|
<br />.
<br />
<br />"'.r82 I Presen'ing the Recreation Environment
<br />
<br />is described by the Navy as an ultra low-frequency antenna buried six feet
<br />underground to transmit one-way messages to Polaris submarines at sea. The
<br />antenna wUl underlie the northernmost 21,000 square miles of IVisconsin , a
<br />26-county area. Once again, the U.S. Forest Service is involved; this time
<br />with the U,S, Navy, The project, if completed, w?uld require that 30-foot
<br />swaths be cut in a grid pallern every two-to-six miles throughout the
<br />Chequamegon National Forest (Wisconsin), Aside from Sanguine's not-too.
<br />apparent tourism value. planning authorities are quick to point out that the
<br />project will conveniently create snowmobile trails and more deer browse.
<br />. Concurrently, environmental studies conducted by the Hazelton Labora-
<br />tories of Falls Church, Virginia, have demonstrated substantial environ-
<br />mental impact at power levels far below what the proposed 1,5 million
<br />dollar project will ultimately require, To date, the Forest Service has
<br />demonstraled Iillle public response to these environmental study findings,
<br />Aside from the development damage involved, can we expect our National
<br />Parks and Forests to be openly vulnerable to defense hardware testing and
<br />military fortifications in the future? Sanguine's disposition will give us a
<br />clue to the answer insofar as the U.S. Forest Service is concerned.
<br />
<br />I
<br />
<br />RECREATION PLANNING CLOSELY TIED TO ECONOMICS
<br />
<br />Why does much recreational resource development continue to be ecolog-
<br />ically dysfunctional? Why? It appears that an answer lies in the fact that much
<br />federal recreation planning is more closely tied to economics than ecology,
<br />'Ecological disasters begin with the nationwide trends projected for leisure
<br />activity. Improperly so, these national participation projections guide the extent
<br />and type of development at local development projecls, Regardless of delicate or
<br />atypical natural conditions, ii site's development plan is usually geared to meet
<br />.hese projections and then just.ified on the basis. o~ th~i.r at.tendant econ?~1ic
<br />enefits to the immediate region. With econOmIC JusufJcahon a prereqUiSite,
<br />recreation resource planners must play the "numbers game" ... even if the
<br />"numbers game" disregards good ecological savvy. Maximum recreation resource
<br />development is much easier to justify economically than optimum developmenl
<br />because the value of sustaining a resource in high quality condition is difficult to
<br />express in dollars and cents.
<br />Tllis dysfunctional planning process has a number of inherent weaknesses:
<br />I) Concepts of human ecology are generally ignore,~; 2) Tlter~, is usually more J
<br />concern with bringing large numbers of people to an attractIOn than there IS In
<br />sustaining its environmental quality; 3) Little consideration is given to such
<br />nonproduction oriented intangibles as aesthelics; and 4) There is failure to
<br />conceplualize all the factors involved in environmental quality and Ihe related
<br />quality of human life,
<br />Man3gement plans are needed that will keep open recreation alternatives for
<br />the fUlure, and that will insure a sustained yield of high quality indigenous
<br />recreation. Working counter to this goal, however, are the economic incentives
<br />encouraging increased development which return 2S percent of all National
<br />Forest production (including recreation) receipts to local counly government.
<br />
<br />I
<br />I
<br />
<br />,J., "~ f' ~ ,:~ '
<br />
<br />Preserving the Recreation Environment I 183
<br />
<br />Many resource econon1ists, therefore, support a system whereby loci:J1 govern.
<br />ment units are compensated for losses i.n their tax base due to government
<br />purchase of recreation lands with in-Jieu-of-t:3x payments for an agreed upon
<br />number of years. Without such legislalion, recreation resource planning, based
<br />entirely on economic impact will continue with critical repercussions for our
<br />National Forests. The singular planning concept of economic impact or a
<br />"Iocal-gel-rich-quick" philosophy slands to be rejected by federal agencies, nleY
<br />must begin to believe that a good ecological decision will, in Ihe long pull, be
<br />good economics, A typical example of such thinking already employed by the
<br />U,S, Forest Service is the decision to employ sust3ined yield production rather
<br />than the uncontrolled clearculting of yesteryear.
<br />
<br />MORTAL MEN ARE PREOCCUPIED WITH PRESENT
<br />
<br />Why <.:an't the Forest Service perceive the potentia] environmental degrada-
<br />tion that may result from their plans and actions? Such agencies ore staffed by
<br />mortal men who, along with most other Americans, ale pleoccupied with the
<br />present. Concerns for the quality of tomorrow are not only difftcult to express,
<br />but dlfticult to put into practice in today's government maze that places
<br />high-priority on project justification in short-term economics. "Planning for
<br />today" is also encouraged by the irrational pressures of many "conservationists"
<br />with narrow objectives who argue for maximum development us a means of
<br />"making areas public." WI1ile these "'conservationists" are familiar with concepts
<br />of ecology and use them freely when concerned with water and air pollulion,
<br />Ihey generally ignore this man-environment concept in de:Jling with recreation
<br />planning. In catalytic fashion they play inlO the hands of resource planners who
<br />are more concerned with the politics of pl.acating local interests than the
<br />maintenance of unique ecosystems.
<br />All federal agencies involved in recreation planning and development have a
<br />clear responsibility (0 predict and be sensitive to the environmental conse-
<br />quences they may mttiate. To wait for resource deterioration to begin before
<br />laking remedial action to restrict or modify use pressures is no longer acceptable.
<br />Many of the over 200 university departments specializing in recreation are
<br />preparing professionals capable of this prediction responsibility. Yet their
<br />graduates are still excluded from employment bi the U,S, Forest Service. A new
<br />set of employment qualifications for recreation resollrce planning positions
<br />(Series GS,023) has been developed by the U,S, Civil Service Commission, BUI
<br />lhese are only qualification standards. They are as yet no assurance that
<br />"crealion graduates will be employed along with foresters and landsc3pe
<br />architects to deal comprehensively with the ecological complexities of recreation
<br />pl;.mning.
<br />The American people must also become more sensitive to the intricacies of
<br />en\ironmental quality management if the environmental 70s is to be more than a
<br />decade, We need 10 respond to more than the popular and easily visualized
<br />environmental degradations depicted by the media if we are to ex.pect recreaHon
<br />resource planners to do so. With increasing population, more abundant leisure,
<br />3n_d subsequent user-resource pressures, !lle public as well as their congressional
<br />
|