The Bush Administration is again proposing to sell National Forest Lands in the 2008 Budget. These parcels have
previously been identified as non-contiguous parcels that are “difficult
to manage”. It is important to understand that the FS cannot buy
land outright for inclusion in our National Forests without the approval of
Congress. However, they can “trade” parcels, which is the
primary use of these tracts, resulting in a win-win for the FS and adjacent
landowners. In addition, some of the parcels were given to the FS, so
selling them could be considered a violation of that trust. In any case,
there would be a net loss of thousands of acres of green space.
In the 2006 and 2007 proposals, the funds from these sales
were to be used entirely to fund the “RuralSchool
and Community Self-Determination Act of 2000. The funds would be placed in a
“bucket” and dispersed to schools across the country with no
assurance that ANY of the funds would be used in the counties where such
parcels were sold. This initiative failed in 2006 and 2007. The administration
extended the act for in 2007 in another bill.
Look here for info on what’s in the “RuralSchool
and Community Self-Determination Act of 2000
In 2008, the Bush Administration is looking to
“sweeten the deal” by giving half of the funds back to the National
Forests in the state where they were collected “to be used for the
acquisition of land and access for the NFS, conservation education, and
wildlife and fish habitat restoration”. This is certainly an
improvement over the 2006 and 2007 plans; however, the description of how the
funds would be used is so broad it APPEARS they would just fall into the
“general fund”, which means they could be used for whatever the FS
chooses. In addition, there are no funds for USERS…i.e. trails,
trailheads, etc. This new proposal does not change the fact that there would be
a net loss of green space and public land. Despite the fact that land purchase
is specified as a use, I suspect this is misleading because the FS would still
have to have specific approval from Congress to do so. Look here for the
2008 proposal and a list of potential tracts to be sold.
Keep in mind that this legislation is a
“one-shot” deal…permanent loss of public lands to extend the
act above for a few years. Is the sale of National Forest lands as
described appropriate? If this act is important, should it be a budget
item?
Please contact your state and national representatives
regarding your thoughts on this proposal.
