Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Group Calls for End to National Forest Logging
RICHMOND - A Vermont group has called on the Obama administration to end logging and road building in undeveloped areas of the White Mountain National Forest and other federal woodlands to protect some of the last pristine public lands across the country.
Aspen trees in the Caribou-Targhee National Forest in Idaho are seen in this undated photograph. (REUTERS/U.S. Forest Service/Handout) "Americans have waited eight ... years to see our last pristine forests protected ..." said Mollie Matteson, a Vermont-based conservation advocate at the Center for Biological Diversity.
Why the protection of roadless areas have become uncertain and in some cases jeopardized is the subject of a new report compiled by the biological diversity center - the Future of America's Last Roadless Forest.
Adopted in 2001, the landmark Roadless Area Conservation Rule, provided strong protections for all roadless areas by putting limits on road building and development, according to the report.
But then the Bush administration put a new "states petitions rule" in place in 2005, delegating the matter of roadless area protection to individual states, the report explains.
Covering more than 58 million acres that are still mostly roadless, the rule has resulted in legal disputes as result of the Bush action, the report said.
Recently, the Obama administration said it will defend the landmark rule. It recently kept open its right to appeal a case in Wyoming in the 10th U.S. Circuit of Apeals where the Justice Department has sided with environmentalists.
As well, the 9th U.S. Circuit of Appeals Court in California rejected the Bush roadless rule recently saying that the original 2001 offered forests more protection than the Bush rule.
Because of inconsistent policies since the initial landmark rule went into effect eight years ago, roadless areas in states such as Utah and New Hampshire have continued to experience roadbuilding and logging (including clearcutting), Matteson said.
As an example, she cited clearcutting of 139 acres in the Batchelder Brook timber sale in the South Carr Inventoried Roadless Area near Warren, N.H., in White Mountain National Forest in New Hampshire. She also cited logging in another four other areas of the WMNF, totaling more than 1,700 acres.
Besides erosion and loss of habitat, effects of road building and clearcutting, include more demand from private landowners for access across the areas and more offroad motorized recreation, Matteson said.
Some of the pressure on roadless area eased earlier this year when Obama, issued an order requiring the U.S. Forest Service to get approval for all new road building in the national forest from Tom Vilsack, the secretary of Agency of Agriculture.
The order removed the authority of local Forest Service officials to allow logging or road building in roadless areas, according to the report.
Vilsack reinstated for one year most of the ban that stopped new road construction in national forests, according to the biodiversity center's report.
Another problem with Obama's "time out" is that it did not apply to roadless areas that were identified by the forest service after 2001, Matteson said.
In New Hampshire for cxample, federal foresters didn't extend protections to forest inventoried there after the land mark roadless rule took effect, she said.
This includes more than a third of 368,000-acres of roadless areas inventoried in the White Mountain National Forest, Matteson said.
As a result of Vilsack's directive, plans for building roads in Tongass National Forest in Alaska, where about 35 miles of roads were to be built as part of several timber sales, are now set to go in largest federal forest after previously being put on hold, Matteson said.
Vilsack recently approved the controversial timber sale in those South Revilla inventoried roadless areas on Tongass, Matteson noted. Vilsack said he would seek to end a federal injunction in Wyoming that barred the 2001 roadless rule from stopping road construction on remote wilderness.
The Dixie National Forest in southern Utah is another locale where the development of roadless areas poses a threat, according to Taylor McKinnon, a spokesman for Center for Biological Diversity in the southwest.
The national forest in that area faces an active proposal for a timber sale that would build roads on and clearcut more than 4,000-acres, according to the report. "These are last best lands that should be spared from impactful development...," McKinnon said.
Roadless areas in these cases are being treated in a similar way as other federal forests where road building, clearcutting and other development is standard, McKinnon said.
Under current policy more roadless areas will be open to logging as national forest officials do individual updates to their plans, McKinnon said. Opening protected forestland to new exotic species is another adverse effect that comes with logging roadless areas, he said.
The Obama administration still needs to develop a rule to protect all roadless areas including those earmarked by forest plan revisions and amendments, the report said. Vilsack said on Aug. 14 that the agency will develop a new planning rule to protect water, climate and wildlife.
"It's time for a policy that establishes strong, nationally consistent protections for all national forest roadless areas," Matteson said.
The Associated Press contributed to this report.
- Posted in



12 Comments so far
Show AllWilderness Areas are expanding in recent years to include areas where roads already exist.
Wilderness is supposed to be roadless!
I am really suspicious why this is going on. This is muddying the definition of wilderness.
The inclusion of areas with roads was needed because there are very few ecologically valuable tracts of land of sufficient size in the eastern US without old roads from former logging, mining or farming on them. But they need to be included in the wilderness system so they can eventually recover to "real" wilderness.
While there are roads, use of motor vhicles is banned once the wilderness is established, so most roads will, over time, be obliterated except as hiking trails.
This definition of wilderness is a statuatory one. You are free to define "wilderness" as you like.
One is free to define anything as one likes, but some definitions are very erroneous.
"Wilderness" suggests functioning via internal mechanism, not via "management". And whereas bureaucrats (the Forest Service primarily) is happy with defining it as anything over 5000 acres, that is biologically insufficient. Anymore, SCALE is seen as crucial, and inasmuch as the role of top level carnivores are being seen as key to ecosystem function, wilderness has to be understood as large enough to harbor healthy populations of large predators.
Yes, but "wilderness" has a statuatory (law-emforcement) meaning; specifically, "this land is off limits for logging, strip mining, and motor vehicles (especially rednecks on ATV's)". I am quite happy with that definition. And it is only by designating smaller tracts "wilderness", then expanding them until they join, or are only seperated by a thin corridor for a road, that we can hope to eventually see intact wild ecosystems with top carnivores (Panthers, wolves) returning to parts of the eastern US.
Disgusting corporate welfare at work here.
The government subsidizes roads so that paper and other companies can make huge profits on clearing out forests.
Obama has been a huge disappointment on all issues environmental.
Don't you mean on ALL ISSUES...period?
Yes get the loggers out get the cattle out and get all corporate interest out of our forest.
But if we wait for Obama or any politician to do it we will have nice barren hills to look at.
How about calling to keep cattle the hell out too?!
The scourge here is ATV riders. Monongahela Natl. Forest in WV has a "no ATV" policy for all it's lands, but with their budget, it is impossible to enforce and flagrantly broken even in the wilderness areas.
Oh yeah, I almost forgot ORVs. They are the newest destructive force on our public lands. They cause erosion, wildlife and hiker harassment, and much more resource and cultural damage. For more info and help on how to stop this destructive ab-use, go to www.wildlandscpr.org. A new group - Rangers for Responsible Recreation - is also helping. The industry and the gov't want us to call this new abuse OHV, off-highway vehicles. According to RRR, never call it that. Either ATV or ORV (all-terrain or off-road) vehicles. Hell, if I drive my vehicle up in the forest, off the highway, I am one of them. Several of us have formed a volunteer citizen's Friends group and have stopped all off-road use in an entire drainage on a national forest. I strongly urge the creation of one or more of these groups on every forest and on BLM lands. Invite everyone involved on field trips to look at damage and you'll be surprised at what you can accomplish. I have concluded that ORVs are not compatible with any other use on our public lands.
The popular term for them here is "quads". And they are indeed destructive - a big headache on private lands too. They reduced one of our local hang gliding launch areas from a grassy park-like setting to a beer-can strewn mudhole. The people who ride them are incapable of walking and appreciating the natural environment, they will ride over sensitive areas rather than walk a few hundred feet to a viewpoint or such.
And don't forget miners. I'm still waiting for the 1872 Mining Act to get a facelift. While loggers and ranchers have definitely contributed to the destruction of the West (or entire country for that fact) nothing leaves longer-lasting pockmarks and poisons on the land than mining.