State’s federal lands may face new pressures from Washington

Green Mountain National Forest 2

The Green Mountain National Forest in Vermont. USDA photo

A rule change the U.S. House recently passed removes a major roadblock in the process of transferring federal land to states, local communities or, potentially, private developers.

The provision was tucked into a 43-page package of rule changes, the most controversial of which would have gutted the independent Office of Congressional Ethics. The ethics proposal was scrapped after intense pushback from the public.

Some Republicans have signaled they would like to make other changes in the nation’s approach to public lands.

Vermont has nearly half a million acres of federal land, the vast majority of it in the Green Mountain National Forest. In total, roughly 8 percent of land in Vermont is managed by the federal government.

Rep. Paul Grijalva, D-N.M., who is the ranking member of the House Natural Resources Committee, called the new land rule “outrageous and absurd” in a statement after it was passed.

“Not only is this fiscally irresponsible, but it is also a flagrant attack on places and resources valued and beloved by the American people,” Grijalva said.

Previously Congress had to calculate and account for any revenue decreases from ceding federal land to a state or community. Many parcels generate federal revenue through means such as energy extraction, tourism and logging.

The new rule eliminates that formula, instead mandating that such transfers “shall not be considered as providing new budget authority, decreasing revenues, increasing mandatory spending, or increasing outlays.”

Senate approval of the rule changes isn’t required, because the House has the “power of the purse” and the rules address taxing and spending policy.

Vermont’s federal lands

The U.S. government currently manages more than 600 million acres throughout the country, the majority of it in western states and Alaska, according to the Congressional Research Service.

Vermont’s federal lands remain one of the biggest drivers of tourism in the state, with 3 million to 4 million visitors a year flocking to the Green Mountain National Forest alone.

The Outdoor Industry Association has found that outdoor recreation supports 34,000 jobs in the state, generates $176 million in annual state tax revenue and produces $2.5 billion annually in retail sales and services across Vermont.

Green Mountain National Forest

A pond in the Green Mountain National Forest in Vermont. USDA photo

It’s unclear if the new federal land rule portends major changes to policy, though the 2016 Republican Party platform calls for a comprehensive review of potential land transfers.

“We call upon all national and state leaders and representatives to exert their utmost power and influence to urge the transfer of those lands,” the platform reads.

Republican House members have introduced federal land transfer legislation in recent congressional sessions, but it has not gained much traction. Rep. Don Young, R-Ark., introduced a bill last session that proposed to allow the transfer of millions of acres of federal land in all 50 states.

Republicans argue that when states control land it makes management more responsive to the concerns of the community. Democrats contend that many states don’t have the resources to manage such large parcels and that important public lands could be sold off to private developers if states are unable to take on the extra burden.

Michael Fraysier, the lands administration director for the Vermont Department of Forests, Parks and Recreation, said he imagined the new rule was drafted chiefly for potential transfers in the West. But he added that any congressional action aimed at transferring federal land in Vermont to state hands would be unwelcome.

“We don’t have the capacity to take on a large new ownership of federal land,” Fraysier said. “Those parcels have a lot of public expectations for recreation and wildlife and timber management.”

Fraysier said that while the federal government may be looking to cede more land to states, the Vermont Agency of Natural Resources is undergoing a contradictory mission: conveying state lands to federal ownership.

“Management capacity is becoming a real issue for us, and today we turn down donations of land,” Fraysier said. “They might be great parcels to be in state ownership, but they often come with a lot of expectations and management costs that we aren’t equipped to deal with. We are now asking for endowments to help supplement management costs.”

Ethan Ready, a spokesperson for the Green Mountain National Forest, said President Donald Trump’s White House has yet to make clear its position on federal land transfers.

“It’s important to understand that the Green Mountain National Forest has no specific changes in policy direction at this time,” Ready said. “But obviously we are in an administrative transition, and a lot more will unfold in the coming weeks and months.”

Ready said timber sales generate roughly $500,000 in revenue every year, not nearly enough to support essential services to keep the forest operational. He said the national forest receives roughly $6 million in federal money annually to subsidize operational costs.

Even if Vermont doesn’t see a change in ownership of its federal lands, it may face other pressures from the Republican-controlled executive and legislative branches.

A 2016 report from the Center for American Progress identified a recent trend of legislation from what it termed the “congressional anti-parks caucus.” While federal land protections once received bipartisan support, today roughly two dozen conservative House and Senate members are driving efforts to undercut protections.

House Republicans have, in the past, proposed major cuts to programs on national lands.

Their fiscal year 2016 proposal, for example, included $2 billion in cuts to national park and forest programs, which would have, among other things, delayed hundreds of rehabilitation and construction projects throughout the country.

The GOP is also looking to scale back the Endangered Species Act. The 1973 law has helped establish federal wildlife refuges to protect endangered plants and animals. Vermont hosts a handful of plant and animal species that could lose federal protections from any weakening of the law, including the Canada lynx.

Republicans say the law has been misused to block economic development.

The impact of Trump’s nominees

Three federal agencies oversee the majority of federal land in Vermont.

The U.S. Forest Service — a division of the U.S. Department of Agriculture — oversees the Green Mountain National Forest.

The National Park Service — part of the Department of the Interior — manages the Marsh-Billings-Rockefeller National Historical Park in Woodstock as well as Vermont’s section of the Appalachian Trail.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service — another wing of Interior — is in charge of the Silvio O. Conte National Fish and Wildlife Refuge, a 36,000 acre parcel that spans multiple states and protects parts of the 7.2 million acre Connecticut River watershed. U.S. Fish and Wildlife also has jurisdiction over the Missisquoi National Wildlife Refuge in Swanton.

Trump nominees to run the federal agencies that oversee these lands have mixed environmental records, but they have expressed support for land conservation in the past. Still, agency heads will be bound to enforce any legislation coming out of Congress.

Former Georgia Gov. Sonny Perdue is Trump’s pick to run the USDA, which oversees the Green Mountain National Forest.

Perdue has expressed skepticism that climate change is real, while also supporting the preservation of state lands and waterways. Perdue has not offered a vision for overseeing federal lands. That could come during his Senate confirmation hearings, which have yet to be scheduled.

Ryan Zinke

Rep. Ryan Zinke, R-Mont., is President Donald Trump’s nominee for interior secretary. U.S. Congress photo

Republican Rep. Ryan Zinke, of Montana, is Trump’s pick to run the Interior Department. In his confirmation hearing, Zinke told legislators that President Teddy Roosevelt “had it right” when he protected 150 million acres of public land during his tenure.

During Zinke’s hearing before the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., grilled him on various environmental issues, including Trump’s pronouncements doubting climate change.

Zinke said humans play a role in climate change, but he added there is “a whole lot of debate on both sides of the aisle” as to what the exact influence has been.

Sanders quickly interrupted, saying, “Actually there is not a whole lot of debate. The scientific community is virtually unanimous that climate change is real and causing devastating problems.”

After further nudging by Sanders, Zinke said, “I do not believe it is a hoax.”

Sanders then asked if he believed fossil fuel extraction should occur on federal lands. Zinke responded that he believes all sorts of energy should be developed on national lands, including fossil fuels as well as solar and wind power.

Vermont already has the first site chosen for a wind energy development on U.S. federal lands — the Deerfield Wind project, which is being built in the Green Mountain National Forest in southern Vermont.

In his hearing, Zinke also expressed support for making permanent the Land and Water Conservation Fund. There have been recent attempts to eliminate the fund, which has brought in a total of $123 million to support conservation efforts for the Green Mountain National Forest, the Conte refuge and the Appalachian Trail.

Sanders’ last question regarded the transfer of federal lands to other entities. While Zinke, if confirmed, could not block any congressional action ceding public lands, he told Sanders, “I am absolutely against transfer or sale of public land. I can’t be any more clear.”

“Good,” Sanders said. “That’s a clear answer.”

Correction: The acreage of the Silvio O. Conte wildlife refuge has been corrected.

Jasper Craven

Comment Policy

VTDigger.org requires that all commenters identify themselves by their authentic first and last names. Initials, pseudonyms or screen names are not permissible.

No personal harrassment, abuse, or hate speech is permitted. Be succinct and to the point. Comments should be 1000 characters or fewer. If your comment is over 500 words, consider sending a commentary instead.

We personally review and moderate every comment that is posted here. This takes a lot of time; please consider donating to keep the conversation productive and informative.

The purpose of this policy is to encourage a civil discourse among readers who are willing to stand behind their identities and their comments. VTDigger has created a safe zone for readers who wish to engage in a thoughtful discussion on a range of subjects. We hope you join the conversation. If you have questions or concerns about our commenting platform, please review our Commenting FAQ.

Privacy policy
  • Scott Woodward
  • Gary Murdock

    But PC development of federal land is OK…can you spell W-I-N-D-F-A-R-M

    • John Zuppa

      NO…But I can spell….W-I-N-D-F-A-C-T-O-R-Y….

      And even though I am NOT Republican or Democrat…I KNOW that it was the Democrats that SOLD OUT the Green Mountain National Forest…

      For a Foreign project by Out-of-Staters and Iberdrola of Spain…

      Can we spell…U-S-E-L-E-S-S….in the REAL Climate Change fight…

      • Gary Murdock

        Great comment John!

  • Bruce S. Post

    Ecclesiastes was correct: “What has been will be again, what has been done will be done again; there is nothing new under the sun.”

    In 1953, writer Wallace Stegner, who lived part-time in Greensboro and was a great defender of national parks and sound environmental policy, wrote “One-Fourth of a Nation—Public Lands and Itching Fingers,” which expressed his concern over potential public land grabs by private oil interests in the early years of the Eisenhower Administration. Or, as Yogi Berra famously said, “It is deja vu all over again.”

  • edward letourneau

    To a certain extent land policies do need review. Wildness areas are not a good use of natural resources, but have a place in certain areas. Drilling in national parks is wrong, etc. The liberals created Trump, by pushing their agenda and ignoring others. They are paying the price now.

    • Republicans created Trump by voting for him. What about some personal responsibility? Honestly your comment sounds to me like a man saying it was all his wife’s fault that he hit her.

    • edward letourneau

      You can’t hike, fish, hunt or use the resources in a wilderness. If you build a trail through wilderness, its not wilderness anymore. And that is not a wise use. So the no votes now stand educated.

  • Michael Bald

    The Conte Refuge (encompassing the CT River watershed) is in final approval stage for its Comprehensive Conservation Plan. This plan shows why I have gradually transitioned to opposition of federal land ownership. The outreach and draft process dragged on for ten years, it failed to connect with Vermont’s state leadership (only a single comment from a state legislator), and it targets acquisition of almost 200,000 acres of land. We make noise about land access all the time, but now the Fed will join bidding by out-of-state vista visionaries and the private playground people to make land financially unreachable for most people.

    Federal agencies seek partnerships to manage their land, but the Plan clearly states that federal ownership is not a commitment of resources or funding.
    What kind of partnership is that? Empty, I say – we’re better off with federal and state agencies that support strong private Stewardship rather than dis-functional Partnerships and Ownerships.

  • Federal regulations on State land and resources is out of control. Millions of acres of land across this country is being overseen by a Washington bureaucracy. Much of this land needs to be turned over to State control for management. We need to get government back doing only those things outlined in the Constitution. Property rights are people’s rights not big government. A Convention of States is designed for just such a problem as this. Get involved today. COSaction.com

  • The best way for a state to have a shot at reasoned discussion of its concerns with federal land management is in a Convention of States. You would think Congress is a good place for this issue, but Congress is overwhelmed by politics as well as national priorities. Go to http://www.conventionofstates.com and find out how such a state provides a forum for real discussion of issues without the intrusion of party politics. A convention of states is the gift of the Framers to the people. Check it out now.

Thanks for reporting an error with the story, "State’s federal lands may face new pressures from Washington"