OCR Text |
Show been inventoried or formally identified and proposed for designation. A number of such areas were brought to the Commission's attention through our study program and other sources.7 We believe a comprehensive inventory of these public lands, to identify all such areas, should be conducted as soon as possible, and that they should be assigned a priority for protection pending designation under established procedures. Because, in most cases, the procedure involves statutory designation, temporary withdrawals for limited periods will be necessary to protect values while awaiting formal designation. The Commission believes it is particularly important to identify truly unique areas that would qualify as nationally significant on the public lands in A laska. In view of the importance of completing the Alaska state land grant selection program, those remaining limited areas that are to be kept in Federal ownership indefinitely because of their truly national importance should be identified and withdrawn as soon as possible. However, this program should not interfere in any way with the regular continuation of the state selection program. In any event lands suitable for state park or recreation use must remain available for selection by the State of Alaska. The identification of new areas for inclusion in the National Wilderness Preservation System, is continuing under the schedule established by the Wilderness Act of 1964.8 According to the time limits set by that Act, the review of primitive areas of national forests and roadless areas of national parks and the National Wildlife Refuge System must be completed by 1974. We believe that this timetable should be maintained and, further, that priority should continue to be given to review of those areas required by the Wilderness Act. There is nothing in the Wilderness Act to preclude additions to the National Wilderness Preservation System of lands not previously identified for review. Accordingly, while maintaining the priority for review of the areas designated in the Wilderness Act, we believe that the initial inventory and review of other areas should be started as soon as possible. In this way it will be feasible for the public land management agencies to make recommendations to the Department heads for consideration, and for possible Executive recommendation to Congress on an orderly basis after 1974 for the inclusion in the 7 The Nevada Outdoor Recreation Association, Inc., a private organization, has, for example, compiled the results of an intensive survey of scenic, natural, historical, and recreational resources on the public lands in Nevada. Some 350 sites and areas were included in this survey, which concentrated on little-known or previously unknown phenomena. This survey identified many locations deserving of protection. 8 n. 4, supra. wilderness system of any key wild areas of public domain or national forest lands that qualify under standards recommended in this report. State and Local Needs Recommendation 79: Recreation policies and programs on those public lands of less than national significance should be designed to meet needs identified by statewide recreation plans. The states are engaged in a sustained effort to meet the needs of their citizens for sufficient outdoor recreation opportunity. We believe those Federal lands that are available for outdoor recreation use should be taken into account by the states and by local governments when they develop plans for supplying outdoor recreation opportunity. We believe that state and local governments should generally be responsible for the development and management of areas required for intensive recreation use to serve community needs. Subsequent recommendations set forth our proposals to implement this conclusion. However, even where there is a local need for recreation use, the Federal Government should remain responsible if the lands involved have been designated for another dominant or primary use. We also recognize that there may be other instances where it would be appropriate for the Federal Government to be responsible for the recreation area or to participate in the financing, development, and management. In some instances, the state or local government may not be able to finance development and management by itself. In others, a state may not be willing to assume all of the responsibility to develop and manage a regional recreation area on public land because many potential users reside outside of the state. In the circumstances, we believe it would be appropriate for the Federal Government, through the land administering agency, to participate directly. We emphasize the necessity to share equitably in the costs of such joint undertakings. We believe it is undesirable for the Federal Government unilaterally to plan, develop, and manage intensive use recreation facilities installed primarily to meet state and local needs unless the states demonstrate an unwillingness to cooperate. However, where the states undertake the task, the use of Federal funds should not be precluded. Public land areas of less than national significance identified by a statewide recreation plan as being necessary to satisfy state or local intensive recreation needs should be leased or transferred to the appropriate level of government for such purposes, unless overriding resource values require that they be re- 199 |