Senator Allard Is Late but not Forgotten

Several weeks ago I wrote about a proposed sale of National Forest Service land to pay for rural schools. At the time, I sent a comment letter to the USFS and copied Representative Mark Udall and Senators Ken Salazar and Wayne Allard. Udall and Salazar responded to my comments shortly, but today I finally received a response from Senator Allard. In fairness, I reproduce it here:

Thank you for contacting me to express your thoughts on the FY2007 Budget. You wrote regarding a section of the budget which would authorize the sale of 325,000 acres of public land currently administered by the Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management.

This proposed sale would affect Colorado, as 21,000 acres of public land in our state could be sold under this proposal. Colorado's public lands are one of our greatest resources, and we should act carefully when we consider proposals that will affect these lands. There is currently significant opposition to this proposal in Congress, and I have a number of concerns about this proposal.

I would also like to share my general philosophy on establishing public lands. When there is a local consensus, I have consistently been a supporter of passing laws to set aside public lands for the protection of ecosystems, habitats and species. I would like to share with you some of the work I have done on behalf of public lands in Colorado.

I was the original sponsor of legislation known as the "Spanish Peaks Wilderness Act" which designated roughly 18,000 acres of land, including the West Spanish Peak and the East Spanish Peak, as wilderness. My legislation, which has been signed into law, permanently preserves the land for future generations.

I also authored a bill to re-designate the Great Sand Dunes National Monument as Colorado's and the nation's newest national park. This proposal increased threefold the amount of land preserved. It's enactment into law protects on of Colorado's greatest natural assets.

I am also currently sponsoring legislation which would establish the Browns Canyon wilderness area in Colorado. This area near Salida borders the Arkansas River, and will preserve a beautiful, pristine area for Coloradans and other Americas to enjoy.

I will be the first to state that the preservation of our nation's wild lands is important. I believe that by providing the Forest Service and BLM with additional management options we will, in the end, further the mission of protecting and preserving America's most precious lands.

Again, thank you for writing. For more information regarding this and other important issues, please feel free to visit my website at http://allard.senate.gov. I look forward to hearing from you in the future.

How Much Land Is for Sale?

A few weeks ago, I wrote about the Forest Service plan to sell parcels of land to pay for rural schools. After quite a bit of poring over the Forest service websites, I calculated a total of 2,100 acres for sale in Boulder County.

A week after my diatribe, the Boulder County Commissioners had a guest opinion in the Boulder Daily Camera. In addition to agreeing with many of my points (no, I'm not accusing them of plagiarism), they raised a number of further arguments against the sale. And, they also gave the same number of acres for sale: 2,100. This gave me some confidence that my efforts in interpreting the maps and other information on the website were reasonably accurate.

Well, a couple of days ago, there was another article in the Camera. This article reported on a letter sent by those same County Commissioners to the Forest Service. This letter brings up many of the same points as well as some new ones. It also states that the list of parcels on the website shows 2,120 acres for sale in Boulder County, while the maps show 3,120.

Ok, now I'm freaked out. If they can't even agree on how much land they want to sell, how are we supposed to respond to this proposal? How did the maps suddenly show an additional 1,050 acres? If the total is 3,120 acres, the plan is 50% worse than I thought it was.

Brief Reprieve in Sale of Forest Service Land

A couple of weeks ago, I wrote about the US Forest Service's plan to sell hundreds of thousands of acres of public land, including 2,100 acres here in Boulder County, to fund the Secure Rural Schools initiative. The proposal included an insanely short 30-day comment period, set to expire today. Well, the Forest Service has announced that the comment period has been extended by another 30 days. So, if you care about this issue and have procrastinated until now, you have another opportunity. In my previous essay, you will find a link to the maps of the parcels proposed for sale, the email link where you can send your comments, a copy of my response which you are free to plagerize as much as you like, and a detailed list of the parcels potentially for sale in Boulder County.

The extension of the comment period is due to some very strong feedback from Congress on this issue. Now we need to continue the pressure to get this bad idea killed permanently. Send your comments in to the Forest Service, and send a copy to your Representatives and Senators in Congress.

Colorado Senator Ken Salazar had the following to say in response to this proposal:

Even if this program were to be conducted with the best planning and greatest transparency, I question the wisdom of the current proposal to sell pieces of America's permanent heritage of public lands as part of a short-term budget issue. I have publicly expressed my opposition to this sell-off proposal.

I am further concerned that the Forest Service provide meaningful public education, convenient access to maps and other relevant information to the public, and a reasonable amount of time for comments. Maps of the specific parcels to be sold should be available at every Forest Service office and at central locations in every affected county, including public libraries and public land record offices. I have written to Forest Service Chief Dale Bosworth to withdraw the February 28 notice of the proposed sale, take steps to ensure that the maps are broadly available, and then re-publish the notice to give the public the full 30-day notice period for review and comment.

Representative Mark Udall from Eldorado Springs said the following:

The Bush Administration would like to be able to sell enough National Forest lands to raise $800 million for distribution under a law intended to help counties that experienced decreased payments because of reduced National Forest timber sales. That law is scheduled to expire this year. The Administration also would like to give the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) more authority to sell public lands.

I do not support these proposals. It might be appropriate to dispose of some small tracts of federal lands - by exchange or otherwise -- in order to acquire lands valuable for wildlife habitat or other purposes. But I think the idea of selling federal lands to fund government programs is short-sighted and not the proper way to manage these assets. I think the Administration's proposals would not be good for Colorado or for the American people who are the owners of the Federal lands.

I do not know whether Congress will consider the legislation proposed by the Administration. But if that should occur, I will vote against it unless it is so drastically revised that it would be in the public interest.

U.S. Forest Service Proposes to Sell 2,100 Acres of National Forest in Boulder County

President Bush has proposed that the federal government sell parts of the public lands to pay for the Rural Schools Initiative. Clearly this is evidence that the federal government cannot budget responsibly to pay for its programs. Instead it wants to sell off part of the public trust, something that once gone can never be reclaimed.

To find out more about this program and view maps of the proposed land to be sold, go to USFS Rural Schools.

You can provide comments, both general comments on the program and specific comments on any parcels, at SRS_Land_Sales@fs.fed.us. The comment period is only open until March 30, 2006. (I know, ridiculously short.)

I've been through the website, and after several hours I have managed to at least locate the properties proposed for sale in Boulder County. If you are outside of Boulder County, I'm sorry, but I haven't had the time to go beyond this, and I'm not currently planning on doing so. Below, I've included my analysis of the specific Boulder County lands (totaling 2,100 acres), as well as a copy of the response I sent to the Forest Service. Feel free to use any of my comments in your response. I would encourage you to add any specific details about any parcels that may help make the case against selling any particular parcel.

Boulder County Forest Service Lands Potentially Available for Sale under the Secure Rural Schools Forest Service FY 2007 Initiative

All of these parcels are in Roosevelt National Forest. The Township, Range, PM, and Section columns identify the appoximate location of the parcels. The first line of the last column is the additional legal description provided by the USFS (in ALL CAPS), while the other text I added to identify the locations in a more human friendly manner.

FOREST	TOWNSHIP OR COUNTY	RANGE	PM	SECTIONS	ACRES	Addl legal description Comments
ROOSEVELT	1N	71W	6TH	29	120	ALL NFS IN W2 Several parcels about 2 mi up Sugarloaf Rd from Boulder Canyon
ROOSEVELT	1N	72W	6TH	1	240	ALL NFS Lefthand Canyon, between Rowena and Lickskillet Rd. Both north and south of Hwy
ROOSEVELT	1N	72W	6TH	25	120	ALL NFS IN W2 Sugarloaf Rd, near Switzerland Trail
ROOSEVELT	1N	72W	6TH	35	240	ALL NFS Boulder Canyon, North Boulder Creek, Dream Canyon, just west of Boulder Falls
ROOSEVELT	1N	72W	6TH	36	240	ALL NFS IN N2, SW Boulder Canyon, near Boulder Falls, Black Tiger Gulch Mostly north of hwy
ROOSEVELT	1N	73W	6TH	34	30	ALL NFS IN SESW 3 mi NW of Nederland, off CR116, near Rainbow Lakes
ROOSEVELT	1N	73W	6TH	36	80	E2SE 2 mi north of Nederland on Peak-to-Peak Hwy, 1 mi north of Sugarloaf Rd.
ROOSEVELT	2N	72W	6TH	20	40	SENE Near SH72 & Overland Rd Between Ward and Peaceful Valley
ROOSEVELT	2N	72W	6TH	21	40	SWNW Near SH72 & Overland Rd Between Ward and Peaceful Valley (adjacent to SENE)
ROOSEVELT	2N	72W	6TH	29	40	SWSW Just off SH72 at CR103 North of Ward Near Tahosa Boy Scout Camp and Ogallala Lodge
ROOSEVELT	2N	72W	6TH	30	40	SESE On SH72 at CR103 North of Ward Near Tahosa Boy Scout Camp and Ogallala Lodge Two parcels, the smaller mostly east of the hwy and adjacent to SWSW, the larger mostly west of the hwy
ROOSEVELT	3N	71W	6TH	21	40	SENE West of Lyons, on jeep trail that leads from SH7 to Button Rock Reservoir
ROOSEVELT	3N	73W	6TH	26	40	SENE Two chunks of land, one large just west of Allenspark, one smaller just east of Allenspark, all along SH7
ROOSEVELT	1S	72W	6TH	5	117	ALL NFS Several parcels 2-3 mi NE of Nederland, mostly between Boulder Canyon and Sugarloaf Near Ridge, Thunder Ridge, Cold Springs Rds.
ROOSEVELT	1S	72W	6TH	8	160	ALL NFS Several parcels 2-3 mi NE of Nederland, mostly between Boulder Canyon and Sugarloaf Near Ridge, Thunder Ridge, Cold Springs Rds.
ROOSEVELT	1S	72W	6TH	15	40	NENE Magnolia Rd near CR68 3 mi east of Barker Reservoir
ROOSEVELT	1S	72W	6TH	19	40	ALL NFS IN E2, SW Numerous parcels 1 mile south of Barker Reservoir, near Hwy 119, Hwy 72, and Magnolia Rd.
ROOSEVELT	1S	72W	6TH	20	193	ALL NFS EXCEPT NENW Large parcel, 1.5 mi SE of Barker Reservoir, between Magnolia Rd and Hwy 72 Access via CR99 and Beaver Rd
ROOSEVELT	1S	72W	6TH	21	160	NWNE, SENE, S2SE Three parcels on and near Magnolia Rd, at CR97 2 mi east of Barker Reservoir
ROOSEVELT	1S	73W	6TH	14	40	NESE Just west of Nederland
ROOSEVELT	1S	73W	6TH	20	20	ALL NFS IN E2 Numerous small parcels near Eldora
ROOSEVELT	1S	73W	6TH	1	20	E2NENE North of Nederland on Peak-to-Peak Hwy, just north of Sugarloaf Rd.

Example Response Letter

I sent the following letter as a response. Feel free to borrow any part of it in any response you may send. Please add any general comments as well as any specific comments about the proposed parcels. I also sent copies to my congressional representative, Mark Udall, as well as Senators Ken Salazar and Wayne Allard. Note that Senator Salazar has written a letter to the chief of the USFS expressing his concern about this program.

To whom it may concern:

I am a citizen and resident of Boulder, Colorado. I'm very concerned about the proposed sale of National Forest land to pay for the Secure Rural Schools program. First of all, the National Forest Service should be focusing on preserving the trust in the land it manages on behalf of the citizens of this country. Once this land is sold and developed, it can never be reclaimed. Part of the forest Service mission is to protect and manage the National Forests and Grasslands so they best demonstrate the sustainable multiple-use management concept [mission taken from the USDA Forest Service website]. Clearly, selling these lands does not protect them, and does not demonstrate sustainability.

Second, it sets a dangerous precedent to treat the public lands as a bank account to pay for poor fiscal policy. Our federal government needs to be responsible in providing sustainable funding for its programs. Selling part of our grandchildren's heritage, our family jewels, to pay for poor planning is an example of short-term politics taking precedence over long-term benefits.

These properties should not be sold.

As a general comment on the feedback process, I would point out that 30 days is clearly an insufficient amount of time to provide adequate and thoughtful feedback on a proposed sale of public assets of this size. Many of these properties are not even available for inspection at this time, because of local winter conditions. In addition, the information provided is not adequate to evaluate the suitability for these properties for this sale. In particular, there is no indication as to why any particular property has been included on this list. For example, isolation of individual parcels is cited as one criterion for consideration; however, although many parcels may not be contiguous to other Forest Service lands, they are not far, and many are easily accessible by major roadways. It would be invaluable to know why each particular parcel has been selected for the dubious honor of eligibility for sale.

If some properties must be sold, additional time and information must be provided for public feedback.

I have spent some time reviewing the list of proposed lands for sale, in particular the lands in Boulder County, Colorado, where I live. I have calculated a total of 2,100 acres of Forest Service land potentially for sale in Boulder County alone. The amount of land to potentially be taken out of the public trust here is obviously out of proportion to the size of the county.

The people of Boulder County and the communities within the county have a unique and precious relationship with our public lands. We have created and funded a vast network of Open Space lands. This protects our unique combination of mountain, foothills, plains, wetlands, water corridors, and other natural settings. Like the Forest Service, this land is meant to be preserved in perpetuity for the sake of the land, the wildlife, and the people who live here. Given the importance of this issue to the local population, it is critical that the National Forest Service remain a partner in this mission and not remove the protection from this land. Although just 2,100 acres, this land is part of the network of lands that preserves the unique environment and experience that is the Rocky Mountain west.

All sales of public land must be coordinated with local governments to ensure the protection of local interests.

For example, the lands on the list of parcels proposed for sale includes (all in Roosevelt National Forest):

• 240 acres along Sugarloaf Road west of Boulder. This area is popular with hikers and other outdoor enthusiasts. It is near to the Switzerland Trail, an historic railroad corridor that is now used by hikers, mountain bikers, off-road vehicles, and others. It is also one of the best places anywhere to view the colorful annual changing of the aspens. Selling part of this area to developers would reduce access and enjoyment of these natural resource areas. This land is clearly accessible and not isolated, given its location on and near Sugarloaf Road. It would also be of prime interest to any developer looking to add high-priced homes into this desirable environment, which would obviously drastically change the character of this area for the worse. [T1N-R71W-S29 and T1N-R72W-S25]


• 240 acres in Lefthand Canyon, between Rowena and Lick Skillet Road. This land is clearly not isolated, as it is accessible via Lefthand Canyon Road, a major route between the plains and the mountain communities of Boulder County. There are popular mountain biking and four-wheel trails in this area. Any development in this area may also have a significant detrimental impact on Lefthand Creek. [T1N-R72W-S1]


• 480 acres in and near Boulder Canyon, in the Boulder Falls area. This land is accessible via CO SH119 as well as Sugarloaf Rd. Boulder Falls, Dream Canyon, and nearby areas are very popular with outdoor enthusiasts. Boulder Creek carries drinking water to Boulder. And Black Tiger Gulch is still recovering from a major fire from a few years ago and needs continued protection. [T1N-R72W-S35 and S36]


• Numerous parcels near Nederland. This includes 30 acres near Rainbow Lakes, 100 acres near the juncture of SH 72, Sugarloaf Rd, and the Switzerland Trail, 277 acres northeast of Nederland in the ridge area above town, 433 acres in the Magnolia Rd area, 40 acres just west of Nederland, and 20 acres near Eldora Lake. The characters of these areas would all be greatly harmed by any development. These lands are generally easily accessible by SH119, SH72 and other major roadways. [T1N-R73W-S34 and S36; T1S-R72W-S5 and S8; T1S-R72W-S15, S19, and S21; T1S-R73W-S14; T1S-R73W-S20; T1S-R73W-S1]


• 40 acres near the town of Allenspark. The character of this small town could be permanently changed by any additional development. This land is easily accessible by SH72. [T3N-R73W-S26]


• 40 acres near Button Rock Reservoir, near Lyons. This area is very popular with local families for picnics, fishing, and other outdoor activities. [T3N-R71W-S21]


• 160 acres on SH 72 between Ward and Peaceful Valley. These parcels are clearly accessible. There is a Boy Scout camp in this area. It is popular with cross-country skiers, cyclists, and others. [T2N-R72W-S20, S21, S29, and S30]

I strongly recommend that none of these lands be sold from the public trust. If this cannot be done, then it is imperative that these lands continue to be protected by some means, for example by selling them to local government Open Space programs or by creating conservation easements.

I did not have time to research any properties outside Boulder County. However, I assume that many if not most of them are similarly critical properties that should not be sold from the public trust.

Thank you for your consideration on this important issue.