Roadless Area Conservation Rule Update

Does everyone remember the "Roadless Area Conservation Rule"?

Roadless Rule (like CARA - Conservation and Reinvestment Act)
continues to live in various forms.

Please note the date of this press release by "conservationists and industry" and the date of the "stakeholders" meeting. It took them almost 4 months to announce the "recommendations".

Note the "members" of the Forest Roads Working Group. Do any of the "conservationists" represent your choice of recreation? How about the "industry" representatives? Do they represent your choice of recreation?

Does this press release represent your recreation views?

Stay tuned, stay informed, and stay involved.....




Conservationists, Industry Join to Advance Roadless Rule

WASHINGTON, DC, March 27, 2003 (ENS) - A professionally mediated roadless area conservation dialog among dozens of stakeholders on December 3 and 4, 2002 has resulted in the formation of a working group that aims to advance the protection of roadless areas in U.S. national forests.

The Forest Roads Working Group Tuesday submitted a series of
recommendations to the Bush administration for implementing the
existing Roadless Area Conservation Rule that affects 58.5 million
acres in the national forest system. At the same time, the group
proposes, a collaborative process should be established over the next
several years to consider whether improvements should be made to the
rule and, if so, what should those improvements be.

The recommendations were submitted Tuesday to officials with the U.S.
Department of Agriculture and the U.S. Forest Service.

The members of the Forest Roads Working Group (FRWG) include Wildlife
Forever, the Wildlife Management Institute, The Wildlife Society,
Trout Unlimited, Izaak Walton League of America, International Paper,
the Outdoor Industry Association and the Pinchot Institute for
Conservation.

The organizations came together in 2001 as a series of litigants
began to challenge the Roadless Area Conservation Rule written during
the Clinton administration.

The recommendation states, "The FRWG believes the existing [rule]
provides an acceptable basis for national management of [roadless
areas], but recognizes there are legitimate questions concerning the
rule, and recommends that it be implemented while potential
adjustments are considered through a structured process of
information gathering and continued multi-stakeholder dialogue.

While working group members have varying views of the Roadless Rule,
the coalition grew out of a general agreement that the unsettled
nature of the rule could end up threatening the conservation of
roadless areas and their unique values. They believe an "acceptable
solution can be identified and supported by the diverse array of
interested stakeholders."

The Forest Roads Working Group's final recommendations can be
obtained through the Meridian Institute's web site at
www.merid.org/roadless. The Institute is the professional mediation
group that conducted the dialogue.


--
John Stewart
Director, Environmental Affairs,
United Four Wheel Drive Associations, http://www.ufwda.org
Recreation Access and Conservation Editor, http://www.4x4wire.com
Moderator, MUIRNet - Multiple Use Information Resource Network

Message

Note that not one industry group that relies on the public lands for timber production, mineral production, grazing or motorized recreation participated in the FRWG. The deck was stacked from the beginning!
Laura Skaer
http://www.nwma.org


http://www.westernroundtable.com/news/article.asp?id=221

Clinton roadless rule wins support of key forestry group
Greenwire
3/31/2003

A politically moderate coalition of conservation, hunting, timber industry and recreation interests recommended last week that the Forest Service implement the Clinton-era Roadless Area Conservation Rule making 58.5 million acres of national forests off-limits to logging, mining and other uses.

The Forest Roads Working Group (FRWG) -- comprised of Wildlife Forever, the Wildlife Management Institute, the Wildlife Society, Trout Unlimited, Izaak Walton League of America, International Paper Co., the Outdoor Industry Association and Pinchot Institute for Conservation -- drafted the recommendation after two years of discussion over the controversial forest management policy.

The Bush administration spent much of 2002 preparing changes to the rule, but has held off on announcing reforms until legal challenges to the Clinton administration version of rule are brought to a close. Several lawsuits were filed against the Forest Service over the rule's implementation by forest industry groups and states with forests affected by the rule.

"While the FRWG believes improvements to the [roadless rule] may be warranted over time..., we recommend that the existing rule be retained and implemented while the effects and desirability of potential improvements and revisions are considered through a deliberative process," the coalition said in its recommendations.

The coalition had called for modest changes to the rule last November, such as exemptions for harmful activities that would benefit the roadless area over the long term. For example, a temporary road could be built for thinning as long as the Forest Service gave specific details about the length, purpose and cost of road construction and removal, and explained how the road would enhance roadless values after it had served its purpose (Greenwire, Nov. 25).

In its latest recommendations, however, FRWG did not ask that the Forest Service implement those exemptions. Instead the group called for future discussion of temporary road provisions and other possible changes after the Clinton-era rule takes effect.

"Let's leave the rule in place for a several-year period, learn from it, and that will help separate some of the wheat from the chaff," said Chris Wood, vice president of conservation programs for Trout Unlimited. "Only by actually implementing the rule can the Forest Service determine whether there are forest health-related reasons to alter it."

Wood noted there is a great deal of missing data that needs to be evaluated before changes to the rule are implemented. For example, he said the Forest Service needs to find out more about fire intensity in roadless areas, including how fires in those regions threaten nearby communities.

"What the group is basically saying is the rule is a good one, and here is a series of recommendations on adjustments they might make in the future," said Tom Jorling, vice president of environmental affairs at International Paper Co. "It's very much an effort that's designed to create a stable public policy."

"IP and most of the mainstream forest products industry get very little fiber off of public lands," added Jorling, noting that IP receives less than 1 percent of its fiber from such lands. "Our interest is in managing appropriate resources for fiber production, but also recognizing there are a lot of forest resources that should be protected for conservation reasons."

Though the Forest Service has supported FRWG's work in the past, agency officials had little to say last week concerning the group's recommendations. "We appreciate their input as we evaluate the future protection and management of roadless areas, but will not make any comments on the substance of the recommendations," said Forest Service Spokesman Joe Walsh.

Agency Chief Dale Bosworth has sent senior Forest Service personnel to FRWG meetings. Mark Rey, the Agriculture Department's undersecretary for natural resources and environment, said in November that part of the reason for the Bush administration's delay in issuing a new roadless rule is to hear the results of the FRWG dialogue. "We'll look hard at trying to achieve the results of that consensus," he said.

The original roadless rule prohibits roadbuilding and most logging in 58.5 million acres of pristine national forests in the West. Lawsuits were brought against USDA over implementation of the rule by the states of Alaska, Idaho, North Dakota, Utah and Wyoming, among other parties. A federal court in Idaho suspended the rule, but the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals overturned that decision. Idaho is now asking for a broader, en banc review of the appellate court decision, again putting the measure on hold. The Bush administration, meanwhile, is mulling over its own version of the rule, but any proposed changes are "at least" a couple of months away, said Walsh.

Other interest groups, however, particularly those representing industry and recreation, took issue with FRWG's latest recommendations. "I participated in [FRWG] discussions and there was a lot of good testimony brought out about fire-proofing roadless areas," said Tom Partin, president of the American Forest Resource Council, a timber industry group. "For the most part our comments were ignored and not considered to have a lot of merit." Partin noted that fires like last summer's Biscuit fire in Oregon consumed "huge amounts of roadless area," in part because they were not adequately protected. "I don't think that's what the American public wants," he said.

Clark Collins, executive director of the BlueRibbon Coalition, an off-road vehicle advocacy group, said his group's concerns about preserving recreation opportunities in roadless areas were given short shrift by the rule and that FRWG failed to see the value in motorized recreation.

"We definitely have a problem with their desire to implement the Clinton rule, and then have us all hope that by participating in a collaborative process afterwards that our interests will receive some consideration," said Collins. "There's legal off-highway vehicle recreation taking place in those roadless areas. For them to totally ignore that is a basic flaw in the plan."

Mike Francis, director of the national forests program at the Wilderness Society, said that many environmentalists were wary of the FRWG's initial suggestions, but applauded the group's latest statements. "I think they took a rational approach," he said. "It's only the people who are beholden to the special interests who want to see this thing changed."

# # #

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
NOTE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, any copyrighted
material herein is distributed without profit or payment to those who have
expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for non-profit
research and educational purposes only. For more information go to:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml