OCR Text |
Show reversion if the state or local government wished to use the land for another purpose. Consistent with our general recommendations concerning disposals, upon such waiver payment should be made equal to the difference between fair-market value of the property at the time the land was transferred, and the lower price actually paid. Public lands administered under general policies of multiple use should be made available at nominal cost to private, nonprofit groups for outdoor recreation purposes. Public lands in the National Forest System and those administered by the Bureau of Land Management have in the past been made available on either a long-term basis or by transfer of title at nominal cost to private, nonprofit or quasi-public organizations for various outdoor recreation uses. Boy Scout and Girl Scout, Campfire Girls, boys clubs, and other youth or welfare activities sponsored by church, civic, and fraternal organizations have been permitted to use and develop at their own expense public land areas for organization camp programs. This is a desirable policy and should be continued. Generally, we believe this type of use should be provided for on a long-term lease basis rather than by transfer of title. Lease rates should be at less than fair-market value and should be determined on the same basis as rates for lease of areas to state and local government. As a general rule, we believe that, when there is a conflict, development and use of a public land recreation area for general public use should take priority over allocation of the area to a quasi-public group. Likewise, public lands set aside primarily for their unique national significance should not be available for group use on a long-term, semiexclusive basis. We would, therefore, exclude national parks, wilderness areas, and similar categories of public lands from this policy. Emphasis on the Federal recreation management of those public lands not classified as nationally significant should be placed on dispersed types of outdoor recreation requiring only minimum land development and supervision, and few facilities. We believe recreation management and development on these retained Federal lands should be primarily of the kind which supports more extensive types of activity such as hiking, back-country camping, nature study, bird watching, riding, cycling, hunting, and fishing. The Federal multiple-use lands offer one of our best opportunities to supply large, extensive, and relatively undeveloped areas to accommodate these activities. This will require the construction and maintenance of more extensive trail systems, trail camping shelters and water supplies, and back-country campsites and sanitary facilities. Most of this kind of development and the types 202 of recreation activity it supports are compatible with the other resource uses that will continue to occur on these lands. With proper planning and appropriate use management, extensive recreation uses can be integrated well with timber land management and harvesting programs, watershed management, livestock grazing, some occupancy uses, and mineral development. We believe this kind of recreation management and resource administration should be financed and administered by the Federal Government through the land managing agencies. Such development and use must be integrated with management of the land for other uses and values. Direct Federal participation in meeting regional, interstate outdoor recreation needs should be on a joint venture basis with the states. National recreation areas, at least 10 of which have been established by the Federal Government are designed primarily to meet regional recreation requirements. They are being administered by Federal agencies and may contain land purchased with Federal funds or set aside from land already in Federal ownership, such as a national forest or Federal rangeland administered by the Bureau of Land Management. We recognize the need for the creation of regional recreation areas that serve multistate populations, but believe that the states should participate in providing such areas. Some states may face legal difficulties in working together in a formal relationship, and particularly in spending their funds in other states. But we believe that the Federal Government should participate with the states in overcoming these difficulties and in meeting regional recreation needs. In particular, the Federal Government should participate by providing assistance in financing land acquisition and development costs. We favor much more direct involvement by the states in location and development planning, and in assuming direct responsibility for the administration, operation, and management of these areas. We believe this form of cooperative policy produces a better balance between equity to the national taxpayer who now pays the entire cost, and more control over operating and maintenance policies by the regional public directly benefitted by these areas. Bureau of Outdoor Recreation Recommendation 80: The Bureau of Outdoor Recreation should be directed to review, and empowered to disapprove, recreation proposals for public lands administered under general multiple-use policy if they are not in general conformity with statewide recreation plans. |