Public Lands and Resources Planning and Management: Policies, Tools, and Legislation

• Author: Elaine L. Hughes, Arlene J. Kwasniak, Alastair R. Lucas
• Pages: 121-147

121

CHA PTER 6

PUBLIC LANDS AND

RESOURCES PLANNING

AND MANAGEMENT:

POLICIES, TOOLS, AND

LEGISL ATION

Arlene J Kwasniak

A. INTRODUC TION

Since confederation, governments have taken a var iety of approaches to

the management of public lands and resources. The progression, if that

is what it is, may be seen as comi ng from an early need to settle and use

public lands to the maximum extent possible, to a more measured ap-

proach that recognize s the benef‌its of ecological values of public lands

while continuing to reap economic benef‌its from them. Section B of this

chapter describes some key public lands approaches in concept and pro-

vides Canadi an examples of how these approaches have been incor por-

ated into public lands and resources management, including through

planning. Section C discusses adaptive man agement and how it may

play a role with respect to public lands and resources management.

Section D looks at how government might use a public lands reser va-

tion/notation system to tr ack interests and dispositions on public lands,

reserve area s, and provide notice of sensitive or other identif‌ied values

of public lands and resources. Section E provides an overview on how

legislation and policies authorize a nd direct public lands and resources

management.

PUBLIC LANDS A ND RESOURCES LAW IN CA NADA122

B. L AND M ANAGEMENT APPROACHES,

POLICIES, AND PLANS

1) Multiple Use

Steven Kennett broadly characterizes multiple use as being “based on

the premise that public land s have a variety of values and can simul-

taneously meet the needs of many users. The objective is to encourage

complementary uses and ba lance competing uses in order to maximi ze

aggregate benef‌its.”1 The Kennett passage emphasizes the utilitarian

underpinnings of multiple use la nd use approaches that would maxi-

mize the use of public resources for the g reatest benef‌its. The multiple-

use approach, or philosophy, has been traced back to US utilitar ian

conservationist Gifford Pinchot in the 1940s2 and in the next few dec-

ades was ref‌lected in var ious public la nds statutes in the United States.3

It should be underlined, though, that a multiple use approach does not

necessarily involve making all possible benef‌icial us es of an area of

public land at the same time (e.g., forestry, grazing, wildlife, oil and

gas production, recreation). With an area of land whose “highest and

best use” is to produce timber, sustained timber production use might

be most benef‌icial to society — in accorda nce with utilitari an theory —

while permittin g other uses concomitantly that are consistent with t hat

use.

1 Steven A Kennett, New D irections for Public Land Law, CIRL Occas ional Paper

#4 (Calgary: Ca nadian Institute of Re sources Law, 1998) at 10.

2 Gifford Pinchot, Bre aking New Ground (New York: Harcour t Brace, 1947), re-

ferred to by Har rison Loesch, As sistant Secretar y for Public Land Management,

US Department of t he Interior, in “Multiple Uses of Public La nds, Accom-

modation, or Choosi ng between Conf‌licting Use s” (1971) 16 Rocky Mountain

Mineral Law Institute 1, where i n the text surrounding note 13 L oesch relates

the following quote f rom Pinchot: “[f]rom the f‌irst I thought I had stumbled on

something re ally worth while, but that day i n Rock Creek Park I was far from

grasping t he full reach and swin g of the new idea . . . . It took time for me to

appreciate that he re were the makings of a new polic y, not merely n ationwide

but world-wide in scope . . . . [S]o far as I knew the n or have since been able to

f‌ind out, it had occur red to nobody, in this country or abroa d, that here was

one question inste ad of many, one gigantic single problem that mu st be solved

if the generation s, as they came and went, were to live c ivilized, happy, useful

lives in the la nds which the Lord their Go d had given them . . . . When the use

of all the natu ral resources for the common good i s seen to be a common policy

with a common pur pose, the chance for the wi se use of each of them becomes

inf‌initely g reater than it had ever been b efore . . . .”

3 For example, the US Multiple Use, Sustai ned Yield Act of 1960, 16 USC §§ 528 –31,

and the US Federal Land Ma nagement and Policy Act of 1976, 43 USC ch 35.