:report to the House Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs/by the Comptroller General of the United States. United States.General Accounting Office. United States.Congress.House.Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs. Washington D.C.:U.S. General Accounting Office,1976. United States. Dept. of the Interior. United States. Dept. of Agriculture. United States. General Services Administration. Public lands United States. J__ d-1430.Q -PIESTRIMED outstdo thi Account* a I . . .1 :' "-@sfs of SP ec by the Office oi C,;_ I M REPOR T TO THE HO USE COj@ AIMITTEE ON INTERIOR AND INS ULAKAFFAIRS.. 'ERA L BY THE COYIPTROLLE17?GEIN OF THE UNITED STATES PrOPOPE.Y. Of CSC Libirary COASTAL ZONE INFORMATION CENTER Improvements Needed In. Review Of. PuNic tand Witndrawals., Land Set Aside For Special, Purposes, Departmerit of the Interior L D e p a; r tm en -LL of Agriculture ZIC COL E.CT10@1_1_-- ? -vi,e Administration General Ser s Oublic land withdrawals generally are not. being reviewed to determine whether, the%i re jo shouid main in effeCtL and those reviewed are not being revoked expeditiously. fA any obsolete public land withdrawals exist and m;ty prchibit the most effective use of public R land. Coordination is necessary between L involved in land programs to help agencies J;CL U DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE avoia duplication of effort ;n certain pub NO A.A land activities. -COASTAL SERVICES,CENTER 2234 SOUTH HOBSON AVENUE CHARLESTON,L SC 29405-24 1, HD t'@ 0 V.,1E; L, @Cj 7 D-76 159 b 243 U52 C U56 1976 cow TO THE READER: SE VERA L PA GES OF THE FOLL 0 WIN(; HA TER /A L MA Y BE ILLEGIBLE: BECA USE OF THE POOR QUALITY OF THE.COPY SUBMITTED FOR MICROFILMING COASTAL ZONE INFORMATION CENTER COMPTROLLER GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES WASHINGTON, D.C. 23348 B-184196 The Honorable James A. Haley, Chairman Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs House of Representatives Dear Mr. Chairman: This report describes the Department of the Interior's Bureau of Land Management procedures for reviewing and re- voking public land withdrawals. We made this review pursuant to your October 7, 1975, request. This report covers our review of public lands withdrawn in the State of California. We discussed our findings with agency officials during our review and their comments have been included herein. However, in accordance with a request from your office, we have not obtained formal agency comments. This report contains recommendations to the Secretary of the Interior, which are set forth on pages 21 and 22. As you know, Section 236 of the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1970 requires the head of a Federal agency to submit a written statement on actions taken on our recommendations to the House and Senate Committees on Government Operations not later than 60 days after the date of the report and to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations with the agency's first request for appropriations made more than 60 days after the date of the report. We will be in touch with your office in the near future to arrange for the release of the report so that the requirements of Section 236 can be set in motion. Sincerely yours Comptroller General of the United States C0 N TE N TS Page DIGEST,, CHAPTER INTRODUCTION Processing withdrawal.and revocatidn applications 3 Interior's responsibility for reviewing existing withdrawals 3 General Services Administration's responsibility for reviewing withdrawals of public lands 4 RPviews.of.withdrawal program@ 5 21 -IMPROVEMENTS NEEDED IN WITHDRAWAL'REVIE,.W AND REVOCATION PROGRAMS .7 Bureau'.s failure to implement a comprehensive review program has allowed obsolete withdrawals to continue 7 ..Need for coordinating .review activities between GSA and the Bureau 15 The Bureau's withdrawal restoration program is untimely 18 3 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS. 21 Conclusions 21 Recommendat ions to the Secretary of 21 the Interior 4 SCOPE OF REVIEW 23 APPENDIX October 7, 1975, letter from theChairman't, .House Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs 24 II Withdrawals on Forest Service lands 26 ABBREVIATIONS GSA General Services Administration OMB Office of Management and Budget ..-.COMPTROLLER GENERAL'S REPORT IMPROVEMENTS.NEEDED IN.R.,EVIEW, TO THE HOUSE COMMITTFE, ON OF PUBLIC LAND WITHDRAWALS_ ,INTERIOR AND.IINSULAR AFFAIRS LAND SET ASIDE FO,R,,,SPECIAL PURPOSES Department.of the Intirlor Department of, Agriculture General services Administration, D I G E,S T- About 517 million acres of our Nation's public lands have been "withdrawn" Federal agencies. Generally, withdrawals are defined as statutory, or administrative actions restricting or segre- gating public lands from settlement, entry' , location,:or disposal under some or all of,the general land laws. Use ofthe land thereafter, is limited to the specific purpose or,purposes for. which it was withdrawn. These -purposes include recreation ar eas, wilder-, nelss areas,.national parks, and many others. The Secretary of the Interiorand the Administrator of General 'Services have responsibility for re-. viewing the status of certain withdrawn lands... the Secretary ha:s delegated his-authority to the,Bureau of Land Management in.the Departm-ent. A GAO review of land withdrawals in California showed that the Bureau had notestablished a: comprehensive program.to review land.withdrawais. primarily under. its jurisdiction. In many.cases a,review was not made, or, if made, it was limited to identifying withdrawals, rather than determining whetherany were obsolete and should,ha 've been revoked. Many old withdrawals exist some made in. the early 1900s--and had not been review6d. There- -fore, a determination of whether the lands,should still be:set aside for the purposes intended could notbe made. In addition, a program to determine that.other agencies' withdrawals are reviewed hadnot been instituted. (See pages 7 and 21.) GAO also found that the Bureau and the Genera 1_ Services Ac-ninistration had overlapping respc;nsi- bilities f,@.:* reviewing withdrawals--primarily concernina those for military purposes. GAO found also that the Bureau had not processed revocation applications. submitted to it by other Tear Shee Upon removal. the report CED-76-153 Cover date should be notedhereon. 7: agencies in a timely manner so that the land with- drawn can be returned to the public land inventory. Some withdrawal revocation applications were about 19 years old, and the Bureau took an average of 4 years to process such applications. A Bureau of Reclamation official said that the failure of the Bureau of Land Management to act promptly on proposed revocation applications would result in requiring reanalysis and updating as field conditions may have changed since revocations were submitted. (See pages 18-20.) To determine benefits which could be derived from an effective review program, GAO examined land withdrawals within the Placer-El Dorado land use planning unit of the Bureau's folsom District of California. A Bureau's official in California said that the withdrawals within this district office was representative of the Bureau's program in the State. The geographic boundaries of the unit include about 1.1 million acres and contain about 300,000 acres of Bureau and Forest Service lands. Many obsolete withdrawals exist and some of the withdrawn lands may be used more effectively for other purposes. (See page 8.) Within the Placer-El Dorado planning unit, about 27 percent of the total 443,720 acres of withdrawn lands GAO reviewed may no longer be needed for the purposes designated. These lands should be reviewed by the Burueau and, if appropriate, the withdrawal should be revoked. For example, on the basis of reviews conducted by the Geological Survey on powersite withdrawals, GAO estimates that of the 126,344 acres in the unit, about 82,000 acres may be obsolete and need to be reviewed. GAO also examined withdrawals in the Eldorado and Los Padres National Forests and the John Muir and San Gabriel Wilderness area and 14 withdrawals in other national forests which appeared to be serving no useful purpose. On the basis of informa- tion provided by officials of the Forest Service and Geological Survey, of the 314 withdrawals totaling 1,722,741 acres which GAO examined, about 358,544 acres in 174 withdrawals were not needed for the purposes withdrawn. (See page 13.) Interior officials said that a comprehensive with- drawal review program has not been implemented because its staff concentrated on higher priority ii N land use programs,. such a s energy and- grazing., They. said that Interior could not unilaterally revoke lands withdrawn. by other agencies without the agencies' approval and had experienced.dif@fi- L culty in getting.,these agencies to cooperatein a..review program. Because withdrawals plate restrictions on the Use of public lands, unnecessary restrictions should be removed as soon as possible. Even, thou@gh there may be no urgent short-term need. to revoke obsolete land.withdrawal:,, it is doubt- ful that effective land use management plans 'can be formulated and obtained while the land is withdrawn for purposes no longer appropriate. 'A departmental task force has been established,- to review the heed for a withdrawal review system. on October 21, 1976, Public Law 94-579, the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976,, became law. In part, this act requires: --the Secretary to review the need for ekisting withdrawals in certain States within 15 years of the date of theact; and --on and after the date of ap'roval of the Act p new withdrawals to be limited to certain periods of time, generally 20 years, and to, 'be reviewed toward the end,of the withdrawal period.-, Based on 'our review, we believe the Secretary of. the interior, in implementirg the recently enacted. legislatlion,,should:.... Establish in the Department and withthe co- ...operation of other land holding agencies, a coordinated comprehensive program to expedi- tiously,revoke all withdrawals no@lohqer needed. --Work with the Administrator.of General Services to define each,agency's.withdrawal review re- sponsibilities to avoid.duplication of effort In reviewing the need for withdrawals. In developing an effective withdrawal review pro- gram, the Secretary should consider establishing, to the extent practicable, timeframe guidelines for Bureau processing of agency revocation appli- Tear Shee cations to assist the administering agencies in their land use planning. (See page 22.) GAO's findings were discussed with agency officials and their comments have been included. However, in accordance with the Committee's request, no formal agency comments have been obtained. Tear Sheet iv CHAPTER 1, INTRODUCTION In an October 7, 19?5, letter, the Cha. rman o,:, the House Committee on Interior and Insular Mfair's rei"uested us to review the adequacy of Federal procedures foi-, reviewing existing public land withdrawals and revoking obsolete with- drawals in Cali fornia. Generally, land withdrawals are defined as statutory or administrative actions which restrict or segregate public lands from settlement, entry, location, or disposal under'some or all of the@general land laws and limit the use of the land to the specific-. purpose or pur-poses for @which it was withdrawn. The Secretary of the Interior. is vested by statute and for withdrawing public Executive order with*responsibility J. domain or other lands o..med or controlled. by the United States for public purposes and for returning the lands.to an unwith- dra'wn,status when the need for,the withdrawal,no longer exists. Withdrawals.are made under suchlautho'.:izations as:, --Special acts of Congress which.. designate the specific area that.will be set aside,, such as the Wilderness Act ot September 3, 1964 (16 U.S.C. 1131 et seq.). --The Act of June 25, 1910, ch..421 (43 U.S.C. 141., 142 and 16 U.S..C. 471),which allows the President-to@with.- draw public jands for waterpower sites, irrigation, classification.of.lands, or other public purposes. --The implied.authori,ty of the President to ma ke with- drawals for various. purposes. The Bureau of Land Management (Bureau) in the Department of the Interior, is responsible for reviewing all proposed- withdrawals.and restorations to insure that.the proposed action is needed:and in' thenational interest. In additiont the Bureau is responsible for'developing and1conducting,:in cooperation with other bureaus and agencies, a comprehensive review progrant to make.certain that existing withdrawals are still ne,eded for the purposes for which they were withdrawn. On the basis uf the Bureau's mo u st recent p biic land -ids!/ in. statistics, of th,,? 704 million acres of public lai the U,ni,@ed Stat es, 517 million acres, or about 73,peFcent, as.of June 30, 1974, had been withdrawn, including about 66 unds in percent of the 42.7 million acres.of the public lf@' California,. The following table shows the amount of with drawn public,lands in the United States and in California, by administering agency. Withd awn-Public-Laiids r -agency -3. States... Administering Unite, California (Acres) Department of the Interior: ..Bureau of Land Manage,ment 281,0192,309 @1,007,72.8 Fish and Wildlife Service 26,891,395 2,240 National Park Service 19,834,785 3,855,936 Bureau of Reclamation 5,664,546 @@863,7231 Bureau of Indian.Affairs 4,2O4r849 0 Deoartment of Agriculture: Forest Service 160,193,401 Department of Defense 17,046,346 2,628,985 Atomic Energy Commission 1,438,470 0 other departments and .... 2;024 agencie's -550;535 To@al 516,916-636 28;087j752 Public lands can be@withdrawn for more than one purpose provided subsequent withdrawals do not conflict with the intent of earlier withdrawals. Fo r example, of.the,19.7 million acres,of withdrawn Forest Service land s in California, about 2.6 million a.crer, have been withdrawn for various pur- poses such as wilderness areas, wild and scenic rivers,.natu.ral -history areas, experimental forests, recreation areas, and watershed prote,ction. .......... ..l/Public lands are defined as.'original public domain lands which have never left Federal ownership or lands obtained by the Government in exchange for public lands but do not include about 56.7.million.acres acquired by the Government generally through.purchase, condemnation, or gift, which are,called acquired lands. 2 The:'restoration of withdrawn publ ic lands are made under the same authority used to make the wi thdrawals. A. st.at.utory withdrawal, such as for. a wilderness area .or a national par*K, can only be restored bythe Congress, unless., thewithdrawal act specifically provides otherwise. PROCESSING WITHDRAWAL AND REVOCATICN APPLICATIONS Except for withdrawals specifically made by the Congress, Federal agencies' applications for withdrawing public lands, or for revoking'a withdrawal,order are processed by the Bureau. Applications containing the requesting agency's justification and supportingdata for theproposed action--are submitted to th'e.appropriate State office of the Bureau. For withdrawals of land,the applicant agency must Submit an environmental assessment. For revocation actj;ns, the Bureau is to make the environmental assessment for land that will be returned to its control. A mineral report -is, also requ @.--d if-the withdrawal is:expect fect mining. The re,@-)z7t is ed to af to be prepared by the request.i.ng agency,if it has,@enough staff.; otherwise, it is to be prepared by the Bureau. The Bureau reviews the withdrawal or revocation applica- tion and makes a f i e'L dexamination to determine whether the request shouldbe approved. After the review, the Bureau reports its findings and.recommendations to the Secretary of the Interior. W.hen a withdrawal or revocationapplication is approved, a Public Land Order i s'.published. in the Federal Register. INTERIOR'S RESPONSIBIjITY FOR REVIEWING EXISTING WITHDRAWALS Congressional approval'is needed, under the, Act of February 28, 1958 (43 U.S.C. 155 et seq.) , for. military with- drawalslin excess of, 5,000 acres. The Congress# however, does not review other types of land.withdrawals. On Mav 26, 1952, the President, by Executive Order 10355, authorized the Secretary of the Interior to make withdrawals and revocations of public domain lands. The Secretary was authori,zed to issue rules and regulations prescribing proce- dures to carry out this responsibility. The Secretary's authority was.limited because no order affecting land under the administrative jurisd'CLtion of 'any executive departments .or agencies, other than the Departme@fit of the Interior, could be issued by the Secretary, without-the prior`cnnciur Irenceof the Department or, agency concerned. Disagreements1can be referred to the Office of Management and Budget.. (OMB) for resolution. 3. J The Order did, not specifically state that the Secretary @should have a program to review existing withdreiwals. The Secretary, has., however , established a policy r eq u ir irig a, current and continuing review of all withdrawalv nd has a assigned this responsibility to the Bureau. The Eureauls"12 State offices administer th e withdrawal and revocation activities, including the Bureau's review 'program. The land withdrawal 'review program isa par t of the Bureau's planning unit system. Under this system., the.,_ Bureau's district offices, within the 12 State offices, are divided into planning units which.are specific geographic areas within a district office. The planning unit is to record and analyze inventory data on its land and the land's resource conditions and capabilities. The data gathered for. each planning unit is to include a list of withdrawals by t pe, acreage, and agency involved., Each withdrawal'is to y be analyzed periodically--no specific timeframes have been established to determin6-(I) whether its,purpose is being served, (2) its effect or. segregating lands from settlement,. location,. sale , selection, entry, lease, and,.'other forms ot disposal under the public,land laws, and (3)'the;effect of. theyithdrawal on the management of lands, resources, and otber possible users. GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION'S. TY FOR RE RESPONSIBILI VIEWING WITHDRAWALS OF PUBLICLANDS On February 10, 1970, the President, by Executive Order 11508., as' amended by Executive Order 11560 on September 23, 1970, 2stablished.a program to improve management of the real property resources of the Federal. Government. The Administrator of General Services was ordered to-establish uniform standards and procedures for 'identifying real property not being utilized or being underutilized. These standards and procedures were to,be used by executive agencies in Completing surveys of all real property under their control. The agencies were to report a li.sting of thi@ properties and the use of the properties to the Administrator. In addition, the Administrator was ordered to make a survey of real property holdings of all executive agencies to identify'properties which, in.his.judgment,.were not being utilized or were being underutilized. The Administrator was to report to the President those properties which.had not been reported excessive by the administering agency but which,.in the Administrator's judg- ment, should have been. In accor.d with the Federal Property Management Regulations, if a conflict exists between the General Services Administration (GSA),,and an executiveagencyo, the case is to be sent to OMB for resolution. Land management 4 agencies are@ to conduct annual utilization review's of their real property holdings and to report this. to GSA. The majority. Ject to. review of the lands listed in the inventory and. suM are those lands withdrawn for military purposes. Executive Order 115,08, as amended, specifically excluded. froim1review 14nds withdrawnfor national forests and par ks,. These orders were superseded by Executive 0 r&.r 11724 of June 25, 19731 which additionally excluded from review wild- life reserves. A GSA official said many'other withdrawn lands administered by the Bureau, such as po,wersites:and wildlife management areas, were exclud.e@d from GSA's review. REVIEWS OF WITHDRAWAL PROGRAM June 1970 the Public Land Law Review Commission submitted a report with recommlendations.l.to-the Pre s ident and the:Congress,'for policy guidelines for the.retention and management ordisposition of Federal lands. The Commission'had been established by the Congress. (43 U.S.C. 1393) on September 19, 1964, to study existing laws and procedures relating to the' administration of the public 2ands of.the United States. The Commission recommended. that @a complete review of all :existing withdrawals,be under taken immediately to provide, a-basis for eliminating those that no longer serve a useful purpose and for modifying.those that are unnedessarily.large. It recommende&also that the:" Congress establish a formal progr,am under which withdrawals would be. per@odically reviewed and rejustified or modified. ted that the authority.6f the Secretary Th eCommission no of the Interior to effect modifications or revocations of :withdrawals of lands.administered by an age ncy outside of the @Department.was limited because existing procedures.give the administering agency veto power over modifications.or.changes in a withdrawal of lands made for its benefit...-,Thus the''. effectiveness of having agencies review their own withdrawa ls is dubious, unless legislation is enacted requiring a periodic mandatory reconsideration of. thewithdra.wal. According to. the Commission,:the responsibility for review',@and where required the modification and terriination of withdrawals, should rest with the same officer, who has' the authority to make withdrawals. Concerned about the amount of public,lands that bave. .,been withdrawn from mineral entry, the Secretary of,the Interior, in January 1976, established a departmental task force, consisting of various representatives of.the Department, .5 including the Bureau, (1) to determine which lands have been withdrawn, segregated, or otherwise restricted from mineral exploration and development, (2) to review present policies and procedures governing withdrawal of public lands and, to review modification and termination of withdrawals and re- strictions, and (3) to review alternatives to the present withdrawal system. The task force is to make a recommendation to the Secretary by December 31, 1976, on the need to establish a system to periiodically review existing withdrawals and determine tha continued need for them. 6 CHAPTER 2 IMPROVEMENTS NEEDED IN WITHDRAWAL REVIEW AND REVOCATION PROGRAMS Many withdrawals have not been reviewed for long periods and are no longer necessary. As a result, some land which could be mined, disposed of, or otherwise incorporated into land use management programs are not being used in these ways. These lands remain in a withdrawn status because (1) the Bureau has not fully inplemented a comprehensive program to review withdrawals on its lands or on lands administered by other agencies and (2) there are major delays in processing revocation applications. Also coordination is needed between the agencies involved with public lands to avoid possible duplication in reviewing the status of withdrawn land. Bureau headquarters and State officials said tha a comprehensive withdrawal review program has not been imple- mented because (1) the Bureau's staff concentrated on higher priority land use programs, such as energy and grazing, and (2) withdrawal reviews made by the Bureau in the past were ineffective as the Bureau did not have the authority to revoke withdrawals without the administering agency's approval. Headquarters officials said that the Bureau has no specific criteria for dtermining whether withdrawn lands were no longer needed for the purpose they were originally withdrawn and that the Bureau relied on the administering agency to identify lands no longer needed. However, these officials added, if withdrawals were limited to specific periods, when the expiration date is near, a decision would have to be made concerning the need for the withdrawn land. The officials said that consideration is being given to implementing this procedure for all new withdrawals. BUREAU'S FAILURE TO IMPLEMENT A COMPREHENSIVE REVIEW PROGRAM HAS ALLOWED OBSOLETE WITHDRAWALS TO CONTINUE In October 1975 the Assistant Secretary for Land and Water Resouces stated before the House Subcommittee on Public Lands, Interior and Insular Affairs Committee, that the Bureau's planning system enables the Department to regularly review land withdrawals. He further stated that as a result of the withdrawal review program, initiated during the latter part of the 1950's there was a continuous, comprehensive withdrawal review program with special emphasis on Department of the Interior withdrawals. According to the 7 Department's procedures, withdrawals are considered obsolete and are to be revoked when they no longer are needed for the purpose for which they were withdrawn. We found, however, that although the Bureau had established a program to review withdrawals on lands pri- marily under its jurisdiction, in many cases a review was not made, and, if made, it was limited to identifying with- drawals rather than determining whether any were obsolete and should have been revoked. In addition, a program to assure that other agencies' withdrawals are reviewed has not been instituted. To detemine the benefits which could be derived from an effective review program, we examined land withdrawals within the Placer-El Dorado land use planning unit of the Bureau's Folsom District of California. According to a Bureau State official, the withdrawals within this district office were representative of the Bureau's program in the State. The geographic boundaries of the unit include about 1.1 million acres and contain about 300,000 acres of Bureau and Forest Service lands. Placer-El Dorado Land Use Planning Unit Characteristics Acreage Public lands: Bureau lands 38,840 Forest Service lands 259,350 Private lands 807,730 Total 1,105,920 Because of the incomplete records, we were unable to specifically determine the total acres of withdrawals, which may be obsolete, by the administering agency. However, on the basis of discussions with officials of th Bureau of Reclamation, Geological Survey, Forest Service, and the Bureau, we estimated that withdrawals for about 119,034 acres or 27 percent of the 443,720 acres withdrawn may be obsolete--no longer needed for the purposes for which they were withdrawn--and should be reviewed. The following table shows the total withdrawals which may be obsolete which we were able to identify by type. 8 Publial-Land-Withdrawals In The Placer-El DC: Land. Use PlanRIng@.un tt Withdrawn :Nestionable lype of withdrawal acrea,ge.@ acreage Withdrawn for national forest 259r350 Administrative site's 599@ Recreation areas 5 Roadside, zones' 1,427 Pine, seed orchard 212 Forest experimental.stations 40 Withdrawn pending resurvey 6,579 6,579 Withdrawn t.o.protect redwoods l4r562 14,562 Quail watering devices@. 448 Reclamation. projects. 22, 600 10,396 Proposed reclamatir,,n projects '9 283 Federal Power-Commission power-@ projects 51,467 .32,824 -Pow.ersite- classifications 50'r233- 34,549 Powersite reserves 24,464 14,949 Reservoir site reserves. 180 126 Corps of Engi4e ers 850 .,Withdrawn pending survey 721' 721 'Withdrawn pending inclusion into the national.forest 640 640 Total. a/443 720 a/119,034 A/The total acreage of withdrawn public lands and questionable'. acreage 'includes lands, withdrawn for more. than one, purpose. The revocation of withdrawal,s may not always result in the. lands being. available for new or different uses because many withdrawals are secondary. Although the revocation of.. secondary withdrawal mit certain uses of the.land I s may per previously restricted, other restrictions may still remainL ,depending on the limitations, if any,Amposed by previous with drawals. For:example, theL.revocation.of secondary withdrawals on Forest Service lands will not open the lands o all possible uses because national.forests wereoriginally established through withdrawals which also impose certain Llimitations on the use of lands. Withdrawals on 1 and admin stered Lby the Bureau., We examined the land. withdrawal. invent Iory..data for 31 of the 73 Bureau planning, units in.California and found that for 9. 16P inventory listings--whi,ch were to include des(-,!riptions' of the property,, property boundaries, 11ithdrawal, purpose of and other. data--were not given. Therefore an analysis to determine the total Bureau withdrawals-which were obsolete 'could not be made. According to Bureau.officials, some of the withdrawals related to thosefor powersites or national:forests. For example, within.the Placer-El Dorado planning unit, 126,344" ac.res, including some Bureau-administered.lands,,are in 'power project- or reservoir-related wi 'thdrawals.. Powersite withdrawals limit the freedom of the' land management agencies to use, exchange,, or dispose of the landsi but the lands may ..:dontinue to be used for other purposes, such as grazing and recreation, with the understanding that power, development cannot.be precluded by suchuse. Concerned withmaintaining a%current inventory of lands with-P ,otential,for.power-related uses, the Geological Survey, has.been, independently reviewing these withdrawals"sincLA 1955.. A Bureau official said, however,. that the Bureau.had not entered into.any cooperative withdrawal review program with. other agencies with%n the Department or with other depart- ments primarily because of the lack of.staff to work with the.agencies and.the agencies' information. On the,basis of reviews conducted'by the Geological Survey on powersite withdrawals, we estimate,that, of the 126,344 acres in the unit we reviewed, about 82,0,00.acres@@.. are questionable and need to be reviewed. " Some of these lands-1. administered by the Bureau, are isolated parcels, a result the Bureau cannot manage them effectively. For example, of a 3,20-acre parcel ofland withdrawn 62 years:. ago for a powersite reserve,-.140 acres are surrounded by-, private.ranch lands with no public roa,ds'leading into the, property. A Bureau official agreed-that the@land had little power value,* and.the withdrawal should be revoked-because it is-unaccessible and therefore cannot be used for-power Purposes. The official said that, if the withdrawal was revoked, attempts could be made.to sell the entire 320-acre parcel to private land owners. He said that there were other powersite withdrawals which.he was aware of that were not serving their intended purpose bu't-that they should hot be revoked.because the withdrawals keep the land in public ownership. For examplef ..he cited a 110-acre parcel encumbered by four withdrawals,, the oldest of which.is over 61 years old. The land is bordered by,a public highway, the American River, and private property, 10 s Revoking the withdrawal action on this.parcel, the ..official said, would serve'no public purpose and would com-. plicate the Bureau's management. of the land because the withdrawal protected the land from- disposal actions -and mining.claims and provided the Bureau with the opportunity to manage the land for the general public. However, the Bureau has.not developed the land for general public use, although an official stated that plans were being.made to, use the land as r rafters using an overnight resting place f -0 'the American River. @In our opinion, retaining obsolete withdrawals allows the Bureau to delay deciding on whether the lands.will be disposed of or managed for the benefit of the general public.,i In December 1975 the Bureau headquarters issued.instructions on staff reportingrequirements forproposed withdrawals @and revocation actions. The new instruction memorandum said that revocation actions would not be,postponed merely to continue segregating the land forthe Bureau's administrative convenience If there is justification for continued pro- .@tection, it should be.accomplished through.the protective' withdrawal process, or by classification action,,if appro- priate. These instructions, if properly'carried out,, could resulc in1more expeditiously restoring of obsolete withdrawals, allowing the landto be used for other purposes.and.resulting In better management of.public lands., An example of an obsolete withdrawal on'land administered by the Bureau is 640.acres of a parcel of land withdrawn 52 years ago for inclusion in the Tahoe National Forest' How- ever, these 640 acres have never been added to the forest. A Bureau official and a Forest Service offic,lal said "@they did not know why the lands were not included.into. the national forest. The Bureau official said it was time that a decision 'was made on the.disposition of the lands. The Forest.Service official said excluding.these lands was probably anoversight at the time the lands were withdrawn.. The lands consist of four isolated parcels and are surroundedby private and national forest lands. The lands, the administrative're- of the Bureau, are being managed for their sponsi timber resources. A Bureau official'said that the lands' remoteness from other Bureau-administered lands made the lands difficult to manage and that the lands,could be more easily managed by the Forest Service@. A Forest Service official said that the lands could be managed by the Tahoe National. timber wildlife, and water-. Forestlin conjunctionwith 1 shed protection management programs. A Bureau State official stated that if the. 'Bureau was given additional funds and staff, a withdrawal review program could be implemented. In addition, a Bureau headquarters official said that, to have a comprehensive withdrawal review program, the Bureau would need (1) additional staff, (2) enough time to make an adequate review, and (3) the authority to force holding agencies to release obsolete withdrawals. A Bureau official also said the Bureau never specifically requested additional staff for its withdrawal review program in the past. The official said, however, that, for the fiscal year 1978 budget, the Bureau had specifically requested 11 positioins for the withdrawal review program. Withdrawal of Land Administered by Forest Service Although the bureau has overall resposibility for insuring that all existing withdrawals are reviewed, it has not developed a withdrawal review program for withdrawals of other agencies. Bureau officials at the State Level and headquarters officials said that from 1956 to 1964 they tried to implement a comprehensive review program of other agencies' withdrawals. They said, however, that past programs were ineffective because the Bureau lacked the authority to uni- laterally revoke withdrawals which the agencies believed were needed but which the Bureau believed should be modified and/or revoked. The Forest Service is the Government's second largest land management agency with about 160 million acres of with- drawn public land. Forest Service officials told us that it considers land withdrawal reviews a low priority program function and that it had not established an internal review program. As a result, about 259,350 acres, or 87 percent, of the public lands within the Placer-El Dorado land use planning unit were not subject to the Bureau's review pro- cedures because this acreage was administered by the Forest Service. Forest Service instructions permit regional foresters to initiate actions to revoke withdrawals when the lands are no longer needed for the purposes withdrawn. Forest Service officials in California said there was no incentive to establish a review program. With the exception of its land exchange program, most withdrawals do not greatly affect Forest Service land use management programs, thus reviewing them is considered a low priority, In addition, they said withdrawals made by the Forest Service, although not being used for the purpose withdrawn, served to keep the illegal miners off the land. These miners are considered squatters and trespassers who, under the Mining Law of 1872, (17 Stat. 91) established claims for purposes other than mining, such 12 as_ su mmer cab in sites.' According to the Forest Se, rV ice, these activities can be controlled by retaining the land in a withdrawn status. 'We believe obsolete land withdrawals should be.revoked and the land not kept in.a withdrawn status, pr, imar i 1 yf or the convenience of the administering agency. , The Bureau's December 1975 instruction memorandum generally supports our position.. If the lands are needed for otherpurposess, new withdrawals should be justified. We identified.several examplesof.a potentially'obsolete ....land withdrawal in need of review under Forest Service. administration.within the Placer-El Dorado land use planning unit. In one caseo, atownship@of about 23,000 acres,was with-, drawn 84 years ago to protect "six live,and two dead redwood trees." The trees are located in an area about 600 feet in 'd iameter.; however the withdrawal removed the entirel-township@ from all forms of public entry under.the,public land laws. 'ithdrawal. The Forest Service did not become aware of,this land W, until 1973--@-80'years later--when its land status records- were updated forthe first,time... A number of mining claims were improperly granted, and mining took, place on these lands between 1900 and 1954-1 since 1973, however,.15 mining claims have been declared i.nValid by the Bureau because, under'the withdrawal act 'i-on, mining is prohibited. Bureau of Mines officials believe that good potential exists for the development oi@ gold mines on the land. A Forest Service official stated, however, that the withdra,;7al would.not be revoked until ano.ther.withdrawal application, which was being prepared.by the Forest Service, for a.smallernumber of acres is processed to protect''ihe .:redwood trees, a Forez;t Service administrative site, and,a @campground. To furtber.determine the effect of not establishing a withdrawal review program for Forest Service lands'-we examined-withdrawals in the Eldorado and Los Padres* National. Forests,and the John Muir and San Gabriel Wilderness areas. We also examined 14 withdrawals in 6 other national forests. which appeared to be serving no useful purpose. On the basis of information provided by officials of the'-For6st Service and Geological Survey, of the 314.-withdrawals.totaling 1,722,741 acres which we examined about 358,,544 acres in 174 withdrawals were not needed fL the purposes withdrawn. (See App. II.) We did not determine the total number of acres of 1and having minerdl development potential, but we believe, on the 13 basis of discussio ns with,officials of.the Bureau of Mines, '@that many of those withdrawals which are no t, needed may be a ni preventing cert in mi ing activity. For example, 3,273 acres in the Six Rivers National Forest were temporarily withdrawn. in .196,5:pending a land exchange. the 'lands were notexchange'd, yet they remained segregated from the public land.laws, in- cluding the mining,laws. The, Bureau of Mines told, us. that some chromite.mining occurred in the general area@of the wi.thdrawal during.World War I and the Korean conflict. How- ever ', noattempts to establish a mining claim have been-made since the.lands were withdrawn. ..In addition, certain other land wi,thdrawals we examined appeared to cause some 'uncertainty by the Forest Service over what.could be done on the land. Fo r example., 5,202 acres in the Inyo National Forest were withdramn over. '16 0 years pending an investigation'of the land for. irrigation c purposes. The Forest Supervisor said that the land was being,utilized for the withdrawal and he'was not aware ofall,.restrictions placed on the land.by the,,,withdrawai. He said that it was being managed for multiple.use:a'nd.. that, even though.he was not certain whether mineral entry was affected.by the withdrawal, 38 mining, claims'had been established on -the land between 1920 and 1967.. Our review of the withdrawal order showed that.this land was withdrawn under the Act of. June 25, 1910, thus mining is allowed. Another example of uncertainty over withdrawalsis the fact that 6,579 acres in the Eldorado,Nationa.1 Forest were .@temporarily withdrawn over 42 years ago from settlement# location, @sale, or entryll pending,a resurvey..I.The resurvey, .@had not been male and-the withdrawal continues. In 1938 and 19.44'two private land exchanges'totaling 630 acres were made in apparen t violation of the withdrawal order. Subsequent to our discussion of this withdrawal with Forest Service officials, the Bureau told the Forest Service that theland exchanges were not proper, but due to the expiration of the statute of limitations. on these transactions, the oversight could not be corrected._ A regional Forest Service offidial said that the.variety of authorities and types of withdrawals created a problem which could not be adequately represented in land status records. As a result, he said, the Forest Service does not know pr'ecis.ely how many acres of forest land are affected by withdrawals , or in what way, and therefore i t doe-s no.t 'know .exactly,what the Forest. Service's capabilities,are, to produce.. goods'a-nd services. 14 We discussed our findings with Bureau and forest Service officials. As a result of the discussions, the director, Bureau of Land Management, in a Gebruary 17, 1976, letter to the Chief, Forest Service, requested cooperation in developing and carrying out a meaningful withdrawal review program insofar as unneeded Forest Service withdrawal were concerned. The Director also requested developing a close working relationship at both the headquarters and field levels in (1) handling new withdrawal requests and (2) expeditiously processing proposed withdrawals which have been published as proposals but not yet finalized. We believe that entering into a review program with the Bureau will help reduce the uncertainty of what the Forest Service, as well as the public, can do on national forest lands. To properly administer any land use program, including minimizing unlawful use of land, it is necessary to know what restictions are on the land and what effect these restrictions have on the use of the land. Identifying and revoking obsolete withdrawals would allow the land to be used for other purposes, as appropriate. NEED FOR COORDINATING REVIEW ACTIVITIES BETWEEN GSA AND THE BUREAU the General Services Administraion and the bureau have overlapping resposibility for reviewing the status of certain withdrawn lands. The Bureau is responsible for reviewing all existing withdrawals, and GSA is reposible for reviewing the utilization of most Federal real property. Withdrawal and utiliztion reviews are generally concerned with whether tha lands are needed and/or being effectively used by Federal agencies. The largest holdings of withdrawn lands which the Bureau and GSA have resposibility for reviewing are for military purposes. The Department of Defense has control over about 17 million acres of withdrawn public land. The major exceptions to GSA's review are national forests, parks, wildlife refuges, and unwithdrawn public lands. Bureau officials told us that they had not participated in the GSA program and did not know how the GSA program would affect the Bureau if it had an active withdrawal review pro- gram. According to a GSA headquarters official, it was not view program with the Bureau because: --Most GSA reviews involve "acquired" land which is land generally recieved as gifts, condemnations, and by purchase whereas the Bureau reviews involve public lands. 15 --Witb the exception of,military' and Bureau o,-. Reclamation lands, lands.reviewed by GSA ha,re im@-rovements thereon whereas most Bureau lands do not. --The Bureau is being indirectly informed,of the results of GSA reviews when app-lications-to.rev.oke the withdrawals are submitted to it. @Because the Bureau has overall responsibility for. reviewing existing withdrawals and.new withdrawal applica- tions, it should.be involved in and/or informed. of the ..results of any other agencies' reviews of withdrawn land including military withdrawals with improvements'.,. This inform6tion c6ulC be used,by the Bureau when reviewing re- -withdrawal.applications to avoid. duplicating work already done by GSA. A Bureau headquarl@ers official said military 'Withdrawals made.under the Act of February 28, 1958, are Lerminating and scheduled for rewithdrawal review.. Also, if the Bureau implements 6 comprehensive review program,it will have to coordinate its activities with GSA to avoid duDlication in reviewing the need forcertain withdrawals., .'such as'those of the Defense Department. From 1970 through November 1975, the utilization uf 22.1 million acres,or about 97 percent, oftheapproximately 23 million acres of placlic a-rid acquired lands under the control of the military had bi@en :eviewed by CSA, the Department of Defense, or the indiv4.,-4oal military services. As a result of these reviews, the military agreed to release about 1.4 million acres., Although-the Bureau has overall responsibility to make certain that all withdrawals, including military with-. drawals, are still needed, a cooperative review.program for military withdrawals,has not been.established. One of the military installations GSA r-viewed was the Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range located in the ,southern California desert. Of this 458,89.4-acre range, about 252,126 acres were withdrawn by the@Congress in Septem- ber 1963 for the Department of the Nav-'s use. The with- drawal expired.on September 5, 1973,,and in January 1974 the Navy submitted an application to the Bureau to rewithdraw the lands. In October 1972 the Navv made a.utilization review of the raige and found that about 83j840 acres were not being utilized or wereunderutilized. The Navy and the Department of Defense, however, did not want to return.the 1,...-%d to general public use because: 16 --The lands could not be adequately cleared of explosives because explosive decontamination procedures were not sufficiently advanced to guarantee that the public would be protected from explosive hazards. --Clearing the land could cost between $1,500 and $2,300 an acre and the estimated value of the land was only between $15 and $100 an acre. In July 1975 GSA agreed not to submit a revocation application for the land to the Bureau. From January 1974 to July 1975, when discussions were taking place between the navy and GSA over the disposition of the excess lands, the Bureau was reviewing the navy's rewithdrawal application. Neither GSA nor the military service coordinated their review activities with the Bureau, and the Bureau officials were unaware of the utiliztion review made on the Range until we brought it to their attention. The Federal Property Mangagement Regulations require that all real property utulization reports, such as the one for Chocolate Mountain, contain information on whether: --The land is being put to its highest and best use. --All the land is essential for program requiements. --Suffer or sagety zones are kept to a minimum. --The land can be disposed of and program requiements satisfied through reserving rights and interests to the Government in the property if it is released. --Any land is being retained merely because it is considered undesirable property due to topographical features or encumbances for rights-of-way, or because it is believed no to be disposable. A Bureau official said that, since he did not have a copy of the utilization report, he did not know specifically how the data would help the Bureau in reviewing the withdrawal application for Chocolate Mountain. He said, however, that the information required to be included in the report by the Federal Property Management Regulations would probably be relevant to determining whether the lands neede to be re- withdrawn. On the basis of our review of the utiliztion report on Chocolate Mountain, we believe that the type of information 17 included would aid the-Bu'reau-.1n,evaluating' evithdrawal r applications and-also aid in'its review'of exicting with- drawals when it implements a. comprehensive-withdrawal review. program., For example, the utilization report contained in-. formation on the total amount of.land ahistor I s Y of it uses, the value of improvements, a narrative or. its mission, findings and conclusions as to its utilization,,,. and ;propose.d@ .,disposal Actions. THE BUREAU*S-WITHDRAWAL,RESTORATION PR5GRAM-IS-UNTIMELY An essential part o.f. an effective withdrawal review program is revoking obsolete withdrawals in a timely manner.. The Secretary of the. Interior delegated to the Bureau the responsibility for-reviewing all proposed revocation actions and, where appro priate, to return the'lands to'an unencumbered J status.. Accountability:and responsibility for withdrawn lands ..remain with the relinquishing agency until revoked by the Secretar@y of the Interior. Bureau delays in processing re- .vocation Applications have prevented other agencies from relinquishing their responsibilities over withdrawn-land and have also prevented the lands from being used for other @purposes. We found inthe Bureau's,California office a backlog of revocation applications., dating back to 19.57. or about 19 years old. A Bureau official said that the backlog,was due to the lack of sufficient staff to make 'necessary field- reports, including environmental analyses to determine the impact of returning the land back.to general public use,'to revoke withdrawals. Bureau officials said that staff efforts, @have been directed toward higher priority matters, such as (1) energy-related programs, (2) implementing the.Bureau's land planning unit system in 1964, and (3).fulfilling the requirements of the Act of September 19, 1964. (43 U.S.C. .141.1 to 1418). To determine the, length of time the Bureau,takes to 'process applications we exami ned 48 revocation applications which were pending in Cali'fornia in October 1972. As of .,August 1975, 23'of.these applicationswere still pending. Several of these' Applications either needed concurrence from the administering agency or the Bureau's environmental.assess- mentswere not completed. The retaining 25 applications were completed and were (1) approved, or(2) withdrawn by the relinquishing agency, or (3) rejectedby the Bureau. The average time to.close the revo- cation cases was 48 months and varied from 4 to 126 months .,as shown on the next page. status of Applications--August 1975 Number of Months to Average time applications Acreage close (months) 842 112 Still open 23 249, 569 1-12 Closed 4 7 101 8.90 13-24 2 .6,781 2 418 37-48 10 56,851 over 48 Total 25 166,509 8 To.. determine the overall age of existing revocation applications which have not been closed, we reviewed the California ,State office's files as of August 31, 1975.' AS shown below, the California State office had pending 63 pcatip, applications for 386,809 acres. These applica- tions included the,23 totaling 249,842 listed in the previous- schedule which were submitted prior to October.1972. Period application Number of submitted cases Acreage Prior to 1961 7 192,617 to 1965 1,246 _1966 to. 1970 12 16,461 1971 to August 1975 40 116,485 Total. 63 386,809 3 Of these 63 ions, ll had been pending revocation applicat :for over 10 years. We reviewed 5 of the 11 appl icat ions for, 192,412'acres, which the Bureau of Reclamation had submitted between December 1957 and May 1960. These 5 applications showed that either additional, field reports were needed and/or environmental assessments were needed for the withdrawn lands proposed to be revoked. The Bureau requires staff or field reports to identify the effects of the-revocation on the Bureau's programs and envitonmental analysis or impact statement for each revocation application, in accordance with the provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (ch. .55, 42 U.S. C.) . An example of the effect of these delays can be demon- strated by two of.the five Bureau of Reclamation cAses pending for over 10 years. About 83,339 acres were withdrawn by the Bureau of Reclamation between July 2, 1902, and October 10, 19 1932, for the Colorado River Storage and Yuma projects and submitted for revocation in 1958 and 1960. In July 1975 an attorney representing a mining company said that, on the basis of considerable exploration just outside the boundaries of the property, and on a very limited study within the property, the area had a potential for mineral development. He said that a great deal of effort had been ecpended in trying to have the land restored to mineral entry, but the Bureau's inaction to revoke the withdrawal had effectively kept the lands closed to mining. The Bureau's State Director said a study was underway to determine the mineral character of the lands and the possible impacts surface mining would have on other resource values in the area. upon completion of this study, the attorney was to be told whether the Bureau proposed to restore the lands for entry under the mining laws or recommended that they be withdrawn for other puposes. A Bureau of Reclamation official said that the Bureau's failure to act promptly on the proposed revocation applications has greatly complicated their land administration program. As a result of the delays, each proposed revocation will now require reanalysis and updating because the field conditions may have changed since the revocations were submitted. 20 CHAPTER-3 CONCLUSIONS. The Bureau has not established.a comprehensive public landwithdrawal review program.. Many withdrawals--some made in the early 1900s--exis t and have not been reviewed by the.Bureau, so that a determination of whether they are still-appropriate cannot be made. Also,, the.Bureau has not expeditiously processed revoc6tion applications for certain withdrawals identified as obsolete. Some revo- 'cation applications are about.19 years old, and the Bureau in many casestakes an.average of 4 years to process.a revo- cation application. Therefore, many obsolete withdrawals.- continue. Some,of the land may be used more effectively for other, purposes.. Even if.there is no apparent immediate alternative use for the land, the implementation.of effective1and use-. plans or land use management is@hampered because land is'. unnecessarily encumbered. The Bureau has not established a review program.because it has.:had to use its staff on.higher priority.pu,blic land use programs, such.as energy and grazing. To help fcster effective land use planning, the Bureau should review existing withdrawals under its jurisdiction, and@establish a program, with the cooperlation of other Federa I agencies, to review the land withdrawn and administered by the other agencies. A cooperative,review program done effec- tively on a systematic basis should'help to ensure that all unnecessary withdrawals are promptly revoked. The Bureau'and the General Services Administration have some overlapping responsibilities for reviewing withdrawals, -_ primarily concerning military withdrawal,%. Therefore, to, avoid duplication in the Bureau's reviewing withdrawal applications, the Bureau and GSA need to coordinate theic". activities. RECOMMENDATIONS-TO,THE. SECRETARY OF THE I IOR We:recognize that a departmental task force has been established to review the need for a withdrawal review system. Also,,on.October 21, 1976, Public, Law 94-579, the Federal Land Polizy and management Act of 1976 became law. In part, this act requires: the Secretary to review the need for exi'sting.with drawals in certain States within 15 yipars of the date of the Act; and. -on and.. a f ter the date of approval of' the Act, new withdrawals,to be limited to certain periods of time:, generally 20 years, and to be reviewed toward the,end of the withdrawal period. We believe our recommendations, which,follow,, will be o f assistance to the task force and to the Secretaryih im- plementing the recently enacted legislation.. We recommend that to help insure that public lands @.are,effectively used, the Secretary of the Interior: within the Department and with the cooperation of theads of other land holding agenciesj a coordinated comprehensive program to expeditiously, revoke. all withdrawals-which are no longer needed. --Work with the Administrat-r of General Services in defini,ng each agency's withdrawal review responsi.- duplication in reviewing the heed for withdrawalsO We suggest that, in developing an'effective withdrawal review program, the Secretary consider establishing, to the extent..practicable:, timeframe guidelines for Bureau ssing of agency revocation app"-ications to as ist the proce _s administering -agencies in their -land use planning. 22 CHAPTER 4 SCOPE OF REVIEW We made our review to determine whether the Bureau had implemented an effective program to review and revoke obsolete land withdrawals. As requested by the Chairman in his October 7, 1975, letter, we directed our work to California and did not review the withdrawal process itself or other areas dealing with the effect of withdrawals on land use management programs. In California and Washington, D.C., we examined the wighdrawal review programs and procedures of the Department of the Interior's Bureau of Land Management, Bureau of Reclamation, and Geological Survey; the Department of Agri- culture's Forest Service; the General Services Administration; the Department of Defense; and the Department of the Navy. We reviewed, as of December 1975, all the withdrawals in the Bureau's Placer0El Dorado planning unit, the Eldorado and Los Padres national Forests, two wilderness areas, 14 with- drawals in 6 other national forests and the Navy's withdrawal for the Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range. Agency officials contacted during the review were asked to comment on the obsoloscence of particular withdrawals, the effectiveness of present and past wighdrawal review programs, and the need for withdrawal review. We also reviewed revocation files and prodedures at the Bureau's California office. 23 .23 APPENDIX I APPENDIX I COMMITEE ON INTERIOR AND INSULAR AFFAIRS U.S HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES WASHINGTON, D.C. 20515 OCTOBER 7, 1975 Honorable Elmer B. Staats Comptroller General of the United States General Accounting Office, 441 G Street, Northwest. Washington, D.C. 20548 Dear Mr. Staats: As you know, on July 24, 1975, this Committee requested your office to brief the Committee Staff on the observa- tions and tentative conclusions of your preliminary study Of public land withdrawals in California. On September 4, personnel of your office met with Committee Staff members and provided this information.. We appreciate your timely cooperation and believe thatthe information provided will be useful to the Committee in considering pending legislation, as we'll as continuing oversight responsibilities. The. Committee was most interested in GAO's findings regard- ing the procedures to review.and revoke existing withdrawals. We Agree with your staff's view that the current procedures do not appear to be adequate and have had a significant adverse impact on the ef f ective use of public domain lands. Because of the significance of these matters and the Committee's immediate need for such information, we are hereby requesting GAO to concentrate its efforts on these matters during its current study and issue a report to the Committee as soon as possible. The reportshould include GAO's. findings, conclusions, and recommendations concerning the adequacy of the procedureSLfor making review and revocations of existing withdrawals in the State of California. We understand that work on these matters has not been completed and that additional work is necessary before reaching conclusions and reporting to the Committee. We would.appreciate it if your office would brief the Committee 24 APPENDIX I APPENDIX I U.S. Comptroller General Staats October 7, 1975 Page 2 on your final position prior to the drafting of your report. Subsequently, the Committee plans to request your office to initiate a more extensive review of land withdrawals in several Western States. This work may include other aspects of the withdrawal process on which you have already developed preliminary information during your current study. As Chairman of this Committee I wish to express my appreciation for your cooperation on this important matter and will be glad to provide any assistance we can to your staff during their performance of this work. Sincerely yours, James A. Haley Chairman 25 APPENDIX 1I' APPENDIX I I -ON-FOREST-SERVICE'LANDS WITNDRAPRIS withdrawals examined Obsc;.ete"or-excess Types of withdrawals Num5er Acr =Nam r Acres Ir Eldorado Natio@nal Forest: Administrative sites, 22 1,717 9' 614 Recreation areas 36, 28 62,350 Roadside zones 7,770 Wilderness 2 112,155 Proposed exchanges; 2 803 Other withdrawals 22,221 2 141850 Various powe withdrawals. 5q, 147,899 35 A/103,1529 Muir Wilderness.area: Recreation Areas 2 17.: 1 5 Mono Long Valley geothermal- 21008 Withdrawal In'aid of legislation,--- 1 36,027 Various, power withdrawals' 17 59,478'. 12, a/41,635 Los Padres National Porest: Administrative sites 61 9,417, 5 584 Recreation areas 6,267. 62 5,254. Sespe C;@Pndor sanctuary, 1 69,117 - Santa Ynez watershed 1 300,076, Santa Barbara watershed 1 177,000 Other withdrawals 6 19,889 Various power withdrawals 13 9 a/31,056 Wilderness 2 237,874 San Gabriel Willderness area: Recreation-area .1 45 1 45 Res-rvoir site reserve 1 510.. 510, LO.4 Angeles County watershed 9,405 Sequoia-Vational Forest.- Withdrawal in aid of legislation 51,520 SL520 .@Angeles National:Forestr Los Angeles County watershed 331,631 Inyo National Forest: irrigation purposes 5,202 1 Si202 26 APPENDIX II APPENDIX II Withdrawals-examined Obsolete or excess a Types-of-wthdrawals Number -Acres 6Wu =me c NAME--- Six River National Forest: Proposed land exchange 3,273 1 3,273 Stani slaus.National Forest:. Various withdrawals 3 1,820 -3 1,820 Tahoe National Forest 'Various withdrawals ..7 3: 8 Total 314 1,722,741 174 358;544 a/Estimate was based on the Geological Survey's reviews of powersite withdrawals which found that 70 Percent of the withdrawn acreage was not needed for water and power purposes. 27 @ @ 1701