Forest Service "No Roads Policy"
Letter written in response to the FS proposed policy
by Adena Cook, Public Lands Director
Blue Ribbon Coalition

February 24, 1998

Director, Ecosystem Management Coordination Staff
Mail Stop 1104
USDA Forest Service
P.O. Box 96090
Washington, DC 20090-6090

RE: Temporary Suspension of Road Construction in Roadless Areas

Dear Director:

The Blue Ribbon Coalition is a nationwide organization representing 500,000 motorized and mechanized recreationists, equestrians, and resource users. We work with land managers to provide recreation opportunities, preserve resources, and promote cooperation with other public land users. We have several concerns with your published proposal to impose an 18 month moratorium on road construction and reconstruction in "roadless" areas.

Lack of Comment Opportunity

The announcement in the Federal Register was preceded with much speculation, fanfare, and controversy. Although we had heard that some sort of pronouncement with regard to management of roadless of areas was imminent, we were unable to respond since the exact nature of your proposal was unknown until the Federal Register notice was published.   The road and road reconstruction announcement declared a brief 30 day comment period. This short period is grossly insufficient to distribute the announcement, inform concerned publics about the need to comment, analyze the document, and provide substantive comment.

Additionally, the road and road reconstruction moratorium was accompanied by a separate Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR) that announced the Forest Service's intentions to revise its management of the National Forest Road System. This ANPR had a separate comment deadline and a request for different comments. The distinction between the two Federal Register announcements has
been unclear to the public. This confusion has been compounded by the short deadline times.

The brevity of the comment period and the complexity of the announcements call into question the sincerity of your request for public comment. We wonder if the decision to proceed with the moratorium has not already been made.

RARE II Roadless Areas

The announcement states that the interim rule would apply to areas inventoried as roadless in RARE II. This pronouncement turns the clock back to 1978 and negates 20 years of National Forest management and planning.

RARE II identified roadless areas. Those areas were then designated Wilderness in subsequent legislation or released in various ways. Even if there was little release language, those lands were addressed in Forest Plans and allocated for a variety of uses. Even in
Idaho and Montana, where RARE II roadless lands have not been addressed by Wilderness legislation, those lands have been managed by Forest Plans for a variety of uses.

Some of those lands have been recommended for Wilderness, some have been allocated for other uses. ALL have been evaluated during a sometimes protracted public process per NEPA, appealed, appeals resolved or litigated, and subsequently managed.   If some of the former RARE II lands have been roaded or roads planned, then these actions and decisions have been the result of a public process and intense analysis, and tiered to a programmatic Forest Plan. These actions and decisions have been governed by APA, NFMA and NEPA. As such, RARE II "roadless" lands no longer exist, but are now part and parcel of other land allocations prescribed in the various Forest Plans.

Your proposed interim rule voids all of these Forest Plans, all of the public processes, and all of the decisions relating to roads that have occurred on these lands since 1978.   It is contrary to the principles of National Forest management that have preceded it. As such, it is likely illegal.

Wilderness Buffer Zones

The proposed interim rule states that it will apply to lands adjacent to designated Wilderness areas. The above concern about negating the direction established in Forest Plans also applies to these lands.  Many Wilderness bills prohibit "buffer zones", which will result with the application of this interim rule. Additionally, lack of maintenance on roads leading to designated Wilderness will have an adverse impact on recreationists seeking to visit these areas. It will make our Wilderness areas essentially inaccessible.

Unroaded Areas Adjacent to 5,000 Acre Roadless Areas

This land category should not exist. If such lands are adjacent to an already roadless area, then they would be, by definition, a part of the roadless area. Low density road areas and other "unique" areas "Low density" is not defined, nor are "ecologically unique" areas sufficiently defined. Their vagueness assures that the moratorium could possibly be applied to any patch of National Forest land anywhere.   The disclaimer, "The agency does not anticipate that Regional Foresters will create a new inventory of roadless areas...", gives us little assurance that this will not actually occur.

The cited example of roadless areas in the Southern Appalachian Area Assessment does, in fact, contain roads. Many of these roads are likely still part of county road systems and not under the jurisdiction of the Forest Service.

Effect on National Forest Public Access and Recreation

The proposed moratorium does not define "maintenance". As previously discussed, the land areas covered by the moratorium are subject to a variety of interpretations. The Forest Service elsewhere has cited a backlog in road maintenance and the need to upgrade certain roads to a higher passenger vehicle standard.

The management direction that these facts portend strikes a chill into the heart of millions of recreationists who enjoy a backcountry experience on primitive roads. We fear that these roads, which provide a premier experience and disperse use will become impassible and abandoned.

The Forest Service cites recreation visitation at 1.7 million and then claims that these visitors need high standard roads. This is an assumption without basis in fact. An unknown but large number of visitors enjoy access by primitive roads, the challenge of travel on such routes, the trailheads that they access, the solitude that a dispersed road system provides.

The direction set forth in the moratorium could render this road system impassible. The premier experience these roads offer would vanish.  

Compliance with National Forest Management Act (NFMA), Administrative Procedures Act (APA), and National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)

The proposed moratorium blithely claims that it will not change "any land and resource management plan, any land allocation decision or other management activity or use within roadless areas in which road construction or reconstruction are temporarily suspended".

Yet it acknowledges and proceeds to do just that as it states, "some currently planned land management projects that are dependent on new road construction...may not be implemented in the time frame currently planned....some projects may proceed in an altered form. Some projects may eventually be altered..."

The mere postponement of a management action makes significant changes in that action. For example, if a road approved to be built to harvest diseased timber is delayed and the timber subsequently burns, then the delay is significant. Suits can and have been filed on the grounds of "unreasonable delay" in such situations.

If projects proceed in altered form or are eventually altered, then a NEPA process must be followed that changes the decision. The moratorium preordains the outcome of the decision, tainting the process.

The proposed moratorium is attempting to make site-specific modifications to decisions (already completed through the NEPA process) in a broad-based programmatic way, in violation of planning processes and all without the benefit of NEPA.

The proposed moratorium's failure to sufficiently discuss its compliance with APA, NFMA, and NEPA
makes it illegal.

Conclusion

The proposed road construction and reconstruction moratorium cavalierly dismisses the laws and subsequent planning processes that have been the foundation of National Forest Service management.  It, instead, dives into issues that should properly be a part of site-specific management of individual units; for example, citing problems with erosion (present in some cases, not all), water quality (only when certain conditions are present next to streams), and exotic plants (not present everywhere or they would not be exotic).   As such, this is the worst example of top-down micro-management that has yet come forth from the Clinton administration. It totally undermines the professionalism for which the Forest Service has been famous. Hopefully, it will be recognized as such and will be withdrawn.

Sincerely,


Adena Cook, Public Lands Director
Phone: 208-522-7339; Fax: 208-524-2464
end of Adena Cook's letter

end of Adena Cook letter

PRESS RELEASE

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact: Don Amador
Phone: (510) 753-1687
Fax: (510) 625-5309
Date: February 26, 1998

COALITION TESTIMONY HIGHLIGHTS LACK OF OUTREACH BY FOREST SERVICE

WASHINGTON, D.C., Feb. 25 -- Don Amador, the Blue Ribbon Coalition's national spokesman on forest roads, testified
today before the House Subcommittee on Forests and Forest Health that after carefully studying the Forest Service's new
roadless policy the Coalition has concluded that this proposal is nothing but a de facto Wilderness grab designed to thwart the
will of Congress as outlined in the National Forest Management Act.

Amador was one of several witnesses, including Congressmen Jim Oberstar (D-MN) and Wally Herger (R-CA),
who sharply criticized the Forest Service's lack of outreach to multiple-use recreationists and other related interest groups.

Amador stated, "Recent claims by the Forest Service that this policy will protect the environment are false and mislead the
public. This policy is bad for the environment and people. By wrongly focusing on closing unimproved roads, the Forest
Service will be concentrating a growing number of Americans who are demanding access to all forms of recreational
opportunity on federal forest lands."

"The Forest Service fails to recognize that the unimproved road system is the 'product' and the reason why many families
travel to the forest. Without a large and viable unimproved road system that provides access for fishermen, mountain bikers,
sight seers, disabled Americans, senior citizens, off-highway recreationists, equestrians, and rock hounders, the forest -- as a
recreation or tourist attraction -- ceases to exist," Amador continued.

Amador concluded his testimony by saying, "Considering the Forest Service's lack of outreach to the multiple-use community
with no apparent language guaranteeing a viable 'road to four-wheel driveways' or 'roads to multiple-use trails' program, I
hereby state the Blue Ribbon Coalition's opposition to this roadless policy and urge this committee to direct the Forest
Service to follow its multiple-use mandate."

The Blue Ribbon Coalition is a national non-profit advocacy group that champions responsible multiple-use of public
and private lands. It represents over 600 organizations and businesses with 650,000 members.

end of press release