OCR Text |
Show national forests is a case in point. Lands originally acquired for other purposes were made available- and properly so-for various kinds of winter sports developments. However, there must be flexibility so that, where possible, operators of winter sport facilities can also use the land in other seasons for other sports such as golf. We think that this approach is proper and should be extended to all nonspectator outdoor recreation activities. There should not be preconceived ideas or arbitrary limitations on the type of activities. Similarly, arbitrary limitations should not be placed on the kind of timber, for example, or livestock to be produced or grazed on the public lands. We see no reason, for example, why the Federal Government should assign the public lands the role of meeting national needs for saw-timber rather than some other class of timber. Rather, the agencies should be responsive to local, regional, and national needs in making land available for various uses. The 1964 Act is a temporary multiple use management authorization which is scheduled to expire six months after the submission of this report. We believe those lands that, as a result of the review and classification we recommend in this chapter, remain in Federal ownership under BLM administration, should be managed for the broadest range of values they can produce, consistent with the goals and objectives outlined in this chapter and elsewhere in the report. Consequently, we further recommend that BLM be provided permanent multiple use management authority. The Commission has found that existing land use planning procedures are to a large extent informal and, therefore, fail to provide users and others interested in public lands with assurance that plans will not be changed casually in response to what may happen to be the strongest pressures in a particular case. We recognize the need for a degree of flexibility in land use plans. But we also recognize that planning can be used to avoid irrevocable decisions that limit flexibility. If the public land agencies do not develop formal zoning where values are high and conflicts are likely, the public is likely to lose confidence in land use plans. To provide the positive statutory direction and strengthening for "multiple use" management which we now find to be seriously lacking, we recommend that Congress provide for a "dominant use" zoning system. This would extend to some of the lands administered by BLM and the Forest Service the principle which Congress has already applied to the public lands generally in establishing certain areas for primary uses of national significance. However, granting this kind of zoning authority to the agencies would eliminate the need for Congress to become involved in land use planning for areas of less than national significance. The agencies in fact use primary use designation as a matter of course now. Not all of a national forest, for example, will be subject to a number or a combination of uses. Instead, within the total area of a national forest, there are established zones, each designated, in effect, for a dominant use to the total or partial exclusion of other uses. The result is that, while there may be a multiplicity of land uses within the boundaries of a national forest, its whole area is by no means subject to multiple use. If, for example, recreation is the dominant use in one zone, grazing may be excluded in the zone as well as all other uses considered to be incompatible with recreation. If this results in a single use of a given area, but other areas within the same forest are subject to other uses, the objective of multiple use is achieved under Forest Service practice, even in the unlikely case that each subdivision within the forest were zoned for a dominant but different use. Our recommendation would give not only statutory recognition to the foregoing technique, but also direction to its use. Areas of national forest and unreserved public domain lands would be classified to identify those areas that have a clearly identifiable highest use. These would be specified as "dominant use" areas; other uses would be allowed where compatible. Thus, the same sort of relationship between dominant and secondary uses would exist on these lands as now exists, for example, between the dominant and secondary uses of national wildlife refuges and national recreation areas. We are not suggesting that the dominant use zones be established by Congress. It should be clear that establishment of these zones on the ground is to be a function of the administrative agencies, arrived at through the improved comprehensive land use planning process we recommend in this chapter. However, we do believe that legislative endorsement of this technique is necessary to make it fully effective. As a practical matter, all public lands will not be placed in one dominant use zone or another. It should be clearly established that only those areas that have an identifiable highest primary use at the time of classification should be placed in a dominant use category. The remaining lands would remain in a category where all uses are considered equal until such time as a dominant use becomes apparent. This approach to providing for multiple uses on the ground will provide a sense of stability to those users of the public lands who fear a constant encroachment on lands devoted primarily to their use. It will reinforce the actions of the administrators so that they will not be subject to a barrage of claims from all sides that a particular use ought to be permitted or barred, all in the name of "multiple use." 51 |