New Forest Rules May Pave Way for Roads

The Bush administration proposed new forest rules Monday that could lead to logging, mining and oil and gas development in remote country that had been protected under a policy issued in the waning days of the Clinton presidency.

The regulations would replace a January 2001 rule that banned road building and timber cutting on 58.5 million acres of roadless terrain in national forests with a policy giving state governors a say in the backcountry’s management. Most of the land is in 12 Western states, including 4 million acres in California.

Hailed by conservationists, the road prohibition was quickly challenged in a series of lawsuits filed by states and various interest groups that complained it was creating de facto wilderness areas, usurping congressional authority. Early court decisions were conflicting, with two federal district judges ruling against the Clinton road ban and a federal appeals court upholding it.

The Bush administration proposal, announced in Boise, Idaho, by Agriculture Secretary Ann M. Veneman, would give governors considerable input on the future of roadless areas. States could petition the federal government if they wanted to maintain road-building bans on all or part of the affected forestland. They also could ask federal officials to open the land to road construction, whether for logging, gas or oil development or off-road vehicle use. The decision on any petition would be made by the Agriculture secretary.

Mark E. Rey, the Agriculture undersecretary who oversees the U.S. Forest Service, said the proposed regulations were an attempt to resolve a 40-year fight over roadless areas, which make up about 30% of the country’s national forests. Broad, sweeping policies, such as that issued by Clinton, haven’t worked, nor have attempts to settle the issue on a forest-by-forest basis, Rey said.

“We hope that this is a middle way or a third way involving the governors to do two things,” Rey said. “One is to bring good site-specific information and scientific data, and to bring to bear enough political closure to get people to agree.”

He predicted the new rule’s result would not be that different from the Clinton policy. “Are we going to be seeing a significant modification of the Clinton roadless rules? I don’t think so,” Rey said.

Among those applauding the new policy were the chairman of the House Resources Committee, Republican U.S. Rep. Richard W. Pombo of Tracy, who sees it as a welcome departure from the Clinton rule.

“This proposal embraces the fact that local people are the best stewards of our forests,” Pombo said. “It injects common sense and local control into Clinton’s 11th-hour, mindless edict. Forest management decisions should be made at the state level by people who know individual forest conditions best, not by bureaucrats surrounded by concrete in Washington. Today’s decision will be praised by Americans throughout the West, where 90% of these roadless areas occur.”

Michael Mortimer, chairman of the Society of American Foresters policy committee, said his organization was generally pleased with the new approach. “We think it takes into account the regional difference in states and gives land managers more flexibility,” he said.

The Bush proposal was criticized by groups as diverse as Taxpayers for Common Sense and the Outdoor Industry Assn., a trade group for manufacturers and retailers of outdoors equipment and clothing.

“This ‘opt in’ approach to roadless management provides no guarantees of real, long-term protections for roadless areas,” said Frank Hugelmeyer, president of the outdoor association. “The future of recreation destinations essential to the health of the outdoor recreation industry is at stake.”

Without networks of roads, or the logging or mining that can go with it, the roadless forests are prized by conservationists as places of quiet and natural beauty where hikers or hunters can escape in solitude.

Doug Honnold, an attorney for the environmental group Earthjustice, who has defended the roadless rule in some of the nine lawsuits filed against it, said the proposed regulations opened the door to industrial development in the backcountry.

“The state governors can request more logging and more road building and more oil and gas development and more hard-rock mines than we’ve ever had before in these areas,” Honnold said. “If your goal is to maximize the amount of corporate development of our national forests, this is a great plan. If your goal is to protect clean drinking water and wildlife, it’s an awful plan.”

Although about a fifth of California’s national forestlands have no roads, the proposed regulations will probably have a greater effect in other Western states. That is because of the slightly more than 4 million roadless acres in the state, only about 400,000 are considered suitable for timber production, according to Matt Mathes, a Forest Service spokesman in California.

“We have been staying out of our roadless areas for quite some time in California, and we have no plans to build roads in roadless areas in California,” Mathes said. “There is nothing on the books for the foreseeable future.”

A spokeswoman for Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger said he welcomed the chance to be involved but had to review the proposal. “The governor agrees it’s important for states to be a part of this process,” said spokeswoman Ashley Snee.

Pointing out that most of the potential oil and gas fields in the Los Padres National Forest in Central and Southern California lie within roadless areas, Sara Barth, California director of the Wilderness Society, predicted the new policy would open up remote areas in the state.

“Roads are the access point for all kinds of development that winds up harming the forests,” she said.

Giving state governors so much potential sway in the management of federal forests represents a dramatic departure from past practice, said Sean Hecht, executive director of the UCLA Environmental Law Center.

The government will take comments on the proposal for the next 60 days before issuing a final rule.