WSP04519 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

00::144 7 AGENCY COMMENTS AND G^O'B EVALUATION Agriculture a~d Interior generally aqrped with GAD's conclusicns .J.nd recommen.iations. (See apps. V and VI.) , i " I I , , Both Departments reccgnize the need to improve the timeliness of river studies ar-d have in- dicated they are taking, steps to implement GAO's recommendations. I (See pp. 21 and 22.) Both Departments felt tbat GAO's analyses con- cerning the USe of methods other than fee ac- quisition to pre teet wild.ftnd scenic river areas war too abbreviated. Agriculture agreed with GAO's recommendations but doubted that ~hey would work in a rural environment. Inter- ior said that potentially the advantages of local ~oning are great but pointed out that there are certa~~ inherent problems which may be encountered in~future years by relying on zoning. - I \1 i I , , Each river area shoul~ be addressed on a case- by-case basis, and alternative land use con- trols, rather than acquizition. should be used to the greatest extent possible. Examples cited i~ this report are land use controls ap~licable to specific locations and circum- stances~ The exnmples point out thdt zoning controls are possible in qi.ven cases and are a viable alternative to land acquisition. The Departments should consider foe each existing and proposed wild and scenic riv~r whether zoning is a feasible altern~tive to acquisitions of land and s~enic easements. (See P9. 35 and 36.j ~ H Interior said that it was considering provid- ing incentives through the USe of land and water conservation funds to encourage States to develop state systems and administer com- ponents of the national wild and scenic rivers system. (See p. 22.) !.!~it!..5_t!.:':,.~ v