$3 million awarded for Forest Legacy project north of Zion National Park
The U.S. Department of Agriculture has awarded $3 million for a Forest Legacy project in Washington County during its latest round of funding.
Dubbed the 'Zion Connectivity Project' due to its proximity to Zion National Park, the project aims to preserve forested areas from potential fragmentation or development through conservation easements.
According to the USDA website, a conservation easement 'allows the land to remain in private ownership while ensuring that its environmental values are retained.'
Natalie Conlin, the Forest Legacy program manager for the Utah Division of Forestry, Fire and State Lands, said the location of the project, combined with its wildlife assets and numerous springs, garnered strong support.
The Division of Forestry, Fire and State Lands will use the funding to purchase conservation easements in two properties totaling 766 acres. Landowners receive economic compensation to keep their forests as forests.
'Thanks to the efforts of these private landowners and The Conservation Fund, protecting this important forested area was recognized as a priority to the national program,' Conlin said.
The land in the Zion Connectivity Project is home to California condors — the largest land bird in North America. After becoming extinct in the wild in 1987, the condors were placed in a captive breeding program and later reintroduced, reaching a total population of over 500 today, both captive and free-flying across the different location. The presence of the California condor in southern Utah makes this area a critical habitat for its preservation.
Additionally, the project contains 4 miles of streams, including a half-mile segment of the La Verkin Creek, a tributary to the Virgin River, which was designated as a National Wild and Scenic River in 2009.
La Verkin Creek provides direct benefits to six native fish species, including the federally endangered Virgin River chub and woundfin, as well as the state-listed Virgin spinedace and flannelmouth sucker. As part of the Upper Virgin watershed, preserving this area ensures wildlife will continue to have access to these stream flows and ponds during their migration from lower desert elevations.
Both conservation easements are crucial for the local wildlife habitat. The project site links nearby big game migration corridors, offering summer range for deer and elk, and provides year-round habitat for black bears and dusky grouse.
The project area includes old-growth ponderosa pines that are unique to this region. These ancient trees offer food and nesting cover for wildlife and possess resistance to wildfires.
Alongside two other Forest Legacy projects (Zion Overlook and Viewtop) and protected lands La Verkin and Taylor Creek BLM Wilderness Area, the Zion Connectivity Project will form a 1,752-acre link of protected lands north of Zion National Park.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
a day ago
- Yahoo
Senate Republicans' new SNAP proposal prompts concern for Alaska GOP
A GOP-backed proposal that would shift some of the cost of food assistance to states for the first time is drawing renewed concern in the party, as critics argue the effort could lead to states cutting benefits on their own. Republicans are pushing to pass the proposal — which could see states with higher payment error rates covering a greater share of benefit costs under the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) — as a part of the broader spending cuts and tax package in the coming days. But that doesn't mean some Republicans aren't concerned about the measure. 'Our big thing is the data to be used, the data to be used on the error rate,' Sen. Dan Sullivan (R-Alaska.) told The Hill on Friday. 'So, that's important to make sure that the data is as accurate and reflective of the year you're judging as possible.' Numbers from the U.S. Department of Agriculture showed Alaska's payment error rate — which factors in overpayment and underpayment error rates — reached above 60 percent in fiscal year 2023. The national average hit 11.68 percent. Sullivan noted the state has seen much lower payment error rates prior to the pandemic and is on a path to improving those figures, noting new numbers are expected soon. But he added, 'It's still higher than our traditional error rate, and as you know, the cost share is based in part on that.' According to the Alaska Beacon, the state's error rate hiked after state officials said they violated federal rules in order to continue feeding people amid a significant backlog in applications. Under the initial plan crafted by the Senate Agriculture Committee, Republicans sought to require states to cover some SNAP benefit costs if they have a payment error rate above 6 percent beginning in fiscal 2028. The proposal in the megabill would also allow states with rates below that level to continue paying zero percent. It also proposes states with higher payment error rates cover a greater share of benefit costs. If the error rate is 6 percent or higher, states would be subject to a sliding scale that could see their share of allotments rise to a range of between 5 percent and 15 percent. However, Senate Republicans tweaked the plan after facing a setback when their 'state cost-share' proposal was rejected by the chamber's rules referee as part of a megabill the party hopes to pass in the coming days. A release from the agriculture committee said the updated plan would allow states to choose the payment error either fiscal year 2025 or 2026 to 'calculate their state match requirement that begins in Fiscal Year 2028.' For the following fiscal year, the 'state match will be calculated using the payment error rate from three fiscal years prior,' the committee said, adding a 'state must contribute a set percentage of the cost of its SNAP benefits if its payment error rate exceeds six percent.' Asked about further potential changes to the plan, Agriculture Committee chair Sen. John Boozman (R-Ark.) said Friday that negotiators 'worked really hard to try and get a situation that worked for as many people as we could, and I think we've achieved that.' 'Alaska is a unique state, unique situation, so I know that everybody's trying to work hard to accommodate situations that don't fit,' Boozman said Friday afternoon. 'So, I haven't heard of any changes, and I'm sure that, you know, [Senate Majority Leader John] Thune [(R-S.D.)] will grab me if that comes about.' 'On the other hand, he is trying to make it such that members can get their particular worries taken care of,' he said. Under a special process Republicans are using to pass the bill, they can move the legislation through the chamber with a simple majority. But with staunch Democratic opposition, they can only afford a few GOP defections to pass the bill, given their 53-seat majority. Asked briefly about the party's SNAP proposals later, Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) told The Hill, 'We're still in trouble on SNAP.' 'The implementation is still next to impossible for us,' she said. Republicans say the states' cost-share proposal would incentivize states to improve their error rates. But Sullivan and Murkowski aren't the only Republicans who have voiced concerns about the effort in recent weeks. Originally, the House plan called for all states to cover 5 percent of the cost of allotments in its initial version of Trump's megabill, with states that had higher payment error rates having to pay anywhere between 15 percent and 25 percent. However, the proposal was dialed back after concerns from other Republicans, including Sens. Tommy Tuberville (Ala.) and Jim Justice (W. Va.) over the measure. Asked if he's meeting with Boozman or Thune on the matter, Sullivan also told The Hill on Friday evening that he's 'meeting with everybody.' 'For me, it's just important to get the data as close to the date that you're judging,' Sullivan said, adding that he expects Alaska to see a notable drop in its error rate in a coming report. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
a day ago
- Yahoo
USDA Rural Development North Dakota Director Tom Campbell talks programs, budget and projects
Jun. 28—BISMARCK, N.D. — Tom Campbell said something he's enjoyed about becoming North Dakota's director of Rural Development as part of the U.S. Department of Agriculture has been connecting with people in the state. Part of his mission, he said, is to go into rural North Dakota and meet with people who would be applicants for Rural Development funding, as well as visiting projects the program has assisted to check on their progress. "I'm really enjoying that," he said. "Every day I learn a lot." Campbell was announced as state director at the beginning of May , chosen by U.S. Ag Secretary Brooke Rollins. Campbell is a potato farmer and politician who served as a North Dakota senator from 2013 to 2018. Becoming the rural development director, he said, has included a slew of onboarding and getting to know his support staff. The program has shrunk in staff and budget as part of federal cuts, which has lessened the amount of funding it can give out, Campbell said. The program's main focus is assisting rural North Dakotan projects, mostly through loans and grants. With budget season coming up and the budget cuts the program has faced, the number of grants the program can give out has lessened, he said. It's been challenging. "That's a little bit frustrating," he said. Though cuts have depleted some of what the program is able to offer, Campbell still encourages people to reach out and see what help is available to them. The program focuses on three different areas: community programs, single family housing programs and business and cooperative programs. The three divisions have more than 60 programs between them. Campbell's main goal is to continue what the program has already been doing, further supporting its mission of helping rural North Dakotans, he said. The rural development program acts as a "behind the scenes" helping hand, he said, pushing rural projects forward. Some things the program has supported include housing, electric cooperatives, infrastructure, rural hospitals, fire stations, emergency vehicles, fiber optics, water projects and more. One project Campbell has visited recently was in Park River, where the city has set up a daycare and preschool near its school. Campbell's support staff and team in general have been quality people to work with, he said. "They have a true, caring heart," he said. "They really, truly care about helping people out there." Campbell said people are free to reach out to him via phone or email to see how Rural Development could assist them.
The Hill
2 days ago
- The Hill
Republicans' mega-bill could make Americans hungry again
This is a large country, and people in different states embrace different customs, cultural preferences and political beliefs. But for all our diversity, every person in every state needs to eat. In recognition of this, America has long treated hunger as a national concern. Unfortunately, a little-understood provision in the budget reconciliation legislation speeding through Congress would change that. Within a few years of its passage, we would likely see a significant number of states with no family food assistance program at all for Americans unable to buy enough food. In the middle of the 20th century, the U.S. Department of Agriculture purchased surplus commodities from farms and distributed them to people in need, wherever they were. When this became unworkable, Congress began converting commodity distributions into food stamps that low-income households could spend in regular supermarkets to buy food for their families. President Richard Nixon saw the benefits of this program and pushed through legislation that made the Food Stamp Program nationwide. In the following decades, the Food Stamp Program was expanded to help more of the working poor and reduced when Congress was trying to cut the deficit. Some of its biggest supporters were Republicans like Sen. Bob Dole (R-Kan.), Sen. Richard Lugar (R-Ind.) and Sen. Pat Roberts (R-Kan.) as well as Rep. Bill Emerson (R-Mo.). As technology advanced, electronic debit cards replaced the old paper food stamps and the program changed its name to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP. But even when Congress has felt the need to cut back on food stamps, it has never departed from the principle that hunger is a national concern. Budget cuts that took effect in New York also took effect in Arkansas. The pending reconciliation bill, however, would change that, making it likely that some of the states that most need food assistance would drop out completely. Both the House-passed bill and the one pending in the Senate would, for the first time, require states to contribute to the cost of food assistance benefits. The percentages in the two versions vary, but the hit would be large. If the final legislation requires states to pay 10 percent, the 10-year cost to states would be almost $90 billion. Poorer states would be especially hard-hit: Alabama would have to pay $1.64 billion, Arkansas would need to come up with $521 million and West Virginia would have to find $536 million in its budget. Because the provision prohibits the federal government from paying its share unless the state pays the required amount, states that are unwilling or unable to produce the required match would have to drop out of SNAP altogether. This is a real possibility. The Federal Reserve and many private forecasters are seeing signs that economic growth is slowing, with a full recession a distinct possibility. Even if we avoid a recession, a slowing economy will reduce states' revenues and drive up the number of people losing their jobs and needing food assistance. At a time when states will be cutting important programs and contemplating unwelcome tax increases just to keep their heads above water, few will have room to absorb tens or hundreds of millions of dollars of new costs to maintain existing food assistance programs. Once food assistance ceases to be available in some states for families regardless of need, we will have lost something important about what makes us a country. The consequences will be severe indeed. Copious research shows that children growing up with inadequate diets do worse in school and have lower lifetime earnings. As some states terminate federal food assistance, voices in neighboring states will advocate for dropping the program as well. Members of Congress from states lacking federal family food assistance will have little reason to support funding for a program operating only in other states. The effects will extend well beyond food assistance. SNAP, along with unemployment insurance, is one of our most important 'automatic stabilizers' that puts more money into the economy as the nation tips into a recession. This is crucial because Congress often takes months to enact stimulus legislation — or fails altogether. A shrunken SNAP will mean less effective stimulus to pull the country out of a downturn, and a SNAP that operates only in some states could contribute to an uneven recovery across the country. Indeed, because all states must balance their budgets even in recessions, declining revenues may force some states to drop out of SNAP at the very moment when families most need help and when the economy most needs a boost. No good reason exists for shifting the costs of SNAP benefits to states. States already spend large amounts to meet human needs ignored by the federal government and even more matching federal contributions for efforts such as Medicaid and child care subsidies. States' revenue streams are less efficient and far more vulnerable to regional and national economic downturns. Suddenly increasing states' costs in federal-state programs is precisely the kind of 'unfunded mandate' that prompted congressional Republicans to enact the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act in 1995 and that led Republicans to criticize the Affordable Care Act's Medicaid expansion. Dumping federal fiscal shortfalls on the states is antithetical to the values of federalism. It is a shameful practice contemplated by policymakers lacking the courage to get the federal government's own fiscal house in order. Congress should drop this cost-shifting provision altogether. At a very minimum, it should ensure that the federal share of food assistance benefits remain available even in states that are unwilling or unable to put up hundreds of millions of dollars of their own. David A. Super teaches at Georgetown Law.
