Document text
Is roadless the best path for forests? Hiking enthusiast Robert Lonsdorf hits the trail into the Brown Mountain roadless area in the Rogue River. Debate isn't academic in the Northwest By Paul Fattig of the Mail Tribune When honking vehicles, beeping cell phones and urgent messages from cyberspace get to him, Robert Lonsdorf likes to hit the trail. The conservation policy coordinator for the Ashland-based Headwaters environmental coalition often heads for one of the roadless areas ringing the Southern Oregon valleys. "We hear so much about road rage, about you-name-it rage," the Ashland resident said during a break while hiking in the Brown Mountain roadless area in the Rogue River National Forest. "These are the places to cool down, to restore balance, to get reconnected with real life on earth," he concluded. They are among the roadless areas that he and other environmental activists believe must be preserved for posterity, not only for their peaceful offerings but also to protect biological diversity and wild areas. But they are the same areas that timber industry officials, lawmakers and others argue should be retained for multiple-use activity. The roadless area debate heated up last month when President Clinton declared in an executive order that 40-million-plus acres of roadless areas on national forests will be preserved. "There is no question this will be a further restriction of what you can do in those areas," warned U.S. Rep. Greg Walden, R-Hood River, whose 2nd Congressional District includes Jackson and Josephine counties as well as all of Eastern Oregon. "This will have a real impact on how our forests are managed locally," he added. There are 81,200 acres of roadless areas on the Rogue River National Forest and 284,000 acres on the Siskiyou National Forest, according to the Forest Service. All told, there are some 2 million acres of roadless areas on national forests in Oregon. Clinton's plan would cover isolated forest areas of 5,000 acres or more and would make them permanently off-limits to road-building and road disturbing activity. The executive order requires no congressional action, relying instead on regulations to be issued by the Forest Service after a detailed environmental review and public comments, administration officials said. Following Clinton's announcement last month, the Forest Service has been scrambling to react. The agency's office in Washington, D.C., has started working on an environmental impact statement for Clinton's roadless area package. Officials have scheduled a town hall discussion Nov. 30 at the Oregon Convention Center in Portland to discuss roadless areas. The session begins at 5 p.m. Similar sessions may be held in Southern Oregon. "It is possible that we may be asked at the forest level to hold meetings to gather public comment," said Mary Marrs, spokeswoman for the Rogue River and Siskiyou national forests. "But at this point we are still waiting for more direction (from D.C.)." The regulations, which are expected to be formed by the fall of 2000, could range from wilderness prohibitions against any development or vehicles to allowing snowmobiles and dune buggies in some areas, said Mike Dombeck, forest service chief. "This is not a study of wilderness potential," Dombeck told The Associated Press. Nor will the timber industry be heavily impacted, administration officials promised. Only 5 percent of the country's timber comes from national forests, and only 5 percent of that comes from roadless areas, they insist. That doesn't mean it won't further undercut timber firms already hard-hit by decreased federal timber availability, say industry spokesmen. They note that roadless areas on national forest contain plenty of marketable timber. In an earlier interview, David Hill, executive vice president of the Southern Oregon Timber Industries Association, said the executive order will ultimately reduce industry jobs in the region. "Clinton has simply taken 40 million acres, decided he would be judge and jury and told us this is what is going to happen," he said. "I thought we had a democratic system of government. ... I thought that only Congress had the authority to establish new wilderness areas. As far as I've seen, these are mini-wilderness areas." Walden, a member of the Agriculture Committee, said the Clinton administration is pushing for the creation of the roadless areas before it leaves office. "My concern is that they are running this through in an expedited process without any input from Congress," he said. "My biggest fear is that this is preordained. They (administration officials) have decided they will zip it through before they leave office. I don't think that's right. This requires public involvement. "I want to make sure local people are helping make these decisions and that it's not just almighty Washington telling us what's going to happen out here," he added. "We resolve issues pretty well in this state. Resolving something through executive order is not the way to get things done." The effort could also sabotage the administration's stated goal of creating more opportunities for recreation, he said. Walden expressed frustration that he has been unable to nail down the number of acres potentially affected. "I've been asking for the numbers but they can't tell us for sure," he said. That's because the executive order calls for minimum blocks of 5,000 acres, but there are blocks containing more than 5,000 acres in the state, he explained. "If they are bigger blocks, all of that acreage could be included," he said. Moreover, there is a call by some environmental groups to preserve roadless areas down to 1,000 acres, he said, adding that would increase the amount set aside. "I just don't think you lock everything up and walk away," he said. "It's not healthy for our forests. It's not good for our economy. "We are going to continue holding their feet to the fire to make sure there is some meaningful public involvement," he added. Lonsdorf, who has a master's degree in environmental studies from Northeastern Illinois University, believes it is Mother Nature whose feet have been held to the fire by encroaching civilization. "This is an investment in our future," he said. "These are the last, best, largest remaining wilderness areas in the Rogue Basin. We ought to think very, very hard and carefully before we knowingly destroy them." The roadless areas would protect biological diversity and preserve pockets of natural habitat for plants and animals, he said. "We do have some areas protected," he said of more distant wilderness areas. "But it's really only a fraction of what we could protect. Protecting these areas forms a backbone to our culture here in Southern Oregon." Lonsdorf skirts the question of whether roadless areas should be similar to wilderness areas in protective status. "That's a legal, political question," he said. "Biologically, I hope they are thoroughly protected. Whether we call them wildernesses or no isn't so much the issue for me. But they ought to retain their wilderness appeal." The bottom line, he said, is that they remain roadless. "They shouldn't remain trailless, though," he said. "We should bring people out here more and more. In this feverish pitch of life in the '90s and at the turn of the millennium, people need this kind of retreat and sanctuary more than ever." Lonsdorf, who also hopes to see roadless areas protected on lower elevation sites in the Bureau of Land Management's Medford District, reiterated that preserving the roadless areas would benefit both humans and nature. "We have an opportunity here that is remarkable," he said. "We need to seize that opportunity now." Mail Tribune Copyright � The Mail Tribune 1999, Medford, Oregon USA