CHEYENNE, Wyo. -- A new report on the feasibility of transferring the management of some 25 million acres of federal lands to the state of Wyoming said the process would present major financial, administrative and legislative challenges.

Cheyenne sportsman Earl DeGroot said the state's hunters and anglers depend on access to public lands, and he hopes the Legislature will seriously consider the report's findings.

"Not only sportsmen but other outdoor recreationists across the state are against federal land transfer,” DeGroot said, "because they're concerned the state would manage the land for profit which would mean a lot more development than we have right now."

The 345-page study found that the state would inherit costly wildfire and litigation issues if it were to take over management. The report also noted that if ownership of public lands was transferred to states, local governments could lose significant federal funding.

In 2015, the Wyoming Legislature passed a bill mandating the study, which was completed by Y-2 Consultants.

Aaron Kindle, Western sportsmen manager with the National Wildlife Federation's Rocky Mountain office, said his biggest fear is that if states take over management of the lands and realize the costs of management are too much to bear, parcels of land currently open to everyone could be sold off to the highest bidder. He said while the study could be a speed bump in efforts to turn lands over to states, he doesn't think the issue has been put to rest.

"It's kind of a thinly veiled attempt to get access to minerals and timber and oil and gas,” Kindle said. "So long as those minerals and timber and other things like that are on the landscape, I think we'll see a push to try and get easier access to them."

A rally in support of publicly owned lands, organized by hunting, fishing and outdoor organizations, is scheduled to take place in Casper on November 5.





get more stories like this via email

The nonprofit Trust for Public Land has published its annual ParkScore rankings, and some area cities are high on the list.

Washington, D.C., took the top spot for the third year in a row, ranked as the nation's best big-city park system, with 24% of the District's land devoted to parks. The rankings are based on five metrics including park access, which calculates the percentage of residents living within a 10-minute walk of a park as well as park equity, which compares access in communities of color to white communities and low versus high income levels. Other metrics include park acreage, investment and amenities.

Baltimore moved up one spot this year to 29th in the nation, with 87% of residents living within a 10-minute walk of a park, much higher than the national average of 55%.

The Trust for Public Land also released a report on the power of parks to promote public health. In addition to offering people space for physical activity, contact with nature and social connectedness, Dr. Howard Frumkin, senior vice president and director for the trust's Land and People Lab, said parks offer additional benefits in urban settings.

"Lowering the temperature in the neighborhood, which helps people withstand heat waves. Lowering noise levels, noise being a very common urban stressor. Providing climate resilience through managing stormwater," he said. "So lots of pathways through which parks advance public health."

Rounding out the top five cities, Minneapolis and St. Paul, Minnesota, ranked second and third, followed by Irvine, California, and nearby Arlington, Virginia.

In many places, researchers found, park planning and programs are catering to underserved groups or people needing improved accessibility. Linda Hwang, senior director for strategy and innovation at the Land and People Lab, said needs for innovation and creativity vary among different park agencies.

"We're seeing people with different types of mobility issues, can we really be thinking about all-inclusive design, for example, and even just trying to really cater to some of the emerging mental-health challenges," she said. "So that custom programming, custom design is something that we didn't expect to find. And so it's just been a really nice surprise for us to see that."

The report found that among some large cities including New York and Chicago, investments in parks have declined, but Hwang said the increased park investment seen in some mid-sized cities is a positive sign.

"I think one of the significant challenges is around investments, so that is one of the categories that we track in the park score index," she said. "And when we look across the trends across the 100 largest cities, we are happy that, in general, we see some rebounding from the COVID era cuts that we saw across city agencies. "

The report calculated Baltimore's park spending to be above average at $142 per capita.


get more stories like this via email

The U.S. Bureau of Land Management is holding a public hearing today in Denver on its new rule, which aims to put conservation, protection of cultural resources and wildlife and recreation on equal footing with resource development on public lands.

Jerry Otero, co-chair of the group Next 100 Colorado, said he supports the proposal. Otero comes from a family with deep ties to the fossil fuel industry. Both his grandfathers were miners, and many of his closest relatives have worked in the oil and gas industry.

"Certainly it has its values," Otero acknowledged. "But also let's make sure that we're balancing out those uses to incorporate the outdoor industry, which has become a big part of so many communities in Colorado."

Industry groups have criticized the proposal, which would add conservation as a priority along with drilling, mining and grazing uses of public lands. Oil and gas leasing are currently allowed on 90% of BLM-managed lands. The agency is holding meetings across the West, and will conclude with a virtual meeting on June 5. Public comments will be accepted through June 20.

The BLM manages more than 8 million acres of wild lands across Colorado, areas considered vital for safeguarding the state's drinking and agricultural waters, wildlife migration corridors, and the growing demand for access to the outdoors. Otero noted his group also will be watching to see how the new rule affects the state's most vulnerable communities.

"We want to make sure we're also holding the BLM accountable," Otero explained. "And see that it will be beneficial to people of color that are disproportionately impacted by oil and gas development, disproportionately impacted by climate change, disproportionately impacted by emissions and pollution."

Public opinion seems in sync with the BLM's proposal. A recent poll found 82% of Coloradans support the America the Beautiful initiative's goal of conserving 30 % of the nation's lands and waters by 2030.

Otero believes conservation is critical to build resilience in the face of increasing vulnerabilities, including drought, dwindling water supplies, wildfires and other climate-related disruptions.

"So the America the Beautiful effort is really just an ambitious goal to get us in the right position to be successful," Otero contended. "If we continue down the path that we're on, in terms of losing wildlife habitat, those vulnerabilities that we're seeing will see potentially irreversible impacts."


get more stories like this via email

The feds are seeking public comment now through June 20th on a proposal to put habitat restoration and conservation on equal footing with mining, drilling, logging, ranching, and off-roading on public lands. The Bureau of Land Management manages 15 million acres in California, or 15% of the state. The proposal would also help address climate change and foster better consultation with Native American tribes.

Pamela Flick, California program director for Defenders of Wildlife, said native habitat on BLM land is losing out to energy development, livestock grazing, unsustainable recreation and climate impacts.

"For nearly 40 years, the agency has largely focused on resource extraction and other multiple uses, but neglected managing public lands for ecosystems health and wildlife. This rulemaking gives the BLM an opportunity to rebalance its priorities," Flick said.

The National Cattlemen's Beef Association and Public Lands Council oppose the rule change, saying in a statement that it would "completely upend BLM's multiple-use mandate and jeopardize the agency's ability to be a good partner to the ranchers who manage millions of acres across the West," the council said in a statement.

More than 85% of the land managed by the BLM is open to oil development, mining and logging, and conservatives in Congress have blocked the Public Lands Act, which would protect more than one-million acres in the Golden State.

Ryan Henson, senior policy director for the nonprofit Cal Wild, said this new rule could be a workaround.

"Last session, it passed the House twice and could never pass the Senate. And then this session, it's got a great chance of passing the Senate, but zero chance of passing the House," he said. "So, this new BLM policy allows President Biden to do what Congress can't do - but to do it administratively."

Henson added the new rule could inform the upcoming Northwest California Integrated Resource Management Plan, which is expected this summer.