source of raw materials to the timber industry not only in the West, but throughout the eastern part of the country.

Like timber production, mineral extraction is an intensive use of public land. This is illustrated by the fact that in 1968 there were 8,245 producing leases, primarily for oil and gas, under the Mineral Leasing Act, generating royalties to the Federal Government of over $92 million from less than 6 million acres. And an even smaller area is required for the production of hard minerals, such as copper and lead. Areas that were public lands when minerals were first discovered on them have contributed much of the Nation's production of hard minerals, and in some cases have been almost the sole source.

While not constituting public land interests in the usual legal or lay definitions of public lands, the mineral resources in the Outer Continental Shelf were included in the statutory charge to the Commission. Since the early 1950s, oil and gas from the Outer Continental Shelf has been of growing importance to the petroleum industry and the Shelf also promises to become a source of other resources in the future.

In addition to those areas held in fee by the United States, the Federal Government also owns mineral rights in approximately 62 million acres of land previously conveyed under the public land laws. These mineral rights have raised a number of environmental and equitable issues for consideration in the Commission's review.

In many cases, the most valuable economic use of public lands are occupancy uses dictated by essential human needs. Examples include rights-ofway for utility transmission lines and lease or permit rights for the operation of service facilities, such as hotels, service stations, and other business enterprises. Schools and other needs of state or local governments are also high value intensive uses, as is the use of land for cities and urban expansion. Public land often abuts western communities (such as Las Vegas and Phoenix), and as they grow, their spatial requirements for urban expansion make the adjoining public land increasingly valuable. We recognize that this use is likely to increase in the future as the rapidly growing areas of the West continue to expand.

Some recreation use is also highly intensive, with heavy concentrations of people at some times during the year. Yosemite National Park and the White Mountain, Angeles, Arapaho and Wasatch National Forests, for example, are subjected to very intensive use for recreation. And it is undoubtedly true that 630 U.S.C. §§ 181 et. seq. (1964).

public land areas like these, which are readily accessible to metropolitan areas, will be utilized even more heavily in the future.

Much of the recreation use, however, is concentrated within less intensively used areas. Ski slopes and campgrounds on the national forests, the 7 square miles of valley floor at Yosemite National Park, and the area around the geysers at Yellowstone National Park bear the brunt of use in these areas. Much of the other recreation use on public lands is extensive, rather than intensive, in relation to the magnitude of the Federal public land areas and the remoteness of most of them from large population

centers.

Wildlife of one form or another occurs on nearly all public lands, most of which can also be considered to be watershed lands. In most cases, these are broad, extensive uses with relatively little concentration of activity. But consideration must be given to them. Many of the arid public lands contain fragile soils subject to wind and water erosion. Often their principal value is that they constitute a major source of water for downstream communities. Consequently, their management for watershed protection and wildlife habitat purposes has become more important.

The Future of the Public Lands

Inevitably, the value of land changes with population changes and with the location advantages or disadvantages of the land itself. The highest and best use in many public land areas today is not the same as it was 30 years ago. Nor will it remain static over the next 30 years. Recognition of these rapidly changing values in relation to public land is implicit in the recommendations proposed by this Commission.

As we have proceeded with our task of reviewing the Nation's public land laws and policies, we have kept in constant view the great variation in public lands, resources, uses, and human needs. We have recognized the dominant role of Federal public land in the 12 far western states. In large measure the future of those states may depend on the adoption of sound public land laws and policies that will assure environmental quality and, at the same time, encourage healthy economic growth. We have also recognized the importance of these lands to other regions of the country. We are confident that the very diversity of lands, resources, uses, and needs that made our task so complex will assure that the public lands can continue to meet the changing, and perhaps unexpected, needs of the future.

To Whom the Public Lands Are Important

CHAPTER TWO

W

E START with a strong belief that the public lands of the United States and their resources are important to everyone.

These lands are a natural heritage and national asset that belong to all of us. Each American should cherish them and seek to assure their retention and management or disposition-in the words of section 1 of the Commission's Organic Act-so as to provide "the maximum benefit for the general public." How does one achieve "maximum benefit"? How does one define "general public"? Virtually all matters of governmental policy pose questions of relative advantages and disadvantages to different segments of our society. Public land policy is no different. To arrive at a reasonable judgment of what constitutes the maximum benefit for the general public requires evaluating and weighing many diverse considerations and interests.

As part of our research program, a staff study was undertaken to develop criteria and identify factors that could be used to assist us in making a consistent and rational approach toward defining the maximum benefit for the general public in public land matters. In addition to soliciting the views of the Commission's Advisory Council and the representatives of the 50 Governors, individuals and groups throughout the country were asked to contribute their recommendations. Not only was the question of maximum benefit for the general public a recurrent theme in many of the meetings of the Advisory Council with the Governors' Representatives participating, but three of our meetings with these advisors focused specifically on this subject. Many of the Commission's witnesses and correspondents also made recommendations.

We recognized that there cannot be a scientifically accurate manner of determining how the various justifiable interests can and should be weighed in order to assure maximum benefit for the general public. But we did find that it is useful to categorize and catalog such interests in order to determine their common goals and objectives as well as the conflicts among them. It is also essential to have an historical perspective on the use of the public lands in examining the role that these lands must fulfill today and in the years ahead.

The public lands have played a vital, though changing, role in the development of the Nation. Historically, they served as an inducement for the development of the frontier and, before the Civil War, as a major source of revenue. Today, the public lands must serve more complex and rapidly changing needs. Even though other aspects of national policy may overshadow public land policy, the public lands are, indeed, still important to all the people of the country.

We found, however, that recognizing the importance of public lands in our national life was only the first step in approaching our task of making recommendations that will serve the public interest. The wide range of suggestions received by the Commission, the very considerable differences in the apparent interests of various individuals and groups, and the great geographical variation in population relative to the public lands, all suggest that the general public must be recognized as a composite of many different interests. One of our earliest conclusions was that the “general public” is in fact made up of many publics.

The variety and range of those having a direct