable. We would not preclude further acquisition of lands by the Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management, but we recommend that Congress limit the purposes of such acquisition to inholdings, boundary, and other land tenure adjustments to facilitate better management of the units already established, and to acquire access to these properties. Authority for large-scale acquisitions of lands for such purposes as national recreation areas to be administered by the Forest Service, or perhaps the Bureau of Land Management, should be provided by congressional authorizations if they are considered desirable. Generally, except for acquisition of inholdings, we do not support the concept of "blocking up" as a legitimate tenure-adjusting objective for the public land managing agencies. Solid ownership of a large area is not, in most cases, essential to effective use and management of component parts of it. As a guideline for the application of limitations on inholding or boundary adjustment acquisitions suggested above, we believe only those tracts essential to management of the existing federally owned lands should be acquired. This would specifically preclude an unnecessary expansion of Federal holdings in "43 U.S.C. §315 et seq. (1964). localities where Federal ownership may be in the minority and in scattered tracts or checkerboard patterns. Justification, Oversight, and State Coordination Recommendation 123: Justification standards for and oversight of public land acquisitions should be strengthened, and present statutory requirements for state consent to certain land acquisitions should be replaced with directives to engage in meaningful coordination of Federal acquisition programs with state and local governments. As in the case of withdrawals and reservations, we feel there is a need to require a better showing by the agencies in justification of particular land acquisitions. A statutory requirement specifying the findings which an agency would have to make in support of a proposed acquisition would seem to pose no threat to necessary land acquisitions. Such requirements should include at least (1) the specific management need to be served (a general "multiple use" purpose would not be sufficient); (2) evidence that alternatives were either not available or had been considered and rejected; (3) the impact of the acquisition on existing uses of the land. There are several different approaches to the question of approval of the acquisition of particular parcels by the various agencies. With respect to most units of the National Park System, Congress approves specific area boundaries within which the Secretary's acquisition authority may operate after the unit is authorized. The same is generally true of lands included within water resource development projects of the Bureau of Reclamation and the Corps of Engineers, which require specific congressional authorization. However, the acquisitions of the Forest Service, the Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife, and the Bureau of Land Management are not subject to such direct congressional legislative control. The approach to most Forest Service land purchases and Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife acquisitions for Migratory Bird Act Refuge additions is to require review and approval by the National Forest Reservation Commission and the Migratory Bird Conservation Commission, respectively.12 However, the Migratory Bird Conservation Commission does not review all Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife acquisitions, but only those for the Migratory Bird Refuge System. Similarly, public domain exchanges by the Forest Service and all Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife exchanges do not require approval of the commissions, even 12 Wheatley, n. 8 supra, at Chs. IIC, IID. 269 |
