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, tribes and community organizers are praising President Joe Biden's decision Thursday to expand two national monuments in California.

Together, the monuments will gain about 120,000 acres. The Berryessa Snow Mountain National Monument is 90 minutes northwest of Sacramento and the San Gabriel Mountains National Monument lies just east of Los Angeles.

Brenda Gallegos, public lands manager for the nonprofit Hispanic Access Foundation, said millions of urban families live close to the San Gabriel Mountains.

"A lot of our Latino communities don't have access to nature, prominently, like 67% of Latino communities don't have access to green spaces or blue spaces," Gallegos pointed out. "Having these expansions designated today brings us closer to closing that nature gap."

The president used his powers under the Antiquities Act to expand the monuments in order to increase public access and protect the watershed and wildlife habitat. The move also makes progress toward Biden's goal of protecting 30% of the country's public lands by 2030.

Gallegos said Berryessa Snow Mountain National Monument in Lake County will include an area previously known as Walker Ridge, now renamed Moluk Loyuk, which means Condor Ridge in the Patwin tribal language.

"This is important because it establishes a co-stewardship with federally recognized tribes and will return the indigenous names of these lands to them," Gallegos explained. "This continues to build that great relationship with tribes."

Land managers will now create a new management plan for the area, which could include new campsites, hiking and mountain biking trails, and even off-highway vehicle-designated routes.

The Bureau of Land Management recently released its final Public Lands Rule, which is set to put conservation on equal footing with other multiple uses taking place on public lands.

The state of Utah has come out in opposition, pointing to the impact it could have on the almost 23 million acres of BLM land in Utah.

Redge Johnson, director of the Utah Public Lands Policy Coordinating Office, said the state supports conservation efforts but called the rule a "solution looking for a problem."

"What we have already put into conservation designations and then what you have for the acts that promote the conservation of the lands, why do you need to level that playing field?" Johnson questioned. "The playing field has more than leveled over the past 40, 50 years with the passage of all these acts."

Johnson contended Utah's lands and wildlife will suffer as a result of the rule and added it'll make mining critical metals used for batteries even more difficult. He and others, like Gov. Spencer Cox, called on the BLM to immediately withdraw the rule and work with stakeholders on more practical solutions.

Conservationists see the rule as a big win for restoring and sustaining public lands for future generations.

Johnson described Utah's public lands a "fire dependent ecosystem," adding fuel loads have accumulated drastically due to over a century's worth of fire suppression. He argued the rule will make executing and continuing vegetation management projects more difficult, including reducing the threats posed by fuel loads.

"One of the biggest contributors we have to carbon dioxide right now are wildfires, at least in the West," Johnson asserted. "Transportation, all the others, yes absolutely. But wildfires are a huge contributing factor to that. One of the best things we could do is reduce the fuel loads on some of these areas to reduce the fire risk and this rule puts that at risk."

The rule also creates the frameworks for "restoration and mitigation leases," which will allow groups to restore public lands or to offset the effects of a particular use. Johnson argued the leases will leave too many loopholes but the BLM said they will not "disturb existing authorizations."


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.