Looking west from Wendy Redal's backyard, the snow-covered slopes of Eldora Ski Area come into view. The pine and fir covered face of Mount Pisgah lies to the southwest and the brown slopes of Sugarloaf Mountain to the north.
The beautiful, unobstructed views from her home in the Sugar Loaf community are what first attracted Redal and her husband to this area. But the views may not be unobstructed for long under a federal plan to sell public land.
"You just don't expect that the public land around you might be sold," Redal said.
 |
| Hundreds of acres of public land could be sold near Sugarloaf Mountain (Photo/Wendy Worrall Redal) |
Redal's home sits on a long, skinny strip of land sandwiched between two parcels of adjacent Roosevelt National Forest. If the Bush administration's proposal to sell 300,000 acres of U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service land is passed, about 720 acres in the Sugar Loaf community may be on the chopping block, including the open space next to Redal's home.
Each of the Forest Service's nine regional offices were notified by the Washington D.C. office to select parcels of land that are isolated, difficult and expensive to manage, said John Bustos Jr., public affairs officer for the Forest Service's Rocky Mountain Regional Office.
Bustos cited another item on the list of criteria – parcels that are surrounded by private land. Public and private lands are often intermixed in national forests, which makes them more difficult to manage and gives rise to access issues, Bustos said. This criterion fits the Sugar Loaf community's layout.
Residents, recreational groups, land planning organizations and Boulder County Commissioners strongly oppose the Forest Service's proposal. At question is why certain lands in Boulder County, which have obvious recreational and scenic value and are important wildlife and access areas, have been singled out and what will happen to these lands if the proposal goes through.
The Bush administration hopes to raise $800 million by selling isolated parcels of national forest land, which will be used to fund rural schools and county road projects nationwide. Set to expire Sept. 30, 2006, President Bush's proposed 2007 budget would extend the Secure Rural and Community Self-Determination Act of 2000 for another five years.
The Rural Schools Act offsets some of the financial burdens that rural counties face due to decreased federal timber sales. Historically these counties received a cut of timber sale profits and have come to rely on federal subsidies to fund rural school and road projects.
In Colorado, more than 23,000 acres in 11 national forests are being considered. Of the 137,000 acres in Roosevelt and Arapaho National Forests in Boulder County, 2,300 acres or 1.7 percent would be sold, according to Mike Johnson, lands and mineral specialist with the Boulder Ranger District.
About 600 residents live in the Sugar Loaf community, which is located in the foothills several miles west of Boulder and covers 19 square miles of forested land that is sprinkled with homes.
"There are a couple of mountain subdivisions, but most people in this area live on several acres of land," Redal said.
Land in the Sugar Loaf community is more fragmented than any other area managed by the Boulder Ranger District, according to the Forest Service's land and resource management website.
"So what they're saying, that it is really fragments of public land, is true," said Redal, noting that this may be one reason why so many acres in the Sugar Loaf area have been singled out.
Redal and her husband own three acres, a long, thin stretch of land about 150 feet wide that is a former mining claim. Many of her neighbors' homes are similarly situated.
 |
| The Redal family's home sits amid fragmented parcels of public and private land (Photo/Wendy Worrall Redal) |
"It's an old land-use layout in terms of the mixture of private and public lands," Redal said.
"It's true that there's a focus on former mining claims or strips," said Pat Shanks, chairman of PLAN-Boulder County, a nonprofit political action group in Boulder. Perhaps these strips have a little less value to the Forest Service in terms of pristine open space, Shanks said.
Thousands of former mining claims dot the mountains west of Boulder. Under the Mining Act of 1872, prospectors who discovered gold and other valuable surface minerals could stake claims for these deposits and buy the land for $2.50 or $5.00 an acre. Many small mining towns, including Ward, Magnolia and Sugar Loaf, sprung up in Colorado as a result. Many of these former mining claims are now privately owned.
Bob Ruston, a long-time resident of the Sugar Loaf community, calls these former mining claims "picnic spots." These strips of land, which range in shape from rectangular to long, skinny stretches, and are a good place to get out of your car, spread a blanket and have a picnic on a beautiful summer day, Ruston said.
In 1968 Ruston bought three acres from a friend and built his first home here. Several years after moving to the Sugar Loaf area Ruston discovered Dream Canyon.
"It just knocked my socks off," said Ruston, recalling seeing Dream Canyon for the first time. "It's so vast and crennelated."
 |
| Dream Canyon, a popular rock-climbing area above Boulder Falls, is slated to be sold by the Forest Service (Photo/Rockclimbing.com) |
Dream Canyon is one of the parcels currently proposed for sale by the Forest Service.
The Dream Canyon trailhead is a 5-minute walk from Redal's home and a short distance from Ruston's place. Ruston owns three plots of land, two of which lie several hundred feet uphill from North Boulder Creek, which winds through the steep canyon walls of Dream Canyon before cascading down Boulder Falls where it meets Middle Boulder Creek.
Tucked just off Boulder Canyon, Dream Canyon has numerous bolted routes and steep granite buttresses that make it a popular climbing area. Ruston has talked to climbers ranging from adventurous youths to spry retirees who come to Dream Canyon from as far away as Europe and Asia.
"Often on the 4th of July there are about 200 people (at Dream Canyon), Ruston said.
The Access Fund, a Boulder-based organization committed to maintaining and preserving public rock climbing sites, has identified Dream Canyon and Bell Buttress, a towering wall located just beyond Boulder Falls, on Forest Service maps. In their letter to the Forest Service, the Access Fund requested that any parcels used for climbing, biking, hiking and other recreational purposes be taken off the list. The organization cited the Forest Service's proposal as a short-term fix that would take thousands of acres of recreational lands and natural areas out of the public's hands.
Like Dream Canyon, several of the identified parcels are located within 'high-use recreation areas,' according to the Forest Service's website. These include Eldora Ski Area and Boulder Creek, Caribou and Sugar Loaf geographic areas.
Two 240-acre parcels in the Sugar Loaf community are located in the Boulder Falls vicinity, which is designated as a critical wildlife corridor and an environmental conservation area under Boulder County's Comprehensive Plan.
Just one and one-half miles past Boulder Falls along the cliffs of Boulder Canyon is golden eagle territory. Golden eagles nest in the upper cliffs of several popular rock climbing areas, including Eagle Rock, Security Risk and Blob Rock.
Other areas in Boulder County are also targeted. Four parcels are located in the Magnolia Road area south of Boulder Creek, a popular mountain biking trail and an important migration corridor for elk that winter in the area. Another parcel is located in Eldora near one of the entrances to the Indian Peaks Wilderness. And several parcels abut land crossed by the Peak-to-Peak Highway and Caribou Ranch Open Space.
Rep. Mark Udall, D-Colo., introduced a bill in May 2005, H.R. 2110, to protect the 'open space characteristics' of lands in and adjacent to Arapaho and Roosevelt National Forests along Colorado's Front Range. The bill is now undergoing hearings and testimony in the U.S. House of Representatives.
In the bill Rep. Udall outlines several key reasons why land along Colorado's Front Range needs to be protected. First, lands in and adjacent to Arapaho and Roosevelt National Forests provide important wildlife habitat and numerous recreational opportunities. In addition, these open spaces are vital to Colorado's communities, not only for their scenic beauty, but also for their economic impact. As the population continues to grow along the Front Range and more land is lost to development, open space in Arapaho and Roosevelt National Forests will be increasingly used for recreational purposes.
Determining which parcels are on the Forest Service's proposed list is challenging.
"They (Boulder Ranger District) weren't being uncooperative, but they weren't going out of their way to tell us where those parcels were," Shanks said.
So PLAN-Boulder County made their own maps based on data they downloaded from the Forest Service's website. These maps, which are posted on PLAN-Boulder County's website, list the location, size and significance of the public lands in Boulder County.
"In terms of actual boundaries, it's been hard to figure out," said Redal, explaining that she had trouble using the mapping program on the Forest Service's website and difficulty locating the parcels within the Sugar Loaf community.
The act of selling public lands to fund a federal program has been sharply criticized by citizens in Boulder County and politicians at local, state and national levels.
Sens. Wayne Allard, R-Colo., and Ken Salazar, D-Colo., both oppose the Bush administration's plan to sell public lands to fund a federal program.
"I continue to be very concerned about the Administration's proposal to sell off pieces of America's permanent heritage of public lands as part of a short-term budget issue," said Sen. Salazar in a press release issued Mar. 29, 2006.
Sens. Larry Craig, R-Idaho, and Ron Wyden, D-Ore., coauthors of the Secure Rural and Community Self-Determination Act of 2000, introduced legislation to reinstate the program at its current funding level without resorting to land sales.
Boulder County Commissioners Ben Pearlman, Tom Mayer and Will Toor cited the proposal as being fiscally irresponsible in their letter to Dale Bosworth, forest service chief. 'The federal government has an obligation to live within its means, not sell off a permanent public asset to pay current operating costs of government.'
There is also widespread disapproval among citizens, politicians and local organizations about the Forest Service's process for selecting which public lands would be sold.
The regional offices received quick directions and very little input about how to go about the process, said Jim Maxwell, media relations officer for the Forest Service's Rocky Mountain Regional Office.
"Our lands people at the regional office sat down with maps and determined where isolated and scattered parcels are located in relation to forest service lands," Maxwell said. "Our people were only given a few days to do that."
Maxwell agrees that there's been a lot of controversy over the proposed bill.
"It's facing a very uncertain future," he said.
Agricultural Undersecretary Rey contends that the Rural Schools Act was never meant to be permanent. Legislation was passed to help rural counties transition from relying on federal timber sales to finding other economic sources to generate revenues. Rey estimates that the Forest Service will only have to sell about 175,000 acres out of the proposed 300,000 acres to meet its goal of $800 million.
The first cut of national forest lands proposed for sale was included in the President's Feb. 2006 budget proposal and published in the Federal Registry on Feb. 25, 2006. A public comment period, originally set from Feb. 28 to Mar. 30, was recently extended until May 1 to give the public an additional month to comment on the controversial proposal.
"So far we have received around 4,000 comments," said Undersecretary Rey during a telenews conference with the press on Mar. 29, 2006.
Though Rey didn't know the exact breakdown of the letters, he estimated that at least three-fourths of the letters are against the proposal.
"Lots of people we're hoping will comment on specific parcels," said Maxwell so the Forest Service can revisit the list and make necessary changes.
After the comment period ends, the Forest Service will take the comments they receive into consideration while forming their final list. If Congress approves the proposal, they will get very specific about how many parcels will be sold and the method in which they will be sold, Maxwell explained.
The Boulder Ranger District will not speculate on how the Forest Service would implement the proposal until it is given that authority by Congress. Based on the proposal submitted to Congress, the Forest Service would complete an environmental analysis, Johnson said. An environmental analysis is used to learn about important issues and concerns, find alternatives for completing the project and determine the environmental impacts of those alternatives.
It's uncertain exactly how the land would be sold, though the Forest Service says that the parcels would be sold at fair market value as required by law. Fair market value is determined through an appraisal process based on the value of similar properties.
Historically the Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management have conveyed lands that are difficult or uneconomical to manage through land exchanges rather than sales, according to the Colorado Bureau of Land Management's website.
Under the Bush administration's proposal, this policy would change. Not only would it be more difficult for Boulder County to acquire open space through land swaps, selling national forest lands would result in fragmented ownership patterns – something Boulder Parks and Open Space has worked for years to correct.
Based on a Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement completed in 1986, Boulder County Commissioners decided it was in the county's best interest to acquire all lands managed by the Bureau of Land Management. As Boulder County's population continues to grow and push outwards toward the foothills, the county must deal with increased residential development, right-of-way issues and pending Recreation and Public Purposes Act applications.
The Recreation and Public Purposes Act, administered by the Bureau of Land Management, authorizes state and local governments to purchase land at low costs for recreational and public purposes. Under the act, government entities can purchase up to 640 acres per year for recreational uses, such as parks and campgrounds, and another 640 acres for public purposes, such as municipal facilities and schools.
The Bureau of Land Management has agreed to several land exchanges with Boulder County, which involves small tracts of land, namely old mining claims, being exchanged for lands that benefit the Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management. Land exchanges and private conservation easements have created more cohesive patterns of ownership and improved Boulder County's ability to effectively manage its open space program.
During the first exchange, which took place in March 2003, Boulder County acquired 705 acres of public land and the federal government received two parcels, a 165-acre parcel in Boulder County and a 484-acre parcel in Teller County.
In the Forest Service's Feb. 28, 2006 posting on the Federal Register, the Forest Service admits that it hasn't surveyed many of the selected parcels for 'natural or cultural resources specific to this proposal.' This raises the question of who would be responsible for surveying and assessing the land if it's sold.
Ruston estimates it would cost around $100,000 to $200,000 just to survey the land around his place. The Forest Service could send out their own surveying team to each identified parcel, but that process could take years, Ruston said. Instead Ruston surmises the Forest Service will probably leave the surveying process up to the prospective property owner.
"If they do a slipshod job and just draw lines on the map, they'll leave it up to the person who buys it," Ruston said.
This could be an expensive task. While Boulder County Commissioners paid for the surveying and appraisal costs under its land exchange agreement with the Bureau of Land Management, it would be far too expensive for the county to purchase isolated parcels of Forest Service lands at fair market value, especially if appraisal costs are heaped on.
The Boulder County Commissioners stated in their letter to Forest Service Chief Bosworth that working with the federal government to preserve open space through land swaps is an inefficient process. 'The costs of closing on federal land, including survey and appraisal costs, will significantly reduce any return to the Federal treasury,' the Boulder County Commissioners stated in their letter.
Since the passage of the Rural Schools Act in 1999, $1.9 billion of federal funds have been allocated to eligible counties. By 2013, the only guaranteed payments that these counties would receive would be 25 percent of timber sales from forest revenues. The payments will be capped, gradually adjusted downwards over the next five years and phased out by 2013, according to information on the Forest Service's website.
During 2000 to 2006 allocated funds were distributed to counties where Forest Service lands are located. If the Rural Schools Act is extended, these payments would instead go to counties that have been most affected by reduced timber sales.
Though Forest Service lands in Colorado would account for 7.2 percent of the proposed 300,000 acres, only 1.67 percent of the allocated funds would reach the state. And Boulder County wouldn't receive any of these funds.
If the public land next to Redal's home were sold, the property value of her home would decrease. But Redal isn't bothered so much about this aspect. Her main concern is that she'd lose the open space surrounding her home and the beautiful views she loves.
"So this is what President Bush wants to sell – negligible pieces of land with no scenic value," said Redal, with irony in her voice while gazing upward at the steep, creviced walls of Dream Canyon.
No comments:
Post a Comment