Springfield NewLeader

[Phil Lilley]

http://www.news-leader.com/apps/pbcs.dll/a...EWS01/602110346

Proposed sale of U.S. forest acres includes Missouri land

Foes say timber companies will reap the most benefits.

By Pamela Brogan

and Doug Abrahms

WASHINGTON — The Bush administration wants to sell more than 21,000 acres of the Mark Twain National Forest to pay for rural schools in Missouri as part of a national plan to sell 300,000 acres of national forest.

Critics said the plan announced Friday is an unprecedented auction of public lands.

Reliable Imports

"It would seem this would be a ploy to feed the timber beast," said Ken Midkiff, conservation chairman for the state chapter of the Sierra Club.

"It's silly," Midkiff said. "I can't imagine who would buy it except for people who want to harvest timber."

The Mark Twain forest covers nearly 1.5 million acres in 29 counties.

Rep. Roy Blunt, R-Indian Point, said he's willing to consider the plan.

"My first choice would be to reinstate responsible timber land management policies, but I'm willing to take a close look at the president's proposal," Blunt said. "We must do all we can to replenish funding for rural schools in Missouri and across the country."

The proceeds from the land sales would fund a federal program that provides money to rural counties for schools and roads. Previously, that money came from the general treasury and timber sales, which have fallen off in recent years.

Republican Sen. Jim Talent said he's not likely to support it.

"I'm concerned about what Missouri stands to gain in terms of our schools and jobs for Missourians," said Talent, a member of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee. He said he was concerned about Missouri getting its share of the proceeds.

"We are going to hold hearings on this proposal in the committee, and these are the questions I'm going to ask the administration," Talent said.

Republican Sen. Christopher Bond could not be reached for comment.

The Forest Service said it would review the plan for 30 days before sending it to Congress, which could approve, modify or reject it.

The agency is considering selling 300,000 acres of land in 34 states, although the final amount will run about 175,000 acres, said Mark Rey, Agriculture Department undersecretary.

The Forest Service expects to raise $800 million over five years from the sale.

"The parcels ... are isolated, expensive to manage and no longer meeting National Forest Service needs," he said. "We'll revise the list one more time before transmitting it to Congress."

Conservationists and some Democratic lawmakers called the sale unprecedented and said the federal government was auctioning off public lands to pay for tax cuts for the wealthy. Many of the tracts are in Tahoe, Sequoia, Bridger-Teton and other well-known national forests.

"In my view, selling public lands to pay down the deficit would be a short-sighted, ill- advised and irresponsible shift in federal land-management policy," said Sen. Jeff Bingaman, D-N.M. "Our public lands are a legacy for future generations. We shouldn't liquidate that legacy."

Rey said that many of the tracts lie outside federal forest boundaries and in some cases are surrounded by private landowners. The agency put information on its Web site about the tracts to be auctioned off to make it an open process, he said.

"Our objective ... will be to give everyone involved the ability to look at each and every tract to satisfy themselves," he said.

He also noted that the Forest Service purchases at least 100,000 acres a year from conservation funds and that will offset the agency's land sales in two years.

The Bureau of Land Management has sold land around Las Vegas and used the money to buy other environmentally sensitive properties in Nevada, said Nicole Anzia of the Wilderness Society, a conservation group. And last year the Forest Service sold off a small amount of land, she said.

"But this sale of forest service land is unprecedented," she said. "I just don't think the American public will go along."

Tallent's home page - http://talent.senate.gov/default.cfm?CFID=...FTOKEN=46586220

Bond's contact page -

http://bond.senate.gov/contact/contactme.cfm

[Wayne SW/MO]

"The parcels ... are isolated, expensive to manage and no longer meeting National Forest Service needs,"

I don't understand this statement. For one thing I think they would have to give a little more information as to what is required to "manage" them.

The forest Service doesn't have "needs" that require land, they're job is to hold our lands in trust.

[Al Agnew]

Well, I went to the website that lists all the lands they are proposing to sell. They don't make it easy to figure out where they are, simply giving township, range, and section...no listing by county, which would make it a little easier to at least get an idea of where they are. I spent about an hour figuring out which townships and ranges were in each county that has national forest within it, but got tired of trying to cross-reference which parcels matched which counties, let alone trying to figure out where in the county they are...and of course, at best you can only get it down to a specific section, not the exact piece of land in that section. Methinks they don't WANT us to know exactly which parcels are being sold.