06/15/01 -- Finding Common Ground on Roadless Plan

Finding Common Ground on Roadless Plan

One of the biggest federal issues facing Colorado is the implementation of new rules by the Forest Service to preserve roadless areas in our national forests. This is a particularly significant issue in Western Colorado, where so much of our forest land is located and where continued population growth increases the pressure to develop these lands.

Even though the Bush administration has announced its reluctant intention to support the rules, which were initiated by President Clinton, it is unclear how vigorous President Bush will be in providing leadership on this issue. Opponents of the rules, including Gov. Bill Owens, have sought to reverse them in federal court. And in the meantime, the issue has pitted those who support preservation of roadless lands for their recreational and environmental values against those who are opposed to the rules because of concerns about losing the economic and developmental potential of these lands.

One side claims that this policy will forever "lock up" areas that contain marketable timber, oil and gas and mineral resources - although if it had been economical to develop such resources in these areas, they probably would have been developed already.

On the other hand, supporters of the rules, including myself, argue that keeping roads out of these areas would protect important values without shutting down any current uses and, in most cases, without blocking activities that should be permitted. We support retaining the rules because they are consistent with the policy that, in general, the national forests are to be managed for multiple uses.

So the press has been quick to describe this as a classic case of environmentalists on one side of the issue and development interests on the other.

Unfortunately, the result has too often been mutual deafness instead of dialogue.

So, where do we go from here? The first signal will come from the courts. I am not a lawyer, but I think it's likely that the rules eventually will be upheld. When that happens, their significance will depend on how they are administered and implemented by an administration that has been critical of them. This is a sure recipe for delay, confusion and acrimony. If we are to preserve the benefits of these rules - which the public clearly supports - and avoid controversy, we need to find a way to work together.

This might be a good time to move away from generalities and focus on some specifics - at least in Colorado.

For example, it might make sense to adjust a roadless area boundary near Somerset, in the valley of the North Fork of the Gunnison, to allow the development of a coal deposit that has been leased by the Forest Service. The roadless policy need not be so inflexible that we cannot work out this and other similarly minor adjustments so that legitimate and appropriate uses can be accommodated.

At the same time, there are clearly roadless areas in the national forests in Colorado which deserve to be protected - for example, areas in Boulder and Clear Creek counties that would be given interim protection in legislation I have proposed.

As national policy, I believe it is important for us to support preserving the remaining roadless areas in our national forests. If the Bush administration is serious about keeping faith with this broad policy, I believe there are many of us who have been critics of President Bush, who stand ready to work carefully with the administration and with local communities in Colorado to see that boundaries are adjusted, concerns addressed and plans adopted that make sense in each of the national forests in Colorado.

This is a time when we should not let ideology and partisanship override an effort to find common ground. Error: Unable to read footer file.