OCR Text |
Show oral competitive bidding in public land timber sales. Oral auction, starting from a base fixed by sealed bids, permits the firm dependent on Federal timber to engage in bidding on sales it believes necessary to its existence, and limits the ability of other firms to squeeze it out of the market. Whenever it appears that smaller firms or dependent mills are disad-vantaged by sealed bidding, the public land agencies should allow oral auction procedures. forest lands may themselves justify the retention of much of the Federal timberlands in public ownership. We believe, however, that the public land agencies should be authorized to exchange, acquire, and dispose of forest lands when necessary to improve ownership patterns and to ease administrative problems. Limitations on general disposal and acquisition authority should not preclude meeting the necessities of administration. Acquisition and Disposal Recommendation 35: Timber production should not be used as a justification for acquisition or disposition of Federal public lands. Environmental Impacts Recommendation 36: Controls to assure that timber harvesting is conducted so as to minimize adverse impacts on the environment on and off the public lands must be imposed. The Commission believes that neither increasing nor decreasing the area of Federal public forest lands can be justified on the basis of need for timber production. As stated earlier, the Federal Government already owns 20 percent of the Nation's forest land, 40 percent of its merchantable timber, and over 60 percent of its softwood sawtimber. The acquisition of additional forest land by the United States would not, in our opinion, improve the timber production potential of the country. If there is a need to acquire additional land, it should be done; but the United States should not acquire private lands under the guise of a need for timber production when in fact the land is to be used for some other purpose.13 While timber production should continue to be an authorized use of acquired forest lands, it is no longer by itself an appropriate reason for acquiring lands. Public lands should not be transferred to state or private ownership simply to reduce the proportion of timber producing land in Federal ownership. We have found no significant differences between Federal and other lands in the manner in which timber is produced or sold that would require that public lands be transferred to the states or private ownership. Nor would "monopoly" be the basis for such transfer because, as indicated earlier in this chapter, no evidence was found that the Federal Government is exerting monopoly control over markets. The many other public values that also occur on 13 Acquisition of forest lands by the Forest Service is accomplished under the authority of the 1911 Weeks Law (16 U.S.C. §§500, 513-519, 521, 552, 563 (1964)). This provides for acquisition of forest lands "necessary to the regulation of the flow of navigable streams or for the production of timber." Forest Service acquisitions that are actually being accomplished for recreation purposes, as was the case of the Sylvania tract in Michigan, now must be justified on the basis of either timber production or watershed protection. The cutting of timber has substantial adverse effects on environmental values on a large area of public lands each year. The immediate environmental impacts of timber cutting are often dramatic, particularly where the technique of clear-cutting is used, although new growth may alleviate the situation in a relatively short time and restore the area to a substantial extent within a decade or two. Where all the timber on an area is cut, the effect on scenic values and the quality of water flowing from the area is significant under many conditions typically encountered in logging public lands. Even on areas where only a portion of the trees are cut, effects on scenery and other environmental factors can be substantial. Inasmuch as logging is conducted to one degree or another on about a half million acres of public lands each year, it is evident that the potential for problems is great. We realize, of course, that to halt all timber cutting on the public lands would not be in the public interest. We also note that the public land agencies have used roadside and streamside strip zones, in which cutting practices are prohibited or modified, to reduce some of the undesirable effects of logging on what they believe to be the visible scenery and water quality conditions. In addition, they have planned timber harvesting and road construction to minimize environmental impacts, and have included provisions in timber sale contracts to control adverse impacts.14 While such provisions generally might be adequate to accomplish environmental protection objectives, their enforcement, for various reasons, leaves much to be desired.14 Consequently, we conclude, consistent with the recommendations contained in the chapter on Public Land Policy and the Environment, that even greater efforts must be made in the future. 14 Ira M. Heyman and Robert H. Twiss, Legal and Administrative Framework for Environmental Management of the Public Lands. PLLRC Study Report, 1970. 101 |