There鈥檚 a new plan in Washington D.C. to auction off public lands, and this one involves millions of acres spread across nearly a dozen Western states.

The latest stipulation would require the U.S. Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to sell off roughly 3 million acres by 2030.

On Tuesday, June 10, this plan was added to the draft legislation of President Donald Trump鈥檚 tax and spending megabill by the Energy and Natural Resources Committee in the U.S. Senate.

This sprawling piece of legislation, called 鈥淥ne Big, Beautiful Bill Act,鈥� passed the House of Representatives in early June, and is currently under debate in the Senate.

Sources told听The New York Times that two Republican lawmakers鈥擬ike Lee of Utah and Steve Daines of Montana鈥攚orked closely to decide on the plan.

Previous plans to sell off public lands have been met with public outcry. An earlier version of the Big, Beautiful Bill Act included a smaller selloff proposal, suggesting the liquidation of nearly 500,000 acres of public land in Nevada and Utah.

This provision was axed before the bill passed the House of Representatives, after backlash from the House鈥檚 Public Lands Caucus, a bipartisan group led by New Mexico Democrat Gabe Vasquez and Montana Republican and former interior secretary Ryan Zinke. Zinke called the measure his 鈥淪an Juan Hill.鈥� He has previously told 国产吃瓜黑料:听鈥淭he idea that you鈥檙e going to sell public land to get out of debt is folly.鈥�

This latest鈥攁nd substantially larger鈥攍and sale proposal was announced by Lee, who is the chairman of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee. Specifically, the reconciliation bill鈥檚 language dictates that 鈥渘ot less than 0.50 percent and not more than 0.75 percent鈥� of all BLM land be sold to the private sector, as determined by the Secretary of the Interior. Identical language and percentages dictate the sale of National Forest land as determined by the Secretary of Agriculture.

The BLM manages 245 million total acres, and the the Forest Service manages 193 million acres. Under the plan’s rules, up to 3.29 million acres of public lands would be placed on the auctioning block.

Lawmakers have said the sale of public lands would raise funds for the federal government and clear land for housing development. The plan would put public lands in 11 states: Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming.

Zinke鈥檚 state, Montana, is the only Western state excluded from this updated proposal.

The that national parks, national monuments, and designated wilderness areas would be exempt from auction, and land near existing population centers would be prioritized. The bill also mandates that any public land sales must occur solely for 鈥渇or the development of housing or to address associated community needs,鈥� but it leaves the definition of these 鈥渁ssociated community needs鈥� up to the Secretaries concerned.

鈥淪enate Republicans have finally said the quiet part out loud,鈥� said , the ranking Democrat on the Energy and Natural Resources Committee. 鈥淭hey want to put millions of acres of our public lands up in a fire sale, destroy the investments that have created thousands of manufacturing and clean energy jobs 鈥� including in their home states, and obliterate programs that lower energy costs for everyday Americans.鈥�

The plan received immediate criticism from nonprofit groups and organizations that work in conservation and outdoor recreation.

鈥淲hat some may see as a barren lot on a map on a Senator鈥檚 desk may actually be where a community hikes after work, rides their ATV, or teaches their kids how to hunt turkey or ride a bike,” reads a statement from Outdoor Recreation Roundtable, a lobbying group for the outdoor recreation industry. “And once these treasured places are sold to private industry, they are gone forever, and in the case of this proposal, can be used for any purpose after ten years.”

David Willms, associate vice president for public lands at the National Wildlife Federation, called the plan “orders of magnitude worse than what the House proposed last month.”

鈥淢andating the fire sale of up to two-and-a-half million acres of public land violates more than a century of land stewardship, threatens wildlife and clean water, runs directly against widespread public opinion, and will not begin to solve either the budget crisis or the affordable housing crisis,” he said.

The post There鈥檚 a New Plan to Sell Off Public Lands. It Would Impact Millions of Acres in Western States. appeared first on 国产吃瓜黑料 Online.

The U.S. Forest Service is a federal agency that manages 193 million acres of land, an area about the size of Texas. Next year, the agency will have to manage that land without its seasonal workforce. In September, that it would be suspending all seasonal hiring for the 2025 season, a decision that will cut about 2,400 jobs. Nearly all of those positions are field-based jobs, ranging from biologists and timber workers to trail technicians and recreation staff. In addition, the agency is freezing all external hiring for permanent positions. The only exception to the hiring freeze are the roughly 11,300 firefighters hired by the agency every year.

According to the agency and its partners, the effects of these staffing cuts will be far-ranging and severe. In the September 17 all-employee call where he announced the hiring freeze, Forest Service Chief Randy Moore said 鈥淲e just can鈥檛 get the same work done with fewer employees.鈥� Though the Forest Service has been shedding jobs for decades鈥攁bout 8,000 jobs in the last 20 years, Moore said鈥攖his will be the largest single-year staff cut in recent memory.

Seasonal employees perform vital fieldwork and research that extends beyond what many Americans consider the jurisdiction of the Forest Service. Rangers patrol whitewater rivers, rock climbing crags, and dangerous alpine summits. Biologists staff critical salmon fisheries. and clean camp latrines. Employees of all types chip in as emergency firefighters when required. According to the American Avalanche Association, the staff cuts could leave some avalanche centers, which rely on the Forest Service for funding, understaffed this winter.

And then there are trails. According to the Government Accountability Office, the Forest Service has had a maintenance backlog for more than a decade, and oversees more miles of trail than it can maintain. Cutting the majority of its field-going trail staff will only make the issue worse.

鈥淭his policy will result in a burgeoning of the , both through lack of Forest Service staff attention to trail maintenance, but also through the loss of connection and relationships with partner organizations,鈥� Mike Passo, the executive director of American Trails, a non-profit Forest Service partner, said in an email.

Backpacker spoke to , most on condition of anonymity, about their experiences with the staffing cuts. Several expressed concern that trail crews would simply be unable to operate. They described crews of six seasonal employees disappearing, leaving one or two permanent crew leaders left trying to make things work. One intern in the National Pathways program, designed to automatically place successful interns into a full-time position with the agency, said she鈥檚 been told her job offer will likely be revoked. Other trail workers at conservation corps and non-profits who saw Forest Service positions as a step up the career ladder are rethinking their priorities.

Danica Mooney-Jones, a trail crew leader who鈥檚 been with the Forest Service since 2021, is among those out of a job next year. Where she works, the trail crew staff will go from five to two, and the broader recreation program is being cut from 13 employees to just four.

鈥淚 moved across the country to work here, for a seasonal job,鈥� she says. 鈥淲e have people who have worked here for 10 years as seasonals, and made a career out of these positions. They trusted that the jobs wouldn鈥檛 go away.鈥�

Now, she and her former co-workers have a tough choice to make: leave their communities to find a job in trails somewhere else, or stay put and find a new career. Mooney Jones considers herself lucky; armed with , she found a local winter job as a ski patroller. Still, the idea of leaving the Forest Service behind for good is sobering.

鈥淚鈥檇 be really sad if this was the end of my trail career,鈥� says Mooney-Jones. 鈥淚 really love doing the work, I love seeing the product, and I鈥檓 very proud of the work that we do.鈥�

Trail maintenance is important every season, but 2025 may prove an especially difficult year to cut down on the workers who make it happen. After Hurricane Helene, southern portions of the Appalachian Trail are closed due to blowdowns, landslides, and washed out bridges. According to the Appalachian Trail Conservancy, there are more than 2,000 trees to clear from the AT in Tennessee alone, and many Forest Service access roads from Georgia to Virginia are closed due to erosion and rockfall.

That鈥檚 just on the AT鈥攁 popular long-distance trail supported by a non-profit organization and hundreds of trained volunteers. Elsewhere in the southern US, lesser-known trails face similar conditions but rely solely on Forest Service staff in order to re-open.

The cuts also left employees and partners wondering how the budget shortfall became so dire after several promising years of funding increases.

In 2021, the Biden administration mandated a $15 per hour minimum wage for all federal employees, which raised wages for some entry-level Forest Service jobs. Over the past several years, the agency also converted about 1,300 seasonal non-fire positions into permanent jobs. , who now make up about half of the Forest Service鈥檚 workforce, received bonuses of up to $20,000 per year, which were temporarily funded through the Bipartisan Infrastructure Act. Several Forest Service employees said there was hope that pay raises for firefighters would eventually translate into raises for other field-going employees, as well.

But those short-term gains have all but disappeared, replaced by a sudden budget shortfall.

In March, the Forest Service requested $8.9 billion in funding, a $500 million jump from 2024鈥檚 $8.37 billion. By the summer, it was clear the agency was unlikely to receive it. In August, Forest Service Chief Randy Moore released a statement preparing the USFS for a reduced budget. With little evidence that Congress would pass a bill funding the government by the end of the year, Moore said in the September 17 all-employee call that 鈥淸the Forest Service] has an obligation to plan for the most conservative funding possibility.鈥� A week later, Congress passed a continuing resolution that extended the 2024 funding levels through December 20.

The lowest number Moore referred to comes from the proposal from the House Interior Appropriations Committee, which sets spending limits for all federal land management agencies, including the Forest Service and National Park Service. This year鈥檚 proposal includes $8.43 billion for the Forest Service鈥攖echnically a modest increase compared to 2024. But last year鈥檚 budget was boosted by an additional $945 million through pandemic-era stimulus bills, a funding source that has since dried up. And while the House proposal fully funds the firefighter pay raises, the proposed budget would still necessitate cuts elsewhere at the agency. All of these details muddy the financial picture, but compared to total funding in 2024, the agency could face a budget hole of nearly a billion dollars next year.

Because the Forest Service鈥檚 budget for next year is still not finalized, there is a chance the agency will fill some seasonal positions in the near future. 鈥淲e are working closely with individual partners to explore creative solutions to fill gaps where we can. And we hope to have more hiring options in the coming year if additional funding becomes available,鈥� Scott Owen, national press officer for the Forest Service, wrote in an email.

Even with these sobering financial details, it鈥檚 clear that the agency鈥檚 decision to balance the books by cutting seasonal jobs came as a shock to many employees.

鈥淢y trust has definitely taken a hit,鈥� says Mooney-Jones. 鈥淚鈥檇 consider coming back to the Forest Service, but I鈥檓 not sure I could. It鈥檚 a balancing act between how I feel about how we鈥檝e been treated and how much I love the forest.鈥�

The post The Forest Service Is Losing 2,400 Jobs鈥擨ncluding Most of Its Trail Workers appeared first on 国产吃瓜黑料 Online.

On a weekday morning in听January听in New Hampshire鈥檚 ,听the base of the gladed backcountry ski zone听could have been mistaken for a Walmart parking lot on Black Friday. Some skiers sat anxiously in their cars, waiting for a spot to open up, while others parked at the nearby 听and walked the mile up the road听with their skis slung over their shoulders. After a slow start to the season in New England, there was finally enough snowpack听to abandon the groomers for backcountry terrain.

It wasn鈥檛 always like this. Unlike the West, backcountry听skiing on the East Coast听has distinct challenges. The amount of private property in the region is staggering鈥攐nly 4听percent of land听east of Mississippi is public, compared with听47 percent in听the West鈥攁nd access to it听is hindered by a complex web of private landowners, trusts, and federal and public managers, not to mention dense听new-growth forests. 鈥淗istorically, because of the East Coast鈥檚 tree-density issues, backcountry skiers would either venture to natural alpine areas or were commonly found cutting unapproved lines,鈥� said Tyler Ray, founder of the听听(骋叠础),听a nonprofit organization based in North Conway, New Hampshire, with nearly a thousand members that advocates for increased access to the sport. 鈥淵ou would often see听these egregious cuts in the forest, and听in some cases, people had to serve jail听time. We鈥檝e been able to bridge the gap of opening access to new terrain and educating skiers.鈥�

But听starting in 2016, Maple Villa and a handful of other听glades in the vicinity鈥攊ncluding 听in Evan鈥檚 Notch, on the Maine鈥揘ew Hampshire state line, and , part of听the 10,000-acre 鈥攈ave been among the few听skiable backcountry zones听in a region where they鈥檙e听incredibly limited. These areas of the White Mountains are听a result of five years of advocacy and planning work by the GBA. Prior to their development, out-of-bounds skiing was only possible in above-tree-line terrain, a few natural drainages and old avalanche paths, and a handful of former听ski trails built by the Civilian Conservation Corps nearly a century听ago. Since launching five years ago, the GBA has been working with landowners and land managers to obtain approval for public access and to create gladed ski areas, adding significant acreage to the few less-developed local ski spots, like the 听and ski trails, that existed prior to its inception.

To secure these sites, GBA members spend countless hours building relationships and trust with landowners and managers, educating them on the benefits these zones will have on their听communities and addressing their concerns. Once access is approved, the U.S. Forest Service collaborates with the GBA on what trees should and shouldn鈥檛 be cut, how to minimize the risk of erosion, and other above-ground vegetation management measures that ensure any cutting is being done in a sustainable way. The organization then hosts 鈥済lade days,鈥澨齱here up to 75 volunteers come out to help cut the outdoor space听they鈥檒l eventually end up skiing. In five years, the group听has successfully built eight glades in New Hampshire and western Maine, for a cumulative total of听8,100 vertical feet of skiable terrain, and more are in the works, potentially in the Pemigewasset and Androscoggin districts of White Mountain National Forest.

Rural communities, like听those near the GBA鈥檚 glades, benefit greatly from the development of outdoor recreational venues, a fact that can easily convince private landowners to sign on. A recent economic analysis of Maple Villa, Crescent Ridge, and Baldface revealed that nearly $1 million in revenue was generated within the local community during the 2018鈥�19 ski season alone, according to Ray.

The main concern for most landowners, Ray says, is liability. But in New Hampshire and Maine, protect landowners who allow people to recreate on their property. In New Hampshire, these听laws ensure that landowners won鈥檛 be held accountable for any injuries or damages that occur on their land, provided they don鈥檛 charge visitors a fee for access and don鈥檛 do anything obviously negligent that results in injury, such as suddenly building a fence across an already established ski zone without proper听signage.

Maine has similar protection laws, but landowners听are permitted to charge fees for recreational use. It is understood that users of these zones are doing so at their own risk, and that they will be held responsible if they are injured while on someone鈥檚 property. If that does occur, local and state organizations, like the , are typically notified by the injured party or another person who is around to help.

While the GBA is the newest organization of this kind, it isn鈥檛听the first one working to expand opportunities for recreation on the East Coast. In Vermont, the (RASTA) was founded after Hurricane Irene鈥檚 devastating toll on small communities in 2013. 鈥淚t was really a way to rebuild these communities that were hit by this storm,鈥� said Zac Freeman, a founding member of the alliance. 鈥淲e hoped it would give folks something to look forward to and would help some of the struggling businesses. But at the core of it, we鈥檙e doing it because we want to create more opportunities to recreate in these small towns.鈥�

RASTA helped grow Vermont鈥檚 backcountry ski network significantly. Along with liaising with private landowners, it听also worked with the Forest Service to create the 听in 2017, one of the first actively managed backcountry ski zones on Forest Service听land in the country. The听project听initially encompassed听four separate areas, but today听it offers more than 28,000 combined vertical feet across six separate gladed zones around听the state, all听managed by RASTA.

Before the GBA or RASTA, there was the . Founded in 1994 in East Burke, Vermont, the KTA听was one of the first organizations to begin working with private landowners to create outdoor access. After 25 years, it had secured a network of more than 100 miles of cross-country and downhill trails听and is now considered one of New England鈥檚 premier听singletrack mountain-biking destinations. These arrangements between the association and the more than听100 private landowners currently signed on were based听primarily on听the promise that the trails would benefit the community鈥攍andowners receive no financial compensation for allowing public access. Fulfilling that promise, it is estimated that the for the surrounding communities听during the 2019 fiscal year.

But these contracts, which rely on trust, are nonbinding, and landowners always have the option to revoke their access. In fact, in December 2019, a few landowners informed the KTA that they would no longer permit mountain bikers on their property (although they did continue to allow other forms of recreation, like snowshoeing and trail running), resulting in the loss of nearly 12 miles of trails to cyclists. While the landowners haven鈥檛 publicly stated their reasoning听and couldn鈥檛 be reached for comment, the association speculated that they听felt their land wasn鈥檛 being respected by mountain bikers, a concern that may have been amplified by an extreme increase in trail use in recent years.

Elise Lawson, a KTA听landowner听with property just north of those who revoked access, and a member of the KTA鈥檚 board of directors, has noticed an increase in users and trail congestion since purchasing her听property in 2003. And while her experience with mountain bikers has been overwhelmingly positive, she did note that there are occasional exceptions.

鈥淚 feel that some people who come might not be aware that Kingdom Trails is composed of private landowners,鈥� said Lawson. 鈥淚 think some people may have been getting a sense of entitlement rather than gratitude.鈥�

For the KTA, the landowners鈥� decision served as a wake-up call.

鈥淲e recognize that we should have been more effectively communicating with our landowners,鈥� said Abby Long, Kingdom Trails鈥� executive director. 鈥淏ut we also needed to be educating our trail users on proper etiquette.鈥�

To keep this from happening again, the organization听has been soliciting ideas and feedback from landowners and community members. It has also been investing in research and communication through a USDA-funded that addresses and promotes sustainable growth and听a new advisory committee that allows landowners to become听more involved in planning, as well as听user engagement and education through an expanded ambassador program听and听 campaign, which is a code of ethics directed at the mountain-biking community that was听created by the Northern Forest Center鈥檚 .

In late January, RASTA dealt with a similar issue. A police report filed by a skier听on January 25 stated that two gunshots were heard after the skier听accidentally crossed onto an abutting听property, followed by a third approximately 15听minutes later. The organization was notified, and it immediately closed the trail network in an attempt to resolve the issue. RASTA couldn鈥檛 confirm the source of the shots, but as a precaution, volunteers helped reroute the trail farther away from the property and add signage to create a quiet zone. The trail reopened a few weeks later听and hasn鈥檛 seen any incidents since.

鈥淚t鈥檚 our responsibility to ensure that we protect the privilege to recreate on private lands,鈥� said RASTA鈥檚 Freeman. 鈥淏ecause it isn鈥檛 a right. And it鈥檚 our job, as GBA, RASTA, and the New England Mountain Bike Association, to promote responsibility, trail ethics, and landowner stewardship.鈥�

To help educate its users, the GBA, in collaboration with , a national nonprofit representing backcountry skiers on public lands, recently introduced , a code of conduct that they will share at their sites moving forward, which involves simple yet effective measures such as respecting closures and packing out garbage.

In a similar effort, over a thousand听businesses, organizations, and influential individuals formed the听听last fall, which was born during an uptick in general outdoor recreation during COVID-19 to promote responsible ways to get outside.

Despite the challenges and hurdles to create and bolster听these recreational spaces听in the Northeast, the GBA鈥檚 Ray is optimistic. 鈥淭his outdoor economy is taking over,鈥� he said. 鈥淎nd these organizations听are showing that it can be sustainable and support small towns. It鈥檚 really a way of life.鈥�

While the organizations have largely been successful, their continued growth depends on the respect and awareness of the visitors who recreate on these lands. 鈥淚 feel that every trail user represents the organization,鈥� said Freeman. 鈥淏ecause you never know who you鈥檙e gonna pass on the trail. It could be the landowner that allowed you to ski on their land.鈥�

The post A Nonprofit Push for Outdoor Access in the Northeast appeared first on 国产吃瓜黑料 Online.

On most trips and in most locations, to navigate I rely primarily on my paper topographic maps, ABC (altimeter, barometer, compass) or GPS watch, and听magnetic compass. As both a backup and supplement to these tools, my smartphone has a GPS app like (good) or (better), which I use to access downloaded map data for offline use.

A GPS smartphone app has two purposes:

1. It acts as a map library, in case your printed documents are damaged or lost听or if you unexpectedly hike off course.
2. It has the same functionality you鈥檇 expect of a traditional handheld GPS鈥攍ike pinpointing its location听and navigating to waypoints鈥攂ut is lighter, less expensive, and more user-friendly.

Collectively, these four instruments constitute my navigation system. Some hikers may consider my preferences old-fashioned, since it鈥檚 increasingly common to navigate exclusively or primarily with GPS. But I value the reliability and efficiency of these more analog methods, and I appreciate the art of using them. To hone that art, I recommend downloading听maps in Gaia GPS for offline use. This will preserve the app鈥檚 functionality, even in the backcountry without reliable cell service.

This tutorial is听based on an assignment听I give to my guided clients, who participate in an eight-part planning curriculum that prepares them for their trip and can be retooled easily for their own personal trips. I鈥檝e decided to share it听publicly, since so many people are under stay-at-home orders and so many spring backpacking trips have been canceled or postponed.

Get Started

First, download the Gaia GPS app.

听

To complete this assignment, you must have a regular听or premium membership, which cost $20 and听$36听per year, respectively. Gaia has a free account, too, but it does not allow for offline use. So that you can complete this assignment (and maybe test out the app in the field), Gaia is offering a . (This听free trial听does not require a credit card. If you wish to renew later, you鈥檒l need to enter one. At that time, take advantage of .)

Avoid doing this assignment at the last minute. If Gaia is new to you, give yourself about 15 to 30 minutes to complete it. To download map data, you鈥檒l need a reliable internet connection with a high data-use limit, which means Wi-Fi听in most cases. Don鈥檛 count on rural mobile data service or an overtaxed motel connection.

Download an Area

Determine the area you want offline maps for. Make sure it encompasses听your entire route, plus all prospective shortcuts and extensions. For a point-to-point itinerary, this zone will probably be long and narrow; for a loop, it鈥檒l probably be more square.

If you must download a large area, it鈥檚 useful to have a 鈥渞eference box,鈥澨齜ecause as you zoom out, it becomes difficult to identify topographic features on a five-听or six-inch smartphone screen. With a box that remains obvious at all magnification levels, you can be assured that you are downloading the intended area. This box can be created in the app听by adding waypoints or routes to the map听via the plus (+)听button. On the Gaia desktop site, you can also add听waypoints or routes to a map via the left-side toolbar, which then syncs to your smartphone.

I鈥檝e created some download boxes for my guided trips that you can use for practice:

• In your smartphone browser, open this .
• In the top menu, select the wrench icon, and then Export GPX.
• In the 2020 Trip听folder, select one trip. Deselect all other exportable data.
• Press Export听to download a GPX file.

You can complete these steps from a desktop computer, too, in two ways:

1. Download the GPX to your desktop, email yourself the file, and download it to your phone.
2. Download the GPX to your desktop, upload it to your account at the Gaia GPS website, then sync your phone.

Alternatively, you can download an area that鈥檚 more relevant to you. For extra practice, you can create your own download box in Gaia beforehand.

Now听load this GPX file into Gaia GPS. You have two options:

1. In the app, select the plus听button in the top menu, then Import File.听Find the GPX file on the phone, and select it.
2. Use a file-system app (e.g., Files听on Android) to find the GPX file, then open the file in Gaia GPS.

If you don鈥檛 see the track from the GPX file, click on the layers icon in the upper right and confirm that Tracks and Routes听is turned on, then听make sure your trip location is visible on your screen.

Select the Download Layer

With a basic membership, only one map layer听can be downloaded at a time. With a premium membership, multiple layers can be downloaded simultaneously. However, the opacity settings at the time of download will be frozen. If you want to use the layers independently, they must be downloaded separately.

Touch the upper-right layers icon, and select the desired layer(s) to download. You may need to dig into the map library for your desired maps鈥攍ook under More听Layers.

You may also want to download the听Gaia topo layer, which will load more quickly than USGS听and Forest Service topo layers, because it鈥檚 vector based, not raster. Or download the听Trails Illustrated layer, handy for听small-scale overview maps. It may make sense to download other maps听instead of or in addition to those I鈥檝e already mentioned. For example, before elk hunting in Colorado, I download the GMU听(game management units) and public-access layers, so that I remain on legal hunting grounds, plus USGS aerial satellite imagery, so that I could find clearings more easily.

Download the Maps

Finally, let鈥檚 download some maps.

Select the plus听button from the top menu,听then Download Map.听A red-shaded box will appear. Move it and its corners to encompass your guide box or the map area you want to download.

If you鈥檙e听low on storage space, you can reduce the zoom level. If not, keep it at level 12听for maximum resolution.

Hit the Save听button, and name the map.

Check Your Work

To confirm that your maps have downloaded successfully:

• In the bottom menu, select the folder icon (Saved).
• Pull up your saved maps. Look under All听or Maps听in the top menu, between Saved听and the triple-dot icon.
• Gaia should push out a notification that your map download is complete.

The post You Should Be Downloading Your Trail Maps appeared first on 国产吃瓜黑料 Online.

Update: has been extended until August 29.听

The Trump administration is quietly trying to strip public input from the decision-making process used by the U.S. Forest Service. Doing so would mean that logging companies could clear-cut at many as 4,200 acres at a time, and you wouldn鈥檛 know about it until you turned up at your favorite spot to find it decimated. But you have one last chance to stop that from happening.听

鈥淭his is a speak-now-or-forever-lose-your-ability-to-have-input situation,鈥� says Sam Evans, a senior attorney with听the 听(SELC). The听organization has put together that will enable you to participate in what鈥檚 potentially the last public-comment period about the vast majority of decisions affecting national forests. If the public doesn鈥檛 speak up now and stop this proposed logging rule from going forward, it听won鈥檛 have a chance to weigh in when logging, roads, or even pipelines threaten听the lands where they recreate.听

Way back in 1969, Richard Nixon signed into law the , which requires听all federal agencies to begin considering the environmental impacts of any projects they undertake. Part of that is a requirement to solicit public input and look for less impactful alternatives. NEPA is one of the mechanisms that makes federal management of public lands so much more robust and democratic than state management. Everyone with a stake in national-forest management, including local users, has a right to comment. And the agency is supposed to be accountable to those people.听

NEPA听quickly became an invaluable tool for the Forest Service, enabling it to make decisions with much more data than it could ever have compiled听through its staff alone. As evidenced by the stories contained in the left on the proposed rule so far, public comment has enabled the Forest Service听to better serve , balancing the needs of logging with conservation and recreation. This is one of those processes where everyone wins.听

But the U.S. Forest Service is chronically underfunded and understaffed鈥攁nd that was before it became overwhelmed with firefighting costs (which currently听account for about half of the agency鈥檚 total expenses). As a result, the Forest Service鈥檚 decision-making process has slowed to a crawl. During the fiscal years 2014 through 2018, the average time it took the agency to conduct the environmental assessments dictated by NEPA was . So听the Forest Service started looking for loopholes that would allow it to circumvent the law.听

This culminated in , ordering听the Forest Service to use听鈥淎ll applicable categorical exclusions set forth in law or regulation for fire management, restoration, and other management projects in forests, rangelands, and other Federal lands when implementing the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act.鈥� The order also instructs the Forest Service to create new categorical exclusions (CEs) to increase its timber outputs. And that鈥檚 exactly what it鈥檚 doing with this proposed rule.听

As evidenced by the administration鈥檚 , it鈥檚 not actually all that interested in addressing wildfire. That same proposal听slashes the total Forest Service听budget by $815 million听and reduces its firefighting budget by $530 million. The real impact of the executive mandate was to order the Forest Service to find or create CEs it could apply to those other management projects鈥攑retty much any project the agency might want to undertake.听

鈥淭his is part of the Trump administration鈥檚 agenda to be aggressive with deregulation,鈥� says the SELC鈥檚 Evans. 鈥淐ouched in the language of firefighting, the executive order is actually telling the Forest Service to .鈥澨�

And it turns out there鈥檚 one hell of a CE听included in this proposed rule. If it鈥檚 finalized, commercial timber-harvest activities won鈥檛 require an environmental analysis anymore.听In the past, any harvest greater than 70 acres required that analysis. Every single harvest has required both public notice and comment.听

I鈥檓 sure you can see the problem there. Forty-two hundred听acres is听a very large area鈥攎ore than 6.5 square miles. And projects of that size could be stacked near one another, effectively creating a larger impacted zone.听

So in summary: the proposed rule would allow the Forest Service to green-light the clear-cutting of 6.5 square miles of old-growth forest without conducting an environmental analysis,听soliciting public input, or notifying the public ahead of time. The proposed rule would allow the Forest Service to construct roads through that 6.5-square-mile area without an environmental analysis,听soliciting public input, or notifying the public. It听could do the same with pipelines. Heck, as long as a single project doesn鈥檛 exceed 6.5 square miles, the Forest Service will pretty much be able to do whatever it wants.听

鈥淣ational-forest users鈥攈ikers, bikers, and wildlife watchers鈥攚on鈥檛 know what鈥檚 coming until the logging trucks show up at their favorite trailheads or until roads and trails are closed,鈥� says Evans.听

But you do have one last chance to demand that your voice is听heard. , or .听鈥淥ur public lands can鈥檛 be protected without transparency and accountability, and that鈥檚 what the Forest Service is proposing to eliminate,鈥� says Evans. Let鈥檚 stop them from doing that.

You have until August 12听.听

The post Speak Up Now to Save Our National Forests appeared first on 国产吃瓜黑料 Online.

When opens for its 2018 season on May 25, it will become the first major park on U.S. Forest Service land where riders can saddle up on electric mountain bikes.

Mammoth, which leases its 3,500 acres from the USFS and is one of the largest mountain bike parks in the country, will allow e-MTBs听on its 80 miles of singletrack and 3,100 feet of vertical descent. Specifically, Class 1 e-bikes鈥攖hose without throttles and with motors that max out at 20 miles per hour while the rider is pedaling鈥攃an ride on all trails within park boundaries. They won鈥檛 be allowed on any neighboring USFS land. Park access points will be clearly marked with signage, according to a statement issued by Mammoth officials.

The move marks another first for Mammoth, which has been a pioneer in the mountain biking community since opening in 1987. It was the first mountain bike park with lift access to its trails, helping fuel the downhill riding craze.

鈥淔irst and foremost, it鈥檚 about accessibility,鈥� says Joani Lynch, a spokesperson for Mammoth Bike Park. 鈥淢any of the trails require a fair amount of pedaling to get to some cool destinations. And we think that with the use of e-bikes, our guests will be able to able to travel to those places in a much more comfortable fashion.鈥�

But some in the modern-day MTB community see this latest development as potential fuel for the ongoing debate between e-bikes and their human-powered predecessors.

鈥淲e do have some concern any time e-bikes are lumped in with 100 percent human-powered bikes,鈥� says John Fisch, a board member of mountain biking advocacy nonprofit Sustainable Trails Coalition. 鈥淲e see them as two separate entities, one of which鈥攕trictly human powered鈥攊s in concert with wilderness ideals, while the other鈥攁rtificial power鈥攊s not.鈥�

In other words: 鈥淭here鈥檚 no way for this not to sound pejorative, but what we鈥檙e concerned about is lazy city people will go buzzing into the backcountry without any respect for it,鈥� Fisch continues. 鈥淭hen we鈥檒l get the wilderness advocates saying, 鈥楽ee, this is what bike people are all about,鈥� and that would be, in our view, misleading.鈥�

Indeed, debates over access are heating up as e-bike usage continues to increase. But the current situation at Mammoth is unique for several reasons. First of all, the park is zoned predominately for downhill mountain bike use鈥攈ikers, trail runners, and equestrians are not permitted on mountain bike trails, eliminating potential conflicts between the different groups. Second, most trails are one-way downhill, meaning that head-on crashes between all riders, whether e-MTB or traditional, are less likely. Finally, park officials don鈥檛 anticipate e-MTB riders seeking out the park鈥檚 most difficult terrain.

鈥淥ur expert terrain is technical downhill trails that people with eight inches of suspension and a full-face helmet and full body armor are riding,鈥� Lynch says. 鈥淚 don鈥檛 see, at this stage of the game, consumers who will come and rent an e-bike and start attacking those trails.鈥�

E-bikes aren鈥檛 entirely new at Mammoth. For the past two years, the park has included an e-bike category called the Electric Boogaloo (which was allowed under a special use permit by the USFS) during its annual Kamikaze Bike Games. That served as a sort of trial run for the current permit, which took about a year to obtain, according to Lynch. (The USFS did not respond to 国产吃瓜黑料鈥檚 request for comment before publication.) Trek is also on board: A fleet of 70 of its e-MTBs will be available for rental at Mammoth early in the season.

So far, Lynch says, park officials haven鈥檛 heard much criticism from MTB purists about sharing the trails with their motorized versions. But the local MTB community is keeping a close eye on how things unfold.

鈥淚f the trails are being trashed and people are getting out of control and lot of damage is being done, then, yeah, you have to deal with that,鈥� Alan Jacoby, owner of the in Mammoth Lakes, told 国产吃瓜黑料. 鈥淏ut I agree with them trying something. And a lot people are going to hate me for saying that, since I鈥檓 a human-powered advocate, and everyone who knows me knows I鈥檓 a singlespeed rigid rider鈥攖hat鈥檚 been my M.O. for years. But in the bigger picture, I think about myself in 20 years, and I think of my dad. If he comes up to Mammoth, he could ride an e-bike beside me while I ride my regular bike. That would be huge for me.鈥�

The post Mammoth Opens Its Bike Park to E-MTBs appeared first on 国产吃瓜黑料 Online.

For two months, protesters have sat in platforms perched among the trees near Peters Mountain, located in Jefferson National Forest. Their goal is to block logging in the area that will prepare the way for the Mountain Valley Pipeline, a 303-mile operation that will feed natural gas through the forest and cross the Appalachian Trail. And for two months the protests were听peaceful, until last Sunday.

The protesters built their tree stands in February, and another protester erected a monopod鈥攁 freestanding perch atop a tall pole鈥攁t a separate site in late March.听Since then, Forest Service officers听and private security contractors paid by the pipeline owners have upped security听at the sites. They restricted public access to the forest road that leads to the monopod. They issued an emergency closure within 150 feet of the structure, a move that has deprived the monopod-sitter, who goes by the trail name Nutty,听of additional food and water supplies for at least three weeks now. On the other side of the mountain, the tree-sitters say private security contractors have harassed them with spotlights and loud noise throughout the night, preventing them from sleeping. The weather has been abysmal. They鈥檙e cold and tired.

And so听on Sunday鈥擡arth Day鈥攁bout two dozen people made the听hike up Peters Mountain to support the protesters. They brought musical instruments and food for a potluck. They staged political puppet shows and read poetry to the tree-sitters.

Doug Chancey, a 66-year-old retired addiction counselor who lives near the proposed pipeline, sat in the small support camp. He and others watched as several Forest Service听officers left the area to check on the rally, and,听recognizing the opportunity, Chancey and three others grabbed daypacks containing water, toilet paper, and food. They ducked the caution tape and walked as quickly as they could towards the monopod. And that, according to rally attendees and support-camp occupants, is when all hell broke loose.

Chancey says he and the other two individuals with backpacks were ordered to the ground by Forest Service officers. Chancey was handcuffed and put in leg shackles. Meanwhile, according to those on the scene, at least ten law-enforcement vehicles and over a dozen officers from multiple agencies arrived with assault rifles. (Law-enforcement agencies, including the Forest Service, did not respond to calls or e-mails. A spokesperson for the Virginia state police said that its听officers did not arrive until after the arrests were made and that no officers drew their weapons at any time.)

Emily Satterwhite is associate professor of Appalachian studies at Virginia Tech University, where she has been studying the pipeline and those protesting it. She was on the scene of that听weekend鈥檚 rally, and although she was听not arrested, she was issued a $125 citation for violating the emergency closure鈥攁 claim听she contests.听What worries Satterwhite most is听what such an aggressive response from law enforcement means听for those hoping to take a stand against the pipeline.

鈥淚 don't expect to go to my national forest in support of a protector of the Appalachian Trail and be treated as if I don鈥檛 belong there,鈥� Satterwhite听says. 鈥淭he Forest Service has turned into a private security detail for a pipeline corporation, and some of them seem to be relishing the exercise of power over peaceful campers.鈥�

In some very real ways, the Mountain Valley Pipeline (MVP) is business as usual for the Forest Service and the National Park Service, which oversees听the Appalachian Trail. About 60 pipelines currently cross the 2,200-mile National Scenic Trail.听Management plans for protected areas like those around the AT allow for these projects, as long as they adhere to a听forest鈥檚 鈥渟cenic integrity objectives, which require the Forest Service to protect and restore any degradation to the land.

Those objectives are where problems with the MVP began. In order to approve construction for the pipeline, the Forest Service had to modify its forest protection plan for the Jefferson National Forest and the AT. Prior to this weekend鈥檚 protests, I contacted JoBeth Brown, a spokesperson for the Forest Service, who said that following the Jefferson National Forest鈥檚 management plan was not feasible for the construction of the pipeline, so the federal government decided to alter them. These modifications allowed the agency听to relax restrictions on a variety of issues, ranging from riparian damage to the clearing of old-growth trees to the impact of the pipeline on the AT.

鈥淭he decision to amend the forest plan was developed through extensive public involvement, Brown wrote to me in an e-mail. 鈥淭he mitigation measures are required and would minimize the environmental impacts to the extent practical.鈥�

Land owners, concerned individuals, and conservation groups have taken issue with both this decision and the Forest Service鈥檚 process to change the management plan. Andrew Downs, the central and southwest Virginia听regional director for the Appalachian Trail Conservancy, says,听鈥淲e鈥檝e worked with the Forest Service and developers to put all sorts of infrastructure across the AT鈥攑ower lines, pipelines, even roads.听We鈥檝e never had to amend the scenic integrity objectives in the forest plan. Until MVP.鈥�

Last January, including the Sierra Club filed a suit in federal court to block the pipeline, arguing that its construction and operation听would cause irreversible damage to surrounding lands and streams, as well as to the animals and plants nearby.听It was the latest in that have been filed by NGOs and local residents whose land was seized by the private utility consortium that owns the pipeline project. These landowners are concerned with the safety of the project, which requires MVP to bore through fragile rock known as karst, which is very porous and can be unstable. They worry about the pipeline itself: at 42 inches in diameter and following a zigzagging route, it鈥檚 one of the nation鈥檚 most ambitious projects to date, both because of the size of the pipeline (most natural gas pipelines are no more than 36 inches in diameter) and the challenging terrain it crosses.

Maury Johnson, 58, is one such resident. He currently raises听organic cattle on a farm that has been in his family since the early 1800s. MVP seized a wide swath of his pasture land through a provision of the 1938 Natural Gas Act, which allows utility companies to take private lands for infrastructure projects.听Johnson says he is not only frustrated听with having his family鈥檚 land taken, but also by the fact that听the loss of land could have an impact on his business.听For similar听reasons,听lots of locals have come out in strong support of the protestors.听鈥淚鈥檝e told some of them if I were thirty years younger, I鈥檇 be with them,鈥� Johnson says.

Late Sunday night, Chancey was released from听custody with two tickets: one for entering a closed area听and one for interfering with a forest officer. He was worried about听Nutty鈥檚 condition and didn鈥檛 get much sleep that night, but he figures she didn鈥檛 either: her supplies must be getting low, and he says the Forest Service officers have set floodlights on the whole area.

Brown, the Forest Service spokesperson, says the agency isn鈥檛 allowed to comment on any ongoing litigation. But she did say that under federal regulation, her agency鈥檚 law-enforcement officers will continue to keep the area closed to anyone attempting to resupply the protesters in the tree platforms or on the monopod.

There鈥檚 no indication that Nutty plans to come down anytime soon. And the movement is catching on. Recently听at least three other tree-sit protests听have . Local residents are hopeful that the start of the hiking season will mean hikers on the AT will lend a hand. But they know opposition to their protests is increasing as well.

The pipeline project鈥檚听spokesperson, Natalie Cox, said it will continue to seek additional relief under federal injunction orders that allow MVP to prevent interference with construction.听

鈥淲e have been patient in our attempts to consistently work with the handful of landowners that continue to impede MVP鈥檚 progress,鈥� Cox wrote in an e-mail. 鈥淭he most important message we want to send to landowners and residents in the region is that we鈥檙e going to do this the right way. We value the safety of our employees, contractors, and every single person that lives in these communities, and one of our primary goals remains the preservation and protection of the environment, as well as the protection of sensitive species and cultural and historic resources.鈥�

Chancey says he isn鈥檛 buying it. Already his neighbors are complaining about their wells dirtied with sediment from the construction. He points to several endangered species in the area, including bats and plants. And from the vantage of the AT, there鈥檚 now a wide swath of missing trees on what is supposed to be a remote hike through wilderness.

鈥淲e鈥檝e been at this for four years now,鈥� Chancey says. 鈥淭he real fight is just beginning. I have grandchildren. I want to be able to tell them that I tried to stop this environmental insanity.鈥�

The post The Forest Service Is Arresting Protesters Along the AT appeared first on 国产吃瓜黑料 Online.

Gear that hails our outdoor playgrounds has become a thing in recent years. Much of this is due to the National Park Service鈥檚 centennial in 2016, which stirred up pride in America鈥檚 best idea. More recently, the battle over public lands has provided the inspiration. So far, we think Filson has paid tribute best. Last fall the Seattle brand launched a line of apparel and accessories featuring the iconic badge of the U.S. Forest Service, an acknowledgment of the 34,250 employees who oversee 193 million acres of federally managed trails and woodlands. Our favorite from that collection? The . With tough cotton twill鈥攊n vintage Gifford Pinchot鈥揺sque drab green鈥攁nd leather straps and drawcord, the 25-liter satchel boasts the famed Filson durability prized by folks who鈥檝e been making the most of America鈥檚 natural places for more than a century. $245

The post Ode to the Filson USFS Ranger Pack appeared first on 国产吃瓜黑料 Online.

Here鈥檚 the weekly reminder that the GOP is gunning for our land: a new bill introduced to Congress seeks to remove federal oversight of oil and gas drilling on public land, thereby allowing that industry to circumvent environmental regulations. It could also limit public access to that public land. The does for freedom on federal lands what the Patriot Act does for patriotism.

To recap, the Republican party听is conducting听a war against our valuable public lands. Under the guise of states鈥� rights, limited government, and energy independence, they鈥檙e听attempting to sell off public lands for energy development in a move that would actually reduce state revenue, irrevocably destroy our environment, and lock the public out of the places where we recreate.听

The new bill proposes to turn over responsibility for 鈥渓easing, permitting, and regulating oil, natural gas, and other forms of energy development from the Federal Government to the State.鈥� Each state would gain control of those regulations on the land within its borders that鈥檚 currently managed by the Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management.听

Like most anti-public lands efforts, the bill sounds pretty reasonable on its surface. Energy independence is good, and in many cases, states鈥� rights can be, too. But to quote Deep Throat, we need to follow the money to understand where impetus for the bill really comes from.

The 鈥攁n oil and gas apparatchik鈥攄escribes the bill as a 鈥済ame changer,鈥� and goes on to claim, 鈥渢he federal government is holding America back from fully unleashing its energy potential.鈥�

The game-changing difference in moving regulation of the oil and gas industry from the the federal to the state level? Well, it would allow oil and gas companies to circumvent federal laws like , which requires that the federal government consider the environmental impacts of permitted activities like energy extraction. It also helps oil and gas get around the management priorities of federal agencies like the Forest Service听and BLM, which are mandated to manage for multiple use鈥攅xtraction must exist alongside wildlife and recreation鈥�and for long-term conservation of the land for future generations. States, on the other hand, are bound by no such limits and听can manage land solely for profit.

Why is it bad to manage our public lands solely for profit? It鈥檚 been proven to result in the sale of those public lands to private entities. In Utah, for instance, . When public land becomes private, .

Why would any lawmaker want to get rid of our country鈥檚 unique and incredible public lands, especially when they already generate such incredible profits for听state and federal governments, and private industry, while providing recreation opportunities for hundreds of millions of Americans? That鈥檚 about money, too. Writing in the Pacific Standard, . Diane Black, a Republican out of Tennessee, who is sponsoring the bill in the House, has received $186,580 from that industry.听Jim Inhofe, a Republican from Oklahoma, who is the bill鈥檚听main advocate听in the Senate, has taken over $1.8 million in oil and gas campaign contributions.

This is the latest battle in an ongoing war. As the : 鈥淐ongress shall immediately pass universal legislation providing for a timely and orderly mechanism requiring the federal government to convey certain federally controlled public lands to states.鈥� And that public-lands war is far from over.听

The post The Federal Land Freedom Act Limits Freedom Outdoors appeared first on 国产吃瓜黑料 Online.

Right now, there's听a war raging over who should have听control of the 640 million acres of public land听in this country. Those lands鈥攚here we hike, hunt, and camp鈥攁re听home to听most of our country鈥檚 incredible听natural heritage. Yet听the energy and mineral extraction industries have convinced Republican lawmakers it's a good idea to transfer those lands to state control, in a thinly veiled attempt to ultimately force their sale. Meanwhile, well-meaning citizens have been lied to about the true impetus behind this movement, with corporate greed masquerading as a bid to increase听states鈥� rights.

IndefinitelyWild

IndefinitelyWild is a lifestyle column telling the story of adventure travel in the outdoors, the vehicles and gear that get us there, and the people we meet along the way. Follow us on听,听, and听.

See the Archive

Here's the fundamental question: Is federal ownership and management of public lands the best policy for the people of this country? Well,听Wyoming鈥檚 (conservative)听government听just received the results of a massive study on听that very subject. analyzes the financial and legal repercussions of transferring the management of 25 million acres of public land in that state听from federal to state control.听鈥淚n essence this is a feasibility and efficiency study examining federal land management practices, costs and the revenues generated from federal public lands versus how the state manages its own lands and to explore the potential of the state taking over management of certain federal lands,鈥� the report states. Could the state generate more income by managing public lands itself? The study arrives at a pretty clear answer.听

Public Land Is Crucial听to Wyoming鈥檚 Economy

Like other western states, public lands make听up a huge portion of Wyoming real estate. That land doesn't just draw visitors, but is used for mineral and energy extraction, ranching, and countless other activities. The study says:听

Over forty-eight percent (48%) of Wyoming is federal land.听Access to and the use of public lands is critical to Wyoming and other western states鈥� economies. Public lands support many uses from activities such as bird watching to energy development. Many species of wildlife, although owned by the state, spend a significant portion of their life cycle on federally-owned lands. Public lands provide extensive opportunities for recreation and a lifestyle that more and more people are seeking in our mobile economy.

Federal Management Isn鈥檛 Perfect

Management of public lands is split across multiple federal agencies, mired in bureaucracy, and to locals, it often feels like crucial decisions are made by people who don't share their priorities.听

Management decisions on federal public lands that drastically affect western communities are heavily influenced at the national level sometimes without regard to local needs and concerns and without utilizing the special knowledge a local community possesses.听Frustration has been expressed with current management of federal public lands, the impact of federal land management decisions on local economies, the length of time it takes for federal management decisions, lack of access to resources such as timber and recreation, and in some cases concerns for human health and safety. Whether it is oil and gas, grazing, hunting, or recreational uses鈥攖he lengthy and protracted permitting processes and layers of regulations have a discernible effect on the economy of local communities and the lives of citizens.

Transferring Ownership of Public Lands听Is a听Legal Nightmare

Utah is currently suing the federal government for ownership of public lands within its borders, an effort that could听take years, cost听taxpayers millions of dollars, and is already generating much controversy. Even if successful, it鈥檚 not clear how a transfer of ownership from multiple federal agencies to unknown state agencies would even take place. the annual budget to manage those lands听at $280 million, on potential revenues of听$311 million. That鈥檚 if oil and gas prices remain steady, and all this assumes that the suit stands a realistic chance of succeeding. Earlier this month, The Salt Lake Tribune described the effort as 鈥�.鈥�

There's a Difference Between State and Federal Management

Federal and state management policies are fundamentally different, and those differences are set in legal stone. Where state management dictates profit first, federal management prioritizes the needs of citizens, and the long term health of both the land and its resources.听

The Wyoming State Constitution and the Wyoming State Legislature direct that [its] lands be managed for two key purposes: (1) long-term growth in value, and (2) optimum, sustainable revenue production.听In stark contrast, the two overarching mandates that dictate the management of federal owned听public lands administered by the BLM and USFS are multiple use and sustained yield (MUSY).听鈥淔or this discussion, we define multiple use as the use of land for more than one purpose. For example, livestock grazing, recreation, and timber harvest could occur on the same parcel.

States Would Need Federal Money to Handle All This Land

With so many revenue sources, administration priorities, and听red tape, there would necessarily be an ongoing financial exchange between state and federal governments.听

No matter the mechanism鈥攚hether a fee or a share of revenue generated鈥攖he state would have to be compensated for managing federal public lands.

Transferring Management of Public Lands Would Infringe on States鈥� Rights

One of the most surprising conclusions of the study听is that taking over federal land would expose the state government to a vast,听complicated array of existing federal laws, while subjecting it to the ups and downs of partisan politics in Congress. For instance, the Freedom of Information Act doesn't currently apply to state governments, but would create a burden of听reporting if the state was to take over management of federally-owned land. And, just as听, revenue sharing or management fees of public land could be used to听reduce the freedom of states to manage land within their borders

These laws may require the state to develop additional administrative infrastructure to ensure compliance with federal labor law including developing affirmative action plans, diversity requirements and complex procurement and acquisition rules among others.听Failure to fund mandates or the prohibition of the use of federal funds to fulfill existing mandates would hamper the state鈥檚 ability to successfully manage many aspects of federal lands.听Prohibitions such as these can be imposed suddenly and somewhat arbitrarily by Congress in response to the dictates of political movements and political pressure over particular issues which may arise and gain momentum and support in Washington, D.C.

State and Local Communities Already Profit from Federal Management

One criticism often leveled at federal management of our public land is that those revenues don鈥檛 benefit nearby communities. That's actually wrong. In addition to the visitors, businesses, and residents this land brings to these areas, there鈥檚 a significant,听direct financial contribution. It鈥檚 just been forgotten.听

Revenue received by the State of Wyoming and its political subdivisions in connection with the Lands includes the 48% of mineral revenue generated in the state that is distributed to the state, PILT payments, and Forest and SRS payment,鈥� the study says. 鈥淭he mineral revenue already being received by the state is a critical resource used to run the state and presumably none of it would be available for managing federal public lands contemplated in this study. Likewise, SRS and PILT payments are critical resources to local communities for a wide variety of government functions and purposes including but not limited to roads and schools.

In total, Wyoming currently makes $1.39 billion a year听from its听25 million acres of federal land.听That听money goes directly to the state government鈥攚ithout it having to pay a cent of the federal government鈥檚 $170 million annual budget for managing that land.听

Curious what those numbers look like for Utah, given that state鈥檚 desire to take over its public lands?听It receives $185.2 million annually from federally managed public lands within its borders. That鈥檚 . 听

Other Organizations Need the Revenue from听Wyoming's Public Lands

What happens to the other 52 percent of mineral revenue extracted from Wyoming? Ten听percent of the remaining total goes to federal coffers, to be applied to a variety of programs. Forty听percent helps fund the Bureau of Reclamation听.听One in five western farmers relies on BOR water. The agency鈥檚 hydroelectric power stations generate 40 billion kilowatt-hours of electricity per year. Ten听trillion gallons of BOR water is delivered to 31 million people annually. The BOR manages 289 recreation sites with 90 million annual visitors. The agency鈥檚 economic output is $46 billion a year, supporting over 300,000 jobs.

It would be unlikely that Wyoming would be able to keep all or more of the revenue generated on federal lands than it already receives.

States听Have Better Ways to Exert Influence Over Land Management

There are already systems in place that require federal land management agencies to consider the input of local governments and communities.

Management of federal public lands is an incredibly complex puzzle of interwoven and sometimes conflicting pieces.听We believe the resources of the state would best be utilized if directed at tackling smaller pieces of this puzzle. Federal laws (NEPA,听FLPMA,听NFMA) require Federal agencies to give meaningful consideration to local governments鈥� land use plans (NRPPs) during federal agency decision making processes鈥攇enerally referred to as consistency review. The adoption of a well written, research and data driven Natural Resource Policy Plan by a local government is a critical tool that allows a local government to have a substantive impact on federal decisions, plans, policies, and programs.

…They Just Don't Use Them

This report recommends using and expanding upon existing legislation that already authorizes听certain mechanisms that allow for state and local community involvement in federal land听management which are not currently being utilized to their fullest potential. The resources of the State of Wyoming would be better utilized being directed听at fixing the problems and working to encourage the development of a system more attentive and responsive to the voice of local communities instead of directing resources towards an effort that would ultimately merely pass on the myriad of problems that exist today to the state.

In other words: put up or shut up. Wyoming and other states already have effective tools in place to influence federal management of public lands at both the state and local levels. But听instead of effectively governing by using these tools, local politicians are wasting tax money pursuing solutions that at best aren鈥檛 viable, and at worst will cost citizens their natural heritage, while only benefiting special interests.听

The Bottom Line

The study is blunt about this: transferring听federally managed lands to the state is a terrible idea.

We would not anticipate any substantial gains in revenue production or additional sources of revenue with any transfer of management鈥攃ertainly not enough to offset the enormous costs such an endeavor would likely entail.

Read More

• Fact Checking the GOP's Official Plan To Steal Your Public Land
• The Great Public Land Heist Has Begun
• How I Earned My First Hunting Trophy

听

The post Public Lands Belong in Federal Hands appeared first on 国产吃瓜黑料 Online.