FEDERAL PARKS AND RECREATION Vol.17, #20, Oct. 22, 1999
*This is an article from Fed Parks & Rec. Newsletter that has a number of quotes from BRC- Amador, FS- Wood, and ARC-Crandall.

President Clinton's landmark proposal to protect 40 million acres of roadless land in the national forests is not being met with universal approbation from the recreation establishment.

Representatives of motorized recreation in the West are concerned that thousands of miles of back-country ways will be placed off limits by a final policy. "In the West vast segments of land that do not have roads do have trails that serve as roads but won't be counted as roads," said Don Amador, western states regional representative of the Blue Ribbon Coalition.

And the larger American Recreation Coalition, representative of a wide array of industry and user groups, would prefer the administration consider roadless policy within a comprehensive review of transportation policy.

For now nothing is written in concrete about a final policy, other than President Clinton's October 13 directive to the Forest Service to protect 40 million acres of roadless national forest. A final policy will not be completed until an EIS is prepared and the public has had an opportunity to evaluate the proposal. As a first step the Forest Service gave public notice October 19 that it intends to prepare an EIS for a new roadless policy. But the White House has made its end goal clear: It said the policy would prohibit road building on roadless lands, identified as an inventory of parcels of 5,000 acres or more. It also charged the Forest Service with devising a policy to protect parcels of less than 5,000 acres.

The proposal would go beyond a temporary, existing moratorium on road construction on 33 million acres of national forest, and eventually replace it. It would also differ from the roadless ban by including national forests in the Pacific Northwest. Like the roadless ban, it would exclude the Tongass National Forest.

Western Republicans by definition oppose the proposal. Although they may generate legislation to stop it over the next year, their best weapon could already be at hand in a regulatory flexibility act. That law gives Congress a brief period to review major federal regulations. During that time the two Houses may reject a rule by a simple majority. No filibuster would be allowed in the Senate. "I don't think this is being cued up as a serious initiative of the magnitude the administration suggests," said a Senate Republican staff member. "If they were really trying to see this through to conclusion, they would be doing briefings with interest groups and trying to line up support from Republican and Democratic members of Congress. Do I think this a serious policy that will stand the test of time? No."

But a House Republican staff member acknowledged that western opponents of the President's proposal may have a difficult chore, saying, "It's a tough issue because protection of roadless areas is easy to sell. A lot of areas deserve protection. The trouble is not all areas do. Many have serious health problems. Others provide recreation opportunities."

As with the interim roadless policy, a lawsuit may result, alleging the administration outlawed uses made privileged by the Multiple Use Sustained Yield Act of 1960 and the National Forest Management Act of 1976. "We are well aware of that," said Chris Wood, special assistant to chief Michael Dombeck. "Everything has to be in accordance with those laws."

Environmentalists have contended that the interim ban doesn't go far enough. They have asked the administration to adopt a permanent policy barring road construction in not only the 33 million acres but also in forests in the Pacific Northwest and the Tongass and all areas between 1,000 and 5,000 acres in size. For now the administration is talking only about "inventoried" roadless lands, or areas larger than 5,000 acres. The Blue Ribbon Coalition will be closely watching a definition of a road in the final policy. The coalition strongly objects to definitions in an interim policy that describe classified roads as those that have been sealed or paved and unclassified roads as those that aren't maintained for highway use.

"The Clinton administration's use of these new road definitions may functionally illegitimize hundreds of thousands of miles of recognized jeep roads, recreational trail systems, and campgrounds because their existence on the national forest does not prevent an area from being identified as roadless," said Amador. "The negative impact to the public's access rights and recreational opportunities will be incalculable."

But Dombeck's assistant Wood said to FPR, "I will tell you I have never heard a conversation about taking areas that are roaded and turning them into roadless lands." Further, he said, "From a recreation access perspective it is unlikely there will be much effect at all on classified road systems."

Derrick Crandall, president of the American Recreation Coalition, sided with Wood. "Roads are defined. Trails are defined," he said, "I don't think there should be any problem. The chief and deputy chief assured me there will be no de facto wilderness. Existing recreation uses will continue."