Los Angeles, CA – Por todo el estado surgen reuniones públicas para aportar ideas y que se incluyan en el proyecto de nuevos planes administrativos para la Sierra Sequoia y los Bosques Nacionales Inyo. El tema de la discusión es cuánta tierra debe recomendarse al Congreso que se designe como área silvestre protegida.

Aunque el futuro de los Bosques Nacionales Sequoia, Inyo y Sierra todavía es incierto, esta vez la gente puede participar para darle un mejor rumbo, gracias a una rara oportunidad de esas que se presentan cada 20 ó 30 años.

El Servicio Forestal de los Estados Unidos está recabando la opinión del público sobre su nueva propuesta de planes forestales. Esto sigue la tradición de presentarle recomendaciones al Congreso cada 20 ó 30 años, para sugerirle cuánto terreno designar como área silvestre protegida.

Matt Dietz, ecologista que encabeza el departamento de investigación en “The Wilderness Society” (La Sociedad Silvestre), dice que el hecho de que una zona sea bosque nacional no necesariamente significa que esté protegida del desarrollo.

“Los bosques nacionales están abiertos a una gran variedad de usos, como la tala comercial de árboles, minería, perforaciones de gas y petróleo, desarrollos de esquí en nieve, de caminos, uso de vehículos todo terreno, rutas para jeep y motonieve.”

La protección mantendría esas áreas libres de desarrollo, y a la fauna le daría más campo libre. Pero a Dietz le preocupa que el Servicio Forestal se incline por una opción muy conservadora que pretende proteger menos del uno por ciento de los cuatro millones de acres que abarcan estos bosques.

Steve Evans, consultor de la “California Wilderness Coalition"(Coalición Silvestre de California), opina que el Servicio Forestal quiere mantener abiertas sus opciones mientras esté administrando estas tierras.

“La agencia siempre ha sido algo anti-silvestre y busca asegurarse de que sus planes le den la máxima flexibilidad para administrar, ya sea haciendo caminos o dando permisos para desarrollos energéticos, o cortar árboles, o perforar minas, o lo que sea.”

Evans dice que su grupo apoya la llamada “Opción C”, que recomienda proteger casi 750 mil acres de tierra silvestre sin afectar las carreteras ni los caminos que ya existen.

El Servicio Forestal celebrará audiencias públicas sobre el borrador llamado “Environmental Impact Statement” (Declaración de Impacto Ambiental) y tres planes forestales, el día de mañana en Northridge, el Jueves cerca del medio día en el centro de Los Ángeles, y seis sesiones más en el estado durante las próximas seis semanas. La población también puede participar con sus comentarios en línea. Para comentar (en inglés) o ver los horarios de las reuniones, visite http://tinyurl.com/r5earlyadopters


get more stories like this via email

Conservation groups are rejoicing over the decision Friday by the Biden administration to reject a proposed mining road in Alaska.

The 211-mile Ambler Road would have sliced through the Gates of the Arctic National Park and Preserve, severing the migration route for a Western Arctic Caribou herd.

Alex Johnson, interior Alaska director for the National Parks Conservation Association, said it was important for the feds to take a stand in Alaska so mining interests do not start eyeing other national parks.

"This is a very expensive, destructive and just highly speculative project that does not in any way support our clean energy goals as a country," Johnson contended. "And ultimately would permanently threaten the health and well-being of local communities and the tribes."

Alaska Sen. Lisa Murkowski slammed the decision, warning it could limit jobs and tax revenues for Alaska by preventing exploration for minerals she said are important to national security, like copper, cobalt, gallium and germanium.

Jayme Dittmar, a photographer and filmmaker from Fairbanks, said the road would have been very disruptive to the 66 Native American villages along the proposed route.

"That'd be 168 trucks passing through close vicinity to the villages," Dittmar pointed out. "There would be hundreds of bridges built. It would dismantle a subsistence livelihood that's been in place for thousands and thousands of years."

The road was seen as a negative for tourism to the Brooks Range area. According to the Alaska Travel Industry Association, Californians make up 9% of visitors to Alaska.

Arizona conservation groups and sportsmen alike say they're pleased the Bureau of Land Management will now recognize conservation as an integral part of public lands management.

The agency's new rule puts protecting the environment on par with other land-use priorities.

Scott Garlid, executive director of the Arizona Wildlife Federation, said historically the BLM has done what he termed a "pretty good job," not only managing about 12 million acres of public lands in Arizona, but also protecting natural resources.

"They've got a tough job," Garlid acknowledged. "I think this rule helps make their job a little bit easier because it gives them some tools to balance those different demands on the 12 million acres that they manage."

Garlid predicted the rule will raise what he terms "harder-to-quantify conservation values" to the same level of importance as more extractive land uses like oil and gas exploration and mining. He thinks most Arizonans will recognize the new rule as a positive. A solid majority of Arizona voters across party lines say they are conservationists and use public lands for recreation.

To Garlid, the rule makes it clear the BLM is recognizing certain parts of federal lands, in Arizona and around the West, have been degraded. He contended restoration leases will be a good tool, allowing the BLM to lease acres to groups specifically to improve the conditions on a given landscape. He noted opponents of the new rule might see the leases as a way to "lock up" land but he argued it is not true.

"One example could be a nonprofit, like the Arizona Wildlife Federation," Garlid pointed out. "We could get a conservation lease from the Bureau of Land Management to do riparian restoration work, or work to remove invasive species along a creek bank."

According to the BLM, while a restoration or mitigation lease is in place, casual uses of the leased lands like recreation, hunting, fishing and research activities would generally continue.

Support for this reporting was provided by The Pew Charitable Trusts.

State and federal agencies are collaborating to increase the use of prescribed fires in the Northwest.

Prescribed fire is the controlled use of burns to minimize the larger risks of wildfires and smoke. It is seen as an increasingly important strategy as wildfire seasons pose greater threats to the Northwest.

Casey Sixkiller, Northwest regional administrator for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, said authorities want to work together to maintain forest habitats.

"Prescribed burn is one of the best tools we have for making our forests more resilient against catastrophic wildfires and they help to manage and target hazardous fuels and make for healthier forests," Sixkiller explained.

Sixkiller pointed out the EPA is involved because wildfire smoke poses risks to people's health. The collaboration is between federal agencies, departments in Oregon and Washington, and tribal governments.

Sixkiller noted the collaboration needed a formal agreement to move forward.

"That is what we've been able to do here with this agreement," Sixkiller emphasized. "To get federal land managers and states and us all in the same room, making sure that we're all on the same page about what success looks like."

Sixkiller added the collaboration has another advantage: It helps drive engagement with communities potentially in the path of prescribed burns.

"They have the confidence that the effort that's gone into planning that activity has been thought out from soup to nuts," Sixkiller acknowledged. "And that they have a seat at the table and are being engaged and their concerns are being addressed as we go forward with that activity."


get more stories like this via email