Colorado Forest Project In the News

National forests in Colorado offer a variety of things to a variety of people. They provide timber, grass for livestock, natural gas, coal and a variety of other minerals. They're a world-class destination for hiking, climbing, hunting, fishing, mountain biking and skiing. They're the source of much of our wild fish and game - not to mention clean streams and rivers. They provide not only livelihoods, but the experiences that make a life more than just a livelihood: a summer picnic in a clearing, an elk hunt in fall, Christmas tree gathering in winter, photographing spring wildflowers.

Fortunately for Coloradans, Congress realized the variety of values that national forests offer, and made law accordingly. The Multiple-Use, Sustained-Yield Act of 1960 declares that "it is the policy of the Congress that the national forests are established and shall be administered for outdoor recreation, range, timber, watershed, and wildlife and fish purposes." That's a pretty tough balancing act, but a truly far-sighted mission for the U.S. Forest Service. The increasing demands of population growth, energy needs and recreation on our national forests pose challenges for meeting the elusive goal of balancing multiple uses.

One of the more controversial aspects of national forest management has been, for decades, the building and maintenance of roads. The Forest Service found itself with a costly legacy of subsidized roads - and a colossal maintenance backlog ($8.4 billion at last count). Meanwhile, road development, while facilitating certain uses, impairs others. Many types of fish and wildlife habitat require security from developed roads. Beginning in 1999, the Forest Service embarked on a process of determining how to manage those areas of the national forest system that were identified as still retaining a mostly roadless character.

Following an extended public process, the Forest Service found that the best way of protecting the values provided by these areas was a rule generally prohibiting new roads and timber harvest in roadless areas. The rule, however, allowed continued road-building or reconstruction to protect access to property, to address safety issues, to access and develop oil and gas leases. It allowed continued small-diameter timber harvest to improve habitat or reduce uncharacteristic wildfire risk. It continued to allow both motorized and mechanized use - whether all-terrain vehicles or mountain bikes. It preserved access to mining claims and specifically authorized continued livestock grazing (including construction of fences, water developments and other improvements).

Finally, it contained an exception for fires and other emergencies, allowing road construction when needed to protect public health and safety.

Under the rule, roadless areas are very different than wilderness areas. Wilderness areas are devoted to a singular purpose: preservation of "an area where the earth and its community of life are untrammeled by man, where man himself is a visitor who does not remain." Under the 2001 Roadless Rule, by contrast, roadless areas were managed for multiple uses - with the distinction that those uses that benefit from fewer roads (wildlife habitat, water quality, fisheries, recreation, scenic beauty, biological diversity) would be prioritized over those uses that generally benefit from more roads (largely commercial timber harvest).

In 2005, the Department of Agriculture did away with the Roadless Rule, and called on the states to make their own recommendations for management of the areas previously identified as predominantly roadless in character. Colorado has met this challenge by establishing a bipartisan task force charged with making recommendations to the governor. The baseline for this process is the 2001 Roadless Rule. Given that baseline, the task force's mission isn't to have a debate about wilderness. Roadless areas aren't untouched by man, nor, under the 2001 Roadless Rule, were they "locked up" to the exclusion of mountain bikes, ATVs, or even oil and gas development. The task force should, instead, consider whether or not Colorado has enough roads in its national forests, and weigh the taxpayer costs of building new roads against the benefits provided by keeping some areas largely unroaded.

There is room for a great many uses in national forests; preserving the roadless character of identified roadless areas is essential to making sure that there remains a place for those uses (and creatures) that can only thrive where intact forest is not carved up by roads.

Michael Saul is associate counsel for the National Wildlife Federation in Boulder. The Colorado Roadless Task Force will hold public meetings in Denver on Feb. 24, Fort Collins on March 17, Steamboat Springs on May 18, Monte Vista on June 7 and Glenwood Springs on July 21. For more information, visit www.roadless.net.